Page images
PDF
EPUB

BISHOPS' FEES AND DONATIONS.

SIR,-I perfectly agree with Mr. Clive, in wishing that some means may be adopted to reduce (as far as safety and fairness to all parties will allow) the expences attending consecration.

At the same time I cannot avoid requesting that you will allow me to confirm your statement, that the bishop is, generally speaking, no gainer by the building of a new church, and to mention the liberality of some other officers to whom consecration fees are due.

From Mr. Clive's bill it appears, that in Lichfield and Coventry the

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Among the subscriptions which I last year obtained for the purpose of erecting a chapel in this parish, are the following:

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

SIR," In order that your readers, and the friends of the church, may not be led to suppose that so enormous an abuse," as that 461. 18s. 6d. should be universally charged " for the consecration of a chapel-of-ease and church-yard," I beg to inform you that the charges for consecrating, conveying, &c. &c. a piece of land, as an addition to a church-yard, in the extremity of the diocese of St. David's, came to 147. 4s. Had there not been a confirmation in the neighbourhood, the bishop would have had to travel, to and fro, 116 miles for this purpose. I am, Sir, yours most respectfully,

MILES.

March, 1835.

*This is not a fee, but payment in part for work done.-ED.

OMISSIONS IN PRAYER BOOKS.

SIR, Before taking my family to church on Ash-Wednesday, I looked over some Prayer-books to see whether they contained the Commination Service. Among the few I possessed, the following were without it, and as I have often felt the inconvenience of incomplete Prayer-books both at church and at home, especially the want of the service for the visitation of the sick, I take the liberty of sending this little letter, in case you think, by its insertion, the attention of proper authorities may be drawn to the subject. Can omissions be allowable to a printer? If we permit our Prayer-books to be published in a mutilated form, may we not expect some day to see some with the modern "improvements?" The Prayer-books I looked into for the Commination Service were as follows:

Reeve's Edit. 1801. No Commination-no form of Ordination-no form of Baptism for those of riper years—no form of Prayer to be used at Sea-no Sunday Letter-and the Tables, &c. for finding Easter-day, &c., very defective_no Articles.

Eyre and Strahan's Edit. 1820. No Preface-nothing concerning the Service or Ceremonies of the Church-no Order for the Visitation or Communion of the Sick-no Commination-no form for Ordination-no Sunday Letter-very deficient Tables.

Cambridge Edit. 1824. No Preface-nothing concerning the Ceremonies of the Church-no order for Private Baptism-No order for the Visitation or Communion of the Sick-no Communion-no form of Ordination-no form of Prayer to be used at Sea-no Sunday Letter-deficient Tables-and the Prayer "O God, whose nature and property is ever to have mercy," wrongly placed, and without the Articles.

I am, Sir, A LAYMAN.

COTTAGE LECTURES.

MR. EDITOR, I have been trying to recollect whether it was in the British Magazine, or not, that some time ago I saw the subject of "Cottage Lectures" incidentally mentioned, with a sort of promise that it should, at some future time, receive a full discussion, and I have been searching (but unsuccessfully) in the volumes of the Magazine which I possess for the paragraph in question, that it might form a text for my present letter. However, the subject seems to me of such interest and importance, and I am so anxious to obtain the opinions of those who have had more experience in "pastoral care" than myself, that I send you these few lines, in the hope (should you think them deserving of a place in your Magazine) that they may call forth a rejoinder from some of your numerous correspondents. In the first place, I would ask, what is the present state of the law, respecting "religious assemblies," as it regards the clergyman of the parish, and to what point may he go without infringing it? I am inclined

Many thanks for this letter. Such editions ought not to be tolerated. Every Common Prayer should contain all the services of the church, and the total omission of the Consecration and Ordination Services in almost every year, is melancholy, not to say disgraceful.-En.

to think that many clergymen, from a very proper feeling of abstaining from all appearance of irregularity, do not avail themselves as much as they might of what is permitted, and I for one have often wished to know where the exact boundary line was drawn. Of course the legal question is that which must first be settled; for although it does not follow that that which is lawful is therefore expedient, it appears to me that the negative must be true; viz., that that which is unlawful is in-expedient, and that, consequently, if the present state of the law is opposed to every species of "Cottage Lectures," the question is set at rest among those at least who would "submit themselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." If, however, it should be proved that all kinds of Cottage Lectures are not unlawful, the expediency of them is the next point to be discussed, and here again I would beg the opinions of others, older and more experienced ministers than myself. Every one having that most responsible office, the cure of souls, must have found, among those committed to his charge, many who are unable, and more who are unwilling, to attend the public services of the church: the former includes the old and infirm, and for the most part the mothers of young families; the latter need not be specified. Some, again, live at such a distance from the parish church, that they are willing to consider this a sufficient excuse for not appearing within its walls. Now, although nothing can supersede the obligation of attending public worship which lies upon those who are able to do so, yet may not the clergyman, by introducing Cottage Lectures in different parts of his parish, in the first place bring some religious instruction to the homes of those who are unable to attend church, and in the next may he not hope, by these means, to bring to some sense of religion those of his flock who would never come to him, and about whose spiritual condition he can never think except with feelings of the most intense pain? The questions must often occur to his mind, "Have I done all that can be done to bring these wandering sheep into the fold of Christ ?" "Have I anything to answer for in their negligence ?" "What hitherto untried means of turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just might I still use?" I presume that there is scarcely a clergyman to whose mind these questions, or such as these, have not at times suggested themselves; and it is with the hope of having them partially answered, at least to myself, that I have written the present letter, and asked for information upon the subject of which I have thought much, and respecting which there appears to be a considerable difference of opinion. I beg to remain your obedient servant,

TYRO.*

Tyro will find that all these matters were fully discussed in various letters in the Magazine.-ED.

VOL. VII.-June, 1835.

4 s

THE WORD "CHAPEL."

SIR,-When one has an active enemy ready to take advantage on every opportunity, I do not think it prudent to give up an inch of ground without contending for it. I am ready to fight even for a word-but living in a remote part of the country, and seeing yourself and other churchmen use it in a different sense to what I do, I shall be obliged if some of your correspondents will inform me whether the places of assembly belonging to dissenters can be called "chapels ?" On referring to Johnson, I find "a chapel is of two sorts, either adjoining to a church, as a parcel of the same, or separate from the mother church, and called a chapel-of-ease;" and I maintain that this is the true meaning of the word. Is not "conventicle," or "meeting-house," (in Welsh tŷ-cwrdd, literally "meeting-house,") the proper designation of sectarian places of worship? By looking again to Johnson, you will find on the word "conventicle," "an assembly, a meeting-an assembly for worship-generally used in an ill sense, including heresy or schism;" and afterwards he explains "meeting-house," as "a conventicle-an assembly of dissenters."

The accurate Blackstone has the expression "presbyterian meetinghouse," and on turning over an act of parliament (35 Eliz. c. 1,) I perceive the distinction is most clearly made in the following passage, where "persons refusing to go to church or chapel, or usual place of common prayer, and being present at any assembly, meeting, or conventile, &c. &c." The legislature has, I believe, invariably used the words in the same sense; i. e., chapel as a place of worship resorted to by churchmen, and meeting-house or conventicle as that frequented by sectarians. Perhaps the word chapel may have been otherwise applied of late by parliament, but if so it is only one of the many bit-by-bit approaches which are made against our fortress.

I am, Sir, yours most obediently, MILES.

MY DEAR

CONVOCATION.

The writer of the paper on the " Convocation of the Province of Canterbury," has made two statements (p. 262 in the March Number) to which I would beg leave to call his attention as questioning their accuracy.

1. He states of "the first and second Prayer-books of King Edward," that they "never had the sanction of the church in convocation till the era of the Restoration." Against this, as regards the first, I would cite King Edward's letter to Bonner in July, 1549, as quoted by Collier in his "Ecclesiastical History," vol. ii. p. 276, in which he states, that the "Common Prayer-book was not only agreed to by the unanimous consent of both Houses of Parliament, but that it was settled by the like assent of the bishops in the same Parliament, and of all other learned men of this realm, in their synods and convocations provincial."

2. He says, that "the four state services are imposed on authority of the King, not of the church." Against this I would cite the "Acta

Convocationis," 1661, preserved by Gibson in his "Synodus Anglicana." In p. 67 of the Appendix there is mention made concerning "Tractatú habito de et super Precibus specialibus pro die nativitatis Domini nostri Regis, nec non pro felicissima Restauratione ejus ad et in regna sua-viz., 29 die mensis jam instantis Maii. . . nec non etiam de et super Precibus specialibus et particularibus in 30 diem mensis Januarii in quolibet anno publicè peragendis et perlegendis," &c.

I apprehend the only difference in point of authority between the Common Prayer-book and the state services, respects civil authority and not ecclesiastical. There is ecclesiastical authority for both; but the civil power of the state, as distinguished from the ecclesiastical, (for the king himself bears a two-fold character, according as he is regarded as head of one and of the other,) has not ratified the act of the ecclesiastical in respect of the state services. ALPHA.

SON OF MAN.

MR. EDITOR,-Agreeing in the main with your correspondent, "H.,”* on the subject of the coming of the Son of Man, I am desirous of inquiring of that writer whether he does not think that the phrase itself, Son of Man, gives considerable support to his opinion. The Son of God may be said to have come to take vengeance on the Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem; but not the Son of Man, the Son of Mary, the Man who is ordained to judge the world, (Acts xi. 31.)

Having examined all the passages in which the phrase "coming of the Son of Man," and the like, occur, I feel persuaded that they exclusively relate either to Christ's first coming, when born of the Virgin Mary, or to his future advent in glorious majesty to judge the quick and dead. I am, Mr. Editor, yours very respectfully,

W. M.

SEPTUAGINT.

SIR,-Assuming it to be sufficiently established that the account given by the pseudo-Aristeas, and the Jews Philo and Josephus, and adopted from them by the early Christian fathers, of the composition of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch, is altogether apocryphal, what other evidence is there upon which we are justified in referring the translation of any portion of that version to so early a period as the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus? And does not, in fact, the similarity which exists between the language of the Septuagint version and that of the New Testament (independently of any other reasons) lead rather to the inference that the former was the labour of a period much more nearly approaching to the commencement of the Christian era than is generally imagined? If you will have the kindness to bring this inquiry to the notice of your readers, (some of whom will probably express their opinions upon the subject,) you will very much oblige Sir, your obedient servant, B. E.

• The Editor regrets deeply the delay of some very interesting letters of "H.," from the press of temporary matter.

1

« PreviousContinue »