On the Articles: Article XXV

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity

LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXV. Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Anglicans and the Sacraments have always had a mixed history, and this Article is for many the chief culprit in that. Depending upon how precisely it is interpreted, it might seem to suggest that the Church recognizes either only two or seven sacraments.

Before delving into that controversy, however, it is worth noting that this article addresses more than simply the number of the sacraments.

Chiefly it begins by saying that “Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace.” So, the Sacraments were not made by Christ to be symbols of Christians. Some protestants, for instance, saw absolutely no significance in the Eucharist, and saw it only as something that was done in fulfilment of Christ’s request. This Article makes it clear that in the Anglican tradition, this view has been thoroughly rejected. When it continues saying it is a sure means of grace, this again removes any possible doubt: the Sacraments are, as the BCP’s catechism says, “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”

The Article continues on in this point by explaining the purpose of grace offered. In addition to being an effectual means of grace, the sacraments are: “and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.” The sacraments strengthen and confirm our faith in God. Another way of putting this, especially in light of the Eucharist, is that we are nourished in our faith by the Body and Blood.

The next section is the more controversial in which it lays out the sacraments. The first two are the Sacraments ordained by Christ in the Gospel, that of the Eucharist and Baptism. The next sentence is what causes more controversy today. “Those five commonly called sacraments... are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of the Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” The clearest message is to draw a distinction between these five and the two sacraments ordained by Christ because they were not specifically ordained by Christ himself, nor were their ceremonies specifically laid out in the Scriptures at Christ’s command. The phrase, “Commonly called Sacraments” today has a more negative connotation implying that they are in fact not Sacraments, just commonly so-called, yet at the time this Article was written no such negative connotation was implied.

It suffices to recognize that a distinction was drawn between those two clearly ordained by Christ in the Gospels, versus the others which were not necessarily as clearly articulated. This also is meant as potentially a rejection of the then recent Roman practice of naming and numbering the Sacraments. In the Christian East and going back to the early Church, there was much more hesitancy in naming and numbering the Sacraments in an exclusionary way. The principle of the Sacrament is that it is an objective and assured means of receiving God’s grace, and most Christians sought not, in recognition of God’s sovereignty, to limit God’s authority by suggesting there were only seven.

The fact that there is ambiguity leads to some Anglicans suggesting there are only two, some saying there are two of Christ and two of the Church and some saying there are seven. It should be noted that the Book of Common Prayer itself addresses the Sacrament of Pennance as a Sacrament in the invitation to confession: “Draw near in faith and take this Holy Sacrament to your comfort.” In allowing this ambiguity, however, it has reinforced the more early practice of refusing to exactly name and define all of the sacraments.

The final clause again speaks to the interesting nature of the Articles of Religion in that they are not exclusively laying our  clearly defined Anglican positions on matters so much as they are often clarifying how Anglicans have rejected particular notions of the Roman Catholic Church as well as those of Continental Protestant Reformers. The first says that the sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. This was a condemnation in particular of the Medieval practice of many Christians exclusively attending adoration of the Eucharist and not actually ever receiving the Eucharist. The chief purpose the Eucharist was ordained was so that we would receive. It should be noted that this does leave open the possibility of Eucharistic adoration being practiced so long as it is not the chief means by which the people interact with the Eucharist, and that they still regularly receive, as Christ intended and ordained. The second point again condemns, again, protestant positions and also ironically enough the doctrine of Receptionism promoted by a number of Anglicans over the centuries. It reaffirms St Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians that those who receive unworthily without examining themselves or discerning the body receive to their condemnation. This again affirms the objective reality of Christ in the Eucharist, rejecting the notion that nothing is happening and also the receptionist view that the elements of bread and wine remain until received in faith only.

On the Articles: Article XXIV

The Ninth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandethIt is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

In the earliest days of the Church, Greek was the common tongue between peoples and the language of the educated, though throughout the Roman Empire, different areas would have different local languages. It wasn’t until around the 500s and 600s that Latin, in the West, became predominant over Greek, particularly for Scholarship, and was adopted by the Western Church. In the East, Greek remained the language of the people and thus the language of the Church. When The East brought Christianity to new lands, one of the first tasks it undertook was to translate the liturgy and Scriptures into the local language, while in the West Latin was simply imposed, and only those who received an education (which did not always include the clergy) could understand and speak Latin.

While some efforts were made at times to translate all or parts of the liturgy into languages spoken by the people in the West throughout the course of the first millennium. Ultimately, however, the Roman Church in the West would declare that only the Latin liturgy and Scriptures were to be used, and outlawed the translation of the Scriptures into other languages. This would notably lead to the execution of John Wycliffe who was martyred for seeking to translate the Bible into English. Yet there were some notable reasons for seeking to prevent translation, chiefly that of mistranslation. In the case of English in particular, it lacked theological terminology because until the time of the English Reformation, the English peoples had only truly ever known the Scriptures and liturgies in Latin, and so as English as a language had developed over the course of the centuries it had never needed to develop that vocabulary, much of which was created by the English reformers themselves.

With so many people unable to understand their faith, it begs the question of whether or not they can ever truly believe or come to know God. Christ died to reconcile us to the father, yet if we cannot read or hear the Scriptures in an understandable way, we may still know that we can be reconciled to God, but God remains distant from us because we cannot come to know him.

In addressing this concern through the Article it begins by saying, “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God,” meaning that it is clearly opposed to Scripture that the people would not understand the language of the liturgy and administration of the Sacraments. St Paul in his first epistle to the Church at Corinth gives a number of passages in which this conclusion can be drawn. He speaks of the need for translation of words from those speaking in tongues, because it would not be edifying for them to speak apart from the ability of the rest of the Body assembled to be able to understand. Similarly, in discussing the Eucharist, St Paul says that we must examine our conscience and discern Christ’s Body before receiving lest we receive to our condemnation. The obvious question becomes how can someone know that if they only know to receive by virtue of following others because they cannot understand the words of institution or anything else relating to what is happening in the preparation of the Lord’s Table?

The article then continues saying it is also contrary to the “custom of the Primitive Church.” Here, primitive simply means old, and does not mean to imply a lack of sophistication. We might now say “early Church.” As was previously noted, the practice was generally to translate the Scriptures and liturgies into local languages in the time of the early Church, though this wasn’t always the case.

Some might point out an apparent irony that today the language of the Book of Common Prayer, being over three-hundred years old now, may well not be “understanded of the people,” any longer. The language of the Prayer Book, along with the language of the Articles themselves, is no longer used in every day English in any country, and in many ways, phrases used in the BCP, King James Bible and Articles of Religion may still be in use, however their meaning has changed. This can lead to misunderstandings.

The reality, however, is that by virtue of the fact that no suitable religious English existed in the 16th century when the BCP was first compiled, English-speakers who used the first Books of Common Prayer had to deal with many similar issues of figuring out precisely the meaning of words. The word “atonement” which did not previously exist in the English language, would have been no more familiar to an English-speaker from the 1550s than would the word “holpen” might to someone today.

Simply because the people may need to look up or ask someone what a particular word means does not necessarily seem to violate the intention of this Article, which is chiefly that the language be that spoken by the people. Looking back to St Paul in his letter ot the Corinthians, the purpose behind his letter lies largely in the realm of order in Church, that everything be done in order and with reverence.

From the language choices of the Reformers it is clear that the issue of reverence was on their minds. In some cases where specific religious language did not exist, they could have used existing religious language to convey the necessary sentiment or information, however instead may have chosen to establish new words that would both convey the sense and be used more exclusively in a religious context.

Today, due to the cultural influence of the Book of Common Prayer and King James Version of the Bible on the subsequent development of the English language along with the broader cultural influence of Christianity in Anglophone cultures in the West, such as Canada, religious language is now often used, in its modern forms, in non-religious contexts. By returning to the use of more archaic English from these older documents, while it can require a bit more work to understand, it seems to more properly fulfil the sentiments of this Article which mean more than just being understood, but being understood in the context of reverent worship of God.

Wisdom of Saints: St Mary Magdalene

The Feast of Mary Magdalene

ALMIGHTY God, whose blessed Son did sanctify Mary Magdalene, and call her to be a witness to his resurrection: Mercifully grant that by thy grace we may be healed of all our infirmities, and always serve thee in the power of his endless life; who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end. Amen.

Saint Mary Magdalene, the apostle to the Apostles, is one of the most famous people of the Scriptures and certainly the most famous woman next to the Blessed Theotokos herself. She is also significantly misunderstood and at the same time a wonderful example of saintly virtue to be followed.

There is extremely little biographical information on St Mary Magdalene, despite the fact that she played an important role in the Scriptures as a disciple of Christ. Because of the numerous persons named Mary in the Scriptures, and also unnamed women, there is some level of conjecture as to which passages actually refer to Mary.

Most clearly, however, St Mark’s Gospel identifies that Christ had cast seven demons out of her, and after which she had become a disciple of Christ, one of a number of women who had followed him and his Apostles during their missionary journeys and supported them. This includes standing at the cross with the other women during Christ’s crucifixion, seeking to attend to his body after his death and also being present with the Apostles in the upper room after the resurrection.

There is an association with St Mary Magdalene also having been a sinner, often even the sinner referred to in St Luke’s Gospel (Lk 7. 37), though a possible explanation for this seems to be the fact that Magdalena, the place of St Mary’s birth, had a reputation for evil among Jews. It is likely for similar reasons that St Mary is variously viewed or described as an adulteress or prostitute.

In more recent years, popular rumours have sought to suggest St Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, however while the speculation that St Mary was a prostitute or adulteress may still be supported through some valid inferences based on the Scriptures, there is absolutely no evidence in the Scriptures that Jesus was married to anyone during his earthly life, and indeed the documents used in recent years to popularize this rumour have all been shown to have been false or improperly translated.

Yet it is sometimes this mystique of St Mary Magdalene as having not only been held in bondage by seven demons but also having been living in a sinful life that enhances the hope found in her. She goes from being bound by seven demons, potentially also living a life of sin, to being one of the chief disciples of Christ, and witness to his ministry. She was present at his crucifixion and was witness to his resurrection.

It is from the latter that she earns her title “apostle to the Apostles.” This in and of itself is often misunderstood. St Mary Madgalene, though an important disciple of Christ, was not one of the twelve. The title “apostle to the Apostles” becomes clearer when it is understood that apostle simply means “messenger” she was the messenger of the resurrection to the Apostles who were those commissioned by Christ to proclaim his gospel and bear witness to his ministry.

Her life and ministry is a testament to the power of Christ’s redemption and reconciliation. She went from being bound by demons to serving at the feet of Christ and bearing witness to his resurrection, just as we are all able to go from being bound in sin to serving Christ and bearing witness to the power of his resurrection in others.

Just as there is little biographical evidence of her origins, there is little in the way of evidence of what happened to St Mary Magdalen after the end of her Biblical accounts. Some evidence suggests she retired to Ephesus where she lived out her life, though there is no real strong evidence in favour of this understanding. Neither is it particularly important to her witness to the power of Christ, instead emphasizing only those parts of her life in which she was redeemed and called by Christ.

St Mary Magdalen is an important witness to the power of forgiveness and redemption and models the life all Christians aspire to, responding to our Baptism in Christ through faithful discipleship.

On the Articles: Article XXIII

The Eighth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth: We humbly beseech thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which be profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

The question of the leadership of the Church has been one contested for many years. In the time of the Reformation, it was continental reformers that decried the rights of the bishops and of Rome indirectly to appoint and control the clerics who ministered to the local parish. Local control was sought developed into numerous different models of church governance seen today among various protestant denominations. All had one thing in common: they rejected the Biblical pattern of Apostolic succession.

From the replacement of Judas’s office in Acts of the Apostles (1. 20-26) by St Matthias to the appointment of Titus and Timothy, and the calling of the first deacons, there has been a clear establishment in Scripture of the Apostolic succession, the laying on of hands

Although the three-fold order of ministry existed, at different times and at different places, the method of selecting a leader differed. Even into the fourth century, bishops were sometimes chosen by the laity by popular vote, while in other places the secular authority of the king of prince would be able to select who would become bishop. These ambiguities were used by the protestant reformers to argue in favour of their congregational models in which a congregation could call any person to minister for them.

By the time of the English Reformation, however, the Apostolic Succession had been firmly established. While there was room to differ in some of the manner of selecting of bishops, priests were ordained exclusively by bishops in apostolic succession for particular purposes, and to be priested you would first be ordained and serve as a deacon, which had a different role than the priest. The reformers explicitly preserve this practice in this article.

Whereas in a protestant church, if a minister was needed, any member could be called and effectively begin preaching and ministering the next day, in Anglicanism, there was a much longer period of discernment which ultimately required the authority of the bishop to ordain the person for their duty. It was never an accepted practice in Anglicanism, as Article XXIII makes clear, to allow any member of the laity to begin preaching or administering the sacraments.

Interestingly it has only been in recent years, since the Roman Catholic Vatican II Council, that there has been a general loosening of this provision. Roman Catholics, facing shortages, authorized the use of extraordinary lay administrants of the sacrament, lay people who could, in the absence of the necessary number of priests, help to administer, though not consecrate, the blessed sacrament. Following this, many other churches, including Anglican jurisdictions around the world, took this as a signal that they too could loosen the rules, such that deacons and lay people began to be permitted to preach with the authorization of the bishop, and lay people similarly began to be permitted to serve at the altar in new ways as well.

Interestingly, it seems to have been an accident of history in Canada, at least, that saw the diaconate fall into disuse. Due to that, many of the roles of deacons have been taken up by the laity, who only now are beginning to discover the number of lay people who may well have been called to serve as deacons.

In either case, the requirements of Article XXIII are still being fulfilled. The first sentence of the Article states that no one may preach or administer the sacraments unless duly authorized. At the time of its writing this meant that the process of ordination needed to be followed based on the ordinal, one of the other three Anglican Formularies, while today it remains consistent for a bishop to duly authorize lay people to administer those functions as lay people.

While modern practices show that this article is consistent with allowing some level of lay participation, without commenting on the degree to which lay participation in certain roles is desirable, it suggests a strong concern for the apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession is important not simply in terms of the practice of laying on of hands, and the ability to point to the bishop that consecrated your bishop who ordained you, but points to the transmission of the faith delivered once to the Apostles. Going back to Article XIX, the limitation of the preaching and administration of sacraments is not simply to clericalize the Church, but because it ensures that the pure word of God will be preached when those who are permitted to preach have been properly educated, tried and tested before they are so authorized.

This Article speaks to the issue of authority in the Church, and how the people can have confidence in the person that is preaching, and that what they are preaching is true and that the sacraments they are administering are indeed sacraments. This was of particular concern at the time of the English Reformation when there was concern over what was being preached, and particularly in light of the fact that among protestants almost anyone seemed to able to do anything, so whether or not that person truly was ordained.

In modern times, there are again concerns over legitimacy. As Christianity continues to fragment over issues of doctrine, it is always a helpful reminder that the goal of priests is to preserve the apostolic teaching. When someone is preaching, they have been authorized by a bishop in apostolic succession to do so, and their teaching is expected to be in accord with that tradition. At a time when that is not always the case, this Article serves as a reminder of what Anglicans ought to be doing.

On the Articles: Article XXII

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXII. Of Purgatory
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Article XXII is more explicit than any previous Article in condemning excesses of the Roman Catholic Church during the medieval period. While the title of the Article suggests its emphasis will be on purgatory, it is in fact more broadly a condemnation of a number of practices of the Roman Catholic Church found objectionable during that era. In interpreting the Articles today, it is always important to remember the historical context in which they were written. While today many of these practices continue, despite what Rome claims, their understanding of them has shifted significantly.

The “Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory [and] Pardons,” is one that has changed significantly, particular when contrasting official teaching today with the common practice of the medieval period, which is more what this Article was written to condemn even than necessarily the official Church teaching of the day. Rome itself would, soon after the continental and English reformations, recognize that in practice excesses had been taken with these doctrines, though in certain senses they maintained the doctrine of a treasury of merit as discussed in relation to Articles on salvation and justification.  The doctrine of Purgatory promoted by Rome was a medieval innovation, which seems to have originated in the 12th century, and although it remains an official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church today, they did recognize abuses related to the system of indulgences and pardons referred to in this Article.

The Article continues with the condemnation of “Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques,” which again must be understood in context. For some, particularly low Churchman, the mere use of the term “adoration” means it is a condemnation of the medieval practice of Eucharistic adoration. Grammatically, if one argues that Adoration here means Eucharistic Adoration, they must also accept that the Article bans the practice of worshipping. Instead, however, a more accurate rendering into contemporary English might read that the article condemns, “the worshipping or adoration of both images (icons) and relics of saints.” This Article does not touch on the practice of Eucharistic Adoration, which will be discussed in Article XXVIII on the Eucharist itself.

What is being here condemned then is the medieval practice of worshiping and adoring icons and relics of saints in a way that was meant to be reserved for God. This helps further grammatically and linguistically ground this Article in relation to the next section dealing with saints, as that is effectively what this Article is discussing. The use of icons and relics dates to Apostolic times, and had been affirmed, in its inoffensive forms, repeatedly. In particular, the Seventh Ecumenical Council very explicitly supports the right-use of icons. That said at various times in English Church history, the extreme radicals, such as the Puritans, sought to suppress the practice.

The historical context of the condemnation of “invocation of Saints” is also important, as a casual reader might be confused at the condemnation which is contrasted which might today be interpreted as the invocation of saints as we mark their feasts in the calendar or pray their prayers, such as the Prayer of St Chrysostom at Morning Prayer. In the Reformation era, writers used the word “invocation” as a reference to praying to a particular saint to grant a blessing. It is this form of prayer which was being attacked, as the medieval practice had grown to such a degree that prayers to the saints, or rather invocation of the saints, was an attack on the mediation of Christ. Saints were viewed as more merciful than God, and thus in some sense worthy of honour. Again this was not an express theology of the medieval Roman Catholic Church, but rather the common practice of poorly catechized Christians. It should be noted that while the practice of the invocation of saints was condemned, prayers through the saints, just as we might ask a good friend to pray for us, were not condemned. The Bishop’s Book of 1537 makes this rather explicit where it says, “to pray to the saints to be intercessors with us and for us to our Lord for our suits (supplications) which we make to Him… so that we make no invocation of them, is lawful, and allowed by the Catholic Church.”

It might be countered that it is all well and good to suggest this Article condemns primarily the excesses of certain Roman doctrines and practices rather than the practices themselves, but it is clearly not the case. The Article concludes with the statement that the practices being condemned were “vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” Therefore, if the practices are fully condemned, and not just the Roman practices of the day, then there ought to be not merely no support for their use from the earliest days of the Church, but also no Scriptural support for them. Yet that is not the case, neither in the Old Testament nor the New.

There are two types of relics. First class relics—an actual piece of the body of a saint—and second class relics—something which the saint interacted with during their lifetime such as a piece of clothing they wore.

The Old Testament gives a clear example of the power of first class relics in story of the bones of the great prophet Elisha:

So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet. (II Ki 13. 20, 21)

Again in the New Testament, there is an example of a second class relic of St Paul:

And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (Acts 19. 11, 12).

In both these cases, these passages of Scripture merely testify to the power of God working through the relics. It in no way condemns them or suggests they are in opposition to God, in the way that one would expect given the stringency of the language used in this Article if the Article were in fact condemning the totality of icons, relics, the recognition and intercession of saints and so on. Rather, the only way this Article can be interpreted is through the particular lens of the condemnation of Roman practices of the Medieval period. In interpreting all of the Articles of Religion it is important not to assume the meaning of the words and how they are to be applied to the doctrines they are describing, because the language we use to describe these matters has changed significantly and the apparent meaning of an Article is not always correct.

On the Articles: Article XXI

The Sixth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who hast prepared for them that love thee such good things as pass man’s understanding: Pour into our hearts such love toward thee, that we, loving thee above all things, may obtain thy promises, which exceed all that we can desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Octave of the Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul

O GOD, who didst give such grace unto thy holy Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, that they were enabled to bear witness to the truth by their death: Grant unto thy Church that, as in the beginning it was enlightened by their teaching, so it may continue in the same unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Article XXI builds on the work of Articles XIX and XX in defining ecclesiology, by speaking not directly of the Church, but of councils of the Church. The general councils here refer in fact to the ecumenical councils of the Church held between the 4th and 8th centuries after Christianity was legalized to resolve some of the controversies that had arisen but which had been unable to be resolved at more than a local level due to persecution.

While the ecumenical councils are held to have great weight in understanding the faith, this Article makes clear that no council can contravene Holy Scripture, and its authority is derived from Scripture itself. The authority of the Nicene Creed, for instance, is that it is an explanation of various doctrines contained in Holy Scripture, not that the gathering of bishops held any special authority or charism to proclaim anything apart from the Scriptures.

This is a fundamental principle of Anglican understanding of the faith, and puts it in firm opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, particularly as following the seven Ecumenical Councils, Rome began saying that it solely had authority to declare additional authoritative councils, which only more recently, in an ecumenical gesture to the East, have been referred to as General Councils of the Western Church. At any rate many of these councils have been rejected by Anglicans as their doctrines do not proceed from Holy Scripture, even if the English Church at the time participated in those councils due to being in communion with Rome. The East has always refused to accept the authority of those Western Councils due to the Great Schism during which they were excommunicated by Rome for refusing to accept the newly claimed juridical authority of the Bishop of Rome.

This affirmation of the role of Holy Scripture over councils is again an important clarification of English understanding compared to Rome which gave itself authority equal to Holy Scripture to teach. The Article, however, reinforces this by the remainder that Holy Scripture is God’s inerrant and authoritative Word, while Councils are simply the assembly of Men and therefore may err, even when the Holy Spirit may work through a Council. That is why Councils are to be tested against Holy Scripture, as the Holy Spirit will never move a Council to profess something contrary to Holy Scripture.

This Article also proclaims that councils may not be gathered, “without the commandment and will of Princes.” What this is essentially describing is the fact that many of the pronouncements of councils have impact on secular society, and so the Councils must be accepted by secular rulers in order to be implemented. A council could decree a penalty to be imposed on heretics, for instance, but apart from excommunication the Church itself has no authority to impose civil penalties—no civil ruler would allow the Church to establish civil laws and for Anglicans it would be inconsistent with Article VII’s commentary on the imposition of Christian values on civil authorities. The Church cannot, through Council or any other means, impose rules contrary to those of the state. It can be more circumscribed in what is permitted, for instance the Church must not bless same-sex marriages through the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony even where the secular law permits same-sex people to marry. This Article thus reaffirms important principles of Church-state relations.

The publication of the Articles also coincided with a more recently turbulent period in the life of the Western Church in which there had been conflicts between, for instance, Pope Paul III and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, over the summoning of a Council to respond to the Protestant Reformation (what would eventually be the Council of Trent). Cranmer responds by clarifying the Anglican position not simply on the authority of Councils (again supporting previous statements that the institution of the Church has no doctrinal authority apart from Scripture and thus neither does a Council constituted of it), but also on how they are to be summoned.

It should be noted that the possibility of allowing the state to call a general council is an artefact of this era as well, in which the Princes referred to were Christian rulers. It was not a case simply of the Church authority versus secular authority, but the division of responsibility between the Christian Church and the Christian state. Because the state is no longer Christian, this clause is often now viewed as being no longer validly applied. The Church would never require the secular state, even in the United Kingdom where the Church of England is established and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, a strong Anglican, remains Head of State, to call a council of the Church.

Despite these changing circumstances, the Article still shows important considerations on Church-state relations and also the authority of Councils themselves, whether called by the Christian state leader or solely by the Church.