mutual co-operation. We beseech you to think upon, and act in, this matter under a conviction, that for the wilful omission of a positive duty, as well as known violation of a sacred law, we are answerable to the Judge of all the earth, who hath commanded us to keep holy the Sabbath-day.

"We call especially, on all Churchwardens, and all civil and parochial officers, to do that which, by the engagement of a solemn oath, they are bound to do. But we also call upon you, and every inhabitant of our villages, to lend your aid. Improvement, to be general, must begin in private families-Every person must be careful that no offence is given by himself.

"Let us only call to mind the inconsistency which exists between our devotions and our conduct. We call the Lord's day “holy" and "blessed." Is holiness consistent with such profanation? Can a blessing be expected when there is so much disobedience? We pray, "thy will be done in earth." Shall we tacitly countenance this open violation of it? We call this day, a day of rest-but assuredly, neither temporal rest can be enjoyed in this life; nor will the rest which remaineth for the people of God' follow hereafter upon any systematic violation of the Lord's day.

"We conclude, with again beseeching you, to aid in restoring the better observance of this sacred day, both by your own domestic arrangements, and by a due use of the influence you may possess over others. By no other means can you more effectually consult the temporal and spiritual interests of yourselves and of all connected with you. When we look around on the multitudes waiting with ourselves for the coming of that Almighty Lord to whom we must give account, and reflect, that many, scarcely knowing what they do, may, through our negligence, (Ezek. iii. 17, 21.) involve themselves in deeper guilt, by continuing to profane and violate the Lord's day, we feel compelled to recommend this subject to your serious and immediate attention. "We are, Your faithful servants and pastors,

(Signed) "H. C. Jones, West-ham; I. W. Burford, West-ham; R. Collett, Little Ilford; G. I. Brooks, East-ham; O. Lodge, Barking; W. Gilly, Wanstead; G. R. Gray, Woodford; W. Wilson, Walthamstow; M. Terrington, Walthamstow; B. Nicholls, Walthamstow; C. H. Laprimandaye, Leyton; G. Hughes, Leyton; J. C. Wigram, Leyton."

BISHOP PEARSON.

MR. EDITOR,-In a Note, contained in the valuable edition of Burnet's History of his own Time, which recently issued from the Clarendon Press, on a passage relating to Bishop Pearson, in which Burnet mentions the melancholy fact that this great man entirely lost his faculties before his death,- the learned Annotator refers to "an interesting letter of the learned Mr. Dodwell, published lately, in which his interview with this great man, after a failure of the powers of his mind, is described."-Perhaps some of your readers may be able to point out in what collection this letter is to be found. Every thing, however trifling, relating to this great and good man, must be read with interest; and we need not fear any thing disrespectful to his memory from the pen of his friend. The note is contained in p. 134 of the third volume of the Oxford Edition of Burnet.

I remain, Sir, your obedient Servant,

CLERICUS.

PRAYER FOR THE HIGH COURT OF PARLIAMENT.

1

MR. EDITOR, -Being curate of an obscure parish in the most northern diocese of England, I have not till lately had an opportunity of seeing Bishop Mant's popular and useful edition of the Common Prayer Book. One of the first parts I turned to was the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, respecting which I found it stated, in a Note, extracted from Archbishop Secker's Sermons, "that this prayer was composed, and originally used, in the reign of a prince acknowledged to be unfeignedly religious, King Charles the First." This statement surprised, and somewhat disturbed me; for I had confidently assumed, in a Visitation Sermon, about twelve months before, that the Prayer was introduced in the reign of Charles the Second. This I did on the authority of Bishop Burnet, who, in his History of his own Time, speaking of what was done preparatory to the passing of the Act of Uniformity, in March, 166, xiv. Carol. II. says, "Some few alterations were made in the Liturgy by the Bishops themselves: a few new collects were made, as the Prayer for all Conditions of Men, and the General Thanksgiving. A collect was also drawn for the Parliament, in which a new epithet was added to the King's title, that gave great offence, and occasioned much indecent raillery: he was styled our most Religious King."

Bishop Burnet, who lived at the time, could hardly be mistaken about a matter of fact so palpable,-an occurrence so marked as he states the introduction of this prayer, with this new epithet, to have been. I should, therefore, still have considered his authority decisive against Secker's accuracy, had it not been for the support which Bishop Mant gives to the latter, in these words: "The first and last parts of this Prayer are taken from one with the same title among the additions and alterations made in the Litany and Prayers of the Church, by the command of Charles the First. The intermediate part appears to have been new at the Restoration. Edit."

It is much to be regretted that the learned Editor has not given the authority upon which he makes this statement; for it seems to sustain the accuracy of Archbishop Secker, at the expense of that of Collis, whom the Editor quotes in the Notes on the same Prayer; of Nicholls, whose account he adopts in his Historical Introduction; of Burnet, who speaks from his own personal knowledge; and, I may add, of Dean Comber, who also lived at the time, and who devoted himself chiefly to Liturgical Researches; for in the following passage of his Practical Discourse upon the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, he clearly speaks of it as introduced after the Restoration: "And verily when the late long Parliament would be no more under the King, but above him and against him, no good subject could or ought to pray for any thing, but that they might see their error and submit; but now, when we have loyal Parliaments, who love and honour the King, and do humbly advise, not arrogantly compel him, we can pray heartily and cheerfully for them."

No one can be better acquainted with the learned works of Nicholls, Comber, and Burnet, than the present Bishop of Down

and Connor; and no one less disposed to undervalue their testimony, on any point of ecclesiastical history: yet he appears in the abovecited Editorial Note, to decide authoritatively against them on a simple point, most intimately connected with their peculiar studies, and lying completely within the sphere of their own personal knowledge.*

Anxious to find out the grounds of this decision, I availed myself of all the sources of information, which a short visit to Cambridge afforded me, for that purpose. In the first place, I referred to the works of Burnet and Comber and Nicholls, and found their testimony to be really what I have stated. Next, I carefully examined several copies of the Common Prayer Book, printed at different dates in the reign of Charles I., and in none of them could I find any Prayer for the Parliament. I then consulted "The Alliance of Divine Offices, exhibiting all the Liturgies of the Church of England since the Reformation, as also, the late Scotch Service Book, with all their respective Variations, and upon them all Annotations. . . . by Hamon L'Estrange, Esq." This learned and useful work, begun in the reign of Charles I. resumed four years, and published one year before the Restoration, viz. a. D. 1659, gives a synopsis of all the variation of the English Liturgy, antecedent to the last review; but contains no trace of our Prayer for the High Court of Parliament. I also found, in the Public Library, a folio Prayer Book, printed in London, by John Bill, printer to the King's most excellent Majesty, in the year 1661; with the additions and alterations made at the last review (about the end of that same year) noted in MS. In this copy, nothing like the prayer in question is printed, but the whole prayer is added in MS.

Having thus satisfied myself that neither our present Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, nor any prayer at all resembling it, was actually admitted into the Liturgy of the Church of England, before the passing of the last Act of Uniformity, (xiv. Car. II.) I was still anxious to discover, what could have led Archbishop Secker and Bishop Mant to express themselves, as if it were a well-known fact, that a prayer essentially the same was introduced in the reign of Charles I. With this view, I turned to Secker's Sermons, and found the passage quoted by Mant, in Vol. VI. Sermon IX. with a reference to Wilkins's Concilia, Vol. IV. p. 539, as his authority for saying, that "this prayer was composed and originally used in the reign of King Charles the First." The following extracts both occur in the page referred to by Secker, among the proceedings of the disastrous Convocation, Anno Christi 1640, Archiepisc. Cant. GUL. LAUD 8; Reg. Angliæ CAROL. I. 16.

"In tertia sessione (22 die Aprilis)

de precibus pro Parliamento et pace ac tranquillitate regni actum est his verbis: Et

Gilbert Burnet, was born A. D. 1643, died A.D. 1715

Thomas Comber

William Nicholls

1644 1664

1699

1712

It is to be regretted that the list of Authors, in Bishop Mant's Prayer Book, is not accompanied with dates of their birth and death, like that in the Family Bible.

ut Deus, bonorum omnium largitor, hoc præsens parliamentum ita disponeret, quod omnes in eodem conventi in unum consentirent, ad Dei gloriam, ecclesiæ utilitatem et commodum, ac regis et regni pacem et tranquillitatem, præfatus reverendissimus pater dominus archiepiscopus, de mandato regio, voluit divinam Dei gratiam implorari, ac formam precis ad eundem effectum per duos doctos et graviores viros cœtus domus inferioris eligendos concipi.' Ad quas preces componendas electi fuerunt Guliel. Bray, et Joh. Oliver, sacellani dom. archiepisc. Cant."

"Quarta sessio (24 die Aprilis) prorogabatur in 25 Aprilis. Quo die preces a doctoribus Bray et Oliver, pro parliamento et statu regis et regni compositæ domino archiepiscopo traditæ et mutato uno verbo approbatæ sunt."

These extracts shew that a form of prayer was composed, and approved by the Convocation, in April 1640, for the Parliament then sitting (hoc præsens parliamentum.) This prayer might be,--and, I conclude, from what Archbishop Secker says, was used by the Chaplains of the King, the Parliament, and Convocation. But its use cannot have extended far beyond that circle, nor continued long within it; for, ten days after the prayer was approved by the Convocation, Parliament was dissolved. And when we recollect the temper with which the Parliament met in the November following; the violent proceedings against the Clergy; the clamorous outcry against all the acts of the preceding Convocation; and the puritanical prejudice against forms of prayer in general, it appears very improbable that the form of prayer, made by that Convocation for the short Parliament at the beginning of the year, was revived on the meeting of the long Parlia ment at its close. At all events it is certain, that no such form was ever received in the Prayer-book till after the Restoration.

From the above-cited passages of the Concilia, compared with the statements of Archbishop Secker and Bishop Mant, I infer that the prayer approved by the Convocation in April, 1640, bore a considerable resemblance to the one now used during the Session of Parliament; that it applied the epithet "most religious" to the King; and was, in fact, the model upon which our present prayer was formed. It is probable, too, that the original prayer, composed by Drs. Bray and Oliver, and adopted by the Convocation, is preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library, at Lambeth, and has been seen by Archbishop Secker and Bishop Mant. But it is to be regretted, that the latter, seeing as he did the apparent contradiction between Secker's statement, and that of Collis and Nicholls, and a host of others, should have contented himself with a naked assertion, which increased the difficulty, instead of putting the public in possession of the facts upon which his assertion was founded. Had I met with Mant's Prayer-book any where else than in the Public Library at Cambridge, that difficulty might have held me for years in a very unpleasant state of uncertainty. I am thankful for the facilities I possessed of speedily satisfying my own mind and I think it a duty I owe to my brother-curates in the country, thus to communicate the results of an enquiry which many of them may be desirous of making, without having access to the necessary sources of information. I am, &c. &c.

W. P.

P. S.-The following is the passage of my Visitation Sermon, referred to in the beginning of this letter.

"As to the epithet, Most Religious,' applied to the King in the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, it is obvious, from the circumstance of its being applied to all Kings as they arise, that it is not meant to characterize the individual, but the office which he bears; just as the Clergy are styled Reverend, Right Reverend, or Most Reverend; and certain magistrates, Worshipful, or Right Worshipful, without any regard to their private characters as individuals. These titles point out qualities, which persons, who occupy those stations, ought particularly to possess; and thus continually remind them of the line of conduct they ought to pursue, if they would not be guilty of a most flagrant violation of duty, and breach of public confidence.

"That the title' Most Religious' is not intended to express anything respecting the actual personal character of the Sovereign is still more apparent, from the date of its introduction, viz. in the reign of Charles II., the most worthless and irreligious individual who ever sat upon the British throne; and one so little likely to be flattered by being called religious, that there was nothing he so much affected as the very opposite character. 'He seemed,' says Burnet,' to have no religion: both at prayers and sacrament he, as it were, took great care to satisfy the people that he was in no way concerned in that, about which he was employed.' It was the reverse of flattery, therefore, to give him the title Most Religious' even officially; and to have applied it to him as an individual, would have been at once a most unpardonable insult, and a most blasphemous absurdity.

"The application of the title, Reverend, to the Ministers of the Church, is seldom, if ever, objected to; and has, I am persuaded, a good moral effect. Why, then, should it be thought more objectionable to give a not more sacred title to the King, as supreme magistrate, therefore, by God's appointment, nursing Father of the Church to which we belong? And why may we not hope that it likewise may be productive of good, by continually reminding the individual who holds that sacred office, of the exemplary piety with which it ought to be adorned?"

W. P...

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

SOME persons maintain that they can see no use in the minutiæ of biblical criticism, since minute differences in the readings of particular passages cannot materially affect our salvation. It is important to determine them, in order to shew within what narrow limits and to what unimportant points the uncertainty is confined.