The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-07-04 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, AND GENERAL 001411VIERCIAL ADVERTISER.

PREACHING

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
. . . . And we arrive at this conclusion—that the
secret of opposition to undertakings like the present are a
distaste for the ancient practices of Christianity and the
Church of England ,• a mis-estimate of the system of public
worship, which the Church was set up in the world to main-
tain and perpetuate," &c.—Letter to the Lord Bishop of the
Diocese, Liverpool Standard, June 27, 1854.

Slag,—Being a contributor towards the fund for erecting
additional churches, in which " the pure Word of God
may be preached, and the Sacraments duly ministered,
according to Christ's ordinance," and having for some
time regarded hearing the Word as an important part of
Divine worship, not only as practised by the early Church,
but also as exhibited and inculcated by our "Alma Mater,"
when, throwing off the gorgeous but heavy drapery of.
Rome, she stepped forth robed once more in the surpassing
loveliness of her primitive simplicity, I should be greatly
obliged if your very earnest and gifted correspondent " Via-
ceutius" would let me know at what period preaching the
Word ceased to be a link in " the system of public worship
which the Church was set up in the world to maintain
and perpetuate." J. S.

matters

I defiant, and Christians

m to whom this
now to whom it

if the principle was powerful enout,
a dictate then, even at the risk of incurring
sing danger, so now, at the risk of provoking
sition and kindling strife. I say, my Lord, if a
frequency of public worship was then held to be
so much of the essence of Christianity, that if it were not
so, the early Christians threw themselves into needless
frequency of danger, it is so much of the essence of
Christianity, that at no time in its history can that fre-
quency be on any plea discouraged. "We may call this"
(public prayer), says Dean Comber, speaking of daily ser-
vice, " the life and soul of religion, the anima mundi, that
universal soul which quickens, unites, and moves the
whole Christian world. Nor is the case of a private man
more desperate, when he breathes no more in secret
prayer, than the condition of a church where public devo-
tions cease. St. Hierome, out of Hippolytus, puts the
cessation of liturgy (that is of the Holy Eucharist) as a
principal sign of the coming of Anti-Christ, and nothing
more clearly shows a profane generation ; the very title of
wicked men in Scripture being, that they call not upon God !
It is well if any of yus can excuse ourselves, but the
general neglect of daily prayers by,ministers (who are
both desirous and bound to perform them) cloth too
sadly testify they are tired out with the people's con-
stant absence, and altogether witnesseth a decay of true
piety." Now, my lord, he is no lover of novelty and
change that wrote these words, but, as you know, a sober-
minded and much-respected old English divine, who is
lamenting the desuetude of a Christian practice, and vin-
dicating the necessity of the practice itself, in opposition,
not to a Bishop, but to the godlessness of a dissolute age;
which he bids, rather than object to the Church's daily
service, to challenge all nations and peoples for fools, and
declare it unreasonable that we should have any God at
all. While to his brethren of the clergy he says, that

is -Obnoxious

mark,.

"It was a great end to God's instituting the priest's
office, and a principal motive to our pious ancestors in
their liberal provisions for it, that there might be an
order of men, on purpose to pray daily for all mankind,
especially for such as could not daily attend Divine
Service; so that, if we neglect this daily sacrifice, we
neither answer the design of God nor of our bene-
factors." My Lord, never was public worship more in-
frequent and less accounted of, than at this day and in
this town, and yet this infrequency " witnesseth the de-
cay of true piety." Does not your lordship, then, as the
chief guardian of religion, rejoice at any signs of the
revival of this frequency ? In the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, the charges and addresses of bishops
are full of very strong exhortations to this frequency, and
' very grievous laments where it had become obsolete ; and
I cannot conceive it possible that au occasional demand to
be allowed to provide it, and that at our own trouble and I
expense, can in this day be dismissed with this for an an-
swer,
that the common run of people are not desirous of it,
or that if they were willing to pay for it they might
have it. My lord, we are willing to pay for it,
and you say that we shall not have it. Nay, because
certain popular clergymen cannot possibly divide
their time between the platform and the oratory,
between controversy and the public offices of religion,.
your lordship would have us by some process to gather
that there is a reason why we should not be suffered to
maintain an order of praying ministers, whose special
office, as these simple old English divines thought it was
the special office of all priests—whose special office it shall
be "to wait on this very thing," lest, I suppose, those;
whom, I grieveto say, the general opponents of the Church
find occasion to call " the talking parsons," should be put
out of countenance, and provoked to similar pious works.
Your lordship does not wish to encourage this desire.
You do not commend- it, but you seem as if you thought
it a strong point, and, looking on our position as a whole,
treat it as if it were to be got over as well as possible.
Let me ask, have we faith in God's ordinances ? Faith,
we know, is that principle, which, rejecting the paltry
sanction of popular appearances, rising above the enervat-
ing influence of custom, and piercing through the unbelief
of common practice, realizes to itself that unfailing
truth, which, for the eye of faith alone, bears on its
front the stamp of the divine permanence, which
belongs to Him from whom it emanates; and is endowed
with attributes which neither the lapse of time nor the
customs of men can influence or change.. Can anything,
then, show a more helpless want of faith than this indif-
ference to the question of an increased application to the
public offices of religion ? By what can we judge of the
necessity of a more frequent provision of the opportunities
of Church Communion than by the practice of the
apostles, and of the whole Christian world in and after their
time? And when we speak of the necessity of greater fre-
quency of that which is- our drawing nigh to Heaven, which
is the "Communication" of Christ to man, we speak of what
is necessary to spiritual life, to the progress of God's king-
dom, to the building up of the Body of Christ: I can, there-
fore, scarcely believe that, uninspired by the vast dignity
of this question, your lordship has dismissed it as of no
importance, weighed against what is called the peace of
the Church, and the maintenance of "moderation." and
forbearance." Let us suppose that this custom of
Christianity had been regularly maintained amongst us,
what would have been the apprehension with which it
had been witnessed beginning to decay ? With what sad
forebodings should we have beheld the gradually closing
doors of churches, and the more frequent bareness of
altars. How, with Bishop Beveridge, should we have
called on all nations and. religions to rise up in judgment
with this generation —" Papists,. Jews, Turks, heathens,"
and condemn it, for that "from the universal reason of all
mankind,
true or false, they daily perform some public worship to
Him." How should we have publicly warned Christians of
the judgments impending over a nation who were stifling
that voice, of which it was said that " Jacob's voice in the
synagogue kept off Esau's hands from the people." Yet
now the general " zeal and fidelity" of the clergy are ac-
tually pleaded as an excuse for the abeyance of this heavenly
practice, which seems to me like bargaining with God'
for how much of His service we shall perform,
a compromise, to which we have not the slightest autho-
rity to make Him a party. In order that the wholly
modern sympathies of that " decent" religionism which
boldly casts its weekly public- worship and monthly
Eucharist into the face of Heaven, as all that God can.
require at our hands, should not receive a shock from any
display of a higher character of devotion, or from the
more prominent introduction of the features of Catholicity,
the universal law of Christendom, nay, the dictate of com-
mon reason, are publicly set at nought. The priest is
forbidden to raise his voice in the sanctuary daily, because
it is feared that he may do it looking towards the north
instead of the west, or should. think a tone of special devo-
tion more fitting than that which he looks upon as the
vehicle of common conversation. He is forbidden to cele-
brate the Commemoration of our Lord's Death and Pas-
sion with prominent frequency, lest his sense of the
Divine nature of the act should become so elevated as to
induce him to kneel once too often, or to raise his suppli-
cating hands an inch too high, or to move about the Holy
Board with a mien one hair's breadth too far removed
from the gestures of his dinner-table. Churches are
constantly receiving episcopal approval, where not even
accommodation for kneeling is provided ; that is—l speak
it with the gravest deliberation, whose services shall be
weekly perpetrations of irreverence ; yet, because its wor-
shippers may chance to be over-reverent, this church may
not be erected. No, for if the priest is too humble in his
testimonies of devotion, he may be leading his people into
the meshes of an abject superstition—if he does not
preach the prayers with his face to the congregation, our
" Protestant religio-e and liberties are in danger l" If he
is allowed to consult the Chnrch herself in the details of
her worship, rather than the presumption and the fanati-
cism of popular ignorance, what will become of " our
Protestant independence ?"
These are feelings and prejudices which I am aware
your lordship sets at their true intrinsic value, but what
Churchmen have to complain of is, that for the sake of
propitiating them the ancient principles of Christianity-
are utterly disregarded, and the very consideration of them
forestalled, and treated as out of the question. Our offer to
repair the neglect of an age, which so far gives sign of
" the decadence of true piety," is slighted as at best a
harmless but unseasonable effort, which, for collateral
reasons, must be crushed; our desire for a greater fre-
quency of the public services and Sacraments of God dis-
cussed as an amiable weakness, which it would be against
good manners to indulge; and we are expected to bandy
about from reason to caprice, from religion to fashion, just
as it may be, an apostolic and christian rule, concerned
with nothing less than the prescription of when and how
we shall worship God and seek communion with the great
Head of the Church, through the ordinances of grace.
Yes, daily prayers have no harm in them—even weekly
Communion may be a good thing, and the full adminis-
tration of the Church's pastoral system might be of
advantage to spread Christianity through the masses
of the people. But, then, would you damp the con-
fidence of controversial pulpits, and the Orange frenzy of an
amphi-theatrical audience? Would you cast censure upon
those who are accustomed to include one-half the Church
of England system in their denunciations of Popery, and
are " jealous with such a godly jealousy,"* that they would
rather the ordinances of Christianity themselves should
fall into dis-esteem, than that Puritanism should lose a
convert ; who, if they were expected to obey her, would
cease to call the Church " beloved," and if more than half
of it were enjoined would no more speak of "our incom-
parable liturgy ?" Well, the friendship of these men may
be much, but the ordinances of Christ, the privileges of
christian worship, the favour of God which must undoubt-
edly attend all efforts to restore the better profession of
His truth, are more, and I cannot :•ettilerieve at the
choice which your lordship has been p to make on
this occasion.—l beg to remain your lordship's most obe-
dient and faithful servant,
June 29, 1854,

VINCENTIVO.

* A promoter of this Church having hinted that a higher
estimate of Christian Sacraments involves distinctive notions
of religion, a clergyman publicly stated himself to be affected
"with a godly jealousy," lest a crusade was intended against
his people's religious views.

AMUSING SCENE AT THE OXFORD COMMEMORATION.—
The Times' reporter, in describing the recent commemo-
ration at Oxford, says :—" A difficulty was experienced by
the Vice-Chancellor in obtaining a hearing, owing to
a somewhat ludicrous circumstance. The chair of the
Regius Professor of Medicine is situated in the ladies'
circle, and it so happened that two or three ladies who
could not obtain seats were standing near the Professor,
who occupied the throne of right belonging to him. 'Un-
dergraduate notions of gallantry received a shock from
this juxtaposition, and efforts were made from time to
time with most amusing vigour and pertinacity to convey
to the Professor the impression which his apparent insen-
sibility to beauty in distress produced upon the more
juvenile of the auditory. Whether owing to the deafness
under which we understand the learned Professor to
labour, or owing to a conscientious objection to relinquish-
ing his academic right, all the efforts made for about two
hours failed to move him. At last, while the English
essay was being recited, he gave up his chair, and was re-
warded for the act of self-renunciation by thunders of
applause, sufficiently indicating the real good nature that
lay at the root of what at one time almost seemed to be
becoming an unpleasant personal attack."
OPEN-AIR PREACHING.—The Rev. W. Wilkinson,
incumbent of St. Mary's, Sheffield, has commenced open-
air preaching on Sunday afternoons. He does not re-
strict his street-preaching to any one locality, but holds
a service in any part of his district where he can obtain
the ear of the largest number of those within his pas-
toral charge who are not in the practice of attending any
place of worship.—Sheffieki Times,

DR. INENEILE AND THE "TRACTARIANS

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
Six,—There were remarks and statements made at the
meeting of "the Working Men's Church Association,"
held in St. James's School-room, on the 13th of last
month, which seem to me to call for observation or repl,
and as no one more able has hitherto come fc.
perhaps you will find room in your next for a few woras
from myself.

The first speaker was Dr. M`Neile. Very much of what
he said, (as reported in the Mercury of June 16,) is fairly
open to criticism; as, e.g., that the fact of the Association
numbering 2,000 subscribers is a proof of success on the
part of the Liverpool clergy, and that religion is prosper.
ing in their hands ; that scriptural principles and Protes-
tant principles mean one and the same thing ; &c. As
these are statements which have been over and over again
refuted, I may pass them without further observation.
They may do to mislead many honest but unlearned men,
such as Dr. M`Neile was addressing ; but I marvel that
an educated man like himself was not ashamed to employ
them. Against his assertion of the insufficiency of "a
simple scriptural statement....... in a country like this,"
I have nothing to say, as I never thought the Scriptures
alone sufficient either in this or any other country; but
his evangelical brethren would, I should imagine, have a
good deal to say against it, if they are consistent with
themselves. I recollect a question, given among the
examples in the Eton Latin Grammar, which might very
appropriately, in this and many other cases, be addressed
by a high Churchman to the doctor : " Speras tibi laudi
fore, quod mihi vitio vertis r
But I come now to more serious matter—his charges,
implied and asserted, against " Tractarianism." His ire,
it would seem, against this ism was aroused upon the
occasion in question by reference to the proposed Free
Church for daily prayers, &c. ; and so far did he forget
himself and the Scriptures to which lie generally appeals
with so much confidence, that he actually indulged in a
sneer against that part of the plan which would make the
church free in every part to rich and poor alike. "No
pews in it," he exclaims ; " all open, first come first served.
(Laughter.) If a poor man goes in there, he has as good
a place as my lady. For shame, Dr. Nicene You bid
for a laugh, and you got it ; but if Angels do, indeed, ever
weep, they must weep when they hear from a minister of
Christ language so unchristian, and still more when they
hear it greeted with a laugh by those who- ought with one
voice to cry shame upon him who utters it. But this
Church, though intended for daily prayer, is not to supply
a daily sermon ; and this, it would seem, is in Dr. M'Neile's
estimation a most anomalous and offensive arrangement.
I would simply ask where will he find precept or example,
either in Scripture or the records of the primitive Church,
which would warrant him in condemning suchen arrange-
ment ? Has he daily sermons at his own church ? Does
he really mean to say that public prayer is wrong unless
followed by, or that it is only intended as a sort of decent
introduction to, a sermon ? No, Sir, the Doctor is far too
clever a man to hazard a reply to any of these questions ;
and I can only conclude either that the whole thing was a
lapsus lingua upon his part, or that he intended to convey
to his audience an impression that " Tractarians" contemn
preaching. If he did so intend, he does them an injustice.
The very facts of their estimating public prayer at its
proper value, and venturing to assert that the absence of
a sermon does not diminish its value, have no doubt led
many rashly to conclude that they undervalue preaching ;
but no conclusion can be more false. The published
writings of many of them will go far to prove this ; and,
as for their practice, I may appeal to the only church
under their management, which is within reach of most of
your readers—l mean that of S. Martin-in-the-Fields.
There will be found daily prayer, weekly communion,
choral service, and all the other adjuncts of divine worship;
which are in Puritan eyes as Popish abominations, and
cause Dr. M`Neile, I suppose, to regard it as " a half-way
house" to Rome. But at this very church there are two
sermons and catechising, equivalent to three sermons,
every Sunday, and an average of one a-week besides, all
the year through ; and this is as much as, if not more than,
is afforded by the great majority of Evangelicals. (With
regard to the attendance at S. Martin's, the comparative
paucity of which has lately been made a subject of reproach,
I shall' have a few remarks to offer in a future communi-
cation.) So far am I from undervaluing the ordinance of
preaching, that I deeply feel the necessity of its more.
extended application; and I can only say that if the Clergy
of Liverpool, Evangelicals or others (I care not which),
will only organise a scheme for carrying the glad tidings
of salvation to those who will not come to church to hear
it, by open-air preaching or otherwise, I for one will'
cordially join them, and take my share. And,.at the same
time, I would undertake to avoid all such subjects as are
commonly disputed among members of the Ehglish Church,
and- confine myself to such as, with. God's blessing, might
be best calculated to arouse them from. that sleep of sin
into which too ninny appear to be fallen.
Dr. ill`Neile asks if the proposed church "will have the
Scriptural and Protestant principles o? our Reformed
Church. * * or will it be a sort of half:way house, a
sort of bowing and scraping, &c." The prospectus first
published might have spared these questions; and to that
I refer him ; but I have a word or two to say about his
uncharitable inuendos ; uncharitable, because- opposed to
the plain declarations of him by whom the prospectus was ,
put forth, and with which the promoters of " the 'church
are known to concur. However generally expressed, the
inuendos in question were certain to be understood by
those before whom they were uttered as applying to S.
Martin's ; more particularly as the prospectus of the pro-
posed
church appeared originally with Mr. Wray's signa-
ture. Permit me, then, to say that, so far as s: Martin's
is concerned, they are utterly false, no bowing being prac-
tised there except that which the Canon expressly enjoins,
nor any ceremonial beyond that for which the Book of
Common-Prayer affords express sanction: No doubt, from
its pulpit doctrines may be heard which the Doctor would
denounce as erroneous, possibly as Popish ; but very few
of these, inasmuch as the general tone of the.preaching is
far more practical than doctrinal ; and, Popish or not,
I may venture to say that no doctrine is advocated there
which may not be gathered from the pages of Hooker,
Barrow, Beveridge, or other divines of equally unques-
tioned orthodoxy and Protestantism. In one sense,
churches like St.. Martin's are certainly half-way houses
to Rome ; I mean, that when a Dissenter or-Evangelical
gets a twist towards Rome, he is almost certain to try one
of them before-he makes the final plunge. Such has been
the case in two, or at most three, instances at S. Martin's,
and wonderful would it be if it were otherwise. The
-Evangelical clergy have impressed all Liverpool with the
conviction that S. Martin's is half Romish ; and, as a
natural consequence, any one who gets a bias towards
Rome goes there, expecting to find that for which he is be-
ginning to long. The fact of his not staying there proves
that he does not find what popular report had led him to
expect—l mean Romanism. Dr. M`Neile knows as well
as I do that, with few exceptions (I am not aware of one),
the secessions to Rome have been from the ranks of
Evangelical Protestantism. In some cases the seceders
have been on the high way to Rome from the first, and
have only stopped at "the half-way house" because they
have been fully led by popular- report to expect to find
therein what they never have. found. In other cases, the
final secession has been like the springing back of a bow
too long strained in one direction. Men have been taught
to rely upon private judgment alone, and, having found
the hollowness of that principle, have madly rushed to
the other extreme ; and I can only wonder and bless God
that these cases have not been tenfold more in number
than they have. There may be instances of men educated
originally in Anglican principles going over to Rome; I
can only say that I have never heard of any.
I would now venture to ask what Dr. IsPNeile means
by bowing and scraping,' and also how he dares publicly
to accuse his brethren of such practices, while he-admits
that he never saw them himself ? The use of this word
' scraping' indicates the animus of the attack ; for while
it describes nothing done by those of whom he was speak-
ing, it is well calculated to convey to an unthinking multi-
tude the impression that they are given to practices at
once contemptible, superstitious,and absurd. The-Doctor's
logic in the following passage may be left to. speak for
itself : " I am informed, when they come out of the vestry,
and when passing the communion-table, they make a sort
of obeisance. It is not kneeling down ; it is not worship ;
and yet it is something. What is it P Is it worship ?
Then let them bow themselves down before it at once. Is
it not worship ? Then why will they bow before it ?" I
would add—what is this ? It is not logic ;it is not com-
mon sense, and yet it is something. What is it? It is
balderdash, which the doctor would never have uttered if
he had remembered at the moment the. presence of
reporters, It is what is vulgarly but expressively called
clap-trap ; and no doubt with many then present it
answered its purpose. I believe this bowing towards the
altar is,'and ever has been, a custom at Durham and Wind-
sor and probably the clergy of those establishments
would say, that it is an outward token of reverence
towards the unseen God in whose presence they believe.
The present Archbishop of Canterbury, so long one of the
chapter of Durham, might afford the Doctor some infor-
mation upon this subject. At all events this is one point of
practice which the English Church has expressly left open,
forbidding those who bow to condemn those who do not,
, and vice versa%

When the Doctor, in farther allusion to and ridicule of
the proposed church, suggested " that the gentlemen who
promote an object of this sort should raise a fund for paying
poor men a quarter of a day's wages in the morning,in, order
to allow them time for this worship, without interfering
with their supplies for themselves and their families," he
quite lost his usual self-possession. He had been taken
aback by an unexpected opposition, and he know not what
to say. Morning prayer averages half an hoar ; and part
of the proposed scheme being to have frequent services,
some of them at an early hour to suit the working classes,
that half-hour might be stolen from sleep, and so cost
nothing. Besides which, how many are there in all classes
who might attend at any hour without interfering with
any ordinary occupation ?
The Doctor charitably forgave the man who had inter-
rupted him, because "he had given a most hard knock on
the head" to those by whom the prospectus was put out,
and who had been, he said, the first assailants. Upon
this I shall have more to say when I come to remark upon
a speech delivered at the same place and time, by Mr.
Pollock. For the present I will conclude with a brief
account of certain circumstances which may serve to
illustrate the way in which evil reports against us are got
up. About fifteen months . ago. a Roman Catholic lady
informed a friend of mine that one of the Curates of S.
Martin's was going over to Rome, and that she had it
upon good authority. At that time I was the only Curate
of that church, and upon inquiry, I found the report
very prevalent. How such a report could have originated
I had no conception. All I know was that, not even my
most secret thoughts, if known, could have afforded a
foundation for it ; and I was well assured that my fellow-
' curate, who had just left, was no more likely to turn
Romanist than Mormonite or Quaker. Now it turns out
that about the time in question, a person named Craven,
who apes the garb, of a clergyman, and frequently hangs
on and off about S. Martin's, but who generally, I be-
lieve, attends at S. Mark's, paid a visit to the Romish
meeting-house, known as S. Francis Xavier's. H
Reuther.re
introduced himself to one of the clergy Xavier
the
Artily, of S. Martin's (who had shortly before left Liver-
pool), and led him to believe that he was contemplating
secession. This needs no comment, but you may rely
upon its truth, as he has been compelled to confess it;
and if I am not mistaken, I shall be able to bring home to
him ere long one or two other tricks of a similar character.
—Apologising for the length of this communication, j
am, Sir, &c., K. UACKENZIE Pc(lng,
Liverpool, July 1, ISS-1,

WEEKLY COMM

TO THE EDITOR

NION MB. WRAX'S TEST,

THE LI VERP

DOL STANDARD,

Lg this letter a place

I perceive that my former letter has been felt. Mr.
Pughe, Mr. Wray, and A Layman, have assailed, but
not answered it. None of them have noticed the Rubrieks
which I quoted ; or attempted to show that those Rubricks
ben*

r can bear, any other interpretation than the one I
it upon them. An exception is, indeed, referred to—an
exception to which I also referred—in the case of cathedral
and collegiate churches and colleges : but this only proves
the rule `Exceptio probat regulam." And although the
Church has ruled that her members shall receive the Lord's
Supper " at the least three tunes in the year, of which
Easter shall be one," these gentlemen declare it to be
the Church's rule that her members shall communicate at
the least fifty-two times in the year.
Mr. Wray frankly gives up both Bible and Prayer Book,
as the source of his authority for weekly Communion, and
falls back upon the practice of the ancient Church.
It may be admitted that this is sufficient authority to
justify to Mr. Wray himself, his preference and his prac-
tice in a matter of this kind: and if this were all he

claims, these letters need never have been written.— He
might have proceeded with' his weekly Communion all his
life long, and I, at least for one, would never have found
fault. __ _ __ __

But the case becomes widely different when he de-
nounces those of his brethren who do not agree with him
in this matter; and has the hardihood to assert that the
Lord's Day cannot be duly honoured unless the practice
of weekly Communion be adopted. To justify this, he is
bound to show some more satisfactory authority than the
practice of any uninspired fallible men in any age.

- And thus i answer the retort—for it is no argument—
which has been made by Mr. Paghe and Mr. Wray, on my
letter. They ask me to "produce chapter and verse for
monthly Communion, &c., &c.” I pretend to, nothing of
the kind. I do, indeed, prefer the practice of the re-
formed Church; and this is sufficient to justify to myself,
my present practice in a matter of this kind.
If, however, not content with my own liberty, I were to
make an agression upon others, and, after the example of
Mr. Wray, denounce all those of my brethren who do not
agree with me in this matter; asserting that the Lord's
Day cannot be duly honoured unless the practice of
monthly Communion be adopted—TllEN, the retort would
be• fair, because then I would be bound to show chapter
and verse for my assertion. But I do nothing of the kind,.
I could not make an assertion, so exclusive, so uncharita-
ble, and so schismatical.

I said, in my former letter, that I had no objection, on
principle, to weekly Communion, or fortnightly Commu-
nion, or daily Communion. What I object to is the secta-
rian exclusiveness of elevating anything of the kind into
a test, and presuming to say that the Lord's Day cannot
be duly honoured unless that test is complied with.
They who do not duly honour the Lord's Day are,
pro tank; to a certain extent, Sabbath-breakers ; and, to
this extent,. Mr. Wray has denounced all the Archbishops
and Bishops of the Anglican Church, and nine-tenths of
her communicants, as breakers of the Sabbath. This
may be Catholic humility, but to me it sounds very like
ultra-Protestant arrogance. _ _ _ _

But further : Mr. Wray, though denying that the Bible
is ordinarily the source of authority,-and referring for his
authority to the practice of the Church, nevertheless
attempts to show some scriptural authority on his side.
His words are :

" The Holy Communion is emphatically THE CERE-
MONY OF CHR-ISTIANITY the one act of worship
ordained by it —the peculiar Gospel mode of drawing
near to God. St. Luke, in the earliest history of the
Church, informs- us that the disciples `came together to
break bread,' and that they ' broke bread from house to
house,' and ' continued in breaking of bread.' "
On this I have to remark first, that the word" daily,"
which occurs in the sacred narrative referred to, is
omitted in the quotations. If by the phrase " breaking
of bread," quoted from St. Luke, we are to understand the
celebration of the Lord's Supper which, however, is
doubtful, though Mr..Wray takes it for granted—and if
the primitive practice be our rule, then we should have
not' weekly, but daily Communion. Did Mr..Wray omit
the word daily, because he prefers weekly Communion ?
Or is he prepared to follow fully the primitive practice,
and break bread " from house to house ?" _ _

And further I remark, that if this application of St.
Luke's phrase be correct—and I do not dispute it—then
the true scriptural, primitive, and exquisitely simple mode
of speaking of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, is
"the breaking of bread." This of itself ought to be a
sufficient rebuke to the phraseology adopted by Mr..Wray
and others of the same school, a phraseology introduced
by the growing idolatry of medieval schoolmerpoind alto-
gether foreign to the language of the sacred history by
St. Luke, or to any other part of the word of God.

The fact is, Sir-, that the attempt, avowed and gloried
in by some of the writers of the " Tracts for the Times," to
"nnprotestantise the Anglican Church;" to ignore—if
not denounce—the Reformation; to claim every absur-
dity, however gross, of mediaeval practice as a Church-
man's heritage, unless our Reformers happened to specify
and condemn it ; and where they did specify and con-
demn, there to put a "non-natural" sense upon their
words—this desperate attempt is now persevered in, with
an earnestness worthy of a better cause. It has indeed
proved fatal to some who, finding success impracticable,
have honestly forsaken the Anglican Church as incurably
Protestant, and joined the Church of Rome, in which
alone the sensuous longings of the natural heart after
sights and sounds, forms and ceremonies, broad-phylac-
teries and prayers•in public places, can be fully gratified.
A former Curate of Mr. Wray's is, if I mistake not, one
of this number.

I knew another. clergyman who left his household—
wife, children, relatives, and servants, in all fourteen—
without family worship, and went morning by morning
to his church nearly a mile distant to read prayers, his
fellow-worshippers rarely amounting to half-a-dozen. I
ventured to expostulate with him on the continuance of
such a practice;, when he gravely said to me in justifica-
tion of it, that the benefit of daily prayer in .t,he Church
was not to be measured by the number of -persons in
attendance, because the service was a "daily sacrifice for
the whole parish." This gentleman also has•since joined
the Church,of Rome. _ _ _ _ _ _

Before, and, at the time of the Reformatita, the people
generally were so ignorant, they could not read the Holy
Scriptures, nor conduct family prayer, and if they were to
have daily prayer at all, it must be conducted for them by
their Minister.

The case is• now happily very different; and I would
respectfully, but very earnestly counsel. the people of
Liverpool, daily to worship God, first in,their closets, and
then in their families—every man a priest in his own
house,—and in the strength of that daily bread to go
forth. to their daily work.
This will, not, it is true, encourage-I:Ugh Priests, but it
will, do what is vastly better—it will. improve personal
religion.—l am, Sir, faithfully yours,

A CIII7-R-CHU;iN. OF LIVERPOOL.

July 3,.1851

P.S.—The following passage from the Sentinel is ad
rem. Please to reprint it :
"We believe that many followers of Dr. Pusey are
honest fanatics, that they do not know the marvellous
properties of the Word of God, and that hence is their
great mistake—they are properly fanatics. The fanton,
the temple, the brick and mortar building, and its
wooden priests' have mesmerised them : they are dazed,
by the fane, and its few ideas.. Rood screens, altars, altar
cloths, altar ornaments, piscine,. copes, surplices, bands,
hoods, candles and candlesticks, lecterns, eagles, choir
boys, ni &c., &c., &c., these become their uverse. ' They
are turned into them,' and are, therefore, literally
fanatics."

ECCLESIASTICAL INTELLIGENCR,

DIOCESE. OF CHESTER

OEDINATION.—The•Lord Bishop of Chester intends to
hold his next Ordination at Chester on Sunday, the 24th
of September next candidates for which must send all
their necessary papers complete to Charles T. W. Parry,
Esq., Chester, his lordship's secretary, on or before Mon-
day, the 21st August, at the latest.
PitsvicirmaNr.—The Rev. George Winter Warr has
been licensed to, the perpetual curacy cf Saint Saviour's
Church, Liverpool, on the nomination of the trustees the
patrons.

CONSECRATION.— St. Mary's, Grassendate.—The new
church of St. Mary, Grassendale, in the parish of Child,
wall, Lancaster, is to be consecrated by the Bishop of
Chester this day, Tuesday, the 4th July.
PREFERMENT.—The Rev. Frederic Martyn Harker has
been licensed to the perpetual curacy of St. Mary's Church,
Edge-hill, in the parish of West Derby, Lancashire, void
by, the resignation of the Rev. F. Barker, on the• nomina-
tion of John Stewart, Escic, of Liverpool, the patron.