"Orderly and lawfully": Rogers on Articles 35-39 and the right ordering of a national Church

To read Thomas Rogers' commentary on the final (and too often overlooked) Articles of Religion, Articles 35-39, is to read a sustained Conformist critique of those Brown describes as "the Puritan faction".  Rogers is unrelenting in his assault, demonstrating how the Puritans unsettle the peace of the Church through their rejection of the basic norms of ecclesial life enshrined in the Articles, norms commonly accepted in other Reformed churches.

Article 35

Noting the practice of "the primitive church" in the reading of apostolic and patristic epistles, and how in "the reformed churches in Flanders and France ... and in the Italian, French, Dutch and Scottish churches", Calvin's sermons and catechism were read and expounded "before the whole congregation", Rogers robustly defends the reading of the Homilies, accusing (after the manner of Hooker) the Puritans of unduly exalting "preaching by the mouth":

Too highly, as do the Puritans of all sorts. For say they, Except God work miraculously and extraordinarily, (which is not to be looked for of us) the bare reading (yea not) of the scriptures, without preaching, cannot deliver so much as one poor soul from destruction: reading (of whatso-ever in the church) without preaching, is not feeding, but as ill as playing upon a stage, and worse too. Without preaching of the word (viz. by the lively voice of a minister, and without the book) the Sabbath cannot be hallowed either of a minister or people, in the least measure which the Lord requireth of us.

Next, err do they, which set their wits and learning, either against all books in general, except the sacred Bible, or against the public reading of any learned men's writings, be they never so divine and godly, in the open and sacred assemblies.

Article 36

The Ordinal, Rogers emphasises, was "agreeable to the practice of the primitive church" and - as he previously noted in discussion of Article 23 - reflected the need for the ordering of ministers "acknowledged by the reformed churches:

Archbishops, bishops, and ministers, which according to the Book of Consecration be, or shall be consecrated or ordered, they are consecrated and ordained rightly, orderly and lawfully, because afore their consecration and ordination they be rightly tried or examined; by imposition of hands, needful and seasonable prayers, they be consecrated and ordained: and all this is performed by those persons, that is, by bishops, to whom the ordination and consecration of bishops and ministers was always principally committed. 

By contrast, the Puritans - in league with "the Papists" - deny that the English Church has a rightly ordered ministry:

The Puritans. For they write, that The bishops of our church have none ordinary calling of any function in the scriptures, for to exercise. They are not sent of God; they be not the ministers of Jesus Christ, by whom he will advance his gospel,

Inferior ministers, they are not (say they) according to God's word either proved, elected, called or ordained. Hence the church of England wanteth (say they) her pastors and teachers, and hence they urge divers afore ordained to seek a new approbation, which they term the Lord's Ordinance, and to take new callings from classical ministers, renouncing their calling from bishops.

Article 37

The rejection of the Royal Supremacy and of the right of the magistrate to "determine ecclesiastical constitutions and ceremonies" was similarly at odds with the settlement of other Reformed churches - "Which we do unto ours, the very same do the churches of God ascribe unto christian magistrates in their principalities" - and echoed the Roman insistence that "Kings and princes, be they never so great, must be subject unto some bishop, priest, or prelate":

False also is it which the puritans do hold; namely, that Princes must be servants unto the church, be subject unto the church, submit their sceptres unto the church, and throw down their crowns before the church.

Magistrates, as well as other men, must submit themselves and be obedient to the just and lawful authority of the church, that is, of the presbytery.

'Quis tandem reges et principes,' who can exempt even kings and princes from this 'non humana, sed divina dominatione,' not human, but divine domination? (meaning of the presbytery) saith Beza: which presbytery they would have to be in every parish.

Article 39

It is not without significance that the very final words of Rogers' commentary are an attack on Puritanism.  He applies Article 39 - 'Of a Christian man's Oath' - to the oaths of canonical obedience taken by clergy and to the authority of canon law, showing how Puritan rejection of canonical obedience was a rejection of the "justice, judgement, and truth" needed for the right ordering of an ecclesiastical polity:

Last of all, whereas every minister of the word and sacraments at his ordination doth swear to obey his diocesan in all lawful matters, certain gentlemen of the Puritan faction writ thus unto the bishops of the Church of England, and printed the same, viz. “The canon law is utterly void within the realm; and therefore your oath of canonical obedience is of no force, and all your canonical admonitions not worth a rush."

Rogers' commentary on Articles 35-39 is a reminder of how the Articles of Religion embodied and articulated a deeply Conformist vision of the life of the national Church, enshrining the norms which were intended to secure its peace and good order.  What is more, this also is suggestive of their continuing significance for contemporary Anglicanism, refuting assumptions that these latter Articles in particular are relics of now irrelevant Elizabethan and Jacobean concerns.

Article 35 on the Homilies has continued significance in an era of poor preaching standards and doctrinal formation, and when public worship can regularly be required to be led either by laity or by clergy ordained after minimal training.  The reading of homilies or of sermons written by others is a practice that needs to be retrieved.

Article 36 points to the Ordinal as providing for a right and due ordering of the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, a necessary reminder in an age when other models of ministry can predominate in ecclesial discourse, when some within Anglicanism propose 'lay presidency', and when the lack of a meaningful theology of ordained ministry contributes to a crippling lack of confidence in the office and work of a priest.

Article 37 is, above all, a declaration that the laity - then Crown-in-Parliament, now through synods and conventions - rightly has a role and place in the governance of national Churches, contrary to those who now echo the then Papist and Puritan insistence that this belonged to clergy alone.  

And Article 39 provides a defence of the oaths, declarations, and subscriptions which continue to order the life of the Church, ensuring that the seriousness of these is understood, and that "justice, judgement, and truth" determine ordinary ecclesiastical affairs.