On the Articles: Article XVI

The First Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the strength of all them that put their trust in thee: Mercifully accept our prayers; and because through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping of thy commandments we may please thee both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Feast of Corpus Christi

O GOD, who in a wonderful sacrament hast left unto us a memorial of thy passion: Grant us so to reverence the holy mysteries of thy Body and Blood, that we may ever know within ourselves the fruit of thy redemption; who livest and reignest with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

XVI. Of Sin after Baptism
Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

During times in the history of the Church, the sacrament of Baptism was delayed well to the end of the life of devoted Christians, as they felt strongly that sins after Baptism would not be forgiven, therefore it was essential to delay Baptism as long as possible to ensure that no such great sins would be committed.

This view stemmed in large part from the heresy of Donatism which arose in the early 4th century during one of the final persecutions against Christians prior to the Edict of Milan granting toleration to Christianity. Donatus, a leading Christian in North Africa, argued that Baptismal regeneration was a one-off grace, and that those who turned away from faith could never come back because there was no means of receiving repentance for that sin of turning from Christ. This doctrine was rooted in St Mark’s Gospel, where Christ says, “all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin,” (St Mk 3.28, 29). In this context, deadly sins were considered to be a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and thus those sins were unforgiven, though that ignored the Scriptural context of Christ’s teaching there.

Ultimately Donatus was condemned as a heretic, but his heresy continued to receive widespread unofficial following leading to delay in receiving Baptism.


This practice was alive and well in the time of St Ambrose of Milan. He himself, for that reason, was ultimately not baptised until he was elected Bishop of Milan and needed to receive Baptism before he could be ordained. It was during the late 4th century and early 5th century that the practice began to be challenged in a systematic way and Christian initiation was restored to its fullness.

While once again Baptism became normatively received upon either birth or conversion to Christianity, some of the sentiments behind it lingered in the minds of both laity and clergy into the medieval period. There remained a continued belief in the minds of many that some sins were so severe that the grace offered by God through Christ’s atonement would not cover all sins. This in some ways may have contributed to the rise of the Roman doctrine of the Treasury of Merit and the sale of Indulgences, which was so thoroughly condemned by the English Church.

This Article was written to assure the faithful that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. In its own words “by the Grace of God we may arise again,” after having fallen into sin. This includes, for instance, after having fallen away from faith completely. This is a particular concern when dealing with infant Baptism in which the person may receive Baptism as an infant but never truly grow into their faith for quite some time, and even before that happens explicitly may reject Christ for a time. This article provides assurance that there is forgiveness to be found, and that, nothing, apart from our own wilfulness, “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Rm 8. 39b).

It should also be noted that this Article helps to dispel myths that were arising on the Continent among the more extreme protestant reformers who argued that the Elect could not sin, and that sin was a sign that you were not saved and never would be because God had not predestined or chosen you. While a fuller (and quite complicated) statement on Predestination follows in Article XVII, Article XVI sets the stage by making it clear that not only does Article XV state that Christians will continue to sin, but that even when you sin grieviously after Baptism, God’s grace is offered, Christ’s atonement covers all sins, blotting them out, “as far as the east is from the west,” (Ps 103. 12).

It is interesting that seventeen Articles into the Articles of Religion, there are still very few statements which would be challenged by Christians of any denomination today, with the notable exception of the Canon of Scripture. While the context of the writing of several of these Articles was to seek to differentiate the Church of England from the doctrine of Rome which was being rejected, or rather to help clarify to the priests, many of them who had become confused by the constant back-and-forth at the national level and honestly no longer were sure what they were to teach, and the people what the Church professed. Today, even Articles that ostensibly sought to reject particular Roman Catholic doctrines would today largely be accepted either officially—though the Church might say something along the lines of they never officially taught what was being condemned and rather it was an aberrant practice of the age going against Church teaching—and speaks well to the possibility today of continued ecumenical dialogue between Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, when those dialogues remain rooted, from the Anglican side, in these traditional Anglican understandings of the Christian faith.

On the Articles: Article XV

The Octave Day of Pentecost commonly called Trinity Sunday

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hast it given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity: We beseech thee, that this holy faith may evermore be our defence against all adversities; who livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen.

XV. Of Christ alone without Sin
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Despite being longer than some of the other articles, at first glance, Article XV seems straight forward: Christ did not sin, and the rest of us do. There is more to it than that, though, and it also raises some theological questions which at time have been quite controversial.

First, and this point brings continuity with Article XVI, this article makes clear the rejection of the extreme Protestant position that it is impossible to sin after baptism. This view that the regenerate were incapable of sin was one of the viewpoints, related in some ways to doctrines of predestination, led to the view that if you were sinning that it was an indication you were not regenerate, thereby denying the efficacy of Holy Baptism.

More to the point, this article highlights controversy over Christ’s nature. The opening sentence of Article XV states plainly that Christ was fully human, apart from sin. This conflicted with viewpoints that saw sin as an inherent part of human nature and that the only way that Christ himself could be sinless were if he were born of a sinless mother. One belief was that the Blessed Theotokos was set free from sin at the time of Christ’s conception while a much more recent development in the mid-19th century had the Roman Catholic Church promulgate the dogma of her immaculate conception, that she was kept free from sin from the time of her own conception.

The interesting commentary from this Article is that it does not suggest Christ was set free or kept free from sin either externally or by some influence of his divine nature. It properly maintains the distinction between his two natures, articulated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but the doctrines of which had in common practice become muddled at the time of the English Reformation. Article XV reinforces the statement made in Article IX that human nature itself is not sinful but rather that we have taken on for ourselves a fallen nature. Christ, however, was perfectly obedient to God in his incarnate form and thus remained free of sin and sinful nature throughout his life on earth.

The confusion of this point largely comes from those who suggest that somehow Christ’s divine nature made it such that he did not struggle to follow the Father’s will. This completely contradicts Scripture’s description of Christ’s passion, however, and particularly his prayer in the Garden where he says, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Similarly, we are told, “For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted,” (Heb 2. 18). If Christ could not have sinned, could not even have been tempted, then surely his sacrifice would mean nothing?

This sinless nature is integral to the Lamb referenced in Article XV, a reference to the ancient laws of the Jews, for which only a spotless lamb was suitable to become sin in the sacrifice. Christ could not have become the Lamb, the perfect sacrifice once offered for the sins of the whole world, had he not been spotless. He submitted himself wholly to God that he would be the spotless lamb, and offered himself up as a sacrifice, not for himself but for us.

The Article concludes by again reinforcing that while Christ himself gave himself up to conquer sin, that does not mean that we who are baptised do not sin. The Article quotes from 1 St Jn 1. 8, to remind us we are deceiving ourselves if we say we do not sin. Christ’s sacrifice freed us from the consequence of death and opened to us the way of everlasting life, but that does not mean that we will never sin again. This dichotomy is raised throughout Scripture, and in particular, St Paul discusses it extensively in his epistle to the Romans.

One image often used is the transition from a slave to sin to the adopted child who still sins. Before Christ’s sacrifice, sin represented a barrier to God which we could not, on our own, overcome, therefore we were slaves to it. Through Christ’s atonement, we continue to sin, but by his grace and love it no longer represents an insurmountable barrier to relationship with God. We may repent and return to him.

This line of reasoning leads well into Article XVI which discusses further what it means to sin after Baptism, a point referred to here, and again an issue of no small contention in the medieval times and in the time of the Reformation.

On the Articles: Article XIV

The Day of Pentecost commonly called Whitsunday

GOD, who as at this time didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by the sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit: Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort; through the merits of Christ Jesus our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation
Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God’s Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

Rounding out the discussion of works in the Articles of Religion is Article XIV discussing works of superogation. This seems at first, particularly to modern eyes, a somewhat complicated and confusing article, however ultimately its message is quite simple. Thinking back to ideas of merit in the medieval Church, and particularly to the abuses related to that concept, acts of superogation were works that were above and beyond what was required, for instance beyond acts of contrition done to demonstrate true repentance, that would then in fact earn some form of credit with God.

Ultimately there are many problems with this concept. It suggests then that God would owe us something. In some cases, that the grace we receive from God has somehow been earned, and indeed one of the worst abuses of this concept involved transferring this credit with God to others, often through the system of indulgences.

The article itself becomes clearer in these circumstances. It says plainly that voluntary works, the definition of works of superogation, which are done beyond what is commanded, cannot be taught [as earning merit or grace] without impiety or arrogance. It is arrogant, the article continues, because such a teaching requires the individual to say that they can do more for God than he asks for. This takes it upon the individual to, in a way, do more than is called for, and further seems to go against Christ’s own teaching from St Luke’s gospel, 17. 7-10, which is partly quoted. In this, the parable of the unworthy servants, Christ instructs that when you have done your duty, acknowledge it. To do more would be to assume to know the will of your master. In that same way, the article suggests, that these works of superogation take on the individual the assumption to know what God desires of them beyond what has been proclaimed.

To further link Christ’s teachings, he says in St Matthew’s gospel that, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” (St Mt 5. 48). How can there be anything beyond our duty to God when we are called to be perfect in all things? Similarly, as St Paul teaches, “whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him,” (Col 3. 17). Again, this makes clear the pattern that our duty to God is in all things. It is arrogant to believe that there is a possibility of doing more than what God commands us to do, because he tells us to do all things for him!

To get a clearer picture of Christian duty, we can look to the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer, which says:

My duty towards God is,
To believe in him, to fear him, and to love him, with all my heart, with all my mind, with all my soul, and with all my strength:
To worship him, to give him thanks, to put my whole trust in him, to pray to him:
To honour his holy Name and his Word:
And to serve him truly all the days of my life. (BCP, 548)

Again by this definition, even were we not to fall short, it would be impossible to do more than God requires of us, as he asks for all that we are and all that we have.

There is a clear link to Article XV as well, which discusses the fact that Christ alone is without sin. If it is Christ alone that is without sin, then all fall short. If all fall short, then it suggests we do not even fully complete our duty to God, then again how can we possibly be expected to do more than is asked of us?

God has an absolute claim on us, and as Christ says in the parable recorded in St Luke’s gospel and quoted in Article XIV, when we have done all that is commanded of us, all that is left to do is recognize that we can do no more!

Thinking back to Article XI, which proclaimed that it is not by merit of personal works but by the merit of Christ himself that we are justified before God, so there is also a clear link between this article claiming that it is impiety and arrogant to teach that works of superogation somehow gain one merit. It is this link that also ties this section of the Articles of Religion together, with Articles XI – XIV broadly defining salvation, through faith and apart from works, but with works being counted as evidence which proceeds from a saving faith.

At the time when the Articles were initially published there was a great need to demystify conceptions of merit, something ultimately done also by the Roman Catholic Church over time as it has moved to recognize many of the medieval superstitions and abuses that led to the continental Reformation and which were addressed by England as well when the Book of Common Prayer and Articles of Religion were compiled.

Today, while individual articles such as this one may hold less importance than they did when doctrines on Works of Superogation remained popular and common, it still helps to create a clear picture of what the Church teaches regarding the role of works and the role of faith in God’s plan of salvation, with particular emphasis on ensuring Biblical grounding for these teachings.

Wisdom of Saints: St Gregory of Nazianzus

 The Feast of Gregory of Nazianzus, Doctor, Bishop of Constantinople, 389

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.

Octave of the Ascension

O GOD the King of Glory, who hast exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven: We beseech thee, leave us not comfortless; but send to us thine Holy Ghost to comfort us, and exalt us unto the same place whither our Saviour Christ is gone before; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

St Gregory of Nazianzus was one of the three Cappadocian Fathers, along with his friend St Basil the Great and Basil's brother St Gregory of Nyssa, and one of the most eminent theologians of the Patristic age. He is one of the four great doctors of the East and continues to exert a great influence on the theology of the Church.

St Gregory was born in a small village near Nazianzus in Cappadocia. His mother had converted his father to Christianity, and indeed it seems that St Gregory was born after his father had been ordained a priest and just prior to his consecration as Bishop of Nazianzus. His parents were wealthy, and he soon outgrew his original education at home by his uncle and was sent to Caesarea Cappadocia to receive the remainder of his classical education there, where he ultimately studied under the same tutor who would later educate St John Chrysostom. His education took him even further afield, as far as Athens. It was during this trip to Athens that St Gregory, already a Christian by virtue of his parents, dedicated himself to Christ. While journeying by sea there was a terrible storm. Fearing for his life, St Gregory prayed that if God would see him through the storm to safety he would dedicate the remainder of his life to serving his Lord.

St Gregory had originally met and befriended St Basil while at school in Caesarea, however it was in Athens that they reconnected and renewed their friendship which would continue for the rest of their lives. They began a collaboration in Athens to compile some of the works of Origen, who was then the greatest and most prolific Christian writer. All serious Christians knew and read Origen.

St Basil found himself drawn to the ascetic and monastic lifestyle and soon after would invite his friend St Gregory to join him in the monastic life. St Gregory's monastic life was cut short, as ultimately St Basil's would be as well, when his father, the Bishop of Nazianzus, called him home to serve in the Church. St Gregory was ordained as priest and eventually became Suffragan Bishop serving throughout Cappadocia, assisting his father in combating heresy and persecution.

St Gregory had been born into a turbulent time in the Church. While the Edict of Milan had ended official persecution against Christianity, the moment the government ceased official persecution of the Church, the Church descended into division over the need to articulate doctrinal orthodoxy over a number of issues that were now splitting the Church. First and foremost among these was Arianism. In 325, Emperor Constantine had called the Council of Nicaea, which had ultimately condemned Arianism and proclaimed the first part of what would become the Nicene Creed. When St Gregory was born, however, Arianism continued to thrive, as it would for several more centuries.

Arianism found wide purchase in Cappadocia in St Gregory's day, and to make matters worse, around the time of his ordination, St Gregory found himself also challenged by Emperor Julian the Apostate who had come to the throne. St Gregory had studied with Julian and early on, even before his declared apostasy and efforts as Emperor to return the Empire to Roman paganism, had found Emperor Julian to be troubled and described him as an evil the Roman state was nourishing.

St Gregory would begin his ministry combating both the heresy of Arianism and the threat of persecution under Julian, though ultimately Arianism would prove to be the larger threat with Julian's reign being short lived and his successor, Emperor Jovian, being an avowed Christian.

St Gregory's father died in 374 and St Gregory succeeded him as the Bishop of Nazianzus. His fame continued to grow and in 379 he was invited to go to Constantinople following the death of the Arian Emperor Valens. He did, and had significant success in reducing the Arian influence in the capitol. In 381 he presided at the Council of Constantinople, called to conclude the formation of the anti-Arian Nicene Creed first began in 325 shortly before St Gregory's birth. He continued to serve in Constantinople until 382 when he retired, returning to Nazianzus living out his final days in relative quiet before passing away in peace in 391.

St Gregory is known in many quarters as St Gregory the Theologian. This is both to distinguish him from St Gregory of Nyssa, brother to St Basil the Great and also reflects on the importance of his doctrinal statements, many of which remain in extant. He was a well-known orator, having recorded many of his writings. Earlier in his career just after his ordination he wrote an oration discussing the nature of the priestly office. This oration forms the basis of much of the theology of later writers such as St John Chrysostom and St Gregory the Great.

St Gregory begins his oration reflecting that:

But in the case of man, hard as it is for him to learn how to submit to rule, it seems far harder to know how to rule over men, and hardest of all, with this rule of ours, which leads them by the divine law, and to God, for its risk is, in the eyes of a thoughtful man, proportionate to its height and dignity.  For, first of all, he must, like silver or gold, though in general circulation in all kinds of seasons and affairs, never ring false or alloyed, or give token of any inferior matter, needing further refinement in the fire; or else, the wider his rule, the greater evil he will be.  Since the injury which extends to many is greater than that which is confined to a single individual.

In this he reflects on the gravity of the priestly office. That those who are called to it must be above reproach both because they will be examined by others, and also because, through their leadership, a small evil in their own lives may extend that sin to those under his care.

He continues by noting that simply being free of vice is not sufficient call for the office of priest due to its importance:

But granted that a man is free from vice, and has reached the greatest heights of virtue:  I do not see what knowledge or power would justify him in venturing upon this office.  For the guiding of man, the most variable and manifold of creatures, seems to me in very deed to be the art of arts and science of sciences.  Any one may recognize this, by comparing the work of the physician of souls with the treatment of the body; and noticing that, laborious as the latter is, ours is more laborious, and of more consequence, from the nature of its subject matter, the power of its science, and the object of its exercise.

In this, St Gregory begins hinting at the greater divine purpose that underlies the Priesthood. He expounds with a command of language that hints at his enduring popularity. It is also telling that while his primary purpose was an exposition of the Priesthood, St Gregory could not refrain from making a defence of Nicene orthodoxy against Arian heresy when he wrote, “It is necessary neither to be so devoted to the Father, as to rob Him of His Fatherhood, for whose Father would He be, if the Son were separated and estranged from Him, by being ranked with the creation.” He similarly cannot help but highlight the importance of the, “the aid of the Spirit, by Whom alone we are able to perceive, to expound, or to embrace, the truth in regard to God.” His reference here to the Holy Spirit is a reminder also of the second characteristic of his expositions, that of Trinitarianism, and an emphasis on all three persons of the Trinity.

St Gregory the Theologian remains an enduring and foundational father on which much of the theology of the Church today can trace its roots. His influence on several of the other great Doctors, both East and West, solidifies his continued importance, and the blessing in studying his original works.

On the Articles: Article XIII

The Sunday after Ascension Day

O GOD the King of Glory, who hast exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven: We beseech thee, leave us not comfortless; but send to us thine Holy Ghost to comfort us, and exalt us unto the same place whither our Saviour Christ is gone before; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

XIII. Of Works before Justification
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

 The words of this article, particularly its opening line, can sometimes be confusing. Words done before the grace of Christ, and Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God. The most obvious interpretation of this involves looking at it through the lens of works and God’s favour; it is a restatement of the fact that we cannot earn God’s favour through our good deeds, called works. Yet that is not where the article ends. Indeed, it is not even where the sentence ends.

Much like Christ in the antitheses the Article calls us to go further, and reinforces the point that God doesn’t just care about what we do, but what we think and why we do things. You have heard it said you cannot earn God’s grace by good works, it says good works done before justification remain outside God’s will and are sinful in their nature.

This may require a bit of unpacking. It is easy to accept the first part that we cannot earn points with God through good works, whether before or after justification, but to say that good deeds done before justification are sinful in nature seems difficult to accept. At the core of this article is the question, what is the difference between a good work done by a Christian versus a non-Christian. The answer, according to the article, is fundamentally linked to the nature of good works.

Good works are not just about some form of secular, philosophical evaluation of outcomes. Two people who donate their time, treasure or talents to the less fortunate in equal measure, in secular terms would have been said to have done the same good. If both donate $100 of groceries to a food bank, or spend an evening volunteering at a soup kitchen, the secular world would generally agree that both had done an equal good. Yet this article says that the actions of the Christian are pleasing to God while the actions of the non-Christian have a sinful nature. Why would that be? It only makes sense, however, when considering the fact that we are discussing Christian works, and their importance is evaluated not on the basis of secular philosophies of outcomes, but on their role in our Christian journeys.

If good works are the proceeds of faith, or as the article puts it, the “Inspiration of his Spirit,” then it is clear that in general non-Christians would not be able to do good works, unless in particular circumstances the Holy Spirit were working through them, and there are examples in Holy Scripture of the Holy Spirit working through non-believers both in the Old Testament and in the New.

This contrasted with some of the medieval doctrines of the Western Church, and the ideas of the School-authors, a reference to Christian Scholastics of the medieval period, who developed the idea of grace of congruity, which said that because their actions mirrored so closely the good works of Christians, similar works of non-Christians conferred some form of grace, though not salvation. Ultimately this rejection of that principle seems far more consistent with Scriptural doctrines, both in terms of the antitheses and also the story of the rich young man who followed the law yet refused to give up his wealth. He outwardly followed the law out of obligation but when prompted to act out of an inward love of God he was unable to.

This helps us to differentiate what a good work is for Christians versus a non-Christian good deed. A good deed is rooted in secular morality, and might consist of characteristics of altruism and the promotion of the common good. Works, in the Christian sense, are rooted in submission and obedience to God’s will. They will often line up with secular ideas of good deeds simply because of God’s love for his creation, yet at the same times because we are dealing with the spiritual, there are certain good works which might not be evaluated as good deeds because their benefit is in the realm of the soul which cannot be quantified or evaluated in secular terms.

A corollary to this point is that something might be a good deed, because it can be morally justified, but yet not be a good work because it is not rooted in obedience to God. It may well be sinful. Indeed, as this article states, it is rooted in a sinful nature by virtue of the fact that it uses some system of secular morality to judge whether or not it is good, and not the simple question of God’s will.

Does this suggest that all deeds done apart from Christ are sinful then? What is the meaning of saying that such actions have the nature of sin? The answer to the former is that no. Going back to the previous example of a Christian and non-Christian, both of whom donate $100 of groceries to a food bank. It is not a sin for either of them to do this, but for the Christian it is a good work, and an act proceeding from a saving faith in loving obedience to God. For the non-Christian, however, it is not proceeding from obedience to or love of God, but rather something else. Sin is ultimately turning from God, and so while we often think of sin as in some way being harmful to others, even good deeds can have a sinful nature (having turned from God).

With the rise in those who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious, this remains an important affirmation that you cannot buy your salvation, and a reminder that as good as you are, apart from God, you cannot please him. As Lewis puts it in Mere Christianity:

The Christian way is different: harder, and easier. Christ says “Give me All. I don't want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don't want to cut off a branch here and a branch there, I want to have the whole tree down. I don't want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked-the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.”

On the Articles: Article XII

Saint Philip and Saint James the Apostles

ALMIGHTY God, whom truly to know is everlasting life: Grant us perfectly to know thy Son Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth, and the life; that, following the steps of thy holy Apostles, Saint Philip and Saint James, we may stedfastly walk in the way that leadeth to eternal life; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Saint James the Brother of the Lord, Martyr

O HEAVENLY Father, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning: We bless thy holy Name for the witness of James and Jude, the kinsmen of the Lord, and pray that we may be made true members of thy heavenly family; through him who willed to be the firstborn among many brethren, even the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Fifth Sunday after Easter commonly called Rogation Sunday

O LORD, from whom all good things do come: Grant to us thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that be good, and by thy merciful guiding may perform the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

XII. Of Good Works
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s ludzement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

If there is one topic sure to set a protestant on edge it is a discussion of works. The Epistle of St James famously discusses the importance of works, for which the greater reformer Martin Luther termed it the Epistle of Straw, and even went so far as to seek to remove it from the Canon of the New Testament. Article XII on good works relates to Article XI dealing with Justification, two key concepts during the time of the continental reformation and which required clarification in England when the Articles began to be compiled and promulgated.

In pre-reformation Medieval western theology, a good work was something used to earn merit, the favour of God. While this included morally good acts, significantly, others were merely acts of piety laid upon sinners by priests in order to confirm penitence. Saying the rosary, fasting and other such acts of contrition were considered good works. This practice was rejected by the continental reformers, and leading to that overall perception of anything relating to works as needing rejection. It seems as though in some places, particularly with uneducated laity and poorly educated clergy, misconceptions of the role of these acts of penitence could have been normative, and so the Anglican response in the Articles needed to clarify this matter, despite rejecting much of the broader premise of Martin Luther and other protestants.

The opening line of the Article makes clear that good works cannot earn one merit or put away sins. This is a line of argument acceptable to the protestants, however it is notable also in that it fits in line perfectly with the Roman Catholic doctrines, just not practice. The Article goes on, however, to say that good works are a necessary procession of a “true and lively Faith” which might otherwise be termed a saving faith. This distinction draws reference to the Epistle of James, which itself is often contrasted with Paul’s Epistles where he seems to suggest the opposite. It also distinguishes it far more from the Protestant position of the reformers.

Much like some of the disconnect between the Roman Catholics at Trent in the counter-reformation and Martin Luther and the reformers before them, terms were being used in a different sense, and each party did not entirely recognize that as they objected to eachother’s statements on the matter. To quote Fr Kenneth Ross:

It was a similar variation in the use of key words which made St. James and St. Paul appear to contradict one another in the New Testament. Each appealed to the story of Abraham, St. James to show that faith without works did not justify, and St. Paul to show that it did. It is clear, however, that St. James was using faith in the sense of intellectual assent: in his use of the word the devils had faith (S. Jas 2. 19), but they were certainly not justified. St. Paul, however, by faith means personal commitment to the Saviour. And by works St. Paul was thinking more particularly of works undertaken in order to win God’s favouir and rewards, whereas St. James meant the works which are the necessary consequence of a life surrendered to Christ.

It was this negative view of works among the continental reformers that lead many protestants to reject the sacraments, beginning to view them as works of man. This view is wholly rejected by the Articles, by which the Sacraments are wholly accepted as works of God, who transmits grace through them. This was a rejection of a position held by the Father’s of the Church and universally recognized. St Ambrose of Milan writes in his On the Myteries that, “Believe, then, that the presence of the Godhead is [in the waters of Baptism]. Do you believe the working, and not believe the presence? Whence should the working proceed unless the presence went before?” This position was integral to his entire explanation of all the Sacraments, and was not a novel or innovative position. It was purely an overreaction to the concerns over

In this way the Article agrees with both Biblical authors as it states both that we cannot by our own works earn our salvation forgiveness of sins, but at the same time they are the necessary fruits of saving faith. The final clause of the article states that as a tree can be known by its fruit, so can faith be known by its works. This emphasizes the Scriptural foundation of Anglican understanding of the faith, and also reinforces the English reformer’s rejection of many of the more extreme views of the continental reformers.

In dealing with Salvation, Articles XI and XII introduce justification and works, while Articles XII and XIII continue to expound on the role and limits of works for Christians, laying out clear boundaries on the purpose, limits and Christian understanding of works.