might have pointed out how much it might tend to the honour of our worship, and the growth of devotional feelings, both of which it cannot be denied are at as low an ebb, perhaps, at the present day as ever they were since Christianity was generally professed among us, were we in the above wise to instruct our flocks to think a little more than we do of the house of God, of the things that belong to it as His house, and of the manner of behaviour most becoming mortal and corrupt creatures when assembled round the altar from which they are to be fed with the bread of immortal life.

I am, Sir, yours, &c., R. B——y.

WEEKDAY PRAYERS AND LECTURES.

SIR,-One of the great advantages which your Magazine offers to the clergy is, that, through your pages, the several plans adopted by different clergy for the improvement of their flocks may be communicated to their distant brethren, and that many may thus profit from the hints and the experience of others with whom they have not the pleasure to be acquainted. I have often thus profited by the hints of others, so given in your pages, and I would, in turn, endeavour to throw out a hint, which, I humbly conceive, may be useful to others. I have regretted to observe that some of my brethren are in the habit (unnecessarily, as I think) of assembling congregations of their people in private houses and other unconsecrated buildings. Many are thus led to undervalue the consecrated roof, and, in the end, to think with indifference of the sin of joining congregations and communions which are positively schismatical. Nothing, I am convinced, can be further from the intention, or the thoughts, of my respected brethren; but such, I lament to state, I know to be the tendency of the plans which they, from the purest motives, have adopted. Some clergy may have adopted cottage lectures and bible classes with good effect in private houses, in hamlets, the distance of which from the parish-church renders it impossible to collect their parishioners within its sacred walls: but I have regretted frequently to see this measure adopted where the church was most conveniently situated. Has the venerable fabric been damp, and cold, and, consequently, unwholesome? Surely the desertion of the building is not likely to lead to the adoption of any remedy of these evils. Any zealous clergyman, if he did not wish to increase the parochial rate, might, surely, easily procure, by a subscription among the more religious of his congregation, the funds requisite to procure a stove which might make the church warm and wholesome. Is the church too large for the small congregation usually assembling on these occasions, and does the exertion required to "fill the church" try the zealous clergyman's overlaboured lungs too much? I can sympathize with him here; but let me recommend him to try a plan which I have adopted with much satisfaction to my people, and much comfort to myself. The chancel or the ante-chapel, the vesti bule or some side-aisle, of many a fine church, would be amply large

enough for the few scores, or at most hundreds, who can be collected together for the prayers and lectures on common weekdays, fasts, and festivals, and ember days, and lent services. A slight expense would fit up some neglected side-aisle, or other area or lobby, within the church, with a table, a desk, and a pulpit, in some of our old churches, for such purposes, but I think the chancel and the altar are far preferable. Led by necessity to consult my lungs, which, like those of many of my brethren in large towns, are too severely tried by my exertions, I had, for some months, collected my weekday congregations in a room which I had fitted up in the tower of my church, for these occasions. It was, however, during last Lent, somewhat inconveniently crowded, when one of my churchwardens, who is a regular attendant with his family, suggested to me a plan, which, it is remarkable, had just at the time occurred, also, to myself. This was, that I should upon these occasions shut up the galleries of the church, and the greater portion of the pews, entirely, request the congregation to collect as closely as possible round the altar, and officiate from within the communion rails. I immediately adopted the plan. The expenses of warming and lighting are much less than they used to be. A small congregation, which, if scattered over the area of the whole church, would be disheartening to the clergyman, are now near enough to each other to be animated by hearing each other responding and singing. During the reading of the lessons, psalms, and sermon, I face the congregation, reading from a small light desk which is placed within the rails of the communion-table for the purpose; but during the prayers I lead the devotions of the people at the altar, praying with them, and for them, with less distraction than at other times, when I am in the elevated desk "reading prayers" to them. I never enjoy, so to speak, the prayers of the church so much as during these services at the altar; I never seem to enter into them with so intense a feeling of devout interest, or to feel my office and its awful responsibilities so much as then and there.

I am convinced that advantages would arise from the adoption of this plan in many places with which I am acquainted: but other clergy may think differently upon my particular practice, who yet may be led by my remarks to reflect upon the danger there is of their introducing schismatical leanings among the members of their congregations, through assembling them in unconsecrated buildings, and departing, too, in such public services, from the liturgy of the church. I have thought it right, from the same wish to increase rather than diminish the reverence of my flock for the church, to keep the Sunday school in my parish in a room beneath the roof of the church, though in a part not used by the congregation. I am sure that many worthy clergymen are not aware at all of the evil which they are unconsciously occasioning by accustoming their people to prefer other places of meeting to the consecrated church. I need not remind them that after the ten tribes had revolted, the first step to the ultimate adoption by Israel of the worship of idol deities was, their becoming accustomed to worship the true God in other places than that which he had chosen to place his name there. Πρόναος.

ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND VIEW OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

MR. EDITOR, A correspondent in your Magazine for May inquires how, on the supposition that the church of Rome is deemed by our church a church of Christ,-as her practice of allowing Romish priests, on recanting their errors, to be ministers of her communion without re-ordination seems to imply,-how, on this supposition, this practice is reconcileable with the 19th Article. That article expressly says, "the visible church of Christ is," &c. That the 19th Article, at first sight, appears inconsistent with this practice may perhaps be admitted; but a little reflection will suffice to remove the inconsistency. In this article, our church is giving a definition, according to her views, of what constitutes a true church, a church whose doctrines should be founded on the scriptures, and whose practices should be in unison with that of the church in its earliest and purest ages. The definition, therefore, must minutely accord with her own theoretical notions of what a true church ought to be. She was not intending, nor was she called upon, to define in this article what degree of error and corruption would serve to exclude any particular church from being a true church. Whereas, in her other articles, she was compelled to decide, that many of the doctrines and practices of the Romish church were unscriptural and corrupt, because this was necessary in self-defence, in order to shew that a reformation of these abuses and corruptions was imperatively demanded. And this view of the subject, I conceive, is amply confirmed by the following extract from Archbishop Laud's conference with Fisher the Jesuit. p. 128, sect. 20. Edition, 1639 :—

"For the church may import in our language, the only true church, and perhaps (as some of you seem to make it) the root and the ground of the catholic. And this I never did grant of the Roman church, nor ever mean to do. But a church can imply no more than it is a member of the whole. And this I never did, nor ever will, deny, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a true church, I granted also; but not a right, (as you impose upon me)........ ... A man that

is most dishonest and unworthy the name, a very thief (if you will) is a true man in the verity of his essence, as he is a creature endued with reason; for this none can steal from him, nor he from himself, but death; but he is not therefore a right or an upright man. And a church that is exceeding corrupt, both in manners and doctrine, and so a dishonour to the name, is yet a true church in the verity of essence, as a church is a company of men which profess the faith of Christ, and are baptized into his name; but yet it is not therefore a right church, either in doctrine or manners." "And yet no news it is, that I granted the Roman church to be a true church. For so much very learned protestants have acknowledged before me, and the truth cannot deny it. For that church which receives the scripture as a rule of faith, though but as a partial and imperfect rule; and both the sacraments as instrumental causes, and seals of graces, though they add more, and misuse these; yet cannot but be a true church in essence."

Hooker, it is scarcely necessary to add, in his third book of Ecclesiastical Polity, advocates the same view of the Romish church as the archbishop.

Should this communication be deemed worthy of a place in your periodical, it is at your service. Yours, &c.

0.

AN OFFER OF ASSISTANCE.

DEAR SIR,-I have been a pretty constant reader of the "British Magazine" for some years, and though I know that you dislike compliments, you must allow me to say, that I consider it a most useful and valuable work. Indeed, in times like the present, it seems to me to be the duty of every man who holds right views on church matters, to do all that lies in his power, even if it should require some sacrifice, to support it. For my own part, I think it imperative to do what I can, not only in the way of reading and recommending, but also of writing for it; and I shall be very happy, from time to time, as I may have leisure, and find that I can do it without inconvenience, to send you contributions. Should I do so, I beg that you will use your own unbiassed discretion as to inserting them, and just making what use you please of them, as my only object is to assist you in promoting the great cause of truth; and I should be quite sorry if you were to postpone or break up things which are already in type, in order to put in anything of mine; because I suppose that would occasion loss to the publishers, and might also offend sore of your other contributors. But I dare say you will find some way of getting in anything which I may send; and (between ourselves) I have often wondered that editors do not manage to please all parties, and somehow or other get in all that is sent them. Of course, you know, I do not pretend to understand the matter, for I never was the editor of a magazine; but if I were, I think I should try. And there is another thing that I would mention to you, because I have heard it spoken of, and I know that it gives offence, even more than what I have just referred to; for in the other case, if their letters are punctually acknowledged, with a civil expression or two, in the next "notices," many correspondents may be content to wait a month; but people do not like to have what they write curtailed or altered. As to myself, as I have already said, I entreat that you will use no ceremony, but do just as you please; though, as I shall always make a point of choosing important and interesting subjects, and endeavour to treat them in an agreeable manner, and with as much brevity as is consistent with the design of writing, I do not expect that you will find it necessary (and when it is not necessary, I am sure you will agree with me in thinking that it is not right) to alter a word. If there should happen to be anything, such as a misconception of fact, or a want of knowledge on some point (for one cannot know everything), or anything else, which should, in your opinion, be omitted, or altered, or deliberated upon, you will, perhaps (if it is not trespassing on your time), have the goodness to give me a line privately, stating the circumstances and your objections, and I dare say that in the course of a few posts we shall understand one another. Indeed, you will not, I am sure, take it amiss if I say, that this ought always to be done; for I may, I doubt not, appeal to yourself, whether you have not often found, even from the testimony of the authors themselves, that when you have adventured anything of the kind merely on your own judgment, it has turned out that you have happened to omit the

most important, or to alter the most elaborate and pointed, portions of a letter. I suppose there is some reason for another thing which I do not understand; but it seems to me very odd, and indeed rather unreasonable, that you should require to have things so early in the month. As I said before, I do not understand anything about it, but as far as I can judge, there is not near so much matter (though it may be more valuable) in a number of the Magazine as in a double Times; and if the printers can print such a paper in one day, surely they might print the Magazine in two. I say this, because I know that it is a very annoying thing, when a man has written a letter-and perhaps a very long one-on some most important subject, in which he is most deeply interested, and which he is anxious to see printed instantly, to be told that he must wait more than a month, because it did not come to the editor's hands (though perhaps he sent it off two days before) until the 27th or 28th,and that, too, perhaps when there are thirty-one days in the month. These things are very apt to hurt the feelings of correspondents. And this reminds me of another point; I do think you ought to take care of all the papers which you do not use. I suppose they are very numerous, and it would take up too much of your own time; but could you not have somebody whose business it should be to arrange and keep them, so as that he could always lay his hand upon any particular one, and just do it up and send it, or take it, where the writer might direct? What else, for instance, can the people at Rivingtons' have to do? And if you could just add a few lines from yourself with each, I think it would conciliate. It would, to be sure, be a little additional trouble, but I think it would be well bestowed.

There is one little favour which I must beg of you. Some of my friends tell me that I write very badly; and I confess I am sometimes a little careless. Besides, you know when one is writing off a thing, one cannot stop to think how it looks, and it would be very troublesome to copy it. Indeed, the more one corrects it, the more discouraging it is to think of writing it all over again. Now as to yourself I do not mind, because I dare say you have so much practice in reading writing that you can make out almost anything; but I do sometimes think of the poor printers, who, I believe, are paid no more for making out a certain quantity of the worst writing than the best. And I am not sure that it is quite right to make their wives and families pay for one's own laziness. Besides, they are apt to make very droll blunders when they cannot read the writing, so that the credit of the Magazine is, in some degree, involved, which makes me mention it to you; and therefore perhaps, in reading over, you would be so good as to render legible anything which you think that the printer could not make out; or, if you think it better, would you just get it copied, for it is a pity to have a letter spoiled by what look like ignorant blunders, as to proper names and such things, which are perhaps copied from books which people cannot get without a great deal of trouble. You will oblige me if you will just attend to this. I hope to write to you again soon, and in the meantime I am, Your obedient servant, MODESTUS.