always supposed that when our blessed Redeemer (Matt. v. 23, 24,) and the apostle Paul (Heb. xiii. 10,) both spake of a Christian "altar" to which "gifts" were to be brought, and of which the faithful were to "eat," they implied that there must be priests to offer (i. e. to sacrifice) the gifts that were to be eaten. Nor was I less surprised at the second statement, when I remembered that the whole second chapter of Leviticus (to name no other places) was occupied with nothing but directions for the due performance of such sacrifices. I hope Mr. Poynder will not (upon consideration) be displeased with these remarks, nor think I say more than is meet when I say that something more than worthiness, and amiableness of character, and zeal for religion, (all which I believe him largely to possess,) is required in one who would be an expounder of Christian truth, especially in so important and fundamental a part of it as the doctrine of the Christian sacrifice in the eucharist, the highest and most essential outward act of Christian worship. PHILALETHES. P.S. There is the more need to notice these defects, because the knot of zealous laymen who have assumed the title of "The Established Church Society" have deemed Mr. Poynder's publication worthy their patronage. IRISH SYNODS. SIR,-The author of the paper on "The Writings of St. Patrick," in the last number, has (in the note §, at p. 610,) this expression,-" One very remarkable peculiarity of the Irish church, introduced by St. Patrick, was the practice of annual synods, or councils of the bishops." May I be allowed to refer him to the thirty-eighth canon of the Ante Nicene code, the fifth of the Great Nicene, the twentieth of Antioch, the eighth of Chalcedon, the third of the fourth of Toledo, the seventy-first of Agele, and, in the English church, to the seventh of Theodore, the third of Cealchythe, and the fourth of Lanfram, by which it will appear that this, which he styles " a very remarkable peculiarity of the Irish church," was the uniform rule throughout all Christendom, enjoined by the primitive, the catholic, and the provincial codes. A. P. S. "Hibernicus" will find some of these canons cited at length in the August number of this Magazine, p. 149. DIVINITY FELLOWSHIPS. SIR,-In the paper on "Clerical Libraries," the following passage occurs: Among the residents,"-i. e. the resident fellows,-"the time of a large number is consumed in teaching the undergraduates the rudiments of knowledge; and the peculiar pursuits of the day have induced many others to devote their splendid powers-not to their professional studies-but to the prosecution of physical science." I have often thought, that could we but excite a due measure of consideration among persons holding the divinity fellowships of their various colleges, we might reckon upon inducing many to change the subject of their studies; for but a slight inquiry into the intentions of those foundations would make it evident that they were at present in NO wise fulfilling them. It will of course be conceded that divinity fellowships (and such are the great majority in the university) were founded with religious intentions; sometimes, it may be, they were the mere product of a futile expectation that a parting act of piety would serve to atone for the sins and negligences of a misspent life; but let us hope that they far oftener owed their existence to a deliberate desire for the advancement and perpetuity of theological erudition. In either case, the latter is the ostensible and recognised purpose; it is also the purpose to which a conscientious feeling would have them appropriated. How is this intention answered? Can men whose time and energies are devotedly given up to scientific research be expected to make any contribution to sacred literature, or even to arrive at a decent degree of acquaintance with it? Yet, that they might become proficient therein, and impart the sounder views resulting from that proficiency, was the chief object of the endowment which supports, or helps to support them. Little, indeed, did the founders of college fellowships imagine that what they had set apart for the glory of God should in after times become the reward of, and an instrument for promoting, scientific skill. May I then respectfully propose this question,-Are not those who derive an income from religious foundations bound in honour to devote their endeavours towards the increase, or at any rate the acquisition, of theological learning? Cambridge, Nov. 11, 1835. A CAMBRIDGE MAN. SPONSORS AT BAPTISM. SIR,-It would, I think, be satisfactory to many persons, if you, or some experienced correspondent, would give advice to young clergymen in a matter of great importance, and of some difficulty and delicacy-I mean the admission of persons, not communicants, to the office of sponsor at the baptism of infants. Our church, in her twenty-ninth canon, requires that no person be admitted to the office of godfather or godmother before he have received the holy communion. Is this injunction to be considered in all cases strictly binding; as, for example, in small country parishes, where the difficulty of procuring sponsors thus qualified would prevent many infants from being brought to the font? and thus not only deprive the infant of the benefits of that holy sacrament, but perhaps gradually weaken the people's sense of its necessity, or have the effect of irritating them against the minister for thus (however conscientiously) refusing to baptize their children, and even drive many to the meeting-house for what they cannot get at church. No one, of course, will deny how greatly "it is to be desired" that such godly discipline could be restored, and the sacrament not profaned, as it very frequently is at present, by the admission of sponsors whom no stretch of charity can make us think properly qualified for their office. No one will deny the duty of endeavouring to bring about a better state of things, but is a sudden strictness in adhering to the canon the most likely means of doing so? or may it not be better to suspend such strict adherence until, by much instruction on the subject, the people are prepared for it? I am inclined to think so, (though speaking diffidently,) 1. Because the admission of infants to this grace of baptism is a practice so undoubtedly apostolical, and an object of such transcendant importance, that it seems cruel both to child and parent to throw difficulties in the way of this charitable work. I am satisfied that very many children would continue unbaptized if the canon were strictly adhered to. 2. Because, in a country where Christian instruction is increasingly diffused, the necessity for sponsors properly qualified (however desirable that they should be so) is not so great as was probably the case in former times. 3. Because our church, by substituting her communion service for that ancient discipline the return of which is so greatly to be desired, seems to teach us that regard must be had to the circumstances of the age in which we live, (where principle is not compromised,) and that we must act on the principle of gaining what we can, in matters of discipline, where we cannot gain what we would. 4. Because (as is evident from the title of the canon,) it is directed against the admission of "children too young yet to communicate" to the responsible office of standing surety for infants; and therefore the admission of grown persons, who, though not communicants, are professing Christians, and understand the nature of what they undertake, may not, perhaps, be deemed a violation of our engagement to comply with the canons of the church. I should much value your opinion on this subject; and am ORDINATION SERVICE.-ACTS, VI. 2-7. SIR,-The argument of the dissenters, drawn from this passage, “to prove the right of the people to elect their own spiritual ministers," to which your correspondent "B." has called the attention of your readers, (see the last number, p. 655,) does not seem very difficult to "refute." When the deacons, as at first appointed, were entrusted merely with "the daily ministration" of alms to the "widows," (Acts, vi. 1,) and with "serving-tables," (ibid. 2,) it might be matter of small moment what share the congregation had in their election. But when, in process of time, they were employed in the administration of spiritual offices, it might very well be deemed expedient by the rulers of the church to dispense with that process, lest the deacons should be tempted to seek to "please men," and so cease to be the faithful "servants of Christ." (Gal. i. 10.) Accordingly, in the directions which St. Paul has left on record to the chief pastor of Ephesus, no allusion whatever is made to any choice on the part of the peoples The instructions imply, that the election, as well as appointment, rested with the bishop. The only thing, indeed, which causes the passage in Acts to give even an apparent sanction to the dissenters is, the forgetting to draw the distinction between elect and appoint. These are equivalent with the dissenters; in the passage before us they are not: the multitude elected, but the chief pastors "appointed." (ver. 3.) The responsibility of the appointment requires, of necessity, the liberty of refusal. When the dissenters shall have chief pastors, in whose breast it shall remain whether to appoint or to reject those who are elected for spiritual ministers by the congregations, then, and not till then, may they (according to outward form) appeal to this passage to sanction their proceedings. I say according to outward form, because, of course, the mere form of episcopal government will not restore to the apostles' fellowship any body of Christians who have unhappily cast away the apostolic commission. Vide "Churchman's Manual," p. 8. A. BURIAL FEES. SIR,-I was glad to see the information in your last respecting burial fees, but it is not what we want. It is quite clear that, in Romancatholic times, nothing could be demanded pro terrâ vel pro officio, though a customary payment pro quolibet mortuo, a mortuary or corsepresent, was allowed. All this is clear, from the authorities cited in Gibson's Codex, and Spelman. But notwithstanding the ancient canons, burial fees have, for about two centuries and a half, been authorized and received; but considerable doubt exists as to the time and how they were introduced. Lord Stowell alludes to the subject, in his judgment in the Iron Coffin case, but does not speak with any certainty or precision; and I am not aware of any printed book which contains any satisfactory information respecting the origin of these fees, and how the practice of the church was changed in this particular. The question was once discussed in a court of law, but nothing beyond the common and trite matter was elicited. Now, from what I have found, I entertain a strong hope that much may be gleaned from old parish books and documents; therefore, pray, again press some of your numerous and competent readers to look into their stores for facts to assist us in this historical dilemma. N. C. T. PLURALITIES. MR. EDITOR, Among the many wholesome reforms so warmly advocated and urged upon us (churchmen) by our "dissenting brethren," not one has been more loudly cried up than the abolition---the total abolition-of anything like pluralism or non-residence in our clergy. Now, whatever may be the merits of the question in itself, or whatever may be the right of those who glory in not belonging to our Church, to interfere at all in its internal arrangements, there is one VOL. IX.-Jan. 1836. II trifling thing, which, before they undertake to reform us, they certainly are bound to do, but towards which they have hitherto done little or nothing. Before they set us to rights upon the point of pluralities and non-residence, why do they not make all things square with regard to these matters among their own ministers? If it were for no other reason, it would be worth while for the sake of the example. We all know how far that goes; and who can tell what effect such a perfection of system as they recommend to us might have, were it realized among themselves, upon our opinions and conduct? At present, I am sorry to say, no such realization of their own theories is to be found in the practice of the dissenters. To have two meeting-houses, if not more, served by one minister, is a most common arrangement with them in rural districts. How often, in the country, upon asking, in front of a decent-looking dissenting place of worship, where the minister resides, the answer is, "Oh, Sir, he does not live here; he lives at, and only comes here on Sundays to preach ?" The excuse for this pluralism and non-residence is, that as each village alone is too poor to support a "gospel preacher," two (or more) are either forced to go without altogether or else to have one between them. To me this seems a very fair excuse; so much so, that I do not see why, if it may be used by dissenters, it may not in some cases be used by churchmen also. And if they will not give us the benefit of it, let them not take the benefit of it themselves; let them rather hasten to get rid of the abuse, and do away with pluralities and non-residence among themselves before they begin to bring us into order. The ministerial office of a dissenting teacher either does or does not extend beyond mere preaching and praying. If it does, the absence of a pastor from his flock is just as great a practical evil in their system as it would be in ours. Five or six miles is as much of a journey for the dissenter as for the church clergyman; indeed, the latter is generally said to be so "rich," that, perhaps, we may allow him a horse, and so turn the scale in his favour, and make the practical evils springing from his non-residence much less than those resulting from the non-residence of the dissenting minister, who, it may be, is forced to walk all the way. But if, on the other hand, the ministerial office among dissenters does not extend beyond mere preaching and praying, then it is, as a system of Christian instruction, manifestly inferior to ours. And, however imperfect in some respects ours may be, still, inasmuch as it confessedly often not only attempts but establishes a pastoral supervision, it must in this respect far exceed any system which does not even attempt this. However, my comparison of non-residence in the church with non-residence out of the church is yet incomplete. A non-resident in the church is, in general, one who holds two livings,-on one of which he resides himself, whilst on the other he is obliged to keep a curate. A non-resident out of the church is one who serves two meeting-houses; they may be, and often are, half-a-dozen miles apart; he may, or he may not, reside near one of these; he cannot be very near both. Some few of our country parishes, where there is no glebe-house, are still served by clergymen residing at some distance. But still the dissenters beat us. |