places where an illiterate printer would be most likely to commit them, namely, in the Latin quotations. Thus we find such words as furors, viem, inclementur, dat for det, pacavit for paravit, eluto for e luto, and the like. Mr. Alford, we may be told by way of excuse, lives at a distance from London. But if that circumstance made accurate printing impossible, why did he undertake such an edition as this? Had he enriched the book with valuable additions we might have been willing to overlook some trifling errors of the press; but if he give us only a reprint, we have a right to demand correctness.

I really feel great goodwill towards Mr. Alford, and have, I assure you, no pleasure in exposing his blunders and deficiencies, but I consider it an act of duty to do so. For the republication of our great old divines in these times is a matter of very high importance. Their writings are a noble part of our inheritance as a church and as a nation; we are daily becoming more and more aware of their value, and I am convinced that many of them might now be republished with a good prospect of a remunerating circulation. But the appearance of one new edition makes it unlikely that any other will be called for, for many years to come, and therefore we are positively wronged by any man who undertakes to edit such a writer as Donne, unless he have the means of performing his work well, and be resolved to use them to the utmost of his ability. An unworthy edition, in short, takes away from us who are now living almost all hope of ever seeing a better. "The present volumes," says Mr. Alford," may be considered as an experiment, how far the present English public are desirous to retrieve the treasures of divinity and eloquence contained in the writers immediately following the Reformation. Should they be favourably received, I should rejoice to follow a pursuit so congenial to my calling and studies as the editing others of a similar kind." If Mr. Alford contemplates such editions as the present, I sincerely hope, for the sake of the public, for the sake of his intended victims, and for his own sake, that he will receive no encouragement to proceed; if he be disposed to produce other works in a better style, let him not be deterred, nor let booksellers hang back should his Donne meet with little success. The blame of its failure will not lie wholly on the public; for had I known some weeks ago as much of this book as I now know, the sale of it would, in all likelihood, have been less by one copy; and yet I can honestly and unaffectedly style myself

A LOVER OF OLD ENGLISH DIVINITY AND LITERATURE.

ON THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

SIR,-I beg leave to offer in your pages exception to some of the statements in the "Tracts for the Times." With what I conceive to be the general object of those tracts-namely, the upholding the scriptural doctrines of baptismal regeneration; of the real though spiritual communion in the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist; of the commemorative oblation made to God in that sacrament; of the apostoli

cal succession; and of the testimony of the church regarded as a providentially-furnished guide and safeguard for the right understanding of the sacred scriptures,-I entirely and heartily concur; I conceive these doctrines to be unquestionable portions of the religious system of the church of England, and consider them of such importance that not only must every religious system which excludes them be in that respect seriously defective, but that without them the higher doctrines of our religion-to wit, of the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and others-never have been, and never will be, long preserved. It is therefore with the more regret that, agreeing with the writers of the tracts in these objects, I find myself constrained by a sense of duty to them and to others to offer exception to some of their positions. I will not allude to the paper "On Reserve in Communicating Religious Knowledge," nor to what has been more than once put forward concerning the indelible nature of sin after baptism, further than to say, that it was with regret and alarm that I read those papers, not only as considering the positions in them to be unnecessary deductions from scripture, but as fearing that the practical effects of them (if any) may be such as the writers would deeply lament: the latter being calculated (I fear) to "break" many a "bruised reed;" and the former, to lead to rash judgment, and withholding the means of grace.

My chief purpose is to object to what has been said in the last tract (86) about "Turning to the East in Prayer," and in the tract before (85) concerning the state of departed souls. 1. I cannot agree with the construction which the writer of the tract (86), following others, would put upon the rubric of Queen Elizabeth's reign, which directs, that "morning and evening prayer shall be said in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel, except it be otherwise ordered by the ordinary of the place"-namely, that it must mean the custom of having it at the east end, which was enjoined prior to the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., when it was ordered otherwise. The fact being, that from the commencement of the Reformation great diversities of custom on this point had obtained in different dioceses, and different parishes even within the same diocese, and that the question was furnishing a bone of contention; the more true interpretation seems to be, that the authorities wished it to be regarded as a thing indifferent; and therefore, sooner than run the risk of disturbing men's minds, or awakening scruples by any compulsory alteration, they directed the custom of the particular church (whatever it might be) to continue, unless it should be found so inconvenient as to justify the interference of the ordinary. 2. I cannot see on what grounds the writer rests his statement in the note at page 75, that "our church has retained" "turning to the east in prayer;" and that it is one of the things "not commanded, but implied." The communion office is the only one in which directions are given as to the priest's position. In the commencement of that office, he is directed to "stand on the NORTH side of the table;" when he offers the angelic hymn, he is directed to "turn to the Lord's table," on the north side of which he had been standing-i. e., surely, he is to turn to the SOUTH. When he makes the acknowledgment of unworthiness, he is directed to

kneel down at [not before] the Lord's table-i.e., I presume, at the north side of it, where he had been standing, again looking SOUTH; while ordering the bread and wine preparatory to consecration, he is indeed to stand before the table, but he is to "break the bread" "before" (i. e, in the sight of)" the people," which he cannot do if he stands between it and them therefore I conceive that the rubric requires him to return to his appointed place at the north side, and there to consecrate-i.e., again looking SOUTH. It seems to me that "turning to the east in prayer," as the posture of the officiating minister, is so far from being "implied in our church," that in the most sacred office the letter and meaning of the rubric preclude him from adopting that position. 3. In the text of pp. 75, 76, the writer has collected from the ancient writers many reasons for turning to the east in prayer, which he urges as though of such conscientious force as to make the failing to do so savour of irreverence. Does not his whole mistake arise from failing to observe the purposes for which the ancient writers gave those reasons? They gave them for the purpose of annexing such a meaning to their custom as should be intelligible and instructive to the individuals whom they addressed, varying their reasons according as they addressed themselves to Gentile, Jew, or Christian; but they never urged them, as he has done, as of force to bind the conscience to observe the custom. And therefore it seems unnecessary to notice them further than to say that, even if they could be shewn to have the force he puts upon them, they would only avail for persons living on the west of Jerusalem. Besides the reasons which the writer in the tract has collected from the Fathers upon this point, the author of the Apostolical Constitutions appealed to two passages of scripture as accounting for and sanctioning their custom-namely, 1st, to Psalm lxviii. 33, where the Septuagint has, who "ascended to the heaven of heavens from the east;" but the Hebrew text has "of old." 2ndly, to 2 Chron. v. 12, where the writer understood the κατέναντι τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου of the Septuagint to mean looking eastward to the altar; but here again the Hebrew text* differs from the Septuagint, stating the priests and Levites to have stood, as our translation renders it, "at the east end of the altar" -i.e., looking west. Surely we pay sufficient respect to the ancient custom when in building our churches we point them to the east; and in repeating the creed, in which all are conversant and all unite, we turn to the east; thus realizing to our minds the place, as the mention of the name of Pontius Pilate in the creed helps us to realize both time and place, where the events, which we believe, occurred; and preventing the history of our Lord from being regarded as a myth or fable, as profane persons have sometimes spoken of it: these afford us opportunity for alleging the instructive reasons which the ancients mentioned, and seem liable to no reasonable exception. But, if I may apply our Lord's reasoning, customs were made for men, and not men for customs; therefore the rulers of the church must have authority over the customs, to alter them for the benefit of the people. And that the rulers of our church have wisely exercised that authority in

I speak on the authority of an eminent Hebrew scholar.

permitting prayers to be offered in the midst of the congregations, and not at the east end, may, I think, easily be shewn. For, whatever might have been the effect of having prayers at the altar, with the minister's face towards it, in the ancient churches, (of which we are not well able to judge, as well from the shape of the buildings, and the position of the altar being different in their churches from ours, as from other causes,) it is certain that, in a very large portion indeed of our churches, if the ministers were to have prayers at the east end, with his face toward the communion table, the people would be quite unable to hear a single word.* To insist upon it in such cases seems to run counter to the warning of St. Paul, "How shall he who occupieth the room of the unlearned say, Amen, at the giving of thanks, seeing he 'heareth' not what thou sayest? For thou, verily, givest thanks well, but the other is not edified." I will not say more upon the subject, as I would fain hope the point will not again be pressed. Surely the scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have said enough to allay all scruples as to the points of the compass in our prayers. The Old, where it is written, "Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor yet from the south. And why? God is the judge," the universal Lord, who filleth all space. The New, where the words of our Lord's gracious promise run thus, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I"-not far away to the east, or south, or west, or north, but "there am I in the midst of them." And so before it had been said, "In every place where I record my name, I will come unto thee and bless thee."

The passage in Tract 85 to which I wish to call attention occurs at p. 48, where it is stated to be part of "the church's doctrine" that "in the intermediate state between death and judgment" " the souls of the faithful are purified and grow in grace." I am bound to suppose

that by "the church's doctrine" in this place, the writer means such doctrine as he has very properly described at p. 25, "that though it is in tradition, yet it can also be gathered from the communications of scripture." I must confess myself wholly at a loss to know from what part of" scripture" to gather this doctrine; and if by "tradition" he means, as I suppose, genuine catholic tradition, I must confess myself equally at a loss where in that to find authority for this doctrine. I know not whether the words uxwv kádaρois fitly express the meaning of his "souls are purified." But if he will look to Epiphanius Hæres. lib. i., t. ii., Hæres. 21. sect. 4, he will find vxwv kábaρois classed among the peculiar dogmas of Simon Magus. That this doctrine, or anything like it, ever found its way into the decrees or rituals of the catholic church, properly so called, I have as yet met no record to shew. To attempt to deduce it from the prayers for the dead, which

* I am far from thinking that where it may be conveniently arranged (as in all the new churches it might be) it would not be better that the minister of the altar should minister near the altar; and so all the people look at once towards their Lord's table and to him who waits at it. If the whole of the ministrations might be from within the rails, the comely order of the people would be better provided for, and the dissight, inconvenience, loss of space, and cost of the reading desks and pulpits, be avoided.

merely requested rest, light, and peace for the departed, is to put an unnecessary and unreasonable force upon the words; is at best the uncertain speculation of private individuals, and ought not to be put forth to the world by men of consideration as part of the church's doctrine.

Sir, while I am ready to contend for catholic truth, as I trust I have in some degree on other occasions shewn myself to be, I desire to be no less mindful of Christian liberty. I cannot but think both these are somewhat invaded by the assertions to which I have here called attention.

The editors of the tracts will not, I am sure, think any personal apology due from me to them for the step that I have taken. Imputed to me as every doctrine asserted in the tracts has been, both publicly and privately, silence on my part would only tend to perpetuate mistake, and to give indirectly my countenance to what I conceive to be erroneous. Under these circumstances, I consider that I should have been guilty of a dereliction of duty had I shrunk from the very painful task which I have now discharged, of publicly stating the differences of opinion that exist between those amiable, pious, able, learned, zealous, and excellent men, and myself, who am so very much their inferior. With the deepest gratitude and respect to them for their general labours, and the deepest regret at being constrained thus publicly to oppose them, I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,

East Horsley.

ARTHUR PERCEVAL.

USE OF THE BENEDICTION AND OF SERMONS.

SIR, A correspondent who has addressed you on this subject, February Number, p. 198, has made some remarks on what he calls the common practice of ministers, which in no very measured terms he seems to disapprove. First, he disapproves of the apostolic benediction after the sermon, to those who do not stay to partake of the holy communion. But the same objection would apply equally to the previous use of it at the end of the morning prayer or Litany, when the same persons are usually present. And of that portion of the congregation who then leave the church, a great many are of such age as not to be admitted to the communion. But the truth is, that this benediction is no authoritative declaration, as he seems to consider it, that all who hear the words are partakers of the grace of which it speaks, but a prayer that they may; a prayer which St. Paul offered for the profane Corinthians and foolish Galatians, as well as for the approved Philippians and exemplary Thessalonians.

The blessing is indeed in one sense authoritative, as we have received it from the early church as a form which the minister alone is authorized to give; but as to its supposed efficacy, neither this nor the still more solemn form at the end of the communion service is VOL. XV.-May, 1839.

4 A