A Protestant Dictionary: The XXXIX Articles

The Confession of Faith promulgated by the Church of England. They are thus unhesitatingly designated by such authorities as Bishop Andrewes (Sermon before Frederick the Count Palatine) and Archbishop Laud (Conference with Fisher, 24). Andrewes says that "our Confession contained in the XXXIX. Articles " shows " that nowhere does there exist a religion more in accord with the true Zion, that is, with the institutions of the Gospel and of the Apostles, than ours." Laud says that "the positive truths delivered in the Synod of 1562 are more than the polemics," though "true it is, and we must thank Rome for it, our Confession must needs contain some negatives, for in a corrupt time or place it is as necessary in religion to deny false hood as to assert and vindicate truth; indeed, this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former, an affirmative verity be ing ever included in the negative to a falsehood."

There are two ways in which attempts are made to overthrow or undermine the authority of this Confession of our belief : (1) It is urged that the XXXIX. Articles are not a Creed, and it is left to be inferred from thence that their authority is inconsiderable. (2) The Articles condemnatory of Rome are represented as not intended to condemn Roman doctrine, but as opposing some extravagant tenets condemned by Rome as well as by ourselves.

1. It is true that the Articles are not a Creed in the same sense that the Apostles, the Nicene and the Athanasian symbols are Creeds; for they have not been promulgated by the whole of the Catholic Church as the exposition of the Christian Faith like the Nicene Creed in its original and authentic form, nor have they been generally accepted like the Apostles and the Athanasian Creeds. But they have been promulgated and accepted by the Church of England as the exposition of her faith on the points with which they deal; and consequently they are as morally binding on members of the Church of England, because they express the faith of the Church of England, as the Creeds are binding upon them, because they express the faith of the Church Catholic. The Congregation in Church, after stating that "the Articles were first published in 1549 and then numbered forty-two," and "after undergoing several revisions they were settled in their present form by the Canons of 1604," both of which statements are incorrect, continues: "The Articles, although containing an account of certain leading doctrines, are in no sense a Creed, and it is to the Prayer Book that Churchmen go for an expression of their faith " (p. 170). On this passage we have to say that "containing an account of certain leading doctrines " is not synonymous with " declaring the faith of the Church on certain doctrines," which is what the Articles do, and that there is no justification for depreciating the Articles in comparison with the Prayer Book as an expression of a Churchman s faith. The English Churchman "goes for an expression of his faith" to the Prayer Book and to the Articles alike, and he finds no contrariety between them. The inference intended to be drawn from the Articles being "in no sense a Creed" is plainly that they may be disregarded as a statement of Anglican belief; but that inference does not follow from their not being a Creed. In the sixteenth century the different reformed Churches were charged by their Papal opponents with being solely destructive and having no positive faith of their own. To obviate this calumny and to give stability to their own members, who might easily be carried too far in their hostility to Popery, each put forth its own Confession of Faith. The most important of these was the Confession of Augsburg, A.D. 1530, in which the positive teaching of Protestants was laid down, and especially that cardinal doctrine of St. Paul, revived by Luther after long sleep, of free Justification for Christ’s merits grasped by our faith, which constitutes the most fundamental distinction between Popery and Protestantism. On the Confession of Augsburg our Confession, known as the XXXIX. Articles, was founded, with some variations from that of Augsburg which adapted it to English use, but essentially the same with it, not only on the question of "justification by faith only," the Article stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae, but also on almost all the other points of the faith of Protestants. Just as Lutherans are bound by the Augsburg Confession and Romanists by the Tridentine Confession, embodied in the so-called Creed of Pope Pius IV, so Anglican Churchmen are bound by the XXXIX. Articles, which are their Church’s Confession of Faith, though not, like the Romanist Confession, thrown into the form,
and called by the name of a Creed.

2. The more specific method of doing away with the force of the anti-Papal Articles is to represent them as not aimed at Romish or Papal doctrines, but at some extravagant tenets which it is presumed that someone, often unknown to history, held. This sophism, first suggested by Dr. Newman in Tract XC., is employed in dealing with Articles XXII., XXVIII., XXIX., and XXXI.

On Article XXII., the manual called Catholic Religion says: "This Article is not meant to condemn the Catholic doctrine of the Intermediate State, as we have stated it, but only the Romish doctrine which so largely obtained at the time we are speaking of, and which could claim no support from the teach ing of antiquity " (p. 185). And again : " The English Church in Article XXII. condemns what is called the Romish doctrine of Invocation of Saints; that is to say, what was put in practice by the people at the time of the Reformation" (p. 211). This is a mere subtle evasion of the force of the Article; "the practice by the people at the time," "the doctrine which so largely obtained at the time" were the practice and the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, gathered up and expressed almost contemporaneously by the Council of Trent: and what is condemned in the Article is the doctrine and practice of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of Purgatory, Pardons, Images, Relics, and Invocation of Saints nothing less than that.

The weapon forged by Newman is used most frequently for invalidating the condemnation of the Sacrifice of the Mass in Article XXXI. The Article condemning in the plainest manner the Romish Church’s doctrine of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass as "a blasphemous fable " (namely, that a man could, by a formula of words, place Christ on the altar and then sacrifice and eat Him) " and a dangerous deceit " (that is, an imposture to which men trusted for their salvation, to the great peril of their souls, instead of to faith in Christ, working by love), Dr. Newman performs some acts of logical legerdemain over it and then claims that we shall acknowledge that the Article "neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against its being an offering for the quick and the dead for the remission of sins; but against its being viewed, on the one hand, as independent of or distinct from the sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy, and on the other, its being directed to the emolument of those to whom it pertains to celebrate it, which is imposture in addition " (p. 63). Disciples follow in the master s steps. "A moment’s reflection will serve to show that the XXXIst Article does not condemn the Mass," says the Ritual Reason Why (No. 284). "The Church could not condemn the Mass, without condemning the Institution of Christ " (ibid.). " The Article could not have been aimed against the term Mass, nor against any doctrine involved in the term " (No. 285). " The Sacrifice of the Mass," says the Catholic Religion (p. 252), must be distinguished from the Sacrifices of Masses, of which the Article speaks. The latter expression refers to the erroneous idea that it was the number of Masses which was the source of benefit to the departed. The idea condemned is that of cumulation and repetition independent of the one and only availing Sacrifice of Calvary. When the true doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is more perfectly understood amongst us, the term Mass from its very convenience will probably reassert itself." Similarly, the Congregation in Church declares the Article " directed against the heretical," (and there ore not the Roman) "doctrine of reiteration." This method of argument is borrowed direct from the Roman Casuists, who meet any condemnation of a doctrine which they favour with a distinguendum. If they have to allow that A. B. is condemned, they divide A. B. into A. B. and a. b. Then say they, You may condemn A. B. (e.g. the Sacrifices of Masses as much as you please, but we may still hold a. b. ("the Sacrifice of the Mass ").

Rev. F. W. Puller, of Cowley, in his correspondence with the Ultramontane French priests of the Revue Anglo-Romaine, assures his friends that the Church of England never intended to condemn the Roman doctrine in Article XXXI., which " was expressly drawn up to repudiate a monstrous doctrine touching the Eucharistic Sacrifice which had been widely spread abroad in England during the first years of the sixteenth century." The author of this doctrine was Catharinus; so it must be understood that it was Catharinus and his doctrine that were condemned, not Rome nor Roman doctrine. Mr. Puller’s Ultramontane correspondent, Dr. Paulus, laughed in his face; he was quite sure that Catharinus had not taught "the monstrous doctrine" attributed to him. It was "the Catholic doctrine " which " the innovators of the sixteenth century " were condemning ; and instead of "justifying their apostasy," the only thing for Mr. Puller to do was to repudiate the Article.

One more instance of the method may be taken from the same correspondence. Article XXVIII. condemns Transubstantiation. Yes,says Rev. T. A. Lacey, Vicar of Madingley, but it is only what Bishop Ridley meant by Transubstantiation that it condemns, and Ridley did not mean Transubstantiation at all, but Metaphysiosis that is, a visible and tangible change of substance. It is true that Ridley thought he rejected Transubstantiation, and so did his Roman Catholic judges, and there fore the latter sentenced him to be burnt, and he himself gladly underwent death by burning for his faith. But it was all a mistake. He was mistaken, they were mistaken, everybody was mistaken, till the year 1896, when Mr. Lacey invented the word Metaphysiosis to express what it was Ridley really rejected. This singular mistake of Ridley, Gardiner, Pole, and everyone else, except Mr. Lacey, has led to the idea that Article XXVIII. denies Transubstantiation, which it does not do, for " the Englishmen who deny Transubstantiation do it through resting on the opinion of Ridley, and for the same reasons that he had " (Revue, p. 646). As Ridley when he said that he rejected Transubstantiation, did not reject Transubstantiation but only Metaphysiosis, which he mistook for Transubstantiation, and was, infact, only " maintaining what we are all agreed upon" (ibid.), so the Church of England in rejecting Transubstantiation, does not reject Transubstantiation, but only the monstrous misconception of Transubstantiation, which, according to Mr. Lacey’s brand-new discovery, Ridley entertained. What she denies is not, must not be, shall not be Transubstantiation, which Mr. Lacey calls "the doctrine of the Church," but only Metaphysiosis. It is true that Ridley never said that he had such an ignorant conception of the doctrine of Transubstantiation or of the meaning of the word "substance"; but he must have had it, or he would have denied, and the Church of England after him would have denied, " the doctrine of the Church," which, of course, they cannot have done. The Article states that Transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament." Mr. Lacey acknowledges with surprise and apparent pity that "a number of Anglicans still think the expression well founded," but he knows that when the Article says Transubstantiation it means Metaphysiosis, the condemnation of which is unobjectionable in his eyes because it is a tenet unknown to the Roman Church.

There is another application of the method looming before us. It has got over the difficulty caused by the denial of Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, Invocation of Saints, Transubstantiation, and the Mass. There remains Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. The modern formula for the evacuation of "Anglican negations " may be applied here too. Some one answering to Catharinus may be found (no doubt, he is at present being anxiously searched for), who has promulgated some extraordinary exaggeration as to the Papal power and omniscience, and we shall be gravely assured that it was that doctrine and not the Roman doctrine that the Church of England has rejected. Then, the Papal Supremacy and Infallibility will be no longer the obstacle to union that it now is.

We thank God that we have the XXXIX. Articles to serve as a permanent breakwater against the inrush of Mediaevalism and Popery. The last twenty years have proved to us more clearly than ever how great and how constant is our need of them. Though they are not a Creed of the Catholic Church, yet because they unequivocally condemn the chief doctrines of Romanism and maintain all the great truths of Christianity, they are the palladium of the Church of England. The XXXIX. Articles form part of the statute law of England. For their legal construction, see Whitehead, Church Law.

[The Ritualists have striven to make out that Article XXXVI. declares that there is nothing that " of itself is superstitious or ungodly " in the Communion Office as found in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. But Mr. Tomlinson has ably shown that the Ordinal referred to did not exist in the First Prayer Book, nor till March 1550, after the close of the third year of Edward VI. See his important chapter xii. in his work on The Prayer Book:, Articles, and Homilies. London : Elliot Stock, 1897. On the special importance of Article XXV. see CONSUBSTANTIATION.] [Frederick Meyrick.]