Anglicans and Calvin: "Reformation Anglicanism" book review

See here for James Clark's review of Earngey and Tong's book "Reformation Anglicanism: Essays on Edwardian Evangelicalism".

I bought the book a while back; it's...okay. It has some interesting insights and interesting historical perspectives, but overall I didn't really get much out of it. I found Marshall's Heretics & Believers to be a superior work, but then again "Reformation Anglicanism" isn't aiming to be a general history of the English Reformation.

I do find it interesting that the mere mention of Calvin's name among certain Anglicans provokes a response much like that of a vampire to garlic. (You can observe the same reaction when bringing up John Owen in certain company.) To me it is odd and rather provincial -- I highly doubt that African or Asian Anglicans will trouble themselves overmuch about John Calvin or the rest of the Continental reformers except when studying church history or theology in seminary.

 

I think we agree that there is room for - and indeed a need for - an Anglican ‘rehabilitation’ of Calvin. Calvin was a brilliant theologian whose insight and ingenuity isn’t always clearly visible in the system bearing his name.

 

The way I look at it, Calvin is a highly polemicized figure, so you need a lot of warrant to ever introduce him

and I just haven’t seen much evidence that he played any role in the English reformation, so I don’t see why certain people keep trying to inject him

 

Goodness, Calvin was enormously influential especially among the “second generation” English Reformers, from the middle of the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, as well as afterward. The authors of the Articles of Religion were very influenced by Geneva. There’s been a lot of good work published on this in recent decades, and there’s a lot of primary source evidence (mainly letters) that’s accessible to the average layperson.

 

A lot of Calvin is hugely misunderstood, and misrepresented by those who call themselves Calvinists. I sense that Calvin would not recognise what they present, and they are really neo-Calvinist and post-Calvinist if you are going to be fair the Calvin.

 

You're not wrong, but I think modern Anglicans would do better to spend their time on Cranmer and Richard Hooker than Calvin. I mean, Calvin's Institutes are required reading if you're a bookworm like me, but for Anglican theology and worship I think Cranmer, Hooker, Jewel, et. al. would bear more fruit. Honestly, if you want a good overview of Calvinist thought, I'd recommend R. C. Sproul or Cornelius Van Til over Calvin any day (though I don't think Sproul would necessarily consider himself a "Calvinist"*; his appreciation of Aquinas would probably disqualify him among the purists anyway). For Reformed Anglicans, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and J. I. Packer represent the Reformed end of the bench pretty well.

@Botolph is correct that John Calvin probably wouldn't have made the theological cut among his modern Reformed descendants. Calvin is one of the most-read but least-understood Reformation era theologians. Part of that was due to his own complex subtlety; Richard Hooker is tough sledding for the same reason. Reading Calvin in Latin is maddening.

*I think Sproul called himself an "Augustinian" rather than a "Calvinist".
** I didn't mean to put "and Hooker" in the last sentence; I've never read Hooker in Latin. In fact, I don't think Hooker wrote in Latin, but standard (if bespoke) Elizabethan English.

 

John Owen especially, if my memory is correct.

 

Can you name a single Elizabethan bishop for whom Calvin was “enormously influential” ?…

None of the major commentaries on the Articles say so? Where are you getting this


And wait-
If Calvin was supposedly influential on the latter 16th century, how could he have “very influenced” the Articles, which trace back to the 1540s?.. pick one, you cant have both

 

I’ll give you three Elizabethan bishops, for starters:
Matthew Parker
Edmund Grindal
John Whitgift

The Articles of Religion didn’t receive their final form until 1571. The commentaries by Burnet and Browne - which were used as seminary texts for many years in England and in America - absolutely discuss the Calvinist influence on the Articles. The approach to the sacraments in the Articles is thoroughly Calvinistic (and this is supported by letters written by English bishops at the time). What “major commentaries” are you referring to?

The Reformed character of the 16th/17th c. Church of England, and its close connection with Geneva especially in those days, is well known and extensively documented. The voluminous correspondence we have between the English Reformers and the Genevans proves this beyond any doubt, and that’s not the only evidence available. It’s not in dispute.

 

Parker was more influenced by Msrtin Luther, though I have no doubt that some of those who weathered Mary's reign on the continent, were exposed to calvinist teaching, and many of them returned. However I do not have names.

 

My impression (you can confirm or deny) is that the church of England was first influenced more by the Lutherans, barring the eucharist, particularly the articles about predestination and justification (11, 12 and 17), but during Elizabeth's reign, Reformed thought got a tighter hold on the seminaries and on the educated, until the full spectrum of 'puritanism' arose (and burst when Charles poked it (but I also understand that everything was quite calm under James, so it took Charles' mismanagement politically and the bishop's wars to unsettle them that much (that's kinda confusing to me))).

I feel like I want invictus to give us the actual correspondence compendium which he is invoking.

And as people have pointed out, Calvin and Calvinism do vary, more so nowadays, from American megachurches to the Scottish Kirk, but my impression is that the reformed didn't agree on everything always (the ultimate failure of the Parliament in the Civil War to craft and impose a national religion that went largely heeded comes to mind, also the relationship between state and church, infralapsarian v supralpsarian, all those sorts of things).

I have been that Arminian that has a violent reaction to the Reformed(tm) soteriologies, but I do agree that there is stuff that we can listen to Calvin about, just as I necessarily don't agree with Augustine on everything, and his opinion goes certainly respected.

 

A substantial portion of the primary source material can be found in The Zurich Letters, ed. Hastings Robinson, vols. 1 and 2.

 

Okay that’s interesting, I’ll pick Parker to study further.. Can you point me to a book of his in which Calvin was “enormously influential?” What I read from him had no traces of Calvin, but I’m open to new evidence

As for Browne, he says this on the influence of Calvin on the Articles:

 

It's mostly in his correspondence, from what I've seen, as well as in the Articles themselves. Parker, if I'm not mistaken, drafted the Article on the Lord's Supper.

Browne stated multiple times in his commentary that the English Articles generally aligned with Calvin's views when addressing a topic that was a point of contention between the Lutherans and the Reformed, or between Zurich and Geneva, though he expressed doubt that the English Reformers learned their doctrine from Calvin directly. That does not mean that official Elizabethan doctrine wasn't Calvinistic in its essentials; certainly, subsequent generations of clergyman recognized this in their own endorsement of Calvin's teaching once his published works became better known in England. Many of the important ideas exchanged during the Reformation were in correspondence and private conversation, rather than through the transmission/translation of large, published works, which generally made their influence felt later.

 

Ok so your outlandish claims slowly have to be rolled back when confronted with the evidence

That is some extremely weak special pleading… the Elizabethan period has theological texts written on sacraments, grace, predestination, free will, justification, and none of the ones I read bear traces of Calvin

You still haven’t posted any evidence that Parker in any of his writings, was “very influenced” by Calvin... Would you like to withdraw that claim now?

 

I’m quite unaware of any “outlandish claims.” Anyone even remotely familiar with the English Reformation is aware of the influence Calvin had on English theological thought during that time. As I’ve already stated, the main evidence for this is in the correspondence from that time, some of which I have cited in other threads on this Forum already, and in the history of the text of the various versions of the Articles of Religion.

Referring to correspondence is not “special pleading;” that’s simply where the bulk of the evidence is to be found. The understanding of the Eucharist presented in the Articles, for example, is thoroughly Calvinistic, as I’ve already pointed out. I see no need to question the consensus of historians of the English Reformation on this point.

Asked and answered.

 

This is why I said the Elizabethans started out Lutheran on predestination. I can't remember where, but I was reading a commentary that quoted Luther himself saying something very similar to the second "unspeakable comfort" paragraph, and the Lutheran confessions on predestination agree quite plainly with the third "we must receive God's promises in such wise" paragraph. It's somewhere in the book of concord, but I'd have to go find it. IIRC, that part was written in direct response to the Reformed thought at the time that ran a bit amok with election.

 

And here again. Who was teaching in the seminaries? It seems an obvious explanation. Is there a way to find that out? Because it really looks like the intellectual position changed over Elizabeth's actually very long reign. Generations of priests were trained, died and replaced during her rule. And the contemporary Genevan element became more Genevan throughout the time period, from the vestarian controversy to the marprelate tracts, and the big crackdown on Presbyterian societies. It didn't start out like that.

 

We do know of Parker that a deal of his formation owed something to Thomas Bilney, who objected to the veneration of saints and relics and was opposed to Pilgrimages to Walsingham and Canterbury. On the other hand, he upheld the authority of the Pope and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He was burned on order by Bishop Nix, who later lamented 'I fear I have burned Abel and let Cain go".

Parker served as chaplain to Anne Boleyn, and tutor to Elizabeth. He was friends with Martin Bucer and preached at his funeral. Parker was a good deal more moderate than many and was able to survive the reign of Mary without taking respite on the continent, though many did.

Mary died and within hours of her death, Archbishop Cardinal Reginald Pole (whose line was Plantagenet) also died (of natural causes). Elizabeth appointed Matthew Parker as her first Archbishop of Canterbury. He trod a moderate line, and whilst he welcomed many who had sheltered abroad for Mary's reign, he was keen to argue for the antiquity of the British Church, the continuity of her faith, and with Elizabeth's help meld the Elizabethan Settlement.

John Calvin was one of many who provided shelter to those escaping from the Marian reign. To pretend that Calvin had no influence on the development of Elizabethan Christianity is likely untrue, however, it is true that he was less influential than other reformers. Consideration of Article 17 suggests that Calvin had been heard, and whilst not wholly endorsed, one can not ignore some sense of influence.

Whilst the reformation charted a very different course in England to that which it did on the Continent, there is a good argument that there was a significant crossover in thinking and exchanges. This was nothing new, and Erasmus was certainly present in Henry VII's court and was great friends with Thomas Moore.

Many of those who really wanted to embrace Calvin's positions, tended to wander off to the Presbyterians, and other communities.