Durham E-Theses The study of the fathers in the Anglican tradition 16th-19th centuries Middleton, Thomas Arthur How to cite: Middleton, Thomas Arthur (1995) The study of the fathers in the Anglican tradition 16th-19th centuries, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5328/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk ir-ji.r,;;s.;','is THE STUDY OF THE FATHERS IN THE ANGLICAN TRADITION iiiilli 16TH-19TH CENTURIES iliii ii^wiiiiiBiiiiiii! lililiiiiliiiiiln mom ARTHUR MIDDLETON The Study of the Fathers in The Anglican Tradition 16th-19th Centuries The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be pubhshed without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. By The Revd. Thomas Arthur Middleton Rector of Boldon 1995 M.Litt., Thesis Presented to UieFaculty of Arts 1MAY 1996 University of Durham Department of Theology Acknowledgements The author expresses his thanks to the Diocese of Durham for the giving of a grant to enable this research to be done and submitted. Thanks are also due to the staff of the University and Cathedral Ubraries in Durham, the librarian of St.Chad's College, Durham and the Principal for permission to use its resources, and to the staff of the Bodleian Library in Oxford for their kindness and help in enabling the author to find the various sources necessary to this research. Finally, the author is immensely grateful to his Supervisor the Very Reverend Dr. George Dragas, Archpriest and Proto-Presbyter of the Greek Orthodox Church and Senior Lecturer in Patristics in the Department of Theology in the University of Durham. Without his inspiration and guidance this research would not have been possible. © The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. The Study of the Fathers The Anglican Tradition 16th - 19th Centuries Contents Abstract lo Part One : The Fathers in The English Reformation 1. Introduction : An Ecclesiastical Mind (i) Oxford and Patristic Studies 12 (ii) The Ecclesiastical Mind 13 (iii) The Fathers and Anglican Theology 14 2. Fathers and Reform in Thomas Cranmer and John Jewel (i) The Patristic Argument in the Refornief s 17 (ii) Thomas Cranmer 1489-1556 19 [a] A Patristic Scholar [b] A Quest for CathoUcism [c] Evidence of Patristic Learning [d] The Confutation [e] An EngUsh Bible [f] The Ten Articles [g] Eucharisric Doctrine [h] Conclusion (iii) John Jewel 1522-1571 27 [a] An Assessment [b] The Challenge Sermon [c] Henry Cole's Response [d] The Apologia and Defence [e] Jewel' s Use of the Fathers 3. The Fathers in Anglican Foundation Documents (i) The Canons 36 [a] The Canons of 1571. [b] The Canons of 1603 (ii) The Thirty Nine Articles 37 [a] The faith of the Undivided Church [b] Scripture and Tradition [c] The Canon of Scripture [d] AngUcanism and the Primitive Faith (iii) The Homilies 41 [a] The First Book of HomiUes [b] The Second Book of the Homilies [c] Selected References from the First Book [d] Selected References from the Second Book [e] Concluding Comments (iv) The Book of Common Prayer 44 [a] Antecedents [b] Principles of Liturgical Reform [c] Of Ceremonies [d] Apology for the Book of Common Prayer [e] Reformation not Innovation [f] The Source and Context of Theology (v). The Ordinal 49 [a] The Test of Catholicity [b] The Preface The Patristic Spirit of Reform (i) Continuity with the Primitive Church 50 (ii) Archbishop Parker and the Argument from Antiquity 50 (iii) Our Peculiar Character 52 (iv) Reading from the 'Inside' 54 Part Two : Fathers and Carolines 5. Successors and Builders (i) Newman and Routh 56 (ii) Distinguished Writers 57 (iii) The Love of Learning and the Desire for God 58 (iv) Anglicanism's Distinctive Strength 58 6. Richard Hooker and the Puritans (i) Controversy and The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity 60 (ii) The Appeal to Antiquity 62 [a] A New Stage in the Argument [b] Cartwright's Use of the Fathers [c] Hooker's Use of the Fathers [d] An Advance in Patristic Scholarship (iii) The Incarnation 67 [a] The Patristic Mind [b] The Central Tower [c] Incarnation and Sacraments [d] Exposition of the Incarnation [e] Sacramental Theology (iv) Participation 72 [a] Sacraments and Participation [b] Theosis [c] C.S.Lewis and Hooker [d] Olivier Loyer on Hooker (v) Conclusion. 75 7. Lancelot Andrewes and the Roman Catholics (i) His Theological Base 78 [a] A Mystical Theology [b] Continuity with Antiquity [c] Originality (ii) The Apologist 80 [a] Disputes with BeUarmine and Perron [b] Appeal to Antiquity [c] A Sounder Foundation (iii) The Preacher 84 [a] His Style [b] His Use of the Fathers • [c] The Scriptural Mind [d] His Exposition of Symbol [e] A Syntiiesis of Patristic Dogma and Experience (iv) Deification 89 [a] Andrewes,AUchin, and EUot [b] The Meaning of Emmanuel [c] A Coherent Vision (v) Prayer 92 [a] Theology is Prayer [b] The Sources of the Preces Privatae [c] The Disposition Andrewes' Prayer (vi) Conclusion 94 r 8. William Laud (1573-1645) Archbishop of Canterbury (i) The Man and His Assessors 96 (ii) The Theologian 98 [a] Foundations [b] The Innovator [c] A Man of the Tradition (iii) His Apologia 100 [a] The Preface [b] The InfalUbiUty of the Church [c] Primary and Secondary Articles [d] The Fallacy of Jesuit and Puritan [e] Primitive Tradition and Carolines (iv) Episcopacy 104 [a] Correspondence with Bishop Hall [b] John Keble's Judgement (v) His Achievements 105 [a] The Real Issue [b] A New School of Theology [c] The Fruit of Laud' s Theology (vi) In Conclusion 108 9. The Laudians and Henry Hammond (i) The Laudians 109 (ii) Henry Hammond 110 [a] His Reasonable Theology Of the Reasonableness of the Christian Religion His Practical Catechism [b] His Approach to the Bible A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon the Books of the New Testament [c] His Understanding of the Authoritative Foundation Antiquity a Criterion of History Of Fundamentals The Rule of Faith [d] Episcopacy Ignatius of Antioch Of the Power of the Keyes [e] The Book of Common Prayer [f] In Conclusion 10 : Literature and Laudians (i) Richard Field (1561-1616) 119 (ii) JohnBramhall (1594-1663) 121 (iii) Herbert Thorndike (1598-1672) 123 (iv) John Pearson (1612-1686) 125 (v) JohnCosin (1594-1672) 126 (vi) Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) 127 (vii) William Beveridge (1638-1768) 129 (viii) William Cave (1637-1713) 132 (ix) Joseph Bingham (1668-1723) 134 (x) Conclusion 136 Part Three : Objections and Responses 11: Direct Objections and Responses I. (i) Fathers and Controversy 138 (ii) John Daille and The Right Use of the Fathers 142 (a) The Testimony of the Fathers is vague, uncertain, and obscure. (b) The Fathers are not of sufficient authority to decide modem controversies. (iii) The Ignatian Controversy 160 (a) The Epistles and Episcopacy (b) Opposition (c) Daille's Response (d) The Response of John Pearson (e) J.B.Lightfoot (f) Conclusion 12 : Direct Objections and Responses II (i) John Barbeyrac and The Morality of the Fathers 166 (ii) The Spirit of Infidelity by A Believer. 168 A Response to Barbeyrac's Accusations (a) Athenagoras and The Worship of Angels (b) Clement of Alexandria (c) TertulUan (d) Cyprian (e) Lactantius (f) Athanasius (g) The Cappadocians (h) Ambrose (i) Jerome (j) Augustine, Leo, Gregory the Great. (iii) Daniel Waterland (1683-1740) Responds to Barbeyrac. 176 (a) Athenagoras and Second Marriages (b) Clement of Alexandria (c) Barbeyrac's Claim (d) Propagators of the Christian Rehgion (e) Wateriand's Conclusion (iv) J. J. Blunt's Response and The Right Use of the Early Fathers 179 (a) Martyrdom (b) Marriage (c) Trades and Idolatry (d) Self-Defence (e) His Interpretation of I Timothy i, 4. 13. Indirect Objections and Responses (i) Deism 184 (ii) The Context of George Bull's Response (1634-1710) 186 (a) The Godhead of the Son (b) Petavius and Arian Opinion (c) Bull's Anxiety about Episcopius (d) Irenicum Irenicorum (e) Bull's Purpose (iii) Bull's Z)e/ensio 189 (a) Book I: On the Pre-existence of the Son (b) Book II: On the Consustantiality of the Son (b) Book II: On the Consubstantiality of the Son (c) Book III: The Coeternity of the Son (d) Book IV : On the Subordination of the Son to the Father (iv) Bull's Judicium Ecclesiae CatHolicae 192 (v) Bull's Distinctive Use of the Appeal to Antiquity 192 (vi) Daniel Wateriand's Response 1683-1740 194 (a) Enghsh Arians (b) The Use and Value of Ecclesiastical Antiquity (c) Dr. Clarke's School of Thought (d) In Conclusion 14. Epilogue 203 15. Appendix: The Tew Circle (i) Its Nature and Membership 207 (ii) Criticism of the Appeal to Antiquity 208 (ui) Diversity of Viewpoint 209 (a) ChilMngworth (b) John Hales (c) Hyde (d) Lucius Falkland (iv) Antiquity Confirmatory of Scripture 212 (v) Ancients versus Modems 212 16.