Tag: tradition

Is there support for denying the traditional view on hell in Anglican orthodoxy?

This post is outside of my usual purview, being about Anglicanism, though I have written about other traditions in the past. I am engaging this topic not because it is weighty to me personally but because prominent Anglican YouTuber Paul Facey denies the traditional view on hell (TVH)1 in favor of annihilationism (AKA conditional immortality). I replied to one of his tweets noting the lack of support for this doctrine within his tradition, to which he replied that there is support for denying TVH in the Anglican tradition and attached a link to an article by the North American Anglican by Fr. River Devereux, a universalist. This post is a brief reply to that article.

To give a brief summary, the article argues that in 16th century Anglicanism there is at least hopeful language with respect to salvation of all men and that in the 17th century and onward, there is support for non-TVH positions. My contention in my original tweet was that the “entire post-Reformation [Anglican] tradition believed [TVH].” While not explicitly stated, by this, I meant the more orthodox strain of Anglicanism. If someone claimed the “entire post-Reformation Lutheran tradition believed X,” and the opponent replied, “But what about Agricola, Spener, Calixt, Leibniz, and Bengel? They denied X,” this would be a weak reply because these figures were known for their heterodoxy, and while they are viewed with some amount of respect among Lutherans, they are always taken with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of suspicion. I believe this is effectively what Fr. Devereux has done in this article.

My response to Fr. Devereux

16th century Anglicanism

Fr. Devereux’s primary point in the 16th century is that several Anglican sources are favorable to language of salvation being for all people. I believe the point is overstated. He points to this language in Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity:

By entreating for mercy towards all, we declare that affection wherewith Christian charity thirsteth after the good of the whole world, we discharge that duty which the Apostle himself doth impose on the Church of Christ as a commendable office, a sacrifice acceptable in God’s sight, a service according to his heart whose desire is “to have all men saved,” a work most suitable with his purpose who gave himself to be the price of redemption for all.

And he points to the Litany:

That it may please thee to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred, and are deceived,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to give to all thy people increase of grace, to hear meekly thy Word, and to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

And the third Collect appointed for Good Friday:

O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live: Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

The language is squarely inline with orthodox Lutheran, orthodox Anglican Davenantist, and French Amyraldian soteriology, This is not a leaning toward universalism or even a “hopeful universalism” at all in my opinion. It’s merely a moderation of high Calvinism.

The article also contends that none of the formularies require a belief in TVH (bold mine):

When Thomas Cranmer drew up his Articles of Religion in 1553, there were Forty-Two of them, not the eventual Thirty-Nine, and its final two articles condemned those who sought to restore the doctrines of millennialism and universal restoration. However, when the Articles were revised, they were omitted for reasons not entirely clear. As a result, there is nothing in the Articles of Religion that requires a belief in eternal conscious torment without the hope of repentance, which is something that later universalists would come to point out.

Anglican Formularies Prior to the 1662 BCP

First, I would point out that Devereux is effectively conceding that early Anglicanism’s chief theologian, Cranmer, held condemnation of universalism to be a chief article such that he included it in the 42 Articles, one of the early Anglican formularies, albeit very short-lived. I’ve reproduced the text of Article 42 below in the original early modern English.

All men shall not bee saued at the length.
[42] Thei also are worthie of condemnacion, who indeuoure at this time to restore the daungerouse opinion, that al menne, be thei neuer so vngodlie, shall at lenght bee saued, when thei haue suffered paines for their sinnes a certaine time appoincted by Goddes iustice.

This is not the only early formulary that condemns this, however.

The 10 Articles, the Bishops’ Book, and the King’s Book say the same.

From the 10 Articles, the third of the Principal Articles Concerning our Faith (emphasis mine):

Item, That they ought and must believe, repute, and take all the articles of our faith contained in the said creeds to be so necessary to be believed for man’s salvation, that whosoever being taught will not believe them as is aforesaid, or will obstinately affirm the contrary of them, he or they cannot be the very members of Christ and his espouse the church, but be very infidels or heretics, and members of the Devil, with whom they shall perpetually be damned.

And the fifth of the Principal Articles:

Item, That they ought and must utterly refuse and condemn all those opinions contrary to the said articles, which were of long time past condemned in the four holy councils, that is to say, in the council of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedonense, and all other sith that time in any point consonant to the same.

This article affirms the condemnations of the ecumenical councils, naming the first four by name, but also affirming those after that are consonant with them, which undoubtedly includes the fifth council, Constantinople II, unless it can be proved that Constantinople II contradicts the first four councils. Constantinople II, of course, condemns universalism.

From the Bishops’ Book in The Declaration of the Seventh Commandment:

For though he do not so presently punish us here in this world as he did the persons before rehearsed; yet his long patience and forbearing is no allowance or forgiveness of our offences, if we continue still in them, but a sore accumulation and heaping together of God’s wrath and indignation again At which time, instead of this temporal pain, we shall receive everlasting pain; being, as St. Paul saith, excluded from the everlasting kingdom of heaven; and, as Christ saith in the Matt. xxif. Gospel, and St. John in the Apocalypse, we shall be cast into the brenning [burning] lake of hell, where is fire, brimstone, weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth without end.

And in the Interpretation of the Fifth Article of the Creed (emphasis mine):

And I believe that by this descending of our Saviour Jesu Christ into hell, not only his elect people, which were holden there as captives, were delivered from thence, but also that the sentence and judgment of the malediction and of eternal damnation (which God himself most rightfully pronounced upon Adam and all his posterity, and so consequently upon me) was clearly dissolved, satisfied, released, and discharged, and that the Devil and hell both have utterly lost and be deprived of all the right, claim, and interest which they might have pretended to have had in me by the authority of that sentence, or by reason of any sin that ever I had or have committed, be it original or actual.

And again in the Interpretation of the Seventh Article of the Creed:

And contrary he shall set all the other, which shall be judged to everlasting pain and death, upon his left hand, and so shall send them down into hell, there to be punished in body and soul eternally with fire that never shall have end, which was prepared from the beginning of the world for the devil and his angels, and the cursed members of his body.

And again in the Interpretation of the Twelfth Article of the Creed:

And I believe that every man, being thus made perfect man in body and soul, shall at that day appear before the high Judge, our Saviour Jesu Christ, and there shall make a strait account of his own proper works and deeds, such as he did, good or evil, while he lived here in the world; and according thereunto shall be judged to receive, both in body and soul together, either everlasting joy and bliss, or else everlasting pain and woe.

And from the notes and observations upon the Creed:

First is to be noted, that all and singular the twelve articles, contained in this Creed, be so necessary’ to be believed for man’s salvation, that whosoever being once taught will not constantly believe them, or will obstinately affirm the contrary of them, he or they cannot be the very members of Christ and his espouse the church, but be very infidels or heretics, and members of the Devil, with whom they shall perpetually be damned.
…
And contrary, if in his lifetime he had not this right faith and belief in Christ, or having opportunity did not express this obedience, but transgressed the laws of God, and so died without repentance, although he pretended and said that he believed never so much, and trusted in Christ’s benefits never so much, yet shall he be judged and condemned to the everlasting pains of hell.

And from the King’s Book explaining the Seventh Article of the Creed (emphasis mine):

And when they shall be so gathered and assembled together, our Saviour Jesus Christ shall pronounce the final sentence and judgment of everlasting salvation upon all those persons which in their lifetime obeyed and conformed themselves unto the will of God, and exercised the works of right belief and charity, and so persevering in well-doing, sought in their hearts and deeds honour, glory, and life immortal; and contrary, upon all those which in their lifetime were contentious, and did repugn against the will of God, and followed injustice and iniquity rather than truth and virtue, our Saviour Christ shall then and there pronounce the sentence of everlasting punishment and damnation. In which sentence there shall be made a perfect separation or division between these two sorts of people, that is to say, between the sheep and the goats, the corn and the chaff, the good and the bad, the blessed and the cursed, the members of his body and the members of the Devil; and so the good and the blessed being upon his right hand, he shall clearly and perfectly deliver them for ever from the power and malice of the wicked, and from all the pains and evil, and so take them all up with him into heaven, there to be crowned and rewarded in body and soul with honour and glory, and everlasting joy and peace, which was prepared for them from the beginning of the world. And all the other, which shall be judged to everlasting pain and death, being upon his left hand, he shall send them down into hell, there to be punished in body and soul eternally with fire that never shall have end, which was prepared from the beginning of the world unto the Devil and his angels.

And here it is especially to be remembered how this article was for great considerations added immediately and conjoined unto the former articles, and chiefly to the intent that no man should in this lifetime presume upon the said benefits of Christ, or take occasion of carnal liberty or security, and so live without fear to transgress, or without regard to observe the commandments of God; but rather that every good Christian man should, in every part of his life, have a continual remembrance and respect unto the last day of judgment, and so be in continual fear to commit any thing contrary to the will of God, for the which he might deserve to have the sentence of everlasting damnation pronounced upon him.

For this is certainly true, that at that day every man shall be called to an account of his life, and shall be then finally judged according to his works, good or bad, done in his lifetime, that is, as St. Paul saith, to them that persevere in well-doing, and labour to attain glory, honour, and immortality, shall be given life everlasting; and to them that be contentious, and obey not the truth, but follow and do injustice, shall come indignation, ire, affliction, trouble, and pains everlasting.

And in the explanation of the Seventh Commandment (emphasis mine):

…yet his long patience and forbearing is no allowance or forgiveness of our offences, if we continue still in them, but a sore accumulation and heaping together of God’s wrath and indignation against the day of judgment: at which time, instead of this temporal pain, we shall receive everlasting pain; being (as St. Paul saith) excluded from the everlasting kingdom of heaven; and, as Christ saith in the Gospel, and St. John in the Apocalypse, we shall be cast into the burning lake of hell, where is fire, brimstone, weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth without end.

The Book of Common Prayer

I would like to contest Fr. Devereux’s contention that “there is nothing in the Articles of Religion that requires a belief in eternal conscious torment without the hope of repentance” from several parts of the Anglican formularies: the Athanasian Creed (prescribed in article 8 of the 39 Articles and itself contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer), the Commination, the Litany, the Order for Burial of the Dead, and the Two Books of Homilies (prescribed in article 35 of the 39 Articles). It is worth mentioning that all of these are in the 1549, 1552, 1604, and 1662 BCPs.

Article 8 of the 39 Articles says:

The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.

The Athanasian Creed states:

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

I am very aware that non-TVH proponents will say that those cast into everlasting fire will be removed from the fire, though the fire itself will be everlasting. I believe this is a very post-modern reading of the creed and is totally removed from the original meaning. The Athanasian Creed comes from the late patristic or early medieval period, a time in which the phrase undoubtedly would have not been intended to mean that the fire would be everlasting but people would be removed from it.

The Commination states (emphasis mine):

Then shall they call upon me (saith the Lord) but I will not hear; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me; and that, because they hated knowledge, and received not the fear of the Lord, but abhorred my counsel, and despised my correction. Then shall it be too late to knock, when the door shall be shut; and too late to cry for mercy, when it is the time of justice. O terrible voice of most just judgement, which shall be pronounced upon them, when it shall be said unto them, Go, ye cursed, into the fire everlasting, which is prepared for the devil and his angels.

Much of this language is merely scriptural; however, the stringing together of different passages is a clear interpretive move to identify hell and the punishment of men in hell to be eternal, rather than allowing for these passages to be about disparate matters.

One of the Litany petitions is as follows:

From all evil and mischief, from Sin, from the Crafts, and Assaults of the devil, from thy wrath, and from everlasting damnation,
Good Lord deliver us.

Perhaps a non-TVH approach could read this as a request for deliverance for all men from a damnation that would otherwise be everlasting, but I believe the plain reading is simply damnation is everlasting for those who are damned.

From the Order for the Burial of the Dead (emphasis mine):

Yet, O Lord God most holy, O Lord most mighty, O holy and most merciful Saviour, deliver us not into the bitter pains of eternal death.
Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts; shut not thy merciful ears to our prayer; but spare us, Lord most holy, O God most mighty, O holy and merciful Saviour, thou most worthy Judge eternal, suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee.

Here note that the eternal death is described as “bitter pains” which seems to rule an annihilationism, it being “eternal” seems to rule out universalism.

The Two Books of Homilies

Onto the Two Books of Homilies, Article 35 of the 39 Articles says:

The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

In the First Book of Homilies in A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture:

He that is hardhearted and an obstinate sinner shall there find everlasting torments prepared of God’s justice, to make him afraid, and to mollify (or soften) him.

From the Third Part of A Sermon of the Salvation of Mankind By Only Christ Our
Saviour from Sin and Death Everlasting:

…whereas we were condemned to hell and death everlasting, hath given his own natural Son (being God eternal, immortal, and equal unto himself in power and glory) to be incarnated… to justify us and to restore us to life everlasting. They that do well shall go into life eternal, but they that do evil shall go into the everlasting fire.

From Third Part of A Short Declaration of The True, Lively, and Christian Faith:

Upon such presumptuous persons, and willful sinners, must needs remain the great vengeance of God, and eternal punishment in hell, prepared for the unjust and wicked livers.

From the Second Part of A Sermon How Dangerous a Thing it is to Fall from God:

The other, as they be ready to believe God’s promises, so they should be as ready to believe the threatenings of God. As well they should believe the Law as the Gospel; as well that there is an hell and everlasting fire, as that there is an heaven and everlasting joy. As well they should believe damnation to be threatened to the wicked and evildoers, as salvation to be promised to the faithful in word and works.

From the First Part of An Exhortation Against The Fear of Death:

This state and condition is called the second death; which unto all such shall ensue after this bodily death. And this is that death which indeed ought to be dread and feared: for it is the everlasting loss, without remedy, of the grace and favour of God, and of everlasting joy, pleasure, and felicity. And it is not only the loss for ever of all these eternal pleasures, but also it is the condemnation both of body and soul, without either appellation or hope of redemption, unto everlasting pains in hell….
But the unmerciful rich man descended down into hell; and being in torments he cried for comfort, complaining of the intolerable pain that he suffered in that flame of fire: but it was too late. So unto this place bodily death sendeth all them that in this world have their joy and felicity, all them that in this world be unfaithful unto God and uncharitable unto their neighbours, so dying without repentance and hope of God’s mercy….
Thus we see three causes why worldly men fear death… but the chief cause above all other is the dread of the miserable state of eternal damnation both of body and soul…

From the Third Part of A Sermon against Whoredom and Uncleanness:

For, although death of body seemeth to us a grievous punishment in this world for whoredom, yet is that pain nothing in comparison of the grievous torments which adulterers, fornicators, and all unclean persons shall suffer after this life. For all such shall be excluded and shut out of the kingdom of heaven, as St. Paul saith: Be not deceived; for neither whoremongers, nor worshippers of images, nor adulterers, nor softlings, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous persons, nor drunkards, nor cursed speakers, nor pillers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And St. John in his Revelation saith that whoremongers shall have their part with murderers, sorcerers, enchanters, liars, idolaters, and such other, in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. The punishment of the body, although it be death, hath an end; but the punishment of the soul, which St. John calleth the second death, is everlasting: there shall be fire and brimstone; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth; the worm that shall there gnaw the conscience of the damned shall never die. O whose heart distilleth not even drops of blood, to hear and consider these things? If we tremble and shake at the hearing and naming of these pains, O what shall they do that shall feel them, that shall suffer them, yea, and ever shall suffer, worlds without end?

In the Second Book of Homilies, from The Second Part of the Right Use of the Church:

If we abhor to be scourged, not with whips made of cords out of the material temple only (as our Saviour Christ served the defilers of the house of God in Jerusalem), but also to be beaten and driven out of the eternal temple and house of the Lord (which is his heavenly kingdom) with the iron rod of everlasting damnation…

From the First Part of Against Peril of Idolatry:

If we regard the kingdom of God and life everlasting, and dread the wrath of God and everlasting damnation: for it is not possible that we should be worshippers of images and the true servants of God also…. That wicked angel and old serpent… attempteth alway by such sacrilege to deprive God (whom he envieth) of his due honour… and in the end to procure us for a reward everlasting destruction and damnation.

And the Third Part:

All such do not only bestow their money and labour in vain, but with their pains and cost purchase to themselves God’s wrath and utter indignation and everlasting damnation both of body and soul.

From the First Part of The Nativity of Our Saviour Jesus Christ:

As in Adam all men universally sinned, so in Adam all men universally received the reward of sin, that is to say, became mortal and subject unto death, having in themselves nothing but everlasting damnation both of body and soul. They became, as David saith, corrupt and abominable; they went all out of the way; there was none that did good, no not one. O what a miserable and woful state was this, that the sin of one man should destroy and condemn all men, that nothing in all the world might be looked for but only pangs of death and pains of hell!

From the Second part of For Good Friday:

Adam… purchased thereby, not only to himself, but also to his posterity for ever, the just wrath and indignation of God; who, according to his former sentence pronounced at the giving of the commandment, condemned both him and all his to everlasting death, both of body and soul… he became mortal, he lost the favour of God, he was cast out of Paradise, he was no longer a citizen of heaven, but a firebrand of hell and a bondslave to the devil… So that now neither he nor any of his had any right or interest at all in the kingdom of heaven, but were become plain reprobates and castaways, being perpetually damned to the everlasting pains of hell fire.

From The Third Part of the Homily of Repentance and of True Reconciliation Unto God:

Because they hardened their hearts, and would in no wise return from their evil ways, nor yet forsake the wickedness that was in their own hands, that the fierceness of the Lord’s fury might depart from them. But yet this is nothing in comparison of the intolerable and endless torments of hell fire, which they shall be fain to suffer who after their hardness of heart, that cannot repent do heap unto themselves wrath against the day of anger and of the declaration of the of the just judgment of God [Rom. 2:5].

The Catechisms

Additionally, the standard catechisms, which, while not a permanent formulary, were taught to all children by the schools and the churches, namely Cranmer’s Catechism (1548) and later Nowell’s Catechism, which was approved during the Convocation of 1562-1563 and ordered for use by Royal Injunction in 1563 and functioned as the standard catechism (alongside the catechism found in the BCP) until 1640 teach TVH.

Cranmer’s Catechism includes these excerpts (emphasis mine):

(For you see no Jewes children come to be baptised) and if we should haue heathen parentes and dye without baptisme, we should be damned euerlastingly.
…
And what a gaynyng is it I praye you, by purchasynge of a lytle lande herein this lyfe to purchase therwithal euerlastynge damnacion in hel? What profyteth it a man (sayeth Christ) yf he wynne all the worlde and lese hys awne soulle?
…
And sainct Paule sayeth, that by nature we be the children of Gods wrathe. So that we all shuld everlastingly be damned, yf Christ by his death had not redemed vs.
…
For this is Satans chiefe studye, to dryue men to suche feare, trouble and anguish of minde, that thorow pensyuenes and heuines of harte, he maye brynge theim to desperation. And this is his onely entent and study, to bryng as many as he can, to euerlasting damnation.
…
And our consciences should styl remaine troubled, and the feare of eternal death, and all noughty desiers and concupiscences of the frayle fleshe, shoulde euer remaine in vs (euen as from Adams time thei be in vs as sone as we be borne) and so we shuld be vtterly vnapte to the kyngdom of God and lyfe euerlasting, yf we shulde stil remayne, as we be borne.
…
I beleue that Jesus Christ, veray God, begotten of God the Father, and verye manne, borne of the Virgin Marie, is my Lorde, whiche by hys precyouse bloode and holy passyon, hathe redemed me, a myserable and damned wretch from all my synnes, frome death eternall, and from the tyrannie of the Deuell, that I should be his owne true subiect, and lyue within his kyngdome, and serue hym, in a newe and euerlastynge lyfe and iustice, euen as oure
Lorde Christe, after he rose from deathe to lyfe, lyueth and raygneth euerlastyngly. Or elles if you wyl answere

Nowell’s Catechism includes these excerpts (emphasis mine):

Ma. How be these two known, the one from the other?
Sch. The Law teacheth us our duty towards God, and our Neighbour, and chargeth us straightly to do the same :  promising everlasting life to such as do fulfill the Law, and threatning eternal damnation to such as do break the same.
…
Ma. What followeth?
Sch. That God will bless them who be obedient, and give due honour to their Parents, Princes, Magistrates, and other superiors, with long and happy life.  And on the contrary part it followeth, that all such as do disobey or dishonour their Parents, Princes, Magistrates, or Superiors, shall come to a sudden, speedy, and shameful death :  or else shall lead a life more wretched and vile than any death :  and finally, for their disobedience and wickedness, shall suffer everlasting punishment in hell.
…
Ma. Say on?
Sch. When we find in our consciences, that we be guilty of sin, which is the breach of God’s law, and do know also that by sin we do deserve the curse and most heavy wrath of God ;  and that the reward of sin is not only all worldly misery, bodily diseases, and death, but also eternal damnation, and death everlasting.
…
Ma. Tell me how came this to pass.
Sch. The woman deceived by the devil, perswaded the man to take of the fruit which God hath forbidden them, whereby, the Image according to the which they were created, was defaced :  and both they and their posterity became disobedient to God, froward and unable to all goodness ;  and subject not only to all worldly miseries, bodily diseases, and temporal death, but also unto eternal death, and everlasting damnation.
…
And finally, Christ by his undeserved reproaches, most painful & shameful death, hath delivered us from eternal pain, shame, and death everlasting, which we had most justly deserved by our sins, which sins are buried with Christ, and clean removed from the sight of God.
…
Ma. Because thou hast touched somewhat of this before, in speaking of the last judgement, I will ask thee but a few questions :  whereto or why do we believe these things?
Sch. Although we believe that the souls of men are immortal and everlasting, yet if we should think, that our bodies should by death be utterly destroyed for ever, then must we needs be wholly discouraged, for that wanting the one part of our selves, we should never entirely possess perfection and immortality.
…
Ma. Having sufficiently, as I think, examined thee concerning the chief points of Christian Religion ;  I would see now, how briefly and sufficiently thou canst rehearse the whole sum of all that hath hitherto been said.
Sch. First the Law of God contained in the ten Commandments, setteth before my eyes, a perfect rule of godly life, which I am bound to obey upon pain of eternal damnation :  wherefore by the same Law, I do know my sin, and the wrath of God against me for the same, and that everlasting Death by God’s Justice is therefore due unto me.

Note that both the immortality and eternality of souls and the eternal nature of pain and hell are affirmed here. This leaves no room for universalism or annihilationism.

The quotes above seem to clearly profess TVH; perhaps Fr. Devereux missed these when writing his article. At the very least, the quotes from the 1662 seem worthy of address.

17th-18th century Anglicanism

The article continues with the 17th-18th century. First, I want to point out that the earliest support he finds for this view in Anglicanism is 1649. This means that for the first 120 years of Anglicanism (beginning in 1529), TVH was the universal view. Second, to get a lay of the land let’s list the dates of the authors given in support of non-TVH views:

Gerrard Winstanley (1609-1676)
Benjamin Whichcote (1609-1683)
Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667)
Perry Sterry (1613-1672)
Henry More (1614-1687)
Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688)
John Smith (1618-1652)
Richard Coppin (fl. 1646-1659)
George Rust (c. 1627-1670)
Jeremiah White (1629-1707)
John Tillotson (1630-1694)
Thomas Burnet (c. 1635-1715)
Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680)
William Law (1686-1761)
Thomas Newton (1704-1782)
James Relly (1721/2-1778)
William Newcome (1729-1800)

These dates are important because one can find support for a wide swath of doctrines in every Protestant tradition after the era of orthodoxy ends. With the sweeping victory of rationalism and other movements (Socinians, radical Remonstrants, liberals, etc.) every heresy under the sun was tolerated in many regions. Each tradition has a different story in this respect. Orthodox Lutheranism was waning in the early 18th century and effectively ends when Loescher is sainted in 1749. The Reformed tradition has a similar trajectory, though drags out on its last leg longer, effectively ending with the death of Bernardinus de Moor in 1780. As for Anglicanism, the Bangorian controversy (1717), Samuel Clarke (a subordinationist, 1675-1729) as the Queen’s chaplain, and the rise of latitudinarianism in the late 17th century probably put the end of Anglican orthodoxy at 1729, the year in which Samuel Clarke died a minister (the rector of St. James’s Westminster!) in good standing with the Church of England as a Subordinationist.

The end of an era of orthodoxy does not mean that there were no orthodox figures past a certain year, but rather that orthodoxy was no longer the plurality position and other positions dominated the schools and clerical class. I believe taking note of this date (1729) is important, however, as my original contention was that non-TVH views did not have support in the Anglican tradition in the Reformation and post-Reformation era, which is shorthand for the “orthodox” period, which I am claiming ends roughly in 1729. That being said, I will discuss all the authors cited from the 17th-18th century because all of them were at least alive at the time of Clarke’s death (Newcome being just over a month old when Clarke died).

Examining the Authors

Now let’s examine the authors. Were they orthodox Anglicans or were they on the fringes? Are these authors orthodox Anglicans with only the single aside of being universalists or annihilationists?

Gerrard Winstanley (1609-1676) denied the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ, denied the historicity of Genesis, interpreted the Bible very allegorically, and even stated that scripture was an unsound foundation. His EBSCO article states that scholars debate whether he should be considered a Christian at all (according to secular standards).

Benjamin Whichcote (1609-1683) denied total depravity and was accused of semi-pelagianism. He was suspected of being influenced by paganism, Socinianism, being a Remonstrant (for why that is concerning, see this blog post), and latitudinarianism. Tuckney accuses him of rationalism.

Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) effectively denied the doctrine of original sin in Unum Necessarium (1655); Gilbert Sheldon (bishop of London 1660–63 and archbishop of Canterbury 1663–77) had doubts about his personality and temperament (Dictionary of Irish Biography).

Perry Sterry (1613-1672) was influenced by heretical Theosophist Böhme. He was considered a very obscure preacher with opaque, mystical sermons. He was considered difficult to distinguish from the Ranter association. He had a failed prophecy of the second coming in the 1650s and was a millenarian. He was sympathetic to Quakers. He held conventicles in London after the 1662 Act of Uniformity (IE illegal non-conformist activity).

Henry More (1614-1687) affirmed the pre-existence of souls. His affirmation of Article 17 (Predestination and Election) is questioned. He supported Christian Kabbalah. He was considered extremely idiosyncratic, even for a latitudinarian.

Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688) was accused of both tritheism and Arianism. He revived Plato’s idea of a “world soul,” seemingly with the intent to eliminate the need for direct divine action in teleology. He supported non-conformists.

John Smith (1618-1652) was a strangely mystical theologian who revived Origen’s “Spiritual Senses.” He was friendly to non-conformists. He did not publish any works while alive, which makes information on his theology more difficult.

Richard Coppin (fl. 1646-1659) was accused of being a Ranter and was imprisoned on this charge. He denied the label but was nonetheless close to them theologically. He leaned into pantheistic ideas. He was accused of antinomianism. He was accused of denying Christ’s perfection and the resurrection of the dead on the last day. He was hated and rejected by his first preaching station in London. He was repeatedly tried for heresy and found guilty on more than one occasion, even being imprisoned, but he was narrowly released on each occasion for one reason or another. He preached without ever being ordained based on his claim of an “inward experience” that called him to preaching. In late life he became an independent preacher from the church of England (IE a non-conformist).

George Rust (c. 1627-1670) affirmed pre-existence of souls and a cyclical history of the universe. His anonymous work supporting Origenism was censured. He was buried with honors but likely would not have been, had his work been de-anonymized during his lifetime.

Jeremiah White (1629-1707) was a non-conformist and the chaplain of Cromwell; after the 1662 restoration, he continued association with the Cromwell estate. He was also associated with the “Calves’ Head Club,” which publicly celebrated regicide and was made up of non-conformists and Anabaptists alike.

John Tillotson (1630-1694) was suspected of Socinianism because of his friendliness toward them and because of “incautious” language in a 1693 sermon on the Trinity in which he denied the Son’s self-existence. In one of his last letters in 1694 he wrote “I wish we were well rid of [the Athanasian Creed]” (Dictionary of National Biography). He was ordained in 1661 without subscription, emphasized reason over dogma, was a latitudinarian, and had a suspect marriage to Elizabeth French, a niece of Oliver Cromwell. Tillotson ultimately defended TVH anyhow; he merely left open the possibility of other positions.

Thomas Burnet (c. 1635-1715) treated much of scripture as allegorical, including the fall. He was a millenarian. He rejected original sin. He called the traditional theory of the sacraments “magical” and rejected it. In 1695 he was forced to resign from his courtly office. Some sources even suggest he might have been a closeted atheist.

Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680) affirmed pre-existence of souls and was a firm latitudinarian. He also held to the unusual epistemology of rational fideism.

William Law (1686-1761) was a Böhme enthusiast and was accused of being “oversubjectivist.” He approached the edge of the Quaker doctrine of “Inner Light.” His work was highly controversial and Warburton accused him of the “rankest fanaticism.” He refused to take the oath of allegiance to King George I, was removed from his position at Cambridge, and was forbidden from preaching and teaching.

Thomas Newton (1704-1782) not only held to universalism for men but also for Satan himself. He was an historicist millenarian and believed in Jewish Restoration. He promoted John Milton.

James Relly (1721/2-1778) was a Methodist (thus, outside the English Church) and was regarded by Wesley, Whitefield, and others as an antinomian, among other accusations. He rejected sacraments altogether. He professed the strange doctrine of “Finished Salvation.” He taught that believers no longer sin. He founded his own sect, often called “Rellyites.” He was convicted of committing fraud and called “black with crimes; an atrocious offender, both in principle and practice” by former colleagues. He was considered rough in mannerisms, and he was ultimately buried in a Baptist burial ground.

William Newcome (1729-1800) is primarily remembered for his revision of the KJV, which was withheld from publication during his lifetime, likely over concerns about heterodoxy in the translation and textual choices. He was influenced by Daniel Whitby (an Arian), John Taylor (a radical Arminian, leaning toward Pelagianism and Arianism), and Benson (a Socinian).

I believe an honest assessment shows that not a single one of these authors is an orthodox Anglican. Three of them are not really from the era of orthodoxy at all. Several had unsound standing with the English Church, even being outside of it entirely. Others, while in good standing with the church, supported or had close ties to dissenting groups. All of them have more than one point of heterodoxy apart from universalism or annihilationism. They largely did not use historic methods for hermeneutics and embraced unusual philosophical positions. Some openly embraced Origenism wholesale, not merely universalism.

Conclusion

While there is some support for non-TVH positions in the English Church beginning in 1649, it is wholly by heterodox figures. The formularies themselves profess TVH. The history of non-TVH positions in the English Church demonstrates that it is largely driven by false philosophies used to override the historical position of TVH. Those wishing to be inline with the formularies and historic orthodox Anglicanism should hold to TVH.

1] I have refrained from using the phrase “Eternal Conscious Torment” or “ECT” as I do not believe the term is neutral in this debate, despite its common usage. The term appears on Google Ngram first in 1817, next in a handful of uses between 1874 and 1900, next in 1950-1951, then in 1961-1976 it gets a handful of uses, before reappearing in 1984, and then permanently staying in use after 1987. Close matches include a 1740 Annihilationist work using the phrase “Eternity of Hell-Torments considered” and A.A. Hodge’s Commentary on the Westminster Confession of 1869 stating “That the reprobate are to be awarded a place with the devil and his angels, to be endured with conscious torment and shame through a ceaseless eternity.”

Towards a Theological Taxonomy

Scholars have written various works on denominational taxonomy (Backman 1983, Smith 1990, etc.). While categorization by theology has been attempted by some of these scholars, I found them lacking in terms of preparation for this post. Most academic work on the subject is engaging the topic from a sociological perspective, considering American demographics, church polities in relation to views of authority, or voting blocks. When the topic is engaged from a theological perspective, it is generally viewed from the lens of history, which is more helpful for theologians, but still fails to capture underlying similarities and differences in my opinion. Mere origin in a particular body does not necessarily mean there will be much theological heritage passed to a “child” tradition. I believe Plymouth Brethren (the hardline dispensationalist Christian tradition) are a case-in-point for this, coming from the Anglican tradition, yet bearing almost no resemblance to that tradition at all, apart from being largely present in the Anglo-sphere geographically.

Some have attempted a sort of theological positioning on axes such as Nate Bostian. Ironically, his Protestant section doesn’t elaborate much on Lutherans, which makes his blog post less helpful to me specifically, but his idea is interesting. While useful as a pedagogical tool, which was his intent, it doesn’t quite answer questions of taxonomy so much as place denominations on spectrums of theological positions.

More recently in the online theology sphere, Redeemed Zoomer did at least some mild taxonomy in categorizing Historic Protestants and Neo-Protestants as two distinct groups.

Methodists are curiously absent, perhaps because they break the mold he has set up

The Other Paul has also contributed to this debate in his categorization of Ecclesialism as a polemical category to group together Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church, and the less-prevalent micro-sects springing from these groups. The idea behind this is that in polemics, grouping “Protestantism” together and comparing it to Roman Catholicism, for example, is apples-to-oranges since “Protestantism” is not a single group but an umbrella category, like “Ecclesialism.”

And here are some images of denominational “family trees” that attempt to do taxonomy. You can find dozens of these if you Google “denominational tree.”

A theological approach

I’d like to propose a taxonomy of traditions based on theology. This scheme is aimed at categorizing theologically, not historically. Many taxonomies I’ve seen aim for a historico-theological categorization, but this results in unsatisfactory results if we simply wish to categorize groups by their theological positions, regardless of branches with which they share historical ties. This taxonomy is also more on-paper than on-the-ground. While that may limit the utility of this framing, the alternative has its problems as well. On-the-ground realities require surveying large groups of laity and clergy to hear their thoughts (which is beyond my monthly budget of $0), laity (and even clergy) often don’t actually know what they believe as Burge has mentioned, and attempting to lump together mainlines, evangelicals, fundamentalists, confessionals, and every other stripe and variety within a historic tradition will frankly yield absurd an unsatisfactory results– ELCA, NALC, LCMC, and LCMS simply do not have the same foundational beliefs for example.

The utility in the scheme I’m proposing is that it allows theologically conservative Christians (IE those who hold to the historic beliefs of a group) to compare and recognize how groups are related in a strictly dogmatic way. Quite literally, this categorization comes down to the historic dogma and historic practice of these traditions.

A beautiful MS Paint rendering
Zoom in on the Eastern section
Zoom in on the Western section
Zoom in on the Non-Catholic section

How groups were parsed:

A group qualifies as a theological tradition for this chart iff (if and only if) it is self-professedly Christian, is Trinitarian, has at least modest prominence in the Western world (international categorization opens a can of worms I am not qualified to touch, for example Neeism), exists today outside of micro-sects, is historically identifiable as a discrete group and is not able to be grouped into a larger tradition that is also discrete.
A group is Catholic iff it takes a favorable reading of the fathers and medievals and utilizes them positively in theology. (Note that this does not mean any of these groups is actually in alignment with the fathers and medievals, nor does it mean that they merely engage with the fathers in some way or another).
A group is Eastern iff it is Catholic and it has its primary theological lineage to the theology found in Eastern Sees of the patristic and medieval periods.
A group is Western iff it is Catholic and not Eastern.
A group is Protestant iff it is Catholic, Western, and shares the theological heritage of the Reformation era against the Roman Catholic Church.
A group is Non-Protestant iff it is not Protestant.
A group is Classical Protestant iff it is Catholic, Western, Protestant, and shares the theology of the historical confessions and practices of the Reformation era Protestant churches.
A group is Renewalist iff it is Catholic, Western, Protestant, and is a theological renewal movement of a Classical Protestant tradition.

A group is non-Catholic iff it is not Catholic.
A group is Nuda Scripturist iff it is non-Catholic and affirms that divine revelation is complete in Scripture alone and rejects any form of continuing revelation, whether through spiritual gifts (prophecy/tongues), inner light, apostolic offices, or prophetic interpreters.
A group is Neo-Revelationist iff it is non-Catholic and affirms Scripture as authoritative while also affirming some form of continuing divine communication beyond Scripture, whether through spiritual gifts (prophecy/tongues), inner light, apostolic offices, or prophetic interpreters.
A group is mixed iff it is non-Catholic and contains within its tradition both those who affirm nuda scriptura and those who affirm ongoing revelation, with no theological consensus on this matter across the tradition.

Notes

I can hear the keyboards typing! “[My denomination] is in the wrong spot!” “I do not believe X.” “Y is ambiguous.” “Why wasn’t Z included?” I think much can be clarified in this chart with definitions and explanations.

How were groups chosen?

I would like to start first with my criteria for including a group or not. A “modest prominence in the Western world” is perhaps vague; this I will admit! But I had to make a cut off somewhere to keep the graphic useable. I could have included, for example, certain Sedevacantist or True Orthodox groups, but this seemed, to be frank, like delving into microsects. I dug around various resources online listing denominations to attempt to get a thorough list without including traditions that were merely a few thousand people in the West.

How were termini chosen?

Secondly, I would like to clarify how and why the traditions terminate where they terminate. My criterion for identifying a theological traditions was to ask, “Is the tradition historically identifiable as a discrete group? Furthermore, can it be grouped into a larger tradition that is also discrete?” If the answer is “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second, then it can be considered a theological tradition. This gets difficult around the edges, but I attempted to do this as consistently as possible. This is the reason why Methodist/Wesleyan/Holiness/Nazarene (MWHN) are a single terminus. Whether a congregation and/or church body is one of these particular traditions as opposed to another can be very blurry. They are not discrete on their own, but as a collective they are a single discrete group. Similarly, while Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian are discrete groups, they can be grouped into a larger tradition that is also discrete, namely the Reformed tradition. Here my definition of the Reformed tradition is admittedly contentious, but this is the case no matter how I cut the definition.

Notes on Anglicans and Baptists in relation to the Reformed

Separating Anglicanism and Baptists as their own tradition apart from the Reformed tradition was a conscious choice and comes down to the qualifier “historically identifiable.” The Anglican tradition shares a lot with the Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, especially in the reformation and post-reformation eras, but beyond this, there is a visible and clear divergence which remains to this day, and because I’m writing this post in the year of our Lord 2025, this has to be taken into consideration.

I similarly see others concerned with my placement of Baptists. Are not Baptists closely related to the Reformed tradition, remaining in the “Catholic” camp? My reasoning here is that while there is an historic tie to the Reformed, Puritan/Congregationalist, and Anglican traditions, their theology as a whole group is very distinct from these groups. Early Baptist theologians such as John Gill or Benjamin Keach might very well be tightly tied to theology closely resembling Puritans like John Owen, but Gill and Keach are not representative of the Baptist tradition as a whole, nor are the early Baptist confessions. In fact, not a single Baptist church body today of any substantial size has a confessional subscription to Reformation or post-Reformation era confessional documents. Here are all of the conservative Baptist denominations I could find with over 30 congregations in North America: SBC, NBCA, BBFI, NAFWB, ABA, GARBC, BMAA, WBF, SBF, NMBCA, IFBI, SGBs, ORB, NABC, OFWBC, NTAIBC, GAB, SBiC, CBA, EARB, and GCEBC. None have a confessional subscription. Of these 6 are fully Calvinist, 2 are Moderate Calvinists, 5 are ambiguous, and 9 are Arminian. All of the liberal/moderate Baptist bodies of any note (ABC-USA, CBF, AoB, and CBM) are ambiguous on the Arminian-Calvinist debate and non-confessional. This is not a group of churches that fits under the Reformed umbrella clearly, and none of these churches on their official websites profess beliefs about upholding historic patristic, medieval, or reformation era beliefs or practices. The majority of theology coming from these church bodies is not engaging, let alone positively appropriating, patristic or medieval theology. This places them squarely in the Non-Catholic camp. There are individual congregations of course that are virtually Puritans/Congregationalists who believe in Credobaptism, but these are far and few between by comparison and are not representative of the Baptist tradition as a whole.

Evangelicals as a tradition

I foresee many questioning the tradition of “evangelicals” being included. This group is probably the most vague on the chart and also probably the least discrete, but it is nearly impossible to handle it otherwise. Evangelical is being identified here this way: I do not mean the sociological label. Nor do I mean the political label. Nor do I mean to identify “theologically conservative” groups. Nor do I mean to identify groups distinct from fundamentalists and distinct from liberals. I mean to identify groups such as Calvary Chapel, Vineyard Churches USA, Mosaic, ARC, Acts 29 Network, various non-denominational churches in the West, etc. “Evangelicals” tend to be similar in theology to Baptists and MWHN groups. Nearly all of them do not baptize infants. They do not believe in salvific sacraments. They are non-liturgical and use contemporary Christian music. They emphasize scripture, preaching, altar calls, emotional worship, and evangelism. I believe this is a fair description of the group that is extraordinarily nebulous, making it difficult to define cleanly. This group includes non-Pentecostal charismatics, neo-charismatics, moderate continuationists, and cessationists under its bubble. These groups are similarly blurry around the edges, but my contention is that they are more discretely identified as the evangelical tradition collectively than they are individually.

Conclusion

I hope readers find this helpful. I’ve put a lot of thought into this taxonomy over the course of a few years, periodically mulling. This taxonomy certainly has its limitations, but I also think it is useful in a way that previous attempts at taxonomy are not.

Five Arguments Against Transubstantiation

In this post I make five arguments against transubstantiation as the mechanism for the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. These arguments are not exhaustive, but they are the five I typically bring up when discussing this topic. Specifically I am arguing that the substance of the bread and substance of the wine remain after consecration; I am not disputing the mode of Christ’s presence in the Supper.

1. From 1 Corinthians 10-11:

Paul in 1 Corinthians 10-11 uses the terms of “cup” and “bread” to refer to both the consecrated and unconsecrated elements alike, which implies that the bread and wine remain after consecration, for the natural meaning of “cup” and “bread” is to refer to substances, not merely their accidents, unless we have good reason to believe otherwise from the context of the text, but we don’t have good reason to believe otherwise from the context of the text.

2. From Proverbs 9:5:

Solomon in Proverbs 9:5 foreshadows communion: “Come, eat of My bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.” If communion were no longer bread and mingled wine, then why would God call it “His bread” and the “wine which He mingled?” The unconsecrated elements are mere food; they become “His” when they have been consecrated, so the consecrated elements must still be bread and wine as God calls them “His” here.

3. From the fathers:

Irenaeus says that in communion there two realities– one earthly and one heavenly and in another place used participatory language to describe how the elements are transformed, which would not entail that the original substance ceases to be. Furthermore, he compares this participation to how we will participate in the Divine in the resurrection, but surely, we will not cease to be human in the resurrection.

Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others all use language about communion to describe it like the two natures of Christ, with both a divine and earthly nature, which surely cannot be with transubstantiation, as the earthly nature no longer remains but only the accidents.

Gelasius, Theodoret, and Chrysostom also are all explicit in teaching that the substances of the bread and wine remain.

Gelasius (Concerning the two natures in Christ against Eutyches): “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature, yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease.”

Theodoret (Dialogue 2): “Even after the consecration, the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance, figure, and form.”

Chrysostom (Epistle to Caesarius): “Before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread, but when the grace of God by the Spirit has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread still remains in it.”

4. From natural perception:

Our natural experience tells us that our sense experience is reliable in determining things as they are, but scripture also tells us that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Denying that the substance of bread and wine remains results in a general denial of the reliability of our sense experience. This seems absurd and a contradiction of Job 12:7-8: ​“But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you; ​​And the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ​​Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you; ​​And the fish of the sea will explain to you” and Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”

5. From the metaphysical implications:

The fifth argument is like the fourth, but it approaches the topic from the broader implications of the doctrine in metaphysics. Transubstantiation deprives us of any certitude we may have of the material world. If transubstantiation is true, and thus, a substance and the accidents attached thereto may be discordant, how can we know that the accidents we perceive in the world around us are not merely all inhering in other substances? All things could be not as they appear to our senses but entirely otherwise, but this is also absurd and a contradiction of Job 12 and Romans 1.

How much scripture is in the liturgy?

I saw a comment recently on Facebook of someone saying that he had visited a Roman Catholic parish and was disappointed how little scripture he heard. He said that they had read three shorter excerpts in the service and that was it, and he found this to be shockingly little compared to his experience in a Reformed church in which an entire chapter is often read. It called to mind the experience of John MacArthur visiting a Russian Orthodox prayer service (in Russian) and he proclaimed that he was struck that no scripture was read at all, which would be quite shocking, given that the prayer services (it was likely vespers or matins) used in all Russian Orthodox parishes are packed with scripture quotes and allusions (MacArthur doesn’t know an ounce of Russian as it turns out). This is no isolated phenomenon either– I have heard similar statements many times from evangelicals.

I’d like to dispel the myth that the traditional liturgy is lacking in scripture. The fact is rather the opposite. I hear more scripture at a traditional liturgy than anywhere else I’ve been in my life, having attended churches of many stripes. In this post, I’ll break down the different parts of the liturgy at my church and the scripture quotes in them.

Let’s take a very typical mass as an example: The Second Sunday after Pentecost.

Every service has the following components:

Prelude
Bells
Processional Hymn
Invocation
Versicles
Confiteor
Absolution
Introit
Kyrie
Gloria in Excelsis
Collect
Old Testament reading
Gradual
Epistle reading
Alleluia
Gospel reading
Sermon
Chief hymn
Creed
Intercessions
Offering Hymn
Offertorium
Oblation
Preface
Sanctus
Eucharistic Prayer
Verba Christi
Anamnesis
Acclamation
Pater Noster
Embolism
Pax Domini
Agnus Dei
Communion
Two communion hymns
Communio
Post-communion collect
Dismissal
Blessing
Silent prayer
Recessional hymn
Postlude

One by one, let’s see how much scripture is in each for the Second Sunday after Pentecost.

During the prelude, congregants are supposed to meditate on a Psalm (34, 43, 51, 84, 116, and 150 are common) and pray. (On average this is 14 verses). This is preparation for the service, but given that it’s printed in the ordo to do this and that it is standard practice (rather than socializing in the narthex prior to the service), this counts as part of the service for our purposes.

The bells have no scripture– they are bells.

Hymns vary– many have scripture quotes built in or at least paraphrases. Notably, every hymn in The Lutheran Hymnal has a verse listed for it, so we’ll say each hymn includes 1 verse of scripture for simplicity. Opening hymn (1 verse). (15 total)

The Invocation is a half-verse (Matt 28:19b). (15.5)

The Versicles are Ps 43:4a, 124:8 (1.5 verses). (17)

The Confiteor has no direct scripture quotes.

The absolution ends with an invocation (half verse). (17.5)

The introit is Ps 13:6,7,1 (3 verses). (20.5)

The Kyrie is a half verse (various verses say “Lord have mercy upon us”) repeated 3 times (1.5 verses). (22)

The Gloria in Excelsis has various scripture quotes and allusions (Lk 2:14, Jn 1:29, Rm 8:34, etc). Overall we’ll call this 3 verses, given that it is an amalgamation of various bits and pieces of scripture (3 verses). (25)

The Collect has no direct scripture quotes.

The Old Testament reading is Deut 6:4-13 (10 verses). (35)

The Gradual is Ps 41:4,1 (2 verses). (37)

The Epistle reading is 1 Jn 4:7-21 (15 verses). (52)

The Alleluia is Ps 5:1 (1 verse). (53)

The Gospel reading is Lk 16:19-31 (13 verses). (66)

Sermons of course have verses quoted in them, but we won’t count these. It does have an invocation at the beginning and end, however (1 verse). (67)

Chief hymn (1 verse). (68)

The Creed has many partial quotes of scripture (Jn 3:16, Jn 14:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Cor 8:6, 2 Cor 3:6, Eph 4:5, 2 Pet 1:21). We’ll count this as two verses in total (2 verses). (70)

The Intercessions have no direct scripture quotes.

The Offertory is the giving of offerings, so it has no direct scripture quotes.

Offering hymn (1 verse). (71)

The Offertorium is Ps 5:2 (1 verse). (72)

The Oblation has Rom 12:1b (half verse). (72.5)

The Preface has various allusions to scripture but only half a verse is quoted (various Psalms use the phrase “let us give thanks to the Lord, our God.”) (half verse). (73)

The Sanctus has Is 6:3, Matt 21:9b (1.5 verses). (74.5)

The Eucharistic prayer has Jn 3:16 (1 verse). (75.5)

The Verba Christi is 1 Cor 11:23-26 (4 verses). (79.5)

The Anamnesis has no direct scripture quotes.

The Acclamation has no direct scripture quotes.

The Pater Noster is the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13) (5 verses). (84.5)

The Embolism has no direct scripture quotes.

The Pax Domini is 2 Thess 3:16 (1 verse). (85.5)

The Agnus Dei is Jn 1:29 3 times, along with “have mercy upon us” (various verses use this phrase) along with Is 26:12a (4.5 verses). (90)

Then all partake communion.

Two communion hymns (2 verses). (92)

The Communio is Ps 9:1-2 (2 verses). (94)

The Post-communion Collect has no direct scripture quotes.

The Dismissal references Rth 4:8 and Lk 8:48 (we’ll say this is a half verse in total). (94.5)

The Blessing has no direct scripture quotes.

The silent prayer is simply a silent prayer of thanks at the end of the service.

Recessional hymn (1 verse). (95.5)

The postlude is played as people exit the nave.

In total: 95.5 verses.

The average chapter in the Bible has 26 verses, so 95.5 verses is ~3.7 chapters. The actual readings themselves are 38 verses on their own, well over a chapter. Given that the Roman Catholic and Anglican liturgies are very similar to the liturgy I’ve described above, it’s safe to assume the average mass at a typical Lutheran, Anglican, or Roman Catholic church includes at least 3 chapters of the Bible in total throughout the Sunday service (and much more on special days). So did the Facebook commenter really not hear much scripture at the Roman Catholic parish he visited? Did he hear less than he probably would have at a Reformed church? Probably not. In fact, he probably heard much more scripture at this Roman Catholic mass, given that he estimated he hears 1 chapter at his Reformed church.

The fact of the matter is that the traditional liturgy and classic hymns are an invaluable resource in terms of teaching the congregation scripture and keep the service grounded in God’s Word. The service is not at the whim of the pastor with the traditional liturgy. By contrast, in a modern service (as seen in many Evangelical and Reformed churches today), a pastor could choose a small scripture reading or mere handful of verses for the entire service, accompanied by songs that lack a single scripture reference. In the worst case scenario in a traditional liturgy, the pastor delivers a sermon full of heresy, or a 2 minute homilette, yet the congregation still heard over 3 chapters of scripture, was absolved, received communion, was edified visually by liturgical actions and vestments, and left hearing a benediction.

The Sign of the Cross – An Apostolic Practice

In Luther’s Small Catechism, he says that every Christian should make the sign of the cross in the morning and evening before praying:

In the morning, when you rise, you shall bless yourself with the holy cross and say:
In the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

In the evening, when you go to bed, you shall bless yourself with the holy cross and say:
In the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

Small Catechism, Daily Prayers, 1, 4

And since then, Lutherans have been doing exactly that. But from where does this practice come? Is it just a holdover from the medieval church? In this post, I demonstrate the grounds for this practice and contend that it is very likely apostolic in origin, but if not, it is at least from the apostolic age. If you’re solely interested in the explicit evidence, skip to the section about the earliest witnesses as the Scriptural foundations section is more about the grounds for the practice.

Scriptural foundations

Old Testament precursors

The sign of the cross is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in scripture (though neither is folding one’s hands or closing one’s eyes in prayer), but many foundations are laid for it both in scripture and, more abstractly, pre-incarnation extra-Biblical sources (as discussed later). Physical signs marking Israel as saved by Christ and imprinted with His Spirit are precursors of this Christian practice, and in the New Testament, the language surrounding this spiritual reality lend themselves well to Christians making a habit of remembering this in a physical way.

Beginning in plagues in Egypt, Israel marked itself with a sign to separate itself from pagan Egyptians. Exodus 12:23: “For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you.” This mark on their doors was the blood of the first Passover lamb, a prefigurement of Christ crucified. Marked with this blood, judgment was not dealt to them.

Later in Exodus, Aaron and the high priests after him are given a sign to wear on their foreheads. Exodus 28:38: “You shall also make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet: HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And you shall put it on a blue cord, that it may be on the turban; it shall be on the front of the turban. So it shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall always be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.” And this practice was also held among Israelites. Deuteronomy 6:6-8: “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.” Deuteronomy 18:11: “Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.” And this practice has allusions in Exodus 13:9-16. The practice continued into the time of the New Testament (Matthew 23:5). These phylacteries were to remind Israel of God’s salvation and were specifically for remembrance on certain occasions, which Christians have maintained. This is why we cross ourselves when we wake up, go to sleep, sit in our house to eat, or travel (praying the Itinerarium). Particularly important to note is that these phylacteries resided on the forehead, which is where early Christians crossed themselves, and to this day is still a place of crossing in certain Christian rites such as application of chrism in chrismation, imposition of ashes on Ash Wednesday, and during the announcement of the Gospel reading in the mass.

In the end of the Old Testament, God commanded Ezekiel to place a mark on the foreheads of Israelites mourning over abominations in the Temple. Ezekiel 9:3-4: “Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer’s inkhorn at his side; and the Lord said to him, ‘Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark (Hebrew: tāv) on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it.'” The tāv is the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet and in paleo-Hebrew, which would have been in use at the time, resembled a cross. Origen’s (185-253 AD) commentary on this (and other church figures after him follow suit) explains, “A third, one of those who have come to faith in Christ, said that in the old-style [paleo-Hebrew] letters, Tau [this is the Greek character t, which corresponds to the Hebrew tāv here] resembles the form of the cross, and that there is a prophecy here concerning the sign placed on the foreheads of Christians—which all believers make when beginning any activity at all, especially prayer or holy readings.” This connection is fairly direct; these Israelites had a mark, in the shape of a cross, place on their foreheads, which is what we Christians do today.

New Testament spiritual foundations

In the New Testament, a number of passages point toward spiritual realities, upon which the sign of the cross is based.

In Mark 8:34 Jesus says, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” The sign of the cross is to remind ourselves that we are to take up our cross daily. Just as the cross was placed on Jesus, so we have the sign of the cross placed on us.

Paul says in Romans 13:14, “[P]ut on the Lord Jesus Christ,” and the sign of the cross is a representation of this. We place the cross on ourselves, and the cross represents the work of Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22: “Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” The sign of the cross is a symbol of the seal placed upon us. In particular, this is reflected in the chrismation rite, in which we are anointed with oil in the sign of the cross, including the forehead, as mentioned earlier, but also upon the heart, reflecting that the Spirit is in our hearts and sealed there as Paul says again in Ephesians 1:13, “you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.”

Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” The sign of the cross represents that we have been crucified with Christ, placing the cross onto ourselves.

Galatians 6:17: “From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” The sign of the cross marks our bodies with the marks placed on Jesus in His crucifixion.

Revelation 7:1-4: “After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree. Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, saying, ‘Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.’ And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed.” And 9:4: “They were commanded not to harm the grass of the earth, or any green thing, or any tree, but only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.” And 14:1 “Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads.” In these three passages, Christians are marked with a sign on their forehead, specifically the name of the Father, YHWH. Again, like in the Old Testament passages, a visible sign is placed on the forehead to indicate salvation, and we imitate this by making the visible sign of the cross on ourselves, including on the forehead. Bede (673-735 AD) comments on Revelation 7:3: “Hurt not: From the time that the Lord suffered, not only was the dominion of the enemy who opposed Him destroyed, but that of worldly power too, as we both see with our eyes… [that is, on our] foreheads. For to this end was the empire of the nations broken up, that the face of the saints might be freely marked with the seal of faith, which these had resisted. For, again, the figure of the cross itself represents the kingdom of the Lord extending everywhere, as the old saying proves: ‘Behold the world four-square, in parts distinct, To shew the realm of faith possessing all.’ And not in vain was the sacred Name of the Lord, of four letters, written on the forehead of the High Priest, inasmuch as this is the sign on the forehead of the faithful, of which it is also sung in the Psalm [8:1]: ‘O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth.'” And this idea of the cross being stretched across the world in four directions is a theme in early Christianity which is related to the practice of signing the cross, to be discussed next.

The earliest witnesses

Related ideas building on sources before the 2nd century AD

Before getting to the earliest explicit witnesses, I think it’s worth mentioning some early ideas related to this practice going back to Plato and the appropriation of Plato by early Christians. In Plato’s Timaeus, he describes the creation of the world and in 34a-36b, the soul of the world, which is a divine thing of sorts, is stretched across the body of the world in the shape of a cross. This tradition was inherited from earlier Pythagoreans (Pythagoras lived 570-495 BC) who likely got it from the ancient near east. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) in his First Apology 55 takes Plato’s tradition about the world soul to be about the Logos (Greek for “Word”), a common identification in the Middle-Platonists, including Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD), the Jewish Platonist. Philo also connects the Logos to the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, which Christians have identified with the pre-incarnate Christ (similarly the Word and Name of the Lord in the Old Testament). This Logos is identified with Jesus in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Putting these things together, Justin takes the stretching out of the world soul, IE the Logos, in the shape of a cross onto the body of the world to be about Christ being impressed upon creation in cruciform shape. Justin Martyr does not make this next step, but it is fitting: Man, as a microcosm of creation, then puts impresses upon himself the shape of the cross in this ritual.

Irenaeus (130-202 AD) makes the same connection in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 34: “Now seeing that He is the Word of God Almighty, who in unseen wise in our midst is universally extended in all the world, and encompasses its length and breadth and height and depth— for by the Word of God the whole universe is ordered and disposed—in it is crucified the Son of God, inscribed crosswise upon it all: for it is right that He being made visible, should set upon all things visible the sharing of His cross, that He might show His operation on visible things through a visible form. For He it is who illuminates the height, that is the heavens; and encompasses the deep which is beneath the earth; and stretches and spreads out the length from east to west; and steers across the breadth of north and south; summoning all that are scattered in every quarter to the knowledge of the Father.”

Earliest explicit witnesses

Now that foundations and precursors have been covered, we can move onto the earliest explicit witnesses.

The earliest extant source to mention the sign of the cross explicitly is the Acts of Paul and Thecla. This work was written between 95 and 200 AD, but is likely from the early 2nd century in my estimation, as Dunn has argued (more thoroughly than any other source I have seen). For evidence on this, see his PhD Dissertation and further comments of his in this blog post. In reply to the original edition of this blog post (IE the one you are reading, not his post previously linked), he made comments on Facebook, which I will here quote:

Thanks for mentioning and linking my PhD dissertation. For what it is worth, I now argue that the Acts of Paul should date in the early second century based on several criteria: (1) form of persecution; (2) orthodoxy displayed; (3) heresies encountered; (4) evident ignorance of NT texts, esp. Acts.

I’ve yet to publish anything on why I think the AP represents earlier persecution. The suggestion that Christians should die for the name of Christian would be post-Trajan’s rescript (to Pliny, AD 111-113), and yet no one actually dies for that even though it is suggested by Demas and Hermogenes to Thamyris. So evidently, we are still in the early second century when martyrs died for their impious, evil deeds, rather than just for carrying the name Christian. I thus conclude that the conditions of persecution suggest pre-Trajan’s Rescript. Contrast the later 2nd century martyrdoms in the Acts of Christian Martyrs, Musurillo.

Peter Dunn, two Facebook comments in Patristics for Protestants on January 22, 2024

The text purports to record events that occurred during the life of Paul, who is himself mentioned (alive) immediately before the part about making the sign of the cross. Paul died in 64/65 AD. If the event described in this quote is true, then the practice is certainly apostolic, if the event described is not, it still provides compelling evidence for an apostolic or near-apostolic origin of the practice. If the author, living in the early 2nd century, included the detail about making the sign of the cross while this was yet a novel practice, his audience would have immediately called out the historical anachronism (we have no evidence that this occurred, despite only slightly later sources critiquing the document). Unless the author was a fool, he would not intentionally include an historical anachronism. This makes it likely that the practice at least pre-dated living memory in the early 2nd century, being at least a lifetime earlier in origin, for then nobody could immediately point out the anachronism of a practice that developed in the audience’s own lifetime without drawing on older testimonies. It’s also worth mentioning that the author does not explain the practice at all, which suggests the intended audience would be familiar with the practice already, meaning it was likely widespread by this time. This places the practice firmly in the apostolic age.

Now the boys and the maidens brought wood and hay to burn Thecla: and when she was brought in naked, the governor wept and marvelled at the power that was in her. And they laid the wood, and the executioner bade her mount upon the pyre: and she, making the sign of the cross, went up upon the wood. 

Acts of Paul and Thecla 22

The next earliest source on the sign of the cross is Tertullian (155-220 AD). He is speaking of what he believes to be ancient customs that are widespread in his time, which ends with making the sign of the cross on the forehead, so by the early 3rd century, this practice was widespread certainly, and not only that, but Tertullian claims this practice is ancient custom that demands our submission.

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly… At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.

If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. Meanwhile you will believe that there is some reason to which submission is due.

Tertullian, The Chaplet 3-4

Hippolytus (170-235 AD) describes the rites for baptism and chrismation, which immediately follows, in his work The Apostolic Tradition, and this rite includes making the sign of the cross on the forehead with chrism, as is still done to this day. Notably, this work purports to be describing traditions passed from the apostles themselves, which is yet another argument for this practice being apostolic in origin, but even if it is slightly later (for it is at the latest from the end of the first century), this document further adds to such evidence since it could not purport to be apostolic practice if it weren’t at least from before the living memory of the audience.

Then the bishop, laying his hand upon them, shall pray, saying, “O Lord God, who hast made them worthy to obtain remission of sins through the laver of regeneration of [the] Holy Spirit, send into them thy grace, that they may serve thee according to thy will; for thine is the glory, to the Father and the Son, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and world without end. Amen.” Then, pouring the oil of thanksgiving from his hand and putting it on his forehead, he shall say, “I anoint thee with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and [the] Holy Ghost.” And signing them on the forehead he shall say, “The Lord be with thee;” and he who is signed shall say, “And with thy spirit.” And so he shall do to each one. And immediately thereafter they shall join in prayer with all the people, but they shall not pray with the faithful until all these things are completed. And at the close of their prayer they shall give the kiss of peace.

Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 22

Conclusion

I believe the evidence from the earliest sources leads us to the conclusion that this practice is indeed apostolic. We have an explicit source from almost immediately after the time of the apostles claiming that it is apostolic, and two from a generation or two later that claim the same. We have no reason to believe all three sources are fabricating evidence or merely mistaken, especially given that Hippolytus has always been regarded by the church as a saint, and he was bishop of Rome, the highest seat in all of Christendom. The evidence firmly supports a first century date, even if one finds it unconvincing that the practice is apostolic in origin. Numerous scriptural texts and even pre-New Testament sources prefigure the practice and lay grounds for it, showing why the practice arose and spread so early and so quickly.

Johann Gerhard on Dionysius the Areopagite

The Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite by Michael Syncellus was recently published by Scriptorum Press. In this volume Syncellus contends that the writings attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite are authentic, as opposed to the work of a later hand. This runs against the prevailing scholarship, though not without some detractors, primarily from traditional Eastern Orthodox circles. You can hear some of the arguments here on Craig Truglia’s channel. The framing in the discussion on Truglia’s channel is at times not reflective of the data, in my opinion. Evangelos makes it sound as if the authenticity was question by Lorenzo Valla (an Italian humanist) and then pushed hard by Protestants alone, but Johann Gerhard, in his Patrologia, puts forth the opinions of many authors, even some from before Valla, who doubted authenticity, including Theodorus Gaza, a Greek humanist, which is important since he came out of Byzantine training in Greek Orthodoxy, and two preeminent Catholic theologians– the blesséd Doctor Ecstaticus Denis the Carthusian (a Belgian Carthusian), and the Doctor Christianus cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (a German humanist mystic). Roman Catholic contemporaries of the Reformation of many varieties also doubted the authenticity such as Francisco Ribera (a Spanish Jesuit), abbot Johannes Trithemius (a German Benedictine), Sixtus Senensis (an Italian-Jewish Dominican), and William (John) Grocyn (an English humanist, not mentioned by Gerhard below), and most notably two distinguished figures, the “Prince of the Humanists” Desiderius Erasmus (a Dutch humanist priest), and cardinal and master of the Dominicans Thomas Cajetan (an Italian Dominican). It’s authenticity seems to have been doubted by Protestants of all stripes, Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed.

Here’s a full list of authors who doubted the authenticity of the corpus leading up to Valla:

  • Hypatius of Ephesus (d. After 536)
  • Unknown authors in the time of John of Scythopolis (536–550)
  • Joseph Hazzaya (b. 710)
  • Photius (810/820–893)
  • Arethas of Caesarea (860-939)
  • The Souda (10th c.)
  • John the Oxite of Antioch (d. 1100)
  • Peter Abelard (1079–1142)
  • Joane Petrizi (11-12th c.)
  • Euthymius Zigabenus (d. After 1118)
  • Peter of Damascus (d. After 1156)
  • Svimeon the Armenian (13th c.)
  • George Pachymeres (1242– 1310)
  • Theodore Gaza (1398-1475)
  • Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)
  • Denis the Carthusian (1402–1471)

If you’d like to see more from Lutherans on this, see this paper. The Lutheran fathers seem unanimous in denial of the authenticity of the corpus. Luther questions it in the Leipzig debate of 1519. Melanchthon denies it in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 71. Chemnitz denies in Examen vol II. Gerhard denies (Confessio Catholica 622-624). Quenstedt denies (Sys I.681) (see Pieper in Dogmatics I, Angelology 7, footnote 11). Schmelling denies in his Union with Christ. Pelikan denies in The Christian Tradition vol II.

In this post, I have taken the time to run Gerhard’s section on Dionysius the Areopagite from his Patrologia through Chat GPT to translate it into English from Latin. The edition I’m using is free on Google Books from Sengenwald, 1668. The section on Dionysius begins on page 13 and ends on page 32. While I did try to edit the translation down for accuracy, take the translation with a grain of salt of course.

The arguments made by Gerhard should not be taken as comprehensive– far from it, they are a summary and more developed arguments have been made since his time. I also do not intend this post to be a apology for or against the authenticity of the corpus. I just thought it would be useful material to have publicly available to contribute to the conversation on this topic.

Dionysius the Areopagite

Life

He is called Areopagite because he was a judge of criminal cases in Athens before his conversion to Christ, as described by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:33. Hence, he was later called a disciple of Paul.

In Gaul, he taught in the year 80, [as mentioned by] Ambrose Pelargus.

Eusebius in Book 3, Chapter 4 of his History: “that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens.”

Others mention that he, converted by Paul in Athens, came shortly afterward to Clement, the Bishop of Rome, and was sent by him to Gaul. There, he preached Christ in Paris and, finally, suffered the penalty of death.

Baronius, in the Roman Martyrology on October 9th and in the Annals for the year 95, number 7, and for the year 109, number 38, reports that “[Dionysius] first became the Bishop of Athens and then the Bishop of Paris.” He achieved the palm of martyrdom along with Saints Eleutherius and Rusticus, either in the final years of Trajan’s reign or certainly at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Hadrian.

Nicephorus, in Book 2 of his “History,” Chapter 20, mentions that [Dionysius] was baptized and designated as the Bishop of Athens by Paul himself, as he excelled with miraculous and divine praises. “He lived [says Nicephorus], more familiarly with the divine man Hierotheus, both of whom Paul, rapt with them into the third heaven and paradise itself, had initiated into the divine matters, the rationale of the Word of God, the Celestial Hierarchy, and the absolute disposition and ordering of all things. Paul communicated these teachings, gloriously praising Christ, in the Western parts for many years, reaching a very advanced age, and finally, adorned with the crown of martyrdom, he offered his severed head, which had been cut off by a sword, to a woman, who reverently placed it in the same spot where it had fallen.”

Therefore, with words of piety and divine worship, he gloriously preached for many years in the Western parts, reaching old age and eventually being honored with the crown of martyrdom. It is said that he carried his severed head, which had been cut off by a sword, in his hands for about two miles and then handed it over to a certain woman at the place where it had fallen.

Some argue that he underwent martyrdom during the reign of Domitian. However, Dionysius, in his book On the Divine Names, Chapter 4, cites the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, which was written in the 7th year of Trajan, during which Ignatius was crowned with martyrdom. Now, Trajan succeeded Domitian.

Bellarminus, therefore, asserts that Dionysius survived beyond the reign of Domitian and lived into the rule of Hadrian. This position is presented in his work On Ecclesiastical Writers on page 65.

Writings

Nicephorus, in his work Ecclesiastical History Book 2, Chapter 20, enumerates the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. According to Nicephorus, “Dionysius composed works characterized by sublime contemplation of divine matters and remarkable eloquence, far surpassing those captured by human understanding. The mentioned works are:

  1. De Divinis Nominibus (On the Divine Names): 13 chapters, with an additional hundred chapters filled with divine wisdom.
  2. De Coelesti Hierarchia (On the Celestial Hierarchy): 15 chapters.
  3. De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia (On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy): 7 chapters.
  4. De Arcana sive Mystica Theologia (On the Hidden or Mystical Theology): 5 chapters.

Dionysius also left behind ten epistles, the last of which is addressed to the Evangelist John, who reclined on the Lord’s breast. These writings are still circulated today. Dionysius mentions other works of his, such as Theological Dispositions and Symbolic Theology. Additionally, he wrote on Angelic properties and orders, a commentary on the soul, divine justice and judgment, divine hymns, and Likewise concerning those things which are perceived either by understanding or by sensation. However, these commentaries have not been seen at all, neither by us nor by those who were before us.”

In Chapter 22, Nicephorus references passages about the assumption of Mary found in the third chapter of Dionysius’ letter to Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus. This chapter includes sections titled “What is the power of prayer concerning Blessed Hierotheus & about religion and Theological History.”

According to Suidas, the following works of Dionysius the Areopagite are listed:

  1. On the Celestial Hierarchy
  2. On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
  3. Epistles to Gaius (4)
  4. Epistle to Dorotheus
  5. Epistle to Sopatrus
  6. Epistle to Polycarp
  7. On the Divine Names
  8. On Mystical Theology
  9. Epistle to Demophilus
  10. Epistle to Titus
  11. Epistle to Apollophanes
  12. Epistle to Saint John the Evangelist

Rhemenses[?] in Annotations on Acts ch. 17, page 325: “This is that Dionysius about whom there is so much renown in the Acts of the Apostles. He wrote excellent volumes on Hierarchies and Divine Names, in which, whatever is used in our sacraments and whatever is at all controversial, is proven to have flowed down from the very Apostles themselves. Protestants have no other escape than to deny that this work is that of Dionysius, but of some recent and obscure author, I do not know who.”

Ten Reasons by Edmund Campian (rat. 5, p.32): “The Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite teaches what classes, what sacred rites? So deeply did it disturb Luther that he judged it to be very similar to all his works and, moreover, highly pernicious.”

Baronius in the year 109, number 51 and following, along with Bellarmine in Book 1, Chapter 5, On Monks, Martinus Delrio in Vindications of the Areopagite, Jacobus Gaulterius in First Truth of the First Century, and Bellarmine in his First Disputation (d. 1) argue for the genuineness of Dionysius’s writings. They emphasize that these works are cited under the name of Dionysius by three Popes, two Councils, and many Doctors. It is not a new opinion that dominates in citing widely.

The works were published in Greek with the paraphrase of Pachymeres and extensive annotations in Paris by Morelius in 1562. The same works were published in Latin in Cologne by Maternus Cholinus in 1557 and in Paris by Henricus Stephanus in 1515.

Bellarmine in Book 1, Chapter 6, On Purgatory, and Chapter 1, Campian in his Sanctoral Calendar, and the Rhemenses[?] in Annotations on Acts ch. 17, Verse 34, from Dionysius’s book On the Ecclesastical Hierarchy confirm purgatory and ecclesiastical hierarchy. However, they argue that this writing is spurious, not belonging to the Dionysius whose name it bears, as Sixtus Senensis in Book 6, of Annotations 229, Cajetan in Acts 17, Erasmus in Acts 17 (see Morton, p. 2, p. 279), and Lorenzo Valla & Erasmus in Chapter 17 of Acts. Luther in Chapter 3 of Genesis (p. 53) and Cajetan and several others, such as Whittaker and Flacius, who present reasons for considering Dionysius’s writings to be spurious.

  1. From reason of the style: which is considered inflated, obscure, improper, and intricate, not in line with the style used in Athens during the time of the Apostles but rather started being used about three hundred years later in Greece and Rome. Nicholas of Cusa states about this writer that he excessively imitates Plato. The same argument is pressed by Dr. Chemnitz in an oration on the reading of the Fathers. The style itself convincingly indicates that it is not Attic and certainly not written in an apostolic manner. Casaubonus in Exercises 16, p. 565: “Dionysius the Areopagite, indeed, is a most ancient and elegant writer: But who he is, about whom mention is made in the Acts, only those unskilled in the light of literature and entirely ignorant of both the Greek language and the antiquity of the Church dare to assert.”
  2. From the omission of his name in the writings of the ancients: Eusebius, in Book 3, Chapter 4: [“And first we must speak of Dionysius, who was appointed bishop of the church in Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired labors not only to his own people, but also to those in foreign lands, and rendered the greatest service to all in the catholic epistles which he wrote to the churches.”] and Book 4, Chapter 23, “That Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens.”

    Jerome, in the catalogue of his writings, makes no mention of Dionysius’s writings, even though he explicitly decided to enumerate ecclesiastical writers who left something for posterity. Indeed, no one before Gregory the Great, who, though citing his letters, does not indicate that Dionysius the Areopagite was among them.

    Sixtus Senensis in Book 4 of the Library: “The mystical theology of Dionysius was still unknown in the century of Athanasius.”

    Erasmus, in his Annotations on Acts 17, p. 225: “It is astonishing that if he was such an ancient author and wrote so much, he is not cited by anyone from the ancients, neither from the Greeks nor the Latins: not by Origen, not by Chrysostom, nor even by Jerome, who left nothing unexamined, so much so that Gregory himself, a man of proven faith quoting these letters, does not indicate that Dionysius the Areopagite existed. Jerome in the Catalog of Illustrious Men mentions one or two Dionysius but does not mention his books.”

    Gennadius [Scholarius], in the Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers, also makes no mention of him. Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, who lived under the rule of Emperor Commodus around the year 185 AD, in his writing about Dionysius the Areopagite, declares how he was first converted to the faith by Paul, as is in the Acts of the Apostles. Later, he became the Bishop of the Athenians, but his about his book the “Hierarchy,” he does not even mention a word.
  3. From the computation of time: Dionysius the Areopagite was a disciple of Paul, but the Dionysius mentioned at the end of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy speaks in this way: ‘A delay of 40 days, as our divine priests, initiated into the ancient mysteries, handed down to us for divine worship.’ He speaks there about the baptism of infants and, in the plural, mentions instructors, suggesting that this doctrine was transmitted to them by the apostles through successive instructors. So how could he have been a disciple of the apostles? In Book 1 of Divine Names, he quotes Clement the Philosopher in the area of dialectics, saying that “exemplars of principal things are either absent or present, or their causes are formal and relative.” However, there was no other Clement the Philosopher than the Alexandrian one, whose books still exist, and he lived around 200 years after Christ. This quoted passage seems to be entirely from the eighth Miscellany, [ch. 9 par 14?] where Clement says, “causes are especially formal and relative.” In Chapter 4 of Divine Names, he quotes the Epistles of Ignatius, which, however, were written after the death of Dionysius. In the book on Hierarchy, he cites Clement of Alexandria, who lived about two hundred years after Christ.

    Therefore, Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus suspect that different authors are being confused. Laurentius (quoted by Erasmus in Chapter 17 of Annotations on Acts): “In this place, he refutes the opinion of those who think that this Areopagite was the author of those books that we have concerning Hierarchies and Divine Names, and that he is the same person who, at Paris, among the Parisians, was crowned with martyrdom. They identify one Dionysius out of three, if I am not mistaken.” And afterward: “Laurentius indicates that there were very learned men of his time who judged that these books were the work of Apollinaris, although Jerome mentions two by that name—one a Bishop of Hierapolis who flourished under Marcus Antoninus, the other a Bishop of Laodicea in Syria. However, Laurentius attributes neither of these to anything of this kind of work, for I do not think that such works should be attributed to that heretic Apollinaris.”

    In Book 4 of the Divine Names, he quotes a certain sentence from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans [Ch. 7]: “Ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται.” [Latin]: “Amor meus crucifixus est.” [English]: “My love has been crucified.” But indeed, Ignatius, as testified by Eusebius in the Chronicle and Book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, wrote that Epistle to the Romans during the reign of Trajan, while Dionysius the Areopagite was killed during the reign of Domitian. That Dionysius, in the same book, cites the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse in his Hierarchy, and in such a way as if these writings had long been part of the Scriptures. However, if we believe the historians, both John and Dionysius published their works shortly before their deaths, [John’s death being] about 14 years after Dionysius’ death. Among Dionysius’ Epistles, there is one addressed to Polycarp, addressing him as both a teacher and bishop. Indeed, the writers testify that Dionysius suffered in Gaul in the year 96 AD, and Polycarp in the year 166 AD, at the age of 86. It is thus clear that Polycarp was still underage at the time of Dionysius’ passion.
  4. From a careful consideration of the contents: first in the negative, then in the affirmative established.
    1. [Negative]: That Dionysius passed over certain things, which he asserted to have been overlooked, seems unlikely by no means. He is said to be that Dionysius, a disciple of the Apostle Paul; yet, he so forgets this teacher that he does not mention him even in a single place, calling a certain obscure Hierotheus his teacher. This seems to indicate either excessive ingratitude or remarkable forgetfulness on the part of the disciple. How was it possible for Dionysius not to have sought him out frequently by writing to Timothy, asking whether he had learned anything more accurately from the Apostle Paul himself about those very matters, with whom he had lived so familiarly for such a long time and had undoubtedly been well-instructed?
    2. [Affirmative]: That Dionysius is full of the most absurd nonsense. When he discusses the heavenly and ecclesiastical hierarchy, he invents new choirs like spheres, the highest seraphim, then cherubim, thrones, dominations, virtues, principalities; afterward, in the lower hierarchy, powers, archangels, angels. Who does not see that these are nothing but idle and futile human thoughts? Later, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, he says there are bishops, deacons, subdeacons, readers, exorcists. He, the disciple of the chief of the Apostles and the teacher of the Gentiles, is occupied with such nonsense. Yet, his authority is flaunted in such a way that inflated hypocrites decree everything as if it were uttered from oracles, while nowhere does he speak one word about faith or any useful instruction from Holy Scripture. But who told him about the nine choirs? Why did the Franciscans later add a tenth as a palace where the divine mother would dwell? Luther, in Genesis chapter 3, page 53, mentions many orders, such as pontiffs, priests, monks, etc., of which, except for bishops, Dionysius had no knowledge during his time, as can be proven.

      The Areopagites were judges, not philosophers. But these people regard Dionysius as the supreme philosopher, who risks the danger of comprehending the nature of things through a solar eclipse, which is not fitting since it is not plausible that those darknesses reached Athens, etc. Erasmus, in Acts chapter 17, page 225: “It is not plausible to me that there were such Christian ceremonies in those ancient times, as he describes.”

      “A more recent version has it that he wrote the Hierarchy to Timothy, whom he also calls his son, which is the same as if he called him a disciple, considering the use of Scripture and the Church. Since Timothy had the excellent Paul as his teacher for a very long time, being a renowned teacher and bishop while Paul was still alive, he should have taught Dionysius instead of being taught by him” (Flacius Illyricus).

      Dionysius himself presents that he was handed over to Hierotheus as a disciple. However, shortly after Dionysius the Areopagite’s conversion, Paul taught for a long time in Corinth and for a longer time in Ephesus, places easily accessible from Athens. If this Dionysius were eager for learning, he could have almost had Paul as his mentor for a whole two years, and it would not have been necessary for him to submit to the discipline of a man entirely unknown in the Church. The same writer mentions here the choir and the temple, distinguished from each other, and the parts of the temple. However, during the time of the Apostles and for a hundred years thereafter, Christians did not have such elaborate temple buildings; they initially gathered in houses. The same writer says that the Apostle John lived longer than the other Apostles and than Dionysius is said to have lived. However, John was mostly in Ephesus and Asia Minor, where Timothy also lived. Timothy is said to have been familiar with him, so how did this Dionysius dare to teach Timothy, who had a mentor? Would it not have been more appropriate for him to seek instruction repeatedly, asking Timothy to write to him either about this matter or others, clarifying Paul’s or John’s views?

      Paul mentions that it is not lawful for a man to express the things he saw in the heavenly state, and it is inconceivable that a person like Dionysius, progressing in such a state, would write and explain things that the Apostle Paul had established as ineffable and entirely unknown to humans. The opinion of the nine orders of angels is rejected by Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 55) and Augustine (Enchiridion to Laurentius, Chapter 58).
  5. From the testimony of very weighty authors:
    • Erasmus, in his Annotations on Acts, page 225: “some years ago,” as he recalls, “the incomparable William Grocyn, a supreme theologian, thoroughly versed in every discipline and exercised in them, preparing to deliver a sacred discourse on St. Paul in the church of St. Paul in London, had earnestly contemplated that the work ‘Celestial Hierarchy’ was the production of Dionysius the Areopagite. Grocyn was highly indignant at those who would dissent from this view. However, before completing half of the work and examining it more closely, he openly confessed to his audience that he did not consider the work to be that of Dionysius the Areopagite.”
    • Luther, in his Smalcald Articles, calls Dionysius a “recent and fictitious author” [Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 71 by Philip Melanchthon].
    • Whitaker, Against Campian, page 75.: “Valla and Erasmus have collected many weighty reasons in order to persuade that Dionysius was not the person he is said to be.”
    • Theodore Gaza, in the preface to the Problems of Alexander of Aphrodisias, converted by him into Latin, argues that the author is a fabricated one.
    • Pelargus, in Comparative Theology, at position 21, page 277, disapproves of this author.
    • Add to this Zeaemann’s arguments against Keller on page 530.
    • Daniel Chamier, in his book Catholic Panstratia [Wars of the Lord], Chapter 8, Section 28, and the following sections.
    • [Francisco] Ribera, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 1: “Many follow various opinions [concerning the Hierarchy and orders of Angels] based on the authority of Dionysius alone. However, the most esteemed Greek and Latin Fathers refused to follow him. Pope Gregory was unwilling to yield to the authority of Dionysius, fearing that it might appear to contradict the divine scripture in words. If we wish to measure that obscure matter by our own reasoning, we will often and greatly go astray, and Dionysius never said that he received these things from Paul, nor has anyone been able to prove it.”
    • Bellarmine, indeed, On Ecclesiastical Writers: “I have no doubt about the works of Dionysius. They are cited by Pope Gregory in Homily 34 on the Gospel, by Pope Martin and the Martyr in the Roman Council, by Pope Agatho in the Letter to Emperor Constantine IV, by Pope Nicholas I in the Letter to Michael the Emperor. They are also cited by the Sixth General Council in Act 4 and the Seventh Council in Act 2, and finally by those who wrote commentaries on these works, such as Maximus the Monk and Saint Thomas Aquinas.” However, the objection is raised that Gregory lived in the sixth century, so why is there no mention of these books by any of the earlier writers? Bellarmine responds that “these writings may have been hidden and only discovered around the time of Gregory.” But other arguments suggest that attributing these works to Dionysius is false.
    • Denys the Carthusian, in his commentary on Dionysius: “Whoever he may be, is rather obscure and barely intelligible; he has posed a challenge for some theologians.”
    • Abbot Trithemius, concerning Ecclesiastical Writers, admits, “the works of Dionysius are covered with great obscurity.”

      [Responses to objections]: Some argue that this work is cited by Origen in his homily on John 1 and by Athanasius in his questions to Antiochus, question 8. But with this argument, uncertainty is proven by an equally uncertain method because in that homily, the Arians are mentioned, who arose long after Origen, and in the questions to Antiochus, authors who came after Athanasius are named. Therefore, they are not the works of Origen or Athanasius but of more recent authors. Abbot Liberatus in Chapter 10 of the Breviary and Anastasius the Librarian in a letter to Emperor Charles the Bald state that Dionysius the Areopagite is cited by Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, but the passages they cite are not found in the cited places.

Eulogies

Regarding Dionysius the Areopagite, Peter Lansselius, a Jesuit: “He is almost the only one among all the authors of Antiquity in whom no one has noted a departure from doctrine to the present day.”