“Knots Untied” is the first book in a four volume series written by J.C. Ryle, the first Anglican bishop of Liverpool; the other titles being “Practical Religion,” “Old Paths,” and “Holiness.”
While most people are usually familiar with the latter three (especially “Holiness”), “Knots Untied” has for the most part fallen by the wayside – ironic in that “Knots” went through ten editions in its first eleven years, and is considered by many J.C. Ryle’s magnum opus.
His chapter on the Thirty-Nine Articles is brilliant – a much needed corrective in his day as well as ours. Here’s an excerpt:
I must now take up a question which is of great and serious importance. To prevent mistakes I shall state it as clearly and logically as I can. “What is the precise rank, authority, and-position of the Thirty-nine Articles? Are they, or are they not, the chief, foremost, primary, and principal test of true Churchmanship?”
My reasons for going into this point are as follows: Some clergymen and laymen in the present day are fond of saying that the Prayer-book, and not the Articles, is the real measure and gauge of a Churchman. “The Prayerbook! the Prayer-book!” is the incessant cry of these people. “We want no other standard of doctrine but the Prayer-book.”—Is it a controverted point about the Church? What says the Prayer-book ?—Is it a doctrine that is disputed? What says the Prayer-book ?—Is it the effect of baptism, or the nature of the Lord’s Supper, that is under discussion? What says the Prayer-book ?—To the Articles these gentlemen 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. What intelligent observer of religious questions among Churchmen does not know perfectly well the class of men whom I have in view? They are to be found all over England. We meet them in newspapers and books. Wc hear them in pulpits and on platforms. They are ever thrusting on the public their favourite “Diana of the Ephesians,”—their darling notion that the Prayer-book, and not the Articles, is the test of a Churchman.
Now, with all respect to these worthy people, I venture to say that their favourite notion is as real an idol as the Ephesian ” Diana” was of old. I shall try to show the reader that in exalting the Prayer-book above the Articles, they have taken up a position that cannot possible be maintained. I shall try to show, by evidence that cannot be gainsayed, that the true state of the case is exactly the reverse of what they are so fond of proclaiming. I am not going to say anything against the Prayer-book. It is a matchless book of devotion. But I am going to say, and to prove, that the Articles, and not the Prayer-book, are the first, foremost, and principal test of a true Churchman.
Read the rest (N.B. the chapter on the 39 Articles begins on p.74)
Related Articles
13 users responded in this post
[...] Treading Grain provides a quote rom J.C. Ryle on the role of The Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles in the Christian life. [...]
Steve,
How many modern American Episcopalian/Anglicans know of the 39 articles? It is a sincere question. I still feel fairly new to the “denomination”. I think the 39 articles are amazing and a blessing to anyone wanting to understand historic protestantism.
Is it unusual that this is the very first thing I learned that was included in the BCP? I didn’t even know that they were viewed this way. Very disappointing.
Loved the J. C. Ryle book! Would love to have you preach from it-so clear and so important! Thanks for the post.
Patti
Danny,
I think the modern approach to the articles is similar to that which Ryle observed in his day: Anglo Catholics radically re-interpret them (if they touch them), broad churchmen (most Anglicans/Episcopalians) ignore them (or are unaware of their presence in the BCP) while some of us embrace them, quote them, and they form, along with other formularies, the core of an Anglican confession.
I was once given the Heismann in a Bible study having recommended we do an in depth study of the 39 articles. The reason was that they didn’t want to study a set of doctrines. Instead we turned our affections over to “The Shack”. I still laugh out loud about the apparently not so obvious contradiction.
Steve, although I’ve aired my differences with you (quite uncharitably at times, it rues me to confess), I must salute you for shining the light on this sad omission in Anglican common life. The Thirty-Nine Articles are indeed the “backbone” of Anglicanism, as you rightly point out. Any introduction to Anglicanism, whether it be in a “confirmation” class or an informal Bible study, should begin with a thorough examination and explication of the Thirty-nine Articles. “Tradition,” the “third leg” of Anglicanism’s famous three-legged stool, should have as it’s foundation the Thirty-nine Articles. “All scripture is useful for teaching.” The Articles are a time-tested exemplar of this pastoral exhortation from St Paul to his young protege. Well done.
Those acquainted with J.C. Ryle’s writings might well appreciate the Articles of Religion. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those in the Continuing Episcopalian Movement and their leaders are ignorant of them and frankly do not share their doctrine. Some think that they can re-direct organizations like ACNA to abide by the Articles, but they are wasting their time in an organization dominated by Anglo-Catholicizers.
Hello Brian, I’ve welcomed your commentary. And, as for the charity of some of your previous comments, I liken it to learning to dance with a new dance partner. My toes are none the worse for the wear. I appreciate your perspective and the value you have for the Articles. They captured my heart and mind years ago and are for me a benchmark of Anglicanism and serve as a measure of my fidelity to the doctrine of the church. I have a bit more of Ryle to come in the next few days. All the best.
Hello Patti. Thank you for your encouragement. I’d be hesitant to preach on a book other than Scripture. Ryle is quoted/referenced in our sermons, and, some of his commentary would have infused our thought patterns and may present themselves even though not directly referenced. The Articles inform many of our teachings. So, for instance, in my sermon this past Sunday, Articles V, X, XI, XII, and XXVIII can be discerned.
RMBruton, if what you say is true, then what you are claiming, in essence, is that there is no authentic expression of Anglicanism. Other than the Diocese of South Carolina and a handful of embattled parishes scattered around the country, ECUSA has dispensed with the Articles along with any other declaration of sound doctrine (including Holy Scripture) and replaced it moral relativity. As a conservative, in the traditional sense of the word, I’ve looked with a great dose of reservation upon the continuing Anglican movement in America, but what Steve posts here concerning the Articles gives me some hope. The Articles are the “What” and the Prayer Book the
“How” of Anglicanism (lex orandi lex credendi). If the continuing Anglican movement can accept that and live it out in its common life, then it’s taken a huge step in the right direction towards becoming the authentic expression of Anglicanism in North America.
Bryan,
I’m not sure where you are getting your information about the Continuing “Anglican” Movement accepting and living-out the Articles of Religion; but can you give any examples of this? To refer to these people as Continuing Anglicans, at all, is a gross misnomer. There are several generations of Continuing Episcopalians, beginning with the REC in the late Nineteenth Century, followed by a few fringe groups from as early as the 1930s, up to the 1960s and James Dees, then the majority of the so-called Continuing Anglicans from the time after the ordination of women in the 1970s, then the AMiA and finally the ACNA. Every one of these organizations came out of the Episcopal, not the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church never viewed the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England in the way in which J C Ryle did. The Episcopalians ceased worshipping with the 1662 BCP shortly after the Revolutionary War and the they have continued along a trajectory which has brought them to the sorry state of things today. The Authorized Version of Scripture, the Prayer Book of 1662, The Two Books of Homilies, The Ordinal and the Articles of Religion go hand in hand. Wait a few months and you will see what the Continuing Episcopalians under Bob Duncan will present in terms of further liturgical deviations. They are looking to the American 1928 and the 1549 Prayer Books, not to the 1662 BCP. You said that if what I say is true, then there is no authentic expression of Anglicansim. You are getting warm, there is no authentic expression of Anglicanism in North America. People must be prepared to return to the basics in order to find their way.
RMBurton, we essentially agree. My strong reservations concerning various continuing Anglican movements is in keeping with your own criticism here. I haven’t seen any expression of continuing Anglicanism accepting and living out the Articles (not to say that it’s not–I’m just not aware of it if it is), which is why I’ve always been leery of continuing Anglicanism in general. The typical approach seems a little too much like a cafeteria plan, where different continuing Anglican groups pick the parts of Anglicanism they like (or that squares with their various programs) while dispensing with the rest. I was merely pointing out that this is an encouraging sign that the rector of one very vital (and influential) continuing Anglican parish is urging his fellow continuing Anglicans to take a very serious and concerted look at what it actually MEANS to be an Anglican–that poro unum est necessarium (well, actually it’s more than just ONE thing)–that distinguishes Anglicanism from other expressions of Christianity. And I think he’s starting at the right places here: (1) the Articles, (2) the B(s)CP, and (3) the Episcopacy. Without at least those things playing a vital and definitive role, no organization can truly begin to call itself Anglican. Some Methodist churches use a liturgy closely adapted from the prayer book, but that doesn’t make such churches any more Anglican than a Baptist Church.