The ThirtyNine Articles: 22-31, Sacraments and such

I have listed this next set of ten together, though there are some odds and sods mixed into the group.  For the most part, these are about the conduct of worship and the Sacraments.  There is little to discuss for most of them, if you hold a high view of worship and the Sacraments as I do.  I will try to anticipate areas of discussion as best I can.

XXII. Of Purgatory.

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.

If you have a works based system of justification and/or sanctification, then purgatory makes some sense.  If you believe that Christ came into the world to introduce a Covenant of Grace, then a doctrine of purgatory is unnecessary.  In addition to this, find a single mention of purgatory either by name or inference in the Bible.  Go ahead.  I dare you.  I’m waiting.  I’ll be here, under the bridge, eating roast mutton.

XXIII. Of ministering in the congregation.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

Whoops!  I guess Joel Osteen cannot be an Anglican preacher.  I’ve been involved in the calling of two priests, and I found it to be wholly unsatisfying.  The issues that laity bring to this office of calling a priest can be completely irrelevant.  But my opinions of the respective clergy I will defer to Article 26.

XXIV. Of speaking in the congregation, in such a tongue as the people understand.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understood by the people.

We don’t like speaking in tongues?  Of course not!  Now, back off, my Pentecostal friends.  That isn’t what this is about.  Anglicans expect to understand the language of the worship service.  It is repugnant to use a language other than one understood by the people.  In other words, no more services in Latin.  I think all Protestants can feel good about this one.

XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession; but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by which he does work invisibly in us, and does not only quicken, but also strengthens and confirms our faith in him. 

   There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 

   Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be computed for Sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. 

   The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be guessed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only, as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul says.

I could say so much more about the Sacraments here, but the last line is such a loud statement that I will work mostly on it.  The question before us is how does one receive the Sacraments unworthily, purchasing to himself damnation.  There are discussions of true and saving faith that come into play here.  It is interesting to keep this one line in mind as we read the next article.

XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the ministers, which hinder not the effect of the Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief action in the ministration of the word and Sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not do the same in their own name but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. 

   Nevertheless, it appertains to the discipline of the Church, that enquiry is made of evil ministers, and that they are accused by those that have knowledge of their offences: and finally being found guilty by just judgment, are deposed.

This is a huge point that cannot be overemphasized.  If the priest, pastor, minister, deacon or bishop is not genuine in his faith, it does not matter to the believer who receives the Sacraments from this person.  The actions of the priest in the office of priest are done in the name of Jesus.  As such, their effects are in His name, acting on His behalf, and are as effective as if Jesus Himself were administering the Sacraments.  Therefore, if a person is Baptized by a person who later demonstrates that his faith was not genuine, that Baptism is still a true and effective Sacrament for that believer, because it is the office of priest that is important, not the individual fulfilling that role.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened:  but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby as by an instru­ment, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church:  the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed; and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.  The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

I don’t want to do the Baptism debate in this post.  Just read it and accept that Anglicans seem to think PaedoBaptism is still a good thing.  What is important is that Baptism for the true believer seals them into the Covenant.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the life that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another: but rather it is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death. Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing, is a partaking of the blood of Christ. 

   Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. 

   The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner: And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith. 

   The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Read the first section, and then read the rest.  Transubstantiation was what I thought I was taught in confirmation.  This Article explicitly states that transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of scripture.  The last statement is equally interesting.  We do not worship the elements, because we do not find transubstantiation to be scriptural.  I understand and agree with this perspective, but I now wonder at the catechism that I received.  Obviously, I have more discussions ahead of me with the Anglican clergy.

XXIX. Of the wicked which do not eat the body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.

The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine says) the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: yet in no wise are the partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

This basically says that Grace is only given to the believer through the Sacraments, while going through the motions is damning.  I would argue that a lack of faith is sufficiently damning without heaping this issue on the pile, but the Anglicans seem to take particular affront to wasting the Communion elements.  This makes it sound suspiciously as if transubstantiation was perhaps lurking in the church theology despite the previous article.

XXX. Of both kinds.

The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people. For both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

I’ve seen this behavior as a choice of the person, but never by the church.  If you consider the practice of using unfermented grape juice as a wine substitute as some churches will do, perhaps this is what is being referenced.  Intinction is often used by some people to receive the Blood of Christ and is actually taught in some confirmation classes.  I’ll have to ask more about this issue as well.  There seems to be some undiscovered history at play here.

XXXI. Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propitiation, satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in which it was commonly said that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead; to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

Again, this obviously has historical context of which I am not aware.  The idea that a Sacrament held the same power as the actual resurrection seems completely foreign to me.  Any Anglican confirmed in any church that I’ve attended knows by rote the definition of a sacrament.  It should not surprise me that there is historical reason for that definition to have been so soundly drilled into us.  For the benefit of non-Anglican readers, a Sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual truth.  Role that over Baptism and Communion and you will see how that is applied.

The next section will be over the homilies, and I’m not sure how long it will be.  There are about 20 homilies and they are long.  I’m probably going to read them and summarize them, explicitly remarking on only the surprises and irregularities that I perceive. 

--Troll--