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 and as a reminder, 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 (fortunately, these squartters are an irrelevant minority).
This book is free and downloadable at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=klUqMSY3F1YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=thomas+rogers+thirty-nine+articles&ei=GW1OSpqsNo6-yQTn9ezvAg
Again, the title of Rogers’ document is: The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England.
Malcontents disliked 1562, a year of difficulty for Puritans. Many disliked subscriptionism. Subscription was required in 1571 and 1572. A contrast is cast by Rogers between the moderns (1607) and Cranmer, Parker and Grindal. The Puritans sought another government and discipline. The Puritans sought a “new ministry” within the Anglican structures.
A curious and arguable point, to wit, the co-equality of Archbishops with other bishops. All ministers, from the Puritan standpoints and, advisedly, are equal. A recitation of the doctrines of Cranmer, Parker, and Grindal is referenced. The apostolic and catholic doctrine was averred by these Churchmen.
Pragmatically speaking, the theologies and behaviours of Anglican bishops--past and present--is one of the greatest arguments against Episcopacy.
Rogers chides the Genevan Englishmen. They sought to build presbyteries within England, including sabbatarianism. For example, working in the market-town on Oxfordshire on the Sabbath was the equivalent of committing adultery. Rogers expresses his horror.
Rogers expresses his commonality and comradeship with the Puritan Anglicans who were moderate Churchmen and subscriptionists. 1562 and then, 1604, is commemorated. The Prayer Book and Articles are re-commemorated. Neither chancellor, commissary, or official, or any others shall hold office….unless they “shall subscribe to the Articles of Religion, agreed upon in the convocation in the year of 1562..” These articles were the very same, “un-augmented, un-diminished, and unaltered.”
Has anything changed from 1562 to 1604? Rogers argues not. Yet, the Puritans object.
The Puritans have few commendable objections to His Majesty’s Book of Common Prayer.
Rogers calls attention to the flocking of Jesuits in the homeland, but also the spread of the Puritans. Attention is drawn to Dr. Whitgift, the future Archbishop of Canterbury In 1571-1572, when "seditious" books were flying about. The “factious brethren” are noted.
All archbishops and bishops shall be put down, as equal to Presbyters. Every Church should have a presbytery. Every Church shall have presbyters, deacons and a Doctor, or teacher. There are complaints that the Articles are bit briefs rather than fuller expositions of the truth.
That just observation was correct then. It is correct now. Having said that, one cannot even get Anglicans to subscribe to their own Articles.
In 1558, Queen Elizabeth declared the Presbyterian books “schismatical and seditious” that, if tolerated, would bring “in a monstrous and apparent dangerous innovation within her dominions and countries.” Many learned scholars arose to defend the Crown and Church and “did conflict with these brethren.”
Rogers rudely, offensively, and ill-advisedly says the Presbyterians have established their “Saint Sabbath,” a new idol. This, allegedly, has opened up wide the profanation of the “holy-days,” something not even required by Scripture.
Rogers regrettably says it is either “Jewish or popish superstition.” He calls Puritan thoughts “boils and botches.” He offers several illustrations, to wit, an illustration rather of Rogers own poverty rather than the Puritan. The Anglicans who argued as does Rogers have erred.
Fortunately, there has been a wiser stream in Anglicanism—historically, not today, but previousely—that has preserved the Scriptural practice of maintenance of the Lord’s Day, or the Sabbath.
On the other hand, there were some foolish things said by some Sabbatarian Presbyterians, to wit, that ringing of the church bells was as great a sin as murder. Archbishop Whitgift, 1599, and his officers called in the more outrageous of the Presbyterian books. However, Whitgift noted that these things agreed “neither the doctrine of our church, nor the laws and orders of this kingdom.”
Fortunately, wiser Presbyterian Churchmen wrote, “In regard of the common grounds of religion, and of the ministry, we are all one. They were one with the Church of England against “wickedness, superstition, idolatry, heresy; and we seek with one christian [sic] desire the advancement of the pure religion, worship and honour of God.” This view was held “in the last year save one of queen Elizabeth’s reign.” That functional unity still exists where Reformation theology is held--by Presbyterians and Anglicans.
King James had to address the issue early in his reign, announcing his viewpoints in several speeches before the Parliament. Rogers notes that 1604 was no different from 1562 in terms of doctrine. King James was as “renowned” for upholding the faith as was Elizabeth.
Prior to public ministry of any kind, private or public, the ecclesiastical minister had subscribe to the Articles, as agreed upon in the convocation of 1562. Rogers notes that these are not new Articles by the time King James is enthroned. What was good at the beginning, Rogers argues, is good at the end.
Rogers commends himself to the memories and benefits issued and issuing from Dr. Whitgift, Grindal, Parker and Cranmer, men responsible for the content of the XXXIX Articles. Thomas Rogers closes his preface at Horniger, near St. Edmund Bury in Suffolk, 11 March 1607.
The Preface has commendable elements, including history, but is too loyalistic for today. That is, loyalty to the King does not govern biblical exegesis nor theology. The Puritan criticism of the holy-days still have merit. The Sabbath is still the LORD's Day notwithstanding Roger's scorn.
No comments:
Post a Comment