felix hominum

A quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury

That pestilent and most wretched John Wycliffe, of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of anti-Christ…crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue!

Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury (d 1414), on the Synod which condemned Wycliffe's supervision of the translation of the Bible into English.

Wycliffe’s “Wickett” (small and narrow gate) - his defense of the enterprise...

[God] shows everywhere that all men should repent, and because of this all the legalistic clerics which have been ever against God the Lord, both in the old law and the new, find it necessary to kill the prophets that speak to them the word of God. You see that they spared not the Son of God, when the earthly judge would have released him (Matt 27) and in the same way they treated the apostles and martyrs that have truly spoken the word of God to them.

And they say it is heresy to express the holy scripture in English, but in saying so they would condemn the Holy Ghost who gave tongues to Christ’s apostles so they could speak the word of God in all languages that were ordained of God under heaven.

On Tuesday evenings we are doing a course on the Reformation and its antecedents.  I'll be putting up the choicest highlights every once in a while.

Briefly on church councils

One of the few pleasures of having been off sick for a few days was making my way through Leo Donald Davis' "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology".  It is really one of the first major works in English to try to grasp the whole movement of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.  It was first published in 1983.  It covers an era of church history which is now gone; and the church of that era should be subject to neither nostalgia nor contempt.  It might well be said that it covers an era when "doing church" (to use modern jargon) was so much different.  Can we even think of what it might mean to have a truly "ecumenical" council?  A time and place and occasion when the whole church, or at least representatives of the whole church, could gather to discuss, and might I add, to decide?  Sounds marvelous in theory, but in practice:

On the night of February 8, 356, imperial troops broke into the Church of Theonas, where Athanasius, surrounded by his clergy and consecrated virgins, was conducting a vigil service.  As the arrows flew and the dead and wounded fell, his clergy hurried the reluctant bishop from his throne and Athanasius dropped completely from sight.  In the next year George of Cappadocia ceremoniously entered the sullen city to be enthroned as the new bishop.  He soon unleashed a reign of terror against Athanasius' supporters while on the side organizing profitable monopolies in pork, salt, papyrus and funeral arrangements.  In the desert, moving from one hiding place to another, welcomed by the monks, never once betrayed by his people, Athanasius remained the religious leader of Egypt, pouring out a steady flood of well-informed books and pamphlets defending the Nicene faith.  (pp 93-94)

Well, there you have it.

A few Anglicans have been having councils recently:

Bishop Donald Harvey's charge to the Anglican Network in Canada Synod in Burlington
Conservative clergy unveil new plan (Toronto Star online)

Diocese of Quincy ends affiliation with the Episcopal Church (US), and joins Southern Cone
Fort Worth Diocese (US) is on the "verge of secession"

Over at Dean Robin's blog there is a letter posted from the bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rupert's Land; here is a snippet:

We call on all individuals within our Province who have aligned themselves with outside groups to return to their parish family and enter into open and respectful dialogue with us about how their concerns can be addressed and their gifts utilized more fully in the proclamation of the Gospel and the building up of the Kingdom of God.

May the Holy Spirit fill your hearts and lives with joy as you prepare for the season of Advent when we anticipate the celebration of the birth of our Lord Jesus as Saviour of the world and await his return in glory as the Judge of that same world.

As a side note, I find that often the first casualty in "church" discussions is Acts 23:5:  And Paul said, ‘I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.” ’

Virgil's Aeneid: new post series

Now that one election is over, and another one is going to soon take place, I thought this an appropriate time to have a casual stroll through the Aeneid of Virgil.  The idea of doing a series on the Aeneid struck me as an eventual possibility after last Lent's series on Dante's journey through the Inferno.  Dante found himself guided through the circles of hell by the wise Poet, who represented the best in humanism, in reason, and philosophy (Dante giving Aristotle the title of "king of men who know" notwithstanding).  It was at that point I thought that I would sometime turn the blog toward Virgil and the ancient tradition of humanism.  It might help explain why Virgil could not accompany Dante into the Paradiso, much as we might like to have such company in heaven.

Plus, I thought that Virgil's opening line is perfect for election season.  What makes for a leader of an empire?  What, indeed, makes an empire? Virgil wrote in the time of Augustus, and he died shortly before the birth of Christ.  Many have looked to Virgil's imagery of the founding of a divine empire as the model of political evolution:  Rome would rule the world by law, and bring even the barbarians under the sway of the rational principle.  Others have disagreed.  St Augustine, writing in the City of God, reduces Aeneas to little more than a pirate, cruising the seas in search of power - libido dominandi - lust for power and domination.  In any event, the first line of the poem introduces the themes:  the man Aeneas (refugee from fallen Troy) and the arms which will bring glory to Rome and stability to the world:

Arma virumque cano
Of arms and a man I sing

I haven't decided which translation to use for the blog series, but I'm sure I'll let you all know.

Roman ruins, theatre, Hieropolis

photo: felix hominum

View entire series on the Aeneid here.

Patristics Blog Carnival XVI is up

over at HYPEREKPERISSOU. There are a great number of links there, and I'd encourage folks who are involved in our Tuesday evening study of the early church to head over and click through a few links.

Cyprian on the Unity of the Church pt 8; (two parishes and a diocese decide to break away)

Back to our good friend St Cyprian, toiling away under the pressures of his day.  Meanwhile in our day, two more parishes have decided to leave the Anglican Church of Canada, and an entire diocese decides to take the exit door from the Episcopal Church.  In Canada, we have this story:

"We are aligning with the worldwide Anglican church," said Rev. Sandy Copland of the Church of St. Peter in Hamilton, which was part of the Niagara diocese.

"It's the Canadian church or parts of it that have broken away."  Votes were held at St. Peter and St. George's in Ottawa on Sunday, with overwhelming majorities. At St. Peter, 42 voted in favour and one was opposed. At St. George's, the vote was 130 in favour and 27 opposed.

The churches, and others that have joined the network, believe the Anglican Church of Canada has drifted from core doctrine by taking a more liberal approach to interpreting the  Bible.

    story at the Hamilton Spectator

And south of the border, the diocese of Pittsburgh has decided to remove itself from membership in the Episcopal Church.  I believe the first diocese to do this was San Joaquin, and a few more may make the same move.  Story at the Anglican Journal, and many other places.  Here is the Diocese of Pittsburgh home page.


Well, how is Cyprian doing? 

24. The Holy Spirit warns us, and says, “What man is he that desireth to live, and would fain see good days? Refrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. Eschew evil, and do good; seek peace, and ensue it.” (Psalms)

The son of peace ought to seek peace and ensue it.  He who knows and loves the bond of charity, ought to refrain his tongue from the evil of dissension. Among His divine commands and salutary teachings, the Lord, when He was now very near to His passion, added this one, saying, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.”

He gave this to us as an heritage; He promised all the gifts and rewards of which He spoke through the preservation of peace. If we are fellow-heirs with Christ, let us abide in the peace of Christ; if we are sons of God, we ought to be peacemakers.  “Blessed,” says He, “are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God.”  It behoves the sons of God to be peacemakers, gentle in heart, simple in speech, agreeing in affection, faithfully linked to one another in the bonds of unanimity.

25. This unanimity formerly prevailed among the apostles; and thus the new assembly of believers, keeping the Lord’s commandments, maintained its charity. Divine Scripture proves this, when it says, “But the multitude of them which believed were of one heart and of one soul.”

And again: “These all continued with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.”  And thus they prayed with effectual prayers; thus they were able with confidence to obtain whatever they asked from the Lord’s mercy.


26. But in us unanimity is diminished in proportion as liberality of working is decayed. Then they used to give for sale houses and estates; and that they might lay up for themselves treasures in heaven, presented to the apostles the price of them, to be distributed for the use of the poor. But now we do not even give the tenths from our patrimony; and while our Lord bids us sell, we rather buy and increase our store. Thus has the vigour of faith dwindled away among us; thus has the strength of believers grown weak. And therefore the Lord, looking to our days, says in His Gospel, “When the Son of man cometh, think you that He shall find faith on the earth?”

It is interesting to see the footnote which Cyprian adds to the ills of divisions.  He makes reference to the idealistic vision of Christian community found in the early chapters of the book of Acts.  Apart from the division of heresy/schism, there is the division which is caused by a lack of concrete care one for another in the Christian community.  It used to be, Cyprian tells us, that the first Christians would share their goods, and now we can barely give a tenth of our wealth for the common good.  I'm not sure what Cyprian would have to say about the current state of errr, "stewardship", in our parishes.  Now a question remains: Is this lack of concrete care a symptom, an effect, or a cause of division?  It seems to me that Cyprian is saying it is an outcome of the divisions which have already happened.  Perhaps no relation at all to the current slew of lawsuits and disagreements over assets and property which have overtaken parts of the North American Anglican church.  But I think Cyprian certainly was on to something.  In a divorce, the biggest fight is over the assets.

Backing up a bit, Cyprian tells us that we are supposed to inherit peace as a gift from Christ.  This peace, this unanimity, was present in the first apostolic community (well, at least after Judas left it!).  How can the same peace be present in "the new assembly of believers"?  Only by "keeping the Lord’s commandments".

St Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church

related posts: Cyprian On the Unity of the Church
intro  part 1  part 2  part 3  part 4  part 5  part 6

part 7

Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church, pt 6

One of the great distractions or gifts from God (depending on your outlook) with which those of us who find ourselves Anglican are blessed and saddled with is the notion of "Communion".  In its broadest sense, it refers to the idea that we are "in communion" with our brothers and sisters in this appendage of the body of Christ sometimes known as the Anglican Communion.  Anglicans like to talk about who is "in communion with whom", or who is "not in communion", or who is in "impaired communion" - the image comes to my mind is of someone spilling the cup of wine over your new shirt and tie as you approach the altar rail.

St Cyprian does, I think, suggest that the troublesome questions of "heresy" and "schism" are organically related, although to many modern Anglicans a division between the two can be neatly made and maintained.  If I wake up in the morning to discover that, say, bishop Robert Duncan has been deposed for veering toward ecclesiastical realignment, but that bishop John Spong remains in good standing despite veering toward theological realignment, what should I think?  To put it bluntly, let us say, just pretend now, that the former is veering toward schism, while the latter is veering toward heresy.  I am sure the Episcopal Church has its excellent reasons for proceeding as it does, but to simple folk like myself it looks like a rather selective double standard.  Or perhaps just a memory lapse about what people like St Cyprian have said in the past about the relationship between wrong teaching and the divisions within the Church.

10. Hence heresies not only have frequently been originated, but continue to be so; while the perverted mind has no peace—while a discordant faithlessness does not maintain unity. But the Lord permits and suffers these things to be, while the choice of one’s own liberty remains, so that while the discrimination of truth is testing our hearts and our minds, the sound faith of those that are approved may shine forth with manifest light. The Holy Spirit forewarns and says by the apostle, “It is needful also that there should be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” Thus the faithful are approved, thus the perfidious are detected; thus even here, before the day of judgment, the souls of the righteous and of the unrighteous are already divided, and the chaff is separated from the wheat. These are they who of their own accord, without any divine arrangement, set themselves to preside among the daring strangers assembled, who appoint themselves prelates without any law of ordination, who assume to themselves the name of bishop, although no one gives them the episcopate; whom the Holy Spirit points out in the Psalms as sitting in the seat of pestilence, plagues, and spots of the faith, deceiving with serpent’s tongue, and artful in corrupting the truth, vomiting forth deadly poisons from pestilential tongues; whose speech doth creep like a cancer, whose discourse forms a deadly poison in the heart and breast of every one.

So here we have St Cyprian looking at the divisions of his day - the Novatians who have set themselves up in opposition to the duly elected bishop of Rome, and compounded by the differing attitudes toward questions of church order and discipline.  It might be troubling that "the Lord permits" such things to take place in the church.  Others might delight to see that there is a process of "sifting" which separates the wheat from the chaff.  Or we might simply accept that these things are so, regardless of whether we see how God's providence works "all things for good".  This is perhaps the basic lesson from church history:  this stuff happens.

Now how does one respond?  Apart from the usual pious answers like prayer (and note that pious answers actually work), how does one respond, if one believes, with Cyprian and a host of others, that there is such a thing as a catholic (universal, world wide) Communion?  It may very well be that most of us can simply carry on with business as usual;  such things can either be addressed scornfully as irrelevant to our own lives as Christians, or they may be looked upon as beyond the scope of our concerns - "things too high for me", as the Psalmist says.  I am sure that many of the faithful can and do adhere to either one of those positions.  But as Cyprian points out, there are further questions to be answered:

12. Nor let any deceive themselves by a futile interpretation, in respect of the Lord having said, “Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”  Corrupters and false interpreters of the Gospel quote the last words, and lay aside the former ones, remembering part, and craftily suppressing part: as they themselves are separated from the Church, so they cut off the substance of one section.

For the Lord, when He would urge unanimity and peace upon His disciples, said, “I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth touching anything that ye shall ask, it shall be given you by my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them;” showing that most is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those that pray. “If,” He says, “two of you shall agree on earth:” He placed agreement first; He has made the concord of peace a prerequisite; He taught that we should agree firmly and faithfully.

But how can he agree with any one who does not agree with the body of the Church itself, and with the universal brotherhood? How can two or three be assembled together in Christ’s name, who, it is evident, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel? For we have not withdrawn from them, but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen subsequently, from their establishment for themselves of diverse places of worship, they have forsaken the Head and Source of the truth.

related posts: Cyprian On the Unity of the Church
intro  part 1  part 2  part 3  part 4  part 5

reactions to deposition of bishop Robert Duncan:

Statement of support from the Province of Southeast Asia on the Deposition of the Bishop of Pittsburgh

Statement on Diocese of Pittsburgh's website.

Statement from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church found in this article

Statements of support from Archbishop Mouneer Anis of Jerusalem and the Middle East,  and Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, along with a joint statement archbishops Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone, Drexel Gomez of the West Indies and Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya.

Reactions from a small number other American bishops.

Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church, pt 5

5...The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.  Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,—when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.

Previously Cyprian had written about the "unity of the episcopate" (or bishops) as a focal point for the visible unity of the Church.  Now he extends that unity to the Church as a whole.  The key point here is that "the unity is still preserved in the source".  So what is the source?  It must be only "the light of the Lord".  Any other "source" of unity will result in no unity at all.  And so one might ask:  what do we think of when we think of the unity of the Church?  If it not Christ, then it is not a source of unity.

6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church.

The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.”  He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”  and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”  And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

Here we have one of Cyprian's most famous quotes:  "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother." 

Now we can see a bit of the issues of the day cropping up in Cyprian.  There were the pure (those who remained steadfast under Roman persecution) and then there were the lapsed (those who were apostate, but later asked to be received back into the church after the persecution ended).  This was a thorny issue in the time of Cyprian.  Some thought that only the pure should be admitted to the Church, since the purity of the church was to found in its members, and especially its bishops.  Others held that if the apostate was repentant, then he should be admitted back into the fellowship of the Church.

Cyprian gives strong warnings against anyone who "breaks the peace and the concord of Christ".  The unity of Christ and the Church is also ultimately founded upon the unity of the Father and the Son, and of the unity of the Trinity.  As a side note, if you think that ideas about the Trinity only crop up in a post-Constantine world, just read a few more of the early Fathers and you will see them holding such things in faith.

There are a few ideas to consider here.  Just as the unity of the Church should be found in its leaders (its bishops)  so also Cyprian writes that the holiness of the church should be visible in its members, and most notably we should presume, in its bishops.  On the other hand, it would be fair to reply that just as the unity of the Church is ultimately found in its Lord, so also the holiness and purity of the Church can ultimately only be found in Christ.  Cyprian wrote well before our more modern/ Reformation ideas of the distinction between the visible and invisible church.  I'm not sure he would even recognize those categories as helpful or true.

At any rate, those who pursue "unity" in the Church need also be aware that the unity of the Church is, for Cyprian, linked to its "purity" and "holiness".  While it might be rightly argued that Cyprian was too much of a rigorist in the purity department, he might say that our own age is guilty of the opposite error.  We have forgotten the role of repentance in the life of the Church.

related posts: Cyprian On the Unity of the Church
intro
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4

Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, pt 4

5. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided.  Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.

The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.  Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,—when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up.

Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.

In par. 4 of the treatise, Cyprian argued that the unity of the church was made manifest in the unity which began with Jesus' saying to Peter:  on this rock I will build my church.  But lest you think that Cyprian unambiguously supported a further primacy of Peter (and hence of the bishop of Rome), he then wrote of how there is an equality among the Apostles after Pentecost:

...to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.

Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.

So suppose you call yourself a catholic Christian, or you are at least a bit taken with the idea that the church on earth has some sort of structure which you believe Jesus would like it to have.  A good part of that would have to do, in Cyprian's eyes (and the eyes of many early Christians) with the unity to be found in the bishops of the churches.  Yet one might bluntly ask:  so are the Anglican bishops united?  In Cyprian's day he saw it as important:  "And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided."  Well, it might be one and undivided on paper, but surely there were "divisions", no?  In many ways there were divisions, there were opinions, and there were personalities. 

But there was something else:  a visible unity and mutual recognition of office, authority and ministry.  Sometimes we hear that "a bishop is a bishop for the whole church".  Some of the thinking behind that can be seen in Cyprian:  "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole."  That is to say, being a bishop in a particular church context does not mean that you are autonomous.  It does not mean that you need not respond to, be accountable to, and even occasionally challenge, your fellow bishops.  In Cyprian's language, the bishop holds his office "for the whole" - that is, for the whole church, the whole people of God.  A bishop is not merely a local governor.  If a bishop (or a fellowship/Communion) is to be 'catholic' in that sense of the word, its bishops must first and foremost consider their ministry to be "for the whole" of the church.

Now I'm not nearly as smart as many Anglicans who think and write deeply on these things.  But it seems to me that this is one area where some bishops in the Anglican Communion could, by the grace of God, do a little better.  Or perhaps, they might ask themselves, how am I serving the whole of the church?  It seems to me that we have remade episcopal ministry along the lines of contemporary political models.  A bishop governs a state, or a province, or a municipality, and is answerable only to "his own" constituents.

But to Cyprian at least, the bishop's "constituents" are in one important sense, the whole people of God, where ever they might be found.

previous posts:  intro, part 1, part 2, part 3

Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, pt 3

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments.  There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth.  The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.”

Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”

5. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided.

Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church

Commentary later, when I actually have something to add...

Related posts: intro, part 1, part 2

Cyprian On the Unity of the Church pt 2

Since the Lord warns us, saying, “Ye are the salt of the earth,” and since He bids us to be simple to harmlessness, and yet with our simplicity to be prudent, what else, beloved brethren, befits us, than to use foresight and watching with an anxious heart, both to perceive and to beware of the wiles of the crafty foe, that we, who have put on Christ the wisdom of God the Father, may not seem to be wanting in wisdom in the matter of providing for our salvation?

For it is not persecution alone that is to be feared; nor those things which advance by open attack to overwhelm and cast down the servants of God. Caution is more easy where danger is manifest, and the mind is prepared beforehand for the contest when the adversary avows himself. The enemy is more to be feared and to be guarded against, when he creeps on us secretly; when, deceiving by the appearance of peace, he steals forward by hidden approaches, whence also he has received the name of the Serpent.
 
That is always his subtlety; that is his dark and stealthy artifice for circumventing man. Thus from the very beginning of the world he deceived; and flattering with lying words, he misled inexperienced souls by an incautious credulity. Thus he endeavoured to tempt the Lord Himself:  he secretly approached Him, as if he would creep on Him again, and deceive; yet he was understood, and beaten back, and therefore prostrated, because he was recognised and detected.

Unity of the Church 1

Perhaps the modern reader of Cyprian will be surprised to see how he starts.  Not, as we might imagine, with an analysis of the “politics” of church-land, but with a survey of the spiritual geography.  He draws our attention to the “wiles of the crafty foe” – the spiritual reality which “has received the name of the Serpent”.  This is a very different starting point than most of us are used to.  Cyprian tells us to look to the spiritual world.

So did the devil make him do it?  That’s really what Cyprian is talking about.  “The world is full of dangerous things” said Gandalf to Gimli.  Many of us would not even really think about the possibility of, well, evil and temptation personified in a creature.  This tempter is identified as the Satan of the 3 temptations in the wilderness.  Clearly, Cyprian thinks that there are spiritual forces which, in the old language, seek to corrupt and destroy the creatures of God.  Many of us have been to baptisms where reference is made to “Satan and all his works”.  And yet how many can take seriously, if at all, that this refers to some sort of actual creature?  People will have different takes on this:  some skeptical about such things, others offering metaphorical interpretation of such “spiritual realities”, and still others will simply say that there is such a thing as a fallen angel, who happens not to like God or people very much, and whose activity is much more hidden from sight. Cyprian tells his readers that the main problem is that we must recognize and detect such spiritual forces.

There is a great deal of wisdom here.  It is the less obvious and more subtle temptations which can be the most dangerous.  Sort of a spiritual version of some kind of bait and switch.  Most of us tend to be aware of our “obvious” faults.  But maybe we need, both individually and as a body, to become more aware of what the psalmist called “my secret sins”.

Cyprian contrasts these dangers with the open danger from persecution, and bids his reader remember that “it is not persecution alone that is to be feared; nor those things which advance by open attack to overwhelm and cast down the servants of God.”   

related posts: intro, pt 1

Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church, pt 1

The very fact that Cyprian devoted a little treatise to the topic of church unity might cause us to ask whether there was any disunity, which caused him to think and write about this topic.  The answer, of course, is yes.  In fact, the disunity was a bit complicated at the time.  The occasion for this treatise is, on the surface, some trouble over who was the bishop of Rome.  All of this took place just at the end of a persecution by the Emperor Decius, around the year 250-51.

The persecution was on a grand scale:  every person in the Empire was required to sacrifice to the cult of the Emperor or to face the consequences.  Many Christians decided to give in and make the appropriate sacrifices to please the Romans. Others had bought little “get out of persecution free” papers.  And others refused to give in and suffered the consequences.  In the midst of this we have Cyprian becoming bishop in Carthage, North Africa.

So when the persecution ended, there was a bit of a problem.  On the one hand were large numbers of those Christians who had remained steadfast and had suffered for their faith.  Against this group were those who had, either in earnest or pretence, made the appropriate sacrifices and had denied Christ.  So then within the Church there arose the question of whether or not these lapsi could or should be admitted back into the fellowship of the Church.  They had, after all, denied Jesus.  Strong voices argued that they were out:  they Church was pure, and there was no penance for those who had denied Christ.

With me so far?  Then we have a vacancy for the position of Pope bishop of Rome.  (Sorry, couldn’t resist, mea culpa) and we have Cornelius elected.  Novatian, who tended to be more on the strict side regarding the lapsed Christians, was in the running, but lost.  He immediately set himself up as bishop of Rome.  So we have two bishops of Rome.  This was schism – and it was to last for several decades.

Meanwhile, back at home, Cyprian was also faced with some questions about authority and the role of bishops.  Again, these questions came about in the wake of the end of the persecution and the questions about the standing of those who had lapsed.

So to a great extent, Cyprian wrote about the unity of the church, located and made visible in the unity of the bishops.  And when we come to his interpretation of the role of Peter and the primacy of Rome, remember that there was in fact a schism in Rome at that time.  I'll add a bit more background as we get into the treatise itself.

related post:  here

For some further thoughts on Cyprian and the contemporary church, see this excellent post by Phil Snider.

Charles Inglis, First Anglican Bishop of Canada

"The state of religion in this province," as Inglis was to write, "is truly deplorable ... Ignorance and lukewarmness on the one hand, fanaticism and irreligion on the other. ... The inhabitants divided into many sects, and carried away by a variety of Enthusiasts that under take to preach to them."

quoted in "Charles Inglis, Missionary, Loyalist, Bishop" by Reginald V. Harris
(Toronto: General Board of Religious Education, 1937)

Today is the commemoration of the consecration of Charles Inglis.  He was consecrated on August 12, 1787 at Lambeth Palace.  Inglis was, apparently, the only one available for the job.  His life and loyalties spanned the rise of an independent America and the war of 1812.  His jurisdiction included what was then called Canada - the Maritime provinces, Quebec and part of present day Ontario.

He came from a family of Scots Episcopalians, and set out to America.  He worked as a schoolteacher for while, and then was ordained.  He eventually settled in as Rector of Trinity Church New York.  He and Thomas Paine had a bit of a pamphlet war during the lead up to the American war of independence.  Inglis was a fierce Loyalist.  According to one legend, Charles Inglis led prayers for George III while George Washington was in the congregation.  A militia soon surrounded the church.

On 11 August 1787, George III created the Diocese of Nova Scotia by Letters Patent, and Inglis was consecrated the next day.

From a sermon of Charles Inglis, Trinity church

The Duty of Honouring the King, explained in s sermon 

Preached On Sunday, January 30, 1780;

Being the Anniversary of the Martyrdom of
King CHARLES I.

By CHARLES INGLIS, D.D.
RECTOR OF TRINITY CHURCH, NEW-YORK.

INFLUENCED by those Motives, let us, in the Name of God, and in his Strength, resolutely set about this Conduct: Cheared with the pleasing hope which results from it, when pursued, let us look forward to that happy Period---not very distant now, I trust---when we shall return into the soft Bosom of Peace; when the Remembrance of past Sufferings shall serve to enhance its Value, and inspire us with the more Zeal to praise, and thank, and fear God, and  to honour the King; when our misguided Brethren, cured of their Delusion, shall be brought back to their Duty, and partake once more of the Benefits which, hitherto, they have too lightly regarded. Let each of us then, Òput on Bowels of Mercy, Kindness, Meekness, long Suffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any Man have a Quarrel against any; even as CHrist forgave youÓ; and let us resolve to imitate the Example of Christ's Subjects in that blessed State, foretold by Isaiah, when all Envy shall be extinguished, and brotherly Love shall abound--- Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

            THAT each of us may cultivate this divine Temper---that each of us, as a Follower of the meek Jesus, may adorn that Profession, and manifest a deep Sense of our Obligation to imitate, and love, and serve him---that each of us may improve by the Chastisements of Heaven, and rise, purified from the Dross of Sin, more bright and shining out of the Furnace of Affliction---that each of us may attain that Amendment, with all its consequent Blessings, which are designed and aimed at by the Dispensations of our merciful God----May He of his infinite Goodness grant, for the Sake and Merits of his dear Son, Jesus Christ; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, three Persons, but one eternal God, be ascribed immortal Praise, Glory, and Dominion, henceforth, for evermore.

In 1816, Bishop Inglis died; his remains were buried under the chancel of St. Paul's at Halifax.

Well, there you have it.  Raise a glass to Inglis.

add'l sources:

Hein, David; Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr. (2004). "The Episcopalians. New York"

The messy history of church councils - McGuckin on Nicea

Graffiti emblazoned on walls, a vicious war of pamphlets, riots in the streets, lawsuits, catchy songs of ridicule … It's hard for modern Christians to imagine how such public turmoil could be created by an argument between theologians—or how God could work through the messiness of human conflict to bring the church to an understanding of truth.

To us, in retrospect, the Council of Nicaea is a veritable mountain in the landscape of the early church. For the protagonists themselves, it was more in the nature of an emergency meeting forced on hostile parties by imperial power and designed to stop an internal row. After the council, many of the same bishops who had signed its creed appeared at other councils, often reversing their previous decisions according to the way the winds of preferment were blowing. They found themselves less in a domain of monumental clarity and more in a swamp of confusing arguments and controversies that at times seemed to threaten the very continuity of the Christian church. To understand the significance of the Council of Nicaea, we need to enter into the minds of the disputants and ask why so much bitterness and confusion had been caused by one apparently simple question: in what way is Jesus divine?

Of course, like many "simple" questions, this was a highly complex and provocative issue. Theologians of that era were almost beside themselves when they found that Scripture often gave very different-sounding notes when they applied to it for guidance. The disagreements this "simple" question provoked made many of the greatest minds of the era wonder to what extent the Christian doctrines of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit were coherent, and even to what extent Christians could trust in the canon of sacred text (which had hitherto seemed to them sufficient as an exposition of the faith).

In many ways, therefore, Nicaea reminds us of the present era. Rather than being a symbol of clarity, peace, and order, it was a call to a difficult focusing of mind across a church that was often as muddled and confused as ours seems still to be.

Read the whole article by John Anthony McGuckin (Professor in Late Antique and Byzantine Christian History at Union Theological Seminary).

h/t to Creedal Christian

Ecumenical dialogue with Hernán Cortés: Bernal Diaz and the Conquest of New Spain

They brought to us 8 Indian girls, all daughters of chiefs, in order to cement our friendship...

The girls, Cortes added, must become Christian before we could accept them, and the people must give up sodomy, for they had boys dressed as women who practised that accursed vice for profit.  Moreover every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols and whose blood was plastered on the walls.  The feet, arms and legs of their victims were cut of and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher's in our country.  I even believe that they sold it in the tinaguez or markets.  Cortes told them that if they gave up these wicked practices, not only would we be their friends, but we would vie them other provinces to rule.  The Caciques, papas and the dignitaries all replied that it would be wrong for them to give up their idols and sacrifices, for these gods of theirs brought them health and good harvests and all that they needed; but as for sodomy, measures would be taken to see that the practice was stopped.

This insolent reply was more than Cortes or any of us who had seen all their cruelties and obscenities could stand.  Reminding us of the doctrines of oru holy faith, Cortes asked us  "If we do not pay God so much honour as to stop them from making sacrifices to their idols, how can we ever accomplish anything worth doing?" 

He told us that we must overthrow their idols that very day, and be absolutely prepared to fight if they tried to prevent us.  We, as usual, were all armed and ready...

Bernal Diaz
The Conquest of New Spain

related post: Missional Christendom: Bernal Diaz and The Conquest of New Spain

Missional Christendom: Bernal Diaz and The Conquest of New Spain

After the horsemen had dismounted beneath some trees beside which some houses stood, we returned thanks to God for granting us so complete a victory.  Then, as it was Lady Day, we named the town which was afterward founded here Santa Maria de la Victoria, on account of the fact that this great victory was won on her day.  This was the first battle that we fought under Cortes in New Spain.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo was a soldier who first sailed to the Americas in 1514, in the company of Pedrarias Dávila.  After two expeditions, Bernal Diaz set out under the command of Hernando Cortés in a campaign which would eventually see the fall of Aztec empire.  Díaz was present at the surrender of Mexico city in 1521.  In his later years he wrote a work entitled "Crónica de la Conquista de Nueva España".  It is a rough eye-witness account of one who served under the Spanish Crown in its conquest of the new lands.  The work itself was not published in his lifetime;  a manuscript was discovered in the 1600's in Madrid.  it is a remarkable portrait of the combination of religious sentiment and lust for wealth:  "for God and gold" was the rallying cry of the Conquistadores.

Diaz tells us that his company saw the corpses of more than 800 Aztec allies after that first battle.  The Spaniards buried then their 2 soldiers who had perished. 

I'll be posting more highlights from Diaz' work for the next little while.