[TO THE EDITOR 07 THE "SPECTATOR.'1
Sin,—In your note appended to Canon Hensley Henson's letter in the Spectator of October I5th you say:—"The Church of England comprehends all baptised persona who profess and call themselves Christians, and who desire to be com- prehended. Of that there can be no doubt." Is that so ? The vicar of the parish in which I live has courteously but firmly refused to allow me to communicate at the parish church. He admits me to his friendship, and acknowledges that I am precisely such a person as you describe.. But he conceives it to be his duty to exclude me from Holy Com- munion on the ground that I have not been confirmed. I am given to understand that at least half the clergy of the Church of England would support him in this refusal.—I am,
Sir, &c., H.
[Very possibly; but, as we showed on a previous occasion, they would be wrong. Perhaps we shall be told that this is merely our private opinion. Very well; then we will put it in this way: the clergyman in question is under no obligation to repel our correspondent "H." from the Communion. The proof is clear. As we have noted elsewhere to-day, the late Prince Consort, Queen Alexandra, and other Princesses who have married into our Royal Family and become British subjects have, as a matter of course, been admitted to Com- munion. Yet they were not confirmed by our Bishops, nor by any Bishops possessing the episcopal succession,—i.e., Bishops whom High Churchmen would consider capable of confirming. But what was and is rightly done in the case of Princes and Princesses cannot be wrong in the case of ordinary men,—for it would be a gross injustice to assume that half our clergy believe that the rules of religion are respecters of persons. They are merely misinformed.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
