The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-07-25 00:00:00

the dren from Cheshire, after enjc

iws a comparison of the relative antago-
,ng between England and Russia and and the school banners taken down by
. France and Russia, in which he shows spector Quick. To my inquiry, whether the banners were
antagonism to be deeply-rooted, and more illegal, he replied, he believed not, but that the m"
1 c Iplex between the two former than between the trates had given orders to have all sucY
to latter powers. First, because they are the down.Dnt to erelreLaltrod, of
aecoursa coarse,
nations in themselves "possessing the greatest which obey.teaches the duty of loyalty
powers of expansion, the greatest resources for the Queen, to set an example of submitfuture, just as they are the least vulnerable at the . conceived to be a tyrannous exercise of lawfull
mesent moment. Next, as actuated by the rivalry , authority.
ilt
f material interests, meetin as they territorially have nothing to complain of on O-
o in China, India, Persia, and T
the Levant. He courtinessracsthrwrrf
°ripossll• hikinw.Plea
so remarks it as not a little singular that both orders courtesy as his superiors. Butasl simplytci
tions, pre-eminently THE nations of the future, I emphatically against what I maintain to be a gross inte
uncompromising enemies of the Pope. ference with public liberty—an encr,
pro- rights and privileges of British freemen.
rn commenting upon the present hostile
lings for curbing the aggressive spirit of Ras-
in Ithis know something ofsthe mind of the working-classes
aforce and fraud, the reviewer remarks with hundred wor.king-mveen, if, thseyclZid
li cogency in referent! to the. conduct . of, believe they are a fair sample of

them by our committee, we were stopped in Dale-stree

order of Mr. In.

betwee:

other alterzr4:
man of a (

obedience

ission c

art of the police.
ant duty with as much

rrying out the

rotest

oachme

on the

are aware, some eleven
ly of my church, and I

asauds besid

amunic

cations with I anc

to say, in their num
6S not calculated to

British

I of aFthority.

magistrates in
to the powers
Why should

attachmen

ur school barn

m to suppose

tter it

_ sac(
together

neither orange nor gre
representations of St. John's Church and Sci

contain nethit

with the Holy- Bible. Truly, matt
mournful condition, when the'exhibition of such banners„
laying one of the rational Churches, and the blessed I

s have come to a

WEEKLY COMMUNION, &c

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

Sta,—May I request you of your kindness to insert the
following as a rider and corollary to my former letter ?
A " Churchman of Liverpool" asserted that " Church
authority, as well as scriptural, for weekly Communion
could not be produced ;" to support which he drew out a
few isolated rubrics, one of which was garbled, and the
remainder misinterpreted. Since then, however, by seve-
ral writers, those rubrics have been naturally connected,
and compared with, and made to explain each other ; and
yet this gentleman, with a boldness peculiarly his own,
asserts that the "Rubrics which he formerly quoted have
been altogether unnoticed" by his adversaries of the pen,
Mix a little obstinate
i prejudice on any subject in the
nature of one who may be n all other matters sharpwitted
enough, and you will find his understanding as impervious
to the conclusions of reasoning from the opposite party,
as the feathers of a goose are to water ; arguments he will
not see, and like that perverse animal who was once
"convinced against his will," he likewise will be "of the
same opinion still."
In the first place, then, I would remind the " Church-
man" that he has jumbled together two laws of the
Church which are altogether distinct, and so has drawn
from them a non sequitur conclusion. There is one law
for the officiating priest and members of collegiate chapels
and cathedrals, all of whom are in holy orders; and there
is another law for the curate of a parish, and for the lay
members of his congregation.

With .regard to the former,—it is supposed that daily
Communion would be the practice amongst such as are
especially set apart for, and whose sole business consists
in the ministering of holy things ; and that " the Collect,
Epistle, and Gospel shall serve all the week after;" and it
commands, therefore, that " in collegiate and cathedral
churches, where there are many priests and deacons, they
shall all receive the Communion every Sunday AT THE
LEAST." (Why did "The Churchman" omit the words at
the least ?) But with regard_ to the latter, it proceeds
upon the clear supposition that the opportunity for
receiving the Communion should be offered by the curate
every Sunday or Holy-day, but ,sid only be actually
celebrated when four, or three at the least, shall have pre-
viously signified their intention to receive with him. And
lest too frequent an omission of the post-Communion
should occur, especially in small parishes, it orders that
"every parishioner shall communicate at the least three
times in the year."
One, therefore, of these cases is not an "exception" and
the other the "rule," but they are both rules, and both
provide what shall be in either case the minimum amount
of exceptions.
Secondly, I assert that any person, impartially examin-
ing the rubrics of the Communion Service from the first
one which orders that " The table at the Communion-
time (i.e., before the Commandments, &c.), having a fair
white linen cloth upon it, shall stand," arc., down to the
last which debars "the celebration of the Lord's
Supper except there be a convenient number to commu-
nicate with the priest ;"—any one, I say, so doing cannot
well fail to see that the whole Communion Service is the
rule, and the omission of the post-Communion the excep-
tion,which our Prayer-Book contemplates and authorises.
No clergyman obeying the rubrics is authorised to begin
that Communion Service without at least having the cloth
laid, so as to signify that he himself is ready, and that the
exceptional alternative of a hay-service is altogether
owing to the hardness of his parishioners' hearts, which
at " the beginning was not so ; whereas that clergyman
and that congregation are carrying out the wishes of the
Church, and the practice clearly laid down in Holy Scrip-
ture (Acts xx. 7), who habitually celebrate it together on
the " first day of the week."
Thirdly, " The Churchman" has founded an argument
on the text "breaking of bread from house to house,"
which I think he must be aware is false in doctrine, as
well as diametrically opposed in practice to the 71st
canon, which he so obligingly asks Mr. Wray if he is
willing to violate. The text literally is, " They continued
daily with one accord in the temple, and in breaking of
bread at home." It is so translated in the marginal
references of our Bible,
.and these were added at its last
revision to correct the nus-translations of " The Bishops'
Bible" in such places as were either of doubtful meaning,
or not of sufficient importance to render in words totally
different from those in the received and familiar text. By
this, then, we see, as in so many other passages, that the
first disciples at Jerusalem, so long as their unbelieving
brethren would permit them, always offered God prayer
and praise according to the temple service of the first
covenant, and then returned to " rim upper chamber" for
the Lord's Supper, the "peculiar ceremony of Chris-
tianity."--I am, Mr. Editor, truly yours, C. E. S. W.
The Wilton/as July 17, Oa.

kition from our-
volume of Revelation, whereon the National religion is communimtion, as the writer intended it, is synonymous
based, is considered an offence in the eyes of English with communion, then, I ask, why the dev
' magistrates.
authorised version?
of the banner may be, al such should be put down as translation, is-wholly unjustifiable; but when the nature
to prevent a breach of the pezee on the part of Rornanists; or profess to believe, that in the Lord's Supper, the body
and shouldsach occur, let thelaw be fairly executed upon and blood of the' Lord are given; or communicated, by
But it will be said that; it matters note what the nature The use of this- word, considered merely as- a matter of
tending-to provoke a breach-of the peace. Whom do they of the misrepresentation conveyed by it is taken into the
provoke? Protestants ? No. Irish Romanists ? Yes. account, it deserves-to be designated by even a stronger
Then let the magistrates adept all necessary precautions term. Your correspondent belongs to a school who believe,
all such disturbers of the peace. Why should- the unrea- the officiating priest to the recipient of the bread and
sonable bigotry of Romanists be made the measure of wine; and in the- passage of his letter above cited; by
British liberty? I have no hesitation in professing my substituting communication for communion, he slyly
. conviction that this order of the magistrates is in plain insinuates that St. Paul taught the same.
violation of the- spirit of the. British Constitution. I StPaul taughtacommunion or fellowehipwiththe Lord's
• admit that the law authorizes the magistrates to prevent bodyand blood, as St...Tohn tiught a fellowship or communion
anything which is calculated to provoke a breach of the with the Father and with the Son. The word is the same,
peace by giving needless offence; but here a caution must v eeeenromia—compare 1 John i. 3. But neither of the
be observed, and a distinction made between hire who Apostles taught a communication' of the' Lord's body
gives and him who unreasonably takes offence. and blood.
There is scarcely a thing that one can say or do which Communion
'or fellowship with the Father and with the
may not give offence to some weak-minded persons—from Son, and with the Lord's body and blood, is " only after a
a readesman's bill puffing off some rival establishment, to heavenlyand spiritual manner. ' "And the mean whereby
a controversial tract, or sermon, desigred to expose error. the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper,
All these offend the opposite parties. Should they there- is faith.' Art. xxviii. The Church of England makes this
fore-be suppressed? Certainly not. The question is not
whether this or that will offend any one, but is it cabal- as distinct as words can make anything. Her xxixth
• lated to give reasonable offence? is it' of such a nature Ar tide declares that " such -as be void of a lively faith,
that -,reasonable man ir,ight be offended- at it ? If not, although they do carnally and visibly press with their
however unpleasant it may be to the prejudices or blind teeth the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet
bigotry- of some, we should-not be restricted in our liberty in reo wise are they partakers of Christ." lib-no -wise !
of speede or action. Icall attention to this-point. I cone •
If tl iere be any wise in which Christ is in the bread and
s e then they who are partakers of the bread and wine
tend that it is a most dangerous principle-;o admit into muse; in that wise, whatever iris; be partakers of Christ.
the- executive, and one. which-must, if carried out, even- But ,our Church has distinctly—and most scripturally—
tuate in the subversion of civil and religious, liberty ; that
whatever gives offence to another must be suppressed ruled that such as be void of &lively faith are is
wise
the magistrates ; for, according to this maxim, our pla-
b3r partakers of Christ.
Ani I per contra; and with , equal distinctness, our
cards announcing controversial lectures, Om: Protestant chum h declares—see Ettbrick in." the Communion of the
publications, our Protestant meetings, must all be sup- Fsek"- —that, "If a man, either by reason of extremity of
pressed—ye* the very existence of Protestant places of sickness, or for want of warning hi due time to the curate,
of worship would be inconsistent with this principle, for or for 'lack of company to receive with him, or by any
we know they give offence to Romanists ;so much so, that other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of
at Rome; where they have all the power in' their own Christ's body and ' blood, the curate shall instruct him,
hands, Englishmen are compelled to worship, their God that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stecifastly
in a hay-loft outside the gate of the eternal city. In this ' believe that Jesus Christ hath. suffered death upon, the
'
respect, Rome Pagan was more tolerant than Rome
Papal ; for the former allowed "'Punt to dwellitwo whole cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption,
years in his own- hired house, prt-w earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby,. andhing the kingdom of giving. him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and
God, and teaching those things which concern-the Lord drink Me bock and- blood of our Saviour Christ, nro-
Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him." fitably- to his sours health, although he do not receive
Acts xxviii- AL
Perhaps some will say that all_parties should ifs Me Sacrament with his mouth."e treated Urns does the Church of England unequivocally. de-
be
alike, and that,. therefore, proeessions of all sorts should dare, on the one side, that a man without lively faith may
put down. Now, I for one, havealways questioned the
eat and drink :the consecrated bread and wine, and yet be
expediency or propriety of what are called party pro- in no wise a partaker of Christ ; .and on the other side,
cessions, but still I hold the principle here enunciated that a man with lively faith may eat and drink the body
utterly false and untenable. All parties should.. not be and blood of Christ, though he does not' receive the con-
treated alike " Woe unto them that call good evil and
evil good." Truth and falsehood should not be- treated secreted bread and wine.
alike—truth and loyalty should. be treated as-such, and Should your correspondent think fit to notice this letter,
falsehood and treason should be treated as such. I hope that, instead of telling us-in a multitude of his own
words whets the Church says—as he thinks—he will give
The fact is, Rome is endeavouring to overthrow our
us quotations from the Prayer-Book, allowing the Church
Constitutien by raising the cry of liberality, impartiality, to speak few herself, as I do.
and equality. "'meat all parties alike," is her motto for I think r have thus established my first charge against
the present, well knowing that this is a preliminary, as it - your correspondent—namely, that he is guilty of ans-,
inalso a direct step, to the establishment of error. In the translation, and thereby of -,misrepresentation of.
St ,
British Constitution truth was made nriginally ascendant; Paul. .
but as Rome's design is ultimately to re-establishl'opery, if 2. My second charge is, that-to is guilty of a misxepre-
possible, she is persuading our unsuspecting rulers to treat sentation, of the Church of:England. His words are—
al' parties alike—to put all religions-on the same footing. „
We would do well to remember that, when this is accom- And in our own (Church) since the change in much of her
external appearance at the Reformation, the practice (of
plished, the ascendancy of error is not far distant. Weekly Communion) is so closely followed, that on the occa-
It is then an error in policy, as it is a sin against stone where she can assume there will be sufficient to cum-
Heaven, to treat all parties in the same manner without munoi c a ltteshoefilisolutelye assumes
ilsoisong at
iie weekly celebration;ber,s a
regard to their moral qualifications or political principles. and
not positively le.nnjwoinerit; she arranges for nlller, altars. to be
I would earnestly call, therefore, upon the Protestants of arrayed, and her ministers to take their place at them every.
Liverpool, as they value their civil, and religious liberties, Sunday and other Holy-day, to celebrate if the number be
to awake before it be too late, or they will find themselves, sufficient to communicate. 4
ere long, deprived of those liberties which have been This appears to me- to, be a misrepresentation. Because,
handed down to them by their martyred forefathers. It although the Church- does indeed—effectually to guard
may be thought that the taking down of a school banner against the abuses of private masses—forbid the celebra•
is but a trifling matter—and so it is. in itself—but, "
tion of the Lord's Supper when there are not four, or at
under the present circumstances, it involves important the least, three communicants—a case very possible in a
principles, principles with which the stability of our sick man's chamber—yet she no where absolutely assumes
Protestant kingdom is indissolubly bound up ; and I a weekly celebration, or arranges for her altars to be
solemnly but respectfully warn the magistrates, that if, arrayed ;—she never calla the communion table an altar,—
from motives of peace, they exercise their official authority
and her ministers to take their place at them-every Sun-
to restrict the liberty of the subject in things lawful, day and other Holy-day, to celebrate if the number be
and merely gratify the tyranny of an intolerant mob, there
suffi
will rest on them thefearful responsibility of those serious cient. According to your - correspondent's representation,
consequences which may one day proceed from an indig- nothing should hinder Weely Communion, except the
nant people when oppressed beyond the limits of endurance. want of a sufficient number of communicants when the
It is the province of the
,magistrates not only to. want
arrived for the celebration. Now, as it never could
" execute justice," but also to ' maintain truth."—l am,
be known in any parish a week before, whether there-
St. Sir, yours very faithfully. %V. F. Teernone would, or would not, be a sufficient under of communi-
cants on the following Sunday, of course " warning for
the celebration" should be given every Sunday. It might
fail when the time came, for want of a sufficient number ;
but as the offer was to be made every Sunday, the warn-
ing must have been given on every preceding Sunday—
i.e., every Sunday.
- What says the- Rubrick ? It is, plainly the Ckurch's
intention that there should be a sermon every Sunday,
because at the proper place, we find a Rubrick which, says,
" Then shall follow the Sermon." If, at the proper piece
again, we found another Rubriek, saying, " 'Them shall
the minister give warning for the celebration of the Holy
Communion," it would as obviously be the design of the
Church that there should be Weekly Communion as it is
that there should be weekly preaching. But what is the
fact ? The Rubrick at the proper place is this,—
" When the Minister giveth warning for the celebra-
tion of the Holy Communion (which he Mall always do
upon the Sunday, or some Holyday immediately pre-
ceding) after the sermon or Homily. ended, he shall
read this exhortatian following."
Mark the difference. Instead of, then shall the Minis-
ter give warning; it is, when the Minister- giveth warn-
ing. And, instead of every Sunday ;it is, run Sunday
immediately preceding. The contrast is striking. Weekly
Preaching is plainly assumed, and non Weekly Commu-
nion is as plainly assumed.
Again I ask your correspondent to meet this, not with.
a verboseargumentation of his own, but with the language
of the Church itimes:lf. Thus I think I have made good my
second charge.
3. My third is, that your correspondent is guilty of
insulting language to the Bishop of the Diocese.
On this head his words are too numerous for full cita-
tion. I must be content with the selection of two or
three questions out of a list which he puts to the bishop.
After magnifying the hardship of those who complain
that they have not Weekly Communion ; and confessing
that he is at a loss to know what answer the Bishop, " who
openly abets this state of things," could return ; he puts
these amongst other questions :
" Would you answer such complainers by a reference to the
general ' zeal and fidelity' of the clergy, and send them back
to the veryproperey conducted services, where only the chief
propriety of Christian worship is omitted ? Or, being forced
to admit the inviolability of their claims, would your Lord .
ship compromise the dignity of your officer and, inviting
them into your confidence, bid them to cultivate a spirit of
' forbearance,' by stifling the Christian sympathies which
revolt at the offences of popular neglect. . . Or,
plunging at once into the last extreme of contradiction, would
your Lordship gravely exhort them to refrain, out of regard
for the peace of the Church, to manifest any unaccustomed
zeal for the sacrament of peace ? Yet, finally, there is one
refuge from this disastrous catalogue of anomaly; would
your Lordship, boldly, flinging aside all the restraints and
hesitations of compromise, tell them that the office of the
episcopal conscience is to, be' the thermometer of popular
feeling, and that it was entirely impracticable to allow a
higher tone of religious sensibility to disturb a temperature
at zero 7"
This I consider insultinglanguage, and I am persuaded
that every unprejudiced. Mall who has read the Bishop's
letter upon the subject will apes- with me. There runs
through these and the other queitions of your corres-
pondent
a reference to the Bishop's letter in a tone of
sneering contempt, with an occasional quotation of some
phrase made use of by the Bishop, to give point to the
attempted ridicule. These are not the serious questions
of a Christian man pained, sincerely pained, by the neces-
sity, or supposed necessity, of putting them—of a man
keenly alive to the evils of division in the Church, and
the scandal of open contention with his Bishop, but con-
strained to incur it all by an awfully solemn sense of a
still higher duty towards God. No ; there is nothing of
this kind. The questions are the evident overfiowings of
selfish disappointment and petulant vexation—of a temper
with irritation enough to manifest bitterness, but without
talent enough to accomplish severity. , They arenot calcu-
lated to advance the cause which their writer advocates.
He is addressing a series of letters to the Bishop, and
those who are most opposed to his object can desire nothing
better than a continuance of his style.
And thus this " Vincentius"—this self-constituted re-
former—this pious lamenter over the degeneracy of the
Church in our days—this modest teacher of " a more
excellent way" to his erring brethren—when he is
searched into is discovered to be a mistranslator of St.
Paul—for a purpose—a misrepresenter of the Anglican
Church, and an insulter of the Bishop of the diocese.
The subject is fertile--eed,eheu ! jam satis est ! With
the instructive example of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and
St. Rumbas, Pimlico, before him, the Bishop of Chester
is not likely to sanction in his diocese the establishment
of a new arena for attitudenising and flower-showing,
altar clothing and altar sacrificing, mediaeval priestcraft
and vicarious devotion, coerced confession and sacramental
superstition, under the specious pretext of daily prayers
and weekly communion.
A writer in the Morning Chronicle last week condemns
the Bishop's refusal, because, he says—,
" As soon as the church at Liverpool is built and couse-
cratcd, it falls under the law of the 413uCh of Inland, and