Back in January, Ray Sutton, the Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church, wrote a lengthy essay on Anglican identity. It began as commentary on a recent book release and then a response to some early criticisms. But due to the size and scope of the installment, it had the feeling of a sort of manifesto. It seemed to lay out Bishop Sutton’s understanding of “Reformed Catholicism.” One claim especially caught my attention. Bishop Sutton writes:

Cranmer’s Forty-Two Articles were at some points, especially on Calvinism and the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, later significantly modified in their final approval by the Church of England and Parliament in 1571 to be the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

This is an argument that he has made before in other writings. For instance, in 2023:

Thus, fifteen years after Cranmer’s death, the English Church removed the more Calvinistic articles to provide a more catholic latitude in understanding the Sovereignty of God. The result was the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion in 1571.

Anglicanism, according to this understanding, is a “Reformed Catholicism.” But it’s not exactly “Reformed” in the typical sense of that term. It’s certainly not Calvinistic. Indeed, Bishop Sutton offers a sort of Anglican confessional development which started off in that direction but then moderated to a “more catholic latitude.” And since these are claims being made about the Thirty-Nine Articles, then they are claims which establish the meaning and identity of Anglicanism’s historic formularies.

Sutton’s presentation is therefore noteworthy for those of us who would like to participate in the recovery and practical embodiment of classical Anglicanism in the modern world. There’s a lot there, and I should return to it in more detail. But as for the basic framing and thesis that I have highlighted, we should reject it. The freighted use of “Calvinism” is unhelpful, as is the appeal to a less defined “catholic.” Using these terms in this way perpetuates an anachronistic timeline and gives a false version of development in the Anglican tradition. We need to move away from this approach and instead draw attention to a close reading of the historic formularies.

What is Calvinism in early Anglican History?

Calvinism has long been a scare term in Anglican history. Differing from the Presbyterians, who eventually came to champion the name, Reformed Anglicans typically did not call themselves “Calvinistic Anglicans.” And there are actually several good reasons for this.

To begin, the ministers of the Church in England were not called to be partisans but to preach and teach the gospel as taught by the Scriptures and handed down by the faithful throughout the centuries. Even someone like William Perkins could say, “Neither are the professors of the Gospel to be entitled by the names of such as have been famous instruments in the Church, as to be called Calvinists, Lutherans, &c.” (William Perkins, A Golden Chaine, Cambridge: John Legat, 1600, 721–22.). The goal was biblical and faithful Christianity.

Still, even more than this, the term “Calvinism” doesn’t make historical sense for early Anglicans. Thomas Cranmer was twenty years older than John Calvin. Cranmer was named Archbishop of Canterbury in 1532 and was publicly promoting his Reformation-oriented project by 1535 (at the latest). The first edition of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion would not be published until a year later.

While Cranmer certainly did have correspondence with John Calvin, it would have been quite odd to consider him a disciple of Calvin’s. There were other Reformers with whom Cranmer had a much closer relationship, especially Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli. And years after Cranmer’s day, it would surely be Henry Bullinger who had the greater Swiss influence upon England.

If we broaden our focus to later English controversies, we can also see that Cranmer does not hold to many of the “Puritan” distinctives. He was well known for insisting on the use of certain clerical clothing, as well as kneeling for the reception of the Lord’s Supper. He used the sign of the cross at baptism, and he confessed a detailed understanding of Christ’s descent into Hell. Cranmer retained the Apocryphal books, he kept the Te Deum in the liturgy, he promoted the role of baptismal sponsors, and he enforced a larger and fuller ecclesiastical calendar than did many of the Continental Reformed churches and theologians. He also had a rather high view of the obedience owed to the king.

It would seem that the only issue left is the doctrine of predestination. But does this really make one a “Calvinist”?

From 42 to 39

In the two claims from Bishop Sutton that I have picked out, he suggests that the 39 Articles of Religion modified the early “Calvinism” which could be found in the 42 Articles. By this he appears to mean predestination and a particular understanding of the sacramental theology of the Lord’s Supper. But I don’t see how this argument makes sense.

Quickly put, the removed articles are, in their original numbering, art. 10 “Of Grace,” art. 15 “Of Sin Against the Holy Ghost,” art. 16 “Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost,” art. 35 “Of the Book of Prayers, and Ceremonies of the Church of England,” art. 39 “The Resurrection of the Dead is Not Yet Brought to Pass,” art. 40 “The Souls of Them that Depart this Life Do Neither Die with the Body, Nor Sleep Idly,” art. 41 “Heretics Called Millenarii,” and art. 42 “All Men Shall Not Be Saved at Length.” The story is somewhat more complicated than just listing these articles, of course, because some of the material from these articles was rolled in to other articles. Other material was dropped, not because there had been a dramatic change of opinion but because the topic was no longer thought to be of pressing concern. New articles were also added to the Thirty-Nine Articles.

Still, one thing should be conspicuous all the same. The article on predestination was not one of the ones deleted.

Neither, by the way, were any of the articles on the Lord’s Supper. In fact, one of the articles that was added in the later Thirty-Nine Articles was “Of the Wicked, Which Do Not Eat the Body of Christ in the Use of the Lord’s Supper” (Art. 29). This article was suppressed by Queen Elizabeth for fear that it would alienate the Lutherans (thus, it was seen as “Reformed” after the Swiss manner). It was restored with King James and remains even today. So it would seem that Anglicans got more “Calvinistic” on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as their tradition developed.

Another article which might be relevant to the debates between conforming Anglicans and more dissident Puritans would be article 3, “Of the Going Down of Christ into Hell.” Cranmer’s original had a fairly robust statement about the specifics of this point, how Christ’s soul preached to the souls in Hades. The later edit in the Thirty-Nine articles simply states the minimum: “As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed that he went down into hell.” This edit is significantly more friendly to the Reformed or “Calvinistic” theologian of the day. Few would have felt any need to take issue with such a bare-bones affirmation.

But what about predestination? Article 17, “Of Predestination and Election,” received relatively minor editing between Cranmer’s Forty-Two Articles and the later Thirty-Nine Articles. Gerald Bray supplies a helpful look in his collection, Documents of the English Reformation. The text printed in italics and strikethrough indicate text which was present in the Forty-Two Articles but later removed. The bold text is that which was added for the Thirty-Nine Articles:

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby before the foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly decreed by his own judgment counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation by Christ, as vessels made to honour. Whereupon such as have Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God given unto them be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit, working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works and at length by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God; so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil may doth thrust them either into desperation, or into a recklessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, although the decrees of predestination are unknown to us, yet we must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have, expressly declared to us in the Word of God.

(Bray, Gerald. Documents of the English Reformation, 3^rd ed. Lutterworth Press, 2019, p. 263)

As you can see, there was rather little change on the doctrine of predestination. The only substantial edit is the removal of a line which says “although the decrees of predestination are unknown to us.” The idea is still retained in the expression “his counsel secret to us,” but the point is less emphatic. Still, this sort of edit can hardly be said to make the article less “Calvinistic.”

Bishop Sutton’s framing, therefore, is simply incorrect. None of the changes between the Forty-Two Articles and the Thirty-Nine Articles make the English confession of faith less “Calvinistic.” The opposite development is actually at work.

If one’s concern is predestination, then the Articles are as Calvinistic as they ever were. But, again, this is an unhelpful way to talk about the doctrine. What the articles actually teach is a rather generic sort of Augustinianism as it had developed over the years. Readers will notice that the positive topic of election is addressed explicitly but not questions of reprobation. There the Articles are silent. This was true of Cranmer’s original draft, as well as later versions. An unconditional decree of predestination and election is surely taught in both the Forty-Two Articles and Thirty-Nine Articles. For those who venture into the Books of Homilies, even stronger stuff will be discovered.

Conclusion

Now, this is not at all the end of the story. Controversial points about the extent of the atonement, and even the details of persevering grace, are simply not present in either the Forty-Two or Thirty-Nine Articles. This is because they had not yet broken out into the broader discourse. Indeed, the Synod of Dort convenes more than fifty years after Cranmer’s death. It would fall to later English theologians and controversies to address those matters, and history seems to show that full resolution was never quite achieved. Even with the restoration and the 1662 Prayer Book, controversies and ambiguities lingered. This does not mean that Anglicanism is indeed “Calvinistic,” but it also does not mean that it is not “Calvinistic.” The conversation is trickier than that.

Debates over “true” Anglicanism are not new, and the 21st century is as confused and fragmented a time as ever. Any claim will be contested. At the same time, there are some steps and strategies that can help us make progress.

We need to move beyond definition by taxonomy. Generalizations and group classifications have their place. I certainly use them. But they cannot be the standard of defining a church. If they were, then we would not need to claim “Anglican” but instead simply one of the subgroups. We would invite women and men to come visit the “Caroline Divines Church” of Kalamazoo or the “Old High Church” in Baltimore. These are actually species within a greater genus.

Additionally, these group names are usually a bit too general and sloppy. Men ordained under Queen Elizabeth are sometimes called “Caroline.” They are also not how anyone would have spoken in earlier days. Just as no one in the Church of England was calling themselves a “Calvinist” in the 16th century, no one was calling themselves “High” or “Low” Church in the 17th century. Separating the names from the principles is also not always easy. Many Puritans can be reasonably called “High Church” because of their adherence to strict ecclesiastical discipline and even a sort of uniformity (even if of the minimalist variety). Academic church historians have been questioning and debunking many of these labels for some time now and with good reason.

Instead of focusing on men and movements, Anglicans would be better served by elevating their confessional texts. The historic formularies are really the only things in our tradition that can claim proper ecclesiastical authority, history, and catholicity. For most of us, they are already the de jure standard, even if they are not always so de facto.

I would content that a close reading and faithful practice of the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer (1662), and the Ordinal simply is the Anglican Way.