A Case for the Reformed/Calvinist Roots of Anglicanism

The case for the Reformed/Calvinist roots of Anglicanism has been made by many Anglicans over the years; Augustus Toplady, J.C. Ryle, J.I. Packer to name a few. One can go back to primary sources such as the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion which has always been included in the lists

of Reformed confessions along with the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity (Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession). Unfortunately over the years the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion has undergone a number of reinventions by those who wished and largely succeeded to move the Church of England and worldwide Anglicanism away from its early Calvinist connections towards a more broad church or Anglo-Catholic position. Well, this just doesn't stand up when actual history is brought into focus.

Continental historians, both Protestant and Catholic, rank the Church of England among the Reformed Churches as distinct from the Lutheran, and her Articles are found in every collection of Reformed Confessions... the theological interpretation of the Articles by English writers has been mostly conducted in a controversial rather than an historical spirit. (Philip Schaff as quoted by J.I. Packer in his book The Thirty-Nine Articles - Their Place and Use Today, p 33)

One can have their own interpretation of the Articles, but not their own history. As Packer notes in the same book, "it is crooked thinking when the case for redefining Anglicanism is presented as the verdict of Anglican history" (p 36).

Below is an extended excerpt from what is commonly referred to as Nowell's Catechism. The catechism teaches the theology of Anglicanism as it stood a mere 16 years after the martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer when it was officially adopted by the Church of England in 1572. It presents the Reformed teachings on justification and good works echoing Calvin as well as unpacking doctrines found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (esp. Chapter 11 - Of Justification and Chapter 16 - Of Good Works) sixty years before the Westminster Assembly met! Go figure...

Dive in. Carefully read and you'll find mainstream Reformed soteriology as held by Anglicanism in its earliest years.

____________________________________________________

From Nowell's Catechism:

Master:  Now thou hast declared the Creed, that is the sum of the Christian faith, tell me, what profit get we of this faith?

Student:  Righteousness before God, by which we are made.

Master:  Doth not then our own godliness toward God, and leading of our life honestly and holily among men justify us before God?

Student:  Of this we have said somewhat already after the declaring of the law, and in other places, to this effect. If any man were able to live uprightly according to the precise rule of the law of God, he should worthily be counted justified by his good works. But seeing we are all most far from that perfection of life, yea, and be so oppressed with conscience of our sins, we must take another course, and find another way, how God may receive us into favour, than by our own deserving.

Master:  What way?

Student:  We must flee to the mercy of God, whereby he freely embraceth us with love and goodwill in Christ, without any our deserving, or respect of works, both forgiving us our sins, and so giving us the righteousness of Christ by faith in him, that for the same Christ’s righteousness he so accepteth us, as if it were our own. To God’s mercy therefore through Christ we ought to impute all our justification .

Master:  How do we know it to be thus?

Student:  By the gospel, which containeth the promises of God by Christ, to the which when we adjoin faith, that is to say, an assured persuasion of mind and stedfast confidence of God’s goodwill, such as hath been set out in the whole Creed, we do, as it were, take state and possession of this justification that I speak of.

Master:  Dost not thou then say that faith is the principal cause of this justification, so as by the merit of faith we are counted righteous before God?

Student:   No; for that were to set faith in the place of Christ. But the spring-head of this justification is the mercy of God, which is conveyed to us by Christ, and is offered to us by the gospel, and received of us by faith as with a hand.

Master: Thou sayest then that faith is not the cause but the instrument of justification; for that it embraceth Christ which is our justification; coupling us with so strait bond to him, that it maketh us partakers of all his good things?

Student:  Yea forsooth.

Master:  But can this justification be so severed from good works, that he that hath it can want them?

Student:  No: for by faith we receive Christ such as he delivereth himself unto us. But he doth not only set us at liberty from sins and death, and make us at one with God, but also with the divine inspiration and virtue of the Holy Ghost doth regenerate and newly form us to the endeavour of innocency and holiness, which we call newness of life.

Master:  Thou sayest then that justice, faith, and good works, do naturally cleave thogether, and therefor ought no more to be severed, than Christ, the of them in us, can be severed from himself.

Student:  It is true.

Master:  Then this doctrine of faith doth not withdraw men's minds from godly works and duties?

Student:  Nothing less. For good works do stand upon faith as upon their root. So far, therefore, is faith from withdrawing our hearts from living uprightly, that, contrariwise, it doth most vehemently stir us up to the endeavour of good life; yea and so far, that he is not truly faithful that doth not also to his power both shun vices and embrace virtues, so living always as one that looketh to give an account.

Master:  Therefore tell me plainly how our works be acceptable to God, and what rewards be given to them?

Student:  In good works, two things are principally required. First, that we do those works that are prescribed by the law of God; secondly, that they be done with that mind and faith which God requireth. For no doings or thoughts enterprised or conceived without faith can please God.

Master:  Go forward.

Student:  It is evident, therefore, that all works whatsoever we do, before that we be born again and renewed by the Spirit of God, such as may properly be called our own works are faulty. For whatsoever shew of brightness and worthiness they represent and give to the eyes of men, since they spring and proceed from a faulty and corrupted heart, which God chiefly considereth, they cannot but be defiled and corrupted, and so grievously offend God. Such works, therefore, as evil fruits, growing out of an evil tree, God despiseth and rejecteth from him.

Master:  Can we not, therefore, go before God with any works or deservings, whereby we may first provoke him to love us, and be good unto us?

Student:  Surely, with none. For Gos loved and chose us in Christ, not only when we were his enemies, that is, sinners, but also before the foundations of the world were laid. And this is the same spring-head and original of our justification, whereof I spake before.

Master:  What thinkest thou of those works which we, after that we be reconciled to God's favour, do by the instinct of the Holy ghost?

Student:  The dutiful works of godliness, which proceedeth out of faith, working be charity, are indeed acceptable to God, yet not by their own deserving; but for that he, of his liberality, vouchsafeth them his favour. For though they be derived from the Spirit of God, as little streams from the spring-head, yet of our flesh, that mingleth itself with them, in the doing by the way, they receive corruption, as it were by infection, like as a river, otherwise pure and clear, is troubled and mudded with mire and slime, wherethrough it runneth.

Master:  How then dost thou say that they please God?

Student:  It is faith that procureth God's favour to our works, while it is assured that he will not deal with us after extremity of law, nor call our doings to exact account, nor try them as it were by the square: that is, he will not, in valuing and weighing them use severity, but remitting and pardoning all their corruptness, for Christ's sake and his deservings, will account them for fully perfect.

Master:  Then thou standest still in this, that we cannot by merit of works obtain to be justified before God, seeing thou thinkest that all doings of men, even the perfectest, do need pardon?

Student:  God himself hath so decreed in his word; and his Holy Spirit doth teach us to pray that he bring us not into judgment. For where righteousness, such as God the Judge shall allow, ought to be throughly absolute, and in all parts and points fully perfect, such as is to be directed and tried by the most precise rule, and, as it were, by the plumb-line of God's law and judgment; and therefore our works, even the best of them, for that they swerve and differ most far from the rule and prescription of God's law and justice, are many ways to be blamed and condemned; we can in no wise be justified before God by works.

Master:  Doth not this doctrine withdraw men's minds from the duties of godliness, and make them slacker and slower to good works, or at least less cheerful and ready to godly endeavours?

Student:  No: for we may not therefore say that good works are unprofitable or done in vain and without cause, for that we obtain not justification by them. For they serve both to the profit of our neighbour and to the glory of God; and they do, as by certain testimonies, assure us of God's goodwill toward us, and of our love again to God-ward, and of our faith, and so consequently of our salvation. And the reason it is, that we being redeemed with the blood of Christ the Son of God, and having beside received innumerable and infinite benefits of God, should live and wholly frame ourselves after the will and appointment of our Redeemer, and so shew ourselves mindful and thankful to the Author of our salvation, and by our example procure and win other unto him. The man that calleth these thoughts to mind may sufficiently rejoice in his good endeavours and works.

Master:  But God doth allure us to good doing with certain rewards, both in this life and in the life to come, and doth covenant with us as it were for certain wages.

Student:  That reward, as I have said, is not given to our works for their worthiness, and rendered to them as recompence for deservings, but by the bountifulness of God is freely bestowed upon us without deserving. And justification God doth give us as a gift of his own dear love toward us, and of his liberality through Christ. When I speak of God's gift and liberality, I mean it free and bountiful, without any our desert or merit: that it be God's mere and sincere liberality, which he applieth to or salvation only whom he loveth and which trust in him, not hired or procured for wages, as it were a merchandise of his commodities and benefits used by him for some profit to himself, requiring again of us some recompence or price, which once to think were to abate both the liberality and majesty of God.

Master:  Whereas then God doth by faith both give us justification, and by the same faith alloweth and accepteth our works, tell me, dost thou think that this faith is a quality of nature, or the gift of God?

Student:  Faith is the gift of God, and a singular and excellent gift. For both our wits are too gross and dull to conceive and understand the wisdom of God, whose fountains are opened by faith, and our hearts are more apt either to distrust, or to wrongful and corrupt trust in ourselves, or in other creatures, than to true trust in God. But God, instructing us with his word and lightening our minds with his Holy Spirit, maketh us apt to learn those things that otherwise would be far from entering into the dull capacity of our wits; and sealing the promises of salvation in our souls, he so informeth us that we are most surely persuaded of the truth of them. These things the apostles understanding, do pray to increase their faith.

__________________________________________________

In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified [i.e. accepted]; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause. (John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote)

See also this post:  John Calvin: The Recompense of Good Works

What meanest thou by this word “forgiveness”?

Master: 

What meanest thou by this word “forgiveness”? 

Student: 

That the faithful do obtain at God’s hand discharge of their fault and pardon of their offense: for God, for Christ’s sake, freely forgiveth them their sins, and rescueth and delivereth them from judgment and damnation, and from punishments just and due for their ill - doing.

Master:

Cannot we then, with godly, dutiful doings, and works, satisfy God, and by ourselves merit pardon of our sins? 

Student:

There is no mercy due to our merits, but God doth yield and remit to Christ his correction and punishment that he would have done upon us. For Christ alone, with sufferance of his pains and with his death, wherewith he hath paid and performed the penalty of our sins, hath satisfied God. Therefore by Christ alone we have access to the grace of God. We, receiving this benefit of his free liberality and goodness, have nothing at all to offer or render again to him by way of reward or recompense.

Nowell’s Catechism 1572

Calvinism and the Church of England

Bishop J.C. Ryle evaluates Toplady's advocacy of Calvinism thus: 

"I do not hesitate to say that Toplady's controversial works display extraordinary ability. For example, his, "Historic Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England" is a treatise that displays a prodigious amount of research and reading. It is a book that no one could have written who had not studied much, thought much, and thoroughly investigated an enormous mass of theological literature. You see at once that the author has completely digested what he has read and is able to concentrate all his reading on every point which he handles. The best proof of the book's ability is the simple fact that down to the present day it has never been really answered. It has been reviled, sneered at, and held up to scorn. But abuse is not argument. The book remains to this hour unanswered, and that for the simplest of reasons, that it is unanswerable. It proves irrefragably, whether men like it or not, that Calvinism is the doctrine of the Church of England, and that all her leading divines, until Laud's time, were Calvinists. All this is done logically, clearly, and powerfully. No one, I venture to think, could read this book through, and not feel obliged to admit that the author was an able man (The Christian Leaders of England in the Eighteenth Century (various editions)."

Roger Salter: Cranmerism, Calvinism, and The Church of England

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty? (5 Part Series)

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty? Pt. 1

The topic of this and, hopefully, the next several posts is to take a brief look at the English reformation prior to Queen Mary’s ascension and the period following Queen Elizabeth’s enthronement. The question to be considered is - How deep, thorough, and on-going was the English reformation during this period of time considering the trials that transpired over the next 100 years?

The conventional, yet I would submit questionable, understanding of the years 1547 to 1553 under King Edward is that it was a time of robust and unimpeded advancement in reforming the Church's doctrine and practice. Certainly, to a significant extent, this was indeed the case. Over the course of those years Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had introduced a reformed liturgy of worship in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and the subsequent and further reformed 1552 version. 1547 saw the first Book of Homilies published to aid the teaching and preaching of the Gospel doctrines in a country lacking clergy fluent in that very Gospel. A reformed confession of faith, The Forty-Two Articles, was completed in 1552 and issued in 1553. That confession embodied the redemptive teachings of Scripture emphasized by the reformers: Salvation of sinful man was by God’s grace alone, through faith only, in Jesus Christ and his finished work alone.
​
Yet, those Gospel advancements in England were far from universally accepted within Church and State. There had long been a persistant Roman Catholic party of bishops throughout Cranmer’s service as Archbishop which had resisted the reforms he sought under King Henry (1533-1547).  In his biography of Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch chronicles a see-saw battle which ensued during those years between the Evangelicals under Cranmer and the Conservative Roman Catholic party in which bishop Stephen Gardiner played a prominent role. One could accurately describe the progress of the reformation in England during that time as a repetitive dance of three steps forward and two steps back. And unfortunately that frustrating struggle did not cease during the "golden" years following Henry’s death under the youthful King Edward.
​
In 1547, Cranmer then invited the influential Italian reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli to England to help further the English reformation. The next year, after accepting the offer, he was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.  Over the next five years, Vermigli played a role in which he made significant contributions to the reformation of the Church. Yet interestingly we find that, during his first year at Oxford, he wrote a letter to the Strasbourg reformer Martin Bucer (December 26, 1548) in which he expresses his concern regarding the "popish party" and their opinion of Archbishop Cranmer:

​“... they till now were wont to traduce [Cranmer] as a man ignorant of theology, and as being only conversant with matters of government; but now, believe me, he has shewn himself so mighty a theologian against them as they would rather not have proof of, and they are compelled, against their inclination, to acknowledge his learning, and power and dexterity in debate.”

​Peter-Martyr, hoping that Bucer would come to England to aid in the reformed cause, continues with his assessment of the situation under Edward visa-vis the reformation, and alludes to what is holding back further reforms:

​“... because the magistracy, like yours, is altogether disposed to the reformation of the church, but with very few exception, does not possess the proper instruments for that object.”

​Two things can be inferred from the above quotes. There was significant Romish opposition among many of the clergy and bishops to the reforms Cranmer sought. And there was a lack of able preachers and teachers to effectively dispose of that opposition by means of magnifying the evangelical truths of the Reformation. Later, in a letter to Henric Bullinger, Vermigli verifies this inference, as well as noting the problem he saw with some in the Church who wanted only partial reform:

​“There are certainly very many obstacles; especially the number of our adversaries, the lack of preachers, and the gross vices of those who profess the gospel; besides the worldly prudence of some parties who think it quite right that religion should be purified, but are willing only to make as few alterations as possible; for feeling as they do, and thinking as civilians, they consider that any great changes would be dangerous to the state.”

​This Erastian mindset, which existed among many of the Civil and Church rulers (i.e. how the reformation of the church posed a potential risk to the State), unfortunately had a dampening effect on reform not only during Henry’s reign but to a significant extent in that of Elizabeth’s.

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty? Pt. 2

The question posed in the last post was - How deep, thorough, and on-going was the English reformation during the period before and after Queen Mary's reign?  When Queen Mary took the throne in 1553, the English church had been on the path of reform.  Yet that reform was far from over.  The 1552 prayer book had just been issued, eliminating those 1549 prayers and liturgical practices which could still be interpreted as to allow a Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the the Mass, and sacerdotalism.  This was evidence of Thomas Cranmer's commitment to continuing reforms.  At this point, the English reformation, far from complete, was in many ways still in an early stage.  Arguably, Cranmer had envisioned further changes.

The reformation of the church had accelerated under Edward, more so than with King Henry.  No longer was there the religious/political calculations and oversight of King Henry which Cranmer had to contend with and navigate.  Still, there were two situations which existed that especially slowed things down.  One was the lack of able preachers in the church.  This situation would come into play years later resulting in a confrontation between Queen Elizabeth and bishop Edmund Grindal.  The other circumstance was  the existence of a large party, even a majority, of bishops that opposed the reforms being enacted. From Oxford, Peter Vermigli wrote to Rudolph Gualter in a letter dated June 1, 1550:

"There is no lack of preachers in London, but throughout the whole kingdom they are very, very rare...  The sheep of the divine pasture, the sheep of God's hand, the sheep redeemed by the blood of Christ, are defrauded of their proper nourishment of the divine word; unless the people be taught, the change of religion will certainly avail them but little."

Earlier that year in January, he had written of the second concern in a letter to Henric Bullinger:

"... respecting the progress of Christ's kingdom in this country...  The sum however is this, that many things yet remain to be done, which we have in expectation rather than in reality.  The perverseness of the bishops is incredible; they oppose us with all their might:  yet some of that order, though very few, are favorable to the undertaking."

 The same determined resistance of the Roman Catholic leaning bishops that Cranmer had experienced under Henry continued during the Edwardian years despite the Archbishop's faithful labors.  Vermigli continues:

"The labour of the most reverend, the archbishop of Canterbury is not to be expressed.  For whatever has hitherto been wrested from them [i.e. the bishops] we have acquired solely by the industry, and activity of this prelate."

So a picture emerges from these accounts of a church out of balance; an episcopacy very much at odds with itself.  The continued presence of Rome-leaning clergy ensured that once the new Catholic Queen took the throne the Cranmerian reforms would be quickly reversed.  Though significant, the Gospel advances in the church had yet not gone very deep.  This conclusion is all too apparent in comments Vermigli made to Bullinger in a December 15, 1553 letter from Strasbourg, four months after Mary came to power.  He wrote that transubstantiation had been easily reinstated due to the fact that those opposing it were overwhelmed by the number favoring it.  From which we can surmise that much of the hierarchy of the Church had remained untouched by the reformation, or only superficially so.  And under the new Roman Catholic monarch, they had moved quickly to reverse the progress of the previous years.

Additionally, there's a sad irony to the events of 1547-1552.  Cranmer had not been one inclined to use the power of the State to enforce reform.  His attitude to those opposing the Gospel reforms are summed up in these words of his:

"What will ye have man do to him that is not yet come to knowledge of the truth of the Gospel?...  Shall we perhaps, in his journey coming towards us, by severity and cruel behavior overthrow him, and as it were in his visage stop him?  I take not this the way to allure me to embrace the doctrine of the Gospel.  And if it be a true rule of our Savior Christ to do good for evil, then let such as are not yet come to favor our religion learn to follow the doctrine of the Gospel by our example in using them friendly and charitably." (from Ashley Null)

So, had he ignored his own advice, he might have purged the church of his opponents. Indeed some were removed, the most prominent example being bishop Stephen Gardiner who spent over five years in prison and yet reemerged in 1553.  Had Cranmer acted ruthlessly, one possible result might have been a much stronger resistance to Roman Catholicism being reinstated under Mary.  Yet having chosen the better part, Cranmer, by and large, refused to battle according to flesh and blood.  And thus it turned out that some of the very opponents of reform who had been left untouched later led the charge against him at his trial, leading to his death.  And from what I can tell, many of these clergy and bishops remained in their positions even after Elizabeth took the throne, guaranteeing further institutional resistance to the reform efforts that followed.

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty? Part 3

... a little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6b)

Supreme Governor of the Church

Fast forward through the reign of the Roman Catholic Queen Mary to that of her half-sister Elizabeth:  Protestantism has been restored, but what course did the Church of England take once it again embraced the religion of Cranmer? How one answers that question is determined, in part, by whether one sees the restoration of the church under Elizabeth as a glass half-or-more-full or a glass half-empty.  I fall into the latter camp, despite that many of the Edwardian reforms were restored and the gospel was being freely preached and received.  The problem, in my view, was that the Church under Elizabeth ceased being a church that, above all, sought to conform itself to Scripture alone.  The establishment and maintenance of peace, both domestically and internationally, was once again in the mix.  And that ingredient always involved political and pragmatic calculations.

In the previous two posts, I've noted three particular situations that impeded the progress of reform in England - 1) the Monarch as Head or Supreme Governor of the Church, 2) the presence of a large body (possibly majority) of bishops that leaned covertly or overtly towards Rome, and 3) the lack of gospel preaching clergy.  Unlike the period of King Henry's rule, under Boy-King Edward the first circumstance was not much of an issue.  But when Elizabeth took the throne this changed.  Though a confirmed Protestant and now Supreme Governor of the Church, which theoretically bode well for further reforms, Elizabeth was nonetheless queen over the realm of England, responsible for both its domestic and diplomatic well-being.  How she proceeded to rule was to return the state of reform visa-vis the Monarch to that of a mixed bag.  In addition, many of the conservative bishops were also members of the upper house of Parliament.  In these two entities of government, the reformation was thus faced with a mixture of state and church that ensured right doctrine and biblical truth would not always carry the day in ecclesial matters.

The historical record certainly shows that under Queen Elizabeth many strides were taken towards strengthening Protestantism in England.  Those accomplishments are fairly well known, especially among reformed Anglicans.  Rather than focus on those advancements, my concern is with those things that kept the glass half empty, i.e. slowed or detoured reform in England.  For by the time of Archbishop Laud, the Church of England had gone in a direction that Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley would hardly have identified with.  What happened was that the reformation, rather than picking up where it left off under Cranmer, was slowed in its tracks and even diverted by events under Queen Elizabeth and those that followed.  From Diarmaid MacCulloch (article here):

... At home, Elizabeth wanted to conciliate conservatives [i.e. those who preferred a more medieval church practice]; abroad, she wanted to conciliate suspicious Catholic Spain and France, and also to win friends among the Lutheran princes of Germany and Scandinavia, who were increasingly hostile to the Calvinist and other Reformed Churches to their south. At the same time, however, she was identified with the Protestant cause by her birth... Elizabeth herself shows signs of having preferred his discredited first Prayer Book of 1549 to his second of 1552, but virtually no-one at the time agreed with her: to reintroduce 1549 was not practical politics.

Elizabeth's solution to her dilemmas was remarkable: quite deliberately, she established what proved to he a snapshot, frozen in time, of the Church as it had been in September 1552, ignoring the progress made in further changing the Church of England after that date. 

Who were the "conservatives" of which MacCulloch refers, the ones whom Elizabeth wanted to conciliate? According to ecclesiastical historian, Dom Henry Norbert Birt (1861-1919):

After a careful study of all available sources of information he estimates the number of [Catholic] priests holding livings in England at Elizabeth's accession at 7500 (p. 162). A large number, forming the majority of these, accepted, though unwillingly, the new state of things, and according to tradition many of them were in the habit of celebrating Mass early and of reading the Church of England service later on Sunday morning. (citation here)

This gives insight to the concerns regarding the advancement of reform of recently arrived Marian exiles such as John Jewell who wrote, in his first letter upon returning, to Peter Martyr on March 20, 1559:

Reformer John Jewell

The bishops are a great hindrance to us; for being, as you know, among the nobility and leading men in the upper house, and having none there on our side to expose their artifices and falsehoods by word of mouth... The queen, meanwhile, though she openly favours our cause, yet is wonderfully afraid of allowing any innovations:  this is owing partly to the influence of count Feria, a Spaniard, and Philip's ambassador.  She is, however, prudently, and firmly, and piously following up her purpose, though somewhat more slowly than we could wish.

Jewell's last comment can be understood to show that, in his (hopeful?) estimation, Elizabeth was a committed Protestant and yet, due to her responsibilities of State, she was reluctant to allow the progress of reform too quickly and, as later events would show, proceed too far.  In a series of letters to Martyr, he continues with his assessment of the Church's situation:

... yet the people everywhere, and especially the whole of the nobility, are both disgusted with their [bishop's] insolent exultation, and exceedingly thirsting for the gospel.  Hence it has happened that the mass in many places has of itself fallen to the ground, without any laws for its discontinuance.  If the queen herself would but banish is from her private chapel, the whole thing might easily be got rid of.  Of such importance among us are the examples of princes.  For whatever is done after the example of the sovereign, the people, as you well know, suppose to be done rightly. (3rd letter, April 14, 1559)

For our queen is now thinking of the league of Smalcald; but there is one who writes to her from Germany [a former and now exiled bishop], that this can by no means be brought about, if you [Vermigli] should return to us... But however this may be, we have exhibited to the queen all our articles of religion and doctrine, and have not departed in the slightest degree from the confession of Zurich... (4th letter, April 28, 1559)

 For we are all of us hitherto as strangers at home...  As to religion, it has been effected, I hope, under good auspices, that it shall be restored to the same state as it was during your latest residence among us, under Edward.  But, as far as I can perceive at present, there is not the same alacrity among our friends, as there lately was among the papists... and those very things which you and I so often laughed at are now seriously and solemnly entertained by certain persons (for we are not consulted), as if the Christian religion could not exist without something tawdry...  Others are seeking after a golden, or, as it rather seems to me, a leaden mediocrity; and are crying out, that the half is better than the whole. (5th letter, undated)

 As the 5th letter reveals, there were many among the Protestants those who desired only limited reforms to the church.  This was to set the stage, as it seems to me,  for a continued struggle within the Church of England for the next 100 years.

On May 20, 1559 Queen Elizabeth signed the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity.  According to Diarmaid MacCulloch, "One of the most striking features of Elizabeth's 1559 Settlement was that it began the Church of England's long march away from Cranmer's eucharistic theology, if only in small details... The clarity of Cranmer's sacramental intentions was undermined by restoring to the communion service the 1549 formulae of administering bread and wine to communicants which he had replaced in 1552... This, the omission of the 'black rubric', and a baffling instruction that the permissible ornaments and vestments of the Church were those in use in the year before the 1549 Prayer Book was authorised" were the backdrop of several more letters by Jewell to Bullinger and Martyr which highlighted the headwinds that he and the true friends of reform faced:

For we have at this time to contend not only with those of our friends, who of late years have fallen away from us, and gone over to the opposite party; who are now opposing us with a bitterness and obstinacy far exceeding that of any common enemy... (Bullinger-May 22, 1559)

 The bishops, rather than abandon the pope, whom they so often abjured, are willing to submit to everything.  Not, however, that they do so for the sake of religion, of which they have none; but for the sake of consistency, which the miserable knaves now choose to call their consciences. (Martyr-August 1, 1559)

She was altogether desirous that you should be all means be invited to England, that, as you formerly tilled, as it were, the university by your lectures, so again you might water it by the same, now it is in so disordered and wretched a condition.  But since then, the deliberations about Saxony and the embassy from Smalcald have put an end to those counsels. (Martyr-November 5, 1559)

Religion among us is in the same state which I have often described to you before.  The doctrine is everywhere most pure, but, as to ceremonies and maskings, there is a little too much foolerly.  That little silver cross of ill-omen origin, still maintains its place in the queen's chapel.  Wretched me! this thing will soon be drawn into a precedent. (November 16, 1559)

There's more to the story of "that little silver cross" of Queen Elizabeth's, but for now it's worth noting those last words of Jewell were prescient in light of the eventual drift that occurred back toward a medieval high church Eucharistic practice among those such as Laud and the Tractarians of the 1800s who birthed the Anglo-Catholic movement.

[all italics added]

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty Part 4

It's not that the reformation in England didn't resume under Queen Elizabeth.  The question seems to be what was the nature of that reformation.  Whereas religion under King Edward was moving into closer identification with that of the continental reform churches, after Mary and under Elizabeth there was a stepping back.  This wasn't so much a reversal as a change of course.  The doctrines of the gospel had again been fully embraced after 1558, but the nature of the Church in its worship had become frozen in a 1549/1552 time frame.  And this was no mere chance of fate, but rather the direction Elizabeth chose.  According to historian Diarmaid MacColluch, ... the plain fact was that the Supreme Governor would not allow the Edwardian Reformation to proceed on its path, at least if it meant structural change to her Church (Cranmer's Ambiguous Legacy).

As documented in Parts 1, 2 & 3, frustration with the pace and even the direction of reform is clearly seen in the letters of John Jewell.  Having returned from Zurich and soon appointed bishop of Salisbury (1559), he became the chief apologist of the reformation in England.  His must have been a difficult path, for all was not well within this second reformation.  Indeed, at Anglican Prayerbook Churchmanship, our friend Hudson Barton conjectures about that frustration and the subsequent unfolding of events with the rise of Puritanism in Elizabeth's England:

... the returning [Marian] exiles expected Elizabeth to receive the Reformation not as her father had established it but as it had subsequently evolved [under Edward]. When she didn't, the reactionary movement of Puritanism was born.

One such moment that may have contributed to that course of events is found in one of John Jewell's letters quoted in Part 3, where he mentions "that little crucifix" of Queen Elizabeth's. That crucifix was in Elizabeth's private chapel and became the subject of an official disputation in 1560.  Interestingly, the two selected to defend the use of the crucifix were the moderate reformer and Marian exile Richard Cox (an interesting choice as he later refused to preach in her chapel because of the crucifix) and Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Parker.  Parker, had managed to stay in England under the Catholic Queen Mary, a fact that aggravated some of the more ardent Protestants. I don't hold that as something that should necessarily call in question his commitment to reform, but nonetheless I do find it interesting path to pursue.  The two individuals who were selected to make the case against the crucifix were the Marian exile reformers Edmund Grindal and John Jewell.  Below is a lengthy quote from a letter that Jewell wrote to Peter Vermigli on February 5, 1560 which highlights the tension of that moment:

This controversy about the crucifix is now at its height.  You would scarcely believe to what a degree of insanity some persons, who once had some shew of common sense, have carried upon so foolish a subject.  There is not one of them, however, with you you are acquainted, excepting Cox.  A disputation upon this subject will take place to-morrow.  The moderators will be persons selected by the council.  The disputants on the one side are the archbishop of Canterbury, and Cox; and on the other, Grindal the bishop of London, and myself.  The decision rests with the judges.  I smile, however, when I think with what grave and solid reasons they will defend their little cross.  Whatever be the result, I will write to you more at length when the disputation is over; for the controversy is as yet undecided; yet, as far as I can conjecture, I shall not again write to you as a bishop.  For matters are come to that pass, that either the crosses of silver and tin, which we have everywhere broken in pieces, must be restore, or our bishopricks be relinquished.

Although the outward vestiges of Roman Catholic worship were, by and large, eradicated throughout the realm during the years that followed, it was not so where Elizabeth worshipped; yet another piece of evidence that leads one to question the Supreme Governor's level of commitment to Protestant reform.  And one wonders what her example communicated to those clergy in the Church who were less than enthralled with further reform according to the standard of Scripture:

Although Elizabeth's actual beliefs elude us, we are able to get an indication of them from her attitudes and gestures. Her chapels were conservative - the crucifix was displayed, and she also liked candles and music. She disliked long Protestant sermons, but also expressed displeasure at some Catholic rituals such as the elevation of the host, which implied that she rejected the Catholic belief of transubstantiation. She also did not really approve of the clergy marrying as she expressed on several occasions, but as this was an integral aspect of Protestantism, she had to accept it.

Clearly Elizabeth was a mixed bag.

The above take is consistent with MacColluch's assessment - that Elizabeth's 1559 Settlement... began the Church of England's long march away from Cranmer's eucharistic theology - and I would also add that it indicated a preference, or at least a tolerance, for retaining some remnants of the Roman religion.

[Update: Additional thoughts below from our friend Hudson Barton of Anglicans in the Wilderness, 12/18/2012] -

"The year before the "little cross" incident (1559), Jewell, believing that he was defending a clearly defined Protestant Church of England, had challenged the Romanists at St. Paul's Cross to prove their case from Scripture. By 1560, in Jewell's letter to Vermigli, it appears that he expected his involvement with the disputation over the "little cross" would result in a victory for either the Reformation or the Romanists. In that he was willing at this point in his life to lose his bishoprick for the cause of the Reformation, it appears that he was not willing to say "my Queen for better or worse". He had seen the enemy within ("that little cross"), and appeared ready to defend the Church against that enemy, to see it removed at any cost. But history went in an unexpected direction. The little cross was not removed but only hidden away, and Jewell kept his bishoprick.

"The genius of Elizabeth was that she was able to turn the argument of the "little cross" on its head, convincing Reformers like Jewell that the purity of the Church was not compromised by so small a matter. I believe this was the advice of Whitgift and Parker, to settle with the Queen, to close their eyes and continue about the Church business as if the problem didn't exist. Two years later, in 1562, Jewell published his "Apologia ecclesiae Anglicanae", and sure enough the "little cross" had been forgotten. Jewell's Apology became the official defense of the CofE because the establishment knew that it was not a defense of a set of principles, but rather of an institution.

"I am reminded of the Danish fairy tale of "The Princess and the Pea", how a real princess will detect the smallest abnormality in her realm and never rest until it is removed."

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty Part 5

E. Grindal

The thought behind these series of posts, The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty (here, here, here, and here), is that the nature of the reformation in England was quite different under Queen Elizabeth than that which had been taking place under King Edward and Thomas Cranmer.  That isn't a big news scoop for anyone familiar with the history.  And while some consider that change in a negative light (my view), others do view it favorably.  Yet what is interesting to see is the role that Elizabeth played in moving the Church of England from a church that was reforming according to the Word of God (albeit with fits and starts) to that of a formerly reforming church, one that had begun to settle into a kind of compromised Protestantism; at crucial crossroads succumbing to the views of the Supreme Governor of the Church rather than the teachings of Scripture when it came to certain issues. In my view this is nowhere more evident than the reduced emphasis on and, and at times, even outright hostility toward the preaching of the Word of God after 1559.

State of preaching Pre-Marian:
Arguably, the first major reform enacted in the Church of England under Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was to place in every church an English version of the entire Bible.  Without the Scriptures in the language of the people there could be no reforming of the Church. Without the Word of God central in the Church there would be no biblical preaching to build the Church. It was in the year 1538 that Cromwell gave the directive that the clergy provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."

About nine years later in 1547, Cranmer issued the Book of Homilies entitled "Certain Sermons or Homilies Appointed to Be Read in Churches."  The need for biblical teaching and preaching in the formerly Roman Catholic churches was great but the number of clergy familiar with the reformational doctrines of the Christian faith were few.  The Book of Homilies was issued as a stop gap solution to this situation.  By publicly reading these sermons clergy could begin to nourish the faith and practice of God's people with the Word of God.

Over the next few years Archbishop Cranmer would bring several leading reformers such as Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli to England to help train prospective clergy in the biblical doctrines of the Church.  Vermigli was given the position of Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.  Two years after his appointment he writes to Rudolph Gualter (June 1, 1550):

There is no lack of preachers in London, but throughout the whole kingdom they are very rare... The sheep of the divine pasture, the sheep of God's hand, the sheep redeemed by the blood of Christ, are defrauded of the proper nourishment of the divine word; unless the people be taught, the change of religion will certainly avail them but little. [emphasis added]

Vermigli's words were not only an accurate assessment of the situation, but also foreshadowed the years that were to follow Queen Mary's reign.  The purpose of these doctors of doctrine was to train men who would teach and preach from the pulpit the Scriptural truths regarding salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ alone.  By the proclamation of Christ in the Word the Church is birthed.  And by the Word of God  preached and taught the Church is reformed, nourished, and built.

Cranmer's path was the natural and logical consequence of his embracing the foundational truth of the Reformation - sola scriptura, the supremacy and authority of the Word of God in things pertaining to faith and practice in the Church, as later confessed in the Forty-Two Articles of Religion:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation - Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation...

State of preaching Post-Marian:

Queen Elizabeth I

After the reign of Queen Mary and the restoration of the Protestant Church in England, the need for preachers was indeed dire.  Yet the trajectory of progress going forward in this area was mixed and disappointing. This was in no small part due to the views of the new Supreme Governor of the Church, Queen Elizabeth.  John Jewell expressed his concern (and that of many) in a letter to Vermigli in January 1559:

The queen has forbidden any person, whether papist or gospeller, to preach to the people.  Some think the reason of this to be, that there was at that time only one minister of the word in London, namely, Bentham, whereas the number of papists was very considerable; others, that it was because the people, having heard only one public discourse of Bentham's, began to dispute about ceremonies, some declaring for Geneva, and some for Frankfort.  Whatever it be, I only wish that our party may not act with too much worldly prudence and policy in the cause of God.

And from an April letter of the same year Jewell further highlights the need for preachers of the Word of God:  "... and yet the people everywhere [are]... exceedingly thirsting for the gospel."  He later wrote to Martyr in two letters a year apart of his concern with the state of the schools in which preachers were to be trained and the desperate need for preachers:

Both our universities are now lying in a most wretched state of disorder, without piety, without religion, without a teacher, without any hope of revival.  Many of our leading men... are fixing their thoughts on yourself, and are anxious that you should be invited at the earliest opportunity, in spite of all the German leaguers." (Nov. 16, 1559)

 We are only wanting in preachers; and of these there is a great and alarming scarcity.  The schools are also entirely deserted; so that, unless God look favourably upon us, we cannot hope for any supply in the future.  The existing preachers, who are few in number, those especially who have any ability, are listened to by the people with favour and attention.        (Nov. 6, 1560)

Yet remedying this situation did not necessarily fit comfortably with Queen Elizabeth's vision for the Church.  M. Rosemary O'Day writes,

After Elizabeth's accession the Church in England was in a confused condition. The queen envisaged a politique settlement which, although protestant, was not reformed, thereby enabling her to avoid both international conflict and open internal rebellion. This meant that the established Church must not follow too closely the radical changes in ceremony, doctrine and administration associated with the continental Reformed Churches

Robust biblical preaching under the authority of the Word became a risk to Elizabeth's concept of the Church. Thus preaching, per se, was not desirable in and of itself nor in the best interest of maintaining order and peace in "her" new Church and kingdom.  In fact, her own personal preference regarding a church service was that of infrequent sermons which were to be short and not especially doctrinal.

She herself was accustomed to listen to sermons only in the season of Lent, and on one such occasion had interrupted a sermon of the Dean of St. Paul’s (Nowell), a notable preacher, with the command to desist as the theme was not to her liking. Not surprisingly, the Dean was overwhelmed with confusion. To console him Archbishop Parker took him home to dinner afterwards! (Church Society)

Yet ironically, the pressing need to fill the vast number of vacancies in the office of bishop in 1559 led to the appointment of the only supply available to the new queen - many of the Marian exiles/preachers who had returned from the reformed churches of the continent with a high view of the authority of the Word of God.  Their intention to continue the reforms begun a decade earlier in the Edwardian church was a potential problem to contain.  One of those exiles appointed as a bishop under Queen Elizabeth was Edmund Grindal who would later be selected Archbishop of Canterbury.  Accepting the former office that Cranmer had held, he would clash almost immediately with the Queen over the issue of "prophesyings."  And it was this issue more than any other that revealed the change that had taken place between the Church under Cranmer and that of Elizabeth.

In 1576, Grindal conducted a metropolitan visitation (a sort of survey of standards in the archbishopric) and was shocked by how few ministers preached regularly to their flocks. He decided to try and rectify the problem by encouraging prophesyings. Prophesyings had begun spontaneously in various parts of the South-East c. 1571. They were meetings of clergy in the localities for prayer and sermons followed by mutual criticism and discussions about the state of the church... 

Prophesyings rapidly became very popular, and were often attended by zealous laymen. Elizabeth (who thought that four or five preachers per county were quite enough) saw them as inherently disruptive and a covert attack on royal control of the church...  

Elizabeth wanted prophesyings stopped, but Grindal merely issued orders for regulating their conduct. Elizabeth was furious - particularly when Grindal refused a direct order to suppress them, and wrote her a letter saying that it was his duty to obey God rather than her. She wanted to deprive him immediately of his post as Archbishop but was prevailed on by her Privy Council merely to suspend him until he submitted. He never did. (link here)

To paraphrase a the sixties Dylan song, The times they were a'changing!

To Grindal it seemed natural that the clergy should meet to discuss the scriptures; but with a view of appeasing objections he issued orders that such meetings should be licensed by the bishop and presided over by the archdeacon or his deputy; that only approved persons be permitted to speak, and that all political or personal references be rigidly excluded. This did not satisfy Elizabeth... (Grindal)

The situation had reached a point of crisis for Elizabeth. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes summed up the mindset of Elizabeth this way,

Now, however, matters came to a head. So far from reacting favourably to Grindal’s plan for the regularisation, and thus the retention, of the ‘prophesyings’, Elizabeth gave vent to her displeasure by commanding him to bring about their suppression forthwith. She objected that by attending these gatherings the laity were neglecting their proper affairs and were in danger of having their heads filled with seditious notions. She complained, further, that there were too many preachers, insisting that three or four were sufficient for a county, and that the people needed nothing more than to have the Homilies read to them. The Queen, indeed, laboured under an apparent inability to appreciate the value of biblical preaching not only for the progress of sound religion but also in the interests of promoting good and stable citizenship.

There could be only one ultimate authority in the Church of England and Elizabeth was determined that she would have that final position and not the Word of God as administered by those called and ordained to preach and teach it.  The reformation, at least for the institutional Church of England, was crippled, if not over...

The Apostolic Church

"The church is apostolic not because we can identify living apostles today but because it proclaims the apostolic doctrine in the power of the Spirit."

- Dr. Michael Horton

Is Rome a True Church?

I was asked this question, via email, in the context of what Anglicans believe.  To answer that I think it is helpful to look initially at the Church of England's own doctrinal and confession statements. Otherwise, we are left to any number of positions by various Anglicans that may or may not agree with their own standards.

More precisely, the question put to me was: Is Rome part of the visible church? The Church of England's own standard's, at a minimum, make the case that the Church of Rome has erred in doctrine and practice. That is not to say that there aren't any true Christians in the RCC and not that vestiges of the gospel cannot be found there. Rather, Rome since the Council of Trent has officially established herself in opposition to the gospel and specifically the doctrine of justification by faith only and not by any works, grace assisted or not.

Rome claims justification is initially begun by baptism and kept and grown by faith and grace assisted works of righteousness thus conflating justification and sanctification. Their teaching, in a nutshell, says we are saved by the combination of Christ's finished work and our continuing works.

 Article XI of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion reads:

XI. Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

At Trent Rome anathematized the teaching of this article, a doctrine succinctly expressed in any number of places in the Old and New Testament such as Rom 4:5; Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16-21. As to the question of whether Rome has erred as a church or not let's look again at the 39 Articles:

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

So according Anglicanism's own confession of doctrine and faith, Rome as a church has erred in matters of doctrinal faith and administration of the Lord's Supper, teaching and requiring things not in accord with the Word of God. Finally John Jewell, in the Homily for Whit-Sunday (Book Of Homilies - part of the CoE's confessional standards) teaches what the Church of England believes to be the necessary  characteristics of a true church. These three marks are consistent with the other reformed churches of Europe of that time, and agree with the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Confession of Faith written 80 years later:

"The true church is a universal congregation or fellowship of GOD's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone (Eph. 2:20). And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known. Pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith."

A fair conclusion based on the Church of England's own doctrinal standards would be that Rome does indeed fall short of the measure of a true visible church.

Gleanings: Puritanism and the Book of Common Prayer, Part 1

The book, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context by Robert Letham, is well worth the time to read.  Among other things, it's helped give me a better understanding of  the social, political, and religious influences in England that led to Puritanism and eventually the Westminster Assembly.  What's interesting to take into account are those particularly oppressive influences that affected the returning Marian exiles in the late 1550s going forward and how those influences and actions of the State/Church authority led to a Puritanism that gradually moved away from an episcopal polity toward presbyterianism and the regulative principle of worship; ultimately rejecting a state enforced liturgy as was the case with the Book of Common Prayer.  Following are some of my thoughts and gleanings from Letham's book:

Soon after Elizabeth took the throne the Protestant church was reestablished.  Yet those religious refugees recently returned from Europe found that what was taking place was far from a continuation of reforms started in Cranmer's church under Edward VI.  New legislation set in law the use of the new prayer book and other prescriptions and requirements.  In fact, "The Act of Settlement (1559) ... laid down savage penalties for departing from the prescribed liturgy."  And though they made efforts to moderate these developments, he returning Marian exiles "failed to secure any concessions to placate them" (Letham, p. 14). Initially, "draconian penalties were prescribed for any who diverged from the Prayer Book although these were rarely, if ever, enforced."  This soon changed.  "Only from around 1564 was rigid uniformity required..." (p. 15).

Letham continues,

"When tighter control was implemented by the establishment, a nascent Presbyterian movement emerged in the 1570s and 1580s... Indeed, it was estimated by some, and reported by Mitchell, that at one point up to one-third of the clergy of England were under suspension, with attendant destitution and penury, while their congregations were as a result deprived of the ministry of the Word and sacraments." (p. 15)

These men were clergy of the Church of England and not some strain of radical Puritanism.

Indeed, as Mitchell observes, '"the points of difference between the Puritans and those who fail to be distinguished from them in the Reformed Church of England seem at first to be few in number, and of minor importance" (p. 16) ... the only expression at variance with the principle of Puritanism in the Articles of the Church was the first clause of the XXth Article, asserting the power of the Church to decree rites and ceremonies.  This clause was not present in the corresponding article as framed in the time of Edward, VI; and the Puritans strenuously contended it had been foisted in, somewhat inconsiderately, in the time of Queen Elizabeth (p.17).

The battle lines had been drawn by Queen Elizabeth's new Settlement and the principle at stake was whether worship and polity were to be under the authority of the State or under the authority of Scripture.

The chief point at issue for the Puritans was whether the church has the right to bind consciences with anything other than the declarations of the Bible.  Mithchell puts the matter well when he says that the Puritans "claimed to restrict the authority of the church within narrower limits than their opponents, and to reclaim for liberty a larger province than they [their opponents] were disposed to allow her."  For the Pritans, worship and church polity--as well as matters of salvation--were to be drawn from the teaching of Scripture, wither expressed or implicit (p. 18).

Despite this contentious issue the doctrines of the church were solidly as what can be described as Calvinism.  This reformed theology held sway in the church through the years up until the time of Charles I and Bishop Laud.

Spinks, in his evaluation of Perkins and Hooker, finds that both "stand firmly within a broad-based Reformed theology."  Hooker "never departs from a Reformed position."  Both Hooker and Perkins are legitimate interpreters of the Thirty-Nine Articles, while "Hooker finds his theology expressed n the 1559 Book of Common Prayer; Perkins gave no hint that his theology was contradicted by it" (p. 53).

Yet under Bishop Laud, Reformed doctrines and preaching were being rooted out while older medieval church practices returned.

It was a sea change in the theological balance of power, effected within three hears of Charles's accession... This change was clearly against the doctrine of the Church of England as expounded expounded by the Thirty-Nine Articles, as presented in Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer(p. 21)... [Archbishop] Laud required absolute submission to the king, extending to acceptance of every detail of church ritual.  He introduced genuflecting, called the communion table an altar, and banned all publications that called the pope the Antichrist (p.23).

From a 21st century American point of view it's difficult to grasp the brutal and oppressive nature of the authoritative hand of the State in the church's worship.  Politics and religion were inexorably intertwined.  
"Not only were the political and the religious so inextricably intertwined that 'secular' was a meaningless category, but the religious issues alone had the strength to generate the passion needed for armed uprising against the king" (p. 26).  The changes brought on by Laud contradicted the clear teaching of the Book of Common Prayer as in the case of the drastic restrictions on the preaching of sermons.

This antipathy to preaching did emerge before the Civil War, under the direction of Laud, and was pursued with vigor in some dioceses...  Yet such policies were contrary to the form for "The ordering of Priests" in the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer: (p. 51).

The following are excerpts from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for the ordination of priests.  The Bishop's words to the prospective priest:

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

... And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments...

... TAKE thou Authority to preach the Word of God...

 The Book of Common Prayer became, in a way, the leading edge of a legislative sword used by the English episcopal authority against those who, at one time, had been in the mainstream of the church. I think it and the oppressive Church/State authority were of the same cloth in the minds of Puritans suffering under Laud's regime and thus they wanted to throw them both off. They wanted a church reformed solely according the God's Word and not one imposed by Parliament. One result of this history is a common misunderstanding held today that the Presbyterians/Puritans of that era were therefore against any set liturgies whatsoever. This was not the case at all.