On the Articles: Article XI

The Fourth Sunday after Easter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Church of England

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.

Whereas last week’s entry spoke to the origins of the Ecclesia Anglicana, the English Church, this week’s entry takes place in the 16th century, discussing the ending of communion between the English Church and Rome and the origin of the modern Church of England.

While the history of the English Church is relatively unknown in popular terms, particularly among non-Anglicans who focus purely on the idea of King Henry VIII replacing the pope as the head of the church in order to grant himself a divorce, it is at least relatively straight forward. The same cannot be said for the true history behind the English Church’s break with Rome and subsequent development into the modern Church of England and Anglican Communion. One of the reasons for this is that this portion of the Church of England’s history mixes together influences of both theology and politics.

The history of Christianity is replete with politics interfering with the governance of the Church, dating back to the early 4th century when the legalization of Christianity allowed early Christians, and their leaders, to focus on more than merely their own survival. Emperor Constantine the Great himself called the Council of Nicaea as a way of hopefully resolving some of the debates which had sprung up among the bishops throughout the Empire, and in doing so established the beginning of a precedent of civil interference in religious matters, a precedent which was not lost on many of the bishops who attended the council. In following years, the pro-Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia used his influence with Emperor Constantine to attack various anti-Arian bishops including Saint Athanasius and have them exiled. He further exerted influence with the Emperor to appoint Arian clergy and promote Arian doctrines in the Church in opposition to the Nicene Creed and Trinitarian formula that had been adopted by the Council of Nicaea.

The political influence of the Pope has a long history that dates back to the 4th century when the Roman Empire began to be split. Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were among the foremost cities in the Empire (to which was later added Constantinople). While Rome was originally the capital, under Constantine and subsequent Emperors, the capital was moved and the Empire often split between the leadership of a number of co-leaders. For many years, then, the Bishop of Rome was the senior most authority in Rome, and the Roman people looked to him not simply for spiritual leadership, but civic leadership as well. With the fall of the Roman Empire, the Bishop’s authority grew even greater as civic authority was disbanded. The powerful Roman Bishop easily moved into the vacuum created by the fall of the Western Empire, and over the centuries the religious and civic authority of the Pope was solidified to the point where in the 16th century the Pope was not just the leader of Western Christianity, but his own state and quite often a well-heeded advisor of numerous European monarchs.

Other examples are found of political influence in every era of the church. By the 16th century, however, perhaps the best example of this confluence of religion and politics was the Pope himself, who was not merely the head of the Catholic Church, but also the Head of State of the Papal States and an important political player in European statecraft. Pope Leo X had allied himself with King Henry and his allies a number of times over the years. Notably, perhaps, in exchange for a sum of money to support Leo’s ambitions of obtaining political authority for his relatives in the tumultuous Italian peninsula, Leo joined the Papal forces in an alliance with Spain and England against France. Ultimately, with Henry’s financial support for a military campaign, Leo’s nephew was confirmed as the Duke of Urbino.

It was under Pope Leo X that Martin Luther initiated what would become the Protestant Reformation. While the Reformation is perhaps best remembered today for opening the way to major theological expansion, Luther’s original goals were more limited to the reform of abuses being perpetrated by the Roman Church and by various clerics under Roman authority, most notably concerning the practice of indulgences. Indulgences were a form of remission of temporal punishment associated with an already forgiven sin. It was associated with alms during the early church, but as the practice grew in popularity during the medieval period, it became little more than a tax used to support various projects including the rebuilding of St Peter’s Basilica by Pope Leo X, which ultimately prompted Luther’s opposition.

Luther published his famous Ninety-Five Theses protesting various abuses of the Roman Church, sparking the Protestant Reformation. Pope Leo X’s response was to reject Luther’s demands for reform, and in this he was supported by his political ally King Henry VIII who, for his support of the Pope, was awarded the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) by Pope Leo X just prior to his death in December 1521.

It was under Pope Clement VII that communion between Rome and England ended. By 1527 Henry was becoming so concerned with the failure of his wife, Catherine of Aragon, to bear him a male heir that he took the matter to Pope Clement VII asking for an annulment on the basis of Leviticus 20. 21. At the time, however, Rome was besieged by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and nephew of Catherine of Aragon. Faced with the political pressure of Charles’ sacking of Rome in May 1527, Clement VII refused Henry’s request and a number of subsequent requests for an annulment. Over the course of the next three years it became clear to Henry and his advisors that no annulment would be forthcoming.

The politics of Pope Clement VII were making him an unreliable ally to the still staunchly Catholic Henry VIII. Papal supremacy was looking less like the spiritual primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and more like the political supremacy of a foreign and not necessarily friendly or reliable European state leader. In 1532, with the political support of King Francis I of France, Henry married Anne Boleyn and by the next year had his marriage and annulment of his marriage Catherine of Aragon recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. When news of the marriage reached Pope Clement VII, he excommunicated both Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer from the Roman Catholic Church. Over the next few years and with Henry’s support, the English Parliament passed a number of laws that redefined the relationship between the Pope and the English crown and state, curbing the Pope’s political authority in England.

The 1534 Act of Supremacy marks the full break of the English Church with Rome, declaring the King to be the supreme head of the Church of England. Supremacists argued that the Pope’s actions were being dictated by civil and political considerations rather than religion, and thus if the Church of England was to have a civil authority over it, it should rightly be an English, and not foreign, one. It should be noted that while there had been a political divorce from Roman authority, Henry VIII remained dogmatically inclined to Rome and following a visit by a number of Lutheran theologians in 1538, Henry had Parliament pass the Act of Six Articles, a precursor to the current Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which maintained complete orthodoxy with Roman Catholic belief.

The Church of England’s independence from Rome stemmed from Reformation issues, but rather than being based in theology, it dealt primarily with abuses of political authority rather than religious authority. The Roman Catholic Church, in its counter-reformation Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, recognized these issues explicitly with respect to indulgences, defending the theological value of indulgences while condemning the temporal abuses through the sale of indulgences. The Act of Supremacy is often cited as the start of the English Reformation, a period of significant instability in England. Not everyone accepted the King’s actions, and not everyone supported Henry’s retention of Roman Catholic doctrine. To this day, Henry VIII is not commemorated in the Anglican Communion. It would take until the Restoration in the 1660s before the issues of doctrine had been finally settled to the point where they would be able to remain intact to the present day and the current formulation of the Church of England would become recognizable with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion published therein.