cumstances pointed out in our friend's letter, which, as they had previously occurred to ourselves, we shall treat as our own. We beg of him, however, to accept our best thanks for his communication; and to rest satisfied, that no exertion shall be wanting on our parts to fulfil his expectations. We beg also to acknowledge the receipt of a tract by Dr Millar of Armagh,, to which we shall give our most attentive consideration.

Having thus disposed of the remarks of others, we proceed to offer a few of

our own.

In our paper upon the Book of Common Prayer, the only notice which we took of the sacraments, as administered in the Church of England, had reference to the mode of administration enjoined in the Rubrick. Speaking of baptism, in particular, we objected strongly to the rule in force respecting sponsors, by which parents are positively excluded from answering for their own children. Our reasons for objecting to this arrangement were these, that in consequence of it, the offices of god-father and god-mother have ceased to be other than nominal; that persons daily pledge themselves to a duty which they have no means of fulfilling; and that great inconvenience frequently arises from the unwillingness of a man's neighbours to connect themselves so intimately with him and his family. These are very weighty objections; but they are not, perhaps, the most weighty that may be offered; they certainly tend not, in the same degree with those which we are now about to enumerate, to hold up our venerable establishment to the scorn of mankind as a mass of contradictions and absurdities. The following is the canon in force relative to the matter now before us.

"No parent shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as god-father for his own child; nor any god-father or god-mother 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 god-father or god-mother to any child at christening or confirmation, before the said person so undertaking hath received the holy communion." Of the first clauses in this canon we have already said enough to show the impropriety,

and we wish, at present, to offer a few remarks upon the last.

That there is anything essentially wrong in hindering persons from answering for a child at the font till after they have themselves received the sacrament, we are very far from desiring to assent; the only question is, how has the injunction been attended to, or rather, how can it be attended to in the existing state of society? It is a well-known fact, that if out of a parish containing fifteen hundred or two thousand inhabitants, two hundred persons are to be found, who regularly or even occasionally receive the sacrament, the number of communicants is in that parish very great; in the generality of parishes we believe the number to be much less. The average number of christenings, however, in parishes of this population, may be taken at one hundred, or one hundred and fifty per annum. Now, as each child requires three sponsors at the least, two god-fathers and one god-mother if a boy, two god-mothers and one god-father, if a girl, it is clear, that were none but communicants admitted to discharge the office, each would find himself called upon to undertake the most serious charge which a christian man is ever called upon to undertake, twice, if not three times every year. Were that man desirous of fulfilling his duty, and did the law of the land permit him to redeem a pledge so solemnly given, it is self-evident that the most common attention to his own affairs must hinder him from obeying his inclinations; whereas, in the present posture of affairs, each communicant, were the canon rigidly enforced, would be required to perjure himself-that is all-ever and anon, in order to secure for the children of the parish the benefits of Christian baptism. Communicants, however, are, generally speaking, the most serious and rightminded members of the Church. They consequently hesitate to undertake a charge, which they are quite aware it will not be in their power to fulfil; and hence the form, for it has become nothing better than a form, of standing for infants, as it is called, is almost universally left to men and women, the great majority of whom neither know nor care anything about the matter. We have ourselves seen an infant presented to the priest, and all the custo

mary declarations made, by a man whose contempt for religion was well known, but whom the parent selected because he was rich, and because he hoped that the rich infidel's godson might be remembered in his will. There are very mischievous consequences arising out of a regulation, certainly not enjoined in scripture either by precept or example.

Nor does the evil rest here. The clergy, to a man, feel the impractica"bility of acting up to the canon; they consequently seldom scruple about neglecting it. Some do so openly. They receive parents and strangers indiscriminately, and perhaps they do right; but there are others of more tender conscience, over whom the reflection has considerable weight, that previous to this ordination they solemnly swore to obey the canons, and cannot therefore violate them with impunity. How do they proceed? Why, thus: Knowing perfectly well that it is the father of the child who presents him, and that he presents him in his own proper person, they yet affect not to know this. They presume that he stands as proxy for some absent friend. How much is it to be regretted, that Christian ministers should be driven to such alternatives, and Christianity itself exposed to ridicule, by the pertinacious retention of a law, erroneous in its principle from the first, and now generally acknowledged to be such.

Again, it is distinctly asserted in the Church Catechism, that "Christ hath ordained two sacraments as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.' In the baptismal service likewise, certain expressions are used, which convey the idea, that by a due reception of that rite, and by alms, persons "born in sin, and the children of wrath, are made the children of grace." What the Church of England means by this phrase we take it not upon us to determine; but we presume it has some meaning, and the obvious meaning undoubtedly is, that there is no assurance of salvation to any person who has not partaken of that initiatory sacrament. We believe likewise, that such of the clergy of the English Church as know why they are members of that Church rather than of the Churches of Scot

land or Geneva, regard baptism as valid, only when it has been conferred by a Priest or Deacon Canonically, that is Episcopally ordained. Though, therefore, these gentlemen may, and, we presume, do, universally encourage the hope, that the circumstance of having been baptised by a Presbyterian Minister will not stand in the way of a man's acceptance hereafter, who has laboured " to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling," we presume at the same time, that they would not willingly admit to the Lord's table any individual thus baptised. This may be called bigotry; but this is the doctrine of the Church; unless, indeed, which we by no means conceive to be the case, the Church acknowledges the validity of lay-baptism. How then must the clergyman act when the individual dies, whom in his life-time he never regarded as a member of the Church, nor consequently as his brother? Why, he dare not refuse to read over his corpse the very same form of words which he reads over the corpses of the most pious and most popular of his own flock; and the body of a man, which, when animated by the spirit, never entered the Church at all, must now be carried within its walls, and from thence to the grave, with all the pomp and solemnity which usually attends the English burial-service. We look upon this as an extreme hardship imposed upon the English clergy; but it is not the greatest hardship to which they are subjected.

It is well known to all our readers that the Quakers never baptise at all; and that Baptists defer their ceremony till after the catechumen shall have arrived at years of discretion. The dipping of a Baptist must, however, in the eyes of an English clergyman, have exactly the same value with the baptism conferred by a Presbyterian divine. Those, therefore, whose ignorance of the constitution of the Church, or indifference to it, leads them to consider the person baptised by a minister of the Kirk, as canonically admitted into Christ's Church, cannot possibly deny the same priviledge to the person dipped by the Baptists; hence he who experiences no reluctance to read the burial-service over the body of the first, will experience none in reading it over the

body of the last. But the Baptist may die before he has been dipped; the case, indeed, occurs daily. May the clergyman refuse to say of him, that he "rests in sure and certain hope of the resurrection of eternal life," that "God hath taken unto himself the soul of his dear brother ?" &c. &c. He may refuse, no doubt, if he be so disposed, but the certain reward of his refusal will be, not the thanks of the Bishops and the praise of his brethren, but the penalty of a premunire. What must an inquiring age like the present think of all this? But we have not yet done with the burial-service, as it connects itself with the canons and other formularies of the English Church. Let our readers bear in mind, that one of the penal ties of excommunication is the denial of Christian burial to the body of the excommunicated person. Let them farther bear in mind, that every clergyman of the English Church takes a solemn oath, at his ordination, that he I will act in obedience to the laws or canons of the Church, into whose ministry he has entered. Let them keep this in mind, and then read the following extracts from the book of canons, enacted by convocation, sanctioned by the King, and still in force. We should apologize for the length of our extracts, did we not feel that the matter ought to be looked at connectedly or not at all.

2. "Whoever shall hereafter affirm, that the King's Majesty has not the same authority in causes ecclesiastical, that the godly kings had amongst the Jews and Christian Emperors of the primitive Church, or impeach any part of his regal supremacy in the said causes restored to the crown, and by the laws of this realm therein established, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored but only by the Archbishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of those his wicked errors." Is there a Roman Catholic in the empire who does not deny all this? and may a Clergyman of the Church of England refuse to read over him the burial-service? The laws of the land say no.

3. "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the Church of England, by law established under the King's Majesty, is not a true and apostolic Church, teaching and maintaining the doctrine of the apostles, let him be excommuVOL. XIX.

nicated ipso facto, and not restored but only by the Archbishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of this his wicked errors." There is not a sect of Dissenters in the kingdom by whom the above assertion is not made; yet all are entitled to burial according to the forms of the established church.

4. "Whoever shall hereafter affirm, that the form of God's worship in the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, is a corrupt superstition, or unlawful worship of God, or containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the scriptures, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but by the Bishop of the place, or Archbishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors."

5. "Whoever shall hereafter affirm, that any of the nine-and-thirty articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergy, in the convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord one thousand five hundred and sixtytwo, for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion, are in any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but only by the Archbishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors."

6. "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, by law established, are wicked, anti-Christian, or superstitious, or such as, being commanded by lawful authority, men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or, as occasion requi reth, subscribe unto them, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.'

7." Whoever shall hereafter affirm, that the government of the Church of England under his Majesty, by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and the rest that bear office in the same, is anti-Christian and repugnant to the word of God, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and so continue until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.' F

8. "Whosoever shall hereafter af firm or teach, that the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the word of God, or that they who are made Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, in that form, are not lawfully made, nor ought to be accounted, either by themselves or others, to be truly either Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, until they have some other calling to those divine offices, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, not to be restored until he repent and publicly revoke such his wicked errors."

9. "Whoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the communion of saints, as it is approved by the Apostles' rules in the Church of England, and combine themselves together in a new brotherhood, accounting the Christians who are conformable to the doctrine, government, rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England, to be profane and unmeet for them to join with in Christian profession, let them be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but by the Archbishop, after their repentance, and public revocation of such their wicked errors."

10. "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that such ministers as refuse to subscribe to the form and manner of God's worship in the Church of England, prescribed in the CommunionBook, and their adherents, may truly take unto them the name of another church, not established by law, and dare presume to publish it, that this their pretended church hath of long time groaned under the burthen of certain grievances imposed upon it, or by the members thereof before-mentioned, by the Church of England, and the orders and constitutions there in by law established, let them be excommunicated, and not restored, until they repent and publicly revoke such their wicked errors."

11. "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm or maintain, that there are within this realm other meetings, assemblies, or congregations of the King's born subjects, than such as by the laws of this land are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themselves the name of true and lawful churches; let him be excommunicated, and not restored but by the Archbishop, after

Such are eleven out of the twelve first or leading canons of the English Church. We have not transcribed them without great pain to ourselves, and we venture to say that their perusal will cause great pain to our readers,-at least to that portion of them who, like ourselves, wish well to the religion of their fathers. It will be seen, that they are so framed as to place under the ban of excommunication every sect and denomination of persons, except such as continue within the pale of the established Church; for an excommunication ipso facto needs not a formal pronunciation to render it effective. Of this Archbishop Wake, in his "Appeal in behalf of the King's Supremacy," has distinctly assured us, where it is plainly declared, that "there is no need, in this case, of any admonition, as where the judge is to give sentence; but every one is to take notice of the law at his peril, and to see that he be not overtaken by it. And, secondly, that there is no need of any sentence to be pronounced which the canon itself hath passed, and which is, by that means, already promulged upon every one as soon as he comes within the obligation of it. In other cases, a man may do things worthy of censure, and yet behave himself so warily as to escape the punishment of the Church, for want of legal evidence to convict him. But excommunicatio canonis, ligat etiam occulta delicta. Where the canon gives sentence, there is no escaping; but the conscience of every man becomes obliged by it, as soon as ever he is sensible that he has done that which was forbidden, under the pain of such an excommunication."

The Church of England has been severely censured for ever giving her sanction to enactments so dogmatical

class, no serious person can think without horror.

or uncharitable. It is not on this ground that we are disposed to take the matter up. No doubt, the canons breathe a spirit very little in accordance with the liberal temper of the present times; but of the liberality of the present times we are no admirers. In nine cases out of ten, it expends itself in mere words; and in the tenth case it runs wild into licentiousness. The matter to which we are desirous of drawing the attention of the public is the positive contrariety-the downright hostility-between the ecclesiastical and common law of the land. The Church has declared all sectaries and dissenters, whether Popish or Protestant, excommunicate, and accordingly unfit to receive Christian burial. The ministers of the Church swear to pay attention to that order. Then comes the common law, which declares, that unless they disregard the rules of their body, and violate their own oaths, they shall be liable to heavy penalties. God help poor Church in a struggle so unequal

All this is very bad; but the subject of which we are now going to treat is a thousand degrees worse. At the period when the struggle between the Reformed and Popish Churches was at its height, or rather just after the former had gained the ascendency in these realms, it occurred to the heads of the nation, that the best means of preserving that ascendency would be to exclude from all share in the government, and indeed from all public and responsible offices, such persons as were not willing to conform to the religion established by law. In its principle the resolution was a wise one. It is sheer folly to talk of the natural right of every man to enjoy places of temporal power and influence, without respect being had to his religious opinions. There is no separating a man's religious from his political principles; and he who owns a foreign master in spiritual affairs, will find it a hard matter to persuade us that he denies to his spiritual master the right of interference in affairs temporal. The soul and the body are not more closely linked together than a man's religious and political prejudices. Of the resolution itself, then, we think very highly; but of the test applied― of the method adopted for determining whether or not the applicant for honour came within the privileged

Every man, without exception, who wished to qualify, as it is termed, for the situation of a member of Parlia ment, a magistrate, or other responsible trust, was originally required to receive the sacrament in a parish church, and at the hands of an established minister, at least twice within the six months preceding his appointment. Among members of Parliament this proceeding is now abolished, an act of indemnity passing every session —in plain language, the test-law being every session repealed; but we are mistaken if the force of that repeal extend to county magistrates. Be this, however, as it may, any person, no matter what his character may be, who desires to hold a public situation, may present himself before the altar, and demand the sacrament. By canon 26, however, it is enacted, and most properly enacted, that "no minister shall in anywise admit to the receiving of the holy communion any of his cure or flock which he openly knows to live in sin notorious, without repentance." Nay, so far does the canon go, that even persons having a quarrel with other persons are excluded, till after such difference shall have been composed. Can the clergymen obey the canon? We fear not. We are much afraid, that he who should refuse to comply with the request of the applicant, applying for the political purpose above referred to, would find no shelter in the scandalous behaviour of him whom he had rejected. By such rejection the state might lose an able officer, and what is the respecta→ bility of the Church when put in competition with such a misfortune? Nothing at all. The terrors of a premunire hang over the priest's head, and to avoid these he must set the canon at defiance.

We are the last persons in the world who would desire to stir up animosity between the civil and ecclesiastical governments of the country; we should be extremely sorry to see the two branches of the constitution separated, or the Church made entirely independent of the state. Long may the King of these Islands be "in all causes, and over all persons, ecclesiastical as well as temporal, supreme." But the state of utter slavery into which the Church has fallen cannot be kept sc