once,-a practice which, I think, can be justified only by necessity. Be so good as to inform me whether this be the case. Iam, my dear Sir, your faithful servant,

“C. J. LONDON.” “ Rev. Joseph Fenn."

“Blackheath, December 19, 1851. “My Lord,—The information forwarded to your Lordship is not accurate. Ever since the church was opened, in 1830, now nearly twenty-two years ago, I have adopted the plan (using your Lordship's words) of administering the Holy Communion to a whole raisful, but without altering the words, preserving their singular and individual form and application. For the first nineteen years I was alone. For more than two years my kind friend Dr. Spence has given me his voluntary and valuable assistance. The last time of administering it, to meet the scruples of one of my congregation, I made a slight alteration, which may have led to the report which has reached your Lordship. I will return to my former method of administration.

“The 'necessity' which your Lordship mentions is clear and manifest in my case, as neither my strength nor the strength of my congregation could bear the repetition of the words to each communicant. This will be apparent to your Lordship when I add, that at the very last time of administration, on the first Sunday in the month, the nunber of communicants was 239; so that the simple repetition of the words to each communicant would be equal to four sermons of forty minutes each, while the confusion in my church would be inextricable, arising from the narrowness of the space within the Communion rails, the smallness and inconvenience of the onter space, and the extreme narrowness of the aisles.

“ The number of communicants-in a congregation of 830, being all that the church will accommodate, including free sittings to the number of 200 and above, among which congregation is a large number of schools—is the fruit of twenty-two years' ministry.

“Commending myself and my flock to your Lordship's prayers, I am, my Lord, your Lordship’s obedient, humble servant,

“JOSEPH Fenn."

“Fulham, December 20, 1851. “My dear Sir, I thank you for your answer to my letter. I wish that there were many more churches in which the same necessity existed for varying the order of administration which appears to exist in yours, and to justify your practice.

“Requesting your prayers in these times of difficulty and rebuke, I remain, my dear Sir, yours faithfully,

“ C. J. LONDON." “Rev. Joseph Fenn."

Such instances of Episcopal sanction, and of dutiful submission when the sanction was withheld, might easily be multiplied; but these will be sufficient to vindicate the Evan. gelical clergy as a body from the charge of wilful irregularity in their mode of administering the Holy Communion.

The practice, however, in question had its origin far beyond

the bore precise;, Tell price

the times of the Evangelical clergy. It has existed time out of mind in many parish churches. A short time since, enquiry was made of the oldest Incumbent then living in the Church of England, the Rev. Mr. Bromby, Vicar of the Holy Trinity, Hull. His reply was, that when he entered the vicarage seventy years ago, the plan was to administer to a group of two or three at a time. Mr. Milner had been Mr. Bromby's predecessor, but such had been “ the accustomed plan” long previously. Dr. A. Stephens, in his work on the Commonprayer, though condemning the practice as contrary to Rubric, allows that some of our Bishops, and a large majority of the clergy, adopt the practice.

In Guernsey and Jersey, it has been the accustomed plan to deliver to two at a time since the Reformation,

It may be noticed, also, that throughout the American Episcopal Church the same practice prevails.

After these proofs of long continued variation of practice in different parts of the Church, it cannot be contended that there is no ambiguity in the Rubric. The expression, “ When he delivereth the bread to any one he shall say,” is not equivalent to “When he shall deliver the bread, he shall say to each.” The expression “any one" is not precise; it may in common parlance mean “one or more," as we say, “Tell any one going into that house that there is fever in it." The Rubric sounds more precise to modern ears, because we have before our minds the sight of a railful of devout communicants all kneeling together. But in the early years of the Reformation things were very different. One of the charges against Thomas Cartwright, before the High Commission in 1590, was, “ That when he communicated at the Lord's Supper, he sate or stood on his feet..... At other times both himself and others, as he had appointed and persuaded before, did walk along and receive the Sacraments of the minister as they passed by him.” At the Hampton Court Conference, the Vicar of Rochdale was referred to as “ dealing bread out of a basket, every man putting in his hand and taking out a piece.” Before the Restoration, in opposition to Archbishop Laud's injunctions that all should come up to and kneel before the rails, the clergy often carried the elements round the church to the people in their pews. In such a case we may remark, by way of illustration, that the Rubric would be fulfilled in its most natural sense by repeating the words once for each pew.

It is to be observed, however, that there should be no change of the words of delivery from the singular to the plural. The form, “which was given for thee," must still be preserved, in order that each individual may take the words as a personal address. The singular address to several persons at the same time is preserved in the Baptismal Service, where the three

sponsors are addressed, “Dost thou in the name of this child." So also the first address, though several children may be pre. sented, is, “ Has this child been already baptized or not?”

But the justification of the practice in question does not merely rest upon the ambiguity of the Rubric, but upon the practical difficulty of complying with it when the numbers are large. Even if the case were not so strong, the conduct of the clergy in respect of the Lord's Supper would be sufficiently sanctioned by the conduct of the Bishops in Confirmation, who repeat the words once after imposition of hands upon several persons, under a Rubric which prescribes, “He shall lay his hand upon the head of every one severally, saying, Defend, O Lord, this thy servant" &c.

If there be any legal irregularity, either in the one case or in the other, there is no violation of the spirit of our laws, no implication of doctrine; the change is made under the pressure of a moral necessity for maintaining solemnity, devotion, and the edification of the Church. The apology for the first introduction of the change in Confirmation may, mutatis mutandis, be pleaded on behalf of the delivery of the sacrament to groups. It is thus stated by Bishop Newton, in his Autobiography :

“ There is a method of Confirmation, which was first introduced by Archbishop Gilbert. He first proposed it to the clergy of Nottinghamshire at his primary visitation, and upon their unanimous approbation he put it into practice. This was, instead of going round the rail of the communion table and laying his hands upon the heads of two or three persons held close together, and in a low voice repeating the prayer over them, he went round the whole rail at once, laid his hands upon the head of every person severally; and when he had gone through the whole, then he drew back to the communion table, and in as audible and solemn manner as he could, pronounced the prayer over them all. This had a wonderful effect. The clergy and the people were struck with the decency as much as with the novelty of the ceremony. The Confirmations were performed in less time and with less trouble, with more silence and solemnity, and with more regularity and order. It commanded attention, it raised devotion, insomuch that several Bishops have since adopted the same method.” (Life, p. 105.)

The four particulars already specified are the chief Evangelical defects from the standard of the Ritual, which have been alleged. Others are comparatively trivial, and a little careful inquiry will discover their reasonableness. We do not touch upon those cases in which it is alleged that the language of the Services has been altered. This would constitute a very different charge from that of Rubrical irregularity. Our observations must not be taken as offering any apology or justification of such irregularities. But though we have known a few Evangelical clergymen who have taken this liberty with our

Services, they are altogether exceptional, and meet with no sympathy from the great body of their brethren. We have known more in number who, from conscientious scruples against particular words and phrases in the Book of Common Prayer, have been prevented from taking holy orders, or have afterwards resigned them.

We have said enough, we trust, to remove the reproach, in this matter, from the Evangelical clergy of any want of fidelity to their ordination vows, or to the constitution of the Church.

We trust that, in the revision of the Ritual Commission, care will be taken to remove ambiguities, and obsolete or impracticable rubrics, from the Book of Common Prayer. But it is hardly possible to obviate all misunderstandings. Varying circumstances bring to light many expressions long overlooked. We therefore conclude this paper by a few remarks upon the deference due to the customs of the Church, when longestablished and sanctioned by the authorities. These will be found the best exponents of the law for the guidance of individuals. A court of justice is bound to look to the letter of the law in the first instance, but great weight is always allowed to long established customs when any question arises respecting the interpretation of the law.

Many customs, also, have sprung up, and others have changed without any rubrical directions. Such are the singing of metrical psalms and hymns; the alternate recitation of verses of the psalms by the minister and the people, or the continuous singing of them by the choir; the omission of the exhortation to attend the Communion; the closing of the service after the sermon. In the early period of the Reformation it was a custom that women should be churched in veils. A proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court was commenced against one who came without a veil; a prohibition from the courts of law. was applied for; a commission was issued from the court to the Bishops to certify the custom of the Church, and upon their pronouncing in favour of the veil the prohibition was refused. This custom has been discontinued. In another report of this case, the principle of the decision is stated to be, that a Bishop cannot command a new ceremony, without a canon or custom since the Reformation. The religious processions round the parish boundaries on Rogation days have ceased. Bishop Fleetwood condemned the curate of St. Andrew's, Holborn, 150 years ago, for requiring the people to stand at the recitation of the Psalms, which has since become the universal practice.

No individual is at liberty to violate established usage upon his private opinion of a new interpretation of law, even though backed by an opinion of Counsel, until that interpretation has

Vol. 68.-No. 375.

been affirmed by competent authority. Till then, as well as in those very few instances in which practices have sprung up without a legal origin, or in which laws have become inoperative through changes of circumstances, an existing and long continued custom should regulate the practice of individuals, as having a priority of authority over all extra-judicial legal opinions.

The words of a very high authority in the Church, Bishop Andrews (1618), will confirm the foregoing remarks. In a sermon on the text 1 Cor. xi. 16, he writes :

“Every Society, besides their laws in books, have their customs in practice, and these not to be taken up and laid down at any man's pleasure. . . . . Now, as every Society, so the Church, besides her 'habemus legem,' hath her habemus consuetudinem. There is such a thing as 'mos populi Deii'".

“ The Apostle used divers reasons (against praying covered), but, to say the truth, such as he saw a wrangling wit would elude. The nature of the question afforded none other. It was well observed, and set down for a rule by the Philosophers, that in moral matters men may not look for mathematical proofs. The nature of the subject will not bear them, if not in moral, in Ritual much less : they of all others are least susceptible of a demonstrative reason. The Apostle saw this, and therefore finally resolves all into the Church's practice by custom, confirmed in matters of this kind,-enough of itself to satisfy any that will sapere ad sobrietatem.' In so doing, as he took the right course, (we are sure,) so he taught us by his example in points of this nature, of ceremony or circumstance, ever to pitch upon 'habemus' or non habemus talem consuetudinem.' This to be final."

LUNAR SCENERY. [The Christian Observer is in no sense a Journal of Science; but when Science has assailed revealed Truth, articles have appeared in these pages serving to allay the fears of faithful Christians by exposing the unreality of alleged opposition between Science and revealed Truth. It is also a grateful task from time to time to furnish the arguments drawn from scientific discoveries in favour of the truth of the Bible, as far as such arguments may be appreciated by the general reader.—Ed.]

The surface of our satellite is an object of considerable interest even to the unassisted eye. We feel a natural curiosity to know what may be the meaning of those remarkable dark stains which freckle its orb so irregularly when it is at the Full,