{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30909/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30909","id":"gutenberg_30909","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30909","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England","Sacraments -- Church of England"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHURCH\n\nHER BOOKS AND HER SACRAMENTS\n\n\n\n\nBY\n\nE. E. HOLMES, B.D.\n\nARCHDEACON OF LONDON\n\n\n\n\nA COURSE OF INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN AT ALL SAINTS\n\nMARGARET STREET, IN LENT, 1910\n\n\n\n\n_NEW IMPRESSION_\n\n\n\n\nLONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.\n\n39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON\n\nFOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK\n\nBOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS\n\n1914\n\n\n\n\nBY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\nIN WATCHINGS OFTEN: Addresses to Nurses and Others.  With a Preface by\nthe Right Rev.  EDWARD KING, D.D., late Bishop of Lincoln.  With a\nFrontispiece (the Crucifixion, by PERUGINO).  Crown 8vo, paper boards,\n2s. 6d.; cloth, 3s. 6d.\n\nPRAYER AND ACTION; or, The Three Notable Duties (Prayer, Fasting, and\nAlmsgiving).  With an Introduction by the Bishop of London.  Crown 8vo,\n2s. 6d. net.\n\nIMMORTALITY.  Crown 8vo, 4s. net.  (_Oxford Library of Practical\nTheology_.)\n\nPARADISE: A Course of Addresses on the State of the Faithful Departed.\nCrown 8vo, paper covers, 1s. net; cloth, 2s. net. *** _Extracted from\n\"Immortality\"_\n\nRESPONSIBILITY: An Address to Girls.  16mo, paper covers, 4d. net;\nbound in rexine, 1s. net.  Cheap Edition, 1d. net.\n\n\nLONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.,\n\nLONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nH. F. B. M.\n\n\n\n\n{vii}\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThese Lectures were originally delivered as the Boyle Lectures for\n1910, and were afterwards repeated in a more popular form at All\nSaints, Margaret Street.  They are now written from notes taken at\ntheir delivery at All Saints, and the writer's thanks are due to the\nkindness of those who lent him the notes.  Some explanation of their\nelementary character seems called for.  The Lecturer's object was\ntwofold:--\n\n(1) To remind an instructed congregation of that which they knew\nalready--and to make them more grateful for the often underrated\nprivilege of being members of the Catholic Church; and\n\n(2) To suggest some simple lines of instruction which they might pass\non to others.  Unless the instructed Laity will help the Clergy to\nteach their uninstructed brethren, a vast number of {viii} Church\npeople must remain in ignorance of their privileges and\nresponsibilities.  And if at times the instructed get impatient and\nsay, \"Everybody knows that,\" they will probably be mistaken.  Many a\nChurchman is ignorant of the first principles of his religion, of why\nhe is a Churchman, and even of what he means by \"the Church,\" just\nbecause of the false assumption--\"Everybody knows\".  Everybody does not\nknow.\n\nIt seems absurd to treat such subjects as _The Church, Her Books, Her\nSacraments_, in half-hour Lectures; but, in spite of obvious drawbacks,\nthere may be two advantages.  It may be useful to take a bird's-eye\nview of a whole subject rather than to look minutely into each\npart--and it may help to keep the Lecturer to the point!\n\nE. E. H.\n\n\n\n\n{ix}\n\nCONTENTS\n\nCHAP.                                                    PAGE\n\n       Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  vii\n    I. The Church  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    1\n   II. The Church's Books (1) The Bible  . . . . . . . .   21\n  III.       \"        \"   (2) The Prayer Book  . . . . .   40\n   IV. The Church's Sacraments . . . . . . . . . . . . .   58\n    V. Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   63\n   VI. The Blessed Sacrament . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   81\n  VII. The Lesser Sacraments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   92\n VIII. Confirmation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   94\n   IX. Holy Matrimony  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  106\n    X. Holy Order  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  123\n   XI. Penance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  144\n  XII. Unction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  158\n       Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  165\n\n\n\n\n  Dear Saviour! make our hearts to burn,\n  And make our lives to shine,\n  Oh! make us ever true to Thee,\n  And true to all that's Thine--\n  Thy Church, Thy Saints, Thy Sacraments,\n  Thy Scriptures; may we own\n  No other Lord, no other rule,\n  But Thee, and Thine alone.\n\n  A. G.\n\n\n\n\n{1}\n\nTHE CHURCH.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE CHURCH ON EARTH.\n\n_Christus Dilexit Ecclesiam_: \"Christ loved the Church\"[1]--and if we\nlove what Christ loved, we do well.\n\nBut three questions meet us:--\n\n(1) What is this Church which Christ loved?\n\n(2) When and where was it established?\n\n(3) What was it established for?\n\nFirst: _What is the Church?_  The Church is a visible Society under a\nvisible Head, in Heaven, in Paradise, and on Earth.  Who is this\nvisible Head?  Jesus Christ--visible to the greatest number of its\nmembers (i.e. in Heaven and in Paradise), and vicariously represented\nhere by \"the Vicar of Christ upon Earth,\" the Universal Episcopate.\n\n{2}\n\nNext: _When and where was it established?_ It was established in\nPalestine, in the Upper Chamber, on the first Whitsunday, \"the Day of\nPentecost\".\n\nThen: _What was it established for?_  It was established to be the\nchannel of salvation and sanctification for fallen man.  God may, and\ndoes, use other channels, but, \"according to the Scriptures,\" the\nChurch is the authorized channel.\n\nAs such, let us think of the Church on earth under six Prayer-Book\nnames:--\n\n  (I) The Catholic Church.\n  (II) The National Church.\n  (III) The Established Church.\n  (IV) The Church of England.\n  (V) The Reformed Church.\n  (VI) The Primitive Church.\n\n\n\n(I) THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.\n\nThe Creeds call it \"the _Catholic_ Church\" and describe its doctrine as\n\"the _Catholic_ Religion,\" or the \"_Catholic_ Faith\".  The Te Deum,\nLitany, and Ember Collect explain this word \"Catholic\" to mean \"the\nholy Church _throughout all the {3} world_,\" \"_an universal_ Church,\"\n\"_thy holy_ Church universal\"; and the Collect for the King in the\nLiturgy defines it as \"the _whole_ Church\".  The \"Catholic Church,\"\nthen, is \"the whole Church,\" East and West, Latin, Greek, and English,\n\"throughout all the world \".[2]  Its message is world-wide, according\nto the terms of its original Commission, \"Go ye into _all the world_\".\n\nThus, wherever there are souls and bodies to be saved and sanctified,\nthere, sooner or later, will be the Catholic Church.  And, as a matter\nof history, this is just what we find.  Are there souls to be saved and\nsanctified in Italy?--there is the Church, with its local headquarters\nat Rome.  Are there souls to be saved and sanctified in Russia?--there\nis the Church, once with its local {4} headquarters at Moscow.  Are\nthere souls to be saved and sanctified in England?--there is the\nChurch, with its local headquarters at Canterbury.  It is, and ever has\nbeen, one and the same Church, \"all one man's sons,\" and that man, the\nMan Christ Jesus.  The Catholic Church is like the ocean.  There is the\nAtlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean: and yet there are\nnot three oceans, but one ocean.  The Atlantic Ocean is not the Indian\nOcean, nor is the Indian Ocean the Pacific Ocean: they are all together\nthe one universal ocean--\"the ocean\".\n\nBut, after all, is not this a somewhat vague and nebulous conception of\n\"The Church\".  If it is to go into all the world, how, from a business\npoint of view, is this world-wide mission, in all its grandeur, to be\naccomplished?  The answer is seen in our second name:--\n\n\n\n(II) THE NATIONAL CHURCH.\n\nFor business and administrative purposes, the world is divided into\ndifferent nations.  For business and practical purposes, the Church\nfollows the same method.  The Catholic Church is the channel of \"saving\nhealth to all nations\".  As at Pentecost the Church, typically, reached\n\"every {5} nation under heaven,\" so, age after age, must every nation\nreceive the Church's message.  The Universal Church must be planted in\neach nation--not to denationalize that nation; not to plant another\nNational Church in the nation; but to establish itself as \"the Catholic\nChurch\" in that particular area, and to gather out of it some national\nfeature of universal life to present to the Universal Head.  Thus, a\nNational Church is the local presentment of the Catholic Church in the\nnation.  As Dr. Newman puts it: \"The Holy Church throughout all the\nworld is manifest and acts through what is called _in each country_,\nthe Church Visible\".\n\nAs such, the duty of a National Church is two-fold.  It must teach the\nnation; it must feed the nation.  First: it is the function of the\nNational Church to teach the nation.  What is its subject?  Religion.\nIt is to teach the nation religion--not to be taught religion by the\nnation.  It is no more the State's function to teach religion to the\nauthorities of the National Church[3] than it is the {6} function of\nthe nation to teach art to the authorities of the National Gallery.\nNor, again, is it the function of a National Church to teach the nation\na _national_ religion; it is the office of the Church to teach the\nnation the _Catholic_ religion--to say, in common with the rest of\nChristendom, \"the Catholic religion is this,\" and none other.  Thus,\nthe faith of a National Church is not the changing faith of a passing\nmajority; it is the unchanging faith of a permanent Body, the Catholic\nChurch.  Different ages may explain the faith in different ways;\ndifferent nations may present it by different methods; different minds\nmay interpret it in different lights; but it is one and the same faith,\n\"throughout all the world \".\n\nA second function of the National Church is to feed the nation--to feed\nit with something which no State has to offer.  It is the hand of the\nCatholic Church dispensing to the nation \"something better than bread\".\nWhen a priest is ordained, the Bishop bids him be \"a faithful dispenser\nof the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments,\" and then gives him a\nlocal sphere of action \"in the congregation where thou shalt be\nlawfully appointed thereunto\".[4]  Ideally, this {7} is carried out by\nthe parochial system.  For administrative purposes, the National Church\nis divided into parishes, and thus brings the Scriptures and Sacraments\nto every individual in every nation in which the Catholic Church is\nestablished.  It is a grand and business-like conception.  First, the\nChurch's _mission_, \"Go ye into all the world\"; then the Church's\n_method_--planting itself in nation after nation \"throughout all the\nworld\"; dividing (still for administrative purposes) each nation into\nprovinces; each province into dioceses; each diocese into\narchdeaconries; each archdeaconry into rural deaneries; each rural\ndeanery into parishes; and so teaching and feeding each unit in each\nparish, by the hand of the National Church.\n\nAll this is, or should be, going on in England, and we have now to ask\nwhen and by whom the Catholic Church, established in the Upper Chamber\non the Day of Pentecost, was established in our country.\n\n\n\n(III) THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.\n\nThe  Catholic  Church  was  established, or re-established,[5] in this\nrealm in the year {8} 597.[6]  It was established by St. Augustine,\nafterwards the first Archbishop of Canterbury.  How do we know this?\nBy documentary evidence.  This is the only evidence which, in such a\ncase, is final.  If it is asked when, and by whom, our great public\nschools were established, the answer can be proved or disproved by\ndocuments.  If, for instance, it is asked when, and by whom,\n_Winchester_ was established, documents, and documents only, {9} can\nanswer the question---and documents definitely reply: in 1387, by\nWilliam of Wykeham; if it is asked when, and by whom, _Eton_ was\nestablished, documents answer: in 1441, by Henry VI; if it is asked\nwhen, and by whom, _Harrow_ was established, documents respond: in\n1571, by John Lyon; if it is asked when, and by whom, _Charterhouse_\nwas established, documents again reply: in 1611, by Sir Thomas Sutton.\nIt can all be proved by, and only by, documentary evidence.  So with\nthe sects.  Documents can prove that the Congregationalists established\nthemselves in England in 1568, under Robert Brown; Quakers in 1660,\nunder George Fox; Unitarians in 1719, under Samuel Clarke; Wesleyans in\n1799, under a Wesleyan Conference.  Records exist proving that these\nvarious sects were established at these given dates, and no records\nexist proving that they were established at any other dates.  So with\nthe Church.  Records exist proving that it was established by\nAugustine, in England, in 597, and no records exist even hinting that\nit was established at any other time by anybody else.\n\n\n\n{10}\n\n\"_As by Law Established._\"[7]\n\nA not unnatural mistake has sometimes arisen from the phrase \"_as by\nlaw_ established\".  Where is this law?  It does not exist.  No law ever\nestablished the Church of England.  The expression refers to the\nprotection given by law to the Catholic Church in England, enabling it\nto do its duty in, and to, the country.  It tells of the legal\nrecognition of the Church in the country long before the State existed;\nit expresses the legal declaration that the Church of England is not a\nmere insular sect, but part of the Universal Church \"throughout all the\nworld\".  A State can, of course, if it chooses, establish and {11}\nendow any religion--Mohammedan, Hindoo, Christian, in a country.  It\ncan establish Presbyterianism or Quakerism or Undenominationalism in\nEngland if it elects so to do; but none of these would be the Church of\nJesus Christ established in the Upper Chamber on the Day of Pentecost.\nAs a matter of history, no Church was ever established or endowed by\nState law in England.[8]  If such a tremendous Act as the establishment\nof the Church of England by law had been passed, it is obvious that\nsome document would attest it, as it does in the case of the\nestablishment of the Scotch Presbyterian Church in the reign of William\nIII.  No such document exists.  But an authentic {12} record does exist\nproving the establishment of the Pentecostal Church in England in 597.\nIt is this old Pentecostal Church that we speak of as the Church of\nEngland.\n\n\n\n(IV) THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.\n\nWho gave it this name?  The Pope.[9]  It was given by Pope Gregory in a\nletter to Augustine.  In this letter[10] Gregory speaks of three\nChurches--the {13} Church of Rome, the Church of Gaul, and the _Church\nof the English_, and he bids Augustine compile a Liturgy from the\ndifferent Churches for the \"Use\" of the Church of England.\n\nWe see, then, that the Church of England is the Catholic Church in\nEngland.  As the Church of Ephesus is the Catholic Church in Ephesus,\nor the Church of Laodicea is the Catholic Church in Laodicea, or the\nChurch of Thyatira the Catholic Church in Thyatira, so the Church of\nEngland is the Catholic Church in England.  Just as St. Clement begins\nhis Epistle to the Corinthians with, \"The _Church of God_, which is at\nRome, to the _Church of God_ which is at Corinth,\" so might Archbishop\nDavidson write to the Italians, \"_The Church of God_, which is at\nCanterbury, to the _Church of God_, which is at Rome\".  It is in each\ncase, \"the Church of God,\" \"made visible,\" in the nation where it is\nplanted.\n\n{14}\n\nBut, being national (being, for example, in England), it is, obviously,\nsubject to the dangers, as well as the privileges, of national\ncharacter, national temperament--and, in our case, national insularity.\nThe national presentment of the Catholic Church may err, and may err\nwithout losing its Catholicity.  The Church of England, \"as also the\nChurch of Rome, hath erred\";[11] it has needed, it needs, it will need,\nreforming.  Hence we come to our fifth name:--\n\n\n\n(V) THE REFORMED CHURCH.\n\nThe name is very suggestive.  It suggests two things--life and\ncontinuity.\n\nFirst, _life_.  A reforming Church is a living Church.  Reformation is\na sign of animation, for a dead organism cannot reform itself.  Then,\n_continuity_.  The reformed man, must be the same man, or he would not\nbe a reformed man but somebody else.  So with the Church of England.\nIt would have been quite possible, however ludicrous, to have\nestablished a new Church in the sixteenth century, but that would not\nhave been a reformed Church, it would have been {15} another\nChurch--the very last thing the Reformers contemplated.\n\nA Reformed Church, then, is not the formation of a new Church, but the\nre-formation of the old Church.\n\nHow did the old Church of England reform itself?  Roughly speaking, the\nEnglish Reformation did two things.  It affirmed something, and it\ndenied something.\n\nFirst, it affirmed something.  For instance, the Church of England\naffirmed that the Church in this country in the sixteenth century was\none with the Church of the sixth century.  It affirmed that it was the\nvery same Church that had been established in Palestine on the Day of\nPentecost, and in this realm by Augustine in 597.  It reaffirmed its\nold national independence in things local just as it had affirmed it in\nthe days of Pope Gregory, It re-affirmed its adherence to every\ndoctrine[12] held by the undivided Church, without adding thereto, or\ntaking therefrom.\n\n{16}\n\nThen, it denied something.  It denied the right of foreigners to\ninterfere in purely English affairs; it denied the right of the Bishop\nof one National Church to exercise his power in another National\nChurch; it denied the claim of the Bishop of Rome to exercise\njurisdiction over the Archbishop of Canterbury; it denied the power of\nany one part of the Church to impose local decisions, or local dogmas,\nupon any other part of the Church.\n\nThus, the Reformation both affirmed and denied.  It affirmed the\nconstitutional rights of the Church as against the unconstitutional\nclaims of the Pope, and it denied the unconstitutional claims of the\nState as against the constitutional rights of the Church.\n\nMuch more, very much more, \"for weal or for woe,\" it did.  It had to\nbuy its experience.  The Reformation was not born grown up.  It made\nits mistakes, as every growing movement will do.  It is still growing,\nstill making mistakes, still purging and pruning itself as it grows;\nand it is still asserting its right to reform itself where it {17} has\ngone wrong, and to return to the old ideal where it has departed from\nit.  And this old ideal is wrapped up in the sixth name:--\n\n\n\n(VI) THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.\n\nRe-formation must be based upon its original formation if it would aim\nat real reform.  It is not necessarily a mechanical imitation of the\npast, but a genuine portrait of the permanent.  It is, then, to the\nPrimitive Church that we must look for the principles of reformation.\nIf the meaning of a will is contested years after the testator's death,\nreference will be made, as far as possible, to the testator's\ncontemporaries, or to writings which might best interpret his\nintentions.  This is what the English Reformers of the sixteenth\ncentury tell us that they did.  They refer perpetually to the past;\nover and over again they send us to the \"ancient fathers,\"[13] as to\nthose living and writing nearest to the days when the Church was\nestablished, and as most likely to know her mind.  They go back to what\nthe \"Commination Service\" calls \"The Primitive Church\".  This\n\"Primitive Church\" is the Reformed Church now established in England.\n{18} The Reformers themselves never meant it to be anything else, and\nwould have been the first to protest against the unhistoric, low, and\nmodern use of the word \"established\".  In this sense, they would have\nbeen the sturdiest of sturdy \"Protestants\".\n\nAnd this word Protestant reminds us that there is one more name\nfrequently given to the Church of England, but not included in our\nscheme, because found nowhere in the Prayer Book.\n\n\n\nTHE PROTESTANT CHURCH.\n\nThe term is a foreign one--not English.  It comes from Germany and was\ngiven to the Lutherans in 1529, because they protested against an\nedict[14] forbidding them to regulate their own local ecclesiastical\naffairs, pending the decision of a General Council.\n\nIt had nothing whatever to do with \"protesting\" against ceremonial.\nThe ceremonial of the Church in Lutheran Germany is at least as\ncarefully elaborated as that seen in the majority of English churches.\n\nLater on, the term was borrowed from the Germans by the English, and\napplied to {19} Churchmen who protested (1) against doctrines held\n_exclusively_ by Rome on the one hand, and by Lutherans and Calvinists\non the other; and (2) against claims made by the King over the rights\nand properties of the Church.  Later still, it has been applied to\nthose who protest against the ancient interpretation of Prayer-Book\nteaching on the Sacraments and Ceremonial.\n\nThere is, it is true, a sense in which the name is fairly used to\nrepresent the views of all loyal English Churchmen.  Every English\nChurchman protests against anything unhistoric or uncatholic.  The\nChurch of England does protest against anything imposed by one part of\nthe Church on any other part of the Church, apart from the consent of\nthe whole Church.  It does protest against the claims of Italy or of\nany other nation to rule England, or to impose upon us, as _de fide_,\nanything exclusively Roman.  In this sense, Laud declared upon the\nscaffold that he died \"a true Protestant\"; in this sense, Nicholas\nFerrar, founder of a Religious House in Huntingdonshire, called himself\na Protestant; in this sense, we are all Protestants, and in this sense\nwe are not ashamed of our unhistoric name.\n\n{20}\n\nIn these Prayer-Book names, then, we see (1) that the Church on earth\nis a society, established in the Upper Chamber on the Day of Pentecost;\n(2) that it was established to be the ordained and ordinary channel\nthrough which God saves and sanctifies fallen man; (3) that, in order\nto accomplish this, and for business and administrative purposes, the\nChurch Catholic establishes itself in national centres; (4) that one\nsuch national centre is England; and (5) that this Pentecostal Church\nestablished in England is the Church which \"Christ loved,\" the Sponsa\nChristi, the \"Bride of Christ\":--\n\n  _Elect from every nation,_\n    _Yet one all o'er the Earth._\n\n\n\n[1] Eph. v. 25.\n\n[2] The primary meaning of the word Catholic seems to refer to\nworld-wide extension.  St. Augustine teaches that it means \"Universal\"\nas opposed to particular, and says that \"The Church is called Catholic\nbecause it is spread throughout the whole world\".  St. Cyril of\nJerusalem says: \"The Church is called Catholic because it extends\nthroughout the whole world, from one end of the Earth to the other,\"\nand he adds, \"because it teaches universally all the doctrines which\nmen ought to know\" (\"Catechetical Lectures,\" xviii. 23).\n\n[3] \"Foul fall the day,\" writes Mr. Gladstone, \"when the persons of\nthis world shall, on whatever pretext, take into their uncommissioned\nhands the manipulation of the religion of our Lord and Saviour.\"\n\n[4] Service for \"The Ordering of Priests\".\n\n[5] There was, of course, an ancient British Church long before the\nsixth century, and there is evidence that it existed in the middle of\nthe second century.  It sent bishops to the Council of Arles in 314,\nand there is a church at Canterbury in which Queen Bertha's chaplain\ncelebrated some twenty-five years before the coming of Augustine.  But\nits origin is shrouded in mystery, and it had been practically\nextinguished by Jutes, Saxons, and Angles before Augustine arrived.\n\"Of the ancient British Church,\" writes Bishop Stubbs, in an\nunpublished letter, \"we must be content to admit that history tells us\nnext to nothing, and that what glimmerings of truth we think we can\ndiscover in legend grow fainter and fainter the more closely they are\nexamined.  Authentic records there are none.\"  Some ascribe the first\npreaching of the Gospel in Britain to St. Peter, others to St. Paul, or\nSt. James, or St. Simon Zelotes, and the monks of Glastonbury ascribe\nit to their founder, Joseph of Arimathea, who was, they say, sent to\nBritain by St. Philip with eleven others in A.D. 63.  Cf. letter of Dr.\nBright to \"The Guardian,\" 14 March, 1888, and see \"Letters and Memoirs\nof William Bright,\" pp. 267 _seq_.\n\n[6] i.e. the English, as distinct from the British Church.\n\n[7] \"The word Establishment,\" writes Bishop Stubbs, \"means, of course,\nthe national recognition of our Church as a Christian Church, as the\nrepresentment of the religious life of the nation as historically\nworked out and by means of property and discipline enabled to\ndischarge, so far as outward discharge can insure it, the effectual\nperformance of the duties that membership of a Christian Church\ninvolves.  It means the national recognition of a system by which every\ninch of land in England, and every living soul in the population is\nassigned to a ministration of help, teaching, advice, and comfort of\nreligion, a system in which every English man woman and child has a\nright to the service of a clergyman and to a home of spiritual life in\nthe service of the Church\" (\"Visitation Charges,\" p. 303).\n\n[8] A State can, of course, _endow_, as well as establish, any form of\nreligion it selects.  It has a perfect right to do so.  But the State\nhas never endowed the Church of England, and it can only disendow it in\nthe sense that it can rob it of its own endowments--just as it can, by\nAct of Parliament, rob any business man of his money.  It has done this\nonce already.  At the Great Rebellion, the Church of England was, in\nthis sense, disestablished and disendowed.  By the Act of Uniformity of\nCharles II, it was reinstated into the rights and liberties from which\nit had been deposed.  But it remained the same Church which Augustine\nestablished in England all the time.  Its reinstatement no more made\nthe Church a new Church, than the restoration of Charles II made the\nmonarchy a new monarchy.\n\n[9] It is sometimes asked, Does not the presence of the Bishops in the\nHouse of Lords constitute an Established Church?  No.  Representatives\nfrom all the sects might, and some probably will, sit there without\neither making their sect the established Church of the country, or\nunmaking the Catholic Church the Church of the country.  Bishops have\nsat in the House of Lords ever since there has been a House of Lords to\nsit in, but neither their exclusion, nor the inclusion of non-Bishops,\nwould disestablish the Church of England.\n\nIt is also asked, do not the Prime Ministers make the Bishops?  Prime\nMinisters, as we shall see, do not _make_ but _nominate_ the Bishops.\n\n[10] Augustine is worried, as we are worried, by the variety of customs\nin different Churches, and asks Pope Gregory \"why one custom of masses\nis observed in the Holy Roman Church and another in the Church of the\nGallic Provinces\".  \"My brother knows,\" replied Gregory, \"the custom of\nthe Roman Church in which he was brought up.  But my pleasure is that\nyou should, with great care, select whatever you think will best please\nAlmighty God wherever you find it, whether in the Church of Rome, or in\nthe Church of Gaul, or in any other Church, and then plant firmly in\nthe Church of the English that which you have selected from many\nChurches....  Choose, then, from each individual Church things pious,\nreligious, righteous, and having, as it were, collected them into a\nvolume, deposit them with the minds of the English as their custom,\ntheir Use.\"\n\n[11] Art. XIX.\n\n[12] \"I protest,\" wrote Archbishop Cranmer, \"and openly confess that,\nin all my doctrine, whatsoever it be, not only I mean and judge those\nthings as the Catholic Church, and the most holy Fathers of old, with\none accord, have meant and judged, but also I would gladly use the same\nwords which they used, and not use any other words, but to set my hand\nto all and singular their speeches, phrases, ways, and forms of speech,\nwhich they did use in their treatise upon the Sacraments, and to keep\nstill their interpretation.\"\n\n[13] See Preface to the Prayer Book.\n\n[14] The Edict of the Diet (or Council) of Spires.\n\n\n\n\n{21}\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE CHURCH'S BOOKS.\n\nFor the purpose of these lectures, we will select two:--\n\n(1) _The Bible_, the possession of the whole Church.\n\n(2) _The Prayer Book_, the possession of the Church of England.\n\n\n\n(1) THE BIBLE.\n\nAnd notice: _first, the Church; then, the Bible_--first the Society,\nthen its Publications; first the Writers; then the Writings; first the\nMessenger, then the Message; first the Agent, then the Agencies.\n\nThis is the Divine Order.  Preaching, not writing, was the Apostolic\nmethod.  Oral teaching preceded the written word.  Then, later on, lest\nthis oral teaching should be lost, forgotten, or misquoted, it was\ngradually committed to {22} manuscript, and its \"good tidings\"\npublished in writing for the Church's children.\n\nIt is very important to remember this order (\"first the Church, and\nthen the Bible\"), because thousands of souls lived and died long before\nthe New Testament was written.  The earliest books of the New Testament\n(the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians) were not written\nfor twenty years after the Day of Pentecost; the earliest Gospel (St.\nMark) was not committed to writing before A.D. 65.  And, even if the\nBible had been written earlier, few could have read it; and even then\nfew could have possessed it.  It was a rare book, wholly out of reach\nof \"the people\".  The first Bible was not printed until 1445.\n\nBut, thank God, the Church, which wrote the book, could teach without\nthe book; and we may be sure that no single soul was lost for the want\nof what it could not possess.  \"Without a Bible,\" says St. Irenaeus,\nwriting in the second century, \"they received, from the Church,\nteaching sufficient for the salvation of their souls.\"\n\nThen, again, the Church alone could decide which books were, and which\nbooks were not, \"the Scriptures\".  How else could we know?  The society\nauthorizes its publications.  It affixes {23} its seal only to the\nbooks it has issued.  So with the Divine Society, the Church.  It\naffixes its seal to the books we now know as the Bible.  How do we\nknow, for instance, that St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians are\npart of the Bible, and that St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians is\nnot part of the Bible?  Because, and only because, the Church has so\ndecided.  If we had lived in the days of persecution it would have made\na considerable difference to us whether this or that sacred book was\nincluded in the Christian Scriptures.  Thus, when the early Christians\nwere ordered by Diocletian to \"bring out their books,\" and either burn\nthem or die for them, it became a matter of vital importance to know\nwhich these books were.  Who could tell them this?  Only the society\nwhich published them, only the Church.\n\nAgain, the Church, and only the Church, is the final _interpreter_ of\nthe Bible--it is the \"_witness_ and keeper of holy writ\".[1]  The\nsociety which publishes a statement must be the final interpreter of\nthat statement.  Probably no book ever published needed authoritative\ninterpretation more than the Bible.  We call it \"the book of {24}\npeace\"; it is in reality a book of war.  No book has spread more\ndiscord than the Bible.  Every sect in the world quotes the Bible as\nthe source and justification of its existence.  Men, equally learned,\ndevout, prayerful, deduce the most opposite conclusions from the very\nsame words.  Two men, we will say, honestly and earnestly seek to know\nwhat the Bible teaches about Baptismal Regeneration, or the Blessed\nSacrament.  They have exactly the same _data_ to go upon, precisely the\nsame statements before them; yet, from the same premises, they will\ndeduce a diametrically opposite conclusion.  Hence, party wrangling,\nand sectarian bitterness; hence, the confusion of tongues, which has\nchanged our Zion into Babel.  Indeed, as we all know, so sharp was the\ncontention in the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, that translations\nof the Bible were actually forbidden by two local Church Councils.[2]\n\nAn interpreter is as much needed now, as in the days of the Ethiopian\nEunuch.  \"_How_ readest thou?\"[3] is a question second only in {25}\nimportance (if, indeed, it is second) to \"_What_ is written?\"  Upon\n\"how\" we read, will very largely depend the value of \"what\" we read.\nWe go, then, to the Church to interpret the book which it gave us.\n\nAnd notice--to say this, is not to disparage the Scriptures because we\nexalt the Church.  It is to put both Church and Scriptures in their\ntrue, historical place.  We do not disparage a publication because we\nexalt the society which issues that publication; rather, we honour the\none by exalting the other.  Thus, when we say that the creeds interpret\nthe Bible, we do not disparage the Bible because we exalt the creeds,\nany more than we disparage the Church when we say that the Bible proves\nthe creeds.  Take the \"Virgin Birth,\" as a single illustration.  Are we\nto believe that our Blessed Lord was \"born of the Virgin Mary\"?  Church\nand Bible give the same reply.  The Church taught it before the Bible\nrecorded it; the Bible recorded it because the Church taught it.  For\nus, as Churchmen, the matter is settled once and for all by the\nApostles' Creed.  Here we have the official and authoritative teaching\nof the Catholic Church, as proved by the New Testament; \"born of the\nVirgin Mary\".\n\n{26}\n\nIt is this Bible, the Church's Manual of doctrine and devotion, that we\nare to think of.\n\nWe will think of it under five familiar names:--\n\n  (I) The Scriptures.\n  (II) The Bible.\n  (III) The Word of God.\n  (IV) Inspiration.\n  (V) Revelation.\n\n\n\n(I) THE SCRIPTURES.\n\nThis was the earliest name by which the Bible was known--the name by\nwhich it was called for the first 1200 years in Church history.  It was\nso named by the Latin Fathers in the fifth century, and it means, of\ncourse, \"The Writings\".  These \"Scriptures,\" or \"Writings,\" were not,\nas the plural form of the word reminds us, one book, but many books,\nafterwards gathered into one book.[4]  They were a library of separate\nbooks, called by St. Irenaeus \"The Divine Library\"--perhaps {27} the\nbest and most descriptive name the Bible ever had.  This library\nconsists of sixty-six books, not all written at one period, or for one\nage, but extending over a period of, at least, 1200 years.\n\nThe original copies of these writings, or Scriptures, have not yet been\ndiscovered, though we have extant three very early copies of them,\nwritten \"by hand\".  These are known as the _Alexandrine_ manuscript (or\nCodex), the _Vatican_ manuscript, and the _Sinaitic_ manuscript.  Where\nmay they be found?\n\nOne, dating from the latter part of the fourth, or the early part of\nthe fifth century, is in the British Museum--a priceless treasure,\nwhich comparatively few have taken the trouble to go and see.  It is\nknown as the _Alexandrine_ manuscript, and was presented to Charles I\nby the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1628.  It consists of four\nvolumes, three of which contain nearly all the Old Testament, and parts\nof the Apocrypha, and a fourth, containing a large part of the New\nTestament.\n\nA second manuscript, dating from the fourth century, is in the Vatican\nLibrary in Rome, and is, therefore, known as the _Vatican_ manuscript.\n{28} It contains nearly the whole of both the Old and New Testaments,\nand of the Apocrypha.\n\nThe third manuscript, dating also from the fourth century, is in the\nImperial Library at St. Petersburg.  It was discovered by Prof.\nTischendorf, in 1859, in a basket of fragments, destined to be burned,\nin the Monastery of St. Catherine on _Mount Sinai_; hence it is called\nthe _Sinaitic_ manuscript.\n\nThese are the three earliest MS. collections of the Bible as yet\ndiscovered--and strange stories, of mystic beauty, and, it may be, of\nweird persecution, they could tell if only they could speak.  Other\nmanuscripts we have--copies of ancient manuscripts; versions of ancient\nmanuscripts; translations of ancient manuscripts; texts of ancient\nmanuscripts.  So they come down the ages, till, at last, we reach our\nown \"Revised Version,\" probably the most accurate and trustworthy\nversion in existence.\n\n\"The Scriptures,\" or \"the Writings,\" then, consist of many books, and\nin this very fact, they tell their own tale--the tale of diversity in\nunity.  They were written for divers ages, divers intellects, divers\nnations, in divers languages, by divers authors or compilers.  They\nwere not all {29} written for the twentieth century, though they all\nhave a message for the twentieth century; they were not all written for\nthe English people, though they all have a truth for the English\npeople; they were not all written by the same hand, though the same\nHand guided all the writers.  In, and through the Scriptures, \"God, at\nsundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the\nfathers by the prophets\"; and in, and through them, He \"hath in these\nlast days, spoken unto us by His Son\".[5]\n\nTime passes, and these sixty-six books, written at different periods,\nin different styles, in different dialects, are gathered together in\none book, called \"The Book,\" or The Bible.\n\n\n\n(II) THE BIBLE.\n\nIt was so named by the Greek Fathers in the thirteenth century,\nhundreds of years after its earliest name, \"The Scriptures\".  The word\nis derived from the Greek _Biblia_, books, and originally meant the\nEgyptian _papyrus_ (or _paper-reed_) from which paper was first made.\nA \"bible,\" then, was originally any book made of paper, and {30} the\nname was afterwards given to the \"Book of Books\"--\"_The Bible_\".\n\nHere, then, are sixty-six volumes bound together in one volume.  This,\ntoo, tells its own tale.  If \"The Scriptures,\" or scattered writings,\nspeak of diversity in unity, \"The Bible,\" or collected writings, tells\nof unity in diversity.  Each separate book has its own most sacred\nmessage, while one central, unifying thought dominates all--the\nIncarnate Son of God.  The Old Testament writings foretell His coming\n(\"They are they which testify of me\"[6]); the New Testament writings\nproclaim His Advent (\"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us\"[7]).\nThus, all the books become one book.\n\n  _Many the tongues,_\n  _The theme is one,_\n  _The glory of the Eternal Son._\n\n\nTake away that central Figure, and both the background of the Old\nTestament and the foreground of the New become dull, sunless,\ncolourless.  Reinstate that central Figure, and book after book, roll\nafter roll, volume after volume, becomes bright, sunny, intelligible.\n\nThis it is which separates the Bible from every other book; this it is\nwhich makes it the worthiest {31} of all books for reverent, prayerful\ncriticism; this it is which makes its words nuggets of gold, \"dearer\nunto me than thousands of gold and silver\"; this it is which gives the\nBible its third name:--\n\n\n\n(III) THE WORD OF GOD.\n\nIn what sense is the Bible the Word of God?  Almost any answer must\nhurt some, and almost every answer must disappoint others.  For a time,\nthe \"old school\" and the \"new school\" must bear with each other,\nneither counting itself \"to have apprehended,\" but each pressing\nforward to attain results.\n\nIn speaking of the Bible, we commonly meet with two extreme classes: on\nthe one hand, there are those who hold that every syllable is the Word\nof God, and therefore outside all criticism; on the other hand, there\nare those who hold that the Bible is no more the \"Word of God\" than any\nother book, and may, therefore, be handled and criticized just like any\nother book.  In between these two extremes, there is another class,\nwhich holds that the Bible is the Word of God, and that just because it\nis the Word of God, it is--above all other books--an \"open Bible,\" a\n{32} book open for sacred study, devout debate, reverent criticism.\n\nThe first class holds that every one of the 925,877 words in the Bible\nis as literally \"God's Word\" as if no human hand had written it.  Thus,\nDean Burgon writes: \"Every word of it, every chapter of it, every\nsyllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most\nHigh....  Every syllable is just what it would have been ... _without\nthe intervention of any human agent_.\"  This, of course, creates\nhopeless difficulties.  For instance, in the Authorized Version (to\ntake but one single version) there are obvious insertions, such as St.\nMark xvi. 9-20, which may not be \"the Word of God\" at all.  There are\nobvious misquotations, such as in the seven variations in St. Stephen's\nspeech.[8]  There are obvious doubts about accurate translations, where\nthe marginal notes give alternative readings.  There are obvious\nmistakes by modern printers, as there were by ancient copyists.[9]\nThere are three versions of the Psalms now in use (the Authorized\nVersion, the Revised Version, and the Prayer-Book Version), all\ndiffering {33} from each other.  The translators of the Authorized\nVersion wish, they say, to make \"_one more exact_ translation of the\nScriptures,\" and one-third of the translators of the Revised Version\nconstantly differs from the other two-thirds.  Here, clearly, the human\nagent is at work.\n\nThen there are those who, perhaps from a natural reaction, deny that\nany word in the Bible is in any special sense \"the Word of God\".  But\nthis, too, creates hopeless difficulties, and satisfies no serious\nstudent.  If the Bible is, in no special sense, the Word of God, there\nis absolutely no satisfactory explanation of its unique position and\ncareer in history.  It is a great fact which remains unaccounted for.\nMoreover, no evidence exists which suggests that the writers who call\nit the Word of God were either frauds or dupes, or that they were\ndeceived when they proclaimed \"_God_ spake these words, and said\"; or,\n\"Thus saith _the Lord_\"; or, \"The Revelation of _Jesus Christ_ by His\nservant John\".  There must, upon the lowest ground, be a sense in which\nit may be truly said that the Bible is the Word of God as no other book\nis.  This we may consider under the fourth name, Inspiration.\n\n\n\n{34}\n\n(IV) INSPIRATION.\n\nWhat do we mean by the word?  The Church has nowhere defined it, and we\nare not tied to any one interpretation; but the Bible itself suggests a\npossible meaning.\n\nIt is the Word of God heard through the voice of man.\n\nThink of some such expression as: \"_The Revelation of Jesus Christ\nwhich God gave by His angel unto His servant John_\" (Rev. i. 1).  Here\ntwo facts are stated: (1) The revelation is from Jesus Christ; (2) It\nwas given through a human agent--John.  God gave it; man conveyed it.\nAgain: \"_Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost_\"\n(2 Pet. i. 21).  The Holy Ghost moved them; they spake: the speakers,\nnot the writings, were inspired.  Again: \"_As He spake by the mouth of\nHis holy Prophets_\"[10] (St. Luke i. 70).  He spake; but He spake\nthrough the mouthpiece of the human agent.  And once again, as the\nCollect for the second Sunday in Advent tells us, it is the \"_blessed\nLord Who (hast) caused all Holy Scriptures to be written_\".  God was\nthe initiating {35} cause of writings: man was the inspired writer.\nEach messenger received the message, but each passed it on in his own\nway.  It was with each as it was with Haggai: \"Then spake Haggai, the\n_Lord's messenger_ in the _Lord's message_\" (Haggai i. 13).  The\nmessage was Divine, though the messenger was human; the message was\ninfallible, though the messenger was fallible; the vessel was earthen,\nthough the contents were golden.  In this unique sense, the Bible is\nindeed \"the Word of God\".  It is the \"Word of God,\" delivered in the\nwords of man.\n\nThus, as Dr. Sanday puts it, the Bible is, at once, both human and\nDivine; not less Divine because thoroughly human, and not less human\nbecause essentially Divine.  We need not necessarily parcel it out and\nsay such and such things are human and such and such things are Divine,\nthough there are instances in which we may do this, and the Scriptures\nwould justify us in so doing.  There will be much in Holy Scripture\nwhich is at once very human and very Divine.  The two aspects are not\nincompatible with each other; rather, they are intimately united.  Look\nat them in one light, and you will see the one; look at them in another\nlight, and you will see {36} the other.  But the substance of that\nwhich gives these different impressions is one and the same.\n\nIt is from no irreverence, but because of the over-towering importance\nof the book, that the best scholars (devout, prayerful scholars, as\nwell as the reverse) have given the best of their lives to the study of\nits text, its history, its writers, its contents.\n\nTheir criticism has, as we know, been classified under three heads:--\n\n  (1) Lower, or _textual_ criticism.\n  (2) Higher, or _documentary_ criticism.\n  (3) Historical, or _contemporary_ criticism.\n\n_Lower criticism_ seeks for, and studies, the best and purest text\nobtainable--the text nearest to the original, from which fresh\ntranslations can be made.\n\n_Higher criticism_ seeks for, and studies, documents: it deals with the\nauthenticity of different books, the date at which they were written,\nthe names of their authors.\n\n_Historical criticism_ seeks for, and studies, _data_ relating to the\nhistory of the times when each book was written, and the light thrown\nupon that history by recent discoveries (e.g. in archaeology, and\nexcavations in Palestine).\n\n{37}\n\nNo very definite results have yet been reached on many points of\ncriticism, and, on many of them, scholars have had again and again to\nreverse their conclusions.  We are still only _en route_, and are\nlearning more and more to possess our souls in patience, and to wait\nawhile for anything in the nature of finality.  Meanwhile, the living\nsubstance is unshaken and untouched.\n\nThis living substance, entrusted to living men, is the revelation of\nGod to man, and leads us to our last selected name--Revelation.\n\n\n\n(V) REVELATION.\n\nThe Bible is the revelation of the Blessed Trinity to man--of God the\nSon, by God the Father, through God the Holy Ghost.  It is the\nrevelation of God to man, and in man.  First, it reveals God _to_\nman--\"pleased as Man with man to dwell\".  In it, God stands in front of\nman, and, through the God-Man, shows him what God is like.  It reveals\nGod as the \"pattern on the mount,\" for man to copy on the plain.  But\nit does more than this: it reveals God _in_ man.  So St. Paul writes:\n\"It pleased God to reveal His Son _in_ me\";[11] and again, \"God hath\n{38} shined _in_ our hearts\".[12]  The Bible reveals to me that Jesus,\nthe revelation of the Father, through the Eternal Spirit, dwells in me,\nas well as outside me.  He is a power within, as well as a pattern\nwithout.\n\nYet again.  The Bible reveals God's purpose _for_ man.  There is no\nsuch other revelation of that purpose.  You cannot deduce God's purpose\neither in man's life, or in his twentieth century environment.  It can\nonly be fully deduced from Revelation.  Man may seem temporarily to\ndefeat God's purpose, to postpone its accomplishment; but Revelation\n(and nothing but Revelation) proclaims that \"the Word of the Lord\nstandeth sure,\" and that God's primal purpose is God's final purpose.\n\nLastly, the Bible is the revelation of a future state.  Things begun\nhere will be completed there.  As such, it gives man a hope on which to\nbuild a belief, and a belief on which to found a hope.\n\n    We must believe,\n    For still we hope\n  That, in a world of larger scope,\n  What here is faithfully begun\n  Will be completed, not undone.\n\n{39}\n\nThus, we may, perhaps, find in these five familiar names, brief\nheadings for leisure thoughts.  In them, we see the _Scriptures_, or\nmany books, gathered together into one book called _The Book_.  In this\nbook, we see the _Word of God_ delivered to men by men, and these men\n_inspired_ by God to be the living _media_ of the _Revelation_ of God\nto man.\n\nOur next selected book will be the Church of England Prayer Book.\n\n\n\n[1] Art. XX.\n\n[2] The Council of Toulouse, 1229, and the Council of Trent, 1545-63.\n\n[3] St. Luke x. 26,\n\n[4] The first division of the Bible into _chapters_ is attributed\neither to Cardinal Hugo, for convenience in compiling his Concordance\nof the Vulgate (about 1240), or to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of\nCanterbury (about 1228), to facilitate quotation.  _Verses_ were\nintroduced into the New Testament by Robert Stephens, 1551.  It is said\nthat he did the work on a journey from Paris to Lyons.\n\n[5] Heb. i. 1, 2.\n\n[6] St. John v. 39.\n\n[7] St. John i. 14.\n\n[8] Acts VII.\n\n[9] The University Presses offer L1 1s. for every such hitherto\nundiscovered inaccuracy brought to their notice.\n\n[10] This is the Church's description of Inspiration in the Nicene\nCreed: \"Who spake by the Prophets\".\n\n[11] Gal. i. 15, 16.\n\n[12] 2 Cor. iv. 6.\n\n\n\n\n{40}\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE CHURCH'S BOOKS.\n\n(2) THE PRAYER BOOK.\n\nWe now come to the second of the Church's books selected for\ndiscussion--the Prayer Book.\n\nThe English Prayer Book is the local presentment of the Church's\nLiturgies for the English people.\n\nEach part of the Church has its own Liturgy, differing in detail,\nlanguage, form; but all teaching the same faith, all based upon the\nsame rule laid down by Gregory for Augustine's guidance.[1]  Thus,\nthere is the Liturgy of St. James, the Liturgy of St. John,[2] the\nLiturgy of St. Mark, and others.  A National Church is within her\nrights when she compiles a Liturgy for National Use, provided that it\nis in harmony with the basic Liturgies of the Undivided Church.  She\nhas {41} as much right to her local \"Use,\" with its rules and ritual,\nas a local post office has to its own local regulations, provided it\ndoes not infringe any universal rule of the General Post Office.  For\nexample, a National Church has a perfect right to say in what language\nher Liturgy shall be used.  When the English Prayer Book orders her\nLiturgy to be said in \"the vulgar,\"[3] or common, \"tongue\" of the\npeople, she is not infringing, but exercising a local right which\nbelongs to her as part of the Church Universal.  This is what the\nEnglish Church has done in the English Prayer Book.\n\nIt is this Prayer Book that we are now to consider.\n\nWe will try to review, or get a bird's-eye view of it as a whole,\nrather than attempt to go into detail.  And, as the best reviewer is\nthe one who lets a book tell its own story, and reads the author's\nmeaning out of it rather than his own theories into it, we will let the\nbook, as far as possible, speak for itself.\n\nNow, in reviewing a book, the reviewer will probably look at three\nthings: the title, the preface, the contents.\n\n\n\n{42}\n\n(I) THE TITLE.\n\n\"_The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and\nother Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the\nChurch of England._\"\n\nHere are three clear statements: (1) it is \"The Book of Common Prayer\n\"; (2) it is the local \"directory\" for the \"_Administration_ of the\nSacraments of the Church,\" i.e. of the Universal Church; (3) this\ndirectory is called the \"Use of the Church of England\".  Think of each\nstatement in turn.\n\n(1) _It is \"The Book of Common Prayer\"_.--\"Common Prayer\"[4] was the\nname given to public worship in the middle of the sixteenth century.\nThe Book of Common Prayer is the volume in which the various services\nwere gathered together for common use.  It is many books in one book.\nAs the Bible is one book made up of sixty-six books, so the Prayer Book\nis one book made up of six books.  These books, revised and abbreviated\nfor English \"Use,\" were:--\n\n{43}\n\n  (1) The Pontifical.\n  (2) The Missal.\n  (3) The Gospels.\n  (4) The Gradual.\n  (5) The Breviary.\n  (6) The Manual.\n\n\nBefore the invention of printing, these books were written in\nmanuscript, and were too heavy to carry about bound together in one\nvolume.  Each, therefore, was carried by the user separately.  Thus,\nwhen the Bishop, or _Pontifex_, was ordaining or confirming, he carried\nwith him a separate book containing the offices for Ordination and\nConfirmation; and, because it contained the offices used by the Bishop,\nor _Pontiff_, it was called the _Pontifical_.  When a priest wished to\ncelebrate the Holy Eucharist, he used a separate book called \"The\nMissal\" (from the Latin _Missa_, a Mass[5]).  When, in the Eucharist,\nthe deacon read the Gospel for the day, he read it from a separate book\ncalled \"The Gospels\".  When he {44} went in procession to read it, the\nchoir sang scriptural phrases out of a separate book called \"The\nGradual\" (from the Latin _gradus_, a step), because they were sung in\n_gradibus_, i.e. upon the steps of the pulpit, or rood-loft, from which\nthe Gospel was read.  When the clergy said their offices at certain\nfixed \"Hours,\" they used a separate book called \"The Breviary\" (from\nthe Latin _brevis_, short), because it contained the brief, or short,\nwritings which constituted the office, out of which our English Matins\nand Evensong were practically formed.  When services for such as needed\nBaptism, Matrimony, Unction, Burial, were required, some light book\nthat could easily be carried _in the hand_ was used, and this was\ncalled \"The Manual\" (from the Latin _manus_, a hand).\n\nThese six books, written in Latin, were, in 1549, shortened, and, with\nvarious alterations, translated into English, bound in one volume,\nwhich is called \"The Book of Common Prayer\".\n\nAlterations, some good and some bad, have from time to time been\nadopted, and revisions made; but the Prayer Book is now the same in\nsubstance as it always has been--a faithful reproduction, in all\nessentials, of the worship and {45} teaching of the Undivided Church.\nAs we all know, a further revision is now contemplated.  All agree that\nit is needed; all would like to amend the Prayer Book in one direction\nor another; but there is a sharp contention as to whether this is the\ntime for revision, and what line the revision should take.  The nature\nof the last attempted revision, in the reign of William III,[6] will\nmake the liturgical student profoundly grateful that that proposed\nrevision was rejected, and will suggest infinite caution before\nentrusting a new revision to any but proved experts, and liturgical\nspecialists.[7]\n\nWhatever changes are made, they should, at least, be based on two\nprinciples--permanence and progress.  The essence of progress is\nloyalty to the past.  Nothing should be touched that is a permanent\npart of the Ancient Office Books; nothing should be omitted, or added,\nthat is outside the teaching of the Universal Church.  For the\nimmediate present, we would ask that the {46} Prayer Book should be\nleft untouched, but that an Appendix, consisting of many unauthorized\nservices now in use, should be \"put forth by authority,\" i.e. by the\nsanction of the Bishops.\n\n(2) _The Administration of the Sacraments of the Church_.--The\nSacraments are the treasures of the whole Church; the way in which they\nmay be \"administered\" is left to the decision of that part of the\nChurch in which they are administered.  Take, once again, the question\nof language.  One part of the Church has as much right to administer\nthe Sacraments in English as another part has to administer them in\nLatin, or another part in Greek.  For instance, the words, \"This is My\nBody\" in the English Liturgy are quite as near to the original as \"_Hoc\nest Corpus Meum_\" is in the Latin Liturgy.  Each Church has a right to\nmake its own regulations for its own people.\n\nSo with \"rites and ceremonies\".  Provided the essence of the Sacrament\nis not touched, the addition or omission of particular rites and\nceremonies does not affect the validity of the Sacrament.  For, the\ntitle of the Prayer Book carefully distinguishes between \"The Church\"\nand \"The Church of England,\" \"the _Sacraments_\" and the\n\"_administration_ of the Sacraments\".  It is for {47} _administrative\npurposes_ that there is an English \"Use,\" i.e. an English method of\nadministering the Sacraments of the Universal Church.  It is this use\nwhich the title-page calls:--\n\n(3) _The Use of the Church of England_.--This \"Use\" may vary at\ndifferent times, and even in different dioceses.  We read of one \"Use\"\nin the Diocese of York; another in the Diocese of Sarum, or Salisbury;\nanother in the Diocese of Hereford; another in the Diocese of Bangor;\nand so on.  Indeed, there were so many different Uses at one time that,\nfor the sake of unity, one Use was substituted for many; and that Use,\nsufficient in all essentials, is found in our \"Book of Common Prayer \".\n\n\n\n(II) THE PREFACE.\n\nIt was written, in 1661, by Bishop Sanderson, and amended by the Upper\nHouse of Convocation.\n\nWhat, we ask, do these preface-writers say about the book to which they\ngave their _imprimatur_?\n\nFirst, they state their position.  They have no intention whatever of\nwriting a new book.  Their aim is to adapt old books to new needs.\n{48} Adaptation, not invention, is their aim.  Four times in their\nshort Preface they refer us to \"the ancient Fathers\" as their guides.\n\nNext, they state their object.  Two dangers, they tell us, have to be\navoided.  In compiling a Liturgy from Ancient Sources, one danger will\nbe that of \"too much stiffness in _refusing_\" new matter--i.e. letting\na love of permanence spoil progress: another, and opposite danger, will\nbe \"too much easiness in _admitting_\" any variation--i.e. letting a\nlove of progress spoil permanence.  They will try to avoid both\ndangers.  \"It hath been the wisdom of the Church of England to keep the\nmean between the two extremes,\" when either extreme runs away from the\n\"faith once delivered to the Saints \".\n\nAnother object they had in view was to give a prominent place to Holy\nScripture.  \"So that here,\" they say, \"you have an Order for Prayer,\nand for the reading of the Holy Scriptures, much agreeable to the mind\nand purpose of _the old Fathers_.\"\n\nNext, they deal with the principles which underlie all ritualism.  In\nspeaking \"of Ceremonies, why some be abolished and some {49} retained,\"\nthey lay it down that, \"although the keeping or admitting of a\nCeremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing, yet the wilful\nand contemptuous transgression and breaking of a Common Order and\ndiscipline is no small offence before God\".  Then, in a golden\nsentence, they add: \"Whereas the minds of men are so diverse that some\nthink it a great matter of conscience to depart from a piece of the\nleast of their ceremonies, they be so addicted to their old customs;\nand, again, on the other side, some be so new-fangled that they would\ninnovate all things, and so despise the old, that nothing can like\nthem, but that is new: it was thought expedient, not so much to have\nrespect how to please and satisfy either of these parties, as _how to\nplease God_, and profit them both\".\n\nFinally, whilst wishing to ease men from the oppressive burden of a\nmultitude of ceremonies, \"whereof St. Augustine, in his time,\ncomplained,\" they assert the right of each Church to make its own\nritual-rules (in conformity with the rules of the whole Church),\nprovided that it imposes them on no one else.  \"And in these our doings\nwe condemn no other nations, nor prescribe anything but to our own\npeople only; for we think it {50} convenient that every country should\nuse such ceremonies as they shall think best.\"\n\nIt is necessary to call attention to all this, because few Church\npeople seem to know anything about the intentions, objects, and\nprinciples of the compilers, as stated by themselves in the Prayer Book\nPreface.\n\n\n\n(III) THE CONTENTS.\n\nThese a reviewer might briefly deal with under three heads--Doctrine,\nDiscipline, and Devotion.\n\n\n_Doctrine._\n\nThe importance of this cannot be exaggerated.  The English Prayer Book\nis, for the ordinary Churchman, a standard of authority when\ntheological doctors differ.  The _Prayer Book_ is the Court of Appeal\nfrom the pulpit--just as the Undivided Church is the final Court of\nAppeal from the Prayer Book.  Many a man is honestly puzzled and\nworried at the charge so frequently levelled at the Church of England,\nthat one preacher flatly contradicts another, and that what is taught\nas truth in one church is denied as heresy in another.  This is, of\ncourse, by no {51} means peculiar to the Church of England, but it is\nnone the less a loss to the unity of Christendom.\n\nThe whole mischief arises from treating the individual preacher as if\nhe were the Book of Common Prayer.  It is to the Prayer Book, not to\nthe Pulpit, that we must go to prove what is taught.  For instance, I\ngo into one church, and I hear one preacher deny the doctrine of\nBaptismal Regeneration; I go into another, and I hear the same doctrine\ntaught as the very essence of The Faith.  I ask, in despair, what does\nthe Church of England teach? which teacher am I to believe?  What is\nthe answer?  It is this.  I am not bound to believe either teacher,\nuntil I have tested his utterances by some authorized book.  This book\nis the Prayer Book.  What does the Church of England Prayer Book--not\nthis or that preacher--say is the teaching of the Church of England?\nIn the case quoted, this is the Prayer Book answer: \"Seeing now, dearly\nbeloved brethren, that _this child is regenerate_\".[8] Here is\nsomething clear, crisp, definite.  It is the authorized expression of\nthe belief of the Church of England in common with the whole Catholic\nChurch.\n\n{52}\n\nOr, I hear two sermons on conversion.  In one, conversion is almost\nsneered at, or, at least, apologized for; in another, it is taught with\nall the fervour of a personal experience.  What am I to believe?  What\ndoes the Church of England teach about it?  What does the Prayer Book\nsay?  Open it at the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, or at the\nthird Collect for Good Friday, and you will hear a trumpet which gives\nno uncertain sound.\n\nOr, I am wondering and worried about Confession and Absolution.  What\ndoes the Church of England teach about them?  One preacher says one\nthing, one another.  But what is the Church of England's authoritative\nutterance on the subject?  Open your Prayer Book, and you will see: you\nwill find that, with the rest of the Christian Church, she provides for\nboth, in public and in private, for the strong, and for the sick.\n\nThis, at least, is the view an honest onlooker will take of our\nposition.  A common-sense Nonconformist minister, wishing to teach his\npeople and to get at facts, studies the English Prayer Book.  This is\nhis conclusion: \"Free Churchmen,\" he writes, \"dissent from much of the\nteaching of the Book of Common Prayer.  In {53} the service of Baptism,\nexpressions are used which naturally lead persons to regard it as a\nmeans of salvation.  God is asked to 'sanctify this water to the\nmystical washing away of sin'.  After Baptism, God is thanked for\nhaving 'regenerated the child with His Holy Spirit'.  It is called the\n'laver of regeneration,' by which the child, being born in sin, is\nreceived into the number of God's children.  In the Catechism, the\nchild is taught to say of Baptism, 'wherein I was made the child of\nGod'.  It is said to be 'generally necessary to salvation,' and the\nrubric declares that children who are baptized, and die before they\ncommit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved'.\"[9]  What could be a fairer\nstatement of the Prayer-Book teaching?  And he goes on: \"In the\nvisitation of the sick, if the sick person makes a confession of his\nsins, and 'if he heartily and humbly desire it,' the Priest is bidden\nto absolve him.  The form of Absolution is '... I absolve thee from all\nthy sins in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost'.  In the Ordination Service, the Bishop confers the power of\nAbsolution upon the Priest.\"  Nothing could be fairer.  It is precisely\nwhat the Church {54} of England _does_ teach in her authorized\nformularies which Archbishop Cranmer gathered together from the old\nService-books of the ancient Church of England.\n\nThe pulpit passes: the Prayer Book remains.\n\n\n_Discipline._\n\nThe Prayer Book deals with principles, rather than with details--though\ndetails have their place.  It is a book of discipline, \"as well for the\nbody as the soul\".  It disciplines the body for the sake of the soul;\nit disciplines the soul for the sake of the body.  Now it tightens, now\nit relaxes, the human bow.  For example, in the _Table of Feasts and\nFasts_, it lays down one principle which underlies all bodily and\nspiritual discipline--the need of training to obtain self-control.  The\n_principle_ laid down is that I am to discipline myself at stated times\nand seasons, in order that I may not be undisciplined at any times or\nseasons.  I am to rejoice as a duty on certain days, that I may live in\nthe joy of the Redeemed on other days.  Feasts and Fasts have a\nmeaning, and I cannot deliberately ignore the Prayer-Book Table without\nsuffering loss.\n\nIt is the same with the rubrical directions as to {55} ritual.  I am\nordered to stand when praising, to kneel when praying.  The underlying\n_principle_ is that I am not to do things in my own way, without regard\nto others, but to do them in an orderly way, and as one of many.  I am\nlearning to sink the individual in the society.  So with the directions\nas to vestments--whether they are the Eucharistic vestments, ordered by\nthe \"Ornaments Rubric,\" or the preacher's Geneva gown not ordered\nanywhere.  The _principle_ laid down is, special things for special\noccasions; all else is a matter of degree.  One form of Ceremonial will\nappeal to one temperament, a different form to another.  \"I like a\ngrand Ceremonial,\" writes Dr. Bright, \"and I own that Lights and\nVestments give me real pleasure.  But then I should be absurd if I\nexpected that everybody else, who had the same faith as myself, should\nnecessarily have the same feeling as to the form of its\nexpression.\"[10]  From the subjective and disciplinary point of view,\nthe mark of the Cross must be stamped on many of our own likes and\ndislikes, both in going without, and in bearing with, ceremonial,\nespecially in small towns and villages where there is only one church.\nThe principle {56} which says, \"You shan't have it because I don't like\nit,\" or, \"You shall have it because I do like it,\" leads to all sorts\nof confusion.  As Dr. Liddon says: \"When men know what the revelation\nof God in His Blessed Son really is, all else follows in due\ntime--reverence on one side and charity on the other\".[11]\n\n\n\n_Devotion._\n\nReading the Prayer Book as it stands, from Matins to the Consecration\nof an Archbishop, no reviewer could miss its devotional beauty.  It is,\nperhaps, a misfortune that the most beautiful Office of the Christian\nChurch, the Eucharistic Office, should come in the middle, instead of\nat the beginning, of our Prayer Book, first in order as first in\nimportance.  Its character, though capable of much enrichment, reminds\nus of how much devotional beauty the Prayer Book has from ancient\nsources.  In our jealous zeal for more beauty we are, perhaps, apt to\nunderrate much that we already possess.  God won't give us more than we\nhave until we have learnt to value that which we possess.\n\nIt is impossible, in the time that remains, to {57} do more than\nemphasize one special form of beauty in \"The Book of Common\nPrayer\"--The Collects.  The Prayer-Book Collects are pictures of\nbeauty.  Only compare a modern collect with the Prayer-Book Collects,\nand you will see the difference without much looking.\n\nLearn to value the Prayer Book.  From birth to death it provides, as we\nshall see, special offices, and special prayers for the main events of\nour lives, though many minor events are still unprovided for.\n\n\n\n[1] See p. 13.\n\n[2] Possibly, the origin of the British Liturgy revised by St.\nAugustine, and of the present Liturgy of the English Church.\n\n[3] From _vulgus_, a crowd.\n\n[4] Cf. Acts iv. 24, \"They lifted up their voices _with one accord_\".\n\n[5] The word _Mass_, which has caused such storms of controversy,\noriginally meant a _dismissal_ of the congregation.  It is found in\nwords such as Christ-mas (i.e. a short name for the Eucharist on the\nFeast of the Nativity), Candle-mas, Martin-mas, Michael-mas, and so on.\n\n[6] This was published _in extenso_ in a Blue Book, issued by the\nGovernment on 2 June, 1854.\n\n[7] It is difficult to see how any revision could obtain legal\nsanction, even if prepared by Convocation, save by an Act of Parliament\nafter free discussion by the present House of Commons.\n\n[8] Public Baptism of Infants.\n\n[9] \"The Folkestone Baptist,\" June, 1899.\n\n[10] \"Letters and Memoirs of William Bright,\" p. 143.\n\n[11] \"Life and Letters of H. P. Liddon,\" p. 329.\n\n\n\n\n{58}\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE CHURCH'S SACRAMENTS.\n\nWe have seen that a National Church is the means whereby the Catholic\nChurch reaches the nation; that her function is (1) to teach, and (2)\nto feed the nation; that she teaches through her books, and feeds\nthrough her Sacraments.\n\nWe now come to the second of these two functions--the spiritual feeding\nof the nation.  This she does through the Sacraments--a word which\ncomes from the Latin _sacrare_ (from _sacer_), sacred.[1] The\nSacraments are the sacred _media_ through which the soul of man is fed\nwith the grace of God.\n\n{59}\n\nWe may think of them under three heads:--their number; their nature;\ntheir names.\n\n\n\n(I) THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS.\n\nIn the early Church the number was unlimited.  After the twelfth\ncentury, the number was technically limited to seven.  Partly owing to\nthe mystic number seven,[2] and partly because seven seemed to meet the\nneeds of all sorts and conditions of men, the septenary number of\nSacraments became either fixed or special.  The Latin Church taught\nthat there were \"seven, and seven only\": the Greek Church specialized\nseven, without limiting their number: the English Church picked out\nseven, specializing two as \"generally necessary to salvation\"[3] and\nfive (such as Confirmation and Marriage) as \"commonly called\nSacraments\".[4]\n\nThe English Church, then, teaches that, without arbitrarily limiting\ntheir number, there are seven special means of grace, either \"generally\nnecessary\" for all, or specially provided for some.  And, as amongst\nher books she selects two, and calls them \"_The_ Bible,\" and \"_The_\nPrayer {60} Book,\" so amongst her Sacraments she deliberately marks out\ntwo for a primacy of honour.\n\nThese two are so supreme, as being \"ordained by Christ Himself\"; so\npre-eminent, as flowing directly from the Wounded Side, that she calls\nthem \"the Sacraments of the Gospel\".  They are, above all other\nSacraments, \"glad tidings of great joy\" to every human being.  And\nthese two are \"generally necessary,\" i.e. necessary for all alike--they\nare _generaliter_, i.e. for _all_ and not only for _special_ states\n(such as Holy Orders): they are \"for _every_ man in his vocation and\nministry\".  The other five are not necessarily essential for all.  They\nhave not all \"the like nature of Sacraments of the Gospel,\" in that\nthey were not all \"ordained by Christ Himself\".  It is the nature of\nthe two Sacraments of the Gospel that we now consider.\n\n\n\n(II) THE NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS.\n\n\"What meanest thou by this word, Sacrament?\"  The Catechism, confining\nits answer to the two greater Sacraments, replies: \"I mean an outward\nand visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace...\"[5]\n\n{61}\n\nPutting this into more modern language, we might say that a Sacrament\nis a supernatural conjunction of spirit and matter.[6]  It is not\nmatter only; it is not spirit only; it is not matter opposed to spirit,\nbut spirit of which matter is the expression, and \"the ultimate\nreality\".  Thus, for a perfect Sacrament, there must be both \"the\noutward and visible\" (matter), and \"the inward and spiritual\" (spirit).\nIt is the conjunction of the two which makes the Sacrament.  Thus, a\nSacrament is not wholly under the conditions of material laws, nor is\nit wholly under the conditions of spiritual laws; it is under the\nconditions of what (for lack of any other name) we call _Sacramental_\nlaws.  As yet, we know comparatively little of either material or\nspiritual laws, and we cannot be surprised that we know still less of\nSacramental laws.  We are in the student stage, and are perpetually\nrevising our conclusions.  {62} In all three cases, we very largely\n\"walk by faith\".\n\nBut this at least we may say of Sacraments.  Matter without spirit\ncannot effect that which matter with spirit can, and does, effect.  As\nin the Incarnation, God[7] expresses Himself through matter[8]--so it\nis in the Sacraments.  In Baptism, the Holy Spirit \"expresses Himself\"\nthrough water: in the Eucharist, through bread and wine.  In each case,\nthe perfect integrity of matter and of spirit are essential to the\nvalidity of the Sacrament.  In each case, it is the conjunction of the\ntwo which guarantees the full effect of either.[9]\n\n\n\n(III) THE NAMES OF THE SACRAMENTS.\n\nAs given in the Prayer Book, these are seven--\"Baptism, and the Supper\nof the Lord,\" Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Unction.\n\nWe will think now of the two first.\n\n\n\n[1] St. Leo defines a Sacrament thus: \"_Sacramentum_.  (1) It\noriginally signified the pledge or deposit in money which in certain\nsuits according to Roman Law plaintiff and defendant were alike bound\nto make; (2) it came to signify a pledge of military fidelity, a\n_voluntary_ oath; (3) then the _exacted_ oath of allegiance; (4) any\noath whatever; (5) in early Christian use any sacred or solemn act, and\nespecially any mystery where more was meant than met the ear or eye\"\n(Blight's \"Select Sermons of St. Leo on the Incarnation,\" p. 136).\n\n[2] Symbolical of completion.\n\n[3] Church Catechism.\n\n[4] Article XXV.\n\n[5] The answer is borrowed from Peter Lombard (a pupil of Abelard and\nProfessor of Theology, and for a short time Bishop of Paris), who\ndefines a Sacrament as a \"visible sign of an invisible grace,\" probably\nhimself borrowing the thought from St. Augustine.\n\n[6] Dr. Illingworth calls \"the material order another aspect of the\nspiritual, which is gradually revealing itself through material\nconcealment, in the greater and lesser Christian Sacraments, which\nradiate from the Incarnation\" (\"Sermons Preached in a College Chapel,\"\np. 173).\n\n[7] God is _Spirit_, St. John iv. 24.\n\n[8] The Word was made _Flesh_, St. John i. 14.\n\n[9] The water in Baptism is not, of course, _consecrated_, as the bread\nand wine are in the Eucharist.  It does not, like the bread and wine,\n\"become what it was not, without ceasing to be what it was,\" but it is\n\"_sanctified_ to the mystical washing away of sins\".\n\n\n\n\n\n{63}\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nBAPTISM.\n\nConsider, What it is;\n          What it does;\n          How it does it.\n\n\n\n(I) WHAT IT IS.\n\nThe Sacrament of Baptism is the supernatural conjunction of matter and\nspirit--of water and the Holy Ghost.  Water must be there, and spirit\nmust be there.  It is by the conjunction of the two that the Baptized\nis \"born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost\".\n\nSo the Prayer Book teaches.  At the reception of a privately baptized\nchild into the Church, it is laid down that \"matter\" and \"words\" are\nthe two essentials for a valid Baptism.[1]  \"Because some things\nessential to this Sacrament may happen to be omitted (and thus\ninvalidate the Sacrament), ... I demand,\" says the priest, {64} \"with\nwhat matter was this child baptized?\" and \"with what words was this\nchild baptized?\"  And because the omission of right matter or right\nwords would invalidate the Sacrament, further inquiry is made, and the\ngod-parents are asked: \"by whom was this child baptized?\": \"who was\npresent when this child was baptized?\"  Additional security is taken,\nif there is the slightest reason to question the evidence given.  The\nchild is then given \"Conditional Baptism,\" and Baptism is administered\nwith the conditional words: \"If thou art not already baptized,\"--for\nBaptism cannot be repeated--\"I baptize thee in the name of the Father,\nand of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.\"  So careful is the\nChurch both in administering and guarding the essentials of the\nSacrament.\n\nAnd notice: nothing but the water and the words are _essential_.  Other\nthings may, or may not, be edifying; they are not essential; they are\nmatters of ecclesiastical regulation, not of Divine appointment.  Thus,\na _Priest_ is not essential to a valid Baptism, as he is for a valid\nEucharist.  A Priest is the normal, but not the necessary, instrument\nof Baptism.  \"In the absence of a {65} Priest\"[2] a Deacon may baptize,\nand if the child is _in extremis_, any one, of either sex, may baptize.\n\nAgain, _Sponsors_ are not essential to the validity of the Sacrament.\nSponsors are safeguards, not essentials.  They are only a part--an\ninvaluable part--of ecclesiastical regulation.  When, in times of\npersecution, parents might be put to death, other parents were chosen\nas parents-in-God (God-parents)[3] to safeguard the child's Christian\ncareer.  Sponsors are \"sureties\" of the Church, not parts of the\nSacraments.  They stand at the font, as fully admitted Church members,\nto welcome a new member into the Brotherhood.  But a private Baptism\nwithout Sponsors would be a valid Baptism.\n\nSo, too, in regard to _Ceremonial_.  The mode of administering the\nSacrament may vary: it is not (apart from the matter and words) of the\nessence of the Sacrament.  There are, in fact, three ways in which\nBaptism may be validly administered.  It may be administered by\n_Immersion_, _Aspersion_, or _Affusion_.\n\nImmersion (_in-mergere_, to dip into) is the original and primitive\nform of administration.  {66} As the word suggests, it consists of\ndipping the candidate into the water--river, bath, or font.\n\nAspersion (_ad spargere_, to sprinkle upon) is not a primitive form of\nadministration.  It consists in sprinkling water upon the candidate's\nforehead.\n\nAffusion (_ad fundere_, to pour upon) is the allowed alternative to\nImmersion.  It consists in pouring water upon the candidate.\n\nAll these methods are valid.  Immersion was the Apostolic method, and\nexplains most vividly the Apostolic teaching (in which the Candidate is\n\"buried with Christ\" by immersion, and rises again by emersion)[4] no\nless than the meaning of the word--from the Greek _baptizo_, to dip.\nProvision for Immersion has been made by a Fontgrave, in Lambeth Parish\nChurch, erected in memory of Archbishop Benson, and constantly made use\nof.  But, even in Apostolic times, Baptism by \"Affusion\" was allowed to\nthe sick and was equally valid.  In the Prayer Book, affusion is either\npermitted (as in the Public Baptism of infants), or ordered (as in the\nPrivate Baptism of infants), or, again, allowed (as in the Baptism of\nthose of riper years).  It will be {67} noted that the Church of\nEngland makes no allusion to \"Aspersion,\" or the \"sprinkling\" form of\nadministration.  The child or adult is always either to be dipped into\nthe water, or to have water poured upon it.[5]  Other ceremonies there\nare--ancient and mediaeval.  Some are full of beauty, but none are\nessential.  Thus, in the first Prayer Book of 1549, a white vesture,\ncalled the _Chrisome_[6] or _Chrism_, was put upon the candidate, the\nPriest saying: \"Take this white vesture for a token of innocency which,\nby God's grace, in the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, is given unto thee\".\nIt typified the white life to which the one anointed with the Chrisma,\nor symbolical oil, was dedicated.[7]\n\n{68}\n\nAnother ancient custom was to give the newly baptized _milk and honey_.\nSo, St. Clement of Alexandria writes: \"As soon as we are born again, we\nbecome entitled to the hope of rest, the promise of Jerusalem which is\nabove, where it is said to rain milk and honey\".\n\n_Consignation_, again, or the \"signing with the sign of the cross,\"\ndates from a very early period.[8]  It marks the child as belonging to\nthe Good Shepherd, even as a lamb is marked with the owner's mark or\nsign.\n\nGiving salt as a symbol of wisdom (_sal sapientiae_); placing a lighted\ntaper in the child's hand, typifying the illuminating Spirit; turning\nto the west to renounce the enemy of the Faith, and then to the east to\nrecite our belief in that Faith; striking three blows with the hand,\nsymbolical of fighting against the world, the flesh, and the devil: all\nsuch ceremonies, and many more, have their due place, and mystic\nmeaning: but they are not part of the Sacrament.  They are, {69} as it\nwere, scenery, beautiful scenery, round the Sacrament; frescoes on the\nwalls; the \"beauty of holiness\"; \"lily-work upon the top of the\npillars\";[9] the handmaids of the Sacrament, but not essential to the\nSacrament.  To deny that the Church of England rightly and duly\nadministers the Sacrament because she omits any one of these\nceremonies, is to confuse the picture with the frame, the jewel with\nits setting, the beautiful with the essential.[10]\n\nWe may deplore the loss of this or that Ceremony, but a National Church\nexercises her undoubted right in saying at any particular period of her\nhistory how the Sacrament is to be administered, provided the\nessentials of the Sacrament are left untouched.  The Church Universal\ndecides, once for all, what is essential: {70} the National Church\ndecides how best to secure and safeguard these essentials for her own\n_Use_.\n\n\n\n(II) WHAT IT DOES.\n\nAccording to the Scriptures, \"_Baptism doth now save us_\".[11]  As God\ndid \"save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water,\" so\ndoes God save the human family from perishing by sin.  As Noah and his\nfamily could, by an act of free will, have opened a window in the Ark,\nand have leapt into the waters, and frustrated God's purpose after they\nhad been saved, so can any member of the human family, after it has\nbeen taken into the \"Ark of Christ's Church,\" frustrate God's \"good\nwill towards\" it, and wilfully leap out of its saving shelter.  Baptism\nis \"a beginning,\" not an end.[12]  It puts us into a state of\nSalvation.  It starts us in the way of Salvation.  St. Cyprian says\nthat in Baptism \"we start crowned,\" and St. John says: \"Hold fast that\nwhich thou hast that no man take thy crown\".[13] Baptism is the\nSacrament of initiation, not of finality.  Directly the child is\nbaptized, we pray that he \"may lead the rest of his life according {71}\nto _this beginning_,\" and we heartily thank God for having, in Baptism,\ncalled us into a state of Salvation.  In this sense, \"Baptism doth save\nus\".\n\nBut what does it save us from?  Sin.  In the Nicene Creed we say: \"I\nbelieve in one Baptism for the remission of _sins_\".  Baptism saves us\nfrom our sins.\n\nIn the case of infants, Baptism saves from original, or inherited,\nsin--the sin whose origin can be traced to the Fall.  In the case of\nadults, Baptism saves from both original and actual sin, both birth sin\nand life sin.\n\nThe Prayer Book is as explicit as the Bible on this point.  In the case\nof infants, we pray:\n\n\"We call upon Thee for this infant, that he, _coming to Thy Holy\nBaptism_, may receive remission of his sins\"--before, i.e., the child\nhas, by free will choice, committed actual sin.  In the case of adults,\nwe read: \"Well-beloved, who are come hither desiring _to receive Holy\nBaptism_, ye have heard how the congregation hath prayed, that our Lord\nJesus Christ would vouchsafe to ... _release you of your sins_\".  And,\nagain, dealing with infants, the Rubric at the end of the \"Public\nBaptism of Infants\" declares that \"It is certain, by God's Word, that\nchildren _who are {72} baptized_, dying before they commit _actual\nsin_, are undoubtedly saved\".\n\nIn affirming this, the Church does not condemn all the unbaptized,\ninfants or adults, to everlasting perdition, as the teaching of some\nis.  Every affirmation does not necessarily involve its opposite\nnegation.  It was thousands of years before any souls at all were\nbaptized on earth, and even now, few[14] in comparison with the total\npopulation of the civilized and uncivilized world, have been baptized.\nThe Church nowhere assumes the self-imposed burden of legislation for\nthese, or limits their chance of salvation to the Church Militant.\nWhat she does do, is to proclaim her unswerving belief in \"one Baptism\nfor the remission of sins\"; and her unfailing faith in God's promises\nto those who _are_ baptized--\"which promise, He, for His part, will\nmost surely keep and perform\".  On this point, she speaks with nothing\nshort of \"undoubted certainty\"; on the other point, she is silent.  She\ndoes not condemn an infant because no responsible person has brought it\nto Baptism, though she does condemn the person for not bringing it.\nShe does not limit {73} the power of grace to souls in this life only,\nbut she does offer grace in this world, which may land the soul safely\nin the world to come.\n\nOne other thing Baptism does.  Making the child a member of Christ, it\ngives it a \"Christ-ian\" name.\n\n\n\n_The Christian Name_.\n\nThis Christian, or fore-name as it was called, is the real name.  It\nantedates the surname by many centuries, surnames being unknown in\nEngland before the Norman invasion.  The Christian name is the\nChrist-name.  It cannot, by any known legal method, be changed.\nSurnames may be changed in various legal ways: not so the Christian\nname.[15]  This was more apparent when the baptized were given only one\nChristian name, for it was not until the eighteenth century that a\nsecond or third name was added, and then only on grounds of convenience.\n\nAgain, according to the law of England, the only legal way in which a\nChristian name can be given, is by Baptism.  Thus, if a child has been\nregistered in one name, and is afterwards baptized {74} in another, the\nBaptismal, and not the registered, name is its legal name, even if the\nregistered name was given first.\n\nIt is strange that, in view of all this, peers should drop their\nChristian names, i.e. their real names, their Baptismal names.  The\ncustom, apparently, dates only from the Stuart period, and is not easy\nto account for.  It would seem to suggest a distinct loss.  The same\nloss, if it be a loss, is incurred by the Town Clerk of London, who\nomits his Christian name in signing official documents.[16]  The King,\nmore happily, retains his Baptismal or Christian name, and has no\nsurname.[17]  Bishops sign themselves by both their {75} Christian and\nofficial name, as \"Randall Cantuar; Cosmo Ebor.; A. F. London; H. E.\nWinton; F. Oxon.\".\n\nWe may consider three words, both helps and puzzles, used in connexion\nwith Holy Baptism: _Regeneration, Adoption, Election_.  Each has its\nown separate teaching, though there are points at which their meanings\nrun into each other.\n\n\n\n_Regeneration_.\n\n\"We yield Thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate\nthis infant.\"  So runs the Prayer-Book thanksgiving after baptism.\nWhat does it mean?  The word regeneration comes from two Latin words,\n_re_, again, _generare_, to generate, and means exactly what it says.\nIn Prayer-Book language, it means being \"_born again_\".  And, notice,\nit refers to infants as well {76} as to adults.  The new birth is as\nindependent of the child's choice as the natural birth.\n\nAnd this is just what we should expect from a God of love.  The child\nis not consulted about his first birth, neither is he consulted about\nhis second birth.  He does not wait (as the Baptists teach) until he is\nold enough to make a free choice of second birth, but as soon as he is\nborn into the world (\"within seven or fourteen days,\" the Prayer Book\norders) he is reborn into the Church.  Grace does not let nature get\nten to twenty years' start, but gives the soul a fair chance from the\nvery first: and so, and only so, is a God of love \"justified in His\nsaying, and clear when He is judged\".\n\n\n\n_Adoption_.\n\nBut there is a second word.  The Baptismal Thanksgiving calls the\nBaptized \"God's own child by Adoption\".  A simple illustration will\nbest explain the word.  When a man is \"naturalized,\" he speaks of his\nnew country as the land of his _adoption_.  If a Frenchman becomes a\nnaturalized Englishman, he ceases legally to be a Frenchman; ceases to\nbe under French law; ceases to serve in the French army.  He {77}\nbecomes legally an Englishman; he is under English law; serves in the\nEnglish army; has all the privileges and obligations of a \"new-born\"\nEnglishman.  He may turn out to be a bad Englishman, a traitor to his\nadopted country; he may even hanker after his old life as a\nFrenchman--but he has left one kingdom for another, and, good, bad, or\nindifferent, he is a subject of his new King; he is a son of his\nadopted country.  He cannot belong to two kingdoms, serve under two\nkings, live under two sets of laws, at the same time.\n\nIt is so with the Baptized.  He has been \"adopted\" into a new kingdom.\nHe is a subject of \"the Kingdom of Heaven\".  But he cannot belong to\ntwo kingdoms at the same time.  His \"death unto sin\" involves a \"new\nbirth (regeneration) unto righteousness\".  He ceases to be a member of\nthe old kingdom, to serve under the sway of the old king, to be a\n\"child of wrath\".  He renounces all allegiance to Satan; he becomes\nGod's own child by \"adoption\".  He may be a good, bad, or indifferent\nchild; he may be a lost child, but he does not cease to be God's child.\nRather, it is just because he is still God's child that there is hope\nfor him.  It is because he is {78} the child of God by adoption that\nthe \"spirit of adoption\" within him can still cry, \"Abba, Father,\" that\nhe can still claim the privilege of his adopted country, and \"pardon\nthrough the Precious Blood\".  True, he has obligations and\nresponsibilities, as well as privileges, and these we shall see under\nthe next word, Election.\n\n\n\n_Election_.\n\nThe Catechism calls the Baptized \"the elect people of God,\" and the\nBaptismal Service asks that the child may by Baptism be \"taken into the\nnumber of God's elect children\".  What does it mean?  The word itself\ncomes from two Latin words, _e_, or _ex_, out; and _lego_, to choose.\nThe \"elect,\" then, are those chosen out from others.  It sounds like\nfavouritism; it reads like \"privileged classes\"--and so it is.  But the\nprivilege of election is the privilege of service.  It is like the\nprivilege of a Member of Parliament, the favoured candidate--the\nprivilege of being elected to serve others.  Every election is for the\nsake of somebody else.  The Member of Parliament is elected for the\nsake of his constituents; the Town Councillor is elected for the sake\nof his fellow-townsmen; the Governor is elected for the sake of the\n{79} governed.  It is so with spiritual elections.  The Jews were\n\"elect\"; but it was for the sake of the Gentiles--\"that the Gentiles,\nthrough them, might be brought in\".  The Blessed Virgin was \"elect\";\nbut it was that \"all generations might call her blessed\".  The Church\nis \"elect,\" but it is for the sake of the world,--that it, too, might\nbe \"brought in\".  No election ends with itself.  The Baptized are\n\"elect,\" but not for their own sakes; not to be a privileged class,\nsave to enjoy the privilege of bringing others in.  They are \"chosen\nout\" of the world for the sake of those left in the world.  This is\ntheir obligation; it is the law of their adopted country, the kingdom\ninto which they have, \"by spiritual regeneration,\" been \"born again\".\n\nAll this, and much more, Baptism does.  How does it do it?\n\n\n\n(III) HOW DOES IT DO IT?\n\nThis new Birth!  How is it accomplished?  Nobody knows.  How Baptism\ncauses all that it effects, is as yet unrevealed.  The Holy Ghost moves\nupon the face of the waters, but His operation is overshadowed.  Here,\nwe are in the realm of faith.  Faith is belief in that which is out of\n{80} sight.  It is belief in the unseen, not in the non-existent.  We\nhope for that we see not.[18]  The _mode_ of the operation of the Holy\nGhost in Baptism is hidden: the result alone is revealed.  In this, as\nin many another mystery, \"We wait for light\".[19]\n\n\n\n[1] See Service for the \"Private Baptism of Children\".\n\n[2] Service for the Ordination of Deacons.\n\n[3] From an old word, Gossip or _Godsib_, i.e. God relation.\n\n[4] Cf. Rom. vi. 4; Eph. v. 26.\n\n[5] _Trine_ Immersion, i.e. dipping the candidate thrice, or thrice\npouring water upon him, dates from the earliest ages, but exceptional\ncases have occurred where a single immersion has been held valid.\n\n[6] From _Chrisma_, sacred oil--first the oil with which a child was\nanointed at Baptism, and then the robe with which the child was covered\nafter Baptism and Unction, and hence the child itself was called a\n_Chrisome-child_, i.e. a child wearing the Chrisome robe.\n\n[7] In the 1549 Prayer Book, the Prayer at the Anointing in the\nBaptismal Service ran: \"Almighty God, Who hath regenerated thee by\nwater and the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto thee the remission of all\nthy sins, He vouchsafe to anoint thee with the Unction of His Holy\nSpirit, and bring thee to the inheritance of everlasting life.  _Amen_.\"\n\n[8] St. Jerome, writing in the second century, says of the Baptized,\nthat he \"bore on his forehead the banner of the Cross\".\n\n[9] 1 Kings vii. 22.\n\n[10] It is a real loss to use the Service for the Public Baptism of\nInfants as a private office, as is generally done now.  The doctrinal\nteaching; the naming of the child; the signing with the cross; the\nresponse of, and the address to, the God-parents--all these would be\nhelpful reminders to a congregation, if the service sometimes came, as\nthe Rubric orders, after the second lesson, and might rekindle the\nBaptismal and Confirmation fire once lighted, but so often allowed to\ndie down, or flicker out.\n\n[11] 1 Pet. iii. 21.\n\n[12] Baptismal Service.\n\n[13] Rev. iii. 11.\n\n[14] Not more, it is estimated, than two or three out of every eight\nhave been baptized.\n\n[15] I may take an _additional_ Christian name at my Confirmation, but\nI cannot change the old one.\n\n[16] The present Town Clerk of London has kindly informed me that the\nearliest example he has found dates from 1418, when the name of John\nCarpenter, Town Clerk, the well-known executor of Whittington, is\nappended to a document, the Christian name being omitted.\n\n[17] The following letter from Mr. Ambrose Lee of the Heralds' College\nmay interest some.  \"... Surname, in the ordinary sense of the word,\nthe King has none.  He--as was his grandmother, Queen Victoria, as well\nas her husband, Prince Albert--is descended from Witikind, who was the\nlast of a long line of continental Saxon kings or rulers.  Witikind was\ndefeated by Charlemagne, became a Christian, and was created Duke of\nSaxony.  He had a second son, who was Count of Wettin, but clear and\nwell-defined and authenticated genealogies do not exist from which may\nbe formulated any theory establishing, by right or custom, _any_\nsurname, in the ordinary accepted sense of the word, for the various\nfamilies who are descended in the male line from this Count of\nWettin....  And, by-the-by, it must not be forgotten that the earliest\nGuelphs were merely princes whose baptismal name was Guelph, as the\nbaptismal name of our Hanoverian Kings was George.\"\n\n[18] Rom. viii. 25.\n\n[19] Is. lix. 9.\n\n\n\n\n{81}\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE BLESSED SACRAMENT.\n\nThe Blessed Sacrament!--or, as the Prayer Book calls it, \"The Holy\nSacrament\".  This title seems to sum up all the other titles by which\nthe chief service in the Church is known.  These are many.  For\ninstance:--\n\n_The Liturgy_, from the Greek _Leitourgia_,[1] a public service.\n\n_The Mass_, from the Latin _Missa_, dismissal--the word used in the\nLatin Liturgy when the people are dismissed,[2] and afterwards applied\nto the service itself from which they are dismissed.\n\n_The Eucharist_, from the Greek _Eucharistia_, thanksgiving--the word\nused in all the narratives {82} of Institution,[3] and, technically,\nthe third part of the Eucharistic Service.\n\n_The Breaking of the Bread_, one of the earliest names for the\nSacrament (Acts ii. 42, 1 Cor. x. 16).\n\n_The Holy Sacrifice_, which Christ once offered, and is ever offering.\n\n_The Lord's Supper_ (1 Cor. xii. 10), a name perhaps originally used\nfor the _Agape_, or love feast, which preceded the Eucharist, and then\ngiven to the Eucharist itself.  It is an old English name, used in the\nstory of St. Anselm's last days, where it is said: \"He passed away as\nmorning was breaking on the Wednesday before _the day of our Lord's\nSupper_\".\n\n_The Holy Communion_ (1 Cor. x. 16), in which our baptismal union with\nChrist is consummated, and which forms a means of union between souls\nin the Church Triumphant, at Rest, and on Earth.  In it, Christ, God\nand Man, is the bond of oneness.\n\nAll these, and other aspects of the Sacrament, are comprehended and\ngathered up in the name which marks its supremacy,--The Blessed\nSacrament.\n\n{83}\n\nConsider: What it is;\n          What it does;\n          How it does it.\n\n\n\n(I) WHAT IT IS.\n\nIt is the supernatural conjunction of matter and spirit, of Bread and\nWine and of the Holy Ghost.  Here, as in Baptism, the \"inward and\nspiritual\" expresses itself through the \"outward and visible\".  Both\nmust be there.  And, notice again.  This conjunction is not a\n_physical_ conjunction, according to physical laws; nor is it a\nspiritual conjunction, according to spiritual laws; it is a Sacramental\nconjunction, according to Sacramental laws.  As in Baptism, so in the\nBlessed Sacrament: the \"outward and visible\" is, and remains, subject\nto natural laws, and the inward and spiritual to spiritual laws; but\nthe Sacrament itself is under neither natural nor spiritual but\nSacramental laws.\n\nFor a perfect Sacrament requires both matter and spirit.[4]  If either\nis absent, the Sacrament is incomplete.\n\nThus, the Council of Trent's definition of {84} _Transubstantiation_[5]\nseems, as it stands, to spoil the very nature of a Sacrament.  It is\nthe \"change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, of the\nwhole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ, _only the\nappearance_ of bread and wine remaining\".\n\nAgain, the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation destroys the nature\nof the Sacrament.  The Lutheran _Formula Concordiae_, e.g., teaches\nthat \"_outside the use the Body of Christ is not present_\".  Thus it\nlimits the Presence to the reception, whether by good or bad.\n\nThe _Figurative_ view of the Blessed Sacrament {85} destroys the nature\nof a Sacrament, making the matter symbolize something which is not\nthere.\n\nIt is safer to take the words of consecration as they stand,\ncorresponding as they do so literally with the words of Institution,\nand simply to say: \"This (bread: it is still bread) is My Body\" (it is\nfar more than bread); \"this (wine: it is still wine) is My Blood\" (it\nis far more than wine).  Can we get beyond this, in terms and\ndefinitions?  Can we say more than that it is a \"Sacrament\"--The\nBlessed Sacrament?  And after all, do we wish to do so?\n\n\n\n(II) WHAT IT DOES.\n\nBriefly, the Blessed Sacrament does two things; It pleads, and It\nfeeds.  It is the pleading _of_ the one Sacrifice; It is the feeding\n_on_ the one Sacrifice.\n\nThese two aspects of the one Sacrament are suggested in the two names,\n_Altar_ and _Table_.[6] Both words are liturgical.  In Western\nLiturgies, _Altar_ is the rule, and _Table_ the exception; in Eastern\nLiturgies, _Table_ is the rule, and _Altar_ {86} the exception.  Both\nare, perhaps, embodied in the old name, _God's Board_, of Thomas\nAquinas.  Both contain a truth.\n\n\n\n_The Altar_.\n\nThis, for over 300 years, was the common name for what St. Irenaeus\ncalls \"the Abode of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ\".  Convocation,\nin 1640, decreed: \"It is, and may be called, an Altar in that sense in\nwhich the Primitive Church called it an Altar, and in no other\".  This\nsense referred to the offering of what the Liturgy of St. James calls\n\"the tremendous and unbloody Sacrifice,\" the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom\n\"the reasonable and unbloody Sacrifice,\"[7] and the Ancient English\nLiturgy \"a pure offering, an holy offering, an undefiled offering, even\nthe holy Bread of eternal Life, and the Cup of everlasting Salvation \".\n\nThe word Altar, then, tells of the pleading of the Sacrifice of Jesus\nChrist.  In the words of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Leo\nXIII: \"We plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the\nCross\"; or in the words of Charles Wesley: \"To God it is an {87} Altar\nwhereon men mystically present unto Him the same Sacrifice, as still\nsuing for mercy\"; or, in the words of Isaac Barrow: \"Our Lord hath\noffered a well-pleasing Sacrifice for our sins, and doth, at God's\nright hand, continually renew it by presenting it unto God, and\ninterceding with Him for the effect thereof\".\n\nThe Sacrifice does not, of course, consist in the re-slaying of the\nLamb, but in the offering of the Lamb as it had been slain.  It is not\nthe repetition of the Atonement, but the representation of the\nAtonement.[8]  We offer on the earthly Altar the same Sacrifice that is\nbeing perpetually offered on the Heavenly Altar.  There is only one\nAltar, only one Sacrifice, one Eucharist--\"one offering, single and\ncomplete\".  All the combined earthly Altars are but one Altar--the\nearthly or visible part of the Heavenly Altar on which He, both Priest\nand Victim, offers Himself as the Lamb \"as it had been slain\".  The\nHeavenly Altar is, as it were, the centre, and all the earthly Altars\nthe circumference.  We gaze at the Heavenly Altar through the Earthly\nAltars.  We plead what He pleads; we offer what He offers.\n\n{88}\n\n  Thus the Church, with exultation,\n  Till her Lord returns again,\n  Shows His Death; His mediation\n  Validates her worship then,\n  Pleading the Divine Oblation\n  Offered on the Cross for men.\n\n\nAnd we must remember that in this offering the whole Three Persons in\nthe Blessed Trinity are at work.  We must not in our worship so\nconcentrate our attention upon the Second Person, as to exclude the\nother Persons from our thoughts.  Indeed, if one Person is more\nprominent than another, it is God the Father.  It is to God the Father\nthat the Sacrifice ascends; it is with Him that we plead on earth that\nwhich God the Son is pleading in Heaven; it is God the Holy Ghost Who\nmakes our pleadings possible, Who turns the many Jewish Altars into the\none Christian Altar.  The _Gloria in Excelsis_ bids us render worship\nto all three Persons engaged in this single act.\n\n\n\n_The Table_.\n\nThe second aspect under consideration is suggested by the word\n_Table_--the \"Holy Table,\" as St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Athanasius\ncall it; \"the tremendous Table,\" or the \"Mystic {89} Table,\" as St.\nChrysostom calls it; \"the Lord's Table,\" or \"this Thy Table,\" as,\nfollowing the Easterns, our Prayer Book calls it.\n\nThis term emphasizes the Feast-aspect, as \"Altar\" underlines the\nSacrificial aspect, of the Sacrament.  In the \"Lord's Supper\" we feast\nupon the Sacrifice which has already been offered upon the Altar.\n\"This Thy Table,\" tells of the Banquet of the Lamb.  As St. Thomas puts\nit:--\n\n  He gave Himself in either kind,\n  His precious Flesh, His precious Blood:\n  In Love's own fullness thus designed\n  Of the whole man to be the Food.\n\n\nOr, as Dr. Doddridge puts it, in his Sacramental Ave:--\n\n  Hail!  Sacred Feast, which Jesus makes!\n    Rich Banquet of His Flesh and Blood!\n  Thrice happy he, who here partakes\n    That Sacred Stream, that Heavenly Food.\n\n\nThis is the Prayer-Book aspect, which deals with the \"_Administration_\nof the Lord's Supper\"; which bids us \"feed upon Him (not it) in our\nhearts by faith,\" and not by sight; which speaks of the elements as\nGod's \"creatures of Bread and Wine\"; which prays, in language of awful\nsolemnity, that we may worthily \"eat His Flesh {90} and drink His\nBlood\".  This is the aspect which speaks of the \"means whereby\" Christ\ncommunicates Himself to us, implants within us His character, His\nvirtues, His will;--makes us one with Him, and Himself one with us.  By\nSacramental Communion, we \"dwell in Him, and He in us\"; and this, not\nmerely as a lovely sentiment, or by means of some beautiful meditation,\nbut by the real communion of Christ--present without us, and\ncommunicated to us, through the ordained channels.\n\nHence, in the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus is for ever counteracting within\nus the effects of the Fall.  If the first Adam ruined us through food,\nthe second Adam will reinstate us through food--and that food nothing\nless than Himself.  \"Feed upon _Him_.\"  But how is all this brought\nabout?\n\n\n\n(III) HOW IT DOES IT.\n\nOnce again, nobody knows.  The Holy Ghost is the operative power, but\nthe operation is overshadowed as by the wings of the Dove.  It is\nenough for us to know what is done, without questioning as to how it is\ndone.  It is enough for us to worship Him in what He does, without {91}\nstraining to know how He does it--being fully persuaded that, what He\nhas promised, He is able also to perform.[9]  Here, again, we are in\nthe region of faith, not sight; and reason tells us that faith must be\nsupreme in its own province.  For us, it is enough to say with Queen\nElizabeth:--\n\n  _He was the Word that spake it;_\n  _He took the bread and break it;_\n  _And what that Word did make it,_\n  _I do believe and take it._[10]\n\n\n\n[1] _Leitos_, public, _ergon_, work.\n\n[2] Either when the service is over, or when those not admissible to\nCommunion are dismissed.  The \"Masses\" condemned in the thirty-first\nArticle involved the heresy that Christ was therein offered again by\nthe Mass Priest to buy souls out of Purgatory at so much per Mass.\n\n[3] E.g. St. Luke xxii. 17.  \"He took the cup, and eucharized,\" i.e.\ngave thanks.\n\n[4] _Accedit verium ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum_ (St. Augustine).\n\n[5] This definition is really given up now by the best Roman Catholic\ntheologians.  The theory on which Transubstantiation alone is based\n(viz. that \"substance\" is something which exists apart from the\ntotality of the accidents whereby it is known to us), has now been\ngenerally abandoned.  Now, it is universally allowed that \"substance is\nonly a collective name for the sum of all the qualities of matter,\nsize, colour, weight, taste, and so forth\".  But, as all these\nqualities of bread and wine admittedly remain after consecration, the\nsubstance of the bread and wine must remain too.\n\nThe doctrine of Transubstantiation condemned in Article 22, was that of\na material Transubstantiation which taught (and was taught _ex\nCathedra_ by Pope Nicholas II) that Christ's Body was sensibly touched\nand broken by the teeth.\n\n[6] \"The Altar has respect unto the oblation, the Table to the\nparticipation\" (Bishop Cosin).\n\n[7] Cf. Jeremy Taylor's \"Holy Living,\" chap. iv. s. 10.\n\n[8] Cf. Bright's \"Ancient Collects,\" p. 144.\n\n[9] Rom. iv. 21.\n\n[10] \"These lines,\" says Malcolm MacColl in his book on \"The\nReformation Settlement\" (p. 34), \"have sometimes been attributed to\nDonne; but the balance of evidence is in favour of their Elizabethan\nauthorship when the Queen was in confinement as Princess Elizabeth.\nThey are not in the first edition of Donne, and were published for the\nfirst time as his in 1634, thirteen years after his death.\"\n\n\n\n\n{92}\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE LESSER SACRAMENTS.\n\nThese are \"those five\" which the Article says are \"commonly called\nSacraments\":[1] Confirmation, Matrimony, Orders, Penance, Unction.\nThey are called \"Lesser\" Sacraments to distinguish them from the two\npre-eminent or \"Greater Sacraments,\" Baptism and the Supper of the\nLord.[2]  These, though they have not all a \"like nature\" with the\nGreater Sacraments, are selected by the Church as meeting the main\nneeds of her children between Baptism and Burial.\n\nThey may, for our purpose, be classified in three groups:--\n\n(I) _The Sacrament of Completion_ (Confirmation, which completes the\nSacrament of Baptism).\n\n{93}\n\n(II) The Sacraments of Perpetuation (Holy Matrimony, which perpetuates\nthe human race; and Holy Order, which perpetuates the Christian\nMinistry).\n\n(III) The Sacraments of Recovery (Penance, which recovers the sick soul\ntogether with the body; and Unction, which recovers the sick body\ntogether with the soul).\n\nAnd, first, The Sacrament of Completion: Confirmation.\n\n\n\n[1] Article XXV.\n\n[2] The Homily on the Sacraments calls them the \"other\nSacraments\"--i.e. in addition to Baptism and the Eucharist.\n\n\n\n\n{94}\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCONFIRMATION.\n\n  (I) What it is not.\n  (II) What it is.\n  (III) Whom it is for.\n  (IV) What is essential.\n\n\n(I) WHAT IT IS NOT.\n\nConfirmation is not the renewal of vows.  The renewal of vows is the\nfinal part of the _preparation_ for Confirmation.  It is that part of\nthe preparation which takes place in public, as the previous\npreparation has taken place in private.  Before Confirmation, the\nBaptismal vows are renewed \"openly before the Church\".  Their renewal\nis the last word of preparation.  The Bishop, or Chief Shepherd,\nassures himself by question, and answer, that the Candidate openly\nresponds to the preparation he has received in {95} private from the\nParish Priest, or under-Shepherd.  Before the last revision of the\nPrayer Book, the Bishop asked the Candidates in public many questions\nfrom the Catechism before confirming them; now he only asks one--and\nthe \"I do,\" by which the Candidate renews his Baptismal vows, is the\nanswer to that preparatory question.\n\nIt is still quite a common idea, even among Church people, that\nConfirmation is something which the Candidate does for himself, instead\nof something which God does to him.  This is often due to the\nunfortunate use of the word \"confirm\"[1] in the Bishop's question.  At\nthe time it was inserted, the word \"confirm\" meant \"confess,\"[2] and\nreferred, not to the Gift of Confirmation, but to the Candidate's\npublic Confession of faith, before receiving the Sacrament of\nConfirmation.  It had nothing whatever to do with Confirmation itself.\nWe must not, then, confuse the preparation for Confirmation with the\nGift of Confirmation.  The Sacrament itself is God's gift to the child\nbestowed through the Bishop in accordance with the teaching given to\n{96} the God-parents at the child's Baptism: \"Ye are to take care that\nthis child be brought to the Bishop _to be_ confirmed _by him_\".[3]\n\nAnd this leads us to our second point: What Confirmation is.\n\n\n\n(II) WHAT IT IS.\n\nConfirmation is the completion of Baptism.  It completes what Baptism\nbegan.  In the words of our Confirmation Service, it \"increases and\nmultiplies\"--i.e. strengthens or confirms Baptismal grace.  It is the\nordained channel which conveys to the Baptized the \"sevenfold\" (i.e.\ncomplete) gift of the Holy Ghost, which was initially received in\nBaptism.\n\nAnd this will help us to answer a question frequently asked: \"If I have\nbeen confirmed, but not Baptized, must I be Baptized?\"  Surely, Baptism\nmust _precede_ Confirmation.  If {97} Confirmation increases the grace\ngiven in Baptism, that grace must have been received before it can be\nincreased.  \"And must I be 'confirmed again,' as it is said, after\nBaptism?\"  Surely.  If I had not been Baptized _before_ I presented\nmyself for Confirmation, I have not confirmed at all.  My Baptism will\nnow allow me to \"be presented to the Bishop once again to be confirmed\nby him\"--and this time in reality.  \"Did I, then, receive no grace when\nI was presented to the Bishop to be confirmed by him before?\"  Much\ngrace, surely, but not the special grace attached to the special\nSacrament of Confirmation, and guaranteed to the Confirmed.  Special\nchannels convey special grace.  God's love overflows its channels; what\nGod gives, or withholds, outside those channels, it would be an\nimpertinence for us to say.\n\nAgain, Confirmation is, in a secondary sense, a Sacrament of\nAdmittance.  It admits the Baptized to Holy Communion.  Two rubrics\nteach this.  \"It is expedient,\" says the rubric after an adult Baptism,\n\"that every person thus Baptized should be confirmed by the Bishop so\nsoon after his Baptism as conveniently may be; that _so he may be\nadmitted to the Holy Communion_.\"  \"And {98} there shall none _be\nadmitted to Holy Communion_,\" adds the rubric after Confirmation,\n\"until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be\nconfirmed.\"  For \"Confirmation, or the laying on of hands,\" fully\nadmits the Baptized to that \"Royal Priesthood\" of the Laity,[4] of\nwhich the specially ordained Priest is ordained to be the\nrepresentative.  The Holy Sacrifice is the offering of the _whole_\nChurch, the universal Priesthood, not merely of the individual Priest\nwho is the offerer.  Thus, the Confirmed can take their part in the\noffering, and can assist at it, in union with the ordained Priest who\nis actually celebrating.  They can say their _Amen_ at the Eucharist,\nor \"giving of thanks,\" and give their responding assent to what he is\ndoing in their name, and on their behalf.\n\nAnd this answers another question.  \"If I am a Communicant, but have\nnot been confirmed, ought I to present myself for Confirmation?\"\nSurely.  The Prayer Book is quite definite about this.  First, it\nlegislates for the normal case, then for the abnormal.  First it says:\n\"None shall be admitted to Holy Communion until such time as they have\nbeen Confirmed\".  Then it deals with {99} exceptional cases, and adds,\n\"or be willing and desirous to be confirmed\".  Such exceptional cases\nmay, and do, occur; but even these may not be Communicated unless they\nare both \"ready\" and \"desirous\" to be confirmed, as soon as\nConfirmation can be received.  So does the Church safeguard her\nSacraments, and her children.\n\n\"But would you,\" it is asked, \"exclude a Dissenter from Communion,\nhowever good and holy he may be, merely because he has not been\nConfirmed?\"  He certainly would have very little respect for me if I\ndid not.  If, for instance, he belonged to the Methodist Society, he\nwould assuredly not admit me to be a \"Communicant\" in that Society.\n\"No person,\" says his rule, \"shall be suffered on any pretence to\npartake of the Lord's Supper _unless he be a member of the Society_, or\nreceive a note of admission from the Superintendent, which note must be\nrenewed quarterly.\"  And, again: \"That the Table of the Lord should be\nopen to all comers, is surely a great discredit, and a serious peril to\nany Church\".[5]  And yet the Church, the Divine Society, established by\nJesus Christ Himself, is blamed, and called narrow and {100} bigoted,\nif she asserts her own rule, and refuses to admit \"all comers\" to the\nAltar.  To give way on such a point would be to forfeit, and rightly to\nforfeit, the respect of any law-abiding people, and would be--in many\ncases, is--\"a great discredit, and a serious peril\" to the Church.  We\nhave few enough rules as it is, and if those that we have are\nmeaningless, we may well be held up to derision.  The Prayer Book makes\nno provision whatever for those who are not Confirmed, and who, if able\nto receive Confirmation, are neither \"ready nor desirous to be\nConfirmed\".\n\n\n\n(III) WHOM IT IS FOR.\n\nConfirmation is for the Baptized, and none other.  The Prayer-Book\nTitle to the service is plain.  It calls Confirmation the \"laying on of\nHands upon _those that are baptized_,\" and, it adds, \"are come to years\nof discretion\".\n\nFirst, then, Confirmation is for the Baptized, and never for the\nunbaptized.\n\nSecondly, it is (as now administered[6]) for {101} \"those who have come\nto years of discretion,\" i.e. for those who are fit for it.  As we pray\nin the Ember Collect that the Bishop may select \"fit persons for the\nSacred Ministry\" of the special Priesthood, and may \"lay hands suddenly\non no man,\" so it is with Confirmation or the \"laying on of hands\" for\nthe Royal Priesthood.  The Bishop must be assured by the Priest who\npresents them (and who acts as his examining Chaplain), that they are\n\"fit persons\" to be confirmed.\n\nAnd this fitness must be of two kinds: moral and intellectual.  It must\nbe _moral_.  The candidate must \"have come to years of discretion,\"\ni.e. he must \"know to refuse the evil and choose the good\".[7]  This\n\"age of discretion,\" or _competent age_, as the Catechism Rubric calls\nit, is not a question of years, but of character.  Our present Prayer\nBook makes no allusion to any definite span of years whatever, and to\nmake the magic age of fifteen the minimum universal age for Candidates\nis wholly illegal.  At the Reformation, the English Church fixed seven\nas the age for Confirmation, but our 1662 Prayer Book is more\nprimitive, and, taking a common-sense view, {102} leaves each case of\nmoral fitness to be decided on its own merits.  The moral standard must\nbe an individual standard, and must be left, first, to the parent, who\npresents the child to the Priest to be prepared; then, to the Priest\nwho prepares the child for Confirmation, and presents him to the\nBishop; and, lastly, to the Bishop, who must finally decide, upon the\ncombined testimony of the Priest and parent--and, if in doubt, upon his\nown personal examination.\n\nThe _intellectual_ standard is laid down in the Service for the \"Public\nBaptism of Infants\": \"So soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's\nPrayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar (i.e. his native)\ntongue, and be further instructed, etc.\"  Here, the words \"can say\"\nobviously mean can say _intelligently_.  The mere saying of the words\nby rote is comparatively unimportant, though it has its use; but if\nthis were all, it would degrade the Candidate's intellectual status to\nthe capacities of a parrot.  But, \"as soon as\" he can intelligently\ncomply with the Church's requirements, as soon as he has reached \"a\ncompetent age,\" any child may \"be presented to the Bishop to be\nconfirmed by him\".\n\n{103}\n\nAnd, in the majority of cases, in these days, \"the sooner, the better\".\nIt is, speaking generally, far safer to have the \"child\" prepared at\nhome--if it is a Christian home--and confirmed from home, than to risk\nthe preparation to the chance teaching of a Public School.  With\nsplendid exceptions, School Confirmation is apt to get confused with\nthe school curriculum and school lessons.  It is a sort of \"extra\ntuition,\" which, not infrequently, interferes with games or work,\nwithout any compensating advantages in Church teaching.\n\n\n\n(IV) WHAT IS ESSENTIAL.\n\n\"The Laying on of Hands\"--and nothing else.  This act of ritual (so\nfamiliar to the Early Church, from Christ's act in blessing little\nchildren) was used by the Apostles,[8] and is still used by their\nsuccessors, the Bishops.  It is the only act essential to a valid\nConfirmation.\n\nOther, and suggestive, ceremonies have been in use in different ages,\nand in different parts of the Church: but they are supplementary, not\nessential.  Thus, in the sub-apostolic age, ritual {104} acts expressed\nvery beautifully the early names for Confirmation, just as \"the laying\non of Hands\" still expresses the name which in the English Church\nproclaims the essence of the Sacrament.\n\nFor instance, Confirmation is called _The Anointing_,[9] and _The\nSealing_, and in some parts of the Church, the Priest dips his finger\nin oil blessed by the Bishop, and signs or seals the child upon the\nforehead with the sign of the Cross, thus symbolizing the meaning of\nsuch names.  But neither the sealing, nor the anointing, is necessary\nfor a valid Sacrament.\n\nConfirmation, then, \"rightly and duly\" administered, completes the\ngrace given to a child at the outset of its Christian career.  It\nadmits the child to full membership and to full privileges in the\nChristian Church.  It is the ordained Channel by which the Bishop is\ncommissioned to convey and guarantee the special grace attached {105}\nto, and only to, the Lesser Sacrament of Confirmation.[10]\n\n\n\n[1] \"Ratifying and _confirming_ the same in your own persons.\"\n\n[2] The word was \"confess\" in 1549.\n\n[3] The Greek Catechism of Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, puts it very\nclearly: \"Through this holy Ordinance _the Holy Ghost descendeth upon\nthe person Baptized_, and confirmeth him in the grace which he received\nin his Baptism according to the example of His descending upon the\ndisciples of Jesus Christ, and in imitation of the disciples\nthemselves, who after Baptism laid their hands upon the believers; by\nwhich laying on of hands the Holy Ghost was conferred\".\n\n[4] 1 St. Peter ii. 9.\n\n[5] Minutes of Wesleyan Conference, 1889, p. 412.\n\n[6] In the first ages, and, indeed, until the fifteenth century,\nConfirmation followed immediately after Baptism, both in East and West,\nas it still does in the East.\n\n[7] Is. vii. 16.\n\n[8] Acts viii. 12-17; Acts xix. 5, 6.\n\n[9] In an old seventh century Service, used in the Church of England\ndown to the Reformation, the Priest is directed: \"Here he is to put the\nChrism (oil) on the forehead of the man, and say, 'Receive the sign of\nthe Holy Cross, by the Chrism of Salvation in Jesus Christ unto Eternal\nLife.  Amen.'\"\n\n[10] The teaching of our Church of England, passing on the teaching of\nthe Church Universal, is very happily summed up in an ancient Homily of\nthe Church of England.  It runs thus: \"In Baptism the Christian was\nborn again spiritually, to live; in Confirmation he is made bold to\nfight.  There he received remission of sin; here he receiveth increase\nof grace....  In Baptism he was chosen to be God's son; in Confirmation\nGod shall give him His Holy Spirit to ... perfect him.  In Baptism he\nwas called and chosen to be one of God's soldiers, and had his white\ncoat of innocency given him, and also his badge, which was the red\ncross set upon his forehead...; in Confirmation he is encouraged to\nfight, and to take the armour of God put upon him, which be able to\nbear off the fiery darts of the devil.\"\n\n\n\n\n{106}\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nHOLY MATRIMONY.\n\nWe have called Holy Matrimony the \"_Sacrament of Perpetuation_,\" for it\nis the ordained way in which the human race is to be perpetuated.\n\nMatrimony is the legal union between two persons,--a union which is\ncreated by mutual consent: Holy Matrimony is that union sanctioned and\nsanctified by the Church.\n\nThere are three familiar names given to this union: Matrimony,\nMarriage, Wedlock.\n\nMatrimony, derived from _mater_, a mother, tells of the woman's (i.e.\nwife-man's) \"joy that a man is born into the world\".  Marriage, derived\nfrom _maritus_, a husband (or house-dweller[1]), tells of the man's\nplace in the \"hus\" or house.  Wedlock, derived from _weddian_, a\npledge, reminds both man and woman of the life-long pledge which each\nhas made \"either to other\".\n\n{107}\n\nIt is this Sacrament of Matrimony, Marriage, or Wedlock, that we are\nnow to consider.  We will think of it under four headings:--\n\n  (I) What is it for?\n  (II) What is its essence?\n  (III) Whom is it for?\n  (IV) What are its safeguards?\n\n\n\n(I) WHAT IS IT FOR?\n\nMarriage is, as we have seen, God's method of propagating the human\nrace.  It does this in two ways--by expansion, and by limitation.  This\nis seen in the New Testament ordinance, \"one man for one woman\".  It\nexpands the race, but within due and disciplined limitations.\nExpansion, without limitation, would produce quantity without quality,\nand would wreck the human race; limitation without expansion might\nproduce quality without quantity, but would extinguish the human race.\nLike every other gift of God, marriage is to be treated \"soberly,\nwisely, discretely,\" and, like every other gift, it must be used with a\ndue combination of freedom and restraint.\n\nHence, among other reasons, the marriage union between one man and one\nwoman is {108} indissoluble.  For marriage is not a mere union of\nsentiment; it is not a mere terminable contract between two persons,\nwho have agreed to live together as long as they suit each other.  It\nis an _organic_ not an emotional union; \"They twain shall be one\nflesh,\" which nothing but death can divide.  No law in Church or State\ncan unmarry the legally married.  A State may _declare_ the\nnon-existence of the marriage union, just as it may _declare_ the\nnon-existence of God: but such a declaration does not affect the fact,\neither in one case or the other.\n\nIn England the State does, in certain cases, declare that the life-long\nunion is a temporary contract, and does permit \"this man\" or \"this\nwoman\" to live with another man, or with another woman, and, if they\nchoose, even to exchange husbands or wives.  This is allowed by the\nDivorce Act of 1857,[2] \"when,\" writes Bishop Stubbs, \"the calamitous\nlegislation of 1857 inflicted on English Society and English morals\n{109} the most cruel blow that any conjunction of unrighteous influence\ncould possibly have contrived\".[3]\n\nThe Church has made no such declaration.  It rigidly forbids a husband\nor wife to marry again during the lifetime of either party.  The Law of\nthe Church remains the Law of the Church, overridden--but not repealed.\nThis has led to a conflict between Church and State in a country where\nthey are, in theory though not in fact, united.  But this is the fault\nof the State, not of the Church.  It is a case in which a junior\npartner has acted without the consent of, or rather in direct\nopposition to, the senior partner.  Historically and chronologically\nspeaking, the Church (the senior partner) took the State (the junior\npartner) into partnership, and the State, in spite of all the benefits\nit has received from the Church, has taken all it could get, and has\nthrown the Church over to legalize sin.  It has ignored its senior\npartner, and loosened the old historical bond between the two.  This\nthe Church cannot help, and this the State fully admits, legally\nabsolving the Church from taking any part in its mock re-marriages.\n\n\n\n{110}\n\n(II) WHAT IS ITS ESSENCE?\n\nThe essence of matrimony is \"mutual consent\".  The essential part of\nthe Sacrament consists in the words: \"I, M., take thee, N.,\" etc.\nNothing else is essential, though much else is desirable.  Thus,\nmarriage in a church, however historical and desirable, is not\n_essential_ to the validity of a marriage.  Marriage at a Registry\nOffice (i.e. mutual consent in the presence of the Registrar) is every\nbit as legally indissoluble as marriage in a church.  The not uncommon\nargument: \"I was only married in a Registry Office, and can therefore\ntake advantage of the Divorce Act,\" is fallacious _ab initio_.[4]\n\nWhy, then, be married in, and by the Church?  Apart from the history\nand sentiment, for this reason.  The Church is the ordained channel\nthrough which grace to keep the marriage vow is bestowed.  A special\nand _guaranteed_ grace is {111} attached to a marriage sanctioned and\nblest by the Church.  The Church, in the name of God, \"consecrates\nmatrimony,\" and from the earliest times has given its sanction and\nblessing to the mutual consent.  We are reminded of this in the\nquestion: \"Who _giveth_ this woman to be married to this man?\"  In\nanswer to the question, the Parent, or Guardian, presents the Bride to\nthe Priest (the Church's representative), who, in turn, presents her to\nthe Bridegroom, and blesses their union.  In the Primitive Church,\nnotice of marriage had to be given to the Bishop of the Diocese, or his\nrepresentative,[5] in order that due inquiries might be made as to the\nfitness of the persons, and the Church's sanction given or withheld.\nAfter this notice, a special service of _Betrothal_ (as well as the\nactual marriage service) was solemnized.\n\nThese two separate services are still marked off from each other in\n(though both forming a part of) our present marriage service.  The\nfirst part of the service is held outside the chancel gates, and\ncorresponds to the old service of _Betrothal_.  Here, too, the actual\nceremony of \"mutual consent\" now takes place--that part of {112} the\nceremony which would be equally valid in a Registry Office.  Then\nfollows the second part of the service, in which the Church gives her\nblessing upon the marriage.  And because this part is, properly\nspeaking, part of the Eucharistic Office, the Bride and Bridegroom now\ngo to the Altar with the Priest, and there receive the Church's\nBenediction, and--ideally--their first Communion after marriage.  So\ndoes the Church provide grace for her children that they may \"perform\nthe vows they have made unto the King\".  The late hour for modern\nweddings, and the consequent postponement[6] of Communion, has obscured\nmuch of the meaning of the service; but a nine o'clock wedding, in\nwhich the married couple receive the Holy Communion, followed by the\nwedding breakfast, is, happily, becoming more common, and is restoring\nto us one of the best of old English customs.  It is easy enough to\nslight old religious forms and ceremonies; but is anyone one atom\nbetter, or happier for having neglected them?\n\n\n\n{113}\n\n(III) WHOM IS IT FOR?\n\nMarriage is for three classes:--\n\n(1) The unmarried--i.e. those who have never been married, or whose\nmarriage is (legally) dissolved by death.\n\n(2) The non-related--i.e. either by consanguinity (by blood), or\naffinity (by marriage).\n\n(3) The full-aged.\n\n\n\n(1) _The Unmarried_.\n\nObviously, marriage is only for the unmarried.  But, is not this very\nhard upon those whose marriage has been a mistake, and who have been\ndivorced by the State?  And, above all, is it not very hard upon the\ninnocent party, who has been granted a divorce?  It is very hard, so\nhard, so terribly hard, that only those who have to deal personally,\nand practically, with concrete cases, can guess how hard--hard enough\noften on the guilty party, and harder still on the innocent.  \"God\nknows\" it is hard, and will make it as easy as God Himself can make it,\nif only self-surrender is placed before self-indulgence.  But the\nalternative is still harder.  We sometimes forget that legislation for\nthe individual may bear even harder {114} on the masses, than\nlegislation for the masses may bear upon the individual.  And, after\nall, this is not a question of \"hard _versus_ easy,\" but of \"right\n_versus_ wrong\".  Moreover, as we are finding out, that which seems\neasiest at the moment, often turns out hardest in the long run.  It is\nno longer contended that re-marriage after a State-divorce is that\nuniversal Elysium which it has always been confidently assumed to be.\n\nThere is, too, a positively absurd side to the present conflict between\nChurch and State.  Here is a case in point.  Some time ago, a young\ngirl married a man about whom she knew next to nothing, the man telling\nher that marriage was only a temporary affair, and that, if it did not\nanswer, the State would divorce them.  It did not answer.  Wrong-doing\nensued, and a divorce was obtained.  Then the girl entered into a\nState-marriage with another man.  But that answered no better.  A\ndivorce was again applied for, but this time was refused.  Eventually,\nthe girl left her State-made husband, and ran away with her real\nhusband.  In other words, she eloped with her own husband.  But what is\nher position to-day?  In the eyes of the State, she is now living with\na man who is not {115} her husband.  Her State-husband is still alive,\nand can apply, at any moment, for an order for the restitution of\nconjugal rights--however unlikely he is to get it.  Further, if in the\nfuture she has any children by her real husband (unless she has been\nmarried again to him, after divorce from her State-husband) these\nchildren will be illegitimate.  This is the sort of muddle the Divorce\nAct has got us into.  One course, and only one course, is open to the\nChurch--to disentangle itself from all question of extending the powers\nof the Act on grounds of inequality, or any other real (and sometimes\nvery real) or fancied hardship, and to consistently fight for the\nrepeal of the Act.  This, it will be said, is _Utopian_.  Exactly!  It\nis the business of the Church to aim at the Utopian.  Her whole history\nshows that she is safest, as well as most successful, when aiming at\nwhat the world derides.\n\nOne question remains: Is not the present Divorce Law \"one law for the\nrich and another for the poor\"?  Beyond all question.  This is its sole\nmerit, if merit it can have.  It does, at least, partially protect the\npoor from sin-made-easy--a condition which money has bought for the\nrich.  If the State abrogated the Sixth {116} Commandment for the rich,\nand made it lawful for a rich man to commit murder, it would at least\nbe no demerit if it refused to extend the permit to the poor.\n\n\n\n(2) _The Non-Related_.\n\nBut, secondly, marriage is for the non-related--non-related, that is,\nin two ways, by Consanguinity, and Affinity.\n\n(_a_) By _Consanguinity_.  Consanguinity is of two kinds, lineal and\ncollateral.  _Lineal_ Consanguinity[7] is blood relationship \"in a\n_direct_ line,\" i.e. from a common ancestor.  _Collateral_\nConsanguinity is blood relationship from a common ancestor, but not in\na direct line.\n\nThe law of Consanguinity has not, at the present moment, been attacked,\nand is still the law of the land.\n\n(_b_) By _Affinity_.  Affinity[8] is near relationship by marriage.  It\nis of three kinds: (1) _Direct_, i.e. between a husband and his wife's\nblood relations, and between a wife and her husband's blood relations;\n(2) _Secondary_, i.e. between a husband {117} and his wife's relations\nby marriage; (3) _Collateral_, i.e. between a husband and the relations\nof his wife's relations.  In case of Affinity, the State has broken\nfaith with the Church without scruple, and the _Deceased Wife's Sister\nBill_[9] is the result.  So has it\n\n  brought confusion to the Table round.\n\n\nThe question is sometimes asked, whether the State can alter the\nChurch's law without her consent.  An affirmative answer would reduce\nwhatever union still remains between them to its lowest possible term,\nand would place the Church in a position which no Nonconformist body\nwould tolerate for a day.  The further question, as to whether the\nState can order the Church to Communicate persons who have openly and\ndeliberately broken her laws, needs no discussion.  No thinking person\nseriously contends that it can.\n\n\n\n(3) _For the Full-Aged_.\n\nNo boy under 14, and no girl under 12, can contract a legal marriage\neither with, or without the consent of Parents or Guardians.  No man\n{118} or woman under 21 can do so against the consent of Parents or\nGuardians.\n\n\n\n(IV) WHAT ARE ITS SAFEGUARDS?\n\nThese are, mainly, two: _Banns_ and _Licences_--both intended to secure\nthe best safeguard of all, _publicity_.  This publicity is secured,\nfirst, by Banns.\n\n\n(1) _Banns_.\n\nThe word is the plural form of _Ban_, \"a proclamation\".  The object of\nthis proclamation is to \"ban\" an improper marriage.\n\nIn the case of marriage after Banns, in order to secure publicity:--\n\n(1) Each party must reside[10] for twenty-one days in the parish where\nthe Banns are being published.\n\n(2) The marriage must be celebrated in one of the two parishes in which\nthe Banns have been published.\n\n{119}\n\n(3) Seven days' previous notice of publication must be given to the\nclergy by whom the Banns are to be published--though the clergy may\nremit this length of notice if they choose.\n\n(4) The Banns must be published on three separate (though not\nnecessarily successive) Sundays.\n\n(5) Before the marriage, a certificate of publication must be presented\nto the officiating clergyman, from the clergyman of the other parish in\nwhich the Banns were published.\n\n(6) Banns only hold good for three months.  After this period, they\nmust be again published three times before the marriage can take place.\n\n(7) Banns may be forbidden on four grounds: If either party is married\nalready; or is related by consanguinity or affinity; or is under age;\nor is insane.\n\n(8) Banns published in false names invalidate a marriage, if both\nparties are cognisant of the fact before the marriage takes place, i.e.\nif they wilfully intend to defeat the law, but not otherwise.\n\n\n(2) Licences.\n\nThere are two kinds of Marriage Licence, an Ordinary, or Common\nLicence, and a Special Licence.\n\n{120}\n\nAn _Ordinary Licence_, costing about L2, is granted by the Bishop, or\nOrdinary, in lieu of Banns, either through his Chancellor, or a\n\"Surrogate,\" i.e. substitute.  In marriage by Licence, three points may\nbe noticed:--\n\n(1) One (though only one) of the parties must reside in the parish\nwhere the marriage is to be celebrated, for fifteen days previous to\nthe marriage.\n\n(2) One of the parties must apply for the Licence in person, not in\nwriting.\n\n(3) A licence only holds good for three months.\n\nA _Special Licence_, costing about L30, can only be obtained from the\nArchbishop of Canterbury,[11] and is only granted after special and\nminute inquiry.  The points here to notice are:--\n\n(1) Neither party need reside in the parish where the marriage is to be\nsolemnized.\n\n(2) The marriage may be celebrated in any Church, whether licensed or\nunlicensed[12] for marriages.\n\n(3) It may be celebrated at any time of the day.  It may be added that\nif any clergyman {121} celebrates a marriage without either Banns or\nLicence (or upon a Registrar's Certificate), he commits a felony, and\nis liable to fourteen years' penal servitude.[13]\n\nOther safeguards there are, such as:--\n\n_The Time for Marriages_.--Marriages must not be celebrated before 8\nA.M., or after 3 P.M., so as to provide a reasonable chance of\npublicity.\n\n_The Witnesses to a Marriage_.--Two witnesses, at least, must be\npresent, in addition to the officiating clergyman.\n\n_The Marriage Registers_.--The officiating clergyman must enter the\nmarriage in two Registers provided by the State.\n\n_The Signing of the Registers_.--The bride and bridegroom must sign\ntheir names in the said Registers immediately after the ceremony, as\nwell as the two witnesses and the officiating clergyman.  If either\nparty wilfully makes any false statement with regard to age, condition,\netc., he or she is guilty of perjury.\n\nSuch are some of the wise safeguards provided by both Church and State\nfor the Sacrament of Marriage.  Their object is to prevent the {122}\nmarriage state being entered into \"lightly, unadvisedly, or wantonly,\"\nto secure such publicity as will prevent clandestine marriages,[14] and\nwill give parents, and others with legal status, an opportunity to\nlodge legal objections.\n\nGreat is the solemnity of the Sacrament in which is \"signified and\nrepresented the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and His Church\".\n\n\n\n[1] Husband--from _hus_, a house, and _buan_, to dwell.\n\n[2] Until fifty-three years ago an Act of Parliament was necessary for\na divorce.  In 1857 _The Matrimonial Causes Act_ established the\nDivorce Court.  In 1873 the _Indicature Act_ transferred it to a\ndivision of the High Court--the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty\nDivision.\n\n[3] \"Visitation Charges,\" p. 252.\n\n[4] It is a common legal error that seven years effective separation\nbetween husband and wife entitles either to remarry, and hundreds of\nwomen who have lost sight of their husbands for seven years innocently\ncommit bigamy.  Probably the mistake comes from the fact that\n_prosecution_ for bigamy does not hold good in such a case.  But this\ndoes not legalize the bigamous marriage or legitimize the children.\n\n[5] The origin of Banns.\n\n[6] The Rubric says: \"It is convenient that the new-married persons\nreceive the Holy Communion _at the time of their marriage_, or at the\nfirst opportunity after their marriage,\" thus retaining, though\nreleasing, the old rule.\n\n[7] Consanguinity--from _cum_, together, and _sanguineus_, relating to\nblood.\n\n[8] Affinity--from _ad_, near, and _finis_, a boundary.\n\n[9] See a most helpful paper read by Father Puller at the E.C.U.\nAnniversary Meeting, and reported in \"The Church Times\" of 17 June,\n1910.\n\n[10] There seems to be no legal definition of the word \"reside\".  The\nlaw would probably require more than leaving a bag in a room, hired for\ntwenty-one days, as is often done.  It must be remembered that the\nobject of the law is _publicity_--that is, the avoidance of a\nclandestine marriage, which marriage at a Registry Office now\nfrequently makes so fatally easy.\n\n[11] 25 Hen. VIII, cap. 21.\n\n[12] Such as, for example, Royal Chapels, St. Paul's Cathedral, Eton\nCollege Chapel, etc.\n\n[13] Cf. Blunt's \"Church Law,\" p. 133; 4 Geo. IV, c. 76, s. 21.\n\n[14] It will be remembered that runaway marriages were, in former days,\nfrequently celebrated at Gretna Green, a Scotch village in\nDumfriesshire, near the English border.\n\n\n\n\n{123}\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nHOLY ORDER.\n\nThe Second Sacrament of Perpetuation is Holy Order.  As the Sacrament\nof Marriage perpetuates the human race, so the Sacrament of Order\nperpetuates the Priesthood.  Holy Order, indeed, perpetuates the\nSacraments themselves.  It is the ordained channel through which the\nSacramental life of the Church is continued.\n\nHoly Order, then, was instituted for the perpetuation of those\nSacraments which depend upon Apostolic Succession.  It makes it\npossible for the Christian laity to be Confirmed, Communicated,\nAbsolved.  Thus, the Christian Ministry is a great deal more than a\nbody of men, chosen as officers might be chosen in the army or navy.\nIt is the Church's media for the administration of the Sacraments of\nSalvation.  To say this does not assert that God cannot, and does not,\nsave and sanctify souls in any other way; but it does assert, as\nScripture does, that the {124} Christian Ministry is the authorized and\nordained way.\n\n\n\nThe Threefold Ministry.\n\nIn this Ministry, there are three orders, or degrees: Bishops, Priests,\nand Deacons.  In the words of the Prayer Book: \"It is evident unto all\nmen, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that, from\nthe Apostles' time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in\nChrist's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons\".[1]\n\n\n\n(I) BISHOPS.\n\nWho was the first Bishop?  Jesus Christ, \"the Shepherd and Bishop of\nour souls\".  When, and where, was the first Ordination?  In the Upper\nChamber, when He, the Universal Bishop, Himself ordained the first\nApostles.  When was {125} the second Ordination?  When these Apostles\nordained Matthias to succeed Judas.  This was the first link in the\nchain of Apostolic Succession.  What followed?  In apostolic days,\nTimothy was ordained, with episcopal jurisdiction over Ephesus; Titus,\nover Crete; Polycarp (the friend of St. John), over Smyrna; and then,\nlater on, Linus, over Rome.  And so the great College of Bishops\nexpands until, in the second century, we read in a well-known writer,\nSt. Irenaeus: \"We can reckon up lists of Bishops ordained in the\nChurches from the Apostles to our time\".  Link after link, the chain of\nsuccession lengthens \"throughout all the world,\" until it reaches the\nEarly British Church, and then, in 597, the English Church, through the\nconsecration of Augustine,[2] first Archbishop of Canterbury, and in\n1903 of Randall Davidson his ninety-fourth successor.\n\nAnd this is the history of every ordination in the Church to-day.  \"It\nis through the Apostolic Succession,\" said the late Bishop Stubbs to\nhis ordination Candidates, \"that I am empowered, through the long line\nof mission and Commission {126} from the Upper Chamber at Jerusalem, to\nlay my hands upon you and send you.\"[3]\n\nHow does a Priest become a Bishop?  In the Church of England he goes\nthrough four stages:--\n\n  (1) He is _nominated_ by the Crown.\n  (2) He is _elected_ by the Church.\n  (3) His election is _confirmed_ by the Archbishop.\n  (4) He is _consecrated_ by the Episcopate.\n\n(1) He is _nominated_ by the Crown.  This is in accordance with the\nimmemorial custom of this realm.  In these days, the Prime Minister\n(representing the people) proposes the name of a Priest to the King,\nwho accepts or rejects the recommendation.  If he accepts it, the King\nnominates the selected Priest to the Church for election, and\nauthorizes the issue of legal documents for such election.  This is\ncalled _Conge d'elire_, \"leave to elect\".\n\n(2) He is _elected_ by the Church.  The King's {127} nominee now comes\nbefore the Dean and Chapter (representing the Church), and the Church\neither elects or rejects him.  It has power to do either.  If the\nnominee is elected, what is called his \"Confirmation\" follows--that\nis:--\n\n(3) His election is _confirmed_ by the Archbishop of Canterbury,\naccording to a right reserved to him by _Magna Charta_.  Before\nconfirming the election, the Archbishop, or his representative, sits in\npublic, generally at Bow Church, Cheapside, to hear legal objections\nfrom qualified laity against the election.  Objections were of late, it\nwill be remembered, made, and overruled, in the cases of Dr. Temple and\nDr. Gore.  Then, if duly nominated, elected, and confirmed,--\n\n(4) He is _consecrated_ by the Episcopate.  To safeguard the\nSuccession, three Bishops, at least, are required for the Consecration\nof another Bishop, though one would secure a valid Consecration.  No\nPriest can be Consecrated Bishop under the age of thirty.  Very\ncarefully does the Church safeguard admission to the Episcopate.\n\n\n\n{128}\n\n_Homage._\n\nAfter Consecration, the Bishop \"does homage,\"[4] i.e. he says that he,\nlike any other subject (ecclesiastic or layman), is the King's\n\"_homo_\".  What does he do homage for?  He does homage, not for any\nspiritual gift, but for \"all the possessions, and profette spirituall\nand temporall belongyng to the said ... Bishopricke\".[5]  The\n_temporal_ possessions include such things as his house, revenue, etc.\nBut what is meant by doing homage for _spiritual_ possessions?  Does\nnot this admit the claim that the King can, as Queen Elizabeth is\nreported to have said, make or unmake a Bishop?  No.  Spiritual\n_possessions_ do not here mean spiritual _powers_,--powers which can be\nconferred by the Episcopate alone.  {129} The \"spiritual possessions\"\nfor which a Bishop \"does homage\" refer to fees connected with spiritual\nthings, such as Episcopal Licences, Institutions to Benefices, Trials\nin the Ecclesiastical Court, Visitations--fees, by the way, which, with\nvery rare exceptions, do not go into the Bishop's own pocket!\n\n\n\n_Jurisdiction._\n\nWhat is meant by Episcopal Jurisdiction?  Jurisdiction is of two kinds,\n_Habitual_ and _Actual_.\n\nHabitual Jurisdiction is the Jurisdiction given to a Bishop to exercise\nhis office in the Church at large.  It is conveyed with Consecration,\nand is given to the Bishop as a Bishop of the Catholic Church.  Thus an\nEpiscopal act, duly performed, would be valid, however irregular,\noutside the Bishop's own Diocese, and in any part of the Church.\n\n_Actual Jurisdiction_ is this universal Jurisdiction limited to a\nparticular area, called a Diocese.  To this area, a Bishop's right to\nexercise his Habitual Jurisdiction is, for purposes of order and\nbusiness, confined.\n\nThe next order in the Ministry is the Priesthood.\n\n\n\n{130}\n\n(II) PRIESTS.\n\nNo one can read the Prayer-Book Office for the _Ordering of Priests_\nwithout being struck by its contrast to the ordinary conception of\nPriesthood by the average Englishman.  The Bishop's words in the\nOrdination Service: \"Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of\na Priest in the Church of God,\" must surely mean more than that a\nPriest should try to be a good organizer, a good financier, a good\npreacher, or good at games--though the better he is at all these, the\nbetter it may be.  But the gift of the Holy Ghost for \"the Office and\nWork of a Priest\" must mean more than this.\n\nWe may consider it in connexion with four familiar English clerical\ntitles: _Priest, Minister, Parson, Clergyman_.\n\n\n\n_Priest._\n\nAccording to the Prayer Book, a Priest, or Presbyter, is ordained to do\nthree things, which he, and he alone, can do: to Absolve, to\nConsecrate, to Bless.\n\nHe, and he alone, can _Absolve_.  Think!  It is the day of his\nOrdination to the Priesthood.  He is saying Matins as a Deacon just\n_before_ his {131} Ordination, and he is forbidden to pronounce the\nAbsolution: he is saying Evensong just _after_ his Ordination, and he\nis ordered to pronounce the Absolution.\n\nHe, and he alone, can _Consecrate_.  If a Deacon pretends to Consecrate\nthe Elements at the Blessed Sacrament, not only is his act sacrilege\nand invalid, but even by the law of the land he is liable to a penalty\nof L100.[6]\n\nHe, and he alone, can give the _Blessing_--i.e. the Church's official\nBlessing.  The right of Benediction belongs to him as part of his\nMinisterial Office.  The Blessing pronounced by a Deacon might be the\npersonal blessing of a good and holy man, just as the blessing of a\nlayman--a father blessing his child--might be of value as such.  In\neach case it would be a personal act.  But a Priest does not bless in\nhis own name, but in the name of the Whole Church.  It is an official,\nnot a personal act: he conveys, not his own, but the Church's blessing\nto the people.\n\nHence, the valid Ordination of a Priest is of essential importance to\nthe laity.\n\n{132}\n\nBut there is another aspect of \"the Office and Work of a Priest in the\nChurch of God\".  This we see in the word\n\n\n\n_Minister._\n\nThe Priest not only ministers before God on behalf of his people, but\nhe ministers to his people on behalf of God.  In this aspect of the\nPriesthood, he ministers God's gifts to the laity.  If, as a Priest, he\npleads the One Sacrifice on behalf of the people, as a Minister he\nfeeds the people upon the one Sacrifice.  His chief ministerial duty is\nto minister to the people--to give them Baptism, Absolution, Holy\nCommunion; to minister to all their spiritual needs whenever, and\nwherever, he is needed.\n\nIt is, surely, a sad necessity that this ministerial \"office and work\"\nshould be so often confused with finance, doles, charities, begging\nsermons, committees, etc.  In all such things he is, indeed, truly\nserving and ministering; but he is often obliged to place them in the\nwrong order of importance, and so dim the sight of the laity to his\nreal position, and not infrequently make his spiritual ministrations\nunacceptable.  A well-known and London-wide respected Priest said {133}\nshortly before he died, that he had almost scattered his congregation\nby the constant \"begging sermons\" which he hated, but which necessity\nmade imperative.  The laity are claiming (and rightly claiming) the\nprivilege of being Church workers, and are preaching (and rightly\npreaching) that \"the Clergy are not the Church\".  If only they would\npractise what they preach, and relieve the Clergy of all Church\nfinance, they need never listen to another \"begging sermon\" again.  So\ndoing, they would rejoice the heart of the Clergy, and fulfil one of\ntheir true functions as laity.\n\n\n\nThe Parson.\n\nThis is one of the most beautiful of all the clerical names, only it\nhas become smirched by common use.\n\nThe word Parson is derived from _Persona_, a _person_.  The Parson is\n_the_ Person--the Person who represents God in the Parish.  It is not\nhis own person, or position, that he stands for, but the position and\nPerson of his Master.  Like St. Paul, he can say, \"I magnify mine\noffice,\" and probably the best way to magnify his office will be to\nminimize himself.  The outward marks of {134} respect still shown to\n\"the Parson\" in some places, are not necessarily shown to the person\nhimself (though often, thank God, they may be), but are meant, however\nunconsciously, to honour the Person he represents--just as the lifting\nof the hat to a woman is not, of necessity, a mark of respect to the\nindividual woman, but a tribute to the Womanhood she represents.\n\nThe Parson, then, is, or should be, the official person, the standing\nelement in the parish, who reminds men of God.\n\n\n\n_Clergyman._\n\nThe word is derived from the Greek _kleros_,[7] \"a lot,\" and conveys\nits own meaning.  According to some, it takes us back in thought to the\nfirst Apostolic Ordination, when \"they cast _lots_, and the _lot_ fell\nupon Matthias\".  It reminds us that, as Matthias \"was numbered with the\neleven,\" so a \"Clergyman\" is, at his Ordination, numbered with that\nlong list of \"Clergy\" who trace their spiritual pedigree to Apostolic\ndays.\n\n{135}\n\n_Ordination Safeguards._\n\n\"Seeing then,\" run the words of the Ordination Service, \"into how high\na dignity, and how weighty an Office and Charge\" a Priest is called,\ncertain safeguards surround his Ordination, both for his own sake, and\nfor the sake of his people.\n\n\n\n_Age._\n\nNo Deacon can, save under very exceptional circumstances, be ordained\nPriest before he is 24, and has served at least a year in the Diaconate.\n\n\n\n_Fitness._\n\nThis fitness, as in Confirmation, will be intellectual and moral.  His\n_intellectual_ fitness is tested by the Bishop's Examining Chaplain\nsome time before the Ordination to the Priesthood, and, in doubtful\ncases, by the Bishop himself.\n\nHis _moral_ fitness is tested by the Publication during Service, in the\nChurch where he is Deacon, of his intention to offer himself as a\nCandidate for the Priesthood.  To certify that this has been done, this\nPublication must be signed by the Churchwarden, representing the {136}\nlaity, and by the Incumbent, representing the Clergy and responsible to\nthe Bishop.\n\nFurther safeguard is secured by letters of Testimony from three\nBeneficed Clergy, who have known the Candidate well either for the past\nthree years, or during the term of his Diaconate.\n\nFinally, at the very last moment, in the Ordination Service itself, the\nBishop invites the laity, if they know \"any impediment or notable\ncrime\" disqualifying the Candidate from being ordained Priest, to \"come\nforth in the Name of God, and show what the crime or impediment is\".\n\nWhy all these safeguards?  For many obvious reasons, but specially for\none.  Priest's Orders are indelible.\n\n\n\n_The Indelibility of Orders._\n\nOnce a Priest, always a Priest.  When once the Bishop has ordained a\nDeacon to the Priesthood, there is no going back.  The law,\necclesiastical or civil, may deprive him of the right to _exercise_ his\nOffice, but no power can deprive him of the Office itself.\n\nFor instance, to safeguard the Church, and for {137} the sake of the\nlaity, a Priest may, for various offences, be what is commonly called\n\"unfrocked\".  He may be degraded, temporarily suspended, or permanently\nforbidden to _officiate_ in any part of the Church; but he does not\ncease to be a Priest.  Any Priestly act, rightly and duly performed,\nwould be valid, though irregular.  It would be for the people's good,\nthough it would be to his own hurt.\n\nAgain: by _The Clerical Disabilities Act_ of 1870, a Priest may, by the\nlaw of the land, execute a \"Deed of Relinquishment,\" and, as far as the\nlaw is concerned, return to lay life.  This would enable him legally to\nundertake lay work which the law forbids to the Clergy.[8]\n\nHe may, in consequence, regain his legal rights as a layman, and lose\nhis legal rights as a Priest; but he does not cease to be a Priest.\nThe law can only touch his civil status, and cannot touch his priestly\n\"character\".  That is indelible.\n\nHence, no securities can be superfluous to safeguard the irrevocable.\n\n\n\n{138}\n\n_Jurisdiction._\n\nAs in the case of the Bishops, a Priest's jurisdiction is\ntwofold--_habitual_ and _actual_.  Ordination confers on him _habitual_\njurisdiction, i.e. the power to exercise his office, to Absolve, to\nConsecrate, to Bless, in the \"Holy Church throughout the world\".  And,\nas in the case of Bishops, for purposes of ecclesiastical order and\ndiscipline, this Habitual Jurisdiction is limited to the sphere in\nwhich the Bishop licenses him.  \"Take thou authority,\" says the Bishop,\n\"to preach the word of God, and to minister the Sacraments _in the\ncongregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto_.\"  This\nis called _Actual_ Jurisdiction.\n\n\n\n_The Essence of the Sacrament._\n\nThe absolutely essential part of Ordination is the Laying on of Hands\n(1 Tim. iv. 14; Acts vi. 6; 2 Tim. i. 6).  Various other and beautiful\nceremonies have, at different times, and in different places,\naccompanied the essential Rite.  Sometimes, and in some parts of the\nChurch, Unction, or anointing the Candidate with oil, has been used:\nsometimes Ordination has been accompanied with the delivery of a Ring,\nthe Paten {139} and Chalice, the Bible, or the Gospels, the Pastoral\nStaff (to a Bishop),--all edifying ceremonies, but not essentials.\n\n\n\n(III) DEACONS.\n\nA Deacon is a server.  The word comes from the Greek _diakonos_, a\nservant, and exactly describes the Office.  Originally, a permanent\nOrder in the Church, the Diaconate is now, in the Church of England,\ngenerally regarded as a step to the Priesthood.  This is a loss.  But\nit is as this step, or preparatory stage, that we have to consider it.\n\nConsidering the importance of this first step in the Ministry, both to\nthe man himself, and to the people, it is well that the laity should\nknow what safeguards are taken by the Bishop to secure \"fit persons to\nserve in the sacred ministry of the Church\"[9]--and should realize\ntheir own great responsibility in the matter.  First, there is the age.\n\n\n\n(1) _The Age._\n\nNo layman can be made a Deacon under 23.\n\n\n\n{140}\n\n(2) The Preliminaries.\n\nThe chief preliminary is the selection of the Candidate.  The burden of\nselection is shared by the Bishop, Clergy and Laity.  The Bishop must,\nof course, be the final judge of the Candidate's fitness, but _the\nevidence upon which he bases his judgment_ must very largely be\nsupplied by the Laity.\n\nWe pray in the Ember Collect that he \"may lay hands suddenly on no man,\nbut make choice of _fit persons_\".  It is well that the Laity should\nremember that they share with the Bishop and Clergy in the\nresponsibility of choice.\n\nFor this fitness will, as in the case of the Priest, be moral and\nintellectual.\n\nIt will be _moral_--and it is here that the responsibility of the laity\nbegins.  For, in addition to private inquiries made by the Bishop, the\nlaity are publicly asked, in the church of the parish where the\nCandidate resides, to bear testimony to the integrity of his character.\nThis publication is called the _Si quis_, from the Latin of the first\ntwo words of publication (\"if any...\"), and it is repeated by the\nBishop in open church in the Ordination Service.  The {141} absence of\nany legal objection by the laity is the testimony of the people to the\nCandidate's fitness.  This throws upon the laity a full share of\nresponsibility in the choice of the Candidate.  Their responsibility in\ngiving evidence is only second to that of the Bishop, whose decision\nrests upon the evidence they give.\n\nThen, there is the testimony of the Clergy.  No layman is accepted by\nthe Bishop for Ordination without _Letters Testimonial_--i.e. the\ntestimony of three beneficed Clergymen, to whom he is well known.\nThese Clergy must certify that \"we have had opportunity of observing\nhis conduct, and we do believe him, in our consciences, and as to his\nmoral conduct, a fit person to be admitted to the Sacred Ministry\".\nEach signature must be countersigned by the signatory's own Bishop, who\nthus guarantees the Clergyman's moral fitness to certify.\n\nLastly, comes the Bishop himself, who, from first to last, is in close\ntouch with the Candidate, and who almost invariably helps to prepare\nhim personally in his own house during the week before his Ordination.\n\nIt will be _intellectual_.  In addition to University testimony,\nevidence of the Candidate's {142} intellectual fitness is given to the\nBishop, as in the case of Priests, by his Examining Chaplains.  Some\nmonths before the Ordination, the Candidate is examined, and the\nExaminer's Report sent in to the Bishop.  The standard of intellectual\nfitness has differed at various ages, in different parts of the Church,\nand no one standard can be laid down.  Assuming that the average\nproportion of people in a parish will be (on a generous calculation) as\ntwelve Jurymen to one Judge, the layman called to the Diaconate should,\nat least, be equal in intellectual attainment to \"the layman\" called to\nthe Bar.\n\nIt does sometimes happen that evidence is given by Clergy, or laity,\nwhich leads the Bishop to reject the Candidate on moral grounds.  It\ndoes sometimes happen that the Candidate is rejected or postponed on\nintellectual grounds.  It does, it must, sometimes happen that mistakes\nare made: God alone is infallible.  But, if due care is taken, publicly\nand privately, and if the laity, as well as the Clergy, do their duty,\nthe Bishop's risk of a wrong judgment is reduced to a very small\nminimum.\n\nA \"fit\" Clergy is so much the concern of the laity, that they may well\nbe reminded of their {143} parts and duties in the Ordination of a\nDeacon.  For, as Dr.  Liddon says, \"the strength of the Church does not\nconsist in the number of pages in its 'Clerical Directory,' but in the\nsum total of the moral and spiritual force which she has at her\ncommand\".\n\n\n\n[1] \"The Threefold Ministry,\" writes Bishop Lightfoot, \"can be traced\nto Apostolic direction; and, short of an express statement, we can\npossess no better assurance of a Divine appointment, or, at least, a\nDivine Sanction.\"  And he adds, speaking of his hearty desire for union\nwith the Dissenters, \"we cannot surrender for any immediate advantages\nthe threefold Ministry which we have inherited from Apostolic times,\nand which is the historic backbone of the Church\" (\"Ep. to the\nPhilippians,\" p. 276, later ed.).\n\n[2] The Welsh Bishops did not transmit Episcopacy to us, but rather\ncame into us.\n\n[3] In a book called _Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum_, Bishop Stubbs has\ntraced the name, date of Consecration, names of Consecrators, and in\nmost cases place of Consecration, of every Bishop in the Church of\nEngland from the Consecration of Augustine.\n\n[4] The Bishops are one of the three Estates of the Realm--Lords\nSpiritual, Lords Temporal, and Commons (not, as is so often said, King,\nLords, and Commons).  The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first Peer of\nthe Realm, and has precedency immediately after the blood royal.  The\nArchbishop of York has precedency over all Dukes, not being of royal\nblood, and over all the great officers of State, except the Lord\nChancellor.  He has the privilege of crowning the Queen Consort.\n\n[5] Cf. \"Encyclopedia of the Laws of England,\" vol. 11, p. 156; and 25\nHen. VIII, cap. 2, s. 6.\n\n[6] 14 Car. II, c. 4, s. 10.  See Phillimore's \"Ecclesiastical Law,\"\nvol. 1, p. 109.\n\n[7] But see Skeat, whose references are to [Greek: kleros], \"a lot,\" in\nlate Greek, and the Clergy whose portion is the Lord (Deut. xviii. 2, 1\nPet. v. 3, cf. Acts i. 17).  The [Greek: kleros] is thus the portion\nrather than the circumstance by which it is obtained, i.e. Acts i. 17\nrather than Acts i. 26.\n\n[8] For example: farming more than a certain number of acres, or going\ninto Parliament.\n\n[9] Ember Collect.\n\n\n\n\n{144}\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nPENANCE.\n\nSACRAMENTS OF RECOVERY.\n\nWe deal now with the two last Sacraments under consideration--Penance\nand Unction.  Both are Sacraments of healing.  Penance is for the\nhealing of the soul, and indirectly of the body: Unction is for the\nhealing of the body, and indirectly of the soul.\n\n\"Every Sacrament,\" says St. Thomas Aquinas, \"has been instituted to\nproduce one special effect, although it may produce, as consequences,\nother effects besides.\"  It is so with these two Sacraments.  Body and\nSoul are so involved, that what directly affects the one must\nindirectly affect the other.  Thus, the direct effect of Penance on the\nsoul must indirectly affect the body, and the direct effect of Unction\non the body must indirectly affect the soul.  We will think of each in\nturn.  First, Penance.\n\n{145}\n\n_Penance._\n\nThe word is derived from the Latin _penitentia_, penitence, and its\nroot-meaning (_poena_, punishment) suggests a punitive element in all\nreal repentance.  It is used as a comprehensive term for confession of\nsin, punishment for sin, and the Absolution, or Remission of Sins.  As\nBaptism was designed to recover the soul from original or inherited\nsin, so Penance was designed to recover the soul from actual or wilful\nsin....[1]  It is not, as in the case of infant Baptism, administered\nwholly irrespective of free will: it must be freely sought (\"if he\nhumbly and heartily desire it\"[2]) before it can be freely bestowed.\nThus, Confession must precede Absolution, and Penitence must precede\nand accompany Confession.\n\n\n\n_Confession._\n\nHere we all start on common ground.  We all agree upon one point, viz.\nthe necessity of Confession (1) _to God_ (\"If we confess our sins, He\nis faithful and just to forgive us our sins\") {146} and (2) _to man_\n(\"Confess your faults one to another\").  Further, we all agree that\nconfession to man is in reality confession to God (\"Against Thee, _Thee\nonly_, have I sinned\").  Our only ground of difference is, not\n_whether_ we ought to confess, but _how_ we ought to confess.  It is a\ndifference of method rather than of principle.\n\nThere are two ways of confessing sins (whether to God, or to man), the\ninformal, and the formal.  Most of us use one way; some the other; many\nboth.\n\n_Informal Confession_.--Thank God, I can use this way at any, and at\nevery, moment of my life.  If I have sinned, I need wait for no formal\nact of Confession; but, as I am, and where I am, I can make my\nConfession.  Then, and there, I can claim the Divine response to the\nsoul's three-fold _Kyrie_: \"Lord, have mercy upon me; Christ, have\nmercy upon me; Lord, have mercy upon me\".  But do I never want--does\nGod never want--anything more than this?  The soul is not always\nsatisfied with such an easy method of going to Confession.  It needs at\ntimes something more impressive, something perhaps less superficial,\nless easy going.  It demands more time for {147} deepening thought, and\ngreater knowledge of what it has done, before sin's deadly hurt cuts\ndeep enough to produce real repentance, and to prevent repetition.  At\nsuch times, it cries for something more formal, more solemn, than\ninstantaneous confession.  It needs, what the Prayer Book calls, \"a\nspecial Confession of sins\".\n\n_Formal Confession_.--Hence our Prayer Book provides two formal Acts of\nConfession, and suggests a third.  Two of these are for public use, the\nthird for private.\n\nIn Matins and Evensong, and in the Eucharistic Office, a form of\n\"_general_ confession\" is provided.  Both forms are in the first person\nplural throughout.  Clearly, their primary intention is, not to make us\nmerely think of, or confess, our own personal sins, but the sins of the\nChurch,--and our own sins, as members of the Church.  It is \"we\" have\nsinned, rather than \"I\" have sinned.  Such formal language might,\notherwise, at times be distressingly unreal,--when, e.g., not honestly\nfeeling that the \"burden\" of our own personal sin \"is intolerable,\" or\nwhen making a public Confession in church directly after a personal\nConfession in private.\n\nIn the Visitation of the Sick, the third mode of {148} formal\nConfession is suggested, though the actual words are naturally left to\nthe individual penitent.  The Prayer Book no longer speaks in the\nplural, or of \"a _general_ Confession,\" but it closes, as it were, with\nthe soul, and gets into private, personal touch with it: \"Here shall\nthe sick man be moved to make a _special_ Confession of his sins, if he\nfeel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter; after which\nConfession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily\ndesire it) after this sort\".  This Confession is to be both free and\nformal: formal, for it is to be made before the Priest in his\n\"_ministerial_\" capacity; free, for the penitent is to be \"moved\" (not\n\"compelled\") to confess.  Notice, he _is_ to be moved; but then (though\nnot till then) he is free to accept, or reject, the preferred means of\ngrace.\n\nGod never handcuffs Sacraments and souls.  Sacraments are open to all;\nthey are forced on none.  They are love-tokens of the Sacred Heart;\nfree-will offerings of His Royal Bounty.\n\nThese, then, are the two methods of Confession at our disposal.  God is\n\"the Father of an infinite Majesty\".  In _informal_ Confession, the\nsinner goes to God as his _Father_,--as the Prodigal, after doing\npenance in the far country, went {149} to his father with \"_Father_, I\nhave sinned\".  In _formal_ Confession, the sinner goes to God as to the\nFather of an _infinite Majesty_,--as David went to God through Nathan,\nGod's ambassador.\n\nIt is a fearful responsibility to hinder any soul from using either\nmethod; it is a daring risk to say: \"Because one method alone appeals\nto me, therefore no other method shall be used by you\".  God multiplies\nHis methods, as He expands His love: and if any \"David\" is drawn to say\n\"I have sinned\" before the appointed \"Nathan,\" and, through prejudice\nor ignorance, such an one is hindered from so laying his sins on Jesus,\nGod will require that soul at the hinderer's hands.\n\n\n\n_Absolution._\n\nIt is the same with Absolution as with Confession.  Here, too, we start\non common ground.  All agree that \"_God only_ can forgive sins,\" and\nhalf our differences come because this is not recognized.  Whatever\nform Confession takes, the penitent exclaims: \"_To Thee only it\nappertaineth to forgive sins_\".  Pardon through the Precious Blood is\nthe one, and only, source of {150} forgiveness.  Our only difference,\nthen, is as to God's _methods_ of forgiveness.  How does God forgive\nsin?  Some seem to limit His love, to tie forgiveness down to one, and\nonly one, method of absolution--direct, personal, instantaneous,\nwithout any ordained Channel such as Christ left.  Direct, God's pardon\ncertainly is; personal and instantaneous, it certainly can be; without\nany sacramental _media_, it certainly may be.  But we dare not limit\nwhat God has not limited; we dare not deny the existence of ordained\nchannels, because God can, and does, act without such channels.  He has\nopened an ordained fountain for sin and uncleanness as a superadded\ngift of love, and in the Ministry of reconciliation He conveys pardon\nthrough this channel.\n\nAt the most solemn moment of his life, when a Deacon is ordained\nPriest, the formal terms of his Commission to the Priesthood run thus:\n\"Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the\nChurch of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands.\nWhose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou\ndost retain, they are retained.\"  \"_Now_ committed unto thee.\"  No\nPriest dare hide his commission, play with {151} the plain meaning of\nthe words, or conceal from others a \"means of grace\" which they have a\nblessed right to know of, and to use.\n\nBut what is the good of this Absolution, if God can forgive without it?\nGod's ordinances are never meaningless.  There must, therefore, be some\nsuperadded grace attached to this particular ordinance.  It was left to\nbe used.  It is not left merely to comfort the penitent (though that it\ndoes), nor to let him hear from a fellow-sinner that his sins are\nforgiven him (though that he does); but it is left, like any other\nSacrament, as a special means of grace.  It is the ordained Channel\nwhereby God's pardon is conveyed to (and only to) the penitent sinner.\n\"No penitence, no pardon,\" is the law of Sacramental Absolution.\n\nThe Prayer Book, therefore, preaches the power of formal, as well as\ninformal, Absolution.  There are in it three forms of Absolution,\nvarying in words but the same in power.  The appropriating power of the\npenitent may, and does, vary, according to the sincerity of his\nconfession: Absolution is in each case the same.  It is man's capacity\nto receive it, not God's power in giving it, that varies.  Thus, all\nthree Absolutions in the {152} Prayer Book are of the same force,\nthough our appropriating capacity in receiving them may differ.  This\ncapacity will probably be less marked at Matins and Evensong than at\nHoly Communion, and at Holy Communion than in private Confession,\nbecause it will be less personal, less thorough.  The words of\nAbsolution seem to suggest this.  The first two forms are in the plural\n(\"pardon and deliver _you_\"), and are thrown, as it were, broadcast\nover the Church: the third is special (\"forgive _thee_ thine offences\")\nand is administered to the individual.  But the formal act is the same\nin each case; and to stroll late into church, as if the Absolution in\nMatins and Evensong does not matter, may be to incur a very distinct\nloss.\n\nWhen, and how often, formal \"special Confession\" is to be used, and\nformal Absolution to be sought, is left to each soul to decide.  The\ntwo special occasions which the Church of England emphasizes (without\nlimiting) are before receiving the Holy Communion, and when sick.\n\nBefore Communion, the Prayer Book counsels its use for any disquieted\nconscience; and the {153} Rubric which directs intending Communicants\nto send in their names to the Parish Priest the day before making their\nCommunion, still bears witness to its framers' intention--that known\nsinners might not be communicated without first being brought to a\nstate of repentance.\n\nThe sick, also, after being directed to make their wills,[3] and\narrange their temporal affairs, are further urged to examine their\nspiritual state; to make a special confession; and to obtain the\nspecial grace, in the special way provided for them.  And, adds the\nRubric, \"men should often be put in remembrance to take order for the\nsettling of their temporal estates, while they are in health\"--and if\nof the temporal, how much more of their spiritual estate.\n\n\n\n_Direction._\n\nBut, say some, is not all this very weakening to the soul?  They are,\nprobably, mixing up two things,--the Divine Sacrament of forgiveness\nwhich (rightly used) must be strengthening, and the human appeal for\ndirection which (wrongly used) may be weakening.\n\n{154}\n\nBut \"direction\" is not necessarily part of Penance.  The Prayer Book\nlays great stress upon it, and calls it \"ghostly counsel and advice,\"\nbut it is neither Confession nor Absolution.  It has its own place in\nthe Prayer Book;[4] but it has not, necessarily, anything whatever to\ndo with the administration of the Sacrament.  Direction may, or may\nnot, be good for the soul.  It largely depends upon the character of\nthe penitent, and the wisdom of the Director.  It is quite possible for\nthe priest to over-direct, and it is fatally possible for the penitent\nto think more of direction than of Absolution.  It is quite possible to\nobscure the Sacramental side of Penance with a human craving for\n\"ghostly counsel and advice\".  Satan would not be Satan if it were not\nso.  But this \"ghostly,\" or spiritual, \"counsel and advice\" has saved\nmany a lad, and many a man, from many a fall; and when rightly sought,\nand wisely given is, as the Prayer Book teaches, a most helpful adjunct\nto Absolution.  Only, it is not, necessarily, a part of \"going to\nConfession\".\n\n{155}\n\n_Indulgences._\n\nThe abuse of the Sacrament is another, and not unnatural objection to\nits use; and it often gets mixed up with Mediaeval teaching about\nIndulgences.\n\nAn _Indulgence_ is exactly what the word suggests--the act of\nindulging, or granting a favour.  In Roman theology, an Indulgence is\nthe remission of temporal punishment due to sin after Absolution.  It\nis either \"plenary,\" i.e. when the whole punishment is remitted, or\n\"partial,\" when some of it is remitted.  At corrupt periods of Church\nhistory, these Indulgences have been bought for money,[5] thus making\none law for the rich, and another for the poor.  Very naturally, the\nscandals connected with such buying and selling raised suspicions\nagainst the Sacrament with which Indulgences were associated.[6]  But\nIndulgences have nothing in the world to do with the right use of the\nlesser Sacrament of Penance.\n\n{156}\n\n_Amendment._\n\nThe promise of Amendment is an essential part of Penance.  It is a\nnecessary element in all true contrition.  Thus, the penitent promises\n\"true amendment\" before he receives Absolution.  If he allowed a priest\nto give him Absolution without firmly purposing to amend, he would not\nonly invalidate the Absolution, but would commit an additional sin.\nThe promise to amend may, like any other promise, be made and broken;\nbut the deliberate purpose must be there.\n\nNo better description of true repentance can be found than in\nTennyson's \"Guinevere\":--\n\n  _For what is true repentance but in thought--_\n  _Not ev'n in inmost thought to think again_\n  _The sins that made the past so pleasant to us._\n\n\nSuch has been the teaching of the Catholic Church always, everywhere,\nand at all times: such is the teaching of the Church of England, as\npart of that Church, and as authoritatively laid down in the Book of\nCommon Prayer.\n\nGod alone can forgive sins.  Absolution is the conveyance of God's\npardon to the penitent sinner by God's ordained Minister, through the\nordained Ministry of Reconciliation.\n\n{157}\n\n  Lamb of God, the world's transgression\n    Thou alone canst take away;\n  Hear! oh! hear our heart's confession,\n    And Thy pardoning grace convey.\n  Thine availing intercession\n    We but echo when we pray.\n\n\n\n[1] Cf. Rubric in the Baptismal Office.\n\n[2] Rubric in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick.\n\n[3] Rubric in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick.\n\n[4] See the First Exhortation in the Order of the Administration of the\nHoly Communion.\n\n[5] St. Peter's at Rome was largely built out of funds gained by the\nsale of indulgences.\n\n[6] The Council of Trent orders that Indulgences must be granted by\nPope and Prelate _gratis_.\n\n\n\n\n{158}\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nUNCTION.\n\nThe second Sacrament of Recovery is _Unction_, or, in more familiar\nlanguage, \"the Anointing of the Sick\".  It is called by Origen \"the\ncomplement of Penance\".\n\nThe meaning of the Sacrament is found in St. James v. 14-17.  \"Is any\nsick among you? let him call for the elders of the Church; and let them\npray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the\nprayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up;\nand if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.\"\n\nHere the Bible states that the \"Prayer of Faith\" with Unction is more\neffective than the \"Prayer of Faith\" without Unction.  What can it do?\n\nIt can do two things.  It can (1) recover the body, and (2) restore the\nsoul.  Its primary {159} object seems to be to recover the body; but it\nalso, according to the teaching of St. James, restores the soul.\nFirst, he says, Anointing with the Prayer of Faith heals the body; and\nthen, because of the inseparable union between body and soul, it\ncleanses the soul.\n\nThus, as the object of Penance is primarily to heal the soul, and\nindirectly to heal the body; so the object of Unction is primarily to\nheal the body, and indirectly to heal the soul.\n\nThe story of Unction may be summarized very shortly.  It was instituted\nin Apostolic days, when the Apostles \"anointed with oil many that were\nsick and healed them\" (St. Mark vi. 13).  It was continued in the Early\nChurch, and perpetuated during the Middle Ages, when its use (by a\n\"_corrupt_[1] following of the Apostles\") was practically limited to\nthe preparation of the dying instead of (by a _correct_ \"following of\nthe Apostles\") being used for the recovery of the living.  In our 1549\nPrayer Book an authorized Office was appointed for its use, but this,\nlest it should be misused, was omitted in 1552.  And although, as\nBishop Forbes says, \"everything of that earlier Liturgy was praised by\nthose who {160} removed it,\" it has not yet been restored.  It is \"one\nof the lost Pleiads\" of our present Prayer Book.  But, as Bishop Forbes\nadds, \"there is nothing to hinder the revival of the Apostolic and\nScriptural Custom of Anointing the Sick whenever any devout person\ndesires it\".[2]\n\n\n\n_Extreme Unction._\n\nAn unhistoric use of the name partly explains the unhistoric use of the\nSacrament.  _Extreme_, or last (_extrema_) Unction has been taken to\nmean the anointing of the sick when _in extremis_.  This, as we have\nseen, is a \"corrupt,\" and not a correct, \"following of the Apostles\".\nThe phrase _Extreme_ Unction means the extreme, or last, of a series of\nritual Unctions, or anointings, once used in the Church.  The first\nUnction was in Holy Baptism, when the Baptized were anointed with Holy\nOil: then came the anointing in Confirmation: then in Ordination; and,\nlast of all, the anointing of the sick.  Of this last anointing, it is\nwritten: \"All Christian men should account, and repute the said manner\nof anointing among the other Sacraments, forasmuch as it is a visible\nsign of an invisible grace\".[3]\n\n{161}\n\n_Its Administration._\n\nIt must be administered under the Scriptural conditions laid down in\nSt. James v. 14-16.  The first condition refers to:--\n\n(1) _The Minister_.--The Minister is _the Church_, in her corporate\ncapacity.  Scripture says to the sick: \"Let him call for the Elders,\"\nor Presbyters, \"of the Church\".  The word is in the plural; it is to be\nthe united act of the whole Church.  And, further, there must be\nnothing secret about it, as if it were either a charm, or something to\nbe ashamed of, or apologized for.  It may have to be done in a private\nhouse, but it is to be done by no private person.[4]  \"Let him call for\nthe elders.\"\n\n(2) _The Manner_.--The Elders are to administer Sacrament not in their\nown name (any more than the Priest gives Absolution in his own name),\nbut \"in the Name of the Lord\".\n\n(3) _The Method_.--The sick man is to be anointed (either on the\nafflicted part, or in other ways), _with prayer_: \"Let them pray over\nhim\".  Prayer is essential.\n\n{162}\n\n(4) _The Matter_.--Oil--\"anointing him with oil\".  As in Baptism,\nsanctified water is the ordained matter by which \"Jesus Christ\ncleanseth us from all sin\"; so in Unction, consecrated oil is the\nordained matter used by the Holy Ghost to cleanse us from all\nsickness--bodily, and (adds St. James) spiritual.  \"And if he have\ncommitted sins, they shall be forgiven him.\"\n\nFor this latter purpose, there are two Scriptural requirements:\n_Confession_ and _Intercession_.  For it follows: \"Confess your faults\none to another, and pray for one another that ye may be healed\".  Thus\nit is with Unction as with other Sacraments; with the \"last\" as with\nthe first--special grace is attached to special means.  The Bible says\nthat, under certain conditions, oil and prayer together will effect\nmore than either oil or prayer apart; that oil without prayer cannot,\nand prayer without oil will not, win the special grace of healing\nguaranteed to the use of oil and prayer together.\n\nIn our days, the use of anointing with prayer is (in alliance with, and\nin addition to, Medical Science) being more fully recognized.  \"The\nPrayer of Faith\" is coming into its own, and is being placed once more\nin proper position in the {163} sphere of healing; _anointing_ is being\nmore and more used \"according to the Scriptures\".  Both are being used\ntogether in a simple belief in revealed truth.  It often happens that\n\"the elders of the Church\" are sent for by the sick; a simple service\nis used; the sick man is anointed; the united \"Prayer of Faith\" (it\n_must_ be \"of Faith\") is offered; and, if it be good for his spiritual\nhealth, the sick man is \"made whole of whatsoever disease he had\".\n\nGod give us in this, as in every other Sacrament, a braver, quieter,\nmore loving faith in His promises.  The need still exists: the grace is\nstill to be had.\n\n  _If our love were but more simple,_\n    _We should take Him at His word;_\n  _And our lives would be all sunshine_\n    _In the sweetness of our Lord._\n\n\n\n[1] Article XXV.\n\n[2] \"Forbes on the Articles\" (xxv.).\n\n[3] \"Institution of a Christian Man.\"\n\n[4] In the Greek Church, seven, or at least three, Priests must be\npresent.\n\n\n\n\n{165}\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n  A.\n\n  Absolution, 149.\n  Adoption, 76.\n  Affusion, 65.\n  Altar, 86.\n  Amendment, 156.\n  Anointing, 104, 158.\n  Aspersion, 65.\n  Augustine, St., 3, 12, 13, 49.\n\n\n  B.\n\n  Baptism, Sacrament of, 63.\n    Forms of administration, 65.\n    Ministry of, 65.\n  Bible, the, names of, 26.\n    Inspiration of, 34.\n    Interpretation of, 23.\n    MSS., 27.\n    Versions, 32.\n  Bishops, 124.\n    Their Confirmation, 127.\n      \"   Consecration, 127.\n      \"   Election, 126.\n      \"   Homage, 128.\n      \"   Nomination, 126.\n  Books, the Church's, 21\n  Breviary, 44.\n  Bright, Dr., 8.\n\n\n  C.\n\n  Chrism, 67.\n  Christian name, 73.\n  Church, the, names of--\n    Catholic, 2.\n    Church of England, 12.\n    Established, 7.\n    National, 4.\n    Primitive, 17,\n    Protestant, 18.\n    Reformed, 14.\n  Clergymen, 134.\n  Communion, Holy, 82.\n  Confession, 145.\n  Confirmation, 94.\n    Age, 101.\n    Essentials, 103.\n    Names of, 104.\n    New name at, 73.\n    Sacrament of completion, 93.\n  Consecration, 83, 91.\n  Consignation, 68.\n  Consubstantiation, 84.\n    Criticism, 36.\n    Higher, 36.\n    Historical, 36.\n    Lower, 36.\n\n\n  D.\n\n  Deacons, ordination of, 139.\n    Age of, 139.\n    Laity and responsibility, 140.\n    Preparation of, 140.\n  Direction, 153.\n  Discipline, 54.\n  Dissenters and Confirmation, 99.\n\n\n  E.\n\n  Election, 78.\n  Endowments, 11.\n  Established Church, 7.\n  Eucharist, 81.\n  Extreme Unction, 160.\n\n\n  F.\n\n  Faith and Prayer with oil, 162.\n\n\n  G.\n\n  God-parents, 65.\n  Gospels, the, 44.\n  Gradual, the, 44.\n\n\n  H.\n\n  Holy Orders, 123.\n  Homage of Bishops, 128.\n\n\n  I.\n\n  Illingworth, Dr., 61.\n  Immersion, 65, 67.\n  Indulgences, 155.\n  Inspiration, 34.\n  Interpretation of Scripture, 33.\n\n\n  J.\n\n  Jurisdiction, 129.\n\n\n  K.\n\n  Kings and Bishops, 126, 128.\n\n\n  L.\n\n  Laity responsible for ordination of deacons, 140.\n  Lesser Sacraments, 92.\n  Liddon, Dr., 143.\n  Lightfoot, Bishop, 124.\n  Liturgy, 81.\n\n\n  M.\n\n  Manual, the, 44.\n  Manuscripts of the Bible, 26.\n  Marriage, 106.\n    A Sacrament, 107, 110.\n    Affinity, 116.\n    Age, 117.\n    By banns, 118.\n    By licence, 119.\n    Consanguinity, 116.\n    Deceased wife's sister, 117.\n    Divorce, 108.\n    False names, 121.\n    In registry office, 110.\n    Who for, 107, 113, 116.\n  Mass, 81.\n  Matter, 61.\n  Minister, 132.\n  Missal, the, 43.\n\n\n  N.\n\n  Name, Christian, 73.\n  Nonconformists and Holy Communion, 99.\n\n\n  O.\n\n  Oil, Holy, 159.\n  Orders, Holy, 123.\n    Bishops, 124.\n    Deacons, 139.\n    Indelibility of, 136.\n    Priests, 130.\n\n\n  P.\n\n  Parson, 133.\n  Penance, 145.\n  Perpetuation, Sacraments of, 93.\n  Pontifical, the, 43.\n  Prayer Book, 40.\n    Its contents, 50.\n     \"  preface, 47.\n     \"  title, 42.\n  Priesthood, 130.\n  Primitive Church, 7.\n  Protestant Church, 18.\n\n\n  R.\n\n  Reconciliation, ministry of, 145.\n  Recovery, Sacrament of, 93, 145.\n  Reformed Church, 14.\n  Regeneration, 75.\n  Revelation, 37.\n\n\n  S.\n\n  Sacraments, 58.\n    Their names, 62.\n      \"   nature, 60.\n      \"   number, 59.\n    The Blessed Sacrament, 81.\n    The lesser, 92.\n  Sacrifice, 82, 87.\n  Sanday, Dr., 35.\n  Scriptures, the, 26.\n  Sects, 9.\n  Spiritualities and Temporalities, 128.\n  Sponsors, 65.\n  Stubbs, Bishop, 8, 10.\n  Supper, the Lord's, 82.\n\n\n  T.\n\n  Table, the Holy, 88.\n  Threefold Ministry, 124.\n  Transubstantiation, 83, 84.\n  Trine immersion, 67.\n\n\n  U.\n\n  Unction, Extreme, 160.\n  Unction, Holy, 159.\n\n\n  W.\n\n  Word of God, 31.\n\n\n\n\nABERDEEN: THE UNIVERSITY PRESS","title":"The Church: Her Books and Her Sacraments","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":31568}