The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-07-11 00:00:00

the feelings, but not lead to resolutions of the imitation of
Christ ; this love, again is, as I believe, more easily and
clearly conveyed to the mind and understanding by that
catechising, which the Scriptures and the Church so con-
tinually recommend, than by the whole outpourings of the
"Puritan pulpit," delivered, published, and bound—or even
re-delivered and re-published by many a graceless and
Plagiarising purveyor of pulpito-elocutional " twice-boiled
cabbage." Should any texts be required for the support
of preaching—which, although subordinate to the others,
is yet a mighty means of grace, (although, like all instru-
ments, it is such only so long as it is appropriately used,)
why not have quoted those which the apostle himself has
so applied, " Despise not prophesyings ; ' " He that pro-
phesieth speaketh unto edification, and exhortation, and
comfort, &c. &c."

Permit me, in spite of seeming prolix, to offer three
remarks, in conclusion, on things which have been touched
upon in former letters :-
1. Are the columns of a newspaper, I ask, a very fitting
place to enter upon arguments concerning the " giving,
taking, and eating" (article xxviii.) of the body of Christ,
or of the Sacrament being a sacrificial memorial ?"
Should we not rather, for our profit and edification; turn
to our Bible and Prayer-Book, to Jeremy Taylor's " Holy
Living and Dying," to good Bishop Wilson's Preparation
for the Sacrament," to Sherlock's " Practical Christian,"
or any other old standarfl works of active, not speculative,
Christianity ? I would merely remind your readers of
what is the exact and literal translation of our Lord's
words, "Do this in remembrance of me." The word "do"
might more properly be rendered "make, consecrate ;" it
is translated " keep" in Matthew xxvi:, 18. The conclud-
ing words are literally " for THE (specially appointed) me-
morial of me;" and the word here translated " remem-
brance" is a sacrificial word having a sacrificial mean-
ing, and it is never used by sacred or profane authors in
any other sense. To convey, therefore, the complete
notion of the word, we should say "sacrificial remem-
brance ;" but " translators," as the proverb says, must be
" traitors;" it is impossible that they can, in all places,
render into another tongue with such exactitude as to give
to every word a meaning which neither exceeds nor falls
short of the original. _ .

2. If, as the Rubric directs, notice were given to the
priest, at least before service, by those who intended to
communicate, he could never be lei% in doubt (whether
the church in which he ministered were in town or coun-
try) as to its being a Communion or a non-Communion
Sunday. The sexton, clerk, or other officer might stand
at the door of the church until four persons had thus
signified their intentions, or until the divine service com-
menced, and then all uncertainty would be removed.
3. Is it not a grievance, especially to our less instructed
brethren, that the clergy will so seldom, or never, read the
entire exhortation to the Lord's Supper, with the " ways
and means thereto ?" Nay, further ; that, even in cur-
tailing it, they do it with such a thankless brevity, that
the very sentence at the beginning, which declares the
essence and nature of that sacrament, is omitted. It is
the Eucharist, or " rendering our most humble and hearty
thanks to Almighty God our Heavenly Father, for that
He hath given His Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, not
only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and
sustenance in that Holy Sacrament." _

Yours truly,
The Willows, July Ist, 1854

C. E. S. W.

WEEKLY COMMUNION,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

am sorry for

A Churchman of Liverpool

not because he finds himself beaten, but because he has
the little grace to make ex) disingenuous a retreat. At
first, in the confidence of the very novel conviction that
the Prayer Book afforded some excuse for oie of the

Puritan peculiarities of modern " Evangelicalism," he
showed a desire to investigate-the evidence it supplies with
some calmness of inquiry ; but now, instructed in his
error, he falls into the usual artifice of defeated argument,
calls names, and throws out the• most disgraceful personal
imputations. I shall not attempt to defend Mr. Wray, as
his character is not at issue; and, if it were at issue, is in
no danger from the anonymous insinuations of an uncon-
scientious scribe. Neither shall I follow "a Churchman"
through his "mazes of metaphorical confusion," whether-
the figures of his own fancy, or the disordered phantasms
of an: obscure periodical ; but, as he has endeavoured.
to find a set-off against the helplessness of his posi-
tion, in boldly asserting that his opponents have
not "attempted" to notice his objections, such is the
importance of this case, that a resume of its arguments
may be useful, if not to his obstinacy, still to your readers'
candour.

The original remark that called forth the subsequent
animadversion was this, made by Mr. Wray, —viz., that
the Lord's-day is not duly honoured without the celebra-
tion of the Lord's Supper, and that a monthly celebration
of that ordinapce is a disgraceful abridgment of the
Church's office, three Sundays out of four. Against this
"a Churchman" contends that Mr. Wray has no right to
make—and refers to Scripture and the Prayer Book to
show that neither of them supports—such a statement.
As to the first, he says Scripture does not mention any
particular times for the celebration of this sacrament ;
and, to prove that the Church of England does not intend
the Holy Communion to be a part of her weekly office, he
quotes from the Prayer Book certain rubrics which sup-
pose that on some Sundays there shall be no celebration,
providing for what shall be said and done "when there is
a Communion," and for what shall be left out "when there
is no Communion." Now what is the weight of argument
brought to bear upon the other side ? First, as regards
the authority of Scripture.—lt is admitted, on all hands,
that Scripture does not positively specify the number of
times on which the Holy Communion is to be celebrated, but
an ad hominem reply is furnished in the challenge to "A
Churchman" to produce authority of this kind for certain
practices which he thinks as incumbent on the Church, as
we think the practice of Sunday Communion, and which
he is yet unable to do. He cannot produce a command
for public worship on the first day of the week, or for the
non-observance of the ancient Sabbath. But if the former
is a Christian practice which " A Churchman" would call
it disgraceful to omit, if he would say (and I challenge
him to say the contrary, through your columns) that the
Lord's Day cannot be duly honoured without the offering
up of public worship, then he has no ground of objection
to Mr. Wray's use of similar language as to weekly Com-
munion. Mr. Wray is in the same position as he would
be if he were addressed thus :—" On what authority do
you plead for a weekly public worship ? Holy Scripture
supplies no such authority. Our Saviour said to His
disciples, ' wheresoever two or three are met together in
my name, there am lin the midst of them.' But neither
He nor any of His inspired apostles commanded that we
should meet together once a week. Public worship,
indeed, is referred to by only one of the apostles, and in
only one of his epistles, and then, while warning us not
to forsake the assembling of ourselves together as the
manner of some is, he gives no command nor intimation
whatever as to how often that ' assembling' should be.
Scriptural authority for weekly public worship cannot be
produced."—(Q. E. D. Vide " A Churchman's s" first let-
ter, 13th June.) On this reasoning, indeed, we have no
authority for dictating the use of the Holy Communion
any particular number of times, and if a person who in-
tended not to communicate more than once in his life
were to employ it, I know not what " A Churchman"
could answer. In passing, however, I must contend that
all this reasoning is rendered useless by "A Churchman's"
own admission in his last letter. He demands " more
satisfactory authority than that of any inspired fallible
men in any age ;" but in not disputing that St. Luke
refers to holy Communion when he speaks of the apostolic
practice of breaking bread daily, he admits the existence
of such authority., and must allow that Mr. Wray is jus-
tified in declaring that the Day of days cannot be duly
honoured without that which apostles thought necessary
to celebrate every day in the week.
Your readers, Sir, will perceive that " A Churchman"
subsides all this part of the challenge under " &c. &c.,"
and does not attempt to reply to it. He does, indeed, offer
to meet that part of it which calls upon him to show his
scriptural authority for monthly Communion, and that by
affirming that he does not presume to fix this as the proper
measure of celebration, and therefore has no necessity to
show that it is incumbent. But what is meant is, that
even "A Churchman" must fix some measure below which
it is improper to fall, whether once a month or once in
twelve months be the limit ; and that for this measure
Scripture supplies as little authority of the nature he asks
as for the limit which Mr. Wray has himself fixed. There
is an infrequency of celebrating this holy rite which even
" A Churchman" would reprobate in as strong terms as
those which Mr. Wray has used with regard to a monthly
celebration. Now, I will let him place the precise point
at which he would justify the use of such language where
he will—he may extend the limit to an annual, or a trien-
nial, or a quinquennial celebration ; still I would ask, in
his own words, " Where is your scriptural authority for a
quinquennial celebration ?" St. Paul says "as often," but
nowhere says " how often," whether once in ten years or
once in five years. Scriptural authority for quinquennial
Communion cannot be produced. And supposiug a person
defending the practice of a mere decennial Communion,
' which might obtain among his religious body, against " A
Churchman" condemning it as improper, he might reply
to him in " A Churchman's" own words. " Thus I answer
the retort made by " A Churchman." He asks me to pro-
duce chapter and verse for decennial Communion. I pre-
tend to nothing of the kind. I do, indeed, prefer the
practice of the body to which I belong, and this is suffi-
cient to justify to myself my practice in a matter of this
kind. If, however' not content with my own liberty—(here,
by the person of the pronoun he uses, " A Churchman"
again admits his clerical calling; and think, Mr. Editor,
what a precious " liberty"—the liberty to depart to an
unlimited extent from what he admits to be the practice
of,the apostles in a very important matter, and to curtail at
his discretion the number of times he may offer to his people
the blessed privilege which it is evident by this practice they
valued to an extent at which the utmost of occasional
modern zeal scarcely ever arrives !)—if not content with
my own liberty I were to make an aggression upon
others, and after the example of "A Churchman," denounce
all those of my brethren who do not agree with me in the
matter, asserting that the Lord's Day cannot be duly
honoured unless the practice of decennial Communion be
adopted (rather a solecistic assertion, but parallel with the
one I am paraphrasing), then the retort would be fair,
because then I would be I
do noth
bound to show chapter and verse
for my assertion. But ing of the kind. I
could not make an assertion so exclusive, so uncharitable,
and so schismatical, &c., &c." The plain issue is this, if
" A Churchman's" arguments prove anything, they prove
too much, a worse vice than proving too little. " It is exclu-
sive, uncharitable, &c.," to denounce a mere monthly
celebration because scripture affixes no limit, and the
frequency of celebration is, therefore, a matter of personal
preference. But equally is it so, on this reasoning, to affix
any limit, and to deny any extent of personal preference.
Now, I am content to leave this branch of the question
till " A Churchman" informs us whether he thinks the
times of celebrating this ordinance have been left entirely
to personal preference, and whether he thinks it unjusti-
fiable to impose any limit upon that personal preference.
If he answers these questions in the affirmative, true his
opponent's "retort" will lose as regards him its force and
application, but it will be at an expense of character,
which I do not think even he would be willing to incur.
At all events, we shall know how to deal with him.
I now turn to the authority of the Prayer-Book.
Whist WO require to prove is this; that the Clwr.ch