'Purely ministerial': an 1801 Prayer Book Commentary on absolution and the forgiveness of sins

In his review of Absolution in A Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Book of Common Prayer, Volume II (1801), John Shepherd declares the fundamental doctrinal position underpinning the practice of Absolution in the Prayer Book:

The ancient teachers of Christianity, whether Priests or Prelates, arrogated to themselves, in the dispensation of Absolution, no power, which was not purely ministerial. Agreeably to the doctrine of Holy Scripture, the Fathers unanimously maintain, that "God alone can forgive sins."

By 'ministerial', Shepherd means that which is stated in the Absolution at Morning and Evening Prayer:

and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel.

The forgiveness of sins is a fundamental work of the Godhead, as Shepherd sees reflected in patristic discourse:

In their elaborate defences of the Christian faith, and their refutations of the erroneous opinions of those who have been stigmatised as heterodox and heretical, we find them frequently pressing this argument, in proof of the divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that they (viz. the Son and the Holy Ghost) have the power of forgiving sins. Now if either these venerable apologists for Christianity, or their opponents, had thought, that the Apostles and their successors might in any degree participate with God in this power, both parties must have seen, that such arguments were inconclusive and absurd.

He then provides a number of patristic extracts, demonstrating "the opinions of the early Christians on one of the fundamental, and most important articles of religion, viz. the Divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as well as of shewing by whom, according to their ideas, Absolution, or Remission of Sins, is granted". Amongst these extracts is this from Basil of Caesarea:

Basil, in his fifth Book against Eunomius, says, "It is the property of God alone to forgive sins. He himself declares, I, even I, am he, that blotteth out thy transgressions, (Isa. xliii. 25.) and again, Though thy sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool (Is. i. 18). Now, when Jesus, the Son of God, God of God, forgave the sins of the sick of the palsy, saying, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee; on account of these words, the Jews, who knew not that he was God, thought him a blasphemer, and said, This man blasphemeth, none can forgive sins, but God alone. The Lord," continues Basil, "breathing upon the Holy Apostles, says, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them. Now if none can remit sins but God alone, (and it is certain none can), and if the Holy Ghost by the Apostles remits sins, then the Holy Ghost is God."

Shepherd's "purely ministerial" understanding of Absolution (the conventional view of Church of England divines since the Reformation), precisely because it is grounded in the truth that "God alone can forgive sins", cannot be regarded as somehow minimising, if not sidelining, the role of the ordained minister and the Church in the economy of salvation. In fact, quite the opposite. Ministerial absolution, that is, the declaration that God forgives the sins of the penitent, expresses the divine reality at the heart of the Church's communion and the ministry of the ordained. The high duty of the ordained minister is to proclaim the forgiveness bestowed by God almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the One who alone can forgive, restore, and reconcile the penitent. It is this gift and grace which the Church's confesses when it is said, "I believe in ... The Forgiveness of sins".

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders. With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter. The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition). Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical). Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition. A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics". Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics. What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition. Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School. Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979. We ...

laudable Practice

Search This Blog