On The End of All Things

The Sunday Next before Advent

STIR Up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Two and a half years ago, I began the Canterbury Calgarian as an attempt to figure out where my home was. In 2013 and early 2014, I had spent time exploring some of the basic theologies of various Christian traditions. Even today, I continue to on occasion attend Great Vespers at a local Eastern Orthodox parish out of reverence and appreciation for that tradition, and hold significant respect for the theological depth of the Roman Catholic tradition. It was in that context, as a lay person, that the investigation into Anglicanism was undertaken in this blog.

Yet today, I find that context is no longer applicable. When I began, I was an Anglican lay person who had recently come to make his home there. Today, I am an Anglican seminarian who has discerned a call to Holy Orders and is preparing for ordination. I am serving in a parish within the Diocese of Calgary, and the concerns reflected in this exploration have largely been concluded.

I am no longer as concerned with uncovering the historic nature of Anglicanism as I once was. The goal of this blog was to establish a clear vision of a traditional Anglican ecclesiology, one rooted in Holy Scripture and the teachings of the undivided Catholic Church. Over the past two and a half years and one hundred and fifty articles, a wide range of issues have been addressed from history, to the Sacraments, to the Anglican formularies and dozens of issues in between. The Anglican ecclesiological foundation has been laid.

As the year ends, it seemed appropriate then to consider a shift. In Christianity, death is not the end. There is a Tolkienesque sentiment there that finds its roots in Christ’s gospel. While this project is at an end, it does not mean that I do not have planned future projects to explore other questions of the faith.

In particular is this: having established this ecclesiological foundation, what are the implications?

Since the advent of digital technology and their proliferation, something that really only occurred within my own lifetime (one of the final generations of children to grow up without the ubiquity of personal computers, let alone personal digital devices), the pace of social change has accelerated dramatically. New secular sociological concerns and practices within society have profound impacts on how Christians live out their faith.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are a product of 16th century British law and culture, and while they are still quite applicable today, what does that look like? What unperceived challenges do Christians face today that have not explicitly been addressed by these guidelines on how the Christian faith was to be lived out in English society of the day?

From falling rates of marriage to the loss of respect for the authority of Holy Scripture, to simple issues of international connectedness and the wider ranging impact of states upon one another, there are many issues that challenge us in how we are to live out our faith.

This is essentially a shift from academic understanding of theory towards praxis.

While this shift could be lived out in this blog, rather than do so I intend to start fresh with this new perspective and new goal on a new blog. That leaves nothing more than to close out this one.

I think as I reflect, perhaps the biggest conclusion that can be drawn is the great value to spiritual formation to considering the questions that have been considered here. Understanding the nature of these foundational elements of the Catholic faith and Anglican tradition. When someone asks me something about the Anglican tradition, I generally am able to answer. When questions come up today about where Anglicanism is heading or ought to be heading, I can argue from a foundation of Anglicanism actually meaning something—this is harsh reality that for many Christians who do not come from confessional traditions where subscription to a particular confession is a requirement for membership in a particular church, they may not know what their tradition actually professes and their own beliefs may ultimately be incompatible.

This experiment has reinforced in my mind the importance of catechesis and Bible study going forward. I, as an interested Christian, learned quite a bit, and while perhaps not all the details are necessary to know (I can’t really come up with any theological implications for failing to know about the participation of British bishops at the Council of Arles, for instance), overall it seems in many cases, Anglicans have failed to be taught the richness of our own tradition, nor do we even seem to realize how little we actually know about our history.

I’ll close this out with a favourite collect from the Book of Common Prayer:

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that the words, which we have heard this day with our outward ears, may through thy grace be so grafted inwardly in our hearts, that they may bring forth in us the fruit of good living, to the honour and praise of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

On Desire

The Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As the Articles of Religion affirm and as Scripture teaches us, God has gifted humanity with free will. A consequence of this free will is that we have desires. These are the forces within us that motivate us to act. Our desires can be either good or bad, either drawing us nearer to God or taking us away from him.

St Augustine of Hippo famously defined desire that draws us towards God, virtue, in terms of rightly ordered love. In On Christian Doctrine he famously expands on this meaning stating that:

love things, that is to say, in the right order, so that you do not love what is not to be loved, or fail to love what is to be loved, or have a greater love for what should be loved less, or an equal love for things that should be loved less or more, or a lesser or greater love for things that should be loved equally.

To use the language of desire, we must use our free will to order our desires in order that we desire to be in the amount suitable to the object of that desire. Disordered desire is the root of sin. For instance, when we desire material wealth for ourselves over our desire for the well-being of our neighbours, it is easy to see how we might be willing to cheat them or otherwise allow our actions to negatively affect them in the pursuit of our own gain.

A clearer example comes from the consideration of the desire for social belonging. It is a fundamental motivator of all human behaviour to have belonging. In a modern Western context, that desire manifests in certain culturally conditioned patterns of behaviour which are normative for anyone who wants to fit in and be a part of society. It is perfectly natural and anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that in and of itself a desire to be a part of a group is sinful. Yet Christianity often challenges these cultural norms that form the basis of belonging. How often on a Sunday does a homily exegete a passage of Holy Scripture by expounding on how Christ is calling us to counter-cultural action? Suddenly our desire for God—to follow him, to honour him and to have intimate relationship with him, is placed in conflict with the desire to conform to the norms of society in order to fit in. If we place our desire to conform to the norms of society above our desire to follow God’s counter-cultural call, we have a disordered desire.

There are many hymns and modern praise songs that speak of turning ourselves wholeheartedly over to Christ. How many Christians, however, can upon reflection sing these lyrics in all sincerity? 

In the famous lyrics, “O Love that wilt not let me go, / I rest my weary soul in thee; / I give thee back the life I owe, / That in thine ocean depths its flow / May richer, fuller be,” we are promising to give back our lives to God who gave us life, yet that does not in practice seem to be what we do. We withhold our lives from God like Ananias and Sapphira withheld some of the profit from the sale of their property.  Our lips proclaim a desire to turn ourselves over to God, but our actions often show those words to ring hollow in our lives.

There is a disconnect between what we say we desire, what we say we love, and what we actually love. We have failed in most of our modern Christian lives, to cultivate a theology of desire, this place of rightly ordered desires that will maintain our orientation towards God.

It is helpful to think of this in terms of desire rather than love because often we view loves as something which we have no control over, and also because we associate love with the emotion of love far more than we ought to when considering the full spectrum of what love entails. With desire, it seems easier to draw that mental connection with our ability to control our desires.

This is where spiritual disciplines come in. It is through the use of spiritual disciplines that we can begin to cultivate Godly desires and suppress those or reshape those desires that are disordered. Spiritual disciplines are opportunities to practice intentional orientation of our desires in a way that we often wouldn’t consider to be the case in terms of love. When love is viewed as an emotion it means it cannot be controlled or shaped, simply experienced and actualized or denied. With desire, we can shape it because it is something more persistent.

Ultimately, when our desires are oriented towards God, they will move us towards him. When they remain disordered, however, they will move us away from him. Desires apart from God are never fully satisfied, however, as they are ultimately self-satisfied. CS Lewis makes this point when he argues that pride is the great sin from which all other sin derives because it explicitly involves placing ourselves in the place of God. As we are created with a desire and that desire can only be fulfilled by God, it becomes a clear implication that when we follow these disordered desires we will always be left wanting more.

Spiritual disciplines that are useful for the reorientation of our desires include the cultivation of gratitude and thankfulness. This might be as simple as beginning your morning in a prayer of thanksgiving for how you are thankful for a day of opportunity that God has brought you to (the collect for grace from Morning Prayer is a suitable starting point for this) to creating gratitude lists: identifying throughout your day all the things you are grateful to God for. 

The confession from Morning Prayer reminds us that, “we have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,” and is a lesson that St Paul reminds us of. In Romans 1. 21 Paul describes how the lack of gratitude towards God for who he is and what he has done is the root of humanity’s descent into guilt and the disordering of humanity’s desires. To return to Godly desires, we need to consider why we got there in the first place and then continue to practice this culture of gratitude in order to strengthen the correctly ordered desires.

It is through this development of a clear theology of desire that we find ourselves drawing closer and closer to God.

On the Articles: Article XXXIX

The Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, absolve thy people from their offences; that through thy bountiful goodness we may all be delivered from the bands of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.

The Octave of All Saints Day

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXIX. Of a Christian Man’s Oath
As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement, and truth.

Article XXXIX, the last, addresses two different issues.

The first sentence of the Article notes that, “vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men,” by which it means profanity is barred. From the commandment not to use the Lord’s name in vain to Christ’s warning that what comes out of the mouth is more damaging than what goes in, there is a clear line in Scripture that tells us that Christians ought not to be vulgar. It should be recognized that there is a cultural context to profanity—what is considered to be profanity changes from language to language and time to time. In some cultures, for instance in Quebecois French, many vulgarities are sacrilegious, while in English, vulgarities are often sexual or relate to bodily waste. No matter their case, it is what they reflect from within us that is prohibited, and it is the causes of the utterances of profanity that is truly being warned against, not simply the utterances of profanity itself.

The second sense of the Article is a reference not to profanity, but to the swearing of oaths. While it is primarily the second part of this Article that addresses this, there is one historic way in which that first sentence condemning “vain and rash Swearing” also applies to the swearing of oaths. Historically prior to the reformation, it was common for young children to be sent to monasteries and convents. In order to be taken in, these young children would be required to swear oaths of celibacy, poverty and other forms. This Article condemns that medieval practice pointing out that it is a rash thing to have someone swear an oath so rashly, namely when they cannot understand the full consequences of what they are about to do. Biblically, the story of Jephthah (Judges 11. 29-40) seems to speak against this as well, as Jephthah swore rashly and paid a severe price for that mistake, being forced to sacrifice his daughter.
The second half of the Article makes a similar reference to the swearing of oaths in a way that would be understandable to modern eyes, namely the civil and legal sphere where oaths must be sworn, for instance before entering into a civil office or giving legal testimony in a courtroom. To some of the more radical reformers, Christ’s admonition to, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil,” (St Mt 5. 37) is interpreted as prohibiting the swearing of such oaths.

Yet there are many other places in Scripture where oaths are commended, from the Law of Moses (Deut 6. 13) to St Paul’s many references (Rm 9. 1, 2; II Cor 1. 23; Gal 1. 20). Nowhere in the Gospel does Christ overturn the law of Moses, and St Paul and the other Apostles, St James the Bishop of Jerusalem is mentioned explicitly in the Article.

It should be noted that there is room and even historic example, of how Christians ought to apply the lack of oaths, which comes from honesty: the lives as relate to Christians. In monastic communities, monks were prohibited from swearing oaths once they had joined their community because they were to be honest in all things and to swear additional oaths was to suggest they failed in their duty to be honest in all things. It may have been the extension of this practice to clergy in general in the medieval period that placed the seed of the prohibition of oaths among some of the radical reformers of the day.

In recognizing however that not everyone is held to such a standard, because not everyone is Christian, it becomes clear that this Article is a practical way of ensuring that Christians can relate to them in a pluralistic society. While the Christian should follow Christ’s commandment for honesty, that does not prohibit them from swearing an oath, to God or simply directly to another person, in order that the other party might believe them. Similarly, even among Christians, the use of contracts as a legal vow between parties are not prohibited as they can ensure clear understanding on both parties and ought not to be implied to suggest a lack of trust by one party towards the other.

The final sentence of this Article instructs that Christians ought to follow lawful civil authority, “according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement and truth.” This is a rather suitable prescription to conclude the Articles, saying simply that as far as our relationship to civil society goes, we ought to do our best to live in such a society in recognition that not all within it are Christian, but bearing witness to Christ in what we do, displaying justice, good judgement and God’s truth.

On the Articles: Article XXXVIII

The Twenty-Third Sunday after Trinity
O GOD, our refuge and strength, who art the author of all godliness: Be ready, we beseech thee, to hear the devout prayers of thy Church; and grant that those things which we ask faithfully we may obtain effectually; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXVIII. Of Christian Men’s Goods, which are not common
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

Article XXXVIII is interesting in that it is the most explicit in its condemnation of protestant excesses, often of the radical reformation and in this case from the Anabaptists in particular. This Article in particular repudiates the idea that a Christian is compelled to live in some form of communism, holding only common property and not personal property.

It should be of little surprise that with the rise of Soviet Communism in the 20th century, this Article took on a particular poltical significance among both British and American commentators. Writing even as recently as 2009, the American commentator Gerald Bray places particular emphasis on the modern political dimensions of communism and how much of a failure it is as a political system before eventually moving actually explore the Biblical imperatives.

Most Christians might reflect on the passages of the Acts of the Apostles which note the early Christian community living with all things in common or the deaths of Annanias and Sapphiras for withholding their property. Yet, looking at Christ’s teachings on the poor and even the whole of the account of the Acts of the Apostles, it seems that the living with all things held in common was an idea to be aspired to but not a requirement of the faith. We are called, as the Article notes, “to give alms to the poor, according to [our] ability.” Yet at the same time, to fail to compel a Christian to give up their property seems far more consistent with the Gospel imperative.

Christ invites us into communion with him, he does not compel. Upon being arrested after his betrayal, Christ asks, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (St Mt 26. 53). God could very well compel us to love him, but that wouldn’t be true love. Instead he has given us a choice. Similarly, Christ had already reaffirmed in the antitheses (St Mt 5. 21-47) that God cares about what happens in our hearts, not just what we outwardly do. If a Christian is compelled to give up all they have, they may do so because they are forced but not do so gladly and willingly.

Now of course, what must not be lost among all of this is the final imperative of the Article, that we ought to give alms to the poor. Christ was clear:

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (St Mt 25. 31-46)

We are called to serve the poor, yet it must be of our own decision. We are called to see Christ in others and to treat them appropriately, for we are all made in the image of God and bear dignity through that.

Wisdom of Saints: St Cedd

The Feast of Cedd, Missionary, Bishop of the East Saxons, 664

O GOD, our heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ didst call thy blessed Apostles and send them forth to preach thy Gospel of salvation unto all the nations: We bless thy holy Name for thy servant Cedd, whose labours we commemorate this day, and we pray thee, according to thy holy Word, to send forth many labourers into thy harvest; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

St Cedd is another British saint for whom little is known apart from what was recorded by St Bede in his Ecclesiastical History. He was born around 620 and died in 664. He was born into the northern kingdom of Northumbria to a noble family, the eldest of four brothers of whom one was St Chad of Litchfield, and the other two who also became priests. They were all chosen by King Oswald to become a priest and monastic to evangelize the area, and was sent to be educated in Lindisfarne at the priory there under the instruction of St Aidan who was then the bishop of Lindisfarne.

He was ordained a priest in 653 and shortly after began missionary work. The pagan East Anglian king Peada converted to Christianity in exchange for the hand of the daughter of the King of Northumbria in marriage. St Cedd was asked to travel to the kingdom to instruct the king in the Christian faith and to convert the people. He had significant success over the next year, and eventually returned to Lindisfarne.

In 654, owing to his success in converting the people of East Anglia, he was sent to Essex, where again the King of Northumbria’s political actions had opened the door for Christian missionaries. St Cedd was sent by the bishop of Lindisfarne to convert the people there. He began his mission and established two monasteries and several churches there, and upon returning to Lindisfarne again later that year was consecrated Bishop of Essex. As Bede records:

Cedd, having received the episcopal dignity, returned to his province, and pursuing the work he had begun with more ample authority, built churches in divers places, and ordained priests and deacons to assist him in the Word of faith, and the ministry of Baptism, especially in the city which, in the language of the Saxons, is called Ythancaestir, as also in that which is named Tilaburg. The first of these places is on the bank of the Pant, the other on the bank of the Thames. In these, gathering a flock of Christ’s servants, he taught them to observe the discipline of a rule of life, as far as those rude people were then capable of receiving it.

He returned south with newfound episcopal authority, ordaining deacons and priests and continuing to raise up many monks in his two monasteries. He re-established St Paul’s, London as his Cathedral, becoming only the second Bishop of London since the first, Mellitus, had been expelled from London by the East Saxon pagans in 616 shortly after establishing St Paul’s, after he himself had arrived in England with St Augustine of Canterbury in 598.

While St Cedd continued his work in the south, he made frequent return visits to the north. On one of these in 658, he was introduced to King Aethelwald of Deira who had been instructed in the Christian faith by one of St Cedd’s other brothers who had also become a monk with him at Lindisdarne. Finding St Cedd to be a godly man, the King gifted him with land at Lastingham on which he asked St Cedd to build a royal monastery and mausoleum. St Cedd ultimately agreed, but demanded that no construction begin until the area had been cleansed by prayer and fasting. He undertook himself in Lent of 658 to fast forty days, and as St Bede records:

All which days, except Sundays, he prolonged his fast till the evening, according to custom, and then took no other sustenance than a small piece of bread, one hen’s egg, and a little milk and water. This, he said, was the custom of those of whom he had learned the rule of regular discipline, first to consecrate to the Lord, by prayer and fasting, the places which they had newly received for building a monastery or a church. When there were ten days of Lent still remaining, there came a messenger to call him to the king; and he, that the holy work might not be intermitted, on account of the king’s affairs, entreated his priest, Cynibill, who was also his own brother, to complete his pious undertaking. Cynibill readily consented, and when the duty of fasting and prayer was over, he there built the monastery, which is now called Laestingaeu, and established therein religious customs according to the use of Lindisfarne, where he had been trained.

St Cedd spent much of the rest of his life living at his monastery in Lastingham, administering his see from there. He is noted to have served at the Synod at Whiby in 664, under the Abbess Hilda, and supported the Synod’s decision to adopt Romanizing customs for the Catholic Church in the Realm of England in an effort to unify the various kingdoms. Shortly after the synod, a plague broke out in England, and St Cedd died. He was buried at Lastingham.

St Cedd led a life destined for holiness. He was educated from an early age under the pious St Aidan of Lindisfarne and dedicated his life to the transmission of knowledge of God to others. He is commemorated as the evangelist of the Middle Angles and East Saxons, and played a critical role in the spread of the Christian faith throughout many of the English kingdoms, and provided a lasting example through his monastic devotion for generations to come.

On the Articles: Article XXXVII

The Twenty-Second Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy household the Church in continual godliness; that through thy protection it may be free from all adversities, and devoutly given to serve thee in good works, to the glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates
The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.
Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

Article XXII is historically interesting in that it articulates a particular vision of the separation of Church and state which is commonly supported among Western democracies today. In this version, it spelled out the Church’s proclamation that it was independent in religious affairs of the authority of civil offers.

The first paragraph actually again affirms the independence of the Church of England and the English Crown from foreign religious powers, namely the authority of the Bishop of Rome. While the Church of England had never declared itself out of communion with Rome, it had always claimed since the time of the English Reformation under Henry VIII and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer that the Catholic Church in the Realm of England was free from the jurisdictional authority of the Bishop of Rome, just as the Christian East had managed to maintain its independence from his jurisdictional claims to authority. This Article thus affirms that this claim to independence applies to secular authorities as well. By the time of Elizabeth II, this Article had become necessary as the Bishop of Rome, in addition to breaking communion with the Church of England had excommunicated all people of England who followed the temporal authority of the Queen. This Article countered that excommunication saying that he had no authority to require such as it was an invalid assertion of authority over the Crown in addition to invalid assertion of religious authority over local bishops.

The Article continues by then expressing the limits of the Crown’s authority over the Church. Unlike modern principles of the separation of Church and State, which tend to be established to limit religious involvement in public areas of government, this Article sought to place limits on the ability of secular officials to involve themselves in the affairs of the Church. This was essential because the Crown also held the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Article states, “we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments,” meaning that civil authorities were not authorized to preach or administer the Sacraments, or otherwise regulate them. These were affairs reserved for the ordained ministers of the Church. The Article then continues to note that civil authorities are not so much under the authority of the Church as they are under God’s authority, “that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.”

The final three paragraphs clarify particular controversies.

The first again asserts that the Bishop of Rome has no authority of jurisdiction, whether civil of religious, in the Realm of England. He may not choose bishops, as he sought to do with the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 leading to the Great Schism when he excommunicated the entire Christian East for refusing his demand that they submit to his claim of jurisdictional authority, and neither does he have the right to choose the King, as he sought to do before excommunicating Queen Elizabeth and the entire population of England that refused to accede to his demand for a Roman Catholic monarch that would follow his authority. One point that should be remembered about the historical context of this Article is that at the time of the English Reformation, the Bishop of Rome was not just a religious authority, he did also have political and temporary power as a prince, controlling territory and armies. The assertion that he had no authority in England did have significant political ramifications.

The penultimate paragraph deals with an issue of Christian morality and whether or not the state has authority to exercise the death penalty in the case of “heinous and grievous” offences. This largely was in response to Reformers rather than any claims of the Roman Church.

The final paragraph again responds to a controversy of the Radical Reformation, namely those who argued in favour of pacifism as a Christian imperative. The Article clarifies that if conscripted, a Christian man could not claim it was a Christian right not to fight. Given the political situation of the time, and the wars of religion on the continent, not to mention the fact that England itself had undergone a period of severe turmoil and civil war, was an essential point to make for any civil authority that needed men-at-arms, not to mention to simply clarify the position for priests so they would know what to teach given the tumultuous back and forth and the attempts of various governments of the day to enforce different rules.

On the Articles: Article XXXVI

The Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

The final Articles of religion deal with a number of more practical matters primarily, while making less significant theological statements. While the Canadian Book of Common Prayer last revised in 1962 contains within it the rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops, the Ordinal, as it was commonly known, was originally published separate to the Book of Common Prayer. Similarly, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion themselves are not published within the BCP but separately. When Anglicans refer to the three formularies, though, they mean the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal referred to in this Article, and the whole of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

At the time of the English Reformation, the question of the right ordination of priests was one that became somewhat contentious. Especially as Mary assumed the throne and sought to restore Roman supremacy to England. This Article affirms the English rites that would be used to ordain priests to Christ’s priestly ministry.

The statement implicitly affirms the right of the English Church to exist as part of the Catholic Church apart from Roman jurisdictional authority, much as the Eastern Orthodox churches have since their inception (meaning since the time of the Apostles, not simply since the Schism in 1054).

This Article relates directly to Article XXIII which defined the need for a properly ordained priest to preside over the sacraments and to preach or teach. It is in this Article that it is clearly defined how we are to know who has properly called by God and consecrated by the Church for that task.

Just as there was an importance in defending the validity of English ordinations, it was also an article that was important in determining the invalidity of Protestant ministers to preside over English Catholics. At times, Protestants sought to take charge and preach and teach within English churches and due to the confusion of the day, this practice was allowed in some locales for a time. It was Article XXIII’s insistence on properly appointed ministers that clarified that it was not a congregational decision who would preach and teach, something that reflected the congregational polity of Presbyterians coming from Scotland, while it was this Article that clarified in perpetuity the importance of the Ordinal as establishing the means, qualifications and rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops.

It should be noted that this Article does not address lay ministers which have always existed as minor orders historically and today are viewed as laity with particular permission to act in a certain way. This includes licensed lay ministers who preach and officiate at services in parishes without permanent clergy as well as catechists and other particular forms of lay ministers who have permission to perform a specific function. These people are not considered to be a form of ordination to holy orders and therefore do not contravene this Article, and similarly find their practice in the authority of the Church to allow for local practices and customs as necessary.

On the Articles: Article XXXV

Harvest Thanksgiving

O ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who crownest the year with thy goodness, and hast given unto us the fruits of the earth in their season: Give us grateful hearts, that we may unfeignedly thank thee for all thy loving-kindness, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

O ALMIGHTY and most merciful God, of thy bountiful goodness keep us, we beseech thee, from all things that may hurt us; that we, being ready both in body and soul, may cheerfully accomplish those things that thou wouldest have done; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

XXXV. Of the Homilies
The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.
Of the Names of the Homilies
1 Of the right Use of the Church                        11 Of Alms-doing
2 Against Peril of Idolatry                                  12 Of the Nativity of Christ
3 Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches   13 Of the Passion of Christ
4 Of good Works: first of Fasting                       14 Of the Resurrection of Christ
5 Against Gluttony and Drunkenness                 15 Of the worthy receiving the
6 Against Excess of Apparel                                    Sacrament of the Body of Christ
7 Of Prayer                                                          16 Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost
8 Of the Place and Time of Prayer                      17 For the Rogation-days
9 That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought 18 Of the State of Matrimony
    to be ministered in a known tongue                19 Of Repentance
10 Of the reverend Estimation of God’s Word   20 Against Idleness
                                                                            21 Against Rebellion

It would seem appropriate on this Harvest Thanksgiving for reflecting on the treasure both of the Articles of Religion in general and of the Homilies in particular for explaining the mind of the Reformers and the ideals of Anglicanism to which we are aspire. One of the difficulties of Christianity in general is that while many would accept, in some form or another, the authority of Holy Scripture over the faith, the Holy Scriptures are not always explicitly clear in all circumstances. Much like the Scriptures, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, the three Anglican Formularies, are not always clear, but the Homilies expand on a number of doctrines providing clarity in a way which was intended to be presented to the people throughout the year so not only the priests and bishops of the Church would know and understand, but that the people would as well. They are consistent with the principle of Article XXIV and explicitly stated in the Article when it says that the purpose of the Book of Homilies is that they be reach in Church so that the people can understand.

This speaks to a broader principle that Christians should know their faith. They should do so by being able to follow the mass, by being able to know the Scriptures and by being able to understand the doctrines of the Church that they worship in. These concepts seem common sense and indeed it would be quite unusual in a modern context for them to be ignored, though interestingly there is a bit of a reality where the Anglican Church of Canada falls short.

For example, what is the Anglican Church of Canada’s position on abortion? This question comes under scrutiny owing to the United States where a number of clergy of The Episcopal Church have made headlines for blessing abortion clinics and their work. While the abortion issue in the United States is roundly political, it is less so in Canada where the matter only rarely makes public headlines, with proponents of legalized abortion having effectively won the battle in the eighties. The Anglican Church of Canada has remained silent on this issue. It ultimately recognized the secular ‘right to abortion’ which had been proclaimed by the Supreme Court of Canada, but affirmed rights for the unborn. The refusal of the Church to speak to the theological rationale for such a position leads to ambiguity on other areas, such as the current political debate over assisted suicide.

A second benefit of the homilies is that they help to provide significantly more context and explanation for the Articles and principles of Anglicanism which have come under attack by those who say that the historic Anglican formularies have no meaning today because we cannot possibly know what was intended by them when they were written, and thus have no way of applying their doctrines today. Such arguments have been made in Canada with respect to the 1893 Solemn Declaration, and similarly argued by those in respect of clerical subscription to the Articles of Religion.

While the Homilies are no longer read in Church, there is no reason they could not be read, or presented as part of a teaching course after the mass. There is similarly no reason, particularly in this age of technology where the Homilies are a google search away for free, any lay person could not read them for their own personal edification.

In an age where religion is under attack, is it sufficient to have faith, or should we be able to explain our faith? Should we be exploring the ways in which our faith intersects with all aspects of our lives or is it sufficient to say “I believe in Christ’s redemption of my sins, and that is enough.” When we hold a limited view of faith, it contributes to many of the problems the Church is facing now over revised doctrine. The debate over same-sex marriage is one in many good-hearted Christians who are theologically illiterate fall prey to secular arguments simply because no one has made the effort to follow the principle of this Article and educate them on the meaning of the ‘wholesome’ doctrines of Anglicanism.

This similarly contributes to those who fall away from the faith because they view the Church’s counter-cultural actions as being indefensible or simply rooted in some kind of historic backwardness that will never change. They call the Church to “get with the times” and when it doesn’t, they leave. The solution is not to change. The solution is not to look to some new method of congregational development that will integrate and retain parishioners. The solution is to return to the principles of the English Reformation that brought us these articles and remember that the bishops, the clergy and people all need to understand their faith if they are going to be able to give a defence of the hope that is within them.

On the Articles: Article XXXIV

The Nineteenth Sunday after TrinityO GOD, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee: Mercifully grant, that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

The role of tradition has been one that has challenged the Catholic Church since its creation. At the time of the English Reformation, continental Protestants had been claiming to abandon tradition in favour of Scripture alone while ironically establishing new traditions. Some practices and doctrines of the Church were heavily rooted in tradition, but these traditions were not always universal and might vary from region to region even within one country.

This variability, for instance, led to the Synod at Whitby in the mid-7th century as there was at that time two different models for calculating the date of Easter, one brought by the Celtic missionary tradition in the north and one from Canterbury in the south rooted in the Roman practice. This could cause significant problems when you combined people from both traditions (as might happen in the case of nobility) when one spouse would be fasting for Lent while the other feasted for Easter.

The first thing that ought to be noted is that while the Article makes it clear that traditions of the Church may be enforced, they may be enforced only insofar as they are not, “repugnant to the Word of God,” which is to say that Holy Scripture holds a place of Primacy (Article VI) and the Church may not ordain or teach what is contrary to the Scriptures (Article XX). This differentiates it from the Eastern Orthodox which hold that Scripture is a part of Tradition and therefore Tradition can hold a dogmatic authority, and the Roman Catholic Church which argues its teaching magisterium holds the ability to promulgate Tradition as an equal authority, and separate from, Holy Scripture. Anglicans by contrast would suggest all authority is ultimately rooted in Holy Scripture and the authority even of the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds is rooted in their Scriptural authenticity, not merely in their reception by the whole Church.

This Article goes on to address other aspects of tradition, noting that tradition need not be uniform in all senses, particular as it approaches issues of ceremony. So long as everything remains rooted in the authority of Scripture, the Article argues, different places and times may allow for differences in ceremony and tradition. That said, it notes that like St Paul argues in I Corinthians, there must be order in the Church: these traditions and ceremonies must be, “approved by common authority.”

It rebukes the notion of private judgement (a term often applied to interpretation of Scripture but here applied to the acceptance of Tradition) where it says that such actions taken against the lawful authority of the Church not only assault the authority of the Church but, “woundeth the consciences of the weak bretheren.”

That said, while this Article defends the lawful diversity in the land, it is not to suggest that the practice of the English Church was one of disunity. Indeed, with the compilation and publication of the Prayer Book, uniformity was imposed in many respects on English clergy. What this Article defends is the historic legitimacy in differing practices in general, and thus the legitimacy of the English Church maintaining different traditions, ceremonies and practices than other parts of the Western Catholic Church where Rome had imposed its form of uniformity. This Article thus reaffirms Article XXIV on the use of the vernacular, or even Article XXX which allows for the people and clergy alike to receive the Eucharist in both kinds.

This is made clear in the final paragraph and should be noted the emphasis on the fact that ceremonies and rites of the Church are ordained through the Church, “only by man’s authority,” again emphasizing the distinction drawn between tradition and Scripture, which holds authority bestowed by God himself, versus what the Church ordains for the edification of the people, maintenance of unity and the general good order of the Church.

On the Articles: Article XXXIII

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXIII. Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided
That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a judge that hath authority thereunto.

Excommunication is a process largely alien to the modern Church, and so this Article is somewhat difficult to understand in a modern context, however in the time it was written it served as an important and necessary clarification for Christians.

Excommunication was for some time in the medieval period used as a tool of political power by the Bishop of Rome over various foreign princes. In England, it was partly responsible for forcing the King to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 that, among other liberties, also guaranteed the freedom of the Church. This practice of using excommunication as a political tool was never adopted in England after the reformation, however it did have a much more common application through the judicial system.

In England, Ecclesiastical Courts would routinely apply excommunication as a penalty for those who were summoned before the court but did not appear. The Ecclesiastical Courts in England dealt with a number of matter which at the time were considered religious in nature but which today are generally viewed as secular matters. For instance, they handled most matters of family law such as inheritances and matrimonial disputes. Other matters now considered civil matters were in the past considered religious in nature and fell under the purview of the ecclesiastical courts, such as defamation which was viewed as an assault on the soul rather than on the person. The use of excommunication by the ecclesiastical court remains common until reforms in the early 19th century.

Excommunication was thus being used in an effort to encourage sinners to repent of their ways. In order to make it effective, the sanction had to carry a material component to it rather than just the spiritual component of sanction. While the first thought is often to see being cut off from the Eucharist as a punishment inherent in excommunication, rather being shut off from the Eucharist was done out of concern for the well-being of the excommunicated person who if they were to receive would do so to their condemnation for having failed to adequately examine their conscious before receiving (according to St Paul’s warnings in I Cor 11). By requiring all other Christians to avoid excommunicated persons—their social lives and even livelihoods would be impacted—it would more quickly compel them to amend their ways and seek repentance with the Church.

While the Biblical authority for the practice of excommunication has never been in question, for a number of reasons, including the fact that it was English Ecclesiastical courts that often imposed the sanction and that those courts did not always exist in the colonies outside of England where Anglicanism flourished, the practice of excommunication has largely died out in Anglicanism. It remains in various forms commonplace among other Christian traditions including to some degree Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as well as various Protestant traditions, though they often do not use the term excommunication specifically given the history of having it applied to them during the time of the Reformation.

The Article can remain instructive, however, in that it recognizes that the purpose was one of reconciliation through penitence. When we consider who and what we as Christians associate ourselves with, do we consider why we might avoid something or otherwise boycott it, and what the purpose is in doing so. Does it serve to promote reconciliation with the Church? Does it serve to preserve our own faithfulness to God? Are we excluding others for the wrong reason, such as a desire to feel superior?

In the final series of the Articles of Religion, like Article XXXIII, they find themselves rooted in English law and culture, and particularly at the time of the English Reformation, and several of the particularities of the Articles are no longer applicable, however the general principles of how they instruct Anglicans to comport themselves remain timeless and as applicable as ever.

On the Articles: Article XXXII

The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

The prohibition on the marriage of priests and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church was an innovation of the medieval period, much like the administration of the Lord’s Supper in one kind only. While in the case of the Eucharist the full reasons behind the decision are no longer entirely clear, the decision to prohibit the marriage of priests and bishops is known and relates to abuses among families where positions were being inherited.

In the Scriptures, as noted in the Article which says that celibacy is not commanded by God’s Law, while St Paul does commend celibacy for those who are able to practice it, it is not commanded, and indeed in I Tm 3. 2-12 when St Paul gives qualifications for bishops and deacons, he mentions that they may be married.

While in the early Church celibacy was sought as Godly by many, it was never particularly enforced, and often those who promoted it did so for all Christians, not simply for the religious or clergy. Pope St Gregory the Great was the first to truly advocate it, given his monastic origins, though he was unable to enforce this on clergy in his time.

The Council in Trullo in 691, almost a century after St Gregory’s attempts to enforce celibacy, established the rule that married Christians could become priests, but priests could no longer marry, meaning that even if your wife died you could not be remarried, nor could a celibate priest be married after ordination. In addition, bishops were required to come from monastics and celibate priests (including priests whose wife had died). These canons remain in force among the Eastern Orthodox today, however the council was never ratified in the West, and its practices were not adopted.

In the West, then, both priests and bishops were permitted to marry, and often did. This led to dynastic tenures in various offices, where fathers would ordain their sons and offer them plum positions only for the son to later inherit the bishopric. This led to particular families becoming rather wealthy. In the West the First Lateran Council of 1123 sought to impose clerical celibacy, however despite the Pope’s efforts to enforce it, it was never wholly received, for instance in Ireland where married priests remained the norm.

At the time of the Reformation, the practice fell under challenge in the West. Martin Luther, a monk, had broken his vow of celibacy and married a nun. To justify this position, he attacked the authority of enforced celibacy by pointing to the freedom for clergy to marry in Scripture. Among Protestants, the practice soon became normative.

In England, it took until 1549 for clerical celibacy to be abolished, however during the reign of Mary I, celibacy was again enforced and married clergy were defrocked. It took some time for the practice of married clergy to again become normative, but it had by the early 18th century.

It should be noted that the Article does note that it is lawful for priests to marry, the Article concludes by saying that each individual should judge how best to serve godliness by either marrying or not. This passage is reminiscent of St Paul’s exhortation in I Cor 6. 12 that, “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.”

Wisdom of Saints: St Cyprian of Carthage

The Feast of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Martyr, 258

ALMIGHTY God, by whose grace and power thy Martyr Cyprian was enabled to witness to the truth and to be faithful unto death: Grant that we, who now remember him before thee, may likewise so bear witness unto thee in this world, that we may receive with him the crown of glory that fadeth not away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

 St Cyprian of Carthage was a bishop and martyr of the early and mid-third century, and an important early Church Father whose many writings continue to exist today. St Cyprian was born sometime around 200 AD in North Africa to pagan parents. He received a good education and became a lawyer and teacher of rhetoric. He was successful and well-known throughout Carthage, having become wealthy due to his legal and teaching success.

He converted to Christianity in the 240s and was likely baptised during the Easter Vigil of 246. He embraced asceticism and engaged in chastity and poverty during his catechesis and early years. He gave his income to the poor and sold his properties in Carthage for further revenues for the poor, and became chaste.

He was made Bishop of Carthage only two years later in 248, at the demand of the people despite his initial reluctance to take up the charge. Shortly after his consecration as Bishop of Carthage, Decius became Emperor and initiated a persecution of Christians in an effort to restore Roman paganism and, in his mind, the fortunes of the Roman Empire.

During the previous thirty-eight years of tolerance, the Church had become relatively prosperous with many bishops falling into worldliness and scandal. Many of them were, during the Decian persecution, put to death, while priests and lay Christians forced to recant their faith. Due to the deaths of so many bishops and the need to maintain the governance of the Church, rather than face death, St Cyprian want into hiding, recognizing that it would be impossible to elect and appoint new bishops during the ongoing persecution.

Many Christians apostatized rather than face rape, torture and death. They would go to the Pagan temples and offer sacrifice to receive their libelli, certificates that proved they had sacrificed to the pagan gods and were thus not Christians (though some Christians sought to buy forged libelli in order to avoid both persecution and needing to sacrifice to pagan gods).

By 251 the Decian persecution began to wane as political challenges to Emperor Decius turned his attention elsewhere. A Council was called in Carthage to address some of the issues that had arisen during the persecution, but Cyprian himself was challenged by some of the priests who had opposed his election, who schemed to keep him from participating in the Council. He famously composed a letter against one of them and also around this time published a number of works extolling the virtues of Christian unity and seeking to address some of the controversies that were dividing the Christians of the day.

He wrote several other famous works in this time, and his works were widely regarded.

In 258 a major plague broke out in Carthage, and while many of the government officials fled to avoid infection, St Cyprian remained and co-ordinated relief efforts for the city, including medical care for the sick who were being abandoned by family and friends. Despite this care for the dying, Christians were blamed for the plague by pagan Romans who felt it was the punishment of the Gods for the spread of Christianity and abandonment of Roman pagan religion. The Emperor Valerian began a persecution of Christians. This time, St Cyprian did not flee into hiding but stayed in Carthage. He was arrested, tried and beheaded on the 14th of September 258. A record of his trial and martyrdom exists along with many of his writings, the most famous of which concern the unity of the Church and the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

St Cyprian has extensive writings on the power and use of the Holy Eucharist, something he referred to many times in his collected epistles. In his Epistle 54, he wrote, “We may not arouse and exhort those to battle unarmed and naked, but may fortify them with the protection of Christ’s Body and Blood. The Eucharist is designate for this very purpose, that it may be a safeguard to those who receive it.” He continues in Epistle 63, outlining more of his high doctrine of the Eucharist and the role of the priest in ministering it:

If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ.

Writing on Unity, St Cyprian addressed the issue of doctrinal disagreements and they way they should be resolved. In his 53rd Epistle he writes:

When truth is missing from practice and tradition, this is rather indicative of the longevity of falsehood. There is a very safe method for spiritual souls to discern between truth and falsehood: it suffices to return to the beginning of the divine teaching, there where the human falsehood ends. Let us return there, to the evangelical beginning, the original teaching given by our Lord; and to the apostolic tradi­tion, there where the word of our thoughts and actions emanates.

Here is a simple truth. When there is a doctrinal disagreement, first turn to the Evangelical witness, the primacy of Scripture. That is not enough, however, because there can be disagreements on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, so there he says to turn to the Apostolic Witness, the teachings of the Church Fathers, Christ’s Apostle’s and their successors to hear their interpretations of the Scriptures. Their viewpoints are not infallible, however they speak with some authority, particularly where they speak in unity, and what has traditionally been rejected by the Fathers can also speak to the limits of acceptable interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

St Cyprian, one of the earliest writers, provides us with a wealth of writing on the understanding and early developments of Christian doctrine, reminding us that even from the earliest days the Church held a great reverence for the grace and value of the Holy Eucharist and also placed great importance on the unity of the Church and the role of priests and bishops in maintaining that unity and doctrinal orthodoxy, under the authority of Holy Scripture.

On the Articles: Article XXXI

The Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, let thy continual pity cleanse and defend thy Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without thy succour, preserve it evermore by thy help and goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

This Article seeks to define the relationship between Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and the sacrificial nature of Christ in the Mass and particularly in the Blessed Sacrament.

It begins with a statement which today would be rather uncontroversial for most Christians: Christ offered himself on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (I St Jn 2. 2) and that there is no other way to satisfy our sins before God but through Christ’s sacrifice. Interestingly enough, this would be controversial to some post-Reformation Calvinists who began to view that Christ’s sacrifice was only for some and not for others, going so far as to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice was only intended and sufficient for the sins of the elect and those pre-destined to salvation (see Article XVII for Anglicanism’s position on those issues) and not for the sins of the whole world. This position is not Scripturally sound and is again by virtue of this Article rejected.

The second section of the Article becomes far more complicated. There are a number of critical points. First it addresses itself to sacrifices of Masses. The sacrificial nature of the mass is something accepted from the earliest days of the Church. From the Didache to many of the early fathers, but it is important to note the nature of this sacrifice. This was a reference to the sacrifice of the oblations placed on the altar, which then through the prayer of consecration became a participation with Christ’s one sacrifice. The Article notes that, “it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer4 Christ for the quick and the dead.” This here references the sacrificial nature of the mass which was condemned, though this view itself is one also condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, namely that the priest was re-sacrificing Christ every time in the mass rather than simply participating in Christ’s one sacrifice.

Fr Ken Ross argues that this section of the article was attacking:

the popular belief that in the Mass Christ was again offered or sacrificed, and rightly repudiates such an idea as blasphemous. From the plurals used, sacrifices and Masses, and from the latter part of the sentence, it is clear that it was private Masses of requiem which were felt to be the most objectionable. It is all bound up with the Romish doctrine of purgatory in Article XXII.

Here he points out part of the idea behind the Roman practice of the sacrifice on behalf of those who were dead and believed to be in purgatory. In this, then, as Fr Ken points out, this Article is simply reaffirming the condemnation of Article XXII. Additionally, though, it related to the idea of priestly control.

In the medieval period at the time of the Reformation, there was a popular conception that, regardless of whether or not the priest added anything to Christ’s sacrifice, that the priest was controlling access to the grace offered by Christ’s sacrifice. In this sense, it allowed the priest to control whether or not someone would be saved and would nullify the saving grace of Christ, as it was no longer accessible except through the ministry of the Priest. Again, that seems to be more the concept being condemned by this practice, not the sacrifice of Christ or participation in it through the bread and wine, which were views supported by the Patristic Church from the earliest times. In the early 2nd century, for instance, St Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice.”

This is a relatively simple Article, further points of clarification are made that make much more sense when taken in the context of the day, and particularly in the commonly held belief and practices of the day, rather than the doctrines of the Church which were both professed at that time and as they have later been ‘clarified’ to have been by the Roman Catholic Church.

On the Articles: Article XXX

The Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity

KEEP, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy; and, because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall, keep us ever by thy help from all things hurtful, and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXX. Of both Kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

In his institution of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Christ provided us with both the bread and the wine. In the earliest times of Christianity, communicants would receive both the bread and wine, often by intinction, the practice of dipping the bread in the wine. This practice has been used continuously in the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, over the course of history in the West, a practice arose whereby the people would only receive in one kind, only the bread. Only the priest would drink the wine. The exact causes of this are unclear but, but one common supposition is that it relates to early limited understanding of the transmission of germs through the common cup.

While modern medicine has shown that sharing the common cup due to its nature will not cause the transmission of germs or disease, in the medieval period, particular under times of extreme plague such as the Black Death, there may have been a significant reluctance on the part of many communicants to receive from the common cup. A response may have been to temporarily allow the people to receive only in one kind, however this extraordinary practice ultimately became the common practice, even in times when there were no threats of germs. As the rationale for why only receiving in one kind was forgotten, the practice became not one of simply allowing the people to receive only in one kind, but of prohibiting them from receiving in both kinds.

As it became a more common practice, a theological rationale was established to justify it. After the development of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, also rejected by the Articles, Roman Catholics added a simple addition, that in the change of substance, the wine does not merely become Christ’s Blood and the bread does not merely become Christ’s Body, but rather the Bread becomes Christ’s Body and Blood and the Wine similar becomes Christ’s Body and Blood. The rationale for this was that while Christ’s Body and Blood were separated in his original sacrifice on the Cross, in the Eucharist we participate through his risen Body whereby the Body and Blood are rejoined.

This Article was only added to the Articles of Religion by revisions in 1563, yet that wasn’t the first time someone had objected to the Roman practice in the West. Jan Hus, a pre-Reformation Roman Catholic who left Rome over objections to numerous Medieval doctrines, and who was eventually executed for heresy. Rome continued to harden its position on administration in one kind, as it in particular also affirmed Rome’s claim that the Church and Papacy had the right to adjust Biblical practices. This had originally been done with the imposition of clerical celibacy, however this was a discipline of the clergy and not a doctrine of the Church. Communion in one kind, however, was a quasi-doctrinal position. When the Council of Trent sought to respond to the Reformers, they reaffirmed their position on reception in one kind, and so when the Council concluded in 1563, the Articles of Religion were amended to reaffirm the Biblical position that Christ instituted the Eucharist for all to receive and in both kinds.

Rome’s position was maintained until the reforms of Vatican II at which point the restrictions on reception of both kinds, however it has never repudiated its theological rationale.

While Article XXX looks on its face merely to be a repudiation of a particular practice, or one could even argue a repudiation of the theological rationale for Rome’s practice of reception in one king, it ought chiefly to be viewed as an affirmation of the primacy of Holy Scripture, and the rejection of the authority of the Church to implement doctrines which contradict the Scriptural witness.

Wisdom of Saints: St Aidan of Lindisfarne

The Feast of Aidan, Missionary, Bishop of Lindisfarne, 651

O GOD, our heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ didst call thy blessed Apostles and send them forth to preach thy Gospel of salvation unto all the nations: We bless thy holy Name for thy servant Aidan, whose labours we commemorate this day, and we pray thee, according to thy holy Word, to send forth many labourers into thy harvest; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

St Aidan of Lindisfarne was born in Ireland, but little else is known of the details of his early life, though St Bede later recorded in significant detail much of his later life. Whatever the exact details and when and where he was born, he ultimately became a Christian monk living in St Columba of Iona’s monastery at Iona. He would later go on to become a great missionary to Northern England, helping to bring the kingdom of Northumbria to faith.

The history of Christianity in England plays a significant role in St Aidan’s life. It had likely arrived within the first century brought by Roman soldiers who had been converted to Christianity. Over the next centuries, however, despite initially flourishing in Britain, as the Western Roman Empire suffered collapse and Roman troops were pulled out of Britain, pagan invaders began to de-Christianize Britain. While Christianity was never fully stamped out, many of the Christians in Britain lost contact with the Christians of the rest of the world, including the Celtic Christians of Scotland and Ireland.

When St Aidan was still a younger man, in 597, St Augustine of Canterbury landed in Kent on a mission from the Bishop of Rome to restore the connections with the Western Catholic Church on the continent. St Augustine began sending missionaries north from his base in Canterbury, while Iona and the Celtic Christians had been making some efforts to send missionaries into the north. The King of Northumbria, Edwin, was converted to Christianity by one of the southern missions, however after only a few years he was killed. His nephew, Oswald, had been exiled. Fortuitously, Oswald had gone to Iona to stay with the monks during his exile, before eventually returning to Northumbria to reclaim the kingdom from the pagans who had killed King Edmund.

Upon regaining the kingdom, King Oswald sought to re-Christianize it, but rather than turning to the southern missionaries from Rome who had originally brought the Gospel to his uncle, Oswald turned to the monks with whom he had resided during his exile. The first missionary sent from Iona returned in failure, though St Aidan commented that the other monk’s methods had perhaps been too strict. Citing St Paul, St Aidan argued that the English people needed milk and not just solid food (I Cor 3. 2) and sought to try a gentler approach. St Aidan replaced him and, rather than seeking to establish himself at York, as his predecessor had, St Aidan established a new monastery at Lindisfarne off the NE coast of England.

Over the years, St Aidan was able to restore Christianity in Northumbria, and eventually his missionary journeys took him as far south in England as London. He established missions all over the North, and St Bede recorded numerous stories of his works, commending his piety, humility and love of the Gospel, and commending him as model for other missionary Bishops in England.

St Bede writes:

Among other lessons in holy living, Aidan left the clergy a most salutary example of abstinence and continence; it was the highest commendation of his doctrine with all men, that he taught nothing that he did not practice in his life among his brethren; for he neither sought nor loved anything of this world, but delighted in distributing immediately among the poor whom he met whatsoever was given him by the kings or rich men of the world. He was wont to traverse both town and country on foot, never on horseback, unless compelled by some urgent necessity; to the end that, as he went, he might turn aside to any whomsoever he saw, whether rich or poor, and call upon them, if infidels, to receive the mystery of the faith, or, if they were believers, strengthen them in the faith, and stir them up by words and actions to giving of alms and the performance of good works. [Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England III:V]

Bede commended St Aidan for his study of the Scriptures, and his encouragement to all those who followed him to do the same. He also regularly fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays. Whenever he received gifts from wealthy visitors he would distribute them to the poor and needy. St Bede also records that he would use money he received as gift to ransom slaves taken by pagans, many of whom after receiving their freedom he converted to Christianity, and in many cases instructed them and ultimately ordained them into Holy Orders.

St Aidan maintained a close relationship with King Oswald, who was himself sainted, feast day of August 5th, who was himself a holy man upon his conversion and under St Aidan’s continued influence. One story recorded by St Bede says that as they sat down to eat, a servant came and told the king that a great number of needy were outside begging for alms. King Oswald, ordered his meal to be served to the poor on its silver platter and then for the platter to be broken up and distributed to the poor as alms.

King Oswald was killed in battle a few years later, and recognizes as a martyr, and succeeded by St Oswin, another man who followed St Aidan’s teachings, though not without some need for correction. In another story told by St Bede, St Oswin gifted St Aidan with a horse and cart, which St Aidan gave to a beggar. St Oswin, upon hearing this, chastised him saying that had he known St Aidan was going to give the gift away there were plenty of more common horses in the stable suited for a beggar. St Aidan chastised the King, asking him if he considered the foal of a mare more highly than a son of God. King Oswin wept tears of repentance and promised never again to criticize St Aidan’s acts of charity.

His faith, piety, gentleness, charity and earnestness is living out the Gospel that he so cherished and preached throughout his missionary journeys made him an extremely successful missionary, helping to establish Christianity throughout England.

On the Articles: Article XXIX

The Fourteenth Sunday after TrinityALMIGHTY and everlasting God, give unto us the increase of faith, hope, and charity; and, that we may obtain that which thou dost promise, make us to love that which thou dost command; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

In the era of the Reformation, there were many doctrines of the Eucharist being put forth, generally from the extreme on the one end of some of the more radical Reformers who proposed a form of memorialism that proclaimed a ‘real absence’ of Christ in the Eucharist (that it was merely an ordinance of eating bread and drinking wine in memorial of Christ as he commanded) to the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. Article XXV laid out general principles of the sacraments, Article XXVI expressed the issue of an unworthy minister, Article XXVIII addressed the nature of the Eucharist itself, and Article XXIX concludes this section of the Articles by addressing the question of the unworthiness of a communicant.

The Article establishes two criteria for those to whom it applies. First, the wicked, that is to say those who have failed to truthfully repent of their sins, and second those who lack a lively faith. These criteria would be entirely consistent with St Paul’s warnings in his epistle to the Corinthians where he establishes the criteria of discerning the Body (something which requires faith) and examining oneself before approaching to receive, which is to say examining your conscience in order to repent of any sins.

The Article continues that those who do not meet those criteria may visibly chew and consume, press their teeth, the Sacrament, but rather than being partakers of Christ, they are eating and drinking to their condemnation. This part of the Article bears closer scrutiny as it has, among other things, led to the development of a doctrine of receptionism that claims that there is no objective change in the elements during the Consecration, but rather when you receive it determines whether or not you will receive, in faith, Christ, or receive condemnation.

The receptionism understanding of the Sacrament is drawn from a reading of the Article which focuses on the first part of this sentence. “Yet in no wise are [the wicked] partakers of Christ.” But this is not actually the whole section. There are specific wordings to the conclusion of the full sentence in the Article that establish a clear and objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ presence in the Eucharist is not dependent on how the communicant, Christ is always present.

The full conclusion of the sentence says that the wicket receive condemnation as they eat and drink the, “sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.” If Christ is not present in the Eucharist itself and is only received in faith, the Eucharist itself could not be described as a sign or sacrament. A sacrament is defined in the Book of Common Prayer as an, “outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof,” (550). Much like transubstantiation, this view of receptionism, “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.” It is clear from the Articles overall and even this specific Article, however, that the Eucharist is explicitly viewed as a sacrament, meaning that any such interpretation of this Article or the nature of the Eucharist would necessarily be in error.

The clear alternative is that Anglicanism receives a Scriptural and Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Christ is truly present in it, but the effect can be either positive, when we receive in faith, or negative, when as St Paul writes, we receive unwarily.  Christ’s presence is objective, but the effect of his presence depends entirely on how his presence is approached or received, as the Scriptures say.

This Article is a good example of the way in which one of the Articles of Religion might seem at first to be overtly Protestant in origin, like several of the earlier Articles which mirror language from some Protestant confessions, but which on a closer examination can be nothing other than an effort to explain the English Reformers goals of bringing the Catholic Church in the Realm of England back to the doctrines of the undivided Catholic Church under the authority of Holy Scripture.

On the Articles: Article XXVIII

The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may so faithfully serve thee in this life, that we fail not finally to attain thy heavenly promises; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

 The nature of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, also called the Lord’s Supper, is one which has caused massive divisions among Christians and even been a cause for the shedding of blood during the Reformation and years subsequent to it. Article XXVIII continues in the series of Articles defining the sacraments by laying out some basic Anglican understandings of the Eucharist. Even among Anglicans, however, these Articles have found themselves open to interpretation.

This Article is divided into three main clauses. The first section defines what the Eucharist is. The Second explains the error of the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Third provides two clarifications relating to questions arising specifically during the times in which the Article was written.

The first section begins with the affirmation that, “the Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves to one another.” At the time of the Reformation, several different groups had sprung up on the Continent who began to argue that the Sacrament was not a sacrament, but simply an ordinance. Christ had ordered us to memorialize the actions, and so the Supper of the Lord was nothing more than a shared agape meal that symbolized unity between Christians. This Article makes it clear that to Anglicans, in the Catholic tradition, we recognize it as more than just a symbolic memorial of unity, “but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death.” The Sacrament is Christ’s Body by which we are granted eternal life. It is not simply a symbol, but God actually does something (conferring grace) through the Sacrament. There is a limit on this, though, with the final part of this section stating that it is only those that, “rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same” in which case the receiving becomes an anamnesis, a participation in or, as the Article states, “partaking of,” the Body and Blood of Christ in his perfect sacrifice for our sins.

The second section deals with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In brief, Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Christian doctrines with the recently re-discovered works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In particular he sought to use Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory to describe the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In the hylamorphic dualism, everything has a substance and an accident. Most generally, the substance refers to inherently what its nature is, while the accidents are its characteristics. For instance, the substance of a tree is wood while its accidents are that it is tall, has branches, a rough bark and so on. To Artistotle, something’s accidents could change but its substance would not. So again, in the case of the tree, one could take the tree, cut it down and turn it into a desk. Its accidents have changed—it no longer maintains the same characteristics—but its substance remains wood. To St Thomas Aquinas, the explanation of the Eucharist was found in this: the accidents of the bread and wine remain, but in the Eucharist, its substance changes from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

Article XXVIII provides several objections. First, it cannot be proven by “holy Writ,” which is to say it is not clear from Scripture that is what happens, therefore the Church cannot compel someone to believe it by virtue of Article XX. Second, it says that the doctrine of Transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament,” by which it means it is contrary to the definition of a Sacrament. The basis for that claim is the incarnational nature of sacraments. If a Sacrament is the grace of God working in and through creation, in a way similar to Christ himself being fully God and fully man, apart from sin, then transubstantiation cannot allow for that because the change in substance means that the created order is being eradicated and replaced by Christ’s divinity. Finally, it notes that this doctrine has led to several superstitions throughout the medieval Church.

This leads directly into the last two paragraphs which stem from this rejection of Roman Eucharistic doctrine. Firs it states that by faith, the Eucharist nourishes us in a spiritual manner, it is a meal of grace. Because this section does not explicitly deal with the issue of Real Presence, some have argued that it denies a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however, really what it affirms is the Sacramental nature of the Eucharist. That, by faith, as St Paul warns in I Corinthians, those who have worthily prepared themselves and discern the Body of Christ will receive God’s spiritual grace. This section is ultimately affirming that even if the doctrine of Transubstantiation is rejected, it does not mean that you do not receive grace. This was the doctrine of the early Church and even of Rome up until St Thomas Aquinas defined the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the 13th century.

The final section deals with the question of veneration of the Blessed Sacrament. In medieval times, a number of practices became normative in the Western Church as its teachings diverged from the teaching of the united Catholic Church of the first millennium. There were often good intentions with many of these. As a result of the seriousness with which the Eucharist was held, the practice of Eucharistic Adoration or Veneration arose, in which a consecrated host would be lifted up and displayed for all to see. Over time, there arose a common understanding that the veneration was a sufficient replacement for the grace received when actually partaking the Eucharist, only it did not bear the threat of penalty for those who received unwarily. Many Christians began no longer receiving the Eucharist and substituted the veneration instead. The stress in this Article suggests that Christ did not order the Eucharist to be venerated in this manner, a reminder that Christ instituted it for us to partake in it!

All told, the Article outlines a high view of the Sacrament that runs rather counter both to Roman Catholic doctrine as well as later protestant doctrines, though is relatively consistent with some of the earlier views of Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther along with that of the Eastern Churches.

On the Articles: Article XXVII

The Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy; forgiving us those things whereof our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

XXVII. Of Baptism
BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

After addressing the general nature of the sacraments and their administration, the Articles highlight the importance placed on Holy Baptism by describing it next, before going on to elaborate on the Holy Eucharist. This Article’s formulation again shows its opposition to protestant doctrines adopted, somewhat ironically, by the Baptists which argued that Holy Baptism was merely symbolic and unnecessary to adoption in Christ, and that rather than acting through the Sacrament’s God simply works through an individual’s belief.

This Article affirms the traditional view held by the Patristic Church and maintained also in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as some protestant traditions to lesser and varying degrees, that God acts through Baptism. In addition to being a sign of membership into the Christian fellowship, “it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth.” It is interesting that on the heels of Article XXVI, this Article also specifies that this applies to those who “receive Baptism rightly.” By rightly, it refers to the use of water and receiving the Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit according to the formula provided by Christ in the Great Commission (St Mt 28. 19).

The Article continues to discuss important features of Baptism. The Article states that those who receive it, do so for, “the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost.” This makes explicit the meaning of the previous statement of what Regeneration and grafting into the Church means. In Baptism our sins are washed away. As St Paul puts it, our old selves are crucified with Christ, put to death, and we put on our new selves, adopted into Christ’s relationship with the Father.

The Article continues by mentioning the visible action of chrismation, being signed and sealed by the Spirit. This section conveys a two-fold meaning. First, much like earlier when it referred to the formula of the Great Commission, here it refers to another visible part of the ceremonial that occurs in Baptism: we are visibly signed by oil as a sign of the Spiritual sealing which occurs as we are sealed as Christ’s own forever. The second point made here relates to permanency. There are some sacraments, for instance the Holy Eucharist, which may be received repeatedly. Indeed, with the Eucharist and Reconciliation it is encouraged! Others, however, such as Holy Baptism, are permanent and only to be received once.

The Article concludes by addressing another controversy of the Reformation era, and one which continues today, that of infant Baptism. Many different Protestant denominations felt that infant Baptism was illegitimate, because of their altered conception of Baptism itself. Yet the Article here claims that nothing in the Gospels with Christ’s institution of Holy Baptism, nor indeed in the Acts of the Apostles where Baptism is first demonstrated or anywhere else in the New Testament where Baptism is sometimes referred to does it ever suggest that children are not to receive Baptism. In fact, some argue that the witness of the Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles includes infant Baptism when it makes reference to whole households, which would have included infants, as well as references to how every single person in a crowd comes forward to be Baptised after accepting the Gospel.

While this controversy is specifically mentioned in the Article, there are numerous other controversies surrounding Baptism. Whether or not, for instance, Baptism requires full immersion or if it is sufficient to have water poured or sprinkled on the candidate. While these matters aren’t addressed explicitly here, the previous phrase which refers to rightly receiving Baptism does suggest that the Article is recognizing that there are certain requirements which must be met for Baptism to be effective. These requirements, however, by the Anglican tradition, would be matters explicitly referred to in the Scriptures. As nature of the use of water in Baptism is not referred to, it would generally be considered acceptable simply to use water in some manner. The Didache notes that the preference is for full immersion but where that is not possible, for instance in the Early Church as they went further north the water became too cold for immersion Baptism during long parts of the year.

The majority of the controversies surrounding Baptism are of a similar nature, being ones that deal with form and manner of the Baptism. Those issues have been addressed throughout the history of the Church from the earliest ages of the Church. This Article omits them because they had already been resolved, and instead focuses only on those new controversies that had largely arisen as a result of the Protestant Reformation which had developed new understandings and doctrines of what Baptism itself meant.

In staying true to the received understanding of Baptism, the Article highlights the antiquity of Anglicanism’s sacramental theology.