Question for group: to what extent can Anglicanism be considered a ‘Reformed’ Church? 1. The 39 Articles seem to be moderately Reformed in tone (viz., infralapsarian, real spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc.). 2. The Queen’s coronation oath refers to “the Protestant Reformed Religion”. 3. The Church of England participated in the Synod of Dordt, which ratified the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. So the early seventeenth century Church of England appeared to be affirming, in an official capacity (the English delegates were sent to Dordt by King James I himself), that the 39 Articles, Prayer Book, etc., at the very least did not conflict with the Reformed Confessions (with the sole noted exception of the episcopacy). 4. Many of the early English Reformers were basically Reformed in outlook (rather than Lutheran, for example). How are we to construe this relationship (to the Continental Reformed) today?
I have a pretty strong opinion about this. Basically, I believe that Anglicanism scholarship has been corrupted over the last hundred years, by a series of liberal or outright atheist scholars (like Diarmaid MacCulloch) who have completely misrepresented Anglican history. In this they were aided by Roman Catholics who were only too happy to slander Anglicanism as being "started" in the 1500s, by Henry VIII's "divorce". Both of those are false. Anglicanism was started in the 1st century by Joseph of Arimathea; Henry VIII received an annulment since Anglican tradition doesn't allow divorce; and he was a Roman Catholic, since the Reformation only began with his son Edward VI. And the same group of scholars propagated gross misrepresentations such as, that the Reformation was "Protestants" vs "Catholics". Meanwhile we've been battling modernism in our ranks, so we didn't quite have the time to publish books dispelling this gross propaganda. Not that I am a scholar myself, but to the extent that I delved into this, I systematically found outright fabrications, and misunderstandings, such that the actual truth is often a direct opposite of what these modern writers will say. First to the label of "Reformed". This label in the 16th century English context covered the Lutherans, and various non-Calvinist wandering scholars like Martin Bucer and Peter Vermigli. You will find English references to the Augsburg Confession as a "Reformed Confession" or the Book of Concord as among the "Reformed works". What this means is very simple: the event was The Reformation; and those who adhered to it were called The Reformed. Or in modern terms, "Reformational". That's it! Simple, and and nothing more. In the non-English languages and countries, the word "Reformed" over time began to mean those who weren't Lutheran; over time they created a unique theology of their own, so that by the 1650s (a full 100 years later) you could describe a "Reformed Theology", as distinct from Lutheranism or the Anglican tradition. When we go through your items, I will endeavor to show that we don't share a single point in common with (what later came to be called) Reformed Theology. I don't see infralapsarianism or any distinct soteriology in the Articles. Indeed from my reading of the Divines, it would seem they affirmed the historic Amillennial view, as taught by St. Augustine. On real spiritual presence, attributing it to some modern scholar is one of the most gross historic misrepresentations. RSP is clearly taught in Augustine, Ambrose, Tertullian, Cyril, and pretty much all of the fathers. The Anglican tradition was uniquely obsessed with founding its theology upon the Church Fathers, and since they found RSP taught there, that's what was adopted. You will not find a single orthodox Anglican divine citing chapter and verse from Calvin. John Jewel's treatise on the Sacraments is thick with sacramental language, and various descriptions of spiritual real presence; he quotes from (what seems like) hundreds of patristic sources; any modern theologian, especially Calvin, is conspicuously missing. This is a modern innovation. Queen Elizabeth I was not coronated under that oath. Dort has been painted by modern academic Protestants as a watershed moment of unity. But the reality is quite different. As recent scholarship has uncovered, the English delegates at Dort actually did not espouse that theology. When they wrote treatises on soteriology, predestination, it was remarkably foreign to the canons of Dort. See for example this article from R. Scott Clark, a major Reformed theologian, about John Davenant and his shockingly un-Dortian publications on "hypothetical universalism" https://agradio.org/canons-of-dort-19-unconditional-atonement In short, the English delegates were pressured to sign on to Dort by their king, despite not believing those doctrines themselves (King James I had weird obsessions). And the canons were a dead letter as soon as they were signed, since no one accepted them, and they changed nothing in our formularies or our theology. It was an empty political gesture that was over before the ink could dry on parchment. I would argue that all English Reformers were either Lutheran, or (by far the majority), heavily Patristic. One of the errors of modern scholarship was to posit Lutheranism and Calvinism as somehow these profoundly foundational deep categories, and one had to be one, or the other. When you look at our Liturgy, the divines who crafted it weren't citing Calvin or even Melanchthon. They were citing the ancient fathers, the medieval Sarum rite, etc. When you look at our Church constitution of the three holy orders, Cranmer back in 1540 ignored everyone, and wrote that "In the Church there are three orders, deacons, priests, and bishops". When you look at our Sacraments, there are some similarities to the extent that other Reformers also tried to cite the church fathers; that's where we did (at that time) have our common source and foundation. But as everyone else quickly departed from the Church Fathers, Anglicans were left as the only Church in the world that was completely rooted in antiquity. So our Sacraments, why it's two, is entirely based in Augustine and Ambrose; why it's spiritual real presence and not physical is entirely dependent on John Chrysostom. What's the nature of Confirmation; the efficacy of confession and absolution. Etc. Other reformers compromised on the indissolubility of Marriage, but our divines were the only ones to hold strong that the bond is unbreakable. Already from Calvin onward you see an abandonment of the 'harrowing of hell' in the Apostles Creed, but our divines asserted that clause heavily and strongly. So as you go down the list: church fathers, episcopacy, marriage, the creed-- Anglicans were hoping that others would join them in this massive project to return the Church to its roots; but when they looked up, it turned out that they were alone. Almost all Protestants were in error, and almost all Romanists were in error. Over time Lutherans acquired their own writers like Chemnitz and Gerhard, and started citing them instead; but we continued citing St. Cyril and St. Basil. The Reformed began citing Calvin and Beza, but we continued citing St. Augustine and St. Ambrose. The Romanists kept citing Suarez and Ockham, but we continued citing St. John Chrysostom. The Eastern Orthodox kept citing Gregory Palamas, but we continued citing St. Gregory of Nyssa. And thus we've made our way ever since.
Thank you very much for the detailed reply! That clarifies a great deal. Ordinarily, when an official act is taken overseas, a corresponding act has to take place at home to memorialize what has happened, and (often) to enter it into formal legislation thus that it becomes the law of the land. I could find no evidence that this occurred with the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. What happened overseas was never turned into law governing the English Church by Parliament, so far as I could discover. I was not aware that the Lutherans were also referred to as “Reformed” in the early days of the Reformation. Not to put you on the spot, but do you have any examples you could cite, to satisfy my curiosity? Regarding the coronation oath, I am more interested in why that language is in there now. It just seems very specific. It may have been a little anachronistic of me to refer to any infralapsarianism in the 39 Articles. To be honest I’m not entirely sure the order of the divine decrees was even an issue yet at that point. They’re just not obviously supralapsarian. Nor can I find any evidence that the CoE taught limited atonement.
Exactly. One example is Bunnius who cites Chemnitz, in his list of Reformed theologians who compromised on indissolubility of marriage: https://www.anglican.net/works/edmu...there-is-no-sufficient-warrant-so-to-do-1595/ Bancroft in his famous 1588 sermon, is another: https://www.anglican.net/works/richard-bancroft-sermon-preached-at-pauls-cross-1588/ "there is not a reformed church in christendom which doth not in this case require subscription (at the least) of their ministers; Calvine refusing to administer the Communion in Geneva... In Germanie likewise subscription is required verie streightlie unto the confession of Augusta" (he then adds Melanchthon) I saw others in years past, but not being an academic I didn't save them. When I come across again I'll pass them on. Not having done the research, it's probably an artifact of politics of the 19th century. At that time, there was anxiety because of the many Romanist countries which England was at war with. In America also, Roman Catholicism for a long time was seen as exceedingly subversive and seditious. The jesuit morality famously allowed them to lie; one could state a falsehood and consider it Godly virtue, as long as you also made a mental reservation (unspoken) of what you were really trying to say. Outwardly: "I am your friend" (inwardly, "... in that I want to kill you and send you to heaven....") This is why the US Pledge of Allegiance to this day says, you pledge it "without any mental reservation". Romanism for a long time was not a home of "family values", but a source of seditious deceit and rebellion.
Just out of curiosity - and I realize this is somewhat off-topic, though not entirely - how well do Richard Hooker’s works fit into what ultimately solidified as orthodox Anglicanism? I ask because Hooker’s writing style often strikes me as a bit hard to follow, and people seem to find in Hooker what they’re looking for. If that is an unfair assessment of Hooker, I humbly apologize. I have tried for years to read him and haven’t succeeded yet. I’m working my way through Jewel now.
Don't get me started on that guy. Every time I see a book of his on the bookshelf of a church or clergyman, I wince. He's the king of writing fantastically-detailed "histories" that ultimately don't have much to offer in terms of actual point-of-view or explanation of deeper themes. Just compare his bio of Cranmer to the older (and better) one by Pollard.
I'm of a firm conviction that Hooker needs to be "translated" from his own English into ours. We get seduced that just because our languages are labeled the same by a librarian, that we can just open and read a 500-year old text as easily as a Twitter post. Shakespeare's English is nearly unreadable, and Hooker's also I find is nearly impenetrable. If he were written in Latin, he'd long ago be translated into a nicely readable modern translation. From what I've seen from him, he's a mixed bag. On the one hand he's certainly orthodox, and was pretty tough on the puritans and solidly battled their theories when those began to emerge. On the other hand, I find that his orthodoxy was of a soft minimum kind; the passages I've read from him (like on the Eucharist) appear to soften doctrine so the dissenters wouldn't find it so hard to enter the Church of England. In this he contrasts with the hard orthodox divines like Bilson, Overall, Andrews, and others who chose the path of hardline badassery.
It also just occurred to me - one of my other intellectual pursuits is political science - that with Parliamentary sovereignty, nothing done at Dordt could be binding on the English Church, unless “the Queen, with Lords Spiritual and Temporal with the Commons in Parliament here assembled, so enacted.” James I certainly knew this, so the move had to be (merely) political, as you said. That should have occurred to me much sooner. ♂️
I'll nitpick this claim. Yes Henry VIII was a Roman Catholic, but that doesn't mean the Reformation didn't begin under Henry. Henry signed the original 10 Articles which separated the English Catholic church from the Roman one and put it firmly in the lines of heterodoxy, if not heresy in the eyes of Rome. The 10 Articles rejects four of the Roman Sacraments Henry had only recently been declared 'Defender of the Faith' for going to the mat with Luther over, siding with Luther that there are only three (Baptism, Eucharist and Penance) - and rejected some controversial Roman claims, such as purgatory and that material symbols like candles/holy water/vestments have the power to absolve sin. These were all fiercely contentious at the time and were being dogmatically defended by Catholic Europe in response to Luther's criticisms. Then he approved the Bishop's Book which doubled down on the same stuff, and highlights a genuine reformation was taking place. The Bishop's Book was approved by the Synod in public, so we can see genuine debate between catholic conservatives who wanted to return to the church in Rome, and the radical reformers led by Cranmer who wanted to go further than the original 10 Articles (and, as we know, Cranmer eventually won and helped father the modern Anglican church), with no persecution for people who espoused Reformed thought. Crucially Henry VIII came in and said he would only accept arguments based on scripture and would reject any arguments couched in sacred tradition. Although I'm not denying Henry's statements and actions show he was clearly still a Roman Catholic, he was also clearly okay with the church Reforming in some capacity. Finally he appointed a committee to investigate several questions that would explode the Reformation movement in England - most importantly on whether Christ could be really present at the Eucharist without transubstantiation, and if clergy could marry. Although those questions were resolved in Rome's favour, it opened a floodgate Henry and Mary could not push back. It lead to the signing of the Henry's Six Articles which was a definitive legal breaking off from Rome and would form the precursor to Edward's Fourty-Two Articles and Elizabeth's Thirty-Nine Articles. The Six Articles, by today's standards, doesn't seem very reformist (it confirmed in law Transubstantion and institued the death penalty for non-celibate clergy by hanging), but importantly it was still a break from Rome. For example, it rejected the necessity of confession and denied God's real presence during it. The English Reformation most certainly began under Henry VIII.
I'd say it was already under way with Wycliffe when he supported the king in opposing the Pope raising taxes in the realm of England and poured cold water on the notion of transubstatiation and indulgences. I'd say he was the first English martyr to Roman Catholic heresies, or at least his dead body was when the RCs dug it up, burned it and threw the ashes in a river. They seriously didn't like Wycliffe. .
You’re absolutely right, I just meant on a state level. Was Henry VIII’s “affair” a part of his new reformation tendencies, as almost all RC apologists claim? No many RC kings divorced, got the Pope to divorce them, had a harem of wives (and male lovers). So from a state level, other an early English Bible, Henry VIII was very keen on executing the reformers and martyrs. The English state, as an institution, only joined the Reformation under Edward VI.
I agree with this. To be clear, I agreed with the whole of your post, just wanted an excuse to unpack that idea.
I would also like to interject here that the Roman Catholic church is a very different thing now than it was during the Reformation period given the profound changes of the Council of Trent through Vatican II. The theological divisions between the Anglicans and the RC church are even more substantial now than they were during the time of Henry VIII. In many ways the Roman church isn't even the same institution as it was even two hundred years ago. (Though I suppose the same can be said of the Anglican church as well. Sigh.) In fact you can argue that the historic succession of Roman Bishops starting with Peter onward was broken during the Avignon papacy, and thus the "true" Roman Catholic church ceased to exist in 1309. Never mind the rise of the satanic Borgia pope Rodrigo (Alexander VI) shortly thereafter.
Interesting bit of historical information about the notorious pope Alexander VI: one of his fiercest critics was the friar Girolamo Savonarola (who was eventually burned at the stake, some say under Alexander's direct order). Savonarola was an early reformer that in many ways prefigured Martin Luther some decades later, and so is considered by some to be a herald of the Protestant Reformation.
A couple of comments. It's difficult to find a printed copy of Hooker's Laws that has not been given a modern gloss. Unrelated but perhaps interesting to some is that a Latino REC priest was working on a Spanish translation of The work. I don't know if he finished. Savonarola has more in common with the radical Reformation than the Magisterial Reformation. Philip Neri was a reformer, Savonarola was a radical.
Savonarola was a tyrant, and was definitely much closer to the Radical Reformation. By the time he was executed by the Florentines, a Papal order would not have been necessary.