.NCAUTIOUS CONTROVERSY.

A CORRESPONDENCE

CJt.USED BY CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE AT A MEETING OF THE

CHURCH ASSOCIATION}
AT

ST. LEONARD'S-ON-SEA,

BETWEEN THE

REV. G.' BLAKE CONCANON, M.A.,

Secretary to the Association,

AND THE

REV. H. E. PLATT, B.A.

JOHN HODGES,

47 BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON·

ST. LEONARD'S-ON-SEA: JAMES DORMAN.

Sixpence.



 



J
..

INCAUTIOUS CONTROVERSY.

THERE seems to be an inevitable tendency in plat...

form oratory to run into incautious statement. o

. ddn ssing, for t e most part, audiences which are

prepared to agree with him} the speaker is always

tempted o take the easier line of appealing to

prej udice, instead of trusting to the more difficult

appeal to reason. Hiec illæ lacrymæ.

St. Leonard's-on-Sea,

29th December, 1870 ..
DEAR StR,

You may remember that at the Meeting
of the Church Association at St. Leonards, on tl.e
r yth, I questioned a statement which you mad
that the

"

Ritualists" teach that the Real Presence

depends on their wearing a Chasuble.



H. E. PLATT�

4

You referred me to the Cautels in the Directoriurn

Anglicanum for your authority. I was unwilling
at

the time to trust my memory so far as to say
that

there was no one of the Cautels which could be

misunderstood in such a sense.

But, on reading them through, I cannot find that

anyone of them is to my
mind patient of it. May

I ask you kindly to give me a reference to
the.

Cautel which was in your mind?

I am faithfully yours,

The Rev. G.� B. Concanon.

Avonhead, Upper Norwood, Surrey,

j rst December, 1870"

DEAR SIR,

Your letter has followed me here, and I

hope to reply next week from town,
and show the

o eness of the Cauteis with the
Cl defectionìbus" of

he Roman Missal, and that Ritualists teach that

the Chasuble andthe Sacrifice are involved each in

.he other.

Will you, in the mean time, allow me
to offer for

•

"our consideration a few points in suppo of



another statement made by me, and objected to by

you, viz., "The Church of England has no judicial
absolution for the forgiveness of sins as committed

against God."

I write principally in reference to the Absolution

dwelt on by you, viz., that in the Visitation of the

Sick, and this, you may remember, I stated was

simply from ecclesiastical censures, and not a

Divine sentence.

I. The words
H

auricular and secret confession"

were in the first Prayer-book, and removed on re­

vision.

2. The words
H

open his grief secretly" were

changed to
H

open his grief."

3. The rubric ordering this absolution for com­

municants seeking counsel was removed, and so it

became speciaL

4. The words "of us as the ministers of God and

His Church" were changed to "by the ministry of

God's holy Word," and further
H

after this form"
was changed to

6(

after this sort," so not requiring
the exact form, while Rome considers the exact

form necessary. (See Liguori, Moral Theo1., lib. 6,
tract 4).

5. A prayer for pardon follows the absolution of
the Clergyman.

6. If a Divine sentence of pardon, it cannot be

confined to a special case.

7. If a Divine sentence, the Church could not be

so unmerciful as to leave it OPTIONAL with each

5



6

Clergyman to use it or not. This, of course, you

know is the subject of our 67th Canon.

I make no remarks on the Absolution in the

Communion as being purely precatory, and the

one in our Morning Service explains itself, being

brought in by the Reformers in I 552.

To you I give the fullest credit for an
ardent

desire to hold our Church's teaching as you see it.

Your tone and manner demand that. From you I

ask a belief in my sincere dislike to controversy,

and my prayer that we
should be all one in love to

Christ and to each other, but I believe the time

has come when the Church's teaching must be

defended from the insidious attacks of secret

enemies.

G. BLAKE CONCANOK

I am faithfully yours,

Rev. H. K Platt.-

St. Leonard's-on-Sea,

9th January, 1871.

DEAR SIR,

I have waited for your reply to my letter

before answering yours, but it occurs to me that

/QU may be waiting for me. As you may suppose;;



7

the points which you offer are not ne'w to me. But

to reply to them as fully as I might would expand

my letter to the size of a book, and take more time

than I can afford to give. I shall, therefore, content

myself with a few words 011 each.

I and 2. If the meaning be clear, it is of little

importance that one word or another ìn stating it

is left out. The Exhortation in the Communion

Office is necessarily spoken to people who are

frequently making general confession and receiving

general absolution. It speaks of making confession

and receiving absolution in another way, What

that way is, is sufficiently indicated by the Pries
J

0

words, "Let him come to me or to some other,"
&c.

Suppose that while the old form had been in use

you had been in the habit of making private con­

fession, do you think that you would have con­

sidered yourself debarred from it in future because

it ceased to be called "auricular and secret ?"

3. The words omitted were,
H

and the same form

of absolution shall be used in all private con­

fessions." When the former part of the rubric was

so altered as to leave a discretion in the form to be

used in the Visitation of the Sick, this latter part
lost its meaning, and was, therefore, of course left

out. The words were obviously never meant as a
direction that absolution should be given. That is
assumed. They only prescribed the form to be used
in giving it. The omission of them simply extended



8

the liberty given in the particular case of
the sick

to other cases of private confession.

4. You do not say in
what sense you understand

the" ministry of God's Word." I know of only

one consistent with the context, and that is one

'which would be readily understood at the time

when the change was made. The Absolution is a

ministry of God's Word as being pronounced
in the

Name of, and by the authority of God. S. Paul

thus speaks of Holy Baptism as a cleansing of
the

Church" with the washing of water by the Word."

The Church holds the form and matter-the invo­

cation of the Holy Name and water-to be essen­

tials of Baptism, which is therefore also a
"

ministry

of God's Word." Hooker describes Absolution

after private confession as "forgiveness of sins,
as

out of Christ's own Word and Power, by th
o

Ministry of the Keys." (EccI. Pol. vi. 4-14).

The form given is indicative, and the discretion

is limited to other forms like it. A simply declara­

tory or precatory form would not
be "after this,"

but after another
U sort." The direction is impera­

tive.
((

The Priest shall absolve him." None but

an indicative form could satisfy this condition.

I have not the means at hand of using you

reference to Liguori. But the Roman practice is

not in question between us. Your argument, as
I

understand you, is this :-

The Prayer-book does not enforce the use of an

It
exact form."



9

Rome considers ·an "exact form" necessary for a

valid Absolution.

And what Rome considers must be right.
Therefore the discretion allowed by the Prayer­

book shews that it was not intended that the Abso­

lution should be valid.

I should hesitate to use the argument in any

case myself. It seems not only to involve the

acceptance of the Roman view as necessarily true

because it is Roman; but to charge the revisers of

the Prayer-book with the intention of deluding

people into thinking that they were being absolved

when they were not. And you must, I think, your­
self see that this is what it comes to.

5. This objection would apply equally to the in­

tention of the Absolution in the Roman Office, in

which the same prayer stands in the same place. It

was there also in the Sarum Manual. It was re­

tained in its place in the first Prayer-book, and has

remained there ever since.

In short, the compilers of the Prayer-book never

put it there at all, but simply left it where they
found it.

6. What was God's message to David by Nathan

but a "Divine sentence of pardon confined to a

special case?" And did our Lord never confine His

own sentence of pardon to special cases during His

life on earth? I need not quote instances.

7. The Church does not leave it optional, except­

ing so far as the Priest must use his judgment as to



IO

whether the faith and contrition of the penitent be

real. If he be satisfied of that, he is bound to give

Absolution. The words" the Priest shall absolve"

leave no room for doubt of this.

To seek Absolution is left optional; to give it

when sought with faith and contrition is not.

After what was stated at the meeting, it seems

advisable to add that the ratification of the Abso­

lution by God depends on knowledge which He

alone can have.

I confess that I never clearly understood the

67th Canon. What is the "Communion Book?"

The Office for Holy Communion cannot be meant,

because that contains no special form of" instruction

and comfort" for the sick. The Exhortation in the

Visitation Office is the only form of the kind in the

Prayer-book. But in any case the Canon simply

gives the" minister," "if he be a preacher," leave

to use his own words in instructing and comforting

the sick person. The question of Absolution is not

touched by it at all. This view might be confirmed,

if necessary, by comparison with the 57th Canon.

The Exhortation in the Communion Office dis­

tinguishes between "Absolution" and "ghostly

counsel and advice."

I may add to my remarks on (I), (2) and (4),

that Edward's znd Act of Uniformity (5 and 6

Edward vi.. c. I), which authorized the znd Book,

states that the "alterations made were adopted

with no intention of condemning the doctrine of



DEAR SIR,

In continuation of my former letter I now

justify my statement that the wearing of the Chasu

II

the former book," which
I(

contained nothing but
what was agreeable to the Word of God and the
Primitive Church."

It adds that
U

such doubts as had been raised in

the use and exercise thereof proceeded rather from
the curiosity of the ministers and mistakers than of

any other worthy cause."

I readily give you the credit which you ask for

your dislike to controversy. And the credit is the

greater in that the dislike must make the office

which you hold for the Church Association es­

pecially uncongenial to you. But you will let me

say that the doings of men who openly confess
what they believe, and publicly teach it, are not

fitly described as
H

insidious attacks of secret

enemies."

I am faithfully yours,

H E. PLATT.

14, Buckingham Street, Strand,

London, W.c.,

January 9th, 187 L



12

ble involves the doctrine of the Sacrifice; for this I

point your attention to the Ritual Commission­

the evidence of Rev. W. J. E. Bennett-selected

because referred to by your friends at St. Leon­

ard's.

Q. 2604.-" At what time do you use the Cha­

suble ?"

A.-" At all times of the Celebration of the

Holy Communion."

Q. 2606.-" Is there any doctrine involved in your

using the Chasuble?"

A._ct I think there is."

Q. 2607.-" What is that doctrine ?"

A.-The doctrine of the Sacrifice."

Q. 2683.-" Do you wish to modify your state­

ment ?"

ti

The ancient vestments present to crowds of

worshippers the fact that here-before God's Altar

-is something far higher, far more awful, more

mysterious than aught that man can speak of,

namely the presence of the Son of God in human

flesh subsisting."
A.-H Decidedly."

Q. 2977.-" The Vestments are with a specific

respect . . . . . . and to vivify His sacrifice upon
the Cross ?"

A.-" Yes."

Q. 3055.-'" Answer as to Vestments."

A.-H I consider their having been adopted to be

to anyone who has adopted them of essential im-



* See Appendix.

portance, because to go back from that, would
be to den)' the doctrine you meant to teach by
that."

Further I admit that when challenged at St.
Leonard's I defended my statement on the platform
by the Directorium as connected with the Defee ..

tionibus, and stated such exactly. I, therefore,
refer you to page 87, rubric 82, for Defects in the
Mass.

(A).* And after giving those arising from the
Priest washing his teeth before Mass. Also from
the" fly and spider." Also the

"

Host on account

of cold." "Blood spilled." "Vomit of Eucharist."
H

Mouse eating the Sacrament." (B). Then at page
92, "If anything be wanting here, it must be looked
for in sumsna et lectura Hostien. 'in titulo de celebro

.

"

missarusn.

I refer accordingly to the Defectionibus from
whence all the rest are taken.

lC

De defectibus in celeoratione Mùsarum occurreu­
tibus." IO. Defectibus z"n ministerio ipso occurrentious.

"

S'i omittat aliquid ex vestibus sacerdotalibus."

Again, I further refer you for the same to page
386 of "Services of the Church," published by
Hayes, and references there also to Cautelæ obser­
uaudæ of York and Sarum Missals.

Hoping that I have sustained my statement t

your satisfaction, as certainly to my own, and pray-

\



14

ing that the Lord may bless every effort to th

furtherance of His kingdom and glory.

I am, Rev. and dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

G. BLAKE CONCANON.

Rev. H. E. Platt.

St Leonard's-on-Sea,

r jth January, 187 I �

DEAR SIR,

I am sorry to have delayed my answer,

but I wished to look at the directions in the
"

Ser­

vices of the Church," to which you referred me, e�

fore writing. I am afraid that I cannot honestly

say that I share your
satisfaction as you wish.

My own note of your words at the meeting tells
me

that what you said was that" they teach that
wear­

�ng a Chasuble is necessary to the Real
Presence

in the Sacrament." I find my note confirmed by

the reports in the local papers, as I
am sure that it

would be by those who heard you. This was the

statement which I challenged at the time, and

which you undertook to prove.
I must ask you to

keep to it, or we shall only be arguing at cross pur
...

poses.



IS

I do not remember that anyone referred to the

report of the Ritual Commission. But your quota.",
tions are really quite beside the question. Obviously
they only refer to the use of the Vestments as
means of conveying teaching. As much might be
said of a sermon. There are indeed two answers

.

in the evidence of the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, and,
so far as I can see, only two, which affect your
statement. They are 2944 and 3066.* But they
plainly contradict it, at least so far as Mr. Bennett
is concerned.

To pass on to the CauteIs in the Directorium.

suppose that you admit that I was right in saying
that there is no mention of, or reference to, the Ves *_
ments of the Priest in these at all. But then you
say that, notwithstanding this, the reference to the
Missal justifies your statement. Now here you
put me into a difficulty. I must assume one of two
things, whether I will or not. Either you have read
the chapter on the

"

defectus" in the Missal, or you
have not. If not, you will admit that you ought
to have done so before making use of it as you

*
2944. Q.-" In any of your private ministrations do you use what is

called a portable Altar ?"

A.-" My custom is to have a little basket, or box, which contains a
surplice, and all the things necessary for the administration of the Holy
Communion."

3066. Q.-" Why do you not wear the Chasuble in private administra
tion of the Holy Eucharist ?"

A.-«' Because the law of the Church does not sanction the use of the
Chasuble except in the public ministration,"



16

have. If you have read it, I
would rather attribute

it to carelessness than to any
other cause that you

should claim support for your
statement from

what not only does not support it,
but simply con­

tradicts it.

The preface divides the
"defectus" which follow

into two classes-one containing such
as would

affect the validity of the Sacrament,
the other such

as would not. The first
includes defects in three

conditions only: (1) "Materia," i.e.,
the bread and

wine. (2)." Forma et intentio," i.e.,
the words of

consecration, and the intention
of the Priest in say­

ing them. (3)."
Ordo sacerdotalis in conficiente,"

i.e., that the Minister
should be in Priest's orders.

The second class includes all the rest,
as being such

as "veritatem Sacramenti
non impediant."

You will see, therefore, that it
could not be more

plainly asserted than it
is in the

" defectus" of the

Missal that the Vestments are not necessary
to the

Real Presence in the Blessed
Sacrament.

The principle, indeed, is one
which I cannot sup­

pose that you
would not, as a matter

of course,

admit yourself. You could
not dispute the neces­

sity of the three conditions,
and you would, I am

sure, allow that
it would not be decent to

celebrate

in a dirty surplice, if you
could have a clean one.

Decency and necessity
are different things. You

will see now that the "defectus" preserve
the dis­

tinction between them in a way
which you over­

looked.



17

I presume that your ref�rence to the
H

Services
of the Church" has been made hastily, or that your
memory was at fault. If you look again, you will
see that the "Directions, &c.," to which you refer,
contain not one word which could possibly be
understood to have the most distant reference to
the Vestments of the Priest.

bet, me, in all good will, add a few words for
yo�r 'consideration. You have publicly charged
certain of your brethren in the ministry with teach­
ing, the foolishness of which would only be equalled
by its blasphemy. I suppose that this is not the
only occasion on which the same statement has
been made. I willingly believe that this is the first
time that in your presence it has been repudiated;
and I am sure that its having been so will guard
you against repeating what you now know to be
untrue. But this, after all, is only one among
many statements of the kind, equally without
foundation, by which the minds of uninstructed
people are being continually poisoned or perverted
at such meetings. I need scarcely say that I fully
believe that, when you made your statement, you
were not in the least aware that you were uttering
a slanderous falsehood. But is it too much to say
that before making a public statement of the kind
it wouid be, at least, more charitable not only not
to know that it is false, but to make sure that it is
true?

We wish to think charitably of the agents of the



18

Church Association, to believe that they say these

strange things about us from want
of knowledge,

rather than from want of honesty. But is it sur­

prising that people should sometimes
find it rather

difficult to believe?

I am faithfully yours,

H. E. PLATT.

14, Buckingham Street, Strand,

London, W.c.,

14th January, I87!.

Saturday Night.

DEAR SIR,

I was actually replying to your letter of

the çth when yours of the r jth
was handed to

me.

Controversy never can be useful
when not carried

on in a Christian spirit, which certainly is not
that

of your letter charging me with
"slanderous false­

hoods," the result of either"
carelessness" or "ig­

norance;" no correspondence
could be carried on

with such language. My assertions were
made on

a public platform, my letters
are in your hands.

I did not use the word "necessary;" it is not in my

note book, nor in the report of
a speech where



19

I followed the same line, nor in the memory of my

brother deputation, Mr. Bardsley; but I think the

word applies from your own admission, that there

would be a certain defect without the Chasuble;

nor do I see that a defect in not wearing the

Chasuble is more absurd, or more contrary to the

teaching of our Church, than that the Sacrament

might be vitiated if a drop of rose water was used

in the wheaten flour, and this is one of three con­

ditions which you say in your letter of the r jth

inst, I "could not object to."

Faithfully yours,

G. BLAKE CONCANON.

Rev. H. E. Platt.

St. Leonard's-on-Sea,

January 17th, 1871.

DEAR SIR,

I am sorry that my words should seem to

you to express a spirit of which I was not conscious

in writing them. And I do not think that they
will fairly bear the construction that I charged you
with slanderous falsehoods. On the contrary, I



20

was careful to acquit you of any intentional want

of truth in what you said. If I have failed to
make

this intelligible before, I hope that you will accept

my assurance of it now. Carelessness,
I think, is a

charge within the limits of courtesy, if made
with

sufficient cause. Ignorance is a word which I did

not use.

The question of what you said I 'am content to

leave to the judgment of those who heard you, only

reminding you that you did not question myaccur
....

acy at the meeting, but defended your
statement as

quoted from my note. If you had told me
then.

that you did not mean what you
had said, or what

I had understood you to say, I
should of course

have been satisfied.

Is it necessary for me to repeat that
whatever

anyone may think about
the decency, propriety, or'

expediency of wearing a Chasuble, no one ever
be­

lieved that not wearing it would cause a defect in

the Sacrament?

I must point out to you that your reference­

is again misquoted. The words of the" defectus
"

are,
H If the bread be made (confectus) of rose water,

vel alterius distiliationis, it is doubtful whether the

Sacrament be valid."

Compare our rubric. "It shall suffice that the

bread be such as is usual to be eaten, but the

best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may

be gotten."
Would bread made with rose water answer this



21

description? I .gather from your letter that you

agree with me that enough has now been written

between us on the subject.

I am faithfully yours,

H. K PLATT.

14, Buckingham Street, Strand,

London, W.c.,
z rst January, I87L

DEAR SIR,

Absence from town has delayed my reply.

Quite plain you did not read my letter carefully;
the word "might" conveyed the doubt contained
in the Defectus as to rose water.

May I remind you that in my first letter, as well

as in my last, I denied having used the word
,{

neces­

sary;" the words in my note book are "involve and

represent."

Just kindly reflect on your position-you, a
minister of the Protestant Reformed Church of this

country, have written three letters defending and

supporting the Defectibus of the Roman Catholic

Missal, exemplifying (though I presume perfectly
unintentional on your part), the statement relative
to Ritualists contained in the posthumous charge



22

of the late Archbishop Longley, viz., they remain

amongst us to change the Communion into the

Mass, while the Reformers changed the Mass into

the Communion.

I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,

G. BLAKE CONCANON.

Rev. H. E. PIatto

St. Leonard's-on-Sea,

23rd January, 187L
DEAR SIR,

At the risk of seeming to be always setting

you to rights, I ought to point out to you that you
are mistaken as to the object of my letters, They
were not written in defence or support of the" de­

fectus." You appealed to the "defectus)) in sup­

port of your statement. I have only referred to

them to shew that what you supposed to be in them

is not.

Like any other book compiled with equal care,
the Directorium Anglicanum has just so much

authority as it can claim on its own merits; but I

suppose that no one would claim for or concede to

it more than this. I tell you this because you seem

to be under a false impression about it.



23

I must ask you to let me regard our correspond­

ence as ended now. So far I am willing to comply

with your request that all the letters, if any, should

be published. But you will see that I cannot

undertake this for a correspondence of unlimited.

length.
I am faithfully yours,

H. E. PLATT.

14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London,

zSth January, 1871.

DEAR SIR,

You must kindly leave it to the public to

judge whether you have supported and defended

the" defectibus
"

of the Roman Missal or not, and

also whether, in your letter of the r jth, you have

not stated that· I could not object to the three con­

ditions mentioned in the
"

defectibus
"

as vitiating
the Sacrament, which involve doctrine not only

opposed to Holy Scripture, but to the Articles and

Rubrics of our Reformed Church.

If I publish the correspondence I shall send you
a copy, a courtesy I am sure I shall receive at

your hands.

I am, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

G. BLAKE CONCANON.



24

St. Leonard's-on-Sea,

31st January, 1871.

DEAR SIR,

Forgive my correcting you again, but the

right use of words is important in a discussion

of this kind. The "three conditions" are mentioned

as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, not
as

((

vitiating" it.

(I) Bread and Wine, (2) The words of Consecra­

tion, (3) A Priest to consecrate, are the three
conditions. And these are obviously necessary to

the Office for Holy Communion in the Prayer-book
of our Reformed Church being used at all. This is

why I supposed that you would not object to them.

On looking again at your letter of the z r st, I see

that I omitted to notice an important point in it.
Allow me to add a word on it now.

I do not, of course, wish to charge you with any­

thing but forgetfulness when I still maintain the
correctness of my note of what you sai � ut the

following reasons are, I think, enough to justify me
in maintaining it :-

I. My note was taken as you spo e.

2. You did not dispute its accuracy when I;

quoted it at the time.

3. I t agrees with the notes of a short-h anc writer

who was in the room.

4. Three local papers published report of the

meeting. My note is corroborated y them all,



25

5. I have taken every opportunity of asking
others who were present what you said, without

finding a single doubt about it.

6. A few days ago I was told of the same state­
ment being made, with the addition that it must be

true, because you had said it at the meeting.
I propose to inelud e this letter, with yours of the

z Sth, in the correspondence, if published, and hope
that, if you should publish it, you will not find it
inconvenient to do the same. You may rely on my

complying with your request.

l

I am faithfully yours,

H. E. PLATT.

Falmouth, Feb. 4th, 187L
DEAR SIR,

Yours of the 3 I st has followed me here.

You evidently wish to get out of the position in
which you placed yourself when you not only de­

fended, but adopted the doctrines of the Roman

Catholic Church on the Eucharist. You wish to

retrace your steps, but I cannot consent now.

In my address, as well as in my first letter and

in everyone since I used the word involve, or

represent. My brother deputation, Mr. Bardsley,
has no recollection of my using any other. The



mass of evidence you produce is strangely late in

the field, besides which that is necessary
if its

omission would create and defect.

As to the three conditions in the defectibus, to

which you refer, the Roman Missal treats
there not

on what forms the Sacrament, but on what would

vitiate if omitted. You naturally fell into the mis­

take, because you viewed it from the
Roman side.

This letter will of course be included in the

published correspondence; and with
sincere desire

that the Lord may lead every
Churchman to see

his obligation to the formularies and
articles of his

own church.

I am, dear sir,

With every kind wish,

Yours faithfully,

G. BLAKE CONCANONo

Rev. H. E. Platt, St. Leonard's.

St. Leonard's-on-Sea,

9th Feb., 1871.

DEAR SIR,

Excuse my saying that there is something

rather comic in your view of my "position."
It is



H. E. PLATT•.

27

of course satisfactory to get the best of an argu­
ment, but perhaps the next best thing is to believe

that one has got it. One of these two is your case,
the other mine.

I am sorry that I cannot admit a doubt about

what you said. The evidence, as you say, is mas­

sive, and none the less so because I didnot produce
it before I got it.

Let me add to it the following, which I have just
read in a report of the meeting contained in a

magazine edited by the Rev. S. H. Parkes.. Mr.

Parkes is, I believe, the local secretary of your

Society.
"The Rev. H. E. Platt asked Mr. Concanon's

authority for a statement he had made that the

Ritualists thought that the use of the Chasuble was

necessary in the Real Presence."

You wil1 not think me uncourteous if I say that

our readers will have had enough of the discussion

now.

Reciprocating your good wishes.

I am faithfully yours,



t··
....

t, APPENDIX.

St. Leonard's-on-Sea,

14th January, I87I.
DEAR SIR,

Perhaps I ought to say that as your state­

ment was made publicly, it is possible that I may
see occasion to make our correspondence on the

subject equally public.
In view of this possibility, allow me to point out

a slip which you have made. I have underlined it

on page 3 of your second letter. The words "si

propter frigus vel negl£ge1ztiam, Hostia consecrata

dz"labatur in calicem," refer not to the" Host getting

cold," but of the possibility of the Priest letting It

fall through his hands being numbed with cold.

With your permission I would omit from A to B.

Your argument would remain the same, and, to my

mind, the treatment of the subject would gain in

reverence.

'f

I am faithfully yours,

H. E. PLATT.



29

14, Buckingham Street, Strand,

London, W. c.,

17th January, 187IO'

DEAR SIR,

I return your enclosure with th alteration

you suggested-a mere verbal mistake.
I have no objection whatever-the contrary-to

your publishing the correspondence, but I request
you publish the whole of it, this letter included,
verbatim, and I decidedly object to your leaving
out any portion of my letters as you wish to do. I
reserve also the right to inform Mr. Hadden Parkes,

(as our friend at St. Leonard's) of your intention.

Yours faithfully,

G. BLAKE CONCANON.

Rev. H. E. Platt�

St. Leonard's-on-Sea,

rçth january,

DEAR SIR,

I could have no interested motive in pro­

posing the omission. I think the passage irrever

ent; but the responsibility is yours, not mine.



23C;

3°

Nor, if I wished to do so, should I have a right
to impose any limits on what you may wish to say
to our friend Mr. Parkes. I shall be happy to shew

him the correspondence, if he should wish to see it,
whether it be published or not.

I am faithfully yours,

H. E. PLATT.

JrOflN HODGES, PRINTER) C&URCH STREET, ].l'ROME ..