They are a composite of
material taken from “The Principles of Theology” by G.W. GriffithThomas,
“Introduction to Dogmatic Theology” by E.A. Litton, recorded lectures by the Rt. Rev.
Leonard W. Riches, class notes by Rt. Rev. Gregory Hotchkiss, as well as miscellaneous
other sources of writings by the Church Fathers, other theologies (Historic & Systematic),
confessions, histories, etc.
Whoever has the misfortune of using these notes before they are fully edited, your
ideas and input are welcome. ;)
Future improvements (beyond editing) include more detailed comparative notes
about the Heidelberg Catechism, Augsburg Confession, Westminster Stds., and the
Councils of Trent. A longer term project is to use the Elizabethan Homilies as a
commentary on the Articles.
With these caveats, I hope that these notes may serve the purpose of binding your
thinking with the struggles, successes and mistakes of those who have gone before, giving
you an appreciation of the pastoral character of Anglican thinking, and providing you with
a good basis for further theological thinking.
Griffith Thomas in Introduction
First deals with definitions, those of revelation, faith, doctrine, theology, creeds, confessions
and articles, then the Anglican Articles.
1. Revelation
a. God unveils himself in a variety of ways, Nature, Man (creation?), History,
Judaism and Christianity.
b. God uses history as a revelatory tool (that God uses the human tools of discovery,
philosophy and evolution [of thought] as means or channels by which God has
revealed himself.)
c. Possibility of revelation supposes things:
i. Supreme Personal being who communicates
ii. We, who are able to be communicated with, having a capacity to receive
revelation
d. Christian revelation is the revelation of a Person to persons (p. xviii, ¶ 4). Facts
concerning the activity of God yield doctrine. Revelation is what God does and
says, Record is what men have written about what God does and says.
e. Revelation, being in history, is like history progressive. Prehistoric _ OT _ NT _
Postapostolic.
f. Revelation is life, it speaks about life given and life received. “The ‘chief end of
Revelation’ is not philosophy, or doctrine, or enjoyment, or even morality.
Christianity has these, but it is far more than them all. It is the religion of
Redemption, including Salvation past, present, and future. The ‘chief end’ of
God’s selfmanifestation is the union of God and man, and in that union the
fulfillment of all the Divine purposes for the world.” (p. xx, ¶ 1)
2. Faith
a. Human response to divine revelation (Jesus reveals: Mat 11.27, Joh 1.18 & 14.6;
we must respond: Heb 11.6, Mat 16.15)
b. Faith has two sides
i. It is the truth about God (Hooker, “certainty of evidence”), Faith is not
blind, but intelligent, resting on facts. Act 6.7 “the faith”, Jud 1.3, Tit 1.4,
Phi 1.27
ii. It is the trust which corresponds to God’s truth (Hooker, “certainty of
adherence”). Mat 8.5 “great faith”
c. Believing all the articles of the Christian faith should lead to trusting in God,
knowing the facts and trusting the author of the facts should be connected. (There
can be a difference, sins even demons can believe Jam 2.19) Therefore, personal
trust is the necessary aspect of faith developed from a knowledge of the truth.
d. Uses Latin to make a distinction:
i. Credo Deum (esse): I believe God exists
ii. Credo Deo: I believe what God says
iii. Credo in Deum: I trust in God
3. Doctrine Cites two Greek words: didach,| and didaskali,a. Coupled with the word
“Christian” (since these words themselves can either stand for truth or error) means the
fundamental truths of revelation arranged in systematic form.
4. Theology It is the “science” of God’s revelation. Whereas doctrine is general, speaking
about the essential matters of the faith; theology speaks about the facts and phenomena of
revelation in the Bible.
5. Creeds, confessions and articles
a. “Faith is response to divine revelation, and confession is the expression of faith.”
(p. xxiv, ¶ 2)
b. “Short, comprehensive statement of belief suitable for discipleship and worship”
(p. xxiv, ¶ 4), later driven by heresies, then in the reformation, new pressures
required new statements
c. Not without Biblical precedent: “By common confession, great is the mystery of
godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by
angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in
glory.” (1Ti 3.16)
d. confessions have been contrasted with creeds, but Thomas sees them as
developmental (i.e., lengthier) versions of creeds.1
1 Regarding early statements of the faith and the essence of Christianity (as well as the essence of
Anglicanism, consider these four as essential to Anglicanism: a) Holy Scripture, b) The three Creeds, c) The
Book of Common Prayer common prayer tradition, d) The ThirtyNine Articles of Religion the benefit of the
6. 39 Articles
a. Historical importance: namely, in relation to their origin.
i. Protestant nature against Rome
ii. Continental influence
iii. English Protestantism
b. Doctrinal points out areas of unity and diversity between English and other
churches.
c. Practical regarding the Christian life. It gives practical definition to a graspable
faith.
Second, he deals with the history of the Articles.
I. Fundamentally, 39 Articles are part of the many reformed confessions. As with them, it
was not only concerned to show the supremacy of Scripture, but the truths about which
they wrote were also in accord to the creeds and the early church.
II. Not only was Rome in view in the confessions, but also against reformational excesses,
such as the Anabaptists.
III. Review of Lutheran Confessions
A. Greater and Lesser Catechisms of Luther
B. Diet of Augsburg2 (a follow up to the Diet of Speier, which protested any forcing
of conscience in religious matters, and as augmentation of Articles written in
Schwabach and Torgau) stated the beliefs of the Lutheran protestors (p. xxx, ¶ 2).
Covered faith (21 Articles) and abuses (7 Articles).
C. Articles of Schmalcald, presented to a council at Mantua
D. Saxon Confession
E. Confession of Wurtemberg (framed on model of Augsburg)
IV. Review of Reformed Confessions these did not have direct influence on the 39 Articles,
but show the unity of essentials among the various traditions, as well as the differences of
detail.
Reformation.
As to what is universal to the church, some have suggested the “counting to five” method. 1 Bible, 2
Testaments, 3 Creeds, 4 Councils, 5 Centuries (1 5 A.D.). It comes from Lancelot Andrewes.
1st Council The First Council of Nice, A.D. 325; 2nd First Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381; 3rd
The Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431; 4th The Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451; 5th The Second Council of
Constantinople, A.D. 553; 6th The Third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680681; 7th The Second Council
of Nice, A.D. 787.
2 This statement, with the Confession of Wurtemberg, strongly influenced the 39 Articles.
Thomas makes special note of the fact that even though the Articles are sometimes verbally identical
with the Augsburg Confession, the doctrine of the Sacraments is of the “Reformed” type (using Thomas’
distinction), not Lutheran. (p. xxxiii, ¶ 1)
A. Zwinglian
1. 67 Articles of Zwingli
2. First Confession of Basel
3. First Helvetic Confession
B. Calvinistic
1. Institutes
2. Second Helvetic Confession
3. Synod of Dort
4. Westminster Confession
V. Roman these works were clearly known to the framers of the 39 Articles
A. Trent
B. Creed and Catechism of Pius IV
Thirdly, GT gives an outline and analysis of the structure of the Articles. This
is included in the language of the Articles themselves.
Tape 1:
INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
16th century reformational statement, important for all Christians, particularly
for those who claim to be reformed. Also, and obviously, important for those
in Anglican tradition. GriffithThomas speaks: “important to history and faith /
doctrine. Part of reformation position and protest.”
Introductory Comments
1) Historical, the Arts define the std. of belief for the CoE, and that of
the reformed churches of that time.
2) Doctrinal, they define the std. of belief for the CoE. They identify
points both identical and distinctive to Anglicanism. Thus, historical and
doctrinal perspective.
3) But beyond historical and doctrinal character, the practical value is
more important. Hence the title: Articles Agreed upon by the Bishops and
Other Learned Men in the Synod at London in the Year of Our Lord God 1552
for the Avoiding of Controversy in Opinions and the Establishment of a Godly
Concord in Certain Matters of Religion. Pastoral intent is evidenced here.
Addressed needs of the church, her peace, stability and well being.
Hardwick: Not intended to be a complete body of divinity, but enumeration of
some truths, which have been denied by some persons. Again, pastoral
practical character.
It will be seen that the Arts are written somewhat differently from other
reformed confessions, taking into account pastoral concerns. Cites Thomas re:
revelation, that revelation is life. See Thomas, p. xx, ¶ 1. Life is practical, thus
confessions must not only be factual / doctrinal, but also pastoral.
Riches discusses biblical revelation, its purpose being the relationship between
God and man, not grist from the human mill.
Speaks of the open character of the Arts, see p. xxiv, ¶ 1, as a skeletal
structure. Points out that anything more than that would actually be counter to
the stated intent. It would not have avoided controversy, but created it, and not
in a healthy way. The more precise one becomes, the more one excludes the
‘population,’ until only one person could be left. Thus the stress on both
Biblical and ‘ancient church’ ground, so that being in concord with the early
church was required for Christianity, but not to the binding of the consciences
of men on nonessentials. (Unity / Essential; Diversity / Nonessentials;
Charity / Everything). We cannot be more precise than God is.
Every ecclesiastical tradition has a personality or character. Spoke of
Presbyterianism as juridical. Tries to define and decide all things. Even speaks
of churches as looking like court rooms. Westminster Stds. tries to speak to
ALL things. Whereas the Arts speak without equivocation about essentials,
but leaves other matters undefined. Quotes Bishop C.S. Gibson: extravagance
of the continental reformers in defining small points, contra the English Arts.
Also points out that the creeds are short and skeletal. It is part of theological
education to gain precision of distinction and detail, and also perspective and
scope.
This perspective is to be contrasted with the comments of F. Bente in the
Concordia Triglotta: “The Lutheran Church differs from all other churches in
being essentially the Church of the pure Word and unadulterated Sacraments . .
. the precious truths confessed by her symbols in perfect agreement with the
Holy Scriptures constitute the true beauty and rich treasures of our Church, as
well as the neverfailing source of her vitality and power.”3
And again: “Not being formally and explicitly adopted by all Christians, the
specifically Lutheran confessions also are generally regarded as particular
symbols. Inasmuch, however, as they are in complete agreement with the Holy
3 Preface, p. iv
Scriptures, and in this respect differ from all other particular symbols, the
Lutheran confessions are truly ecumenical and catholic in character. They
contain the truths believed universally by true Christians everywhere,
explicitly even by inconsistent and erring Christians. Christian truth, being one
and the same the world over, is none other than that which is found in the
Lutheran confessions.”4
Analysis: Having such a view of one’s confessions exceeds Luther himself and
leaves one either the sole repository of the faith, much like the Roman church,
or leaves one bereft of a workable confession, opening oneself to unbelief.
He continues by talking about inscripturated revelation, meaning that ‘truth’ is
incorporated in objective revelation, not in subjective perceptions of the
objective truth. The record (in other words) is infallible, and we can have
confidence therein. But we must be humble concerning our approach. (1Ti
6.1516, Isa 55.8, Rom 11.33) Knowledge points to mystery, and together
knowledge and mystery leads us to worship.
Foundational truths. Help us see the universal church, the reformation
churches and the English church. We should learn from their doctrine and their
character. Make note that the 39 Articles follow the general outline of the
Apostles’ / Nicene Creeds.
Not just history, philosophy, ecclesiology but perhaps cause us to look at our
own faith, nurturing to our own soul.
Historical Comments
Articles come, not out of a vacuum, but from the context of other formularies.
Preparation for publication of the first prayer book coincide with development
of the Arts
English
1536 10 Arts, put forward by English church during the transition.
Two sections: 5 doctrine, 5 ceremonies. Evidence the reforming beginnings,
but not a reformed stance. Attempted to provide some landmarks for where the
church was and was going.
1537 Bishop’s Book / Institution of a Christian Man, see Hotchkiss,
p. 7
4 p. 3
1538 13 Arts, Cranmer presiding, Lutheran & English clerics. 13
were never sanctioned, but formed a key link to the official 39. (13 were a
relatively recent development)
1539 Note the ‘Henry’ effect: here and there, depending on motives
and movers, thus the 6 Arts, very Roman catholic (Riches calls them
dramatic), including prison sentences for reading the Bible, capital sentence
for denying transubstantiation. This is largely due to Stephen Gardiner’s
influence.
Revisions post definition
1552/3 42 Arts original version. The king and privy council put
forward order that Cranmer frame articles of religion for the purpose stated in
the above cited title. Cranmer wrote 45, submitted to Bishops and divines, then
returned to Cranmer. Present Art 29 was originally in 4 separate articles, but
these were compacted into one, making the total 42. The document worked on
two problems, both those of Rome, as well as the Anabaptists. Make note of
the purpose of neither maintaining medieval church, as well as the radical
Anabaptists on the other (against government, as well as sacramental
problems).
1553 Mary Tudor repealed arts and other reforming moves.
1558 Elizabeth restores Arts and wants them better framed. Wanted a
form for unity. Think about Act of Uniformity in the German situation. Riches
notes that Elizabeth had no interest in winning Rome, but uniting Protestants.
See Thomas xlv, ¶ 34.
1563 The 42 are reduced to 38.
1571 39 Arts appear with listing of the Apocrypha, affirmative clause
of Art XX, for further comparison, see Thomas, pp. xliii xlvi.
1801 American version, the version referred to in the Declaration of
Principles, and therefore the version used in the lectures. Thomas uses the
British version. Art 8 z.B. lists three creeds, but American version has only
two creeds. We’ll deal with those in due time.
Germany
1530 Confession of Augsburg, Melanchton’s work
1552 Wurtemberg, presented to Tridentine council, framed on model
of Augsburg, containing 35 Arts. This was used by Parker in the revisions of
the Edwardian 42 and revised them accordingly to the 39 in 1563.
Article I5
5 These definitions will be required for this Art:
A Posteriori method of reasoning starting with effects (events occurring post or after) and deducing causes.
Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
THERE is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or
passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of
all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be
three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost.6
Considerations: Context, Manner, Content
Context:
A Priori That specific conclusion deduced from general principle, not from experience. Starting with causes
(prior events) and deducing effects. Used to describe knowledge possessed by the mind prior to experience, i.e.,
innate knowledge. It is clear a priori that ‘a whole is equal to the sum of its parts.’
Deduction knowledge or assumption of knowledge drawing from general principle to discover specific facts.
If a premise is correct, its conclusion is also correct.
Induction drawing from specific facts to discover general conclusions (syllogistic thinking). “All men have
beards, Mark has a beard, Mark is a man.”
Also see notes from GT on:
Article I
From Thomas:
Points out the general theses: Unity / Trinity of God
I. Existence of God
A. Discusses theism in general, as something not unique to Christianity. Notes that
Art assumes existence of God. (4, 0)
B. Speaks of the origin of the idea of God as either intuitive or as a matter of logical
deduction. (4, 1)
C. Then speaks of a priori or a posteriori proofs for God, speaking of the a posteriori approach as
“better and easier” (5, 2).
D.Then cites 5 a posteriori arguments for God:
1. Ontological (6)
2. Cosmological (7)
3. Teleological (8)
4. Anthropological (8)
5. Christological (12)
II. Nature of God (aspects named in the Art)
A. Unity “one . . . God”, meaning numerical, but even more, essential, he is the
unique, the highest, that being under which all other things are found, the
sovereign ONE, the highest of all
B. Life he’s the life and source of life, he’s the living God as opposed to the “dead
gods” of idolatry
C. Truth not truthful, but true, genuine, substantial (truly existing), as well as true in
his moral nature
Separation between England and Rome called for clear explanation of
divergence and unity. Why was church different from Rome? Many later
Articles will deal with that directly, but the initial Articles speak of unity with
ancient church. Unity and catholicity come first. This is quite the same as how
the Augsburg Confession claims itself. This is the first of 5 which speak of
unity of church, unity with creeds of first 5 centuries. Links with past, with
Christian mainstream.
D. Eternal required for a First Cause unlimited by created boundaries, time and
space.
E. Spiritual “without body, parts, passions”
1. not limited by power or space, such as ‘bodies’ are
2. essentially unified (justice / mercy), without division, conflict
3. not subjected to another, by whom God could be affected, denies
impotence or imperfection. It does not deny “passion” in the more limited
sense that he has no emotional capacity, which denies personality. If God
is angry, he is angry by his own volition.
F. Consider also Rationality, Morality and Personality (personness, able to relate,
having ethical and emotional character) of God
G. Need to also speak about anthropomorphical language / image of God in man, see
Greg’s notes, leads to next topic
III. Attributes of God general and ethical remember that God’s character is not merely
philosophical, but also ethical / relational
A. General
1. “infinite power” omnipotence all power adequate for all necessities
(which are imposed upon God by himself and his own nature). This does
not rule out selflimitation (the idea of God having a specific nature
demands a form of selflimitation), God cannot lie, z.B. Also, God limited
himself to manhood in Christ. But this not imposed from external
necessity, which would require some(one/thing) greater than God.
2. “infinite wisdom” omniscience
3. “maker of all things” matter is not eternal, transcendence of God
4. “preserver of all things” God has not left the world which he created
(immanence)
5. God in nature consider the unity / diversity of transcendence / immanence
particularly the dangers of deism / pantheism (humanism?). See Van Til
on two religions, Christianity or pantheism
B. Ethical
1. Truth
2. Holiness
3. Faithfulness
Manner
Declarative in form Continuity and diversity from Romanism, but also
establishes tone and sets precedent for the articles which follow. It avoids
speculative or philosophical problems and states clearly the biblical faith, in a
personal and practical manner. Litton (his intro. dealing with Christian theism,
p. 91, ¶ 23) [Alistair McGrath / Theology?] writes that thinking about God
must not “terminate in itself” as purely philosophical contemplation, it loses
it’s character as Christianity. He writes further that the Trinity is the Trinity of
4. Wisdom
5. Benevolence “infinite goodness” God is not malevolent
IV. p. 20 Revelation of God in Christ (beginning to deal with Trinitarian aspect of Art)
A. 21 Trinity unique to Christian theology German Dreieinigkeit. See statement from
Athanasian creed (CT, p. 33, [Latin] ¶ 6, 1516, 2025).
B. 21 Slowly unfolding nature of the doctrine rather than dry, straightforward
statement
C. 22 But is it derivable? Incarnation leads to the conclusion, as well as specific
claims of Jesus. The key point in the following texts is that the relationship
between the persons of the Trinity are of “personal experience” of Christ and his
teaching.
1. Disciples conclude it Joh 20.28 “Mein Herr und mein Gott!”
2. Acts of the Apostles 2.22, Peter both points to the Sonship / Messiahship
of Christ & the fact that his hearers must own Christ and Lord and master.
See also Jesus as source of healing (3.6, 16), prince of life (3.15), corner
stone (4.11), only way of salvation (4.12).
3. Jesus teaches it; Joh 10.30 (“Ich und der Vater sind eins.”), re: the Holy
Spirit (Joh 4.1617, 26; 15.26, 16.715).
4. Doctrine of HS as developed in Acts: 5.34, 9 z.B., and the work of the HS
in the church: 2.4, 8.29, 10.19, 13.24, 16.6, 20.28.
5. Epistles: 1Th 1.1 ff., 1Pe 1.2, Rom 15.30, 2Th 3.16, 18, 1Co 2.46, 2Co
13.14, 1Pe 1.2
D. 24 Doctrine is confirmed in the epistles, see p. 24, ¶ 1 and the lists of texts, etc.
E. Might add that this is confirmed in the creeds and by the earliest fathers
1. Polycarp: “But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus
Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest,
build you up in faith and truth.” (Epistle to the Philippians, Chap. 12)
2. Ignatius argues for unity of church from relationship between Christ and
the Father: “For even Jesus Christ does all things according to the will of
the Father, as He Himself declares in a certain place, ‘I do always those
things that please Him.’ Wherefore it behoves us also to live according to
the will of God in Christ, and to imitate Him as Paul did. For, says he, ‘Be
ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.’” (Epistle to Ephesians,
redemption, serving the purpose of saving mankind, that is the basic reason for
which God reveals himself.
Ontological Trinity being of God as he is, as it exists in itself, without
reference or relation to any other thing or being. And this is a treatment of God
that would be difficult (if possible at all) to find in the Scriptures. Father
begets, Spirit spirates from the Father / Son, eternal generation of the Son.
Having said “begotten of the Father before all worlds,” what else can we say?
Chap. 3)
F. OT Evidence
1. Unity Deu 6.4: “Höre, Israel, der HERR ist unser Gott, der HERR allein.”
2. Diversity
a. Elohim (~yhil{a) plural name of God with singular “create” bara
ar'B'
( ), Gen 1.1 (similar construction in 2Th 3.11, where Paul mentions the
Father and the Son, and the verb “direct” is in the 3s Opt. Aor. Act. of
kateuth8nw [kateuqu,nai]).
b. use of plurals in Gen 1.26, 3.22, 11.7
c. Angel of the Lord as Christophany: Gen 16.7, Exo 3.2, Num 22.22,
*Jdg 2.1, etc.
d. Spirit of Jehovah: Isa 40.13, not a force, but a person(ality)
e. Personification of wisdom: Pro 8, Joh 1.118 (logos), and 1Co 1.24
f. The thrice holy of Isa 6.13 is a hint? Not to be pressed, but not to
be overlooked
G. 27 Superiority of the doctrine: In summary, religions conceive of God as
Transcendent (Deism, Islam), or Immanent (Pantheism, Buddhism). Christianity
sees both as the same time. See Paul’s sermon, Act 17.2428; God as creator, but
nearby. Thomas also speaks at some length about the “reasonableness” of the
Trinity, satisfying the “incomprehensibility of Agnosticism, the immanence of
Pantheism, the transcendence of Deism, and the personality of Theism.” (p. 28, ¶
1)
H. Historical phrasing:
1. Greek: mi,a ouvsi,a evn trisi.n u`posta,sesin
2. Latin: una substantia, tres personae
3. Art 1 of Augsburg Confession (which lent itself in large part to Article I of
39 Arts) says: “And the term ‘person’ they use as the Fathers have used it,
to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.”
6 Influenced by the Confession of Augsburg. The wording follows in English and Deutsch.
Article I: Of God.
“. . . there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of
infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there
are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the Son, and the Holy
Can say some things; the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father,
but even those things have been revealed to us for the purpose of undergirding
the understanding of our redemption. (Here, for example, God is in
relationship to himself, leading to the possibility of other relationships, such as
with us.) But too much more is speculative.
Economic Trinity Bible spends much time describing how God relates to us.
(Father creates, Son redeems, Spirit sanctifies) oikos, leading to oikonomia,
stewardship, dealing with the way God deals with his “household,” his affairs
with respect to creation. This is the general Biblical approach, God in
relationship. Let us follow the lead of the Bible in the consideration.
“Immediate object Trinity of redemption.” (Litton)
Disciples, how did they learn Trinitarian theology? Not after an Athanasian
model (not to downplay it’s precise articulation), but the disciples learned by
living in the company of Jesus. Thomas says on p. 22 that the “doctrine of the
Trinity is an expansion of the doctrine of the Incarnation.” It arises out of
Christ’s own teaching. Joh 1.18 tells us this about Christ and his ministry and
service. God made flesh in Christ. Thomas: Jesus uses “personal impression,”
the lessons of life and practice.
Theologians speak of the actions of God ad intra (those activities which occur
within the context of the Trinity itself: generation, filiation, spiration). But in
Article 1, one does not see such distinctions. Such thinking has a place, but the
NT approach is primarily “economic” in its relationship.
We can also speak ad extra, relationship of God to the created order and more
specifically to the people who are made in his image, and to his redeemed
(purposed and accomplished). It is now the Father who calls, the Son who
redeems and the Spirit who sanctifies. The NT points out that God is unique in
these relationships, and THIS is how we become aware of the other aspects of
God’s character. We soon gain the “impression” from the NT that Jesus of
Nazareth speaks only as God can speak, does, claims. (Mar 2.7, Mat 8.27)
These understandings came gradually, not because there were theology notes.
Ghost . . .”
Der I. Artikel. Von Gott.
“. . . daß ein einig göttlich Wesen sei, welches genannt wird und wahrhaftiglich ist Gott, und sind doch drei
Personen in demselben einigen göttlichen Wesen, gleich gewaltig, gleich ewig, Gott Vater, Gott Sohn, Gott
Heiliger Geist, alle drei ein göttlich Wesen, ewig, ohne Stücke, ohne Ende, unermeßlicher Macht, Weisheit und
Güte, ein Schöpfer und Erhalter aller sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Dinge . . .”
They were confronted with the reality of this Jesus, and his redemptive acts
and character were not human. They soon came to realize the fact of Col 2.9.
In personal relationship, the persons interact with each other. Baptism of
Christ is an excellent example. (Mat 3.17) Distinct persons, each in relation to
each other, working distinctively, but not separately; each redemptively in
relation to us. “For us men, and for our salvation.”
Content
Two aspects: 1st, affirmation of unity of the Godhead. Sets the church’s
affirmation of faith in the broadest possible context of divine selfdisclosure
and redemptive history. Here we see, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
(Deu 6.4) So here, “There is but one . . .” So it sets itself not only in the
context of historical Christianity, but in the context of redemptive history, of
Israel, etc.
2nd, affirmation of diversity / personal distinctions. Historical terminology is
used, but without precise definition, without belaboring each of the points.
One substance (substantia / essentia being). If substance is used, it could
imply materiality. Same with essence. But what are alternative terms. We are,
after all, material creatures and must express ourselves in that way. The phrase
“without body, parts, passions” excludes materiality. God is not corporal,
composite, captive (to fickle feelings or emotions, external motivations, God is
not influenced or changed or altered by things outside himself. God is not
impressed, etc. God is not contingent).
The three subsistences/persons of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Again, language
creates some problems, in that persons = people. Here, simply meaning a self
conscious, acting subject. Conscious of own existence, capable of volition and
action, in turn, may be object of action (not impersonal, mere force). Each can
and does say “I” of himself, and addresses the others as “you”. Baptism, again,
an example. Father addresses the Son “You are / this is”. Jesus addresses the
Father in Joh 17, or “garden prayer”. Jesus promises to send another comforter,
the Spirit of Truth, does he mean, I’ll send myself? The activities of the Spirit,
comes, bears witness of Jesus (I am the Spirit, I bear witness of the Son).
Pressing beyond this point goes further than Article, and perhaps further than
we can comprehend.
Remember that the incarnation is the point of reference. The Triune God is
described in human terms, “living” and “true”, “eternal” is a little bigger,
cannot embrace it fully, but understand “really big”. “Infinite power, wisdom
and goodness.” Each of these terms bears some analogy to humanity. In some
cases, more directly analogous, in others, not. But in any event, the Bible
speaks in the same way. Image of God in man plays in here. The attributes of
our being bears an analogy to God’s attributes. Otherwise, how would we be
able to know, because how would God be able to communicate. Without
analogy, there is not knowledge. The entire universe is the means by which
God makes himself known. “Heavens declare . . .” “Invisible attributes, being
clearly seen . . .” (Psa 19.1(d2), Rom 1.20)
God made humanity in his own image and likeness. There is analogy. But also
recognize that where this is analogy, there is also difference. That is, there is
not attribute of God that we bear entirely, or the other way around. God makes
himself visible, and particularly in Jesus. And when we see that revelation,
then we know God. (Joh 17.3) Knowing God is eternal life.
Article II
Of the Word, or Son of God, Which Was Made Very Man
THE SON, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the
Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took
Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two
whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the Manhood, were
joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very
God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to
reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but
also for actual sins of men.
Cites from the Great Litany: “By the mystery of thy holy Incarnation, good
Lord deliver us.” This article brings a redemptive focus to the theology.
Borrows phrases from ancient church. Again, continuity is in view, showing
the relationship to catholic Christianity. The link with the past serves to
nurture and strengthen the people. I.e., minimal of technical terms and abstract
language.
All the elements are brought to bear reminding us that they happened
“to reconcile His Father to us . . .”
p. 41 of Thomas:
“It should never be forgotten that Christ is of necessity infinitely more than any human
formula. This is true even of human personality, and more it is true of the Divine. Statements
such as those of the Creeds and this Article are intended to guide and guard our thought,
enabling us to form clear conceptions and indicating limits within which our thoughts may
move in safety.”
Covers some of the early heresies. Make note of pendulum effect.
Errors re: Deity / Humanity
Ebionites (Hebraic, earliest error of Judaizers): Denied Deity: They
desired to honor Christ, but could not reconcile Deity of Christ with their strict
monotheism. Like those during Christ’s time, the Ebionites could not deal
with Christ’s equality with God (Joh 5.18). Denied deity of Christ, made him
to be the last great prophet. The Spirit was “upon” him, but departed before
the crucifixion.
Docetists (Hellenistic, earliest errors of Greek trained Christians)
Denied humanity, thought in terms of gnostic dualism, material and
immaterial, good and evil, etc. Good = immaterial / spirit, evil = material /
physical. In their thinking, how could God himself (good / immaterial / spirit )
become flesh (evil / material / physical)? By them, unthinkable, therefore
denied. Like Ebionites, wanted to honor Christ, but needed to remain
consistent to their thinking. They posited him to be an appearance, a
“hologram,” a nonreal immaterial thing. Christ appeared to be human, he
seemed to be real (doke,w doke_). This, of course, makes all things having to
do with Christ would also only appear to have happened. But John speaks of
what our hands have handled, etc. 1Jo 4.23, as well.
Arianism (320) denied deity stated that he was a “first” creature, a
unique creation, even perhaps a deified man, but nevertheless, simply a man.
This heresy resulted in the Nicene council. The councils allowed for a
“tension,” both God and man, an unresolved set of facts. That is what the
Scriptures say. He is very God of very God, but also bone of our bone. This is
the controversy over the difference between o`moiou,sioj (like) and
o`moou,sioj (identical).
Errors re: Dual nature
Apollinarianism (310390) merging denied that Jesus had a true
human, rational faculty such as men do. Like us in his manhood, but different
in that his soul/reason was actually the Spirit. God encapsulated in flesh,
“brain transplant Christology.” If we could imagine a lion (z.B.) with a human
brain. That’s the kind of Christ Apollinarus offers us. Also unable to offer a
perfect vicarious sacrifice, since he’s not one of us, neither / nor, but a tertium
quid, a hybrid order. It’s a merging of the two natures.
Nestorianism (428) separating denied that Christ was God. He
separates the two natures of Christ, having a dual personality. Christ is actually
two people, in close cooperation; only the divine Christ is to be worshiped,
while the human Jesus is only the tool or vessel of the divine Christ. This was
perhaps meant to counter a somewhat extravagant use of the term theotokos
(god offspring), “Mother of God”. He uses the analogy of the indwelling
Spirit in the believer to discuss the analogy of God in Christ. Here is where the
word monogenhj (only begotten) becomes important. But Nestorius offers
“Siamese twin Christology.” Ephesian council denies this heresy.
Eutychianism (about same time as Nestorianism, being deposed 448,
also from Constantinople, as was Nestorius) merging denied distinction of
natures, saying that Christ was not actually of the same stuff as us (humanity),
fusing natures of Christ into a composite form, neither divine nor human.
Most other errors of those days, or of these days, are variations on these
themes. Chalcedonian council dealt with these last 4 errors:7 Thomas writes:
“Against these four errors the Church, as represented at Chalcedon, emphasised four
watchwords. In opposition to Arianism, Christ was declared to be ‘truly’ God; in opposition
to Apollinarianism, Christ was declared to be ‘perfectly’ Man; in opposition to Nestorianism,
Christ’s person was declared to be ‘indivisibly’ one; in opposition to Eutychianism, the two
Natures of Christ were declared to be ‘unconfusedly’ distinct.”8
And again:
“Christ is unique. If there was no real Incarnation we have no real knowledge of God in
relation to man’s life, especially in regard to sin and deliverance from it, except so far as the
(by itself) imperfect revelation of the OT is concerned. Unitarianism is a failure, because it
cannot bear the stress of the doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood. If the Incarnation be denied,
Christianity cannot long survive. Besides, the truth is that of God becoming Man rather than
of man becoming God. No mere Immanence will suffice, and certainly no apotheosis.
It must never be forgotten that there is vital, essential, and intimate connection
between our Lord’s deity and His work of redemption. IT is not merely that one man is made
unique, but it is a case of God coming into the world in human form, ‘for us men and for our
salvation.’
‘The Incarnation may be inexplicable as a psychological or ontological problem; but
it satisfies the yearnings of those who are seeking after God and His righteousness.’”9
Hypostatic union: the unity of the two natures, both God and man, fully and
properly each, but one personality.
Communicatio idiomatum: Communication of operations (salvation work of
man and God), graces (grace and glory, share of worship and adoration) and
attributes / properties (finite and infinite, man of sorrows and almighty).
7 “We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect
Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity,
and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same
substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his
humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.
According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of
God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple
taken from her with himself.” (From letter of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to John of Damascus)
8 Thomas, p. 42, ¶ 1
9 Thomas, p. 3738, starting ¶ 3
Article III
Of the Going down of Christ into Hell
AS CHRIST died for us, and was buried; so also it is to be believed, that he went
down into Hell.
Like the first two Articles, this statement is an affirmation of historical creedal
Xnty. Grounded on specific warrant of the Bible (not simply a matter of
history). It is part of the Apostles’ Creed. It is has been said that removing the
“descent” clause is making the Apostles’ Creed to NOT be the Creed. Also
part of the Athanasian creed, in fact, it’s all the Athanasian creed says about
the (“Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third
day from the dead.”).
Not part of the earliest versions of Apostles’ Creed, but the Creed took shapely
gradually (over several centuries). It had been an ancient Roman baptismal
formula. In this form, it was initially interrogative. (where can this be found?
*) “Do you believe in God.” “I believe in God the Father almighty . . .” Among
words or phrases not part of the old Roman symbol are such phrases as:
“Maker of heaven and earth,” “Who was conceived,” “suffered,” “dead,”
“descended into hell,” “God the father almighty,” “sitteth at the right hand of
God,” “catholic,” “communion of saints,” “the life everlasting.” Anyone
therefore who wishes to object to the descensus clause based on ancientness,
will have to object to these other phrases and clauses.
The key is that there can be no legitimate objection, since Peter in Act 2.31
speaks directly about this (in citation from Psa 16.10).10 If Christ was not left /
abandoned in Hades, then he must have gone there in the first place. Therefore
the question is not if, but when, why, etc.
What the possibilities are not:
1) Christ entered the place of eternal torment in order to further
suffer for sin: Part of Good Friday / Karfreitag service: “It is finished.” (Joh
19.30) What do the words mean: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?” To stare at these words is to stare into hell itself. (Mar 15.34) God
abandonment is hell, to be where neither the redemption nor the common
grace of God will reach. He fulfilled his word of promise to the malefactor,
10 “he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED
TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.”
“Today, you will be with me in paradise.” (Luk 23.43) This approach also
gives the meaning “gehenna / hell” to the word “hades.” The usage of these
words does not bear that transfer of meaning. See below.
2) Not relating Psalm 16 passage and then relate them to other
obscure passages. Namely, don’t take Psa 16 / Act 2 and Eph 4.9. Does Eph
refer to a descent into hell? What does descent mean? He came to earth,
referring to the incarnation. The ascension is the counter part of this descent.
Even if the reference was a descent into some “lower world,” rather than
simply to earth (refers to Thomas, p. 67); that Christ’s descent is closely linked
to bestowing gifts for ministry. What would Christ’s descent to Hades have to
do with a bestowal of gifts? The point is, it creates a problem for the Eph 4
exegesis.
Another such passage, 1Pe 3.18 ff. “Preached to the spirits in prison . . .” See
in relation: 1Pe 4.6. There is no specific link between these texts and hell. Nor
is there a connection between these texts and Psa 16 or Act 2. Specific
reference is made to Noah and the ark. How are the hell and the ark / Noah
related? How are they taken into account? The entire context of the epistles as
having an important bearing on these particular passages. End of 1Pe3 is
certainly among the more difficult passages.
This passage seems to be the culmination of Christ’s work. But what does
baptism and the answer of a good conscience have to do with a descent of
Christ into hell? How does the thought of Christ’s descent into hell (which
seems secondary in this context of 1Pe3) help us understand the point of
Peter’s words? Bringing Act 2 or Psa 16 into connection, neither helps us with
these texts, and creates confusion in 1Pe 3. Going to difficult passages to
explain a difficult passage “compounds confusion.”
It should be noted that the English church did have some debate which used
some of these arguments.
This however brings us back to “square one.” Start with terms “Sheol” and
“Hades”11. These words represent the dead go, righteous and wicked. The place
11 Sheol: The place to which Jacob expects to go in the case that Benjamin is killed (Gen 42.38), also
where the wicked go (Num 16.3033, Psa 9.17(d18)), they are the lowest places of creation (Job 11.8, Psa
139.8), simply the place of death (Psa 6.5(d6), Psa 16.10), used as a word meaning death in Hos 13.14 which is
cited in 1Co 15.5556.
Hades: seems to be a counterpart word for Sheol, see Mat 11.23, 16.18 Luk 10.15, Luk 16.23, Act 2.27
& 31 is a direct quote from Psa 16 (LXX uses a[|dhn as translation for lAav.), Rev 1.18, 6.8, see particularly Rev
20.1314, in which Hades is thrown into the lake of fire. These uses are equivocal, always death, but either
righteous or not.
of departed spirits, in which the souls of the righteous dead are absent from
the body but present with the lord, but the souls of the wicked dead are in
conscious torment are separated from the righteous by a great gulf. “Gehenna”
serves as speaking of the place of torment / punishment our “hell”.
Before the advent of Christ, little was said or known, a shadowy place. Christ
has abolished death and hades (see connection of these two words in: Rev
1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20:13, Rev 20:14).12 He removed the fear of death by
entering into it for us and emerging from it, see 1Co 15. Not abandoned to it,
but rather entered it and emerged from it.
There is much we don’t know. It is, as some think, a temporary state of being.
It is fundamentally unnatural. God created us as whole persons. Body and soul
belong together. Death is separation of the two and unnatural. Absence from
the body (for a time) is something of which Paul speaks (2Co 5.68). See also
Rom 8.23: “even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our
adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.” The resurrection of the body
and the life everlasting is the final state for which we wait.
Our confidence lies in the fact that Christ entered into every aspect / state of
life, and was the victor. By his entire life every stage (Heb 4.15: “One who
has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”) Born, crucified,
died, buried, descended. Everyone who dies descends into hades.
See the quote from Thomas, bottom of p. 68 under #4.
“The best, and indeed the only, possible interpretation is that the doctrine results from our
Lord’s oneness with us at this, as at every other point. This would seem to be the real meaning
of its place in the Creed, and therefore in the Article. Our Lord is considered to have satisfied
every condition of manhood ‘for us and for our salvation.’ He was born, he grew, he lived, he
died, his body was buried, his spirit went into the unseen world to await resurrection, he was
raised, and he ascended . . .
As it stands it completes our conception of the Lord’s Death. To our minds death is
the separation of the body and soul. According to this conception Christ in dying shared to the
full our lot. His body was laid in the tomb. His soul passed into that state on which we
conceive that our souls shall enter. He has won for God and hallowed every condition of
human existence. We cannot be where He has not been. He bore our nature as living; He bore
our nature as dead.”
Gehenna: Mat 5.22, 5.29, 5.30, 10.28, 18.9, 23.15, 23.33, Mar 9.43, 9.45, 9.47, Luk 12.5, Jam 3.6
these uses are unequivocal, always punishment.
12 “. . . our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the
gospel . . .” (2Ti 1.10)
Leonard also points out that the Athanasian creed only speaks of “descended
into hell,” but nothing of crucifixion, etc. This leads us to conclude that the
Athanasian creed assumes this phrase to include all aspects of his death. This
is why the Article states itself as it does. Christ died and was buried, therefore
it must be understood that he went down into hell.
Purposely avoid the difficult passages, since they would take some time.
Especially point out other difficulties, such as: “baptism saves you . . .” (1Pe
3.21)
Article IV
Of the Resurrection of Christ
CHRIST did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh,
bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith
he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at
the last day.
This is another statement of unity between the English reforming church and
historic Christianity and the catholic faith and apostolic witness. In the
apostolic preaching and teaching, the resurrection would be the core of the
proclamation. They would have a problem speaking of his death without
talking of his resurrection. See, z.B., Rom 8.3334. The creed of the church
follows the death of Christ with his resurrection. The creeds all do this,
following one upon the other.
This pattern alone is instructive. We need to also consider the historic sense of
the central character of the resurrection as important to our witness. See Paul
1Co 15.18; that Christ died, buried and raised again, and then, as a proof,
appeared to the disciples. Christ’s resurrection is the “punch line” of the
gospel, Act 2.32, for example. See also Act 13.3239. The Christ who saves us
in the Jesus who died AND who was raised again by God to life (Rom 1.4).
It is noted in Act 17.18 that Paul preaches so strongly of the resurrection, that it
is nearly concluded by his hearers that he is preaching two deities, Jesus and
Resurrection. In 32, many respond by sneering, but it is nevertheless a key
aspect of the message preached. The prayer book propers draw out the
connection between Christ’s resurrection and our own faith. This is derived
from that first of the epistle lessons on Easter day (Col 3.1).
This was all done for us, accepted by the father, Christ’s message is confirmed,
he is exalted to his former estate of glory and we are lifted up with him. It is
ultimately for us.
Now note the aspects of the Article which deal with possible error. Christ did
truly rise again.13
As the Nicene Creed says, one the third day he rose again “according
to the Scriptures.” It is a result of predictive prophecy. The ground of our
assurance then, is that God keeps his word.
It also corroborates his own witness, “just as he said.” Mat 28.6.
Certifies the Father’s acceptance of the Son’s work (Rom 1.4).
It is a certification of our own redemption and personal destiny, think
of 1Co 15.1620.
Christ’s office as mediator is ‘vicarious,’ doing it on behalf of, his
resurrection is related to our sanctification. Rom 6.46, for example, Joh 14,
1Th 4.14 ff., 1Jo 3.23.
Christ’s ascension: Re: ascension, need to keep in mind the plain
teaching of Scripture that Christ is absent as man but present as God. He who
descended is the one who ascended . . . in order to fill the whole universe (Eph
4.10). Christ takes his humanity into heaven, and ours as well. Thus the
language from the article, that he did truly rise again with “body, with flesh,
bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature.” Jesus
took his body with him. He is always the incarnate Son of the Father. The
“dust of earth” now sits enthroned at the right hand of the majesty on high.
(Heb 8.1) Why do we believe that what Job says is true, that in my flesh, I
shall see God (Job 19.26)? It is because our redeemer lives (19.25). He is our
intercessor, and pleads for us.
Christ’s session: There he sits until he return to judge. He rules and he
judges. This is a fact of his resurrection as well. It implies both reconciliation
and restitution, making those things which are wrong to be right. The rebel
shall be subdued, evil will be destroyed, the imperfect will be made perfect
(1Co 15.53).
Rev 21.14: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven
and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the
holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready
13 To what extent does contemporary witness imitate the pattern of the apostles. Does the fact of the
resurrection occupy the same place of prominence? It probably does not, it is to some of embarrassing
supernatural character, it is too bloody for others referring to the horror of his death, some speak merely that
Christ “died for you,” without the corresponding emphasis of the resurrection.
as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne,
saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell
among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among
them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no
longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain;
the first things have passed away.’”
This is the ground of all Christian hope and expectation. This is the certainty
of reward for the righteous and punishment of the guilty. All honor will then
be given to the Father as it ought. Implies dealing with doctrines of ubiquity in
the sacrament, such as the Roman view.
Article V
Of the Holy Ghost
THE HOLY GHOST, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance,
majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.14
This is the final of the initial series affirming unity / continuity with the
catholic and creedal faith.
The Spirit is Lord / Lifegiver. He is of one substance, etc., corresponds to
Article I. This is what the church has always affirmed. But tracing out what
this means has not been done well. Theology proper and Christology are
popular, carefully articulating the results of the church’s thinking in the creeds,
etc. But Pneumatology has not been so well developed, even here Article V
nearly repeats the language of Article I. This is in some ways a neglected
aspect of Christian doctrine, with the excess of enthusiasm on the part of
Pentecostalists and Charismatics on the one side, and almost completely
ignoring Him on the other.
The Nicene Creed identifies the Spirit as the one “who spoke through the
prophets.” Also, He is one of whom the prophets spoke, the object of their
speaking. (re: creation, Gen 1.2; prophetic utterance or wisdom: Exo 35.31,
Num 11.17 ff.) He is the person whom the prophets associate with the last days
of redemptive history (Zec 12.10, Joe 2.28(d3.1)). So also does Christ.
Particularly the object of the period from Pentecost to the 2nd Advent.
14 See the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church, the communion of
saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.”
Nicene Creed: “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the
Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the
prophets. And I believe one (holy) catholic and apostolic church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission
of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”
“Everything in the OT points forward to the coming of the HS, and everything in the NT
emphasizes his presence in the Christian community.”15
Again, it is commonly said that “redemption comes from the Father, through
the Son, and by the Spirit.”
The relation of the Spirit to Jesus: Speaks of the filioque clause16 (see the
Article, proceeding from the Father and the Son, Joh 15.26, the counselor
whom Jesus will send from the Father.) We cannot separate the Spirit from
Christ, speaking purely of the work of the Spirit as a separate function from
the rest of the work of redemption. This becomes an overcompensation for a
perceived / real lack. The Spirit never functions for himself alone. His ministry
is to point to Christ. (Joh 14.26)
On the other hand, if we separate Christ from the Spirit, then we are
minimizing or neglecting that One through whom God supplies the benefits of
redemption to his people.
15 Thomas, p. 99, ¶0.
16 Concerning the question, “Why did the East struggle to protect the sole procession of the Spirit from
the Father?”
“. . . the question was whether this eternal ‘procession’ or ‘forthcoming’ was from
the Son as well as from the Father. The problem was Western, not Eastern . . . this attitude
indicates a difference which is explained by the conditions of the two Churches. The Eastern
was face with those who tended to regard the Spirit as inferior to the Son, because brought
into human life through the Son’s mediation. In order, therefore, to protect the full Deity of
the Spirit, it was considered essential to represent Him as proceeding solely from the Father as
the fountain (phgh,) of the Godhead. The Western Church, on the other hand, starting with the
essential unity of the Son and the Father, desired to protect and preserve the truth that the
Spirit is as much the Spirit of the Son as He is of the Father. Otherwise there could be no
equality.” (The Holy Spirit of God, W.H. Griffith Thomas, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1964, pp. 9192)
“In the East this ‘Procession’ is related only to the time of the Incarnation and the
fact of the Redemption. The passages in St. John which speak of the Spirit being given by the
Son are interpreted in a temporal.” (The Holy Spirit of God, see pp. 144146)
“On the Eastern side two points may be made, first, that the relevant verse in John’s
Gospel (15.26) speaks only of the proceeding of the Spirit from the Father, and second, that
the addition to the creed was never decided ecumenically. In favor of the addition two points
may also be made. The first is that the term safeguards the vital Nicene truth that the Son is of
one substance with the Father. The second is that, since the Son no less than the Father sends
the Spirit according to John 15.26, we may legitimately infer by analogy from this relationship
in respect of us that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son within
the intraTrinitarian relationship. To say otherwise is ultimately to divorce the Son from the
Spirit in direct contradiction to the passages which speak of him as the Spirit of Christ (cf.
Rom 8.9, Cal 4.6). (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, filioque)
The filioque clause leads to something else though. In Joh 15.26, 20.22 ff,
these texts speak of the Spirit’s work as pointing to Christ. “He will testify of
me.” Christ breathes on the disciples, communicating the Spirit as “his
breath”. Act 2.33, Jesus is exalted by the HS. Rom 8.9: “ if anyone does not
have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him (Christ).” Gal 4.6, Phi
1.19, 1Pe 1.11. In other words, the HS provides continuity of the work of the
Godhead. One can no more separate Christ’s work from the Father or vice
versa, than we can do that with the HS and the rest of the Godhead.
The importance of the filioque clause is seen in several ways: a) illustrates the
eternal interrelations of the persons of the Trinity, b) illustrates the close
relationship of the work of the Spirit to the work of the Son, c) illustrates the
close relationship of the Spirit to the Church (which is the body of Christ). Just
as Jesus is the same substance as the Father (omoousiaj) and also subordinate
to the Father; so also the Spirit is of the same substance with the Father and
the Son, and subordinate.
Relation of the Spirit to the Church: Notice in the Creed that the expression of
the faith in the HS is immediately followed by a statement of belief in the
church. The Church is the particular arena of the Spirit’s work (1Co 12.13).
The creeds are obviously Trinitarian. Each segment deals with the work of
each of the persons of the Godhead. And in the third section, what modifiers
are ascribed to the Spirit.
a) the (one) holy catholic (and apostolic) church 1Co 12.13 (also
baptism)
b) the communion of saints Eph 4.3
c) the forgiveness of sins Act 2.38
d) resurrection of the body Rom 1.4 (Christ resurrected, and we with
him), Rom 8.11
e) the life everlasting Rev 22.17, Gal 6.8
We could also speak of the relation of the Spirit to the Scriptures in
inspiration: Heb 1.13, Act 1.16
Spirit to the Individual: In some ways a reproduction of the work of the spirit
in the church.
Perhaps we have devoted too little to a proper operation of the Holy Spirit /
Spirit of Holiness in the life of God’s people. When we affirm Christ and his
redemptive work, and all that belongs, including humiliation, exaltation,
ascension and session; we must not fail to affirm as well the work of Christ
applied by the Holy Spirit. And the place that this works out is the church. By
the application of the work of the spirit, we are made a living temple. (1Pe 2.4
9)
Article VI
Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation
HOLY SCRIPTURE containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever
is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any
man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do
understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose
authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books (here are listed the
OT books).
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for
example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to
establish any doctrine; such as are the following:
The Third Book of Esdras. Baruch the Prophet.
The Fourth Book of Esdras. The Song of the Three Children.
The Book of Tobias. The Story of Susanna.
The Book of Judith. Of Bel and the Dragon.
The rest of the Book of Esther. The Prayer of Manasses.
The Book of Wisdom. The First Book of Maccabees.
Jesus the Son of Sirach. The Second Book of Maccabees.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do
receive, and account them Canonical.
Nothing can be clearer from the Articles than that they are intended to be
based on the authority of the Bible. In 18 of 39 of the Articles make direct
reference to Holy Scripture, in some cases, more often than one time in the
same Article. And what the Articles imply in 18 of the Articles, here in Art VI
it is explicitly stated. It is stated here what the Scriptures are understood to be;
Sufficient, Necessary, Authoritative, Perspicuous. The fact that this is the
understanding in the Articles (and thus the church of the Articles), and in the
form for ordaining presbyters in the English and in the American church.17
17 ARE you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal
salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people
committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as necessary to salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded
may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?
Answer. I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace.
What this Article expresses is therefore not mere theory, but the heart of the
entire set of the Articles, ought to be the heart of its pastors, and is the heart of
the church itself. So, in what sense is the Bible authoritative, and to what
purpose are they considered to be sufficient, as well as necessary and
perspicuous?
The authority of the Bible is determinative and final for doctrine required for
belief. That which is required for salvation must be derived from Scripture.
“all things necessary to salvation . . .”, “is not to be required of any man, that
it should be believed as an article of the faith . . .”, “be thought requisite or
necessary to salvation . . .”
This Article opposes two kinds of error; the Roman extension of “Scripture” to
orally transmitted apostolic, and the error of saying that the Bible is the
exclusive authority (that is, the only authority on all topics).
Notice what it says, but also what it does NOT say. It does not say that the
Bible contains all useful knowledge of any kind (for example), nor is it
claimed that HS is authoritative in the sense that it answers every possible
question. Not everything we want or need to know about all conceivable
subjects can be found in the Scriptures. Not every question even
philosophical / theological answers will necessarily be found in the Bible.
Nor is there a claim that the Bible is regulative (regulative principle: Only that
which is clearly commanded by Scripture is permitted, all else is forbidden.
See Paul’s use of Greek philosophers in Act 17.28, ‘even as your own poets say
. . .’).
It also says that there are other writings that are of value, and even specifies
some. And there are other authorities which may establish customs, prescribe
practices or regulate conduct even for the church but only within the well
defined limits of the principle and teaching of Scripture.
See in this regard Articles 2018 and 3419. These Articles clearly represent the
position of Anglicanism that whatever is not prohibited by Holy Scripture may
be allowed (as opposed to: only whatever Scripture commands is permitted,
see regulative principle above). And nothing which is explicit or may be
proved from it may be required as necessary to salvation, however, if such
things be ordained by common authority (even though not required by the
Scriptures), they may be enforced, even by discipline. In this case, the
violation of the Scriptures is in that fact that such people have run against due
authority, visavis Rom 13. Authorization of prayer books, order and structure
of government, other distinctive characteristics of the visible church, etc. By
analogy: every household has the right to order its traditions and customs.
Again, the guard is that no household has the right to ordain that which is
contrary to explicit Scripture or reasonable deduction therefrom.
Original 42. Title: The Doctrine of Holy Scripture as Sufficient to Salvation20.
The sense of that one Article are the sentiments summarized above, i.e.,
Article VI in the light of Article XX and XXXIV. Then the quote from GT:
“In the 16th century men of the extreme Protestant or Puritan type taught that everything is in
the Scripture, and that nothing else was to be valued in Church life. But the Bible is a book of
principles, not of rules, and presupposes natural law, social law, and civic law. As spiritual life
is varied it can and must express itself in various ways. So long as individual and Church life
is true to the principles of Scripture all outside authority is to be welcomed. Scripture is
sufficient and supreme is to be intended to emphasise things essential as distinct from things
beneficial.”21
The real problem is that some people say that everything is essential. It is as if
every minute detail of life is absolutely essential in its character (and therefore
18 Of the Authority of the Church: The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority
in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word
written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although
the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so
besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.
19 Of the Traditions of the Church: It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places
one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity 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 other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth
the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience 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.
20 quoted on p. 104, GT.
21 GT, p. 133, ¶ 2.
must be in the Bible), and as a result if you can’t quote a verse about whatever
it is, you are defective in your faith.
The Bible is authoritative and sufficient (as well as necessary and
perspicuous), but it does not regulate every conceivable aspect of life and
conduct.
The Article also acknowledges that there is other literature, ancient and
helpful. It is important that the council of Trent had made a statement a few
years before that was in response to Protestant complaints. In many cases, the
Articles respond consciously to the RC response in the Council of Trent. In
particular, Trent had said in 1546:
“The sacred and holy Œcumenical and General Synod of Trent . . . keeping this always in
view that . . . the purity itself of the Gospel should be preserved in the church . . . and
perceiving that truth and discipline is contained in the written books and in the unwritten
traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the
apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even to us, transmitted . . .
from hand to hand . . . (the Synod) receives and venerates, with equal affection of piety and
reverence, all the books both of the Old and also of the New Testament . . . as also the said
traditions, both those appertaining to faith as well as those appertaining to morals, as having
been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by
the continuous succession of the Catholic Church.”22
Scripture and tradition are received as having the precise same authority by the
Roman church.
In direct response, it says: “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church
doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not
apply them to establish any doctrine.” And this is true, in that the church
(from the time of Judaism) been reading these books for almost 17 centuries.
They were considered of sufficient worth to be translated together with the OT
in the LXX. It was the version of the OT which the writers of the NT used
with greatest frequency.
The NT writers therefore knew of the intertestamental books and some
scholars say alluded to them in the NT. The intertestamental books fill in a
period of about 400 years, between the end of the OT and the first books of the
NT, and therefore have value as historical data.
However, they are NOT quoted in the NT, they were never accepted in Jewish
canon, they were not accepted by such men as Origen and Jerome (to whom
the Article refers), and the later church with full clarity makes distinction
between the OT and the Apocryphal books. Indeed, even in the LXX, the
Apocrypha is listed as an appendix.
22 cited by GT, pp. 127128, from Conc. Trident., Sessio Quarta, Decret. de Canon Script.
It should be noted that during the period of the reformation, the Apocrypha
was quoted as proofs and support (as in the Homilies of the English
Reformation), in some cases even called “the word of God”.
This Article is intended to oppose the Roman acceptance of the Apocrypha as
authoritative. Council of Trent in 1546, 7 of the apocryphal books were added
to the OT canon. And no matter what the esteem of the English church may
have had for the Apocryphal books, the fact is that it is clearly stated here “but
yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”
Article VII
Of the Old Testament
THE OLD TESTAMENT is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New
Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only
Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are
not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory
promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching
Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts
thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet
notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of
the Commandments which are called Moral.
This Article, a combining of the 6th and 19th Articles of the 42 was meant to
deal with two problems. The Roman church created some problems
concerning rites and rituals. And also, among the Anabaptists of this day,
there were two teachings going around.
One error was that the OT was to be entirely rejected because the OT
had been entirely superceded by the New Testament. Therefore, as a result of
this idea, it was said that the OT moral law (the 10 commandments) no longer
applied either, since the NT church was above / beyond these laws.
So also, we have today those who set aside the OT as being of no value
because of the NT, and make no distinction between civil, ceremonial, and
moral laws. They set it all aside. Others also say that they are taught by the
Spirit in such a way that they have no need to be guided by the Scriptures in
any event. God leads them. After all, “for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives
life.” (2Co 3.6)
The other error was the same error as that of John of Leyden of
Münster was the OT civil and ceremonial law was fully binding in every
aspect, and in fact set up a “New Jerusalem”.
Thus we see the balance in this Article, a clear reaffirmation of the
applicability of the moral precepts of the OT and the clear ground laid for the
gospel which is laid there; but also sets aside extremist errors which either
denied OT applicability at all, or elevated the OT to the exclusion of the New.
Embedded in this language is an adherence to a covenantal view of the
Scriptures (Homily 4, Book 1, Part 2).
“All these Fathers, Martyrs, and other holy men, (whom Saint Paul spake of) had their faith surely
fixed on GOD, when all the world was against them. They did not only know GOD to be the Lord,
maker, and governor of all men in the world: but also they had a special confidence and trust, that he
was and would bee their GOD, their comforter, aider, helper, maintainer, and defender. This is the
Christian faith which these holy men had, and we also ought to have. And although they were not
named Christian men, yet was it a Christian faith that they had, for they looked for all benefits of GOD
the Father, through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ, as we now do. This difference is between them
and us, that they looked when Christ should come, and we be in the time when he is come. Therefore
saith S. Augustine ‘The time is altered and changed, but not the faith.’”
Article VIII
Of the Creeds
THE NICENE CREED, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed,
ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most
certain warrants of Holy Scripture.
[Of the Three Creeds
The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is commonly called the
Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by
most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.]
They all have some kind of Trinitarian structure.
They are truly catholic creeds, as one reads from the early councils, it was not
uncommon to read such things as this:
“The First Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, reads as follows: ‘We have judged it
right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.’
And the Council in Trullo, in its second canon, has enumerated these synods in the following words.
“We set our seal to all the rest of the canons which have been established by our holy and blessed
fathers, that is to say by the 318 Godinspired fathers who met at Nice, and by those who met at
Ancyra, and by those who met at NeocÆsarea, as well as by those who met at Gangra: in addition to
these the canons adopted by those who met at Antioch in Syria, and by those who met at Laodicea in
Phrygia; moreover by the 150 fathers who assembled in this divinely kept and imperial city, and by the
200 who were gathered in the metropolis of Ephesus, and by the 630 holy and blessed fathers who met
at Chalcedon,’ etc., etc.”23
23 From the Canons of the Councils of Ancyra, Gangra, Neocaesarea, Antioch and Laodicea
It is also recorded that the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus began with a
recitation of the Nicene Creed.24
Apostles’ Creed: Earliest start as perhaps a Roman baptismal formula
(interrogative in nature) dating from perhaps the middle of the second century.
The phrase “descended into hell” first appears in about 400. The present full
form dates from about 750.
Nicene Creed: Associated with the Nicene Council (325) and the Arian
controversy25. Further development took place between the councils of Nicaea
(325) and Constantinople (381) regarding the deity of the Holy Spirit.
Athanasian: strictly speaking not a creed (doesn’t start with “I believe”), and
not written by Athanasius. Seems to date from the early 5th century (429?).
The Athanasian creed was possible deleted from the American statement
because that creed was not used liturgically in the American book as it is in the
English book.26
24 The Third Ecumenical Council the Council of Ephesus A.d. 431, Extracts from the Acts, Session 1.
25 Arianism (320) denied deity stated that he was a “first” creature, a unique creation, even perhaps a
deified man, but nevertheless, simply a man. This heresy resulted in the Nicene council. The councils allowed
for a “tension,” both God and man, an unresolved set of facts. That is what the Scriptures say. He is very God of
very God, but also bone of our bone. This is the controversy over the difference between o`moiou,sioj (like) and
o`moou,sioj (identical).
26 Regarding Calvin’s view of the Athanasian Creed, I found the following in the Institutes (Book 1,
Chapter 13, Section 6, Footnote 23):
“K. Barth, discussing Calvin’s doctrine of the eternal Son, treats theologically the suspicion
cast upon the Reformer’s orthodoxy on the Trinity at the time of his contention with Pierre
Caroli, 1537 and 1540 (Kirchliche Dogmatik I. i. 438 f.; tr. G. T. Thompson, The Doctrine of
the Word of God I. 477 ff.). During this dispute, Calvin, challenged by Caroli, refused,
though with no heretical intent, to declare his acceptance of the Athanasian, and even of the
Nicene, Creed. Cf. CR VII. 294 f.; Herminjard, Correspondence IV. 185 ff., 239 f.”
Concerning Calvin’s dispute with Pierre Caroli of Lausanne, John T. McNiell writes (The History and
Character of Calvinism, Oxford University Press, 1973, p. 1412):
“Calvin’s Trinitarian orthodoxy was challenged by Pierre Caroli, a brilliant Paris scholar, but
highly unstable, who after two periods as a Protestant died in the Roman Communion. At this
time he had become pastor of the church in Lausanne, where he attacked Farel and Viret and
reverted to some teachings that the Reformers had abandoned, such as the doctrine of
purgatory. Calvin visited Lausanne to aid Viret, to whom he was already warmly attached,
and showed Caroli the Geneva Instruction in Faith. Caroli responded that such a new creed
was uncalled for. The matter came before a Bernese deputation then in Lausanne; Caroli
accused the three ministers of heresy and demanded that Calvin’s Instruction be set aside and
that all agree to the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creed. Calvin objected
strongly to the reaffirmation of the lastnamed, with its list of condemned heresies that might
become a basis of unfair charges. The outcome was a synod held in Lausanne, 15 May 1537,
in which Calvin assailed Caroli in intemperate language but with convincing evidence that the
Three uses of creeds: baptismal/fellowship (Apostles’), test of orthodoxy
(Nicene, in response to Arius), apologetic safeguard/subsidiary rule of faith
(Athanasian).
Note carefully, these creeds are not intended to express everything that needs
to be expressed. There is a common distinction between the creeds
(particularly these three, as well as other statements which begin “I believe”)
and confessions (which is most often applied to the later formal statements, as
during the time of the Reformation).
Article IX
Of Original or Birth Sin
ORIGINAL SIN standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly
talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that
naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far
gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so
that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every
person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this
infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the
lust of the flesh, called in Greek, fro,nhma sarko,j,27 which some do expound
the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh,
is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for
them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that
concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
charge of Arianism was baseless. Caroli was deprived of his charge in Lausanne. At a later
synod in Bern (31 May) he was accused of gross immorality and was forbidden to preach,
while Farel and Calvin were completely exonerated . . . Calvin rejected the requirement of the
Athanasian Creed on grounds of liberty of conscience . . .”
Additionally, anyone whom I read who comments on the Athanasian Creed speaks in the same sense as
does Charles Hodge (Vol. 1, Part 1, Chap. 6, Section 4):
“Although not issued with the authority of any Council, it was soon universally admitted in
the West, and subsequently in the East, and was everywhere regarded as an ecumenical
symbol. The Doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in these three ancient creeds, — the Nicene,
the Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian (socalled), — is the Church Form of that
fundamental article of the Christian faith. There is no difference, except as to amplification,
between these several formulas.”
27 for this phrase in Greek NT, see: Rom 8.67. fro,nhma toj, thoughtful planning, the psychological
faculty of thoughtful planning, often with the implication of being wise and provident ‘thoughtful planning,
way of thinking, outlook.’
Notice that this Article is actually in two sections; the first speaking of original
sin itself, the second dealing with the problem of sin in the regenerate man.
The object of this Article is clearer from the 1553 version, when speaking of
the Pelagians, adds “which also the Anabaptists do nowaday renew . . .” The
Article was framed initially in order to confront an Anabaptist28 revival of the
old Pelagian error.
The characteristics of Pelagianism (named after Pelagius, a British monk,
popular preaching in Rome [401409]). In a desire to stir up morality among
Christians, he told them that God commanded nothing which they could not
do, and that it was therefore possible to live free from sin) are well
summarized by the charges against Pelagius at the Council of Carthage in 412.
Augustine framed the term “original sin.” He had opposed Pelagius. Augustine
had prayed “give what you command and command what you will.” (This
points out that God must give grace before we can obey.) Pelagius didn’t like
this, since it seemed to deny human responsibility. His chief tenets:
Adam created mortal and would have died anyway.
Adam injured only himself and not the entire human race. It was,
after all, not our fault that Adam had sinned as he did.
Infants, at their birth, are in the same condition as Adam before the
fall.
Unbaptized infants as well as others will enter eternal life. Whatever
lies outside of one’s own volition and choice cannot keep one out of heaven.
Humanity neither died through Adam nor would rise again through
Christ’s resurrection. Consistent, but obviously heretical.
The law has the same effect as the gospel in leading people to the
kingdom of heaven. Tell someone what is right, and he has the capacity and
will to do it.
Even before Christ came, there had been sinless human beings.
(Joseph [OT character])29
28 Religious group appearing in Germany and elsewhere in Europe during the Reformation as an
aftermath of the Lutheran Reformation. The political, social and theological upheaval of the Reformation
created the atmosphere in which such a movement could begin. Characterized by social, economic and political
radicalism. Name signifies insistence upon rebaptism of adults, repudiated the classical doctrine of the church,
and the relationship between church and government. Fit a broad spectrum of views, from more conservative
movements to radical movements which denied the necessity of the external word since the internal ‘word’ of
the Spirit was sufficient, denying total depravity, original sin, election, eternal damnation, absolute freedom of
the will, and a gnostic type of direct and mystical communion with God. Some included a moderate
communism and radical millenialism (teaching that there will be a literal, material, world rule of Christ for
1,000 years).
Augustine saw the fall as an “infection”, the human will was disabled, and the
ability to do good was gone. Not only was holiness lost in the fall, but also the
capacity for holiness, an actual corruption of nature.
Notice that the Article states that humanity is “very far gone,” indicating that
though we are not fully as corrupt as we might be, nevertheless every capacity
and faculty is corrupt. We are sinful extensively, but not intensively. The flesh
is always contrary to the Spirit (Gal 5.17), but the imago Dei has not been lost,
though distorted. If the image of God were completely corrupted, we would
not only cease to be holy, but also cease to be human.
It also comments that the “And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in
them that are regenerated . . . and although there is no condemnation for them
that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence
and lust hath itself the nature of sin.”
This seeks to answer the question, “what about sin in those who are baptized
Christians? And what is the efficacy of baptism regarding original sin?” The
Roman church would say that baptism washes away original sin. This Article
opposes such a doctrine. Those who believe and are baptized are still under the
power and infection of sin, but as to their standing before God, they are under
the protection of the covenant of grace and Christ’s blood. For that reason
“there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized.” (Rom 8.1,
in light of 6.34)
The concept of regeneration of these Articles is therefore covenantal. Those
who are regenerate, brought under the protection of the covenant, are seen as
the forgiven, but not sinless.30 By nature children of wrath, by mercy children
of grace. It is for this reason that in baptism we say: “We receive this child into
the congregation of Christ’s flock . . .” They are no longer among those
outside of the covenant, and they are not condemned with the world. They are
therefore understood to be a child of grace. Article XXVII on baptism speaks
to this as well: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of
29 Julian said: ‘By his free will man is emancipated from God.’ God only reenters the picture at the last
judgment.
Arminianism (or the Remonstrants) are a milder form of Pelagianism. The socalled 5 points of
Calvinism are actually the 5 points against Arminius, being a reversal of the statements of the followers of
Arminius. However, Arminians do NOT deny the necessity of God’s grace (thus their inconsistency).
30 We “. . . were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of
His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together
with Christ . . . so that . . . He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ
Jesus.” (Eph 2.37)
difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not
christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an
instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.” We
will discuss baptism further in Article XXVII.
In any event, Pelagius saw God as being excluded from the redemptive
process, having not hand in making either children of wrath or children of
mercy. But in this matter, the sovereignty of God is mostly clearly seen and
most necessary, inasmuch as original sin has made us helpless.
Article X
Of Free Will
THE CONDITION of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and
prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and
calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and
acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we
may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
Like the preceding Article, meeting the 16th revival of Pelagianism among
Anabaptists, so also does this Article. It met the characteristic Anabaptistic
denial of the absolute need of divine grace. In fact, it could be said that the
Article doesn’t actually deal with free will at all, but rather with the topic of
God’s grace. It certainly doesn’t deal with the topic on an abstract or
philosophical viewpoint.
A few comments on “nature” and “free will”. Our natures are to do that which
it is within our capacity and character to do. Birds act like birds, paramecium
like paramecium, and fallen sinners like fallen sinners. So the Article asserts:
“. . . he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength . . .”31
However, within the context of understanding what it is our nature to be or to
do, we CAN speak of “free will”, i.e., free to be what we are (fallen sinners),
but not free to be what we are not without the grace of God.
This Article is not only related to the preceding Article regarding the origin of
its contents and concern, but also sequence of thought. In fact, the present
Article with the following 3 (1113) are all concerned with the same general
subject God’s way of dealing with those who are brought into covenant with
him by Christ. In particular, this echoes Paul’s doctrine that we are saved by
31 “Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are
accustomed to doing evil.” (Jer 13.23)
grace from first to last (see Rom 1.17, as well as Rom 11.6, Eph 2.5, Eph 2.8,
2Th 2.16). As those whose natures are infected by birth sin, we have no ability
to anything which pleases God without the grace of God preventing (going
before, preceding) us. We do not even have a desire to do the good, never mind
the ability to follow any such desire. And more, we must have the grace of
God working with us to follow us after the grace that gives us the desire. We
desire, therefore, because of grace. And we act, as well, because of grace. It is,
as said, grace from first to last.
Paul speaks about this further in Rom 7. “For what I am doing, I do not
understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the
very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the
Law, confessing that the Law is good.” (vss. 1516) He is a spiritual
battleground, with forces antagonistic to each other within. The good opposed
by the evil, and the other way around, so that he cries out: “Wretched man that
I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Rom 7.24)
There are two terms: prevenient and cooperative grace. Prevenient grace
inclines the will to do the good (going before), and cooperative allows the will
to act once the good is chosen. z.B.: Phi 2.13: “for it is God who is at work in
you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
This Article therefore expresses one of the key tenets of the reformation.
Salvation is not by works or any kind of selfeffort, but started, continued, and
finished by God’s grace and his grace alone. The BCP expresses these ideas
in the Collect for Easter:
“Almighty God, who through thine onlybegotten Son Jesus Christ hast overcome death, and opened
unto us the gate of everlasting life; We humbly beseech thee, that, as by thy special grace inclining us
thou dost put into our minds good desires, so by thy continual help we may bring the same to good
effect, through Jesus Christ our LORD.”
On the 17th Sunday after Trinity, the BCP reads:
“LORD, we pray thee, that thy grace may always both precede and follow us, and make us continually
to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our LORD. Amen.”
So also the Lutheran tradition has such sentiments:
“Allmächtiger Gott, der du deinen Sohn von den Toten auferwecket hast: verleihe uns, daß auch wir,
durch deine Gnade wiedergeboren, in einem neuen Leben wandeln.” (Quasimodogeniti)
And so with other aspects of our worship.
It’s important to see that the religion of the prayer book and our worship is the
religion of the Articles (and vice versa). That is, doctrine and worship each
follow the other, reformed according to the word of God. Lex credendi, lex
orandi. The Christian faith and life of the Articles and worship are a faith and
life which comes from God’s grace, from first to last.
The Edwardian Articles (42) had another statement in connection to this,
entitled Of Grace (Article X), which can be instructive.
“The grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost by Him given doth take away the stony heart, and giveth an
heart of flesh. And although, those that have no will to good things, He maketh them to will, and those
that would evil things, He maketh them not to will the same: yet nevertheless He enforceth not the will.
And therefore no man when he sinneth can excuse himself, as not worthy to be blamed or condemned,
by alleging that he sinned unwillingly or by compulsion.”
No one can blame God for his sin and say, “God, you are at fault for my
wicked nature.” It’s clear that the CofE wanted a balanced relationship
between divine sovereignty and personal responsibility. It wanted to balance
the extreme character of the Anabaptistic error which claimed that grace was
not needed with the strong statement of absolute need of divine Grace. But it
also avoids unnecessary detail about a mystery, God’s sovereignty over sin and
sinful acts.
Bishop Parker purposely avoided the language the Edwardian Article X. He
purposely skipped over the topic, perhaps realizing the fact that such an
attempt would be difficult and controversial. Pelagianism denied divine
sovereignty, but there have also been errors which stressed a fatalistic view of
sovereignty, such that there was no room for human responsibility. In other
words, it speaks only as far as the Scriptures do. Excellent example of this
same tactic on this same topic in Rom 9.
“So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me
then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you, O man,
who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like
this,’ will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel
for honorable use and another for common use?” (Rom 9.1821)
Notice that we are not allowed in this text to speculate. We are told in essence,
“This is the way it works, God made it work that way, and we are in no
position to understand the mechanics of the matter.” And the Articles here (as
in other places) show wisdom in following the same path. They say what needs
to be said so we can believe what the Scriptures do say without becoming
involved in speculation.32
Articles 913 are in sequence, therefore . . .
32 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons
forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” (Deu 29.29)
“Was verborgen ist, ist des HERRN, unseres Gottes; was aber offenbart ist, das gilt uns und unsern
Kindern ewiglich, daß wir tun sollen alle Worte dieses Gesetzes.” (5Mo 29.28)
Article 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 of 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.
This Article (together with Martin Luther) established the English Church as
firmly within the reformational church and connects it with the reforming
church on the continent.
3 Items:
Meaning of Justification, clear that to be justified = to be accounted righteous :
judicial meaning. It is to be held not guilty, a verdict announced by God, and
judicially accounted righteous. If one compares Article 11 with a decree from
the Council of Trent, the matter becomes very clear. At the 6th session of this
council, 1/1547;
“Justification is not merely the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner
man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby man from unjust becomes just,
from an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to the hope of eternal life.”
From this statement, justification includes sanctification. The 11th Canon
passed at the same 6th session anathematizes:
“. . . any who shall say that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of
Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is shed abroad in
their hearts by the Holy Ghost and is in inherent in them.”
There is no recognition of the Biblical distinction between justification (the
work of God the Son for us) and sanctification (the work of God the Holy
Spirit in us). This distinction is precisely what the reformers articulated and
emphasized very forcefully.
Ground of Justification: what is the meritorious cause? It is Christ and not our
own works. The real contrast is not between faith and works, but a contrast
between Christ’s merit and our own merit. Fulfillment of the righteous
requirements of God’s law is absolutely necessary for anyone to be justified in
the sight of God. The obligation to fulfill the law is never relaxed. “You be
holy as I am holy.”33 That obligation is never set aside, relaxed, excused.
33 Lev 11.4445, 1Pe 1.1516
Someone must keep the requirement for any to be accounted righteous in
God’s sight.
Think of the question: “How is one accounted righteous before God? By faith
or by the keeping of the law?” This is actually a trick question.
Christ kept the perfect requirements of the law in full. His merit becomes the
ground of justification for the people whom he would save. We are saved by
fulfillment of the law which Christ has done.34 It is faith, then in his keeping
of the law on our behalf. The merit that provides the basis of our justification
is Christ’s. They key point here is that God has not relinquished his righteous
demands for holiness and law keeping.
This is not contrary to the message, for example, of the book of Galatians.
There it clearly says:
“A man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have
believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law;
since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” (Gal 2.16)
What does this mean in light of what I have just said. We are justified by faith .
. . in what? In Christ. Faith in what about Christ? It is further interpreted in vs.
20:
“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life
which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for
me.”
The merit which provides the basis for God’s declaration of “just” belongs to
Christ. This Article makes this very clear: “We are accounted righteous before
God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ . . .”
Instrumental Means of Appropriating Justification: is faith. That is what is
meant by the phrase “wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most
wholesome doctrine . . .” We are not justified by faith, but rather we are
justified by grace through faith.35 Considering ourselves justified by faith
without the ground of the grace of Christ’s merit makes faith to be a work, the
34 “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it
was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin,
He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk
according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom 8.14)
35 “. . . the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe” (Rom 3.22)
“Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”
(Rom 3.31)
very thing denied by this Article and the Scriptures. Therefore, the ground
being the merit of Christ, we use the instrument of faith to acquire the merit of
Christ on our behalf. We see that Christ alone, and faith alone, are brought
together.
Notice that the Article refers to the “Homily on Justification.” This refers to
the homily in the first book of homilies called the “Homily of Salvation,”
coupled with the two following sermons in that first book, the Homilies “Of
the True and Lively Faith”, and the other “Of Good Works”. The Articles of
Religion reference the Books of Homilies as an expansion of the briefer
statements of the Articles.36
We learn there that:
faith is a confiding trust in Christ’s work on our behalf. That is, God
is a person to be trusted, and what he says he will do, he does. We rely on his
trustworthiness. Faith, in this sense, is selfsurrender or dependence on God.
That is, grace is not earned by faith, but accepted by trust.
faith leads to practical action by obedience. Therefore, obedience is
not the ground of our justification, but it does necessarily follow our
justification.
Saying that we are justified by faith alone is to exclude any other instrument
by which we receive the blessing of God, there is no other “hand” by which we
may receive God’s grace. However, it does not exclude God from using
“channels” by which he extends that grace to us? We look forward to a
discussion of the sacraments in this regard.
Article XII
Of Good Works
ALBEIT that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after
Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s
Judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do
spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a
lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as
a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” (Eph 2.810)
“. . . not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in
Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” (Phi 3.9)
36 Notice that the 2nd Book of Homilies is referred to in entirety in Article 35.
This Article desires to steer a middle course between unScriptural extremes,
and protect from distorted viewpoints. On the one hand, Rome had been very
clear about the merit of good works. For example (from 6th session of the
proceedings of the Council of Trent, Jan / 1547)
“Whosoever shall affirm that the good works of a justified man are in such sense the gift of God, as
that they are not also his worthy merits, or that he being justified by his good works, which are
wrought by him through the grace of God, and the merits of Jesus Christ, of whom he is a living
member, does not really deserve increase of grace, eternal life, the enjoyment of that eternal life, if he
dies in a state of grace, and even an increase of glory, let him be accursed.”37
On the other side of the question, antinomianism and “Solifidianism”38 were
widespread, saying that since justification was by faith alone, good works
were not only unnecessary, but could even be considered dangerous (one might
trust in them somehow).
As one might put the question, does God’s grace in justification go before the
exercise of the will, or follow the will? The Romanist confuses justification
with sanctification.39 Others adhered to a “germ theory of Justification,” that
God sees in faith the germ of what we shall become, and therefore justifies us
by anticipation.40 This makes faith the ground of righteousness. This Article
seeks the balance that is expressed: “It is faith alone which justifies, and yet,
the faith which justifies is not alone.”41
The expression of this balance is found in the teaching of Paul and James.
These two authors have often been seen as being (at least) in tension, if not in
conflict. But to the contrary, as GT puts it:
“St. Paul and St. James are not two soldiers of different armies fighting each other, but two of the same
army fighting back to back against enemies coming from different directions.”42
Paul 43
James
37 see Thomas p. 206.
38 Solifidanism is defined as “some purely intellectual acceptance of truth by which alone a man is
justified . . . we see that all that is intended by ‘faith only’ is the avoidance of anything like works for the
purpose of justification.” (GT, p. 198)
39 As quoted before: At the 6th session of this council, 1/1547; “Justification is not merely the remission
of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man, through the voluntary reception of the grace
and gifts, whereby man from unjust becomes just, from an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according
to the hope of eternal life.”
40 GT, p. 204, citing from Bishop Bull
41 GT, p. 206, quoting Calvin.
42 GT, p. 206.
43 See GT’s comparison on p. 205.
In Rom 4 dealing with Abraham as recorded in In Jam 2, deals with Abraham from Gen 2
Gen 15.6 (see Gal 3.6).44 years later.45
Here, Abraham is a man justified by faith. Here, Abraham is acting as a believer afte
Here, Paul deals with the instrument of Here, James is dealing with the proof of
justification. justification.
Paul is dealing with a nonChristian.46 James is dealing with a professing Christi
Paul uses Gen 15 to prove the necessity of faith. James uses Gen 22 to prove the necessity
works.
Paul teaches that works must spring from faith James teaches that faith must be proved b
works
Paul is dealing with the error of legalism James with dealing with antinomianism
Paul warns against thinking one can earn merit James warns against mere intellectual orth
The Article offers a testimony to the applicability of the Scriptures to our
understanding of justification, the same problems with the Apostles were the
same errors of the English Reformation period, and the same errors of our own
day.
Article XIII
Of Works Before Justification
WORKS done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not
pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither
do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the Schoolauthors say)
deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath
willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature
of sin.
44 “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if
Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the
Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works,
his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him
who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” (Rom 4.15)
“Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, ‘This man will not be your heir; but one
who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.’ And He took him outside and said, ‘Now look
toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your
descendants be.’ Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” (Gen 15.46)
“Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
(Gal 3.6)
45 “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see
that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was
fulfilled which says, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ and he was
called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (Jam 2.2124)
46 Rom 3.28: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”
Must consider historical background, particularly for an Article like this one,
speaking to the “School Authors.” (the medieval scholastics and their doctrine
of congruent merit). That meant that it was possible to think of a person as
entitled to receive initial grace as a proper reward for deeds already done in his
or her own strength, apart from any assistance of the Holy Spirit. God looks
out and sees, so to speak, those who have already done certain good things and
says, “These individuals deserve my grace because of the merit of their
works.”
That means that the initiative belongs to those who do the good deeds and not
with God who gives the grace. This is a common Arminian / SemiPelagian
concept, that election follows faith or the anticipation of faith.47 And this
perspective denies what Article XI says. Works in some way entitle us to
God’s grace.
We need to be careful that we don’t make the Article say what it doesn’t say. It
doesn’t speak to the idea of “common grace”.48 We are not bound to say that no
one outside the covenant can to anything that might be called good in any
sense. We aren’t required to understand that there is no such thing as “civil
good”. The only point is that one cannot say that there is any merit in such
deeds which satisfy God. “For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like
47 It would be proper to speak of the socalled ordo salutis, the order by which the Holy Spirit applies the
work of redemption to us. The reformed order has been given thusly (using Berkhof’s Manual of Christian
Doctrine):
— Calling: that gracious act of God whereby He invites sinners to accept the salvation that is offered in
Christ Jesus. (p. 231)
— Regeneration: different meanings ranging from the comprehensive covenantal process, to the most
narrow aspect of implanting new life in the soul. (p. 236)
— Conversion: the act of God whereby He causes the regenerated, in their conscious life, to turn to
Him for faith and repentance. (p. 243)
— Faith: a confident conviction, worked in the heart by the Holy Spirit, as to the truth of the gospel,
and a hearty reliance on the promises of God in Christ. (p. 250)
— Justification: the legal act of God by which He declares the sinner righteousness on the basis of the
perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. (p. 256)
— Sanctification: the gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit by which He purifies the
sinner from the pollution of sin, renews his whole nature in the image of God in man, and enables him to
perform good works. (p. 267)
— Perseverence: the continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of
divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion. (p. 274)
48 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of
your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous.” (Mat 5.4445)
a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” (Isa 64.6, 5d) They are
righteous deeds, but they cannot be accounted as righteous before God, as
having merit in his sight.
Article XIV
Of Works of Supererogation
VOLUNTARY Works besides, over and above, God’s Commandments, which they
call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and
impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as
much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of
bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all
that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
We must also understand the historical matrix of this Article. This idea of
supererogatory works (works above the required standard) is closely linked to
the system / practice of indulgences in the medieval church. It was the abuse of
indulgences which drove Martin Luther to act. Prior to the time of the
Crusades in the 11th century, there was scarcely any existence of such an idea.
However, the seeds of indulgences existed before the Crusades.
One of the early precedents was the church’s response to those who wanted to
be restored after a lapse of faith under persecution. Cyprian of Carthage, in the
3rd century, determined that there could be restoration from such lapses, but
that a time of penitential discipline had to be undergone, in order to
demonstrate their sincerity. This was a wise practice, avoiding the two
extremes of laxity or unforgiveness. At times the length of this probation could
be lengthy and people would appeal for a shortening of the period of
penitence. In the process of these petitions, sometimes the penitent would seek
the sponsorship of someone who had not recanted the faith who would vouch
for the penitent person. The question then arose, “Can the church modify its
own canons?” Cyprian himself resisted the practice of loosening the canons,
but the larger church felt it was proper to be able to relax discipline, since it
was the church itself which had established the discipline.
Another early precedent was the practice of celibacy. In writing to the
Corinthian church concerning virgins; Paul speaks about marriage saying that
because of immorality, each one should have her husband or his wife. But he
says that he does not say this by way of command, but as a concession /
counsel / permission / allowance and here the Latin word is “indulgentiam”49.
As a result of this phrase, there came a distinction between precepts which all
must obey, and counsels or permissions which one may not have to obey. It
was concluded from this distinction in 1Co that if one followed not only all the
commands, but also all of the allowances of the Bible, then one could actually
do more than God really requires. One could gather extra credits of
righteousness.
The 13th century scholars decided that this extra merit could not be lost, but
rather went into the treasury of the church, which, combined with Christ’s
infinite merit, comprised a deposit of meritorious works which the church,
through its authority to bind and lose, could dispense as the church pleases for
the benefit of her people.
There are additional aspects
The fundamental issue is that the entire scheme of supererogatory works is
based on a false premise. It is NOT possible to fulfill all of God’s righteous
demands, never mind do things in excess of the demands. And even if it were
possible to keep all the required precepts, that would be nothing more than
what God required anyway. It could not be considered excess. It certainly
would not create a treasury of merit which could be applied as the church
pleases.
It could basically be said that a view of the works of supererogation derives
from erroneous thinking about justification as covered in the previous Articles.
Additionally, it adds the thought that our relationship with God is not a
relationship of sonship, but rather of a formula, a financial transaction. It
would, in my mind, not be too different from the wickedness which Jesus
rebukes when he says: “Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those
who were selling, saying to them, ‘It is written, ‘AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE
A HOUSE OF PRAYER,’ but you have made it a ROBBERS’ DEN.’‘” (Luk
19.4546)
It is called arrogant, because it raises human ability to an impossible level, and
it is called impiety, because it is so clearly out of step with Biblical piety. See,
for example Luk 17.10: “So you too, when you do all the things which are
commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which
we ought to have done.’”
49 from indulgens, meaning “kind, tender or indulgent”. See 1Co 7.6 in the Vulgate; “hoc autem dico
secundum indulgentiam non secundum imperium . . .”
Article XV
Of Christ Alone Without Sin
CHRIST in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only
except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He
came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made,
should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as Saint John saith) was not in
him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet
offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is not in us.
Articles 15 through 18 have to do with the topic of Sanctification. This is the
bridge between Justification and Sanctification, in that while the previous
Articles spoke of the legal work of Christ on our behalf, these Articles speak
of our practical condition in life. In particular, this Article talks about the
universal fact of sinfulness in the human race, Christ only being excepted a
necessary comment in order to undergird the fact of Christ’s humanity.
Again, we must keep in mind the historical framework in which the Articles
were written. We have already noted that the Articles were not only a defense
of the faith against Roman error, but also against the Pelagian and semi
Pelagian errors among many of the Anabaptists. The 1553 version of this
Article is almost precisely the same as the final 39 Articles, except the title
was No One Is Without Sin but Christ Alone.
Notice the two sections of the Article:
About Christ:
True Humanity of Christ In addition to Article 2: “took man’s nature in the
womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance.” It is necessary to assert this
fact in order to show that all which Christ came to redeem, he was, and all that
Christ was, he redeemed.
Sinlessness of Christ The point above regarding true humanity raises the
possible objection by the Pelagians that for Christ to be truly like us, he had to
be like us in every sense. Remember the Pelagian theory that of all the things
which God commands us, we are capable. For Jesus to be a true example of
that theory, he must also have the likelihood of sinning himself (in their
thinking) . This was put in terms of the question: Was Jesus non posse
peccare, or was he posse non peccare?
We know that Jesus was tempted like we are.50 We know that Jesus was
tempted in the context of his sufferings.51 The meaning of the word
“temptation” is also the word “trial.”52 Therefore, with Jesus, all the trials that
he suffered “perfected” him,53 that is, his sufferings completed the task he was
sent to do, and from a human perspective, completed him. It is even said that
we can fill up the sufferings of Christ, add to them or completing what is
lacking in them.54 What this means is that Paul is working on behalf of the
body of Christ, and his sufferings are for their sake in a similar (but lesser
sense) as Christ’s sufferings was on behalf of his church.55 That means that
even our sufferings / temptations / trials do not all come to sin or are equated
with sin. What is imperfectly true in us is perfectly true in Christ. He suffered
both trial and temptation, and perfectly withstood the opportunity to sin. He
was, therefore, non posse peccare.
Sacrifice of Christ Perfect God and Perfect man were joined into one man for
a purpose, and the Article speaks to this purpose. There are some obvious
references in this portion of the Article, for example to 1Jo 3.5: “You know
that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.” We
“were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile
way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a
lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” (1Pe 1.1819) And as this
spotless lamb, “Christ has been offered once to bear the sins of many.” (Heb
9.28)
About Us:
Notice that the Article starts with Christians as being baptized persons. The
implication of this statement is covenantal in its character, something we’ll
discuss further under the doctrine of baptism. Nevertheless, covenant people
are those who bear the covenant sign. This is not the only example of this kind
50 Heb 4.15: “Denn wir haben nicht einen Hohenpriester, der nicht könnte mit leiden mit unserer
Schwachheit, sondern der versucht worden ist in allem wie wir, doch ohne Sünde.”
51 Heb 2.18: “For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the
aid of those who are tempted.”
52 hs;n' 1) to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test 1a) 1a1) to test, try 1a2) to attempt,
assay, try 1a3) to test, try, prove, tempt
peira,zw (aor. pass. evpeira,sqhn and evpira,sqhn) test, put to the test; tempt; try, attempt
53 “For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many
sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.” (Heb 2.10)
54 “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body,
which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.” (Col 1.24)
55 see also Eph 3.13: “Therefore I ask you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, for they are
your glory.”
of usage. Note also Article 9: “And although there is no condemnation for
them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that
concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.” Likewise, the next
Article specifically addresses Sin after Baptism.
It cannot be said that we have no sin. Again, there are clear references to
Biblical texts. Most specifically:
“If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If
we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar
and His word is not in us.” (1Jo 1.810)
Let us not forget that 1Jo was written to Christians.
Also, we can see from Paul’s writings that the struggle of the Christian life
with sins as a practical thing, even though sin as a principal has been removed
from us, is an ongoing problem. We have already discussed Rom 7 under
Article 10.
And so the Anabaptistic / Pelagian question about human sinlessness is clear
dealt with. But what about the almost hopeless perspective of overwhelming
human sinfulness?
Article XVI
Of Sin after Baptism
NOT every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy
Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be
denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy
Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of
God we may rise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be
condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny
the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.56
Again, the historical context is important. John Calvin seems to summarize the
problem in view in 4.1.23:
“Our own age has certain Anabaptists (not very different from the Novatianists) who
are lapsing into the same madness. For they feign that in baptism God’s people are
reborn into a pure and angelic life, unsullied by any carnal filth. But if after baptism
anyone falls away, they leave him nothing but God’s inexorable judgment. In short, to
the sinner who has lapsed after he has received grace they hold out no hope of
56 Influenced by the Confession of Augsburg.
pardon. For they recognize no other forgiveness of sins than that by which they were
first reborn.”
Novatianists were those, who during persecutions from 249 to 260, rejected
the readmission of lapsed Christians. Those Christians, on pain of death, had
denied the faith and offered sacrifice to idols. It was the contention of
Novatian that while God might pardon them at death, the church could never
forgive such people. What was at stake, in his mind, was whether or not the
church would continue to be the true church.
Additionally, there is a reference to this same problem in Article 12 of the
Augsburg Confession.
“The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after
Baptism, though they returned to repentance.”
The key issues involved in this teaching are:
What is the nature of the unpardonable sin or blasphemy against the
HS?
What is “falling from grace”?
What of postbaptismal sin?
What is the nature of the unpardonable sin or blasphemy against the
HS? In the Reformation there was such a resurgence of interest in this
question that the original Edwardian Articles had an Article addressing this
very question. Article 16 of read:
“Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is when a man of malice and stubbornness of
mind, doth rail upon the truth of God’s word manifestly perceived, and being enemy
thereunto persecuteth the same. And because such be guilty of God’s curse, they
entangle themselves with a most grievous, and heinous crime, whereupon this kind of
sin is called and affirmed of the Lord, unpardonable.”
This is, of course, omitted in the 39 Articles.
The only remaining reference is in this present Article: “Not every deadly sin
willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and
unpardonable.” Why would the Article choose to present the matter this way?
Remember the spirit and intent of the Articles. Therefore the Article is not
concerned to define completely what the unpardonable sin is, but rather to
comfort the Christian who sins.
What is “falling from grace”? Those who are initiated into the church by
baptism and brought under the blessings of the covenant will commit sin.
What some fail to see who assert the idea of a baptismal efficacy (that baptism
does ‘something’), then say that what baptism accomplishes can be set aside
by sinful acts. If one says that God works something in this means of grace,
there are those who then conclude that there is some internal and complete
moral renovation or transformation of character and so it seems the
Anabaptists did.
What they failed to see is that baptism works a change of status, not character.
Baptism is the Christian rite of initiation, and thus marks the beginning and
not the ending. It doesn’t automatically give all the benefits of sanctification
and glorification. But the Anabaptists wanted to see that the water brought
with it an automatic and complete change in the moral character.
What of postbaptismal sin? This doesn’t mean that we say that sin means
nothing after baptism. For example, in the baptismal office, at the very end of
the service for infants:
“I exhort you to have always in remembrance what a solemn obligation ye have here
assumed. Ye are, therefore, to take care that this child be virtuously brought up to
lead a godly and a Christian life; remembering always, that Baptism doth represent
unto us our profession, which is, to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to
be made like unto him . . . continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections,
and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living.”
This is the obligation implicit in Baptism, and to act contrary to this obligation
is dangerous. It doesn’t set aside the necessity to “arise again and amend our
lives . . . by the grace of God.”
So the Article opposes any naive denial of postbaptismal sin, and it also
opposes arrogant pride that there will be no further sin. And it also sets aside
any doubt that there can be forgiveness for sin.
In our worship service in the Eucharistic liturgy one need only observe the
regular cycle of Sin / Grace / Faith to see the importance of being renewed
continually in the process which God by his grace has begun, and which God
by his grace continues. As the language says in the Declaration for the
Remission of sins in the English book:
“The Almighty God, the Father of our LORD Jesus Christ . . . hath in his holy Word
given assurance that he pardoneth and absolveth all those who truly repent, and
unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him ever to grant us
true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which we do at
this present, and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy . . .”
To oppose these truths, both the cycle of Sin / Grace / Faith, and to see that
God truly does pardon and absolve those who believe in him this is to deny
the gospel.
This is why the Article is so strong in the language it uses: “And therefore they
are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live
here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.” What kind of
arrogance is it that says both: “I do not sin” and “You do, and there is no
redemption for you”?
As a side comment, let me suggest a relationship of various texts and consider
whether they are related on the topic of the unpardonable sin. See Mat 12.31
32, Mar 3.2830, Luk 12.10, Heb 6.48, Heb 10.2831, 1Jo 5.1617.
Article XVII
Of Predestination and Election
PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the
foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel
secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen
in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation,
as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent
a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working
in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely:
they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his
onlybegotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at
length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in
Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons,
and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying
the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind
to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and
confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as
because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and
carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their
eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall,
whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into
wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be
generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings that Will of God
is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of
God.
No Article among all of the 39 more expresses the pastoral character of the
Articles than perhaps does this Article. Think about how often the doctrines of
predestination and election are set either in harshly dogmatic terms, or in
loftily speculative terms. Often predestination and election are somehow made
the first and foremost test of fellowship. And then look at this Article and
consider how much it seeks to be pastoral in its character. Nearly half of this
Article is concerned about what predestination and election are meant to mean
to both the godly and the ungodly.
The content of the Article is carefully framed. It is largely framed in the words
of the Scriptures.57 Therefore, the opponent of this Article would have to
contend with what the Bible itself says. If you have committed yourself to the
Scriptures as expressed in Article 6, then this Article captures you by either
quoting or paraphrasing the Scriptures. Read this side by side with chapters 8
9 of Romans and Eph 1.
However, let it not be thought that in its pastoral sensitivity it has to give up
clarity and precision. It meets both the Pelagians and the Antinomians head
on. The Pelagians are stuck with the forthright teaching of the sovereignty of
God’s grace in choosing for himself a people according to his own secret
counsels and purpose. But the Antinomians are refuted by the statement that
the godly, through grace, obey the calling of God to holiness.
And this manner of presentation is according to the Scriptures. The doctrines
of predestination and election are presented in Scriptures as doctrines of
comfort. So Rom 9:
“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power
known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And
He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He
prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews
only, but also from among Gentiles.” (Rom 9.2224)
57 Predestination: proori,zw Acts 4:28, Rom. 8:29, Rom. 8:30, 1 Co. 2:7, Eph. 1:5, Eph. 1:11
Election: evkle,gomai (verb form) Mk. 13:20, Lk. 6:13, Lk. 9:35, Lk. 10:42, Lk. 14:7, Jn. 6:70, Jn.
13:18, Jn. 15:16, Jn. 15:19, Acts 1:2, Acts 1:24, Acts 6:5, Acts 13:17, Acts 15:7, Acts 15:22, Acts 15:25, 1 Co.
1:27, 1 Co. 1:28, Eph. 1:4, Jas. 2:5
evklekto,j (noun form) Matt. 22:14, Matt. 24:22, Matt. 24:24, Matt. 24:31, Mk. 13:20, Mk. 13:22,
Mk. 13:27, Lk. 18:7, Lk. 23:35, Rom. 8:33, Rom. 16:13, Col. 3:12, 1 Tim. 5:21, 2 Tim. 2:10, Tit. 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1,
1 Pet. 2:4, 1 Pet. 2:6, 1 Pet. 2:9, 2 Jn. 1:1, 2 Jn. 1:13, Rev. 17:14
So also Eph 1:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with
every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him
before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.
In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace,
which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” (Eph 1.36)
See also Eph 4.28, Rom 8.2830, 1Co 2.7, Eph 1.1112.
Luther speaks on this doctrine:
“Men should not turn their eyes on the secret sentence of election, foreknowledge and
predestination, as they are called; for such speeches lead to doubt, security, or
despair. Are you elected? No fall can hurt you and you cannot perish. Are you not
elected? There’s no remedy for it. These are shocking speeches, and men ought not to
fix their hearts on such thoughts. The Gospel refers to the proclaimed word of God,
wherein he has revealed his will, and through which he will be known and will work.”
Focus on the revealed will of God. “We must receive God’s promises in such
wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture; and in our doings
that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in
the word of God.”
This is important, because in discussing this doctrine, it is right for us to
understand that God decrees and ordains. But the mistake is often made, that
the investigator of this truth attempts to discern the mind of God on the topic.
When we ask: “What is predestination? What is election?”: those are questions
the Bible raises and answers. But when we ask, “Who are the elect? What
precisely has God predestined?”, then we break the character of the text in
Deu:
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us
and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” (Deu 29.29,
d28)58
Most of the more harsh aspects of these questions are when people presume to
speak with the mind of God.
“No one, as long as he exists in this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning
the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is
assuredly in the number of the predestined, as if it were true that he that is justified
either cannot sin anymore, or if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself a certain
58 Don’t make the mistake of citing Deu 28.28: “Der HERR wird dich schlagen mit Wahnsinn, Blindheit
und Verwirrung des Geistes.” :)
repentance. For except by a special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath
chosen to himself.”
What is the comfort of this Article and this doctrine?
“As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of
sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in
themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and
their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well
because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be
enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God.”
It is possible then, to point out clearly that we may look at the work of God in
our lives, and know that it is God’s hand.
“The practical power of this truth of ‘predestination to life’ is clearly emphasized in
the Article, for it is, indeed, ‘full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly
persons.’ The comfort is not merely selfish enjoyment, for even when conscious of
temporal blessings which others do not possess there is no thought of selfishness, but
a deeper consciousness of the love that provides them. In the same way the realization
that we are predestined and elected to life is one of the mightiest incentives to true
Christian living. It humbles pride by putting God first; it encourages faith by making
God’s grace real; it rebukes unbelief by reminding us of God’s foresight and
provision; it elicits earnestness by the consciousness of God’s wonderful thought and
love; and it emphasizes by the remembrance of what manner of persons we ought to
be who are the subjects of this Divine and glorious purpose.”59
Of course, this topic is most often connected with John Calvin. (As reported
by Bishop Riches), it is interesting to note that when Calvin prepared a
catechism for Geneva, he did not put that doctrine in the catechism, because he
said it was a hard doctrine, which often caused people to stumble.60
59 GT, p. 256257.
60 Discursus on two points
Of the socalled “Five Points of Calvinism”, two of the points have been particularly difficult for some
to hear. Those two points are “Limited Atonement / Particular Redemption” and “Irresistible Grace”. They are
both related to each other.
Of these two, Limited Atonement is the more controversial. The basic argument can be as follows:
for whom did Christ die? He either died for all or for some,
if he died for all, then all are saved,
or he died for all, but some are not saved, and his death is not efficacious
* but some have argued that Christ’s death is efficacious for all, but rejected by some
through unbelief,
* however, isn’t unbelief also a sin for which Christ died?
if he died for some, who are indeed saved, then his death is efficacious and we are not
universalists.
Article XVIII
Of Obtaining Eternal Salvation Only by the Name of Christ
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be
saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame
his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth
set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
Article 18 serves the purpose of bridging between personal salvation and the
company of the saved i.e., the church. It is also a continuation of guarding the
church against Anabaptistic extremes, who in opposition to the errors of
Note that Arminians also believe in Limited Atonement as well. But whereas I would say that Christ’s
atonement is only limited as to scope (extent, number), the Arminian says that Christ’s atonement is limited in
power (efficiency, ability, efficacy).
Is there Biblical proof for this logic?
1) Christ came, not to enable, but to actually save: 1Ti 1.15, Luk 19.10
2) What Christ came to do, he accomplished: Rom 5.10, Col 1.2122, Rom 3.2425, Eph 1.34,
Heb 13.12
3) The application of that work is specific: Joh 6.3540, Joh 10.11, 1418, 2429, Joh 17.111,
20, 2426
What about some of the famous “all” passages? All, actually, never means all without scope or
definition.
1Ti 4.10 (common grace, see context)
2Pe 3.9 (see vs. 7)
Tit 2.11 (but see 1.10, 14, even this text says what these all must be doing if they are saved)
1Ti 2.46 (cf. 2Th 3.2)
the same discussion applies to the texts that say that Jesus took away the sins of the “whole
world.” See for example, Joh 3:16, meaning the world without limitation to race, location.
And now to the logical extension of Efficacious or Irresistible Grace.
What Jesus came to do must be done, how? There must be specific application of the
atonement in the calling of the Holy Spirit.
Distinction between outward calling and inward calling.
SPECIFIC: Joh 10.3: To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice,
and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.: 1Th 5.2324 Now may the
God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body
be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.
GENERAL: Luk 5.32 “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to
repentance.” Mat 22.14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Finally, do not forget our discussions about nature. Before the efficacious work of God, our
wills are “free” do act according to our nature, as dead and fallen creatures. After redemption, we are again
“free” to act according to our new natures. 1Pe 112, Eph 2.10, etc.
Finally, concerning Perseverence of the Saints: Joh 10.2730: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know
them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch
them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch
them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
Rome, sometimes threw out, as well, things that were important in the church.
They “threw the baby out with the (dirty) bath water.” It was an attitude that if
Rome did / said it, it must be wrong. Doctrinal distinction became a matter
indifference. Sincerity, not doctrinal content or absolutes, became a defining
point of true religion.
This is not so different from our own world today. Certain forms of pietism,
including what I have seen of some aspects of German pietism (Gerhard’s
church, who thought that discussing theology was contrary to the Spirit).
This Article says that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that most
absolute about that truth is that Jesus is the truth, and the only means of
salvation. Anyone who says as long as they are earnest about their sect / law /
confession is to be considered saved sets their law / sect and earnestness above
Christ and they are accursed.
Article XIX
Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which
the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered
according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are
requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also
the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of
Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
The Article follows on the previous Articles about justification, sanctification,
etc. The church is a clear communion of those who follow Jesus (Article 18),
and now we must speak of that communion.
This Article tries to steer a middle course between two problems. On the one
hand is Rome’s claim that it is the only true church. But on the other hand,
didn’t want to encourage Anabaptistic extremes which claimed that the church,
in effect, is a church of “one”, each individual believer. What makes a “true
church”? How is the distinction made? Especially in light of Article 18.
First, it speaks of the visible church. The church with which we have to do is
the church which we can see. It is definite, seeable, and able to be known. In
mentioning the visible church, there is perhaps a sidelong acknowledgment
that there is such a thing as the invisible church.
There are two ways to think about church. One is to speak of the invisible
church, of which there are visible extensions. The other is to speak of the
visible church, of which there are invisible aspects. We can conceive of a body
of true believers known only to God. But having said that it is known only to
God, what counsel can we then give or take on such a matter? In other words,
what is our practical response to that idea, other than to deal with the church
we can see? There is nothing else we can say, know or do about such an
invisible body.
This is somewhat the same as saying that we acknowledge that God has
predestined some to live, but what is our practical response? Do we attempt to
find out who those elect are? Or do we leave such counsels to God and
proceed as if all men are elect and present the message of the gospel to them
all? The reason that predestination is so important to us on a practical level is
to acknowledge what we can see our own inability, our humble condition, our
absolute need for God so that we will call on him, seek him, love him and
obey him, and not our own dictates or will.
So it is with the church. The only practical side to the idea of the invisible
church is to immediately say that the church is much broader that you and I,
and to immediately begin dealing with the visible church in a different way.61
The visible church is a congregation of the faithful. GriffithThomas speaks of
several characteristics of the church:
“(a) The visible church is a community. It is a congregation, not an aggregation,
because it has a principle of unity and union with Christ as the centre. (b) The
Church has a life. It is a congregation of ‘faithful men,’ that is, men of faith, believers
in Jesus Christ. (c) The Church has a standard. ‘In the which the pure Word of God is
preached.’ This allusion to ‘pure’ had an evident reference to the Roman Catholic
additions made to the Word of God in preaching and teaching. (d) The Church has an
observance. In which ‘the Sacraments are duly ministered.’ It is not said what ‘duly’
implies, since the New Testament gives no clear indication of the precise ministers
required for the Sacraments. But it is more than likely that ‘duly’ has a reference to
the denial of the cup to the laity.”62
61 Is there Biblical witness on this matter? The church of which the Scriptures speak is seeable and
tangible.
62 GT, p. 271.
Regarding a: The church is spoken of as a body, a living organism. The life of
the church is the Spirit of God himself. This implies order, structure and
purpose.
Regarding b: faithful people. By the way, the implication of the visible
church is that we can only deal with “visible believers”, i.e., confessing /
professing Christians, not “true believers” in the absolute sense. That means
that the church will always have some good and evil mixed together. The
Church will never (on this earth) be identical with the invisible aspect of the
church. It is, in fact, illegitimate to try to make it so. Jesus, in his kingdom
parables of Mat 13 speaks of the tares (Unkraut) mixed among the wheat
(Weizen). Jesus’ wisdom on the matter is:
“Laßt beides zusammen wachsen bis zur Ernte, und zur Zeit der Ernte werde ich den
Schnittern sagen: Lest zuerst das Unkraut zusammen, und bindet es in Bündel, um es
zu verbrennen; den Weizen aber sammelt in meine Scheune!” (Mat 13.30)
As Article 26 confesses: “. . . in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled
with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority . . .”
Regarding c & d: the standard of the church is “the pure word of God”
and “the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all
those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” We are not left to
guess by the Articles as to what the pure word of God is, who what it means to
duly minister the sacraments. Article 8 specifies the historical creeds as the
basis for determining essentials, and Article 20 states: “The Church hath
power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith.”
The formulation of creeds is one of the principles ways in which the church
exercises its authority in controversies. Thus, when the church adheres to the
ecumenical creeds, that is the church which preaches the “pure word”. It’s not
just a church that says “we believe the Bible”. It goes beyond that to asking:
“What do you believe about the Bible.” The implies a little more about how to
judge what is orthodoxy. As put by one scholar: 1 Bible, 2 Testaments, 3
Creeds, 4 Councils,63 over 5 Centuries.
When the Sacraments are administered as follows:
having the proper matter (water [not rose petals], wine, bread [not beer and pizza]),64
63 Namely the First Ecumenical Council Of Nicaea, 325; the Second Ecumenical Council of
Constantinople, 381; the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, 431; and the Fourth Ecumenical Council of
Chalcedon, 451.
64 This raises interesting questions, z.B., as found in the Didache, running / cold water; (Didache 7.13):
“But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou
hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in
proper form: namely, Trinitarian formula for baptism [as against “Jesus only” sects,
gender neutral “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier”] and the words of Institution of the
Eucharist [see that Paul brings order to what the Corinthians were practicing, by passing
on to the Corinthians the “formula”: “For I received from the Lord that which I also
delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you;
do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way He took the cup also after supper,
saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of Me.’” (1Co 11.2325)
properly qualified ministry, that it is within the order and discipline of the church. If we
must be certain that the pure word of God is preached, how can it be that such is true
unless proper order is held. Truth in the ministerial offices brings to bear the discipline of
truth in the church itself.
What else does this mean? The church of Rome is still a church, even when in error. She is
not totally apostate.
“The church of Christ, what was from the beginning, is and continueth unto the end.
Of which church, all parts have not always been equally sincere and sound [my note:
this also includes the part of the church to which we belong, whatever that is]. In St.
Paul’s time, the integrity of Rome was famous. Corinth, in many ways, reproved. They
of Galatia, much more out of square. In St. John’s time, Ephesus and Smyrna in far
better state than Thyatira and Pergamus were. We hope therefore that to reform
ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the church
we were of before. In the church we were and we still are so. Other differences
between our estate before and now we know none. But only such as we see in Judah,
which having sometime been idolatrous became afterwards more soundly religious by
renouncing idolatry and superstition. The indisposition therefore of the church of
Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us for performing our duty to God; even
as desire of retaining conformity with them would be no excuse if we did not perform
that duty. Notwithstanding, so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold
fellowship with them, for even as the apostle doth say of Israel, that they are in one
respect enemies, but in another beloved of God. In like sort with Rome, we dare not
communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touching
those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly
acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ, and our hearty prayer unto
almighty God is that by being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at length, if
it be His will, so yield to frame and reform themselves that no distraction remain in
warm water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
as well sprinkled, poured, standing in it, etc. Also, what about leavened bread, what about grape juice? But we
don’t have the recipe for Christ’s bread. The matter of leaven, for example, has clear symbolic value. Common
cup? Manual acts (took bread, broke, gave, etc., cf. 1Co 10.1617.)? One loaf? Etc.
anything, but that we may with one heart and one mouth, glorify God, the Father of
our Lord and Savior, whose church we are.” (Hooker)
Take note of the reference to the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch; and that the
church of Rome is compared to them, both in ceremony and matters regarding the faith. The
churches referred to are Eastern churches. There was always a respect for and order of
precedence which included at the head the churches of Alexandria and Antioch, as well as
Jerusalem, Rome and Constantinople. See the following citations from the Council at Nicaea.
CANON VI. “LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail,
that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary
for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the
Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any
one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has
declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops
shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it
being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of
the majority prevail.”
CANON VII. “SINCE custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the
Bishop of AElia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity
to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.”
Notice that the precise errors are not mentioned here, but that rather it is left to the
imagination of the reader that since is it possible for even such highly exalted and ancient
episcopates had erred, what right to Rome have to consider itself without error. It is certainly
in view that the Eastern church had erred on the mutual procession of the Spirit from the
Father and the Son.
Concerning the nature of Roman error, they may be gathered from the Articles themselves.
As to errors of “living” one may think of the issue of the celibacy of the clergy65. As to errors
in “manner of ceremonies”, one might consider the exclusive use of Latin in the
congregation66, and the denial of the cup to the laity67. As to “matters of faith”, we have
already discussed quite a number, including tradition, works of supererogation, purgatory, and
there are others yet to be discussed.
65 Referred to in Article 32: “Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God’s laws either to
vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage.”
66 Article 24: “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church,
to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.”
67 Article 30: “The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both parts of the Lord’s
sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”
Article XX
Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of
Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word
written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.
Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to
decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be
believed for necessity of Salvation.
This Article is a two edged sword, combating the errors of the Puritans who denied that the
church had the right to establish or require any practices beyond those which the Scriptures
explicitly commanded as an application of the Regulative Principle (remember our
discussions from Article 6). On the other hand, this Article denies the Roman claim that the
church has the right to require, even as necessary for salvation, doctrines not contained in
holy Scripture. This Article works to steer a course to true catholicity.
Rites or ceremonies established by the church need not receive any positive support from
Scripture. All which is required is that there is nothing about those rites or ceremonies
68
which are clearly prohibited or condemned by Scripture. The Puritan mistake was to demand
positive Biblical proof for everything that is done. But even the Bible does not allow itself to
be used that way. For example, the history of the Jewish church. The synagogue is outside of
Scriptural warrant, but the synagogue is never condemned by Jesus. In fact, the record of
Scripture is that Jesus and the Apostles used the synagogue for worship. The Jewish feasts of
dedication and Purim are outside of Biblical reference, but both are not censured by Jesus,
even among all the other abuses for which he criticizes the Jewish tradition.
“lf all things must be commanded of God which may be practiced of his Church, I
would know what commandment the Gileadites had to erect that Altar which is
spoken of in the Book of Joshua. Did not congruity of Reason induce them thereunto,
and suffice for defense of their fact? I would know what commandment the women of
lsrael had yearly to mourn and lament in the memory of Jephthah’s daughter; what
commandment the Jews had to celebrate their feast of Dedication, ... solemnized even
by our Saviour himself; what commandment, finally, they had for the ceremony of
odours used about the bodies of the dead, after which custom notwithstanding ... our
Lord was contented that his own most precious body should be entombed. Wherefore
to reject all laws of the Church which men have established, is to think worse of the
68 “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish
woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in
Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the
Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” (Act 16.13)
Perhaps also the baptism of John the Baptist?
Laws of men in this respect, than either the judgment of wise men alloweth, or the
Law of God itself will bear.”69
The church has the authority to render decisions in controversies of faith.70 The ultimate
judge, of course, is Scripture. But what about when there is disagreement on what the Bible
teaches? How is that decided? Think also of the Creeds as a church formulation of truth.
However, the authority of the church is certainly not without limits. Her limitations are: “it is
not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it
so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”
An example can be seen in the 4th Century council of Nicaea. The problem of Arianism had
raised its ugly head. But there were other controversies as well, for example, when Easter was
to be celebrated. That was a matter taken up, and which caused a letter from the Emperor to
those who were absent. Should Easter always be on Sunday or should it be calculated
according to the same date by the Jewish calendar (14th Nisan hence, the Quartodecimal
controversy). On this topic, the council said “it has appeared good to all . . .” But on the topic
of the Godhead: “Thus the Catholic church believes . . .”
The church preserves / keeps the Scripture, having received as a steward the Canon of
Scripture. She is guided by it, and keeps it from being watered down or ignored. Seeking after
the most accurate text is not just an academic exercise, but a means by which God’s own
words are more clearly seen. Translation, textual criticism (of the proper kind), etc. are all
part of that task. This is assumed in the Bible in the way the Scriptures are quoted, as
authoritative, without discussion of what belonged in the Canon and not.
And keeping clear what the Scriptures are (for example, Article 6), the church proclaims its
message, teaches what it says. Act 8.26 ff. is a case in point. The Ethiopian is reading from
Isaiah. Philip asks, do you understand what you read? And the Ethiopian answers: “How
could I, except someone guides me?” This is the task of the church.
Medieval error was that the Bible was withheld from the people. People were instructed to
believe what the church said because, she, the church was saying it. But it is also erroneous to
69 Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Vol. 1, Book 3, Chapter 11, Section 15, ¶ 2,
Facsimile Reprint by Via Media, Inc., Ellicott City, MD, USA, 1994.
70 “Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the
unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is
judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge
angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you
appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not
among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother,
and that before unbelievers?” (1Co 6.16)
See also the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and Paul’s response to the High Priest, Act 23.25.
assume that everyone who has a Bible and an opinion is of equal value with the history of the
church. Jesus refers to this same responsibility in Mat 5.20 & Mat 23.1113, 1516. The
Pharisees71 were responsible to be an example and guides, and he criticizes them for their
failure to do so properly.
For her teaching to be effective and authoritative, the church is responsible to document that
her teaching as being from Scripture. What she represents as teaching must be able to be
confirmed by Holy Scripture.
We have placed great weight on the “right of private judgment”, but individuals can find
themselves in opposition to the church. How do we deal with this kind of conflict? Remember
that the Holy Spirit has been given to the Body of Christ as a whole, and we are only
members of it. We need each other, since it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit has been given
to us without measure, except Christ. We need the balance of the work of God’s Spirit in
other Christians and in the body as a whole. It is pride to say that I alone have the truth, and
my opinion is unimpeachable. If a person finds themselves at variance with the mainstream of
the church on some essential topic, then we best question our perspective, and not that of the
church.72
71 This brief history of the Sanhedrin and the two key religious parties, the Pharisees and Sadducees
comes from Edersheim, Vol. 1, pp. 93 ff.
He places the origin of the Scribes (____ or _$____*_B() as perhaps in the Babylonian captivity
during the time of Nehemiah. He is ordained by the laying on of hands and called Rabbi. He is the lawyer, the
“‘wellplastered pit,’ filled with the water of knowledge ‘out of which not a drop can escape.’” “Although
generally appearing in company with the Pharisees, he is not necessarily one of them for they represent a
religious party, while he has a status, and holds an office.
In conjunction with the rise of the Rabbinical office was the development (again, during Nehemiah’s
time) of the ‘Great Assembly’ or the ‘Great Synagogue’. Edersheim remarks that it is very difficult to say who
composed this group, or how many. It was probably comprised of both church and state authorities; chief
priests, elders, and ‘judges’ the latter two classes including the Scribes. The term “Great Assembly” likely
refers to the institution within which there was a succession of men. Edersheim further remarks that their power
would have fluctuated with the times, from ecclesiastical authority alone, to real political power when foreign
domination either did not exist or permitted their power. The “Great Assembly” would be the forerunner of the
Sanhedrin. This latter condition existed during Jesus’ time, that is, the political power of the Sanhedrin was in
full force, and it exercised complete ecclesiastical authority and all the political authority that was permitted by
the invaders.
While the Scribes early on were both elders (religious) and judges (secular), Edersheim notes that they
lost their political power until the time of the Maccabees, becoming solely an ecclesiastical power. With the rise
of the Maccabees, their religious authority began to be translated into nationalistic terms, regaining for them
political power and backing the Maccabeean bid for independence. Later this religious/political power
represented a conservative/nationalistic branch; the Pharisees, and a more liberal branch (in both religious and
political senses), the Sadducees.
72 Jesus speaks with the authority of the church when he tells the woman at the well in Samaria in Joh
4.2122: “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you
worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the
Jews.”
Article XXI
Of the Authority of General Councils
[The Twentyfirst of the former Articles is normally omitted; because it is partly of a local
and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.
However, we provide it here in the interest of offering the reader the entire document.]
[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 sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to 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.]
It should be noted that the phrase “General Council” refers to ecumenical or universal
councils. This Article is a direct response to the Council of Trent. The reformers had all
called for some council to be held so that the issues which concerned the reformers could be
discussed. The Pope, in 1545, summoned a Council unilaterally and only those who held
allegiance to Rome were invited. It is also important to remember that the Council was in
session while these Articles were being framed. Of course, Rome looked to Trent as
authoritative. The English reformers were not particularly encouraged about the possible
objectivity of the council and saw the need to speak to the authority of Councils. Jewel
writes:
“But touching this council which is now summoned by the Pope Pius, wherein men so
lightly are condemned which have neither been called, heard, nor seen, it is easy to
guess what we may look for or hope of it.”73
Did Trent, particularly, have the same kind of authority in the church as the first 4 general
councils? This Article is, in part, an application of Article 20. Councils are one way in which
the church expresses its authority. The statement concerning princes was intended to
specifically counter the Pope’s claims to have the right to call councils on his own authority.
Of the special points of this Article:
The Fallibility of Councils: a) they may err, b) and have erred.
The Authority of Councils: a) are derived from Scripture (it is said that the Gospels were
set upon the throne at the Council of Chalcedon to testify to the divine authority over the
Council), b) and is derived subsequently from the reception of the results of the council by
the larger church.
If we combine Articles 20 and 21, as does GriffithThomas, we come to these conclusions:
1) The Church has full legal right in regard to the Ceremonial.
73 John Jewel, An Apology of the Church of England, edited by J.E. Booty, (Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press, 1963), p. 104 quoted from Bishop Hotchkiss’ work on the 39 Articles.
2) The Church has moral authority in all questions of difference of belief.
3) This twofold authority is always subject to the Word of God.
4) General Councils must have lay and full representation.
5) They may err, and have erred, thereby showing that they are not infallible.
6) Holy Scripture is the supreme authority in settling essential questions.
7) Conciliar decisions must be proved to be in harmony with Holy Scripture.
Article XXII
Of Purgatory
The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration as well of
Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond74 thing vainly invented, and
grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.
This contradicts the teaching and practice of the medieval church as opposed to certain
church and conciliar authorities thus its placement. It was understand by the church that the
consequences of sin are carried over into the next world. That is, a Christian carries with him
into eternity a debt that has not yet been fully met. The intermediate state75 was considered
probationary. It was further assumed that the condition of those in that state could be
influenced by those still in this life, or by the treasury of good deeds left over. Such
assumptions are, says the Article, futile and empty, desireable to some, but without any
substance.
Therefore, it specifically speaks against these doctrines:
Purgatory Session 25 of Trent taught: “There is a purgatory, and . . . souls there
detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, especially by the acceptable sacrifice of
the altar.” This may be derived from NeoPlatonic thinking, describing a good / bad / middle
(yet to be purged). What is wrong with this thinking?
Indulgences: discussed more fully under Article 14.
Worshiping and Adoration of Images and Relics: This seems to have come about by
the keeping of such things as the bones of Polycarp in honor of Christian dead, when keeping
them slid into thinking that appealing to some inherent value in them for spiritual purposes
required us to venerate them to get use of that power. The Roman church distinguishes
between latria, the reverence paid to God, and dulia, the reverence paid to saints and angels.
This Article makes a clear connection between acts which look like worship and idolatry.
That is, the latria / dulia distinction is entirely an intellectual one, permitting the faithful to
do acts of worship to images and other “holy memorials” as long as they were not of the type
74 Futile, wished for but without substance.
75 The “time between times” between death and resurrection which the Scripture seems to identify (2Co
5.6: “absent from the body and . . . at home with the Lord.”) but about which Scriptures seems to say little.
Recall Article 3 discussions.
of worship which is due God alone. The Article, however, speaks clearly about “worshiping
and adoration as well of Images as of Relics”. Idolatry is both an error of thinking and an
error in ritual. This is also the approach of Exo 20.45, Isa 44:1517.
Invocation of Saints: Praying to saints flies in the face of such texts as: Act 14.14, Act
10.25. Then the argument comes that while we cannot worship the departed believer, we can
ask them to pray on our behalf, just as we might someone living on earth. There is no Biblical
warrant, no early church warrant, and it is, in any event, dangerously close to having the
saints as objects of “semiworship.” It also implies a false view of the word “saint”.76
Does not speak to the following questions:
does not speak to praying for departed in any sense,
related to the question: do we come instantaneously to perfection upon death?
Art as a devotional object, or for aesthetic purposes in worship (z.B., stained glass
windows, icons, etc.).
Article XXIII
Of Ministering in the Congregation
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick 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 in the Lord’s vineyard.
This Article stands in logical progression after Articles 1922. Having established a reformed
ecclesiology, it logically follows that the church exercises its prerogatives and responsibilities
through legal agents, i.e., ministers. And again, this Article stands opposed to the
Anabaptistic perspective that any man could exercise authority as a pastor, whether or not he
was fit, or perceived to be fit by any larger congregation, or whether any church authority
agreed or not. In fact, if he felt so called, he would be obligated to exercise such authority. But
a “clear inner conviction” is not the same as having the calling of the church.
The Article sets out these things:
76 According to the available sources in my library, saint worship originated before the Nicene Council
(325 AD). Polycarp, with whom this practice may have inadvertently found some origin, died 156 AD.
Therefore, it seems that somewhere between 156 and 325, this practice came into ascendency.
Augustine (who d. 430) refers to his mother’s practice of saint worship and a bishop’s opposition to
that practice: “So also my mother brought to certain oratories, erected in the memory of the saints, offerings of
porridge, bread, and wine as had been her custom in Africa and she was forbidden to do so by the
doorkeeper. And as soon as she learned that it was the bishop who had forbidden it, she acquiesced so devoutly
and obediently that I myself marveled how readily she could bring herself to turn critic of her own customs,
rather than question his prohibition.”
1) The requirement of an external call according to the order of the church77 while
presupposing an internal call. This requires that the proper authorities exercise oversight and
have looked into the knowledge and conduct of the proposed pastor. In the ordinal of the
Anglican church, a question is first directed at the individual as to internal call. It is directed
at a presbyter, as a representative of the presbyterate of the church, regarding external call and
fitness. Then, in the ordination service, the man brought into the presence of an entire
congregation. A question is even directed at the congregation to ask if anyone had a reason to
say that ordination ought not to take place. In the ordination service, the bishop sits as in
judgment while the ordinand is examined. Same idea in confirmation.
2) It requires a clear authority through whom this external call comes. Notice that it says
“called and sent”. This is an external judgment and act.
3) As a practical matter, there should be a place to which the person would be sent. To
pastor, one must have sheep. To minister, there must be the “ministered to”. The presbyterate
is an office of ministry.
4) Those who have authority to do this calling and sending are those who are duly
constituted authorities: “men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation
to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.”78 That is, the whole church gives
authority to certain people, who, representing the church, lay hands upon pastors. In our
polity, it is the Bishop and Standing Committee. And the local church (in the REC/FRK) has
the final word regarding the minister in their congregation. This works in such a way that no
authoritarian Bishop/Standing committee can force a congregation to take a pastor, and no
congregation can take a pastor who has not passed the examination of the Bishop and
Standing Committee.
Notice as well what this Article carefully avoids. While it very clearly desires to strengthen
the importance of the corporate church in the deliberations pertaining to pastoral ministry, it
clearly does not require a Roman form of Apostolic Succession.79 Not only the Roman church,
77 Part of this question is: what is laying on of hands? The confirmation of a calling by a proper
authority? 2Ti 1.6, 1Ti 5.22, 1Ti 4.14, Act 9.17. Interesting to note that the word “presbytery” in 1Ti 4.14 is the
same word used concerning the Jewish “Council of the Elders” in Luk 22.66 & Act 22.5.
Senses in which the phrase “laying on of hands” is used: of violence, Gen 37.22, 27. Imputation of
guilt, Exo 29.10. Ordination, Num 8.10. For healing, Mat 9.18. Blessing, Mat 19.13, 15. Holy Spirit imparted,
Act 8.1719. Ordination, 1&2 Tim passages.
78 Interesting to note that the Levites were brought before the congregation of God’s people. “So you
shall present the Levites before the tent of meeting. You shall also assemble the whole congregation of the sons
of Israel, and present the Levites before the LORD; and the sons of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites.
Aaron then shall present the Levites before the LORD as a wave offering from the sons of Israel, that they may
qualify to perform the service of the LORD.” (Num 8.911)
79 Apostolic succession has been variously described. The Roman position is quite clear that a tactual
succession from Peter to the present day is required, and the priesthood is a modern day Aaronic priesthood
with the suggestion of a magical side, that is, that some particular grace is passed from Bishop to Bishop
throughout the ages. This is required for a proper sacerdotal/sacrificial office.
but the Oxford/Tractarian movement attempted to define true churchmanship in the context of
ministry rather than in terms of the sacraments.
“The Church is in this approach defined in terms of the ministry rather than in terms
of Baptism. It is not surprising that the Anglicans who held this . . . maintained not
merely a high view of ministerial authority but also what we would today recognize as
a very inadequate view of the laity. A further consequence of this emphasis upon
Apostolic Succession as the basis for authentic ministry is found in the frequent
assertion that the validity of the sacraments depends entirely upon their being
administered only by bishops within the succession or by other clergy ordained by
them . . . In this context, the sacraments become virtually the possession of the clergy.
They cease to be stewards of the sacraments on behalf of the church, and become
instead the primary agents in any sacramental action.”80
As Bishop Hotchkiss observes:
“Whatever terminology someone might choose for describing ecclesiastical order in
the New Testament era, no one should force the structure of a later system onto a
church in her infancy. There is diversity and development within the very pages of the
New Testament. The only category of persons most consistently recognized as having
a function unique from the start appears to be that of the closest chosen associates of
Jesus who were eyewitnesses of the resurrection. And the authority of their firsthand
witness to the resurrected Christ was not created by nor limited to a meeting of one
particular group of Christians. The presence of Apostles, therefore, uniquely qualifies
every form of governmental structure potentially functioning in the New Testament.
And every attempt to prove one unalterable form of church polity and ministry from
the New Testament is confuted by the manifest diversity and variety of ministries
therein, and the historically conditioned and circumscribed nature of the formative
apostolate. This is not to say that churches may do with ministry whatever they please.
But they must distinguish first between the fact and the form of ministry, between its
foundation and its development, and between what is creedally normative and what is
culturally relative (and relevant? Ed. Note). To speak of the creedally normative in
ministry, however, is to say that ministry must be in accord with ecclesiology, which
in turn must be measured by Christology. This is the ecumenical calling for every
communion serious about orthodox faith and catholicity.”81
A more reformed position would be that the church has historically and theologically been united
throughout all ages, that there is no presbyter today who exists without a preceding presbyter. There is never any
brand new church to be found, just a continuation of what went before. This is a covenantal/classical church
view.
80 Louis Weil, Sacraments & Liturgy, The Outward Signs, A Study in Liturgical Mentality, (New York:
Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited, 1985), p. 27 cited in Bishop Hotchkiss’ work on the Articles, p. 64.
81 Bishop Hotchkiss’ work on the Articles, p. 65.
Some comments about Anglican / Classical Church view of the ministry. One, a Classical
Church view of ministry is corporate. As this Article indicates, one may not decide on his
own whether to become a pastor. Internal call is to be confirmed by external call.
Additionally, this means that there is a sense in which the pastor does not belong to himself,
nor even to the local congregation, but to the whole of Christ’s church, and particularly as it is
expressed in the formal structures of a denomination. This is another example of expressing
the church in real and visible terms, not in theoretical and invisible terms. This also implies
the concept of a multiplicity of elders, not necessarily in the same place, but in the same
system of authority and accountability. In the same way that no one Christian functions as an
absolutely completely isolated entity, so also pastors or churches may not do so either. The
implications of this reach into such areas as church discipline, episcopal authority, etc.
It is pious and pastoral. That means that pastoral ministry is not business, but it is about souls,
and first of all it is about the pastor’s soul. The apostles in Acts 6 devoted themselves first to
prayer, and the ministry of the word followed. Their own souls were the first matter of
importance, as well as the importance of such a relationship to God in prayer that other
concerns would certainly be addressed in prayer. The key point is that first the pastor seeks
God. However, the pastor also seeks out people in the ministry of the word.
We are not moved by the most recent discoveries in churchmanship, about the newest ways to
think about ministry and pastoral leadership. The Bible gives the clear image that the pastor is
primarily a shepherd, not a business man, a counselor (in the modern and technical sense of
that word), a public figure, a politician, an ecclesiastical judge, nor even a theologian or
teacher (in a more narrow sense of those words). He can be all of those things, and it
enhances his usefulness if he has skill in those areas. But he is, first and foremost, to be
responsible for the “cure”, the shepherding of souls whom God has given to his charge.
“Die Ältesten unter euch ermahne ich, der Mitälteste und Zeuge der Leiden
Christi, der ich auch teilhabe an der Herrlichkeit, die offenbart werden soll: Weidet
die Herde Gottes, die euch anbefohlen ist; achtet auf sie, nicht gezwungen, sondern
freiwillig, wie es Gott gefällt; nicht um schändlichen Gewinns willen, sondern von
Herzensgrund; nicht als Herren über die Gemeinde, sondern als Vorbilder der Herde.
So werdet ihr, wenn erscheinen wird der Erzhirte, die unvergängliche Krone der
Herrlichkeit empfangen.” (1Pe 5.14)82
“Da riefen die Zwölf die Menge der Jünger zusammen und sprachen: Es ist
nicht recht, daß wir für die Mahlzeiten sorgen und darüber das Wort Gottes
vernachlässigen. Darum, ihr lieben Brüder, seht euch um nach sieben Männern in
eurer Mitte, die einen guten Ruf haben und voll heiligen Geistes und Weisheit sind,
82 “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ,
and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising
oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with
eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And
when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”
die wir bestellen wollen zu diesem Dienst. Wir aber wollen ganz beim Gebet und beim
Dienst des Wortes bleiben.” (Act 6.24)83
It is also authoritative, as under authority. That means what the pastor is responsible to do, he
has the authority to do as a man under authority. The administration of the sacraments,
preaching and teaching come with the responsibility and the authority to do this for the good
of souls. He is also to be under the authority if the Bishop, and to submit himself to the legal
structures of the church. In the context of the REC/FRK/Classical Christianity, there are
bishops, pastors of pastors, who have authority to guard and guide in the church.
These principles above are well reflected in the worship service which is for the ordination of
presbyters. The presbyter is exhorted to:
“. . . have in remembrance, into how high a dignity, and to how weighty an
Office and Charge ye are called: that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and
Stewards of the LORD; to teach, and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord’s
family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who
are in the midst of this sinful world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever.
Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is
committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his
death, and for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you
must serve is his Spouse, and his Body. And if it shall happen that the same Church,
or any member thereof, do take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligences
ye know the greatness of the fault, and also the condemnation that will ensue.
Wherefore consider with yourselves the end of the Ministry towards the Children of
God, towards the Spouse and Body of Christ; and see that ye never cease your labor,
your care and diligence, until ye have done all that lieth in you, according to your
bounden duty, to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge, unto that
agreement in the faith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of
age in Christ, that there be no place left among you, either for error in religion, or for
viciousness in life.
Forasmuch then as your Office is both of so great excellency, and of so great
difficulty, ye see with how great care and study ye ought to apply yourselves, as well
to show yourselves dutiful and thankful unto that LORD who hath placed you in so
high a dignity: as also to beware that neither you yourselves offend, nor be occasion
that others offend. Howbeit ye cannot have a mind and will thereto of yourselves; for
that will and ability is given of God alone: therefore ye ought, and have need, to pray
earnestly for his Holy Spirit. And seeing that ye cannot by any other means compass
83 “So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, ‘It is not desirable for us to
neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good
reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote
ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.’”
the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvation of man, but with doctrine
and exhortation taken out of the Holy Scriptures, and with a life agreeable to the
same; consider how studious ye ought to be in reading and learning the Scriptures,
and in framing the manners both of yourselves, and of them that specially pertain
unto you, according to the rule of the same Scriptures; and for this selfsame cause,
how ye ought to forsake and set aside, as much as ye may, all worldly cares and
studies.
We have good hope that ye have well weighed these things with yourselves,
long before this time; and that ye have clearly determined, by God’s grace, to give
yourselves wholly to this Office, whereunto it hath pleased God to call you; so that,
as much as lieth in you, ye will apply yourselves wholly to this one thing, and draw all
your cares and studies this way; and that ye will continually pray to God the Father,
by the Mediation of our only Saviour Jesus Christ, for the heavenly assistance of the
Holy Ghost; that, by daily reading and weighing the Scriptures, ye may wax riper and
stronger in your Ministry; and that ye may so endeavor yourselves, from time to time,
to sanctify the lives of you and yours, and to fashion them after the Rule and Doctrine
of Christ, that ye may be wholesome and godly examples and patterns for the people
to follow.”
The candidate is then asked:
1) “DO you think in your heart, that you are truly called, according to the will of our
LORD Jesus Christ, and according to the order of this Church, to the Office and Ministry of
a Presbyter?”
2) “ARE you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as
necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of
the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as
necessary to salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved
by the Scripture?”
3) “WILL you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and
Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the LORD hath commanded, and as this Church
hath set forth the same, according to the teachings of Holy Scripture: so that you may teach
the people committed to your charge, with all diligence to keep and observe the same?”
4) “WILL you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the
Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word: and to use both public
and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, as need shall
require, and occasion shall be given?”
5) “WILL you be diligent in Prayer, and in reading the Holy Scriptures, and in such
studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the
flesh?”
6) “WILL you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families,
according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in
you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ?”
7) “WILL you maintain and set forwards, as much as lieth in you, quietness, peace, and
love, among all Christian people, and especially among them that are or shall be committed
to your charge?”
Answer. I think it. / I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace. / I will
so do, by the help of the LORD. / I will, the LORD being my helper. / I will endeavor so to do,
the LORD being my helper. / I will apply myself thereto, the LORD being my helper. / I will
so do, the LORD being my helper.
Article XXIV
Of Speaking in the Congregation in Such a Tongue as the People Understandeth
IT is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to
have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded
by the people.84
Of course, the history of this comes from the disagreement with the Roman church as to
whether the worship service ought to be conducted in Latin.
The 1553 version of this Article specifically refers to 1Co 14.
“It is most seemly and most agreeable to the Word of God, that in the congregation
nothing be openly read or spoken in a tongue unknown to the people. The which thing
Saint Paul did forbid, unless some were present that should declare the same.”
The “sign gift” of speaking in tongues had been abused by the believers there. And Paul says
that everything was to be intelligible, for the building up of the body of Christ.
“Denn wer in Zungen redet, der redet nicht für Menschen, sondern für Gott; denn
niemand versteht ihn, vielmehr redet er im Geist von Geheimnissen. Wer aber
prophetisch redet, der redet den Menschen zur Erbauung und zur Ermahnung und zur
Tröstung. Wer in Zungen redet, der erbaut sich selbst; wer aber prophetisch redet, der
erbaut die Gemeinde. Ich wollte, daß ihr alle in Zungen reden könntet; aber noch viel
mehr, daß ihr prophetisch reden könntet. Denn wer prophetisch redet, ist größer als
der, der in Zungen redet; es sei denn, er legt es auch aus, damit die Gemeinde
dadurch erbaut werde.” (1Co 14.25)85
84 Influenced by the Confession of Augsburg.
85 “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his
spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and
consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I
wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies
God, throughout all of redemptive history has communicated with his people, through the
image of God in man, through symbols (rainbow), through his prophets, through his apostles,
through the written word (10 commandments, z.B.), and through his disciples, and ultimately
through his son. God has always labored to make himself intelligible. It is the character of his
covenant that he makes himself more known to us. This is true from the creation. God makes
Adam and Eve and then communicates with them (Gen 1.2830). God never makes his word
obscure except as a punishment for the rebellious.
To take this to another level, communication assumes cooperation/involvement. That is, God
made us to communicate with him and with each other, and communication means
involvement. So it is in 1Co 14. Paul is concerned about intelligibility for the sake of
edification of those who hear, both believers and unbelievers. And worship, in the end, is
communication. God speaks to us, we respond to him, we teach each other.
Liturgy is the work of the people, we are a functioning priesthood, offering ourselves in
worship, and not the mere observers of a ritual play.
Notice the reference to the “custom of the primitive Church.” The primitive church is not
offered as an authority in itself, but as a corollary to Biblical authority. “This is what the
Bible says, and this is what the fathers thought the Bible said too.” And if we look at the
fathers and the liturgies derived from the earliest ages, one would find that they were always
in the language of the people of the day. And it might be added that all the key reformers a)
wrote liturgies, b) in the language of the people.
One could add some comments about modern worship as not being engaged and
“priestly” (i.e., in the sense that we are priests offering ourselves). The Roman church has a
“show” at which people attend and observe. Modern Protestant worship is very much like that
too.
Is there applicability to antiquated prayer books? Not a foreign language which is
unintelligible.
As to the issue of speaking in tongues in the congregation, intelligibility and edification
are the key points. It does not actually prevent the use of such “gifts” in a worship service, but
it does require that the congregation (believer and unbeliever) be encouraged and edified.
Article 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
than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.”
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.86
General Definitions
The 1553 Edwardian Articles begins: “Our Lord Jesus Christ hath knit together a company
of new people with Sacraments, most few in number, most easy to be kept, most excellent in
signification, as is Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” (Augustine) Sacramentum was a legal
term for the soldier’s oath of loyalty to the emperor and the tags worn to signify it. Tertullian
used it to replace the Greek musth,rion. Musth,rion is used in the NT to refer to the
unfolding of God’s revelation in the gospel.87 This background helps us to understand
Augustine’s formulation that sacraments are “visible signs of an invisible grace”.
It should be noted that this definition is actually pretty open ended. That is, anything physical
which points to something spiritual could be called “sacramental”; for example, the rainbow
(Gen 9.1213) or a pile of stones (Jos 4.67). However, it cannot be said that these
“sacramental objects” are sacraments in the sense that we use that word, namely, a God
ordained ritual to be regularly employed by the church.
Inadequate views of the Anabaptists: The article acknowledges that there is a sense in which
the Sacraments can be a sign of human profession and response, but takes that element and
joins it with and places it under what it understands to be the primary purpose: “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.” This is a concept we understand concerning the Bible, or the
rainbow, or the piles of stones. It ought not be a difficulty regarding the dominical
sacraments.
86 Influenced by the Confession of Augsburg.
87 This list is without regard to applicability of the phrase: Matt. 13:11, Mk. 4:11, Lk. 8:10, Rom. 11:25,
16:25, 1 Co. 2:1, 2:7, 4:1, 13:2, 14:2, 15:51, Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:4, 3:9, 5:32, 6:19, Col. 1:26, 1:27, 2:2, 4:3, 2 Thess.
2:7, 1 Tim. 3:9, 3:16, Rev. 1:20, 10:7, 17:5, 17:7.
The Article condemns an anthropocentric view of the sacraments as inadequate. We cannot
view and understand the sacraments appropriately if we only see them as horizontally
oriented; what they signify of our entering into them, our acting in and through them, our
perception or reception of them. They are reciprocal signs of our profession. That is, they do
have a horizontal aspect, but they cannot be seen in that light alone. For example, the Baptist
sees baptism as a sign of our profession alone, which makes the administration of the
sacrament to a person not able to profess illogical. There are similar flaws in views of the
Abendmahl (that is, that it is a meal originating from us, it is for us, and among us only, a
memorial alone, what we remember, not what God reminds us of or even does in our midst).
They are fundamentally and at their root Christocentric/Theocentric. That is, it’s not only
something that we are saying or doing, but more that it is God who is saying and doing
something. They are his vehicle and media through which God is speaking and working. So
Calvin writes:
“In regard to our sacraments, they present Christ the more clearly to us, the more
familiarly he has been manifested to man, ever since he was exhibited by the Father,
truly as he had been promised. For Baptism testifies that we are washed and purified;
the Supper of the Eucharist that we are redeemed.”88
So also GriffithThomas writes:
“The doctrine of the Sacraments is closely connected with and really
dependent on the doctrine of the Church. In the fullest sense of the term the Church
means a community of those who are united to Christ, but the word is also used of all
those who profess this union, and the Sacraments are connected with this visible
association of Christ’s professed followers. The Church came into existence through
the Word preached and received by faith, and then followed Sacraments as visible
expressions of membership in the Society of those who received the Word, and at the
same time as Divine assurances and pledges of the fulfilment of the promises
proclaimed in the Word.
The Word is thus central and supreme and calls for faith, and the Sacraments
are always associated with the Word and therefore require faith. The minister is
always the minister of “the Word and Sacraments.” This is the relative position of the
two, and is never reversed. There is nothing in the Word which is not implied and
expressed in the Sacraments, and nothing in the Sacraments which is not interpreted
and explained in the Word. The Word may act apart from the Sacraments, but the
Sacraments never apart from the Word. The Word makes Christians through faith, the
Sacraments make the Church through fellowship. The Word proclaims Christ to the
ear, the Sacraments proclaim Him to the eye.
88 Calvin’s Institutes 4.14.22.
It is, therefore, important to keep Sacraments in the position assigned to them
in the Bible. The Word of God naturally comes first as embodying the Divine
revelation, to which believing souls are to respond. This is the supreme and all
inclusive means of grace, because it is the approach of God to the soul in the Person
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything else is subsidiary to this, because it necessarily
finds its warrant in the Divine promise and assurance. Whether, therefore, we think of
prayer, or of the Sacraments, we know that it is only because the Word of God has
given us a revelation that we are enabled to believe in the efficacy of these means of
approach to God.
In the Old Testament God’s Word to Abraham was followed by the covenant of
Circumcision, and God’s Word to Israel by the covenant of the Passover. Both of these
required faith in the Divine revelation on the part of the recipients, and in the same
way in the New Testament the Gospel has associated with it two ordinances, Baptism
and the Lord’s Supper, both requiring faith in the Divine promise. These Sacraments
signify and seal God’s faithfulness to His promises and also our faith in Him.
Christianity is the religion of promise; the Word is the instrument of the promise, and
the Sacraments are the ratification.
Thus, the Sacraments are at once (a) expressions in act of what the Gospel is
intended to be; (b) covenant rites in relation to God’s promises; (c) expressions in
visible form of our faith in God, Baptism implying the faith that accepts, and the
Lord’s Supper the faith that abides; (d) means of; and opportunity for the expression
of fellowship in a social form between believers in Christ, Baptism being the
Sacrament of initiation into the Society, and the Lord’s Supper the Sacrament of
continuation therein.”89
So it is that Paul is able to say in Romans that circumcision in the OT was to be circumcision
of the heart and not just of the flesh. (Rom 2.2529)
In Gen 12, we see the example of God’s promise spoken to Abraham. God promises that in
Abram all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and based on the promise alone, he goes
out as God commands. Then in Gen 15, God tells Abram not to be afraid, that God’s promise
would certainly come to pass. It’s interesting to note that Christ is constantly telling his
disciples not to be afraid. God affirms himself as being faithful (as Christ often did).
Notice how Abram responds (our ‘father of the faithful’). He immediately says: “O Lord
GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless . . .” (Gen 15.2) How can I be the father of
many nations? Again, in vs. 8, Abram says: “O Lord GOD, how may I know that I will
possess it?” Then God calls on Abram to offer a sacrifice (see vss. 1112 & 17). And then
God says, based both on his promise and the ratification of the promise in his act toward
89 GT, pp. 343344.
Abram: “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not
theirs.” (Vs. 13)
The point is that it is God’s custom to ratify his promises with objects which speak visibly to
confirm the verbal message of promise. God walks between the offered pieces, passing
between them in the message that he is pledging his own life as a ratification of his promises,
saying in effect, “may this also happen to me if I do not do what I have promised.” It is said
that on that day God made a covenant with Abram.
And we might say, if God showed himself to us in such a mysterious and powerful way, we
might never doubt him again. If God made such a display for us as a confirmation of his
faithfulness, we would never waver. Of course, that’s not really true. Abram wavered in the
very next chapter, trying to manufacture a solution for God with his servant woman. Sarah
presses Abram and Abram follows the lead of his wife. And of course, this wasn’t God’s way.
And since it seems that Abram needs something more permanent as a sign, God gives him
circumcision. Note Gen 17:
“Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you
throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me
and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.
And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of
the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old
shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house
or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. A
servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be
circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant
(what we might ask here is ‘what makes the covenant everlasting, our faith in it? or the
faithfulness of the one who makes it?’). But an uncircumcised male who is not
circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people;
he has broken My covenant.” (Vss. 914)
God has made a mark of his covenant in the flesh of his people. They participated in the
sacrament of circumcision so “really” that exclusion from the sign was exclusion from the
covenant. It was such a strong confirmation and ratification that the sign is a clear and sure
affirmation of the promise, and the promise is not a promise if the sign is refused.
This same kind of argumentation is used by Paul in Col 2.11 ff about baptism and
circumcision. Being baptized indicates a unity with Christ so intimate it is as if we were
buried and raised again from the dead with him. (Read Col 2.1114). See also Rom 6.27, see
how Paul uses baptism and Lord’s supper in 1Co 10.24 & 1617, Gal 3.2729 (in the likeness
of Abraham), 1Pe 3.21, 1Co 10.121, Lord’s supper. See also 1Co 5.7 and 1Co 11. (Connected
with Passover and the sacrificial lamb: 1Co 5.7)
The manner through which God works is invisible, mysterious, spiritual. Calvin: Book 5,
chap. 100, ¶ 47: “It pleases God to communicate by sensible means those blessings which are
incomprehensible.” So how does God do this? Can we specify exactly what God does in the
sacraments?
Some answer that God does nothing in the sacraments, it is nothing more than a public
display of personal confession. The Sacraments are a memorial, mere and simple, without any
meaning other than the picture of a favorite relative.90 The other extreme error is that there is
something automatic, that God always and automatically does something.91 When the priest
says “hoc est corpus meum,” the piece of bread becomes the flesh of Christ.
It is neither of these extremes. God really works in his sacraments and yet there is no magic
or automatic relationship.92 It’s really no different than asking, “How does God work through
the preaching of the word.” In some cases it truly moves souls, and in others it puts people to
sleep. Is the preaching effective because WE are effective? Or is it because God himself
moves and in a way that is invisible and spiritual. Our Declaration of Principles clearly states
that the FRK denies that “Regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism”. We deny the
absolute certainty for which the Roman church sought. But we also do not deny that
regeneration can be connected with Baptism. We simply leave it in the hands of God.
It is said by Jesus of conversion that “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound
of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born
of the Spirit.” (Joh 3.8)
That there is real effect is seen from the texts above because of the curses attached to abuse,
and real blessings attached to proper use and arguments based on the administration of them.
Baptism saves (1Pe 3.21), buried in baptism (Col 2.12), abuse of the table brings real
judgment (1Co 11.25 ff), not sharers with demons but with God (1Co 10.2021).
Notice the phrase at the end of the first paragraph: “doth not only quicken, but also
strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.” Riches believes this is referring to each of the
90 “The Zwinglian, that Sacraments are primarily pledges on the part of man. This was absolutely
rejected in the first words of the Article.” (GT: p. 361)
91 The most serious error of the Roman Catholic view is that it tends to separate grace from God Himself
and to make it a sort of deposit in the soul, a quasimaterial element contained in a material element.” (GT: p.
361)
92 “The Lutheran and our view, that they are sure witnesses and signs of grace and of God’s good will
towards us.” (GT: p. 361)
dominical sacraments in turn. Quicken to Baptism, strengthen and confirm in the Supper. In
baptism is the primary place where it can be seen that God quickens and gives life, whereas in
the Lord’s Supper, it is seen that God strengthens and confirms.
Consider things outside of the discussion of the Article. “Fellowship” as in suppers or coffee
times, but we consider this an important aspect of the church’s spiritual life, the communion
of the saints. Prayer has a sacramental character, in that it represents our communion and
communication with God together, entering into a holy place. Worship itself is broadly
speaking sacramental. In fact, one could say that all of life is sacramental, a “this world
experience” preparing for and reflecting an “other world experience”.
In fact, almost everything said about a sacrament can be said about the word. One could say
that the Word is sacramental, both written and preached. We expect that God will use “word”
to do something, leaving the details to him. It is mysterious (sacramental) to think that a book
of ink and paper can change souls and lives. “Living and powerful, sharper than a twoedged
sword . . .” (Heb 4.12) And that’s not because there’s anything magical in it. It would make
your home holy if you put it on a bookshelf, it would make you holy if you put it under your
pillow. There is nothing automatic about “word” and the expected result of the word. We
expect the word to work, but we expect it to work according to God’s sovereign grace and
power. And it works in a way that is either for life or death.
There is an identification between words as tools and the living “Word” who is Jesus.
“Thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests
through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For we are a
fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who
are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from
life to life. And who is adequate for these things? For we are not like many, peddling
the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the
sight of God.” (2Co 2.1417)
How can this be, except that it is the act of God? Not our preaching. Words are symbols, God
gives them power. The word “G O D” represents powerful truths, but it is not the thing itself
in the letters and the word. That is what a symbol is. But it doesn’t take power away from the
symbol.
Is this a dangerous position to take, is this a slippery slope back toward Rome? While there
are no real guarantees about keeping from error, this position is the best to keep from error;
either the rationalistic error, or the magical error. We deny mere “memorialism” and we deny
“magic”. We expect him to work, both in word and sacrament, because he says he does,
encouraging us. “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?
Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1Co 10.16) “For all of
you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal 3.27)
Two Dominical/Gospel Sacraments
Establishes the two dominical Sacraments and distinguishes them from the other 5 socalled
sacraments. The three characteristics are: 1) an outward sign, 2) an inward grace, 3) perpetual
appointment by Christ.
The two dominical sacraments in the NT have a special character as being more intimately
indicative of the redemptive work of Christ than other things, in fact, unlike anything else.
For example, Jesus refers to his death as a baptism with which he must be baptized and a cup
which he must drink. (Mar 10.38 ff) Baptism unites us with Christ in his death, burial and
resurrection (Gal 3.27 and Col 2.12). Christ takes the elements of the supper and says “this is
my body” and “This cup is the new covenant in My blood”.93 In fact, these words are so
intimate and ‘realistic’ that they have caused problems in the church, as you know. There are
no parallels with these two sacraments. They are part of the final commands. “Go into the
world . . . baptizing” (Mat 28.19) and “as often as you do this, remember me.” (1Co 11.24
25)
In other words, the fact that there are two sacraments of the Lord is not an arbitrary decision.
The Five SoCalled Sacraments
Concerning the 5 socalled sacraments (Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and
Extreme Unction), they fit under two headings; “being such as have grown partly of the
corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures.” The
Article acknowledges that there have been rituals which grew up in the church. The
“commonly called” sacraments refer to the common appellation of the Roman church. It does
not mean that they are unimportant, or that they are even all wicked. However, they “have not
the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any
visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” Remember that there are many things which
could be said to be “sacramental” recalling the earlier discussion.
Penance: Could be derived from the Biblical perspective that we ought to confess our sins
one to another (Jam 5.16), a positive and profitable form of discipline. A “corrupt
following of the Apostles”?
Orders: Is clearly a permissible state of life.
Matrimony: Also a permissible state of life (and see Eph 5 on the church as well).
93 See also: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,
you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him
up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My
blood abides in Me, and I in him.” (Joh 6.5356)
Extreme Unction: again, a “corrupt following of the Apostles”, a corruption of the James
5.14 passage. Notice that anointing in James strongly encouraged, if not commanded,
there. The Roman church, again, made this practice into a ritual with “magical certainty”
at the end of life.
Confirmation: This is the one that doesn’t seem to fit. We continue to practice it, certainly
not as a corrupt following of the apostles. And yet some would say that they don’t see
how it fits into a permissible state of life. Certainly, the Roman view is not at all similar to
the English or reformational view. However, confirmation could be considered an
introduction into adulthood. The Roman view likely fits under the comment that it has
“grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles”.
Proper Use of Sacraments
Establishes the necessity of the right disposition of those who partake: “certain sure
witnesses and effectual signs of grace”. The reformers called the sacraments “visible words”,
Calvin in one place “visible sermons” which confirm the gospel.
“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, have they a
wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves
damnation, as S. Paul saith.”
This denies that there is any validity in seeing them as a mechanism, a mechanical act. They
are not to be seen as magic charms. They are not magic, they are a joining of God’s work in
faithful souls (particularly speaking about the elements of the Lord’s Supper). This refers to
the old habit in some places and times when the consecrated host would be placed in an
ornate frame (a monstrance) and carried about, to be adored by the onlooking crowds. They
are meant to be used in the same way, for example, that the Bible is to be read, not merely
looked upon.
Instead, the partaker must partake “rightly”. There is a great deal of discussion about what it
means to “judge the body rightly”. But what it clearly does mean, at the very least, that one
may not partake in the fashion and manner that the Corinthians partook, for personal greed
and gain, without due reverence toward God. The reason for this is that the sacrament always
has efficacy, even as the word does. “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it
will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in
the matter for which I sent it.” (Isa 55.11)
So also the sacraments are expected to have an effect, sometimes positive, sometimes
negative. Sacraments are covenantal signs, as the word is. Disobedient faithlessness brings a
curse. Remember, for example, circumcision, in which it was said that if circumcision was not
applied according to God’s command. God says of circumcision that it is his covenant,
realistic language like Jesus’ words “this is my body”. And in Gen 17.14: “An uncircumcised
male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his
people; he has broken My covenant.” As you all know, one of the key rules of the covenant is
that obedience brings blessing and disobedience brings a curse.
Look at text (1Co 11.2532):
a) Remembrance: In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup
is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.
b) Proclamation: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the
Lord’s death until He comes.
c) Unworthy participation and guilt: Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup
of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
d) Examination: But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the
bread and drink of the cup.
e) Judgment: For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does
not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number
sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
f) Discipline: But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not
be condemned along with the world.
Therefore, the Lord’s Supper always seems to have an effect (according to Paul), either
negative or positive. As a covenant sign, like circumcision as we discussed above, so also
baptism or the Lord’s supper has two sides in its efficacy.
Likewise with baptism, it stands as a testimony of God’s goodness or of God’s judgment. For
if we are baptized into the covenant and buried with Christ through that baptism, and we have
put on Christ through that baptism, then denial of Christ and denial of the covenant sign are
equivalent. That is, one misrepresents Christ before men and women. One bears the sign and
uniform of Christ without being loyal to that sign.
The Sacraments are external symbols of internal truths. They can be a profession of our faith,
but they are even more a symbol of what God does for and in us.
“Sacraments are messages from God to man with a special promise in them. If there
is no promise there can be nothing to believe, and without faith the promise is of none
effect. On the other hand, it is, of course, altogether incorrect to speak of faith as the
cause of grace when it is only the channel or means. This shows the necessity of
guarding against errors from opposite directions, We have to insist that the same use
of the means of grace is spiritually unprofitable unless faith is associated with the
grace. We must also be equally careful to avoid the error that the various means of
grace derive their power from the faith of the recipient, when, as a simple fact, they
derive it from God Himself. As it has been well put, faith ‘takes’ the grace that God
offers, but faith does not ‘make’ that grace.”94
The sacraments do not produce any effect. We do not say that, of themselves, the sacraments
do anything. But we must ask the question, “what does God use to bring about his effects?”
We understand that God uses the word he doesn’t need to, he can step outside of the use of
words to bring about faith and conversion. We understand fellowship as another channel of
God working. And he uses the sacraments. The pivot of this whole discussion is
understanding that God has ordained certain means through which he ordinarily operates. But
the grace doesn’t come for the instruments, or the human administrators. That all comes from
God.
Article XXVI
Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, Which Hinders Not the Effect of the Sacraments
ALTHOUGH 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
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 of those who have knowledge of their offences; and
finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.
We have already discussed that we can only really deal with the church in its visible aspect,
and it is clear that the visible church will always have evil mingled with the good. Note the
realism of the statement, that “sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of
the word and sacraments.” And this is also practical in the sense that the church was going
through a great upheaval. The dirty linen of the Roman church was being displayed, and there
were many questions about the still existing clergy. But then the question is, what is the effect
of the wickedness of the “administrator” on the sacraments themselves.
The answer is that the effect is that there is none. The power and efficacy of both
sacraments derive from God, not man. There is nothing which a human can do, ultimately, to
thwart God’s purpose. They are his sacraments, the words attached to them are his words.
Both Anabaptists and Puritans alike thought that if the ministry was exposed as unworthy,
then the sacramental administration were also null and void. And in fact, it makes all
94 GT: p. 364.
administration of the sacraments null and void, since there is no guarantee that the
administrator was perfectly sound and righteous.
This does not mean that one does not need to care for disciplinary matters in the church.
The Article also makes that clear. Those who are offensive in the matter of the ministry are to
be deposed if they are found guilty by just judgment.
But the heart of this matter is the same as was mentioned earlier in this series of lectures.
The purpose of this Article is to give peace and pastoral care to a troubled church.
This would also have some application to rebaptism. Those who are baptized as infants, in
an unbelieving family, by a liberal pastor, does it rob the sacrament of it of its meaning, does
it make God’s instrument NOT God’s instrument. What are your thoughts on this matter?
Article 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 the 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.
Having talked about the sacraments in general, now we speak of Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper in turn. The Article starts where no one would disagree, that baptism is a sign of
profession. It also says that baptism is a mark of difference, like circumcision which
distinguished Jews from nonJews. The Latin is actually clearer here than the English, it
distinguishes “Christians from nonChristians”.
Baptism signifies incorporation into Christ and identification with Christ (as in Gal 3.27),
hence this word “christened”, or we might say “Christed”. Christ himself was “christened”
(or anointed) in his own baptism.
But while baptism is a sign of our profession and a mark of difference and identification, it is
more. What is it? It says here that it is “a sign of regeneration or new birth”. And what this
means is defined by the further statements. “. . . whereby, as by an instrument, they that
receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.” The church is the body of Christ. And
through the instrument of baptism, those who are receive it are grafted into the vine (to
switch types). As Paul writes;
“For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the
body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we
were all baptized into one body.”95 And we say in our baptism service, “we receive
this person into the congregation of Christ’s flock.”
This is a Biblically supportable thing to say: see for example Joh 3.3, 5: “Jesus answered and
said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of
God . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God.” See also Tit 3.5: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we
have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and
renewing by the Holy Spirit.” And again 1Pe 3.21: “Corresponding to that, baptism now
saves you not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
In Article 9, it was said: “. . . there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized
. . .” Citing from Bishop Gibson, Riches comments: “baptism is the decisive moment in
which a person passes out of the order of nature into the sphere of grace, and in which the
forgiveness of sins is visibly signed and sealed.” When something was sealed in the ancient
world, it was signified that the document to which the seal was attached is authentic and
genuine. Whatever was contained in the document was declared by that seal to be the true
words, contract, promises or information of the originator of the document.
Isn’t this what God wanted Abram to understand in circumcision? God had promised the
perpetual nature and blessing of the nation from Abram, and God sealed those promises with
circumcision. It certified that what God promised were authentic and real.
This is no different from baptism. Act 2.3741, Peter preaches and the crowd responds:
“Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the
rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’ Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and
each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your
children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself
. . . So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were
added about three thousand souls.”
Notice carefully the close relationship with this text to Gen 17.714:
“I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after
you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to
your descendants after you . . . I will be their God . . . you shall keep My covenant,
you and your descendants after you throughout their generations . . . This is My
covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you:
every male among you shall be circumcised . . . But an uncircumcised male who is not
95 Notice the places where baptism and the Spirit are connected: Mat 3.16, Mat 28.19, Mar 1.910, Luk
3.2122, Joh 1.3133, Act 2.38, Act 9.1718, Act 10.4748, Act 19.45, 1Co 12.13, Eph 4.45, Tit 3.5.
circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people;
he has broken My covenant.”
This same concept is reflected in another sphere, marriage, 1Co 7.1314.
“And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she
must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through
his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for
otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.”
Paul, speaking of his conversion, tells of the words of Ananias to Paul: “Now why do you
delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” (Act 22.16)
Take hold of the promise of God, be assured that what he has said he will do, accept the
genuineness of the statement based on the seal which he places on your body and soul.
Note the kind of encouragement Calvin offers believers from baptism:
“We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and
purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the
remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and
secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have
passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein
offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and
washes away all our defilements.”96
So to return to the words of the Article. “as by an instrument, they that receive baptism
rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our
adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed.” Baptism is
the validating mark which bears testimony to God’s faithfulness to his promises: “For you
are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into
Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal 3.2627) Baptism is used as the argument
for believing that we are the sons of God through faith. Following this symbolism in the
ancient church, before baptism, one put off all clothes, was baptized in the nude, and then put
on new clothing.
Baptism serves the same function as circumcision served. It is the covenant sign of
incorporation. See the connection that Paul makes: “For all of you who were baptized into
Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus . . . And if you
belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Gal
3.2729) There is a new relationship attached to baptism. That relationship is with Jesus, but
through the church which is his visible representative on earth. And that is why one can say
that outside of the church there is no salvation, in the sense that one does not normally seek
96 Book 4, Chapter 15, Section 3, Institutes of Religion.
for God’s message and ministry outside of the church, any more than a person of the days of
the Jewish kingdom would have expected to normally find proper worship and faith outside of
Israel.
GT says that the “Kingdom of God is essentially a Kingdom of Promise.” Baptism is
connected with promise, much like the words of Peter in Act 2. There is nothing which says
that the blessings promised must take place simultaneously with administration. Not in the
AT (where is there a text which says that a circumcised child was automatically and a true
inheritor of eternal life), nor in the NT is it said that the sacrament makes something happen,
but the expectation is that the visible sign is accompanied with the internal invisible grace.
That is, God may actually act before, during of after baptism; but only God knows this. But
since symbol is tied together with the spiritual fact, we simply acknowledge that connection
and place them together logically.
The socalled “believer’s baptist” says that baptism can only be administered when there is a
sure and certain confession and an already existing work of salvation, and that baptism is the
outward confession of that inward and already existing reality. The question can then be put,
“how does one know that the confession is real, that the inward work has truly taken place?”
The response is usually, “with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and
with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” (Rom 10.10) But does one then say that
the confession is a certain proof of the inward work? Does confession replace baptism?
In other words, one cannot be sure and certain, and in the end baptism can never to
administered. In the end, the “believer’s Baptist” makes baptism (or the confession) to have as
much significance as the Roman Catholic, insisting either on being able to read the true
thoughts and intents of the one to be baptized, or baptism is itself the guarantee that the words
are sound. One can never know with absolute certainty. And if the sacrament can only be
administered when there is real/true faith, one can never be sure that the sacrament ought to
be administered. In fact, baptism is sometimes administered more than once. And this is
based on the assumption that the sacrament only has value based on the faith of the
recipient.97
But the Article says that the sacrament is a sign of God’s promise. “The promises (of God)
are visibly signed and sealed.” And as to the grace which God sovereignly bestows as a result
of his promise, we don’t know exactly when or where that grace becomes operative (before,
during, after, perhaps even a long while after?).
Infant Baptism
97 Perhaps it would be proper to consider the topic of baptism and rebaptism at this point.
Review meaning of baptism: It is chiefly a symbol of God’s promise. The promise consists
primarily of:98
1) Cleansing of our sins,
2) Death of our old natures,
3) As well as a bearing witness of our religion.
Covenantal nature of sacraments/baptism:
Sacraments: Symbols of
Promise: I shall be your God, you shall be
Covenant: T H E O S
AT _ NT
In the above graphic, the “THEOS” refers to the “covenantal model” as outlined by Dr. R.
Ray Sutton in his book That You May Prosper, a development of the covenant in
Deuteronomy. The separate letters refer to the following characteristics of the covenant:
Transcendence, Hierarchy, Ethics, Oaths, Succession.
The diagram above implies continuity of covenant, promise and sacrament on both sides of
the line of the covenantal age. Calvin also makes the point that the only difference between
the covenantal signs of circumcision and baptism are in the ceremony. As follows:
Circumcision and Baptism
Similarities
Baptism Circumcision
Promise “I shall be your God Exo 6.7 1Pe 2.10
and you shall be my people”
Regeneration Circumcision of the foreskin of Buried with Christ in baptism
the heart, Deu 10.16, Jer 4.4 to newness of life, Rom 6.4
98 The Article says that there are basically two ideas in baptism: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession
and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a
sign of regeneration or new birth . . .” Calvin has three, separating the regenerative element into two
components: a) Cleansing, and, b) Mortification. To this he also adds c) Bearing witness. All of these presume
an idea of identification, such as is expressed in 1Co 10.14, 1621. See Calvin 4.15.16 and 4.16.2.
Foundation is Christ circumcised in Christ (Col baptized into Christ (Gal 3.27)
2.11)
Mystery/Significance a seal Circumcision, Rom 4.11 Baptism, 1Co 12.13 and Eph
of the righteousness of faith 1.13
As Calvin points out, only the ceremony is essentially not the same, Col 2.1112, Act 10.45
48.
Conclusion: The covenant is the same 9 the promises are the same 9 the sacraments mean
essentially the same 9 the blessings and curses are essentially the same because of the
promises (Act 2.3741 & Gen 17.714) 9 then the recipients are at least the same if not
expanded.
Would we willingly deny the sign of the promises to our children in the light of Act 2.3741
& Gen 17.714? Or do we believe that God’s promises are NOT for our children? Do we
believe that the coming of Christ actually constricted the covenant and its promises?99 Is the
thing promised (Christ) of less grace and generosity than the thing which pointed to that
grace (the OT Sacraments)? Do we assume that they are not, cannot and will not become
members of the covenant family until they offer us some kind of proper proof. Remember that
we can say about the sacraments we can say about the word. Therefore, do we withhold the
promises and kindness of God from our children until we are certain that they can fully
understand those promises, and then began to apply the word to them?
Do not forget the covenantal principle that what is not abrogated in the Scriptures continues
to apply. And we take God at his word, believing the promises of God to his children,
believing that he can be taken at his word. And when we think that the promises will apply,
how can we withhold the sign of the promises?
At that is left to deal with are some of the miscellaneous texts found in the NT which cause
some baptists problems.
Article 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 it 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.
99 Calvin asks this question, 4.16.6: “Perhaps we think that Christ by his coming lessened or curtailed the
grace of the Father but this is nothing but execrable blasphemy!”
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 plains 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 and 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.
Note the 4 sections: a) significance of the Lord’s Supper, b) doctrine of transubstantiation
(see consubstantiation), c) what is meant by the presence of Christ in the supper, d) certain
practices which have been associated, what is to be said of them.
The article begins in much the same way as the previous Article, by affirming an aspect of
the Supper, which though correct, is inadequate to stand by itself. What is affirmed in the
horizontal aspect of the Eucharist. It can be a sign of the love which Christians ought to have
for each other. As a gospel sacrament, it is a meal of reconciliation, both with God and each
other. Those who do not enter into the meal who are “love and charity with their neighbors”,
profane the supper.
That was the problem which seems to characterize the Corinthians’ situation in 1Co 11. In
their neglect of the concerns for other believers, they even indulged themselves in the supper
in an almost gluttonous fashion. They therefore profaned the supper, denying the fellowship
with each other which the supper does in part symbolize. This aspect of the Supper is
reflected in the language we use in our own liturgy: “Denn ein Brot ist’s: So sind wir viele
ein Leib, weil wir alle an einem Brot teilhaben.” We must be in fellowship with the brother
whom we can see if we would say that we are in fellowship with God whom we cannot see.
But it is not only this horizontal aspect. It is fundamentally a sacrament of our redemption by
Christ’s death. Notice that this is the same kind of primarily vertical aspect which is referred
to in the Article on Baptism. It is an ordinance from God, enacted by God, given validity by
God, carrying a message from God. As Article 25 says: “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.”
The Eucharist carries its own effect along with it or rather, God brings that effect along.
God brings us into possession with the realities signified. That is why the Article can say:
“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.” Notice that this parallels 1Co 10.16:
“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the
bread which we break a sharing100 in the body of Christ?”
Council of Trent (10/1551) said:
“By the consecration of the bread in wine a conversion takes place of the whole
substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and the whole
substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the
Holy Catholic Church conveniently and properly called transubstantiation.”
The Article speaks with realistic language. This is the kind of language which the Scriptures
themselves use. If the Apostles spoke in this fashion (see 1Co 10.16 above). Nevertheless, it
also stands in opposition to transubstantiation and strongly. The Article denies the concept of
transubstantiation on several grounds.
1) It cannot be proved by Holy Scripture. Recall Article VI: “Whatsoever is not read
therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be
believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” There is
no evidence that the internal essence of a thing can become totally different (substance) while
the external properties remain what they always were (accidence). This is a distinction
without Biblical warrant, and philosophically it is a bit difficult to imagine the separation of
the real nature of a thing from its properties and characteristics. Can an orange be an
elephant; or a book, a palm tree?
2) It is repugnant to the plain words of the Bible. What is in view are such statements as
are found 1Co 11. Paul reminds the Corinthians of the words of the institution as the
corrective measure for the Corinthians’ errors. And there he says: “‘This is My body, which is
for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way He took the cup also after supper,
saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the
Lord’s death until He comes.” Paul sees no conflict in speaking realistically when speaking
of the symbol, but speaking of the elements as still being the elements.
3) Finally, transubstantiation overthrows the nature of a sacrament. A sacrament is an
outward sign of an inward grace. But if transubstantiation is correct, the sign and the thing
signified become one. There is no longer a sign which points to a reality, there is only the
reality and another reality. The relationship between outward sign and invisible grace is done
away and there is no sacrament left.
The Article then goes on to say that Christ is truly present and truly received. This is not hard
to understand in light of the language used in 1Co 11. But the presence and reception of
Christ is in a manner that is beyond sense and observance by the working of the Spirit of
God. The reality of Christ is there, in receiving the sacrament, we receive Christ. But this is in
a “heavenly and spiritual manner”.
100 “Sharing” is the word koinwni,a.
Christ is present in the Eucharist and truly received objectively. Spiritual realities are
objective. That is, it is not taken and received in an unreal manner, or in an existential
subjective manner. Otherwise, all revealed religion and the supernatural becomes doubtful,
since the conclusion would be that if we cannot see and sense it, it must not be real. If only
what we rationally understand, perceive and feel is real — if my net won’t catch it, it’s not a
fish — then what results is that everything we have not experienced or cannot understand, is
not real.
We get caught up in discussions about the real presence of Christ. If we deny the real
presence, then are we saying that there is a real absence? Or that there is an unreal presence?
What does this say about the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer? Of the presence of
Christ in a worshiping body? Is there anything real about God in our world? For even as John
asserts twice “no one has seen God at any time . . .” (Joh 1.18, 1Jo 4.12) Christ’s presence is
real, and Christ is really received. But the nature of this presence is beyond our “net”.
Faith is the means by which the objectively present Christ is received. It does not create his
presence. Christ is present in the Supper, but faith does not make that so. And the absence of
faith does not nullify his presence. This would be a fundamentally anthropocentric error. It is
still the Supper of the Lord, even when the elements are received in an unworthy manner. One
is still “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord”, even when eating in an unworthy
manner. (1Co 11.27)
Faith is the means by which we receive the value of the Lord’s Supper. What we’re saying
here is no different than what we would say about the preaching of the word. What is offered
in the verbal proclamation of the word? Christ. Is he really present in the proclamation of the
word? Yes. Is he absent from the proclamation if the hearer has no faith? No. The
proclamation is no blessing to the unbeliever, it is a judgment on the unfaithful hearing. But
in faith, we receive the word to our benefit. God’s words are his channels of grace, and so also
the Lord’s Supper.
Notice that the Article simply stops at this point. It doesn’t attempt to define any other
sophisticated theory. It doesn’t try to explain the precise “how” of bread and wine / flesh and
blood. The Article doesn’t even get involved. It guards against both extreme errors. It simply
affirms what the Scriptures say and stops. The reason is that one really cannot define to much
more finely the “how”. “It is difficult to conceive of a Real Presence of what is locally
absent.”101
Finally, certain practices of the medieval church are dealt with.
1) Reservation: One view is that this is defined by the three following terms. That is, one
ought not reserve the sacrament for the purpose of carrying about, lifting up and worshiping.
101 GT: p. 408.
2) Carried about:
3) Lifted up:
4) Worship:
What about reservation for the purpose of later administration to the sick? Justin Martyr first
refers to such a practice. The first BCP permitted reservation if the elements were
administered later on the same day. Later revisions of the prayer book provided that the
elements become totally consumed at the end of the worship service, since there had been a
practice that elements not used in the service, and not used for the sick, were taken as almost
magic charms.
Since Christ’s corporal presence is denied, then any retaining of the elements for worship as if
they were Christ himself is also denied.
One last component of this discussion has to do with consubstantiation. Review of the 4 key
positions:
1) Roman / Transubstantiation: Magical, real corporal (physical, bodily)presence,
2) Lutheran / Consubstantiation: Denied the Roman position, but insisted that Christ’s
words meant what they said literally. They maintained the idea of a “local presence” of the
physical body and blood. Their view of this idea is a little difficult to grasp. They would not
deny that the physical body and blood displace the physical bread and wine. Nor do they deny
that Christ’s body and blood can also be elsewhere raising the problem of how a physical
body can be ubiquitous, how it can be everywhere at once. In a sense, they make the words
“this is my body” really mean that “this accompanies my body”.
3) Zwinglian: Sometimes called memorialism, the view that it is a “bare sign” or a “mere
sign”. The Supper is mostly a badge of the Christian’s profession. According to some of my
sources, this may not actually have been Zwingli’s position, at least not near the end of his
life. But there are those who say such things and Zwingli, perhaps wrongly, gets the blame.
4) Reformed position: What has been taught here and what the Article says, as well as
Calvin. It should be further noted that there is no single absolute statement for the reformed
position, there are variations and preferences of words.
Article XXIX
Of the Wicked Which Do Not Eat 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 1Co 11.2729, we see that Paul teaches that the body and blood of Christ are so present in
the Supper that the unworthy communicant profanes the elements and receives judgment.
How is this to be understood? Does this mean that the unworthy actually receive Christ in the
sacrament?
Rome says that all receive, but all do not benefit. The Lutherans, against whom it appears this
Article is aimed, would say that since Christ is physically present, then the unbeliever can
also receive Christ but not the benefit of him, as the Roman church does. Those who
unworthily receive the sacraments come into contact with the elements of bread and wine,
which are signs and symbols of Christ, nevertheless, they are incapable of receiving Christ.
Christ is, after all, received by faith. These are the ones who lack faith, being the wicked.
They are faithless and unbelieving. They do not lay hold of the spiritual reality. And their
unbelieving reception is a covenantal means of curse and condemnation.
Again, the precise “how”, the mechanism, is something which is not further identified. It
affirms what the Scriptures say, and no more.
Article XXX
Of Both Kinds
THE CUP of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laypeople: 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 the Council of Trent (7/1562), it was clearly stated that the Protestant insistence on serving
the congregation with “both kinds” was something to be anathematized.
1) Thomas Aquinas justified the practice through fear of spilling the wine. The story is
told of monks sucking wine off the floor, and in one case of a mouse eating a piece of bread,
and the monks having to catch the mouse and eat it. This story may have come from an
argument by Wycliffe about a stray mouse on the table.
2) The other reason is that by the doctrine of “Concomitance”102; by which the Roman
church taught that Christ was entirely received in either of the elements. This was the primary
line of the Tridentine Council’s statements.
3) The other argument is that the Roman church had the authority on such matters and
could function by virtue history and usage.
However, the language of 1Co 11.28 is clear: “But a man must examine himself, and in so
doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Jesus’ institution of the supper is “take
and eat” and “drink, all of you”. And whether the argument is spillage, whether a doctrine of
102 meaning “accompanying or conjoining”.
Concomitance, whether it was a bare assertion of ecclesiastical authority, the church does not
have the right to fly directly in the face of the clear command of Scripture.
Article 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 which it is commonly said, that
the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission for pain or guilt, were
blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
This is the last of the Articles on the sacraments. It asserts the perfect sufficiency of Christ’s
atonement, and applies that true to the idea or theory which says that the Eucharist is a
sacrifice, which denies the perfect sufficiency of the atonement.
This Article certainly reflects the truth of the Scriptures. The writer to the Hebrews says this:
“Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him,
since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have
such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted
above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up
sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He
did once for all when He offered up Himself.” (Heb 7.2527)
Again:
“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered
through the greater and more perfect tabernacle . . . through His own blood, He
entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the
blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been
defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ,
who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb 9.1114)
And again:
“For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one,
but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He
would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with
blood that is not his own.” (Heb 9.2425)
Once more:
“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the
same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice
for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that
time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For
by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” (Heb 10.10
14)
This Article was occasioned by the medieval system of private masses and the understanding
which encouraged them. The idea was that Christ, in his death, dealt with the problem of
original sin. But what would happen with the ongoing sins in which we engaged? There needs
to be a daily sacrifice for daily sins.
It is interesting to note that Trent doesn’t say anything on this topic until 10 years after the
Articles were complete. Nevertheless, what Trent said was very much what was expected and
what had been addressed in this Article. Trent said:
“The sacrifice of the mass is truly propitiatory, through which the Lord is appeased
by the oblation of this sacrifice . . . not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions,
and other wants of the living, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet fully
purged.”103
The Article obviously wasn’t directly addressing Trent, but one can see that the Article
anticipates such a formal statement. As the Article says, such a position is “blasphemous
fable and dangerous deceit.” Such a position invites people to put their confidence in
something untrue. They trust in the daily mass and not in Christ. And that puts one’s soul in
jeopardy.
Article XXXII
Of the Marriage of Priests
BISHOPS, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of a
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.
This Article makes two statements. First, it is stated clearly that the Bible offers no
prohibition of marriage to clergy. Even the Roman Church has never officially committed
herself any more to this topic than saying that it is “an aspect of church law”. That is, in the
Roman church simply considers celibacy as an aspect of canon law and nothing more.
103 Cited by GT, p. 416.
Second, marriage is actually lawful for any Christian man who considers it lawful. The 6
Articles of 1539, one of the precedents of the Articles (and remember, it was an attempt to
reverse the advance of reform back to the Roman doctrine and practice), said: “Priests, after
the order of the priesthood received, as afore, may not marry by the law of God.”
Four years later, the Kings Book, stated that “the estate of matrimony is not commanded as
necessary to any particular man, but left at liberty to all men, saving priests, and to others
which of their free liberty, by vow advisedly made, have chosen the state of continency, who
according to their free choice must willingly and freely continue in the same.” (This is
Gardner’s handiwork.)
As part of the reforming actions begun early in the reign of Edward 6th, the 6 Articles were
repealed and the following statement was approved: “That all such canons, laws, statutes,
decrees, usages and customs heretofore made, had or used, that forbid any person to contract
matrimony, or to condemn matrimony already contracted by any person, for any vow or
promise of priesthood, chastity, or widowhood, shall from henceforth cease, be utterly void
and of none effect.”
The reformers of the English church knew that celibacy was a centuries old tradition in large
parts of the church. There was also a history of tension between England and the Roman
church, and this topic had been part of that tension for some time, this was a repeating theme
in discussions. England, it might be said, was one of the places where there was resistance to
the idea of clerical celibacy. Furthermore, statements in favor of celibacy also dated early in
the history of the church. The point is, they knew that this was an old argument, not
something which recently arose in the history of the church.104
Nevertheless, the rule of celibacy became increasingly rigid. There was also well known
sexual misconduct during that time, as well as flagrant hypocrisy on the part of leading
Roman clergy concubines, children of bishops and even popes would later become bishops,
etc. In fact, some of the counterreformational movements openly dealt with this problem.
Clerical celibacy, in other words, was nothing more than a tradition of the church. And
traditions can be changed (as Article 34 will point out). It’s not a matter of divine law and if
truly a part of canon law, canon law can be altered, and the circumstances and history
104 GT: “There was a tendency quite early to prohibit marriage after Ordination . . . By reason of
persecution . . . the custom of celibacy grew, probably intensified by Gnosticism and Manicheeism (my note:
Manicheeism, or Manichaeism, was a dualistic religion originating, perhaps, in Persia. Among its tenets was a
strong asceticism.), so that men left their wives after Ordination. It is significant, therefore, that the origin of
clerical celibacy was heathen, not Christian, or Jewish. In 305 the Council of Elvira prohibited marriage for the
first time, and when this was suggested at the Council of Nicaea, 325, it was objected to by Paphnutius, himself
a celibate.” (p. 431)
The citation goes further, but shows that this argument continued through the centuries, some councils
and bishops for, and some against.
attending to this tradition strongly suggested the need for a change. The words of the Article
leave the matter to private judgment on the part of the persons who would contract for
marriage.
GT puts it: “. . . for spiritual and pastoral work in the New Testament sense the nature of man
is properly developed ordinarily through the influence of womanhood, and thereby he is
enabled the better to do his work.”105 God gave Eve to Adam as a help corresponding to
Adam’s needs. It is a mutual relationship it is not good for the man to be alone, and we are
to support and influence each other.
Note further that the Article does not demand marriage. This would be contrary to the sense
of 1Co 7:
“But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who
have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they
did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who
buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did
not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. But I want you to be
free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord,
how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of
the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who
is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may
be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things
of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to
put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure
undistracted devotion to the Lord.” (2935)
Article XXXIII
Of Excommunicated 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.
It is the right of the church to exercise discipline. The topic of church discipline is actually
broader than excommunication. It includes all topics pertaining to the encouragement of
righteousness and the discouragement of unrighteousness.
Nevertheless, church discipline is something that has always belonged to the church. For
example, in our discussions about the sacraments, we looked at Gen 17. We found there a text
105 GT, p. 433.
that implied church discipline: “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My
covenant.” (17.14) This is literally what excommunication is to be cut off and put out of
communion. Likewise, we see a similar theme in Ezra 10.78 and Mat 18.15. These are but a
few of the many texts. Notice that the final result desired, both in the Biblical texts as well as
in the Article is so that repentance may be found and reconciliation may take place, both
between men, and between men and God.
However, sometimes repentance does not occur. Sometimes reconciliation doesn’t work. In
this case, the person who has sinned is in “open denunciation of the Church”. He has denied
the church’s right to require proper order from its members. The sinner is then to be
considered according to his actions. Only a heathen unbeliever would deny the authority of
the church, and therefore the person is to be considered a heathen and a publican.
God himself lends his authority to these proceedings. For example, in Mat 18.1920:
“Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may
ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three
have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
This text is often used as an encouragement to those who are in a gathering and few in
number. But the use of “two or three” people gathered in one place is often in reference to
judgment in the Scriptures.106 The context of verse 16 in Mat 18 tells us that this is also a
matter for judgment. If the requisite 2 or 3 witnesses are present, in other words, if God’s
business is done in God’s way, then God’s blessing is on the matters as if He himself were
present in the proceedings.
1Co 5 is another example of church discipline in the NT church.
“It is actually reported that there is sexually immorality among you, and immorality
of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his
father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the
one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part,
though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so
committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are
assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided
to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1Co 5.15)
Notice that Paul makes the claim which Jesus promises, that with proper witnesses; the
Corinthians in part, Paul himself in Spirit, and even Jesus himself are the authorities behind
the proceedings, this person ought to be disciplined. See also 1Ti 1.1920 and Act 15.2829.
106 See Deu 17.6, 19.15, 2Ki 9.32?, Ecc 4.12?, Mat 18.16, 18.20, 1Co 14.27, 14.29, 2Co 13.1, 1Ti 5.19, Heb
10.28.
Not only is personal reconciliation in view as the first goal, but also the protection of the
body of Christ. Notice Paul’s words in 1Co: “Your boasting is not good. Do you not know
that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?” (1Co 5.6)
The levels of church discipline can vary, from private chiding and correction, to a removal
from offices, to the forbidding of the table.107 But in the end, the person excluded has himself
showed openly that his present conduct of life puts his soul in jeopardy.108 Vengeance is never
the goal of such discipline. That belongs to God. The purposes are the discouragement of
unrighteousness and the protection of God’s people.
Further, the Article points out that it is necessary for “the whole multitude of the faithful” to
be participants in the discipline. This not only includes the local congregation, but also the
larger church. This suggests some interesting ideas about respecting the discipline and order
of other congregations and denominations. Whose baptism we respect, and at whose table we
would eat, we certainly ought to observe and respect their discipline. In the early church,
excommunication from one congregation was considered to be excommunication from the
whole church. Any church which received an excommunicated person was itself to be
considered schismatic. This points to the necessity of proper catholicity/ecumenicity in
churchmanship.
Some statements of the socalled marks of the church include a third component along with
the other two: right preaching of the word, right administration of the sacraments, and right
administration of discipline. This is not typical for Anglicanism. However, right preaching
and right administration certainly include right discipline. What makes right preaching really
right? And what makes right administration of the sacraments really right? Are we only
concerned with the technical contents of these two components, or are we also concerned
about the recipients those who hear the preaching and receive the sacraments?
The difficulty is not so much whether one lists “right discipline” as a third component.
Perhaps in our day, it’s a stress that is needed. But it seems to remove word and sacrament
from having an practical influence in one’s life. It also seems to make discipline something
separate from word and sacrament. These are not implications that would be consistent with
an Anglican view or the Freie Reformierte Kirche’s view of church discipline. As I said at the
outset of these comments, the topic of church discipline is actually broader than
excommunication, including all topics pertaining to the encouragement of righteousness and
107 GT points out that Jewish tradition recognized three levels; separation for a month, excommunication
from the assembly, excommunication from the community. The early church also had three levels: admonition,
excommunication from prayers and Eucharist but not from the church, and full excommunication thus, from
the community of the church.
108 Other texts on this topic include: Rom 16.17, 2Th 3.14, Tit 3.10, 2Jo 1.10, Gal 1.89, 1Co 16.22.
the discouragement of unrighteousness. The chief means of accomplishing these things are
word and sacrament.
In fact, one could go a bit further and say that the proper use of word and sacrament are the
means of keeping “discipline” over the church of Christ as a whole. These are the boundaries
or parameters of the call of the church to its ministry.
Article XXXIV
Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly alike; for at
all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries,
times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against the God’s Word. Whosoever,
through his private judgment, 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.
Like other Articles, this Article also has two sides. On the one side, it opposes the Roman
church, which denied the legitimacy of the Protestant church because it was deviating from
Roman tradition. On the other side, it asserts the right of the church to establish or abolish
traditions for the purpose of edification.
Diversity
The reforming church had to deal with the claim of Rome to final authority in extraBiblical
matters. Notice that part of the argument is that “at all times they have been diverse, and may
be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners”. They may
vary, they have varied, and perhaps one could say that they ought to vary. Since only God is
changeless, then only those things which particularly belong to his character, or those things
which he has revealed as TRUE and therefore immutable, may be considered unchangeable.
Furthermore, since we are not identical not in personality, not in culture, not in interests, not
in other areas our methods and manner will not be identical. Our unity is bound in the one
spirit. As Paul writes:
“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of
ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who
works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit
for the common good.” (1Co 12.47)
We have spoken of the phrase before: “In the essentials, unity; in the nonessentials, diversity;
in all things, charity.” And the question I posited before was, “what are the essentials?” It is
necessary then to admit that there are nonessentials. This is something that many find it
difficult to do.
Unity
On the other side of the coin, as Article 20 points out, that: “The Church hath power to
decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith.” No individual or group
has the right to violate what has been properly established. “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 . . .”
This, of course, was aimed at the results of Anabaptistic antinomianism as well as non
conformity. Personal judgment and conviction were held as higher authority than any other
institution. While it’s true that the church needs to take into account the varieties of customs
and times. But it’s another thing all together that each and every individual has the same
authority as every other, or as every other institution.
Heading of the First Prayer Book of 1549 of Edward VI.
“Although the keeping or omitting of a ceremony in itself considered is but a small
thing, yet the willful and contemptuous transgression and breaking of a common
order and discipline is no small offense before God. Let all things be done among
you, saith St. Paul, in a seemly and due order; the appointment of which order
pertaineth not to private men. Therefore no man ought to take in hand or presume to
appoint or alter any public or common order in Christ’s church, except he be lawfully
called and authorized thereunto.”
Corporate order in the church is not merely a manmade idea. The reference above speaks
about order in the local church from 1Co 14.40: “all things must be done properly and in an
orderly manner.” This is the same kind of argument Paul uses about governments in Rom 13,
that God has given institutions such as governments to give order to society, and so those
institutions ought to be obeyed.
“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is
no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God.” (Rom 13.12)
“I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on
behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a
tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” (1Ti 2.12)
Churches also have governments that give order on such matters as are not explicitly stated in
the Bible. They ought to be obeyed as well.
An example of this principle may be seen in Act 6. There was no command, neither from OT
law, nor directly from God himself for the appointment of the 7. Whether these men were
properly to be called “deacons” or not is still a debate to this day. Nevertheless, after the
church selected and appointed these men, they were to function with authority in the
congregation, fulfilling the requirements put on them by the apostles. We presume that the
various factions who were struggling in this chapter were free to pick and choose for
themselves which of the seven they would accept or reject.
GT refers to Hooker’s four principles regarding matters of outward form. Citing GT as he
cites Hooker:
“In regard to matters of outward form, Hooker lays down four simple propositions.
(1) Anything that can be shown to set forward godliness is to be accepted,
notwithstanding slight inconveniences that may accrue. (2) In matters which do not
suggest in themselves fitness, the judgment of antiquity may rightly weigh in their
acceptance and retention. (3) Apart from Divine law, clear argument, and public
inconvenience, the authority of the Church should rightly weigh with true followers of
Christ. (4) If necessity or usefulness require, certain ceremonies may be dispensed
with from time to time.
The one thing to remember is that the Bible is essentially a book of principles,
not of rules, and the supreme requirement is that amidst the varied and complex needs
of life and worship no Church rule shall contravene a Bible principle. Apart from this
there must necessarily be full liberty to “ordain, change, and abolish.”109
Notice the three possible results of either ignoring or openly opposing proper authority:
1) it “offendeth against common order of the Church,”
2) It “hurteth the authority of the magistrate,”
3) “and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.”
Conclusion
Therefore, there is a balance. One does not change for the sake of change, nor does one refuse
to ever change. Authority, properly exercised, is to be obeyed. But tradition and custom never
take precedence over Biblical law or principle.
109 GT: p. 442, citing from Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, Chapters 69.
Article XXXV
Of 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 the Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they
may be understanded by the people.
Of the Names of the Homilies:
1. Of the Right Use of the Church 11. Of Almsdoing
2. Against Peril of Idolatry 12. Of the Nativity of Christ
3. Of the Repairing and Keeping Clean of 13. Of the Passion of Christ
Churches 14. Of the Resurrection of Christ
4. Of Good Works: First of Fasting 15. Of the Worthy Receiving of the
5. Against Gluttony and Drunkenness Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ
6. Against Excess of Apparel 16. Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost
7. Of Prayer 17. For the Rogationdays
8. Of the Place and Time of Prayer 18. Of the State of Matrimony
9. That Common Prayers and Sacraments 19. Of Repentance
Ought to Be Ministered in a Known Tongue 20. Against Idleness
10. Of the Reverend Estimation of God’s 21. Against Rebellion
Word
[This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Books of Homilies to be an explication of
Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of England
are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of this Church; which also suspends the order for the
reading of said Homilies in churches, until a revision of them may be conveniently made, for the clearing of
them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references.]
Notice first of all from the statement of the American Protestant Episcopal Church of 1801,
the qualification of the “small print” shows that the American church considered the homilies
important. That is, it suspends the order of reading the articles until a revision was made. A
revision has never been made in the United States. But what is informative is to see that the
American Protestant Episcopal Church in 1801 believed that the Articles were normative and
binding something the American Protestant Episcopal Church of 1998 does not believe.
Several items need to be noted about this Article. In the days of the Reformation, clergy
tended to be illiterate. Preaching had been of no great interest, inasmuch as the important
thing in the Roman worship was the proper saying of the Mass. Additionally, there were still
clergy that were very sympathetic to the Roman church110. As a result, it was necessary for
110 If one reads between the words of the phrase: “. . . read in Churches by the ministers diligently and
distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people”, one can see that some clergy had taken the liberty of
reading indistinctly, or while other things were going on in the church so that people could not understand the
sermons to be provided which both provided an explanation of the “new doctrine” which we
would rather call old doctrine as well as practical sermons for the lives and wellbeing of the
believers and the church as a whole.
There is evidence from an address given by Cranmer at a Convocation of Bishops in 1541 that
the homilies had been prepared or were intended to be prepared. Nevertheless, until the death
of Henry VIII in 1547, the homilies were not put into use. This would accord with what we
know about Henry already.
The 1st book (referred to in Article 35 with this phrase: “the former Book of Homilies which
were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth”) was published 31.7.1547 and was ordered to
be read by clergymen to the people unless the King gave notice to the contrary. There were 12
sermons, 5 of which were doctrinal and the remaining 7 were practical. The titles follow:
1. A Fruitful exhortation to the reading of 7. Against swearing and perjury.
holy Scripture. 8. Of the declining from GOD.
2. Of the misery of all mankind. 9. An exhortation against the fear of death.
3. Of the salvation of all mankind. 10. An exhortation to obedience.
4. Of the true and lively faith. 11. Against whoredom and adultery.
5. Of good works. 12. Against strife and contention.
6. Of Christian love and charity.
It is thought that most of these came from Thomas Cranmer’s own pen. There are no available
precise details to know for sure.
This first book was intended to be a first installment with more homilies to come. Homily 12
of the 1st book has this note at the end:
“Hereafter shall follow Sermons of Fasting, Praying, Alms deeds, of the Nativity,
Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Savior Christ: of the due receiving of his
blessed Body and Blood, under the form of Bread and Wine: against Idleness, against
Gluttony and Drunkenness, against Covetousness, against Envy, ire, and malice, with
many other matters, as well fruitful as necessary to the edifying of Christian people,
and the increase of godly living.”
The 2nd book was published in 1562. It contains 21 homilies as can be seen from the titles
above. But they are divided into 43 parts. However, some of the topics do fail in the 2nd book;
consider for example envy, ire and malice. Other topics are taken up. As with the first book,
so it is that with the 2nd book, we are not fully certain. Almost certainly much of it came from
Bishop John Jewel. But the discussion goes on to this day as to the actual origin of each of
the pieces.
homilies.
Notice another aspect of this Article. The Homilies are not made normative or somehow
considered part of the Articles. The Article is careful to point out that they “contain a godly
and wholesome doctrine and are necessary for these times”. They may be read for instruction
and the spiritual value they contain, but are not considered legally normative.
Article 11 provides us with a further example of this respect for the homilies without
considering them as legally normative. There it says: “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.” We are referred to the further comments of this Homily as being
helpful.
GT quotes from Macbride’s Lectures on the Articles:
“The Homilies I consider to have a peculiar value, as authorised Commentaries upon
the Articles by those who formed and revised them, and who could not have been
ignorant of their real meaning.”111
Article XXXVI
Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
THE BOOK of Consecration of [Archbishops and] Bishops, and Ordering of Presbyters and
Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792 [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 anything that,
of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered
according to said Form [the rites of that book, since the second year of 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 or ordered.
The Articles in general, as we have observed, have a twofold intent: to deal with medieval
Romanism, and also to deal with Anabaptists and Puritans. Some brief history:
1) No change was made in the Roman ritual of ordination during Henry’s time except the
omission of a declaration of obedience to Rome.
2) In 1549 (2 years after Henry’s death), the “Pontifical” was abandoned and several
permutations of revision took place between 1549 and Queen Mary.
3) Mary suppressed the use of the new prayer books and, of course, as a consequence, the
ordination and consecration services.
4) During the time of Elizabeth, the prayer books of Edward’s time were reinstated.
However, questions occurred as to the validity of the orders during all the times of change
from Henry’s death until Elizabeth’s ascension.
111 GT, p. 449, ftnote 7.
5) Hence the addition of Article 36.
The Puritans were offering the objection that some things remained in the ordinal which were
superstitious and ungodly. And the Romanists were objecting that since the change of the
ordinal, all following ordinations were invalid. This Article addresses both objections.
It is important to see all these objections in the light of Article XXIII, specifically that:
“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.”
Article 36 follows this statement by saying that those to whom public authority has been
given are those who have been ordered according to the ordinal.
Notice that the Article does not make the Anglican ordinal normative for the rest of the
church. It simply asserts that those who have been ordained according to Anglican ordinals
have been lawfully ordered and consecrated. It does not claim exclusive episcopal authority or
the invalidity of the ordinations of other clergy in other churches.
Concerning the matter of polity; the Article simply assumes that Bishops/Presbyters/Deacons
have sufficient Biblical and historical precedent not to require extensive argumentation.
However, it also does not claim that this model is the sole model of churchmanship. Again,
the Article simply asserts the authority of the church of England to order its ministers as it
sees fit.
The chief sticking point for the Puritans was the language in the Presbyter’s Ordinal (and
similar language in the Bishop’s Consecration):
“Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest/Presbyter in the Church
of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou
dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.
And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In
the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”112
These words about receiving the Holy Ghost are taken from Joh 20.2123:
“So Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also
send you.’ And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them,
‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven
them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.’”
112 Quoted from the 1928 BCP of the PECUSA.
This is simply a personal application of the promise which Christ gives to his disciples in
general. The ordinal does not say that the Holy Spirit is given by the laying on of hands. GT
quotes from Browne and Burnet:
“The difference between such ordination and our Lord’s ordaining of His first
ministers recorded in St. John xx is this. In the latter case, Christ Himself, to whom
the Spirit is given without measure, gave of that Spirit authoritatively to His disciples;
and so, in giving, he breathed on them, as showing that the Spirit proceeded from
him. But, in the other case, our bishops presume not to breathe, nor did the Apostles
before them; for they know that ordaining graces comes not from them, but from
Christ, whose ministers they are; and so they simply, according to all Scriptural
authority, use the outward rites of laying on of hands, in use of which they believe a
blessing will assuredly come down from above.”
“These words, receive the Holy Ghost, may be understood to be of the nature
of a wish and prayer; as if it were said, may thou receive the Holy Ghost; and so it
will better agree with what follows, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word and
sacraments. Or it may be observed, that in those sacred missions, the Church and the
Churchmen consider themselves as acting in the name and person of Christ.”113
Article XXXVII
Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates
THE POWER of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things
temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all
men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority,
regularly and legitimately constituted.
[Of the Civil Magistrates
The King’s/Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other his/her Dominions, unto
whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes
doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.
Where we attribute to the King’s/Queen’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the
minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word,
or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most
plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy
Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by
God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.
The Laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the
wars.]
113 GT, p. 456, footnote 3.
When Thomas Cranmer was examined in Oxford in 1555, he said: “Every king in his own
realm and dominion is supreme head. Nero was head of the church, that is, in worldly respect
of the temporal bodies of men of whom the church consisteth. And the Turk, too, who is head
of the church of Turkey.”
The church in the world is a spiritual kingdom, and it functions in the context of civil life and
order. The church is, therefore, subject to the law and the state. This is nothing more or less
than Paul himself states:
“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore
whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have
opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of
fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do
what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to
you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for
nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who
practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath,
but also for conscience’ sake.” (Röm 13.15)
The Bishop of Rome therefore, cannot assume prerogatives above those of a properly
constituted authority. Can you imagine Paul rephrasing Rom 13 to say: “In our case, we are
apostles, appointed by Christ himself, so we are in authority over the Roman Emperor”? The
civil government has the power of the sword, to actually exercise such authority as even
extends to capital punishment. Furthermore, the British Articles declare that “it is lawful for
Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the
wars”. It should be noted that the basic principles between the two sets of Articles are the
same.
The church in the Middle Ages had assumed to itself supreme authority. The church took on
the place of sanctuary for those fleeing civil authorities. Those who represented the church in
those days were also considered to be exempt from civil authority. The church, in such cases
where those charged were clergy, could take from the hands of civil authorities those cases.
Notice also, however, that it is asserted that the civil government has no authority in spiritual
matters. Therefore, the civil government could not usurp or take from the church its lawful
function in the spiritual realm.
Article XXXVIII
Of Christian Men’s Good 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 he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.
It is clear that the Article addresses Anabaptistic error. The Articles, as we have seen, have
always walked between the two boundaries of Roman medievalism and Anabaptistic or
Puritan extremism. In this case, in order to prevent any identification with an excess of some
Anabaptistic groups, in which the Bible was misinterpreted Scripture in such a way as to
require a communal lifestyle. In some cases, this community extended beyond goods to
wives. Even though the Anabaptists were mostly on the continent, there was sufficient
identification between the continent and the UK that this required a statement.
It therefore denies that a form of communism/communalism existed in the apostolic church,
or that there was any ground for present day exercise of such communism/communalism.
Inasmuch as the church was a persecuted sect under great pressure from the state, it was
sometimes a matter of survival for Christians to pool their resources in order to help each
other. We not only see this in Act 2, but this is also suggested in 2Co (not as a form of literal
communalism, but as a form of pooling resources for a common good). The key issue was
that the right of private property was never laid aside see in particular, Peter’s comments to
Ananias (Act 5.4).
Nevertheless “every man ought of such things as he possesseth liberally to give alms to the
poor, according to his ability.” The Article does not soften the demand on Christians to care
for each other as an act of love, a “liturgy” of service. (2Co 9.12) “For I testify that
according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord.” “Each
one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for
God loves a cheerful giver.” (2Co 8.3, 9.7)
Article 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, judgment, and truth.
The Anabaptists had interpreted Scripture in such a way that they denied that Christian men
may swear oaths. They interpreted Mat 5.3337 in this way.
“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows,
but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by
heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or
by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. Nor shall you make an
oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your
statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.” (see also Jam
5.12)
This, of course, reflected on the reputation of the reforming church as well.
However, the interpretation that no oaths may be said, flies in the face of the rest of the
Scripture. The Article alludes to Jer 4.12:
“‘If you will return, O Israel,’ declares the LORD, ‘Then you should return to Me.
And if you will put away your detested things from My presence, and will not waver,
and you will swear, ‘As the LORD lives,’ in truth, in justice and in righteousness; then
the nations will bless themselves in Him, and in Him they will glory.’”
Take your oath (says the prophet), but take it truly and in justice and righteousness.
Here is one place where the Homilies can be helpful. Homily 7 of Book I says:
“And moreover GOD by the Prophet Jeremia saith, Thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth,
in truth, in judgement, in righteousness (Jeremiah 4.2). So that whosoever sweareth
when hee is required of a Judge, let him bee sure in his conscience that his oath have
these three conditions, and he shall never need to be afraid of perjury.”
This Homily also traces other aspects of oath taking, including the fact that God himself takes
oaths.