been, if such a measure of unions had taken place in Queen Elizabeth's time! Perhaps in livings under 150l. per annum, such a measure might be advisable; but I do not think that quite certain. Be that as it may, I own I see no reasonable grounds whatever for uniting livings above this sum, unless, indeed, their population is very trifling, and their situations quite contiguous. If, indeed, it is contemplated by the abolition of dignitaries and the systematic depression of the church to deter, as far as possible, those who can live independently from entering it; if, whereas the priesthood is now open to such as are qualified of all classes, it is hereafter, if possible, to be limited, according to Jeroboam's rule, to "the lowest of the people;" then, indeed, 5001. a year may not be too much, nay, it will hardly be enough. But so long as men of respectability and independent property frequently enter the church, livings of from 150l. to 2507. per annum will always have a fair chance of being well and properly filled. In what conceivable respect is the holding of two livings, as distinct parishes, worse than holding the same when united into one? Nay, is it not better? The pluralist, in most cases, keeps a curate at one of his livings; or, if he does not, the Bishop may compel him to do so: unite them into one parish, and he will, of course, do the whole duty himself. Perhaps I am prejudiced; being a curate myself, I cannot help thinking, that the two parishes, with the incumbent residing in one and the curate in the other, would be likely to be better attended to than the one parish with the incumbent alone resident. At any rate, let the advocates for a union of small parishes bear in mind, that a plurality of such livings is, while it lasts, a union of them to all intents and purposes relating to pastoral care, and must be just as beneficial, with this additional advantage, that it is not perpetual, but at the decease of each incumbent may, or may not, be renewed, as circumstances suggest. Let those too, who, while they exclaim against pluralities, support unions of parishes, recollect that, if they are enemies to temporary pluralities, they are advocates for perpetual ones. The race is not extinct which our Saviour so strikingly describes Οδηγοί τυφλοὶ, οἱ διυλίζοντες τὸν κώνωπα, τὴν δὲ κάμηλον καταπίνοντες. I am, Sir, your constant reader, CLERICUS.

PUBLICATION OF BANNS.

MR. EDITOR,-On a late occasion I ventured to complain in public that the Prayer Books circulated by the Christian Knowledge Society were printed in violation of the Act of Uniformity. The act makes the rubric the law of the land, and the rubric directs the publication of banns from the altar. Bishop Mant, in his prayer book, leaves out this direction from the rubric, and gives, in a note, his reason. His lordship's reason is, that the Marriage Act directs the banns to be published after the second lesson.

The two Acts are as follows:

By 26 Geo. II. ch. 33, sec. 1, (1753), It is enacted, that all Banns of Matrimony shall be published in an audible manner in the Parish Church, or

in some publick Chapel, in which publick Chapel Banns of Matrimony have been usually published, of or belonging to such Parish or Chapelry wherein the persons to be married shall dwell, according to the form of words prescribed by the Rubrick prefixed to the Office of Matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer, upon three Sundays preceding the Solemnization of Marriage, during the time of Morning Service, or of Evening Service (if there be no Morning Service in such Church or Chapel upon any of those Sundays), immediately after the second lesson.

By 4 Geo. IV. ch. 76, (1823,) the stat. of 1753 is repealed; and by sec. 2, it is enacted, That from and after the first day of November, all Banns of Matrimony shall be published in an audible manner in the Parish Church, or in some public Chapel, in which Chapel Banns of Matrimony may now, or may hereafter be lawfully published, of or belonging to such Parish or Chapelry wherein the persons to be married shall dwell, according to the form of words prescribed by the Rubrick prefixed to the Office of Matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer, upon three Sundays preceding the Solemnization of Marriage, during the time of Morning Service, or of Evening Service (if there shall be no Morning Service in such Church or Chapel upon the Sunday upon which such Banns shall be so published), immediately after the Second Lesson.

The

An incontrovertible maxim among lawyers is, that when two laws can stand together they shall; and I submit that the banns are now to be published as the rubric directs in the morning service, and that the direction to publish them after the second lesson is applicable and intended for the afternoon service only. So many churches are without sermons in the afternoon, that the publication after the second lesson in the afternoon seems intended to prevent the publication being made when all the congregation is breaking up. reading any notices of any kind in church now, merely for the purpose of publicity, is a great mistake, and one among the many proofs that in continuing the forms we depart from the spirit of our ancestors. In these reading days, any such interferences with the flow of devotion should be acknowledged useless, and abandoned. Printed notices in the church porch, or elsewhere, so that they who go into the church must pass them, and may read them, would be far preferable.* Yours respectfully, W. W. HULL.

Lincoln's Inn.

MILLION OF FACTS.

SIR,-Allow me to draw your attention to a book which, I think, is calculated to do more injury to the cause of religion than all the vile trash that has ever been published by Payne, Carlile, Taylor, and Co. I mean Sir Richard Phillips' "Million of Facts." The poison is conveyed in the most artful manner, and the whole article on Mythology and Theology is perfectly detestable. I purchased the

It is heartily to be desired that the rubric could be made the rule, for the publication after the second lesson is a very serious interruption to the service, and answers no good end, as things are, which would not be answered by complying with the rubric. Is a clergyman who obeys the rubric liable to censure or penalty? Perhaps Mr. Hull, as a lawyer, will obligingly state how that matter is.—ED.

book some time ago, thinking it might prove useful as a book of reference. I wanted a portable collection of facts on natural philosophy, geography, history, &c.; this volume appeared likely to answer my purpose, but I had no idea it contained any particle of infidel poison. The book is particularly adapted to attract the notice of young people, and thereby do harın. I have no doubt the author intended it should become a kind of text book for general instruction. The title of the book is not likely to alarm parents, nor is its pernicious tendency easily discovered at first sight. I will mention a few specimens of the author's candid way of stating what he calls "Facts." He attempts to throw discredit on the Gospel history of our Saviour, and quotes Josephus to suit that purpose; he then very artfully adds, "Tacitus, no doubt, wrote on the reports of the Christians."

After sneering at the different Evangelists, he proceeds thus: "As books in those days were scarce, and very few could read, so different histories of Jesus were used by different churches and congregations. From this cause there were two hundred versions of Mark; but to reconcile these a council was called to select genuine copies, and different ones being brought together, they were laid on an altar, and the door fastened. In the morning, however, all had, by miracle, tumbled on the floor, except a few, which were adopted as the present canonical New Testament. So say the Fathers!"

Again," Religion had an origin, in most tribes and nations, in the ignorance of the causes of natural phenomena. Benefits were ascribed to a good spirit, and evils to a bad one. This primary idea was enlarged and diversified, by dreaming during imperfect sleep, or thinking while the volition was torpid, and by illusions of the senses, which led to belief in ghosts, signs, omens, &c. These causes were augmented by enthusiasts, and played upon by cunning impostors. Hence there are superstitions in proportion to ignorance, and the passions are subdued by appeals to them. Most priests profess, too, to be in communion with the good genius, and be able to subdue the evil one. Chiefs of tribes also use the priests to assist in governing. Such is the general history of human nature." Both these passages are related by the author as matter of fact, not fable or opinion. He seems to consider his character for candour and veracity so well established that it is quite unnecessary to produce any proof of what he asserts.

I am, Sir, yours, W. B. K.

A new edition of this precious book has lately been published, which I have not seen, but I am sorry to hear it has had a great sale.

COMMUNION ON GOOD FRIDAY.

SIR,-In reply to the query proposed by your Correspondent "a Parish Priest," with regard to the celebration of the Lord's Supper on good Friday, I should say, that our church has not any where expressed an opinion upon the subject; though from a direction in the first book of

Edward VI. as to what was to be done on Wednesdays and Fridays, "though there be none to communicate with the Priest," it is plain that she approves of Communions on those days. The appointment of an Epistle and Gospel for Good Friday is also a stronger argument in favour of a Communion on that day than the want of a proper preface is against it, particularly when we consider that the Communion Service is a distinct service from the Morning Prayer and the Litany, and, in the opinion of our best ritualists, ought to be used at a different time. None, however, of our ritualists with whom I am acquainted, as Wheatly, Nicholls, Sparrow, Hamon L'Estrenge, and Bennet, advert to the subject of Good Friday Communions, and even Comber, whom your Correspondent quotes as objecting to them by implication, says expressly, "We find the Eucharist in the purest ages of the church was a daily companion of the Common Prayer; so that there is no ancient Liturgy but doth suppose and direct the celebration of this Sacrament as constantly as the use of public prayers." It is certain indeed that in the primitive church it was the custom in many places to celebrate the Communion every day; and in those places where it was celebrated four times a week, Wednesdays and Fridays, which were the two fasting days, were always two of the number. (Bingham, b. xv. chap. 9. sec. 3.) I am not, however, aware of any express declaration of any of the Fathers, either for or against communicating on Good Friday.

As regards the practice of our own church, I confess I do not think that it has generally been the custom to celebrate the Lord's Supper on Good Friday, yet it is certain that Bishop Andrews, than whom there is no higher authority, did so, as appears from the following passage in one of his Good Friday sermons, on Zech. xii. 10. p. 345. Having alluded to the running out of the water and blood from our Saviour's side, he says, "Of the former (the water) the Prophet speaketh in the first words of the next chapter, that out of his pierced side God opened a fountain of water to the house of Israel for sin and for uncleanness; of the fulness whereof we all have received in the sacrament of our baptism. Of the latter (the blood) which the Prophet (in ix. chapter before) calleth the blood of the New Testament, we may receive this day, for it will run in the high and holy mysteries of the body and blood of Christ. There may we be partakers of the flesh of the Morning Hart, as upon this day killed. There may we be partakers of the cup of salvation, the precious blood which was shed for the remission of sins. Our part it shall be not to accompt the blood of the Testament an unholy thing, and to suffer it to run in vain for all us; but with all due regard to receive it so running for even therefore was it shed."

:

To your other excellent correspondent " A. P. P." who condemns the practice as proceeding from a want of consideration of the discordancy between the joyful fast of the Holy Communion and the solemn fasting and mourning of Good Friday, I would venture to suggest that the Holy Communion is not only a joyful feast upon the body and blood of Christ, but is also a solemn commemoration of his passion and death; and considering it in this light, no day seems more appropriate to this commemoration than the one on which our Lord actually suffered. I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, Q.

COMMUNION ON GOOD FRIDAY.

MY DEAR SIR,-They who make an erroneous charge ought to be more glad to withdraw it than at the first they were to make it. I trust it is with somewhat of this alacrity that I hasten to qualify what I said respecting the Communion on Good Friday, in which it seemed to me that some acted incongruously through inadvertence. I thought at the time that no doubt existed on the matter, among those who had considered the subject. Some of those whom I love and revere, and at whose feet I desire to receive instruction, think otherwise. Let it then be passed by as a point in doubt, on which each is free to use his own discretion without incurring blame.

Ever faithfully yours, A. P. P.

COMMUNION ON GOOD FRIDAY.

SIR,-It appears from Hittorpius's Collection, that about the 9th century no Sacrament was allowed to be celebrated on Good Friday, or the day following; but it was provided that, as some persons might be desirous of receiving the Communion daily, the bread which was consecrated on the Thursday before (Coena Domini) should be reserved for their use on the Friday and Saturday. See Hittorpii de Divinis Catholicæ Ecclesiæ Officiis Libri, fo. Paris, 1624. coll. 251, 330, 605; also Durandi Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, edit. Venet, 1599. 230 b. 351 a.

The Church of England has provided for a daily Communion; the appointment of Collects, Epistle, and Gospel for Good Friday surely implies, that the remainder of the Communion Service may be proceeded in; and with us no reservation of the consecrated elements is allowed. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, R. W.

PARISH AND OTHER SCHOOLS.

"Magnâ autem parte elementi castigatione licet uti, gravitate tamen adjunctâ, ut et severitas adhibeatur, et contumelia repellatur. Atque etiam illud ipsum, quod acerbitatis habet objurgatio, significandum est, ipsius id causâ, qui objurgetur, susceptum esse."— Cic. de Off., lib. i. ch. 38.

SIR,-In an article of the British Magazine for May, which purports to be an answer to Philomathes, under the title of "Sunday Schools," the writer, H. H., has amused himself with a pleasant selection of ideas, more agreeable to his wishes, I fear, than consistent with truth, either viewed in the abstract, as coincident to nature, or confirmed by facts. He supposes "a class of from fifteen to twenty children, from six to ten years of age," over whom he can perform the duties of a preceptor without "holding a cane, or using any harsh or threatening language."-We must endeavour to forget the maxim in the Proverbs, that "stripes are prepared for the backs of fools," and the severe censure passed by our Saviour upon the Pharisees, on Peter, VOL. IV.-August, 1833.

2 B