The Prayers for the Sick were frequently repeated during the whole time of his Illness, at which he expressed always great Devotion. He would sometimes desire to receive Absolution in the Form used in the Communion-Office, which he thought came nearer to the precatory Forms of Absolution mentioned in the Fathers than any other.
Nelson, who was a Nonjuror until 1710, held an advanced view of priesthood and absolution, then fashionable amongst a stream of High Church partisans, something of a reaction to both the Glorious Revolution, the Toleration Act, and Latitudinarian bishops. He was writing in the midst of a particular expression of this view, the Lay Baptism controversy of 1708-15, when High Church partisans pronounced Baptism administered by Dissenting ministers invalid. This being so, Nelson sought to qualify Bull's request to receive absolution in the declaratory form from the Communion Office, rather than the indicative from the Visitation of the Sick:
But it doth not appear that he hereby condemned the Use of that Form, which is at least, in some Cases, prescribed by our excellent Church in her Office for the Visitation of the Sick, or that he had any Doubt concerning the Benefits of Sacerdotal Absolution, or of that Authority which is derived to the Ministers or Delegates of Christ of forgiving the Penitent their Sins in his Name; since in his last Acts of Preparation for Death he earnestly desir'd it, and solemnly receiv'd it.
It is evident that Nelson is uneasy about Bull's stance. Thus "it doth not appear that" Bull condemned the indicative form - a rather cautious statement. It was not at all a matter of dispute that Bull affirmed "the Benefits of Sacerdotal Absolution" - hence his request for ministerial absolution in his last days. Likewise, there was no dispute over how Bull viewed the authority given to Ministers in proclaiming absolution - indeed, this is heard in the declaratory absolution at Morning and Evening Prayer. Nelson's commentary here seeks to obscure what is at issue: Bull chose to be absolved through the declaratory form in the Communion Office, not the indicative form in the Visitation of the Sick.
In doing so, Bull was reflecting a significant the views of significant divines in the Church of England, divines who would not at all have been regarded as 'low church'. Jeremy Taylor, for example, stated:
we find in the old penitentials and usages of the church, that the priest did not absolve the penitent in the indicative or judicial form ...
In Holy Dying (1651), Taylor provided a declaratory form of absolution, in place of the indicative form in BCP 1559 (continued in 1662):
O Lord Jesus Christ, who hath given commission to his church, in his name to pronounce pardon to all that are truly penitent, he of his mercy pardon and forgive thee all thy sins, deliver thee from all evils past, present, and future, preserve thee in the faith and fear of his holy name to thy life's end, and bring thee to his everlasting kingdom, to live with him for ever and ever. Amen.
This clearly illustrates Taylor's preference. Likewise, Thomas Secker - Archbishop of Canterbury 1758-68 - expressed concern at the possibility of misinterpretation of the indicative form in the Visitation of the Sick:
Possibly this part of the office may seem to have ascribed so high a power to the minister, of absolving the sick from their sins, as may lead them into great mistakes. And it is indeed more liable to be so misunderstood, than the earlier forms, which were expressed in the manner of a prayer.
He goes on to say of the indicative form:
[it is] but seldom requested, and consequently the absolution seldom pronounced over any one.
Bull's desire to be absolved in the declaratory form of the Communion Office, therefore, reflected a well-established stream of thought in the Church of England of the 'long 18th century'. Taylor and Secker were hardly unrepresentative divines. Nor could they be dismissed by High Church partisans as 'Latitude-men'. Nelson himself appears to recognise this in his concluding comments on the matter:
None can deny that the Form of Absolution by him chosen is certainly Primitive, and therefore unexceptionable; whether the other be so or no, hath been disputed by the Learned; and He had a Right to chuse that against which no Exception could lie. This evidently was the Case of this excellent Prelate; and upon this account, I suppose, he desired no other Form of Absolution than this, which was undoubtedly most ancient, a few Days before his Death.
We can see here - "undoubtedly most ancient" - an echo of Taylor's view of the declaratory form and something of an anticipation of Secker's comment in stating that Bull had a 'right' to choose that form of absolution "against which no Exception could lie". Added to his is Nelson's acceptance that the indicative form "hath been disputed by the Learned". This being so, despite Nelson's obvious discomfort, Bull's decision to receive absolution in his last days according to the unexceptionable declaratory form from the Holy Communion exemplified mainstream thought and practice in the Church of England of the 'long 18th century'. In his final hours, therefore, we again see in Bull the wise and pleasing characteristics of 18th century Anglicanism.
Comments
Post a Comment