Christians are divided over the question of the number of sacraments. The (39) Articles of Religion of the Church of England opt for a narrow definition. The relevant article opens:
XXV. OF THE SACRAMENTSIt then rejects the grouping of other rites with these two 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.Accordingly the question How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church? in the Catechism in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is given this answer:
Two only, as generally necessary to salvation; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Many have considered this somewhat unsatisfactory and this is reflected in the Revised Catechism authorised by the General Synod of the Church of England in 1982. It distinguishes between “Gospel Sacraments” and “Other Ministries of Grace.” Question and Answer 38 affirms the classical Anglican position
Christ in the Gospel has appointed two sacraments for his Church, as needed by all for fulness of life, Baptism, and Holy Communion.But answer 39 acknowledges five other “sacramental ministries of grace” which, applying answer 38, were not appointed in the Gospel and are not needed by all for fulness of life.
The historic position seems to make some questionable assumptions.First there is this unfolding logic:
- there cannot be a sacrament within the church which is not a sacrament ordained by Christ;
- Christ cannot be recognised as having ordained a sacrament unless this can be referenced with regard to the Gospel (according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John), which implies
- whatever Christ's apostles ordained cannot be said to have been ordained by Christ.
This last point is most obviously relevant for ordination and the anointing of the sick. While Jesus appoints ministers, the laying on of hands is known as an apostolic practice from the latter part of the NT. While Jesus heals the sick and instructs his ministers to do likewise, the anointing is specifically referenced in James 5. The reference in the Article to the "corrupt following of the Apostles" should not obscure this argument. The answer to the corruption of the Lord's Supper was to purify the sacrament. But while the Church of England retained ordination and the anointing of the sick (with opportunity for individual confession of sins) and even confirmation and "holy matrimony" (all in purified forms, presumably), in none of these cases is there a sacrament to be purified.
This is so, secondly, not only because of a lack of reference to having been ordained by Christ in the Gospel but because these other rites "have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God" which is a surprising claim, given the rites found in the Book of Common Prayer itself, unless we put the emphasis on the last three words. Thus, e.g., while marriage is ordained by God, God did not ordain any ceremony to go with it. But can this claim be upheld if one allows that God ordained laying on of hands for ordination, anointing for prayer with the sick, absolution for confession of sins and even that marriage should be a covenant? Or would one need to deny all these things? After all, even with baptism Christ gave so little instruction beyond the central act that Christians debate whether sprinkling or pouring are as good as dipping and even eating and drinking the Lord's Supper comes in the form of different local ceremonies.
Thirdly, the 1662 Catechism spells out the assumption that sacraments are "generally necessary for salvation" which is also reflected in answer 38 in the Revised Catechism ("needed by all for fulness of life"). This seems to be behind the observation in the Articles that one or two of the "commonly called Sacraments" are "states of life allowed in the Scriptures" (although the use of "allowed" is surprising in the context of marriage and ordination). It is hardly logical to deny that a "state of life" can also be a sacrament, unless it is assumed that every sacrament is necessary for every Christian.
The definition of "sacrament" adopted in the Articles is workable but it is not without remaining questions, not least because the Church of England retained within its liturgy, e.g., an order of confirmation, forms for the "making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons" and for solemnizing matrimony, all of which are rites which include acts alongside prayer and thanksgiving and could fall under a more traditional definition of sacrament.
I wonder whether the Church of England would have done better to imbibe more of Luther and Melanchthon here. See Article 13 of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.
