Former SC Episcopal Bishop Reflects on Anglo-Catholics and Justification by Faith

Anglo-Catholics appalling condescension towards Evangelicals and the Reformation tradition cited

By C. FitzSimons Allison

www.virtueonline.org

Sept. 3, 2025

VOL: Former Bishop of South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison, believes that Anglo Catholics do not take Reformation soteriology seriously by showing that without justification by faith dogma loosens their Gospel proclamation and become doctrines that must be believed, a law deprived of its grace. He has tried to build up on the virtues of Anglo-Catholics, their concern for doctrine, their love of the church and their witness to metaphysics and the numinous reality beneath the rational reductionism of mere physics and mere phenomenon. He wants them to know about how concerned he is about the distortions and foibles of the Anglo-Catholic tradition.

BISHOP ALLISON WRITES:

First is the appalling condescension towards Evangelicals and the Reformation tradition. A good example of this is Rowan Greer's book ‘Anglican Approaches to Scripture’ (2006). In which he never mentions ANY Evangelical but gives sympathetic attention to Maurice Wiles, Dennis Nineham, Michael Goulder, and Don Cupitt who range from heterodoxy to atheism. At the same time, he never mentions in a book entitled ‘Anglican Approaches to Scripture’ John Stott, Tony Thiselton, Stephen Neill, Charles Moule, I.J. Packer, Leon Morris or J.B. Lightfoot (whose ‘Commentary on Philippians’ is still available in its 12th edition and 16th printing.) Here he eliminates scholars whose works are virtually the only ones in the Anglican tradition which makes converts globally while leaving his view of Anglican tradition populated by those paralyzed by their own skepticism.

Greer taught Anglicanism to Chris Seitz, Ephraim Radnor and George Sumner at Yale. Unfortunately, he is not alone in defining Anglicanism by eliminating the Evangelical tradition. Bishop John Fenwick in his ‘Anglican Ecclesiology and the Gospel’ writes “Arthur Middleton in 'Restoring the Anglican Mind’ leaps from 17th century to the rise of Tractarianism, missing out entirely the Evangelical Revival; where such a chapter should come chronically is a picture of John Keble. … (Page 464)

The irony is that the commendable concern by Anglo-Catholics for Christology and Trinity is creedally and coherently dependent upon justification by faith but that doctrine has largely been scorned. When I first arrived at Oxford, I was interviewed by the Anglo-Catholic Chaplain Eric Mascall who asked me what I was going to do. I replied: “I'm working on the doctrine of justification in the Carolina divines.” After repeating the phrase, he replied: “What if the doctrine of justification has any meaning at all it's denied by the opening sentences in Evening Prayer: ‘When a wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul.’” (Ezekiel 17:27) Fortunately I had enough sense not to ask him how he was doing in saving his soul alive.

At the General Convention in New Orleans the ‘Final Report’ from the Anglican/Roman Catholic Council was given I asked why it was called the ‘Final Report' when we had yet to deal with justification that Richard Hooker called “the grand question that hangeth yet between us and the Church of Rome.” Bishop Art Vogel rose to his feet and said: “There has never been any difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholics on the question of justification.” (I should have corrected him publicly but did privately remind him that Richard Hooker was an Anglican and named a dozen Anglican and Roman Catholic scholars who know there to be a serious divide between the 39 Articles and the Council of Trent on this doctrine of justification.)

The point here is that a bishop, then regarded as the leading scholar in the House of Bishops and Dean of Nashotah House, could be so arrogantly ignorant of the “grand question that lyeth yet” between our two communions.

The Anglo-Catholic ignoring of soteriology goes back to William Laud, whose book ‘Conference with Fisher the Jesuit' dealing with the differences between the Church of England and Rome, never in 327 pages mentions the doctrine of justification (and this coming only shortly after Hooker's careful claim about justification.)

Bishop Stephen Sykes shows this Anglo-Catholic animosity toward the Reformation in the 19th century: “It is probably unwise to underestimate the degree to which Cranmer's reputation has popularly suffered at the hands of 19th century Anglo-Catholics anxious to dissociate Anglicanism from the 16th century English Reformation.” (‘This Sacred History, Anglican Reflections for John Booty’ Cowley 1990). James Hedstrom similarly states: “It is one of the tragedies of modern ecclesiastical history that the Oxford Movement felt it necessary to despise the Reformation to achieve catholicity.” (Quoted in Webber and Bloesch, 'Orthodox Evangelicals', Page 25).

For this tradition credentials became a preoccupation in the 19th century. Newman's first tract stated: “Hard Master He would not be to bid us oppose the world and not give us the credentials to do so.” But He has given us the credentials in the apostolic succession of bishops since the apostles. From this claim Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc., are not true churches and their adherents are consigned to the uncovenanted mercies of God. These claims began a long-lasting debate into this century between the advocates of the ‘esse’ position by which the church cannot exist without bishops in the apostolic succession and a ‘bene esse’ position that held that it was good but not necessary for a church to be a church. (Later, a ‘plene esse’ position was suggested as bishops in succession of the apostles would be the fullness of the church.)

The Tractarian followers insisted for years that the ‘esse’ position was the position of the 18th century Anglican leader, in spite of evidence to the contrary, while ignoring the admission of John Keble.

“It might have been expected that the defenders of the English Hierarchy against the first Puritans should take the highest ground, and challenge for the bishops the same unreserved submission, on the same plea of  exclusive Apostolic prerogative, which their adversaries feared not to insist on for their elders and deacons. It is notorious, however, that such was not in general the line preferred by Jewel, Whitgift, Bishop Cooper, and others to whom the management of that controversy was entrusted during the early part of Elizabeth’s reign – It is enough with them to show that the government by Archbishops and Bishops is ancient and allowable. They never venture to urge its exclusive claims, or to connect the succession with the validity of the Sacraments.” John Keble, ‘Preface to Hooker's Works’ Page 59

The irony is that no one has done more to lead the Episcopal Church into apostasy than bishops in succession, not to the apostles but to the world.

It is not a flattering fact that for more than a century Anglo-Catholics insisted on the ‘esse’ position as being grounded in the 16th and 17th centuries while ignoring Keble’s admission.

The ignorance of, and the hostility towards, the doctrine of justification by Anglo-Catholic scholars can hardly be exaggerated. The editor of ‘The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.’

F.L. Cross, described justification in the following way: IMPUTATION In theology the ascription to a person, by deliberate substitution, of the righteousness or guilt of another. The idea plays an important part in the Lutheran doctrine of Justification by Faith, which asserts that a man is formally justified by the imputation of the obedience and righteousness of Christ, without becoming possessed of any personal righteousness of his own. By a legal fiction God is thus held to regard the sinner’s misdeeds as covered by the imputation of the sanctity of Christ. This doctrine seeks support in certain passages of St. Paul (notably Rom. 3:21-30; Gal. 3.21 f.) and also from St. Augustine. It is opposed both to the traditional Catholic teaching, according to which the merits of Christ are not imputed but imparted to man and produce a real change from the state of sin to the state of Grace, and to the doctrine of liberal theologians to the effect that our highest vocation consists in the following of Christ who is our supreme example.

This article that describes the doctrine of imputation as ‘seeking support’ as being a ‘legal fiction,’ misrepresents Lutheran teaching, erroneously claiming the word comes from Rom. 3:21-30 where it does not appear at all (but it does appear 11 times in Chapter 4). This error remained unchanged until 40 years later in the 3rd edition in 1997.

The new editor, E.A. Livingston, writes in the preface (p. vi) of the third edition a tribute to ‘Revd Dr. A.E. McGrath's, the Revd Dr. Diamaid MacMulloch, and Dr. Richard Rex, who taught me about the Reformation…’

Her correction of the article on ‘Imputation’ among many others is as follows: “Imputation (from Latin ‘imputare’). A central aspect of classical Protestant theologies of justification, according to which the righteousness of Christ is imputed or reckoned to the believer, despite being extrinsic to his person, in order that he may be justified on its basis. This is contrasted with the teaching of the Council of Trent, that the believer is justified on the basis of an imparted or infused righteousness, intrinsic to his person. Acc. to classic Protestant theology, the justification of the believer on account of the ‘alien righteousness of Christ’ is followed immediately by a process of renewal and growth in personal righteousness. Support for this doctrine is found in certain passages of St. Paul (notably Rom. 4; Gal. 3:21 f).

For the concept in Anglican theology, see C.F. Allison, ‘The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter's (1966) passism.

There are some excellent people at Nashotah, especially Garwood Anderson but Professor Thomas Holtzen is committed to establishing an Anglican doctrine of justification on Newman's 'Lectures on Justification, 1838’ in spite of Alistair McGrath's repudiation of this view. One of my friends described the following experience at Nashotah: For these reasons, when I meet today with Tractarian seminarians at Nashotah House, who intend to teach their flocks to pray to saints; who intend to offer the sacrifice of the Mass propitiatory for the quick and the dead; and who reject the Gospel of atonement through Christ's blood and justification by faith as 'silafidianism,' and instead favor either or Eastern Orthodox theology or salvation – when I meet with them, I am aware that we are discussing matters of life and death. What am I to say to these men? ‘To the teaching and to the testimony!’ (Isa 8:20) I do my best to lead them back into the Scriptures for that is of course the most important thing to do.

Among the many virtues of Anglo-Catholicism are serious flaws: The most important is the self-destructive attempt to repudiate or ignore the Reformation and often bring in Roman Catholic teachings repudiated at the Reformation.

The use of the King James flawed translation of ‘Christ our Passover’ together with removal of the manual acts where they have been in every prayer book since the 16th century in order to bring back the medieval teaching that the priest is again offering Jesus to God ignoring both the Epistle to the Hebrews and all Anglican Prayer Books insisting that, ‘who made THERE (by His ONE oblation of Himself ONCE offered) a full satisfaction, perfect self-offering and sufficient sacrifice … (or synonyms to that effect). It is not without moral significance that to make the re-sacrifice by the priest cogent with the translation was brought in by stands as the only use of King James in Rite 2 in the entire Prayer Book.

Bishop John Fenwick points to a further irony that in modern dialogues the Roman Catholic Church has expressed “... regret [for] any impression they may have given of a repetition of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass and affirmed the unrepeatability of the sacrifice in other dialogues. For Anglicans perhaps the clearest Roman Catholic statement is in the context of ARCIC:”

There can be no repetition or addition to what was then [at Calvary] accomplished once for all by Christ. Any attempt to express a nexus between the sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharist must not obscure this fundamental fact. (Ibid, p. 346)

Many Evangelicals have a gift for self-criticism. Jim Packer expresses these weaknesses in losing the awesomeness of worship that characterized Charles Simeon’s conversion: Our stress on text and talking has marginalized and dumbed down the Sacraments, so that their message about the crucified and living Lord as the life of the church is muffled, and the Eucharist becomes an extra, tacked onto a preaching service, rather than the congregation’s chief act of worship, as Calvin and Luther  and Cranmer thought it should be. The word-sacrament antithesis, most certainly, is also false, but Evangelicals’ disproportionate word-centeredness is a fact, and is a further facet of a stunted churchliness. (Ibid, Fenwick, p. 447.)

One would be hard pressed to find a similar confession by an Anglo-Catholic of their particular weaknesses. Instead, Archbishop Rowan Williams described Evangelicals as people who band tambourines and sing Blessed Assurance, and let it be known that every once in a while, he too feels the urge to join in! One would like to know precisely when he last felt that urge, and even more where he went to find it, since there are precious few evangelical churches which match his description of them, but the tone of thinly-veiled contempt which lies behind such remarks comes across loud and clear. Gerald Bray (‘The Churchman’ page 296, Autumn 2002).

Another troubling aspect of Anglo-Catholicism is the uncritical adulation of such 17th century figures as William Laud and Charles I at the expense of the forces that finally succeeded in denying the victory of absolutism on the part of the Stuarts and saving us from the success of Louis XIV and the subsequent horror of the French Revolution. Someone once observed that high churchmen write not church history but ‘temple history,’ where much more attention is given to the ecclesiastical institution. (cf Addleshaw and Etches, ‘The Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship’) rather than the development of the British constitution and a constitutional monarchy which is largely left to secular scholars.

On a more positive note, Bishop John Fenwick’s new book ‘Anglican Ecclesiology and the Gospel’ deserves the praise of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali … “It should be seen as a charter for Anglicanism, around which orthodox-minded people might gather.” (from cover of book)

Fortunately, all Anglo-Catholics are not biased against the Reformation. The Maritime Provinces in Canada have shown a commendable concern for continuing education conferences that include such Evangelical figures as Roger Beckwith, Philip Edgecome Hughes, and Peter Toon. Having been a grateful recipient and participant in these conferences I am convinced we owe a tremendous debt to Fr. Robert Crouse for his scholarly and judicious influence on a Catholicism embracing the Reformation.

Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison (SC ret.) lives in Georgetown, SC with his wife Martha.