R is for Reformed

By Robin G. Jordan

A little over a 130 years ago the erudite Philip Schaff in his A History of the Creeds of Christendom wrote that both Catholic and Protestant historians on the Continent ranked the Church of England among the Reformed Churches and distinct from the Lutheran Churches. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England were found in every collection of Reformed Confessions. In his work Schaff remarked upon how English writers have largely conducted the theological interpretation of the Articles in a controversial spirit rather than a historical one:

“Moderate High-Churchmen and Arminians who dislike Calvinism, represent them as purely Lutheran; Anglo-Catholics and Tractarians, who abhor both Lutheranism and Calvinism, endeavour to conform them as much as possible to the contemporary decrees of the Council of Trent; Calvinists and evangelical Low-Churchmen find in them substantially their own creed.” [1]

Schaff went on to demonstrate that the Articles are, with the exception the shape of the link between Church and state (Article XXXVII) and the acceptance of episcopacy (Article XXXVI), clearly within the Reformed mainstream. Schaff expressed his conclusion as follows:

“…the Articles are catholic on the Trinity and the Incarnation, borrowing phrases from the Lutheran confessions of Augsburg (1530) and Wurtemberg (1552)l they are Augustinian, as are all early Lutheran and Reformed statements on freewill, sin and grace; they are Protestant and evangelical, with all other Reformation confessions on Scripture, justification, faith and good works, and the church; they are ‘Reformed and moderately Cavinistic” on predestination and the Lord’s Supper, against the Lutherans; they are Erastian on the royal supremacy in ecclesiastical matters; and they are ‘purely Anglican’ on bishops.” [2]

Schaff quoted the letter from Bishop John Jewel to Peter Martyr at Zurich in 1562:

“As to the matter of doctrine, we have pared everything away to the very quick, and do not differ from you by a nail’s breadth.” [3]

The Church of England, however, not only has Articles of Religion that are Reformed in their doctrine, but it also has a Prayer Book, an Ordinal, and two Books of Homilies that are likewise Reformed in their doctrine. The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 is in substance Archbishop Cranmer’s Reformed Liturgy of 1552, which has been described as the “flower of the Reformation liturgies.” [4]

Consistent with Biblical teaching and Reformed theology we find no invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine nor any blessing of the communion elements in the 1662 Prayer of Consecration, but an epiclesis in its truest sense—a humble calling upon our heavenly Father to grant that those receiving his creatures of bread and wine, according to Christ’s institution, in remembrance of Christ’s death and passion, might be partakers of Christ’s “most blessed Body and Blood.” The doctrine of the real presence that we find in the 1662 Communion Service is the Reformed view that any real presence is “of Christ and his Holy Spirit by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace, not in or under the form of bread and wine, but in all them that worthily receive the same.” Such presence, the Communion of the Sick makes clear, “is in the soul of penitent believer independent of the Sacrament altogether.” The 1662 Catechism teaches us that only the faithful, “those who are indeed believers in Christ, find a real presence—a real presence of Christ within their hearts, not in the elements.” [5]

The Elizabethan divines such as John Jewel, John Foxe, John Whitgift, William Perkins, and William Whitaker were scholastic Calvinists in their theological views. Parish churches were required to obtain copies of John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments of Martyrs, Jewel’s Apology for the Church of England, and later his Defense, and to place them where the parishioners and others might read them.

Archbishop Matthew Parker introduced Decades, the sermons of the Swiss Reformer Henry Bullinger, as the standard work of divinity for new clergy and those seeking a preaching license. The latter were required to read a chapter from the New Testament and a sermon from Decades every week and to make notes. The archdeacon or another senior clergyman appointed for that purpose then met with them at regular intervals to see how they were progressing in their study of the New Testament and Bullinger’s sermons and to examine them on what they had learned.



In 1571 the Convocation of Canterbury approved the Book of Canons, or “Book of Discipline” as Archbishop Parker called it. They were signed by the bishops of the southern province in person or by proxy and by the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Durham and Chester apparently acting on the behalf of the bishops of the northern province. However, they were not signed by the Lower House of the Convocation of York and may not have been submitted to that body for its assent. The Canons never received the royal assent and consequently they never had any legal force. While they lacked legal validity, they were accepted as authoritative and acted upon in the province of Canterbury.

In the Canons of 1571 all bishops were ordered to diligently teach the Gospel. They were also ordered to exhort their people to the hearing and reading of the Holy Scriptures, and to give diligent care to preachers of the Gospel. All preachers were required to “subscribe to the articles of Christian religion, publiquely approved in the Synode,” and to “promise to willingly maintaine, and defend that doctrine, which is conteined in them, as most agreeable to the veritie of Gods worde.” Among the requirements for ordination was that the candidates “hath bene well exercised in the holy scriptures.” [6]

The Canons of 1571 not only required the deans of cathedral churches and their prebendaries to preach the word of God in their respective cathedral church but the other churches of the diocese. Church statutes were required to conform to Scripture. Petty canons and vicars were to be “constreigned to the studie of the holie scriptures,” and were required to have both an English and Latin New Testament. No other forms were to be observed “in singing, or saying prayers, or in the administration of the Sacramentes, but only that, which is set forth, and prescribed in the booke of Common Prayers.” Only licensed preachers were allowed to preach to the people. A licensed preacher who in his sermon “publish any doctrine eyther strainge, wicked, or disagreeable with the woord of God: or with the Articles of our Religion, agreed vpon in Convocation house (which no doubt are consonant to the Scriptures) or with the booke of Common Prayers” was to be reported to the Bishop. [7]

In their annual visitation archdeacons and their substitutes were required to inquire into how the clergy had profited in their study of Scripture. Those who did not have a master of Arts degree were to be given passages from the New Testament to be learned by heart and at their next meeting with the archdeacon or his substitute were to be “compelled” to recite these passages from memory. Those who refused or neglected to do so were to be reported to the Bishop. After the visitation the archdeacon was to inform the Bishop of those who were “so furnished with learning and iudgment, that they may be thought worthy to enstruct the people in sermons, and to rule and gouerne others.” From this group of clergy the Bishop was to appoint “rurall Deanes.” [8]

Chancellors, commissaries, and “officials” were required to be in the ministry. Those who were not were to “be well affected, and zealously bent toward religion.” They were not only to take an oath to the authority and supremacy of the Queen but also to “subscribe to the articles of religion allowed in the conuocation of Byshoppes.” Chancellors, commissaries, and “officials” were charged to ensure that all others within their jurisdiction did their duty “Especially Parsons, Vicars, and ministers of Churches may painfully be occupied in the scriptures…,” that is, they were doing their best to study the scriptures. Clergy were required to provide themselves with books fit for their degree and profession. Those without a master of arts degree were required to buy two New Testaments, one in Latin and the other in English so that they could learn the New Testament passages that they are given to learn by heart. Clergy were required to observe the order and customs prescribed in the Prayer Book, “as well in reading the holy scripture, and saying of prayers, as in the ministration of the sacraments.” They were not to diminish or add anything, “neither of the matter, nor of the manner.” They were to “behaue themselues honestly, and walk modestly and comely in sober apparel appointed in the booke of advertisements.” This is a reference to wearing a black square four-cornered Cambridge cap and a black long ankle length cassock. The canons prescribed where they might live, if they are unmarried, and with whom they might live. They also prescribed what recreational activities in which they might engage. They were permitted to engage in the pastime of archery “to refresh their minds, modestly, and in due time.” Otherwise, they were to attend to their duty and their study of scripture. [9]

Parsons, vicars, and curates were required to have the Bishop’s license to serve anywhere. This included reading Prayer Book services in a private house. They were not permitted to serve in more than one church or chapel in one day. All ministers of the Church were required to subscribe to the articles of religion and where the Bishop commanded, were required declare his conscience to the people—what he thinks of the articles, “and the whole doctrine.” [10]

Parsons, vicars, and curates were required to annually provide the bishop or his chancellor or commissary with a list of his parishioners 14 years of age or older who had not come to Communion or who had refused to submit to the examination of the minister in their knowledge of “the Catechisme and articles of Christian religion” and a list of parents and masters who failed to send their children and servants to hear and learn the Catechism. No one was able become a godparent who not had come to Communion and no one was able come to Communion who had not learned the Catechism and the Apostles’ Creed. [11]

Parsons, vicars, and curates were required to sing or say “the holy service, so plainly, so manifestly, & so distinctly, that the people may heare & understande, what is sayd or song….” They were to celebrate “the most holy Sacramentes” with like reverence and godliness so that the people would “turn not to superstition, worshypping, and Idolatrie.” If there is no sermon “in tyme of holy Communion,” they were required to read a portion of a homily. In addition to instructing all ages in the Catechism for at least two hours every Sunday, they were required to teach the children to read and write and to know their duty toward God, parents, and all others. No one was permitted to receive communion, be a godparent, or marry without first knowing the principles of the Christian religion. They were enjoined to encourage the parents of the brighter pupils who are disposed to learning to send them to school so that they “may become one day fitt for the holy ministrie of the might god.” [12]

The churchwardens were required to remove all wooden crosses and reliquaries, to whitewash the walls of the church, and to deck them with “chosen sentences of the holy Scripture, “that, by the readyng and warnyng thereof the people may be moued to godliness.” [13]

Space does not permit me to go into the entire Canons of 1571. The preceding, however, should give the reader some idea of their tone. I think that it is essentially before examining that a passage in the canons that has often been taken out of context and used to support the contention of Anglo-Catholic and Tractarians that the Elizabethan divines gave a similar place to the early Church Fathers in their teaching as themselves. This is a misrepresentation of the actual place the Elizabethan divines gave to early Church Fathers in their teaching, and is used to justify doctrines and practices that the Elizabeth Church disowned and rejected.

In tone the Canons of 1571 are Protestant and Reformed. They emphasize the study of the Holy Scriptures and not the early Church Fathers. The Church that they envision is one consistent with a Protestant and Reformed understanding of the visible Church—“a congregation of faithful men” in which not only the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly administered but also ecclesiastical discipline is exercised. In his writings Bishop John Hooper touches upon this third mark by which the visible church of Christ might be recognized:

“I believe that the Lord God hath given us three principal signs and marks by which we may know his church, that is to say, the word, the sacraments, and discipline.” [14]

The passage that is often misquoted and misused relates to the content of sermons:

“But chiefly they shall take heed, that they teach nothing in theyr preaching, which they would haue the people religiously obserue, and beleue, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the old Testament, and the new, and that which the catholike fathers, and auncient Bishops have gathered out of that doctrine.” [15]

Archbishop Bancroft quoted this passage in the preface to his 1609 edition of Jewel’s Works to show “this is and hath been the open profession of the Church of England, to defend and mainteine no other Church, Faith, and Religion, than that which is truly Catholike and Apostolike, and for such warranted, not only by the written word of God, but also by the testimonie and consent of the ancient and godly Fathers.” [16] Jewel went to great pains in his Apology for the Church of England and his Defense to refute the claim of its Roman Catholic detractors that the Church of England had abandoned the catholic and apostolic faith. Rather than abandoning that faith as they claimed, the Reformers had, with their reforms, restored the catholic and apostolic faith in the Church of England. The Church of Rome, on the other hand, with its innovations in doctrine and worship, had departed from the catholic and apostolic faith. The Reformers, both in England and on the Continent, shared this belief. They did not see themselves as establishing a new faith but returning to the primitive faith of the New Testament and earliest Church Fathers, which the Church of Rome in the continuance of time had corrupted.

Among the emphases of the Canons of 1571 is a stress upon the teaching of the Gospel and the preaching of God’s Word, the study of the Holy Scriptures, and adherence to the Articles of Religion. While clergy who do not have a Master of Arts degree are required to purchase Latin and English New Testaments and to memorize passages of Scripture from them, they are not required to obtain and read the works the early Church Fathers. In several places the Canons of 1571 concern themselves with the progress of these clergy in their study of Scripture. Nowhere do they even suggest, much less require that the latter should also study the writings of the early Church Fathers. This passage is the only reference to the early Church Fathers in the Canons of 1571.

Those who misquote and misuse this passage also fail to take note of its context or if they do, they chose to ignore it:

“And because those articles of Christian religion, agreed vpon by the Bishoppes, in lawfull and godly conuocation, and by their commaundement, and authoritie of our noble princesse Elizabeth assembled and holden, vndoubtedly gathered out the holy bookes of the olde, and new Testamente, and in all pointes agree with the heauenly doctrine conteyned in them; because also the booke of common prayers, and the booke of consecration of Archbishops, Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons, conteyne nothing repugnant to the same doctrine, whosoever shalbe sent to teach the people, shall not onely in their preaching, but also by subscription confirme the authoritie, and truth of those articles. He that doth otherwise, shall be excommunicate.” [17]

The canons further stipulated:

“They shall teach no vayne, and old wiues opnios, no heresies, nor popish errors, disagreeing from the doctrine and fayth of Christ: neyther anything at all, whereby the rude people may be stirred vp to the desire of nouelties, or contention. But they shall alwayes teach that which may make for edifying, and may vnite the hearers in Christian peace and love.” [18]

Before we leave the Canons of 1571, we must note that they required “scholemasters” to teach no other “Latine Catechisme, then that which was set forth, in the yeare .1570.” They go onto stipulate, “The which also, that is translated into English, we wil have taught vnto children, that are ignoraunt of the Latin toung.” [19] This is not the Church Catechism in which the parish clergy were required to instruct their people, and which was required to be learned by all before Confirmation. It is the larger Catechism, as it is called in the Canons of 1604, prepared by Alexander Nowell, the Dean of St. Paul’s, sanctioned by Convocation in 1563, and published both in Latin and English at Archbishop Parker’s wish, with a dedication of the Bishops, in 1570. Nowell’s Catechism was Reformed in its doctrine. This Catechism was not only used in grammar schools but also the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It must be noted that the Catechisms of Henry Bullinger and John Calvin continued to be used in the universities after the adoption of Nowell’s Catechism.

Another catechism used in this period was Thomas Becon’s Catechism. Becon was a chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer. Under Elizabeth I he was a Canon of Canterbury Cathedral. Like Nowell’s Catechism, Becon’s was also Reformed in its theology.

Later writers try to create artificial distinction between those they label “Anglicans” and those they label “Puritans” during the Elizabethan period. But the fledgling “Puritan” movement was within the Church of England and those that they are artificially divide into “Anglicans” and “Puritans” were Churchmen. They shared a common Reformed theology. Where they differed was on the issue of whether the English Church had been sufficiently reformed. A number of Elizabethan Bishops supported the practice of “prophesizing” that would be eventually associated with this movement. The clergy of certain areas would gather to study the Bible and develop their preaching skills. For political reasons Elizabeth ordered the suppression of this practice. When Archbishop Edmund Grindal refused to carryout the Queen’s order, Elizabeth suspended him from office and placed him under house arrest in his own palace. She appointed royal commissioners to perform his duties as an officer of the Crown and ordered his sequestration until his death.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth century the Church of England was Biblical and Protestant in its stance and Reformed and, as we shall see in a later article in this series, evangelical in its theology. The Catholic Reaction and the Restoration, while they muddied the water, did not change the Reformed commitment of the Church of England as set forth in her Articles. For four centuries the identity of the Church of England was unmistakably Protestant and Reformed until the nineteenth century Oxford Movement sought to deliberately change the identity of the English Church and created the confusion that surrounds Anglican identity to this day.

Being Protestant and Reformed is a part of the classical Anglican heritage. It is a heritage of which a substantial number of North American Anglicans are largely ignorant or have a distorted view due to the influence of the Oxford Movement and Anglo-Catholicism. This is regrettable since Anglicanism is essentially a Protestant movement, grounded in the Bible and the Reformation. In the accompanying article I address the question, “What place, if any, do the Caroline High Churchman have in Classical Anglicanism?”

Endnotes:
[1] J.I. Packer and R.T. Beckwith, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 2007), 33-34
[2] Ibid., 34.
[3] Ibid.
[4] A.H. Couratin, “The Eucharist under Revision,” Tell Wales (Penarth: Church in Wales Publications, 1964), p 41f.
[5] William Francis Taylor, “The Real Presence,” Church Association Tract 25
[6] William Edward Collins, ed., The Canons of 1571 in English and Latin, (London: SPCK, 1899), 20-26.
[7] Ibid., 30-38.
[8] Ibid., 38-42.
[9] Ibid., 44-50.
[10] Ibid., 50-52.
[11] Ibid., 52-54.
[12] Ibid., 54-60.
[13] Ibid., 64-66.
[14] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers, (Abington, PA: Horseradish, 1997), 251.
[15] Collins, The Canons of 1571 in English and Latin, 76.
[16] Ibid., 76-77.
[17] Ibid., 76-78.
[18] Ibid., 78-80.
[19] Ibid., 82-84.