In order to impress on people that Holy Communion was a meal using ordinary food and drink, Cranmer had doubtless had it in his mind that all altars should be removed from parish churches and replaced by ordinary tables of a domestic kind, tables being the setting for a meal and altars for a sacrificial offering. This at least became the policy in some parts of England, as evidenced by the following events showing that the English Reformers were all in strong agreement with Cranmer on this matter.

On 27th March 1550, after Nicholas Ridley had been appointed Bishop of London, John Hooper wrote to Bullinger, ‘He will, I hope, destroy the altars of Baal, as he did heretofore in his church when he was Bishop of Rochester’. Hooper was able to further comment that ‘many altars have been destroyed in this city (London) since I arrived here’.⁴² In 1551 Edward’s Regency Council led by Edward Seymour issued a letter requiring this step to be taken, although their order noted that ‘altars in the more part of the churches of this realm, already upon good and godly considerations [be] taken down’. It is not altogether clear but the London diocese may perhaps have lagged behind others in the matter. At any rate bishop Nicholas Ridley was charged ‘to give substantial order throughout all your diocese, that with all diligence all the altars in every church … within your said diocese, be taken down, and in the stead of them a table be set up in some convenient part of the chancel, within every such church or chapel, to serve for the ministration of the blessed communion’.⁴³ The Council’s letter gave reasons ‘why the Lord’s Board should rather be after the form of a Table than of an Altar’:

First, the form of a table shall more move the simple from superstitious opinions of the Popish mass unto the right use of the Lord’s Supper. For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it: the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon. If we come to feed upon him spiritually to eat his body, and spiritually to drink his blood which is the true use of the Lord’s Supper; then no man can deny but the form of a table is more meet for the Lord’s board than the form of an altar.⁴⁴

When the following year Cranmer published his second Prayer Book it was clear for all to see that he had endorsed the Council’s requirement because in all the rubrics the word altar had been replaced by the word table. At the start of Communion the priest, ‘instead of standing humbly afore the middes of the altar’ (1549) was now required to stand ‘at the north side of the table (1552 and 1662) with the further instruction that the table having at the time of communion a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the chancel where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be said’.

The point of this instruction was to make clear that no sacred or holy space is necessary in order to receive the sacrament of communion. The requirement of the priest to stand at the north side of the table meant that he would be standing at the long side of the table arranged lengthways down the aisle or sanctuary with the people gathered round. This is also clear from a number of early woodcuts showing the congregation sitting round the table on which there is a substantial loaf of bread and a large chalice. Cranmer did in fact later allow sitting at Communion in his 1553 Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum.⁴⁵

Nigel Scotland, The Supper: Cranmer and Communion, 22-23

ii) Its [1662 BCP] avoidance of any idea that the Holy Communion or Lord’s Supper is in itself a sacrifice.

The word ‘altar’ is avoided, and it uses the word ‘sacrifice’ carefully. The Book of Common Prayer does not use the word ‘altar’: instead it uses ‘Table’, ‘Holy Table’, ‘Lord’s Table’. It does not use the word ‘altar’ because that would imply a sacrifice. The Book of Common Prayer does not use the word ‘sacrifice’ to refer to the conduct of the service of Holy Communion. The word ‘sacrifice’ is used of the response of praise after receiving communion, and of the offering of our lives to God, but not of offering of bread and wine. Our sacrifice is our response to God’s mercy and God’s feeding of us.

The Book of Common Prayer does not use the word ‘altar’: instead it uses ‘Table’, ‘Holy Table’, ‘Lord’s Table’. It does not use the word ‘altar’ because that would imply a sacrifice.

The [1662] BCP focuses on the complete efficacy and power of Christ’s atonement, completed once for all in his death on the cross. We find this in the first Exhortation:

O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee …

The Book of Common Prayer does not use the word ‘sacrifice’ to refer to the conduct of the service of Holy Communion.

These Reformed truths are obscured today when the presence of Christ in the bread and wine is emphasized, when people call the Holy Table an ‘altar’, when there is emphasis on offering of bread and wine, and when the word ‘Mass’ is used to describe the service."

Peter Adam, The “Very Pure Word of God”: The Book of Common Prayer as a Model of Biblical Liturgy, ed. Mark Burkill and Gerald Bray, Anglican Foundations Series (London: The Latimer Trust, 2012), 30–31.

Article 36. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers The book of consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward, unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

"The importance of the article lies in the fact that the Anglican ordinal differs from the Roman Catholic one that it replaced. Ministers of the Church of England were not priests in the Roman sense, ordained to offer eucharistic sacrifices on the altar of the church during the celebration of mass. Rather they were called to be pastors and teachers, as were the ministers in other Protestant churches. This was not seriously questioned until the nineteenth century, when the rise of Anglo-Catholicism prompted some people to argue that there had been no substantial change at the time of the Reformation and that Anglican clergy were therefore identical both in form and in substance with their Roman counterparts. Cold water was poured on this idea by Pope Leo XIII, who in his bull Apostolicae curae, published on 18 September 1896, declared Anglican orders to be null and void, largely because of what he called their ‘defect of intention’. Put in layman’s language, what this means is that Anglicans are not ordained as mass-priests, so they are not mass-priests in the way that Roman Catholic clergy are. Anglo-Catholics have never accepted this, of course, and have tried to have the bull overturned at various times, though without success so far. We may be grateful to the pope for his clarity on this point, because the claims of high church Anglicans about the supposed ‘catholicity’ of Anglican orders are false, and rejected by the papacy with good reason. We do not want our clergy to be mass-priests, and are glad that they are not officially recognised as such by those who are in a position to know what they are."

Gerald Bray, The Faith We Confess: An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: The Latimer Trust, 2009), 199–200.

The Marks of the Church Are the Mission of the Church

In every generation, the Church wrestles with its mission. Is it activism? Social influence? Community programs? While all of these may have a place, the Reformers were crystal clear: the mission of the Church is nothing less than the faithful ministry of the gospel through Word and Sacrament.

The marks of the true Church — the preaching of the gospel, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper — are not just signs of our identity; they are the very shape of our mission. These are God’s chosen means of grace, the Holy Spirit’s acts of delivering Christ and all His saving benefits to His people.

"The marks of the Church Are the Mission of the Church."

Michael Horton puts it this way:

“The gospel not only determines the message, but also defines the ministry and mission of the church. In other words, Christ retains the sole authority to determine not only what we say in his name, but also what we do and how we do it, so that the mission is consistent with the message. The message determines the mission, but the mission delivers the message. We cannot choose between being doctrinal and being missional. Thus, the marks define the mission. Preaching, baptism, and the Supper are means of grace—that is, God’s acts of delivering Christ to us—rather than means of obedience.”

This means the Church’s mission is not primarily something we invent or organize. It is something we receive and deliver. The Church is called to proclaim Christ crucified, buried, and risen again (1 Cor. 15:3–4), to baptize in His name, and to share His Supper. These ordinary means are God’s extraordinary mission strategy.

When we gather around Word and Sacrament, we are not retreating from the world. We are being formed, fed, and sent into the world. The gospel proclaimed to the Church is the same gospel proclaimed through the Church.

The mission of the Church is simple, profound, and powerful: to deliver Christ to sinners through preaching, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.


For more, see: People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology by Michael Horton

A few moments of reflection, however, indicate how misleading and, in fact, untrue is the claim that Protestants have the Bible rather than tradition.

A few moments of reflection, however, indicate how misleading and, in fact, untrue is the claim that Protestants have the Bible rather than tradition. Most evangelicals, for example, will typically use Bible translations, and such translations, be they the NIV, RSV, ESV, or KJV, stand within established traditions of Bible translation, linguistics, lexicography, etc. Further, beneath these translations lie the original Hebrew and Greek texts; so traditions of textual understanding also underlie these translations and, even for those linguistic geniuses who are more comfortable with just the Hebrew and Greek, these various traditions will shape the choice of text, the way the languages were learned, and the kind of choices made on matters of obscure grammar, syntax, and vocabulary.

Thus, “Scripture alone,” whatever else it means, cannot mean Scripture approached in a vacuum.

Thus, “Scripture alone,” whatever else it means, cannot mean Scripture approached in a vacuum. And we can take this reflection on tradition a step further. All Protestant pastors, even the most fundamentalist, will, if they are remotely competent, prepare their sermons with the help of lexicons, commentaries, and books of theology. As soon as they take down one of these books from their bookcases and start to read it, of course, they are drawing positively on church tradition. They are not simply reading the Word of God; they are reading the thoughts and reflections on that Word offered by someone else and articulated using words, sentences, and paragraphs that are not found anywhere in the Bible. Indeed, as soon as one uses the word “Trinity” from the pulpit, one is drawing on tradition, not Scripture. In fact, tradition is not the issue; it is how one defines that tradition, and how one understands the way it connects to Scripture, which are really the points at issue. Indeed, this was the crux of the Reformation, which was not so much a struggle between Scripture and tradition as between different types of traditions.

In fact, tradition is not the issue; it is how one defines that tradition, and how one understands the way it connects to Scripture, which are really the points at issue.

In a famous exchange between a leading light of the Catholic Reformation, Cardinal Sadoleto, and the Reformer, John Calvin, Sadoleto argued that the Protestants had abandoned the church tradition. Calvin responded that, on the contrary, the Protestants had the true tradition; it was the Catholic Church that had moved away from the truth. The point was simple and well-made: the tradition that transmitted the correct understanding of Scripture from generation to generation belonged to the Protestants. Here is not the place to debate the veracity of Calvin’s claim regarding the content of tradition; suffice it to note that he understood the Reformation not as Scripture versus tradition but as scriptural tradition versus unscriptural tradition.

. . . he understood the Reformation not as Scripture versus tradition but as scriptural tradition versus unscriptural tradition.

Thoughtful Protestants then, and ever since, have understood the Reformers as arguing for what we might call a tradition that is normed by Scripture. In other words, Protestants know that they use language and conceptual terminology not found explicitly in the Bible; but they understand such are useful in understanding what Scripture says and, at the point where they are found to be inadequate for this task, or even to contradict Scripture, there they must be modified or abandoned.

Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative, 15-17

Prayer-Book Statements About Regeneration

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”—John 3:3.

“This child is regenerate.”—Baptismal Service of the Church of England.

In this paper I have one simple object in view. I wish to throw light on certain expressions about “Regeneration” in the Baptismal Service of the Church of England.

The subject is one of no slight importance. The minds of many true Christians in the Church of England are troubled about it. They do not see the real meaning of our excellent Reformers in putting such language in a Prayer-book Service. They are perplexed and confounded by the bold and reckless assertions made by opponents of Evangelical Religion within the Church, and of Dissenters outside the Church, and, though not convinced, they find nothing to reply.

I propose in this paper to supply an answer to the common arguments in favour of “Baptismal Regeneration,” which are based on the Baptismal Service of the Prayer-book. I wish to show that in this, as in many other questions, the truth is not so entirely on one side, as many seem to suppose. Above all, I wish to show that it is possible to be a consistent, honest, thoughtful member of the Church of England, and yet not to hold the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.

I propose in this paper to supply an answer to the common arguments in favour of “Baptismal Regeneration,” which are based on the Baptismal Service of the Prayer-book.

In considering this subject, I shall strictly confine myself to the one point at issue. I purposely avoid entering into the general question of the nature of Regeneration and the Scriptural warrant for infant baptism. I shall only make a few preliminary remarks by way of explanation, and to prevent mistakes about the meaning of words.

(1) My first remark is this: I believe that, according to Scripture, Regeneration is that great change of heart and character which is absolutely needful to man’s salvation.

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3.) Sometimes it is called conversion,—sometimes being made alive from the dead,—sometimes putting off the old man, and putting on the new,—sometimes a new creation,—sometimes being renewed,—sometimes being made partaker of the Divine nature. All these expressions of the Bible come to the same thing. They are all the same truth, only viewed from different points. They all describe that mighty, radical change of nature, which it is the special office of the Holy Ghost to give,—and without which no one can be saved.

I am aware that many do not allow “Regeneration” to be what I have here described it. They regard it as nothing more than an admission to Church privileges,—a change of state, and not a change of heart. But what plain text of Scripture can they show us in support of this view? I answer boldly,—“Not one.”*

(2) My second remark is this. I believe there is only one sure evidence, according to Scripture, of any one being a regenerate person. That evidence is the fruit that he brings forth in his heart and in his life.

. . . Of course I am aware that many divines maintain that we may call people “regenerate,” in whom none of the marks just described are seen, or ever were seen since they were born. They tell us, in short, that people may possess the gift of the Spirit, and the grace of Regeneration, when neither the gift nor the grace can be seen. Such a doctrine appears to me dangerous in the highest degree. It seems to my mind little better than Antinomianism.

(3) My third remark is this. I believe that Regeneration and baptism, according to Scripture, do not necessarily go together.

I see that people may be filled with the Holy Ghost, and have new hearts, without baptism, like John the Baptist and the penitent thief. I see also that people may be baptized, and yet remain in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, like Simon Magus. Above all, I find St. Peter telling us expressly, that the baptism which “saves,” and whereby we are buried with Christ, and put on Christ, is not water-baptism only, whether infant or adult. It is “not” the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the “answer of a good conscience.” (1 Peter 3:21.)

It is well known that many people hold that baptism and Regeneration are inseparable; but there is a fatal absence of texts in support of this view. Sixteen times, at least, the new birth is mentioned in the New Testament.* “Regeneration” is a word used twice, but only once in the sense of a change of heart. “Born again,”—“born of God,”—“born of the Spirit,”—“begotten of God,” are expressions used frequently. Once the word “water” is joined with the words “born of the Spirit;” once the word “washing” is joined with the word “Regeneration;” twice believers are said to be born of the “Word of God,” the “Word of truth.” But it is a striking fact that there is not one text in Scripture which says distinctly and expressly that we are born again in baptism, and that every baptized person is necessarily regenerate!

(4) My fourth and last remark is this. I believe that according to Scripture, baptism has no more power to confer Regeneration on infants, ex opere operato, than it has upon grown-up people.

That infants ought to be solemnly and formally admitted into the Church under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, I make no question. The promise to the children of believers, and the behaviour of our Lord Jesus Christ to children, ought to encourage all believing parents to expect the greatest blessings in bringing their infants to be baptized. But beyond this I cannot go.

I am aware that many people think that infants must be regenerated in baptism, as a matter of course, because they put no bar in the way of grace, and must therefore receive the sacrament worthily. Once more I am obliged to say, there is a fatal absence of Scripture in defence of this view. The right of Christian infants to baptism is only through their parents. The precise effect of baptism on infants is never once stated in the New Testament. There is no description of a child’s baptism: and to say that children, born in sin, as all are, are in themselves worthy to receive grace, appears to me a near approach to the old heresy of Pelagianism.

I now come to the point which forms the chief subject of this paper. That point is the true interpretation of some expressions in the Baptismal Service of the Church of England, which appear at first sight to contradict the view which I have been endeavouring to set forth on the subject of Regeneration.

It is asserted that the Prayer-book decidedly teaches the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in the Baptismal Service.—It is said that the words of that service, “Seeing now that this child is regenerate,”—“We yield Thee hearty thanks, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this child with Thy Holy Spirit,” admit of only one meaning. They are used, it is said, over every child that is baptized. They prove, it is said, beyond all question, that the Church of England maintains the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. They settle the point, it is said, and leave no room to doubt.

These are the statements I now propose to examine. Can they be proved, or can they not? I say unhesitatingly that they cannot, and I will proceed to give my reasons for saying so, if the reader will give me his patient attention.

It is asserted that the Prayer-book decidedly teaches the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in the Baptismal Service.—It is said that the words of that service, “Seeing now that this child is regenerate,”—“We yield Thee hearty thanks, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this child with Thy Holy Spirit,” admit of only one meaning.

. . . I am thoroughly persuaded that the views of Regeneration I maintain are the views of the Prayer-book, Articles, and Homilies of the Church of England, and I will endeavour to satisfy the reader that I have good reasons for saying so. The more I have searched into the subject, the more thoroughly convinced have I felt in my own mind that those who say the views I advocate are not “Church views,” are asserting what they cannot prove.

And now let me proceed to reply to the objection that the invariable Regeneration of all infants in baptism is proved to be the doctrine of the Church of England by the language of her Baptismal Service.

I. I answer then, first of all, that the mere quotation of two isolated expressions in one particular service in our Liturgy is not of itself sufficient.

It must be proved that the sense in which the objector takes these expressions is the correct one. It must also be shown that this sense will bear comparison with the other Services and formularies of the Church, and does not involve any contradiction. If this last point cannot be shown and proved, it is clear that the objector has put a wrong interpretation on the Baptismal Service, and does not understand the great principle on which all the Services of our Church are drawn up.

It is a most unsound method of reasoning to take one or two expressions out of a book which has been written as one great whole, to place a certain meaning on these expressions, and then refuse to inquire whether that meaning can be reconciled with the general spirit of the rest of the book. The beginning of every heresy and erroneous tenet in religion may be traced up to this kind of reasoning, and to unfair and partial quotations.

The beginning of every heresy and erroneous tenet in religion may be traced up to this kind of reasoning, and to unfair and partial quotations.

This is precisely the Roman Catholic’s argument when he wants to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. “I read,” he says, “these plain words, ‘This is My body,—this is My blood.’ I want no more. I have nothing to do with your explanations and quotations from other parts of the Bible. Here is quite enough for me. The Lord Jesus Christ says, ‘This is My body.’ This settles the question.”

This again is precisely the Arian’s argument, when he wants to prove that the Lord Jesus Christ is inferior to the Father. “I read,” he says, “these plain words, ‘My Father is greater than I.’ ” It is in vain you tell him that there are other texts which show the Son to be equal with the Father, and give a different meaning to the one he has quoted. It matters not. He rests on the one single text that he has chosen to rest on, and he will hear nothing further.

This also is precisely the Socinian’s argument, when he wants to prove that Jesus Christ is only a man, and not God. “I read,” he tells us, “these plain words, ‘The man, Christ Jesus.’—Do not talk to me about other passages which contradict my view. All I know is, here are words which cannot be mistaken,—‘The man, Christ Jesus.’ ”

Now, without desiring to give offence, I must frankly say that I observe this kind of argument continually used in discussing the Church of England’s doctrine about Regeneration. People quote the words of our Baptismal Service, “Seeing now that this child is regenerate,” etc., as an unanswerable proof that the Church considers all baptized infants to be born again. They will not listen to anything else that is brought forward from other Services and formularies of the Church. They tell you they take their stand on the simple expression, “This child is regenerate.” The words are plain, they inform us! They settle the question incontrovertibly! They seem to doubt your honesty and good sense, if you are not at once convinced. And all this time they do not see that they are taking their stand on very dangerous ground, and putting a sword into the hand of the next Socinian, Arian, or Roman Catholic who happens to dispute with them.

A single quotation dragged out of a Service will not suffice.

I warn such people, if this paper falls in their hands, that this favourite argument will not do. A single quotation dragged out of a Service will not suffice. They must prove that the meaning they attach to it is consistent with the rest of the Prayer-book, and with the Articles and Homilies. They must not expound one place of the Prayer-book, any more than of the Bible, so as to make it repugnant to another. And this, whether they mean it or not, I firmly believe they are doing.

II. I answer, in the next place, that to say all baptized infants are regenerate, because of the expressions in the Baptismal Service, is to contradict the great principle on which the whole Prayer-book is drawn up.

The principle of the Prayer-book is to suppose all members of the Church to be in reality what they are in profession,—to be true believers in Christ, to be sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

The principle of the Prayer-book is to suppose all members of the Church to be in reality what they are in profession,—to be true believers in Christ, to be sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The Prayer-book takes the highest standard of what a Christian ought to be, and is all through worded accordingly. The minister addresses those who assemble together for public worship as believers. The people who use the words the Liturgy puts into their mouths, are supposed to be believers.

The Prayer-book takes the highest standard of what a Christian ought to be, and is all through worded accordingly.

But those who drew up the Prayer-book never meant to assert that all who were members of the Church of England were actually and really true Christians. On the contrary, they tell us expressly in the Articles, that “in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good.” But they held that if forms of devotion were drawn up at all, they must be drawn up on the supposition that those who used them were real Christians, and not false ones. And in so doing I think they were quite right.

. . . those who drew up the Prayer-book never meant to assert that all who were members of the Church of England were actually and really true Christians.

A Liturgy for unbelievers and unconverted men would be absurd, and practically useless! The part of the congregation for whom it was meant would care little or nothing for any Liturgy at all. The holy and believing part of the congregation would find its language entirely unsuited to them.

Now this general principle of the Prayer-book is the principle on which the Baptismal Service is drawn up. It supposes those who bring their children to be baptized, to bring them as believers.

Now this general principle of the Prayer-book is the principle on which the Baptismal Service is drawn up. It supposes those who bring their children to be baptized, to bring them as believers. As the seed of godly parents and children of believers, their infants are baptized. As believers, the sponsors and parents are exhorted to pray that the child may be born again, and encouraged to lay hold on the promises. And as the child of believers the infant when baptized is pronounced “regenerate,” and thanks are given for it.

The principle which the Church lays down as an abstract principle is this,—that baptism when rightly and worthily received, is a means whereby we may receive inward and spiritual grace, even a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.

The principle which the Church lays down as an abstract principle is this,—that baptism when rightly and worthily received, is a means whereby we may receive inward and spiritual grace, even a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness. That an infant may receive baptism “rightly” the Church of England unquestionably holds, though the way and manner of it may be a hidden thing to us; for as good Archbishop Usher beautifully remarks, “He that hath said of infants, to them belongs the kingdom of God, knows how to settle upon them the kingdom of heaven.” Her ministers cannot see the book of God’s election. They cannot see the hidden workings of the Holy Ghost. They cannot read the hearts of parents and sponsors. They can never say of any individual child, “This child is certainly receiving baptism unworthily.” And this being the case, the Church most wisely leans to the side of charity, assumes hopefully of each child that it receives baptism worthily, and uses language accordingly.

. . . this being the case, the Church most wisely leans to the side of charity, assumes hopefully of each child that it receives baptism worthily, and uses language accordingly.

The men who drew up our Baptismal Service, held that there was a connection between baptism and spiritual Regeneration, and they were right. They knew that there was nothing too high in the way of blessing to expect for the child of a believer. They knew that God might of His sovereign mercy give grace to any child before, or in, or at, or by the act of baptism. At all events they dared not undertake the responsibility of denying it in the case of any particular infant, and they therefore took the safer course, to express a charitable hope of all.

They knew that God might of His sovereign mercy give grace to any child before, or in, or at, or by the act of baptism.

They could not draw up two Services of baptism, one of a high standard of privilege, the other of a low one. They could not leave it to the option of a minister to decide when one should be used, and when the other. It would have made a minister’s position at the baptismal font a most invidious one; it would have exposed him to the risk of making painful mistakes; it would have required him to decide points which none but God can decide. They leaned to the side of charity. They drew up a form containing the highest standard of privilege and blessing, and required that in every case of infant baptism that form, and that only, should be used. And in so doing they acted in the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ’s remarkable words to the seventy disciples, “Into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.” (Luke 10:5, 6.)

They leaned to the side of charity.

But as for maintaining that the ministerial act of baptizing a child did always necessarily convey Regeneration, and that every infant baptized was invariably born again, I believe it never entered into the thoughts of those who drew up the Prayer-book. In the judgment of charity and hope they supposed all to be regenerated in baptism, and used language accordingly. Whether any particular child was actually and really regenerated they left to be decided by its life and ways when it grew up. To say that the assertions of the Prayer-book Baptismal Service are to be taken for more than a charitable supposition, will be found, on close examination, to throw the whole Prayer-book into confusion.

To say that the assertions of the Prayer-book Baptismal Service are to be taken for more than a charitable supposition, will be found, on close examination, to throw the whole Prayer-book into confusion.

This is the only principle on which many of the Collects can be reasonably explained.

The Collect for the Epiphany says, “Grant that we who know Thee now by faith, may after this life have the fruition of Thy glorious God-head.”—Will any one tell us that the compilers of the Prayer-book meant to teach, that all who use the Prayer-book do know God by faith? Surely not.—The Collect for Sexagesima Sunday says, “O, Lord God, Who seest that we put not our trust in anything that we do,” etc. Will any dare to say that these words could ever be literally true of all members of the Church of England? Are they not manifestly a charitable supposition?—The Collect for the Third Sunday after Trinity says, “We, to whom Thou hast given a hearty desire to pray,” etc. Who can have a doubt that this is a form of words, which is used by many of whom it could not strictly and truly be said for one minute? Who can fail to see in all these instances one uniform principle, the principle of charitably assuming that members of a Church are what they profess to be? The Church puts in the mouth of her worshipping people the sentiments and language they ought to use, and if they do not come up to her high standard, the fault is theirs, not hers. But to say that by adopting such expressions she stamps and accredits all her members as real and true Christians in the sight of God, would be manifestly absurd.

This is the only principle on which the Service for the Churching of Women can be interpreted.

Every woman for whom that Service is used, is spoken of as “the Lord’s servant,” and is required to answer that she “puts her trust in the Lord.” Yet who in his senses can doubt that such words are utterly inapplicable in the case of a great proportion of those who come to be churched? They are not “servants” of the Lord! They do not in any sense “put their trust” in Him! And who would dare to argue that the compilers of the Liturgy considered that all women who were churched did really trust in the Lord, merely because they used this language? The simple explanation is, that they drew up the Service on the same great principle which runs through the whole Prayer-book, the principle of charitable supposition.

The simple explanation is, that they drew up the Service on the same great principle which runs through the whole Prayer-book, the principle of charitable supposition.

This is the only principle on which the Service of Baptism for grown-up people can be interpreted.

In that Service the minister first prays that the person about to be baptized may have the Holy Spirit given to him and be born again. The Church cannot take upon herself to pronounce decidedly that he is born again, until he has witnessed a good confession, and shown his readiness to receive the seal of baptism. Then, after that prayer, he is called upon openly to profess repentance and faith before the minister and congregation, and that being done he is baptized. Then, and not till then, comes the declaration that the person baptized is “regenerate,” and he is born again and made an heir of everlasting salvation. But can these words be strictly and literally true if the person baptized is a hypocrite, and has all along professed that which he does not feel? Are not the words manifestly used on the charitable supposition that he has repented and does believe, and in no other sense at all? And is it not plain to every one that in the absence of this repentance and faith, the words used are a mere form, used, because the Church cannot draw up two forms, but not for a moment implying that inward and spiritual grace necessarily accompanies the outward sign, or that a “death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness” is necessarily conveyed to the soul? In short, the person baptized is pronounced regenerate upon the broad principle of the Prayer-book, that, in the Church-services people are charitably supposed to be what they profess to be.

In short, the person baptized is pronounced regenerate upon the broad principle of the Prayer-book, that, in the Church-services people are charitably supposed to be what they profess to be.

This is the only intelligible principle on which the Burial Service can be interpreted.

In that Service the person buried is spoken of as a “dear brother or sister.” It is said that it hath “pleased God of His great mercy to take to Himself his soul.” It is said, “We give Thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world.” It is said that “our hope is, this our brother rests in Christ.” Now what does all this mean? Did the compilers of the Prayer-book wish us to believe that all this was strictly and literally applicable to every individual member of the Church over whose body these words were read? Will any one look the Service honestly in the face and dare to say so? I cannot think it. The simple explanation of the Service is, that it was drawn up, like the rest, on the presumption that all members of a Church were what they professed to be. The key to the interpretation of it is the same great principle, the principle of charitable supposition.

The key to the interpretation of it is the same great principle, the principle of charitable supposition.

This is the only principle on which the Catechism can be interpreted.

In it every child is taught to say, “In baptism I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven;” and a little further on, “I learn to believe in God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God.” Now what does this mean? Did the Prayer-book writers intend to lay it down as an abstract principle that all baptized children are “sanctified” and all “elect”? Will any one in the present day stand forth and tell us that all the children in his parish are actually sanctified by the Holy Ghost? If he can, I can only say, that his parish is an exception, or else Bible words have no meaning. But I cannot yet believe that any one would say so. I believe there is but one explanation of all these expressions in the Catechism. They are the words of charitable supposition, and in no other sense can they be taken.

They are the words of charitable supposition, and in no other sense can they be taken.

I lay these things before any one who fancies that all children are regenerated in baptism, because of the expressions in the Prayer-book service, and I ask him to weigh them well. I am not to be moved from my ground by hard names, and bitter epithets, and insinuations that I am not a real Churchman. I am not to be shaken by scraps and sentences torn from their places, and thrust isolated and alone upon our notice. What I say is, that in interpreting the Baptismal Service of the Church we must be consistent.

What I say is, that in interpreting the Baptismal Service of the Church we must be consistent.

Men say that the view of the Service I maintain is “non-natural and dishonest.” I deny the charge altogether. I might retort it on many of those who make it. Whose view is most unnatural, I ask? Is it the view of the man who expounds the Baptismal Service on one principle, and the Burial Service on another?—or is it my view, which interprets all on one uniform and the same system?

I refuse to interpret one part of the Prayer-book on one principle, and another part on another.

We must be consistent I repeat. I refuse to interpret one part of the Prayer-book on one principle, and another part on another. The expressions to which I have been calling attention are either abstract dogmatic declarations, or charitable assumptions and suppositions. They cannot be both. And I now call upon those who hold all children to be invariably regenerated, because of strong expressions in the Baptismal Service, to carry out their principles honestly, fairly, fully, and consistently, if they can.

If all children are actually regenerated in baptism, because the Service says, “This child is regenerate,” then by parity of reasoning it follows that all people who use the Collect have faith, and a hearty desire to pray!—all women who are churched put their trust in the Lord!—all members of the Church who are buried are dear brethren, and we hope rest in Christ!—and all children who say the Catechism are sanctified by the Holy Ghost and are elect!—Consistency demands it. Fair interpretation of words demands it. There is not a jot of evidence to show that those are not really sanctified and elect who say the Catechism, if you once maintain that those are all actually “regenerated” over whom the words of the Baptismal Service have been used.

But if I am to be told that the children who use the Catechism are not necessarily all elect and sanctified, and that the people buried are not necessarily all resting in Christ, and that the language in both cases is that of charitable supposition, then I reply, in common fairness let us be allowed to take the language of the Baptismal Service in the same sense.

I see one uniform principle running through all the Prayer-book, through all the Offices, through all the devotional Formularies of the Church. That principle is the principle of charitable supposition.

I see one uniform principle running through all the Prayer-book, through all the Offices, through all the devotional Formularies of the Church. That principle is the principle of charitable supposition. Following that principle, I can make good sense and good divinity of every Service in the book. Without that principle I cannot. On that principle therefore I take my stand. If I say all baptized children are really, literally, and actually “regenerate,” because of certain words in the Baptismal Service, I contradict that principle. I believe our Services were meant to be consistent one with another, and not contradictory. I therefore cannot say so.

III. My next answer to those who say all baptized persons are regenerate, because of the Baptismal Service, is this,—that such a view would not agree with the Thirty-nine Articles.

Now I am aware that many have a very low opinion of the Articles. Many seem to know little about them, and to attach little weight to any quotation from them. “The Prayer-book! the Prayer-book!” is the watch-word of these people; “all we have to do with is, what does the Prayer-book say?”

I look upon the Thirty-nine Articles as the Church of England’s Confession of faith.

I disagree with such persons entirely. I look upon the Thirty-nine Articles as the Church of England’s Confession of faith. I believe the words of the declaration which prefaces them are strictly true, “That the Articles of the Church of England do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England,” and that any doctrine which does not entirely harmonize with those Articles is not the doctrine of the Church.

I honour and love the book of Common Prayer, but I do not call it the Church’s Confession of faith. I delight in it as an incomparable manual of public worship, but if I want to ascertain the deliberate judgment of the Church upon any point of doctrine, I turn first to the Articles. What would a Lutheran or Scotch Presbyterian say of me, if I judged his Church by his minister’s prayers, and did not judge it by the Augsburg or Westminster Confessions? I do not say this in order to disparage the Prayer-book, but to point out calmly what it really is. I want to place the Thirty-nine Articles in their proper position before the reader’s mind, and so to make him see the real value of what they say. It is a circumstance deeply to be regretted that the Articles are not more read and studied by members of the Church of England.

It is a circumstance deeply to be regretted that the Articles are not more read and studied by members of the Church of England.

I will now ask the reader of this paper to observe the striking prominence which the Articles everywhere give to the Bible as the only rule of faith.

The Sixth Article says, that “Whatsoever is not read in Holy Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite and necessary to salvation.” The Eighth says, that the “Three Creeds ought thoroughly to be believed and received, for they may be proved by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture.” The Twentieth says, that “It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another.” The Twenty-first says, that “things ordained by General Councils as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.” The Twenty-second condemns certain Romish doctrines, because they “are grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but are rather repugnant to the Word of God.” The Twenty-eighth condemns transubstantiation, because it “cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.” The Thirty-fourth says, that traditions and ceremonies of the Church may be changed, so long as “nothing be ordained against God’s Word.”

All these quotations make it perfectly certain that the Bible is the sole rule of faith in the Church of England, and that nothing is a doctrine of the Church which cannot be entirely reconciled with the Word of God.

And I see here a complete answer to those who say we make an idol of the Bible, and tell us we ought to go first to the Prayer-book, or to the opinion of the primitive Church! I see also that any meaning placed upon any part of the Prayer-book which at all disagrees with the Bible, and cannot be proved by the Bible, must be an incorrect meaning. I am not to listen to any interpretation of any Service in the Liturgy, which cannot be thoroughly reconciled with Scripture. It may sound very plausible. It may be defended very speciously. But does it in any way jar with plain texts in the Bible? If it does, there is a mistake somewhere. There is a flaw in the interpretation. On the very face of it, it is incorrect. It is utterly absurd to suppose that the founders of our Church would assert the supremacy of Scripture seven or eight times over, and then draw up a service in the Prayer-book at all inconsistent with Scripture! And unless the doctrine that all children baptized are necessarily regenerated in baptism, can first be shown to be in the Bible, it is a mere waste of time to begin any discussion of the subject by talking of the Prayer-book.

All these quotations make it perfectly certain that the Bible is the sole rule of faith in the Church of England, and that nothing is a doctrine of the Church which cannot be entirely reconciled with the Word of God.

I ask the reader, in the next place, to observe what the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth Articles say. The Twenty-fifth speaks generally of sacraments; and it says of them, both of baptism and of the Lord’s Supper, “In such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation.” The Twenty-sixth speaks of the unworthiness of ministers not hindering the effect of the sacraments. It says, “Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, or the grace of God’s gifts diminished, from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments.” Here we have a broad general principle twice asserted. The benefit of either sacrament is clearly confined to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it. The Romish notion of all alike getting good from it, ex opere operato, is with equal clearness pointed at and rejected. Now can this be reconciled with the doctrine that all who are baptized are at once invariably regenerated? I say decidedly that it cannot.

Here we have a broad general principle twice asserted. The benefit of either sacrament is clearly confined to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it.

I ask the reader, in the next place, to observe the language of the Article about baptism, the Twenty-seventh. It says, “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that are not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” Nothing can be more striking than the wise caution of all this language, when contrasted with the statements about baptism with which our ears are continually assailed in this day. There is not a word said which might lead us to suppose that a different principle is to be applied to the baptism of infants, from that which has been already laid down about all sacraments, in the Twenty-fifth Article. We are left to the inevitable conclusion that in all cases worthy reception is essential to the full efficacy of the sacrament. There is not a word said about a great inward and spiritual blessing invariably and necessarily attending the baptism of an infant. There is a perfect silence on that head, and a most speaking silence too. Surely a doctrine involving such immense and important consequences as the universal spiritual regeneration of all infants in baptism, would never have been passed over in entire silence, if it had been the doctrine of the Church. The authors of the Articles unquestionably knew the importance of the document they were drawing up. Unquestionably they weighed well every word and every statement they put down on paper. And yet they are perfectly silent on the subject! That silence is like the occasional silence of Scripture, a great fact, and one which can never be got over.

We are left to the inevitable conclusion that in all cases worthy reception is essential to the full efficacy of the sacrament.

I ask the reader, in the next place, to observe what the Thirteenth Article says. It tells us that “Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit are not pleasant to God,” etc. Here we are plainly taught that works may be done by men before grace and the Spirit are given to them, and this too by baptized members of the Church, for it is for them that the Articles are drawn up! But how can this be reconciled with the notion that all baptized persons are necessarily regenerated? How can any person be regenerated without having the “grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Spirit”? There is only one view on which the Article can be reasonably explained. That view is the simple one, that many baptized people are not regenerate, have no grace and no indwelling of the Spirit, and that it is their case before they are born again and converted, which is here described.

The last Article I will ask the reader to observe is the Seventeenth. The subject of that Article is Predestination and Election. It is a subject which many people dislike exceedingly, and are ready to stop their ears whenever it is mentioned. I acknowledge freely that it is a deep subject. But there stands the Article! It cannot be denied that it forms part of our Church’s Confession of faith. Whether men like it or not, they must not talk as if it did not exist, in discussing the subject of the Church’s doctrines. The Article begins with laying down the great truth that God “hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation.” It then proceeds to describe the calling of these persons by God’s Spirit, and the consequences of that calling; “They through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works, and at length by God’s mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.”

. . . just as all baptized people are not elect, justified, and sanctified, so also all baptized people are not regenerated.

Now all I ask the reader to consider is this, did the writers of the Articles mean to say that these persons were a separate and distinct class from those who were “regenerated,” or not? We must think so, if we consider baptism is always accompanied by Regeneration. The things spoken of in this description are things of which multitudes of baptized persons know nothing at all. I do not, however, believe that such an idea over entered into the minds of those who wrote the Articles. I believe that they looked on Election, Justification, Adoption, and Regeneration, as the peculiar privileges of a certain number, but not of all members of the visible Church; and that just as all baptized people are not elect, justified, and sanctified, so also all baptized people are not regenerated. Very striking is the difference between the language of the Article which treats of baptism, and the Article which treats of election. In the former we find the cautious general statement, that in baptism “the promises of our adoption to be the sons of God are visibly signed and sealed.” In the latter we find the broad assertion that the elect “be made the sons of God by adoption.”

Such is the doctrine of the Articles. If Regeneration be what the Catechism describes it, “a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness,” I cannot find the slightest ground in the Articles for the notion that all baptized persons are necessarily regenerate. There is an absence of any direct assertion of such a doctrine. There are several passages which appear completely inconsistent with it. I cannot suppose that the Articles and Liturgy were meant to be contrary one to the other. The men who drew up the Thirty-nine Articles in 1562, were the men who compiled the Prayer-book in 1549. They drew up the Articles with a certain and distinct knowledge of the contents of the Prayer-book. Yet the interpretation of the Baptismal Service I am contending against would make the one formulary contradictory to the other. The conclusion I come to is clear and decided,—such an interpretation cannot be correct.

I cannot suppose that the Articles and Liturgy were meant to be contrary one to the other.

IV. My last answer to those who say that all baptized persons are necessarily regenerated, because of the wording of the Baptismal Service, is this,—such a doctrine would make the Prayer-book disagree with the Homilies of the Church of England.

The Homilies are not liked by some persons any more than the Thirty-nine Articles. No doubt they are human compositions, and therefore not perfect; no doubt they contain words and expressions here and there which might be amended; but, after all, the members of the Church of England are bound to recollect that the Thirty-fifth Article expressly asserts that the Homilies contain “a godly and wholesome doctrine.” Whatever their deficiencies may be, the general tone of their doctrine is clear and unmistakable. And any interpretation of the Prayer-book Services which makes those Services inconsistent with the Homilies must, on the very face of it, be an incorrect interpretation.

Let me then call the reader’s attention to the following passages in the Homilies:

In the Homily of Charity there are the following passages:

“What thing can we wish so good for us as the heavenly Father to reckon and take us for His children? And this shall we be sure of, saith Christ, if we love every man without exception. And if we do otherwise, saith He, we be no better than the Pharisees, publicans, and heathens, and shall have our reward with them, that is to be shut out from the number of God’s chosen children, and from His everlasting inheritance in heaven.” And again: “He that beareth a good heart and mind, and useth well his tongue and deeds unto every man, friend or foe, he may know thereby that he hath charity. And then he is sure also that Almighty God taketh him for His dearly-beloved son; as Saint John saith, hereby manifestly are known the children of God from the children of the devil; for whosoever doth not love his brother belongeth not unto God.”

In the Homily of Almsdeeds there is this passage: “God of His mercy and special favour towards them whom He hath appointed to everlasting salvation, hath so offered His grace especially, and they have so received it faithfully, that, although by reason of their sinful living outwardly they seemed before to have been the children of wrath and perdition,—yet now, the Spirit of God working mightily in them, unto obedience to God’s will and commandments, they declare by their outward deeds and life, in the showing of mercy and charity—which cannot come but of the Spirit of God and His especial grace—that they are the undoubted children of God, appointed to everlasting life. And so, as by their wickedness and ungodly living they showed themselves, according to the judgment of men, which follow the outward appearance, to be reprobates and castaways, so now by their obedience unto God’s holy will, and by their mercifulness and tender pity,—wherein they show themselves to be like unto God, who is the Fountain and Spring of all mercy,—they declare openly and manifestly unto the sight of men that they are the sons of God, and elect of Him unto salvation.”

In the Homily for Whit-Sunday, I read the following passages: “It is the Holy Ghost, and no other thing, that doth quicken the minds of men, stirring up good and godly motions in their hearts, which are agreeable to the will and commandment of God, such as otherwise of their own crooked and perverse nature they should never have. That which is born of the flesh, saith Christ, is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. As who should say, man of his own nature is fleshly and carnal, corrupt and naught, sinful and disobedient to God, without any spark of goodness in him, without any virtuous or godly notion, only given to evil thoughts and wicked deeds. As for the works of the Spirit, the fruits of faith, charitable and godly motions,—if he have any at all in him,—they proceed only of the Holy Ghost, who is the only worker of our sanctification, and maketh us new men in Christ Jesus. Did not God’s Holy Spirit work in the child David, when from a poor shepherd he became a princely prophet? Did not God’s Holy Spirit miraculously work in Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, when of a proud publican he became a humble and lowly evangelist? And who can choose but marvel to consider that Peter should become, of a simple fisher, a chief and mighty Apostle? Paul of a cruel and bloody persecutor, to teach the Gentiles? Such is the power of the Holy Ghost to regenerate men, and, as it were, to bring them forth anew, so that they shall be nothing like the men that they were before. Neither doth He think it sufficient inwardly to work the spiritual and new birth of man unless He do also dwell and abide in him.—Oh, what comfort is this to the heart of a true Christian, to think that the Holy Ghost dwelleth within him!”

And then comes the following passage, which I request the reader specially to observe: “How shall I know that the Holy Ghost is within me? some men perchance will say: Forsooth, as the tree is known by his fruit, so is also the Holy Ghost. The fruits of the Holy Ghost, according to the mind of St. Paul, are these: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance, etc. Contrariwise the deeds of the flesh are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, debate, emulation, wrath, contention, sedition, heresy, envy, murder, drunkenness, gluttony, and such like. Here is now that glass wherein thou must behold thyself, and discern whether thou have the Holy Ghost within thee or the spirit of the flesh. If thou see that thy works he virtuous and good, consonant to the prescribed rule of God’s Word, savouring and tasting not of the flesh, but of the Spirit, then assure thyself that thou art endued with the Holy Ghost; otherwise, in thinking well of thyself, thou dost nothing but deceive thyself.”—Once more: “To conclude and make an end, ye shall briefly take this short lesson: wheresoever ye find the spirit of arrogance and pride, the spirit of envy, hatred, contention, cruelty, murder, extortion, witchcraft, necromancy, etc., assure yourselves that there is the spirit of the devil, and not of God, albeit they pretend outwardly to the world never so much holiness. For as the Gospel teacheth us, the Spirit of Jesus is a good spirit, an holy spirit, a sweet spirit, a lowly spirit, a merciful spirit, full of charity and love, full of forgiveness and pity, not rendering evil for evil, extremity for extremity, but overcoming evil with good, and remitting all offence even from the heart. According to which rule, if any man live uprightly, of him it may safely be pronounced that he hath the Holy Ghost within him: if not, than it is a plain token that he doth usurp the name of the Holy Ghost in vain.”

I lay these passages before the reader in their naked simplicity. I will not weary him with long comments upon them. In fact none are needed. Two things, I think, are abundantly evident. One is, that in the judgment of the Homilies, no men are the “undoubted children of God” and “sons of God,” and elect unto salvation, unless it is proved by their charity and good works. The other is, that no man has the Holy Ghost within him, in the judgment of the Homilies, except he brings forth the fruits of the Spirit in his life.

These Homilies were put forth by authority, in the year 1562, and appointed to be read in churches in order to supply the deficiency of good preaching, and when they had been once read, they were to be “repeated and read again.” And yet according to the interpretation of the Baptismal Service I am contending against, these Homilies contradict the Prayer-book!

But all this is flatly contradictory to the doctrine of those who say that all baptized persons are necessarily regenerate. They tell us that all people are made the children of God by virtue of their baptism, whatever be their manner of living, and must be addressed as such all their lives; and that all people have the grace of the Holy Ghost within them by virtue of their baptism, and must be considered “regenerate,” whatever fruits they may be bringing forth in their daily habits and conversation. According to this, the Homilies say one thing and the Prayer-book says another! I leave the reader to judge whether it is in the least degree probable this can be the case. These Homilies were put forth by authority, in the year 1562, and appointed to be read in churches in order to supply the deficiency of good preaching, and when they had been once read, they were to be “repeated and read again.” And yet according to the interpretation of the Baptismal Service I am contending against, these Homilies contradict the Prayer-book! Surely it is difficult to avoid the conclusion which I most unhesitatingly come to myself, that a system of interpreting the Baptismal Service which sets the Prayer-book at variance with the Homilies, as well as with the Articles, must be incorrect.

Surely it is difficult to avoid the conclusion which I most unhesitatingly come to myself, that a system of interpreting the Baptismal Service which sets the Prayer-book at variance with the Homilies, as well as with the Articles, must be incorrect.

I leave the subject of the Church of England’s views about Regeneration here. I wish I could have spoken of it more shortly. But I have been anxious to meet the objections drawn from the Baptismal Service fully, openly, and face to face. I have not a doubt in my own mind as to the true doctrine of the Church in the question. But many, I know, have been troubled and perplexed about it, and few appear to me to see the matter as clearly as they might. And it is to supply such persons with information, as well as to meet the arguments of adversaries, that I have gone into the question so fully as I have.

~J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, 130–152.

This is a cardinal tenet of Reformed theology—people hear the gospel through the preaching of the Word and are in this way apprehended by Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The means by which God reveals Christ, and thereby His grace, centers principally on the Word of God. The book of Hebrews shows the link between revelation, christology, and eschatology: “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Heb. 1:1–2a). God’s Word is the only means by which He reveals His special grace, by which He reveals Christ in the last days. This is a cardinal tenet of Reformed theology—people hear the gospel through the preaching of the Word and are in this way apprehended by Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Again, just as God spoke the creation into existence (Gen. 1:1; Heb. 11:3), so now He creates the new heaven and earth and calls into existence things that do not exist through His Word (cf. Rom. 4:17). In this manner, the Word of God is the chief means of grace. Through the reading or preaching of the Word, God sets forth the person and work of Christ, then applies them to the auditor by the power of the Holy Spirit."

~Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism, 275-276

The only purgatory wherein, we must trust to be saved, is the death and blood of Christ

The only purgatory wherein, we must trust to be saved, is the death and blood of Christ; which if we apprehend with a true and steadfast faith, it purgeth and cleanseth us from all our sins (1 John 1.7), even as well as if he were now hanging upon the cross. The blood of Christ, saith St. John, hath cleansed us from all sin. The blood of Christ, saith St. Paul, hath purged our consciences from dead works to serve the living God (Hebrews 9.14). Also in another place he saith, We be sanctified and made holy by the offering up of the body of Jesus Christ done once for all (Hebrews 10.10). Yea, he addeth more, saying, With the one oblation of his blessed body and precious blood, he hath made perfect for ever and ever all them that are sanctified (Hebrews 10.14). This then is that purgatory, wherein all Christian men put their whole trust and confidence, nothing doubting, but if they truly repent them of their sins, and die in perfect faith, that then they shall forthwith pass from death to life.

If this kind of purgation will not serve them, let them never hope to be released by other men's prayers, though they should continue therein unto the world's end.

If this kind of purgation will not serve them, let them never hope to be released by other men's prayers, though they should continue therein unto the world's end. He that cannot be saved by faith in Christ's blood, how shall he look to be delivered by man's intercessions? Hath God more respect to man on earth, than he hath to Christ in heaven? If any man sin, saith St. John we have an Advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2.1). But we must take heed that we call upon this Advocate, while we have space given us in this life, lest when we are once dead, there be no hope of salvation left unto us. For as every man sleepeth with his own cause, so every man shall rise again with his own cause. And look in what state he dieth, in the same state he shall be also judged, whether it be to salvation, or damnation.

Martin Davie, Our Inheritance of Faith: A Commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles, 427-428.

"The apostle more largely illustrates the transcendent glory of the gospel, and how far it exceedeth the glory of the law; although it be granted the law be glorious."

[1.] If that which was but a ministration of the letter written and engraven in stone was glorious, verse the seventh; that is, if the literal notions and bare knowledge of the law, which (like so many dead words or characters) maketh no alteration at all, but leaveth their hearts hard and stony, like the tables on which the law was written, which remained stones still; if this was glorious, even the literal knowledge of the law: as it was, both in the Jews’ own account of themselves and in the judgment of the nations amongst whom they lived: ‘how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? verse the eighth; the meaning whereof is largely explained in the third verse; where the Corinthians are said to be an ‘epistle written not with ink’ (or dead letters), ‘but with the Spirit of the living God’; which kind of writing leaveth not the heart a heart of stone, as the dead writing of the law did, but changeth it into a ‘heart of flesh,’ and maketh such a thorough alteration in the whole man, as the writing within, ‘in the tables of their hearts,’ is ‘known and read of all men. So that their lives and conversations being answerable to that spiritual and gracious writing of Christ in their hearts, they are ‘manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ.’ And therefore such a ministry as this is, by which the Spirit of the living God is received (and not by the law, Gal. 3:2), which is a Spirit of glory, and worketh glorious things both in the hearts and lives of men, must needs be ‘rather glorious.’

[2.] Another inference we have in the ninth verse; ‘If the ministration of condemnation be glorious;’ that is, if that word which ‘concluded men under sin,’ Gal. 3:22, and pronounced the sentence of death upon them, ‘be glorious, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For it is more glorious to pardon than to condemn; to give life, than to destroy.

"For it is more glorious to pardon than to condemn; to give life, than to destroy."

It is the glory of a man to pass over an offence, Prov. 19:11, and in God it is called the ‘riches of his glory,’ Rom. 9:23. ‘The law, which was made glorious,’ in terrifying, condemning, and stoping the mouths of men, insomuch as they had not a word to say for themselves, ‘hath no glory, by reason of the glory’ of the gospel ‘that excelleth,’ even in this respect, that it bringeth such a righteousness, as by the merit whereof and satisfaction given by it, we are justified and have peace towards God, notwithstanding the utmost rigour of the law.

[3.] The apostle argueth further, ver. 11, ‘If that which is done away was glorious,’ as the old covenant is, which was made old by the coming of the new, Heb. 8:8, and by it removed as a thing grown weak and shaken, Heb. 12:27, ‘much more that which remaineth,’ which is the new covenant, which cannot be shaken, but shall remain, and is ‘the everlasting gospel,’ Rev. 14:6, ‘is more glorious,’ as God’s last works exceed the former, and taketh away the remembrance of them in comparison. As when he createth ‘new heavens and a new earth,’ the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind, Isa. 65:17.

[4.] There is another excellency of the gospel above the law, which the apostle addeth, and insisteth upon it more largely than upon all the rest, and that is, the comfortable plainness and perspicuity of the doctrine and ministry of it: verse the 12th, ‘Seeing we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.’ In which it excelled the ministry of Moses, which was in much difficulty and obscurity, and that in a threefold respect, laid down in the 13th, 14th, and 15th verses.

(1.) The matter of it was terrible, tending to the shame, confusion of face, and condemnation of the hearers; insomuch as they were not able to stand before him, nor stedfastly to behold his face, it was such a dazzling and amazing light that shined in his ministry.

(2.) The manner of delivery was in obscure and dark expressions, that ‘the children of Israel could not see to the end of that which is abolished;’ that is, they could not see the drift and scope of his ministry, by reason of the types and shadows, which was ‘the veil he put upon his face.’

(3.) Their minds were blinded. There was ‘a veil upon their hearts,’ which is evident by experience in the Jews at this day, who so cleave in their affection to Moses, and to the shadows and ceremonies of his ministry, that they reject the scope and end of it, which is Jesus Christ crucified. And they can do no other. For although the veil that was upon Moses’s face he removed, as it is by the doctrine of the gospel, which sheweth us in all possible plainness what the drift and meaning of Moses was in all those types and ceremonies, yet until the gospel in the spirit and efficacy of it cometh home to their hearts, and taketh off ‘the veil that is upon their hearts’ also; that is, until their natural blindness and obstinacy be taken away, which cannot be, but is rather increased, by the law—‘For although Moses be read, yet until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away,’ 2 Cor. 3:14—the Jews will unavoidably abide in their ignorance and bondage.

"the light of it [i.e., the gospel] is not terrifying and amazing, but sweet and comfortable."

Now, in opposition to this darkness and obscurity of the law in all those respects, the apostle exalteth the gospel in this high and excellent privilege of it, that it is plain, and evident, and full of demonstration, and that the light of it is not terrifying and amazing, but sweet and comfortable. So that we may with much liberty and boldness of spirit look constantly upon the great and glorious things set before us in it, although it be no other but the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[5.] And there is, moreover, such an efficacy and working power in this ministry of the gospel, as it will not suffer men to remain the same without alteration, as they did under Moses’s ministry, though he was read daily, but it will ‘change’ them even ‘into the image of Jesus Christ, and carry them on still in that image and likeness, from one degree of glory to another,’ after a most admirable and spiritual manner of working. 

Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, "The Excellency of the Gospel Above the Law." 4:203–205.

Why do you need prewritten prayers? Among Evangelical and Charismatic Christians, and most nonliturgical Churches, reactions to liturgical aspects of worship and prayer vary greatly from intrigue, to delight, to bewilderment, to straight-up scoffing. When someone who worships from these backgrounds attends a traditional liturgical worship service, where precomposed prayers are utilized, the general reaction is “Why? We have the Bible; we have the Spirit. Why do you need prewritten prayers? That’s kind of an old, outdated way to worship God.” The assumption is that only extemporaneous or spontaneous prayers are truly spiritual or genuinely from the heart.

Three Preliminary Considerations:

It is important to consider a few points at the outset.

First, the Bible itself is written and is old and cannot be altered via an extemporaneous or spontaneous urge or so-called spiritual impulse.

Second, the hymns we use in Church, which invariably have deep spiritual and emotional significance for individuals, are prewritten and not composed immediately during a worship service.

Third, churches will weekly distribute a bulletin that indicates what people will be doing at specific points during the service; this is essentially a prewritten order of worship. Spontaneity or extemporaneous involvement would create a chaotic scene. Regardless as to whether a particular church hands out a bulletin or not, the order of worship is going to be the same each week.

What one can see, then, is all Christians in all churches use prewritten, non-extemporaneous elements in their order of worship.

What one can see, then, is all Christians in all churches use prewritten, non-extemporaneous elements in their order of worship. As a matter of fact, if one is attentive while attending these nonliturgical churches that do not use prewritten material, one will notice much of the so-called spontaneous involvement is quite similar, identical in fact, from week to week.

19 Reasons Why We Use Written Prayers

The following will attempt to explain some of the reasons behind liturgical prayer aimed at people with little or no (positive) experience with it, though ideally it will also be an encouragement to those already versed in such tradition. I will give lists of reasons for various aspects with (hopefully) brief explanations. We will look first at written prayers or, that is, prewritten prayers. Many people have a hard time seeing why someone would ever want to repeat prewritten prayers as a significant part or any part of one’s devotional life.

Here are a few thoughts, though by no means exhaustive:

1. They teach us how to pray:

Most people learned to write by copying letters printed in a book or even tracing over them. We learned math by repeating times tables over and over until they were automatic. Using written prayers works in the same way. We “trace over” the prayers of the Saints, and over time, they become a part of us.

Written prayers solve the dilemma of what to say while praying

2. They prime the pump:

Written prayers solve the dilemma of what to say while praying. Instead of staring off into space or daydreaming during our prayer time, we can prime the pump using written prayers to get us started.

3. They remind us what we ought to pray:

When left to our own devices, we could easily pray only for that which immediately concerns us, kind of like a tyranny of the urgent, only in prayer. As C. S. Lewis says, “The crisis of the present moment will always loom largest. Isn’t there a danger that our great, permanent, objective necessities, often more important, may get crowded out?”

4. They infuse our prayer life with rich biblical and theological content:

My own spontaneous prayer can only possibly be filled with whatever biblical content I have in retrievable memory and am able to string together into coherent sentences on the fly. Praying on my own is then dependent upon the reservoir of the biblical knowledge I am able to recall, which is rather limited and, as C. S. Lewis remarked, in danger of quickly dispersing into “wide and shallow puddles.” Written prayers make instantly accessible a rich depth of content in prayer without requiring the least bit of ingenuity on my part.

Written prayers make instantly accessible a rich depth of content in prayer without requiring the least bit of ingenuity on my part.

5. They connect us to the wider church, both geographically and historically:

I can pray in unity with believers all over the world and throughout history by praying the same words with them.

6. They are time tested:

Of course, not all are, but many written prayers in historic liturgies are over a thousand years old. These have stuck around for reasons that are well worth exploring.

7. They are short and stay focused:

Precomposed prayers help people engage the mind with those prayers compared to the rambling or stream-of-consciousness extemporaneous praying that so often occurs when one person prays for a long time. So many topics are covered in no organized or coherent fashion that it is nearly impossible to stay connected. The other people attempting to pray often zone out because they cannot keep track of what is going on. Written prayers are shorter and to the point. They are unified around a coherent theme and with a specific objective. This helps either an individual or a group connect and agree with them.

8. They spare us from narcissism (i.e., idolatrous idiosyncrasy):

We naturally gravitate around our pet doctrines, ideas, passions, and concerns. We are certainly entitled to them. However, when we only entertain and accept our own premises, we are moving onto dangerous ground. If prayer only bears the mark of my uniqueness, it may keep me locked up in the bubble of that same uniqueness. Written prayers call us out beyond the confines of our limited understanding and perspective to a participation in the thoughts, issues, and concerns of the wider Church.

9. They are easy and accessible:

No spiritual acumen is needed, no special experience, talents, gifts, anointings, or education—simply the ability to read. You can be a complete novice in prayer or a veteran believer who is overwhelmed with frustration concerning their prayer life and instantly access an incredibly rich prayer life. Written prayers are for everyone and accessible immediately.

No spiritual acumen is needed, no special experience, talents, gifts, anointings, or education. . .

10. They are unifying:

Because they are so easy and accessible, they can be immediately unifying for people of all different levels in experience of prayer. Everyone is on an equal playing field. There are no prayer experts who must lead the way as the novices sit in befuddled silence. All engage, all participate, all are one.

11. They help us relax:

It is remarkable how much anxiety people have about what and how they pray and worship, especially in public. With written prayers, all you must do is say the words that are already given to you, with no other expectations. In other words, you can spend less time worrying about what you are going to say, what other people are going to think about it, how to have a really good prayer, and so on and focus your energy on actually praying and connecting with God.

12. They teach us grace:

This is ironic considering the frequent accusations of written prayers being stiff and too formally religious. Written prayers teach us that prayer is about God and not about our effort. Many people try so hard to have a prayer life and feel so defeated. The Church’s treasury of written and liturgical prayer is one of God’s greatest gifts to us. It is sheer grace that we can have such an easy entry point into prayer of unspeakable wealth and depth. Thus, prayer is not so much about how disciplined, spiritual, discerning, passionate, or contemplative we are; it is about God’s grace freely given to us, who are in such desperate need.

Written prayers teach us that prayer is about God and not about our effort. Many people try so hard to have a prayer life and feel so defeated. The Church’s treasury of written and liturgical prayer is one of God’s greatest gifts to us. It is sheer grace that we can have such an easy entry point into prayer of unspeakable wealth and depth.

If that is not compelling enough, specifically prewritten prayers:

13. Pre-Written Prayers Provide a Solid Structure for Worship:

Originally, the purpose of using written prayers was to create a basic order for worship and prayer. This can be seen as far back as the early Church, and the very terms and phraseology of the majority of written prayers and the liturgies of which they are a part are, for all intents and purposes, taken verbatim from the Bible. The traditional core elements of the order of worship, which are deemed spiritually essential, were confession, thanksgiving, communion, and so forth. Some contemporary Christians use the acronym CATS, which stands for confession, adoration, thanksgiving, and supplication.

Originally, the purpose of using written prayers was to create a basic order for worship and prayer.

14. Pre-Written Prayers Allow for Common Prayer:

The close-knit relationship of Christians in the early Church was predicated upon the concept of corporate unity or solidarity. Unfortunately, our Western culture is so fractured that religion in general and Christianity in particular are viewed as being highly personal and private matters. The early Church knew nothing of this mindset. In many instances, there were numerous prayers prayed collectively, together, and as the minister presiding would end the prayers specifically or the service as a whole, the congregation would jointly offer a resounding “amen.” To participate in a worship service where one would come to sing a few hymns or songs, sit for thirty to sixty minutes to listen to a sermon, and offer up their own individual “spontaneous” private prayers without including the entire congregation is completely and totally unknown in the early Church conception of worship. This understanding of worship was not accepted, for the most part, until the latter part of the twentieth century.

To participate in a worship service where one would come to sing a few hymns or songs, sit for thirty to sixty minutes to listen to a sermon, and offer up their own individual “spontaneous” private prayers without including the entire congregation is completely and totally unknown in the early Church conception of worship.

15. Pre-Written Prayers Allow for Real Freedom of Worship:

Often, one preparing for a worship service or even personal, private devotions will struggle to develop or create an appropriate prayer spontaneously. There is difficulty in knowing where or even how to begin, how to focus on specific cares or concerns, or how to even express what is in one’s heart. Prewritten prayers eliminate that lack of structure in one’s thinking. In practice, having this type of structure prevents aimless wandering and constant repetition of certain words or phrases because one has no idea what to truly say and provides more, not less, freedom.

If you are a parent, I am certain you have heard that children need structure. Structure sets guidelines and boundaries and allows the child the freedom to explore their individuality while knowing their limits. Or, if you prefer, think of a football game. You have rules, sidelines, the back of the end zone, yard and hash marks, yet look at all that takes place within those boundaries. What would happen if the teams simply showed up for a game on Sunday and spontaneously did whatever they felt like doing? Other than the comedic value of watching such a keystone cop routine, there would not be much real excitement or fun, if we happen to be on one of the teams. This is what liturgical, prewritten, established patterns allow. Within these confines, worship is, if one is truly worshiping from a heart-based faith and not merely going through the motions, incredibly meaningful, profoundly biblical, and deeply moving spiritually.

In practice, having this type of structure prevents aimless wandering and constant repetition of certain words or phrases because one has no idea what to truly say and provides more, not less, freedom.

16. Pre-Written Prayers Connect Us to the Past and to the Wider Church:

Traditional churches experience something that more contemporary devotees of nonliturgical worship experience, and that is transcendent connection through time and space. When we invoke prewritten prayers, and together, as a congregation, when we participate in these prewritten prayers, we are not only joining with our brethren in the pews around us, not only Christians all around the world (connection), not only with the historical Church throughout the centuries (time and space) who recited the very same prayers, but we are joining with the “cloud of witnesses” (transcendent) all around us in heaven.

When praying prewritten prayers, we are not being “lone ranger” Christians or spiritually isolating ourselves in our own private religious experience in the pew.

Imagine, you can pray the very same prayer that one of the early Church martyrs prayed when he worshiped, to say nothing of praying exactly what Jesus prayed. When praying prewritten prayers, we are not being “lone ranger” Christians or spiritually isolating ourselves in our own private religious experience in the pew. We are enjoying the true fellowship that Christians have, in Christ, exceeding our own specific time and place. We connect back and up and anticipate the forward connection that Christians will have with us in the future when they participate in these same rewritten prayers. And if that does not take your breath away, when you pray prewritten prayers, you are joining Christians in Africa, Asia, South America, Russia, and so on. You are joining billions of Christians reciting the Lord’s Prayer, Agnus Dei, or the Sanctus—Christians of all races and social classes.

17. Pre-Written Prayers Are Time Tested:

This almost falls under the category of ‘really, Captain Obvious?’ One of the reasons prewritten prayers are with us today is because their theology has stood the scrutiny of theological rigor. They are theologically orthodox. They succinctly present the theology of the Bible. How many times has one been to a nontraditional church that doesn’t use prewritten prayers and listened to someone go on and on and on and on with virtually no substantive theological content, repeating the same few phrases over and over, “Dear Lord, we, dear Lord, love You so much, dear Lord. Father God, you cannot, Father God, be contained in all the universe, Father God.” Well, you get the point. That is not meant to hurt anyone’s feelings as they attempt to sincerely express their devotion to the Triune God of the universe. It is simply to point out what many have experienced and one of the pitfalls of eschewing prewritten prayer.

One of the reasons prewritten prayers are with us today is because their theology has stood the scrutiny of theological rigor. They are theologically orthodox. They succinctly present the theology of the Bible.

18. Jesus Gave Us a Set Form for Prayer:

Jesus Himself gave us a prayer to pray. It came directly from the Temple/synagogue worship service (see below) when His disciples asked Him how they should pray. Notice Jesus did not say, “Hey, all that old, formal praying stuff is old hat. God is your copilot; He’s your friend, your buddy, ole pal. Just say whatever comes to your mind from your heart when you’re in a worship service.” Jesus’s model for prayer is a form, showing the value of this type of prayer, and though critically important for the devotional life of a Christian and the intent of the Christian in worship, spontaneous prayer from the heart is limited in its function in a worship service.

19. Pre-Written Prayers Are Scriptural:

Though last on the list, this point is probably the most crucial. . .

Though last on the list, this point is probably the most crucial; after all, who cares whether a prayer is spontaneous or prewritten if it is unbiblical or theologically in error? Prewritten prayer, as mentioned previously in point “17,” is time tested and comes to us, in the majority of instances, from centuries of the combination of use privately and in liturgical worship.

The liturgy of the Jewish community, the heritage of all Christianity, is steeped in a mixture of prewritten prayer tested, as it were, in liturgical worship. Jewish ritual was heavily dependent on prewritten prayers. The Aaronic Benediction (not to mention the Psalms) is said by many nonliturgical ministers:

The LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face shine upon you, And be gracious to you; 26 The LORD lift up His countenance upon you, And give you peace. (Num. 6:24–26, NKJ)

This benediction was to be recited verbatim as the blessing the priests were to give, a prewritten prayer directly from God.

Conclusion:

This is the pattern Christian worship follows for the reasons mentioned earlier in the book. These prayers, taken directly from the Bible, allow the Christian to directly pray the Bible. And even when they are not taken directly from the Bible, they are based on biblical themes with biblical symbolism.

These prayers, taken directly from the Bible, allow the Christian to directly pray the Bible. And even when they are not taken directly from the Bible, they are based on biblical themes with biblical symbolism.

Once again, this is not to dismiss spontaneous prayer out of hand. Having experience with prewritten prayers, one will begin to think with a certain structure and cadence so that even when one prays spontaneously, it will sound as if it were prewritten. This gives rise to true spontaneity and freedom.

As stated, anything can be misused, spontaneous prayers or prewritten prayers, but the misuse of something does not negate the truth or original benefit of it. It is not the fault of prewritten prayers that they can and have been misused.

*The preceding material is taken from: Fr. Paul A. F. Castellano, As It Is in Heaven: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Introduction to the Traditional Church and Her Worship, Appendix C: 277-286.