Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-nine Articles Article 32 - Of the Marriage of Priests

Articles XXXII to XXXIX: Miscellaneous

Article XXXII

Of the Marriage of Priests

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God's laws either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

De Conjugio Sacerdotum

Episcopis, Prebyteris et Diaconis nullo mandato divino praeceptum est, ut aut coelibatum voveant aut a matrimonio absteneant. Licet igitur etiam illis, ut caeteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pietatem magis facere iudicaverint, pro suo arbitratu matrimonium contrahere.

Archbishop Peter Robinson

The history of celibacy in the Western Church is a convoluted one, and worthy of a full length book in its own right. As early as the sixth century clerical celibacy was strongly encouraged in the Western Church, and at times, attempts were made to make it a positive law, mainly to prevent church benefices becoming heritable property. However, on the whole clerical celibacy was only intermittently enforced, and in some provinces, it was not enforced at all. 

The Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Danish kingdoms that preceded a unified England certainly did not enforce clerical celibacy, and it seems that even some senior bishops, such as Stigand, Edward the Confessor's Archbishop of Canterbury were married men. Clerical celibacy was only enforced after the Norman conquest and remained the norm for the rest of the Middle Ages, though as much in the breech as in the observance. Clerical unchastity was common enough for it to be used to extract a laugh or two from the reader of Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales.' The Lollards opposed clerical celibacy during the 14th century, and it was an open secret that many senior clergy had irregular or illicit relationships with women, including William Wareham, and Thomas Wolsey. Ironically, Henry VIII was opposed to clerical marriage, which was a major inconvenience to Thomas Cranmer, who had been married since 1532, illegally so far as English Law was concerned, to a niece of Osiander in Nurnberg who he had met whilst serving as Henry's ambassador there. 

Clerical celibacy, or rather the lack of it, was an open scandal in England in the early 16th century, and it was clear that something had to be done, which it duly was in 1548 when clerical marriage was legalized by Edward VI's first parliament. It seems that about a third of the English clergy took wives, or regularized their existing sleeping arrangements, between 1548 and 1553, and this one measure, it has been asserted, probably did more to popularize reform with the clergy than any other. Clerical celibacy returned under Mary I, but when the reformed Church returned under Elizabeth, clerical marriage was again legal, though the Queen herself seems to have been uncomfortable with married clergy. There was no married Archbishop of Canterbury between Matthew Parker (1559-1575) and the reign of William III (1688-1702), though most parish clergy were married by the 1580s

Fr. Robert Hart

This Article is very short and to the point. On this subject the Lutheran document, the Augsburg Confession, in its Article XXIII, gives a much fuller treatment, one which goes into more detail about what the Bible says on this subject, one in which history is accurately examined, and in which a very useful criticism of Rome's required priestly celibacy experiment was shown already, five hundred years ago, to have failed. What is written there is completely in accord with Anglicanism, and mostly in accord with the Eastern Orthodox practice, though in that tradition two things developed in earlier centuries: 1) A man is forbidden to marry after he is ordained, and 2) their bishops are all required to be celibates. But, in both Lutheran and Anglican tradition a deacon, priest or bishop may marry after receiving Holy Orders. 

Evidence from early councils shows that the Eastern Orthodox practice concerning bishops was not the universal rule of the Church in its most ancient times, not even as late as the fifth century. Indeed, when one council of bishops exceeded its regional authority, they tried to require episcopal celibacy of African churches that had never practiced it as a rule. For example, a historian named Philip Delhaye wrote the following: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."

We also have this, by St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the second and early third centuries: "Marriage, if used properly, is a way of salvation for all: priests, deacons, and laymen (Stromata 1.3.12; Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne, 8:1189)." It is well-known that the grandfather of St. Patrick was a priest in fourth century Briton. Also, in the fourth century, St. Hillary of Poitiers was a bishop who was married, as was Pope Felix III in the fifth century, and Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century. It can be argued, and quite rightly, that some ancient writers, including St. Jerome, believed that bishops who were married should, after consecration, abstain from sexual relations with their wives. However, in those centuries this was never a law of the universal Church, and seems more in keeping with the pagan stoics than with anything we can know about the Apostles, those other than St. Paul who were married men, and about the earliest bishops.

The first two Lateran Councils of the Latin (or western) Church, in the years 1123 and 1139, forbade all clergy to contract a marriage, and even rules such marriages as invalid; "For a union of this kind which has been contracted in violation of the ecclesiastical law, we do not regard as matrimony (Second Lateran Council, Canon 7)." These new rules, regarding priests and deacons, contradicted what is called the Quinisext Council, that had met in Constantinople in 692. In Canon 13 we find this:

"Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence."

In short, we can say that the history is very complicated. But, a major point of having a reformation in England, from the time of King Edward VI, and again from the time of Queen Elizabeth I, was to be true to the teaching and practice of the most ancient Catholic bishops and doctors. Therefore, it is best to begin with Scripture, and then to practice and teach what the Apostolic Church practiced and taught. And, we should do so bearing in mind the last part of our Article: "Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness." The issue is godliness. What serves better to help a man live a godly life? Here is where the Augsburg Confession, in its Article XXIII, makes points that are both drawn from the Bible, and indisputably true about the consequences of casting aside what the Bible teaches. The first two paragraphs summarize scriptural teaching, and refer to problems that were no secret then, and are no secret today. 

"There has been common complaint concerning the examples of priests who were not chaste. For that reason also Pope Pius is reported to have said that there were certain causes why marriage was taken away from priests, but that there were far weightier ones why it ought to be given back; for so Platina writes. Since, therefore, our priests were desirous to avoid these open scandals, they married wives, and taught that it was lawful for them to contract matrimony. First, because Paul says, 1 Cor. 7:2,9: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Also: It is better to marry than to burn. Secondly Christ says, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, where He teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life; for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28. Nor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God, to alter this creation. [For it is manifest, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.] Therefore, those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to contract matrimony. For no man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God. For these reasons the priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.

"It is also evident that in the ancient Church priests were married men. For Paul says, 1 Tim. 3:2, that a bishop should be chosen who is the husband of one wife. And in Germany, four hundred years ago for the first time, the priests were violently compelled to lead a single life, who indeed offered such resistance that the Archbishop of Mayence, when about to publish the Pope's decree concerning this matter, was almost killed in the tumult raised by the enraged priests. And so harsh was the dealing in the matter that not only were marriages forbidden for the future, but also existing marriages were torn asunder, contrary to all laws, divine and human, contrary even to the Canons themselves, made not only by the Popes, but by most celebrated Synods. [Moreover, many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity.]"

When it says, "Nor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God, to alter this creation," the allusion appears to be to I Corinthians 7:7, in which St. Paul sees his own life of celibacy as coming from a gift (χάρισμα, i.e. charisma) of God. The Greek word is the same used elsewhere in the Epistle to speak of supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit, gifts that include tongues, prophecy, the working of miracles, and so forth. The problem, therefore, is that what God gives to certain individuals as a gift, cannot be enforced as a discipline without severe consequences. It is not that a man cannot live a successful celibate life, but that without a gift from God, he is going to face unnecessary temptations, and most likely troubling of conscience. So the Augsburg Confession states in the same Article:

"But while the commandment of God is in force, while the custom of the Church is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more cruelty exercised than against the marriage of priests. God has given commandment to honor marriage. By the laws of all well-ordered commonwealths, even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored. But now men, and that, priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to the intent of the Canons, for no other cause than marriage. Paul, in 1 Tim. 4:3, calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage. This may now be readily understood when the law against marriage is maintained by such penalties.

"But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it be done by any vow. Accordingly, Cyprian also advises that women who do not keep the chastity they have promised should marry. His words are these (Book I, Epistle XI): But if they be unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by their lusts; they should certainly give no offense to their brethren and sisters."

The failed experiment of required clerical celibacy was known then to cause crimes and scandals, and today we have seen that among those crimes and scandals are perversions, including the sexual abuse of children. True celibacy, as a gift of God, does not cause these evils. But, enforced "celibacy" gives a hiding place to disordered and perverted individuals, provides them with means and opportunity to carry out their crimes on helpless victims, and greatly narrows the field of men who may carry out priestly ministry, perhaps ruling out those whom St. Paul would have considered most qualified.

And, whereas that last line may seem to run against his personal regard for genuine celibacy as expressed in I Corinthians chapter seven, when it came time to issue instructions to those he left in charge, St. Timothy and St. Titus, he seems to have prefered married men, that is, those who rule well their own households, have their children in subjection, and are free from scandals, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? (I Tim. 3:5)" The relevant texts are I Timothy chapter three, and Titus 1:5-9. In light of those passages, especially in I Timothy, and in light of history and experience, we may well agree with the words of the Augsburg Confession, that "such enforced celibacy and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity."

To limit the talent pool, and exclude the very men St. Paul considered generally to be most qualified, runs contrary to Scripture, and also to what history reveals. Therefore, whereas others inflict the enormous burden on their own communion, we do not. 

Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles Article 30 - Of Both Kinds

Article XXX

Of Both Kinds

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

De Utraque Specie
Calix Domini laicis non est denegandus, utraque enim pars Dominici sacramenti, ex Christi institutione et praecepto, omnibus Christianis ex aequo administrari debet.


Archbishop Peter Robinson

Article 30 is one of the simplest of the Articles of Religion. The Cup had gradually been withdrawn from the laity for pragmatic reasons during the Dark Ages. The usual reasoning being to prevent the "irreverence" arising from long mustaches dangling in the chalice. Whilst this may have been a legitimate concern, it still went against what Jesus instructed His disciples to do, which is to eat and drink in amnesis of Him.

The issue of the Cup had been raised a little over a hundred and twenty-five years previously by the Hussites or Bohemian Brethren, who demanded the restoration of the Cup to the laity and practiced it in their own congregations. It was among the concessions the Papacy was prepared to make in order to end the Hussite schism, but it was to be another 500 years before they would grant permission for the laity throughout the Latin Rite to 'drink of that Cup' as our Lord commanded. Even then, the Vatican II Council gives only conditional permission for the laity to receive the Cup.

The other element stresses the priesthood of all believers in that it says that the Cup ought to be administered 'to all Christian men alike.' Anglicanism shares with Lutheranism a very strong sense of both the priesthood of all believers, and also of the need for a ministry of Word and Sacrament set apart by prayer and the laying on of hands. Both are strictly Scriptural. Unlike the Roman Church we do not believe that ordination makes an ontological change in a person, but rather sets apart a man to certain functions - the administration of the sacraments and the preaching of the Word.

Fr. Robert Hart

In English speaking countries the Roman Catholic Church uses modern language translations of the Mass. They come to the words of the Lord about the cup, "Drink this all of you." The use of the vernacular instead of Latin may be one of the reasons that they began offering the chalice to laity. 

But, in some places they still refuse the chalice to laity, as if ignoring the very words of Jesus. The doctrine of concomitance is the rationale. That Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the whole Christ is present under each separate Eucharistic species. Therefore, they teach, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are present fully in each of the consecrated elements. Many Anglicans have accepted this same doctrine, but they apply it in practice only to the reserve sacrament that they carry out of the church to those who are sick or otherwise unable to come. 

It is not my purpose here to argue either for or against concomitance. I will say only that it is not based on any revelation taught in Scripture, so I cannot simply affirm it as dogma. The issue here is one of the Church obeying her Lord. Reading the words of Jesus as translated into plain English, and then refusing the chalice to the laity, is a clear example of why it is difficult, indeed, to ascribe much good to Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development. Based on a scholastic bit of reasoning, developed by human reason to the status of revealed dogma, the word of the Lord is set aside. I am not disputing the doctrine, but merely pointing out that it is used as a rationale for open disobedience to the very words of Christ, something no one has the authority to do.

In our Prayer Book Holy Communion we use older English: "Drink ye all of this." The problem with that is the way it sounds to modern ears. As a child I thought it meant to drink it all, and waste none of it. I did not understand that "ye all" meant "all of you" - like the quaint Southern  expression, "y'all." When I celebrate I try to make the actual meaning come across to modern ears, even Northern ears, which requires seeing two commas where they really were not placed. Thus, when I am at the altar it comes out, "Drink, ye all, of this." I have had people comment that they finally got it.

Aside from simply obeying the Lord, some have speculated that each element, once consecrated, imparts a specific grace. This idea was at least mentioned by E.J. Bicknell in his excellent book about the Thirty-Nine Articles. Our Prayer of Humble Access contains words that can reflect an old idea that the Body of Christ cleanses our sinful bodies, and His blood washes clean our souls, as separate actions. The actual words in the Prayer are fine when interpreted along different lines, such as remembering that by the Risen Body of Christ, our own bodies will rise free from the uncleanness of death, etc. Nonetheless, the idea of separate operations of grace is purely speculative at best. It cannot be proved by Scripture, and has not been taught by most of the Church.

Personally, I prefer the idea of concomitance over that idea, or rather, I prefer something to the effect that the communicant receives the fullness of God's grace through faith while receiving the sacrament. I have had a young man kneel at my altar rail, willing only to drink from the chalice, but not to eat. For medical reasons, he must not consume wheat. I cannot imagine God withholding any grace from him on that basis. In addition, it is clear that a preoccupation with trying to understand how God through the sacrament imparts grace (which is not understandable with the mere human mind) distracts us, all too often, from remembering the Lord's sacrifice as we partake of His covenant supper together as the Church.

In the final analysis, however, to withhold the chalice from the laity, when present at the actual celebration of the Eucharist, is simple disobedience to Christ Himself. It flatly contradicts His clear instruction. And, as I said, that is something no one has the authority to do.

Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles

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 by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

De vocatione Ministrorum

Non licet cuiquam sumere sibi munus publice praedicandi in Ecclesia, nisi prius fuerit ad haec obeunda legitime vocatus et missus.  Atque illos legitime vocatos et missos existimare debemus. Qui per hominess, quibus potestas vocandi Ministros atque mittendi in vineam Domini publice concessa est in Ecclesia, cooptati fuerint et asciti in hoc opus.

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 intellect publicas in ecclesia preces peragere, aut Sacramenta administrare, verbo Dei et primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini plane repugnant.

Fr. Laurence Wells

At first glance, Article 23 sounds extremely Protestant, as that term is commonly understood nowadays.  It does not speak of priesthood but of an “office of public preaching.”  It does not mention bishops, but merely “men to have public authority given unto them,” without specifying exactly how this “public authority” comes to them.  We hear nothing here of the threefold ministry, nor of any sacerdotal power to confect sacraments (although the term “potestas” is used in another context), nor of any “character indelibilis.”  But at the same time there is nothing here that could be labeled as Erastian (the doctrine baffling to Americans, which the mother Church of Anglicanism has been accused of, that the Church is a department of state and subject to the control of the secular state).

            This article reminds us that the Elizabethan Doctors were battling on two fronts.  So far, the Articles are mostly concerned with the various debates between the Reformation and the Church of Rome.  But here the issue was not with Rome but with the radical sectarians at the fringe of the Reformation.

            When a man undertakes to lead public worship, to expound the Scriptures and preach the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments, what is the source of his license for such highly presumptuous acts?  Where there is a prevailing belief in a “priesthood of all believers” the explanation is simple.  The assembly of believers has elected someone to preside and has deputized him or her to take charge at both pulpit and table.  While Lutheranism tended somewhat in that direction, for the record we must say this was never a classical Calvinist, Reformed or Presbyterian concept of doing things “decently and in order.”           

            This article was directed at a number of enthusiastic sects, in which a person of either sex who felt called to preach was free to collect an audience and develop a band of followers.  The opportunities for abuse are still obvious, but in a time when many parishes had absentee clergy and duly ordained clergymen were in short supply the self-anointed exhorters could have a field-day.  The “Protestant” tone of the article, therefore, is due to the fact that it addressed a Reformation problem.  As the mediaeval Church-order had broken down (which had occurred long before Henry the VIII cast his eyes on Anne Boleyn), it had become necessary to assert the importance of order.  We can hear a faint echo here of the struggles between the mendicant friars and the diocesan clergy a couple of centuries before this Article was written.         

            Beyond this polemic against the Enthusiastic Sects, a couple of points deserve to be mentioned.  The concept of legitimate authority here is derived neither from the king nor from the assembly.  What is clearly assumed is the principle of continuity and succession within a Divinely instituted ministry.  The reference to “the Lord’s vineyard” is no mere rhetorical flourish.”   The doctrine of Apostolic Succession is clearly in the background.   The “men who have public authority given unto them” are not identified, but when the logic of it is pressed, we are quickly back to Jesus calling and commissioning the Twelve.

            Secondly, the importance of “public preaching” is prominent in this Article.  This Reformation concern was well grounded in the great tradition of the true Catholic Church.  The mediaeval religious orders specialized in homiletics, as St Dominic recognized that the way to convert heretics was to preach the Gospel to them.  In an earlier period, the Church Fathers were highly competent preachers.  One should take note of how much of the voluminous Patristic literature consists of their sermons.  Where preaching is neglected, heresy thrives, souls starve and Christ is dishonored.   

The other extreme      

            If Article 23 is addressed to an error rampant in the Reformation, Article 24 confronts another error from the opposite quarter.  Keeping the Mass in Latin or translating it into the vernacular had long been a bone of contention between the Western and Eastern branches of the Church.  The sixteenth century was a period when many things other than the liturgy were at issue, as the various European languages began to assert themselves.   Rome itself has caved on this point.   This has unleashed a swarm of problems which people in the sixteenth century did not anticipate.  Is a “tongue understanded of the people” the same as street slang or journalistic English?  If the liturgy (a term not found in the Articles) is to be in the vernacular, what sort of vernacular is it to be?         

            That sort of problem is beyond the scope of this essay.  But we should not fail to mention the blunt and forthright manner in which Article 24 speaks of “the Word of God.”  By that term, the Bible is intended.  In the 16^th century, neither Romanist nor Anglican, neither Protestant nor Sectarian, had any hesitation in speaking of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as “the Word of God.”

Fr. Robert Hart

            I have been dragged into many a defense of Anglican catholicity by people who were either Roman Catholic polemicists with missionary zeal, or by people on the opposite extreme who want Anglicanism to be no different from all the other Protestant traditions.  The former refuse to acknowledge our Apostolic validity, and the latter do not believe in Apostolic Succession, or at least they do not believe it matters. What they have in common is reliance on the same arguments.

            They claim to have history on their side. They will discover some Protestant clergyman who sneaked in “under the radar” to minister in the Church of England, either because of carelessness or because of the rule for “Stranger’s Churches.” That rule allowed foreign ecclesiastical ministers to care for the pastoral needs of Continental Protestants, such as German Evangelicals (Lutherans), or members of the Dutch Reformed Church, etc. who resided in England. Stating only part of the truth, enough to make one’s case, and neglecting the rest of the story is common to politics, but most egregious as history or religious apologetics.

            Another tactic is to make reference to the temporary establishment of the Anglican-Lutheran joint bishopric in Jerusalem.  That episode led directly to the conversion of John Henry Newman to Roman Catholicism in 1839, because he wrongly assumed the Church of England would abandon Apostolic Succession or compromise it. The contemporary polemicists/ missionaries fail to read the whole story including the reason why the Church of England and the Lutherans had to abandon the project. The Church of England had entered into the whole arrangement with the intention of accepting Lutheran ministers as bishops only after they would submit to consecration by English bishops with Apostolic Succession. When this proved unacceptable to the Lutherans, the joint bishopric collapsed.

            One key word in Article XXIII is “lawfully,” as also in the Preface to the Ordinal. Why do so many of our detractors assume that the Canon Law of the Church of England, and consequently that of Anglicanism in other countries, has no correlation to Anglican beliefs? Why do they assume that strict practice and Canon Law, along with the written liturgy of the Ordinal and Book of Common Prayer that allows only the bishop to ordain, and bishops to consecrate, that reserves the sacrament of Confirmation to the laying on of the bishop’s hands, that forbids any but the priest to celebrate Holy Communion and say Absolutions, is all meaningless? All this law, all these rubrics, all the words in the actual rites of the Ordinal, just somehow exist without any beliefs and principles behind them. Really? That entire assumption deserves no respect, “historical” anecdotes not withstanding.

           

Not Extra-Biblical

            Another assumption that we may dispense with is that the Apostolic Succession of bishops is not to be found in Scripture. The Bible does not explain Apostolic Succession, but it does model it and demonstrate it as a charismatic reality (II Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5) . And, it does so in the same spirit of Article XXIII, that is, with an emphasis on more than a sacramental relay race, or spiritual genealogy, of who laid hands on whom. For, in itself, that could be nothing more than a “historic episcopate” that even an atheist would have to acknowledge. No. Along with that sacramental line of Succession must be a public ministry that proclaims the true Gospel and that both teaches and defends sound doctrine (II Timothy 2:2). 

Anglicanism in its expressed priorities, including the Ordinal as well as Article XXIII, rightly places equal emphasis on the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments. It was necessary to get away from the Roman perception that the priesthood is almost exclusively about celebrating the Eucharist. Therefore, our Ordinal restored balance with a proper understanding of the office and work of the πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) summed up in the words, “…And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments…” That simple direct phrase says what needs to be said.

Article XXIII, the Ordinal, the Canon Law and the rubrics, all prove that Anglicanism has no room for Lay Administration or any other kind of innovation. The Church has been plagued by innovations from many quarters, including Rome, including Enthusiastic Sects, and in modern times, including the Diocese of Sydney. For order, sacramental validity, pastoral care, proclamation and teaching of God’s word, and defense of sound doctrine, God provides the public ministry that was established by Christ Himself through His Apostles, endowed by every gift of the Holy Spirit.

Understanding

Article XXIV borrows a Biblical principle from an ancient historical context, one with a different emphasis, and a different problem. The Church in Corinth was so enamored with spiritual gifts, almost to the point of Enthusiasm, that they practiced public speaking in unknown tongues that did not serve to edify the people (I Corinthians 14). So too, Latin in the ears of people who could not understand it, might well have edified the priests because of their education; but, the people were left out of the very act of prayer and worship. And they did not hear the word of God, as liturgy ceased to be the people’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and became exclusively the property of priest craft.

The problem was, therefore, very similar to what had long ago been addressed by Saint Paul: “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air… Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified (I Corinthians 14:8,9, 16,17).”

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17).” The people’s faith must be built up and fanned into flame. Neither uninterrupted tongues, Latin not understood, nor silence, includes the people in worship and prayer, nor permits them to hear the word of God and believe.

Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles

Articles XIX through XXXI move us into “Corporate Religion”

ARTICLE XIX

Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

De Ecclesia

Ecclesia Christi visibilis est coetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum praedicatur et sacramenta, quoad ea quae necessario exiguntur, iuxta Christi institutum recte administrantur. Sicut erravit Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, et Antiochena: ita et erravit Ecclesia Romana, non solum quoad agenda et caeremoniarum ritus, verum in his etiam quae credenda sunt.

Fr. Laurence Wells

At this point the Articles move, rather seamlessly, into another department of doctrine.  Articles IX through XVIII deal with man’s need and God provision, the doctrine of salvation.  But at this point the concern shifts to the doctrine of the Church.  The progression is natural and smooth.  The Church is where salvation takes place.     

At its very beginning Article XIX alludes to (but does not dwell upon) a distinction unfamiliar and unpopular today, the distinction between the “visible” and “invisible” Church.  This distinction seems to imply that there are two Churches, as there are the two major Sacraments or the two natures of Christ.  I recall a devout lady, a faithful Churchwoman, who asked me in all sincerity, “Father, how may I join the invisible Church?”   That made me aware that my sermon on this topic had been less than clear and needed further teaching.  She was thinking that the “invisible Church” was a sort of advanced standing, somewhat like the Shriners within the Masonic Order.  Because of such an erroneous construction, many theologians have attempted to discard the distinction altogether.   

This distinction came to the fore in the 16^th century, which was a time of crisis not only for the doctrine of salvation but for the doctrine of the Church and sacraments as well.  But it was first developed by St Augustine of Hippo, whose theology was vigorously revived in that century in both Protestant and Roman camps.  Augustine elaborated the distinction as a corollary to his doctrine of Election, although the distinction works just as well for the semi-Pelagian and Arminian systems also.  Augustine wrote concerning the Church, “there are many sheep without and many wolves within.”   That truth became painfully obvious in the corrupt Church of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Augustine and his 16^th century disciples grounded this distinction firmly in Scripture.  The locus classicus is the parable of the wheat and tares growing together in Matthew 13:24—30.  In the same chapter we also find the parable of the net which catches fish of every kind, some of which must be thrown away as worthless.  In John’s writings we have the parable of fruitful and unfruitful branches.  In John’s first Epistle we meet the sad statement, “they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us (1 John 2:19).  The Old Testament background on this point is the theme of the “remnant” of faithful Israelites, the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal, but submerged within a corrupt and apostate nation.        

Within the visible, earthly institution of the Church we find those who are genuine and sincere and along with them those who are false and hypocritical.  This is a commonsense observation.  There will be a final separation of sheep and goats, of wheat and tares, of good fish and worthless, of fruitful and unfruitful branches.  But the warning of Our Lord is that we are not to attempt this separation on our own before He comes.  To a certain extent the “antichristoi” of John’s Epistle will go their own way through schism and betrayal, but it is dangerous for us to undertake the separation on our own. Even Elijah did not know who were included in the 7,000.   Efforts to achieve a pure Church always turn out badly.        

The Church visible and invisible is not two separate Churches or two layers in a cake.  The visible Church is the Church visible to us here and now, the Church we discern through its marks of Word and Sacrament.   The Church invisible is invisible only to us, but is the Church visible to God.  This is the entire Body of the faithful (Augustine would say the entire Body of the elect), those who have gone before and are now with Christ in paradise, those still on their earthly pilgrimage, and those souls known only to God who are yet to be born.  This is the “multitude which no man can number” in Revelation, the “body of Christ” in Paul, “the fullness of him who fills all in all.”

We may well say that the distinction between the visible and invisible aspects of the Church are analogous to the “sign” and “thing signified” in a sacrament. We see the sign with natural eyesight, but the thing signified must be apprehended by faith. When we see the mixed body of believers, semi-believers, and unbelievers gathered around the means of grace, we see an outward and visible sign of something far greater.  The invisible Church is truly the communion of saints, the mystical Body of Christ, made visible to us sometimes in the humblest of ways:  the priest who stutters and stammers, the choir which sings off-key, the congregation which is lackadaisical in its obligations, but along with the member who joined to make business contacts but does not have a single work of grace in his heart.                 

One warning: This distinction should never be employed to denigrate or devalue the human, imperfect, sinful, error-prone empirical thing we call the “visible Church.”  There are statements in print stating that the invisible Church was founded by God but the visible Church was created by man.  Such a statement does not come to grips with the Biblical data introduced above, in which the wheat and tares grow in the same field, the fruitful and unfruitful branches on the same tree.   Whatever the faults or errors of the 16^th century Reformers, it cannot be justly alleged that they held any “low view of the Church.”  Calvin was emphatic that no one can have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother.  When Calvin quoted this dictum from St Cyprian, he was speaking of the visible Church.     

The value of this distinction is that, rather than belittling the “congregation of faithful men,” it affirms that the visible Church is as much a Divine institution as any sacrament (dare I say, any other sacrament?) and holds an integral place in God’s work of saving sinners.

Fr. Robert Hart

The question of which is greater and more important, the ministry of God’s word or of His sacraments, is a false question. People in one party emphasize preaching the pure word of God as the sign of the Church, and people in another party emphasize the ministry of the sacraments as that sign. But, in the truly balanced and sober approach of Anglican Reason, we see that both are necessary. We need both, and we do not have any intellectually honest way to compare their worth and weigh them against each other. Furthermore, without the ministry of God’s word there can be no sacraments, just as, without the sacraments, the Ministry described and commanded in God’s word cannot take place.

Not only does Article XIX state this clearly, but so does the Ordering of Priests in our Ordinal: The Bishop says this, long after the prayers have begun, while his hands are placed upon the man he is ordaining: “Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” He then says, “Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.” He does not emphasize one above the other.

The marks to look for are faith (“faithful men”, i.e. faithful human beings by the genuinely inclusive language of classical civilization), preaching of the pure word of God and the sacraments. If we are to accept the implications of the historical record, Book VII of Hooker’s “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” shows that Anglican practice and belief always included the Apostolic Succession of Bishops as part of both the ministry of God’s word and of His holy sacraments, and that this was instituted not by men, but by God through His Son; and carried on within the Church.

Some would argue that the marks to look for are those of the Nicene/ Constantinopolitan Creed: “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” Obviously, these describe the Church accurately. We say “I believe” to each of these.

But, how does a person see these things in his own hometown when looking for the Church? Can we see the Church as One? To avoid falling into the One True Church fallacy, we have to realize that no one can say to other parts of the Body, “I have no need of thee.” No one can, therefore, heal the political divisions of history as they affect the visible church in each locality. The mark of “One” does not apply, therefore, simply to one and only one congregation near you. Instead, it must speak of the broader unity that makes each true expression of the Church part of that One Church. Of the Apostolic churches, we alone understand that Oneness and essential unity of the Church, because Anglicans have never claimed to be the whole Church.

How does one see the Church as Holy? Obviously, not by finding a congregation in which no sin is ever manifest. For, that is simply impossible. To the best of our ability, we may discern where faith is present, and where hope and love appear to abide. We may see, however, Catholic and Apostolic in those visible ministries of the word and the sacraments.

We are told that “Catholic” means universal. The Church, we say in our major Creeds, is Catholic, and, according to the Creed named in honor of St. Athanasius, our Faith is Catholic. “Catholic” really means according to the whole (from the Greek word Katholikos). The Church is recognizable by teaching that whole doctrine that is universally agreed upon by the whole Church; that is, recognizable by teaching those things in the Creeds, all of which are revealed and recorded in the Scriptures, which have been known and recognized by the Church as the word of God. And, by both the teaching of God’s holy word and by the sacramental ministry of the Apostles continued in practice and visible in the life of a congregation, the Church is known, recognized and manifest.

Without “unchurching” other believers, we are nonetheless able to hold ourselves to the highest standard. Without presuming to cast judgment on how much grace is available in other Christian denominations and congregations, we may know, in a positive sense, what to look for in order to be confident that we are in the Church as Christ has ordained it.

LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Article XVIII

Of obtaining eternal salvation only by the name of Christ

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

De speranda aetrna salute tantum in nomine Christi

Sunt et illi anathematizandi qui dicere audent unumquemque in lege aut secta quam profitetur esse servandum, modo iuxta illam et lumen naturae accurate vixerit: eum sacrae literae tantum Iesu Christi nomen praedicent in quo salvos fieri homines oporteat.

Robert Hart

This Article alludes to words spoken by St. Peter, having stated as fully as possible “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” as his subject: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12 & see v.10).” The universal nature of this message is clear, “under heaven among men.” Put another way, this means on earth for every human being.

This ties in to the fact that the Church is commanded to preach the Gospel to every nation, which phrase is expanded in the Book of Revelation to mean, “Every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (5:9).” A nation is, in the Greek New Testament, is not a nation state but an inherited ethnicity. The word is ἔθνος (ethnos). St. Paul preached that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth (Acts 17:26).”

Among other things we must learn from this is one simple fact: Christians have no excuse whatsoever for racism. We are all of one blood, which today is a very basic and well known fact of medical science. This means that the theology of the Incarnation as stated in the words, “And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14),” is deliberately inclusive. By taking human nature, the eternally begotten Son of the Everlasting Father made Himself a relative of the whole human race, everyone everywhere divided as they are in time and place.

One major issue among the Jewish people of the first century was their distinctive place as the people of God; circumcision was the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham. As early as the preaching of John the Baptist, it was proclaimed that the Gentiles would become full and equal heirs of the covenant: “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham (Luke 3:8).” In the tenth chapter of the Book of Acts, we see that God revealed, in the manner of His own choosing, the full meaning of revelation that went back to the ancient Prophets of Scripture, that John the Baptist preached, and that our Lord Jesus Christ taught. When the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius, on men who were not circumcised, in exactly the same manner as He had come on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 11:15, “as on us at the beginning”), the “middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile was broken down in Christ (Ephesians 2”14). That one and only significant barrier broken down, between people in the covenant and those born outside of the covenant, no other barrier, whether of race or clan, can stand.

There was no controversy about what had happened at the house of Cornelius, or about what it meant, among the Apostles. In sharp contradiction to several modern writers, the Church was not divided on the issue of Gentile inclusion. When we come to the eleventh chapter of the Book of Acts, in which Peter explains what had occurred, we find the matter neatly summed up for us:

“And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (vs. 15-18).”

This was the doctrine of the Church. After a few years this Apostolic doctrine was challenged by the first heresy in its history. A party of self-appointed teachers, having no authority, troubled believers among the churches of the Gentiles by teaching them that they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved. So, we read in the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Acts that their heresy was simply and directly condemned by the first Council of the Church, wherein the Apostles and Elders issued a letter for all to read.

The universal nature of the Gospel and of the Church have been revealed to us by God. To preach the Gospel to all peoples everywhere, to recognize the missionary nature of our faith, to obey the Great Commission, has become controversial in modern times among people who claim to be believing Christians. It is now considered, by these modern critics, an insult to other cultures that we would presume to convert them to our faith and baptize them into the Church. But, our orders have their root in the first commandment, “Thou shalt have none other gods before Me (Exodus 20:3).” Translated literally, the first of the Ten Commandments says, “No other gods may you have for yourselves in my presence (i.e. ‘before me’ or very literally, ‘in front of my face.’).”

The Old Testament command for dealing with the gods of the nations was told in the negative, for example this: “But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire (Deuteronomy 7:5).” The relevant commandments were about the Land given to the people of Israel, to banish from it the cruel pagan practices that included among their rituals acts of sexual perversion and child sacrifice in the fire. But, in the judgments rendered by God through Moses in the ten plagues, judgments expressly on Egyptian gods, the revelation had been given that YHVH was the only true God in heaven and earth. And, this revelation is a constant theme throughout the Old Testament. The prophets foretold a day when all the nations of the earth would be turned to the one true God, the God of Israel, but never explained exactly how that would come about.

That fullness of revelation has been granted in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:5), and it is He Who issued our orders as His Church. The New Testament commandment is to preach the Gospel in every nation and make disciples:

“And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore, and make disciples from all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (Matthew 28:18-20).”

This does not justify the use of arms and force (which cannot convert anyone anyway), but it does command the art of persuasion by preaching the Gospel. The Gospel is briefly summarized in the New Testament (I Corinthians 15:1-11) as the saving acts of our Lord Jesus Christ on behalf of the whole human race scattered, as it is, in time and among the inhabited places of earth. Christ commands, as well, the establishment of His Church among all nations, into which each person is baptized, and in which each person is taught.

In response to the modern attack on our missionary commission, the Church of Rome is to be credited for the document Dominus Iesus which came out under the Imprimatur of Pope John-Paul II in the year 2000. Although we cannot accept the exclusive claims of the Church of Rome that appear in part of that document (all quoted from earlier documents, and which should have come as no surprise), the main point of it was genuinely ecumenical and very true; for its overall message was the same as our own Article XVIII. We do have a missionary commission laid upon us by the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. No matter how much various individuals may complain, and no matter how much they may present false historical claims about an ideal and peaceful pagan utopia, we are to preach the Gospel to all nations on earth and establish Christ’s Church everywhere for the good of all peoples.

The Article does not give treatment to questions about whether or not people may be saved who have not personally believed in Christ. It does not attempt to answer, “what about the souls of those who have never heard?” What it says is very direct about those who “presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature.” That is, whatever false ideas, and even whatever truth, may be found in various religions, no one is saved by adherence to those beliefs. This truth stated in the negative is then answered by the truth of revelation stated in the positive, “For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6).”

The major two-fold theme of the Gospel According to John is the Trinity and the Incarnation. There is one Son or Logos Who alone provides access to the Father. Christ alone is the salvation of the human race. This fits perfectly with the words of St. Paul, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (I Timothy 2:5,6).”

Article XVIII is basically saying this same thing in other words. Jesus did not say in this statement anything to the effect that people ignorant of the Gospel, who therefore have no personal faith instructed by clear teaching concerning the Son, cannot be saved. That question is not answered by these words or by our Anglican Article. But, the fact that we are given the Great Commission is enough both to obey it because Christ himself commanded it, and with the understanding that the Gospel is the spiritual medicine needed by the whole world, and the Church is the spiritual hospital needed everywhere. 

Fr. Laurence Wells

From Genesis to Revelation, the Biblical Gospel is marked by a tension between the universal and particular.  In God’s covenant with Abraham, we hear that in Abraham “all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gn 12: 3), but when Abraham prayed for his son Ishmael, he was told that even if certain blessings would befall  Ishmael’s descendants, “I will establish my covenant with Isaac.”  (Gn 17:21).  At the other end of the Bible, we hear of “a great multitude which no man can number” in heavenly bliss, but also that “if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” ( Rv 7:9 and 20:15).  The Word of God does not encourage any insouciant universalism.      

The Biblical hinge for Article XVIII is found in two texts.  In John 14:6, from the lips of the Savior Himself, we are taught, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”  This is reinforced by the text which the Article quotes somewhat obliquely: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).  We cannot talk around the plain meaning of Peter’s exclusive claim.  He was addressing “rulers and elders and scribes” under the co-presidency of Annas and Caiaphas, the very group which had tried Jesus in the wee hours of Good Friday, while Peter himself was interrogated by a servant girl.  He was telling them in unvarnished language that unless they acknowledge this Jesus as the Christ and embrace Him as Lord and Savior, they will go to hell.   The same warning stands for all who hear the Gospel but fail to embrace the One who is proclaimed as “the only Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus”  (1 Tim 2:5).  This radical exclusivism accounts for the painstaking urgency of New Testament preaching, an urgency missing from the moral lectures which pass for preaching in so many Anglican pulpits.  Apart from Christ, we are lost.  In Christ we have eternal life.    

Now what does all this say to the pastoral problem which a missionary in Japan or India faces when a new convert, with a cultural heritage of ancestral piety, asks, “Are my ancestors in hell?”  The missionary, who does not wish to offend with the common evangelical answer, might say:

1.      Oh no, everyone goes to heaven. In spite of our exclusive-sounding texts, we know that God is love, or

2.     If they lived a good moral life, doing the best they could, then God will make an exception for them,  or again

3.     Their religion was a noble tradition and is also a revelation of God’s gift of salvation.  Christianity is a new and improved version of their faith but not essentially different.

None of these responses are Biblically faithful.  But neither is the standard evangelical answer (even if it was the one Thomas Cranmer might have given in 1553 when he wrote this Article).  And before popular evangelicalism is pilloried, we must not forget the Patristic background in “nulla salus extra ecclesiam” or in the stern opening words of the Athanasian Creed.  The best response, both pastorally and doctrinally, might be along these lines: “If your ancestors embraced the measure of God’s revelation which He gave to them and loved God in return, then they are not without hope.”     

The New Testament itself, in the Parable of the Great Assizes, seems to deal with this problem, which surely must have emerged in the Apostolic era.  In Matt 25 we see the eschatological Son of Man seated on His throne of judgment, dividing the world into sheep and goats, eternally destined in opposite directions.  But the final reward comes as a great surprise to all.  “When did we see thee, Lord?”  The sheep are not told, “Even if you did not see me, I am rewarding your good deeds and virtuous lives.”  The goats do not hear, “You are eternally lost because you failed to make a decision for Christ.”  The eternal destiny of both groups depends absolutely on their relationship to HIM, in whatever way He chose to manifest Himself to them.  

Whereas our Article might seem to support the “heaven for born-again Christians only” tenet of popular evangelicalism, it is interesting that the Puritan Westminster Confession of Faith offers a more Biblical view.  There it is stated that “all other elect persons [besides elect infants dying in infancy] who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, … are  saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where, and how he pleaseth.”   

To sum up:  Christ, as the unique and exclusive Savior of lost sinners, must be urgently preached and any compromise of His sole unshared authority must be sternly rejected.  But that very authority forbids us to assume specific judgment of the eternal state of any.  It was concerning the final destiny that He said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”