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 a number 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.

SIB,-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.

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 admirable 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.

1.

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."

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

"

7. I see, by the newspapers, that at a vestry meeting a clergyman said no person had a right to be present unless he were entitled to vote, and ordered those parishioners to depart who were not so entitled. In Maddy's Ecclesiastical Digest," page 100, under the word "parishioners," is, "1. Their duties. If a vestry meeting is called, every parishioner should attend."— (Clutton v. Cherry, Phill. R. 2, p. 380.)

How is this decision to be understood? Can you afford space to print the whole case?"

GERSHOM.

II.

SIR,-Having recently visited Grantham, I was much surprised at finding the Roman-catholic chapel there (named St. Mary's Church) supplied with a bell, which is duly rung on Sunday mornings, at eight o'clock, and whenever mass or any other rite is performed. Pray, is such a practice legal? and if not, is there any penalty? I am, Sir, your obedient servant, C.

MR. BOWLES AND THE "CHRISTIAN OBSERVER."

SIR, A letter is inserted in your number for August from the Rev. Canon Bowles to Lord Bexley, in which Mr. Bowles speaks of "the pages of the last number of the 'Christian Observer,"" as containing some statement respecting an alleged spiritual destitution of some parish in Wiltshire. The same misstatement respecting the "Christian Observer" having been printed in Wiltshire as a hand-bill without Mr. Bowles's name affixed, the following letter was sent to the printer, Mr. Mayo, Malmsbury :

"The conductors of the Christian Observer' would be much obliged to Mr. Mayo to inform them of the name of the person upon whose authority has been printed and published, with his name as printer, a false, scandalous, and injurious statement, that some person who signs himself 'A Friend to Truth' had seen, in that widelydisseminated publication, the Christian Observer,' a letter unjustly reflecting upon the moral condition of some village or villages in Wiltshire. No such letter ever appeared, or would have been admitted in their pages,-they know nothing of it; and if any society or individual has put forth fabrications calculated to injure the church of England or its ministers, they would, upon being informed of the facts, have been among the first to repel the slander. It constantly happens, amidst the innumerable advertisements and advertizing bills stitched up by booksellers, societies, and others, with magazines, that there are statements which the conductors of the work know nothing of, and would not approve; but would Mr. Mayo dare to publish that some statement in a report of a society, stitched up with scores of other bills under the cover of the Quarterly Review' was part of a letter from one of the Quarterly Reviewer's own correspondents, and inserted 'in' that work?

"As the conductors of the Christian Observer' intend to make known the shame

Does

refuse to officiate because they have not provided the proper ornaments. Gershom really mean that the clergyman who officiates without lights on the altar, and the clergyman who alters what he pleases in the words of the Common Prayer Book or offices, equally break the solemn oath they have taken, either in letter or spirit? Instead of no single clergyman keeping to the form, (of words, for that is what is meant, in the place cited, by the spirit of the oath, and perhaps the letter,) the Editor will venture to assure "Gershom" that there are thousands who never alter one word of the services he alludes to, or, except by inadvertence, one single word through the daily service.-ED.

*Gershom" says he does not wish his letter to be printed, and that he therefore has not studied brevity. But the abridging questions, in order to answer them, is a long operation. They are therefore printed as he wrote them. No. 4 is omitted, because it was not a question.

VOL. X.-Sept. 1836.

2 U