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 are 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.
by the Reverend Jane Gober
It is astonishing to consider that a statement about the two primary sacraments would need to balance the principalities of Europe with the growing power of the educated middle classes and rapidly evolving theological debates and be true to God so that we might continue in communal prayer and worship faithfully. Yet that background is important to remember when we are looking at the Thirty-Nine Articles, and especially Article 25. What is or is not happening in the Eucharist and baptism may be a mystery, but at the time affairs of state and peace in the streets and expectations regarding eternal life and death rested in the interpretations of these two sacraments.
In the Faith and Order paper titled Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry from the World Council of Churches (1982), one baptism (that is always good forever) and communion (locally adapted) are two of the primary markers of what makes something a church and something else not. Both baptism and communion are actions that Jesus participates in according to the Gospels, whereas other sacramentals (anointing the sick, ordination, marriage) may have New Testament warrant, their bona fides aren’t as direct as baptism and Eucharist. While they may not be the first thing that generous outsiders would declare as our most obvious unifying features, for insiders it should.
Jesus himself is not reported to have baptized anyone himself, but the Gospel of Matthew concludes with his commission to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Mt.28.19). In the Acts of the Apostles, baptism is mentioned 18 times, sometimes with the apostles baptizing multitudes at once. It is in Paul’s letters however that the model of what baptism means for the Jesus movement emerges: he connects baptism of the follower to Jesus’s death and resurrection. It is in this initiation ritual that the followers of Jesus die with him and are buried with him as they go under the water; and as they emerge from the waters they share in the resurrection life (Rom. 6:1–4; cf. Col. 2:12). It is also to be felt that many of the occasions in the later Gospels where Jesus is in the context of water (wells, baths, rivers, seas) and conversion and revelation and healing – all of these moments stream into the broad depth of the sacrament of Baptism.
Baptism doesn’t garner as much of the political wrangling in the 16th-century settings of the Forty-Two Articles which became the Thirty-Nine, with this Article 25 having little altered in the intervening years. Baptism was not stoking the same flames as communion did—some of which difference may arise from the English reformers being closer academically with the Lutheran reformers (who were comfortable with infant baptism) and less so with the Anabaptists (who were not), and furthermore, the Church of England’s leading minds being enamored of the Orthodox who baptize, confirm, and commune children all at once. Their choices had direct implications for the wider population for whom infant baptism remained a cultural touchstone until recently. In Article 27 the exploration is taken deeper, and the practice of baptizing children in commended—certainly to the disdain of a swath of the more strident reforming parties. Otherwise however, whether baptism is once and for all (or repeatable) does not gain a mention; nor do any of the other details that current liturgics and theology emphasize, such as it being a public sacrament that is central to Christian vocation.
Eucharist, communion, or the Lord’s Supper is shaped by the Gospel accounts of the supper before Jesus’ death, as well as the Pauline statement in 1 Corinthians. Like baptism however, many of the occasions of Jesus’ feasting are present in our deepest layers of understanding of who we are to become in Jesus through the bread and wine. Here in the Thirty-Nine Articles Eucharist garners several more specific articles (Articles 28, 29, 30, 31) than did baptism. Taken all together this 25th Article and the four others sum up much of the theological and soteriological issues of the time: transubstantiation (probably not); is this rite and sacrament a re-enactment of the cross (no); who should receive what parts (all for all); whether anything in the direction of a monstrance is a good thing (they say no); and the connection of real presence, intention and reception. Here specifically in Article 25 the focus is on the last two concerns: both of which have clear Reformationist (and anti-catholic) declarations. Which leaves an intriguing subject of substance to the work of the church in society— the other clergy-action churchy-things:
‘These five sacraments, generally called sacraments, ie confirmation, repentance, ordination, marriage and extreme anointing, are not to be counted among the sacraments of the Gospel, partly because of the corrupt discipleship of the apostles, ..and…. because they have no visible sign or God-given ceremony.’ (mildly translated into modern English) Why are ritual actions with inner graces (sacramentals) not sacraments with a capital S? According to this 25th Article, because while they may have happened in the Gospels and even in the context of Jesus (marriage), and sometimes in his name (healing) there isn’t much of a commission to go marry or ordain people, whereas Jesus certainly tells his followers to baptize and commune. It is also true that across traditions and interpretations baptism and Eucharist have direct connections with salvation, whereas the five other sacramentals offer comfort, inspiration, confidence and grace, they are not outward signs of eternal redemption. Furthermore, as is stated in the article, the argument is that the Roman church had polluted and messed with the other sacramentals so much as to dissolve their connection to anything biblical.
A young person once asked me (in less complicated words), if the priest baptizes someone in Lake Coeur D’Alene, does it then mean that everyone else who gets in the water is now baptized? And if so for how long does the effect last? The final concern of the 25th Article is about the intention of reception, and the answer would be no, if you are not intending to be baptized (or if your parents/sponsors are not so intending) then you can jump in the same lake without accidental sacramental exposure. The beauty here is that it pushes open wide the idea that it is not our action or ideas that matter so much as God meeting our earnest faith through the sacraments. It does of course damn anyone who has ill intent in their reception, but hopefully, it is an article statement with limited application.
Is this 25th Article the Article about the sacraments that this church would write today? Almost certainly not. We would most likely not choose to trash talk ecumenical neighbors who disagree with us, and in the last century substantial official work has been done toward common patterns in liturgy and better mutual understanding regarding the two sacraments. Furthermore, it is hard to dive into the Eucharistic articles and find much room for even mild ‘anglo-Catholic’ practices which are considered normatively as playing in-bounds. In trying to forge a way of church life and practice that is both evolved by Reformation understanding and attentive to the grace of ritual practices (and not intentionally fermenting violent disagreement) what we have in the 25th Article (and its connected articles) is a substantially broad-church Reformation-leaning article. Some might argue that the place where we have found our liturgical practice to be is exactly what they imagined, it is certainly fair to note that we generally have become more open and generous than this document expects, while also being much more tolerant of what the authors might have considered themselves to have been cutting out.
The other glaring difference is easily seen by returning to the WCC statement on baptism, Eucharist, and ministry (which if you have not read you should): a contemporary collaborative document with some similar intentions to the political and theological balancing act of the Thirty-Nine Articles. It specifically mentions that our inability to hold varying interpretations of our fellow Christians in love and forgiveness is a very mark of the fractured-ness of humanity, and the church, which is exactly what Christ calls us to be agents of healing for. Furthermore, the 25th Article makes no explicit connection between the two sacraments being different signs of similar unity with God in Christ and each other. The language of both our current BCP rites have strong connections and echoes of each other, yet this sacred interwovenness isn’t present, mostly because it may not have been acknowledged or prominent.
However, most importantly, it is the silence on the connection between these two sacraments and the Easter life that is most distant from how we would draft an article on the sacraments today. This emphasis I believe to be holy and good and what I practice, but it is also a foundation that none of the original authors expressed: that the reign of God, and the risen life in Jesus, is deeply critical to what it means when we put our trust in the real presence of Christ in the sacraments. The sacraments and their meaning and ‘effectiveness’ emerge out of the whole Christ event—his entire ministry, his death, and his resurrection (and ongoing presence). The articles only convey an explicit interest in how communion is connected to Jesus’ death. As a cradle American Episcopalian who has no memory of anything but our current prayer book, this is a striking difference between the sacramental outline of the articles and how we celebrate the sacraments of Christ together now. This resurrection emphasis certainly comes from deeper biblical scholarship and the ecumenical work in both theology and liturgy in the 20th century. Yet make no mistake, if we were to solely play by the rules of these lovely articles it would be easier to remove the piscina than it is to find an alleluia.
What strikes me the most after having spent more time than I ever have with the Thirty-Nine Articles, and specifically with the 25th one, is how within just the category of the Episcopal clergy, how many I have served with and received from whose belief and practice is not considered out of bounds by current standards, ordination rites or our catechism; yet by this document would be considered so. I love the complex dance of the church that I have, one that cautiously trusts the idea that if we pray together we are together, and that difference is beautiful and full of grace. Yet to look at it from the lens of these articles is to wonder if we are too quick to overlook the fragility and danger of this experiment. These Articles did much to offer road rules for religious peace across generations of bloodshed in the name of Christian unity in diversity, but it could be argued that it also created a tepid church that blanded itself into irrelevance. I am blessed because our tables and fonts are surrounded by a much broader array of hearts and intentions than the Thirty-Nine Articles imagined, and I also hope that this, like the many streams of biblical imagery that fill both the sacraments, is a way in which the fullness of the presence of Christ is truly present in our life together.
The Rev. Jane Gober is a priest, pastor, teacher and lifelong formation advocate. Currently serving as the Interim Rector at Grace Episcopal Church in Pemberton, New Jersey, she previously forged a 20+ year career in lifelong formation ministries across the Episcopal Church in the continental USA. She writes a blog, contributes to Planning for Rites and Rituals (Church Publishing), and consumes hours of baseball watching each year.
On a broader view is this post about Regency fictional vicars and the 39 articles which they had to ascribe to. https://blissfulirreverence.blogspot.com/2019/06/austen-clergypeople-25th-of-39-and-is.html.