The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles

I always try to be reading some thick theological work, most of the time it is someone's systematic. I heard about this book in my Anglican formation class last year. One lecturer was saying this was a helpful book in understanding the 39 Articles, and another protested that it gave a strong evangelical reading of them. This sparked my interest. At that time, this book was about $90 on Google Play Books and only $1.06 on kindle. (This leads me to believe that Google Play Books actually don't want you to use their service - although the prices have now changed.)

I started reading this book early last year and hoped to have finished it when I got ordained in February. However, I did miss the mark by over a month. I already came to this book with a few questions about the 39 Articles, for I knew I was going to be asked to sign the following statement:

I firmly and sincerely believe the Catholic Faith and I give my assent to the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; I believe that doctrine to be agreeable to the Word of God: and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments I will use the form in the said book prescribed, and none other, except as far as shall be ordered by lawful authority.

I had three main issues with the Articles, which previous books had not helped answer my questions. This book helped with two of them, which I will mostly detail below. There was much in this book which I won't cover. I did appreciate the history of each article with a comparison of it between documents like the 13 Articles of 1538, the 42 Articles of 1553 and other protestant confessional statements, as well as the context of what it was responding to either from the Council of Trent in 1545-1563 or some anabaptist or puritan positions.

Overall the articles are Calvinistic, reformed and very much a pushback on the Roman church. After reading this book, I can see no way Anglican and Roman Catholics can formally unite unless one church budges on their doctrinal statements, as in some instances, like the cannon, Lord's Supper, number of sacraments etc they are mutually exclusive. With the Calvinistic reformed doctrine, I was already generally on board, but I was a little stuck on some more of the practical side of things later in the articles. Below were my three main struggles before reading this book.

Article III about Jesus going to Hell after He died.

Last year I already posted a more detailed post on this article and later still when my church was doing a series on the Apostles Creed I got to speak on the line about Jesus descending to the dead. Before I didn't really see a functional need for Jesus to go to Hell after His death on the cross, as it was on the cross that Jesus took on our sin and technically expired Hell and God's wrath there. However, there does seem to be an identification connection that Jesus shared with humans. He experienced the human condition in life, and so likewise He followed the path beyond death. He really knows and experienced the path we were all headings, and He defeated that all. Yes, there are perhaps some complications with this position, like having to take a minority view on Luke 23:43, but also helpfully this book pointed out that the tricky verse in 1 Peter 3:19, is not needed for this position (but some would say it would support the point). However, if you say Jesus didn't go to Hell/Hades and instead went to heaven you still have to deal with John 20:17.

Article XXI about the authority of General Councils only being called by the will of Princes.

I found this article completely not relevant today. So what if a Prince wants to call a church meeting? On one hand, it perhaps would be nice if those in power were invested in church meetings, but on the other, it sounds like a messy connection between church and state. The article does go on the say general councils do err, so can be corrected, but I am not sure that might be enough of a mechanism of protection depending on which prince might call what meeting.

However, this book helped me to see that this wasn't about future church meetings, but past church councils. It was in reference to what is called the ecumenical councils and is saying that really the first seven were valid and the rest weren't. That is because after the 9th century, it was a Pope (and not the Emperor) that called the great councils and from that point on, even though the Reformation came later, protestants would see them as Roman Catholic. That is because from these councils came the teaching of purgatory and the prime position of the Pope. They also condemned John Hus and at Trent, it condemned almost everything about the Reformation.

While I think the language could have been worded better to be more explicit that this article was about the historical General Church Councils of the past, I was happy with this explanation of this Article.

Article XXXV Of the Homilies.

This article I have been whinging about it for years. The text says:

The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles where of 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.

And then it lists the 21 homilies titles to be read.

Now I am sure these homilies are sound in doctrine, but my issue is that I don't believe any Anglican church today has read all 21 of these (nor even 1!). I don't know how ministers can say they accent to the 39 Articles and not read these homilies or attend a church that reads them. 

This book was no help to me on my issue. Instead of talking about the requirement of its use today, it generally said that they contain some good stuff to be studied and then dealt with an objection in one homily that suggested the Real Presence in the elements if you read it a certain way.

I was in a little bit of a pickle approaching my ordination as how could I sign to say I think these homilies would be good if I haven't read them, nor attend an Anglican church that doesn't even use or reference them? But I think a closer reading of the text (or maybe my own self-justification or rationalisation) helped me.

The article says the second book is "necessary for these times" and that the first book was "set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth". I take this to mean the First Book was good for the time of Edward IV (up till 1553) and then when the Articles were written the Second Book was good for their time when Elizabeth I signed off on them in 1571. So this shows that these book of homilies may have a shelf life, and I would hazard a guess that by 2023 the ones that were "necessary for these times" has expired. 

So I can sign to say that, yes in the time of 1571 the Second Book of Homilies was necessary for its time and implicitly say, that in our time it is not needed, in the same way, the first book was good in Edward IV's time.

So with all that aside, I can say that on February 25th, 2023 I went to St Saviours Cathedral in Goulburn and accented to the orders of the Deacon and signed to say that I believe in the 39 Articles, and this book was a help.

This book also had a good distinction to what a priest is which I may come back to at a later time. It argued that the priest since Biblical times was a presbyter and not a sacerdotal a more Roman understanding. The book even went so far as to suggest the office of the Bishop is actually still a presbyter. 

There was a really interesting part about salvation that I am not sure of. Thomas says that we can not break the world into the saved and the lost, but there are grades of those who are saved. There is the elect who are chosen before the foundation of the world, but also there are 

other communities of human beings who are saved from everlasting destruction, and yet do no, and will never, form part of the "Body of Christ". This salvation is outside of and altogether secondary to the salvation of those chosen person who collectively make up His spiritual Church

He takes Heb 12:23 to mention two categories of people, those who are "the spirits of the righteous made perfect" and then there are those of "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven". And when Paul says "all Isreal shall be saved" that is a different group who are outside the "Body of Christ". I'm not sure about all that as I think these titles for different groups, are explaining the same people. Those who are the Body of Christ are the elect who are made perfect who are also the ones whose names are in the book of life, etc...

The appendix also has some good food for thought about the baptism and salvation of infants who died. It argued that the Anglican position is that children of parents who are saved are also saved and the children of unbelievers we are silent on, as we don't know.

This was quite a dense book and perhaps was more top-heavy in dealing more thoroughly with the earlier doctrinal points than the later points on certain practices. If you do want a deep dive into the 39 Articles, this would be a good one but perhaps might be too much of a deep dive for most.