The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-06-27 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OP VIE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sin,—lf your correspondent of the 13th, "A Churchman
of Liverpool," was sincere in the profession of hia anxiety
to ascertain the mind of the Church of England with
regard to the celebration of Holy Communion, he will feel
obliged to your correspondent of last Tuesday,.Mr. Pughe,
for so concisely and aptly instructing hint in the better
interpretation of her rubrics, and correcting the dangerous
misapprehension into which lie had fallen.
Assuming him, therefore, to be a clergyman, as I should
from the pronoun he uses, though the assumption is very
difficult, from the unfortunate ignorance which the whole
letter displays, I expect he is already preparing his
people for the adoption of Weekly Communion. Though
I must confess that this extraordinary solicitude makes
me very much doubt the sincerity of his intentions, for
supposing him to be one of those who are identified with
current laxity, I cannot conceal my abhorrence of the
hypocrisylwhich can go on, year after year, setting at
nought the plainest commands of the Church, and yet
venture to make a profession of the principle of obedience
when it appeared to be safe, and to put an opponent at a
disadvantage.
The "Churchman" will now perceive that he was
making the Church's provision for an exceptional case,
which the spirit of her whole offices condemns, and which
is imposed upon her, by the laxity of her people, to be the
rule of service which she herself propounds. As she has
made the celebration of Communion dependant upon the
people, of course she cannot help assuming a possibility
that sometimes there will be "no communion," simply
because there may not be " three to communicate ;" and
Mr. Wray's remark that a monthly celebration " is a
disgraceful abridgment of the Church's office," is a re-
proach not on the Church, but on the people, and on the
priest who fails to teach the people the necessity of a more
frequent celebration. The Church provides her dressed
altar, her communion service with its Epistle and Gospel,
and orders the priest to return from the pulpit to the holy
table ; and when she directs that such and such prayers
only shall be said " if there be no communion," the words
might be altered, " if there be not three to communicate
with the priest." But when the priest, three Sundays
out of four, assumes that worship is over at the end of the
Nicene Creed, changes his garment, and forgetting that
the sermon is a mere interjection in the communion ser-
vice, at its conclusion dismisses the people with the bless-
ing, are we to be told that he is not contravening the
intention of the Church, and disgracefully abridging her
office ? Most assuredly not. And I beg to repeat to the
" Churchman," with a personal application to himself, if lie
be a clergyman, Mr. Wray's emphatic and most true
denunciation. I protest that his practice is a disgraceful
abridgment of the Charch's dice, awl a reproach to his

Christianity. The simple fact, then, is this—the Church
positively provides for the celebration of Holy Communion
every time that she has appointed an epistle and gospel—
assumint-, that it may even be more frequent, as may be
inferred from her directing special "prefaces" in the Sa-
cramental Service to be used seven clays after the appro-
priate festival. On these days, it is the part of the Priest
to return to the Holy Table after the sermon, and remain
there to the conclusion of the Church Militant Prayer, to
see if there be three persons to communicate with him.
If there be not three, of course there is to be no com-
munion. Now, if Mr. Wray had stigmatised as " dis-
graceful the Rubric, which forbids Communion, unless
there be three to communicate, the " Churchman's"
arguments might have had some point, but to the question
at issue they have no relevance whatever ; and the remark
of Mr. Wray, who is a very unlikely person to speak on so
serious a subject without due thought, retains all its force
and application.

Still ssuming that your correspondent is a clergyman,
there are some incidental remarks in his letter well worthy
of notice, but which are difficult to be noticed in a news-
paper. For instance, his profane attempt to lead the less
instructed and the ill-affected to disparage Christ's Holy
Ordinance, by going out of his way to remark that only
one Apostle alludes to it—a remark which discloses not
only this most dangerous spirit of profanity, but the most
superficial conceptions about Scripture—thus, as it were,
speaking with reverence, playing off Christ's servants
against Christ Himself, will not fail to draw down the utter
reprobation of most sober-minded Christians, and forcibly
reminds me of the words which fell some years ago from
the lips of a popular clergyman in this town, in his pulpit,
when, comparing together the office of preaching and that
of administering the Sacraments, he referred to the latter,
with a flirt of his finger, as " very good things in their
way." I could well imagine an identity between that
preacher and this writer.
Finally, some of your readers will have been amazed to
hear that the " Churchman's" Protestantism consists in
condemning the phraseology which from the very begin-
ning of the Church, everywhere, and on all occasions, as
well as in our own branch of it ever since the Reforma-
tion, has been the common, proverbial use of Christianity.
Who is this "Churchman" that has found out so new a
religion, as that so old a word as " offering," applied to the
Holy Communion, is to it new and repugnant ? Is it the
grossest ignorance, or the worst dissimulation that has
caused him to hold up Mr. Wray to opprobrium, as the
introducer of a new phraseology, in his use of the very
word of which no other than the universally esteemed and
evangelical Bishop Beveridge says, that it was used "from
the very infancy of the Church ;" as in the same sense he
says," that the mystical table was, from the very time of
the Apostles, called thusiasterion, or altar," and that " this
great mystery can be expressed by no other word more
fitly and fully than by " thtisia," " prosphora," that is,
" offering." Yes, sir, it is the use of this word, which has
been as proverbial in the Church at all times as the word
Communion or Eucharist; which is used as a decree of one
of the• first four General Councils, the test of heresy in the
Churchof England; which is constantly employed by every
respected divine in our Church since the Reformation ; it
is in Mr, Wray's use of this word that a " Chu min'
wishes to discover some dark design against Protestantism
and in farour of Popish doctrine- It is very evident that
this writer's Protestantism is not that of the Protestant
reformers, and it discloses very plainly of what sort is the
" self-opinionativeness" of the " would-be reformers" and
prayer-book bracketers of the 19th, century.—Your obe-
dient servant,. A LAYMAN.
June 25, 1854.
P.S.—I append an extract from Wheatley, if you have space
for it. "The minister in obedience to the Church's order goes
up to the Lord's'l'able, and then begins the service appointed
for:the Communion; and goes on as far as he can till he comes
to the actual celebration of it ; and if he stops there, it is
only because there are none, or not a sufficient number of
persons to communicate with him ; for if there were, lie is
ready to consecrate, and administer it to them ; and therefore
if there be no communion on any Sunday or Holy Day in the
year, the people only are to be blamed. The Church bath
done her part in ordering it, and the minister his in observing
it ; and if the people would do theirs too, the Holy Com-
munion would be constantly celebrated in every parish
Church in England on every Sunday and Holy Day through-
out the year. But though this may hold in some places, yet,
I cannot say it will in all, especially in populous towns and
cities; where my charity obliges me to believe,• that if the
ministers would but melte the experiment they would find
that they should never want a sufficient number of communi-
cants, whenever they themselves should be ready to adminis-
ter the sacrament. And even in other places-it were to be
wished that the elements•were placed ready upon the Table
all Sunday and holy-days, for then the people oonld not help
being put in mind of what the Church looks upon as their
duty at those times; and I persuade myself, that the
minister would generally itild a number sufficient ready to
communicate with him."—Wheatley's Rational Illustration
e the Book of Common Prayer.

PROPOSED FREE CHURCH.

TOTH E RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER.

Latex I.

.• . . "A free church intended for the town. of Liverpool,
where they are to have prayers every day. They do not say
there is to be a sermon every day, but prayers every day ;
and no pews in it—all open—first come, first served. If a
poor man goes in there, he hoses good a place as my lady."
—Rev. H. D.D., June 13, 1854.

Mt LORD,—If the multiplicity of your.' lordship's
engagements allowed of your glancing through the
columns of provincial prints, you could not have failed to
have drawn useful inferences from some recent expressions
of :that public opinion, in deference to which. your lordship
felt constrained to withhold your consent from the above
project. Your lordship woukl have learnt the nature of
that respect for the Prayer book which clergymen of a
carton:, class think it decent to parade-before the public in
a-newspaper, and what amount of anti-churchmanship can,
in, the present stage of religious progress, venture to
exhibit itself under the mask, of " Churchmen." I am
not desirous of over-estimating the hasty comments of
newspaper correspondents-;.but I presume they may be
taken to represent the class-in consideration of whose pre-
judices daily Prayer and weekly Communion have been
treated as of minor importance, and this under the
assumption that they are the. persons who pay for the
Church, and have consequently a right to criticise the
quality of the article it provides.. Besides, if the govern-
ment of the Church is really to be given up into their
hands, it is fitting we should know what is to be the
character of our new masters. It must,.too, occasion your
lordship some concern. that 'every semi-schismatic now
places himself beneath yourlordship's.wing, and arrogates.
your sanction for every private interpretation where
rubrics are less rigid, and every " Protestant" comment
where rubrics are too plain.
As an introduction, then, to one two letters which.'
am about to presume' e
to address to your lordship, I shall ,
make no apology for introducing to your notice some of
these intimations of current feeling.
The first who took, encouragement from the announce- -
meat of your lordship's veto on. this project is a clergy—
man, the scene of whose ministrations is not very distant
from the site chosen.for the proposed Church. Thisgen-
tleman assumes that he possesses the fee-simple of, the
surrounding neighbourhood, and appears to entertain the
most lively sense- of the courtesies of conventional religion.
He has already stated before the world that there are
28,000 souls in this. neighbourhood " without the means
of grace ;" but he questions the politeness of the pro-
moters of this scheme in not previously ascertaining the
exact measure-in. which he himself is willing to dispense
these " means," before them presume to supply the full
provision of the, Church. The desire for more frequent
public worship. and. Eucharists he treats as an artificia
taste, not by any means to be fostered as connected with
a manifestation of spiritual life and devotion ;:• and.he tells
us with as much naivete as though the subject were the
propagation. of a new edible, or the importation of a foreign.
fashion, that he has not yet heard of any of these 28,000.
"pining" for•weekly Communion or daily prayers ! Now.,
it is clearthisgentleman does not mean that the tastes of the
people are to be consulted before we attempt to provide for-
them religiouspriviieges, or else, when he solicits aid towards,
his ownohurchbuilding projects, he might be answeredthat
there is no need for eburches,because the.people are cont ent
with the. concert-room and the gin-palace. What he
means is, that the things in question are of too srackil im-
portance to need pressing upon the people, or that they
should be instructed to value them. Accordingly, uhen
some one speaks of them as connecting _themselves with our
"views of the religion of the Church of England," hemani-
fests the most unaffected amazemenk and tells us,lie thought
the question was about nothing but "forma.!" And it is
thus that his words may be paraphrased. " They are all
very well in their way ; if you happen to have, an eccen-
tricity in this direction, by all means gratify it.. We don't
object, as another writer puts it,.to weekly, or, fortnightly,
or even daily Communion, if you like it, but then why
make such a pother about it. In the name of common
politeness, don't come and disturb the decent tenor of our
old-fashioned way. If my people are happily free from
this morbid appetite, don't come out of your sphere to
make them grumble at their homely fare. Hammer away
at your own end of the town as long as you like, and I
wish you joy of the success of your ministrations."* A
very little change, and all this would be profanity. The
apostles of our Lord, the early Christians, the Church
everywhere and in all ages, have practised daily services
and sacraments. Is all this, then, the expression of the
same " views of religion," which animated the first pro-
fessors of the faith ? Heu pietas, heu prisca fides ! a
claim to that character of respect and moderation which
usually attends a resistance to innovation, is put forward
by the opponents of the essential and universal practices
of Christianity, and we, Who would restore them, are held
up to opprobrium as intruders and disturbers of the
Church's peace.
I contend, my Lord, that it is not necessary, in order to
justify this undertaking, to assume that there are
_o
multi-
tudes of people " pining" for a larger measure of
d religious
privileges, but simply that they need them,
Church intended that they should have them:
I now most solemnly declare, and avow my
rotestations,
prove in spite of the affectedly indignant p
inihn.Angud what
ess to
and even the good intentions of
that clergymen are not fulfilling Liverpoolust
so clerics,
long i
s,
to this, mark the they are withheld. In
.an we their tr
if they found their congre-
gations one time they tell us, that
and weekly Communion,
incon-
sistency of the pleas which these gentlemen put ilirward4
to provide them. Th •
they would be most anxious _ en.
gations wishful for daily prayers
new ardour of their liberality, y
hearts would be rejoiced at the spectacle of the daily con-
gregation ; yea, in the
might suppose they would
.scarcely grudge the seven -u
ser-
vices of the Church Catholic. Now one would infer from
this, that these gentlemen lament the prevalent decay of
devotion, and pined " for its revival. But no such
thing. The very next moment we find them alleging the
peculiar nature of business necessities in the nineteenth
century as a sufficient reason that these practices should
fall into abeyance. Can anything, then, exceed the disin-
genuity of the original plea ? To their congregations
they say, "We know that the peculiar engagements
which surround you in the present state of society,
necessitate a re-distribution of your time between God
and Mammon. You cannot be expected to give up
the morning half-hour of the tossing sluggard, nor
the evening half-hour of the after-dinner lounger ;
we know that, jaded with the cares of the week,
neither can you be called upon to deny to relaxation the
extra half-hour which the weekly Eucharist would add to
your Sunday morning devotions. We are willing to admit

* See the Rev. Mr. Hampton's letters in the Liverpool
Standard of the 30th May and the 13th June.
filit:See report of the meeting of the " Workins Men's Church
Asiociation," 0.13 Tueisday, 13th June.

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1854.

that the observance of the ancient practices of universid
religion is in the present day impracticable ; and therefore.
don't make yourselves uneasy, as if your present course of
religious life were inadequate, or a higher system of deco'
tion were in your circumstances propounded for attain-
ment." Then they turn round to us and say, " Oar
congregations do not wish for daily prayers and weekly
Communion, or how delighted should we be to afford them!,
What ! do you pretend to be dissatisfied with the preyem
laxity, when you live in it as though it were the recog-
nised service of the Church, and the fitting measure d
public devotion ? Your lordship might, indeed, ask this/
put then you must recollect that these are the inconsis-
tencies into which clergymen are betrayed, who have
secret distaste to these things, yet half hesitate to cos'
demo them, having a suspicion of the great array of
precedent, the mighty weight of the most venerable
example, the scriptural and apostolic sanction and pre-
scription confronting their path. They yet feel the pressure
of their obligations to the Church of England, and have so
aching sense of the tie which still binds them to catholic
Christianity.

Yet sometimes the most prudent of them unwarily for-
gets his official character, and gives utterance to his
independent convictions, with dangerous candour. At the
same Church meeting, from the report of which I have
culled the above sentiments, one of them ventures to ask,
as if he were anticipating an universal profession of amaze•
ment at so outrageous a proposal, if any of the Churchmen
present really "wish to have daily prayers without a
sermon ?" He asks these people, my lord, whose own
want of taste for daily prayers was just before treated as a
topic of regret, or at least as the chief obstacle to their
being provided, if they are really so eccentric, perhaps he
means so " unevangelical," as to possess this taste !
It is not my business at present to note the melancholy
mis-estimate of public worship and Church communion
which such an enunciation as this discloses ; but I wish
your lordship to take note of its marvellous candour, and
I would venture to ask you, whether this is the type Of
those ministers of the Church to whose " fidelity' your
lordship remits us, as willing to afford the Church's privi-
leges, if we are willing to pay for them ? On the contrary,
my lord, I think every sound Churchman must be con-
strained to gather from the circumstance that a clergy-
man of intelligence and character can address a public
assembly of Churchmen in such language as this, the most
significant proof of the need in which the public stand, of
that faithful exhibition of the system of the Prayer-book
which the present undertaking offers to provide. Every
time these opponents put pen to paper, or open their lips
on a platform, in denunciation of our scheme, they are
establishing its necessity, and proving our case. But what
will your lordship think of the subtlety which bids us ask
the very people who are subjected to this teaching, whe-
ther they are " pining" for daily prayers ? Nay, why
should we make this provision depend on the expressed
wishes ofthe people, when their teachers discourage the
expression, and themselves require instruction in the
plainest dictates of the Church.
Accordingly; the appropriate result of this teaching we
have in the sentiments of another "ter in the public
prints, who is, of course, like the rest, a Churchman,
and, doubtless,. equally " an admirer of our incomparable
liturgy," and who protests, with the utmost artlessness,
that, for his part, he is quite content with.the two services
on Sunday and those for Good Friday and' Christmas Day,
and asks, with the most innocent surprise; what we can
possibly want more ? The genteel moderation of this per-
son's devotional ardour must win the unqualified appro-
bation of those of the clergy who have done so much to
justify it, as its exquisite candour must provoke our ad-
miration ; but we can scarcely be called upon. to make
these manifestations of popular " views and tastes" the
measure of our adherence to the despised system of the.
Prayer-book.
_ _

lint I must not close without recalling one other ex
pression of this supreme popular opinion, which conveys
as much significance as its predecessors. Another
" Churchman," still as " true," and still as strongly
admiring " our incomparable liturgy," proposes-an address
of thanks to your lordship, for attempting to suppress the
"remnants of Popery in. the Prayer-book," and rejoices
that the principle of unmutilated observance of its pre-
scriptions has received a discouragement at your lordship s
hands,. as anticipatory of that time when the unrepressed
tide of revolution shall, sweep these remnants from the
Church. Your lordship is not very likely to court the
encumbrance of such kindness as this, and I should be'
the last to admit the justice of the compliment ; but I
would.have your lordship made acquainted with, the
terpretation which friends think it friendly to put upon
your conduct, and what favourable promise they affect to
gather from your designs. It is also profitable to discern
the real character of a contest waged between theory and
practice in matters of religion, and that such a struggle
must soon end in reform. or revolution. Now which the
issue-in this case may be, God only knows; but this we
know' that every exertion of authority, which checks the
first,. will, if the latter-finally triumph, be involved in its
guilt,_ and be responsible for the extremities to which it
may proceed.
For the present, then, my lord, my intention is so far
fulfilled. I have presented your lordship with the recent
confessions of that vex populi whose veto controls the
decisions of bishops, and interrupts the course of law. And
we arrive at this conclusion, that the secret of opposition
to undertakings like the present, are a distaste for the
i
ancient practices of Christianity and the Church ofEug
Eng-
land.; a mis-estimate of the system of Publicnt ai n and
worship,
which the Church was set up in the worldtoimetuaai
perpetuate ; and, a latent wish that the particulars
th
repug-
nant to modern laxity should be eradicated from e
Prayer-book, as the dregs left behind by a reformation
:s
which consigned the completion of its task to a more in-
dependent and unshackled age.—l beg to remain, your
lordship's most obedient and faithful servant,
June 17, 1854. ViNCENTIUB.