instance of evening service having been performed, when the morning service ought to have been read ;" and what I have not known to have occurred, cannot have been. But let us follow "Dyfedensis" through his process of inductive reasoning. He says, he has attended nearly 300 of these meetings. Give him the benefit of having attended full that number. Suppose him to have attended twelve in the course of the year; this will extend his experience over a space of twenty-five years. In the diocese of St. David's there are 561 churches and chapels, including the whole of Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire, Radnorshire, Brecon, Carmarthen, two parishes in Montgomeryshire, three in Monmouthshire, twenty-six in Glamorganshire, and eleven in Herefordshire. Now Dyfedensis" will have no difficulty in allowing that the counties of Cardigan, Pembroke, and Carmarthen, form full one half of the diocese; for we find the number of churches and chapels in those counties to be 297; we will deduct from this number fifty-seven churches, to make allowance for some refractory priests, who have the hardihood to think that, as at present conducted, these meetings do not answer any useful purpose. Now here are 240 clerical meetings taking place annually, and these, multiplied by twenty-five, the number of years that "Dyfedensis" has attended them, will make the total amount of meetings held in those counties, during that term, to be 6,000; and yet "Dyfedensis," upon the strength of having attended 300, assumes that no irregularity can have occurred in any one of the 6,000 meetings held during that period. But is "Dyfedensis" all this time sure that he is not engaged in mortal combat with a phantom of his own creation, and that while he lays such a stress upon his having never known an instance of the evening service having been read instead of the morning, he is not in the predicament of one who proves himself guilty by beginning to exculpate himself before he is accused. It seems to me very doubtful whether "Cereticus," in stating that, after the discussions are over, the service (sometimes the evening) is read, wishes to imply anything further than that the discussions are occasionally prolonged till past the hour of morning prayer. At all events he does not allude to it in summing up what he considers as objectionable in their proceedings. But, leaving him to answer " Dyfedensis"" challenge on this head, if he thinks it worthy of notice, I will, even at the hazard of appearing tedious, take the liberty of commenting upon one passage more in "Dyfedensis"" letter. He says, "from what is said by 'Cereticus,' (pray, sir, is he a clergyman, churchman, or dissenter? I suspect the latter,) it seems to me that he is as ignorant of the proceeding at a clerical meeting, as he obviously is of the tenour of the 53rd canon, which he quotes." Now I can only express my regret that "Dyfedensis" has not stated and explained them, as I must acknowledge that, from what I have heard of the former, and am able to understand of the latter, I am in the same state of obvious ignorance as "Cereticus." But it is with the first part of the passage quoted that I have to do: "From what is said by Cereticus,' (pray, sir, is he a clergyman, a churchman, or dissenter? I suspect the latter.) How VOL. X.-Dec. 1836. . 4 U far "Cereticus" may feel inclined to gratify "Dyfedensis'" curiosity on this point, I know not. But it appears to me that this question is asked with the view of stigmatizing those of the clerical profession who do not attend these meetings as dissenters. How else, when he professes to suspect "Cereticus" of being a dissenter, could it enter into his head to ask, whether he is a clergyman? We do sometimes see extremes meet, and, unfortunately, in the conduct of some, even of the clerical order, we observe "a close approximation to the practices of dissenters." But, in the present case, is the term "churchman" not sufficiently comprehensive, but that he must single out the clergyman," when the distribution of his subject into its parts does not require it? He surely cannot be so profoundly ignorant as not to know that the word "churchman," comprising, as it does, clergy and laity would have sufficiently answered his purpose. What, then, can have been his motive? I fear none other than the uncharitable one of calling a brother by hard names. And is it come to this, that the clergyman who expresses, however mildly, his doubt as to the utility of clerical meetings, who is unambitious of attracting notoriety by deviating from the established usages of the church, who, feeling in himself no overpowering centrifugal force, pursues the even noiseless tenour of his course within the prescribed limits of his own parish, is to be branded with the opprobrious epithet "dissenter," a species of lucus a non lucendo, a dissenter because he abhors the practices of dissenters, while those who choose to be more erratic in their proceedings are, by the same rule, though Eccentric, intervolved, yet regular Then most, when most irregular they seem? Can one no longer express an opinion that the cause of the church would be better promoted by uniformity of practice, without being saluted with so odious an appellation? Were those clergymen who coincide in opinion with "Cereticus" inclined to be severe, they possibly might retort the charge, and substantiate it, by more plausible reasons than any brought forward by "Dyfedensis" in support of his opinion. But, knowing that the cause of truth is little promoted by charges and recriminations, I abstain, and conclude this already too lengthy epistle with hoping that "Dyfedensis'" remarks may in future be couched in such guarded terms as to convince us that the only thing he has in view is, the defence of the system he advocates; and he may rest assured that any arguments he may be able to adduce will lose none of their strength by being clothed in the pleasing garb of courtesy and moderation. I have the honour to be, sir, with much respect, your obedient servant, PRESBYTER. Nov. 12th, 1836. CLERICAL AND PRAYER MEETINGS. SIR, My object in sending the account of clerical and prayer-meetings which appeared in your April number was, to call attention, as I hope it still may, to what I fear is lowering the priesthood and the services of our holy catholic church, and tending, perhaps, to uproot for a time that pure faith which was so early planted here. Had there been a solitary instance or two of what I deemed an irregularity, I should have mentioned it to the individual, and reported it, or not, to the bishop, according to its importance; but when I see a system pervading, almost without an exception, an extensive district, it is of too public a character, and the danger too great, to be checked by the voice of one who must almost appear a proscribed man. Although I acknowledge myself bound to prove the statement I have made, perhaps I shall be acting with more Christian charity if I refrain from exposing to the public the names of individuals: especially when I do not see that any good purpose can be answered by making them so known. I have no wish for notoriety myself, nor have I any fear from speaking the truth; yet, lest my total silence may be misinterpreted, I beg to say that I am willing that " Dyfedensis," on sending his name to you, may have mine; and the cases on which I rest my statement shall be, if necessary, given up, or deposited in such hands as no party can disapprove of. I am, Sir, with the greatest respect, your obliged humble servant, CERETICUS. ANSWER TO "CERETICUS." DEAR SIR, I saw the letter of "Cereticus" in your Magazine, and thought it temperate, and rather an under-statement of the irregularities I had heard of in that part of Wales. With regard to the mention of distinct instances of the kind, it would, of course, be impossible to give them, from the nature of the case; and were it otherwise, no good could be effected by bringing up particular cases of such a kind before the public; rather let them be buried in silence. I would only ask, without expressing any opinion on such practices, and strongly deprecating any angry discussion on such points, the following queries: 1. Is it not evident that such meetings are very frequent from the very shewing of those who defend them ?* 2. Are they not attended with vast concourses of people from various parishes? 3. Are not the sermons on such occasions almost invariably extempore? 4. Are there not often more sermons than one at a time? 5. Do not extemporaneous discussions take place on the subjects of Christian doctrine in the church on these occasions? 6. Are not these meetings so general in that part of the country that any clergyman who, from a wish to adhere to what he considered the spirit of the church, or the wishes of his diocesan, refused to join in them, would be painfully situated? 7. Are not the clergy who frequent these meetings in the habit of * A writer in this Magazine for October mentions he had been present at, I think, three hundred. having meetings for extemporary prayer very generally, in which illiterate persons take a prominent part? 8. Are not such meetings commonly given out in the parish churches on a Sunday? 9. Is not the mode of preaching which allures such congregations greatly assimilated to that of the dissenters ? 10. Is any preference shewn to holy days appointed by the church in holding these assemblies? 11. Is not the church system of parochial visiting greatly abandoned in the parishes alluded to? 12. Is not the ancient custom of baptizing in the church generally relinquished for that of private houses? Strongly convinced that nothing but strictly acting up to the discipline and doctrine of our primitive church can open a place of refuge for sound and healthful piety among the numerous opposing sects with which that country is overrun, I have mentioned these things with feelings far from those of unkindness towards our brethren there, but with a hope that if any among them should feel with us in England, and will continue faithful through evil report to maintain our ancient principles, he is not without the sympathy of many who are here. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, OxONIENSIS. St. Simon and St.Jude, Oxford. ON CONFIRMATION. (Continued from p. 566.) THERE can be no occasion to add the concurrent expositions of Theophylact, Theodoret, and others. I will only add these observations to shew the reasonableness of this interpretation, and application of the passage, which the church has received and teaches. 1. It is clear that the apostle connects the partaking of the Holy Ghost with some rite which he designates the imposition of hands. The construction of the passage requires it; nor can it be set aside without violence to the rules of interpretation. 2. It is clear, that this gift of the Holy Ghost, thus connected with the imposition of hands, is one in which the body of the people were partakers, and not the chief pastors only. The eleventh and twelfth verses of the preceding chapter shew this; and it is required by the tenour of the whole passage. For the being enlightened, the tasting, the partaking, are all predicated of the self same persons, the "those" at the beginning of the fourth verse. If one member of the sentence be confined to the apostles, all must be, and the reproof and warning be applied to them alone, and not affect all Christian persons. For the passage will then run thus For it is impossible for those apostles who were once enlightened, &c. ;" and if this be so, then it will likewise follow, that the whole "foundation" spoken of in verse 1, was laid for the apostles only. 3. It is clear that this special partaking of the Holy Ghost, connected with some rite which is spoken of as the imposition of hands, and thus shewn to be the privilege of all the faithful, is a per : petual ministry, and a divine institution; perpetual, because the first and fundamental principles of the doctrine of Christ cannot be changed; of divine institution, for otherwise the apostle would be found "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Next let us consider the texts in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. i. ver. 13,.14: "In whom (in Christ) ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom, also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise; 14. Which is the earnest (dppaßwva) of our inheritance, until the redemption (άπоλνтρwσiv) of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Chapter v., ver. 30. “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye have been sealed (éoppayio0nre) unto the day of redemption" (aπоλνтρwσεws). Compare with these 2 Cor. v. 5: "Now he that hath wrought us for the self same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest (appaßwva) of the Spirit;" and Rom. viii. 23: "Ourselves, also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption (äπоλνтρwσiv) of our body." It will not, I suppose, be denied, that these passages relate to one and the same subject. It is clear, from the extracts from the Epistle to the Ephesians, that the first fruits of the Spirit, the earnest of that inheritance which is not fully to be received till the redemption (resurrection) of the body, was a gift in which the whole church were partakers, and not the apostles only. "Ye," the whole body of the faithful at Ephesus, "have been sealed" with it. The question is, was this gift, this sealing of the Spirit, conveyed by the administration of water, or by another rite, appended to, and consequent to that? The scriptures alone may suffice to answer the question. We have seen already the apostle speaking of another rite besides baptism, namely, that of the imposition of hands, and connecting the partaking of the Holy Ghost with it. This perhaps, alone, might be sufficient; but it does not stand alone. The expression in Ephesians, "Ye are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise," may help us to establish it upon another ground. To what promise of the Holy Spirit does St. Paul refer? Is it not the same which St. Peter mentioned on the day of Pentecost, when, speaking of the gift of the Holy Ghost, then first given, (the presence of which, for the mere confirmation of the faith, was at first manifested by miraculous powers,) he said, "The promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call ?" It cannot be doubted that the two apostles are speaking of the same thing. Where, then, shall we find the promise? St. Peter himself tells us, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel (ii. 28); It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions and also upon the servants, and upon the handmaids, in those days will I pour out my Spirit.' "I beg it may be observed, that if St. Peter is correct in his saying, that the gift of the Holy Ghost upon the day of Pentecost was a fulfilment of this prophecy of Joel, then the hypothesis (which has |