19 MAY 1923, Page 13


[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Your reviewer has surely read his own controversial temper into a work which was certainly conceived in a conciliatory spirit and, I believe, is less controversial than your reviewer has led your readers to suppose. In particular, he has wantonly attributed a motive and theological intention to the group putting out the book which certainly was entirely absent. " The rubric involves, of course, an attempt at a compromise between the Sarum Use, when a morsel of bread was dropped into the chalice as a symbol, and the fundamental doctrine of the English Reformers, confirmed by Parliament, that the Sacrament should be administered in both kinds."

Of course 1 I assure your reviewer that our mind was fixed not on Sarum but on Harley Street when we framed that rubric. He is evidently unaware that Communion is admin- istered by intinction in Anglican Churches at Davos and similar places to-day—not for theological reasons. Our desire is to see a practice legalized which would overcome a difficulty that an increasing number of people are feeling.

I only hope your reviewer will treat more fairly the sub- sequent sections of our book.—I am, Sir, &c., A MEMBER OF THE GROUP.

[We are very glad to know that we were mistaken and that the permissive use of intinction had no theological intention. It was only on that ground—unnecessary alteration of the

Prayer Book—that we could possibly object to it.—En.

Spectator.] - • -