part of the baptized, of their Christian engagements—a completion
obviously called for, in some shape or other, before being admitted to
the outward privileges of the church; but, referring to " Alpha's"
tract, I must deny that there is any mention in scripture that it was
practised by the apostles; for, as I stated in my former letter, I con-
sider the imposition of hands by them to be only analogous, but not
identical, with confirmation. In truth, the analogy between that and
ordination is much the greater, and almost approaches to identity; and
what St. Paul speaks of as one of the foundation principles of Chris-
tianity-if he is not speaking of Jewish rites, which is doubtful-in
Heb. vi. 2, is the gift of the Holy Ghost, in his miraculous qualifica-
tions of the first promulgators of the gospel; and what afterwards
took their place, the orders of ministers, which is surely one of the
first principles of the existence of a Christian church, which would
have been altogether omitted by the apostle if he only alluded to
confirmation, as he could not mean both-and that he did so mean
it is, I think, clear from this-that where he speaks elsewhere of the
same thing, he clearly refers to the ordination of ministers. (vide Tim.)
Again, the terms, "sealing with the spirit," (2 Cor. i. 22; Ephes. í.
i.
13, and iv. 30,) are by " Alpha" peremptorily applied to the ceremony
of confirmation, as their strict and primary sense; whereas nothing
can be more clear than that these expressions apply to the gifts of
the Spirit themselves, more particularly the miraculous ones, and not to
any particular ordinance by which they were obtained, the possession
of which gifts by the church was the setting God's seal or confirma-
tion to the truth and reality of the promises of the Gospel; and to
say that therefore they apply to confirmation is not only begging the
question, but begging more than "Alpha" requires viz., that con-
firmation is the sacrament by which, and which only, the Holy Ghost
is given, which is not only to transform it into what baptism really is,
but to make baptism nothing; and I need not remind him that not
only all theological writers, but the inspired writers themselves, fre-
quently appropriate scripture expressions to their use, if applicable,
though not in their original and primary sense, and I readily admit
the appropriation of the above scriptural expressions to the matter in
question.

In controverting, then, the position, that "there is mention in
Scripture that it (confirmation) was preached by the apostles," I must,
to avoid protracted discussion, anticipate what I suppose to be
"Alpha's" argument. He means to say, that the imposition of hands
by the apostles, repeatedly mentioned in the Acts, was neither more
nor less than that identical confirmation practised at present, except
that, in some cases, it was attended with miraculous gifts, in addition
to the giving of the Holy Ghost, in its universal sense; and that it
was universally administered to all converts, as a necessary mode of
admission into the Christian church. Now I will venture to say, that
had n
not the imposition of hands been used, and therefore a similar
name attached, in time, to both ceremonies, no one, in reading the
Acts of the Apostles, would ever have recognised this identity. There
is no reasonable grounds for concluding that such rite was universal,

f

F

nor that it was ever administered but for the purpose of conferring extraordinary gifts, nor that it ever took place without being followed by them. I consider the greater analogy to be between this and the administration of orders; for to whom was the Holy Ghost thus given, and for what purpose? Why, to those who were destined, by these extraordinary qualifications, to build up the church, to teach and prophesy, and ensure reception for what they taught, by the miraculous powers they exercised. To these, as churches were founded, succeeded a more regular ministry; and they also were appointed to their office by the laying on of hands, and the giving of the Holy Ghost, not in his miraculous manifestation, but as the source of the authority and efficacy of their spiritual ministrations, and that grace which is necessary to them, as spiritual ministers, as his ordinary grace is necessary to ordinary Christians. When the first three thousand were added to the church by the apostles, and they were made Christians by baptism, then would appear the time for learning that confirmation was also necessary, as a special mean and instrument of a special grace, different from that which may attend any becoming religious ceremony. Yet we are told they were only baptized, and then had grace enough to continue in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship; nor whilst miraculous gifts were confined to the twelve apostles-which for some time they were-do we find any mention of laying on of hands; but directly others were appointed to ministerial functions and required extraordinary gifts, then is the first mention of it. (Acts, vi. 6, 7, 8.) Again, when Philip (to whom, by laying on of hands, extraordinary gifts were given,) had converted and baptized the people of Samaria, Peter and John went to give them the Holy Ghost, by laying on of hands-which was an apostolic office; and that the "Holy Ghost" means here as elsewhere, in connec tion with this ceremony, miraculous gifts (Acts, x. 45, 46,) is plain, from what follows,-viz., that Simon, seeing that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, wanted to purchase this apostolic power, that, as he says, "on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." If " Alpha" should ask-as I foresee he may-Did all, then, on whom the apostles laid their hands receive some extraordinary gifts? I should say, Assuredly they did: these are invariably spoken of in connexion (vide Paul at Ephesus); and Simon's speech implies as much. And if he ask again, Did not Peter and John lay their hands upon all the believers at Samaria ? I should say, Most probably not, if they were numerous. When it is said, they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost, it no more applies to every individual believer, than the same term applied before to the people of Samaria meant every inhabitant of that place. They (the believers) received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, in the same sense that Samaria had received the Word of God; that is, as such a portion of the latter had received the Gospel as according to a common mode of speech justified the expression, that the people of Samaria had received it so of the former, such abnumber received the Holy Ghost, as it was usual for the apostles to qualify out of the body of believers, for further spreading the Gospel, by extraordinary qualifications; so that they had the gifts

among them as a body, though not exercised but by a chosen number; and no doubt such gifts were given to very many, as at the first introduction of the Gospel it would require a considerable proportion of the converts to be to the pagan world, in some sort, what ministers are now to the Christian church-the leaven which was to leaven the mass, and the teachers and persuaders of others.

It is now time I should have done. I have only to add, that in many of "Alpha's" observations not immediately bearing on this question, I am disposed to sympathize, though I do not share in his despondency. It is probable that in every age of the church there. have been some who, in respect to a profound and just appreciation of the Christian mysteries, have been in advance of the body in general; nor do I think it wise, as regards those who are without, or kind towards one another, to make general charges of unsoundness or ignorance, whenever we ourselves have acquired, or fancy we have acquired, any new light, whether from research into antiquity or a more profound inquiry into the word itself. I would rather be disposed to dwell on the advanced and advancing knowledge of the clergy, and their daily increasing usefulness, than direct attention to what may yet remain of the uninformedness, rather than unsoundness, or the indifference of the past age. Your obliged and constant reader,

Φ.

CANONS.

SIR,-As the "Country Clergyman's" answer to my inquiry has quite relieved me from an apprehension that I might have taken an oath (twenty years ago) which had since escaped my recollection, I should not again have troubled you on the subject, if you had not invited further communication upon it. I venture, therefore, to suggest, in the first place, that the composers of our ordination service, in King Edward the Sixth's reign, could hardly mean to require a vow of obedience to the canons, which were not framed till James the First's reign. Secondly, That the canons are not "received, as authoritative, by this church or realm;" for although agreed to by convocation, and enjoined by the King's proclamation, they have not been made part of the law of the land by the other "estates of this realm," the two houses of Parliament.

Some good remarks on "obedience to the canons" may be found in Bishop Mant's edition of the Common Prayer, in a note on the passage in the Ordination Service quoted by your correspondent, and again in a note on the thirty-fifth article, (the Homilies.) I mention this for the benefit of any of your readers who may be interested in the question, but as unprovided with fuller books of reference as your old correspondent, AMATHES.*

Lord Hardwicke's decision as to the canons not being binding on the laity is alluded to elsewhere in this Number. The Editor is much obliged to " Amathes," and hopes the matter will be fully canvassed by correspondents.ED. gr. 3i es col

A

MORGAN ON THE TRINITY OF PLATO.

SIR,-In the Elementary Course of Theological Lectures, by the
Rev. W. D. Coneybeare, I observe the following note-" An admira-
ble Dissertation on the Trinity of Plato, by the Rev. C. Morgan, was
published in 1795. I earnestly sought for it for more than a year
without being able to procure it. It is greatly to be desired that this
most excellent work, without which any theological collection must
be incomplete, should be reprinted by one of our universities." I take
this opportunity of stating that I possess a copy of it, and that my
copy will be freely lent to any person, or any learned society, who will
undertake to reprint it. This is not the first time that I have seen
the use of a rule which I adopted, and which I have recommended
to many young men-viz., not to destroy pamphlets, but to bind them.
up together, as a variorum collection.
In my copy I had made a
memorandum as follows-"A most excellent Treatise, most probably
out of print, but worthy of being preserved;" and I feel gratified in
finding that my opinion is confirmed by so eminent a person as
Mr. Coneybeare, who also mentions that he has an excellent pamphlet
which I have never seen in any library but my own, (though, of course,
preserved because printed at the Clarendon Press, in 1769,) entitled
"Desiderii Sacotii de Philosophorum Doctrina Libellus ex Cicerone."
I am, Sir, yours, &c. C. V. LEGRICE.

QUESTIONS.

I.

1. PALMER, in his "Antiquities of the English Ritual,"vol. ii. page 76, says, "In the church of England, the wine of the eucharist was always, no doubt, mixed with water. In the canons of the Anglo-Saxon church, published in the time of king Edgar, it is enjoined, that no priest shall celebrate the liturgy unless he have all things which pertain to the holy eucharist, that is, a pure oblation, pure wine, and pure water.' In after ages we find no canons made to enforce the use of water, for it was an established custom. Certainly none can be more canonical, and more conformable to the practice of the primitive church. In the English church it has never been forbidden or prohibited; for the rubric which enjoins the priest to place bread and wine on the table, does not prohibit him from mingling water with that wine."

On what authority is this assertion made? Is this custom adopted by any priest of our church? What was the name of the vessel in which the water was contained? Was that which remained poured in the piscina?

2. The same author, vol. ii. page 23, says, "A custom prevails in the cathedral church of Worcester (? Winchester) which is worthy of remark. There, the morning prayer being concluded at an early hour, after an interval of time the communion-service or liturgy begins with the litany."oup odr At what hour does the morning prayer begin? Is it concluded by the third collect? Is it permitted to a clergyman to return to this old custom without consulting the ordinary?

3. Archdeacon Goddard, in his "Second Charge (1819, page 98) upon the Canons," says, "The whole of Lord Hardwicke's judgment should be referred to, as it is found in Lee's cases, of 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Geo. II., 1815. I

know no one opinion on ecclesiastical matters so material towards settling the minds of many of the clergy, on a point respecting which they are very frequently perplexed, as this of Lord Hardwicke's, on account of the reasoning employed, and the cases referred to. There is a very imperfect extract from it in the preface to Burn's Ecclesiastical Law.'"

Will you reprint this judgment? *

5. Dr. Goddard, in his "Charge," of the year 1827, page 32, speaking upon cattle in church-yards, says, "A desire to testify affection for the deceased has been manifested alike in all ages, by the most civilized nations, and by the most barbarous; and one uniform expression of it has been the preserving undisturbed the ground where their bodies are deposited. Greater respect has from an early period of the church accrued to Christian burials, in`consequence of the doctrine, however understood, of the body's resurrection. May it not be hoped, then, that, if instances have occurred of disturbance given to the consecrated burial places of the dead, and to the feelings of their relatives, they will henceforth cease. Here, indeed, as in the case of glebe timber, the right of the archdeacon to interfere has, I understand, in some few instances, been denied. To this denial, if designed to reach me, whether in words, or through the less ambiguous expression of the conduct, my answer shall be at once decisive and appropriate. Sheep are the most innocuous, and therefore the least objectionable of the animals introduced into the church-yards for pasture. Nevertheless, let damage, even by sheep, be proved, or let resistance be made to their removal from a church-yard when ordered, and I shall not hesitate to abide the issue immediate and final, both in the temporal and spiritual courts, of the order given, and enforced, as it invariably will be, wherever the case requires it, by a citation."

Upon what decisions of the spiritual or temporal courts is this determination of the archdeacon founded? And, supposing his law to be good, what course is to be taken when cattle are kept in his church-yard?

6. The rubric before the order for morning prayer is as follows:-" And here it is to be noted, that such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this church of England, by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth." As to the "ornaments of the church," mentioned in this rubric, it may be observed, that among others then in use, there were two lights" enjoined by the injunctions of King Edward the Sixth, (which injunctions were also ratified by the Act of Uniformity that passed soon after the Reformation,) to be set upon the altar as a significant ceremony to represent the light which Christ's gospel brought into the world. Why are not these two lights retained and in use?

It is proved, again, incontestably, that the priest, when administering the Lord's Supper, is enjoined, by this rubric, to wear a cope.

Why are the rules of the church so neglected? If clergymen alter parts of the baptismal and burial services, great censure is passed upon them; but is there a single clergyman in England who uses the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, and none other-I mean, who performs the services at the times and in the dress the church appoints? As to the importance or nonimportance of rubrics, that is not a question for the clergy to determine; they are not invested with the power of selection: they must take the law as it is imposed upon them.t

* If "Gershom" will either copy the judgment out, or borrow a copy of "Lee's Reports," which may be sent to the printer, the Editor will be most happy to do so.-ED.

This question deserves a word of comment. Certainly it is not for us to decide between rubrics-and one is as binding as another. But how does this touch the question? The clergyman does not provide the ornaments of the church. It may or may not be his duty to present the churchwardens for not doing it. But he cannot