Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
Max, I can certainly identify with you brother. But then I'm a huge C S Lewis fan.
Grace and Peace brother.
39 Articles incompatible with sola scriptura?
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear ArmourBearer,
Thanks for bringing up the topic of the Elizabethan Puritans! They're a forgotten mob who are wonderful to read.
Actually, neither Whitgift nor Hooker speak as regulative figures for Anglicanism. To claim so is just like saying Richard Baxter speaks for Presbyterians.
Richard Hooker's sacramentalism, for example, contradicts the 39 Articles on justification by faith alone, just like Baxter's neonomism contradicts the WCF.
Moreover, to say that Whitgift and Hooker argued against the "Puritans" needs nuancing. They argued against the new school Puritans that arose through Cartwright, with its concomitant new ideas on church polity which the older Elizabethan Puritans did not hold.
This is simply not true. Whitgift and Hooker had different ecclesiologies and can't be lumped together. Whitgift believed that the NT didn't actually prescribe a set form of church polity, hence there is a freedom in the area of polity (as long as it doesn't contravene Scripture).
Hooker's position is a little more subtle, and I can't be bothered going into it here because it requires a clear understanding of his take on "Law".
However, neither of them ever argued that "tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church".
Every blessing,
Marty.
Thanks for bringing up the topic of the Elizabethan Puritans! They're a forgotten mob who are wonderful to read.
Actually, neither Whitgift nor Hooker speak as regulative figures for Anglicanism. To claim so is just like saying Richard Baxter speaks for Presbyterians.
Richard Hooker's sacramentalism, for example, contradicts the 39 Articles on justification by faith alone, just like Baxter's neonomism contradicts the WCF.
Moreover, to say that Whitgift and Hooker argued against the "Puritans" needs nuancing. They argued against the new school Puritans that arose through Cartwright, with its concomitant new ideas on church polity which the older Elizabethan Puritans did not hold.
This is simply not true. Whitgift and Hooker had different ecclesiologies and can't be lumped together. Whitgift believed that the NT didn't actually prescribe a set form of church polity, hence there is a freedom in the area of polity (as long as it doesn't contravene Scripture).
Hooker's position is a little more subtle, and I can't be bothered going into it here because it requires a clear understanding of his take on "Law".
However, neither of them ever argued that "tradition and consensus to speak over and above Scripture in matters pertaining to the church".
Every blessing,
Marty.
Fair enough, so long as you distance yourself from Whitgift and Hooker's defence of the Elizabethan settlement, which includes a rationale for those sections in the thirty-nine articles providing for the imposition of human authority in sacred things. As far as I am aware their jus humanum argument for episcoapcy and ceremonies has been the prevalent view amongst Anglicans, unless you except modern evangelical Anglicanism's dichotomising between the church (gathered) and the institution, which has become popular through Messrs Robinson and Knox.
Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Not sure where you are getting your facts from, but they are not founded in history. I think perhaps you are trying to force a broader meaning on the word Puritan to suit your objection.
Whitgift's method of argumentation is more subtle than simply denying a set form of church polity in the NT, and included an appeal to relativism. Hooker argued along similar lines but based it on natural, unchanging laws; since, however, you can't be bothered going into it I see little reason why I should do little else than quote his own words. He specifically taught that there are laws "expedient to be made for the guiding of his Church, over and besides them that are in Scripture."
I find it strange that you distance Anglicanism from Hooker and then run to his defence.
Last edited:
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear ArmourBearer,
Thanks for your response.
This sounds a tad authoritarian?
This also sounds rather authoritarian ...
Yes, of course, Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Read any standard book on Elizabethan Puritanism (from Knappen to Collinson) and they show (as the primary sources do) that Cartwright ushered in a new approach to church polity that was not among the older Puritans (like Grindal, Greenham and co.). And, the Marprelate Tracts that came a little later horrified the older Puritans.
Puritanism wasn't a a completely homogeneous animal, even in the Elizabethan period.
Interesting comment--again you're quick to accuse me of error. We need to separate two issues here: [1] Understanding Hooker aright; and [2] Agreeing with Hooker. I was merely going for [1]. You read me as doing [2]. Perhaps you could even ask before assuming? It makes for more lubricated interaction.
A few years ago I wrote an M.Th. thesis on Richard Hooker and Elizabethan Puritanism. What struck me is how misunderstood Hooker is. Every party claims him for their own, and yet he appears to fit into none.
God bless you,
Marty.
Thanks for your response.
This sounds a tad authoritarian?
This also sounds rather authoritarian ...
Yes, of course, Cartwright was an Elizabethan Puritan. Read any standard book on Elizabethan Puritanism (from Knappen to Collinson) and they show (as the primary sources do) that Cartwright ushered in a new approach to church polity that was not among the older Puritans (like Grindal, Greenham and co.). And, the Marprelate Tracts that came a little later horrified the older Puritans.
Puritanism wasn't a a completely homogeneous animal, even in the Elizabethan period.
Interesting comment--again you're quick to accuse me of error. We need to separate two issues here: [1] Understanding Hooker aright; and [2] Agreeing with Hooker. I was merely going for [1]. You read me as doing [2]. Perhaps you could even ask before assuming? It makes for more lubricated interaction.
A few years ago I wrote an M.Th. thesis on Richard Hooker and Elizabethan Puritanism. What struck me is how misunderstood Hooker is. Every party claims him for their own, and yet he appears to fit into none.
God bless you,
Marty.
Wires might be getting crossed here. You wanted to show the relation of Hooker to Anglicanism by comparing it with Baxter's relationship to Presbyterianism. OK, Presbyterians distance themselves from Baxter's soteriology and ecclesial compromises. All I am saying is that if you want to make the comparison I think Anglicans need to put the same distance between themselves and Hooker, Nothing authoritarian about that. I wish they would; but the fact is they don't.
Let's be clear on how we are using the term "Puritan," because I sense you might be using it to describe a doctrinal position which the churchmen in that day shared, whereas I am taking it in its historical sense as a person who remained within the Church of England but sought to reform it according to the pattern of that "most perfect school of Christ" found at Geneva. In this sense the Puritans were distinct from the defenders of the Elizabethan settlement. It is not a division which occurred after the Settlement, but appears whilst they were exiles on the continent during Mary's reign. To say that Cartwright represented a new movement within "Puritanism" which challenged the establishment is unhistorical, since historical Puritanism in and of itself made this challenge.
I can't recall accusing you of error. It is incumbent on you to show where Hooker has been misinterpreted rather than simply say so and then intimate you can't be bothered showing it.
Your thesis sounds like it would be an interesting read. I wrote a paper many moons ago in which I evaluated Hooker's defence of the Elizabethan Settlement against Puritan objections. I've gone back to it from time to time and made additions as opportunity knocked. I don't think there is much to misunderstand, and certainly the "Christian Letter" of 1599, with which Andrew Willet's name has been associated, called Hooker to account for his unorthodox opinions.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear ArmourBearer,
Thanks so much for the clarifications.
Ok, great. Wires are now uncrossed.
Why so eager to claim it's "unhistorical"? That's strong language. History can be a very messy business. I wish it were less untidy. But it ain't.
Elizabethan Puritanism (and I agree with your definition) unleashed a series of different challenges to the Church of England. The early challenges concerned the cross in baptism, the surplice, the wedding ring, and kneeling at communion. However, Cartwright brought a new challenge concerning ecclesiastical polity. The earlier Puritans weren't all completely happy with Cartwright's new movement. Richard Greenham believed that it tried to fix the roof when the foundations hadn't been laid.
A good account of it all is in Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (OUP, 1967), Part Three (pp. 101-155). It is entitled "The First Presbyterians". And Part I is entitled "A New Dogma". You can can get the drift of newness that the younger Puritans injected from these chapter and section titles.
Every blessing brother,
Marty.
Thanks so much for the clarifications.
Ok, great. Wires are now uncrossed.
Why so eager to claim it's "unhistorical"? That's strong language. History can be a very messy business. I wish it were less untidy. But it ain't.
Elizabethan Puritanism (and I agree with your definition) unleashed a series of different challenges to the Church of England. The early challenges concerned the cross in baptism, the surplice, the wedding ring, and kneeling at communion. However, Cartwright brought a new challenge concerning ecclesiastical polity. The earlier Puritans weren't all completely happy with Cartwright's new movement. Richard Greenham believed that it tried to fix the roof when the foundations hadn't been laid.
A good account of it all is in Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (OUP, 1967), Part Three (pp. 101-155). It is entitled "The First Presbyterians". And Part I is entitled "A New Dogma". You can can get the drift of newness that the younger Puritans injected from these chapter and section titles.
Every blessing brother,
Marty.
A very good work, but I think you are turning a secondary issue into a primary one by highlighting church government at this point. This thread pertained to Anglicanism's commitment to sola Scriptura in the light of the 39 articles. Anglicanism received its "bent" from Whitgift and Hooker's replies to the Puritans over ceremonies.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear ArmourBearer,
Many thanks for your reply. Although we seem to be going around in circles here.
You kept confidently telling us the claim of Cartwright's newness was "unhistorical". Then when the evidence questions it, you say it's not germane to the thread?
From the Cartwrightian Puritans, not all the Puritans. That's the point.
On any account of Anglicanism your statement is incorrect. What do you mean by Anglicanism? If we go by the BCP, 39 articles, and homilies (which the articles include) then Whitgift and Hooker have as much to do with Anglicanism as Baxter does to Presbyterianism.
When we include the homilies it is very clear that Anglicanism upholds sola scriptura from their teaching.
Cheers,
Marty.
Many thanks for your reply. Although we seem to be going around in circles here.
You kept confidently telling us the claim of Cartwright's newness was "unhistorical". Then when the evidence questions it, you say it's not germane to the thread?
From the Cartwrightian Puritans, not all the Puritans. That's the point.
On any account of Anglicanism your statement is incorrect. What do you mean by Anglicanism? If we go by the BCP, 39 articles, and homilies (which the articles include) then Whitgift and Hooker have as much to do with Anglicanism as Baxter does to Presbyterianism.
When we include the homilies it is very clear that Anglicanism upholds sola scriptura from their teaching.
Cheers,
Marty.
Last edited:
But I do afirm sola scriptura as do the 39 Articles
You may find these helpful:
http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/39A/iss_doctrine_39A_intro.asp
http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/heads/bible/iss_doctrine_heads_bible_intro.asp
Marty and Matthew,
An excellent book on the puritans Amazon.com: A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life: Books: J. I. Packer
An excellent book on the puritans Amazon.com: A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life: Books: J. I. Packer
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
I think he is misguided for we hold no more than what the WCF teaches here:
It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church". (WCF Chapter 31 sect 3)
I think it can be easily shown that Cartwright shared the same conviction with the Puritan movement that Scripture is a rule for church practice as much as for individual practice. Church govt. is simply an extension of that conviction. He shared this conviction with the Puritan movement as a whole in contrast to the Elizabethan settlement which Whitgift and Hooker defended. Take church govt. out of the equation and you are still left with a Puritan commitment to Scripture which conflicts with the roots of Anglicanism as found in Whitgift and Hooker.
Any way you look at it, Anglicanism limits the scope of Scriptural regulation. Puritanism, from its first manifestation in Frankfort in 1554, sought the freedom to regulate church practice according to the Scriptures. Church govt. comes to the fore later, and is really the result of the Puritans growing tired of the heavy handedness of the bishops in enforcing uniformity. But as early as 1554, when the congregation of exiles were permitted to do things according to biblical conviction, they turned their attention to a biblically regulated church order. It is this which brought them into conflict with the Coxians, and as Whittingham's account demonstrates, this was the first outbreak of the conflict which continued to plague the Church of England after the exiles returned.
Yes, as noted in my first post on this thread, it is sola Scripture with reference to what is necessary for salvation.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear ArmourBearer,
Have you listened to anything I've said? Anglicanism does not have its "roots" in Whitgift and Hooker anymore than Presbyterianism has its roots in Richard Baxter. Anglicanism is defined by the BCP, 39 articles and the Homilies. Whitgift and Hooker did not write these anymore than Baxter did the WCF. If there is a particular figure in which the "roots" of Anglicanism is found, it's Thomas Cranmer.
The Anglican symbols uphold the classic reformation formulation of sola scriptura. Read any of the classic commentaries on the 39 articles from Griffith-Thomas to Oliver O'Donovan. Try also reading Packer's chapter 15 of A Quest for Godliness.
Every blessing,
Marty.
Have you listened to anything I've said? Anglicanism does not have its "roots" in Whitgift and Hooker anymore than Presbyterianism has its roots in Richard Baxter. Anglicanism is defined by the BCP, 39 articles and the Homilies. Whitgift and Hooker did not write these anymore than Baxter did the WCF. If there is a particular figure in which the "roots" of Anglicanism is found, it's Thomas Cranmer.
The Anglican symbols uphold the classic reformation formulation of sola scriptura. Read any of the classic commentaries on the 39 articles from Griffith-Thomas to Oliver O'Donovan. Try also reading Packer's chapter 15 of A Quest for Godliness.
Every blessing,
Marty.
Last edited:
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Uphold
UPHOLD, v.t. pret. and pp. upheld. [Upholden is obsolete.]
1. To lift on high; to elevate.
2. To support; to sustain; to keep from falling or slipping.
Honor shall uphold the humble in spirit. Prov 29.
3. To keep from declension.
4. To support in any state.
5. To continue; to maintain.
6. To keep from being lost.
Faulconbridge, in spite of spite, along upholds the day.
7. To continue without failing.
8. To continue in being.
Does the Anglican Church use the 39 as they core confession, do they continue to maintain the doctrine therein, does the Anglican Communion support the 39 as a standard?
UPHOLD, v.t. pret. and pp. upheld. [Upholden is obsolete.]
1. To lift on high; to elevate.
2. To support; to sustain; to keep from falling or slipping.
Honor shall uphold the humble in spirit. Prov 29.
3. To keep from declension.
4. To support in any state.
5. To continue; to maintain.
6. To keep from being lost.
Faulconbridge, in spite of spite, along upholds the day.
7. To continue without failing.
8. To continue in being.
Does the Anglican Church use the 39 as they core confession, do they continue to maintain the doctrine therein, does the Anglican Communion support the 39 as a standard?
Yes, I am listening to what you are saying. What you are saying is wrong, fictitious. Please do read Packer's Anglican perspective on the Puritan Approach to Worship. One will not find the differences minimised so greatly as in that lecture provided by a Puritan-sympathising Anglican. But even he had to acknowledge, "This way of putting it gives the impression that Luther and the reformed Church of England did not regard holy Scripture as constituting an authoritative rule for worship at all -- which was, of course, the constant Puritan accusation right up to the Civil War." So it is very plain (and even Packer has eyes to see it) that the Puritan commitment to a biblically regulated Christian worship led them to find fault with the Anglican imposition of human authority, and subsequently to deny that the Elizabethan settlement was properly "reformed" according to the Word of God.
Now the low-church Packer undoubtedly tries to soften the differences, and to make them consist merely in the province of the interpretation of Scripture. That no doubt is what the low-church Anglicans are trying to accomplish in this thread also. But it is without historical foundation, as the Packer quotation demonstrates. It is revisionism. The Puritans perceived the Anglican constitution defective so far as it concerned its commitment to be reformed in the area of worship according to Scripture. And, my low-Anglican friends, with whom I have much in common doctrinally, to come onto a *Puritan* board, and to suggest that the Anglican approach to worship follows the principle of sola scriptura, is just not going to meet with a sympathetic ear. Those in the modern day who, like the Puritans, adopt a comprehensive plan for biblical reformation, are not going to see the Anglican intrusion of human ceremonies in divine worship as a proper outworking of the principle of sola Scriptura. From an historical perspective, therefore, you are beating your head against a virtual brick wall.
As for Whitgift and Hooker, fine, as I said before, distance yourself from their defence of the Elizabethan settlement; but history is a stubborn thing, and Anglicanism has a long pedigree of defending the imposition of human ceremonies on the basis of these divines' methodology against Puritanism. I think you are obliged to provide an alternative to their method of negating the Puritan principle of worship, and inthe absence of that alternative you can expect others to revert to the default system of Anglicanism which is presented to them.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear ArmourBearer,
I don't think we're getting anywhere very fast. We are brothers in Christ and have so much in common and yet you seem so quick to want drive a wedge between us. Should we not be encouraging each other to work together for Christ and his gospel in a lost world? Why the desire to exclude and create parties?
You've got a notion of Anglicanism in your head that you want to read me and others through.
Dear brother, why the authoritarian and extreme language? I don't understand. It doesn't make for harmonious discussion amongst friends. Yet you keep using it. Even if you were right (and I'm far from convinced) why this rhetoric?
You still haven't defined Anglicanism, and are using it in a very generalized manner. Dear brother, Anglicans aren't under the Elizabethan settlement now. We don't have a monarch as head of the church! What I've subscribed to in my situation is very different. Why are you going back to this period as though it were somehow regulative, with Whitgift and Hooker as regulative figures? Baxter had a huge influence on presbyterians after him (as history testifies), but that doesn't make him regulative for Presbyterianism.
This sounds awfully like: "I'm the true one here and you aren't; I'm in and you're not."
Just read the 1st homily on Scripture if you have doubts about the Anglican position on sola scriptura.
Brother, commanding me like this sounds authoritarian. I've continually said Hooker and Whitgift are not regulative figures for Anglicanism. Indeed, I don't know any Anglican these days who likes Whitgift. He is not an attractive figure. Why are you fixated on them? I could get fixated on Baxter's neonomism as a presbyterian. I could get fixated on presbyterians turning Socinian in the 18th century. But it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism. So, Anglicanism.
Which is a cheap shot, because (again) you use Anglicanism loosely and without definition. I could respond and say that Presbyterianism has a long pedigree of splitting churches, in-house fighting, and lack of grace. (Particularly when right doctrine should lead to gracious godly speaking and living). But I know that that is not the ideal of the WCF. So why take a cheap shot like that at Anglicans who've over the years not lived consistently with their confessions? Every tradition has warts in its history.
I'm bowing out of this thread because it's getting out of control.
God bless you,
Marty.
I don't think we're getting anywhere very fast. We are brothers in Christ and have so much in common and yet you seem so quick to want drive a wedge between us. Should we not be encouraging each other to work together for Christ and his gospel in a lost world? Why the desire to exclude and create parties?
You've got a notion of Anglicanism in your head that you want to read me and others through.
Dear brother, why the authoritarian and extreme language? I don't understand. It doesn't make for harmonious discussion amongst friends. Yet you keep using it. Even if you were right (and I'm far from convinced) why this rhetoric?
You still haven't defined Anglicanism, and are using it in a very generalized manner. Dear brother, Anglicans aren't under the Elizabethan settlement now. We don't have a monarch as head of the church! What I've subscribed to in my situation is very different. Why are you going back to this period as though it were somehow regulative, with Whitgift and Hooker as regulative figures? Baxter had a huge influence on presbyterians after him (as history testifies), but that doesn't make him regulative for Presbyterianism.
This sounds awfully like: "I'm the true one here and you aren't; I'm in and you're not."
Just read the 1st homily on Scripture if you have doubts about the Anglican position on sola scriptura.
Brother, commanding me like this sounds authoritarian. I've continually said Hooker and Whitgift are not regulative figures for Anglicanism. Indeed, I don't know any Anglican these days who likes Whitgift. He is not an attractive figure. Why are you fixated on them? I could get fixated on Baxter's neonomism as a presbyterian. I could get fixated on presbyterians turning Socinian in the 18th century. But it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism. So, Anglicanism.
Which is a cheap shot, because (again) you use Anglicanism loosely and without definition. I could respond and say that Presbyterianism has a long pedigree of splitting churches, in-house fighting, and lack of grace. (Particularly when right doctrine should lead to gracious godly speaking and living). But I know that that is not the ideal of the WCF. So why take a cheap shot like that at Anglicans who've over the years not lived consistently with their confessions? Every tradition has warts in its history.
I'm bowing out of this thread because it's getting out of control.
God bless you,
Marty.
Last edited:
JM, I would accept #5 as a very good definition of how we would uphold the Articles. With this in mind I point everyone to Article #6. It does give a clear stance and is solid in defense of scripture as the supreme rule of faith in the Christian walk. Grace and Peace.
Last edited:
The Canons of the Church of England state:
Canon A2 Of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion
The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.
Canon A3 Of The Book of Common Prayer
1. The doctrine contained in The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the Use of the Church of England is agreeable to the Word of God.
2. The form of God’s worship contained in the said Book, forasmuch as it is not repugnant to the Word of God, may be used by all members of the Church of England with a good conscience.
Canon A5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
Canon C15 Of the Declaration of Assent
The Declaration of Assent to be made under this Canon shall be in the form set out below:
PREFACE
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith
as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
Declaration of Assent
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.
Then I won't add anything to my previous comments except to wish you grace and peace in the fellowship of the Blessed Holy Trinity.
I would simply point people who still are not convinced to the first homily:
A Frvitfvll Exhortation to the reading and knowledge of holy Scripture (original spelling)
Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture (updated spelling)
- Status
