doubt that our Heavenly Father would bless our return to that primitive order, if undertaken in reliance on his aid, and with intention to promote his glory, and the salvation of souls. The above remarks are prompted, not by feelings of disrespect towards any of the clergy, but by veneration for the church of God, especially that branch of it existing in England, to be a member of which is accounted his highest privilege by Yours, very respectfully, A. F.

CONVOCATION.

SIR,-There is a passage in the valuable papers of your correspondent "on the Convocation" which bears hard upon the upper house, and seems to me to be scarcely borne out by historical evidence. It is in pp. 36, 37, of your January number:-" Nor must it be forgotten, to the lower house we are indebted that no change was made in our services and discipline in 1689, &c. What these changes were shall be given in Mr. Hallam's words; the bill of comprehension proposed to parliament went no further than to leave a few scrupled ceremonies at discretion, and to admit presbyterian ministers into the church without pronouncing (!!) on the validity of their former ordinations,” (as if the recognising them were not pronouncing.) "Is it, then, the case that we have a second time risked the succession" &c.*

Now, by attributing our deliverance from this awful danger to "the lower house," your correspondent implies that the upper house had not shielded us from it. But is this a fair representation of the fact? It appears that "while the bill of comprehension was passing," Dr. Tillotson, who was then clerk of the closet to the king, and possessed of great influence with him, declared strongly his opinion against it, urging the king, instead of pressing it, to issue an ecclesiastical commission to draw up the proposed alterations; to submit these to a convocation; and, having thus obtained for them synodical, then to propose them for parliamentary, authority. This course then the king adopted; and the conclusion of the ecclesiastical commissioners was to leave "entirely to the synod" the settlement of this questionwhether it should not be ordered, "That if any nonconformist minister should return to the church, he was not to undergo a new ordination, but to be admitted into the ministry of the church by a conditional ordination, as we do in the baptism of those of whom it is uncertain whether they are baptized or no,-the bishop's hands being imposed upon them, &c., as was the custom of the church in receiving those clergy who had been ordained by heretics." Which method was employed by Archbishop Bramhall with regard to any who had received presbyterian orders in the confusion of the great rebellion.

This proposition for conditional ordination was what the lower house rejected. Now, can we say that this would have risked the succession? Was it not, on the contrary, a method by which true

William Nichol's Defence of the Church of England, p. 108.

ordination was secured in the way least offensive to the conforming ministers? We should not lightly throw upon such a man as Archbishop Bramhall, nor upon many of those who, in this instance, disagreed with the lower house of convocation, the stigma of having risked the true succession of priests in our apostolical church.

I remain your obedient servant, II. K.

FASTING.

Ash Wednesday, March 4th, 1835.

SIR,-I have employed my leisure hours to-day in reading two admirable tracts, (Nos. 18 and 21 in the Oxford Tracts,) the latter "Upon the Duty of Mortifying the Flesh," the former "On the System of Fasting prescribed by our Church;" this, especially, has raised in my mind many serious thoughts as to the too general defection of churchmen from those rules of the church in particular which most counteract the prevailing temptations of the age. I believe there are few things more to be deprecated than the habit of hastily, or on slight grounds, concluding, and yet more asserting, that any holy practice is generally or universally neglected, or that any sin is commonly or universally practised, for thus transgressors are emboldened, and the cause of truth and holiness disparaged. Yet truth must be spoken; and is it not the truth that the system of fasting, to which the author of this tract would recal us, is generally neglected? I fear that the only point in which it is commonly acted upon, even by men possessed of a serious sense of religion, (and who must, therefore, take some means for the mortification of the flesh,) is in the observance of Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, which is, I think, still almost universal. The consequence of this general neglect of the appointments of the church is, that when one sets one's self to consider them, the mind is puzzled, not only by their novelty, but by doubts, as to the meaning of many rules which want the explanation they ought to have received from the general practice of the church. If the services of the Lord's-day had been for many years wholly neglected by the majority of clergy and laity, who can doubt that the directions of the rubrics would be difficult to understand, in many particulars, which are now so familiar to us that we can imagine no obscurity to exist with regard to them?

It is the sense of this perplexity which has induced me to address you to-day; and I hope that, by publishing this letter, you may elicit from some of your readers, who have more faithfully observed the rules of the church, much information which will be useful, not only to myself, but to many others by whom they have been too much neglected. Perhaps the secrecy of an anonymous article may tempt some to make known, for the benefit of their brethren, the practices which they have found useful to themselves, and may thus throw light on the practical working of this neglected part of the church's system.

I would inquire particularly as to the days intended by the church to be observed as fast days. 1. What authority has the author of the tract for saying that the Wednesday as well as the Friday in every week is so set apart? I know of nothing in the Prayer-book from which this inference can be gathered; and there are some indications, I think, to the contrary, as the appointment that the Friday fast shall be superseded by Christmas-day, where no mention is made of the case of that day falling on a Wednesday.

2. As to the Friday fast, is it the meaning of the rule just referred to, that it should supersede every festival except the Nativity? And, if so, are the vigils of the feasts to be kept as fasts, in such cases, as well as the day itself? Or, is the feast intended to be kept on some other day before or after? Or, is the service of the feast to remain unaltered on the fast? Or how otherwise?

3. Supposing Wednesday to be appointed as a fast, what happens when festivals fall on that day?

4. What is done when the feast of St. Matthias, or the Annunciation, fall on any of the forty days of Lent ?*

Thus much as to the days to be observed. I approach a more delicate subject-How are they to be observed? The author of the tract which I have referred to says, that the church has left this point to be settled by each for himself; and he says, "Only let us not mock God-let us deny ourselves in something which to us is really self-denial," &c. (p. 22.) Now, it is upon this subject especially that I venture to hope for some useful hints derived from the practice of our older brethren. The great difficulty of ascertaining what is here the line of duty springs from the too general neglect of the duty itself; and the delicacy which every good man feels in obtruding his own practice, where it is more strict than that of the majority of his brethren, has led those who must enforce this duty in their preaching and writings to leave us almost without hints as to the practical rules which they would recommend. May I beg some information upon these points in particular :

1. Ought our observance of a plain duty, (obedience to the church,) in observing these days, to be concealed? Is there not a confession before men eminently required of those who do break through the general neglect of fasting, and yet more of fasting at the times appointed? And would not this tend, more than anything else, to realize that protection to the timid and bashful which, as the author of the tract well maintains, is one great benefit of these appointed fasts? And is not this protection much needed? I have seen those who, I doubt not, are striving to walk according to the commandments of their Lord, turn it off to a jest when any notice is taken of their fasting. Would they dare to do so if any one noticed the trouble they took to

A question, indirectly connected with these, is, as to the prayers appointed for the Ember week to be used every day-what is the custom in those (alas! numerous) churches where there is no daily service? Are they read only once-i. e., on the Sunday which falls in the Ember week, (the first in Lent, for example,) or then, and on the Sunday after, i.c., the ordination day, or how?

attend public worship, or to redeem time for private prayer, or for communion at the altar? And why in the case of one duty rather than another? Should this levity be allowable ?*

2. If the observance should be in any manner public, how does it seem expedient that it should be regulated? Much of the answer to this question must be the result of experience alone. I would suggest it as a subject for consideration among others, whether churchmen should go out to dinner on fast days, or give parties themselves? Are these things consistent with the observance of the day? Yet, if I mistake not, even visitation dinners often take place on the fasts of the church; and even a clergyman who should determine to decline invitations on them, would find it difficult to maintain his ground, and must meet the charge of extravagance and singularity.

I trust, Sir, the importance of the subject will plead my excuse in trespassing so long on your patience, and that some attention will be paid to it by your contributors. Whatever is the course which churchmen ought at present to pursue, it must, I think, be felt by all, that these are not the halcyon days in which they may safely neglect this duty, and that some degree of uniformity of practice is most desirable. To this uniformity I trust the discussion of the subject in your magazine may tend.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, CLERICUS.+.

SPONSORS AT BAPTISM.

SIR-I have been looking into each successive publication of the British Magazine for some further consideration of the subject proposed by a "London Rector," in your November Number. The difficulty which has harassed him is by no means confined to a London parish. The prevalence of dissent affords every where an easy escape from the discipline of the catholic church. In my own parish, I am well aware that the endeavour to restore something of discipline with respect to the sponsors at baptisms, (though urged gradually and,

The following passage, from the Tenth Sermon of the Rev. J. H. Newman, seems to be much in point :- "We do not disfigure our outward appearance to seem to fast, which the Pharisees did. Here we seem to differ from them; yet, in truth, this very apparent difference is a singular confirmation of our real likeness to them. Austerity gained them credit; it would gain us none. It would gain us little more than mockery from the world. The age is changed. In Christ's time the show of fasting made men appear saints in the eyes of the many. See, then, what we do. We keep up the outward show of almsgiving and public worship, observances which (it so happens) the world approves. We have dropped the show of fasting, which (it so happens) the world, at the present day, derides. Are we quite sure that, if fasting were an honour, we should not begin to hold fasts like the Pharisees? Thus we seek the praise of men. But in all this, how are we, in any good measure, following God's guidance and promises?"

+ I am not aware of the origin and purpose of the three Rogation-days appointed to be kept as a fast. Perhaps this may be well known; but I find no explanation of it in the Prayer-book. Does the church make any distinction between fasting and abstinence? It should seem so from the words of the calendar-" Vigils, fasts, and days of abstinence to be observed," &c.

I trust, kindly, and mitigated by personal attention and explanation,) has tended to lead many parents to take their children to receive baptism even from the ranters, in order to avoid all trouble concerning sponsors. In these circumstances, it is pre-eminently the duty of the church to remove everything which needlessly increases the difficulty of conforming to her rules, and so creates temptations to separation from her communion. Now, I think that this prohibition of the 29th canon is precisely of this sort. I have long since arrived at the same conclusion with your correspondent, that the order in question is a mere idle Romish invention. The date of its first promulgation, and the use to which it has been put, alike testify its origin. It was first enjoined, as your correspondent observes, in A. n. 813, at the council of Mentz. It was contrary to the usage of the primitive church. St. Augustine's authority may at once decide this point. In his writings (Ep. 98, tom. ii. p. 266, Ben. ed. Par.) he argues against the mistake "that children could not be baptized unless their parents were the sponsors," and then quotes the occasions on which the church had always granted baptism, even though the parents did not themselves present their children, e. g., exposed children presented by sacred virgins, children whose parents were dead, &c. Now what can prove more clearly the universality of the custom (actually enjoined by early canons) than this particular limitation. It was not, therefore, the primitive practice; and, therefore, was probably a Romish invention, because it fails in the test of catholic verity, "quod semper." Then its effect marks it also as an invention of that corrupt church. From its first promulgation at Mentz to the 24th session of the council of Trent, it was used as an instrument for increasing the power and revenues of the pope, by the need which it introduced for dispensations &c. for those who within the prohibited degrees of this feigned spiritual relationship entered into holy matrimony. Thus we have every evidence, from the lateness of its origin and the effect of its enforcement, that it is an unwarranted invention of the Roman church. It comes, therefore, under the description of unnecessary injunctions, and it has wrought this peculiar injury, that it has a strong and direct tendency to prevent the observance of the test of the 29th canon. is at once evident that none but regular communicants can be fit sureties to the church for, the Christian education of the infant,-that none but those who are thus living in communion with her can rightfully bring an infant to receive the blessing of baptism at her hands. Indeed, the neglect of this rule, which from many causes (and chiefly from the relaxation of discipline which the prevalence of dissent has made apparently expedient in particular cases) has been allowed to creep into the church, has tended as much as anything else to make the whole system of sponsors appear to be an idle superstition, and to lower the dignity of this blessed sacrament itself. For what can be a more unmeaning ceremony than to see thoughtless and unfaithful persons who are not living in communion with the church come to "this sacrament of faith" (as St. Austin terms it) to profess their faith as Christian men in the child's behalf. This abuse of the catholic appointment of sponsors has rendered it an unmeaning ceremony in the

It