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

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—
assuming 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 days 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 assuming 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 " thusia," " 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 glanin'
wishes to discover some dark design against Protestantism
and in favour 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 18th 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 Table, 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, he 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 make the experiment they would find
that they should never want a sufficient number of communi-
cants, whenever they themselves should be reatiy 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 could 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 find a number sufficient ready to
communicate with him."—Whcatley's Rational Illustration
of the Book of Common Prayer.

PROPOSED FREE CHURCH.

TO THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER.

LETTER 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, be has as good a place as my lady."
—Rev. H. 311 Neile, D.D., June 13, 1854.

MY Lone,—lf 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 would have learnt the nature of
that respect for the Prayer. book which clergymen of a
certain 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 your lordship's wing, and arrogate&
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 or two letters which I
am about to presume 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-
ment 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. This gen-
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 they 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 clear this gentleman does not mean that the tastes of the
people are to be consulted before we attempt to provide for
them religious privileges, or else, when he solicits aid towards
his own church building projects, he might be answered that
there is no need for churches,because the people are content
with the concert-room and the gin-palace. What he
means is, that the things in question are of too small im-
portance to need pressing upon the people, or that they
should be instructed to value them. Accordingly, when
some one speaks of them as connecting themselves with our
"views of the religion of the Church of England," he mani-
fests the most unaffected amazement, and tells us,he thought
the question was about nothing but "forms !" 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 ? eu 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 multi-
of tudes of people " pining" for a larger measure r
d that the
privileges, but simply that they need them,
gness to
I now most solemnly declare, and avow my
Church intended that they should have then,i;illinan
enant potesations,
prove in spite of the affectedly n_ And what
g their trust so long as
that clergymen are not fulfilling and even the good intentions
,ifii I clerics, is,
they are withheld. In answerr
these gentlemen put forward. j'
sistency of the pleas whichToiatdihtisi,vemark the ineon.
weekly Comm •
' hful for daily prayers and
.union,
congre-
gations wishful
anxious to provide them. Their
At one time they tell us, that if they found their
they would be most _
rejoiced at the spectacle of the daily con-
the new ardour of their liberality
would scarcely
. grudge the seven ser-
vices you
hgreeagartstine,nou;ldyebae,
in
Catholic. Now one would infer from
ttohfsautthptPe:hseenth,regeehyntlemen lament the prevalent decay of
m this, g h
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.
t:S e e report of the meeting of the "Working den's Church
Association," Qll TQetiday, 13th Awe.