The sacraments of the New Testament, in God’s appointment and our use, have three main ends and two further ends.
To Give a Clear Picture of the Covenant
The first end of the sacraments is to represent clearly the nature of the covenant and the things promised in it. These include the washing away of sin, Christ himself in his death and benefits, and the way we come to the application of all these, i.e., by faith, freely, putting on Jesus Christ for taking away guilt, and strengthening us to a holy walk.
In all these, the sacraments (that is, the signs, and word of institution added) fully and clearly hold forth — firstly to the ears, secondly to the eyes, and thirdly to our other senses of feeling, etc. —not only hold what is offered, but also our way of closing with and accepting of that offer. It’s as if God, who by preaching lets us hear Him speak (inviting us to be reconciled to Him) is in the sacraments letting us see Him tryst and close that bargain with us by His ambassadors.
In this respect, the sacrament may be called the symbol and token of the covenant, as in Genesis 17.
This way too, the sacraments have a teaching use. They bring to our remembrance Christ, and His sufferings and benefits, as well as our state, what it was without Him, and before our closing with Him.
All this is represented to us by the word and elements, with the actions concurring, as if it was being acted out before our eyes, so as to make the way of the gospel as clear as can be to the minds and memories of people like us, who either take up these spiritual things senselessly or sluggishly forget them. The Lord, who sometimes makes use of parables and figurative expressions, or similitudes, to set forth spiritual things, to make them resonate with us the more, has chosen this way to make use of external signs and actions for the same ends also.
To Seal and Confirm What God has Said
The second main end of the sacraments is to seal and confirm God’s mind and revealed will to us, and to put us out of question of the truth of His promises, so that we may have a further prop to our faith, and on this basis may draw all the stronger consolation from the promises of the covenant.
In this respect the sacraments are called “seals” (Rom. 4:11) of the righteousness by faith; that is, not the righteousness of Abraham’s faith, but of his obtaining righteousness by it, and not by works. They are seals of the covenant which offers and promises righteousness to those who believe. In the same way the tree of life [in the garden of Eden] was a confirmation to Adam of the promise of life. So was circumcision a seal and confirmation to Abraham of the promises of the gospel, as God’s oath was (Heb. 6:18).
This confirmation may be looked at three ways. It confirms (a) the proposition, (b) the minor premise, and (c) the conclusion of a practical syllogism, by which the believer concludes from the gospel that he shall be saved.
(a) The proposition (or major premise) is, Those who believe shall be saved. By the sacrament this is simply confirmed as a truth that one may lean on. The believer’s conscience in the faith of that subsumes, “I will then take me by faith to Christ.” “Seeing that is a sure truth, I will rest on Him and hold me there.” Or more clearly, “I do believe in him.”
(b) The minor premise of the syllogism, I have faith, is not confirmed simply by the seal, for the sacrament is to be externally applied by church officebearers who can say no more than that they charitably judge this or that person to have faith. Yet we may say that it is confirmed in the case of someone whose faith doubts, who may by this be encouraged to rest on Christ, and quiet himself on Him.

Wherever men acknowledge the Biblical teaching about human depravity; wherever men acknowledge the unique bearing of God’s name on the human conscience; wherever men trust in God’s promise to make truth prevail when His name is invoked, oaths will be required of all witnesses in church courts.  

In 2023, the PCA General Assembly considered an overture that would allow those who deny the existence of God and/or a future state of reward and punishment to testify in her courts.  This would render it unnecessary for witnesses to swear, or explicitly affirm before God that they will tell the truth.  The rationale for amending the Book of Church Order conditions (BCO 35-1, 35-8) for a “competent witness” was straightforward.  Would not the Lord and Savior of the Church, whose name is Truth (Jn. 14:6), allow as many true witnesses to testify in His courts as possible?  The victim of abuse by a church member would typically be among the most important witnesses to that crime.  Yet, the victim may be an atheist.  Ultimately, the overture was defeated by a slim margin.  That the vote was unsettling to a large portion of the assembly was clear from the many signatories of the minority report in favor of the overture.  Some have suggested that a theological test for witness competency is but a manmade tradition, the likes of which Jesus, not to mention the apostles and prophets, condemned (Matt. 15:1-14; Mk. 7:1-13; cf., Isa. 29:13; Col. 2:21-23).  If the Lord Jesus would have His church admit atheist testimony, then not only must the BCO undergo amendment, but the Presbyterian Church in America must also repent for an injustice it has allowed to exist for decades.
Sharing my brethren’s longing for truth to prevail in PCA courts, it will come as a surprise to many that I am compelled to oppose recent efforts to remove the oath requirement.  The Scriptures are unambiguous that Jesus Christ, the Head of the body has ordained oaths for the preservation of the truth, and for the protection of all parties in a world smitten by depravity and dishonesty.  In short, oaths are a divine ordinance, whereby a competent witness (a) acknowledges God as the lone sufficient Reason to tell the truth; and (b) the lone sufficient Helper who can make the truth prevail.  Invocation of the Almighty brings a weight of burden to the human conscience altogether different from manmade ethical codes.  The same invocation reflects the humble awareness, without which no witness can be competent, that even the most principled people need divine help to overcome the human proclivity to falsehood and error.  Most importantly, oaths (even false ones) effectively seize upon the Living God’s providence to vindicate the truth, in a manner that the strongest human resolve cannot.  Unfortunately, too many arguments for (and against) atheist testimony betray a lack of regard for the divine function of oaths, not to mention the depths of human depravity which necessitate them.
Human Depravity and Truth Telling
An underlying assumption in most of the GA discussion concerning oaths seems to have been that humanity is divisible into two groups—those who are competent, in themselves, to testify in a court, and those who are not.  Does it occur to proponents (and opponents) of the overtured change that the situation is rather more dire?  The Scriptures teach us that Epimenides’ evaluation of his countrymen is no less true of humanity: “Cretans are always liars” (Tit. 1:12; cf., Rom. 3:4, 13; Ps. 116:11).  On its surface, Epimenides’ statement is something of a paradox.  It might seem that it cannot be true, since the poet was himself a Cretan whose own speech, if the statement were true, must always be false!  Yet, speaking via the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit adds His infallible witness that Epimenides’ “testimony is true” (Tit. 1:13).  The Holy Spirit is neither affirming a flat contradiction, nor encouraging muddled thinking (1 Cor. 14:23).  “Always” might be hyperbole, in which case Epimenides’ statement may be true despite the prevalence of Cretan dishonesty.  More attractive is the solution that recognizes a subtle but important distinction.  Epimenides does not declare that Cretans’ every statement is a lie, but that Cretans are, at all times, liars.  It is very much in keeping with the theology of Paul (and the rest of Scripture) to declare that men who make innumerable true statements are always lying in other respects: suppressing their knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18; Jn. 1:9-10); underestimating their sin (Rom. 2:1-8; Lk. 18:11); overestimating their gifts and abilities (Rom. 12:3, 16; 2 Cor. 10:12); deceiving themselves about the extent of their virtues (Gal. 6:3); twisting the Scriptures for selfish gain (2 Pet. 3:14; Matt. 15:5-6); overlooking the most significant details of an enemies’ good character to justify hostility toward him (Jn. 7:24; 12:37-40); indeed, transgressing the Ninth Commandment in all the ways listed in Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 145.  Common grace prevents fallen men from lying every time they speak, even though they are always liars.  It is exactly because sinners recognize, utilize, and publish true information in medicine, physical sciences, mathematics, ethics, business dealings, etc., that they are culpable for their unrelenting dishonesty about the most important (Christian theistic) implications of every fact.
It is true that personal interests are often sufficient to prevent fallen people from making false statements, especially when they might conflict with well-established truths or admit for simple investigation.  Lies of this sort can easily be exposed and met with social or legal repercussions (Matt. 21:25-27; Mk. 11:31-33; Lk. 20:5-8; Rom. 13:1-4; 2 Pet. 2:13-14).  Thus, the courts of the Presbyterian Church in America have always accepted police reports, receipts for monetary transactions, public records, etc. as admissible evidence, regardless of whether the person who initially recorded them professes belief in God.  Again, the public nature of the information combined with the penalties that accompany inaccurate recording are appropriately counted as a sufficient guarantee of their veracity, until and unless one can cite reasons to doubt them.  The situation is quite different when it comes to witness testimony.  Witnesses are brought forward in courts to testify (a) about disputed matters, (b) of considerable consequence, (c) to which the public lacks direct means of investigation.  From the outset, the veracity of a witness’s testimony is challenged by the accused, if not others as well (1 Kings 3:16-22; Jer. 26:16-18; Acts 24:13).  At least one party must be badly mistaken at best or lying at worst.  The Scriptures warn us about false accusers and “malicious witnesses” (Ps. 35:11; cf. Gen. 39:13-23; Ex. 23:1; Esth. 3:8; Ps. 27:12; Prov. 19:5; Acts 6:11), of whom Satan is the chief (Job 1:11; Rev. 12:10).  Other scoundrels are not their only targets, but often men of considerable integrity (Joseph, David, Job, Stephen, etc.), not to mention the God-man, Jesus Christ (Matt. 26:59-61; Mk. 14:55-59) along with His Father and Spirit (Gen. 3:4-5).  The Mosaic requirement that false witnesses shall incur the punishment they sought for the accused functioned as a weighty deterrent against that crime (Deut. 19:18-19; cf., 1 Tim. 1:9-11).  Lesser penalties for perjury in civil courts still exist today.  Noticeably, church courts lack the same deterrent, particularly in the case of non-member and atheist witnesses.  To them, PCA courts cannot apply any penalties; nor may atheists experience any social repercussions for dishonesty.  Of even greater significance is the fact that not even civil courts regard their penalties to be a sufficient safeguard against false testimony.  Instead, the requirement of a divine oath in civil courts reflects the bearing of natural law, imposed on the human conscience by God, and heeded by nearly all cultures.[1]
The very same personal interests that prevent lying in cases where one is likely to be caught may be the source of dishonesty in matters difficult to investigate, or in which one simply has much to gain from deceit (Lk. 16:3-8).  These include false suspicion about enemies, which the wayward heart treats as fact (1 Sam. 18:9; 22:8); reports and recollections of events lacking other witness (1 Kings 3:6-22; Jn. 21:23); personal, unrecorded business dealings (Amos 8:5-6; Jas. 5:4); welcome lies, that are sure to go uninvestigated by the relevant communities and courts with whom they are registered (Matt. 26:59-61; Mk. 14:55-59); etc.  Somewhere between willful deception and error is the human tendency to remember only those truths that we find useful, disregarding inconvenient details.  Apart from any conscious effort, fallen men often discern the interests of a community with lightning speed, and proceed to share only the information that the community welcomes (1 Sam. 22:9-10; 2 Tim. 4:3).  For example, atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell incorrectly recalls Titus 1:12-13 as a clear instance of Biblical “contradiction.”[2]  He cites the passage as if Epimenides reported that Cretans only speak lies when, as we have seen, the poet wrote that they are always lying.  If one of the most brilliant philosophers of the 20th century can misrepresent the facts, exactly what is the profile of a competent witness?
Given the inadequacy of self-interests to ensure that men will tell the truth; given that the human “heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9); given that “all [mere] men are liars” (Ps. 116:11), and always lying (Tit. 1:12), it is misguided to ask the question, “how can church courts refuse atheist testimony, which may very well be true?”  The quandary is just how any court, civil or ecclesiastical, can rely on human witnesses at all when it comes to matters that are sharply disputed from the outset.  If men like Epimenides are the most credible when they testify to their dishonesty (Tit. 1:13); if men are the most deceived when they insist on their own intelligence and integrity (Prov. 3:7; 14:12; 16:21, 25), how can anyone be judged a competent witness to the difficult and disputed matters before courts?  To this problem, faced by men in every corner of a fallen world, the Living God ordained oaths and vows as a genuine remedy.
Westminster Confession 22, “On Lawful Oaths and Vows”
In the course of a Lord’s Day sermon, I asked my congregation who would mention “Lawful Oaths and Vows” as one of the major headings under which to summarize the Christian Faith?  Not one parishioner raised his hand.  I suspect it also strikes many church officers as odd that the Westminster Divines devoted so much attention to that topic.[3]  Yet, the Westminster Divines’ careful discussion of the ordinance (WCF 22, WLC 111-114, and WSC 53-56) was equitable to the teaching of Scripture.  God ordained personal vows and public oaths as a powerful means to confirm a matter, even safeguarding against human deceit and error.  Oaths may be “promissory,” attesting to one’s determination to perform some future action(s), or “assertory,” attesting to one’s resolution to tell the truth about past events (2 Chron. 18:13 Matt. 26:63).[4]  Reserved for matters of great consequence (Jer. 4:2), vows or oaths belong to marriage covenants (Mal. 2:14; Prov. 2:17); binding agreements between individuals (Ex. 22:11; 1 Sam. 18:3; 23:16-18; 2 Sam. 2:12-25), families (Gen. 21:22-34; 26:26-33; 1 Sam. 20:2-17), and nations (Gen. 14:13; 1 Kings 5:12; 15:19; 20:34; 2 Chron. 16:3); covenants between a populace, or a military with its leaders (2 Sam. 5:3; 11:17; 2 Kings 11:4; 1 Chron. 11:3; 2 Chron. 23:1, 3, 16; Jer. 34:8-11); and even covenants between God and men (Gen. 22:16-18; Ex. 24:3; Isa. 45:23; Heb. 6:13-14).  The courtroom, civil and ecclesiastical, is a distinct setting where assertory oaths are justly required (Lev. 5:1; Prov. 29:24; 1 Kings 22:16; 2 Chron. 6:22-23; 18:13, 15), Jesus Himself bearing testimony only after He was adjured (Matt. 26:63[5]).
An oath is a safeguard because of its two indispensable, mutually supportive functions.  First, an oath calls on God as the lone sufficient power by whom the truth can be made to prevail in one’s testimony, and in the judgment of the court.  Second, an oath acknowledges God as the lone sufficient reason why the truth must be told.
WCF 22:1—A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth on God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.
Oaths Call on God as the Lone Sufficient Power
The first function of an oath, according to Westminster Confession 22:1, flies in the face of the naturalistic materialism to which our age is prone.  Although men can tell the truth, they are also accustomed to the opposite.  Therefore, to confirm that they will tell the truth, God allows men to invoke His name, calling Him to bear providential witness by directing their testimony to its proper end.  In other words, the oath-taker is not merely calling on the Divine Judge to take notice of his testimony.  If that were the meaning of, “solemnly calleth on God to witness,” the statement would be superfluous.  For, God’s awareness of our oaths is sufficiently presupposed in the clause that follows, where God is invited to “to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.”  Instead, the earlier clause indicates that oaths call God to active witness, ensuring that the oath-taker’s words will be accurate, and that his avowed actions will come to fruition.  This reading is confirmed beyond all doubt by a consultation of those divines whose writings inspired; whose efforts produced; and whose subsequent writings interpreted WCF 22.  They uniformly testify that oaths have two functions, one of which is to “beg his [God’s] help” in confirming the truth of our witness.[6]  This concept is even retained in contemporary civil courts, where many witnesses still affirm their intent to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
The proof texts cited in the original (and PCA) Westminster Confession also testify to the active divine witness upon which oaths call.  Solomon prays that God will respond to oaths sworn before the bronze altar, at the gate of the temple where trials would occur (cf., Jer. 26:2, 16-19).  Specifically, he asks God to cause the honest oath-taker to prevail, and the perjurer to fail within the course of the court’s proceedings (2 Chron. 6:22-23).  A typical Old Testament oath formula began, “As the Lord lives” (Isa. 5:2; cf., Ruth. 3:13; Judg. 8:19; 1 Sam. 14:39, 45; 19:6; 20:21; 1 Kings 2:24; 22:14; 2 Kings 2:4; Jer. 4:2; 12:16; 44:26).  The one who swore it was calling on the LORD whose life is certain, to make the fulfillment of his oath certain as well (Num. 14:21, 28; Deut. 32:40; Isa. 49:18; Jer. 22:24; 46:18; Ezek. 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 16:48; 17:16; 18:3; 20:3, 31, 33; 33:11, 27; 34:8; 35:6, 11; Zeph. 2:9; Rom. 14:11).  When God’s people rebelled against Him, they ceased to swear in His name.  They lost confidence that their neglected LORD would actively confirm their oaths (Jer. 44:26-27).  Again, when Paul calls on “God as [his] witness” (2 Cor. 1:23; cf., Rom. 1:9; 9:1; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; cf., Jer. 42:5), he is not simply asking God to take note of his words with a view to judging them.  Paul pleads for God to authenticate his stated desire to edify the suspicious congregations to whom he wrote, by imparting to credulity to his claims.
Oaths Call on God as the Lone Sufficient Reason
If they were only pleas for divine assistance, it would be beneficial to attach oaths to all our commitments, as expressions of the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer—“…deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13; cf., WLC 195).  While the Scriptures require that we “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17; cf., Eph. 6:18), we are never instructed to “oath without ceasing.”  Quite the opposite.  Christ is clear that with respect to mundane matters men should “make no oath at all” (Matt. 5:34; cf., Jas. 5:12; Prov. 20:25; Eccl. 5:5).  This points us to the second function of oaths.  They are always self-maledictory, invoking God as a “a Revenger” if we should break them.[7]  This follows from the third commandment: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7; Deut. 5:11; cf., Ex. 31:13-16; Lev. 26:2; Deut. 28:58; Zech. 5:3-4).
The Westminster Catechisms call our attention to the “reason” annexed to the Third Commandment (WSC, 56; cf., WLC, 114).  God Himself, in His capacity as judge, is the lone sufficient Reason why an oath-taker must devote the most focused efforts to bear honest witness (Deut. 23:21, 23; cf., Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Job 22:27; Eccl. 5:4).  Whereas cunning liars may manage to “escape punishment from men, yet the LORD our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment” (WSC, 56).  Some oaths are accompanied by specific curses (Num. 5:19-31; Ruth. 1:17; 1 Sam. 20:13-14; 25:22; 2 Sam. 3:9; 1 Kings 2:24; 2 Kings 6:31; Ezek. 16:59; Zech. 5:4).  All oaths presuppose God’s threat of punishment, as an omnipotent and omniscient Judge.  The Bible supplies ample and frightening testimony to God’s faithfulness in punishing broken oaths (2 Kings 5:17-27; Jer. 34:8-22), even centuries after they were first sworn (Josh. 6:26-27 with 1 Kings 16:34; Josh. 9:26-27 with 2 Sam. 21:1).  Alternatively, God promises to bless oath-keepers, especially with deeper fellowship with Himself (Lev. 26:11-12; Ps. 63:11; Isa. 19:18; 45:23; 65:16).  In the Old Covenant, the appropriate response to divine deliverance was to vow a sacrificial feast in God’s presence.  The votive offering served as a public witness to God’s faithfulness (Lev. 7:16; 22:18-23; Deut. 12:6-7; 50:14; 61:5; 65:1; 116:14, 18; cf., Job 22:27).  In the New Covenant, the Lord’s Supper is a taste of that celebratory meal Christ vowed to enjoy after being vindicated by His Father and Spirit in the resurrection (Ps. 22:25; Lk. 22:18).
Oaths Are the Seal of Witness Competency
As the BCO (35-1) makes clear, witness competency is not ultimately defined by a person’s ability to tell the truth.  The standard parties deemed incompetent—young children, the mentally ill, the intoxicated—frequently tell the truth.  Nor is abnormal intelligence sufficient.  A competent witness must also manifest good character,[8] at the heart of which is the humility to recognize that he needs divine help to accurately report the truth concerning disputed matters.  Hence, a competent witness must understand the seriousness of the court’s proceedings, and the ramifications for himself and others if he should (a) intentionally, or (b) unintentionally misrepresent the truth.  Acknowledgment of God as Judge is the lone sufficient reason why witnesses should not lie intentionally; and reliance on God as Helper is the only ground of hope that a witnesses will not bear false report inadvertently.  Hence, the atheist who cannot swear the assertory oath required in BCO 35-8 is necessarily excluded from a court’s proceedings as an incompetent witness.
Read More
Related Posts:

This history [of Ash Wednesday] can teach us several things, but chiefly it highlights how traditions can be invented and re-invented—and how quickly and thoroughly this can happen. Certainly most laymen assume that the use of ashes is an ancient and unbroken custom, and many a church website advertises it as such. One suspects the situation is not too different among the clergy. In point of fact, the practice is fairly new.

Ash Wednesday is upon us and most people who conduct services on the day also practice the ritual imposition of ashes as a part of the liturgy. This custom is nearly (though not entirely) universal among Anglicans, is very widely practiced among Lutherans, and is becoming more and more common among Presbyterians and other evangelical bodies. Because of this relatively rapid consensus, it is easy to assume that the ritual and the day stand or fall together. To observe Ash Wednesday simply is to impose ashes upon the congregation, we assume. It is also easy to assume that this has always been the Anglican practice.
But the actual history tells another story. To the great surprise of many, the Protestant use of ashes for Ash Wednesday services is a modern phenomenon. The Reformers discontinued the use of ashes in the liturgy, and they would not again become a normal fixture of Protestant liturgies until the late 20th century.
The goal of this essay is to lay out the historical record of Ash Wednesday among Anglicans in both England and North America. It does not intend to render a judgment about the permissibility or prudence of using ashes today. Instead, the greater need is simply to recover the actual history of the church, a history which has been dramatically obscured in a relatively short amount of time. Seeing what was the case will better help us understand what the “Anglican tradition” actually is. Perhaps it will also help us to understand how and why it made its judgments and reforms.
The Earlier History of Ashes
The use of ashes was indeed known in communal demonstrations of humiliation in the ancient world. We see this, for example, in the Old Testament itself, as people sit in or cover themselves with ashes as a symbol of mourning and repentance (Esth. 4:1, 3; Job 2:8, 42:6; Dan. 9:3; Jon. 3:6). No doubt inherited, at least thematically, from the Jewish practice seen in the Old Testament, the ceremonial use of ashes in the Christian church does not arise until much later. We have early fragmentary evidence of the use of ashes for penitential rites, as well as various sorts of consecrations with ashes, but their more normative and uniform use at the beginning of Lent, cannot be documented until after AD 1050. Though this must have had a gradual prior development, it is nonetheless limited to the Western churches. “Ash Wednesday” services, as we know them, were not typically practiced in the East. Pope Urban II standardized them in 1091.
The Protestant Reformation
This use of ashes would continue in the West for four hundred more years until the Protestant Reformation. Within the first decade of that disruption, however, ashes began to be discarded by both the Reformed and Lutheran churches. Bruce Gordon notes that Zwingli did away with the common Lenten accoutrements and accessory rituals in 1524.[1] Luther too, in his 1526 The German Mass and Order of Service, explains that while the fasts and feasts of “Lent, Palm Sunday, and Holy Week shall be retained,” that “this, however, does not include the Lenten veil, throwing of palms, veiling of pictures, and whatever else there is of such tomfoolery.”[2] Ashes are not explicitly mentioned here but would have historically been connected to the palms. Luther sees them as an unnecessary frivolity.
In England, the Reformation would be a bit slower in developing. In 1542, the pro-Reformation theologian Thomas Becon still endorsed the imposition of ashes in the Ash Wednesday service. Five years later, however, Thomas Cranmer ordered the practice to cease.[3] This date is important because the first edition of the Book of Common Prayer had not yet been released. In fact, the imposition of ashes is not included in any Book of Common Prayer until the American 1979 BCP. Instead, the Book of Common Prayer had the Commination Service, explained in more detail here.
The Anglican Tradition
Due to its wide-sweeping changes and reforms, Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer was met with fierce resistance in some parts of England, resulting in a flurry of apologetical works defending these changes. In a 1548 sermon, Hugh Latimer denounced the liturgical use of ashes, along with other supposed Roman abuses. Latimer believed that these ceremonials were too bound up in deadly misunderstandings of the sufficiency of Christ’s own sacrifice. He says, “of these things, every one hath taken away some part of Christ’s sanctification; every one hath robbed some part of Christ’s passion and cross, and hath mingled Christ’s death, and hath been made to be propitiatory and satisfactory, and to put away sin.”[4] Cranmer says much the same thing in his 1549 “Answer to the 15 Articles of the Devonshire Men.” He sees the use of ashes, along with other accretions, as an illegitimate human ordinance:
The water of baptism, and the holy bread and wine of the holy communion, none other person did ordain, but Christ himself. The other, that is called holy bread, holy water, holy ashes, holy palms, and all other like ceremonies ordained the bishops of Rome; adversaries to Christ, and therefore rightly called antichrist. And Christ ordained his bread, and his wine, and his water, to our great comfort, to instruct us and teach us what things we have only by him. But antichrist on the other side hath set up his superstitions, under the name of holiness, to none other intent, but as the devil seeketh all means to draw us from Christ, so doth antichrist advance his holy superstitions, to the intent that we should take him in the stead of Christ, and believe that we have by him such things as we have only by Christ; that is to say, spiritual food, remission of our sins, and salvation.[5]
After the Roman Catholic interval under Mary, the Elizabethan settlement largely returned the English church to its condition under Edward VI. There were certain discontinuities, of course, but ashes were not one of them. Preaching to King James on Ash Wednesday in 1619, Lancelot Andrewes says that there “was wont to be a ceremonie of giving ashes this day,” but that it is “gone.” While one might attempt to say that Andrewes is reminiscing longingly, he does not argue that the ceremony of ashes be brought back but rather that its “substance” be recovered, by which he means true conversion. On the eve of the Civil War, in 1642, conformist minister John Grant can still ridicule the use of ashes as “a mock fast in a bulrushed Popishness or Pharisaicall disfiguredness.”[6] After the restoration, the respected Prayer Book commentator Thomas Comber also condemns them. Explaining the preface to the Commination Service, Comber contrasts the medieval ceremony against that discipline of the ancient church commended by the Prayer Book:
I confess in latter ages, during the corruption of the Roman church, this godly discipline degenerated into a formal and customary confession upon Ash-Wednesday used by all persons; to which, when the substance of true repentance was gone, at last they added the empty ceremony of sprinkling ashes on the heads of all that were present, whether penitents or no, which our church wholly laid aside as a mere shadow, and laments that the long continuance of the Roman maladministration among us in this nation…[7]
Read More

Bruce Gordon, Zwingli (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022), 107–108. ↑
Martin Luther, Luther’s works, vol. 53: Liturgy and Hymns, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann (Fortress Press), 90. ↑
Thomas Cranmer, “Letter 281, To Boner,” in Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, (London: Parker Society 1846), 417. ↑
Hugh Latimer, “A Sermon of the Reverend Father Master Hugh Latimer, Preached in the Shrouds at St. Paul’s Church in London, on the Eighteenth Day of January, Anno 1548.” ↑
Thomas Cranmner, “Answer to the 15 Articles of the Devonshire Men” in Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer (London: Parker Society 1846), 176. ↑
John Grant, “Gods deliverance of man by prayer and mans thankefulnesse to God in prayses,” Early English Books Online, accessed February 20th 2023. ↑
Thomas Comber, “The Occasional Offices, 1679,” reprinted in A Companion to the Temple vol. 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1841), 504. ↑

Related Posts: