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 VI

The Fifth Sunday in Lent commonly called Passion Sunday

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, mercifully to look upon thy people; that by thy great goodness they may be governed and preserved evermore, both in body and soul; 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.

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis,          The First Book of Samuel,           The Book of Esther,
Exodus,           The Second Book of Samuel,      The Book of Job,
Leviticus,        The First Book of Kings,             The Psalms,
Numbers,        The Second Book of Kings,         The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles,      Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua,            The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges,            The First Book of Esdras,            Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth,         The Second Book of Esdras        Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras,
The Fourth Book of Esdras,
The Book of Tobias,
The Book of Judith,
The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Book of Wisdom,
Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children,
The Story of Susanna,
Of Bel and the Dragon,
The Prayer of Manasses,
The First Book of Maccabees,
The Second Book of Maccabees.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Article VI is interesting in that it highlights both how the English Church sought to distinguish itself from Roman Catholics, by teaching contrary to Rome that all Scripture itself was sufficient in teaching all that was necessary for salvation, while also highlighting through the Canon that it was accepting the Roman influenced Canon of Scripture which had been set by St Jerome in the 5th century, influenced as it was by St Jerome’s emphasis on the Hebrew-language masoretic texts over the Septuagint Greek-language Old Testament manuscripts which had been normative for Christians until that time.

What is interesting is that Article VI also distinguishes itself from Sola Scriptura the continental Protestant doctrine of “Scripture Alone” by recognizing that there were teachings that were valid beyond simply what was contained explicitly in Scripture, but they were not to be taught as being required to be believed for the purposes of salvation in the way that Rome had taught certain doctrines as “must believes” (for instance, the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the doctrine of transubstantiation as a philosophical explanation of how Christ is present in the Eucharist).

This aspect of Article VI is universally accepted, however there is some greater controversy over the listing of the Canonical books of the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. The controversy over the Canon involves the historical development of the Jewish Scriptures.

Over the centuries, Jews before and leading up to the time of Christ no longer lived exclusively in modern-day Israel. Following the various conquests of Israel, many Jews had spread out throughout the Persian Empire and then the Roman Empire. Culture at this time was Hellenistic, which is to say Greek, and the Jews of Diaspora had become thoroughly Hellenised to the point that many did not even speak Hebrew. This led at first to texts of the Hebrew Scriptures being prepared that used Greek phonetics to present the Hebrew words because no one in the Synagogue could read or speak the Hebrew. Eventually this led to wholly Greek translations of the Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Over time, particularly due to the growth of Gentile Christians who did speak Greek but not Hebrew, the Septuagint version became associated with Christians. Jews, on the other hand, particularly after drawing a greater distinction between Jews and Christians following the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD, began to reassert Hebrew as the language of the Jews, discouraging the use of Greek and the Septuagint. The Masoretic texts were created in the 4th century AD in an effort to create a new Hebrew language version of the Jewish Scriptures. Because of the animosity between Jews and Christians, some translation decisions and decisions over which books to include in their Canon reflected efforts to disprove Christian claims of Christ as the promised Messiah. St Jerome was influenced by the newer Hebrew language scriptures over the older Greek Septuagint, and brought into question the Canon of the Old Testament, something which continues to be debated today.

Even within the Article there is ambiguity over whether or not the “Apocryphal” books are counted as part of the Canon. Note that these books are not to be confused with post-Christian Apocrypha such as the Gospel of Judas or Gospel of James, which are universally accepted as being false books not written by the claimed authors. The Apocrypha here are books which were Canonically accepted as Scripture by the Jews and Christians until hundreds of years after the time of Christ.

The way the Article is written lends itself to multiple possible interpretations:

Of the names of the Canonical Books: [the list of the Old testament books], and [the Apocryphal books, and the New Testament.

Of the names of the Canonical Books are [the list of Old Testament books], and the Apocrypha is read only for example of life and manners, and the New Testament which is also Canon.

While the term Apocrypha is more commonly used for them, this term is both confusing (again due to false New Testament books called Apocrypha) and imprecise as it implies the books are somehow hidden. Another term, also used by the Roman Catholic Church, is Deuterocanon or Deuterocanonical Books, which means the Secondary Canon. This again highlights the status of the Books by which they, either as the lowest part of the Canon or highest form of sub-Canonical books form their own “secondary Canon” which is used for particular purposes but not entirely in the same way as the remaining books of the Old and New Testaments.

Article VI historically also represents only the second official and clearly delineated list of the Canon following the Roman Catholic Canon articulated at the Council of Trent. The Early Church had many canons, but they often differed and the early councils of the Church often affirmed them all or affirmed the books being used in lectionaries, creating ambiguity among modern scholars.

On Artillery

The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

While there aren't really any cannons in the Anglican Church, there are multiple canons. Canon is an honorary title awarded to both clergy and laity for recognition of service to the church. Canons may also refer to rules of the Church. In the Anglican Church of Canada, there is currently a great deal of debate over proposed amendments to Canon XXI of the Church which governs the rules for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Canons of this type exist dating back to the earliest days of the Church. When the Ecumenical Councils gathered, the decisions they reached were released in the form of Canons, lists of numbered rules that had been agreed upon.

There is a third form of canon, however, which is the Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture refers to the list of accepted books of the Bible in both the old and new testaments. To be canonical is to be accepted as authoritative, while being non-canonical indicates that the book is not authoritative as Scripture, though it does not necessarily mean that the rejected text contains false teachings.

The Canon of Scripture speaks to a seemingly simple question: where does the Bible come from, and how do we know it is the authoritative word of God?

We have two testaments, so the answer to these questions becomes two-fold.

In the time of Christ, references are made to the Scriptures, but of course these would have been to what we now consider the Old Testament. The Scriptures given to the Jews over the centuries. While the early heresy of Marcionism sought to reject the Old Testament, suggesting it described another god, separate from God the Father revealed by Jesus Christ, all Christians accepted the authority of the Old Testament books of the Bible, in continuity and interpreted through the lens of revelation in Jesus Christ.

While in general the Old Testament was universally accepted by orthodox Christians, there are a few points of division. The most substantive change comes from the two histories of the texts, the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. By the time of Christ, the majority of Jews were Jews of Diaspora living outside of ancient Israel and most often speaking the lingua franca of the ancient world, Greek. Because they spoke and read Greek, the Scriptures were written down in Greek and read in Greek. It would not have been unusual for many Jewish communities to not contain a single person capable of reading the Hebrew texts.

For the first few decades after the Resurrection, Christianity was viewed by many as being simply a subset of Judaism. Over time, however, and especially after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, they became viewed as separate. Partly because of the fact that Christians were using the Septuagint text and that they wanted to distinguish themselves as “proper” Jews, the Jewish authorities developed the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Hebrew Scriptures. In doing this, they adjusted their canon of Scripture, removing a few books which had previously been considered canonical and authoritative. The organization of some books was also adjusted.

This initially had a limited impact on Christianity and the Canon of the Old Testament until the time of Continental Reformation in the 16th century.  Between that time, Christian translations of the Bible would sometimes use both the Masoretic and Septuagint sources, with the canon remaining fixed by the Septuagint tradition. By the time of the Reformation, however, a number of reformers suggested that because the Jews had removed some of the books of the Old Testament from their canon, we ought to as well. Today, most Protestant Bibles continue to exclude those books.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, which has tended to stick to the Septuagint only as the source of its Old Testament books maintains the original numbering and order.

In the West, the Roman Catholic Church determined that the books removed from the Hebrew text would be deemed deuterocanonical, which means secondary canon. They still hold some form of authority, but they tend to be organized into a separate section either at the end of the Bible or between the Old and New Testaments, and held to a lower level of authority (in contrast to the East where no distinction is made between them and other accepted books of the Old Testament).

In Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion follow the Roman practice of organizing these books into a secondary canon called either the deuterocanon or Apocrypha, saying, “And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” The term deuterocanonical is often preferred to avoid misunderstandings with apocryphal books of the New Testament which contain false teachings. The deuterocanonical books are variously viewed as being the lowest level of Scripture, or by some as being the highest and most authoritative non-Scriptural books of the Bible.

The Canon of the New Testament is a bit more of an interesting story, though obviously parallels earlier developments in the canon of the Old Testament as it was assembled over the centuries by the Jews. The books of the New Testament were written roughly twenty to sixty years after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Over the course of the next few hundred years, the exact Canon of Scripture was not fixed and in different places you might have a smaller Canon of Scripture, set by the local bishop, which rejected some books which are now canonical, while other bishops might have a more expansive Canon, which might include books such as I Clement, which was extremely popular in the early Church.

St Athanasius the Great writing in the mid fourth century has the honour of writing the first canon of Scripture which articulates the Canon as we hold it today, more than three hundred years after the time of Christ. The reality is that until the legalization of Christianity in the 4th century, many of these matters were not resolved because they simply weren’t of sufficiently pressing concern.

When they were resolved, the general test for whether or not a book would be accepted in the Canon was whether or not it was Apostolic, meaning written either by an Apostle or in their name. This rule would account for the rejection of I Clement from the Canon, despite the fact that it remains to this day well-regarded and expounds no theological error and was written in the Apostolic Age (c. 95AD), but Clement was writing in his own name and was not an Apostle, but only a Bishop or Priest.

By the end of the fourth century in the West and the fifth century in the East (there remained there controversy over the book of Revelation, not because its authority was in question but because of concerns that it might be misinterpreted by future Christians), the Canon of the New Testament was universally accepted by councils of the Church, and fixed for all time as it remains to this day.

While there may not be cannons in Anglicanism, surely the authority and teachings of Holy Scripture represent an invaluable armoury to the Christian against the snares of the devil.