as it is with idolatrous superstitions; but that the reformed churches have very much lapsed into rationalism, and are split asunder among sects innumerable, chiefly on account of the want of settled articles of faith and effectual episcopal jurisdiction. At Geneva, what work would Calvin find for that high power of excommunication, claimed by his master-spirit, in the church which he there planted! So ephemeral is personal authority and influence. Durable effects upon society can only be produced by the unceasing operation of a system with known laws, method, and discipline. The plan of " scriptural education," as it is called, is only apparently, not really liberal, because it is all for the advantage of dissenters, and against churchmen; and also because the agreement would be hollow and superficial, leaving the seeds of jealousy and suspicion to spring up among the different parties, with constant bickerings and attempts, open or clandestine, to supplant each other and gain the ascendancy. Let it never be forgotten that the inve terate opposition to the established church is of a political, not religious character; and that those who now hate the church for its secular privileges, would be the first to despise the clergy when stripped of them.

Your notice is very consolatory, that the National Society, under its reverend president, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is making exertions for extending education, under the superintendence of the established church. Faveat Deus. In large towns, where plentiful wages are received by mechanics and workmen in manufactories, some plan may surely be suggested for inducing the men to allot a portion of their earnings for the education of their children, as they often set aside a weekly sum for benefit societies, and medical I am, Sir, yours faithfully, URBANUS.

assistance.

MR. DAVISON'S AND BISHOP BUTLER'S MSS.

SIR, Is it admissible to inquire, through the medium of your Magazine, whether that eminent scholar and divine, the late John Davison, has left any sermons, or other MSS., the publication of which might add to the obligations theological students are already under to his memory, for his great work on Prophecy? Such inquiries, if made within a moderate time after the decease of eminent men, afford at least a chance of bringing to light some of their remains, which might otherwise be irretrievably lost to the public. I can never take up the comparatively small volume of sermons by Bishop Butler, which has justly been pronounced "the most precious repository of sound ethical principles extant in any language," without wondering how it has happened (considering the early age at which he wrote most of them) that so few of those which one cannot but suppose he must have written later in life, have come down to posterity. Can any of your correspondents afford any information respecting the fate of Bishop Butler's MSS., or whether any, as yet unpublished, are still extant? Surely the principles of morals, which he so successfully investigated,

are of an importance which may justly be considered as attaching as high a value to any remains of this great ethical writer as can be claimed for the fragments of scientific researches made even by a Newton. ૨.

ON THE DISUSE OF THE PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH MILITANT.

SIR,-I have for some time considered a difficulty to attach to the usual understanding of the rubric, which directs, that " Upon Sundays, and other holydays, (if there be no communion,) shall be said all that is appointed at the communion, until the end of the general prayer, [for the whole estate of Christ's church militant here in earth,] toge ther with one or more of these collects last before rehearsed, ending with the Blessing; and, as the subject has been brought to notice more than once lately by some of your correspondents, I shall be glad if you can find room for a few observations upon it.

The usual understanding seems to be, that at all times when there is no communion-whether there has been an attempt on the part of the clergyman to celebrate it, and it has failed through the people's actual refusal, or there has been no attempt on his part, through presumption of the same refusal-the offertory and the prayer for Christ's church militant are to be used; and the whole of the people who refuse to celebrate the eucharist to be present at the offertory and the said prayer. This accordingly is the custom in many churches, in which, nevertheless, while the offertory is being read no collection of alms (on non-communion days) is made or attempted to be made; and this, if I apprehend it aright, is what your correspondents have urged upon their brethren as a necessary observance of the rubric.

Now, in the first place, it is clear that where the offertory is read without any collection attempted, an undeniable violation of the rubric takes place; that, I mean, which immediately follows the sentences in the offertory," Whilst these sentences are in reading, the deacons, churchwardens," &c. The church has never contemplated the case of the sentences of the offertory, or invitation to alms, being read without an opportunity being afforded to the faithful who are present to respond to the appeal.

Secondly, I question altogether the soundness of the usual construc.. tion of the rubric cited at the head of this letter, which would allow those, by whose sinful disinclination to celebrate the holy service, the eucharist fails to be offered and administered, to be present at the offertory and the following prayer. This I do on two accounts:

1. Because it is contrary to the received principles of the best ages, that they should be allowed to make pecuniary offerings to God who were separated from the eucharistic. See Constitutiones Apost. iii. 8; iv. 5, 6.

2. Because we have no other time for the dismission of the cate chumens, unbelievers, and unworthy persons but that which intervenes between the sermon and the offertory, and therefore can never tell, until that dismission, whether there will be a communion or not. VOL. XIV.-Dec. 1838.

5 G

If, therefore, every clergyman were in readiness to celebrate the holy eucharist on Sundays and holydays, according to what is generally understood to be the intention of the church, then every Sunday and holyday all who were unwilling to communicate must have left the church before the offertory and the prayer in question could begin.

When we shall have made up our minds to fulfil the intention of the church, by being ready to administer the holy eucharist every Lord's day if a sufficient number can be found to communicate with us, and one or two are desirous of communicating, but "there is no communion" through want of more, then I will willingly allow that we shall be offending against the rubric if we let these depart without affording them opportunity to make their pecuniary oblations, and to join in the prayer which prays for the acceptance of them.

In the meantime, as we are going on in a way for which it seems that the church has made no provision, I am inclined to think that the usual construction and observance of the rubric in question will only add to the incongruity. But I speak with deference, and admit that the rubric will bear in itself the usual construction; and it being, therefore, a doubtful case, am perfectly ready to acquiesce in the decision of my superior, if he should adopt the views of " Presbyter." I am, Sir, yours truly, ALPHA.

ON READING THE PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH MILITANT, &c.

SIR,-I have read the letter of "Presbyter" in the October Number of the British Magazine, urging the clergy to read the prayer for the church militant. It appears to me that the custom of not using this prayer is a continuation of the usage of the church in the days of King Edward VI., when the prayer for the church militant was never read but when there was a communion, as is evident from the rubric immediately after the final blessing" Collects to be said after the offertory, when there is no communion," which remains the same as it was in the First Book of King Edward. Now, it is quite clear that the prayer for the church militant is no part of the offertory, which comprises merely the sentences which are read while the deacons or churchwardens are collecting the alms. Besides, in the first book of King Edward, the prayer for the church militant was placed further on in the communion service, so that it could not be read between the offertory and the collects. The present practice of the church, therefore, is but the continuation of that mode of reading the service which was practised in the days of King Edward, and which has been followed in spite of the later rubric, (which contradicts the other)" Upon Sundays, and other holidays, (if there be no communion), shall be said all that is appointed at the communion, until the end of the general prayer (for the whole state of Christ's church militant here on earth), together with one or more of these collects last before rehearsed, concluding with the Blessing."

And as to the clergy not reading the sentences every Sunday, it

seems more proper, I think, to read them only when there is a collection. I am aware that one of these sentences is ordered to be read in the forms of prayer appointed for the four solemn days; but these services, having never passed convocation, are of no authority in the church; and I should hope that no one who has any regard for the rights of the clergy will ever read them. The only thing to be found fault with in the present practice is, the reading of the collect and blessing in the pulpit instead of at the altar. It appears to me that the absolutions and blessings ought always to be pronounced from the altar.

It must not be supposed from this that I am at all against reading the prayer for the church militant: quite the contrary; I think there is nothing in it but what may be read every Sunday. Besides, it will remind the people that it is their own fault if the communion be not administered every Lord's Day. I have merely been explaining the origin of the present practice. The real reason for continuing the usage of King Edward's time is, the great length of the morning service as at present conducted, which makes the clergy (especially as so many churches have only one clergyman) anxious to shorten it as much as possible. If the morning prayers were read at nine o'clock, and the litany and communion service at eleven or twelve, or if the morning prayer, litany, and communion service, were each of them read separately (which would be better still), none of the clergy would object to read the prayer for the church militant. As the morning service is at present conducted, it would be absurd to read it, it being a mere repetition of what had gone before-the church, queen, clergy, &c., having all been previously prayed for. In conclusion, allow me to ask a few questions.

I. Is it right to say in the litany, "that it may please thee to preserve all sick persons (especially him for whom our prayers are desired);" and thus to turn a general supplication into a particular intercession? Yet this must be done, or the sick cannot be prayed for by name in the morning.

II. Is it right to introduce the general thanksgiving before the prayer of St. Chrysostom, at the end of the litany, and thus to turn a general supplication into a general thanksgiving, and sometimes into a particular thanksgiving, which is done when any one desires to return thanks for any mercy he may have received? Do not these things shew the necessity of separating the services?

III. Assuming that this ought to be done, at what hours respectively ought the morning prayer, litany, communion, and evening prayer, to be read?

IV. Supposing a clergyman (who has now in his church morning prayer, litany, and communion, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the evening prayer at three o'clock in the afternoon) to wish to have three services, at what hours should these three services be performed? Is it right to have the evening prayer twice over, as is now often done, once at three o'clock, and again at six? I am aware that the eighteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea orders the same liturgy to be read at three o'clock and six; but would it not be better

to separate the earlier services? Should we not have more communicants if this were done?—the service, when the communion is administered, taking up at least two hours and a half.

V. Ought not the communion to be administered every Sunday? VI. When ought those to be dismissed who do not remain to receive the holy eucharist? Ought it not to be at the end of the exhortation-"Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come," &c. ?

VII. When there is a collection in the morning, but no communion, ought not the sentences to be read while the alms are collected, the alms to be placed upon the altar, and the prayer for the church militant to be read thus:-"We beseech thee most mercifully to accept our alms, and to receive these our prayers," &c.?

VIII. When there is a collection in the evening, how ought we to proceed?

I have taken the liberty of sending you the above queries, in the hope that some of your correspondents may be able to throw some light upon these things, as it is highly necessary that there should be a general uniformity with respect to them.

I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant,

A CATHOLIC.

ON MARRIAGES IN CHAPELS.

MY DEAR SIR,-Will you allow me to submit to you, or to the notice of some one of your correspondents, should you think this worth insertion in the British Magazine, the following case, a correct opinion upon which may prove generally useful, as similar cases will in all probability frequently occur? A and B reside in the union D, and deliver in a notice of marriage, which is read before the Board of Guardians, stating at the same time the name of the chapel C, in which they intend to be married, situate in some other union, E, in which neither of the parties reside, and the certificate is granted.

Can they require the minister of the chapel C to marry them? or, supposing they cannot require him to do so, can he legally comply with their wish?

In chapels not connected with the church of England, marriages have been so solemnized, notwithstanding their not being within the district in which either of the parties reside, or in which the notice has been read; but whether the minister has officiated from considering himself at liberty to do so, or whether from considering himself bound to do so, I cannot say. I wish to learn whether this procedure is in conformity or not with the act, and whether there is any difference between churches or chapels belonging to the church of England, and chapels or other licensed buildings unconnected with it. In the “ Act for Marriages," I can find no clause or clauses which determine the above case; and in the "Amendment Act," only the 34th and 36th clauses which seem at all to apply to it, and these speak only of church-of-England licensed chapels. The former seems to leave the point undecided, whether of necessity one of the parties must belong