ping the voice at "your hearts and minds," and pausing a moment, to indicate a certain completion of sense, thus: "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep (the citadel of) your hearts and mindsin (or through) the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." The first member of this sentence expresses the blessing asked-namely, a divinely bestowed and ineffable peace in the hearts and minds of our flocks; while the second member expresses the means through which it must be enjoyed-namely, by knowing and loving the Father and the Son.

It may be asked, against what enemies will this peace "keep" our hearts? The verse immediately preceding Phil. iv. 7, tells us that the anxious cares of this world, which are apt to corrode the mind, and to deaden the heart towards God, are to be resisted, by invariably making our wants known to God in child-like prayer; after which, a peace that passeth understanding will "keep" our hearts and minds from the intrusion of those anxieties and distresses; and this peace will derive its protecting force from our "knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ." But though the primary reference be to worldly anxieties, we need not confine the meaning so narrowly; the " peace of God" will equally "keep the heart and mind" from dread of death and of eternity, from remorse and apprehension of God's wrath, and from that restless unquietness of spirit which is the general lot of our fallen race; our thoughts and desires wander, like Satan, "to and fro in the earth, and up and down in it," and we know not the blessing of real peace till "our hearts there become fixed where true joys are to be found," even the everlasting presence of our divine Saviour. As the "peace of God" is closely connected, in Phil. iv. 7, with the previously mentioned "prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving," so the final benediction of peace is pronounced by the church in close connexion with the devout prayers just offered up by the congregation; those persons present who have not truly prayed have no part or lot in the closing benediction.

Finally, I would take the liberty of suggesting to the university printers the propriety of assisting the reader, by placing a comma after "hearts and minds" in their editions of the Prayer-book; and to those learned gentlemen who translate or edit our liturgy in foreign languages, the necessity of expressing the sense of so important a form as the benediction without any ambiguity.

I am, Sir, with great respect, your constant reader, E. H. S.

OFFICIATING MINISTER'S RECEPTION OF THE EUCHARIST.

SIR,-Your last number contains a letter from "Presbyter Catholicus," offering some remarks on the mode of the officiating minister receiving personally in the celebration of the eucharist. With the writer's objections to Bishop Chase's method I entirely coincide; besides, I would suggest, that such practice comes with no authority to us, since, however intimate communion we may maintain with the protestant epis

copal church in America, (and I cordially hope it may ever be most complete,) on matters of discipline we must be guided solely by our own rulers and the duly appointed formularies. As "Presbyter Catholicus" justly observes, there is certainly an appearance of " presumption, or, at least, of over confidence, in the unqualified declaration, 'I feed on him in my heart by faith with thanksgiving.'" This unseemliness is, however, easily removed by using the optative form, "May I feed on him, &c.; may I be thankful." But such alteration in the expressions ought not to be made earlier than above recommended, as I think I recollect noticing to have been done in one instance, where the minister said, " May I take and eat this in remembrance," &c. The act of reception is clearly, I conceive, a matter of fact, and to be mentioned accordingly; but that the animus in so doing be becoming and acceptable may well be a subject of petition. Since the rubric gives no directions on this point, we are left apparently, which seems to be P. C.'s opinion likewise, to our own private devotion when we ourselves partake; though the propriety certainly, if not even the lawfulness, of using any other than substantially the form appointed for administering may be questioned. I must dissent from your correspondent's idea, that the minister ought to receive "in silence," although, equally with him, disapproving of the necessary form being repeated "aloud," that is, in a loud voice. I consider that the minister's words should be audible to those immediately around, (who are thus rendered witnesses of the manner and formulary with which he partakes,) but that his tone should be sufficiently low to mark distinctly that he is then acting in his individual capacity, not in his usual character as the organ of the assembled congregation. A. H.

December, 1837.

BAPTIS M.

SIR, There is a difficulty respecting infant (or rather, private,) baptism which I very much wish to have solved, and which I am led to propose to you in consequence of some remarks on Mr. Morris's "Companion to the Font," which occur in your present number. At p. 668 is an extract from Mr. M.'s book, in which he says, that if the service is gone through as a mere matter of form by the minister, sponsors, and parents," the parties have no sort of right to expect the powerful operation of the Spirit with the water," &c. An extract from Hooker is then given by yourself (or your reviewer), stating, that God, by covenant, requireth, in the elder sort, faith and baptism; in children, the sacrament of baptism alone," &c. Consonant to this is our service for private baptism, wherein, in the thanksgiving after the baptism and the rubric following, the doctrine that the child is really and truly baptized is clearly stated. But then, in the Catechism, we are told that "repentance... and faith" are required of persons to be baptized; and the next answer, instead of saying that, in the case of infants, repentance and faith may be dispensed with, (on the ground

of their offering no impediment to the operation of God, or any other,) declares that these requisites are promised on their behalf by their sureties, "which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform." Hence it appears, that the service for private baptism and Hooker do not teach that anything is required for the right reception of the sacrament, in the case of infants; whereas the Catechism affirms that repentance and faith must be present in the case of adults, and promised in the case of infants. A satisfactory solution of this difficulty would exceedingly oblige,

Your obedient servant, L. W.

P.S.-Is the reference of Kau Krious to baptism a new interpretation, or is it sanctioned by the voice of antiquity? I must confess that "a reference to the context" does not make the identity clear to me. “Candiderace,” (Cf. Foxe,) Dec. 11, 1837.

OFFICE OF SPONSORS.

REV. SIR, AS much misunderstanding appears to prevail in the church of England with reference to the office of Sponsor, I have ventured to address a few remarks to you upon this subject, hoping that they may prove acceptable and useful to some of your readers.

With this object in view, I shall inquire, first, into the qualifications necessary for those who undertake this office; and, secondly, into the nature of the office itself.

With regard to the first, it is sufficient for my purpose to quote the 29th canon of our church, in which we are told," No parent shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child, nor any godfather or godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf. Neither shall any person be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at christening or confirmation, before the said person so undertaking hath received the holy communion."

From this canon it is evident, not only that no parent may undertake the office for his own child, but also that the person to be admitted to the office must have received the holy communion. And it is not difficult to shew the reasonableness of these conditions; for the design of the institution being to afford assistance to the parents in the performance of their duty, or, in case of their decease, to provide spiritual guardians who may watch over the behaviour of the infant Christian, it is manifest that the object is frustrated, and the use done away with, by the appointment of the parent to the office of sponsor. And that none ought to undertake the office but those who have ratified their baptismal vows in the holy sacrament of Christ's body and blood is equally plain; for, how can those who, by refusing to give this token of their allegiance to their Master, are continually trampling under foot the Christian covenant, be properly qualified to guard the young members of Christ's church against a similar transgression?

Having stated that which our church requires by way of qualification from those who undertake this office, I shall add a few words upon the nature of the office itself. I consider baptism, then, as a covenant,-a covenant, indeed, made upon very unequal terms, (for on one side is the righteous Creator of the universe, and on the other the sinful creature ;) but still a covenant, in which God promises certain benefits, requiring, at the same time, the fulfilment of certain conditions. How, then, can the infant, who, " by reason of his tender age," is incapable of performing that which is required, or even of shewing his willingness to embrace the terms of so merciful and advantageous a covenant, become a partaker of the gospel privileges? Is he to remain an alien, and an outcast from the family of God till the time when he shall be able to take these vows upon himself? Or he may, by a premature death, be prevented from ever uniting himself to the Christian church, and thus die, to all intents and purposes, a heathen in a Christian land.

Wisely has our church anticipated these difficulties by the appointment of sponsors, who stand forward, not in their own names, but in the name of him whom they represent, and to shew, in the face of the church, the readiness with which, were he able, he would accept the gracious terms of the proposed covenant. The sponsor has been well compared to an agent who, in temporal affairs, comes forward to conclude an advantageous bargain for his absent principal. It is, then, in the character of a surety and a proxy that the sponsor appears; as a proxy, in whose name the child may promise to perform the baptismal conditions, and as a surety to the church that he shall be brought up in the true faith of the gospel.

Two errors are, I apprehend, to be guarded against by sponsors; one, of attaching too little, and another, of attaching too much, importance to the office. Those who fall into the first error ought to be reminded of that which our church requires from them by way of qualificationnamely, that they should be persons who, by the continual partaking of Christ's body and blood, shew that they are not unmindful of their own covenant with their Lord and Master. They should be reminded that it is not enough to have presented the child of which they are the constituted sureties with the customary (it may be) well-gilt Bible and Prayer-book, but they should be urged to read over that which our church, in the office for baptism of infants, tells them is their part and duty; that so the design of this desirable institution may be more constantly carried into effect.

It will surely be sufficient to remind those who, on the other hand, may attach too much responsibility to the office, that the things which they promise are promised not in their own name, but in that of the child, as it is clearly intimated in the answer to the question, "What did your godfathers and godmothers then for you?" in the Church Catechism. It is worthy of notice, that in the Prayer-book of Edward VI., the questions in the office for baptism, "Dost thou renounce," &c., were put, not to the sponsors, but to the child,—a variation which certainly sets in a clearer point of view the opinion of our church upon the subject. But we cannot do better than recommend those who

may be in danger of falling into this second error to read carefully the "Exhortation to Godfathers and Godmothers," at the end of the baptismal office, in which they will find the sum and substance of that which the church requires from them.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

S. S. C. C.

THE RECORD NEWSPAPER.

SIR,-A letter of mine, which you were kind enough to insert in the British Magazine of last month, was made the subject of a very lengthened comment in the Record newspaper of the 14th ultimo. The object of the editor was to disprove the position which I had advanced-viz., "that there is no other external mark of a Christian minister than his having derived his orders by a direct unbroken line from the first fathers of the church-the apostles of Christ ;" and to do this more effectually, he brought against it the usual charge of popery. On reading his observations, I wrote to him, to remonstrate against what I considered his unfairness in dealing with the subject as he did; and to offer to reply to his arguments, if he would give me room in his columns to do so. He inserted my remonstrance, and made some comments on it, but gave no answer to my offer. I wrote again, requesting to know whether he would admit my reply, and I received the following answer in the notices to correspondents:-"We scarcely think that we should insert the letter which "B." proposes to send us in defence of the only true mark (in his apprehension) of a Christian minister. We were obliged to close the door against the Hon. and Rev. Arthur Perceval, under the urgent remonstrances of various readers, in the view that we should not willingly allow the Record to be a vehicle of sowing tares as well as wheat; and " B.'s" solitary proposition is, in our judgment, so manifestly and dangerously erroneous, that, on the principle just stated, we must not choose to introduce his statements on the subject into our columns. He may try, if he has a mind. He will understand that we have no fears for ourselves, or our well-instructed readers, but in relation to the many young and inexperienced readers of our publication. Cease to hear instructions that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.' You will not wonder that I had no "mind to try," it being evident, from the principle on which the editor professed to act, that he would not insert my answer, if it should have any strength, or even show, of argument. As to the principle itself, it can scarcely, I think, be maintained, with any consistency, by the editor of the Record. Let his readers judge whether one who so strongly advocates the free discussion of every matter connected with religion-who even argues for the necessity of giving publicity to all the controversial conversations which take place at the committee meetings of the Christian Knowledge Society-whether such a one can consistently animadvert on the statements of a correspondent of your Magazine, and virtually close the door against any reply to his strictures. As I find that the Record and some of its correspondents are, nevertheless, continually