sphere of action of another society,-nor yet, in the spirit of the note, insinuate that all sermons which might be preached by agents employed by the society would be merely vehicles for amusing stories, not for Gospel truths, and Christian duties urged on Gospel principles. The true church-of-England Christian places before him this question-"How may the funds of the society be most effectually and largely augmented ?" I conceive that no one will hesitate to answer, by exciting, under God's blessing, most extensively, and in the highest degree, the public interest in favour of the society. Neither can I conceive that any one will deny that this is to be best effected by making most readily and most widely known the proceedings and actually existing state of the society, by shewing as promptly as possible what it is doing and what it wishes to effect-what funds are required for existing demands to make present labourers in the Lord's vineyard more comfortable-and to supply them to those portions which are as yet destitute. Now surely, Sir, a more intimate knowledge of the labours, privations, discouragements, and success of the clergy already employed in the society's missions, would largely excite Christian sympathy, and come in aid of the higher feeling-a desire to make God's "ways known upon earth, his saving health among all nations," that the unsearchable riches of Christ should be preached to the farthest bounds of the earth through the ministrations of the clergy of the protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland. With regard to the employment in England of itinerant preachers, I agree with you that it is unadvisable; it is a charge upon the funds of societies, it partakes too much of irregularity, is too much like a breach of the diocesan and parochial order of our church, to be sanctioned. But might not this object be attained by preachers annually appointed by the bishop in each diocese? If I mistake not, the custom still exists of licensing incumbents (being M.A.) to preach in any church in the diocese of the licensing bishop; at least, I received such a license about twenty-five years ago. If they, and the parochial clergy generally, were supplied, quarterly, with sufficient and recent information by the committee, the itinerant system would be unnecessary. By means of the archdeacons and the diocesan committees regular annual sermons might thus be arranged for this society (and for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge). In some cases the parochial clergy might choose to preach them in their own churches; in others, they would accept the offer of the aid of one of the licensed preachers. By means of quarterly reports, too, the secretaries of the diocesan committees would have some ground for requesting the attendance of the lay friends of the societies at the quarterly meetings; and the annual general diocesan meeting also, being made to coincide with, we will say, the autumnal quarterly meeting, would have some new information before it. I submit, unhesitatingly, but with deference to the judgment of the committee of the society, these suggestions, in the hope that this my humble endeavour to serve the cause of the gospel may induce wiser heads to adduce better measures, and lead the committee to consider attentively the reasonableness of the wishes of a large body of subscribers, and to de cide on the most practicable and desirable method of conveying to them, and through them to the public, more recent and more frequent information. In no one year can the parochial clergy, with propriety, attempt to preach a sermon in aid of the society until November, because they receive not until then the annual report, agreed on at the previous annual meeting in May or June. In November, the watering places are abandoned by visitors, and occupied solely by the permanent population, on whom devolve, in a great degree, the support of the local charities and the exercise of individual bounty. In country parishes, the weather then no longer allows the expectation of a full congregation; and the possible presence of gentlemen's families brings perhaps little to the collection, as they may be annual subscribers. In the towns, the pulpits have been previously occupied by the itinerant preachers for almost every general religious society in the kingdom. I agree, then, with your correspondent that "the committee does justice neither to their missionaries, who are labouring so painfully abroad, nor to the feelings of churchmen at home." I have not any doubt, Sir, that the committee will without difficulty decide on an arrangement, by which regular preachers for the society shall be secured under the sanction of the diocesans, and quarterly reports be made the annual report and treasurer's statement, at least, (the sermon and appendices being deferred,) be circulated in July, yearly-and an efficient agency be established, through the parochial clergy, by means of quarterly meetings, the proceedings at which shall deeply interest the laity as well as the clergy; and that in every diocese the bishop may hold one or more annual general meetings, at which almost all the members of the society and friends of the church may be induced to attend, and will leave the meetings much gratified and confirmed in their conviction of the duty of continuing to exert their best efforts in the sacred cause. Success in these new arrangements depends, under God, on the language used in framing the appeals, notices, abstracts, &c., on the judgment applied in fixing the periods of the quarterly meetings, on the activity of the diocesan secretaries, under their consciousness of the warm co-operation of their diocesans and archdeacons, &c. &c. The details for that portion of the new plan of management, which regards the country, are so obvious, that a sub-committee of the existing diocesan committees-now palsied and dejected-would decide on them at one, or at two meetings; or they would gladly receive a communication of the wishes of the committee in town on any of these, or other, topics. LITTORALIS. PUBLIC SCHOOLS. MR. EDITOR,-Among the several subjects of attack in these days, our public schools have not escaped. Happily, however, the information that has been elicited concerning their management has been such as not to contradict the pre-conceived notions of right-minded I men concerning them. The spirit of the times, however, must not be entirely disregarded. At this time there is a journal whose professed business is to make reports concerning education; and two of our public schools have lately been called up to judgment. It will be a sufficient proof of the friendly disposition of the party whose organ this periodical is, when it may be observed that after an article of some pages concerning "Flogging and fagging at Winchester," a short note is added, at the end of the work, stating, that since the article was written, the system is quite changed. I believe, however, that I not only state my own opinion, but that of others strongly attached to public schools, that a strong feeling of the impropriety of representing such a play as that of the "Eunuch," before a mixed audience, is very generally prevalent. The only ground on which Terence, I think, can be tolerated, is for its style and its sketch of Roman manners. These may be made to bear under judicious management; but when a public representation of the plays of this author is to be defended, I am at a loss to discover any sound defence for the same. To the pure, we admit, all things are pure; but whether to the youths that are engaged in the task of getting by rote all the objectionable expressions, and to the audience, mixed as it is, this way of settling the question may be applied, I am not quite sure. would only suppose the case of a translation of the play being put into the hands of the female spectators in order to prevent its being a mere dumb show to them, and I doubt not that the representation would never again be graced by their attendance. In one point we have certainly improved on our ancestors-I mean in point of taste, which has become much more refined of late; and why this specimen of their objectionable taste should be perpetuated any more than a sermon be delivered from the pulpit in the style of some of Jeremy Taylor, in all its gross, although expressive, language, I confess I do not understand. The Dean of Westminster has lately shewn a conscientious regard for revealed religion and public morals, by refusing to admit into the society of our Christian poets the monument of Lord Byron. In Terence, ideas are expressed with all their native grossness; in Byron, the same ideas are couched in a treacherous elegance. Thus two different tastes are gratified. Compositions in prose or verse might, I think, be substituted for the annual exhibition, and with equal advantage to classical attainments. If there is some good reason for what appears to me highly objectionable, to say nothing of its impolicy in these times, I shall be glad to know it so as to argue in defence of it. At present the remonstrance of the poet seems to me to be applicable I think you "Nil dictu fœdum, visuque hæc limina tangat. will oblige some few persons by inserting these lines. RUBRIC IN COMMUNION SERVICE. SIR,-In my letter on the violation of the rubric in the Communion Service, which appeared in your number for July last, I find that I confounded the warning and the exhortation for the communion. And, as your correspondent, "M. N.," from his observations on my letter, seems not to have been aware of this mistake, I trust you will allow me to take this opportunity of rectifying it. The rubric, immediately after Nicene Creed, says-" And then also (if occasion be) shall notice be given of the communion." Which, with "M. N.," I take to mean that "if the minister has occasion to give notice of the communion, he must do it then;" i. e., immediately after the Nicene Creed, while he is at the altar. As to the form of this notice, or warning, I should imagine that, like the notice of holydays or fasting days, it is left to the minister's discretion. Let us now turn to the rubric before the exhortation. "When the minister giveth warning for the celebration of the holy communion, (&c.) immediately after the sermon or homily ended, he shall read this exhortation following." From a comparison of this with the former rubric above quoted, I conclude that the minister is to give warning for the communion at the altar, and that in whatever form of words he may think fit; and that on the day of giving such warning, when he has finished the sermon or homily, he is also to read the exhortation, and that from the pulpit, where he then is. Where, then, is the contradiction between these two rubrics of which "M.N." speaks? Where there is but one service, I conceive that the exhortation alone will give sufficient notice or warning for the communion; but then it should always (as it seems from the rubric) be read from the pulpit, after the sermon; and not from the desk, before the sermon, as is too commonly the case. And I may add also again, that the whole, and not a part only, should be read. B. PONTIUS PILATE. I am not MY DEAR SIR,-You very naturally anticipate answers to the paper of your correspondent "H.," in the last Number of the "British Magazine," and, with that anticipation, exercise a sound discretion in requiring brevity of those who may furnish such answers. going to encroach upon your wish in that respect; though, were I to enter into the subject in proportion to the interest I feel in it, I might perhaps find it no easy task to confine myself within such limits as would satisfy you. For I have always thought the character and conduct of Pilate a particularly interesting subject for moral contemplation to "a heart that watches and receives." It has been laid up for many years among my memoranda of things inviting further digestion and disquisition. I must not, however, at present go into the general question of the Roman prætor's character, lest I should be tempted to transgress due bounds; but I shall confine myself to a few remarks on that passage which is referred to in your correspondent's paper, p. 630-viz., " Pilate said unto Jesus, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and power to release thee? And Jesus answered, Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above; therefore, he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." The few expositors to whose comments I have access are, I see, agreed in understanding the comparison contained in the last words as a comparison between the guilt of Pilate, and the guilt of the Jews, or of Judas. Your correspondent disallows this interpretation, in which I concur with him; but he does not give the reason for it which I should give. "He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." Greater" than what? and why? "Greater" (I think, clearly, from the context,) than he would have incurred, if it had been the case, as before stated, that Pilate "could have had no power at all against our Lord, except it were given him from above." This is, in my judgment, chiefly to be understood as a recognition of the doctrine that there is a legitimate power entrusted to men over men by a standing ordinance of God. And the passage is intimately connected with Rom. xiii. 1, 2. Let the words of the two passages be carefully and thoughtfully compared, and it will appear that there is, at all events, some ground for such acceptation of the text in St. John. More fully developed, the argument is this. If human power over the persons and lives of men were only an adventitious acquirement, to be exercised under a moral responsibility to the dictates of justice and reason, as each particular case may determine, then "he that delivered Jesus to Pilate" would have less to answer for than he actually had. But lawful power is not only a reasonable and wholesome social provision, but A DIVINE APPOINTMENT. The resistance to it, therefore, is a species of sacrilege. The person who resists" has the greater sin," somewhat after the same manner as he that robs a church is a more presumptuous offender than he that robs a common dwellinghouse. It may, indeed, possibly be the case, (still supposing the word "greater" to mean "greater than he would otherwise have incurred,") that the aggravation of Judas' sin is restricted to our Lord's own peculiar case; considering the awful proportion which that sin bore in God's "predetermined counsel" of atonement. I mean, that all things connected with that mysterious counsel being magnified in proportion to its singular importance, as a whole, Judas' treachery would be magnified among the rest. It would become a 66 greater sin" than it would have been in a common case, in proportion as the interests concerned were greater, and more specially provided for by the divine regulation of the whole scheme, which placed Jesus in the power of a Roman officer, that the Roman mode of punishment, by crucifixion, might be accomplished in him, as had been typically signified that it should be. Nevertheless, this restricted interpretation of the "greater sin" appears to me less natural, and less consistent with all that is said, than that which refers it to the general argument before stated concerning lawful power. |
