What is the proper role of the Thirty-nine Articles today?
Well, I am tempted to answer that question by saying "more than the Anglo-Papalists desire, and less than the Evangelicals want!"
Anglo-Papalists would really like to forget about the Articles of Religion altogether and shut them off into the "historical documents" category, if not loose them altogether. They recognize, quite rightly, that they are a road block to remaking Anglicanism in the image of 1930s, 1950s or modern Roman Catholicism.
Evangelicals, on the other hand, want to make the Articles into a narrow and binding Confession of Faith. This has a bit more justification behind it than the Anglo-Papalist position, but it still has its problems:
Firstly, Anglicans have never regarded the Articles as a Confession of Faith in the narrow sense, but rather as a broad affirmation to the Biblical version of Christianity. We have been required to subscribe to the Articles as "containing nothing contrary to Scripture" rather than asked to bind ourselves to a particular version of Biblical theology. This is a fair, logical, and Evangelical way of making one's subscription, as it commits us not to the personal opinions of a group of sixteenth century theologians, but to the doctrine of Scripture.
Secondly, I would also like to point out that the Articles have never been a stand-alone document. Not only do they refer not just to the Scriptures, but to the Early Fathers (specifically Jerome), and to the Book of Homilies, but we have always been bidden - for example, by Abp. Matthew Parker - to interpret them in the most catholic sense.
Thirdly, theology did not stop in 1563. The development of culture and society in history throws up new challenges to orthodox Christianity from time to time. The Articles do not answer these questions, but they do give us a theological method with which to approach new challenges. This method begins with Scripture, and looks to the Early Fathers and Councils of the Church to guide us as to the authentic teaching of Scripture. Private opinion has little or no place in our tradition.
Anglicans are first and foremost "Bible Catholics." Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, we teach that all doctrine necessary to Salvation is to be found in the Canonical Scriptures. We also take a distinctly Pauline and Augustinian approach to the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification. However, we also embrace the Catholic tradition of the Church that is rooted in the Fathers and the Councils in so far as it is compatible with Scripture.
The Articles of Religion are therefore part of a wider theological tradition built on the Bible, that includes the ancient creeds, the Early Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. They are not a stand alone document. Anglican tradition also affirms the principle of "adiaphora" and also affirms the need for dignity and beauty in worship, following traditional Catholic Uses in so far as they are not contrary to Scripture. Anglicans should reject all Papal additions and Puritan subtractions from the Faith of the (Early) Church. Unfortunately there are enthusiasts on both sides who will not be content unless we embrace the errors of Rome - or for that matter Geneva. As we are bound by truth and not expediency, we cannot in good conscience do this, but must remain faithful to the Bible, the Fathers and Ancient Councils, and our liturgical tradition as it is enshrined in the historic BCP!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Justification by faith alone (sola fide) and the sufficiency of Scripture on dogma (sola Scriptura) is not binding on Anglicans? The 39 Articles self-consciously expresses teachings which are agreeable or derived from Scripture. That is to say, the 39 Articles recognises no other authority than Scripture. Thus, just as Scripture is the primary authority, so are the 39 Articles the secondary authority in the Church of England.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, the 39 Articles bind the ecclesial and individual consciences of the three orders of the special ministry in the Church of England. The 'breadth' of the 39 Articles on matters such as predestination and atonement is not to be confused with its 'specificity' on sola fide and sola Scriptura. Recall that the Continental Reformers both from the Reformed (Bucer, Vermigli) and Lutheran (Augsburg Confession) tradition had a definitive influence and impact on the 39 Articles.
Then too there have always been the 'Predestinarian Consensus' in the Church of England from the Henrician until the Caroline period. Men like Hammond who combined universal atonement with an Arminian understanding of grace did not appear until the Restoration in 1662. Whilst the 39 Articles never advocated Dortian Calvinism, predestination ante praevisa fidei has always been entrenched in the mainstream Church. This explains why Whitgift and Whitaker both representing the Disciplinarian and Conformist (Puritan) could get their act together in prosecuting Baro, and drawing up the Lambeth Articles. This also accounted for why Andrewes and Hookers had their own modified version of the said Articles. This is why Charles 1 chaplain, John Preston and other churchmen like John Davenant held to 'hypothetical universalism' despite the agreeing on the heads relating to predestination and perseverance of the saints in the Canons of Dordt.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the 39 Articles are not binding betrays an Enlightenment approach. This occured only AFTER 1662, not before. That is when the Church of England NEVER recovered its doctrinal rigor. This is in turn is to be attributed to its doctrinal disunity so that only the Prayer-book, the BCP 1662 became the only viable project to once unite the Church on the basis of uniformity of worship.
ReplyDeleteDoctrinal disunity stem from polemics and politics of predestination in which, the Puritans for the most part insisted on imposing a distinctive brand of Calvinism including ecclesial regiment and liturgy which would have only made the Church a sub-set of the Genevan Reformation rather than a counter-part of the wider Protestant Reformation.
For the most part I agree with you. I certainly hold to the supremacy of Scripture in doctrinal matters, Justification by Faith only, and to a moderate Predestinarian understanding of Article 17. Like the Reformers themselves, I believe this represents primitive Christianity.
ReplyDeleteYou are perfectly correct in asserting that non-natural readings of the Articles of Religion start in the mid-eighteenth century. The most notable being that of Dr. Samuel "Arian" Clark who wrote what I can only describe as a "Tract 90 for Arians."
If you wish me to concede that the Articles should be subscribed to according to their natural and grammatical sense, then I am not going to argue with you. I believe that the basis of Anglican theology does indeed have to be that laid under the first Elizabeth.
Escellent writing on the 39 Articles. There seems to be a tri-fold attack on them, from the extreme Anglo-Catholics, liberals, and extreme puritans. I have read "Evangelical Faith and Catholic Order". The self-proclaimed "Reformed" went too far, even beyond Calvin, and destroyed the liturgy of the Church.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing by extreme Anglo-Catholic *if* by Anglo-Catholic you mean Anglo-Catholics who are still proper Anglicans. Anglo-Catholics are not proper Anglicans for the simple reason the Church of England is Protestant. The Church of England only comprehends High and Low Church, and the 'centre.' The Church of England (Continuing) is neither High nor Low but is self-consciously the continuation of the Cranmerian Prayer-book tradition.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Articles! Kydd the Anglican historian and theologan of the late 19 Cent, advised that the Articles should be viewed through the prism of the Seven Ecumenical
ReplyDeleteCouncils! The Orthodox call these the Seven Pillars of the Church and it is these, which in my opinion, contain after scripture the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and thereby the are the basic authority in Anglican Church.
Unfortunately for the Low Church Party, the 39 Articles are neither Reformed or Lutheran -- simply comparing them with the famous Confessions of the Magisterial Reformers reveal them to use fall well of short of Protestant Orthodoxy. This is why the Puritans so vigorously opposed the Articles and the BCP as non-Reformed. Indeed, it was not until after the Restoration that the Evangelicals began selling their revisionist, Reformed reading of the Articles. In more recent times, however, more balanced expositions of the articles -- see e.g., E.J. Bicknell -- show that they are neither Anglo-Catholic nor Reformed nor Lutheran, but rather repudiations of all these innovative theological stances.
ReplyDeleteP.S., Article 17 is most conspicuous in that it utterly fails to endorse unconditional or double predestination. Indeed, the mere use of the biblical term "predestination" implies neither, no matter what Low Churchman may say. Indeed, it only makes sense as a positive statement when read from a patristic viewpoint, which, prior to Augustine universally understood biblical predestination and election as conditional or synergist.
ReplyDeleteDeath, what do you make of Archbishops Whitgift and Ussher?
ReplyDeleteWhitgift is an example a conforming Puritan that Elizabethan I tolerated in spite of his failure to adhere to the formularies such as the Ornaments Rubric and the Articles. Indeed, were Whitgift and Ussher's understanding of Predestination contained in the Articles, he would have had no need to promulgate his Lambeth Articles.
ReplyDeleteBut, notice that when he tried to enforce his Presbyterianism upon the C of E via the Lambeth Articles, his efforts were suppressed. This is simply an example of the Church tolerating private error without giving it official imprimatur. The same goes for the Victorian Anglo-Catholics.
If we want to look at the matter positively we should see Whitgift simply as a member of the Catholic Church in England who had his problems. He was a member of a Church that held to the ancient formularies, on Apostolic Succession of both Doctrine and Orders. Which held to the Vincentian Canon and the Councils and which fought to preserve the ancient faith of the fathers, as did he!
ReplyDeleteThat he differeed in some aspects has already been mentioned, but it is not his beliefs that matterso much as those of the Chrch of which he became a member by baptism.
I see the repeating of the phrase "Seven Ecumenical Councils" as problematic, especially since the 7th ordered in its canons that idolatry be practiced in the churches; Calvin was right when he said that the distinction between veneration and worship was a distinction without a difference. Much better to go with Bp. Andrewes' "four councils and five centuries!"
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean about Pauline and Augustinian on justification? Are you talking about forensic justification?
ReplyDeleteAnd of course there is no Eucharistic Visitation to the sick and infirm as the sacrament may not be reserved nor carried to the place of ministry. And there is no room for variation in this, as the Articles are very clear.
ReplyDelete