 |
| Lancelot Andrewes |
The pax ecclesiastica of
Elizabeth’s reign actually masked a growing schism that remained beneath the
surface as long as she was on the throne, but which began to bubble up when
James VI of Scotland became James I of England.
The Puritans had hopes for their Scots king as James had been raised by
Presbyterians and the Scots Church was, at the time of his accession, mostly
Presbyterian in its makeup. (At the time
that James inherited the English Throne, there were two
bishops in Scotland, appointees of the Scots Parliament and without diocesan
jurisdiction. The post was primarily
honorary as the Scots Parliament recognized the Presbyterian organization of
the Kirk (Church) in 1592. ) But those
optimistic Puritans did not know James.
He was an ardent proponent of Episcopal Church polity and by his death
in 1625 had reestablished a full bench of diocesan bishops in Scotland. James’ theme was “no bishop, no king” and he
realized that the elimination of episcopacy was just a tad too democratic for
his crown to rest secure.
The heroes of the faith under
Elizabeth were those ministers who had fled the England of “Bloody Mary” for the
Reformed Churches of Geneva, Zurich, and Strasbourg and then, upon Elizabeth
becoming Queen and reestablishing Protestantism, returned to England. Their time abroad had confirmed them in
Reformed Church Polity (which was Presbyterian) and Calvinist doctrine. The “High Church” party in the Church of
England, the group which favored bishops and held more Catholic views of the
sacraments, remained very much in the shadows while Elizabeth was on the
throne, despite the Queen’s own support of episcopacy and her liking for a
certain amount of ritual in her chapel. Under
James, however, there was a marked movement away from Calvinist theology by
some of the bishops, notably Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Chichester and later
Bishop of Winchester as well as Dean of the Chapel Royal. Andrewes defended the doctrine of the Real
Presence (though he rejected Transubstantiation) claiming that after the bread
is consecrated (his word) it is no longer bread in a natural sense. He
used terms such as “sacrifice” and “altar” in referring to the Holy Communion
and to the table on which it was celebrated.
His private chapel was fitted out with silver candlesticks, a censer,
and five copes among other High Church paraphernalia. Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Bancroft
(1604-1610) was another bishop who tried to move the Church of England away
from its Calvinist foundation. Bancroft’s
successor, George Abbot was Calvinist in his soteriology (theology of
salvation) but held a strong Catholic understanding of the Apostolic Succession
and the priesthood, though he was a mortal enemy of William Laud who would
later be Archbishop of Canterbury and bring down both the episcopacy and the
crown with his High Churchmanship. George
Montaigne who under James held successively the Sees of Lincoln, London,
Durham, and York rejected Calvinist Soteriology and insisted on conformity to
the Prayer Book in worship. Thomas Dove,
(bishop of Peterborough) and John Overall (bishop first of Coventry
and Lichfield and later of Norwich) were staunch opponents of Calvinist
doctrine. Thomas Ravis, bishop of
London, (1607-1609) rigidly opposed the Puritan faction. On the other hand, his predecessor Richard
Vaughn, James’ bishop of London (1604-1607) had been a staunch Calvinist, but
found himself in a theological minority on the episcopal bench.
The Puritan party began to
realize that the bishops were a threat to the Calvinist faith and Protestant
legacy for which Cranmer and Ridley and Latimer and the other Marian Martyrs
had shed their blood. There were in fact
two distinct Churches in England—the Episcopal Church of England with its
bishops and Arminian doctrine and increasingly Catholicized Liturgy and the
Puritan Church of England with its non-conforming clergy and Calvinist doctrine
and non-Liturgical worship. They would
somehow hold together during the reign of King James, but his son, Charles I,
would inherit a religious tinderbox along with the Crown and when it blew—as
indeed it would—the consequences would be disastrous for Crown and Miter
alike.
Ok—a little glossary of terms
here to help the reader become familiar with something they might get on
Jeopardy some day.
Arminianism, Arminians, Arminian. The Arminians (named after Dutch Theologian Jacobus
Arminius) were adherents of a theological position antithetical to Calvinism in
as that they denied the double pre-destination taught by Calvin. Double predestination is that God has
foreordained those who will be saved to salvation and those who will be damned
for damnation. Calvin’s position does
not ascribe free will to the individual as his or her ultimate fate has been
pre-determined by God. Grace is given
only for the elect; Christ died only for the elect. The Armenians taught that Christ died for all
and that grace sufficient for salvation is offered to all though the freedom of
the will permits some to accept saving grace and others to reject it.
Non-conformist, non-conforming clergy. The
non-conformists were those of the Puritan party who refused to “conform” to the
Prayer Book and its liturgy but rather practiced the more free-style worship of
the Reformed or Presbyterian Churches.
This term will be important in the Church of England until the end of
the 17th century when the non-conformists will withdraw from the Anglican
Church to form their own religious bodies.
During the period of the English Civil War and subsequent Parliamentary “Protectorate”
of the Cromwells, the non-Conformists will have the ascendency in the Church of
England.
So does this mean that Pope Benedict and his followers would be more comfortable with the Calvinists? For the many, as it were.
ReplyDeleteWell, this is precisely the problem with the translation of the "pro multis" as "for many" as it leaves one open to the Jansenist heresy that Christ did not die for all. Jansenism is the Catholic sibling of Calvinism. If you check "pro multis" in the labels column to the right of the posts, you will find links to various times I have dealt precisely with this issue. The Krazy lady who runs the Les Femmes Website had used the "for many" argument to support her indulgence in the Jansenist position just a few months ago which is why I most recently brought up the subject. She is only one example of the self-appointed shadow magisterium that perpetuates various heresies in the name of their own pseudo-Catholicisms. While "for many" is a literal translation of the Latin "pro multis" it is not a faithful translation as it ignores the Greek New Testament text from which the Latin itself is a translation. Pope Benedict, like many who have spent their lives in the ivory towers of academia (and remember I too am a denizen of academia's Cloud Cuckoo land) was often very naive about the concrete repercussions of his abstract intellectualisms.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "XCVIX"?
ReplyDeleteGood catch, it is XCIX when I am working to late at night and am tired
ReplyDelete