15 The English Reformation ◈

This tendency to treat the English Reformation as a local or national phenomenon reflects an implicit assumption that theology is a relatively minor factor in precipitating, catalysing or directing the trajectory of social and intellectual change. It is certainly true that the cause of religious change was often advocated and advanced by individuals and groups who had little knowledge of or interest in matters of theology; 5 yet this is only part of the picture, which overlooks the potential of theology to create and enact a vision of reform on the one hand, and the capacity of those who had caught such a vision to implement it on the other. The return of the Marian exiles is a case in point: many of those exiled in the cities of Europe had caught a sense of how Protestant ideas had been enacted within an urban culture, and had worked out how this process might be enabled to take place in England. 6 Happily, there is now renewed interest in reconnecting studies of the English Reformation with the wider world of western European theological debates and discourse and ecclesial practice. 7

While there is no doubt of Luther’ s influence over the early English reforming movements, 8 it is important to appreciate that, at least in certain respects, this interest in Luther built on attitudes associated with Lollardy. 9 This movement did much to encourage the development of anticlerical and anti-sacramental attitudes upon which the English Reformers would base their appeal to the doctrine of justification sola fide . 10 Yet there are important questions that need to be asked about this interest in Luther. What was the appeal of Luther’ s doctrine of justification in the English context? And perhaps more importantly, did Luther’ s English readers actually understand his theology of justification? In this chapter, we shall suggest that Luther’ s view was (probably unconsciously) assimilated to a more Augustinian approach to justification as ‘ making righteous’ .

There are excellent reasons for supposing that essentially Augustinian doctrines of justification were in circulation in England independently of the influence of Luther, which framed justification in terms of the non-imputation of sin , or a process of ‘ becoming righteous’ – without any reference to the notion of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or the related idea of an ‘ alien righteousness’ (iustitia aliena ). Perhaps on account of its proximity to the Hanseatic port of Ipswich, Cambridge became a more significant centre of evangelical activism than Oxford. 11 Thomas Bilney , a leading figure of the Cambridge-based reforming ‘ White Horse circle’ , developed a concept of justification framed solely in terms of the non-imputation of sin, omitting any reference to the concept of the ‘ imputation of righteousness ’ . 12

Similarly, William Tyndale , although making extensive use of Luther in his early polemical works, still tends to interpret justification as ‘ making righteous’ . In his 1526 English translation of the New Testament, Tyndale consistently translates both the verb dikaioun and the noun dikaiosis as ‘ to justify’ . 13 The word ‘ justify’ had been used earlier in the Wycliffe translation of the New Testament, despite the fact that this Latinate term might not be familiar to many of his readers. By using such a Latin term, Tyndale avoids having to offer an English interpretation of the concept of ‘ justification’ , perhaps sidestepping the debate about whether it was to be understood as becoming righteous, of being deemed to be righteous in God’ s sight. Tyndale’ s language here often focusses on the idea of justification as being ‘ coupled to God through Christ’ s blood’ . 14

Tyndale’ s translation of Romans 3:28 is significant: ‘ For we suppose that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.’ Although Tyndale is widely regarded as having based his New Testament translation to some extent on Luther’ s German translation, 15 it is significant that Tyndale does not follow Luther in adding the critically important word ‘ alone’ to this passage. Following Luther, Tyndale also makes it clear that justifying faith is not to be confused with a historical or ‘ story-book’ faith, 16 but with an active trust that our sins have been forgiven through the blood of Christ.

Tyndale’ s emphasis upon the renewing and transforming work of the Holy Spirit within humans is quite distinct from Luther’ s emphasis upon faith, and clearly echoes Augustine’ s transformational concept of justification. 17 In his ‘ Pathway into the Holy Scripture’ , Tyndale describes the gospel – which he glosses as ‘ good, merry, glad and joyful tidings’ – in terms which are devoid of any reference to or acknowledgement of an exclusively or even primarily juridical context for divine acceptation: 18

Perhaps the most explicitly Lutheran writing to emerge from within the English Reformation at this time is Robert Barnes ’ s Supplicatyon . 21 Following Luther, Barnes placed the doctrine of justification by faith at the centre of his theology. Furthermore, at points he appears to supplement the notion of justification as the non-imputation of sin with that of the imputation of righteousness. 22 ‘ I pray you, what good works doth the wicked man? Mark also how he saith that righteousness is imputed unto him. Ergo, it is not deserved. For that that is deserved is not imputed of favour, but it must be given of duty.’ Yet caution needs to be exercised in reaching such a conclusion. 23 Barnes here is basing himself on Romans 4:3‒ 5, which – in Tyndale’ s 1526 translation – reads: ‘ Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of favour: but of duty. To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, is faith counted for righteousness.’ Barnes here appears to offer little more than a slightly reworked summary of Paul’ s assertions, without a clear statement of a declarative framework of the imputation of righteousness. Barnes’ s concern is primarily with the affirmation of God’ s graciousness, rather than the nature of justification.

During the 1530s, the shape of Henry VIII ’ s new national church began to take shape. Various official pronouncements mapped out at least something of the theological underpinnings of the Church of England, including the Ten Articles (July 1536), the Bishops’ Book (August 1537), the Six Articles (statute enacted June 1539) and the King’ s Book (published May 1543). While these formularies of faith give insights perhaps more into the political than into the theological concerns of the period, their statements on justification are particularly interesting to the extent that they refer to the nature of that concept. Although these formulations point to an early alignment of the reformed English church with Lutheranism, such influence dwindled during the remainder of the reign of Henry VIII, and dissipated under Edward VI. 24

The Ten Articles of July 1536 deal with justification and the three sacraments, among other matters. Although the influence of Lutheranism upon these articles, mediated through the Wittenberg Articles of the same year, is well established, this influence seems strikingly absent in relation to their statements on the nature of justification. Justification is both contextualised within an Augustinian theology of grace, and interpreted in transformative terms: ‘ Justification signifieth remission of our sins, and our acceptation or reconciliation into the grace and favour of God, that is to say, our perfect renovation in Christ.’ 25 Although grace is clearly conceived extrinsically as the favor Dei , justification continues to be defined in transformational terms. This definition of justification is, in fact, based upon part – but only part – of Philip Melanchthon ’ s definition, as set out in the 1535 Loci communes :

The King’ s Book of 1543 contained an entirely new article on justification, abandoning the previous definition, based partly on Melanchthon (though with significant omissions), in favour of a definition which could be taken directly from the works of Augustine himself: ‘ Justification … signifieth the making of us righteous afore God, where before we were unrighteous.’ 29 The phrase ‘ afore God’ here appears to reflect the Augustinian and medieval apud Deum , rather than the Lutheran coram Deo . Elsewhere in the book, we find reference to the idea of baptism as the first justification, and of ‘ restoration to justification’ through penance – clearly indicative of a concept of justification that is essentially continuous with the medieval Catholic tradition.

A work of particular importance in establishing the position of the early English national church on the nature of justification is the Homily of Salvation , usually regarded as the work of Thomas Cranmer himself. 30 In many respects, the Homily is Melanchthonian – note, for example, the obvious similarity between the explanations of Cranmer and Melanchthon concerning the correct interpretation of the phrase sola fide , and the striking verbal correspondence between Melanchthon and Cranmer on the role of the law. 31 However, Melanchthon’ s influence does not appear to extend to Cranmer’ s discussion of the nature of justification. Cranmer interprets justification to mean ‘ making righteous’ , reflecting the strongly factitive Augustinian concept of justification evident in the collection of patristic texts assembled by Cranmer in support of the position he develops in the Homily. Although Cranmer rejects Augustine’ s doctrine of justification on the basis of fides quae per dilectionem operatur , excluding charity from his account of the justification of humanity, it is highly significant that he does not extend this criticism to Augustine’ s understanding of the nature of justification.

This raises an important point. The English Reformers clearly grasped that their continental colleagues had developed a doctrine of justification by fayth onely , and that its leading feature was the total exclusion of human works from justification. Several of them also apparently understood this faith to be ‘ reputed’ as righteousness, possibly drawing on the use of this term in the Apologia for the Augsburg Confession . They do not, however, appear to have realised precisely what was meant by the very different concept of the imputation of righteousness , or its potential theological significance. In general, the English Reformers seem to have worked with a doctrine of justification in which humanity was understood to be made righteous by fayth onely , with good works being the natural consequence or outcome of justifying faith. This is clearly a possible interpretation of the Lutheran teaching, as stated in the important confessional documents of 1530; it is, however, not the most reliable interpretation.

The year 1547 marked the beginning of the reign of Edward VI I, and the dawning of new possibilities for the English Reformers to consolidate the Protestantism of the national church. Cranmer wrote to various continental Reformers, inviting them to England to supervise the religious developments which he envisaged – including the clarification of significant points of doctrine. Of these, one of the most important was the following question: does justification make individuals really righteous, or does it merely make them acceptable to God as though they were really righteous? By 1549, Bucer and Fagius felt able to write to their colleagues in Strasbourg to the effect that ‘ the doctrine of justification is purely and soundly taught’ in England. It is not clear what moved them to this judgement; even as late as 1571, the teaching of the English church on this matter was unclear.

The 1552 article De hominis iustificatione affirms that ‘ justification ex sola fide Iesu Christi , in the sense in which it is explained in the Homelia de iustificatione ’ is the ‘ most important and healthy doctrine of Christians’ . 32 The fact that this article refers interested readers to the Homily of Justification (almost certainly intended as a reference to Cranmer’ s Homily of Salvation ) for further details, when this homily simultaneously develops an Augustinian concept of justification and a Melanchthonian doctrine of justification per solam fidem , further indicates that, at least in this respect, the English Reformation had yet to assimilate the teaching of its continental counterpart.

It is, of course, possible that the English Reformers were misled through the occasional references in the Apologia of the Augsburg Confession which do indeed refer to justification as ‘ making righteous’ , and which use the term ‘ repute’ , rather than ‘ impute’ . 33 Although the Homily clearly states the doctrine of justification per solam fidem in a Melanchthonian sense (apparently with extracts from the Loci being worked into the text), it is significant that the crucial concept of imputed righteousness is still not explicitly stated.

The 1563 Articles, however, contain an important addition. The reader is referred to the Homily merely for details of the manner in which faith justifies ; justification itself is defined in terms of ‘ being reputed as righteous before God’ (iusti coram Deo reputamur ). 34 This is clearly a much more recognisable formulation of the Melanchthonian doctrine of justification per solam fidem ; indeed, this entire sentence could be constructed from Melanchthon’ s statements in the 1530 Apologia .

Despite this clear alignment with the Lutheran Reformation, rather than with the Swiss Reformations of Zurich or Geneva, the Elizabethan period witnessed a general decline in the fortunes of Lutheranism in England. 35 The returning Marian exiles, many of whom were promptly elevated to the episcopacy in the aftermath of the deprivations of 1559, had generally spent their time of exile in cities (such as Zurich, Strasbourg and Geneva) strongly influenced by the Reformed, rather than Lutheran, theology. Although Elizabeth herself had read Melanchthon’ s Loci as a girl (the 1538 edition was dedicated to her father), and in 1559 expressed the wish that the ‘ Augustanean Confession’ be maintained in the realm, it is clear that Reformed theology made considerable headway in England during the final decades of the sixteenth century. The tension between Episcopalians and Presbyterians (both of whom were obliged to consider themselves members of the same church as a result of the Act of Uniformity) led to the appearance of a number of important apologetic works justifying the existence and teachings of the episcopal national church.

The most important of these for our purposes are Richard Hooker ’ s sermons on the book of Habakkuk, preached in 1586, although not published until 1612. 36 In these sermons, Hooker addresses himself to issues such as the ‘ grand question which hangeth yet in controversy between us and the Church of Rome, about the matter of justifying righteousness’ . 37 In his response, it is clear that Hooker attempts to construct a mediating doctrine of justification between Catholicism and Protestantism which avoids the discredited eirenicon of double justification.

Hooker considers that the chief error of his Catholic opponents is their teaching that a habit of grace is infused into humans at their first justification to produce an inherent and real righteousness within, which may subsequently be increased, by merit acquired through good works, in the second justification. 38 For Hooker, God bestows upon humans justifying and sanctifying righteousness in their justification at one and the same time; the distinction between the two lies in the fact that the former is external to humans, and imputed to them, while the latter is worked within them by the Holy Spirit.

Hooker thus distinguishes habitual and actual sanctifying righteousness, the former being the righteousness with which the soul is endowed through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the latter the righteousness which results from the action of that Spirit. At the instant of their justification, humans are simultaneously accepted as righteous in Christ and given the Holy Spirit, which is the formal cause of their subsequent actual sanctifying righteousness. Hooker interprets the phrase ‘ justification by faith alone ’ as follows: 39

Like Calvin , Hooker argues that we are justified per fidem propter Christum . Justification is to be conceived Christologically, in terms of the appropriation of the personal presence of Christ within believers through the Holy Spirit, on account of which they are declared righteous and the process of sanctification is initiated. A clear distinction is thus drawn between justification through imputed righteousness , and sanctification through inherent righteousness. The importance of this distinction will become apparent later in this chapter, when we turn to consider the views of the Caroline Divines during the seventeenth century.

We must now return to the continent of Europe, as we consider the consolidation of Protestantism during the period of Confessionalisation , when the need for social definition of the various evangelical groups led to the rise of an increasing theological precision.