the Offertory. Never was such an unreasonable course pursued before by rational men. But having decided that the Offertory must bear upon the Poor Law, the managers of the Times hesitate not to assert, in the most reckless manner, and in spite of their former articles, that the practice was set aside by the introduction of the Poor Laws in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Were this assertion true, it would not rescue the Times from the charge of inconsistency, in denying its former positions. Why did not the Times always use the same argument? How comes it to pass that so much new light has broken in upon its managers, and so suddenly? We really think that a more humiliating position was never presented by a public journal. If the Offertory was abolished by the Poor Laws, why did not the Times assert the same several months ago? Why contradict themselves in such a matter? If the parties did not know the alleged fact, when their former articles were written, they ought not to have written with so much dogmatism; and if they are now convinced, that their former views were erroneous, they ought to make a public recantation of their errors.

But we deny the position of the Times. The argument has been managed, as if the Offertory had never been considered by the Church, since the introduction of the Poor Laws in the reign of Elizabeth. It is quite true, that when King Edward's prayer-books were set forth, no legal provision was made for the poor. But what can the Times say of the revision of the Book of Common Prayer by Convocation, and sanctioned by Parliament, in the year 1661? By their own admissions, the Poor Law was then in existence: yet the Offertory was still enjoined. Had there been no revision of the book, the thing might have appeared plausible; but as the whole question was so fully considered, and the Offertory was so expressly enjoined in 1661, notwithstanding the existence of the Poor Law, the assertion of the Times is proved to be devoid of truth-nay, to be flatly contradictory to matters of fact. Thus, it is clear, that Mr. Walter's quarrel with the clergyman of the parish involved the change of course adopted by the Times: and its previous conduct rendered it necessary to seek out for pretences to cover its inconsistency. Having always opposed the new Poor Law, it was resolved that a bold course should be pursued, and that the Offertory should be declared to have been abolished. Thus we have the TIMES versus the CONVOCATION of 1661: and whether the authority of the former be the greater our readers will easily determine.

VOL. XVII.-Q

Another meeting of the parishioners of Hurst was held, an account of which was published in the Times of December 7th. Mr. Walter was the chief spokesman. He proposed certain resolutions respecting the meaning of some of the rubrics—and, assuredly, greater presumption was never manifested by any man. The Church leaves the matter to the clergy and the bishops: the laity have nothing to do with the interpretation of the directions which the Church gives to her ministers. If a clergyman is in doubt, he is referred to his diocesan-not to his parishioners. In this case, however, the bishop and the clergyman were agreed: yet Mr. Walter has the presumption to move, at a public meeting of the parishioners, that the proper meaning of the rubrics is totally oppoposite to that which is put upon them by the only authority competent to decide such questions-the bishop of the diocese.

The Times is always in extremes. A few weeks since, it defended the men who have been chiefly instrumental in reviving the customs which it now condemns. It was violent in its denunciations then: it is equally so now, though they are flatly contradictory of the former. In its present temper, the Times would head another puritanical revolution in the Church, and abolish ceremonies altogether. The spirit by which the puritans, from 1640 to the martyrdom of King Charles I., were actuated, was not more hostile to the Anglican Church than that which pervades the articles in the Times and the managers of that journal may see their counterpart in the men of the preceeding periods, who waged war against episcopacy and ceremonies. This new-born zeal, however, must appear strange to many readers of that journal: but the key to the secret is-Mr. Walter and the Poor Law. In "a copy of the proceedings of some worthy and learned divines, appointed by the Lords, to meet at the Bishop of Lincoln's, at Westminster, touching innovations in the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England: together with considerations upon the Common Prayer Booke," printed in 1641, we have, under the head of "Innovations in Discipline," a sample of the charges alleged against some of the clergy, which differ but little from those alleged by the Times. We give the following curious specimen :

"Advancing candlestickes in many churches upon the Altar so called. "In compelling all communicants to come up before the rails, and there to receive.

"In advancing crucifixes and images upon the parafront, or Altar so called.

"In reading some part of Morning Prayer at the Holy Table, when there is no Communion celebrated.

"By offering of bread and wine, by the hand of the churchwardens, or others, before the consecration of the elements.

"By having a credentia, or side-table, besides the Lord's Table, for divers uses in the Lord's Supper.

"By introducing an Offertory before the Communion, distant from the giving of alms to the poore.

"By prohibiting a direct prayer before sermon, and bidding of prayer.

"By singing the Te Deum in prose, after a Cathedral Church way, in divers parochial churches, where the people have no skill in such musique.

"By standing up at the Hymns of the Church, and always at Gloria Patri."

Under the head of "Considerations upon the Book of Common Praier," we select the following:

"Whether the rubrique should not be mended, where all vestments in them of divine service are now commanded which were used, 2nd of Edward VI. ?

"Whether Gloria Patri should be repeated at the end of every psalm?

"Whether the Hymnes, Benedicite Opera Omnia, &c., may not be left out?

"The rubrique to be cleared, how far a minister may repulse a scandalous and notorious sinner from the Communion?

"Whether it be not fit to have some discreet rubrique made to take away all scandal from signing the sign of the Crosse upon the infants after baptisme; or, if it shall seem more expedient to be quite disused ? May not the priest rather read the Communion in the desk than go up to the pulpit?"

66

It will be observed, that the first list consists of what were termed innovations in discipline and the second contains an enumeration of faults in the Book of Common Prayer. This singular tract was printed at the commencement of the long Parliament, and is quite in accordance with the views of the Times, the Record, and their supporters. The above very choice specimens may be serviceable to our modern Puritans in their projected reformation. We, therefore, commend them to their careful consideration.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON AND THE PARISH OF TOTTENHAM.

A dispute has arisen in this parish, between some of the parishioners and the clergy, respecting certain practices enjoined by the rubrics, and which it was deemed desirable to revive. One of the enlightened parishioners says, that the rubric was "the offspring of not the purest era of the Church." This assertion we regard as most extraordinary in such an objector-for, whenever it suits such parties as the parishioners of Tottenham to praise the Reformers, then the age of

the Reformation was the purest era of the Church; while, on the contrary, when the rubrics are concerned, which were fixed at the same time with the Articles, the period in question was dark in comparison of the ages that succeeded: so that the Reformation is a dark or an enlightened period, according to the fancy of those over-scrupulous gentlemen, who are satisfied with nothing which is not of their own devising. The question was referred to the Bishop of London, who contended, and, as we conceive, justly, that the divisions were occasioned, not by the clergy, but by the parties who object to the practices enjoined by the Church. As the ceremonies complained of are ordered by the Church, no objection can fairly be raised by persons entertaining Church principles. It was, however, arranged, with the approbation of the Bishop, that the changes, as they were designated, should be suspended for a year. And what do our readers imagine was the character of these so dreaded changes? They were simply the omission of the singing at the commencement of the service, the giving out the Psalms by the clergyman, and the introduction of the Offertory. These things are branded by a set of ignorant or prejudiced parishioners as innovations-whereas, all are enjoined by the Church; and the clergy who pursue the course recommended by the people at Tottenham are the innovators-not those who comply with the rubrics.

No sober-minded person can contemplate such objections, without being struck with the fact that the cry of Popery is always raised by objectors, who, while they entertain a horror of Rome, have no dislike to Dissent in its almost infinite variety of forms. Nay, they are, probably, in part Dissenters, dividing themselves between the Church and the conventicles. It surely is hard upon the clergy, that they should be overruled by a set of discontented laymen. The clergy are bound by oath and pledges to conformity; yet, when a man is anxious to follow the dictates of his conscience, some half Churchmen in his parish rise up to obstruct him in his course. Who does not see that these parties would act over again, if they were able, the sad scenes of the period of the civil wars, when conformity with the rubrics was as now, charged as an innovation.

THE "TIMES" AND THE BISHOP OF LONDON.

Were any further evidence necessary, to shew the disaffection of the Times to the Anglican Church, we might find it in the treatment which the Bishop of London has experienced from that journal. We allude to the letters which, for several

weeks, appeared at intervals in its columns. The letters from Kensington are gross libels on his lordship's conduct; while the remarks of the Times, respecting the charge of 1842, are just in the teeth of many of its leading articles, during the last nine months previous to the recent change in its tactics. It is well known that the Times has always attacked the Bishop of London; and the cause of its hostility is also well known-namely, the fact, that his lordship was a member of the Poor-law Commission. All this is known to our readers. For a long season, while the Times was attacking the Bishop of London, no allusion was made to the rubrics and the practice of the Church, because it suited its policy to support a party, which it has now cast off-we mean the Tractarians; but now, since Mr. Walter's outbreak, and the consequent change in its proceedings and principles, his lordship is charged with wishing to create divisions in the Church by reviving obsolete usages. It may now be expected, that the series of libels will be continued-for the Times will not lose any of its bitterness, in consequence of having renounced Tractarianism for Disciplinarian Puritanism. It must, however, be evident, that no one can be a friend to the Church of England, who can indulge in such vituperations against one of her bishops, and one, too, who is not exceeded, in activity and a desire to benefit his diocese, by any of his brethren on the bench. It should be mentioned, that it has been positively asserted, that the writer of the letters in the Times, signed “A Layman,” is a Romish Priest. That he is a Papist or Dissenter is obvious, since no Churchman could possibly set his hand to such libellous attacks. The charge has been brought that the writer is a priest; and the answer was not of such a character as to be viewed as a denial.

DISSENTERS' BURIALS.

We have repeatedly dissented from the decisions of the Court of Arches, that baptism performed by Dissenting ministers is to be regarded by the clergy of the Anglican Church. The Court has proceeded on the principle that such baptism was only lay baptism, and that it was, therefore, recognized by the Church. Such a decision is not very complimentary to the Dissenters; and we are at a loss to comprehend, why they should be anxious to have the burial service performed over their deceased children. They repudiate the Church and her services-and especially the funeral service: consequently the only motive, which actuates them in demanding burial, according to the rites of the Church, which they renounce,