The English Reformers

A brief exchange and suggested inquiries by myself and a friend on FB about the English Reformers.
My friend's name was editted to XXXXX.

XXXXX.  a good, brief, succinct, well-documented and multi-purposed summary is in order beyond Ryle's English Reformers. That is, 10-page summaries of each Reformer, again, with footnotes that are readable, accurate, scholarly, informative, and motivational even--from Cranmer to Hall, across 80 years.  Ryle does a fine job of summarizing 5-6 English Reformers. I'd suggest 10-12, may 15 English Reformers. Something that poor children and high schoolers could digest. Something PhDs would handily use for collegians. Something PhDs would recognize as a definitive summary with suggestive directions for research. Something Mums and Dads--rich and poor--could access, ponder and draw encouragement. The LORD knows well enough our exile.

Monday at 5:40pm ·

Donald Philip Veitch I'd add Joseph Hall in the list noted above.

Monday at 5:40pm ·

 

XXXXXX List of 10: , but he should be included.  Bishop Guest, John Whitgift, Matthew Parker, Bishop Edward Reynolds, Thomas Becon, Nowell, Archbishop Bancroft, John Davenant, Meltebeke, Sheppard, Joseph Hall.

"The Protestant & Calvinistic" Church of England

A footnote by found in this volume (from http://books.google.com/books?id=6z4DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA295&dq=Thomas+Cranmer&output=text#c_top . We quite agree.
What follows below is from this book. The English Reformers were, repeat, were Calvinists until Mr. Laud arose.
-------------------
Numerous writers in the Episcopal church in England, and among them some of the dignitaries of the church, have laboured to prove that the English reformers were hostile towards Calvin, and that their Confession of Faith and Catechisms, were opposed to his theological works and opinions. That no such opposition existed, says Waterman in his letter to Mr. Johnson, but that an entire harmony prevailed between those venerable reformers, and that pre-eminent minister of Christ, is beyond question evinced from the Catechism itself, which runs parallel with his, and scarcely varies from it, except in a more diffusive illustration of the doctrinal points. It is an incontrovertible fact, that at that very time, and for about fifty years after, to the arch-prelacy of William Laud, the Institutes of Calvin were publicly read and studied in both Universities, by every student in divinity. And the Pope, in his Bull, excommunicating and deposing the queen, in 1569, alleges against her this offensive charge, "that she received herself and enjoined upon her subjects, the impious sacraments and institutes according to Calvin." Every historical fact that has fallen under my observation, enforces upon my mind the conviction, that the doctrinal system of Calvin, in 1562, and in 1570, was cordially received by the bishops of the English church. In proof of this, not to rest on the circumstance, that archbishop Parker presented to the University of Cambridge the Institutes, Commentaries, and other writings of Calvin, I may adduce the following paragraph of the xvii. Article of Faith, as being very closely copied from Calvin's Institutes : "Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture; and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God."— For this fact and the references, I am indebted to the Christian Observer, from which very candid and evangelical work, I beg leave to give the following statement: That Dr. Randolph, bishop of Oxford, a few years before, republished " The whole of king Edward's Catechism, the declaration of doctrines in Jewell's Apology, and the Catechism commonly called Dr. Nowell's, in a collection of tracts for the use of students in divinity."

Page 214ff.

That Calvinistic sentiments were held by the clergy during the reign of Edward VI. there can be no doubt. Mosheim says, "that after the death of Henry (VIII.) the universities, the schools, and the churches, became the oracles of Calvinism; and that when it was proposed, in Edward the Sixth's reign, to give a fixed and stable turn to the doctrine and discipline of the church, Geneva was acknowledged as a sister church, and the theological system there established by Calvin was adopted, and rendered the public rule of faith in England." That the doctrines of the church of England were deemed, by many of the reformers themselves, to be not at variance with Calvin's Institutes might easily be shown. A remarkable testimony to this effect will be found in Fox's detail of the examination of the martyr Philpot, the
first protestant archdeacon of Winchester, in the reign of Edward VI. "Which of you all," said he to his popish judges, "is able to answer Calvin's Institutions, who is minister of Geneva?" "I am sure you blaspheme that godly man and that godly church, where he is minister, as it is your church's condition, when you cannot answer men by learning, to oppress them with blasphemies and false reports: for in the matter of predestination he (Calvin) is in no other opinion than all the doctors of the church be, agreeing with the Scriptures." On another examination, he said, "I allow the church of Geneva and the doctrine of the same; for it is una, catholica, et apostolica, and doth follow the doctrine which the apostles did preach: and the doctrine taught and preached in king Edward's days was also according to the same." (Fox, Volume III. see Philpot's Examinations.)

Bradford wrote a treatise on the doctrine of election, proving its truth from the first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. This work was approved by Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, as appears from the following extract from Strype's Life of Cranmer, p.350:

"One thing there now fell out which caused some disturbance among the prisoners. Many of them that were under restraint for the profession of the gospel were such as held free-will, tending to the derogation of God's grace, and refused the doctrines of absolute predestination and original sin."—" Divers of them were in the King's Bench, where Bradford and many other gospellers were."—" Bradford was apprehensive that they might now do great harm in the church, and therefore wrote a letter to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, the three chief heads of the reformed (though oppressed) church in England, to take some cognizance of the matter, and to consult with them in remedying it. And with him joined bishop Ferrar, Rowland Taylor, and John Philpot. Upon this occasion, Ridley wrote a treatise of God, election and predestination. And Bradford wrote another upon the same subject, and sent it to those three fathers, in Oxford for their approbation: and Their's Being Obtained, the rest of the eminent ministers in and about London were ready to sign it also.

The notes to the Bible, to which archbishop Parker wrote a preface, are highly Calvinistic. These notes, as we are informed by Strype, in his Life of Archbishop Parker, p. 400, were drawn up by the bishops, but chiefly by the archbishops. As a specimen of these notes, we insert that on Ezekiel xviii. 23. "Have I any desire that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God?" The note is as follows: "Hee speaketh this to commend God's mercie to poor sinners, who rather is ready to pardon than to punish, as his long suffering declareth. Albeit God in his eternal counsel appointed the death and damnation of the reprobate, yet the end of his counsel was not their death only, but chiefly his own glory." In the same volume was inserted, under the same authority, viz. that of the bishops and archbishops of the church of England, the well known Calvinistic Catechism, entitled, "Certain Questions and Answers touching the doctrine of Predestination, the use of God's Word and Sacraments." In this Catechism, not only the doctrine of election, but that of reprobation also, is plainly and explicitly affirmed and defended.

The divines deputed by king James, to attend the synod of Dort, were bishops Hall, Davenant, and Ward, who were all eminent and decided Calvinists. King James himself, held the same theological opinions, and strongly disapproved of Arminius and his sentiments. That the divines above named, were Calvinists, is evident from the fact, that they individually and collectively subscribed to all the acts of that synod, in condemnation of the Armenians. King James, in his declaration against Vorstius, calls Arminius, "that enemy of God;" "who was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresy." And, speaking of "seditious and heretical preachers," he adds, "our principal meaning was of Arminius, who though himself were lately dead, yet had he left too many of his disciples behind him." "It was our hard hap not to hear of this Arminius before he was dead, and that all the reformed churches of Germany had with open mouth complained of him." King James' Works, (p. 350, 354, 356.) In a meditation upon the Lord's prayer, king James says, "the first article of the apostles' creed teaches us, that God is Almighty, however Vorstius and the Arminians think to rob him of his eternal decree and secret will, making many things to be done in this world whether he will or not." (Works, 581.) It is remarkable, that the synod of Dort was expressly assembled at the persuasion of king James: and even Dr. Heylin admits that the king "had laboured to condemn those, viz. (the Arminian) opinions at the synod of Dort."— Life of Laud, p. 120.

The archbishops Whitgift, Hutton, and Parker, were all Calvinists, and approved of the Lambeth articles. The predestinarian controversy, which led to the composition of those articles, began at Cambridge in the year 1595; certain individuals of name in the university having about that period publicly denied some of the doctrines usually denominated Calvinistic. For the purpose of allaying the ferment thus excited, the heads of colleges deputed Dr. Whitaker and Dr. Tyndal to wait upon the archbishop at Lambeth, there to confer upon the subject with his Grace, and other learned and eminent men. At this conference the Lambeth Articles were drawn up and approved; and a copy of them was soon after sent to Cambridge by the archbishop, with a letter and private directions to teach the doctrine contained in them, in that university.

The leader will find, (in Fuller's Church History, book ix. p. 22) in the account of the Lambeth Articles, the following sentence :— " Now also began some opinions about predestination, free-will, perseverance, &c. much to trouble both the sdhools and pulpit; whereupon archbishop Whitgift, out of his Christian care to propagate the truth, and suppress tha opposite errors, caused a solemn meeting of many grave and learned divines at Lambeth; where (besides the archbishop,) Richard Bancroft, bishop of London, Richard Vaughan, bishop elect of Bangor, Humphrey Tyndall, dean of Ely, Dr. Whitaker, queen's professor in Cambridge, and others, were assembled. These, after a serious debate and mature deliberation, resolved at last on the now following Articles."

"1. God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto life : certain men he hath reprobated unto death.

"2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life, is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the persons predestinated, but only the good-will and pleasure of God.

"3. There is a predetermined and certain number of the predestinate, which can neither be augmented nor diminished.

"4. They who are not predestinated to salvation, shall » necessarily be damned for their sins.

"5. A true, living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not extinguished, faileth not, vanisheth not away in the elect, either finally or totally.

"6. A man truly faithful, that is, such a one as is endued with justifying faith, is certain, with the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins and his everlasting salvation by Christ.

"7. Saving grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted to all men, by which they maybe saved if they will.

"8. No man can come unto Christ unless it be given unto him, and unless the Father draw him: all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to the Son.

"9. It is not in the will or power of every one to be saved."

With respect to the principles contained in these Articles, we are assured by Whitgift that they were generally recognised :— "I know them," says he, "to be sound doctrines, and uniformly professed in this church of England, and agreeable to the Articles of Religion established by authority: and therefore I thought it meet that Baret should in more humble sort confess his ignorance and error; and that none should be suffered to teach any contrary doctrine to the foresaid propositions agreed upon." So just are the observations of bishop Horsley, "Any one may hold all the theological opinions of Calvin, hard and extravagant as some of them may seem, and yet be a sound member of the church of England and Ireland" " Her discipline has been submitted to, it has in former times been most ably and zealously defended, by the highest supralapsarian Calvinists such was the great Usher; such was Whitgift; such were many more burning and shining lights of our church in her early days, when she shook off the papal tyranny, long since gone to the resting place of the spirits of the just."

Indeed, it must be considered as a little extraordinary, that any person acquainted with the history of those times, should mistake the real nature of the question between the Established church and the Puritanical party: it was not a question of doctrine, but of discipline.

Archbishops Grindall, Bancroft, and Abbott were also strict Calvinists. The doctrinal sentiments of Thomas Fuller, the church historian, are expressed in a brief compass in his Church History, lib. ix. p. 232. He cordially approved of the Lambeth Articles, and considers them as witnesses of "the general and received doctrines of England in that age about the forenamed controversies."Hutton, archbishop of York, mentions the Puritans of his time, who were Calvinistic, as agreeing with the English church in doctrine, though they differed as to ceremonies and accidents. And those of king Charles time, so far resembled them as generally to approve of such articles as are strictly doctrinal. And the sense which they affixed to the articles was Calvinistic, according the notions which had usually prevailed till Charles' days, both in and out of the establishment. Baxter furnishes many proofs of this fact, so far as it respects Presbyterians. Life of Baxter, pp. 213—223, &c.

At what period, then, did the members of the church of England generally change their opinions on the subject of doctrinal Calvinism? It is intimated by Mosheim, that the change took place soon after the Synod of Dort: and this change he informs us, which was entirely in favour of Arminianism, was principally effected by the counsels and influence of William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury. "As the church of England had not yet abandoned the Calvinistical doctrines of predestination and grace, he (James) also adhered to them for some time, and gave his theological representatives in the Synod of Dordrecht, an order to join in the condemnation of the sentiments of Arminius, in relation to these deep and intricate points. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, a man of remarkable gravity, and of eminent zeal both for civil and religious liberty, whose lenity towards their ancestors, the Puritans still celebrate in the highest strains, used his utmost endeavours to confirm the king in the principles of Calvinism, to which he himself was thoroughly attached. But scarcely had the British divines returned from Dordrecht, and given an account of the laws that had been enacted, and the doctrines that had been established by that famous assembly, than the king and the greatest part of the Episcopal clergy discovered, in the strongest terms, their dislike of the proceedings, and judged the sentiments of Arminius, relating to the divine decrees, preferable to those of Geneva and of Calvin. This sudden change in the theological opinions of the court and clergy, was certainly owing to a variety of reasons," Here, then, we have Laud described as the first anti-Calvinistic archbishop; and the time distinctly marked when the change of sentiment took place generally in the church of England.

Walter Travers and Archbishop John Whitgift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Travers

Walter Travers (1548?[1] – 1635) was a Puritan theologian. He was at one time chaplain to William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, and tutor to his son Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury.

He is remembered mostly as an opponent of the teaching of Richard Hooker. He was educated at the University of Cambridge, and then travelled to Geneva to visit Theodore Beza. He was ordained by Thomas Cartwright in Antwerp. He was a lecturer at the Temple Church in London in 1581, until he was forbidden to preach by Archbishop Whitgift in March 1586. [2]

He was Provost of Trinity College, Dublin from 1594 to 1598.[3]

References
1. Alan Ford, ‘Travers, Walter (1548?–1635)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
2. S. J. Knox (1962), Walter Travers: Paragon of Elizabethan Puritanism
3. Walter Travers. Trinity College Website, Retrieved on 16 September 2009

1- John Whitgift (1530-1604): Third Archbishop of Canterbury under Elizabeth 1

Part one beginneth.

John Strype, The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, D.D., The Third and Last Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth in Four Books, Vol 1. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1822).[1]

Volume 1 is free and downloadable at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fti4aQKAbRsC&pg=PA161&dq=strype+whitgift+volume+1&ei=UU3_SrXeJp-CygTDxtD8Dg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Volume 2

http://books.google.com/books?id=4tMUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA602&dq=strype+whitgift&as_brr=1&ei=PEr_SuOMIaqGyQSVrMWoDw#v=onepage&q=strype%20whitgift&f=false

Observations:

1. 1530-1604, John Whitgift, the third Archbishop of Canterbury in Elizabeth 1’s reign.

2. John Strype writes a dedicatory introduction to the Archbishop of Canterbury, upon the completion of “good governors of this reformed Church of England.” We summarize those in 3-5 below.

3. Strype observes that the current ABC endeavours to walk in the good footsteps of John Whitgift.

4. Strype says Whitgift was a “man above the world, contemning all the faint and fading glories,” was “possessed with a firm and comfortable affiance and trust in God,” and was a man of “invincible patience.” With respect to the latter, he suffered “taunts, reproaches, calumnies, clamours, lies and insufferable abuses” in “Parliaments, in city, in country.” He'll suffer from Papists and Radical.

5. He laboured to “keep the Church of England, as it was legally established in the first reformation of it.” (16)
After the dedicatory piece, Strype writes a preface to the reader.

6. He wishes to conserve the history “of our reformed Church under Queen Elizabeth.” He observes that there have been many efforts to overthrow the “evangelical and apostolic discipline,” settled upon the “very wise and good men, our first Reformers.”

7. Strype will give us Whitgift’s life and governance of the church.

8. He promises to enlarge on the story at various points with the following names.

a. Archbishops and Bishops: Parker, Grindal, Sandys, Cox, Scory, Aelmer, Cooper, Overton, Hutton, Matthew, Pierse, Bilson, Fletcher, Still, Bickley, Heton, Bancroft.

b. Deans, divine, and university men: Noel (Nowell?), Perne, Goodman, Fox, Lever, Saravia, Sutcliff, Whitaker, Broughton, Reynolds, Baro, Hooker, Andrews, Abbot, Goad, Overal, Nevyl, charior.

c. New Reformers and Separatists: Sampson, Nicolls, Cartwright, Travers, Chark, Giffard, Browne, Randall, Fenn, Snape, Pagitt, Penry, Udall, Barrow, Greenword, Darell.

d. Papists: Ballard, Moor, and Priests in wisbich-castle.

9. Strype’s sources: authentic records, papers of state, original letters, registries of Archbishops and Bishops of Canterbury, and records from the University, Cotton Library, Heralds’ Office, Mr. Petyt’s library, the Harleyan library, and the library of the Bishop of Ely. He says he consulted other treasuries of “manuscripts of the greatest fame.” He promises to quote extensively.

10. From such, one will see what “the true principles of the Church of England be; what grounds it stands upon; what arguments it hath used to defend itself. The benefit whereof may be, to prevent any after-derivations from it, by any novel doctrines or modern practices, endeavoured to be superinduced on it. We may see what violent and dangerous assaults it hath met with from two sorts of ill-willers especially.”

Correlations:

1. Strype’s other monumental volumes.

2. Correlations to the writings as available in 9a.-9d. above.

Interpretation:

Strype promises to give a documentary and source-based account of John Whitgift, the third Archbishop of Canterbury during Elizabeth 1’s reign.

[1] Volume Two of Whitgift’s works is free and downloadable at: http://books.google.com/books?id=ztEQAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=strype+whitgift&as_brr=1&ei=PEr_SuOMIaqGyQSVrMWoDw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Part One. John Strype: Life and Acts of John Whitgift: The Third and Last Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth

Copy of portrait of Archbishop John Whitgift from Lambeth Palace. Born 1530. Died 29 February 1604.

Part One.

John Strype. The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, D.D.: The Third and Last Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth in Four Volumes, Volume 1. (Oxford: Clarendom Press, 1822).

Strype is freely available at http://books.google.com/books?id=fti4aQKAbRsC&oe=UTF-8

We turn to the following URL for some basics prior to a resumption of blogging four volumes.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/JohnWhitgift.htm

We glean some details in the above ULR prior to entering into the four-volume work of John Strype, the leading authority on Archbishop Whitgift. Here are some bullets about his life.

1. Eldest son of Henry Whitgift, merchant of Great Brimsby, Lincolnshire.
   
2. Born between 1530-1533.
   
3. Educated by his uncle, Robert Whitgift, abbot of neighbouring monastery of Wellow.
   Later, upon the uncle’s recommendation, he went to St. Anthony’s School, London.
   
4. 1549, he matriculated at Queen’s College, Cambridge and, in May 1550, moved to Pembroke Hall. While at Pembroke, John Bradford the Martyr, was his tutor. In May 1555, he became a fellow at Peterhouse. This raises questions for us about his theology in 1555, especially after studying with Bradford.
   
5. He took orders in 1560 and became the Chaplain to Richard Cox, Bishop of Ely.
   
6. We detour from Whitgift to his supervising elder, Bishop Cox—in points 8-11. Cox's picture is to the right. We suspect that Bishop Cox’s view hardened after the Marian persecutions, his own exile, and his involvement with the Puritans. We obviously suspect a connection and consequences for a study of Whitgift. A few points about Richard Cox.
   
7. Richard Cox became more decisively Protestant upon the accession of Edward VI’s accession. He was consulted on the 1549 and 1552 Book of Common Prayer. As the Chancellor of Oxford, he promoted Peter Vermigli to a professorship and was involved in removing anything savouring of Romanism. We suspect, without a further review of Cox, that he was a thorough-going predestinarians as was Peter Vermigli.


8. Cox lost his preferments and did jail time at the infamous Marshalsea Prison when Queen Mary fleeted up. We note this because suffering for the faith changes a man, as it did Luther. In May 1554, Cox escaped and headed to Antwerp for follow-on travels to Frankfurt. Archbishop Sandys was his fellow traveler. Cox takes part in the famous struggle between the Puritans and the Anglicans over The Book of Common Prayer. We call attention to John Knox’s role in this. It was called the Coxian and Knoxian faction. The fracus resulted in Cox calling Knox a traitor to Emperor Charles V. This fracus displeased German, Swiss and other English Churchmen. Knox and his followers were expelled from Frankfurt and the 1552 BCP was retained as the form of worship at Frankfurt, Germany. We believe this was one of Knox’s errors of doctrine and spirit.
   
9. Upon return to England, Queen Elizabeth made Cox the Bishop of Ely, a position he held until his death twenty-one years later. He refused to worship in Elizabeth’s chapel because of the Crucifix and lights. He utterly despised Romanists, with a modicum more of patience—but just a modicum—more of patience with the Puritans.
   
10. We feel that one of the failures in England was the entitlements offered to Bishops, both medieval as well as Reformational. Cox, as others, ended up in numerous property disputes with courtiers seeking Episcopal lands. Erastianism will bear consequences for subsequent English history, including, regrettably, doctrinal errors, e.g. rejection of The Lambeth Articles, 1595.

11. We return to Archbishop John Whitgift. After taking orders in 1560 and serving as Chaplain to Bishop Richard Cox of Ely, Whitgift was appointed Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. His stipend was substantially increased based upon his successful lecture. One year later, he was appointed the Regius Professor of Divinity, becoming a Master first of Pembroke Hall and then Trinity College. By September 1570, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University.

12. We are told that Whitgift was an “High Churchman,” but this appears to be more of a political than theological description, that is, a Royalist’s Royalist. We expect further information to emerge as we assay Strype’s authoritative collection of manuscripts.

13. Whitgift, as did many others, ran afoul of Thomas Cartwright, 1535-1603. Cartwright in 1569 became the Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity, but John Whitgift deprived him of the Professorship inn December 1570 and his Mastership of Trinity College in September 1571. Cartwright criticized the hierarchy and constitution of the Church of England; the Reformation Church of England, according to Cartwright, was out-of-accord with the ancient Church organization; Cartwright may have been more right than wrong.

14. Cartwright was forced to flee England. He returned ultimately and died in the same year as Queen Elizabeth, 1603.

15. It is reported that Whitgift was inferior to Cartwright over the “constitutions and customs” of the Church of England. We will suspend judgment at this point; it appears to pertain to church government and matters adiaphora. This is raising more questions as we proceed.

16. In June 1571, Whitgift was nominated Deal of Lincoln and, on 24 March 1577, was appointed Bishop of Worcester. In August 1583, he was appointed as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Grindal was his predecessor and Bancroft his successor. While committed to the Reformation, he enforced Elizabeth’s uniformity and subscription tests and retained Elizabeth’s confidence and favour.

17. Whitgift drew up articles against nonconforming Churchmen which gave rise to the Martin Marprelate tracts. For the full texts, see http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/

18. In 1595, Whitgift championed The Lambeth Articles. We posted some information on them at http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/08/part-two-english-reformer-dr-william.html

19. Whitgift attended Elizabeth 1 on her deathbed and was involved in the coronation of James 1. He was present at the Hampton court Conference, January 1604, but died in February 1604. He was buried at Croyden in the Parish church of St. John Baptist.

Here endeth Part One.