The course of the Reformation in England was entirely different from what it was on the continent and in the countries of the North. Although the theologians who led the development there during its decisive phase were strongly influenced by the continental Reformers, the Church of England nevertheless received a unique character, both with respect to theology and polity. It is different from both the Lutheran and the Reformed church bodies.
King Henry VIII, whose political maneuvers freed England from the domination of the pope and led to the recognition of the king as the supreme head of the Church of England, was very conservative in theological matters. As a result, the opponents of the papal church in England, who were led by such churchmen as William Tyndale and Thomas Cranmer, were given very little room in which to operate. Tyndale, who is remembered for his translation of the Bible into English (1526), had met Luther and was impressed by his writings. He felt that the distribution of the English Bible was the best way to counteract the false beliefs of the Church of Rome. In his teachings about man and salvation Tyndale represented the conservative Lutheran and Augustinian point of view. Tyndale’s translation of the Bible was not appreciated in England, and he suffered a martyr’s death for his Reformation convictions (1536).
Thomas Cranmer, who became the primate of the Church of England in 1533, was the theological leader of the Reformation there. He stood behind the publication of the Book of Common Prayer (1549) and the Forty-two Articles of 1553 (later revised to the Thirty-nine Articles). In spite of the far-reaching concessions to traditional church life during the reign of Henry VIII, Cranmer nevertheless prepared the way for the Protestant breakthrough which took place under King Edward VI (1547–1553). With the assistance of Martin Bucer (see above, p.259) and others, the Book of Common Prayer was revised in such a way that it conformed more nearly to the Protestant position (the edition of 1552). The Forty-two Articles were linked to the confessional writings of the continent, not least of all to the Augsburg Confession, and were clearly distinguished thereby from the doctrinal position of the Church of Rome.
Cranmer felt that the doctrine of transubstantiation was the root of the heresy and superstition then found in the life of the church. In opposition to this doctrine, he set forth a concept of the Lord’s Supper which came very close to the Calvinist position. Since the Ascension, Cranmer said, the body of Christ is located in a certain place in heaven and cannot therefore be present in the bread at the Lord’s Supper. So when it is said that those who receive the Sacrament worthily and in faith “eat the body of Christ,” this must be understood as figurative language. It is a spiritual “eating,” which takes place exclusively by faith and can also take place apart from the Sacrament. To a large extent this was the view of the Sacrament which was later sanctioned in the Thirty-nine Articles. (Art. IV, XXVIII, XXIX; see below)
Thomas Cranmer, under whose aegis the Church of England developed into an independent episcopal church under royal supremacy, and who contributed much to the doctrinal position of this church body, was put to death in the Catholic reaction under “bloody” Queen Mary (1556). When face-to-face with his martyr’s death, he gave courageous proof of having strong principles, a quality which was often lacking in his ecclesiastical statesmanship.
During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603), the Church of England was consolidated for the most part in accordance with the orientation provided earlier by the Protestant churchmen. The Book of Common Prayer accepted in 1559 was in basic agreement with the evangelical edition of 1552. The Forty-two Articles were transformed into the Thirty-nine Articles in 1563. In this confessional document of the Anglican Church we find traces of dependence upon the evangelical Christianity of the continent as well as traces of Anglicanism’s own uniqueness and independence. The Holy Bible is said to include all that is necessary for salvation, so that nothing which does not have its source there can be forced on anyone as an article of faith. The Roman Catholic principle of tradition was thereby rejected. The apocryphal books were not accepted as a part of the canon and as a source of doctrine; the Old Testament apocrypha, however, were recommended for use in the churches, for teaching and guidance (Art. VI). With respect to original sin as the corruption of nature (Art. IX), and the inability of the will to believe and to do works that are pleasing to God (Art. X), the Anglican confessional position follows the strict Augustinian point of view, and it accepts the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Roman Catholic teaching about good works preceding justification as a meritum de congruo was repudiated in favor of the Augustinian view that all works apart from grace are sin (Art. XIII). Predestination is set forth as election to salvation. There is therefore no recognition of “double” predestination; the Calvinist doctrine on this point was carefully avoided (Art. XVII).
The church is defined (as in Augustine) as a fellowship of believers in which God’s pure Word is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered according to Christ’s command (Art. XIX). Authority is ascribed to the church both with respect to ceremonies and to doctrinal controversies. It may not, however, prescribe something contrary to the Scriptures, whose witness and preserver the church is. The traditions and ceremonies of the church are not thought of as having been given once and for all in the Bible; they may be altered from time to time. Every national church has the right, therefore, to change or to discard such ceremonies and rites, as long as such action does not violate Scripture. On the other hand, no individual has the right to change the traditions and ceremonies of the church on the basis of his own private judgment, as long as these are not opposed to God’s Word. (Art. XXXIV)
As indicated above, the Lutheran teaching of the ubiquity of Christ was excluded by the statements in Art. IV, and Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper was described in accordance with the following Calvinistic formulation: “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean[s] whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith.” (Art. XXVIII)
The Thirty-nine Articles affirm the supremacy of royal power over the Church of England. It is emphasized, however, that the king is not to concern himself with the service of the Word or the administration of the sacraments but only with the external control of the church. Under Elizabeth I the designation “Supreme Head” was changed to “Supreme Governor.”
The position adopted by the Anglican Church can be described as a course midway between Rome and Geneva. The “Elizabethan Settlement” in religious matters elicited opposition from two sources, from Roman Catholicism and from Puritanism. Against the former, John Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, wrote his Apology for the Church of England (1562). He emphasized the connection between the Anglican Church and the original church of the apostles. Rome, he said, condemned Protestantism at the Council of Trent without giving it a fair hearing. If the Protestants were actually heretical, they should have been overcome by appealing to the Scriptures.
The foremost leaders of the Puritan movement during the reign of Elizabeth, Thomas Cartwright and Walter Travers, had both resided in Geneva, where they had been impressed by Calvinist church polity. It was their desire to introduce Calvinist ideas into the government of the reorganized church in England. So the movement they represented was also called Presbyterianism, which referred to that branch of Puritanism which hoped to replace the power of the bishops in the Church of England with an authority exercised by consistories and synods, composed of pastors and elders. The Puritans did not want to recognize the episcopal system which had been established under Edward VI and Elizabeth I (the Established Church). The basic idea in the Presbyterian program was that the Holy Scriptures, as God’s Word, must provide the only source of guidance both for Christian conduct as well as for the ordinances and ceremonies of the church. Christians expect to find explicit instructions in the Bible which govern their actions in various situations, and by the same token it was felt that the Bible also provides a definite pattern for the organization of the church. It was also believed that this Scriptural church order was identical with the one formed on the basis of similar presuppositions in Geneva. It was, in principle, unchangeable, inasmuch as it was allegedly based on God’s Word.
Among those who opposed Cartwright was John Whitgift, later archbishop of Canterbury, who defended the existing church order. The church, said Whitgift, is free to adjust external ceremonies and practices according to the time and the circumstances; it is not obligated to follow an order given once and for all in the Scriptures.
The Presbyterian program was set forth in an anonymous writing on church discipline in 1574, written by Walter Travers, a pastor who later served in the legal school, “The Temple,” in London. There he engaged in a theological dispute with Richard Hooker, the Master of the Temple (and later pastor in Kent, d. 1600), who represented the Anglican position. As a result of his dispute with Travers, Hooker was prompted to examine the entire question of proper church order, which he did in a huge book, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. This famous work, the first five volumes of which appeared between 1594 and 1597, is unsurpassed as a learned and sagacious defense of the Anglican system. Hooker’s book, which is still used today as a standard work for the training of Anglican priests, is distinguished by its thorough analysis of the subject, its unfailing moderation, and its discrete judgments. It has exerted great influence also upon political thought in England.
It was clear to Hooker as well as to his opponents that church polity—like all human systems—must rest on divine authority. This is not to say, however, that church polity can be derived in every detail from Biblical instructions and examples. To seek a pattern for ecclesiastical ordinances and ceremonies in the Bible is to demand too much of it. The “perfection” of the Bible must be understood in terms of its designated purpose—to provide the knowledge which is necessary for human salvation. But a church order which is valid for all times cannot be derived from the Bible. The legal order which ought to exist in the church as well as in all human relationships rests on other ground. God has given man natural law, which coincides with the judgments of reason, and which provides man with an innate understanding of what is right and wrong. There is no one church order which is valid for all time; but the church, on the basis of Biblical examples and instructions, as well as on the basis of the wisdom expressed in tradition, must establish a reasonable form of church polity.
Hooker used the first four volumes of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity to present the essential basis of the Anglican position. In Vol. V he describes the actual development of the rites and ordinances of the church. Vols. VI, VII, and VIII were published long after Hooker’s death, and whether they are completely authentic is a much-disputed question. Hooker’s own position is reliably reflected only in the first five volumes.
The Presbyterians felt that the English state church was a compromise with Romanism, and they desired a “reformation of the Reformation.” They wanted to accomplish this purpose within the framework of the state church and in concert with the authorities. But some of the Puritans were more radical and wanted to carry out a reformation without depending on the state or the hierarchy. As they saw it, the Christian congregation (consisting only of the truly faithful) is the only governing power within the church. The “holy people” themselves represent the authority of Christ. As a result, each local congregation ought to attend to its own affairs by itself, without the interference of secular or ecclesiastical authorities. Laymen and clergy have different functions, but there is no difference of rank between them. This democratic ideal for the church—which is usually called Congregationalism or Independency—was outlined by Robert Browne, who fled to Holland in 1582 in order to escape persecution (but later rejoined the state church), and by Henry Barrowe, who suffered martyrdom in 1593 because of his Congregational convictions.
The Baptist Church in England, whose leader was a certain John Smyth, grew out of Congregationalism as a distinct, separatistic movement. The first Baptist congregation in England was founded by Thomas Helwys in 1612. (Smyth had organized a congregation in Amsterdam before this.) The English Baptists were related to the Anabaptists on the continent. They were distinguished among other things by their strong insistence on freedom of conscience and on religious tolerance. Religion was said to be a matter between God and the individual, and as a result the interference of the authorities could not be tolerated. Dissenters of all varieties rejected the Book of Common Prayer as well as the enforcement of a fixed, legally prescribed liturgy. This became one of the major points at issue between the Anglicans and the Nonconformists.
Anglican theology developed during the 17th century on the ground prepared by Richard Hooker in The laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. The question of church order played a prominent role in this development, just as it did in Hooker’s book. The individuality of the Anglican position became clear as a result of its struggle with Rome and, above all, with Puritanism. Its signature is a firm adherence to the episcopal tradition and the state church system, avoiding the extremes of both. In regard to ceremonies, the following words are found in the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer of 1662: “It has been the wisdom of the Church of England ever since the first compiling of her Publick Liturgy, to keep the mean between the extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting any variation from it.”
Chief among those who opposed Puritanism was William Laud (archbishop of Canterbury from 1633), who is well known for his unscrupulous use of power in the struggle to enforce conformity to church order. Theologically speaking, Laud dissociated himself not only from Puritanic polity but also from the strict Calvinism with which Puritanism was often related. He accepted the Arminian view of predestination and conceded a certain freedom in the doctrinal area, which he coupled with an implacable strictness in the observance of ritual. The Puritans, on the other hand, usually combined a strict observance of doctrine with freedom in regard to the order of worship.
The great revolution which struck England in the 1640s brought with it a radical alteration in the ecclesiastical situation. The Presbyterians dominated the scene first, during the era of the Long Parliament, and then the Independents took over during the Cromwell regime. William Laud was imprisoned and, after a lengthy trial, put to death in 1645. King Charles I, the foremost supporter of the Anglican Church, suffered the same fate in 1649. Both of these men, and not least of all King Charles, thought of themselves as martyrs for the Anglican Church, and many of their contemporaries agreed. The Restoration of 1660 did not bring about a settlement of the religious disputes (as many had hoped). Genuine Anglicanism gained the most from the Savoy Conference of 1661, which had been called to adjust ecclesiastical affairs, and the revised Book of Common Prayer of 1662 stands out as the conclusion of the development in which the uniqueness of Anglicanism was chiseled out in the face of a harsh fate and violent disputes with non-Anglicans. Among the many prominent Anglican theologians of the 17th century, attention is called (in addition to those already named) to James Ussher (d. 1656) and John Pearson (d. 1686). Pearson’s Exposition of the Creed is an exemplary example of Anglican dogmatic literature.
During the 17th century, Anglican theology departed further and further from the norms of orthodox Calvinism. Calvin was still highly thought of by the majority of the theologians, and a number of Anglicans participated in the Synod of Dort and accepted its strict position on predestination, but this was not the case as a rule. As we noted in speaking of William Laud, Arminianism exerted no small influence in English theology. Presbyterians dominated the Westminster Synod (1643), where the Westminster Confession was accepted. This doctrinal statement has been binding on the Presbyterian Church in England ever since. Most prominent among the Presbyterian theologians of this period was Richard Baxter, who is best known for his inspirational writings, which were circulated even in Lutheran areas (cf. The Saints’ Everlasting Rest, 1650). One of the unfortunate results of the ecclesiastical politics of the Restoration was that the Presbyterians were driven out of the Anglican state church to make common cause with the Independents. This development served to widen the social and theological gap between the Anglicans and the Presbyterians. After the Glorious Revolution (1688–89) no less than 400 Anglican clergymen refused, for reasons of principle, to swear allegiance to the new king, William III, who was not, in their view, legally enthroned. These “nonjurors” were relieved of their offices, and the church was weakened as a result. This became particularly noticeable in the church’s confrontation with deism and other rationalistic tendencies in the years that followed.
Among the more radical Puritans of the age were the poet John Milton (Paradise Lost, 1667), and John Bunyan (a Baptist; Pilgrim’s Progress, 1678), whose names ought to be remembered also in connection with 17th-century English theology.
No comments:
Post a Comment