maintains the absolute necessity of forming such an establishment as may, "by a sufficient multiplication of parishes, pervade the whole mass of society;" and argues that by such means alone can the established churches of the united kingdom be preserved. "Let each family," he says, "be provided with a church so near that they may enjoy the stated ministrations of a clergyman; and each clergyman provided with a territory so moderate, that by his week-day movements he may ply the attentions of Christianity and kindness, with frequent reiterations, upon all the families." For the effecting of this a scheme has been commenced in Glasgow for building 20 new parochial churches, to hold 1000 people, at a cost of 2000l. pounds for each church; investing 20001. in proper securities for an endowment. The plan is, to build four churches in each year, and thus complete the whole number in five years, and to assign a district of 3000 souls to each church. The whole cost being estimated at 80,000l., it is hoped that 400 persons might be found to subscribe 2007., payable in five instalments of 407. a year. The hope is rather sanguine, but is grounded on the following calculations :—İn the city and suburbs of Glasgow there are 40,000 heads of families, 4000 of whom are thought capable of affording 2007.; and of the 4000 capables, it is thought that one-tenth, or 400, might be found willing to subscribe 2007.;-22,1007. has been subscribed, and the scheme is going on. Could not something of the same sort be attempted in London, and other great towns? Of the thousands, and tens of thousands, that are sent abroad to convert Hindoos, and Caffres, and South-Sea Islanders, and negroes, could not some be kept to convert our heathens at home? Ought not the children to be fed first, and the aliens afterwards? With respect to the necessity of economy in church building, and attraction in preachers, you seem, by your interjectional notes, to sigh at the expression of my opinions on the subject; and I do not mean that I would not make churches as handsome as my means would afford, but that I had rather have plain brick churches than none at all; and still further than this, I would rather have four plain brick churches than one decorated stone one. As for attractive preachers, the people now will not go to church to a man whom they cannot hear, or whom they cannot understand when they do hear him.* They ought to go, no doubt, to say their prayers, but they are entitled to an intelligible exposition of the word of God. When the old woman told Crabbe, the poet, that she really could not go to his church, because she could not hear a word he said, he gave her half-a-crown, and said she was quite right to go where she could hear; and, whether right or wrong, people will go to the chapel if they cannot hear or understand what the minister says to them in the church. Let us, therefore, build plenty of churches and schools, and put good and faithful ministers into them, and the great towns may still be Christianized, and "sedition, privy conspiracy and rebellion, false doctrine, heresy and schism" be "minished and brought low." Your obedient servant, CLERICUS. * Does" Clericus" mean by attractive a man who can be heard and understood? Would that attractive preaching, for which there is such a demand, fostered by too many clergy, meant nothing more!-ED. BISHOPS' FEES AND DONATIONS. SIR,-I perfectly agree with Mr. Clive, in wishing that some means may be adopted to reduce (as far as safety and fairness to all parties will allow) the expences attending consecration. At the same time I cannot avoid requesting that you will allow me to confirm your statement, that the bishop is, generally speaking, no gainer by the building of a new church, and to mention the liberality of some other officers to whom consecration fees are due. From Mr. Clive's bill it appears, that in Lichfield and Coventry the Among the subscriptions which I last year obtained for the purpose of erecting a chapel in this parish, are the following: SIR," In order that your readers, and the friends of the church, may not be led to suppose that so enormous an abuse," as that 461. 18s. 6d. should be universally charged "for the consecration of a chapel-of-ease and church-yard," I beg to inform you that the charges for consecrating, conveying, &c. &c. a piece of land, as an addition to a church-yard, in the extremity of the diocese of St. David's, came to 147. 4s. Had there not been a confirmation in the neighbourhood, the bishop would have had to travel, to and fro, 116 miles for this purpose. I am, Sir, yours most respectfully, March, 1835. MILES. *This is not a fee, but payment in part for work done.-ED. OMISSIONS IN PRAYER BOOKS. SIR,-Before taking my family to church on Ash-Wednesday, I looked over some Prayer-books to see whether they contained the Commination Service. Among the few I possessed, the following were without it, and as I have often felt the inconvenience of incomplete Prayer-books both at church and at home, especially the want of the service for the visitation of the sick, I take the liberty of sending this little letter, in case you think, by its insertion, the attention of proper authorities may be drawn to the subject. Can omissions be allowable to a printer? If we permit our Prayer-books to be published in a mutilated form, may we not expect some day to see some with the modern "improvements?" The Prayer-books I looked into for the Commination Service were as follows: Reeve's Edit. 1801. No Commination-no form of Ordination-no form of Bap- Cambridge Edit. 1824. No Preface-nothing concerning the Ceremonies of the Church-no order for Private Baptism-No order for the Visitation or Communion of the Sick-no Communion-no form of Ordination-no form of Prayer to be used at Sea-no Sunday Letter-deficient Tables—and the Prayer "O God, whose nature and property is ever to have mercy," wrongly placed, and without the Articles.* I am, Sir, A LAYMAN. COTTAGE LECTURES. MR. EDITOR, I have been trying to recollect whether it was in the British Magazine, or not, that some time ago I saw the subject of "Cottage Lectures" incidentally mentioned, with a sort of promise that it should, at some future time, receive a full discussion, and I have been searching (but unsuccessfully) in the volumes of the Magazine which I possess for the paragraph in question, that it might form a text for my present letter. However, the subject seems to me of such interest and importance, and I am so anxious to obtain the opinions of those who have had more experience in "pastoral care" than myself, that I send you these few lines, in the hope (should you think them deserving of a place in your Magazine) that they may call forth a rejoinder from some of your numerous correspondents. In the first place, I would ask, what is the present state of the law, respecting "religious assemblies," as it regards the clergyman of the parish, and to what point may he go without infringing it? I am inclined * Many thanks for this letter. Such editions ought not to be tolerated. Every Common Prayer should contain all the services of the church, and the total omission of the Consecration and Ordination Services in almost every year, is melancholy, not to say disgraceful.-ED. to think that many clergymen, from a very proper feeling of abstaining from all appearance of irregularity, do not avail themselves as much as they might of what is permitted, and I for one have often wished to know where the exact boundary line was drawn. Of course the legal question is that which must first be settled; for although it does. not follow that that which is lawful is therefore expedient, it appears to me that the negative must be true; viz., that that which is unlawful is in-expedient, and that, consequently, if the present state of the law is opposed to every species of "Cottage Lectures," the question is set at rest among those at least who would "submit themselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." If, however, it should be proved that all kinds of Cottage Lectures are not unlawful, the expediency of them is the next point to be discussed, and here again I would beg the opinions of others, older and more experienced ministers than myself. Every one having that most responsible office, the cure of souls, must have found, among those committed to his charge, many who are unable, and more who are unwilling, to attend the public services of the church: the former includes the old and infirm, and for the most part the mothers of young families; the latter need not be specified. Some, again, live at such a distance from the parish church, that they are willing to consider this a sufficient excuse for not appearing within its walls. Now, although nothing can supersede the obligation of attending public worship which lies upon those who are able to do so, yet may not the clergyman, by introducing Cottage Lectures in different parts of his parish, in the first place bring some religious instruction to the homes of those who are unable to attend church, and in the next may he not hope, by these means, to bring to some sense of religion those of his flock who would never come to him, and about whose spiritual condition he can never think except with feelings of the most intense pain? The questions must often occur to his mind, "Have I done all that can be done to bring these wandering sheep into the fold of Christ ?" "Have I anything to answer for in their negligence ?" "What hitherto untried means of turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just might I still use?" I presume that there is scarcely a clergyman to whose mind these questions, or such as these, have not at times suggested themselves; and it is with the hope of having them partially answered, at least to myself, that I have written the present letter, and asked for information upon the subject of which I have thought much, and respecting which there appears to be a considerable difference of opinion. I beg to remain your obedient servant, TYRO.* Tyro will find that all these matters were fully discussed in various letters in the Magazine.-ED. VOL. VII.-June, 1835. 4 J THE WORD "CHAPEL." SIR,-When one has an active enemy ready to take advantage on every opportunity, I do not think it prudent to give up an inch of ground without contending for it. I am ready to fight even for a word—but living in a remote part of the country, and seeing yourself and other churchmen use it in a different sense to what I do, I shall be obliged if some of your correspondents will inform me whether the places of assembly belonging to dissenters can be called "chapels ?" On referring to Johnson, I find "a chapel is of two sorts, either adjoining to a church, as a parcel of the same, or separate from the mother church, and called a chapel-of-ease;" and I maintain that this is the true meaning of the word. Is not "conventicle," or "meeting-house," (in Welsh tŷ-cwrdd, literally "meeting-house,") the proper designation of sectarian places of worship? By looking again to Johnson, you will find on the word "conventicle," assembly, a meeting-an assembly for worship-generally used in an ill sense, including heresy or schism;" and afterwards he explains "meeting-house," as "a conventicle-an assembly of dissenters." The accurate Blackstone has the expression "presbyterian meetinghouse," and on turning over an act of parliament (35 Eliz. c. 1,) I perceive the distinction is most clearly made in the following passage, where "persons refusing to go to church or chapel, or usual place of common prayer, and being present at any assembly, meeting, or conventicle, &c. &c." The legislature has, I believe, invariably used the words in the same sense; i. e., chapel as a place of worship resorted to by churchmen, and meeting-house or conventicle as that frequented by sectarians. Perhaps the word chapel may have been otherwise applied of late by parliament, but if so it is only one of the many bit-by-bit approaches which are made against our fortress. I am, Sir, yours most obediently, MILES. CONVOCATION. MY DEAR The writer of the paper on the " Convocation of the Province of Canterbury," has made two statements (p. 262 in the March Number) to which I would beg leave to call his attention as questioning their accuracy. 1. He states of "the first and second Prayer-books of King Edward," that they "never had the sanction of the church in convocation till the era of the Restoration." Against this, as regards the first, I would cite King Edward's letter to Bonner in July, 1549, as quoted by Collier in his "Ecclesiastical History," vol. ii. p. 276, in which he states, that the "Common Prayer-book was not only agreed to by the unanimous consent of both Houses of Parliament, but that it was settled by the like assent of the bishops in the same Parliament, and of all other learned men of this realm, in their synods and convocations provincial." 2. He says, that "the four state services are imposed on authority of the King, not of the church." Against this I would cite the " Acta |