Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland 
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

Canterbury Cathedral

Archbishop Thomas Cramner

Bishop Nicholas Ridley

Bishop JC Ryle

INTRODUCTION

The 39 Articles of the Anglican Religion have become a grave embarrassment to many professing Anglicans. Even in J.C. Ryle's day, the good Bishop had occasion to speak of those who, "seem to have a peculiar dislike, an hydrophobic aversion. They seldom refer to them, unless perhaps to sneer at them as the 'forty stripes save one.' They never quote them, never bring them forward if they can possibly help it."1 Like it or not, these are the official doctrines of the Anglican Church and those to whom they have become an embarrassment have expressed their desire to have them repealed or revised. It may be that many will go along with this cry without even knowing the full issues at hand. It is very easy for some to say that they are outdated. The fact that they have fallen into relative disuse does not mean that they are of no use. The fact that some high ranking clergymen despise them does not mean that they ought to be dropped. It might be good to remind ourselves that those high ranking clergy men got where they are today by constantly affirming these same Articles. It is the purpose of this paper to defend the Articles of Religion.

WHAT ARE THE 39 ARTICLES?

The 39 Articles of Religion were first compiled in 1562, replacing the Articles compiled by Henry VIII. Henry's Articles grew out of the confusion of doctrine that was being preached in the land at that time of reformation and upheaval. The king sent a circular to all the bishops on 12th July 1536, forbidding all preaching until Michaelmas (September 29th) by which time articles of religion would be set down as a doctrinal guideline. The king, believing himself to be something of a theologian, drew up the Articles himself and they were duly agreed by both houses of the Anglican Convocation. The Articles were anything but Biblical and were filled with Romish superstition. Baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, purgatory, prayers to saints, holy water, the sign of the cross, kissing the cross and images as part of worship were all sanctioned by Henry's Articles. In 1552, Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley (both later martyred for their faith) compiled 42 Articles which, after an examination by bishops and learned men, were further reviewed by Cranmer and Ridley and ratified by King Edward VI. These Articles became the basis of the present 39 Articles.

EVERY CHURCH NEEDS TO HAVE A SOLID DOCTRINAL STATEMENT OF BELIEF

This was the method of the Apostolic New Testament Church. Whilst we accept that there is no formal doctrinal statement of any great length, set out with chapter headings and scriptural proofs, as is common in the more exhaustive Church Confessions, yet it is obvious that doctrine played a major part in NT Christianity. We observe the Lord Jesus Himself getting involved in the doctrinal issues of His day. He challenged the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection. He said that they greatly erred because they knew not the Scriptures.2 Even in His soul winning activities with the woman at the well, He felt it necessary to point out the doctrinal deficiencies of her Samaritan religion.3 We might multiply examples by drawing from those references where Christ makes reference to the centrality of His word in true religion.4 What is this, but affirming, among other things, the need for true doctrine? Doubtless, true doctrine on its own is insufficient. The Pharisees were generally orthodox in their religion, but their experience of its power left much to be desired.5

This insistence on doctrinal purity is carried over into the Apostolic church. The Pentecost believers were marked by steadfast conformity to the apostles' doctrine.6 There was an assenting to basic gospel truths which were deemed necessary for admittance into the life of the Church. Those who could not honestly adhere to these doctrines were barred from fellowship and certainly forbidden to preach. When false teaching was introduced, the apostles undertook to root it out and maintain doctrinal purity. Many of the NT Epistles refute such deviation from doctrinal truth. Among other things, the First Corinthian epistle deals with the heresy that denies that there is a resurrection of the dead.7 This heresy had an knock-on effect on whether Christ rose from the dead and subsequently, it too attracted Paul's attention.8 The Galatian epistle deals with the error of the Judaizers who believed that faith plus ritual would make a man right with God.9 This led to Paul's famous confrontation with Peter10 who, at least in practice, gave credence to the erring party. The Colossian epistle deals with the Gnostic heresy, which taught that the knowledge of Christ was insufficient.11 And so on. If there was no doctrinal rule or benchmark, then such actions would be impossible. We have some early positive doctrinal statements in the New Testament epistles.12 Jude calls us to contend earnestly for these statements which he identifies as "the faith once delivered unto the saints"13

As the years and indeed centuries passed, the Church found it necessary to formulate its doctrinal basis, based on Scripture alone as its rule of faith and practice. Various heretical sects sought to sail under the flag of authentic Christianity, and it was needful to set forth just what exactly the Bible taught on the various fundamental doctrines of the faith. This gave rise to some early doctrinal statements such as the Apostles' Creed (traced back to the AD 100's) and the Nicene Creed (325 AD) These were generally simple creeds where great doctrines were almost baldly stated without going into any great detail. As time progressed, it became necessary to define further the faith and soon the doctrinal statements became more detailed. The Protestant Reformation, with its emphasis on Biblical purity, saw a number of creeds formulated. These were quite elaborate in their content.

The alternative to a statement of faith is at least confusion, and at worst anarchy. The proverbial "singing from the same hymn sheet" takes on real meaning when discussing this issue. It cannot be that one man's Christ is none other than God manifested in the flesh14 which another in the same fellowship denies that Christ came in the flesh at all.15 If one believes that faith alone without the works of the law is sufficient to justify us before God16 and another insists on circumcision,17 such will lead to trouble in the Church.18 Heresies are not a thing of the past. The old heresies have taken on new names and new propagators. Modern day deniers of the Trinity and the physical resurrection of Christ from the dead still abound. If there is no doctrinal statement, then there is no warrant in keeping, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses out of the pulpits of the Church. It is the truth that sets men free19 In a world blinded by the Evil One,20 truth must be defined. Where this is so, then all that disagrees with it is deemed to be error.21

THE 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION PROVIDE A SOLID DOCTRINAL STATEMENT OF BELIEF FOR THE ANGLICAN CHURCH

These Articles take their place among the Great Confessions of the Reformed Protestant faith. They enjoyed being quoted even by Protestants from other Churches who have their own Confession of Faith. No one can doubt the truth of this fundamental Anglican doctrinal statement, and it is evident that they are something of which Anglicanism can be justly proud.

The Articles set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith in a very clear and positive form. They are decidedly Trinitarian and unclouded in their affirmation of the gospel of grace. All the basics are readily affirmed. There is no lack to be discerned. This nails the lie that Protestantism is just a parasite religion, feeding of the errors of Rome to survive. This is not so. Protestantism is a return to Apostolic Christianity. It has a positive message to proclaim. The parasite title belongs to those churches, cults etc., who take the name of Christian but deny what Christ and His Apostles taught as recorded in the pages of the New Testament.

Unfortunately when the Articles were drawn up, there was a need to refute specific errors which had spread all over Europe. We might wish that this was not so, but such is the reality of life. Different voices contended for the ear of the people who wanted, and indeed needed, to know that the Bible taught on certain key doctrines. As well as setting forth the Christian faith positively, the Articles also resorted to negative language. As already observed above, this was no new tactic. Christ and the Apostles had engaged this specific form of communication. We need to remember that to protest against error is a double negative and a double negative in the English language is viewed as a positive. The Church of Ephesus was positively commended by Christ, because they hated the false doctrines of the Nicolaitans, which Christ also hated.22

The common error of the age in which these Articles were written was Roman Catholicism. Although the various Protestant groupings had some agreement with Rome e.g. on the Deity of Christ, Virgin Birth, Inspiration of the Scriptures, etc., yet the differences were sufficient enough to warrant separation from her communion. These disagreements cannot be underestimated. Peter speaks about damnable heresies23 i.e. doctrines which, if persisted in, lead the soul away from Christ and into hell. It is the duty of the true Christian to flee from such teachings and to reprove it.24 This is exactly what the Reformers sought to do.

The 39 Articles identify the Church of Rome by name, declaring that she has erred not only in her living, and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.25 This lays an attack at the very heart of that church. An attack on secondarily issues can be borne quite easily. Such disagreement should not affect our fellowship with fellow Christians, but to level such a serious allegation like this effectively declares that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church of the New Testament.

Other Roman falsehoods i.e. purgatory, idolatry etc., are also named and condemned.26 Another issue dealt with in a number of articles, is the subject of the Roman Mass. Again this struck at the very core of Roman Catholicism. The teaching of transubstantiation is denied Biblical warrant, is declared to be repugnant to the plain words of scripture, destructive to the nature of a true sacrament and the source of many superstitions.27 Clearly the framers of the Articles were perceptive men of great conviction. Aware of the opprobrium such words would bring upon their heads, they were honest enough to state what they believed. The Anglicans were not alone in the use of such language of condemnation. The other great Protestant creeds do likewise. Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian) likewise denounce the various errors of the mass. It too uses phrases like "most abominably injurious"28 "repugnant"29 and "gross idolatries"30 The Baptist Confession and the Savoy Confession (Congregational) are also to the fore in these matters.

If it is considered bigotry to refute perceived error, then remember that the Church of Rome did not sit back and let these attacks upon her doctrine go unanswered. Pope Paul III called the Council of Trent and in the documents produced, Rome sought to answer the objections. In the canons of this Council, Rome anathematizes those who do not believe her doctrines. It is worth noting that Vatican II - so beloved of the ecumenists - declares itself to be but following the footsteps of the Council of Trent31 and indeed furthering the work begun by that Council.32 Those who allege that the Reformers were bigots, must be fair and honest enough to lay the same charge to the Roman Church. At least this would be consistent.

However, we are aware that it is possible to love an individual or even a group of people, and yet oppose them in their doctrinal stance. It will be evident already to the reader that the author entertains no sympathy for the doctrines of Rome and yet he enjoys the friendship of quite a number of Roman Catholic people. Bigotry is a very serious charge to lay at any man's door, and more so if it is patently untrue. Often it is flung at one who contends earnestly for what he believes and actually becomes a substitute for reasoned debate.

THE CHURCH OF ROME IS STILL SUBSTANTIALLY UNCHANGED IN HER ERROR

It is Rome's proud boast that she is Semper eadem (Always the Same) Yet, we can discern some changes from the situation over 400 years ago. Some of these are changes for good and are to be welcomed. The Bible is no longer a forbidden Book to most of her adherents. No one needs the express permission of a Bishop to purchase and read a copy. A Roman Catholic has liberty now to attend a Protestant place of worship without the fear that such is a mortal sin. These are large gains, especially for Roman Catholic people, and they should take advantage of them.
However, fundamentally, Rome has not changed. The old errors, so repugnant not only to the reformers, but - to refer to the Articles - scripture and reason, are still in place and form an essential part of the Roman Catholic faith today. Any changes in the mass are relatively minor. Mass goers now might not have to endure Latin (although such are still catered for) and the pipe organ may compete now with strumming guitars etc., but the fundamental error is still there. Rome still claims:

1) The bread and wine are still changed in to the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.33
(Note: This absurdity leads to the gross idolatry of the perpetual adoration of the host. The belief is that once the words of consecration by the RC priest have been pronounced, Jesus Christ is literally present in the bread and wine and so to be worshipped. This is sheer idolatry.)

2) Jesus Christ is still sacrificed on the altar.34
(Note: There is no more offering for sins.35 His cry, "It is finished"36 signified that the offering for sin is over. This man after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."37 It is a blasphemy to say that He is being currently offered on thousands of Roman altars at this present time.)

3) Such sacrifice is still to be offered for the living and the dead.38
(Note: This doctrine flows from the thought that Christ is still being offered. Once there is a departure from the plain teaching of the word of God, all sorts of mischief follows. Note the complete absence of any reference to this doctrine in the preaching and teaching of the New Testament. We have here also the germ of the Roman teaching of purgatory, so ably condemned by Article 22. There is nothing that any sacrament - real or imaginary - can do for those departed. The Scripture teaches that after death, comes the judgement.39)

4) The cup is still withheld from the laity.40
(Note: Article 30 condemns this particular error. Christ gave the cup to all His people as well as the Bread.41 No church has the right to interfere with the ordinance of Christ.)

The other heresies identified by the Articles e.g. purgatory are still in place and indeed Rome has added to her catalogue of errors even since the days of the Reformers. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IV in 1854. Papal Infallibility was declared by the Vatican Council in 1870. The assumption of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in 1950. These are facts which none can deny.

THE 39 ARTICLES THEREFORE DO NOT NEED TO BE REVISED

Certainly the word of God has not changed. Christ still has somewhat against that church which refuses to deal with false teaching.42 If these distinctive teachings of Rome were offensive to God's word in the 16th century, then they are just as offensive in this day and age. Our forefathers were not mistaken in their actions. The blessing of God rested upon their heads as they sought to maintain a pure and viable gospel witness, free from the soul blighting doctrines which emanated from Rome.

The Scripture warns that in the last days that some shall depart from the faith.43 Paul said that the time would come when there would not be the enduring of sound doctrine, but that teachers would arise to cater for their itching ears.44 Such a day has arisen. If ever there was a need for a solid, explicit, confession of faith, then it is the day in which we now live. It would be well nigh suicidal to overthrow or revise the 39 Articles for something less. There is certainly nothing to be gained by embracing the Church of Rome who still holds tenaciously to her erroneous doctrines.

HONESTY IN ASSENTING TO THE THIRTY NINE ARTICLES

An ordination to the Christian ministry is a most solemn affair. God has somewhat to say about those who run in His name without being sent.45 In the Anglican Communion, and certainly in the Church of Ireland, the one to be ordained is required to record his agreement to these Articles. Every minister before ordination or institution as a Rector must declare:
"I assent to the 39 Articles of Religion." 46

The word assent is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as:
1. To express agreement (verb)
2. Consent (verb)
1. mental or inward acceptance or agreement (noun)
2. consent or sanction, especially official (noun)

By saying that he assents to these Articles, the rector is in effect saying that he accepts the doctrines of the Trinity etc., and also repudiates the Roman doctrines of the mass etc., He cannot both assent and dissent at the same time. Such action would not be based on the honesty which one would expect from a man in the street, never mind a candidate for the ministry. He cannot pick and choose. There is no room for him so to do and rightly so. If there were, then you are back to the thought of a church that is divided in what ought to be its strength i.e. its doctrine. You are back to confusion at least and anarchy at worst. This is why it is incumbent on the Bishop at such ordinations - as on any other occasion deemed necessary - to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines according to God's word.47 Any preacher who countenances the mass etc., whether in word or deed e.g. by attendance is a danger to his congregation. By his own admission if he says: "I assent to the 39 Articles of Religion" he is acknowledging that his sympathies lie with a doctrine/practice that has given occasion to many superstitions and is repugnant to God's word. His own mouth condemns him.

Surely common decency demands that those who do not agree with the Articles should not say that they do. What is to be gained by telling, in the most solemn of circumstances, a blatant untruth? How can the blessing of God, who Himself cannot lie, rest upon the ministry of one who has?
In the 19th Century, a number of ordained Church Of England ministers expressed their sympathies for the doctrines of Rome, although they had assented to the 39 Articles. After a long struggle to introduce various Roman Catholic practices into the Anglican Church, several of them resigned their ministries and converted to Rome. John Newman, later to receive the Cardinal's hat, was among this number. I am not a fan of Newman's. To leave the message of salvation by grace alone to embrace a doctrine that teaches otherwise must, by New Testament definition, rank him as an apostate.48 But with all my abhorrence of what he did and the legacy he left behind, I admire him in this: He followed through the convictions he came to hold. I do not agree with those convictions. They cast a dark shadow over Christ's once and for all sacrifice upon Calvary. They usurp Christ's priestly office etc., but I would not grudge Newman any respect for following them through. I sincerely wish he had not formed them. I wish he had returned to the Bible as his sole rule of faith and practice. Had he have done so, then he would have steered far away from the course he later took. But at least, he was a man of conviction. Seeing that he no longer assented to the 39 Articles, he honestly resigned his ministry and went to where his heart really lay.

CONCLUSION

This tract is a clarion call to return to the truth of the 39 Articles. A return to the 39 Articles is, in effect, a return to the word of God, for they are most Biblical in their content. One reason why Churches are largely empty today is because they have forsaken clear Biblical doctrine. The preaching of the Cross will ever be offensive to the man in the street.49 The apostles were well aware of this, yet they insisted preaching Christ and Him crucified.50 Any gains made by trimming the message are but short term and cost dearly. Let God be God! Let God take care of His own word. He has pledged Himself to its success.51 Counting heads or church offerings does not come into it. The final question ought to be: Am I faithful to God in the solid unapologetic proclamation of His word? Do I preach the whole counsel of God?52

No one needs be ashamed that he really and honestly believes the 39 Articles. He is entitled to hold to his principles without being despised in any way. If people despise him because he dares to affirm the truth of the gospel and oppose the lie of hell, then they have the problem…not him.

REFERENCES:
1. Knots Untied. Bishop J.C. Ryle. P.53
2. Mark 12:24
3. John 4:20-22
4. John 15:3/17:6/17:17 etc.,
5. 2 Timothy 3:5
6. Acts 2:42
7. 1 Corinthians 15:12
8. 1 Corinthians 15:13-20
9. Acts 15:2
10. Galatians 2:11-12
11. Colossians 2:10/4:12
12. Philippians 2:4-11 etc.,
13: Jude 3
14: 1 Timothy 3:16
15: 2 John 7
16: Galatians 2:16
17: Galatians 6:12
18. Galatians 1:7/5:12
19. John 8:32
20. 2 Corinthians 4:4
21. Isaiah 8:20/Psalm 119:128
22. Revelation 2:6
23. 2 Peter 2:1
24. Ephesians 5:11
25. Article 19
26. Article 22
27. Article 28
28. WCF. Chapter 29 paragraph 2
29. WCF. Chapter 29 paragraph 6
30. WCF. Chapter 29 paragraph 6
31. Documents of Vatican II (p.111)
32. Documents of Vatican II (p.456)
33. 1994 Catechism of Catholic Church
(p.299-300)
34. 1994 Catechism of Catholic Church
(p.307)
35. Hebrews 10:18
36. John 19:30
37. Hebrews 10:10-12
38. 1994 Catechism of Catholic Church
(p.308)
39. Hebrews 9:27
40. 1994 Catechism of Catholic Church
(p.314)
41. Matthew 26:27
42. Revelation 2:14-15
43. 1 Timothy 4:1
44. 2 Timothy 4:3
45. Jeremiah 29:9
46. The debate on the 39 Articles.
Leaflet produced by the Evangelical
Fellowship of Irish Clergy.
47. Book of Common Prayer p441
48. Hebrews 6:4-6/10:26-31
49. 1 Corinthians 1;18
50. 1 Corinthians 1:21-23
51. Isaiah 55:11
52: Acts 20:27