What's in a Name?

In its famous decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures of April 8, 1546 the Council of Trent “laid down the principle that the unwritten traditions, proceeding from our Lord or from the Apostles - unwritten, that is, in the Sacred Scriptures - were to be received with equal piety and reverence with the Holy Scriptures themselves” (Henry Wace, The Main Purpose and Character of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Ladies League Booklet No.18). The Council of Trent decreed that the unwritten traditions of the Church should be accepted as of equal authority with the Scriptures, making them the formal rule of faith, as well as of practice. The Council of Trent would assert, as the basis of all its subsequent proceedings, the insufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the rule of faith. In their controversies with the Reformers, the Roman bishops and theologians recognized that if they conducted these controversies on the basis of Holy Scriptures alone, they would be defeated. Therefore they chose to give much greater weight to tradition than had been previously done.

Article 6 of the Forty-Two Articles of Religion of 1552 and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1563 adopted by the Church of England is a repudiation of the position of the Church of Rome. It affirms the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for our salvation. It declares: “Holy Scripture sets forth everything that is necessary for our salvation. Consequently, nobody should be required to believe as an article of the Christian faith, or to regard as necessary for salvation, anything that is not found in Scripture” (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Restatement of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Art. 6).

The Episcopal Church’s revisionist theologians also question the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the rule of the faith. Their motivation is akin to that of the Council of Trent. Scripture does not support their theological views. They must apply to a different authority for needed support. In their case they appeal to experience and to a lesser degree to reason.

In the second half of the 20th century The Episcopal Church dropped “Protestant” from its name. Orthodox Episcopalians did at the time not appreciate the significance of this action; indeed Catholic-minded Episcopalians supported it. In order to appreciate its significance, however, we must first consider the meaning of that designation. In The Main Purpose and Character of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Ladies League Booklet No.18, Wace makes several critical observations about the meaning of the word “Protestant”. He writes:

“There is a danger lest we should be content to accept it as a mere war cry… by treating- it as expressing a mere protest against certain abuses which are offensive to us. That is not the original meaning of the word. Its original meaning was positive, not negative. It was first used of those who were called Protestants in the Diet of Spiers, because they asserted that men were bound in conscience to follow the Word of God, no matter what human authority might be against them, and that no majority had a right to force consciences. The essential and positive meaning of the word “Protestant,” therefore, is embodied in our Sixth Article. When we call ourselves Protestants, when we proclaim that the Church of England is a Protestant Church, we are protesting that the Word of God - the word of the prophets of the Old Testament, the Word of Christ and his Apostles - is the one rule, the one supreme authority, which we recognize, and that we make it the main object of our lives, in private, in public, and in all Church affairs, to apprehend the truth, and to realize the ideals, which that word sets before us. We recognize, indeed, that the best realization which that Word has ever received in the Christian ages was exhibited in the Primitive Church, and we therefore look to that Church as a guide, which we hope never to desert in any important point of the interpretation of the Word of God.”

In its use of “Protestant” in its name the Protestant Episcopal Church was asserting the sole and paramount authority of Holy Scripture in controversies of faith. This was not merely of cardinal importance in the controversy; it indicated the whole character of the position that the Protestant Episcopal Church assumed. The dropping of “Protestant: from the denomination’s name signified a shift in attitude toward the Bible and its authority in controversies of faith. This shift is very evident today.

In orthodox Anglican and Episcopalian circles in the United States there is a tendency to describe Anglicanism as “Reformed Catholicism.” The use of this phrase appears intended to gloss over the theological differences between those who describe themselves as “orthodox”. However, it is clear that some who use this self-description are more reformed than Catholic and others more Catholic than reformed. Significant disparities exist in their theological outlooks. The use of the word “Protestant” in describing Anglicanism has acquired the status of being politically incorrect terminology in these circles. This is unfortunate since “Protestant” is an accurate description of the character of the classical Anglican position on a host of issues. Avoiding the word “Protestant” also downplays the place that the Bible has occupied in the Anglican tradition. The avoidance of the “P” word may be a concession to Catholic sensibilities but this avoidance prevents the more Catholic-leaning of the “orthodox” from coming to terms with the reality that they reside in a Protestant tradition and not on the basis of history alone. We are doing in this century what our forebears did in the sixteenth century: we are asserting that we as Christians are bound in conscience to follow the Word of God, no matter what human authority might be against us. No majority has a right to force consciences. We are protesting the Word of God as the rule of faith and the supreme authority. We should not shrink from viewing our great tradition and ourselves as “Protestant.”