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

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL

ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LIBERTY

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

71,-1 1

he medium of y

TO THE EDITOR OF TIIE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

—Your comes

ground of complaint ag

has no just

ainst me for

concealing

name," seeing that, in judicious regard to his reputation,
he conceals his own. But it is not to retort a trifle of this

kind, neither is it to resent his misrepresentations
letters, that I now notice what appeared under his signa-
ture in your paper of last week. My letters speak for
themselves ; and my citations from the rubricks verbatim,
allow the Church to speak for herself. They require but
a re-perusal to be cleared of all the dust raised by your
correspondent.

But, Sir, my present object is of a graver character. I
have to charge " Vincentius," whoever he may be, with
three serious offences. First, a mistranslation, and thereby
a misrepresentation of St. Paul ; second, a misrepresenta-
tion of the Church of England ; and third, insulting
language to the Bishop of the Diocese. It is of some
importance to have these things pointed out ; because, in
these things, your correspondent is a fair specimen of the
school to which he belongs.

1. He is guilty of a mistranslation, and thereby a mis-
representation of St. Paul. His words are—

"Our Lord left behind Him a command to show forth His
death till His coming again, entrusting to His Church a gift,
which, as St. Paul tells us, is nothing less than the communi-
cation of His Body and Blood."
COMMUNICATION !

Here is a mistranslation. The only passage in St. Paul's
writings to which allusion can be made occurs in the tenth
chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. There, at
the 16th verse, the Apostle writes :—" The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which webreak, is it not the commu-
nion of the body of Christ ?" The Apostle's expression is
KoLviovia, in each clause of the verse, and our authorised
translation is communion. Where, then, does St. Paul
tell us that the Lord's Supper is the communication of
His body and blood ? I venture to say nowhere ; and I
challenge your correspondent to justify, if he can, the
assertion he has made. If it be pleaded that the word
communication, as the writer intended it, is synonymous
with communion, then, I ask, why the deviation from our
authorised version ?
The use of this word, considered merely as a matter of
translation, is wholly unjustifiable ; but when the nature
of the misrepresentation conveyed by it is taken into the
account, it deserves to be designated by even a stronger
term. Your correspondent belongs to a school who believe,
or profess to believe, that in the Lord's Supper, the body
and blood of the Lord are given, or communicated, by
the officiating priest to the recipient of the bread and
wine; and in the passage of his letter above cited, by
substituting communication for communion, he slyly
insinuates that St. Paul taught the same.
St. Paul taught a communion or fellowship with the Lord's
body and blood, as St. John taught a fellowship or communion
with the Father and with the Son. The word is the same,
Kotvawia—compare 1 John i. 3. But neither of the
Apostles taught a communication of the Lord's body
and blood.

Communion or fellowship with the Father and with the
Son, and with the Lord's body and blood, is " only after a
heavenly and spiritual manner." "And the mean whereby
the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper,
is faith." Art. xxviii. The• Church of England makes this
as distinct as words can make anything. Her xxixth
Article declares that " such as be void of a lively faith,
although they do carnally and visibly press with their
teeth the Sacrament of de body and blood of Christ, yet
in no wise are they partakers of Christ." In no wise !
If there be any wise in which Christ is in the bread and
wine, then they who are partakers of the bread and wine
must in that wise, whatever it is,. be partakers of Christ.
But our Church has distinctly—and most scripturally—
ruled that such as be void of a lively faith are in no wise
partakers of Christ.
And per contra, and with equal distinctness, our
Church declares—see Rubrick is "the Communion of the
Sick"—that, " If a man, either by reason of extremity of
sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the curate,
or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any
other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of
Christ's body and blood, the curate shall instruct him,
that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly
believe that Jesus Christ bath suffered death upon the
cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption,
earnestly remembering the benefits he bath thereby, and
giving him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and
drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, pro-
fitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive
the Sacrament with his mouth."

Thus does the Church of England unequivocally de-
dare, on the one side, that a man without lively faith may
eat and drink the consecrated brawl and wine, and yet be
in no wise a partaker of Christ; and on the other side,
that a man with lively faith may eat and drink the body
and blood of Christ, though he does not receive the con-
secrated bread and wine.

Should your correspondent think fit to notice this letter,
I hope that, instead of telling us in a multitude of his own
words what the Church says—as he thinks—he will give
us quotations from the Prayer Book, allowing the Church
to speak for herself, as I do.
I think I have thus established my first charge against
your correspondent—namely, that he is guilty of a mis-
translation, and thereby of a misrepresentation of St.
Paul.

2. My second charge is, that he is guilty of a misrepre-
sentation of the Church of England. His words are—
" And in our own (Church) since the change in much of her
external appearance at the Reformation. the practice (of
Weekly Communion) is so closely followest_thar sae occa-
sions where she can assume there will be sufficient to com-
municate she absolutely assumes also a weekly celebration;
and on the others where, not knowing the number, she can-
not positively enjoin it, she arranges for her altars to be
arrayed, and her ministers to take their place at them every
Sunday and other Holy-day, to celebrate if the number be
sufficient to communicate."

This appears to me to be a misrepresentation. Because,
although the Church does indeed—effectually to guard
against the abuses of private masses—forbid the celebra-
tion of the Lord's Supper when there are not four, or at
the least, three communicants—a case very possible in a
sick man's chamber—yet she no where absolutely assumes
a weekly celebration, or arranges for her altars to be
arrayed ;—she never alls the communion table an altar,—
and her ministers to take their place at them every Sun-
day and other Holy-day, to celebrate if the number be
sufficient.
According to your correspondent's representation,
nothing should hinder Weely Communion, except the
want of a sufficient number of communicants when the
time arrived for the celebration. Now, as it never could
be known in any parish a week before, whether there
would, or would not, be a sufficient number 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 Church'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 place
again, we found another Rubrick, saying, " Then shall
the minister give warping 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 shall 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, wrr-sx the Minister giveth warn-
ing. And, instead of every Sunday ; it is, THE 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 verbose argumentation of his own, but with the language
of the Church itself. 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 very property 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 office, 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 Chureb, -to manifest any unaccustomed
zeal for the sacrament of peace 7 Yet, finally, there is one
refuge from this disastrous catalogile 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 ?"

This I consider insulting language, and I am persuaded
that every unprejudiced man who has read the Bishop's
letter upon the subject will agree with me. There runs
through these and the other questions 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 overflowings of
selfish disappointment and petulant vexation—of a temper
with irritation enough to manifest bitterness, but without
talent enough to accomplish severity. They are not 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 lamepter 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—serf, eheu ! jam satin est ! With
the instructive example of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and
St. Barnabas, 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 conse.
crated, it falls under the law of the church 9( Avow, and

ADVERTISER.

the Bishop of Chester's own jurisdiction. The moment a
word is preached, or a service celebrated, in the new Liver-
pool church, in violation of the law of the. Church of England,
the Bishop of Chester can, and is bound to, interfere. He
can stop unauthorised innovations most effectually ; and why,
therefore, should the Church be deprived for ever of an edi-
fice, because alßishop thinks that he has reason to dread some-
thing which the law requires and empowers him to put an end
to whenever it occurs?"

This simpi. —ems never to have heard of defiance
being set •to episcopal interference, by those who so ex-
travagantly—in words—magnify the episcopal office. The
Bishop of Chester, however, has had experience of this,
and in this town of Liverpool. His known wishes, con-
veyed as from a spiritual father, have proved ineffectual
to stop what he considered unauthorised innovations."
He has complained of this, and in vain. As to the scan-
alining ultimatum of a law-suit, the Bishop appears to
have determined—wisely, as I presume to think—that
prevention is better than cure.-1 am, Sir, your obedient
servant, A CHURCHMAN OF LIVERPOOL.
July 24th, 1854.

REV. W. POLLOCK AND "THE TRACTARIANS.'