Interacting with the Thirty-Nine Articles

As part of my ordination process, I have to write some paragraphs interacting with designated Discussion Questions, one of which is this: "Carefully read the (Thirty-nine) Articles of Religion… Respond to them using Scripture, historical references, and/or personal experience." My hope here is to interact with each of the articles, prompting discussion that will help me get my mind around these issues in preparation for my formal written response. I'd be especially appreciative of any Anglicans who might be willing to engage me.

(Titles are in bold. Descriptions are italicized. My commentary is in normal font.)

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.

I'd like to know what's meant by "without… passions." If this is a reference to the impassibility and immutability of God, these notions are suspect because their origins lie in Greek philosophy rather than the Bible. I have a hard time reconciling a stoic deity with the God I find in the OT and an unchanging deity with the Second Person of the Trinity who became incarnate, for example. Certainly there's a core essence of who God is that doesn't change--He's loving, just, righteous, worthy of praise, etc.--but those Greek ideas have been doing a number on christian theology for a long, long time. Further, even Luther had reservations about those things. Other than that, I agree with the overall point. I affirm the Trinity.

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 actual sins of men.

I agree with everything but the reference to original guilt. I don't think anyone is guilty of sin till they actually sin, which I'm pretty sure is what the Orthodox have said all along. More on this in a subsequent point.

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.

I believe Jesus died and was buried, but I'm not sure about descending into hell part. Where is the biblical evidence for this? As I understand it, the reference to the Son of Man spending three days and three nights in the heart of the earth as Jonah spend three days and nights in a belly of a fish was a Jewish idiom for being entombed/dead. As for the doctrine of hell itself, I do affirm the idea of a place of eternal punishment for those who aren’t saved through Jesus but I don’t believe in a literal fire-filled domain. My tentative view seems to be more in line with the Orthodox view. That being said, if someone can either prove to me from Scripture or from an apostolic father that Jesus descended into hell I don't have a problem affirming it.

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; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

Agreed.

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.

The original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that the Cappadocian Fathers worked so hard for doesn't contain the Filioque Clause. That's problematic. On a theological level, I affirm that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. That seems biblical. On an ecclesiastical level, I deny that the Western Church had the authority to revise the creed without the East's mutual consent. Haven't yet found a way to resolve that tension. Doubt I will.

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.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books. Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther, Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job, Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms, Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs, Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater, Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less. 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: The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom, The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses, The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees. All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

I agree with this list of the canonical books. I affirm that the Bible contains all teaching necessary for salvation. I affirm that it is the divinely-inspired Word of God as communicated by human authors living in precise cultural-historical contexts. I affirm that it's the absolute authoritative standard for all matters of doctrine and practice—in so far as it’s rightly interpreted—to which all other standards are secondary. However, the Bible is authoritative but not exhaustive, meaning it simply doesn't come close to answering all of our questions even within the realm of explicit theology. All of the essential questions? Yes. All of the important questions? No. Also, I'd nuance this issue of ecclesiastical authority by recognizing that there are extra-biblical authoritative standards outside of Scripture, including the words "not made" in the Nicene Creed, that seem to be as essential as anything explicitly stated in the biblical text.

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 they 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.

Aquinas invented the threefold division of the OT into moral, ceremonial, and judicial law, which seems to be what this article is premised upon. I tend to think Aquinas had some good points on this issue, but his view of the OT definitely reflects his era of Medieval scholasticism, which is a period I'm particularly skeptical of. At the end of the day I'm unwilling to affirm Aquinas' OT hermeneutics as an absolute basis for how the contemporary Church ought to interact with the OT. As for the ideas that the OT isn't contrary to the NT, the OT points to the NT, the NT fulfills the OT, and so forth, there I heartily agree.

VIII. Of the Creeds.

The Nicene 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. The original Article given Royal assent in 1571 and reaffirmed in 1662, was entitled "Of the Three Creeds; and began as follows, "The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed ..."

For historical reasons I'm more enthusiastic about the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed than the Athanasius' Creed, but, with the exception of the Filioque Controversy, I affirm the content of all three without reservation.

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, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (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 of itself the nature of sin.

I agree with the general premise of Original Sin. Specifically, something very real happened with the fall, whether that portion of Genesis is supposed to be interpreted as theological truth as communicated within the context of ANE creation myth or as historical narrative that is to be interpreted literally, that causes every single person to be sinful and in need of salvation. That is, I end up in the same destination. Yet I disagree with many of the details for how Western Christians get there. My view is complicated. It doesn't perfectly align with any of the common views throughout church history that I'm aware of, including Pelagianism, Augustine’s Seminal View, the Reformation’s Federal Headship, etc. I don't affirm original guilt. What I do affirm is this: Adam sinned and as a consequence all people are incapable of not sinning and will thus be in need of redemption through Jesus. I believe that because of Adam's fall every single child is born with a corrupted—not sinful—nature such that all will sin at a very, very young age. I call this an "unavoidable propensity to sin." This view, which I call Revisioned Original Sin, has nearly all of the same practical results as classical conceptions of original sin. Part of what I’m trying to keep in balance with this is a) recognize that something happened with the fall that caused all people to be sinful and in need of redemption, b) have people be responsible only for their own sins, and c) maintain a balance between the corporate and individual dynamics of sin, the fall, guilt, redemption, etc. But what is the precise mechanism through which that corrupted nature is transmitted? Frankly, I don't know. Seems to me it's a mystery we can speculate about but can never ultimately know.

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.

I agree that people cannot turn to God, seek repentance, and be saved without the direct overriding gracious work of the Holy Spirit.

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.

I'd like a clarification of this article. It seems to suggest a view premised upon Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and Calvin's Penal Substitution, both of which I'd point out has, to the best of my knowledge, scant precedent among the apostolic fathers or really anyone before the 11th century. Right now I'm intrigued by N.T. Wright's work on justification and also Orthodox conceptions of it. That said, I certainly agree with the general premise that justification is by faith (alone) through grace and not by works.

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 judgment; 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.

Because of Luther's errant Law & Gospel paradigm he wanted James' epistle stripped from the canon, which is a tragedy of the Reformation. Having attended a church where faith was emphasized and the Fruits of the Spirit were downplayed, I'm truly thankful that through God's sovereignty Luther failed. James provided a crucial flip-side of the faith and works coin. According to him, good works should and must spring from faith or that faith is dead.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his 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.

Simply lumping all works together is, in my opinion, a common error coming out of the Reformation. We've got to use more precise language. Are we talking about works unto salvation or works of just doing good deeds? I don't believe that any works are possible that are meritorious toward justification, but neither do I affirm that people are incapable of doing anything pleasing to God prior to salvation. That's absurd. It's a very Reformed/Puritan sort of view that emphasizes only one-half of a larger issue—mankind's wretched fallenness. This problem reminds me of a quote by Philip Yancey: "A church uncomfortable with paradox tends to tilt in one direction or the other, usually to disastrous consequences." The reality is that all people live within paradoxical tension of the imagio dei and the fall. I believe that in the fall the imagio dei was completely marred by sin, but I don't believe it was destroyed, eliminated, dissolved, obliterated, or snuffed out. Thus, all people are simultaneously capable of both good and evil. Why is this important? Because the denial that non-Christians cannot do anything innately good is nonsensical, untenable, and offensive. If a non-Christian provides a homeless man a coat on a cold winter night out of love and compassion, I believe that's a good act that's truly pleasing to God even if that non-Christian denies God's very existence. He reflects God's image almost in spite of himself, as it were. And appealing to Common Grace is just a completely unnecessary step and a theological innovation that I see no precedent for in Scripture, although I confess that I could have missed it. So, does mankind have the ability to do good works unto salvation by its own volition? No. Does mankind have the ability to do good works that flow from being made in God's image? Yes.

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.

Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

Huh?

XV. Of Christ alone without Sin.

Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as Saint John saith) was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Agreed.

XVI. Of Sin after Baptism.

Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

First of all, isn't every sin deadly? Second, this "deadly sin" language suggests a Catholic perspective on sin that I don't affirm. Beyond that, again I'm confused.

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

Do I affirm predestination? Yes. Do I affirm election? Yes. Do I know how that squares with human responsibility? No. Do I believe anyone can be saved without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit? No. Am I a Calvinist? No.

XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

Agreed. I think this article should be renamed the "Read Me, Bishop Spong" article.

XIX. Of the Church.

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Agreed. And just to round out the picture, the Church of Canterbury hath erred, too. Sorry. Too many people involved for any church to be perfect.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Ummmm, again, I'm a little confused. Here's my view on ecclesiastical authority: I see the Church’s authority as more of a steward than a king. Its authority is found only in its preservation of the faith of the apostles, not in its own innate authority.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.

[The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.] The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article, omitted in the version of 1801, reads as follows: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."

N/A

XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

I'm open but unconvinced as to the legitimacy of icons and the idea of venerating saints, but I definitely disagree with it in the context of purgatory, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard.

Agreed. This is one of the things I love about Anglicanism.

XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

Agreed. This is why I'm less than enthusiastic about the 1928 BCP, by the way.

XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Agreed. I like that distinction between the two sacraments--baptism and the Eucharist--and the five that are "commonly called Sacraments." Beautiful nuance that I wholeheartedly support.

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.

Agreed. Good to see Anglicans took note of Patristic decisions on the Sacraments.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

I agree with the nature and purpose of baptism articulated above. As for the whole age issue, I tend to think believer’s baptism is preferable but paedobaptism is acceptable/valid, which was an apostlic father's position if memory serves. Tertullian?

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Agreed.

XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.

The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

Agreed.

XXX. Of both Kinds.

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Yes, both the bread and cup should be administered to all people. I do think they can and should be denied in instances of church discipline—"partaking in an unworthy manner"—but not for the sort of political, social, and cultural manipulation that often happened in the late Medieval period.

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

I'll ignore that "both original and actual" clause and just say I agree.

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 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.

Agreed.

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 hath authority thereunto.

I don't rejoice in church discipline. It's tragic and ought to be treated solemnly, yet I do recognize the legitimacy of excommunication until such a time as he/she repents. Yet I don’t necessarily affirm an Amish-style shunning.

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 divers, 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, doth 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 others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

The worldwide Anglican Communion values this article, don't they? I agree.

XXXV. Of the Homilies.

The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may he understanded of the people.

Of the Names of the Homilies.

1 Of the right Use of the Church.

2 Against Peril of Idolatry.

3 Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches.

4 Of good Works: first of Fasting.

5 Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.

6 Against Excess of Apparel.

7 Of Prayer.

8 Of the Place and Time of Prayer.

9 That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.

10 Of the reverend Estimation of God's Word.

11 Of Alms-doing.

12 Of the Nativity of Christ.

13 Of the Passion of Christ.

14 Of the Resurrection of Christ.

15 Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.

16 Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

17 For the Rogation-days.

18 Of the State of Matrimony.

19 Of Repentance.

20 Against Idleness.

21 Against Rebellion.

[This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Books of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of this Church; which also suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in churches, until a revision of them may be conveniently made, for the clearing of them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references.]

Confused. Is the issue the liturgical calendar? If so, agreed.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.

The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered. The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "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, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed 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."

Agreed.

XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.

The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted. The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do 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 hath 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."

Agreed.

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 possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

Don't understand the first part, but I will say that my theological and cultural conceptions are influenced by Anabaptist thought in places. Agree with the second.

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 doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teaching in justice, judgment, and truth.

Strange point to include in a list of 39. I'd like to know the historical rational for that. But I agree.