«fc 
 
 m 
 
 m» 
 
 m 
 
 -&J^1<f^ 
 
 6h 
 
 ^iSilpMi 
 
 r 5m*r 
 
 
 
 %y.:. ; '#^ ; -. f . - 
 
 ' i- ^ . ,4 v 
 
 r'4 ^ -:>v 'A h 
 
 SP^^Ml&f
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THt 
 UNIVLR.5 ITY 
 Of 1 LLI NOIS
 
 U ^t^,>y .-L-u^jzy*/ 
 
 7£ 
 
 EITUAL EEVKSION 
 
 A LETTEE 
 
 VENERABLE EDWARD BICKERSTETH, D.D. 
 
 AECHDBACON OF BUCKINGHAM 
 
 AND 
 
 PROLOCUTOR OP THE LOWER HOUSE OF THE CONVOCATION 
 OF THE PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY 
 
 BY THE 
 
 RIGHT HON. JOHN G. HUBBARD. M.P. 
 
 LONDON 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 1874 
 
 Price One Shilling
 
 EITUAL REVISION 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 VENEEABLE EDWARD BICKEESTETH, D.D. 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF BUCKINGHAM 
 
 AXD 
 
 PROLOCUTOR OP THE LOWER HOUSE OP THE CONVOCATION 
 OF THE PROVINCE OP CANTERBURY 
 
 EIGHT HON. JOHN G. HUBBAKD, M.P. 
 
 LONDON 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 1874
 
 LONDON : rRTNTKD nT 
 
 SPOTTISTYOODK AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE 
 
 AND PARLIAMENT STREET
 
 VENERABLE AKCHDEACON BTCKEESTETH, 
 
 Prolocutor of tlie Lower House of Convocation. 
 
 My deae Archdeacon, — 
 
 At the Brighton Church Congress you, as Prolocutor 
 of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury, ex- 
 pressed a desire " that Convocation should be strengthened 
 by the opinions of the attached Laity of the Church," and 
 this intimation I must plead as my apology for offering the 
 following remarks. 
 
 Being neither a scholar, a theologian, nor a lawyer, I 
 have no pretension to expect that the same weight will be 
 attached to my thoughts on Eitual which is due to those of 
 others better qualified to speak on such a subject. Yet 
 feeling a deep interest in the questions which are now under 
 consideration, I submit the conclusions to which I have been 
 led by a careful study of the conflicting arguments and 
 evidence, aided also by the experience derived from a three 
 years' participation in the labours of the Royal Commission 
 on Eitual. I shall not reiterate the feeling of deference 
 under which I write, but I beg to be clearly understood as 
 
 A 2
 
 4 Ritual Revision. 
 
 expressing my opinions subject to correction by superior 
 authority. 
 
 Convocation, and by this word I imply the two Houses of 
 the Province of Canterbury, and the Convocation of York, 
 has, by " Letters of Business," been summoned by the Crown 
 to consider and report upon the Rubrics of the Book 
 of Common Prayer. Convocation has accepted, and has 
 already entered upon its task ; and it is needless to assert 
 the immense importance of its concurrence in effecting 
 such changes or explanations of the Rubrics as may termi- 
 nate the painful and harassing dissensions which destroy the 
 peace and impede the action of the Church, The differences 
 of opinion and diversities of practice which it is important 
 to reconcile and remove may all occur to the mind in a 
 review of the " Order of the Administration of the Lord's 
 Supper or Holy Communion ; " but before entering on this 
 review, I desire to submit some rules which, in my judg- 
 ment, should guide the revision of the Rubrics. 
 
 1. The text of the Prayer Book should be maintained in 
 its integrity, and not be tampered with either directly, or 
 indirectly through changes in the Rubrics. 
 
 2. The Rubrics should be touched only where a diversity 
 of practice indicates that they require explanation or altera- 
 tion in order to ensure uniformity, or to sanction a diver- 
 sity of practice. 
 
 3. The decision of Convocation shoidd not be embarrassed 
 by admitting in certain Ritual observances a doctrinal signi- 
 ficance arbitrarily attached to them, and by reason of that 
 assumed significance fiercely attacked by one party, and as 
 resolutely defended by the other. 
 
 4. The essential uniformity of a National Church should 

 
 Ritual Revision. 5 
 
 not be exchanged for the variableness of a petty Congre- 
 gationalism, and the concurrent approval of a congregation 
 and their clergy be allowed to legalise any local diversity 
 of practice. 
 
 It is greatly to be lamented that the issue of the Royal 
 License and Letters of Business from the Crown should have 
 been made the occasion of impugning the capacity of Convo- 
 cation for the task assigned to it, and of disparaging- 
 it as imperfectly representing the clergy, and as being, 
 therefore, disqualified for the work of legislation. Undoubt- 
 edly Convocation might be a larger body, and might be 
 elected by a larger constituency, but it by no means follows 
 that it would be materially altered either in ability or 
 character by the proposed reform. Convocation comprises men 
 eminent for their learning and their loyalty, experienced 
 also in their important office, and as a body well deserving 
 the confidence of Churchmen. It has before it the arduous 
 duty of initiating legislation to be effected with the con- 
 currence of a House of Commons, comprising members of 
 conflicting religious communities. A House so constituted 
 is avowedly unfitted for the discussion of religious questions, 
 yet its co-operation is indispensable, and it has a right, 
 therefore, to expect that the proposals submitted for its con- 
 currence shall have been framed with regard both to the 
 maintenance of order indispensable to the existence of a 
 Church, and to the reasonable liberty claimed by its indivi- 
 dual members. The proposals of Convocation will be enti- 
 tled to the ready acceptance of Parliament if they carry with 
 them the general assent of Churchmen. Convocation may 
 divest itself of all prejudice and partial affections, yet 
 it can hardly be that the decisions which are to terminate
 
 6 Ritual Revision. 
 
 strife will invariably satisfy both the contending parties. As- 
 suming, however, that both parties are loyal to the Church, 
 it may be hoped that whatever adjustment may be arrived 
 at will meet with a general, if not a cheerful, acquiescence. 
 
 I remain, my dear Archdeacon, 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 John Gellibrand Hubbard,
 
 EITUAL BEVISION. 
 
 THE POSITION OF THE CELEBRANT. 
 
 " The Table .... shall stand in the Body of the Church or in 
 the Chancel .... And the Priest, standing at the North-Side of 
 the Table, shall say .... 
 
 " When the Priest, standing before the Table, hath so ordered 
 the Bread and Wine, that he may with the more readiness and 
 decency break the Bread before the people, and take the Cup into 
 his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration, as followeth. i ' 
 
 Tiie adjustment of the controversy touching the position 
 of the Priest at the celebration of the Holy Communion has 
 been unhappily delayed by the eagerness with which advo- 
 cates, on either side, regardless of historic facts, have urged 
 their peculiar interpretations ; and in particular by the fan- 
 tastic argument " that the north side of the table Avas a ritual 
 synonym for the ancient rubrical expression i in dextro 
 cornu altaris ; ' the dexter corner being that which would 
 be so called with reference to that of which it was a part, 
 and thus ' north side ' obviously means the northern part of 
 the western side of the Altar." A reference to the history of 
 the Rubrics effectively disposes of this theory. 
 
 The Rubrics of 1549 ran — 
 
 " The Priest, standing humbly afore the midst of the 
 Altar, &c. <fcc." The Altar then stood with its ends north 
 and south, and the Priest officiated at the west side, and the 
 west side only, during the service. 
 
 "With the year 1550 began the destruction of "Altars"
 
 8 Ritual Revision. 
 
 and the substitution of " Tables." The Letter of the Council, 
 dated November 1550, mentions that "Altars within the 
 most part of the ' Churches ' were already taken down ; " and 
 it was in view of this substitution of Table for Altar that 
 the Rubrics of 1552 direct that — 
 
 " The Table .... sliall stand in the Body of the Church 
 or in the Chancel .... and the Priest, standing at the 
 North-Side of the Table, shall say, &c." Is it probable, is it 
 possible, that the authors of the Rubrics of 1552, who had just 
 destroyed Altars throughout the churches of this realm, should 
 indicate the Priest's position at the Table by a reference, in 
 antiquarian language, to the Altar which had been destroyed ? 
 
 The interpretation of the Rubric must be in harmony 
 and not at variance with historical facts. 
 
 The Table being placed in the Body of the Church or 
 Chancel, with its ends east and west, the Priest standing at 
 the North-Side would be also standing " before the Table," 
 and in this position he would officiate throughout the service. 
 
 Under Archbishop Laud's influence the Convocations of 
 York and Canterbury declared, in 1640 (7th Canon), that 
 the Table being by that time rightly placed " in most Cathe- 
 dral and some Parochial Churches," it was fit and convenient 
 that all Churches do conform to their example, and place 
 the Table " sideway under the east window" {i.e. altarwise) ; 
 but in 1641 Laud's work was undone by an order of the 
 House of Commons, " that the Communion Table be removed 
 forthwith from the east end of the Church, or Chapel, or 
 Chancel, into some other convenient place." 
 
 With the Restoration came a reaction from the Puritan 
 disarrangement, but neither Wren nor Cosin were able 
 to transform the words " north side " into " north part," and 
 the Rubric of 1552 re-appeared unaltered in the Prayer 
 Book of 1662. In that Book, however, the Rubric prefixed 
 to the Consecration Prayer was altered from " Then the 

 
 Position of the Celebrant. 9 
 
 Priest, standing up, shall say as followeth " into " When the 
 Priest, standing before the Table, hath, &c. <£c." 
 
 The addition of these words made no necessary difference 
 in the position of the Priest ; for assuming the Table to stand 
 east and west, he still stood at the " north side," and he also 
 stood " before the Table." 
 
 Since 1662 no change has been made in the Rubrics of 
 the Liturgy, but a very general change has been made in 
 the position of the Table, which now invariably stands north 
 and south, except in the few cases in which the Table being 
 a perfect square has four sides and no ends. So we have 
 Rubrics adapting the position of the Priest to a supposed 
 " tablewise " position of the Table, and we have the Table itself 
 occupying an " altarwise " position. Clearly here is a necessity 
 for a legislative or, at all events, a judicial adjustment. 
 
 The position of the celebrant is admitted to be a non- 
 essential ; but the adherents of the north and of the west 
 sides attach much importance to the perpetuation of their 
 respective practices, and there appears sufficient reason for 
 admitting an alternative practice, and authorising either 
 position. 
 
 A powerful argument in favour of this course lies in the 
 improbability of either position being brought under judicial 
 condemnation, should any fresh case be pleaded with the 
 assistance of Counsel. Assume the impeachment of a Priest 
 celebrating at the north (narrow) end of the Table. He 
 clearly disobeys the order to stand "before the Table," but 
 he could protect himself and comply with the Rubric by 
 moving the Table and placing it as it would have stood 300 
 years ago, with its ends east and west. Assume, on the other 
 hand, the impeachment of a Priest for celebrating at the 
 west side, before any tribunal bound to apply the law as 
 already determined by the Final Court of Appeal. It would 
 be pleaded against him that the Judicial Committee of the
 
 10 Ritual Revision. 
 
 Privy Council, in the case of Hebbert 
 that Mr. Purchas's practice of saying the Consecration Prayer, 
 standing before the Table and looking eastward, was illegal ; 
 but it would be replied that Mr. Purchas had no Counsel 
 and made no defence ; and that the decision, valid as against 
 hirn, is not conclusive in any other case ; and it would be 
 alleged, further, that the Purchas decision is not only not 
 law, but is directly at variance with the Mackonochie de- 
 cision, which is law. In that earlier case the Privy Council, 
 after a trial elaborately argued upon both sides, decided that 
 " Mr. Mackonochie had violated the Eubric by kneeling 
 instead of standing during a part of the Consecration Prayer ;" 
 and they grounded their decision upon the words — " When 
 the Priest, standing before the Table ;" which, they say, apply 
 to the whole sentence. The Priest, therefore, " for the 
 ordering of the elements," taking the posture u standing '," and 
 the position " before the Table" can change neither posture 
 nor position until the conclusion of the Consecration 
 Prayer. 
 
 The Committee of the Privy Council, who tried Mr. 
 Purchas, allege that in the Mackonochie case the "posture" 
 and not the " position " was in question : that is quite true, 
 but the rejoinder is, that the construction of the Eubric, 
 which fixes the celebrant in a " standing " posture, and so 
 precludes his " kneeling" equally precludes his " walking." 
 Once let the minister " stand before the Table " looking east 
 (as he is in some churches assumed legally to do by Mr. 
 Purchas's judges), and it becomes impossible for him, con- 
 sistently with the Eubric, as interpreted in the Macko- 
 nochie case, to leave that side of the Table until he releases 
 himself by completing the Consecration. 
 
 A return to the perception of what is reverent and con- 
 venient has restored the Lord's Table to its original position ; 
 and so long as it there remains, the Eubrics regulating the 

 
 Position of the Celebrant, 11 
 
 position of the Priest become in their entirety impracticable. 
 The solution of the dilemma thus created would be readily 
 effected by legalising either position ; and, indeed, no other 
 course presents itself. 
 
 CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 
 
 " Then shall this general Confession he made, in the name of. all 
 those that are minded to receive the Holy Communion, by one of the 
 Ministers ; both he and all the people kneeling humbly upon their 
 Jcnees, and saying ; — 
 
 " Then shall the Priest (or the Bishop, being present) stand up, 
 and turning himself to the people, pronounce this Absolution." 
 
 Judging from the public excitement upon this subject, 
 and from the Memorials presented to Bishops and Arch- 
 bishops, one might imagine that Confession meant, not the 
 contrite avowal of sin, but the commission of some dire 
 enormity, to which the party granting " Absolution " became 
 an accomplice. It is, no doubt, possible that false teaching 
 and spiritual tyranny might exist in connection with Con- 
 fession and Absolution. We might be told that sins can 
 only be forgiven through the medium of personal Absolution 
 given by the Priest after particular Confession ; and the 
 doctrine so enunciated might be enforced by a denial of the 
 Holy Communion except as a sequel to previous private 
 Confession. Assuming that such a doctrine may have been 
 taught, I have never heard of its being practically enforced 
 by such unwarrantable means. The recollection of spiritual 
 tyranny exercised through the Confessional (although re- 
 ferring back in this country to very distant periods) is still 
 Sufficiently vivid to inflame the popular mind upon any 
 provocation however slight ; but the surest way to avert any
 
 1 2 Ritual Revision. 
 
 mischief from a similar abuse of power, or from false teach- 
 ing, in our own times, would be for those in authority not to 
 echo an unreasoning- and ignorant cry, but to point out how 
 clearly and effectively the Church of England guards her 
 members from the dangers to which members of the Roman 
 Communion are exposed. 
 
 The Doctrine that every Christian requires the assistance 
 of a Priest to search out the sins of his past life is one which 
 practically denies the gift of baptismal grace. The Holy 
 Spirit given to the regenerate is (unless repelled by wilful 
 sin) their constant monitor and guide. He restrains the 
 sinful impulse, rebukes the accomplished sin, inspires con- 
 trition, and keeps past sin in painful memory, until the 
 soul, relieved by humble and sorrowful confession to God, 
 finds comfort and peace through Absolution. The holiest of 
 men offend continually, but Christ has provided, through 
 His meritorious atonement, a continual means of recovery in 
 the ministrations of His Church. The Church of England 
 provides in her Order of Daily Prayer, and again in the 
 Communion Service, forms of general Confession, to each of 
 which* is adapted a form of general Absolution. In the 
 office for the " Visitation of the Sick" the sick person shall 
 " be moved to make a special confession of his sins if he 
 feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. 
 After which Confession the Priest shall absolve him (if he 
 humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort : — ' Our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve 
 all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His 
 great mercy forgive thee thine offences. And by His autho- 
 rity committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in 
 the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost. Amen.' " 
 
 This form of Absolution is also applicable after private
 
 Confession and Absolution. 13 
 
 Confessions made in response to the Exhortation in the 
 Communion Service : — " If any of you cannot quiet his own 
 conscience .... let him come to me or to some other dis- 
 creet and learned minister of God's Word and open his grief, 
 that by the ministry of God's Holy Word he may receive 
 the benefit of Absolution, together with ghostly counsel and 
 advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all 
 scruple and doubtfulness." 
 
 The form of Absolution adapted to private and special 
 Confessions is of necessity personal in its character, but the 
 efficacy of the several forms is equal. The Priest in either 
 case speaks in the Name of God and by His authority, and 
 the pardon which he declares is effectual alike in each, upon 
 the expressed condition that the sinner be " truly penitent 
 for his sins and have a lively faith in God's mercy." The 
 penitent who longs for the peace of conscious pardon will in 
 solitude search out the sins of his past life, in solitude re- 
 morsefully confess them to the ever-ready ear of his Heavenly 
 Father, and bringing the memory of them into the House of 
 God, embrace them all in the general Confession, while with 
 deep abasement he sends a cry for mercy to the Throne of 
 God. So repenting, confessing, and believing he appropriates 
 to himself the Absolution pronounced by the Priest, and 
 as the words reach his ear, "He pardoneth and absolveth 
 all them that truly repent and unfeignedly believe His 
 Holy Gospel," he feels that God, speaking by the mouth 
 of His Minister, has indeed forgiven him. 
 
 All private Confession, including that of the sick, or of 
 those troubled in mind, is made in the hearing of the Priest, 
 and consists in the avowal of specific sins, and the Absolution 
 pronounced by the Priest is consequently direct and personal ; 
 but, equally with the general Absolutions, it is declaredly 
 given in Christ's Name, and by His authority, and its appli-
 
 14 Ritual Revision. 
 
 cation is limited to " those who truly repent and believe in 
 Him." How true that repentance and belief may be God 
 knoweth, but no Priest can know, and the Absolution the 
 Priest declares is, therefore, necessarily conditional. And yet 
 the stipulated proviso neither invalidates his Office nor 
 nullifies the Absolution pronounced by him. Irresistible are 
 the evidences that Christ, exercising Himself the power of 
 Absolution, committed that power to His Apostles for trans- 
 mission through the ministry of His Church to the end of 
 time, and to the privileges provided for them in that 
 ministry the faithful are continually invited. 
 
 Assuming the sufficiency of the general Confessions and 
 Public Absolutions of the Church, especially with reference 
 to those who may have been from their Baptism care- 
 fully brought up " to lead the rest of their lives accord- 
 ing to that beginning," it must still be remarked that in all 
 ages there have been persons inferior neither in holiness of 
 life, nor in intellectual vigour, who have found, or thought 
 they found, the practice of private Confession helpful to 
 the attainment of yet higher degrees of holiness. Again, 
 it must be obvious, that in dealing with the neglected, 
 ignorant, and vicious population of our great cities, many of 
 all ages must be met with, so cased in ignorance and steeped 
 in sin that their whole moral nature needs to be dissected, and 
 their darkened lives brought to the light of day, before they 
 can be taught to understand the holiness of Gfod and the 
 sinfulness of man. In such cases it is quite possible that 
 special Confession to the Priest may afford the most effec- 
 tual means towards enlightening the mind and converting 
 the heart. And if it be found that through private Confession, 
 and by the grace of Absolution, the depraved can be purified, 
 and the pure become holier, who shall dare to deprive 
 either class of their liberty of action ? The attempt would 
 be as futile as it would be profane.
 
 Confession and Absolution. 15 
 
 If it appear that attempts are being made to render pri- 
 vate Confession a compulsory rule, let them be counteracted, 
 not by disparaging the ordinance, but by showing that re- 
 mission of sins can be effectually obtained by duly using the 
 ordinary ministrations of the Church. 
 
 WAFERS. 
 
 " And to take away all occasion of dissension, and superstition, 
 which any person hath or might have concerning the Bread and Wine, 
 it shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to he eaten; hut 
 the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may he gotten. 
 
 "And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the 
 Curate shall have it to his oxen use.'''' 
 
 There are diversities which, touching matters either non- 
 essential or only of partial or passing interest, may be 
 admitted without serious detriment to the uniformity indis- 
 pensable for unity, peace, and concord. Such, however, is 
 not a diversity touching the Bread administered at Holy 
 Communion. It ought not to be possible for a member of the 
 Church of England to attend a celebration of the Holy Com- 
 munion and be startled and shocked at being presented by 
 any of her Clergy with some strange substance instead of the 
 accustomed consecrated Bread. There is no other practice in 
 the whole range of Ritual observance upon which uniformity 
 is more obviously essential than in the administration of the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is at once the highest 
 means of grace and the most expressive bond of Christian 
 fellowship. Archbishop Parker has been often referred to by 
 the advocates of Wafers as an authority in favour of their use. 
 Parker undoubtedly endorsed Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, 
 and in his Visitation Articles of 1563 enquired, "4, Item.
 
 16 Ritual Revision. 
 
 Whether they do use to minister the Communion in Wafer 
 Bread according to the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, or in 
 common bread ; " but Parker, writing to Sir William Cecil in 
 1570, declared that "he had been moved in a matter not 
 greatly material, but only obeying the Queen's Highness when 
 he required the use of Wafer Bread," and adding, " I can soon 
 alter my order." Parker, doubtful or indifferent as to whether 
 Wafer Bread or Loaf Bread should be used, had, however, 
 no doubt as to the scandal arising from conflicting usage, or 
 he would not have written to Secretary Cecil : — 
 
 " Sir, — As you desired, I send you the form of the Bread 
 used and was so appointed by my late Lord of London and 
 myself, as we took it not disagreable to the Injunction. And 
 how so many Churches hath of late varied I cannot tell ; 
 except it be the 'practice of the common adversary the devil 
 to make variance and dissension in the Sacrament of Unity.'''' 
 
 The unity which Parker had at heart was, by the progress 
 of events, attained in this matter by the general adoption 
 not of Wafer Bread but of Loaf Bread ; and the question 
 now is, whether the recently revived use of Wafers shall 
 again " make variance and dissension in the Sacrament of 
 Unity ? " 
 
 Let us consider the arguments in favour of Wafers. It 
 is asserted that " Wafers are Bread of the best and purest 
 species, for that they are made of wheaten flour and water." 
 
 The reply is, that starch and maccaroni are both of them 
 made of wheaten flour and water, and yet neither starch nor 
 maccaroni is Bread. 
 
 It is objected to Loaf Bread that it " is made with leaven 
 and many other impurities, and that it crumbles to an in- 
 convenient extent in the administration." 
 
 The answer is, that our Eubrics stipulate neither for 
 Leavened nor L^nleavened Bread, but they require bread "such 
 as is usual to be eaten," or it would not be enjoined that "if 
 any remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own
 
 Wafers. 17 
 
 use." Bread may or may not be baker's bread, it may be 
 leavened, unleavened, or aerated, but it must be " Bread;" and 
 there is no difficulty in procuring bread free from impurity 
 and free from any tendency to excessive crumbling. A cer- 
 tain amount of crumbling- may take place with any Bread 
 that can be used, but reverence degenerates into superstition 
 when, in order to avoid the risk of crumbling, the Clergy dis- 
 regard Christ's own institution by inventing a safe substitute 
 for the Bread which he gives us as His Body. They who 
 thus act are really adopting the argument of the Church of 
 Eome, which pleads reverence .in its justification when, — to 
 avert the risk of spilling a drop of the consecrated Wine, — it 
 deprives the Laity of the Chalice of Christ's cleansing Blood. 
 Some of our Clergy subject Loaf Bread to pressure, which 
 destroys its texture and natural appearance, and deliver it to 
 the communicant in the disguise of a thin lozenge of paste. 
 Surely it is more reverent that the Loaf Bread untampered 
 with should be divided into small cubes easily conveyed to 
 the mouth, with the fingers or from the palm of the hand, 
 than in this elaborated form. 
 
 Neither by these devices nor by the use of Wafers would 
 the irreverence be remedied which is said to attach to the 
 use of Loaf Bread ; for unless the use of Wafers were made 
 compulsory, those who are careless and irreverent would not 
 use them, and those who are reverent would not need them. 
 
 The Clergy, it is said, may be reverent, but the commu- 
 nicant may be irreverent, and may crumble bread between 
 his finger and thumb. When that occurs it is rather from 
 thoughtlessness than irreverence, and it is, no doubt, desir- 
 able that the people should always receive the Bread in the 
 palms of their hands. We have heard, indeed, of Clergy who 
 refused to place the Bread in the hand of a communicant; 
 but such conduct violated equally the rule of the Church and 
 the rule of Christian charity. " Take and eat this" does not 
 J'.
 
 18 Ritual Revision. 
 
 mean, seize this between finger and thumb, but " receive this," 
 and the Rubric distinctly orders the Priest to deliver the 
 Communion to the people "into their hands" The people 
 should be taught the better way, but surely no one should 
 be denied the Bread of Life because the way in which he 
 offered to receive it, either in his fingers or his hand, was 
 not the one approved by the Priest who administered. 
 
 Parker, in his Visitation Articles of 1563, required the use 
 of Wafer Bread, but he has no followers in this course ; and 
 whenever Sacramental bread is mentioned in subsequent 
 Visitation Articles, the Bishop-enquires " whether the Church- 
 wardens provide against every Communion a sufficient quan- 
 tity of fine White Bread ? " It is to be hoped that " fine 
 White Bread " will be the rule in the future, and that, in ac- 
 cordance with the recommendation of the Ritual Commis- 
 sion, " Wafers shall not be used." 
 
 NON-COMMUNICATING ATTENDANCE. 
 
 " At the time of the Celebration the Communicants being 
 conveniently placed." 
 
 To these words the Ritual Commissioners propose to add 
 the following : — 
 
 " Those ivho so desire it having had opportunity to with- 
 draw." 
 
 Their reasons for this proposal may be found in the prac- 
 tice thus described as existing in certain churches : — 
 
 At the close of the Prayer for the Church Militant, the 
 officiating Priest, regardless of the Rubrical order that " the 
 communicants be conveniently placed," hastens to deliver the 
 exhortation, " Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to 
 come, &c," while the non-communicants are in the act of
 
 Non-communicating Attendance. 19 
 
 retiring. The exhortation is consequently read amidst the 
 confusion arising from persons struggling past each other, and 
 the solemn words of encouragement and warning are lost in the 
 noise of trampling feet, the clashing of chairs, and the shut- 
 ting of doors. The irreverence which accompanies this por- 
 tion of the administration is painful to the communicants, 
 and most distressing to the non-communicants, who feel that 
 they are rebuked by the refusal to allow them to depart in 
 peace. 
 
 The Lower House of Convocation, on March 2, 1872, 
 concurred in the opinion of the Ritual Commission, and 
 adopted their proposed clause, with the important substi- 
 tution for the words, " those who so desire," of the words, 
 " those who do not intend to communicate? 
 
 Against the clause so proposed in Convocation it has been 
 objected that it would in effect create a new rule, and impose 
 a moral if not an actual restraint on persons who, from 
 whatever cause, may desire to remain. Irrespective of the 
 Divine Service, persons may remain in the church, and may 
 — there as elsewhere, then as at other times — benefit by 
 their own meditations and prayers. No obstacle is opposed 
 to their doing so by the original recommendation of the 
 Ritual Commissioners, which only aimed at securing the 
 liberty of the congregation, and precluding the possibility 
 of irreverent disorder during the performance of any part 
 of the Divine Service. 
 
 On July 4, 1873, the Lower House amended their pre- 
 vious resolution, and agreed to the following form of this 
 Rubric before the " Long Exhortation : " "At the time of t he 
 celebration of the Holy Communion, a pause having hern 
 made to allow those who so desire to withdraw, and the 
 communicants being conveniently placed for the receiving of 
 the Holy Sacrament, the Priest shall say this Exhortation." 
 
 Different opinions are held as to the period when non- 
 13 2
 
 20 Ritual Revision. 
 
 communicants may most conveniently withdraw — before or 
 after the Prayer for the Church Militant. The words of the 
 Rubric proposed by the Eitual Commission, " having had op- 
 portunity to withdraw," or these — " a pause having been 
 made" as agreed by Con vocation, pronounce no opinion as to 
 the preferable practice. 
 
 A recent writer in favour of non-communicating attend- 
 ance cites the authority of the early Christian Church, and 
 remarks, " That the primitive Church contented herself with 
 putting before the baptized that reception was the highest 
 act of Communion, while she never insisted on their always 
 receiving when present at£/te only public Services then in use." 
 
 May not this statement (assuming its accuracy) explain 
 the different structure of our own Liturgy ? 
 
 If the Eucharistic Service in the early Church not only 
 consisted of an office of administration, but provided for the 
 Confession and Absolution of the people, for their instruc- 
 tion by the priest, for the recital of their Creed, for the read- 
 ing of the Scripture, the offering of praise and supplication 
 and thanksgiving, and if it were not merely the chief but 
 " the only public Service" it would of necessity be attended 
 by all the faithful, and it might become the practice of all 
 the privileged to remain throughout the Celebration, even 
 when exceptionally they did not communicate. But it is 
 admitted that a practice of remaining without receiving 
 (never directly sanctioned) grew so rapidly into a serious 
 abuse, that it provoked indignant reproofs from the Fathers 
 of the Church, many of which, including the famous one of 
 St. Chrysostom, have been transmitted to us. It is notorious 
 also that long before the Reformation the abuse had become 
 the use, and " hearing Mass " had become the substitute for 
 Holy Communion. At the Eeformation the rulers of the 
 Church in England re-arranged her Services. They prepared 
 an Eucharistic Service to be, for those admitted to so high 

 
 Non-communicating Attendance. 21 
 
 privilege, the occasion of Sacramental Communion with 
 Christ, and of offering to God the highest praise and most 
 prevailing prayer ; but they provided also in the morning 
 and evening Services and in the Litany a means of public 
 worship available for all, meet for the vilest sinner and for 
 the greatest saint, and through which even children might 
 intelligently plead before Almighty God the merits and pas- 
 sion of their Saviour, and might worship " the Lamb that 
 taketh away the sins of the world." That the latter part of 
 the Communion Service of the Church is inapplicable to 
 non-communicants is practically admitted by those who have 
 prepared "manuals of devotion to be used at the celebra- 
 tion of the Holy Eucharist by such as do not communicate." 
 To discard the Liturgical Service, and substitute individual 
 devotions at such a moment, seems a strange method of 
 joining in public worship, if, indeed, the privilege of doing 
 so were desired. The non-communicant pursuing his private 
 devotions at the time of Celebration has been taught that a 
 special blessing will attend his prayers offered to God at the 
 time of the Christian Sacrifice. Eloquently and forcibly, 
 no doubt, have great Christian teachers, and St. Chrysostom 
 in particular, insisted on the prevailing power of prayer 
 when the " awful sacrifice lies displayed ; " but to whose 
 prayer is the prevailing power ascribed ? Surely to the 
 prayers alone of those who approach in faith and reverent 
 obedience to receive Him who has called them in the words, 
 "Do this in remembrance of Me." 
 
 It has, indeed, been objected that the proposed Rubric is 
 superfluous, inasmuch as " those who desire it " arealreadj at 
 liberty to withdraw "then or at any convenient time M 
 
 This argument is irreconcilable with the reproofs ad 
 dressed to those who do withdraw, but il is noticeable as an 
 admission that the liberty should exist, and is decisive in 
 favour of that liberty being secured.
 
 22 Ritual Revision. 
 
 I urge this conclusion the more anxiously because of the 
 ability and zeal with which "non-communicating' attendance" 
 is recommended as a privilege and blessing. I have no 
 wish to provoke a controversy or to point to any writer in 
 particular, but I may present the following words as fairly 
 illustrating the teaching to which I allude : — 
 
 " There is a special benefit prepared for those who, with- 
 out communicating, attend the Holy Sacrament ; drawing 
 near to their Lord's Presence, and enjoying the continuance 
 of that intercourse which would otherwise be lost. Such 
 purposes are accomplished by the appointment of a visible 
 form notifying His Presence even though He be Himself in- 
 visible. Our Lord desires to be near the soul He loves, 
 and satisfy its cravings by the full enjoyment of fellowship 
 with Himself. And this He effects by means of the actual 
 sight, not of Himself, but of the signs and symbols assuring 
 us that where they are, there He is, there we can hold sure 
 converse with Him." "When we behold those outward signs, 
 Himself is proved to be there. He is there, and the assur- 
 ance of the visible symbols is enough ; it is the certain 
 pledge of our sacramental relation to Him. Even without 
 Communion we may have the satisfaction of feeling that we 
 are near to Him, and that He is near to us. To be near 
 such a Presence, even though we do not actually receive 
 Him, cannot but be fraught with blessing. We can hardly 
 but be stirred to quickened faith and tenderest love as we 
 pray before the consecrated signs of His Presence, His 
 coming near to bless. Nor can we suppose that the soul 
 which has thus approached with its longings of desire and 
 pleadings of its need, can go back from that Presence wholly 
 empty and unchanged." 
 
 What has been already said under this head may suggest 
 that language such as this finds no warrant in the structure 
 of our Communion Office ; neither (I venture to submit) is it
 
 Non-communicating' Attendance. 23 
 
 to be approved upon its intrinsic merits. Teaching - of this 
 kind may successfully impart to imaginative minds the very 
 sensations which have been described, and the soul may be 
 trained to see its Lord present in the visible symbols of His 
 Presence — to feel Him near, and to hold with Him that 
 spiritual intercourse the realisation of which is the highest 
 aim of prayer and praise and adoration. But at what cost 
 may these privileges have been purchased ? What (under 
 the influence of such training) may be the state of that soul 
 when it ceases to breathe the atmosphere and behold the 
 signs and symbols of Christ's Presence ? Is there no danger 
 that the soul, when deprived of the vision of the symbols 
 which it has been taught to regard as the evident assurance 
 of Christ's Presence, may forget that Christ is ever with us, 
 and that our every thought and word and deed are known to 
 Him ? And, unguarded by that consciousness, may it not 
 be the more accessible to the influences of the world and 
 sin ? If this danger be not imaginary — if it be true that 
 to overvalue the rare, the brief, the extraordinary influence, 
 is to undervalue and weaken the influence which ought to 
 be habitual, constant, and enduring — then, I ask, will not 
 damage have been done by exalting the benefits claimed for 
 the non-communicating " attendant at the Holy Sacrifice," 
 in depreciation of that clear, lively, and abiding sense of 
 Christ's Presence, which, ceasing neither with the turmoil of 
 the day, nor in the stillness of the night, in the midst of the 
 congregation, or in the solitude of the closet, accompanies 
 the faithful through all the changes and chances of this 
 mortal life ? 
 
 This is the Presence for which thousands daily pray in 
 the words of Keble's Evening Hymn :— 
 
 Abide with me from morn till eve, 
 For without Thee I cannot live ; 
 Abide with me when night is nigh, 
 Tor without Thee I dare not dio.
 
 24 Ritual Revision. 
 
 ELEVATION AND ADORATION. 
 "Here the Priest is to take the Paten, into his hands" 
 
 In order to appreciate " Wafers" and non-cornmunicating 
 attendance, it is necessary to consider a Ritual development 
 with which they are prominently connected. 
 
 In some churches at the mid-day Celebration, or " High 
 Mass," the congregation are trained to remain, not for the 
 purpose of Communion, but for Adoration. Not only are 
 they not invited to communicate, but they are discouraged 
 and even repelled if they approach the Altar. They are 
 taught, if they desire to communicate, to select an earlier 
 service, and that at the High Celebration their duty is to 
 assist at the Sacrifice, and join in offering Adoration to the 
 Body and Blood of Jesus formally elevated for their sight. 
 
 For the guidance of the Clergy in carrying out these 
 recent developments, the "Ritual of the Altar" provides pre- 
 cise instructions. The celebrating Priest having consecrated, 
 and holding his Host between the thumb and forefinger of 
 both hands, genuflects and worships, and then rising, 
 elevates the Host, while he repeats the words, " Do this in 
 remembrance of Me" 
 
 With reference to the practices thus inculcated it is 
 humbly submitted that there is no authority for them in 
 the Communion Service of the English Church. Christ's 
 Sacraments are to be used in the way and for the purposes 
 he has ordained, and in no other. In the Holy Eucharist, 
 a Commemorative Sacrifice, Adoration and Communion are 
 all combined ; and it must be a perversion of the Sacrament 
 which arbitrarily seeks through its medium to offer Sacrifice 
 and localised Adoration, while rejecting the Communion 
 which is the especial purpose of the institution.
 
 Elevation and Adoration. 25 
 
 The legal proceedings which have been directed against 
 the practice of Elevation were apparently based on the 
 assumption that all Elevation was illegal ; and the defence, 
 with equal lack of logic, aimed at justifying Elevation at 
 any time and in any degree, by proving that some Elevation 
 was indispensable. 
 
 A close adherence to the Rubrical directions appended to 
 the Consecration Prayer would result in a series of ceremonial 
 .acts closely coinciding with those required by the most 
 ancient Liturgy, that of St. James. 
 
 In the Liturgy of St. James we find the following : — 
 
 " Who in the night in which He was betrayed (1) (here 
 the Priest takes the Bread into his hands) taking bread into 
 his holy and spotless and pure and immortal hands, and look- 
 ing up to heaven, and showing it to Thee His God and Father, 
 He gave thanks and hallowed and (2) brake, and gave to 
 His apostles and disciples, saying (3), Take, eat, this is my 
 Body which is broken for you, and is given for the remission 
 of sins." 
 
 " Then he takes the cup" &c. 
 
 With the preceding the Liturgy of the Church of Eng- 
 land is in perfect harmony; thus — 
 
 " Who in the same night that He was betrayed (1) (here 
 the Priest is to take the Paten into his hands) took bread ; 
 and when He had given thanks (2) (and here to break the 
 Bread) He brake it; and gave it to His disciples, Baying, 
 Take, eat (3) (and here to lay his hand upon all the Bread), 
 this is my body which is given for you — do this in remem- 
 brance of Me." 
 
 " Likewise after supper," &c. 
 
 Upon these Kubrics the Eev. C. S. Cfrueber observes, 
 in his reply to Dr. Heurtley — " We have here three direc- 
 tions given. The first direction is as distinct from the second 
 as the second is from the third. Before the second can be
 
 26 Ritual Revision. 
 
 complied with, the Paten must be replaced upon the Holy 
 Table, and the hands must be released. Then, and not till 
 then, are the hands free to ' break the Bread.' It must be 
 added that the act of breaking the Bread requires the use of 
 both hands, for to use one hand only is not convenient." 
 
 A Priest of the Church of England, when he " takes the 
 Paten into his hands," may follow the precedent of St. James's 
 Liturgy ; he may " look up to heaven and show the Bread to 
 God," without adding to or deviating from the Eubrical direc- 
 tions of his own Church. 
 
 A prohibition of all Elevation of the Elements — that 
 Elevation included which is involved in the Priest " taking 
 the Paten into his hands," and which he mentally constitutes 
 " a showing to the Father," would therefore be an absurdity 
 which would be shattered by its collision with the Kubric. 
 
 As with the Paten so with the Cup — the Kubrics supply 
 directions quite definite, if literally obeyed. 
 
 "Likewise after Supper He (1) (Here he is to take the 
 cup into his hands)* took the cup, and, when He had given 
 thanks, He gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this ; for 
 this (2) (and here to lay his hand upon every vessel (be 
 it chalice or flagon) in which there is any wine to be conse- 
 crated) is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed 
 for you and for many for the remission of sins : do this as 
 oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of Me." 
 
 In these Eubrics, as in the preceding, the first direction 
 is distinct from that which follows, and the hands must be 
 released from Elevating the Cup, by replacing it upon the 
 Holy Table, before they can be laid upon every vessel in 
 which there is wine to be consecrated. With the consecra- 
 
 * Not hand, as usually printed, but hands, as in the MS. copy attached to 
 the Act of Parliament. Hands is evidently in agreement with the Rubric pre- 
 fixed to the Consecration Prayer, requiring the Priest "to take the cup into his 
 hands."
 
 Elevation and Adoration. 27 
 
 tion of the Wine the manual acts are completed, the Rubrics 
 supplying" no sanction to any Elevation of either the Bread 
 or Wine subsequent to their consecration. 
 
 And yet we have been told that " the Body and Blood of 
 Jesus being verily upon the Altar, the Priest formally 
 elevates and raises them for the sight and adoration of the 
 people." 
 
 English Churchmen are now enjoined by some of their 
 modern teachers " to assist in offering the Sacrifice" i.e. by 
 attending the celebration of the Holy Communion without 
 communicating. In the Eucharist there is («) a sacrifice, 
 in the offering of our alms and oblations; (b) a sacrifice, 
 " reasonable, holy, and lively," in the offering of ourselves, our 
 souls, and bodies, unto God ; and there is (c) a commemora- 
 tive sacrifice, even the commemoration of the sacrifice of 
 Christ ; of the one oblation of Himself once offered, pleaded 
 in the Consecration Prayer. Only as a pleading of Christ's 
 sacrifice does the expression " offering the sacrifice " seem 
 admissible ; and while it is true that Christ's sacrifice is 
 especially pleaded in the Eucharistic service, it is true also 
 that it is so pleaded only by those who participate in the 
 whole Eucharistic act, including the most essential portion 
 of it, the reception of Christ's Body and Blood. " Do this 
 in remembrance of Me," are words applied specifically by 
 some to the act of elevation ; they really apply to the ob- 
 servance entire of the sacred feast which Christ instituted, 
 and in which " as often as we eat this bread and drink this 
 cup we do show the Lord's death till He come." 
 
 The divergencies of doctrine on the subject of the Eu- 
 charist within the Church of England would be materially 
 contracted if the main distinction between the teaching of 
 the Church of Rome and that of the Anglican and Primitive 
 Church were kept steadily in view. That the Bread and 
 Wine are, after consecration, the Body and Blood of Christ
 
 28 Ritual Revision. 
 
 is affirmed of course by the Church of Christ everywhere, 
 but the distinction between Roman and Anglican doctrine 
 lies in this — Rome declares that after consecration the sub- 
 stance of the Bread and Wine has vanished, and that they 
 then exist only in appearance; that is to say, a miracle has 
 been effected upon the material substances of the Bread and 
 Wine, and a miracle, moreover, wherein the asserted change 
 is not confirmed by, but is refuted by the evidence of the 
 senses. The Church of England requires a reasonable faith. 
 A matter of faith may be beyond the cognisance of the 
 senses, but cannot exist in contradiction to their testimony, 
 and the Roman doctrine of Tran substantiation must be re- 
 jected as involving a miracle differing from every miracle 
 that ever was wrought, as being disproved by all the evidence 
 that can be applied to it by our bodily faculties and our 
 mental perception. 
 
 The Church of England accepts without hesitation the 
 words of Our Lord, and believes that in the consecrated 
 Bread and Wine His Body and Blood are verily and indeed 
 given, taken, and received. She believes that as in Holy 
 Baptism the Holy Spirit is supernaturally communicated to 
 the regenerated child, so in the Holy Eucharist Christ, 
 supernaturally and spiritually, is communicated to the 
 faithful. 
 
 Both the Church of England and the Church of Rome 
 own Christ present in the Sacrament : but the Church of 
 England finds Christ present through a spiritual operation, 
 and the Church of Rome seeks Christ present through a 
 material miracle.
 
 Vestments. 29 
 
 VESTMENTS. 
 
 So bewildering and contradictory are the arguments and 
 judgments of the Privy Council, that it is difficult to draw 
 from them any certain conclusions as to the present legality 
 of such Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof 
 as existed by Parliamentary authority in the second year of 
 King Edward VI. 
 
 The legality, however, of the Vestments of 1549 is not 
 the sole, or, in my judgment, the principal consideration at 
 the present moment. Time, and the change which time 
 has wrought in the feeling of Churchmen generally, must be 
 considered ; and although no one could wish that, if neglect 
 and irreverence have led to a degradation of the Service of 
 God's House, that degradation should be stereotyped, yet it 
 cannot be unwise to examine whether the prevalent feeling 
 upon particular points may not constitute an adequate 
 reason for granting to the status quo the privilege of posses- 
 sion, and testing its claim before it is summarily rejected. 
 Time in the course of two centuries placed custom and law 
 in apparent antagonism upon two important points. The 
 law had prescribed that the Table should stand " table-wise " 
 in the body of the church or chancel ; custom placed it " altar- 
 wise" at the east end of the chancel. The law prescribed 
 the use of the Vestments of the time of Edward VI. ; custom 
 banished the use of those Vestments so completely that they 
 were practically unknown a few years back. Evidently, 
 neither law nor custom can be allowed to rule absolutely ; 
 and happily neither of these points is of a nature which 
 precludes an adjustment by mutual concession, without 
 sacrificing either principle or dignity. But what should be 
 the character of tin 1 adjustment as regards Vestments? The
 
 30 Ritual Revision. 
 
 answer will be suggested by the notoriety of the fact that it 
 has been not the name, the texture, or the form of the 
 Vestment, but its colour which originally excited surprise, 
 suspicion, and dislike. Clergy, thoroughly loyal in dis- 
 position and staid in character, have yet expressed their 
 opinion that there would be a fitness in a specific vesture 
 being sanctioned for the use of the celebrant at the Holy 
 Communion. But, without either affirming or denying this 
 proposition, I repeat the suggestion which I made in the 
 Ritual Commission — Let the " Ornaments Eubric " remain 
 unaltered, but let this be added : — "Nevertheless it is 
 expedient that for the greater uniformity in ecclesiastical 
 Vestments the Ministers shall be restrained to the use of a 
 white vesture, provided that upon such vesture they may 
 ivear a scarf or stole.'''' The sentiment of those who desire 
 a specific vesture would be satisfied, and the vesture would 
 cease to offend those who violently resent the appearance of 
 gaily coloured and gorgeously decorated garments if worn 
 by ministers of the Church of England. 
 
 The popular aversion to coloured Vestments I believe to 
 be sincere, deeply rooted, and easily explicable. Englishmen 
 are quite as conservative in religious as in other matters ; 
 they dislike novelties apart even from their meaning, but 
 they dislike coloured Vestments because they remind them 
 of the Vestments used in the Roman Church. I cannot 
 think this dislike unreasonable, nor can I heed the remon- 
 strances of those Ultra Ritualists who, on this and kindred 
 subjects, deprecate any step which can in appearance widen 
 the breach between us and the Roman Catholic Church. 
 While Rome maintains and constantly multiplies doctrines 
 irreconcilable with the truth once for all delivered to the 
 saints, and consequently antagonistic to the principles of 
 religious liberty and national loyalty, we could not (even if 
 fche assented) hold communion with her ; and to affect an
 
 Conclusion. 31 
 
 outward conformity in Ritual while at variance in doctrine 
 would be interpreted as an act of weakness, and in no degree 
 promote the reunion of Christendom. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The contention about Ritual has been so sharp, and has 
 been carried on with such eagerness, that even the seat of 
 justice has not escaped the infection of partisanship, and 
 judgments have borne the appearance of arguments in- 
 geniously applied to the support of conclusions predetermined 
 for the satisfaction of a popular cry. 
 
 The arguments founded upon " Omission " afford on either 
 side remarkable instances of extravagant advocacy. On one 
 side it has been laid down that the directions contained in 
 the present Prayer Book must be strictly obeyed, and that 
 no omission or addition can be permitted. On the other 
 side it has been contended that the Prayer Book is no cere- 
 monial guide, and that every pre-reformation ceremonial, 
 act, or thing not specifically forbidden is now legal, if not 
 obligatory. 
 
 An attempt to carry out either of these contradictory 
 rules would lead to most inconvenient and ridiculous results. 
 Neither the existing law nor custom can be permitted singly 
 to determine the future conditions of Church Ritual. Where 
 law is obsolete and unsuitable, it should be abrogated ; where 
 custom is the embodiment of neglect, it should be corrected. 
 
 The Prayer Book is not a Directorium ; it contains 
 directions as to Ritual, but very much is left to be supplied 
 by tradition. When, however, it professes to prescribe 
 ceremonial acts (as in the Rubric?; of the Consecration
 
 32 Ritual Revision. 
 
 Prayer), its directions must be taken to be positive and 
 exclusive. A Directorium is certainly needed, but a Direc- 
 toriura loyally adapted to the system of the English Church, 
 and not copied from the formularies of Eome or from those 
 of the Pre-reformation Church in this country. Such a 
 work, sanctioned by authority, would be of great utility in 
 restoring the uniformity of Public Worship ; but its compila- 
 tion must be a thing in the future. The duty at this time 
 committed to Convocation is one ranging over a more con- 
 fined area, but not at all less important in its character — 
 that of suggesting the means of allaying the dissensions which 
 paralyse the energies and thwart the influence of the Church. 
 The issues of the pending crisis may be momentous, certainly 
 they are such as to call forth our earnest prayers that Convo- 
 cation may be guided by wisdom from above to conclusions 
 favourable to the future stability and peace of our Church 
 and nation. 
 
 i.D\noN' : pnixTED nr 
 
 SrOTTISWOOm.; AMI CO., XEW-KTltKKT SQTARH 
 AMI PARLIAMENT STREET
 
 PfeS 
 
 
 
 IKf^SI 
 
 
 
 ^^^H^v 
 
 ll 
 
 % fc , & 
 
 lOn 
 
 mm 
 
 
 IP 
 
 W "--v ';■■■■ ; ^-' 
 
 
 
 mm 
 
 >-".,,.:■ - '-"-