By Robin G. Jordan
The centrality of the Scriptures in the teaching of the sixteenth Reformers is not confined to the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the ordinal. Archbishop Cranmer in “A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Scripture,” in the First Book of Homilies, also known as the Book of Homilies of Edward VI, emphasizes:
TO a Christian man there can bee nothing either more necessarie or profitable, then the knowledge of holy Scripture, forasmuch as in it is conteyned GODS true word, setting foorth his glory, and also mans duety.
And there is no trueth nor doctrine necessarie for our iustification and euerlasting saluation, but that is (or may bee) drawne out of that fountaine and Well of trueth.
Therefore as many as bee desirous to enter into the right and perfect way vnto GOD, must applie their mindes to know holy Scripture, without the which, they can neither sufficiently know GOD and his will, neither their office and duty.
And as drinke is pleasant to them that bee drie, and meate to them that be hungrie: so is the reading, hearing, searching, and studying of holy Scripture, to them that bee desirous to know GOD or themselues, and to doe his will….
Therefore forsaking the corrupt iudgement of fleshly men, which care not but for their carkasse: let vs reuerently heare and read holy Scriptures, which is the foode of the soule (Matthew 4.4). Let vs diligently search for the Well of Life in the bookes of the New and Old Testament, and not runne to the stinking puddles of mens traditions (deuised by mens imagination) for our iustification and saluation.
We can see from this homily why the English Reformers took with full seriousness the Holy Scriptures as canon, that is, as a functioning rule of faith and life. Archbishop Cranmer had studied the writings of the early Church Fathers. He cites them in his own writings. But he does not put their opinions or Church tradition in the place of Scripture or give the same authority alongside that of Scripture. The rule to which the sixteenth century Reformers gave the most weight was the rule of Scripture.
The author of “An Homilie of the Right Use of the Church or Temple of God and of the Reuerence due unto the Same,” in the Second Book of Homilies, also known as the Book of Homilies of Elizabeth I, sheds light on what the compilers of the Thirty-Nine Articles meant by “the pure Word of God.”
It remaineth now to be declared, that the Church or Temple is the place where the liuely word of GOD (and not mans inuentions) ought to be read and taught, & that the people are bound thither with all diligence to resort: and this proofe likewise to be made by the Scriptures, as hereafter shall appeare.
The pure Word of God is the lively Word of God. It is the word of Psalm 119: 25, 28, 50, 154, which quickens and strengthens. It is the very pure word of Psalm 119: 140. It is the tried Word of Proverbs 30:5. It is the word of Isaiah 40:8, which stands forever. It is the word of Isaiah 55:11, which goes out from God’s mouth and returns not to Him empty but accomplishes that which God purposes and succeeds in the thing for which God sent it. It is the word of Luke 1:37, which is not void of power. It is the word of Romans 10:17, through which hearing comes and from hearing faith comes. It is the word of life of Philippians 2:16.
It is not “man’s inventions.” It is not “the stinking puddles of men’s traditions, devised by men’s imagination” to which Archbishop Cranmer refers in the Homily on the Reading of Scripture. This last description, while apt, is lost on contemporary readers of this homily. In sixteenth century the City of London was known for its great stench, for its overpowering foul smell, the result of heaped garbage, horse manure, human waste, rotting carcasses of dead dogs, and unwashed human bodies. The drains were open, and refuse from houses was dumped in the street. Flies, rats, and other disease-carrying vermin were everywhere and outbreaks of plague were common. A stinking puddle in the City of London might contain anything.
Man’s inventions are devoid of power, as are the stinking puddles of men’s traditions. They include the deliberate misinterpretation of Scripture to support a particular belief or practice. Meanings are imposed upon Scripture or read into Scripture, which cannot with certainty be read out of Scripture, which cannot be shown to be without doubt what one or more of the human writers meant.
Part 4 of this article examines the connection between the second distinguishing mark of the visible Church of Christ which English Reformers identified and the theology of the sacraments that they formulated.
To read Part 1, click here.
To read Part 2, click here.
Toread the first article in the series, click here.
In the sixteenth century, a time of confusion and dissension, the Homilies were part of a strategy to teach all people of England fundamentals of the faith. It is fair to say that some 340 years later, the Anglican Church is seen by some as being in need of the reiteration of these fundamentals.--The Prayer Book Society in Australia
The two Books of Homilies are available on the Internet at the Anglican Library website.
The Two Books of Homilies Appointed to Be Read in the Churches, in PDF format, with modernized spelling and notes, can be downleaded from Google Books.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteI think your article exposes a fundamental issue. I respect and honor the work of the reformers even if you and I do not precisely agree on what was done or intended. But, I think they and I would agree that what they wrote should not be treated as Holy Writ. And you do.
Your whole approach is based on the unreasonable assumption that they were right and final. If anyone told ABp. Cranmer or for that matter Blsd Martin Luther that knowledge and inspiration had to conclude with their work it is about an even bet if they would have laughed out-loud or called a cop.
One can find the visible church without seeking the reformation writer's comments. One can look for instance at Paul, Luke (Acts) or the patristic fathers. One might even be able to look at some modern writing! Once we leave the canon of the Scriptures ascribing authority is simply inappropriate.
FWIW
jimB
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI am pointing out what the Reformers believed. I well aware that others have different beliefs. For example, congregationalists believe the Church is where two or three are gathered and Christ is present. The Reformers sought an answer to the question how do we know Christ is present. What I am setting out is their answer to the question. Ridley identified a fourth mark--charity, or love, as we would say today. However, the three marks that I am exploring are what they agreed were the marks of the visible Church of Christ. I also must limit the scope of my articles. Otherwise, I would be writing a book. My objective is to make known what the Reformers believed and taught and not other sixteenth century groups such as the Church of Rome or the Anabaptists or the presbyterian Puritans.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteI am not asking for the book. But consider your language for a moment. You do not say, that this is the answer of the reformers. You say that the answer "must" be found by turning to the writings you reference. There is an essential difference.
FWIW
jimB
Jim,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to become knowledgeable and appreciative of the thinking of the English Reformers you must read the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571, the 1552, 1559, and 1604 Prayer Books, the two Books of Homilies, Nowell's Catechism, the Proposed Canons of 1571 and the Canons of 1604, the writings of the Reformers themselves, and other primary sources. You are not going to gain that from more recent writings. You are going to read their interpretation of the Reformers. Any historian or theologian worth his salt goes to the primary sources. He does not depend upon the opinions of interpretors.
You may not like my style of writing but for better or worse it is my writing style. It may not be politically correct to write the way I do but it is the way I write. I write with conviction. I am not interested in presenting other views except to draw attention to their weaknesses, etc. Those who want to read them have plenty of articles, books, and web sites where they can be found.
As I see it, you have bought into a particular mindset: it is from my perspective liberal and post-modern. It is reluctant to go beyond the proposition that truth is relative and all opinions are equally as valid (or equally as invalid). However, that proposition is by own estimation only one of many "truths." If it is not, then it is denial of what itself claims.
I cannot be bothered with that sort of thinking. To my mind it makes no sense. By its own estimation it is as invalid as it is valid.
What you are asking me to do is think the way that I understand you to think. It may work for you but it does not work for me.
Yes, there are shades of gray but behind them it is black and white. They are only gray because we have not yet grasped where they belong--with the black or with the white.
My observation has been that down deep at some level most people who have a liberal, post-modern mindset are not really liberal or post-modern. I personally do not view myself as free from liberal and post-modern influence. However, I do not pretend to be what I am not. I have convictions and I believe them. Otherwise they would not be convictions.