Subido por Alexander Briceño

ARTICLE 36 Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons

ARTICLE 36 Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers The Book of Consecration of Archbishops
and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth
and conrmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to
such consecration and ordering; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly.
And therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the
second year of King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according
to the same rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated or ordered.
Introduction Who is to be ordained? What is needed for a valid ordination? Who has the authority
to ordain Deacons, Priests, and consecrate Bishops in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church? These are questions that must be answered, and particularly at a time such as the
Reformation in the 16th century, when previous answers were no longer adequate. Much of this is
treated in Article 23, where it is discussed in more general terms. This Article is more limited, for it
discusses the validity and adequacy of the ordinal, or rites of ordination in the Church of England’s
Ordinal, which is usually bound with The Book of Common Prayer and is seen as part of our
formularies. This Article, however, goes beyond the specics of the Anglican Ordinal and raises
fundamental and general questions about the nature of the ordained ministry in the Church in all
of its expressions when viewed in the light of the Scriptures. The Papal Church did not approve of
the departure of the Church in England from under its authority at the time of the Reformation.
The Pope claimed and continues to claim to be the universal Vicar of Christ on earth. The
separation by the Church of England cast doubt, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, on the
validity of the ordinations and Holy Orders of those subsequently ordained in the Church of
England without the Pope’s approval or consent. Later, the Church of Rome, in an ocial judgment,
declared Anglican Orders to be invalid due to the inadequacy of the Anglican Ordinal. This 36th
Article responds to the objections to the Anglican Ordinal from Rome and to objections regarding
the Ordinal from some Puritans and Anabaptists in England. Article 36 asserts both the adequacy
and the biblical faithfulness of the Anglican Ordinal. It thereby arms the validity of Anglican orders
in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and of those clergy ordained in and through the
ordinal of the Church of England. The Teaching of Article 36 Here are the teaching points for this
Article: 1. The Ordinal approved in the Church of England contains all that is necessary for the right
ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. 2.
The Anglican Ordinal contains nothing ungodly or superstitious. 3. All who have been or shall be
ordained or consecrated through the Anglican Ordinal are rightly and lawfully ordained. 1. The
Ordinal approved in the Church of England contains all that is necessary for the right ordering of
Bishops, Priests and Deacons in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Explanation At
the time of the Reformation everything was being considered in the light of the Scriptures.
Therefore the question is posed, “What do the Scriptures say and teach by example about what
ordination rites need to include to be acceptable to God and used by Him?” Because the adequacy
of the Anglican Ordinal, or the Anglican rites used for ordination of Deacons, Priests or Presbyters,
and the consecration of Bishops, was questioned by Rome and others on theological grounds, this
became a question about the very nature of the ordained ministry as well. Rome’s objections were
particularly concerned with the nature of the ordained ministry as related to the celebration of the
Eucharist or Lord’s Supper. Anglicans, in the Articles, seek to build their doctrine and practice on
the Holy Scripture and only on such developments in the history of the Church that are congruent
with the Scriptures. Also, as the Articles frequently assert, the Church has no authority to ordain
anything that is contrary with Scripture. Therefore, this Article gets us deep into matters about
which Christians do not at present agree. Anglicans seek to make an ecumenical contribution here
as in other places in these Articles. It is interesting that the New Testament never uses the term
“ordain,” but the substance of ordination is found under such terms as “called,” “chosen,”
“appointed,” and “set apart.” Jesus chose and called the Twelve Apostles; the Apostles appointed
elders or presbyters in the congregations they founded, and the elders seem to have set apart
deacons in the several congregations. Actually, we have little information about the ceremonies
that were used to ordain or consecrate people into these oces or orders. The fullest description
we have is found in Acts 6 where the deacons were set apart by the Apostles. There we nd that
they were set apart by public prayer and the laying on of hands. In addition, in a number of places
in Acts and in the letters of Paul and particularly in the pastoral epistles, we hear of the laying on
of hands as involved in the way people were set apart for specic ministries and oces. Therefore, it
would satisfy biblical teaching and practice if an ordination rite or an ordinal consisted of public
prayer and the laying on of hands by those with authority to ordain or consecrate persons into a
particular order or oce. No doubt, as the Church grew and expanded and developed in dierent
parts of the world, the rites of ordination expanded and what was included in one part of the
Church was not necessarily included in the rites of other churches. All ordination rites, however, as
far as we know, included and continue to include the biblical elements of public prayer and the
laying on of hands by those with the authority to ordain. The Anglican ordinal from the time of
Edward the Sixth onwards contained these essential elements. Anglicans, therefore, are condent
that the services of ordination in the Anglican Ordinal, from the beginning, contained the
necessary elements to ordain persons for the godly ministry of the Word and sacraments in God’s
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In the New Testament, the dominant language about
the oce of Presbyter or Priest and of Bishop is that of humble service in pastoral oversight and
teaching. Little is said about who presides in the celebration or administration of the Holy
Communion, though one can surmise with a high degree of condence that it was one of the elders
or presbyters who presided when an Apostle was not present. At the Reformation, the Church of
England through Archbishop Cranmer recovered the biblical emphasis on the reading, preaching,
and teaching of the Word, while retaining a high regard for the ministry of the Sacraments of the
Gospel celebrated in the context of the ministry of the Word. Because of this Scriptural emphasis,
the Anglican Ordinal has the giving of the Bible to the ordinand during the ordination serve as a
sign that the order into which the ordinand was entering was a biblical order, that it would be
carried out in the power of the Spirit speaking through the Scriptures, and would be conducted in
accordance with the Word of God written. Several traditional statements and the items
traditionally given when a Priest or Presbyter was ordained were omitted in the Anglican Ordinal
as being either secondary or contrary to the nature and calling of Christian Priesthood, as set forth
in Scripture. Biblical Foundations And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove;
and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Luke 3:22
So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to
him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” Hebrews 5:5 In these days he went out to the
mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his
disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles. Luke 6:12-13 Now in these days
when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the
Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve
summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up
preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven
men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we
will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the
whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and
Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These
they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. Acts 6:1-6 And when
they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them
to the Lord in whom they had believed. Acts 14:23 For those who serve well as deacons gain a
good standing for themselves and also great condence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy
3:13 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who
labor in preaching and teaching. 1 Timothy 5:17 For this reason I remind you to fan into ame the
gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 2 Timothy 1:6 False Teaching
Denied/Objections Answered There are several objections raised by the Roman Catholic Church to
the Anglican Ordinal. 1. Rome objected that there was not sucient dierentiation in the words of
ordination for the dierent orders of ministry, since the same words for ordination and/or
consecration were used for both the Priesthood and Episcopate. However helpful this
dierentiation might be at the point of the laying on of hands, the earliest known ordinals of the
ancient Church did not include any such dierentiation. Therefore, if that expression of
dierentiation at the moment of ordination were declared essential for valid ordinations, all
ordinations would be invalid, for no one was validly ordained since the undierentiated formula
was commonly used. Those who were later ordained using the fuller formula would not have been
validly ordained either, for they would have been ordained by those who were not truly ordained.
This is a conclusion no one was or is willing to embrace. That objection was eventually dropped.
Anglicans gladly added words of dierentiation in the ordinal, agreeing that it was a wise, though
not an essential, thing to do. In 1662 the words: “for the oce and work of a Deacon,” “for the oce
and work of a Priest,” and “for the oce and work of a Bishop” were added to the words of
ordination and consecration in the Anglican Ordinal. 2. Rome also objected and continues to
object that the words “to oer sacrice for the living and the dead” were missing in the ordination of
the Priest. This is by far the most important issue and question raised concerning the ordinal. This
omission was intentional on the part of Cranmer and the Anglican Reformers. These words were
omitted because they assumed and taught that Priests oered, or that Christ oered Himself through
the Priests, as a propitiatory sacrice in the Mass, which Anglicans denied. (See the discussion of
this point in Article 31.) It should be stated that the word “Priest” in The Book of Common Prayer
is a shortened form of Presbyter or Elder; Presbuteros and not hieirus (the word for the Old
Testament priest, who did oer sacrices for sin). The word hieirus is never once applied to the
ordained ministry in the New Testament. That could hardly have been accidental. It was due to the
fact that Jesus had made the nal and sucient propitiatory sacrice. It was not to be repeated.
Further, Jesus remains in oce eternally, interceding for us as our High Priest in heaven. For this
reason, not only does Rome have serious reservations about the Anglican Ordinal, Anglicans have
and should have serious reservations about the Roman Ordinal, which has included a sacrice and
sacerdotal view of the ordained ministry which is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. These are
matters for serious ecumenical discussion. 3. Rome asserted her sense of being the Church by
objecting that the Anglican Ordinal did not intend to do what the Church was doing. This is a valid
point only if one holds that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth with jurisdiction over all
Christians and that the Roman Catholic Church is in fact the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church, rather than one visible member church or expression of the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church (and one, from the Anglican perspective, that needs reformation in a number of
areas, not least in its understanding of Priesthood). According to Anglican doctrine, what Rome
does, does not per se dene what the Church does or ought to do. Therefore, Anglicans hold that
this objection is based on false premises. 4. Rome also believed that in failing to anoint the Priest’s
hands for blessing and by failing, in the service of ordination, to give the traditional implements of
oce, such as a paten, chalice, and chasuble, the Anglican rites were essentially decient. Anglicans
point out that the early ordinals did not include the giving of these implements and that they were
omitted because they implied, at the time of the Reformation, a sacerdotal or sacricing
priesthood, which is foreign to the New Testament priesthood or presbyterate. They still carry that
sacerdotal meaning in the Roman Ordinal. Anglicans hold that the authority of the Priest to
preside over Word and Sacrament is suciently and clearly signied in the giving of the Holy
Scriptures, and by words of the Ordinal. In addition, a stole is usually given and the ordinand is
vested with it at the ordination as well. Stoles are generally worn by Anglican clergy when they are
celebrating and administering the sacraments. Eucharistic vestments are also worn by some
Anglicans. These ceremonial matters are matters of some debate among Anglicans. Implications
We can summarize the heart of all these objections by saying that the Anglican Ordinal diers from
the Roman Catholic Ordinal both by not acceding supreme authority to the Roman Catholic Church
and by having a dierent and biblical understanding of the nature of the priesthood. In the Mass,
the Roman Catholic Priest intends to oer, Christ acting through him, a meritorious, propitiatory
sacrice for the living and the dead. The Anglican Priest does not, but rather recalls the once-for-all,
completed, and nished propitiatory sacrice of Christ and presides over the Holy Communion in
which Christ gives Himself, His Body and Blood, to the repentant faithful for their nourishment in
their relationship to Him and to one another and for their part in His mission to the world. The
ordinals reect and express this dierence. 2. The Anglican Ordinal contains nothing ungodly or
superstitious. Explanation One wonders, what would one object to in the Anglican Ordinal as
superstitious or as ungodly? We turn from objections coming from Rome to objections coming
from groups of believers, largely in England. Some of the Anabaptists that were involved with the
radical wing of the Reformation and later some Puritans raised these objections. It seems that
Bishops were a matter of contention. Some of the Anabaptist groups were inclined to reject all
practices and traditions that developed after the closing of the New Testament Canon. As such,
their reading of the New Testament led them to deny all authority in the Church beyond the
authority of the congregation and its authority to choose its own leaders, both governing elders
and teaching elders. They were congregational in polity or governance. To them, the Anglican
Ordinal was seen to include instruments of oversight, i.e., Bishops, that were not instituted by
God. They objected to the oce and the authority of the Bishop on two grounds. First, they objected
to the fact that the Ordinal sees Bishops as being an order and exercising an oce distinct from
Presbyters because, in the New Testament, the roles of Bishops and Presbyters/Priests referred to
the same people. The distinction of Bishop from Presbyter was a purely post-Canonical
development, in their mind. Anglicans disagreed, holding that the rise of the monarchical
Episcopate took place along lines already found in Scripture in Timothy and Titus and was a
development fully in accord with Scripture. A second reason they objected to Bishops was that the
Bishop, representing the wider Church, exercised an authority over the several local congregations
in a diocese. For example, the permission of the Bishop was required for an ordination to take
place. Congregations could recommend whom they would like to see ordained and serve them,
but they did not have the authority to ordain or simply to choose whomever they wanted as their
leaders. Such authority these nonconformists did not nd in Scripture. Both of these elements in
the Ordinal were considered by the Anabaptists to be unwarranted and false additions to biblical
teaching and simplicity. Therefore the Anglican Ordinal was considered ungodly by the
Anabaptists, who held to a congregational polity. As mentioned above, the Anglican response to
these objections comes from a closer reading of Holy Scripture. In the Scriptures, the Apostles held
authority over the congregations. However, as the Church was rapidly expanding and the Apostles
were being martyred, some new form of unifying oversight was needed. Anglicans see the
beginning of a developing episcopate in gures such as James, who was something of a monarchical
gure in Jerusalem, and Timothy and Titus who were apostolic deputies, presbyters answerable to
the Apostles and who had several congregations with their clergy placed under their oversight by
the Apostles. By A.D. 180, the monarchical Episcopate had become universal in the Church. This
was a development that made explicit what was implicit and even beginning to emerge in
Scripture in the New Testament period. Somewhat later, some Puritans who were clergy in the
Church of England also believed that the oce of Bishop was an improper retention, a remainder of
unreformed tradition, that needed to be removed so that the reformation of the Church could be
properly completed. The response to the Anabaptists just outlined above also describes the
Anglican response to those Puritans. In addition, those Puritans were also oended by the words of
the Ordinal: “Receive the Holy Ghost for the oce and work of a Priest (Bishop) in the Church of
God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they
are forgiven; whose sins thou dost retain they are retained.” These words were retained from the
pre-Reformation Ordinal. The Puritans held that these words were superstitious, for in their
opinion, man cannot claim to bestow the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, nor can any man
forgive sins. God alone does both. They held this despite the fact, as Anglicans pointed out, that
the words quoted are those of Christ spoken to the Apostles. The incarnate Son did and does have
the authority to forgive sins, and it is in His Name and service that the Presbyter or the Bishop
authoritatively declares to repentant believers the forgiveness of Christ. In essence, the objections
of both the Puritans and the Anabaptists are answered by observing that the elements in the
Ordinal to which they objected are actually developments in the Church’s history that have their
foundation and beginning in the New Testament and are in accord with the Scripture. Given this,
Anglicans believe that there is nothing superstitious or ungodly in the Ordinal. Biblical Foundations
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending
you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is
withheld.” John 20:21-23 After they nished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.
Simeon has related how God rst visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And
with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will return, and I will
rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the
remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the
Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Therefore my judgment is that we should not
trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things
polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read
every Sabbath in the synagogues.” Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the
whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and
Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers. Acts
15:13-22 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our
hope, To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and
Christ Jesus our Lord. As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you
may charge certain persons not to teach any dierent doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths
and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that
is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a
sincere faith. 1 Timothy 1:1-5 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I
charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. Do not be hasty
in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure. 1 Timothy 5:21-22
You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard
from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach
others also. 2 Timothy 2:1-2 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God
the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what
remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above
reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of
debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He
must not be arrogant or quicktempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable,
a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold rm to the trustworthy
word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke
those who contradict it. Titus 1:4-9 False Teaching Denied/Objections Answered 1. Anglicans have
ever treasured the historic Episcopate, that is, Bishops in historic succession, as a pastoral sign and
servant of the wider apostolic succession of the Church. The apostolic succession of the Church is
not just Bishops in succession through time, as is sometimes taught, but also all the various ways
the Church passes on the Apostolic Faith, life, and mission from one generation to the next
generation. The historic Episcopate must never be isolated from that which it serves and from
which it draws its meaning. For example, as a servant of the Apostolic life, Faith, and mission of
the Church, a reality that is broader than his oce, an Anglican Bishop in historic succession who is
teaching contrary to the Apostolic Faith and contrary to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican
Church is unfaithful rst and fundamentally as a Bishop in the Church Catholic, and in particular as
an Anglican Bishop. Apostolicity in the Episcopate cannot be isolated from the Apostles’ teaching.
2. Having asserted that the order of Bishops in historic succession has its roots in Scripture and has
ever been treasured by Anglicans, it is important to go on to say that Anglicans have not unchurched those Churches of the Reformation that did not continue with Bishops in historic
succession. Some churches did not continue the historic Episcopate because the Bishops in their
areas refused the Reformation. Others did not continue the historic Episcopate because they saw
no great value in the oce of Bishop as they had experienced it and therefore replaced the
traditional forms of ministry with other patterns, and some others, following Calvin, thought that
Scripture mandated a dierent form of oversight and governance. It is instructive that it was the
Calvinists, not the Anglicans, that insisted, along with Rome and the Orthodox, that a specic
pattern of ecclesiastical oversight is essential and not just desirable. 3. In ecumenical relations,
Anglicans have sought to avoid two extremes. On the one hand, Anglicans want to commend the
historic Episcopate to all the Churches; they arm the biblical roots, the divine leading, and the
practical value and importance of that form of ministry. Many Anglicans are convinced that it was
the Lord Who led the whole Church into use of the Episcopate by the end of the 2nd century.
Moreover, Anglicans can see no way to recover the full visible unity of the whole Church apart
from the historic Episcopate. So Anglicans encourage all the churches to consider receiving the
historical Episcopate. On the other hand, they do not want to deny that those churches are truly
churches and expressions of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that at present neither
have, nor presently desire to have, Bishops in historic succession. This concern to arm the place of
Bishops in historic succession and at the same time to arm the Catholicity of all the historic
Churches of the Reformation has led to the three classic views of the importance of the historic
Episcopate that are presently found in Anglicanism. A small number of Anglicans hold to the esse
position. The name is taken from the Latin verb “to be.” This view holds that the historic
Episcopate is essential to the being of the Church. Since it is held to be essential, without it there
can be no Church. Rome, the Eastern Churches, and some Anglo-Catholic Anglicans share this
view. This view does not really t the language of the Anglican formularies or the statements of the
Lambeth Conferences. In essence, it denies that those Churches of the Reformation without the
historic Episcopate are truly churches and views them as communities of baptized Christians living
under the uncovenanted mercies of God. A second view is referred to as the plene esse position
and holds that the historic Episcopate belongs to the fullness of the Church. Churches without the
historic Episcopate are missing something that belongs to the wholeness of the nature of the
Church, but they are still churches, assuming that they exhibit the marks listed in Article 19. The
historic Episcopate is a gift of God given through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is a treasure
when done in godly faithfulness. And Anglicans commend it to all churches. A third view is called
the bene esse view. It teaches that the historic Episcopate is a good and godly way of ordering the
Church, and is rightly to be prized by those churches that have it. However, it is seen as a
development in the life of the wider Church that all churches do not share, and most certainly
ought not be imposed upon them if they do not see its goodness and desire it. Not all have had a
good experience with Bishops. From experience at the time of the Reformation and subsequently,
as well as in the present, it can be seen that Bishops in historic succession of oce can fail to remain
in the succession of Apostolic Faith, and have led in the wrong direction. We have to confess that
the Houses of Bishops of a number of Anglican Provinces have failed dismally in keeping the Faith
in recent history. The indefectibility of the Church cannot rest only or ultimately on the Bishops of
the Church. The second and third views, plene esse and bene esse, both t within the language of
the Articles and of the Lambeth Conferences and the practice of the Anglican Communion. The
experience of the Ecumenical Movement has shown that the historic Episcopate cannot be forced
upon others; if we Anglicans live it out with faithfulness, we may hope that its value will become
apparent to all. Implications There is nothing superstitious or ungodly in the Anglican Ordinal, and
Anglicans may use it with condence and pride. Having preserved the historic Episcopate at the
Reformation as a gift of God for which Anglicans are thankful, Anglicans gladly commend the
traditional and biblically rooted orders of Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop in historic succession to
all churches that bear the marks of a visible church as stated in Article 19. 3. All who have been or
shall be ordained or consecrated through the Anglican Ordinal are rightly and lawfully ordained.
Explanation This declaration in Teaching Point 3 follows logically from the previous two teaching
points. Since the Ordinal, in all of its editions from its appearance under Edward VI to the present,
has contained the essentials for valid ordinations in the Church Catholic, and since nothing
superstitious or ungodly is found therein, therefore all who have been and will be ordained and
consecrated using this Ordinal are truly and validly ordained or consecrated in the Church Catholic
and should be recognized as such throughout the Church. False Teaching Denied/Objections
Answered With Rome nding reasons to question the validity of Anglican ordinations, with groups
of the radical Reformation and some Puritans also raising objections, and because some minor
changes were made in the Ordinal along the way, it was important for the Anglican Church to
declare its mind on all of the ordinations subsequent to its break with Rome. This they did with
clarity in this Article which was approved by the Sovereign, by Parliament, by the Archbishops of
Canterbury and York, and by their Provincial Chapters. Implications The Anglican Ordinal passes
the biblical test and, in fact, is more biblical than the ordinal or manner of ordination of those who
bring objections against it. Therefore, Anglicans have every condence that their clergy are rightly
and truly ordained as Deacons, Priests, or Presbyters and consecrated as Bishops in Christ’s One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It follows that Anglican clergy should be recognized as such
throughout the entire Church Catholic. Conclusion The Anglican Ordinal is fully sucient and
contains nothing that is not in accord with Scripture. Those who have been ordained by the Lord
through the church using it are truly and validly ordained. Their ordination should be recognized
throughout the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The 1662 Anglican Ordinal is an
outstanding liturgical set of rites for the ordaining and consecrating of ministers of the Gospel. It
sets forth the nature and responsibilities of the ordained ministries of the Church with great
power and biblical profundity. Those ordained by the Lord as well as the laity of the Church will nd
that a frequent meditation upon these rites is a helpful means for understanding and encouraging
the godly exercise of these ministries.