Article  XXVI

OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE MINISTERS, WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENT^[1]

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet for as much as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments.  Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that enquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

 

Nothing did more to prepare for the revolt of the Christian conscience against the ecclesiastical system on the eve of the Reformation than the reputation of the clergy, both regular and secular, for arrogance, avarice, immorality and worldliness.  The people, who were entirely ignorant of the points discussed in scholastic philosophy, and had little interest in the theological issues of the Reformation controversy, knew about the widespread clerical degeneracy, and recognized its incompatibility with Christian conduct.  This circumstance provides another example of how matters which led to heresy and schism in the early Church reappeared in the reaction against Romanism in the 16th century.  The question at issue was: Does a Minister’s character influence the validity and effectiveness of his spiritual ministrations?  Can the grace of Word and Sacrament be communicated to the people by a wicked Priest?

In the 4th century a dispute occurred over the appointment of one Caecilianus to the See of Carthage; his character was suspect, and his consecrator, Felix of Aptunga, was accused of being a traditor.^[2]  The chief objector to the appointment was Donatus who contended that if it was allowed, all the Church’s ordinances, including the Sacraments, would be invalid.  The powerful opponent of the Donatists was St. Augustine who argued that their criticism rested on the doctrine of perfection; unless ordination conferred sinlessness there was no difference in this respect between the clergy and the laity; all share in the common sinfulness; it is only a question of degree: ‘It does not matter to the integrity of Baptism, how much worse he is who administers it.  For there is not so much distinction between the bad and the worse, as between the good and the bad.  And yet when a bad man baptizes, he gives nothing other than a good man does.’  St. Chrysostom, a contemporary of St. Augustine, says much the same; he points out the injustice of thinking that those who receive in faith the symbols of our salvation should be injured on account of another’s wickedness.  The great precursor of the English Reformation, Wycliffe (1324‑1384), belonged to the rigorist tradition, and the Council of Constance (1415) which condemned his teaching, alleged against him the belief that ‘if a Bishop or Priest live in mortal sin, he ordaineth not, he baptizeth not, he consecrateth not.’  Had he lived in Reformation times, Wycliffe would, on this point, have been on the side of the fanatical sects whose view is rejected in our Article.  Many of the modern sects go even further than the Donatists; unless a Minister follows the rigorist tradition and also holds their particular narrow doctrine of salvation, they would deny the validity and effectiveness of any of his ministration of Word or Sacraments – even to the extent of rebaptizing those who have been baptized by an ordained Minister of the Church.