'Draw near with faith': beyond 'open' and 'closed' communion
Below is the section of the essay which addressed the role of the Catechism and the Rite of Confirmation in giving expression to this Hookerian approach.
------
'The solemn promise and vow of your Baptism': Catechism and Confirmation
What, then, of the Prayer Book’s requirements regarding the Catechism and the Rite of Confirmation? The Catechism, after all, is described in its formal title in the Prayer Book as "An Instruction to be learned of every person before he be brought to be Confirmed by the Bishop". Does this not give substance to the statement that "If we believe that church membership matters, that laity who join our churches should be held to doctrinal standards in faith and practice, then we should admit that the practice of open (or mixed) communion is inappropriate"? The character of the Prayer Book Catechism militates against any such description. Structured around the Apostles’ Creed, Commandments, and Lord’s Prayer, the Catechism – as Wheatly stated in his commentary on the Prayer Book – "is not a large system or body of divinity to puzzle the heads of young beginners; but only a short and full explication of the Baptismal Vow".
Even on the contested territory of the Sacraments, Wheatly emphasises the generosity and latitude of the Catechism:
In this although its excellency is very discernible, viz. that as all persons are baptized not into any particular church, but into the Catholic church of Christ; so here they are not taught the opinion of this or any other particular church or people, but what the whole body of Christians all the world over agree in. If it may anywhere seem to be otherwise, it is in the doctrine of the Sacraments: but even this is here worded with so much caution and temper, as not to contradict any other particular church; but so as that all sorts of Christians, when they have duly considered it, may subscribe to everything that is here taught or delivered.
It is the case that the Catechism’s sacramental teaching, as with the rest of its teaching, could be received and affirmed both by those who subscribed to the Confession of Augsburg and to the Westminster Confession. It is, in other words, a basic statement of Christian teaching on faith, ethics, and prayer, together with a generous account of Magisterial Protestant sacramental understanding. It is this which was required of laity before being admitted as communicants: no further doctrinal subscription was required. The Catechism, therefore, is hardly suggestive of a doctrinal standard which sustained a practice of closed communion.
The discipline surrounding Confirmation – and the 'high' theology of the rite which was normative for Anglicans from 1662 into the 19th century – does, by contrast, point in a rather more convincing fashion to ‘fencing the table.’ It is indeed the case that "Historically Anglicans have largely admitted only confirmed Anglicans (or those desirous to be confirmed) to the Lord’s Supper". Even here, however, caution is required, as the quotation from the 1662 rubric in the Order for Confirmation implies. Leaving aside the experience of Church of England communicants in the American colonies, where Confirmation could not be administered for nearly two centuries because of the absence of a resident episcopate, it was also the case that in England itself there were communicants who had not been Confirmed. Archbishop Secker’s influential Confirmation sermon witnesses to this:
But as there are some too young for confirmation, some also may be thought too old: especially, if they have received the holy sacrament without it. Now there are not indeed all the same reasons for the confirmation of such, as of others: nor hath the church, I believe, determined anything about their case, as it might be thought unlikely to happen. But still, since it doth happen too frequently, that persons were not able, or have neglected, to apply for this purpose: so whenever they apply, as by doing it they express a desire to fulfil all righteousness; and may certainly receive benefit, both from the profession and the prayers, appointed in the office; my judgement is, that they should not be rejected, but encouraged.
Secker’s description of this occurrence as happening "too frequently", and the perceived need to justify and commend Confirmation for adults, should make us cautious about too sweeping claims about the practice of Confirmation enabling 'fencing the table'. Accepting, however, that Confirmation before Communion was the regular discipline in the Church of England in the vast majority of cases, we might question if Catechism and Confirmation equated to a robust 'fencing the table'. The Catechism was significantly different to the catechisms of Luther and the Westminster Divines:
[B]eing so short, that the youngest children may learn it by heart; and yet so full, that it contains all things necessary to be known in order to salvation.
Similarly, Confirmation was – in Secker’s words – "to renew the covenant of your Baptism":
It is fit, that before they are admitted by the church of Christ to the holy communion, they should give public assurance to the church of their Christian belief and Christian purposes.
Neither Catechism nor Confirmation required an affirmation beyond or in addition to the creedal Faith of Baptism. To regard this as 'closed communion' surely stretches the term considerably beyond how it is typically understood, while yet providing a meaningful and substantive confession not provided for in contemporary 'open table' discourse.
------
(The painting is William Teulon Blandford Fletcher, 'Sacrament Sunday', c.1897.)
Comments
Post a Comment