On the Articles: Article XXXI

The Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, let thy continual pity cleanse and defend thy Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without thy succour, preserve it evermore by thy help and goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

This Article seeks to define the relationship between Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and the sacrificial nature of Christ in the Mass and particularly in the Blessed Sacrament.

It begins with a statement which today would be rather uncontroversial for most Christians: Christ offered himself on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (I St Jn 2. 2) and that there is no other way to satisfy our sins before God but through Christ’s sacrifice. Interestingly enough, this would be controversial to some post-Reformation Calvinists who began to view that Christ’s sacrifice was only for some and not for others, going so far as to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice was only intended and sufficient for the sins of the elect and those pre-destined to salvation (see Article XVII for Anglicanism’s position on those issues) and not for the sins of the whole world. This position is not Scripturally sound and is again by virtue of this Article rejected.

The second section of the Article becomes far more complicated. There are a number of critical points. First it addresses itself to sacrifices of Masses. The sacrificial nature of the mass is something accepted from the earliest days of the Church. From the Didache to many of the early fathers, but it is important to note the nature of this sacrifice. This was a reference to the sacrifice of the oblations placed on the altar, which then through the prayer of consecration became a participation with Christ’s one sacrifice. The Article notes that, “it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer4 Christ for the quick and the dead.” This here references the sacrificial nature of the mass which was condemned, though this view itself is one also condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, namely that the priest was re-sacrificing Christ every time in the mass rather than simply participating in Christ’s one sacrifice.

Fr Ken Ross argues that this section of the article was attacking:

the popular belief that in the Mass Christ was again offered or sacrificed, and rightly repudiates such an idea as blasphemous. From the plurals used, sacrifices and Masses, and from the latter part of the sentence, it is clear that it was private Masses of requiem which were felt to be the most objectionable. It is all bound up with the Romish doctrine of purgatory in Article XXII.

Here he points out part of the idea behind the Roman practice of the sacrifice on behalf of those who were dead and believed to be in purgatory. In this, then, as Fr Ken points out, this Article is simply reaffirming the condemnation of Article XXII. Additionally, though, it related to the idea of priestly control.

In the medieval period at the time of the Reformation, there was a popular conception that, regardless of whether or not the priest added anything to Christ’s sacrifice, that the priest was controlling access to the grace offered by Christ’s sacrifice. In this sense, it allowed the priest to control whether or not someone would be saved and would nullify the saving grace of Christ, as it was no longer accessible except through the ministry of the Priest. Again, that seems to be more the concept being condemned by this practice, not the sacrifice of Christ or participation in it through the bread and wine, which were views supported by the Patristic Church from the earliest times. In the early 2nd century, for instance, St Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice.”

This is a relatively simple Article, further points of clarification are made that make much more sense when taken in the context of the day, and particularly in the commonly held belief and practices of the day, rather than the doctrines of the Church which were both professed at that time and as they have later been ‘clarified’ to have been by the Roman Catholic Church.

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 XI

The Fourth Sunday after Easter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.