There is one aspect of Anglican tradition and identity that seems to get lost faster than any other: the primacy and uniqueness of Scripture, or in the more popular term, Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).
Anglicanism is rooted in Scripture and viewed through a patristic lens like the continental reformers, but with a catholic eye and being free from Roman distortion, Protestant bias or Byzantine apathy. Somehow in our time, the average Anglican is unaware of how Scriptural supremacy is the bedrock of Anglican Christianity.
The majority of the Prayer Book’s content, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the writings of the Anglican Fathers were based on the inerrant nature of Scripture. It was so important to the Anglican reformers, that it was the first homily for the instruction of the churches in England to enlighten both laity and clergy. This was a statement of Biblical orthodoxy, and a departure from medieval error and Roman dominion.
With these changes, the English reformers preserved Church tradition, as long as the traditions are rooted in or affirmed by scripture. Here we have a path between Romanism/Orthodoxy, which gave equal weight to tradition and episcopacy with that of Scripture on one side, and the radical reformers that trashed tradition and authority in spite of Biblical proofs, on the other.
Luther wrote in the Smalcald articles “The true rule is this: God’s Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.” Here is where the English Reformers shine; they spell out the role of scripture as the establishment and buttress of the Church and tradition, leaving no doubt Sola Scriptura is an anchor point of Anglicanism. In the 39 Articles, there are several articles that detail the role of scripture as the establishment and basis of faith, and of the English church.
Article VI – Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
HOLY Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. 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 VII – Of the Old Testament.
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. Wherefore there are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. 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.
Article VIII – Of the Three Creeds.
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 XX – Of the Authority of the Church.
THE Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.
Thomas Cranmer
Cranmer also relies mostly on the teachings of St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustin of Hippo to affirm that his position on the primacy of Scripture is that of the Early Fathers, and not his own. We can plainly see that Sola Scriptura is an Anglican principle of it’s own tradition, and not one that has been imported or grafted from others.
River Thames Beach Party 
[…] term commonly encountered among some), Kevin at the River Thames Beach Party has written a post on Sola Scriptura, the Anglican Way that is well worth reading. I think he generally is on the same page as my Anglicanism and […]
Hello Kevin,
Good post. Thank you for directing attention to Cranmer and the First book of Homilies. There was a critical resourcement of Fathers and Councils by Anglicans. Albeit, the English Reformation was most conservative in this respect. What does sola vs. prima scriptura mean? I am still sorting these questions out. The Orthodox treat both tradition (say, liturgy) and scripture as divinely inspired, often discussed as the Life of the Church in the Holy Spirit. However, we know error and sin infects the Church. Orthodox seem to admit this drawback and reconcile the difference by ‘ranking’ various modes tradition, with confessions and catechisms (for us these might be articles of faith and systematic theology) toward the bottom of divine revelation. Hence, you get scripture as “primary” in a hierarchy of truths. This is how the Orthodox appear to deal with the dilemma.
I notice the same favoritism given to Tradition in modern-day Anglicanism, i.e., talk of a ‘living church’ and ‘prophetic utterances’,etc.. However, this is totally fraudulent because charismatic witness is used to undermine catholic deposit. In trying to avoid the excess of other Protestant sects, we are too quick to reject Cranmer’s ‘sola scriptura’ as part of our own patrimony in doctrine? Even St. Vincent’s rule is predicated upon a prior reference to scripture. Vincent then speaks how we ought to go about ‘necessary deduction’ where scripture does not read plain. Where scripture is silent and tradition does not contradict, the Articles tell us no Anglican be bound. How we treat scripture and tradition determines a lot. It can impact how we view sacraments, the keys of the church, certainly the BVM, and even how sin is forgiven. The relationship seems to touch our theology is a rather systematic way.
Here is a book I’ve only heard about that might be enjoyable about Catholic truth and scripture, understood from an early Protestant viewpoint?
http://thekingdomcome.com/shape_of_sola-scriptura.
Thanks Charles,
The idea for this post was triggered during various readings I was doing on Anglicans and Sola Scriptura, and what I found (especially in a contemporary context) was disappointing.
On one hand you have the Reformed wing claiming to be Anglicans, yet acting like Calvinists and on the other Anglo-Catholics tossing it out (along with other aspects of the tradition) to be Roman-Lite.
It saddens me that the center on this issue is not very apparent and that it is not holding up the classical Anglican position on the subject.
BTW – I have added your book recommendation to my wish list.
Hi Kevin,
Yes, I have a long wish list for books too!
I was thinking about hierarch orders of tradition (prima vs. sola scriptura), and how secondary standards like the Westminster Confession are treated in a sacred way, as if the 1643-7 Westminster divines enjoyed plenary inspiration.
Within Protestantism there sometimes is a popular attitude with the translation of the KJV (aka. KJV-onlyism, sometimes approaching double inspiritionism). Here is an interesting article exemplifying such: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm. I know the same is true of British Protestants who sometimes base their entire ecclesiology off the legend of King Arthur. So, Holy Tradition (the attitude of such) is indeed amongst us.
Systems of prima scriptura, like Hooker or Wesley (?), include Tradition, Reason, and sometimes Experience. I think these are certainly legitimate areas of truth, and certainly as culturally and logically embedded people we bring culture, reason, and history to the text. The problem is when the “legs of the stool” are deemed either equally long, or shorter legs are made longer than scripture’s.
Dear Charles,
Wow – (full stop).
“Even St. Vincent’s rule is predicated upon a prior reference to scripture. Vincent then speaks how we ought to go about ‘necessary deduction’ where scripture does not read plain.”
That is EXACTLY what St. Vincent is saying. In many years of reading and (sadly, until I learned better) arguing I have NEVER seen anyone use St. Vincent’s dictum properly – that is in context.
St. Vincent clearly puts Scripture first as ‘completely sufficient’ (as do all the other early Church Fathers) and gives his canon as a way to resolve issues where Scripture is unclear. He does not – however – put that which is decided by canon on the same level as that ‘plainly derived from Scripture.’ It seems to me (as an Orthodox priest) that St. Vincent (along with the other EARLY Church Fathers) is much closer to agreeing with the 39 Articles and their view on Scripture and tradition than the prevailing view within Orthodoxy as you sketched it above.
It must be said though, that at least under Dean Fr. John Behr there is a clear push for what you call ‘Prima Scriptura’ at Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. There is no “dogma” in the Orthodox world which defines the precise relation between Scripture – but Sola Scriptura (as rejecting any and all tradition out of hand) is rejected as heretical. But it seems that even in the (Roman) Catholic world Henri de Lubac’s apparent rejection of the ‘two sources of revelation’ could serve to restore a proper primacy of Scripture to that communion (as his ‘Medieval Exegesis’ continues to appear in translation) as well as John Behr’s pushing for the primacy of Scripture (and rejection of the Tradition/tradition distinction) can do for the Orthodox communion.
Fr. Gregory Wassen +
[…] This blog began as a fairly private place to outline my position on public worship vis-a-vis Presbyterianism’s Regulative Principle. As I’ve made a transition from Presbyterianism to Anglicanism, I’ve discovered a different kind of ordering mechanism for Anglicans, namely the mutual submission between bishops in communion. This gets to St. Vincent’s principle since truth is determined by communion, “in all places, all times”. How we understand or ‘receive’ catholic truth ought to be understood, first, through the canons, prayer book, catechisms, and articles of our synods– the assumption it neither contradicts the consensus of faith nor scripture. […]
Hello Fr. Wassen,
It’s very good to get a second opinion about both St. Vincent and the 39 Articles! I first heard about Vincentian canon at Fr. Hart’s blog (Anglican Continuum), so I had to look up his Commonitory, discovering the Vincentian method lends scripture a high place. The Commonitory can be read here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.html
When we discuss ‘catholic truth’ I assume everything discussed by ancient Fathers and doctors is based on a reasonable and sincere reading of scripture! Perhaps the danger is when multiple iterations of deductive reasoning get so far from scripture, they begin to loose touch? Some conclusions in Mariology (RC) come to mind.
I just bookmarked both Behr and Lebac’s works.
Thank you very much for sharing, fr. Gregory.
Dear Charles,
You’re welcome and thank you!
De Lubac approvingly cites:
“Up to the twelfth century, it has been written, ‘there was no such thing as systematic theology. All theological erudition was was concentrated on Exegesis …. With its four senses, Scripture furnished matter for the most ingenious contrivances, as well as the broadest speculations of theology and the pious affections of asceticism (Medieval Exegesis, Vol. 1, p. 13).”
And the rest of the volumes of ‘Medieval Exegesis’ go on to demonstrate the above statement from, literally, hundreds of citations from Church Fathers known and less well-known to completely obscure authors. The exegetical nature of theology was very deeply rooted in what can be called ‘Christian Culture’ which we have know largely lost (see George Lindbeck “On the Nature of Doctrine”).
In fact much of the criticism of patristic authors – I believe – is a misunderstanding of what these authors were doing. Too often – following Harnack, among others – the patristic authors have been understood as philosophers first. Never mind that they themselves would have preferred to be described as ‘exegetes of Scripture’ which would have been closer to a patristic understanding of the word philosopher anyway! Even Origen’s ‘On First Principles’ is first and foremost a book which seeks to lay the ground work for the understanding and application of Scripture! Likewise St. Athanasius in his double work ‘Against the Heathen – On the Incarnation of the Word’ is exegetical because as he explicitly states Scripture is the only sufficient basis for knowledge of God, likewise Evagrius Ponticus (who permanently stamped and shaped the Eastern and Western understanding of spirituality and prayer) and his disciple St. John Cassian place their entire ascetical practice, and anthropology/psychology, as well as their theology in the world Scripture opens up for them.
This is especially evident in Evagrius’ “Talking Back” (Antirhetikos) where he peruses the Scriptures for verses which expose the deep structures of sin within us, but at the same time they provide a remedy. Scripture is a weapon against the demons that tempt us and a healing balm for our wounded souls. At the same time these verses are used to convey an entire theological/ascetical/anthropological programme. It is truer to say that Evagrius (and other Christian autors) are re-interpreting their culture by means of Scripture than the other way around (a Harnack and others have). In this process cross-fertilization is of course inevitable but that is true for modern historical criticism and post-modern deconstruction as well. We do not escape our culture either!
In his Homily on the Theophany (Epiphany) St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzen) speaks of:
“… let us purify ourselves and be initiated beforehand into the Word, that we may work the most good possible for ourselves, making ourselves deiform, and receive the Word who is coming; and not only this but also hold him fast and manifest him to others.”
The word “Word” is used in a deliberately pregnant way here. Initiation into Word involves “purification” and as Jesus says to His disciples they are clean because of the word He has spoken to them (Gospel of John – can’t remember the precise chapter and verse) – initiation is therefore first ‘getting to know the Scriptures’ (St. Gregory’s Orations/Homilies are packed with scriptural imagery and references! ).
Secondly Scripture is sacramental. Scripture begins to act like a building block re-forming our lives after the Image of God (which latter is Jesus Christ – ‘we shall be like him,’ 1 John 3,2) so that our involvement with Scripture opens a channel for God to re-create us, to restore us. In this sense there is an unequal cooperation between God and us in our re-formation we receive Him (as word, and WORD) so that He saves us. This too is initiation into the Word and making ourselves deiform simply means precisely that! Gregory is not – I believe – advocating self-salvation by our own efforts, rather, he is advocating God’s saving power in His Word (and word), but placing the responsibility to “hear” and “receive” His Word through His words on us.
Iow as far as I am concerned EVERYTHING the entire Christian life both practical and theological are determined by the world Scripture opens up for us (by means of the “four senses” de Lubac mentioned). I would therefore not necessarily object to even “Sola Scriptura” …
Fr. Gregory +
Ps. I am quite passionate about this whole Scripture thing! 🙂
Fascinating discussion! And thank you Kevin, first of all, for getting me thinking again about this, and in particular for saying that we did not suddenly import our “tradition” in the 16th century. That is much appreciated.
When Archbishop Cranmer wrote his introduction to the Great Bible, as well as reproducing many lines from Gregory the Theologian, he described Scripture as “the most precious jewel and most holy relic that remaineth upon earth”.
As Fr Wassen says, it is sacramental. No doubt this is why Bishop Andrewes had a censer in his chapel, for use during the reading of the Gospel!
Gentlemen,
Thank you all for joining in the discussion.
While reflecting on the subject more it could be said that the Anglican Fathers used Scripture as the vehicle to return the English Church to the orthodox catholic faith (via Scriptura?).
Kevin:
Well that seems to be the intention with the BCP and its following in the footsteps of Cardinal Quignonez to read the Psalter and the (entire) Scripture regularly. The ‘reform’ of Quignonez’s Breviary returned the Fathers, Saints, and such to their original purpose – witness to Scripture and the continuity of God’s acts in Scripture with God’s acts (and therefore presence) in the Christian Church.
It seems to me that this is what Luther intended with his focus on Scripture, it seems to be what Abp. Cranmer is getting at in his homly on Scripture, and it also seems to be what Bp. John Jewel is getting at in his ‘Apology of the Church of England.’ Scripture is what is engaged “en Christo” – heck even our Liturgies and Sacraments depend on the “word” … The matter for our Sacraments can vary somewhat: sprinkling and/or dunking, leavened and/or unleavened bread, white or red wine, and in extremis the variety can be even greater (I believe Fr. Arseny used ‘juice’ gathered from soaked raisins to perform the Divine Liturgy with during his imprisonment in the communist prison camp). Unvaried is that the words which determine the Sacraments are derived from Scripture! For in avery real sense Christ the Word of God performs the Sacraments by His word – not ours.
These things – I think – seem to have been realized and aimed at in the (most) of the English Reformation which is why (it seems to me) Anglicans insist on being both “Reformed” AND “Catholic.” In this they are entirely patristic and traditional. Ironically all genuine renewals ARE traditional …. I believe (personally) that Anglicanism has much to offer to the Church and we the Orthodox/Roman Catholics deny the Anglicans proper ecclesial status to our own loss and detriment.
Christianity is a scriptural phenomenon it cannot be otherwise, and that (I believe) is one of the great lessons Anglicanism seems to have learned and has been teaching for the past 400 + years. Of course I am aware of the current problems within Anglicanism, but it is not unlike the problems the Church has always faced … The ancient heresies of doctrine and morality were, like those of today, localized in exegesis – differences of ‘how the Scriptures are to be read.’ And like as in ancient times the only way out is the way Anglicans ( as I see observe it from the outside) are actually going about it – returning again and again to the Scriptures and how they are to be read. In a sense ‘orthodoxy’ can be said to consist (almost entirely) of reading Scripture correctly. Even Nicene Orthodoxy is a way of reading Scripture (as Lewis Ayres has argued in “Nicea and its Legacy”).
Fr. Gregory +
[…] (There’s a fascinating exchange at the moment on the River Thames blog: Sola Scriptura: The Anglican Way.) […]
An excellent post with excellent comments. It is extremely necessary to remind ourselves that Holy Scripture belongs to the Church Catholic and Universal whose Fathers wrote it and whose Councils recognized the authority which it has and should have among “all who call themselves Christians.” It is not the property of those who from their ignorance or else have departed from the faith, teaching and worship of the Church.
Excellent post.
I have always found the term “Sola Scriptura” a bit dangerous because of its vagueness. To some, it implies the overzealous Presbyterian Regulative Principle rather than the Anglican and Orthodox sense of a dogmatic boundary. Hence, I must mull over the term “Prima Scriptura,” as suggested by Fr. Gregory. Would that all Orthodox were more like Fr. Gregory, Dean Behr, and the faithful scholars at St. Vladimir’s.
[…] Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Roman Episcopate type of Protestant Churches (e.g. Anglican-Episcopalian, Methodists, Lutherans etc. – A better Latin phrase for the authority of the Bible is Prima […]