least be dispensed with in cases where the exercise of it tends to injure or disparage a building.

But before I proceed to reply more immediately to the subject of your Correspondent's letter (Suppl. p. 588) it will be necessary to call your attention to the canon in question, which I agree with "A Looker On," has certainly become obsolete, if it has not, as I think I shall be able to shew, been entirely abrogated. The 82d The 82d canon enjoins three things to be observed; 1st, that, the communion table shall be provided with a decent covering, and be so placed at the time of administration, that the congregation may hear, &c.; 2nd. that the ten commandments be set up at the east end of every Church and Chapel, where the people may best see and read the same, and other chosen sentences written upon the walls of the buildings; and lastly, that a convenient seat be made for the minister to read service in. Having shewn then what the canon actually directs, I now proceed to the mode in which it is observed at the present day, and which being sanctioned by authority, must lead to the conclusion that the canon is, with the exception of the last mentioned regulation, virtually abrogated.

At the passing of the canon the communion table was evidently moveable, and, except at the time of the administra tion, it stood in any corner of the Church, by chance perhaps in the place of the ancient altar, and was moved out and set in the middle of the building when the congregation were to receive the sacrament. This indecent practice succeeded the destruction of the altars, in consequence of the prejudices of the fanatical Bishop Hooper, and the table was not at the passing of the canon, nor until long after, restored to its proper place, as we find one of the charges made by the puritans against the martyred Laud, was his directing the altar to be placed at the east end of the Church within the railing; and in the same spirit the puritanical Parliament of that day ordered the table of St. Margaret's Church to be moved from the east end to the middle aile. At length, when the reaction in the af

fairs of the Church restored the altar, and set it up in its proper station, the moveable communion-table was disused; it is true the stationary altars in most instances still continue to be made of wood; but, as in several Churches altars of stone have been raised, and the covering dispensed with, and that under the sanction of authority, the first branch of the canon has ceased to be regarded either in law or practice.

I have extended these preliminary observations to this length, to shew that the canon contemplates no necessary connexion between the altar and the inscriptions. I now come to the more immediate answer to your Correspondent, viz. that which relates to the Commandments, and we find that they are to be set up at the east end of all Churches and Chapels. Now any one conversant with the formation of ancient Churches must be aware that the canon in this regard has no where been com. plied with, either at the present day, or in any Church built in the last century,-it being the universal practice to inscribe these subjects over the altar at the east end, not of the Church, but the Chancel. That this practice, is in direct opposition to the letter of the canon, may be seen by visiting some old Churches. As a specimen near home, I can instance Lambeth, in which the Commandments still retain their pristine situation in the wall immediately above the arch which separates the Church from the Chancel, although in more modern times a second set of inscriptions have been added at the eastern end of the chancel. In this instance the canon has been literally complied with. The ten commandments have been set up at the east end of the Church, “and where the people might best see and read the same," and not placed in a situation where they are generally hid from view by the pulpit, readingdesk, and in many instances by a ponderous stove in the middle aile.

It being seen, then, that the canon has been completely altered, and in modern times never observed according to its letter, I shall proceed to shew that it has never been strictly enforced in any. Though the canon exempts no descrip

tion of Churches or Chapels from its operation, Cathedrals have never been considered subject to it; neither has the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster; nor the Parochial, as well as Collegiate Church of St. Katherine by the Tower (the sacrilegious destruction of which we have already deplored). The consecrated and extra Parochial Chapel of Lincoln's-inn is also an exception, as well as many other Chapels. In these Churches and Chapels, then, the Commandments have been omitted. In many others, and in nearly every one of the new Churches, it is complied with in a manner which amounts to an evasion. At this period it is but right to inform your Correspondent that among the Churches alluded to in the description of Chelsea Church, I can enuinerate at present St. Margaret's, Westminster, and St. Bride's, and St. George's, Camberwell. In the first of these Churches, the centre of the altarpiece is occupied by a relief of the Meeting at Emmaus, the only thing that can be seen by the congregation; the decalogue is inscribed on the southern wall, and consequently could not be seen by half of the congregation, if no other impediment intervened. The letters are gold on a white ground. In the other two Churches named, the subjects are inscribed on slabs of veined marble; and in Hoxton Church (vide p. 210, in the present number), the same obscure practise has been adopted. In all these instances the inscriptions may indeed be seen if looked for, but are destitute of that conspicuousness which was the object for which the canon was framed. The same sentence which directs the inscription of the Commandments also directs that Scriptural sentences should be written on the walls. If, therefore, the canon is quoted as an authority for one set of inscriptions, I would ask by what authority is this part of it so totally set aside and disregarded? It would, I believe, be difficult to point out any London Church in which the latter practice exists. As, therefore, the canon in question has in one respect been altered by the sanction of authority, in another by custom, apparently unauthorized; as it has never been strictly enforced at any time; as a mere compliance with the letter of it is held sufficient, and one of its enactments being totally disregarded-I

think it is not going too far to say that it is by the higher authorities deemed to have been abrogated. It is well known that the canons have never received the sanction of the legislature, and are therefore not binding; how then can the observance of this obsolete canon be enforced, if the Church Committee of Chelsea (as I sincerely hope and trust for the sake of good taste they will) should omit to set up the inscriptions in the new Church. To any one who can in the least admire the beautiful niche and stallwork which composes an ancient altar-screen, and which has been successfully imitated at Chelsea, how painful must it be to see such an object defaced by additions founded on a law dictated by the spirit of Puritanism, and now only held up by custom. When I saw the splendid altar-screen of St. Alban's Abbey, it was undefaced by any inscription. I have since learnt that the commandments, &c. have been affixed to it, and I have moreover heard that this magnificent screen was thus defaced by the command of a high authority. I cannot give credence, however, to the report. It would indeed be painful to believe that this unrivalled piece of workmanship should have escaped the tender mercies of the destroyers of Popery in the first years of the Reformation, and have suffered so little from the canting hypocrites of the Commonwealth; and after all to be defaced by the command of an enlightened living dignitary of the Church of England. No, I cannot but reject the idea, that the alteration has taken. place. I know from good authority, but I cannot believe so barbarous an action could have originated in the quarter to which I have heard it-attributed. To return, however, to the building in question; I cannot help expressing my satisfaction that the inscriptions are not yet set up in Chelsea Church, and let me, through the medium of your pages, earnestly entreat the enlightened Church Committee of that parish, to prevent their ever occupying a station in which they will be of no service, but to deface splendid piece of workmanship, and that only for the sake of observing an useless custom, founded on a law which could never be enforced, if it has not long fallen into desuetude. If the on nade, no notice is

a

likely to be taken of it; the distinguished Prelate, who is at the head of the diocese, will never deem it necessary to enforce a law, which, if it were of any avail, would in this instance only effect an action worthy alone of a Richard Culmer*, or a Praise God Barebones.

It is very questionable, even allow ing the canons to have the force of an Act of Parliament, which they have not, whose duty it is to affix these Commandments. According to a compendium of the duty of Churchwardens, drawn up by the present Bishop of Chester, when Archdeacon Blomfield, (vide vol. XCII. i. p. 220), it is part of the oath of a Churchwarden to see that the Commandments are set up. Now, with the profoundest respect for the high authority I have quoted, I must beg to differ from this construction of the law. If the Churchwarden's oath goes to the length his Lordship supposes it does, then every one who takes such an oath incurs an awful responsibility, as it is equally obligatory on him to see the sentences written on the walls, and it is further to be observed that so sacred a matter as an oath ought to be strictly performed, and this is not done by affixing the inscriptions in question to the east end of the Chancel when that part of the Church is the situation in which this ought to be placed, and neither is the letter or spirit of the oath observed, if the subjects are not so inscribed as to be distinctly seen by the congregation. If I am wrong, and the oath actually goes so far, I should hope, for the honour of the country, that this unnecessary swearing and simulation of truth will be in future dispensed with.

I forbear to trespass longer on your pages, which I fear I have already too much occupied with a subject of a local nature. When I can find any other instances to further satisfy your Correspondent, I will communicate them. Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

E. I. C.

Feb. 26.

I will, with your permission, sling only one smooth stone, and then retire from the arena of dispute respecting the Apocrypha. However inferior to him in talent, I will not acknowledge myself to be so in Orthodoxy. Neither will I thank him for that "paraded" information, which, from the plenitude of his gigantic mind, he has condescended to impart concerning various matters appertaining to this subject; because, with them I was already acquainted. I have said, "I will retire from the arena of dispute.' Heaven knows I have never before entered it; and if P. O. will please to refer to my letter, he will there see that, "into" neither of the "two" errors have I fallen, which he censures; for there is not a word in that letter that implies my credence of "the Apocrypha as a whole, in all its parts," possessing “equal authority.” I'merely "entered my veto against a precipitate rejection of the Apocryphal books, on account of their instructive tendency in general, and of the useful application that is made of their aphorisms and counsels to the circumstances of all mankind;" then adding, "they contain, if I mistake not, more claims to a divine character than their impugners are aware of." But, Sir, when I wrote thus, I did not think of ever being charged with believing the "whole" of them to be possessed of a divine character. If P. O. insist on pressing the pronoun they into his service, as implying this, I assure him that he attaches to that word a "meaning never meant;" for no one would more rejoice than myself to see, discreetly removed, from the coverings of the really-inspired Word, every extraneous and doubtful portion that may have obtained an unauthorized possession there; thus separating the chaff from the wheat. Yet, in these reforming, innovating days, when so many Uzziahs are obtruding themselves into an office not their own, and so many meddling Uzzas are

putting forth their hands to lay hold of the ark" of the living God, I deprecated a precipitate sweeping

BYTER ORTHODOXUS,† who so proudly shakes his spear against "the puny Theologians of the present day,"

* Blue Dick, vide Gostling's Canterbury. + See No. for January, 1827, p. 29, &c.

or relative value the rejectors do not seem to be completely acquainted. I adverted only to one chapter in the Apocrypha, or rather to two verses only in that chapter, which I will here again transcribe, introducing each

of them by its parallel passage, from the New Testament. Addressing the Scribes and Pharisees, our blessed Lord says, "Therefore also, said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will slay and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation."— Luke xi. 49, 50.

That Christ here refers to some sacred authority that existed anterior to his speaking is evident: and where, except in the following passage, can O. P. find that authority? "I sent unto you my servants, the prophets; whom ye have taken and slain, &c.; whose blood I will require at your hands, saith the Lord."-2. Esdras,

1. 32.

Christ, the divine Logos, (who, by St. Paul, is styled "the Wisdom of God,") quotes the above words in a very peculiar manner; i. e. as words

dictated by his Spirit; which words the writer must therefore have noted down, while under the influence of plenary inspiration.-See the correspondent passage to that of St. Luke in the xxiii. of St. Matthew, where, at the 38th verse, occurs this awful declaration, "Behold! your house is left unto you desolate;" and, it is very remarkable, that, in the same chapter of Esdras, above quoted, this correspondent declaration should be found:

66

Thus saith the Almighty Lord, your house is desolate!"-v. 33.

What O. P. and also E. I. C. are pleased to think respecting my baving formed an erroneously partial opinion of the Wesleyan Methodists, may be true. Should it prove erroneous I shall be sorry, as feeling that "charity" to be affected which "thinketh no evil." For both those gentlemen may rest assured, that I have no undue leaning to that sect, and only estimate its political principles by the conduct which actuated its members throughout the whole of those "troublous times," when the very existence of every thing dear to Britons was menaced by the late tremendous revolutionary war. They were then inflexbly loyal, notwithstanding the emissaries of treason and sedition were indefatigable in attempting to turn the physical strength of that numerous body against the Government of their country. Nor, as a body, were they

then chargeable with disrespectful conduct towards the Established Church. For the misconduct of a few individuals among them, they are no more amenable than is the Established Religion for the ravings of such men as the reverend leader of "the Christian Evidence Society." The circumstance I mentioned in my statement, taken in conjunction with what was asserted to have occurred elsewhere (demonstrative of a wish in many of them to return to the Church) appeared to me too important to be passed over in silence." How far that conciliatory spirit may extend, or how long it will last, I pretend not to judge. Should it be manifested by them generally, let us not return them hatred for their good-will. By their fruits we shall CLERICUS.

know them.

Mr. URBAN,

Dec. 10.

FOR Mr. URBAN still lives in spite

of the grim tyrant's wound, his fatal wound, which not one of your numerous correspondents more feelingly or affectionately laments than the writer who now addresses you,-pray allow an old, a very old correspondent to thank SUUM CUIQUE for publish ing his fair exposure of plagiarism, in Oct. Mag. p. 305. Such instances as that which he has brought forward are not very uncommon; so it is to be wished that their being detected may prevent a practice extremely disgraceful to literature. An instance strikes m my memory which may, in some degree, confirm what has been advanced, and, whilst it supports the evident intention of one of your Correspondents, may possibly keep another from feeling too acutely, by shewing that such things are in more places than one. In a village in Buckinghamshire I remember to have read on the marble monument of a young lady the following lines :

"Releas'd, blest maid, from every woe,

Beyond the reach of pain: Thy friends one consolation know, "Tis meeting thee again. "When the Archangel calls thee forth,

And souls and bodies join, What crowds will wish their time on earth

Had been as short as thine!"

These lines were placed there by a Clergyman who claimed to be their author, (though not a very high claim to be sure,) and some years afterwards

I saw the very same epitaph, with a much earlier date annexed to it, in another church in the vicinity of Newport Pagnell, and to have also read it in a publication ascribed to an eminent Dissenting Minister!

Now, Mr. Urban, by what word can such barefaced plagiarism be described more properly, than by the epithet impudent. Of all vanity, perhaps, that of authorship is the most silly; but to pretend to be the writer of another man's verses, or epitaph, or essay, can only be equalled in ridiculous impudence by that of an old woman, who, under some name very like that of Pilkington, about thirty years ago, favoured the public with a volume of very good poems, of which common fame gave her the credit of being the writer, but common justice denied that she had a right to more than about some half dozen lines.

This soi-disant poetess, having confided her manuscripts to the inspection of a literary friend (an old Correspondent of yours, whose letters on the comparative merits of Pope and Dryden are not readily to be forgotten), supplied him with an anecdote which he often related with much glee; for, when he found amongst them a copy of Beattie's Minstrel, and naturally expressed his surprise, the lady mistook it for admiration, and boldly avowed it to be her own! Mr. W. who had some of the irascibility of the poet, as well as the vivacity of the wit, burst out, "why Madam, for shame! you must have stolen this from Beattie!" "No such thing, Sir," replied the would-be authoress. "If Beattie has published any poem like this, he must have stolen it from me!" SEXAGENARIUS.

Mr. URBAN,

PERM

Feb. 7.

ERMIT me to make a few observations on the occurrences which have lately taken place respecting the marriage of what are called Freethinking Dissenters. They assume, that marriage is merely a civil contract, and therefore ought not to be subjected to a religious ceremony. Now this doctrine cannot be admitted by any Christian; for Christ himself, referring to the original institution of marriage as mentioned by Moses, says, "What therefore. God hath joined together let not man put asunder" (Matth. ch. xix. v. 6), plainly intimating that this is a re

ligious union, not merely a civil contract. Their objection, then, must be reduced to the established form of solemnization, and this is grounded upon the acknowledgment of the Trinity therein confessed. It must be observed, however, that neither of the parties make any profession of this doctrine, except in the express words of Scripture, when the man says, "with all my worldly goods I thee endow: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," which words the Unitarians themselves contend do not imply the doctrine of the Trinity, and therefore the bridegroom, by using them, cannot complain that he is thereby signifying his assent to this doctrine.

In the subsequent part of the ceremony, it is true, the belief of the Trinity is most explicitly asserted, not by the parties, but by the minister, in the works, "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you." But if the parties do not believe this doctrine in their hearts, neither are they called upon to confess it with their mouths, and therefore their protest is superfluous. If, however, to avoid the offence which the solemn declaration of this doctrine, in their presence, occasions them, they are determined to retire immediately before the minister shall add this blessing, they will recollect that, though their marriage is complete, the Clergyman would not be justified in registering it, till he had concluded the service, having engaged to conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, when he was ordained. They would thus deprive themselves of the proper legal proof of their marriage.

The effect of their protest I confess I do not clearly see; if it is merely to inform the minister of their theological opinions, I apprehend they would spurn at such a demand, if required of them; if to satisfy their own party, this may be effected, without saying a word on the subject, in the presence of the Clergyman.

With regard to the term Freethinking Christians, are not all men (Christians or not) freethinkers? Can any one control the thoughts of another, though he may his actions? Every man thinks freely, though he may think erroneously. In future let them choose some really discriminative denomination.

G.