Yet this late Elizabethan/early Jacobean mood of equivocation within Anglicanism seems to suit so many in subsequent times and especially our own. It is mistakenly taken for granted that Anglican theology is intended to fudge or soft-pedal distinct convictions on matters of vital controversy. The misunderstood "via media" of Anglicanism (not a halfway point between Reform and Rome) is misread as license to be woolly and indefinite as regards the offense of the gospel in its enunciation of the prerogatives of God as the bear upon the destinies of undeserving sinners.

To avow Calvinism is not to limit oneself to the exact views of Calvin himself. The term "Calvinist" is simply a handy description as to where one stands on the matters of the nature and application of grace; it is employed to affirm that one stands in the so-called tradition of Paul, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and the Reformers with regard to the doctrine of electing love. Calvinists in the broad sense may entertain principles that diverge from Calvin as an individual on many issues and as Church history makes clear Calvin was far from being the inventor or original advocate of particularism and distinguishing grace. Such is the position upheld by a considerable number of authoritative Romanists throughout the generations as well as Reformational thinkers down the years from the great 16th century theological revolution until the present time. Calvin has not single-handedly mesmerized for ill the minds of so many intellectually able thinkers and eminently holy believers simply through the force of his allegedly "unfortunate and extreme" opinions. In the matter of divine predilection Calvin was schooled by the likes of Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Martin Bucer, and his sentiments were akin to Martin Luther, Peter Martyr, Jerome Zanchius, and Anglicanism's own Thomas Cranmer and his near colleagues. Calvin was no loner in his manner of propounding the "sola gratia".

In some areas of current professed "Reformed thought" there is a certain embarrassment, if not resentment, concerning the great adoptive Genevan and his dominance of Anglican thought throughout the Elizabethan era. Rather, there exists an increasing tendency to maneuver away from him in the casting of subtle aspersions leveled at his theology in certain points considered to be too severe. The preferred substitute as the chief Continental mentor of Anglicanism is now deemed to be the more mild and perhaps "half-Calvinist" (as some would suggest), Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger's influence in Reformed circles, through his composition of the Second Helvetic Confession 1566, was and is deservedly immense and has been endorsed by a host of classic and perceptive Calvinists without demur, including Bucer, Martyr, the leaders of the Reformed Churches generally and particularly of England, and even the scholar who translated HC2 into French, Theodore Beza himself who "out-Calvined" Calvin with his systemized supralapsarianism ((Charles Hodge lauded the 2nd Helvetic as "on some accounts . . . the most authoritative symbol of the Reformed Church). In the eyes of many it is simply one step from the moderation of Bullinger to the embracement of the supposed nascent Arminianism of Richard Hooker, and thereby Anglicanism is relieved from the awkward rigors of predestinarian theology, Hooker being regarded as the Calvin (prime pilot) of the Anglican movement, nudging it away from a full-blown Augustinianism.

Thus, in a trice, any serious Anglican reference to the Lambeth Articles, requested and approved by Archbishop Whitgift, the Canons of Dort, upheld by Joseph Hall, John Davenant, and other distinguished Anglican luminaries as consistent with the Articles of Religion, the Irish Articles of Archbishop Ussher, and the Westminster Confession, largely derived from Ussher and produced in the main by Anglicans, can be effectively expunged from Anglican history and Anglican affirmation. It helps to denominate 17th century developments within Calvinism as being too logical, dry and "scholastic" as it were. [This is the type of derisory nomenclature such as the term "fundamentalist" - as applied to those who submit to the authority of Scripture - or "socialist" - as descriptive of those eager to erase poverty and insecurity, through political measures, from the life of society from practical compassion rather than Marxist ideology. These epithets are intended to forestall any respect, any attempt in arriving at understanding, and to prevent further appraisal in any serious way].

It is helpful to note the real views of those cited by the perpetrators of reformed revisionism who seemingly reflect something of the notions of the Federal Visionists that recently invaded and infested Presbyterianism.

Whilst it is true that the various 16th century Reformers nuanced their predestinarian views somewhat differently there was indubitable fundamental agreement as to the inevitable biblical fact of divine foreordination to salvation (excepting Melanchthon), as well as unanimity on the issue of the absolute and unmotivated nature of Election in Christ. The great cause of caution in articulating statements on predestination was the fear that any hint of double predestination, as espoused by Calvin, would arouse the suspicion that God would in some sense be responsible as the author of sin. The reality of evil consists in the negation of good and it cannot therefore be attributed to God the supremely good, but simply receives his permission to arise from the susceptibility of the creature to disobedience toward God in the abuse of free agency by which human liberty to desire good and perform righteousness was forfeited in Adam as the root of our race. It is the "chosen in Christ" basis of election that is wielded against standard Calvinistic positions. By this means election may be thought to be innocent of any likely charge of sinister arbitrariness on the part of God. It is said that believers are elect and included in Christ by virtue of their faith in him. It is at the point of faith and baptism that persons enter the sphere of election. There is no pre-temporal decree with regard to the destiny of any individual. In other words, folk are in Christ because they consented to being there. But immediately this is to admit the notion of synergism which was roundly repudiated by the Reformation, Bullinger and Hooker being clearly in entire agreement with the prevailing theological consensus. The Reformation faithfully preserves the divine initiative in the donation of the disposition of desire for restoration to God.

Heinrich Bullinger

It is a well-proven fact that for Bullinger there is only spiritual helplessness and total spiritual inability in fallen man. There is not now the slightest natural inclination within man to turn toward God for salvation, and in Bullinger's thought there is not the faintest trace of any toning down of the absolute bondage of the degraded human will. His view was consistently monergistic as the only possible option and Bullinger embraced it fully: For the understanding is darkened, and the will which was free has become an enslaved will (HCIX). Moreover, he maintained the decree of election as faithfully as John Calvin and on occasions in similar terms. The variation between the two Reformers was not on the matter of unconditional election but as to how the divine attitude and intent toward the non-elect should be framed. He was able to affirm that, "God's election, by which God indeed elected some for life and some for death is eternal" and this assertion meant that some of the defending delegates at Dort appealed confidently to Bullinger for support.

"Bullinger argued for a single predestinarian view of God's election. Out of God's free mercy God chose to save some. Bullinger thought that this secured the idea of sola gratia - God's grace was given in absolute freedom" (John Wheelan Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, Westminster /John Knox Press, pp 38-39).

Writes Hans J. Hillerbrand, "Both Zwingli and Bullinger affirmed God's ELECTION (emphasis Hillerbrand's) of those who will have faith, although neither of them developed a doctrine of reprobation." And Hillerbrand goes on to state the undoubted correctness in Bullinger's position, "Bullinger taught that the offer of the gospel is universal and that those who reject God's grace do so willingly and freely". Calvin would not have quarreled with this.

In his review of of the volume Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination by Cornelius P. Venema, Lyle D. Bierma of Calvin Theological Seminary remarks, "His (Venema's) finely nuanced arguments and ample support from the sources will make it difficult to contend any longer that Bullinger's views of predestination and covenant diverged substantially from John Calvin's."

Richard Hooker

Just as Bullinger did not depart from the foundational doctrines of the Reformation neither did Hooker drift from the foundational doctrines of Anglicanism. His principal influences should surely assure us of that. As the protege of John Jewel, Hooker's credentials on predestination should be safe enough. Similarly, Jewel was guided by the teaching of Peter Martyr whose theological principles were shaped by the study of Gregory of Rimini and by his friendship with Juan De Valdes, both of whom were confirmed and confessed high Augustinians. If pedigree is not a sufficient clue as to the sentiments of Hooker his own words should clinch the fact that he was a "Calvinist" (never quite Arminian) in the popular use of the term.

Hooker's warm doctrine of electing love is declared in a select passage from his A Learned Discourse of Justification: As we have received, so we teach that besides the bare and naked work wherein Christ without any other associate, finished all the parts of our redemption and purchased salvation himself alone, for conveyance of this eminent blessing unto us many things are required, as to be known and chosen of God before the foundation of the world, in the world to be called, justified, sanctified, after we have left the world to be received into glory: Christ in everyone of these hath something which he worketh alone. Through him, according to the eternal purpose of God before the foundation of the world, born, crucified, buried, raised, etc., we were in gracious acceptation known unto God long before we were seen of men: God knew us, loved us, was kind towards us in Christ Jesus; in him we were elected to be heirs of life.

Daniel F. Eppley in his thorough examination of the faith of Richard Hooker states the following opinion: "In the Lawes (sic) Hooker confirmed that "belief [in the truths of Christianity] is the gift of God," and he noted the predestinarian corollary that God's free choice was solely responsible for separating the saved from the damned" (The Reformation Theologians, edited by Carl Lindberg, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, p254). Eppley continues: "Already in 1586 he emphasized that election involved absolutely nothing predisposing God to favor the elect, 'no more than the clay when the potter appoints it to be framed for an honorable use, nay not so much, for the matter whereupon the craftsman works he chooses, being moved with the fitness which is in it to serve his turn: in us no such thing'. Summarizing his position on predestination in terms similar to the Lambeth Articles, Hooker asserted:

'1. That God has predestined certain men, not all men. 2. That the cause moving him hereunto was not the foresight of any virtue in us at all. 3. That to him the number of the elect is definitely known. 4. That it cannot be but their sins must condemn them to whom the purpose of his saving mercy doth not extend. 5. That to God's foreknown elect, the final continuance of grace is given. 6. That inward grace whereby to be saved, is deservedly not given unto all men. 7. That no man comes to Christ whom God by the inward grace of his Spirit draws not. 8. And that it is not in every, no not in any man's own mere ability, freedom, power to be saved, no man's salvation being possible without grace.' " (The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, Vol 4:167, quoted Eppley, page 255).

Neither Bullinger nor Hooker divert us towards any kind of Arminian, synergistic, semi-Pelagian trail. They afford no excuse for Anglicans to dilute the doctrines of sovereign grace. We should be able to discern clearly the theological course where confessional integrity must of necessity lead us (pastors and administrators of the Anglican communion). There is nothing within our theology that deters any concerned sinner from seeking salvation in Christ. All who will may come, and faith will become the sign of election for spiritual comfort. Our Article 17 is replete with warm and wise advice on the matter of electing love. The gentle souls of Bullinger and Hooker wish to hush the trenchant tones of the more strident and less sensitive among the disciples of Calvin. In all that it teaches the Anglican priority is pastoral and not speculative. That is why it is possible and easy to empathize with the persuasion of the great Anglican pastor and evangelist William Grimshaw. His most recent biographer Faith Cook delineates Grimshaw's balanced presentation of the divine predilection and the sinner's responsibility in the following elements of gospel formulation, "God's sovereign electing grace, unconditionally bestowed on his chosen people, with what he called 'the universal scheme' - excluding none from the orbit of God's saving mercies:

It is clear from the holy Word of God, that both are true. Viz. that there are a select number of people chosen from all eternity, and predestined to eternal life in Christ and given to Christ in the eternal purpose, decree and covenant of the Father with him, and that such are irresistibly called in time, convinced, converted, justified, sanctified and absolutely saved. Why may not the Lord in his infinite wisdom and goodness make the salvation of a certain number of persons absolute and irresistible as a gift to our Saviour as a reward for his toil and sufferings . . . and also the salvation of all the rest of mankind conditional, possible, and attainable since the merits of our Saviour must be allowed to be sufficient to save all men as a part" (William Grimshaw of Haworth, Banner of Truth, page 243).

This astute insight accords with the theological cogitations of eminent Anglican theologians such as James Ussher and John Preston, and it chimes in with the vocabulary of the Book of Common Prayer. There is no reduction of the commitment to divine election (it is certainly not Amyraldian) and there is strong pastoral commitment to the tenor of the gospel - whosoever will may come.

Today's Anglicans have so much to benefit from in the reading of the lives and theology of their notable forbears. Evangelicals must reclaim an understanding of and adhesion to the likes of Hooker and Donne and Herbert, etc. Men like these, our brothers in the faith, refine our minds, broaden our sympathies, and warm our hearts toward all fellow strugglers in life. The academy is the necessary place for the exercise of the intellect in the service of God and his people, but not without as much prayer and self-humbling before God as study. We need the devotional approach to Scripture as well as the cerebral. And the Church must ever be the place of healing, and modesty and mutual cherishing in relationships as the chosen of God (Colossians 3: 12 -13).

The Rev. Roger Salter is an ordained Church of England minister where he had parishes in the dioceses of Bristol and Portsmouth before coming to Birmingham, Alabama to serve as Rector of St. Matthew's Anglican Church.