THE PURCHAS CASE.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
SID,—Mr. Maurice, in his generous pleading for the liberty of men with whom he does not agree, seems to forget the rights of those who have at least as strong a claim on his sympathy. Has the worshipper no right to protection? Am I, are thousands who believe with me that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice in the sense in which Mr. Mackonochie and his friends maintain that it is, to be compelled to endure ceremonies the whole object of which is to proclaim a dogma which we abhor? I have
seen the Holy Communion celebrated in such a fashion that I could not, without wronging my conscience, or, at all events, without the obtrusion of feelings most alien to the occasion, partake of it. The highest tribunal of the Church has now de- clared such celebration to be illegal. That declaration, I feel, protects me from any injury against which I have no other safe- guard; and now the Bishops, whose duty it is to make that pro- tection effectual, are to be asked to tie their own hands.
Let me state my own case. I am the head master of a grammar- school, and am bound by my statutes to attend the service of my pariah church. Suppose that this church comes into the hands of a man whose chief object it is to undo the work of the Reforma- tion, to turn the Communion into a Maas. Am I to be driven from my position, possibly be deprived of my livelihood, in order that this man may be free to do that which the law has now for- bidden him to do? My case seems to be a strong one, because it can be definitely stated. It is not really stronger than the case of hundreds of thousands who, if they are driven from their parish churches, must give up either the public exercise of their religion or their means of living.—I am, Sir, &c., A. C.
Previous page
