"A Country Parson" seems to think that the Church Missionary Society ought to have been included, and has sought information1st, as to what constitutes a church society;" and, 2nd," which of the societies at present in existence are church societies." (No. 86, p. 70.)

The answers to these questions are short. As to the first, we would say, that constitutes a church society which is placed under the immediate control of the bishops (as bishops) of our apostolic church. As to the next, without going further, we would say, that the four societies which form the Windsor Church Union may be asserted to be most unquestionably church societies, because they are placed under this episcopal government.

In page 73, your correspondent further inquires, "whether there be any real authority for a person to say that the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts is the orthodox and church society, and to deny to the Church Missionary Society the same character?" How far it was desirable to make the inquiry, the "Country Parson" must answer; but certainly there does not appear any reason why it should not be answered, nor any difficulty in answering it.

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel is by charter placed under the immediate control of the bishops of the church, by virtue of their office as bishops, without any regard to their being subscribers or not. In the laws and regulations of the Church Missionary Society, this recognition of episcopal authority is not made, nor even hinted at; on the contrary, has not this society objected to its missionaries and catechists being placed under episcopal jurisdiction in the West Indies, and endeavoured to evade (at least) the power of the bishops on some most material points of ecclesiastical discipline? In proof of this, I refer "A Country Parson" to the memorial which was addressed by the Church Missionary Society to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the correspondence which took place upon this subject in the years 1833 and 1834.

Before I close this letter, I should much like to ask your correspondent, what constitutes a "reasonable submission to ecclesiastical order and discipline?" (p. 72.) The power of the bishops is limited by scripture, and custom, and law, to those things which are reasonable. But as some people form their opinions of the reasonableness of things from their own conceits, without reference to these authorities, and as the Church Missionary Society seems to have adopted this rule in the case to which I have referred, I trust your correspondent will think that their attempts to innovate in a matter which constitutes the very foundation of a church society was unreasonable and improper; and therefore that it is "proved, not assumed," (p. 73,) from this, as from other points, that the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts is the church society.

PREACHING IN GOWNS.

DEAR SIR, If no more satisfactory answer should reach your hands, the following contributions towards one may interest some of your correspondents. I do not think that preaching in gowns is a rag of puritanism, because the same practice obtains at Rome in the present day. The words of Hooker may be accounted for by a usage prevalent even now in many country churches where there is no vestry, and consequently the surplice is worn in preaching. The origin of that vestment being a reluctance to minister at the altar in garments of animal fabric, and a desire to imitate the Jewish hierarchy in so pure and reverential a custom, no reasonable grounds seem to exist for retaining it when we address a congregation ex cathedra, and converse not with God but our fellow men. To make this contrast more prominent, I suspect, the preacher always wore his cap before his audience, whether within walls or without, until the schoolmaster taught him better manners.

That the practice of preaching without a surplice was established in 1562, that is, before puritanism had produced separation, and while the unsettled state of the church made it lawful for every man to speak his mind, is clear from the fourth petition of " certain of the synod" of that year," that all ministers in their ministry use a grave and comely side garment, as they commonly do in preaching." What resemblance this bore to "the long gown close at the hands" enjoined by Archbishop Parker, in 1564, I cannot tell, but it seems probable that the full-sleeved gown is the same, tucked up for convenience to the elbows. It may comfort Miltopareos to learn that this gown, worn by men who had been at no university, "but only one year in my Lord of Canterburie's house," was bitterly reviled by the puritans; and if he should fall in with the "Pleasaunt Dialogue between a Soldiour of Barwick and an English Chaplain," he will find that this very gown was one of the cruelest oppressions attempted by those in power on the lamb-like nonconformists. Nor can we wonder that such hot men should complain of being forced to weare their armes in their gowns whether it were hot or colde." If I remember right, in a robe called the Geneva gown, not unlike the dress-gown of an Oxford gentleman-commoner, but open nearly to the shoulder, this inconvenience is obviated. I am, &c. S. I. E.

66

ON MINISTERS WEARING THE SCARF AND THE GOWN.

SIR,-Your correspondents on the subject of ecclesiastical vestments will find most, if not all, the information furnished by the rules of the church on that subject in p. 39 of the number for July, 1834. On the subject of scarfs, I must maintain, till better informed, that the canons and rubrics furnish no information whatever, in themselves; and for this simple reason, that both in the 58th and in the 74th canon, the only place where tippets are mentioned, they are spoken of as a substitute for hoods. This is distinctly stated in the 58th canon, and VOL. XV.-March, 1839.

2 R

implied in the 74th. The tippet, then, I imagine to have been something like a round tippet worn by children, and, when in fashion, by ladies. At least, I have seen such an article of dress worn by the clergy of the cathedral of Pisa. And if lined with coloured silk, and turned up, as theirs is, it might indicate the degree quite as effectually as a hood. The scarf, therefore, appears to me to be retained simply by custom, and we must go to other sources for information respecting it. The 58th canon, which "B. G." quotes, directly contradicts his statement, for it says not a syllable of tippets, except for nongraduates.

With regard to the first question of "B. D.," it will be seen, by comparing the rubric of 2 Edward VI., and the 58th canon, that every clergyman, in reading prayers, in the sacraments, and other rites of the church, must wear a surplice (in 2 Ed. VI. matrimony is omitted); that at such times graduates are to wear their hoods, and nongraduates may wear a tippet, not of silk; that in preaching, clergymen in general are at liberty to omit the surplice; but by the 25th canon, heads of collegiate churches, and cathedral dignitaries, must wear it on that occasion likewise; and that (by the rubric, 2 Ed. VI.) every clergyman should use his hood in preaching. This is done or not, in St. Mary's, Oxford, according to certain rules Parochial clergymen, therefore, should wear their hoods at all times, and their surplices in public ministrations in general; but they are left to their own discretion as to wearing them when they preach. Custom, I imagine, would decide persons to preach in their gowns in general; but, personally, I preach in surplice for convenience whenever I administer the holy communion În country places, I have often, when young, In seen clergymen preach in surplice.

As to our authority for wearing gowns at all, it will be seen by the 74th canon that all clergymen are required to wear them whenever they appear in public; and a fortiori in church. As to the fashion of the gown, we are referred to university practice; but the gown confined at the wrist, (mentioned in the canon) does not answer to any of our university apparel, nor the wide-sleeved gown to any such thing as our B.A. and M.A. gowns. So that this canon appears to be entirely obsolete; at least as a whole, and in practice.

I leave to others to sift the history of the scarf, upon which it appears to me that our church rules say nothing at all. The tippet being the substitute for a hood, appears to me decisive, that the scarf is not the tippet. I think it will appear that it is the stole; and if so, every clergyman must be equally at liberty to wear it.

I am, Sir, faithfully yours, J. B-N.

Leigh, Jan. 1839.

ON CHURCH VESTMENTS.

SIR, With respect to the wearing of scarfs, mentioned by your correspondent in the January number of this year, is it not the correct notion that properly they are the dress or ornament of doctors in

divinity, but that out of the university they are allowed by courtesy to chaplains, and dignitaries, and likewise to bachelors in divinity who are of standing to take the degree of D.D., and have kept an exercise for it, as being inceptors in divinity, just as incepting masters of arts assume certain privileges before they are created? C. C.

ON CHURCH VESTMENTS.

SIR, I have read the article on "Ecclesiastical Vestments" which has lately appeared in your Magazine with great pleasure, as it confirms me in my practice of wearing over my surplice, not only the hood of my degree, but also the scarf or tippet ordered by the canons, as a priest.

I am also one of the few clergymen who wear the square cap to church, in obedience to the same canon which gives directions respecting the gown, cassock, &c.; and I earnestly recommend all my reverend brethren to do so likewise.

There is, however, one other vestment now become obsolete, but for the revival of which I am very anxious, and that is the cope, which the canon orders to be worn by the principal minister at the celebration of the holy communion. Now, constituted as human nature is, I must think, with the apostolical Bishop Jebb, that "these things, though at first sight they may appear unimportant, are nevertheless of utmost moment." Therefore it would surely be desirable that, at the performance of the most solemn rite in the church, the officiating minister should wear that particular vestment which, as a mark of distinction, is never to be used in parish churches at any other time.

To this end, if any of your correspondents would have the kindness to inform me in your Magazine of what shape, colour, and material, the cope for the officiating minister at the holy communion should be, they will greatly oblige your constant reader,

A COUNTRY PARISH PRIEST.

ON SOME PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW MAR

RIAGE ACT.

SIR,-I beg, through the medium of your Magazine, to propose a question which is not dictated by mere idle curiosity or a desire to express an opinion concerning the process which has been lately substituted as a supposed equivalent for the ordinance of holy matrimony, but is proposed in order to satisfy myself and others, whom I have consulted on the subject without receiving a satisfactory answer, what ought to be the practice of the clergy in a case which I am confident will before long be of no unfrequent occurrence, in those districts (which, however, are happily few) where persons have been found who have availed themselves of the permission of a recent act to be united by a civil contract at a registrar's office. The case I allude to is as follows:-A man and woman

have been united by civil contract without the offices of the church. Subsequently becoming impressed with a stronger sense of religious duty, and entertaining conscientious scruples concerning the manner of their union, they come to the clergyman of their parish to inquire whether they cannot still be married according to the rites and ceremonies of the church.

What, under such circumstances, is to be the conduct of a clergyman who believes that their former contract, however sanctioned by human laws, is invalid in the sight of God?

1st. Can he legally proceed to marry them according to the ordinance of the church, without taking any notice of the former contract? 2ndly. If so, and the marriage takes place after bans, is the woman to be designated by her maiden name, or by that of her supposed

husband?

3rdly. If there is any impediment to such a course, what advice is it the duty of the clergyman to give the parties under such circumstances?

If any of your numerous and able correspondents can give satisfactory answers to these queries, they will oblige, Sir, your obedient servant, M.E.Y.N.

MR. PERCEVAL IN REPLY TO MR. GOODE.

SIR,-As the controversy between Mr. Goode and myself began by an attack from him (in the April number), I am not disposed to receive as a favour from him, what, according to the courtesy of discussion, I am entitled, under your permission, to claim as a right-namely, the privilege of the last reply; and I have too much respect for Mr. Goode's talents as a controversialist to waive the exercise of that privilege on the present occasion. But I will be brief. That the judges of the civil courts have declared the liability to make a church-rate to be a common-law liability is admitted on both hands. The only question is, in what sense did they use the term? Did they mean that it was so in the strict sense, so that the civil courts could compel it? or, did they mean that it was so in the sense in which our legal and constitutional writers apply that term to the peculiar customs of the ecclesiastical courts, recognised and allowed by the customs of the realm? Mr. Goode maintains the former, because the judges so spake of it when acting judicially in their own courts." I venture to maintain the latter, because although from the documents cited in the May number, especially the metropolitical letter of Archbishop Abbott in 1619, and the petition of the clergy in 1664, it appears that occasion and apparent necessity for the interference of the civil courts has again and again occurred-in the whole history of our church and nation, not one single instance has been produced of such interference. I will not go so far as to affirm that this negative testimony, even when coupled with the disclaimer of such power on the part of the civil courts, by Lord Kenyon, "acting judicially in his own court," absolutely determines the