Five Point Anglicanism
Clipped from https://throughamirrordarkly.substack.com/p/five-point-anglicanism?r=4ardpd&triedRedirect=true
by Fr Andrew Brashier
Affirming Andrewes' Anglican Anchor
How do we Keep Our Hands on the Gospel Plow? A simple phrase, or another Anglican acronym might work. For example, perhaps you are familiar with the Five Sola’s of the Reformation or the Five Points of Calvinism? Quite catchy. What if I told you Anglicans have something similiar? Meet the Five Points of Anglicanism:
“One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period—the centuries, that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.”
- Lancelot Andrewes, Opuscula Quædam Posthuma
Andrewes is known as one of the Caroline Divines, perhaps the oldest in that category, as most of the Caroline Divines’ ministries were after the early English Reformation. Andrewes was born in 1555, after Cranmer’s martyrdom, but was in ministry during Elizabeth I’s reign, during the prominent Elizabethan Settlement. Andrewes would become a bishop during James I’s reign and was known for both his written works and sermons, collected as the Ninety-Six Sermons.
He lived and ministered in an era claimed by Reformation Anglicans and Catholic Anglicans. He served as the man chiefly responsible for editing, translating, and guiding the gift to all English Christians and speakers - the Authorized Version, better known in the States as the King James Version. Therefore, when Andrewes summarizes the faith of Anglicans, he is worth listening to. In fact, arguably, Anglicans have always modeled this short summary of the faith when they are faithful to Christ. For example, although it presently gathers dust, the Church of England Canon A5 states:
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
This canon evokes the Andrewes summary of faith. Further, Canon A5 has historical precedent throughout the historic 1604 Canons, which governed the Church of England for three centuries. Those canons regularly invoke the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the formularies. (Canons IV, V, XIV, XXX through XXXIII, for example).
Therefore, it should not surprise us that the GSFA Covenant’s Doctrinal Foundation Fundamental Declarations at Section 1.1(a) is practically verbatim in incorporating the Church of England’s Canon A5:
The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) is a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces, or regional Churches in full communion with one another, which have the following characteristics in common:
a) the doctrine of their Churches is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer (1662), and The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, annexed to The Book of Common Prayer, and commonly known as the Ordinal;
Furthermore, at GAFCON’s formation (predating the GSFA Covenant) it incorporated the following within the 2008 Jerusalem Statement (emphasis added):
Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it.
One might object that the Abuja Affirmation anchors GAFCON to the Jerusalem Declaration as opposed to the full Jerusalem Statement. After all, the Abuja Affirmation looks to the Jerusalem Declaration to “expresses our common confession” for the Global Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, let us explore how the Jerusalem Declaration nicely conforms to Andrewes’s Five Point Anglicanism.
One Canon
Andrewes characterizes Holy Scripture as belonging to a single canon. He boasts it is written not by man, but “by God himself.” There is much within this simple statement that contemporary scholars and so-called theologians mock while learned bishops and priests disregard wholesale. Fundamentally, Anglicans have made their name a byword for “fudge” precisely because many have denied this central principle.
In the words of the Abuja Affirmation, “The Bible is God’s Word written (Article XX). It was breathed out by him and written for us by faithful messengers. It carries God’s own authority and is its own interpreter – it is clear, sufficient and true for all times. God’s Word is the final authority in the church and in the life of discipleship.” As the Jerusalem Declaration, paragraph 2 holds, “We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation.”
It is “the Word of God.” In it, we may find everything requisite to hear the Gospel and learn of our salvation in Christ. The Scriptures are one canon, the final authority, and “cannot be broken,” as our Lord teaches. (John 10:35).
Two Testaments
The “Good Book” is divided only insofar as it is revealed in two testaments: Old and New. The Jerusalem Declaration notes, “We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” Or as the Articles of Religion uphold, “In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” (Article VI). These two testaments consist of the sixty-six undisputed books of Scripture, a conservative canon articulated in an age where neither Rome nor Orthodoxy had made official pronouncements as to their own canon of Scriptures. (Trent is finalized after the Article of Religion are adopted along with the Synod of Jerusalem, which occured a century later).
Instead, the English Church followed St. Jerome and the historic “Bible of the Western Church,” his Vulgate, by keeping the Apocryphal books in a separate section. Anglicans have not excised these books, but receive them as the ancient church fathers (Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus), noting “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Article VI). Therefore, you will see references to the Apocryphal books throughout the Books of Homilies. And a fun fact, your Authorized Version of Scriptures with 80 books has seven additional books than what is in Roman Catholic Bibles today, just don’t tell Fr. Michael Schmitz.
But I digress.
The two testaments are not in opposition to one another nor is the Old to be disregarded, because there is a New, for “The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man.” (Article VII). Quite simply, there is no room for Marcionites, as “Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.” Id.
Three Creeds
Our canon of Scripture is defined, but how do we surmise and summarize our faith?How do we succintly teach the inquirer, catechise the child, and instruct the ignorant on the faith once delivered? Andrewes steers us to the three Creeds and the Jerusalem Declaration concurs:
We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Which Creeds? The Apostles’ Creed, which we confess as we enter the font of new birth in baptism. The Nicene Creed, our profession before we receive the body and blood of Christ Jesus in Holy Communion. Finally, last but certainly not least, the robust Athanasian Creed, which combats heresies that arose in the first five centuries of the Church and continue rearing their ugly heads.
Professing and confessing the Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds firmly roots the Anglican Way in the Western Church. The East is unfamiliar with these two Creeds, but they neatly summarize the essentials for entrance into the faith on one end while detailing the intricacies of the Blessed and Holy Trinity on the other. Traditionally, under the auspices of the traditional prayer books, the Athanasian Creed is confessed or sung at Morning Prayer some thirteen times during the year. It is a robust Creed that is desperately needed in our erring age of confusion, both within and without the Church. Contemporary prayer book users should make more regular use of the Athanasian Creed beyond Trinity Sunday and become familiar with its riches.
For example, in an age that denies sin and therefore judgment, the Athanasian Creed warns us squimish 21st Century Westerners, “And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.” Chaser, meet shot, “This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.”
Fundamentally, why do we confess them? Because “The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” (Article VIII).
Four Councils
Our Christian witness is not limited by our personal theology nor by where our deceitful hearts lead us. We anchor our theology upon the ancient witness of Christians who did the hard work, fought the necessary battles, and equipped the Church with the wisdom of receiving Scripture through the lens of the four ecumenical councils that fought off multiple heresies and provided us with a treasury of riches.
Why four councils? In part, as we will see in the next section, Andrewes and Anglicans trusted the first five centuries of orthodox and catholic saints over the deviations that crept into the Church in the early to late Middle Ages. Further, as one of the Doctors of the Church holds:
I confess that I receive and revere, as the four books of the Gospel, so also the four Councils
- St. Gregory the Great, Book I, Letter 25, Registrum Epistolarum
Gregory’s tying together the first four councils with the four Gospels is a perfect explanation as to how Anglicans hold to the Scriptures. When we uphold Five Point Anglicanism, we view and receive the Scriptures and its wisdom through the lens of the ancient church. Four Gospels, Four Councils. This fits with how GSFA and GAFCON echo the second part of Canon A5, “The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.” (emphasis added). Or, as the Jerusalem Declaration, paragraph 3 states, “ We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” (emphasis added).
The Councils arose in war against the great Arian heresy, defined and refined the Nicene Creed we professed in the section above and confess at every Holy Communion, and demonstrated that the Church will withstand the gates of hell, even when hell has heretical spies in our midst. Or as St. Gregory the Great summarized the work of the Councils:
to wit, the Nicene, in which the perverse doctrine of Arius is overthrown; the Constantinopolitan also, in which the error of Eunomius and Macedonius is refuted; further, the first Ephesine, in which the impiety of Nestorius is condemned; and the Chalcedonian, in which the pravity of Eutyches and Dioscorus is reprobated.
But what about the later Councils? Well, for one thing, even the Great Doctor, St. Gregory the Great, equated the four great Councils as pillars, despite living during the time of the fifth Council. This did not mean he disagreed with the fifth, far from it, and far from us as Anglicans. In his same letter, St. Gregory upholds the fifth Council, saying, “The fifth council also I equally venerate,” and Anglicans would agree with a hearty, “Amen!” as demonstrated by the Second Book of Homilies referencing the fifth and sixth councils favorably:
After Gregory’s time, Constantine, Bishop of Rome, assembled a Council of bishops in the West Church, and did condemn Philippicus, then Emperor, and John, Bishop of Constantinople, of the heresy of the Monothelites, not without a cause indeed, but very justly. When he had so done, by the consent of the learned about him, the said Constantine, Bishop of Rome, caused the images of the ancient fathers, which had been at those six Councils which were allowed and received of all men, to be painted in the entry of St. Peter’s church at Rome.
Against the Peril of Idolatry, The Second Book of Homilies (emphasis added).
Indeed, Richard Field, the great and oft-forgotten theologian-giant and contemporary of Richard Hooker, wrote:
[T]herefore it is not to be marveled at if Gregory [the Great] profess that he honoureth the first four Councils as the Four Gospels; and that whosoever admitteth them not, though he seem to be a stone elect and precious, yet he lieth beside the foundation and out of the building. Of this sort there are only six; the First (Nicea I) defining the Son of God to be coessential, coeternal and coequal with the Father. The Second (Constantinople I, 391) defining that the Holy Ghost is truly God, coessential, coeternal and coequal with the Father and the Son. The Third (Ephesus 431), the unity of Christ’s person. The Fourth (Chalcedon 451), the distinction and diversity of His natures, in and after the personal union. The Fifth (Constantinople II, 553), condemning some remains of Nestorianism, more fully explaining things stumbled at in the Council of Chalcedon…. And the Sixth (Constantinople III, 680-1), defining and clearing the distinction of operations, actions, powers and wills in Christ, according to the diversity of His natures. These were all the lawful General Councils (lawful I say both in their beginning, and proceeding, and continuance) that ever were holden in the Christian Church touching matters of faith.
Of the Church, Richard Field (quoted from The Anglican Way).
Nevertheless, the first Four Councils are pillars while the Fifth and Sixth are merely walking faithfully in extrapolating and applying orthodoxy consistently to new heresies. Or as the ACNA Fundamental Declarations, paragraph 5 states, as to the latter councils, they are received insofar as they are articulating “Christological clarifications.”
Ultimately, the shorthand is receiving the Four Councils, which serve as the basis for the later councils. Therefore, Anglicans throughout the 1500-1700s would agree with Jeremy Taylor, who opines, “The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard, not that they are infallible, but that they have determined wisely and holily.” His short affirmation rings true during the early Reformation through the Restoration period of the English Reformation. It echoes the sentiments of St. Gregory the Great, where the Anglican Church rests:
These [first four councils] with full devotion I embrace, and adhere to with most entire approval; since on them, as on a four-square stone, rises the structure of the holy faith; and whosoever, of whatever life and behaviour he may be, holds not fast to their solidity, even though he is seen to be a stone, yet he lies outside the building.
Five Centuries
The Romish and Eastern trope that Anglicans cannot possibly interpret Holy Scripture without tradition ignores that GSFA and GAFCON have echoed Canon A5 in their commitment that, “The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures**.”**
We are rooted in the old ways, not because they are old, but because they remain the same narrow Way that Christ led the Apostles, delivered unto them, and preserved for us, His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. As the bride of Christ, we must be faithful and obedient to our bridegroom, Christ Jesus. When we are faithless, we must return to the loving groom who seeks our well-being if we would only listen Him. He is the Eternal Ancient of Days. He is the Alpha and Omega. He knows greater for He is the Creator. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8, KJV). Therefore, what is man that he should question God? His spouse, the Church, is called to remain faithful to the One who never changes nor departs to the left nor the right.
The Jerusalem Declaration, paragraph 2, restates how we keep to the narrow Way is through the Scriptures as properly understood: “The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.” Faithful Anglicans, indeed all faithful Christians, cannot submit ourselves to novel teachings, nor anything new.
But what if there is a new “Word from the Lord”? Or perhaps a newly revealed vision from the “Holy Spirit”? Maybe it is a divine messenger with a novel insight?
Hold fast to Christ, Anglican Church. Do not allow Satan to disguise the zeitgeist as an angel of light or become bedazzled by the trends or whims of the latest scholar or trendy cleric selling novelties to itching ears.
St. Paul was not solely speaking to the Galatians when he wrote, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8, KJV). In fact, St. Paul was so concerned that the Galatians (and we) were not listening that he repeated in the next verse, “As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:9, KJV).
Instead, test the spirits and the false prophets through the Scriptures. Receive the Scriptures through the lens of the ancient Church. Where we moderns and post-modernists err, we must repent. And there is much to repent for and from.
We are the inheritors of riches. Mine the fathers of the early church. Andrewes and Anglicans have historically upheld the fathers of the first five centuries as the measure for interpreting the Scriptures as a safe and conservative rule to avoid later errors from perverting and misunderstanding the Scriptures, and therefore our salvation. It does not foreclose nor forbid us from reading and benefiting from later theologians, but it is a safer bet to test the findings of any theologian - whether 21st or 13th Century - with the ancient doctors and fathers of the first five centuries.
The Need for Five Point Anglicanism
We need Five Point Anglicanism. The Lutherans have a rose, the Reformed have a tulip, and we Anglicans have a broken compass. We followed too much errors old and new of our own making. We followed the broken needle and ended up stranded in Canterbury when New Jerusalem is beckoning us home. We have become stale and lukewarm, and Christ will spit us out.
We need an anchor.
The Five Points of Anglicanism are centered upon the Cross of Christ, held fast to the unbreakable chain of Christ’s hold upon us to the ark of our salvation, the Church, and extending out ready to catch hold and stand firm upon the foundation of our faith.
The Five Points of Anglicanism, crafted by Andrewes and echoed throughout both the early and later English Reformation, transcends the artificial divide between Reformation Anglicans and Catholic Anglicans. It serves as a reminder that the English Church was reformed in order to be catholic. It roots itself upon the Holy Scriptures above all else, yet transcends the heresies old and new by equipping us with spectacles to see the wisdom of the Creeds, Councils, and Fathers who gave them to us.
The Anglican reception and understanding of the ancient Way is further explained through our formularies: “In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal.” (Jerusalem Statement, drawing from Canon A5 and also echoed in the GSFA Covenant); see also (Jerusalem Declaration, paragraphs 4, 6-7, invoking the formularies). The Jerusalem Declaration, when viewed in light of the full Jerusalem Statement, calls us to remember our inheritance and invest it prudently in building Christ’s Church, one soul at a time.
Therefore, in light of the Abuja Affirmation, where does the Global Anglican Communion proceed from here? Each province, each diocese, and each parish should meditate upon the invitation within the Jerusalem Declaration’s paragraph 11: “We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.” (emphasis added).
Let us examine, self-examine, and take up the remainder of this holy Lent to ask ourselves, do we “uphold orthodox faith and practice,” or are we merely declaring it and patting ourselves on the back for assenting to the Jerusalem Declaration but living, practicing, or believing contrary to the Five Points of Anglicanism?
There are weeds to be pulled at home, and until the work is put in to root them out, we will be unanchored and adrift at sea.
The Global Anglican Communion in the Abuja Affirmation noted the hypocrisy of the past generation, stating:
Archbishop Justin Welby affirmed both a “traditional teaching” and a “different teaching”, the latter held by those who are “not careless about Scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature”. This is unambiguously contrary to Anglican doctrine as it has been received.
Amen.
Now let us turn the mirror upon ourselves and ask the hard questions - where do we allow a different teaching to stand, either in opposition or alongside the traditional teaching?
When confronted with two positions, “ [Both cannot be right](http://Both parties cannot be right.),” as one learned dean and an ACNA Task Force put it. Appeals to adiaphora and attempts to render contemporary issues as those of “secondary importance” defy and undermine the clear statements of Scripture as rightly, historically, and consensually read by the Church. The apparant inability of G26 bishops and delegates to confirm the newly elected Archbishop of Canterbury is categorically disqualified for office by Scripture and tradition is telling - and concerning.
As Five Point Anglicans, what has not been received as revelation in Scriptures rightly understood by the Creeds, Councils, and ancient fathers, quite simply, can never be received. Irrespective of any desire or future “ strong consensus to change,” Christ does not change, and neither should the doctrine He entrusts His bride, the Church.