294 LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THE \M'^9 



And I do not know that on the whole, in and by and for itself, 

 the Prayer Book, as set forth by the Convention of 1789, has 

 given more satisfaction than would have been given by the Pro- 

 posed Book. 



We know, at least, that at all times, many of the low-church 

 clergy have taken pretty much what liberties — in one direction — 

 they liked with it; violating its express rubrics, omitting of it 

 what they disliked, inserting, of their own, what they liked better, 

 and sometimes exhibiting a manifest disrelish for the whole Prayer- 

 Book by meetings, morning and evening, for prayer, where the 

 orders for morning and evening prayer, daily throughout the year, 

 were completely set aside. We know, too, that animated and 

 encouraged by the example set by this low-church party, and 



congregation; first, however, some of these clergy at least, interpositing in a way the 

 most unauthorized, an address of their own, telling the people whom they are about to 

 dismiss, with the grace of the Lord, that "our Church invites everybody who loves 

 the blessed Saviour — of whatever Christian denomination — to draw nigh and unite 

 in the Holy Communion : " an invitation which is unwarranted by any rubric in the 

 service, which is directly in the face of that one appended to the order of Confirma- 

 tion declaring that " there shall be none admitted to the Holy Communion " until such 

 time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed ; which is discoun- 

 tenanced by the first rubric in the ministration of baptism of those of riper years, and 

 which proceeds, I presume, on a misconception of what the Church means in the priest's 

 address to those who come to receive the Holy Communion. Do the clergy who inter- 

 polate the Holy Office with such addresses of their own, regard it as any part of " God's 

 commandments " that people should be baptized, or be certified by the laying on of 

 hands, of God's favor and gracious goodness towards them ? 



Suppose some respectable person, educated in the Society of Friends — a Friend still 

 in reality, though not attending " Meeting " much, nor liking the total disregard of 

 forms which the sect imposes on its members, but still undoubtedly as he or she be- 

 lieves "loving the blessed Saviour" and looking upon a participation in the Commun- 

 ion as an afi'ecting ceremony — a very proper way of testifying publicly that love — but 

 looking on it in no other way and not at all as a means of grace — were to come to the 

 Communion habitually, in a church where such a speech as I have mentioned is habit- 

 ually made. The minister would, in due time, I suppose, call on the person, inquire 

 if lie or slie had been confirmed, or was ready and desirous to be so. The answer would 

 be, " No, I do not believe in Confirmation. Besides, I have never been baptized in 

 thy way. I do not believe in water-baptism. I never mean to be baptized with water. 

 With the Spirit I trust I have been baptized." The clergyman, if he did his duty, 

 would reply : " Sir, or Madame, or Miss, if such are your views and such your pur- 

 poses, I am l)ound to let you know that a rubric of the Church declares that you shall 

 not be admitted to the Communion." The replication would be, "Ah, indeed, that's 

 new to me! I thought that thou saidst at thy Chancel, that thy Church cordially in- 

 vited all who loved the blessed Saviour — of whatever name or sect — to come." What 

 would be the rejoinder of this priest? The Church, assuredly, never disparaged its 

 sacrament of Baptism and its holy rite of Confirmation, as these of its clergy, by their 

 unauthorized interpolations into its most solemn office, make her do. 



