On the ministerial declaration of assent (C of E)

 To my mind The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion are a jolly good thing and are much neglected in the dear old C of E to its loss. 

The Church of England requires a "declaration of assent" (found in Common Worship and in Canon C15) from its ministers but the form today is not explicitly that of full, clear assent to each and every one of the Articles in all its fullness. The church does not require strict subscription. It does not get into the business of anyone taking exception to any articles.

 This declaration could be read in a very weak manner. Much depends on how much difference one allows between "revealed in... set forth in" and borne witness to by. Do these mean essentially the same thing without repeating the same word three times? It does seem possible and even sensible to me to think that the C of E sets out a descending hierarchy of authority here: the Bible is the revelation of God; the creeds set out what the Bible reveals; and the Articles are an additional witness to it.

The Articles could be thought to give a useful yet weak, partial and erring witness to faith revealed in the Scriptures and set forth in the creeds. Almost anything could be said to be an inspiration and guidance even if one went off in a largely different direction. But this is not the position of the Church of England and it is hard to see how someone who thought the Articles to be basically wrong could honestly make such a declaration. For example, the Articles are clearly Augustinian and Anti-Pelagian. If their witness, inspiration and guidance has any practical significance at all, it is hard to see that it could mean less than this. The system of salvation taught in the Church of England is clearly by grace through faith not by works. The Declaration of Assent surely commits all ministers to as much. And to some version of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, for example.  

Yet if we read the Declaration alongside Canon A2 and A5, we can go further:

The C of E officially holds that the Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented to by all members of the Church of England, though the C of E does not in fact obviously require that kind of assent from anyone. 

The Articles are very much a product of their time and are in principle reformable. Some changes might be helpful. And a new declaration of faith might also be useful. I think someone could be ordained even if they entertained doubts about the nature of Christ's decent into hell or the lawfulness of oaths to the civil magistrate. But it is clear what the C of E holds on these matters. And it seems to me that it could conceivably be a breach of canonical obedience to teach against the Articles if instructed not to do so by one's Bishop. 

A brief history of subscription and an analysis of the current situation can be found in: Martin Davie, Our Inheritance of Faith: A Commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles (Gilead Book Publications, 2013) p70ff

See also Mark Thompson, A History of Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles Churchman 124/1 who treats the declaration above only very briefly but also gives some global / GAFCON relevant information and directs us to Packer, A Guide to the 39 Articles Today (London: Church Book Room, no date). 

Packer usefully says:  The Articles

come to us as prior judgements, time-honoured judgements, on specific issues relating to the faith of Christ, as set forth in the Scriptures. They come to us as corporate decisions first made by the Church centuries ago, and now confirmed and commended to us by the corroborative testimony of all later generations that have accepted them, down to our time.... It is a prime obligation for Anglicans to take full account of the expository formulations to which our Church has bound itself; and to ignore them, as if we were certain that the Spirit of God had no hand in them, is no more warrantable than to treat them as divinely inspired and infallible.