Skip to main content

'Every one makes confession of his own sins with his own lips': on the General Confession at the Holy Communion

Then shall this general Confession be made, in the name of all those that are minded to receive the holy Communion, by one of the Ministers: both he and all the people kneeling humbly upon their knees and saying - BCP 1662 Holy Communion, rubric before the General Confession.

In his A Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Book of Common Prayer, Volume II (1801), John Shepherd notes the significance of the above rubric produced by the 1662 revision:

Till the Restoration the Rubric here stood thus: "Then shall this general confession be made in the name of all those that are minded to receive the Holy Communion, either by one of them, or else by one of the ministers, or by the priest himself, all kneeling humbly on their knees." Does it not hence appear that the confession was made by one only in the name of all? At the Savoy Conference, the Presbyterians requested, that it might be made by the minister only, but at the revision that followed, the Rubric was changed into its present form. It now requires that every person present join in the Confession; that, in the words of Basil, every one make confession of his own "sins with his own lips".

That the communicants should - unlike the direction of the 1559 rubric - share in saying the general Confession has both theological and pastoral significance. Perhaps above all, it gave voice - quite literally - to the teaching of the 'Homily of Repentance'. Rejecting the necessity or routine practice of auricular confession, the Homily calls us "with fear and trembling, and with a true contrite heart, [to] use that kind of confession, that God doth command in his word":

Hereunto doeth pertain the golden saying of the holy Prophet David, where he saith on this manner: Then I acknowledged my sin unto thee, neither did I hide mine iniquity: I said, I will confess against my self my wickedness unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the ungodliness of my sin (Psalms 32.5). These are also the words of John the Evangelist: If we confess our sins, God is faithful and righteous, to forgive us our sin, and to make us clean from all our wickedness (1 John 1.9). Which ought to be understood of the confession that is made unto God. For these are Saint Augustine's words (Augustine, Epist. ad Julian Comitem, 30): That confession which is made unto God, is required by God's Law, whereof John the Apostle speaketh, saying, If we confess our sins, God is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to make us clean from all our wickedness. For without this confession, sin is not forgiven. This is then the chiefest and most principal confession that in the Scriptures and word of God we are bidden to make, and without the which we shall never obtain pardon and forgiveness of our sins.

That this should be more especially so as we approach the holy Sacrament is, of course, explicitly set forth in the invitation to the holy Table: "and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees". And as the first Exhortation declares:

For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament; (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us;) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily. 

In calling all the communicants to pray the general Confession "kneeling humbly upon their knees", the 1662 rubric draws us all, before the holy Table set for the Sacrament, to approach with penitence, with a robust, searching acknowledgement of "our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we from time to time most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed". And so, with this general Confession offered by all the communicants, 1662 provides a means to heed the Apostle's exhortation: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School.  Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979.  We ...