Let's do a detailed discussion for each of the Articles of Religion

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Botolph, Jun 29, 2016.

  1. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I have no personal experience with this. I have an in-law who was member of a Church of Christ congregation. He was spotted once drinking alcohol. He said that some elders visited him and told him they loved him but that neither he nor his wife could return to the church until he had stopped drinking. He felt embarrassed and worried and begged to be allowed back...which they happily did.

    Seemed rather melodramatic but they were able to get him to change the way they wanted.
     
  2. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    945
    Likes Received:
    608
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    IMHO, a person excommunicates themselves and backs the church into a corner where the only option is to take action
     
    Shane R, Andy and alphaomega like this.
  3. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I think in the time of the articles it was thought to be kinder than burning them at the stake!
     
    alphaomega and Lowly Layman like this.
  4. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Article34.jpg

    For many years it was said that Anglicans were a diverse group of people loosely bound together by a prayer book. That Prayer Book, however, did not come for 100 years after the Articles were first published, though of course there were prayer books before, which had a measure of success. 1549, 1552, 1628, amongst them.

    It is quite likely that there was a reality a diversity of practice, despite the best endeavours to conform all liturgical practice. Botolph was much celebrated in Kent, and Mary much revered in Walsingham. One wonders if the framers of the Articles did not see a broader canvas than this realm of England. The Scots were probably always uncontrollable, for the English at least, and Ireland and Wales were their own worlds.

    The level of this diversity, as against what we experience today, we would probably see as a mere trifle. The challenge for us today is to know how far the diversity we hold dear will hold the communion together. These are sad and challenging days for us as Anglicans, and when we read this article, we are forced to ask how far can this diversity go?

    At the time the Articles were framed the great tensions (and they were very great tensions) were between a home grown English Church, a commitment of the Patriarch of the West, and the impact of the leaders of the Continental Reformation. The Elizabethan Settlement, clearly finds some of its expression here, which allows a level of diversity in thought and practice, and indeed a level of autonomy across national churches in communion with Canterbury. Remember that a mere six years earlier Mary had been executed for plotting to kill her sister - now Queen, Elizabeth and Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Pole had did but a few hours later of natural causes.

    Clearly there are limits to all this diversity as the article sees it, namely ‘which be not repugnant to the word of God’, so clearly the essence of such practices as Holy Baptism and Holy Communion are clearly in accordance with scriptural injunction and therefore must remain. The ceremony of washing feet at the Mass of Institution might though be construed as a ceremony that may be varied in various places and times.

    The argument however calls a limit to the diversity as well in terms that which breaches common order, defies the legal process, or wounds the consciences of weaker brethren. In light of recent travail across the communion would might be left to ask if we are all playing by this rule, or are people acting with an eye to their own desire for diversity without a mind of the common order of the communion. (no names mentioned!)

    We have embraced a world of colour and variety as we have grown around the globe, and I know in my time in Papua New Guinea I was amazed and enriched by how Anglicanism embraced and was embraced by the culture of a new homeland. Our challenge was always to separate gospel from culture.

    Clearly there were churchmen in England at the time of the articles who thought that Edward, if not Henry, had stepped too far, and the redress under Mary for many had been a brutal and horrid time. The sheer genius of Anglicanism, especially as found expression in the Elizabethan settlement was to find a way to hold it all together.

    Many of us today would regard our diversity as our greatest strength and as our achilles heel.

    I think the last phrase of the article should be something of a maxim

    So that all things be done to edifying.​

    This is possibly the great failure of a great deal of contemporary liturgy and preaching. There is in modern Anglicanism those who move against scholarship, those who ungraciously insist on there own way, those who have the pomposity to believe that only they are right, those who insist on dragging us here or there, up the candlestick and down, to the left and to the right, and those who choose to go nowhere. Sadly we all know that if we continue in the fashion we will simply tear ourselves apart.

    Tucked away towards the end is Article 34, challenging us to do better.
     
    Aidan likes this.
  5. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    945
    Likes Received:
    608
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    Well done bother Phil, very insightful
     
    Botolph likes this.
  6. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Article35.jpg
    I doubt that the books of Homilies are read very much these days. I suspect that many of our clergy have not read any of them, and I know I have not read all of them. They do pose some insight into the life of the Church, and we should perhaps be more aware of them.

    The first thing that struck me was how much our use of language has changed. There are sentences that run for more than a page and paragraphs that run for three pages. These two factors alone make them hard to read, and I would imagine hard to listen to as well. Yet seemingly there was a time when long sentences and developed thoughts could be expanded and people could follow, understand and comprehend what was being said.

    Of course the purpose was to consolidate the teaching of the Church, not expecting that all clergy could be excellent preachers, or that all clergy would be sufficiently erudite as to be able to expound new themes, and the Church was committed to a having laity that had grasped the gospel and its many challenges. The topics include numbers of the theological themes that have been addressed in the articles, and also some more practical outworkings, such as keeping Church buildings in good order and repair.

    Article 11 makes reference specifically to the Homily on Justification, normally take to be Homily 3 from the First Book of Homilies actually entitled Homily of the Salvation of mankind. I have done some work on it to reduce paragraphs and limit some of the medieval without eliminating it, so that perhaps it might make easy reading. I have posted it here, in three sections as it was contrived, and I hope you find it helpful.


    The text of the first and second book of homilies can be found here.


    Whilst there was clearly a very educated clergy within the realm, there were a great many parishes where such erudition was not to be found. Faithful, true, loyal, however perhaps not as well gifted in crafting and delivery sermons. The books of homilies allowed the Church to ensure that the people were hearing the true and lively, without the risk of great distortion. The only people I encounter who are aware of them, let alone having read any of them, are capital A Anglicans who have a taste for History and Antiquity.

    They do in reality have a lot to offer, beyond an insight into the mind of the Church at a given time in history, for the also expound the truth of the Gospel, which is true and eternal.

    On the other hand I don’t necessarily feel that a return to reading the Homilies in the place of the Sermon would assist in reducing the number of vacant pews in our parish churches. However the idea of a resource that ministers who felt less gifted could rely on may have a real place. I know for a long time there were numbers of clergy who cut and pasted from Barclay’s commentaries to resolve a Sunday Sermon. I know that three of us at one stage taped sermons in three different parishes and bowled over by the word for word similarities we were able to source the thrice preached sermon the Barclay.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  7. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    945
    Likes Received:
    608
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    Article 21' Against Rebellion' jumps out at me. Surely if a government turns against its people eg by denying basic human rights, then one has a right to rebel?
     
    Lowly Layman and alphaomega like this.
  8. alphaomega

    alphaomega Active Member

    Posts:
    196
    Likes Received:
    206
    Country:
    usa
    Religion:
    Anglican
    "Submit to authority "(Rmns13:1).."we must obey God rather than men"(Acts5:29) Seems to be a certain harmonious check and balance in Holy Scripture...
     
    anglican74 likes this.
  9. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Each of the five parts of The Homily Against Disloyalty and Wilful Rebellion concludes with this prayer.

    THE PRAYER.

    O most mighty God, the Lord of hosts, the Governor of all creatures, the only Giver of all victories, who alone art able to strengthen the weak against the mighty, and to vanquish infinite multitudes of thine enemies with the countenance of a few of thy servants calling upon thy Name, and trusting in thee; defend, O Lord, thy servant, and our Governor under thee, our Queen Elizabeth, and all thy people committed to her charge.

    O Lord, withstand the cruelty of all those which be common enemies as well to the truth of thy eternal word, as to their own natural Prince and country, and manifestly to this crown and realm of England, which thou hast of thy divine providence assigned in these our days to the government of thy servant, our Sovereign and gracious Queen.

    O most merciful Father, if it be thy holy will, make soft and tender the stony hearts of all those that exalt themselves against thy truth, and seek either to trouble the quiet of this realm of England, or to oppress the crown of the same; and convert them to the knowledge of thy Son, the only Saviour of the world, Jesus Christ; that we and they may jointly glorify thy mercies.

    Lighten, we beseech thee, their ignorant hearts to embrace the truth of thy word; or else so abate their cruelty, O most mighty Lord, that this our Christian religion, with others that confess thy holy Gospel, may obtain by thine aid and strength surety from all enemies without shedding of Christian blood; whereby all they which be oppressed with their tyranny may be relieved, and they which be in fear of their cruelty may be comforted; and finally that all Christian realms, and specially this realm of England, may by thy defence and protection continue in the truth of the Gospel, and enjoy perfect peace, quietness, and security; and that we for these thy mercies, jointly all together with one consonant heart and voice, may thankfully render to thee all laud and praise; that we, knit in one godly concord and unity amongst ourselves, may continually magnify thy glorious Name; who, with thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, are one eternal, almighty, and most merciful

    God. To whom be all laud and praise world without end. Amen.​

    The prayer I believe is very telling. It is most probable that this homily was first published in 1562, and published in collection in 1571 by Bishop Jewel. Given that Mary was died of an influenza epidemic in and her Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Reginald Pole dies a few hours later of the same cause. Mary reigned through a restoration of England to the Catholic Faith of her heritage, and conducted an unhappy and brutal oppression of those who moved for reformation. Elizabeth, her sister, whom Mary resented and did not want to succeed her, was forced to broker a settlement that would bring peace to a land that had been in turmoil - religiously for 30 years at least. The 39 articles in some sense give expression to that, and document designed to hold the essentials of the heritage, whilst ready to embrace some of the wholesome idea of the reformation. It was intended to be a document we could all live with.

    The third paragraph of the prayer may indeed be over singing reality, only four years after the death of Mary, but Elizabeth was determined to stop the pendulum from swinging, to maintain order, and the return England to some of the prosperity it had known under her father. By and large it was a workable arrangement.

    In the first part of the Homily we read

    but of all wars civil war is the worst; and far more abominable yet is rebellion than any civil war, being unworthy the name of any war, so far it exceedeth all wars in all naughtiness, in all mischief, and in all abomination; and therefore our Saviour Christ denounceth [Matt. 12:25] desolation and destruction to that realm that by sedition and rebellion is divided in itself​

    The articles were written for an established Church, a Church that looked to the Crown, and to whom the crown in turn was both servant and master. This complex relationship, hard for us to contemplate these days, but undoubtedly party of the History of the Church since the Edict of Milan. In a sense for the protection of the Crown, the Church taught its people not to be naughty.
     
    anglican74 and Lowly Layman like this.
  10. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I have attached a copy of An Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion. It is 20 pages of close type, 108,000 characters so I would have had to break it up too much to post it as text. On reading it one becomes very aware of the perceived threat understood in the Popes claim to England and that their was an understood presence in the community of those who supported those claims, and the homily spends a good deal of its time assuring people how wrong those claims are. By Anglican terms it is one of the least ecumenical documents I have read.

    Here is a paragraph for those who do not wish to read the whole homily

    For the usual discharging of subjects from their oaths of fidelity made unto the Emperors of the West, their sovereign lords, by the Bishops of Rome: the unnatural stirring up of the subjects unto rebellion against their princes, yea, of the son against the father, by the Bishop of Rome; the most cruel and bloody wars raised amongst Christian princes of all kingdoms; the horrible murder of infinite thousands of Christian men, being slain by Christians; and, which ensued thereupon, the pitiful losses of so many goodly cities, countries, dominions, and kingdoms, sometime possessed by Christians in Asia, Africa, and Europa; the miserable fall of the Empire and Church of Greece, sometime the most flourishing part of Christendom, into the hands of Turks; the lamentable diminishing, decay, and ruin of Christian religion; the dreadful encrease of paganity, and power of the infidels and miscreants; and all by the practice and procurement of the Bishop of Rome chiefly; is in the histories and chronicles written by the Bishop of Rome’s own favourers and friends to be seen, and is well known unto all such as are acquainted with the said histories.​

    I think that the illusion here is made to the debacle of the 4th Crusade and the sack of Constantinople, which was actually condemned by the Pope at the time, though a number of the spoils of that war can still be seen in Venice today. There is no doubt that the sack of Constantinople was a debilitating blow from which it never fully recovered, and ultimately lead to the fall of the city to the Ottomans. Laying this all at the feet of the Pope is in my estimation a very one sided view of history. I don't for one moment think that Homily 21 of the 2nd Book of Homilies could be considered an impartial view of anything. It's design appears to be to encourage loyalty to the English Monarch, and suspicion of anything Papist.
     

    Attached Files:

    anglican74 and Lowly Layman like this.
  11. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Philip thanks so much for enlightening articles. It's stuff like this that keeps me coming back.

    Brilliant commentary on the homilies and here on rebellions. Makes me think!
     
    Madeline, Aidan and Lowly Layman like this.
  12. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Article36.jpg
    The sense and importance of this article in terms of Anglican self identity is critical. At the centre of Anglican ministry is found the threefold Ancient orders or Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The articles were keen to establish the legitimacy of our claim to valid apostolic orders.

    This has been a point of contention in our discussions with the Roman Church. Clearly at the time of Henry VIII and the act of secession there were a goodly number of Bishops, Priests and Deacons whose orders were valid and acknowledged. Changes to the rite in the time of Henry VIII were minimal. During the reign of Edward VI there were a number of further changes, and the new book in 1552, which may have had some shortages in the rite. It was too short-lived to be of note, as under Mary the Pontifical was restored. She ascended to the throne in July 1553, and died in November 1558. Her appointment to the office of Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Reginald Pole - who was closely connected to the Plantagenet House - died of natural causes within hours of Mary.

    Elizabeth appointed Matthew Parker to the role, which may well recognise that she knew and trusted him. He had been chaplain to Anne Boleyn and in her last days she entrusted her daughter Elizabeth to her care. He was consecrated on the 19th of December 1559, at Lambeth by William Barlow, formerly Bishop of Bath and Wells, John Scory, formerly Bishop of Chichester, Miles Coverdale, formerly Bishop of Exeter, and John Hodgkins, Bishop of Bedford. Barlow and Hodgkins had been consecrated using the Roman Pontifical in the 1530’s, so their orders are beyond question. The matter in question was the use of the Edwardian Rite, which Rome held deficient in form and intent. The purpose here in the articles is to make clear that this contention is not accepted.

    The four Bishops clearly intended to consecrate Matthew Parker as a Bishop, and they all claimed valid Apostolic Orders, and the rite was in all things of great consequence valid as intended, and perhaps with a little nudge from Parker the articles are clear that all was in order.

    Interestingly the ordinal of 1662 has restored what had been perceived to be lost, and so could not be held to be deficient in form. Parker interestingly became one of the great architects of the lasting character of the Anglican Church.

    Of course one of the clear things that this established in England was a level of peace, in that it was not the intent of the Church to quibble about orders, be they from Henry’s time. Edward’s time or Mary’s time. In this Parker was seen a man who was not ready to divide the Church any further.

    Under Parker and Elizabeth there seemed to grow a healthy separation of Church and State. Parker was not in Elizabeth’s Privy Council. Parker was a firm supporter of Episcopal Governance of the Church, and was clear that he was not in favour of too much interference by Queen or Parliament, and had serious doubts about Puritan ideas of Governance.

    The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral repeats some of what is important here:

    As inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit:
    1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God.

    2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.

    3. The two Sacraments,--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.

    4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.
    The basis of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was to identify the non negotiables for us as Anglicans, which aspiring to unity in faith with other Christians, finding no need to be subsumed or to subsume any other community of faith, and to be very clear about the non-negotiables. It is not insignificant that we understand that a core part of the sacred deposit is the historic episcopate. That in the Articles in is 36, which may seem a long way down the list, it represents a significant part of who we are and how we understand ourselves.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  13. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Article37.jpg

    In a way this Article sits with the last in terms of the understanding of the relationship between Church and State. In all matters of governance the Church is understood to be the servant of the State. The clear intention being that the Church can owe no allegiance to a foreign authority. This authority of the Crown however does not go the the ministration of God’s word nor of the sacraments, however the Crown does have authority to restrain, with the sword, the stubborn and evil doers.

    This of course makes perfect sense for the established Church of England, where faith was considered normative, and where the welfare of both Church and State were considered inexorably intertwined. We of course now live in a disparate communion / tradition and even in England the Church is now disestablished, faith no longer normative and no longer where it does existed unquestionably Christian. There is a new reality in our environment.

    Notwithstanding this, there is something eminently sensible in the side by side arrangements that Archbishop Matthew Parker with others on the one hand and Elizabeth I and others saw clearly from the other side, and that was a side by side relationship of Church and State. The Church and the Crown stood in defence of the people, and the Church answered to God and found authority in the sacred tradition of the Historic Episcopate and the Holy Scriptures, and in all things temporal was subservient to the State. The State for its part had a responsibility to protect the Church and use its temporal powers to suppress and reform evil doers.

    This due balance is properly reflect in the intercessory pray in the Book of Common Prayer, so we see that the Church has to pray for the sovereign and we expect the state to exercise its responsibility in the maintenance of true religion and virtue.

    From The prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here in earth.

    We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and specially thy servant ELIZABETH our Queen; that under her we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto her whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.​

    The mantra of the middle 16th century is also clear. The Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this realm of England. This was the call from the Act of Supremacy in 1534, and clearly was intended to ensure that the furtherance of the interests of the English Throne could not be at the whim of foreign powers, most notably the Pope, and those under whose influence he fell. This had been reversed when Mary took the Throne for the period of the Restoration, and Mary clearly intended to return things to how they were before - the return of the old order - and whilst she and her mother had been dealt with badly under Henry VIII she sought to put it to right and reverse the trend. Her reign is often most remembered for its brutality. Her marriage to Philip was intended to produce dynastic heirs, and on her death he wrote ‘I felt a reasonable regret for her death’.

    Despite Mary’s attempts to produce an heir, her half sister Elizabeth came to the throne. Her Mother, Anne Boleyn, had been not much loved in her life, and gained in popularity following her execution, yet Elizabeth came as a welcome relief from the purging experienced under Mary. Elizabeth it seems was determined to put an end to the religious controversy that had filled the last 30 years or so, and with Matthew Parker sought to bring about a comfortable space where due deference could be allowed for a variety of opinions, save for this one clear Mantra which had brought her mother to the throne, and without which she would have simply been another royal indiscretion, alongside Henry Fitzroy who died at the age of 17.

    Elizabeth’s mother was thought to have strong Lutheran sympathies and those who had expected the same of Elizabeth were surprised that they did not get the free hand that they had expected (Mary in reverse). Soon enough it became clear that she was a solid and significant negotiator, and was determined to settle the religious mess with a clarity that allowed scope for alternate opinion, but by no means anarchy.

    So under Elizabeth England returned with a new Act of Supremacy, and once again the Monarch was to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. One of the things that is clearly mistaken here is that the intent was not to form a new religious group, but rather to recognise that the temporal importance of the Church (the second largest landowner in England) meant that for the sake of the nation it needed to be under the auspices of not foreign control. The nature of the papacy of this time was for more temporal than as we know it today as a spiritual powerhouse.

    Accordingly, quite clearly the crown must have the right to raise armies and call people to war, and the Church is denied the power of stopping this. There was a lot of stress in the relationship between Spain and England following Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon, and the Armada in 1588 sailed against England with the blessing of the Pope. Whilst much of the angst which lead to the Armada may have been commercial and less that religious, the background and the threat was very real, if unsuccessful.

    The last paragraph ensure that the Crown may raise and army and compel Christians to bear arms as the crown sees fit.

    Well in reflecting on this article I am greatly conscious it was for England, it was for the established Church, and we live in a different era, and the compact with have with the various states in which we find ourselves is modestly different. A judgement some time back in New South Wales held that the Anglican Church was a free association of like minded individuals. I take that as being secular law, and doesn’t look a lot like the Anglican Church I know, in fact I concluded that the Judge clearly didn’t know many Anglicans or he may have gone looking for an expression other than ‘like minded’. But that does not mean that the article is without value, and it certainly bears within it some of the character of Anglicanism.
     
    anglican74 and Lowly Layman like this.
  14. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I understand that this project of reflection on the articles has taken several months, and after a flurry at the start I started on the one a week project, with the odd week missed. I thought to try to have it finished before Lent. I had sought of thought that the later ones didn't have much in them, however they do. Interesting at this time I am reading some stuff about Margaret Pole - Countess of Salisbury and niece to both Edward IV and Richard III, a Plantagenet and one of the most powerful women in the Land. She was Lady in Waiting in the Court of Henry VII and for sometime governess of Henry VIII, and the Lady in Waiting to Catherine of Aragon, and guardian of Mary I. She was a threat to Cromwell under Henry, as indeed the Plantagenets were to the Tudors and many around her including at least two of her sons died at the Tower of London were she eventually followed suit. In her cell following her execution was found this poem.

    For traitors on the block should die;
    I am no traitor, no, not I!
    My faithfulness stands fast and so,
    Towards the block I shall not go!
    Nor make one step, as you shall see;
    Christ in Thy Mercy, save Thou me!


    One of her sons, Reginald Pole, was a scholar in Henry VIII's employ, though he worked mainly in Italy, and was made a Cardinal. He became the last Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury while Mary I was on the throne, and died within hours of the Queen. One of the things that mazes me that in the complexity, and the bloodiness of this period, there comes Matthew Parker and Elizabeth I and the Elizabethan settlement, the the 39 Articles which clearly show they are of the age, yet remarkably balances and modest, and in many senses seeking to bind all the Loyal Christians of the land to Church and Monarch.
     
    anglican74 and Lowly Layman like this.
  15. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Yes!
     
  16. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Article 38.jpg

    The first claim here sounds a bit less gracious, however on reflection there are a couple of things that possibly come to bear on this issue. Prior to the dissolution of the Monasteries there had been a received tradition of hospitality and charity. Many of the great houses had a religious house they looked as as their own, and the clergy there were likely to meet various of the spiritual needs of the great house. The were often an important part in the distribution of goods and aid in times of hardship, and quite frequently were a place of hospitality for ordinary folk as they travelled either on pilgrimage or for family or other needs.

    Whilst on the one hand Henry/Cromwell had faced the reality that a good deal of cash by this method was leaving the realm, and the realm needed cash to support the ambitious buildings that Henry wanted to (and in fact did) leave the land. On the other hand the ordinary folk were put in the situation where travel was more difficult as a result, and regular reaching out spots were taken away from them, whilst the great houses who held a connection with the general population through these vehicles of redistribution of wealth were also caught.

    The rise of the Anabaptist movement included those who argued that goods should be held in common, was clearly one step further than anyone had in mind, and certainly was not likely to be entertained for the good order of society.

    On the other hand the article enjoins all who have to be free in their giving to the poor and needy. So in a sense the articles return to all Christian people of obligation of charity within our means, not as an optional extra, but as a core value. I think this was always well expressed in one of the Blessings we find - I think it may have been an episcopal blessing, but it is strong and worthy of reflection here.

    Go forth into the world in peace be of good courage;
    hold fast that which is good;
    render to no one evil for evil;
    strengthen the fainthearted;
    support the weak;
    help the afflicted;
    honour everyone;
    love and serve the Lord,
    rejoicing in the power of the Holy Spirit;
    and the blessing of God almighty,
    the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
    be among you and remain with you always.​
     
    Aidan, alphaomega and Madeline like this.
  17. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Matthew 5:33-37
    Concerning Oaths
    ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one​

    The Matthew passage of course is the classic complaint about this article, and it is the general line of Christian behavior that we should be honest and fair dealing, that we should be straight talking, and we should be able to be clear about yes and no. Our lives should reflect this so that our integrity is known and that there is no need for us to make great remonstrations about the veracity of our statements, we should be known for yes and no as clear answers.

    The matter of the civil administration of justice by the state requires that all must be equal before the law. There are no first class and second class citizens before the law. We all must offer a tangible affirmation of the veracity of our testimony before the magistrate. Therefor a magistrate does have the authority to ask of us to swear an oath as to the veracity of what we say before the court.

    Traditionally this oath was taken by Christians with one hand held upon the Bible. In Australia the judicial system allows for a solemn oath sworn on nothing at all. In some sense this new form of a solemn oath on nothing at all is a long way removed from Matthew 5, where the swearing of an oath always had a consequence if you then broke the oath - for example the disinterment of you mothers mortal remains.

    In a sense many will see Article 39 as being simply procedural, however it does form part of this complex relationship between Church and State, where we as Christians are loyal members of both, and have an obligation to support to good order and fair working of the general social fabric.

    I have post a reasonable transcription of Homily 5 from the First Book of Homilies since this addresses the same matters, rather more fully.

    http://forums.anglican.net/threads/homily-against-swearing-and-perjury.1956/
     
    anglican74, Madeline and Lowly Layman like this.
  18. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Well said and well done, Philip!! Congratulations on completing your great feat. You have given fresh insight on the Articles that has re-invigorated my study. Thank you!
     
  19. Madeline

    Madeline Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    140
    Likes Received:
    262
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Agreed, LL! Thank you so much Philip. I have loved learning about the Articles, and reading your commentary even more. This was a huge work, and so beneficial to everyone.

    So, what do you have up your sleeve next?
     
  20. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)