Need some help with the Anglican descriptors

I could use some help with all the different Anglican descriptors, although there seems to ne differences between US and CofE.....
- Anglo-Catholic
- Reformed Catholic
- Evangelical Anglican
- Anglo-papist
- high / low church
- Broad Church
- Classic Anglican

I'm a bit confused esp on the Anglo-Catholics because there seems to be quite a range within that heading. Also where would you place the following folks:
Hooker
Jewel
Cranmer
Ic Ryle
Stott
Toon

Thanks!

 

All of those guys are Evangelical, Reformed, Protestants. Toon was also a bit of a Hobartian (High Church Evangelical)

 

The term 'evangelical' did not exist as a descriptor with specific attributes (i.e. more than just generic 'Protestant') prior to 1900, so while earlier Anglicans could qualify under what Luther meant by the term evangelical, they are not what we today would refer to as evangelical.

The term 'Reformed' in 16th and 17th century meant 'reformational', and only that. Lutherans were 'reformed', Genevans were, and so were the Anglicans. All were churches which reformed upon the abuses of Rome. Over time the term 'Reformed' begun to take upon a technical meaning with specific attributes namely, submission to Calvin's theology and the embrace of 5 points of Calvinism. So if we're talking about classical men like Cranmer, Hooker and Jewel, they couldn't even be accused of holding to 4, or less points of Calvinism, because each of them in specific detail denied monergistic grace, taught declarative sacraments, and in other ways diverged from the Calvinistic churches. John Jewel is an interesting example of this divergence; while he was friends with Peter Martyr, when asked to state the nature of the Church, he said it was divided into deacons, priests, and bishops (in the Apology). And obviously Martyr and continental reformers rejected the three-fold order of the ministry. Jewel also rejected in no uncertain terms monergistic grace.

And as for Protestant, they were Protesting only the Roman church, not the Apostolic faith of the Church Fathers.

To answer your question briefly, who these men were, they were "Classical Anglican". There were no divisions into evangelical and anglo-catholic. The term anglo-catholic wasn't even invented, and the term evangelical had no definition.

In the 19th century the Anglican church was split into two basically irreconcilable camps, of evangelicals and anglo-catholics. And the reason they both seemed to have plausibility from previous Anglican history is that they each contained pieces of the truth. But neither camp contained the whole truth, while the prior Classical Anglican position contained the whole truth.

J.C. Ryle is an early example of a purely modern 'evangelical'. In opposition to the Papist-leaning Anglo-Catholics, he sought to distance himself from the Church Fathers and to base himself on 'the Bible alone', which in his context meant aligning himself with Calvin. Stott was an intensified version of that, quoting Puritans rather than Anglican divines or the church fathers. He wore a secular suit and rejected the clerical garb (something proper Anglicans already settled in the 16th century). He constantly attacked bishops, and was basically a Puritan who called himself an Anglican. Indeed he called himself a Puritan, at the puritan conferences of the 1950s.

Toon, from what I know, in his own way sought to escape the tyranny of these two opposite errors (of evangelicalism and anglo-catholicism). That's why in Hackney's words he was a 'high church evangelical', a contradiction in terms, sort of like a square circle.

 

My favorite Anglican theologian, F.D. Maurice, wouldn't fit any of these labels or parties, as he himself said. He disavowed even the "no party" party. I can identify with that.

 

It's not Anglican to be Genevan, Roman, or Greek. We are a city built upon the apostles, scripture, and fathers. If one reads Taylor, Stillingfleet, Tillotson, or any of the Divines up to 1750, one finds a Holy Table, Humble Vestments, Evangelical (but not Methodist or Puritan) theology, Moderate (but not Ritualist) practice, and most of all, the defense of Episcopacy.

What descriptors? "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" in every sense of the words.

 

The only one of my qualifiers that probably was inaccurate was "Evangelical" if you use it in the 19th century sense, in which case, Ryle was certainly an Evangelical, Stott was a bit less keen on using the Prayer Book but nonetheless Anglican in theology. All of the Reformers and early Anglicans were Reformed Protestants, in the natural sense of those words. To deny that is to have a really terrible sense of Anglican identity and history.

 

What would the classical Anglicans say about Mary, invocation of the saints, and veneration of objects, and eucharistic adoration?

 

The 22nd Article:

 

And from the 28th Article:

 

Read the short, compact "Apology" of the Bishop of Salisbury, John Jewell, from 1562. He was utterly, vehemently opposed to all these things. He uses Scripture & the Fathers to destroy faith in these practices. His "Apology" influenced every subsequent Church-of-England-man for centuries.

Apologia: http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/

 

Herbert Thornike (1598–1672) 'The Reformation of the CofE better than that of the Council of Trent' chapter xxxix

"And thus far I will particularize as concerning the Eucharist, that the Church is to endevour the celebrating of it so frequently that it may be reserved to the next Communion. For in the meantime it ought to be so ready for them that pass into the other world, that they need not stay for the consecrating of it on purpose for everyone. The reason of the necessity of it for all, which hath been delivered, aggravates it very much in danger of death. And the practice of the Church attests it to the utmost. Neither will there be any necessity of giving it in one kind only; as by some passages of Antiquity may be collected, if common reason could decide in a subject of this nature."

+Anthony Sparrow (1612-1685) in 'A rational or practical exposition of the BCP' seems to advocate reservation for Communion of the Sick in 1549 BCP fashion.

Invocation of the Saints is, as far as I can tell, is a definite no. The Caroline Divines do however make frequent mention of giving honour to the Saints, especially the BVM but in a way in which we celebrate their lives (e.g. through the Kalendar), rejoice in their glory and try to follow their examples. (One can however find a few private prayers of some Anglican Divines of the period that are very close to the edge.)

In my parish church we tend to end the intercessions by saying 'Uniting our prayers with the Blessed Virgin Mary, St Peter and all Thy Saints...Merciful Father, accept these prayers for the sake of Thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thorndike in 'An epilogue to the tragedy of the CofE' Book III (The laws of the Church) would see our end of intercession prayer as being 'utterly agreeable'.

 

That form is very laudable indeed, emphasizing the universal Body of baptism, faith, life, and death in Christ. It also puts our attention upon the fact that the Lord is God of the living, not of the dead. We do not pray "through" those who are asleep, nor ask God to hear us by their "merits". Excellent!

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob has shown us that even Dives, Lazarus, and Abraham are vivified in Heaven & in Hell. It is sensible to avoid talking to them personally for the safety of our souls, but we should unite our prayers to those who are alive in Heaven. The more the merrier, truly, in the sight of the Father of all.

 

Very cool Symphorian! An interesting compromise. You are afforded the opportunity of participating in the communion of saints without invoking any one but Christ. I dig it.

 

Finally we agree about something! Alleluia!

 

Right we give honor to the Saints, without acting as if they can hear us or ought to be instead of God intercessors for us. No true-blue 'Protestant' Anglican can refuse to give honor to the Saints, as they are in our Calendar and the whole Liturgical Year is chock filled with our celebration of them.

 

Thanks for the tip. I've been browsing some Jewel articles and links. I'm especially interested in reading his quotes from the church fathers and looking them up.

 

Take no ,'gaum,*' of the replies on Mary, from most of the members!

The Church in England followed the teachings of the Seven Councils and the ,'Councils,' claim that the Lady Mary,, was All Holy & Immaculate, Ever Virgin and of course the The lady was the Theotokos, The Mother o God. Officially, this is the teaching today, except, it is held, but never taught as far as I understand it.In Stuart times, up to 1715, [ a guess,] the Church made an issue of Mary' being,'Ever Virgin. Henry Vths, Archbishop [Chichele] in a famous statement made similar claims, The lady Mary was Immaculate, All Holy and Ever Virgin.Every time the Anglicans meet the Orthodox, they claim to hold Seven Councils.
AS for the other subjects, the Church on the whole followed tradition, but with restraint, just as the Anglican Catholics do today!

 

English cousin, why do you continually quote the "seven councils accepted by Anglicanism", when the Divines were consistently against anything after Chalcedon? It were Jewell who challenged Rome to prove herself out of the first six centuries of the Fathers - that is, up to & including Chalcedon, and perhaps Constantinople II in A.D. 553, but certainly not Nicaea II in A.D. 787. Also, Lancelot Andrewes said that we base ourselves in the four or five centuries of Fathers, as well as Holy Scripture.

Where do you find any indications, in the first 300 years of the Reformed English Church, that they made Dark Age councils their norm for belief? This is more important for a description of Anglicanism than almost anything else. If we are to accept the corrupt, idolatrous, Icon-kissing council of Nicaea II, we might as well just join the Greeks & Slavs in their debased religion!

 

I have told you quite often. The First four Councils were thought to be of prime importance and people began to ignore [ wrongly,]
the rest and the fact that the next two were explanatory, whilst the seventh, was a matter of manners.
One of the most important publications put out by an Anglican scholar, was,' The Church,' by Bishop Field,he stated in the reign of Eliza, or James the First, that there were seven Councils as did most Anglican Commentators.
From 1536, the convocations began to affirm the First four,' and as many others as were necessary'! 1536/42 and 72, the Church took time out to impress on our people the belief of the undivided church. In the first year of Eliza, an Anglican parliament said the Councils were the basis for prosecution for heresy . As for the dark Ages Councils? The Anglican Church was here before the Dark Ages further I personally see nothing wrong with kissing Ikons and one of my magic memories is of having kissed the Dome of Christ's Tomb and having kissed the stone on which He was laid out! If the Orthodox, were in error, so what! Protestantism is a barren, cardboard religion for my money! As for a debased religion? I feel and always have that the Anglican Church is simply, the Western orthodox Church in this neck of the woods.For nearly 1700 years our church has professed its belief in the Councils .

 

I think it was Anthony Sparrow, who wrote a famous book on Mary, the Theotokos. When I find it I'll post the name on. and this was with the consent of the whole bench of bishops.