Bicknell on Article XXVI: Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament

were made in 1563. The first paragraph, based largely on the Confession of Augsburg, formed the last paragraph of the original Article of 1553. The second and third paragraphs were composed in 1563. The last paragraph of our present Article formed the first of the earlier Article, but has undergone two important alterations, (i) An opening clause consisting of a quotation from St. Augustine has been omitted, (ii) the condemnation of the theory of grace ex opere operato has been withdrawn. Its object may be summed up thus: (i) To condemn as inadequate teaching about the sacraments held by Anabaptists, Zwinglians and others ; (ii) To restore a sense of proportion in the view of sacraments by a reference to Scripture ; (iii) To make clear that they require a moral effort in the recipient. N.B.—Allowed = probati, i.e. approved. Duly =rite, i.e. with right matter and form and a duly authorized minister. Worthily =digne, i.e. with right inward disposition.

Of the Unworthiness of the Mimisters, which hinder not the Effect of the Sacrament. Although in the visible

De vi institutionum diwnnarum, quod eam non tollat malitia Mumstrorum.

Quamvis in Ecclesia visibili, bonis mali semper sunt ad-

gled with the good, and some- times the evil have chief au- thority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch 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 the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wicked- ness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered un- to 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 inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences ; and finally beimg found guilty by just judgment, be deposed.

mixti, atque interdum minis- terio verbi et Sacramento- rum administrationi praesint ; tamen cum non _ suo, sed Christi nomine agant, ejusque mandato et auctoritate minis- trent, illorum ministerio uti licet, cum in verbo Dei au- diendo, tum in Sacramentis percipiendis. Neque per il- lorum malitiam effectus insti- tutorum Christi tollitur, aut gratia donorum Dei minuitur, quoad eos qui fide et rite sibi oblata percipiunt, quae prop- ter institutionem Christi et promissionem efficacia sunt, licet per malos administrentur.

Ad Keclesiae tamen disci- plinam pertinet, ut in malos ministros inquiratur, accu- senturque ab his, qui eorum flagitia noverint, atque tan- dem justo convicti judicio deponantur.

Practically unchanged since 1553. Taken mainly from the Thirteen Articles and through them based in part on the Confession of Augsburg.

Object.—To condemn the idea of Anabaptists that the personal holiness of the minister was a necessary condition for any valid preaching of the Word or ministration of the sacraments.

§1. The word ‘Sacrament’ has a long history.* In classical Latin ‘sacramentum’ meant ‘a sacred pledge.’ It was used for a soldier’s oath or for caution money deposited to prevent

frivolous suits.

The word is first used in reference to Christians

by Pliny in a letter to the Emperor Trajan. He writes that * Cp. Trench, Study of Words, pp. 188-139.

Christians bound themselves ‘ sacramento,’ not to commit some crime (as popular opinion supposed), but rather not to commit theft, robbery, adultery, etc. The word here, in the writing of a heathen governor, must still have its meaning of ‘ oath’ or “solemn promise.’ Its appearance is almost accidental. Its first employment in any technical Christian sense was in the earliest Latin-speaking Church, that of North Africa. Here it was used to translate the Greek word puctijpiov. pvortnptov originally meant a secret (not anything ‘mysterious’ in our sense of the word). It is used, eg. of State secrets. Hence it came to be applied to religious truths that were known only to the initiated or to acts “where more was meant than met the eye or ear,’ and where the secret meaning was known only to those who had been taught it. Thus it had quite a wide range of meaning, and its Latin translation, sacramentum, had at first an equally wide range. Through the Latin versions of the New Testament it passed into the common vocabulary to the Latin-speaking Church. In the Fathers it is used in its old sense of oath or of any Christian truth or ceremony or ordinance.* But in quite early times we find a tendency to contrast the fewness of Christian with the multiplicity of Jewish ordinances.t Accordingly, the term sacrament came to be limited to those rites which were com- manded in the New Testament. The number of sacraments varied with different writers. The fixing of the number as Seven is assigned to Peter Lombard (d. 1164). It is accepted in a decree of the Council of Florence (1439), and finally ratified by the Council of Trent in 1547. Accordingly, at the time this

• H.g. Tertullian applies it to the baptismal vow. ‘In Sacramenti verba respondimus.’ He even speaks of Christians being accused ‘de sacramento infanticidii.’ Cyprian speaks of the Lord’s Prayer as containing many great ‘sacraments,’ of the three hours of prayer as ‘a sacrament of the Trinity.’ Pope Innocent can write of two sacraments in the Eucharist, the bread and the wine.

• St. Augustine wrote how under the new dispensation Christ ‘has knit together His people in fellowship by sacraments which are very few in number, most easy in observance, and most excellent in significance, as bap- tism solemnized in the name of the Trinity, the Communion of His Body and Blood and also whatever else is commended to us in canonical Scripture, apart from those enactments which were a yoke of bondage to God’s ancient people, suited to their state of heart and to the times of the prophets and which are found in the books of Moses’ (Ep. liv. 1 quoted in the earlier edition of the Article. Cp. also Christian Doctrine, iu. 9).

Article was composed the idea of Seven Sacraments had long been familiar.

§ 2. In all teaching about sacraments we have to face an initial objection. Christianity, it is said, is a spiritual religion. God is a Spirit. We are spiritual beings. What God asks for in us is a right inward disposition of the will, namely faith, not the performance of specified ceremonies. We are told to worship the Father ‘in spirit and in truth.’ What place, then, can out- ward and material things have in the dealings of spirit with spirit ? How can the pouring of water on a man’s forehead or the tasting of bread and wine affect the soul’s relation to God ? History shows that the great danger of religion is that it should sink into substituting forms and ceremonies for spiritual obed- ience. It would therefore be well for Christianity to shun the danger altogether. Such objections are widespread. They rest not on mere prejudice, but often on a desire for reality. We must face them.

(a) Such objections often rest upon a view of material things and the external world that is not Christian at all. The Christian Church has always contended against the view that matter is intrinsically evil. All material things have their origin in God. The world as He made it is ‘ very good.’ The statement that we are ‘spiritual beings’ is a half-truth. Man is not only spirit, but spirit lmked to and realizing itself through a material body.

Our very thoughts and prayers are conditioned by certain bodily functions. Our whole spiritual activity is dependent upon the body. An injury to the brain will wreck the finest intellect. A bad headache will disintegrate the devotions of a saint. We cannot explain the relation of the spiritual to the material, whether in human life or in the world at large. It is an ultimate fact that we are compelled to admit, even though our finite understanding cannot grasp it. As Christians we hold that the material is not necessarily opposed to the spiritual. Rather matter fulfils its true purpose when it is subject to spirit and used as a means to the self-realization of spirit. On the other hand, our whole life in this world is mediated by matter. As Dr. Moberly says, ‘If a man is not spiritual in and through the body, he cannot be spiritual at all.’ So the union of spiritual and material in the sacraments corresponds to and rests upon their union in man himself. Just as in man the material may

THE SACRAMENTS ” AAT

overcome and degrade the spiritual, the body may become master instead of servant, so in the sacraments the outward side may win an undue predominance. It may become not a means but an end, not the expression of a spiritual state but a substitute for it. But just as the misuse of the body does not render it possible or even desirable for us to attempt to discard it, so the misuse of sacraments is an argument not for their abolition but for their right use. ‘Corruptio optimi pessima.’ The more that we insist upon the terrible results that follow from the misuse of the sacramental principle, the more we bear witness to its inherent power, and the more urgent becomes the call to claim and consecrate such a mighty possibility for the service of God.

(6) Sacraments are as old and wide as religion itself. We appeal quite rightly to the universal appearance of religion as a proof of its reality and importance. We may extend the argu- ment and claim that the prominence and universality of the sacramental principle is a proof that it satisfies a legitimate and universal human need. In all parts of the world we find sacred ablutions. Partly they symbolize the desire for inward puri- fication, partly they create a sense of purity in preparation for drawing near to God. Again, we find in most primitive worship sacred meals in connexion with sacrifice holding a central place. The origina] meaning of sacrifice is disputed, but beyond all doubt in historical times these sacrificial rites came to express the communion of the worshippers with their god and with one another. The language in which this idea is expressed is often crude. Sometimes the god was conceived in animal form, and the tribe who claimed kinship with him fed on the flesh of the sacred animal and thus were regarded as feeding on the life of the god. In more civilized tribes the communion was rather sought by sharing a common meal with him. Such rites, often crude, debased, and corrupt, must not be despised. They may claim to be taken at their best, as the efforts of primitive man to realize communion with God. They have their place in the pre- paration of the world for Christ. If we believe that from the first the Word of God was ‘lightening every man that cometh into the world,’ we find in them a divinely prompted feeling after God, an inspired education of needs and aspirations that awaited their full satisfaction in Christ. Our Lord came to fulfil the

highest ideals, not only of the Jews but of the heathen too. Their sacrifices, like the Jewish, were in their degree a preparation for Christ. By the deliberate institution of Christian sacra- ments our Lord drew men to find in Himself the satisfaction of those needs to which the persistence through long ages of such imperfect rites had borne witness. Christ did not originate but consecrated afresh the sacramental principle. Here, as else- where, He came not to destroy but to fulfil.

(c) Sacraments are often called ‘an extension of the Incar- nation.’ Just as Christ took on Him a human nature that through it He might draw near to us, so He still draws near to us in things that we can touch and see. From His Birth to His Resurrection His earthly life was ‘ broad-based’ on matter. The Atonement was wrought out on a Cross with material blood. In His miracles He employed material means as an aid to faith.

Again, in the Incarnation God’s dealings with the world took the form of definite outward historical events. The Atonement is not the less spiritual because it was achieved through certain acts in time to which we can give a date and place. So, too, in His Sacraments Christ still deals with His Church through outward events. While He moved on earth among men it needed faith to discern His authority. Only the eye of faith could discern in the death on the Cross more than the murder of an innocent man. So in the sacramental happenings of the Christian life faith is needed to discover and appropriate their inner meaning ; but that does not make them the less real. In the moral and spiritual life, as elsewhere, it is the concrete and particular rather than the abstract and general that counts. The Devil has his sacraments. We all condemn love of money in the abstract. The test comes in the particular temptation to make money by means that our conscience condemns. The further we get down the scale, the more important the concrete becomes. A friend or a glass of beer, very definite and material facts, embody in themselves the spiritual conflict for many a human soul. Christianity is a universal religion, not only for the intellectual but for the plain man, not only for the spiritually gifted but for the dull-witted and the savage. For these spiritual truths need to be enshrined in concrete facts. Through sacraments the meaning of unseen realities is brought home to simple minds. Religion descends from the eternal and

invisible to manifest itself in space and time, becoming not one bit the less spiritual in so doing. Just as ‘the Word was made flesh,’ so the living Christ still condescends to the needs of men and makes Himself known to them in the actual and the detailed. Of themselves the water of Baptism or the bread and wine of the Eucharist can do neither harm nor good to the spirit of man—no more and no less than the sound-waves that underlie speech or the colours that form the raw material of the painter’s art. But through the spoken word or the painter’s scene our spirit can communicate to another something of its own life, thoughts and suggestions, whether of beauty or of shame. So through outward and visible signs Christ communicates Himself to us.

(d) Sacraments are a necessary condition of the social side of religion. If a man wishes to enter into any relations with his fellowmen he must employ material means. The use of a physical medium is the condition of all human intercourse. The glance of an eye, the utterance of the tongue, or whatever it be, all involve the use of matter. A purely spiritual life, if it were conceivable for a man, would be a life of isolation. The very nature of Christian sacraments emphasizes the social side of all true religion. They are ‘a divine provision against spiritual individualism.’ Their form is that of ceremonies only possible among members of a society. They remind us that religion includes not only our relation to God but our relation to our brethren. While corporate religion cannot exist without sacra- -ments of some kind, the Christian sacraments are peculiarly expressive of this common life, and, indeed, demand it. A purely individual religion may be most spiritual, but it is not the religion of Jesus Christ.

(e) While all human life is in some measure patient of being brought within the range of sacraments, certain elements in it stand out as primary and fundamental. We can see why our Lord, as it were, focussed the sacramental principle on two great ordinances. He took the two most simple and universal needs, common to all mankind, the need of cleanliness and the need of food, and based on them the two sacraments of the Gospel. As Dr. Illingworth says, ‘He consecrates an ablution and a meal, the two necessities of our daily life, to be the witness through the ages of His spiritual presence among men.’ We cannot

2F

—~

limit the sacramental principle to these two rites, of unique authority though they be. They are but the supreme demon- stration of the subjection of the material to the spiritual. Even the more private and individual acts of human life may afford the material for sacraments. But Christ ensured that no man should be outside the range of sacramental experience. He shows that sacramental life is not for a few but for all. Starting from the two great sacraments, men may learn to find in the whole of human life a parable of divine truth. Every act and need may be consecrated to the service of God. Human life will only become fully spiritual when it has become fully sacramental.

IWingworth, Christian Character, ¢. viii.

Paget in Lua Mundi, ‘Sacraments,’ Essay X.

Bernard, Word and Sacraments, c. i. Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, pp. 41-42.

§3. The Article gives four objects for which Christian sacra- ments exist.

(a) They are ‘ badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession.’ This view is true as far as it goes, but by itself is inadequate. It was specially emphasized by the Zwinglians. They are the means by which we publicly confess our allegiance to Christ and our membership of the Christian society. Such public con- session is in Scripture demanded of Christians (Mt. 10%, Ro. 109). In heathen lands baptism is recognized by all parties as the decisive act that marks allegiance to Christ. It often costs a man the loss of home and friends. As Article XXVII says, Baptism is… a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not~Christened.’ At home the same is still true in the case of an adult. To be baptized or confirmed is an open act of allegiance. So, too, in many parts of England, to come to communion is to act differently from others. The very act of coming is an act of witness to Christ. It is felt that a man is compromised by it in a way that he is not by mere attendance at Church. The Christian ought to be prepared to compromise himself publicly for Christ.

(6) They be certain sure witnesses… of grace and G’od’s good- will towards us. The fact that sacraments exist is an abiding proof that God in His love wishes to bestow grace on man. Our personal call to use them is a proof that God wills to bestow

grace on us personally. They are witnesses of God’s goodwill both for the past and the future. As the Catechism says : sacraments ‘are a means whereby we receive’ grace ‘and a pledge to assure us thereof.’ In the Holy Communion we thank God ‘for that… Thou dost assure us thereby of Thy favour and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of Thy Son.’ If we base our assurance of belonging to God only upon passing through certain religious feelings, then our sense of assurance shifts with our shifting feelings. But God’s grace is wider and surer than man’s emotions. Through a right use of the sacraments, as pledges of God’s love, our certainty is made to depend upon definite out- ward facts about which there can be no doubt.

(c) They are effectual signs of grace and God’s goodwill towards us by the which He doth work invisibly in us. An ‘ effectual’ sign is a sign that is no mere parable, but conveys the blessing that it symbolizes. These words rule out the Zwinglian view of, e.g. the Hucharist as a bare memorial. As the Catechism says: By ‘sacrament’ ‘I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us… whereby we receive the same.’ This efficacy of sacraments depends upon the ordinance of Christ. God is the efficient cause (n.b. Latin per quae tpse mm nobis operatur), the sacraments are only instru- mental causes. ‘Christ is the chief and principal worker in all sacraments as a function of His everlasting Priesthood.’

(d) By the which He … doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him. Sacraments are an aid to faith. Just as in the Old Testament the Pillar of Fire and the Pillar of Cloud are represented as an aid to the faith of Israel, helping them to believe in a God whom they could not see, so Christian sacra- ments help our faith to lay hold on God. The use of such simple means helps us to realize both our own needs and the power of God. Our readiness to use them is a test of our belief in God’s promise and power (cp. 2 Kings 51%). Again, they offer definite opportunities for acts of faith. They set before us definite promises of God for faith to claim. Faith, like all our other faculties, needs exercise and grows stronger by use. There is often a danger that a newly awakened faith may waste itself in vague emotion. The sacraments afford definite objects on which to focus itself. They provide definite efforts for our wills

A52 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

to make, and thus have an important place in the education of Christian faith. ae

§ 4. The Article then goes on to deal with the number of sacra- ments. It places on a level by themselves the two sacraments of the Gospel. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that 1s to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. These will be considered under the later Articles. Then it proceeds Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that 1s to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel. We notice that the Article does not deny to them the name of sacraments. ‘Commonly called’ is not in the language of the Prayer-Book necessarily derogatory. We find, e.g. “The Nativity of our Lord, or the Birth-day of Christ, commonly called ‘“‘ Christmas Day.” ’ All that the Article insists is that these rites are not to be counted equal to the other two. It then goes on to give reasons for this position. (i) On the positive side they are such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scripture ; (1) on the negative side, They have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. These reasons need some consideration. The sentences are not very exactly worded. Only Extreme Unction can really be said to have grown from the corrupt following, 7.e. the bad imitation (prava imitatione) of the Apostles. The words can hardly apply to Penance with its mediaeval accretions, still less to the substitution of unction for laying on of hands in Confirmation. Again, Matrimony and Orders may fairly be called ‘ states of life allowed,’ z.e. in the language of the time approved (probatz) ‘ in the Scrip- tures,’ but neither of the positive reasons applies to either penance or confirmation. The negative reason, however, covers all five. Confirmation is really a part of Baptism, but we have no decisive evidence in Scripture that the laying on of hands was commanded by Christ (see, however, Heb. 67). Christ undoubtedly left with His Church the power to absolve sinners (Jn. 207%), but He did not command any visible sign or ceremony in which that absolu- tion should be. embodied. The same is true of Orders (Jn. 20218), We find laying on of hands employed in Scripture for ordination, but we possess no definite command of Christ. So with Matri- mony. The most we can say is that Christ ‘ adorned and beau- tified’ it ‘with His Presence,’ as the Marriage Service says,

and St. Paul calls it a wvorypiov (Eph. 5%), but the word is not used in any technical sense. The same applies to unction. In neither case did Christ institute a sacrament.

The difference between ourselves and the Church of Rome in the number of the sacraments is mainly a matter of words. The mediaeval number of Seven had certain practical conven- iences. It met the great crises of life with appropriate sacra- mental ordinances. But theologically it was quite arbitrary. In the widest sense sacraments are as wide as the world. A blade of grass may be a sacrament. Nature itself is a sacrament. On the other hand, the Church of England bases the distinction that it makes on Scripture, and had good reason for doing so. It uses the word Sacrament in a narrower and in a wider sense. In the Catechism it declares that Christ ordained two sacraments only ‘as generally’ (7.e. universally) ‘necessary to salvation.’ Even the Church of Rome has never gone so far as to assert that the outward and visible sign of the other five was expressly given by Christ Himself, nor yet that all seven are on the same footing. The Council of Trent anathematized any who should say “that these 7 sacraments are equal to each other in such wise as that one is not more worthy than another.’

§5. Two of these sacramental rites call for special treatment here. (a) Penance; (b) Extreme Unction.

(a) The whole conception of Penance rests upon two main truths : (i) Sin, while in its essence it is an offence against God, is also anti-social. By our sins we injure not only ourselves but the society to which we belong. (ii) The visible sign of union with Christ is life in the fellowship of the Christian Church. No doubt this truth has become obscured by human sin, by the divisions of Christians and the failure of Church discipline. But ideally and, as it were, sacramentally membership in the visible Body of Christ is the normal means of sharing in the divine life of Christ.

When we turn to the Church as it is in Scripture we find that the duty is laid upon it of exercising judicial power over its members. From its very nature it not only possesses the right inherent in all societies of exercising discipline upon members who neglect or disobey its own rules, but it possesses special authority, arising out of its relation to Christ, in dealing with the sins of men. We find our Lord giving to St. Peter as the first

member of His new Israel not only the power to ‘bind and to loose,’ 2.e. to declare forbidden or allowed, but also ‘ The keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 161%). Again, St. John repre- sents the Risen Christ as breathing on the assembled Church and saying ‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye for- give, they are forgiven unto them; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained’ (Jn. 207%). We certainly find the Church acting upon this commission. The Church tests men before admitting them into fellowship. Faith and repentance were required of all candidates for Christian Baptism (Acts 23741, etc.). It was the Church that claimed to judge whether they truly possessed them. And this claim to judge is not confined to the initial act of receiving into membership. The Church no less claims to judge those who are its members as to their fitness to remain such. ‘Do ye not judge them that are within… . Put away the wicked man from among yourselves’ (1 Cor. 511), Those who because of wilful and notorious sin were put out of the Church were regarded as delivered over to Satan (1 Cor. 5°, cp. 2 Cor. 271, 1 Tim. 1°), That is to say, the Church was regarded as the scene of salvation. To be cut off from the Church, as from Israel of old (cp. Ex. 311*) was to be cut off, not only from a visible society, but from covenanted union with God. Outside God’s Church Satan was regarded as having power to inflict special suffermgs. Again, when the offender is penitent, the Church equally claims to be the judge of his peni- tence, and, if it thinks right, to readmit him to membership (2 Cor. 24°11). In all cases alike the Church’s judgment is depen- dent upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who in this as in all things is to guide men into all truth (Jn. 207%, cp. Jn. 161). A judgment of the Church which was not inspired by the Holy Spirit would not be ratified by God.

Here, then, we find the origin of penance. Just as at the beginning of the Christian life sins are remitted to the unbap- tized by baptism (Acts 22%), so to the already baptized sins are remitted by absolution. Such absolution is primarily the Church’s judgment that a man may be rightly admitted to full fellowship and especially to the Holy Communion, which is the supreme expression of Christian fellowship. The life of Christ is normally to be found within His Body, the Church. The Church remits sins by restorg a man to membership in His

Body, and retains sins by refusing such restoration.. Here, as elsewhere, the authority is that of the Church as,a whole, but it is exercised by those who have been commissioned by Christ to act as ministers of the whole Church, e.g. the Apostles,

In Scripture and in the earliest days there is no evidence of private confession. Notorious offenders were required to make public confession before the whole congregation. Only after long and grievous discipline were penitents restored to communion. In James 51° we find the command ‘ Confess therefore your sins one to another.’ The ‘therefore’ connects it with the calling in of the elders of the Church to anoint the sick man with oil and to pray for him. There is no mention of formal absolution.

Auricular confession arose first as a preparation for public confession. It was obvious that those who were publicly con- victed of sin were not necessarily the only offenders. A man might have fallen from Christ without the Church having become aware of his fall. Hence those who felt themselves in danger of being in this state, consulted privately some spiritual adviser about their true condition, with the object of making public confession and doing penance if such were judged advisable. Further, as primitive simplicity declined, public confession of sins began to be found undesirable. The young were familiar- ized with gross sins. It was a fruitful source of scandal and even made the basis of prosecution in the law-courts. Hence, the historian Socrates tells us, after the Decian persecution (a.D. 250), bishops in the Hast appointed a regular officer or ‘ peni- tentiary ’ to hear private confessions, impose suitable penance and grant absolution, where public confession was not judged necessary. In the West Leo the Great sanctioned a similar arrangement (a.D. 440). In this way private confession to a priest became the ordinary way of dealmg with grave sins. Where public scandal had been given, public penance was still enforced. In 1215 the Lateran Council made confession to a priest obligatory once a year. Disobedience rendered the offender excommunicate. As the custom needed defence, the Schoolmen used their ingenuity to provide one. Hence the elaborate mediaeval doctrine of the ‘sacrament of penance.’

The mind of the Church of England on the subject of private confession is to be found in the Prayer-Book. Here, as so often,

the Church of England has returned to primitive practice. Com- pulsory confession is abolished, voluntary confession is retained. In the first exhortation in the Communion office the conditions necessary for making a good communion are laid down. The duty is enforced of self-examination and repentance. Stress is laid on the absolute need of a ‘ full trust in God’s mercy ’ and ‘a quiet conscience.’ Then it proceeds: ‘therefore if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God’s Word, and open his grief ; that by the ministry of God’s holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.’ Again, in the Visitation of the Sick the rubric runs: ‘ Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which Confession, the Priest shall absolve him (if be humbly and heartily desire it), after this sort.’ Then follows the form of absolution. ‘ Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church, to absolve all simners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences: And by his authority com- mitted to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ It is remarkable that the English Church retains the compara- tively late form, ‘I absolve.’ If there could be any doubt that the Church of England intended to retain private confession, it is dispelled when we find the 113th Canon of 1603 warning clergy against revealing sins made known to them in confession. Fur- ther, it was widely practised in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I and Charles I, and again after the Restoration. The Prayer- Book makes clear two great points about it.

(a) There is no suggestion that we are not ordinarily able to prepare ourselves for Communion apart from auricular confession. Neither Scripture nor the Prayer-Book nor the Primitive Church asserts that ‘mortal’ sin cannot be forgiven on true repentance without private absolution. Such a statement is often made but never proved. Although there is no reason to credit the Lateran Council with any but the best motives in making con- session obligatory, in actual practice it does not work. It does

not make sufficient allowance for human nature. Forced confessions are often formal and not infrequently dishonest. Unless they are inspired by real penitence they are apt to become an easy way of salving the.conscience. Sin is lightly regarded, as pardon for it can easily be obtained at the next confession.

(8) On the other hand, confession is not an end in itself but is a means to an end, namely, peace with God. A clear conscience is absolutely essential for a Christian life (cp. 1 Tim. 15). Ifa man cannot attain this by himself, confession is necessary for him. It is notorious that many are unable to quiet their own consciences. Some cannot feel that they are really sorry for their sin. Confession in the presence of another is a real help, since it enables a man to see his sins as others see them, and so is a step to seeing them as God sees them. Others cannot realize the fact of forgiveness. Here the personal absolution comes home in a way that general absolutions fail to do. There is no essential difference in quality between the two. Hither avails for the true penitent and neither for the impenitent. There are not different brands of absolution. But it is a simple fact of experience that private confession is a real means to many souls of bringing home the fact of God’s forgiveness through Christ. Further, penitence like faith demands self-expression. The self-humiliation of allowing another to overhear the peni- tent’s confession to God, the receiving of a penance which is regarded not as any attempt to make up for the sins but as an expression of willingness to bear whatever punishment God is pleased to send, are all practical outlets of sorrow for sin by which that sorrow is deepened and made more real. However imperfect the penitence may still be, and true penitence is the work of a lifetime, the man still feels that he has tried his hardest. Lastly, auricular confession is a great opportunity of obtaining an independent opinion about our life from one who has had all the facts laid before him, so far as we can do so. Simple people need far more guidance in self-examination and dealing with temptations than is always realized.

Finally, Christianity is above all a social religion. Sin injures the whole body. Confession is a universal instinct of man, as a social being. These principles underlay the confessions that we find in the Old Testament (Lev. 5°, Num. 5° 7, Josh. 71°, 1 Sam.14*)

and in the New (Mk. 15 444%, Acts 1918). In the development of the Church they have come to find expression in the sacrament of Penance. The priest’s absolution is no charm uttered by one who is supposed to possess*in his own person some magic power, nor yet is it merely the publication of a forgiveness that God has already bestowed. It is the receiving back by God’s family into the Father’s home of a brother who is conscious of having sinned not only against the Father’s love but also against the peace and unity of the whole household.

Cp. Bickersteth, The Ministry of Absolution.

For the case against auricular confession see : Fulham Conference on Confession and Absolution, p. 93 tf. Cp. also p- 51 ff. and p. 62 ff.

For its practical benefits see : Peter Green, How to deal with Lads, c. viii.

For history of the practice : Bingham, Christian Antiquities, Bk. xviii. ¢. iii. or Hooker bk. v1.

(6) Extreme Unction.

Anointing the sick as a means of healing is a widespread custom. In Mk. 6% we read that the Apostles ‘anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.’ The same custom prevailed in the early Church, as is shown in James 547%, ‘ITs any among you sick ? 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 him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him.’ Such anomting must be taken in connexion with the gifts of healing spoken of in 1 Cor. 12°. It was clearly for the healing of the body of the sick person, who, it was hoped, would recover. Later, when the gifts of healing had declined, it became known as extrema wnctio (i.e. the last anomting after those at baptism and confirmation) and reserved for administration to those at the point of death. Thus extrema unctro came to be the equivalent of ‘ unctio in extremis,’ and, further, was viewed as bestowing primarily spiritual bene- fits. Even so the English rite still contained prayers for the sick person’s recovery, and then, if the man recovered, it might be repeated. The earliest evidence of its appearance as a religious rite is a letter of Pope Innocent I early in the fifth century. He replied to a bishop who asked for information, that a bishop

might certainly anoint the sick with oil, quoting St. James. Further, he made it clear that if the bishop blessed the oil, priests or even laymen might use it in the hour of need. Only those who were under exclusion from the sacraments might not receive it, since it is a kind of sacrament (quia genus est sacrament). The fact that a bishop needed to ask such a question is clear evidence that the custom was not universal. The Pope’s vague language shows that ‘unction’ was not yet an established ‘sacrament.’ Further, even a layman might administer it, No other reference to unction as a sacramental rite can be found till the time of Pope Innocent III in the twelfth century. The subject was discussed at the Council of Trent. It was declared to be a sacrament, instituted by Christ, representing the grace of the Holy Spirit, cleansing away venial sins and comforting the infirm. The one trace of its primitive use is the statement that the sick man ‘ sometimes obtains bodily health when it is expedient for the welfare of his soul.’ Accordingly, though it is. primarily a ‘sacrament of the dying’ it may be repeated if the sick man recovered. In the First Prayer-Book of Edward VI a service of anointing was still retained ‘if the sick person desire it.’ In the Second Prayer-Book it was wholly omitted and has never been restored. The defence of the position of the Church of England is that there is no evidence either in Scripture or the practice of the primitive Church that the rite is of universal and Jasting obligation. Its use or disuse is merely a question of discipline. In quite modern times a desire for its revival has arisen in connexion with ‘ faith-healing.’ It is a well-estab- lished fact that our minds and wills have greater influence over our bodies than at first sight appears. ‘Suggestion’ has great power for good in the case of nervous disorders and others that at first sight would not seem to come under that head. At the same time there would seem to be no reliable evidence at present that ‘faith-healing’ is of the slightest value against organic diseases. The use of unction, accompanied by prayer, would, it is claimed, afford a visible means of strengthening the will- power of the patient and giving him the opportunity to exercise it. It would regularize the employment of powers of suggestion that beyond all reasonable doubts are genuinely possessed by certain persons and within certain limits efficient. The use of unction has been sanctioned for such purposes by certain bishops.

It is a return to its primitive use. How far it is capable of such use depends upon the whole question of the scope of ‘mental healing ’ which is at present under investigation.

Cp. Puller, The Anointing of the Sick.

§6. The final section of this Article deals with the right use of sacraments. ‘ The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about : but that we should duly use them.’ This sentence is not happily worded. ‘The Sacraments’ would naturally apply to Baptism and the Eucharist: but there is no evidence of any superstitious gazing on baptism, rather the reverse: superstitious ideas about baptism have been fostered by its bemg performed privately. Unless it is a mere slip, the plural must refer to the two elements in the Eucharist and the allusion is to Corpus Christi ceremonies and the like, referred to more explicitly under Article XXVIII. The remain- ing sentences follow from the nature of grace. If all grace needs the co-operation of our human wills in seeking and using it, sacraments as means of grace demand a right disposition in the recipient. They are not magical charms or mechanical devices that produce effects independently of our own faith and efforts. Such could have no place in a moral life. Hence ‘ In such only as worthily recewe the same they have a wholesome effect or operation. But they that recewe them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul sath. The allusion is to 1 Cor. 117°, ‘He that eateth and drinketh (unworthily A.V.) eateth and drinketh judgement (damnation A.V.) unto himself, if he discern not the body.’ The context makes it perfectly clear that St. Paul by judgment («piua) means temporal chastisement sent by God in mercy to recall the careless to a sense of their sin (cp. v. °*, ‘that we may not be condemned with the world’). ‘Damnation’ in modern English means eternal punishment, and here, as in the Prayer-Book, conveys to our ears an entirely wrong idea. In the sixteenth century its use was not neces- sarily so limited. The practical affect on uneducated people has been and still is to drive them away from Holy Communion. What the Prayer-Book means by ‘ worthy ’ receiving is explained by the sixth and last answers in the Catechism and the exhorta- tions in the Baptismal and Communion offices.

The balance of this Article is further shown by the removal,

in 1563, of a condemnation of the phrase ‘grace ex opere operato.’

(i) Originally the phrase conveyed a true and valuable idea. ‘Opus operatum’ was contrasted with ‘opus operantis,’ and implied that the efficacy of all sacraments depends upon the — appointment of their author, God, and not on the merit of the officiant or recipient. In this sense it is used by the Council of Trent. It vindicates the important truth that grace is God’s free gift. We do not earn or create it by our own faith or moral efforts.

(ii) This became corrupted into the idea, condemned in this Article, that sacraments conferred grace automatically, quite apart from the faith or penitence of the recipient. In this sense it was rightly condemned in the first edition of the Article. As we saw, the blessing that we personally receive must depend on our individual capacity for receiving it, namely, our true repentance, our real belief in Christ and His promises, our desire to surrender ourselves to Him and to employ the grace that He bestows. It has been said, ‘The grace of Sacraments does not depend on our faith, but for its effect in us all depends on our faith’; and again, ‘Grace without faith may come upon us, but it cannot makes us holy.’ This second truth was secured by the language of the Article, and the condemnation of the phrase was wisely withdrawn, since it contained a true meaning as well as a false.

The truth of Article XXVI follows from a right view of the nature of sacraments. Here, as in similar cases, we must dis- tinguish between a man’s personal character and his official capacity. The evil life of a Christian minister, as of any Christian, brings reproach upon God and His Church. Such, therefore, must be removed. On the other hand, the validity of his official acts is not affected. A bad judge, qua judge, must be obeyed, as the king’s representative, no less than a good one. So in the sacra- ments the minister acts not as an individual but as the organ of the Church. God’s promises are made not to him individually but to the Church as a whole. Therefore their fulfilment is not affected by his personal lack of faith. On any other supposition means of grace would always be precarious. So our Lord dis- tinguishes between the official commands of Scribes and Phari- sees who ‘sit in Moses’ seat’ and their private conduct. He

bids us obey the former, but not imitate the latter (Mt. 237). Scripture often gives instances of God sending blessings through bad men, e.g. Saul in the Old Testament and Judas in the New. We have no reason to suppose that Judas’ ministry was any less productive of good results than that of the other Apostles.