religious, and not merely a civil, community; and that the bands that must keep us together must be those of spiritual authority, and not merely acts of Parliament. Another probable consequence is, that the integrity of our ecclesiastical body being now left to depend upon the maintenance of its own discipline, without which the whole will soon crumble to pieces, the attention of the clergy will be drawn to the rules which the church has provided for that discipline; and perhaps the episcopal rulers may find it necessary to revise and reconsider the same, that the intentions of the church may be more clearly understood, and the principles of its discipline be distinctly perceived. Ground for apprehension I see none: we are but where the church was before the time of Justinian; or rather, I should say, I hope we are approaching that condition, when civil penalties were not annexed to ecclesiastical censures; and consequently, the rulers of this world had no pretext for interfering with the government of Christ's kingdom. It is probable, indeed, that the rules which the church found necessary then, she will find necessary again; but we have also reason to hope that what was found sufficient then, will be found sufficient now, seeing that our rulers have the same apostolic commission which theirs had, and the same promise of the Saviour's presence in the exercise of the same. The great difficulty will be found to be in the paucity of our bishops, who will be constrained either to slur our discipline, or else to delegate to their archdeacons and rural deans more power than it will probably be found convenient to entrust to any under episcopal rank. But when the evil presses, men will probably be glad to find a remedy for it. In the meantime, it is a waste of words to talk about it. I am Sir, your obedient servant, ALPHA. RITES AND CEREMONIES. SIR,—Will “Philalethes" allow me to observe, that he has misconceived the purport of my remarks in your March number. My design was, not to assist Mr. Poynder, in his attempt to establish a conformity between the Roman church and heathenism, but to animadvert on some of the practices of that church, which your correspondent conceived (as I thought, and still think, erroneously,) to be not prohibited in the New Testament. which With respect to the passages, Heb. x. 8, 9, and Gal. v. 1, I conceive (Philalethes thinks, incorrectly,) to militate against some of the Romish ceremonies, my remarks shall be brief. (Heb. x. 9.) "He taketh away the first (i. e., the Levitical sacrifices and offerings) that he may establish the second," (i. e., that he may do the will of God.) The offering of gifts and sacrifices the apostle speaks of in the ninth chapter and ninth verse, as imposed until the time of reformation, or, as Theophylact says άχρι της του Χριστου παρουσίας του μελλοντος διορθωσασθαι ταυτα και την αληθινην και πνευματικην λατρειαν έπεισαγαγειν. If our Lord had intended that any rites, besides the two Christian sacraments, similar to those of the Jews, should be observed, to keep up the memory of what had happened, surely the apostle would, in this epistle to the Hebrew converts, have declared it, for the purpose of more easily reconciling them to the simplicity of the new dispensation. If this be so, we may consider the eighth and ninth verses of Heb. x., which declare, in the words of the psalmist, that the Deity did not much delight in the ceremonious observances of the Jews, typical of an event to take place to militate against the observance of other typical ceremonies, and those unappointed to keep in memory the event after that it had taken place. Gal. v. 1, I connect with the last verse of the preceding chapter, and understand the apostle to mean, that the Galatians should not suffer the judaizing teachers to entangle them in a legal slavery of Mosaical performances, as abject as that in which, in their Gentile state, they had previously been. The spirit of this verse implies, I should imagine, that a multiplicity of rites and ceremonies is contrary to the genius of the Christian religion, which, having freed the Jews from the yoke of their burdensome ritual, seeks not to establish another ceremonial law, but is, "in its very essence, practical and influential, regulating the temper, and written in the heart." I am, Sir, your obedient servant, A PROTESTANT. THE WORD "CATHOLIC." MY DEAR -In a note to page 402 of the "British Magazine" for October last, it is remarked by one of your contributors, that Mr. Le Bas, in his Life of Wiclif, almost uniformly uses the word "CATHOLIC" to designate the peculiar doctrines of the church of Rome. I have neither the right nor the inclination to complain of this remark. On the contrary, I am desirous of seizing the earliest opportunity of declaring, that, in my judgment, any such use of the word CATHOLIC" should never be allowed to pass without a decided protest against it from our brethren of the Anglican church. And I am further desirous to have it understood, that the use of it, in the instances above alluded to, was purely the result of inadvertence, and, most certainly, not of any disposition to make a dangerous concession to the Romanists.* C. W. LE BAS. The candour and good feeling of this letter are exactly what would be expected from Mr. Le Bas. It is very true that one who stands on so very high ground with every person acquainted either with him or with his writings, may, without injury, make such an admission; but there are so many who, because they stand on high ground, resent any remark, that it is impossible to pass by this letter without expressing the pleasure which is felt from the example of such candour in so eminent a man. In the paper alluded to, the expression would have been kinder, had the excellent writer had the advantage of a larger knowledge of Mr. Le Bas' writings, the Editor feels sure; and he would have modified it himself, had it caught his eye.-ED. MR. EDW. BICKERSTETH AND THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH. SIR,-You have passed a not unmerited encomium on Mr. Barter's Tract in answer to Mr. Bickersteth's "Remarks on Popery," p. 441; but there is one statement in that essay which seems to have escaped Mr. Barter's more exact notice, and which simple justice to a learned and aged prelate, now living, calls upon me to expose. It is as follows: "The zealous adherence to the word of God was the glory of the Reformation, and the great means of its purity. The departure from this has been in some degree checked by the vastly enlarged distribution of the pure word of God, through all the societies engaged in that work. But it was a fearful mark of this departure that the circulation of the Bible alone was so greatly objected to by leaders in protestant churches, without what was so improperly called by one of them the "safeguard" of a Prayer Book."—" Bickersteth's Remarks, &c.," p. 41. Mr. Barter, probably not being aware of the allusion concealed under a vague generality of phrase, admits this to be an unguarded expression, leaving it to be supposed that the "leader-" i. e., bishop, here intended-had actually spoken of the Prayer Book as a necessary safeguard against the mischiefs of the Bible. On referring to Bishop Marsh's "Inquiry, &c.," Camb. 1812, p. 5, I found these words : : "When we consider that there is at present hardly a town, or even a village, which is not visited by illiterate teachers, who expound the Bible with more confidence than the most profound theologian, it becomes doubly necessary, if we would preserve the poor of the establishment in the religion of their fathers, to provide them with a safeguard against the delusion of false interpretations. And what better safeguard than the book of Common Prayer, which contains the doctrines of the Bible according to its true exposition?" &c. To a plain man this passage seems guilty of no great departure from Reformation. principles, since it merely advocates the necessity of using the exposition which the reformers have left us of the religion of the Bible. The safeguard is not set up against the Scriptures or their free circulation; but it is the authorized interpretation of the universal church, against unauthorized and false interpretations. How could this sense have been mistaken? To print and reprint an accusation, so grounded, against a reverend, aged, man, whose office, if not his years, should claim for him a double portion of honour, and thus to pervert his meaning, may appear one of the legitimate arts of controversy; but if such was the general line of argument of the advocates of the Bible Society, an opponent of that Society would be no more an opponent of the Bible than an opponent of the Jesuits is an opponent of Jesus. Yours truly, E. C. LETTER FROM AN EASTERN CHRISTIAN, CONTAINING HIS DOUBTS AS TO THE SIR,It is told me that you are a member of the Anglican church, and me. England really has a liturgy or not, and if yes, whether priests and bishops of the church of England are bound to use it? Many people answer this, my question, yes, whenever I ask; but what they do makes me think that they speak not the truth. When I was in my own country, many English travellers, some of them English priests, visit us, and give away books. They had one book which for name had, "the Book of Common Prayer of the united Churches of England and Ireland," in various languages, as Italian, modern Greek, &c. &c. I got one of these books; I read it diligently; and what I read did please me much. I ask the English priests about it, and they say to me that these prayers be said in all the churches in England in the language of the country; and they say so much about the piety in England, that I set out and see this wonderful sight with my own eyes. But, Sir, when I come here, Ijam disappointed; and now, after much questions in my travels in England and Ireland, I do doubt whether the Anglican church has a liturgy binding on its members. Why I do doubt, I now tell you. First, the Prayer-book itself says that there ought to be "daily morning and evening service throughout the year;" but, excepting in the churches called cathedrals, I find not this service. I sometimes find service on Wednesdays and Fridays, but I see very few at them. Now, if England be very religious country, I pray to know how there is so little devotion. In our country we say, without devotion there can be no religion; but it may be that we orientals do not understand the English temperament, and I pray you to explain this, to me, extraordinary phenomenon. And mostly, tell me, if the Prayer-book be binding, how it is that its directions as to morning and evening service are by almost nobody minded. Is the fault in the bishops, or in the priests, or in the people? The next thing was, that, in travelling through the country, I did know many worthy, very worthy men, who said that they were priests of the church of England, but yet in their religious meetings not use the prayers as they are found in the Prayer-book. It did happen often that I was asked to go with a friend to pray, and to hear God's word. I always ask to what sect (for you have a great many here in England) the priest belong, and he say, "oh! to the church of England;" but when I come to the place, generally a school-house, I see a man in black, without his surplice or any other vestment. Sometimes he say a few collects; sometimes he pray extempore; and then he read something out of the Bible, and preach; but never in the order of the Prayer-book. I ask the meaning of all this, and whether, according to the rules of the church of England, this is lawful? My friends (( say me yes;" but when I ask them to shew me where this was said in the Prayer-book, they never shew me anything. They have said, that it was allowed by the archdeacon or the bishop. Now, Sir, you much oblige me if you tell whether an archdeacon or a bishop may, by your church law, dispense with the liturgy; or whether (what I more think) the liturgy is only for show and to send abroad, but not really to be used at home?nimob stos 2007 doub But, Sir, in some of my travels I went to Ireland. I walk one day in one of the principal streets; I see people going into a building something like a church, and they say that it was the chapel of a penitentiary" in connexion with the established church, and licensed by the archbishop of Dublin;" so I go in, and then I am certain about the liturgy. It was on a week-day, but the priest read not the liturgy, but only a few collects, and then he preach. I ask gentleman who sat next me whether this was lawful; he said, yes; the archbishop's chaplain is asked, and he say, that it might be done, for he not very particular himself in his own church. Now, Sir, is this true do you think? I do not know, but this perplex me too much. Besides, the gentleman say too, "if you wish to see how little we care for the Prayer-book, go to the chapel of Trinity college, and you will soon find.' I did as I was bid, and went early in the morning to chapel, and the liturgy was not read, and they say me that the next hour of service was ten o'clock at night, and that this was only what you call a night-roll to mark down the names of the students. I ask whether there was any regular divine worship during the week, but they say, No! One gentleman, indeed, say, that in former times there used to be divine service at ten o'clock in the morning, and at four o'clock in the afternoon, but that this was done away because it was only useless interruption of daily business. Now, Sir, when I think that Trinity college, Dublin, is the only place for the education of the priests, and that the rulers of this place allow such open contempt for the Prayer-book, I know certainly that the church of England has no liturgy. I think, at least, that there can be no liturgy binding on the priests and bishops of the church of England. But if there be, perhaps you be good to set me right, and to explain me the above facts.* I remain, Sir, yours respectfully, A CHRISTIAN FROM THE EAST. SUNDAY PENNY READER. SIR,-Among the advertisements stitched into your Magazine for this month, I observe that a publication, denominating itself "Church of England," and proclaiming that it is "under the superintendence of clergymen of the united church of England and Ireland," claims extraordinary efforts to be made for its support upon the following statement :-"Among the multiplied periodicals of our day, there is no one especially intended to convey, in a very cheap and accessible form, that religious knowledge which alone is effectual to inform the mind, and, by God's blessing, improve the heart." Hence it infers a necessity for incurring expense and making efforts to supply this deficiency, and thinks the disinterested zeal of its promoters should be seconded by the friends of the church. Now, Sir, I can affirm most conscientiously, that nothing could give me greater pleasure than the success of a work honestly aiming at the diffusion of true religion, and the maintenance of the church, even though it were at the sacrifice of the little periodical which, with much labour and personal risk, I * The Editor begs altogether to decline answering this letter. |