On the Articles: Article XI

The Fourth Sunday after Easter

O ALMIGHTY God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men: Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XI. Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification.

Article XI continues Article X’s framework of discussion salvation by discussing some aspects of justification. The first sentence makes clear justification is not by merits—again addressing the Pelagian idea of being able to earn our salvation—and instead that we are justified by faith in Christ, in accepting his offer of unmerited grace and salvation.

The Article goes on to say that the details of this doctrine cannot be fully expressed solely in a short doctrinal statement such as in the Articles, and thus a fuller explanation can be found in the Book of Homilies.

This Article clearly reflects the thinking of its time on the issues both of justification and sanctification, which were largely viewed as one in the same. You were justified to the degree you were sanctified. Today, we more clearly distinguish between the two allowing that one can be in a state of justification by God’s grace while still being in an early stage of sanctification. This view remains entirely consistent with the view set forth in the Article, which itself largely mirrors that of the continental reformers in contrast to Rome, which at the Council of Trent articulated a view that we are justified not just by faith, and not just by works, but by works and faith. This view is further complicated by Trent’s declaration that this need to include works is directly in relation to James 2. 26b, “faith without works is also dead.” This particular portion remains consistent with the Anglican position, though the terminology here is being used in different ways. For Rome, faith in and of itself was viewed purely as belief. It was when faith was combined with the other Christian virtues of hope and charity that it became a saving faith and a way to receiving justification from Christ. For them, therefore, to suggest faith alone was sufficient was incorrect. Hope and charity, works, were needed also. For the Anglican, however, faith is not merely belief, but refers to that totality of saving faith, which is demonstrated by works. This is made clear in the Book of Homilies, referenced in this Article, which says that three things are required for justification:

Upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood with fulfilling of the law perfectly and throughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesu Christ; which yet is not ours but by God’s working in us.

The homily makes clear that it is by Christ’s merits we are justified, never our own merits based on our works, but at the same time it is clear that the definition of faith is more than pure belief, for it specifies a “true and lively” faith, which ties in with James 2. 26 which describes faith from which works do not proceed to be dead.

The Council of Trent (which occurred prior to the publication of the Articles) went further, condemning the concept of justification by faith alone, but again their definition of faith is limited. This definition was a direct response to Martin Luther’s claims of faith as the justification for salvation, and that salvation could not be lost so long as faith was retained. In a particular way, faith here, is not simply a matter of belief in Christ Jesus as the son of God and in his atonement) but rather more specifically belief that no matter the circumstances, faith itself in Christ is sufficient for salvation.

Faith, however, has a broader definition. When we say faith, it means both that aspect of believing in God’s truth but also belief in God’s faithfulness. When we read something in God’s Word, we believe and have confidence in it; when God has promised something, faith similarly means we believe and have confidence in him to fulfil his promise. There is another part, though, what St Paul himself calls the, “obedience of faith,” (Rm 1. 5), or rather that when God tells us to do something, we ought to obey. This concept is clarified by Christ in St Luke’s gospel when he described those who failed to obey as those who build their houses without a foundation (St Lk 9. 46-49).

Expounding on this Article, EH Browne, Bishop of Winchester, in the 19th century, noted that it seemed:

As St Paul in his Epistle’s condemned the former error of his fellow-countrymen [the error of being justified by the law], so St James directed his Epistle against the latter: the one showing, that neither ceremonial observances nor legal obedience could satisfy the demands of God’s justice, but that an atonement and true faith were necessary; the other, that a mere creed was not calculated to please God when life was not consistent with it.

In essence, Romans tells us that we are not justified by the law, but by faith in Christ who shed his blood for our sins, and James tells us that it is insufficient to speak the right words, and that when they call on us to act we must. We cannot, in order words, simply pay lip service to God and call it saving faith.

Little commentary on justification survives from the early fathers, as it seems there was little controversy in the matter and therefore no need to write systematically on it. One of the earliest fathers, St Clement of Rome, does have writing speaking to the matter where he writes:

They were therefore greatly glorified, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness that they themselves wrought; but through His will. And we also, being called by the same will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or any works which we did in holiness of heart, but by that faith by which God Almighty has justified all men from the beginning: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It seems there remains great confusion amidst the various positions because of a lack of uniformity in the use of language. No one defines words by the same meaning or uses them in the same contexts. The explanation of this Article suggests, however, a Biblically rooted view of Justification that reconciles St Paul’s comments with those of St James. It is a viewpoint that is important to understand, particularly as today there are controversies, particularly as many people, lay and ordained, struggle to understand precisely what their tradition teaches and may inadvertently be misrepresenting their tradition’s doctrines.

Wisdom of Saints: St Anselm of Canterbury

The Feast of Anselm, Doctor, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1109

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 Anselm, and we pray that thy Church may never be destitute of the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

 St Anselm is sometimes called the proto-scholastic and the Father of Scholasticism, the first of the scholastic theologians who sought to use reason to understand theology. His work would pave the way for St Thomas Aquinas, whose work was considered to be the pinnacle of medieval scholasticism. While scholasticism has its detractors as it can sometimes lead to extrapolating too far and conclusions in error when attempting to explain divine mysteries, the scholastic movement left a lasting impression on theology in the West, and St Anselm himself made many notable contributions to the scholastic movement.

St Anselm was born in what is modern Italy in the early 1030s. His mother, Ermengerga, taught him piety and a love of learning in his early years. Interestingly, some of these early stories were preserved by a biographer of St Anselm who was able to record some of St Anselm’s early memories. At a young age he entered a nearby Benedictine monastery in order to begin his education. His mother passed away and after a period of mourning, St Anselm began to travel around to different monasteries throughout Europe. He resolved to leave in large part because his father treated him quite harshly, pushing him to leave home. Eventually settling at the Benedictine monastery at Bec in Normandy, St Anselm sought to learn from one of the monks there, Lanfranc, due to his reputation for his spirituality and intellectualism.

St Anselm quickly applied himself under Lanfranc and became Lanfranc’s chief disciple, even sharing in his teaching responsibilities. It was at this time that St Anselm first began to contemplate taking a monastic habit and joining the abbey at Bec. His biographer records that he felt some trepidation over this, fearing his reasons for seeking the habit, so he consulted with Lanfranc and ultimately the local bishop, both of whom encouraged him. He became a monk in 1060, and three years later Lanfranc was appointed Abbot of Caen and St Anselm succeeded him as prior of Bec.

It was during this time as a monk that St Anselm would begin composing some of his most notable works. After serving fifteen years as prior in 1078 he was appointed abbot, a testament to the high regard in which he was held by the other monks of Bec. Finally in 1094 St Anselm was summoned to England, ordained and installed as the Archbishop of Canterbury, owing to his increasing reputation as a theologian, negotiator and stateman.

St Anselm continued to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury, despite the occasional bouts of exile during times of confrontation with various monarchs, until his death in 1109. His biography, The Life of St Anselm, by Eadmer, provides significant insight into his life and his own thoughts—having been interviewed by his biographer and willingly provided details on aspects of his early life missing from many other saints.

While St Anselm had many notable works, it is his theological treatises and his role in the development of scholasticism, the school of though which St Anselm helped to popularize which  sought to apply logic and philosophy to the study and defence of theology. It was St Anselm’s work that laid the foundation for what would become the pinnacle of Christian Scholasticism, St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

This can be seen in some of his earlier, shorter works, such as Cur Deus Homo, usually rendered into English as Why God Became a Man. This work holds to the dialectical style that would become extremely popular with other Scholastic theologians. In it, St Anselm explores numerous questions relating to the incarnation, beginning with a systematic approach that deals not simply with atonement, but also issues of the fall and issues of sufficiency and necessity relating to God’s intervention. The entire work is presented as a dialogue between St Anselm and his opponent, giving the entire work a very neo-platonic feel, but also helping to make some of the theology more accessible to readers than might otherwise have been the case (excepting of course the reality that those who would have been able to read at the time in which Anselm was writing were a select group already).

Many of St Anselm’s works continue to exist today, famously his ontological argument for God from his Proslogium. In the preface, St Anselm writes that:

I began to ask myself whether there might be found a single argument which would require no other for its proof than itself alone; and alone would suffice to demonstrate that God truly exists, and that there is a supreme good requiring nothing else, which all other things require for their existence and well-being; and whatever we believe regarding the divine Being.

This would become the basis for his famous ontological argument, which would draw criticism and praise from many famous theologians and philosophers of his day and for centuries to come. Proslogion is usually rendered into English by the title Discourses on the Existence of God, however his original intended title was Faith Seeking Understanding, and perhaps more accurately represents the theology of his longest lasting influence.

The basis of much of St Anselm’s work, and its popularity, was that it was not self-referential in the sense of requiring readers to accept all previous dogmatic statements as foundational truths before moving on to new arguments. St Anselm often addressed arguments based only on proofs from natural reason, rather than relying on his own dogmatic beliefs.

In the beginning of his Monologium, St Anselm notes:

If any man, either from ignorance or unbelief, has no knowledge of the existence of one Nature which is the highest of all existing beings, which is also sufficient to itself in its eternal blessedness, and which confers upon and effects in all other beings, through its omnipotent goodness, the very fact of their existence, and the fact that in any way their existence is good; and if he has no knowledge of many other things, which we necessarily believe regarding God and his creatures, he still believes that he can at least convince himself of these truths in great part, even if his mental powers are very ordinary, by the force of reason alone.

This approach mirrors the modern apologetic Mere Christianity by CS Lewis which is viewed as being thoroughly accessible because it similarly does not simply rely on the acceptance of previous dogmatic statements, but rather proceeding from a position of faith seeks to apply reason to achieve understanding.

For St Anselm, while engaged in rigorous philosophical arguments, still he believed that faith must hold a place of primacy to guide reason. A statement of his that has become a modern axiom is, “I believe in order that I may understand.” Reason, to St Anselm, was the servant of faith, which must come first in order to guide reason into understanding.

On the Articles: Article X

The Third Sunday after Easter
ALMIGHTY God, who showest to them that it be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness: Grant unto all them that are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion, that they may forsake those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

X. Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Much like Article IX, Article X builds on the issue of sin and how it affects our nature and our lives. God created mankind in his image and granted us free will, but owing to the effects of Adam’s sin, there are limits on that free will. Our nature is far from what it was intended to be, as we continue to bear the consequences of Adam’s sin.

This is not to suggest we no longer have free will, but rather that in our existing circumstances there are limits on what our will might permit us to do. Like a dog on a leash, we have freedom of action and movement within particular limits. As the Article suggests, that our free will does not in and of itself grant us the ability to return to a state of grace, but rather it is by God’s grace acting within us that we may return to God. It should be noted that the word “preventing” in this Article uses the archaic meaning of “to go before” rather than the more common modern use of stopping. So it does not mean Christ stops us, but rather Christ goes before us offering grace.

The concept of prevenient grace, using that same root, speaks to this topic. It is the grace infused into us that begins the call to return, even before we ever make a conscious decision to accept Christ’s offer of atonement, to be baptised and to submit ourselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Article also speaks of the idea that nothing we do, of ourselves, is pleasant to God. To clarify, the Article is saying that apart from receiving Christ’s offer of salvation, we cannot earn favour with God. Until we receive salvation in Christ, we remain slaves to sin, and thus our actions reflect our servitude, no matter our desires. Similarly, until we have that freedom in Christ, we cannot truly choose to do anything pleasing to God, because what is truly pleasing to God remains outside of the range of our “free-will” because until we accept salvation and freedom in Christ, our will is not truly free.

Gerald Bray, in his reflections on the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, likens this concept to that of Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcoholics have a degree of Free Will and can even choose to come to an alcoholics anonymous gathering, but the first step towards recovery is always to admit to having a problem that they cannot resolve by their own strength.

It should be noted that there is a further doctrine of great importance towards the end of the Article where it notes that God’s grace works with us. This was an objection to many of the contienental reformers who denied any form of co-operation with God, even in a regenerated state, and agrees more closely to the Roman Catholic position on co-operation, articulated in the Council of Trent.

This again ties into the previous Article, and in spite of the main contradiction there, tends to distance the fully Augustinian notion which was adopted by Protestants of no room for co-operation with God and a much more limited free will. Instead it introduces a more semi-Pelagian notion (which the Eastern Orthodox would refer to as synergy). This view has been popularised in the Roman Catholic Church as well since Trent, with St Augustine’s views similarly being minimized. Essentially, it is by God’s grace that we are given the ncessary freedom within our free-will in order to choose what God desires, but upon our regeneration, it is not true that we have no free-will to turn from God or to displease him. God calls us to return, and offers us the opportunity to walk with him. Apart from that offer and apart from our accepting it, we do nothing to please God.

It is interesting to note that while there are superficial similarities to this Article and Article 18 of the Augsburg Confession, the similarities truly are superficial with different language and different doctrines being expounded. The use of the Augsburg Confession as the framing of some of the first Catholic articles leads some to presumptuously assume undue influence by the Confession over Anglican doctrine, but this Article illustrates that while there was a recognition of the existence of the Augsburg Confession (and other continental reformation doctrines and confessional statements) their mere existence and influence does not necessarily mean that the Thirty-Nine Articles adopted Protestant doctrines.

On the Articles: Article IX

The Second Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

IX. Of Original or Birth-sin
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, φρονημα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

To modern ears, this Article can seem both a bit difficult to understand and also challenging in its subject matter. It seems that for most modern Christians there is some level of aversion to directly and deeply discussing and examining issues relating to sin and humanity’s departure from God’s will. The mid-sixteenth century also saw a return to prominence of the heresy of Pelagianism, which resulted in the continental reformers, Rome at the Council of Trent and the English reformers all wanting to clarify their anti-Pelagian stances.

Pelagius was a fifth century Celtic monk who rose to prominence teaching in Rome. His heresy involved the teaching that humanity could, of its own efforts, attain salvation apart from Divine grace. His teachings were universally condemned, however they had significant appeal in that many interpreted his teachings as suggesting that one could attain to salvation simply by being a good person, with the definition of good person now effectively being left up to the individual rather than to God. Even in the case of still regarding sin as sin by God’s definition, Pelagianism seems to have taught that not all fall short, and that by virtue of free will and choice mankind could, again apart from divine grace, avoid sin. While this doesn’t necessarily present a full and accurate picture of Pelagius’s actual teachings, it was a popular understanding that helped contribute to the revival of Pelagianism in the sixteenth century, and explains the specific reference to condemnation of Pelagius in this Article.

The Pelagian view is contrasted with a more Augustinian view that speaks to the corruption of our human nature by sin, and that by this corrupted nature, all people are inclined towards sin. This—ironically—is a far more comforting view of our nature than that of Pelagius, whose view suggests that when we sin it is of our own desires and free will, and utterly unrelated towards any inclination to sin. To Pelagians, we have equal draws towards sinfulness and God and complete free-will to choose, which suggests we all choose completely of our own free will to sin.

Augustine’s formulation of Original Sin has been widely adopted in the Christian West, though in his time it was innovative. Before then, and to this day in the Christian East, the concept of Ancestral Sin was the dominant explanation. Under that formulation, Adam and Eve alone bore the guilt of their sin, but all humanity bore the consequences of their sin.

While the more Augustinian concept of original sin is referred to and would have been far more familiar to the English reformers, the Eastern view of Ancestral Sin is largely consistent with Article IX, with the exception of one of the middle clauses, which states that we are born into condemnation by virtue of this state of sin.

Continuing on, the Article uses a Greek phrase to continue its explanation. The Greek here is transliterated as “phronema sarkos” and could be rendered into English along the lines of “the mind of the flesh” however this would be imprecise and is one of the reasons the original Greek was used in the Article. The concept refers to the idea of the desires of our corrupted human nature. Specifically, by virtue of Adam’s sin, our minds have been corrupted by the power of Satan. Where the Greek sarkos is used is therefore referring to the broader concept of all that is hostile to God, a common reference with respect to flesh and world throughout the New Testament.

The final sentence doesn’t refer to specifically sexual sins, but rather speaks to this same topic, the idea that even in Baptismal regeneration, these consequences of a corrupted nature remain. We remain inclined to sin, even as the sins we ourselves have committed are washed away in the waters of baptism and again when we repent of them and return to God.

This strong admission of a corrupted human nature and proclivity towards sin is an essential declaration in the face of those who would suggest some form of universalism or otherwise attempt to make the claim that not all fall short of God’s glory, to use St Paul’s words. There can be no clear doctrine of salvation without first making clear the need for salvation.

On the Articles: Article VIII

The Octave Day of Easter

ALMIGHTY Father, who hast given thine only a Son to die for our sins, and to rise again for our justification: Grant us so to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness, that we may alway serve thee in pureness of living and truth; through the merits of the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 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.

VIII. Of the Creeds
The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.

 While many of the more mainline reformation churches on the continent did not express objection to the creeds, their understanding and legitimacy had been, to some degree, put into question particularly by more radical reformers. Rome itself had upheld them by virtue of Holy Tradition, which was quite suspect by most continental reformers. In the Christian East, the Athanasian creed had never been accepted, and the Apostle’s creed had never been used.

Article VIII declares all three to be valid and received by the Church in England, and  goes further in stating why: because they may be proved by Holy Scripture. No longer do we accept the Nicene Creed solely because it was the creed of the early Church Councils, but also because the doctrine set forth in the creed is in agreement with Holy Scripture. Going back to Article VI, this emphasis on the prima sciptura mindset of the English Reformation makes it clear that in its having the highest form of divine inspiration, the Holy Scriptures remain at all times the rule and standard by which every other tradition of the Church is judged, even while in their symbiotic relationship it is through Holy Tradition by which we know the right interpretation of Holy Scripture. To quote Fr Kenneth Ross, it is the responsibility of, “the Church to teach and the Bible to prove.”

This also helps to explain why all three creeds are accepted, and in particular the Athanasian Creed, which was not written by St Athanasius the Great but rather was attributed to him, leading many in the East to reject it as inauthentic. Because of its still widespread use throughout the West, and because its doctrines were Biblically sound, the Church continued to accept the validity of the Creed as a doctrinal statement.

Article VIII speaks well to the idea of the symbiosis between the role of Holy Scripture as the rule of faith against which all else is judged, and also the reality that Holy Scripture itself is not always easily understood and Holy Tradition, and in this case the Creeds, help us to rightly understand Holy Scripture. St Vincent of Lerins once noted that we must take care to, “cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.” The Nicene Creed cannot accept some new heresy because its words and meaning were fixed in antiquity; in the same way the ancient authors help us to interpret Scripture because they cannot be accepted by some new novelty in that they are no longer among the living to debate the merits of new interpretations.

It is particularly important to affirm this fact in modern times when the understanding of the Creeds is becoming more complicated. Some Anglicans simply cannot profess the truths they proclaim, either refusing to say the Creed or omitting portions of it which they find distasteful. This practice goes completely against the Anglican tradition, in which they are not merely proclaimed, but as the Article states are, “thoroughly to be received and believed.”

When an individual has a problem accepting or believing some particular aspect of the Creed, which is a sufficient statement of the Christian faith, the issue is not with the Creed but rather with their lack of education to understand the Creed and its meaning. The Creeds themselves speak to something unchanging: God and his historical interactions with mankind, particularly through the incarnation of Christ Jesus. In what way would the passage of time change the nature of God or the historicity of the incarnation? Even two thousand years is a small passage of time for the eternal and immutable God. The Scriptures themselves are presented as timeless and unchanging in their message; and in a similar way the Creeds must be understood. They speak to a particular Truth about God.

In our modern society, where there are concerns or unbelief, there are two solutions. The first is prayer, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (St Mk 9. 24b). The second is education. Particularly with many children breaking with faith during their teenage years—a time critical to Christian formation among young people—they may not have the foundations of understanding often assumed for adults who profess the Christian faith. Greater opportunities need to be made available to address these critical gaps in understanding of Christian doctrine and faith.

While that solution is there, Article VIII remains as a reminder of why it is needed. As Anglicans, we profess the historic faith in Christ, and will for all times as a matter of our inherent Anglican identity.