Category Archives: Book of Common Prayer

Thoughts on the Life of Henry Robert Percival, Priest, by Robert Ritchie (1903)

To know what is in every man’s heart, and so to be able to judge him, is a Divine prerogative which is extended to none but to the Son of Man. We read that oh a memorable occasion, when the sons of Zebedee, with their mother, had made a request of our Lord, the remainder of the Twelve were moved with indignation against the two brethren. Nevertheless, although from a worldly point of view their indignation would seem reasonable, they were not justified by the Master; rather, they were included in the correction which He administered. Both the two and the ten were thinking wrongly and about a forbidden subject. So it is when we attempt to judge one another.

When therefore we come, to review the life of one whom God has called put of this world we are not to be faulted for insincerity if we have nothing to utter but praise. We are not capable of estimating his character justly. We are liable to think there were faults when there were none. We are sure to be blind both to failings and to excellences. But we are not denied the great privilege of looking upon the magnificent gifts of God’s grace to His servant departed. We can rejoice greatly in the glories that are so revealed to us, and draw comfort and admonition to ourselves from what we do see.

In this spirit, not trying to be fair, but to be appreciative, we think of the life of our brother, who has gone to his rest.

Henry Robert Percival was born on the thirtieth of April, 1854. He was the son of Thomas Cuthbert and Elizabeth Percival, of old Philadelphia families. He was brought up religiously in the sound and godly teaching of the Church. From very early childhood the idea of serving God in the priesthood was instilled into him and embraced by his mind with enthusiasm. Very delicate bodily health might have seemed an obstacle, but happily it was not allowed to prevail. He wept to school at the Episcopal Academy in Philadelphia, and from there to the University of Pennsylvania, graduating Bachelor of Arts in 1872, at the early age of eighteen,. He took a post-graduate course in Latin with Professor Francis A. Jackson, and in due time was made Master of Arts. As he did not reach, the canonical age for the priesthood until six years after his graduation, there was time for a journey in Germany, Italy, France and England during the years 1874. and 1875.

It will be well understood by those who knew him that this was no idle holiday, but that his mind was then stored with treasures upon which he drew throughout his life. Ardently, with keen delight and most intelligent discrimination, be fed upon what was excellent in art, architecture and ecclesiastical tradition.

Returning to this country, he became a candidate for Orders in the Diocese of New York. His health precluding a residence away from home, he pursued his studies, privately, under the direction of Dr. Davies, now Bishop of Michigan, Dr. Hoffman, late Dean of the General Theological Seminary, and Dr. James W. Robins, then Headmaster of the Episcopal Academy. He passed his canonical examinations in the Diocese of New York and was ordained Deacon in 1877 and Priest in 1878, by Bishop Horatio Potter.

His first cure was the Parish of Grace Church, Merchantville, New Jersey. After a short time there he was associated with the Rev. G. Woolsey Hodge, at Christ Church Chapel, Philadelphia. But his chief pastoral work began in 1881 when he became Rector of the Church of the Evangelists, Philadelphia. In the early part of this incumbency there were oppositions and difficulties of a distressing nature arising from the strong and bitter Protestant feeling of some members of the parish. These people naturally felt that the sympathy of the majority of the Diocese and of its rulers was with them rather than with the young rector who was imbued with an earnest zeal for the true and ancient doctrines of Christianity. They therefore proceeded to great lengths, in litigation and in yet more questionable ways to oust the priest who had been duly chosen and appointed.

Dr. Percival in these trying times conducted himself with singular wisdom, discretion and charity. He held back nothing of the truth, but was careful to insist upon nothing that was not clearly essential. With dignity and gentleness he strove to persuade those who opposed themselves, and in fact converted not a few of them who with their children have continued to be faithful Catholics.

Dr. Percival’s conduct towards the bishop is in contrast to much that we have seen in other parishes. From the first he assured Bishop Stevens that any features of ceremonial to which he objected, if not clearly required by the Prayer Book or not essential, would be excluded from the services in the Church of the Evangelists. Thus for seven years there were no vestments, lights, nor incense. The Daily Sacrifice was offered and confessions were heard by a priest wearing a surplice and black scarf. Thus an example of obedience to authority was given which was perhaps more valuable than the lessons derived from a full presentment of the lawful external order.

It does not follow that such a course is best in all cases; but in this instance the sober sincerity and self-denial of the priest were made manifest, and the people were taught, in a very telling way, the relative proportion of obedience and mere ceremonial. When the time came, seven years afterwards, that obedience no longer required the sacrifice, it was announced, on the Sunday preceding All Saints’ Day, that on that Feast the lawful vestments and ornaments would be restored (not introduced) in the Church of the Evangelists. Dr. Percival, was a firm adherent to the law of the Church. He used such things because they were rightful, not because they were pleasing. And he knew the law better than most.

The things for which a faithful priest most deeply feels that he is responsible, the things of pastoral care, are not largely brought into general notice. His good work in the care of souls is done as it were, in secret. But enough is known of Dr. Percival’s pastoral labours to move us to great admiration and thankfulness. While his health permitted he was diligent in season and out of season. His visits, especially to the poor, were full of grace and kindness. “How he cheers me!” was the exclamation of one poor woman. Many rejoiced in the sweetness of his care over them. It was not his custom to give much money, but counsel, uplifting sympathy and tenderness.

In teaching, for which he had eminent gifts, he was most conscientious and successful. There were wonderful Friday night instructions, which were catechetical, from which many obtained a firm grasp of the truth. Daily Mass was the custom from the beginning of his incumbency, and Dr. Percival himself never failed to celebrate every morning except when physical conditions made it impossible. In his late years of increasing weakness and torture from disease, he had a chapel and an altar in his country home at Devon, duly licensed by the Bishop, where he stood morning by morning before the Lord and rejoiced in the performance of this chief priestly duty. 

Space would fail the writer to tell of the unproclaimed and loving, ingenious pastoral works which in the sight of Heaven adorned his life. We can only get hints and see a suggestive portion of the whole. He never thought he had done enough. He could not abandon his poor parishioners even when they were so unfaithful that it seemed useless to strive longer with them. In these things, as in all departments of his life he lived very near to the Good Shepherd.

The faithful pastoral work we have been contemplating was by no means all. As a scholar, in all manner of sacred learning, Dr. Percival excelled. Men of all schools and parties testify to this. There is only one voice. His great library he collected in his earlier years, constantly adding to it. and constantly both using it and allowing and encouraging the use of it by brother clergymen who were not so endowed. Five books from his pen give evidence of his diligence in study and his great ability. His firm faith in the Catholicity of the American Church is shown in these works, and the evidential value of that conviction lies in the fact, which his books also show, that he had a sound and well-founded knowledge of Catholicity. He knew whereof he wrote. The Doctrine of the Episcopal Church was followed by The Glories of the Episcopal Church. There is also a very useful Digest of Theology. These compendious handbooks were followed by a treatise on The Invocation of Saints, concerning which I will only say that it is as sound as it is fascinating, and that it is hard to understand how any one who will read it, with a mind that is open at all, can thereafter be willing to shut himself out from the privilege of asking for the intercessions of the Blessed. Dr. Percival’s last book was Vol. XIV of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, The Seven Ecumenical Councils. In this, his work of editing, with notes, has been very highly praised.

These five books do not begin to comprise all Dr. Percival’s writings. There were many magazine articles; notably a series communicated to the American Church Review on Canon Law, an irenical article in the Nineteenth Century, a number of unsigned articles, privately printed, on the Revision of the Prayer Book, a series of articles in The Churchman on Swedish Orders, which were afterwards put into pamphlet form, many Commentaries and Meditations, unsigned communications to The Guardian on the Clementine Liturgy, an Introduction, which is, perhaps, the most valuable part of the volume published by the Clerical Union under the title of Catholic Papers. There are also many manuscripts which have not yet seen the light, from which, it is to be hoped, we shall hear. He was on the editorial staff of Catholic Champion during its whole course, and a frequent contributor to other Church papers and magazines. He was always busy in his Master’s work except when his physical sufferings forbade. Nashotah Seminary conferred upon him the honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity, and never has it been more worthily bestowed.

Dr. Percival’s work was in great part, though by no means entirely, polemical, but the occasions were very rare in which he even unwittingly transgressed the line of courtesy, and whenever he was thought to have done so, he was most ready and even eager to make amends or to explain. He was, in the best sense, a broad-minded man, and all that he did and said and wrote was in the spirit of charity. This was realized by those who differed from him, and, of course, great persuasive power was thus added to all his contention.

The clergy; in large numbers, from bishops and heads of religious communities to the humblest fledgling priest, were enlightened, encouraged, consoled and strengthened by intercourse with this wonderful man. His beautiful and ever ready hospitality, in which his mother and sister most lovingly took part, made his home a haven for many priests, who will never forget the help and comfort bestowed on them in the house of this man whose body was so feeble, but whose heart and spirit were so mighty.

Endowed with a moderate fortune, Dr. Percival has left an example of liberality in many gifts to sacred uses; He also doubtless inspired others to join him in thoughtful and devout offering of their substance. It is impossible to give details, but it could not be hid that his was the moving spirit in the erection of two noble churches—the new Church of the Evangelists and St. Elisabeth’s—and that by his zeal and taste they were enriched with treasures of art. He was largely instrumental in the rearing and perfecting of the Church of St. John Chrysostom, and other parishes in their need were strongly aided by his exertions and his influence. It is impossible to say how many young men were guided and largely formed by him and led or assisted in many ways into the sacred priesthood.

In an important sense he was the founder of the admirable Congregation of the Companions of the Holy Saviour. Reflection upon St. Mark iii, 14, “He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach,” kindled the first spark of the fire of love that animates that useful and justly venerated religious body. Dr. Percival devoted himself in every way to its growth and welfare except that, because of his illness, he could not himself become a member. He would have been glad to do so, but, after careful consideration, was convinced that it must not be. The community residing at St. Elisabeth’s, Philadelphia, has affiliated priests in other places numbering about thirty. Its organization is chiefly pastoral and missionary. Its motto is “Ut essent cum Illo,” and as long as the sweet and ardent spirit of Dr. Percival remains with them they will be found faithful Companions of the Saviour.

The imperfect digestion, which, with many attendant ills, had been Dr. Percival’s drawback and torment, seemed increasingly to sap his strength of late years. For a year previous to his death this was especially remarked. Even the power of using his magnificent mind and acquirements seemed, to some extent, to be impaired. When; in the early summer, he left his city house to go to Devon, he expressed his own conviction that he would never return. And so it was. He was permitted to lay down his burden in peace on the afternoon of a beautiful day, September 22d, 1903, in his forty-ninth year. Is it not a strange and wonderful proof of God’s goodness that in these modern days, in the midst of materialism and worldliness and self-seeking, we have seen the shining light of a man whose natural brilliancy was enlightened by spiritual strength, his learning made glorious by the light of faith, his natural grace made the handmaid of an evangelical and soul-winning brotherly love, his earthly possessions turned into heavenly treasures, and even his bodily ills made the fuel of high spiritual attainments?

Holy Cross Magazine (West Park, New York), November, 1903, pp. 37-40.

Advertisement

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Pennsylvania German

Greek Liturgy Celebrated in a Church of the Anglo-American Communion (1865)

We are indebted to the Guardian for the following well condensed report, taken, in the main, from the New York papers:—

An event which has recently taken place in America, in connection with the movement for the renewal of friendly relations and intercommunion between the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Churches, deserves something more than a passing notice. If, as appears probable, this step should lead to other and more important results, and if the courtesies interchanged between individual Churchmen should extend to the clergy generally, the service celebrated on the 2nd March, 1865, in Trinity Chapel, New York, will be referred to as an historical incident; for on that day, for the first time in a thousand years, the Sacred Liturgy (or Eucharistic Service) was celebrated in a Western Church by a priest of the Holy Orthodox Communion, and the Creed of Christendom was chanted in English without that Filioque clause which caused the great schism of East and West.

In October last year, Father Agapius Honcharenko, a Slavonian in Russo-Greek orders, monk of Mount Pentelicus, near Athens, was sent by his ecclesiastical superiors to minister to the spiritual wants of the members of the Greek communion in and about New York. The cordial letter of commendation which he took with him from Mr. Hill, the American missionary and English chaplain at Athens, at once obtained for him the sympathy and co-operation of the clergy in the United States; and a school-room was placed at his disposal by the Rector of Trinity, the oldest and most influential parish inAmerica. The Rev. J. Freeman Young, whose recent visit to Russia has done much towards the removal of prejudice and ignorance about the two Churches, made known to the Bishop of New York the wish of Father Agapius publicly to celebrate the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church on the 2nd March, the anniversary of the accession of the Emperor Alexander II.

The letter in which Bishop Potter expresses his ready acquiescence in the suggestion shows how fully he appreciated the opportunity thus afforded for promoting a good under standing between the two Churches. He says:

“Rev. and dear Brother,—In reply to your inquiry respecting a proposed public celebration of the Divine Liturgy of the Holy Orthodox Oriental Church on the2nd day of March (N.S.) next in one of the churches of my diocese, I beg to say that Í have great pleasure in giving m y hearty consent and approbation. In so doing it adds much to my satisfaction that the proposed service is intended to do honour to the anniversary of the accession of His Imperial Majesty Alexander II.,the present Emperor of Russia, who has done so much to promote the true glory and welfare of his own people, and who has so generously encouraged the friendly feeling of Russia towards our country. Such courtesies as the one now proffered, between Churches which have so much in common, it has seemed to me might be very well extended, without prejudging, on either side, any of the questions that may affect their relations with each other. On occasion of the visit of the Russian fleet to the port of New York last year, I took pleasure, as you know, in giving permission, through you, to the rev. the chaplains, to hold any service which they might find desirable, anywhere within the limits of my diocese. The rev. the chaplains of the Russian fleet did not find it necessary to avail themselves of the permission granted them, but it was very grateful to me to hear that the feelings which prompted that trifling act of Christian courtesy were duly appreciated in Russia, and that some of the most venerated of the prelates of the Holy Orthodox Church would have been well pleased had the offer made by me been accepted. On the present occasion I shall be happy if this proffer of one of the churches of my diocese for the proposed public service, shall be accepted here and in Russia as as light token of my fraternal regard for the Church of the nations which our beloved brother, the Priest Agapius, represents.

“I am, my dear Brother, most truly and affectionately yours,

“HORATIO POTTER,
Bishop of New York.
“New York, Feb.4, 1865.”

Episcopal sanction having thus been obtained, it remained with Mr. Young to ensure the complete success of the proposed service, and to render it as perfect and beautiful as possible. Fortunately, he had procured the score of the liturgical music in Russia, and by means of constant practice and careful arrangement of the parts under his own superintendence, he was able to overcome the difficulty which arose from the pronunciation of a strange language. The choir included members of various quartette societies, who volunteered their services from interest in the occasion, learning the responses by the representation of Slavonic sounds in English letters. Mr. Young, also, himself directed the preparation of the Oriental vestments the first ever made in America. The proposed celebration excited very general interest, although all public announcement of it was avoided, and on the morning of the 2nd March TrinityChapel, one of the few really beautiful churches in New York was completely filled. The building, it may be added, is of considerable length, with an hexagonal apsidal chancel, but without side aisles, and is capable of seating 900 or 1000 persons. The sixty or seventy Slavonians and Greeks residing in New York occupied seats at the end of the nave ;near them were more than fifty clergymen of the American Church, while Bishop Southgate, formerly missionary Bishop at Constantinople, the rector and clergy of Trinity parish, together with Dr. Thrall, a member of the Russo-Greek committee, and Dr. McVickar, the oldest presbyter of the diocese of New York, occupied the choir stalls. The chancel was brilliantly lighted by the corona above, two standing candelabra with clustered lights below, and a smaller one on the altar itself. Under the white linen altar-cloth, and upon the stone altar, was a board about two feet square, over which the consecration of the Eucharist was to take place— the rules of the Greek Church for bidding this to be done upon stone. This custom is due to the fact that the cross was of wood. So far do the Orientals carry their aversion to the idea of a carnal sacrifice, that they do not suffer even the books used at the altar to be bound in the skins of animals, or anything made therefrom. Gold, silver, cloth, silk, velvet, or jewelled work may be used, but no kind of leather. Those of the clergy who were present in the chancel were in black gowns, it being the Oriental custom that those only should be vested who take part in the service of the altar.

Father Agapius was clad in a white phænolion, adorned with bands and borders of gold, under which the epitrachelion of crimson, similarly adorned with gold, hung down in front. When he had entered, and made his lowly obeisance at the holy table, the deep silence was first broken by his chanting, in a high tenor voice of great sweetness and purity, the opening of the service in Slavonic, “Blessed be the kingdom of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and forever, even unto ages of ages.” At once the whole congregation rose, as if by instinct, and remained reverently standing throughout the entire service, according to Oriental custom. The well-trained choir of men’s voices responded, and as the solemn service proceeded, the oft-recurring response, Hospode pomelue (Lord have mercy), swelled forth again and again. The Liturgy was that of St. Chrysostom, translated into Slavonic, and the Russian music, which has been in use about two hundred years, is very simple, grave, and sweet. The organ was not used, only vocal music being employed in the Orthodox worship. The Beatitudes were chanted in English, the Trisagion in the original Greek, to a rich and varied harmony; but the “Eje Cheruveme,” or Greek Cherubic Hymn, was the vocal crown of beauty, and each repetition of its exquisite strains gave it a fresh hold upon feeling and upon memory. The following translation of it is from the pen of a well-known English scholar, G. M.:

Let all mortal flesh keep silence, and with fear and trembling stand,
Ponder nothing earthly-minded—for, with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth, our full homage to demand.

King of Kings, yet born of Mary, as of old on earth He stood,
Lord of Lords, in Human Vesture—in the Body and the Blood
He will give to all the Faithful His own Self for Heavenly Food.

Rank on rank the host of heaven spreads its vanguard on the way,
As the Light of Light descendeth from the realms of endless day,
That the Powers of Hell may vanish as the darkness clears away.

At His Feet the six-winged Seraphs Cherubim with sleepless eye
Veil their faces to the Presence, as with ceaseless voice they cry
Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia, Lord most High!

But the most thrilling part of the service was the chanting of the Nicene Creed in English, so distinctly that each word was heard throughout the church, and the singing of the phrase, “Who proceedeth from the Father,” showed how easily at least two great branches of the Catholic Church could be reconciled on the old foundations laid by the General Councils. The cloud of incense, which ascended from time to time, added much to the beauty of the ceremony. Before the communion of the priest, the Lord’s Prayer, chanted in English, united the congregation in the act of worship, and the Cherubic Hymn again filled the air with the depths and heights of its swelling harmony. The Liturgy proper was followed by the special service for the day (the accession of the Czar), during which the officiating priest, the clergy, and all the congregation knelt. After the Amen all rose, and the familiar tones of the Gloria in Excelsis, in English, brought this beautiful service to a close. May it prove to be only the beginning of a new era of “peace and good will” among the long-severed branches of the one true Vine! It is stated that the leading motive of Father Agapius in holding this public service was to show his fraternal sympathy and fellowship with the American Church and with the whole Anglican communion , and his desire to aid in bringing about full intercommunion. Nor can we take leave of this affecting service without calling attention to the fact, thus publicly demonstrated, that the common inheritance of all Christendom belongs neither to the one nor to the other communion, but that the Lord’s Prayer, the Glorias, the Beatitudes, the Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and, with the exception of one clause, the whole Nicene Creed, can be thus used in the same tongue, in the same words, and with the same sentiments in the two Churches.

—Frederick George Lee (editor), The Union Review: A Magazine of Catholic Literature and Art (London: J. T. Hayes, 1865), pp. 336-339.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Liturgy, Order of Corporate Reunion, Orthodoxy

Watering the Stock, by Charles Chapman Grafton (1907)

To the Editor of The Living Church:[1]

IT is well known that since the Crapsey condemnation, the Radical party has been busy in its endeavor to lower the Church’s standard of doctrine, and make it more comprehensive. They are attached in a degree to the Church’s worship, but feel the strain upon their consciences of being obliged to utter in it statements of doctrine which they do not believe. It is the old story of the Low Churchmen, at the time of the Cummins movement, over again. More astute and clever than the straightforward Evangelicals, they will probably seek their end in the coming General Convention, in a more subtle manner. A meeting, we understand, has lately been held in New York, presided over by the Hon. Seth Low, and encouraged by letters from several Bishops, which considered the best methods of “Liberalizing the Church.” To the worldly and carnal-minded the cry of “liberalizing” will be a popular one. But to old-fashioned, conservative Churchmen of all schools, it will look like a method borrowed from Wall Street, known as “Watering the Stock.”

In favor of the plan, it will be urged that there is a considerable body of men now outside the Church’s organization who would willingly join her if from her doctrines the supernatural could be eliminated, and the Church be brought more into agreement with modern rationalistic, i.e., unbelieving thought.

But this, we may observe, is a mere gold-brick scheme. There is no such body of men desirous of joining the Church, and kept from it by her consistent witness to the Faith once delivered. For any such persons, there are already many organizations of a religious character open and glad to welcome their support, but they do not join them. The only effect upon this body of men would be to make them yet more contented in their present attitude of indifference. Men do not, or should not, join the Church because they like its form and service, but because, having been brought under conviction of sin, and converted, they come into it to find Christ their Saviour. Propositions to liberalize mean parting with some of the Church’s inherited faith, either in respect to her government, or her doctrines, and accepting in place a large amount of variable opinions produced in the theological workshops by the clash of modern thought.

Now the ancient doctrines and practices of the Church have upon them the stamp and signature of the Church in all ages, countries, and times. They are doctrines and practices which have borne the test of nineteen centuries. Their value has been demonstrated by the conversion of millions of people and the lives of saints. We are asked to surrender some portion of this true and good money for a lot of unauthorized “green goods.” It is a “green goods” game, which it will be well for the Church not to take part in.

Another delusive comment pressed, is that if we wish our Church to grow and become the Church of the land, it must be more “liberal.” But certainly the way to develop the real spiritual growth and efficiency of any religious body is not by letting down the bars, and by making matters of indifference of doctrines received from the beginning and held universally in the Church. It is just those bodies that have held more stringently to the Faith, and have more positively taught it, that in this age of unsettlement have drawn the greater number within their fold.

The spiritual growth of our own body depends, not upon liberalizing, i.e., minimizing the Faith, but upon more explicitly avowing our Catholic heritage, apostolic government, and sacramental system of worship.

An important factor in the plan of the liberals to enlarge our membership they overlook. They mistakenly think a number of half-breeds now partly Christian and partly infidel, will be drawn into the Church. But they do not stop to consider how many more they will drive out of this Church. No well instructed Christian Churchman could remain in a Church which, for instance, made formal recognition of the position taken by Professor Allen, i.e., that the Anglican Church has broken with the fourth Ecumenical Council, or any Ecumenical Council! The Church has affirmed again and again she has not done so. But if now the Protestant Episcopal Church takes that position, she breaks the thread of life that binds her to the Church as founded by Christ. She is no longer Catholic. She has committed spiritual suicide. And no loyal Churchman could remain in her communion. To one who might be drawn to her, those who left would be counted by the hundred.

There is, with some, a desire to see all Protestant bodies, as they are called, brought into some one great confederation. It goes along with the American trust-forming business spirit. Its dominant idea is the formation of a big concern. It measures strength by quantity, not quality. It thinks of the Kingdom of God as if it were a mere human-made society, or a combination of societies. It would make the Episcopal Church simply an annex or member of a man-made trust. If such indeed is the course that our Church is to take, our liberal friends cannot avoid adopting for it a new name. They would not, of course, take the title of “American Catholic.” They would want a title which would express the new attitude and the changed quality of the old Episcopal Church. A title we would therefore respectfully suggest for their consideration. Considering the left-handed connection with the sectarians involved and the embodiment of Unitarian principles, the title might well be “The Great American Liberal Morganatic Church.”

When the popular cry of Liberality is raised, it is well for Churchmen to consider that the word “liberal” means to make free with, and we have no right to make free or give away that which is not our own. Now the Faith has been given in trust to the Church. St. Paul’s command to Timothy was in the selection of clergy, to pick out “faithful men;” men, that is, who would be faithful to the Church. In our day, the Church is asked to embark, so to speak, in a speculation for its growth. Promises are made of an increased number of adherents, and of large sums of money, and of increased missionary enterprise. And it is proposed, in order to secure this great, enticing profit, that the Church shall put her hand into the strong-box of her creeds and abstract from that sacred deposit of her Faith some of her most valued possessions. The Church is being thus tempted to betray her trust and commit a crime; a crime worse than that of any embezzlement or defalcation of earthly money. Men who would abhor committing such a crime in respect to funds entrusted to them, think it right to be liberal or “make free with” the things of God.

This attempt to modify the Church’s Catholic position and doctrines breaks her continuity with the past, reduces her thereby into the condition of a sect, and under the specious promise of greater growth and earthly prosperity, it brings before the Christian mind the solemn scene of our Lord’s final temptation. Disguised as an angel of light, Satan proposed to the Master, simply on condition of His acknowledging his authority, to give Him all the kingdoms of the world. There was to be no crucifixion, no opposition on the part of man. It was a Broad Church offer. It had a business-like ring. Undoubtedly Satan could have done what the Radical party cannot do—deliver the goods. But the Kingdom of God was not to be a successful kingdom in the world, or for the world, or even over the world, but was to be built up and prepared for the eternal reign with Christ in glory of those who are dead to the world, and crucified with Christ.

We do not know what the plan of the liberalizing party is. It has been suggested that any legislation respecting the establishment of a Court of Appeals in matters of doctrine will be opposed. So long as none exists, the followers of Crapsey can say the Church has not condemned them. Or if a Court of Appeals must be had to complete our system, then they would have a small one, whom they might influence, composed of a few Bishops, clergy, and laity. Such an one would not be a Churchly one. The only Churchly Court on doctrine should be the House of Bishops. They are elected by the Church and represent her. Their number secures a balanced judgment. They have been especially commissioned by Christ as the guardians of the Faith.

C. C. Fond du Lac.


[1] The Living Church, July 6 , 1907, p. 340-341.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Liturgy

Early and Evening Communions, by Charles Chapman Grafton (1911)

To the Editor of The Living Church: [1]

I AM aware that the Rev. Daniel Wilson, an Evangelical clergyman, had an early celebration of the Eucharist. I do not think he began the practice. In the Annals of the Low Church Party, vol. I., p. 344, it is stated: “In 1828, Mr. Wilson commended a celebration of the Eucharist at 8 A.M., though how often we are not told. It was probably once a month.” Early celebrations were not a partisan movement inaugurated by the High Churchmen.

I was not aware that Dr. Hook had an evening celebration. I should be glad if anyone would cite the authority for it, as I do not find it referred to in his Life. Possibly he may have had a Maundy Thursday celebration, but that is a different thing. Evening celebrations, as established by Low Churchmen, have the aspect of a partisan movement, for the reason given for them, viz., to provide for the wants of the servant and laboring class, is evidently a fictitious one, as the Roman Church, which deals largely in this class, finds no need for evening Communion.

C. C. Fond du Lac.


[1] The Living Church, October 14, 1911, p. 815.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Bibliography, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Liturgy

Proportionate Representation in the House of Deputies, by Charles Chapman Grafton (1901)

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVING CHURCH:[1]

THE advocates of proportionate representation are wont to point to the correspondence between our national government with its Senate and House of Representatives, and our House of Bishops with the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. They liken the House of Bishops to the Senate, and the House of Deputies to that of the Representatives. But do they not make a fatal mistake in overlooking the fact that the General Convention is composed of three houses and not, as Congress is, of but two? To be sure the clerical and lay deputies sit together, and on many questions vote, for convenience, as one body, but their house is composed of two distinct orders. These assert their independence by voting on all important questions separately, and each has thus a veto on the other. Thus the analogy breaks down. There are three Houses, not two.

Again, the House of Bishops is not in many particulars like the United States Senate. In the latter case the Senators are chosen by their State legislatures and represent their respective States. The Bishops, on the other hand, are not elected to the General Convention. They are not chosen by their Dioceses to represent them. They do not represent Dioceses. They do not come, as Senators do, for a term of years. They come there by virtue of their Order, of their prerogative as Bishops of the Church of God. They all have equal rights, whether Diocesan Bishops or Missionary Bishops, Coadjutors or Suffragans. They all belong to that same Order to which by Divine authority the government of the Church is primarily committed. So again the supposed analogy breaks down.

If there is any likeness in our General Convention to the secular government it is to be found in this: that the House of Deputies is like the Senate. It is utterly unlike the House of Representatives, for its members are not chosen by districts or by the people. Nor are the clergy chosen by the clergy of the Diocese to which they belong and so are their representatives, nor are the lay delegates chosen by the laity and so made their representatives. They are both chosen by their Diocesan Conventions or Councils, and so represent the Dioceses, just as Senators represent their States.

Experience has demonstrated the wisdom, in our civil polity, of having a governing body whose members represent the States and whose numbers are not based upon proportionate representation. The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies is this body in our Church and it would be as un-American to try to overthrow it as to overthrow State rights and State sovereignty and the system of their representation in our national government.

But this plea for proportionate representation is based upon a more grave mistake. It is based upon a worldly-minded and un-Christian policy. It is the evidence of a worldly mind to urge that numbers of communicants or amount of contributions should be taken into account. The deputies are not to represent either wealth or numbers. Like the Bishops, though elected, they represent both the Diocese that sends them (and so each Diocese sends the same number) and also their Order. The clergy represent the clerical Order; the laity, who are in their degree kings and priests unto God, represent their Order. The two do not come together to represent the people as the House of Representatives does. They represent, irrespective of the number who may have voted for them, or the wealth of their Dioceses, their own respective orders. As Church legislation does not represent and is not intended to represent the mind of the majority of the Church members, there is no need of any house for that purpose. Herein is a difference between civil government and Church government. In civil matters we are governed, or supposed to be, by the will of the majority. It is not so in the Church of God. We are governed, or seek to be governed in Church affairs, by the Mind and Will of God. To this end the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church and presides in its councils. What a Church council seeks by its debates and votes to ascertain is, not the mind of the majority of its Church members, but the Mind of the Spirit. Now the Mind of the Spirit is seen by making men to be of one mind in an house. It is by the agreement of the. Bishops, the clergy, and the laity, acting separately, that this Mind is shown. The plan of proportionate representation, in order that the voice of the majority may be learned, is then based upon a false principle. It is the endeavor to reconstruct the city of God upon the earthly principles of the city of Babylon.

The system proposed would moreover tend to increase one of the worst features of the American Church. Its worst feature is the political spirit, with its ambitions and popularity-seeking and maneuvering. That our whole system of elections engenders schools of theology many be beneficial, but party, or the political spirit, is a deadly thing. It would come to pass under proportionate representation that a few great Dioceses would control the Convention. Even if these were groups of Dioceses the evil would be the same or worse. It would lead to the Boss system, or government by bosses and cliques. It would increase a spirit harmful and dangerous and in marked contrast with the ways of God.

C. C. Fond du Lac.


[1] The Living Church, December 28, 1901; reprinted in Works, Vol. 7, pp. 197-201.

1 Comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Bibliography, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history

Bishop Grafton on Bishop Peterkin’s “Open Letter” (1911)

To the Editor of The Living Church:[1]

MY good brother, Bishop Peterkin, is in favor of retaining the word Protestant in our Church title because it involves a denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the Mass, Eucharistic Adoration, and Sacramental Confession. These doctrines, he holds are Roman errors, repudiated by our Reformers, and not in the Prayer Book. On the other hand, many conservative Churchmen of different schools object to the term “Protestant” because it has come to mean a rejection of authority, of the plenary inspiration of Holy Scripture, of the supernatural generally, and miracles. It echoes the rationalizing spirit of the day, tends to a denial of the Deity of Christ, of the Virgin Birth of Christ, of the Resurrection of the body.

Modern Protestantism stands, therefore, for a decadent Christianity. As conservative and evangelical Churchmen we wish, therefore, to get rid of the title.

In the interests of peace, I would point out that what we Churchmen agree in believing, is not the Roman doctrine but one which is largely repudiated by Protestant sectarianism. We believe in the Real Presence. But our belief does not involve the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. Rome makes the manner of the change wrought by the consecration a dogma. We do not pretend to define the manner, but leave it a mystery. The Presence is after a heavenly and spiritual manner, ineffable and sacramental, and not in accordance with natural laws. Sectarian Protestantism denies the Real Presence and regards the Communion as a mere commemoration service. The word Protestant is thus associated with Zwinglianism. This is not the doctrine of the Prayer Book or of our reformers. Do we wish to be Zwinglianists? Shall we not get rid of a title that so compromises us?

Then as to the “Sacrifice of the Mass.” We do not hold that the Eucharist is a repetition or an addition to the work of the Cross. We do believe it is a sacrifice or offering made to God. Thus our Prayer Book bids the priest say, “these thy Holy Gifts which we now offer unto Thee.” Our American Prayer Book also calls the holy table an altar, and an altar implies sacrifice. Now our Lord’s Sacrifice had three parts to it. He freely offered Himself in the Upper Chamber. He offered Himself with the shedding of Blood on the Cross. He presented Himself as the Lamb slain before the Eternal Father in heaven. In the Eucharist we commemorate the voluntary offering of Himself. We make an unbloody and symbolical memorial of His death on Calvary, and plead, in union with our ascended Lord, the all-sufficient merits of His sacrifice. But in Protestant sectarian meeting-houses there are no alters, for they have no sacrifice to offer. Protestantism thus denies the existence of a form of worship which is essential to our Church. Ought we not to unite in repudiating a title which denies what our Church and our Prayer Book teach?

Again, then, as to “Eucharistic Adoration.” We Catholics do not adore the elements. Why not take our word as brother Christians for it? If we knelt down in worship before Christ when visible, we could not rightly be accused of worshipping His dress. Now our acts of worship are not paid to the elements, which are like the veils of His Human Body, nor to His Human Body apart from His Soul, nor to His Soul apart from His Divinity, nor to His Divinity apart from His Divine Person. His Divine Person is the object to which our adoration is paid.

He does not move from the right hand of Power, but abiding in His Spiritual Body the Church, makes Himself manifest within it, even as we believe that, without moving, He appeared to Saul on the roadway to Damascus. Our acts of worship, being directed to the Person of the Son of God, cannot be censured as idolatry, or Romanism, or as denied by our Prayer Book.

The worship of God enters largely into our Communion. On entering the church, which is God’s covenanted meeting place, we kneel down and recognize His Presence, but do not worship the building. Protestantism does not do this. It does not believe in the doctrine of holy or consecrated places or things. It regards the Communion elements as simply unchanged bread and wine. It received them sitting in its pews, with the bread and wine passed around on a waiter. Why, out of fear that our Eucharistic Adoration means something we repudiate, do you wish to retain the term Protestant, which implies something Churchmen of all schools abhor?

“Sacramental Confession” is, I know, a bugbear. It cannot however be denied that provision is made in the Prayer Book for confession before God in the presence of a priest, and a form of absolution given for the priest to pronounce. When, by whom, or how often, it is to be resorted to, are too large questions for present treatment. But all of the Catholic school recognize that it is not obligatory—as Rome teaches—but voluntary. It is a prerogative of priesthood and the right of the laity to use it as they please. It is an ancient mark of the Apostolic Catholic Churches. To deny it, by the use of the term Protestant, is to disparage our own heritage. Our Church certainly holds that her priests have power to declare and pronounce to penitents, the absolution and remission of their sins. This, sectarianism denies. Why then adopt a name which rejects what we Prayer Book Churchmen hold?

Let all Churchmen try to draw together. Each school needs the others. They are, when charitably understood, complementary, not contradictory. Much of all our differences lies in words. It is largely through verbal misunderstandings that we are kept apart. Thank God, however, theology is not religion, and it is religion that makes us all of one heart.

C. C. Fond du Lac.


[1] The Living Church, October 14, 1911, pp. 813-814. This letter responds to Bishop George W. Peterkin’s open letter (September 30, 1911, pp. 744-745) on the shared “distrust of Catholic advance which so generally characterizes Virginians.” Peterkin was the first Bishop of West Virginia, serving from 1878 to 1902.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Bibliography, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Liturgy

Evening Communions and Individual Communion Cups, by Charles Chapman Grafton (1911)

To the Editor of The Living Church: [1]

THERE are two un-Churchly customs, one of which, we believe, started in England. These customs are evening Communion, and the giving of the Sacrament in individual cups.

When the custom of having early celebrations increased in England, the Low Church partisans there introduced what was then unusual, the practice of evening Communions. It was a partisan move for the purpose of counteracting the practice of coming to the Communion early and so fasting. Fasting Communions became common, not on account of any English Church law, but as a matter of devotion and reverence. The fresh, early morning before the day’s work had come in was found to be a fitting time for devotion. The partisan excuse for evening Communion was that it met the wants of the servant class and working people. It was seemingly insincere, and a manufactured subterfuge to cover up a partisan movement; for it was obvious that the Roman Catholic Church, which largely dealt with those classes of persons, found no difficulty in getting them to early Communion. It is a growing sign of Christian consideration of others’ feelings that now evening Communions in England are diminishing. We trust it may be so here, where the restoration of good feeling amongst the different schools is the most important need for union.

The other un-Churchly custom is that of the introduction of individual cups.

We are sorry to think that the real reason for their introduction is a partisan one. It gives great pain to a large class of devout Church people, and introduces another cause of division amongst us. Love and charity towards their brethren should lead to its withdrawal. The excuse for it is the danger of infection. But as no instance of infection had been proved, and medical experts have said the danger was infinitesimal, the reason appears to be more fictitious than real. Moreover we believe that our Lord will protect His own Sacrament, and that His promise must here apply: “If ye drink of any deadly thing, it shall not hurt you.” Those who believe that the element, by consecration, has been changed from its natural use, cannot believe that any physical harm can come from receiving the chalice.

What, however, shall a Catholic-minded communicant do, finding himself where this un-Churchly custom has been introduced? In my judgment, the priest has broken the rubric. The rubric requires him, in consecrating, to take the Cup into his hands, and in giving the Sacrament, to give the Cup. Is it not the Cup which has been consecrated that he is to give into the hands of the people? He is not to give any cup, but the Cup in which the wine was consecrated. Would he not break the rubric by giving any other? If he should prepare all the individual cups previously and consecrate them, all the symbolical significance of drinking of one cup would be lost.

On the other hand, if he fill the individual cups from the chalice or vessel in which he has consecrated, he runs the great risk of spilling the sacred element. For the wine cannot be poured from the consecrated chalice or other vessel in which he has consecrated, in the small quantities of two or three drops, without some being spilt, if there are many cups. Nor can he cleanse all the cups, taking ablution in each, without seeming irreverence and greatly prolonging the service, or else falling into the greater irreverence of not taking the ablutions and so cleansing the cups.

What then is the devout communicant to do where the individual cups are used? The rubric and custom of the Church appear to be broken. Holy Scripture, in joining the partaking of the Cup of Blessing or one consecrated Cup, seems to be violated. Possibly Churchmen might be willing to be governed by our Lord’s action in the Last Supper, who did not have individual cups, but the one Cup which He blessed and of which all the apostles received.

The custom of individual cups seems to me so un-Churchly, unrubrical, so distrustful of Christ’s protection, that I should advise a devout communicant, where individual cups were used, to go to some other church to receive his communion, or to leave the parish.

C. C. Fond du Lac.


[1] The Living Church, August 26, 1911, p. 577.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Bibliography, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Liturgy

Roman Imitations, by Charles Chapman Grafton (1911)

To the Editor of The Living Church:[1]

I feel very strongly the importance of Catholics avoiding even an apparent imitation of Roman ceremonial. There is, or was (for I hope it has passed away with the late secessions), an idea, that if our ritual could be made like that of Rome, it would help on a reconciliation. But the present attitude of Rome shows this to be an impossibility. Reunion with Rome as an end of our movement should be dismissed from every Catholic-minded Churchman. For Rome does not ask for our agreement with her in Faith, but for submission to papal authority. There is a vast difference between the Catholic religion and the papal monarchical system. The latter is, we believe, a perversion of the Gospel, a destroyer of unity, a promoter of schism, a claim unsupported by Scripture or tradition, and a form of anti-Christ. Even if reunion were within the scope of possibility, an agreement with her in details of ritual would not aid the result. What we must do is to make it clear to our fellow-Churchmen that our Catholic movement has neither in thought or wish a return to papal submission. If we are to gain the good will of our Evangelical and High and Broad conservative brethren, we must make this obvious by our teaching and practice. It is only so that we can succeed.

Now the omission of the Nicene Creed in our weekly Eucharist gives the impression to our brethren that it is a Romish imitation. Are we not here, as in other cases, to consider our weaker brethren, and to avoid any appearance of evil? Ought we not to make any personal sacrifice in order to demonstrate our loyalty to our Book of Common Prayer? Does the allowed omission of the Nicene Creed in the first Prayer Book of King Edward VI. give us any authority to do so, who have promised our obedience to the present book? The omission is not so obviously a return to an English precedent, if such a return were allowed, as it is to an apparently Romish imitation. Allowing the good intentions of all our Catholic friends, we would, however, kindly ask them: Is the omission wise? Also, may we not say the same as to the shortened Mass?

Again, may we urge all our Catholic friends strictly to conform to the rubric which bids the consumption of the Sacred Elements left over from the Communion of the people to be made after the Benediction? It perhaps will surprise some churchmen to learn that there are any priests who consume the Sacred Elements after their own or the people’s Communion. Why do they do this? The only reason I know is that they do it in imitation of the Roman rite. Now our prayer Book, with seemingly great wisdom and devotion, reserves the Blessed Sacrament to the end of the service. The people standing, sing the Gloria in Excelsis in Its presence, as an act of devotion. We regard it as one of the most glorious heritages of our American Liturgy. But our friends set the rubric aside, and consume the Elements before the Benediction. No wonder the Church loses confidence in any party or cause that allows such a custom! Now wonder that these men look Romewards.

Another apparent imitation is the covering of the Sacred Elements, after the recitation of the canon, with a silk veil, instead of a “fair linen cloth,” a direction which we put in by the reformers for the purpose of protecting the Blessed Sacrament from pollution by flies or other insects. Symbolically, it has a beautiful reference to our Lord’s Body when taken down from the Cross, being wrapped in fair linen. It also bears witness to our Lord’s Blessed Body and Blood being present, though under sacramental veils. In the Roman rite, the Mass being over, when the priest has communicated, the Sacred Elements are covered with a silk veil, like that which is used by many of our clergy when bringing in the empty Chalice and Paten at the beginning of the service. A covering by the silk veil thus teaches the Roman doctrine that the Mass is over, and is a sign to our people that the Sacrament is no longer there. Be this as it may, it is a Roman and not an Anglican practice.

Again, we fear that some are still governed in their ritual by the book Father McGarvey put forth before his secession to Rome. He was, as his secession proved, a Romanist at heart. His apparent desire was so to interpret our rubrics as to make them conform with Roman practice. He sought in many ways to undermine the loyalty of our people. It seems a small thing, but why should a priest go to the epistle end of the altar to say the concluding prayers? The Roman priest does this, for having consumed the Blessed Sacrament which he had consecrated, he naturally returns for the concluding prayers to the epistle side, where he began the service. But with us the Blessed Sacrament is still unconsumed. Why then should not the priest stand before it, as he had previously done? Why go away, and leave It, and go to the Epistle side? It is, we grant, very immaterial.

There are a good many other smaller points like these which we would respectfully bring before our good Catholic friends, as one who has had the great cause so long and so deeply at heart. The first and great work to be done in the Church is to unite the Evangelicals, the Conservative-broads, the old-fashioned High Churchmen, and ourselves together in loving Christian fellowship, in mutual trust, and toleration, and cooperation in the building up of our communion.

C. C. Fond du Lac.


[1] The Living Church, July 1, 1911, pp. 303-304.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Bibliography, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Liturgy

Where Should the Priest Begin the Holy Communion? by Charles Chapman Grafton (1907)

To the Editor of The Living Church:[1]

I HAVE little or no interest in the ritual question raised by the Bishop of Marquette. In this time when men calling themselves Churchmen are, under the pretense of defending Christianity, undermining its very foundations, and in the presence of an apostasy unparalleled in the history of Christendom, this matter of ritual seems too trivial for consideration. We are living in an awful and most solemn time when the final anti-Christ is making his most subtly satanical attack on Christianity.

I do not care where one stands at the beginning of the Holy Eucharist. For forty years I have always begun at the Epistle side, and have seen most celebrations begun in that way. It is now the established custom in England and America of a very large number.

I have adopted it, as I suppose others have done, not because it is like the Roman way, but as the best interpretation which, as a lawyer trained, I could give a difficult rubric. The intention of the rubric, as a directory one, must be assumed to be the determination of the place where the priest shall stand. It must be interpreted, therefore, as designating that one place for him and not leaving him to make his own choice of position.

Which of the interpretations does this best?

The rubric reads: “Standing at the right hand of the table.” Does this mean the Epistle or Gospel side? Is the “right hand” to be determined by the table as facing the priest, or by the priest as facing the table?

The arguments in favor of the Gospel side are that in changing from the English rubric which placed the priest at the “north” side, our revisers probably meant to denote the same side without reference to the points of the compass, which, in the loss of the orientation of our buildings, was not advisable. We are, however, obliged, in considering a law, to derive its intention from the law or rubric itself, and not from the supposed purpose of its legislators. Obliged thus to interpret the rubric by itself, its construction must be governed by the intention to designate the position of the priest.

Contemporaneous exposition of a law may be referred to in cases where the law is ambiguous. Until the rubric is shown not to be clear by itself, contemporaneous exposition may not be appealed to. In this case, whatever was the usage in the early part of the last century, it was a continually changing usage and therefore can have little weight, legally considered, in understanding its meaning.

Whatever weight a judicial mind would give to these two reasons, there is this fact in the case which requires consideration: the table may, by the rubric, be moved about and placed in the body of the church. This was done in Puritan times and the rubric still allows it. It might be so placed that the smaller or Gospel end would be turned technically eastwards. In this case the “right side” would be what we now call the back of the altar. I have known clergymen taking that position. A table, therefore, that can be turned about and turned around, has no fixed portion which can be called its right side. The Bishop of Marquette also claims that the rubric would be complied with by the clergyman standing either in front of the Gospel side or by taking up an entirely different position both in respect to the people and the altar at the north or Gospel end. According, then, to this interpretation, no one position is designated to the exclusion of all others, and the clergyman is left to make a choice. This interpretation, therefore, is to be rejected because it defeats the intention and purpose of the rubric.

It seems, then, that it is more in accord with the rubric’s intent to define the right or left hand by the clergyman’s attitude to the table rather than by the table’s attitude to him.

In the marriage service the parties are placed, according to the rubric, “the man on the right hand and the woman on the left.” The Bishop of Marquette says this could not refer to the table because there is no reference to the table in the marriage service. I would respectfully call his attention to the fact that there is a reference to the table in the form given in the English Prayer Book. There “the minister, after the blessing, goes to the Lord’s table.” The Psalm ended, “the man and the woman kneel before the Lord’s table and the priest, standing at the table, shall say,” etc. The reason why the rubric that states that the minister shall go to the Lord’s table, etc., was left out of the American Prayer Book, was because there was ordinarily no recess chancel with a distinction between the nave and the sanctuary. The American usage assumed that the parties would present themselves before the priest standing at the table. Therefore, the direction that the man and woman shall stand on the right and left, while it may refer to each other, may also refer to the table. If it does refer to the parties themselves, anyway it places the man, who is said to be on the right hand, on the Epistle side of the altar. But it was not so much for this reason I have given, that I and others have been led to adopt our present practice.

Though I have, therefore, been led to think that when the priest is bidden to stand on the right hand of the table, the right hand is determined by the priest’s attitude as he faces the altar and not as the altar faces him, for this interpretation gives him no choice of position, while the other interpretation makes his position an indeterminate one which vacates the legal interpretation of the rubric.

But as I have said, it is not a matter in which I feel any concern, especially with the tremendous issues now before the Church, which should lead all conservatives to drop minor questions and rally to protect our Church from what seems to some an impending apostasy.

C. C. Fond du Lac.

Bishop’s House, Fond du Lac, Wis.


[1] The Living Church, March 9, 1907, p. 654. Grafton responds to a letter to the editor by Gershom Mott Williams (1857-1923, Bishop of the Diocese of Marquette from 1895-1919) in The Living Church, March 2, 1907. Three further letters on the subject of the position of the celebrant during Holy Communion followed on March 15, 1907, when the editor declared “The discussion of this subject is now at an end” (p. 691). Notwithstanding this statement, further letters on the topic continued on March 30, 1907 (pp. 768-769) and April 6, 1907 (p. 804).

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Liturgy

Children at the Eucharist, by Charles Chapman Grafton (1907)

To the Editor of the Living Church:[1]

ONE regrets to find any one so narrow-minded as to forbid the presence of children at the Eucharist. But loyal Churchmen, one would think, would be willing to be guided by the Prayer Book. When children are baptized their sponsors are bidden to have them “hear sermons.” Now the only place where sermons are ordered by the Prayer Book is in the Communion service. Surely if, in obedience to the order in the Prayer Book, children are taken to that service, has a Bishop a right to forbid their presence at it? As there is no provision for the withdrawal of any, they have a right to stay through. The Spiritual advantages to the children are very great, and we encourage in our diocese what are called children’s Eucharists, but here we are merely pointing out the illegality of forbidding their attendance.

C. C. Fond du Lac.


[1] The Living Church, August 31, 1907, p. 603; reprinted in Works, Vol. 7, pp. 215-216.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anglo-Catholicism, Bibliography, Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church history, Liturgy