Chapter Sixteen – Baptism and Confirmation

      194.  What happens to those who do not believe in the doctrine of Baptism as taught in St. John 3:5?

      We do not know.  They are under the justice and mercy of God.

      195.  Can one who has not been baptized be a Christian?

      He cannot be a member of the Christian Church.  But some people who have not been baptized, such as members of the Society of Friends, believe in our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Man, and serve Him so well that we cannot refuse to group them with Christians.

      196.  When should baptisms be scheduled, and why?

      Perhaps this means, when should baptisms be entered or recorded in the Church register?  The Baptism should be registered immediately; if it is a private Baptism (which is allowed only in cases of emergency) as soon as possible afterward.  The registration of baptisms is most important.  Nobody ought to be confirmed or ordained without trustworthy evidence of Baptism.  If it is not forthcoming, the candidate must be baptized conditionally.  The Confirmation or Ordination of an unbaptized person is null and void and must be repeated after Baptism.  No unbaptized person may be married or buried with the service of the Church.

      Perhaps this question means, When should baptisms be administered?  The Prayer Book directs that baptisms shall be administered on Sundays or other Holy Days and in connection with the public services of the Church.  The reason for this is that Baptism, by its very nature as the means of admission into the membership of the Church, is the concern of all members of the Church, who should be present to welcome and to pray for the new member, to witness the vows of the candidate or, if an infant, the vows of the Godparents.

      197.  I have already been baptized.  Why should I be confirmed?

      198.  Is a baptized person committed to confirmation?  If so, why?

      Confirmation is the second part of Baptism, which is not complete without it (Acts 19:1–8).  Confirmation is the means by which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit, wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, spiritual strength, godliness, and holy fear (Isa. 11:2).  It makes all the difference to the life of the Christian, as I know by my own experience.  Confirmation makes us full members of the Church, entitled to receive the Holy Communion, without which we have no life in us (St. John 6:53).  Confirmation classes are in most cases the only opportunity for being instructed in the whole Christian system of faith and morals.  If you have been baptized, you have promised, personally or by your sponsors, to be Christ’s faithful soldier and servant.  He bids you, through His Church, to be confirmed; you are not keeping your promise if you refuse.

      199.  What is the difference between the gift of the Spirit at Baptism and at Confirmation?

      The gift of the Spirit at Baptism is the new birth (St. John 3:5).  His gift at Confirmation is sevenfold (Isa. 11:2; see Question 98).  The precise relation between them is much disputed, but as both are necessary, the dispute is not important.  You cannot be confirmed without having been baptized.  If you have been confirmed, and there is any doubt whether you have been baptized, you must be baptized conditionally, and confirmed again (conditionally).

      200.  Explain in detail Baptism and Confirmation, and Church laws about them.

      Baptism conveys the New Birth, forgiveness of sins, both original and actual, and membership in the Church.  If, being an adult, you had been baptized without repentance or faith, which are the conditions required for Baptism, you would still have become a member of the Church (otherwise we should not know who is and who is not a member), but you would not have had forgiveness of sins; and the New Birth would only have made your responsibility and your condemnation greater.  For sin is much more serious in the baptized than in the unbaptized.  Baptism makes us children of God by adoption, and brings us within His Covenant.

      Baptism is administered by pouring (not sprinkling) water on the head of the candidate or dipping him beneath the water (which should be done three times, but this is not absolutely necessary), and saying, “I baptize thee In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.”  That is all that is necessary.  It should be performed by a priest, or in his absence by a deacon, but in case of necessity it may be performed by anyone, male or female.  No one can be baptized again: to rebaptize anyone already baptized is both profane and impertinent, unless there is some doubt about the first Baptism, in which case it should be performed with the words: “If thou art not already baptized, I baptize thee ...”  Any living human being may be baptized unless he has been baptized before (see also Question 196).

      Confirmation is the bestowal of the sevenfold gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (or by anointing with chrism, a consecrated oil), but in the Anglican Churches the laying on of hands is sufficient, accompanied by prayer for the gifts.  The scriptural authority is Acts 8:17, 19:1–6; Heb. 6:2.  In Anglican Churches only bishops are authorized to administer Confirmation.  Those who are confirmed are required first to renew their baptismal promises.  Confirmation, which is not a peculiarly Anglican rite, but is regarded as a sacrament in every part of the Church, admits us to full membership in the Church.  No one may receive the Holy Communion until he has been confirmed, or is ready and willing to be confirmed.  In the ancient Church, as in the Eastern Churches still, infants were confirmed immediately after Baptism.  The Anglican rule is that Confirmation is not to be administered until “years of discretion,” that is, when the child knows right from wrong, traditionally at seven years of age (the age at which, for instance, John Wesley was confirmed).  In practice it is usually administered at about twelve.  No one, of course, can be too old to be confirmed.

      201.  Do we join the Church at Confirmation?

      No. “Joining the Church” is a phrase used by the sects.  We do not join the Church; God admits us into it at Baptism.  Every baptized infant is a member of the Church because he is baptized, and for no other reason.

      202.  Discuss the bearing of infant Baptism on its relation to Church membership and Confirmation.

      Baptism, if rightly performed, makes us members of the Church and cannot be repeated.  It has the same effect, no matter who administered the Baptism, but it ought, if possible, to be administered by a priest or deacon.

      Confirmation makes us full members, and it is often used to bring those who have been baptized in some other body into the full membership of the Church.  They should be received into the Church first, as is done after a private Baptism, so that they may have godparents.  (Those who have been confirmed in the Roman Communion must be received as confirmed persons.)

      203.  Why infant Baptism?  Would it not be more important later?

      204.  Since God’s service must be freely chosen, is not Baptism of infants an infringement of free will?  Does not God wish us to be aware of alternatives?

      Freedom of will is not the right to do what we like, but the power to do what we ought.  From our birth our free will is perverted, so that we always find it easier to do wrong than to do right.  Baptism is given at the earliest possible age (see Question 72) so that we may have every opportunity of resisting by God’s grace this tendency to sin.  We do not infringe the free will of children by offering them food, clothes, education, and other necessities; and Baptism is necessary for the spiritual life, like food for the life of the body.  God’s Will for us is life; Baptism is the beginning of the way to it.  We remain free to reject God’s offer of life, as we are continually tempted to do, but at least we are given the grace of Baptism, and the instruction which should follow it, to help us to resist temptation.  The Church baptizes infants only on condition that they shall be instructed in the Christian faith and brought forward for Confirmation; if this condition is not likely to be fulfilled, Baptism should be postponed.

      Perhaps the inquirer imagines that Baptism is one of several possible alternatives.  There are in fact only two alternatives: God’s service and the devil’s: Baptism is the normal way of entering God’s service.

      205.  Does not infant Baptism ignore the human part in God’s Covenant with man?

      God did not offer Abraham the choice between accepting and refusing His Covenant; He said, “Thou shalt keep my Covenant” (Gen. 17:10).  The Covenant between God and man is not a bargain between equals, and it is not made with you or me, but with the Church.  It is an offer made by God to us which He bids us accept.  We can refuse, and if we do, so much the worse for us.  The offer is made to infants, that they may have every opportunity of accepting it, and be admitted to the Church.  Freedom is not the right to do what you like, but the power to do what you ought.  If you were a father, and someone offered your infant son a large sum of money, to be paid at once, on condition, let us say, that he was not convicted of a felony, would you refuse it on the ground that when he grew up he might wish to be a burglar?

      206.  Why infant Baptism?  It is so difficult to explain to outsiders.

      According to some sects, Baptism is not a means of grace, still less the necessary means of the New Birth.  It is a public assertion that the candidate has been converted, that is, has accepted Christ’s offer of salvation.  This is what “the Baptism of John” was (St. Mark 1:5; St. John 1:33).  It was not Christian Baptism (Acts 19:4, 5), and those who received it had to be baptized again if they were to be Christians.

      If you think that Baptism is only a public proof of conversion, you will not believe in baptizing infants too young to be converted.  But if you believe that Baptism is God’s gift of the New Birth, and that as we are not asked whether we wish to be born, so we need not be asked whether we wish to be baptized, you must accept the universal belief of the Church that children should be baptized as early as possible.  St. Paul says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1).  He would not have bidden them obey their parents if they had not been young: he would not have said “in the Lord” if they had not been baptized for they would not have been members of Christ’s Body.

      207.  Why do we have lay Baptism in case of emergency?

      The Church has always desired that no one who wished to be baptized should die unbaptized.  Therefore, if anyone is in danger of death and there is no ordained man within reach, as may easily happen, any man or woman is allowed to baptize.  Every member of the Church ought to know how to baptize and be ready to do so in case of emergency: such as a sick child or a soldier on the battlefield.

      208.  Why does not the Episcopal Church baptize by immersion, as that is scriptural?

      Immersion is allowed by our rubrics, if anyone wishes to be baptized or to have his children baptized in that way.  It is often practiced in hot countries.  But the Church in the West, from early times, laid down that pouring (not sprinkling) water on the head was sufficient.  The Church has authority to interpret Scripture; our doctrine must be scriptural, not necessarily our ceremonial details.  For instance, the Apostles lay on couches at the Lord’s Supper, but that is no reason why we should.  Baptism by immersion was easier when people wore only a single garment.  This principle that Scripture does not bind the Church in such details was proved by Richard Hooker, perhaps the greatest of Anglican theologians.

      209.  “One baptism for the remission of sins.”  Is the emphasis on “one” or on “remission”?

      I should say on both.

      210.  Is it irregular for a priest to baptize his own children?

      Certainly not.  What a strange idea!  It may be his duty as well as his privilege.  I was baptized by my grandfather; my brother, by my father.

      211.  Why do newly confirmed members attend church only on special occasions?

      Judging by English experience, I should say that either they have not been sufficiently instructed, or their parents do not encourage them to come, or the clergy do not take enough trouble to keep them together and give them something really attractive to do for our Lord, whereas the world, the flesh, and the devil always give them plenty to do.

      212.  Is instruction in preparation for Confirmation often too haphazard?

      Only too likely.  I used to require four months’ regular attendance both at church and at classes.  I think now that it was not nearly enough.  My experience is that the decisive factor is nearly always the parents’ influence.

      213.  At what age should one be confirmed?

      It depends on the person and the conditions.  Some people are as mature at eleven as others are at sixteen.  The worst possible age is usually fourteen to seventeen for physical reasons.  If the home is entirely satisfactory, it matters little how young the candidate is.  If the parents are uninterested or hostile, it may be better to wait until the candidate is able to stand on his own feet.  There is no general rule; and I know nothing of conditions in America.

      214.  Some people think it uncharitable, or High Church, to require Confirmation before Communion.  Please explain.

      It is useless to argue with people’s prejudices.  Probably what they mean by “High Church” is something to which they are not accustomed and which therefore they dislike; by “uncharitable,” something that imposes discipline upon those who regard religion as entirely a matter of personal choice, and not as membership in a society.  They cannot mean that it is Romanist, for the modern Roman practice often is to put one’s First Communion some years before one’s Confirmation.  This is quite contrary to the practice of the Church in ancient and medieval times, and is partly due to a defective doctrine of Confirmation dating from the ninth century, and widely prevalent in the Roman Communion.

      If Confirmation is not to be before Communion, when is it to be?  It appears that it is to Confirmation, as such, that they object.  The answer is that it is clearly required by the Bible and by the Prayer Book.  The references in the Bible are Acts 8:17, 19:1–6; Heb. 6:2.  The rubric in the Prayer Book is quite explicit.  The suggestion that to insist on Confirmation is “uncharitable” is to fail to understand what is meant by “charitable” and what is meant by membership.  Anyone may receive Holy Communion if he fulfills the conditions of membership: he must be baptized, be confirmed, and obey the bishops (see Questions 168–79).

      215.  Why is Confirmation required?  Why is it done by a bishop?

      For the answer to the first question see Questions 168–79, and 214.  In the Anglican Churches only the bishops are authorized to give Confirmation.  This is the apostolic practice.  Philip, who was only one of the Seven, could not do it; it required St. Peter and St. John as Apostles.  By Confirmation every member of the Church is once in his life brought into direct personal contact with the bishop, the successor of the Apostles and the chief authority in the local Church.

      216.  What should the newly confirmed do as soon as possible?

      Begin the lifelong habit of regular Communion, at least once a month, and at Easter, Christmas, and Whitsuntide.

      217.  Why does Confirmation take place at the chancel steps?

      If there is a chancel, it is the most suitable place, where the whole congregation can see and hear it.  Besides, the chancel gate, on the way to the altar, symbolizes confirmation as the way to Communion.

      218.  What significance has the rubric requiring Confirmation before Communion in our day of widespread denominationalism?

      It is of the very greatest importance, because it safeguards the membership of the Church, and it is our only means of doing so.  To have been baptized as a baby may mean very little, but to have been confirmed means, or should mean, that one has been taught the doctrine of the Church and has voluntarily promised to believe and practice it.  The rule also prevents members of the sects, many of which exercise no discipline at all over their members, from claiming privileges to which they have no right.

Chapter Seventeen – The Holy Communion

      219.  Is it correct to say that the Holy Spirit is with us always, but God the Son is found not only, but especially, in the consecrated elements, at the Holy Communion?

      Yes, but you must not draw the distinction too sharply.  Our Saviour said, “Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world” (St. Matthew 28:20), and “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (St. Matthew 18:20).  God the Holy Spirit is the Agent of Holy Communion (see St. John 16:14).  We must not claim to understand fully the mystery of the Trinity or ignore the fact that God is One.

      220.  Does the Church believe that the bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist become the flesh and blood of Christ, or just that Christ is present?

      They become the Body and Blood of Christ, but not in a local or material sense.  “When the Sacrament is moved, the Body of Christ does not move” (John Henry Newman).  It is a mystery which we cannot expect to understand.  The bread and wine continue to have all the properties of bread and wine; but they are also much greater than bread and wine, as we know by experience.

      221.  Is Christ really present in the consecrated elements?

      222.  What is meant by the Real Presence?

      Christ is really present in the consecrated elements, but the words “real” and “presence” may mean several different things.  He is present to feed us with His life and to enable us to share in His offering of that life to the Father.  In my opinion it is wiser to think in terms of power than of presence.  The bread and wine are changed by the Holy Spirit: they have Divine power which before consecration they did not have.

      223.  In professing to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, do we mean the Son as opposed to the Holy Spirit?

      Yes; for the Holy Spirit has not taken to Himself a body or blood (but see Question 219).

      224.  Why should I believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Communion?

      Because our Lord taught us to believe it.  He said, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me” (I Cor. 11:24; see also St. Mark 14:22; St. Luke 22:19; St. John 6:51–54).  Every part of the Church in every age has believed it.  Even Luther held it strongly, and Charles Wesley ended one of his eucharistic hymns with these words:

We need not now go up to heaven

            To bring the long-sought Saviour down.

Thou art to all who seek Thee given:

            Thou dost e’en here Thy banquet crown.

To every faithful soul appear,

And show Thy real presence here.

      The rubric in the English Prayer Book says: “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 ... shall immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same” (part of this is omitted in the American Prayer Book).  This distinction between the consecrated and the unconsecrated elements shows that Anglican teaching agrees with that of the rest of the Church.

      225.  Is the Real Presence the same as Transubstantiation?

      226.  Do we believe in Transubstantiation?

      Transubstantiation is a theory devised in the twelfth century to explain the Real Presence in terms of the philosophy then universally current.  It was made compulsory for Romanists by the Lateran Council of 1215 and the Council of Trent (1563).  ‘We are not bound by these Councils.  Our Article 28 condemns Transubstantiation, but whether the official doctrine or a popular corruption of it is uncertain.  Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Scripture, and there are serious technical objections to it (see Charles Gore, The Body of Christ).  There seems to most of us to be no need for any explanation or definition of the mystery of the Eucharist.

      227.  What exactly happens at the consecration?  Do the bread and wine turn to the actual Body and Blood of Christ, as Roman Catholics believe?

      They do not become the material Body and Blood of Christ, as you appear to mean.  That is certainly not the official Roman doctrine (even if some Romanists think it is).  Romanists do not believe that they are cannibals.  The best Anglican divines teach that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ after a heavenly and spiritual manner.  What happens at the consecration is that in answer to the prayer of the congregation led by the priest, who is ordained and authorized to lead it, the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine, so that while remaining bread and wine they also become the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ.  It is a mystery which we cannot define further.

      228.  What is the official teaching on the Holy Communion, since the Articles are vague?

      See the Second Office of Instruction in the American Prayer Book (in the English Prayer Book, the Church Catechism).  The mystery of the Holy Communion cannot be fully understood and there have, and still are, different opinions about it.  The Church is wise to avoid sharp definitions.  The Holy Communion was given to us to be received reverently, regularly, and thankfully, not to be a subject for disputes.

      229.  Why is the Holy Communion the most important service of the Church?

      It is the one service which our Lord expressly commanded, when He said, “Do this in remembrance of me.”  From the earliest days of the Church, all its members gathered on the Lord’s Day for the “Breaking of Bread” (Acts 2:42, 46, 20:7).  Hebrews 10:25 commands regular attendance.  The whole Church in all ages has regarded the Holy Communion, or Liturgy, as the chief service round which all others are grouped.  The Lord’s Day, or Sunday (which is not a continuation of the Sabbath of the Jews), was made a public holiday in order that Christians might be free to worship at the Eucharist.  The Church of England directs sermons to be preached and notices issued at this service, and at no others, and the Episcopal Church follows its example.

      230.  Why has Morning Prayer superseded the Holy Communion as the main service on Sunday morning?

      This custom, which is peculiar to the Anglican Churches, and is now rapidly breaking down, has a long history.  The intention of the Prayer Book was that the Sunday morning service should be Morning Prayer, Litany, and Holy Communion with sermon.  In the sixteenth century people had long been accustomed to communicate only once a year.  The Reformers wished to abolish “solitary Masses,” at which only the priest communicated, and to restore frequent Communion by the laity.  They laid down that if no one had given notice that he wished to communicate the service should proceed only to the Prayer for the Church Militant.  This was the usual order of service until about a hundred years ago.  The belief had long become general that no one ought to be present at the Holy Communion who did not at the time intend to communicate.  (There is no trace of this in the Prayer Book, nor is it known in any other part of Christendom.  It is supposed to be due to the Elizabethan Puritans.)  So when there was a Eucharist, the greater part of the congregation as they were not communicating, trooped out.

      The followers of the Tractarians, in order to induce people to prepare for Communion more carefully, especially by receiving it fasting, introduced the early Communion service, which is now almost universal in the Church of England.  When choral services became common, Morning Prayer and Ante-Communion became choral, and the choir and most of the people, when there was to be Communion, departed after the Prayer for the Church Militant.  Then came the demand for shorter services; the Ante-Communion was dropped, and the sermon was preached at Matins.  Other parishes introduced a Choral Eucharist at which people were not supposed, or even allowed, to communicate, for fear they might not be fasting.  So arose the contrast of parishes with Sung Morning Prayer and parishes with Sung Eucharist.  The distinction is now being broken down by the Parish Communion at nine or ten o’clock, sometimes followed by a parish breakfast; this service combines general Communion with music, but Morning Prayer disappears.  (For its advantages and disadvantages, see the Archbishop of York [Michael Ramsey], Durham Essays.)

      231.  Where there is but one priest, ought he to celebrate three times on Sunday?  Might one of the services be replaced by the Mass of the Presanctified?

      I cannot say without knowing the conditions.  A priest ought not to celebrate more than once a day without necessity, but for many reasons it often is necessary.  If there is a parish or family Communion, as the inquirer says, I see no reason for a late one as well.  The laity might fairly put themselves to some inconvenience rather than expect their priest to celebrate three times in one day.

      The Mass of the Presanctified would not solve the difficulty.  This is an ancient service, based on Communion from the Reserved Sacrament, and held on days when the ordinary Liturgy was not thought suitable: among the Greeks, on all Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent; among the Romanists, on Good Friday and Easter Eve only.  It has no Anglican authority and would not satisfy anyone’s needs on a Sunday; there is no consecration, so that the congregation is not joining in the Sacrifice, for which Communion from the Reserved Sacrament is not a sufficient substitute.

      232.  If the Holy Communion is the chief service, why is it at eight o’clock rather than at a decent hour when most people are present?

      It is at an early hour in order that the communicants may be fasting, according to the universal custom of the Church.  The first hour of the day is the best time to give to the worship of God.

      233.  If Holy Communion is the chief service, why do many parishes have Morning Prayer?

      See Question 230.  We ought to attend both, and it is quite possible, by not having too many hymns or too long a sermon, to get both into an hour, or a little more.  This seems the more urgently required if there is no Evensong, which in many English parishes is the best-attended Sunday service.

      234.  Why is Morning Prayer frowned on unless it is accompanied by the Holy Communion?

      There is nothing whatever against Morning Prayer, which every member of the Church ought to know and love, but it should never be a substitute for the offering of the Holy Eucharist; if you have not attended the latter you have not done your Sunday duty and are breaking the Fourth Commandment.

      235.  How can the importance of the Mass, not only on Sundays but on weekdays, be better emphasized?

      If you are one of the fortunate few who have the time and opportunity to go to the Holy Communion (Eucharist, Mass, or Lord’s Supper) every day you ought to live up to that great privilege by showing yourself specially kind, patient, and self-sacrificing toward your less fortunate neighbors: “to whom much is given, of them much will be required” (St. Luke 12:48).

      236.  Does the Church believe that the sacraments (Holy Communion) are God, or only symbolic of Him?

      Neither.  The sacraments are means by which God’s grace and power are conveyed to us; they are not bare symbols (such as, for instance, the sign of the cross in baptism), but “effectual signs” (Article 25).  They are not God: God is almighty and eternal; the Holy Eucharist is not almighty or eternal.

      237.  How should I receive the Holy Communion?

      Go to church early: be in your place at least five minutes before the service begins; fasting (unless you are sick or aged), that is, having eaten or drunk nothing that day.  Make sure that your hands and nails are perfectly clean.  If you are a woman, put on no lipstick, for obvious reasons.  When the time comes, proceed quietly to the altar, take off your gloves, and kneel at the rail.  When the priest comes to you with the Bread, be ready, with the palm of your right hand held out and your left hand cupped underneath it (as St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century directed), making your left hand a throne for your right.  The priest will place the Bread in your palm; raise it to your mouth but don’t touch it with your fingers, and be careful that no crumb or fragment is lost.  When the priest comes to you with the Cup, he will have a firm hold of it.  Grasp the base of the Chalice with your right hand, and tilt it carefully to your lips.  Drink only the least quantity that you can swallow.  If you are a woman, don’t wear a hat with a broad brim, which would prevent the priest from seeing your face; that is how accidents easily happen.  Kneel straight upright throughout, and don’t bow your head.  Wait until the next person has communicated, then rise and return to your place; in some churches it is the custom to return by a different way, so as to avoid confusion between those coming and those going.  Unless it is absolutely necessary, never leave the church until the priest has returned to the sacristy; to leave before he does is very bad manners.  Never leave the church without offering a thanksgiving.  Be careful what you say immediately after Communion, for the reaction on returning to the world is the devil’s opportunity: if you can do so without hurting anyone’s feelings, it is best to go home silently.

      238.  Being an Anglican member of the Catholic Church, may I communicate in the Roman Church?

      Certainly not. If the Roman priest knew who you were he would not communicate you. To communicate without telling him would be a lie, and a very grave one; to communicate in unrepented sin is to be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and to bring judgment on yourself (I Cor. 11:27). To receive Communion in any Church is to commit yourself to its beliefs; in this case to the papal supremacy, etc. The Orthodox Church will sometimes, in exceptional cases such as that of the former Queen of Rumania, give Anglicans Communion when there is no Anglican priest at hand; and there is no Orthodox doctrine which we are bound as Anglicans to reject. But this is perhaps unlikely in the United States. No Anglican should do so without special permission from the Orthodox bishop.

      239.  May intinction be used, and in what way consistently with Catholic usage and Anglican tradition?

      240.  Why do some priests and some dioceses object to intinction?  Has it been sanctioned by the Lambeth Conference or the American bishops?

      Intinction is Communion with the Bread dipped in the Chalice or touched with the Wine.  It has been the regular practice of the Eastern Churches since the thirteenth century, and recently of the Dutch Old Catholics (who formerly communicated in one kind only).  There is no Anglican tradition or authority behind it, as far as I know.  Intinction is permissible, with the leave of the bishop, in special cases, such as for alcoholics or persons with diseased lips.  However, it does not really fulfill our Lord’s command (St. Matthew 26:27): “Drink ye all of it.”  The notion current in some quarters that the common cup (which has great symbolic value) is dangerous to health is nonsense.  The person most likely to suffer, if there were any truth in this silly idea, would be the priest: and statistics show that priests live longer than anyone else.

      241.  How often should I receive the Holy Communion?

      Provided you come in repentance, faith, and charity, and make proper preparation and thanksgiving, you should aim at once a week at least.  An old writer says: “If he asks how often he should receive, tell him as often as he can, that the old Serpent, seeing the Blood of Christ on his lips, may tremble to approach.”  No one, except a priest who has to celebrate more than once, is allowed to communicate twice in one day.

      242.  Does a priest have to consecrate specially to take Communion to a sick person?

      No.  He may bring the Body and Blood of Christ from the altar or he may keep the sacrament permanently in the church, so that a sick person, or anyone who cannot get to the church, may be communicated at any time.  But those who are permanently house-bound should be given a private celebration from time to time, if conditions permit.  The priest who celebrates will always himself receive.

      243.  How much wine may a priest consecrate at one time?

      As much as is needed, but not more than enough.

      244.  Why is not the Host reserved in all Episcopal churches, as there seems to be always a tabernacle built in?

      I suppose some priests do not know how to reserve and do not feel the need for it.  The standing tabernacle is not a good place because it distracts attention from the altar, which is more holy than the tabernacle.  It is more usual to reserve in an ambry (small cupboard) at the side.

      245.  Need one make a formal preparation before every Communion if one communicates often?

      I do not think so, if one is careful to make frequent self-examination, to be sure one is in charity with all men, and to beware of letting Communion become formal.  You should have a spiritual adviser and consult him.

      246.  How can Communion in one kind be justified, in view of the words of institution?

      It cannot be justified: and it is forbidden in the Anglican Communion as it is in all the Eastern Churches (see Article 30).  Even Communion from the Reserved Sacrament, if not in both kinds separately (which may be impossible), should be by intinction (see Question 239).

      247.  How about the use of one cup for Communion?

      The Church requires the use of the common cup, out of which all are to drink.  This has high symbolic value.  Fear of infection is an idea which should be ignored.  The Chalice must be cleansed by the lips of the celebrant, and not by a purificator.  If the consecrated wine touches any fabric, that fabric must be carefully washed, and the water drunk by the celebrant.  See Question 240.

      248.  Does the Invocation in the Canon imply a Receptionist theory?

      The Invocation is: “We most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.”  There is nothing here that implies Receptionism, but, like all Anglican consecration prayers, it does not exclude Receptionism; which is not a heresy, for it has never been condemned by the Church, though it is contrary to the usual teaching of the Church.  The elements are here called “bread and wine” after the recital of the words of our Lord, “This is my body, This is my blood.”  At the same place in the Roman Canon the following words occur: “the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of perpetual salvation” (in Unde et memores).  The theory that the use by the celebrating priest of the words of our Lord (which were His words of administering, not of consecrating) effects the consecration is a medieval belief which has given rise to many superstitions.  The Canon of the Roman Mass is much older than this theory.  The belief shown by all the ancient liturgies is that the consecration is effected by God the Holy Spirit in answer to the prayer of the Church, which has already offered thanks over the bread and wine.  Every ancient liturgy known to us, with the doubtful exception of the very obscure Roman Mass, contains an Invocation of the Word or the Holy Spirit.  The American Church (with the Scottish and other Anglican Churches) has, by restoring this invocation, returned to the practice of the ancient Church.

      249.  Who may be admitted to the Holy Communion, and why?

      See Questions 168–79.  Those who have been baptized and confirmed (and have not been excommunicated), and are under the bishop of the diocese or some bishop in full communion with him (that is, are Anglican or Old Catholic communicants) are entitled to receive the Holy Communion as full members of the Episcopal Church, which is the Catholic Church in the United States (see Questions 127, 128).  Communicants of the Orthodox, Armenian, and Assyrian Churches may be communicated at our altars, with the permission of their own bishops.  This permission must be obtained in every case and on every occasion; and they must on no account be admitted to Communion without it (except at the point of death).  Our authority is the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, subject to the consent of the American bishops.

      The Church of England has formally permitted communicants of the Churches of Sweden and Finland, and some other national Churches of the Lutheran tradition, to communicate at our altars.  They believe as we do about the creeds and the two great sacraments; they never seceded from the Church of England, whose authority they recognize; and they could not become Anglicans even if they wished to, as there is no Anglican Church in their native countries.

      250.  Is it not superstitious to think the condition of the stomach before Communion more important than the condition of heart and mind?

      The condition of heart and mind is indeed the most important thing: to communicate without repentance, faith, and charity is profane.  The reason for the rule of fasting Communion is that we may honor our Lord’s Body and Blood by making it the first food of the day.  This has been a custom of all parts of the Church from early times.  It is also the experience of most people that they are not in a fit condition for religious exercises after a meal, for this there is plenty of biblical authority (Ex. 34:28; I Kings 19:8; Dan. 10:3; St. Matthew 4:2; Acts 10:10).  The best time to communicate is early in the morning, before the cares and distractions of the day have begun.

      251.  Has the Episcopal Church an official or majority doctrine of the Real Presence?

      See Questions 220–24.  The Episcopal Church has no doctrine on this or any other subject that cannot be proved from Scripture or has not been defined by the Universal Church.  There is no definition of the Universal Church on this subject.  We must not be explicit where Scripture is not explicit.  In any case doctrine is not decided by majorities, which have no spiritual authority.  The Holy Eucharist is a mystery, and the less we try to explain it the better.

      252.  Why is the Eucharist a sacrifice?

      See Question 189.  The only sacrifice in the Christian religion is the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, made on the Cross and offered in heaven (see the Epistle to the Hebrews).  The Eucharist is the principal means by which we are permitted to take part in that sacrifice and to offer all that we are and have, that we may be united with our Saviour’s perfect sacrifice.  When we take part in the Eucharist, even without receiving Communion, we are carried into heaven and share the worship of the angels and archangels; when we receive Communion we take part more fully, for then we feast on the Sacrifice.

      253.  What is “Benediction”?  How can it be reconciled with Articles 25 and 28?

      “Benediction” is the practice of using the consecrated Bread for blessing people: either in a glass vessel called a “monstrance” or in a closed vessel called a “ciborium.”  It is a modern Romanist ceremony, unknown in ancient times or in the Eastern Churches.  It was not in use even among English Romanists before the nineteenth century.  The Articles quoted only say that Christ did not command the sacraments to be carried about, or gazed at, and this cannot be denied by anyone.

      Benediction is forbidden or strongly discouraged in most Anglican dioceses.  Such learned and holy men as Pusey, Scott Holland, Richard Benson (founder of the Cowley Fathers), and Bishop Gore (who forbade it in his diocese) were strongly opposed to it.  Benediction encourages simple people to believe that our Lord is locally present in the tabernacle and to offer adoration to the outward visible signs of His presence; but we must not offer adoration, the worship due to God alone, to anything that we can see.  If we believe that Christ is locally present we believe what the best theologians say is not true; and if we do not believe it, Benediction is meaningless.  The blessing of God is the same, whether the sacrament is used for the purpose or not.

      Other objections are these: Whereas our Lord is in the sacrament for sacrifice and for Communion, “Benediction” and similar practices are not connected with either, and we cannot be sure that they have His sanction.  Emphasis on His sacramental presence, apart from Communion, leads to neglect of His promise to be present wherever His people are assembled; and of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.  Benediction and similar unnecessary practices have created in many minds a strong prejudice against the reservation of the sacrament, which is often necessary for the sick and others who cannot be present at the Eucharist.

Chapter Eighteen – Absolution and Unction

      254.  Why should I call my priest whenever I am sick?

      If you are seriously ill you are in more danger of death than usual.  Your priest can do three things for you.  He can hear your confession and give you absolution, that you may not appear before the Judgment Seat with your sins unforgiven.  He can give you Communion, which will strengthen your soul and body and help you to recover or prepare for death.  He can anoint you, which will help you to recover if it is God’s will that you should, and if not, will make you more fit to meet death.

      255.  Should we confess our sins to our priests?

      We are not bound to (unless we are guilty of very grave sins), but we are strongly advised to, for three reasons:

      (1)  We need all the grace that we can get.  God has appointed this means of grace, and it is very foolish not to use it.  I have been making my confession to a priest regularly for fifty years, so I do not speak without experience.

      (2)  We become much more ashamed of our sins, and are more unlikely to commit them again, if we confess them in the presence of a fellow creature (who is, of course, bound absolutely to complete secrecy) than if we confess them only in God’s hearing.

      (3)  The skilled confessor is a physician of souls and can save us much unhappiness, and the sin from which it springs, by advising us of the right remedies for our faults.

      256.  Is there a set form for private confession?

      “I confess to Almighty God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, before the whole company of heaven and you, my father, that I have sinned exceedingly, by thought, by word, by deed, and by omission – especially that since my last confession which was [before Easter, or three months ago, or whenever it was], I have committed the following sins. ... For these and all my other sins, which I cannot now remember, I am heartily sorry; and I earnestly desire God’s pardon, and of you, my father, penance, counsel, and absolution.”

      257.  My religion is between God and me.  Why should I ask forgiveness of a priest?

      You are entirely, disastrously, and dangerously mistaken.  Your religion is not between God and you.  It affects all your neighbors.  Your religion teaches you to love your neighbor as yourself.  If you are jealous, or bad-tempered, or cruel, or treacherous, or covetous, your neighbor will suffer.  If you are a member of the Church, every sin you commit, even in the most secret thought of your heart, is an injury to the Church.  The priest represents God, and also the Church.  In confessing to him you are confessing to God and to man the wrongs that you have done.  God has given him authority to forgive you (St. John 20:23); see the “Form and Manner of Ordering Priests,” and the words which were said to him by the bishop, “Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven” (The Book of Common Prayer).

      258.  If the General Confession and Absolution are enough for forgiveness, why should we confess to a priest?  Is there an easy way and a hard way?

      There is only one way, a hard way: by repentance.  This must include sorrow for sin, confession, and amendment of life.  God always forgives those who truly repent.  But confession to a priest is a great help toward repentance (see Question 255).

      259.  Is confession absolutely necessary?

      Confession to God is absolutely necessary, and we ought to make it every night before we go to bed.  We all know, however, how easy it is to neglect this, or to let it become merely formal, unless we also confess to a priest from time to time.  In the case of very grave sins, it is usually held that confession to a priest is necessary, because of the wrong done to the whole Church.

      260.  Why should I, making my first auricular confession for a particular need, after years of private confession, be required to confess all past sins?

      “Private” and “auricular” usually mean confession to a priest in the confessional, as opposed to public confession before the congregation (common in the mission field).  Here “private” seems to mean to God, without a priest.  If you feel a pain and send for a physician, he may advise a complete overhaul.  If he does, you will be wise to follow his advice.  The skilled confessor is a spiritual physician.  You are not bound to call him in, or to follow his advice, but unless he knows something of the condition of your soul, which he cannot know without a general confession, he will not know what remedy to apply to your particular need.  Therefore you will be wise to follow his advice.  It is useless to consult him unless you are willing to trust his knowledge and his desire to help you.

      261.  Why is not the sacrament of penance a service as such in the Prayer Book?

      Because it is the Book of “Common” Prayer, which includes only public services.  But in the English Prayer Book, in the order for the Visitation of the Sick, there is a form for Absolution, which has been omitted from the American Prayer Book.  “Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences; and by His authority committed to me I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.”

      262.  What is the personal value of sacramental confession and absolution in the counsel by the priest?  May guilt sometimes inhibit a personal expression of faith?

      We must distinguish between the absolution, which any authorized priest can give, and the counsel, the value of which depends upon the skill and knowledge of the director.  You may have one priest as your regular confessor and another as your director or spiritual adviser.  There are people who do not allow themselves to believe, because they know that if they admitted that the claims of Jesus Christ are true they would have to reform their lives, which they are not willing to do.

      263.  Why do some churches have confession and others seem to frown on it?

      I assume that “churches” here means “parishes.”  Some have a Catholic and others a Calvinistic tradition.  It is very unwise to make your confession to a priest who has not learned how to hear confessions, has not made his own confession, and does not know what advice to give.  His counsel might even be dangerous.

      264.  What hope is there that the Church will recognize the great value of penance?

      The Church of England certainly does.  The American Prayer Book might well restore the form of absolution in the Visitation of the Sick.  Certainly every priest who is an army or naval chaplain, or has to work in a hospital or a school, should regard hearing confessions as a normal part of his work.

      265.  Why is not the sacrament of confession restored openly in the Episcopal Church?

      I suppose the reason is the remains of Calvinistic prejudice and the refusal to take seriously the solemn words used at the ordination of every priest.

      266.  May one go to confession to a priest outside one’s own parish?

      Certainly; the words of the Prayer Book are: “Let him come to me, or to some other Minister of God’s Word” (Exhortation after the Order for Holy Communion; the English Prayer Book has “some other discreet and learned Minister of God’s Word”).  It is advisable to choose the holiest, wisest, and most experienced priest you can find and stick to him as your confessor.

      267.  How did Holy Unction change from a means of healing to a preparation for death?  Why does no one preach about it?

      The title of Extreme Unction (that is, anointing with oil) and the belief that it was a preparation for death, and that anyone who had received it, and then recovered, had done something quite unusual and hardly proper, appear to have arisen about the ninth century.  All Eastern, and some Romanist, theologians object to the belief.  It is psychologically dangerous, for to suggest that anyone will probably die is likely to hasten his death.  Unction is intended to help the sick person to recover, and in any case to give strength and comfort to his soul (James 5 14–16; cf. 16:18).  The American Prayer Book provides for a service of healing, either by anointing or by laying on of hands, which ought to be known to all members of the Episcopal Church.

      268.  If oil is used (a) for healing (b) for Confirmation (c) for Ordination, Consecration, justify its use.

      The anointing of the sick for healing is based on James 5:14.  Its ceremonial use, though common to many religions, is found in the Old Testament: priests and kings were anointed to symbolize their sacred calling and sanctity.  The English monarch is anointed at his coronation (I Kings 1:39; II Kings 11:12).  The Church from earliest times has made sacramental use of it.  Anointing is done principally to separate persons or things from profane use, and for healing purposes.  The oil so used is usually blessed by the bishop at his cathedral altar on Maundy Thursday.

      269.  What is the “therapy of grace”?

      “Therapy” is a Greek word meaning healing, and anyone who uses it is to be suspected, for a favorite device of the charlatan, the quack, and the mystagogue is to impress his hearers with strange words when he might use plain ones.  Spiritual healing is to be distinguished from the sacrament of Unction, which any priest may use.  Spiritual healing is a natural gift which some people have (I Cor. 12:9, 30), not necessarily priests or even Christians.  Mr. Hickson, who was famous all over the world for this gift, was a lay member of the Church.  Such gifts must always be used in close collaboration with the medical profession.  All who forbid resort to physicians and surgeons, as some sects do, are to be avoided as dangerous to soul and body (Ecclus. 38:1–14).  The Guild of St. Raphael carries on a healing work in England, and there are also several such societies in the American Church, notably the Fellowship of St. Luke and the Order of St. Luke (see The Episcopal Church Annual).

      270.  What is “the awfulness of something that cannot happen,” as the curing of leukemia by prayer and anointing?

      It is foolish, not to say profane, to say that anything “cannot happen.”  God can work miracles, but we must not ask Him to do so.  Setting that aside, we do not know the limits of the power of mind over matter.  Many diseases, such as leprosy, formerly believed to be incurable, can now be cured.  Many people have been given up as hopeless by the physicians, and have been cured by prayer and spiritual healing.  I have known men who have brought about such cures (see St. Mark 8:23; James 5:16).  Lately I heard of a South African native who suffered from leukemia, and who is said to have been cured, at any rate for the time being, by spiritual healing.

Chapter Nineteen – Marriage

      271.  What is Christian marriage?

      Christian marriage is the lifelong and exclusive union of one man and one woman, being Christians.  If they have not been baptized, the union is still marriage, but it is not Christian.  If they have been baptized after marriage, their previous union is sanctified and becomes Christian marriage, and sacramental, for Christian marriage is regarded as a sacrament of the Church.  The necessary feature of this is that the couple should promise, not under compulsion but of their own free will, to enter into a lifelong and exclusive union, which only death can dissolve.  If they do not intend to do this, or are under compulsion to do it, the union is not a marriage in the eyes of the Church: it is fornication and a very grave sin.  There are three purposes of marriage stated in the English (but not American) Prayer Book: (1) the production of children and their education in the fear of God; (2) the control of the passions; (3) mutual society, help, and comfort, in good fortune and bad.  Unions which are not permanent and indissoluble, or are not exclusive (polygamy and polyandry), as well as all use of the powers of sex outside marriage, are forbidden absolutely to members of the Church (see Eph. 5:3–5, and many other passages).  The natural law requires all human beings, whether Christian or not, if they marry, to remain married until death separates them, and to have no sexual relations with anyone else (St. Mark 10:6–8).  Christians are given sacramental grace to enable them to fulfill their obligations as human beings.  The promise made at marriage to enter into a permanent union is fulfilled when the marriage is consummated.  If for any reason it is not consummated it is not complete, and may be dissolved by the proper authority.

      272.  What is the Church’s position on marriage and divorce?  Why?

      273.  Does the Church acknowledge divorce?

      Our Lord’s teaching on this subject is quite explicit (St. Mark 10:2–12): “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.  And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (see also St. Luke 16:18; St. Matthew 5:32, 19:3–12).  It is true that in the two passages of St. Matthew we find the words “except for fornication.”  The best explanation of these words is that they are what in a modern book would be a footnote (a device unknown in ancient times), inserted by the Evangelist, or some early copyist, to cover the case of converts who had married within the prohibited degrees.  Such marriages as those of uncle and niece were common among the Greeks, but were abhorred by the Jews and were forbidden to Christians as “fornication” (Acts 15:29).  Marriages of this kind had to be dissolved when the couple were baptized.  At any rate, it is quite certain that these words cannot mean that a marriage could be dissolved because one party to it had committed adultery; dissolution of marriage for this reason was allowed by the Jewish Law (Deut. 24:1–4).  In our Lord’s time there were two leading Rabbinic schools, that of Hillel (grandfather of Gamaliel – Acts 5:34) and that of Shammah.  Shammah allowed divorce for adultery only; Hillel for many other causes.  If “fornication” here had meant adultery, our Lord would have agreed with Shammah, which would have surprised nobody.  But the disciples were evidently very much surprised by His teaching (St. Matthew 19:9), which shows that our Lord forbade dissolution of marriage altogether.  The Church holds that marriage can be broken only by death, as the service clearly says.  Anyone who “marries” again in the lifetime of a divorced partner will be living in adultery.  The Church does not recognize this as marriage.

      274.  Does the Episcopal Church ever allow divorced people to marry again in church?

      Divorce by itself is nowhere a bar to a fresh marriage, if the other party to the divorce is dead.  It is during the lifetime of the other party that marriage is forbidden, because in the eyes of the Church both are still bound by their marriage vows, “till death us do part.”

      The American Episcopal Church (but no other part of the Anglican Communion) many years ago passed a canon allowing dissolution of marriage for adultery.  I think this canon was passed at a time when the interpretation of the exceptive clause in St Matthew, which I have shown to be impossible (Question 273), was widely believed to be correct.  Article 20 says: “It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither to expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another.”  To interpret texts of St. Matthew in this way is to make them repugnant to St. Mark and St. Luke.  It seems to me that the American Episcopal Church went beyond its powers when it passed this canon.  Not even the Universal Church, still less a national Church, can alter a Divine law; in this case God’s Word in the fullest sense.  It is as if a state of the Union passed a law conflicting with the American Constitution, which I presume would be declared void by the Supreme Court.  The Church has no Supreme Court, except for those who believe in the Pope, and even the Pope does not claim the power to dissolve a valid marriage.  At any rate, the exclusively American permission to dissolve a marriage on the ground of adultery was repealed when the canon was changed in 1946.

      275.  What grounds for divorce are recognized by the Episcopal Church?  How can a person be divorced, married to another person, and then become a member of the Episcopal Church?

      276.  When is the marriage of divorced persons allowed, and when not?  What are the exceptions?

      If by “divorce” is meant dissolution of marriage, see Questions 273, 274.  A valid marriage once consummated can be dissolved only by death.  The State can declare a union, which is not a Christian marriage, valid for civil purposes, such as inheritance or legitimacy.  In the eyes of the Church, however, such a union is not marriage but adultery.  Divorce has two other meanings: (1)  The “divorces” of Henry VIII and Napoleon Bonaparte were what would now be called nullity cases; they claimed that their previous marriages were not true marriages.  (2)  There is also “ecclesiastical divorce,” separation without the right to remarry, which is allowed by the Church as a last resort, in certain cases.

      No one can become a member of the Church except by Baptism.  The marriage of unbaptized persons is not Christian marriage; it may not be a true marriage, for they may, if heathen, never have intended to enter a permanent and exclusive union.  If they have been divorced and one of them is later baptized, the previous marriage may be (I do not say is) no hindrance to a fresh, Christian marriage.  All such cases, which may be very complicated, are for the bishop to decide.

      277.  Why does not the Church take a positive stand about remarriage, and not pass the buck to the bishop?

      What is meant here by the Church?  The bishop is the officer of the local Church and the judge in all marriage cases; he should have the advice of experts in canon law, but the decision is his.  Neither priests nor people have any right to decide such cases.  The bishop should have a Church court, and there should also be a Church court of appeal.

      278.  Is the marriage of divorced persons, allowed in some dioceses, acceptable or a sin?

      It seems to me that the words of our Lord (St. Mark 10:11, 12; see Question 273) are final.  It is adultery.

      279.  Did our Lord intend marriage to be a permanent state or an ideal which may be missed, so that it can be asserted that the state has ceased to exist?

      Our Lord looked forward to the New Israel, the corporate body of His disciples, to govern which He was training the Apostles.  He did not accept the Hebrew law about marriage (St. Mark 10:5, 6), still less those of heathen nations.  He gave His Church a law to take the place of these, and stricter than either of them.  What He commanded about marriage was a law for the whole community, not, like some of His teachings, an ideal for particular persons to be obeyed in the spirit, not necessarily in the letter.  For marriage is always an affair of the whole community.  Both Church and nation are built upon the family, of which marriage is the foundation.  The notion, all too common, that marriage is only, or even mainly, a matter for the bridal couple, is disastrous both to the Church and to the nation and is not accepted by either.  This is the teaching of the Church in all ages; of the Roman and Anglican Communions in particular.

      The rule of the Orthodox Eastern Churches is widely misunderstood.  They hold that the Church, having power to bind and loose, can dissolve a marriage for various reasons, but they do not recognize the divorces pronounced by the State.  They have Church courts with a bishop as judge, which are authorized to dissolve a marriage.  This divergence from the rule of the ancient Church is said to be due to the influence of Roman civil law in Byzantine times.  Moreover, the Orthodox Churches have usually lived in conditions totally different from those of the modern world.  The Church was the whole nation, or the whole subject nation under Moslem rule.  There are always some nominal Christians who will not obey the Church’s law of marriage; the more the Church is identified with the nation (as it still is in most Eastern countries) the stronger becomes the temptation to relax the law forbidding divorce.

      280.  What is the teaching of the Church about birth control and about what constitutes a normal family?

      The traditional doctrine of the Church has always been that children are one of the greatest gifts of God; that to have a large family is a great privilege and a God-given responsibility (Ps. 127:3, 4) and healthy for both parents and children: that to beget and bear children is for married people a duty to their country, to the Church, and to God, to be fulfilled by bringing them up as good citizens and good Christians.  Artificial prevention of conception has always been forbidden by the Church as a form of sexual perversion.

      However, the Lambeth Conference of 1930, after declaring agreement with this position in general, modified it by Resolution 15: “in those cases where there is a clearly felt obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.”  “The Conference agrees that other methods may be used provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.  The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception-control from motives of selfishness, luxury or mere convenience.”  Most such resolutions are passed unanimously.  This was the only one in living memory which was passed by only a majority.  It was severely criticized at the time on the ground that: (a) nothing whatever can excuse such a revolting moral perversion as contraception; (b) even if in some cases it may be the lesser of two evils, it was extremely unwise to say so in public, because the press published the Resolution without the safeguards and left a general impression that the Anglican bishops had sanctioned contraception.  (It might be added that it was unfair to leave the responsibility in such a matter to the conscience of the individual.  Members of the Church ought to have guidance and direction in such cases.)

      281.  What does the Church teach about marriage between persons of different religions?  What is the status of the children of such a marriage?

      All such marriages are to be discouraged in every possible way, preferably in the earlier stages of the acquaintance.  Many an unhappy marriage and many a failure of both parents to practice any form of religion or train their children in it are due to this cause.

      Marriage with a Jew, or any other unbaptized person, must not take place in church without special permission from the bishop.  The unbaptized person should be persuaded, if possible, to be baptized, after due instruction in the Christian religion and its duties, before the wedding.

      Marriage with a Romanist presents peculiar difficulties.  Rome does not recognize the marriage of its subjects as marriage unless performed by a Roman priest.  If one party is not a Romanist, the couple can be married only by dispensation.  This dispensation is given only on certain unfair and dishonorable conditions: as, that all the children must be brought up Romanists, that the non-Romanist parent must promise never to try to convert the Romanist (but no such promise is imposed on the Romanist spouse), and must have nothing to do with the religious education of the children.  If the Romanist partner ignores the requirement of dispensation and is married in any other way, religious or secular, the Romanist clergy will tell him (or her) that the marriage is no marriage, that he is living in sin, that he ought to leave his partner if he cannot induce her (or him) to accept the conditions laid down.  No Anglican priest ought to consent to celebrate such a marriage, unless and until the Romanist partner has left the Roman Communion and been formally received in the Anglican.  The status of the children depends upon the parents: if they cannot agree, it is a question for the lawyers.  If the children are baptized, they are Christians and members of the Church, and whoever baptized them is usually expected to take responsibility for them.

      282.  What specific moral standards are required of a woman who aspires to be a priest’s wife?

      There is only one moral standard for all Christians – perfection.  Our Lord said, “Be ye perfect” (St. Matthew 5:48).  However, the behavior of the priest and his wife is more important than that of other people; they are in the limelight, they are expected to set an example.  The lady should be sure that she has a vocation to the very delicate and difficult work of a priest’s wife.  She must be as keen as he is about the work for God and man that he has to do, for otherwise she will probably ruin both it and him.  She ought to make some study of theology and other aspects of her husband’s work, but her first duty is to him, to see that he is fit and as free to do his work as she can help him to be.  She is not necessarily bound to take charge of his Sunday schools or any work in his parish, but she must be careful to treat all people, whatever their class or status, in exactly the same way and to carry out all her own religious duties, both for her own sake and for the sake of her husband.  On the other hand, she must remember that a priest, unlike a layman, has to put his vocation, his priesthood, even before his wife; it may be his duty, for instance, to stay on in a place that his wife finds disagreeable.

      283.  Why should people be dissuaded from marrying in Advent or Lent?

      Since the fourth century the Church has forbidden its members to marry in Lent, because Lent is a penitential season unsuitable for public rejoicing.  The old English canons forbade marriage between Advent and Epiphany, between Septuagesima and Low Sunday, between Rogation Sunday and Trinity Sunday.  Marriage in these periods required a dispensation from the archbishop.  The rules have been neglected in recent centuries, when the seasons of the Church have taken a smaller part in men’s lives.  The faithful may fairly be asked to avoid marriage in Lent if possible; and during the great festivals, if only not to overburden the clergy.

Chapter Twenty – Death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven (the Last Things)

Introductory Note:    We know nothing about life beyond death, except by revelation.  What is told us in Holy Scripture is necessarily symbolical; we cannot imagine living without a body or be sure that we understand the symbolism of Scripture rightly.  Therefore, nearly every statement in this chapter must be read with the condition “as far as we can see.”

      284.  What happens to us when we die?

      285.  Develop more fully the Christian teaching about death.

      Death is the rending asunder of body and spirit.  The body decays or is destroyed (as by cremation), and all that belongs to the body comes to an end.  The spirit goes immediately to be judged (St. Luke 16:28; the rich man’s brothers were still alive).

      The judge is our Lord Jesus Christ (St. John 5:22, 27).  Death is the end of our probation (II Cor. 6:2).  As it is now, for human beings, death is the result and punishment of sin (Rom. 6:23).  Every person will be judged according to his opportunities and how he used them (St. Luke 12:47, 48).  Those who are acquitted will go into a condition of rest, which is called Paradise (a word meaning “garden” or “Abraham’s bosom”) (St. Luke 16:22, 23:42).  Those who are acquitted at the Particular Judgment, as it is called, will not be those who have not sinned (for there are no such persons) but those who have repented of their sins; not those who have done good (for all our good deeds are by God’s grace), but those who have believed in our Saviour and tried to serve Him.  “By grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8), but “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).

      286.  What happens to the unbaptized and to infants at death?

      Baptized infants, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved (Baptismal Service).  We can say nothing about the unbaptized, whether infants or not, except that they are under the justice and mercy of God.  Those who never had any chance of believing in Christ will be judged by their obedience to the natural law (St. Matthew 24:31–36).

      287.  Does man live on after the body dies?

      Some philosophers have believed, with Plato, in the immortality of the soul.  Kant held that we cannot prove it, but must assume it if we are to think at all.  Christians believe that our Lord Jesus Christ will carry out His promise to give eternal life to those who believe in Him (I Cor. 15:12–18; St. John 3:16, 10:28, 11:26).  He rose from the dead, and we too shall rise (I Cor. 15:20–23; I Thess. 4:14).  Our belief that we, as His disciples, shall live forever with Him depends on our trust in His word.

      288.  Shall we know our loved ones after death?

      Yes, but we do not know how.  Our Lord sanctioned the belief (St. Luke 16:9, 23:43).

      289.  What happens to a person between death and the final judgment?

      He enters into a state of waiting (Heb. 11:39, 40; Rev. 6:11).  The parable of the rich man and Lazarus suggests that some will be at rest and others miserable, but we do not know whether this parable was meant to give us information about the future or whether it only assumed current Jewish speculation.  It seems likely that those whose interests are confined to this world will not be happy when those interests no longer exist, but that those who have devoted themselves to the love of God and man will retain that love after death.  In any case, their condition is temporary; the word translated “hell” in the parable is Hades, which is not to last forever (Rev. 20:14).

      290.  Shall we have new bodies at death or at the final judgment?  Does eternal life begin at the personal judgment or at the final judgment?

      It seems that we shall receive new bodies at the final judgment (I Cor. 15:35–58).  Some think that we shall have some kind of body in the meantime, but there is no evidence for this that I know of.

      Eternal life begins at our Baptism: we have it now (I John 5:11 and many other passages).

      291.  Should we pray for the dead?  Does the Church do so, and why?

      The Church has always prayed for the dead.  The Jews did so before the time of our Lord (II Macc. 12:44).  II Timothy 1:18 is probably a prayer for the dead.  In any case we do not need the express authority of Scripture for a practice so universal.  The Church asks God to grant to the dead refreshment, light, and peace.  The American Prayer Book contains the following prayers for the dead: “We also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom” (Prayer for the Church, in the Order of Holy Communion).

      That “we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion” (Prayer of Consecration).

      “Receive him into the arms of thy mercy, into the blessed rest of everlasting peace, and into the glorious company of the saints in light” (The Commendatory Prayer in the Visitation of the Sick).

      “Multiply, we beseech thee, to those who rest in Jesus, the manifold blessings of thy love” (Burial of the Dead).

      Death does not separate us from the Church, and we continue to pray, both in public and in private, for all who are dead and to believe that they pray for us.  This is the Communion of Saints (see Question 301).

      292.  Does Holy Scripture teach that there can be no repentance after death?

      Holy Scripture teaches in many places that God gives a limited time of probation.  When that time is over there is no further opportunity for repentance (see Rev. 2:5, 21, for local churches; II Cor. 6:2; St. Luke 14:12–24, 16:25; Heb. 12:17, for individuals).  The end of our probation is believed to be death.  Certainly we should be unspeakably foolish, if we have had opportunities of repentance before death, to suppose that we shall have any more.

      293.  What is “realized eschatology”?

      It is not part of the teaching of the Church.  The phrase appears to have been invented by Dr. C. H. Dodd.  It means that we are now, ever since Pentecost, living in “the last days” (see I John 2:18, but cf. II Tim. 2:18).

      294.  Must I die before I see any of the fruits of the Spirit in my own life?

      No; but you ought not to worry about it.  If you are trying to serve God, and continue trying, they will certainly be there, whether you see them or not.  You probably need the advice of a spiritual director.

      295.  Who preached to the spirits in prison, Enoch or Christ? (I Peter 3:19).

      Christ, of course; Enoch, who is only a legendary figure, is not mentioned in this passage at all.  The reference to Enoch is based on a conjectural emendation by Rendel Harris (described in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as a scholar of immense, but at times unbalanced, erudition).  E. G. Selwyn (former Dean of Winchester), whose commentary deals at great length with this passage, says that Harris’ conjecture is most improbable.

      296.  Does Scripture tell us that men will go to Heaven when they die, as is almost universally believed?  If Christ’s kingdom is to be on earth, will not the saints be here on earth with Him? (St. John 14:3)

      Scripture certainly does not say so; it has never been taught by any part of the Church; it is a relic of Calvin’s heresy that the elect will go straight to Heaven and the reprobate (the greater part of mankind, according to Calvin) will go straight to Hell.  Few educated people still believe anything so monstrous as Calvin’s doctrine of election to Hell.  As long as this world exists men will be subject to corruption, and therefore Christ’s kingdom can never be completely fulfilled in this world.  We look for a new earth, in which sin will have ceased to exist, and death with it (I Cor. 15:24–26; Heb. 13:14; Rev. 20:11–21:1).  Men go at death into the “intermediate state,” or Hades.  Romanists believe that the saints go direct to Heaven, which they identify with Paradise, but this is not the teaching of Scripture (Rev. 6:11) or of the ancient Church.  Paradise is the state of rest; Heaven is the state of glory.

      297.  Are the dead asleep till the Resurrection, or in the abode of the dead, or in Purgatory?

      The use of “sleep” for death, as a figure of speech, is common in the Bible (Dan. 12:2; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:6, 20).  Yet the belief that the dead are unconscious is contrary to St. Matthew 22:32; St. Luke 16:19–31, 23:43; I Peter 3:18, 19, and has been rejected by the Church several times, as in the 40th of the Articles of 1553, the original form of our Articles.

      The abode of the dead is usually called Hades, originally the name of a Greek god, later applied to the underworld, the house of Hades, over which he was supposed to preside.  The part of Hades assigned to the blessed dead is Paradise (St. Luke 23:43).  There is no mention of Purgatory in Scripture, and we have no evidence that it exists.  However, we may well suppose that most of us will need cleansing from evil habits after death, and such cleansing is compared by ancient writers to fire, on the basis of St. Mark 9:49, I Corinthians 3:13.  We must distinguish this opinion from the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, which is held to make satisfaction for guilt; an opinion derived from the philosopher Aristotle.

      298.  Did God die on the Cross?  Explain, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (St. Mark 15:34)

      Jesus Christ is God and Man.  As God, He of course could not die.  As Man, He died on the Cross and afterward rose again.  The mysterious Fourth Word from the Cross seems to mean that in order to suffer the whole of human pain He had, in His human nature, to feel that His Father had forsaken I Him.  This is part of the mystery of the Word made flesh, into which we cannot expect to penetrate.

      299.  How are we to answer the argument that there is no scriptural authority for prayers for the dead?

      We do not need scriptural authority for this practice, but II Timothy 1:18 is probably a prayer for a dead person.  It is not a dogma of the faith but a devout practice which is never forbidden in Scripture.  There is no scriptural authority requiring us to observe Sunday (though it is mentioned), or Christmas Day, which was unknown for some centuries after the New Testament.  The Church has always prayed for the dead (see Question 291).

      300.  What do we mean by the resurrection of the body?

      At the General Judgment, when our Lord returns to judge the living and the dead (St. Matthew 25:31; Acts 1:11; I Thess. 4:16), we shall receive new bodies, not liable to disease, decay, or death.  St. Paul says, “If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain” (I Cor. 15:16, 17).  The new body will have some mysterious relation to the old, which St. Paul likens to the relation between the corn and the seed from which it sprang.  To be without a body is to be incomplete: that is the state of death, the punishment for our sins.  But in order to appear before God in Heaven we must be complete, with bodies as well as spirits.

      301.  What do we mean by the Communion of Saints?

      Communion means fellowship, sharing in the love and prayer of one another.  “Saints” means here, as in the New Testament, all members of the Church, who are called to be holy whether they are holy yet or not.  They include both the living and the dead.  Even Richard Baxter, the Puritan (d. 1691) wrote:

He wants not friends that hath Thy love,

            And may converse and walk with Thee,

And with Thy saints here and above,

            With whom forever I would be.

In the communion of saints

            Is wisdom, safety, and delight;

And when my heart declines and faints,

            It’s raised by their heat and light.

Still we are centred all in Thee,

            Members, though distant, of the Head,

In the same family we be,

            By the same faith and spirit led.

Before Thy throne we daily meet,

            As joint petitioners to Thee.

In spirit we each other greet,

            And shall again each other see.

      302.  Why is the Communion of Saints omitted from the Nicene Creed?

      It was never in the Nicene Creed.  It is not older than the fifth century, and is only found in Latin creeds.  It appears in the Quicunque Vult, which is also of Latin origin.

      303.  What is meant by “he descended into hell”?  What is the scriptural authority for it?  Why do Episcopalians say it?

      When our Saviour died His human spirit, like those of other men, went into the condition of spirits without bodies.  This is a lower condition: therefore we say “descended,” as when we say “ascended into heaven” we mean going into a higher condition.  (The “highest” grade in a school need not be on the top floor.)  By “hell” is here meant Hades, the condition of departed spirits.  The Apostles’ Creed, in which these words are found, is common to all Western Christians.  The same words are found in the so-called Athanasian Creed, which is recognized by Eastern Christians.  There are four passages of Scripture upon which these words are based: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (St. Luke 23:43); “His [Christ’s] soul was not left in hell [Hades]” (Acts 2:31); “he also descended into the lower parts of the earth” (Eph. 4:9) (this is the usual interpretation but another is possible); and, “He went and preached unto the spirits in prison” (I Peter 3:19).  The last of these is the chief authority.

      304.  What is the opinion of the Church on Purgatory?

      The doctrine of Purgatory, which is peculiar to the Roman Communion, has three sources:

      (1)  The need for souls to be cleansed from their bad habits (which may be painful, but not in a physical sense, for they will have no bodies).  This is a probable opinion, held by many of the ancient writers (see Question 297).

      (2)  The alleged visions of St. Gregory the Great, who suffered badly from nightmares (probably due to his poor digestion) which he took for Divine revelations.  He saw souls burning in flames, and his visions passed into the traditional teaching of the medieval Latin Church, which found them extremely useful for frightening half-pagan kings, barons, and peasants into decent conduct.

      (3)  The notion that every sin must be paid for in this world or the next, which comes from Aristotle, and has nothing to do with the gospel.

      The last two of these are what is commonly meant by the “Romish doctrine of Purgatory,” rejected by the Anglican Churches in Article 22; especially as they are the basis of a colossal system of indulgences or remissions from Purgatory, which have to be paid for and by which the Roman Communion is largely financed.  We do not accept any such ideas.

      305.  Is Purgatory the same as Paradise?

      No. Paradise, which means a garden, is the state of rest (St. Luke 23:43; II Cor. I 2:4). Purgatory, if it exists, is believed to be a condition of torment, as payment due for sin.

      306.  What is the Anglican teaching on the Intermediate State?

      307.  What is the difference between the Anglican, Roman, and Nonconformist teaching on the Intermediate State?

      The Anglican tradition, based on Scripture and the ancient writers, is that the baptized pass, immediately on death, to the Particular Judgment, which divides them into the saved and the lost.  Both go to Hades, but the saved go to that part of Hades called Paradise, and between them and the others there is a great gulf fixed (St. Luke 16:26).  For both groups this is a temporary condition.  After the General Judgment, Hades will be destroyed (Rev. 20:14), the saved will go to Heaven and the lost to Hell (St. Matthew 25:46).

      The Roman teaching, if I am not mistaken, is that after the Particular Judgment the lost go to Hell (Gehenna) at once.  Most of the saved go to Purgatory, which is usually described as a condition of great torment, until their sins are paid for or until they are released from Purgatory by the prayers and Masses offered by the faithful on earth.  The souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves.  The saints and martyrs and a few others go straight to Paradise, which is regarded as the same as Heaven; and those who are released from Purgatory also go there.  I am told that the General Resurrection, and the final Judgment, though accepted (for it is an article of the Creed), does not fit well into the scheme (W. P. Witcutt, Return to Reality).

      The old Calvinists believed that everyone at death went to Heaven if elect, and to Hell if not elect.  They rejected the Intermediate State altogether and forbade prayers for the dead, and even prayers at funerals, as useless.  What their successors believe, I am not able to say.

      308.  What will happen to Jews and other non-Christians, who have not accepted Christ, and those who die unbaptized?

      They will be judged according to their obedience to the law they knew (St. Matthew 25).

      309.  Explain the words Paradise, Hades, Hell, Gehenna, Sheol.

      Paradise (garden) is the abode of the blessed dead.   Hades, the Greek name for the underworld, is the abode of all the dead (see Questions 305–7).  Hell (the hidden place) sometimes in our Bible represents Hades (St. Luke 16:23; Rev. 20:14), as it also does in the Creed; in the Old Testament it represents Sheol.  In modern English it is always used in the sense of Gehenna.  Gehenna was a valley close to Jerusalem, where bonfires for the destruction of rubbish were always burning.  It came to represent the state of permanent separation from God, symbolized by eternal fire (Jude 7).  In the New Testament it is translated “hell” (St. Matthew 5:22, 23:15; St. Luke 12:5; James 3:6).  Gehenna is regarded as the abode of the devil and his angels (St. Matthew 25:46; Rev. 20:10).  Sheol was the Hebrew word for the underworld, the abode of the dead, corresponding to the Greek “Hades.”  It is often translated “hell” in our Bible (Job 11:8, 26:6; Ps. 9:17, 139:8, etc.; also “the grave” or “the pit” (Ps. 6:5; Ezek. 31:15; Ps. 88:4, etc.)  Hebrew belief about it is clearly shown by Isaiah 38:18; it was not a place of happiness or torment but a sort of shadowy half-life.  Belief in a future life hardly appears before the Book of Daniel (second century B.C.).

      310.  What does the Church teach about Hell, the Intermediate State, Paradise, Purgatory, and Heaven?

      See Questions 304–7.  Hell is the state of permanent separation from God.  Heaven is the state of permanent union with Him, and enjoyment of the Beatific Vision (Rev. 22:1–5).

      311.  Are there several stages of Hell?  Is one mortal sin as bad as several?

      One mortal sin is enough to separate us from God, if it is not followed by repentance.  A course of mortal sin is harder to repent of than a single act of mortal sin.  It seems that permanent separation from God, which is the meaning of Hell, is such that nothing could be worse.

      312.  What does the Church teach about the Last Judgment, the Resurrection of the Body, and the Millennium?

      For the Resurrection of the Body see Question 300.  The Last, or General, Judgment, to be distinguished from the Particular Judgment, is to take place when this world is brought to an end.  It is described in symbolic pictures in St. Matthew 25:31 and Revelations 20:12 (see also I Thess. 4:16; I Cor. 15:24).  The theory of the Millennium is based on Revelations 20:2, 3.  St. Augustine thought that this obscure passage was a prophecy of the age that was to follow the conversion of the Roman Empire.  It is not a satisfactory explanation, but there is no better one.  It certainly does not mean a future golden age in this world; a notion which is contrary to our Lord’s warning that we must always expect suffering in this world (St. Matthew 5:11; St. Mark 10:30 St. John 15:20), and which has been rejected by the Church.  Since human nature will always be subjected to original sin, if a golden age were to appear, it would at once be corrupted; the golden age which we expect is in another world (Heb. 13:14; Rev. 21:1).  It was because of this difficult passage (Rev. 20:2–3) that the Revelation was for a long time kept out of the Canon of Scripture.  It is best to say frankly that we do not know what this passage means, and to leave it alone.  Optimism about human nature, to which Americans are peculiarly liable, as the English were in the Victorian age, is connected with the Pelagianism which is the besetting error of both nations.  The Christian should be neither an optimist nor a pessimist: without God we can do nothing, with His grace everything.

      313.  Has the Church a hard and fast doctrine of eternal punishment?

      The Church cannot have a “hard and fast doctrine” on so mysterious a subject.  In any case, punishment is not the right word.  The purpose of punishment is to reform the offender; in this case no reform is possible.  What we can say is that if we have free will we have the power to prefer evil to good, and to go on doing so until we cease to choose good.  If we do that we cannot come into the presence of God.  The appalling possibility of permanent separation from God lies before each one of us, and there is ample scriptural authority for this (St. Mark 3:29, 9:43, 14:21; St. Matthew 25:41; I Peter 4:18; Heb. 6:4, etc.).  We need not believe in eternal torture, for which the only authority is Revelation 20:10 (probably from a Jewish source), and which is contrary to God’s revealed character.  Elsewhere the fire, not the punishment, is called eternal; and the fire is a symbol of destruction, not material fire.  ‘We dare not say that any particular person will be in Hell, or even that anyone at all will be there, but we are not to forget that any of us may be there.  God condemns no one to Hell.  He has done everything possible to save us.  If we go there, it will be entirely our own fault.  But we are forbidden by the Bible and the Church, by revelation and by reason, to believe that everybody will go to Heaven as a matter of course.

      314.  What does the third chapter of Genesis teach us about original sin, the second coming of Christ, and judgment?

      See Questions 60, 72.  Genesis, taken by itself, tells us nothing on these subjects.  Original sin is a formula based on St. Paul’s interpretation of Genesis, and on the facts of human nature which we can see for ourselves.  Genesis is an earlier stage of revelation.  “He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15) is understood by the Church as a prophecy of our Saviour’s death and resurrection.  It has no reference to His second coming.

      315.  Why should I pray to the saints?  How can they read my mind?  If they know all that happens on earth, how can they be happy in Heaven?

      We have no doubt at all that the saints pray for us.  I knew a saintly priest who on his deathbed said to his friends, “I have always prayed for you, and I shall not stop doing so when I am no longer with you.”  But we do not know whether the saints can hear us if we speak to them.  Scripture tells us nothing about it.  The Anglican Communion does not address the saints in public worship; those who wish to address them in private are free to do so; those who do not wish it are not compelled to.  In any case, we must not ask the saints for anything but their prayers; they can give us nothing else, as far as we know.  According to our interpretation of Scripture, the saints are not in Heaven until after the General Resurrection (see Question 296).  We do not know how much the saints are permitted to learn about what goes on here.  It is possible that our troubles appear to them in a different light, like the troubles of children to grown-up people.

      316.  What are we to believe about the saints, compared with Romanist teaching?

      The Roman dogmas are as follows: “There is a Purgatory, and the souls therein detained are assisted by the offering of Mass and by the prayers of the faithful.  The saints reigning with Christ are to be venerated and invoked: they offer prayers to God for us, and their relics are to be venerated.”

      Along with this the Romanists have inherited from the Middle Ages a mass of tradition and custom, and have added to it.  We do not think we ought to believe anything about the saints which is not in accordance with Scripture and true history.  Some of the most popular saints, such as St. Christopher, St. Margaret, and St. Ursula, probably never existed at all.  We honor and venerate all real saints (but not necessarily all who have been canonized at Rome).  We think that their relics, if genuine, ought to be treated with due respect, but we doubt whether the cult of relics has any religious value, and we do not think it necessary or desirable to enclose relics in an altar or to expose them for the veneration of the faithful.  We entirely reject the suggestion that God is more willing to grant our prayers than He would otherwise be if they are presented through a saint.  We have no doubt that the saints pray for us, but we do not continually ask them to do so.

      317.  May we ask the Blessed Virgin and the saints to pray for us?

      Yes, if you think they can hear you.  Some of us are of the opinion that it is a better use of time to pray direct to God, Who has promised to hear us, and to ask Him to give us our share in the prayers of the saints.

      318.  What does the Church teach about saints who are supposed to have jurisdiction over lost articles, professions, travel, etc.?

      All such ideas are remains of paganism, and are not to be taken seriously.  Practices based upon them are what our Article 22 condemns as the Romish doctrine of Invocation of Saints.

Chapter Twenty-One – Morals

      319.  I object to confession in the services.  What about all the really nice people who never commit any sins?

      Our Saviour does not call us to be “nice” but to be perfect (St. Matthew 5:48).  Those who are not trying, with His help, to be perfect, are serving the devil (St. Matthew 6:24), however “nice” they may appear to be (I Sam. 16:7).  No human being is free from committing sins (Rom. 3:23).  Few of us pass a day without thoughts, if not words and deeds, of pride, envy, lust, sloth, or anger.  The necessary first step on the road to Heaven is repentance, and the only alternative is the road to Hell.  The one class for which our Saviour Himself could do nothing was the persons who thought they had never committed any sins (St. Mark 2:17; St. Luke 18:9) and were considered “nice” by their neighbors.

      320.  Of what use to us is St. Thomas Aquinas in the field of moral theology?

      What St. Thomas says is always worthy of study, for he was one of the greatest and holiest thinkers of the Church.  However, he lived in the thirteenth century, and many of our problems were unknown to him.  His interpretation of Scripture often seems to us quite fantastic, and he knew no Greek or Hebrew, in which tongues the Bible was written.  He regarded the pagan philosopher Aristotle with great veneration; but since Aristotle knew nothing of such peculiarly Christian virtues as charity and humility, St. Thomas was sometimes misled by him, and is not always to be trusted: as when he wrote that one of the joys of the blessed in Heaven was to contemplate the tortures of the damned in Hell (see also Question 524).

      321.  Can you supply a list of books on Moral Theology and Ethics written by Anglicans?

      The following are the books which I have found most useful.  Those marked with an asterisk are, in my opinion, the most important:

Kirk, K. E.: Some Principles of Moral Theology*

Kirk, K. E.: Conscience and Its Problems

Kirk, K. E.: The Vision of God

Kirk, K. E.: Ignorance, Faith and Conformity

Hall, F. J., and Hallock, F. H.: Moral Theology*

Green, Peter: Problem of Right Conduct*

Mortimer, R. C.: Elements of Moral Theology

McAdoo, H.: Structure of Caroline Moral Theology

Gore, Charles: Philosophy of the Good Life

      322.  When there are two apparently equal alternatives, how can one discern which is God’s Will?

      First pray for guidance and ask others to pray for you.  Then consult the wisest and most disinterested persons you know, and who know you well.  Then put down in writing the arguments on each side and compare them, trying to see not what you wish to do but what is right.  Then make up your mind and, having made it up, stick to it, right or wrong, unless some new element comes in which was not there before or that you did not know before.  It is often better to make the wrong decision than not to be able to make a decision at all.  Sometimes, but not always, the right course is to wait until God makes His Will clear.

      323.  Since the Christian faith frees us from fear, why is there so much restlessness and tension when we practice it?

      I cannot answer this without knowing the circumstances.  Consult your spiritual director.  If the tension is in ourselves, perhaps we have not enough faith and ought to pray for more.  If it is in others, perhaps they belong to that very large class of people who cannot bear to see anyone serving God better than they are willing to do themselves; as our Lord foretold: “Suppose ye that I am come to send peace on earth?  I tell you, Nay; but rather division” (St. Luke 12:51).

      324.  Why is it a mortal sin if I miss Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day?

      That is the Roman rule.  We should put it rather differently.  It is the duty of all members of the Church who have been well taught, and have not a good reason for being absent, to be present at the Eucharist every Sunday, and at least on Christmas Day and Ascension Day, and to go to church on Good Friday (when the Eucharist is not celebrated).  The Lord’s Day, which has nothing to do with the Sabbath, was instituted that we might fulfill our Lord’s command, “Do this in remembrance of me.”  The assembling of ourselves together, which we are forbidden to forsake (Heb. 10:25), can only mean the Eucharist for then there was no other Christian assembly, as far as we know.  If you are absent, without some really good reason, you are committing a sin, for you are refusing our Saviour’s invitation (St. Luke 14:18).  Whether it is “mortal” depends on your motive.  If you were to stay away deliberately, out of hatred or contempt for God or your neighbor (your priest, for instance), it might be mortal sin.  But spiritual, like bodily, health depends on forming good habits.  It ought to be your fixed habit to go to the Eucharist on Sunday.  Every time you stay away without good reason you weaken the habit.  Just as, if you eat too much, or don’t take enough exercise, you weaken your body and make it more susceptible to disease, so, if you constantly commit even “venial” sins, you weaken your spiritual life, and when some sudden temptation, to which we are all liable, attacks you, you will probably fall.  Therefore, don’t stay away from Mass if you can avoid doing so.

      325.  Are the Ten Commandments binding on Christians?  If so, why do we ignore the Fourth and Seventh?

      The Ten Commandments are not only binding on Christians, but binding much more strictly (St. Matthew 5).  The Fourth Commandment bids us keep all days holy; the working days by doing all that we have to do as for God’s service, and the Lord’s Day by taking part in the Holy Eucharist and using the rest of the day so as to serve Him best.  The Seventh Commandment bids us avoid not only deeds but words and thoughts of impurity, luxury, and self-indulgence, to keep our bodies in temperance, soberness, and chastity (Office of Instruction).

      326.  How can we determine whether evil thoughts are sin or temptation?

      None of us can help having evil thoughts.  They become sin only when we yield to them, take pleasure in them, or encourage them.

      327.  What are the minimum requirements in discipline and life for a Christian?

      There are no minimum requirements; we are commanded to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (St. Matthew 5:48).  “Do all thou canst: high Heaven rejects the love, of nicely calculated less or more.”

      328.  How can we be optimistic and feel that the world is good when so many are hungry?  Ought not our society, as Christians, do all it can to help others less fortunate?

      We are not told to be optimistic, and our society is not Christian, or only very partially so.  Certainly we ought to keep the multitudes of the hungry and other unfortunate people, including those who are spiritually hungry because they have not heard the gospel, always in our minds.

      329.  Is it my duty as a Christian to hurt a friend in order to defend the Christian faith?

      Do you mean to hurt his feelings, or to knock him down, or to do him a permanent injury?  I cannot answer this question without knowing the circumstances.  If it is your duty to defend the Christian faith, you may have to hurt many people’s feelings; and it might do them a great deal of good, by making them think.

      330.  How can the Church justify war?

      331.  What is the Church’s theological answer to the question of pacifism?

      War is always a horrible evil, not only in itself but by the passions which it arouses and the injury that it does to the souls and bodies of multitudes for whom our Saviour died.  No one ought to glorify war, to throw glamour round it, or to conceal how vile it is.  But it is not the greatest of all possible evils.  Therefore it may, in certain cases, be the lesser of two evils.  We cannot say that Isaiah was wrong in advising Hezekiah to refuse the Assyrian demand for surrender (II Kings 19:20–34) or that Mattathias and his sons were wrong to revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes (I Macc. 2:1–28); if they had not done so, the true religion would probably have perished from the earth.  Archbishop Temple held that pacifism was a heresy.  The Church has always taught that self-defense is our duty; that if our country is attacked, especially by those who wish to destroy the Church, it is our duty to resist.  Even complete destruction would be better than conquest by atheistic Communists, and slavery to their secret police.  Further, if our country is at war and calls us to serve, we are bound to obey.  It is not fair that, while others are risking their lives for our safety, we should do nothing.  The English Article 37, omitted by the American Church, says: “It is lawful for Christian men, at the command of the magistrates, to wear weapons, and serve in wars.”  But a priest or a surgeon ought not to serve as a combatant, because he has a special vocation in which he can be much more useful.  No one in wartime ought to hate the enemy; we are bound to love them and to pray for them (St. Matthew 5:44).

      332.  What does the Church teach about human sterilization and insemination, and the doctors’ responsibility for them?

      They are not permitted to Christians.

      333.  Is it right for Christians to use contraceptives?

      No (see Question 280).

      334.  What is the Church’s teaching on planned parenthood and birth control?

      The Divine gift of sex is to be used by married people with moderation and self-control.  They ought to have as many children as is consistent with the mother’s health and strength.  Those who suffer from hereditary diseases or are in any way unfit to have children ought not to marry, but to live single and chaste.

      335.  Is smoking right in the sight of God?  (A priest does not smoke in the sanctuary.)

      The sanctuary is reserved for the worship of God.  It should not be used for any other purpose, however innocent.  Like most Europeans, I cannot imagine why anyone should think smoking a sin; this notion appears to be an eccentricity of some American sects.  But the smoker ought not to allow himself to become the slave of this or any other habit.  He ought to be able to stop smoking at any time without discomfort, and without becoming irritable.  The fast days of the Church are useful for this purpose.  He ought not to smoke so heavily as to injure his health (it is now believed that cigarette smoking might induce cancer) nor to smoke in such a way as to annoy his neighbors, for many people dislike the smell intensely.  He should consider whether the money he spends on smoking might not be better spent, to the glory of God and the benefit of His people.

      336.  What is the Christian’s relation to financial security as given by insurance, possessions, etc.?

      Nothing in this world is secure.  The seeker for security should consider the parable of the Rich Fool (St. Luke 12:16–21).  But the Christian is fully justified in providing, by insurance and by honest investment, against the chances of the world, for himself and his family, provided he remembers that all he has is a trust from God, to be used for His glory and the benefit of His people.  He must not, then, refuse to give to those who need it, on the ground that he must have the money to make his future secure.  Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, but lay it up in heaven; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also (see St. Matthew 6: 19–21).

      337.  May one tell senile persons lies in order to soothe them when they become agitated?

      It is always better to tell the truth, unless to do so will lead to serious harm.  People who are too senile to understand what is going on round them cannot always be told the truth.  This is a question to which no general answer can be given.  Old people are sometimes tougher than one might think, and tend to be suspicious; if they find that you have been deceiving them, they will never again believe anything you say.  People who are going to die soon ought to be told that death is near; no one ought to die unprepared, even if it means living a few days longer.

Chapter Twenty-Two – Worship and Liturgical Customs

      338.  What is Christian worship?

      The honor, praise, and thanksgiving which is due from all human beings to Almighty God.  (It was also formerly used of honor given to man, especially of the act of prostration commonly done before superiors in the East – Dan. 2:46; St. Matthew 15:25; St. John 9:38; Acts 10:25 – usually by heathen or uninstructed persons.)  Worship of God may be private, or public and corporate; it may he vocal or silent; it includes prayer, meditation, and contemplation.

      339.  How did the custom of public prayer arise, in view of St. Matthew 6:5–7?  Was the “Our Father” meant to be a public group prayer?

      There have always been both public and private prayers (see I Kings 8:22; Neh. 9:5, etc., for the former; I Sam. 1:12; II Kings 20:2; Neh. 2:4; Dan. 6:10, for the latter).  The ancients lived much more in public than we do.  “Our Father” might be said either corporately or privately.

      340.  What do we really pray for when we say, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven”?

      The words “on earth as it is in heaven” apply to each of the three clauses before them.  We pray that our own wills, and those of all Christians and of all human beings, may obey God and do His Will as completely as the angels do.  We are not to expect that our prayer will be completely fulfilled in this world, and therefore we pray that God will bring this world to an end when the time comes, and replace it with a new world, in which there will be no more disobedience to His Will (Rev. 21:1, 22:20).

      341.  What is the best explanation of “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”?

      We pray that God will protect us when we fall into temptation.  We have to be tempted, but we pray that temptation may not be too strong for us.  “Evil” is personal here; it means the Evil One, that is, the devil.

      342.  What is the place of music in Church worship?  How is it related to individual worship?

      Music has always played a large part in the worship of God, both public and private (Ex. 15:1; Judge. 5:1; Ps. 57:9, etc.).  The congregation ought to take part in the singing of praise to God: especially in the Creeds, which are great acts of corporate worship.  We should also, if we can, sing in our private worship (Acts 16:25) but without disturbing our neighbors.

      343.  Why does not the Episcopal Church follow the teaching of the ancient Church in rites and ceremonies?

      In all necessary rites and ceremonies it does, but rites and ceremonies differ in different ages and in different countries.  The ancient Church did not use the same rites and ceremonies everywhere, nor do we.  Climates and national habits of life differ.

      344.  Why do Episcopalians have to do so much kneeling?

      The normal rule is to stand for praise (Neh. 9:5), to kneel for prayer (St. Luke 22:41; Acts 7:60, 9:40, 20:36), and to sit to listen to instruction.  The Hebrew teacher sat down himself (St. Luke 4:20).  The ancients also stood for prayer (as the priest does at the altar) (see Ex. 3:5, 17:9).  We probably kneel too much, for no other body of Christians kneels so much as we do.  At a celebration of the Holy Communion, we stand up for the Gospel (which is the universal practice, to honor the Gospel), at “Lift up your hearts” until the end of the hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and for “Glory be to God on high.”  Standing is always a proper posture for prayer, but it is not our usual custom.  We should never sit for prayer, unless we are old or sick, and when we kneel we should go down on both knees, bolt upright, in the shape of an L, not of an S.

      345.  What is the authority for the Episcopal Prayer Book?

      The liturgy, sacraments, and offices in the Prayer Book are for the most part those of the Universal Church.  The particular “Use,” or form in which they are to be used, has the authority of the General Convention, the highest authority in the Episcopal Church.  In all Anglican Churches, the Province or National Church is the supreme authority in liturgical matters, within the limits set by the Church Universal in such matters as the necessary conditions of the sacraments.  In the ancient Church each local Church had its own liturgy.

      346.  If the clergy were more familiar with the Preface, would they be more inclined to observe the ancient practices of the Church?

      They certainly ought to study the Preface carefully.

      347.  Why “bowing and scraping”?

      To “bow” is a universal sign of honor to men and reverence toward God.  To “scrape” is to make an awkward bow, drawing one foot back.  There is ample authority in the Bible for bowing the knees (Is. 45:23, quoted in Rom. 14:11; Eph. 3:14; Phil. 2:10, “at the name of Jesus”), the head, and in some cases the whole body, not only to God but also to man (I Sam. 24:8; II Sam. 1:2, 18:21; St. Luke 24:5).  It is usual to bow to the altar, as the throne of God, on entering and leaving a church or when passing in front of it; to bow at the Name of Jesus, especially in the creeds; to put one knee to the ground at the words, “The Word was made flesh” (St. John 1:14) and “Jesus gave up the ghost” (that is, died – St. Mark 15:37, St. Matthew 27:50; St. Luke 23:46; St. John 19:30).  The server, when giving anything to the priest, makes a slight bow which the priest acknowledges with another.  Anyone who is censed with incense acknowledges it with a slight bow.  Anyone who is being blessed kneels down or at least bows his head.  All these are rules of courtesy.  Such customs help to increase that reverence which we owe to God, and to any person or thing employed in worship.  To object to observing them shows a lack of humility, and even of good manners (see Article 34).

      348.  Why do we use two versions of the Lord’s Prayer?

      The shorter one, which is probably the original one, is from St. Luke 11:2–4.  The other, to which the act of praise was added very early, is from St. Matthew 6:9–13.

      349.  Why were the last verses of the Venite omitted from the American Prayer Book?  Why is “adorable” read in the Te Deum for “honorable”?  Why is Benedictus es, Domine not in the English Prayer Book as an alternative to the Te Deum?

      I should think the last verses of the Venite were omitted from the American Prayer Book, as in the English Revised Prayer Book of 1928, through a “liberal,” but quite unscriptural, objection to mentioning the wrath of God (Rom. 2:8; I Thess. 2:16; Rev. 6:16).  “Adorable” is a more accurate translation of the Latin “venerandum” than “honorable”; but it spoils the rhythm of the English.  “Benedictus es, Domine,” which is the first part of the Benedicite, from the Song of the Three Children, has never been in the English Prayer Book; the Revised Book of 1928 uses Psalm 51 for this purpose.

      350.  Why is the Te Deum put after the First Lesson rather than after the Second Lesson?

      The Te Deum is sung after the First Lesson to show that the promises of the Old Testament were fulfilled by our Saviour.  The Benedictus, or Song of Zacharias, is sung after the Second Lesson as an act of praise for the fulfillment of God’s promises.  It is the climax of Morning Prayer, as it was in the old service of Lauds, and should never on any pretext be omitted.  The Jubilate was inserted in the Second Prayer Book to satisfy Bucer’s craze for avoiding repetition.  It was intended to be used only when Benedictus occurred in the Second Lesson or in the Gospel.  In my opinion Jubilate, as a canticle, should be swept away; and likewise Cantate and Deus miscreatur.

      351.  What is the meaning of the Apostles’ Creed?

      There was a tradition, rejected by modern scholars, that it was written by the twelve Apostles; each wrote one clause.  In reality it is the old baptismal creed in use at Rome.

      352.  What steps are being taken to enrich the liturgy?

      To enrich the liturgy always means to make it more complicated, and more difficult for simple people, unaccustomed to handling books.  The Archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed in 1954 a Commission on Prayer Book Revision.  It issued a report in 1957, which was considered by the Lambeth Conference, together with a similar report issued by the Church of the Province of India, Burma, Pakistan, and Ceylon.  In looking forward to some future revision of the Prayer Book, the American Church has published a series of Prayer Book Studies, in which old and new liturgical customs and practices are weighed and considered.

      353.  What is the reason for the contemplated changes in the Order for Holy Communion?

      I can see no reason for any change in the American liturgy, except that the permission to omit the Nicene Creed and the permission to use the Apostles’ Creed instead of it should be withdrawn, and “Bishops, and other Ministers” should read, “Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, especially Thy servant N. our Bishop,” which would bring the Episcopal Church into line with the usual practice of the Church in both ancient and modern times.

      354.  What is a Missal used for?  Is it approved by the Church?

      The Missal, strictly speaking, is the book containing the text of the Roman Mass, to be used by the priest at the altar.  In the Anglican Churches the word is sometimes used for the altar book, containing the text of the Communion Service from the Prayer Book, with the proper Collects, Epistles, and Gospels.  Such a book with large print is required by the priest; he need not then take the whole Prayer Book to the altar.  The use of altar cards is most objectionable and ought to be abolished.

      But the word “Missal” also sometimes means a book containing the Prayer Book rite, mixed up with many prayers and other formulas from the Roman liturgy.  Such books are most undesirable and should be forbidden by the bishops.  The “English Missal” is open to serious criticism on theological grounds, and the translations from the Latin are in very poor English.  In any case, in no other part of the Church is a priest allowed to use at the altar anything but the text of the rite as authorized by the Church.  If he wishes to use any private devotions, he must learn them by heart.  The prayers, etc., of the Roman, or any other, Missal have no authority in the Anglican Communion.

      355.  What is the meaning of signing the Cross on forehead, lips, and heart, before the reading of the Gospel?  What is the origin and meaning of crossing oneself?  Is the sign of the Cross allowed in Episcopal Churches?

      It is an ancient practice, signifying that we belong to Christ.  It is allowed, and very common, in Anglican Churches.  The reader of the Gospel crosses himself to consecrate his mind, mouth, and will for what he is going to do, and asks God to bless his reading to the benefit of the people (see Question 366).

      356.  How and when did the practice of daily Communion begin?

      Acts 2:46 is interpreted by some as evidence of daily Communion in the apostolic age.  There is no other evidence of it until after the Roman Empire became officially Christian in the fourth century.  It is mentioned by St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and others toward the end of that century, but it was not a universal custom.  No one has ever been allowed to receive Communion more than once a day, except a priest who has to celebrate more than once, for he must communicate himself whenever he celebrates, otherwise the Eucharist is not valid.  In the East no priest is allowed to celebrate more than once in a day in any circumstances.  The daily Communion was revived in the Church of England at St. Peter’s, Plymouth, by G. R. Prynne, during the cholera epidemic of 1850.

      357.  How and when was the Nicene Creed changed from “We believe” to “I believe”?

      When it began, in the fourth century, to be signed by individuals as a test of orthodoxy.

      358.  Why is Communion held at night only once a year, when it was celebrated at night in the Upper Room?

      The hour of celebrating was in the early morning as early as the second century.  St. Augustine, in the fourth century, believed that to communicate fasting was a custom instituted by the Apostles.  The Midnight Mass at Christmas was celebrated at the first moment of the day, which was considered to begin at midnight.  People went to bed with the sun, rose for the midnight service, and spent the rest of the night in devotions of various kinds.  The modern practice of treating this service as a very late evening Communion, after which people go to bed, is criticized on several grounds.  When I was working in Dublin, the Romanists had few or no midnight Masses, because they did not want their young people on the streets at night.  To spend a long day ending perhaps with a heavy supper, and then to go to Communion, appears to me to be a most unedifying practice.  It is much better to spend the evening quietly, go to bed early, and come to Christmas Communion in the early morning.

      359.  Why is the Second Commandment different in the Roman and Lutheran Churches from that in the Episcopal and other Protestant Churches?

      The words “Churches” and “Protestant” are here used in a most inaccurate sense.  There is only one Church, of which the Roman and Anglican Communions are constituent parts.  The Episcopal Church is not “Protestant” in the sense in which the sects are (see Questions 137–39).  Most ancient Christian writers distinguished the Second Commandment, which forbids the worship of graven images, in honor of the true God (like the golden calves – Ex. 32:4; I Kings 12:28), from the First, which forbids the worship of false gods.  This arrangement is followed by all the Eastern Churches and by the Anglican Communion; also by the sects in the tradition of Calvin.  The Roman Communion unites the first two Commandments, and divides the Tenth into two; this arrangement seems to have been introduced by St. Augustine, and is followed by all Lutherans.  Hence the numbering varies.  What we call the Fifth Commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” Romanists and Lutherans call the Fourth; “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house” is distinguished by them from “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”  Our arrangement is generally held to be the older.

      360.  In the Nicene Creed, explain “All things visible and invisible”; “Very God”; “one Baptism.”  What is the background of this creed?  How is it related to the Apostles’ Creed?

      “All things visible and invisible” means all things whatever, whether they can be seen or not; whether they are material, like bodies or stones, or spiritual, like the souls of men, or love, fear, and honor.  “Very God” means true God.  “One Baptism” means that there is only one entrance into the Church, by being baptized with water in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which conveys forgiveness of sins to those who receive it with repentance and faith or at least, in the case of infants, without any refusal to repent and believe.  The Nicene Creed was the old baptismal creed of Caesarea in Palestine, to which the Council of Nicaea, 325, added the words “of one substance with the Father” to exclude those who believed that our Lord was a created being.  The end of the creed, after the words “Holy Ghost,” was added by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.  This creed was written in Greek.  The Apostles’ Creed, which is the old baptismal creed of Rome with some additions, was written in Latin and is still not known in the East, whereas the Nicene Creed is universal.

      361.  Has our young priest a right always to omit the Nicene Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the presentation of the alms?

      According to the American Prayer Book, the Nicene Creed must be recited on Christmas Day, Easter Day, Ascension Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday.  It may be omitted on other days but only if the Apostles’ Creed has been recited in Morning Prayer just before.  In my opinion the Nicene Creed should never be omitted.  The more we recite it the better.  The Ten Commandments must be recited once a month at least.  When they are omitted, the Summary of the Law and the threefold “Lord, have mercy” must take their place.  (Personally, I would never use the Summary of the Law if I could help it, on the ground that it has not for modern ears the decisiveness, the “bite” of the Ten Commandments.)  The priest is bound to present alms and place them on the altar.

      The priest is bound by his ordination vows to obey the rubrics of the Prayer Book.  Otherwise he is guilty of contumacy, conceit, and contempt for his own solemn promise.  An Orthodox Eastern dignitary said to a friend of mine, “Never set up to be wiser than the Church to which you belong”: words which might well be set up in letters of gold in every Anglican sacristy.

      362.  What is the difference between the alms and oblations?

      It seems that originally the oblations were the money paid for church expenses, distinguished from the alms for the poor.  But now they are commonly understood to mean the bread and wine, while the alms refer to all the offerings in money.

      363.  Who is “he that cometh” in “Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord”?  Christ or the celebrant?  Is not Christ Himself the Lord?

      See St. Mark 11:9.  Of course Christ is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord, that is, of God the Father.  But there does not seem to be any authority in the American rite for using these words.  They ought to be omitted unless the rite is altered.  If it is altered, “Glory be to Thee, O Lord most high” should be changed to “Hosanna in the highest.”

      364.  What do we mean by ‘all other benefits of his passion”?

      All that we receive, besides forgiveness of sins, through the sufferings (passion) and resurrection of our Saviour: all the grace that is to make us fit for union with God.

      365.  What do we mean by ablutions?  What is their purpose?

      Before the priest leaves the altar after celebrating the Eucharist, he must wash the vessels with wine and water, and drink the wine and water in which he has washed them.  The purpose of this ceremony is to make certain that every crumb and drop of the consecrated elements is consumed.

      366.  Why is the sign of the Cross used at the end of the Creeds and in certain other places and not elsewhere?  Why don’t our rubrics tell us where to cross ourselves?

      The sign of the Cross is an outward token that we are Christ’s soldiers and servants.  It is not specifically ordered in the Anglican Churches, except at Baptism; to use it at other times is entirely a matter of personal choice.  At the end of the Creeds, before the Gospel, and in certain other places, it is directed in the Romanist books, which have no authority for us.  We cross ourselves after the Creed and before the Gospel to signify that we accept the Creed for ourselves and that we pledge ourselves to listen to the Gospel (see Question 355).

      367.  Why does the priest put in salt when he blesses holy water?

      Salt has always been regarded as an emblem of purity and cleansing (II Kings 2:21; St. Matthew 5:13).  But there is no Anglican authority for using holy water.

      368.  Why do we not obey our Lord’s command to wash one another’s feet on Maundy Thursday?

      To wash the feet of the guest was the duty of a host in our Lord’s time.  It no longer has any meaning for us, since we do not wear sandals.  If we regarded this command as literally binding we should not be distinguishing between symbols and their meaning.  The command is to be understood spiritually; we are to treat all men, especially the poor, as we would our guests.

      369.  Why do some prayers end with “through Jesus Christ our Lord” and others not?

      All prayers to the Father or the Holy Spirit should end with these or similar words.  When they are not said they are to be understood.  “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (St. John 14:6).

      370.  “Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us”: does this mean that we deserve God’s wrath, which He withholds because of His mercy?

      Yes: and because His Son has died and risen again to reconcile us to Him (see Question 348).

      371.  Why does our Church have so many different seasons to observe?

      From Advent to Trinity we praise God for the different Mysteries of our salvation.  The Sundays after Trinity have their own moral lessons.  The Holy Days commemorate the great servants of God.  Every religion has its festival days; even secular states have their national days.  We have so much for which to praise God that we need every day in the year for it: and every day has its own saints, though we do not commemorate them all.

      372.  Why does the Church no longer publish banns?

      In England the publication of banns is required by law, unless a license from the bishop has been obtained, and the priest who would celebrate a marriage without banns or license would be sent to prison.  In the United States the publishing of banns is not generally required by civil law, but the practice is increasing.  The announcement in church of a forthcoming marriage is far more Christian than an announcement in a secular newspaper.  The Solemnization of Holy Matrimony is a religious service, not a social event.

      373.  Why does not the Order for the Burial of the Dead provide for a sermon?

      Because the Burial Office is sufficient and a sermon at a funeral is quite unnecessary.  Protestants emphasize preaching, and since few of them have any form of ordered rites and ceremonies, such as the Book of Common Prayer and the “Order for the Burial of the Dead” they feel compelled “to say something,” hence a sermon at their burials.  The purpose of a Christian burial is to commend the departed soul to the love and mercy of God, and to commit the body to the earth in as dignified and Christian a manner as possible, and the Church’s form and manner of doing so is the same for all her children.

      374.  Are fraternal bodies and organizations allowed any part in the Church’s Order for the Burial of the Dead?  Why?

      They have no share in the rite, because the Prayer Book does not permit it and because their services are unnecessary.  Just as the Church performs all her rites and ceremonies without the assistance of fraternal orders, it allows for no such assistance at a burial.  Fraternal and lodge burial services are happily dying out, because their members are busy with other matters and because the nature of their services is often unchristian and the manner of their performance unedifying.  Whatever they do must be done at a time and place apart from the Church’s own services.

      375.  Why is the coffin closed during a funeral?

      In all her rites and ceremonies the Church insists on common decency and orderliness.  As was pointed out above, the purpose of a burial is to commend the departed soul to God’s care and to commit the body to the ground, not to exhibit a mortician’s art or provoke inordinate outbursts of grief and confusion.  The opening of a coffin at a funeral is unheard of in England, as far as I know.

      376.  What is the attitude of the Episcopal Church toward cremation?

      It is allowed, and often practiced.  The ashes must be decently buried and not “scattered” (which is a pagan custom).  The English Church makes special provision for cremation in the rite.

      377.  What is the meaning of Shrove Tuesday and Maundy Thursday?

      To shrive is to hear a penitent’s confession and absolve him.  Shrove Tuesday was the day when people made their confessions before Lent.  Maundy Thursday is the day on which our Lord gave His commandment, “That ye love one another, as I have loved you” (St. John 15:12).

      378.  Are there any rules in the Episcopal Church against the Maundy Thursday watch before the Altar of Repose?

      There appears to be no Anglican authority for it.  If we are to use the Reserved Sacrament for the purpose of Communion only, such a custom is ruled out.  However, this is a highly disputable question which cannot be discussed here.  I should myself be opposed to any such custom, as tending to encourage the false belief that our Lord is locally present in the consecrated elements or that He is there for any purpose other than for sacrifice and Communion (see Question 253).

Chapter Twenty-Three – Religious Communities

      379.  Tell us about religious orders.

      The “religious life” is a special vocation to give one’s life wholly to God, without the distractions of family and property.  Those who receive this call from God are accepted into a community, or order.  No one can be sure that he or she has received this call unless and until it has been approved by such a community, recognized and regulated by the Church; for to enter such a life without such approval is dangerous and should never be attempted.  There is a large number of religious orders in the Anglican Communion throughout the world.  The Episcopal Church Annual 1959 lists eleven for men and fifteen for women.  Most orders are “active,” engaged in teaching, nursing, parish work, etc.  A few are “contemplative,” giving themselves wholly to prayer; vocations to the contemplative life are rare among us.  The principal duty of every order, active or contemplative, is the regular daily recitation of the Hours of Prayer.  The word “convent” is applied to the house of any order, but now more usually to those for women.  Members of religious orders are first received as “postulants”; during this period they may leave at any time.  The next stage is to be “clothed” as a novice, by a formal service.  The novitiate may last from one to three years.  If the novice still wishes to remain, and is acceptable to the community, he or she is “professed,” and takes the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.  Poverty means that the man or woman has no private property.  It is usual for him or her to have the capital put in trust and to give the interest on it to the community.  Celibacy means to abstain from marriage and to live a chaste and single life.  Obedience means to observe the Rule of the Community, approved by the bishop or higher Church authority, and to obey the superior in accordance with the rule.  The superior is elected by the community, for a period or for life.

      380.  Explain the vocation of the religious, and the need for more of them.

      The purpose of a religious order is to live the Christian life more perfectly than it can be lived in the outside world.  No one should venture to enter this life unless he or she is certain in his or her own mind that it is God’s Will, and that there is no other motive.  For this reason no one should take the vows except in an approved religious order.  The Religious Orders have always been of great use to the Church.  The conversion of the British Isles, and of many other European countries, was due entirely to monks and nuns.  But these orders are also liable to various special dangers and need to be controlled strictly.  Each community has a visitor, normally the bishop of the diocese or some bishop or priest appointed by him, whose function is to see that the rule is kept, to examine the community at least once a year, and to interview every member in private, in case there is any ground for complaint.

      381.  Can a person who has taken life vows ever return to the world?

      The vows of a religious community are either “simple,” that is, for a period, usually with a declaration of intention to remain for life, or “solemn,” until death.  There must be a power of dispensation, because no one is infallible, and there are cases of mistaken vocation.  In the Roman Communion, all vows may be “dispensed” by the Pope; in the Anglican Communion, either by the bishop of the diocese or by the metropolitan (archbishop) of the province.  A celebrated case of dispensation from vows was that of Erasmus, who was given a dispensation by the Pope.  Priests who are members of orders are automatically dispensed from their vows if they are consecrated bishops, their vows are modified or retained unless by special permission.

Chapter Twenty-Four – Fasting

      382.  How does the Church expect its members to practice fasting and abstinence?

      383.  Does the Church ask its members to observe Friday?  How?

      384.  Why the Friday fast?

      We are required to fast in order that we may be better able to control our bodily desires.  Friday is appointed as a fasting day in memory of our Saviour’s death on the Cross; it is a Good Friday in every week, as the Lord’s Day is an Easter Day in every week.  We are not given fixed rules, because we are expected to be capable of making them for ourselves.  We ought to mark fast days by not doing something harmless, which we like doing, in order that we may be able to do without it.  What we do will differ according to our habits, tastes, and conditions; but whatever we do, it should be something, if possible, that is not noticed by our neighbors (St. Matthew 6:16–18).  Our Lord said, “when ye fast,” showing that He assumed fasting to be a duty.  The traditional rule to abstain from meat dates from a time when all fish was salted.  It is not fasting to eat delicate fish or vegetable dishes.  Habits, to abstain from which on fast days might be a suitable rule for some people, are: chewing gum, eating sweets, taking sugar in tea or coffee, smoking, going to the movies, listening to the radio, or watching television.  Some people might get up earlier, go to bed earlier, avoid dances or other entertainments (so far as these things can be done without annoying others or even telling them the reason for so doing).  A very good way of fasting is to spend more time in prayer or other devotional exercises.  To devote some time to visiting the sick or aged, to give some hard-pressed woman a few hours off by doing her household tasks for her, to perform any act of self-sacrifice for others, as a regular habit, and as thanksgiving to our Lord, is true fasting.

      385.  Where can we find Anglican rules for fasting Communion, Holy Days of Obligation, Confession, etc.?

      The Anglican Churches treat their members as grown-up persons, who are expected to make such rules for themselves.  The custom of fasting Communion is to receive Communion before eating or drinking anything else that day, in honor of our Lord’s Body and Blood.  If for any reason you cannot do this, get as near to it as you can.  Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Ascension Day should be observed by all Christians as far as possible.  If you can go to church on Holy Days, do so.  Priests, I think, are bound to communicate on all such days if possible.  As to confession to a priest, you are advised to make such a rule as suits you and stick to it (see Questions 254–65).

      386.  Why is there so much diversity in fasting, and why so many different attitudes toward divorce?

      As to fasting, see Questions 382–85.  Marriage while a divorced partner is alive is called adultery by our Lord.  Neither the Church nor any member of it is free to disregard His command (see Questions 273–74).

      387.  What Anglican authority is there for keeping the traditional abstinence from flesh meat on Friday?

      The American Prayer Book gives Ash Wednesday and Good Friday as fast days; and the forty days of Lent, the Ember Days at the four seasons, and all Fridays except Christmas Day, the Epiphany, and any Friday falling between them as days of abstinence (I do not know why Fridays in Eastertide should be fast days) (see Questions 382–84).

      388.  Why do we not abstain from flesh meat all the days of Lent, as well as Fridays?

      Well, why don’t you?  There is no rule against doing so.  But if it is inconvenient to your neighbors there are several other ways of fasting besides abstaining from meat (see Questions 382–84).

      389.  What constitutes a Good Friday or Ash Wednesday fast?

      If you cannot abstain from food all day (which the young and strong could do), at least abstain from one meal, and do not eat anything very pleasant at the others.  But it is much more important to go to all the services in your church on those days and to spend as much time as you can in private devotion.

      390.  What is the difference between fasting and abstinence?

      Fasting is going without food.  Abstinence is eating less food or a less pleasant kind of food.  If you eat no dinner you fast.  If you eat fish or dry bread instead of meat you practice abstinence.  This is the ancient and universal distinction.  The Prayer Book, however, does not distinguish sharply between them, but leaves it for us to decide for ourselves.  “The Scriptures bid us fast; the Church says, now” (George Herbert).

      391.  Why do we fast?  Give historical references.

      392.  State, simply and clearly, the Prayer Book’s instructions on fasting and abstinence.

      393.  What is our personal duty on days of fasting and abstinence, and on Holy Days?

      See Questions 382–84.  If you are able to go to church, especially to the Holy Communion, on all Holy Days, you ought to do so.  They were intended to be kept exactly like Sundays.  But in the modern secular and industrial world only a few people have the opportunity.

      394.  How strict is the Church about fasting before Communion?  Should a young priest refuse the sacrament to those who do not fast?

      Whether to observe the ancient and universal custom of fasting before Communion must be decided by everyone for himself.  No priest has any right to refuse the sacrament to anyone on such a ground.  If he does, you ought to complain to the bishop.

      395.  How did Lent develop in the Church?

      The direction to keep Lent is first found in the canons of the First Council of Nicaea, 325.  The Greeks fasted for seven weeks, but not on Saturday (except Easter Eve) or Sunday.  The Latins fasted for six weeks, but not on Sunday.  In both cases the fast lasted for thirty-six days.  The Latins added Ash Wednesday and the three days after it in the seventh century.

      396.  What are the customs of the Church for observing Lent?

      Customs of observing or keeping Lent have varied down through the centuries, and they still vary in different parts of the world.  General Lenten customs are these: marriages are not solemnized (not that the Church frowns on marriages at any time, but on the gaiety that inevitably accompanies them); card parties, dances, etc., are not given or attended; church attendance is increased; a Lenten “rule of life” is adopted; the richer foods are avoided; gala affairs are not attended; television interest is restricted, etc. Church members have not only an obligation to respect and follow Lenten customs but also a duty to supply the proper example to any friends and neighbors who may not even know that Lent has arrived, or is about to arrive, or what it means and implies.

      397.  What is the history of Passion Sunday?

      It is an old name for the Fifth Sunday in Lent, because it is the beginning of Passiontide and the first we hear of our Lord’s suffering, or passion.

      398.  What is the origin and meaning of Ember Days?

      Ember is a corruption of quatuor tempora, the four seasons.  They were originally pagan feasts of seedtime and harvest, but are now used as days of prayer and fasting for those about to be ordained.  They are said to be traced to the third century.

Chapter Twenty-Five – Ornaments of the Church and Its Ministers

      399.  Why must a priest dress up like a Christmas tree and insist on being called “Father”?

      Apparently what is meant is the Eucharistic vestments, which are a survival of the dress of the ancient Greeks.  The alb (of which the surplice is one development) represents the cloak, and the chasuble the “coat” of New Testament times (St. Matthew 5:40).  It is a universal custom that those who perform special functions should wear special garments.  The Eucharistic vestments are worn in the Roman as well as in the Anglican Communion, in the Church of Sweden and by many Lutherans, and in a different form by the Eastern Churches.  They link the Church of today with other ages and others lands and are a great help to the priest who wears them, by reminding him of the importance of what he is doing.  “Father” is a term of respect and affection traditionally given by the laity to the clergy.  A priest is the spiritual father of his parish and the one person to whom the people in their sin and sorrow may turn for comfort and advice.  He should be called by an intimate, but not flippant, title.  The reluctance to address a priest as “father” possibly arises from the misunderstanding of the term “Protestant” in the legal title of the American Church and the failure to appreciate the Church’s Catholic nature.  No one need call a priest “Father” unless he wants to, and no priest with any humility or common sense would insist on it.  (Never call him “Reverend.”)

      400.  What is the origin of, and reason for, robes in Church services?  Why is the clerical collar worn?

      See Question 398.  The choir habit (surplice, scarf, and hood) is the uniform of the Anglican clergy for all services which are not sacramental.  The surplice (super pelliceum) is an alb with wide sleeves, to be worn with the fur cassocks needed in unheated medieval churches.  The black scarf, or tippet, peculiar to the Anglican clergy, shows that its wearer has been ordained, and it is the only sign of distinction in church between cleric and layman (such as choirman or server).  The hood is the mark of a university degree, but a “literate’s” hood of plain black stuff may be worn by nongraduates.  It has been the universal practice of the Church since about the fifth century that the clergy should be distinguished by their clothes, both in church and on the street.  Their distinctive dress helps both them and others to remember who and what they are, and Whom they represent.  The clerical collar is a nineteenth-century invention, and is a sufficient sign that its wearer is a minister of religion.

      401.  Why do we have altars, crosses, and candles in the church?

      The altar, or holy table, where the Holy Eucharist is offered, is the most important thing, and the one necessary thing, in a church.  Without an altar it would not be a church.  Large churches have several altars for convenience.  The cross, or crucifix, reminds us of our Lord’s death on the Cross.  The candles signify that He is the light of the world.  The two candles on the altar represent the two natures of Christ, the Godhead and the Manhood.  Other candles are sometimes added round the altar for glory and beauty.

      402.  What is the origin of the rule that women should wear hats in church?

      It is based on I Corinthians 11:5.  St. Paul told the Corinthians that their women ought to be veiled at the public assemblies, which was no doubt necessary for women in such a city as ancient Corinth, as it was for Moslem women everywhere until lately.

      403.  Need a woman always wear a hat in church?

      She should follow the local custom and avoid causing comment.  It is a good practice, if only to remind women that they are in God’s house.  A man removes his hat for the same respectful reason.

      404.  Why has the circle round the cross become common lately?

      The ancient Irish crosses had this form.  It has no particular significance.

      405.  Why do our rubrics not tell us when to cross ourselves and genuflect?

      Because they are matters of personal devotion and discretion.

      406.  What are the prescribed, preferred, or traditional colors to paint the interior of a church?

      None is prescribed.  The matter is one of taste, local custom, and common sense.

      407.  What does the Church teach about wearing medals with the likeness of saints?

      There is no harm in it provided the wearer does not suppose that wearing such a medal will benefit him in any way, which is grossly superstitious.  Put your trust in God, and not in charms.

      408.  What is the Sanctus bell?

      A bell rung during the Sanctus (“Holy, Holy, Holy”) to tell the people what is about to happen.  Since the Mass was said in Latin and in a low voice, and the view of the altar often obstructed by a rood screen (such as in Westminster Abbey), the people could not otherwise know what was about to take place.  Bells are often rung on joyful occasions.

      409.  Why do girls wear white veils at their Confirmation?

      In order that they may all be dressed alike, may not be distracted by looking at one another, and to permit the bishop to place his hands upon their head.  Confirmation veils are usually provided by the parish and returned after the service.

      410.  Should flowers be on the altar all the year round, or left off in Advent and Lent?

      Flowers are seldom placed on the mensa (table part) of the altar itself.  Customs vary in time and place, but it is a general practice not to use flowers on the altar during Advent and Lent by way of accenting the penitential character of those seasons.

      411.  Why are palms given on Palm Sunday?

      To remind us of the palms spread before our Lord when He rode into Jerusalem in triumph (St. John 12:13).

      412.  What is the purpose of the ring in marriage?  Justify the use of two rings.

      The ring signifies that the marriage vows are endless and are binding until death.  A second ring for the bridegroom is a foreign custom not known in our tradition and its use is not provided by the Book of Common Prayer.

      413.  When should stoles be worn?  Are there special preaching stoles?

      The stole, which signifies the yoke of Christ (St. Matthew 11:29), is one of the Eucharistic vestments, and is worn only during the administration of sacraments.  It has nothing to do with preaching.  It is worn by the celebrant and his assistants at the Eucharist (but not by the reader of the Epistle); by the priest or deacon at Baptism and by the priest who is hearing confessions and anointing the sick; by the bishop when confirming and ordaining.  For other services the priest and deacon should wear choir habit (surplice, hood, and scarf) but not stole.  The black scarf, or tippet, is much broader than the stole, and is worn over both shoulders by deacons as well as priests, whereas the deacon’s stole is worn over the left shoulder only.

      414.  Should crosses in church be draped in Passiontide?

      All crosses, crucifixes, and pictures should be draped in veils during Passiontide.  The general American custom is to use purple from Passion Sunday to Maundy Thursday, when the color of the veils is changed to white.  On Good Friday the altar is usually stripped bare, and any irremovable crosses, etc., are draped in black.  In England crosses are covered in white veils from the beginning of Lent till Maundy Thursday, when they are taken down and the church left bare.

      415.  What is the historical background for the Christus Rex now often used?

      Until about the twelfth century Christ on the Cross was always represented as robed and crowned.  (The Feast of Christ the King was instituted by Pope Pius XI in 1925.  It has no authority in Anglican Churches, and there is no need for it: for the Kingship of Christ is observed on Ascension Day.  I have evidence to show that the purpose of the Pope was to teach that, since Christ is King of all things, all the secular life of men, all politics, economics, education, etc., ought to be subject to the Pope as Vicar of Christ, a doctrine which is not acceptable to us.)

Chapter Twenty-Six – Anglican Teaching

      See also Questions 127–41.

      416.  Explain clearly the belief of the Episcopal Church.

      The belief of the Episcopal Church, as of all Anglican Churches, is based upon Holy Scripture, as it is interpreted by the Universal Church and in particular as it is defined in the doctrinal decisions of the first four General Councils, Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451).  The Nicene Creed and the Quicunque Vult are a summary of these definitions.  The Anglican Churches maintain the sacraments and the ministry of the ancient Church and interpret Scripture by the critical methods of the best modern scholars who are believing and practicing members of the Church.  Their teaching is briefly summarized in what is called the Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, and the apostolic ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

      417.  If the Anglican Communion has no theology but the faith of the Undivided Church, where is this to be found?  How can one know what is of faith and what is not?

      The theology of the Anglican Communion is the same as the faith of the Undivided Church, but it is a modern theology, for it takes into account the discoveries of modern science and criticism.  “Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven ... bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old” (St. Matthew 13:52).  The Offices of Instruction, the Creeds, the Church Catechism, and the rest of the Prayer Book; the dogmas of the first Four Councils (for those of the fifth and sixth hardly affect us today); those of the Thirty-Nine Articles which are concerned with doctrine.  Nothing is “of faith” that cannot be proved from Scripture; but it is for the Church, not the individual, to decide what can be proved from Scripture, for no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation (II Peter 1:20).

      418.  What does the Anglican Communion regard as necessary to believe, and where is it to be found?  Is it necessary to believe the Articles of Religion?

      419.  How binding are the Thirty-Nine Articles?

      See Question 417.  The Thirty-Nine Articles, rightly understood (for which some historical and technical knowledge is required), are an admirable statement of the Anglican position as it was understood four centuries ago.  They do not cover modern problems.  They are not in any way binding on the laity, and the clergy give only general assent to them: that is, we are not bound to accept every word of them nor to believe anything which cannot be proved from Scripture (Article 20).  For instance, we are not bound by statements in the Homilies (Article 35), some of which are historically absurd.

      420.  What is the ethos of the Anglican Communion?

      The Oxford English Dictionary says that an “ethos” is the prevalent tone of sentiment of a community.  It is agreed that the Anglican Communion is distinguished by great emphasis on the public and private reading of Scripture in the mother tongue, and on the moral claims of the Christian religion on all members of the Church.  It allows great freedom to the individual to think and to say what he chooses; it tries to look at all sides of every question and is unwilling to punish anyone for false belief; it dislikes any kind of fanaticism or superstition; but it maintains its continuity firmly and is very conservative in practice.  Like the English nation out of which it sprang, it is not fond of logical thought or of basing action upon it; and it prefers to be guided by custom and intuition rather than by law.

      421.  As the Lambeth Conference has no legislative power, may a bishop admit members of sects to Communion, under Resolution 12.А. 11. of the 1920 Lambeth Conference?

      If the National or Provincial Synod (in America, the General Convention) has ratified this resolution, a bishop may act upon it, but he must observe the safeguards attached to the Resolution.  It was made with reference to the peculiar conditions of South India.  Anyone admitted to Communion under this Resolution must declare that he accepts the authority of Scripture, that he believes every clause of the Creeds, that he has been baptized (of which he must produce proof) and believes in Baptism and the Eucharist, and that he accepts the three orders of the ministry in principle, and recognizes the authority of the Anglican bishops.  The Resolution seems to apply only to members of congregations concerned in a scheme for union.  I doubt whether many such cases are likely to occur.

      422.  Can anything be done to reverse the declaration of the Lambeth Conference of 1920 that all the baptized are members of the Church?

      I do not think that anything can be done or ought to be done.  The reference is to the pamphlet Who Are Members of the Church? in which Darwell Stone and P. W. Puller sought to show by evidence from early writers that a person baptized in heresy or schism is not a member of the Church unless and until he is received formally into communion with it.  I knew the two learned authors well, and Father Puller wrote to me criticizing what I had written on this very subject.  I still think that in every part of the Church today those who have been baptized outside its communion are recognized as members in some sense.  The ancient writers, and Stone and Puller with them, seem to me not to have recognized sufficiently two important distinctions: The first is that there are different degrees of membership.  To be baptized makes a man one sort of member; to be confirmed, a second; to be a regular communicant, a third.  There are also the baptized who have never been practicing members, lapsed communicants, persons excommunicated; persons baptized irregularly (as by ministers of the sects), and so on.  They all have to be treated differently.  For instance, all except the excommunicated may be married and buried with the rites of the Church, which is not allowed to the unbaptized, because they are not members.  Secondly, there is a distinction between the external and internal effects of a sacrament.  Baptism, even if irregular, makes one a member of the Church (though only in the lowest degree, if it is not followed by Confirmation).  If, however, Baptism (in the case of an adult) is received without repentance and faith the spiritual gifts which it bestows seem likely to be dormant.  If anyone is baptized in a sect that denies that Baptism conveys the New Birth and forgiveness of sins, his baptism is recognized all the same, and if he is received into full communion with the Church later, he cannot be baptized again; but until then he is likely to lose part of the internal effect of Baptism, because of his ignorance.

      Therefore I think that the Lambeth Conference was right.  Certainly this is now the practice of the Anglican Communion and I understand of the other Catholic Communions also.  A person baptized outside the fellowship of the Church is not a full member of it; but he is for some purposes a member, and if he becomes a full member he cannot be baptized again.

      423.  Can anything be done to induce the bishops to consult assessors before making statements at Lambeth?

      I think some do.  However, it would certainly be advisable for those bishops who are not themselves theologians to bring theologians with them.

      424.  What is the history of the lay reader?  Why is he not in minor orders?

      The lay reader is a layman who is licensed to read sermons and certain services.  He has not, or ought not to have, any share in administering the sacraments.  The office is not older than the nineteenth century and is partly caused by a shortage of priests.  The ancient minor orders are those of subdeacon (which Rome regards as in some ways a major order), acolyte, reader, doorkeeper, and exorcist.  None of them was in the least like the order of lay readers.  They belonged to liturgical arrangements which we do not now possess any longer.  Even in the Roman Communion they are only a survival and are normally received all together in the seminary.

Chapter Twenty-Seven – Church Order

      425.  Why is there not more liaison between different Anglican Churches?

      426.  Why does not the American Episcopal Church join forces with the Church of England in Europe, Africa, and the West Indies?

      There is a great deal of cooperation and it is growing rapidly; for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury has now an American bishop on his personal staff.  Paris, Rome, and Florence, in all of which there are large British and American colonies, are the only cities in Europe where there is both an English and an American chaplaincy.  In other cities the two Churches arrange it so that there shall be only one chaplaincy.  Liberia, Puerto Rico, etc., are under the jurisdiction of the General Convention and cannot be under the Archbishop of West Africa or of the West Indies.  Recently a conference of the Anglican bishops in Southeast Asia met at Manila in the American jurisdiction.

      427.  Why does the Episcopal Church, alone among Anglican Churches, have no archbishops?

      It is not alone.  The Chinese and Japanese Churches have Presiding Bishops.  The Scottish Church has a Primus who is not an archbishop.  The Scottish bishops swear obedience, not to the Primus, but to the Synod.  There were no archbishops in Scotland before 1472, or after 1695, and their history between these dates was unfortunate.  In the United States the framers of the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons seem to have thought the title of archbishop was too much akin to monarchy.

      428.  What is the origin of “Very Reverend,” “Right Reverend,” “Most Reverend”?  Why is not the Presiding Bishop called Most Reverend?

      These titles appear to date from the seventeenth century.  Archdeacons are called Venerable; deans and provosts, Very Reverend; bishops, Right Reverend; archbishops and other chief bishops, including the presiding bishops, and also for a special reason the Bishop of Meath in Ireland, are called Most Reverend.  Primate is a higher title than archbishop and means the chief among several archbishops, as in Canada and Australia.  The Archbishops of Canterbury, York, Armagh, and Dublin are all Primates; but not the Archbishop of Wales, or Cape Town, or West or Central Africa.  The Archbishop of Lyons is Primate of France; the Archbishop of Toledo, Primate of Spain.

      429.  What machinery is there for disciplining the clergy?

      This is a difficult question, because discipline ought to be imposed equally on all members of the Church, both clerical and lay.  Since the seventeenth century our laity has refused to submit to ecclesiastical penalties, while insisting on regulation of the clergy, and most ecclesiastical offenses (apart from moral ones) are such as only the clergy can commit.  In the American Episcopal Church, bishops and priests can be tried for heresy in the Church courts provided by the Canons, with certain safeguards, and there is a Court of Appeal.  In England every diocese has a Consistory Court, in which the judge is the chancellor, an eminent lawyer representing the bishop.  Above this there are the Provincial Courts of Canterbury (the Court of Arches) and York.  English law gives every subject a right of appeal to the crown, for the diocesan and provincial courts are the Queen’s courts, as the civil courts are.  The crown is represented in this case, under an Act of 1834, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is an entirely secular court.  There is widespread refusal to recognize the decisions of this court on doctrine and worship; but as they are held to be binding on the provincial and diocesan courts, these courts do not possess general confidence.  Hitherto no attempt to overcome this difficulty has been successful.

      430.  Why do our priests give so much time to administration that materialism overrides spiritual needs?

      This is a very old difficulty (Acts 6:1).  It appears that some bishops and priests are more at home with administrative than with spiritual and theological duties; that the administration must be carried out and, if the clergy do not do it, someone else will have to be paid to do it; that the clergy are often unwilling (and not altogether without reason) to hand over to the laity all administration and the power that goes with it.

      431.  Are there mystics in the American Church?  How do they affect the general thinking of the Church?

      If there are not, it is a serious weakness.  I am not mystical, but the Church must make provision for those who are, or they will be tempted to fall into the errors of theosophy or some other kind of non-Christian mysticism.

      432.  What is the role of the layman in the Episcopal Church?

      A layman is not just a man who has not been ordained.  He is a member of the “laos,” the chosen people of God.  His duty is to do all he can, according to his capacity and opportunities, to promote the work of the Church, under the direction of the bishop and his clergy.  The first duty of the priest is the leadership of the worship of God and the administration of the Word and sacraments.  The layman, if he is competent, trained, and authorized, can do much to help the clergy even in this: by serving at the altar, reading the lessons, singing in the choir, playing the organ, teaching in Sunday schools, etc.  Laymen, if trained and competent, orthodox and loyal, may be licensed by the bishop to take services which are not sacramental and to preach.  The layman has his share in the government of the Church, and no important change, even in doctrine and worship, ought to be made without the consent of the laity.  The decisive voice in all matters of Church services and all parish affairs must be that of the parish priest, subject to the control of the bishop; the decisive voice in all matters of doctrine is that of the House of Bishops, within the limits set by the Bible, the decrees of the General Councils, the universally accepted conditions of the validity of sacraments, and the general Anglican tradition.

      433.  Why do we not have more definite instruction for those who wish to join the Church?

      Nobody can “join the Church.”  He is received into the Church by Baptism; but it is God Who of His goodness receives him and Who gives the wish to be received.  Such a person, if an adult, or a boy or girl who is not a baby, ought to be most carefully prepared for Baptism, and it is the obligation of the parish priest to see that he is so prepared; Confirmation and First Communion should follow Baptism, either immediately or as soon as possible.  If he has been baptized or confirmed in some other church or in some sect, he should be formally received into the Church, either by the form for the reception of one privately baptized (if he has not been confirmed), at which he should have godparents, or by an authorized rite for the reception of converts (if he has been confirmed in the Roman Communion).  Members of the Eastern Churches should not be accepted except, with the permission of their own bishop, for some special reason.  Members of the Polish National Catholic Church or of the Old Catholic Churches in Europe should be received as already members, precisely as if they came from the Church of England or some other Anglican Church, but they will probably need some teaching about our forms and methods of worship.

      434.  What is the difference between a parish and a mission?

      A parish is self-supporting, whereas a mission is supported entirely or partly either by the diocese or by the parish to which it is attached.  In England, and indeed throughout Europe, a parish is an area with fixed boundaries, and the parish priest or minister is responsible for the pastoral care of everyone living within those boundaries; even if they are of a different denomination he is expected to know and help them if required.  I understand that parishes in the United States are not of this kind.

      435.  What are the values of a cathedral over a parish church?  Why should a parish church be made a cathedral?  Is a cathedral an expression of Christianity?

      The cathedral in any diocese is the bishop’s church, the place where his “cathedra,” or seat, is placed.  Some cathedrals are quite small, but in most historic European cities, as in London, the cathedral is the largest and most beautiful building in the city, because it is the chief place for the worship of God.  The relation of the cathedral to the parish churches is rather like the relation of the head office of a business to the branch offices.  The cathedral is the place where the services are rendered as beautifully as they can be, for the glory God and for a model to the parishes (though the services in the cathedral need not be so congregational as those of the parishes).  It is, or should be, served by a staff of priests with diocesan functions, and should have no parish of its own.  The chief members of the staff (called the “Chapter”) were formerly, and in some cathedrals are still, the dean, who was the chairman and ruler, the precentor, who was responsible for all liturgical and musical arrangements, for the servers, the choir, and the organ; the chancellor, who controlled the cathedral school, the seminary for ordinands and all teaching work in the diocese, and might also be the bishop’s theological adviser; and the treasurer, who was responsible for the finances.  These formed the Chapter and were expected to be present every day at the Chapter services.  The cathedral should also have a diocesan missioner, responsible for organizing missions and retreats; a library available for the clergy and laity; and a staff of experts in all aspects of Church life.  Every day prayers are offered for one of the parishes by name.  Diocesan festivals and synods are held there; pilgrimages are organized from the parishes to it.  Ordinations are usually held there.

      436.  What is the jurisdictional position of the Anglican Communion outside the British Isles?

      In England, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man the Church has, besides its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, civil jurisdiction derived from the crown; elsewhere only ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction in this sense is the right to act within a certain area or for certain persons within that area.  In Wales and Scotland we claim to be, as in England, the Catholic Church of the country; all Christians living there, except members of foreign churches, belong to our jurisdiction, whether they recognize it or not.  On the continent of Europe and in countries where there are ancient Churches, such as Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Ethiopia, the English and American Churches do not claim to serve any but their own people.  Our chaplaincies exist to serve and help Anglican residents, to promote friendly relations, as far as possible, with the Christians of the country and other residents, and in some countries to evangelize Jews and Moslems.  They do for the Church what embassies and consulates do for their country.  In new countries, such as the United States, and in countries which have never been Christian, such as India and China, no Church can justly claim exclusive jurisdiction, and the Anglican Communion has as much right as any other part of the Church to be there, to minister to its own people and to all who are willing to accept its services, and to take its full share in the life of the community.

      437.  How many communicants are there in the whole Anglican Communion?

      Nobody knows.  It is not worth while to spend time and money in compiling statistics; for in spiritual matters statistics are of little value.  The number has been estimated as thirty-five or even forty million.

      438.  Am I right to attend regularly a church twenty-five miles away, if I don’t like the teaching and practice of the local church?

      It is a question for your own judgment.  If you live twenty-five miles away you can hardly expect the priest to bring you the sacraments when you are ill; you cannot do much for the daily life of that parish; you have also to consider, if you have children or other dependents, whether they are likely to continue regular attendance at so distant a church.  It seems to me that such practice can be justified only by exceptional conditions.

      439.  Why does not the Anglican Communion speak with authority on matters of faith to its member churches?

      The resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, which are usually unanimous, do speak with some authority.  If you mean, why are not directions given in matters of faith, the large Churches have no right to dictate to the small ones; and the American Church in particular has always opposed any approach toward a centralized authority.  The most binding authority is that which is reached by universal agreement, as all history shows.

      440.  Give clear and decisive arguments about tithing.

      The American Church practices this much better than the English Church.

      [A leaflet, Something about Tithing, prepared by an American priest, is worth repeating here:

      The Jews tithe; so do the Mormons and the Seventh-day Adventists...  It is simply trying to play fair with God.  It is testing the vitality of your Creed by the reality of your sharing.  It is putting your religion on as sound a basis as your patriotism by taxing your income for your Church as you tax it for your State.

      It is taking 10% of your gross income and setting that aside as a basic minimum for objects to which you can conscientiously contribute in God’s Name and for His sake, and not for any personal or private benefit.  After the 10% you begin to give!

      Tithing is fair to everybody: it distributes the load, or rather, it lifts the subject to the level where it belongs; it tries everybody’s faith by the acid test of “What is it worth to you?”  It brings us face to face with our Crucified Lord and makes us answer the question: “How much would I sacrifice for Him?”

      To the argument that tithing is legalistic, or that it is an old Jewish law, St. Paul would reply, “If by the Law such giving abounded, by Grace it should much more abound.”  Jesus said that if we were not faithful in the use of money, how could He entrust to us spiritual riches?

      God’s sanctuary is stained by the ghastly hypocrisy of our casual contributions that have no significant relation to our income.  The stain comes from spending on our own bodies and starving the Body of Christ, so that it sits by the wayside begging instead of striding across the world on its ministries of Grace.

      Giving to the Church is a spiritual matter.  One way in which you may show your love for God, for His Church, and for your fellow man is by “old-fashioned” tithing.

      We do not tithe because the Church needs money (which it always does), but simply because we love God.  When a person loves God, he naturally wants to tithe; he would not think of doing less.  If you do not tithe, it could be a warning that your love for God is weak and that repentance and a deeper conversion is needed for the welfare of your soul.

      Many people on all income levels do tithe; people whose obligations and costs of living are just as high as yours.  God would not have asked us to tithe if tithing were impossible.]

      441.  Why are the Offices of Instruction and the Church Catechism so seldom used in the Episcopal Church?

      When I was working in a parish all our teaching was based on the Catechism.  In Sunday school we taught nothing else.  But apparently Americans have widely accepted the modern educational fad that children ought not to learn much by heart.  I am quite sure they are wrong.  Children have been given good memories, and the, more they learn the Catechism and the best parts of the Bible by heart the better.  Even if they do not understand it, they will later.

      442.  Why has not the Episcopal Church the centralized authority of Rome?

      Because we do not believe in centralized authority.  The Roman system is a dictatorship, and we do not believe in dictatorships.  The authority of this particular dictatorship is founded on claims which are historically baseless.  It is because we reject these claims and that kind of authority, because we expect to be treated as free adults and not as children, that we are Anglicans and not Romanists.

      443.  How far is the American Church bound by English canon law?

      Canon law, unlike statute law, ceases to have any force when it has long been universally disregarded.  The English Canons of 1604 are largely obsolete even in England, and can hardly be considered binding in the United States.  Whether the whole body of medieval Latin Canons, which is still in force in England as far as it is applicable to modern conditions and not contrary to English statute law, is still in force in the United States appears to be a question about which the experts differ.

      444.  Why does not the General Convention legislate for more uniformity in worship?

      Many people do not think that more uniformity is desirable; those who do think so only wish to make others conform to what they themselves practice.  No legislation on this subject is likely to win a majority, and even if it did, many people would not obey it, and there is no means of enforcing it.  The only way to secure greater uniformity is by general agreement to obey the rules.  These rules might, indeed, be more explicit; the Episcopal Church has removed the Ornaments Rubric and put nothing in its place.

      445.  Why do most Episcopalians fail to grasp the truth of the Church?

      Because they are not taught, or because they do not listen when they are taught, or because they are affected by the religious atmosphere of the sects.  The sermon should normally be an instruction rather than a moral essay or an emotional appeal, for it is often the only means of teaching.

      446.  Is not the training of priests in seminaries about divorce, etc., the same?  Why is there so much difference?

      I should think that there is divergence of teaching in the seminaries.  In my experience on the staffs of theological colleges (in England the word “seminary” is applied only to Romanist colleges), which is considerable, students do not always accept or practice what they were taught in college.  It is the duty of the bishops to enforce the law and to punish those who break it.

      447.  Consecrated Churchwoman wants to know why priests are allowed to deny the Resurrection and Ascension in a church claiming to be Catholic.

      I should think that the bishops do not do their duty; the orthodox priests do not refuse to have anything to do with heretics; and the laity do not refuse to receive ministrations from such men.  It often does more harm than good to bring heretics to trial, because they get so much notoriety, but there are other ways of dealing with them.  (No one can be consecrated except a bishop; the lady is using the wrong word.)

      448.  Is the title “Father in God” reserved for the diocesan bishop?

      It may also be applied to his coadjutor or suffragan (assistant) bishop.  (In England there is a difference between the suffragan bishop, appointed by the crown, and the assistant bishop, appointed by the diocesan.)

      449.  Are all the clergy rectors?

      Certainly not.  A rector is the priest in charge of a parish.  There are also bishops, deans, canons, chaplains of many kinds, missionaries, professors in colleges and seminaries, members of religious orders, assistant curates, and many others.

Chapter Twenty-Eight – Relation’s With Other Christians

      See also Chapter 3.

      450.  Where does the Anglican Communion fit into the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.?

      The National Council, as the American branch of the World Council of Churches, is a valuable and almost necessary institution, provided it does not go beyond its proper purpose.  (Its title is misleading, because most of its members are not churches but sects.  Still this cannot be avoided.)  Christian leaders ought to get together, know one another, and act together, as far as they can, in moral, political, and social questions.  Governments will sometimes listen to a deputation that represents many different kinds of Christians when they would not pay attention to separate denominations.  But certain cautions ought to be observed by all who take part in the National Council of Churches.  It has no spiritual or theological authority.  It is not a Church and has no right to speak in the name of the Church; most of the communities represented in it are independent of the Church.  It should not be made a means of open intercommunion: members of the Church should take no part in any such action, and if they do, should be officially repudiated and deprived of any right to represent the Church.  The World Council of Churches does not represent more than about a third of Christendom.  The Roman Communion, which is by far the largest Christian body, both in the United States and in the world, takes no part in it.  The Eastern Orthodox Communion is very poorly represented in it, and the great majority of Orthodox people, who are under the control of Communist governments, not at all.  Many fundamentalists also refuse to take any part in it and have a rival International Council of their own.

      Any attempt to treat the National Council of Churches, or the World Council of which it is a part, as “Pan-Protestant” should be strongly opposed.  The Anglican Communion ought to have no place in any organization which includes only heirs of the Reformation, but as long as the Eastern Churches are there, even on a small scale, we ought to be there too.

      451.  What is the policy of the Church on cooperation with non-Anglicans in Church matters?

      It differs greatly in different dioceses and countries.  In one English diocese the cathedral and the leading parish church follow entirely different policies.  It is desirable to cooperate with those who are not in communion with us, as far as we can without compromising our principles (as by premature intercommunion) and without encouraging the belief that it does not matter to what church or sect you belong.  There is only one Church and everybody ought to be a full member of it (see Chap. 1).

      452.  What is the attitude of the Anglican Communion toward Reformation and Post-Reformation Churches?

      The religious societies founded during the Reformation and after it are not churches but sects, for they have no institutional continuity with the original Church.  Their members, if baptized, are fellow members with us of the Catholic Church; but as societies they are independent of it.

      453.  How shall I deal with a Romanist (Anglican until his marriage) who cannot believe Romanist practices and is nothing, though his wife and family are faithful Romanists?

      Persuade him, if possible, to return to the Anglican Communion, which he ought never to have left.  The reason why he became a Romanist was a bad one.  The only justifiable reason for becoming a Romanist is that one is convinced, on grounds of reason and with no other motive, that the Roman Communion and no other is the true Church and that all its claims and dogmas are true.

      454.  Ought we not to study one another’s historical, rather than doctrinal, differences?

      The study of the two cannot be separated.  It is always doctrine that separates us; but we cannot understand the differences of doctrine without knowing how they began and developed.

      455.  What chance is there for the Episcopal Church to unite with other Christian churches?

      (I assume that “churches” here, though used incorrectly, is meant to include sects.)  I should say practically none, at least not in the immediate future.  Reunion with Rome is impossible; it would require a miracle.  Reunion with the Orthodox Churches, in any case very difficult, seems to be impossible as long as most of them are controlled by Communist governments.  The same applies to the Armenian Church.  Reunion with the Church of the East (Assyrian) is perhaps possible (since there are no fundamental differences) but not easy.  The Philippine Independent Church ought to be in full communion with the Episcopal Church.  The sects have a very different conception of the Church, and union with any of them is unlikely for many years.  We cannot unite unless we are agreed on the meaning of “church” and the meaning of “union.”

      456.  How can an Anglican parish take part constructively in the Ecumenical Movement?

      It is impossible to give a general answer to this question.  No one should take any part in relations with other churches or with the sects, who is not thoroughly instructed and convinced about the position of the Church to which he belongs.  Otherwise he will do more harm than good.  Careful study of the doctrines at issue, discussion groups with the object of understanding, not of converting, one another, cooperation in moral and social work, are all good.  There are many pitfalls, and many things are taken for granted by one side which are startling to the other.  To give an instance known to me, most members of the sects assume that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the mother of a large family; an idea intensely shocking to all who have been trained in Catholic tradition (see Question 99).  Members of some sects think smoking wicked (see Question 335); others, that even the most ordinary acts of reverence are idolatrous.  In relations with other Christians we have to learn not to be shocked easily.

Chapter Twenty-Nine – Differences of Churchmanship

      457.  What is the ultimate aim of the Anglo-Catholics?  Reunion with Rome?  What conditions would they force on Evangelicals or Dissenters?  What is the least they would require for ecumenical status?

      The Anglo-Catholics, like the Evangelicals, are not a single united group: they differ sharply from one another.  Only what has been called the “lunatic fringe” desire reunion with Rome, except on conditions that Rome could not conceivably grant.

      Probably all Anglo-Catholics would like to see the whole Anglican Communion believing and practicing the Catholic religion; heartily accepting the creeds and obeying the Christian marriage laws; taking part in the Eucharist on all Sundays and great festivals, communicating reverently and frequently, practicing voluntary confession to a priest, and taking their full share in the conversion of non-Christians, at home and abroad.  They all desire union with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the return of the sects to the faith and practice of the Church.  I cannot answer questions about what would happen if....

      I do not think Anglo-Catholics in general wish to impose any belief or practice on anyone by force.

      458.  Why do ritual and Church history get more discussion than the problem of making God through Christ an integral part of our lives?

      All Christians who take their religion seriously believe that they ought not only to devote their personal lives to God but also to try to make their corporate life and that of all other men obedient to Him.  However, this is not a subject for public discussion.  It is always the minor, not the major, matters that are disputed in the newspapers.  We do not argue publicly about the things nearest our hearts.  Sometimes what appears to be unimportant is discussed warmly, because we all know that it stands for something vital that we do not care to mention.  This is the reason for controversy about vestments and ornaments.

      459.  Can the difference of practice in fasting, genuflecting, etc., be bridged as it drives people away?

      Such people must learn that we are not all made alike.  The Church is Catholic, that is, for all men, and we must all learn to tolerate in minor matters the freedom we claim for ourselves.  Why should anyone refuse to do his duty to God in His Church because someone else’s notion of reverence differs from his own?

      460.  Is an Episcopalian who believes the Anglican Catholic faith an Episcopalian or an Anglican Catholic?

      Both.  Every Episcopalian is an Anglican Catholic, that is, a Catholic in communion with the See of Canterbury and the Anglican bishops.  Every Anglican is a Catholic, and if he is in the United States he is an Episcopalian.  You might as well ask whether the patriotic Texan is a Texan or an American citizen!

      461.  Is not the Book of Common Prayer a Catholic book?  Why not let our people know this?

      Why not indeed?  “I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

      462.  Why do the clergy have different opinions and substitute them for what has been held from the earliest times?

      Such an accusation requires evidence.  If you refer to articles of the Creed, your remedy is a prosecution for heresy; if that is impossible, go to another parish.  If you refer to personal opinions, I suggest that not everything which has been long held is true: for instance, we now know facts about the authorship and date of Old Testament books which were not known to the Apostles.

      463.  Why do people (not in the Church) shy away from the word “Catholic”?  Why do people in the Church shy away from what “Catholic” means in worship and practice?

      Because, in both cases, they have been taught to fear and hate the power and the errors of Rome and do not know how to distinguish between what is Roman and what is Catholic.

      464.  Why are there so many differences in the teaching, forms, and ceremonies of the Church even in one diocese?  I do not think they strengthen the Church.

      There are different traditions in the Anglican Communion, and they express themselves in methods of worship.  We cannot expect those brought up in different traditions to believe or behave in precisely the same way, but we are all bound to obey the Prayer Book, and by the rule of charity to avoid irritating one another by unnecessary divergence, especially in unimportant things.

      465.  How can we present a united front when priests differ so much on what is necessary for themselves and for the laity?

      By universal observance of the rules in the Prayer Book.  What the priest thinks necessary for himself is a matter for his own conscience.  He has no right to insist that something is necessary for his people unless he can prove it by the Bible, as interpreted by the formularies of the Episcopal Church.

      466.  Define “high church” and “low church” and give arguments for and against each.

      These phrases are used with different meanings at different periods, in different countries, and by different people.  It is therefore impossible to define them strictly.  The majority of Church members are neither “high” nor “low” but are influenced by both in different proportions.  The words “Catholic,” “Evangelical,” and “Liberal” are now more commonly and more accurately used to describe different tendencies in the Church.  All of the groups described are sharply divided among themselves.  In many ways they supplement one another, and the Church could not afford to do without any of them.  There are liberal “Catholics” and liberal Evangelicals, conservative “Catholics” and conservative Evangelicals, “Catholic” Evangelicals and Evangelical “Catholics” (which have not the same meaning).  Broadly speaking, the “Catholic,” or High Churchman, emphasizes belief in the Church as a sacramental and supranational society, values all the institutions which are inherited from the ancient and medieval Church, and regards Church services as first of all an offering to God.  The Evangelical emphasizes the evangelistic side of the work of the Church and the values of the Reformation, especially Justification by Faith and reconciliation with God by the precious Blood of Christ, and tends to regard the purpose of Church services as first of all preaching and the conversion of the people.  The Liberal emphasizes the moral and intellectual elements in the Christian religion, which he tends to regard as a form of individual and political morality.  Each group has an eccentric fringe of extremists, by which it ought not to be judged.  The “high church” eccentric fringe treats the Anglican Communion as a rather odd form of Romanism; the evangelical eccentric fringe as a Puritan sect which happens to have bishops; the liberal eccentric fringe as a form of German philosophy, or a secular morality almost stripped of definite belief.

      467.  Why are priests allowed to repudiate articles of the Creed, and the Real Presence?

      They are not allowed to repudiate articles of the Creed.  They are bound to recite the Creed, and if they do so without believing it they are lying to God and man and must take the consequences.  Prosecutions for heresy are very difficult: but the faithful should refuse to attend the services held by anyone who is known to deny any part of the Creed.  The Real Presence is not a dogma, but a rather ambiguous statement of the mystery of the Eucharist.  Anglican doctrine is not rigid on this subject, but no priest ought to repudiate the language of the Prayer Book and of the Articles.

      468.  Why do college professors and textbooks give a different historical background from that of the Church?

      Professors and writers of textbooks are often uninterested in, and ignorant of, the theological bearing of historical events.  Others have been brought up in the Whig and Puritan tradition represented by Macaulay and cannot be expected to give due weight to the Catholic claims of the Anglican Communion.  Romanist textbooks take another and entirely different viewpoint, especially if the authors are Irish.  It is almost impossible to write the history of some periods without being biased or dull.

      469.  Why are Episcopalians who are not Anglo-Catholics against the High Church?

      There may be several reasons.  Many people with narrow minds dislike intensely anything to which they are not accustomed, especially in religion.  To some people, such harmless ornaments as vestments and incense, which are well inside the Anglican tradition, are associated with Romanism.  Some Anglo-Catholic priests (and lay persons) are foolish enough to use Romanist terminology, or terminology which is thought to be Romanist, to people who are not accustomed to it; to copy purely Roman practices, and in other ways to arouse unnecessary prejudice.  A more profound reason is that the Catholic religion imposes obligations which those who are accustomed to a laxer religion feel is a reproach to them.  The Catholic feels bound to go to the Eucharist on Sunday, communicate fasting, confess his sins to a priest, observe fast days, avoid sectarian worship, and obey strict marriage laws.  In these matters the Anglican who is conscious of being Catholic feels bound by his conscience as truly as the Roman Catholic is bound by the rules of his Church.  Many persons cannot bear that anyone should be more religious than they are willing to be themselves.

      470.  Why do some of the clergy in — object to the permission of traditional Catholic teaching and worship?

      “Traditional” is sometimes used for Romanist; the practices of Romanists are not always ancient.  Probably these priests oppose what is not in accordance with their own tradition.  Anglican teaching and practice ought to be strictly in accordance with the Prayer Book and with genuine Anglican tradition, neither modern Romanist nor Puritan.

      471.  Why do we need more ‘high” churches?

      As long as the Catholic religion is faithfully taught and practiced with charity toward all and the Gospel is preached to those outside, without putting stumbling blocks in their way, it matters little how much ceremonial is used.

      472.  Why do missionary churches seem more Catholic than many churches in the United States?

      They have more elaborate services (not necessarily more Catholic) because they do not have to make allowance for Puritan prejudice; and because natives of tropical countries like highly ornate services.

      473.  Which is right, the High or the Low Church concept, teaching, and practice in the Episcopal Church?

      The traditional teaching of the Anglican Communion is High Church, and goes back to Hooker, Andrewes, and Laud.  I do not think that the Anglican position can be defended on any other ground or that there is today any rival system of doctrine and worship.  The old Evangelicals had such a system, but it was destroyed, for all reasonable men, by modern biblical criticism and by the rejection by modern consciences of the unscriptural doctrine of penal substitution.  But the High Churchmen are not always right, because they sometimes tend to follow Romanist teaching and practice; to teach doctrines for which there is no evidence, and to follow customs which have no Anglican authority.

      474.  Why does the Episcopal Church have such different forms of worship?

      We are bound to use the forms of worship prescribed in the Prayer Book.  There are different traditions about how they should be used, and different types of congregations have different needs.  As long as the Prayer Book is obeyed as strictly as possible, no one has any right to complain.  There are also modern needs which were not thought of when the Prayer Book was drawn up.  If clergy and laity alike would behave with loyalty, charity, and common sense, there need be no difficulty.  We are members of one family, and we must make allowances for differences of temperament and upbringing.

      475.  Is the presence of “low” and ‘high” churches a hindrance to the Ecumenical Movement among Protestant Churches in the United States?

      The only Church in the United States which can be called Protestant is the Episcopal Church.  The others are sects and not churches (see Questions 162, 163).  If the Ecumenical Movement were in any way Pan-Protestant, we ought to have as little to do with it as possible: but it is intended to include all Christians, no matter what their relation to the Reformation may be.  It is true that the presence of “low church” traditions in the Anglican Communion is the most serious obstacle to reunion of the Anglican Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  On the other hand, the “high church” tradition in the Anglican Communion is the only point of contact that many members of the sects have with the Catholic religion.  The sons and grandsons of those who have joined the Evangelical end of the Anglican Communion have often been led to fuller Catholic belief and practice by using the Prayer Book, without thereby losing the Evangelical emphasis on personal religion and study of the Bible, of which some of the older parts of Christendom stand in need.

      476.  Why is there so much feeling about variations in Churchmanship?

      Those for whom the religion of Christ is more important than anything else naturally feel strongly about religious differences, a fact which puzzles and irritates those to whom religion means little or nothing.  If anyone is afraid that the truth (or what he supposes to be the truth) is being threatened, his fear may easily lead him to hatred and bigotry, which are contrary to every form of the religion of Christ (St. John 13:34, 35; I Cor. 13:4–7)

      477.  Does the difference between “low” and “high” Church practice hinder the progress of the Anglican Communion in the United States or throughout the world?

      To some extent it does; especially when either school of thought extends practices peculiar to itself without considering the effect on those of another school of thought.  The Anglo-Catholic cult of the Reserved Sacrament as a center of worship and the exaggerated devotion to the Blessed Virgin offend Evangelicals; the Evangelical carelessness about liturgical details, and still more their practice of intercommunion (unauthorized) with the sects, offend all High Churchmen.  None of these practices are at all necessary, or justified by Anglican tradition.  However, all schools of thought are now growing together.

      478.  Why do some Episcopalians deny that they are Catholics?

      Probably because they have never been taught that Catholic does not mean Romanist.  Every time they recite the Creed they declare that they believe in the Catholic Church: every time they join in the Prayer for All Sorts and Conditions of Men they pray for the good estate of the Catholic Church, which implies that they themselves belong to it.

      479.  What is the Broad Church Movement?  Is it influenced by theosophy?

      It is not a movement, but a temperament.  The Broad Churchman is the heir of the rationalists of the eighteenth century.  He is interested in morals and social reform, but not in doctrine or evangelism.  He tends to regard man as a mind to be persuaded, rather than as a soul to be saved, and he is anxious that the Church shall not do anything which would exclude those whose scientific training makes then unwilling to accept miracles.  He is often inclined to take a radical view of biblical criticism, to pay great attention to the latest theories from Germany, and to reject the authority of the Church, which he regards as a merely human society.  Broad Churchmen are of value as a counterweight to superstition, but they have no gospel for the poor.  Theosophy is a form of Hinduism adapted for Europe and America, admirably described by an Indian friend of mine as “Buddhism gone rancid.”  Those attracted to it are usually second-rate mystics, whereas the Broad Churchman tends to be a rationalist.

      480.  How have the variations in practice come about?

      To answer this fully would take too long.  The Tractarians and their followers a century ago sought to make their people understand the doctrine of the Church and sacraments, which they had revived after long neglect, by reforming the services of the Church.  Some of them unwisely copied Romanist practice, for they did not always face the question of the authority for what they did or understand how great a difference there is between modern Romanist customs, closely connected with the doctrinal and devotional system of the Jesuits, and the practice of the English Church just before the Reformation, to which the rubrics of the English Prayer Book refer.  Many changes are due to the ignorance and self-will of particular priests of different schools of thought; and some have been exaggerated by party prejudice.

      481.  Why are priests called “ministers” by the public?

      In England they scarcely ever are.  The probable reason is that most Americans are accustomed to the ministers of the sects; they think that the Episcopal Church is “Protestant” and that its ministers are more like those of the sects than those of the Romanists.  The Romanists encourage this belief.  Our priests are ministers and are so called in the Prayer Book, but they are also priests, as the ministers of the sects are not and do not claim to be.

Chapter Thirty – Canonization and Other Matters

      482. What is the Anglican belief about the saints?  Have we any means of canonizing new ones?

      See Questions 315–16.  The English Convocations in 1661 formally canonized King Charles the Martyr and appointed a collect, epistle, and gospel for the day of his martyrdom (January 30).  About eight churches were dedicated to his name (and others recently).  The South African Church has canonized the Martyrs of Uganda and Bernard Mzeka, who was martyred in Rhodesia.  In the United States the General Convention has the power to canonize.

      483.  Why has no one been made a saint in our Church for about four hundred years?

      See Question 482.  The Church of England is cautious, but a commission, appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, has just reported on this subject.  Other provinces, such as Scotland and South Africa, are not so cautious.

      484.  What is the procedure for canonizing saints in the Episcopal Church?

      The General Convention could do it.  However, as the Episcopal Church has no saints in its Calendar except those in the New Testament, canonization of new ones seems to be premature.

      485.  Who determines who our saints are?

      The National and Provincial Synod.  Some missionary dioceses have their own lists.

      486.  Why does not the Church build more churches and hospitals?

      It is always building churches, where there is need for them and money to pay for them.  Except for special purposes (as St. Luke’s Hospital in London, for the clergy and their families), hospitals are usually built by the State.  The Church builds hospitals in countries where the State does not provide them.

      487.  What is a good readable complete history of the Anglican Communion?

      I do not think there is such a history of all the Anglican Churches.  Dr. Moorman’s is the most recent history of the Church of England; another is by Dr. S. C. Carpenter.

      488.  Why is it hard to interest priests in unchurched groups?

      Perhaps because some priests who are not trained for evangelism and are not attracted by it find themselves fully occupied with pastoral and administrative work.  In English dioceses we have a canon missioner, who is responsible for organizing evangelistic work throughout the diocese.

      489.  Do most Anglicans face the problem raised by Father Huddleston?  Was he recalled because he embarrassed his order?

      The color problem is especially difficult in South Africa because of the policy of the South African government.  In England we have only the beginnings of it, chiefly in a few big towns.  Several black priests of various races have served in English parishes without any difficulty.  The suggestion that Fr. Huddleston embarrassed his order has been officially denied.  He has much greater freedom and publicity in England than he would have in South Africa; he draws great crowds everywhere, and nearly everybody sympathizes with him.

      490.  Why do many priests not visit their people?

      Perhaps because they are too lazy or too shy.  Some perhaps think, mistakenly, that they are following a Protestant example.  Perhaps the people do not encourage their priests to visit and do not call them when needed.

      491.  How many editions of the Prayer Book have there been?  Who decides what changes are to be made?

      The first in 1549 (Edward VI); the second in 1552 (Edward VI); the third in 1559 (Elizabeth I); the fourth in 1604 (James I); the fifth in 1661 (Charles II).  A sixth was passed by the English Convocations in 1927, but was rejected by the House of Commons.  However, it is very widely used in England and overseas.  Other Anglican Churches have their own versions of the Prayer Book.  The first American Prayer Book was issued in 1789; the second in 1892; the third and present book in 1928.  The National or Provincial Synod revises the Prayer Book when required.  In England, because the Prayer Book is part of the Act of Uniformity (1662) it can be revised only with the consent of Parliament.

      492.  What are the acknowledged typographical mistakes in the Prayer Book?

      I do not know whether there are any, and I do not think the matter has any importance.

Chapter Thirty-One – Personal Problems

      492а.  Please give some simple teaching about prayer.

      To answer such a question would require a whole book.  Prayer is the way by which we come to God, as grace is the way in which He comes to us.  We cannot pray without His grace, which comes into our hearts as the incense falls on the burning charcoal in the censer and produces prayer as the incense produces sweet-smelling smoke.  “Let my prayer be set forth in thy sight as the incense” (Ps. 141:2).

      Prayer may be vocal or silent.  Vocal prayer may be praise, thanksgiving, petition (for ourselves), or intercession (for others).  All four of these ought to find a place in all our private prayers, as in our public ones.  When we ask God for something we do not try to persuade Him, for He knows what we and our friends need better than we do.  We lay our wills alongside His, unite our desires to His Will, and, as it were, swim with the stream of His love.  We offer all our prayers “for Jesus Christ’s sake”; we are not to pray in any other way, for “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (St. John 14:6).  Silent prayer is the act of meditation; we take a subject, such as a passage of Scripture, pray over it, turn it over in our minds, try to learn what God means it to teach us, and then form some resolution upon it, which we ask God to help us to keep.  Before any vocal prayer, public or private, we ought to be quite still for a minute or so, to realize the presence of God.  It is because we neglect this simple rule that we find it often so hard to attend to our prayers.  We ought always to pray night and morning, and at night include self-examination and confession of our sins during the day.  We ought also to make a meditation every day, even if only for five minutes.  We should have a list of people for whom we pray; some daily, some weekly, some monthly.  Every fresh event in our lives, and every fresh person with whom we are in regular contact, should find a place in our prayers.  We cannot hate anyone for whom we constantly pray.

      493.  I was confirmed two years ago and I still cannot overcome my faults.

      Did you expect to?  The conquest of our faults will take our whole life, and probably more.  Take them one by one.  Set yourself, with God’s help (for by yourself you can do nothing), to resist and get rid of your worst and most besetting sin.  When you think you have conquered that (but don’t be too sure), set to work on another.  Get a skilled spiritual director and ask his advice, as you would consult a physician about pain in the body.  You may be attacking a particular fault in the wrong way.  Give the priest your confidence and do what he advises.

      494.  I tried in vain to persuade a friend to go to church.  My rector, being asked to call, bade me remember the economy of Christ.  What did he mean?

      He ought to have expressed himself more clearly, but I think he meant that our Lord chooses His own time to approach a soul.  In this case the time may not have been ripe.  Our Lord promised to make St. Peter a fisher of men.  The art of bringing souls to Him requires, like fishing, great patience.  Certainly you were not meant to cease praying for that person; perhaps you had not prayed long enough or someone else, not you or even your rector, was the chosen instrument for that purpose.  St. Peter could not have done the work of St. Paul.

      495.  What is the purpose of a retreat?

      To be alone with God for a few days, to listen to what He wishes to say to us, and for that to maintain complete silence (except of course in case of emergency, or to ask the help of the conductor of the retreat).  Each day of the retreat begins with Holy Communion, in addition to Morning and Evening Prayer.  An annual retreat of three or four days should be part of the regular life of every devout Christian.

      496.  What should be our attitude toward science?

      The truth discovered through natural science comes, as all truth comes, from God.  There can be no real contradiction between religious and scientific truth.  If they appear to us to be contrary to each other, probably we have failed to understand one or the other, or both, as has often happened before.  Everyone ought to know something about different sciences and the scientific method, for otherwise he will not be able to understand the world in which God has placed him.  The passion for objective and impartial truth, which most scientists take for granted, deserves our admiration and imitation.

      497.  What should a communicant do when he finds that he does not fully appreciate the Holy Communion?

      Continue to communicate regularly, make careful preparation and thanksgiving, make quite sure, by self-examination, that his failure to appreciate does not arise from unrepented sin or lack of love.  He might do well to make his confession to a skilled director of souls.  In any case, he must not worry about himself.  We are commanded to “do this”; we are not commanded to appreciate it.  All the masters of the spiritual life warn us that the will, and not the feelings, is what matters.  If you do not appreciate the great privilege of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, but still go on obeying His command as well as you can, you are all the more pleasing to Him.

      498.  What should one do to prepare for death?

      First, forgive with your whole heart anyone who has in any way injured you.  If you are not on speaking terms with anyone, do all you can to put an end to the quarrel.  Pay all your debts: restore anything that you have wrongfully taken from anyone or of which you have cheated anyone.  Apologize for any wrong you may have committed; if it was public, apologize publicly.  Then make your will, if you have not already made it; dispose of all your property in such a way as to cause no family quarrels and to give the least possible trouble to your heirs and executors, and bequeath a due proportion for the service of God.  Complete all obligations which are not fulfilled.  Then send for a priest, make your confession to him, and receive Holy Communion.  If you are ill, or death is expected soon, ask him to anoint you with holy oil: the chief purpose of this is your recovery, but it will also strengthen your soul for the crisis of death.  Put aside all thoughts of this world, as far as possible, and give as much time and strength as you can to prayer and spiritual reading: if the illness is prolonged, receive Holy Communion as often as you can.  If you have children or dependents, give them your blessing.  Ask all your friends to pray for you, ask your parish priest to request the congregation to pray for you, and beg some religious community that specializes in such prayers to put your name on its list.

      499.  Cannot mind reading be recognized as communion of saints in which helpful thought is exchanged?

      No.  Very little is known about “mind reading.”  If the people to whom you refer are still alive, it is much better to exchange thoughts by speech and writing.  If they are dead, both the Bible and the Church forbid any attempt to communicate with them (Ex. 22:18; Lev. 19:31; Deut. 18:10; I Sam. 28:3; II Kings 21:6).  The reason for this is that if it is possible to get into touch with spirits outside the body (which many people deny), the spirits with which we might get in touch are certainly not the spirits of the dead but devils who pretend to be spirits of the dead in order to lead us away from God and destroy our souls.  It cannot be too strongly emphasized that any attempt to get in touch with the spirits of the dead is futile, dangerous, and wicked.

      500.  What is the real power of prayer?

      The almighty power of God, Who has promised to grant our prayers, but does not always grant them in the way that we expect.

      501.  Is prayer for others a Christian responsibility?

      Of course it is (Rom. 12:12; Eph. 6:18, 19; II Thess. 3:1; James 5:16, 17).  We have been given the power and privilege of prayer: it is our duty to use it to the utmost of our power (see Question 492).

      502.  Is the Church’s claim on a man’s time, talents, etc., confined to regular worship and response to the individual needs of parishioners?

      No.  I presume that this question refers to the laity, for clearly it is not true of the clergy.  All that we have is given us by God to be used for His glory.  The layman must be guided by his own conscience.  If he has time, talents, or money, and opportunity to use them for the promotion and extension of the Kingdom of God, of which the Church is the principal instrument, it is his duty to do so.

      503.  Why is not more stress laid on the duty of godparents?

      In modern conditions, godparents cannot do much for their godchildren while the parents are alive except pray for them.  If the parents die before the children are grown up, the godparents become responsible for seeing that they are brought up in the Church.  During the lifetime of the parents, however, whether they do their duty by the children or not, the godparents can hardly interfere.

      504.  Can’t I let my children grow up and choose for themselves?

      You can, but if you do you will be grossly neglecting your duty to them and to God, Who entrusted them to your care.  You can also turn them out into the street to look after themselves and choose whether they will live or die, but if you do, no one will say a word in your defense.  The assumption behind your question seems to be that religion is a thing which one may choose or refuse, like a taste or hobby.  In reality, the glory and service of God is the purpose for which we are put into this world.  You have no more right to refuse a child the knowledge which alone will make him happy or useful in this world and the next than you have to neglect to feed or clothe him or to send him to school.  There are not a number of different religions between which we are to choose.  There is only one true religion, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which we are free to accept or reject, just as we can go on living or kill ourselves; but if we reject life, or cause anyone else to reject it, we shall have to bear the consequences.

      505.  Are not many Church members hypocrites who worship God on Sunday and please themselves the rest of the week?

      Are you one of them?  If not, what right have you to ask such a question, which shows a lack of that charity without which whatever virtue you claim is useless?  “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (St. Matthew 7:3, 5)

      506.  Why do Episcopalian congregations have to be so cold and wanting in cordiality?

      It is true that many of us have much to learn in this respect.  But, many people are reserved by temperament and do not open out easily to strangers.  Anything like “heartiness” is as hateful to some people as it is natural to others.  It is the duty of the clergy and church officers to get to know all their congregations, especially those who are young or lonely, and introduce them to suitable friends if they are needed.

      507.  What can we do to stir the souls of men in our congregations?

      This question seems to come from a priest.  Live as nearly as you can by the commandments of our Lord.  Get to know your people, visit them regularly, pray for them continually, and let them know that you do and that you really have their interests at heart.  And cultivate endless patience.

      508.  What shall I do when after Absolution I go on doing the same things?

      This is a well-known spiritual disease, for which you should consult a skilled director of souls.  Much depends on the kind of sins that you keep on doing.  There are some grave sins of the flesh, from which, if the penitent cannot free himself at first, he is advised to go to confession again every time he commits them.  You should, if possible, avoid the time, place, or persons that are most likely to lead you into temptation.

      509.  Must we repent before being forgiven?  Must we forgive those who do not repent, such as an unfaithful husband who glories in his unfaithfulness?

      We certainly must repent or we shall not be forgiven.  “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (St. Luke 13:3).  You must pray for your husband’s repentance and be ready to forgive him as soon as he begins to repent.  However, as long as he persists in adultery you ought not to live with him as his wife.  You should, after consulting an experienced priest who knows the circumstances, get a legal separation – not a divorce, for that would only set him free to treat someone else as he is treating you, and would not set you free, because the Church, by Divine command, does not recognize the right of the State to dissolve a marriage.  You married him for better or for worse, and whatever he does he is still your husband as long as you are both alive.

      510.  Are we wrong if we fail to worship God every Sunday through pressing material demands?

      God does not expect us to neglect necessary duties or to do what is impossible; but we must not make our duties an excuse unless they are really necessary.

      511.  Why are some parishes unfriendly and lacking in spiritual growth?

      Perhaps because those who think so do not pray enough for their priest and his people.

      512.  How is a Christian student to witness for Christ in his college campus?

      He should observe strictly all his religious duties, never talking about religion without necessity, but making no secret of his belief and practice.  He should do his work as diligently as he can, for that is what he is there for.  He should take his full share in the social life of the college and be as kind, friendly, and sociable as he can, without interfering with his work.  He should be especially friendly to the lonely and unpopular.  He should show his displeasure at any profane or dirty language and refuse to take part in any form of gambling or in any entertainment inconsistent with his religion.  He should be prudent in his use of alcoholic drinks, which, even in moderate quantities, weaken self-control; he will be wise to abstain entirely from anything stronger than beer or wine.  He should be particularly discreet in his relations with the other sex.  He should be most careful to pay all his bills promptly, to avoid any unnecessary expenses, and to keep a close guard over his tongue.

      513.  How should we be able to distinguish a Christian student from a non-Christian?

      Everybody who has been baptized is a Christian.  The student who practices the Christian religion should be known by his regular attendance at his religious duties, his conscientiousness in everything that he does or undertakes to do, and his kindness and good will toward all his neighbors, even if they do not treat him well.  Psalm 15 is a good guide.

      514.  How can I bring the good news to friends who are mentally disturbed or who ignore all organized religion?

      Pray for them regularly and earnestly, win their confidence, and watch for your opportunity.

      515.  What makes a prayer circle valid?  How many should there be?

      The word “valid” has no meaning here.  That is “valid” which is recognized by the community, whether Church or State; as when we speak of a valid marriage or a valid will.  What you appear to mean is, what sort of prayer circle is most effective?  I should say one in which all the members without exception are in dead earnest.  There should not be less than three members or more, perhaps, than twelve (the number of the Apostles).

      516.  How am I to seek a spiritual director?

      Consult the wisest priest you know.  If you do not know one likely to help you, write to the Society of St. John the Evangelist at Boston, Massachusetts, or to the Holy Cross Fathers at West Park, New York.

      517.  What help and advice can I get for renewed faith in sacraments?

      See Question 516.

      518.  Which need the clergy more, “outsiders” or “insiders”?

      “Outsiders,” because they do not know where to obtain grace.  “Insiders” have the Bible and the sacraments.  Some priests are more competent and have more experience in evangelistic work for “outsiders”; others, in pastoral work for “insiders.”  “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (I Cor. 12:4).

Chapter Thirty-Two – Miscellaneous Matters

      519.  How can I answer Russellites (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Seventh-day Adventists, who object to saluting the flag, inoculation, and blood transfusion?

      It is useless to argue with members of these sects, because they have not the capacity to reason.  All these practices are voluntary, so that there is no need to argue.  If you refer to parents who refuse to allow their children at school to salute the flag or benefit by inoculation or blood transfusion, they must be told firmly that these rules are made for the benefit of the great majority of the children and must be obeyed.  If they do not wish their children to observe the rules they must take them away from the school and educate them at their own expense.

      520.  How can I help to restore the faith of students who have lost it through Communist infiltration?

      This is altogether outside my experience.  I think you should win their confidence, avoid argument with them, but pray constantly for them.  Make yourself familiar with the Communist case and the answer to it, and know the Christian religion as thoroughly as you can, for they probably don’t know much about it.  Don’t be drawn into an argument, but be ready to show that what they have been told about the Christian religion is not true.

      521.  Does any sincere Anglican or Romanist continue in sin that grace may abound?

      I should not think so; I can only say with St. Paul, God forbid (Rom. 6:2).

      522.  What is vicarious suffering of the Church for individual Christians, non-Christians, or lapsed Christians?

      There is no such thing.  Our Saviour made, by His one oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world (see Article 31, first sentence).  However, we are all members one of another; when one member suffers all suffer with him.

      523.  How can a lay person who has gifts of physical or psychical healing best function in the Body of Christ?

      Consult the Guild of St. Raphael.  He should do nothing without the approval of the diocesan bishop.

      524.  What is the relation of reason to revelation?

      This is an immense question which can only be touched on here.  Revelation is the way in which God has given us knowledge of Himself and of His plan for us.  Reason also is given us by God; it is the way in which knowledge in general is reached by our minds.  By reason we are enabled to understand the meaning of revelation; by revelation our reason is enlightened with the knowledge of God.  Since both come from God, they cannot be contrary to each other.  They may appear for a time to contradict each other, but if we wait patiently we shall sooner or later find that we have misunderstood one or the other, or both.  The greatest Christian thinkers have always spoken highly of the Divine gift of reason; to attack or despise it is a sure sign of pride, folly, and false thinking.

      525.  Why do so few vestrymen make use of business or professional experience to promote the Church’s mission?

      I can only say that I do not think the suggestion is true.

      526.  What is the difference between Christian propaganda, such as that issued by the Episcopal Book Club, and “brain washing”?

      Presumably the inquirer has not been “brain-washed,” any more than I have, and therefore we are not in a position to know.  No one is “brain-washed” voluntarily; it is a form of compulsory propaganda imposed by the Communists.  Christian propaganda is never, or should not be, forced on any grown-up person.  (Children have to be taught religion, like any other subject, by compulsion; for they have not the experience to learn for themselves what they ought to know, and until their reason is fully developed they must learn to obey lawful authority.)  The arguments for the Christian religion are addressed to the reason, and hearers are encouraged, if capable of judging, to read the other side.  On the other hand, the Communist method, if I am not mistaken, is to repeat constantly the same jargon until the hearers, who are forbidden to hear the other side, are hypnotized into believing it to be true.  Christianity has been accepted by many nations of their own free will.  Communism has never been accepted by any nation except under armed compulsion.  Marxian communism is a religion of class hatred: Christianity is a religion of universal love.  The gospel of Karl Marx is false; the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true.

Previous Section    Home