I have been looking into Anglican theology and have some questions. My background is confessional Reformed but i have been moving in a more high church direction. I have read the 39 articles and am familiar with some of Anglican history as it relates to Westminster assembly Could you suggest some Anglican dogmatic works? I am thinking a top ten must read list or something like that. I am familiar with C.S. Lewis. That is in part why i started looking into Anglicanism. My second question is are there Anglican book publishers or stores you would suggest?
Francis J. Hall's three-volume Theological Outlines and ten-volume Dogmatic Theology series is excellent; you can download them all here. One reviewer writes: Hall represents the high point of Anglo-Catholic theology and in many ways represents a form of Anglican Thomism... Also of great use is Claude Beaufort Moss's The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology. I'd further recommend Gerald Bray's The Faith We Confess: An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles and The Books of Homilies: A Critical Edition.
Thank you for the suggestions and the link. Would you know a place to order the Francis Hall books in print. I have already picked up the Moss volume. Thanks again!
Looks like the American Church Union still sells reprints of volumes 2-10: https://americanchurchunion.com/theology/halls-dogmatic-theology-series/
I am sure others here could suggest the contemporary recent works which are currently in print. From a classical Anglican standpoint, you can try the systematic works, such as: Alexander Nowell, A Catechism, or Institution of the Christian Religion (1572) https://www.anglican.net/works/alex...r-the-institution-of-christian-religion-1572/ -for the younger audiences Edmund Reeve, The Christian divinitie, contained in the divine service of the Church of England (1631) https://books.google.com/books?id=OLAC3d3MgeQC -for older audiences Roger Boyle, Summa Theologiæ Christianae (1681) https://books.google.com/books?id=qixjAAAAcAAJ -for advanced audiences Another good way are the dogmatic commentaries on the church catechism, the articles, or the Book of Common Prayer. For example, we have this published on the website: William Beveridge, Commentary on the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer (1720) https://www.anglican.net/works/william-beveridge-church-catechism-explained-1720/ -for younger audiences John Veneer, An Exposition on the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England : founded on the Holy Scriptures, and the Fathers of the three first centuries (1734) vol 1: http://archive.org/stream/expositiononthir01vene#page/n5/mode/2up vol 2: http://archive.org/stream/expositiononthir02vene#page/n3/mode/2up -for advanced audiences I'm sorry that we don't have more of these published on the site yet. It seems that the more we publish, the more it appears that we have left yet to publish!
I suggest “Introduction to Dogmatic Theology” by E.A. Litton, especially if you want an Anglican treatment that interacts with the specific historic Confessions. Each chapter begins with quotations from the various Confessions regarding the topic at hand, then proceeds to map out the historic Anglican position. I highly recommend it.
Dogmatics has not traditionally been as important to the Anglican tradition as it is to Lutherans and the Reformed. You may find studies in historical theology more fruitful. A relatively modern author who was adept at encapsulating the positions of the Episcopal Church was John E. Booty. You will find much Anglican theology to be polemical in character, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Many of the fathers such as Irenaeus, Maximus Confessor, etc. wrote primarily polemics. The difference in the polemic of Richard Hooker is that it is witty rather than vitriolic in the mold of Martin Chemnitz. And of course Anglican scholarship did not end in the 17th century. In the 19th century you've got the Oxford movement balanced out in the latter portion of the century by figures like bishop Wordsworth, who was a skilled and erudite commentator. And contemporary theologians such as Scot McKnight and N.T. Wright are important in the Evangelical wing of the church. There's also always Rowan Williams, who has written on nearly every conceivable topic.
I grew up Pentecostal, then became a staunch 1689er, then covenant theology drew me to the Three Forms, and I ended up here. The resources on this site were much help. The Articles of Religion, simply reading and praying with the BCP, and the homilies were great helps.
In the Anglican tradition there are two versions of the Branch Theory. One was formulated in the 19th century, and the other was formulated at the Reformation in the 16th century. Both theories begin from the same starting point that the Anglican Church is literally and physically a branch of the Catholic Church. Where they disagree is how to categorize other Christians. The 19th century version became enunciated by Anglo-Catholics, who were greatly influenced by the Roman church which was at an upswing during that era. In the "branch theory" of that type, there are only three churches properly called, in the world: the Roman church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Anglican church. It's one of the 3 branches of the Catholic Church. According to this branch theory, none of the protestants are part of The Church. It is a version of Branch Theory which highly privileges the visible structures, while underplaying the actual doctrines. For this reason the 16-17th century"branch theory" version is more attractive to me. It allows that some Protestants are also be a part of the Catholic Church, because it doesn't have a pro-Romanist perspective that seeks to demean Protestants. If bishops are a requirement for the fullness of the Church (which they are), then the Lutheran tradition has obviously had that. Any Protestants (even baptists) who would fix this error would immediately correct that shortcoming. There's no prejudice against anyone, as long as they have the proper apostolic hiearchy of bishop, priest, deacon. But the other crucial element which that version of Branch Theory has is, it elevates the doctrine to the same importance as the visible elements of hierarchy. So for instance, it is possible for a Protestant church to have a better more catholic doctrine than the Romans. And it's possible for the Romans to have a better visible hierarch than those Protestants. Thus in that earlier form of the Branch Theory, those Protestants and the Roman church would be on the same level. That protestant church would be imperfectly but truly a member of the Catholic Church, and the Romans would be imperfectly but truly members of the Catholic Church.
The word Catholic comes as a compilation of two Greek Words Kata with the sense of 'according to' and Holos 'the whole - complete and entire'. Any ecclesiastical tradition which was to understand itself to be the entire Church, the whole Church, the only Church, in a sense that excluded all or any others would have by that very act ceased to be catholic, however they would not have ceased to be part of the catholic church. The word catholic is not the name of a church but rather the third note of the church. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral sought to identify the core issues on which we would not budge in oecumenical discussions. The late 19th century was filled with optimism that all churches could be brought together, and many Anglicans thought that our robust elasticity might pave the way. Since then of course the rubber seems to have perished on the band that held Anglicanism together.
FWIW, many Protestant denominations' churches are subject to oversight; they just don't call the overseers 'bishops.' For example, the Assemblies of God churches are considered largely self-governed by their congregation in conjunction with their own local elders, but they also remain subordinate to a 'General Council' in matters of doctrine and polity.