ratified, except as that which the same commission entitles him to give on entering a house, Luke, x. 5, 6—“ If the son of peace be there." I cannot, therefore, but feel pain at the remarkable terms of censure which your correspondent has employed against those ministers who, following the practice of some who are now departed in the Lord, use the church's forms where they think the mind of the church permits it, not recklessly or profanely, but where they humbly trust it may contribute, publicly or privately, to spiritual edification and comfort of love.

Secondly, I am, I confess, pained extremely at the mode in which your correspondent speaks of sermons, not scrupling to call it a heresy to deem the hearing of sermons "an act of worship." Are they not an ordinance of God? a means of grace,—not indeed the highest means, but a means which it would be deep heresy to intermit? as necessary to apply the word of God to the soul, as the art of the husbandman to turn up the earth and open it to the showers and sunbeams from above? If it is an act of worship by which we listen to the lessons of holiness in the inspired word, it is no less so to listen while we are taught to apply them. Why else was the one ever followed by the other while the faith of the church was sound in the public ministrations? (See Justin, Apol. I. s. 87.) Why with the discontinuance of sermons did all corruptions and abuses flourish and take root?

The strange surmise that the church of England "no more esteems instruction in theology in any sense an act of worship than prelections or discourses on all other sciences," is so utterly contrary to the spirit of the canon (LV.) there referred to, directing it always to be begun with the Lord's Prayer, that I would fain ask, By whose mouth will the writer of such a sentence establish what he has said? Not, certainly, by Hooker's; for he, though he most truly and wisely cautions us against considering sermons to be the only preaching that doth save souls, would not be outdone by any puritan of his day in extolling this divine appointment. "So worthy a part of divine service," he says, we should greatly wrong, if we did not esteem preaching as the blessed ordinance of God, sermons as keys to the kingdom of heaven, as wings to the soul, as spurs to the good affections of man, unto the sound and healthy as food, as physic unto diseased minds." (Eccl. Pol. v. s. 22.) Not by Bishop Bull's; for he reckons the preaching of sermons to be an integral part of the pastor's office, and "a noble though difficult portion of his duty." If it be not so, surely not only the founder of methodism, but the founders of the most irregular modern sects are justified; for if preaching be not an act of worship in the minister who discharges it, they who began to disseminate their doctrines by lay preaching invaded no ministerial office, and had as good a right to exhort as to deliver "prelections or discourses on any other sciences."

I am as much alive as any man to the danger to which we are exposed in the church, as in other public departments, by what a feeling writer calls "our disastrous admiration of eloquence;" but surely our remedy for this is not to "despise prophesyings,' but to quicken in the hearts of those who have undertaken the part of Christ's am

bassadors a sense of his presence in the house where they deliver his message, that they may not abuse to the vanity of the creature the sword of the Spirit, which it is their high dignity to bear.

I am, Sir, yours &c.

E. C.

ON THE CATECHISM.

MY DEAR SIR,-The "Catechism Broken into Short Questions" being the only book of its kind generally used in schools connected with the National Society, and being the exposition of the Catechism set forth by a quasi authority, it seems important that it should strictly tally with the formularies of the church, and with the scriptures. But there is a question and answer in it which, I conceive, are inconsistent with both, and calculated to mislead those who rely upon them, as they did myself. The Catechism teaches us that "the inward and spiritual grace of baptism" is "a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness." Upon this are built the following question and answer:"Q. Unto what are baptized persons to die? A. Unto sin." Here it is evidently intended to be implied that baptized persons are to die to sin after baptism, and that this subsequent death unto sin is a part of the spiritual grace of baptism.

But how does this tally with the next question and answer? "Q. To what are they therein new born? A. Unto righteousness." We are told that they are new born, and yet that they are to die; and that although the latter comes first in the Catechism, as though it took place first. Surely if the latter question and answer are correct, the former, by the mere requirements of connexion and sequence, should be-" Q. Unto what are baptized persons dead? A. Unto sin." But the latter question and answer must necessarily stand; for the explanation given in the Catechism itself is, "for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace." This being made the children of grace is therefore necessarily the new birth spoken of in the Catechism.

And this tallies exactly with the baptismal service, in the concluding prayer of which we pray that the person baptized, "being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, may &c.," where "living unto righteousness" evidently corresponds with "a new birth unto righteousness" in the catechism, and is of course to be understood of the new state into which we are brought by baptism, and where "being dead unto sin" is evidently implied to be contemporaneous with it, both by the very wording of the sentence and the connexion in which it stands with the subsequent clause.

I think I have made out my point, if I do not say another word; but as it was the scripture itself which first opened to me the church's meaning, I will just point to two passages which illustrate it-viz., Rom. vi. 2—11, and Col. ii. 11-14. In the former, a death unto sin is distinctly connected with baptism, verses 2, 3; and we are told that by that sacrament we are baptized into Christ's death, “buried

with him into death," "planted together in the likeness of his death," and "dead with Christ." Further we are told that Christ "died unto sin, and liveth unto God;" and an exhortation is added, "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God." How, then, did Christ die to sin? Clearly in this respect, that by his death sin had no further claim upon him. He had undertaken to bear our sin, and the act was done. And the plain inference is, that by baptism we are so mystically united to Christ in his death that our previous sin, be it original or actual, has no further claim upon us. In Col. ii. 11, &c., forgiveness of trespasses is particularly specified as the consequence of being buried with Christ in baptism.

The "death unto sin," then, in the catechism, as in the scripture, is clearly the forgiveness of sin; and how distinctly that is connected with baptism in the baptismal liturgy I need scarcely point out. I am, my dear Sir, faithfully yours,

J. B

-N.

Leigh.

PROPOSED RESTORATION OF CHURCH VESTMENTS.-THE COPE.

"A fine aspect, in fit array,

Neither too mean, nor yet too gay,
Shews who is best."-HERBERT.

SIR,-A correspondent, who signs himself "A Country Parish Priest," in your March Number, p. 303, expresses his wish to revive the use of the cope, to be worn by the principal officiating priest at the holy communion. And in a small tract since published, entitled, "The Rubric," pp. 15 and 24, we are told that the writer unreservedly entertains the wish to restore both copes and altar lights, not only in cathedrals and collegiate churches, but also in country parishes.

Now, forasmuch as the twenty-fourth canon, which is, I believe, our latest authority on the subject, speaks only of cathedral and collegiate churches, and we seem to be entirely without evidence that the use was ever extended to parish churches, ought we not to know on what grounds we are invited to make this change, which certainly would appear, from all that has been yet shewn, to be an unauthorized innovation?

Again, the author of "the Rubric" speaks of the vestment itself as being so little known in England, that, except some that are preserved at Durham, and the remains of one which he saw and put on at Ely, he does not appear to have met with a specimen.

Is there not some reason to suspect the propriety of seeking to revive a part of the clerical habiliments, without some renewed sanction, which has fallen into such universal disuse as to be now left only as an object of antiquarian curiosity?

But, by this writer's description, the cope is not unknown. It is capable, he says, of being made of almost any material used for cloth. ing, "wool or hair, linen, silk, velvet, or cloth of gold;" of any colour,

as "white, black, green, yellow, purple, blue;" and of every kind of adorning, as "needlework, gold, silver, and jewels." (p. 24.) And he recommends a 66 simultaneous" restoration of this fine garment by the clergy on the approaching Whitsunday.

Now it is very probable that the copes still worn by officiating priests in churches of the Roman communion may be as variously composed and adorned as he describes; and, if our ordinaries approve, we may, no doubt, wear them with as good a right as they; yellow copes at Norwich or Durham, for instance, and true blue at Exeter. Or, if we want better information, we might write to M. Michaelis, confidential secretary to Archbishop Droste, at Cologne, who would, no doubt, give his best instructions to every one who was determined "to agitate THAT EVERYTHING WHICH HAS BEEN ABOLISHED MAY BE RESTORED!" (See his Letter in the "Quarterly Review" for January, p. 102.)

But, as I believe that both your correspondent and this writer are anxious for more important principles than those connected with this proposal, I will beg to tell them an old story to apply. I am not one who am afraid of popery in every unusual habit or genuflexion; but I see no reason why we should, without necessity or licence, provoke the multitude, who will always judge by externals. When the loyalists at the court of Charles I. raised him troops at their own expense against the Scots, in 1639, there was so much bravery of attire displayed by these volunteers, that the king said, prophetically enough," he was sure the Scots would fight stoutly, if it were but for the Englishmen's fine clothes." We see and feel that the enemies of the church are disposed to fight stoutly; I trust we shall let them see that we have something more than the church's fine clothes to defend. I am, Sir, yours &c., E. C.

ON THE COPE.

MR. EDITOR, Will you allow me to make one or two remarks on so much of the letter of your correspondent "W. B. H." as refers to the revival of the wearing of the cope by the consecrating priest in the blessed eucharist? He confesses that he much likes the practice, taken abstractedly, but that at this peculiar conjuncture there is a strong objection to it-viz., its certain tendency to swell the stupid cry of the popery of the Oxford Tracts ten times louder. He adds, "If it were a matter of doctrine or discipline, I should scorn to make use of the spirit of the times as an argument for the SLIGHTEST deviation from the paths of truth and order; but this is not the case in the present instance." Now, with all due submission, I must take the liberty of affirming that it is the case. The rubric directs the wearing of the cope at the holy eucharist, as straitly as the use of the cross in the other sacrament, or of the surplice, or the Athanasian Creed, &c. And the clergy are sworn to obey the rubric (not in that or this particular, as may seem good to them, but) in everything which it enjoins.

Much, Mr. Editor, as I admire a solemn and stately service, and great as are the benefits which I anticipate from the revival of that degree of splendour which the reformers wisely preserved, I yet would not write a line in favour of the cope had the Prayer Book been silent about it; nay, in that case, I would have strongly condemned its introduction among us for the very reason mentioned by " W. B. H," and on the same ground on which I now defend it. Permit me to add, that until the senior and orthodox clergy conform to the rubric in all things, they must perforce be restrained by shame from censuring the deviations of their younger, or pope-bitten, or latitudinarian brethren. I am, Mr. Editor, yours &c., САРРА.

P.S. Why, by the way, it should be more injudicious to wear a cope in a parish church than in a cathedral, as was done by certain clergy at the coronation, I confess I cannot understand.

PRAYER TRANSPOSED IN THE LITURGY.

SIR,-Your correspondent "W. M.," in the April number of your Magazine, is under a mistake with respect to the prayer commencing with the words " O God, whose nature and property is ever to have mercy and to forgive." This prayer, standing before that for the high court of parliament in modern Prayer Books, is precisely in the place where it was originally inserted. At the review of the Liturgy after the Restoration, this collect was ordered to be placed immediately after the two prayers for the Ember weeks. The printers set it in the place where "W. M." would wish it to be-namely, between the prayer for all conditions of men and the general thanksgiving; but the commissioners obliged them to alter it to its proper position. For many years, nevertheless, this collect was placed in the Prayer Books immediately before the general thanksgiving; but in more recent editions it has been inserted before the prayer for the parliament, according to the first intention of the commissioners. It appears, therefore, that so far from having made any innovation, or taken any unwarrantable liberty with regard to this beautiful prayer, we have gone back to the ancient order of things respecting it; which is a somewhat singular circumstance in these reforming days.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

D. C. L.

ON THE TRANSPOSITION OF A PRAYER IN THE LITURGY.

SIR, The query of your correspondent " W. M.," p. 41, cannot, perhaps, be better answered than by offering to his notice the following extract from "Shepherd's Elucidation of the Book of Common Prayer." Vol. I. p. 288.

"It [i. e., prayer, that may be said after any of the former] has likewise for the last 130 years had the ill fortune to be misplaced in