"The precise shape of that Protestantism however owes more to John Calvin than it does to Henry VIII, who never really broke with the traditional Catholicism of his youth. Calvin never visited England, but he corresponded with people there and welcomed British exiles in Geneva during the reactionary reign of Mary Tudor. It was in Geneva, under his auspices, that the best and most influential early English translation of the Bible appeared (in 1560) and relations between the Swiss city and the British Isles would remain close long after his death. Calvin’s mentor, Martin Bucer, fled to England in 1548, and although he died there within a year, he made an impact on English theology and worship that can still be detected in the Book of Common Prayer. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion follow the outline of Calvin’s Institutes to a surprising extent, and their content is similar. It is no exaggeration to say that the theologians who shaped Anglican identity in the Elizabethan era were deeply indebted to Calvin, whose major works were quickly translated into English to become the staple diet of the new-style ordinands being turned out by the universities during those years. Not everyone was equally enthralled by this, of course, but opposition was muted and divided. Anglo-Catholic apologists have tried to find a coherent anti-Calvinistic Anglicanism which they attribute to such figures as Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes, but modern non-partisan research has generally shown that their claims cannot be sustained. They are based on the widespread but false assumption that Calvinism and Puritanism are essentially the same thing and that both go back to Calvin himself. In reality, conformist opinion in England was just as imbued with Calvin’s mindset as any Puritan was. This can be seen from the career of Archbishop John Whitgift (1583-1604), whose theology was as Calvinist as anyone in Geneva could have hoped for but who was implacably opposed to Puritanism. It was not until the reign of Charles I (1625-49) that a small group of anti-Calvinists was able to influence the development of the Church of England, largely thanks to the king’s patronage, but the end result of that was civil war and the overthrow of the high church party, which was seen by most people as an aberrant blemish on the doctrinal purity of the national church, a purity which they identified with the teachings of Calvin.
But although that is undoubtedly true, it must be said that Calvin’s reputation among Anglicans today is not high...."
To read read Gerald Bray's entire Churchman editorial, click here.
5 comments:
Robin,
I'm confused, where are the long suffering anglo-catholics in all this? Surely Achbp Laud was an anglo-catholic and the Caroline divines, or were they? Certainly they called themselves such. Didn't they?
Joe
Joe,
I gather from reading Peter Knockles, The Oxford Movement in Context that the term "Anglo-Catholic" at one time was used as a generic term for all Anglicans. The Tractarians and the Ritualists who followed them would appropriate the term for themselves, just as they appropriated the terms "High Church" and "High Churchmen." Before the so-called "Catholic Revival" of the nineteenth century there were Protestant High Churchmen as well as those who were more Catholic-minded. While the Tractarians temporarily allied themselves with the latter when it suited their purposes, the Tractarians eventually attacked this group of High Churchmen along with the Protestant High Churchmen, the latitudinarians, and the evangelicals.
The Tractarians classified the Caroline divines as "Anglo-Catholics" but it is questionable whether those Caroline divines who referred to themselves as "Catholics" viewed themselves as the Tractarians viewed them. The Tractarian in the Tracts for the Time, their sermons, and articles were very selective in their use of the works of the Caroline divines, choosing what appeared to support their views. Privately they were increasingly critical of the Caroline divines, especially those who later submitted to the Pope and became Roman Catholics.
Don't forget the Caroline divines included George Abott and James Ussher, both Calvinists. While the Caroline divines may have been more "Catholic" in their views, they were not sympathetic to the Church of Rome and rejected the papal claim of supremacy. They also rejected the doctrine of transsubstantiation and were receptionists in their view of the presence of Christ at the Eucharist. They believed in a Real Presence but it was not in the elements on the communion table but in the heart of the communicant who received the bread and wine rightly and with faith.
The Caroline divines were also not as homogenous group as they are sometimes portrayed. While Anthony Sparrow accepted the practice of auricular confession, most Caroline divines did not. They took the Prayer Book's view of confession. Some of them like Jeremy Taylor insisted upon the necessity of good works with faith for salvation; others did not.
While the Caroline divines viewed episcopacy as a divine institution and saw bishops as the successors of the apostles, one should not conclude that they held the same views as the Tractarians and the later Ritualists or their Anglo-Catholic spiritual heirs. Here again there are differences of opinion among the Caroline divines themselves as well as with these later groups.
I do not completely reject the thought of the Caroline divines. At the same time I strongly caution against taking an uncritical approach toward them, as I do the Patristic writers.
Robin,
In truth I really don't believe that the anglo-catholics and the tractarian/oxfordians are really catholics at all. Those things that they believe and practice that divert from the Scriptures are not catholic in the historical sense of the word, that which is catholic is that which is believed everywhere, at all times and by all. God did not reveal to them the practices that they do and the beliefs that they hold. It is man's traditions that make God's word of no effect. Certainly the Caroline divines were not with them. But you know in the united States the High Church bishops did not do their duty in suppressing the oxfordian heretics that we have today what should not have been I lament high church bishops holding that their precious belief in their office so highly that they would ally themselves against the Low Churchmen with heresy.
The Reformed Episcopal Church is a lamentable example of a late 20th century repeat of history. Though that Church held to a low view of episcopacy and taught that form, on high church bishop who dissimulated himself has brought the whole body into the folds of tractarian acceptance. Heresy is now in the REC. What a shame.
Joe
The REC hosed itself from the beginning by presuming to write its own BCP.
Have we learned?...
The REC BCP was not a problem. The 1662 BCP was far superior though not perfect. 1928 BCP was an compromise document at best. I'm for going back to 1662 or 1552 BCPs. Dom, are you with us?
Post a Comment