Embracing both "venerable Calvin" and "pious Arminius": Horsley on the Articles
I know not what hinders but that the highest Supralapsarian Calvinist may be as good a churchman as an Arminian; and if the Church of England in her moderation opens her arms to both, neither can with a very good grace desire that the other should be excluded (Charge of 1800).
Such "moderation" was embodied in the Articles, to which both Calvinist and Arminian could subscribe (akin, we might note, to the approach taken by many of the early Reformed confessions in contrast to the Westminster Confession):
and by God's grace I will persist in the assertion to my dying-day, that so far is it from the truth that the Church of England is decidedly Arminian and hostile to Calvinism, that the truth is this, that upon the principal points in dispute between the Arminians and the Calvinists - upon all the points of doctrine characteristic of the two sects, the Church of England maintains an absolute neutrality; her Articles explicitly assert nothing but what is believed both by Arminians and by Calvinists (Charge of 1806).
This is contrary, he states, to those who would insist on a narrow interpretation of the Articles, to the exclusion of either school of thought:
I confess, I cannot understand upon what principle our brethren of the Calvinistic persuasion should demand of us, that we should adopt either the Resolutions of the Synod of Dort, or what are called the Lambeth Articles, as the necessary exposition of the Articles of our Church; but I as little understand upon what principle our Arminian brethren should insist that we should set forth their opinions, as if they were asserted in our Articles, in their true and plain meaning, in condemnation of the Calvinistic (Charge of 1800).
This "moderation", however, was not without boundaries. Horsley highlights expressions of both Calvinism and Arminianism as contrary to the Formularies, noting too that enthusiasts for both traditions departed from "the venerable Calvin" and "the pious Arminius".
I must however declare, that when I speak of Calvinism and Arminianism as capable of uniting in one communion, and that one the communion of the Church of England, I look only to Calvinism such as the venerable Calvin would himself have owned, not enriched and embellished with the extravagancies of later visionaries; and I look to Arminianism such as the pious Arminius would have owned, not fouled and tainted with loathsome admixtures of the Arian and Pelagian heresies (1800).
In understanding the Articles to embrace both "venerable Calvin" and "pious Arminius", while also excluding later radical expressions of the Calvinist and Arminian traditions, Horsley provides an excellent example of how the Articles can function within Anglicanism, providing a basis for generous moderation around a Reformed Catholic centre.
While I also find this appealing, there is part of me that has a hard time forgetting that--as far as I understand--Article 17 was originally and expression of an Augustinian single-predestination position not (entirely) compatible with Arminius. I may certainly be wrong (my knowledge of the development of the articles is limited), but the more interesting point is the degree to which contemporary Anglicans should have the same or similar understanding of the articles if they assent to them. I like to think about this question now and again, and I'd be interested in your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteRyan, many thanks for the comment.
DeleteI think that a strong case can be made that the view of predestination held by Arminius is compatible with Article 17. For example:
"The decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which he resolved within himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of his own glorious grace, believers on whom he had decreed to bestow faith".
And:
"An eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which he determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with life eternal".
In particular, Arminius' emphasis on election being in Christ echoes a concern of Article 17.
Now this is *not* to argue that Article 17 is Arminian but, rather, that Arminius' understanding is compatible with the measured, cautious language of the Article. In the same way that a (modest) Calvinist reading, even though it goes beyond what is required by the Article, is also compatible in that it does not deny anything affirmed by the Article.
In terms of contemporary assent, the value of of Article 17 is that it requires those who subscribe to affirm predestination to life in Christ, an affirmation made in Scripture and maintained by orthodox Christian witness over the centuries. In doing so, however, it does not require of us to formulate theories about God's eternal decrees and their ordering. In other words, it offers a generous, catholic, orthodox centre - robustly Scriptural and patristic - without requiring precise definitions or speculative theories.
Brian.
Hi there, I've seen varying statements on what "English Arminianism" means and how it applies to the Laudians Old High Churchmen. I've read some saying that it was mostly an exaggerated insult towards High Church Anglicans who believed in single predestination, as well as views on the episcopate, by Calvinists Anglicans. But I've also heard that Arminianism had a legitimate following in Anglicanism prior to Wesley, which includes the Old High Churchmen.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm mostly just wondering about the dominant soteriological views of the Old High view :)
Thank you for your comment.
DeleteTo begin, yes, the charge of 'Arminianism' in the first three decades of the 17th century was a highly politicised slogan, with little bearing to theological realities. Some avant-garde and Laudians were certainly open to and supportive of Arminian thought. Most, however, were more concerned with rejecting the requirement of a harsh, dogmatic predestinarian view, far beyond the requirements of Article XVII. Rather than 'Arminianism', the Laudian concern was that the peace of the Church should not be disturbed by theological speculation about the mystery of God's eternal decrees.
Post-1662, most divines in the CofE cohered around Article XVII, desiring me more than this (see the post on the blog on the Reformed divine Welchman). Yes, a strain of Arminian thought was present, but much more evident was a concern to adhere to Article XVII without indulging in scholastic Calvinistic theories.
Horsley's views in this post are a good reflection of the central Old High tendency on these matters.