Editor’s Note
The opinions and conclusions of the following essay do not reflect the editorial commitments of TNAA. However, we have agreed to publish Joe Colletti’s argument in favor of Episcopalian reconquista with the condition that we will also publish a symposium of replies responding to the various claims made here. We agree that the popularity of the reconquista movement and the influence of online channels like “Young Anglican” and “Redeemed Zoomer,” especially among young men, warrant a thorough response.
Introduction
The 20th and 21st Century Church has entered a new age of Church splits and separations. Separation and schism have been with the Church since the beginning and nearly every party acknowledges that schism (however they define that term) is sinful. On this point the Bible is clear. Yet on the other hand the Bible also commands separations from certain groups of evildoers. (Eph. 5:11, 2 Cor. 6:14-15)
How do we reconcile these two commands?
Fundamentally I would posit (and hope to support throughout this paper) two distinct types of separations. The first type is spiritual and is the separation of excommunication, whereby someone or some church or some group of churches previously considered Christian, are no longer considered Christians (or simply are heretical Christians) and are therefore excommunicated and declared outside the body of Christ. The second type is ecclesiastical and political and that is the rejection of the jurisdiction of a church and the supplanting of the former jurisdiction of that church or diocese with a parallel church or diocese.
One or the other separation can take place either with or without the other. The ACNA actually exists (in practice) as merely the second kind of separation from the Episcopal Church. Both laity and clergy from either jurisdiction can and often do without any real obstruction take communion at the altars of churches in either denomination.[1] Still, the ACNA rejects the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church and establishes its own parallel jurisdiction.[2] This may be called a positive separation whereby a group of Christians posits a new jurisdiction in the place of a church which it no longer recognizes the jurisdiction of. Nearly every Non-Denominational church is in this kind of positive schism with every other church in the entire world.
The first kind of separation—excommunication—is often coupled with the positive separation, but not always. As I will hope to demonstrate further, there have often been two Christian bodies which do not commune with each other, that nonetheless recognize the legality or validity of the excommunicated jurisdiction. This type of separation can be called a negative separation because it negates or excludes without positing anything parallel to what it excludes. Internal divisions within a single jurisdiction also exist whenever someone refuses to commune with or under someone because they deem their errors to be heretical. The ACNA is in this kind of schism with itself over the issue of women’s ordination. While recognizing the jurisdiction of female priests and continuing to be within the same jurisdiction, many traditionalists would not commune in an ACNA church which either has a female pastor or allows female clergy to be ordained due to the perception that this is a grave error or indeed heretical.
Two Historical Views
In searching the history of the church I have only discovered two views. The first view, which I would associate with the modern Roman Church, the Lutherans, and perhaps the Waldensians, would be the idea that once a negative separation has been made (and this negative separation is grounded upon a high bar of theological agreement), the jurisdiction of the excommunicated churches is not recognized shortly thereafter. The Roman church, historically, has had no problem creating new Patriarchs in the place of Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Patriarchates in Sees such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch.[3]
The second view, which I would associate with the Early Church Fathers, the Reformed, the Hussites, and the Lollards, is usually unwilling to make a positive separation even when a longstanding and even vicious negative separation has been made. So long as the excommunicated body maintains some form of the fundamentals or essentials and can be recognized as Christian, no positive separation is therefore legitimate. Different proponents of this view assemble different determinations of the fundamentals (St. Ambrose and St. Athanasius were willing to recognize the jurisdiction of Arian bishops whereas the later definitions assembled by the Protestant proponents of this view probably would not recognize the jurisdiction of formally Arian jurisdictions). Yet this second view universally did not make a positive separation based upon the private views of those occupying offices within churches whose formal doctrine was orthodox. Still, they would not have received communion from or administered communion to notorious heretics, thereby making a negative separation, while not making a positive separation.
A Third View?
There is a third view, which is common today, and I would argue began with Pietism and in some Separatist Puritan circles. This view is not particularly careful in defining the need for either a positive or negative separation and evolves from a fundamentally congregationalist or bottom-up ecclesiology. They see fellowship as a general category which exists more or less spontaneously, arising from two or more local churches that recognize the orthodoxy of another congregation on some set of important doctrines. In some closed communion versions of this view, they would not commune someone who is not in this network of fellowship, but in most open communion churches with this view today, excommunication has to be explicitly pronounced over an individual, and the communicability of a visitor is assumed. Excommunication in this context rarely occurs in relation to whole church bodies, precisely because there really is no recognition of any churches whatsoever having any kind of “jurisdiction”. If two churches were planted within the same town that were of the same view on a number of essential doctrines, this is not seen as a theological problem whatsoever. No mutual organization is required of those two local churches into a presbytery or diocese or district of any kind. Mission societies or ordinations arise spontaneously from faithful congregations rather than being subject to a top-down set of ecclesiastical laws meant to regulate ordination. For this reason, this view can be broadly summarized as a total rejection of the concept of jurisdiction. I do not find this view in the history of the church or the Bible. Even in the New Testament period, one universal visible church is recognized as the valid community of worshippers. The churches of Galatia and Corinth, when they depart from the teaching of the church, are still considered “churches” and are called to repent from within the church by the leaders of the visible church. The Apostles, though they occasionally split up for the sake of mission, always returned and continued to recognize each other (and only each other) as representatives of God’s church, even when they disagreed with each other or failed to preach the Gospel (i.e., Paul rebuking Peter for not dining with Gentiles). The jurisdiction of local churches is respected, and ministers like Timothy and Titus are set over local churches by St. Paul, who is not specifically locally resident in those churches. A kind of extra-congregational jurisdiction is even recognized in the general categorization of St. Paul as the leader of the mission to the Gentiles. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 also seems to make a decision on behalf of the whole visible Christian church, and we can see St. Paul and other local churches implemented the decrees of this council (in 1 Cor. 8, for example).
For this reason, the remainder of this paper will only examine those two views I consider to be represented in the historical data, and will put aside this third view, which is common today but which I find almost no precedent for prior to the 17th century.
Biblical Data
So what does the Bible say? Let us take a quick perusal of a number of relevant New Testament passages.[4]
Romans
When explaining his own ministry to the Gentiles, Paul casually references a principle of not building upon another man’s foundation. “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.” (Rom. 15:20) The implication is that the Gospel has already been preached to the Jews by Peter and the other apostles. This can be seen as a larger explication or further reiteration of the idea that St. Paul has a unique jurisdiction among the Gentiles.
More simply, it establishes the basic idea of jurisdiction. Where the church already exists, do not usurp or compete with the church in planting a new one. The mission of churches should not overlap lest we “build upon another man’s foundation.” In most churches, until very recently, this was lived out in the parish model, whereby most denominations divided the map of their jurisdiction into dioceses (or presbyteries) and then into local parishes, and the laity would attend a certain church based purely on the location of their house.
Galatians
In the Book of Galatians, St. Paul addresses multiple churches in Galatia, where possibly all of these churches have adopted “another Gospel.” However, he still writes to these churches and sees them as under his authority, and never in the entire epistle urges a separation of any kind.
1 Corinthians
Paul opens up this letter condemning schisms and factions: “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Cor. 1:9-10)
While he urges them to “speak the same thing,” ultimately he appeals to the unity they have in Christ, created not by their correct teaching or behavior, but by their baptisms.
In 1 Cor. 5 he consistently teaches a negative separation from the sexually immoral: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.’”
The command here not to eat with such a person could be interpreted narrowly to refer only to communion or broadly meaning that you should never have a meal at all with someone who calls themself Christian but is sexually immoral. He goes on in 1 Cor. 6 to instruct the faithful to bring up any offenses with the church community and not to secular courts. Notably, he does not address the issue of what to do if you are wronged by one of these church courts or if a positive separation would be justified in such a case.
Surrounding the theological controversy of eating food sacrificed to idols, St. Paul clearly states in 1 Cor. 8 that the party which believes that it is acceptable to eat food sacrificed to idols is theologically correct and orthodox, while explicitly urging them not to do so for the sake of the unity of the church. This also appears to be in conformity with a decision made in Acts 15:29 to continue this Mosaic prohibition. In this way, St. Paul is recognizing a law that is meant to govern all jurisdictions of the church, despite not viewing that law as theologically necessary.
In 1 Cor. 12, again when urging them to be united and to be of one body Paul appeals to their baptism: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor. 12:12)
2 Corinthians
Possibly one of the strongest commands to separate comes in this letter. II Corinthians 6:14-15 NKJV: “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” This passage falls clearly into the excommunication category of separation and commands no fellowship to be had with unbelievers whatsoever. It makes no comment on jurisdiction.
Ephesians
The rebuke about not having fellowship with darkness is found in Ephesians 5:11 and in the NKJV reads: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”
It can be noted that even here, St. Paul actually attacks the idea of fellowshiping with works of darkness. He says nothing about establishing new churches or on the topic of communion. Still, it could reasonably be read to prevent or at least advise against fellowship with the doers of works of darkness, and therefore to teach a negative separation.
Summary of the Biblical Data
Here we are left with a number of passages that teach a negative separation. Either here, you can take these teachings on negative separation to be also teaching a positive separation from such, and therefore come to a Closed Communion view similar to View 1, or you can hold the distinction between a positive and a negative separation similar to View 2. I think it is noteworthy that nowhere in the entire New Testament (to my knowledge) is there a single reference to the replacement of apostate congregations with new church plants or missions.
Church Fathers
I am a firm Protestant, and it is exactly for this reason that I think the reasoned opinion of the Church Fathers on this issue is worth considering, in an attempt to highlight which of the two views was held among the majority.
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Ignatius is probably one of the first clear expositors of a concise rule of jurisdiction. In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, he writes: “Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ]. Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.”
Here we see that St. Ignatius warns them to stay away from “evil plants” which are not of God whatsoever, while still affirming that no schism exists or should exist. He appeals to the unity of the Christians in Christ, and in sharing one Eucharist, but then also to the unity of the bishop. There is, he insists, only one bishop among them who has valid jurisdiction over them. He implies that if another bishop were to set up shop in the same jurisdiction, this would be a schism. Therefore, he reiterates the teaching on negative separation.
He later says, “Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons,” and “Do nothing without the bishop.”
Again, he later emphasizes the necessity of communion with the bishop, and equates doing nothing out of strife with the doctrine of Christ.
For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop. I trust [as to you] in the grace of Jesus Christ, who shall free you from every bond. And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ.
In this way, he is clear in advising against a positive separation and states clearly that anyone who does will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Concerning a negative separation, he states: “But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices, grow weak in your love. But be all joined together with an undivided heart.”
This does entail fleeing or protection from false teachers, but even this negative separation seems to be from people of other religions. It is possible that the preachers of the Jewish law are “Judaizers” since he references preachers of the Jewish law who are uncircumcised. This could be more broadly speaking about some who were teaching works-based righteousness. Still, he never here advises a positive separation or the election of a new bishop if the current bishop is among these Judaizers.
St. Irenaeus of Lyon
In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus specifically forbids a positive separation, even in the name of a reformation which might otherwise be necessary saying: “For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.” (Book 4 Ch. 33:7) This affirms both that sometimes a Reformation may even be necessary within the church and that a positive separation is not called for under any such circumstance.
St. Justin Martyr
On the topic of communion Justin clearly teaches “And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.”
In that sense, he demonstrates that a negative separation is made from those who do not agree with the teachings of the church.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria
During the Meletian Schism (a topic which is relevant to our discussion but which would cause a massive diversion to address sufficiently) Athanasius wrote thus about communion with Arians: “At first he (Meletius) sent to me, urging me to admit Arius and his fellows to communion, and threatened me in his verbal communications, while in his letters he [merely] made a request. And when I refused, declaring that it was not right that those who had invented heresy contrary to the truth, and had been anathematized by the Ecumenical Council, should be admitted to communion.” Here we see Athanasius urging a negative separation from Arianism and Arians. It is unclear whether or not he requires both that they be heretics AND that that heresy be condemned by a public council to bar the notorious heretics from communion, or if the mere heresy would have been enough to bar them from communion before the council.
It is also worth mentioning that, despite being a bishop himself while writing against the Arians, he never once justifies the establishment of parallel bishops on the mere accusation that the current sitting bishop is an Arian. The argument for Paulinus in the Meletian schism is that Meletius was validly deposed and that Paulinus was the first man appointed bishop thereafter. Paulinus just also happened to be orthodox.
St. Ambrose of Milan
Ambrose addresses a couple relevant issues in his sermons against Auxentius the Younger, who was an Arian bishop placed in the bishopric of Milan by imperial intervention. The emperor sent soldiers to remove Ambrose from his seat and to place Auxentius in the basilica. He makes it clear that a mere decree was not enough to make him give up the physical property, which Ambrose says he is duty bound not to give up because the physical building and church property all belong to God: “When it was suggested that I should give up the vessels of the Church, I gave the following answer: I will willingly give up whatever of my own property is demanded, whether it is estates, or house, or gold, or silver — anything, in fact, which is in my power. But I cannot take anything away from the temple of God; nor can I give up what I have received to guard and not to give up.”) and that he had to be dragged out of the building.
Other than Ambrose literally saying justification is “sola fide” in this letter, it is also noteworthy for some very strong quotes. Far from urging further division or the establishment of parallel jurisdictions, he urges his followers to remain and fight:
Why, then, are you disturbed? I will never willingly desert you, though if force is used, I cannot meet it…I ought not, I cannot resist in any other way; but to fly and forsake the Church is not my way; lest any one should suppose I did so from fear of some heavier punishment…Would that I were sure the Church would never be given over to heretics. Gladly would I go to the Emperor’s palace, if this but fitted the office of a priest, and so hold our discussion in the palace rather than the church. But in the consistory Christ is not wont to be the accused but the judge. Who will deny that the cause of faith should be pleaded in the church?… Was the answer that I gave then contumacious? For when summoned I said: God forbid that I should give up the inheritance of Christ. If Naboth gave not up the inheritance of his fathers, shall I give up the inheritance of Christ? And I added further: God forbid that I shall give up the inheritance of my fathers, that is, the inheritance of Dionysius, who died in exile in the cause of the faith; the inheritance of the Confessor Eustorgius, the inheritance of Mysocles and of all the faithful bishops of bygone days.
But the most interesting argument comes in section 21 of the letter, where St. Ambrose makes an argument about the necessity of avoiding positive separation to preserve the opportunity for the faithful who remain in the original institution to hear the truth:
Invited, then, by these praises, Christ enters His temple, (John 2:15) and takes His scourge and drives the money-changers out of the temple. For He does not allow the slaves of money to be in His temple, nor does He allow those to be there who sell seats. What are seats but honours? What are the doves but simple minds or souls that follow a pure and clear faith? Shall I, then, bring into the temple him whom Christ shuts out? For he who sells dignities and honours will be bidden to go out. He will be bidden to go out who desires to sell the simple minds of the faithful.
In summary, St. Ambrose seems to oppose, wherever physically possible, a positive split that would either sacrifice church property or congregants and effectively hand them over to heretics. Yet he is clearly not ambivalent and clearly wants to protect the faithful from false teaching and desires to excommunicate the Arians and bar them from church offices.
Despite his antipathy to Auxentius, he never erected a parallel diocese of Milan when he very well could have. In fact, he had already been ordained a bishop himself and could have started ordaining his own clergy. Yet, he did not and never did thereafter.
Proto-Protestants
It might be granted that the Church Fathers advocated for the avoidance of schism at all costs. But surely this position cannot be held by Protestants?! What about all of the faithful Proto-Protestants? This argument, which comes from both Protestants and Anti-Protestants alike, ignores the actual conduct of the Protestants and the Proto-Protestants in the main. It can be hard to firmly establish boundaries of what a Proto-Protestant even was, and many heretical groups have often been categorized here, but I chose three groups that are nearly unanimously considered precursors of the Protestant Reformation and which were widely considered to fall within orthodox Nicene Christianity.
Lollards
John Wycliffe made a negative separation but never ordained his own clergy. The Lollards continued in England, operating within and alongside the formal parish structure of the Church of England.
Hussites
Jan Hus preached doctrines very similar to those of the Protestants who would follow him, and the movement after him largely remained within Bohemia and Moravia. It was accepted by some in the church hierarchy (even some bishops through whom the modern Moravian church derives her Apostolic Succession). Hussites actually continued to participate in the greater Catholic Church until the mid 15th century, and the Ultraquist faction was eventually able to reach a settlement with the invading Crusaders loyal to the Pope whereby they were allowed to continue the practice of communion in both kinds, and the free preaching of the Word of God without fear of censure. Similar to the other movements, they made a negative separation, whereby they attempted to keep their teaching and preaching pure, without creating a positive split. No Moravian churches were established in other regions with dioceses or parishes parallel to the catholic jurisdictions.
By this method, some 90% of Bohemia was Protestant (Lutheran-aligned/Moravians) with bishops in the historic apostolic succession by the 16th Century. It was only by the intervention of arms in the Thirty Years’ War that the church here was crushed.
Waldensians
The Waldensians, on the other hand, likely did ordain their own clergy against the authority of reigning bishops. They were sure to do so by the laying on of hands in presbyteral succession. The history of the Waldensians is hard to recreate perfectly due to the scarce sources, which are usually hostile. However, it is possible that they may have had one bishop in their history, according to the reports of a monk named Reinerius. Still, it is likely that this more amorphous and long lasting group would have fulfilled the criteria for both a positive and a negative split.
Yet, by this contrary example, the rule is demonstrated to have existed everywhere else but in their movement.
The Reformation
Whenever the issue of separation is brought up among Protestants, those in favor of a positive separation almost always appeal to the Reformation as their model. Yet, it is actually very rare for a thorough examination of the Reformation’s principles of Church Reform to be demonstrated and thereafter applied.
The History
I am an Episcopalian by conviction. I mean that in the strict ecclesiological sense. All of the Episcopal Reformed churches (England, Ireland, Sweden, etc.) were characterized by radical continuity. The Reformers of these churches remained entirely within the existing Catholic Hierarchy until their reforms were completed. In most cases, even after the Reformations were completed, it was not the Church of England or the Church of Sweden which excommunicated Rome (by a negative separation) but the Church of Rome which formally excommunicated them. As an Episcopalian, I could consider the matter resolved entirely, but let me also examine the practice of the other Reformation churches, which accepted Presbyteral succession and which did end up making positive separations from the Roman churches.
Lutheran View
The (confessional) Lutheran view, as I understand it, effectively holds the two types of separation as inseparable. If someone does not meet the standards for communion, they are not communed, and if they were to be a minister, their ministry would not be accepted. If another church body rejects the Book of Concord, they are excommunicated, and the Lutheran churches have no problem planting parallel churches in that region that align with the Book of Concord. They do not tolerate remaining within mixed jurisdictions. If heresy is tolerated by one church and other churches continue to fellowship with that heretical church, the other church bodies are guilty of tolerating that heresy, even when they do not personally believe it. This stance began with Luther’s refusal to commune with Zwingli and was lived out again during the opposition to the Prussian Union church and continues today in most confessional Lutheran church bodies like the LCMS and WELS.
Reformed Confessions
The Reformed, however, both take a looser and a stricter view. While the Lutheran may be able to say that churches he is not in communion with are still churches in some sense, the traditional view among the Reformed (which traces its origins to the open-handedness of Zwingli) is willing to remain in communion and respect the jurisdiction of any church body they consider to be a true part of the Church. This transversely is paired with a total rejection of the Roman Communion after the Council of Trent. The Reformed did not respect her jurisdiction and excommunicated her. In this sense, the Roman “church” was consistently un-churched. Therefore, two principles were established: a necessity of being a member of a true church, and that the Roman church was not a true church. By this necessity, they meant a real and visible set of churches.
The Belgic Confession follows this pattern—
“Article 28 Every One is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church
We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved and out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be ought to withdraw himself to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it, maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes be against it; yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those who separate themselves from the same or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.
Article 29 The Marks of the True Church, and Wherein She Differs From the False Church
We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak here not of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects who call themselves the Church. The marks by which the true Church is known are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians, namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins through faith in Him. As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.”
The French Confession of the Huguenots reiterates:
“XXVI. We believe that no one ought to seclude himself and be contented to be alone ; but that all jointly should keep and maintain the union of the Church, and submit to the public teaching, and to the yoke of Jesus Christ, wherever God shall have established a true order of the Church, even if the magistrates and their edicts are contrary to it. For if they do not take part in it, or if they separate themselves from it, they do contrary to the Word of God.
XXVII. Nevertheless we believe that it is important to discern with care and prudence which is the true Church, for this title has been much abused. We say, then, according to the Word of God, that it is the company of the faithful who agree to follow his Word, and the pure religion which it teaches; who grow in grace all their lives, believing and becoming more confirmed in the fear of God according as they feel the want of growing and pressing onward. Even although they strive continually, they can have no hope save in the remission of their sins. Nevertheless we do not deny that among the faithful there may be hypocrites and reprobates, but their wickedness can not destroy the title of the Church.
XXVIII. In this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in these acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it, we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we can not present children to be baptized in it without incurring pollution.”
In this way the Reformed view the Lutherans as true Christians but would accuse them of being schismatics who violate the requirement of Communion with any church body that is a valid church. Both confessions clearly teach a duty of remaining within the unity of the Church and condemn those who separate themselves from it.
John Davenant reiterates the same standard but only more clearly in his work “An Exhortation to Brotherly Communion betwixt the Protestant Churches.”
Davenant
Davenant writes a long paper on why he believed that all of the Protestant churches should be in communion with each other. His work is long and worth reading but I will summarize his argument and provide some key quotes.
The broad framework is the same as the previously mentioned standards and definitions: all Christian churches in which salvation is possible should be in communion with each other and recognize each other’s jurisdiction. This does not preclude disagreeing on very important issues and arguing for them, but if the issue is not on a fundamental doctrine necessary to be believed for salvation, that sort of disagreement is no barrier to inter-communion.
He outlines those fundamental doctrines as necessary for communion and salvation as Christological orthodoxy, the teaching that all have sinned and deserve damnation as under the condemnation of God’s law, and that Jesus died to save sinners and that faith in him is the only way to receive forgiveness for that righteous condemnation in the eyes of God. This can be summarized as the Creeds + the Law + the Gospel.
He further argues that this is present among the Churches of England, the Netherlands, the French Huguenots, and among the Lutheran churches.
On the subject of the Roman church, it is interesting to me that he does not say that they have failed in the fundamental doctrines, but that by the doctrine of the Papacy they have overthrown the foundation of those doctrines. In the Protestant churches, the head of our Communion (the Church) is Jesus, from whom all of the national churches like spokes on a wheel emerge. In the Roman church, by contrast, the center of the wheel is the Pope of Rome, and to Davenant, this overthrows the entire idea of the Christian Church. He says: “We excommunicate the Romanists because they trade the place of Christ for the Pope. Where the Bible calls Christ the Head of the Church and the sole foundation and the root of the tree upon which we are all branches the Romanists give that role to the Pope. This therefore trades that first foundation, upon which all Communion is based with heresy and idolatry that surely damns all who do so.”[5]
He also addresses the question of what to do when “wicked doctors” are being tolerated in a church body. Many today would say this is a failure of the requirement of church discipline articulated by the Reformed. Davenant does not take that stance. To Davenant, this is not a reason for a split or for an orthodox jurisdiction to support a parallel church in that jurisdiction. He says in Chapter 4:
Herein the moderation of Cyprian is commended, who held communion with those Churches, whom he conceived to live in a grievous errour are commended, for their not condemning of any, nor removing them from the right of communion, but continuing in fellowship with those Churches, which were of a different opinion, and would not rest and rely on their judgement. For no particular Church ought so far to tender her own honor, as thereby to envy, prejudice, or damage the unity of other Churches.
…
Now seeing it is manifest these things are so, if these which we call Ministerial Fundamentals, sometime in some things do shake,or stagger, we must not pin their Personal errors upon the whole Church. For the Church properly so called, doth not allow whatsoever ill Doctours mingled in the Church do allow, as rightly Melancthon: to which we add, neither every thing which good Doctors have taught ill.
What matters to Davenant is the public doctrine rather than the opinion of even a majority of doctors. If the public doctrine as proclaimed contains the fundamentals, then some individuals within those church bodies are likely saved, and therefore salvation is possible, and therefore that jurisdiction is part of the True Church. He argues: “It being therefore a matter of such moment with God himself, to be jointed and joined to our Foundation, that to all such, life, and eternal Salvation is promised, let us be very wary, how rashly we cut off, either particular Churches, or private Men, from this Conjunction, and by the same verdict cast them from all hope of life and happiness… So all Doctrines profitable for the furthering of edification are not properly termed Fundamental, but only those which are so necessary to be known, that without them, there is no coupling of the building to the Foundation, with them a saving conjunction may be had, though somethings be wanting, which are requisite to the perfecting of the Knowledge of a Christian.
Lastly, let us acknowledge with the Apostle (2 Tim. 3:16), all Scripture to be profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction of all Christians in Righteousness, Godliness and Truth; but we do not call all propositions founded in Scripture Fundamental Doctrines, because the nature of the thing, and the propriety of the Metaphor doth forbid it.”
Transversely, this is accompanied by his harsh view of the Roman church that salvation is impossible therein, as already demonstrated in his earlier quoted portion.
Article 26
The opinion of Davenant may be considered merely private, but I believe it is actually just a further explication of the doctrine of the Articles of Religion.
Article 26 states:
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.
The first paragraph clearly demonstrates that even in the case where the evil have the chief authority in the preaching and in the administration of the sacraments, a positive separation is not therein required. In fact, it only requires that they do so in the name of Christ. (This could be the origin of Davenant’s insistence that the Roman Church had replaced the foundation of Christ with the Papacy).
The second paragraph then calls us to the duty of negative separation.
Thereby we see the Articles, Davenant, the Reformers, the Lollards, the Hussites, Sts. Ambrose, Athanasius, Irenaeus and Ignatius are unanimous in their teaching a twofold view of separation, requiring a negative separation from heretics and forbidding a positive separation.
Conclusion
Consistent to all of these views are:
–
- We should excommunicate heretics. They should be kicked out from the church and barred from communion and ministry.
- If we can take communion with or in some church body, we should not set up a parallel overlapping jurisdiction.
Both the “Lutheran” view and the “Reformed” view as I have explicated them, actually agree with those two premises. The Lutherans do not take communion with anyone who is not Lutheran. Therefore they establish parallel jurisdictions amongst churches with whom they would otherwise recognize as valid churches.
The Reformed would have gladly taken communion at the table of a Lutheran and therefore urged them to intercommunion and avoided creating parallel jurisdictions in Lutheran countries.
Traditionally, Anglicans followed this Reformed approach and never set up their own parallel jurisdictions in countries like France. Different factions throughout Anglican history have appealed either to the Huguenots (as Davenant did) or even to Gallicans within the Roman Church (as Archbishop Wake would later do).
The odd state of the ACNA and the Anglican Continuum is that while positive separations have been made, no effective negative separation is put into practice as all parties are open communion (when it comes to admitting laity to the altar) and therefore Episcopalians, or simply parishioners who believe the same doctrines that caused the positive separations can freely take communion without any meaningful barrier.[6]
During all of the aforementioned periods of Church History, all parties (the Early Church, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Romanists, the Reformed, etc.) were closed communion and therefore examined all communicants before admitting them. In this way they attempted to guard the spiritual hazard of admitting wicked and heretical men to the Body of Christ. Yet, even this more scrupulous age was less inclined to make a positive separation, than our modern practice which is more liberal on the actual spiritual reality (Holy Communion) which they ostensibly are claiming to protect by breaking or separating from their enemies in the Episcopal Church.
Further, I know few if any within the ACNA who would hesitate to take communion from a conservative and orthodox minister in the Episcopal Church, demonstrating that they still believe valid sacraments and salvation occur in the Episcopal Church.
I can imagine (and have met online) a Continuing Anglican who does deny that salvation occurs in the Episcopal Church. This position is by far the most consistent and the most clearly justifies a positive separation. However, I do not believe that. Further, unless that same Continuing Anglican believes that salvation is impossible according to the publicly stated doctrine of the Roman and Eastern Churches, they are still in needless schism from those churches. Due to the prevailing version of branch theory among those in the Continuum I have yet to meet such a man who holds a view so exclusive as to deny the possibility of salvation in any church save the variety of self-proclaimed Continuing churches. Further I find a clear and concise definition of what even is a valid Continuing church and what is their jurisdiction a perplexing concept when no such coherent jurisdiction can be established and respected within the group of clergy and laity that use the label “Continuing Anglican”.
My View
As pertains to my view, I am thoroughly convinced that by the Laws of God and those accepted by the catholic church, I am bound to join myself to the Episcopal Church and practice a careful negative separation therein from the heretical forces which “have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments”.
I would explain the logic of this position thus:
- Christ established a Church and entrusted the Apostles to govern his church and pass on his doctrine.
- The government of the church persists and is to be respected so long as the fundamentals of that original doctrine is publicly available as the declared doctrine of that church by which people may observe it and be saved.
- The government of Christ’s Church persisted to this age in the Church of England (but was abrogated by the Roman Church in the Council of Trent and her subsequent councils).
- The government of Christ’s Church in my home country (the United States of America) was passed from the Church of England to her successor, the Episcopal Church.
- The Episcopal Church of the United States, though heretical forces “have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments”, still declares the fundamentals of doctrine in the 1979 Prayerbook and in her Constitution and Canons.
- Therefore no other valid government of the church exists in the United States, which violates the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church.
- Therefore I am obligated by a duty to God, to join myself to that valid jurisdiction.
You may, even after reading this paper, disagree with the conclusion I have come to. My suspicion is that in doing so, you disagree with one or more of the logical steps in the argument. It is possible that this will just be the first in many articles defending my decision.
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Notes
- In fact most Protestant churches in the United States exist in this state of spiritual intercommunion with all sorts of groups that label themselves Christian without any discernable institutional boundaries. ↑
- It can actually be argued that the ACNA is in this kind of separation with itself due to the overlapping jurisdiction of its own dioceses. ↑
- It is notable that the same attitude is not reciprocated and neither the Eastern or the Oriental churches have established a competing Bishop of Rome, or Patriarch of the West. ↑
- I chose not to examine the Old Testament in depth, partly for the sake of time and partly because it will be liable to being entirely dismissed on the argumentation that it is disanalogous. ↑
- This is the same view articulated in Article 29 of the Belgic Confession which requires that Jesus be recognized as the only Head of the Church. ↑
- If any responsibility is acknowledged at all, it is usually the responsibility of the lay communicant to read a bulletin or to sufficiently educate himself on the view of right reception in our churches rather than on the educated and duly appointed ministers of God. ↑
