MY DEAR SIR EMANUEL,
Had Lady Moore been alive, I would have inscribed this small publication, on a sacred subject, to her. As it is, I beg that you will accept of it, as a sincere tribute of my friendship and regard.
MY DEAR SIR EMANUEL,
ever faithfully yours,
BURNSIDE, Easter Week, 1849.
Circumstances have occurred, and are every day occurring, within the pale of the SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH, which, in my opinion, render it necessary that You should be directly and specially addressed, through the medium of the public press, on various ecclesiastical subjects, connected with the important and awful event of your own salvation. Of these subjects, there is none in which you have, or can have, a more thrilling interest, than the one which forms the object of the present publication.
The HOUR is come, though, it may be, not the MAN. For a number of years past, the earth has been shaken with the contending noise of polemic strife; and whether in Scotland, in England, in [1/2] Ireland--on the continent of Europe--on the banks of the Ganges, the Indus, and the Burampooteror throughout the vast regions of America--theological discussion has become a prominent feature of the age. Never, since the reformation--since the days when Luther overthrew the papal power--since the time when Calvin issued his predestinating decrees--since Hooper, Latimer, and Ridley, lighted a fire in England, which, with God's grace, shall not, till the consummation of all things, be quenched--never, I say, since one and all of these events happened, has the peace of the world been more disturbed--the slumbers of mankind more broken--by the exciting investigation of religious matters, than during the twenty years of the nineteenth century which have just elapsed. "The clergy," you will say, "have done it all. They have disturbed our periods of rest;--they have invaded the tranquillity of our homes;--they have set the father against the son, and the daughter against the mother;--they have driven us hither and thither, in the midst of their jarrings, till, what with the sound of high church on the one hand, and with that of low church on the other, we know not to what hand to turn, or in what haven to take refuge from the violence of the storm." My friends, I grant it all. I grant, [2/3] that the clergy have done the mischief--if mischief it be. They have been fishing in troubled waters. They love to do so. They have dragged the laity into a sea of heart-burnings--of religious doubt--of bitter mental agitation. And therefore it is that I say, the HOUR is come, if not the MAN. The moment has arrived when some attempt should be made to calm your minds, in reference to spiritual affairs. Who the individual is, on whom, in the course of the ordination of divine providence, the effectual execution of this high and holy task is devolved, remains yet to be seen.
Of all topics belonging to the advancement of the spiritual life in the soul of man, the essential nature of the holy Eucharist--that is, of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper--and the laws and rules, in subordination to which the administration of it is to take place, ought, within our minds, to hold a prominent place. A diocesan synod has lately, under the sanction of a Scottish bishop, been held, [At Dundee, on Tuesday, the 27th of March, summoned by Dr. Torry, Bishop of St. Andrews, Dunkeld, and Dumblane.] in which the question was formally discussed,--whether you, the laity, are entitled, from your pastors, to passive, or non-passive communion?--in other words, whether you [3/4] (for so I understand the question raised) are, as has hitherto been the case, to have it in your power to claim a participation in this sacred ordinance, on a solemn declaration on your part, that you earnestly desire it, and that you are believers in the doctrine of the Episcopal church, while, at the same time, you are regular in your lives and. conversation?--or, whether you are previously to be subjected to the ordeal of a Romish confessional, and then, after having acquitted yourselves to the satisfaction of your father-confessor, to have at granted you as a favour?
This, I believe, to be the question raised; and the clergyman who has raised it, and who, iii doing so, is supported by the weight and influence of, at least, one Scottish bishop, is endeavouring, with the greatest earnestness and zeal, to have the position involved in it enacted as the law of the Scottish Episcopal church. [The Rev. Mr. Palmer, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.] Hitherto the great body of the Scottish bishops have refrained from homologating this position; but how long this may continue to be the case, it is difficult to say. It is for you, then, to be on your guard, lest, before you are aware of it, you suddenly find a. priestly yoke fastened upon your necks; such as, [4/5] heretofore, neither you nor your fathers could bear.
My friends, I have, at this moment, a very large volume before me, entitled, "AN APPEAL TO THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS AND CLERGY; AND GENERALLY TO THE CHURCH OF THEIR COMMUNION." It extends to 464 large octavo pages; and is described as printed for "the clergy of the united diocese of St. Andrew's, Dunkeld, and Dumblane." At the synod to which I have called your attention, it was laid upon the table, as containing the doctrine which Mr. Palmer propounds;--as embracing, within its ample folds, the sentiments which he, and those who think with him, desire shall be rendered law in the Scottish Episcopal church, before you, the laity of that church, shall be permitted to approach the altar of your divine Lord, and there, so often as you feel "religiously and devoutly disposed," obey his most solemn and affectionate injunction, given not only to you, but to his disciples of all ages,--"Do this in remembrance of me." Mr. Palmer is, I understand, a learned and estimable man. But learned and estimable men will have their fancies; and learned and estimable men may, in point of fact, while they wish to be its friends, become the enemies of the christian faith. At [5/6] pages 319 and 320 of his volume, the following two propositions occur:--
"Not even members of the church, who have been baptized and confirmed, have any right to receive the sacraments, even from their own curate or bishop, (to say nothing of others,) unless they have previously obeyed the discipline of the church; that is to say, unless they have previously given in their names, or presented themselves to the curate, and satisfied him, on his examining them, so far as may be necessary, in order to prevent any persons being improperly admitted to the communion." (p. 319.)
"If any person, however otherwise he may think himself qualified, contemn the discipline of the Church, and attempt to take to himself passive communion as a matter of right, in spite of the curate, either in his own, or in any other parish or diocese, such person is to be TURNED OUT OF THE. CHURCH BY THE DEACONS OR CHURCHWARDENS, and is to be held and treated AS ONE EXCOMMUNICATED by all good christians." (p. 320.)
These are but two out of forty-eight propositions brought forward by Mr. Palmer; all similarly bearing upon the exaltation of the christian priesthood, and equally upon the degradation, and even prostrate submission, in the presence of their [6/7] spiritual pastors and masters, of the lay members of Christ's church. Fortunate it is, my lay friends, that you happen to live, not in the ninth, but in the nineteenth century,--not in Spain, but in free Britain,--not under the paternal sway of dark inquisitors, but under the impartial protection of Scottish judges. "Deacons" and "churchwardens" may lay violent hands on you when approaching God's altar--may desecrate the sanctities of God's house--may, in return for your being "religiously and devoutly disposed," seize upon your persons, and "TURN YOU OUT OF THE CHURCH;" bid if they do so, they must do so at their peril, and with the prospect of an action of damages, in the civil courts of the empire, before their eyes.
In a day of rebuke like the present, when such doctrines as these are advocated--when they are brought forward in the full glare of the noon-day sun--when, at the same time, bishops and clergy are heard clamouring for more power--when, if any individual presbyter ventures to attempt to stem the torrent of incoming priestly domination, by warning the laity against its progress, a mark is instantly set upon him, and he is held up as a proper object of ecclesiastical obloquy and reproach [7/8]--at such a period, and in such circumstances, I conceive, my friends, that it is our bounden duty, as well as our plain interest, to inquire particularly both into the nature of the Lord's Supper, and into the laws under which we have a right to see it administered.
What, then, is the nature of this holy mystery? Was it given for the purpose of augmenting priestly power? Was it instituted in order that the ministers of religion might make it a means of opening heaven and of shutting it?--that they might use it as an instrument wherewith to crush the great mass of christian believers under their feet? It most certainly was not. Let us hear what bishop Wilson--the saintly bishop Wilson--says of "the end and institution of the Lord's Supper":--
"St. Paul," says he, "concludes his first epistle to the Corinthians with this remarkable direction: If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be ANATHEMA MARANATHA; that is, let him be separated from your communion, as one under the displeasure of God; and, without a timely repentance, in no possibility of being saved: nothing being more grievous in the sight of God, than for a sinner to slight the greatest instance of his [8/9] mercy that was ever offered to man, as well as the only means of his salvation. [1 Cor. xvi. 22.--The meaning of St. Paul is:--If any man oppose, or apostatize from, the Lord Jesus, let him be held as separate from you. ANATHEMA is a Greek word, signifying merely separation, whether for a good or a bad purpose. The word MAHANNATHA is Syriac. It is a compound of Maran, Lord, and Atha, he cometh. It means, "the Lord cometh;" that is, to judgment, at the last day.--In Luke, xxi. 5, the word anathema (see the Greek version) is used as implying a sacred gift.]
"To prevent this, and to hinder sinners from forgetting (which they are but too apt to do) this -token of God's infinite love, and to fix the love of Jesus Christ more surely in our hearts and memory, he, himself, hath taken care, that his love and mercy should, throughout all generations, be remembered. He did, therefore, ordain this sacrament as a memorial of our redemption, and of his love for us;--as a pledge to assure us of it,--and as an outward means and sign of testifying, as well as increasing, our love to him.
"The holy apostles of Christ, who were present when he first administered this sacrament,. give us the following account of its end and institution:--
"They signify to us, in the first place, that this sacrament was ordained by Christ the same night in which he was betrayed; and after they [9/10] had observed the passover, which had been ordained to preserve the memory. of their great deliverance from the bondage in Egypt; and which did prefigure, and. was a prophecy of, a much greater deliverance, which Jesus Christ was to be the author of, not only for them, but for all mankind; and which prophecy was surprisingly fulfilled by that people, without knowing what they were doing, when they crucified Jesus Christ, the true paschal lamb, the very same month, the very same day of the month, and the very same hour of the day, that the paschal lamb was first ordained to be sacrificed.
"Now, after the pascal supper, as the apostles relate it, Jesus Christ took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. He took also the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins. This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as oft as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do skew the Lord's death till he come.
"In obedience, therefore, to this command of Jesus Christ, who has delivered us from a much [10/11] greater bondage than that of Egypt, the Christian Church keeps up the memory of his love, his sacrifice, and his sufferings and death, after this solemn manner.
"First, as an acknowledgment that our lives, and all that we eat or drink to preserve them, are owing to the bounty of God, we present upon His table, by the hands of his own minister, a portion of his creatures, the best we have for the support and comfort of our natural life,--namely, bread and wine. After this, the bread and wine are consecrated; the' bread is broken, and the wine poured out, to represent the death of Christ, whose body was broken, and whose blood was shed for us.
"Then, the minister of God, as the steward of God's household, applies these blessings to every person, who receives this sacrament, in this devout prayer:--The body and blood of Christ, which were given and shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.
"And we may be assured of it, that this sacrament will be, to every worthy communicant, what the tree of life would have been unto Adam and Eve in paradise; and that as they, had they continued obedient, would have been in no danger of temporal death, even so we, while we feed on this bread, now endued with a life-giving spirit, and [11/12] live as we ought to do, are in no danger of death eternal; these being pledges to assure us, that as certainly as bread and wine do nourish our bodies, so do these seal to us all the benefits which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his sacrifice and death.
"And when any christian does wilfully, and for want of faith, deprive himself of this spiritual food, he falls, as our first parents did, into a state purely natural, and destitute of the means of grace and salvation."
Here bishop Wilson speaks of a christian's "depriving himself" of this "spiritual food," as one of the greatest errors into which he can fall.
After this full exposition of the origin and true nature of the Eucharist, the same prelate goes on to shew "how a christian ought to prepare himself" for partaking of it.
"The church," he remarks, "had regard to all her members"--that is, to all her members, whether learned or unlearned--whether enjoying much or slight leisure--whether much or little engaged in the necessary employments of life--"the church had regard to all her members, when she gave this short and plain direction to such as prepare to go to the Lord's Supper:--
"That they EXAMINE THEMSELVES,--
 "Whether they repent them truly of their former sins.
"Whether they stedfastly purpose to lead a new life.
"Whether they have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ.
"Whether they have a thankful remembrance of his death; and
"Whether they be in charity with all men."
Observe, my christian brethren, that those who propose to come to the Lord's Supper, are commanded to "examine themselves." It is not said, that they are to be examined by others.
You will, my lay friends, naturally say, "Bishop Wilson was, undoubtedly, a master in Israel. He was an acute scholar, a learned divine, a pious and godly man. But it is not precisely what bishop Wilson says, or what any another uninspired human being says, on this important subject, that we wish to know. It is, what the SCRIPTURE says. It is what the word of God has revealed to us concerning it. That we conceive to be our guide; that we regard as the unerring rule by which our conduct ought to be swayed."
True: to the law and to the testimony we must appeal. After all, it is to the SCRIPTURE that we must finally go in search of information [13/14] respecting the Eucharist. And here we find but little said with regard to it. The great leading features of its origin, I have, in quoting bishop Wilson, already adverted to. The next thing, therefore, to which I require to direct your attention is,--
To whom, on scriptural principles, is the sacrament of the Lord's Supper NOT to be administered?
This, as far as scripture is concerned, is a question much more easily put than answered. Throughout the whole compass of the new testament, there is not a single passage which will enable us to give a direct reply to it. This information may be new to you; but it is, nevertheless, correct. Some find references made to excommunication in the 16th chapter of St. Matthew's gospel, 19th verse; in the 18th chapter of St. Matthew, from the 15th to the 18th verse; in the 20th chapter of St. John, and the 23d verse; in the 5th chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, and the 5th verse; in the 5th chapter of St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians, and the 12th verse; in the 3d chapter of St. Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians, and the 14th and 15th verses; in the 1st chapter of St. Paul's epistle to Timothy, and in the 20th verse; and in the 3d chapter of St. Paul's epistle to Titus, and in the 10th verse. I confess, that I can find, in [14/15] these passages, no justification of a reckless refusal of the Lord's Supper to the members of Christ's Church. Let us look at the last of them; namely, Titus iii. 10. There it is said, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject. But the Greek word, which is here translated reject, (paraitou,) does not mean to excommunicate. It simply means, to avoid, or flee from. And the probability is, that even in this latter sense, all that St. Paul requires of us is, that we should avoid, or flee from, not the person, but the doctrine of him who perseveringly and obstinately denies a fundamental principle of the Christian religion.
But if there is no passage in the new testament which forbids the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be administered to guilty sinners, provided these sinners are christians, and that there exists within them even the slightest principles of the spiritual life--even the faintest embers of decayed love towards God and godly things--there is, on the other hand, a passage of so very striking a nature, bearing a contrary tendency, that I am more than astonished to find it has never stood as a stumblingblock, or obstacle, in the way of those members of the christian priesthood who, for every trifling offence--for every slight deviation [15/16] from doctrinal orthodoxy, or church order--are inclined to repel their fellow-creatures from a compliance with the solemn injunction issued by their Lord and Saviour on the night in which he was betrayed. I allude to that well-known passage in the eleventh chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians; in which the apostle charges them with the foulest desecration of the holy Eucharist itself, of which it was possible for professing christians of any country, or any age, to be guilty. These Corinthians--Corinthian members of the christian church--were, it would appear, in the regular practice of profaning the Lord's Supper in the most disgraceful manner; to such an extent, by eating and drinking at it intemperately, as to bring disease upon themselves. For this cause, we are told, many were weak and sick among them, and many slept,--that is, died. What! exclaims St. Paul, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?--or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?--He points out, to them, how the Lord Jesus instituted the sacred rite which they so profaned; and how he himself had well informed them of its true nature. He tells them, that they were eating and drinking unworthily; that they were eating and drinking damnation, or condemnation, or judgment, to themselves, [16/17] not discerning the Lord's body. But he does not threaten them with excommunication. He merely commands them, in future, to EXAMINE THEMSELVES. Let a man, says he, examine himself; and SO let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, in a proper manner.
Having disposed of the scriptural part of our subject, the only other thing, my lay brethren, with which you have to do, as Scottish episcopalians, in connection with your reception of the Lord's Supper, is the laws and rules of the particular branch of the christian church to which you belong. That branch is the Episcopal church in Scotland; and its laws and rules consist of its own canons, and of the rubrics prefixed to the communion office in the English prayer book.
On this part of my subject, I cannot do better than quote the words of a man high in ecclesiastical authority among ourselves;--a man who stands first and foremost--second to none--in the Scottish Episcopal church, as a theologian, and a biblical critic. I speak of Dr. Terrott, the present bishop of Edinburgh. In a charge delivered by him to his clergy on the 27th of April, 1848, bishop Terrott enunciates his opinions concerning the matter before us, with great eloquence, and at considerable length.
 "Let me," says he, "point out to your notice, as regards the administration of the Lord's Supper, the directions given by the law of our own church; and in doing so, I must pregame, that you admit the rubrics prefixed to the English communion service to be law to us who use that office, and that compliance with their spirit, at least, is required also from those who use the Scotch office, seeing it is declared in our XXth canon, that every clergyman shall pay attention to the spirit and design of the rubrics prefixed to the order for the administration of the Lord's Supper in the Book of Common Prayer.
"This rubric then declares, 'that if any man be an open and notorious evil liver; or have done any wrong to his neighbour by word or deed, so that the congregation be thereby offended; or, if malice prevail between any two parties; such persons shall, by the minister, be prevented from communicating, until they have made profession of repentance and amendment.' For the full understanding of this law, we have only to examine what the framers of the rubric must have meant by the expression notorious evil liver; and this we must explain by the aid of the Exhortation. For, as the rubric states for what crimes the minister shall repel from the communion when the crimes are [18/19] notorious, and the Exhortation states for what crimes the offending christian shall withdraw from communion when the crimes are not notorious, we must needs suppose, that the crimes alluded to in the one, are the same as those expressed in the other. But in the Exhortation we read, 'If any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of God's word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime, repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy table.' Here the words, 'any other grievous crime,' being directly connected with envy and malice, appear to be restricted to moral offences, and to be equivalent to the expression in the Litany, all uncharitableness, which immediately follows the same specified crimes,--'from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness, good Lord deliver us.' [That is, everything contrary to the great law of christian charity, or love; for so the word in the original Greek means.] The offences which, as distinguished from moral, we call spiritual, or ecclesiastical, are blasphemy, and the hindering or slandering God's word. Unless, then, a man be a notorious evil liver, in the sense of being openly immoral or uncharitable,--or unless he be a blasphemer, a hinderer or slanderer of God's word,--I cannot see, that by [19/20] this rubric we are authorized to repel him from the table of the Lord.
"The only other law on the subject binding upon us, is towards the end of our XXth canon: 'And because strangers, &c., cannot always be so well known to him, (the minister,) as to enable him to judge whether they be meet to be partakers of those holy mysteries, such persons, if required by him, shall produce from the clergyman to whose congregation they formerly belonged &c., an attestation that they are regular communicants in the Episcopal church.'
"This law refers to those who, having been members of a Scotch Episcopal congregation, seek to be admitted to communion in a congregation where they are personally unknown; and its purpose evidently is, to prevent one who, as an evil liver, has been rejected in his own congregation from being received in another. It implies, also, I think, that habitual absence from the Lord's table is evil living in the eye of the church, and therefore a disqualification for admission to communion, when sought on rare occasions. But I can see nothing in it commanding the rejection of those who, not having been members of a Scotch Episcopal congregation, have no minister to whom they can apply for a certificate.
 "Having thus far examined the law,--which appears to give considerable latitude to the discretion of the minister,--we must proceed to consider the nature of the case. The question is, Whom ought we to admit to the Eucharist? And the answer to this question must depend, in a great degree, upon the answer to another question,--What do we understand to be the essential nature of the Eucharist? Now, I presume we all understand it to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace,--a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof; and that this inward grace is the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine. Now, when an ordinance is thus held to be necessary to salvation, the great law of charity dictates, that those who are entrusted with the dispensation of it should dispense it TO ALL THOSE THAT APPLY FOR IT, and who are not manifestly incapable of profiting by it.
"And who are they that are incapable of profiting by it? Who are they that, in eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man, eat and drink their own condemnation? Not, surely, all those who are erroneous in religious opinions, or faulty in practice; for, in that case, [21/22] what man who knows himself could venture to approach the table of the Lord? No; it is the hardened sinner--the denier of Christ--the man who is living without God in the world--the dead in trespasses and sins. Wherever there is spiritual life, there the body and blood of Christ work to the strengthening and refreshing of the soul; where the spiritual life--that is, faith, love, and holiness--are ABSOLUTELY WANTING, there, and there only, are they the savour of death unto death." [Bishop Terrott's Charge, pp. 20-25.]
Such are the sentiments--the calm and deliberate sentiments--expressed ex cathedra, in a charge solemnly and publicly delivered, only a year, ago, to his assembled clergy, by bishop Terrott;--a man, I repeat, second to none in the Scottish Episcopal church--second to none in Scotland--in a deep and fundamental knowledge of the rules of biblical criticism. But is bishop Terrott the only eminent living scholar and divine--nay, the only eminent living scholar and divine clothed with high ecclesiastical authority--by whom this view of the nature of the holy Eucharist is upheld! He is not. I need only, at present, single out another,--Dr. Blomfield, bishop of London. The bishop of London is a man of great talent--of profound learning--of established [22/23] reputation for an intimate acquaintance with the language in which the new testament was originally written. What is his opinion with respect to passive and non-passive communion? In his reply to a clergyman who had applied to him on the subject, he said, "Rev. Sir,--If a person of good life and conversation presents himself to a clergyman of the church of England, declaring his assent to the doctrines of that church, and desiring to be admitted as a communicant, I conceive that it is the duty of that clergyman to admit him." [See Mr. Palmer's APPEAL TO THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS AND CLERGY. Introduction. Part I., p. cxii.]
I have reserved to the close of this letter--in order that, if possible, by my doing so, the weight of it may be increased, and that the sentiments contained in it may take a greater hold on your minds, and be more vividly impressed on your hearts--what I conceive to be the very strongest and most authoritative argument which we possess, in favour of the position, that so far from the laws and rules of our church intending that the clergy shall seize upon every trifling cause for excluding the laity from the holy communion, the very reverse is the case. Turn, my lay brethren, to your prayer book. Open it at the communion office, [23/24] and at the second Exhortation,--the Exhortation which is appointed to be read "in case the minister shall see the people negligent to come to the holy communion." What does this Exhortation say? Does it use the language of repulsion? or, on the contrary, the language of invitation? Can there be any doubt as to the matter? Is it not drawn up--and that with singular felicity--in the very tone of affectionate and entreating earnestness, in which our Saviour himself may be supposed to have given utterance to his divine words, Do this in remembrance of me?--"Dearly beloved brethren, on _________, I intend, by God's grace, to celebrate the Lord's Supper; unto which, in God's behalf, I bid you all that are here present; and BESEECH you, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, that ye will not refuse to come thereto, being so lovingly called and bidden by God himself. Ye know how grievous and unkind a thing it is, when a man hath prepared a rich feast, decked his table with all kind of provision, so that there lacketh nothing but the guests to sit down; and yet, they who are called (without any cause) most unthankfully refuse to come. Which of you, in such a case, would not be moved? Who would not think a great injury and wrong done unto him? wherefore, most dearly beloved in Christ, take ye good [24/25] heed, lest ye, WITHDRAWING YOURSELVES from this holy supper, provoke God's indignation against you. It is an easy matter for a man to say, I will not communicate, because I am otherwise hindered with worldly business. But such excuses are not so easily accepted and allowed before God. If any man say, I am a grievous shiner, and therefore I am afraid to come: wherefore, then, do ye not repent and amend? When God calleth you, are ye not ashamed to say ye will not come? When ye should return to God, will ye excuse yourselves and say ye are not ready? Consider earnestly with yourselves how little such feigned excuses will avail before God. They that refused the feast in the gospel, because they had bought a farm, or would try their yokes of oxen, or because they were married, were not so excused, but counted unworthy of the heavenly feast. I, for my part, shall be ready; and, according to mine office, I bid you, in the name of God; I call you in Christ's behalf; I EXHORT YOU, as ye love your own salvation, that ye will be partakers of this holy communion."
And now, my christian lay brethren of the Episcopal church in Scotland, I will add nothing more. I bid you farewell, and subscribe myself,
Tuesday in Easter Week, 1849.