In particular Luther, from a partial adherence to old ideas, came to entertain the notion of what he termed consubstantiation: he held that the body and blood of Christ substantially existed in the sacrament, though not alone, but united with the bread and wine; so that both the one and the other were taken by the communicants. This approached so near to the popish doctrine, it so naturally led to all the same consequences, that we cannot wonder at its being rejected by Zuinglius, and other eminent Reformers (Sermon VII).
This is also very evident in his summary of John 6, "the eating of Christ there mentioned, was only spoken in a spiritual and figurative sense", and his declaration that "our church ... believes a real, but a sacramental presence" (note in Sermon V). While Le Mesurier's rejection of consubstantiation was a standard High Church stance, the positive reference to Zwingli (while historically accurate) was less so. It does, however, emphasise how the traditional High Church account of Eucharistic teaching was definitively Reformed.
Alongside this, was the equally traditional expression of High Church teaching on the efficacy of Baptism:
As to the sacraments also, the evangelical clergy seem in their ideas to fall very short of the doctrine contained in our liturgy and articles. They will not allow that regeneration takes place in baptism (Additional notes).
This was hardly a matter of controversy in terms of classical Reformed theology. As Zanchi had declared:
Can the ministers of baptism also be said to truly baptize ... to wash away sins and to regenerate? I respond, yes in every way ... sacramentally, that is, as they administer the sacraments, through whom Christ himself cleanses, regenerates, as through an instrument.
In other words, the High Church understanding of Baptism was classically Reformed, compatible with the Second Helvetic Confession:
For inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit and outwardly we receive the assurance of the greatest gifts in the water, by which also those great benefits are represented, and, as it were, set before our eyes to be beheld.
When it came to the Eucharist, Le Mesurier's criticisms of "the evangelical clergy" were confined to "irregularities" in colonial territories, of clerics "when only in deacon 's orders" who "administer the sacrament". He describes this as "a contempt of established order". This, of course, does have doctrinal significance, as Christ "appointed a particular description of men to be 'dispensers of those mysteries'". Notable by its absence, however, is any criticism from Le Mesurier of the understanding of "the evangelical clergy" regarding the Lord's presence in the Sacrament: there was a shared theology on this matter, the Eucharistic theology of the Swiss Reformation.
The title of today's post is slightly tongue-in-cheek. It is, however, suggestive of how the High Church tradition was fundamentally Reformed.
And that the classical sacramental theology of the Swiss Reformation had and has much, much more in common with the Old High Church tradition than it did with early 19th century revivalists or many early 21st century evangelicals.
I'm curious how baptismal regeneration could exist within a Reformed framework. If every baptized person is regenerated, then wouldn't that mean he is among the elect (i.e., saved)? And if elect, then he is unable to lose his salvation, given the Reformed doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Thus, all that would be needed to ensure election is to be baptized, which is nothing I've ever heard from a Reformed person.
ReplyDeleteI think we need to begin with recognition that 'Reformed' was always a contested category. Predestination did not play the same role in all Reformed theologies, and was not given the same expression. Similarly, there were a range of ways in which the relationship between Baptism and regeneration was expressed. Thus Davenant:
Delete"That the justification, regeneration, adoption, which we admit does belong to baptized infants, is not univocally the same with that justification, regeneration, and adoption, which we say is never lost with regard to the matter of the saints’ perseverance".
What is clear is that a range of Reformed theologies held together both beliefs in predestination and a relationship between Baptism and regeneration.
I’m wondering if the old high church or the high church party viewed images the same way as the Reformed on the continent.
ReplyDeleteA good question. I would characterise the traditional High Church position as a via media between Lutheranism and the Swiss Reformation. There was the shared Reformation rejection of the adoration of images with an acceptance of some forms of imagery that was less than the Lutherans but more than the Swiss. So E.H. Browne's classic Old High commentary on the Articles both declares that "the iconoclastic spirit of the Puritans was fuller of zeal than of judgment" while also affirming:
Delete"But when we know, that the common people are taught to bow down before statues
of His saints and angels; though we are told that they make prayers, not to the images, but to those of which they are images, yet we ask , wherein does such worship differ from idolatry?"