"It must not be read in the congregation by a deacon": the rubric preceding the Absolution at Mattins and Evensong

Having previously considered the reflection on the text of the Absolution at Mattins and Evensong in John Shepherd's A Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Morning and Evening Prayer of the Church of England (1796), his consideration of the rubric directing that "The Absolution or Remission of sins [is] to be pronounced by the Priest alone" is also significant. While recognising that it is obvious that a layperson cannot pronounce this Absolution, Shepherd is aware that the role of the deacon is a matter of debate:

That it must not be read in the congregation by a deacon, is a part of my argument, which will not be so readily granted. For of all the questions relative to Common Prayer, that have been discussed, among the members of our establishment, few, I apprehend, have been more frequently agitated, and none more  commonly left undecided, than this, - Is it lawful and right for a Deacon to read the Absolution?

He points to Thomas Bennet's 1708 A Paraphrase with Annotations upon the Book of Common Prayer, in which it was stated that a deacon could pronounce this Absolution:

And I give this Reason for it. I cannot but think it manifest, that this form of Absolution (whatever may be said of the others) is only declaratory ... a mere Deacon has as much Authority to pronounce this Form, as he has to Preach a Sermon about Repentance. And therefore it seems to be a vulgar Mistake, which makes the Deacons deviate from their Rule, and omit either the whole, or else a part of this Form, or perhaps exchange it for a Collect taken out of some other part of the Liturgy.

Shepherd provides a careful, modest response to Bennet's argument. He begins by acknowledging that the ministry of the deacon does indeed include authority to absolve:

Every one, I conceive, must admit, that the church of England allows Deacons, in some instances, to pronounce Absolution. They have "authority to read Homilies in the church, to read the Gospel, and to preach the same, if they are licensed there-to by the Bishop: and in the absence of the priest they may baptize."

Now by baptizing and preaching the Gospel, they may, in the most strict and proper sense of the words, be said to administer Absolution. 

But he goes on to crucially note:

In both cases, however, their authority is limited.

Is the rubric preceding this Absolution a similar limit on the deacon's authority? Shepherd accepts that if we were relying on the rubric alone, "the intention of the church would be extremely questionable". After all, as Bennet had pointed out, 'priest' is used elsewhere in Mattins and Evensong to mean "signify, not one that is in Priest's Orders, as we generally speak; but any Minister that Officiates, whether Priest or Deacon". Shepherd responds by stating that the meaning of the rubric is made clear - "without ambiguity, and beyond the possibility of doubt" - when we consider the Savoy Conference and the proposed 1689 Liturgy of Comprehension.

At Savoy, the Episcopalian commissioners rejected the Presbyterian call for the rubric to be revised so that 'Minister' would replace 'Priest'. Shepherd quotes the response of the Episcopalian commissioners:

It is not reasonable the word minister only should be used in the Common Prayer. For since some parts of the Liturgy may be performed by a Deacon; and others, such as Absolution and Consecration, by none under the order of a priest, it is fit, that some such word as priest should be used for those offices which are appropriated to his character, the word minister being of too loose and lax a signification for this purpose.

This, says Shepherd, makes clear that 'priest' in this rubric is to be understood "in the strict meaning of the term, and in contradistinction to the word Deacon". He adds to this the revision proposed in the 1689 Liturgy of Comprehension, in which the rubric at Evening Prayer  directed that "The Absolution [is] to be pronounced by the Minister" (with the obvious implication that 'priest' in the rubric at Morning Prayer should be likewise interpreted). The failure of the 1689 revision, however, confirms the interpretation of the rubric provided by the Episcopalian commissioners at Savoy:

[The 1689] proposed alterations, it is well known, were never carried into effect, and the whole of the project was entirely abandoned. Of course the law empowering a priest alone to pronounce the Absolution, remains unaltered, and in full force.

Shepherd here seems to imply that if the revision of 1689 had been approved, there would be no theological objections to a deacon pronouncing this Absolution. The case for a deacon not pronouncing the Absolution at Mattins and Evensong is, therefore, entirely dependent on the significance of ecclesiastical authority and uniformity as means of securing the right and due ordering of the church's life:

If the prescribed form of Common Prayer may be altered in one instance, who does not see that it may, by different persons, be violated in all? ... all wilful deviation from the service appointed is indecent, irregular, illegal, and amounts to little less than a direct violation of ordination vows.

What should a deacon then do when officiating at Mattins and Evensong?

If a Deacon is neither to read the Absolution, nor to substitute a prayer in its room, what is he to do? The rule is plain, and leaves him no alternative. After the Confession he is to remain kneeling, and to proceed to the Lord's Prayer.

What is perhaps most significant about Shepherd's explanation of this rubric is that the case for a deacon not pronouncing this Absolution does not rest on a theology of ontological distinction between the orders of deacon and presbyter. "The church of England allows Deacons, in some instances, to pronounce Absolution" - but not in this instance. There is no sense of exalted sacerdotal privilege evident in Shepherd's reasoning. He does not argue against the 1689 proposed revision: his point is that this revision was not enacted. Indeed, elsewhere in A Critical and Practical Elucidation, he praises "the learned Bishops and Divines who were commissioned in 1689" to revise the Prayer Book. And the 1662 rubric alone does not definitively answer the matter. 

There is a solid and consistent Old High case for regarding the Absolution at Mattins and Evensong as no less an exercise in the ministry of reconciliation than the absolutions provided in the Holy Communion and the Visitation of the Sick.  Indeed, this is how Shepherd himself regards the Absolution in the daily office. We might contrast this with Benet's view that this Absolution is "only declaratory". That only those in priest's orders may pronounce this Absolution is a means of ensuring, by contrast, that the seriousness of this Absolution is recognised. As Shepherd says, drawing his discussion of the rubric to a close:

It is an authoritative address made by him to them; a declaration of God's will, pronounced by his messenger, to which it is the duty of the people to listen with reverence.

This ministry of reconciliation is bestowed on presbyters. Deacons are permitted to share in this ministry of reconciliation when so authorised: when given episcopal permission to preach, when baptising in the absence of the priest. Indeed, as Bennet declares, this is what the deacon does "in reading the Sentences" at the beginning of Divine Service. The Absolution at Mattins and Evensong, Shepherd convincingly contends contra Bennet, is not such an occasion. It is Old High wisdom to recognise that abiding by this order, with humility and charity, maintaining common prayer and ministerial order, serves "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace".