Article  XXII

22,    23,    24,    25

Of Purgatory.

      The Romish Doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of images as of reliques, 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.

De Purgatorio.

      Doctrina Romanensium de purgatorio, de indulgentiis, de veneratione et adoratione tum imaginum tum reliquiarum, nec non de invocatione sanctorum, res est futilis, inaniter conficta, et nullis Scripturarum testimoniis innititur: immo verbo Dei contradicit.

Important Equivalents

Romish = Romanensium

Concerning pardons = de indulgentiis

Concerning worshipping = de veneratione

Is a fond thing, vainly invented = res est futilis, inaniter conficta

Upon no warranty = nullis testimoniis

[Is] repugnant = contradicit

      The place of this subject seems at first incorrect, but in reality it is quite appropriate because the Article deals with certain doctrines set forth by Church and Conciliar authority, which are here condemned as unscriptural.  Thus they afford an example of the wrong use of that Church authority stated in Articles XX and XXI.

      The title is incomplete compared with the contents, and this is probably due to the fact that the first subject, Purgatory, was regarded as the most important.  It would seem as though the Article, while composed by the English Reformers, had been influenced by the Smalcaldic Article of 1537, which refers to these errors and speaks of them as “not grounded on Scripture,” and as “most pernicious”.  In 1553, in the Latin  perniciose was associated with contradicit, but this was omitted in 1563, probably as superfluous, because anything that contradicts God’s Word stands self-condemned without the need of further description.  Even, in 1553, the English had no equivalent for perniciose.

The Opening Words

      One change made in 1563 calls for fuller attention.  In 1553 the Article spoke of “the doctrine of the School authors,” and this was changed in 1563 to “the Romish doctrine,” with Latin Romanensium.  Newman, in Tract XC, used this change to prove that the Article did not deny the primitive doctrine, but only the purely Roman teaching, especially as the Council of Trent did not promulgate its decrees on the subject of purgatory until December 1563, after the issue of the Article.  Newman has been followed by several modern writers, [Forbes; Gibson; Darwell Stone; Kidd.] all taking the line that as the questions of purgatory and pardons were not discussed at Trent for many months after the publication of the Article the present statement cannot be interpreted to refer to the Tridentine doctrine, but simply designates “the extreme mediaeval party”.  But in spite of this series of contentions many still hold that the Article means what it says, and refers to the current doctrine of the Roman Church.  It is, of course, true that the Tridentine decrees were not promulgated until after the Article was issued, but it is often overlooked that the general and persistent teaching of the Roman Church was well known long before the decree was issued.  Besides, our Articles were revised again in 1571, several years after Trent had finished its sittings.  This Article in particular was the subject of verbal attention.  Then, too, the Articles were once more promulgated by law in 1662.

      The question may be said to have been settled beyond all reasonable doubt by the able discussion of the late Bishop of Salisbury, who argues with great force that “Romish” means “official Roman and Tridentine doctrine”. [Bishop Wordsworth, The Invocation of Saints and the Twenty-second Article.]  The use made of Hardwick by several writers [Gibson; Kidd; Tyrrell Green; Darwell Stone.  Dr. Darwell Stone has since removed the reference to Hardwick as the result of the Bishop of Salisbury’s criticisms.] is easily shown to be inaccurate, and Hardwick’s view can be seen in his statement that the object of the Article was to “condemn scholastic and Tridentine errors,” while in another place he speaks of the significant change to “Romish,” the “Tridentine Doctors having then made further progress in the building and consolidation of the Neo-Romish system.” [Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, pp. 389, 130.  See also p. 84, and Note 1.]  Trent had really been sitting for seventeen years, though dormant for ten years, from 1552 to 1562, and its work must have been in view in 1563, especially as Roman Catholics in England and elsewhere held these views long before. [Thus purgatory was promulgated at the Council of Florence, Indulgences by papal bulls, while the Veneration of Images and Invocation of Saints were in general practice.  The received doctrine of the English Romanists at the time can be easily verified from Gardiner’s Articles, issued as a test for heresy in 1555 (Cardwell, Doc. Annals, Vol. I, p. 164).]  When, therefore, the decisions of the Council of Trent were promulgated it was easily seen that there was no essential difference between the authorized teaching and that which had been held in former days.  The view that the Article refers to some extreme mediaeval opinions [B. J. Kidd, On the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 189.] is clearly impossible, because apart from all this popular teaching it is not at all likely that our Reformers in 1563 would concern themselves with a party referred to forty years before.  Besides, the doctrines here opposed are specifically Roman and not merely extreme mediaeval. [Tyrrell Green, who favours the view that the Article refers to current teaching rather than to Tridentine doctrine, nevertheless remarks that: “The change of this expression to ‘Romish doctrine’ in the Elizabethan revision is significant; it was doubtless made because our Reformers were realizing that the Church of Rome, at the Council of Trent, was adopting the teaching of the later Schoolmen as its own” (The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation, p. 547).]  So that although the decrees were not promulgated until December 1563, the beliefs were already virtually sanctioned and could properly be described as “Romish”.  It has been pointed out that in the Articles of Smalcald these errors sprang out of the Mass, and the doctrines of the Mass were defined in September 1562, some months before the Articles of 1563, and the work of Trent was not intended to provide a new definition, but only a declaration of the existing doctrine as de fide, and that such doctrine should be thenceforward properly and universally held.  In view of all these facts the change from “School authors” to “Romish” is perfectly intelligible and decidedly significant. [This point and the general question are discussed fully in Doctrina Romanensium De Invocation Sanctorum, by H. F. Stewart, with Introduction by Bishop Wordsworth of Salisbury.]

Analysis of the Article

      As the Article is concerned with several different subjects it may be well to look at it as a whole before discussing its details.

I – The Doctrines Opposed

      1.  The Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

      2.  The Roman Catholic doctrine of Indulgences.

      3.  The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Worshipping and Adoration of Images.

      4.  The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Worshipping and Adoration of Relics.

      5.  The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Invocation of Saints.

II – The Grounds of Opposition

      1.  Their character. – “Fond”; Latin, futilis; silly, foolish, absurd.

      2.  Their origin. – “Vainly invented”; Latin, inaniter conficta; that is, falsely devised, founded on no substantial reason.

      3.  Their unscriptural character. – “Grounded upon no warranty of Scripture.”

      4.  Their anti-scriptural character. – “But rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

      Language could not well be plainer, and the revision of 1563 is sufficient to show that Queen Elizabeth could hardly have been desirous of conciliating Roman Catholics while she permitted such a significant change in an anti-Roman direction.  Further, the idea sometimes suggested that it was only the Roman and not the general practice which was denounced is disproved by the simple fact that at that time the Roman doctrine was the only one in existence.

Purgatory

      The Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, according to the Council of Trent, is that “There is a purgatory, and that souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar” (Session xxv).  This doctrine arises out of the belief that after the pardon of eternal punishment there still remains “a guilt of temporal punishment to be paid for either in this world, or in the future in purgatory” (Session vi, Canon 30).  In order that we may arrive at the proper attitude to the doctrine which the Article opposes it is necessary to study the steps by which it was reached, for although it is said to have been “vainly invented” it is important to give attention to its history.  No system can stand long if it is wholly erroneous, and we must, therefore, not only study the fact, but also endeavour to find out the reason of the error, by examining its growth and development.  It is well known, and, indeed, universally acknowledged that no doctrine of Purgatory was taught in the primitive Church.  It is sometimes thought to have arisen gradually in two ways: (1) out of prayers for the dead; (2) by reason of the difficulty of conceiving the possibility of a future judgment for the mass of nominal Christians.  From these came at length the idea of an ordeal after death.  Then it would appear that with the thought and desire already in the mind, Scripture was searched, though to do this after the notions are formed is a dangerous method.  One passage was of great interest (1 Cor. 3:15), because of its reference to fire, though the context might have been supposed to prove at once the thought of testing and judgment, not of purification.

      But apart from (or, at least, in addition to) any Christian speculation, the idea of a future purgation seems to have come definitely into Christianity from without, for Plato had three divisions: the good, the bad, and the middle, the last being purged.  Neo-Platonism developed this, and Origen seems to have derived his doctrine from this source, for though he believed in pre-existence he maintained a purgatory.  The earliest Christian writers make no mention of Purgatory while writing fully on the future life. [Athenagoras, p. 177, on “The Resurrection” (Clark, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp. 423–436; Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Novatian, and Cyprian (op. cit., Vols. VIII, IX XIII).  Clement of Rome and Ignatius both definitely speak of the future without any allusion whatever to purgatory (op cit., Vols. I and XXV).]  The evidence of the catacombs is to the same effect, for while there are expressions of desire for prayers there is no trace at all of anything like the doctrine of Purgatory.  It is said that the first hint is found in Tertullian, [Clark, Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. XV, pp. 539–541; Vol. XVIII, pp. 17, 41.  Apart from the references in Tertullian, the Acts of Perpetua, and a passage in Clement of Alexandria, Gibson remarks that: “It is thought that no passage can fairly be quoted as implying a belief in a purgatory between death and judgment till we come to the fourth century” (The Thirty-nine Articles. p. 544).] but the idea does not seem to have been endorsed until the time of Ambrose and Augustine.  Yet even this was not a doctrine identical with the later teaching of Rome.  Gregory the Great, 600, was the first eminent personage who propounded a purgatory between death and judgment for slight offences. [“Sed tamen de quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante judicum purgatorius ignis credendus est.  Sed tamen hoc de parvis minimisque pcccatis fieri posse credendum est; sicut est assiduus otiosus sermo, immoderatus risus,” etc.  (Dial. IV, C. XXXIX).]  This belief was promoted by legends, and the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages discussed purgation.  At length the Council of Florence, 1439, declared the fact, and this is the first Conciliar Church judgment, though the doctrine had long before been held and taught with serious practical results.  Thus we have the three inevitable stages of (1) mere speculation; (2) common opinion; (3) enforced truth.

      The attitude of the Greek Church on this subject is of particular interest.  Although from early days the Eastern Church has observed the practice of prayers for the dead, this has never been connected with any doctrine of purgatory.  The Greek delegates at the Council of Florence were prevailed upon by the Pope to accept the doctrine, but on their return home they retracted, and threw themselves on the mercy of their brethren at home who had been offended by their adhesion.  The rival Council of Basle had disowned the doctrine in its own name and in the name of the Eastern Church, adding, that “it ought to be cast out of the Church,” while Bishop Fisher, who suffered under Henry VIII, frankly confessed that Purgatory had been rarely, if at all, mentioned by ancient writers.  It can, therefore, be proved beyond doubt, and, indeed, is owned by competent Roman Catholic writers, that no Council or Father for five centuries taught the doctrine. [Macbride, Lectures on the Articles, p. 376.]

      The Council of Trent included a belief in Purgatory as essential, but avoided definite statements on subjects whereon Roman Catholic divines differed.  The fact was asserted, and it was said that souls were helped by prayers and sacraments.  The Council seemed rather to take the doctrine for granted than to define it, but in the Catechism drawn up by order of the Council there is a reference to purgatorial fire.  Cardinal Bellarmine defined it as a prison where souls are purged which were not wholly purified on earth.

      It is necessary at this point to recall the clear and important distinction between the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and a general belief in spiritual progress in the intermediate state.  The latter may be held apart from any thought of Purgatory, for the Roman doctrine is really part of a penal process, the payment of a debt which was not fully discharged on earth, a view based on the distinction between mortal and venial sins. [Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (Second Edition), p. 308 ff.]  But to carry the penal consequences of sin into the next world is really to deny the fullness and completeness of Atonement and Justification.  We have already seen that our sole ground of acceptance with God is the “one oblation” of our Lord Jesus Christ “once offered” as “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.”  So that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory as a satisfaction to God for part of the punishment due to sin seriously detracts from the perfection of Calvary, and from the Justification that comes through the acceptance by faith of the Divine Atonement.  And this is no doubt the reason why the Church of Rome is so bitterly hostile to the doctrine of Justification by Faith.  Besides, what are we to say of those who will die on the eve of Christ’s coming, and of the living at the time of His return?  There can be no Purgatory for them.  Further, Purgatory tends to rob the soul of peace, and to fill it with fear of the future.  Scripture shows clearly that those who are now with Christ are entirely free from sin and sinning.  The Burial Service is quite clear on this point: “After they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity.” [Scripture nowhere warrants the view of a “second chance,” but teaches that the present life is final (2 Cor. 5:10).  The New Testament references to the state of the pious dead are entirely opposed to any idea of purification (John 5:24, Phil. 1:23, Tim. 4:8, Rev. 14:13).]  Then, too, the doctrine of Purgatory lends itself to the sad and deplorable practice of Masses for the dead.  The Church of Rome admits that there is entire uncertainty as to the future of the person and cannot guarantee what number of Masses are necessary to take a soul out of Purgatory, yet the practice obtains for offering Masses for the repose of the soul, relatives paying for these exercises in the hope of at least relieving the sufferings of those who have passed away.

      The question of Prayers for the Dead, though it is believed that the practice is not in accord with Scripture or with the Church of England formularies, [See Additional Note, “Prayers for the Dead,” in Appendix below.] need not, and should not be associated with the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.  As already observed, the Greek Church prays for the dead without holding any doctrine of Purgatory, and even Roman Catholic commemorations of the dead in the Mass are found without any allusions to Purgatory.  There are also prayers to the Virgin Mary and others, who are certainly not in Purgatory.  The serious objection to the Roman position is that (1) it teaches the actual certainty of such a place of Purgatory; (2) it permits the wildest teaching on the subject; (3) and often associates with it the system of Indulgences.  Roman Catholic writers make little of Scripture on this subject, and when once the question of prayers for the dead is separated from that of Purgatory the warrant for the latter falls entirely to the ground. [Passages which seem to suggest a limitation of punishment cannot be utilized to prove a purgatory, while 1 Cor. 3:15 is absolutely outside the question.  See also Gibson, ut supra, p. 549.]  We therefore maintain the truth of the Article that the Roman doctrine of Purgatory is (a) “a fond thing,” contradictory to reason, derogatory to the perfect satisfaction of Christ’s Atonement and opposed to the justice of God; (b) that it is “vainly invented,” having been derived very largely from sources outside Christianity; (c) that it is not Scriptural, nothing in the Word of God being found to support it; (d) that it is “repugnant to the Word of God,” being opposed to some of the fundamental principles of the Gospel of Christ.

Pardons

      As the Latin of the Article suggests, this reference to the system of Indulgences, which is an essential part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome, is closely and vitally connected with that of Purgatory. [Indulgentia was originally used of “gentleness,” and then came to be employed as a legal term, meaning a remission of punishment or taxation.  This seems to have been the source of the Christian usage of the term, meaning either the remission of sins, or the relief of ecclesiastical penalties (Gibson, ut supra, p. 555; Maclear and Williams, Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England, p. 269).]  And yet the doctrine of Indulgences is very difficult to define, because the Council of Trent is vague and general on the subject.  The Creed of Pope Pius IV claims that the power of indulgences was left by our Lord in the Church, and that the use is salutary.  The Council of Trent practically says the same thing, but orders the suppression of abuses.  What, then, is an indulgence?  We have already seen something of the distinction between mortal and venial sin, between sin that involves eternal punishment, and sin that is concerned with temporal punishment alone.  The eternal and temporal punishment of sin committed before Baptism is remitted in that Sacrament.  The eternal punishment of sin after Baptism is remitted in Absolution, but the temporal punishment due to sin after Baptism is not necessarily remitted in Absolution, and the result is that a man has still to suffer the temporal punishment of that which has been spiritually and eternally forgiven.  This temporal punishment often takes the form of penances imposed by the priest, but as the punishments endured on earth do not always exhaust the temporal punishment required, the result is that Purgatory is provided for further temporal punishment, and indulgences are exercised by the Pope to relieve souls in Purgatory from part of this temporal punishment.

      Here, again, it is necessary to consider the history which led up to the Mediaeval and Roman practice.  In the Decian persecution, those who lapsed through persecution were permitted to return to the fellowship of the Church if they obtained “Letters of Peace” (libelli pacis) from a martyr, and the Council of Nicaea, 325, allowed Bishops to excuse the severity of penal Canons as might be required.  But in the twelfth century the Pope began to claim the right of dispensing what was then called the Thesaurus supererogationis. [See Article XIV.]  Indulgences were the immediate cause of Luther’s protest against Rome.  His indignation was provoked by the Indulgences issued by Leo X to provide for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s, Rome, in magnificent style.

      Now church discipline is right and necessary, and we may even go so far as to say that there was nothing essentially wrong in money fines and computations, except that they were dangerous in giving an undue power to wealth.  But when the power was extended beyond the grave the error became evident and serious.  Although the Council of Trent, as we have seen, declared that the power was bestowed by Christ, and enjoined moderation in use, and forbade abuse, yet this has not been adhered to, and now popular teaching is almost as bad as it was in the sixteenth century.  In Spain and elsewhere Indulgences flourish and are easily obtained at very small cost. [Proof of this can be seen in Romish Indulgences of Today, by Fulano; Indulgences, by Rev. R. G. S. King (Dublin: Church of Ireland Printing Co.); Some Thoughts on Purgatory (London: Irish Church Missions); The Controversy Concerning the Spanish Bull of Composition (London: C. J. Thynne).]  The four grounds of rejection of this Roman doctrine, already noted in connection with purgatory, need no discussion; they are only too self-evident. [It is scarcely necessary to do more than refer to Bishop Lightfoot’s criticism of the Romanist commentators, who endeavour to found on Col. 1:24 the doctrine of the merits of the Saints and Indulgences (Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 233).]

Veneration of Relics and Images

      Jewish Christianity abhorred everything of this kind, and in the earliest days of the Christian Church it was equally impossible.  It only came in later, and both Clement of Alexandria and Origen are against even the making of images.  The Council of Elvira, in Spain, 305, was against the use of pictures in church.  At first, like the remains of Polycarp after his martyrdom, these relics were only a memorial of the dead, but later on the belief sprang up that if prayer was offered before them there would be some special power in the petition.  At length came a belief in their miracle working power, and as the result pilgrimages were made to shrines.  Now it is impossible to deny that in these practices some reverence is paid to the relic or image in itself.  In the eighth century the Iconoclastic controversy arose, and the Council of Constantinople, 754, suppressed images, but the West, while permitting them, prohibited worship and rejected the decree of Constantinople.  At the Council of Nicaea, 787, the decision of Constantinople was reversed, and “salutary honour” was ordered to be paid to images, though not the supreme honour due to God alone.  Charlemagne, 794, and the Council of Frankfort, condemned this Council of Nicaea as against Scripture and the Fathers.  Thus, in spite of powerful voices, like those of Epiphanius and Augustine, against the practice the fourth century concessions to heathenism bore fruit.  The story of Martin of Tours is a striking illustration of the extent of the error.  The Council of Trent is merely general on this point, and says that images are to be venerated and retained in churches, while relics are to be honoured and are profitable for invocation, yet that this must be so only in reference to the person represented.  It is sometimes said that Roman Catholics worship God through the images, and do not for a moment worship the images themselves.  But the heathen could say the same.  Both in the past and in the present this is urged by the devotees of false religions.  The Second Commandment is of permanent obligation, and St. Paul is quite clear as to the doctrine of worshipping God under the form of anything made by man’s device (Acts 17:29).  Nor is it quite accurate to say that no adoration is given to the images themselves, for both the Council of Trent and the Creed of Pope Pius IV speak of “due honour and meet veneration,” while, of course, not defining what is to be understood by “due” and “meet”.  All this implies that inordinate craving for the visible, which is a prominent feature of natural and unspiritual religion, together with the characteristic inability of such natures to conceive of the invisible as real.  Once again we may recall the plain words of the Article, and say that these practices are indeed “fond things, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

The Invocation of Saints

      This practice grew up side by side with the veneration of images, and nothing was known of it in the Church for at least three hundred years.  It started with the words, ora pro nobis, but soon went beyond this request for their intercessions.  As the New Testament says that angels are ministers, the idea was extended to the tutelage of saints, who came to be thought of as God’s ministers for good.  In the Old Testament there is, of course, no hint of anything of the kind, and if the Jews had no need, this is still more true of Christians.  Not even the mediaeval doctrine of the Limbus Patrum availed in opposition to the silence of the Old Testament.  But not only is there no trace of the practice in primitive Christianity, there is much against it.  The earliest writers urge in the strongest way that Christians should worship none but God.  Justin Martyr said: – “ It becomes Christians to worship God only.” [Apology, I, p. 63.]  Tertullian: – “For the safety of the Emperor, we invoke God, eternal, true, and living God. ... Nor can I pray to any other than to Him, from whom I am sure that I may obtain, because He alone can give it.” [Apology, Cap. XXX.]

      While the early Christians had a genuine, living belief in the communion of saints they never contemplated the possibility of addressing departed saints in prayer.  This would really involve giving to saints quasi-angelic power, and the extent of which this is capable of going may be seen in the practice of Mariolatry.

      The Council of Trent takes a moderate line on this subject, saying that the saints pray for us and that it is, therefore, useful to invoke them.  Rome also distinguishes between latria, the worship to be paid to God only; dulia, the worship or reverence to be paid to saints and angels, and hyperdulia, the devotion paid to the Mother of our Lord.  But no such distinction can be found either in Scripture or in the primitive Church, and certainly ordinary people never distinguish between higher and lower forms of worship.  If saints and angels can be addressed, then they must in some way be regarded as superhuman and semi-divine.  But such a practice cannot help interfering with the sole mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Several references in the New Testament clearly indicate the impossibility of the practice (Acts 10:25, 14:14; Rev. 19:10).  An appeal to saints and angels of necessity involves virtual idolatry, since it means the interposition of someone between God and ourselves.  It was this that elicited St. Paul’s severe condemnation (Col. 2:18).  While, therefore, it is right to recognize to the full the balance and moderation of the Tridentine decree on the subject of the Invocation of Saints, it is impossible to overlook the deplorable extent to which popular practice has always gone in past days and at present. [Among many other examples the following may be adduced: (1) From certain prayers which have received Papal sanction and are specially “indulgenced” we may take the following: “Leave me not, my Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost.  Let me but cling to thee; save me, my hope; save me from hell.”  (2) Many passages can be quoted from Liguori’s Glories of Mary, a book which has received the highest sanction in the Roman Catholic Church.  “Often we shall be heard more quickly and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary, and call upon her name, than we should be if we called upon the name of Jesus our Saviour.  Many things are asked from God and are not granted; they are asked from Mary and are obtained. ... Mary so loved the world, that she gave her only-begotten Son.”]  In view of what has been adduced it is hardly necessary even to quote again the words of the Article, that this practice is “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

      But the subject has obtained fuller consideration during recent years by being associated with what is called “Comprecation”.  It is said that while direct invocation of saints is not permissible, we may rightly appeal to God for the prayers of departed saints, and that this practice of Comprecation is not to be regarded as condemned by the Article. [B. J. Kidd, On the Articles, p. 199 ff.; Gibson, ut supra, p. 569 f.; Gayford, Article, “Invocation of Saints,” Prayer Book Dictionary; Darwell Stone, Invocation of Saints.]  The entire question of the true meaning of the Article on this point has been fully discussed by the (late) Bishop of Salisbury, in the booklet already mentioned. [The Invocation of Saints and the Twenty-second Article.  Second and Revised Edition with new Preface.  See also Stewart, ut supra.]  As the Bishop points out, the real question is whether Comprecation was in the minds of those who were responsible for the Articles of 1563 and 1571. [Ut supra, p. 5.]  Not only is there no trace in Scripture of any such Comprecation, but no early authorities in the Church can be adduced in support of it.  The entire absence of Scripture teaching as to what is the life of the departed saints makes the idea of very doubtful strength.  Nor can it be regarded as spiritually healthy to associate the possibility of the mediation of saints with our direct approach to God.

      A still more recent pronouncement pleading for Comprecation was made by the Bishop of London at the Southampton Church Congress, 1913, in which he associated the practice with our belief in the communion of saints.  But it is well known that the primary interpretation of that Article in the Creed had no reference whatever to the practice of Comprecation, [So, Swete, The Apostles’ Creed, in loc.] and our knowledge of the life of the departed is far too slight to permit us to base any such serious and definite practice upon it.  Bishop Wordsworth well points out that God has concealed from us much that we should like to know because it is better for us to be ignorant.

      “Therefore, in framing theories about this communion of saints, we should take our ignorance to be His will, and adapt all our actions to that will.” [Ut supra, p. xii.]

      Then, too, there is the question of how we are to reconcile the statement of Article VIII which teaches that we receive the Creeds because they can be proved by Scripture, and the description of the Invocation of Saints in Article XXII as “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”  It is surely impossible to think of Comprecation as being in any way included in a belief in the Communion of Saints in view of the plain statements of the latter Article.  And if it should be admitted that Comprecation is not contemplated by Article XXII, then the practice obviously finds no warrant within the formularies, or in any other representative authority of the Church of England, to say nothing of the entire silence of Scripture.

      We may go further, and raise the question whether Supplication is a part of the worship behind the veil.  We know from Scripture that our Lord is interceding on behalf of His people, but the question whether intercession implies supplication is a matter of very serious hesitation.  It would almost seem as though the idea of our Lord as a Suppliant involves an entirely unworthy conception of Him in the presence of the Father, and it is in every way truer to think of His intercession as satisfied by His presence above as “our Advocate with the Father”.  At any rate, two modern writers have suggested this idea in words that call for careful consideration: – “The modern conception of Christ pleading in Heaven His Passion, ‘offering His blood’ on behalf of men, has no foundation in the Epistle.  His glorified humanity is the eternal pledge of the absolute efficacy of His accomplished work.  He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by His Presence on the Father’s throne.” [Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews p. 230.]

      “The intercession of the ascended Christ is not a prayer but a life.  The New Testament does not represent Him as an orante, standing ever before the Father, and with outstretched arms, like the figure in the mosaics of the Catacombs, and with strong crying and tears pleading our cause in the presence of a reluctant God; but as a throned Priest-King, asking what He will from a Father who always hears and grants His request.  Our Lord’s life in Heaven is His prayer.” [Swete, The Ascended Christ, p. 95.]

      If, then, it is unnecessary for our Lord to pray for us, there is certainly no room for the supplication of others.  But whether this is so or not, there is nothing in Scripture to afford any encouragement of the view that departed saints offer supplication, on our behalf.

      One other point seems to call for some notice in connection with this subject.  Latimer’s name is frequently used in support of the practice of the Invocation of Saints, by the quotation of some words of his preached in Bristol in 1533, in which he said that “By way of intercession saints in heaven may be mediators and pray for us.”  But it is unfair to quote statements made as early as 1533, without placing alongside of them his more fully developed views.  Thus, in a sermon preached in 1552, after saying that we may learn much goodness from the shepherds who went to Bethlehem, he adds, “We may not make gods of them, or call upon them, as we have been taught in times past; because God will be called upon, honoured, and worshipped alone.”  Still stronger language can be adduced, bearing the same date, in which prayer to the saints is described as “most abominable idolatry.”  It may be said without any question or qualification that there is no adequate ground for believing that the Reformers of the sixteenth century, after they had entered upon the full light of their position, ever advocated this practice, while there is no representative Reformed divine of post-Reformation days who is an advocate of it.  Bishop Wordsworth’s discussion of the various authors adduced is sufficient to show the essential weakness of any attempt to produce support for this practice in the Reformed English Church, and the conclusion drawn by the Bishop may be stated in his own words: – “I am constrained to say that I have found the arguments in favour of the lager interpretation of the Article even weaker than I had expected.  They are, indeed, so weak that I have some hope that those who have hitherto used them will feel it necessary at least to shift their ground.” [Ut supra, p. 5.]

      And the Bishop adds that there cannot be any consistent advocacy of invocation in the face of the Article, which speaks of it as “futile” and “repugnant to the Word of God”: – “As long as the Articles remain unaltered we clergy of the Church of England are bound to defer to them in our own sphere so far as not to contradict them on any point of principle in our teaching.” [Ut supra, p. 63.]

      The entire practice, whether of direct Invocation, or of mediate Comprecation, reveals an apparently inherent tendency in unspiritual and human nature to fear the holiness of God, and by stopping short of it to seek the influence of an intermediary.  But this is in reality what St. Paul describes as “voluntary humility,” which is false to the very idea of true Christian life.  When once the soul has entered into a personal experience of what is meant by “fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ,” there can be no thought of any intermediary.  It is, therefore, not untrue to say that at the basis of the practice of the Invocation of Saints is the “evil heart of unbelief,” which, under the guise of humility and unwillingness to approach God, occupies itself with beings who are thought to have more power with God than those for whom Christ died. [In Les Origines du Culte des Martyrs, by Père Delahaye, S. J., it is shown that the Cultus of the Saints arose out of that of the Martyrs, that in the earliest times no such Cultus existed, that it was not, and could not be, intended to be taught in the doctrine of the Communion of Saints, that there is no real trace of the Cultus before Nicaea, and that the practice arose largely out of the half-converted heathenism introduced into Christianity at and after the time of Constantine.  These and other points are frankly admitted by the Rev. F. W. Puller in the English Church Review for 1914.  They support entirely the view maintained above that our Church knows nothing either of Invocation or Comprecation.]  In the face of the full, deep, rich teaching of Holy Scripture concerning the direct approach of the soul to God, and the numerous invitations to “draw near with full assurance of faith,” anything short of this really amounts to practical distrust and disobedience. [For all the questions connected with this Article, reference should be made to Dearden, Modern Romanism Examined, pp. 195–221; 269–297.]

IV.  The Household of Faith – continued: Corporate Religion

B.  THE MINISTRY (Articles  XXIII–XXIV)

            23.  Ministering in the Congregation.

            24.  Speaking in the Congregation in Such a Tongue as the People Understandeth.

Article  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.

De Ministrando in Ecclesia.

      Non licet cuiquam sumere sibi munus publice praedicandi, aut administrandi Sacramenta in Ecclesia, nisi prius fuerit ad haec obeunda legitime vocatus et missus.  Atque illos legitime vocatos et missos existimare debemus, qui per homines, quibus potestas vocandi ministros, atque mittendi in vineam Domini, publice concessa est in Ecclesia, cooptati fuerint et adsciti in hoc opus.

Important Equivalents

In the Congregation             =          in Ecclesia (as in Article XIX)

Lawfully called                    =          legitime vocatos

To execute the same            =          ad haec obeunda

Be chosen                              =          co-optati fuerint

Public authority given         =          potestas publice concessa

Called to this work               =          adsciti in hoc opus

      From the Church to the ministry is a natural step, as the ministry is that through which the Church mainly grows.  The title of the Article dates from 1571.  The corresponding Articles of 1553 and 1563 were “Nemo in Ecclesia ministret nisi vocatus (No man may minister in the congregation except he be called).”  The term “congregation” is identical with its meaning in Articles XIX and XX, the body of Christ’s followers.

      The Article is derived partly from the Confession of Augsburg and partly from the Thirteen Articles of the Concordat, 1538. [Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, p. 20.]  On this account it is studiously broad, emphasizing the principles common to all the Reformed communities, and it is, therefore, necessary to turn to Article XXXVI for the specific Church of England view of the ministry.

      The Article was probably directed against the Anabaptists, who went to the extreme of denying the need of any public authority and recognition of ministry, urging that anyone could become a minister since Divine illumination was sufficient. [“Similis est illorum amentia, qui institutionem ministrorum ab Ecclesia disjungunt, negantes in certis locis certos doctores, pastores atque ministros collocari debere; nec admittunt legitimas vocationes, nec solemnem manuum impositionem, sed per omnes publice docendi potestatem divulgant, qui sacris literis utcunque sunt aspersi et Spiritum sibi vendicant; nec illos solum adhibent ad docendum, sed etiam ad moderandam Ecclesiam et distribuenda sacramenta; quae sane universa cum scriptis Apostolorun manifeste pugnant” (Reformatio Legum, De Haeresibus, c. 16).]

I – The Fact of the Ministry

      It should be observed at the outset that the Article refers to ministry in the “congregation” or “church,” and therefore has nothing to do with what may be called private or unofficial ministry for Christ.

      That there is such a thing in the New Testament as ministry is obvious, and the only question is as to its character.  Prior to the Day of Pentecost our Lord’s teaching and action pointed in the direction of men rather than institutions, of character rather than organization, and yet there was an inevitable association of men with Himself.  Such illustrations as “salt” and “light,” and such metaphors as “city,” “flock,” “kingdom,” dearly imply unity in relation to Himself.  But thus far no trace can be found of a definite constitution, everything being left to the Holy Spirit as the Guide into all truth.

      Another point of great importance is that the modern distinction between clergy and laity is not found in the New Testament, since κληρος means “the people of God” (1 Pet. 5:3, Greek).  Yet there is a clear distinction between special ministries within the Church and the general service of the whole Church; the differences in the New Testament are of gifts and functions, not of office and order.

      1.  The Source of Ministry. – Concentrating attention on the time following the Day of Pentecost we observe that ministry comes from a Divine gift (Eph. 4:11, 12).  Christians were first disciples (John 1:37), and then more specifically “ministers” (Mark 3:14).  All true ministry starts here. [Nothing need be said in the present connection of the society of Jewish believers that existed before Christ came.  We are concerned with the specific Christian Church and ministry.]

      2.  The Proof of Ministry. – This is found in a recognition of the Divine equipment to ministry on the part of the existing body of believers, just as we see it in connection with the seven who were recognized by the Christians at Jerusalem as men fitted for the work (Acts 6:3).  This, of course, involves spiritual perception on the part of the Church.

      3.  The Commission of Ministry. – This is seen in the appointment or ordination, by the existing ministry, of the divinely equipped and ecclesiastically recognized men.  Again, an illustration is afforded in the story of the seven who were both selected by the Jewish Church and commissioned by the Apostles (Acts 6:1–6).  The same principle is observed elsewhere (Acts 14:23, Tit. 1:5).  The words used in connection with this commission are χειροτονειν, and καθιστάναι.  The original idea seems to have been a “show of hands,” or a “lifting up of hands in benediction,” and it was only a long time afterwards that the meaning of the words was changed from appointment to ordination in the technical sense. [Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Vol. II, p. 1501 f.; Article, “Ordination.”]  It is clear that the laying on of hands, whatever it meant, was not by the Apostles alone (1 Tim. 4:13, 14), and the true idea of the laying on of hands seems to be that of benediction, following the Old Testament analogy.*  St. Augustine associates the action of the laying on of hands with prayer, and so does the Roman Catholic Church.  It is noteworthy that Pope Leo XIII said that the laying on of hands has no significance in itself. [C. A. Scott, Evangelical Doctrine Bible Truth, p. 240.]

      [*“Another question which goes to the root of the matter is that as to the significance of the laying on of hands.  It is, no doubt, a widespread idea that this denotes transmission – the transmission of a property possessed by one person to another.  But it cannot really mean this.  It is a common accompaniment of ‘blessing’ – i.e. of the invoking of blessing.  It is God who blesses or bestows the gift; and it is in no way implied that the gift is previously possessed by him who invokes it.  True, that ‘the less is blessed of the greater’; but that does not mean that the greater imparts a blessing.  When we come to think of this, it seems clear enough; and the inference suggested is one for which we may be thankful.  It may save us from some mechanical and unworthy ways of conceiving historic continuity, which is just as real without them” (Sanday, The Conception of Priesthood, p. 167; cf. p. 56 f.).

      “Highly probable that (as a matter of fact) laying on of hands was largely practiced in the Ecclesiae of the Apostolic Age as a rite introductory to ecclesiastical office.  But as the New Testament tells us no more than what has been already mentioned, it can hardly be likely that any essential principle was held to be involved in it” (Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 216).]

      So far we notice that the New Testament conception of ministry is first of all that of a gift, and only afterwards of an office.  Spiritual qualification comes first and ecclesiastical commission follows.  If the second is emphasized apart from the first the result will be spiritual disaster; if the first is emphasized without the second there will be ecclesiastical disorder.  The normal idea of New Testament ministry is the exercise of the spiritual gift in the ecclesiastical office.

      The Article takes up the ministry at the third point, emphasizing the external call following the inward equipment.  “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.”  The inward requirement is not mentioned here because it is necessarily assumed, and is therefore stated in the Ordinal, the ordination being the recognition of the inward call and qualification.  The Article speaks of men being “called” and “sent” by those “who have public authority to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.”  The Latin equivalents expressive of the power of commission are interesting and significant: co-optati et adsciti.  The ordination is by men “co-opted” and “adopted” for this work.  It is generally understood that the distinction between “called” and “sent” is between the general summons into the ministry, and the commission to exercise it in a particular place.

II – The Purpose of the Ministry

      1.  The Work of the Ministry is two-fold, Evangelization and Edification (Eph. 4:11, Greek).  The New Testament is quite clear on this point.  The minister, in the words of the Ordinal, is to “seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for His children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever.”  This includes the winning and the watching of souls, the bringing them into the Kingdom, and the building of them up in their most holy faith.  It is impossible to read the New Testament without seeing that the minister is beyond everything a preacher and a teacher of the Gospel.  The various titles connected with the ministry show the paramount importance placed on the ministry of the Word. [Thus, the minister is a “herald,” an “evangelist,” a “witness,” an “ambassador,” a “servant,” a “shepherd,” a “teacher”.  The various verbs used to express the work of the ministry point in the same direction: to “evangelize,” to “announce,” to “herald,” to “reason,” to “teach,” to “testify”.]

      2.  The New Testament is clear that government is no part of the purpose of the ministry.  Even St. Paul said: “Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy” (2 Cor. 1:24).  While ministers are spoken of in terms of great respect, and obedience to them is urged (Heb. 13:7, 17), yet this never went as far as government of the Church by the ministry.  This is not vested in the ministry alone, or in the people alone, but in both combined, in the Church as a whole.  Following the New Testament precedent the laity, as we understand the term, have a voice in the selection of their clergy, but not in the actual ministerial commission.  This idea of government of the Church by the whole Church is seen in the Synodical arrangements of the Episcopal Churches of the United States, Ireland, Canada, and Australia.  It was the ideal, and also the actual, arrangement made at the Reformation for the English Church, when Convocation and Parliament represented the entire community of clergy and laity.  It is the confusion connected with Establishment in England that now makes the realization of this ideal impossible.

      3.  Nor is mediation any proper part of the purpose of the Christian ministry.  The New Testament never uses the word “priest” to describe the minister.  Indeed, in the singular number it is only found of Christ, and His Priesthood is said to be “undelegated” or “intransmissible” (Heb. 7:24).  When it is used of the Church it is always in the plural, “priests” (Rev. 1:6), or collectively, “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5).  The truth, therefore, is that Christianity is, not has, a priesthood.  The silence of the New Testament on this point is a simple and yet significant fact.  It is what Bishop Lightfoot calls “the eloquent silence of the Apostolic writings.” [Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry, p. 3.]  And if it be said that the question is not one of words, but of things, Bishop Lightfoot may again be quoted: “This is undeniable, but words express things, and the silence of the Apostles still requires an explanation.” [Lightfoot, ut supra, p. 129.]  Neither the name nor the thing is found in the New Testament idea of the Christian ministry, and the reason is that it is irreconcilable with the letter and spirit of Apostolic Christianity.  In regard to the priesthood “Christianity stands apart from all the older religions,” for it is “the characteristic distinction of Christianity” to have no such provision. [Lightfoot, ut supra, p. 3.]  Three things invariably go together; priest, altar, and sacrifice, and where there is no offering there is no need of an altar; where there is no altar there is no sacrifice; where there is no sacrifice there is no priest.  As Hooker says: “Sacrifice is no part of the Christian ministry.” [See Dimock, The Sacerdotium of Christ, pp. 79–81.]  The New Testament is clear as to the absence of sacrifice, and in regard to the absence of an altar, Bishop Westcott points out that the term “altar” in Heb. 13:10 is inapplicable to the Lord’s Table, and, indeed, incongruous.  He remarks that any such application to a material object would have been impossible in the early days.  To the same effect, Lightfoot points out that St. Paul had a special opportunity of using the word “altar” in connection with the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10), but that he quite evidently avoided it.

      It is sometimes said, however, that our Lord’s words in St. John 20:19–23 constituted the ministry a priesthood.  First of all, it is now generally recognized that these words were spoken not to the ministry only, but to the whole Church as there represented. [This was admitted by all members of the Fulham Round Table Conference, 1901.]  Then the question arises as to whether in any case the words can possibly be made to mean a sacerdotal priesthood.  There seems to be some confusion in such an interpretation.  A priest is one who represents man to God (Heb. 5:1), just as a prophet is one who represents God to man (Exod. 7:1).  The passage is clearly to be understood of a messenger from God to man, and this is the function of a prophet, not a priest.  So that to speak of priestly absolution is really a contradiction, since the Old Testament priest never absolved, and absolution as a message from God to man is the work of a prophet, not of a priest.  The title of a modern book, Ministerial Priesthood,” [By Dr. Moberly.] is therefore strictly a contradiction in terms, because a ministry is not necessarily a priesthood; indeed, the representative character of the Christian ministry is not a priesthood at all.  It is a beautiful and ingenious theory that the Church, like Christ, is priestly, and that therefore its ministers are the organs of the Church’s priesthood, but this is really illusive, because it contains the doctrine of a special and specialized priesthood which is subversive of the New Testament priesthood of believers.  Lightfoot explains the silence of the New Testament by pointing out that as there were no more sacrifices there were no more priests.  It is only too easy to fall into fallacy and confusion by noticing how a view of ministerial priesthood develops from simple representation into substitution. [Falconer, From Apostle to Priest, p. 283; Dulles. The True Church, pp. 245–247.]

      The only passage approaching the idea of priestliness in ministerial functions is found in St. Paul’s words concerning his own ministry (Rom. xv. 16). But the passage is quite evidently metaphorical, with preaching as the function and the Gentiles as the offering. On any showing the passage has no connection whatever with a “ priest “ offering or sacrificing the Holy Eucharist.

      We, therefore, return to the New Testament view of the ministry, and call renewed attention to the striking fact of its absolute silence as to any special order of priests.  The evidence taken separately in its parts is striking, but as a whole it is cumulative and overwhelming.*  There is no function of the Christian priesthood which cannot be exercised by every individual believer at all times.  Differences of function in the ministry exist, but none in the priesthood.  It is almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of this simple, striking, and significant silence of the New Testament, that priestly mediation is no part of the purpose of the Christian ministry.**

      [*Bishop Westcott is reported to have observed in some of his lectures at Cambridge that the avoidance of the familiar term, “priest,” was the nearest approach he knew to verbal inspiration.  Some would venture a step further and take it as the unmistakable example of the superintending control of the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Scriptures.  Humanly speaking the chances of avoiding the use of the word “priest” were almost insuperable; indeed, we may almost say, that to refuse to explain it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit is to require for its explanation what is virtually a miracle of human thought, foresight, and pre-arrangement among several writers.]

      [**Perhaps it may be thought necessary to give special attention to “We have an altar” in Heb. 13:10.  The writer is a Jew, addressing Christian Jews in danger of apostasy.  The theme is a contrast of the two dispensations, the Christians being regarded as “better” and “eternal” by reason of the non-repetition of sacrifices, priests, etc.  Then the writer turns to the most important festival of the Jewish religion, the Day of Atonement, and shows the analogy between the sin offering and Christ.  There is no emphasis on the “we,” and the true interpretation must be: “We Jews have an altar at which the priests who serve the tabernacle are not permitted to eat.”  It is impossible to associate the Holy Communion with a passage whose main point is a reference to “eat not”.  But in any case it cannot refer to the Lord’s Supper, because such an idea would be contrary to the fundamental principles for which the whole Epistle contends.  Everything in Judaism is shown to be spiritually fulfilled in Christ, and a reference to an ecclesiastical ordinance would be subversive of the very truths already insisted on.  The word “altar” is found fourteen times in the Gospels and Epistles referring to the Jewish temple, and seven in the Apocalypse referring to heaven.  It is never once associated with the Holy Communion, and, as already noted, Westcott points out that such an use would have been impossible in New Testament times.  Even Bishop Wordsworth, speaking of the terms “altar” and “priest” in the time of Tertullian, says: “Perhaps it would be impossible to find distinct earlier authority for either word” (The Ministry of Grace, p. 133).]

      In view of the foregoing it is sometimes asked why the term “priest” should have been retained in the Prayer Book, especially as it is well known that the word “altar” has been omitted since the Prayer Book of 1552.*  The question is one of history, and calls for the careful attention of all the pertinent facts of the case.  The English word “priest” has to do duty for two quite different sets of ideas and terms; πρεσβύτερος, “elder” and ιερεύς, “priest”.  Lightfoot points out that it is a significant fact that in those languages which have only one word to express the two ideas, this word etymologically represents the word “presbyter,” and not sacerdos; French, prêtre; German, priester; English, priest; thus showing that the sacerdotal idea was imported, not original.  The question at once arises, which of these two ideas was intended by the Prayer Book.  It is a question of fact and must be tested by all the available information.

      [*It is well known that the Prayer Book of 1549 retained the term “altar,” but it was removed in 1552, and has never been reintroduced.  The action of the Reforming Bishops was in exact accordance with this omission, for in the reign of Edward VI altars were removed and tables substituted (Bishop Ridley’s Injunctions, 1550).  Then under Mary, altars were restored, and under Elizabeth were once more removed and tables returned.  See Injunctions of Parker and Grindal, and Canon 82 of 1603.  The explanation is quite simple: an altar involved a sacrifice while a table implies a feast.  An altar can be a table (Mal. 1:12), but a table can never be an altar.  And anything that was placed on an altar for sacrifice was never afterwards removed for the purpose of being eaten.]

      1.  Significant changes were made in the Holy Communion Service of 1552, showing an entire absence of anything sacerdotal and sacrificial.

      2.  The Ordinal of 1662 is described as “The Form and Manner of Ordering of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons.” [Dr. Ince, a former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, says that the term “priests” is but the English for “presbyters” writ small, “and substantially corresponds to the pastors and teachers of primitive times” (Sermon on The Scriptural and Anglican View of the Functions of the Christian Ministry, p. 11).]  To the same effect are the words of Hooker: “Whether we call it a priesthood, a presbytership, or a ministry, it skilleth not.” [Eccl Pol., V, Ch. LXXVII, Section 3.]

      3.  In harmony with this the Latin Version of the Prayer Book, by Dean Durel, 1670, a few years after 1662, an almost official production, renders the term by presbyterus.

      4.  The word “priest” is frequently interchanged with “minister,” as may be seen from the rubric before and after the Absolution at Morning Prayer, after the Creed, and before and after the Consecration Prayer in Holy Communion.

      5.  Nor is it without point that priests are entirely omitted from the Te Deum, which Blunt, in his annotated edition of the Prayer Book, regards as an argument for the extreme antiquity of that Song of Praise.

      6.  In Article XXXII, while the title speaks of “The Marriage of Priests” (Sacerdotum), doubtless referring to the Roman Catholic custom of celibacy, the Article itself refers to the three Orders, and describes them as Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons.”

      7.  It is scarcely possible to overlook the significance of the change of usage in the versicle from Psa. 132:16 from “Let Thy priests be clothed with righteousness” to “Endue Thy ministers with righteousness.”

      8.  The Roman Catholic Church gives her “priests” power to “offer sacrifices”.  But this is entirely absent from our Ordination Service. [Dr. Ince points out that this “is not one of the powers ... committed to the Anglican priest.”  He goes on to remark that our Reformers had been accustomed to the phraseology of the Sarum Ordinal, and that: “It cannot have been without significance that no counterpart to these expressions is found in the Reformed Ordinal.  Our Reformers must have held the view which Hooker unhesitatingly asserted that sacrifice is now no part of the Christian ministry” (Ince, ut supra, pp. 12, 13).]

      In view of these considerations, together with the fact that there is nothing sacerdotal provided in the ministry of our Church, it seems clear that the word “priest” can only be equivalent to “presbyter,” and, as such, expresses the evangelistic and pastoral ministry associated with the Presbyterate in the New Testament. [While this is undoubtedly the proper interpretation, it is quite open to believe with Hooker that the word “presbyter” is more suitable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than “priest”: “What better title could there be given them than the reverend name of “presbyters” of fatherly guides?  The Holy Ghost throughout the body of the New Testament, making so much mention of them, doth not anywhere call them Priests” (Eccl. Pol., Bk. V, Ch. LXXVIII).      ]

      In spite of all this it is said that the use of St. John 20:22, 23 in the Ordinal carries with it sacerdotal authority and functions.  Dr. Pusey was accustomed to say that the Confessional is built up on these words.  But, as we have seen, it is now admitted with practical unanimity that these words were spoken to the whole Church, as there represented, and form St. John’s account of the great commission found in all the Gospels.  When we turn to the Book of Acts we find that this, and this alone, was the work done (chs. 2, 8, 10, 13).  Further, private confession was unknown for centuries, and these very words were not in any Ordinal until the thirteenth century, and even then were no essential part of the words of ordination.  This makes Cranmer’s deliberate retention of them, while rejecting other words and customs, all the more significant, because of their close adherence to Scripture as part of Christ’s commission.  The Prayer Book “priest” is, therefore, “presbyter,” and corresponds to the prophet declaring the will of God.  As already noticed, absolution is the work of the prophet, not of the priest.  Keble took a similar position to Pusey in saying that it is impossible to get on without confession, and it is on this ground that these words are associated with priesthood today.

      But the action of our Church at the Reformation ought to be sufficient to show its mind.  First, there is the public confession in Daily Prayer and at Holy Communion; then there is the provision for the special case of a burdened soul before Holy Communion, though the wording, as distinct from that of the Prayer Book of 1549, shows quite clearly that there was no intention of a detailed and regular confession of sins.  The usage in the Visitation Office is on similar lines, for the clergyman prays for forgiveness, and (as based on St. Matt. 18:18) pronounces the absolution in regard to sins against the community.  The power was left to the Church, not to the Ministry.  The prayer for forgiveness significantly follows the pronouncement of the absolution.  All this is totally different from the teaching and practice of the Roman Church, which compels auricular confession as a practice flowing out of the Sacrament of Penance.  In the Church of Rome absolution is described by the word “judicium,” while with us we have its equivalent in “beneficium” by the ministration of God’s Word.

      It is, therefore, impossible to uphold confession from St. John 20, for if it means absolution after auricular confession, it must of necessity be connected with a spiritual discernment which enables a man either to “forgive” or “retain” sins.  We know that the Apostles had spiritual perception to see the condition of people like Ananias, Sapphira, and Elymas, but no such discernment exists now.  As the words are not found in any Greek Ordinal today, it is clear that they are not essential to Holy Orders, and their meaning in our own Ordinal can be illustrated from representative Churchmen like Whitgift, Becon, Hooker, and Jewel.  In modern days the testimonies of representative High Churchmen support the contention that auricular confession is no part of the English Church, and is not warranted by anything in our Ordination Service. [Bishop Jayne, Anglican Pronouncements; Prebendary Meyrick, Confession; Bishop Drury, Confession and Absolution, p. 347 ff.; Bishop Denton Thompson, Confession.  The first of these contains a number of testimonies, all proceeding from definite and representative High Churchmen.]

      It is quite impossible to suppose, because our Church has continued these three Orders of ministry, that therefore of necessity there must be the same sacerdotal functions as in the Middle Ages.  We have Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, but the Priests are Presbyteri not Sacerdotes.  Bishop Gore has admitted that sacerdotal terms are only found connected with the ministry at the end of the second century. [Gore, The Church and the Ministry.]  And Bishop Morton in his reply to Bellarmine very forcibly said that if the terms “priest,” “sacrifice,” and “altar” had been essential to the Christian ministry, they could not and would not have been concealed by the Apostles. [Dimock, The Christian Doctrine of Sacerdotium, pp. 74–77.]  This is a striking anticipation of the very argument emphasized by Moberly’s Ministerial Priesthood.

      4.  Returning to the study of the actual ministry, as seen in the New Testament and the Prayer Book, it is essentially pastoral, never mediatorial, but always concerned with the work of preaching, teaching, and guiding the flock.  The minister is a prophet from God to the people, and not a sacrificing or mediating priest, either in the old Jewish or in the mediaeval meaning of the term.  Such being the case, the ministry must never be considered apart from the Church as a whole.  While there is a general service of the entire Church there is also a specific ministry for the purpose of order and progress, but in all this the minister is a medium, not a mediator; a mouthpiece, not a substitute; a leader, not a director.  The idea of the Church always determines the form of the ministry, for the Church as a whole was prior to the ministry, and the minister was intended to serve the entire community.  We must; therefore, take the greatest possible care not to exalt the ministry above the community, for no ministry can fulfill its mission if it claims to control the Church.  The New Testament exalts the Body of Christ, and no trace can be found of any direct Divine determination of the precise development of the ministry.  Any isolation of the ministry, of whatever Order, is spiritually harmful as tending to make them unrepresentative of the Church.  The ministry only exercises its functions in connection with the Church.

III – The Form of the Ministry

      1.  This was gradually developed as it was needed.  At first there were Apostles only; then came Deacons (Acts 6), Evangelists (Acts 8), and Elders (Acts 11:30).  Everything was adapted to the needs of a growing body.  This is further seen in the difference between the lists of ministries in 1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11.  The ministry is thereby shown to be one of gifts rather than of offices.  With regard to the origin of elders, there is now a general agreement “that this is nothing else than the standing office of the Jewish synagogue transferred to the Christian Church.” [Sanday, The Conception of Priesthood, p. 59.]  There are no indications in the New Testament of any direct Divine guidance of the development of the ministry.  The suggestion that this was the subject of our Lord’s instructions during the Great Forty Days after His Resurrection is, of course, a mere hypothesis and is wholly unsupported by evidence.  It is impossible to explain the origin of the organization of the ministry or, indeed, anything else in this way.

      2.  In time, however, the ministry naturally settled down into two main forms, evangelistic and pastoral, with something like an oversight in connection with the position of St. James in Jerusalem (Acts 15).  But the pastoral ministry was concerned throughout with spiritual provision and organization, and possessing nothing sacerdotal in its functions.

      3.  Yet the terms “Presbyter” and “Bishop” are always interchangeable in the New Testament (Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1, I Tim. 3:1), and the term “Apostle” is applied not only to the Twelve, but also to St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and others.

      “The absence of any sharp boundary between the Twelve and the larger class who bore the same name involves the exclusive claim which is made for the Twelve in serious difficulties.” [Sanday, ut supra, p. 53.]

      Timothy and Titus evidently fulfilled temporary offices only, and are perhaps best regarded as Apostolic Delegates.  At most they represent “a movable episcopate”.  [Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry; Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 763 f.]  There is no evidence that the Twelve received a commission to govern the Church, and in any case the appointment of elders later on shows the association of these with the Apostles (Acts 15:6, 21:18).

      4.  The New Testament teaches a threefold function of ministry, not three distinct offices.  This is really all that can be derived from the New Testament as essential, as distinct from what may be regarded as advisable.  The term “Bishop” was, therefore, first of all descriptive of a function not an office. [Sanday, ut supra, p. 61.]  “The επίσκοποι of the New Testament have officially nothing in common with our Bishops.” [Alford, New Testament, Vol. III, p. 321 (Third Edition).]

      5.  There does not seem to be much doubt that the Christian ministry followed closely the analogy of the synagogue with its deacon, elder and president.  But whether this is so or not, there is no trace of any historical connection, or even ecclesiastical analogy between the Christian ministry and the Levitical priesthood.  It is sometimes said that the priesthood offers an exact parallel, and is therefore typical of the ministry.  But first of all there is no real parallel, because the High Priest was really only Primus inter pares.  Besides, the Levitical priesthood was typical of Christ, not of the ministry, and the New Testament teaches that this priesthood is entirely abolished because fulfilled in Him (Heb. 8:8, 9; 2 Cor. 3:6–16).  Christ’s work was to bring us to God, and everything in the Old Testament was fulfilled so completely in Him that there is no room and no need for more.  The question is not whether the powers of the ministry come short of those of the Old Testament priesthood, but whether they include them.  This is not only devoid of proof, but is absolutely opposed to the very genius of the Christian religion.  The first definite connection of the Christian ministry with the Levitical priesthood is seen in Cyprian, [Lightfoot, ut supra.] just as he is responsible for the first definite use of “altar” to describe the Holy Table. [Westcott, Hebrews, p. 418.]  When episcopacy is seen in Ignatius there is absolutely nothing sacerdotal in it.

IV – The Perpetuation of the Ministry

      Hitherto attention has been limited almost solely to the New Testament, but it is now essential to enquire how the ministry there defined and described can be guaranteed today.  How has it been perpetuated through the ages?  In three ways:–

      1.  By the act of God in continuing to bestow the spiritual equipment of ministry.  We see this in the first question in the Ordinal.  “Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Ministration, to serve God for the promoting of His glory, and the edifying of His people?”

      2.  By the attitude of the Church in continuing to recognize the spiritual gift of ministry.  This, too, is provided for in the Ordinal, in the opportunity given to the people to object to the candidate, and also in the request for congregational prayer.  This implies fellowship with God on the part of the Church, leading to spiritual perception.

      3.  By the action of the existing ministry in continuing to commission by Ordination, those who are seen to possess the Divine spiritual gift.

      From this it will be seen that continuance of ministry is primarily inward, and evil inevitably arises if emphasis is placed on the outward first.  Outward continuance alone is no guarantee of a proper ministry, as we see from the Jewish priesthood, where son followed father in direct line.  Spiritual fitness must, therefore, be emphasized first, and only then outward continuance and continuity.  The New Testament view of the laying on of hands, as already seen, is benediction and commission of authority, not transmission of power, and this meaning necessarily continues in the present use of the method.

      Following Article VI, it is necessary to insist that everything absolutely required for ministry must be found in the New Testament.  Bishop Gore admits that on two points the New Testament needs supplementing by the witness of the Church; the first being as to the exact division of ministerial functions, the second as to the exact form of the future ministry. [Gore, The Church and the Ministry (Fourth Edition), p. 246; see also his Orders and Unity, p. 83.  “It must be admitted that if the documents of the New Testament stood alone ... we should feel that ... the picture presented was confused, and that no decisive conclusion as to the form of the ministry could be reached.”]  This clearly shows that if the New Testament is to be regarded, as the Bishop says elsewhere, as “the testing ground of Christian doctrine,” we cannot regard as absolutely binding anything that is not found there.  Much else may be early, universal, and truly valuable, and yet not entirely essential.  The Church of England emphasizes the former of these truths by its insistence on the New Testament as fundamental, and signifies its adherence to the second by means of the historical continuity set forth in our Ordinal.

      So far we have been concerned with the New Testament requirements of ministerial continuity, but it is necessary to proceed further and to give attention to the witness of the early Church.  There is no proof in the New Testament of the Apostles appointing successors, so that what should be the strongest link in the chain is really the weakest, namely, the connection between the Apostles and their first successors. [Harrison, Whose are the Fathers?, p. 39.]  This is vital to any theory of precise visible continuity, making the words of Archbishop Whately true, that not a single clergyman can prove his succession from the Apostles. [Whately, Apostolic Succession Considered (New Edition), p. 94.]  The words of our Lord, “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you” (John 20:21), are obviously not conclusive, especially as the words were uttered in the presence of those who were not Apostles, and we know that the Twelve gave way to a wider body bearing this name.  Only once in the Acts and once in the Epistles (1 Cor. 15:5) do we read of the Twelve.  So that there is a threefold failure if we insist on outward continuity by Apostolic transmission; failure to prove (a) that the Apostles had absolute authority; (b) that St. Paul ever transmitted his authority to others to rule absolutely; (c) that Timothy and Titus recognized it as their duty to transmit authority to others.

      Then, again, the question is involved in the important problem as to how the Apostles exercised their authority.  Did our Lord give His authority to the Twelve, or, as the Roman Church maintains, to Peter alone as supreme?  The Roman claim is quite simple and easy if we accept the premise, but if we believe that Peter did not receive any authority beyond that which was given to the other Apostles, the question at once arises whether this authority was vested in the Twelve as individuals, or as a College.  If it be said that each Apostle could be the Head of an Apostolic Church, then there would be at least the possibility of twelve Apostolic Churches.  If, however, the Twelve were only authorized to act as a collective body we still require the historical proof that they ever constituted themselves, or were constituted, into a body to ordain successors.  This is a point which is not usually faced by the leading writers of today.  Bishop Wordsworth holds that the Apostles were a College and had not separate authority.

      There is abundant proof that the terms and offices of Bishops and Presbyters were interchanged until at least the time of Clement of Alexandria. [Gibson, ut supra, p. 741.]  Primitive Christianity was undoubtedly congregational, each local Church being autonomous, though with a definite consciousness of real spiritual unity with other Churches under Christ the Head.  Then came what may be called a Presbyterian form, and, lastly, an Episcopal.  Wordsworth admits that in some parts, “especially at Rome and Alexandria, there were at first only two Orders”; the governing Order acting normally as a corporate body, or College. [Wordsworth, ut supra, pp. 125–136.]  The Didache is clearly congregational, the local Church being addressed.  So also are the Canons of Hippolytus and the Apostolic Constitutions of the third century.  Each local community was as yet unconnected by any permanent organization with other Churches, though, nevertheless, all felt that they were one Church, the unity being spiritual, not ecclesiastical. [Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 168.]

      Great use is made of Clement of Rome, and three recent writers (Moberly, Hamilton, and Puller) adduce him as a witness to a succession based upon Apostolic transmission.  But Dr. Sanday is quite definite in his opinion that Clement is not hinting in any way at a transmission of powers. [Sanday, ut supra, p. 72; see also Henson, Godly Union and Concord, pp. 33–40.]

      The witness of Ignatius is, of course, of great importance, but it is essential to be careful not to misconstrue it and to derive from it what it does not convey.  The following points seem clear:–

      (a) The fact of episcopacy in Asia Minor by the time of Ignatius, 120.

      (b) And yet it is purely congregational.  Ignatius is attacking separatists who disobeyed an existing order, and is not referring to other Churches which may have had another order.  This congregational aspect is now admitted by scholars. [Sanday, ut supra; Gore, The Church and Ministry. pp. 94, 102; Thompson, The Historic Episcopate, p. 183.]  Ignatius bases episcopacy on two grounds: (1) Fitness.  It is in harmony with the teaching of the Gospels, being regarded as analogous to Christ, while the Presbyters correspond to the Apostles.  (2) Direct revelation to himself.  “The Spirit said.”  This argument is often overlooked, for, of course, it proves too much to claim direct Divine authority in this way.  Two important testimonies to the real meaning of Ignatius may be adduced: (1) Lightfoot shows clearly that there is nothing sacerdotal in the Ignatian episcopacy; (2) Gwatkin shows the true meaning of the urgency used by Ignatius.

      “Time after time he insists, ‘Obey the Bishop,’ and presses it in every way he can.  His urgency has not been exaggerated; and, indeed, it hardly can be exaggerated.  So much the more significant is the absence of the one decisive argument which would have made all the rest superfluous.  With all his urgency, he never says, Obey the Bishop as the Lord ordained, or as the Apostles gave command.  Even if this is not always the first argument of a man who believes it, he cannot get far without using it.  The continued silence of so earnest an advocate as Ignatius is a plain confession that he knew of no such command: and the ignorance of one who must have known the truth of the matter would seem decisive that no such command was given.” [Gwatkin, Early Church History, Vol. I, p. 294.]

      Thus, Ignatius, while proving the early evidence of a real episcopacy in Asia Minor, gives no indication either of sacerdotalism, or even of anything like the monarchical and diocesan episcopates.  The fact of continuity is clear as a matter of history without any association with a specific doctrine of what is now called Apostolic Succession.  Bishop Wordsworth has the following conclusion as to the ministry.

      “While the ministry had a primitive origin its development in orders proceeded at an uneven rate.  There was a longer duration of the charismatic ministry in some places than in others, as well as persistence as a reserve force latent in the episcopacy.  There was a general tendency to monarchical episcopacy, but not always in the same form or date.”  [Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, p. 7.]

      The fact that Presbyters and Bishops were one and the same is the ruling factor in the early years of the second century.  According to Jerome this was the case in the Apostles’ time, and Jerome’s position has never been seriously assailed.  Then to prevent schism the usage gradually grew up which made the chief care of the Church devolve upon one person, who was called a Bishop or an Overseer.  This gradual development was partly natural and legitimate, and partly a declension from New Testament standards.  (1) It indicated a lack of spirituality, as the consciousness of Christ’s presence faded; (2) It was due to political circumstances, the Church being largely fashioned on the State.  (3) It expressed a natural tendency towards the present life and progress of the Church.  (4) It was largely the result of the personal character of particular men.  (5) It was also explicable by circumstances calling for unity.  Error seems to have arisen by confusing between superintendency or overseership and a Bishop jure divino.  The fact of superintendency is no proof of a superior order, and when the Fathers mentioned Bishops it only proves the fact of superintendence, not superiority of order.  This is clear in Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and even Irenaeus.

      Reviewing the second century, we see the gradual and natural growth and differentiation of the ministry  There is no trace whatever of anything answering to an absolute and assured transmission of Divine powers from the Apostles.  Continuity and commission are seen everywhere, but the ministry throughout is evangelistic and pastoral, and with practically nothing sacerdotal in it.  It is not generally known how and when the sacerdotal idea became associated with the Christian ministry, but certainly the idea finds no warrant either in the New Testament or in the writers of the second century.  Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “the progress of the sacerdotal view of the ministry is one of the most striking and important phenomena in the history of the Church.” [Lightfoot, ut supra.]  But it is not until we come to Tertullian that we find any sacerdotal language, and even he is strong on the universal priesthood of all believers.  Bishop Lightfoot traces what he calls “the gradual departure from the Apostolic teaching in the encroachment of the sacerdotal on the pastoral and ministerial view of the clergy” [Lightfoot, ut supra.] until it culminated in Cyprian, to whom we owe the full, clear teaching which regards the ministry as essentially sacerdotal.

      It is not necessary to follow the history of the ministry further than Cyprian, except to say that the sacerdotal idea gradually grew stronger until it dominated the entire Church and came to a climax in the West in the Papacy.  It was in connection with the sacerdotal aspect of the ministry that the doctrines of Transubstantiation and Auricular Confession became imposed upon the Church.

V – The Anglican View of the Ministry

      1.  The first point of importance is found in a careful comparison of the Ordinal with the Roman Catholic Pontficale.  Of seven particulars in the latter only one now remains; the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” etc. [Dimock, Article, “Ordinal,” Protestant Dictionary, p. 474.]  It is all the more striking that the Church of England alone retained these words, especially since it is now known that they are not to be found in any Ordinal before the thirteenth century.  It would seem clear that they are to be interpreted by the words that immediately follow: “and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word and Sacraments.”  Bishop Andrewes says that they refer to function and not to internal quality. [Dimock, ut supra.]  The fact that this Scriptural passage is retained in our Ordinal makes the rejection of the other six particulars all the more significant.  The doctrinal meaning is thus quite clear.  All Anglican Liturgies, Catechisms, Homilies, and writers bear witness to the removal of mediaevalism, thereby causing “a doctrinal gulf” between the Church of Rome and ourselves.  It is not surprising that Rome rejects our Orders as invalid, because they must of necessity be null and void in the absence from the Ordinal of the distinctive features of the Roman priesthood.  Nothing could be more definite or significant than the removal from our Ordinal of the gift of the sacramental vessels to the newly ordained, and the omission of the words said at the same time: “Take thou authority to offer sacrifices for the living and the dead.”

      2.  We have already noted the omission of the term “altar,” from the Anglican formularies, and the true meaning of the retention of the term “priest”.

      3.  The studied breadth and generality of statement in the Articles concerning the ministry is recognized by all, and it is significant that amid the acute controversies of the Reformation period the terminology of these Articles was never modified.  Bishop Gibson recognizes the fact that these documents are remarkably silent on the question of episcopacy even when they might have been reasonably expected to shed some light. [Gibson, ut supra, p. 744.]  This breadth of view is in entire harmony with the well-known attitude of Cranmer to non-episcopalian Reformers in his day, and the wording of the present Article, emphasizing the need of an external call to the ministry, is couched in terms that would be accepted by all communities which possessed any ministry.  Article XXXVI has the same general attitude, as is evident from the following admission:–

      “Certainly all that the actual terms of the Article now under consideration bind us to is this: that Episcopacy is not in itself superstitious or ungodly.  This amounts to no more than saying that it is an allowable form of Church government, and leaves the question open whether it is the only one.  This question is not decided for us elsewhere in the Articles; for even where we might have reasonably expected some light to be thrown upon it we are met with a remarkable silence. ... The Articles, then, leave us without any real guidance on the question whether Episcopacy is to be regarded as necessary.” [Gibson, ut supra, p. 744 f.]

      On this several points of importance call for attention.

      (1) Holy Scripture is associated with “ancient authors,” and this, together with the expression, “Had in reverend estimation,” indicates a very different attitude and tone from that of Article VI, which insists upon the supremacy of Scripture for all essential doctrine. [“The sovereign position of the Holy Scriptures having been once established, the Reforming divines gladly appealed to antiquity.  They did so with confidence.  The support of antiquity enormously strengthened their position in the great controversy of the day.  They appealed to antiquity against the usurpation of Papal authority; they appealed to antiquity against the corruptions of mediaevalism” (Ryle, On the Church of England, p. 20).]

      (2) The opening sentence of the Preface comes from the pen of Cranmer, who was in constant fellowship with non-episcopalians, and this, together with the association of Scripture with “ancient authors,” seems to show that while our Reformers naturally and rightly maintained the episcopacy which they themselves possessed, they did not by word or deed do anything to reflect on other Reformers or Churches, where for any reason episcopacy was impossible.

      (3) The wording of the Preface is marked by extraordinary caution, for there is no definition of the Apostles, no reference to a distinct Order of Bishops as superior to Presbyters, no reference to any universal establishment of the three Orders from the Apostles’ time, and entire silence as to the crucial point of the method of ordaining Bishops.

      4.  In harmony with all this the first rubric in the Ordering of Priests and Deacons is significant, for while a sermon is ordered, showing the necessity of Deacons and Presbyters in the Church, there is no such rubric ordering a sermon, stating the necessity of Bishops.  This dates from 1662, and is the more significant when the facts are considered.  The Ordinal of 1552 directed an “exhortation declaring ... how necessary such orders (Bishops, Priests, and Deacons) are in the Church of Christ.”  This wording might fairly be thought to support the theory of the necessity of Bishops.  But in the last revision this was removed and separate rubrics were inserted in the offices for the ordination of priests and deacons.  And lest it should be thought that the omission of a corresponding rubric in the office for Bishops was an oversight, it may be pointed out that the Consecration Service does mention a sermon, but only as part of the Holy Communion Office.

      5.  It must never be forgotten that the act of Ordination confers authority to perform duties, not power.  The word “ordain” in English is the translation of no less than twelve very different Greek words, all suggesting some kind of causation, appointment, or selection. [Jacob, Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, p. 116, and Note; Litton, The Church of Christ (First Edition), p. 565, Note; Dimock, ut supra, p. 474 f.]  Since, therefore, spiritual power comes from God, it is clear that Ordination was intended only to give ministerial authority; that is, authority to use the gifts and powers, but certainly not by that act conferring them.

      6.  It is well known that Cranmer, the author of the first sentence and nearly the whole of the entire paragraph of the Preface, expressly maintained that Presbyters and Bishops were originally identical, and that the development that made them distinct and gave Bishops rule over Presbyters was of human origin.  It is hardly likely, therefore, that he would intend by this statement an entirely different view of episcopacy. [In 1540 Henry VIII submitted to Commissioners appointed to draw up a statement of Christian Doctrine seventeen questions, of which the tenth was Whether Bishops or Priests were first; and if the Priests were first then the Priest made the Bishop.  Answers came from both parties on the Commission, Cranmer’s being that “the Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things, but were both one office in the time of Christ’s religion.”  This was the belief of all parties in the Elizabethan Church down to 1589.  Thus, Jewel writes to Harding, endorsing Jerome’s words that “a Priest and a Bishop is all one thing,” adding that before the working of evil in the Church “the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Priests.”]

      7.  In the original Ordinal before 1662 there was no difference in the words for ordaining Bishops and Presbyters, and the same passages of Scripture were used for both.  It is particularly noteworthy that up to 1662 the well-known passages in St. John 20 and St. Matt. 28, which are now the stronghold of those who believe in an Apostolic Succession through Bishops, were used in the Ordinal for Priests.

      8.  When the distinction was made in 1662, in the two Services there was no difference in principle, but only of detail and arrangement, because Article XXXVI declares the first Ordinal sufficient, and those ordained by it validly ordained.

      9.  The question is not whether Bishops are a distinct class, but whether this is so because they are a superior Order by Divine right.  Was the distinction of class made by Divine authority, or was it only an ecclesiastical arrangement by way of development?

      10.  In the Church of Rome Bishops and Priests were regarded as of the same Order for centuries before the Reformation, and even the Council of Trent refused to acknowledge the Divine right of Bishops.  All that they were concerned with was the Hierarchy, with the Pope as the Head, so that what is now often claimed for Bishops in the Anglican Church is claimed for the Pope, a distinct and fundamental difference of Order.

      11.  It must never be forgotten that, as already noticed, ministry derives its sanction from the entire Church, of which it is regarded as the representative.  This is the “most fundamental principle in the Anglican theory of Orders.” [Blunt, Studies in Apostolic Christianity, pp. 73–76.]

      12.  In addition to, and illustrative of the principles laid down in the Articles and Ordinal, it is essential to consider the views and actions of those who were responsible for our formularies, and also those who may be regarded as proper representatives of the Church.

      (1) It is well known that Cranmer endeavoured to effect a union with the non-episcopal Reformers, 1548–1552, and the Articles on the Church and Ministry are a standing testimony to his view.  His association with a Lasco, Peter Martyr, and Martin Bucer confirm this position.

      (2) The correspondence between our divines and those of the Swiss Churches in the time of Elizabeth indicates a fundamental unity of doctrinal view.

      (3) The earliest books on the Articles, by Rogers and Burnet, plainly state the same fundamental agreement.  Rogers, as the Chaplain of Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, who himself saw and approved of the book, is particularly noteworthy.

      (4) It is also well known that in 1570 an Act was passed, making it easy for men in Presbyterian Orders to hold livings in the English Church, and Travers, the companion of Hooker, when attacked for having only foreign Orders, took his stand upon this very Act.

      (5) In 1580 the English Church authorities allowed a community of Huguenots to have a Service in Canterbury Cathedral, and this remains to the present day.

      (6) In 1585 the Bishop of London issued an order to his clergy to provide themselves with Bullinger’s Decades, and to read a portion every week.  The Convention of 1586 issued a similar order to the junior clergy.

      (7) In 1603 the Canon ordering the Bidding Prayer included a reference to the Church of Scotland, which at the time was Presbyterian, not Episcopalian, since episcopacy was not introduced into Scotland until 1610.

      (8) In 1619 King James I sent three representative men to the Calvinistic (Presbyterian) Synod of Dort.

      (9) Laud was the first to question the validity of non-episcopal Orders, and was rebuked for so doing.

      (10) Bishop Overall fully recognized Presbyterian Orders, and admitted a Presbyterian into the English Church.

      (11) Casaubon, the intimate friend of Bishop Andrewes, received the Communion at the hands of that Prelate, though he himself was a foreign Protestant and unconfirmed.  Mark Pattison in his Life of Casaubon, says: “Before the rise of the Laudian school the English Church and the Reformed Churches of the Continent mutually recognized each other as sisters.”

      (12) Bishop Cosin’s words and actions are particularly noteworthy because he was so representative a High Churchman.  When in exile in France he kept up a friendly intercourse with Protestant ministers.  He advised his friends to communicate when on the Continent at the Reformed Church and not at the Roman altars, and in 1650 he wrote quite definitely to the effect that a minister ordained in the French Church would not be reordained when entering ours, all that would be required would be the subscription to the Articles.

      (13) The testimonies of Archbishop Sancroft, 1688, various authorities in the eighteenth century, and Archbishop Howley in the nineteenth, all point in the same direction, while the earliest missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel were only in Lutheran Orders.

      (14) The doctrine of “No Bishop, no Church” did not come into the English Church as part of the heritage from the mediaeval Church of Rome.  It was not heard of for fifty years until after the time of Cranmer, and was due solely to the exigencies of controversy between Churchmen and Puritans in the closing days of Elizabeth’s reign.  The late Dr. Pocock, a well-known High Church historian, wrote that: – “The belief in the Apostolical Succession in the Episcopate is not to be found in any of the writings of the Elizabethan Bishops.” [The Guardian, 23rd November 1892.]

      The well-known statement of Keble in his preface to Hooker takes exactly the same line, for he points out that: – “The Elizabethan Bishops were content to show that government by Bishops is ancient and allowable; they never ventured to urge its exclusive claims or to connect the succession with the validity of the Holy Sacraments. ... Nearly up to the time when Hooker wrote, numbers had been admitted into the Ministry of the Church of England with no better than Presbyterian ordination.” [Pp. 59, 76.]

      (15) This was the prevailing view in the Church of England down to the Oxford Movement, and the present isolation dates from that time. [Henson, The Relation of the Church to the Other Reformed Churches, pp. 11, 18, 39.]

      (16) Efforts have been made to show that the Church of England did not officially recognize non-episcopal ministries from the time of Elizabeth to 1662, [Denney, The English Church and the Ministry of the Reformed Churches, p. 18 ff.] but this is only possible by ignoring the testimony of men like Bishop Hall, Fleetwood, Clarendon, Keble, [Wilson, Episcopacy and Unity, p. 83.] and Hallam.  The last-named points out that the narrow view commenced with Bancroft, but it never became part of the recognized and official doctrine. [Hallam, Constitutional History, Vol. I, p. 389 f.]

      (17) The simple question remains whether the leading Churchmen ever regarded foreign Orders as invalid.  Of this there is not only no proof, but very much to the opposite effect.  As Dr. Sanday has truly said: – “It should be distinctly borne in mind that the more sweeping refusal to recognize the non-episcopal Reformed Churches is not, and can never be made, a doctrine of the Church of England.  Too many of her most representative men have not shared in it.  Hooker did not hold it; Andrewes expressly disclaimed it; Cosin freely communicated with the French Reformed Church during his exile.  Indeed, it is not until the last half of the present century that more than a relatively small minority of English Churchmen have been committed to it.” [Sanday, ut supra, p. 95.]

      A full and long catena of authorities can be adduced in support of this position, and if representative men are of any account in a matter of this kind, the mind of the Church is revealed beyond all question. [“It would be easy to form a catena of our divines from the time of Archbishop Whitgift and Hooker, who, while they maintain the desirability of episcopal ordination deny its necessity; and who would echo the sentiment of Bishop Cosin, ‘Are all the Churches of Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Germany, France, Scotland, in all points of substance or circumstances disciplinated alike?  Nay, they neither are nor can be; nor yet need be, since it cannot be proved that any set and particular form is recommended to us by the Word of God.’  Bishop Hall writes: ‘Blessed be God, there is no difference in any essential matter betwixt the Church of England and her sisters of the Reformation.  Their public confessions and ours are sufficient conviction to the world of our full and absolute agreement.  The only difference is in the form of outward administration, wherein also we are so far agreed, as that we all profess this form not to be essential to the being of a Church, though much importing the well or better being of it according to our several apprehensions thereof, and that we do all retain a reverent and loving opinion of each other in our several ways, not seeing any reason why so poor a diversity should work any alienation of affection in us, one towards another’” (Macbride, Lectures on the Articles, p. 415).  See also Bacon and Burnet, quoted by Macbride, ut supra, p. 415.  See Goode, Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, Vol. II, pp. 247–348; Wilson, ut supra, passim.]

VI – Modern Controversies

      There are few subjects which give rise to greater differences of opinion today than the subject of the ministry, and yet it is only by careful consideration of various views that we can expect to arrive at the truth.

      1.  In the Anglican Church since the Tractarian Movement there have been two views in the Church of England.

      (1) One of these insists upon ministerial succession through the episcopate as an eternal fact and as the only guarantee of grace.  Popularly this view may be described in the words, “No Bishop, no Church.”  This conception was put forth by the leaders of the Tractarian Movement, and in one form or another is definitely held today. [By men like Bishop Gore, Canon Moberly, Rev. F. W. Puller, and many others.]  Now it is a simple matter of historical fact that this view was not held in the Church of England before the Tractarian Movement by any representative Churchmen of importance.

      (2) The other view accepts the historical fact of succession in the ministry, but refuses to make it of the esse of the Church and Sacraments.  Hooker takes this line, and Caroline divines, who are supposed to represent a definite High Church attitude, are not essentially different.  Even Laud writing against Fisher did not reject the validity of non-episcopal ordination.  We have already seen that this is the line taken by the Elizabethan Bishops, and it is the view held in substance by some of the leading scholars of the English Church. [Bishop Lightfoot, Dr. Sanday, and many more.]

      It must be evident that these views are not complementary, but contradictory, and until our Church really settles which of the two is correct, it is not possible for us to speak with a clear and certain voice on the subject of the ministry.  We have already seen that, according to representative admissions, the New Testament is not sufficient by itself without the witness of the primitive Church, and yet it would seem to be obvious from Article VI that anything which is not absolutely settled by the New Testament cannot be of the esse of the Church, however valuable and even essential it may be for proper administration and order. [Dr. Ince makes the following acknowledgment: “It must furthermore be honestly acknowledged that there are no directions in the New Testament which give to these officers the exclusive right of administering Church ordinances. ... It was the Church itself which confined the administration of the Sacraments to those who were ministers of the Word, and yet reserved to itself the power of relaxing in case of necessity the universality of this regulation, as in the case of lay baptism” (ut supra, p. 10).]  It is surely significant that of the three Orders, that which has the least Scriptural warrant of all should be regarded as essential to the existence of the Church.  Is there not something lacking in the historical evidence as well as in the logical attitude which requires such a position?  Devolution of functions is one thing; transmission of office is another.  The Apostles were originally everything and then their functions were devolved, but as they themselves were never technically Deacons, Priests, or Bishops, they could not transmit what they did not possess.  The Apostles were unique in their characteristics and requirements, and could not continue or transmit their office.  There is no proof that the Apostles instituted the episcopate to perpetuate their own order.

      Continuity is valuable, and no one wishes to destroy it or minimize its importance, but the nature of continuity needs to be carefully stated.  Can we think it according to the genius of a spiritual religion to make grace and sacraments depend on the outward laying on of hands? [“The well-known theory, that the continuity of God’s grace in the Church is externally secured by the Episcopal imposition of hands, that thus a conduit of grace, reaching back to the Apostles, is preserved and prolonged, has the merit of definite outline.  But it is questionable whether it has any other merit.  Not only does it seem to embody a remarkably mechanical and unspiritual conception of God’s grace, but also it cannot produce sufficient evidence from the Apostolic writings to substantiate it.  All that the evidence allows us to say is, that the threefold ministry was the system which the Church gradually developed as the representative organ of its corporate life” (Blunt, ut supra, p. 147).]  Besides, the logical outcome of the extreme view is the Papacy, or else episcopacy is for the diocese only and not for the Church. [Litton, ut supra, pp. 472 and 676.]

      2.  The questions connected with the ministry inevitably raise the problem of present-day non-episcopalians, and this calls for careful study along four lines.

      (1) The consideration of the facts of history.  How far is the Church to blame for at least some of the Nonconformist communities? [“The justification for much of the Nonconformity, which arose and increased in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was the fact that English Episcopacy did not, on the whole, do its work well, and provide comprehensively for the spiritual needs of the nation.  And, if it had continued to be untrue to its duty, it is arguable that the English people would have been in the right to reject it altogether, as they had rejected the Papal authority “ (Blunt, ut supra, p. 114).] – It is no doubt true that many of the Puritan objections were utterly trivial and frivolous, but at the same time it is impossible to approve of the policy of Queen Elizabeth and Archbishop Whitgift. [Bishop Creighton, speaking of the Elizabethan Church, has said: “It tended to lose the appearance of a free and self-governing body, and seemed to be an instrument of the policy of the State.  Its pleadings and its arguments lost half their weight because they were backed by coercive authority.  The dangerous formula ‘Obey the law’ was introduced into the settlement of questions which concerned the relations of the individual conscience and God” (Lectures and Addresses).]

      (2) The consideration of spiritual results. – It is impossible to avoid observing the actual facts of the present day concerning the comparative numbers and influence of various denominations.  It is well known that all over the world there are non-episcopal Churches and missions in no way inferior, and sometimes superior to those connected with episcopalian Communions.  Then the relative position of the various Churches in the Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire shows that the Anglican Church is sometimes far behind others in membership and missionary contributions.  How are we to account for these facts when we consider such questions as to whether episcopacy is of the esse or bene esse of the Church?  How are we to explain the marvelous development of Churches which have no episcopate, and therefore, on this view, no channel of grace?  To ordinary observers it would seem to be impossible that by a theory of Apostolic Succession millions of the most intelligent and devoted followers of Christ in the world are to be cut off from any real recognition as part of the true Catholic Church.  If the presence of the Holy Spirit is so manifest among these non-episcopal Christians, how can they possibly be rebellious against the will of God?  When we apply the test, “By their fruits ye shall know them,” non-episcopal Christianity will often be found at least equal to that which claims to be the only true expression of the will of God.  It is impossible to insist upon a precise form of Church government as the only true method unless it can justify itself by its works all over the world.

      (3) The consideration of the meaning of the word “validity”. – What precisely is to be understood by ministerial or sacramental validity?  If it be said that the demand is for assurance of grace, the question is at once raised, how this can be proved.  Surely only by fruit in the life. [“Let us get rid of the expression ‘validity’ of Orders and Sacraments.  Whether or no Orders and Sacraments are valid is after all something which we cannot settle.  What we should ask is whether they are ‘regular,’ that is to say, whether a particular body of Christians correctly interprets the mind of Christ declared to us by His Church in the fulfillment of His command to celebrate the Sacraments and to send out messengers of His Gospel. ... We have then to be sure not that the Sacraments of the Presbyterian bodies are valid, but that they are regular” (Church Quarterly Review, July 1908, p. 278).]  Even on the question of irregularity as distinct from invalidity the matter is by no means clear, because we have to face the question of what was the essential method of Ordination between A.D. 100 and A.D. 250.

      (4) The consideration of what is meant by Schism. – In the New Testament the word invariably means separation within, not from the body of believers, and when this primary idea is applied to ecclesiastical matters the results are profoundly significant.  Heresy in Scripture never bears its modern interpretation of false doctrine, but is a faction which divides the people of God.  Its sinfulness lies not in that which divides, but in the division, and for this reason the forcing of any doctrine or practice as a form of Communion compels division and is a sin of heresy.  This means that the schismatic is the one who raises barriers to communion which God has not raised, and thus the guilt of schism lies with those who impose the terms of fellowship, and not with the conscientious objector, who is thereby debarred from communion.*

      [*“What is the meaning of schism?  The ordinary point of view of one body of Christians when speaking of schismatics is to suggest that they are themselves the Church and all the others schismatics, that is, persons who have separated themselves from it.  Now historically that point of view cannot be held in any case.  To an impartial observer it is quite impossible to say that the Eastern Church separated from the West, or the West from the East.  They divided.  A division was caused and a schism was created, that is to say, a division in a body; so, at the time of the Reformation, a schism was created, or rather many schisms were created.  But it is not that this or that Church separated from the great body of the Church; a division was created in the body, sometimes large, sometimes small; and so in relation to ourselves and a body like the Wesleyans.  And if this be the proper point of view it is equally important to recognize that the sin of schism does not probably in any case lie wholly on one side or the other.  Neither Leo X nor Henry VIII can be considered entirely free from either moral or intellectual blame.  Even the strongest admirers of Luther cannot acquit him of blame.  We are not prepared to defend either the spiritual life of the Church of England in the eighteenth century, or the spiritual self-assertion of the Wesleyan movement.  Schism means sin in the past and needs penitence and reparation in the future” (Church Quarterly Review, July 1908, pp. 278, 279).]

      In the light of these considerations the problem of non-episcopal Christianity is not by any means so simple as is sometimes made out, and there is a real difference between pre-Tractarian and post-Tractarian Anglicanism on this point.  Noncomformity was, of course, decidedly opposed before Tractarian days, but not on grounds of the necessity of episcopacy and succession, but only by reason of the sin of separatism.  The exclusive view came in with Tractarianism, and to those who are not content with theory, but insist upon fact, it is impossible to conceive of Nonconformity with its overwhelming superiority in numbers, and its frequent equality (at least) in practical results all over the world, as ready to become absorbed into the Anglican Communion.  It is for this reason that we insist upon the view laid down by Dr. Sanday in referring to the Society of Friends: – “Any theory as to the nature of the Christian ministry must have its place for phenomena – for paradoxes, if we will – like these.” [Sanday, ut supra, p. 68.]

      3.  The question of the ministry is vitally associated with the relation of the Church of England to the Church of Rome.  From time to time we are urged not to do anything in the direction of non-episcopal Churches which might endanger the possibility of reunion with the Church of Rome and the Churches of the East.  But quite apart from the simple but significant fact that the Churches of the East do not recognize even our Baptisms, to say nothing of our Orders and doctrine, the Church of Rome has within recent years made a pronouncement about Anglican Orders which it might have been thought would have been more than sufficient to prevent any effort, or even hope in that quarter, apart from the stultification of everything that is associated with our Church since the sixteenth century.  The Church of Rome has a very simple method for Reunion, namely, the acceptance of the Papacy, and thereby absorption into the Roman Catholic system.  It has been aptly said that the Church of Rome spurns any idea of being a sister Church, and insists that she is nothing else than the Mother of Churches.  As long, therefore, as Rome is what she is, any thought of Reunion with her is wildly impossible. [Even Dr. Hamilton, who takes a definite Tractarian line on the subject of episcopacy, frankly admits that our first work is to consider the Protestant Churches, since these men are of the same blood and stock as ourselves: “As these divisions were the last to be opened, so they must be the first to be healed; and when they are closed, reunion with Rome and the Churches of the East may come within the sphere of practical possibilities” (The People of God, Vol. II, Preface, p. iv).]

      4.  The key to the situation is undoubtedly found in what is known as Apostolic Succession.  If this means simply a historical succession of ministers as a fact, thereby emphasizing the corporate and continuous idea as distinct from individualism and separatism, there can be no quarrel with it.  But this is not generally the case.  The usual meaning is that the ministry has descended from the Apostles by a continuous transmission, and that this is the guarantee of grace in the Sacraments.  But the latter doctrine is so vital that nothing but a plain Divine command could justify it, since, as it is usually understood, it is foreign to the Spirit of Christ and the New Testament. [It led Bishop Creighton to quote and endorse a statement made to him that “if this view be correct since the third century, there has been no Church, but only two classes of men, one offering, the other accepting, grace” (Letter to Dr. W. F. Cobb).]  It took shape in the second and third centuries when the world believed in the Divine right of kings.  Authority was supposed to be mediated through the monarchs, and in them through the people, and this civil doctrine passed into the Church and soon took form in the idea of a line from the Apostles.  But these times and ideas have passed.  Authority is no longer a matter of Divine right either in King or in Bishop.  The authority from Christ comes to the whole Church and not through any corporation of officials.  If one Order endeavours to subject the whole Church to itself, whether that Order is papal, or episcopal, or presbyterian, the result will be spiritual disaster.  The best way of meeting Apostolic Succession is a high doctrine of the Church.  It is only by ignoring the Divine position of the Church that we can at all obtain a sacerdotal view of the ministry.  There must be no isolation of any order of the ministry, as if this were the sole custodian of revelation.  The Apostles were unique and the New Testament ministry was not originated by devolution from them.  It was determined by spiritual gifts through the Spirit of God in the Church, so that the foundation of ministry is a gift, and both the call and the recognition of the gift were really spiritual, and together formed the authority for exercise.  We find this in St. Paul’s Epistles, and there is no trace of a man of gifts ever ordained to the ministry of them.  But as spiritual gifts decreased and the stated ministry became more prominent, so there came a transition from the ministry of gifts to the ministry of the pastoral office.  Yet there is nothing in the New Testament higher than Elders, and the New Testament Episcopus is a man with the function of the Elder.  The Apostles were not officers, or rulers of the Church, and although at the end of the second century the Church was centralized in its chief Pastor, yet it was impossible to claim Apostolic Succession in the modern sense.  Clement of Rome does not prove any transmission of the grace of Orders, and even Ignatius, while strong for episcopacy, nowhere connects the claim with any devolution from the Apostles.  He is only urgent against disunion.  Hence, primitive Christianity favours the Evangelical view of the Church and ministry.  If episcopacy was for the purpose of unity, only under particular circumstances, then departure from it would not destroy essential unity, e.g. Sweden and Germany are both Lutheran and yet one is episcopal.  The fact is that there is absolutely no proof of any such transmission as is involved in the use of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.  The first link is wanting, and there was no devolution.  The earliest Bishops were regarded as the representatives of Christ, and the Presbyters as the representatives of the Apostles, according to Ignatius, and it is now generally admitted that episcopacy was a gradual evolution of the second century arising out of the needs of the Church.  This process of development naturally raises the question whether episcopacy can possibly be regarded as an eternal institution, or whether it may not be treated as amenable to the Church that created or evolved it.

      It has already been shown that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession was not known in the Church of England for nearly fifty years after the Reformation, and there is no doubt that the vital point at issue today is that which was raised by the Tractarian Movement, but never before in the Church of England, the question of sacramental grace associated with a sacerdotal priesthood.  There does not seem to be room for compromise on this point.  Either the priest is necessary for the consecration of the elements by which in some way the presence of the Lord becomes attached, or else the clergyman, as minister, sets apart the elements for the purpose of becoming symbols of our Lord’s Body and Blood.  The latter is the New Testament, the former the medieval view.  Recent scholarship tends more and more to show that on purely historical grounds it is impossible to maintain the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. [E.g. Mr. Rawlinson, in Foundations; Dr. Headlam, Prayer Book Dictionary; Dr. Frere, Church Quarterly Review.]  These admissions all point in the same direction, that the crux of the position is not any mere question of continuity, but of a sacerdotal ministry by which alone grace in the sacraments is safeguarded and guaranteed.  Lightfoot’s position stands untouched today by anything connected with scriptural exegesis or primitive Church history.  This involves (a) the universality of the priesthood of all believers; (b) the ministry as an evolution not a devolution.  If only we keep firm hold of the priesthood of all believers we shall find that it carries with it all essential authority and power for ministry.  This was the source of all subsequent developments, and our conception of the Church and ministry will necessarily spring out of the prior idea of justification by faith leading to access to God.

      Thus, until the vital question of what constitutes the ministry in the light of the New Testament is settled, the Church of England will have no power to influence other Communions in the direction of reunion.  But when we are prepared, following the Articles, to accept only that which is found in the New Testament as essential, and to emphasize only what is recorded there, the difficulties will be reduced to a minimum, and the best guarantee provided of the Church as it should be in the sight of God and a means of blessing to mankind.

Article  XXIV

Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth.

      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 understanded of the people.

De precibus publicis dicendis in lingua vulgari.

      Lingua populo non intellecta, publicas in Ecclesia preces peragere, aut Sacramenta administrare, verbo Dei, et primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini plane repugnat.

Important Equivalents

In the congregation = in Ecclesia

To have public prayer = preces peragere

      The corresponding Article of 1553 had this title, Agendum est in ecclesia lingua quae sit populo nota.  (“Men must speak in the congregation in such tongue as the people understandeth.”)  The Article itself was as follows: Decentissimum est et verbo Dei maxime congruit, ut nihil in Ecclesia publice legatur aut recitetur lingua populo ignota.  Idque Paulus fieri vetuit nisi adesset qui interpretaretur.  (“It is most seemly and most agreeable to the Word of God, that in the congregation nothing be openly read or spoken in a tongue unknown to the people.  The which thing Saint Paul did forbid, unless some were present that should declare the same.”)  Then, in 1563, the present Article was substituted in which, while the Latin contained the words “et primitivae Ecclesiae,” the words, “and the custom of the Primitive Church” were omitted.  These, however, were inserted in 1571, in which year the present title was adopted.  The Article in its present form was probably due to the action of the Council of Trent in September 1562, anathematizing those who pleaded for the Mass in the vulgar tongue.

I – The Teaching of the Article

      1.  The Practice described. – The Article refers to public prayer in the Church and the ministration of the Sacraments “in a tongue not understanded of the people.”  The reference is, of course, to the mediaeval custom of having Prayers and the Celebration of the Mass in Latin.

      2.  The Practice denounced. – This practice is opposed on two grounds. (a) As “a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God.”  This is clear from the statement of St. Paul in 1 Cor. 14:14–17.  The essential point was that not only the ordinary worshipper, but the casual visitor should understand thoroughly what was being said.  There is scarcely anything more striking in the New Testament than the emphasis on “edification” as one of the essential requirements of Christianity (1 Cor. 14:12, 26; Jas. 2:1 ff.).  (b) Against the custom of the primitive Church.  This scarcely requires any notice, for not only are the ancient Liturgies in the languages of the people concerned, but the testimony of the Fathers is obviously in favour of the particular language of the people, and the necessity of the Service being in Latin is negatived by the simple fact that the language of the early Church even in Rome was Greek.

      In 1553 our Reformers pleaded for οικοδομή, arguing that it was most fitting and agreeable to Scripture that nothing be openly read or spoken in a tongue unknown to the people.  But now the Article goes further and condemns the opposite of this.  The change from “unknown” (ignota) to “not understanded” (non intellecta) shows that the prohibition is concerned with either a foreign tongue, or even the mother tongue unintelligently rendered.  A tongue “not understanded” obviously includes a voice that is not audible.  This gives point to the rubrical directions found in the Prayer Book ordering “a loud voice,” and “turning him to the people”.  It is noteworthy that Hooper in his Articles, which were influential on ours of 1553, spoke of “due and distinct pronunciation,” as well as of the “vernacular”. [Hardwick, History of the Reformation, p. 322.]  The Ninth Homily in the Second Book, 1553, remarks that no public service ought to be rendered in a tongue unknown, or not understood of minister and people.  In view of the Council of Trent defending the use of “a low tone” (submissa vox) as well as the prohibition of the vernacular, these references to “understanded” as well as “unknown” are undoubtedly significant.

II – The History of the Practice

[Boultbee, The Theology of the Church of England, p. 205 f.; Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 584.]

      The condemnation of the use of any foreign tongue had, as we have seen, special reference to the Latin used in the Middle Ages.  This practice arose quite naturally when Latin was the universal language of the educated classes, and the origin was thus perfectly simple with no idea of developing into abuse.  But by degrees Latin became practically a dead language, and this was especially the case when the Teutonic language came in, for the terms did not keep the Christian religion from the Latins.  Unfortunately, however, this change was not provided for and Latin was retained.  The reasons for this were that Latin remained the main universal tongue, and especially it was the language of the educated.  The idea arose, too, that for the mass of the people it would conduce to reverence, and that seeing the mystic rites they would think more of them.  Further, it was thought that a Latin Service was less open to popular criticism and judgment.  Accordingly, the Reformation set out with two great facts: a vernacular Bible and a vernacular Service, and in doing so set aside a practice which, however reasonable at first, had become wholly unwarranted.  It is a lamentable fact that the Roman Catholic Church has felt it right to continue this practice in the interests of religion, for the vernacular might be used and Roman Catholicism remain exactly as it is.  Indeed, the Roman Church has had to make concessions, by giving a vernacular Bible and certain vernacular Services.  It is true that the Roman Bible Versions are inferior, but, still, they are Versions, and in the vernacular Litanies and Service Books there are translations with parallel columns.  So far as these go they are good, but obviously they do not go far enough.

      The Roman Catholic arguments in support of the Latin language do not carry any real weight. [Boultbee, ut supra, p. 207.]  The Council of Trent admits that the Mass contains a good deal of instruction for the faithful, and yet will not allow it to be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular.  But if these prayers and sacraments do contain this help, it is surely not right to deprive the people of it.  It is clear from the usual method of defending the practice that it is associated with the Roman Catholic view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper being something done apart from the worshipper and calling only for adoration apart from intelligent cooperation.

      All this is entirely opposed to the New Testament conception of religion.  Every true religion must rest on two things.  First, that God can speak to man, and second, that man can speak to God.  Revelation and response are thus the two pillars, and religion is a dialogue (Psa. 104:34, LXX).  It is for this reason that “edification” is so special a characteristic of the New Testament (Acts 9:31; 1 Cor. 8:1, 10:23; Eph. 2:21, 4:12; cf. 2 Cor. 12:19, 13:10).  Whether, therefore, we are concerned with preaching, or sacraments, or worship, or service, edification is the great Bible principle, and this is clearly brought out in the Prayer Book, for there are exhortations at all the Services.  There is a remarkable fullness of the use of Scripture in Lessons, Psalms, Epistle, and Gospel, while the Sacraments are so associated with instruction that it is impossible to avoid the thought of true edification.  Indeed, there is nothing in our public Services that does not in some way minister to this requirement.  “Let all things be done unto edifying.”  Adherence on the part of our Church to this clear New Testament principle is another illustration of the fundamental difference between us and the Church of Rome, in regard to the essential features and methods of Christianity.

IV – The Household Of Faith – continued – Corporate Religion

C.  The Sacraments (ARTICLES  XXV – XXXI)

25.  The Sacraments

26.  The Unworthiness of The Ministers, Which Hinders Not the Effect of the Sacrament

27.  Baptism

28.  The Lord’s Supper

29.  The Wicked Which Eat Not the Body of Christ in the Use of The Lord’s Supper

30.  Both Kinds

31.  The One Oblation of Christ Finished Upon the Cross

Articles  XXV–XXXI

The Sacraments

      These Articles are concerned with the doctrine of the Sacraments and cover the entire field in the following way.

      1.  Articles XXV, XXVI.  Sacraments in General.

      2.  Article XXVII.  Baptism.

      3.  Articles XXVIII–XXXI.  The Lord’s Supper.

      The doctrine of the Sacraments is closely connected with and really dependent on the doctrine of the Church.  In the fullest sense of the term the Church means a community of those who are united to Christ, but the word is also used of all those who profess this union, and the Sacraments are connected with this visible association of Christ’s professed followers.  The Church came into existence through the Word preached and received by faith, and then followed Sacraments as visible expressions of membership in the Society of those who received the Word, and at the same time as Divine assurances and pledges of the fulfillment of the promises proclaimed in the Word.

      The Word is thus central and supreme and calls for faith, and the Sacraments are always associated with the Word and therefore require faith.  The minister is always the minister of “the Word and Sacraments”.  This is the relative position of the two, and is never reversed.  There is nothing in the Word which is not implied and expressed in the Sacraments, and nothing in the Sacraments which is not interpreted and explained in the Word.  The Word may act apart from the Sacraments, but the Sacraments never apart from the Word.  The Word makes Christians through faith, the Sacraments make the Church through fellowship.  The Word proclaims Christ to the ear, the Sacraments proclaim Him to the eye.

      It is, therefore, important to keep Sacraments in the position assigned to them in the Bible.  The Word of God naturally comes first as embodying the Divine revelation, to which believing souls are to respond.  This is the supreme and all-inclusive means of grace, because it is the approach of God to the soul in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Everything else is subsidiary to this, because it necessarily finds its warrant in the Divine promise and assurance.  Whether, therefore, we think of prayer, or of the Sacraments, we know that it is only because the Word of God has given us a revelation that we are enabled to believe in the efficacy of these means of approach to God. [This subject is clearly and ably treated in The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, by the late Bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Diggle).]

      In the Old Testament God’s Word to Abraham was followed by the covenant of Circumcision, and God’s Word to Israel by the covenant of the Passover.  Both of these required faith in the Divine revelation on the part of the recipients, and in the same way in the New Testament the Gospel has associated with it two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, both requiring faith in the Divine promise.  These Sacraments signify and seal God’s faithfulness to His promises and also our faith in Him.  Christianity is the religion of promise; the Word is the instrument of the promise, and the Sacraments are the ratification.

      Thus, the Sacraments are at once (a) expressions in act of what the Gospel is intended to be; (b) covenant rites in relation to God’s promises; (c) expressions in visible form of our faith in God, Baptism implying the faith that accepts, and the Lord’s Supper the faith that abides; (d) means of, and opportunity for the expression of fellowship in a social form between believers in Christ, Baptism being the Sacrament of initiation into the Society, and the Lord’s Supper the Sacrament of continuation therein.

Article  XXV

Of the Sacraments.

      Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm 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 counted 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 gazed 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 Saint Paul saith.

De Sacramentis.

      Sacramenta a Christo instituta non tantum sunt non professionis Christianorum, sed certa quaedam potius testimonia, et efficacia signa gratiae, atque bonae in nos voluntatis Dei, per quae invisibiliter ipse in nos operatur, nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat, verum etiam confirmat.

      Duo a Christo Domino nostro in Evangelio instituta sunt Sacramenta, scilicet, Baptismus et Coena Domini.

      Quinque illa vulgo nominata Sacramenta, scilicet, Confirmatio, Poenitentia, Ordo, Matrimonium, et Extrema Unctio, pro Sacramentis Evangelicis habenda non sunt: ut quae partim a prava Apostolorum imitatione profluxerunt, partim vitae status sunt in Scripturis quidem probati; sed Sacramentorum eandem cum Baptismo et Coena Domini rationem non habentes, ut quae signum aliquod visibile, seu caeremoniam a Deo institutam, non habeant.

      Sacramenta non in hoc instituta sunt a Christo, ut spectarentur, aut circumferrentur, sed ut rite illis uteremur.  Et in his duntaxat qui digne percipiunt, salutarem habent effectum: qui vero indigne percipiunt, damnationem, ut inquit Paulus, sibi ipsis acquirunt.

Important Equivalents

Badges or tokens  = notae

Certain sure = certae quadam

Rather = potius

Witnesses = testimonia

Effectual signs = efficacia signa

Quicken = excitat

Penance = poenitentia

Have grown = profluxerunt

Following = imitatione

Allowed = probati

Nature = rationem (as in Article IX, etc.).

Duly = rite

Receive = percipiunt

Effect or operation = effectum

Damnation = damnationem

Purchase = acquirunt

The History

      It is very important to observe the exact wording of the corresponding Article of 1553, and to note the changes made in 1563 and 1571.  In 1553 the Article was as follows:–

      “Our Lord Jesus Christ hath knit together a company of new people with Sacraments, most few in number, most easy to be kept, most excellent in signification, as is Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

      The Sacraments were not ordained by Christ that they should be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.  And in such only as worthily receive the same they have an wholesome effect and operation, and yet not that of the work wrought (ex opere operato), as some men speak, which word as it is strange, and unknown to holy Scripture, so it gendereth no Godly but a very superstitious sense.  But they that receive the Sacraments unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation as St. Paul saith.

      Sacraments ordained by the Word of God be not only badges and tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will toward us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him.”

      The Article was recast in 1563; the last clause of 1553 became the first; the present second and third clauses were added; and then the first clause of 1553 with omissions became the present fourth clause.  All reference to opus operatum was omitted.  In 1571 a slight change was made by the omission of any specific reference to the Sacrament of Penance towards the end of the third clause, which was made to read as it now stands.

      Special attention should be given to the Latin equivalents for “badges,” “effectual signs,” “quicken,” “duly”.

      A comparison of the Article of 1553 with the present Article shows a decided improvement, especially in the sequence of thought.  The first paragraph of the old Article was taken practically from St. Augustine with certain modifications. [Ep. Ad Januar.]  The present fourth paragraph (the second of 1553) seems to have been original with the English Reformers, though verbal parallels to it are available in most other Protestant Confessions.  The present first paragraph (the third of 1553) is taken almost verbally from the Thirteen Articles of the Concordat of 1538, which in turn came from the Augsburg Confession.  There are also several verbal coincidences with Augsburg: notae professionis; signa et testimonia; proposita ad excitandum.

      It will he seen from this that the present Article is helpful in its presentation of the true doctrine of the Sacraments.  After defining a Sacrament and stating what New Testament rites are to be regarded as Sacraments, it proceeds to contrast the rites which the Church of Rome has called Sacramental, and then closes with emphasizing the proper use, and indicating certain abuses in reference to the Sacraments. [The one point of omission referring to the opus operatum theory, which had been condemned in the Article of 1553, will receive attention under a later section, and the true explanation of the omission indicated.]

I – The Term “Sacrament”

      As this is a Latin word it has no history in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic ages.  It became current afterwards as the Latin rendering of μυστήριον.  Thus, Eph. 5:32 was rendered hoc est magnum sacramentum.  This, however, is an unfortunate and inaccurate representation of the Greek word, especially as μυστήριον is never applied to any external rite, and in the New Testament means something that was once a secret, but is now revealed.  It is important to remember that μυστήριον never has the modern idea of “mysteriousness”.  The English word “mysteries” in connection with the Holy Communion has really nothing whatever to do with the Greek word, but is equivalent to the word “symbols”.  The word originally meant anything put aside as sacred, the earliest use being a law term, referring to the deposit of two parties before the hearing of a trial, the losing party forfeiting his for sacred purposes.  It is thought that the deposit was called by this name either because of that or because it was put in a sacred place before the verdict.  Then the word came to mean the civil suit or process itself, and subsequently it was used of the preliminary engagement or oath of the soldier before joining the standard, the final oath being jusjurandum.  Lastly, the term was applied to any religious engagement, and this can be illustrated by the well-known reference in Pliny’s letter to Trajan, where he speaks of Christians binding themselves with a sacramentum not to commit any crime or do anything wrong.

      In the Christian Church the term was used very widely and applied to any sacred engagement or “mystery”.  Thus, the Creed taught to the catechumen was called Sacramentum religionis, and St. Augustine [De Symbolo.] speaks of all the sacramenta which are done by the minister, as exorcism, prayer, spiritual songs, thereby indicating all sacred ceremonies.  Leo the Great speaks of the sacramentum of the heavenly warfare.  But the word gradually assumed a more specific meaning.  Perhaps the earliest trace of this is found in the words of Tertullian, ad sacramenta baptismatatis et Eucharistiae admittens. [Adv. Marcion, IV, 34.]  By the time of Chrysostom μυστήριον had acquired a more specific meaning, and in his Homily on 1 Corinthians he says that “a mystery” is seeing one thing and believing another.  This is an approximation to our definition of a Sacrament as a visible sign of an invisible grace.  St. Augustine [Sermon, 272.] takes this up by saying that Sacraments are so called because one thing is seen and another is understood.  But one expression of St. Augustine acquired great importance in the Reformation controversy and goes to the heart of the matter: accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. [On St. John.]  The importance of this was that it made the essence of a Sacrament not a sign only, but a word which gives the sign its significance, the word being, in St. Augustine’s view, the Word of God.  And so when we come to the first systematic divine of the Middle Ages, Peter Lombard, a Sacrament is stated to be the visible form of an invisible grace: invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma ita signum est gratiae Dei ut ipsius imaginem gerat.  He also says that “there are two things in which a Sacrament consists, verba et res, as, for example, the invocation of the Trinity and water at Baptism.”  To the same effect, Duns Scotus says: “A Sacrament is a sensible sign effectively signifying from a Divine institution the grace of God.”

      In the Middle Ages the word was applied to many ceremonies, and no question arose as to any precise number while this vagueness continued.  But there seems to have been a clear idea based upon expressions found in Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Augustine, that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were distinct from all the rest.  Thus, Augustine speaks of gemina sacramenta, not duae, and elsewhere he represents it as an essential character of Christianity that the ordinances were few in number and easy to be observed.  So also Chrysostom, speaking of the blood and water that came from our Lord’s side on the Cross, says that the Church exists by these two, and those who are introduced into the full knowledge of our faith know that while they are regenerated by water they are nourished by the Body and Blood. [On St. John.]  Even in the days of Augustine there was a growing sacredness for many ceremonies, and in the Middle Ages in the West from the seventh to the twelfth centuries the number varied from two upwards.  The special number of seven is first definitely stated by Peter Lombard, and yet after his date a great Schoolman, Alexander of Hales, distinguished the two Sacraments from the rest, much as our Church does, while Thomas Aquinas, who gave the Roman doctrine its chief development, refers to the two Sacraments as quae sunt potissima sacramenta.  It is noteworthy that at the Council of Florence, 1439, amid the controversy of the Greek and Roman Churches, there was no real difference between them as to the number of the Ordinances called Sacraments.

      Our Church now limits the term to two Ordinances which fulfill three requirements: (a) a visible sign; (b) an invisible grace; (c) ordained by Christ.  It should also be noted that throughout the Articles the word “Sacrament” is used strictly for the outward sign only.  In the same way, in the Catechism, when the child is asked, “What meanest thou by this word Sacrament?” the answer is, “I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.”  The sign is the Sacrament; the grace of which the Sacrament is the sign is no part of it, but is the thing of which the Sacrament is the (1) sign, (2) means, and (3) pledge.  It is sometimes said that the following answer in the Catechism, “How many parts are there in a Sacrament?”  “Two: the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace,” is contradictory of the former.  But it is more likely that the word “Sacrament” is used in two different senses.  Sometimes it means only the consecrated matter; at other times the entire administration of the Ordinance.  It is in the former sense that the earlier question defines the meaning of the “word,” while in the latter the “grace” and its “sign” are the two parts which make up the whole rite.  It is not difficult, therefore, to understand the difference between a popular Catechism and the more accurate and theological scientific language of the Articles.

II – The Nature of Sacraments

      1.  They are “badges or tokens” of Christian profession.  This was the exclusive meaning attached to them by some parties in the sixteenth century.  But while it is true, as seen today in the Mission Field and in the celebration of Holy Communion at home, it is inadequate, and so the Article proceeds further by saying that Sacraments are “not only badges or tokens”.

      2.  They are “sure witnesses of grace.”  They speak to us ourselves as well as to others, testifying to the fact and reality of God’s presence and grace in Christ.

      3.  They are “effectual signs of grace, and God’s goodwill towards us.”  This view meets the two extremes: (a) against the view of Rome, which virtually denies the sign and identifies it with the thing signified; (b) against the defective view which regards a Sacrament as only a sign, or a bare sign.  But it is important to note with great care the force of the adjective “effectual”.  An effectual sign which carries its own effect is effectual as a sign.  In theological language a sign, signum, is a pledge, a seal, a promise, and Sacraments are effectual as such.  The epithet does not destroy the substantive, or even change it, but only intensifies it.  Sometimes it is said that “Sacraments effect what they signify.”  Everything, however, depends upon the mode, [Dimock, see Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, p. 689.] for to “convey” in theological terminology refers to a legal deed, not to a channel or electric wire.  Waterland says that a deed of conveyance is not the estate though it “conveys” it.  The deed is not the property, but the guarantee of it.  [Waterland, On the Eucharist, p. 131.]  As Hooker says: – “Grace is a consequent of Sacraments, a thing which accompanieth them at their end, a benefit which they have received from God Himself, the Author of Sacraments, and not from any natural or supernatural quality in them.” [Eccl. Pol., Bk. V, p. 57.  See more fully Boultbee, ut supra, p. 218.]

      This phrase efficacia signa is also used to emphasize what is called the objective grace of the Sacraments apart from human faith.  That grace must necessarily be objective first is assuredly true, but this does not mean that it is residential in the elements.  All grace must at the outset be objective to the recipient. [“Whether the grace of the Holy Eucharist come to our souls by and through the elements or no, alike it is objective, as coming to us from without ourselves, and having existence independently of our own thoughts” (Bishop Moberly).]

      Notwithstanding the fact that the first paragraph of the Article in defining the Sacraments is drawn originally from the Augsburg Confession, it is urged that Cranmer “in 1538 improved upon the Lutheran doctrine by adding that they are effectual signs of grace,” and that he retained “this phrase in spite of Swiss protests” in 1553. [B. J. Kidd, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 36 f.]  It will be seen, however, that this argument is incorrect, for Luther himself used the term “effectual,” and the phrase “efficacious signs of grace.” [“Thus it cannot be true that there is inherent in the Sacraments a power effectual to produce justification, or that they are efficacious signs of grace.  These things are said in ignorance of the Divine Promise and to the great detriment of faith; unless indeed we call them efficacious in this sense, that if along with them there be unhesitating faith, they do confer grace most certainly and most effectually” (De Capt. Bab.; Primary Works by Wace and Buchheim, p. 191).]  Thus, while Luther properly rejected the idea that the Sacraments effect Justification or confer grace apart from faith, he was equally clear with our Article that the Sacraments are “effectual signs of grace” to the believing recipient.  In the same way, the Swiss or Reformed doctrine teaches the proper effect of Sacraments. [“The Second Swiss Confession (1536) said: “Wherefore we assert the Sacraments are not only badges of Christian fellowship, but also symbols of Divine grace, wherewith the ministers of the Lord cooperate unto that end which He Himself doth promise, offer, and effect; yet in such wise (like as we have said concerning the ministry of the word) that every power that bringeth salvation be ascribed unto the only Lord” (Section 20; Augusti, p. 99; Elberfeld, 1817).  And in the Third Helvetic Confession (1566), the denial of the “efficacy” of the Sacraments is expressly condemned: “Neither also do we approve the doctrine of them who talk about the Sacraments as of common signs, not hallowed or effectual” (Section 19; Augusti, p. 69).]  Further illustrations of the same identity of teaching between the Reformers can be adduced from the Scottish Confession of 1560. [“Therefore we condemn the vanity of them who affirm that the Sacraments arc nothing else than mere and bare signs,” and after expounding their views of the Sacraments, go on: “But the whole of this, we say, results from a true faith which apprehendeth Jesus Christ, who alone doth make the Sacraments effectual unto us” (Section 21; Augusti, pp. 162, 163).]  All this clearly shows that the endeavour to distinguish between the Lutheran and Anglican doctrine in regard to efficacia signa falls to the ground.  And so the epithet efficacia shows that the Sacraments are not mere signs, but signs which are also means of God’s grace and favour. [“Efficacia does not necessitate a theory of simultaneity of time between the reception of the sign and of the thing signified.  The word was in common use in the writings of Calvinistic divines, in combination with the obsignatory view of Baptism, as the seal of grace which was ante-baptismal” (See Mozley, The Baptismal Controversy, p. 359, Note; Dimock, The Doctrine of the Sacraments, p. 24).]

      A further proof of the truth of these statements is the fact that the Article speaks of Sacraments as effectual signs, not only of grace, but of “God’s good will towards us”.  These last words clearly show the impossibility of regarding grace as something quasi-material, residing in the elements.  God’s good will means attitude, relationship.  Sacraments are therefore analogous to those visible things in Scripture which are signs or pledges of God’s favour and faithfulness, like circumcision, the Passover, the fleece, the brazen serpent, etc.  As such, they are “sure witnesses and effectual signs” of Divine grace and favour.

III – The Purpose of Sacraments

      The Article proceeds to state with great care the object and reason of Sacraments in the Divine economy.

      1.  By means of Sacraments God works invisibly in us.  The Latin is particularly noteworthy, emphasizing God as the Worker rather than the Sacrament itself: ipse in nos operatur.

      2.  This invisible working of God is for the twofold purpose of quickening and confirming faith.  Here, again, the Latin equivalents help towards a true understanding of the purpose of Sacraments.  To “quicken” in the Latin is excitat, which means, to arouse, stir up, not to create.  Sacraments are intended to foster an existing faith, not to produce faith itself.  The Word of God is intended for this latter purpose.  Then, too, “strengthen and confirm” is a further explanation of the purpose of Sacraments, which strengthen the faith that already exists.  Faith is thus aroused or stirred up by means of some object of sight or sense, but it is created in the first place by a word of promise from God (Rom. 10:17).  It is important to notice at this point and elsewhere the connection of the Sacraments with faith.  It is always so in Scripture.  Thus properly the Homily defines Sacraments as “visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of true forgiveness of our sin, and of our holiness and joining in Christ.” [Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments.]

IV – The Number of Sacraments

      As already seen, the word was originally used in a very wide sense, expressive of any Christian symbol, and it was only during the Middle Ages that the tendency was seen to limit the number to seven, this becoming the formal doctrine of the Church of Rome at the Council of Trent, 1547.  Everything, of course, depends upon our definition of the term, for if it is taken in its most ancient sense, then obviously it is impossible to limit the Sacraments to seven.  If, however, the word is limited, as our Church does, to any rite instituted by Christ Himself, containing both an outward sign and an inward grace, then it is clear that only Baptism and the Lord’s Supper come under the designation of Sacraments.  At the outset of the Reformation three Sacraments were mentioned by Luther and others, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Penance, or “Absolution,” and this last idea persisted for some time, until at length it was seen that the Lutheran ordinance of Absolution was altogether different from the mediaeval Sacrament of Penance.  But both in Germany and in England the three Sacraments were emphasized for several years up to the time of the Bishops’ Book in 1537.  When Henry VIII issued the reactionary “King’s Book,” 1543, the mediaeval view of seven Sacraments was once again taught.  On the repeal of the King’s Book, 1547, Cranmer reverted to the Lutheran idea of three Sacraments.

      It is interesting to observe that the last rubric in the Communion Service of the Prayer Book of 1552 spoke of “Sacraments and other Rites,” apparently implying a wider meaning of the term, and in the Forty-two Articles of 1553, though Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were spoken of as Sacraments, it is thought that there was an intention to refrain from denying the use of the word to other rites.  Yet, in the Catechism published in that year only two Sacraments are really recognized.  The wording of the Reformatio Legum should also be compared. [“Ad sacramenti perfectionem tria concurrere debent.  Primum evidens est et illustris nota, quae manifeste cerni possit.  Secundum est Dei promissum, quod externo signo nobis repraesentatur et plane confirmatur.  Tertium est Dei praeceptum quo necessitas nobis imponitur, ista partim faciendi, partim commemorandi: quae tria cum authoritate Scripturarum in Baptismo solum occurrant, et Eucharistia, nos haec dua sola pro veris et propriis novi testamenti sacramentis ponimus” (De Sacramentis, Cap. II).]  At the revision of the Articles in 1563 our Church for the first time stated definitely that there are two Sacraments which fulfill the required definition, and that “the five commonly called Sacraments ... are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel.”  And yet in the Second Book of the Homilies of the same date the wider term seems to be retained in harmony with the view of the early Church, though with a clear distinction between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and the other Ordinances.

      “As for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification ... there be but two, namely, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. ... And although there are retained by order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the Institution of Ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of Children by examining them of their knowledge in the Articles of Faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for Visitation of the Sick; yet no man ought to take these for Sacraments in such signification and meaning as the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are; but either for godly states of life, necessary in Christ’s Church, and, therefore, worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity by the ministry of the Church, or else judged to be such ordinances as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ’s Church.” [Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments.  It is interesting to note that except a brief form of the first sentence the whole extract from the Homily given by Bishop Gibson (The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 600 f.) is an interpolation made by Queen Elizabeth after the Homily had been passed by the Convocation of Canterbury.  It is therefore not quite adequate or accurate to quote that without adding the qualifying sentences of the Homily found in the quotation given above. – See Tomlinson, The Prayer Book, Homilies, and Articles, pp. 246–251.]

      The Article speaks of five ordinances “commonly called Sacraments” which, however, “are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel”.  These are said to have grown partly from corruptions of Apostolic ideas, and are partly states of life approved of in Scripture, but, nevertheless, are not to be called Sacraments.  The word “allowed” means “approved” (probati), and not merely the modern idea of “permitted”.  This clause was inserted in 1563, and was perhaps suggested by the Wurtemburg Confession.  The question is often raised whether it is permissible to speak of these ordinances in any sense as Sacraments.  Sometimes a distinction is made between the two as “Sacraments of the Gospel” and these five as “Sacraments of the Church”.  It is also urged that as the Article speaks of these five as “commonly called Sacraments” we may also use this term of them, even though they are not Sacraments of “like nature with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper”.  Further, it is said that the Article is obscure because Confirmation is not a state of life, and if it is a “corrupt following of the Apostles” it ought not to be retained.  Let us consider, first, the phrase “commonly called,” which was used in 1563 as descriptive of the then usual name of these rites.  The natural interpretation would seem to be that the phrase was employed for the purpose of correcting the error, and it is certainly noteworthy that wherever a similar phrase is found it indicates a current usage, and at the same time a recognition of inaccuracy.  Thus, the Apostles’ Creed is “commonly called” so, and the Athanasian Confession is “commonly called”.  Then, too, the Nativity of our Lord was “commonly called Christmas Day,” and Article XXXI describes certain statements about sacrifices and Masses, in which it was “commonly said,” etc.  The natural and obvious meaning of such usage seems to be a discouragement of the application of the term “Sacraments” to these ordinances.

      Then, too, as the five are admitted to be unlike in nature to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the question at once arises whether they can be included in the sacramental definition involving (1) appointment by Christ, (2) an outward sign, and (3) an inward grace.  As already noticed, if we once depart from this definition it is impossible to limit the idea of the Sacraments to seven.

      In regard to the alleged obscurity of the Article, the explanation of the phrase “corrupt following of the Apostles” obviously applies to Penance, Orders, and Extreme Unction, because none of these are Scriptural and all are characterized by error.  Matrimony is also rightly described as “a state of life allowed in the Scriptures”.  The only question is as to Confirmation, and it is more than possible that in its mediaeval meaning it is to be included in those which come from “the corrupt following of the Apostles,” because the English Confirmation is entirely different from the Roman.  The two Confirmations have little or nothing in common, except the name.  In the Roman Church the rite is intended to be administered to infants after Baptism, although the custom today in certain countries defers Confirmation until the age of seven.  But in any case the candidates are not required to make any response on their own behalf.  On the other hand, it is a vital point in the English Confirmation that the candidates should ratify and confirm their baptismal vows and unite in prayer for the Holy Spirit.  So that it is quite accurate to speak of the Roman Catholic Confirmation as “a corrupt following of the Apostles,” and Anglican Confirmation as “a state of life allowed in the Scriptures”.  Of course, strictly, Confirmation is a Service rather than “a state of life,” but this is hardly worth mentioning in view of the inclusion of all these five Services in the Article, and is only referred to at all because of the way in which the Article is misused today.  It is an interesting point in support of this view that at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, “the Puritans complained that this phrase in the Articles involves a contradiction with the teaching of the Prayer Book, and that their complaint was dismissed as a mere cavil.” [Cardwell, History of Conferences, p. 182; quoted in Gibson, ut supra, p. 604.]

      The reason, as already stated, for rejecting these five, is that they do not fulfill the threefold definition found here and in the Catechism, they have “no visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.”  The nearest approach to this requirement is found in “Extreme Unction” because of the similarity of the scriptural anointing of the sick (Mark 6:13, Jas. 5:13, 14).  But it is obvious that “Extreme Unction” cannot be called a Sacrament since there is no evidence that our Lord instituted it, as such, or that the oil was intended as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace”.  Further, the Roman Catholic rite is altogether different from the Apostolic usage, since the anointing with oil was intended for the purpose of recovery as a medical remedy, while Extreme Unction is only administered when the person is not expected to recover.

      It is sometimes said that the difference between us and the Church of Rome is comparatively small on this point, [Gibson, ut supra, p. 602.] but there are weighty reasons for believing that the difference is great, being one of things, not of words. [Boultbee, ut supra, p. 211 f.]  Bishop Andrewes has said: – “For more than a thousand years the number of seven Sacraments was never heard of.  How, then, can the belief in seven Sacraments be catholic, which means, always believed?”

      So also, Archbishop Bramhall says: – “Our Church receives not the septenary number of the Sacraments, that being never so much as mentioned in any Scripture, council or creed, or father, or ancient author, but first divided in the twelfth century by Peter Lombard; decreed in the fifteenth century by Pope Eugenius IV, and established at Trent.” [Macbride, Lectures on the Articles, p. 431.  “If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that they are more or less than seven ... let him be anathema” (Trent, Session VII, Canon 1).]

      Our definition of a Sacrament and that of Rome are practically the same, and so it is a question of evidence whether Christ did ordain the seven. [Boultbee, ut supra, p. 212.]  If the term Sacrament is quite general, why should it be limited to seven, as the Church of Rome does?  This points to the need of clear definition and close application of the term.

      “We are far from wishing to engage in verbal disputes, but the Council of Trent forbids the word to be taken in a lower sense, and maintains the seven to be vere et proprie Sacraments, and anathematizes those who reckon fewer or more.  To ascertain which party is in the right, we must define terms.” [Macbride, ut supra, p. 433.]

      Rome defines a Sacrament as “a sensible thing which by Divine institution causes as well as signifies holiness and righteousness.” [Council of Trent.]  By “sensible” is intended the element as the matter and the word as the form.  When this definition is applied to the five rites or ceremonies, the Church of Rome teaches as follows.

      1.  Confirmation: Ordained by Christ; matter, chrism; word, “I sign thee,” etc.

      2.  Penance: Ordained by Christ; quasi-material elements, acts of contrition, etc.; word, ego te absolvo.

      3.  Orders: Ordained by Christ; matter, cup and paten; word, “receive power to offer sacrifices,” etc.

      4.  Matrimony: Christ raised it to the dignity of a Sacrament, but nothing else is explained by the Council of Trent.

      5.  Unction: ordained in the New Testament (Jas. 5:14.); matter, oil; word, the utterances used for pardon.

      Rome also teaches that Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders impress a character on the soul which is indelible.

      The only one of these to which it is necessary to refer is Penance, for, as already observed, at this point there was some hesitation among the early Reformers, particularly Melanchthon.  Luther, in 1520, in his “Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” speaks of the great importance of the ministry of absolution and the promise annexed to it, but he restricted the word “ Sacrament” to those ceremonies which have a visible sign, ordained by God, and for this reason absolution was not to be placed in the same category with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  But the controversy continued, and Hooker presented a complete statement of the different views held at the time. [Eccl. Pol., Bk. VI.]

      1.  In the early Fathers we find the use of confession allowed and approved of, but not the system of auricular confession subsequently upheld by Rome.  That Church teaches that the Sacrament of Penance is the only remedy for sin after Baptism, that confession (in secret) is an essential part of it, that God Himself cannot now forgive sins without the priest, and since forgiveness at the hands of the priest must arise from confession in the offender, confession is a matter of such necessity that unless it is performed either in deed or in desire the offender is excluded from pardon.  As Hooker points out, these opinions have youth in their countenance, since antiquity never thought or dreamt of them.  “This is the poison bag behind the adder’s sting.”

      2.  Calvin and those associated with him did not use private confession, but held the necessity of open confession for notorious offences, not for the remission of sins, but only in some sort to content the Church and to warn others.

      3.  The Lutheran position did not require open confession, though it was thought that men should at certain times confess their sins to God in the hearing of God’s minister in order to receive encouragement and persuasion concerning the forgiveness of sins.

      4.  The Church of England provides public confession in the daily services and this answers to the purposes of the open confession practiced on the Continent.  For private confession and absolution the minister’s authority to absolve is publicly taught and professed, but no such necessity is imposed upon the people to confess as if remission were otherwise impossible, nor is private confession pronounced unlawful or unprofitable, but only in respect of certain inconveniences which have been practically experienced.  So that the Church of England hitherto has thought it the safer way to refer men’s hideous crimes unto God and themselves only, yet not without special caution in regard to those who come to the Holy Communion and also for the comfort of such as are about to die.

      After this treatment of the subject in general, Hooker proceeds to show more definitely the vital differences between us and Rome. [Eccl. Pol., Bk. VI, Ch. II.]

      1.  Rome implies in the name of repentance much more than we do.  We emphasize chiefly the true inward conversion of the heart, while they lay stress on works of external show.

      2.  We teach above all things that repentance, which is one and the same from the beginning of the world; they a sacramental penance of their own devising.

      3.  We labour to instruct men in such a manner that every wounded soul may learn how to heal itself; they on the contrary make all spiritual sores seem incurable unless the priest have a hand in them.

      4.  With us the remission of sins is a thing which is ascribed unto God, as proceeding from Himself and following immediately on true repentance, but that which we attribute to the virtue of repentance they impute to the Sacrament of Repentance, and having made repentance a Sacrament, and thinking of Sacraments as they do, they are found to make the ministry of the priest and their absolution the cause of that which God worketh.

      In view of these considerations it does not seem possible to doubt that they are right who regard the difference between the Church of Rome and ourselves on the number of Sacraments as fundamental and vital.

V – The Use of Sacraments

      1.  The Article first speaks of an improper use.  “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about.”  This is a reference to mediaeval abuses.  The use of the plural “Sacraments” is of particular interest, since it shows that both ordinances are put on the same level, even though there has never been any thought of these improper uses in regard to the Sacrament of Baptism. [The suggestion made by Bishop Gibson (ut supra, p. 610, Note) that the plural may have been intended to refer to the two parts of the Eucharist (also endorsed by Tyrrell Green, The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation, p. 199), is obviously impossible, or at least most unlikely in view of the title of the Article and the fact that the plural is found in each of the other clauses.  There is also no trace of any historical justification for the suggestion.]  The Church of Rome tends to exalt the Holy Communion at the expense of Baptism by her liberal view of the latter, permitting anyone to baptize, and by her insistence on a priest at the former.  Our Church places both Sacraments on a level of spiritual importance, each in its own place.  There is no real difference between water and bread as elements of a Sacrament.

      2.  Then the Article emphasizes the proper use.  “But that we should duly use them.”  This, of course, refers to use according to the institution and command of Christ.

VI – The Effect of Sacraments

      The Article clearly teaches that their effect is conditional on worthy reception.  “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 Saint Paul saith.”  It is noteworthy that St. Paul’s language about the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11) is here used in regard to both Sacraments.  This distinction between worthy and unworthy reception is the key of the Anglican position.  Spiritual efficacy is conditional, not absolute.  Faith believes the promise, and the Sacrament seals or pledges the fulfillment, but without faith the Sacrament alone has no spiritual effect, except to condemnation (1 Cor. 11:29).  All the means of grace require faith in God on the part of the recipient if there is to be “a wholesome effect and operation”.  We are told of this in reference to the people of Israel, that God’s word was unprofitable because of the absence of faith (Heb. 4:2).  In the same way prayer must be based upon belief in the promise of God (Jas. 1:5–7).  It is, therefore, reasonable that this should be equally true in regard to the Sacraments.

      The cardinal error against which the Article stands is that Sacraments “contain” grace, that is, that grace resides in the elements by virtue of consecration, and that administration alone suffices to convey it to the soul.  This is known as the opus operatum view, meaning that in the absence of any barrier (obex) the Sacraments invariably convey grace.  Thus, on this interpretation, the only antecedent qualification is a negative one, the absence of sin, for no positive preparation is required.

      The view of the Sacraments now criticized is associated with the Church of Rome, and has rightly been described as “one of the most difficult and complicated theories in her theology”.  Our great writer, Hooker, discusses this doctrine with his accustomed clearness, and in following his lead we shall be enabled to understand its true bearing.  The earlier doctrine of the Roman Church was virtually identical with that of the New Testament in regard to the efficacy of the Sacraments.  It was taught that God uses them for the purpose of bestowing His grace, but that such grace was given directly by God, and not, as it were, first located in the outward and visible sign, and then practically conveyed to us thereby.  But the doctrine of the Roman Church became associated with the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, 1274, whose view was that the sacramental signs became divinely endowed or invested with a certain quality, and that God gave His grace to the recipient therein and thereby.  This union was opposed by Duns Scotus and others, who showed very good reason that no Sacrament can, either by its own virtue, or by supernatural force given to it, be regarded as a cause to work grace, but that Sacraments are said to work grace because God Himself is present in the ministry of them, working that effect which proceeds wholly from Him without any real operation of theirs such as can enter into men’s souls.

      But the most important of all the questions which arose related to the proper condition of mind on the part of the recipient.  From St. Augustine downward there continued strong assertions of the necessity of repentance and faith for the effectual reception of the Sacraments.  Similarly St. Bernard of Clairvaux said that “the Sacrament without pious dispositions is death to the Sacraments, but these pious dispositions are life eternal to the recipient without the Sacrament.”  The other side emphasized the inherent virtue of the Sacrament, and that because of the tendency to draw a distinction between the Sacraments of the Old and New Covenants.  It was urged that the Sacraments of the Old Covenant conveyed grace only by virtue of the coming Saviour and so only by faith in that Coming, but that the Sacraments of the New Covenant contained grace in themselves by virtue of the perfect Sacrifice of Christ.  This was the original meaning of the phrase ex opere operato.  But there was one exception to this opus operatum (the deed done), the performance of the ceremony, namely, that the recipient should not place a bar to the reception, non ponere obicem.  Duns Scotus went so far as to say that the Sacraments confer grace by virtue of “the work wrought,” so that there is no necessity of good motions, bonus motus, within the heart, but that in those acts of the Old Testament grace was not conferred in the simple absence of obstacle, but only by virtue of a good disposition in the heart by way of merit.  Another Schoolman, Gabriel Biel, argued that the Sacraments are said to confer grace ex opere operato, in the sense that grace is conferred by the simple performance unless there is an obstacle of mortal sin, but that on the other hand the Sacraments of the Old Covenant confer grace ex opere operante, that is, the external ceremony was not sufficient, but good motions in the recipient were necessary for the bestowal of grace by God.  These views gained the supremacy during the close of the Middle Ages, and it will at once be seen what great moral and spiritual dangers were revealed, making the Sacraments only magical ceremonies.  This led to the abuses of solitary Masses.  At length the Roman doctrine was formulated at Trent, which says that the seven Sacraments were instituted by our Lord.  “If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, or are more or fewer than seven, let him be anathema.”  “If anyone shall say that grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that belief in the Divine promise alone suffices to obtain grace, let him be anathema.” [Session VII, Canon 8.]

      The abuses of this doctrine became so great that Roman controversialists were compelled to modify it, and this amounted to explaining it away.  Bellarmine, one of the ablest and fairest, says: “The justification received by man in the Sacrament has many things concurrently.  On the part of God, will; of Christ, His Passion; of the minister, authority; and of the recipient, honesty, will, faith, penitence, and finally external ceremony.”  Of all these that by which the grace of Justification is actively and instrumentally effected is the sole external ceremony, which is called the Sacrament, and this is called the opus operatum, so that the meaning of the Sacraments conferring grace ex opere operato is this, It confers grace by virtue of the instrumental action appointed by God for this purpose, and not by virtue of the merit of the celebrant or the recipient.  The will, faith, and repentance are necessary requisites in an adult recipient as dispositions, not as active causes, for the dispositions are not the effectual cause of sacramental grace, but only remove the obstacles which would prevent the Sacrament exerting its ordinary effect, so that the Sacrament has its efficacy in children independent of those dispositions.  This, it will be seen, is a considerable modification of the hard Roman view.  There remained a dispute as to the requisite intention of the priest, which will be considered under the next Article, but in this respect in the midst of the Reformation the doctrine of the early Church as to Baptism was reasserted, Bellarmine saying that the intention required was to do what the Church does, and this he applied to the Church of Geneva, saying that the minister intends to do not his own view, but that of the whole Church.

      The first cardinal point reasserted at the Reformation was the essential necessity of faith to a living Christianity and for a living participation of Christ.  The word faith with its correlative God is the turning point of the whole Reformation controversy, not merely the doctrine of Justification by faith, but in regard to the very nature of faith in answer to the Word of God.  This, it cannot be too strongly asserted, is the keystone of the controversy.  Faith is regarded as of supreme importance because it is the only possible answer to a word or promise of God, and that characteristic of the Gospel which is embodied in the very word “Gospel” was that which was mainly avowed by Luther and his successors.  When, therefore, it is said that the Reformers gave undue proportion to faith, it only means faith in relation to God’s Word, for there is no value in faith itself, and no efficacy in a mere faculty of confidence.  The Reformation arose not out of this faculty of confidence, but out of a profound sense of human weakness.  Unless we keep these principles clear, the true bearings of the Reformation cannot be understood.  But when this principle was once asserted and realized the whole of the Roman doctrine of ceremonies, producing their effect ex opere operate, fell to the ground, especially the doctrine of the Schoolmen, that no bonus motus is required, which really comes to this, that the promise of God has no claim to be believed.

      It is this principle of faith which the terms of our Article emphasize as the basis of blessing, and, as we have seen, our teaching is in essential harmony with the Augsburg Confession.  There is only one difference between our statements and that of the Germans, by which our Reformers guarded against a possible danger which might arise, though that was quite foreign to the minds of the Germans.  While in essence the declarations are the same, our Article, by emphasizing the Sacraments as effectual signs, efficacia signa, if worthily received, guards against the error of making the Sacraments simple pledges of God’s good will and overlooking the fact that they are means, in the use of which God works invisibly in us.  This is, of course, brought out quite clearly in the second paragraph of the Augsburg Confession, but our Article has not separated the two, and carries the meaning of the second clause in the word efficacia.  At the same time the Article guards by its form of expression against the supposition in which the Roman Church indulged, that the Sacraments work this grace themselves, for it says that God Himself works (Ipse), and that efficacy depends on worthy reception.

      The error about Sacraments being mere signs must not be thought to be Zwinglian, for the Zwinglian error was that the Sacraments are pledges on the part of man, and practically convey no Divine promise or message at all.  Zwingli regarded Sacraments as signs by which a man approves himself to the Church as a disciple, or soldier, and the effect of Sacraments is rather to give assurance of faith to the Church than any assurance to the person himself, so that according to Zwingli Baptism is the man’s offering of himself to Christ, and thereby giving a pledge of his obedience, or the parents giving a pledge to train the child in the faith, on which there follows the blessing of God in response to this act of obedience.  Now the characteristic view of the Lutheran and our Churches is the message from God to the man and the child from God, that God has commanded His ministers to offer regeneration and blessing to all who will accept the message and obey.  In the former case the Sacrament is primarily an act of man; in the latter an act of God.  It was objected to the views of the early Reformers that there was an inconsistency in their saying that there was a promise of God, and faith on the part of man was needed in the Sacrament.  But their answer was clear and simple, that the reason they required faith was because of God’s promise, since without a promise there would be nothing to believe, while starting with the promise, man’s part naturally follows, and as the argument develops it will be seen how this touches the fact of the other so-called Sacraments.  The whole affair turned on the fact that these two Sacraments contained a Divine promise and that the others did not.

      We may, therefore, notice the three views: (1) the Zwinglian, that Sacraments are primarily pledges on the part of man.  This was absolutely rejected in the first words of the Article.  (2) The Lutheran and our view, that they are sure witnesses and signs of grace and of God’s good will towards us.  (3) Then one further question arises, Have they merely the operation of promises acting simply like the preaching of God’s Word, or have they a special grace conveyed in and through them?  On this point our Church has followed the teaching, or interpreters of the teaching of Scripture, in the early Fathers, and in the early Reformers, like Luther and Melanchthon, as embodied in the Augsburg Confession.

      The most serious error of the Roman Catholic view is that it tends to separate grace from God Himself and to make it a sort of deposit in the soul, a quasi-material element contained in a material element.  But God’s own life is received direct from God in the due fulfillment of His requirements.  The Article teaches this in its emphasis on Ipse, and by saying that Sacraments are signs of God’s “good will,” which is certainly not in the elements.  In the absence of any Divine revelation to this effect we cannot believe that grace, which is God’s own life, resides in material elements, still less, that any application to the body can necessarily convey grace to the soul.  Our Lord laid down this principle without any qualification (Mark 7:18), and the application to Sacraments is too obvious to need further attention.  The truth is that grace is relationship to God and needs a maintained attitude, not a residential locality.  It is at this point that the Anglican and the Roman view of the Sacraments come into clear opposition.  It is one thing to require a passive condition of not placing any bar in the way of Divine grace; it is quite another to demand the response of trustfulness towards God, as the soul expects grace directly from above.  It is therefore of the greatest importance to have a clear view of the effect of Sacraments, and this is only possible by a careful comparison of the teaching of Rome with that of our Church.  For this purpose we must quote again the Council of Trent, which says: “If anyone shall affirm that by the very Sacraments of the New Law this grace is not conferred ex opere operate, but that only belief in the Divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be accursed.”  On the other hand, our Catechism speaks of “Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.”  It is scarcely without significance that we thus use almost the exact words which the Church of Rome condemns.

      There is perhaps nothing more necessary than clearness and definiteness as to the meaning of “grace” and “means of grace”.  By “grace” we are not to understand anything that can reside in certain material elements, and which can be conveyed to the recipients of those elements by the mere administration.  Nor are we to understand by “grace” merely a Divine influence.  According to the New Testament grace is the attitude and operation of God Himself working in believing hearts (Phil. 2:13), and so “means of grace” signify the ways in which the Holy Spirit does His work in us, and, as such, these means are the divinely appointed ways through which God’s presence and blessing are usually bestowed on our souls.  They are the occasions and opportunities of Divine contact through faith.  We can see this illustrated in our Lord’s own Baptism when the Holy Spirit came direct from heaven and not in and through the water.

      It is also necessary to remember that grace in the Sacraments differs in no way from grace at other times.  Grace involves an attitude of Divine favour and a gift of the Divine life, and it is impossible to say that the Sacraments convey a special grace different in kind from ordinary grace. [Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (Second Edition), pp. 428–431.]  It must never be forgotten that there is a serious ambiguity in the word “convey” which, as already pointed out, never means a mechanical, but only a legal instrument. [Litton. ut supra, pp. 425–427.]  When this is thoroughly understood there need be no difficulty whatever as to the precise meaning of the value and method of Sacraments. [“They are not physical but moral instruments of salvation.  The manner of their necessity to life supernatural is not in all respects as food unto natural life, because they contain in themselves no vital force or efficacy.  All receive not the grace of God which receive the sacraments of His grace” (Hooker, Eccl. Pol., Bk. V, p. 57).  “The Romish doctrine of the opus operatum rests on the notion that the sacraments contain in themselves a physical virtue to heal the maladies of our nature as the medicines of the physician possess a power to heal those of the body; an apprehensive faith being as little needed in the one case as in the other.  The sacraments thus become, not signs of spiritual life already existing or means of spiritual growth, but, by an inherent virtue, the Instruments of implanting that life” (Litton, ut supra, p. 427).]

      It is sometimes argued that the omission of the opus operatum theory in 1563 indicates an intention to change the Anglican doctrine, or, at any rate, to avoid either the sanction or the condemnation of the phrase. [Gibson, ut supra, pp. 612–614.]  But a careful consideration of the circumstances connected with the phrase will enable us to see that the omission can be explained on very different grounds.  Originally, the phrase, as used by the mediaeval theologians, was meant to contrast the inevitable efficacy of the Sacraments in spite of the imperfection of the minister, the opus operantis.  But the phrase came easily to be misunderstood as meaning opus operatum, implying that the subjective fitness of the recipient could not hinder the result.  But the doctrine of Justification by faith raised a controversy which compelled the Church of Rome to repudiate the grosser understanding of the term, and the more correct attitude assumed by the Council of Trent may have led to the omission of words which cease to be of value when used in different senses.  Under the pressure of reforming opinions certain Roman Catholic writers were compelled so to qualify the phrase ex opere operato as to remove from it “the very superstitious senses which it literally bears.” [Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Vol. II, pp. 154–157.]  Under the circumstances of these ambiguities it is not surprising that the phrase was omitted in 1563. [“It should not, however, be forgotten that it is a phrase not free from ambiguities; that it has, no doubt, been sometimes used by those who taught a doctrine scarcely differing from the Reformed, and that it has accordingly been very wisely omitted from our Article” (Dimock, The Doctrine of the Sacraments, Ch. XX, p. 75; Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, p. 692).]

      But the phrase is decidedly objectionable.  First, it tends to emphasize the distinction between sign, grace (res) and virtue (virtus), making sign and grace independent of the recipient, and virtue dependent.  But this distinction finds no warrant in Anglican formularies and involves the false mechanical understanding of the term “grace” already mentioned, which only came into the Anglican Church with the Tractarian Movement. [Archdeacon Wilberfore, from Aquinas.  See Protestant Dictionary, Article, “Grace,” p. 250, last paragraph.]  Then, too, the phrase assumes that the priest is operans in respect of the grace of the Sacrament, whereas he is only the operans of the sign of sacrament, the grace coming direct from God.  The phrase was, therefore most wisely omitted because of the necessity of avoiding a term used by controversialists in different ways that no understanding could be arrived at.  From another and opposite quarter the returning exiles after Mary’s reign included men whose dread of attributing the inherent power of conveying grace to whomsoever the consecrated matter was applied led them almost to deny that in suitable subjects and under the required Divine covenantal conditions there could be any certainty of the gift of grace or any ground for that faith which steadfastly believes the promises of God made to us in a Sacrament.  But the Gospel is the same to all, whether by speech or Sacrament, for in both the promises of God cannot be broken. [In the Church Intelligencer (June 1902, p. 85) will be found a declaration of doctrine made in 1559 by returning exiles.  In this formula the words opus operatum were first dropped out, so that the omission was not due to any Romanizing tendency.]  As, therefore, by 1563 the doctrine of superstition was adequately met by the word “duly,” and as Article XXVI deals with the other problem of ministerial fitness, the phrase was omitted.  But it is perhaps necessary to point out that the omission of a censure of a doctrine does not involve the approval of that doctrine.  We know, for instance, that in 1553 several Articles condemned Anabaptist views, and that these Articles were omitted in 1563, not because the errors were endorsed, but because there was no longer need to condemn them.  In the same way the omission of a reference to the mediaeval opus operatum theory did not imply any approval of it, especially as it is clearly excluded by the insistence upon a worthy reception of the Sacraments and the teaching of the Catechism as to the requirement of repentance and faith.

      It is now possible to see the principles reasserted and guarded by the Reformation.  Faith is necessary to participate in Christ, and is the only possible answer to God’s revelation.  Consequently, the opus operatum falls entirely, for if no spiritual qualification is required then the Word of God has no claim on our belief.  Sacraments are messages from God to man with a special promise in them.  If there is no promise there can be nothing to believe, and without faith the promise is of none effect.  On the other hand, it is, of course, altogether incorrect to speak of faith as the cause of grace when it is only the channel or means.  This shows the necessity of guarding against errors from opposite directions.  We have to insist that the same use of the means of grace is spiritually unprofitable unless faith is associated with the grace.  We must also be equally careful to avoid the error that the various means of grace derive their power from the faith of the recipient, when, as a simple fact, they derive it from God Himself.  As it has been well put, faith “takes” the grace that God offers, but faith does not “make” that grace.

Previous Section    Home    Next Section