MetaCatholic

(Part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England, which so far includes an Introduction, Article I, update, Article II, Article III, Article IV, Article V)

The first five of the 39 articles represent a kind of credal summary, a statement of the church’s regula fidei, and a means of anchoring the Church of England in the historic deposit of faith expressed by the fathers and the early ecumenical councils. From this point on they begin to engage more specifically with controversy, and begin to put down boundary markers for particular understandings of how that faith if maintained and worked out.

The sixth article is on scripture, but before dealing with it, it is worth noting this order. One comes to the discussion of scripture already holding the faith of the Church, and, whatever critical role scripture has to play for that faith, they are books written within and read by those who already share a fellowship of faith in Christ. This reflects the norm for reading: if we are reading these books as scripture, it is because we already hold the faith of the church that so recognises them.

But it also presupposes that the church’s historic reading of those books is a proper one, and a guide to how they should be read. When and where new readings of scripture are deployed to criticise the received readings rather than expound, elucidate and apply them, as they have been, and no doubt always will be, that enterprise should not be taken up carelessly or arrogantly, but with due attentiveness and humility.

It is perhaps with that in mind that the Reformers felt the need to draw on an earlier traditional voice like Jerome’s in looking, as article six does, at a revised canon.

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 the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
(A listing of the Hebrew / Protestant canon follows)
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
(A listing of the deutero-canonical books follows)
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

I’ve already made a number of posts about canon (this and this are particularly relevant to this article), some of them interacting with John Hobbins’ fine series (which begins here) exploring its history, development and use. The point I want to underline here is one which is often ignored, that when it comes to the books of the Apocrypha, the article says “the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine,” and the implication is that this is precisely because some call their authority into doubt, whereas of the books of the Hebrew Bible, “[their] authority was never any doubt in the Church.” It’s fairly pointless using disputed books to establish doctrine, because it cuts away the ground for argument and agreement.

But we need to give that phrase “the Church doth read” its full weight, first by what it definitely does not say. The Calvinist Westminster Confession says:

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

By contrast, the article prescinds from judging the relative inspiration of the books, and far from not making any more use of them than “other human writings” it states clearly for Anglicans that the church reads them “for example of life and instruction of manners.”

If we want to know more positively what “the Church doth read” means, then we need to remember that the articles were normally published as part of the BCP, and therefore together with the lectionary setting out the pattern of readings through the year. These readings were to be followed in every cathedral and parish church, every day of the year. And the lectionary includes virtually all of the apocryphal / deutero-canonical material as the first reading, towards the end of the year, following on in course from the undisputed books of the Old Testament. In terms of the liturgy, clergy and congregations were required to read and hear these books indistinguishably from the ways in which they read and heard those of “whose authority [there] was never any doubt in the Church”

Lectionaries of the last century, under evangelical pressure, coming from inter-evangelical and inter-denominational co-operation, alliances and shared Bible publishing ventures, have slowly departed from this pattern, until now all the apocryphal readings are optional. Historically, this is an undoubted departure from the position of the Anglican Reformers (and in my view a serious mistake), and whenever conservative evangelicals today (as some do) claim that they and not catholics or liberals represent the true historic faith of the Church of England, they should be more aware that on this fundamental point of practice, they have seriously departed from their heritage (however good they think their reasons may be).

The other matter worth considering is the remarkable restraint in what the article says. It simply states the claim that the scriptures are sufficient. They contain all that is needed for that faith which leads us in God’s path. If something is in scripture, or can be fully argued for and proved from it, then the Church can require people to believe it as part of the faith. If something is not there, or can’t be proved by it, then no such requirement may be made. It does not prevent people from believing what is not in scripture, although other articles make clear that these other beliefs should not go against scripture. Scripture acts, in this sense, not only as an authorizing word for the Church’s teaching, but as a critical restraint on what might otherwise become the Church’s unbridled authority.

The other feature of this restraint is that the scriptures are acknowledged as sufficient for salvation. In one sense that could do with a lot of unpacking. The framers of the article were not intending thereby to undercut “justification by faith” as they understood it. What is required for salvation in that sense is minimal, and God’s work, not ours. But they see the scriptures purposed for the knowledge that develops that understanding, moral, theological and spiritual, and the life befitting it. They are not a compendium, encyclopedia or almanac for every purpose and every type of knowledge. They are a guide to knowing God, praising God, and living with and before God. That is a lesson some parts of the Christian world seem to have great difficulty learning.