offertory in the Communion Service, why not the consecration of the elements? If he may omit the Athanasian Creed, why may he not also the Apostles' or Nicene? If he may neglect the service of the festivals, why not that on Sundays? If he may close his church on Ascension-day or Ash-Wednesday, why not on Christmas day or Good-Friday ?"

Mr. F. "However, you will admit that the overscrupulous attention to ceremonies has a tendency to popery, and that a spiritual worship is that which we should chiefly aim at."

Mr. L. "I advocate an exact conformity to the ordinances of our Church: first, for safety, because the deviation in one respect may lead to deviation in others; secondly, for conscience-sake, because I have solemnly engaged to perform them; and also because I think they have a direct tendency to cherish a spiritual worship when rightly performed, and no tendency to popery whatever."

I felt myself getting a little warm, and so resolutely closed my lips, and said no more to Mr. Flavel; but I will add, for the sake of my readers, that these accusations against Churchmen who desire to conform to what they have engaged, and especially the charge of popery and dissatisfaction to the Church, is the most unjust, I might add the most impudent, thing imaginable, in men who are notoriously guilty of the most unwarrantable deviations from both the letter and spirit of the Church-service, and approximation to the habits of dissenters. What would be said of a clergyman who introduced into his service hymns taken from the Breviary? And yet the Evangelicals use without scruple the compositions of dissenters. What

would be said of a clergyman who employed in his parish members of the Roman Catholic communion, who had not been formally reconciled to the Church? And yet the Evangelicals continually avail themselves, both in their schools and district-visiting societies, of the services of persons who go alternately to the church or the dissenting chapel. What would be said of a bishop who stood on a platform with popish priests, and declared that he saw no great difference in their views, and cordially united with them in the propagation of the Catholic faith? And yet we know that the meetings of the Bible Society are continually bringing some of the heads of our Church into contact with dissenters. Will it be said that there is greater danger from contact with popery, and that some have actually gone over from high-Church principles to the Romish faith? I answer that not some few only, but thousands, nay, millions, have gone over from the low-Church and puritanical views to dissent. All the dissenters now in the land, or their fathers, were once puritans or evangelicals.

No; our only safe course is to keep strictly to our Church, without turning to the right hand or to the left.

If we think one ordinance a petty ceremony, and begin to neglect it, we shall soon give up another and another. And to associate, for religious purposes, either with Dissenters or Romanists, except for the charitable purpose of converting them from the error of their ways, is not only dangerous to our own souls, of evil example to others, but contrary to the plain letter of the word of God.

But, after all, why should we allow ourselves to go to extremes, either one way or the other? Why not

keep to our own Church? Aristotle tells of a baker, who asked his employer whether he liked his meat overdone or underdone? "Why cannot you do it right?" said the man. So, why cannot we, by God's grace, keep right? Why not keep to our Church? Why go off to either extreme? If we keep to what is written, we are safe; but once let us suffer ourselves to depart from the prescribed ordinance, and we know not to what lengths we may be carried.

GOD's blessing continued to shine upon my parish. The steps which I had taken with regard to Mr. Monkton had a good effect on my parishioners, by convincing them that I had no leaning to the errors of popery; but that my object was, the good of the Church of England, and of my own parish in particular; that I was not aiming at any unauthorized changes or innovations, but simply the restoration of the Church as it is presented to us in those formularies to which we all acknowledge obedience.

There was one thing, however, which still annoyed me. Perhaps some may think the expression too strong, but I was positively ashamed of my parish church; not the fabric itself, for that was ancient and handsome, with the exception of those parts which had been meddled with by modern churchwardens. But what annoyed me was the interior, which was utterly at variance with my ideas as to the proper

arrangement of worshippers in the house of God. Some few alterations I had made soon after my arrival. The font, for instance, which I had found in the angle between the porch and the south aisle, appropriated to the double purpose of catching the drippings from the spout, and affording the boys a convenient stone to sharpen their knives on-this was repaired, and replaced on its proper base, which was still remaining within the church; and the crockery basin, which had been for some time employed for the baptism of infants, was put away in the cupboard. Still, the inconveniences and improprieties which abounded in the church remained much as they were. The first object which caught the eye as you walked up the centre, was an enormous pile, consisting of the reading-desk for the clergyman, surmounting that for the clerk, and the pulpit towering above the rest, not unlike, as some one observed, to Ossa piled on Pelion, Olympus on Ossa. This portentous fabric of deal boards, which I have no doubt was erected during the churchwardenship of some carpenter, was placed exactly in the middle of the church, a little in advance of the chancel-arch, whereby the altar and chancel were obscured in such a manner, that neither could the congregation hear that portion of the service which is directed to be performed there, nor witness the consecration of the elements. The sides of the chancel, and a good portion of the rest of the church, were occupied by pews scattered in all directions, and not only utterly disfiguring the church, but occupying twice or thrice as much room as was required for the families which owned them; thereby very much curtailing the space allotted to the poor, and forcing them