peasing of this strife and diversity, it was thought fit, when the English service was again brought into the church, at the accession of queen Elizabeth to the throne, that the rubric should be corrected, and put into the same form in which we now have it, viz. that the morning and evening prayers shall be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel;' by which for the generality must be meant the choir or chancel, which was the accustomed place before the second prayer book of king Edward. For it cannot be supposed that this second book, which lasted only one year and a half, could establish a custom. However, a dispensing power was left with the ordinary, who might determine it otherwise if he saw just cause. Pursuant to this rubric, the morning and evening service was again, as formerly, read in the chancel or choir. But because in some churches the too great distance of the chancel from the body of the church, occasioned sometimes by the interposition of a belfry, hindered the minister from being heard distinctly by the people, therefore the bishops, at the solicitations of the inferior clergy, allowed them in several places to supersede their former practice, and to have desks or reading pews in the body of the church, where they might with more ease to themselves, and greater convenience to the people, perform the daily morning and evening service. Which dispensation, begun first by some few ordinaries, and recommended by them to others, grew by degrees to be more general, till at last it came to be an universal practice; insomuch that the convocation in the beginning of king James the First's reign ordered that in every church there should be a convenient seat made for the minister to read service in."

Such is the history of our reading desks. The chancels in the old churches were so inconvenient that the bishops tolerated the use of a reading pew. But in building new churches, our care, surely, ought to have been so to build the chancels, that such inconvenience should no longer exist, and that we might return to our proper place. And the fact is, that in most of the new churches the clergyman is better heard from the chancel than from the reading desk. Why then give us a second pulpit? why not send us back to the chancel? I believe that the answer will be found to be nothing more than that the papists, who still retain a portion of our Liturgy, officiate always at the altar, and that consequently we should be accused of symbolizing with popery, an argument as valid against the use of the scripture.

Let it not be said that this is a subject of no importance. I have already remarked that, confined in a narrow box, the officiating minister cannot perform his various offices as he ought to do. With his face always turned to the people,-most of the people listlessly lolling in their seats, seem to think he is reading to THEM. Our Liturgy (including under that designation the morning and evening service) is regarded as one long prayer, to be read by the clergyman, whereas it really consists of a great variety of services. If considered as one long prayer, such as dissenting teachers utter before they

* Wheatley on the Common Prayer, p. 113, edit. 1720.

deliver their discourses, many faults may be found with our prayer book; but when regarded as a divine service of praise as well as of prayer, of exhortation on the part of the minister, and of acclamation on the part of the people, it is equally instructive and sublime. That it is, however, too often in fact, if not in theory, regarded as merely one long prayer, may be inferred from the mere circumstance, that we are accustomed to speak not of a clergyman's having performed divine service, but of his reading prayers. And, indeed, in the new rival pulpits a clergyman does appear rather to be reading prayers than praying. My space will not permit to enter fully on this subject at present, but I hope, D. V., to offer a few farther remarks upon it next month.

I am not visionary enough to suppose that in these days we shall be permitted to go back to the chancel, but I trust that I have shewn that if we must have a reading desk, we ought not to make it look like a pulpit, and that, if possible, it should be placed on one side of the church (as we see to be the case in old churches), rather than in the middle; thus the officiater may, at least, change his attitude when addressing the people, and when he is addressing his God. This the rubric directs when he is ordered sometimes to kneel and sometimes to stand, but in the new high reading desks it is scarcely perceptible whether he is kneeling or standing. Yours very truly,

W. F. H.

REFORM OF THE LITURGY, &c.

SIR, We are now arrived at a period in which we can neither disguise from ourselves nor from the public the fact, that infidelity and sectarianism have made actual progress in their long-continued efforts to undermine our national church. An act has passed the legislature, and is become the law of the land, of which the least that can be said is, that it is one at which the enemies of our episcopacy have cause indeed to triumph. A reform (so called) of our liturgy and articles is the next object to which popular clamour is to be directed, and the subject has been already spoken of in parliament by a prelate of the Irish church: it is, therefore, become the duty of all those who value the form of sound words, which it is the peculiar glory of the church of England to have received, to consider this important subject now, so as to be prepared for the event, if God, in his righteous judgments, should be pleased to permit the further triumph of his enemies. In such an event it would, indeed, be our bounden duty to acknowledge, in penitent humility, that our national sins have fully merited this removal of our once glorious candlestick, but would no less be our duty to stand fearlessly by that banner of Christian antiquity which our ancestors erected, in opposition to all the sectarian innovations of ignorant and foolish men. The question, however, is, how are we to make this stand? Is it by seceding from the new liturgy and articles in a body, and establishing ourselves in every parish and

diocese, as the popish clergy have done in Ireland? A writer in your Magazine for July (page 82) appears to hint at something of this kind, if I rightly understand his meaning." If this goes on (he says) there must be the worst schism that has ever afflicted the church yet. For be it known to those who are so greedy for alterations, that there are men in the church, not few in number, not weak in power, who will leave them in a body to their new friends, their new opinions, and their old preferments, and will, without hesitation, choose poverty with a good conscience instead of new opinions with a bad one.' "They know well (he adds) that nothing can excuse a schism but violation of principles, and they will continue to stand on their old ground,"-[how they can stand on their old ground under the circumstances supposed I confess I do not exactly understand];-they will not change, but will leave those who love and desire change to change as they list, and do what they will with their new sect, while the episcopal church, retaining its apostolical government, its scriptural articles and liturgy, though it may be cast off by the state, will rest fearless on its Divine Protector, and continue, under his blessing, to do his work in the world."

This, Sir, is doubtless an alternative to which the true episcopalian of England may in no very long time be reduced, but there are a few questions which I should like to submit to the consideration of the spirited writer whose words I have quoted. Let us suppose that a convocation of the clergy, duly convened by royal authority, were now to set about a revision of our doctrines and ritual, and that a majority of our representatives in that assembly were to agree to a series of alterations, such as to render the church of England, in the opinion of a large number of our clergy and laity, an heretical or schismatical body;-suppose further, that the orthodox bishops and presbyters were expelled from their preferments, or compelled to resign, and others not so scrupulous elected in their room,-what I wish to know is, whether this body still continuing in connexion with the state, and holding the preferments of the church, would not be THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, although no longer catholic, as much as the present church of Rome is now the church of Rome, although she has departed from the faith once delivered to the saints. It appears to me, that (unless the new ritual involved such changes as vitiated the orders of the clergy) the prelates of this reformed heretical church would still be the successors of the ancient confessors and martyrs of the sees in their possession, and that their heresy would not be sufficient to constitute them intruders, or to justify the seceders in electing and consecrating for every see so occupied an orthodox bishop. At least I do not clearly perceive how the expelled, or non-conforming bishops and clergy, however numerous, could continue to stand on their old ground,"-their doctrines about the king's supremacy must at least receive some change or modification,-and I know not how far the deprived bishops would continue in possession of a legitimate mission for the exercise of their power of ordination,-acting, as they must necessarily do, in opposition to the king and the bishops in possession of the sees from which they have been expelled. I know not

how far we would be justified in thus assuming a sectarian character, excommunicating (at least virtually) the king and the national clergy, and continuing to exercise our functions on the express grounds of a national apostasy. I know not whether it would not rather be our duty to submit in silence, to leave it to God to restore the church of England, in his own good time, to her primitive purity, or to destroy her altogether, as he has already done so many other churches that were once as flourishing and as renowned. I confess I feel that the course pursued by the church of Rome in Ireland and in England is one which no true catholics could wish to imitate,* even had we bishops enough with us to ensure the canonical transmission of our orders. It seems to me very much like taking the matter into our own hands, when we ought to submit to the judgments of God, and to leave it to his almighty wisdom and providence to take care of his own church. I think, indeed, that it would be the duty of the non-conforming bishops and clergy, so long as they lived, to look after the spiritual interests of their people, but I do not feel that it would be equally their duty to ordain successors, or to attempt to provide for the future continuance of their communion otherwise than by their prayers. I remain, Sir, yours &c.

Φ.

ST. DAVID'S COLLEGE.

SIR,―The more I reflect upon it, the more I feel convinced both of the claim which St. David's college has upon the members of our church, and upon the ease with which, if an effort is once made, it may be extricated from all difficulties, and be placed upon a firm foundation. The fact is, that the undertaking was commenced before the cost had been sufficiently computed. It has, however, hitherto maintained its ground; the prejudice that existed against a new institution has in a great measure given way; the advantages of the system are beginning to be seen and acknowledged; and if it had but an adequate endowment, it would henceforth, I think, go on and prosper. The present appears to me to be a particularly favourable moment for bringing the matter before the public. A controversy, in

*And yet the pretence, invented by the church of Rome to justify these proceedings, is one that would be much stronger were it true, than that on which we should be acting in the case supposed. They affect to deny the validity of our orders, and their clergy are therefore sent to this country in the character of missionaries to a nation of infidels. In Ireland, indeed, they have of late acted with less caution, and are now every where assuming the titles and the character of the national clergy: their bishops are no longer designated by the fictitious titles of places in partibus infidelium, but assume openly the style and titles of the different dioceses of the national church; their priests are no longer missionaries, but archdeacons, deans, vicargenerals, and catholic rectors of the parishes in which they reside, and to which they are regularly inducted by their bishops. Such are the wonders that Maynooth and emancipation have already effected;-it remains to be seen how the Irish Church Temporalities Bill will enable them to complete their work.

which one of the professors has had to maintain the defensive part, has lately taken place in a North Wales paper, the Carnarvon Herald -an anonymous correspondent of that paper having attacked St. David's college in a very malignant spirit. I have reason to think that the professor's reply in the newspaper excited some interest, and that were a beginning made, several persons would come forward and assist towards forming a fund, to enable the college to give away a few annual sums to poor scholars, as exhibitions or scholarships. Possibly the universities might be persuaded to assist were the hint given. Not having the privilege of conferring degrees, which is earnestly desired by the natives of the principality, it is only by the reduction of expence that the college can hope to draw sufficient numbers to make it answer the ends of its foundation. It would be a noble thing to see the English universities lending an helping hand to a kindred institution, which is at present languishing for want of those advantages they have themselves so long and so abundantly enjoyed.

Believe me to be, dear Sir, yours very truly,

W.*

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CLERGY.

A clergyman "subscribes to so many charities per force, that it is quite a pleasure to feel that he can give five shillings with a conviction that it is well bestowed."— Metropolitan Magazine, August.

That

SIR,-You have done great service to the church of England, and to the cause of charity in this kingdom, by shewing the proportion which the clergy bear to the laity as subscribers to the various benevolent institutions; and the grievous deficiency that must take place in the annual revenue of our public charities, if the clergy, through spoliation, should be disabled from continuing their contributions. these contributions are, in most cases, freely given I have no doubt, but in very many a clergyman, by his office, is compelled to be liberal "to his power, yea, and beyond his power." In local or parochial charities, he is generally the first applied to, and his position is supposed to afford a sufficient claim to call upon him for a contribution, which, perhaps, he can but ill afford.

In the veracious newspapers, the Black Book, et id genus omne, we read a good deal of the enormous revenues of the clergy; but of the outgoings and the claims upon them ne gry quidem. I will now state a case within my own knowledge, where a clergyman subscribes to twelve charities (I do not say unwillingly, for I believe he subscribes to many more), from no one of which could he withhold his contribution without the imputation of niggardliness. As a Christian, anxious for the dissemination of gospel truth, he subscribes (1) to the venera

In the next number it will be seen how very small a sum is wanted to make this admirable and most useful institution effectual. Surely churchmen will not allow it to fail, or suffer for want of funds, but will commence a subscription at once. -ED. 3 L

VOL. IV.-Oct. 1833.