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

of England intends a Weekly Communion. And the posi-
tive evidence which has been suggested is as follows. The
Church has a service which she entitles, " The order of
Morning and Evening Prayer daily to be said throughout
the year," and she has also a service entitled " The order
of the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Com-
munion." Every day in the week she orders the former
service to be said from the customary place " in the Church,
Chapel, or Chancel." On certain special days, Sundays
and other Holy-Days, she orders the use of the latter
service at the Holy Table, which is then to have a fair
white linen cloth upon it. Now the using of a service
means of course ordinarily, the using of the whole of it,
and it is therefore the rule, the matter of course assump-
tion, that this service should be gone through on the days
mentioned. But part of this service consists of a parti-
cular action, and of prayer about a particular action, and
to the performance of this action something more is neces-
sary than the mere intention of the Church or the readi-
ness of the Priest ; namely, the concurrence of a certain
number of persons. Suppose, therefore, there be not
this number to concur, what then ? Then the minister
must be told that if there are not this number prepared to
concur, he must omit this portion of the service, and say
only that which has no reference to the action in question.
The action depending on this concurrence of 'a part of
the congregation, the Church must make provision for
such times as there may not be this number prepared to,
or that can, concur. That is, having enjoined the use of
the service, she must provide for this omission from it on
such occasions, and nothing can be gathered from her
making provision for such emergency but this ; that she
forbids the minister to celebrate except when there are a
certain number to communicate with him. All this might
be turned into an exhortation to her ministers thus :
"Every day shall be said Morning and Evening Prayer,
but on Sundays and other Holy-days, the Holy Table shall
be prepared for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and
the service appointed to be used on that occasion used
thereat ; but if there are not sufficient to communicate
with the priest, there shall be no Communion, and the
priest shall end with such and such a prayer." Her direc-
tion to use the service indicates the rule that the whole of
it be used, and her directing what parts of it only shall be
used when the whole of it cannot, proves the latter case
to be an exception. The words of her injunction to the
priests and deacons of cathedrals, &c., that they shall Com-
municate every Sunday with the priest, of itself shows
that she assumes a weekly celebration, not because of the
clergy in these establishments, but because there are sure
to be such a congregation always present,as to warrant it.
She does not say—ln cathedrals, &c., where there are
many priests and deacons, the priest shall celebrate (that
is, he shall not break off in the middle of the service; for
it is not in her contemplation that any priest should do so
unless something extraordinary happens, viz., the want of
Communicants) ; but, assuming as a matter of course, that
he goes on with the service, she says, all the priests,
&c., shall Communicate "with" him. But on this direc-
tion of hers " a Churchman" says that it is an exception
which proves the rule. What rule ? The only rule to
which it can be an exception is that the Church does not
enjoin her ordinary members to Communicate "every
Sunday at the least," which none asserts that she does.
Over them she has not the same authority as she has over
her ordained officers, and upon them she only prescribes
the minimum test of membership, never intending this as
the complement of what piety and zeal would expect from
a Christian. In reference to this, it may be remarked
that the Church of Rome enjoins on her laity participation
only once a year. But the rule " a Churchman" aims to
infer is, that the Church leaves it, except in the cases
mentioned, open to the priest's discretion as to how often
or how seldom he shall celebrate ; that she puts no limit
on the exercise of his personal preference in the matter.
And here it is that, as on the question of scriptural
authority, he proves too much. "'A Churchman" cannot
produce such positive direction to the priest as he de-
mands for a weekly celebration, for celebration at all, or
for putting any limit whatever on the exercise of the
priest's own discretion. But even the " Churchman"
would contend that there is some. limit. The occurrence
of five prefaces, the injunction on the laity to Communicate
so.many times in the year, prove it is the Church's inten-
tien that there should be a limit.. Therefore the absence
of such positive direction to the priest to celebrate every
Sunday does not of itself prove that she does not intend a
weekly celebration. " A Churchman" will not deny that
she intends celebration certainly on the festivals, for
which she has appointed special prefaces, say Easter or
Ascension. But the rubrics by which she provides what
shall be done "when there is no Communion" apply
just as much to these days as to, any Sunday or
Holy-day in the year. If there be not three to Com-
municate she forbids celebration,. even on Easter-
day, proving that these rubrics are no guide whatever
to her intention ; and that if from other and positive
evidence her intention can be gathered, these rubrics fur-
nish nothing whatever by which that evidence can be in-
validated. Whatever be the limit which a clergyman
would gather from the intention of the, Church, I contend
that the mode of proof which he would adopt to establish
that limit, we adopt to establish ours. If he were challenged
for instance to prove that the Church intends a celebration
more than once a year, he would answer, I admit that
she nowhere in so many words says to the priest, you
shall celebrate on any given day ; and,.therefore, if that
supplies any ground of action, we might say that obedience
to her does not necessitate even one celebration in the year.
But she provides five special forms to beused at celebration
during the year, and she assumes three celebrations, for
she orders her laity to Communicate at least that often.
She could not positively command it on any day, because
it depends on the number of persons presenting themselves
to participate, and not on her command only. Exactly.
So we say. The Church picks out from ordinary days_,
Sundays and holy-days. On these she appoints a special'
' epistle and gospel—which have been the mark of the
Eucharistic office from the earliest dates of the Christian
Liturgies—and directs her service for the administration
of the Lord's Supper to be used at the holy table dressed
in the vesture of celebration ; and so evidently does she
contemplate celebration on these days, that she thinks it
necessary to warn the priest in what case he may not pro-
ceed to it. That case is what may happen on Easter or
any other day—the case where there are not a number
sufficient to communicate with the priest. So that, just in
the same sense that a " Churchman' charges the Church
with providing for no Communion on, any Sunday, may it be
said that she provides for no. Communion every Sunday
in the year. Of course on no Sunday does she allow Com-
munion unless so many be ready to communicate; but yet
she does not intend that there shall not be Communion on
any Sunday—other evidence proves that she intends there
shall be on some. In like manner she provides for the
case in which there cannot be Communion every Sunday.
Yet that does not prove that she does not intend Com-
munion every Sunday. Other' evidence proves that she
does so intend. All that the negative and exceptional
rubrics prove is, as I said before, that there must not be
Communion at all unless there be three to Communicate.
I must leave the subject and your correspondent for the
present, though I shall be almost ashamed to solicit a
portion of your space another week, after this too long
infliction.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,
July 7th, 1854. A LAYMAN.

ECCLESIASTICAL INTELLIGENCE.

PREFERMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS,

Rev. V. St.lncumbent of Worsley, near
Eccles, Lancashire, to be Domestic Chaplain to the Earl of
Ellesmere.

_..................
Rev. C. Brittain, to the Curacy of Kingawinford, Star.
fordshire.

Rev. W. Brown, M.A., Rector of Norton, Worcester-
shire, to the Rectory of Broadwas, in the same county.
Rev. J. Brougham, M.A., Curate of Glengollen, m the
diocese of Derry, to the Rectory of Killea.
Rev. J. G. Cazenove, to the vacant Tutorship in the
College, Isle of Cumbrae, N.B.
Rev. J. Chapman, 8.A.., Curate of Rut Rettord, to the In-
cumbency of the new Church of St. Peter, Bolingbroke.
Rev. T. T. Day, M.A., Head Master of Nantwich Grammar
School, to the Assistant Curacy of Nantwich.
Rev. L. Foot, M.A., Rector of Long Bredy, near Dorchester,
Dorset, and a Rural Dean, to the Prebend or Canonry of
Netherbury_-in-Terra, in Salisbury Cathedral.
Rev. H. T. Frere, M.A.,. Curate of Palgrave, near Diss, to
the Rectory of Burston, Norfolk.
Rev. J. W. Hammond, M.A., Fellow of St. John's College,
Oxford, to be Second Classical Master and Assistant• Chap.
lain of the Royal Naval School, New-cross.
Rev. W. B. Heathcote, 8.C.L., Fellow of New College, Ox-
ford, and Incumbent of Radley, Berkshire, to the Precentor-
ship of Salisbury Cathedral.
Rev. R. Helm, 8.A., to the Curacy of St. Andrew's, Hal-
stead, Essex.
Rev. 11. St. John Howard, LLB., Downing College, Cam-
bridge, to the Incumbency of Laurencekirk, Diocese of
Brechin, Scotland.
Rev. W. Howarth, M.A., Rector of Whitton-cum-Thurle-
ston near Ipswich, to the Rural Deanery of Claydon.
Rev. J. B. Jefferson, 8.A., to the Curacy of All Saints'
Church, Pontefract.
Rev. E. Kirwan, MA., to the Rectory of Wootton Waven,
near Henley-in-Arden.
Rev. W. Langley, M.A., to the Curacy of St. Michael's,
Dublin.
Rev. H. Lightfoot, M.A., to the Head-Mastership of
Basingstoke Grammar School.
Rev. W. North, M.A., Rector of Llangoedinore. Cardigan.
shire, to the Rural Deanery of Lower Sub-Ayron.
Rev. G. H. Penny, to the Curacy of Abbotabury, Dorset.
Rev. J. 0. Picton, 8.A., to be Assistant Curate of Rowde,
Wilts.. . .

II • ••••/•
Rev. W. Savage, M.A., to be Assistant Curate of Bishop's
Cannings, Wilts.
Rev. R. J. Steele, to the Curacy of West Rownton, near
Yarm.
Rev. H. F. Seymour, 8.A., Fellow of All Souls' College,
Oxford, to the Vicarage of Barking, Essex.
Rev. C. B. Walsh, late Curate, to the Perpetual Curacy of
Binsted-with-Kinsley, near Alton, Hants.
Rev. T. Walker, M.A., Curate of Eskdaleside and Unto-
burnby, near Whitby, Yorkshire, to the Incumbency of those
parishes.
Rev. A. W. West, M.A., of Trinity College, Dublin, Chan-
cellor of Kildare Cathedral, to be Domestic Chaplain to the
Duke of Leinster.
Rev. W. Wilcock, 31. A., Rector of Ballymoney, to the
Rectory of Cleenisb, near Fermanagh.