Let's do a detailed discussion for each of the Articles of Religion

When I was a seminarian we read the Jerusalem Bible

 

​

Sacraments, of course, is a big topic for many Anglicans. It is tempting to go forward to other articles without first reflecting on what this article has to say. If you do that you will miss some of the truth that is being conveyed. It is a longish article, and that may reflect something of the importance of it in terms of understanding what follows.

Sacraments are not simply badges or tokens of our profession but are a sure and certain witness and effectual signs of grace and of God’s good will. Through them God works invisibly to strengthen our faith in him.

Two sacraments are distinguished from the other five mentions, and they are normally referred to as the dominical sacraments. Baptism and Eucharist, because both of these are specifically connected to the Life and ministry of Jesus, and indeed the life and ministry of all the faithful.

The five commonly called sacraments, or lesser sacraments, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Ordination, Matrimony and Unction, clearly have a status as they are clearly listed in the section on sacraments. Each of these sacraments belongs in the life of the Church, but are not of necessity part of the life of every believer.

The answer to the question, how many sacraments are there, according to the 39 Articles is 2 + 5, and whilst the Anglocatholic part of our church as loudly proclaimed 7, which the evangelicals have declared 2, the truth of the 39 Articles is 2 + 5.

The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or carried about, but that we should duly use them. In the life of Medieval England was included the practice of the great Corpus Christi Festal processions where the blessed sacrament was carried around the landscape of the village in procession for the veneration of the people. They were often marked as occasions of great festival, and some not so religious fervour. On the one hand the practice seemed bold, assertive and radically evangelical in the sense of taking Christ into the highways and byways. It was also a little like the Ancient Israelites carrying the Ark of the Covenant into Battle as a war palladium. Also perhaps not dissimilar to some of the arguments of the great Iconoclasm.

The risk is where the thing in itself becomes more important that what it is about. The box containing the law is not more important than what the law says. The icon is not more important than the glimpse of heaven we catch in it. The blessed sacrament is not more important that the Lord of Life whom we encounter in and through the Blessed Sacrament.

The article calls us to use the the sacraments in a worthy manner, affirming that they have wholesome effect and operation. The article finishes us be reminding that Saint Paul says, that those who that those who receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation.

Clearly the articles take a stance against the memorialism of Zwingli, preferring to opt for a position that the sacraments are real and effective for those who receive the worthily. This is the basis upon which the articles then build further understandings.

 

​

It seems that many people forget this important article. It begins expressing some of the pragmatic realism of Anglicanism. The history of the Church in England for the 30 years leading up until the penning of the 39 Articles is witness enough to the truth being expressed here.

In the visible church the evil be ever mingled with the good. I know there is a loud amen, but the truth is, it is the truth. It does not mean that we will not hope for better, it does not mean that we will not be disappointed, but the realistic acknowledgement is there. Of source the truth is, if we are really honest with ourselves, the truth is the same, which is probably why it is the truth for the visible church as well.

This is especially disappointing when those with chief authority in the ministration of Word and Sacrament appear in some aspect of their life and teaching to have allowed the evil to overshadow the good. The first radical point that the article makes is that they minister by Christ’s ordinance and not their own, therefore we may have confidence that in spite of their failings God does in fact still work for good, and Sacraments may continue to be relied on as vehicles of God’s grace despite the imperfections of those who minister them.

Nonetheless, within the discipline of the Church, those accused of evil upon by those with knowledge of their offences, following due enquiry and just judgement should be deposed.

The sacraments are valid because of Christ’s ministry, not because to the ministry of the particular celebrant. This is true, despite the failings of those who minister them. In reality if we needed perfect misters for perfect sacraments we would still be waiting.

It does seem that this article has a level of importance in the current age where numbers of clergy persons have been exposed for their failings - especially sexual misconduct with minors - and correctly the Church has seen fit to de-licence and/or in fact to depose numbers of them. Some folk can be worried about this, often in light of sacraments of baptism and matrimony, and the Church needs to be able to comfort these people about the validity of actions taken on behalf of Christ and his Church despite the failings of ministers.

 

Thank you for this, Philip. I hope this was of some comfort to the congregation of Gretta Vosper, the atheist minister, who has, fortunately, been defrocked.

 

Why would any church accept an atheist as a minister? Could they not see the perniciousness?

 

Hi Aidan, she didn't start out that way, and her church has said that she'd never been ordained as she is now. This is something that developed. If you search on her name, you'll find out the noxious details. But there's more enlightening and uplifting things to spend your time on, especially now with Advent thoughts in our heads, of welcoming Christ and celebrating his birth.

 

​

The most apparent thing about this article is that, despite what many people think and say, the Article says that baptism makes a discernible difference.

This sign of profession enables those who are baptised to be discerned from those who are not baptised. By baptism we are grafted into the Church.

The promises of the forgiveness of sins, and our adoption as children of God, are visibly signed and sealed by the Holy Spirit. Faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer.

As a sign, to use the classic sacramental language we must recall that a sign either points to something or declares something. The first thing about the sign is that it declares a profession of faith. In terms of the ancient western church tradition the symbol of faith associated with baptism is the Apostle’s Creed. The BCP Liturgy for the rite clearly bases it profession solidly on the Apostle’s Creed. A number of the contemporary rites seem to have lost creedal connection in place or personal commitments that may not carry the same strength. I for one fear that we should not lose this connection as we run the risk of becoming a church that believes little.

The second thing about the sign is that it proclaims regeneration or new birth. This clearly has in mind the language of John 3:5-6

Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

By Baptism we become members of the Church. From the moment of our baptism it is impossible for us to visit Church because we are, by virtue of our baptism, members of it. And to be clear we are baptised into Christ, we are not baptised into the Anglican Church, and for us who proclaim the Nicene Creed, that means we believe in one baptism.

If someone comes and want’s to be an Anglican who has already been baptised in another rite, then we will receive them, however we should never re-baptise them. Such an action would be entirely heterodox (and very un-Anglican).

The language of the article then moves a little ‘by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed’ almost echoing the Orthodox understanding of Chrismation and sounds like the Anglican rite of Confirmation. Confirmation of course is strongly allied to Baptism and word like completes baptism and confirm the promises made on their behalf are certainly heard in Anglican circles. There is of course a sense in which we need to remember that the promises are in some sense the promises that God make to us. We do run the risk of being a little androcentric in some sense suggesting that it is our action in Baptism that matters, whereas of course it is the action of God in Baptism that really matters.

Sometimes we can be our own worst enemy here, often wanting to proclaim seven sacraments and yet using language again and again that speaks as if there in one sacrament.

I think Baptism is one of the most exciting sacraments, and we need to try to do more to make it so. Baptism reminds us that the life of the Church is wet and wild and whilst we have no idea what is on the path ahead, we know we are not alone, His Spirit is with us, the company of faithful people in every age are with us, and we tread the path with angels, archangels, and holy men and women of every time, to protect and guide our every step.

The nature of this life in Baptism is marked by grace in prayer to God. As we listen to people again and again discuss the nature of the Church it does worry me how often people miss this central and simple mark. We pray to God.

The Baptism of children is affirmed in the Article no doubt referencing the synoptic accounts of the blessing of children and the consistent witness Jesus said let the children come to me, do not hinder them.

Baptism is in deed a sacrament of our coming to Jesus.

​

 

Amen

 

​

It may be tempting to read this article in particular on its own, however it should be read in conjunction and in the context of Article 25.

The central liturgical celebration of the Christian Church is the Eucharist. It is described by various names including:

1. Communion - referencing our unity with Christ and with each other
   
   
2. Holy Communion - referencing the sacred nature of our unity with Christ and with each other
   
   
3. The Lord’s Supper - reminding us that this is in the context of the Supper that Jesus shared with his disciples the night before he died, and commanded us to do this.
   
   
4. Eucharist - from the Greek word for thanksgiving, and also the name given to the central prayer of the rite.
   
   
5. The Liturgy - from the greek word’s laos ergon meaning the people’s work.
   
   
6. The Mass - from the dismissal in latin ita missa est (it is finished) reminding us that we go from Mass into the world with Good News.

There is no doubt that the tone of the article reflects some of the influence of the continental reformation, and the specific use of a description, such as they may well prefer is deliberate.

The first statement is very clear, the sacrament is a sign of the love which Christians ought to have, one for the other. When you see the context of the Thirty Nine Articles and the amount of failure in love between Christians, even unto death, you can see that the article in some sense using the word ‘ought’ clearly acknowledges some sense in which this great endeavour is something that we do not always get correct.

However the article does not stop there, but moves on to declare that beyond this, it is a sacrament of the death and redemption wrought for us in Christ. It isn’t just about us, and sharing a meal, the sense of the immanence of God, but also just as surely a sense of the transcendence of God as the drama of our redemption is spoken here in bread and wine. This relationship of immanence and transcendence is the glory of Anglican Worship, and whilst of late there seems to have been a chasing after immanence (and a disgraceful lust for relevance), many of us mourn what can easily be lost in the awe of the transcendence of God.

In this specific language of bread and wine we are at once immersed in the ancient story and we encounter the living Lord, not as history but as present reality. Rightly and Worthily we receive the Body and the Blood of Christ himself and the apprehend and acknowledge this by faith.

I said earlier that the use of the term The Lord’s Supper for the article is a nod to the Continental Reformation, yet here the specific language of Body and Blood is the clear balance with no suggestion that this is some token or memory meal. The key factor in this appears to be with faith receive which is clear in terms of how we appropriate the benefits of the holy sacrament.

The next paragraph is specifically directed against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The doctrine which argues that the very physical nature of the bread and wine is changed in the rite, and was perhaps first formally declared at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, and clarified at the Council of Trent. Luther argued for a sacramental union and Zwingli described it as a memorial. Transubstantiation was a hot topic in the context of the continental movement for reform, and some might think the Anglican position here was an each way bet. I believe that it is a much more positive position however. Rather than being nailed down in the manner of the doctrine of Transubstantiation which defined how God acted in the Sacrament, or the Zwinglian position which saw it as an entirely human endeavor to remember what God had done, the Anglican position is declared as neither of these. That leaves us much closer to Luther’s position, by default.

This is followed by a paragraph to expand on this. First being clear that the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten - which clearly means that something is understood to have happened in the elements offered in the Eucharist, not simply in the person receiving the same. The nature of the giving, taking and receiving is heavenly and spiritual. Some would want to suggest that that is in fact meaning that it is not real - however I would form the opinion that the pen of the authors saw the heavenly and spiritual as indeed more real and transcending the physical. This position in Anglican Sacramental Theology is generally called ‘Real Presence’ and whilst it may be close to the Lutheran position, it is perhaps in common with the Eastern Traditions a little less solidly defined.

The final paragraph continues to opposition expressed in Article 25 to the gazing, lifting up and carrying about of the Blessed Sacrament. This in part is no doubt an objection to the grandiose Corpus Christi Processions around the Parish, with the associated objectification of the nature of the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Not all of Anglican belief about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is contained here. There is quite a bit to be gleaned from the rite itself, and I would cite The Prayer of Humble Access and the Exhortation in BCP as other worthwhile sources contemporaneous with the 39 Articles to further clarify the Anglican Position.

 

Within the Anglican tradition there are a variety of beliefs about precisely what happens at the Eucharist and more than a few people, clergy amongst them, may well claim to not fully know. It's probably fair to say that most Anglicans take a view that the bread and wine change in terms of their significance but would stop well short of accepting transubstantiation. In other words their position is not a mere memorialist one but it certainly isn't the classic Roman one either.

 

Hi Adrian,

I accept the reality of what you say, and certainly Anglican Theology may seem something of a middle way. I fancy that when you say 'in terms of their significance' that may not be quite what BCP and the 39 Articles are saying.

We do not presume
to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord,
trusting in our own righteousness,
but in thy manifold and great mercies.
We are not worthy
so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table.
But thou art the same Lord,
whose property is always to have mercy:
grant us therefore, gracious Lord,
so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ,
and to drink his blood,
that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,
and our souls washed through his most precious blood,
and that we may evermore dwell in him,
and he in us.
Amen.​

The question is do we simply agree, as a community of faith, that gathered together we have decided to accord the bread and wine this special significance, or do we believe that God acts objectively (and not necessarily physically) in the sacrament. I think that the Anglican position (as expressed in the 39 Articles and in the Book of Common Prayer) is that we do believe that God acts in our world, and in the sacraments of his Church. I do think that sacraments are moments when we are called to exercise and extend our faith.

 

This article at one level is a specific flow on from Article 28 on the matter of Transubstantiation.

The biblical passage no doubt being Referenced here is 1 Corinthians 11:27-34. In part it says:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.​

Force feeding sacraments makes no one a Christian, and indeed both the Scripture and the article demand us to take the matter of the sacrament seriously. This is clearly not some kind of receptionist argument arguing for the significance of the sacrament being dependent upon our faith, however it does argue that we should be in a state of lively faith. Without that lively faith we do court danger, including sickness and death according to the Bible.

The article then concludes with a clear statement about the language of the liturgy being something that the people might understand. Although simply seeming to be tacked on here it seems to restate what has already been said in Article 24, and was one item of great import in the theological controversies of the time.

Henry VIII whilst not a reformer theologically was ready for liturgy in the vulgar tongue, and the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552 were in English. Mary restored the Latin Mass, and in terms of the Elizabethan Settlement, the liturgy in English was restored. There is almost a sense that by saying it twice we are ensuring that we do not go back.

For conservative Anglicans this may present some challenges. Most of us love the language of the book/s that have served us something like 400 years. One of the challenges is that the language has changed, and sometimes the vulgar tongue seem to lack the clarity, the beauty, the elegance, and the sense of the transcendent that is evident is 1661/2. Indeed sometimes contemporary liturgy seems somewhere between banal and vulgar. The extravagance of the glory of the liturgy seems at times to have been exchanged for an economical cut down accessible version. In a world of multiculturalism the call is for E2L liturgies (E2L - English 2nd Language) where we strip the language of adverbs and adjectives and go for functional content. No doubt at some stage there will be a call for sms liturgies as well, where we can text the vesicles and responses - in a contemporary and meaningful way.

Language is inherently a big part of English Liturgy, and indeed that has meant for us, Good English, indeed very Good English. The principles of the 39 Articles suggest that we need change, and the problem we face very often is that the changes we are offered often seem lacking, lacking in beauty and dignity, lacking in awe and wonder, seemingly so determined to, meet people where they are that we fail to lift them that they might catch a glimpse of heaven. We need some smart people in our liturgical departments who can start recovering what we seem to have trashed so easily in the last 50 years or so.

May the Lord preserve me from clergy who find it essential to read the rubrics out loud!

 

​

This of course has been a distinction between the RCC and the Anglican Church. The East in general I believe administers in both kinds. It seems clear that the practice of the Church from Apostolic times was to share both parts of the sacrament. The practice seems to have changed in the 13th Century and withholding the chalice from the laity became a common practice, and by the Council of Trent it was confirmed that Christ was fully present and so withholding the chalice did not deny the grace of Christ to the laity.

The writers of the articles have been clear in their intent to embrace both theology and practice of the early (primitive) Church, and here is a clear example. Whilst I would not choose to deny the argument of Trent on this point, I would certainly agree that withholding the chalice was not the practice of either the primitive Church, nor the practice of the Church in the first millennia.

Since Vatican II there has been a growing practice in the RCC to administer communion in both kinds - I think this may be more generally true in the English speaking world with, I gather, the exception of Ireland.

In terms of the Anglican Church our practice in the matter is clear and in that sense established by Article 30.

I am aware that there is in practice, in the question of communion by extension for the sick from the reserved sacrament that very often this is communion in one kind, a practice generally argued on the lines of the Council of Trent. Other practices include, celebrating every time with the sick (abbreviated rite), reserving in-tinctured elements, or reserving and travelling around with both kinds. Certainly communion in one kind by extension of the sick is the easiest and cleanest practice in my most humble opinion.

 

The events and markers of the life of Jesus are unique. That is they happen once. Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension. Because of the very nature of Christ these salvific events happen once for the benefit of all. Christ is not crucified again and again for each person, but once for the life of the whole world.

There is no other sacrifice sufficient, required, or necessary for the satisfaction of the debt in which sin has landed us in, save the One oblation of himself once made upon the cross.

The talk of the mass offered as a sacrifice has led to some confusion as it is clear that there is only one sacrifice for the sin of the world.

Hebrews 10:1-10
Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who approach. Otherwise, would they not have ceased being offered, since the worshippers, cleansed once for all, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body you have prepared for me;
in burnt-offerings and sin-offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
Then I said, “See, God, I have come to do your will, O God”
(in the scroll of the book it is written of me).’

When he said above, ‘You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt-offerings and sin-offerings’ (these are offered according to the law), then he added, ‘See, I have come to do your will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.​

There is plenty of evidence from the medieval church of their being a reasonable living to be made in offering masses for the souls of the departed with money, and in response to benefices for the ongoing offering for masses to be said following the departure of the benefactor from this mortal plain.

The liturgy of the Eucharist is joined in the one wholly sufficient sacrifice once offered, and does not represent a separate sacrifice of particular benefit which the article rightly decries as a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit.

 

I like this one. Thank you Philip. It's such an important doctrine and I feel like the later Articles don't get read as much as the earlier ones.

 

I take it this doesn't refer to deceased sprinters ? I'm sorry lol, the imp in me couldn't resist.

 

Are you refreferring to the quick and the dead?

 

Yes Phil

 

​

Clerical celibacy has had a bit of a checkered history. On the surface there seems little reason to assume that the Apostles were or were not celibate. The New Testament is largely silent on the subject, save for a couple of texts from Paul.

In 1 Corinthians 7 we find Paul advocating the blessing of celibacy for all believers, and I think we conclude from the text Paul also bears witness to his own celibacy. In 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul advocates that a Bishop should be only married once (earlier text suggest the husband of one wife), and one wonders if Paul was intending to exclude single people of the office of Bishop.

Current practice is a little over the shop in various churches. For the main part in Churches in communion with Rome, clerical celibacy is the normal practice, and has been for some considerable time, though it might seem the understanding of what that might have meant may have varied over the course of time.

In the Eastern Orthodox there is a feeling that a priest may be married, rather than a priest may marry, and it does need to be done in that order, and in the main, priests who are married may not be Bishops, though how that is managed does not always make sense to use all, and may be simply that he is no longer living with his wife.

The Anglican position is clear, it is a matter for the individual to decide. This was probably a prudent decision, in line with decisions being made in the continental reformation churches, and quite possibly recognising that there were under the prohibition a number of relationships which may well have been secret marriages, or undeclared marriages, and far more honest to have everything open and transparent.

 

​

Matthew 18:15-17
‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.​

The shunning of excommunicate persons has always seemed a bit harsh to me, as if we love everyone except A B and C. Nonetheless the article has some basis in scripture as shown in the passage from Matthew. It is interesting to not how Gentiles have become heathens and tax-collectors have become publicans.

If the Church does not have the ability to exclude some persons as a matter of discipline - and surely this is the most severe discipline open to the Church - to break fellowship, then there become no lines, no standards, and anything goes. The article in a sense goes beyond the Matthew scripture passage here, and clearly does provide always that there is an avenue to return.

Most of us have had little experience of excommunicated persons, and I know of only one occasion in my life, where the matter has arisen, and a Bishop had excommunicated a person, who was in breach of Church discipline. The Bishop did maintain a pastoral oversight, and was able to in due course restore him to the fellowship of the Church. In many senses I find it complex as our natural theological inclination is to move to include.

Excommunication sounds like a no way back kind of solution, and in reality I think that whilst the gate may be narrow, we need to make sure that there is a way back. There are boundaries, and there are bridges. At some of our more elitist ends I suspect we may have too many boundaries and not enough bridges, and at the liberal end of the spectrum perhaps we have not enough boundaries and too many bridges. Somewhere there is an Anglican balance.