xliv DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THIS COMMENTARY (Optional Reading). For those familiar with Reformation doctrine, practice, and history, it may be suffice for them to know that this commentary is religiously conservative, Reformed, Protestant, and adheres to the doctrine of the second stage of the Reformation. The second stage of the Reformation started in the sixteenth century with e.g., sacramental reform, and continued till the mid seventeenth century with such reforms as the removal of the Apocrypha from the covers of Holy Writ, and the Federalist understanding of original sin replacing the Augustinian understanding. However, as a general, though not absolute rule, I have kept doctrinal matters in the areas agreed at the first stage of the Reformation, that is, the Lutheran Reformation, only occasionally finding it necessary to go to the second stage of the Reformation. In particular, I find it necessary to go to the second stage of the Reformation in rejecting Lutheran sacramentalism, specifically, the Lutheran idea that there is a “sacrament” of auricular confession, not instituted in Scripture but later instituted by proper “human” authority in the church ( Augsburg Confession 1:11,13; 2:4) (even though this view remains in the Lutheran Augsburg Confession , in practice Lutherans in general came to progress beyond this notion, and moved to the second stage of the Reformation on this matter by using a General Confession in a church service, thus in general rejecting auricular confession in practice , although it is found in some Lutheran Churches), together with the Lutheran ideas of consubstantiation in the Lord’s Supper, and baptismal regeneration. Those familiar with the issues of the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, may wish to proceed directly from here to Part II of this commentary. Alternatively, they may also wish to refresh their memories on matters of great interest to Protestants. Broad Reformation Protestantism. On the one hand, the New Testament teaches warns against “heresy” trial abuse (Matt. 13:27-29), and teaches that in the spirit of unity and love (John 13:34,35; 17:21,23) we should tolerate diversity on a number of matters, for example, diverse racial and cultural manifestations of Christianity such as those between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (Acts 15 & 21), various food rules, or the keeping of various holy days (Rom. 14; I Cor. 8; Col. 2:16). But on the other hand, the New Testament also teaches that we should condemn heresy and not tolerate diversity on core issues of Christianity (Matt. 18:15-17), for example, the Trinity (I Cor. 8:6; 11:19; 12:3), or the gospel of justification by faith (Rom. 1-7; 16:17; Gal. 1:6-9; 3:11,12; 5:20,21). With respect to such characterizations, I think we should safeguard against “heresy” trial abuse (Matt. 13:27-29; Col. 2:16) by generally defining heresies (Matt. 18:15-17; II Peter 2:1; II John 10,11) with reference to broad Biblical truths evident in a cross-section of major confessions, catechisms, and practices of Reformation churches. Thus for the purposes of religious separation from apostasy (Rom.16:17), at the level of what the Apostles’ Creed calls “the communion of saints,” that is, the fellowship of believers in local spiritual contexts, including inter-denominational relations and fellowship between different Protestant groups; the remembrance of Protestant confessors and martyrs; the purposes of excommunication from, or non-participation in the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 5:11); or for the purposes of prohibiting religiously mixed marriages between “unequally yoked” Protestant Christian believers and “unbelievers” (I Cor. 7:39; II Cor. 6:14), I do not think that diversity between these standards should be a bar to Christian recognition. That is, xlv I support a broad Reformation Protestant spirit in such matters. However, I simultaneously think individual Protestant churches must remain free, if they so wish, to impose narrower doctrinal standards than these on ministers and other office bearers inside their own church. First and Second Stages of the Reformation . The Elizabethan Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1559) had added to it a new liturgical calendar in 1561, drawn up by a Commission, and this was retained in the Book of Common Prayer (1662) which only included six extra days (although Accession Day is also added on various dates, depending when a monarch accedes) 1. From 1578, the Elizabethan prayer book had its own Notes to the Calendar, and these made reference to a number of specifically Protestant saints. These were (modernizing the spellings): Feb. 16, “The learned cleric, Philip Melancthon,” who “upon this day, was born” in “1497.” 2 July, “John Huss” who “was burnt” at the stake “on this day, at the Council held at Constance for professing the gospel of our Lord Jesus” in “1415.” 27 August, “Religion” “on this day, was Reformed, according to God’s express truth, in the most renowned city of Geneva” in “1535” (Calvin). 11 October, “on this day was the first conflict” in “five towns of Helvetia” (Switzerland) “wherein Zwingli was slain” in “1532.” But four days are set aside for Martin Luther. 18 February, “Martin Luther, the servant of God, died upon this day” in “1546.” 22 February, the “body” of “Martin Luther” was “upon this day” “translated to Wittenberg, and buried in the Chapel of the Castle there.” 31 October, “This day, in” “1517,” “Martin Luther gave his proposition in” the “University of Wittenberg, against” the “Pope’s” doctrines of “pardon.” 10 November, “upon this day Martin Luther was born” in “1483 2.” In harmony with this Reformation Anglican liturgical calendar of 1578, I consider that my great hero, Martin Luther, was like the Old Testament kings of Judah: Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham, in that like them he “did that which was right in the sight of the Lord”(II Kgs 12:2; 14:3; 15:3,34). But just as these kings left the idolatrous “high places” standing, so “the people” continued to “sacrifice and” offer “burnt incense” at them” (II Kgs 12:3; 14:3; 15:4,35), until the reforming process was completed by Hezekiah who “removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent” that “Israel did burn incense to,” and Josiah who “brake down the houses of the sodomites” “where” there were “hangings for the grove” (II Kgs 18:1,5,6; 22:2,7); so likewise Luther left, for instance, idols of sacramentalism standing with his consubstantiation and baptismal regeneration. As the Puritan theologian, John Flavel ( c. 1630-1691) records, “I see some things, saith Luther, which blessed Austin saw not; and those that come after me, will see that which I see not. 3” (Though we Reformed Anglicans 1 The three added black letter days are 27 May, 17 June, and 7 Sept. The three added days with their own collects, communion readings, proper lessons, and offices (services), were Charles I (30 Jan), Charles II (29 May), and Papists’ Conspiracy day (5 Nov., which though referring to the Gunpowder Treason in 1605, had its office modified from 1689 to include thanksgiving for the coming of William of Orange on that same day, 5 November, in 1688). These latter three, together with their offices, were removed from the prayer book in 1859. 2 The Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth 1559 , With an Historical Introduction by Edward Benham, John Grant, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 1909, pp. 194-205, The New Calendar of 1578. 3 Flavel’s Sermon 1 (I Cor. 2:21), The Fountain of Life, in The Works of John Flavel , 1820, Banner of Truth Trust, UK, 1968,1982, Vol. 1, p. 36. xlvi would not go as far as such Puritans, we still see the reforming process continuing on after the first stage of the Reformation i.e., the Lutheran Reformation.) But in my criticisms of Romish baptismal regeneration, the reader should understand that while I also reject the Lutheran (or early Reformation Anglican) doctrine of baptismal regeneration (which I find to be inconsistent with the gospel of justification by faith truly found in the Lutheran Augsburg Confession or Reformation Anglican 39 Articles ), and Berkhof rightly notes “Luther and his followers did not succeed in purging their Church from the leaven of Rome on this point;” nevertheless, the Lutheran (or early Reformation Anglican) teaching is still not the same as Rome. Hence, Berkhof further notes, “On the whole the Lutherans maintain, in opposition to Rome,” that “man” is “entirely passive in regeneration and incapable of contributing anything to it, though adults can resist it for a long time 4.” That is, even as consubstantiation is some improvement on transubstantiation, so Lutheran (or Reformation Anglican) baptismal regeneration is some improvement on Romish baptismal regeneration, even though, like later Reformed Anglicans who generally came to repudiate early Reformation Anglican baptismal regeneration, I still reject both. Thus I see the Protestant Reformation as a multi-staged process. The following are some key issues relevant to understanding the diversity in the major historic Protestant Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries. The reader should also be aware of divergent 17th century Protestant hagiologies relating to events connected with the civil war of the 1640s and 1650s, with Anglicans in the Church of England and Church of Ireland and most Puritan Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland (together with their Anglican and Presbyterian derivatives), though not uncritical of Charles I and Charles II 5, generally supporting their claims to be lawful kings under God’s law (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-10; I Peter 2:17); and Puritans from England and Ireland (together with their Puritan derivatives) generally supporting Oliver Cromwell.