On the Articles: Article IV on the Resurrection of our Lord

Easter Day

ALMIGHTY God, who through thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ hast overcome death, and opened unto us the gate of everlasting life: We humbly beseech thee, that as by thy special grace thou dost put into our minds good desires, so by thy continual help we may bring the same to good effect; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Easter

O GOD, who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance of the resurrection from the dead of thy only Son Jesus Christ: Grant that we who celebrate this Paschal feast may die daily unto sin, and live with him evermore in the glory of his endless life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

Alleluia, Chris is risen!

Having begun this series to mark the occasion of the 100th post on Canterbury Calgarian, it didn’t quite work out to have Article IV arrive when was most thematically appropriate to be discussed, which was Easter Sunday. So instead Article IV was simply omitted until now in order to avoid discussing the resurrection during Lent.

Article IV is firmly rooted in the ecumenical creeds, though it goes somewhat further into detail of Christ’s resurrection body, emphasizing, as the Biblical accounts do, that upon his resurrection he was not some form of Spiritual manifestation only, but was flesh and blood, just as we are told from Scripture where it is emphasized that he ate food with the Apostles.

The Article goes beyond what the Creeds say, however, focusing on other aspects of the Resurrection, and speaking to why it is important. For many Christians, there is a tendency, to respond to the question of why the Resurrection matters by pointing to the forgiveness of sins. The reality is that this conflates the atonement of Christ’s passion and crucifixion with the hope of his Resurrection. Had Christ simply died upon the cross for the forgiveness of sins, we would still have his ministry of reconciliation and the assurance of the forgiveness of our sins and its promise of newfound intimacy with God. The Resurrection itself becomes meaningless if it is simply lumped in to that view. It must go further.

Article IV states that in his Resurrection, Christ took on the, “perfection of Man’s nature,” which goes quite beyond what the Creeds say and speaks to the hope we hold in Christ’s Resurrection.

Christ himself was without sin. When it says he took on perfection, it therefore cannot simply mean he became sinless. It speaks to the idea that his Resurrection body’s humanity was made perfect in a way in which all humanity will be made perfect in the general resurrection to which we profess in the creeds.

When we speak of the hope of Christ’s Resurrection, we speak of the hope that Christ has made possible not simply our reconciliation with God, but also the possibility of our own resurrections and the perfection of our human nature. Not just the washing away of sins, but the utter and complete washing away of our sinful natures.

In Christ’s Gospels, he invites all people to join him in a new life, the life God had intended for us all. He promises the Holy Spirit, which arrived in power on Pentecost, to enable that living out of a life in Christ, a life which absent God’s grace would be impossible for any person, in their fallen and sinful nature to live in. As St Paul reminds us, all fall short of God’s glory.

It is a keen reminder of what God wishes for us. It is popular today to speak of Christ’s mission through the lens of liberation, either directly with Liberation Theology or simply in the language of Liberation Theology. Liberation theology arose from Roman Catholic bishops in Latin America in the 1950s and seeks to interpret the Gospels in light of a message of liberation, particular for the poor and oppressed. In more recent years, this has been taken beyond what the original intent seemed to be to suggest that Christ’s ultimate goal was the physical liberation from bondage of all people, with bondage having meanings which are not always consistent with Biblical standards.

This form of using the language of Liberation theology is quite common today in many traditions, including in the Anglican Church of Canada, and while it does speak to a particular reality of Christ’s ministry, it also obscures his ultimate mission which is referred to here in Article IV.

Passion Sunday, we recount the story of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The oppressed Jews welcomed him as Messiah, viewing him not as the liberator of their souls from slavery to sin, but rather as the liberator of their persons from the Roman oppressors. It was through his death, which brought forgiveness for sins, and his resurrection, which was the promise of new life, that Christ’s true liberation came. The promise to share in his perfection and the restoration of our human nature.

It is through the forgiveness of sins and strengthening of the Holy Spirit that, in love of God, we strive to live the life of perfection, all the while knowing it is impossible on our own merits and a part from God, but confident in the Resurrection promise that on the day of God’s choosing the promise will be fulfilled. It is in this striving that Christians do promote the same type of care and attention Christ showed to the poor and the oppressed, though we must always be careful that we are following in Christ’s example and not in our own desires. Christ’s message of freedom was at its core spiritual in nature; temporal freedom is promoted but not always provided for in our current times, and God’s laws sometimes still restrict us.

God has, for instance, maintained lows of sexual morality, saying humanity’s sexuality is to be lived out monogamously in the context of Holy Matrimony. We cannot, therefore, say that if someone deems themselves oppressed or in bondage in some way through God’s moral laws, that Christ came to relieve that oppression. The reality is that God does not oppress, and what is being described here is a sense of oppression that comes either from ignorance or unwillingness to trust in God’s commandments, that his will for us is good even where we do not fully understand why God tells us to act in particular ways that might go against our own desires.

This ignorance or unwillingness to follow God is something we all constantly strive against, but it is something that will be with us through this age. Yet, in the Resurrection, we have hope. Hope for a time when we will not struggle in this way, a hope for perfection!

Alleluia, Christ is risen!

On the Articles: Article VII

The Sunday Next Before Easter commonly called Palm Sunday

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who, of thy tender love towards mankind, hast sent thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, to take upon him our flesh, and to suffer death upon the cross, that all mankind should follow the example of his great humility: Mercifully grant, that we may both follow the example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

VII. Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

In discussions where a Christian might seek to apply some rule from the Old Testament, it is often the case that their opponent might reply by pointing out they are wearing a cotton-polyester blend shirt and that by the Law written in Leviticus, they are to be put to death. How do you respond? It is clear that today some of the rules of the Old Testament are no longer operative for Christians, but which and why? Are Christians just picking and choosing what to follow and what not to follow as they desire, or is there something more organized to the application of the Old Testament?

Since the early days of Christianity, there have been controversies over how to interpret and understand the Old Testament Scriptures for Christians. While Article VI makes clear that they are Scripture, Article VII is left to interpret exactly how.

In the early Church, Marcion of Sinope had so great a struggle with understanding and applying the Old Testament in light of Christ that he declared them to be speaking of a separate God and that no Christian was bound by them. His heresy, marcionism, now bears his name and has been thoroughly rejected. Article VII makes this clear, and also lays out the answer to the original question of how we are to interpret and apply the Old Testament.

First, it counters marcionism by explicitly stating that, “the Old Testament is not Contrary to the New,” or in other words that the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New, and goes further in pointing out that nothing in the Old Testament is contrary, and indeed elements of the Old Testament prefigure Christ and point to him as the only mediator between God and mankind. This refers to Scriptural passages both that present types of Christ—such as Isaac as a type of Christ going willingly to be sacrificed—or which prefigure him—such as the bronze serpent being lifted up in the desert prefiguring Christ being lifted up on the cross—as well as prophecies which Christ fulfilled. The Old Testament and New Testament are a part of one consistent deposit of Holy Scripture, inseparable from one another, and the Old Testament cannot be interpreted apart from the Light of Christ revealed in the New Testament. The covenants of the Old Testament continue to operate, but certain elements have been fulfilled by Christ, and there is now a new economy of grace through Christ. Christ’s sacrifice, once and for all for the forgiveness of sins, means, for instance, that the sacrifices of the temple are no longer necessary, but God’s promises to his people still operate in this new reality. As the Article says, these promises were not transitory.

Finally, the Article moves on to explaining the question of the Law of the Old Testament and how we are to apply it today. It divides the Law of Moses into three sections. First are the Laws relating to Ceremonies and Rites. These include such things as the laws of ritual sacrifice, laws of ritual purity and so forth. The second relates to what the article calls “Civil precepts” which related to laws describing how Jewish society was to regulate itself. Finally, it categorizes laws pertaining to morality as a third category.

The laws of Ceremonies and Rites it says “do not bind Christian men,” and of the civil laws, it says they do not, “of necessity,” need to be applied to the civil laws of any particular country. These laws we might refer to as the particular laws of the Jews. These were laws meant to distinguish the Jews and mark them as being God’s own chosen people. Through Christ, all are invited into the family of God and so no such laws are necessary. Indeed, they would be counter-productive, because instead of being born into God’s family through ancestry of Abraham, we enter into God’s family through our choice to accept and submit ourselves to the lordship of Jesus Christ.

The final section of the laws, “which are called Moral,” continue to apply to Christians today. While this does not create an explicit list, it does help us to understand how we are to interpret the Old Testament. For instance, adultery remains prohibited because it is a moral law, yet the civil precept that adultery is to be punished by death is not to be required. Christians are to follow the moral laws in Leviticus, but the particular laws of the Jews, such as the requirement not to wear garments of two kinds of thread, is no longer operative.

This can at times lead to dispute on the particular nature of what is a moral law, but often it becomes clear that those disputing the nature of what is moral are attempting to apply some form of legalism in order to escape either what they feel they are called to follow or what is clearly something they are meant to follow as a moral law. The first part of this Article helps us to remember that the interpretation and application of these rules follows a simple line of reasoning:  the Old and New Testament are a single and consistent whole. If in the New Testament a part of the Old is indicated to be inoperative, that is a clear sign it is a particular law of the Jews, while laws strengthened or affirmed are moral.

Now even in the cases where the laws are no longer operative, that does not mean we are to discount them or throw out those parts of the Old Testament, similar to what Marcion advocated, but rather we must remember that the entirety of the Old Testament remains inspired, and even where a law is no longer applicable for the reasons stated, there was a reason God ordained that law in the first place and it may tell us something of God’s nature that helps us to know him better and thus understand his will for us today in our Christian contexts better.

On the Articles: Article VI

The Fifth Sunday in Lent commonly called Passion Sunday

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, mercifully to look upon thy people; that by thy great goodness they may be governed and preserved evermore, both in body and soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis,          The First Book of Samuel,           The Book of Esther,
Exodus,           The Second Book of Samuel,      The Book of Job,
Leviticus,        The First Book of Kings,             The Psalms,
Numbers,        The Second Book of Kings,         The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles,      Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua,            The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges,            The First Book of Esdras,            Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth,         The Second Book of Esdras        Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras,
The Fourth Book of Esdras,
The Book of Tobias,
The Book of Judith,
The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Book of Wisdom,
Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children,
The Story of Susanna,
Of Bel and the Dragon,
The Prayer of Manasses,
The First Book of Maccabees,
The Second Book of Maccabees.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Article VI is interesting in that it highlights both how the English Church sought to distinguish itself from Roman Catholics, by teaching contrary to Rome that all Scripture itself was sufficient in teaching all that was necessary for salvation, while also highlighting through the Canon that it was accepting the Roman influenced Canon of Scripture which had been set by St Jerome in the 5th century, influenced as it was by St Jerome’s emphasis on the Hebrew-language masoretic texts over the Septuagint Greek-language Old Testament manuscripts which had been normative for Christians until that time.

What is interesting is that Article VI also distinguishes itself from Sola Scriptura the continental Protestant doctrine of “Scripture Alone” by recognizing that there were teachings that were valid beyond simply what was contained explicitly in Scripture, but they were not to be taught as being required to be believed for the purposes of salvation in the way that Rome had taught certain doctrines as “must believes” (for instance, the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the doctrine of transubstantiation as a philosophical explanation of how Christ is present in the Eucharist).

This aspect of Article VI is universally accepted, however there is some greater controversy over the listing of the Canonical books of the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. The controversy over the Canon involves the historical development of the Jewish Scriptures.

Over the centuries, Jews before and leading up to the time of Christ no longer lived exclusively in modern-day Israel. Following the various conquests of Israel, many Jews had spread out throughout the Persian Empire and then the Roman Empire. Culture at this time was Hellenistic, which is to say Greek, and the Jews of Diaspora had become thoroughly Hellenised to the point that many did not even speak Hebrew. This led at first to texts of the Hebrew Scriptures being prepared that used Greek phonetics to present the Hebrew words because no one in the Synagogue could read or speak the Hebrew. Eventually this led to wholly Greek translations of the Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Over time, particularly due to the growth of Gentile Christians who did speak Greek but not Hebrew, the Septuagint version became associated with Christians. Jews, on the other hand, particularly after drawing a greater distinction between Jews and Christians following the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD, began to reassert Hebrew as the language of the Jews, discouraging the use of Greek and the Septuagint. The Masoretic texts were created in the 4th century AD in an effort to create a new Hebrew language version of the Jewish Scriptures. Because of the animosity between Jews and Christians, some translation decisions and decisions over which books to include in their Canon reflected efforts to disprove Christian claims of Christ as the promised Messiah. St Jerome was influenced by the newer Hebrew language scriptures over the older Greek Septuagint, and brought into question the Canon of the Old Testament, something which continues to be debated today.

Even within the Article there is ambiguity over whether or not the “Apocryphal” books are counted as part of the Canon. Note that these books are not to be confused with post-Christian Apocrypha such as the Gospel of Judas or Gospel of James, which are universally accepted as being false books not written by the claimed authors. The Apocrypha here are books which were Canonically accepted as Scripture by the Jews and Christians until hundreds of years after the time of Christ.

The way the Article is written lends itself to multiple possible interpretations:

Of the names of the Canonical Books: [the list of the Old testament books], and [the Apocryphal books, and the New Testament.

Of the names of the Canonical Books are [the list of Old Testament books], and the Apocrypha is read only for example of life and manners, and the New Testament which is also Canon.

While the term Apocrypha is more commonly used for them, this term is both confusing (again due to false New Testament books called Apocrypha) and imprecise as it implies the books are somehow hidden. Another term, also used by the Roman Catholic Church, is Deuterocanon or Deuterocanonical Books, which means the Secondary Canon. This again highlights the status of the Books by which they, either as the lowest part of the Canon or highest form of sub-Canonical books form their own “secondary Canon” which is used for particular purposes but not entirely in the same way as the remaining books of the Old and New Testaments.

Article VI historically also represents only the second official and clearly delineated list of the Canon following the Roman Catholic Canon articulated at the Council of Trent. The Early Church had many canons, but they often differed and the early councils of the Church often affirmed them all or affirmed the books being used in lectionaries, creating ambiguity among modern scholars.

Wisdom of Saints: St Gregory the Great

The Feast of Gregory the Great, Doctor, Bishop of Rome, 604

O GOD, who by thy Holy Spirit hast given unto one man a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge, and to another the gift of tongues: We praise thy Name for the gifts of grace manifested in thy servant Gregory, and we pray that thy Church may never be destitute of the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St Gregory the Great, also known as St Gregory the Dialogist due to his Dialogues, was the Bishop of Rome in the late 6th century, and played an important role in reconnecting the English Church with the rest of the Western Catholic Church, along with his role in preserving Christianity in Rome itself.

St Gregory was born in Rome around 540 AD to a wealthy and politically influential family. His father, Gordianus, was a Christian and a Roman senator. In his later life, Gordianus would renounce his secular life and become a deacon in Rome. Due to his family’s wealth, St Gregory was afforded a high quality education and in 574, despite being in his mid-thirties, St Gregory was appointed the Prefect of Rome by Emperor Justin the Younger.

His political career was cut short by the death of his father. St Gregory renounced his own political career and began founding a number of monasteries. Six were founded throughout Sicily, and finally in 575 he founded a seventh in Rome itself in his own home, where he took up the monastic habit himself. By 579, he became the personal representative of the Bishop of Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinople where he spent six years. He then returned home only for the Pope to die shortly after his return in 590, and St Gregory was himself elected Pope and installed as the Bishop of Rome.

St Gregory, of many of the Bishops of Rome, was most clearly empowered by the Holy Spirit with the gift of Administration. As pope, he many many revisions to the life of the Western Church, standardizing the liturgy and musical styles with the plainchant which takes its common name of Gregorian Chant from him. He also famously sent St Augustine of Canterbury to Kent on his missionary journey, something St Gregory himself had wanted to do earlier in his life. When St Augustine arrived in 597, he would report back to St Gregory of the existence of the English Church, to which St Gregory famously replied to give the English Church their liberty in local customs (at a time when throughout Western Christendom St Gregory was enforcing uniformity in the liturgy) and to continue to proclaim the Gospel.

The Roman Empire was in significant decline by the time St Gregory became Bishop of Rome, and like several other Popes, he found himself wielding significant political as well as religious authority—with the Pope’s secular political authority helping to increase and solidify his religious authority over time. He defended Rome against various foreign invasions and also co-ordinated relief for Rome in times of plague and famine.

St Gregory the Great was a great writer and theologian, and indeed is counted as one of the four great doctors of the Western Church, along St Augustine of Hippo, St Jerome and St Ambrose of Milan. His lifetime does present an interesting transition point in the life of the Western Church as well, in that St Gregory worked exclusively in Latin. Prior to his lifetime, Greek had remained common in Rome and the West, and was included as an integral part of any form of quality education. Despite the fact that he was emissary to the Bishop of Constantinople for six years, though, there is no clear evidence that St Gregory spoke Greek, and if he did then like St Augustine he refused to use it whenever possible. It is unlikely that St Gregory himself was the reason for the abandonment of Greek in the West, but it does mark his lifetime as an important transition point and point of divergence between the Catholic Church in the East and in the West.

One of Gregory’s famous works is Liber Regulæ Pastoralis (The Book of Pastoral Rule) which provides advice and instruction to priests. It contains a number of eloquent comments on the importance of the role of priests as examples, pastors and shepherds of the faithful. He begins by noting that qualifications are required to become a priest, and that it is not a vocation open to everyone: “No one presumes to teach an art till he has first, with intent meditation, learnt it.  What rashness is it, then, for the unskilful to assume pastoral authority, since the government of souls is the art of arts!” He continues by asserting that even those who are prepared through learning and instruction must still, by example, set forth their teaching before they are truly prepared to be priests:

There are some also who investigate spiritual precepts with cunning care, but what they penetrate with their understanding they trample on in their lives:  all at once they teach the things which not by practice but by study they have learnt; and what in words they preach by their manners they impugn.

He continues on, promoting the humility of priests as necessary for their office. He himself was quite humble and greatly respected the importance of showing humility when in position of authority, to avoid falling into the sin of pride.

In addition to his many theological works, many of his letters remain in existence, including his correpondence with the Eastern Patriarchs. Of particular note is one of his letters to Eulogius, the Bishop and Greek Patriarch of Alexandria from 581 to 608 AD. In his letter, St Gregory writes:

Your Blessedness has also been careful to declare that you do not now make use of proud titles, which have sprung from a root of vanity, in writing to certain persons, and you address me saying, “As you have commanded.” This word, “command,” I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not, then, command, but was desirous of indicating what seemed to be profitable.

St Gregory here seems to be declaring his equality with the Patriarch of Alexandria, something which the Bishop of Rome in the future would deny, when claiming universal jurisdiction over all Christendom. When the Patriarch responded to a previous comment of St Gregory saying St Gregory had commanded him to say something, St Gregory responds that he in no way meant the Patriarch to understand his comments as anything more than a suggestion for he considers them equal. St Gregory makes this even more explicit as he continues in his response, commenting on the fact that in his last letter, Eulogius had addressed St Gregory as the Universal Pope:

But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.

Here he specifically rejects the idea of the universality of his jurisdiction, and indeed continues to affirm equality with the Patriarch of Alexandria. These comments were consistent with comments he had made previously in his correspondence both with Eulogius and also with the Patriarch of Antioch, where St Gregory had recognized the fact that St Peter the Apostle had directly founded the See of Antioch, and ascribed his leadership to the See of Alexandria through St Mark the Evangelist whose Gospel was written on behalf of St Peter, when he remarks in the closing of one of his letters to Eulogius, “We have received with the kindliness wherewith it was sent the blessing of Saint Mark the Evangelist, nay, it may be said more truly, of Saint Peter the Apostle.”

St Gregory’s impact was great, but perhaps his most important contribution is a reminder that even, or especially, priests ought to shy from vanity and pride, and focus instead on holiness of living as an example to their people by which they may learn.

On the Articles: Article V

The Fourth Sunday in Lent

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

V. Of the Holy Ghost
The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

Given the subject matter of Article IV, Of the Resurrection of Christ, the discussion of that Article will be deferred a few weeks and this week will proceed with Article V.

Article V is perhaps one of the more controversial of the Articles, if only because of its inclusion of the filioque (Latin for and from the Son) clause added by the Roman Catholic Church to the Nicene Creed. Its inclusion here is a historic artefact and reminder of the influence that the Roman Catholic Church had on the development of doctrines within the English Church from the 7th through 15th centuries.

The filioque itself originates in the 6th century in Spain, generally thought to be an attempt to combat Arianism, however it was originally rejected by Rome which said no one held the authority to add to the Catholic Creeds. The Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne adapted it for use throughout the Holy Roman Empire, however, and by the early 11th century it had become accepted by Rome, contributing to the eventual disunity of the Great Schism between East and West in 1054.

As an historic artefact, it is a reminder that our Anglican heritage is thoroughly Western in thought, and influenced primarily by Western thinkers, most of whom are associated today with the Roman Catholic Church, though it should be noted the protoscholastic St Anselm of Canterbury was also an 11th century defender of this doctrine, which can be traced to the teachings of St Augustine of Hippo.

Its inclusion in the filioque does present one minor and interesting point in that one of the arguments against it is that of authority: the filioque has never been received in the East, meaning the West, or more accurately one part of the West, had no authority on its own to altar the Nicene Creed on its own. In this case, however, its inclusion in the subordinate Thirty-nine Articles of religion does not present a problem of authority, leaving it solely to the theological debate over the validity of double-procession.

That debate is in and of itself one which could take several books to work through, and is a more worthy subject for a doctoral dissertation than a brief blog post. Instead, the emphasis in discussing this Article will be on the second interesting historic point about this Article, namely that it did not always exist.

Throughout the history of the Church of England, there were a number of versions of the Articles of Religion published, sometimes with more and sometimes with fewer than 39 articles. This particular article was not included in the 1553 version of the Articles, but was added in the revision of 1563. It is not a part of the Augsburg Confessions either, from which the first three Articles of Religion borrow significantly. Why was it viewed as essential to include?

There is no other Article devoted to the third person of the Trinity, despite there having been articles devoted specifically to the Father and to the Son. By including an article for the Holy Spirit, it matches the more trinitarian format of the Creeds from which the patterns of modification seen in the first three Articles of Religion had their basis.

Beyond that, it is simply recognizing the importance of the Holy Spirit in enabling the Christian life. It is through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by which we proceed in our faith, and are able  in any way to live the life Christ commanded of us. The Article itself does not provide a complicated statement on the role and work of the Holy Spirit, but a simple statement highlights that simple truth. The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity and the means by which we are made alive in God.

This statement is also extremely Catholic, with respect to the acknowledged importance of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Early Church. The Apostolic Age bears witness to the importance of the Holy Spirit, and countless works of the Fathers refer to the role, power and witness of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians. It reminds us of the rootedness of the Anglican tradition in the faith of the early Church.

The Articles so far speak very little of something distinctive of Anglicanism, but rather broadly speak to a reiteration of credal, Catholic and Christian beliefs. With modern renewal of charismatic movements among all Christian traditions and denominations, affirmation that the Holy Spirit is an integral and continuing person of the Trinity and the person through whom our Christian lives are lived out becomes all the more relevant to modern Anglicans.