Once a Priest, always a Priest. When once the Bishop has ordained a Deacon to the Priesthood, there is no going back. The law, ecclesiastical or civil, may deprive him of the right toexercisehis Office, but no power can deprive him of the Office itself.
For instance, to safeguard the Church, and forthe sake of the laity, a Priest may, for various offences, be what is commonly called "unfrocked". He may be degraded, temporarily suspended, or permanently forbidden toofficiatein any part of the Church; but he does not cease to be a Priest. Any Priestly act, rightly and duly performed, would be valid, though irregular. It would be for the people's good, though it would be to his own hurt.
Again: byThe Clerical Disabilities Actof 1870, a Priest may, by the law of the land, execute a "Deed of Relinquishment," and, as far as the law is concerned, return to lay life. This would enable him legally to undertake lay work which the law forbids to the Clergy.[8]
He may, in consequence, regain his legal rights as a layman, and lose his legal rights as a Priest; but he does not cease to be a Priest. The law can only touch his civil status, and cannot touch his priestly "character". That is indelible.
Hence, no securities can be superfluous to safeguard the irrevocable.
As in the case of the Bishops, a Priest's jurisdiction is twofold—habitualandactual. Ordination confers on himhabitualjurisdiction, i.e. the power to exercise his office, to Absolve, to Consecrate, to Bless, in the "Holy Church throughout the world". And, as in the case of Bishops, for purposes of ecclesiastical order and discipline, this Habitual Jurisdiction is limited to the sphere in which the Bishop licenses him. "Take thou authority," says the Bishop, "to preach the word of God, and to minister the Sacramentsin the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto." This is calledActualJurisdiction.
The absolutely essential part of Ordination is the Laying on of Hands (1 Tim. iv. 14; Acts vi. 6; 2 Tim. i. 6). Various other and beautiful ceremonies have, at different times, and in different places, accompanied the essential Rite. Sometimes, and in some parts of the Church, Unction, or anointing the Candidate with oil, has been used: sometimes Ordination has been accompanied with the delivery of a Ring, the Patenand Chalice, the Bible, or the Gospels, the Pastoral Staff (to a Bishop),—all edifying ceremonies, but not essentials.
A Deacon is a server. The word comes from the Greekdiakonos, a servant, and exactly describes the Office. Originally, a permanent Order in the Church, the Diaconate is now, in the Church of England, generally regarded as a step to the Priesthood. This is a loss. But it is as this step, or preparatory stage, that we have to consider it.
Considering the importance of this first step in the Ministry, both to the man himself, and to the people, it is well that the laity should know what safeguards are taken by the Bishop to secure "fit persons to serve in the sacred ministry of the Church"[9]—and should realize their own great responsibility in the matter. First, there is the age.
No layman can be made a Deacon under 23.
The chief preliminary is the selection of the Candidate. The burden of selection is shared by the Bishop, Clergy and Laity. The Bishop must, of course, be the final judge of the Candidate's fitness, butthe evidence upon which he bases his judgmentmust very largely be supplied by the Laity.
We pray in the Ember Collect that he "may lay hands suddenly on no man, but make choice offit persons". It is well that the Laity should remember that they share with the Bishop and Clergy in the responsibility of choice.
For this fitness will, as in the case of the Priest, be moral and intellectual.
It will bemoral—and it is here that the responsibility of the laity begins. For, in addition to private inquiries made by the Bishop, the laity are publicly asked, in the church of the parish where the Candidate resides, to bear testimony to the integrity of his character. This publication is called theSi quis, from the Latin of the first two words of publication ("if any..."), and it is repeated by the Bishop in open church in the Ordination Service. Theabsence of any legal objection by the laity is the testimony of the people to the Candidate's fitness. This throws upon the laity a full share of responsibility in the choice of the Candidate. Their responsibility in giving evidence is only second to that of the Bishop, whose decision rests upon the evidence they give.
Then, there is the testimony of the Clergy. No layman is accepted by the Bishop for Ordination withoutLetters Testimonial—i.e. the testimony of three beneficed Clergymen, to whom he is well known. These Clergy must certify that "we have had opportunity of observing his conduct, and we do believe him, in our consciences, and as to his moral conduct, a fit person to be admitted to the Sacred Ministry". Each signature must be countersigned by the signatory's own Bishop, who thus guarantees the Clergyman's moral fitness to certify.
Lastly, comes the Bishop himself, who, from first to last, is in close touch with the Candidate, and who almost invariably helps to prepare him personally in his own house during the week before his Ordination.
It will beintellectual. In addition to University testimony, evidence of the Candidate'sintellectual fitness is given to the Bishop, as in the case of Priests, by his Examining Chaplains. Some months before the Ordination, the Candidate is examined, and the Examiner's Report sent in to the Bishop. The standard of intellectual fitness has differed at various ages, in different parts of the Church, and no one standard can be laid down. Assuming that the average proportion of people in a parish will be (on a generous calculation) as twelve Jurymen to one Judge, the layman called to the Diaconate should, at least, be equal in intellectual attainment to "the layman" called to the Bar.
It does sometimes happen that evidence is given by Clergy, or laity, which leads the Bishop to reject the Candidate on moral grounds. It does sometimes happen that the Candidate is rejected or postponed on intellectual grounds. It does, it must, sometimes happen that mistakes are made: God alone is infallible. But, if due care is taken, publicly and privately, and if the laity, as well as the Clergy, do their duty, the Bishop's risk of a wrong judgment is reduced to a very small minimum.
A "fit" Clergy is so much the concern of the laity, that they may well be reminded of theirparts and duties in the Ordination of a Deacon. For, as Dr. Liddon says, "the strength of the Church does not consist in the number of pages in its 'Clerical Directory,' but in the sum total of the moral and spiritual force which she has at her command".
[1] "The Threefold Ministry," writes Bishop Lightfoot, "can be traced to Apostolic direction; and, short of an express statement, we can possess no better assurance of a Divine appointment, or, at least, a Divine Sanction." And he adds, speaking of his hearty desire for union with the Dissenters, "we cannot surrender for any immediate advantages the threefold Ministry which we have inherited from Apostolic times, and which is the historic backbone of the Church" ("Ep. to the Philippians," p. 276, later ed.).
[2] The Welsh Bishops did not transmit Episcopacy to us, but rather came into us.
[3] In a book calledRegistrum Sacrum Anglicanum, Bishop Stubbs has traced the name, date of Consecration, names of Consecrators, and in most cases place of Consecration, of every Bishop in the Church of England from the Consecration of Augustine.
[4] The Bishops are one of the three Estates of the Realm—Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal, and Commons (not, as is so often said, King, Lords, and Commons). The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first Peer of the Realm, and has precedency immediately after the blood royal. The Archbishop of York has precedency over all Dukes, not being of royal blood, and over all the great officers of State, except the Lord Chancellor. He has the privilege of crowning the Queen Consort.
[5] Cf. "Encyclopedia of the Laws of England," vol. 11, p. 156; and 25 Hen. VIII, cap. 2, s. 6.
[6] 14 Car. II, c. 4, s. 10. See Phillimore's "Ecclesiastical Law," vol. 1, p. 109.
[7] But see Skeat, whose references are to [Greek: klêros], "a lot," in late Greek, and the Clergy whose portion is the Lord (Deut. xviii. 2, 1 Pet. v. 3, cf. Acts i. 17). The [Greek: klêros] is thus the portion rather than the circumstance by which it is obtained, i.e. Acts i. 17 rather than Acts i. 26.
[8] For example: farming more than a certain number of acres, or going into Parliament.
[9] Ember Collect.
We deal now with the two last Sacraments under consideration—Penance and Unction. Both are Sacraments of healing. Penance is for the healing of the soul, and indirectly of the body: Unction is for the healing of the body, and indirectly of the soul.
"Every Sacrament," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "has been instituted to produce one special effect, although it may produce, as consequences, other effects besides." It is so with these two Sacraments. Body and Soul are so involved, that what directly affects the one must indirectly affect the other. Thus, the direct effect of Penance on the soul must indirectly affect the body, and the direct effect of Unction on the body must indirectly affect the soul. We will think of each in turn. First, Penance.
The word is derived from the Latinpenitentia, penitence, and its root-meaning (poena, punishment) suggests a punitive element in all real repentance. It is used as a comprehensive term for confession of sin, punishment for sin, and the Absolution, or Remission of Sins. As Baptism was designed to recover the soul from original or inherited sin, so Penance was designed to recover the soul from actual or wilful sin....[1] It is not, as in the case of infant Baptism, administered wholly irrespective of free will: it must be freely sought ("if he humbly and heartily desire it"[2]) before it can be freely bestowed. Thus, Confession must precede Absolution, and Penitence must precede and accompany Confession.
Here we all start on common ground. We all agree upon one point, viz. the necessity of Confession (1)to God("If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins")and (2)to man("Confess your faults one to another"). Further, we all agree that confession to man is in reality confession to God ("Against Thee,Thee only, have I sinned"). Our only ground of difference is, notwhetherwe ought to confess, buthowwe ought to confess. It is a difference of method rather than of principle.
There are two ways of confessing sins (whether to God, or to man), the informal, and the formal. Most of us use one way; some the other; many both.
Informal Confession.—Thank God, I can use this way at any, and at every, moment of my life. If I have sinned, I need wait for no formal act of Confession; but, as I am, and where I am, I can make my Confession. Then, and there, I can claim the Divine response to the soul's three-foldKyrie: "Lord, have mercy upon me; Christ, have mercy upon me; Lord, have mercy upon me". But do I never want—does God never want—anything more than this? The soul is not always satisfied with such an easy method of going to Confession. It needs at times something more impressive, something perhaps less superficial, less easy going. It demands more time fordeepening thought, and greater knowledge of what it has done, before sin's deadly hurt cuts deep enough to produce real repentance, and to prevent repetition. At such times, it cries for something more formal, more solemn, than instantaneous confession. It needs, what the Prayer Book calls, "a special Confession of sins".
Formal Confession.—Hence our Prayer Book provides two formal Acts of Confession, and suggests a third. Two of these are for public use, the third for private.
In Matins and Evensong, and in the Eucharistic Office, a form of "generalconfession" is provided. Both forms are in the first person plural throughout. Clearly, their primary intention is, not to make us merely think of, or confess, our own personal sins, but the sins of the Church,—and our own sins, as members of the Church. It is "we" have sinned, rather than "I" have sinned. Such formal language might, otherwise, at times be distressingly unreal,—when, e.g., not honestly feeling that the "burden" of our own personal sin "is intolerable," or when making a public Confession in church directly after a personal Confession in private.
In the Visitation of the Sick, the third mode offormal Confession is suggested, though the actual words are naturally left to the individual penitent. The Prayer Book no longer speaks in the plural, or of "ageneralConfession," but it closes, as it were, with the soul, and gets into private, personal touch with it: "Here shall the sick man be moved to make aspecialConfession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter; after which Confession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort". This Confession is to be both free and formal: formal, for it is to be made before the Priest in his "ministerial" capacity; free, for the penitent is to be "moved" (not "compelled") to confess. Notice, heisto be moved; but then (though not till then) he is free to accept, or reject, the preferred means of grace.
God never handcuffs Sacraments and souls. Sacraments are open to all; they are forced on none. They are love-tokens of the Sacred Heart; free-will offerings of His Royal Bounty.
These, then, are the two methods of Confession at our disposal. God is "the Father of an infinite Majesty". IninformalConfession, the sinner goes to God as hisFather,—as the Prodigal, after doing penance in the far country, wentto his father with "Father, I have sinned". InformalConfession, the sinner goes to God as to the Father of aninfinite Majesty,—as David went to God through Nathan, God's ambassador.
It is a fearful responsibility to hinder any soul from using either method; it is a daring risk to say: "Because one method alone appeals to me, therefore no other method shall be used by you". God multiplies His methods, as He expands His love: and if any "David" is drawn to say "I have sinned" before the appointed "Nathan," and, through prejudice or ignorance, such an one is hindered from so laying his sins on Jesus, God will require that soul at the hinderer's hands.
It is the same with Absolution as with Confession. Here, too, we start on common ground. All agree that "God onlycan forgive sins," and half our differences come because this is not recognized. Whatever form Confession takes, the penitent exclaims: "To Thee only it appertaineth to forgive sins". Pardon through the Precious Blood is the one, and only, source offorgiveness. Our only difference, then, is as to God'smethodsof forgiveness. How does God forgive sin? Some seem to limit His love, to tie forgiveness down to one, and only one, method of absolution—direct, personal, instantaneous, without any ordained Channel such as Christ left. Direct, God's pardon certainly is; personal and instantaneous, it certainly can be; without any sacramentalmedia, it certainly may be. But we dare not limit what God has not limited; we dare not deny the existence of ordained channels, because God can, and does, act without such channels. He has opened an ordained fountain for sin and uncleanness as a superadded gift of love, and in the Ministry of reconciliation He conveys pardon through this channel.
At the most solemn moment of his life, when a Deacon is ordained Priest, the formal terms of his Commission to the Priesthood run thus: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." "Nowcommitted unto thee." No Priest dare hide his commission, play withthe plain meaning of the words, or conceal from others a "means of grace" which they have a blessed right to know of, and to use.
But what is the good of this Absolution, if God can forgive without it? God's ordinances are never meaningless. There must, therefore, be some superadded grace attached to this particular ordinance. It was left to be used. It is not left merely to comfort the penitent (though that it does), nor to let him hear from a fellow-sinner that his sins are forgiven him (though that he does); but it is left, like any other Sacrament, as a special means of grace. It is the ordained Channel whereby God's pardon is conveyed to (and only to) the penitent sinner. "No penitence, no pardon," is the law of Sacramental Absolution.
The Prayer Book, therefore, preaches the power of formal, as well as informal, Absolution. There are in it three forms of Absolution, varying in words but the same in power. The appropriating power of the penitent may, and does, vary, according to the sincerity of his confession: Absolution is in each case the same. It is man's capacity to receive it, not God's power in giving it, that varies. Thus, all three Absolutions in thePrayer Book are of the same force, though our appropriating capacity in receiving them may differ. This capacity will probably be less marked at Matins and Evensong than at Holy Communion, and at Holy Communion than in private Confession, because it will be less personal, less thorough. The words of Absolution seem to suggest this. The first two forms are in the plural ("pardon and deliveryou"), and are thrown, as it were, broadcast over the Church: the third is special ("forgivetheethine offences") and is administered to the individual. But the formal act is the same in each case; and to stroll late into church, as if the Absolution in Matins and Evensong does not matter, may be to incur a very distinct loss.
When, and how often, formal "special Confession" is to be used, and formal Absolution to be sought, is left to each soul to decide. The two special occasions which the Church of England emphasizes (without limiting) are before receiving the Holy Communion, and when sick.
Before Communion, the Prayer Book counsels its use for any disquieted conscience; and theRubric which directs intending Communicants to send in their names to the Parish Priest the day before making their Communion, still bears witness to its framers' intention—that known sinners might not be communicated without first being brought to a state of repentance.
The sick, also, after being directed to make their wills,[3] and arrange their temporal affairs, are further urged to examine their spiritual state; to make a special confession; and to obtain the special grace, in the special way provided for them. And, adds the Rubric, "men should often be put in remembrance to take order for the settling of their temporal estates, while they are in health"—and if of the temporal, how much more of their spiritual estate.
But, say some, is not all this very weakening to the soul? They are, probably, mixing up two things,—the Divine Sacrament of forgiveness which (rightly used) must be strengthening, and the human appeal for direction which (wrongly used) may be weakening.
But "direction" is not necessarily part of Penance. The Prayer Book lays great stress upon it, and calls it "ghostly counsel and advice," but it is neither Confession nor Absolution. It has its own place in the Prayer Book;[4] but it has not, necessarily, anything whatever to do with the administration of the Sacrament. Direction may, or may not, be good for the soul. It largely depends upon the character of the penitent, and the wisdom of the Director. It is quite possible for the priest to over-direct, and it is fatally possible for the penitent to think more of direction than of Absolution. It is quite possible to obscure the Sacramental side of Penance with a human craving for "ghostly counsel and advice". Satan would not be Satan if it were not so. But this "ghostly," or spiritual, "counsel and advice" has saved many a lad, and many a man, from many a fall; and when rightly sought, and wisely given is, as the Prayer Book teaches, a most helpful adjunct to Absolution. Only, it is not, necessarily, a part of "going to Confession".
The abuse of the Sacrament is another, and not unnatural objection to its use; and it often gets mixed up with Mediaeval teaching about Indulgences.
AnIndulgenceis exactly what the word suggests—the act of indulging, or granting a favour. In Roman theology, an Indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment due to sin after Absolution. It is either "plenary," i.e. when the whole punishment is remitted, or "partial," when some of it is remitted. At corrupt periods of Church history, these Indulgences have been bought for money,[5] thus making one law for the rich, and another for the poor. Very naturally, the scandals connected with such buying and selling raised suspicions against the Sacrament with which Indulgences were associated.[6] But Indulgences have nothing in the world to do with the right use of the lesser Sacrament of Penance.
The promise of Amendment is an essential part of Penance. It is a necessary element in all true contrition. Thus, the penitent promises "true amendment" before he receives Absolution. If he allowed a priest to give him Absolution without firmly purposing to amend, he would not only invalidate the Absolution, but would commit an additional sin. The promise to amend may, like any other promise, be made and broken; but the deliberate purpose must be there.
No better description of true repentance can be found than in Tennyson's "Guinevere":—
For what is true repentance but in thought—Not ev'n in inmost thought to think againThe sins that made the past so pleasant to us.
Such has been the teaching of the Catholic Church always, everywhere, and at all times: such is the teaching of the Church of England, as part of that Church, and as authoritatively laid down in the Book of Common Prayer.
God alone can forgive sins. Absolution is the conveyance of God's pardon to the penitent sinner by God's ordained Minister, through the ordained Ministry of Reconciliation.
Lamb of God, the world's transgressionThou alone canst take away;Hear! oh! hear our heart's confession,And Thy pardoning grace convey.Thine availing intercessionWe but echo when we pray.
[1] Cf. Rubric in the Baptismal Office.
[2] Rubric in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick.
[3] Rubric in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick.
[4] See the First Exhortation in the Order of the Administration of the Holy Communion.
[5] St. Peter's at Rome was largely built out of funds gained by the sale of indulgences.
[6] The Council of Trent orders that Indulgences must be granted by Pope and Prelategratis.
The second Sacrament of Recovery isUnction, or, in more familiar language, "the Anointing of the Sick". It is called by Origen "the complement of Penance".
The meaning of the Sacrament is found in St. James v. 14-17. "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."
Here the Bible states that the "Prayer of Faith" with Unction is more effective than the "Prayer of Faith" without Unction. What can it do?
It can do two things. It can (1) recover the body, and (2) restore the soul. Its primaryobject seems to be to recover the body; but it also, according to the teaching of St. James, restores the soul. First, he says, Anointing with the Prayer of Faith heals the body; and then, because of the inseparable union between body and soul, it cleanses the soul.
Thus, as the object of Penance is primarily to heal the soul, and indirectly to heal the body; so the object of Unction is primarily to heal the body, and indirectly to heal the soul.
The story of Unction may be summarized very shortly. It was instituted in Apostolic days, when the Apostles "anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them" (St. Mark vi. 13). It was continued in the Early Church, and perpetuated during the Middle Ages, when its use (by a "corrupt[1] following of the Apostles") was practically limited to the preparation of the dying instead of (by acorrect"following of the Apostles") being used for the recovery of the living. In our 1549 Prayer Book an authorized Office was appointed for its use, but this, lest it should be misused, was omitted in 1552. And although, as Bishop Forbes says, "everything of that earlier Liturgy was praised by those whoremoved it," it has not yet been restored. It is "one of the lost Pleiads" of our present Prayer Book. But, as Bishop Forbes adds, "there is nothing to hinder the revival of the Apostolic and Scriptural Custom of Anointing the Sick whenever any devout person desires it".[2]
An unhistoric use of the name partly explains the unhistoric use of the Sacrament.Extreme, or last (extrema) Unction has been taken to mean the anointing of the sick whenin extremis. This, as we have seen, is a "corrupt," and not a correct, "following of the Apostles". The phraseExtremeUnction means the extreme, or last, of a series of ritual Unctions, or anointings, once used in the Church. The first Unction was in Holy Baptism, when the Baptized were anointed with Holy Oil: then came the anointing in Confirmation: then in Ordination; and, last of all, the anointing of the sick. Of this last anointing, it is written: "All Christian men should account, and repute the said manner of anointing among the other Sacraments, forasmuch as it is a visible sign of an invisible grace".[3]
It must be administered under the Scriptural conditions laid down in St. James v. 14-16. The first condition refers to:—
(1)The Minister.—The Minister isthe Church, in her corporate capacity. Scripture says to the sick: "Let him call for the Elders," or Presbyters, "of the Church". The word is in the plural; it is to be the united act of the whole Church. And, further, there must be nothing secret about it, as if it were either a charm, or something to be ashamed of, or apologized for. It may have to be done in a private house, but it is to be done by no private person.[4] "Let him call for the elders."
(2)The Manner.—The Elders are to administer Sacrament not in their own name (any more than the Priest gives Absolution in his own name), but "in the Name of the Lord".
(3)The Method.—The sick man is to be anointed (either on the afflicted part, or in other ways),with prayer: "Let them pray over him". Prayer is essential.
(4)The Matter.—Oil—"anointing him with oil". As in Baptism, sanctified water is the ordained matter by which "Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin"; so in Unction, consecrated oil is the ordained matter used by the Holy Ghost to cleanse us from all sickness—bodily, and (adds St. James) spiritual. "And if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."
For this latter purpose, there are two Scriptural requirements:ConfessionandIntercession. For it follows: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray for one another that ye may be healed". Thus it is with Unction as with other Sacraments; with the "last" as with the first—special grace is attached to special means. The Bible says that, under certain conditions, oil and prayer together will effect more than either oil or prayer apart; that oil without prayer cannot, and prayer without oil will not, win the special grace of healing guaranteed to the use of oil and prayer together.
In our days, the use of anointing with prayer is (in alliance with, and in addition to, Medical Science) being more fully recognized. "The Prayer of Faith" is coming into its own, and is being placed once more in proper position in thesphere of healing;anointingis being more and more used "according to the Scriptures". Both are being used together in a simple belief in revealed truth. It often happens that "the elders of the Church" are sent for by the sick; a simple service is used; the sick man is anointed; the united "Prayer of Faith" (itmustbe "of Faith") is offered; and, if it be good for his spiritual health, the sick man is "made whole of whatsoever disease he had".
God give us in this, as in every other Sacrament, a braver, quieter, more loving faith in His promises. The need still exists: the grace is still to be had.
If our love were but more simple,We should take Him at His word;And our lives would be all sunshineIn the sweetness of our Lord.
[1] Article XXV.
[2] "Forbes on the Articles" (xxv.).
[3] "Institution of a Christian Man."
[4] In the Greek Church, seven, or at least three, Priests must be present.
Absolution,149.
Adoption,76.
Affusion,65.
Altar,86.
Amendment,156.
Anointing,104,158.
Aspersion,65.
Augustine, St.,3,12,13,49.