ON THE MILLENNIUM.

DEAR SIR, Although I cannot lay claim to the acquirements of your correspondent "O.," the attention which I have paid to the study of prophecy is nevertheless sufficient to apprise me of the manner in which writers whose patristical learning is unquestionable argue for the ancient reception of the millennium scheme. I therefore think it right to comment, as briefly as I can, upon that part of ".'s" letter which refers to the millennium.

Thomas Burnet, (according to Southey, "the greatest of the name,'") with reference to this very point, entitles Eusebius a back friend to Christianity; and certainly his account of Papias is most unsatisfactory, for he at once admits facts which prove him to have been a competent preserver of catholic tradition, and in the face of these facts asserts, that he did not understand the mystical representations of the apostles, which is just begging the question. That the Gnostics should have been Chiliasts is most unlikely, for the system of the Gnostics was a refined Pantheism, such as we occasionally find approached to in the more heated portion of mystical divines. Perhaps the strongest modern realization of Gnosticism is to be found in the extinct Family of Love, on which sect Quakerism was an improvement, (though, as well as Quietism, retaining a good deal of the old leaven;) and of late we have heard of a similar heresy in the followers of Elias Hickes on the other side of the Atlantic. Let me remind your correspondent, that to prove the treatise De Corona to have been written after Tertullian became a Montanist is not the same thing as to prove that he adopted the millennarian sentiments of that treatise after his connexion with the Phrygian heresy. I may be allowed to ask how it happened that, since not only the Montanists but also the founder of the Apollinarian heresy were professed Chiliasts, this circumstance was never made a charge against them by the holy men in the catholic church who refuted their false views? The passage cited from Justin is too corrupt to justify the stress laid upon it by your correspondent, as a reference to the context will abundantly prove. He may possibly find it difficult to prove that, between the times of Jerome and Petersen the millenary doctrine had no distinguished advocates. Yet, if that could be proved-nay, if the tradition of the first three centuries did not really tell in favour of millennarianism,—I should yet ensconce myself behind what appears to me the plain grammatical construction of the written word of God, conscious that in the present day it is equally necessary to guard against the ultra-protestant error of disregarding the voice of the early church, and the contra-protestant habit of looking to the fathers as a higher court in which to appeal for conviction, when the testimony of scripture is so literal that he may run that readeth. Yours, with much respect, R. W. JOHNSON.

"expedient;" and secondly, that there is not, in fact, anything more irregular in a clergyman's preaching in the open air in the present day than there was in the preaching at Paul's Cross during the reformation. If there is really a difference of opinion among the clergy on these points, surely it will be a good thing if it can be peaceably argued.]

ON ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENT.

SIR,-Would you make room in your magazine for the following question, namely, "How far is it lawful to give the communion to all the communicants at the Lord's table with one repetition of the words?"

The inquiry is becoming every day of greater practical importance in consequence of the great increase in the number of persons who now join in that chief act of Christian worship; and I have no doubt that some of your correspondents who have given their attention to the subject will be willing to put their thoughts on paper for the sake of their brethren, many of whom are much harassed with doubts as to what they ought to do in this matter. I am, Sir, very truly yours, AN OLD SUbscriber.

ON THE COPE.

MR. EDITOR,-In your last Number (p. 544), a correspondent whose signature is "E. C." observes with reference to the cope,-" Now, forasmuch as the 24th canon speaks only of cathedral and collegiate churches, and we seem to be entirely without evidence that the use was erer extended to parish churches, ought we not to know on what grounds we are invited to make this change ?" To this I would briefly reply, that according to a rubric in our Book of Common Prayer, "such ornaments of the church and ministers thereof, at all times of the ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in the Church of England, by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI." Now, Sir, the following rubric occurs in King Edward VI.'s First Liturgy, which was published in the second year of his reign (A.D. 1549):-"Upon the day and the time appointed for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, the priest who is to perform that holy ministration shall put on the vestment which is appointed for that purpose, namely, an albe and vestment, or a choral cope; and the ministers who assist him shall also be vested in albes." This rubric (which I have translated out of the glossary at the end of Wats edition of Matthew Paris, voce "ALBA") clearly applies to "parish churches" as much as it does to cathedrals. The ALBE was a long white vestment with tight sleeves, girded about the middle; and the "VESTMENT," which might be used instead of the cope at the option of the priest, was probably a chasuble; for in a constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea, (A.D. 1305,) the words “ Vestimentum principale" are so interpreted by Lindwode. In the church of Rome, the cope is, I believe, never worn by the priest who celebrates mass, the upper vestment being always a chasuble; and if I may judge from a great many pictures which I have seen, the same observation applies to pontifical high mass, celebrated by bishops. In an illuminated MS. which I possess, Pope Gregory the Great is standing at the altar in a chasuble, and elevating the host; and on the tombs of most bishops who flourished before the Reformation they are represented

in chasubles. This is the case with the effigy of Herbert de Losinga, in the north transept of Norwich cathedral; that of Bishop Gooderic, at Ely cathedral, and a great many others which have fallen under my notice.

In Wats' glossary, published in 1684, to which I have lately alluded, he says, with reference to the word "CAPA," "Coaps' nos Angli dicimus et in liturgia adhuc iis utimur." Having thus added an additional link to my chain of evidence respecting the use of the cope since the Reformation, I have the honour to subscribe myself, your obedient servant, RICHARD HART.

ON THE STYLE OF "REVEREND."

SIR,-I should be glad to obtain from some of your correspondents information on the following points,-namely, at what time, and on what grounds, it became usual for clergymen to claim and receive the style of Reverend; whether it belongs to them (if at all) by virtue of their orders, or of filling ecclesiastical offices; or thirdly, whether the proper claimants of it be graduates in the faculty? And, if by virtue of their orders, whether deacons have a claim to it?

Of the few books written by clergymen which I have at hand, printed 100 years ago or upwards, not one prefixes that title to the name of the author.

If it be a title of recent use, neither sanctioned nor required by any law or canon, it may be the more easily put aside, and the growing inconveniences that attend its use removed. Yours, &c.

H.

ON THE OXFORD TRACTS.

SIR,-Will you allow me the benefit of your assurance, that your Magazine is open to fair discussion on both sides of the questions, now chiefly agitated by divines of the University of Oxford. In the Tracts for the Times, and other writings of the same learned school, there are many passages which do in effect unjustly depreciate our present liturgy, however sincerely the authors may disclaim their intention of so doing. For example, in the tract, Via Media, a dialogue between Clericus and Laicus, occurs the following, (Clericus speaking of the Puritans):

"They took away the liturgy and substituted a directory.

"L. They? the same men?

"C. Yes, the foreign party, who afterwards went by the name of Puritans. Bucer, who destroyed in King Edward's time, and the Puritans, who destroyed in King Charles's, both came from the same religious quarter.........I like foreign interference as little from Geneva as from Rome......... Why could we not be let alone, and suffered to reform ourselves?"-Tracts for the Times, No. 38.

"It must be remembered, that nothing is said in approbation or in censure of these alterations. Some might be disposed to think that the changes in the Second Book of King Edward, brought about by the advice and influence (though not perhaps the VOL. XV.-June, 1839. 4 R

open instrumentality) of foreigners, were opposed to the spirit of the previous declaration intended against Rome, that each church was to regulate its own internal affairs, that it had not so much the free and spontaneous concurrence of the church itself, and that therefore this book had not the high sanction of the former."-Tracts for the Times, No. 86. p. 33.

"Why do you praise Ridley? Do you know sufficient good about him to counterbalance the fact that he was the associate of Cranmer, P. Martyr and Bucer?"Rem. of Rev. R. H. Froude, vol. i. p. 394; and the idea is broached, p. 387, of "replacing" our communion service by a good translation of the liturgy of St. Peter.

Such passages seem very objectionable on the following grounds. -1st. Whatever censure applies to Martyr and Bucer, on account of the changes alluded to, equally applies to those great lights of our church who concurred in them, Cranmer, Ridley, M. Parker, Grindal, Cox, Redman, &c.

2ndly. Because the changes were in themselves justifiable, as, by your leave, I desire to prove in a future letter.

But now as to the authorities who confirmed the views in question of these foreign divines, (though they also rejected several,) I need hardly say, that the revision of King Edward's first liturgy originated with Cranmer, that he requested Martyr and Bucer+ to review it, and that, many of their suggestions having been adopted by the committee,‡ the book so altered was henceforth called the Second Book of King Edward. But what I would chiefly insist on, because so frequently lost sight of, is this, that in the further revision under Queen Elizabeth, 1559, the Second Book was preferred to the First under very peculiar circumstances. To shew how deliberately it was preferred, the very first of the series of questions addressed by Secretary Cecil to Mr. Guest, (a leading member of the committee, afterwards bishop of Rochester,) was,§ "Whether such ceremonies as were lately taken away by King Edward's book might not be resumed, not being evil in themselves?" Some of which are specified in the next queries; and then, Qu. 7, "Whether it be not convenient to continue the use of praying for the dead in the communion ?" Qu. 8, "Whether the prayer of consecration in the first communion book should be left out." Indeed, all the questions shew that Cecil, who took great interest in these matters, could not have used his influence or that of his royal mistress against the restoration of these particulars, if he did not rather favour it. And yet, after all, the Second Book was preferred by the divines in all the main points of difference. Add to which, that Drs. Cox and May, having been among the compilers of the first liturgy, were likely, if anything, to be prepossessed in favour of that; yet they, too, concurred in the second. Nor was there at this time any undue bias against every custom abused by the Romanists, as is proved

*See also Tracts Nos. 34 and 75.

+ Then regius professor of divinity in Oxford and Cambridge; classed also by Strype (and by every one else hitherto) among "divers very learned and godly foreigners then in the realm."-Eccles. Mem. B. I. chap. 25.

Conclusum jam est in hoc eorum colloquio, quemadmodum mihi rettulit Reverendissimus ut multa immutentur. Sed quænam illa sint, quæ consenserint emendanda, neque ipse mihi exposuit, neque ego de illo quærere ausus sum.-Ep. Martyr. ad Buc. No. 61. in App. to Strype's Mem. Cranmer.

§ Strype on the Reform,, chap. 4, p. 83.

by the fact that Queen Elizabeth herself retained some of them,* that she desired, as Wheatley remarks, "to unite the nation in one faith," and that partly with this view the declaration of the rubric against the real presence was now withdrawn.+ In short, the alterations for which our learned brethren take several occasions to censure Martyr and Bucer were ratified after their death by a committee formed de novo (with two exceptions) of the most eminent English divines. On the whole, they were solemnly sanctioned by two successive committees of Anglican clergy, and promulgated by two several parliaments and sovereigns, not to dwell now on their being allowed to stand by the committee in James the First's reign, or on the very full revision which the subsequent committee, in 1661, were empowered to make, if it had so pleased them, and yet never attempted; or on the then unanimous subscription of both houses of convocation. Really, let us not hear any more of these unfair statements, calculated to prejudice our younger clergy against the present liturgy, however truly any wish of altering it at present may be disclaimed. However zealously the church of England shall recur to the study of antiquity, and so, as some think, become riper for the revival of certain rites and prayers still omitted in the communion office, that revival is infinitely distant, if it is found needful, as a subsidiary argument, invidiously to represent a connexion between Geneva and certain alterations in our Prayer Book. I am, Sir, yours respectfully, A. M., CLER.

New College, Oxford.

ON SOME POINTS IN CHURCH SERVICE.

SIR,-I shall be very much obliged to you, or any of your correspondents who will give me a satisfactory answer to the following questions:

1. Ought the service for the Feast of St. Matthias, or that for the second Sunday in Lent, to have been read on the 24th of February this year?

2. Should the Monday before Easter take precedence of the Feast of the Annunciation, or not?

3. When a saint's day that has a vigil falls on a Monday, is the collect for the saint's day to be read on the Saturday or on the Sunday evening?

4. Is the collect to be read on the vigil when you do not intend to keep the feast, as in the case of the Annunciation falling in Passion Week?

With regard to my first question, Shepherd tells us, that in the

Witness the crucifix retained in her chapel, 1560, (Burnet's Hist. Reform. Pt. 3, B. 6, p. 289,) and her practices, mentioned by Camden, (Ann. Eliz. 1559. sub init.) Concionibus quadrag. atratâ, more prisci ævi semper interfuit............ De Cruce, Beatâ Virgine, et Sanctis haud quaquam contemptim sensit............Et ne Jejunium Eccles. in Quadrag. violaret licentiam pro carnium esu.........rogavit. + Wheatley on Lit., App. to Introd.

Vol. I. page 167. note, 3rd edition.