episcopal readers more especially, as I doubt not such there are, to some of those dangers from without which in no small degree impede the success of clerical endeavours to do good.

I would respectfully suggest a revision of several legislative enactments, which tend to desecrate the Sunday and the house of God.

One act directs that the amount of parochial rates, and the names of all the payers, shall be publicly read in the church on a Sunday. How inappropriate is such a place and such a day for such a purpose! As soon as the minister has prayed that the peace of God which passeth all understanding, may keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, our attention is suddenly called to one of those irritating subjects which is too often productive of evil passions; and the announcement seems to render the church, for the time, the temple of Mammon.

Another act directs that vestry meetings shall be held after Divine service on Sundays; and in time of war it has been usual to order that volunteers and fencibles should learn their military exercise on the day which God has commanded to be kept holy.

In some populous parishes, the reading the banns of marriage occasions a long interruption; and in a less numerous society some levity is apt to follow the news of the intended wedding.

I am humbly of opinion, that if suitable persons, more especially our revered prelates, would move for a revision of such acts, in order that our churches may be used for the purpose of Divine service only, the mere avowal of the legislature that such respect was due to the place and the day would have an effect of material benefit to the cause of religion in general, and our Established Church in particular. Might not an act of parliament direct that parochial rates should be open to inspection at meetings appointed for

that purpose? and might not means be devised to render the reading of banns in the church needless ?

The mail-coach act is a violation of the law of God, almost a literal repeal of the Fourth Commandment. What says the law to all the parties concerned, containing many thousands of professedly Christian people? "Remember that thou keep not holy the Sabbath day, but labour therein as in the other six. Thou shalt continue to do all manner of work, thou and thy servants, and thy cattle, and the many strangers who travel by legal authority and encouragement." When so much ingenuity is shewn for the delivery of letters a few seconds sooner than formerly, can no plan be devised by which all public carriages might lie to, at least during the usual hours of Divine service?

I do not flatter myself that the interference of the reverend and highly respectable heads of our church can entirely turn the tide of fashion; but I would hope that a dutiful memorial to the king, and a suitable remonstrance to his ministers, might do much good. They could especially remonstrate on the desecration of Sunday by unnecessary travelling and public dinners. The legislature might ordain that all places of public amusement should be closed, especially on the Saturday, at an earlier hour than is now usual; and if this were to take place at ten o'clock, instead of at midnight or in the morning hours, the new police would have much less trouble. The vast increase of crime in the metropolis, which arises. from the fashion of turning night into day, is incredible. The habits of individuals cannot of course be interfered with; but I see no objection to such general regulations as I have suggested.

I remain, sir,
Your constant reader from your
first page,
B. Y.

MINUTE VERBAL CRITICISMS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

I HAVE noticed various communications in your pages on matters of verbal criticism. One correspondent is rather severe on the misuse of the words, avocation and individual; another is offended at what he considers a misapplication of the word character; a third wishes for a definition of the term, nature; and all of them seem to require, not only in writing, but in popular addresses, a degree of minute exactness in the use of expressions which requires a greater command of language than many speakers possess, and a greater degree of agreement on obscure questions of etymology and orthoepy than is altogether at tainable. I concur, however, with some of your correspondents in deprecating all affectation in speaking, writing, and acting. But there is another evil to be guarded against; unnecessary fastidiousness, which, if indulged, must cripple all freedom of utterance, and impair the usefulness of public men by fixing their attention on minute points, unworthy of being made prominent objects of regard. At all events criticisms of this nature ought to be made on clear grounds, and not to be themselves liable to further criticism and exception.

When, however, the use of the word avocation, to signify any employment which may be pleaded by a speaker as a hindrance to his attention to the subject before him, is objected to on etymological grounds, it is plain by the answers of your other correspondents, that the etymology of the word is not yet perfectly settled. However, if we even assume the correctness of the first writer, and say, that it properly means that which calls us off, or diverts us from our work, there seems no impropriety in using a word for this purpose, the derivation

Neither can I see the propriety of proscribing the word, individual, in every case except where it is used in direct contrast to corporate or collective. "There was not an individual present when I arrived." "Every individual in the room agreed with me.' "I have not met with an individual in any part of my journey, who did not think." Person might be used for individual in each of these instances. But individual is the more forcible word, and conveys the notion that we speak deliberately, when we say no one or every one, and that we mean to include man, woman, and child.

In alluding to the remarks made upon the word avocation, I was reminded of another affectation connected with the preposition, a, in composition. Use should be allowed to determine the government of words. I therefore think the phrase, aversion from, an unwarranted departure from established construction in deference to a mere deriva. tion; while, different to, on the contrary, is a vulgarism never met with in our best writers, and which ought, therefore, to be avoided by correct speakers. I presume all who object to the phrase, averse to, in English, would for a similar reason of analogy, change the dative case after participles in dus in Latin into an ablative.

Your correspondent would banish

the expression, a superior man or book, because superior is a comparative degree, and no comparison is expressed. Yet, as the phrase is of frequent occurrence, and every one who hears it supplies the subject of comparison, and understands the word to mean superior to the ordinary run of books or persons, it is a vicious principle of criticism which would deprive us of so convenient and compendious a form of speech. The objection moreover is one, which, if adopted consistently, would abolish all conversation about the higher and lower orders, the upper classes of society, and would hinder us from speaking of former days, better times, or even an upper room furnished."

The objection to the phrase, "the character of God," has already received a satisfactory reply. Servants and inferiors indeed are far from being the only persons to whom the word character is applied. When men speak of different characters, they mean persons of different ha bits, qualities, and manners. St.Paul may be properly said to have come as near as a mere man can come to a perfect character: and, since erroneous notions are naturally entertained of God, which notions are corrected in Scripture, the combination of those glorious qualities which are there ascribed to him, may be fitly represented as making up his scriptural character; nor do I see how that complex idea can be more tersely or clearly expressed.

In fact, language is a very imperfect vehicle of thought. Those who have attended to it most closely, are well aware how many ambiguities lurk even in the most common modes of instruction; and they are generally glad, when any conventional formulary has come into use, which enables them to express briefly and intelligibly what greater parade of accuracy would often only encumber, or perhaps perplex.

D. D.

a

TOLERATION ACT OF 1812.

Tothe Editor ofthe Christian Observer.

"A

I THINK your correspondent, Friend to Order," is a little hasty in his remarks on the Toleration Act of 1812. That act he should remember was a measure of grace, and not of prohibition. It abolished old restrictions, but imposed no new ones. It gave the fullest liberty, as respects the public worship of God upon the easiest possible regulations for the observance of civil order. Its alleged application-even if it does apply-to the case of the meetings of charitable societies where prayer is used, is only accidental, the circumstance not being contemplated by the legislature, or the framers of the act. I submit however, that the act does not apply to meetings of this kind: it relates only to " congregations and assemblies for religious worship," which the meetings of charitable societies are not; nor does the incidental use of a prayer bring them under this denomination. It might be well for the committees of some of our societies, to set the matter at rest by an authoritative legal opinion; or possibly some of your own legal correspondents would furnish such an opinion in your pages for the public benefit. F. R. B.

Ought he to consent to visit his parent's house, and to take his own children into a family where there is no regard paid to religious duties, and where the society and habits are directly at variance with his own principles?

The second question is, Whether it is allowable to make use of a carriage to attend public worship on Sunday at a distance from home, when the parish church is near at hand, but where the Gospel is not faithfully preached.

The third inquiry is connected with an amusement which the inquirer has by education and habit been induced to partake in. Is the amusement of shooting, consistent with the character of a Christian?

If any of those excellent ministers, or others, among your correspondents, from whose opinions I have frequently derived instruction, would kindly assist me with their advice, it would be gratefully appreciated by

A CHRISTIAN INQUIRER,

AND AN OLD SUBSCRIBER.

ON THE CESSATION OF THE

HEATHEN ORACLES.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

Ir is generally believed that the heathen oracles ceased at the birth of Christ; but Lempriere, in his Classical Dictionary, says that this opinion is not correct. The question is of some importance, as the statement alleged to be incorrect is often found in books and sermons on the evidences of Christianity; and I should feel greatly obliged if some one of your learned correspondents, versed in such matters, would state the result of his investigation into the point.

A YOUNGER STUDENT.

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 336.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

It is very distressing to a person anxious for the moral and religious improvement of his fellow-creatures, to be assailed on every side with the exclamation "Impossible!" An idea has gone widely abroad—an idea as inconsistent with fact and reason as with the moral responsibility of man and the promises of the word of God-that there are in certain races of human beings certain physical characteristics, the force of which cannot be overcome by education or moral or religious influence. Turks are not like Hindoos,nor Moguls or North-American Indians like either; but objectors have found respectively in each something which must for ever prevent their being true and enlightened Christians. I have heard statesmen make a similar remark respecting Ireland, when the importance of extending to the ignorant and vicious part of its population the blessings of scriptural education has been urged. "Do what you will, you can never make Ireland like Scotland: the race is different: they are loving and fighting, not reasoning, animals; and if you educate them like the Scotch, the only difference would be that they would fight about religion; as much blood and as much whiskey would flow, but only in a different channel."

But this despairing scepticism has been particularly exhibited towards three classes of persons, in whom the present writer happens (I trust among other benevolent objects) to take peculiar interest-I mean Negro slaves, Jews, and Gypsies. Of the first Mr. Laurence has plainly told us, that " organization will be too strong for Christianity;" an assumption which has been so abun. dantly disproved, that I shall not stop at present "thrice to slay the slain." But I am induced to advert to the case of the two latter, 5 E