The ThirtyNine Articles: the rest, Civil matters

In this section, we will look at the remaining articles.  There are some interesting tidbits contained within, but I will develop some of them more than others.

XXXII. Of the marriage of Priests.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also 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.

It is interesting that this issue has exploded in the New York Times last week.  Here is a response by Al Mohler to the NYT piece.  In fairness, Mohler was mentioned in the NYT piece, thus his response is appropriate.  I mention it here because it is topical and interesting to this particular Article.  The most remarkable thing to notice is that while this article is neutral, practice might be exactly opposite of the Roman model.

XXXIII. Of excommunicate 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 has authority thereto.

Wow!  The dangling question is one of authority.  This article has historical precedent to be sure, but I am very uncomfortable with worldly declarations of God’s ultimate judgment.  As Luther said, there are going to be some surprises both ways on Judgment Day.

XXXIV. Of the traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like, 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 judgment, willingly and purposely does 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 offends against the Common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the Magistrate, and wounds the consciences of the weak brethren. 

   Every particular or national Church has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

I can see a lot of Pauline authority for this article, and I think that it is reasonable as written.  Practice and word must be in alignment, of course.

XXXVI. Of consecration of Bishops and ministers.

The book of Consecration of Archbishops, and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, does contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering:  neither has it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore, whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the afore named 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 and ordered.

Here we go with authority.  This is what theocracy means.  Clearly, this article has no business in the articles of a church.  I can understand such an article appearing in the laws of man, in so much as churches must deal with the laws of the nations in which they reside, but I find it difficult to understand any authority being granted to civil authorities or monarchies.  The break from Rome is in part responsible for this article and the next.  Viewed in the context of foreign control, i.e. Roman authority, these make more sense in the world of man and his politics.

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrates.

The Queen’s Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes does appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. 

   Where we attribute to the 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 Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, does 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 evil doers. 

   The bishop of Rome has 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.

Following from the previous article, this article fleshes out the issue of authority, particularly in regards to the long arm of Rome.  The particulars of these itemized points are interesting on their own merits, but beyond my purposes at this time.

XXXVIII. Of Christian men’s goods, 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 as he possesses, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

So, England will not be a commune such as the situation in Acts 4-5.  By the end of Acts, it is clear that this was not meant as a social model for the whole world.  So, no big deal here.  I’ve talked about Acts 5 in the past (although I can’t find that section at the moment,) and I have nothing to add now.

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 does not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requires, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the prophets teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.

OK, so we can swear to tell the truth in Court.  Nice.

As I said, this section were a collection of odds and ends that describe the relationship of the church and its members with the state.  The application of some of this language to the US Episcopal church is obviously lacking.  Again, it behooves the church to either accept or rewrite these articles if there are issues.  The Episcopal Church USA supports these Articles as written.

In the last post of this series, I will summarize the 39 Articles and discuss their legacy in the Episcopal Church.

--Troll--