'Seldom requested, seldom pronounced': Secker on the special form of absolution in the Visitation of the Sick
The Special Absolution in the Office for the Visitation of the Sick has been the cause of offence to many; and as it is a form unknown to the Church in ancient times, and as we saw no adequate reason for its retention, and no ground for asserting that its removal would make any change in the doctrine of the Church, we have deemed it fitting that, in the special cases contemplated in this Office, and in that for the Visitation of Prisoners, absolution should be pronounced to penitents in the form appointed in the Office for the Holy Communion.
The background to this was the Tractarian insistence that the inclusion of this form of absolution in 1662 mandated regular and routine private confession and absolution. So was its removal from the 1878 Book a 'low church' victory? I have previously drawn attention to how this revision cohered with Jeremy Taylor's critique of the indicative form of absolution. Taylor's comments were part of a wider High Church caution regarding this special absolution. Consider, for example, the words of Thomas Secker (from Sermon XIV):
Possibly one 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. But still all writers on the subject have agreed, that this absolution either was intended (which indeed is most probable) only to set persons free from any ecclesiastical censures, which they might have incurred ... or, if it means also to declare them restored to the favour of God, means it only on supposition of a sincere and thorough repentance; which being professed by them, it may be charitably presumed, though not certainly known, that it is real; and without which, I beg you all to observe, no absolution here, granted by whomsoever, or in what words soever, will do you the least good hereafter. Accordingly this form is not appointed ever to be used, but when the sick have made, by their own choice, a special confession of some weighty matter, troubling their consciences, humbly and heartily desiring, that it may be used for their consolation. And as this is but seldom requested, and consequently the absolution seldom pronounced over any one; so whenever it is, it may and ought to be accompanied with such explanations, as will prevent any wrong constructions.
Secker's great caution regarding this form of absolution is significant in a number of ways. He relates it, as did the 1878 Preface, to the matter of ecclesiastical censures rather than 'ordinary' penitence. He repeats Hooker's exhortation that it is penitence, not absolution, which brings forgiveness. He importantly insists - contrary to later Tractarian assertions and practice - that it "is not appointed ever to be used" outside the context of the Visitation of the Sick. Finally, he notes that it was "seldom requested ... seldom pronounced" (itself an insight into High Church piety and practice), and counsels that if does occasionally happen to be used, great care should be taken to prevent the misinterpretations he has outlined.
The Church of Ireland's decision to remove the special form of absolution from the Visitation of the Sick stood in much greater continuity with the Old High Church tradition than did the Tractarian invention of regular, routine private confession.
Comments
Post a Comment