Calvin on Slavery

Two months ago I read an intriguing contribution of Cynthia Nielsen at her blog Per Caritatem, titled: Augustine and Scotus on Slavery. Since then I have been thinking about this question: what did Calvin say about Slavery? I did some research, but didn’t come very far. However, very recently I laid my hands upon a new book about Calvin. (Unfortunately for some of you, it’s for the moment only available in Dutch: Johannes Calvijn – zijn leven, zijn werk (edited by: Willem Balke, Jan C. Klok, Willem van ‘t Spijker)). In this book prof. Willem Balke writes about Calvin and Slavery. It is a very instructive entry. Let me summarize Calvin’s thoughts:

1. Slavery is, according to Calvin, against God’s ordination, since God created mankind in freedom. Freedom is, so to speak, man’s natural condition. And slavery is the denial of freedom. Slavery therefore is an unnatural condition. In this respect Calvin’s position is quite like Augstine’s.

2. This freedom has been lost for a great part of humanity, ’shortly after the deluge’ (CO 23,179). About the cause of this loss is Calvin explicit: the cause is sin. Historically spoken, he is presuming that the moment that war came into existence, slavery was also introduced, since in a war enemies are usually treated as slaves. But human beings are created as brothers, ment for maintaining mutual fellowship (CO 23,179).

3. But what about the legislation in the Old Testament about slavery? Calvin points out that these laws are ‘provisional’, but that God’s intention always was to set people free. The laws about slaves and slavery are no authentication of slavery, but a curtailment of the evil of this institution. Without these laws the situation would have been far worse, since ‘human beings can’t get used to be charitable to their fellow men’ (CO 27,344).

4. Calvin stresses the fact that the Old Testament laws not only require the periodic deliverance of slaves, but also prescribe what is necessary to take possession of that freedom.

“God says clearly that one should help those who leave the house of their master. Why? Because when someone is send away naked, he will choose to stay in slavery instead of leaving and being free.” (CO 27,345)

In other words, his ethical recommendations aim at the restoration of man’s freedom as creature and child of God.

Young Calvin about the Lord’s Supper (3)

In the first and second post about Young Calvin and the Lord’s Supper, I pointed out that his Epistolae Duae and his Articles concernant l’organisation de l’église et du culte a Genève appeared in print in January 1537, only four days separated from each other. However, that is not the last writing of Calvin in that month. At the end of the month his Instruction et Confession de Foy dont on use en leglise de Geneve (Geneva Catechism) was published. So we have a unique possibility to reconstruct his views on the sacraments at the end of 1536 and the start of 1537 from different angles.  In this post I will give a long quotation about the nature of the sacraments.

“Les sacremens sont instituez a ceste fin quilz feussent exercices de nostre foy tant devant Dieu que devant les hommes. Et certes devant Dieu ilz exercent nostre foy quand ilz la confirment en la verite de Dieu. Car le Seigneur nous a propose avoir les haulx et celestes secretz soubz choses charnelles, ainsi quil cognoissoit estere expediant a lignorance de nostre chair. Non pas que telles qualitez soient en la nature des choses lesquelles nous sont proposees au sacrament, mais parce que par la parolle du Seigneur elles sont marquees en ceste signification. Car tousiours la promesse precede laquelle est comprinse en la parolle: le signe est adiouste, lequel confirme et seelle icelle promesse et la nous rend comme plus testifiee, ainsi que le Seigneur voit quil convient a la capacite de nostre rudesse. Car nostre foy est tant petite et debile que si elle nest appuyee de tous costez et soustenue par tous moiens soubdain elle est esbranlee en toutes pars, agitee et vacilante. Or elle est aussi par les sacremens exercee envers les hommes, quand elle sort en confession publique et est incitee a rendre louanges au Seigneur. (…)

Sacrement doncques est un signe exterieur par lequel le Seigneur nous represente et testifie sa bonne volonte envers nous, pour soustenir limbecillite de nostre foy, ou (pour dire plus briefvement et plus clairement) cest un tesmoignage de la grace de Dieu declare par signe exterieur.”

The sacraments are instituted in order to exercise our fatih, both for God and man. For God they exercise our faith, in as far as they give us assurance in God’s truth. For the Lord gave us these exalted and heavenly secrets in carnal form, because He acquainted with the ignorance of our flesh. It’s not that such qualities are in the nature of the things which are given unto us as sacraments, but it is because their meaning is given by the word of the Lord. Because, always the promise, contained in the word, precedes; the sign is adjusted, which confirms and seals this promise and gives us more testimony, in a way which the Lord has judged necessary because of our rudeness.  For our faith is so little and weak, that it would collapse, fluctuate and be wholly unstable if it’s not  underpinned from all sides and supported with all means. (…)

A sacrament therefore is an exterior sign, by which the Lord represents and testifies to us his good will towards us, in order to support the weakness of our faith; or (to state it shorter and more clearly) it’s a testimony of the Lord’s grace, declared by an external sign.  

Dietrich Bonhoeffer about Easter

A tribute to Dietrich Bonhoeffer at April 9th, 64 years after his death. In one of his letters from prison, dated March 27th 1944, he writes about the meaning of Easter. In these words you will find a clue to the secret of his life, but also of his death. He died with the confession that life would now begin. He lived out what he wrote in these words: being ‘victorious over death’, because of Christ’s resurrection.

Speaking of Easter, do we not attach more importance nowadays to the act of dying than to death itself? We are much more concerned with getting over the act of dying than with being victorious over death. Socrates mastered the art of dying; Christ overcame death as the eschatos echtheos (the last enemy; 1 Corinthians 15.27). There is a real difference between the two things. The one is within human capacity, the other implies resurrection.

We need not an art of dying, but the resurrection of Christ to invigorate and cleanse the world today. Here is the answer to dos moi pou stoo kai kinesoo ten gen, give me where I stand and I will move the earth. What a tremendous difference it would make if a fewpeople really believed and acted upon that. To live in the light of the resurrection that is the meaning of Easter. Do you not also find that so few people seem to know what light it is they live by? This perturbatio animorum is exceedingly common. It is an unconscious waiting for the word of deliverance, though the time is hardly ripe yet for it to be heard. But the time will come, and perhaps this Easter is one of the last chances we shall have to prepare ourselves for our future task. I hope you will be able to enjoy it despite all the hardships you are having to bear. Goodbye, I must close now.

Divine Presence in the Lord’s Supper

In the Reformation the Lord’s Supper was one of the most important theological topics. In the controversy with the Roman Catholic Church, the theologians of the Reformation developed alternative views of the Lord’s presence in Holy Communion. Unfortunately, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, to mention only the three best known Reformers, didn’t agree which option was best. For the moment, I won’t work out how these differences historically developed or how they may exactly be spelled out. Instead, I’d like to sketch four models of interpreting Christ’s presence in the Holy Meal. These models, I believe, are not mere theoretic options, but – to speak so – ‘live options’. We are talking about the way how pastors and members of the church view, consciously or unconsciously, the Lord’s Supper.

1. Symbolic presence. With symbolic presence I mean those thoughts and theories that rely on a symbolic theory to explain how the Lord is present in the Eucharist. This seems to me a especially in Roman Catholic circles a viable theory. Under the influence of French philosophers like Ricoeur and others, the old dogma of transsubstantiation has, at least in Europe, been largely displaced by symbol-theories. Note, that according to this line of thought the presence in the Eucharist requires no specific action of God, apart from the original institution of the sacrament. 
2. Ritual presence. This model is akin to the symbolic presence model. Rituals are commonly understood as symbolic actions, that is: actions with the aid of, or on the basis of, symbols. However, it is very well possible to make a distinction between these two models. In contrast with the first model, theories of ritual presence emphasize ritual action, instead of the symbol itself, as a vehicle of meaning. In the Zwinglian tradition we find examples of this model. Zwingli himself taught his congregation that not bread and wine, but they themselves were the Body of Christ, in celebrating the Lord’s Supper.
3. Spiritual presence. The third model I call ‘spiritual’, which might give rise to some misunderstandings. The aforementioned Zwinglian tradition is sometimes called ‘spiritual’, to mark the contrast with ‘real’ presence. However, by ‘spiritual’ I mean those theories, which explain Christ’s presence in the Eucharist in terms of the Spiritus Sanctus, the Holy Spirit. John Calvin is of course the best known representative of this insight. In contrast with Zwingli, Calvin did not care much about the specific forms of the Eucharistic rite. The key in his understanding of the Communion is the so-called ‘Sursum Corda’: “Lift up your hearts…”. In doing that the participants will experience that Christ is present by his Spirit.
4. Local presence. The difference between Luther and Calvin with regard to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist can be largely traced back to different opinions with regard to the Ascension of Christ. While Luther held that Christ’s body in heaven is omnipresent (thanks to the ‘communicatio idiomatum’), whereas Calvin emphasized the heavenly location of Christ’s body (the so-called ‘extra calvinisticum’). This model tends therefore to be Lutheran in its intention. Crucial in this model is at least an interpretation of Christ’s Eucharistic presence in terms of spatiality and locality.

It’s important to stress that these options are not mutually exclusive. It’s perfectly possible to combine for example aspects of the ritual presence and the spiritual presence model. However, I believe that an approach like this can clarify some of the important differences with regard to the Lord’s Supper.

New Page added: Resources

I added a new page, named ‘Resources‘. At this page you will find different texts from the christian tradition, from Tertullian to Bonhoeffer. New links will be added in due course. Suggestions are, of course, welcome!

Young Calvin about the Lord’s Supper (2)

In my first post about the young Calvin and his thoughts about the Lord’s Supper, I cited his Epistolae Duae from January 12, 1537. His Articles concernant l’organisation de l’église et du culte a Genève, proposés au conseil par les ministres (Articles on the Organisation of the Church and its Worship at Geneva, proposed to the council by the ministers) are dated only four days later. In fact Calvin and his colleagues had been working on it since the Autumn of 1536. It is adressed to the council of Geneva, which was at that time (the bishop was expelled) in charge, of religious matters too. It would soon turn out, that the ministers’ proposals were, at least partially, too revolutionary. One of those points was the frequency of the Lord’s Supper. In the citations below you will read Calvin’s plea for a frequent celebration.

“Il seroyt bien a desirer que la communication de la saincte Cene de Iesuchrist fust tous les dimenches pour le moins en vsage quant leglise est assemblee en multitude veu la grande consolation que les fideles en recoipuent et le fruict qui en procede en toute maniere tant pour les promesses qui sont la presentees en nostre foy, cest que vrayment nous sommes faicts participans du corps et du sang de Iesus, de sa mort, de sa vie, de son esprit et de tous ses biens. (…) Et de faict elle naz pas este jnstituee de Iesus pour en fere commemoration deux ou troys foys lan, mays pour vng frequent exercice de nostre foy et charite.”

 Calvin’s Renaissance French is quite different from contemporary French, but here is my attempt to translate these words: “It were desirable that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper of Jesus Christ is held every sunday at least, when the congregation is assembled together. That is important  in view of the grand consolation for the believers and the fruit which springs from it in all kinds of ways because of the promises which are presented to our faith, that means: we are really participants of the body and blood of Jesus, of his death, his life, his Spirit and all his goods. (…) And indeed, the Supper hasn’t been instituted by Jesus for having a remembrance twice or three times a year, but as a frequent exercise of our faith and love”.

Calvin cites Acts 2:42 about the apostles’ devotion to the breaking of the bread. And he then continues by saying:

“(…) et telle az este tousjours la practique de lesglise ancienne iusques a ce que labomination des messes a este jntroduicte, en la quelle au lieu de ceste communication de tous les fideles a este dresse cest horrible sacrilege, que ung sacrifieroyt pour tous. En quoy la Cene a este du tout destruite et abolie. Mays pour ce que linfirmite du peuple est encore telle quil y avoyt dangier que ce sacre et tant exellent mestere ne vint en mespris sil estoyt si souuent celebre.”

 ”This has always been the practice of the Ancient Church, until the abomination of the mass has been introduced, in which instead of the communication of all believers the horrible offence was elaborated that one man sacrifices for all. With that the Lord’s Supper has been totally destroyed and abolished. But because the weakness of the people is still such, that the danger exists that this holy and exalted mystery will be despised when it will be celebrated so often.” Calvin concludes this passage with a proposal to celebrate the Lord’s Supper every month, in one of the three different churches of Geneva: St. Pierre, Rive and St. Gervais. However he stresses the intention that the celebration of the  Supper is ment, not only for a specific quarter, but for the whole city. The Geneva council didn’t agree with this proposal unfortunately and restricted the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to four times a year in the three churches. This has been the practice of many Reformed Churches up to this date, although there are exceptions to that rule. In the Netherlands these exceptions are pretty rare, regretfully. In my point of view this low frequency is one of the reasons for the lack of sacramental consciousness in the Calvinistic tradition. Isn’t it time to put into practice these words of Calvin? I think so!

Van der Leeuw, Howatch and Sacramental Ministry

Somewhere in the 1990’s an interesting article appeared in our faculty-bulletin in Utrecht (called ‘Areopagus’). One of the most promising students then wrote about a theological book: ‘Praktische Theologie‘ from Gerben Heitink (in translation: Practical Theology: History, Theory, Action Domains). I’ve lost the context of his article, but I remember he wasn’t impressed at all. His chief complaint was that it didn’t help you to find your way on the road to ministry. I had to study this book for my exams and agreed wholeheartedly with him.

However, in his article he presented to his readers a couple of alternatives. He mentioned in the first place the name of the Dutch phenomenologist of religion and theologian Gerardus van der Leeuw. His book ‘Sacramentstheologie’ (‘Sacramental Theology’; no English edition available) was a much better choice according to him. More theological, more inspiring, more in touch with the vital tradition of Christianity. At that time I hadn’t read the book, although I was – to some degree – familiar with the thoughts of Van der Leeuw. But his recommendation was sufficient for me to start reading the book at once.

He mentioned another author, of which I had never heard at that moment: Susan Howatch and her Starbridge novels. Since that moment I began to look for her books. It took a bit of time before I could lay my hands on them, but finally I read nearly the complete series (except for one). They struck me, especially the first three (‘Glittering Images‘; ‘Glamorous Powers; ‘Ultimate Prizes‘), with a leading role for the charismatic priest Jon Darrow. Are these novels excellent literature? No. To mention one thing: the plot is too predictable. Are they a good read? Yes, at least for me they were. They are indeed brilliant in the sense mentioned by my fellow student in Utrecht. Compared with Heitink’s Practical Theology for example the reading of these novels were much more inspiring. I know, the books are products of fantasy. And identifying with, for example, Jon Darrow might be tempting, but dangerous as well. Imagine yourself hunting for demons in your congregation… It is all true, but in the end I found myself wondering how I could serve, in my own modest way, but nonetheless such that it was somehow infused with the same presence of Christ.

When I saw that  I realised that the link between Van der Leeuw and Howatch was less coincidental then it seemed. Both authors show what a sacramental theology might look like. Van der Leeuw wrote a phenomenological and systematic account of sacramental theology. Susan Howatch shows how it can look like in ordinary life. That is what I needed when I was reading the article in the nineties. That’s what I’am still in need of, working in the church as a minister. This work is not glamorous, nor glittering. But it still might be ’sacramental’. At least, that’s my desire. With the word ’sacramental’ I have in mind what Van der Leeuw wrote in another book of his (Liturgiek): “In the sacramental act God uses our actions for His”. That’s what I’m still looking for in practice and in Practical Theology. Thanks to Van der Leeuw, thanks to Howatch and thanks, of course, to the impeccable taste of my fellow student.

Practical Theology before Schleiermacher? (2)

What is innovative in Schleiermacher’s theological approach? In the previous post I argued that it is not the change of focus in his Practical Theology from christianity to religion. To clarify this point we may briefly turn our attention to the before mentioned Voetius. Voetius was professor of theology in Utrecht, in the mid 17th century. I mentioned already Ta Asketika sive Exercitia Pietatis. In this voluminous book he analyses the praxis of the faithful christian life. It contains topics like ‘prayer’, ‘devotion’, ‘meditation’, temptations’, but also ‘the exercise of delivering a sermon’, ‘the praxis of baptism and the Lord’s Supper’, ‘pastoral visiting’, etcetera.

Notice that Voetius has a keen eye for both the individual experience and the ecclesiastical practices. It is tempting to see a parallel here between Schleiermacher’s Kirchenregiment and Kirchendienst, although there are differences as well, of course . In my point of view the difference between Schleiermacher en his predecessors is not the object of Practical Theology. Both analyse the individual and ecclesiastical practices of faith. The difference is to be sought instead in their methodology.  Voetius was a scholastic theologian. The scholastic vocabulary had been in use at that moment for centuries, starting with Anselm and others in the 11th century. Its logic and distinctions were seen as a common scientific language, a requisite for meaningful communication and discussion. However, under influence of Enlightenment philosophy, scholasticism became out of date as a unifying scientific language.

Schleiermacher, being a representative of the Enlightenment, uses a diffent kind of language, less analytical, more hermeneutical. That is in my point of view the new element in the (Practical) theology of Schleiermacher and his contemporaries. In other words, in Schleiermacher’s account of the discipline, Practical Theology becomes an interpreting art, instead of an analytical science. The reason for this change is – at least – twofold. In the era of Schleiermacher historical awareness is emerging. Of course, there has always been a notion of past, present and future. But ideas and theories in philosophy and theology had always been interpreted ‘theoretically’ instead of ‘historically’. Real scientific historical investigation arises in the 18th century and Schleiermacher incorporates it in his theology. A new vocabulary emerges with words like ‘Impuls’ (impulse), ‘Fortschritt (progression), ‘Entwicklung’ (development).

In this light Schleiermacher defines the task for Practical Theology as an interpretive art. That is what the church and the religious men and women really need: a discipline that is able to interpret the changing times and to point in the right direction. Vital competences are therefore hermeneutical and communicative ability. This has been the leading thought in Practical Theology ever since, at least in Europe. Wilhelm Gräb for example, a remote successor of Schleiermacher,  defines Practical Theology as ‘Religionshermeneutik’ (in his book Lebensgeschichten – Lebensentwürfe – Sinndeutungen [1998]).

This new approach of Schleiermacher has certainly its merits. It has drawn our attention to the dynamics and processes in religion and to the intertwining of social and ecclesial processes. However, there is – in my point of view – also a negative side in the developments inaugurated by Schleiermacher. A few remarks by way of closing.

‘Religion’ tends to become a more fundamental concept then ‘faith’. In his On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers the concept of religion underpins the particularity of christianity. That has been the trend ever since in Practical Theology (again: at least in Europe). Practical Theology is generally defined in terms of its hermeneutical relation to religion. And it is precisely because of this fact that Schleiermacher is considered as (one of) the founding father(s) of Practical Theology. However, in this way the pre-Schleiermacherian concept of Practical Theology (‘analyzing the praxis of faith’) has been lost. And that’s is indeed a loss in my opinion.

There is another indication for this developement. Schleiermacher is critical in the introduction of his Practical Theology of the concept ‘Empirie’ (the empirical), in favour of ‘Theorie’ (the theoretical) (p.11). That has been also the trend in Practical Theology. It has taken a lot of time to turn the discipline to empirical inquiry of religious practices instead of theoretical reflection on religion in all its varieties. Scholastic theology hasn’t been empirically orientated as well, of course. However, taking Voetius’ thoughts once again as an example, it seems to me that his descriptions of the praxis of faith in all its variety are based upon shared experience of himself and others. So, Practical Theology before Schleiermacher is certainly different from Practical Theology after Schleiermacher. However, the pre-Schleiermacherian Practical Theology has its own merits, chiefly its penetrating and strictly methodological analysis of the praxis of faith. Contemporary Practical Theology has to do the same task with new tools, for example with qualitative research methods. Only focusing on theories of religion will not do. We need to be empirical as well. And we need to do that in an analytical way. That’s what we can learn of Voetius and his contemporaries.

Practical Theology before Schleiermacher? (1)

Practical Theology is commonly regarded as a relatively young branch at the tree of theological disciplines. There is of course a long tradition in which theology is understood as ’scientia practica’ (Duns Scotus, Ockham, Luther). But as an academic discipline Practical or Pastoral Theology was recognised only in 1774 (Vienna), followed by Tübingen in 1794. The German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) is held to be one of the founding fathers of Practical Theology, at least in its contemporary form. In 1850 a collection of his lectures was published by Jacob Frerichs under the title: Die praktische Theologie nach den Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhang dargestellt (hereafter refered to as: Practical Theology).  In the (lengthy) introduction he writes:

“Der Ausdruck praktisch ist allerdings genau nicht ganz richtig, denn praktische Theologie is nicht die Praxis, sondern die Theorie des Praxis“ (p.12).  

In (my own) translation: “The expression ‘practical’ isn’t quite right, for Practical Theology is not the praxis, but the theory of the praxis.” This is no surprise, of course. But it isn’t very innovative too, it seems.

Take for example the Dutch scholastic theologian Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676). He wrote Ta Askètika sive Exercitia Pietatis (The practise of Godliness) (1664). This book contains an extensive analysis of the praxis of faith in all its variety. A theory of the praxis also.

So, what then are the reasons that works of Voetius and others in which they analyse all kinds of practices of faith aren’t considered as genuine Practical Theology? Or, put otherwise, in what regard is the work of Schleiermacher cum suis innovative in comparison with his predecessors?

(1) In the first place,  it is claimed that Schleiermacher has been the first who broadens the domain of Practical Theology to religion as a whole, instead of the church.

(2) In the second place, it is said that Schleiermacher, unlike his predecessors, has been the first theologian who really thinks out the starting proces of individualization.

 

As the Dutch Practical Theologian Gerben Heitink points out, in this way Practical Theology is itself an answer to the challenge of the Enligthenment. The implicit message is of course that the old (pre-Enlightenment) answers of Voetius and his friends were out of date. However, is that true?

 

In his Practical Theology Schleiermacher writes about the task of the discipline. He distinguishes between ‘das Ganze’ (the whole) and ‘der Theil’ (the part). Practical Theology is concerned with both: with the church as an organic whole (‘Kirchenregiment’), and with the local (‘Kirchendienst’). About the former, the  leadership of the church (‘Kirchenregiment’) he writes:

“Die wesentliche Function des Kirchenregiments hat es nur auf eine untergeordnete Weise mti den einzelnen zu thun, so nur daß dem einzelnen seine Function angewiesen werde. Die Hauptsache ist die, daß die Gestaltung des gemeinschaftlichen Lebens eine solche sei wodurch die Erhaltung des christlichen Lebens gesichert werde.” (p.63).

In (my own) translation: “The essential function of the leadership of the church has only in secondary way to do with the individual, in the sense that the individual’s function is shown. The main point is that the shaping of the communal life will be such, that by it the christian life is preserved and secured.”. So Schleiermacher considers Practical Theology (not so much as the science but) as the art of shaping the communal life in orde to preserve the christian life. In the light of this, it seems to be exaggerated to see him as the father of individualization as a fundamental concept in Practical Theology.

But what about religion? For Schleiermacher, Christianity (at its best) is the ultimate form of religion (‘Die Religion der Religionen’, p.190), as he states it in Über die Religion (1799; ausgabe Dilthey 1906). 

“Das Christentum über sie alle erhaben, und historischer und demütiger in seiner Herrlichkeit…” (p.189).

“Christianity (is) elevated above all of them (s.c. other religions), both more historical and more humble in its glory…”. It is true, that Schleiermacher has an eye for the diversity and the development of religions, more than predecessors like Voetius. But the importance is not, in my point of view, that he broadens the object of Practical Theology to religion instead of christianity. The point is something else. In a next post I will explain why…

 

Young Calvin about the Lord’s Supper (1)

As a first example of the rich theological tradition a quote about the Lord’s Supper from John Calvin. He was only 27 years old at the moment he wrote this. It’s from the relative unknown Epistolae Duae, written in Basel, January 12th, 1537. You might recognize some of the important aspects of Calvin’s later teachings about the Lord’s Supper: the emphasis on the congregation’s participation, the proclamation of God’s promises as essential part of the liturgy, and indeed the symbolic signifance of bread and cup.

“Coenam esse Domini nego, ad cuius spirituales epulas, non in commune omnes qui adsunt fideles invitentur, nisi in qua et sancta panis ac calicis symbola ecclesiae proponantur, et promissiones, quibus obsignandis data est, enarrentur, et aquisita nobis per Domini mortem vitae gratia praedicitur.”

In (my own) translation: “I deny that we can talk about the Lord’s Supper, if not all believers, who are present, altogether are invited to the spiritual meal, and if not the holy symbols, bread and cup, are presented to the congregation, and if not the promises, which are given by the seals, are declared, and if not the gift of life, acquired for us by the death of the Lord, is proclaimed.”