about explanations, and some fear lest incredulity should be over cre dulous. As I never thought of setting up for a conjuror myself, as I trust that all your readers are by this time aware that the editor "is not responsible for the opinions of his correspondents," I am not ashamed, and you will perhaps allow me, to say that, admitting those facts which the reviewer does not dispute, I could as easily believe that the magician in Mr. Lane's apartment was one of the very men who stood before Pharaoh, as I could imagine these various artists to play off their reflections, or shuffle over their portable picture galleries, so as to find a man with one arm, or a high-crowned hat, or a silverlaced coat, or a stiff knee, just as might happen to be wanted at the moment, in the presence of parties prepared, and with nothing else to do but to watch them, without detection.

I am, dear Sir, yours very truly, Iota.

ALTAR AND SACRIFICE.

SIR-I will endeavour to answer the questions of "T. G.," though I have no hope of my answers affording satisfaction to him. But, first, I will repeat the canon of 1571, which no subsequent act of the ecclesiastical legislature has annulled; because, unless it can be shewn that in applying the term altar to the Lord's table, and that of sacrifice to the oblation of the elements in the eucharist, we have exceeded the limits assigned by the canon, I hope we shall be allowed to stand recti in curia.

"Imprimis videbunt, nequid unquam doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinæ veteris aut novi testamenti, quodque ex illa ipsa doctrina catholici patres, et veteres Episcopi collegerint."

This, be it observed, was the canonical regulation of the church itself: a very different thing, "T. G." must needs allow, from the mere recommendation of certain bishops and divines to whom he alludes, whose opinions, as I shewed in my last, were at variance (on the point on which "T. G." adduces them) with those of the most eminent doctors and teachers of the church at the time.

Having premised this, I will turn to his questions:

1. He asks, "Why is the term 'sacrifice' exclusively applied by your correspondents to the Lord's supper?" The question concerns not me; I have never dreamed of " excluding" the other applications of the term, which are sanctioned by scripture and by the church. But if he means, as perhaps he does, to ask why we apply the term sacrifice (kar' oxy) to the holy eucharist, I will answer for myself, because the church of Christ has so applied it. For the first 1500 years, I am sure that if a Christian had been asked what "the Christian sacrifice" is which the church celebrates, he would have applied that term to the eucharist, "the new oblation of the New Testament," as Irenæus calls it.

2. He asks, "Upon what authority is the table at which it is received called an 'altar'?" I answer, 1, The authority of the Chris

tian language; for (as Johnson cites Junius for the saying) the word altar has been received with Christianity in all the languages of Europe, having been used by the Latins, in contradistinction to the heathen are, as the Greeks used Ovoraσrnpiov in contradistinction to the heathen Bouoc (as Mede observes), to express the board at or on which were presented their offerings to the Lord, more especially the thanksgiving memorial of the death of the Son of God. So that the mere rubrics which direct the priest "humbly to present and place upon the holy table" the alms of the congregation, and to "place upon the table as much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient," are a sufficient warrant for our using the word "altar," because in the English language, and in all the languages of Europe and of the Christian East, that word, or its corresponding one, means such a table, on which such gifts and oblations are placed.

2. We have the authority of scripture for calling it an altar, as in Matt. v. 24, and Heb. xiii. 10, as I shewed before. In respect to the first of these, T. G. asks, “Who can suppose that our blessed Lord alluded to the communion table to be set up in his future church ?" I answer, "Antiquissimi patres post apostolos," (as he will find in Poli Synopsis in loco): and the framers of the early liturgies (as I said before), and though T. G. may think them all very absurd for supposing so, yet if he will refer to the canon of 1571, which I have cited at the head of this letter, he will find that their applications of scripture are held by our church a sufficient warrant for her ministers to apply them in the same manner. T. G. hazards a suggestion, that when our Lord used those words, " he was probably pointing to that very altar in the temple." The suggestion is not a happy one. For since it is generally agreed that the place where our Lord delivered the sermon on the mount was northward of the sea of Galilee, about ninety miles from Jerusalem as the crow flies, one does not readily see the possibility of his having done so. In respect to the second text, Heb. xiii. 10, T. G. says, "I find it to be the opinion of no commentator whom I have been able to consult, that allusion was intended to the sacramental table." If he will turn to Theodoret, he will find it his opinion; if he will turn to Theophylact, he will find it his. How many more he may want I know not, nor have I at the present time the means of looking for more; but these, I think, will be sufficient, according to the canon of 1571, to warrant us in so applying the text. Bishop Andrews's comment appears to pass for nothing with him.

3. We have the authority of the whole church of Christ, which for many centuries rarely used any other term but that of altar.

4. We have the authority of the church of England since the Reformation, for in the first prayer-book of Edward VI. the term altar is

retained.

5. We have the authority of the canon of 1571, which authorizes us to teach from holy scriptures as the catholic fathers taught.

But, says T. G., to say of the holy communion that it is a sacrifice upon an altar, " must necessarily lead the mind to regard the Lord's supper as an expiatory offering." The schismatical vicars apostolic who may chance to cast an eye over the pages of the British Magazine, VOL. XII.-Jan. 1838.

G

are bound to take off their caps to T. G. For as it is certain that the whole catholic church in the primitive ages spoke of the holy eucharist as a sacrifice upon an altar, they "must necessarily," according to T. G., "have regarded the Lord's supper as an expiatory offering." Thus he has converted the Romish error into primitive and catholic doctrine.

Having thus done my endeavour to give T. G. a plain answer to his two questions, I hope he will not take it amiss, if I ask him for a plain answer to one which I will propose to him: which is, " By what authority does he take upon himself to censure clergymen of the church of England for applying to our Christian worship terms 'which are agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and which the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have gathered from that same doctrine,' according to the canon of 1571, passed by the authority of those very persons to whose authority he has appealed ?" From his high tone about" declared sentiments of the church," "the order, uniformity, and decency of our boasted Anglican church," [I hope this is not intended as a sneer, but it looks rather like one,] and of our practice having been "formally condemned by the church," I can only suppose that he has found some canon, which has escaped the researches of our divines, prohibiting the application of the term altar to the Lord's table. If he has, he will oblige me much by producing it; and I promise him that, if it is subsequent to 1571, I will forbear to use the term. If prior to 1571, I will venture to consider it repealed by the canon of that year, which I have prefixed to this letter. But it is somewhat unfair, if he has made such a discovery, that during all his correspondence he should have kept it so snugly to himself. All that he has adduced as yet, is an application, with reasons annexed, on the part of "certain divines" (so Collier calls them) to the Queen. He does not, I suppose, mean to erect this into a canon, or into the declared sentiment of the church. And what does this paper amount to? to a prohibition of the term altar being applied to our Lord's table? No such thing; it is merely that the shape of the board at which the communion was celebrated should be changed; and something in the shape of a table be substituted for the more substantial something which had been in former use, and to which, by reason of the service performed at it, the term altar had been applied: as if a change of shape could effect a change in the thing; or God's board, at which the oblations of the church are offered, be other than an altar, let the shape be what it may. These "reasons," it appears, backed by the weight of Calvin's name, produced an injunction from the Queen for removing the old shapes and setting up the new in the same place. The injunction itself will shew how heartily the Queen concurred, and to what extent the injunction went:

"Whereas her majesty understandeth, that in many and sundry parts of the realm, the altars be removed, and tables placed for the administration of the holy sacrament, according to the form of the law therefore provided; and in some other places, the altars be not yet removed, upon opinion conceived of some other order therein to be taken by her majesty's visitors. In the other whereof, saving for an uniformity, there seemeth no matter of great moment, so that the sacrament be duly and reverently administered. Yet for observation of one uniformity through the whole realm, and for

the better imitation of the law in that behalf, it is ordered that no altar be taken down, but by oversight of the curate of the church and the churchwardens, or one of them at the least, wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used. And that the holy table in every church be decently made, and set in the place where the altar stood."

1

In good truth her majesty does not appear to have shewn more deference to the reasons, which have so smitten the fancy of T. G., than myself. The only reason she can allege is for the sake of uniformity, otherwise no matter of great moment. I must ask one other question. He affirms that, "the church in her rubrics, after due consideration, pronounces the board,' at which we celebrate the holy eucharist, to be only a table." I ask him, “In what rubric has the church pronounced God's holy board to be only a table?" My former question I need not repeat. They are both plain ones, and I hope may meet with a plain answer: a canon for the first; a rubric for the second. Failing of these, I will submit that T. G.'s censure (to use his own words) is destitute of "lawful authority," uttered "at the caprice of an unauthorized individual." I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

A. P. P.

DAILY PRAYER.-FREQUENT COMMUNION. SIR,-I am one of those who believe, that so long as we are without daily public prayers in our parish churches, and without weekly, or, at least, more, frequent communions than at present,-so long as baptism is administered in the absence of the congregation, and catechising neglected, where it might be performed by the clergy in person,we shall look in vain for the decrease of dissent and schism, and rather hope, than expect, to see the due authority of the church restored. In spite of all the difficulties which beset those who would now attempt to return to the true, but neglected, path, their number seems happily to be on the increase. Among the younger clergy I am acquainted with more than one, who would gladly find themselves in a position to resume those habits; whose propriety, to say the least, and beneficial consequences no good man, who is competent to judge, I think, can doubt.

I am aware that a sudden enforcement of the letter of some rubrics would be an incautious, were it a practicable, step; but a gentle and gradual return to ancient usages is not, therefore, either injudicious or impossible. To say that it is impossible, is to assume a point in question; and to make no effort, on the ground of such an assumption, is to reason in a circle:-It is impossible, and therefore I will not try ; and I will not try, because it is impossible.

But the argument generally urged against the course proposed, is present inexpediency. If you introduce the baptismal service in its place, after the second lesson, it is said, you will most probably lose your congregation, and so defeat your own object. Again, if you celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly, you will excite an undue familiarity with a sacred mystery. With submission, this seems to be commencing the argument at the wrong end. And I think these, at least, are cases in which we might address ourselves confidently to pursue the obvious right, and leave contingencies to God.

We should entail but an outward loss in our congregations at most. But I very much doubt whether we have any experience which justifies the prediction even of this result. And I should be very glad to learn what those clergymen have actually found to be the outward result, who, not content with speculation, have been induced to pursue the practice of these measures in congregations where they had previously been neglected. I observe that a clergyman of some note, in the neighbourhood of London, began his ministry, in a populous district, by proposing from the pulpit daily public prayers, weekly communion, and the ordinary administration of baptism in the face of the congregation alone. And there are, I doubt not, many others pursuing, or wishing to pursue, the same course, of whom nothing is generally known. Now, Sir, if these persons could communicate the result of their experience on these heads, and any hints with which practice may have furnished them, they would confer an essential service upon some of the rising generation of the clergy, whose obvious duty of obedience, as curates, may at present preclude their doing more than arming and fortifying themselves against the time when they may be in a position to act for themselves. And they will then act the more boldly and steadily, if now they shall be enabled to store up the experiences of those who are before them. Would any clergyman, who has had the opportunity, as well as the desire, of putting these intentions into practice, take the trouble to communicate, through your pages, such points as the following: Whether he performs a public evening service daily, as well as morning, and at what hour? Whether the introduction of the baptismal service, in its proper place, has, in fact, tended to diminish his audience? Whether he has administered the communion weekly, as he proposed; for how long a period, and with what outward success? Whether, when the number of persons to be baptized, or of communicants, is very large, he can venture to omit the sermon, without offending his congregation; and generally, whether the effect of his course of conduct has not been such as to destroy, so far, the plea of inexpediency, which idleness, and long habit of disuse, in some, and positive inability in others, to undertake such onerous duties, has rendered so common, and, indeed, almost universal among us? I cannot but hope that the mere mention of this subject, if you should think fit to give it a place in your pages, may be of some service. Should it be the means of eliciting information on the points contained in it, it will certainly be an advantage in conversation with those who admit the propriety, but deny the present expediency, of the measures proposed, to be enabled to state, as a fact, that such or such a clergyman had found, by trial, that the measures were expedient, and outwardly beneficial in his congregation. That they would not be inwardly beneficial will not be maintained. But if it meet no reply, perhaps even this notice may prove a spur to the half-formed resolutions of some, and quicken, or, at least, comfort others, who will be glad to find persons unknown to and at a distance from them sympathizing with their best thoughts and wishes, and desirous of labouring together with them for the accomplishment of the same ends.