http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15788
"Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word"
By The Rev'd Dr. Ashley Null
April 3, 2012
The Protestant Reformers viewed themselves as Catholic Christians living out the ancient faith according to its most authoritative document, the Bible. Secondly, that the Protestant reformers understood true conversion inspired by God working through Scripture to be both an initial moment of the re-orientation of personal identity and an on-going commitment to a changed way of life. The third key insight we need to bear in mind is that Cranmer's biblical hermeneutic was neither the Sola Scriptura of nineteenth-century American Protestantism nor the Patristic consensus of the Caroline and Oxford Movement Divines.
Let's now turn to this last point. Without a doubt, Scripture was the ultimate authority for matters of faith and doctrine for the Edwardian church. Unlike latter Anglican claims, now thoroughly debunked by Jean-Louis Quantin's vociferous The Church of England and Christian Antiquity, the sixteenth-century English Divines did not read Scripture through a Patristic consensus. Yet, Anglicanism's Sola Scriptura did not read the Bible apart from the Fathers.
In a distinction of great importance overlooked by both Low Church and High Church advocates, Cranmer did not look to a Patristic consensus of interpretation to guide his understanding of the Bible. He did, however, very much look to a Patristic consensus for the hermeneutical principles by which he read the Bible as the ultimate Christian authority. Although Cranmer did not always agree with the Fathers' reading of Scripture (after all, they didn't always agree with themselves), it was the Fathers who taught Cranmer how to read Scripture.
In fact, that is the true origin of Hooker's now infamous three-legged stool. For the Anglican triad of Scripture, tradition and reason did not originate with Hooker. Why should it have? Hooker did not claim to be presenting an original construal of theology. He claimed to be defending the accepted principles of the Protestant religion as established in England. The first recorded reference that I can find to this fundamental tenet of Anglican hermeneutics is July 1539:
[T]he Archbishop collecting both his arguments, authorities of Scriptures, and Doctors together, caused his Secretary to write a fair book thereof for the king, after this order. First the Scriptures were alleged, then the Doctors, thirdly followed the arguments deducted from those authorities.
From the Fathers, Cranmer learned that teaching on salvation must be supported by clear scriptural evidence. In his 1532 edition of Basil writings in Greek, Cranmer made a marginal comment: "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation." He quotes Chrysostom to the same effect in his 1547 'Homily on Salvation' and, of course, the statement made its way into the Articles of Religion, the confession of faith that was meant to supplement the ancient creeds in giving instruction to Anglicans in how to read their bibles.
Yet, how should one interpret Scripture to establish saving doctrine? By insisting on Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, of course. That's why the sixteenth-century Anglican triad began with Scripture. Following both Erasmus and Melanchthon, Cranmer looked to the common-place method of Augustine. According to this hermeneutical approach, one collects all the scriptural passages on a common theme together in one place (hence the name "common-places"). That way more difficult passages can be in read in the light of the clearer passages, thus allowing a broader scriptural context to illuminate their meaning. Cranmer quotes Augustine specifically on this way of reading the Bible in his 'Homily on Salvation' as well.
Yet, even after employing the common-place method, an individual interpretater could still get it wrong. Hence, the Fathers still needed to be read as guide to ensure the right construal of Scripture. Cranmer was clear that the Fathers' authority rested on the quality of their biblical exegesis, not on an inspiration equivalent to the apostles. Therefore, patristic testimony was variable.
Yet, sixteenth-century commentators were no more privileged in their exegetical endeavors either. Consequently, even though in Cranmer's view there was no authoritative Patristic consensus beyond what Scripture could clearly support, no sixteenth-century biblical interpretation was valid unless one could show that it was not unique, that there was Patristic precedence that others had come to the same conclusion based on Scripture. On this basis, he condemned Luther's and Melanchthon's lame Scriptural defense of Philip of Hesse's bigamy as a pastoral remedy in keeping with the Gospel. For Cranmer the fact that such a marriage was literally unprecedented in the whole history of the Christian church rendered such an exegesis patently fraudulent. Cranmer would go to great lengths to consult patristic precedent on the matter of the Eucharist in both the 1530s and 1540s, although to opposite conclusions.
Now let's think about what we have said. Anglican biblical commentators are first to compare biblical passages to one another and then their theological conclusions from such activity to the conclusions of earlier generations. That's a lot of comparing. And by the very nature of making a comparison, reason is involved in the process. Hence, as Hooker himself said, the third part of the Anglican triad is not autonomous reason in some post-Enlightenment sense, but rather "theological reasoning," derived from comparing sacred texts to each other and their interpretation by other faithful commentators. Reason was originally part of Anglican theological authority because grace-filled reason was an integral tool in the patristic hermeneutical process.
So we can already see that Anglicanism's commitment to and implementation of Sola Scriptura is in fact based on patristic hermeneutical principles. Yet, there is more. As Article 34 of the Thirty-Nine Articles makes clear, Anglicanism, unlike the Scottish and Continental Reformed traditions, only demands a clear scriptural warrant in matters of faith and doctrine. As far as matters in church life like liturgy and governance, each national church in each generation is free to order their life together to promote the Gospel as they think best, provided that their decisions do not contradict biblical teaching. This distinction is also based on patristic practice. From the Fathers, Cranmer learned that the purpose of Scripture was personal and societal transformation through redirecting the human heart to truly love God and neighbor. In another comment on Basil's writings perhaps as early as 1532, Cranmer says that when it is imperative for a person to understand himself, he must devote himself to Scripture. In his private theological notebooks around 1538, Cranmer wrote:
All Scripture is divinely inspired, etc. This text Saint John Chrysostom, Theophilactus, Thomas, with many other authors, both old and new, do expound plainly as the words be that whatsoever truth is necessary to be taught for our salvation, or the contrary to be reproved, whatsoever is necessary for us to do, and what to forbear and not to do, all is completely contained in the Scripture, so that a man thereby may be perfectly instructed unto all manner of goodness.
For Cranmer, Scripture told how life was to be lived, not how the church or society as institutions were to be organized. Yet Scripture went beyond mere instruction. It was also God's very own divine instrument to bring about that change within us. As Cranmer wrote once again in the "Homily on Scripture": The words of Holy Scripture be called words of everlasting life: for they be God's instrument, ordained for the same purpose. They have power to convert through God's promise, and they be effectual through God's assistance; and, being received in a faithful heart, they have ever a heavenly spiritual working in them.
For those who would "ruminate and, as it were, chew the cud" of Scripture, God worked through the regular repetition of biblical truths to engraft in them not only saving faith but also a steadfastness in the pursuit of personal holiness that would gradually transform their character to mirror what they were reading: And there is nothing that so much establisheth our faith and trust in God, that so much conserveth innocency and pureness of the heart, and also of outward godly life and conversation, as continual reading and meditation of God's Word. For that thing which by perpetual use of reading of Holy Scripture and diligent searching of the same is deeply printed and engraven in the heart at length turneth almost into nature.
In short, the spiritual effect of God's supernatural agency through Scripture was the on-going reorientation of a believer's heart: This Word whosoever is diligent to read and in his heart to print that he readeth, the great affection to the transitory things of this world shall be diminished in him, and the great desire of heavenly things that be therein promised of God shall increase in him.
Hence, "the hearing and keeping of [Scripture] maketh us blessed, sanctifieth us and maketh us holy." Little wonder, then, the "Homily on Scripture" urged that "[t]hese books . . . ought to be much in our hands, in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all, in our hearts." Here's Cranmer understanding of the Lively Word of God. Let me now close this first talk with one more important patristic biblical hermeneutical principle that has profoundly shaped Anglicanism. The context in which the Bible was to be read.
From the Fathers Cranmer did not learn a hermeneutic of suspicion which characterizes so much of the approach of modern biblical criticism (note the very name.). Rather, Scripture was to be read devotionally. As Cranmer noted again in his copy of Basil's works, 'prayer follows from reading.' Naturally, Cranmer thought such should be the case for individual study. However, he recognized the best place for a devotional reading of Scripture was in the midst of the community gathered together for corporate worship. Taking to heart a principle he learned from Basil's Hexameron, Cranmer decided to make sacred assemblies the place where the average person could learn his Bible. Surely it is not without significance that Cranmer noted in the margin that it was Basil's practice to give daily bible teaching for common laborers in both morning and evening assemblies. The lecture in its entirety may be heard online at: http://www.tsm.edu/media_resources/ancient_wisdom_anglican_futures_2011_audio
-----------
The Rev'd Dr. Ashley Null is Canon Theologian of Western Kansas
From Ashley Null's lectures, "Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word," given at the 2011 Ancient Wisdom/Anglican Futures Conference. This article was first posted in The Anglican Way March Issue, Volume 35. No.1 and is republished here with permission. www.pbsusa.org
"Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word"
By The Rev'd Dr. Ashley Null
April 3, 2012
Let's now turn to this last point. Without a doubt, Scripture was the ultimate authority for matters of faith and doctrine for the Edwardian church. Unlike latter Anglican claims, now thoroughly debunked by Jean-Louis Quantin's vociferous The Church of England and Christian Antiquity, the sixteenth-century English Divines did not read Scripture through a Patristic consensus. Yet, Anglicanism's Sola Scriptura did not read the Bible apart from the Fathers.
In a distinction of great importance overlooked by both Low Church and High Church advocates, Cranmer did not look to a Patristic consensus of interpretation to guide his understanding of the Bible. He did, however, very much look to a Patristic consensus for the hermeneutical principles by which he read the Bible as the ultimate Christian authority. Although Cranmer did not always agree with the Fathers' reading of Scripture (after all, they didn't always agree with themselves), it was the Fathers who taught Cranmer how to read Scripture.
In fact, that is the true origin of Hooker's now infamous three-legged stool. For the Anglican triad of Scripture, tradition and reason did not originate with Hooker. Why should it have? Hooker did not claim to be presenting an original construal of theology. He claimed to be defending the accepted principles of the Protestant religion as established in England. The first recorded reference that I can find to this fundamental tenet of Anglican hermeneutics is July 1539:
[T]he Archbishop collecting both his arguments, authorities of Scriptures, and Doctors together, caused his Secretary to write a fair book thereof for the king, after this order. First the Scriptures were alleged, then the Doctors, thirdly followed the arguments deducted from those authorities.
From the Fathers, Cranmer learned that teaching on salvation must be supported by clear scriptural evidence. In his 1532 edition of Basil writings in Greek, Cranmer made a marginal comment: "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation." He quotes Chrysostom to the same effect in his 1547 'Homily on Salvation' and, of course, the statement made its way into the Articles of Religion, the confession of faith that was meant to supplement the ancient creeds in giving instruction to Anglicans in how to read their bibles.
Yet, how should one interpret Scripture to establish saving doctrine? By insisting on Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, of course. That's why the sixteenth-century Anglican triad began with Scripture. Following both Erasmus and Melanchthon, Cranmer looked to the common-place method of Augustine. According to this hermeneutical approach, one collects all the scriptural passages on a common theme together in one place (hence the name "common-places"). That way more difficult passages can be in read in the light of the clearer passages, thus allowing a broader scriptural context to illuminate their meaning. Cranmer quotes Augustine specifically on this way of reading the Bible in his 'Homily on Salvation' as well.
Yet, sixteenth-century commentators were no more privileged in their exegetical endeavors either. Consequently, even though in Cranmer's view there was no authoritative Patristic consensus beyond what Scripture could clearly support, no sixteenth-century biblical interpretation was valid unless one could show that it was not unique, that there was Patristic precedence that others had come to the same conclusion based on Scripture. On this basis, he condemned Luther's and Melanchthon's lame Scriptural defense of Philip of Hesse's bigamy as a pastoral remedy in keeping with the Gospel. For Cranmer the fact that such a marriage was literally unprecedented in the whole history of the Christian church rendered such an exegesis patently fraudulent. Cranmer would go to great lengths to consult patristic precedent on the matter of the Eucharist in both the 1530s and 1540s, although to opposite conclusions.
Now let's think about what we have said. Anglican biblical commentators are first to compare biblical passages to one another and then their theological conclusions from such activity to the conclusions of earlier generations. That's a lot of comparing. And by the very nature of making a comparison, reason is involved in the process. Hence, as Hooker himself said, the third part of the Anglican triad is not autonomous reason in some post-Enlightenment sense, but rather "theological reasoning," derived from comparing sacred texts to each other and their interpretation by other faithful commentators. Reason was originally part of Anglican theological authority because grace-filled reason was an integral tool in the patristic hermeneutical process.
So we can already see that Anglicanism's commitment to and implementation of Sola Scriptura is in fact based on patristic hermeneutical principles. Yet, there is more. As Article 34 of the Thirty-Nine Articles makes clear, Anglicanism, unlike the Scottish and Continental Reformed traditions, only demands a clear scriptural warrant in matters of faith and doctrine. As far as matters in church life like liturgy and governance, each national church in each generation is free to order their life together to promote the Gospel as they think best, provided that their decisions do not contradict biblical teaching. This distinction is also based on patristic practice. From the Fathers, Cranmer learned that the purpose of Scripture was personal and societal transformation through redirecting the human heart to truly love God and neighbor. In another comment on Basil's writings perhaps as early as 1532, Cranmer says that when it is imperative for a person to understand himself, he must devote himself to Scripture. In his private theological notebooks around 1538, Cranmer wrote:
All Scripture is divinely inspired, etc. This text Saint John Chrysostom, Theophilactus, Thomas, with many other authors, both old and new, do expound plainly as the words be that whatsoever truth is necessary to be taught for our salvation, or the contrary to be reproved, whatsoever is necessary for us to do, and what to forbear and not to do, all is completely contained in the Scripture, so that a man thereby may be perfectly instructed unto all manner of goodness.
For Cranmer, Scripture told how life was to be lived, not how the church or society as institutions were to be organized. Yet Scripture went beyond mere instruction. It was also God's very own divine instrument to bring about that change within us. As Cranmer wrote once again in the "Homily on Scripture": The words of Holy Scripture be called words of everlasting life: for they be God's instrument, ordained for the same purpose. They have power to convert through God's promise, and they be effectual through God's assistance; and, being received in a faithful heart, they have ever a heavenly spiritual working in them.
For those who would "ruminate and, as it were, chew the cud" of Scripture, God worked through the regular repetition of biblical truths to engraft in them not only saving faith but also a steadfastness in the pursuit of personal holiness that would gradually transform their character to mirror what they were reading: And there is nothing that so much establisheth our faith and trust in God, that so much conserveth innocency and pureness of the heart, and also of outward godly life and conversation, as continual reading and meditation of God's Word. For that thing which by perpetual use of reading of Holy Scripture and diligent searching of the same is deeply printed and engraven in the heart at length turneth almost into nature.
In short, the spiritual effect of God's supernatural agency through Scripture was the on-going reorientation of a believer's heart: This Word whosoever is diligent to read and in his heart to print that he readeth, the great affection to the transitory things of this world shall be diminished in him, and the great desire of heavenly things that be therein promised of God shall increase in him.
Hence, "the hearing and keeping of [Scripture] maketh us blessed, sanctifieth us and maketh us holy." Little wonder, then, the "Homily on Scripture" urged that "[t]hese books . . . ought to be much in our hands, in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all, in our hearts." Here's Cranmer understanding of the Lively Word of God. Let me now close this first talk with one more important patristic biblical hermeneutical principle that has profoundly shaped Anglicanism. The context in which the Bible was to be read.
From the Fathers Cranmer did not learn a hermeneutic of suspicion which characterizes so much of the approach of modern biblical criticism (note the very name.). Rather, Scripture was to be read devotionally. As Cranmer noted again in his copy of Basil's works, 'prayer follows from reading.' Naturally, Cranmer thought such should be the case for individual study. However, he recognized the best place for a devotional reading of Scripture was in the midst of the community gathered together for corporate worship. Taking to heart a principle he learned from Basil's Hexameron, Cranmer decided to make sacred assemblies the place where the average person could learn his Bible. Surely it is not without significance that Cranmer noted in the margin that it was Basil's practice to give daily bible teaching for common laborers in both morning and evening assemblies. The lecture in its entirety may be heard online at: http://www.tsm.edu/media_resources/ancient_wisdom_anglican_futures_2011_audio
-----------
The Rev'd Dr. Ashley Null is Canon Theologian of Western Kansas
From Ashley Null's lectures, "Thomas Cranmer and the Lively Word," given at the 2011 Ancient Wisdom/Anglican Futures Conference. This article was first posted in The Anglican Way March Issue, Volume 35. No.1 and is republished here with permission. www.pbsusa.org
No comments:
Post a Comment