On the Articles: Article XXV

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity

LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

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.

Anglicans and the Sacraments have always had a mixed history, and this Article is for many the chief culprit in that. Depending upon how precisely it is interpreted, it might seem to suggest that the Church recognizes either only two or seven sacraments.

Before delving into that controversy, however, it is worth noting that this article addresses more than simply the number of the sacraments.

Chiefly it begins by saying that “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.” So, the Sacraments were not made by Christ to be symbols of Christians. Some protestants, for instance, saw absolutely no significance in the Eucharist, and saw it only as something that was done in fulfilment of Christ’s request. This Article makes it clear that in the Anglican tradition, this view has been thoroughly rejected. When it continues saying it is a sure means of grace, this again removes any possible doubt: the Sacraments are, as the BCP’s catechism says, “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given to us by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”

The Article continues on in this point by explaining the purpose of grace offered. In addition to being an effectual means of grace, the sacraments are: “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.” The sacraments strengthen and confirm our faith in God. Another way of putting this, especially in light of the Eucharist, is that we are nourished in our faith by the Body and Blood.

The next section is the more controversial in which it lays out the sacraments. The first two are the Sacraments ordained by Christ in the Gospel, that of the Eucharist and Baptism. The next sentence is what causes more controversy today. “Those five commonly called sacraments... 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 the Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” The clearest message is to draw a distinction between these five and the two sacraments ordained by Christ because they were not specifically ordained by Christ himself, nor were their ceremonies specifically laid out in the Scriptures at Christ’s command. The phrase, “Commonly called Sacraments” today has a more negative connotation implying that they are in fact not Sacraments, just commonly so-called, yet at the time this Article was written no such negative connotation was implied.

It suffices to recognize that a distinction was drawn between those two clearly ordained by Christ in the Gospels, versus the others which were not necessarily as clearly articulated. This also is meant as potentially a rejection of the then recent Roman practice of naming and numbering the Sacraments. In the Christian East and going back to the early Church, there was much more hesitancy in naming and numbering the Sacraments in an exclusionary way. The principle of the Sacrament is that it is an objective and assured means of receiving God’s grace, and most Christians sought not, in recognition of God’s sovereignty, to limit God’s authority by suggesting there were only seven.

The fact that there is ambiguity leads to some Anglicans suggesting there are only two, some saying there are two of Christ and two of the Church and some saying there are seven. It should be noted that the Book of Common Prayer itself addresses the Sacrament of Pennance as a Sacrament in the invitation to confession: “Draw near in faith and take this Holy Sacrament to your comfort.” In allowing this ambiguity, however, it has reinforced the more early practice of refusing to exactly name and define all of the sacraments.

The final clause again speaks to the interesting nature of the Articles of Religion in that they are not exclusively laying our  clearly defined Anglican positions on matters so much as they are often clarifying how Anglicans have rejected particular notions of the Roman Catholic Church as well as those of Continental Protestant Reformers. The first says that the sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. This was a condemnation in particular of the Medieval practice of many Christians exclusively attending adoration of the Eucharist and not actually ever receiving the Eucharist. The chief purpose the Eucharist was ordained was so that we would receive. It should be noted that this does leave open the possibility of Eucharistic adoration being practiced so long as it is not the chief means by which the people interact with the Eucharist, and that they still regularly receive, as Christ intended and ordained. The second point again condemns, again, protestant positions and also ironically enough the doctrine of Receptionism promoted by a number of Anglicans over the centuries. It reaffirms St Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians that those who receive unworthily without examining themselves or discerning the body receive to their condemnation. This again affirms the objective reality of Christ in the Eucharist, rejecting the notion that nothing is happening and also the receptionist view that the elements of bread and wine remain until received in faith only.