Committed to building up Christ's Church in North America and beyond
Pages
▼
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Doctrine of the Sacraments in the Thirty-nine Articles
The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are a basic statement of Anglican theology. They were first drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer as Forty-two Articles in Edward VI’s reign (1553), and after being suppressed (with the rest of the reforming programme for the church) in Mary’s reign, were revived by act of Convocation in Elizabeth’s reign (1563). A modest revision took place (1563 and 1571), reducing them to Thirty-nine Articles, and in 1571 the English clergy were required, by act of Parliament, to give their assent to them, as a condition of being instituted to a cure of souls. Though forms of subscription have changed over the years, this is still a requirement in the Church of England and in many other Churches of the Anglican Communion, at ordination or institution or both.
The sacraments were one of the main topics of controversy at the Reformation, and it was chiefly for their teaching on the Lord’s Supper that the martyred Anglican bishops (Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper and Ferrar) were put to death. We have in Oxford a great stone cross in the surface of the road, marking the spot where Ridley and Latimer, and afterwards Cranmer, were burned to death; and one hundred yards away stands an elegant memorial erected in the nineteenth century, which those who have visited Oxford will have seen, from which the figures of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley look out northward, westward and eastward across the university city.
Latimer was the great preacher among the Reformers, but Ridley was an able theologian,who led the way for his companions in his reformed eucharistic beliefs; while Cranmer was the great man of learning, slow in reaching conclusions but establishing them with great care, and it is to him that we owe not only very extensive theological writings on the Lord’s Supper, but also most of the brief summary statements on the sacraments which are included in the Thirty-nine Articles. As commentary on these Articles we have not only Cranmer’s own writings, but the Latin text of the Articles, which is of equal authority with the English; the Book of Homilies (of which two homilies in particular are concerned with the sacraments); the sacramental services of Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer; and the Prayer Book Catechism, of which the part on the sacraments was added by Bishop Overall slightly later, in 1604, though drawing to some extent on the Elizabethan catechism of Alexander Nowell.
The sacraments are the last main doctrinal topic in the Articles, occupying the six articles 25, 27-31 and being touched on in five others (16, 19, 23, 24 and 26). To read more, click here.
do you agree with what this author wrote? I am confused. A lot of what he suggests are things you didn't agree with my understanding/historical perspective.
I have read and reread Roger Beckwith's article. Where do you see that he is inferring that rites such as confirmation, marriage, and ordination are 'sacraments'?
Beckwith's explanation of the 'Real Presence,' or as Peter Brooks described it, the 'True Spiritual Presence' is how the sixteenth century Anglican divines understood and Reformed Evangelicals have historically understood it. As Frederick Meyrick wrote, 'Christ's presence is not in the elements but in the ordinance.' The classical Anglican and Reformed Evangelical view is not Zwinglian.
'Eucharistic sacrifice' like 'Real Presence' is a tricky term. Beckwith is referring to our response to Christ's sacrifice of which the Lord's Supper is a memorial--to the offering of our bodies, souls, and selves expressed in the first Post-Communion Thanksgiving and by extension the daily showing forth of God's praise, 'not only in our lips, but in our lives,' of A General Thanksgiving. Beckwith is not suggesting that the Lord's Supper is a reiteration or representation of Christ's sacrifice or participation of Christ's supposed ongoing sacrificial activity. He stays within the doctrine of the classical Anglican Prayer Book.
We agree more than I thought. I agree with the writer is saying. I think the confusion is the fact he is a much better writer than me.
I think it also stems from the fact I use the phrases like "Real Presence" and also I believe the use of the other ceremonies (is that agreeable phrasing?) are for edification of Christ's Church however, are not of the same stature as Baptism and Holy Communion as Beckwith stated.
I am not personally comfortable with the use of the word "stature" to describe the difference between Baptism and the Lord's Supper and the other five rites. They are in completely different categories. This is one of the points that Beckwith makes in this article. This is also how he treats them in his other writings that I have read. I think that we have to let go of the idea that they are in any way sacraments--even minor ones. Practices like imposition of hands and anointing with oil are found in the Scriptures but the doctrine that had attached to them in the Medieval Church is not gathered from Scripture. Hence Article 25's reference to "corrupt following of the Apostles." The Medieval Church developed certain practices, saw similarities between what it was doing and what the New Testament describes the apostles as doing, and erroneously concluded that it was doing what the apostles were doing. It then used these descriptive passages to claim what it was doing was Scriptural. The apostles did lay hands on some folks after baptism but it was not a primitive form of confirmation. Confirmation is edifying, that is, it upbuilds the Body of Christ because the new believer makes his profession of faith before the gathered church and the church prays for him.
Robin,
ReplyDeletedo you agree with what this author wrote? I am confused. A lot of what he suggests are things you didn't agree with my understanding/historical perspective.
Just curious...
George,
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to be more specific.
The application and keeping of the "minor" sacraments and his explanation about Real Presences/Eucharistic Sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteGeorge,
ReplyDeleteI have read and reread Roger Beckwith's article. Where do you see that he is inferring that rites such as confirmation, marriage, and ordination are 'sacraments'?
Beckwith's explanation of the 'Real Presence,' or as Peter Brooks described it, the 'True Spiritual Presence' is how the sixteenth century Anglican divines understood and Reformed Evangelicals have historically understood it. As Frederick Meyrick wrote, 'Christ's presence is not in the elements but in the ordinance.' The classical Anglican and Reformed Evangelical view is not Zwinglian.
'Eucharistic sacrifice' like 'Real Presence' is a tricky term. Beckwith is referring to our response to Christ's sacrifice of which the Lord's Supper is a memorial--to the offering of our bodies, souls, and selves expressed in the first Post-Communion Thanksgiving and by extension the daily showing forth of God's praise, 'not only in our lips, but in our lives,' of A General Thanksgiving. Beckwith is not suggesting that the Lord's Supper is a reiteration or representation of Christ's sacrifice or participation of Christ's supposed ongoing sacrificial activity. He stays within the doctrine of the classical Anglican Prayer Book.
We agree more than I thought. I agree with the writer is saying. I think the confusion is the fact he is a much better writer than me.
ReplyDeleteI think it also stems from the fact I use the phrases like "Real Presence" and also I believe the use of the other ceremonies (is that agreeable phrasing?) are for edification of Christ's Church however, are not of the same stature as Baptism and Holy Communion as Beckwith stated.
George,
ReplyDeleteI am not personally comfortable with the use of the word "stature" to describe the difference between Baptism and the Lord's Supper and the other five rites. They are in completely different categories. This is one of the points that Beckwith makes in this article. This is also how he treats them in his other writings that I have read. I think that we have to let go of the idea that they are in any way sacraments--even minor ones. Practices like imposition of hands and anointing with oil are found in the Scriptures but the doctrine that had attached to them in the Medieval Church is not gathered from Scripture. Hence Article 25's reference to "corrupt following of the Apostles." The Medieval Church developed certain practices, saw similarities between what it was doing and what the New Testament describes the apostles as doing, and erroneously concluded that it was doing what the apostles were doing. It then used these descriptive passages to claim what it was doing was Scriptural. The apostles did lay hands on some folks after baptism but it was not a primitive form of confirmation. Confirmation is edifying, that is, it upbuilds the Body of Christ because the new believer makes his profession of faith before the gathered church and the church prays for him.