On The End of All Things

The Sunday Next before Advent

STIR Up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Two and a half years ago, I began the Canterbury Calgarian as an attempt to figure out where my home was. In 2013 and early 2014, I had spent time exploring some of the basic theologies of various Christian traditions. Even today, I continue to on occasion attend Great Vespers at a local Eastern Orthodox parish out of reverence and appreciation for that tradition, and hold significant respect for the theological depth of the Roman Catholic tradition. It was in that context, as a lay person, that the investigation into Anglicanism was undertaken in this blog.

Yet today, I find that context is no longer applicable. When I began, I was an Anglican lay person who had recently come to make his home there. Today, I am an Anglican seminarian who has discerned a call to Holy Orders and is preparing for ordination. I am serving in a parish within the Diocese of Calgary, and the concerns reflected in this exploration have largely been concluded.

I am no longer as concerned with uncovering the historic nature of Anglicanism as I once was. The goal of this blog was to establish a clear vision of a traditional Anglican ecclesiology, one rooted in Holy Scripture and the teachings of the undivided Catholic Church. Over the past two and a half years and one hundred and fifty articles, a wide range of issues have been addressed from history, to the Sacraments, to the Anglican formularies and dozens of issues in between. The Anglican ecclesiological foundation has been laid.

As the year ends, it seemed appropriate then to consider a shift. In Christianity, death is not the end. There is a Tolkienesque sentiment there that finds its roots in Christ’s gospel. While this project is at an end, it does not mean that I do not have planned future projects to explore other questions of the faith.

In particular is this: having established this ecclesiological foundation, what are the implications?

Since the advent of digital technology and their proliferation, something that really only occurred within my own lifetime (one of the final generations of children to grow up without the ubiquity of personal computers, let alone personal digital devices), the pace of social change has accelerated dramatically. New secular sociological concerns and practices within society have profound impacts on how Christians live out their faith.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are a product of 16th century British law and culture, and while they are still quite applicable today, what does that look like? What unperceived challenges do Christians face today that have not explicitly been addressed by these guidelines on how the Christian faith was to be lived out in English society of the day?

From falling rates of marriage to the loss of respect for the authority of Holy Scripture, to simple issues of international connectedness and the wider ranging impact of states upon one another, there are many issues that challenge us in how we are to live out our faith.

This is essentially a shift from academic understanding of theory towards praxis.

While this shift could be lived out in this blog, rather than do so I intend to start fresh with this new perspective and new goal on a new blog. That leaves nothing more than to close out this one.

I think as I reflect, perhaps the biggest conclusion that can be drawn is the great value to spiritual formation to considering the questions that have been considered here. Understanding the nature of these foundational elements of the Catholic faith and Anglican tradition. When someone asks me something about the Anglican tradition, I generally am able to answer. When questions come up today about where Anglicanism is heading or ought to be heading, I can argue from a foundation of Anglicanism actually meaning something—this is harsh reality that for many Christians who do not come from confessional traditions where subscription to a particular confession is a requirement for membership in a particular church, they may not know what their tradition actually professes and their own beliefs may ultimately be incompatible.

This experiment has reinforced in my mind the importance of catechesis and Bible study going forward. I, as an interested Christian, learned quite a bit, and while perhaps not all the details are necessary to know (I can’t really come up with any theological implications for failing to know about the participation of British bishops at the Council of Arles, for instance), overall it seems in many cases, Anglicans have failed to be taught the richness of our own tradition, nor do we even seem to realize how little we actually know about our history.

I’ll close this out with a favourite collect from the Book of Common Prayer:

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that the words, which we have heard this day with our outward ears, may through thy grace be so grafted inwardly in our hearts, that they may bring forth in us the fruit of good living, to the honour and praise of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

On the Articles: Article XXXIX

The Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, absolve thy people from their offences; that through thy bountiful goodness we may all be delivered from the bands of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.

The Octave of All Saints Day

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXIX. Of a Christian Man’s Oath
As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement, and truth.

Article XXXIX, the last, addresses two different issues.

The first sentence of the Article notes that, “vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men,” by which it means profanity is barred. From the commandment not to use the Lord’s name in vain to Christ’s warning that what comes out of the mouth is more damaging than what goes in, there is a clear line in Scripture that tells us that Christians ought not to be vulgar. It should be recognized that there is a cultural context to profanity—what is considered to be profanity changes from language to language and time to time. In some cultures, for instance in Quebecois French, many vulgarities are sacrilegious, while in English, vulgarities are often sexual or relate to bodily waste. No matter their case, it is what they reflect from within us that is prohibited, and it is the causes of the utterances of profanity that is truly being warned against, not simply the utterances of profanity itself.

The second sense of the Article is a reference not to profanity, but to the swearing of oaths. While it is primarily the second part of this Article that addresses this, there is one historic way in which that first sentence condemning “vain and rash Swearing” also applies to the swearing of oaths. Historically prior to the reformation, it was common for young children to be sent to monasteries and convents. In order to be taken in, these young children would be required to swear oaths of celibacy, poverty and other forms. This Article condemns that medieval practice pointing out that it is a rash thing to have someone swear an oath so rashly, namely when they cannot understand the full consequences of what they are about to do. Biblically, the story of Jephthah (Judges 11. 29-40) seems to speak against this as well, as Jephthah swore rashly and paid a severe price for that mistake, being forced to sacrifice his daughter.
The second half of the Article makes a similar reference to the swearing of oaths in a way that would be understandable to modern eyes, namely the civil and legal sphere where oaths must be sworn, for instance before entering into a civil office or giving legal testimony in a courtroom. To some of the more radical reformers, Christ’s admonition to, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil,” (St Mt 5. 37) is interpreted as prohibiting the swearing of such oaths.

Yet there are many other places in Scripture where oaths are commended, from the Law of Moses (Deut 6. 13) to St Paul’s many references (Rm 9. 1, 2; II Cor 1. 23; Gal 1. 20). Nowhere in the Gospel does Christ overturn the law of Moses, and St Paul and the other Apostles, St James the Bishop of Jerusalem is mentioned explicitly in the Article.

It should be noted that there is room and even historic example, of how Christians ought to apply the lack of oaths, which comes from honesty: the lives as relate to Christians. In monastic communities, monks were prohibited from swearing oaths once they had joined their community because they were to be honest in all things and to swear additional oaths was to suggest they failed in their duty to be honest in all things. It may have been the extension of this practice to clergy in general in the medieval period that placed the seed of the prohibition of oaths among some of the radical reformers of the day.

In recognizing however that not everyone is held to such a standard, because not everyone is Christian, it becomes clear that this Article is a practical way of ensuring that Christians can relate to them in a pluralistic society. While the Christian should follow Christ’s commandment for honesty, that does not prohibit them from swearing an oath, to God or simply directly to another person, in order that the other party might believe them. Similarly, even among Christians, the use of contracts as a legal vow between parties are not prohibited as they can ensure clear understanding on both parties and ought not to be implied to suggest a lack of trust by one party towards the other.

The final sentence of this Article instructs that Christians ought to follow lawful civil authority, “according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement and truth.” This is a rather suitable prescription to conclude the Articles, saying simply that as far as our relationship to civil society goes, we ought to do our best to live in such a society in recognition that not all within it are Christian, but bearing witness to Christ in what we do, displaying justice, good judgement and God’s truth.

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.

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.

On the Articles: Article XXXIII

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXIII. Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided
That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a judge that hath authority thereunto.

Excommunication is a process largely alien to the modern Church, and so this Article is somewhat difficult to understand in a modern context, however in the time it was written it served as an important and necessary clarification for Christians.

Excommunication was for some time in the medieval period used as a tool of political power by the Bishop of Rome over various foreign princes. In England, it was partly responsible for forcing the King to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 that, among other liberties, also guaranteed the freedom of the Church. This practice of using excommunication as a political tool was never adopted in England after the reformation, however it did have a much more common application through the judicial system.

In England, Ecclesiastical Courts would routinely apply excommunication as a penalty for those who were summoned before the court but did not appear. The Ecclesiastical Courts in England dealt with a number of matter which at the time were considered religious in nature but which today are generally viewed as secular matters. For instance, they handled most matters of family law such as inheritances and matrimonial disputes. Other matters now considered civil matters were in the past considered religious in nature and fell under the purview of the ecclesiastical courts, such as defamation which was viewed as an assault on the soul rather than on the person. The use of excommunication by the ecclesiastical court remains common until reforms in the early 19th century.

Excommunication was thus being used in an effort to encourage sinners to repent of their ways. In order to make it effective, the sanction had to carry a material component to it rather than just the spiritual component of sanction. While the first thought is often to see being cut off from the Eucharist as a punishment inherent in excommunication, rather being shut off from the Eucharist was done out of concern for the well-being of the excommunicated person who if they were to receive would do so to their condemnation for having failed to adequately examine their conscious before receiving (according to St Paul’s warnings in I Cor 11). By requiring all other Christians to avoid excommunicated persons—their social lives and even livelihoods would be impacted—it would more quickly compel them to amend their ways and seek repentance with the Church.

While the Biblical authority for the practice of excommunication has never been in question, for a number of reasons, including the fact that it was English Ecclesiastical courts that often imposed the sanction and that those courts did not always exist in the colonies outside of England where Anglicanism flourished, the practice of excommunication has largely died out in Anglicanism. It remains in various forms commonplace among other Christian traditions including to some degree Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as well as various Protestant traditions, though they often do not use the term excommunication specifically given the history of having it applied to them during the time of the Reformation.

The Article can remain instructive, however, in that it recognizes that the purpose was one of reconciliation through penitence. When we consider who and what we as Christians associate ourselves with, do we consider why we might avoid something or otherwise boycott it, and what the purpose is in doing so. Does it serve to promote reconciliation with the Church? Does it serve to preserve our own faithfulness to God? Are we excluding others for the wrong reason, such as a desire to feel superior?

In the final series of the Articles of Religion, like Article XXXIII, they find themselves rooted in English law and culture, and particularly at the time of the English Reformation, and several of the particularities of the Articles are no longer applicable, however the general principles of how they instruct Anglicans to comport themselves remain timeless and as applicable as ever.

On the Articles: Article XXXII

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.

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

The prohibition on the marriage of priests and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church was an innovation of the medieval period, much like the administration of the Lord’s Supper in one kind only. While in the case of the Eucharist the full reasons behind the decision are no longer entirely clear, the decision to prohibit the marriage of priests and bishops is known and relates to abuses among families where positions were being inherited.

In the Scriptures, as noted in the Article which says that celibacy is not commanded by God’s Law, while St Paul does commend celibacy for those who are able to practice it, it is not commanded, and indeed in I Tm 3. 2-12 when St Paul gives qualifications for bishops and deacons, he mentions that they may be married.

While in the early Church celibacy was sought as Godly by many, it was never particularly enforced, and often those who promoted it did so for all Christians, not simply for the religious or clergy. Pope St Gregory the Great was the first to truly advocate it, given his monastic origins, though he was unable to enforce this on clergy in his time.

The Council in Trullo in 691, almost a century after St Gregory’s attempts to enforce celibacy, established the rule that married Christians could become priests, but priests could no longer marry, meaning that even if your wife died you could not be remarried, nor could a celibate priest be married after ordination. In addition, bishops were required to come from monastics and celibate priests (including priests whose wife had died). These canons remain in force among the Eastern Orthodox today, however the council was never ratified in the West, and its practices were not adopted.

In the West, then, both priests and bishops were permitted to marry, and often did. This led to dynastic tenures in various offices, where fathers would ordain their sons and offer them plum positions only for the son to later inherit the bishopric. This led to particular families becoming rather wealthy. In the West the First Lateran Council of 1123 sought to impose clerical celibacy, however despite the Pope’s efforts to enforce it, it was never wholly received, for instance in Ireland where married priests remained the norm.

At the time of the Reformation, the practice fell under challenge in the West. Martin Luther, a monk, had broken his vow of celibacy and married a nun. To justify this position, he attacked the authority of enforced celibacy by pointing to the freedom for clergy to marry in Scripture. Among Protestants, the practice soon became normative.

In England, it took until 1549 for clerical celibacy to be abolished, however during the reign of Mary I, celibacy was again enforced and married clergy were defrocked. It took some time for the practice of married clergy to again become normative, but it had by the early 18th century.

It should be noted that the Article does note that it is lawful for priests to marry, the Article concludes by saying that each individual should judge how best to serve godliness by either marrying or not. This passage is reminiscent of St Paul’s exhortation in I Cor 6. 12 that, “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.”

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 XXX

The Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity

KEEP, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy; and, because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall, keep us ever by thy help from all things hurtful, and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXX. Of both Kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

In his institution of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Christ provided us with both the bread and the wine. In the earliest times of Christianity, communicants would receive both the bread and wine, often by intinction, the practice of dipping the bread in the wine. This practice has been used continuously in the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, over the course of history in the West, a practice arose whereby the people would only receive in one kind, only the bread. Only the priest would drink the wine. The exact causes of this are unclear but, but one common supposition is that it relates to early limited understanding of the transmission of germs through the common cup.

While modern medicine has shown that sharing the common cup due to its nature will not cause the transmission of germs or disease, in the medieval period, particular under times of extreme plague such as the Black Death, there may have been a significant reluctance on the part of many communicants to receive from the common cup. A response may have been to temporarily allow the people to receive only in one kind, however this extraordinary practice ultimately became the common practice, even in times when there were no threats of germs. As the rationale for why only receiving in one kind was forgotten, the practice became not one of simply allowing the people to receive only in one kind, but of prohibiting them from receiving in both kinds.

As it became a more common practice, a theological rationale was established to justify it. After the development of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, also rejected by the Articles, Roman Catholics added a simple addition, that in the change of substance, the wine does not merely become Christ’s Blood and the bread does not merely become Christ’s Body, but rather the Bread becomes Christ’s Body and Blood and the Wine similar becomes Christ’s Body and Blood. The rationale for this was that while Christ’s Body and Blood were separated in his original sacrifice on the Cross, in the Eucharist we participate through his risen Body whereby the Body and Blood are rejoined.

This Article was only added to the Articles of Religion by revisions in 1563, yet that wasn’t the first time someone had objected to the Roman practice in the West. Jan Hus, a pre-Reformation Roman Catholic who left Rome over objections to numerous Medieval doctrines, and who was eventually executed for heresy. Rome continued to harden its position on administration in one kind, as it in particular also affirmed Rome’s claim that the Church and Papacy had the right to adjust Biblical practices. This had originally been done with the imposition of clerical celibacy, however this was a discipline of the clergy and not a doctrine of the Church. Communion in one kind, however, was a quasi-doctrinal position. When the Council of Trent sought to respond to the Reformers, they reaffirmed their position on reception in one kind, and so when the Council concluded in 1563, the Articles of Religion were amended to reaffirm the Biblical position that Christ instituted the Eucharist for all to receive and in both kinds.

Rome’s position was maintained until the reforms of Vatican II at which point the restrictions on reception of both kinds, however it has never repudiated its theological rationale.

While Article XXX looks on its face merely to be a repudiation of a particular practice, or one could even argue a repudiation of the theological rationale for Rome’s practice of reception in one king, it ought chiefly to be viewed as an affirmation of the primacy of Holy Scripture, and the rejection of the authority of the Church to implement doctrines which contradict the Scriptural witness.

On the Articles: Article XXIX

The Fourteenth Sunday after TrinityALMIGHTY and everlasting God, give unto us the increase of faith, hope, and charity; and, that we may obtain that which thou dost promise, make us to love that which thou dost command; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

In the era of the Reformation, there were many doctrines of the Eucharist being put forth, generally from the extreme on the one end of some of the more radical Reformers who proposed a form of memorialism that proclaimed a ‘real absence’ of Christ in the Eucharist (that it was merely an ordinance of eating bread and drinking wine in memorial of Christ as he commanded) to the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. Article XXV laid out general principles of the sacraments, Article XXVI expressed the issue of an unworthy minister, Article XXVIII addressed the nature of the Eucharist itself, and Article XXIX concludes this section of the Articles by addressing the question of the unworthiness of a communicant.

The Article establishes two criteria for those to whom it applies. First, the wicked, that is to say those who have failed to truthfully repent of their sins, and second those who lack a lively faith. These criteria would be entirely consistent with St Paul’s warnings in his epistle to the Corinthians where he establishes the criteria of discerning the Body (something which requires faith) and examining oneself before approaching to receive, which is to say examining your conscience in order to repent of any sins.

The Article continues that those who do not meet those criteria may visibly chew and consume, press their teeth, the Sacrament, but rather than being partakers of Christ, they are eating and drinking to their condemnation. This part of the Article bears closer scrutiny as it has, among other things, led to the development of a doctrine of receptionism that claims that there is no objective change in the elements during the Consecration, but rather when you receive it determines whether or not you will receive, in faith, Christ, or receive condemnation.

The receptionism understanding of the Sacrament is drawn from a reading of the Article which focuses on the first part of this sentence. “Yet in no wise are [the wicked] partakers of Christ.” But this is not actually the whole section. There are specific wordings to the conclusion of the full sentence in the Article that establish a clear and objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ presence in the Eucharist is not dependent on how the communicant, Christ is always present.

The full conclusion of the sentence says that the wicket receive condemnation as they eat and drink the, “sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.” If Christ is not present in the Eucharist itself and is only received in faith, the Eucharist itself could not be described as a sign or sacrament. A sacrament is defined in the Book of Common Prayer as an, “outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof,” (550). Much like transubstantiation, this view of receptionism, “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.” It is clear from the Articles overall and even this specific Article, however, that the Eucharist is explicitly viewed as a sacrament, meaning that any such interpretation of this Article or the nature of the Eucharist would necessarily be in error.

The clear alternative is that Anglicanism receives a Scriptural and Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Christ is truly present in it, but the effect can be either positive, when we receive in faith, or negative, when as St Paul writes, we receive unwarily.  Christ’s presence is objective, but the effect of his presence depends entirely on how his presence is approached or received, as the Scriptures say.

This Article is a good example of the way in which one of the Articles of Religion might seem at first to be overtly Protestant in origin, like several of the earlier Articles which mirror language from some Protestant confessions, but which on a closer examination can be nothing other than an effort to explain the English Reformers goals of bringing the Catholic Church in the Realm of England back to the doctrines of the undivided Catholic Church under the authority of Holy Scripture.

On the Articles: Article XXVIII

The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may so faithfully serve thee in this life, that we fail not finally to attain thy heavenly promises; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

 The nature of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, also called the Lord’s Supper, is one which has caused massive divisions among Christians and even been a cause for the shedding of blood during the Reformation and years subsequent to it. Article XXVIII continues in the series of Articles defining the sacraments by laying out some basic Anglican understandings of the Eucharist. Even among Anglicans, however, these Articles have found themselves open to interpretation.

This Article is divided into three main clauses. The first section defines what the Eucharist is. The Second explains the error of the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Third provides two clarifications relating to questions arising specifically during the times in which the Article was written.

The first section begins with the affirmation that, “the Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves to one another.” At the time of the Reformation, several different groups had sprung up on the Continent who began to argue that the Sacrament was not a sacrament, but simply an ordinance. Christ had ordered us to memorialize the actions, and so the Supper of the Lord was nothing more than a shared agape meal that symbolized unity between Christians. This Article makes it clear that to Anglicans, in the Catholic tradition, we recognize it as more than just a symbolic memorial of unity, “but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death.” The Sacrament is Christ’s Body by which we are granted eternal life. It is not simply a symbol, but God actually does something (conferring grace) through the Sacrament. There is a limit on this, though, with the final part of this section stating that it is only those that, “rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same” in which case the receiving becomes an anamnesis, a participation in or, as the Article states, “partaking of,” the Body and Blood of Christ in his perfect sacrifice for our sins.

The second section deals with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In brief, Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Christian doctrines with the recently re-discovered works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In particular he sought to use Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory to describe the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In the hylamorphic dualism, everything has a substance and an accident. Most generally, the substance refers to inherently what its nature is, while the accidents are its characteristics. For instance, the substance of a tree is wood while its accidents are that it is tall, has branches, a rough bark and so on. To Artistotle, something’s accidents could change but its substance would not. So again, in the case of the tree, one could take the tree, cut it down and turn it into a desk. Its accidents have changed—it no longer maintains the same characteristics—but its substance remains wood. To St Thomas Aquinas, the explanation of the Eucharist was found in this: the accidents of the bread and wine remain, but in the Eucharist, its substance changes from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

Article XXVIII provides several objections. First, it cannot be proven by “holy Writ,” which is to say it is not clear from Scripture that is what happens, therefore the Church cannot compel someone to believe it by virtue of Article XX. Second, it says that the doctrine of Transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament,” by which it means it is contrary to the definition of a Sacrament. The basis for that claim is the incarnational nature of sacraments. If a Sacrament is the grace of God working in and through creation, in a way similar to Christ himself being fully God and fully man, apart from sin, then transubstantiation cannot allow for that because the change in substance means that the created order is being eradicated and replaced by Christ’s divinity. Finally, it notes that this doctrine has led to several superstitions throughout the medieval Church.

This leads directly into the last two paragraphs which stem from this rejection of Roman Eucharistic doctrine. Firs it states that by faith, the Eucharist nourishes us in a spiritual manner, it is a meal of grace. Because this section does not explicitly deal with the issue of Real Presence, some have argued that it denies a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however, really what it affirms is the Sacramental nature of the Eucharist. That, by faith, as St Paul warns in I Corinthians, those who have worthily prepared themselves and discern the Body of Christ will receive God’s spiritual grace. This section is ultimately affirming that even if the doctrine of Transubstantiation is rejected, it does not mean that you do not receive grace. This was the doctrine of the early Church and even of Rome up until St Thomas Aquinas defined the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the 13th century.

The final section deals with the question of veneration of the Blessed Sacrament. In medieval times, a number of practices became normative in the Western Church as its teachings diverged from the teaching of the united Catholic Church of the first millennium. There were often good intentions with many of these. As a result of the seriousness with which the Eucharist was held, the practice of Eucharistic Adoration or Veneration arose, in which a consecrated host would be lifted up and displayed for all to see. Over time, there arose a common understanding that the veneration was a sufficient replacement for the grace received when actually partaking the Eucharist, only it did not bear the threat of penalty for those who received unwarily. Many Christians began no longer receiving the Eucharist and substituted the veneration instead. The stress in this Article suggests that Christ did not order the Eucharist to be venerated in this manner, a reminder that Christ instituted it for us to partake in it!

All told, the Article outlines a high view of the Sacrament that runs rather counter both to Roman Catholic doctrine as well as later protestant doctrines, though is relatively consistent with some of the earlier views of Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther along with that of the Eastern Churches.

On the Articles: Article XXVII

The Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy; forgiving us those things whereof our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

XXVII. Of Baptism
BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

After addressing the general nature of the sacraments and their administration, the Articles highlight the importance placed on Holy Baptism by describing it next, before going on to elaborate on the Holy Eucharist. This Article’s formulation again shows its opposition to protestant doctrines adopted, somewhat ironically, by the Baptists which argued that Holy Baptism was merely symbolic and unnecessary to adoption in Christ, and that rather than acting through the Sacrament’s God simply works through an individual’s belief.

This Article affirms the traditional view held by the Patristic Church and maintained also in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as some protestant traditions to lesser and varying degrees, that God acts through Baptism. In addition to being a sign of membership into the Christian fellowship, “it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth.” It is interesting that on the heels of Article XXVI, this Article also specifies that this applies to those who “receive Baptism rightly.” By rightly, it refers to the use of water and receiving the Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit according to the formula provided by Christ in the Great Commission (St Mt 28. 19).

The Article continues to discuss important features of Baptism. The Article states that those who receive it, do so for, “the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost.” This makes explicit the meaning of the previous statement of what Regeneration and grafting into the Church means. In Baptism our sins are washed away. As St Paul puts it, our old selves are crucified with Christ, put to death, and we put on our new selves, adopted into Christ’s relationship with the Father.

The Article continues by mentioning the visible action of chrismation, being signed and sealed by the Spirit. This section conveys a two-fold meaning. First, much like earlier when it referred to the formula of the Great Commission, here it refers to another visible part of the ceremonial that occurs in Baptism: we are visibly signed by oil as a sign of the Spiritual sealing which occurs as we are sealed as Christ’s own forever. The second point made here relates to permanency. There are some sacraments, for instance the Holy Eucharist, which may be received repeatedly. Indeed, with the Eucharist and Reconciliation it is encouraged! Others, however, such as Holy Baptism, are permanent and only to be received once.

The Article concludes by addressing another controversy of the Reformation era, and one which continues today, that of infant Baptism. Many different Protestant denominations felt that infant Baptism was illegitimate, because of their altered conception of Baptism itself. Yet the Article here claims that nothing in the Gospels with Christ’s institution of Holy Baptism, nor indeed in the Acts of the Apostles where Baptism is first demonstrated or anywhere else in the New Testament where Baptism is sometimes referred to does it ever suggest that children are not to receive Baptism. In fact, some argue that the witness of the Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles includes infant Baptism when it makes reference to whole households, which would have included infants, as well as references to how every single person in a crowd comes forward to be Baptised after accepting the Gospel.

While this controversy is specifically mentioned in the Article, there are numerous other controversies surrounding Baptism. Whether or not, for instance, Baptism requires full immersion or if it is sufficient to have water poured or sprinkled on the candidate. While these matters aren’t addressed explicitly here, the previous phrase which refers to rightly receiving Baptism does suggest that the Article is recognizing that there are certain requirements which must be met for Baptism to be effective. These requirements, however, by the Anglican tradition, would be matters explicitly referred to in the Scriptures. As nature of the use of water in Baptism is not referred to, it would generally be considered acceptable simply to use water in some manner. The Didache notes that the preference is for full immersion but where that is not possible, for instance in the Early Church as they went further north the water became too cold for immersion Baptism during long parts of the year.

The majority of the controversies surrounding Baptism are of a similar nature, being ones that deal with form and manner of the Baptism. Those issues have been addressed throughout the history of the Church from the earliest ages of the Church. This Article omits them because they had already been resolved, and instead focuses only on those new controversies that had largely arisen as a result of the Protestant Reformation which had developed new understandings and doctrines of what Baptism itself meant.

In staying true to the received understanding of Baptism, the Article highlights the antiquity of Anglicanism’s sacramental theology.

On the Articles: Article XXVI

The Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who declarest thy almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running the way of thy commandments, may obtain thy gracious promises, and be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the SacramentsAlthough in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’ s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

After having previously addressed the issue of who may minister to the congregation, in Article XXIII, it makes sense that the converse issue might be addressed: what happens when your priest is leading a sinful life? As the Article notes, “evil be ever mingled with the good,” meaning that this is not a new issue. Even in Biblical times there is the example of Eli’s two sons who led sinful lives despite following in his footsteps as priests, leading to their deaths, and Samuel’s ascension as God’s chosen priest and prophet.

The question here becomes more focused, though. If only priests may minister to the people through Word and Sacrament, what happens when that priest is sinful? The Article begins by noting that they do not minister in their own names or in the names of the people, but rather in Christ’s name, by his commission and authority. This is an interesting point to make as it runs counter to many theological arguments underpinning ministry in the Book of Alternative Services and in the modern Anglican Church of Canada, which argues that the priest ministers in the name of the assembled people, not in Christ’s name. There is a diminished view of the priesthood, no longer viewing it through the lens of anointing, calling and equipping, as the Article does. And yet, this is the standard of Anglicanism. In resolving this broader issue of whether or not one can receive the Eucharist from a sinful priest, the answer is absolutely going to change if one argues that the priest is operating in persona Christi, and in Christ’s authority versus someone who views the priest as ministering in nominae ecclesia.

The Article points out that when the priest ministers in Christ’s name, God’s grace is working through them whether or not they are wicked. This is an important thing to remember, as the reality is that all priests are sinners, just as all other humans are sinners. St Paul is explicit: all fall short (Rm 3. 23).

This is furthermore and interesting statement on the sacraments themselves. It is again reminding us that the sacraments are an objective reality: their grace does not depend upon the state of the person administering them neither upon the state of the person receiving (though future articles will address how the recipients state can affect the impact of the reception of the sacrament upon them). The Eucharist is effective, “because of Christ’s institution and promise,” not the status of the minister.

This again reinforces Article XXIII when you consider the question of why there would need to be priests if their presence doesn’t seem to matter. There it speaks of the importance of order in the Church. St Paul emphasized the in I Corinthians especially the importance of order, and so do the Articles of Religion.

To conclude Article XXVI, it says that even though God can work through the sinfulness of the minister, that is still not to be desired, and for the good ordering of the Church, where a minister is believed to be engaged in unrepentant sinful conduct, the matter should be investigated, as a matter of “the discipline of the Church.” Where their conduct is proven, it argues that the priest ought to be deposed.

This is an interesting statement in that today, it takes an extremely severe act to cause a priest to be defrocked. Most priests today that are defrocked, a relatively rare occurrence to begin with, suffer their fate not as a result of being found to have led a sinful life, but rather after criminal sanctions have been applied in the civil sphere. Where a priest admits to sinful living, famously the consecration of Gene Robinson who was in allowed to be consecrated bishop in the Episcopal Church of the United States despite being engaged in a relationship which, at least at the time, was regarded as sinful by the Church.

There are likely many less publicized examples of priests unrepentant of the sins and who, at most, receive a written rebuke.

The Articles of Religion make clear that this is not a matter of debate. When a priest, like any Christian, falls short, they are to repent of their sins. When they instead harden their hearts and say, “this is not sin and I have no need to repent,” they are placing themselves in the place of God and turning fully from him to live in their sin. There must be consequences in order to maintain the good order of the Church.

Anglicanism today, particularly in the Anglican Church of Canada, likes to congratulate itself on allowing for greater and greater diversity of opinions, but at no point should this tolerance for diversity of opinions include allowing private judgements on what is sin: that is a matter for God. Nowhere is leadership on this issue more important than in the priesthood: how can any lay people be expected to submit to God’s judgement when clergy themselves ignore it?

On the Articles: Article XXV

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXIII

The Eighth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXII

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXI

The Sixth Sunday after Trinity

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

The Octave of the Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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