To understand the “evangelical face” of Anglicanism, one first needs a bit of history of the Anglican church to put things in context.
It is commonly believed that Henry VIII broke from the Roman church over a marriage, but the issue was a bit deeper than that. Henry’s main issue was whether the Pope should have power over the needs of the English State, particularly his own need of an heir to the Royal throne. In the 16th century, both Popes and Kings held secular and sacred authority. Henry's intent was to free the English Church from Papal rule. He sought out bishops who would side with him to annul a barren marriage and declared, in essence, that the English Church was simply put, English.
But Henry’s doctrine remained decidedly Catholic. In his “Six Articles”, he fully affirmed such Catholic doctrines as Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, clerical celibacy, and auricular confession.
The cleric who Henry chose to lead his English church was Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer became quite familiar with the Reformation in Europe and his doctrine was very much influenced by the Reformers. Cranmer proceeded to create a liturgy and a prayer book for England, in the native tongue. To do so, he borrowed from what he felt were the best liturgies of previous centuries, but he took pains to remove, over time, many of the elements of those liturgies that echoed the concerns of the Reformers. Eventually, a few central points of doctrine were summarized in what is now known as the 39 Articles of Religion.
Dr. Ashley Null, Ph.D. is an expert on Cranmer and was interviewed by an Evangelical Anglican website The Anglican Church League in Australia. He traces the gradual development of English Reformation:
"...the Homilies were the first liturgical change - and it was a clearly protestant change. Stephen Gardiner, the Bishop of Winchester, had no misunderstanding about what Cranmer was up to. He furiously objected to the Homilies precisely because they brought in justification by faith.
"The next year - 1548 - Cranmer made another small step toward changing the liturgy. He inserted a set of English prayers into the traditional Latin Mass about preparation, confession and other things. So now Sunday worship had both an English sermon and some English prayers.
"The next year - 1549 - Cranmer introduced a completely English Prayer Book. Although the eucharistic liturgy looked very much like the previous service, the objectionable elements of medieval sacrificial language and merit had been modified in keeping with the archbishop’s protestant beliefs.
"Three years later, after Cranmer had received suggestions on further changes for the next stage of liturgical renovation, the 1552 Prayer Book was produced. Its clearly protestant eucharistic service is just the natural progression from the protestant Homilies of 1547."
So by the time of the 1552 Prayer Book, the liturgy of the English church had a Protestant flavor and the then 42 Articles stated plain Protestant doctrine. The articles were reduced to 39 in 1563. If one compares the 39 Articles to the great Reformation confessions, the Westminster Confession, the Scots confession, the Belgic Confession for example, one finds that the issues addressed and the wording used are often nearly identical. The 39 articles retained reference to the three great creeds and accepted the three historic offices of Bishop, Prebyter and Deacon, and in that sense Anglicanism is catholic. But in many other aspects the Articles sound very Protestant and Evangelical.
The articles state that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." which of course echoes the Protestant cry “sola scriptura”. And “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
Regarding salvation, the articles clearly state that “we are justified by Faith only, …a most wholesome Doctrine” and that “…Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”
The articles were clear that the church of England did not consider the church of Rome to be the final authority in matters of faith, nor that the church of history was infallible “…As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”
Not only did the Articles affirm that the church of Rome had erred, it enumerated where the church of Rome had erred. “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” It was necessary to clarify, because of the particular sacramentalism of Rome, how the English church was to differ. Cranmer did not accept a view of the sacraments as “bare sign”, but neither did he allow them to be a magical force. The articles allowed for infant baptism and a form of baptismal regeneration, but not necessarily divorced from the larger context of salvation by faith.
Dr. Null is quoted as saying, "Cranmer rejected the medieval understanding of the priesthood. He did not believe that a priest, by virtue of his ordination, was made a special link between God and his people, so that the Holy Spirit worked through him during a sacrament as the principal means of dispensing divine grace to the people.
"In Cranmer’s understanding, the Holy Spirit came directly to God’s people through his Word. As Scripture was proclaimed, the Holy Spirit wrote his promises on the hearts of believers, thereby nurturing in them a living, personal faith which alone united them to God. That is the reason why Cranmer urged the English people to feed on Christ continually, because they could strengthen their union with Christ at any time simply by meditating on God’s Word in their own hearts.
"Therefore, in Cranmer’s mature understanding, the sacraments were not the principal means of grace. Nor were they a second, separate channel on par with Scripture, as if the Spirit worked supernaturally through two different, but parallel, means, i.e., the sacramental ministry of an apostolically ordained priesthood and biblical preaching. Cranmer’s final view was far simpler. Since the Holy Spirit came to God’s people through the Scriptures, the sacraments were effectual means of grace precisely because of their unique capacity for proclaiming the promises of God’s Word."
It has been my understanding that the lynchpin of the many issues the Reformers took issue with in regard to the Roman church was Transubstantiation. From the belief that the body of Christ is really and physically present in the miraculous change of bread and wine, came a number of “superstitions”. To Transubstantiation, the Articles addressed statements such as that the “presence” of Christ in the elements is real, but only “…to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ."
The Articles continue "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." ..."The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith."
And regarding the “superstitions”, the articles were explicit that “The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.” This means that Eucharistic adoration, procession of the elements on the feast of Corpus Christi, and other practices which flowed from Transubstantiation, were prohibited. “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.”
One further implication of Transubstantiation was that if the bread were miraculously changed into the physical substance of the Body of Christ, then unbelievers who ate the changed element, would be said to have received Christ. To this the Articles responded: "The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.”
Most importantly, the notion of Transubstantiation bolstered the idea that the Catholic mass was a propitiary sacrifice of Christ, re-offered to God by the priest. The 39 Articles directly refuted this concept: “The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
Most critical to the Reformers was the idea that Christ’s sacrifice is “once for all” over and against the their understanding of Catholic teaching at the time that the Mass was a propitiary re-sacrifice of Christ. It was clearly stated that “…He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world”
Others in the era of the English Reformation also took decidedly Protestant views.
John Cosin, Bishop of Durham 1594-1672 (Letter to the countess of Peterborough) denied “That the priests offer up our Saviour in the Mass, as a real, proper and propitiary sacrifice for the quick and the dead…” and denied “that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole substance of bread is converted into the substance of Christ’s body…” He Also denied “that there is a purgatory after this life”, that saints should be invocated, that relics ought to be worshiped, rejected indulgences, adoration of the eucharist, procession of the Eucharist on Corpus Christi day, giving Priests a paten and chalice at ordination as opposed to a Bible, clerical celibacy, and more.
One could add Lancelot Andrewes, 1555-1626, Bishop of Winchester, who in Responsio ad Apologiam Bellarmini wrote: “It is perfectly clear that Transubstantiation, which has lately been born in the last four hundered years, never existed in the first four hundred…” Andrewes would allow for a real presence in the Lord’s Supper, but left the matter undefined as to means. He continued that “Willingly we allow that a memory of the Sacrifice is made there. That your Christ made of bread is sacrificed there, we will not allow.”
Not all in the English church were happy with the Protestant shift in theology and practice. As is well known, the church lurched back in Catholic direction under Mary Tudor and back in a Protestant direction under Elizabeth. It is true that the final “Elizabethan settlement” made certain concession in language to avoid division with those of a more Catholic mind. The peace that followed allowed Catholic thinking and Protestant thinking to coexist for many centuries with relative peace.
But what cannot be denied is that the language and motivation of the English documents from 1549 to the 1662 book of common prayer and beyond was not only Protestant, but “evangelical”, in that salvation by faith and the final authority of scripture were unambiguously asserted. Nor can it be denied that what the Reformers saw as unbiblical innovations and abuses, not in accord with the scripture or the early church, specifically the mass as a sacrifice, was explicitly and emphatically rejected.
Today the Evangelical wing of the Anglican church will often refer to the 39 Articles as the essential summary of Anglican faith and practice. While holding to the Book of Common Prayer and other documents as well, they find the summary of the Articles the essence of “confessional Anglicanism”. Many Evangelical Anglicans, such as J.I. Packer, are sympathetic and cordial to the Anglo-Catholic wing. Others are decidedly opposed to those influences.
What are those influences and should they matter? To that question we will turn next....
No comments:
Post a Comment