On the Articles: Article XIX

The Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy; that, thou being our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake our Lord. Amen.

XIX. Of the Church
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

After having spent a great deal of time arguing for the nature of God, the Trinity and Christ, and then our relation to God in terms of salvation, the Articles of Religion turn to the Church, beginning by setting out a clear ecclesiology of the meaning of the Church.

For some when they speak of the Church, they speak of an invisible Church, composed of the body of all believers. Yet there is a subset of that, the visible Church, the bride of Christ, which Christ ordained when he said to his Apostles “on this rock I will build my church,” (St Mt 16. 18b), and birthed at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit. To those for whom there is a visible Church, there is no problem with accepting also an invisible church, though for most the term body of believers would be preferred as ‘invisible church’ is for many a contradiction in terms. However, for many Protestants, they reject any notion of a visible Church instituted by Christ himself, and so their view finds the idea of a visible Church incompatible with their invisible church. This Article begins by clearly stating that for Anglicans, we believe in the visible Church, indeed as the thrust of the English Reformation was to maintain that the English Church is and has always been a part of Christ’s One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church.

In making this claim, the Article goes further to define what distinguishes Christ’s Church from the invisible Church which includes the whole body of believers who profess a saving faith. It lists three general criteria for the Church: the congregation of the faithful, the teaching of God’s Word, and the administration of Christ’s sacraments.

The first criterion is that the Church is, “a congregation of faithful men.” This does not mean to suggest faithful to the Church itself as an institution, but rather faithfulness to Christ. These must be believers, and orthodox believers.

The second criterion is that the Church is a place, “in which the pure Word of God is preached.” Article VI placed a strong emphasis on the Holy Scriptures as containing all things necessary for salvation, in contrast with Rome which taught that the Church had authority outside of Scripture and equal to Scripture to require other dogmas to be accepted as necessary for salvation. It also carries with it the same connotation as faithful in the first criterion: the people cannot be faithful unless the Scriptures are faithfully explained to them. Here the term pure suggests that the Church can err by impurely teaching the Scriptures, something certainly in need of noting in modern times where attempts are made to justify secular practices and mores by twisting Scripture in ways in which it has never been understood and oftentimes contravenes its plain meaning.

The third criterion is that the Church is a place where, “the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinances.” This makes reference to some later Articles which name Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist as the only two sacraments ordained by Christ.

While not a direct criterion, there is a fourth clause in the Article which says, “in all those things necessary and requisite of the same.” This is a reference to the three-fold order of ministry which Cranmer refers to in later articles where it makes clear that only ordained persons may administer the sacraments and preach God’s words.

Taking these four together, they establish a clear pattern. The Church is found where-ever the orthodox faith is professed, God’s Word is faithfully preached, Christ’s sacraments are administered, chiefly meaning Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, and the threefold order of ministry of bishops, priests and deacons is maintained. If this sounds familiar, it is because it has previously been referred to several times on this blog, both as referring to the goal of the English Reformation as well as through later documents such as the Canadian Solemn Declaration of 1893 and the Lambeth Quadrilateral, each of which refer to those four points.

While these four goals can be seen as running throughout the Articles and throughout the writings of Cranmer, the Book of Common Prayer and the English Divines, this is certainly one place, in the Formularies, which the point can be made no more clearly.

The Article itself concludes by pointing out that the ancient patriarchates have erred in matters of faith and ceremonies. It is far easier to see what is meant by this in relation to Rome as several other Articles address Roman errors. Indeed, this also goes back to the reason why Protestants developed their view of the invisible Church, as prior to the disunion of East and West there was very clearly a united visible Church ordained by Christ, and even after that disunion, most people generally viewed the other as being schismatic and thus there was still only one Church. Protestants needed a way to justify their legitimacy in opposition to the visible Church which traced its lineage back to the time of the Apostles. This again reinforces their need to reject the concept of a visible Church and put forward the notion of an invisible Church.

While there is nowhere else in the Articles a clear list of which errors this Article is referring to, there are many known errors into which those sees had historically fallen. At various times, Eastern Sees were controlled by Arians, and in Rome Pope Honorius I had been anathematized for the heresy of Monothelitism in the 7th century. This Article was composed while the Roman Council of Trent was ongoing, and one important point at Trent was that its decrees were declared to not be infallible and dogmatic decrees of the past hundred years were also opened for question. This point may have been to reinforce the fallibility of the Church again primarily as a challenge to Rome’s more common claims to infallibility (though not Papal infallibility, a doctrine not yet proclaimed in the 16th century and which was not articulated until the 19th century).

While interpretation of this Article has varied over time, the stance of the visible Church and a willingness to accept the idea of an invisible Church claimed by Protestants now generally being accepted, it makes continued important statements about knowledge of where the visible Church is, and Anglicanism’s role in maintaining the purity of the Christ’s Catholic Church in the Realm of England (and lands subsequently reached by English missionaries).

On the Articles: Article VIII

The Octave Day of Easter

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

Easter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article III

The Third Sunday in Lent

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, look upon the hearty desires of thy humble servants, and stretch forth the right hand of thy Majesty, to be our defence against all our enemies; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

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

III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

 The third Article of Religion recalls the credal proclamation of Christ’s descent to hell following his crucifixion. In the Book of Alternative Services, this line is rendered “descended to the dead” but in the original BCP language, was rendered “he descended into hell.” There has been much theological ink spilled trying to determine which rendering is more accurate. Many proponents of excising the language of hell from the creeds today do so not because of the arguments in favour of the sheol or Hades but simply because they wish to minimize references to hell given its negative connotations and associations.

What this ignores is that when we say Christ descended into hell, it makes a statement on Christ’s suffering. His suffering did not end at his physical death on the cross. He bore humanity’s sins even to hell. Had he not done so he would not have shared in the full human punishment for sin.

There is also a second important reason for this, and that has to do with what is called the harrowing of Hell. This is the term used to describe the meaning of this passage in reference to I St Pt 3. 18-20:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

It is the, admittedly limited, explanation of how Christ reached out to those who had died before his coming. St Peter writes that he preached to the dead, though it does not make clear what the response to that offering of gospel truth was. It speaks to the fact that Christ’s truth is to be preached to all and for all, those who came before and those who are yet to come. It is an eternal truth, applicable for the salvation of all humanity.

All of this dances around the broader issue of affirming not simply that Christ descended to hell, and implying the reason for it, but also that there is indeed a hell. Most of what the New Testament tells us about hell comes from Christ himself who warned against eternal separation from God several times.

Neither Christ in the Gospels nor any of the other Biblical authors are particularly clear on exactly what hell is. Much like asking the exact way in which God created the universe, that is the wrong question to be asking. Christ makes it clear that separation from God inherent in hell is  undesirable, so the real questions becomes how do we avoid that separation?

Article III affirms, however distasteful to modern sensibilities, that Hell exists, but also that Christ went down into hell. In doing so, he overturned death, as is constantly affirmed in the New Testament. Christ’s sacrifice has paved the way for us all to live a life not of eternal suffering through separation from God, but in oneness with God, just as the Father and the Son are one. The resurrection is true. Christ did not simply recover. He truly died and truly rose.

Many modern Christians affirm a form of gnosticism that seems to suggest that we have it all together. That, “it’s all good,” and nothing needs to change. In the Articles of Religion we affirm the Catholic view—held by all Christians—that it is in fact not all good and that it is only through Christ that we are set aright. It may be easier to believe the former, but it is the truth to believe the latter. No matter how difficult or how unpleasant a reality, this is the universe God has created and the rules he wills it to operate under. Just as Christ preached to the dead, so we have been told the reality in which we live and are left with the freedom of how we are going to respond.