I am sure this notion gives no encouragement either of presumptron to the penitent, or of arrogance to the Priest: I have supposed that, to receive any benefit from the form, the person must come within the terms required: and such a one, though the form should have no effect, is allowed notwithstanding to be pardoned and absolved. And the Priest I have asserted to act only ministerially, as the instrument of Providence; that he can neither withhold, nor apply, the absolution as he pleases, nor so much as know upon whom or upon how many it shall take effect; but that he only pronounces what God commands, whilst God himself ratifies the declaration, and seals the pardon which he proclaims. It is true, indeed, it does not appear by the ancient Liturgies, that the primitive Christians had any such absolution to be pronounced, as this is, to the congregation in general. But yet, if they had absolutions upon any occasion, and those absolutions were supposed to procure a reconcilement with GOD, (neither of which, I presume, will be thought to want a proof,) I see no reason why they may not be usefully admitted (as they are with us) into the daily and ordinary service of the Church. For allowing that the persons they were formerly used to, were such as had incurred ecclesiastical censure; yet it is confessed that the forms pronounced on those occasions immediately respected the conscience of the sinner, and not the outward regimen of the Church; that they were instrumental to procure the forgiveness of GOD, whilst the ecclesiastical bond was declared to be released by an additional ceremony of the imposition of hands.* If then absolutions, even in the earliest ages, were thought to be instrumental to procure God's forgiveness to such sins as had deserved ecclesiastical bonds; why may they not be allowed as instrumental and proper to procure his forgiveness to sins of daily incursion, though they may not be gross enough, or at least enough public, to come within the cognizance of ecclesiastical censures? If it be urged, that the ancient absolutions were never declarative, but either intercessional, like the prayer that follows the absolution in the office appointed for the Visitation of the Sick, or optative, like the form in our Office of Communion; I think it may be answered, that the effect of the absolution does not at all depend upon the form of it, since the promises of GoD are either way applied, and it must be the sinner's embracing them with repentance and faith, that must make the application of them effectual to himself. I hope this explanation will justify my notions upon the daily absolution, as well as reconcile them with what I have said upon the other. I shall add nothing more in defence of them, than that they seem fully to be countenanced by the form itself, (as I have shewed at large upon the place,) and particularly by the inhibition of Deacons from pronouncing it:t which to me is an argument that our Church designed it for an effect, which it was See Dr. Marshall's Penitential Discipline, page 93, &c. See also the forms of Absolution in his Appendix, numb. 4, 5, 6, 7. + See page 120, &c. beyond the commission of a Deacon to convey. Not that I would draw an argument from the opinion of our Church, where that opinion seems repugnant to Scripture or antiquity: but where it does not appear to be inconsistent with either, I think her decision should be allowed a due weight. Wherever I have found or suspected her to differ from one or the other, the reader will observe I have not covered or disguised it; but on the contrary perhaps have been too hasty and forward, and too unguarded in my remarks. But TRUTH was what I aimed at through my whole undertaking; which therefore I was resolved at any hazard to assert just as it appeared to me. It is not at all indeed unlikely that in so many points as the nature of this work has led me to consider, some things may appear as truths to me, which others, who have better opportunities of inquiring into them, may find to be otherwise and therefore I can only profess that I have not advanced any thing but what I have believed to be true; and that if I am any where in an error, I shall be always open to conviction, let the person that attempts it be adversary or friend; since if truth can be attained to by any means at last, I shall not value from whom or from whence it proceeds: though I cannot but say, the satisfaction will be the greater if it appear on the side which our Church has espoused, notwithstanding the discovery may possibly demand some retractations on my own part, which in such case I shall always be ready to make, and think it a happiness to find myself mistaken. In the mean while, I request that where I am allowed to be right, I may not meet with the less favour, because I have shewed myself fallible; and particularly I would importune my reverend brethren of the CLERGY, (upon whose countenance the success of this work must depend,) that if the Rubrics especially have been any where cleared, and with proper arguments enforced, they would join their assistance to make my endeavours of some service to the CHURCH. For it will be but of very little use to have illustrated the rule, unless they also concur to make the practice more uniform. And indeed I would hope that a small importunity would be sufficient to prevail with them, when they see what disgrace their compliances have brought both upon the Liturgy and themselves; since not only the occasional offices are now in several places prostituted to the caprice of the people, to be used where, and when, and in what manner they please; but even the daily and ordinary service is more than the Clergy themselves know how to perform in any Church but their own, before they have been informed of the particular custom of the place. But I would not presume to dictate to those from whom it would much better become me to learn: and therefore I shall only observe further with regard to the citations I have had occasion to make, that I have but very seldom set down any of them at large, because I was willing to avoid all unnecessary means of swelling the book. Besides, I considered, that though I should cite them ever so distinctly, yet those who understand not the language they were written in, must take my word for the meaning of them at last and those who are capable of reading the originals, I supposed, would turn to the books themselves for any thing they should doubt of, how careful soever I should have been in transcribing them; so that I thought it sufficient to be exact in my references, as to the tome, and page, and marginal letter, and then to insert a general table of the ecclesiastical writers, which should once for all shew the editions that I have used.* The reason of my adding the times when the writers flourished, was, that my less learned reader might gather from thence the antiquity of the se`veral rites and ceremonies I had occasion to treat of, by consulting when those authors lived who are produced in defence of them. *If I have any where made use of a different edition, I have taken care to specify it in the citation itself. AN ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS CITED IN THIS BOOK WITH THE TIMES WHEN THEY FLOURISHED, AND THE De Offic. Divin. Paris. 1610. Alcuin, A. D. 780. Athenagoras, A. D. 177. Legatio by Dechair. Oxon. 1706. Basil the Great, A. D. 370. Opera. Paris. 1638. Bernard, A. D. 1115. Opera. Paris. 1640. Canons called Apostolical, most of them composed before A. D. 300. By Cedrenus, A. D. 1056. Histor. Compend. Paris. 1649. Clemens of Rome, A. D. 65. Epistolæ by Wotton. Cant. 1718. Codex Theodosianus, A. D. 438. Lugd. 1665. Constitutions called Apostolical, about A. D. 450. By Coteler. Antwerp. 1698 Cyprian, A. D. 248. Opera by Fell. Oxon. 1682. Cyril of Jerusalem, A. D. 350. Opera by Mills. Oxon. 1703. Dionysius of Alexandria, A. D. 254. Epist. adv. Paul. Sam. Paris. 1610 Dionysius, falsely called the Areopagite, A. D. 362. Opera. Paris. 1615. Durandus Mimatensis, A. D. 1286. Rationale. Lugd. 1612. Durantus. De Rit. Eccles. Cath. Rom. 1591. Epiphanius, A. D. 368. Opera. Paris. 1622. Euagrius Scholasticus, A. D. 594. Eccles. Histor. Paris. 1673. De Eccles. Dogmat. Hamb. 1614. Gregory Nyssen, A. D. 370. Opera. Paris. 1615. Hierom or Jerome, A. D. 378. Opera, edit. Ben. Paris. 1704. Ignatius, A. D. 101. Opera by Smith. Oxon. 1709. Irenæus, A. D. 167. Adv. Hæres. by Grabe. Oxon. 1702. Isidore Hispalensis, A. D. 595. Opera. Paris. 1601. Isidore Peleusiota, A. D. 412. Opera. Paris. 1638. Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. Apol. 1. by Grabe. Oxon. 1700. Opera. Paris. 1615. Lactantius, A. D. 303. Opera by Spark. Oxon. 1684. Micrologus, A. D. 1080. De Eccles. Observ. Paris. 1610. Minucius Felix, A. D. 220. Octavius by Davis. Cant. 1712. Polycarp, A. D. 108. Ep. ad Phil. by Smith. Oxon. 1709. Pontius Diaconus, A. D. 251. Vita S. Cypr. before St. Cyprian's Works Oxon. 1682. Theophilus Antiochen, A. D. 168. Ad Autolyc. by Fell. Oxon. 1684. Theophylact, A. D. 1077. Commentarii. Paris. 1631. COUNCILS. By Labbée and Cossart, in 15 tomes. Paris. 1671. |