designed to convey an increased measure of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to those who receive it worthily. Q. What rule has the Church laid down with reference to admission to Holy Communion? A. The Church orders that none shall be admitted to the Holy Communion until he has been confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.1 'A Certificate of Confirmation, signed by the Bishop, shall be given to each person who has been confirmed.'-CANON xl. 7. APPENDIX IV REMARKS ON THE ARCHBISHOP'S JUDGMENT (1890) The Bishop of St. Andrews welcomed the appointment of Archbishop Benson in 1882 in the following lines: As Abram's name to Abraham, In earnest of undying fame, Was changed by Voice from heaven; Henceforth proclaim in richest boon Blessing received and given. He was therefore ready to accept the Archbishop's Judgment in 1890, though in some respects it went beyond his own previous conclusions. The following sentences express his opinion : I do not quarrel with the conclusions of the Judgment as a whole, but I think it would have gone upon safer ground if it had taken some such line as this. Our Church does not disallow the doctrine of a Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist, but it desires to keep it within due bounds. The doctrine allowable is not that of the Mass, is not that of a continuous sacrifice in any sense, so as to interfere with the perfect sacrifice offered once for all; and it is such as to yield greater prominence, as the New Testament itself appears to do, to the doctrine of Holy Communion. Now fairness requires that this latter and more prominent See Rubric at the end of the Confirmation Office. doctrine should not be obscured by the structure of an altar which ceases to be a table, or, as Bishop Phillpotts preferred to call it 'God's board.' Bishop Andrewes writes in his famous Sermon of the Worshipping of Imaginations' [(Sermons, v. 66, A. C. L.) with regard to the Imaginations of the Church of Rome concerning the Eucharist, 'that she many times celebrateth the mystery sine fractione "without any breaking" at all. Whereas, as heretofore hath been showed out of the tenth chapter of the first of Corinthians, the eighteenth verse, it is of the nature of a Eucharist or peace-offering: which was never offered but it was eaten, that both these might be a representation of the memory of that sacrifice, and together an application to each person by partaking it.'] Let both therefore be indifferent; let not the Altar so intrude upon the Table as to obscure the significance which the latter implies. In a letter dated 8 December, 1890, and published in the London Times, with the signature EPISCOPUS, he first praises the spirit in which the Judgment was conceived and carried out, and especially its concluding sentences. He then asks, what are the practical results which wise men not mixed up with either party, would desire to see, especially as to two points, the Eastward Position and the singing of the Agnus. Setting aside doctrinal considerations (as ruled by the Archbishop to be irrelevant) he thinks the North end position to be preferred, as (a) facilitating the breaking of bread before the people; (b) not interfering with the ordinary position of saying the prayers, but in harmony with it. In any case no Altar ought to be allowed to be so erected that a clergyman cannot stand at the north end, which the Judgment states to be "beyond question a true Liturgical use of the Church of England" and hitherto a far more general and accepted course.' 6 In regard to the singing of the Agnus Dei before reception, he notes that the Judgment, while holding it not unlawful, would seem to regard it as unwise, because the words occur twice in other places, viz. in the Litany and the Post-Communion. He adds a further reason which he thinks far stronger, that in the Proper Preface for Easter we do not say that the Lamb of God 'taketh away' the sin of the world, but 'He is the very Paschal Lamb which was offered for us and hath taken away the sin of the world.' This has come down to us from the Gelasian Sacramentary. APPENDIX V THE WAVERLEY NOVELS ARRANGED CHRONOLOGICALLY (Intended to show how a student of Walter Scott might gain an idea of almost the whole of modern history.) 1. Count Robert of Paris (A.D. 1080 &c., First Crusade). 2. The Betrothed (A.D. 1187 &c.). 3. Ivanhoe (A.D. 1195 &c.). 4. The Talisman (A.D. 1205 &c.). 5. Castle Dangerous (a.D. 1306, Robert Bruce of Scotland). 6. Fair Maid of Perth (A.D. 1380, Robert III. of Scotland). 7. Quentin Durward (A.D. 1468). 8. Anne of Geierstein (A.D. 1477 &c.). 9. The Monastery (A.D. 1550 &c.). 10. The Abbot (A.D. 1558, Mary Queen of Scots). 11. Kenilworth (A.D. 1560). 12. Fortunes of Nigel (A.D. 1602, James I. of England). 13. Legend of Montrose (A.D. 1643–6, Charles I.). 14. Woodstock (A.D. 1649-60, Commonwealth and Restoration). 15. Peveril of the Peak (A.D. 1658, Commonwealth and Charles II.). 16. Old Mortality (A.D. 1679 &c. Charles II. and William III.). 17. Bride of Lammermoor (A.D. 1689, William III.). 18. Black Dwarf (A.D. 1707 &c.). 19. Rob Roy (A.D. 1715, George I.). 1 20. Pirate (A.D. 17- George I. &c.). 21. Heart of Midlothian (A.D. 1736, George II.). 22. Waverley (A.D. 1745, George II.). 23. Redgauntlet (A.D. 1750–65, George II. and III.). 24. Guy Mannering (George III., after A.D. 1777). [The reference to Dr. Robertson as 'the historian of Scotland, of the Continent, and of America,' in chap. xxxvii., fixes the date as after 1777, i.e. to the reign of George III., which began in 1760. I owe this reference to Dean Boyle.] 25. Antiquary (George III., A.D. 1790-1800). ['Waverley embraced the age of our fathers, Guy Mannering that of our own youth, and the Antiquary refers to the last ten years of the eighteenth century.' Advertisement (1829).] 26. Highland Widow (circa A.D. 1790). 27. Surgeon's Daughter (A.D. 1800-1810 &c.). 28. St. Ronan's Well (do.). The Bishop had not quite made up his mind as to the order of the later novels. I have therefore made the series a little more exact. APPENDIX VI THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE OF 1888 AND HOME REUNION (See pp. 253-259) Letter from Bishop Barry, Chairman of the Committee Bishop Barry has been good enough to accede to my request to illustrate the proceedings of the important Committee over which he presided, and of which my uncle was a member-as far as he could do so without breach of confidence. His lucid statement will be read with interest; and it will, I hope, tend to promote the end which the Lambeth Conference primarily had in view, viz. the holding of Conferences with representatives of the separated communions. His letter is dated 9 December 1898. J. S. The published Report and Resolution of 1888 will show clearly that we held, as the only permanent basis of Reunion, to what has been called the Lambeth quadrilateral,' which was itself an amended, and somewhat enlarged, revision of the basis previously suggested by the American Church. On the historic Episcopate' we were, I think, quite unanimously determined to take our stand-in view, both of the intrinsic merits of the case, and of the relation of our Church to the great Latin and Eastern Communions. In fact, on the matter contained in our present Report, there was, except on mere details, no difference of opinion. I can see now, in the light of the event, that it would have probably better advanced the cause we had at heart, if we had been contented to bring forward this only, and to wait for the result of the Conferences therein proposed. But it was urged by some members of the Committee-holding (I suppose) on the subject something like Bishop Wordsworth's position -that our proposal of these Conferences with the separated Communions would be absolutely fruitless, unless we were prepared to suggest some means of bridging over the transitional period in any process of Reunion in regard to the crucial question of the Ministry of Non-Episcopal Communions. That we held it to be irregular, and contrary to primitive Church Order, was indicated by our previous determination to accept the historic Episcopate as one of the permanent bases of Reunion. But were we to require that the members and ministers of these Communions should acknowledge it to be absolutely invalid? Or, considering the present distress,' could we go into Conference with some acknowledgment on our part of a spiritual reality in it-as evidenced by spiritual fruits of its ministration— sufficient to prepare, if not for Corporate Reunion, at least for such relations as might perhaps lead to it in the hereafter? We were, of course, aware that the position of the Ministry varied greatly in the different Non-Conformist bodies, and that these must affect the degree of recognition which could be rightly given to it. I think that Bishop Wordsworth would have preferred that we should have dealt primarily or exclusively with the strongest case-the case of the Presbyterian Ministry. Certainly we had the Presbyterians, and perhaps also the great Wesleyan Body, especially in view. But the Committee were generally inclined to think that these differences between the various Non-Conformist bodies would emerge, whenever the proposed Conferences were held, and that any Resolution on the subject must be for the present couched in general terms. On the question so raised there was, I need not say, great conflict of opinion, and considerable opposition to any declaration on the subject -strong, although by no means so strong as that which was afterwards manifested in the Conference itself. After much serious debate the final Resolution was carried, with some considerable variation (I may remark) from the original draft. It is curious that the particular phrase 'Ministerial character' was not in that draft, but was substituted for a clause, distinguishing between irregularity and invalidity, on the motion of a leading member of the Committee, who was opposed to the whole Resolution, and spoke strongly against it in the subsequent debate of the Conference. Whether he attached to it the very definite and almost technical meaning assigned to it by some speakers in that debate, I do not know. But I think that the Committee generally accepted it, rightly or wrongly, as a term of the widest generality, leaving room for much variety of interpretation, and perhaps varying also in its application to various cases. The position, as I understood it, taken up by the majority of the Committee, was very much that of the well-known declaration of Archbishop Bramhall2; and this was made plainer in the original Draft of the Resolution, which contained the words whether by conditional reordination or otherwise.' Probably they did not enter into the question how it could be practically carried out, thinking that this belonged to the proposed Conferences, The Bishop in a letter to one of his sons (Rydal, 1 August, 1888) says: Though I was thankful upon the whole for Barry's Resolution and heartily supported it, it was not the way (as I told the Committee) that I myself should have chosen for dealing with the matter. It was too indiscriminative and asserted the crucial principle too broadly. In England you cannot afford to deal with Dissent en masse. What I asked for in my Pamphlet was not that; and I dare say I shall find that what I did ask for has been granted.' 2 See above, pp. 262-3 note. |