whole Church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven, I shall be well satisfied with this testimony, if such be the will of God, to terminate my feeble labours in defence of his truth. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Lainshaw, April 17, 1847. W. CUNINGHAME. POSTSCRIPT. Since sending off my letter, I have been enabled to refer to Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on Daniel, and I find that I was wrong in affirming that he fixed the dates of the Passover on the basis of the times of the Full Moon only. He affirms, as I do, that the double test of the Phasis and Full Moon is to be used, and that the 1st of the month was reckoned according to the rule termed equal to 18 from the sunset after 18 hours counted from the conjunction. April 21, 1847. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW. MY DEAR SIR,-My friend Mr. Holden's note in your Number for March may, I fear, leave an impression upon some minds, that my statement, to say the least of it, has been careless. I have not Mr. Holden's letter to refer to, and must, therefore, trust to my memory. The remarks in his Work drew from me an explanatory letter respecting my own views of documentary evidence. In reply, he expressed himself fully satisfied, adding that he had previously not understood me. This drew from me a letter of acknowledg ment, in which I expressed my gratification: and here, upon this point, ended our correspondence; myself naturally concluding, that, as no further objection was made or question asked, my good friend was satisfied. At this distance of time, I cannot turn to written proof: for I have neither Mr. Holden's letter nor any copies of my own to refer to. But I am morally certain, that the above is a correct account. In a word, I explained what I had said: and Mr. Holden professed himself satisfied with my explanation. I explained, but did not retract: nor, in truth, could I retract; for, if I had so done, I must have given up the very simple principle, that Sufficient evidence is capable of establishing an historical fact. I never contended for more than this principle: and, if I relinquished it, I must, in all consistency, have become a determined sceptic. I am, dear Sir, yours very truly, G. S. FABER. Sherburn-house, THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW AND CHRONICLE. MAY, 1847. By the A PASTORAL LETTER TO HIS PARISHIONERS. DOUBTLESS there are many persons, even in "the religious world," who please themselves with the idea, that " to-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant," and who expect that 1856 shall be like 1846,-not perceiving, that 1846 was not like 1836, nor 1836 like 1826, nor 1826 like 1816. But the truth is, that, whether we are pleased with it or not, and whether we perceive it or not, a change is perpetually going on, and our yesterdays, instead of re-appearing to-morrow, will never return again. The Bible, indeed, never changes,-the Truth is the same, from age to age, but the state of the visible Church is perpetually undergoing change. Could Charles Simeon, or Thomas Scott, or John Newton, return to their former chairs and pulpits, with what wonder would they survey the altered face of things. Some of their former friends and followers already gone over to Rome, others contemplating departure, and a spirit and temper now prevalent on every side, which in their day was utterly unknown. But thus has it always been. Man "never continueth in one stay." The church in England under James was a different community from that which had existed under Elizabeth ;-under Charles I. it had still further departed :-under Charles II. it was almost ready to apostatize; but under William, Anne, and George I. "to it took a new form of error, from which the revival of George the Third's days was but slowly enabled to rescue it. A late Tractarian reviewer of Mr. Simeon's Life says, that his great work was, establish "a certain stereotyped standard of doctrine" in England, "which, he adds, " it will require another half-century to eradicate." The latest change in the Church of England, is that which the Tractarians, with their allies the Rubricians, have in a measure effected. This latter class,-whatever may have become of the Tractarians proper, is as active and vigorous as ever, and is silently producing a considerable effect in the Church. They are guilty of many absurdities and inconsistencies; but they touch the Church in a vulnerable part; and to deny and reject their proposals utterly, is to put them in the right, and ourselves in the wrong. Their inconsistencies are many and often ludicrous. Their ordinary assumption is, that the Church has made every thing in her Prayer-book so plain and clear, that no reasonable doubt can ever exist as to the right way of performing her services. They then add, that every clergyman solemnly engages to obey the Church's directions in every thing: And finally, they express their regret, that they should be the only parties who render this promised obedience to the Church's directions; and their wonder, that in so plain a matter, they should be opposed by many, even of the ordained ministers of the Church. Yet, after all this assumption, what can be more startling, than to find these very persons entirely at variance among themselves, as to the meaning of these very plain directions. Yet thus at variance they certainly are. We are well assured, for instance, that if we went into the church of Mr. Bennett, the church of Mr. Dodsworth, and Margaret Chapel, on three following Sundays, we should find the Sunday morning service performed,-not on one uniform system, but in three different manners. We have not watched over these things, we have taken no notes, but we know, from much testimony, that various differences and discrepances exist, even among these three earnest Rubricians, all residing in the same division of the metropolis. The assumption, then, that the Church has left us a clear and explicit rule, from which no one need depart, is seen to be utterly groundless, inasmuch as the very persons who affirm this, differ greatly as to what that rule or system is. As instructors or guides, then, we reject the Rubricians. But in another path they may be useful. They are searching and trying every part of the Prayer-book; and while they profess to abhor the very idea of innovation, it is far from improbable that they may propose and carry some modifications, which will be, practically, both innovations and improvements. Here is Mr. Bennett, of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, a professedly strict Rubrician, boldly putting forth the following proposal: "All well know, from frequent observations in the Pulpit, that I have very much at heart a further improvement in the manner of performing Divine Service on Sundays. That is, the commencing of our Morning Prayer at an earlier hour, and allowing an interval to elapse before we commence the Service of Holy Communion. This is already done, on all Week Days, and on all the Fasts and Festivals of the Church, and the value of the division of the Service on these days is so great, and so readily acknowledged, that I am not without hope, but that in time, we shall all readily embrace the same method on the Lord's Day also. The labor, anxiety, and mental pressure, both upon the Clergy as well as upon the Laity, at least such of them as are Communicants, is overwhelming, occupied as we are with an average of 120 Communicants every Lord's Day. We now begin the Service at Eleven, and seldom conclude before half-past Two. At half-past Two the Congregation come in for the Evening Service, women for Churching, and children for Baptism; so that we are occupied with very little intermission, from Eleven o'clock, A.M., to Five, P.M., that is, six hours; and that, remember, with the most solemn offices to perform, requiring the utmost stretch of the mind, in the presence of a congregation of seldom less than 1700 persons in the Morning, and perhaps 1200 in the Evening; and withal the second Evening Service following closely after, at half-past Six, P.M. "Now I do not grudge this labor-God forbid. I rejoice in it. Only I fear lest, as we are but as yet bodily creatures, the earthly part of us, the body and the mind will eventually give way, and we shall sink under it. I fear also, that although we have already weekly communion, still many may be deterred from the Holy Sacrament, particularly invalids, and the aged, and many women, and above all the poor, from the great length of time now occupied, and so there be a hindrance in the divine work to many souls."(pp. 9, 10.) Mr. Bennett notices and replies to several objections, and then adds : "Innovation is on the other side. Innovation must be laid to the charge of those who have mingled together Services which were meant to be separate; not to those who desire to restore their ancient uses. He that only carries his ideas of the Church to the beginning of his own life, is not competent to speak about Innovations. Now let us hear what is said by an eminent writer on the Church Services. "The original custom of the Church, Eastern and Western, was to celebrate the Matins and the Communion at different hours. Such is still the custom at those three Cathedrals abovementioned, [Winchester, Worcester, and Hereford,] and at the College of Winchester; and, as Wheatly informs us, formerly at Merton College, Oxford; and tradition gives the same account of Canterbury, and possibly of many other places. It would appear from passages in Archbishop Grindal's Life, that the same custom prevailed in the Diocese of York, till altered by his authority. Whether his interference in this respect was beneficial, is more than questionable. From many circumstances of his life, it is evident that his early foreign training had incapacitated him from a sufficiently discriminative estimate of our Liturgy. In country parishes indeed, where the population is scattered, this division might have the effect of inducing a neglect either of the Morning or the Communion Service, since attendance on both would often be impracticable. But in towns and in Cathedral cities especially, this objection does not exist, from the nearness of the inhabitants to the Churches. The division might have the effect, in the first place, of giving to the worshippers a more distinct apprehension of the peculiar character of each several Service, who now, from the extreme length of the three conjoined offices (especially on Communion Sundays) are unwillingly compelled to absent themselves; and in the last place, of affording opportunities to different members of families, who now cannot attend simultaneously, of going to Church once at least in the morning, whereas now many are obliged to postpone their public devotions till the evening. Besides this, as regards the Cathedral Service in particular, all excuse would be removed for omitting any part of the prescribed office (as the Anthem), or of mutilating any of the characteristic features of the Cathedral mode. A simple recurrence to the spirit of the Church's regulations in this respect, as many others, would supersede many of those awkward and unauthorized contrivances, which are now often considered necessary. "Were the Communicants as numerous as every zealous clergyman assuredly desires, such a division would be imperatively necessary: even now is it not required in at least the great London Churches?' "—(p. 12.) Mr. Bennett then details some of the absurdities and incongruities, into which we are forced by the present system. He says, "I would desire to put before you, in a short way, the inconsistencies involved in a junction of the Services at Eleven o'clock. "1. In the Collect for Grace, we thank God that He has brought us ‘safely to the beginning of this day,' the hour of so doing being noon, and the sun at its meridian. 2. We repeat (one certainly must be needless.) 1. Two addresses to the People. 2. Two Confessions of Sin. 3. Two Absolutions from Sin. 4. Two Creeds. 5. Two Sets of Lessons:-1. The Lessons of Matins. 2. The Law, Gospel, and Epistle. 6. Two Sets of Psalmody 1. The Psalms of David. and Anthems 2. The Hymns of the Eucharist. 7. Two Prayers for the Queen. 8. The Lord's Prayer five times. "Now let any candid person examine the constitution of the two Services without the prejudice of habit. The whole spirit of each is most assuredly independent of the other, just as much as Evensong is independent of Matins." (p. 13.) There is another most undesirable circumstance, connected with the present system, which Mr. Bennett has not noticed; and which generally escapes observation, inasmuch as it does not much concern either the writers or the readers on these subjects; but distinct and a lower, but very numerous class. a Of our domestic servants, and of the bulk of the working-people in towns, few, comparatively, attend the Sunday morning service. In families where their spiritual concerns are regarded, the former class is generally desired to attend the two later services,-that in the afternoon, and that in the evening. Those who so direct them, |