Restoration vs. Innovation

Comparing the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Belgic Confession

~ Rev. John P. Boonzaaijer ~

 

Introduction

The Spaniards in particular persecuted “het nieuwe leer” (the new teaching) in the then-current Netherlands and Belgium.  Spain had long ruled over the Lowlands and had earned the hatred of the Dutch and Flemish through its oppressive reign and intense Inquisition against the new re­for­mation churches and doctrines. The Con­tinent experienced a “bottom-up” Re­for­mation which began an ever expanding number of new churches.

During the same time period, the English Church also experienced a reformation – but of a different sort. By God’s prov­i­dence, in England, the Church’s leaders were able to reform her, although she too saw her soil soaked with the blood of martyrs.  England’s Reformation was from the top down – and did not have to start any new churches.  Two defining sets of Articles of Religion resulted, which are still in use today.  One is from the Continental Reformed Churches, and the other is from the English Reformed Church.  A comparison of these two sets of Articles reflects much of their common theology, while also showing their different histories.

While yet young, Guido de Bres became a Lutheran and then a Calvinist, even studying at Calvin’s academy in Geneva.  From 1552-1556 (the year Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was martyred), de Bres served as an itinerant preacher in the lowlands, returning in 1559 after a brief flight to Germany. To persuade King Philip and the Spaniards that the Reformed Church was not that of the radical Ana­bap­tists, he wrote the Belgic Confession in 1661.  The Reformed Church did call for serious reformation in Rome, but was neither anarchist nor sectarian. The Confession, written after the finished work and martyrdom of the early English Reformers, is strongly influenced by Calvin – particularly his Institutes of Christian Religion.  The Confession did not effect its hoped-for result; de Bres was arrested in 1565 and martyred in 1567, and the Reformed Churches of the Lowlands suf­fered more grievously than ever until the defeat of Spain in the northern pro­vinces (contemporary Holland).  The Bel­gic Confession breathes pastoral warmth alongside its sharp anti-Roman boundary markers, and continues as one of the three “Forms of Unity” for the Reformed Churches of the Continent to this day.

The 39 Articles of 1563 (confirmed by the Church after the ascension of Elizabeth I to the throne, and following the reign of the Roman Catholic “Bloody” Mary), were largely the 42 Articles produced by the early English Reformers under the leadership of Archbishop Thomas Cran­mer in 1553.  They were the continuation of the 6 Articles and then the 10 Articles of the English Church as it worked out its reform over the course of decades.  Through its reformation, the English Church was able to retain its Apostolic Order, Worship and Government— primarily in the restored liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, and through its retention of the Episcopal government of the Church. It is most accurately described as “reformed Catholicism”.

Compared to other confessions, including the Belgic, the 39 Articles is a com­par­a­tive­ly brief and very-carefully worded document.  While it does leave wiggle-room for broader interpretation than the Reformed confessions of the Continent and of the Puritans, it deliberately fences what it considers non-negotiable, leaving no doubts about the essentials of the faith. The Articles were not written primarily as a reaction against Rome, but rather as a definitive expression of the English commitment the creedal faith of the pre-divided Church. The identity of the En­glish Protestant Church was not that of a new Church caused by Henry VIII, but rather that of the restored ancient Church of the first five centuries. 

This critical difference in history and intent is directly relevant to this comparison of these two sets of Articles, and explains much of their difference in tone and ethos as well as in content.  It is my conclusion that the gentle assertiveness of the 39 Articles in contrast to the de­fen­sive, yet pastoral, definitive separation of the Belgic Confession, lies completely in this distinction. Since the English Church is the ancient and original, one, holy, cath­olic, and apostolic Church reformed, she speaks as such. Since the Reformed Chur­ches of the Continental were a new move­ment, and without historic liturgy or epis­co­pacy, a defensive overture against the historic Church was necessary – a Church they claimed was not simply in error, but a false Church.

While the two sets of articles are com­par­able in a great deal of theological content, it is my thesis that the 39 Articles are declar­ative in nature, while the Belgic Confession is defensive in tone, largely because the English Church was able to retain the Episcopacy that the continental churches had necessarily lost. Episcopacy is not merely an addendum of Polity to the Doctrine of the Church, but is rather, formative to the ethos, health, tone and methodology of the Church.  The English articles on “The Church” and “Polity” contain the most discrepancy between confessions, and are the theological cause of the variant aromas between the two on the other articles of topics — in which, granted, there is significant theological agreement.

Order of Beginning Articles

The Belgic Confession is ordered roughly along the following lines: the Doctrines of God, Revelation, Salvation and Church.  It takes an interesting turn, however, in the development of the Doctrine of God.  The opening article, “The Only God” is a definite statement of monotheism, but is not uniquely Christian. “We believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that there is a single and simply spiritual being, whom we call God — eternal, incompre­hen­sible, invisible, unchangeable, infinite, almighty; completely wise, just, and good, and the overflowing source of all good.”  This opening article does not express the doctrine of the Trinity, nor does it address the doctrine of God uniquely in a Christian manner, but gives rather a general, mono­the­istic confession. 

The Doctrine of the Trinity is very articulately addressed later in Article 8, after the doctrines of Revelation and the final authority of Scripture have been developed. The Trinity is understood from the witness of Scripture. Only after Article 8 on the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is developed, do the articles on the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit follow. 

In between the opening article on the doc­trine of God and the later articles on the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of the Christ and the Spirit, are lengthy articles on Scripture and Revelation.  The wording of the articles is no less orthodox than the 39 Articles, but the order does set an early precedent for reformed continental theol­ogy that would later be renewed and developed by Karl Barth in his Church Dogmatics, which develops the “Doctrine of the Word of God” before the volume on “The Doctrine of God.” In other words, the “Means by Which We Know God” precede the orthodox doctrine of the ecumenical councils regarding the triune nature of the Godhead. It also precedes the creedal connection between the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit as Persons of the Godhead. 

On the other hand, the 39 Articles are deliberately conciliar in the order of its beginning articles.  The first article is not simply theistic; it is creedal. Article 1 directly reflects the Nicene Creed in its Trinitarian emphasis, while Article 2 asserts the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, and its statement. Articles 3 and 4, regarding the descent into hell and the resurrection, ascension, session, and final judgment (last article in the Belgic Confession), are the necessary amplifi­ca­tions of the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedon statement. Browne (The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion) very con­vin­cingly argues this purpose of Articles 3 and 4 on the descent into hell and the resurrection “to heaven”.

Throughout, the English Articles grow obvi­­ously from the ancient confessions.  The Articles, sometimes stunningly brief compared to contemporary Confessions, find much of their further development in the Liturgy and Instruction of the Church. The Descent to Hell, the realm of the dead, reiterates the Church’s rejection not only of Nestorius but especially of the Apol­li­narian and Eutychian heresies, which both ended up with a truncated humanity of Christ.  That Christ enters the realm of the dead as all other men, asserts the declar­ation of Chalcedon. That this concern rested heavily and specifically on the minds of the framers, can be demonstrated from the longer exhortation to be occas­ionally read during the Eucharist on the first Sundays of Advent, Lent and Trinity.  The implications for the believer’s hope of salvation is clear:  the “Saviour Christ, both God and man; who did humble himself, even to the death upon the Cross, for us, miserable sinners, who lay in darkness and the shadow of death [reference to Hades/Hell/Sheol/the Realm of the Dead]; that he might make us the children of God, and bring us to everlasting life.”  The interaction with St. Athanasius here is palpable: “That which is not assumed, cannot be saved.”

The above example demonstrates a thesis that while the Belgic Confession resem­bles more closely the format and order of a Systematic Theology, the Thirty-Nine Arti­­cles are clearly following the structure of the ancient Creeds and Councils of the Church in an organic, covenantal pattern.

Moreover, the 39 Articles only continue to the Doctrine of Revelation, or “how we know,” after the full historic and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and of the one Person of Christ in two Natures have been asserted in continuity with the historic Church.  This beginning, and repeated methodology and emphasis suggest once again a different purpose in the formu­la­tion of the 39 Articles from that of the Belgic Confession. Additionally, the 39 Articles can very well afford to speak as an established historic, orthodox and apostolic Church, for that is central to her understanding of her identity. The Continental reformers had such con­vic­tions, and quote the Fathers often, but only through a doctrinal and biblical connection through a long leap of a millennium and a half.

Being able to confess the Doctrine of God before the Doctrine of Scripture comes naturally to the English Church and her Reformers because they are conscious of being the Apostolic Church which first received the Scriptures.

Predestination & Election

It is in this doctrine that the English arti­cles show perhaps the most of their conti­nen­tal influence.  The Belgic Confession is at its most irenic in its Article 16: “God showed Himself to be as He is: merciful and just.” God is merciful in saving those whom He elects, without any merit of their own, and He is just in leaving others to the ruin into which they have “plunged themselves.” By neither confessing nor addressing double predestination – except for denying it with silence – and simply asserting what should be believed by those who submit to the Scriptures, the Belgic Confession is very similar to the sense and aroma of the 39 Articles on the whole.

Typically, the articles of the Belgic Con­fes­sion are much longer than those of the 39 Articles.  The article on Election is one of the few reverses, where the English Article is longer than its counterpart.  In Article 13 on “Providence,” however, the Belgic Confession contains much of the additional information from the 39 Arti­cles. Both documents describe pre­des­ti­nation to life as a sweet and pleasant doctrine. Both warn against undue curi­osity into matters beyond God’s revel­ation. Both seem to be a prescient warning against the efforts of the Synod of Dordt, 70 years later, which did articulate clearly a teaching on predestination to death as well as to life. 

The warning of the 39 Articles is not sim­ply a warning to contain curiosity, how­ever, but a warning to protect against sick­ness of soul. For those who do not have as­surance of salvation, the doctrine of election should not be placed before them for it leads to despair and “wretchlessness of most unclean living.”  The health of the soul, assured of salvation or not, depends upon the ability of the faithful to apply personally the revealed will of God.  Other­wise the fears and foibles of the finite sinner are imposed to the character and word of God. Since Dordt, making Predestination the operative paradigm resulted in the formalization of an unwit­tingly cruel torture of souls, willing to leave the faith simply for the relief of being sure of God’s attitude. The Belgic Confession is a healthy antidote for those under its care and definition.

The Articles on Predestination of both confessions are warmly pastoral, philo­soph­ically cautious, and overtly limited to actual biblical assertion. Actual use of the word in Scripture, and in the Epistles in particular, limits the doctrinal assertion.

Ethos

In its tone, the Belgic Confession is somewhat self-conscious and defensive.  The purpose of the 39 Articles was to state the faith of the pre-divided Church in England. While this statement had a de­fen­sive purpose as well, it was the not the de­fen­sive response of a new entity.  Rather, the Church in England claimed to be the ancient Church, indeed from the earliest dawn of the Church, now cleansed and realigned.  The 39 Articles then, first of all place the English Church squarely in line with the historic Church — including that of Rome. Differences are only noted as needed.  

Having retained the Episcopacy, the En­glish Church is confident of her identity and does not need to defend herself. The Continental reformers were very aware of having initiated a new movement. And while they quote the Fathers and invoke the Creeds to maintain unity, they must of necessity be more defensive in posture and tone. 

Precisely because the Belgic Confession is written as a defense by a suffering Church, it is also immensely pastoral.  The Articles are written as statements in the third person. (Notice the exception in Article XI is a pastoral article on Justification by Faith.) The Belgic Confession is a confession, in the first person plural.  The repeated “we confess,” and “we believe,” assume the reader speaks from within, thus attempting to draw the opposing reader(s) in, but more importantly, using the articles of faith to give a direct sense of identity to repeating the confession together. The Faith grants an immediate and vibrant sense of identity and safety.

Holy Baptism

The placement of Baptism in the order of articles trenchantly portrays the divergent roles these two sets of Articles will play in the Church in the centuries after the Reformation had begun. The Belgic Confession, being arranged more as a systematic theology, places the sacraments toward the end (Article 34), following the order and discipline of the Church. Al­though its content is noticeably similar (although with several noteworthy absen­ces), this placement sets the tone to further the ethos already noted above. The sacra­ments are thought of either as a separate issue to be confessed, or as a department of the discipline and order of the Church. 

In the 39 Articles, however, the articles on the Sacraments are discussed as part of the working out of salvation in the Church.  Church order and discipline follow later toward the end of the Articles.  The Belgic Confession devotes three of 37 Articles to the Sacraments. The 39 Articles devotes 7 of its 39 articles to the sacraments. The Belgic Confession, characteristically, has much lengthier articles. The article on Baptism is nearly 5 times as long as its English counterpart. The need for extra definition also sets it up for future departure from a truly Sacramental Baptism. The Reformed churches’ reduc­tion to a basic dedication of infants is proof of this.

What does Baptism do?  This question will yield a variety of answers throughout the reformed world. The Belgic Confession maintains the catholic tradition in much of its wording, but its tone is already altered to encourage the various strands that will grow out of it in history, from the anabap­tism it condemns to the mere dedication many covenantal communities have been reduced to. 

The Belgic Confession remains sacra­men­tal. Baptism accomplishes something. Both of the Sacraments (the only two recognized as Sacraments are the domin­ical Sacraments) are “visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible.” But they are most positively NOT “empty and hollow signs to fool and deceive us, for their truth is in Jesus.” Sacraments are given primarily because God is aware of our “crudeness and weakness” and seeks to “represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by His Word and what He does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.” Thus, sacraments use the physical creation to mediate to us what our creaturely limitations deprive us of understanding fully in God’s Word.  Sacraments, while a gift from God which do truly accomplish the work of the Gospel, are secondary to the Word, through which God would better teach us salvation (Article 33).

In Baptism, Christ does internally what the water does externally, by His Holy Spirit.  Baptism primarily “washes and cleanses it from its sins, and transforms us from being the children of wrath into the children of God.”  This is quite a powerful statement.  A few paragraphs later, the claim is yet stronger, “…ministers give the visible sacrament, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies — namely the invis­i­ble gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls…, renewing our hearts…, giving us true assurance…, and clothing us with the new man.”  All of this is then claimed for children also, on account of baptism replacing circumcision, and an appeal to Leviticus 12 and the laws of purification after childbirth. 

The reason for the baptism of infants as well as adults in the Belgic Confession is singular: “Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults.” The heart of the argument comes from the Leviticus 12 passage. A (male) child would be circum­cised the eighth day, but the sacrifice of purification for his mother at 33 days after the circumcision purified the mother of her ritual uncleanness from blood after birth.  The Belgic Confession argues that this sacrifice of a lamb was the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ on their behalf after birth.

Effectiveness is not developed through a sacramental world view.  New birth is mentioned — at least in the reference to the renewal of the heart.  This appears to be a reference to Titus 3:5. Regeneration, however, is not mentioned. It is interesting that the reason not to baptize twice is that we cannot be born twice. The ancient understanding of baptism as a renewal as well as the regenerative work of grafting into the Body of Christ is present, but is not expressed or used in the heart of the argument. The Belgic Confession must walk a very delicate line, absolutely and definitively distancing itself from the Anabaptists to the King Philip, yet lacking effective incorporation through regener­ation into a visible institutional Church which may be called the Body of Christ.

Article 27 of the 39 Articles is very brief and direct.  Baptism is not only a mark of differentiation, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, an instrument that grafts those who “receive it rightly” into the Church. The 39 Articles are nearly always significantly briefer than the Belgic Confession for they assume the Ordinal and the Liturgy. To understand who receive it rightly, the reader refers to these.  The ethos is again one of simple confi­dence that infant baptism is most agree­able with the institution of Christ. The Office of Baptism develops the institution of Christ and its continuation.  A separatist confession must explain, prove, and defend, for it stands on its own. The 39 Articles in their tone and methodology reflect a self-conscious continuity of ancient catholicity, requiring no defense. 

Order and Discipline

Understandably, given the persecution the continental Protestants had suffered, the Belgic Confession’s Article 32 on Order and Discipline views these mainly as neces­sary corrective measures against abuse and sin.  A wounded defiance also marks this section in the conclusion, “There­fore we reject all human innova­tions and all laws imposed on us in our worship of God….”  The long and short of it is that the government is necessary to restrain evil, less is better, and excom­munication is the final necessity for the order of the Church. 

Excommunication becomes the primary order of discipline as sin is addressed in the reformed Churches of this heritage.  In the Church of the 39 Articles, sin will be addressed as something of which to be cured in the ministry of the Church. Those who persist in vile living must be avoided as excommunicate. Adding discipline as a third mark of the Church will contribute significantly to the splintering of the reformed and protestant Church.

The 39 Articles, on the other hand, pre­serves in its order, tone and word choice much more of the sense of maintaining the historic catholic order of the Church. Order and discipline permeate the doctrine of the Church and salvation, but do not have their own section.  Rather, the order of the Church is for the protection and life of its members.  It is a good thing given by Christ for the well-being of His people.

The Church

Both contain language that stems from a prior commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture for all things needful for sal­vation.  It is therefore wrong to “enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation” (39 Articles). The Scriptures given to the Church remain the final authority in matters of faith and practice.  The historic Church in its various Sees (including Rome) can and do err. Both limit the authority of the Church and Councils to the final say of the Holy Scriptures.

A different word choice begins a note­worthy divergence when describing or defining the Church. Like the later English Puritans (partly against whom the 39 Articles are meant to correct), the Belgic Confession broaches language foreign to the English Articles. The 39 Articles state the visible Church to be the “congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments duly administered.” The Belgic Confes­sion, in its title to Article 29 notes the marks of the true Church and adds one further: the practice of Church discipline. The English articles call for discipline and call attention to it in Article 33 on excom­municate persons. 

The Belgic Confession, in choosing the word true Church over visible Church cul­ti­vates a variant under­stand­ing to Church from the English articles. Article 27 calls attention to the 7,000 in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal as an example of the invisible Church. The same article identifies the Church as holy and catholic but not as one or apostolic. Article 29 dis­tin­guishes the true church (known by the three marks) from the false church. It is careful to explain that it is not distin­guish­ing true believers from hypocrites but rather the true Church from all sects that call themselves churches. The reformed churches of the lowlands will be forever and militaristically distinct from Rome and the historic Churches.

Most of the content of these two articles serves to separate the true Church from false sects.  Members of the true Church are identified by the exercise of faith and the pursuit of sanctification. The false church is easy to recognize by going beyond Scripture, adding to the sacra­ments and persecuting the godly. This seems to be against the Roman Church, not the Anabaptists. The 39 Articles, how­ever, describe the Roman Church as a Church, but in error.

The Belgic Confession continues to dis­tinguish itself further. The Church is gover­ned by pastors, elders and deacons, who form a council. The papacy is rejected. Order comes from the Bible alone, and any “human innovations” are rejected.  The only government accepted is what is necessary to “maintain harmony and unity and to keep all in obedience to God.” The tenor of church government is that it is exists primarily to guard against sin, not to serve as the positive force of the reign of Christ.

Conclusion

While both sets of Articles contain much of the same doctrine, the difference in ethos can be attributed to their variant histories and the way the Churches were reformed, the one from the top down and retaining its visible continuity with the ancient Church, the other as reform from the bottom up by new Churches. The Belgic Confession must defend the new churches and doctrine to King Philip. The Thirty-Nine Articles repeat the ancient doctrine of Creed and Council with the uninterrupted episcopacy of the ancient Church of Britain.

Each communion stands to grow from the other: the English Church from the per­sonal vibrancy of the Belgic Confession, and the Reformed Churches from the solidity of government and liturgy as part of the wholeness of the English Church.