Canons Ecclesiastical 1604

Bishop Bancroft. Head commissioner of 1604 Canons

Anglican formulas have suffered a number of erroneous assertions regarding their confessional application and breadth. The idea that Anglicanism is characterized by ‘temperament’ ( i.e.,  silence upon controversial points, avoidance of party disputes,  classical tenets of faith treated ‘indifferently’, etc ) rather than ‘confession’ is an imprint carried over from the late Hanoverian reign of latitudinarianism.  At times it is surprising how liberal polemics creep themselves into otherwise conservative Anglican apologetics.  Looking particularly at the 1604 Canon we find the Articles of 1562 indeed possess a binding quality for both clergy and laity, albeit in different ways.

Minister Censures:
The Jacobean canons essentially carried over the same discipline given by Tudor monarchs. Within them we find canon 36 which reasserts the subscriptionism of Whitgift’s 1583 Three Articles: “No person shall be received into the Ministry…nor suffered to preach, to catechize, to be a Lecturer or Reader” without rendering an ex animo oaths with respect to the King’s canonical Supremacy, the 1562 Articles of Religion, and 1559 Prayer Book, “avoiding all ambiguities”.  Together these three standards described the Church of England’s primitivism, removing all novelties from her faith and order. Hence, the Articles (with the other formulae) not only proclaim and guard the Creeds and Councils of the first five centuries, but they also refute peculiar Roman and Anabaptist errors by the same reason. The question, therefore, is not if the length of the 39 Articles binds conscience, but if the particular points found therein gird and prove the catholic faith?

“Length” was no more an indication of catholicity than the prolixity of the RCC today or the Genevan of 1536. Genevan confessions, irrespective of length (Calvin’s version was only 21 points long), might be criticized for inviting interpretations more typical of Zurich’s extreme iconoclasm. In contrast, the 39 Articles uphold catholic faith by approving the ancient traditions of the church. Regardless, all public ministers—whether clergy or professors—were indeed required to give unfeigned assent to a confession, and, in England, the violation of canon 36 resulted in revocation of preaching license for one-year if not deposition and excommunication.

Lay Penalties:
While confessions were primarily intended for clergy and public teachers, laity were introduced to their principles by way of catechism and sermon. Although the 39 Articles never determined inclusion in communion (or any other sacrament in the Prayer book), it did provide an implicit framework for worship which men either endured or gave their  “amen”—be it the liturgy of the BCP, the substance of divers sermons, or more advanced expositions upon the catechism. Wardens and vestry sidemen could file complaints against recidivist lay members who missed worship. Nor could members  neglect the sending of children or servants to catechism at evening prayer (without pain of suspension or excommunication–canon 59). While lay people were never asked to subscribe to Articles, obedience to subscribing ministers (and their teaching function) was norm.

Perhaps the real difference between lay and clergy was laity was the difference in ‘heartfelt assent’. Where laity disagreed, they ought to remain publicly silent. The 1604 canons forbade laity to impugne Articles in private gatherings, chapels, or university (etc.). Those who spoke against the Articles not only gave answer to the scrutiny of ecclesiastical officials but stood chance (by canon 27) of excommunication (which often accompanied loss of civil rights) along with the brand of “schismatic”. Consequently, Anglican restrictions were very similar to the Genevan codes. Regarding the status of the 39 Articles, Canon 5 said,

“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That any of the nine and thrity Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergy, in the Convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord God one thousand five hundred sixty-two, for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of  consent touching true Religion, are in any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with good conscience subscribe unto; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but only by the Archbishop, after his repentance, and publick revocation of such his wicked errors.”

Democratic ideals led to the eventual dismantlement of the England’s Protestant or Erastian system of tiered liberties and rights. Nonetheless, the canons testify to a confessional nature, from 1571 to 1865, where clergy subscribed and lay people passively received. The penalties and enforcement of these standards were little different from Calvinist churches, but unlike other Protestant realms, the substance of English formulae clung close to primitive, true religion. This was not according to ‘liberal temperament’ or ‘democratic compromise’ but by the great esteem and knowledge of both antiquity and scripture amongst English divinity.

Catechism of Perseverance

Bishop Overall revised 1604 Short Catechism

Perhaps longer Catechisms have a troubled history in Anglicanism? Their absence certainly is not due to any penchant for ambiguity or aversion to scientific theology.  Early catehcisms, like Necessary Doctrine, were established, as Henry says, for “the abolition of controversy”. Their intent was not only to educate baptismal candidates but also clergy. The 1928 BCP short catechism (probably the longest of the Anglican short catechisms) has kept traction, especially amongst Anglo-Catholics, but the longer varieties seem to have fallen by the wayside, where length is identified with ‘puritanism’.  There are a number of Anglican Longer Catechisms which not only prove valuable for seminary students but nurture growing faith by expounding questions sprouting from baptismal and eucharistic creeds.

Binding Standards Together:
Catechisms, both short and long, have an earlier history in England than most Anglicans suspect. The first Anglican catechism was the 1537  Bishop’s Book, and this, in some sense, was partly owed to Henry’s 1521 Defense of the Seven Sacraments contra Luther. Not only this, but the ordering of catechetical subject-matter came from medieval primer which Henry reformed from 1535-1545. The 1543 King’s Book reconciled some of these differences. The Henrician period is often viewed as archetypical catholic, yet during Henry’s reign three Larger Catechisms were published. After Henry’s death, Cranmer’s 1548 Shorter Catechism carried forward Henrician doctrine with the exception of replacing transubstantion with a moderate Realism. Nonetheless, it was enough to justify suppressing carnality in the Mass.

Binding Catechisms together with various other standards was not uncommon–their combinations illustrating the intertextuality of Anglican thought. The 1536 Ten Articles were included in Henry’s Great Bible. The 1553 Convocation continued the same, binding together Poynet’s Larger Catechism with Cranmer’s 42 Articles (see first chapter, Edward VI’s Catechism). Once Geneva bibles began to arrive in England (with Calvin’s catechism inside, sic. 1560), English Bishops reciprocated. In 1562 Elizabeth restored Henry’s project, commissioning Nowell’s Larger Catechism along with Appointed Bibles (the Bishop’s Bible). In 1578 the Articles, Jewel’s Apology, and Nowell’s Catechism was proposed to be printed in single volume. Thus, the idea of binding standards together is not new. Indeed, as Fr. John Hollister notes, the BCP itself binds together several books that were originally separate,

“Allied to this is the concept that the set of covers we are accustomed to think of as “the Book of Common Prayer” actually binds together several books that were historically distinct: a Breviary (the “Common Prayer”); a Missal; a Psalter; a Manual (for the various other services that a Priest normally takes, such as Baptism, Matrimony, Burial, etc.); a Pontificial (for the various services that only a Bishop takes, such as the Ordinal, Confirmation, Institution of a Rector, Consecration of a Church, etc.); and the remnants of a Primer (the “Family Prayer” section in the 1928 BCP)”. Continuum Blog, Sept. 18 2007

King James commissioned Bishop Overall to close discrepencies in subject-matter between larger and shorter catechism by adding a section on sacraments.  Against Puritan wishes, Overall purposely preserved the brevity of Cranmer’s cacheticism,  admitting tenderness for confirmands by not “taxing withal the number of ignorant Catechisms [as] set out in Scotland”. Even with additions Overall’s catechism remained shorter even than medieval primers. Nonetheless, while shorter catechism was used for mostly for children, the larger catechism alongside the Articles continued mandatory for “public ministers”– those liable to teach or touch doctrine by courts of law or elected office (thus university grads were compelled to subscribe, pledge assent, etc.).

Prayer Book Usage:
Percy Dearmer’s Parson Handbook has an entire chapter devoted to frequent catechizing. Catechism is treated as a regular part of Anglican public worship. Percy makes two very important points. First, Catechism is a liturgical. The Prayer Book requires it not only every Sunday and Holy Days (if possible) as part of Common Worship but exclusive to the end of Evening Prayer, “The Minister of every Parish shall diligently, upon Sundays and Holy Days, or on some other convenient occasions, openly in the Church, instruct or examine”. Evening catechism comes from the Injunction. When these were neglected, the habit of Sunday School thereby arose, introduced by  Methodists for want of Anglican clergy performing their duties.

“Canon 59 not only insists upon this catechism on Sundays and Holy-days, and orders parents and master to send those in their charge, but also orders the Bishop to inflict excommunication, for a third offence, on any Minister that neglects his duty therein…The prayer book knows nothing of Sunday schools, which became a necessity owing to the want of ‘diligence’ on the part of the clergy… One lesson of the rubric is the main part of the teaching should be given by the clergy, whose duty it is to become experts in catechizing, and not by Sunday-school teachers, who in the nature of things are not generally experts”.

The later 1604 injunction ran the same:

‘Item: That ye shall every Sunday and Holy Day throughout the year openly and plainly recite to your parishioners, twice or thrice together, or oftener, if need require, one particle or sentence of the Pater Nosier, or Creed in English, to the intent that they may learn the same by heart: and so from day to day to give them one little lesson or sentence of the same, till they have learned the whole Pater Nosier and Creed in English, by rote, And as they be taught every sentence of the same by rote, ye shall expound and declare the understanding of the same unto them, exhorting all parents and householders to teach their children and servants the same, as they are bound in conscience to do. And that done, ye shall declare unto them the Ten Commandments, one by one, every Sunday and Holy Day, till they be likewise perfect in the same.”

Second, Percy advises Catechism not only for young people but also matured communicants. Deeper expositions of catechetical faith, which Percy calls, the “Catechisms of Perseverance”, ought not be avoided. This, perhaps, is where medium and longer catechisms have purpose, suggesting not only spiritual nurture for those after Confirmation, but additional clerical self-discipline and education. Dearmer says,

“Indeed, the strict interpretation of the rubric can be carried out with excellent results by making a ‘catechism of perseverance’ of those young men and women who have passed through the ordinary catechism– the members of this catechism of perseverance can come to Evensong, sit in the front seats near the pulpit, take notes, and write analyses; and, when it is well established, questions of an intelligent nature might well be put to the members…these young people (the ‘servants and prentices’ of the rubric) round the pulpit would tend to keep the parson from our besetting sin of ‘talk’, and, at the same time, his instructions would be quite up to the level of the older members of the congregation, and — he would have to prepare his work carefully.”

Liturgical Nature:
Dearmer believes the restoration of England’s faith hinges upon careful observance of prayer book rubrics and prayer. Catechism is liturgical. Whether bound or not, shorter and longer versions are implicitly part of the Prayer Book. The Offices of Instruction were included in the 1928 Prayer Book for with post-confirmandees in mind. Notice the extra appendage not in the short Catechism regarding the polity of church and her bishops. Not only are both An Instruction and Catechism tied into Evening Prayer but also many collects specific to perseverance. Hall says, “the Church Catechism has the double value of embodying officially expressed teaching, and of containing language which once effectually memorized, will grow in meaning with the increase of the learner’s years and experience”. Liturgical repetition for years before confirmation (Bishop visitations seldom were frequent) enabled memorization. The overall idea is for the church to produce men–by public prayer, preaching, and sacrament– not only capable of intellectually comprehending and living their baptism but, as Grafton says in his chapter on sacraments, to produce “soldiers for Christ”. For Hall this cycles back into apologetics, retention, and mission.

“But the mental preparation thus prescribed is only the beginning of a Christian layman’s religious education, which should be continued under cempetent and orthodox teachers, pari passu, and in intelligible connection, with his secular education. The reasons for this are threefold. In the first place, one cannot cease to advance in religious knowledge without gradually losing vital hold upon what he has previously learned– a law observable in every sphere of education…Thirdly, with advancing years and widening experience many religious problems come to the fore, both theoretical and practical, which require for successful handling a more mature religious education than can be received during the years of childhood. Many instances of falling away from true religion are due to the fact that religious knowledge is so generally neglected by professed Christians. Because of this neglect they are quite unable to discern the obvious fallacies of the anti-Christian and anti-catholic arguments which eager controversialists thrust upon their attention. They readily become victims of secular and critical propaganda, and are lost to the Church of God…To be an intelligent Christian one must have learned why he is a Christian and Churchman. He must know what his churchmanship involves in faith and practice”

Articles and Larger Catechism are dubbed ‘puritanical’ or ‘precisionist’. The want of definition is often requested by liberal and Papist. While Puritan confessions often represent the worst and most crude of biblicist prejudice, doctrine expounded by necessary deduction or ‘scientific’ rigor (original languages and logic) is not uncatholic. Indeed, the Creeds themselves arose on the same basis as confessions– i.e., to silence heresy– and, in so far as this is true, they are likewise ”negative definitions’. Also, like the Creeds, confessional statements build upon one another (e.g., from Trinity to Christology to incarnation to atonement, etc.). If we understand our homilies, prayer book, catechisms, articles (etc.) as based soundly upon ancient Creeds (and vice-versa), then how can we say neither Articles nor long Catechisms are Liturgical (no less so than the Athanasian…?).  JI Packer pointedly remarks,

“Theologically, and in terms of themselves, both have the same nature. For the creeds are confessions of Christ against views that in some way deny Him, just as the Reformation statements are; and the Reformation statements are standards of evangelical orthodoxy, just as the ecumenical creeds are. Both exist to safeguard and express the unity and purity of Christian faith against the depredations of heresy. Both were formally received in the church as means of discharging the church’s responsibility to proclaim and preserve the gospel. The basic relation between the creeds and confessions is not one of contrast, but of continuity and development: the confessions supplement the creeds by drawing out the soteriology which they imply, just as the Athanasian Creed supplemented the Nicene, and the Nicene the Apostles’, by amplified statements on the Trinity and incarnation.” (The Thirty-Nine Articles, Latimer Press)

In a similar apology regarding the fundamental nature of Articles to Creed, Rev. R. Meredith notes,

I noted earlier that it is completely wrong­headed to divorce the Thirty-Nine Articles from their im­mediate context, the Prayer Book. This is an important consideration, for the Prayer Book states clearly its com­mit­ment to the three Creeds:  The Apostles, Nicene, and Atha­­nas­ian.  This is germane to the present discussion, for the Articles follow very closely with The Creeds. Just as all three Creeds begin by con­fessing the Trinity, so the Thirty-Nine articles begin the same way. In fact, the first five Articles are essentially a restatement of the Church’s con­fessional standards. But why is this so important? It is important because one of the chief strengths of the Thirty-Nine Articles is their firm grounding in the tradition of the Church: a tradition which is rooted in her understanding of The Holy Scrip­tures. It is a strong point, for it states for us clearly that the Protestant Churches’ under­stand­ing of Sola Scriptura was never meant to undermine or ignore tradition. This is a concept that needs hearing today as perhaps never before. A proper view of tradition is necessary as a weapon against postmodern thought, and is a necessary corrective for those who would twist Scripture beyond the bounds of its historical inter­pre­tations.

Catholic?
Ecumenicalism with both East and Rome has done much damage. Often we engage it from very weak and self-castigating positions, asymmetrically enjoining ‘foreign’ episcopates (as the Supremacy Oath would call them) without a sense of our own identity. Identity is not reducible to ornament but more importantly is the faith received by a distinct patrimony shaped by history, race, law, custom, and language (see Bicknell on Article 34). Our grievances and prohibitions against both Roman idolatry and Protestant enormity is irrevocably part and parcel. While we tie our hands behind our back, the latter come in the ring slinging rather bare-fisted. With respect to foreign episcopates both East and Rome have their really massive Longer Catechisms.  Rome’s established hers under Pope Pius V in parallel with the Reformation. The present-day RC longer catechism is, of course, 72 Article tomb which even catechumens study. Even the Orthodox, who hide in mystic silence, have Longer and Shorter catechisms. Here is the 1823 Longer Russian Orthodox Catechism.

All this reminds me of Bp. Grafton who flattered St. Tikhon in vain hopes of someday winning ecclesialistical recognition. Grafton was sorely disappointed when Tikhon held firm to Cyprian ecclesiology, chrismating an English priest against Grafton’s pleas. Read about this rather obscure yet important affair between Tikhon  & Grafton here.

Next: 1604 Canons

Article on Freewill

The Fall

An earlier post on Necessary Doctrine made some general statements about Henrican theology. I’d like to recap two points. First, the early date of clerical subscription was as early as 1536,  followed by the Catechism in 1538. The intent of catechism, bible, and articles teaching together was a continuous feature of Settlement, beginning with Henry. Second, Henry’s theology, even in the mid-1530′s, was ‘reformed’ (Augustinian). The Henrican view of God’s grace began to theologically impact Worship, first, with respect to saints and, by Edward’s reign, vulgarities in the Mass.  Henrican Catechisms and Articles were not merely ‘negative statements’ but were tied to matters of ceremony, each connected to the same doctrine of salvation. In this respect, Henrican theology offers a system of thinking, centered on the idea of ‘justification’. A high treatment of grace does not downplay sacrament but extols dependence on the very means instituted by Him.

Insufficiency of Man’s Will:

Anglicanism was careful not to depart from antique teaching. Henry, no less than Elizabethan Articles, refuted Calvin’s ‘irresistible grace’. Anglicanism indeed taught man might resist grace (article 16). That being said, it is also true by Anglican theology that man is not saved by ‘freewill alone’ (sola arbitrium). Man has an inability to turn to God unless working with grace. A preventing grace is thus required to free man’s will from original corruption, so man might then desire God’s generous help and benefit. The thirty-nine articles plainly say regarding this ”preventing’ grace:

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will. (Article 10)

Necessary Doctrine is of the same accord. While Henry defines freewill as “a certain power of will joined with reason whereby a reasonable creature, without constraint in things of reason, discerneth and willeth good and evil”. Freewill, here, is being being spoken in terms of its facticity. It remains a positive reality even if its power is diminished– like the existence of the sun on a cloudy day– and despite the Fall it remains active. Yet sin taints the working of Reason and Will, infecting both in such a way that these powers are in a decayed or injured state. Though not depraved by absolute degree (mankind may still render righteous civil works), the post-lapsarian situation of man has run upon the rock of Scylla, unable to approach the shore of the highest good, namely the true worship and joy of God (Rom. 1:20-23). Therefore, man’s guilt continues, his wickedness not forced from outside by an ‘evil divinty’ but springing from within his own heart which both commits sin and is the cause of sin. The 1543 Catechism says throughout:

“the high power of man’s reason and freedom of will were wounded and corrupted, and all men thereby brought into such blindness and infirmity, that they cannot eschew sin, except they be illumned and made free to espeical grace, that is to say, by a supernatural help and working of the Holy Ghost” (p. 360)

“…while a certain freedom of will in those things which do pertain to the desires and works of this present life, yet to perform spiritual and heavenly things, freewill of itself is insufficient” (p. 360)

“We conclude that freewill is in man after his fall; which thing whoso denieth is not a catholic man: but in spiritual desires and works to please God, it is so weak and feeble, that it cannot either begin or perform them, unless by the grace and help of God it prevented and helpen” (p. 361)

“…it followeth, that freewill, before it may will or think any godly thing, must be holpen by the grace of Christ, and by his Spirit be prevented and inspired, that it may be able thereto: and being so made able, may from thenceforth work together with grace” (p. 361)

Thus, a preventing grace not fully dependent upon man is necessary. It is that first justification/grace which inclines man to choose life contrary to sin whereupon both Reason and Will are renewed for the purposes of cooperation, not enemity, with God, “It is surely the grace of God only that first we be inspired and moved to any good thing: but to resist temptations, and to persist in goodness and go forward, it is both of the grace of God and of our freewill to endeavor” (p. 362).

The Henrican catechism suggests this first justification establishes a ‘Higher’ Reason, making a greater liberty possible. This explains the priority both Hooker and 18th century divines (like William Law) gives Reason. Upon preventing grace Reason finds new/higher power, giving deliberation greater clarity and light so men know solace and truth in what God offers, being inclined choice yet not overpowered.  The increased power of Reason and Will is what is meant by this ‘assistance’. But, while preventing Grace is the first cause of justification, it remains man’s liberty to finally choose what has been better given/revealed. The 1543 Article of Justification says,

“albeit God is the principal cause and chief worker of this justification in us, without whose grace no man can do no good thing, but following  his freewill in the state of a sinner, increaseth his own injustice, and mulitplieth his sin; yet so it pleaseth the high wisdom of God, that man, prevented by his grace, (which being offered, man may if he will refuse or receive,) shall be also a worker by his free consent and obedience to the same, in the attaining of his own justification, and by God’s grace and help shall walk” (p.365)

The inability of man to work out his salvation alone, though he might refuse it, mandates the sacramental life. Henry VIII reminds backsliding Christians when they fail by their own infirmities (as they often do), to seek Christ where His pledge is found,  ”And when they do feel nothwithstanding their diligence, yet through their own infirmity they be not able to do that they desire, then they ought earnestly, and with a fervant devotion and steadfast faith, to ask of him, which gave the beginning, that he would vouchsafe to perform it: which thing God will undoubtedly grant, according to his promise, to such as persevere in calling upon him” (p. 362).

The ‘beginning’ is not the secret will of God. We have no sure comfort there. It is the sacraments whereby we first come into God’s House.  In the Article on Justification Henry advises the manner men ought to recover ‘their estate of justification’ if they continue to sin, “to arise by penance, wherein proceeding in sorrow and much lameentation for our sins, with fasting, alms, prayer, adn doing all such things, at the least in true purpose and will, as God requireth of us, we must have a sure trust and confidence in the mercy of God” (p. 366).

The mercy of God is not evidently found in predestination, but penance whereby we return to the nourishment of Christ.  Christ knows our frailties (even the incompleteness of Reason) and so provides visible and audible signs of Himself for our peace. We find these in the sacraments and ministry of the Church where the promise of forgiveness explicitly offered.

Boldly Saying:

While freewill corrects the ‘enormities’ of “irresistible grace”, the other extreme– man’s will alone (“sola arbitrium”)– is equally resisted. If man was capable of desiring Christ without assistance, glory would be given to fallen nature not heaven. And where does fallen man find the heavenly Lord except through the church? It is the church which Christ speaks and acts through by which He shows His death and life. Without preventing grace man might rely upon natural strength, aka. ”spiritualism”, rather than religion or ecclesiology. Augustine, therefore, offers a rather indispensable view of the ‘church’, basing it on justification, explaining why men turn, need, and depend upon God’s graces within sacraments rather than lonely cells. Augustine was the theologian of the cathedral while Cassian gave logic to the ordeal of the cenobium. The insufficiency of the Will requires men to seek assistance in the sacraments which is where the Promise is made visible. Grace and sacrament is therefore bound together, and not torn apart unless men seek confidence in something other than the ‘signs’ instituted by Christ. The Henrican catechism finishes the Article on Freewill warning clergy,

“All men be admonished and chiefly preachers, that this high matter they be looking on both sides, so attemper and moderate themselves, that neither they so preach the grace of God, that they take away thereby free will, nor on the other side so extol freewill, that injury be done to the grace of God” (p. 363)

There was once a time Anglicanism was certain of itself. Today it is too rare to hear doctrines of grace proclaimed like Hooker who said of England’s theology, the CofE possessed the surest, safest, and most perfect means for salvation. Henrican catechisms do not shy from the same exceptionalism,  ”this book containeth a perfect and sufficient doctrine…a declaration of true knowledge… a true exposition of the scriptures and true doctrine…a true understanding of that which is necessary for every Christian man to know, for the ordering of himself and his life” (pp. 216, 218), etc.

What do Anglo-Catholics today consider most ‘distinctive’ contra Rome? Is it, for example, language or jurisdiction– sic., “english-speaking lands”? Anglicana‘s wonder was not style but the content of instruction and preaching. Anglicanism once boasted the surest catholic system of theology, learnedness, and ministry since apostolic times. It was greater than both Rome and Constantinople.  Original sin, Freewill, and God’s grace joyously rung from the halls of England, pouring forth upon colonies and ‘english speaking’ lands. Her doctrine is not reduced to style but indeed offered the purest and most certain way of salvation.

Anyway, with regard to Elizabethan theology, as it is found in the 1562 Articles, it is not a distant faith but reiteration of the basic tenets of Henry. Henry is not ‘counter-reformation’ or a ‘retraction’ with respect to Anglicana‘s own (Vincentian)  development of doctrine. There is a rejection of supererogation, merit, and congruity before justification. A rather high grace view. Yet predestination is avoided and grace treated synergestically. Augustinian and Aquianus notions of first cause are kept. We might wonder if the Settlement’s formative period was indeed Henry’s life, dating back to the 1530′s, rather than Edward’s reign or the return of the exiles after Mary’s betrothal?

Necessary Doctrine and Erudition

Bishop John Stokesley

The 1543 English catechism, known as the King’s Book, officially titled A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, often is described as reversing the England’s move toward Protestantism. However, earlier formularies, be it the 1537 Bishop’s catechism or Ten Articles, have no fundamental disagreement with Henry’s alleged Romanism. This is more apparent when Protestant confessions are understood as possessing two ‘sorts of laws’ (as Hooker might say)—those dealing with church order vs. doctrine. The King’s book, like the Ten Articles which it is based upon, maintains this necessary difference, and, while it remains stubborn against certain Protestant views (namely, the Mass), it is consistent with the development of earlier English thought. Hopefully, a study on Necessary Doctrine will not only show the early date of English Confessionalism, but also how Protestant/Evangelical ideas were fundamental to Henrican ceremony.

Two Sorts of Articles:

Early catechisms provided sound teaching for both lay and clergy, clarifying both doctrine and order in light of Rome (‘superstitions and hypocrisy’) and Wittenburg (‘enormities’),

“forasmuch as the heads and senses of our people have been embusied, and in these days travailed with the understanding of freewill, justification, good works, and praying for souls departed; we have by the advice of our clergy, for the purgation of erroneous doctrine, declared and set forth openly, plainly, and without ambiguity of speech the mere and certain truth in them” (p. 215-6, Lloyd).

A ‘middle path’ between Romanism and Lutheranism was not pursued by Henry. By the mid-1530′s the Church of England was already, reasonably ‘reformed’, absorbing what New Learning was consistent with catholic-augustinian teaching. Henrican divines  then debated the extent the new emphasis on Augustine would alter medieval ceremony and sacraments. The disputation between AB Cranmer and Bp. Stokesley proved royal favor for the Archbishop. But the Catholic party, led by Gardiner, convinced Henry to retain a number of practices which frustrated Lutheran opinion– namely, Eucharistic concomitance, annihilation of the bread, and private Mass. Gardiner’s influence was felt in the Six articles which terminated Lutheran-Anglican conferences.  English confessions of the 1530’s generally reflect this conservative gravity, but none are ‘regressive’ in the sense of rolling back Augustinian soteriology. Only later would Augustinian doctrines implicate the medieval mass, but this did not begin until after Henry’s death.

Yet Henrican theology maintained a steady tension between Reformed (here called Augustinian) doctrine and catholic worship, insisting upon Justification throughout. Justification makes its first debut with respect to ceremony where Articles are divided into  ‘two sorts’– those owing to faith and those for rites. This is a crucial point. The church of Rome treated ceremony as part of an infallible oral tradition, sometimes equated to ‘peter’s keys’, no less authoritative than scripture. Instead, Henry begins the task of distinguishing rites instituted by Christ, for the remission of sin (like baptism), versus those established by the Church for edification. The latter are good works.  In relation to ceremony, the division is the kernel of justification. Nonetheless, Henry was reluctant to apply the same distinctions to the Mass.  Later English confessions continued with the logic of ‘two sorts of articles’ (see Articles XX, XXXIV). Regarding these ‘two sorts’, the Preamble to the Ten Articles instructs:

“the Articles be divided into two sorts; whereof the one part containeth such as commanded expressly by God, and be necessary to our salvation; and the other containeth such things as have been of a long continuance for a decent order and honest policy, prudently instituted and used in the churches of our realm, and be for that same purpose and end to be observed and kept accordingly, although they be not expressly commanded of God, nor necessary to our salvation” (p. 244, Hardwick)

Here is the influence of Cranmer and the New Learning, where good works are distinguished from grace, “all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people committed by us to their spiritual charge, that this word justification signifieth remission of our sins, and our acceptation or reconciliation into the grace and favor of God, that is to say our perfect renovation in Christ” (p. 253). Though justification is accomplished by “contrition and faith joined with charity”, it is not as though, “contrition, or faith, or any works proceeding thereof, can worthily merit or deserve to attain the said justification: for the only mercy and grace of the Father promised freely unto us for his Son’s sake Jesus Christ, and the merits of the blood and passion, be the only sufficient”.

Justification ends that portion of the Articles regarding true faith. The next section, ‘laudable ceremonies in the church’ bear out the former’s  implications. Interestingly, the Articles do not abolish catholic worship (like the enormities of Lutherans or Zwinglians), but, instead, clarify their use and nature in light of Christ’s finished work. Whether speaking of images, statues, prayers to saints, or rites attached to certain holy days, the Articles repeatedly teach none “have power to remit sin, but only to stir and lift up our minds unto God, by whom only our sins be forgiven”. (p. 155-158, Fuller). Roman practices and rites (outside the sacraments) are given their proper place, putting  ”us in remembrance of those spiritual things that they do signify, not suffering them to be forgotten, or to be put in oblivion, but renewing them in our memories from time to time” (p. 158, Fuller). Thus, creeping the cross, rosaries, ashes, and icons, etc. are memorials, subject to church order/discipline, or as Hooker names it “convention” (adiaphora). They are retained according to four precepts.

Subscriptionism:

Amongst Protestants, the English Reformation was remarkable for preserving medieval rites (i.e., Sarum), and, while shrines or monasteries were leveled (see articles XIV and XXIV)’, many other rubrics and customs were kept for the sake of peace, unity, and order, “that all things should be done seemly and in order, and hath beautified and set forth by distinction of ministers and offices the same church” (p. 217, Lloyd). For Henry, this meant keeping fair relations with neighboring Monarchs and their provincial churches (law of nations or ‘the religion of the prince is the faith of the realm’)– namely the German Emperor, Charles V. Nor acting overly favorable to the Lutherans while looking forward to possible reconciliation with Rome at the proposed 1537 council of Mantua. Ritualism also meant a liturgical continuity and aesthetic to the immediate past, i.e., the english medieval church, upon whom most churchmen were sentimentally attached. This, along with a strong catholic party of bishops, gave the CofE its conservative tone.

In its day, separation from the Pope had major theological and salvic implications. The Roman ‘magisterium’ was re-evaluated according to scripture, creeds, and four councils (“four holy councils, that is to say, in the council of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and all other since that time in any point consonant to the same”, p. 146, Fuller). And, while disagreement always existed over the extent ceremony and tradition should be negotiated, there was at least an Anglican consensus on their relation to preventing grace. Emerging ‘orthodoxy’ was institutionalized during the 1530′s, subscription first required by the Oath of Supremacy 1534 and then the Ten Articles in 1536 which said,

“…unity in the church of England, which we most desire, we have caused the same to be published, willing, requiring and commanding you to accept, repute, and take them accordingly…And for because we would the said articles, and every of them, should be taken and understen of you, after such sort, order and degree, as appertaineth accordingly, we have cause by the like assent and agreement of our said bishops” (p. 143, Fuller)

As disagreement on the extent Sacraments ought to be purified flared, Article subscription for clergy became more rigorous. The problem separating laudable ceremonies (indifferent) from doctrines of grace (essentials) are such categories do not neatly divide. Both Puritans and Disciplinarians realized this as they sought to change Injunctions, e.g., bowing toward the altar has theological significance, “the law of prayer is the law of belief”. Justification, if consistently grasped, necessitates a kind of RPW over sacraments. How far does this go? Historical Anglican canons have tried to define it given circumstances of various parties.

After Henry’s death, Edward VI’s Protector allowed Cranmer to finally reform of the Mass—introducing communion in both kinds, the liturgy in English, and amending the Eucharist prayer to fit ‘Philipist’ (Variata) views. The 1549 BCP was the culmination of Henrican theology (not excluding saints, prayers for the dead, and high view of the sacramental bread) while the 1552 book represented Cranmer’s deference to Swiss opinion. Elizabeth reconciled the two prayer books as well as earlier Articles and Injunctions, adopting a reformed faith with Henrican ornaments. In retrospect, Cranmer won England’s liturgy while Gardiner won her aesthetic.

Final Remarks for Anglo-Catholics:

Anglo-Catholicism had its origin in Prayer Book conformity, reinstituting the fullness of the 1662 Ornaments Rubric. But missed by Anglo-Catholics is the evangelical theology Henrican worship is rooted upon. Without Justification, the entire Henrican edifice (supremacy and mutable ceremony) fall into clutches of Roman Tradition, and it is Henrican worship (defined by 1538 Injunctions– the nucleus to 1604 canons) which best suit Anglo-Catholicism . Henry’s reign is perhaps more formative than even Elizabeth, and the 1559-1571 settlement ought to be viewed as a defense of Henry’s articles, catechism, and injunctions. A re-reading of the henrican formulas, particulary Necessary Doctrine and the Institution, should answer two pressing questions:

1. What is our rationale or defense for the Affirmation of St. Louis vis-a-vis classical Anglicanism as best defined by the 39 Articles? Rather than simply dismiss the 39 Articles, the 1530 standards explain how the Elizabethan settlement and Necessary Doctrine (seven sacraments) are congruent, not contrary. We can do this without the casuistry of Newman?
2. Can a movement that knows the importance of Reformed Catholic worship bridge evangelical and catholic parties? Old High Churchmen like Laud (aka. disciplinarians) upgraded England’s sacramental life without overthrowing either the foundation or nature of Anglicanism. The absence of Justification in catholic Anglican worship ultimately determines our ecumenicalism (which in turn defines our patrimony)– do we cross the Tiber, Bosporous, or the Thames.

A great discussion amongst Continuuers regarding our Anglicanism was had here, “Avoiding In-House Extremism“. The next few articles will hopefully explore Henrican catechist treatment on seven sacraments vs. ‘new learning’. Until then, I hope to post some snippets exploring the Anglican primer, either here or at the Thames River Beach Party. I will also be working on articles for a local Anglican mission newsletter.

• Fuller, Thomas: The Church History of Britain, Oxford, 1896
• Hardwick, Charles: A History of the Articles of Religion, Cambridge 1859
• Lloyd, Charles (ed.): Formularies of Faith, Oxford, 1825