Thomas Rogers. The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles ed. Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1854).
As usual with the Parker Society series, the frontispiece contains the following:
“For the Publication of the Works of the Father and Early Writers of the Reformed English Church.”
The editors unabashed call the Church of England “Reformed” and “Catholic.” The hi-jacking and theft of the legitimate term “Catholic” by Anglo-Catholics is revisionist. “Anglo-Romewardizing” is more accurate for these squatters.
It is free and downloadable at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=klUqMSY3F1YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=thomas+rogers+thirty-nine+articles&ei=GW1OSpqsNo6-yQTn9ezvAg
Of note, the title is “The Faith, Doctrine and Religion, professed and protected in the Realm of England, and dominions of the same: Expressed in 39 Articles, concordably agreed upon by the Reverend Bishops, and Clergy of this Kingdom, at two several meetings, or Convocations of theirs, in the years of our Lord, 1562, and 1604.”
This Protestant and Reformed document had been under review for over forty year prior to its re-asseveration in 1604. This is no minor matter for the Anglo-Romewardizers afoot throughout the world. This was “perused, and by lawful authority of the Church of England, allowed to be public.” This work, we may add, was dedicated to King James 1 and Dr Richard Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the successor of Archbishop John Whitgift, the decisive Calvinist.
Mr. Rogers refers favourably to John Calvin’s comment to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, to wit, “That, might his labours stand the church instead, Ne decem quidem maria, it would not grieve him to sail over ten seas to such a purpose.” Cranmer had sought an international Council of Reformers, or, those who were re-establishing and re-orienting Christ’s Church, cleansing it of the filth of Rome. This, as Rogers notes, will inform “posterity.” You will not find this in the Manglican blogosphere nor at www.virtueonline.org.
It is noted that the Thirty-nine Articles had a period of reflection from 1559-1562, from the time of Elizabeth 1’s accession until Convocation and the subsequent approval. The clergy of both provinces had opportunity for review.[i]
Archbishop Matthew Parker wrote Beza at Geneva, Doctrinae puritas viget in Anglia pure et sincere. He also wrote to Zanchius and Daneus in Strasbourgh about the reformation. The Papists were in view. The Puritans would be an inside, divisive factor, over a Prayer Book, of all things. Bishop John Jewel and Dean Nowell would pen their respective, Reformed works.
When the English clergy had to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, 1572, the atrocities of anti-Reformation forces were fully on view from Paris in the St. Bartholomew’s Day sacrifice.[ii]
Lest we forget Romanist supremacism, triumphalism, and arrogance amidst amnesia, indifferentism, and the standard-Anglican ignorance.
To be continued.
Part Two is ended.
[i] 1562, the year of destruction of Protestant Churchmen in France, notably, at Vassey, France by the Duke of Guise. Other cities, towns, villages, and hamlets were involved. Anti-Christ or Rome hated God’s Word. We also remember St. Bartholomew’s Massacre at Paris, an event witnessed by Sir Francis Walsingham, the grand spymaster for Elizabeth 1.
[ii] I am willing to tell the story of a Jesuit-educated, seminary included, yet turned Navy officer, a CDR, who called me a “F***in Hugenot” on his fourth day aboard. This Papist-CDR understood what he was saying. The department heads, of which I was one, did not. After the Romanist, bigoted, Executive Officer offered his diatribe—on the third night, same thing---I peremptorily told him and the other department heads, “You may stay around, but the fireworks are about to appear, do you understand that Commander?” He winced. I told the Captain that night, “You fix this Commander, or I’ll go outside the skin of the ship and publish the bigotries of your Executive Officer.” Compliance was had. Quite a story, including the ending and the CDR’s demise.
No comments:
Post a Comment