in it *** this kind of consecration of it as a place holy unto God would have an effect upon your mind, and dispose you to such a temper as would very much assist your devotion.' The force of this remark I never duly felt until I made it my practice, in a tour on the continent, to resort to the ever-open churches for my daily prayers. Never shall I forget the assistance which I derived, in restraining wandering thoughts, and fixing my mind on him whose presence I was seeking. Such, Sir, was the effect on one, to whom God's providence has given ample opportunities of retirement during his whole life-for never since childhood have I wanted the means of "entering into my closet, and, when I had shut the door, praying to my Father which is in secret." But now let me ask (and I would put the question specially to the parochial clergy) how large is the proportion of our population who have these opportunities of retirement? Let the village priest say how many of his cottagers have room enough, in their narrow dwellings, to retire from the noise of children, and from the interruption of neighbours. And yet, of all classes of the poor, these have the greatest opportunities. As the alternative, I will ask the most devotional man, whither he would retire for prayer if his lot had been cast in the crowded courts or alleys of London, or of any of our manufacturing towns? Would he not find it a most blessed opportunity, if in this difficulty he could betake himself to the calm and solemn atmosphere of a cathedral or a parish church, and there for a while forget the cares, the noise, and bustle, of a poor man's life in town? How great a privilege would this be to many of our pious poor on the Sunday morning, before the hour of public worship, if at no other time. Whither do they actually betake themselves? I cannot say but this I know, that the want of means of retirement has been assigned to me as a most serious injury by a country parishioner.

This alone would appear to me a sufficient reason for opening the churches, more especially in our great cities. I think, however, that other incidental evils have followed from our habit of closing them. Chiefly I would mention the notion that the holiness of the church goes in and out with the congregation. If our pious poor were in the habit of resorting to God's house for private prayer, we should not see them (as I have often seen) entering it carelessly, with their heads covered, when by any accident they came into it during the week. Neither, again, could they (as too many now do) regard it as a place set apart for preaching, if their associations with it were chiefly those of prayer both private and congregational. Last, but not least, could our most glorious temples be considered as a public exhibition if they were commonly frequented for these holy purposes? I would on no account depart from the respect due to those whom God and his church have constituted the conservators, for the time being, of our cathedral churches; still, neither they nor we must forget that they are but trustees, not lords, over the house of God. Can it be accounted decent that their trust should be discharged as it is, for example, in the cathedrals of our metropolis. There may be some of your readers who are unacquainted with the facts to which I allude; they are as follows:-at Westminster Abbey all the doors are kept locked, except

a small one in the south transept; here a man is stationed, who demands, in a loud official tone, "Threepence, Sir," of each person who enters that house of prayer. This being paid, the churchman has no time to reflect on the unpleasing incident, when his attention is engrossed by the high arches and windows, the line of roof, and all the coup d'œil of a Gothic cathedral; but as soon as his eyes are cast around him, he finds himself enclosed by strong posts and rails (very much resembling those in a cattle market), which fence off a narrow way leading to the choir. Advancing, he finds a gate (open) to the left, leading into the nave; another (closed) before him, shutting him out from the choir, the altar, &c.; and a third, on the right, also closed, and bearing a board, similar to those at a turnpike, stating that one shilling additional must be paid there, for admission to the eastern part of the church. I have supposed him to have come at some other time than the hour of public prayer. At that time he would learn the use of the aforesaid posts and rails from the entrance-door to the choir: all the gates in them are then closed, lest the congregation who come to pray should see any more of the church than they can catch in passing into the choir. But he is fortunate even thus, if he attend often; for it happened to me, when accidentally in London on the 18th of June, 183-, to hasten to attend the three o'clock prayers, and fearing lest I should be late, I hurried by the door, when, to my surprise, I heard the charge "threepence" pronounced louder than usual, lest I should be out of hearing. "Threepence?" said I, "why, I am coming to prayers." "No prayers to-day, Sir," said the official, "it is a holyday." Thus was the anniversary of our great national deliverance hallowed; and this in the house of Him who "would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple," or "make His Father's house a house of merchandise."

I am aware that all this is supposed to be necessary, in order to prevent injury to the monuments; although, if payment at the door were necessary for this purpose, it could scarcely be requisite to divide the church into portions, with a higher payment for one part than another. But, in truth, the payment can hardly be called any security. It can exclude hardly any one, for most people will pay once, to see one of the sights of London, although there are not many, except the rich, who would like to pay daily. Neither are those who are admitted effectually watched; for having once paid, the visitor may remain as long as he will, by himself, in the most remote part of the church. The truth is, the practice has grown up by degrees, the natural effect of our system of not opening our churches as churches, so that those who would see them must gain entrance as to an exhibition. The real difficulty in abolishing it will be, that it will injure the officials of the church, whose perquisite these sums have doubtless been. This will no doubt be painful; but is it not the duty of a church ruler to consult the good of the church without favour, as well as without fear? This will be the only real objection to the opening of our cathedrals; for, believing as I do of English liberality, I cannot think that churchmen will be excluded from them, only to save the expense of paying officers to secure them from injury; an expense which is afforded in VOL. XII.-July, 1837.

G

all foreign churches, none of which is without its "Suisse." If there were no funds available, I am sure churchmen would gladly subscribe to save our temples from the profanation of becoming a common exhibition.

With regard to parochial churches, the funds might be more difficult to raise; but in a country where there are so many aged persons living on charity and unemployed, I should imagine the difficulty can hardly be insuperable. Might it not be worth while, as a beginning, to make the experiment in a few parish and cathedral churches, especially in our large towns, and to try whether our population may not be taught by degrees the comfort of regarding the church, at all times, (not merely for a few hours on Sunday,) as the place where God's honour dwelleth -the habitation of his house, beloved of all his people?

I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, QUARTUS.

P.S. Since I undertook this letter to you, I observe that a public meeting has been held in London, "to petition parliament to open to the public, without charge, the National Picture Gallery, St. Paul's, and Westminster Abbey." The ground of the petition is, that the national taste will be refined by the more free use of these works of art-i. e., the pictures and statues. I will remark on this subject-first; may it not be well for the church to do, in a right manner and on proper grounds, that which will otherwise, most probably, be done ill and on wrong principles, by others? Next; how can we blame laymen and aliens for considering our temples as mere public exhibitions, if we begin by making them so in fact?

[The Editor has given insertion to the above, considering that it is a question quite open to candid discussion, and feeling that there is much in what is here advanced; although, on the other hand, the abuse to which such a notion, carried to the extreme, might lead, would weigh with many minds against it. The evil is, of course, the danger lest one should suppose that prayers offered in one particular place have greater efficacy; just as the ignorant among the Romanists imagine that prayers offered before a particular image are more acceptable, and, in fact, are led into a gross form of idolatry, such as one witnesses at Rome in certain churches. As to the hope that the liberality of the public would provide proper guardians of the cathedral edifices, by voluntary subscriptions-would past experience warrant the writer in his confident expectations?]

ON PICTURES IN CHURCHES.

SIR,-Allow me to express a wish that the proper authorities would take into their serious consideration the question of the expediency, not to say propriety, of disallowing pictures in country churches. I entered one in a southern county not long since, (newly erected,) and saw over the communion table an enormous painting, intended to represent the Redeemer of mankind. It was larger than life, in glaring

colours, and harsh-featured. It had cost, the sexton told me, sixty guineas. Sir, I could not contemplate it without indignation at so unworthy a production; but that was not the strongest impression it left on my mind. It recalled to view the daubs which are to be seen in the Romish churches abroad. It recalled to memory the first beginnings of image and representation worship in the early church; and I trembled, and still tremble, to think, that, in the midst of what I conceive and hope to be a revival of a more primitive and catholic spirit in our church, Satan should be again insiduously sowing the seed of his evil tares. Can we not recover the wheat, but must have the chaff also? I cannot but think the evil may be timely corrected, if the notice of our superiors be directed to the subject. The simplest course will be to prohibit them altogether the drawing distinctions between proper subjects and good pictures, will give rise to much squabbling and ill blood. Sir, I am your obedient Servant, OBSERVER.

ON ALTERATIONS IN THE CELEBRATION OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. SIR, I have heard much of late of little alterations creeping into some of our churches-of the erection of brazen eagles-of a difference of position in reading the prayers, turning to the east instead of toward the people-of reading different parts of the service in different parts of the church, the prayers at the steps of the communion table instead of in the reading desk, &c. &c.—and I confess it has not been without some feelings of anxiety, "doubting whereunto this would grow." Understand me, Sir: there is nothing in the things that I have heard to which I could possibly take exception, if it were done "by line and rule;" and, if they who have adopted any of these practices have the sanction and approval of "the ordinary of the place," far be it from. me to presume so far as to express an officious disapproval; but if the individuals concerned have engaged in these matters on their own responsibility, I hope they will allow one whose heart and affections are with them to beg them to consider the evil consequences to be apprehended from such a course. Do they not see that they are setting an evil example to others to make unauthorized innovations on their part, and at the same time stopping their own mouths from the power of remonstrating? If they, without authority, leave the reading desk for the more immediate neighbourhood of the communion table, what can they expect but that they who undervalue the eucharist will, equally without authority, celebrate the communion from the reading desk? Verbum sat sapienti.

The rubric says, "the morning and evening prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the ordinary of the place."

As to turning towards the east in prayers, or to the people, which point has been debated in your Magazine, it seems to me a choice of difficulties, in which it is not very easy to strike the balance.

That the turning to the east, away from the people, tends to promote devotional feelings in the minister, and to impress upon him that

he is praying to his Maker, and not reading to his people, I have little doubt; and, of course, so far, it tends to take away the temptation (sø very great to young men especially) of thinking more how the voice will impress the congregation, than how the thoughts will be accepted with the Most High; and where the devotion of the minister is increased, it can hardly be but that of the people will rise also.

On the other hand, it can as little be doubted that, at least among the commoner people, who cannot read or have not books, the turning away the voice will in a great measure disable them from keeping pace in the service, and joining the minister's prayers; and as the object of public prayer is not merely to awaken an indefinite devotional feeling, but to afford opportunity for the people to pray together, both in understanding and spirit, it can hardly be but that object will be so far defeated.

Upon the whole, as the difficulty arising from praying towards the people is of the nature of a temptation, which may be overcome by watching and prayer, and the difficulty arising from praying away from the people is of a physical nature, and not so remediable, while my feelings would lead me to adopt the latter, my judgment inclines me to abide by the former. R. P. L.

VISITATION OF ARCHDEACONS.

SIR,-Will some of your correspondents have the kindness to inform me when the practice was first introduced for archdeacons to deliver charges at their visitations? Was this ever done before the revolution? What deference is to be paid to the assertions of an archdeacon delivering a charge? Is he permitted to censure either the doctrine or the conduct of the clergy who are his equals? Does not his duty consist in simply informing the bishop of what he sees to be wrong, that the bishop, being our superior in order as well as in authority, may censure if necessary? Your obedient Servant, A PRIEST.

ALTAR AND SACRIFICE.

SIR,-In your number for June, your correspondent "T.G." expresses his regret at the use of the words altar and sacrifice, (in reference to the holy communion,) on the part of some persons who write in this Magazine. I have myself an opposite feeling upon the subject, and am glad those words are being brought into use; and as the subject is in effect of a very vital and important character, I will beg leave shortly to state the principal reason I have for differing from “T. G.”

The terms altar and sacrifice, in reference to the eucharist, were habitually used by the orthodox fathers and teachers of the early church; and that no such fiction as the Romanist sacrifice of the mass was meant by them, is, I presume, not unknown to "T. G.," or to any one who deliberately expresses an opinion on these questions. The Romanist perverted their words to suit his own unscriptural and uncatholic doctrine upon the subject; and it seems in consequence of the in