THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE CONFESSIONAL.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPEOTATOR.1
'Sin,—Please permit a constant reader of the Spectator to offer a few remarks on your deeply interesting article on "The Church of England and the Confessional."
1. I think that you hardly allow weight enough to the omission of the special form of absolution from the Prayer-book of 1549. A. Church, during the process of reformation, can hardly be too 'careful in dealing with services at once familiar and dear to her children. The greater, therefore, must be the significance of such a step as the removal of a special form of absolution from her service-book. Such a negative must practically carry with it a very positive meaning.
2. The Absolution in the "Visitation of the Sick" is surely of an exceptional, not typical character. Sick folks and sufferers, .especially dying ones, are liable to morbid doubts and tempta- tions, and their minds, if ordinarily strong and healthy, are hardly then in a state of equipoise. They ding to those whom they feel to be stronger than themselves, and words of sympathy and com- fort coming from friends or relatives are wondrously prized at such a time. How much more, then, is it suitable for the pastor whom they know and respect, whose training and official position authorise him to speak plainly of the relations between God and man, to stand and speak clearly what is God's mind to men in general, and to penitent sinners in particular ? But though from the nature and necessity of the case the language is somewhat strong, the compilers of the Service have guarded it very carefully. There is nothing absolute in the 'Character of the Absolution. The necessary conditions are plainly set forth, and are, of course, presumed—especiall$ at such a time—to be fully complied with. Even then, however, the 1m- l:cusp of the rubrics is cautiously guarded. They are by qualified "ifs "—" if he feel his conscience troubled," "if be truly and heartily desire it "--evidently meant to interpose a barrier against Priestly assumption of power as a mere matter of course. So guarded, even though, or I might say because, the service was art made, but only modified by the Reformers, there is prac- tically little to fear from its correct use, even though theoretically
there may be some n )r. f o witness t 'origin, prima appearance of teaching bearing
' a though effectually neutralised.
3. The rubric in Morning Prayer preceding the Absolution refers to the priest alone. From our common practice, it is generally supposed that this is an injunction to the priest as such, not to the minister (who may be a deacon), to pronounce absolution. But this is not the case (see Canon Robertson's celebrated essay
in the Edinburgh Review, " Rubric •
v. Usage "). "Priest" and 44 minister" are used interchangeably, as any one may see for him- self, throughout the rubrics, and minister and people having just confessed their sins together, the priest (minister) is then bidden to pronounce the absolution alone, i.e., without the people. Deacons, it should be remembered, were not always, as now, so- sustorned to preach, or take so prominent a part in our services as at present. The form of their licence to preach bears witness to its exceptional character, though our urgent needs have for a long time past made their licence general. If "priest," wherever it occurs in our services, is to be technically interpreted, the ser-
vice could not be got through, for the deacons would be silenced. It may or it may not be desirable for a clergyman in full orders to pronounce the absolution and to preach, as implying a position of authority, and for deacons to subside into their original posi- tion of minor assistants in the services ; but now that deacons habitually preach in the pulpit what usage alone—not common- sense or abstract propriety—prevents them from saying, totidem verbis, in the reading-desk, this distinction has long become an absurd anomaly, and is no real argument for sacerdotalism.—I
Previous page
