Roman church the office for the saint's day, on all doubles, superseded the office for the Sunday, excepting those of Advent, Lent, with Easterday, Whit Sunday, and Trinity Sunday, which take place of doubles. Now I suppose that, when no injunction is given to the contrary, it is intended that we should go on as before the Reformation; but I observe that Dr. Pusey has dated his "Letter to the Bishop of Oxford" the Feast of St. Matthias;" are we to conclude, hence, that that excellent man kept the saint's day in preference to the Sunday?

As for the Annunciation, the ancient churches objected at various times to its being observed in Lent at all; therefore we may, perhaps, conclude that it should be passed by in Passion Week at least; but I wish for more information on the subject. I remain, Sir, with great respect, yours, DISCIPULUS.

ON THE BURIAL SERVICE.

SIR,-Your correspondent "E. K." thinks that the Psalms and lesson in the burial office may be read after the inhumation of the corpse; and he refers to the rubric of 1549, where it is expressly stated that it may be so. An objection, however, occurs to me, which is, that a most impressive portion of the office is thus completely misplaced, by being transposed to the end of the grave service, where the congregation have received the blessing. I cannot conceive it to have been intended that after this they should enter the church, as it were, to supply an omission in an already concluded service: neither do I think that "E. K.'s" reference to the original rubric is quite in point; it seems to have escaped his notice that the office did not formerly conclude at the grave, but with the "Celebration of the Holy Communion," which of course was in the church, and ended with the (major) benediction; so that whether the psalms and lesson in question were read before going to the grave or after it, (together with certain versicles,) just before the communion office, was then of inferior importance to what it is now that the termination of the whole service is manifestly at the grave.

On the other hand, I am by no means inclined to fall in with that apparently lax practice which takes advantage of the want of precision in the rubrical injunction in this case, and deprives the mourning relatives and friends of the departed of the comfort and instruction to be derived from hearing those solemn and highly-applicable portions of scripture. It unquestionably is a hard case that the mourners should be thus deprived, on account of their deceased relative having died of an infectious disorder, or on account of any general rule of the minister's not to admit corpses within the sacred building intended only for the living, or of the said mourners not having expressly requested to hear the psalms and lesson; if these and such as these be the cases contemplated in which it is left to the discretion of the minister to admit the body into the church or not. I would rather suggest a course which I imagine will be found to carry out the spirit of the rubric, and not to deviate from its letter. It is this-that when the body is not carried into the church, but straight to the grave from

the churchyard gate, it should be deposited at the grave side, while the priest and congregation enter into the church and take part in the portion of the office appointed to be there performed; and this ended, that they should go to the grave to complete the service, ending with the blessing.

The first rubric says the priest &c. are to go before the corpse either into the church or towards the grave.

The second and third, "After they are come into the church shall be read the psalms" and "lesson."

These are not directed to be ready only IF they come into the church. The coming into the church seems required, and, I think, at this point of time, not leaving it optional whether they shall do so before or after the interment, but merely with or without the corpse.

And the words of the fourth rubric, "when they come to the grave,' can hardly be limited to the first coming thereto, but I imagine mean when they come thither for the purpose of burying the body.

I have never seen the above solution suggested, and therefore I venture to offer it for insertion in your pages in order to elicit any objections that may be made against it. For the present it appears to me to meet two grand questions,-whether and when the said psalms and lesson should be read in the case of not admitting the corpse within the church; it requires no transposition of any part of the office, but allows it, when the body is not permitted within the sacred walls, to proceed in exactly the same course that it does when the minister has no objection to its admittance therein.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

W. DE S.S.

USE OF THE LITURGY BY PERSONS IN PRIVATE.

SIR,-When I open my Prayer Book, and there read of the service being a daily service throughout the year, and when I read and hear with what zeal and constancy the early Christians continued daily with one accord praying to God and praising him in public worship, I cannot but feel grieved that we are so far short of that piety which was the means, through Christ, of their obtaining the great spiritual blessings they enjoyed, and which we too enjoy in a measure from them. But I know it would be useless to occupy your pages with complaints of what (though a great and crying evil) would not be, indeed could not be, in many cases, altered in the present state of society; though this alone proves it to be a bad state. But the reason of my writing to you is this, I cannot quite determine if the liturgy is proper to be used as a solitary service? Nothing can be plainer than the rubric which requires "the priests and deacons to say daily morning and evening prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness or some other urgent cause;" but the question in my mind is, Whether a layman may use privately, by himself (of course not the absolution, but) the service as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, with that exception? It is certainly entirely intended as a social service;

but as we are in most places (I am thankful to find not in all) deprived of this daily privilege, may it be used as a solitary service? If yourself, or any of your able correspondents, will answer this for me, I shall indeed feel greatly indebted to you; for if it is satisfactorily shewn that it may be used by a layman privately, that will convince me that it ought to be so used when there is no opportunity of joining in it with others in the house of God. This practice, too, besides the blessing attendant on it individually, if it be consistent with the order of the church, may, through God's mercy, be a step towards bringing about the daily worship of Almighty God in his house; for if members of the church were known to wish its revival, and to do all they could do under existing circumstances, surely it would not be long ere the heads of our holy church would provide, as they would consider it their duty, that service which the church's members so earnestly wish, being, as it is, so entirely in accordance with the practices of the primitive Christians. Let us, let them, always remember those words of an inspired apostle, St. Paul, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more as ye see the day approaching." Heb. x. 26. I shall await the reply with eagerness, and remain, Sir, your constant reader, N.

DAILY CELEBRATION OF THE SACRAMENT.

SIR, May I beg information as to the reason why the ancient and apostolic custom of celebrating the holy sacrament of Christ's body and blood every Lord's day has been so almost entirely laid aside? The answer given will probably be, that there would be in most cases no communicants; but to this I would ask, has it been tried? The rubric requires it should not be celebrated unless there are four, or at the least three, to communicate with the priest; but it infers that if there are that number the sacrament should be administered. The chief part of the apostles meeting together for public service was the celebration of the Lord's supper; and why should it not be the same with us? Surely, it is a great omission in any minister to neglect the constant celebration of this holy ordinance. I would hope, nay, I would almost venture to affirm, that there are in every parish at least three or four sincere Christians who would rejoice in being able, with their minister, on each returning sabbath, to celebrate this blessed sacrament. At all events, it is the minister's duty to make the attempt, and let him be assured that it will seldom be in vain; and even if it should be sometimes fruitless, he will have done his duty, the neglect will not be charged on him; and what an unspeakable comfort would it prove to many a devout and humble Christian to be able to approach the table of his Saviour every Lord's day! Surely, it is but half a sabbath's service without it! In the earnest hope these few lines may be of some service, I beg to subscribe myself your constant reader, B. C.

Is it not a minister's duty also to have daily prayers in his church unless justly hindered?

CHURCH ACCOMMODATION.

SIR,-I intended, some time since, to make a few remarks upon this subject, to which my attention was at that time called by a writer, "Presbyter," in your numbers for September and November, 1837. It escaped my memory, however, until the other day. I concur entirely with him, that the greater number of our churches require to be newly laid out, as far as the arrangements for the pews and the desk &c. are concerned. A great deal of room is lost by the old double seats, in which persons are most inconveniently arranged; they cannot obtain, many of them, a view of the officiating minister, and the attention of those who sit opposite to one another is apt to be distracted. The careless frequenter of the house of prayer has thus a great stumbling-block placed in his way, and those who go thither for purposes of devotion have pain and grief occasioned by involuntary distraction. He remarks upon the superiority of the arrangement which obtains in dissenters' places of worship, where the ministers command a view of all who compose the congregation, and all the congregation can see the minister. He adds, that it is impossible to avoid the inconveniences of a different arrangement in galleries of churches. Now, permit one who has had some experience in building churches to submit that it is possible, even in the galleries, to avoid the inconvenience which a "Presbyter" laments. In a small chapel which I have lately erected, I have made all the pews in the gallery single pews, the same as below, and they are placed across the gallery instead of along it, as is the more usual plan. The effect to the eye is remarkably good. A narrow passage runs along the gallery next the outer wall of the church, into which passage the doors of all the gallery-pews open; thus the damp of the wall, and the draughts of cold air which might inconvenience persons who sat near the walls and the windows are quite avoided. The pulpit and desk are placed a very little below the level of the galleries, a little in advance of the altar, (of equal height, that preaching may not seem to be raised above praying,) one on the one side, the other on the other. They have no staircases, but stand upon light pillars, allowing a good view of the altar and prothesis between them. The gallery pews, as well as those in the side aisles under the gallery below, turn at the pulpit and desk, so that just at the pulpit and desk the persons in the adjoining pews set vis-à-vis, which none others in the church do. How, it will be asked, does the clergyman get into the desk and pulpit? He makes use of the staircase used by those who sit in the gallery; he gets into the pulpit and desk from the galleries adjoining each. Between the pews, just where the pulpit and desk stand, there is a passage, the width of a pew, on each side, from which a light narrow platform, with a railing, runs to the pulpit door, and connects the gallery on either side with the pulpit or desk. By this arrangement, there are not a dozen persons in the church who do not see the clergyman. Those alone have their view of the clergyman in desk or pulpit obstructed who are in the very front pew in the middle block below;

he is over their heads, as it were. And some of those few, again, who are in those pews on either side below, under where the narrow platform connects the galleries on either side with the desk or pulpit, have not a view of him in pulpit and desk. But this is compensated to them by the very uninterrupted view which they have of the clergy. man when he is officiating at the altar; to which, by the bye, I invariably return, after my sermon ended, in the morning service, that I may there read a part of the offertory, use the prayer for the church militant, and one of the accompanying collects, before I dismiss the congregation with the blessing, which I pronounce standing in the centre of the altar, facing the whole congregation. I would remark, too, that the gallery at the end which faces the clergyman has two floors, the upper one being elevated towards the hinder or western end, that those sitting furthest back may see the clergyman when at the communion table over the heads of those who are kneeling or sitting before them. Θυρωρός.

SERVICE ON EASTER EVE.

SIR,-In the services for Passion Week, I observe that there is a collect, epistle, and gospel for Easter even. Is it meant that these, together with the communion service, should be used in the evening service of the Saturday in Passion Week? If so, is a clergyman authorized to read the communion service on the Lord's day in the evening service instead of the morning? for I do not find any injunction about it in the rubric. Perhaps I may have overlooked some direction which may account for the invariable practice of using the communion service in the morning. But should no such direction exist, will you, or any of your able and judicious correspondents, favour me with your opinion, whether it would, or would not, be right for a clergyman to equalize the morning and evening services by transferring the communion service from one to the other.

W. G.

DR. RUSSELL'S HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND. SIR,-Will you allow me through your pages to make a few remarks on a passage in the commencement of Dr. Russell's History of the Church in Scotland, which injures the accounts of the origin of the church of Scotland, and affects also the history of the Irish church.

I cannot help thinking it a very great pity that, owing to some cause or other, ecclesiastical history has been allowed gradually to fall into a neglect altogether unwarrantable; and that a study so replete with heavenly instruction should be but indifferently thought of, by numbers whose chief delight it ought to be to read with gratitude those records of the wonderful mercy of God towards men, displayed in the preservation of his church through succeeding ages of hea