Hypostatic Union, Imputation at the Cross and Forensic Justification ...

The connection between the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures of Christ and Objective Justification at the Cross is the connection between the Person and Work of Christ. The Person of Christ cannot be separated from His Work. That there is an "additional union" between the Hypostatic Union and Christ's Work cannot be denied.

The question is, what kind of union is this? The fact of the union is established by virtue of Christ assuming the role of a Mediator and Intercessor for the human race. The defining issue is what is the mode of this type of union, i.e. between His Person and Work?

To determine the mode and effect of the union, there must needs be an understanding or at least an appreciation that the Catholic faith compels us to recognise that the concept of the 'Person' has priority and primacy over the concept of "Nature". This is clear from Holy Scripture and the creedal tradition of the Church which speak of Three Distinct Persons forming the Godhead. The "Substance" of God which is identified with the Godhead (i.e. the "unitive principle" of the Trinity) is equivalent to the Nature of God or the characteristics of Divinity such as omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. And this "Nature" or "Substance", otherwise known as "Essence" is primarily and principally possessed or "embodied" by God the Father Almighty Who is identified as the epistemological and ontological starting-point.

Since the Father is the Sole Ingenerate Source and Cause of the Godhead, this means that the same unitary Substance or Essence of the First Person is possessed by the Other Two Persons wholly and simultaneously in Themselves through immanent generation and procession: The Father has the Substance in its fulness, the Son likewise and the Holy Spirit likewise. The identity of the Essence makes it impossible for the Trinity to exist without One of the Persons included. The absolute uniqueness of the Triune Personhood makes it impossible for the One to be collapsed into the Other without confusing Nature with Person. The implication of this truth is that vis-a-vis God, Person determines Nature, not vice-versa. By the term 'determined', it is emphatically meant that the particularising characteristics of the Person gives concrete expression to the manifestation of the Nature in all its attributes. It is the Person of the Father Who wills to elect a Church in His beloved Son, that is, infallibly and efficaciously cause to happen the immutable and unchangeable salvation of certain individuals through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The 'will' inheres in Divine Nature as an attribute possessing potentiality, but It (i.e. the Divine Nature) does not act or operate from within Itself but that the power (dunamis) is animated, demonstrated or instantiated (energeia), i.e. given a mode of expression by the Triune Persons.

Now, the primacy and priority of Person over Nature as epitomised by the Chalcedonian Definition has implications for how we are to understand the Incarnation and Atonement.

(To be cont. ...)

Letter to the English Churchman on High Churchmen and Puritans

Dear Sir,

The Rev. John J. Harding's review of 'Wesley and Men who Followed' (EC 7631) was balanced and highly commendable. If I may, I would like to contribute a bit to the whole issue of hyper-Calvinism versus genuine Calvinism. It is one of the greatest ironies of historical theology that the specific doctrinal view on the salvific will of God in relation to the non-elect as held by the 'high churchmen' in the Elizabethan Church and the Caroline divines would come to be shared by the successors of the puritan separatists. Both the 'popish' churchmen and puritans shared a common pastoral concern, including the need to combat antinomianism (a perversion of Reformation theology).

In due time however, the dogmatic significance of the decretive (i.e. predestinating or secret) will of God (based on His foreknowledge) - as understood within puritan circles - would be diminished in favour of His preceptive (i.e. revelatory/revealed) will. The latter term was to be redefined - due to Amyraldian influences within 17th century mainstream Calvinism - and hence misused to mean a divine intention or optative will, co-existing alongside the eternal and unchangeable predestinating will in the essence of the Three Hypostases.

Already such a notion of a two-fold will of God is to be found in Richard Hooker who was no father of 'Anglo-Catholicism' and whose ceremonial views were mild by the standards of Caroline divinity. Churchmen like him represented - at the height of the Predestinarian Consensus of the Reformed English Church during the Elizabethan period - the 'fringe' or minority whereas the disciplinarian archbishop, John Whitgift clearly belonged to the mainstream alongside the moderate puritan William Perkins. Toplady in his 'Historic Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England', though prejudiced against the pre-1662 Laudians (influenced by the account of Peter Heylyn the polemicist), nevertheless was correct in his overall historical assessment which identifies one of the distinctive features of the Lambeth Articles (1595) as positing the desire of God to save only the elect.

The spectrum of theological views within the Church of England was to change drastically with the accession of James 1, with sacramental-minded churchmen like John Overall who were more inclined towards the non-Reformed Protestants, i.e. Lutherans (by then heading in a scholastic direction: essentially, post-Luther Lutheranism as embodied by Lutheran Orthodoxy subsided into a single predestinarian theology) gaining prominence (in tandem with the rise of Reformed scholasticism in Continental Europe which consolidated the double predestinarian system commonly associated with John Calvin). The ecumenical endeavours of the Presbyterian-born King James 1 had already eroded the so-called rigid Calvinism of the mainstream within the Church. More concessions in the interest of reconciliation with the Lutherans at the Synod of Dordt, including also accommodating the views of the Bremen churches - on the sufficiency of the atonement - muddied the theological waters of English Calvinism.

The Caroline divines, notwithstanding the liberal appropriation of medieval scholastic and even Tridentine terminology to express their sacramental theology were mostly single predestinarians and upheld justification by faith alone, in stark contrast to John Wesley (the 18th century high churchman) who despite puritan upbringing denied election (never mind reprobation), conceived justification as purely acquittal from guilt (declarative minus imputation) and was known to have denied the perseverance of the saints (contradicting Articles 11, 16 and 17), in common with Roman Catholicism. Such heterodoxy does not fall, historically speaking - within the broad spectrum of classical Protestantism, notwithstanding Wesley's evangelistic reputation and therefore any ecclesiastical relations with Arminian churches must derogate from the traditional Reformed policy as formulated at the holy ecumenical synod of Dordt (1617-1618).

Letter to the English Churchman on Canon Law, and Sacramental & Liturgical Theology

Dear Sir
Re: Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) and all that ...

I would like to follow up on the front page article of EC 7628, and David Relf's letter (EC 7629) concerning canon law, the Gorham case and the Deposited Prayer-Book respectively.

Firstly, the See of Rome does not recognise the canon law of the Church of England and - alongside with it - the episcopal credentials of its 'apostolic succession' (e.g. Apostolicae Curae, 1897) precisely because of the break of communion between the two. However, the Reformed English Church inherited her pre-Reformation canon law substantially intact with significant modification (i.e. the procedural discipline and material corpus are now grounded in royal authority, and indirectly, Parliament's legislation for their enforcement, e.g. through the Act of Uniformity, 1559).

Secondly, the Gorham decision at the Privy Council demonstrated that the appellant (i.e. Rev. George Cornelius Gorham) agreed with the Bp. of Exeter (i.e. Henry Philpotts) as to the 'ordinary connection' between the grace of the Holy Spirit and the Sacrament of Baptism (cf. Article 25). They also shared a common notion of Regeneration (as instantaneous/an event which excludes a priori experience and eludes subjective description).

Where they differed was to the timing of Regeneration, i.e. whether 'ORIGINAL' prevenient grace was bound to Baptism or not in respect of infants. The answer depended on the role of Baptism and, by extension, the scope of baptismal efficacy which - the old-fashioned High Churchman (albeit POST-1662/Arminian) - Philpotts construed as applying ex opere operato (i.e. invariably) though without the concomitance of 'renovation' (i.e. inner change) or 'conversion' (the mutual inclusiveness of both is held by Roman, Tractarian and Calvinist alike), which means Baptismal Regeneration, according to this theory (also held by the first two traditions) is informed by ecclesiastical election ('monergistic') but 'final salvation' is based on God's foreknowledge of who will persevere to the end('synergistic'). Only Calvinists like Gorham limited Regeneration in Baptism (if it occurs during the administration of the rite) to elect infants only because the order of salvation (ordo salutis) is grounded in sovereign predestination, thus, making the entire 'chain of salvation' (in ordinary LOGICAL, as distinguished from temporal, sequence) inseparable: Election, Regeneration, Calling, Conversion (Definitive Sanctification), Faith (& Repentance), Baptism, Justification, Sanctification/Conversion, Glorification.

Thirdly, the Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) attempted to redress Roman proclivities on ecumenical and devotional issues within a liturgical context. Thus, the aim was to maintain so-called Anglican comprehensiveness whilst supressing illegal practices through pastoral methods within the Prayer-Book tradition. It included prominently the formulation of an alternative Eucharistic (Consecration) Prayer ('a Canon within Canon') drafted by scholars like Walter Howard Frere (Bp. of Truro) who looked to the 'East' (both early and Byzantine), the 1549 'Invocation' and subsequent 'epicleses' (e.g. 1637, 1764) - of the 'greater Anglican tradition' of which the Caroline divines were the best representatives in the terms of the catholic heritage of the Church - for inspiration and resources.

It was conceived as a liturgical measure (backed by ecclesiastical sanction) partly to rein in on popular abuses associated either with 'Transubstantiation' or a locaLISED (not 'local') presence - and the concomitant theory of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass - according to extreme Anglo-Catholic gloss of the Words of Institution (WOI: Narrative component) in 1662 Office.

Perhaps a possible strategy by classical Anglicans (i.e. Prayer-Book evangelicals) in 1927 to counter 'Anglo-Catholic influence was to reclaim the liturgical inheritance of the Caroline divines or PRE-1662 Laudians, i.e. Reformation High-Church Protestants (the majority of which, with the exception Jeremy Taylor, held to single predestination and forensic justification, including the venerable Abps. William Laud and Richard Neile of York) who with the moderate Puritan divines shared a common concern for the inclusion of an explicit Invocation and restoration of manual acts in conjunction with the WOI (the latter of which was to be incorporated at the Savoy Conference, 1661). The liturgical divergence was in the treatment of the WOI, i.e. whether set within the context of a prayer (which the Prayer-Book tradition undeniably places it) or in a mono-didactic role (as in Continental Reformed and Presbyterian traditions).

The notion of an epiclesis alongside the WOI gives full expression to the intent of the Church to commemorate the Lord's Supper in the words and action of the liturgy. God the Father is invoked to send down His Spirit to 'bless (or approve) and sanctify (or set apart) these gifts of bread and wine' in hypostatic union and conjunction with the (written) Word 'so that these may be unto us (by faith) the Body and Blood of Christ'. This is where the sanctification of the species/elements and people is concentrated at the point immediately prior to reception.

Implicit in this invocation is the Eucharist primarily as a divine action in which the human response (i.e. gratitude) is set within the 'use' (presentation/oblation-prayer/invocation sequence and communion/reception) of the sacramental species which includes a 'pleading' - by the COMMON priesthood - of the merits of the 'one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross', as per Article 31 through locating the post-communion offertory of praise and thanksgiving (sacrificium laudis) after the Invocation/epiclesis. This is distinguished sharply from the mainstream Anglo-Catholic 'co-offering' with Christ of His perpetual heavenly sacrifice.

Whether the placement of the 'epiclesis' is before or after the WOI and Oblation/anamnesis is insignificant if 'Calvinistic' sacramental theology of the Real Presence (both Calvin's and Cranmer's Virtualism) as representing the best of mature Anglican reflection in the Eucharist is again asserted in its rightful place in the Communion Office 'configurated' by the supplemental components of Sursum Corda, Sanctus, Prayer of Humble Access, Lord's Prayer, Gloria in exclesis Deo, etc. Note too that Westminster Puritanism in its 1645 Directory for Public Worship contains a similar invocation (last paragraph of the prayer), albeit outside the perimeters of its Narrative component.

Lastly, however, I am bound my reverence to our Protestant forefathers, including the then Conservative MP, William Joynson-Hicks (later Lord Brentford) and its authentic contemporary embodiment in the Church of England (Continuing) to 'reject' the Deposited Prayer-Book (1927) as an alternative to the BCP (1662).

Coming Up Next ...

Triadology ...

• Augustinian Filioquism and Byzantine Monarchianism - A Synthesis in the Ordo Theologiae?

Christology ...

• Hypostatic Union and Imputation
• Christ's sinlessness and Original Sin

Soteriology ...

• The salvific will of God
• Eucharist, Justification and Sanctification

Letter to the English Churchman on Justice and Just War

Sir,
Re: Justifiability & Justification

If I may, I would like to contribute to the debate on the legitimacy of the recent conflict in Iraq but from the pro-war perspective on a wholly non-party political standing as it ought to be conducted. I write in defence of the British Government’s decision to adopt military action against Iraq in the event of the latter’s final refusal to 'fully comply' with its obligations under international law as sponsored by the United Nations Organisation and delegated, on the general issue of world peace & security, to the Security Council as expressed in Resolution 1441 (2002). This resolution unambiguously recognises the threat that 'Iraq’s non-compliance' on the specific issue of 'weapons of mass destruction (WMD)' poses to international security; and recalls the previous resolution (678) authorising Member-States to 'use all necessary means to uphold and implement' Resolution 660.

The inventory of resolutions (which includes 687 of 1991 on terrorism also) stacked up against Iraq serves only to demonstrate the determination of the Security Council to enforce its rulings in view of persistent Iraqi breaches of UN resolutions. As such, Iraq was continually guilty of the formal breach of failure to disclose or account for its stockpile of WMD (negative aspect) and sought to obstruct the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and objectives of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) at every possible turn (positive aspect). The invasion of Kuwait by Saddam on the 2nd August 1990 was the occasion for the formal exposure – in the court of international consensus - of his crimes against humanity in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and its campaign of terror and genocide.

Therefore, I sincerely and wholeheartedly believe in the legitimacy (in terms of international law) and rightfulness (in terms of the moral dimension) of the cause as assumed by the Prime Minister, and hence that the risk he took was not in vain. Furthermore, I would argue that the war against Iraq and its subsequent reconstruction are two separate issues. Indeed, the response of the Iraqis at the downfall of Saddam provides the verifiable proof of the difference. The implication is that the post-conflict (i.e. reconstruction) phase in Iraq is eroding public confidence in the integrity of the US and UK governments’ claims in pursuing military intervention.

A more important issue than the justifiability of the war on Iraq is the doctrine of justification. The clarity in the sphere of the political cause stands in contrast to the theological confusion promoted by modern-day jesters (satirically speaking) in evangelical Protestantism today. I refer to the likes of schizophrenic two-faced J. I. Packer (Puritan Anglican), Charles Colson (Southern Baptist) and John H. Rodgers (charismatic Anglican), etc. in exploring and engaging in ecumenical relations – in particularly with the Roman Church through joint-statements and cooperation that undermine the 16th century Reformation’s insistence that justification by faith alone is the 'article by which the church stands or falls' (Luther) and the 'hinge upon which religion turns' (Calvin).

On the academic front, miscreants like J. D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, etc. are claiming to have recovered the authentic Pauline emphasis on justification by its treatment under ecclesiology (in relation to the visible church), rather than christology (in relation to Christ’s person and work, and His mystical body). The assault aims at the dilution of the Biblical teaching of the imputation of the acquired (i.e. human or 'functional') righteousness of Christ alone in hypostatic union with His divine, i.e. ontological or essential nature in One Person or Ego Who in space and time became the once-for-all Sacrifice on the Cross for the remission of sin (original and actual). The definition of justification as the free and gracious act of God upon the guilty man or sinner by pronouncing him as 'not guilty' on the account of the merits of a Substitute, i.e. it is a forensic declaration/definitive event and not a process which is initiated by the infusion of grace or the exercise of faith is despised as deficient or inadequate.

And then you have Norman Shepherd and 'Auburn Avenue' theology promoting the idea that the definition of 'faith' itself includes obedience, i.e. active perseverance, instead of a mental assent to the truths of the Gospel, an exclusive gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the elect sinner.

The antidote against justification by faith plus X-factor is holding fast to the Reformed Faith as compressed in the Doctrines of Grace and the particularism inherent therein, maintaining always that the doctrine of the (temporal) church is informed by the doctrine of (eternal) election and reprobation. To God alone belongs the glory. Amen.

Unpublished Letter to the English Churchman on the FoG

Dear Sir,
Re: The Free Offer of the Gospel

The crux of the issue on the FoG rests upon its definition, which is whether or not God sincerely desires (acc. to His 'preceptive', i.e. revealed will) the salvation of all men without exception, especially of those who hear the preaching of the Gospel: the WHAT is to be preached rather than the HOW which is disputed by e.g. the Gospel Standard folks.

The refusal or reluctance to EXTEND (i.e. the 'how') the call or command of repentance and faith to all men indiscriminately for fear of compromising the doctrine of total depravity (vis-a-vis natural ability) is neither Scriptural nor Reformed. Calling upon a non-sensible (i.e. unregenerate) sinner to repent and exercise faith on the Lord Jesus Christ which is his duty does NOT imply ability.

That there is a distinction between the two calls (i.e. external and internal) is not a NECESSARY inference that the former imperative (or even a conditional clause, e.g. Gen 4:7) is indicative of a will of God to save the non-elect just like belief in the 'indelible character' of the baptismal rite does not imply belief in an 'internal sealing' (i.e. mark) on the soul which is the Romish teaching of the ex opere operato efficacy of sacramentally infused grace.

Historically, the majority of Reformed divines (incl. mainstream predestinarian theology in the Church of England, cf. Toplady's *Works*) have consistently denied a 'universal saving will' of God, positing instead, in consonance with the Augustinian tradition, a single (apropos of the decretive) will in God, thus interpreting passages such as 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 as referring to the catholic Body of Christ viz. all men without DISTINCTION, i.e. from all kinds of background.

The preceptive will of God therefore, refers to the revelation of 'what men ought to do' mediated through e.g. preaching and by extension, the external calling (confer e.g. pg. 45, chapter V, 'A Display of Arminianism', vol. 10, Works of John Owen, and pg. 453-454, section XI, chap. XXV, vol. 2, Historical Theology, W. Cunningham). Consult also Calvin's Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God on page 118 and his Institutes (sec. 16-17, chap. XXIV, Bk. III); and ppg. 195-197, Bk. I on the impassiblity of God, in answer to Mr. W. F. Spanner (EC 7594).

The principles of traditional Reformed hermeneutics vis-a-vis the Will of God is enshrined in Articles 1 ('without passions'), 17 (note the two-fold distinction between the secret and revealed will) and 20 (Scripture does not contradict itself) of the 39 AoR. See also the WCF. sec 1 and 2, chap. II.

Classical Reformed theology has always been concerned to safeguard the unity, simplicity and immutability of God (viz. the purity and perfection of the essence of God, i.e. His absolute holy Sovereignty) which is (implicitly) ignored by modern mainstream Calvinism, and establish the 'judicial' basis (material and formal) of salvation. This is why historically the proponents of the FoG either held to universal (e.g. Richard Hooker, the Amyraldians etc.) or a double-reference atonement (e.g.the Marrow-men).

Unpublished Letter to the English Churchman on Divorce and Remarriage

"What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder' ...

Dear Sir,
Re: Divorce and Remarriage in Holy Scripture and Tradition

This letter is not a condemnation of those who differ from the views of Mr. J. F. Burrows on divorce and remarriage but a humble and sincere plea that the Word of God on the issue be considered afresh.

The teaching of the Early (i.e. the first four centuries, incl. Eastern) and Medieval (i.e. pre-Reformation) Western Church are reflected in the consensus patri (viz. Church fathers) whereby marriage was regarded as an unbreakable or indissoluble bond (vinculum) which was broken or dissolved only upon the death of one spouse. The Early Church was virtually unanimous on this issue (with very few exceptions, contrary to the Catholic understanding of the teaching of Christ as handed down by the Apostles).

The Church of England maintained the 'indissolubist' view of marriage which was enshrined in canon 107 (The Constitution and Canons Ecclesiastical, 1603) and in that respect differed from the continental Reformed Churches and the majority of the Protestant Reformers; and legal separation a thoro et mensa (i.e. a 'divorce' NOT amounting to a right to remarry) remained its OFFICIAL position until only recently (i.e. 1970s). In response to Mr. Alan Bartley: Cases of nobility and the wealthy seeking full divorce (which is usually brought about by an Act of Parliament, e.g. the Lord Ross case, 1669) and opinions expressed by the laity do not alter that fact. Also, the apostate Roman Church did not depart from the Catholic view but reaffirmed it at the Council of Trent (1563), canon VII (24th session).

I would urge that the classical evangelical exegesis of Matthew 19 (i.e. the Christic as opposed to the rabbinical exposition) be re-examined. It is clear that DIVORCE (i.e. putting away) is only permitted on grounds of adultery (i.e. sexual sin on the part of the guilty spouse) in response to the Pharisaical (trap) question; and Christ immediately adds - in typical proleptic and terse manner in verse 9 - that REMARRIAGE on the part of the innocent spouse constitutes adultery and not just the person who marries the guilty spouse who has been divorced! The force of logic implicit in the 'exception clause' (of Matt. 19:9) is that the marriage bond is still intact. Cf. Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39 on the absolute prohibition of REMARRIAGE during the lifetime of the other spouse.

For Christians, marriage is mirrored in the love of Christ (the divine Bridegroom) for the Church, His Bride (Ephesians 5:23-33) which is ultimately grounded in the intra-Trinitarian relations of the Being of God (i.e. the perichoresis or mutual indwelling between Father and Son with the Holy Spirit as the vinculum amoris, i.e. BOND of love as the 'archetypal' Covenant relationship.

Letter to the English Churchman on Lent (Part 2)

Dear Sir,
Re: Lent and the Regulative Principle of Worship

It is unfair of Mr. Cyril Blackstock to smear the Anglican observance of Lent with the celebration of the Mardi Gras carnival associated with ordinary Roman Catholics. Such abuses at the grass-roots level does not represent the official teaching of the Roman Church albeit tolerated, as with other common errors, by the hierarchy alongside other absurdities (e.g. the case of the Marian apparition appearing on a pancake after recital of the Novena by a rosary practitioner on Shrove Tuesday). However, even the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia was consistent in its extreme caution about Marian apparitions in Medjugorje and the Vatican has issued a public ban on pilgrimages to some supposed sites and shrines (Notification by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1974).

Nonetheless, for the Protestant to insist for a scriptural imperative for every practice by the Church - divorced from its environment - is unwarranted by the Bible itself and Church history (see Romans 14 on feast days and diet, 1 Corinthians 11 on the essential shape of the Eucharistic Liturgy --- common or individual cups? leavened or unleavened bread?, chap. 14 on the principles of worship --- instrumental accompaniment?, Acts 2 about meeting places for worship and frequency of communion --- church buildings?, chap. 6 with respect to the first ordering of deacons, chap. 12 about allusion to Jewish feast days in the apostolic church etc.). In these instances, there were no specific divine mandate regulating or forbidding non-essential/accidental customs but that they were either grounded on earlier precedents or arose out of the exigency of circumstances.

In fact, such insistence is analogous to the Roman’s & Byzantine’s demand e.g. that their peculiar formulation of the Quam oblationem and Epiklesis respectively is an integral prayer or petition/invocation in the Canon of the Mass or Liturgy that complements the Words of Institution either before its recitation by a benediction upon the species of bread and wine in preparation for the act of consecration ('Western') or the 'moment' thereof (after the Anaphora, i.e. Offering) when they are released back to the Church to be “manifested” as the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ (Eastern). ('Transubstantiation' and elevation are condemned in Article 28).

Lent pre-dates the rise of the papacy and is independent of any pagan connotation. Rather, it is the so-called Orange Orders (both the Established and Independent) that are imbued with pagan rituals and Freemasonry. They are also linked by cross-membership with other esoteric societies that are in continuity with medieval secular orders whose original mission was not propagation of the Gospel but to advance the temporal ambitions of the Roman Church. These associations represent the survival of Gnostic heresies and triumph of occult circles in Christendom.

In contrast, Lenten fasting is rooted in Scripture and the example of Christ. The use of ashes from burned palm branches prominent from the 7th century onwards and adopted into the Medieval Church are legalistic mimicries of Old Testament symbolisms; nowhere to be found or sanctioned in the Prayer book and the authentic Anglican tradition (cf. 'Concerning Ceremonies', after the 'Preface' to the Book of Common Prayer).

The fervency with which classical Anglicans and successors of the Puritan separatists (i.e. pre- & post-1662) disagree on the Regulative Principle of Worship should not mean that one side should attempt to 'impose' their local tradition on the other nor should it detract from the broad liturgical spectrum that historically existed within classical Protestantism, viz. Reformed Orthodoxy and confessional Lutheranism, thus reflecting the catholicity of the Reformation Churches.

And despite internal diversity on some doctrinal issues also, there is a common and unified front over-against Rome and Constantinople (both the Chalcedon Patriarchates and the “non-canonical” Assyrian/Nestorian and Coptic/Monophysite Churches). Not only have these churches erred but grievously so on the issue of justification by faith alone resting upon the twin pillars of the total depravity of man and the absolute sovereignty of God.

May the true Church of Christ in this realm continue to guard the deposit of truth and contend against all errors supported by genuine Protestant societies in the propagation of Reformation principles, promotion of the Reformed Faith and defence of the British Constitution.

Letter to the English Churchman on Lent (Part 1)

Dear Sir,
Re: Lent

We appreciate the remarks made by Mr. Cyril Blackstock about the origins of the (penitential season of) Lent. However, its history predates the rise of the papacy and is rooted in the observance of Easter/Paschal Sunday by the early Christian communities, i.e. the 'Lencten' (Anglo-Saxon for 'spring'; the Latin equivalent: 'quadragesima' and Greek: 'tessarokoste' means '40') season was originally an expansion of the pre-vigil fasting discipline prior to the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ on Sunday which eventually became the prevalent practice in the Catholic Church in contrast to the 14th Nisan/Jewish Passover/Paschal following the Babylonian lunar calendar of the Asia Minor churches. This is significant for it represents the mature understanding of the early Church concerning the fulfilment of Old Testament prototypes by New Testament antitypes. The 40-day period of fasting or partial abstinence from food became regularised by the time of Nicea (1), 325 A.D which also fixed the 'date' of Easter in the liturgical calendar - representing the triumph of Christian religion over paganism in the Roman Empire - as invariably succeeding the full moon of the vernal equinox of the year.

The imposition of a (system of) penitential-fasting discipline upon the consciences of the faithful – as is the case in the Roman Catholic Church by the Pope (embodying the Magisterium) in e.g. Canon 1251 (Code of Canon Law, 1983) – is not only contrary to Scripture and the primitive Faith but the liturgical tradition of the Church of England (e.g. note the absence of a ritual directive but only the Collects and Scripture readings as ordered according to the Prayer-book). 1 Timothy 4 (note the word, 'command' in verse 3) is to be read in tandem with Romans 14 which deals precisely with the pastoral issues of feast days and diet. Observance of the church calendar stripped of medieval accretions and superstition is an issue of the authority and right by a branch of Christ’s Church to regulate its non-doctrinal customs (ref. Article XXXIV) so long as they are “not repugnant to the Word of God”.

The heresy is observing Lent - a complex of ritual stages - in conjunction with the so-called Sacrament of Penance, and in preparation for Baptism and Confirmation as an integral progress towards our justification before (or a means of obtaining forgiveness from) God through the Church versus the commemoration of (and by extension, participation in) the 'mysteries of salvation' - accomplished once-for-all in the life and ministry of Our Lord 'made present' in these sacred cycles of the church calendar - accompanied by genuine repentance (i.e. 'inward fasting') and prayer in recognition of the free mercy and sovereign grace of God in forgiving sins (see Ash Wednesday Collect). It is the difference between 'grace plus works' and 'grace alone/only' religion. The invocation (i.e. direct impetration) of saints condemned in Article XXII is another perversion whereby prominent saints in Heaven are reduced to departmental deities or secondary mediators. It is these so-called pious practices rampant in modern Anglicanism that represents the reintroduction of paganism in Christendom.

The Church of England (Continuing) - with the exception of the Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church in the American scene – is the only authentic classical Anglican jurisdiction that upholds the Gospel (Ephesians 2:8, 2 Thessalonians 2, 2 Timothy 3, 1 Corinthians 1:21-24, Romans 9 etc.).