SUMMARY:
From: "hw"
Subject: 1611 Apocrypha and the C. of E.
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:18:42
I hope the June 2005 issue, its letter from Mr Spencer Gear and your
editorial response to that letter do not give readers the impression that
the Church of England, by including the Apocrypha in the 1611 Authorised
Version, regards those "deuterocanonical books" as part of inspired Holy
Scripture and therefore having any doctrinal authority.
The
Thirty-nine Articles explicitly, after listing the Canonical books of the
Old Testament, deny that the Apocrypha is part of it: it is described as
"the other books" which are read simply as instruction and example in
behaviour, without establishing any doctrine. Nothing unsupported by
Scripture is required to be believed as necessary to salvation.
Although
bound up in the Bible, between the OT and the NT, from 1611 to mid-Victorian
times, they are not to be read as Sunday lessons at all, and (from memory)
as lessons on any high days that fall on the other six days of the week, but
only on those when ordinary days.
The Popish Douai Bible intersperses those
disputed books with the OT books, regarding the Apocrypha as part of it
and of Scripture.
There are no quarrels over the Canon of the New Testament
books "as commonly received".
I guess the C. of E eventually
realised the danger of even binding them up as a separate section of the
Bible, despite the value of some Apocryphal books as history bridging the
gap between Malachi and Matthew, and/or as edifying stories in some but not
all instances.
The Apocrypha does have some stories okay to read as a
separate volume; but their acccuracy, as uninspired writings, cannot be
guaranteed by God; so dropping them from printed Bibles was the safest
course.
Even very godly men make mistakes about what Anglican
doctrines really are. For instance J. Gresham Machen gently deplored the
supposed fact that Anglicanism believes in the necessity of "Apostolic
Succession" of bishops for a valid ministry.
You will not find that teaching
in any Anglican formularies; and men with non-episcopal ordination were
sometimes admitted to be Anglican clergymen in the early 17th Century.
Since
1662, the Ordinal has declared that episcopal ordination or consecration is
necessary; but this rule is for the Church of England, which has never
refused to recognize the validity of ordinations in other denominations such
as the Church of Scotland and other non-episcopal churches.
When the Act of
Union was being debated in 1707, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Tennison,
declared in the Lords that the Church of Scotland, Presbyterian again since
1689, was a true church with a true ministry.
H.W
Wellington,
New Zealand.
[Received by email in reply to this
ARTICLE...- Full details on record. -Ed ]
Footnotes:
About the Author...
[
TOP ] ... [ Part 1 ] ... [ Part 2 ] ... [
BACK ]
Found this information useful?
Web Site by
S & R Cope in association with
Appeared in Issue CETF NR MONTH YEAR
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3
© Copyright 2006 Christian Witness Ministries, except where noted. All rights reserved
|
|
|
|
|
-Last revised-
Monday, October 09, 2006
