[To THE EDITOR 07 TEl "SPECTATOR."] Sre,—I have read with
great interest your article on "The Church and the Nonconformists" in your issue of June 13th, May I call your attention to a point which has apparently been ignored by "An Ecclesiastical Lawyer "? The rubrics of the Prayer Book are addressed to, and for the use of, members, and those who desire to become members, of the Church af England, and only in that sense to the nation generally—in the same manner that the King's Regulations are intended for his soldiers. From the words that follow "notorious and evil liver," "so that the congregation be thereby offended," it is apparent that an adult member of such would be a con- firmed person, in obedience to the regulations laid down in the Baptismal Service. Surely in any congregation or com- pany certain privileges entail the fulfilment of certain con- ditions. The "curate" of this rubric knows the members of his congregation, and is responsible that the rules are carried out by them. If strangers enter his church and present themselves for Holy Communion, he would conclude that they were members of the Church of England. When be ascer- tains the contrary, then it is his duty to point out that the rules have been infringed, and also how the privilege can be gained. Although the Church of England is our National Church and its aim universal, it still has a right to maintain its conditions of membership and to demand that these are respected. The lay responsibility for carrying out the laws of our Church is as great as the clerical. The child of parents belonging to the Anglican Communion is brought by them to be "received into the congregation of Christ's Church," and after the Sacrament of Baptism has been administered, the godparents are enjoined to continue the child's spiritual education in accordance with the rules of the Church. In the case of adult baptism, confirmation is again enjoined, " that so he may be admitted to the Holy Communion." The Catechism itself is an "instruction to be learned of every person before he be brought to be confirmed by the Bishop." In the rubric at the conclusion of this lay responsibility does not end with the family in its limited sense, but embraces the whole household. As in the King's Regulations for his Army, ignorance does not constitute an excuse. We have our Book of Common Prayer, with its privileges for members of our Church from birth to death ; we must study it to appre- ciate its sequence; its rubrics are logical and easy to under- stand. Why attempt to break the endless chain by cutting one of the links Our adult oath of allegiance is made in "the presence of God and the congregation" at our confirma- tion. Are we, as baptized members of the Church, to consider it merely optional whether this is done or left undone? Should we not then be unworthy of our glorious inheritance— the continuity from generation to generation of the fulfilment of the regulations to which the members of the Church of England are pledged, as enrolled Soldiers of Christ ? If we are not of the Church of England, and are conscientious Nonconformists, how can we demand as a right, and uncon- ditionally, a privilege only accorded conditionally to members of the Church ? The case of the Wesleyan lady may be a hard one, but she ignored the rules—a copy of them is to be obtained anywhere.—I am, Sir, Ito., ENLISTED.
[" Enlisted" puts the case for exclusion most ably, but our point, of course, is that the Wesleyan lady did not ignore the rules, but obeyed them. It is open, no doubt, to anyone to say that the law of the land is wrong. What "A. C." has proved is that the law not merely allows the communicating of unconfirmed Nonconformists, but actually forbids their exclusion, and in this view of the actual law the Church Times in a leading article explicitly concurs.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
