1-Thirty-nine Articles

A History of the Articles of Religion: To which is added a Series of Documents from A.D. 1536 to A.D. 1615; Together with Illustrations from Contemporary Sources.

Author: Charles Hardwick (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, S.W. Corner Chestnut and Eighth Streets, 1852). Hardwick published this from St. Catherine’s Hall, Cambridge, 19 Mar 1851.

The Articles of Religion, usually called the Thirty-nine Articles, or the XXXIX Articles, were compiled by the Church of England as she found herself at the time of the Reformation. The design can only be understood against that background and not the Tractarian-Ritualist efforts to re-interpret them.[1] It is unjust and illegitimate to interpret The Articles in any other way than through the “vast, momentous, and complicated” context than Reformation England.[2] It is the duty of any interpreter of the Articles to enter fully into the circumstances of the 16th century, including the manner in which The Articles had governing authority for Anglicanism.

It is important to assay the pre-Reformation period, its abuses and attempts at correction, as one deals with this period.

The fifteen century, prior to Luther in Germany and Cranmer in England, was already a troubled period and the Apostolic and Catholic Church had struggled for a revival and reformation of religion, especially in view of the corruptions of the Roman court. The role of the Gutenberg Press enabled both sides—pro and con—to more widely engage the issues. Serious issues were not to be swept under the rug. The Gutenberg Press reminds us of the role of the internet in the dissemination of information.

One is reminded of the Papal forgery and fraudulence of the “Gift of Constantine,” as exposed and published by the Renaissance scholar, Laurentius Valla. The “Gift of Constantine,” sometimes called the “Donation of Constantine,” provided the legal claim to territorial and jurisdictional rule in Italy. It is known as one of the “most famous forgery in history.[3]” Papal claims were that Constantine the Great had ceded and yielded dominions to the Papacy. It was a literary fiction crafted in later centuries to justify dominionism in later centuries. The integrity of the Popes was shot, then, as now; willful blindness governs the Curia.

Also, the publication of the New Testament and the Primitive Fathers “gradually” convinced the serious scholars of the errors and “deadly weeds which had mingled with its growth, and during the torpor of the Middle Ages.” [4] This century could be called a “period of fermentation.”

Another factor throughout this period was the greed, avarice, and grand possessions of the Roman Church. This was duly noted by the laity who were not fools; this is like the avarice and grand possessions of the false teachers and false prophets in charismania-land. We think of Joel Osteen, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Roberts, Joyce Meyer, Paula White, and Benny Hinn, for starters, TV-heroes of the modern blank-heads who, like the Renaissance Popes, had turned their message to a great profit.

The gullible—including leaders, then as now—tolerated it while the discerning, laity and Churchmen included, criticized it. John Wycliffe, of the late thirteenth century, is one representative calling upon the church to change; the strength of these feelings was wide and deep for elect and honest Churchmen.

As we noted before, we vigourously oppose the revisionism, and when necessary denial, of the Reformation context to these articles as shown by Anglo-Romewardizers.

We've mentioned that the fifteenth century had inherent forces at work for reform and that the highest authorities in the Church and State saw the “virulence of the disease by which Western Christendom was afflicted.”[5] Questions had been forced to the fore by several things.

First, the bold movements in Bohemia with Jan Huss and others were at work as were the efforts of the Lollards in England, though repressed on both fronts. In addition to these bolder movements, there was also a quest among more conservative elements for a “gradual restoration of discipline of moral, to a reorganization of the ecclesiastical system fast dying and decomposing, and ultimately to the recovery of the Primitive Faith, which is embodied in our English Service-Books and The Articles of Religion.”[6]

Some striking examples are set forth.

The Council of Pisa was assembled on 25 March 1409. The Great Schism had lasted thirty year, since 1378. No measures, ecclesiastical, political or military had brought the rivalries of the Avignon and Roman papacies to a resolution, aided and abetted by the pride, obstinancy, nepotism and greed of the dueling factions.[7] The Council of Pisa was designed to bring peace and establish order. The eyes, attention and hopes of Western Christendom centred on this Council.

Attendees at the Cathedral of Pisa, Italy: 4 patriarchs, 22 cardinals, 80 bishops, proxy clergy representing 100 absent bishops, 41 priors and generals of religious orders, 300 doctors of theology or canon law, as well as ambassadors from all the Christian kingdoms. Following the admission of testimonials and affidavits, the rival Popes were declared “contumacious” by this numerous and august body of medieval leaders.
Things heated up when the Patriarch of Alexandria, Simon de Cramaud, addressed the assembly about the rival Popes:

"Benedict XIII and Gregory XII" are recognised as schismatics, the approvers and makers of schism, notorious heretics, guilty of perjury and violation of solemn promises, and openly scandalizing the universal Church. In consequence, they are declared unworthy of the Sovereign Pontificate, and are ipso facto deposed from their functions and dignities, and even driven out of the Church. It is forbidded to them henceforward to consider themselves to be Sovereign Pontiffs and all proceedings and promotions made by them are annulled. The Holy See is declared vacant and the faithful are set free from their promise of obedience."[8]

This met with applause, the singing of the Te Deum, with the order for a solemn procession and the Feast of Corpus Christi. The members signed the decree deposing the Avignon and Roman Popes.[9]

The Council through the College of Cardinals elected the new Pope, Alexander V. The election was expected. It was announced throughout Christendom and was joyously received.

This Council itself would set up additional questions: How could Cardinals, appointing by anafractuous, dueling Popes convene with apostolic authority? Ergo, was their decision canonically valid? Can a General Council overturn Papal decrees? Ultimately, Vatican One would solve that one.

Suffice it to suffice, for our purposes here. The fifteenth century was turbulent and reform was in the air.

Footnotes:
[1] At least Rev. Mr. John Henry Newman, following the valiant effort in the infamous Tract XC, despaired of reconciling The Articles of Religion with Romish theology. The Articles, the Prayer Book, the Ordinal, the Reformation context, and the writings of leading Anglican divines, High and Low, could not be squared with his forlorn and desperate effort at reconciliation; he recognized his imprudence and its impossibilities and “swam the Tiber,” as many of his descendents did not. In no sense, historically, can Anglo-Romewardizers be said to be the lineal descendents of the Church of England and her Reformation Articles.
[2] Charles Hardwick. A History of the Articles of Religion: To Which is Added a Series of Documents from A.D. 1536 to A.D. 1615; Together with Illustrations from Contemporary Sources. (Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, S.W. Corner Chestnut and Eighth Streets, 1852), 15.
[3] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html of date 18 Jul 2009. The first draft of it was made after the mid-eighth century in order to help Pope Stephen II in his negotiation with Pepin the Short. The Pope, without a shred of biblical warrant, anointed Pepin the Short as king in 754, enabling the Carolingian family to supplant the old Merovingian royal line which had become opulent, decadent, and powerless. This enabled the Carolingian family to become the rule of the Franks. In a quid pro quo, Pepin seems to have promised the Pope those lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from Byzantium. The promise was fulfilled in 756. “Constantine the Great’s” alleged gift or donation was the fictional, fraudulent, forged and fabricated gift that made it possible to interpret Pepin’s grant as a restoration. Laurentius Valla demonstrated that the language variations between Constantine the Great and Pepin’s days were too wide.
[4] Hardwick, 16.
[5] Hardwick, op.cit., 9.
[6] Hardwick, op.cit., 9.
[7] The Avignon Palace in France has a cool basement in more than one sense of the word. Very large. Very cool in terms of temperature. And very “cool” since it was large enough for all the money and taxes they collected. The cash was kept on the premise. The Pope also had a secret stairwell to his chambers for late night trysts with local ladies, a rather un-Petrine thing to have. The papal chambers have various graffiti markings through the centuries since them. I observed one dated 1648.
[8] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12112b.htm of date 19 Jul 2009.
[9] We do well to remind ourselves that Roman apologists will often crow about the unity of the see of Rome. The Great Schism and the numerous and repeated inter-mural hostilities between various orders characterized the period. Where possible, unity was enforced by the interdict, inquisition, and outright murders, e.g. the Lollards and Waldensians. Also, we have posts going up on Calvin's Institutes, Bk.IV, the grand indictment of the Papal fiction of Petrine supremacy, ubi Pretrus, ibi ecclesia.