neighbourhood is rapidly increasing; yet it can scarcely be credited that in an extent of three miles of road such as I have described, no episcopal place of worship exists at anything like a convenient distance from the houses. Nearly the whole of the first mile is included within the parish of St. George, Southwark; it is a long and narrow slip running between Bermondsey and Newington, and bounded at its extremity by the ancient St. Thomas à Watering, (now a mere ditch, only distinguished by a stone marking the extent of the civic jurisdiction.) The parish church is situated in a neighbourhood quite away from the spot I mention. Beyond St. Thomas à Watering, Camberwell commences, and runs along the road until it meets that part of St. Paul's, Deptford, which is in Surrey. Camberwell new church and Peckham chapel are situated at about a mile on the right hand of the road, and each has its own neighbourhood, and are likely to be but little resorted to by the inhabitants of the Kent-road. On the other hand, Bermondsey new church is seen; but, although the distance in a straight line from the high road is, perhaps, not so great as either of the others, the approaches to it are very tortuous, and the distance far too great for any settled congregation to pursue for a constancy. From the boundary of Deptford parish to the town the road includes the hamlet of Hatcham, which once had a church, and · New Cross, from which either Deptford Lee or Lewisham are about equal in their distances and convenience. Enough, I think, has been urged to shew the absolute want of church accommodation; and an additional argument may be drawn from the paucity of dissenting meetings, although I should judge that a great proportion of the population would be very unlikely to attend there if they existed. The attention of the Commissioners for building new churches would not be drawn to this spot from the circumstances of the road being situated at the extremities of so many parishes, and the consequent difficulty of ascertaining the state of the population. I therefore take this opportunity of bringing the subject before your notice, in the hopes that your publication, so widely circulated among the friends of the church, may be the means of providing a remedy. I would venture to suggest that, at least, two churches are necessary; one of which should be situated at a short distance eastward of St. Thomas à Watering, having for a district the eastern portion of St. George's parish, with a contribution from the adjacent ones; the other at the hamlet of Hatcham, which should have for its district the whole of Deptford parish, which is comprehended in Surrey, and including Hatcham, (now I believe extra parochial,) New Cross, and such part of Camberwell as might be requisite; and, as a preliminary measure, it might be very desirable to engage some building as a temporary place of worship, an experiment which would soon demonstrate the propriety of the measure I wish to advocate. The site to which I refer may not be so well known to many of your friends as to myself, but if any one will personally inspect the same, this statement will be found not to be overcharged. From the canal bridge, all the neighbouring churches, or at least their steeples, may be seen, and a correct idea formed of their distances, but not of the length of the roads leading to them. Trusting you will deem this notice worthy insertion in your miscellany, I subscribe myself, yours obediently, E. I. C.* CHURCH BUILDING. I THANK you, Mr. Editor, for your prompt attention to my letter on church building; since which, I have observed the remarks of your Correspondents, G. and N. C., in your 34th and 36th Numbers. My present purpose is merely to beg that your Correspondent, N. C., will be kind enough to finish the subject he has so satisfactorily begun, and especially as the part of it which remains involves, I think, the only difficulty with which we have to contend. I feel the greatest pleasure in being able to say, that the incumbent of our parish will give us his hearty co-operation. The amount of probable donations, mentioned in my last, will, I feel certain, now be fulfilled; and these, together with the allowance we may expect from the Church Building Society, will, I have no doubt, be sufficient for the building.-Our great difficulty is, the endowment. Assuring your Correspondent, N. C., that his communications are too highly, and, I may add, too properly appreciated, to be attributed to a desire of vain glory,' I remain, Mr. Editor, yours, A LAY SUBSCRIBER. OFFICE OF DEACON. SIR,-The following account of the duties of a deacon, in the ancient church, during the celebration of the Lord's supper, may not be altogether unprofitable, nor unacceptable, to many of your clerical readers. Their office principally consisted in directing and regulating the devotions of the people,-at one time demanding their attention, The state of the neighbourhood is as follows: St. George, Southwark-Population, 39,769; one church and a proprietary chapel ; accommodation for 2300, besides the chapels belonging to the Magdalene and Philanthropic Institutions, which are strictly private. Newington-Population, 44,526; three churches; accommodation for 5600. Bermondsey-Population, 29,741; two churches; accommodation for 3000. Camberwell-An extensive parish; population, 28,231; two churches, two proprietary chapels; accommodation for 4000. The two chapels at Dulwich are not included; they may accommodate about 1500. Deptford Population, 19,795; two churches; accommodation for 2500. I have taken the population from the last returns. The extent of church accommodation I have overrated rather than otherwise. [The Editor gladly inserts this letter, and hopes soon to bring this great subject before the public. Of all the crying sins of this nation, the shameful or rather shameless destitution of the means of grace in which it leaves its people in great cities, and the carelessness with which they who are amassing great wealth in large cities leave the very instruments by which they amass it to live and die without God in the world, contented, if they get the labour of their bodies, to leave their souls wholly neglected,-these things are what may well be expected, even more than others, to draw down fearful judgments on us. What can even they expect who think religion useful only as teaching morality? expect from leaving hundreds of thousands without the slightest notion of morality, as far as any efforts on their part are concerned? What will become soon of their two great idols, Property and Society ?— ED.] and imposing silence; at another, proclaiming the prayer and posture which was to be observed. The Bidding Prayers were read by them, and some others, to which the people joined their common responses. It was their office to collect the offerings of the people, and to deliver them to the priest, who presented them to God at the altar. When this had been accomplished, the deacon read aloud the names of those who had offered. Their next business was to carry to the bishop, at the altar, the elements, the bread and wine, which were taken out of the people's offerings, and set apart for the eucharist. When the bishop or priest had consecrated the bread and wine, the deacons distributed them to the people who were present; and were commissioned also to carry them to those whose attendance was by circumstances prevented. Further, to them was entrusted the general care and superintendence of the vessels &c. used at the celebration of the Lord's supper. There seems no reasonable doubt as to the competency of the deacon to administer the elements in both kinds. In the 18th Nicene canon it is indeed laid down, "neither canon nor custom permits, that deacons who have not power to make the oblation, should administer the body of Christ to priests who have that power." But it is to be observed, that this canon was framed to put a stop to the practice and absurdity of the presbyters sitting idle, and receiving the eucharist from the hands of a deacon. And the 2nd canon of Ancyra, which prohibits deacons from offering the bread or cup, in terms alludes to those who had been guilty of sacrificing (to idols). Doubts have arisen with respect to the deacon's power to consecrate the elements; but the better opinion is clearly against the power. It is true that in the beginning of the fourth century, some deacons did affect to consecrate, but the presumption was noticed by the council of Arles, and a canon made to restrain the practice. These doubts have partly arisen from the phrase in the canon of Ancyra, quoted above," offering &c.;" some being of opinion that consecration was thereby intended; but the words seem plainly to refer to the offering the bread and wine to the communicants. The Nicene canon, above quoted, expressly mentions" deacons who have not power to make the oblation." The well known story of Laurentius the deacon is also cited in support of this power, who is made thus to address Sixtus, his bishop, as he was going to his martyrdom:- "Quo, sacerdos sancte, sine diacono properas? nunquam sacrificium sine ministro offerre consueveras. Cui commisisti Dominici sanguinis consecrationem, cui consummandorum consortium sacramentorum, huic consortium tui sanguinis negas?" Now these words cannot be considered to refer to the primary consecration, which was performed by the bishop himself, who, it is stated, was always present. The deacon's consecrating is inconsistent with the presence of the bishop. This consecration must therefore be of some other kind, and may relate to the part he took, as it is here expressed, in consummating the mysteries, that is, in offering the cup, with the usual form of words, to the people; which act, in the language of the times, was called a ministerial consecration, or consummation of the sacrament, forasmuch as the VOL. VII.-March, 1835. 2 P receivers were hereby consecrated with the blood of Christ, and also consummated or made perfect partakers of the sacrament, having now received it in both kinds. St. Hilary assures us, that there could be no consecration of the eucharist without a presbyter. And St. Jerome, speaking of Hilary, a deacon, observes, that he, being a deacon, could not consecrate, and that the eucharist could not be accomplished without bishop and presbyter; and the reason of this was, the high estimation in which the eucharist was held, as the prime Christian sacrifice, and one of the highest offices of the Christian priesthood; and deacons being reckoned, if priests at all, of the lowest degree, were therefore forbidden to offer or consecrate the sacrifice at the altar. A. O. R. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY TRULY A PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEK. MY DEAR --The statement of Waterland, cited by E. B., in the note at page 170 of the February number, only furnishes another instance of the inaccuracies of which the best writers are sometimes guilty. He says, according to E. B.'s quotation, "The fathers of the two first centuries and a half say nothing expressly of his" (Melchisedek's) "offering to God any thing, (whether in a spiritual way or otherwise,) but only of his feasting Abraham and his family." Of the few fathers of that date whose writings have come down to us, there are, I believe, only three who touch upon the point in question. These three are Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, who both flourished in the second century, and Cyprian, who was born in the second, and attained the episcopate before the middle of the third. In the January number, (p. 47,) two passages from Cyprian's sixty-third epistle were given, in which the material sacrifice of Melchisedek is distinctly asserted in the same number, (p. 46,) Tertullian was quoted, asking, "Unde Melchisedek, sacerdos Dei summi nuncupatus, si non ante Levitice legis sacerdotium Levitæ fuerunt, qui sacrificia Deo offerebant?" (adv. Judæos, §. 2.) There only remains Clement of Alexandria, who speaks thus of Melchisedek, “ὁ τὸν οἶνον και τον άρτον την ἡγιασμένην δ δους τροφην, εἰς τυπον εὐχαριστιας.”(Strom. IV. §. 25.) Nor is it easy to see the force of Waterland's observation, even if it were correct. For if Melchisedek was really a priest of God, the silence of all the fathers would not avail to shake the fact that he did offer sacrifice to God: this being the very essential and necessary duty of his office as a priest, according to St. Paul's argument on this point as regards our Lord:-"For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer."(Heb. viii. 3.) : I do not like to close my letter without assuring E. B. that whatever sense of injustice had been conveyed by his first letter, has been totally effaced by his second. I am, yours very truly, A. P. P. ONE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. MY DEAR "A Scottish Catholic Deacon" will, I hope, forgive me if I venture to call in question one of his positions. In the February number, (p. 177,) he asks, "If the Roman church be catholic, why did we, at the Reformation, break off from her communion? To break off from the communion of any branch of the catholic church is to be guilty of schism. If she is catholic now, she was so then; and we, by separating, decatholicized ourselves." The paragraph, as far as it concerns the church in England, is, I apprehend, founded in mistake. At least, I am not aware that our church ever did break off from the communion of the continental churches which adhere to the Bishop of Rome. The separation was not our act, but theirs. The usurped supremacy of the Bishop of Rome we did indeed reject, just as we should reject the supremacy of the Scottish Primus, if he were to lay claim to it. And if that venerable prelate should, thereupon, forbid the Scottish episcopalians to communicate in our churches in England, and should put forth a new and unwarranted creed, and refuse to admit the members of the English church to communicate in Scotland, unless they subscribed that creed, we should have, I believe, a very exact repetition of what took place, in point of separation, between the church of England and the church of Rome, at the time of the Reformation. For these were precisely the steps which were taken by the Pope, while the English church did nothing of the kind. The Romanists in England communicated in our churches in the reign of Edward the Sixth, and for the first fifteen years of that of Elizabeth; and when they ceased to do so, it was by command of the Pope, and not by prohibition from us. Nor does the church of England forbid her members to communicate in the churches of those countries where the authorized pastors adhere to the Roman communion. And if we do not so, it is because they will not admit us unless we comply with the unwarranted terms of communion which the Pope has put forth. Let those terms of communion be withdrawn, and neither their defective administration of the eucharist, nor the speculative errors which many of them hold in regard to it, will, I conceive, warrant us in refusing to communicate with them when we are in those countries. The whole burthen of justifying the separation must rest upon the party who caused it; and the church of England, who had no hand in it, ought not to be called upon to defend a course which she never pursued. ALPHA. MISS EDGWORTH'S "HELEN." MR. EDITOR,-May I be permitted to ask why some of your correspondents, whose opinions in general are sufficiently in accord with your own, have not expressed their grave disapprobation of such books as "Helen," by Miss Edgworth? The tenor of "Helen" is precisely that of the world; and there is not one warning fact or word to draw the reader's attention to |