39 Aricles - 1-13

How many can you sign up to? (Part 1 of 3 (fairly obviously))

I. 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.

Fine with that.

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 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 all actual sins of men.

Would be heretical to deny...

III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed that He went down into Hell.

This one's even in the Scriptures...

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, wherefore He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He return to judge all men at the last day.

I suspect lots of Anglican today cavil at the "truly", but the "all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature" makes it pretty clear that it means bodily resurrection. Which will be problematic for some, but it seems a bit mean-spirited to call yourself a Christian and baulk at that one.

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.

Fine by me. If it's good enough for every major Western church, it's good enough for me.

VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures 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 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. (A long list..)

I've cut out the list of the books, since it isn't very interesting unless you're researching Reformation attitudes to the Bible. The Roman objection to this is the authority delegated to Peter, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the works of the Church and continued revelation of God's will. Baloney, I'll go for the Biblical version every time.

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 there 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.

The relevance of the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New is kind of important in all the gay rights arguments at the moment (and one which is normally ignored). I happen to agree with Article VII, but that's because my reading of the OT laws restricts the "moral" case to pretty much only the 10 Commandments. And so, yes, another tick for this one.

VIII. 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.

Yeah, fine with that.

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 phronema sarkos (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 itself the nature of sin.

I love the fact that a set of articles set out for an entire nation includes the Greek quotation. Imagine in His Grace did that today...

But anyway, yes, I think this is a pretty good definition of Original Sin, and maintains the nice distinction between condemnation (or not, for the baptised) and human nature.

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.

Hmmm. Starting to get slightly trickier. Do I think that no-one has the power to do good works except by the grace of God? It rather goes against the modern conceptions: again, if Rowan stood up and said that the only way that atheists or Hindus did anything good was by the grace of a God in which they didn't believe, I don't think he would be popular. And also note it's "the grace of God by Christ" - so Christ's prevention (in this sense, to go before, temporally or causatively) applied to Jews and Muslims as well. Again, this rather pulls us up in front of some contemporary issues, but it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and not patronising attitude to take to what used to be called the Virtuous Heathen.

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

Cranmer's "Homily of Justification" is something I might post about another time. It's great, and I'm happy with this one, even if the Romans aren't.

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.

Again, a demonstration of why the Anglican position on good works is slightly more complicated than some caricatures would have it - I like.

XIII. Of Works before Justification. Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy 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 School authors 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.

Last one for today, and the first one I have a problem with - mainly because it doesn't seem to chime with X above. X says that non-believers have a perfect chance of performing good works which are pleasurable to God, this says that one cannot do that before the grace of Christ and justification. If this is just saying that flukey acts of kindness don't count as good works, then fine. But it also seems to go against the idea that "by the fruit the tree shall be known".