On the Articles: Article XXXVIII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wisdom of Saints: St Cedd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXXVII

The Twenty-Second Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

The final three paragraphs clarify particular controversies.

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXXVI

The Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXXV

Harvest Thanksgiving

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

The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXXIV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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