The Early Church Fathers in Historic Anglicanism

By Robin G. Jordan

Before reading the works of the early Church fathers, Anglicans need first to fully acquaint themselves with the writings of the English Reformers and early Continental Reformers—Martin Bucer, Henry Bullinger and Peter Martyr Virmigli in particular. The latter were important contributors to the Reformed theology of the Church of England in the reigns of Edward VI, Elizabeth I, and James I. Bucer and Bullinger would also shape the doctrinal views of John Calvin. Calvin borrowed a number of theological concepts from Bullinger along with Bullinger’s illustrations for these concepts.

More than a passing acquaintance with these Reformers—English and early Continental—is not only necessary to any understanding of their approach to the early Church Fathers but also to any understanding of the place of the early Church Fathers in classical Anglicanism. Those who encourage Anglican theological students to read the Patristic writers without having first read and digested the teaching of such Reformers are fostering in these students false notions of what authority historical Anglicanism has given to the writings of the early Church Fathers and what role their opinions have played in the development of Anglican theology. Only by studying the works of these Reformers will Anglican theological students have a clear idea of classical Anglican thought on this matter.

From the perspective of the Reformers the early Church Fathers have no intrinsic authority of their own. Their authority is derivative in nature. They are authoritative only where their opinions are consonant with Scripture. In such case it is not their opinions that are authoritative but Scripture.

This view of the Patristic writings is the early Church Fathers’ view of their own writings. Augustine wrote:

Neither weigh we the writings of all men. Be they never so worthy and catholic, as we weigh the canonical Scriptures, but that, saving [notwithstanding] the reverence that is due unto them, we may mislike and refuse somewhat in their writings, if we find that they have thought otherwise than the truth may bear. Such am I in the writings of others, and such would I wish others to be in mine.

While Thomas Cranmer was thoroughly acquainted with the Patristic writings, he often, in defending his doctrinal views, chose not to cite the early Church Fathers but Scripture. He did so not because of a lack of support for his doctrinal views in their writings but because of the derivative nature of their authority. He sought to show that his doctrinal views were not based on the teaching of men but the word of God.

John Jewel, while he cited the early Church Fathers in his writings, only cited them when he believed that what they had written was agreeable with Scripture. He then would only cite the earliest Church Fathers, those who wrote during the first five centuries of the Christian era. He also would cite them only where there was clear agreement among a number of them on a particular matter. He would not cite an isolated opinion of one of these Church Fathers nor would he cite an early Church Father’s citation of an earlier Church Father. Jewel himself wrote:

Some things I believe and some things they write I cannot believe. Cyprian was the doctor of the Church, yet he was deceived; Jerome was a doctor of the Church, yet he was deceived; Augustine was a doctor of the Church, yet he wrote a book of retractions. He acknowledged that he was deceived.

After citing additional support from the early Church Fathers, Jewel concluded:

I could show many the like speeches of the ancient fathers, wherein they reverence the holy Scriptures, to which only they give consent without gainsaying [argument], which can neither deceive nor be deceived.

The Reformers recognized that the Patristic authors were not only fallible and capable of error but also they had erred. They refused to attach to the writings of the early Church Fathers an authority that was binding or absolute. Scripture was the test by which the truth of all thought, including the Patristic writings, was to be tried. William Whitaker wrote:

Even though the fathers were opposed to us, and we could give no answer to the arguments drawn from them, this could inflict no real damage upon our cause, since our faith does not depend upon the fathers, but upon the Scriptures. Nevertheless, I am far from approving the opinion of those who think the testimonies of the fathers should be rejected or despised.

…However, we must take heed that we do not, with the papists, ascribe too much to the fathers; but use our rights and liberty, when we read them, examining all their sayings by the rule of Scripture, receiving them when they agree with it, but freely and with their good leave rejecting them whenever they exhibit marks of discrepancy.

If we examine Anglican Church history, we discern three periods in which a fascination with the early Church Fathers and an uncritical approach to their writings has led the church away from the teaching of the Bible and the Reformation and into error. The first period is the Catholic Reaction, which occurred during the reign of Charles I in the seventeenth century. The second period is the Catholic Revival of the nineteenth century. The third period is now. For want of a better description I will refer to it as the “Neo-Catholic Revival.”

When Charles I succeed his father James I, he placed in high office in the Church of England a group of churchmen who shared not only his High Church principles but also his belief in the divine right of kings. This group of churchmen is variously known as the Caroline divines or Caroline High Churchmen after Charles or the Laudians after Charles’s Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud. They did not form a movement within the Church of England. Rather they rose to prominence due to Charles’ patronage. Their influence was largely limited to the upper echelons of seventeen-century English society—to the court, to the English nobility and landed gentry and their retainers and clients—and to those seeking preferment.

At the time of Charles’ ascension to the English throne there was a resurgence of interest in the Patristic writers in some quarters of the English universities, as well as a growing distaste for the Reformed doctrine of predestination and other aspects of Reformed theology. The doctrinal views of Jacob Arminius and Hugo Grotius enjoyed increasing popularity in these circles. Charles himself had a strong dislike of Reformed theology. His early struggles with the English Parliament sharpened this dislike. He adopted a deliberate policy of filling vacant sees with bishops whose doctrinal views were highly unpopular with the Reformed and increasingly ultra-Calvinist Puritans dominating the English Parliament. This policy had the effect of strengthening Presbyterian sentiments in Puritan circles. The result was increased agitation for the abolition of the episcopate.

For the Caroline High Churchmen the Holy Scriptures were the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and practice. However, they were less scrupulous than the English Reformers in their trying of doctrines and practices by the test of Scripture. Their interpretation of Scripture was influenced by Patristic interpretation of Scripture. They were likely to accept a doctrine or practice due to its great antiquity and the early Church Fathers’ acceptance of it. They were also influenced by later Church tradition. Bishop of Durham John Cosin might be described as the quintessential Caroline High Churchmen. He evidences all these characteristics. His thinking strongly reflected the influence of the early Church Fathers. His approach to the Patristic authors was uncritical. He gave them much greater weight than had the English Reformers. Rather than being an example of the Caroline divines’ continuity with the English Reformers, he is an example of their discontinuity.

The beginning of the Catholic Revival is dated from John Keble’s Assize Sermon, which also marked the beginning of the Oxford Tractarian movement. The Tractarians figured prominently in the early phases of the Catholic Revival.

“Catholic Revival” may actually be a misnomer as the Church of England already had a High Church party. Where the Tractarians differed from the old High Church party was their unconcealed sympathy for the Church of Rome and the papal system. The old High Church party was, like the seventeenth century Caroline High Churchmen, anti-Roman and anti-papalist.

The Tractarians sought to claim that they were the only true High Churchmen. They and not the old High Church party represented the true High Church tradition in the Church of England. Both claims were far from the truth, and revealed from the outset the willingness of the Tractarians to palter with the truth to advance their cause. The Tractarians also claimed that they were the spiritual successors to the Caroline High Churchmen. This claim was also far from the truth.

A Protestant Dictionary (1904) identifies Oxford Tractarian movement with its Romanizing tendencies as an “alien intrusion” in the Church of England. Its aim was to bring about the reunion of the Church of England and the Church of Rome. It sought to “Catholicize” the English Church to the point that it would become acceptable to the Pope.

The Tractarians’ approach to the early Church Fathers was uncritical. Their understanding of the Patristic writers was also heavily influenced by later Church tradition and the post-Tridentian Roman Catholic Church.

The Neo-Catholic Revival may have begun as early as the 1960s with the ecumenical movement and the liturgical renewal movement. During the 1960s a number of Anglican provinces, including the Protestant Episcopal Church USA, undertook the revision of their Prayer Books, incorporating forms of worship from the early Church such as the ceremonial lighting of the lamp in the evening and the Great Vigil of Easter. The new liturgies placed a strong emphasis upon the centrality of the Eucharist to Christian worship.

The liturgical renewal movement would influence non-Anglicans like the late Robert Webber, Professor of Theology at Wheaton College, who subsequently joined the Episcopal Church. Webber would become the champion of what he described as “worship renewal” and which involved the revival of forms and practices of the early Church and their use in non-liturgical churches. Webber wrote the highly influential Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail. Webber would go on to become a leading figure in the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement.

The charismatic movement provided further impetus to these developments. The emerging church movement would at a later phase give them a further boost.

Evangelical pastors in non-liturgical churches began to wear cassock-albs and stoles. They introduced liturgical forms into the worship services of their churches. In some churches these changes were well received; in others they were not. A number of these pastors, like Webber, joined the Episcopal Church.

Evangelical pastors were not the only pastors who were influenced by the liturgical renewal movement. So were charismatic pastors.

In the 1990s evangelical and charismatic pastors from both in and outside of the Episcopal Church formed a new denomination—the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches (CEEC). They adopted forms of worship borrowed not only from the early Church but also from the Medieval Church, for example, the adoration of the consecrated Host exposed in a monstrance or other vessel. They sought re-consecration at the hands of a Brazilian Independent Catholic bishop, having embraced the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. They became increasingly Catholic, not only in practice but also doctrine. An uncritical reading of the early Church Fathers was a contributing factor.

In the twenty-first century the CEEC began to fragment. A number of splinter churches were formed. Since the formation of the Anglican Church in North America a number of CEEC and former CEEC bishops and pastors have migrated to the ACNA. One former CEEC bishop is now a suffragan in the Missionary Diocese of All Saints; another former CEEC bishop is suffragan in CANA.

This group was not the only group that the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement would influence. A second group forms the core of the Anglican Mission. The Anglican Mission has also attracted liturgical-leaning charismatics from the Vineyard movement, which is an outgrowth of the Third-Wave movement. Both movements were strongly influenced by the writings of the late John Wimber. A third group migrated directly into the ACNA from the Episcopal Church.

These groups have a very romantic view of the early Church. See Gillis Harp’s Mandate article, “Navigating the Three Streams.” Due to Webber’s influence they give more weight to the early Church Fathers than to the Reformation. As Harp notes in his article, they are hostile toward the Reformation but do not acknowledge their hostility.

Webber himself has been criticized as being Anglo-Catholic in his leanings. An examination of his positions on a number of issues suggests that this criticism has merit.

A fourth group is found in the Reformed Episcopal Church and includes Bishop Ray Sutton. Sutton is a leading champion of the Neo-Catholic Revival in the REC.

Canon A 5 - Of the doctrine of the Church of England – identifies the official place of the early Church Fathers in the teaching of the Church of England.

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. [my emphasis]

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

The canon echoes Whitaker’s sentiments if not his words. Implicit in the canon is the critical approach to the early Church Fathers that the English Reformers adopted and employed.

Those preparing for teaching ministry in the Church, ordained or otherwise, should study the writings of the Reformers before they embark on any study of the early Church Fathers. They should read not only the works of Cranmer, Jewel, and other benchmark Anglican theologians but also the works of Bucer, Bullinger, Vermigli, and other early Reformed authors.

They should also study these writers before they begin any study of the writings of the later Reformed theologians like John Calvin and Theodore Beza, reading Bullinger’s Decades before they read Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. If the European influence upon the English Reformation were listed in historical order by city, it would begin with Augsburg, Wertemberg, Stroudsburg, Frankfort, Zurich, and last of all Geneva. From the nineteenth century on there has been a tendency to put Geneva first but a proper historical order would begin with Augsburg.

During the reign of Charles I enthusiasm for the early Reformed theologians would wane in England while zeal for the later Reformed theologians would wax especially among the more radical Puritans. This is attributable in part to anti-Bullinger sentiment arising from his support of the English ecclesiastical authorities in the Vestarian controversy and his association in the minds of the more radical Puritans with episcopacy. During the Great Rebellion the corpse of Archbishop Matthew Parker was exhumed and thrown on a dung heap so high did the feeling run against episcopacy. Archbishop Laud was condemned to death for treason by a bill of attainder when a court failed to find him guilty of teaching the doctrine of transubstantiation and other charges. The other English bishops went into hiding or fled to the Continent.

A number of Reformed doctrines that are often attributed to John Calvin are not particular to Calvin. They are common to a number of early Reformed theologians and predate Calvin. In the nineteenth century there developed a tendency to associate with Calvin doctrines that were work of earlier Reformed theologians and to give Calvin the credit for these concepts when in fact Calvin himself was the beneficiary of these earlier Reformed theologians. Nineteenth century writers further muddied the water by describing doctrines as being “calvinistical” when what they meant was Reformed. This is not to discount Calvin’s contribution to Reformed movement but to put it in a proper perspective.

Those who argue that the early Church Fathers or John Calvin greatly influenced the English Reformers and therefore shaped classical Anglicanism are making the same mistake. What most influenced the English Reformers and gave definite form to classical Anglicanism was the Bible. It is the English Reformers’ approach to the Bible that places them and classical Anglicanism squarely in the Reformed camp.

Any study of the early Church Fathers should be critical in its approach and include a thorough examination of how early Church Fathers interpreted the Bible and how the way they interpreted the Bible affected their theology. It should also include a comparison of the thinking of the early Church Fathers on key doctrinal issues with that of the Reformers, in England and on the Continent, and the basis of their respective thought.

Recommended Reading:

Robert M. Grant with David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers, Abingdon, PA: Horseradish, 1997.
Wyndham Mason Southgate, John Jewel and the Problem of Doctrinal Authority, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth, Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1991.