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.
by Michael Fitzpatrick
That the Articles of Religion were written as responses to a specific context is almost cliche, but it is never more true than in Article XXII. My hunch is that many Anglicans ignore this text, or at least don’t worry very much about it. After all, we’ve long since ceased to be embroiled in debates about Purgatory as a supernatural destination in the afterlife, or pardons being given in exchange for offerings to the Church treasury. Few of us practice the adoration of sacred relics, such as the crown of thorns that was almost lost in the Paris fire at Notre Dame Cathedral recently.
That said, we do name many of our parishes after a patron saint, and we do follow a Church calendar that are full of days in honor of the saints. Some parishes even model their calendar to reflect observances unique to the Roman church, making the distinction between Anglican and “Romish Doctrine” harder to discern.
Moreover, one need only to reflect on C. S. Lewis’ most Anglican book, his Letters to Malcolm, to discover in his “mere Christianity” a practice of prayers for the deceased and prayers with the saints, and his encouragement for others to do so. He also believed in a notion of Purgatory, and suggested that “Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they?” For if we have not been completely transformed into the image of Christ in this life, must there not be a process of “purgation” in the life to come?
Lewis himself prefaced all of this with a caveat: “Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on the ‘Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory’ as that Romish doctrine had then become.” Thus attitudes towards Article XXII cannot be all or nothing. The article is neither a blanket condemnation of the listed practices, nor so qualified that it is little more than a historical curiosity.
I want to suggest that Article XXII expresses some of the most central concerns that animated the Reformation, concerns instructive for us still today. In what follows I will give a brief history of the motivations behind the article, which show a moderation that would become distinctive of Anglican identity in later centuries, and then suggest ways this article can still speak to us Christians 500 years after the Reformation.
Article XXII may seem to combine a heterogeneous class of theological topics, but they unite under a common, though not obvious, theme. Purgatory, pardons, the adoration of the consecrated bread and wine or of sacred relics, and finally prayers made to saints, were all different expressions of extra-biblical superstition arising out of late medieval Christianity. In particular, all of these acts can be seen as attempts to secure God’s grace or favor through means other than the sufficient atonement of Christ at the Cross. And these means come, it was thought, not by drawing on the apostolic faith as expressed through our received scriptures, but through invention by human inspiration alone. Not only that, the reformers believed that these inventions are in fact opposed to the very teachings of God, since they contradict Christ’s “once for all” sacrifice for sins.
But in the English Reformation, the Thirty-Nine Articles, of which Article XXII is a part, did not appear in their final form until 1571, while the first attempt at an English statement on these matters appeared in 1536, during King Henry VIII’s reign. These “Ten Articles,” as they came to be known, offered comments on purgatory, adoration and the invocation of saints that sound remarkably consistent with modern Anglican attitudes. Purgatory was given an agnostic status, with the assurance that the state of departed souls could not be known to a certainty, but that we can rest “trusting that God accepteth our prayers for them, referring the rest wholly to God, to whom is known their estate and condition.” The Pope’s pardons were soundly condemned, but not the prayers for the dead themselves. Similarly, after a stern remonstration that “remission of sin … cannot be obtained but of God only,” the articles nonetheless proclaimed that “it is very laudable to pray to saints in heaven everlastingly living, whose charity is ever permanent to be intercessors.” Here a distinction is made between praying for grace from the saints, and praying to the saints to ask for their intercession with God, for it is the duty of all Christians to intercede for each other.
These articles did not last as a definitive statement as the Church of England continued to be transformed by reformers of various degrees of temperament and radicality. In 1543 King Henry approved the publication of the text The Necessary Doctrine for Any Christian Man (also known as “The King’s Book”) as a revision to an earlier book (“The Bishop’s Book”) to serve as a statement of and test for true Christian belief. Containing analyses of the creeds and the Lord’s prayer, it concluded with a series of articles on contentious doctrine. Under “Of Prayers for the Souls Departed,” the article observes that Christians are commanded to pray for each other, both “the quick and the dead,” and as such prayers for the dead should be offered insofar as we also remember to pray for the living. The article even welcomes the giving of alms for the sake of the dead, for “yet remain they still members of the same mystical body of Christ whereunto we pertain.” Yet, the article cautions, we cannot say what specific goods these prayers and offerings obtain for them; such knowledge belongs to God alone. Thus the practice is permitted, but any abuse of it through pardons or dispensations promising release from Purgatory early is thoroughly foreclosed.
Because of our uncertainty about the afterlife, we cannot even so much as use the name ‘Purgatory,’ but must instead trust God with the just fate of these departed souls, “trusting that God accepteth our prayers for them; reserving the rest wholly to God, unto whom is known their estate and condition. . . .” Again, prayers for the departed, potentially in Purgatory, is not condemned, nor is Purgatory declared to be a false doctrine. What is important is the condition and posture of ourselves in obediently praying and interceding for our Christian siblings, even those who have passed from this life.
The final part of the article is of note: “[I]t is much necessary that all such abuses as heretofore have been brought in by supporters and maintainers of the papacy of Rome . . . be clearly put away; and that we therefore abstain from the name of Purgatory, and no more dispute or reason thereof. Under colour of which have been advanced many fond and great abuses, to make men believe that through the bishop of Rome’s pardons souls might clearly be delivered out of it, and released out of the bondage of sin. . . . All these, and such like abuses, be necessary utterly to be abolished and extinguished.” Here is the “Romish Doctrine” that is being so completely rejected; it is the substitution of earthly, human authorities for God’s role in arbitrating the fate of souls. God alone holds the prerogative for the dispensation of grace and salvation.
In 1559, after the Forty-Two Articles had been proposed but left unenforced by Queen Mary’s reign, Queen Elizabeth commissioned a new revision for which I will follow the convention of calling the Eleven Articles. While never formally adopted in Convocation, the final Article of the Eleven reflects the develop of the Reformation mind at the time.
Each Christian person would commit to “utterly disallow the extolling of images, relics, and feigned miracles, and also all kind of expressing God invisible in the form of an old man, or the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove, and all other vain worshipping of God, devised by man’s fantasies, besides or contrary to the scriptures, as wandering on pilgrimages, setting up of candles, praying upon beads, and such like superstition; which kind of works have no promise of reward in scripture, but contrarywise threatenings and maledictions. . . .”
No mention of Purgatory or the invocation of saints appears in this formulation, but we do get a stronger sense of the influence that continental iconoclasts were having on Protestant thought in England at this time. The English reformers had begun to worry that not only superstitious rituals but even the very act of representing God in a corporeal form was in violation of the second commandment from the Torah, “Make no graven images.” The practices are rejected on the basis of being a development of human fantasy, not divine inspiration, and this is tested by the relationship the practices had to scripture. While I share the Reformation concern for superstition and vain ritual, I don’t particularly see that, for instance, the use of candles or prayer beads are subject to “threatenings and maledictions” in scripture. What is rejected throughout scripture is the thought that God can be made subject to us through incantations or magical manipulations. To the degree that the medieval practices had developed this character, they were contrary to scripture. The use of candles or prayer beads, or even images and relics, by contrast, only as sacramental media to expose one’s self to the grace of God, seems to me to fall outside of the purview of suspicion here.
The value of these forerunners to the Articles of Religion lies in part in what the Articles lack; namely, exposition. We can see much more the character and motivations behind the assertions. Article XXII is a brilliant instance of concision, quite appropriate for a document demanding assent, but is less helpful for future generations who lack a direct acquaintance with the historical context alluded to by “Romish Doctrines.” Hopefully this historical survey shows some of the ways that good uses of prayers to saints or prayers for the dead were contrasted from the theological abuses prevalent in the 16th century Western Church.
What does this all mean for us today? Article XXII strikes me as having at least two useful lessons to edify the Body of Christ. First, we must always take care that we do not institute liturgical or devotional practices that are acts of extortion on other people. A central problem in the late medieval Church was the way its doctrine of shortening the duration departed souls would spend in Purgatory was used to extort and manipulate poor people out of their meager income. Given the lack of theological warrant behind such practices actually having any spiritual benefit at all, this was an almost total betrayal of the Gospel of God’s free grace for all. Christian life and devotion must never have this predatory character. The Christian life is about giving away, not taking away.
Second, we must be mindful of ways in which our devotional lives can become superstitious. Superstition appears when the grace of God becomes something we can control through our good works or through our spiritual devotions. If we think that God will bless us more than God already is disposed to do, simply because we have touched relics said to be Christ’s own nails from the Cross, or because we have given supplications to St. Teresa as well as worship to God, or if we think we can save our loved ones who died rejecting Christ simply by seeking the intercession of a priest, then we have transformed God into a simple mafia boss open to bribery. The Living God cannot be bought, only loved and trusted. We follow the liturgical practices and devotions of the Church for the ways God sacramentally transforms us through them, drawing us more fully into the Christ-like life. If there is a Purgatory, we can be rest assured that it serves the purpose of a loving God who is making all things new. If we pray for the departed, as intercessors or for their salvation, it is because we trust in the soteriological power of God to hear our prayer, not because our prayer carries any special magic or guarantees.
I personally follow C. S. Lewis in commending to all Christians the value of exploring a devotional use of icons, prayers requesting intercession from the saints, prayers for the dead (both those known to Christ and those not yet known), and even a doctrine of Purgatory. While none of these are explicitly set forth in scripture, I also don’t find them contradicted by scripture, provided we adhere the admonishments just given. The Church has a long history of rich devotional practice that allows for different temperaments to find each person’s language for connecting with God. This history in many ways reflects the liturgical and devotional life of the Jewish people in the Old Testament. We would do well to not lose this history in a fit of iconoclasm, but we would also do well to let Article XXII, and others, live on as witnesses that the Church can lose its way, and we must be vigilant against such abuses arising again.
Michael Fitzpatrick is a doctoral candidate in Philosophy at Stanford University and a lay teacher at his parish of St. Mark’s in Palo Alto, CA. He currently serves as the student president for the Episcopal-Lutheran Campus Ministry at Stanford. Michael has long-standing interests in Anglican history, especially 20th century Anglican theology. He recently has written ‘Is “Distinctive Co-Existence” The Anglican Future?”