Visitation of the Sick

Unction, Imposition of Hands, and Exorcism

By Charles Harris

I.  The Lambeth Report on the Ministry of Healing

      By common consent, and by the admission of the last three Lambeth Conferences (1908, 1920, 1930), the existing Offices for the Sick (1661) do not adequately represent, and indeed to some extent even misrepresent, the present mind of the Church towards disease.  Accordingly, they need, not merely enrichment and improvement in detail, such as they received in the English 1927–8 Book, but thorough reconsideration, recasting, and great enlargement, in the light of the Church’s fresh orientation of attitude towards ministration to the sick.

      This change, which is vast and almost revolutionary, has gradually established itself pari passu with the rise of the new Dynamic Psychology, and of the various systems of Psychotherapy based thereon.  The main factors which have assisted to bring about the change are the following:

      (1) More careful study of Christ’s attitude towards disease, mental and physical, and of the Church’s actual exercise of the Ministry of Healing in apostolic, primitive, and mediaeval times;

      (2) The uneasiness caused by the vast and ever-increasing volume of insanity, nervous ailments, and “moral diseases” of various kinds, with which modern medical science, unless assisted by religious ministrations, seems unable to cope;

      (3) The rise of the New Psychology of Freud, Jung, Adler, and the British “Eclectic” School, with its valuable practical applications in Psychiatry [Medical treatment of mental illness.] and Psychotherapy; [Medical healing by psychical means, e.g. psycho-analysis, mental reeducation, and suggestion.]

      (4) Recent pastoral experience of hopeful and successful ministry to the sick on the lines of the Lambeth Report, which recommends on the one hand the revival of traditional methods of tried efficacy, and on the other the adaptation to religious use of the main principles and practices of modern psychotherapy;

      (5) The increasing recognition by medical men, especially those skilled in therapeutic psychology, of the fact that disease, especially mental and neurotic disease, has in many cases a definitely moral and spiritual, as well as physical basis; and that for this reason it is expedient to encourage the cooperation of properly trained members of the clerical profession in the treatment of at any rate mental, moral, and neurotic disorders;

      (6) The rise and progress, first in America and later in England and Germany, of “Christian Science,” which in spite of many errors and extravagances (resulting in the sacrifice of numerous valuable lives which timely medical aid might have saved) has at least had the good effect of drawing the attention of the Church to the inadequacy of its usual methods of ministering to the sick, and to the need of revising and improving them. [Christian Science is said to have passed its zenith in America.  It is, however, still strong in England, and perhaps stronger in Germany.  Its best features (from which useful hints may be gathered) are, (1) its philosophy of thorough-going optimism, and (2) its continual use of healthful suggestion.  See H. A. L. Fisher, Our New Religion (1929), and G. Milmines’ critical and judicious Life of Mrs. Eddy.]

The Lambeth Report.

      Any up-to-date and really useful commentary on the Prayer Book Services for the Sick must be based upon “The Report of the Committee appointed in accordance with Resolution 63 of the Lambeth Conference, 1920, on The Ministry of Healing” (S.P.C.K., 1924), which was accepted in its entirety by the Lambeth Conference of 1930 (apparently without a dissentient voice), and in all its main features by the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury, which, on January 22, 1931, petitioned the Upper House to take practical steps to give effect to its leading recommendations, particularly those relating to Unction and Imposition of Hands, and cooperation with the medical profession.  As a result, a Joint Committee was appointed in January 1932 to draw up Services: (1) for Unction and Imposition of Hands; (2) for Imposition of Hands without Unction, for provisional use in the Province.

      Already in the debates on the Revision of the Prayer Book the influence of this Report made itself felt.  On November 27, 1924, the House of Clergy (which consists of all the proctors for the clergy of the Canterbury and York Convocations) adopted an “almost unanimous” resolution in favour of including both Unction and Laying on of Hands in the Revised Book.  The House of Bishops, unwilling to commit itself definitely to Unction until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 should have considered this Report, included in its draft only the Imposition of Hands; whereupon the House of Clergy, on February 22, 1927, reiterated its view that both rites ought to be included in the New Book.  Ultimately only Imposition of Hands was included in the 1927–8 Book, but the recent action of the Canterbury Convocation has made it practically certain that in any future revision of the English Prayer Book a form for administering Unction will be included.  Unction already finds a place in the American Prayer Book (1929), in the Scottish Episcopal Prayer Book (1929), and in the alternative book of Occasional Offices recently issued by authority for use in the Province of South Africa (S.P.C.K., 1930).

Principles of the Report.

      The leading principles of the Lambeth Report on the Ministry of Healing are adequately expressed in the following quotations (the italics are not in the original):

      “Every sort of curative treatment assumes, obviously, that disease is an evil to be combated.  Theologically stated, this means that health, or an orderly condition of body, mind, and spirit, is God’s primary will for all His children, and that disease, as a specific violation or falling short of this orderly condition, is not only to be combated, but to be combated in God’s name, and as a way of carrying out His will.  It is, of course, obvious that disease, like other forms of evil, is permitted by Him to exist, it may be, as a result of man’s misuse of his freedom; it may be, as a stimulus to human sympathy and scientific research; it may be, as a means of spiritual discipline and efficiency.  But, however it may be brought about, and in whatever way it may be overruled for good, it is in itself an evil.  It is much to be hoped that some of the language used in the Office for the Visitation of the Sick may be reconsidered in this connection, and due emphasis given to the principle just expressed.

      “With regard to the Form of Ministry to be used, we make the following suggestions:

      “(a) For the purpose of healing, prayer and sacrament should be used in conjunction.  Before any sacramental rites are employed, earnest and united prayer should be offered on behalf of the sick person in church, as well as by the patient himself and his friends at home.

      “(b) Whilst religious methods are applicable to all cases of sickness, they would seem to be most appropriate where moral or intellectual difficulties and perplexities have contributed to the disorder.  These deep-lying roots of evil should be dealt with before any specific bodily healing is attempted; otherwise we shall be in danger of dealing with symptoms and neglecting causes; in which case no thorough or permanent cure can be hoped for.  This preliminary treatment requires some real knowledge, not only of moral theology, but also of psychology; so that it is desirable that clergymen who give spiritual direction should be adequately trained and so enabled to give clear and practical guidance.

      “In this preliminary treatment an opportunity should be given to the patient to make a special confession of his sins, and the priest shall absolve him, if he should ‘humbly and heartily desire’ it.

      “(c) Then might follow treatment more immediately directed to the complete restoration of the patient.  This may take the form of Unction (i.e. anointing with oil by a priest), or of Laying on of Hands (either by a priest or a lay person), or of both.”

      The concluding paragraph seems to call for some criticism, or at least elucidation, for it is ambiguous, and capable of some misunderstanding.

Clerical and Lay Ministry to the Sick in Primitive Times.

      Although it is perfectly true that in primitive times lay ministry to the sick, not only by Prayer and Bible reading, but also by Exorcism, Imposition of Hands, and Unction (always with oil previously blessed by a bishop or presbyter), was fully recognized, and that the possession of “the charisma of healing” by a layman was considered to be one of the qualifications recommending him for ordination to the priesthood, [See the Canons of Hippolytus, 53, 54: If anyone presents a petition praying for his own ordination which says, “I have acquired the charisma of healing,” let him not be ordained until this fact is evidently proved.  Particularly let inquiry be made as to whether the cures performed by him really proceed from God.”  (Cf. Mark 3:22: “By the prince of the devils casteth he out the devils.”)  These Canons are a compilation of the fourth century, but much of their substance is actually derived from Hippolytus (early third century).] yet such lay ministry was always of an auxiliary and subordinate, never of a primary and independent character.  From the beginning, the Bishop and his college of presbyters (who usually visited the sick together) were regarded as having entire pastoral charge of the sick, and as possessing, in an eminent degree, by virtue of their ordination, that “charisma of healing” (including power to anoint, to lay on hands, and to exorcise) which our Lord bestowed upon His Apostles (Matt. 10:1 ff.), upon the Seventy (Luke 10:9, 17–20), and upon their successors in the Christian ministry (see especially James 5:14, where the expression “the presbyters of the Church” is to be understood as including the Bishop, who in primitive times was always reckoned a member of the presbyterial college over which he presided, and was sometimes even called a presbyter; cf. 1 Pet. 5:1).  Even when “exorcists” came to be ordained in the West, [Exorcists were not ordinarily ordained in the East, nor even at the present day does the Orthodox Church recognize the minor order of Exorcists.  The Church of Rome still nominally retains it, but makes no use of it, all exorcism, which is now an unusual ministry, being performed by bishops or priests.] and were entrusted with daily spiritual ministrations to “energumens” (i.e. persons suffering with mental and nervous disorders), the Bishop and his presbyters (assisted always by the deacons, who also were active both as exorcists and visitors of the sick) retained in their own hands the primary responsibility for every kind of healing ministry.  Every Sunday, at a fixed place in the Liturgy, the Bishop blessed and prayed for the sick (who were brought to church in beds or litters), and also exorcised the “energumens”.  The Sacramentary of Serapion (c. A.D. 350) contains two striking prayers for the Bishop’s use in church; one entitled, A Prayer for the Sick, the other, Imposition of Hands upon the Sick.  If the sick were few in number, it is probable that the Bishop laid his hands upon each individually; but, if they were numerous, he simply spread out his hands above them, an act which was regarded as being more or less equivalent.  The expression “Imposition of Hands” in early times frequently implied the joint use of Unction (see p. 512), which was often publicly administered in church.

      In primitive times, Christian churches were regarded as temples of healing, [See the Canons of Hippolytus, 219: “As regards the sick, their healing depends on their coming frequently to church, and enjoying [public] prayer, except in the case of one dangerously ill.  Let such a one be visited daily by the clerical body (κληρος), that they may give him fuller assurance [of recovery].”  We discuss here only the ordinary pastoral Ministry of Healing, not that which laid claim to be definitely miraculous.  For the latter, see P. Dearmer, Body and Soul, pp. 256 ff., 287 ff., 339 ff. ; also M. Hamilton, Incubation or the Cure of Diseases in Pagan Temples and Christian Churches.  The Primitive Church, however, drew no very sharp distinction between the two ministries; nor should one be drawn now.  The wonders of Lourdes have parallels in ordinary pastoral experience.] and as such rivaled and excelled the heathen temples of AEsculapius, especially in the treatment of mental disorders, upon which the Church concentrated its therapeutic efforts.

      If the sick were too ill to be brought to church, they were daily visited in their homes by the Bishop and his presbyters, also by the deacons and exorcists.  Minor Church officials, and singers also conducted daily choral services in the sick man’s bed-chamber.  The ancient services for the sick collected in Marten’s classical work, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus, contain many allusions to such practices.  Fully representative of primitive and early mediaeval usage is the following rubric, which occurs at the end of the Visitation Office in the “Gregorian” Sacramentary (Menard’s edition):

      “Moreover, the priests and ministers of Holy Church ought to chant daily to the sick, with the utmost reverence, Vespers and Matins, with the hymn, Christe, coelestis medicina Patris, etc., with antiphons and responses, also the lections and prayers appertaining thereto.”  That this was also the custom in England is shown by the Missal of Bishop Leofric (eleventh century) which contains an interesting service for Visitation, Unction, and Communion based mainly on the “Gregorian” office.

      Modern experience confirms the ancient belief in the therapeutic value (spiritual and physical) of ordinary Church services. especially if chorally rendered.  The daily wireless services for the sick, and the frequent services in hospital wards and chapels, accompanied by psalmody and hymn-singing, are greatly appreciated by those for whom they are intended.

      It was also the custom of the Bishop and his presbyters in early times to bless, not only the sick man’s medicines, but also his food, particularly his bread and wine, his grapes and other fruit, also the water which he drank.  With this water he was also sprinkled as a symbol of purification, and healing of soul and body.  These blessed substances, when partaken of with faith, were regarded as therapeutic agencies, auxiliary to the major ministrations of Unction and Imposition of Hands.

      The Sacramentary of Serapion (c. A.D. 35o) contains, for the Bishop’s use, “A prayer for oil for the sick, or bread, or water”; also, “A prayer concerning the offerings of oil and water that are made,” viz. by the people at the Eucharist.  Similar prayers are found in the Apostolic Constitutions (viii. 4), of date about A.D. 375, and in numerous ancient and mediaeval Orders.

      Bread and water were not infrequently blessed together with oil, and with the same form of words, but the Services for the Administration of Unction, and the (not very numerous) references to Unction in the Fathers, show clearly that a far greater and more definitely sacramental efficacy was attributed to Anointing than to the administration of blessed bread and water.  The bread for the sick was usually blessed in commemoration of the miraculous blessing of the five loaves in the wilderness.  It was supposed that these loaves, thus blessed by Christ, possessed not only nourishing, but also spiritual and therapeutic properties – in other words, that they were what the later schoolmen called “sacramentals,” though in the early period no clear distinction between “sacraments” and “sacramentals” was drawn.

      Allusions to the Bishop and his presbyters, as possessing “the charisma of healing” in an eminent degree, are abundant in the early period.  The Canons of Hippolytus direct that at the ordination of a Bishop or presbyter the following prayer shall be recited: “Grant to him, O Lord, a mild spirit, and power to remit sins, and grant to him power to loose all bonds of the iniquity of demons [i.e. by exorcism], and to heal all diseases, and to beat down Satan under his feet quickly” (17).  Similarly, in the Apostolic Constitutions the Bishop, when ordaining a presbyter, prays that he may be “filled with the gifts of healing” (viii. 16).  Deacons also received at their ordination authority to exorcise: “Grant [to this deacon] power to vanquish every power of the Deceitful One by the sign of thy Cross wherewith he himself is signed” (39).  Special value was attached to a visit paid to a sick person by the Bishop himself: “Let a deacon accompany the Bishop on all occasions, and let him point out to him the sick persons individually.  For it is a great thing for a sick man to receive a visit from the prince of the priests.  He recovers from his disease, when the Bishop comes to him, particularly if he prays over him, because the shadow of Peter healed the sick” (199.  See also below, The Ordinal).

      As we have already seen, the Bishop was from the first the principal exorcist, and so remained both in the Eastern and in the Western Churches throughout the primitive and mediaeval periods.  Not only did he exorcise in church every Sunday and Holy Day at the Eucharist, [Many of the ordinary prayers for the sick were exorcistic or semi-exorcistic in form.  For example, the phrase “rebuke the disease” in Serapion’s liturgical “Prayer for the Sick” implies the belief that, even in ordinary cases of sickness, diabolical influences are at work requiring “rebuke”.  There was a marked disinclination in the primitive and mediaeval period to attribute sickness directly to God, though this was occasionally done.  The tendency was to regard God as the healer of disease, not as its author.  The sick person, after confession of sin, and full reconciliation to God, was expected to recover rapidly, aided by the daily ministrations of the Bishop and his presbyters.] but references to episcopal exorcisms on other occasions are also frequent.  Thus Paulinus, St. Ambrose’s deacon, relates of the saint, that he healed by exorcism, accompanied by imposition of hands, the young son of his host Decens, who was tormented by an unclean spirit.  Speaking as an eyewitness, he further records, that “in those days we saw, by his commandment, accompanied by the laying on of hands, a multitude of persons delivered from unclean spirits” (Life of St. Ambrose, Migne, P.L., xiv. chs. 28 and 43).  Very appropriately, therefore, does a ninth-century Pontifical of the Church of this famous exorcist (Milan) provide for the Bishop’s use three emphatic exorcisms “over a man vexed by a demon.”  Dr. Magistretti’s comment is as follows: “It is not surprising that, in a book compiled for the use of our Bishop, a rite of exorcism is found, for our Ambrose himself in his 22nd epistle to Marcellina twice mentions imposition of hands upon those possessed by a devil as employed by the Bishop.” [Pontficale ad usum eccl. Mediol., ed. M. Magistretti, praefatus M. Ceriani, pp. 68–71.]

      St. Martin, Bishop of Tours, was the mightiest exorcist of his age.  His achievements in this direction – not all of which are credible to modern readers – are described by his friend and biographer, Sulpicius Severus.  Unlike other ancient exorcists, St. Martin did not usually employ imposition of hands.

      Copious evidence concerning the extensive use of exorcism by bishops in the Anglo-Saxon period is afforded by the Missal (or rather Pontifical) of Bishop Leofric (eleventh century), which contains not only general prayers for use “over those who are vexed with devils,” but also special exorcisms, e.g. “Imposition of hands upon a possessed catechumen,” “Another on behalf of a possessed infant,” and “Another upon a baptized energumen.”  In this Missal both Laying on of Hands and Unction are strongly in evidence in connection with Exorcism; e.g. there is a special form for anointing “one possessed with a devil”.  Certain of Leofric’s prayers of exorcism occur also in the modern Roman Rituale, which contains much extremely ancient material of this nature. [A very much fuller collection of exorcistic material will be found at the close of Gregory XIII’s Roman Rituale of 1584, which is an invaluable collection of mediaeval forms, indispensable to the serious student of mediaeval Church life.  A large number of varied and elaborate exorcisms is also included in Vol. II of Gerbert’s Monumenta Veteris Liturgiae Alemannicae, pp. 127 ff.]

Modern Use of Exorcism.

      In the Orthodox Eastern Church, even at the present day, exorcism forms part of the ordinary ministry of a parish priest.  It is not confined to cases of insanity or neurotic illness, because the belief still prevails that not a few malignant physical diseases are due, if not to “possession” in the narrow sense, at least to diabolical influence. (See particularly the exorcisms provided in the Euchologion “for those afflicted by demons,” and “for every infirmity”.  These are attributed to St. Basil and St. Chrysostom.)

      With regard to the modern treatment of insanity and severe neurotic illness by priests of the Eastern Church, the Archbishop of Thyatira has been kind enough to furnish the following particulars.

      “In the Orthodox Church there prevails a conception that mental diseases are not uninfluenced by demons.  Therefore the first duty of a parish priest called to visit such a patient is to read upon him the exorcisms.  Of these exorcisms there exist in our Euchologion two sorts, i.e. the Small Exorcisms and the Large.  The first are attributed to St. Chrysostom, the second to St. Basil.

      “To the above I will add that, as you have read in Dr. Dearmer’s book [Body and Soul] about St. Naum in Macedonia, there exist in all Greek dioceses Chapels which are specially used by the mentally deficient. ...  In these Chapels it is usual to find wells, the water of which, called Agiasma, is believed to have the healing property.  To such Chapels are sent the mentally unwell, accompanied by their relatives, to stay forty days, and use the waters, and all means of intercession for their recovery.  The patients also drink the water every morning fasting.  This water is also poured on the head of the patient.  If there are lucid moments, the priest endeavours to give counsel in the confessional.  He administers Holy Unction and the Blessed Sacrament.  The Blessed Sacrament is received many times. [The administration of the Eucharist, as well as Unction and Imposition of Hands, to the insane, where there is no danger of irreverence, is primitive.  Only in a few quarters was there any objection to it.  The modern Latin Rite of Exorcism (1925) has the following rubric: “Let the possessed person be exhorted, if he be [sufficiently] strong in mind and body, to pray for himself to God, and to fast, and frequently to fortify himself by Holy Confession and Communion, according to the discretion of the priest.”]  Fasting is a requisite necessity, not only for the patient, but for his relatives too.”

      With regard to the West, exorcism is still a part of the ministry – in theory at least – both of the Roman and of the Anglican priest.  But at present, in most Roman dioceses, the parish priest is required to obtain his Bishop’s license, before he can use the dramatic Ritus exorcizandi obsessos a daemonio provided in the Rituale.  [It would appear from Canon 1151 of the new Codex Juris Canonici (1917) that this restriction is now extended to all Western dioceses.  R.C. bishops (also priests, if they are granted a license) are permitted to exorcise not only the faithful, but also non-catholics and the excommunicate (Can. 1152).]

      In the Church of England the position is somewhat similar.  Canon 72 of A.D. 1604 forbids the parish priest without episcopal license “by fasting and prayer to cast out any devil or devils,” under pain of deposition from the ministry.  This Canon was passed to put an end to the scandals caused by public competitions in exorcism between rival divines.  Some authorities have held that, the language of the Canon being unqualified, not only public exhibitions of the kind indicated are forbidden (except under license), but even the private use of exorcism in ordinary pastoral ministrations.  But, inasmuch as restrictive enactments are usually – with good reason – interpreted in a narrow sense, the preferable opinion seems to be that the Canon prohibits only public and sensational exhibitions of exorcism, of a kind likely to be harmful and demoralizing to both patient and spectators.

      Of course, in these days, when mental diseases are usually attributed to pathological “complexes” rather than to demons, exorcism in the full mediaeval sense is seldom employed.  Its place has been largely taken by what may be called “quasi-exorcism,” the object of which is to encourage the patient to take up first a hostile and “rebuking,” and finally a “triumphant” attitude towards the obsessing “complex,” which dominates his will.  “Quasi-exorcism” has been described as “the process of personifying a complex, in order to get angry with it”; and this rough definition conveys the right idea, provided the correction is made, that an obsessing complex needs very little “personifying”.  It is, in its own nature, personal or semi-personal, being, in fact, a detached fragment of the patient’s own mind, dissociated from consciousness and “repressed”.  It seeks from the depths of his “unconscious” to dominate and enslave him, very much after the manner of a possessing demon.  “Quasi-exorcism” is a remedy of proved value in the treatment of “obsessive” and “compulsive” neuroses.  It has been employed with conspicuous success in the cure of dipsomania.  Where it forms part of the treatment, the patient is instructed to sign the pledge in a militant and combative frame of mind towards his infirmity; also, whenever he is invited to drink, to say in a challenging tone, “I am a total abstainer.”  As the cure progresses, he is encouraged to pass gradually to a state of “triumph”.  When this is reached, he is sent out for walks (with his pockets empty) and told to pass every public house with his head erect, and his muscles braced, like a soldier.  Finally, when the cure is nearly complete, he is sent out, with his pockets full, and instructed to stop before every public house, and to jingle the money in his pockets triumphantly before passing on.*  It is important that the parish priest should strongly urge dipsomaniacs and drug addicts to seek skilled institutional treatment.  But even if his advice is followed, the patients will require the pastor’s watchful aftercare, to guard against relapse.

      [*See Dr. Alfred Carver’s The Institutional Treatment of the Alcoholist, reprinted from The British Journal of Inebriety, October 1926, and obtainable from the C.E.T.S.  Dr. Carver is the Medical Superintendent of Caldecote Hall, Nuneaton, and claims success in from 70 to 80 percent of the patients who come to that institution with goodwill and real desire to be cured.  He recommends institutional treatment for at least three months, and an immediate return to work after treatment without an intervening holiday.  He lays great stress on the therapeutic and moral value of “outdoor manual work,” which, “if properly supervised, is one of the greatest instruments in our whole armory for the rehabilitation of the alcoholist [and drug addict].”  The present writer once cured a severe case of dipsomania partly by direct spiritual treatment, partly also by recommending a change of employment to market gardening, for which the patient had an inclination.]

      When the spiritual and moral preparation has been thorough, cases of dipsomania and drug addiction, and even of long established self-abuse and sexual perversion, are occasionally cured instantaneously and permanently by a single administration of Unction.  As a rule, however, continuous and careful treatment for at least three months is required.  If possible, medical cooperation should be secured.  For the treatment of other forms of obsessive “moral disease” (e.g. kleptomania, and pathological lying, anger, suspicion, and jealousy), the parish priest will usually have to accept more exclusive responsibility; but he should always, when possible, work in cooperation with a physician who has an adequate knowledge of therapeutic psychology, and is a practicing Christian.

      The technique of “quasi-exorcism” has not as yet been exhaustively studied, but already, in experienced hands, it is able to produce results approaching those achieved by the great exorcists of primitive and mediaeval times.  Its value in cases of sexual obsession and perversion – where purely medical treatment frequently fails – is well established; but it should always be used in connection with sound moral and spiritual instruction, devotional exercises of a non-exciting and tranquilizing character, and the administration of Unction.

      The primitive practice of exorcism had not only a negative (or “rebuking”), but also a positive aspect.  It aimed at restoring the interrupted indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the mentally afflicted person.  The theory was that the reentry of the Holy Spirit expelled the evil influence (see below, several places).

Status of Lay “Healers”.

      In these days of Christian Science, and other unorthodox and dangerous systems of “faith-healing,” it is important to emphasize the scriptural and catholic principle, that the ministry of Spiritual Healing was entrusted by our Lord, not indeed exclusively, but primarily and predominantly to the Apostles, and to their successors, the bishops and other ordained ministers of His Church.  The Anglican Ordinal definitely entrusts the newly-consecrated bishop with the apostolic commission to “heal the sick” (i.e. by sacramental and other spiritual ministrations).  The context decisively indicates that the sick in question are not only the physically infirm, but also, and indeed especially, mental, nervous, and spiritual sufferers (“hold up the weak” ... “bind up the broken”).  It should be realized more generally than it is, that the responsibility of the Bishop towards the insane, and the victims of the various forms of “moral disease,” is even more urgent than that towards the physically infirm.

      If this principle is kept in mind, the problem of lay ministry to the sick is automatically solved.  It is probable that in our age, as in that of St. Paul, “gifts of healings” (1 Cor. 12:9, 28, 30) are diffused somewhat widely among the devout laity.  They are the endowment, either natural or acquired, of those who feel special sympathy with the sick, and for that reason have experienced a vocation to minister to them.  Devout physicians and nurses often possess such gifts to a high degree.

      But such lay ministrations, to prevent confusion, ought to be coordinated under proper spiritual authority.  In a well-organized parish, there is no room for the eccentricities of irresponsible “faith-healers”.  Every serious sick case is known to the parish priest, and is immediately placed by him under well-considered and methodical spiritual treatment.  This being so, it is obvious that lay ministers of healing, when such are available, should be selected from among the most devout and trustworthy communicants of the congregation.  They should be trained for their work by the parish priest himself (or by some other competent instructor), and should work under his direction.  In all serious cases of sickness he should acquaint them with the kind of spiritual ministry to be employed, and should give them careful instructions as to the scriptural readings, prayers, exhortations, and hymns, which he thinks most suitable for use.  Not until the value of their ministrations has been thoroughly tested should these lay ministers of healing be permitted to lay hands upon the sick, or to anoint.  Even when this permission has been given, it should be made perfectly clear to them, that their work is auxiliary, not primary, and that their task is not to strike out a new line of their own, but rather to assist the parish priest, and to seek to deepen the impression which his more authoritative sacramental ministrations have made.  This is, in effect, the program advocated by the Guild of St. Raphael, which recognizes the existence and lawfulness of a lay ministry of healing, but demands that it should be exercised under due ecclesiastical control.

      Of the actual existence and official recognition of such a lay ministry, both in the apostolic age, and in primitive and mediaeval times, there is ample evidence.  Both in East and West oil was habitually offered by the laity at the Sunday Eucharist, to be blessed by the Bishop, and afterwards used for domestic healing.*  Pope Innocent I, writing to Decentius in A.D. 416, states quite definitely that not only have the faithful the right, when sick, to be anointed by the clergy with “the holy oil of Chrism,” [I.e. the Oil of the Sick.  This, being regarded as a form of “spiritual unction,” was not infrequently called “chrism” by early authorities (e.g. Archbishop Theodore in his Poenitential), as it still is in the Roman Pontifical.  Similarly the terms “muron” and “sphragis,” usually restricted to the unguent of Confirmation, are sometimes applied to it by Eastern authorities.] but also the further right “to use it for anointing in their own need, or in the need of members of their households” (Migne, P.L. xx. 560–1).  The prevalence of the same custom in England is clearly attested by Bede, who refers in this connection to Innocent’s letter (Commentary on St. James, Migne, P.L., xciii. 39).  Further evidence in abundance might be adduced, but it is needless.

[*Canons of Hippolytus (28): “But if oil is present, let him pray over it in this manner.”  Sacramentary of Serapion, “Prayer concerning the offerings [by the laity] of oil and water.”  Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 4; “Sanctify this water and this oil in the name of him or her who has offered them, and grant them power to restore health.”  Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 305: “Towards the end of the Canon [of the Mass] the faithful brought small vessels of oil to be blessed for their own use.  This was the oil for anointing the sick, and the faithful could make use of it themselves.  It served also for “Extreme Unction”.  Leofric Missal: “Then let there be offered to the Pontiff [i.e. Bishop] oil from the vessels which the people offer for the anointing both of the sick and of the energumens [i.e. the insane].”  Very numerous other authorities might be quoted.]

      It is important, however, to observe that, though Unction and Imposition of Hands by lay persons were widely in use in early and mediaeval times for the cure of minor ailments, recourse was always had to the more potent ministrations of the Bishop and his presbyters, where the disease was serious.  The ministry of the Exorcists, whether ordained or unordained, was always unimportant and mainly of a routine character.  Critical and difficult exorcisms have been performed in all ages by Bishops or Priests.

      There is no foundation for the statement sometimes made [As, for example, by Dr. Woolley in his booklet Exorcism and the Healing of the Sick.] that the Healing Ministry was originally a lay and “charismatic” ministry which only in the fourth and fifth centuries was gradually taken over by the clergy and annexed to the pastoral office.  On the contrary, there is ample evidence that this Ministry was from the first as much part of the Apostolic Commission, as was the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments.  In every ancient Church the Bishop himself, in virtue of his consecration, not of any personal “charisma of healing” which he might have previously possessed, acted as the chief Exorcist and Healer.  On the other hand, it was recognized that the possession by a layman of such a personal “charisma” was a recommendation for his ordination.

      Oil for healing the sick was sometimes taken from the lamps burning before the shrines of saints; or it was blessed by living saints reputed to have the power of working miracles; sometimes, again, it was hallowed by contact with or proximity to relics.  But such uses of unction belong rather to the category of the miraculous, than of the pastoral and sacramental.

Consecration of the Oil of the Sick.

      In primitive times, both in Eastern and Western Christendom, the Oil for the Sick was normally consecrated by the Bishop himself; but in his absence a priest was allowed to consecrate it.  In the Eastern Church today, the Oil is consecrated by the seven ministering priests in course of the Anointing Service.  Similarly the Nonjurors’ Liturgy of 1718, influenced by Eastern usage, directed the ministering Priest to consecrate the Oil in the sick man’s presence.  On the other hand, it followed the usage of both East and West in restricting the consecration of the Chrism of Confirmation to the Bishop.  In the West, co-consecration of the Oil by the Bishop and all the presbyters present was common in early times (cf. concelebration at the Eucharist).  The practice is enjoined in Menard’s text [The Gelasian Sacramentary has no rubric on the subject, but co-consecration was probably in use.] of the Gregorian Sacramentary (“then oil is offered to the pontiff, and both he and all the presbyters bless it to anoint a sick man”), and in numerous other Western Rites, including the eleventh-century Pontificals of Amiens and of Leofric (for other instances, see Catalani’s Commentary on the Pontifical, Menard’s edition of the Gregorian Sacramentary, and Martène, op. cit.).

      The Western restriction of the consecration of the three liturgical oils (“of the sick,” “of the catechumens,” “of chrism”) to Maundy Thursday seems already implied in the Gelasian Sacramentary, but is not primitive.  The 1st Council of Toledo, Can. XX, A.D. 400, declares: “It is quite certain that it is lawful for the Bishop to consecrate the Chrism at any time.”

      When the Bishop’s oil was not available, it was usual for priests in early times to consecrate oil for their own use.

      As Magistretti observes (op. cit.), though various Councils of the eighth and ninth centuries forbid presbyters to consecrate the Chrism of Confirmation, none forbids them to bless the Oil of the Sick.  He quotes a fifteenth-century Milanese rubric: “If thou hast no oil consecrated by the Bishop, in case of necessity first bless oil with this exorcism,” etc., and gives an early form for blessing oil, which was obviously used by the priest in the sick man’s room, for it concludes with the rubric, “Here beginneth the Imposition of the Hand.”  The Ambrosian Rituale of 1560, used in St. Charles’s pontificate, still allowed parish priests to consecrate, not only the Oil of the Sick, but also the Oil of Catechumens, as a normal practice without any suggestion of necessity.

      An Anglican priest need have no hesitation in consecrating his own oil, when episcopal oil is difficult to obtain; but he should ordinarily use oil supplied by his own Bishop, partly out of respect for his office as the chief minister of the Sacraments, and partly from psychological considerations, episcopal oil having undoubtedly much greater “prestige” in the eyes of patients than the oil of a simple priest.

      When it is desirable that auxiliary daily anointings should be performed by the husband, wife, or nurse of the sick person, or by some authorized sick-visitor, or by the patient himself, oil in sufficient quantity should be blessed by the priest.  An ancient form for this purpose is still retained in the Roman Rituale (Tit. viii. cap. 19).  From its wording (it speaks of obedience to a divine command, obviously that given through St. James) it seems clear that in earlier days, before the blessing of oil was restricted to bishops, it was regarded as effecting sacramental consecration.

II.  Western Tradition of Unction

Theology of Unction as taught in Western Liturgies.

      The Archbishop’s Report regards Unction, and its associated ceremony of Imposition of Hands, as “sacramental rites”.  “These rites,” it declares, “have scriptural authority, [For Unction, see Mark 6:13, James 5:14; for Laying on of Hands, Luke 4:40, Matt. 8: ; Mark 5:23 (16:18), Acts 9:17.] and are sacramental in the sense that a blessing is sought and received through the performance of outward and visible actions.”  The Report further indicates that a spiritual blessing is to be expected on all occasions when these rites are administered (provided, of course, that they are received with suitable dispositions); also, in most cases, recovery or improvement in health.  Where, however, improvement in health is not granted, it is assumed that some compensating spiritual advantage will be bestowed, e.g. “the grace to bear sickness patiently”.  The Report is emphatic in its teaching that Unction (with its associated ceremony of Laying on of Hands) is a ministry primarily to the soul, and that it is only through the soul that it affects the body beneficially.

      This view is in accordance with long-established tradition, both in East and West; and it has, moreover, the support of the great majority of theologians who have seriously investigated the subject.

      On the other hand, the status of Unction as a sacrament, conveying sanctifying grace to the soul of the worthy recipient, has lately been assailed: –

      (1) By certain theologians, not numerous, but weighty, who maintain that Unction is not a sacrament conferring grace to the soul, but a supernatural means of healing bodily – and perhaps also mental – diseases; also –

      (2) By certain psychologists who contend that it is only a particular method of using therapeutic “suggestion,” valuable indeed, but in no wise differing in principle from the secular suggestion employed by many modern schools of psychotherapy.

      The inadequacy of the second contention will be at once realized if it be remembered that secular psychotherapy works entirely with “endopsychic” forces (i.e. forces belonging to the minds of the physician, and of his patient); but that in the Church’s Ministry of Healing a superior power is invoked, viz. that of God, or of Christ.  It is simply and solely through religious faith, on the part both of priest and patient, that healing is sought to be effected.  Undoubtedly the priest employs “suggestion,” as well as prayer, instruction, and exhortation, to inspire the sick man with faith in God, but, when this faith has once been implanted, suggestion falls into the background, and healing takes place through religious faith.  Beyond all question, the great dynamic force at work in the Church’s Ministry of Healing is the patient’s firm faith in God as the physician of souls and bodies, and in the Church’s sacramental ministrations of Unction and Imposition of Hands as conveying by Christ’s appointment spiritual blessings and remedies to the soul, and through these healing to the body.

      Our Lord, in His own healing ministry, almost invariably required from the sick (or their representatives) faith in God, and also in Himself as representing God and ministering His grace.  (See, for instance, Mark 2:5, the case of the palsied man; Luke 8:48, “Thy faith hath made thee whole”; Mark 6:5, “He could there do no mighty work ... because of their unbelief.”)

      The Apostles, who received this ministry from Christ, exercised it in a similar manner.  It was because St. Paul perceived that the cripple at Lystra “had faith to be healed,” that he felt entitled to say to him: “Stand upright on thy feet” (Acts 14:8–10).  Similarly, St. Peter gave this explanation of the healing of the lame man at the Gate Beautiful.  “His name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong. ... Yea, the faith which is through him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Acts 3:16).

      The truth is that the “suggestion” theory does not deal with the facts which it seeks to explain.  The indispensable preliminary to the effective administration of Unction is the induction in the patient of what is technically called “the faith state”.  This is a state, not of secular expectation of recovery, but of spiritual communion with God and trust in Him.  It cannot be induced in one who is not truly penitent, and who does not submit his will entirely to God, whether for recovery or for continued illness.

Evidence of the Roman Pontifical.

      Investigation of the Western tradition of Unction may fitly start with the very ancient form for consecrating the Oil of the Sick on Maundy Thursday provided in the Roman Pontifical.

      The service for “Extreme Unction” contained in the Roman Rituale is less suitable for the purpose, because, being continually in use, it has suffered extensive doctrinal revision, to bring it into harmony with late mediaeval, and especially Tridentine, conceptions.

      On the other hand, the form for blessing the oil given in the Pontifical, being used only once a year in the course of a service of a very primitive character, [The oil is blessed during the Canon of the Chrismal Mass, not at the altar, but at a supper table placed behind the altar.  At this the Bishop sits, representing Christ at the Last Supper, with six presbyters seated at his right hand, and six at his left, representing the twelve Apostles.  He stands, however, for the actual exorcising and blessing of the oil.] has escaped doctrinal revision, and still preserves unaltered the teaching, and indeed the phraseology, of the ancient Sacramentaries traditionally ascribed to Gregory the Great (590–604), and Gelasius (492–496).

      The opening Exorcism (“Exorcizo te, immundissime spiritus,” etc.) is not found in these Sacramentaries, but is undoubtedly ancient.  It is found in the eleventh-century Ordo Romanus X, [Only the opening and closing words of this Exorcism are quoted, but the identification is certain.  This manner of quoting shows that Exorcism was already an established part of the Roman Liturgy and familiar.  Ordo Romanus X is printed and annotated by Mabillon in Vol. II of his Musaeum Italicum, p. 95 (reprinted by Migne, P.L., lxxviii. col. 1009).] which contains much ancient material; in the eleventh-century Leofric Missal; twice [It occurs once in its proper position, before the blessing of the Oil of the Sick, in Vol. II. p. 77, the manuscript from which it is printed being of the tenth or eleventh century. It occurs again, displaced, before the blessing of the Oil of the Catechumens (not of the Sick) in Vol. I. p. 74, where it was called “Ambrosian”.  But, like so many other “Ambrosian” forms, it probably came originally from Rome, as its wide extension through Western Christendom strongly suggests.] in the collection of ancient Alemannic, Gallican, Ambrosian, and Roman forms collected in Gerbert’s Monumenta Veteris Liturgiae Alemannicae; in not a few ancient Orders cited by Martène and Catalani; also in a greatly expanded form in the Sarum Pontifical, in the Magdalen Pontifical (twelfth century), [Henry Bradshaw Society, Vol. 39.] and other authorities of about the same date.  Both its phraseology and its doctrine are obviously ancient, and antedate the ninth century. [I owe much of my information about this Exorcism to Dr. Brightman.]

      The form for blessing the oil which follows the Exorcism (“Emitte, quaesumus, Spiritum sanctum,” etc.) is practically identical with the form which is common (with a few unimportant variations) to the Gregorian and Gelasian Sacramentaries.  The Gregorian form, as usually given, omits the phrase “permanens in visceribus nostris”.  [However, one of the three ninth-century MSS. used by H. A. Wilson for his critical edition of the Gregorian Sacramentary contains it.]  Its antiquity, however, is decisively attested by its occurrence in the Gelasian Sacramentary.  The Gelasian version adds the interesting information that the oil was sometimes tasted (“gustanti”) as well as applied to the body.

      The teaching of the Roman Pontifical concerning Unction may be thus summarized:

      (1) It is “a spiritual unction” and “perfect chrism” analogous to the unction bestowed in Confirmation.  Not only is it definitely called “chrism,” but the critical words, “the unction wherewith thou didst anoint Priests, Kings, Prophets, and Martyrs,” are common to it and to the form for consecrating the Chrism of Confirmation.

      (2) It restores the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, for the strengthening, healing, and consecrating of the Temple of the sick man’s personality (“that this oil may become a spiritual unction for the strengthening [or healing] of the Temple of the living God, that the Holy Spirit may be able to dwell therein”: “this ungent of celestial medicine”; “a protection of mind and body,” etc.).

      (3) This indwelling of the Spirit is intended to be permanent (“a perfect chrism, abiding in our inward parts”). [Alone, or almost alone, among modern Latin theologians, J. Kern strongly emphasizes the primitive doctrine (preserved in the Roman Pontifical) that Unction of the Sick is “a royal anointing,” conferring a grace of strength and sanctification very similar to that of Confirmation (see his De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, 1907, esp. p. 240).  The conception which underlay the primitive use of Unction was that the gift of the Holy Ghost, conferred originally at Confirmation, normally gave strength and health, not only to the soul, but also to the mind and the body of the recipient.  When, however, the effective indwelling of the Holy Spirit was for any cause interrupted (e.g. owing to grave sin, want of faith, carelessness in the performance of religious duties, or severe mental shock), then the devout reception of Unction restored it.  Unction was thus regarded as the complement of Confirmation rather than of Penance.]

      (4) It is effectual for bodily diseases (“for the expulsion of all pains, all infirmities, and every sickness of ... body”).

      (5) But also and still more for mental and spiritual disorders (diseases of the mind are mentioned three times).  The allusion to mental diseases implies that the oil is to be used for exorcism, as indeed we know from abundant evidence that it actually has been from the earliest times.

      (6) Furthermore, the oil is to be used for sick persons in general, and not merely for those in danger of death.  This is shown, not only by the title of the oil (the “Oil of the Sick” – contrast “Extreme Unction”), but also and still more clearly by its being described as a remedy for every kind of pain and infirmity, and in particular for mental and spiritual disorders. [Unction is described as tutamen mentis et corporis, ad evacuandos omnes dolores, omnesque infirmitates, omnem aegritudinem corporis.]  These latter seldom involve danger to life.  Doubtless, insanity sometimes takes the form of an irresistible impulse to commit suicide, but the Pontifical contains not the slightest indication that Unction of the insane is to be restricted to this very limited section of them.

Evidence of the Roman Rituale.

      The Rituale Service for “Extreme Unction” has undergone so much doctrinal and rubrical revision that it can only be used as an authority for primitive doctrine and practice after critical reconstruction.  In its present form it restricts Unction to those who are in danger of death “by sickness or old age”.  This restriction is one of the most unfortunate of the mediaeval abuses [On these abuses, see Excursus ii appended to this chapter.] which attached themselves so plentifully to this sacrament, because it has the effect of depriving of its benefits the great majority of those who, according to the terms of its institution, are entitled to receive them.

      Both theologically and practically the effects of this restriction, which, beginning in the ninth century, became very general in the West about the opening of the thirteenth (though it was not authoritatively decreed by the Church of Rome until the Council of Trent), have been vast.  It transformed what had hitherto been a general Sacrament of Healing into “Extreme Unction,” or (as it was otherwise called) the “Sacrament of the Dying” (Sacramentum Exeuntium). [Peter Lombard (c. 1100–1160) was apparently the first theologian to use the term Unctio Extrema.  He says: “This sacrament was ordained for a double purpose, viz. for the remission of sins, and for the alleviation of bodily infirmity” (Sent., IV. 23. 2).  Peter, however, strongly emphasizes the curative function of the rite, and recommends its frequent repetition with a view to its full efficacy.  Nevertheless he expressly states that Extreme Unction is so called because it is given to persons in extremis.]  The Rituale still retains prayers for recovery of a thoroughly primitive type, but their effect is restricted by the rubric which confines the Ordinance to an insignificant fraction of the sick, many of whom are in a desperate condition before anointing takes place.

      Many post-Tridentine Roman theologians recognize that neither the title “Extreme Unction” nor the ideas associated with it are primitive.  Catalani, in his Commentary on the Rituale, defends the title by maintaining that it merely means the last of the various unctions which a Christian receives, the earlier ones being those at Baptism, Confirmation, and Ordination to the Priesthood (Vol. I. p. 300).  But The Catholic Encyclopaedia rejects this explanation: “The name ‘Extreme Unction’ did not become technical in the West till towards the end of the twelfth century, and has never become current in the East. [Some have contended that the name means] ‘last in order of the sacramental or quasi-sacramental unctions’. ... But having regard to the conditions prevailing at the time when the name was introduced ... it is much more probable that it was introduced originally to mean ‘the unction of those in extremis,’ i.e. of the dying, especially as the corresponding name sacramentum exeuntium came into common use during the same period” (Art. “Extreme Unction”).  The Fathers of Trent are generally understood to favour the late medieval view : – “This Unction is to be administered to the sick, but especially (praesertim) to those who are so dangerously ill that they seem to be departing this life, whence also it is called the Sacrament of the Dying” (Sess. xiv. 3).  It might be argued that the word “especially” here used gives justification to those who maintain that the Council of Trent does not categorically forbid the anointing of the sick in general, but only discourages it.  Certainly modern Rome indulges the Uniat Churches of the East with a far wider use of Unction than she permits in the West.  Nevertheless, both the Rituale and the new Codex Juris Canonici (Canon 940) restrict Unction to those in danger of death.

      Another non-primitive feature in the Rituale is the excessive stress which it lays upon the remission of sins – particularly sins committed through the bodily senses.  The actual “form” prescribed speaks of nothing else.  In the last edition (1925) the parts of the body to which Unction is directed to be applied are the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the hands, and the feet. [The new Codex forbids the traditional practice of anointing on the loins or reins, which was supposed to remit sins of lust.  The York, and other mediaeval Orders, directed anointing on the navel for the same purpose.  The Sarum Manual directed anointing on the loins in the case of a man, and on the navel in the case of a woman.]  But “in case of necessity it is sufficient to anoint on one sense, or more properly on the forehead.” [We have here an interesting approximation to modern Anglican usage.]  The formula prescribed is: “By this holy Unction, and his most merciful pity, the Lord pardon thee all sins committed through sight,” etc.

      Whether the sins remitted are mortal or venial is not stated.  They can hardly – in ordinary cases – be mortal, because the rubrics prescribe that, “if there is time, and the condition of the sick person permits, before Extreme Unction, the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist are to be administered.”  The meaning probably is, that if the sick person is penitent, but too weak to confess to the priest, all his sins, even though deadly, are sacramentally remitted by Unction.  This explanation is that given by certain Eastern theologians.  For instance, Macaire writes: “The Apostle [James] evidently presupposes that before having recourse to the Unction of Blessed Oil, the sick person has already received the Sacrament of Penance. ... And in our days also, in the Orthodox Church, whoever has recourse to Unction ... begins by purifying himself from his sins by confessing them before his spiritual father. ... But since, when enfeebled by a grave malady ... the man is not always in a state to present a true and perfect repentance [confession] of his sins ... God in His mercy has dispensed, especially in favour of invalids of this kind, a new remedy for the healing of their moral maladies in the Sacrament of Unction” (Theologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, Vol. II. p. 562).

      There is a further difficulty connected with venial sins.  These, according to modern practice, would normally be confessed and remitted through absolution; and, even if not confessed, they would presumably be forgiven through worthy participation in the Eucharist, which, in modern Roman practice, precedes Unction.

      The Council of Trent, following St. Thomas and other scholastic doctors, teaches that among the effects of Unction is the removal of “the relics” of sin, which are usually understood to be spiritual weaknesses, bad habits, and evil tendencies engendered by past sin.  The language of certain ancient and mediaeval rites, and modern pastoral experience, suggest that this really may be among the effects of Unction.  But the language of the Rituale (at any rate in its “form” of Unction) speaks, not of “relics” of sin, but of actual sin (“quidquid ... deliquisti”).

Reconstruction of the “Rituale” Service.

      The Unction Service of the Rituale may readily be restored to its primitive condition by collating it with its oldest known form, viz. that contained in Ordo Romanus X (printed and annotated by Mabillon in his Musaeum Italicum, Vol. II, and reprinted by Migne, P.L., lxxviii, col. 1020).  Though this Ordo belongs, as a document, to the eleventh century, much of the material which it contains is considerably more ancient. In particular, the bulk of “The Order for Visiting a Sick Man” is shown by satisfactory internal evidence to antedate the reign of Charlemagne.

      It is a well-established and generally admitted fact, that at the beginning of the ninth century, or a little earlier, the process began (in Western Christendom only) which four centuries later transformed “Unction of the Sick” into “Extreme Unction”.

      Clear evidence both of the date and of the nature of this change is afforded by various contemporary authorities, notably by the second Capitulare of Theodulf, [The entire Capitulare is printed in Migne, P.L., cv. col. 220 ff.; the relevant portions in Martène, op. cit., and Puller, The Anointing of the Sick, p. 397.] a trusted ecclesiastical adviser of Charlemagne, who was Bishop of Orleans from about 798 to 818, and by the Council of Metz (847).  From these we gather that it was then becoming the accepted view, at least in official quarters: (1) that the primary – or one of the primary – effects of Unction is remission of sins; (2) that Unction, when applied to the organs of the bodily senses (eyes, ears, nostrils, etc.), remits the sins committed through those senses; and (3) that, though Unction is not without efficacy for the healing of bodily and mental infirmities, yet its more important effect is preparation for death.

      These tendencies are clearly manifested, though in a somewhat undeveloped form, [For example, though remission of sins of the senses is mentioned, and the formula “Per istam sanctam unctionem,” etc. is employed, the directions as to the parts of the body to be anointed are vague: “Dipping his thumb in the Oil of the Sick, let the priest make the sign of the cross on the sick man’s body in seven or in several places.”] in an appendix to the Visitation Office of Ordo X, entitled Ordo compendiosus et consequens ad ungendum infirmum, which may accordingly be assigned to the ninth century.  None of them is in evidence in the main service, which may accordingly be dated before the year 800.

      Reference to Ordo Romanus X shows that practically the whole of the present Rituale service is contained in it.  Almost the only portions not found there are the title, the bulk of the rubrics, and (of course) the form of anointing, which in this precise form is probably of the twelfth century, though similar forms had been in use in some places from the ninth.

      The following additions and changes will restore the Service to its original form.

      (1) Change the title Ordo ... Extremae Unctionis into Ordo ad Visitandum Infirmum.

      (2) Omit all the directions based on Tridentine conceptions, including preliminary rubric 2, which directs Viaticum to precede Unction.  (In ancient times, at Rome as elsewhere, Viaticum followed Unction.  See the discussion in Book VIII, ch. 8 of the De Synodo Dioecesana of Benedict XIV, who declares that “None but those entirely ignorant of Church history will deny that the former custom was for the sick to be anointed after sacramental confession, but before ... Viaticum.”  Benedict allowed this order to continue in places where the ancient custom still prevailed.)

      (3) Insert early in the Service, after the prayers for the household, the emphatic and encouraging prayers for recovery, provided in the ancient Ordo.  These entreat God to heal the sick man, as He healed Tobit, and Sarah the daughter of Raguel, and Peter’s wife’s mother, and the centurion’s servant, and King Hezekiah.  They reach a dramatic climax in a petition that God will raise the sick man from his bed, as Peter raised Tabitha from the dead.  These faith-inspiring prayers, introduced for the purpose of bringing the sick man into the “faith state” requisite for the effective administration of Unction, have naturally – but with grievous loss – been omitted from the modern Rituale service, which, influenced by late mediaeval conceptions, has allowed the healing efficacy of Unction to recede considerably into the background. [These prayers are retained, in a slightly altered form and order, in the Sarum Manual, not, however, as part of the Service of Extreme Unction, but as an introduction to that of Visitation.]

      (4) After the sprinkling of the sick man with Holy Water, add the following short dialogue, which provides an interesting commentary on the teaching of the Roman Pontifical, that this ministry should be regarded as a “spiritual unction,” restoring the interrupted indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

      V.  For what purpose hast thou summoned me, brother?

      R.  That I may confess my sins to God and to thee; and that thou mayest pardon me, as his representative, and mayest assign me a penance, and mayest pour into [or upon] me the unction of the Holy Ghost.

      V.  The Lord Jesus Christ pardon thee all thy sins, and impart to thee his health-bringing Unction.  Yet, if the Lord regard thee favourably, and heal thee, wilt thou guard that Unction?

      R.  I will guard it.

 -    -     -     -     -

      V.  The Lord so succours fallen man, that not only through Baptism and Confirmation, but also through the medicine of Penance and Unction, the spirit of man is restored [or healed, “reparetur”] unto life eternal. [Observe here the persistence of the primitive belief that not only Unction, but also the Sacraments generally, notably Baptism, Confirmation, and Penance, possess healing virtue, which affects the body through the soul.]

      R7.  Thanks be to God.

      [Then follow Sacramental Confession, and the Seven Penitential Psalms.]

      (5) Omit the whole present form of anointing with the words “Per istam sanctam Unctionem,” etc.

      (6) Prefix to the first of the three concluding prayers a direction for anointing to take place during the prayer which in the present Rituale service follows the Anointing (“Domine, Deus, qui per Apostolum tuum Jacobum locutus es,” etc.). [The older portion of Ordo Romanus X provides two prayers for anointing, of which this is the second.  The former one is shorter and vaguer, and, if used alone, would probably be expanded by extempore prayer.  The more modern Appendix to the Ordo directs Unction first on the head, and afterwards on the organs of the five senses.  It contains no direction for anointing on the loins.  Its form for anointing the hands differs considerably from the modern Roman.  It speaks of remission of sins “of touch, of walking, of the loins, and of the flesh.”]

      This noble and well-balanced prayer is very ancient, being found, not only in Ordo Romanus X, but also in the earlier Gregorian Sacramentary.  Both in doctrine and in expression it is thoroughly primitive.

Doctrine of the Reconstructed “Rituale” Service.

      So restored, the Rituale Service agrees in doctrine (and also in suggested practice) with the Roman Pontifical.  It regards Anointing as a “Spiritual Unction,” restoring to the sick man the indwelling of the Holy Ghost for the strengthening, healing and sanctifying of his entire personality; it gives due prominence to bodily, while fully recognizing spiritual healing; it also recognizes the exorcistic efficacy of Unction.  Like the Pontifical, it contemplates the anointing of sick persons in general, and not merely of those in danger of death.

      Its central prayer, after alluding to the well-known injunction of St. James, proceeds as follows:

      “Cure, we beseech thee, O our Redeemer, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the languors of this sick man, and heal his wounds, and banish (dimitte) his sins, and expel from him all pains of mind and body, and mercifully restore to him complete wholeness both within and without [i.e. of soul and body], that, healed by the help of thy mercy, he may be restored to his former duties.” ...

      It will be noticed that the Rituale supplements the Pontifical by mentioning remission (or banishing) of sins as an effect of Unction.  It lays no particular stress upon this effect – indeed it mentions it only once – nevertheless a causal connection between Unction and remission of sins is clearly affirmed.

      As we shall see later, remission of sins is mentioned as one of the effects of Unction in quite early documents.  It is only excessive stress upon it which marks a document as late.

The Gregorian Sacramentary.

      Probably the most ancient full Service for the Administration of Unction now in existence is that contained in the “Gregorian” Sacramentary as printed by Menard, and reproduced (with his commentary) in Migne (P.L., lxxviii, col. 231–36).  In this Service Unction is regarded as a normal accompaniment of the Visitation of the Sick, whether they are in danger of death or not.

      The rite contemplates the presence of a plurality of priests and inferior ministers, of a choir, and (probably) of a general congregation of sympathetic fellow Christians. [This probability is established by fairly frequent references to the presence of the laity in rites derived from or influenced by the Gregorian.  In some rites they kiss the sick man, after the priests and other ministers of the Church have done so, and in one or two they even lay their hands upon him, thus associating themselves with the priestly ministry of benediction and healing, which in ancient times was regarded (as it still is in the East) as an act of the whole Church, not simply of the ministering priest.  The corporate character of the ministry of Unction, and the duty of the laity to cooperate in its administration, if not by their presence, at least by earnest prayer, needs reaffirmation at the present day.]

      The service begins with the Exorcism and blessing of Holy Water in the sick man’s presence, and his sprinkling therewith. [The whole house was also sprinkled.]  Psychologically, this procedure is preferable to that of the later rituals, which direct the sick man to be sprinkled with water already hallowed.  The mingled Water and Salt are declared to be “for the safety [or salvation] of believers,” and “for health of mind”; also “for the expulsion of demons and banishment of diseases”.  They are blessed, “that they may be, unto all who receive them, health of soul and body.”

      Practically all the ancient and mediaeval rituals (including those of Sarum and York) make the sprinkling of the sick man with Holy Water an integral part of the rite of Unction.  That the Church from very early times regarded sprinkling with Holy Water as a semi-sacramental ministration of a remedial character auxiliary to Unction, has already been indicated.  Both the oil and the water were sometimes taken internally as well as applied externally. [Gustantibus occurs in the Verona Latin Fragment, of date about A.D. 490.  This is generally considered to be a translation of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, which belongs to the early third century.  Gustanti also occurs in the Gelasian form for consecrating the oil, and in an Ambrosian “Benedictio Olei” not later than the eleventh century, printed in an Appendix to M. Magistretti’s edition (1897) of an early Milanese Pontifical.]

      There follows in the Gregorian Service a series of prayers for recovery, of which the first (mentioning the healing of Hezekiah) occurs also in Ordo Romanus X.  The last occurs both in this Ordo and in the modern Roman Rituale. [It has been translated and commented on above.]

      Then occurs a remarkable rubric (reproduced in many ancient Orders), which shows in the clearest way that the persons anointed in early times were not usually in extremis: — “And thus let the sick man bend his knee or knees, and stand at the right hand of the priest, and thus let this Antiphon be chanted: The Lord said to his disciples, Cast out devils in my name and lay your hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.”

      The imperative form in which our Lord’s words are here quoted shows that Imposition of Hands by the presbyters followed the Antiphon, the sick man presumably kneeling, both for this ministration, and for the Unction which ensued.  No rubric actually directing Imposition of Hands occurs in Menard’s text, but (as he points out in his Commentary) more than one ancient MS. of the Sacramentary specifically requires Imposition of Hands at this point: — “Here let all the priests and their assistants (ministri) lay their hands upon the sick man” (Codex Rodradi); and “Let all the priests lay their hands upon the sick man, at the command, or only by the permission of the Bishop, because canonical order thus instructs us” (Codex Tilianus).  The last rubric is specially interesting as testifying that the principle that the Bishop (not the presbyters) is the chief minister of the Sacrament of Unction was still recognized in the West.

      The psychological purpose of the requirement that the sick man shall rise from his bed and stand, is obviously to inspire him with the belief that his recovery has already begun, and will soon be accomplished [In one or two of the later Orders the anointing of the feet is accompanied by the dramatic command, “Rise and walk.”] (cf. the command “Arise and take up thy bed and walk,” Mark 2:9, John 5:8).

      After another Antiphon (which is apparently intended to accompany the Imposition of Hands) comes the following rubric: “And thus let him thoroughly anoint (perungat) [On the thoroughness of the early anointings, Matthaeus Galenus is illuminating: “[Unction] was not formerly performed so sparingly as now; but the whole body was smeared and anointed.  Not only were the organs of the senses anointed, but all the parts in which the disease lurked, and that sometimes for seven successive days. ...  What wonder if [in our days] recovery is rare, when scarcely any attention is now paid to the affected parts, which our ancestors used to anoint for seven successive days” (quoted in Martène, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 298).] the sick man with consecrated oil, on the neck and throat, and between the shoulders, and on the breast; also (seu) [Seu or sive frequently means “and” or “also” in late and mediaeval Latin.] let him be more thoroughly and liberally anointed where the pain is more threatening (ubi plus dolor imminet).  And let the sick man pray [The requirement that the sick man shall himself be in “the faith state,” and join in the presbyters’ “prayer of faith,” is important for the efficacious administration of Unction.] while he is being anointed, and let one of the priests recite this prayer: ‘I anoint thee with Holy Oil in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that no unclean spirit may lie hid in thee, or in thy members, or in thy marrow[s], or in any joint of thy limbs, but that the power (virtus) of Christ most high and of the Holy Ghost may dwell in thee,’” etc.

      Altogether three prayers for anointing are provided in this Office, testifying to the wealth of liturgical materials for sick visitation possessed by the ancient Roman Church.  Of these, the first occurs early in the Service, and is obviously out of place.  It begins: “I anoint thee with Holy Oil, as Samuel anointed David to be king and prophet.”  This reference to anointing as a “spiritual unction” is in harmony with the teaching of the Gregorian, Gelasian and Hippolytan forms of consecrating it, and (as will be shown later) of the Greek Euchologion.  The second, which follows the rubric which directs anointing, and of which we have quoted the opening clauses, deals almost exclusively with physical ailments.  The third, however, contains clear references to moral and spiritual disorders, inserted, in a way that to modern minds seems inappropriate, in a list of physical maladies. [The ancient Church did not draw the same sharp distinction that we do between maladies which are spiritual and mental, and those which are physical.  Modern therapeutic psychology to some extent supports the point of view of the ancient Church, by insisting on the unity of the organism and on the spiritual and moral basis of not a few apparently physical diseases.]  It beseeches God “to expel the corruption of all forms of vain glory [or deceitfulness [vanitatum.]], to heal the ancient scars of [wounds of] conscience; [conscientiarum.] to expel inordinate passions [or sufferings]; [passiones.] to restore the substance of flesh and blood; and to grant pardon of all sins.” [delictorumque cunctorum veniam tribue.]  The prayer concludes thus: “May this holy anointing with oil be the expulsion of the present disease and languor, and the wished-for remission of all sins.” [peccatorum omnium exoptata remissio.]

      After this, the sick man is communicated with the reserved sacrament, apparently in both kinds (corpore et sanguine Domini),* the formula of administration not being mentioned.

      [*Contrast with this the method of Communion in the later Ordo Romanus X (Appendix), where the priest gives the sick man the Eucharist of the Lord’s Body dipped in ordinary wine, which by such intinction is declared to be “transmuted into Christ’s blood.”  Compare with this the rubric of Leofric’s “Office for Visiting and Anointing a Sick Man” (in his Missal): — “Here let the sick man be communicated, and let [the priest] place the sacrifice in wine or (sive) water, saying, ‘May the mixture and consecration of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be unto us and all who receive it unto remission of all sins and eternal life.’”  Maskell changes the difficult sive into sine, I think rightly.  If sine be read, Leofric, like Ordo Romanus X, contemplates Reservation in the species of bread alone, and the consecration of the wine, in the sick man’s presence, by dipping the Host into it.  Belief in the efficacy of such consecration by contact prevailed for a long time at Rome and elsewhere, though it always had opponents.  St. Gregory’s phrase (corpore et sanguine Domini) almost certainly indicates Reservation and Communion in both kinds (see below).  But occasionally in early times such phrases accompanied Communion in only one kind, the doctrine of “concomitance” being implicitly held.]

      Then follows a remarkable rubric – remarkable, that is, in view of the frequent prohibitions of the repetition of anointing in later times: — “And let [the priests] do this to him for seven days, if necessary, not only with regard to Communion, but also with regard to any other administration; [tam de communione tam de alio officio.] and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he is in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” [From various other authorities we gather that, if recovery did not occur within a week, the priests continued their daily or frequent ministrations of Unction, Imposition of Hands, and Communion.]

      Of the final rubric, directing choral services twice daily by the sick man’s bedside, we have already spoken.

      It may be added that in ancient times sick persons were expected to join in the singing, as the patients still do when choral services are held in hospital wards.  The Irish Book of Dimna (perhaps as early as the seventh century) has the following quaint direction: — “The sick man sings if he can; if not, the priest sings in his person.”  In certain Orders stress is laid on the singing of the Lord’s Prayer by the sick man.

      At the close of the Gregorian Office there occurs an Appended Note, obviously not earlier than the ninth century: — “Many priests also anoint the sick on the five senses of the body. ... This they do that, if any stain has inhered in the five senses of the mind and body, it may be healed by this medicine of God.”

      Remission of sins (but not of sins of the senses), as an effect of Unction, is mentioned five times in the Gregorian Office.  Comparatively little stress, however, is laid upon it – far less than in the corresponding Service for Anointing in the Greek Euchologion, which seems to be of a considerably later date.

Antiquity of the Gregorian Office.

      In recent times both the antiquity and the authority of the “Gregorian” Office for Unction have been widely questioned.  It is omitted altogether from the critical edition of the Gregorian Sacramentary prepared by the Rev. H. A. Wilson in 1915 from three ninth-century MSS. for the Henry Bradshaw Society.  This edition, however, had for its object, not a complete reconstruction of the Sacramentary, but an accurate reproduction of the famous transcript of “the Sacramentary of Pope Gregory, taken from the authentic copy of the Library of the Cubicle,” which Pope Hadrian I (784–791) dispatched to Charlemagne, and which became in the Emperor’s hands the instrument of a vast liturgical reformation in his dominions.

      This influential transcript, however, though doubtless extremely accurate, and containing all the services to which Hadrian attached primary importance, was far from complete.  As Duchesne remarks, “it was far from containing all the necessary details and formularies. ...  It is an essentially stationary Sacramentary, to be used only on festivals and days of solemn assembly.  It makes no provision for Sundays and ordinary days, much less for private solemnities such as marriages and funerals; nor, again, for the sick” (Christian Worship, pp. 121–23).

      The “Gregorian” Office for Unction is contained (with considerable variations) in several manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries, such as the Codex Tilianus, Remensis, Ratoldi, and S. Eligii, which last Menard adopted as the main authority for his important annotated edition of the Sacramentary (1642). [Reprinted in Migne, P.L., lxxviii.]  The Service is thus attested by MSS. almost as old as those that omit it.

      Internal evidence testifies to its high antiquity and Roman provenance.  The leading authorities on Unction place the great dividing line in its history at the beginning of the ninth century or a little earlier.  Now the “Gregorian” Office – with the exception of the Appended Note, which is certainly later – shows not the slightest affinity with any distinctively ninth-century ideas about Unction.  It therefore antedates the ninth century, but, if so, then nothing hinders it being very much older.  Both its language and its rubrics are consistent with a very early date.  The writer does not regard Menard’s text as the actual Gregorian Order for Unction, but only as the nearest approximation to it which we possess.  To attempt a critical reconstruction of the original Unction Service of the Church of Rome from its numerous liturgical descendants is an attractive task, but it lies beyond the scope of this Essay.

      Menard’s Service is certainly a definite “office,” and not a mere fortuitous aggregate of prayers for the sick.  It exhibits (as has been indicated) a certain amount of disorder; it also contains intrusive matter, e.g. a benediction of new fruits, and a prayer at the first cutting of a young person’s hair. [On the other hand its Benediction of Bread, which contains the petition that “all who take it may receive health both of body and soul,” may well he an original part of the Office.  In primitive times it was the custom of the bishop and his presbyters to bless, not only the sick man’s medicines, but also his food, particularly his bread and wine (see above).]

      But the Service as a whole is well articulated, and the prayers are arranged in a well-considered psychological sequence.  Moreover, it is well provided with rubrics, and these find frequent and early echoes in many parts of Western Christendom.  Reference to Marten will show that the rubrics directing the sick man to stand at the right hand of the priest, and the priest to anoint him liberally in the most painful place, and to communicate and anoint him daily for a week, and to provide him with daily choral services, are reproduced – usually almost verbatim – in not a few early Offices, including those of these islands.

      The wide reproduction of these rubrics is good evidence that the Service of which they formed part proceeded from some generally recognized liturgical authority, presumably Rome. [The absence of an Anointing Office from many of the manuscripts of the ancient Roman Liturgy by no means proves that none was in use.  No existing compilation is complete, and a semi-private office, like that for Visitation or Unction, was especially liable to be overlooked, or deliberately omitted.]

      Literary authorship by Gregory of the Roman Unction Service is improbable.  In his liturgical writings, the saint shows himself not so much an author as an editor and compiler.  It may be conjectured that he treated the leading Visitation Office of his Church (a Church accustomed to minister to the sick daily probably had several) very much as he treated the Mass; that is to say, he introduced a few minor improvements, but left the bulk of what he found in use untouched.

The Most Ancient Western Evidence.

      That the blessing of Oil for the Sick by the Bishop of the diocese was a firmly established practice in the West at the beginning of the fifth century is indicated by the Epistle of Innocent I to Decentius, A.D. 416 (Migne, P.L., xx. 560–61), the genuineness of which is not now disputed.

      The oldest known form for blessing the Oil is contained in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (early third century), a work no longer extant in the original Greek, but fairly well represented by the crude and careless Latin of the Verona Fragment (a MS. dating from the close of the fifth century), and the more complete Ethiopic version (the so-called “Egyptian Church Order”).

      The passage referring to the blessing of the Oil (which was offered for that purpose by the people) occurs at the close of the Eucharistic Office, and runs as follows: “Si quis oleum offert, secundum panis oblationem et vini, et non ad sermonem dicat, sed simili virtute gratias referat dicens, ‘Ut oleum hoc sanctificans das, Deus, sanitatem utentibus et percipientibus, unde uncxisti reges, sacerdotes, et profetas, sic et omnibus gustantibus comfortationem et sanitatem utentibus praebeat’” (see R. H. Connolly, Texts and Studies, Vol. VIII, No. 4, p. 176).

      This slovenly and obviously defective piece of Latin may be roughly translated thus: – “If anyone offers oil [let the Bishop bless it] after the manner of the oblation of bread and wine; [The meaning probably is that it is to be offered at the altar, and there blessed with similar ceremony.] and let him not speak according to these exact words, but let him give thanks with similar meaning [The Bishop is expected to expand the somewhat jejune form with suitable extempore prayer of his own.] [or efficacy], saying, ‘Sanctifying this oil, O God, mayest thou give [Reading des for das, as the Ethiopic version suggests.] health to those who use and receive it.  With this unction thou didst anoint kings, priests and prophets.  So [now] may it afford strengthening to all who taste it, and health to those who use it.’”

      The Ethiopic has, in place of the first “utentibus,” “to those who are anointed.”  It is a reasonable supposition, therefore, that Hippolytus wrote χριομένοις, and that the not very intelligent Latin translator misread it as χρωμένοις.

      There are several obscurities and difficulties in this Benediction, but one thing is evident, that Hippolytus, like “Gelasius,” “Gregory,” and the modern Roman Pontifical, regarded the Oil of the Sick as a “spiritual unction” analogous to that given to the baptized in Confirmation, and to that in ancient days poured out upon the prophets, priests, and kings of Israel.  The Old Testament bears emphatic witness to the fact that spiritual and moral endowments of a high order were (at least from the age of Samuel) bestowed upon the prophets, and also upon the anointed kings of Judah, who were regarded as endowed not only with wisdom to rule and judge their subjects, but also with a quasi-priestly charisma, enabling them to represent God to their people and their people to God; also to bless them in His name (see especially Solomon’s prayer and blessing of the people at the Dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings 8; cf. also 1 Chron. 29:20, they “bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king”).

      We are therefore justified in concluding that, though Hippolytus attributed healing virtue to the Oil, he did so because he regarded it as a spiritual unction conveying grace to the soul.  Accordingly, the “strengthening” and “health” spoken of in the Verona Fragment should probably be understood as applying to the soul as well as to the body.

III.  Eastern Tradition of Unction

The Euchologion.

      The Eastern tradition, as authoritatively expressed in the Service for Unction in the Greek Euchologion, is in agreement with the earlier, as distinguished from the later, Western tradition.

      The Service is a public one, performed, whenever possible, in church by seven priests, and involving the presence of a choir, which sings a series of elaborate anthems, of at least one deacon, and of a representative congregation.  The presence of a plurality of sick persons seems also implied in one or two passages.  So great is the importance still attached to the presence (by representation) of the entire Church, that one of the popular Eastern names for the Anointing Service is “Congregation”. [See Macaire, Théologie dogmatique orthodoxe, Vol. II. p. 552.]  Dealing with this point the Patriarch Tikhon remarks: “It is performed in church, in the presence of an assembly, if the sick person be able to leave his bed; or at home, before an assembly of the people.”  Even if, in case of necessity, a single priest performs the Service, “he does so in the name of the whole assembly” (see the E.T. of the Euchologion, 2nd edit., 1922).

      In the East, all persons seriously ill are anointed, whether they are in danger of death or not.  This is clear, not only from express statements by Eastern authorities, but also from the final rubric, which (in words not unlike those of the Gregorian direction to the sick man to stand) bids the patient walk home: – “And he that hath caused the Anointing Service to be performed (ο ποιήσας το Ευχελαγιον) maketh a humble reverence (βαλων μετάνοιαν), and saith, “Holy Fathers, bless and pardon me the sinner.”  Then having received from them blessing and pardon, he departeth (απέρχεται), rejoicing in God.”  The rite is repeated as often as is deemed necessary.  The sick person is expected to confess, if he is able, before the rite, and either before or after it he receives the Eucharist.  With regard to the effect attributed to the Unction, the official orthodox doctrine is that it is a sacrament “which heals the infirmities of the soul and of the body” (Macaire, op. cit. Vol. II. p. 552).

      The Euchologion Service lays great stress upon physical and mental healing, but still more upon spiritual benefits, particularly remission of sins.  Much more is said about forgiveness than in the Gregorian Office.  No allusion, however, is made to sins committed through the senses.

      The Euchologion, in agreement with Western tradition, regards the ministration as a form of “spiritual unction”.  For example, the priests are directed to pray “that this oil may be blessed by thy power and mercy, and by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon it”; and again, “Send down thy Holy Spirit and hallow this oil, and make it to be unto this thy servant N., who is anointed therewith, unto perfect remission of his sins, and unto inheritance of the kingdom of heaven.”

      The date of the Euchologion Service has not been precisely determined.  It is later than the age of Justinian (483–565), for it asks for the intercessions of St. Samson, a younger contemporary of his.  On the other hand, it is contained in a MS. of the closing years of the eighth century.  A seventh-century date seems suitable.  Its very elaborate character, and its strong and frequent insistence upon remission of sins, do not favour a very early date.  Not a few quite early documents recognize remission of sins as among the effects of Unction, but they do not for the most part greatly emphasize it.

      It may be added that the Orthodox Service of Unction has exerted an extensive influence upon the rites of Eastern Christendom as a whole, including the separated Churches.  For example, the Coptic Office for Unction, [See Coptic Offices, by R. M. Woolley, pp. 89–108.] in spite of important variations, is clearly based upon the anointing service of the Orthodox Euchologion.

      The Coptic Office is repeated daily for a week (E. T., p. 107); and this suggests that quite possibly the enormously long and unwieldy Euchologion Service may be the result of the “telescoping” into one of seven Services for seven successive days, each originally distinct and provided with its own proper prayers and lections.  The Russian Archbishop Ignatius argues strongly in favour of this view (De sacramentis, p. 296 ff.), and his arguments are favourably regarded by Kern, op. cit.

      For adequate study of the difficult and complex Euchologion Service, Goar’s classic commentary (1657) is indispensable.

Sacramentary of Serapion.

      Lack of space forbids any description of the other picturesque and interesting Eastern Orders of Unction.  Many of these are accessible (in translation) in the classical pages of Renaudot, Assemani, and Denzinger.

      It is necessary to pass at once to the earliest known liturgical document of the East which mentions Unction, the Sacramentary of Serapion, of date about 350. [There is an important reference to it, a century earlier, in Origen, Homily ii on Leviticus, 4; but we are only here concerned with the liturgical evidence.]

      This document (as has been already mentioned) provides two forms for blessing the Oil of the Sick, in conjunction with bread and water.

      The first form (“A Prayer concerning the Offerings of Oil and Water,” made by the people at the Eucharist), after explicitly mentioning bodily and mental healing, has the following ambiguous expression: “That the partaking of these creatures may be a healing medicine (φάρμαχον θεραπευτιχόν), and a medicine of complete soundness (φάρμαχον ολοχληρίας).”

      By “a medicine of complete soundness,” Serapion presumably means something more than a mere “healing medicine”.  If so, he must be thinking of the healing of the sick man’s entire personality, body, soul, and spirit (cf. 1 Thess. 5:23).

      That this is actually so is clear from the second form (“A Prayer for Oil of the Sick, or for Bread, or for Water”), where the word ολοχληρία recurs.  Its main operative clauses run as follows:

      “... Send forth [a] healing power of the Only-begotten from heaven upon this oil, that it may become to those who are anointed, or partake of these creatures, unto the driving away of every sickness and every weakness, unto a medicine of preservation against every demon ; unto the expulsion of every unclean spirit; unto the separation of every evil spirit; unto the chasing away of every fever and shivering fit and every infirmity; unto good grace and remission of sins; unto a medicine of life and salvation (φάρμαχον ζωης χαι σωτηρίας); unto health and complete wholeness of soul, body, spirit (ολοχληρίαν ψυχης σώματος πνεύματος); unto complete strengthening (ρωσιν τελείαν) ...”

      Here “complete soundness (ολοχληρία)” is more closely defined (in language reminiscent of St. Paul, who uses the adjective ολόχληρός, 1 Thess. 5:23) as soundness of “soul, body, spirit,” and is associated with “complete strengthening,” which in this connection must include strengthening of the soul.

      Serapion’s doctrine is thus in full agreement with that of the Roman Pontifical, which speaks of “a spiritual unction for the strengthening of the Temple of the living God,” i.e. of the sick man’s entire personality.

      Father Puller, in common with all those who deny that Unction, confers spiritual or sanctifying grace, finds this passage surprising and embarrassing.  Indeed he can only interpret it in accordance with his own doctrine by advancing the theory that the words “unto good grace and remission of sins” are an interpolation of a kind admittedly not unusual in liturgical documents in actual use (see his The Anointing of the Sick, pp. 95 ff.).

      This particular manuscript, however, was never in actual use.  Its prayers are in such disorder that they could not possibly be used in church without extensive rearrangement.  Obviously it is an unofficial compilation, made by an unknown Christian, who for some unknown reason was interested in the prayers of Serapion.

      Moreover, the deletion of the words “unto good grace and remission of sins” does not suffice to bring the teaching of the document into agreement with that of Fr. Puller.  It is possible (though not easy in view of the context) to follow him in assigning to φάρμαχον ζωης χαι σωτηρίας an exclusively physical sense.  But there still remains the very comprehensive phrase “complete wholeness of soul, body, spirit,” which surely must signify the restoration to integrity, not only of the sick man’s body, but also of his entire spiritual constitution.

      It may be added, that Dr. Brightman, who saw no sufficient reason for rejecting these words when he first edited the Sacramentary in 1900 (see J.T.S., Vol. I. pp. 88–113, and 247–77), remains of the same opinion still.  Commenting upon Fr. Puller’s arguments he writes: “It is not clear that the clauses [rejected by Fr. Puller] in general interrupt the list of bodily sicknesses, since all the terms from εις χάριν to πνεύματος are prima facie spiritual, and εις ρωσιν τελείαν may only be a summary of all the preceding, in fact probably is so in any case.”

      Fr. Puller is certainly mistaken in supposing that only late documents recognize the spiritual effects of Unction.  Indeed, a few are extant which – in the form given for anointing at least – recognize only these.  Thus the form in the Book of Dimna (possibly as ancient as the seventh century) runs: “I anoint thee with consecrated oil in the name of the Trinity, that thou mayest be saved for ever and ever.”  The form given in the Stowe Missal (ninth or tenth century) is similar: “I anoint thee with hallowed oil, that thou mayest be saved for evermore, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

      Forms such as these, which (explicitly at least) recognize only the spiritual effects of Unction, are, of course, very exceptional; as also are those which (like the Benediction of the Oil in the Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 29) explicitly recognize only its power to heal diseases.

      Without adducing further evidence (which is abundant), it must suffice here to state summarily that the bulk of the early liturgical documents which refer to Unction take what may be described as a “sacramental” and spiritual, and not merely a therapeutic view of the rite, attributing to it spiritual, mental, and bodily effects, with varying degrees of emphasis.

IV.  Mental, Moral, and Neurotic Illness

Unction in Mental Cases.

      The ancient and early mediaeval Church habitually used Unction and Imposition of Hands in the treatment of mental and neurotic diseases. [Not a few forms for consecrating the Oil state explicitly that it is to be used for anointing not only the sick but also the “vexaticii” or “energumeni” (Gerbert, Vetus Liturgia Alemannica, Vol. I. chap. iii).]  Fr. Puller also regards Unction as valuable for the cure of “sickness of mind,” e.g. melancholia, or hysteria, or madness (pp. 26–27).

      But it could hardly have this effect, unless it were capable of conveying sanctifying grace to the soul, and in particular of promoting (when received with proper dispositions) the elimination of vices and bad habits, and the implanting of Christian virtues.

      Modern pastoral experience, and indeed the experience of most psychotherapists, strongly suggests that many or most instances of “mental” disease are also instances of “moral” and “spiritual” disease.  “When we go deeper, and investigate the origin of the psychoneuroses,” [I.e. functional nervous disorders.] writes Dr. Hadfield, “we often find that they are concerned with problems essentially moral. ... These physical and mental symptoms are due to defects of character. ... The physician is thus compelled to face the moral problems which lie at the root of these disorders. ... He is often called upon to deal directly with moral diseases, such as uncontrollable temper, sex perversion, stealing, cruelty, despondency, irritability, and vanity” (Psychology and Morals, p. 2).

      “Moral diseases” (in which the will is “obsessed” or paralyzed) must, of course, be carefully distinguished from “sins,” which can only be committed by a person whose will is free to choose between good and evil.

      The irrational fears, anxieties, hesitations, timidities, and specialized “phobias” of neurotic patients, which often find expression in stammering, “tics,” and other physical symptoms, are instances of what in normal persons would be called sins of cowardice, lack of faith in God, and so forth.

      Similarly, the “obsessions” and “compulsions” which dominate the thoughts and conduct of many nervous subjects, e.g. those of jealousy, envy, suspicion, hatred, vindictiveness, rage, sullenness, gloom, despair, self-centeredness, selfishness, invalidism, deceit, dishonesty, scrupulosity, megalomania, pride, self-abasement, avarice, prodigality, misleading fantasies, fixed ideas, untidy and repulsive habits, lust (natural and unnatural), cruelty, alcoholomania, morphinism, and the like, require not only “mental” treatment in the narrow sense, but definitely moral and spiritual (including sacramental) ministrations.  The priest who, in cooperation with a properly qualified medical man, attempts to treat such moral ailments must aim at implanting in the patient’s mind, and particularly in its “subconscious” region (where the real cause of the malady is deeply rooted) a powerful impulse not only to “rebuke” and triumph over the evil obsession, but also to acquire the opposite virtue.  Psychological knowledge and skill are, of course, required, in order to bring to light and dissolve the pathological “complexes,” but the treatment, if it is to result in complete and lasting cure, must be moral and spiritual throughout.

Unction and Remission of Sins.

      Two important Christian Sacraments, Baptism and Penance, have, as their primary object, remission of sins; and of these the latter (in obedience to the precept of St. James) has in all ages been administered in close connection with Unction, whenever the circumstances of the case have rendered it desirable or necessary.  It is clear, therefore, that remission of sins cannot be the primary, or even one of the primary, objects of Unction.  As for the mediaeval idea that Unction was ordained to remit a special class of sins, viz. those committed through the physical senses and sexual organs, there is neither scriptural, nor psychological, nor sound theological ground for any such classification of sins, nor for any such view of the special purpose of Unction.  All sins are sins of the entire moral personality, not of any particular organs, and should be treated as such.  Not a few modern Roman Catholic theologians definitely take this view.  For example, Wilhelm and Scannell write: “Although remission of sins is the first effect mentioned by the Council [of Trent], the sacrament was not primarily instituted for that purpose” (Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II. p. 491).

      On the other hand, there is reasonable ground for supposing that remission of sins may be among its secondary and indirect effects; just as it undoubtedly is of the Eucharist.

      Indeed, if the traditional view is correct, that Unction was ordained for the healing of all manner of diseases of the soul and mind, as well as of the body, then obviously its devout reception must dispose the soul to immediate and thorough repentance after sin, and therefore to the speedy acquisition of pardon. [“Gonet, St. Bonaventura, and not a few Thomists and Scotists teach a mediate remission of sins through the excitation of acts of devotion, love,” etc. (Kilker, Extreme Unction, 1925, p. 31).]

      But our investigations suggest that the connection between Unction and sin and its remedy is of a deeper and more fundamental character than this, and actual pastoral experience shows that this is the case.

      In the treatment of moral disease by Absolution and Unction, the diversity in effect of the two ordinances becomes clear on the psychological plane.  Although the victim of a moral disease is only in small measure responsible for the sins he confesses, it is the custom to absolve him before he is anointed, to give him complete peace of mind.  After absolution, the patient feels “forgiven,” and is relieved to that extent; nevertheless, he still feels the inward urge to repeat the sin for which remedy is sought.  He is “forgiven,” but not “cured”.

      Then follows Holy Unction.  If its administration is immediately effective as, if the preparation has been thorough, it not infrequently is, then he experiences something quite different from pardon, viz. inward liberation from the power of sin.  His partly dissociated and inharmonious personality is knit together into an effective unity.  His will recovers strength and regains control.  His disordered and conflicting passions and instincts contribute their energy to the attainment of moral ideals chosen by the will.  Anxiety, tension, and “double-mindedness” disappear, and are replaced by a feeling of repose, expansion, and emancipation, such as perhaps has never before been experienced, because many – perhaps most – instances of moral disease have their origin in infancy or early childhood.  Very possibly the patient, after awaking from the tranquilizing and healing sleep into which, after the Anointing, it is customary to send him by whispered suggestion, will make some such remark as: “I feel a new man – I feel that I shall never sin in that way again.”  Such expectations are actually fulfilled in not a few instances – unfortunately by no means in all.  In any case, prudence suggests the continuance of treatment until all serious danger of relapse is over.

      Facts such as these suggest that the specific effect of Unction is not to pardon sin, but to destroy it at its root, by healing the morbid condition of the soul from which it springs – in short, Unction is rather a remedial than an absolving rite.  This view of Unction is quite as clearly attested in the liturgical forms as remission of sins.

V.  Ministry to the Sick in the New Testament

Teaching of St. James.

      The late mediaeval theory that Unction was primarily ordained for remission of sins – particularly those of the senses – finds no secure support in the familiar passage of St. James’s Epistle (5:14–16), which has been so frequently quoted in its support.  This theory is largely based on an unfortunate mistranslation, which is common to the Vulgate (“et si in peccatis sit, dimittentur ei”), and to the A.V. (“and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him”).  A glance at the Greek (χαν αμαρτίας η πεποιηχώς, αφεθήσεται αυτω) is sufficient to show that “sins” cannot be the subject of the passive impersonal αφεθήσεται, and that the natural translation is: “and if he is in a state of having committed sins, forgiveness (or more technically “absolution”) shall be imparted to him,” viz. by the presbyters, to whom he has confessed them.  That confession is intended by St. James to precede absolution, is evidently shown by the particle ουν (“therefore”) in the clause which follows: “Confess therefore your sins to one another and pray for one another that ye may be healed” (ιαθητε).  St. James argues thus: Because it is a good thing for sick persons who have sinned to make confession to the presbyters for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness (and therewith healing); therefore it is a good thing for all Christians who have sinned to confess their sins informally one to another, and mutually to pray for pardon, that they may be healed  (ιαθητε).  The “healing” spoken of by St. James is more than the pardon of sin, it involves a “healing” or strengthening influence upon the whole personality.  In St. James’s view, forgiveness of sins, whether obtained formally through absolution, or informally through mutual prayer, mediates (to some extent at any rate) the “healing” or “corroboration” of the entire human personality.  This point of view is surprisingly modern and is in harmony with the current teaching of the psychological schools.

      This wide and inclusive use of  yields considerable support to the widely held view that the “saving” or “healing” (ιαθητε) spoken of by St. James has reference to the soul as well as to the body.

      The opinion that αφεθήσεται in this passage has reference to Absolution rather than Unction appears to have the support of the majority of the Fathers, notably Origen (loc. cit.), and Chrysostom (De Sacerdotio, iii. 6); also of our own Venerable Bede (Commentary on St. James, Migne, P.L., xciii. 39).  A respectable minority of Roman Catholic scholars, including Bellarmine and Estius, take the same view; but the great majority, influenced largely by the Vulgate mistranslation, are of the opposite opinion.

      Among Anglicans, the view that αφεθήσεται refers to Absolution is strongly urged (largely on grammatical grounds) by Sparrow (A Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer, 1657, pp. 347–8); also by Thorndike, Bull, and Hammond, and in more recent times by Fr. Puller.

      Since Absolution and Unction were normally administered together in the course of a pastoral visit to the sick, their separate effects were not discussed in early times.  Similarly, there was little attempt to draw precise distinctions between the effects of Baptism and Confirmation, so long as they were both administered in the course of the same Service.

      The early Liturgies of Unction often speak with an uncertain voice upon this subject.  A considerable number attribute, remission of sins vaguely to “this ministration”; others to Absolution and Unction conjointly; others to Absolution alone.  The great majority, however, seem to regard Unction as having at least some effect in procuring the remission of sins.  This point of view is more frequently expressed and receives more emphasis in documents from the ninth century onwards; nevertheless, it is present even in the earliest, and (as we have seen) probably contains an important element of truth.

      The mediaeval Western Church tended to regard Unction as “the Complement of Penance,” i.e. the Sacrament which completes – with regard to sins – whatever Penance has left undone.  This view has also Eastern support (see Macaire, op. cit.).  Endless – and for the most part unnecessary – discussions have arisen as to whether the sins spoken of by St. James are mortal “or venial” in character.  Had due consideration been given to the psychology of sickness, this question would not have arisen in this form.

      Every competent parish priest is aware that it is necessary to absolve sick persons for two distinct reasons:

      (1) Because, their sins being objectively grave, absolution is needful for theological reasons;

      (2) Because their sins, though not objectively grave, greatly trouble their consciences, and therefore require absolution for psychological reasons.

      The consciences of not a few sick persons, particularly neurotic subjects, are pathologically scrupulous.  Some of them (especially if they have had a Calvinistic upbringing) are apt to imagine that they have committed “the unpardonable sin,” or have been numbered by divine predestination among the “goats” or “lost sheep”.  In all such cases it is the duty of the parish priest to absolve the sick person, however trivial – or even imaginary – he may consider the sins confessed to be.  In extreme cases he may even find it necessary to repeat the assurance of pardon daily for weeks; employing also technical psychological devices to cause the conviction of pardon to penetrate the depths of the patient’s “subconscious”.

      St. James reminds the presbyters of the necessity of faith both in themselves and in the patient whom they are attempting to heal: – “the prayer of faith shall save (σώσει) the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up (εγερε)”  Prima facie, the physical sense of these expressions seems the more obvious.  On the other hand, the comprehensive sense given to ιαθητε in the next verse; St. James’s strong insistence upon faith; the failure in primitive times to draw any rigid distinction between spiritual and bodily healing; the frequent use in the early Orders for Unction of such terms as “heal,” “save,” “safety,” “salvation” in a combined physical and spiritual sense; above all the all-embracing compass of the Ministry of Healing which our Lord entrusted to His Apostles, render the wider interpretation upon the whole more suitable.

Jewish Unction.

      Some light is thrown upon the meaning of St. James’s injunction, and the antecedents of the ordinance of Unction, by a Jewish non-medical use of oil, which does not seem to be generally known. [I owe the following information mainly to Prof. G. A. Cooke.  Some allusion to the practice is to be found in The Jewish Encyclopedia.]

      All the references to Jewish anointing given by Billerbeck to illustrate James 5:14, and Mark 6:13, are of a medical or quasi-medical character.  But the Talmud bears testimony that, besides the custom of anointing medicinally with oil as, for instance, for the cure of skin disease (T.B. Yoma, fol. 77b), [T.B. = Babylonian Talmud; T.J. = Jerusalem Talmud.] a more definitely religious practice was also in vogue.  Certain Jewish “healers” were accustomed to anoint the sick with the accompaniment of whispered prayer, the words used being adapted from Exodus 15:26: “If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians, for I am the Lord that healeth thee.”

      The Rabbis suspected these healers, and disliked their procedure as savouring of magic, but that it prevailed widely is beyond doubt. [See T. J. Maaser Sheni ii. (fol. 53a), “putting oil upon his head and whispering”; similarly, T.J. Shabbath xiv. (fol. 14c); T.B. Sanhedrin xi. 1 (fol. 90a), “These are they who have no share in the world to come. ... R. Akiba adds ... and he who whispers over a wound saying, ‘All the sickness which I brought on Egypt I will not bring upon thee.’”]

      The word “whisper” in the O.T. certainly has associations with magic, e.g. Ps. 58:5 [Hebr. 6]; but it is used of prayer in a good sense, Isa. 26:16, R.V.mg.  Putting a charitable construction upon the practice of these Jewish “healers,” we may venture to suggest that their anointing, accompanied by a whispered “prayer of faith,” had analogies with the procedure recommended by St. James.

      The “whispering” of the prayer showed remarkable psychological insight.  These ancient healers knew nothing of the “subconscious” or “unconscious” mind of the New Psychology, but they found by experience that their “whispered” prayer, probably many times repeated, had the effect of lulling the patient into a reposeful state of “relaxation” or “reverie,” in which his mind was unusually receptive of spiritual influence and therapeutic suggestion.  In the modern administration of Unction, the priest aims at bringing the patient into a similar reposeful condition, but with fuller understanding of the psychological processes involved, and with the use of a more refined technique.

      Unction does not seem to have been employed by the Jews for the purpose of exorcism, as is asserted in the Catholic Encyclopaedia.  This was, however, a very early Christian development.

      That St. James’s presbyters employed Imposition of Hands in connection with Unction is probable, both from our Lord’s own practice, and from that of the Apostles.  So closely united were the two ceremonies in the minds of the primitive Christians, that Origen (loc. cit.), by inadvertence, actually quotes St. James as commanding it: – “If anyone be sick, let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them lay their hands upon him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” [Great stress is laid upon Imposition of Hands by all the priests present in the existing Ambrosian rite of Unction, and Magistretti shows (Manuale Ambrosianum, 1905, Vol. I. pp. 79 ff., 94 ff., 174 ff.) that Unction was frequently called “Imposition of Hands” in the mediaeval Offices of Milan, probably also by St. Ambrose himself (De Poenitentia, I. 8), by St. Augustine (Vita, by Possidonius, 27), and by St. Athanasius, Epist. Cyclica (Migne, P.G., xxv. 234).  In the present Roman Rituale the prayer recited just before Unction implies the actual imposition of hands by a plurality of priests (“May all the power of the devil be extinguished by the imposition of our hands”).  The actual rubric (1925), however, only directs the priest to “extend his right hand over the patient’s head” – an action considered equivalent in the Roman Communion.]

Our Lord’s Practice.

      Our Lord sometimes healed by word alone (Mark 1:25, 2:11, 3:11–12, 5:8, 7:29; Matt. 8:13, Luke 17:14, John 4:50); by word also He raised the Widow’s Son, and Lazarus.  But His usual method of healing was by Imposition of Hands.  It was because Jairus knew this that he fell at His feet, exclaiming, “My little daughter is at the point of death: I pray thee that thou come and lay thy hands upon her, that she may be made whole” (Mark 5:23; see also 6:5, 8:23; Luke 4:40).  He also on several occasions touched the sick.  For instance, He touched the leper (Mark 1:41), and the eyes of the two blind men at Jericho (Matt. 20:34); He took by the hand Peter’s wife’s mother (Mark 1:30), and Jairus’s daughter (5:41); also the epileptic boy (9:27).  In certain cases He employed ceremonial of a more imposing kind, partly to engender faith, but partly also to convey his meaning more clearly, by way of therapeutic “suggestion”.  In the case of the blind man at Bethsaida, “he took him by the hand, brought him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes [Saliva was considered to have healing properties, not only by the Jews, but also by the ancients generally (see Tacitus, Hist., IV. 81, who records that Vespasian healed a blind man by means of it).] and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught?” etc. (8:22).  In the case of the deaf and dumb man He “put his fingers into his ears, and spat,” and “touched his tongue” (7:33).

      Of special importance, as giving scriptural warrant for the later universal use of water for healing purposes, in conjunction frequently with Unction, is our Lord’s procedure in sending the man born blind to bathe in the pool of Siloam (“He made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay, and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,” etc., John 9:1 ff.).  This incident, together with the healing of Naaman through a sevenfold immersion in the river Jordan (2 Kings 5), has usually been considered to justify the practice of bathing in sacred fountains and pools for healing purposes.  This practice is still in full use in both the Eastern and the Western Churches.  Such bathing has always been accompanied by religious exercises.  Experience shows that even now it not infrequently has beneficial results.

      It is not recorded that our Lord anointed the sick with oil, though the probability is that He sometimes did so, in connection with His frequent Impositions of Hands.  Both the medical and the religious uses of anointing were known to the Jews (see above); and the most natural explanation of the Apostles’ practice of anointing (Mark 6:13) is that they followed therein our Lord’s own example.  St. James’s mention of Unction alone is probably due to the fact that when he wrote the presbyters were somewhat inclined to omit anointing, when laying hands upon the sick.  In view of later practice, it is likely that St. James used the term “presbyters” as including the Bishop.  Although the primitive Bishop was the head of the presbyterial college, he was also a member of it – indeed he was sometimes even called a presbyter (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1, συνπρεσβύτερος.

      That our Lord normally expected religious faith in those whom He healed, is manifest in so many passages of the Gospels, that formal proof is unnecessary.  In certain cases He accepted the vicarious faith of parents, of close relatives, or of friends (Mark 5:22, 7:24, 9:14; Luke 7:2; John 4:46).  In at least one instance He accepted the imperfect faith of a sick person (John 5:1–13).  It is recorded in John 9:35–38 that Jesus, after healing the man born blind, took measures to bring him to more definite faith in Himself as “the Son of God”.

      That our Lord attached importance also to repentance is shown by Mark ii. 5 (‘ Son, thy sins are forgiven ‘) ; and John v. 14 ( Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee ‘).

Unction a Ministry of the Spirit.

      The traditional view that Unction– and the Ministry of Healing in general – is a ministry of the Holy Spirit finds secure support in the New Testament.  It was in virtue of His Messianic Unction of the Holy Spirit that our Lord cast out devils and performed His works of healing (Isa. 11:1–10, Mark 1:10, Acts 10:38, “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil”).  He Himself declared that He performed them by the Spirit or “Finger” of God (Matt. 12:27, Luke 11:20).  Moreover, the “gifts of healings” are numbered by St. Paul among the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4 ff.).

Our Lord’s Attitude towards Sickness Compared with that of the Prayer Book.

      Broadly speaking, our Lord’s attitude towards sickness – bodily, spiritual and mental – was one of uncompromising hostility.  Sickness, like sin, belonged, in His own view, to the kingdom of Satan which He was sent into the world to destroy.  He recognized that sickness is sometimes the result of sin (Mark 2:5, John 5:14), but even in such cases He healed the sinner, as soon as He was satisfied of his repentance.  He discountenanced the view, common in Jewish circles, that sickness and calamitous accidents are usually due to ;he special wickedness of the sufferers, or of their ancestors (Job 4:7 ff., John 9:2–3, Luke 13:4).  There is nothing in our Lord’s teaching or practice to give countenance to the attitude towards sickness predominantly exhibited by our unrevised Visitation Office.  This, in contrast to the Sarum Office from which it is derived, suggests that the sick man, even after sincere repentance and absolution, should glorify God by remaining ill and suffering patiently.  The medieval, like the apostolic Church, believed that sickness is sometimes the result of sin, but it expected the sick man, after sincere repentance, followed by confession and absolution, to recover quickly and to glorify God by returning to his daily duties.

      This primitive attitude is faithfully preserved in the Ordo ad visitandum infirmum of the Sarum Manual, the form and sequence of which our Reformers preserved, while departing in large measure from its spirit.  This Ordo, after preliminaries of the usual type, begins with nine earnest and confident prayers for recovery, alluding to the raising of Tabitha, and the healing of Tobias and Sarah (through the ministry of ;he Angel Raphael), and of Hezekiah.  Only one of these, and that the least confident, was retained in the 1549 Book, which definitely countenanced the view that sickness is, as a rule, a divine punishment for sin, and that therefore it is a sick person’s principal duty to glorify God by remaining ill and suffering patiently, rather than by recovering quickly through the ministrations of His Church.  Expectation of recovery, though not entirely absent from the service, was definitely relegated to the background.

      The 1549 Office, however, contained one excellent feature.  It corrected the medieval abuses and misunderstandings which had for centuries attached themselves to “Extreme Unction,” and attempted to restore the use of it as a Sacrament of Healing.  The cure by Unction of spiritual and mental, as well as bodily disorders, was definitely contemplated: – “He vouchsafe ... to restore unto thee thy bodily health, and strength to serve him and send thee release of all thy pains, troubles, and diseases, both in body and mind.”  On the other hand the occurrence of the phrase “to pardon thee all thy sins and offences committed by all thy bodily senses” shows that the compilers had not yet emancipated themselves from the late medieval error that the purpose of Unction is the remission of sins committed through the five senses and the bodily organs.

      The 1552 Book contained no recognition of Unction, but retained the reference to the healing of “Peters wifes mother, and the Capitaines servuaunt,” while omitting the preservation of “Thobie and Sara by thy Angel from daunger” (1549 and Sarum).  In 1661 the whole of the references to healing were omitted, and the Visitation Services acquired that character of unrelieved gloom, which renders their use depressing and painful to both priest and patient.  For more than three hundred years the Anglican Church abandoned all serious attempts to heal the sick by spiritual and sacramental ministrations.  The neglect of the needs of mental patients was, if possible, even more complete than the neglect of those of physical sufferers.

      Both the apostolic and the primitive and medieval Church recognized that God sometimes punishes with sickness and even death “the sinner with a high hand” – the presumptuous and blasphemous offender (see, e.g., Acts 5:1 ff., 12:20 ff., 13:8 ff.; 1 Cor. 11:29–30; and Lactantius’s treatise De Morte Persecutorum).  But, apart from such cases, there was a marked disinclination to regard God as the direct author of disease, particularly in the case of devout believers.  St. Paul viewed his “thorn in the flesh,” which he ultimately came to regard as spiritually profitable to him, not as a direct infliction by God, but as the work of “a messenger of Satan ‘to buffet me’” (2 Cor. 12:7–9).

      Most of the ancient and medieval Offices for the Sick take a similar view.  If these are examined with attention, it will be found that most of the allusions to sickness as a “visitation” or a “chastisement” (of which there are not a few) have as their practical object the moving of the sick man to thorough and earnest repentance.  As soon as repentance has taken place, and absolution has been pronounced, it is taken for granted that it is the will of God that the sick man should recover quickly – normally within a week.

      That in certain cases, for wise but inscrutable reasons, God permits the righteous to suffer from painful and incurable diseases, and to glorify Him by patient endurance, was admitted.  But, in practice, the Church did not encourage either the patient or the priest to take this view of any particular case – at any rate until the most prolonged and persistent ministrations had failed to restore health.  Firmly convinced that “health, or an orderly condition of body, mind, and spirit, is God’s primary will for His children, and that disease, as a specific violation of this orderly condition,” is normally contrary to that will, it devoted its utmost energies to the restoration of the patient’s spiritual, mental, and physical health, usually with success.

      The Church’s Ministry of Healing, unlike that of Christian Science, has from the beginning been conducted in close cooperation with orthodox medicine.  Entirely in harmony with later developments is the narrative of Acts 28:7–10, which represents St. Paul the Apostle, and St. Luke the physician, as working together in harmony for the benefit of the sick people of Malta.  The vote of thanks accorded to both shows that each ministered to the sick in his own way.

VI.  Treatment of Insanity and Neurosis

Insanity in the New Testament.

      Our Lord undoubtedly regarded the casting out of devils (i.e. the curing of insanity and neurotic disorders) as the greatest and most beneficent of His mighty works, and as among His most signal triumphs over Satan.  That both the Synoptic Evangelists and the multitudes who witnessed His miracles were of the same opinion is manifest from passages too numerous to quote fully (see, e.g., Mark 1:27: “And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching!  With authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him”; see also 1:34, 1:39; 5:1–20).

      The power and also the injunction to cast out devils (i.e. to heal the mentally afflicted) was given by our Lord to the Ministers of His Church, in a most solemn manner (Matt. 10:8, Luke 9:1, 10:17–20; Mark 3:15, 6:7, 13; [16:17]; cf. Matt. 7:22), and of all ministries to the sick it is obviously the most important still, and the most neglected.

Primitive Treatment of Insanity.

      Numerous passages from the Fathers, in which they appeal to the Church’s acknowledged success in casting out devils, as a manifest proof of the divinity of Jesus, and of the divine authority of His Church, show clearly that this ministry was usually – though not invariably – successful, and that it excited wonder among the heathen, and led to conversions. [Cf., for example, Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum, xiv, xv: “If you would only hear and see how [the demons], when adjured by us, and chastised by spiritual whips, and subjected to the torments of words, are expelled from the bodies which they possessed. ... Come, and establish the truth of what we affirm.”  Tertullian: “[The demons] at our touch and breathing ... leave at our command the bodies they have entered, unwilling, and distressed, and before your very eyes are put to shame” (Apol., 23); “We not only reject these wicked spirits, we overcome them; we hold them daily up to contempt; we exorcise them from their victims, as multitudes can testify” (Ad Scap., 2); etc. Gibbon ridicules this ministry of exorcism, but does not deny its efficacy (Decline and Fall, chap. xvi).]

      Upon the whole, it is not unfair to claim that the Christian Church was the pioneer of those more rational and humane methods of treating insanity which have come to prevail in the asylums of Western Europe since about the middle of the nineteenth century, and which supplanted an earlier regime of brutality and callous indifference to the sanctity of human personality, which was a disgrace to civilization, and to the Church which tolerated it.

      The very considerable success of the primitive Church in the treatment of insanity was mainly due to the following causes.

      (1) Great importance was attached to individual and daily treatment.  The patient was loved; his personal dignity was respected; and he was surrounded by an atmosphere of tender care.  Every day he was visited by the Bishop, presbyters, and deacons (in Western Churches, also by the ordained exorcists), who encouraged and instructed him, prayed with him, blessed and exorcised him, anointed and laid their hands upon him, and (unless there was danger of irreverence) communicated him. [The Communion of insane persons capable of reverent behaviour, though occasionally objected to, was widely practiced in the primitive Church.  The psychological as well as theological arguments in favour of it are strong (see above).]

      On Sundays, and on many weekdays also, he was blessed and exorcised publicly at the Eucharist, the whole Church interceding for him with affectionate interest.

      Modern asylum treatment – even today – is of a far less personal and individual character.  “Whatever curative treatment the asylum may possess,” writes Dr. B. Hollander, “the one thing that could have saved the patient it cannot supply, and that is ‘individual’ treatment.  For what personal attention can a patient receive in an asylum, even when there is a so-called hospital annex, when a thousand or more patients have to be visited by the medical superintendent, and two or three assistant medical officers?”

      That recoveries under such unfavourable conditions are rare is not surprising.  “No wonder that the recovery rate of the present day in the most comfortable and luxurious palaces for the insane, and under the most humane treatment, is no greater than in the days when straitjackets and rough treatment were freely used in badly furnished asylums” (The First Signs of Insanity, pp. 22 , 23).

      (2) The early Christian method of treatment had the further advantage of securing for mental patients what they need most, and what in modern asylums they cannot obtain, viz. “association with healthy minds” (op. cit., p. 22).

      (3) Great stress was laid on what is now called “occupational therapy,” the importance of which has for some time past been recognized in all up-to-date. mental hospitals.

      Useful tasks, suitable to their capacity, were assigned to the “energumens,” whose self-respect – a most important consideration in all dealings with the insane – was thus restored to them.

      In many places such simple tasks as sweeping and cleaning the church, and lighting the lamps for service, were assigned to them.

      (4) The primitive Church, rightly recognizing that insanity, even when mainly produced by physical causes, is a psychical disorder, employed mainly psychical remedies in treating it.

      Early Christian psychology was naive and crude.  It thought of insanity in terms of demonic “obsession” and “possession”; not, as we do, in terms of “dissociation” and “repression”.  But, inasmuch as it recognized the essentially psychical nature of insanity, and the importance of psychical treatment, it was nearer to the actual truth, and also more correct in its treatment, than were most of the materialistic alienists of the nineteenth century, who regarded insanity as little more than a physical disorder of the brain, and accordingly treated it mainly by physical remedies.

      Upon this point, Dr. C. Stanford Read writes: “A school of thought held sway, which founded insanity upon a physiological basis, and endeavoured to base all pathology in terms of organic change in the brain.  Although the great value of this method cannot be gainsaid, there is ample evidence that other aspects of approaching the problem of insanity are essentially necessary.  Of late years another school has advanced the belief that the majority of cases of insanity are psychogenic in origin, and that even when gross physical disease has been the exciting factor, the symptoms can only be adequately understood at the psychological level” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., art. “Insanity”).

      Supporters of the “psychogenic” school naturally stress the importance of mental, moral, and spiritual methods of treatment; and are usually willing to cooperate in the treatment of mental patients with well-qualified priests.

      In these days, all the “functional” neuroses (hysteria, neurasthenia, etc.) are regarded as “psychogenic” (i.e. mental in origin and in nature).  The following among the true insanities (psychoses) are also regarded as “psychogenic” by numerous leading authorities; mania, melancholia, paranoia, dementia praecox (schizophrenia), and epileptic insanity, which last may have some physical basis in the nervous system, but seems to be predominantly a “neurosis of terror”.

      (5) The treatment of the ancient Church was based upon an optimistic philosophy, and was therefore hopeful and encouraging.  In a similar way, modern psychotherapists seek to cure their patients by encouraging them to take a hopeful view of life in general, and of their own case in particular.

      (6) The good mental and bodily health enjoyed by the early Christians, and their very considerable success in curing mental and nervous disorders, receive (partial) psychological explanation from the fact that (like the more enlightened of modern mental physicians) they definitely aimed at the conquest of fear, and the establishment of complete peace of mind.

      The ancient heathen world was terrified by fear of malignant demons, hostile influences, baleful planets, the evil eye, black magic, bad luck, irresistible fate, and the dark mysteries of death.  On the other hand, converts from heathenism accepting the Church’s faith in a beneficent Father in heaven, who had sent His own Son into the world to deliver it from the power of sin and Satan, lost at the moment of their Baptism the whole of their fears, and therewith in many cases the whole of their diseases, especially those of a mental kind, for one of the most potent causes of mental illness is anxiety and fear.

      (7) The ancient Church fully understood the importance of prophylactic measures against mental disease, and began its protective treatment with the newborn infant.

      Personal benediction, with Laying on of Hands, was the chief preventive measure employed.  Particular attention was paid to the benediction of infants, children and adolescents, whose tender years were thought to require special protection.  These were blessed frequently, with Imposition of Hands, not only by the Bishop and his presbyters, but also by their parents and godparents, for the purpose of guarding them against evil and unwholesome influences, and assisting their mental, moral, physical, and especially their spiritual development.  All through the Middle Ages the blessing of infants and children was considered to be one of the most important functions of a Bishop.

The Ministry of Personal Benediction.

      The ancient and mediaeval Church was firmly convinced of the therapeutic value of personal benedictions, in both physical and mental cases.  The ancient service books of the Church are interspersed with hundreds of benedictions, suitable to almost every conceivable circumstance.  One of the greatest weaknesses of the Anglican Visitation Office is its failure to make any provision for that “ministry of benediction,” which earlier ages regarded as of such fundamental importance.  A “Parish Priest’s Benedictional” might fitly be added to the present Visitation Office, containing from thirty to fifty carefully selected personal benedictions.

      Upon all suitable occasions (as, for example, after serious spiritual interviews, or in time of anxiety or trouble), the parish priest should bless his parishioners of all ages.

Therapeutic Value of Religious Exercises.

      The belief of the primitive Church in the curative and healthful effect of religious exercises and sacramental ministrations is shared by many modern psychologists who are not in dogmatic accord with the Church’s standards of faith.  Even Freud, who regards the Christian religion as man’s “great illusion,” [Freud’s opinion is not dogmatically expressed, and there are some indications in his writings that it may not be final.  He favours cooperation between analysts and ministers of religion.] has noticed the coincidence of the recent increase of mental and nervous disorders in Western Europe with the decay of public and private religious observances, and has suggested that it is not fortuitous.

Value of Absolution.

      The use of Absolution (in suitable cases) as an integral part of the Ministry of Healing is not only recommended to us by St. James, and by the example of the Church in all ages, but has definite warrant in our Lord’s own practice, who absolved the palsied man before He healed him (Mark 2:1 ff.) and gave a comprehensive commission to His Apostles, after His Resurrection, to absolve in His name all penitent sinners however great their offences (John 20:21–23).

      The Archbishop’s Committee is, therefore, justified in attributing therapeutic as well as spiritual efficacy to sacramental Confession and Absolution (Report, pp. 19–20).  This therapeutic effect, however, though real, should not be overestimated.  Although sacramental Confession alone sometimes suffices to remedy mental and nervous trouble of considerable severity, this usually happens only when its origin is recent and its circumstances well remembered.  The more severe neuroses are due to “repression,” causing complete forgetfulness of their origin, which in many cases goes back to infancy or early childhood.  In all such cases, more elaborate spiritual treatment is required.

The Spiritual Interview.

      The established means of preparing nervous and mental sufferers for the sacramental Ministry of Healing is the Spiritual Interview.  In this the patient discloses to the priest (confidentially, and under the seal of professional secrecy), not merely his sins, but the entire state of his soul, in the course of an absolutely candid autobiography.  This should begin with his first dim recollections of infancy, should provide a detailed account of his entire moral, spiritual and religious development; of his relations (satisfactory and unsatisfactory) with his parents, brothers and sisters, schoolmasters and schoolfellows, wife, children, employers or employees – in fact, all persons who have exercised any important influence upon his life.  A specially detailed account should be given of painful mental or physical shocks, personal outrages, and any unhealthy influences which may have contributed to the production of the disorder.  The nature of the patient’s prevailing thoughts, dreams, fantasies, and habitual impulses should be studied, and any defects in his moral ideals and outlook should be carefully noted for future correction.  In complicated cases, several interviews (of a length not exceeding an hour) are usually required before definite treatment can begin.  Absolute candour is indispensable.  If the patient keeps back any essential fact through false shame or prudery, treatment will almost certainly fail.  On the other hand, if the patient makes an unreserved disclosure of the whole of the morbid symptoms, however repulsive or horrible they may be, the effect is likely to be immediate relief of mind (through what is sometimes called “abreaction”), and the laying of the foundations of a permanent cure.

      In cases where the sickness is wholly or almost wholly physical, and there is little mental trouble, a single interview of a much simpler and entirely devotional character is often sufficient to prepare the patient for anointing.

Relation of Priest to Patient.

      It is the duty of the priest, as representing the Fatherhood and loving-kindness of God, to adopt a mild, paternal, sympathetic, and “unrebuking” attitude towards the patient.

      If the patient shows any embarrassment in coming to the point, the priest should assure him that nothing that he can possibly have to reveal will have the effect of “shocking” him, or of moving him to contempt.  He should add that not a few even of the most virtuous people have dark episodes in their lives which it is painful for them even to think of.

      The following words of Dr. Hadfield are worth quoting in this connection: – “Patients suffering from [moral and spiritual] ailments often present themselves to the physician instead of seeking the aid of the clergyman or moralist. ... They feel, rightly or wrongly, that the moralist will blame them or tell them to exert their wills.  They feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are not to blame for their condition.  They have, moreover, already exerted their will to no purpose, they have turned their attention to other things, they have been blamed, condemned, threatened; they have been treated with sympathy and love, and all in vain.  They then begin to realize that they are suffering from a ‘moral’ disease, and go to a physician who will treat them as sick and not sinful.  The psycho-physician is anxious to help the morally sick; he shrinks from nothing; he is shocked at nothing; and no word of blame ever falls from his lips” (Psychology and Morals, p. 2; italics mine).

      Another point is of hardly less importance.  The priest, throughout the Spiritual Interviews, should be alert to discover the patient’s virtues (actual or potential) as well as his failings.  His aim should be, on the basis of an accurate spiritual diagnosis and thorough study of the patient’s personality, to devise a moral and spiritual regimen, calculated to correct his defects by developing his virtues.

Schemes of Treatment.

      Accurate diagnosis should be followed by carefully considered treatment, consisting of moral and religious instruction, the implanting of worthy moral ideals, first in the conscious mind, and afterwards (by suggestion given during the hypnoidal condition of “relaxation” or “reverie”) in the submerged area of the “subconscious”; suitable devotions, autosuggestions’ (to be used by the patient just before sleeping, just after waking, and during the repose of the midday rest or “siesta”); and (of course) sacramental ministrations.

      These last should take the form of—

      (1) Absolution, which it is sometimes convenient to give during the spiritual interviews, if the patient’s mind is seriously distressed.

      (2) Holy Communion, prepared for and received with a view to the healing, strengthening, and nourishing, not only of the soul, but of the entire psycho-physical personality.

      (3) Unction and Imposition of Hands, performed while the patient is in a relaxed, tranquil, and receptive condition of mind.

      Treatment should continue daily – or very frequently – until the patient is decidedly better.

      In all cases the treatment should include a rule of life and a daily timetable; also (wherever possible) active works of charity, e.g. visitation of other sick persons, almsgiving, and intercessory prayer.

      For physical treatment, which is usually desirable, the patient should be referred to his medical adviser.

      In most nervous cases, suitable physical exercises, outdoor games, and, above all, outdoor work (e.g. gardening) are of great, though subordinate, value.

Cooperation with the Medical Profession.

      With regard to mental diseases, cooperation with the medical profession is especially important in their incipient stages, when alone they are readily curable.

      The signs of incipient insanity can usually be detected by an experienced parish priest long before the patient considers them grave enough to require medical treatment.  If the priest, at the first moment that he notices them, obtains the patient’s permission to discuss the situation with his medical adviser, the probability is that it will be possible to devise effective measures for averting the threatened catastrophe.

      Every parish priest should be acquainted with the preliminary symptoms of the chief mental and nervous complaints, and he should be always on the watch to discover them.  By far the most useful treatise on this subject is Pastoral Psychiatry and Mental Health (1932), by J. R. Oliver, who writes with unusual authority, being at once a priest, a physician, and an experienced psychotherapist.  A brief but useful description of the early symptoms is given in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (14th edition), Vol. XII. pp. 385 ff.

The Prevention of Insanity.

      Insanity is much more easily prevented than cured: accordingly, the main energies, both of the Church and of the medical profession, should be directed towards its prevention.

      Fortunately, both parish priests of experience and alienists of the modern school are now fairly agreed as to the form which preventive measures should take.

      Setting aside the forms of insanity due to physical injuries, infections such as that of syphilis, and toxins of various kinds, there is good reason to suppose that a vast amount of insanity and neurotic illness is due to psychical causes, particularly to shocks of a terrifying, painful, and humiliating nature, experienced during infancy and early childhood.  Among these must be reckoned moral outrages, which often leave an indelible scar upon the soul.

      It follows that the most effective weapon for combating insanity, and reducing its appalling and ever-increasing volume, [The Annual Report of the Board of Control (1930, p. 14) states: “On the 1st January, 1930, the number of notified insane persons under care in England and Wales was 142,167, an increase of 1,307 during the preceding year, the average annual increase for the five years preceding January 1, 1930, being 2,167.] is an improved mental, moral, and spiritual hygiene in infancy and early childhood.  Paralyzing and enervating terror is the enemy to be fought, and the utmost efforts of priests, parents, educationalists, and physicians should be directed towards its elimination from child life.  If these unfortunately fail, remedial treatment should at once be applied, and steadily continued, until the child is restored to his normal condition of cheerfulness, courage, and confidence.

      Everything that “upsets” a child, e.g. quarrels between parents; accidents (such as falls or burns); frights caused by fierce animals; ugly masks and “‘guys”; terrifying grimaces; monstrosities and deformities exhibited at fairs; talk about operations; suggestions that “bogies” lurk in dark corners; unorthodox “hellfire theology”; frightening references to Satan, witches, and ghosts, and the like, are exceedingly harmful in the present, leading, for example, to “night terrors,” and conducing to neurosis or insanity at a later age, when the system is subjected to abnormal strain.

      A child’s fear of the dark should always be treated seriously.  Remedial treatment should at once be applied, and he should be allowed a nightlight, until he himself declares that he no longer needs it.

      Terrified and timorous children should be blessed daily, with laying on of hands, by their parents, and frequently by the parish priest, until courage, confidence, and trust have been reestablished.

      The priest should strongly recommend to parents the practice of blessing their children, which the Church inherited from Judaism, and which was usual in England two hundred years ago.  A visitor to England at that period thus describes the practice: “Well brought-up children, on rising and going to bed, wish their fathers and mothers “Good morning” or “Good evening,” and kneeling before them ask for their blessing.  The parents, placing their hands upon their children’s heads, say “God bless you,” or some such phrase, and the children then kiss their parents’ hands” (quoted by J. Wickham Legg, English Church Life, p. 168).

      All defective and backward children, all feebleminded persons, idiots, and epileptics, also the blind, deaf mutes, the halt, the maimed, the deformed, the paralyzed, the victims of “shellshock” – in short, all who suffer affliction either in mind or body should be frequently blessed by the priest with suitable prayers and laying on of hands.  Public services for the blessing of children in church, which were once general, might also be revived in many places with profit.  An impressive and beautiful service of this nature, in the course of which Imposition of Hands is employed, is provided in the Roman Rituale.  This also contains an Office “for Blessing Sick Children,” and another “for Blessing a Child with the object of obtaining for him the Mercy of God.”

      When children are approaching the age of puberty, they require special pastoral attention from the priest, and affectionate and watchful care from their parents, in order that the transition to adolescence may take place normally and without undue psychical tension.  By such ministrations, the peril of dementia praecox (schizophrenia), which, if allowed to develop, is frequently incurable, is likely to be averted.  The exact nature of this common and distressing mental disorder is obscure, but it is usually considered to be due to arrest of development at this critical age, the young person being “stranded on the rock of puberty”.

      Pastoral ministrations of a cheerful and encouraging nature are frequently needed by women suffering from depression of spirits during pregnancy, and almost always during the menopause (45–50 years).  The senium, the corresponding period in men (55–65 years) is much less often accompanied by serious mental strain.

      The pastor should always bear in mind that fear of insanity is one of the most potent factors in producing it.  His first task, therefore, in dealing with anyone who has this fear upon him, is to diminish or remove it.  This he can usually do by pointing out that recent research has done much to correct the exaggerated views that used to be held concerning its hereditary and inevitable character.  It is now known that “a hereditary taint is present in the relatives of 70 percent of mentally sound people; of 77 percent of the insane,” and that “an insanity taint is of importance only when present in the parents” [E.B.14, art. “Insanity”].  Moreover, there is considerable evidence indicating that certainly in many – perhaps in most – instances insanity or neurosis is transmitted from parent to child more by psychical infection than by physical heredity.  A child removed early from a neurotic home usually grows up healthy, while all the other children are more or less affected.

      What a child inherits from an insane or neurotic parent is usually a somewhat nervous temperament, or at most a slight predisposition towards insanity, which may be successfully counteracted by the timely application of suitable hygienic measures of a mental, moral, and spiritual nature, by pastors, physicians and friends.

VII.  Sexual Cases

Treatment of Sterility, Impotence, and Frigidity.

      As in early and mediaeval days, so in ours, experienced priests are frequently applied to by childless married persons, that they may be aided by their prayers and other spiritual ministrations to obtain offspring.

      Such persons should be referred to their medical advisers for physical treatment, which is often necessary.  In not a few instances, however, the causes of infertility are of an entirely moral and spiritual nature, and require treatment by a priest rather than by a physician.  There is a good discussion of the moral and psychical causes of infertility in Dr. C. J. Child’s valuable monograph Sterility and Conception (1922).  He there remarks that sterility may be due to “incompatibility of sentiment, as is borne out by many instances where husband and wife, having lived together for many years without issue, separate and remarry, and each has a family by the new partner.”  He adds that “numerous cases are encountered where the impotence [of the husband] is purely psychical. ... There are various kinds of psychical processes that lead to impotence, but they are all generally based upon the emotions, and the most usual one is fear.”

      Such psychical impediments to fertility usually yield rapidly to encouraging spiritual ministrations.  Treatment should aim at producing complete conjugal harmony and union of hearts, the entire removal of all causes of disagreement and displeasure between the parties, and an emotional as well as intellectual appreciation of the beauty, sanctity, and sacramental character of Christian connubial relations.

      Johannes Neumann makes the surprising statement (Einführung in die Psychotherapie für Pfarrer, 1930, chap. ix), that some 80 percent of German women of the older generation suffer from sexual “repression,” and that for this reason “many marriages are ruined through the psychological frigidity of the wife.”  He attributes this largely to the severity of German fathers, who sometimes beat their young daughters, with the result that the latter, when married, involuntarily shrink from their husbands.

      In England, where fathers are usually kind to their daughters, frigidity in women (which is a not uncommon ailment) is usually due to Manichaean teaching imparted directly or indirectly by an over-prudish mother, or to some unfortunate sexual shock.

      A parish priest who is trusted by his people is frequently called in to adjust differences between husband and wife, or to reconcile them when they have quarreled and separated.

      In not a few instances, investigation reveals that the original source of the trouble is the unsatisfactory character of the connubial relations, which have been cold and unsympathetic from the very day of marriage, owing to the “repression” of one of the parties, usually (but by no means always) the wife.  Sexual repression in women gives rise to the following “nervous” (or rather “moral”) disorders, which are here arranged in ascending order of gravity: (1) Frigidity (partial), (2) Sexual anaesthesia (complete), (3) Dyspareunia, and (4) Vaginismus, which last is the extreme physical expression of sexual abhorrence.  Of these, the first two are compatible with childbearing; the third renders it difficult; the last almost impossible.

      All these conditions (which are “moral” and “spiritual” rather than physical maladies, for they result from false ethical and theological beliefs) yield with great difficulty or not at all to medical treatment of a physical kind.  On the other hand, they yield rapidly and easily to suitable treatment by an experienced priest.  Such treatment should include sound theological and ethical instruction on the sacramental character of marriage; the sanctity of the human body and the sexual instinct; the high privilege of cooperating with the Creator in the beneficent work of peopling earth and heaven with new citizens; suitable devotions and well-selected spiritual readings; frequent joint Communion of the two parties with suitable intention; also frequent blessing of both parties with Imposition of Hands.  Treatment should lead up to the solemn administration of Unction, stress being laid on the hallowing of the body and of the entire personality (including the sexual life) through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost thus imparted.  Repetition of Unction is usually unnecessary, for it produces a powerful and permanent impression upon the minds of the parties.

      Where there has been serious disagreement, and complete rupture of connubial relations, a second affectionate courtship within marriage may be usefully recommended.  The parties should renew their marriage vows and receive the priest’s blessing, before resuming cohabitation.

      The priest who devotes attention to ministrations of this kind will not infrequently have the satisfaction of restoring to a brokenhearted wife the alienated affections of her husband, and of transforming a married life of continual discord into “a perpetual honeymoon” (Neumann).

      The early and mediaeval Church attached great importance to ministrations of this nature.  Good examples of the services used will be found in Gregory XIII’s Roman Rituale of 1584 (see p. 521, Pro tollenda sterilitate mulieris et subole impetranda; pp. 522–4, Orationes pro impeditis in matrimonio a daemone vel maleficiis (accompanied by Imposition of Hands on both parties).  For ministrations having a similar object, see De benedictione foetus in utero matris (op. cit., p. 519); and the Sarum Benedictio super lectum, and Benedictio super eos in lecto, pronounced by the priest on the wedding night.

Other Sexual Cases.

      In practically all cases, disorder of the sexual life is accompanied by other symptoms of moral and nervous disorder.  Accordingly, it is the duty of the priest to treat, not the sex abnormality alone, but the entire disordered personality of the patient.  By restoring this to normality he will ipso facto cure the sexual disorder.

      Adolescents, who in these days so frequently declare themselves unable to control their sexual instinct (which, misled by inaccurate versions of the Freudian psychology, they regard as irresistible), should be informed that this and every instinct of man can readily be brought under control by the hearty acceptance of worthy moral and religious ideals.  The priest should then proceed to give clear moral and spiritual instruction concerning the sanctity of the sexual instinct, as being the means whereby the human race cooperates with God in the creation of immortal souls; also concerning the moral worth and sacramental character of monogamous conjugal and parental life.

      It should also be explained that the sexual instinct admits of “sublimation”; i.e. profitable diversion into activities which are not directly sexual, but are of a creative, socially useful, and unselfish kind; further, that it is the duty and privilege of a Christian, until marriage with a worthy partner is possible, to “sublimate” his sexual instinct by engaging in earnest and unselfish work in the service of God and man.

      Treatment should follow instruction, whenever necessary.  But in many juvenile and adolescent cases, nothing but instruction (including, of course, information about “sublimation”), together with sympathy and encouragement, is necessary.

      Encouragement is especially needed in dealing with self-abuse.  Neumann justly remarks: “Treatment by encouragement is the best cure for self-abuse.  This holds both for men and women. ... The masturbator is always a discouraged person” (p. 237).

      Grave cases of sexual obsession require (besides ministrations of the ordinary kind) the quasi-exorcistic use of Unction, which is sometimes extraordinarily effective (see above).

      In all the graver sexual cases, Unction should be used.  Treatment, if successful, should conclude with a final administration of Unction for the purpose of the solemn reconsecration of the violated Temple of the Holy Ghost.  Before its administration in this sense, and for this purpose, St. Paul’s teaching that the human body is the temple of the Holy Ghost should be strongly impressed on the mind of the patient; and 1 Cor. 6:19–20 should be read.  This method of administering Unction is a valuable safeguard against relapse.

      Sexual cases should only be undertaken by priests of mature age and ripe experience, preferably married.

      Much of the physiological information necessary in dealing with sexual cases, also much wise advice, will be found in the following works of the late Dr. Mary Scharlieb: Straight Talks to Women (1923); Change of Life, its Difficulties and Dangers (1920); Maternity and Infancy (1926); The Bachelor Woman and her Problems (1929); and The Psychology of Childhood, Normal and Abnormal (1927).

      The present writer owes much to her inspiration, encouragement, and practical advice.

VIII.  Characteristics of a Good Visitation Office

      As nearly all the Churches of the Anglican Communion have been lately reconsidering their services of ministry to the sick, and may desire to supplement them, a few final suggestions as to the direction which reform might profitably take will not be unseasonable.

      In the first place, what ancient precedent suggests and modern psychological considerations demand, is One Principal Comprehensive Service of Visitation, containing the whole of the ministrations which a sick person normally requires, arranged in a carefully considered order, and containing a sufficient number of alternative scriptural readings and prayers to serve for at least a week without undue repetition.  Daily Unction, Imposition of Hands, and Communion, for seven days (and longer if necessary) were usual in the early Church; and modern experience fully confirms the value of such repeated ministrations.  Consequently any Revised Visitation Office which aims at giving the maximum assistance to the sick should make ample provision for continued and varied ministrations.

      (1) The title should be “Visitation of the Sick,” this being a return to the meaning of the term in ancient times, when Absolution, Imposition of Hands, Unction, and Communion were normally included in a single “Visitation” Service of considerable, but not excessive length.

      (2) The Service should be preceded by a carefully written and fairly long Introduction, giving instruction concerning the method of preparing the sick for these rites.  It should there be definitely stated that Unction and Imposition of Hands are of value in the treatment, not only of physical, but also of spiritual, moral, and mental diseases.

      (3) Confession and Absolution, when needed, should find place at the beginning of the Service.  This is their natural, and also their most convenient place. [In nearly all early Offices for the Sick, Sacramental Confession is placed early in the Service, or before it.  However, the eleventh-century North Italian Order for Unction (probably Ambrosian), recently edited by Dom C. Lambot (Henry Bradshaw Society, Vol. LXVII), strangely places Confession after Unction.  Only one other instance of this is known – also Ambrosian.]  This arrangement gives the priest the opportunity of seeing the patient privately, and giving him any needful confidential counsel before he admits to the room any of the friends and neighbours of the sick man, who may wish to take part in the Service that follows.  Absolution should always be given emphatically in the form “I absolve thee,” not in a precatory form.  It should normally be accompanied by the ancient ceremony of the laying on of hands, which has an encouraging and “corroborative” effect upon the mind of the patient.  Although precatory absolution is equivalent theologically to the form “I absolve thee,” it is far from equivalent psychologically.  Our Reformers were guided by a sound psychological instinct when they refused to weaken the authoritative and emphatic form of Absolution provided in the Sarum Manual.

      The Revised American Book of 1929, alone of the Prayer Books of the Anglican Communion, provides no form for absolving the sick person after the private confession to which it directs him to be moved, “if he feel his conscience troubled with any matter.”  This is a serious defect from the psychological as well as the theological point of view.

      (4) For the purpose of strengthening the sick man’s faith, there should be inserted early in the Office a selection of confident and hopeful prayers for the healing of soul and body, interspersed with readings from Holy Scripture, selections from the Psalms, and antiphons, which may be either said or sung.  The antiphons of the Gregorian Office are quite suitable.  The readings from Holy Scripture should in all cases include narratives of our Lord’s miracles of healing, also references to the healing of the soul, such as are contained in the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Lost Sheep.  These parables, it may be added, are employed very effectively in the Unction Service of the Greek Euchologion.

      The English 1928 selection of readings for the sick requires reconsideration and revision.  Including psalms, over sixty readings from Holy Scripture are given.  Not one of these is a narrative of any of our Lord’s miracles.  There are readings about “Christ our Example in Suffering,” and about “Patience in Suffering,” but not a single one about “Recovery”.

      The Roman Visitation Office contains a much more suitable selection of readings than the 1928 Service.  The prayers also are (for the most part) much more suitable.  The Scripture readings include Matt. 8:5–13 (the Healing of the Centurion’s Servant); Mark 16:14–18 (“They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover”); Luke 4:38–44 (the Healing of St. Peter’s Mother-in-law); John 5:1–14 (the Healing of the Impotent Man at the Pool of Bethesda); John 1:1–14 (emphasis is here laid on the healing purpose of the Incarnation, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”).

      The Service also includes Imposition of the Priest’s Right Hand upon the sick person, with the words, “They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

      Although the modern Roman Church has largely lost the idea of healing from its administration of Unction, it has retained it in full force in its Visitation Office, and in several other important ministrations; e.g. the Rituale contains thoroughly suitable services for “the Blessing of an Infant,” “the Blessing of a Child to obtain for him the Mercy of God,” “the Blessing of Children, particularly when they are presented in Church,” “the Blessing of Sick Children” (with Imposition of the Priest’s Right Hand); “the Blessing of a Sick Adult” (with extension of the Right Hand towards the patient); and “the Blessing of a Pregnant Woman” (with her offspring).  All these, and others of a like kind, might well be included in the Anglican Prayer Book.

      It may be added that there is a Roman Office intended for the treatment of developed insanity.  The crude theory of possession which underlies it renders it unsuitable for modern use.  But its retention in the Rituale is a continual reminder to the clergy that no class of sick persons needs the ministrations of the Church so much as the mentally afflicted.

      (5) As is suggested by the Gregorian Office, which directs that Christe coelestis medicina Patris should be sung as an Office Hymn in the sick man’s room at Mattins and Evensong, an Office Hymn might be provided which could be read if no singers were present.

      (6) Exhortation and Instruction (brief, and calculated to strengthen the sick man’s faith) might follow.

      (7) The Sick Man’s Confession of Faith (the Apostles’ Creed).

      (8) The Sick Man’s Communion (preferably, according to primitive custom, with the Reserved Sacrament). [To insert the entire Communion Office at this point seriously disturbs the continuity of the Ministration, impairs its balance, and unduly lengthens it.  It is desirable to study brevity in conducting a Ministration which (if ancient precedent and the needs of the patient are duly considered) should include, not only Communion, but also Unction and Imposition of Hands, also in many instances Sacramental Confession and Absolution.  On Reservation, see below.]  This should be preceded by a short liturgical Confession and Absolution, and the Prayer of Humble Access; and followed by a short Thanksgiving.

      {Printed book contains no “(9)”.}

      (10) A period of absolute silence, with prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit for the healing, strengthening, and sanctification of the sick person both in soul and body.

      (11) Unction on the forehead, with consecrated oil, in the form of a cross, while a suitable prayer is recited.  If thought fit, Unction may be preceded by a brief Imposition of Hands, of a soothing character, intended to induce in the patient a state of tranquil receptivity.

      (12) A prolonged Imposition of Hands for the purpose of both healing and blessing.  If the psychological conditions of the Service have been well managed, it is usually possible, by the help of a few whispered suggestions, to conclude the ministration by sending the patient into a tranquil healing sleep, which should occupy at least twenty minutes.

      (13) Silent prayer, after which the congregation departs quietly, leaving the patient sleeping, or in repose, resting in God.

      It will be noticed that Unction and Imposition of Hands are closely united in this Order, as they ought to be, for they are organically related.  It is a serious defect of the American, Scottish, and South African Orders for Unction that they do not permit the union of the two ceremonies in the same Service, but require a choice between them.  This should be remedied when occasion offers.

      The South African Order has this rubric: “If the sick person is both communicated and anointed on the same occasion, the Unction shall precede the Communion.”

      The sequence here directed has the support of the very general – though not quite universal – practice of the ancient Church, including the Church of Rome.

      On the other hand, psychological reasons plead for making Unction the climax of the Service.  It is more definitely and exclusively a Sacrament of Healing than the Eucharist, and it requires, for its effective administration, a less alert and more quiescent frame of mind than is desirable when the Eucharist is administered.  Probably the rubric should permit both sequences, but there can be little doubt that, from the psychological point of view, it is better that Unction should come last.

      When, however, the patient is actually dying, there can be no doubt that Holy Communion should be administered last, according to ancient precedent.  It is the Eucharist, not Unction, which is the soul’s “medicine of immortality,” and its “most necessary provision” (viaticum) for its journey into the next world (see below).

      With regard to the formula of Unction, if only one is provided, the most suitable is that of 1549, which is reprinted in the Archbishop’s Committee’s Report.  It has the great advantage (shared also by the South African formula) of definitely mentioning diseases of the mind, which according to ancient ideas are the most important of the diseases which require treatment by Unction.  It is a grave defect of the American and Scottish forms that they contain no allusion to mental diseases, which at no period of the Church’s history were so common as now.  The most questionable phrase in the 1549 formula is: “pardon thee all thy sins and offences, committed by all thy senses, passions and carnal affections.”  Sins are always sins of the personality, never of the senses, a mediaeval form of expression which implies a crude and indefensible psychology.  Moreover, there are sins which are purely spiritual, e.g. pride and selfishness, as well as sins connected with the passions “and carnal affections”.  It would be better to amend the clause so as to run “pardon thee all thy sins and offences of whatever nature.”  The clause “if it be his blessed will” should be omitted.

      Besides the principal form, several others might fitly be provided, suited to special kinds of spiritual and bodily infirmity.  One form should be very brief; it being left to the officiating priest to expand it by suitable extempore prayer.

Repetition of Unction.

      As certain Anglican priests are doubtful as to the lawfulness of the repetition of Unction, a rubric should be inserted in the Visitation Office declaring that it is lawful to repeat the Rite of Anointing frequently – even daily – until recovery (or death) occurs.

      The “Gregorian” Sacramentary, which directed the daily Unction (and Communion) of the Sick, set the standard for all Western Christendom.  The following Orders collected and printed by Martène, and ranging in date from about A.D. 800 to the thirteenth century, prescribe daily Unction and daily Communion: iv, v, vii, x, xv, xxii (see Bk. I. chap. vii).  The evidence comes from Italy, Gaul, Germany and England.  In England, the eleventh-century Missal of Leofric still prescribes daily Unction and daily Communion, but the beginnings of restriction can be traced back to Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, 960–988, who directs daily Communion for a sick monk, but Unction only on the first day of sickness (Regularis Concordia, in Migne, P.L., cxxxvii, 500).  The Synodus Baiocensis (Mansi, Vol. XXV. p. 23) as late as about 1300 decrees: “Let the priests often teach the people that it is lawful for this sacrament to be repeated, and often (saepe) received in any serious illness involving danger of death.”  Peter Lombard (c. A.D. 1100–1160) argues strongly for the frequent (or more frequent, saepius) administration of Unction in the same sickness: “Just as prayer [for the sick] can be repeated, so also it appears that Unction can be repeated.  St. James makes mention of both in this passage, and each helps the other to secure for the sick man healing (alleviationem) of body and soul.”  He adds that “this sacrament of Unction is frequently (saepe) repeated in almost every Church” (Sententiarum, lib. iv, distinctio 23).  The repetition of Unction in the same sickness is also approved by Bonaventura (In Sent. iv, dist. 23, qu. 4), Petrus Cantor, Alanus Porretanus, and others; also (in principle, at least) by Aquinas, who writes: “This sacrament is a kind of spiritual remedy applied in the manner of a bodily remedy.  But a bodily remedy is repeated; wherefore also this sacrament can be repeated” (In Sent. iv, dist. 23, qu. 2, art. 4; see also Supplement to Third Part of the Summa, qu. 33, art. 1).

      Details of the later restrictions upon the repetition of Unction imposed by Councils and the dicta of theologians are given by W. Maskell in his Monumenta Ritualia (Vol. I, 2nd edit., pp. cclxxii ff.), by Martène (op. cit.) and very fully by J. Launoy in his exhaustive treatise, De Sacramento Unctionis Infirmorum, 1673.  Some mediaeval authorities maintained that Unction should never be repeated during life; others that a year should elapse before repetition.  Launoy (p. 553) gives a long list of continental diocesan Manuals, published in the sixteenth century, which state that “Unction can be repeated, but not in the same sickness, unless it be protracted beyond a year.”

      The Council of Trent forbade the repetition of Unction in the same sickness, unless the patient partially recovers, and again falls into danger of death.

      J. Kilker, writing in 1925, states that “By far the great majority of [Latin] theologians deny the validity of Extreme Unction, when repeated in the same danger of death” (Extreme Unction, p. 52).  But since the publication in 1907 of J. Kern’s scholarly treatise, De sacramento extr. unctionis, the view that Unction can be validly repeated an indefinite number of times has become much more usual in the Roman Communion.  Among defenders of its iterability (at least in principle) may be mentioned Menard, Martène, Launoy, Catalani, Gerbert, Pellicia, Schanz – in fact almost all who have thoroughly investigated the early history of the rite.  They regard the repetition of Unction as valid, but (in the West) not now licit, because the Council of Trent has forbidden it.

      The Non jurors also approved the repetition – even the frequent repetition – of Unction, as the following rubric shows: The sick person shall be anointed as often as he desireth, at the discretion of the Priest (Liturgy of 1718) .

Service for Imposition of Hands Alone.

      The main Service of Visitation should be followed by a shorter Service providing for Imposition of Hands without Unction.  Frequent Unction will naturally be employed until recovery has begun, but after that, the parish priest will on many occasions use Imposition of Hands alone for the purpose of blessing and healing the patient.

Other Necessary Services.

      There are further required—

      (1) A Service for Assisting the Dying, similar in character to that in the Roman Rituale, but fuller, and containing more matter suitable for the friends of the dying man to use by his bedside in the absence of the priest.  In accordance with ancient precedent, the narratives of the Passion should be among the devotions used.

      (2) A Service for the Commendation of the Soul.  It is desirable that this should contain in full and unexpurgated form the greatest of all Commendatory Prayers, the Proficiscere anima Christiana de hoc mundo, which is found in the Sarum Manual, and has been endeared to the whole English-speaking world by Newman’s Dream of Gerontius.  The abbreviated form, inserted in the 1928 Book, should be retained as an alternative; but the complete prayer ought certainly to be given.

      (3) A Parish Priest’s Benedictional, containing a comprehensive selection of Benedictions for all ordinary parochial occasions.  It should contain benedictions upon infants, children, the sick, the blind, the deaf, the deformed, the feeble-minded, the insane, those in trouble, etc.  Forms should be included for blessing a home, a school, and a hospital.  Graces, and benedictions upon food, should also be provided, suitable for various occasions, both public and private.

Excursus  I

Modern Latin Theologians on Unction as a Therapeutic Rite.

      The view advocated in this essay that Unction is essentially and predominantly a therapeutic rite, and not primarily a preparation for death, has been held by not a few learned and weighty Roman Catholic theologians from the seventeenth century onwards, though until recently respect for the Tridentine Decrees (as usually interpreted) prevented most of them from giving any but the most cautious (and usually somewhat ambiguous) expression to it.

      Now, however, it is widely held that the Council of Trent did not make the late mediaeval view of Unction absolutely obligatory, and authors of good repute have for some time past been permitted to advocate a return to more primitive and scriptural conceptions.  Among these is Fr. Ildefonso Schuster, who in a standard work, bearing the censor’s nihil obstat, writes as follows: “Contrary to the present rule, as this sacrament was administered per modum unctionis medicinalis to the sick, and not only to those about to die, the ancients sometimes repeated the anointing for seven days, until the sick man had been healed, or passed quietly away.”  And again: “[This sacrament was] only in later days termed Extreme Unction, thus helping to give it the frightening aspect as of certain death which it now possesses. ... Formerly Holy Anointing, the completion as it were of the sacrament of Penance, preceded as a rule the Holy Viaticum; but these three sacraments were commonly received, not indeed in the last hours of life, as is the corrupt practice of these later times, but even before the sick person’s condition gave any cause for anxiety” ...  “In the first centuries the administration of Extreme Unction was accompanied by magnificent and impressive ceremonies.  The faithful were so far from sharing the dread felt in our days for this sacrament of comfort and healing, that they habitually reserved the holy oil for the sick in their own houses ... (and) made use of it with great faith to anoint wounded or aching limbs” (The Sacramentary, 1924, Vol. I. pp. 198–199; Vol. V. p. 327).

      Weighty Roman authorities have long recommended the anointing of sick persons, not only when they are “in danger of death,’ but even when they are in danger of danger of death” – a very different matter.  This decidedly liberal interpretation of the intentions of the Fathers of Trent appears to have been first suggested by St. Alfonso dei Liguori.

Excursus  II

Errors, Abuses, and Superstitions connected with Unction.

      The theory that Unction is predominantly a preparation for death led to the widely spread mediaeval opinion that a person, once anointed, might more fitly die than live.  This, of course, caused the bulk of the laity to shrink from asking for Unction until all hope of recovery – even the faintest – had been abandoned.

      If an anointed person happened to recover, he was expected to behave like one dead to the world.  It was regarded as his duty, for example, to fast perpetually, especially from flesh, to walk barefoot, and never again to have intercourse with his wife.  A will made by such a person was in some places treated as invalid.

      These abuses (together with another widely spread abuse, viz. depriving the poor of the Sacrament by demanding extortionate fees for its administration) were attacked by numerous mediaeval Councils, but with little success, because by the thirteenth century the ecclesiastical authorities themselves had for the most part adopted the root error from which the abuses sprang, viz. that Unction is primarily a preparation for death rather than a sacrament of spiritual and bodily healing.

      Both in the popular and in the ecclesiastical mind, the association of Unction with approaching death was exceedingly strong.  Certainly as early as the eleventh century, and possibly as early as the ninth, the public service books of many churches made a strong suggestion to the patient that he ought to expire as soon as possible after Unction, by directing that he should be lifted from his bed, and laid upon the ground to await his end, having nothing beneath him except a coarse haircloth sprinkled with ashes. [This ceremony is ordered in the eleventh-century Ordo Romanus X, which contains much early material.]  This gruesome ceremony, fraught with sinister and funereal suggestion, was prescribed or recommended (with numerous varieties of detail) in very many dioceses of Italy and France, but apparently nowhere in Germany or England. [The rite is not mentioned in the Sarum and York Manuals, but we read that devout English laymen occasionally asked for it.  Roger Hoveden relates of Prince Henry, son of Henry II, that after confession and absolution “he laid aside his softer coverings [or garments], put on hair-cloth (cilicium), and tying a rope round his neck ... said, ‘Drag me from this bed by this rope, and lay me on that bed of ashes,’ which he had prepared for himself.  They did as he commanded, and placed at his head and feet two great squared stones” (Chron., Vol. II. p. 279).]  It is recorded that the kings of France submitted to it.  It was regarded as an outward expression of the deepest humiliation and penitence, and of willing submission to death, regarded as a penalty for sin.  Launoy states (op. cit., p. 547) that it survived in certain parts of Italy and France till nearly the end of the sixteenth century.

      It is all-important that Anglicans, in reviving the much-abused sacrament of Unction, should make it clear that the purpose of it is far wider than mere preparation for death.  To do this, it is necessary to discard the term Extreme Unction, to which all Eastern theologians strongly object (e.g. Metrophanes Critopulus in his “Confession,” Symeon of Thessalonica in P.G., clv. 518; and among modern writers Ignatius, Macaire, Mesolaras, and Christos Androutsos); which several modern Latin theologians of weight consider misleading; and which Chardon roundly denounces as an abuse produced by an abuse (Migne, Cursus Theologiae Completus, xx. 747).  Notwithstanding the explanation in the Catechism of the Council of Trent (II. 6. 2), that the phrase means the last of the anointings (which, however, might in practice come to mean Unction in extremis), it remains certain that the original meaning of “Extreme Unction” really was (what in the popular mind it still is) the Unction of persons in extremis.  Peter Lombard, apparently the first theologian to use the term, [It was to some extent in popular use as early as the ninth century.  The Virgin Maura (in that century) summoned Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes, to administer to her “Extreme Unction” (Migne, P.L., cxv. 1374c).] makes this perfectly clear in his definition.  Extreme Unction, he declares, is “Unctio infirmorum quae fit in extremis oleo per episcopum consecrato” (op. cit., lib. iv, dist. 23).

      Chardon’s criticism of the sinister and dangerous suggestiveness of the term is fully justified.  In these days it is a fact fully recognized by anthropologists, that expectation of death, if only sufficiently strong, may actually kill.  Consequently if Unction is given and received, not as a Sacrament of Life and Health, but as a sealing for death, its administration may actually hasten death, instead of prolonging life and promoting recovery.  Though this Sacrament tends per se towards life and health, yet improper dispositions and wrong beliefs on the part of the recipient may place so strong a barrier in the way of the proffered grace of health, that life may actually be imperiled by its administration.  Undoubtedly Unction ought to be administered to the dying (as to other sick persons), but always with some degree of hope, however faint, that recovery may take place (see below).

Unction and Release from Purgatory.

      It was taught by many leading schoolmen, both Thomist and Scotist, that Unction, when received with the proper dispositions, frees the soul from all obligation to suffer temporal punishment in Purgatory, and consequently secures for it immediate admission into heaven.  Aquinas says: “Extreme Unction has for its purpose the completion of the work of purification in one who is about to appear before God, by freeing him from the debt of temporal punishment, that thus nothing may remain in him which, on the departure of his soul from the body, could keep him back from the possession of glory” (Contra Gentiles, iv. 73).  Duns Scotus in closely similar language insists that Unction, worthily received, gives immediate admission to glory (Reportata Parisiensia, Bk. IV, dist. 23, qu. unic.).

      Alexander III (Orlando or Roland Bandinelli), Pope from 1159 to 1181, taught that besides remission of sins, Unction confers in the future life a degree of bodily glory not to be obtained without it (Die Sentenzen Rolands, ed. A. M. Gietl, 1891, p. 262). [I owe this reference to Dr. Darwell Stone.]

      The Fathers of Trent, having in view the necessity of defending against Protestant attacks the mediaeval doctrine of Purgatory, and the propriety of offering prayer and sacrifice for the dead, prudently omitted from their decrees concerning Extreme Unction all mention of a doctrine which seemed in large measure to abolish Purgatory, and to render prayer and masses for the dead in most cases unnecessary. [Kern, however, contends (De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, pp. 207 ff.) that the Tridentine Fathers intended to include among the “reliquiae” of sin effaced by Unction “the debt of temporal punishment” (to be paid in Purgatory).  This, of course, may be so; but the majority of Roman Catholic theologians of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are (as Kern admits) of another opinion.]

      For the next three hundred years this doctrine was for the most part either ignored by Latin theologians or actively controverted. [Suarez and Alfonso dei Liguori are exceptions.  Both favoured the doctrine, but said comparatively little about it.]  Indeed many of them went to the other extreme, and maintained the harsh doctrine (pronounced by Kern inconsistent with the loving-kindness of God and the mercy of Christ) that only in the rarest cases can the soul of a Christian, however devout, attain to glory without passing through the painful fires of Purgatory.

      In 1907 Kern’s learned treatise, De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, revived the almost forgotten teaching of the Schoolmen, that one of the principal purposes of Unction is the preparation of the soul for immediate entrance into heaven.  Since the War, Kern’s teaching has attracted wide support in the Roman Communion.  Among its now numerous adherents are Toner, Pohle-Preuss, Vermeersch, Kilker, and Geddes.  Kern attempts to provide adequate safeguards against the grave abuses to which the doctrine may lead, by emphasizing the need of adequate preparation and great devotion on the part of the recipient of Unction, if the desired effect is to be obtained.  He teaches also that the effect may sometimes be speedy rather than immediate admission to glory.

      Followers of Kern in their sermons recommend to the laity the devout reception of Unction as a certain means of escaping Purgatory, or shortening their sojourn therein.

      It is unnecessary in this place to subject the arguments of Kern to detailed criticism, because we have already rejected the fundamental assumption on which they depend, viz. that Unction is primarily a preparation for death.  It is sufficient merely to remind the reader that, according to primitive ideas, the divinely ordained preparation for death (“the provision for the last journey,” the medicine of immortality”) is not Unction, but the Eucharist received as viaticum.  Recent Eastern criticism of Kern’s position is mainly directed to this point.

      Kern would have been better advised had he set to work to correct the mediaeval doctrine of Purgatory, which (it is worth observing) the Fathers of Trent prudently refrained from explicitly authorizing, contenting themselves with the cautious affirmation that “there exists a Purgatory; and that the souls therein detained are assisted by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar” (Sess. XXV., Decretum de Purgatorio).  This doctrine, narrowly and strictly interpreted, would be accepted by most Anglican, and very many Eastern authorities; though there would be objections in many quarters to the term “Purgatory,” on account of its sinister suggestion, and the numerous abuses which (as the Council of Trent itself acknowledged) attached themselves to it in the mediaeval period. [The doctrine that the souls of Christians, in some cases at least, require purgation in the Intermediate State, is primitive, and is accepted today by Important Orthodox authorities.  But the usual Western mediaeval teaching concerning Purgatory is materialistic, harsh, and irreconcilable with the mercy and loving-kindness of God.  That the souls of reasonably good Christians, immediately after death, are “in joy and felicity,” is the constant teaching of the Fathers, also of modern Orthodox and Anglican theologians.]

Eastern Abuses.

      Among various abuses prevailing in the East may be specially mentioned the administration of Unction to persons in health (after Confession and Absolution) for the purpose of imparting fuller remission and cleansing from sin, with a view to a good Communion.

      Goar, a very high authority, commenting on the Euchologion in 1647, absolutely denied that in his day such a practice anywhere existed, and explained away the apparent instances of it alleged by Latin controversialists.  But that it widely prevails today, at least in the patriarchate of Constantinople, and particularly in Greece, cannot be questioned.  Mesolaras definitely defends it as a fitting preparation for Communion (Εγχειρίδιον, p. 281); and Ralli actually states that the subject of this Sacrament is “a baptized person, whether whole or sick” (περι των μυστηρίων, p. 115).

      It is said that among the Armenians in mediaeval times the laity substituted Unction for Penance, considering it to be a less arduous and more agreeable method of obtaining Absolution.  Because of this, its administration was discontinued by the ecclesiastical authorities.  It is said to be now no longer in use among the Armenians, though the service once employed in its administration is still extant (Galanus, Concil. Eccl. Armen. cum Rom., 1661, p. 632).

      In Russia it is strictly forbidden to give Unction to the whole.  The written directions handed to all priests at their ordination prescribe: “Let no priest under any circumstances dare to perform the unction of oil over the whole.”  Nevertheless, once a year, on Maundy Thursday (or on Holy Saturday) the faithful in some places are solemnly anointed with the use of a form given by A. Maltzew in his Die Sacramente der Orthodox-katholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes, 1898, pp. 549 ff.  Some Russian theologians regard this practice as a mere abuse; others as an edifying non-sacramental rite; others as a unique exception to the general rule, sanctioned by the Church, and therefore a licit use of the Sacrament.

      Patriarch Tikhon (who ought to be well informed) stated that this ceremony is only performed in the Cathedral of the Assumption, Moscow, on Holy Thursday.  He appears to be entirely ignorant of the practice of anointing the whole which prevails extensively in Greece (see E. T. of the Euchologion, p. 607).

      For the strange customs of the Nestorians in connection with Unction, see Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, p. cclxxvii, and Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, Vol. II. p. 518.  Unction is said to have become obsolete among the Nestorians, and rare among the Copts, whose service-books, however, prescribe daily Unction For a week in all cases of sickness. It appears that in certain instances the priests perform the service on the first day only, the patient anointing himself on the other six days with oil blessed by them. Such subsidiary anointings are in accordance with primitive practice, and should not be regarded as an abuse.

      Supplement.  The Services for Unction and the Laying on of Hands, compiled by the Joint Committee of the Canterbury Convocation (see above), were finally authorized (June 1936) “for provisional use in the Province subject to due diocesan sanction,” and were published by the S.P.C.K.  The Unction Service, which includes the Communion of the sick person, may be held either in church or in the house of sickness.  Two forms for hallowing the oil (by either Bishop or Priest) are provided.  The first is adapted from the Sarum Pontifical, the second from the Non-jurors’ Liturgy.  Apart from two modern prayers, the intercessions are drawn from the Sarum and York Manuals, the “Gregorian” Sacramentary, the Greek Liturgies, and the Coptic rite. Imposition of Hands accompanies Unction.  The prayer following the Anointing closely resembles the 1549 form.  An alternative prayer is provided for use “if there he small hope of recovery.”

The Communion of the Sick, Viaticum, and Reservation

By Charles Harris

      Only one of the very numerous surviving early and mediaeval Orders for the Visitation of the Sick contemplates the consecration of the Eucharist in the sick man’s house; and in no instance is a direction given to celebrate in the sick man’s bedchamber.*  In practically all pre-Reformation Orders, Communion (always given with the Reserved Sacrament, usually in one, sometimes in both kinds) formed only a single incident, brief but essential, in a comprehensive ministration comprising (1) Sacramental Confession, whenever needed; (2) Earnest and confident prayers for recovery frequently based on the scriptural miracles of healing and resurrection, and interspersed with suitable lections and anthems; (3) Imposition of hands in close connection with Unction; (4) Unction; (5) Communion, preceded and followed by very brief devotions (for further particulars see below).

      [*The Mass for use in a private house provided by the Gelasian Sacramentary was intended for (occasional) use in a private Oratory.  It contains no allusion to sickness.  On the other hand, the unique Missa pro infirmo appended to the Order for Visitation and Unction in the tenth-century Moissac Sacramentary (Martène, I. 7, 4; Ordo xi) distinctly contemplates celebration in the sick man’s house (which may, however, mean a monastery or college).  Thrice in this Mass the sick man is spoken of as being “in this house”; not, however, “in this room”.  The sick man’s Communion takes place, not at the Mass, but in the course of the Visitation Office.  What is clearly intended is that the priest should first say Mass in the oratory of the house or monastery; and then carry the Sacrament reserved therefrom to the sick man’s chamber or cell, and there begin the Visitation Office, which directs him to communicate the sick man in the ordinary way after anointing him.

      The normal early and mediaeval practice was for a Missa pro infirmo to be celebrated in church on the first day that a serious case was visited, then for the priest to carry the Sacrament (reserved from that Mass) to the sick man’s house.  If no such Mass was said, he would make use of the Sacrament reserved in the Aumbry, Hanging Dove, Tunis, or other receptacle, for the sick man’s Communion.  We learn from St. Augustine (De Civit. Dei, xxii. 8. 6) that the Eucharist was occasionally celebrated in haunted houses for exorcistic purposes.  This was also the mediaeval practice, but it was prescribed that the Mass should be said in the oratory, if the house possessed one.  Even in these days, a priest is sometimes called in to exorcise a haunted house, as part of his ordinary parochial ministry.  In such cases it is more important to encourage and bless the inmates of the house (who are in a state of abject terror) than to exorcise the house.  This ministry is usually successful, probably because it alters for the better the Psychical atmosphere of the household.]

      Communion normally followed Unction, even at Rome.  Only in rare cases did it precede it.  At present throughout Latin Christendom Unction follows Communion, exceptions only occurring in certain instances, where a Church is still permitted to retain its own Rituale or local customs (see above).

      The theory implied in the modern Anglican Prayer Book, and in the present Roman Rituale, is that the sick are communicated exclusively for their spiritual benefit.  The Roman form of administration speaks only of this (“The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto everlasting life,” Tit. IV. cap. 2).  And although the Anglican form, inherited from early mediaeval times, lays special emphasis upon the effect of the Eucharist upon the body, the Rubrics and Prayers show little appreciation of this fact.

      Modern dynamic psychology, which emphasizes the unity of human personality, and the close organic connection between soul and body, teaches that every state of the soul affects the state of the body, and vice versa.

      This was precisely the point of view of Primitive Christianity, the psychological outlook of which, though vitiated by its somewhat uncritical acceptance of the current demonology, was surprisingly sound and practical.

      In early days the sick were communicated with a view to their mental and bodily as well as their spiritual health; the current belief being that at the Incarnation our Lord came into the world to be the Physician and Saviour, not of the soul alone, but of the entire man.  Accordingly, not only the physically infirm, but also neurotics, epileptics, the insane, the mentally defective, and the “possessed,” were freely communicated, when faith and devotion were present and there was no risk of irreverence. [This was the rule, though some early authorities discouraged the Communion of the insane.  With regard to the “possessed,” the Church of Rome still observes the ancient rule (Rituale, tit. xi, c. 1, 10), as does the Orthodox Church (see above).]

      Unction, Imposition of Hands, and Exorcism were regarded as the chief healing ordinances, but secondary therapeutic effects were attributed to the sacraments in general, particularly to Communion, Absolution, and Baptism.  A widely accepted view was that Baptism possessed, besides its more general therapeutic effects, a special efficacy for the cure of insanity. [Cyprian lays particular stress on this effect of Baptism.  See Bingham, Antiquities, xi. 5. 5.  References to the admission of “energumens” to the Catechumenate and to Baptism are frequent in the early period.  The Roman Church still ordains exorcists with the words “Receive ... and possess the power of laying hands on ‘energumens,’ whether baptized or catechumens” (Pontificale, Ratisbonae, 1888, p. 20).  On the other hand, there are instances of the baptism of “energumens” being postponed until the approach of death.  It should be remembered that Exorcism was used frequently and continuously during the whole of the period of preparation for Baptism, also at the beginning of the baptismal rite itself.]  Excommunication to some extent cancelled the effect of Baptism.  It placed the guilty person under the power of Satan, and made him specially liable to grave physical and mental diseases (cf. St. Paul’s teaching on “the destruction of the flesh,” 1 Cor. 5:5).  Repentance, followed by Absolution and restoration to Communion, enabled the penitent sinner once more to participate in the therapeutic effects of the Incarnation.

      The long disuse of the Ministry of Healing has made these views seem strange – indeed all but superstitious – to many.  They are, however, absolutely scriptural, primitive, and psychologically sound.  Their wholehearted adoption is a necessary condition of successful therapeutic ministry to the sick. [It is still the popular belief in England that delicate infants thrive better after being baptized.  The eleventh-century N. Italian Services, edited by Dom Lambot for the H.B.S., 1931, strongly emphasize the therapeutic value of Baptism by directing (in the case of a sick infant) a special prayer for healing, together with a special benediction of the font, intended to communicate to the water definitely therapeutic virtues (pp. 6–7).  Faith in Confirmation as a cure for blindness still exists in parts of England.  It may be based on actual cures of “psychical” or “nervous” blindness.]

Primitive Reservation.

      In early times the unity of the Church was a matter of deep concern.  It was at once expressed and safeguarded by insistence upon the principle of “the one Eucharist”.  Both at Jerusalem (Acts 2:46) and in the Pauline Churches (Acts 20:7) “the Breaking of Bread” was the centre of worship and fellowship.  St. Paul lays especial stress upon this point: “For we who are many are one bread, [Or loaf.] one body; for we all partake of the one bread” [Or loaf.] 1 Cor. 10:16).  In the next generation St. Ignatius (about A.D. 110) writes: “Take heed to have but one Eucharist.  For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto the unity of his Blood; one altar; as there is one Bishop, along with the Presbytery and Deacons, my fellow servants; that so, whatever ye do, ye may do it according to God. ...  Let that be deemed a valid Eucharist which is celebrated either by the Bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it” (Philadelphians, 4; Smyrnaeans, 8).

      The idea of a private celebration – at least as a normal practice – is plainly out of keeping with such a corporate conception of the Eucharistic rite as this.  Consequently we are not surprised to find in the earliest description of the Eucharistic Service (that of St. Justin Martyr, c. A.D. 155) that the absent, whether sick or whole, were communicated from the one altar or table of the Lord.  “When the President [or Bishop] has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent [by saying Amen], then those whom we call deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving has been pronounced; and they carry away [a portion] to those who are absent.”  And again: “The distribution and partaking of those things over which the thanksgiving has been pronounced is made to each one, and [they] are sent to the absent by the hands of the deacons” (Apol., I. 65, 67).

      Whether any other methods of Reservation were in use in Justin’s age is not known.  It is certain, however, that by the end of the second century, the laity, both in Africa and in Rome – probably also in other places – were permitted to carry the Sacrament away with them in suitable receptacles, to communicate themselves at home on days when they were unable to come to church, or when the Eucharistic Liturgy was not celebrated.  Daily Communion was thus rendered possible for all; and there is reason to believe that it was extensively practiced. [See Egyptian Church Order (i.e. Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition), p. 177 in Hauler’s Didascalia, or p. 190 in Texts and Studies, Vol. VIII. 4; Tertullian, De Oratione, 19; Ad Uxorem, ii. 5; De Exhortatione Castitatis, 7 (which probably refers to the private distribution of the Eucharist to members of his family by a Christian father); Cyprian, De Lapsis, 26 (where the vessel of Reservation is named “arca”).  See above.  That such private Reservation was still allowed both in the East and in the West late in the fourth century is shown by Basil, Ep. xciii, and Jerome, Ep. xlviii. 15.  Owing to abuses of various kinds this privilege was gradually withdrawn.  It lasted longest in the Celtic Churches.  In the mediaeval Western Church generally, it was an exceptional privilege granted to favoured individuals, especially monarchs, who were sometimes even allowed to carry the Reserved Sacrament on their persons.]

      The sick, however, were not normally communicated in their homes by their lay friends.  They were visited daily (or at least very frequently) by the clergy, from whom they received the Reserved Sacrament, and by whom they were also frequently anointed.

Importance of the Viaticum.

      From very early times great importance was attached to reception of the Eucharist by the dying, partly as a “provision for the (last) journey” (εφόδιον, viaticum); partly also as an assurance of resurrection to life eternal. [Cf. the naïve and archaic language of the N. Italian Service Book mentioned above: “[The dying man] is to be communicated with the Holy Sacrifice, even if he has eaten on that very day; because the Communion will be a defence to him, and will assist him to obtain the resurrection of the just, for the Communion itself (ipsa) will raise him up.  And when thou communicatest him, say thus: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ intincted with his blood preserve thy soul to life eternal.  Amen “ ‘ (p. 47).  Communion in this case was in both kinds by intinction.]

      If the majority of recent critics are right in finding in John 6 a direct (or indirect) reference to the Eucharist, then the main ideas connected with viaticum have scriptural authority (see especially v. 54, “he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”).

      St. Ignatius (c. A.D. 110), who is usually supposed to have been acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, speaks of the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality” (a phrase which has stamped itself upon the mind of the Church); and expresses an ardent desire to receive it in view of his approaching martyrdom (“breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote that we should not die, but live for ever in Jesus Christ,” Ephesians, 20; “Come fire, and cross, and grapplings with wild beasts! ... I desire the bread of God which is the flesh of Christ, who was of the seed of David, and for a draught I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible,” Romans, 7).

      The earnest desire of the early Christians to receive the Holy Communion in their last hour finds liturgical expression in the Liturgy of St. Basil (“Grant unto us at our last breath to receive worthily our share of thy hallowed gifts unto a viaticum (εφόδιον) of eternal life, for an acceptable defense before the awful Judgment Seat of thy Christ”); and very similar words occur in that of St. Mark.

      The giving of viaticum was always a solemn ecclesiastical act, under the control of the Bishop, who decided whether it should be given or not; though, as a matter of fact, it was never refused, even to those who had lapsed in time of persecution, if there was any real evidence of repentance.

      The first (Ecumenical Council (of Nicaea, A.D. 325) laid down the rule concerning viaticum, which has ever since been authoritative for the entire Church: “Concerning the dying, let the ancient and canonical rule still be kept; that none be deprived at the hour of death of the most necessary viaticum (του ... αναγχαιοτάτου εφόδιον). ... And let the Bishop give the Eucharist, with due investigation, to everyone who asks to receive it at the end” (Can. 13).

      Nicaea I is accepted as oecumenical not only by the Church of England, but also by the English State, which has adopted the decrees of the first four (Ecumenical Councils (though not these exclusively) as the standard of Christian orthodoxy. [See below.]  It therefore forms part of the authoritative teaching of Church and State, that to receive Communion in the hour of death is “most necessary” (αναγχαιότατον).  This implies that there is an urgent obligation upon every dying person to seek Communion, and upon every priest to use the utmost diligence to give it.*  Belief that viaticum is “most necessary” for the dying has had a decisive influence upon the entire history of Reservation, and has been an important factor in its modern revival.

      [*It has been the practice of the Church to give Communion to a dying person, even if he has already received it in church on the same day, while in health.  Whether reception in such circumstances is strictly obligatory jure divino is a disputed point among Latin theologians.  In primitive times, dying persons were allowed to repeat their viaticum as often as they desired – even several times in the same day or night.  Thus in the fifth century St. Melania caused the dying convert Volusianus (who had just been baptized) to be communicated three times in the same night.  Later, she herself, perceiving her end approaching, caused the Eucharist to be celebrated by her chaplain in the oratory contiguous to her cell, and communicated.  “[Then] at day, the bishop of Jerusalem [again] brought her the Eucharist.  Then in the evening she communicated for the third time a few moments before she expired” – (Vita S. Melaniae, ed. Rampolla y Tindaro, 1905, LV, LXVII).

      Similarly, in the fourth century, the dying S. Basil of Caesarea, by an heroic effort, rose from his bed and received the Eucharist in church.  On the same day he also received it at home, whereupon, “lying in his bed, with the Eucharist still in his mouth, he rendered up his spirit to the Lord” (see the anonymous Vita Basilii, c. iv, in Migne, P.C., xxix. 315).

      In the modern Roman Church, a person who has received viaticum may be – and often is – communicated daily until he dies or recovers.  This practice is in accord with that of primitive antiquity, and is to be recommended in suitable cases.]

      That as early as the middle of the third century the clergy of Alexandria were accustomed to reserve the Eucharist continuously, for the purpose of giving viaticum at any hour of the day or night, is clearly shown by an incident recorded by Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria (who died about A.D. 264), and preserved by Eusebius.  An aged Christian, Serapion, who had been excommunicated for sacrificing to heathen deities in time of persecution, but had since lived blamelessly, lay dying, and sent his young nephew to find one of the priests, and to request him to come and communicate him before he died.  The priest, being too ill to come, entrusted the Sacrament to the lad, who himself communicated the dying man, to his great comfort.  Dionysius thus comments on the incident.  “I had ordered that persons at the point of death, if they made request, and especially if they happened previously to have humbly sought [reconciliation], should be absolved (αφίεσθαι), that they might depart in good hope” (H. E., vi. 44).

      In time of persecution, the utmost endeavours were made to communicate the martyrs in prison, in order to strengthen them for their approaching conflict (Cyprian, Ep. v. 2).  This, however, was not always possible.  It is related of Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, who was martyred under Maximinus at Nicomedia in 311 or 312, that, as he lay dying in prison, without access to church or altar, and unable to move because of bonds and wounds, “he celebrated the awful Sacrifice upon his own breast while lying down,” and communicated both himself and other Christian prisoners, who formed a ring round him, to guard the sacred action from the observation of the heathen (Philostorgius, H. E., ii. 13).  This, of course, is not an instance of Reservation, but it affords a remarkable illustration of the importance attributed in early days to viaticum.

Private Celebrations for the Sick.

      Private celebrations for the sick, though not entirely unknown, were exceedingly rare in the primitive and mediaeval periods, and some of the instances usually quoted are doubtful.  Perhaps the clearest example is that recorded by Uranius in his Epistle concerning the Death of Paulinus of Nola, 2: “And when about to set forth to meet the Lord, he ordered the sacred mysteries to be celebrated (exhiberi) beside his bed; in order that he might commend his soul to the Lord, after the sacrifice had been offered in concert with the holy bishops,” viz. Symmachus and Acindynus, who had come to visit him.  This instance, though clear, is not a normal one.  Paulinus was a bishop, not a layman, and Uranius’s language (una cum sanctis episcopis oblato sacrificio) suggests that he desired, not only to receive the Eucharist, but also to exercise his priestly office for the last time, by concelebrating with the visiting bishops.  This point cannot, however, be pressed, because the expression “to offer sacrifice” was sometimes used of communicating as well as of celebrating.  Paulinus died about 431.  In England, we read that Archbishop Dunstan had Mass celebrated by his bedside, as he lay dying, and so received his viaticum.

      The mind of the Church with regard to private celebrations is expressed in the Canons of various early Councils, both Eastern and Western (“Neither bishops nor presbyters ought to offer in houses,” Laodicea c. 350, can. 58; “Any presbyter, who without consulting his bishop celebrates a service in whatever place he wishes, acts dishonourably,” Carthage, c. 390, can. 9.  A similar regulation was made by the Eastern Concilium in Trullo, can. 31).

      Occasionally, but very rarely, the Eucharist was celebrated in the private oratories of prominent citizens (for an instance see Paulinus, Life of St. Ambrose, 10).  As has been indicated, the Gelasian Sacramentary provides an order for a mass in a private house, but the prayers contain no allusion to sickness.  Freestone’s conclusion is a fair deduction from the facts: “We may sum up by remarking that the instances of private celebration for clinical communion are greatly outweighed by the constant attitude of disapproval towards the performance of the Liturgy elsewhere than in a consecrated building.”  [The Sacrament Reserved, p. 31.]

Reservation in Both Kinds.

      Freestone’s conclusion (The Sacrament Reserved, pp. 119 ff.), that during the primitive period (i.e. the first four and early fifth centuries) Reservation for the Sick was normally in one kind only, has not been seriously shaken by recent criticism, though certain good authorities now consider that he has somewhat underestimated the amount of Reservation in both kinds in this period, and that the “Justinian” method of communicating the sick lasted longer and prevailed more widely than he allows.

      More open to adverse criticism is his conclusion that Reservation in both kinds continued to be rare throughout the later period.  A most significant fact in this connection is that the prevalence of the Manichaean heresy in Rome caused both Pope Leo the Great (44o-461) and Pope Gelasius I (492–496) to lay special stress on reception of the chalice, as a testimony of orthodoxy.  The latter, writing to bishops Majoricus and John, goes so far as to declare: “We have learnt that certain persons, after receiving only the portion of the sacred Body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred Blood.  These persons, without doubt (since they are said to be bound by I know not what superstition), should either partake of the sacraments in their entirety, or be excluded from the entire sacraments; because division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege” [Leo I had previously excommunicated certain Manichaean heretics who abstained from the chalice.  He speaks very strongly on the subject in Serm. xlii (xli) (see Migne, P.L., liv. 279–80.] (quoted by Gratian, Corpus J.C. Decr., iii pars; De Consecr., dist. 11. c. 12).

      Too much ought not to be read into these words of Gelasius.  He is speaking, not of the Communion of the Sick (which from the most ancient times had frequently been given in one kind only), but solely of Communion in church at Mass.  Nevertheless, the circumstance that two Popes laid dogmatic stress on Communion in both kinds must have made orthodox members of the Roman Church attach more importance than before to the reception of the chalice, not only in church, but also in their own homes when sick.

      The copious historical evidence now available supports this conclusion. Prof. M. Andrieu, in his valuable treatise Immixtio et Consecratio, 1924, produces (pp. 114 ff.) a truly imposing list of instances, ranging from the sixth to the end of the eleventh century, of Communion being given to the sick in both kinds.  In several instances, it is expressly stated or clearly implied, that the chalice itself was carried from the church.

      Andrieu contends that, though the phrase “corpore et sanguine Christi,” so often used in connection with Communion of the Sick, occasionally (owing to belief in Concomitance) denotes Communion in one kind alone, yet such instances are rare, and, moreover, are balanced by others, where the statement that the sick person was communicated “with the Body of Christ” by no means excludes the subsequent administration of the Cup, which is sometimes casually mentioned in another part of the same document, or is established by independent testimony.

      Dom Lambot, who accepts Andrieu’s conclusions, writes: “The practice of administering in viaticum the bread and the consecrated wine prevailed for a long period everywhere (fut longtemps partout répandu),” op. cit., p. xli, note.

      There can be no doubt that Freestone is perfectly right in maintaining that throughout this later period Reservation of the Host alone still remained in use, and that in cases of emergency or special difficulty the sick were communicated, as in the primitive period, in one kind.  On the other hand, it seems to be an established fact, that in cases where no serious inconvenience was involved, the clergy usually preferred to give and the sick to receive Communion in both kinds.

      It should be specially noted that from the sixth century onwards it was the frequent – perhaps the most usual – practice for the ministering priest (in cases of sickness which were not urgent) first to celebrate in church a Mass for the Sick; then, laying aside his chasuble, and carrying in his hands the chalice and paten, to go forth from the church in solemn procession to the sick man’s house (accompanied by all the ministers and clerks, if any were present), and to communicate him directly from the altar, precisely in the manner described by St. Justin Martyr.  Allusions to this practice are so numerous in both mediaeval Orders and historical documents that it is needless to cite examples.

      Accordingly, the 1549 Revisers had the support of early mediaeval as well as primitive precedent, when they prescribed as the normal method of communicating the sick (when due notice was given) the carrying of the Sacrament (in both kinds) directly from the altar to the sick person, while still permitting Perpetual Reservation of the Host alone, with a view to making satisfactory provision for cases of special difficulty, or sudden emergency – in particular, unexpected calls to give viaticum to persons in extremis (see below).

Reservation in the Church of England.

      Reservation, being an oecumenical custom, was accepted from the beginning by the Church of England.  The Celtic and the Roman missionaries, differing upon many points, were agreed upon this.  It is recorded that the Celtic clergy frequently carried the Reserved Sacrament about with them on their journeys, for the purpose of communicating any sick or dying persons whom they might happen to meet. [Instances of private celebrations in England in the Middle Ages are very rare.  One tenth-century Canon, however, allows Mass to be celebrated in a private house, “for great need, or if anyone be sick”; and another “for anyone’s extreme sickness”.  On the other hand, another Canon of that age fines a priest 12 ores, who celebrates in an unconsecrated building, without alluding to any exception (B. Thorpe, Ancient Laws, pp. 398, 417, 445).  Danger from pirates or invading armies was usually considered to justify the practice of celebrating in a private house.  On the Continent, private celebrations for the sick seem to have been least unusual in Spain.  They were, however, uncommon everywhere, and in most places strictly forbidden (Martène, I. 3. 5).  The practice was not entirely unknown in France even in the seventeenth century.]  The Oil of the Sick was also carried in a similar manner by both priests and bishops.

      At the period of the Reformation, Reservation was regulated by the Canon Law, especially as contained in Wm. Lyndwood’s Provinciale, seu Constitutiones Angliae.  This great treatise, having been approved by the Convocations of both Provinces, possessed unquestioned authority, and statutory force was given to its constitutions by the Act, 25 Hen. VIII cap. 19 (“Provided also, that such Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances, and Synodals Provincial, being already made, which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the laws, statutes, and customs of this realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the king’s prerogative royal, shall now still be used, and executed as they were afore the making of this Act”).

      It was further provided that the ancient Canon Law should remain in force until such time as it should be reviewed and determined by a commission of thirty-two persons appointed for that purpose.

      But inasmuch as the labours of this Commission proved abortive, Lyndwood’s Provinciale still possesses – in theory at least – both canonical and statutory force.  Certain of its provisions have been recognized as authoritative by both ecclesiastical and secular courts within living memory.

      The seventeenth-century Anglican divines were familiar with the Provinciale, and frequently quote it as authoritative.  A new edition, containing the greater part of Lyndwood’s valuable notes, was published at Oxford in 1664 by Dr. Sharrock.  The full text may be conveniently read in the unusually well-printed edition of 1527.

      The principal regulations about Reservation contained in the Provinciale are the Constitutions of John Peckham, of date 1279 and 1281.  The most important passage from Peckham is thus rendered in the English translation of 1534, which omits Lyndwood’s annotations: – “We commaunde the most worthy sacrament of the aulter from hencforth so to be kept, that in every parish church ther be a tabernacle [This term was applied both to the hanging dove (containing the pyx) over the altar, and to the aumbry or cupboard for Reservation.] with a closing (clausura) come(n)ly made, worthely as the greatness of the cure and thability of the chyrch may bere, in the which the lorde’s body may be collocate, and in nowyse shal it be put in a purse or bag for fear of breakyng, but in a fayre pyx garnyshed within with the purest lynyn, so that without jeopardye of breaking it may lightly be taken out and put in, which honourable sacrament we commaunde every Sonday to be renewed” (p. 66; for the Latin, see Bk. III, p. 179, of the 1527 edition and p. 352 of that of 1664).

      Peckham’s directions obviously exclude separate Reservation of the two kinds; but they do not necessarily exclude Reservation of the intincted Host, a practice which was not unknown in his time, though Reservation in the species of bread alone was more usual. [Where the intincted Host was reserved (a procedure which in my opinion Peckham does not contemplate, but refrains from forbidding, because it was the recognized practice in some districts), the Host was probably enclosed in a small interior receptacle resting on the linen lining of the pyx, or else the linen lining was so arranged as to cover the sides only (not the bottom) of the pyx.]  As the practice of giving Communion in one kind, even at Mass, had already established itself in some places in his day, and rapidly spread afterwards, Reservation in both kinds naturally became obsolete.

First Prayer Book of Edward VI.

      The 1549 English Prayer Book prescribed by rubric two new methods of communicating the sick:–

      (1) “If the same day there be a celebration of the Holy Communion in the Church, then shall the priest reserve (at the open Communion) so much of the sacrament of the Body and Blood as shall serve the sick person, and so many as shall communicate with him (if there be any).  And as soon as he conveniently may, after the open Communion ended in the Church, shall go and minister the same, first to those that are appointed to communicate with the sick (if there be any), and last of all to the sick person himself.  But before the curate distribute the Holy Communion, the appointed General Confession must be made in the name of the communicants, the curate adding the Absolution, with the Comfortable Sentences of Scripture following in the open Communion, and after the Communion ended, the Collect, Almighty and everlasting God, we most heartily thank thee, etc.”  This rubric merely revived the earlier mediaeval practice.  It is unnecessary to assume that it was based upon the familiar passage in Justin’s Apology.  The Compilers cannot have known this passage (as has been suggested) through the Latin version of Justin by Pico della Mirandola.  Pico translated only the Cohortatio, not the Apology.  The Greek text of Justin was not printed till 1551.

      It was further directed that the sick man should give notice overnight, or early in the morning, of his desire to communicate, and of the number purposing to communicate with him.  This method of communicating the sick is mentioned first, and is obviously regarded as the normal one in case of notice being given.

      (2) “But if the day be not appointed for the open Communion in the Church, then (upon convenient warning given) the curate shall come and visit the sick person afore noon.  And having a convenient* place in the sick man’s house (where he may reverently celebrate) with all things necessary for the same ... he shall there celebrate the Holy Communion after such form and sort as hereafter is appointed.”

      [*It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that “convenient” does not mean “near the sick man’s bed,” but “comely,” or “fitting,” according to its established contemporary signification, as is made obvious by what follows (“where he may reverently celebrate”).  In a large and well-furnished house the sick man’s bedchamber might often be “convenient”; seldom, however, in a mean cottage.  In a cottage, the priest would normally celebrate in the best living room, carrying the Reserved Sacrament afterwards to the sick man.  If this living room were too small, too dirty, or otherwise not “convenient,” he would bring the Reserved Sacrament with him from the church.  (For “convenient” in this sense, cf. “faire or conveniente cup” in the Communion Office, also Eph. 5:4; Prov. 30:8; and especially Wisd. 13:14, “a convenient [i.e. worthy or handsome] room”.)  Aless translates, in loco decenti.]

      This form included Introit, Kyrie, the present Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, Sursum corda, etc., and the entire Canon.

      Actual celebration in the sick person’s house constituted a distinct breach, not only with mediaeval, but also with primitive tradition, but the Compilers were probably only imperfectly aware of this.  Their avowed object was to do all things according to “the laudable custom of the primitive Church,” and they probably imagined that instances of private celebrations for the sick in primitive times were more frequent than in fact they were.

      Since, however, they retained Reservation as the normal method of communicating the sick, their departure from primitive custom was not serious, and is capable of satisfactory defense.  Beyond doubt it is an advantage to a chronic invalid, unable to go to church, to have occasional opportunities of taking part in the entire service of Holy Communion.

      What, however, cannot be defended is the unsatisfactory Collect and Epistle provided for use on all such occasions.  These suggest that sickness is normally – indeed in all cases – a “correction,” “chastisement,” “rebuke” and “scourging” from God, not an evil to be combated.  Instead of encouraging the patient to glorify God by recovering, they suggest that his duty to God is to remain ill and continue to suffer patiently.  The allusion to death, again, though not unsuitable in administering viaticum, is of somewhat sinister import, and therefore inappropriate for ordinary use.  It is, of course, the duty of the parish priest to instruct the patient to prepare for possible death, but, on the other hand – at least in normal cases – to expect recovery.  To associate the idea of death in ordinary cases with the administration of Sick Communion and Unction is a serious psychological and theological mistake.  They should rather be associated in the patient’s mind with life, health, and recovery.  Moreover, Heb. 12:5–6 is misunderstood and misapplied.  The biblical context shows that it really refers, not to disease, but to persecution, shame, and threatened martyrdom.

      This Collect and this Epistle have unfortunately been retained in all subsequent editions of the Prayer Book, even in that of 1928 ; which, however, has somewhat improved the Office by providing two alternative Collects (one of which refers to healing), an alternative Epistle (2 Cor. i. 3), and an alternative Gospel (John x. 14, 15, 27–30).

      It is probable that the two methods of communicating the sick provided by the First Prayer Book were intended to be supplementary to the traditional method.  It is significant that they only provide for the giving of Communion after previous notice has been given, and within certain hours (viz. the forenoon). [“The curate shall come and visit the sick person afore noon,” second rubric of The Communion of the Sick.]  The priest is not instructed (probably because there was no need) how to deal with cases of emergency which call for immediate attention.  Of all the summonses to minister which a parish priest receives, the most urgent is the summons to give viaticum to a person in extremis.  Such calls come at any hour of the day or night, most commonly perhaps in the small hours of the morning, when vitality is at its lowest point.  They must have been quite common in 1549, when the great bulk of the clergy and people of England still believed that to receive viaticum in the hour of death is “most necessary,” and when neglect to provide it would have been regarded as a grievous neglect of duty, and deeply resented. [For an account of the important Brandenburg Church Order of 1540 (Lutheran), which was in the hands of the 1549 Revisers, and from which they borrowed a few phrases of their rubrics, see below.  Though this Order prescribed Reservation, the Compilers did not adopt the methods there directed.]

      Viaticum had always been given previously with the Reserved Sacrament; and the Perpetual Reservation which alone rendered its giving secure was not forbidden by the 1549 Book – in fact it was still presumably enjoined by both Canon and Statute Law.  Consequently it is practically certain that in many parishes at least the incumbent would continue to reserve continuously, both for giving viaticum and for other purposes as well.

      The Book, for example, made no provision for the cases, which must have been as common in 1549 as now, when a poor sick person desired Communion, but there was no “convenient place” in his over-crowded and ill-provided house, where “the curate might reverently minister with all things necessary for the same.”  Again, the priest was not instructed what to do, if the intending communicant lived in a remote place, at a distance from a good road.  It is most unlikely that the priest would take the risk of carrying the chalice over stiles, rough country, and unbridged streams.  The Sacrament being perpetually reserved, he would almost certainly carry it in one kind only – in the pyx, as had been the custom.  That the Edwardine Reformers, while insisting strongly on Communion being given in both kinds at Mass, permitted the Host alone to be still administered in cases of “necessity,” is well attested.  The Act of Parliament, passed on Dec. 27, 1547, for the purpose of implementing the decision of Convocation in the previous November, prescribed “that the said most blessed Sacrament be hereafter commonly delivered and ministered unto the people ... under both the kinds, except necessity otherwise require” (Act against Revilers and for Receiving in Both Kinds, Statutes of the Realm, iv. 2; Gee and Hardy, Documents, p. 322).  Almost identical words occur in the Proclamation prefixed to The Order of the Communion, 1548, which was in the possession of all Parish Priests.  The only interpretation which they could reasonably give to the words of the Proclamation, “the most blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of our saviour Christ should henceforth be commonly delivered unto all persones ... under bothe kyndes, that is to say, of bread and wyne, except necessitie otherwaies require,” was that it authorized them to reserve the Host alone for the purpose of communicating the sick and dying in cases of “necessitie”.  The reason why the 1549 Book did not give explicit directions as to the method of giving Communion by Reservation in cases of “necessitie” was the obvious one that it was quite familiar.  On the other hand, the two fresh methods were entirely unfamiliar, and the clergy required to be instructed as to their due use.

      There is, fortunately, a fair amount of evidence – quite as much as could reasonably be expected under the circumstances – that this is what actually took place.  “Though,” writes Mr. Lockton (The Remains of the Eucharist, p. 250), [Lockton includes in his survey the slightly different method of ministering the Reserved Sacrament prescribed in Aless’s Latin translation of the 1549 Book, published in 1551.  But with this we need not here concern ourselves.] “there were two different forms of procedure put forth for use ... it seems probable that very frequently neither of these, but the traditional method of administering the reserved sacrament, was adopted, and that in some places, though not in others, there was continuous reservation in one kind as before; and this does not appear to have been always prevented by the civil authorities, as might have been expected.  Pyxes occur very frequently in the inventories of Church goods made by the Commissioners on their visitation in 1552, and not seldom they were allowed to be retained.  In some cases they are spoken of as actually containing the blessed sacrament, as at Edlesborough, Bucks, and Flintham, Notts.  A noteworthy example is that of Saffron Walden, where, in connection with the visitation on Oct. 5, 1552, is mentioned ... ‘a little round box to carry the sacrament in, with a purse to put it in’ ... We notice that this was within a month of the time, Nov. 1, when the Second Prayer Book would be obligatory.

      “The use of a pyx in the form of a ‘little round box’ would hardly be necessary, or even particularly useful, if the sacrament in both kinds was to be taken from the Church immediately after the service, and it seems evident that the rubrics of the First Prayer Book, which clearly, as we have noted, did not provide for every possibility, were not interpreted as forbidding continuous reservation.  The Saffron Walden case indeed suggests that it would continue even under the Second Book” [The removal by the Commissioners of the pyxes (in a considerable number of instances) cannot fairly be regarded as evidence that pyxes were “illegal ornaments”.  Being plunderers, they probably removed them in most cases where they were of any considerable value.  After their departure the churchwardens would in many instances replace the costly pyx by a “little round box” of little worth.  All sorts of illegal things were done in the period 1549–52 by bishops and other authorities of extreme reforming views; e.g. in some places altars were demolished, vestments forbidden, and the two altar lights (expressly retained by the Injunctions of 1547) prohibited.] (the italics are not in the original).

      Lockton, with commendable caution, somewhat understates his case, and draws from the evidence only the minimal conclusion, that Perpetual Reservation (in one kind only, as prescribed by the ancient Canon Law) continued in use in the period 1549 to 1552 “in some places, though not in others.”

      Numerous fresh facts, however, recently made available, point to the probable conclusion that Perpetual Reservation in one kind was somewhat widely diffused in most parts of the country, except perhaps London (the headquarters of the Reforming Movement), where not many pyxes seem to have been in use in 1552.  The antiquarian authorities rightly draw attention to the fact that even in this year there were very numerous instances of pyxes being still preserved in parish churches.  For example, Preby. Christopher Wordsworth mentions that of the 122 churches in the Oxford diocese, 45 still retained pyxes. [See Prayer Book Dictionary, p. 610.]  To this number we must add the cheap substitutes for pyxes (boxes of base metal) which were certainly in use in some parishes (perhaps in many) as substitutes for pyxes of gold or silver purloined or sold.  Moreover some allowance ought also to be made for the natural tendency of incumbents and churchwardens to hide their treasured pyxes on the approach of the predatory Commissioners, with a view to preserving them.

      The Saffron Walden case mentioned by Lockton is even more significant than he represents it.  The specially noteworthy point about it is that the Commissioners did not merely allow a receptacle for Perpetual Reservation to be retained; but they themselves handed over “the little round box” to the Wardens for the express purpose that it might be used for carrying the Sacrament to the sick.  On the day when they did this (Oct. 5th, 1552), the Second Book of Edward had already been enacted by Parliament (this took place on April 15th, 1552), and it was to come into actual use in less than a month (on Nov. 1st).  Of course, technically speaking, what happened only proves that the Commissioners regarded Continuous Reservation in one kind as lawful under the First Book.  But it is altogether unlikely that they would hand over to the Wardens for actual use an object which in their belief would become an “illegal ornament” in less than a month.  Here we have evidence, approaching – if not quite reaching – certainty, that the Royal Commissioners regarded continuous Reservation in one kind as lawful even under the Second Book of Edward.

      It may be worth while, in this connection, to give a literal transcription of this significant entry: – “Goods delivered for the ministration of the divine service.  To James Cowle and Thomas Marten, churchwardens, a chalice of silver and gilt of 15 ounces; a cope of red velvet; [The cope (the use of which would be discontinued on Nov. 1) was obviously intended to be cut up and made into a hearse cloth or altar cloth, as was expressly directed in not a few other cases by the Commissioners.] a carpet of blue velvet for the Communion Table, and seven linen cloths for the same; a little round box to carry the Sacrament in, with a purse to put it in; and all the surplices” (Proceedings of the Essex Archaeological Society, N.S. iii. 25–27, spelling modernized).

      Mr. F. C. Eeles, who first drew attention to this entry, remarks: “Saffron Walden ... was a fair-sized town near London – not a distant, hole-and-corner place, out of touch with what was going on.  Here we have strong confirmation of the Bishop of Salisbury’s [I.e. Bishop John Wordsworth, an unusually well-equipped liturgical authority – one, moreover, not friendly to the modern movement for the revival of Reservation (see his The Ministry of Grace, p. 382).  Mr. Eeles’ opinion on this matter is of considerable weight, owing to his extensive and accurate archaeological knowledge.] position that Reservation was not excluded by the Prayer Book of 1552” [Letter to The Guardian, Sept. 11, 1901, quoted by V. Staley in Hierurgia Anglicana, Vol. II. p. 160.] (italics mine).

      The Revisers of 1549 appealed to the doctrine and practice of the primitive Church as authoritative, and they were well aware that the primitive as well as the mediaeval Church regarded viaticum as most necessary.  And since they gave no explicit directions in their Book for the manner of giving viaticum, the natural conclusion to draw is that they intended to permit – or at least to tolerate – the giving of viaticum in the traditional way.

      Their exhortation to the laity to receive the Sacrament frequently in time of health, lest in case of a sudden visitation they “be unquieted for lack of the same,” also their statement (suggested by a rubric of the Sarum Manual) that in case of necessity spiritual communion may be substituted for sacramental communion, fall far short of denial of the primitive doctrine formulated at Nicaea, that to receive viaticum in the hour of death is “most necessary” [The Sarum Office De extrema Unctione has the following rubric: “Then let the sick person be communicated, unless he has previously been communicated (i.e. in the preceding Office for Visitation); and unless there is reasonable fear of vomiting or some other irreverence, in which case let the priest say to the sick person, Brother, in this case faith alone sufficeth thee: only believe and thou hast eaten” (similarly the York Office).  Archbishop Egbert trusts in God’s mercy for the dying man, if through no fault of his own he fails to receive the Eucharist in the article of death (Poenitentiale, lib. I. cap. 13).]

The Second Book of Edward.

      The Prayer Book of 1552 omitted all mention of Reservation.  It directed that if a sick person, desirous to receive the Holy Communion, gave due notice, and secured “a good number” of neighbours to communicate with him, then the curate “shall there minister the Holy Communion” in a convenient place.

      It should be observed that the priest is not directed to “celebrate” (i.e. “consecrate”) as in 1549, but only to “minister”.  The 1552 Book contained no direction (as did that of 1549) to recite the Prayer of Consecration, or indeed to use any prayers at all after the appointed Collect, Epistle, and Gospel.

      The directions given are so vague that they are capable of several interpretations.

      (1) Since the word “minister” properly means “distribute,” and was always used in this sense in the 1549 Book, and since, moreover, the 1549 direction to consecrate by using the form of consecration provided in the Communion Office was struck out in 1552, it has been suggested that the Compilers intended the priest to “minister” (i.e. “distribute”) the Bread and Wine to the sick man and his friends, without first consecrating them.

      But though it is undeniable that certain of the Compilers held the extreme Protestant view that the elements become sacramental by “use,” not by consecration, and perhaps even regarded the practice of consecrating them as superstitious, yet it is clear that the majority were not of this opinion, because they inserted in the 1552 Communion Office a very definite Prayer of Consecration addressed to God; not a mere exhortation or Scripture reading addressed to the communicants, as many of the more extreme continental Reformers recommended.

      Moreover, their directions can hardly have had this intention or effect, because the Elizabethan Revisers, who held very different views, did not think it necessary to introduce any alterations into the 1552 Office for the Communion of the Sick.

      (2) According to another view, equally possible grammatically, the Compilers intended the priest in all cases to bring the Reserved Sacrament with him from the church, and immediately after the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel to “minister” (distribute) it to the sick man and his friends in both kinds, precisely as is directed in the 1549 Book.

      It is quite true that the 1552 Revisers – or most of them – were not prepared absolutely to condemn Reservation as prescribed in the 1549 Book.  Indeed the 1552 Act of Uniformity, which prescribed the new Book, declared that the old one contained nothing “but what was agreeable to the Word of God and the Primitive Church”; and that such doubts as had been raised proceeded rather from “the curiosity of the ministers, and mistakers, than of any other worthy cause.”

      Furthermore, they were well aware that Reservation for the Sick was not only tolerated, but even defended and practiced by not a few of the leaders of the school of thought to which they mostly belonged, viz. the advanced Calvinistic.  For example, it is all but certain that they had before them, as they worked, the Latin translation of the Service Book used by the French-speaking congregation of “Reformed” refugees, which had been settled at Glastonbury since 1548 under a Flemish pastor named Valerandus Pollanus, who had previously ministered to them at Strassburg.*  Strange to relate, this ultra-Protestant Liturgy prescribed Reservation of the 1549 type as the sole method of communicating the sick (for the details, see below).

      [*It is morally certain that it was mainly from Pollanus that the 1552 Revisers derived the idea of prefixing to Mattins the present Sentences, Confession, and Absolution, and to the Communion Office the Decalogue with congregational responses.  The tenth response is particularly reminiscent of Pollanus.

      Whether they also consulted the somewhat similar Forma et Ratio Tota Ecclesiastici Ministerii, which was used by the “Reformed” congregations in London presided over by John Laski (a Lasco), is more doubtful.  However, certain coincidences both of subject matter and of phraseology render it not unlikely.  H. A. Daniel’s statement, that this Liturgy prescribed Reservation for the sick, seems to be the result of misunderstanding.  It is true that in all forms of this Liturgy the deacons are directed to distribute the remains of the Eucharist to the sick (valetudinarii, maladieux, kranken), as well as to the poor and aged.  This, however, was for consumption at ordinary meals, not for sacramental Communion.  Laski gave directions that the sick were to be exhorted to meditate on the Eucharist, but not apparently to receive it.]

      It is, moreover, quite certain that the Revisers had before them Martin Bucer’s elaborate Censura of the 1549 Book, which runs to 28 chapters.  Commentators on the Prayer Book have mostly failed to notice that though Bucer detected numerous and grievous faults in nearly every other part of this Book, he found nothing whatever to censure in the Service for Sick Communion, though this prescribed Reservation as the normal method to be used.  “That which is here prescribed,” wrote Bucer, “is sufficiently in harmony with the divine Scriptures”; and he expressed satisfaction that the sick were by this Order to be communicated directly from the Table of the Lord (instead of, as formerly, from the Aumbry or hanging Pyx).

      Bucer, who knew hardly any English, had to use as his text on which to comment the inaccurate and protestantized Latin translation of Alexander Aless, which is prefixed to the Censura in his published works (see Scripta Anglicana, 1577, pp. 370 ff.).  Aless, in spite of his profession on the title page to give a “bona fide” translation, introduced fundamental changes into the 1549 Office for Sick Communion, with the object of bringing it into closer accord with the principles and practice of “Reformed” foreign Churches, particularly those of Strassburg and Frankfort.  Accordingly, in his version Aless: (1) cancelled the 1549 provision that the sick man might receive the Reserved Sacrament alone, substituting the “Reformed” requirement that there must be fellow communicants in all cases; (2) he introduced the strange “Reformed” regulation, that when a Deacon (or the Pastor) carried the Reserved Sacrament to a sick person, communicants from the church must accompany him, and receive the Eucharist again in the chamber of sickness; (3) he gave the entirely false impression that continuous Reservation was excluded by the 1549 Book, for he stated that if the priest were unexpectedly summoned (for example, at night) to give viaticum to a dying person, he would not actually communicate him, but only instruct him to make an act of spiritual Communion.

      All these changes were calculated to enlist the favourable judgment of Bucer; and in part account for it.  Nevertheless, it must be recognized that, even after this extensive garbling, [Probably the most audacious of Aless’s falsifications was his statement that the 1549 Visitation Office discontinued Unction of the Sick, the rubrics and prayers for which he entirely omitted (“Let the priest recite this Psalm, in place of the Anointing formerly in use”).  Bucer, however, who seems to have received occasional help from an assistant who knew English, was aware that the English Book made provision for Unction, and of this he expressed decided disapproval.  Both Luther and Calvin rejected the rite of Unction.  The former, however, was prepared to tolerate its continuance on two conditions: (1) that it was not regarded as a Sacrament, and (2) that it was not believed to possess supernatural healing virtue.  The Protestant Churches almost universally held that, “gifts of healing” having ceased, Unction ought no longer to be practiced.] Aless’s translation still retained Reservation as the normal method of communicating the sick, and actually prescribed it on all days when the Eucharist was celebrated in church.  Bucer, therefore, quite certainly classed Reservation (at least of the 1549 type) among the things which are “sufficiently in agreement with the divine Scriptures (divinis Scripturis satis consentanea),” and his Censura made his opinion known to the 1552 Revisers.

      The 1552 Revisers also possessed the criticisms of Peter Martyr (now lost) on the 1549 Book.  Since Martyr was as ignorant of English as Bucer, he had to work upon a (presumably) more correct Latin version, which was prepared for him by Cheke.  He expressed decided disapprobation of the 1549 provision for Reservation, and was surprised to learn that Bucer had neglected to censure it (see his letter to Bucer, of date January 10, 1551 = 1552, printed in J. Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Vol. III. pp. 661–64). [Cartwright condemned Reservation, and attacked the Eucharistic theology of Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian, who approved it.  Whitgift made a general defense of their orthodoxy, but since he did not explicitly defend Reservation, his attitude towards it is doubtful (Works, ii. pp. 541 ff. Parker Soc. ed.).]

      For these and the like reasons the 1552 Revisers found themselves unable to condemn Reservation outright.  Nevertheless, there is strong evidence that most of them disliked it intensely, as is especially made evident by the Edwardine draft of the Reformatio Legum.  Consequently, it violates historical probability in no inconsiderable degree, so to interpret the 1552 Office for Sick Communion as to make it positively prescribe Reservation.  For if it prescribes Reservation at all, it prescribes it exclusively; and, though this, as we have seen, was actually done in certain ultra-Protestant quarters, all that we know of the 1552 Revisers forbids us to suppose – unless coercive evidence requires it – that they took this course.

      (3) A third view is that the Compilers intended the priest to consecrate specially in all cases, and never under any circumstances to reserve.

      The difficulty of this view is, that if this was their intention they carefully concealed it.  Not only did they omit the 1549 direction to the priest to “celebrate” (i.e. “consecrate”) with the appointed “Canon,” but they further directed the priest to “minister” the Sacrament – a term which not only in the 1549 Book, but in current usage also, seems at this period always to have meant “distribute,” not “consecrate”.  Of equal significance is the fact that they failed to prohibit Reservation, which they must have known would continue – at least in some quarters – unless it was expressly forbidden.

      (4) Upon the whole, the best solution of this difficult problem is that the Compilers, being unable to agree, left the whole matter discreetly vague.

      They could not agree to condemn Reservation, partly because it was practiced by some of the most extreme Reformers, partly also because through the publication of the first edition of Justin Martyr by Stephanus in 1551 it had become evident to all the world that Reservation – at least of the 1549 type – was absolutely primitive.  On the other hand, they intensely disliked it.  In the end they followed what, from their point of view, was obviously the best policy.  (1) They said nothing whatever about Reservation, hoping that, since it was not mentioned, it would be seldom practiced and would ultimately die out.  (2) Instead of directing the priest either to “reserve” or “celebrate” or “consecrate,” they used the word “minister” in a vague and indeterminate sense.  It is possible that even in 1552 there was a tendency (which became more definite in the age of Elizabeth) to use the two words loosely and almost interchangeably.  However this may be, it would seem that the 1552 Revisers deliberately chose this word, hoping that (since Reservation was no longer mentioned) most priests would understand it in the sense of “celebrate,” but taking the risk that some – they hoped only a few – would understand it in its stricter sense as a direction to “distribute” the Reserved Sacrament.

      This is practically the view to which Dr. W. P. M. Kennedy, a particularly well-equipped Tudor authority, was led, after an unusually thorough investigation.  “Ecclesiastical affairs,” he writes, about 1552 almost demanded an ambiguous position about communion of the sick. ... Some were for no communion at all, some for a celebration, some for a ministration [by Reservation], while even those who most disliked the mediaeval custom were not in a position either in 1552 or 1559 to condemn the method of 1549, though glad to see it quietly disappear. ... The Reformers left a loophole for it.” [The Law and Custom of Reservation, 1547–1661, p. 18.]

The Elizabethan Prayer Book.

      The Elizabethan Prayer Book represents a considerable reaction from the low sacramental views entertained by the 1552 Revisers towards higher and more traditional conceptions of the nature of the Eucharist. [An interesting indication of this is that Elizabeth’s 1560 Latin Book restored the Benedictus after the Sanctus (omitted in 1552) in the following form: “Benedictus qui vent in nomine Domini.  Osanna in excelsis.”  The permissive use of the Benedictus is sanctioned by the 1928 Book.]  As stated above, the 1552 Office for the Communion of the Sick was retained unaltered, but it was officially interpreted (1) as requiring the administration of the consecrated elements in all cases; [The Latin Prayer Book of 1560 expressly directs the priest who ministers to a sick person to celebrate the Supper, and after the Sursum corda, to proceed “to the end,” viz. of the Communion Office.  In 1573, Robert Johnson was condemned to prison for a year for delivering to communicants in church an unconsecrated cup of wine.  His plea that consecration is unnecessary was unanimously rejected by the Court as preposterous.] and (2) as permitting Reservation, at least of the 1549 type.

      The attitude both of Queen Elizabeth and of Archbishop Parker towards the question of Reservation is fortunately quite unambiguous.  In 1560, Walter Haddon, an accomplished Latinist, acting under instructions from Elizabeth, produced a Latin version of the Prayer Book, founded on, but not identical with, Aless’s translation of the 1549 Book.  Two impressions were issued in 1560, the second of which incorporated an Appendix, containing a form for celebrating the Lord’s Supper at Funerals, and a Memorial Service for Benefactors. [The authorities state that Elizabeth’s Latin Book was intended for public use in Ireland, in those numerous parishes in which English was not understood.  I am not aware of any direct evidence of its actual use in Ireland.]

      The official and authoritative character of this Prayer Book is beyond doubt.  It opens with the Royal Letters Patent (dated April 6), authorizing and “exhorting” its use in the Universities, and in the Colleges of Winchester and Eton, and, moreover, recommending its private use by all the clergy, on those occasions when, for any sufficient reason, they did not read Prayers publicly in church.  The Queen further acknowledged it as authorized by the Crown in a Commission of Jan. 22, 1562.  The Letters Patent state that the Book is issued by the Queen under powers belonging to her under the recent Act of Uniformity, and that it is “in harmony with (convenientem) our English Book of Public Prayers, now received and used throughout our kingdom.”

      “Haddon’s work,” writes Clay, who edited the Book for the Parker Society in 1847, “came forth with the express sanction of Elizabeth’s Letters Patent.  It was enjoined by her authority upon the universities, the great public schools, and the clergy in their private devotions. ... Of necessity, therefore, this Prayer Book assumed a character which must render it an object of no common interest, and ever entitle it to much consideration.”  Similarly, Kennedy declares that “Haddon’s translation had behind it royal authority, that Parker was ordered to regulate its use in the province of Canterbury”; also that “Haddon’s Latin Prayer Book was never withdrawn.”

      The statements sometimes made that the Letters Patent were withdrawn, and that Elizabeth intended the 1560 Book to be superseded by the later Latin Prayer Books of 1571 (or 1572), 1574, and 1594, are erroneous.  Elizabeth, as Kennedy and Clay correctly state, never withdrew her authorization.  All these later versions were essentially private ventures, having an entirely different purpose, viz. the production, for private use alone, of a more or less accurate Latin version of the statutory English Book of 1559.  They begin with the Act of Uniformity (omitted by Elizabeth’s Book of 1560), and the only important feature which they possess in common with the special features of the 1560 Book is, they make it clear that the priest who celebrates for the sick is actually to consecrate.  Doubtless Elizabeth knew of them, and permitted them to be published, for on their title pages occur the words Cum privilegio regiae majestatis, but there is not the least evidence that she ever authorized their public use.  The only Latin Prayer Book ever authorized by Elizabeth to be used in public worship, and for the purpose of communicating the sick, was that of 1560, and that authority remained in force till the end of her reign, though (as was natural) the Book was little liked by the Puritan party, and its use in the Universities was as far as possible evaded by Puritan dons.

      When, therefore, the Convocation of 1640 decided unanimously “to petition the Royal Majesty that the Latin Version of the Public Prayers be again imprinted,” the reference obviously was to the only official Latin Prayer Book ever authorized by the Crown for public use, viz. that of 1560.  This Book, therefore, and therewith the method of Reservation which it prescribed, received in 1640 the explicit approval, though not the full synodical authorization, of the Convocation of Canterbury. [E. Cardwell, Synodalia, Vol. II. p. 628.  The troubles which immediately ensued prevented this project being carried out.]

      The 1560 Book directs Reservation for the sick in a manner similar to, but not quite identical with, that prescribed in 1549.  “But if the sick man cannot come to Church, and asks to receive communion in his own house, then he shall signify to the parish priest at least on the day before, [The Book, by a careless slip, has the day after, perpetuating a blunder of Aless, whose version was made use of by Haddon.] or early in the morning, how many intend to communicate with him.  And if it happen that on the same day the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, then the priest at the Supper shall reserve so much of the Sacrament as suffices for the sick man, and soon after the end of service shall go to the sick man with some of those present, and shall first communicate with* those who stand by the sick man and have been present at the Supper, and last with* the sick man.  But first let the General Confession and Absolution with the Collect be recited, as has previously been directed.”

      [*Communicabit cum illis ... cum infirmo.  Aless had written, communicabit eos ... infirmum.  Lockton suggests that Haddon may have only attempted to improve Aless’s Latin without altering his meaning.  If so, the priest is not directed by the 1560 Book to communicate with the sick man, but merely to give him the Reserved Sacrament.  However, a study of the phraseology of the continental Protestant Church Orders has led the present writer to reject this suggestion.]

      It is certain, therefore, that Elizabeth did not regard Reservation of the 1549 type as in any way inconsistent with the 1559 Prayer Book which was authorized by Parliament, nor with the 1552 Office for Sick Communion, which was retained unaltered.

      Archbishop Parker held the same opinion.  Not only did he obey Elizabeth’s instructions with regard to the use of the 1560 Book, but he deliberately altered a clause of the Edwardine draft of the Reformatio Legum which prohibited Reservation, in such a manner as to permit it.

      This clause, as drawn up by the Edwardine Commissioners on Canon Law, ran as follows: – “And so we do not suffer the Sacrament either to be elevated, or carried about, or reserved, or worshipped.”  Parker, who revised the draft in 1561, altered the wording so that it read, “And so we do not suffer the Sacrament to be elevated, or carried about through the country, or reserved to the next day, [Parker seems here to be quoting (and misunderstanding) a passage from the pseudo-Clement (seventh century), which is discussed below.  His misunderstanding is not important for our present purpose.] or worshipped.”  The obvious purpose of the change was to forbid public processions of the Host, but to permit such unostentatious carrying of the Sacrament to the sick on the same day as had been authorized in 1549, and more recently by the Latin Book of 1560.

      That Reservation by the parochial clergy was not unusual in the early years of Elizabeth is further shown by the fact that Calvin was consulted as to its propriety.  In a letter dated Aug. 12, 1561, and preserved by Strype, he expresses great dislike for the practice, but does not absolutely condemn it.  “It is a perilous thing to carry it [the Sacrament] hither and thither promiscuously.”  To carry it “with pomp” is absolutely intolerable.  It is right to communicate the sick, but the Sacrament should be given to as few of them as possible.  “Judgment and selection should be used, lest it be given to any except in danger of life.”  Specially noteworthy in this letter is Calvin’s judgment in favour of the primitive practice of giving viaticum to the dying.  This letter was probably a considerable surprise to the recipient, whose name is not given by Strype (Strype’s Annals of the Reformation, Vol. I., pt. 1, ch. 21).

      Similarly, in his Institutes, Calvin significantly refrains from condemning Reservation, contenting himself with the cautious judgment that it is “safer” (“tutius”) under existing circumstances not to practice it: “Those who practice it have, I confess, the example of the ancient Church.  But in so great a matter, in which a mistake involves great peril [of idolatry], there is nothing safer than to follow the truth itself [i.e. the manner of Christ’s original institution].” [Institutes, IV. xvii. 39.]

      Dr. W. D. Maxwell, who, as a High Church Presbyterian, makes the most of Calvin’s Catholic tendencies, and labours to discover them even in Knox, contends that Calvin personally advocated Reservation, and was only prevented from practicing it at Geneva by the “iconoclastic opinions” of his congregation.

      He quotes, as if conclusive, Calvin’s words: “It displeases me that with us [i.e. at Geneva] the Supper is not administered (administrari) to the sick” (Opera, 1870 edition, Vol. XVII. p. 311).  Administrare is a vague word.  It properly means “proffer”; and that is probably its meaning here.  But the Eucharist can be “proffered” to a sick man, after a private celebration in his own house, as well as after a public celebration in church.  That Calvin advocated private celebrations for the sick we know for certain; that he considered it “safer” not to reserve (owing to a supposed danger of “idolatry”) we also know.  The utmost that can be safely affirmed is that Calvin was prepared to tolerate the carrying of the Reserved Sacrament to the sick after service, provided that this was done “without pomp”.  Whether he ever reserved at Strassburg, where he was pastor from 1538 to 1541, must be left undecided.  Reservation was certainly in use in that city as early as 1548, and perhaps considerably earlier (see below).  If Reservation was already the established use of the Reformed Church of Strassburg, when Calvin was pastor there, it is quite possible that he reserved, for he had no objection on principle to the practice.  In the absence of direct contemporary evidence, this is all that can safely be said (see W. D. Maxwell, John Knox’s Genevan Service Book, 1931, pp. 55–57).

Practice of Foreign Reformed Churches.

      To Calvin’s great regret, the Church of Geneva, over which he presided till his death, refused to follow his lead in three matters to which he attached importance: (1) the establishment of the Eucharist as the principal service every Sunday (the propriety of which he deduced from Acts 20:7); (2) the giving of Communion in their own homes to persons dangerously ill, or confined to bed for a long time; (3) the giving of viaticum to the dying.

      In one of his Epistles (363) he gives pathetic expression to his disappointment that his Church had strictly forbidden the last two practices.  “It is a harsh thing (durum), and of evil example (mali exempli), that at the present time [at Geneva] a Christian who keeps his bed for a long time, or is near death, is prohibited from professing and manifesting his agreement in piety with the Church [by receiving the Eucharist].  And yet the Supper is the sacred bond which unites the sons of God.  However briefly [in this letter] I have treated this question, you yet understand by what considerations I have been led to the conclusion that the sick ought not to be deprived of Communion.  I do not wish, however, to cause trouble over this matter.  As you are aware, the custom in this Church is different.  I acquiesce, for it is useless to contend [against the general feeling]” (Epist. 363; cf. also 361, as quoted by Dr. Lyndesay in his A True Narrative, see below.)

      In the same letter he speaks on the subject of viaticum, less in the manner of a Protestant divine than of a Catholic doctor.  “It seems to me that it can be clearly (probe) gathered from the nature, purpose, and [traditional] use (usu) of the Mystery, that those who suffer from a long-standing disease, or whose life is in peril, should not be deprived of so great a benefit.  It has efficacy (valet) for the confirming of our faith, to receive as it were from Christ’s hand a token (tesseram) to assure us that we are accounted members of his body, and are nourished with his blood unto hope of eternal life.  And thus the receiving of the Supper equips us to engage in spiritual battles.  For if now a devout Christian perceives that he must depart out of this world, how can he fail to be assaulted and harassed by many temptations?  Rightly, therefore, will he desire to be armed to sustain those assaults.  Do you think, then, that we ought to snatch from him that unique assistance (singulare adjumentum), relying on which he may descend with more alacrity to the struggle, and win the victory?”

      Calvin lived and died a convinced Protestant; but in these moving and pathetic words he gave classical expression to what every devout Catholic through all the Christian ages has thought and felt concerning the supreme value of “the medicine of immortality” received in the hour of death.  It is sad indeed to reflect that, supposing the narrative of his end given by Beza (in whose arms he died) is exhaustive, this great Reformer, who bore such emphatic witness to the virtue of viaticum, died without it.

      Calvin’s successor at Geneva, Theodore Beza (1519–1605), is referred to by both continental and British writers as an advocate, not only of Communion of the Sick, but also of Reservation – and not without justification.

      His voluminous and able (but, where his prejudices are engaged, inaccurate and unreliable) controversial writings contain two discussions (I think not more) of Reservation.  In the first he merely states (Tractationes Theologicae, 1570, Vol. I. p. 256) that the Church of Geneva regards the Communion of the sick and dying as unnecessary, and strictly forbids it; adding, however, “if it can be practiced in any place without superstition and scandal, and, moreover, with edification to the Church, we are of course (sane) unwilling for that cause to make a schism between Churches.  But, on the other hand, let it be permitted to us to consider what ought to be retained in our own Churches.”

      In the second passage (Vol. III. pp. 148 ff.) he discusses the subject of Reservation fully and explicitly.  He personally approves the practice, mentioned by Justin Martyr, of sending the Eucharist to the sick by the hands of the deacons, either immediately after the public Eucharist, or at least on the same day, on the ground that such distribution of the elements may fairly be accounted part of the public service – “one and the same action (una et eadem actio) therewith.”

      On the other hand, he strongly condemns Reservation of the hallowed Elements till the next day; contending that it is highly probable, if not quite certain, that they will have lost their Eucharistic virtue by then.  The doctrine that the effect of consecration is permanent, though approved by so high an authority as St. Cyril of Alexandria, seems to him superstitious.  If it is thought desirable to communicate a sick person on a day when the Eucharist is not celebrated in church, it is, in his opinion, far better to perform the entire Service (not, however, without fellow communicants representing the Church) in the sick person’s own room, than to communicate him “with stale bread and a spent word [of consecration] (rancido pane et praeterito verbo).”’

      He considers that the sick ought to be communicated in both kinds, for it is unlawful “to separate what the Lord has conjoined.”  Nevertheless he concedes that under very peculiar and exceptional circumstances Communion in one kind might be tolerated.

      Beza’s reasons for forbidding Reservation till the next day seem to the modern reader decidedly fanciful.  (1) The flesh of the Paschal Lamb, “the express type of our Eucharist,” was not allowed to be reserved till the morrow; (2) St. Paul declares that the flesh of the idol sacrifices only retains its malignant virtue “in use,” with the obvious implication that a similar principle applies to the Christian Eucharist; (3) “Clement, Bishop of Rome,” commands the clerks who serve at the Eucharist “to remove the remains of the fragments of the Body of the Lord to the sacristy, and to consume them there on that very day.”  He uncritically accepts this spurious Epistle as genuine, and wrongly interprets it as forbidding Permanent Reservation for the sick.  What “Clement” quite clearly forbids is the Reservation till next day of any superfluous Hosts which may have been consecrated, not for the sick, but for the people – an entirely different matter.  That perpetual Reservation for the sick and dying was in full use in the seventh century, to which this Epistle belongs, is beyond doubt (on this passage see further below). [Beza characteristically omits to state that the clerks are to consume the remains “with fear and trembling”.  It did not suit his case to quote in full a passage which might well suggest that a disciple of the Apostles held the Catholic doctrine of the Real Objective Presence.]

      With Beza’s discussion may be compared that of a Swiss Protestant divine of still more extreme opinions, Hospinian (†1626).  This writer, whose knowledge was encyclopaedic, but whose judgment was prejudiced by a strong animus against both Lutheranism and Romanism, [Hospinian’s bitter polemic, Concordia discors, caused great resentment in Lutheran circles.  He claimed the title “orthodox” exclusively for Zwinglians and Calvinists, and attempted to reconcile their incongruous beliefs, with a view to united aggressive action against Lutheranism and Romanism.] devotes a long and learned discussion to Reservation in his Historia Sacramentaria (Zurich, 1598).  He concedes (but, unlike Beza, grudgingly and ungraciously) that Reservation as described by Justin Martyr is lawful, because it is one with the public Service (una et eadem actio), and does not involve Reservation beyond it.  The holy Elements, he contends, only possess Eucharistic virtue “in use”; and this “use” cannot lawfully be extended beyond the day on which they are set apart.  He excuses the procedure of Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse in the early fifth century, who, according to the account of St. Jerome (Ep. 125, par. 20), was in the habit of carrying the Sacrament in both kinds to the sick in a wicker basket and a glass bottle, by the unlikely supposition that he always did so, in the manner which Justin describes, immediately after Service.  All other methods of Reservation, even those approved by the ancient Fathers and practiced by the primitive Church, he stigmatizes as unlawful “abuses”.  They are excusable in some slight degree, because in days of persecution Christians were often debarred from attending church regularly for the purpose of receiving the Eucharist; moreover, primitive Reservation was always for Communion alone, never for adoration or pompous processions ; nevertheless, continuous Reservation was always an “abuse,” and as such ought not to be practiced by enlightened professors of the pure Gospel.

      Hospinian pronounces continuous Reservation unlawful: (1) because it involves disobedience to the plain command of God in the Old Testament (“The Lord forbade the remains of the Paschal Lamb, the express type of our Eucharist, to be reserved till the next day”); (2) Christ commanded the Bread and Wine to be eaten and drunk, not reserved; (3) Reservation is largely based on the false belief that viaticum is necessary to salvation; (4) it involves imminent peril of idolatry (op. cit., Bk. IV. pp. 379 ff.).

      In both Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches, a considerable volume of Protestant opinion favoured giving Communion to the sick, not only by special Celebration, but also by Reservation.  The learned and devout physician Harchius (apparently a Lutheran), whom Beza attacks violently in his De Coma Domini, was definitely in favour of both, quoting with approval the chief primitive instances of Reservation, and adding: “I cannot help approving the pious and sedulous custom prevailing in the reformed part of Germany of celebrating very frequently the Lord’s Supper, and of also charitably administering the Eucharist to the sick when they ask for it.” [I quote Harchius’ words from Beza, not having access to the work which the latter so bitterly criticizes for its liberality of sentiment.  Harchius attempted to mediate between the Lutherans and the Calvinists in the matter of the Eucharist, and even to promote more friendly relations with the Roman Church (see on this another learned and judicious work by him – a wonderful production for a layman – Patrum Orthodoxorum Irenaei, Cyrilli, Hilarii, el reliquorum, Fides de Eucharistia, et Sacrificio Universali Ecclesiae).]

      Harchius belonged to a fairly numerous class of learned, liberal-minded, and peace-loving Reformers (to be found both within and without the Roman Communion), who advocated the Reunion of Western Christendom, and the termination of the long schism with the East on the basis of the discarding of all mediaeval abuses and superstitions, and the common acceptance, as normative and authoritative, of the teaching and practice of the ancient Fathers, and of the primitive Undivided Church.  Such, among those who died in the Roman Communion, were Erasmus (†1536), Cassander (†1566) and John Barnes (†1661); to whom may be added Marco Antonio de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro (†1624), a divine of great ability and learning, but of unstable moral character, who, after becoming an Anglican, returned before his death to the Church of Rome.

      Among members of the Protestant Churches who shared their views, especial mention ought to be made of the great names of John Vorstius (†1676), a learned German theologian who became librarian to the Elector of Brandenburg; of Gerard John Vossius (†1649), German classical scholar and theologian, whose criticism of Calvin’s doctrine of Predestination and frankly expressed Catholic sympathies won for him the friendship and patronage of Archbishop Laud; and above all of Isaac Casaubon (†1614), perhaps the greatest scholar of a most scholarly age, who towards the end of his life became an enthusiastic Anglican, and declared that “no Church approaches nearer than the Anglican to the model of the once flourishing [undivided] Church, since it holds a middle way between those who err either by excess or by defect” (see the Preface to his De Rebus Sacris et Ecclesiasticis Exercitationes, 1614).

      The last three scholars regarded as permissible, not only “Justinian” Reservation, but also continuous Reservation, even public Reservation of the Sacrament in church, provided that its object was not extra-liturgical adoration, to which they were all opposed, but the facilitating of the Communion of the sick, the dying, and the unavoidably absent.

      They desired, however, that such Reservation should be voluntary, not compulsory; and contended that the Council of Trent had gone beyond primitive precedent in making the practice absolutely obligatory.  Vossius has several allusions to the subject in his voluminous works, and discusses it at length in his De Sacris Coenae Dominicae Symbolis Disputatio (see pp. 433–39 of Volume VI of his Opera, 1701).  Various relevant quotations from the not easily accessible works of these authors are collected by Wm. Forbes in his Considerationes Modestae (see Vol. II. pp. 379 ff. of his works, as reprinted in The Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology).

      In the year 1609 a liberal-minded French Protestant writer, whose irenic treatise was translated into English in the same year (it was reprinted in 1610), goes so far as to claim that Protestant Christendom in general approves of Reservation for the Sick.  He propounds the question: “Is it necessary to reserve the Sacrament for carrying it in procession and for other usages, or only for carrying it to the sick?”  He reviews the practice of the Roman, the Eastern, and the Abyssinian Churches; quotes the Lutheran Confession of Wurttemberg (“Among us, the Ministers of the Church are commanded to baptize and to dispense the Sacrament of the Saviour, both publicly in church and privately in the houses of those who are near death”); alludes to the favourable judgment of the Calvinist Beza on the question of Reservation; and sums up by saying: “In the beginning of the Christian Church it was the custom to send the Eucharist by the deacons to the absent sick, to whom I doubt not it afforded great comfort.  My strong desire would be that this custom should be restored to use.”  Having stated that “the Christian nations are agreed against the Latin Church that we ought not to reserve the Sacrament in order to use it for any other purpose than that for which our Saviour has ordained it, namely for Communion,” he continues: “As for the Reservation which is to be carried to the sick ... the Greeks and the Latins do approve it, yea, and the Protestants likewise.”  He concludes: “The Resolution of this question is, that none ought to reserve any of the Sacrament, except for the purpose of carrying it to the sick” (Tradition Catholiq, ou traicte de la croyance des chrestiens d’Asie, d’Europe, et d’Afrique, ez dogmes principalement controuersez en ce temps ... 1609, par Th. A.I.C., pp. 180–182). [A MS. note in the Bodleian copy incorrectly attributes it to “Morton Eudes, Anglois”.  The dedicatory epistle to Henry, Prince of Wales, shows clearly that the author belonged to a French-speaking Protestant Church.  He was, however, fervently pro-Anglican, praising the unequalled learning of the divines of England, especially in patristics, their incomparable Prayer Book based on the ancient Liturgies, and the wisdom and prudence of James I in seeking gradually to win the Scottish nation to adopt episcopacy and “Catholic” practices.  The English translation by L. O[wen], in spite of a few doubtful and obscure renderings, is a good one.  It deserved its wide circulation.]

      It may be here added that the Saxon Confession of 1551 (Art. 15), [“Est et manifesta profanatio, partem coenae Domini circumgestare et adorare.”] and the Württemberg Confession of 1552 (Art. 19), [“Alius error est quod una pars Eucharistiae solet in singularem cultum Dei gestari et reponi.  Vetat autem Spiritus Sanctus, ne cultus Dei, sine certo Dei mandato, instituatur.”] though they condemn the cultus explicitly (the former even declaring, “the Holy Spirit forbids any cultus of God without an assured mandate of God”), and though they emphatically condemn Reservation in only one kind, yet prudently refrain from condemning Reservation in both kinds for the sole purpose of communicating the sick and the absent.

The Reformers and Fasting Communion.

      One of the most urgent practical problems connected with the visitation of the sick is the extent to which they ought to be required to observe the rule of fasting Communion.  In these days it is not very unusual for devout and scrupulous Anglicans, even when seriously ill, to insist on fasting before Communion from the previous midnight, contrary to the advice of their physicians and pastors.  In the present writer’s judgment, the parish priest is fully justified in relaxing the rule concerning the fast before Communion to whatever extent the patient’s condition may require, very much in the manner which is now authorized in the Roman Communion (see below); nor need he limit the relaxation to two days a week, seeing that not a few sick persons desire to receive Holy Communion daily, and are benefited thereby not only in soul but also in body.

      In mediaeval times, sick persons desiring to communicate (unless they were in “extreme sickness,” or imminent danger of death) were required to fast strictly from the previous midnight.  Since the Reformers expressed no disapproval of the current practice, but, on the contrary, facilitated its observance by directing that the sick should be communicated as soon as possible after the public Celebration in church (which was early), or at all events before noon, they must be supposed to have approved it.  The reader should remember that it would be an anachronism to attribute to the Church authorities of the sixteenth century anything like the modern solicitude for the health and comfort of the sick.  The Reformers of all schools expected persons seriously ill to listen to interminable instructions and exhortations, and to take part in long-drawn-out services which (according to modern ideas) must have imposed undue strain upon the unfortunate patients.

      The duty of fasting Communion was not a matter of debate between the Reformers and the Church of Rome, consequently the allusions to it in the Protestant literature of the sixteenth century are rare and incidental.  They are sufficiently numerous and definite, however, to show that the ancient strictness was generally approved, not only by the Lutherans, but also by the Calvinists.  Many of the latter even enhanced the rigour of the existing custom by abstaining from food for several hours after receiving Communion, as had been the practice in a few places in mediaeval times.

      The Lutherans, holding a definitely “objective” view of the Eucharistic presence, fasted mainly in honour of the Lord’s Body.  See, for example, the Lutheran Church Order of Anhalt, printed in E. Sehling’s Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des xvi Jahrhunderts, 1917, Vol. II. p. 552, which contains the rubric: “Let the priests (sacerdotes) be always fasting and temperate (jejuni semper et temperati), lest dishonour be done to the sacrament[s] (ne sacramenta inhonorentur).”  The plural sacramenta is perhaps used as a singular for the Eucharistic rite as a whole, or it may refer to the two Eucharistic species, to each of which the term “sacramentum” was sometimes applied.  Both usages seem to be sufficiently established.  Dr. Brightman prefers the latter interpretation.

      On the other hand, the Calvinists regarded their fast before [and after] Communion mainly as a devotional exercise.  In Scotland the Eucharistic fast was observed by the Reformers with great rigour.  Dr. W. McMillan mentions that “at Aberdeen in 1598 the sacramental fast had to begin on Saturday at eight hours [o’clock] at night, and to continue on Sunday till four hours after noon.”  He refers also to the case of Robert Blair (A.D. 1604), who desired to communicate, but “having gotten my breakfast, I durst not, for it was then a generally received opinion that the Sacrament behoved to be received fasting.”  “The custom,” observes McMillan, “continued many years after.”  He also states: “The Reformers kept faithfully to the Roman practice of morning Communion. ...  They had their celebrations in the early morning.  At Glasgow the service started at 4 a.m.; and at Stirling it was half an hour earlier; while at Elgin the first bell was to ring at half-hour to three (2:30 a.m.). ... In the east of Scotland the hours were a little later, 5 a.m. being the hour of commencement at Edinburgh, St. Andrews and Perth. ... In these places there were usually second services beginning at eight or nine o’clock. ... Whatever the time of commencement, the service was not expected to last beyond the hour of noon” (op. cit., pp. 190 ff.).  Pollanus, at Glastonbury, celebrated at 8 a.m.

      In England fasting Communion was not a subject of controversy between Anglicans and Puritans.  Hooker (Eccl. Pol., iv. 2, 3) assumes as a matter of course that the party of Cartwright is in agreement with the Anglican Church on this matter (“It is not, I am right sure, their meaning that ... the Eucharist should be ministered after meat”).  Whitgift (Works, ed. Parker Society, Vol. III. p. 88) uses similar language (“The places of Scripture which you [Puritans] quote in the margent to prove sitting at the Communion declare that Christ and his disciples sat at the table; but that proveth nothing.  For you might as well have said that they received after supper, we before dinner; they after meat, we before meat. ... It behoveth meek and humble spirits in such indifferent matters to submit themselves to the order of the Church”).  Peter Martyr writing to Bucer on November 4, 1550, gives similar testimony as to Protestant practice: “At this day we so minister the Eucharist in the morning time, that after dinner we will not have the Communion in the sacred assembly.”

      The great Anglican divines of the seventeenth century prescribe and strongly recommend the practice, but the most judicious of them allow for exceptions in the case of sickness, or feebleness of health.  Thus Jeremy Taylor writes: “Let us receive the consecrated elements with all devotion and humility of body and spirit; and do this honour to it, that it be the first food we eat and the first beverage we drink that day, unless it be in case of sickness or other great necessity. ... It is a Catholic custom that they who receive the Holy Communion should receive it fasting.  This is not a duty commanded by God; but, unless it be necessary to eat, he that despises this custom, gives nothing but the testimony of an evil mind. ... But sick people and the weak are ... readily to be excused in this thing. ... For necessity and charity are to be preferred before such ceremonies and circumstances of address” (Holy Living, iv. 10, 9; The Rule of Conscience, iii. 4, 15; The Worthy Communicant, vii. 1).  Many other similar testimonies might be quoted.

      That the Puritans within as well as outside the Church of England were in agreement with the Catholic school on this matter, is shown clearly by the statement of Dr. Daniel Featley, the decidedly Puritan chaplain of Archbishop George Abbot (1562–1633), who held similar views: “As for our Communion there can be no excesse. ... For the people have warning a weeke at least before to prepare themselves, and they receive always fasting before” (Stricturae in Lyndomastigen, 1638; quoted in Hierurgia Anglicana, edit. 1904, part iii, p. 97).

      After a period of considerable neglect, there was a great revival of the practice of fasting Communion in the Anglican Church during the nineteenth century, as a result of the Oxford Movement.  Among the Presbyterians of Scotland, however, the practice has of late years so much declined, that it is now not unusual on Sacrament Sundays to arrange for a “second table” (at which Communion is given with the Reserved Sacrament) in the afternoon or evening.  It is still, however, prescribed by authority, that once or twice a year in every parish, “days of fasting, humiliation, and prayer” shall be held on some day of the week preceding a Sunday on which the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.

      It may be added that ancient discipline of the Church required that Baptism, as well as the Eucharist, should be received fasting.  The attitude of the 1661 Revisers towards the whole question is illustrated by the rubric directing that adult candidates for Baptism should be exhorted to prepare themselves with Prayers and Fasting for the receiving of the holy Sacrament.”

Evidence of Protestant Liturgies.

      The continental Reformers – even those of the Lutheran School – attached far less importance to ministrations to the sick and dying than did the early and mediaeval Church; indeed not a few of the “Reformed” (Calvinistic) Church Orders ignore the needs of the sick and dying altogether, and do not even provide a funeral service.  In Scotland, Knox (unlike Calvin and Beza) was definitely opposed to the Communion of the Sick under any circumstances, and his attitude was very widely though far from universally approved by both Scotch Presbyterians and English Puritans.

      With regard to Lutheran practice, our most copious source of information is the comprehensive Kirchenordnung im Churfurstenthum der Marcken zu Brandenburg, 1540, which (as has been indicated) was used to some extent by the compilers of King Edward VI’s First Book.  This Order devotes a long and instructive section to the Visitation, Absolution and Communion of the Sick.  In doctrine it is High Lutheran, and in ceremonial matters decidedly conservative (e.g. it retains the elevation of both Host and Chalice at Mass).

      (1) According to this Order, if a sick man desiring Communion is too weak to attend the long public “Mass” (this term is freely employed), yet strong enough to come to a short private service later in the day, the “priest” (this not “pastor”, is the usual term in this Order) is to reserve at the public Mass sufficient consecrated Bread and Wine (apparently on the Altar), and subsequently to communicate the invalid “privately” at “a fitting time” (i.e. not later than noon) with very brief accompanying devotions.  There is no mention of any other communicants, and the priest is not directed to receive with the sick man.

      This procedure is in striking contrast to that of the “Reformed” Churches, which agreed in insisting on the presence of fellow communicants at all sick Communions as a matter of principle.

      The Order is silent as to whether persons in health, unavoidably prevented from attending the public Mass, were to be permitted to receive Communion in the same way.  It is certain, however, that such a permission would have involved no breach of Lutheran principles (see below on Hermann’s Liturgy).

      (2) “But if the sick man is so weak that it is necessary to carry the Sacrament to his house, then (after demand made and notice given, as above) the priest, wearing a surplice (Korrock), shall bear it out of church from the Altar after Consecration with fitting reverence, the sacristan (Custer) going in front with a bell, and a lantern containing a lighted candle.”  Arrived at the house, the priest is to place the Reserved Sacrament on a table, “honourably” (ehrlich) covered beforehand with a white linen cloth.  This done, he is to “exhort,” “comfort” and “instruct” the sick man at considerable length; to recite at least Ps. 25; to read St. John 3:16 ff., followed by a passage from St. Paul; also to offer certain suitable prayers.  Before giving Communion to the patient (in both kinds), he is to hear his confession and absolve him.  The service concludes with the Aaronic blessing (Numb. 6:23); but, if requested, the priest is to add Psalms 91 and 108.

      (3) In case of an unexpected emergency (for instance, a sudden call to give viaticum during the night), the priest is to repair to the church, to recite the Lord’s Prayer, to consecrate with the Fiords of institution only, and (preceded, as above, by the sacristan carrying a lantern) to carry the Sacrament so consecrated to the dying man, and to communicate him in the manner already described.  Continuous Reservation for the purpose of providing viaticum is obviously not here contemplated; though, on the other hand, it is not expressly forbidden.

      (4) This Order assumes that in large towns the sick will be communicated in all cases by Reservation.  In country places, however, where distances would usually be long, and the bad state of the roads would often render the carrying of the Chalice perilous, the priest is directed to celebrate Mass privately in the sick man’s house, using a simplified form of the public service.

      (5) This Order, like most of the sixteenth-century Lutheran Service Books, prescribes careful ablutions.  “After giving Communion, the priest shall wash his fingers over the Chalice, and give the ablution to the sick man, or some other [communicant].”

      It is worthy of notice that the early Lutherans, unlike the Calvinists, treated the smallest remains of the consecrated species with scrupulous reverence.  It is recorded of Luther and Melancthon, that if a single drop of consecrated wine happened to be spilled while they were giving Communion, they would fall upon their knees and lick it from the ground (see H. A. Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, Vol. IV. p. 444, where other facts of a similar nature are given).

      (6) Practically all the early Lutheran Orders not merely recommend but require the sick man to confess to the priest or pastor, and to receive absolution, before communicating.  Bucer (whose later views were more Calvinistic than Lutheran) also urged confession:* “First we ought to suggest to all sick persons, and also to exhort them, to disclose to us [pastors] privately their scruples of conscience, to enable us more fully to instruct and console them in all matters pertaining to their salvation.”  He requires that the friends present shall withdraw during the private confession.  He directs them, however, to return, to hear absolution pronounced, because “absolution, being a work appertaining to the entire Church, ought always to be imparted in the presence of the visitors of the sick man, who represent the Church of Christ” (see the Forma et modus aegrotis communicandi Absolutionem et Sacramentum Coenae in his Scripta Anglicana, pp. 364 ff.).

      [*Bucer’s formula of Absolution is worth quoting.  Though less emphatic than the Anglican (to which in his Censura he raises no objection), it strikes a note of decision and authority often lacking in Protestant Absolutions.  I who by command of Christ represent the Christian Church pronounce thee free and loosed from all thy sins: and I promise thee all his grace, consolation, works [i.e. merits], and life: also eternal life, in the name of God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  Let all say, Amen.”  Bucer claimed to absolve, not merely as representing the Church, but also in virtue of our Lord’s commission to the Apostles, “Whosesoever sins ye remit,” etc., which he quotes as the principal authority for this ministry.]

      (7) Not a few Lutheran Orders further require that all persons who desire to communicate with the sick man shall first make their confession to the priest or pastor, and receive absolution.  Even when this is not expressly ordered by the Office for Sick Communion, it is often to be inferred from directions given elsewhere in the Order, that communicants must in all cases confess privately and be absolved, before they receive the Eucharist (for instances, see the Visitatio et Communio Infirmorum ex Agenda Austriaca, 1574, reprinted in Daniel’s Codex Liturgicus, Vol. II. p. 432 see also E. Sehling, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen, Vol. II. p. 96.  Archbishop Hermann (Lutheran) gives similar directions.  The strictness of early Lutheranism in this matter often exceeded that of the Church of Rome. [Lutheranism, however, even in its early days, laid far less stress than Roman Catholicism on the complete enumeration of all remembered sins, consequently the tendency was for Lutheran Confession to degenerate into a mere formality, and finally to disappear.]  It may be added that even among Calvinists, private confession to the pastor was more often recommended and practiced than is usually realized.

      (8) The Lutheran Church, unlike the Calvinistic, communicated its sick members freely and frequently, either by Reservation, or by special Consecration in the sick person’s house.  The latter soon came to be the more usual method, except in High Lutheran quarters, where many mediaeval practices were retained.  No Lutheran forms seem expressly to forbid Reservation.  The great majority, however, prescribe clinical celebration.  Some do not specify the method of giving Communion.

      (9) With regard to the Communion of the absent, Hermann von Wied (†1552), the Lutheran Archbishop of Cologne, authorized celebrations in private houses for the purpose of giving Communion not only to the sick, but also to travelers, and persons in health prevented by various reasons from attending church (Simplex et pia deliberatio, ed. 1545, p. 97).  Hermann’s Service Book, however, though highly influential in England, where it was much studied in translation, is not good evidence of ordinary Lutheran practice.  It was apparently nowhere used on the Continent, except for a short time in Hesse.

      It is somewhat surprising to learn that in Presbyterian Scotland, at a time when Communion was generally denied to the sick, private celebrations for mariners about to start on a voyage were sometimes permitted, even on weekdays.  Dr. W. McMillan gives details of an instance in the year 1594 at Aberdeen (The Worship of the Scottish Reformed Church, 1550–1638, p. 214).

      The views of Luther himself concerning Reservation find expression in an important letter to Joachim II, Elector of Brandenburg from 1535 to 1571.  The relevant part of it is reproduced by Daniel, op. cit., p. 437.

      Luther, in spite of a strongly expressed fear of “idolatry,” was prepared to sanction Reservation for the Sick: “The Sacrament may well be carried to the sick, provided it be taken from the Altar at Mass, and not placed in the Tabernacle (Sacramenthaüslein); provided also that no superstition (Aberglauben) is involved.”

      He definitely sanctioned Reservation in both kinds; and yet felt perplexed about its propriety in all cases, when he considered the difficulties involved.  To reserve the Chalice is, he admits, an “innovation” (Neuerung), “causing the whole world to open its mouth and eyes, and giving occasion to the Papists to mock.”  To carry the Chalice a long way seems to him inconvenient.  On the other hand, he cannot but feel that to carry the Host alone “is a mockery of God, and only half a Sacrament – indeed no Sacrament at all.”  Upon the whole, he prefers that Reservation should be practiced as quietly and unostentatiously as possible; and that controversy and criticism should be avoided by saying nothing about it in the published Service Books.

      Luther’s advice in most cases was followed.  Very few of the numerous Lutheran Orders prescribe or even mention Reservation.  On the other hand, they do not forbid it, but discreetly “leave a loophole” for it, as did the 1552 English Book.

      The reader will have noticed: (1) that Luther did not contemplate, though he did not expressly forbid, continuous Reservation; (2) that in connection with Reservation in both kinds, he assumed that the actual Chalice would be carried to the sick person.  The possibility of using the intincted Host, or reserving the consecrated wine in a stoppered vessel, does not seem to have occurred to him.

      The attitude of the “Reformed” Churches towards Communion of the Sick differed greatly from the Lutheran, and was far from uniform.

      (1) The Church of Geneva rigorously denied Communion to the sick and dying under all circumstances.  Laski took a similar line, as also did many English Puritans.  Through the influence of John Knox, this view was for a time dominant in Scotland.

      (2) Peter Martyr and others approved of private celebrations for the sick, but were intolerant of all forms of Reservation.

      (3) Calvin also strongly favoured private celebrations for the sick and dying; but he was prepared at least to tolerate Reservation, provided that it was practiced without superstition and theatrical “pomp”.

      (4) Beza, his successor, advocated Reservation for the sick on all days on which the Eucharist was publicly celebrated in church.  On other days, he recommended that the Eucharist should be celebrated (in the presence of fellow communicants) in the house of sickness.

      (5) Not a few Calvinists objected on principle to celebrations in private houses, and yet desired to communicate the sick.  Pastors holding these views communicated the sick exclusively by Reservation of the Justinian type.

      Of this number was Pollanus, whose Liturgy contains the following rubric: “But if a sick man asks for the Eucharist, [then] on the very day on which the Supper is celebrated by the Church, a deacon (diaconus) is sent with certain of the believers (puis), that they may communicate [a second time] with the sick man” (V. Pollanus Liturgia Sacra, 1551 = 1552, p. 28). [I translate from the Latin version of this French Liturgy, which Pollanus presented to Edward VI.  In his fulsome dedication, the young king is addressed as a second Josiah sent from heaven for the salvation of England; and he is exhorted to make still further efforts for the extirpation of “idolatry”.]

      The Liturgy of the “Reformed” Church of Frankfort-on-the-Main, printed in 1554 (2nd edit., 1555), shows that the Calvinists there took the same view as Pollanus.  It has a rubric prescribing Reservation for the sick verbally identical with his, except that for “a deacon” it reads “one of the ministers” (unus ex ministris).  (Liturgia Sacra, seu Ritus Ministerii in Ecclesia Peregrinorum Frankfordiae ad Moenum, 1555.  See the reprint by A. L. Richter in Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI Jahrhunderts, Weimar, 1846, Vol. II. p. 158.)

      Since Pollanus derived his Liturgy, not from Frankfort, but from Strassburg, it is obvious that Reservation for the sick was also the practice at Strassburg at least as early as 1548 (when Pollanus left the city), and probably earlier still. [The peculiar method of communicating the sick by Reservation prescribed in Elizabeth’s Latin Prayer Book of 1560 is derived ultimately from the Frankfort Liturgy through Alexander Aless.  Aless in his Latin translation of the 1549 Prayer Book altered the rubrics dealing with Reservation in such a way as to make them more acceptable to the “Reformed” of Frankfort and Strassburg.  Haddon, while compiling Elizabeth’s Latin Book, had Aless’s translation before him.  This translation, however, does not direct the priest himself to communicate again with the sick man.  The requirement that the priest should communicate a second time was probably suggested to Haddon by the Liturgy of Pollanus, which directs the deacon who carries the Sacrament to do this.]

Reservation and the Scottish Reformation.

      Scottish Reformation documents, following the lead of Calvin and Beza, speak with considerable caution on the subject of Reservation, and indeed (by implication) seem even to allow it for the purpose of Communion.  “Adoration, Veneration, bearing throw streitis and townes (urbes [Another Latin version has plateas.  Du Cange defines “platea” as “via publica, locus vacuus, ager cum mansione” (vi. p. 359).] et vicos), and keiping of bread in boxis (pixide) or buistis (i.e. capsules), are a profanation of Christ’s Sacramentes, and na use of the same” (Scottish Confession, 1560, Art. 22).

      This article merely forbids public and ostentatious reservation in a “pyx” or “capsule,” after the mediaeval manner.  It says nothing against unostentatious Reservation in a cupboard in the chancel or in the vestry.  Similarly, it does not condemn carrying the Sacrament to the sick “without pomp,” as Calvin expresses it, but only ostentatious public processions of the Host, which have as their purpose, not Communion, but adoration.  This article, even if taken in its strictest and most literal sense, is consistent, not only with occasional, but also with perpetual Reservation for the purpose of Communion.

      The same remark applies to the Westminster Confession (1646): – “Worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this Sacrament, and to the institution of Christ” (Art. xxix. 4).

      “Reservation for any pretended use” must mean Reservation for some superstitious use.”  It cannot with the least plausibility be understood to mean “Reservation for the purpose of Communion,” i.e. for the very purpose for which the Westminster Divines – as well as the Council of Trent – declared that the Sacrament had been instituted.

      From the modern Presbyterian point of view Dr. H. J. Wotherspoon writes as follows” – “Reservation for sick and others ... is strictly within the destination and purpose of the consecration.  Its antiquity and prescription are certain.  Justin treats it simply as part of the normal distribution (1st Ap. 67, 65).  The Sacrament is not over until all who wait to be fed have received, the invalids and the ‘prisoners,’ in whatever restraint of duty or incapacity they are held, so long as it is restraint absolute.  The alternative to reservation for the sick is, of course, celebration specially for each, which in some circumstances is extremely difficult, and where there is only one minister of the sacrament and many sick may be merely impossible.  And while in clinical communion there is loss to the communicant in the fact of his absence from the consecration, there is compensation in his sense of fellowship with the worship of his brethren, and of receiving along with them” (Religious Values in the Sacraments, 1928, p. 284, italics mine).

      Although the fact is not generally known in England, Reservation is practiced today on a considerable scale throughout the Presbyterian world, nor is its legitimacy or propriety challenged.  “Suffice it to say,” writes Maxwell (op. cit., p. 56), “that the carrying of the Communion to the sick is now a common, though not a universal, custom among Presbyterians throughout the world.”  Dr. McMillan gives similar testimony: “Where Church of Scotland ministers today give the Sacrament to the sick and aged, this [i.e. Reservation] is the practice that is generally followed” (The Worship of the Scottish Reformed Church, 1550–1638, p. 212).

      As a matter of fact, no less than three methods of Reservation are at present in use among the Presbyterians of Scotland:—

      (1) The method already described.

      (2) Reservation of the Elements which have been consecrated at a morning or principal celebration, for use at “a second table” in the afternoon or evening (op. cit., p. 212).  This practice is obviously based on the principle that it is lawful to reserve, not only for the sick, but also for the whole, if the latter are unavoidably prevented from attending the principal Eucharistic Service.

      (3) A now obsolescent method.  “In the eighteenth century there was a practice in vogue in the Shetland Islands for communicants to carry away in a clean handkerchief a portion of the Sacramental bread for the sick; and there is reason to believe that it still exists” (p. 213).

      The existence of this custom shows that the Church of Scotland has, over long periods of time, at least tolerated Reservation in one kind only for the purpose of giving Communion to the sick.

      As to the antiquity of Reservation in the Presbyterian Church, opinions differ.  Considering, however, (1) that Presbyterians have almost invariably communicated the sick on the actual day of the public celebration in church, and (2) that in the early period there was a much stronger and more general objection to private celebration than to Reservation, it seems necessary to assign to it a very early origin.  It appears to be established, though evidence is scanty, that after the death (A.D. 1572) of John Knox, who was an opponent of Sick Communion, there was a gradual reaction in its favour, confined at first to a very few places.  Since private celebrations had been officially forbidden in 1560 and again in 1581, it was impossible, without breach of the existing ecclesiastical law, to celebrate in a sick person’s home.  But the law did not forbid – at least not expressly – the carrying of the Sacrament to the sick after the public celebration in church.  Consequently, the practice of Reservation, which Beza advocated, began to be adopted by those Presbyterian ministers (at first few in number) who desired at once to obey the law and to communicate the sick.  That others, less numerous, broke the law (which was not everywhere observed) and celebrated for the sick, as well as for mariners, in their homes is also probable.  Unfortunately the earliest evidence for the Communion of the Sick in Presbyterian Scotland does not specify the method employed.  But at any rate, it is clear that the closely related practices of Sick Communion and Reservation came into vogue pari passu.

      In these days, when the relations between the Church of England and the established Church of Scotland are becoming more cordial, it is interesting to notice how closely in accord (at least on the practical side) are the official references of the two Churches to the subject of Reservation.  The formularies of both are consistent, not only with temporary Reservation of the “Justinian” or 1549 type, but also with permanent Reservation, which also (as we have seen) has the sanction of primitive antiquity.

      It may be added that even among modern English Nonconformists, the practice of reserving for the sick is not entirely unknown.  That valuable compilation, A Free Church Book of Common Prayer, 1929, which reached a second edition within a few weeks of publication, contains a short Order (p. 282) for The Communion of the Sick when the Sacrament is reserved.  Here we read: “If provision has been made for the Communion of the sick by reserving, when the Holy Communion is celebrated in church, so much of the consecrated Bread and Wine as may be needed, the Order may be as follows:

      “After the minister has read one or more of the Sentences, there shall follow the Confession, Absolution, and Agnus Dei.  Then the sick may receive Communion in one kind, or in both kinds, or by intinction, and the following words shall be said, ‘The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ (or the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ) keep thy body and soul unto life eternal.  Amen.’”

      It is somewhat startling to find in a widely circulated Free Church Service Book definite recognition accorded to all the three methods of Reservation (viz. in one kind, in both kinds separately, and in both conjointly) which have behind them the authority of Catholic tradition, priority being accorded to that which is supported by the greatest weight of authority (especially in primitive times), viz. Reservation in the species of Bread alone. [It is also worthy of note that this Book contains a Service for Unction of the Sick (with Imposition of Hands) to be performed normally in church in the presence of the congregation, like the Anointing Service in the Greek Euchologion.]

      But to return to the early Presbyterian tradition: – there is one significant difference between the Scottish and the Anglican Reformation documents dealing with Reservation, which calls for especial notice.  Whereas the Scottish documents declare the extra-liturgical cultus to be a “profanation” of the Sacrament, and “contrary” to the Institution of Christ, the Anglican Articles (with extraordinary restraint, considering the personal opinions of most of their compilers) content themselves with the cautious – and correct – statement, that it was not established by “Christ’s ordinance”.  What view ought to be taken of it, regarded as a purely “ecclesiastical” ordinance, is not stated in Arts. xxviii and xxxv, nor, for that matter, in Art. xxxiv.  The principle therein laid down, that National Churches have power “to ordain, change and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying,” has certainly a wide sphere of legitimate application.  But it may be seriously questioned whether it is “edifying” for a National Church, by forbidding Reservation, to place difficulties in the way of devout Christians receiving in the article of death that provision for their journey which the First Council of Nicaea declared to be “most necessary”.  And if, on examination, it further appears that no method, except the traditional one of Perpetual Reservation, is adequate to give reasonable security to the dying that viaticum will be forthcoming when it is needed, then acceptance of the doctrine of the Nicene Fathers carries with it acceptance also of their practice, which undoubtedly was the giving of viaticum by Reservation, not by special Consecration.  This is one of the cases in which doctrine and practice are so closely bound up together, that their separation is not really feasible.  Wherever it is seriously and widely believed that the Eucharist is “the medicine of immortality” for the dying, and therefore “most necessary,” an insistent demand for continuous Reservation is certain to arise.  That has always been the case in the past, and it is so today.

      Enough has probably now been said to satisfy the reader that, contrary to popular opinion, there is little truth in the usual statement that Reservation in any form is inconsistent with the standards and principles of Protestantism.  It is certainly not inconsistent with standards of Scottish Presbyterianism.  The Scottish Presbyterian minister is as free to reserve, with as strict loyalty to his own doctrinal and liturgical standards, as are his Episcopalian brethren in Scotland and England.

Views of the English Reformers generally.

      Kennedy states, from an extensive knowledge of the literature, that hardly any of the English – as distinguished from the continental – Reformers condemned Reservation per se.  What they denounced so unsparingly was the mediaeval Reservation of the Sacrament above or near the altar “with pomp,” and its extra-liturgical cultus inside and outside church.  Even the contentious and vituperative Becon expressed himself on this point with unusual mildness and restraint: “The Church of Christ when it was most pure ... knew of no such reservation of the Lord’s Bread, as it is now used in the Pope’s Church.”  And Jewel expresses the prevailing sentiment of the Elizabethan Reformers in the words: “Reservation in old time was not that the Sacrament should be adored, but that it should be received of the people; and specially that persons excommunicate, for whose sake it was reserved, being suddenly called out of this life, upon their repentance, at all times might receive the Communion, and depart with comfort as members of the Church of God. ... It is the canopy [over the pyx] wherein all the question standeth. ... The hanging of the Sacrament [over the High Altar], and the canopy, wherein the greatest danger stood, being removed, somewhat may be considered touching Reservation, when it shall be thought necessary.” [Quoted by W. P. M. Kennedy, op. cit., who collects other evidence.  Jewel’s implied judgment in favour of giving viaticum to the dying, and his suggestion that it might be desirable to reserve continuously for this purpose, should be carefully noted.]

      The steady growth of Puritanism during Elizabeth’s reign must have caused Reservation to become rarer.  Probably by the end of the sixteenth century it was somewhat unusual.  Nevertheless, its lawfulness, at least in its 1549 form, seems never to have been contested.  Antony Sparrow, commenting on the Office for the Communion of Sick in 1657, writes as follows: – “The Rubric ... directs the priest to deliver the Communion to the sick, but does not there set down how much of the Communion Service shall be used at the delivering of the Communion to the sick, and therefore seems to me to refer us to former directions in times past.  Now the direction formerly was this: ‘If the same day (that the sick is to receive the Communion) there be a celebration of the Holy Communion in the church, then shall the priest reserve (at the open Communion) so much of the Sacrament of the body and blood as shall serve the sick person, and so many as shall communicate with him,’” etc.  Sparrow proceeds to quote the entire directions of the 1549 Book as being still authoritative or at least permissive. [See A Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer, 1st edit., 1657, p. 349.]  This work of Sparrow’s was highly esteemed, and remained for a long period the most authoritative treatise on the Prayer Book.  It was reprinted by Newman in 1839.

Modern Interpretations of the Language of the Articles.

      In modern times the following statements, which occur in the Articles of 1553 and 1563, have sometimes been quoted as evidence that Reservation was condemned and prohibited during the period 1552 to 1661.

      “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.”

      “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

      Considering that in the year 1560 Reservation of the 1549 type was explicitly authorized by the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and was in considerable use among the parochial clergy, it is impossible to suppose that these statements were intended to condemn every kind of Reservation.  As a matter of fact, their language is more restrained than might have been expected.  With great forbearance, and with the obvious purpose of conciliating the great Catholic party, pro-Anglican and pro-Papal, which was still in full communion with the Church of England, the Elizabethan Reformers refrained from condemning – at least in express terms – even those mediaeval practices connected with Reservation which most of them were continually denouncing as abuses.  In the same spirit they omitted from the Litany the condemnation of “the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities” (contained in the 1549 and 1552 Books), though this precisely expressed the personal opinion of nearly all of them. [Even the Papal party for the most part conformed till 1570, when Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth, and absolved her subjects from their allegiance.]

      The Elizabethan policy of combining Catholics and Reformers in one Church had its difficulties then, and has them now.  But as long as it endures, it will be necessary to take account of Catholic as well as reforming opinion in dealing with vexed questions, such as Reservation.

      During the excitement which followed the publication of Tract XC, the above interpretation of the Articles, which alone suits the historical situation in 1563 – and indeed, in the opinion of most modern authorities, is the only one which is grammatically possible – was denounced in some quarters as “an evasion rather than an explanation” of the Articles.  It is now the established (though not quite universal) view.  It finds expression not only in Anglo-Catholic writings, but even in those eminently “safe” Commentaries on the Articles which cautious and prudent bishops recommend for study to their ordination candidates.  Dr. E. C. S. Gibson, for instance, commenting on the words “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped” (Art. xxviii), writes: “The statement made in the Articles is worded with the utmost care, and with studious moderation.  It cannot be said that any one of the practices is condemned or prohibited by it.  It only amounts to this: that none of them can claim to be part of the original divine institution.  The Sacrament ... was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.  That is all that is said: and in a formulary, such as the Articles, that was sufficient” (The Thirty-nine Articles, 2nd edit., 1898, p. 665).  Dr. E. J. Bicknell writes similarly: “This last section of the Article is carefully worded. ... The practices mentioned are not condemned as sinful.  No anathema is leveled at those who retain them,” etc. (Introduction, 1925, p. 503).

      Of the bearing of Article xxxiv on this subject we have already spoken.

Synod of Perth.

      Although the Episcopal Synod of Perth, held on August 25th, 1618, did not explicitly deal with Reservation, its proceedings have an important bearing on the subject.  It scandalized much Scottish opinion by not only permitting but even requiring the minister to give Communion to every chronic invalid or dying person who desired it, provided that he was able to persuade three or four devout neighbours to communicate with him.  (This proviso was, of course, a concession to the Calvinistic view that Communion must under all circumstances be a corporate act.)

      The Synod prudently left the method of giving Communion to the sick undefined.  It spoke vaguely of an “administration” (not “celebration”) – a term which in that age would most naturally suggest a distribution of the Reserved Sacrament brought by the minister from the church, but which also might be fairly interpreted as permitting the Sacrament first to be consecrated in “a convenient place” in the sick man’s house, and afterwards “administered” to him.

      Two things are specially noticeable in connection with this Synod: (1) that there was much stronger objection to celebrating the Eucharist in a sick man’s house, than to reserving it at the public service in church; and (2) that the official apology for its acts (by Dr. David Lyndesay, Bishop of Brechin) defended both practices with the evident implication that both were authorized.  The author of “the seditious pamphlet” (to which Lyndesay replied in a masterly and persuasive manner) is almost prepared to concede Reservation; but is inflexibly opposed to consecrating in a private house.  “Some divines,” he writes, “condescend thus far, that the Communion may be sent to the sick at the time of the public action.  But Tilenus* says: Scarce any cause can be rendered, wherefore the public action should pass in private. ...”  And again: “The Communion was sent to the sick in the time or immediately after the action [service] in Justin Martyr his time.  It became afterwards to be reserved for the use of dying persons, etc. ...  Yet in all antiquity we read not that the Communion was celebrated at the sick man’s bedside.”  To this point the writer continually recurs, and it cannot be denied that, from the historical point of view, he occupies strong ground against his opponent.  (See above.)

      [*A humorous feature of the situation is that this learned French Protestant divine shortly afterwards became a convert to Anglicanism, and addressed an open letter to the Scottish nation, condemning Presbyterianism, and recommending the hearty acceptance of the episcopal form of government, as already happily established in England.  This letter so pleased James I that he invited the author to England, and offered him a pension.]

      Lyndesay, in his powerful but charitable reply, defends the whole of the Synod’s decisions against which objection had been brought: – especially Private Baptism (when necessary); Kneeling at Communion; Eucharistic Adoration (“It is no error ... to believe the spiritual powerful presence of Christ’s body at the sacrament, and in that respect to worship his flesh and blood there; yea, Augustine saith, that it is sin not to worship his flesh there”); also both Reservation and private Celebration for the Sick.  He has no difficulty in showing that Reservation is a primitive and useful custom; and he skillfully evades the pamphleteer’s objection that there is no primitive authority for a private Celebration, by referring to the authority of Calvin, who approved it: – “As to the sending of the Sacrament to the sick, it was a custom of the ancient Church, which Beza allows [i.e. approves]. ... Beza in his Questions thinks that the Sacrament should be sent to the sick.  Calvin holds that it should be celebrated at the sick man’s bedside, so both agree that it should be given to the sick. ... To conclude, to deny a necessary comfort to the sick, which may be ministered without breach of any divine law, cures not the public infirmity of the Church, but grieves the sick, and fosters in those who are in health a base opinion and contempt of the Sacrament.” (A true Narrative of all the Passages of the Proceedings of the General Assembly in the Church of Scotland, holden at Perth, the 25 of August, Anno Dom. 1618, pp. 119 ff.)

      A leading part in this Synod was taken by William Forbes (1585–1634), whose early and much-lamented death deprived the Anglican Church of one of the greatest theologians, and wisest and most tolerant ecclesiastical statesmen, which it has produced since the Reformation.  His death immediately after his consecration to the see of Edinburgh, expressly created for him by Charles I, was a serious blow to the fortunes of Episcopacy in Scotland, and to the prospects of an understanding with England in religious matters.  A divine as judicious and conciliatory as Hooker, and even more comprehensive in knowledge, he devoted his great talents unceasingly to the composing of the differences among Protestants, with a view to ultimate reunion with Rome on terms honourable to both parties, the basis of agreement advocated by him being Catholicism as understood and practiced by the undivided Church.

      At the Synod of Perth he was chosen to advocate the practice of kneeling at Communion; and in the same year he defended, in a public disputation with Aidie, the lawfulness of prayers for the dead.

      Forbes defended the lawfulness, not only of Reservation of the “Justinian” type, which was practiced by many Lutherans and Calvinists, but also of continuous public Reservation in church, for the purpose of communicating the sick, the dying, and the absent.  He desired, however, that such Reservation should be optional, not compulsory, as in the Church of Rome; because he held (it seems with insufficient warrant) that the primitive Church was not quite unanimous in its approval of the practice.  “It was the ancient custom,” he wrote, ... that the Sacrament should be publicly reserved in the sacristy (in pastophorio) or in a pyx, for the purpose of carrying it to the absent and the sick, as is clear from the story about Serapion in Eusebius. ... It was reserved, however, that it might be received and eaten (as Vossius observes); and this devout custom ought by no means to be condemned (hic Pius mos neutiquam damnari debet).’ Among Protestants, he claims as in general agreement with his point of view Vorstius, Vossius, and Casaubon; and concludes: “Let the abuse prevailing in the modern Roman Church of reserving the once consecrated host in ciboria for the purpose of being carried about in processions and for theatrical pomp be abolished ... and the controversy may be closed, without condemning the practice of the ancient Church with regard to Reservation, which then prevailed” (Works, in Anglo-Catholic Library of Theology, Vol. II. pp. 540–42).

      Forbes, in common with all theologians of the reformed Churches, maintained the absolute necessity of communicating the laity in both kinds at every public celebration of the Eucharist.  On the other hand, he was prepared to tolerate – and apparently even to sanction – Communion in one kind, when given out of church in cases of necessity or great emergency.  He quotes with approval the words of Vorstius (In Antipistorio, parte 2, p. 350): “But in this matter we always make exceptions for special cases, in which we do not contentiously deny that perchance one kind may suffice”; and refers in support to Casaubon (Epistle prefixed to his theological Exercitationes), to Andrewes (c. Card. Bellarm. Apol., c. 8, p. 192), both of whom except cases of clear necessity from the general rule; also (with some justification) to Bucer, who cautiously remarks: “If there were a person who could not drink wine, and to such a one only the Lord’s bread were administered, ... there would surely be a dispensation of the Church with regard to this Sacrament, which would be lawful, and would be granted, according to the example and words of the Lord concerning the sabbath.”  The reference is to our Lord’s words: “The Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath.” (See Bucer, In defens. Christ. Reform. Herman. Archiep. Col., c. 73.)

      The truth is that much Protestant opinion on the Continent tolerated or approved Communion in one kind: – not, of course, in church, but out of church in special circumstances.  Luther’s confused and contradictory utterances on this subject cannot be reconciled, as Hospinian and many others have pointed out.  Nevertheless, it is certain, that at least in some moods he was prepared to acquiesce in Communion in one kind in cases of emergency.  This was certainly the view of Lutherans generally.  For example, D. Chytraeus (Historia Augustanae Confessionis, ed. 1578, p. 430) represents the Protestants as declaring: “We deem those excused who partake of one kind through necessity, which may be manifold and various.  But by this concession we do not express approval of the [Roman Church’s] prohibition of the other kind.”  That the English Reformers permitted Communion in one kind in cases of necessity, has already been shown (p. 554).  Facts of this nature do not seem to have been duly weighed by the majority of those who in these days contend that Reservation in one kind only for the sick and dying is inconsistent with the principles of the Reformation.

      The views of Forbes were accepted with enthusiasm at Aberdeen, the principal High Church centre in Scotland at that time.  But among the more extreme Presbyterians who looked to Geneva rather than the primitive Church as their standard, they inspired dislike and alarm, especially after the issue of the unfortunate Scottish Prayer Book of 1637.  The Eucharistic teaching of Forbes, particularly with regard to the Real Presence, Reservation, and Communion in one kind, was attacked with vituperative vehemence by Robert Baillie (1599–1662), a learned but most intolerant opponent of Episcopacy, in a long appendix to the third edition (1641) of his anonymous Ladensium αυτοχατάχρισις, the Canterburians Self-conviction (1st edition, London, 1640).  Baillie quotes Forbes copiously, and denounces his “evill talents,” “most gross poperie,” and sinister “design to bring us back to Rome.”  However, not even Baillie attacked Reservation per se.  His polemic was directed against continuous public Reservation in church, with its attendant danger of “idolatry”; also against Communion in one kind, which Forbes allowed as an exceptional practice.

      The natural conclusion to draw from the facts connected with the Synod of Perth is that, owing to strong popular opposition, the sick were seldom communicated at this period in Scotland; but that, when they were, it was usually by Reservation, not by special Consecration, because the Presbyterian objection to the former practice was considerably weaker, and in some cases nonexistent.  The subsequent history of Reservation in both the Episcopal and the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland strongly confirms this conclusion.

      The circumstance that Reservation was esteemed lawful by the Scottish Bishops in 1618 does not of itself prove that it was lawful at the same time in England.  But, inasmuch as the avowed object of the Synod of Perth was to bring about as much conformity as possible with the Church of England, the proceedings there afford indirect confirmation of the conclusion which we have already reached on other grounds, that it was lawful and was actually practiced under the English Books of 1559 and 1604.

The 1661 Prayer Book.

      The lawfulness of Reservation under the 1661 Book depends almost entirely upon the interpretation of the following much-disputed rubric: –

      “And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.”

      It is historically certain that the object of this rubric was not to forbid Reservation, but to prevent the irreverent practice – not uncommon among the Puritan clergy – of using the remains of the consecrated elements in their homes as food at ordinary meals.  A similar practice prevailed in Scotland – perhaps also in England – of distributing these remains after service to the poorer communicants, to be taken home by them and used in the same way.

      Already in 1636 a Scottish Canon had directed that the consecrated remains should be consumed by the poorer communicants, “before they go out of the Church”.  Next year the ill-fated Scottish Book directed that the consecrated remains “shall be eaten and drunken by such of the communicants only as the presbyter which celebrates shall take unto him, but it shall not be carried out of the Church.”  The 1661 rubric had much the same object in view as the rubric of 1637, and largely adopted its language.  If it be contended that, whatever the actual purpose of the 1661 rubric, its literal observance does in fact exclude Reservation, the answer is that this is by no means the case.

      In order to understand this rubric, it must be read in connection with the 1661 Offertory rubric which directs: “The priest shall place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient.”

      It being granted that down to 1661 Reservation was lawful (and this upon the evidence can hardly be reasonably disputed), this rubric could only naturally mean at the time, that at the Offertory the priest was to place upon the Table so much as he thought sufficient for all the intended communicants, whether those communicants were all at that moment in church, or some of them sick at home awaiting Communion.  On days when the priest thought it expedient to reserve, he would place an extra amount upon the Table, intended for the Communion of the absent.  Then, after the Consecration, he would set aside in a place of safe keeping so much of the consecrated elements as would suffice for communicating the absent sick.  If he had correctly calculated the number of intending communicants in church, and had made proper provision for them, nothing would remain for the communicants present to consume.  Consequently the conditional rubric, “if any remain of that which was consecrated,” would not come into operation.  On the other hand, if he had miscalculated, and consecrated too much, then some would “remain,” and this remainder would not be “carried out of the Church,” but after the Blessing the celebrant would call unto him certain of the communicants, and with them “reverently eat and drink the same.”

      Reservation being still lawful in 1661, and no change in the law intended by the Revisers (as is usually granted even by the opponents of Reservation), this is the obvious “literal” meaning of the rubric, and indeed the only meaning which it can naturally bear.  The idea that it means anything else can only be logically based on the assumption that in 1661 Reservation either actually was, or was believed by the Revisers to be, unlawful – an assumption which is based on no evidence, and is contrary to fact.  The majority of the active Revisers were men of the Laudian school, who regarded the 1549 Book with veneration, and were attached to the practices of the primitive Church.  To suppose that men like Sparrow, and Thorndike, known advocates of Reservation, [I refrain from citing as evidence the inscription upon the supposed pyx of Jeremy Taylor (Haec pyxis quondam erat usui Jer. Taylor Episcopo), because recent investigation seems to show that this inscription is not contemporary.  A description of this interesting but enigmatic object is given in C. Wordsworth’s article on Reservation in the Prayer Book Dictionary, pp. 609, 611; and in V. Staley’s edition of Hierurgia Anglicana, Vol. II. p. 164.] and actively concerned in the Revision, deliberately acquiesced in the framing of a rubric which according to its literal meaning (for that is the contention of opponents of Reservation) obviously excludes Reservation, is not in accordance with sound principles of historical criticism.  The frequent contention, “The Revisers had forgotten the whole subject of Reservation, and excluded it by inadvertence,” does not harmonize with the known facts.  Only four years earlier Sparrow had published his classical Rationale, wherein he quoted the 1549 rubrics on Reservation in full, and declared the practice to be still lawful.  A second edition was issued in the very year of the Revision (1661).  All the Revisers, of whom Sparrow was one, had had their attention recently drawn to the subject, and they were perfectly aware that legality was being influentially claimed for the practice by one of their own number.  The truth is that the rubric of 1661, interpreted “literally” and in accordance with the facts of history, has no bearing, direct or indirect, upon Reservation.  Indeed it is consistent, not only with the “Justinian” method of Reservation which the 1549 and 1560 Books authorized, but also with “continuous” Reservation, which (as we have seen) was also in use, at least to some extent in the period 1549–1552.

      It is worth adding that the ultimate source of the 1661 rubric goes back beyond the Reformation to the seventh-century apocryphal epistle of St. Clement to St. James the Lord’s brother, familiar to the Elizabethan and Caroline divines through its inclusion in the collections of Gratian and Lyndwood (see the Provinciale, iii. 25).  The pseudo-Clement writes: “Let so many hosts indeed be offered on the altar as ought to be offered by the people, but if any remain, let them not be reserved until the morrow, but be carefully consumed by the clerks with fear and trembling.”

      This and numerous other mediaeval regulations and rubrics (including those of the Sarum Missal), some of which expressly forbid the remains to be “taken out of the Church” (as had been allowed in the primitive period when the laity were permitted to carry the Sacrament home for the purpose of daily Communion), have no bearing whatever upon that part of the Eucharist which was reserved for the sick, and stored in a “turris,” “pyx,” “ciborium,” or other suitable receptacle.  Pseudo-Clement and the other mediaeval authorities (including Lyndwood, who has a note upon the subject) take it for granted that the Eucharist will be perpetually reserved for the sick and dying.  The “remains” of which they speak are not the portion for the sick, but the surplus of the consecrated species remaining on the altar after the Communion of the priest and people.  These were dealt with in different ways in different Churches. [For the details, see W. Lockton, The Treatment of the Remains at the Eucharist after Holy Communion, 1920; and W. E. Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, pp. 894–7.]  It is probable (indeed almost certain) that Parker misunderstood Pseudo-Clement’s direction, somewhat as certain modern authorities, unfamiliar with liturgical tradition, have misunderstood the 1661 rubric.  It seems fairly clear that he, like Beza, took “Clement” to mean that the Sacrament might be reserved for communicating the sick on the same day, but not reserved to the morrow for that purpose.  If so, Parker was certainly wrong, for the remains of which Clement speaks were quite clearly not intended for the sick.*

      [*Not only Mr. Lockton, but also Mr. Cuthbert Atchley takes this view of the 1661 rubric.  “The good Fathers of 1661,” writes the latter, “remembered their Lindewode. ... That this decree [recorded by Lindewode] was in force before the sixteenth century, at a time when reservation of the Eucharist for the sick was universally practiced, may be seen from the same work, Lib. iii, tit. De custodia Eucharistiae ... where it is written, ‘The Presbyter will always have the Eucharist ready for the sick, nor is that hindered by the regulation which forbids the reservation of superfluous hosts placed on the altar, for it is true that [hosts] ought not to be reserved for the use of the consecrating priests, but for the use of the dying’” (quoted in V. Staley’s Hierurgia, Vol. II. pp. 164–5: I have translated Lyndwood’s Latin).

      Lockton plausibly argues that Lyndwood’s (i.e. the usual) punctuation of Clement’s phrase, quod si remanserint, in crastinum non reserventur, is wrong, and it ought to be translated “but if any [hosts] remain until the morrow, let them not be reserved [any longer]”; cf. Exodus 12:10, 23:18, 29:34, etc.  The point is interesting, but not worth discussing here, because, whatever the correct translation, it is certain that there is no reference to that part of the Eucharist which was reserved for the sick.]

Thorndike and Sparrow.

      That some at least of the Revisers did not consider that the new rubric excluded Reservation is historically certain.  Thorndike, writing about eight years after the Revision, observes: –

      “As concerning the Eucharist ... the Church is to endeavour the celebrating of it so frequently that it may be reserved to the next communion.  For in the meantime it ought to be so ready for them that pass into the other world, that they [the priests] need not stay for the consecrating of it on purpose for every one.  The reason of the necessity of it for all, which hath been delivered, aggravates it very much in danger of death.  And the practice of the Church attests it to the utmost.  Neither will there be a necessity of giving it in one kind only, as by some passages of antiquity may be collected, if common sense could deceive [decide?] in a practice of this nature.” [The Reformation of the Church of England better than that of the Council of Trent, in the Anglo-Catholic Library, Vol. V, p. 578.]

      This passage is specially interesting, because it shows that Thorndike considered that the 1661 rubric is consistent, not only with Reservation of the 1549 type, but also with continuous Reservation for the purpose of giving “viaticum” to the dying.  Upon the necessity of this he strongly insists, quite in the spirit of the Fathers of Nicaea.  He does not condemn the mediaeval practice of giving viaticum in one kind only.  However, he regards it as unnecessary, and seems rather to recommend that continuous Reservation should be always in both kinds.

      The evidence of the later editions of Sparrow’s Rationale, published in 1661, 1664, 1676, and 1684, points in the same direction.  It is quite true that he did not alter his book to take account of the changes made in 1661.  Nevertheless, the later editions obviously passed through his hands, for they embodied small changes.  For example, that of 1672 contained services drawn up by Bishop Andrewes for consecrating a Church and a Cemetery (pp. 301 ff.); and that of 1676 a long new paragraph strongly insisting on the duty of fasting Communion (pp. 236–8).  All these editions, including the last published in his lifetime (1684), retain unaltered his expression of opinion that the 1549 method of Reservation was still lawful.  No opinion adverse to Reservation has been or is likely to be produced from writings of the 1661 Revisers, who (as we have seen) were for the most part admirers of the 1549 Book, and sympathetic with primitive Catholic tradition.

      Reservation after 1661 was probably somewhat rare; and, except among the Non Jurors and the Episcopalians of Scotland, tended to die out.  But it seems to have lasted, at least in some remote districts in England, well into the nineteenth century.  Bishop John Wordsworth wrote in 1901: “I am inclined to think that something like the custom of the First Prayer Book ... has had a greater continuance among us than is perhaps generally supposed.  I have heard of a case of the Sacrament being taken to a sick woman directly after a public celebration at Corfe Castle, fifty years ago, and I am told that the like tradition exists at Penkridge.  I shall be glad to know if it can be traced elsewhere.” [Further Considerations on Public Worship, p. 15.]

      Reservation is thus, in the opinion certainly of some and probably of all of those who actually drew up the new rubric of 1661, entirely consistent with the present Prayer Book.  It was not, however, unnatural that after the practice had become almost obsolete, and the liturgical tradition had become obscured, another view of the meaning of the rubric should suggest itself to some.  Already in 1722 Samuel Downes, who in that year published a posthumous edition of Sparrow’s Rationale, drew attention in a footnote to the new rubric of 1661, not expressly stating, but probably believing that it negated Sparrow’s assumption that Reservation was still authorized.  The Compilers of the Non-Jurors’ Communion Office of 1718 probably had this new interpretation in view when they slightly altered the 1661 rubric, so as to make it, beyond all possibility of doubt, consistent with Reservation.  In more recent times, not only Courts of Law,* from which accurate determination of technical liturgical questions is hardly to be expected, but even Archbishops, [See the two Archbishops’ Opinions published in 1900.  Archbishop Temple, however, speaking of perpetual as well as other methods of Reservation, was careful to state that “such a practice was quite consistent with the Christian faith, and there was nothing wrong in it in itself.”  Both “Opinions” exhibit strange ignorance of the history of the practice.] and at least one distinguished liturgical expert, [Dr. J. Wickham Legg, who, however, points out that this view was not taken at the time, and that certain eminent Revisers continued to maintain the lawfulness of Reservation even after 1661, and that the practice still continued.] have interpreted the 1661 rubric as excluding Reservation.  But the majority of the best liturgical authorities are still of opinion that the 1661 rubric neither did nor was intended to prohibit Reservation.  For example, Procter and Frere’s standard commentary, in use as a textbook in most theological colleges, and possessed by nearly every parish priest, states the position thus: – “The rubric was not intended to touch upon the question of the Reservation of the Sacrament for the Communion of the sick; it was only concerned with the consumption of that which remains, and authorizes the ablutions by which this consumption is reverently and adequately carried out.” [New History of the Prayer Book, p. 502.]  Lockton, as the result of a particularly thorough historical inquiry, comes to a similar conclusion. [The Remains of the Eucharist, pp. 238–72.]

      [*Sir Lewis Dibdin in the Court of Arches (in an undefended and otherwise unsatisfactory case) pronounced Reservation “an ecclesiastical offence” (Dec. 10, 1906).  A similar decision was given by Mr. Justice Coleridge in the King’s Bench Division (March 28, 1920) in the Salford Patronage Case.  On the other hand, recent action by diocesan chancellors and bishops shows a tendency to follow the judgment of liturgical experts, and to recognize the changed conditions of Church life.  In Oct. 1926, the Chancellor of the Diocese of Liverpool granted a faculty for erecting an aumbry “with a lamp hanging near” in the south wall of the Lady Chapel of St. Luke’s Church.  He stipulated that Reservation should be in both kinds; and that the elements should “never be taken from the aumbry except for the purpose of administration.”  He held that the 25th and 28th Articles do not prohibit carrying the Sacrament to the sick, and that the 1661 (disputed) rubric, “being designed against irreverence, had no substantial relevance” (see Southport Guardian, Oct. 2nd, 1926).  At St. Margaret’s Church, Oxford, a faculty was granted during Dr. Burge’s episcopate for removing the place of Reservation from the aumbry to a tabernacle upon the altar.  A faculty was granted to St. Barnabas’, Oxford, for the erection of an altar of which a tabernacle formed a structural part.  The Bishop (Dr. Burge) publicly consecrated this altar, which is still in use. Episcopal permissions to erect aumbries are now too numerous for specific enumeration.  On the other hand, as lately as January 1931, the Chancellor of Truro diocese strangely granted a faculty for the removal of a pyx from the Church of St. Mary in Truro Cathedral, although the Bishop himself had sanctioned its being placed there.  The Chancellor gave no reasons for his ruling that Reservation is illegal, merely stating baldly that, “According to the law as it now stands, Reservation of any kind is unlawful” (see Western Morning News, Jan. 10, 1931).]

      The same view was taken by Dr. Brightman, who during the last few months of his life devoted considerable attention to the subject of Reservation, with a view to its adequate treatment in the present volume.  A considerable amount of the new evidence produced in this Essay was supplied by him.  The final conclusions to which he was led were: (1) that, when the English Reformers restored the Chalice to the laity, they intended Communion in one kind to continue in cases of “necessity”: and (2) that Continuous Reservation of the Eucharist, not only in both kinds, but also in one, has been lawful under all the post-Reformation Prayer Books, including that of 1552, however little in most periods it may have been actually practiced.

      The adverse decisions of the Courts of Law are due, partly to the inevitable lack of the requisite technical knowledge on the part of civil law judges, [The two Provincial, and nearly all the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Courts, are now presided over by civil law judges, who have no professional knowledge of the liturgical, theological, and canonical questions, which it is frequently their duty to decide.  In pre-Reformation days ecclesiastical judges were carefully trained for their work.] who have received no canonical, theological, or liturgical training of any kind; partly also to the assumption (entirely unjustified) that liturgical documents can be satisfactorily interpreted on the same principles as civil law documents.  Because the 1661 Book is “annexed” to an Act of Parliament, it is assumed that it should be interpreted precisely like an Act of Parliament – in other words, that its rubrics should be regarded as exhaustive (and therefore prohibiting all practices which they do not specifically command), that they should be logically precise and consistent in every particular, and (above all) that they should be interpreted with little or no reference to the liturgical tradition of which they form part, or to the known views and intentions of their authors.

      It ought not to need pointing out that, though the 1661 Book was authorized by Parliament, it was not drawn up by Parliament, but by Convocation; and is accordingly not a “legal” but a “liturgical” document, having its roots in liturgical tradition, and requiring interpretation in its light.  No competent liturgical scholar works on the principle – accepted as an unquestioned axiom by the Courts, and even by the “Opinions” of Archbishops Temple and Maclagan – that rubrical “omission” is equivalent to prohibition.  The rubrics of liturgical documents are notoriously incomplete, and not seldom (on a superficial view) inconsistent.  A narrow “legal” interpretation of the Sarum Missal, which nowhere mentions Reservation, [Except, of course, in the Mass for Maundy Thursday, when the Eucharist was reserved for use in the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday.] and lays great stress upon the complete consumption of the remains of the Eucharist, would lead to the absurd conclusion that it prohibits Reservation.  The same method of interpretation applied to the rubrics of the Liturgies of the Orthodox Church would lead to the equally false conclusion that only the single method of Reservation which they prescribe is legitimate, and that the others are “illegal”. [See below.]

      The unsatisfactory character, in respect both of constitution and competence, of the unreformed Courts which at present decide ecclesiastical issues, is thus commented on by H.M. Commissioners in their 1906 Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline.  “The failure of the Court of Final Appeal to command the obedience of the clergy is a source of inevitable weakness in the Provincial and Diocesan Courts. ... A Court dealing with matters of conscience and religion must, above all others, rest on moral authority if its judgments are to be effective.  As thousands of clergy, with strong lay support, refuse to recognize the authority of the Judicial Committee [of the Privy Council], its decisions cannot practically be enforced.”

      No friend of the Church of England desires to condone lawlessness, or to encourage contempt for authority, but it is only fair to point out that the early pioneers of Reservation had strong historical and liturgical authority on their side, and regarded themselves as obeying in the strictest and most literal manner the rubrics of the 1661 Book, the ancient canon law of the Church of England, and the tradition of the Universal Church.  Reservation for the sick, the dying, and the absent, seemed to them, as it seems to the present writer, just one of those “laudable practice[s] ... of the whole Catholic Church of Christ,” [See the 1661 Preface.] which the 1661 Revisers declared it their intention, not to abolish, but to retain. [See this forcibly argued, as far back as 1887, by J. W. Kempe in his Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament for the Sick and Dying not inconsistent with the Order of the Church of England, with preface by T. T. Carter.]

The Modern Situation.

      The recent revival in the Church of England of continuous Reservation on a large scale is the result, hardly at all of antiquarian, or legal, or “liturgical” considerations, but almost entirely of practical pastoral needs.

      Continuous Reservation goes back to the middle of the nineteenth century.  Neale began it about 1855 at East Grinstead, and it has been continuous there ever since.  It was in use in other Community Chapels at early dates.  There were instances in the diocese of London and elsewhere in the sixties and seventies.  At All Saints, Plymouth, the Rev. R. C. Chase established Permanent Reservation of the Sacrament in 1882.  Often, in early days, Reservation took place in the Parsonage or Clergy House, in order to show due respect to (hostile) ecclesiastical authority, and to avoid unnecessary friction.  Today the practice is widely spread – much more so than the published statistics indicate.

      The main cause of the revival of Reservation was the revival by the Tractarians and their successors of the teaching of the Fathers of the English Reformation, [Calvin shared their views, but the resistance of the laity, unaccustomed for hundreds of years to frequent Communion, prevented him from establishing the Eucharist at Geneva as the principal service every Sunday.  Bucer fully agreed with Calvin.] that the laity ought to be encouraged to communicate frequently, and at least every Sunday.  The aspiration of the English Reformers “to turn the Mass into a Communion” [This did not mean that “the Mass” was something different from “the Communion,” but merely that there ought to be lay communicants – as many as possible – at every Mass.  The identity of the reformed service with the mediaeval Rite was unambiguously stated in the 1549 Book: – “The Supper of the Lorde, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Masse.”] was shared by the Tractarians, who defended it as in accordance with apostolic and primitive tradition, and took much more effective methods of securing the desired result.

      Persistent teaching of this character (which to some extent is now given even in Evangelical parishes) and the provision of much more frequent opportunities for Communion (every Sunday and Holy Day in practically all churches, and daily in many) have led to the fortunate result, that today hundreds of thousands of the Anglican laity communicate every Sunday, and that even in quite small parishes there are often small groups of communicants who have learnt greatly to value the privilege now granted to them by their pastors of receiving the Bread of Life every day.  Such lay persons, when sick, naturally desire to be communicated at least as frequently as when in health, especially as they now know that this privilege has belonged to the laity at least since the days of Justin Martyr; and that(owing to the revival of Reservation) it now involves little inconvenience or expenditure of time on the part of their pastors.

      It does not diminish the significance of this fact to urge (as some opponents of Reservation do) that they themselves have ministered in parishes, where the sick do not desire frequent Communion, and where indeed they seldom ask for it at all.

      This, of course, is true of some parishes.  But it is also true that in other parishes the laity not only communicate frequently in church, but also, when ill, desire to be frequently communicated at home.  Especially is this the case where there is a daily Eucharist, which has encouraged the devout laity who have leisure to communicate several times a week or even daily.  There are now numerous parishes where many persons, when sick, desire to be communicated weekly, and some even daily.

      It is this vast change in the religious habits of church people, brought about mainly by persistent Tractarian teaching (though the efforts in this direction of numerous devout Evangelical pastors must also be recognized), which, by gradually transforming a Church of non-communicants into a Church of communicants, has rendered the practice of Reservation more and more necessary every year, and has caused its steady extension.  This is not indeed the only cause, but it is the most potent.

      At the present day, a singlehanded priest, celebrating daily in church, often finds it necessary to provide for numerous sick Communions out of church, some weekly, some frequent or daily.  In a large parish, when there happens to be much sickness, a single priest may sometimes be called upon to provide for as many as half a dozen sick Communions daily for a considerable period.

      To do this by consecrating separately in each house, consumes much time, involves habitual “duplication,” and protracts the celebrant’s fast to an unduly late hour.  “Duplication” (or “bination”) is strongly disliked by many priests (unless there is some important occasion for it) on both personal and canonical grounds.  The practice was severely restricted by ancient and mediaeval canons, and the English Reformers had such a strong dislike for it, that they went so far as to withdraw, in 1552, the 1549 direction, which had ancient authority, to celebrate twice on Easter and Christmas Day.

Needs of the Absent.

      Again, under modern conditions, a considerable number of persons in perfect health (cowmen, nurses, mothers suckling young infants, postmen, railway-men, garage-keepers, omnibus-men, motor-drivers, etc.) find it quite impossible to attend the Eucharist except on rare occasions.  It is impossible to provide for their frequent, or even for their regular weekly Communion, except by Reservation.  Such persons can usually arrange to come to the church at some time convenient to themselves, and there receive the Reserved Sacrament.  Nursing mothers, again, can hardly bring their babies with them for a long service, but they can easily do so for the five-minutes’ service used in connection with the Reserved Sacrament.

      Reservation has never been exclusively for the sick; always also for the unavoidably absent.  The primitive Church, to which the Fathers of the English Reformation made their frequent appeal, laid quite as much stress on the need of regular Communion for the absent whole as for the absent sick.  St. Justin Martyr, our earliest witness to Reservation, states explicitly twice that the Sacrament was carried to the absent, making no mention of the sick.

      One of the strongest objections felt to the 1928 Book by many parish priests is that, if its rubrics are adopted, Communion of the absent whole is excluded, whereas the rubrics of the 1661 Book (which in their view permit Reservation) indicate no such restriction.  The exclusion of the whole from the privilege of receiving the Reserved Sacrament (except in the company of sick persons) was deprecated almost unanimously by the Lower Houses of Convocation, and appears to have no basis in reason.  In very many – probably the majority – of parishes in which Reservation is practiced under the authority of the 1661 Book, Communion is given to persons in health unavoidably prevented from attending the Eucharistic Service.  In these days there is, unfortunately, much Sunday work, and the rigorous enforcement of the 1928 rubric prohibiting the giving of the Reserved Sacrament to the whole would involve hardship to many thousands of over-worked people.

The Eucharist and the Ministry of Healing.

      The recent revival of the Ministry of Healing must certainly be reckoned among the factors encouraging frequent Communion, and by consequence the practice of Reservation.

      It is now widely taught and believed that the devout and well-prepared reception of the Holy Eucharist conduces to bodily as well as spiritual health.  This belief (as has been already fully shown) is psychologically sound, and in accord with the belief of the primitive Christians, who spoke of the Eucharist as “φάρμαχον,” “medicina,” “sanitas,” in a combined spiritual and physical sense.

Viaticum.

      But, beyond all doubt, it is chiefly the revival of the ancient belief that viaticum is “most necessary” for the dying, which has rendered the restriction of Reservation to the 1549 type unacceptable, and indeed impossible.

      It is now believed with deep conviction by many thousands of devout lay persons, that it is their bounden duty to receive the Eucharist in the article of death, and equally the duty of their pastors to supply them with it.  Those who do not share this belief are bound by the law of Christian charity to respect it, and to recognize that those who hold it are bound in conscience to act upon it.  Such belief is entirely consonant with the principles of the English Reformation.  The First Council of Nicaea, which declared viaticum in the hour of death “most necessary,” is accepted not only by the English Church, but also by the English State.  The Statute, I Eliz. c. 1, which defines the State’s attitude towards orthodoxy and heresy, declares that to be heresy which is so adjudged “by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general Councils [of which Nicaea was the first], or by any other general Council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the same Canonical Scriptures.”

      The doctrine that viaticum is “most necessary” does not mean that the salvation of a dying person is imperiled if through some unfortunate and unforeseen contingency he fails to receive it.  But it does mean that there lies upon everyone who believes it a serious obligation to do everything that is humanly possible to prevent the possibility of the passage of a Christian soul out of this world without viaticum.  It has not been the habit of the Church to regard frequent Communion as a substitute for viaticum.  Even when Communion has already been received in health on the same day, it always has been and still is the custom for a dying Christian to seek to receive that “most necessary provision” for his journey, before he departs into the other world.

      Experience shows that the only secure and satisfactory method of providing viaticum is by the traditional method of continuous Reservation.  Cases are unfortunately not unknown, where the parish priest, suddenly called out in the middle of the night to give viaticum, finds the dying person quite able to receive the Sacrament when he arrives, but sinking so fast into unconsciousness that the greatest haste is necessary.  If he has not brought the Sacrament with him, and it is necessary to find “a convenient place,” and make various arrangements before consecrating it, the sick person may become unconscious or die before it can be administered.  The necessary preliminaries often cause considerable delay, especially in the middle of the night, when the house is dark and in disorder, and the family is distracted with anxiety.  Several instances of tragic deaths after the priest’s arrival, and before arrangements could be made to consecrate the Sacrament, are known to the writer.

      It must also be remembered that the administration of viaticum (which is usually accompanied by Unction) may actually save life.  Most parish priests of long experience can remember instances of persons in extremis brought back to life almost by a miracle through the timely administration of viaticum.  Had it not been administered, the patient in all human probability would have died.

      All priests who believe that viaticum is “most necessary” for the dying are bound to take every precaution which is possible to secure that it shall not be lacking when need arises.  Every avoidable case of death without viaticum involves (for those who believe in its necessity) a painful tragedy.  It is true that a sudden urgent call for viaticum does not happen often in a small parish, but it happens sometimes; and when it does happen, and (as a result of negligence on the part of the Church authorities) it is not received, a tragedy happens.  It is felt to be this, not only by the priest and the patient, but also by every relative and friend who sympathizes with the dying person’s feelings.  It is no solace to their wounded sentiments to be told that the Bishop only forbids Reservation for the dying in small parishes.  People die suddenly in small as well as large parishes, and the relatives of dying persons thus needlessly deprived of viaticum are likely to feel that if the Bishop really cared for the souls of the dying, he would permit Reservation in all parishes, lest any Christian (except by unavoidable mischance) should lack in his last hour “the medicine of immortality”.

      In these days of motor-cars and aeroplanes, fatal accidents are much more common than they used to be, and as a rule in such cases the only practicable way of giving viaticum is by means of the Reserved Sacrament.  It is not possible to celebrate the Eucharist reverently – or indeed at all – by a roadside, or in the middle of a field, or on a railway embankment.  On the field of battle also, viaticum can only be given to the fallen by Reservation.

      It is a matter for real regret that the Church of England should, even apparently, show less concern for the spiritual welfare of its dying members than the Church of Rome, and that its Bishops, through what the writer cannot help regarding as a mistaken policy, should appear to not a few of their spiritual children to be less their “Fathers in God,” than harsh administrators, unfeelingly depriving dying Christians of that reasonable security, which ought to be theirs, of obtaining in their last agony a believer’s supreme support.

      It is hardly necessary to add that the rule concerning the fast before Communion has never been held to apply to the reception of viaticum.  And since viaticum is “most necessary” for a dying person, it follows logically that a priest, even if not fasting, is bound by duty as well as charity, to celebrate at any hour of the day or night in order to provide it, if the Reserved Sacrament is not available.  Several instances of this being actually done are on record in the early and mediaeval periods.  The presence of a grave spiritual necessity or emergency outweighs the obligation of any merely ecclesiastical rule, however august and venerable. [In spite of the ultra-rigid insistence of the modern Roman Church upon the duty of the celebrant to be fasting, the traditional view advocated above has weighty and wide support among Latin theologians (see, for instance, A. Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, 1886, Vol. III, n. 202; and D. M. Prümmer, Manuale, 1915, Vol. III, n. 202, Who grant that it is at least lawful for the priest to celebrate).  De Lugo, who quotes seven theologians in favour of celebrating, considers their opinion weighty and “probable,” but regards the adverse opinion as “more probable” (De Euchar., d. 15 n. 67–68).  Vazquez, Suarez, and very many modern Latin theologians (probably the majority) are in general agreement with De Lugo.]

The Minister of Viaticum.

      The normal minister of viaticum is a Bishop, or priest; or (in the absence of a priest) a deacon.  But owing to the great necessity of viaticum, lay persons (including women and young persons) were always allowed in primitive times – and indeed till the close of the tenth century – to carry the Reserved Sacrament to the dying, if the services of a priest were not available.  A deacon or lay person thus giving viaticum to a dying Christian would, of course, receive his confession (if he were able and desirous to make one).  He would also pray for his pardon, but would not pronounce formal absolution.  From the tenth century onwards the administration of viaticum by laymen was discouraged or forbidden in the West for reasons which to the present writer seem not only insufficient, but even frivolous and superstitious. [They were not unlike those reasons, professedly “reverent,” but in truth most irreverent, which in later times were used to justify the withdrawal of the Chalice from the laity.  Among other absurdities, it was contended that it was “more reverent” to allow a Christian to die without viaticum, than to sanction the “irreverence” of its administration by lay hands.  As a matter of fact, the administration by a layman of the Reserved Sacrament, previously consecrated by a priest, involves far less invasion of sacerdotal functions than does lay Baptism, in which a layman actually performs the entire Sacrament, and is considered justified in so doing, if the emergency is great.]

      If antiquity be followed (as in the writer’s opinion it ought to be), the proper person to administer viaticum (in the parish priest’s absence) is the parish clerk, who, according to the traditional view, belongs to the clerical body; or, if he is an unsuitable person, then a lay reader, or some other devout communicant, chosen and instructed by the parish priest.  If (in a married priest’s absence) a sudden summons to give viaticum should come to the Parsonage in the middle of the night, the priest’s wife (who commands immediate access to the place of Reservation) will in most cases be the most suitable person to perform this supreme act of Christian charity.

      With regard to missionary and colonial dioceses, in which the ministrations of a priest are usually rare and difficult to obtain, primitive precedent would fully justify the authorizing of catechists or other reliable lay persons, not only to give viaticum to the dying, but also to administer the Reserved Sacrament at the Sunday Service – in fact on weekdays also, if the faithful desired it.  The present writer makes this suggestion only tentatively, but entirely seriously, knowing that the idea has the support of not a few clergy in the mission field, who, however, have not as yet had opportunity of acting upon their convictions.

      The subject of the lay administration of viaticum has not been seriously discussed by Convocation since the Reformation.  It cannot, however, fail to receive careful attention, when the subject of Reservation comes before Convocation (as it must sooner or later) for synodical determination.

Unction of the Dying.

      The doctrine defended in the previous Essay, that Unction is intended for all the sick, and not merely for the dying, is quite consistent with its regular administration (in connection, of course, with viaticum) to dying persons.  Its “corroborative” and “exorcistic” virtue is obviously suitable for the dying, who need its aid to meet their end with Christian fortitude, and to resist effectually the assaults of Satan, who sometimes, in the weakness and desolation of the last agony, tempts even the most devout Christians to doubt the certainty of their salvation.  These doubts are effectually removed by the impressive action of the priest, who, anointing the dying man’s brow with the Unction of the Spirit, seals him as Christ’s for evermore.

      After Unction and viaticum should follow (as has already been indicated) the solemn recitation by the priest of the great Prayer of Commendation (Proficiscere, anima Christiana, de hoc mundo, in nomine Dei Patris Omnipotentis, qui to creavit.  Amen, etc.), prescribed in the Sarum rite of Extreme Unction, and in the modern Roman Rituale.  The rolling periods of this great “Prayer of Faith,” punctuated by the frequent Amens of the bystanders, form an imposing and thrilling climax to the Church’s ministry to the dying. [According to Sarum (but not Roman) Use, the Amen is said at the end of every clause of this Commendation.]

1927–1928 Prayer Book.

      These and the like considerations have led the clergy as represented in Convocation, and the laity as represented in the Church Assembly, to the conclusion that, whether Reservation is technically “legal” or not, it ought (under appropriate regulations) to be permitted.  With regard both to population and to frequency of Communion, the state of this country is utterly different from its state in 1661.  Even on the supposition (widely doubted or denied) that Reservation is technically “illegal,” it does not follow that it ought to be prohibited.  Assuredly it is not more “illegal” to communicate a sick man with the Reserved Sacrament, than to celebrate for him in his house, without the presence of the “three (or two at the least)” fellow communicants, which the rubric absolutely requires, unless a pestilence is raging. [It should be observed that the Prayer Book requirement of at least two fellow communicants applies only to the special case when the priest celebrates in the sick man’s house, not to the more normal case when he communicates him with the Reserved Sacrament.]  Numerous 1661 rubrics of undoubted meaning are in these days disregarded, not only because they are inconvenient, but also in some cases because they are disliked.  It seems unreasonable to insist rigidly on the observance of one rubric, the breach of which is intended solely to facilitate obedience to Christ’s command, “This do in remembrance of me,” while permitting without rebuke the breach of other rubrics, the neglect of which still more obviously constitutes an “ecclesiastical offence”* (e.g. the omission of the Quicunque vult when prescribed).

      [*The Report of the Royal Commission (1906) reminds us that it is technically illegal to sing hymns during a service; to introduce addresses into the Confirmation Office, to bless the people except at the end of the Communion Service; to have a collection at Mattins and Evensong; to give out notices otherwise than as is prescribed after the Nicene Creed; to shorten the words of administration; to omit the longer exhortation at Communion, to shorten or omit “Dearly beloved brethren”; to communicate any persons who have not given in their names on the day before; to baptize otherwise than at Mattins and Evensong on Sundays and Holy Days; to catechize except at Evensong; to sing “Glory be to thee, O Lord,” before the Gospel; to pass from Mattins to the Communion Service without saying the Litany; to omit the Commandments; to allow a deacon to read the Choir Offices; to use any other prayers after the third Collect at Mattins and Evensong than those provided; to confirm a child except in the presence of a godparent.  It is also illegal to celebrate more than once on the same day, even on Christmas Day and Easter; or to celebrate without preaching a sermon or reading a homily.  Of course, it is a distinct breach of the rubrics to celebrate in a sick man’s house, unless at least two other communicants are present.]

      The precise methods and conditions of Reservation have not yet been synodically determined; but, as an emergency measure, Convocation and the Assembly have provisionally acquiesced in the regulation of Reservation by the administrative action of the Bishops, more or less on the lines of the rubrics of the 1928 Book. [By persuasion, however, not coercion.  It has not even been suggested in Convocation that the observance of the rubrics of the 1928 Book should be treated as a matter of “canonical obedience”.  Only a “Canon” or equivalent synodical act could give them such binding force.]  These rubrics, however, are not authoritative, and are differently interpreted and administered by different Bishops – in a generous sense by some, in a narrowly restrictive sense by others.

      The 1927 Book contained the following rubric: “If further provision be needed in order to secure that any sick person may not lack the benefit of the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body of Christ, the priest, if licensed thereto by the Bishop so to do, may, to that end, when Holy Communion is celebrated in the Church, reserve as much of the consecrated Bread and Wine as is needed for that purpose.  And the Bishop shall grant such license, if satisfied of the need, unless in any particular case he see good reason to the contrary.

      This rubric was framed as the result of conferences between the representatives of the chief ecclesiastical parties.  It was adequately discussed both in Convocation and in the Assembly; and the Prayer Book embodying it was in the end approved (not, however, synodically) by the two Convocations in a united session by a majority of over 7 to 1.

      After the rejection of the 1927 Book by Parliament, the Reservation rubric was altered by the Bishops, for the purpose of conciliating the opposition (mainly non-Anglican and non- English) of members of Parliament.  As thus altered, it assumed the following form, which prima facie is of a much more restrictive character.

      “If the Bishop is satisfied that in connection with hospitals, or in time of common sickness, or in the special circumstances of any particular parish, the provisions of the preceding rubric [which permits temporary Reservation of the 1549 kind] [This rubric runs: “When the Holy Communion cannot be reverently, or without grave difficulty be celebrated in private, and also when there are several sick persons in the Parish desirous to receive the Communion on the same day, it shall be lawful for the priest (with the consent of the sick person or persons) on any day when there is a celebration of the Holy Communion in the Church, to set apart at the open Communion so much of the consecrated Bread and Wine as shall serve the sick person (or persons), and so many as shall communicate with him (if there be any).  And, the open Communion ended, he shall, on the same day, and with as little delay as may be, go and minister the same.”] are not sufficient, and that there is need of further provision in order that sick and dying persons may not lack the benefit of the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, he may to that end give his license to the priest, to reserve at the open Communion so much of the consecrated bread and wine as is needed for that purpose.  Whenever such license is granted or refused, the Minister, or the people as represented in the Parochial Church Council, may refer the question to the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province.”

      This rubric was severely criticized at the time as constituting a humiliating surrender to (mainly) non-Anglican and secular opinion, and as being unduly restrictive.  It was also objected to, because no opportunity was given for discussing it as a separate item, or suggesting amendments to it.  It was presented both to Convocation and to the Assembly as part of a complete book, to be accepted or rejected en bloc.  The procedure adopted was strongly challenged in Convocation as unconstitutional, and the gravest doubt is still felt in many quarters as to the validity in any sense of the decision ultimately reached. [The Lower House has always exercised the right of criticizing in detail all proposals of the Upper House laid before it; also of “concurring” not only in whole, but also in part, thereto.  Sometimes “concurrence” is refused to a single word or phrase.  No opportunity was given of exercising these rights in 1928, consequently there are strong reasons for regarding the whole proceedings as invalid.]

      In consequence, partly of the severely restrictive character of the new rubric, and partly of the manner in which it was drawn up and laid before the Lower Houses, the convocational majority in favour of the Revised Prayer Book, which was 7 to 1 in 1927, sank in 1928 to less than 3 to 1.

      The further provisions of the 1928 Book with regard to Reservation are as follows: “The consecrated Bread and Wine thus set apart shall be reserved in an aumbry or safe.  The aumbry shall (according as the Bishop shall direct) be set in the North or South wall of the sanctuary of the church, or of any chapel thereof, or, if need be, in the wall of some other part of the Church approved by the Bishop, provided that it shall not be immediately behind or above a Holy Table.  The door of the aumbry shall be kept locked, and opened only when it is necessary to move or replace the consecrated elements for the purposes of Communion or renewal.  The consecrated Bread and Wine shall be renewed at least once a week.”

      It is further provided that the Sacrament shall be reserved for the Communion of the sick, and “for no other purpose whatever,” that it shall be administered in both kinds, that the priest shall not “expose” the Sacrament; and that “no service or ceremony in connection with the Sacrament so reserved” shall take place.

      Communion of the sick with the intincted Host is permitted, “when it is desirable,” a suitable form of administration being provided.

      The already not unusual practice of communicating certain sick persons in church with the intincted Host, to guard against danger of infection through the chalice, is authorized in the following words: – “The same form shall be used, with the permission of the Bishop, when it is deemed necessary, through grave danger of infection, to administer both kinds together to certain communicants at the open Communion.”

      The modern English Rite, like that of Sarum, has no special formula for administering viaticum.  The modern Roman and many early and mediaeval Orders prescribe a form differing slightly from that ordinarily used in communicating the whole. [The Roman formula is: “Receive, brother (sister), the viaticum of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he may guard thee from the malignant enemy, and lead thee into life eternal.  Amen” (Rituale, 1925 edition, Tit. iv, c. 4).]

      It is too early at present to forecast what precise form Reservation will ultimately take in the Church of England.  The whole matter is at present in the experimental stage, and is not likely to come before Convocation for synodical determination for some time to come.  In actual practice, Reservation takes place in most instances under the authority of the 1661 Book, the diocesan Bishop “tolerating” (without officially approving) the widely current view that this Book permits it.  Bishops do not, for the most part, actively interfere with the practice of communicating the absent whole by Reservation, although they twice refused the petition of the Lower Houses that this should be explicitly authorized by the Revised Book.

      Application for “licenses” to reserve have been few in number, because most of those who reserve, while recognizing the right of the Bishop to “regulate” Reservation, are of opinion: (1) that the actual right and duty to reserve is inherent in the parish priest, as being entrusted with the custody of the Sacraments, and charged with the responsibility of supplying all needful sacramental ministrations as well to the sick and dying as to the whole; (2) that continuous Reservation is an oecumenical custom, authorized by the mediaeval English Canon Law (never yet formally abrogated), which requires such Reservation (without license) in every parish church; (3) that the rubrics of the 1661 Prayer Book, even according to their strictest and most literal interpretation, contain nothing inconsistent with the practice of continuous Reservation, and do not suggest that a license for the purpose is necessary.  At no time in Christian history has a license to reserve in a parish church been deemed requisite.

Reservation in other Churches.

      The present Canon Law of the Roman Church (1917) prescribes Reservation in all cathedral, parochial, and quasi-parochial churches, without license being required.  (This was also the law and custom in mediaeval England.)  Reservation in other buildings requires episcopal or papal license.  Except in Uniat Eastern Churches, Reservation is in one kind only (Titulus XV, Can. 1265 ff.).  The faithful are bound by precept to receive the Communion when in danger of death from whatever cause.  Even if they have already received the Communion earlier in the day, they are to be strongly (valde) urged to receive it again.  Viaticum may be given to persons not fasting.  With regard to other sick persons, if they have been lying ill a month, without assured hope of speedy recovery, they may be communicated once or twice a week, by the advice of a prudent confessor, after having taken some medicine or liquid food (Can. 864, 858).

      In the Orthodox Eastern Church, only one method of Reservation for the sick is prescribed by rubric.  The reserved intincted Hosts, in the form of small cubes, are dried by heat, and kept either in an “artophorion” upon the Holy Table, or in a small cupboard hung to the back of the Iconostasion.  Reservation may take place at any Liturgy, and the Blessed Sacrament is perpetually reserved in every church.  In communicating a sick person, the priest places a small quantity of water in a spoon, and therein soaks the intincted Host until it is quite soft.  He then administers it with the spoon to the sick man.  The viaticum, when asked for, is instantly carried to a sick person at any hour of the day or night.

      Other methods of Reservation, not prescribed by rubric, are also in use.  In Churches where the Eucharist is celebrated daily, it is not always thought necessary to dry the intincted species.  In certain instances the species of wine is reserved separately in a closely stoppered vessel, and intinction takes place in the sick man’s presence in a miniature chalice, communion in both kinds being given as usual with a spoon.  Reservation of the sort described by Justin Martyr is also in use.  In fact, the sick are communicated by preference in this way, direct from the Liturgy, the deacon going before with a light, the priest following with the chalice in his hands containing the Hosts steeped in wine.  If an urgent call for viaticum comes while the Liturgy is in progress, the priest breaks off the service immediately, and leaving the congregation takes the Sacrament to the dying man.  The adult sick are always communicated in both kinds.  Infants, however, and children up to the age of about seven, are communicated in the species of wine alone. [This information is derived from Mr. Athelstan Riley, and the late Mr. W. J. Birkbeck.  Mr. Riley’s principal informant was the Very Rev. the Archpriest Eugene Smirnoff, chaplain to the Russian Embassy.]

      In the Scottish Episcopal Church, both the English Communion Service and the Scottish Office are in use.  The disputed rubric at the end of the English Office has never been interpreted in a restrictive sense.  The Revised Scottish Prayer Book (1929) contains the following rubric: – “According to long-existing custom in the Scottish Church, the Presbyter may reserve so much of the consecrated Gifts as may be required for the Communion of the Sick, and others who could not be present at the celebration in Church.  All that remaineth of the Holy Sacrament, and is not so required, the Presbyter, and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink.”

      It will be noticed that the Scottish rubric explicitly authorizes Reservation for the absent, and understands, by ‘ all that remaineth of the Holy Sacrament,’ all that remaineth after the needs of the absent as well as of the present have been provided for.  This, as we have seen, is the historical and original meaning of the much-debated 1661 Anglican rubric.

      Reservation was traditional in the Scottish Church even in the eighteenth century.  It is said that during the continuance of the penal laws from 1746 to 1792, when the assembling of more than four persons under a pastor ordained in the Scottish Church was forbidden, most Communions, whether of the sick or of the whole, were made from the Reserved Sacrament. [See Darwell Stone, The Reserved Sacrament, p. 36.]  Reservation in Scotland is almost always in both kinds, the reserved species being placed in an aumbry in the chancel wall, or in a tabernacle on the altar. [For further details see F. C. Eeles, Reservation of the Holy Eucharist in the Scottish Church.]

      The American Revised Prayer Book (1929) retains the 1661 direction that “if any of the consecrated Bread and Wine remain after the Communion, it shall not be carried out of the Church”; but this is not in practice understood as forbidding Reservation, which is widely in use.

      Reservation was revived almost as early in the U.S.A. as in England, and was already a subject of contention in the early seventies.  At the General Convention of 1874 a strong attempt was made to prohibit Reservation together with certain other practices which were widely disliked.  The attempt miscarried mainly owing to a brilliant speech by the Rev. James De Koven, who represented the needs of the sick and the dying in such moving language that many of the opponents of the practice changed their opinion.  Largely, but not entirely, as a result of this decision, George D. Cummins (1822–1876), Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, seceded with seven other clergymen and a score of laymen (in December, 1873), and formed the “Reformed Episcopal Church.”

      Since 1874 there has been no attempt at a general prohibition of Reservation in the U.S.A., though certain individual bishops who disliked it – not many in number – have discouraged it. [Very strangely, Bishop Hall, a member of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, was one.]  Today, Reservation exists in some churches at least of all the principal towns, and is widely diffused elsewhere, especially in the Northern States.  In parochial churches, Reservation is nearly always in one kind only, but occasionally the intincted Host is reserved.  In a few hospital chapels the Sacrament is reserved in both kinds separately.  Communion is given freely to the absent as well as to the sick.

      In Canada, Tractarian views are not widely held, and Reservation is much rarer.  It is found, however, in certain great centers of population, like Toronto and Montreal, and in some other places.

      In Africa, Reservation is in use in all Anglican dioceses south of Central Tanganyika, in some dioceses in every parish and quasi-parochial church.  The new South African Communion Office (1927) contains the following rubric: – “And if any remain of the Bread and Wine which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, etc., except so far as is otherwise provided in the Order for the Communion of the Sick.”  This Order (as given in An alternative form of the Calendar and Occasional Offices for the Sick, 1930) contains the following rubric: – “But if the sick person, desirous to receive the Holy Communion in his house, does not wish that the service be celebrated there, or if it cannot be there celebrated reverently or conveniently, as also when there are several sick persons in the Parish desirous to receive the Holy Communion on the same day, the Curate shall administer the reserved Sacrament in such form and manner as shall be sanctioned by the Bishop.”

      It is apparently left to the diocesan Bishop to determine whether the Sacrament is to be reserved in both kinds or in one.

      Reservation is in use in all missionary dioceses which adhere to Tractarian traditions, as, for instance, in Korea, where it is universal.  It is also in use in parts of India, also of Australia, where most of the Bishops of the newer dioceses are in sympathy with Catholic practices.

      The subject was not discussed at the last Lambeth Conference (1930).

Communion in One or Both Kinds.

      The doctrine of “Concomitance” (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is received whole and entire under either kind) is now so generally held – even by theologians as decidedly anti-Roman as Dr. Gore – that the question whether Reservation should be in two kinds or only in one has ceased to have first-class theological importance.  Inasmuch as the living, not the dead, Christ is received in Communion, and the blood (“which is the life”) is inseparable from the living organism, it seems impossible to believe that the Body and Blood of Christ can be separately received.  Moreover, since our Lord’s Human Nature is an integral and inseparable element of His Personality, it seems clear that sacramental reception of His Humanity must involve sacramental reception of His Divinity.

      That the primitive Church – implicitly but unhesitatingly – accepted Concomitance is evident from the fact that in early days Reservation was usually in the species of bread alone, and that the dying occasionally, and infants often, were communicated solely in the species of wine.  There is no need to repeat the evidence for this collected in the classical work of W. H. Freestone, The Sacrament Reserved.  That he somewhat under-estimates the amount of primitive Reservation in both kinds is probable, [See especially the remarks of R. H. Connolly, a Roman authority, in Texts and Studies, viii. pp. 79–81.] but that he is right in his main contention seems practically certain.  That the English and many of the continental Reformers tolerated or approved Communion in one kind in exceptional cases, has already been indicated.

      In the days of Leo I, Gelasius, and Gregory I, the prevalence of the Manichaean heresy caused the Roman Church to lay unusual stress upon the reception of the Cup; and for this and other reasons it seems probable (as has been indicated) that the Gregorian Sacramentary intends the sick to be communicated (by Reservation) in both kinds.  Quite certainly in documents closely related to this Sacramentary, and based mainly upon it, Communion in both kinds is directed.  For instance, separate forms of administration are provided in the Ordo ad visitandum infirmum, edited by Menard from the (now lost) late eighth-century MS. of St. Remi: – “Communicet infirmum tunc dicens, Corpus D.N.J.C. redimat to in vitam aeternam.  Sanguis D.N.J.C. et sanctorum communio sit tecum et nobiscum in vitam aeternam.  Amen” (see further above).

      Reservation of the intincted Host was common in the later Middle Ages.  It is explicitly required by Regino, abbot of Prüm (died A.D. 833), who directs: “the sacred oblation ought to be intincted in the blood of Christ, that the presbyter may be able truthfully to say to the sick man, May the body and blood of Christ profit thee.” [Such “true” or “sacramental” intinction must be carefully distinguished from the spurious or “consecratory” intinction in ordinary wine mentioned above.  A typical form of administration for the intincted species is the following: – “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ intincted with his Blood preserve thy soul to life eternal” (from an eleventh-century Narbonne Pontifical).  (Notitiae, I. 70, printed in Migne, P.L., cxxxii, 205.)  Another has been given above (in a note),  Many further instances might be quoted.]

      That Communion should be received in both kinds at the Eucharist is an accepted axiom everywhere, except in Latin Christendom.  Even modern Rome permits Communion in both kinds in the Uniat Churches of the East.

      With regard to the sick, many considerations suggest that, when the sick person lives close to the church and there is no serious inconvenience or danger of irreverence, the priest should carry the consecrated Gifts straight from the church, and communicate him in the ordinary way if he is sitting up in bed, or by slightly intincting the Host in the Chalice if he is recumbent.  Such solemn “going forth” of the priest, immediately after the Celebration on Sundays or weekdays, bearing in his hands the Chalice and Paten (veiled in a “fair linen cloth”), vested in alb and stole, and preceded by the parish clerk or other server wearing his surplice, for the purpose of giving Communion to sick persons living near the church, is one of the most edifying and beautiful sights of modern village life.  It differs entirely in nature from the spectacular “processions of the Host,” for the purpose not of Communion but of adoration, to which most of the Reformers expressed emphatic objection.

      On the other hand, to reserve permanently in both kinds separately is a practice involving considerable difficulties.  A chalice cannot be used for the purpose, for metal communicates an unpleasant flavour to wine after about twelve hours.  The containing vessel must be of glass or porcelain.  Moreover, it must be tightly and securely stoppered.  All the ordinary double pyxes fail to seal securely the containing vessel, and there is danger of irreverence by effusion.  If a stoppered vessel is carried to the sick man’s room, it is usually necessary to pour the consecrated Wine into a chalice before communicating him, and difficulties occur about the ablutions, if he is not sitting up. [Difficulties about the ablutions are best avoided by reserving the species of wine in a glass vessel with a wide stoppered mouth.  The consecrated wafer can then without difficulty be slightly dipped into the consecrated wine in the sick man’s presence, and immediately placed in his mouth.  No ablutions are necessary when this method is employed.  If a dying person’s tongue and throat are parched, a small portion of the Host, steeped in water or ordinary wine, may be administered in a spoon, or the patient may be given a draught of wine or water before and after administration.]

      Reservation of intincted wafers offers fewer practical difficulties.  Two methods are at present in use in the Church of England, and to some extent in America.

      (1) One method is to intinct the wafer to the very smallest possible extent (e.g. with one tiny drop in the centre), so that it can be stored and handled as if dry.  This may be done by dipping one wafer into the consecrated wine, and lightly touching with it another wafer in the centre.

      (2) The other method is to intinct it to a somewhat greater extent (by dipping its edge in the chalice), and then gently to press it between two dry wafers, to which it adheres.

      Wafers thus intincted soon deteriorate, and should be frequently renewed.  The second method is lengthy and awkward, if several Hosts have to be prepared.

      The ancient Church never treated the manner of Reservation as a matter of principle.  The predominant consideration was convenience, and that consideration cannot be ignored today.  Tradition – especially early tradition – predominantly favours Reservation in the species of Bread alone.  But Reservation in both kinds has some support in the primitive, and very extensive support in the early mediaeval period. Accordingly, it cannot fairly be said that a Province or a National Church which should prescribe Reservation in both kinds exclusively would contravene Catholic tradition.  Nevertheless, the present writer, having had long practical experience of both methods of Reservation, ventures to hope that Convocation may never impose on all the clergy a strict canonical obligation to reserve in both kinds in all cases; and that, if there should ever be such an obligation, Reservation of the conjoint species by intinction may be allowed, at least as an alternative to the Reservation of both species separately.  At all times the corruptibility of the species of wine has placed difficulties in the way of its continuous Reservation.

      It does not fall within the scope of a commentary upon the Communion of the Sick to deal either theologically or practically with the extra-liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament, which has no necessary – or even close – connection with the primitive practice of Reservation for the sick, the absent, and the dying.  Such cultus is almost unknown in the Orthodox East and in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, where Reservation is universal.  In only a small minority of the numerous English churches in which the Sacrament is now reserved for Communion is there any “service or ceremony in connection with the Sacrament so reserved.”

EXCURSUS on “the Grace of the Chalice.”

      The mind of the Church from the beginning has predominantly favoured the doctrine of “Concomitance”.  But Concomitance does not necessarily exclude the view that a certain “augmentation” of grace, usually described as “joy,” “gladdening,” “exhilaration,” or “inebriation of the soul,” is sacramentally conferred by the Chalice.

      Among Anglicans, A. P. Forbes argues in favour of this view with earnestness and ability in his learned treatise, An Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles, 1862, Vol. II. pp. 597 ff. He contends that “while the Sacrament under one kind conveys all the graces necessary for salvation, the Chalice has a grace of its own, ‘the grace of gladdening.’”  He interprets mystically of the Host the words of the Psalmist, “bread to strengthen man’s heart”; and of the Chalice, “wine that maketh glad the heart of man.”  The latter, he thinks, confers “that spiritual transport, the inebriatio animae of which the Scripture speaks.”  He further argues that, just as a physical banquet is incomplete without drink, so Christ’s Spiritual Banquet can only be completely enjoyed, with entire satisfaction to the soul, if to spiritual eating is added spiritual drinking (“my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”).

      C. Pesch (Praelectiones, 1914, Vol. VI., par. 822) considers this opinion orthodox in the Latin Communion, though the communis sententia is against it.  He claims that St. Thomas’s opinion is adverse.  On the other hand, as Vazquez (Vasquez) points out, certain Thomists deny this, making out a case which, though probably unsound, is plausible.  Vazquez, in the course of an elaborate discussion (Opera, 1631, Vol. III. p. 350 ff.), considers that the majority of Catholic theologians have been biased in their judgment, owing to the need of defending against Protestant attack the denial of the Cup to the laity, a practice which is obviously more easily justified if the Chalice confers no additional grace.  With arguments substantially the same as those of Forbes, he earnestly defends the view that the Chalice imparts augmentum gratiae.  He claims, as favouring his view, Gaspar Casilius, Arboreus, Ruardus, the Fathers of Trent, and especially Pope Clement VI (A.D. 1342–1352), who granted by Bull to the King of England the privilege of receiving the Chalice ad gratiae augmentum.

      De Lugo (Disputationes, 1869, Vol. IV. pp. 39 ff.) mainly condenses the arguments of Vazquez; but he adds that Clement granted a similar permission to the King of France to receive the Chalice “ad majus gratiae augmentum”.  I have not been able to find either of these Bulls, but a very similar Bull of Clement’s, dated Jan. 5, 1352, grants the same privilege for life to the Dauphin, who had petitioned for it with a view to “devotionis et salutis augmentum”.  (It is printed in full in Martène-Durand, Veterum Scriptorum ... Amplissima Collectio, I. 1456 sq.).

      De Lugo makes the surprising statement that “Francis Blanco, Archbishop of Compostella, who took part in the Council of Trent, declared that it was the unanimous opinion (unanimem sententiam) of the Fathers [that the Chalice imparts additional grace], but that they were unwilling to define it out of due season (extra tempus), lest occasion should be given to the heretics to raise an outcry (vociferandi); and claims that the decrees of the Council express harmony with this view.  He refers especially to Sess. xxi. c. 3, where it is cautiously declared that ‘those who receive only one species are not defrauded (fraudari) of any grace necessary to salvation.’”  The implication, in De Lugo’s opinion, is that they are defrauded of some grace.

      The view of Vazquez and De Lugo seems scarcely compatible with wholehearted approval of Communion in one kind.  Naturally, therefore, their arguments in favour of it are perfunctory, and seem lacking in conviction.

      In the present writer’s opinion, the doctrine of Concomitance logically excludes (or reduces to a bare possibility) the theory that additional grace is sacramentally conferred by the Chalice.

      On the other hand, he holds that the psychological benefit of giving Communion in both kinds, both in church and out of church, is great.  Not only are the religious associations of the Chalice of a most moving kind, but the common cup powerfully suggests human fellowship of an intimate, unselfish, generous, and uplifting nature (cf. the institution of “the loving-cup”).  Accordingly, in his opinion, the sick should be communicated in both kinds, except in cases where this procedure is seriously inconvenient, as it usually is, when there is a sudden call to give viaticum to a person in extremis.

      Those Anglican priests who adhere to the opinion of Forbes, Vazquez, and De Lugo will, of course, endeavour to communicate the sick and dying in all cases with at least the intincted Host, and will reserve perpetually in both kinds for that purpose.

      Eastern theologians, especially since the withdrawal of the Chalice from the laity in the West, have usually contended that the sick (like the whole) are bound by divine precept to receive in both kinds.  (See especially Macaire, Théologie Dogmatique Orthodox, Vol. II. 483 ff.)  Macaire treats the instances to the contrary in primitive times as abnormal, and not to be imitated.  The modern Orthodox Church invariably communicates the adult sick in both kinds.

      The doubt, occasionally expressed by members of the Western Church, as to whether the wine in which an intincted Host is dipped retains its nature after the artificial drying to which it is subjected in the East, is perhaps hypercritical.  The Eastern Church acts with the serious intention of communicating the sick in both kinds; and there can be little doubt that, the circumstances being abnormal, God gives effect to the Church’s intention.

      When a Host is intincted in the Western way, i.e. without artificial drying, it always retains some moisture; consequently the species of wine certainly retains its nature until it is consumed, or becomes corrupt.  Nothing but prolonged subjection to heat suffices to deprive an absorbent substance, like bread, of all its moisture.

The Burial of the Dead

By A. S. Duncan-Jones

I

      There is something obviously mysterious about death.  It is a natural human instinct to treat with reverence the body from which the living spirit has departed.  The literature of Greece and Rome is rich in descriptions of funeral rites.  The pyramids stand as an age-long witness to the elaborate arrangements made by the ancient Egyptians to provide the illustrious dead with everything that might be needed on their last journey and in the life beyond.  The Hebrews were specially zealous in the care of the dead, as the Old Testament shows in many places.  The cardinal example is the loving devotion which attended our Lord’s burial in the tomb “where was never man yet laid,” and the determination of the women to anoint the body with proper respect.  The Resurrection of our Lord exercised a profound influence on all who accepted it.  Death became the gate of immortality.  The whole conception of the relation between the living and the departed gradually underwent a great enlargement.  Hope replaced wistfulness in funerary inscriptions.  The characteristic note is struck by the earliest examples that we know, those from the Roman catacombs: Vivas in pace, vivas in Spiritu Sancto, spiritum tuum Deus refrigeret.  It is true that we have nothing earlier than the third century.  But early dated inscriptions are rare.

      The literature of a date earlier than the funerary inscriptions bears witness to a vivid sense of the continued reality of the departed, and of their intimate relation to the living.  In North Africa it was the custom to offer the Eucharist for the benefit of the departed in the second century. [Tertullian, De Cor., 3; De Exhort. Cast., II; De Monog., 10.]  Memorial feasts or agapae were evidently common in the third century.  The following passage from a commentary on Job of that period admirably illustrates what was probably by that time the general Christian attitude.  Death is a release to a larger and happier life.

      We do not celebrate the day of a man’s birth, as it is only the commencement of pains and trials, but we celebrate the day of his death because it is the putting away of all pains and the escape from all temptations.  We celebrate the day of death because those who seem to die do not really die.  For that reason we both make memorials of the saints and also devoutly commemorate our parents and friends who die in faith, both rejoicing over their state of refreshment and also entreating for ourselves a pious consummation in faith. [Origen, Lommatzsch, Vol. XVI. p. 238.]

      The writer goes on to show how a special grace was given to these feasts by inviting the poor and needy to share in them.  It was charity, the love of God shed forth by the Holy Spirit in the Church, that bound the living and the dead together.  It was the same charity that bound rich and poor together.  It was in a sacred meal that all were one.  Nothing could show more clearly the concreteness of Christian thought about personality and its continuance.  Death makes no radical change.  When Tennyson wrote—

      Eternal form shall still divide

      The eternal soul from all beside;

And I shall know him when we meet:

And we shall sit at endless feast,

      Enjoying each the other’s good, [In Memoriam, xlvii.]

he described the traditional view.

      When the Church was completely free to express its mind after the conversion of Constantine, this closeness of relation between living and departed found clear expression in the worship of the Church.  The early instincts are probably best seen in the Eastern Orthodox liturgies in which the whole body of the faithful departed are prayed for, the saints no less than the ordinary Christian; and the living and the departed are brought into the closest connection.  A study of the Great Intercession of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom brings this out.  The fact that St. Augustine found a difficulty in this common prayer for all departed Christians alike, whatever their degree of sanctity, shows that it was the old tradition.

      So far we have been discussing the general Christian attitude to the dead.  It is necessary to have it in mind when funeral rites are studied.  If we turn to the rites themselves, the first fact that emerges is that we have very little information concerning them before mediaeval times.  And this is a fact of considerable importance, because the attitude of Christian people towards the departed underwent a subtle but far-reaching change somewhere round the year 1000.  Its cause is to be found in St. Augustine.  The change was, broadly, one from glad confidence in the love of God to an emphasis on God the just and terrible Judge.  The difference may be illustrated by a comparison between the Dies Irae, that masterpiece of mediaeval religious poetry, and the language of St. Cyprian.

      How often (he says) has it been revealed to us ... that our brothers who have been released from the world by the Divine summons ought not to be mourned for, since we know that they are not lost but gone before; while appearing to lose they have really gained ground, as travelers and navigators are wont to do. [De Mortalitate, c. xx.]

      It is in accordance with this line of thought that decent burial becomes a Christian duty.  The places where the bodies of Christians are laid bear titles congruous with the prayers offered for the dead.  They are sleeping places, coemeteria, accubitaria, cubicula.  They are holy places because they are full of the expectation of a larger life.  From the eighth century in England it was the custom for the bishop to set apart places of burial by a solemn act of consecration. [Pontifical of Egbert of York, A.D. 735–66.  (Surtees Society, Vol. XXVII. p. 54).]

      The earliest references to funeral rites chiefly tell us of the care with which the body was washed, anointed and decently wrapped in white linen cloths. [Eusebius, H.E., vii. 22; cf. Prudentius, Cathemerinon, hymn 10.]  At the obsequies excessive mourning is out of place – it may, says Cyprian, lead the heathen to think that the faith Christians profess in the love of God is not genuine.  The Christian will wear white at funerals, not black as the heathen do.  St. Jerome gives the first hint of the form of service when he says that Christians do not use the howling of the heathen but the comfortable words of the Psalter.  Similar evidence from the fourth century is supplied by the Apostolic Constitutions, a manual of Church Order, compiled in the neighbourhood of Antioch, which gives what is probably the oldest description of a funeral.  Contact with dead bodies, the unknown author emphatically asserts, is not defiling.

      Do not seek after Jewish separations, or perpetual washings, or purifications upon the touch of a dead body.  But without such observances assemble in the cemeteries, reading the holy books, and singing psalms for the martyrs which are fallen asleep, and for all the saints from the beginning of the world, and for your brethren that are asleep in the Lord.  Offer the acceptable (or “gracious,” gratam) Eucharist, the antitype of the royal body of Christ, in your churches, and in the cemeteries; and in the funerals of your dead lead them forth with psalms, if they were faithful in the Lord.  For “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints,” and again, “Turn, my soul, unto thy rest; because the Lord hath done me good.”  And in another place, “The memory of the just is with praises, and the souls of the just are in the hand of God!” [vi. 30; see also viii. 41, 42.]

      Four elements that persist can be detected.  The funeral procession from the house of the departed, the psalms and antiphons that accompany it, the reading of scriptures, and the offering of the Eucharist.  The procession had a character of its own.  It was a triumphal procession, a προπομπή, says St. Chrysostom, and, as he witnesses, this character was given to it by the torches carried, by the waving palm branches and the smoking incense, by the frequent cries of “Alleluia”.

      There was undoubtedly from the first another element in funeral rites.  The procession, psalms and readings culminated in prayer at the grave.  For many years this was probably informal, and left to the discretion of the minister.  But one beautiful example remains to us, of which it may be said with some safety that it was used for this purpose.

      It is found in the “Prayer Book” of Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, and therefore belongs to the first half of the fourth century.  The conflation of Hebrew and Greek thought is striking.

      O God, who hast authority of life and death, God of the spirits and Master of all flesh, God who killest and makest alive, who bringest down to the gates of Hades and bringest up, who createst the spirit of man within him and takest to thyself the souls of the saints and givest rest, who alterest and changest and transformest thy creatures, as is right and expedient, being thyself alone incorruptible, unalterable and eternal, we beseech thee for the repose and rest of this thy servant ; give rest to his soul, his spirit, in green places, in chambers of rest with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all thy saints: and raise up his body in the day which thou hast ordained, according to thy promises which cannot lie, that thou mayest render to it also the heritage of which it is worthy in thy holy pastures.  Remember not his transgressions and sins and cause his going forth to be peaceable and blessed.  Heal the grief of his relatives who survive him with the spirit of consolation, and grant unto us all a good end, through thy only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, through whom to thee is the glory and the strength in the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.  Amen. [c. 18.]

      It is time now to turn to the mediaeval services from which those of the Prayer Book are derived.  In doing so the change spoken of above must be borne in mind.  Two elements contributed to this.  As the Church passed out of the first ages of enthusiasm and included all conditions of men, the original glad confidence often seemed out of place.  More and more the emphasis came to be laid on the period of purgation.  The germ of the idea is pre-Christian. [H. Thurston, The Memory of our Dead, p. 178.]  It is found, already in “Enoch,” and quite early it played a part in popular and semi-heretical literature.  Its recognition in the Liturgy was, however, slow.  In the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries there is hardly a trace of it.  The prayers are all prayers for final bliss without any emphasis on what happens in between.  The following is typical: “Receive, O Lord, our prayers for the soul of thy servant, N.: that, if any stain of our earthly infirmity abide in him, it may be removed by the healing of thy forgiveness.”  But in the later rites of the Middle Ages the doctrine of Purgatory became ever more precise.  It is seen full-blooded in the York Use, for example.  Such a prayer as the following finds a place: – “Loose him, and deliver him from the cruel fire of the boiling pit.”  More and more the avenging judgment dominates the thought of death, and with it the era of chantry priests sets in.  The elements we have already observed are all there.  When the body had been washed and shrouded, it was carried in procession to the church, the coffin covered with a seemly hearse-cloth or pall.  Psalms and anthems were sung by priest and clerks, or by the members of the gild, if the deceased belonged to one, as was very commonly the case.  But the character of the procession had greatly changed from an earlier day.  The friends still carried torches of candles; incense was still swung in front of the body.  But it was no longer a triumphant procession; it was a doleful cortege.  The mourners were not dressed in white, but in black, as was the coffin.  The psalms sung were penitential, the Miserere being conspicuous among them.

      The body, if that of a priest, was set down in the chancel; if of a layman, outside the chancel gates.  In church the services were of two kinds.  There was the Mass and there was the Office.  The Office is not earlier in date than the eighth century.  We have an account of what funerals were like in England in the sixth and seventh centuries in the Penitentials of Theodore of Canterbury and Egbert of Rome.  Their form was based on that of Rome and there was no vigil.

      The custom is to carry the dead to the church, to anoint his breast with chrism, and to say Mass for him ; then to carry him to the grave with chanting, and when he has been laid in the grave, to say a prayer over him.

      The Officium pro defunctis consisted of two parts.  First, an Evening Office which went by the name of Placebo, because this was the first word of the opening antiphon, “Placebo Domino in regione vivorum.”  It consisted almost entirely of psalms, namely, 116, 120, 121, 130, 138, with appropriate anthems or antiphons.  The note of praise was sounded in the Magnificat, which formed the climax.  But it is significant that the one psalm which was of an exultant character, 146, which followed the Magnificat, was said without note, while the more somber psalms were sung.  The next morning the rest of the Office was sung – Mattins and Lauds.  Mattins consisted of three Nocturns, each of which had three psalms and three lessons from the Book of Job.

      Lauds consisted of five psalms with antiphons, the Benedictus, the Kyrie eleison and the Lord’s Prayer.  The tone of Mattins and Lauds was similar to that of Vespers of the Dead.  There were no hymns, no invitatories.  All was as spare and as bare as could be.  The name by which the Morning Office came to be known is the Dirge – a corruption of Dirige, the first word of the first antiphon.  It fitly describes the whole vigil.  The Service has an undoubted beauty and solemnity.  There is something strangely soothing to jangled nerves in its very monotony, and the constant repetition of the moving refrain, “Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord: and let light perpetual shine upon him,” infuses an unearthly peace.  None the less the general atmosphere is in contrast to that of more primitive times, to say nothing of the New Testament.  A somewhat more confident note is struck in the Mass.  The Eucharist cannot avoid being a thanksgiving.  “Requiem aeternam” – rest eternal – sounds at the beginning, and is the burden of the whole.  True, the Dies Irae could not be exceeded for sternness.  But the final Communion, Lux sterna, reaches a world beyond.  “May light eternal shine, O Lord, upon them for endless ages with thy blessed ones; for thou art gracious.”  After Mass the priest, having taken off his chasuble, performed a short service over the body.  Originally this consisted of censing, sprinkling with holy water, and the Lord’s Prayer, in which, at the priest’s bidding, all joined, gathered round the hearse.  In later times this developed into what are called the Absolutions, a series of prayers and antiphons of which the burden is forgiveness and deliverance from judgment.  Then followed the interment.  The funeral cortege proceeded to the place of burial.  Before the service began the priest had made the sign of the cross over the spot, sprinkled it with holy water, and dug lightly the shape of a cross.  Now the grave was properly dug while psalms were sung.  The corpse was lowered into the grave, a final Collect for forgiveness uttered, the grave was filled in and the procession returned to the church, singing the seven Penitential Psalms.  Masses were said during the following month on the third, ninth, and thirtieth day.  The choice of the ninth day points to a pre-Christian origin. [Seyffert’s Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (ed. Nettleship and Sandys), p. 102.]

      The Office of the Dead was originally designed only to be used as an element in actual obsequies.  But in course of time it came to be regarded as a necessary prelude of all solemn Requiem Masses, and in monasteries, largely under the influence of Cluny, it became the rule to say the Offices for the Dead daily.  It would be difficult to exaggerate the degree to which the whole of later mediaeval worship was dominated by the thought of the departed, and particularly by the need for shortening the pains of Purgatory.  This excessive domination to some extent explains the violent reaction of the Reformation against prayer for the departed altogether.

      It is to that period and to the English provision of funeral rites that we must now turn.  In the first form issued, that of 1549, the four main elements are to be recognized, the procession, the inhumation or actual burial, the Office for the Dead, and a funeral Eucharist.  The procession is considerably truncated.  It goes not to the house, only to the church stile.  The extreme sort of Protestant had a great objection to these processions.  Thus, for example, in 1583 Marmaduke Middleton enjoined in his diocese of St. David’s that the clerk “should not carry about the town a little bell called ‘the bell before the burial’ after the use of popish superstition,” and “that there be no prayers made for the dead either in the house or upon the way or elsewhere.”

      The procession went straight from the church stile to the grave, the antiphons at the head of our present service being said or sung the while.  The prayers included a definite commendation of the soul to God.  The Office, which could be said either before or after the actual burial, contained Psalms 116, 139, and 146, the lesson from 1 Corinthians 15, versicles and responses.  Provision was also made for the celebration of the Eucharist at a funeral.  In 1552 the funeral rites were much cut down, there was no provision for a Eucharist, nor indeed for any service in the church at all.  The whole rite took place at the grave.  In 1662, though much was restored, the Eucharist was not.  During the Commonwealth, from 1644 onwards, burial services were forbidden.

II

      The present Service (1662), according to the introductory rubric, is not to be used for the unbaptized, the excommunicate (that is, “majori excommunicatione, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testify of his repentance,” Canon 68 of 1604), or those that have laid violent hands on themselves (as proved by the rare verdict of felo de se).

      The priest and clerks meet the corpse at the entrance to the churchyard and precede it into the church or towards the grave; “that is, into the church on all ordinary occasions; and to the grave if the person has died of any infectious disease. ...” So Procter and Frere ; but Wheatly may be right when he interprets “into the church” of cases where the grave was within the church, as was common at this period, “towards the grave” of ordinary burials.

      Of the texts said or sung in the procession, the first two were used in the Sarum Office of the Dead, the third is a shortened version of the 1549 one.  Psalms 39 and 90 were introduced in 1662, the former, containing the words “thou hast made my days as it were a span long,” being considered appropriate for a young person, the latter for an old one.  The Lesson from 1 Cor. 15 dates from 1549.  A few verses had been used as the Epistle in the Sarum Mass for the Dead, and parts of the chapter are given in Hermann’s Consultatio for reading and exposition.

      At the grave, sentences are said or sung “while the corpse is made ready to be laid into the earth.”  That is, according to Wheatly, “stripped of all but its grave-attire,” coffins being rarely used before the nineteenth century.  The first sentence is from Job 14 and was used in Mattins of the Sarum Office of the Dead.  The other sentences are from the antiphon to the Nunc Dimittis of the third week in Lent.  They are ascribed to Notker, the monk of St. Gall in the ninth century, the originator of Sequences.  Their English form is due to Coverdale’s Goostly Psalms. [Dowden, Workmanship of the Prayer Book, pp. 161–3.]  Earth is then cast upon the body by some standing by, [By the priest, up to 1662.] usually three times, a custom of immemorial antiquity. [Cf. Horace, Odes I. xxviii. 36, “injecto ter pulvere.”         ]  The priest’s words, “Forasmuch ... departed,” are based upon Hermann; what follows is from the Sarum Office and Phil. 3:21.  The passage “I heard a voice ...” comes in the Sarum Vespers of the Dead.

      It has often been the custom in the past to refer to the Funeral Service in the 1662 Book as though it possessed a unique perfection and beauty.  In more recent times it has come in for a good deal of criticism, sometimes not very well-informed.  For example, it has been condemned as gloomy.  Compared with its mediaeval predecessors this is markedly not the case.  The emphasis is changed from judgment to the power of Christ’s Resurrection.  Hope has taken the place of trepidation.  A more substantial criticism would be that the service tends to too great complacency.  The presumption seems to be that all who depart hence are in joy and felicity.  The corruptions that flowed from excessive concern with the state of the departed produced a drastic reaction.  The lack of any clear scriptural sanction for prayers for the departed caused Cranmer to reduce them to the very minimum.  This defect, for such it is now felt to be by most students who attempt to achieve a balanced view of Christian teaching, assisted to widen the chasm between the living and the dead.

      However, justice should be done to the dilemma which confronted the Reformers.  The traditional services were, and still are in the Roman Manual, essentially prayers for the dying extended to the graveside.  But if the destiny of the soul is irrevocably fixed at death and prayer is legitimate for the faithful departed only, prayers for the dead may be considered inappropriate in an Office intended for all.  They are justifiable if a charitable view is taken and all are for this purpose reckoned as “faithful”.  Catholics and Reformers, each in their own way, agreed in taking the charitable view. [In the reign of Elizabeth we find the Placebo and Dirige, with celebration of the Eucharist at which the chief mourners only communicated, at St. Paul’s Cathedral, for Henry II of France (Sept. 9, 1559).  Explicit prayers were offered for the departed.  See Swete, Church Services and Service-Books (1930), p. 131; J. W. Legg, The Burial Service (1897), C. H. S., No. xxi.]

III

      It remains to summarize recent revisions of the Office.  The introductory rubric is enlarged to exclude those who die “in the act of committing any grievous crime” (English 1928, Scottish, S. African).  The Irish Book defines suicides as those “in whose case a verdict shall have been found of felo de se,” and allows a selection from the Office to be used when infants who are the offspring of Christian parents die unbaptized without willful neglect on the part of the parents, or when older persons die in a state of preparedness or desire for Baptism.  The corresponding rubric in the American Book comes at the end of the Service and rules that the Office “is appropriate to be used only for the faithful departed in Christ”; other cases are to be dealt with by the minister at his discretion.

      The English 1928 and Scottish Books provide a heading to the opening sentences – “The Introduction” in the former, “The Procession” in the latter – and increase their number to nine; any of the Penitential Psalms may be used in this part.

      The same two books style the next section “The Service in Church”.  Alternative Psalms are provided: 23 (English 1928, Scottish, Irish); 27 (American); 46 (American); 103 (Irish, Scottish – a few verses only); 116 (Scottish – part); 121 (American); 130 (English 1928, Scottish, American, S. African); S. African omits Ps. 39.  “Rest eternal ...” may be substituted for the Gloria Patri (English 1928, Scottish, S. African).

      In the lesson, 1 Cor. 15, English 1928, Scottish, American and S. African omit some verses.  All revisions allow alternatives, the Scottish as many as seven.  And all make some provision for prayers to be said in church; the Scottish Book gives as many as fourteen prayers.

      At the actual interment [“In certain portions of Canada it is practically impossible to consign bodies to the ground during the severe winter months” (Armitage, The Canadian Revision of the P. B., p. 288).] the treatment of the phrase “our vile body” deserves notice.  It becomes “the body of our low estate” (English 1928, Scottish, S. African), or “our corruptible body” (Canadian).  In the American Book the phrasing is: “the corruptible bodies of those who sleep in him shall be changed.”

      All the revisions provide an Order for the Burial of a Child. [The Canadian only for baptized children.]  The English 1928, Scottish, Irish, and S. African have a prayer for consecrating the grave, when the burial is in unconsecrated ground.  All except the Irish have proper Collects, Epistles and Gospels.

      The English 1928 and S. African Books recognize cremation. [Cf. Codex Juris Canonici, 1240: “Ecclesiastica sepultura privantur ... qu mandaverint suum corpus cremationi tradi.”  But dispensations are not unknown.]

      The Canadian Office includes an inspired prayer from Jeremy Taylor, which is so little known that it may be quoted here. [Also found in the American Book under Visitation of the Sick.]

      O God, whose days are without end, and whose mercies cannot be numbered: Make us, we beseech thee, deeply sensible of the shortness and uncertainty of human life; and let thy Holy Spirit lead us in holiness and righteousness all our days: that, when we shall have served thee in our generation, we may be gathered unto our fathers, having the testimony of a good conscience; in the communion of the Catholic Church; in the confidence of a certain faith; in the comfort of a reasonable, religious, and holy hope; in favour with thee our God, and in perfect charity with all men. ...