"Tyranny over consciences": Taylor against consistory and confessional
... although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of another's bounty, yet is it not a bare ministry only, whether of announcing the Gospel, or of declaring that sins are forgiven, but is after the manner of a judicial act, whereby sentence is pronounced by the priest as by a judge - Council of Trent, Session XIV, chpt. vi
If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema - Council of Trent, Session XIV, canon vi
... such a discipline was little better than Popish tyranny disguised and tendered unto them under a new form - Richard Hooker on Calvin's consistory in Geneva, from The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Preface 2.3
Against both Genevan consistory and Tridentine confessional restricting the baptised receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Jeremy Taylor rejected such "tyranny over consciences":
But this is wholly a matter of discipline, arbitrary, and in the power of the church: nothing in it of divine commandment, but what belongs to the communicants themselves; for St. Paul reproves them that receive disorderly, but gives no orders to the Corinthian presbyters to reject any that present themselves. Nor did our blessed Lord leave any commandment concerning it, nor hath the holy scripture given rules or measures concerning its actual reduction to practice: neither who are to be separated, nor for what offences, nor by what authority, nor who is to be the judge. And indeed it is a judgement that can only belong to God, who knows the secrets of hearts, the degrees of every sin, the beginnings and portions of repentance ...
Add to this, that the grace of God can begin the work of repentance in an instant, and in what period or degree of repentance the holy communion is to be administered, no law of God declares ... we are left to consider, that in the nature of the thing those who are in the state of weakness and infirmity have more need of the solemn prayers of the church, and therefore by presenting themselves to the holy sacrament approach towards that ministry which is the most effectual cure; especially since the very presenting of themselves is an act of religion, and therefore supposes an act of repentance and faith, and other little introductions to its fair reception ...
For when I affirm that there is no command from Christ to all His ministers to refuse whom they are pleased to call 'scandalous' or 'sinners,' I intend to defend good people from the tyranny and arbitrary power of those great companies of ministers, who in so many hundred places would have a judicature supreme in spirituals, which would be more intolerable than if they had in one province twenty thousand judges of life and death ... it is not to be endured that single presbyters should upon vain pretences erect so high a tribunal and tyranny over consciences.
From 'Of the Institution and Reception of the Sacrament' (13) in The Great Exemplar III.XV, Discourse XIX.
A question then, and to put my cards on the table, I come from a Reformed upbringing so the consistory model of Church discipline is what I know, how then does discipline work practically within Anglicanism? If the witholding of the sacrament is a “tyranny over the conscience” how do you address the unrepentant and unworthy receiver? What shape should discipline take? Curious on your thoughts or resources that may address this in Anglicanism. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have greatly appreciated your blogs, old and new, as someone trying to understand Anglicanism and the back and forth of ‘laudian’ and ‘Anglo-catholic’ perspectives. God bless.
Brett, many thanks for your comment and the encouragement you give.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, Taylor's criticism is not of withholding the sacrament but, rather, of the process involved by which people are judged before receiving the sacrament. He fully accepts that the "competent authority" - "the governors of the church" - have the right and responsibility to exclude from the sacrament those whose "crime is made public and notorious". But he then goes on to address "private sins, or sins not known by solemnities of law or evidence of fact". The "tyranny", then, becomes either consistory or confessor seeking to undertand and assess the secret recesses of the heart on matters of "private sins".
Brian.
Brian,
DeleteThanks for your response, it is very helpful. So the issue is interrogative forms of “unburdening?”
All the best.
Yes, I think that is it. Something too of a sense that prying around in the heart of another is a dangerous, imprudent activity, damaging to both the one on the receiving end and the one doing the prying.
Delete