If, therefore, every clergyman were in readiness to celebrate the holy eucharist on Sundays and holydays, according to what is generally understood to be the intention of the church, then every Sunday and holyday all who were unwilling to communicate must have left the church before the offertory and the prayer in question could begin.

When we shall have made up our minds to fulfil the intention of the church, by being ready to administer the holy eucharist every Lord's day if a sufficient number can be found to communicate with us, and one or two are desirous of communicating, but "there is no communion" through want of more, then I will willingly allow that we shall be offending against the rubric if we let these depart without affording them opportunity to make their pecuniary oblations, and to join in the prayer which prays for the acceptance of them.

In the meantime, as we are going on in a way for which it seems that the church has made no provision, I am inclined to think that the usual construction and observance of the rubric in question will only add to the incongruity. But I speak with deference, and admit that the rubric will bear in itself the usual construction; and it being, therefore, a doubtful case, am perfectly ready to acquiesce in the decision of my superior, if he should adopt the views of " Presbyter." I am, Sir, yours truly, ALPHA.

ON READING THE PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH MILITANT, &c.

SIR, I have read the letter of "Presbyter" in the October Number of the British Magazine, urging the clergy to read the prayer for the church militant. It appears to me that the custom of not using this prayer is a continuation of the usage of the church in the days of King Edward VI., when the prayer for the church militant was never read but when there was a communion, as is evident from the rubric immediately after the final blessing-" Collects to be said after the offertory, when there is no communion," which remains the same as it was in the First Book of King Edward. Now, it is quite clear that the prayer for the church militant is no part of the offertory, which comprises merely the sentences which are read while the deacons or churchwardens are collecting the alms. Besides, in the first book of King Edward, the prayer for the church militant was placed further on in the communion service, so that it could not be read between the offertory and the collects. The present practice of the church, therefore, is but the continuation of that mode of reading the service which was practised in the days of King Edward, and which has been followed in spite of the later rubric, (which contradicts the other)" Upon Sundays, and other holidays, (if there be no communion), shall be said all that is appointed at the communion, until the end of the general prayer (for the whole state of Christ's church militant here on earth), together with one or more of these collects last before rehearsed, concluding with the Blessing."

And as to the clergy not reading the sentences every Sunday, it

seems more proper, I think, to read them only when there is a collection. I am aware that one of these sentences is ordered to be read in the forms of prayer appointed for the four solemn days; but these services, having never passed convocation, are of no authority in the church; and I should hope that no one who has any regard for the rights of the clergy will ever read them. The. only thing to be found fault with in the present practice is, the reading of the collect and blessing in the pulpit instead of at the altar. It appears to me that the absolutions and blessings ought always to be pronounced from the altar.

It must not be supposed from this that I am at all against reading the prayer for the church militant: quite the contrary; I think there is nothing in it but what may be read every Sunday. Besides, it will remind the people that it is their own fault if the communion be not administered every Lord's Day. I have merely been explaining the origin of the present practice. The real reason for continuing the usage of King Edward's time is, the great length of the morning service as at present conducted, which makes the clergy (especially as so many churches have only one clergyman) anxious to shorten it as much as possible. If the morning prayers were read at nine o'clock, and the litany and communion service at eleven or twelve, or if the morning prayer, litany, and communion service, were each of them read separately (which would be better still), none of the clergy would object to read the prayer for the church militant. As the morning service is at present conducted, it would be absurd to read it, it being a mere repetition of what had gone before the church, queen, clergy, &c., having all been previously prayed for. In conclusion, allow me to ask a few questions.

I. Is it right to say in the litany, "that it may please thee to preserve all sick persons (especially him for whom our prayers are desired) ;" and thus to turn a general supplication into a particular intercession? Yet this must be done, or the sick cannot be prayed for by name in the morning.

II. Is it right to introduce the general thanksgiving before the prayer of St. Chrysostom, at the end of the litany, and thus to turn a general supplication into a general thanksgiving, and sometimes into a particular thanksgiving, which is done when any one desires to return thanks for any mercy he may have received? Do not these things shew the necessity of separating the services?

III. Assuming that this ought to be done, at what hours respectively ought the morning prayer, litany, communion, and evening prayer, to be read?

IV. Supposing a clergyman (who has now in his church morning prayer, litany, and communion, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and the evening prayer at three o'clock in the afternoon) to wish to have three services, at what hours should these three services be performed? Is it right to have the evening prayer twice over, as is now often done, once at three o'clock, and again at six? I am aware that the eighteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea orders the same liturgy to be read at three o'clock and six; but would it not be better

to separate the earlier services? Should we not have more communicants if this were done?-the service, when the communion is administered, taking up at least two hours and a half.

V. Ought not the communion to be administered every Sunday? VI. When ought those to be dismissed who do not remain to receive the holy eucharist? Ought it not to be at the end of the exhortation-"Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come," &c. ?

VII. When there is a collection in the morning, but no communion, ought not the sentences to be read while the alms are collected, the alms to be placed upon the altar, and the prayer for the church militant to be read thus:-"We beseech thee most mercifully to accept our alms, and to receive these our prayers," &c.?

VIII. When there is a collection in the evening, how ought we to proceed?

I have taken the liberty of sending you the above queries, in the hope that some of your correspondents may be able to throw some light upon these things, as it is highly necessary that there should be a general uniformity with respect to them.

I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant,

A CATHOLIC.

ON MARRIAGES IN CHAPELS.

MY DEAR SIR,-Will you allow me to submit to you, or to the notice of some one of your correspondents, should you think this worth insertion in the British Magazine, the following case, a correct opinion upon which may prove generally useful, as similar cases will in all probability frequently occur? A and B reside in the union D, and deliver in a notice of marriage, which is read before the Board of Guardians, stating at the same time the name of the chapel C, in which they intend to be married, situate in some other union, E, in which neither of the parties reside, and the certificate is granted.

Can they require the minister of the chapel C to marry them? or, supposing they cannot require him to do so, can he legally comply with their wish?

In chapels not connected with the church of England, marriages have been so solemnized, notwithstanding their not being within the district in which either of the parties reside, or in which the notice has been read; but whether the minister has officiated from considering himself at liberty to do so, or whether from considering himself bound to do so, I cannot say. I wish to learn whether this procedure is in conformity or not with the act, and whether there is any difference between churches or chapels belonging to the church of England, and chapels or other licensed buildings unconnected with it. In the " Act for Marriages," I can find no clause or clauses which determine the above case; and in the "Amendment Act," only the 34th and 36th clauses which seem at all to apply to it, and these speak only of church-of-England licensed chapels. The former seems to leave the point undecided, whether of necessity one of the parties must belong

to the district in which the chapel is situate wherein the marriage is to take place, and only provides that the bans shall be published in the chapel where the marriage is intended to be solemnized, as well as in the chapel licensed for the district in which one of the parties is resident, which seems to imply that the chapel in which the marriage is to be solemnized may possibly be in a district wherein neither party is resident: but here no reference whatever is made to marriages which are to be solemnized upon the authority of the registrar's certificate, without the publication of bans. The latter only orders that the minister shall solemnize such marriage upon authority of the registrar's certificate, provided the chapel be within the district of the superintendent registrar by whom the certificate has been issued; but it does not say whether or not the minister has permission to solemnize or refuse to solemnize the marriage, should the chapel not be within such district.

In the "Act for Marriages," the only clauses which bear upon the point in question are, the 4th, 26th, 30th, and 34th:-The 4th orders that the church or other licensed building in which the marriage is to be solemnized shall be named in the notice to the Board of Guardians, but without limiting it to the district within which one or both the parties resides. The 26th alludes only to chapels licensed by bishops, and therefore necessarily excludes other places of worship or licensed buildings unconnected with the church of England. My only motive for adducing this clause is to shew that the word chapel in the 30th clause has the same exclusive meaning. The 30th therefore, in enacting that all provisions which shall from time to time be in force relative to marriages in any parish church shall extend to any chapel in which the solemnization of marriages shall be authorized as aforesaid, refers only to chapels belonging to the church of England; but the 34th orders the registrar of the district to transmit to the registrar general a list of all chapels belonging to the church of England wherein marriages may be lawfully solemnized according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England, . . . . and also of all places of public worship registered under the provisions of this act, or registered buildings; thus pointedly distinguishing between the two; whereas the others, as I have observed, excepting the single particular in the 4th, refer only to church-of-England places of worship. It would appear therefore from this, that the ministers of the latter are restricted in their privileges, and compelled to a certain course; while the ministers of the other licensed buildings are left at liberty, there being no clause either to compel them to officiate upon production of the registrar's certificate, should they be within the district, or to restrict them from officiating at their own option should they not be within the district, of that registrar who gives the certificate. Such at least I apprehend is the practical interpretation of the act; but whether it be the true or intended intrepretation is a matter which should be placed beyond a doubt, as much inconvenience may arise from want of a proper understanding upon this point.

I beg to apologise for so long a trespass upon your time or space, and to subscribe myself, very truly yours. E. J.

ON THE VARIATIONS IN THE ORDER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOLY COMMUNION.

SIR,-Having occasion lately to consider the variations which have taken place in our liturgy since the Reformation, I was much struck with the importance of the alterations which were made in the communion service at the last review in 1662; and as many of your readers may, like myself, not have sufficiently attended to this subject, I have thought that a short notice of it might not be without its use, particularly at this time, when the merits of our present office have been made the subject of much discussion.

In order the better to understand the object and importance of the alterations which I have mentioned, it will be necessary to take a short review of all the variations in the communion service since the time of the Reformation.

The first step towards reform in the administration of the holy communion was a bill, passed December 1547, restoring the cup to the laity, and putting an end to the practice of the priest receiving the sacrament alone.

In March, 1548, was published "The Order of the Communion," copies of which were sent to all the bishops of England, to be forwarded by them to every parish, and to come into use at the following Easter. This order consisted of some exhortations and prayers, which were incorporated into the subsequent books, with an injunction that "the time of the communion should be immediately after the priest himself had received the sacrament, without varying of any other rite or ceremony in the mass until other order should be provided."

In the beginning of 1549 was published what is commonly called the First Book of Edward VI. which was to come into general use at the following Whitsunday. Many particulars in this book, and especially in the office for the communion, were objected to by various persons, and particularly by the foreign divines then in England, and who had considerable influence with Cranmer. A revision of the book was consequently determined upon, which took place in 1551; and in the spring of 1552 was published what is commonly called the Second Book of Edward VI., which was to be used throughout the kingdom from the feast of All Saints following. In this book, although the greater part of the substance of the prayers and exhortations in the communion service of the First Book was retained, yet many particulars were omitted, and the whole order and arrangement of the service was materially changed. The alterations were perhaps some for the better and some for the worse, but the old form was certainly the most agreeable to primitive practice; and if it may seem not to have carried the reform sufficiently far in some things, it must be confessed that the Second Book carried it too far, not only removing what might be considered objectionable or inexpedient, and rejecting other things to which no reasonable objection could be made, but also omitting various particulars, which seem almost necessary to