Thursday, July 22, 2010

Anglican Problems...

Will, over at Prydain, has a post that I thought I would respond to here, rather than leaving what would be a much too lengthy comment at his site:

I am not familiar with "More and Cross" nor this publication, though I have just spent some time reading through a number of sections.  Suffice to say though, I think contained within it is a type of historical revisionism that is emblematic of what ails the Anglican Continuing churches.

Example from More's essay:

In their repudiation of the Roman efforts to cover her dogmatic innovations under the authority of tradition, and in their insistence on the Bible as the sole final criterion of orthodoxy, the Anglicans stood with the Protestants; but on the other side they departed from the Reformers of the Continent and from the Puritans at home in their rejection of what they regarded as an illegitimate extension of Scriptural authority.  Again it was a question of fundamentals and accessories.  Certain inferences from the central dogma of the Incarnation they allowed as self-evident, even in a way as essential to the faith that saves; but they hesitated over, and with the passing of time drew back more resolutely from, the doctrines of absolute predestination, effectual calling, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and the whole scaffolding of rationalized theology which Luther and Calvin had constructed about the central truth out of an unbalanced exposition of isolated texts.  Not that way lay the simplicity of the faith.


Me:
The above and this series of essays consist of, to be kind, a distorted view of the history of the English reformers visa-vis Luther, Calvin, and the Continental reformers.  Go and read for yourself.  I will begin by looking at Thomas Rogers' commentary on the Articles and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, the architect of the Book of Common Prayer and the 42 Articles of Religion which were later compacted to 39 Articles without any significant changes:

Thomas Cranmer strongly defends predestination and effectual calling in his Great Commonplaces (Ashley Null's book on Cranmer's theology) - as did many other English reformers.  Article XVII: Of Predestination and Election is classic reformed doctrine.


From Thomas Rogers' The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England: An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (1586) which Will at Prydain blog posted:

Rogers  (chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft) writes...
Of Presdestination and Election:
pg. 145:  Err therefore do they which stand in opinion that Some are appointed to be save, but none to be damned... Predestination began before all times...
pg. 146:  The public confessions of the churches, namely in Helvetia, Basil, and France, bear witness hereunto... Wander then do they from the truth which think That the very elect, totally and finally, may fall from grace, and be damned...
pg. 147:  We deny that all, and affirm that a certain chosen and select company of men be predestinate...
pg. 148:  In the scripture we read of man's predestination, the cause efficient to be the everlasting purpose of God; the cause formal, God his infinite mercy and goodness; the cause material, the blood of Christ; the cause final, or end, why both God the Father hath loved, and Christ for his elect hath suffered, is the glory of God, and the salvation of man.
    And this do all the churches militant, and reformed, with a sweet consent, testify and acknowledge...
pg. 150:  Though true it be, the Lord knoweth all and every of his elect... This things are most evident, and clear in the holy Scripture, where is set down both the calling of the predestinate, and their obedience to the word being called, and their adoption by the Spirit bo be the children of God; and last of all, their holiness of life, and virtuous conversation.


[here Rogers takes to task the Papists, the Antinomians, the Puritans (who make a mark of election the presbyterial kingdom), and the Schwenfeldians-the enthusiasts of that day.]

pg. 153:  divers be the effects of man's predestination; but chiefly it bringeth to the elect justification by faith in this life, and in the life to come glorification...
pg. 154:  This doctrine of predestination is to the godly full sweet, pleasant, and comfortable, because it greatly confirmeth their faith in Christ, and increaseth their love toward God.


Me:  This is consistent with Calvin, Bullinger, and the reformed confessions.


Article XI and the Homily on Salvation (Justification) clearly teach and defend the doctrines of justification by faith alone:  that by faith only in Christ's merits alone and not by any works of ours are sinners justified by God - and thus "credited", "reckoned", or imputed Christ's righteousness, as Cranmer put it, "But every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness, of justification to be received at God’s own hands".


From Cranmer's homily:
the Apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our justification. Upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace: upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body, and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and upon our part true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by God’s working in us: so that in our justification, is not only God's mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calleth the justice [righteousness] of God, and it consisteth in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law: and so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice [righteousness] of man, that is to say, the justice [righteousness] of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore S. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of God, and not man's only work, without God: And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified, but it shutteth them out fro the office of justifying.

Me:
These doctrines, along with the doctrines concerning the Eucharist and Real Presence were the animating doctrines of the English reformers (Tyndale, Cranmer, Hooper, Ridley, Latimer, Jewel), many of whom were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church and burned at the stake for their advocacy of these teachings.  I would include Hooker's voice with those above:

From Hooker's Learned Discourse on Justification:


"Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in him. In him God findeth us, if we be faithful; for by faith we are incorporated into him. Then, although in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man who in himself is impious, full of iniquity, full of sin; him being found in Christ by faith, and having his sin in hatred through repentance; him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punishment due thereto, by pardoning it; and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly righteous, as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in the law: shall I say, more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole law? I must take heed what I say; but the Apostle saith, "God made him which knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Such we are in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God himself. Let it be counted folly, or phrensy, or fury, or whatsoever. It is our wisdom, and our comfort; we care for no knowledge in the world but this, that man hath sinned, and God bath suffered; that God bath made himself the sin of men, and that men are made the righteousness of God."

Peter Toon writes regarding Hooker's public debate with the Puritan Travers:

"In the three sermons, and then in the Learned Discourse, Hooker stated with great clarity the developed Reformation doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, through Christ alone, and issuing in good works, done in love for the glory of God. As he did this, he also stated and criticized the Roman doctrine of justification through the "sacramental system" as set forth by the Council of Trent in its canons and decrees. In all this Travers could find little to disagree with for on Justification by Faith alone there was basic agreement between Anglicans, Presbyterians and Lutherans...


... One major reason for the present crisis in Anglicanism and for the temptation to leave its ranks is that Anglicans have (generally speaking) lost that doctrine which Hooker and Travers [the Puritan with whom he debated] held in common, even as Cranmer, Luther and Calvin had held it in common-Justification by Faith alone issuing in holiness of life with good works."

Me:
It is all well and good that many today in the Continuing churches want to hold to a view that ignores the above.  But in order to do so they must, if being honest with the historical record, no longer count the above men and their fellow reformers as allies.  I think it is they that have left classical Anglicanism by developing a variant that sees its heritage almost exclusively through the sole lens of the creeds, the church councils, and the patristic writings.  Almost certainly it is the lens they use to interpret the English reformation and those subsequent years, rather than the very words, writings, testimonies of the reformers themselves, and above all the Scripture.

In addition, the lumping together of all the "Continental Reformers" into a more or less radical Puritan camp that is at odds with the English Church is just a poor reading of history.  As exampled by H. Bullinger's response to advice sought by those opposing the wearing of vestments as required by...

Archbishop Parker's "Advertisements":

John Jewel and other bishops, including Edmund Grindal, Bishop of London wrote to key Continental Reformers - especially Heinrich Bullinger - asking their views on the vestments and ceremonies...


Bullinger and the other Zurich Reformers did not fully approve of the ceremonies, but insisted that they were not so bad that any minister should risk dismissal by refusing to conform. Thereafter, the English bishops did uphold the ceremonies (although some less enthusiastically than others). Increasingly, the bishops in general came to see those who would not conform as mere troublemakers.

Me:
Hardly the response from radical continental reformers opposed to the episcopacy.  Neither vestments nor church polity at that time (nor now) were tests of any reformed confession, be it the 39 Articles or any those of the Continent churches.  As Article XXXIV makes clear, it is within the jurisdiction of a church body (e.g. The Church of England) to determine the "traditions and forms of ceremonies".  The question of the church polity  and regulative principals (e.g. vestments) were passionately argued in England and similarly on the Continent.  But they were national or denominational church matters, not matters of reformed theology.

G.W. Bromily... contrasts the English reformers like Jewel and the "patristic centered' Anglicans of more recent times:

"Jewell did not appeal to the Fathers as to a source of authority additional to that which we have in Scripture. His appeal was historical, having this aim, to show that the present Roman Church is not historically the church of the early centuries either in practice or in doctrine. Jewell granted that in its earlier period the Church was purer, and that it ought to be studied for that reason. He did not urge, however, that Scripture must be accepted as interpreted by the Fathers. He did not wish to argue that the early Church was infallible either in Scripture-interpretation or in conduct. The Church in all ages remained under the final judgment of Scripture...
Jewell had no thought of the Church of England as a bridge - church between the Romanist and the Reformed groups. Historical circumstance have perhaps made that position appear possible, but doctrinally it is impossible. The Anglican Church of Jewell was thoroughly Protestant, and thoroughly anti-Roman...
In past centuries the successors of Jewell have used their patristic studies to pervert or to weaken the Reformed doctrines of Anglicanism."

Me:
By redefining the Anglican heritage in a way that essentially bypasses or re-interprets the historical record of the 16th century, today's various Anglican denominations have lost the essential character of the classical Anglican tradition:  a protestant, reformed, catholic faith and practice.   As a result the two main streams that dominate today are the liberal to apostate denominations and the Anglo-Catholic to Anglo-Roman provinces.  Within those bodies are sojourners, who in heart and mind identify with those long forgotten English reformers and long for a church body that again embraces their teachings and confession of the faith once delivered.

Update 7-24-10:  A discussion on this essay can be found at this Prydain link.

13 comments:

  1. Hello Jack,

    A few things:

    1. the switchero of reformed for patristic anglican is swapping out of the CofE w/ the Scottish Episcopal Church (non-juror). And when you press it, they actually represent a break from the Carolinian, using the Andrewes' Formula as a cover.

    2. I disagree about the consensus on predestination amongst reformers. Interestingly, the quote from Rodgers points to the consensus between "pg. 146: The public confessions of the churches, namely in Helvetia, Basil, and France, bear witness hereunto..". This is the Genevan and Swiss line of churches. Ignored, and what draws therefore my curiosity, are the Germans, both Reformed and Lutheran. Rodgers doesn't mention this strain, yet the Bucer-Melanchthon line, I believe, was far more formative and favored w/ respect to Anglican doctrine 1530-1550. I would agree with Rodgers, then, in a Reformed consensus but in the narrow sense, excluding the more catholic reformed churches in Germany. I also hesitate asserting an agreement across the continent with this particular set of churches namely because their exclusion of adiaphora. The Germans (still across the continent) didn't have this phobia w/ respect to ceremony. Even where worship was plain, it wasn't reasoned via the 2nd commandment as with the later Calvinist (geneva line) churches mentioned by Rodgers. I think this is an important point.

    3. More and Cross are right, regarding the shift toward synergisim. Notice their slight qualification, "but they hesitated over, and with the passing of time drew back". Yes, this is true,:with the passing of time", but More is no longer in the 16th century! Nor does he consider what transpired with respect to collegiality between insular and continental reformers since, say, 1577, with the relative hardening of confessions. Perhaps if treated in a more historical context, the distancing from the continent was more circumstantial (sic. 30-yr war no less!)

    Also, the rise of 17th century english Arminianism needs further qualifications and ought to be separated from the later, "patristic", Grafton-type/revisionist Anglo-catholicism. First, 17th century Arminianism did not challenge Augustine, and actually Arminius himself wrote against semi-pelagianism, calling it'heretical'. Therefore, the even the soteriology of non-jurors, like Thomas Deacon, et al., which Anglo-Catholics really run with, has no bearing on Laud. Differences between non-juror unionists vs. separatist should be pressed to expose AC. Second, I don't take Laudian arminianism too seriously, but treat is as an overreaction to 5pt calvinism. It was reactionary. We are much safer, if we are sincere about confessional anglicanism (and not a pan-reformed polyglot church), to stick with plain Augustinianism, which I believe where Luther and Cranmer were, and this tends to place a higher priority on the called ministry.
    cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Jack,

    A few things:

    1. the switchero of reformed for patristic anglican is swapping out of the CofE w/ the Scottish Episcopal Church (non-juror). And when you press it, they actually represent a break from the Carolinian, using the Andrewes' Formula as a cover.

    2. I disagree about the consensus on predestination amongst reformers. Interestingly, the quote from Rodgers points to the consensus between "pg. 146: The public confessions of the churches, namely in Helvetia, Basil, and France, bear witness hereunto..". This is the Genevan and Swiss line of churches. Ignored, and what draws therefore my curiosity, are the Germans, both Reformed and Lutheran. Rodgers doesn't mention this strain, yet the Bucer-Melanchthon line, I believe, was far more formative and favored w/ respect to Anglican doctrine 1530-1550. I would agree with Rodgers, then, in a Reformed consensus but in the narrow sense, excluding the more catholic reformed churches in Germany. I also hesitate asserting an agreement across the continent with this particular set of churches namely because their exclusion of adiaphora. The Germans (still across the continent) didn't have this phobia w/ respect to ceremony. Even where worship was plain, it wasn't reasoned via the 2nd commandment as with the later Calvinist (geneva line) churches mentioned by Rodgers. I think this is an important point.

    cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  3. 3. More and Cross are right, regarding the shift toward synergisim. Notice their slight qualification, "but they hesitated over, and with the passing of time drew back". Yes, this is true,:with the passing of time", but More is no longer in the 16th century! Nor does he consider what transpired with respect to collegiality between insular and continental reformers since, say, 1577, with the relative hardening of confessions. Perhaps if treated in a more historical context, the distancing from the continent was more circumstantial (sic. 30-yr war no less!)

    Also, the rise of 17th century english Arminianism needs further qualifications and ought to be separated from the later, "patristic", Grafton-type/revisionist Anglo-catholicism. First, 17th century Arminianism did not challenge Augustine, and actually Arminius himself wrote against semi-pelagianism, calling it'heretical'. Therefore, the even the soteriology of non-jurors, like Thomas Deacon, et al., which Anglo-Catholics really run with, has no bearing on Laud. Differences between non-juror unionists vs. separatist should be pressed to expose AC. Second, I don't take Laudian arminianism too seriously, but treat is as an overreaction to 5pt calvinism. It was reactionary. We are much safer, if we are sincere about confessional anglicanism (and not a pan-reformed polyglot church), to stick with plain Augustinianism, which I believe where Luther and Cranmer were, and this tends to place a higher priority on the called ministry.

    cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  4. 4. I also think hasty identification with regulativist churches is similarly erosive. If you have any familiarity with anti-adiaphora churches, you know they could not share the table with us due to ceremonial, even if surplice-only. But perhaps I don't know the PCA. My experience is from the more old school OPC where a crucifix divided the congregation. Nonetheless, I believe playing with the Geneva line of confessions, due to sticky points on worship and soteriology, is akin to playing with fire. We are closer in spirit and genesis to the South German if not Lutheran. Just study the period, 1530's, when Cranmer was teaching justification, and note the confessional influences-- Augsburg and Wittenberg. Wittenberg presaged the Variata which Cranmer knew.

    5. Notice while digging up cranmer's soteriology points you are at a loss to find any real, calvinistic specifics on predestination but plenty on simple justificaiton by faith alone, rejection of merit, and the necessity of grace. I honestly encountered the same problem when studying Cranmer's homilies, but did not want to argue from silence to conclude an identity with Dort or WCF. It isn't there, and the Homily on Declining God further frustrates. I am not saying or proving Arminianism. Far be it. But let the Articles 'speak for themselves'.... we have a simple, and pastorally orientated Augustinianism.

    Lastly, indeed justification decides the future of Anglicanism. Not only is it the gospel, but it decides our very mode of worship and church polity, separating necessity from liberty. Without it, we fall into the fundamentalist-flipside of Romanism. Though I would sign the Manhatten Declaration in a heart-beat, we nonetheless believe there are different kinds of laws as the result of christian liberty.

    sincerely,
    charles

    ReplyDelete
  5. Charles,

    Thanks for your thoughtful and informative comments. You certainly have studied this history more than I.

    Rather than comment specifically on your points, which I don't necessarily disagree with, I thought I'd clarify the intention of my original post.

    I don't mean to suggest that the Continental reformers and the English reformers were traveling an identical path. There certainly were difference between the two, as well as between Luther (& Melancthon), Calvin, Zwingli, and to a lesser degree later on Bullinger. I don't think that Cranmer was more influenced by the German reformers (Luther, Bucer). But he was undoubtedly influenced also by the Swiss.

    My post is essentially an attempt to refute the idea that there was some wide doctrinal gulf between 16th century English reformed teaching and that of the Continent in general. Historical documents show this not to be the case. The main camp in the Anglo-Catholic churches today would define binding Anglican doctrine and practice as essentially only that which can be explicitly found in the early patristic writers up and through some part of the late first millennium. For them there was no real reformation for the English akin to the Continent.

    The Anglican Articles are included in every compilation of reformed confessions. Was the Church of England a reformed church ala the continent? No, because there were difference regarding worship, as you have noted. But that divide was not as great as some would posit. Polity was not, and is not, a distinctive of the Continental reformed confessions. So the Episcopacy as practice in the 16th and 17th century was not an issue confessionally.

    I think the argument initiated by the radical Puritans of England and their insistence on an Genevan type worship and polity lead to an unfortunate mischaracterization of Reformed theology and specifically Calvin's teachings. From 1570 to 1600 Calvin and Bullinger's theological works were considered the true theology of the English, both referred to as "pillars of the church." Bullinger's Decades and Calvin's Institutes were required study at Oxford and Cambridge for all upcoming clergy. Were there differences? Yes, but in the area of soteriology none of any consequence. Certainly not to the degree that some would today have.

    -continued >>

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let me clarify the statement above regarding Calvin and Bullinger and the true theology of England. Simply I mean that they were considered mainstream and valuable allies and teachers of true doctrine. Not all agreed, but AB Whitgift certainly did, as did Jewell, Hooker, and many other leading lights.

    If modern Anglicanism is to regain its heritage, which I contend has been left on the cutting floor of revisionist historians, then Anglicans will need to re-own their reformed doctrinal heritage as well as keeping their "non-Genevan" BCP worship. It is that very reformed doctrine that is both catholic and Protestant which gives the Christ-centered redemptive meaning to the wonderful words of Cranmer's prayers and liturgy.

    To me this is the big picture to which agreement of sorts is required before we wade into the minutia of some of the varying understandings on predestination, sovereign grace, etc. I am frankly wearied of discussions where certain mainstream reformed teachings are ruled out of bounds by those wedded to a Romish or pre-reformational view of Anglicanism that defines the Anglican Church mostly through the priesthood, the Prayer Book (conveniently minus the Articles), and the sacraments.

    Again, thank you for all your doing to further the discussion.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  7. dear Jack,

    I agree, but I remain skeptical that classical Anglicanism's necessary doctrine can be fully identified with the Genevan. I think the German-leaning ones are safer. However, I do think a reformed and protestant identity needs reclamation. Part of the challenge would be defining Protestantism against Anabaptism and most currents of revivalism/ fundamentalism. Rather, we are talking about confessional churches that have a magisterial origin, not the free church or restorationist types.

    And, while I will admit a period of influence between Bullinger's Decades and Calvin's catechism in England, I think it's important, as Anglicans, we note these catechisms lacked royal assent. Instead, we have Nowell's which not only was used in the universities but was authorized by the crown (the 'authorized' version). There is an excellent book which cross-references the articles, homilies, and nowell. To really get to the heart of the matter, Nowell should be compared to one of the French and Palatinate catechisms, and then we can conclude how far (or not) Nowell indeed goes, examining explicit agreements. This would be a great post. I have to double check the date Nowell finished the catechism. I believe it was quite earlier than it's actual publication. ? Yes: Anglicanism is indeed protestant, if not quintessentially so, and is closer to the continent than Rome or the East. No: Anglicanism is not a 1:1 translation to the Dutch or Scottish churches. I am very apprehensive about this, and judge such identification as potentially errosive and disorientating. It occurs to me, Presbyterians very rarely quote foregien standards outside WCF/WLC. But it seems too many 'heritage anglicans' are eating fruit from other, albeit cousin, but nonetheless non-Anglican trees. I think in this day and age of distingration and scattering we need to double down the hatches, etc.. ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Charles,

    I think we are largely in agreement. I certainly have said and say again that the English reformation was not identical to that of the Continental reformers. But there is much common ground, especially in soteriology. That is my point. Classical Anglicanism is not Genevan. But that has more to do with the theology of worship than the doctrines regarding salvation held common by Luther, Bucer, Calvin, Cranmer, Bullinger, etc.

    And I hope you are not reading me as claiming a 1:1 relationship with the Scottish or Dutch churches. As I have stated, I think a fair take on the 39 Articles is to describe them as moderately Calvinist (not Puritan). Lutheran inasmuch as Luther, Cranmer, and Calvin would all be on the same page (more or less) as to "how man is saved."

    You wrote:
    But it seems too many 'heritage anglicans' are eating fruit from other, albeit cousin, but nonetheless non-Anglican trees. I think in this day and age of distingration and scattering we need to double down the hatches, etc.. ?

    Don't you think that is consequence of the absolute muddiness that has resulted from a couple hundred years of minimizing the 39 Articles as a true reformed catholic confession for the Church of England and all her children? By showing the areas of commonality with other 16 and 17h century reformed confessions, one can benefit and regain somewhat the needed perspective to resurrect the Anglican heritage. But that heritage will never be regain is those seeking to do so see Calvin, or Bullinger, or Luther to a lesser degree as "radicals" who departed from the early patristic doctrines of salvation. Because if that is the case then one must consider Cranmer to be such a radical. Today's Anglicanism needs a new reformation, not just a tinkering along the edges.

    Thanks again for your valuable input.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  9. Someone has asked why I moderate comments on this blog. Comments are moderated in order to avoid spamming, which has, from time to time, occurred... and was the case (i.e a spam link) with the particular comment in which this person asked the question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Saying that Arminianism or Anglo-Catholicism or even high church Caroligianism isn't "semi-pelagian" or worse is about like saying the pope isn't Catholic.

    Unfortunately, even Lutheranism became infected with strains of semi-pelagianism when Melanchthon tried to find middle ground between Luther's views on absolute predestination and what can only be called a confusely semi-pelagian view on common grace and libertarian free will.

    I completely agree with your assessment above, Jack. The continuing churches are more Anglo-Catholic or Arminian than Anglican. It would appear that Ashley Null's opinion would go against the continuing view.

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  11. The real issue here isn't what is "Anglican" per se but what is biblical? Scripture is the final authority, not man's opinions about which particular version of Anglicanism he prefers. It cannot be honestly argued that Cranmer would have agreed with the later Carolingians, Arminians or Anglo-Catholics. Hooker would not have agreed with those departures from Scripture either.

    But this is why I stopped even trying to converse with Arminians who pretend to be "reformed". The Anglican representatives at the Synod of Dort could hardly be called Amyraldians or Arminians.

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm in agreement with your view of Cranmer and Hooker, Charlie, as well as the Dort representatives. And, yes, it is all about what is consistent with the Word of God, not the tradition and man's purposes. That, unfortunately, is where things eventually got off track during and following Elizabeth's reign.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excellent points, Jack. I must have missed this one earlier on. Thanks for posting this one. I've recently ventured into the Anglican Forums. Unfortunately there are only a handful of Reformed Anglicans there.

    Peace,

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete