WE are not aware that the question of Presbyter has ever been legally determined. Some years ago a Bishop of Bristol required the clergy of that city to repeat the words separately to each communicant, but this was found impracticable; since it would have protracted the morning service so long, as to interfere with the afternoon service-would have completely exhausted the officiating ministers, and rendered it exceedingly inconvenient, if not impracticable, to many of the communicants to attend. These objections were stated to the diocesan, and a reference made to the departure from the rubric in the confirmation service alluded to above. are not sure whether his lordship withdrew his requisition, but the Bristol clergy (than whom a more valuable, and regular body of pastors do not exist) deemed themselves justi-fied in reverting to their original practice. We It appears to us that a minister is justified in delivering the elements to several persons while he repeats the words only once: but that he is not justified in substituting you for thee. The late Mr. Robinson of Leicester, proceeded deliberately from one communicant to another, delivering the bread, to six or eight persons while he repeated the sentence once. His assistant usually repeated the sentence once while delivering the cup to four persons, though sometimes it extended to six. The altar rails were filled with fresh communicants at the north end, by the time the minister arrived at the south, and thus the whole number of communicants received the sacred elements without a single pause. This is the quickest mode of administering the Sacrament to a large congregation that can be devised; and at the same time has no appearance of haste or disorder. If the blessing is repeated once aloud to the whole table, there must be two pauses to each party of communicants, and when there are three or four hundred communicants, filling the communion rails twenty or thirty times; these pauses will together occupy a very considerable time, which is saved by adopting Mr. R's plan-add to which we conceive, that if a minister should ever be brought into the Ecclesiastical Court, Mr. R's plan would admit of easier defence than that referred to by Presbyter. Our correspondent will clearly understand, that we are here only giving an opinion. We believe no person can give an authority. The permission of a bishop given in writing might perhaps be pleaded in the Consistory Court; but we are not sure that it would afford a valid defence in the Court of Arches. The great point here, as in other cases, is for ministers to do their duty as in the sight of God, as nearly in accordance to the rubric, as circumstances will allow; it is not probable that any very serious inconveniences will ensue, even if they should be troubled with a litigious or unreasonable parishioner. It is, however, of the utmost importance that a minister should take care and appoint, at least, one churchwarden on whom he can fully depend; since in some cases proceedings cannot be instituted against a minister in an Ecclesiastical Court, without the unanimous consent of all the churchwardens. ED. REMARKS ON DR. ADAM CLARKE'S SENTIMENTS ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. SIR. In your Number for December, I read with some surprise a communication from G. W. containing extracts from two letters received by him from the late learned and excellent Dr. Adam Clarke. There can be no doubt, whatever, that the venerable Doctor was perfectly sincere in all that he expressed; but I humbly conceive that whatever influence' these recorded sentiments of so great a man concerning our Zion,' may have over the minds of some who are evil-disposed' towards her, the public expression of them will tend to perpetuate a great error, namely, that the Wesleyan Methodists are not Dissenters from the Established Church, and moreover, that, as a body, they would rather rise up in its defence, than assist in its subversion. If I am not mistaken, it is almost universally the practice with this respectable body of Christians, to disclaim the charge of dissent, and to claim the title of members of the Church of England. Now I conceive that Dr. Clarke's letters will not only serve to confirm the Methodists themselves in their pretensions, (the sincerity of which I do not deny,) but also to mislead the minds of churchmen on this subject. May I therefore be permitted, with the highest respect to the memory of so excellent a person, to offer a few remarks on the Doctor's sentiments, as communicated by your correspondent? of the church). All this is well, and all this might be the case with a conscientious, if enlightened and liberal, dissenter; but when the Doctor declares that he not only reveres the orders of the church, and highly esteems its hierarchy, but also that the divine call, on which he acted in assuming the ministerial functions, never lessened in his mind the human call, such as it exists in the orders of the Church of England, and that he could not with his faith and feeling receive any kind of dissenting orders, and also clearly shews that he considers all such orders as spurious, (for he declares that he is without holy orders, and without pretended holy orders;) when, I say, the Doctor declares all this, is there not some inconsistency in his assuming, I will not say the office of preaching, but that of administering the Holy Sacraments as a member of the Church of England. Surely the church herself, in her constitution and government, could not have recognised the Doctor's claim, and must, if consistent with herself, have regarded his proceedings as unlawful, or at least irregular. This revered person alleges, as a reason for his not having received episcopal orders, that not having gone through the regular course, he could not claim them. But surely he might have known that the regular course, (by which, doubtless he means a university educaIs there not some inconsistency tion) is not, absolutely and univerin the Doctor's claiming to be sally, a sine qua non, in a candidate considered a thorough member of for orders; for according to the the Church of England? He de- canons, he may be admitted to the clares that he conscientiously holds, sacred office, without a degree of its doctrine and sacraments, that he school,' and only on the testireverences the Liturgy next to the mony of three or four grave minisBible, that he proclaims its doc- ters; and there was far less trines, and administers its sacra- difficulty in obtaining orders in the ments in the same words, (as those latter method, at the times alluded to by the Doctor, than at the present; I conclude, therefore, that there was some neglect on his part; and especially as he declares that, for the reasons above, he could not, and therefore did not, apply for them. But surely in the long course of forty-three years,' during which this excellent man's views of episcopal ordination remained unchanged, he might have been received with open arms into the bosom of the church as a minister; and with the learning and talents which he possessed, have obtained such preferment as would have opened to him an extensive sphere of usefulness. If the Doctor's reason for remaining unordained, was, that he should not otherwise have the full liberty to preach Jesus, wherever he might find souls perishing for lack of knowledge,' as his words seem to imply, we can only lament that such a mistake could have been made with respect to the liberty enjoyed by the watchmen of our Zion; or, admitting the Doctor's reason to be well founded, there was a further inconsistency in his attachment to episcopal ordination, seeing that it abridged him of a privilege, highly important and necessary to the usefulness of a Christian minister. On the whole, therefore, Mr. Editor, however flattering the testimony of so great a man as the late Dr. Clarke, to the purity and excellence of our church, may be, and undoubtedly is, to all her sincere members, I cannot think that in the above letter, he has fairly made out his claim to be considered a thorough member of the Church of England; nor, on the same principles, do I think that the Wesleyan Methodists at large, are at all consistent in their professions of communion with it. If they are members of our church, or say, if they are ' not dissenters' from it, allow me to ask, 1. Why have they divine service in their places of worship, at the very times in which service is performed in the church? 2. Why do they, mostly, perform divine worship in the same mode as Dissenters, that is offer extempore prayer, and not the prayers appointed by the church? 3. Why do their preachers, not being in episcopal orders, take upon themselves to administer the Holy Sacraments: and why do not the members of their congregations receive at least the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the parish church, always, and not merely occasionally? We might ask other questions besides these, and connected with these; but I presume the above will be sufficient. In short, can true membership with the Church of England consist in any thing short of frequenting her worship statedly and regularly, hearing the word of God from the lips, and receiving the Lord's Supper at the hands of her authorised ministers ? The fact is, the Methodists, though they have altogether dissented from the practice of their forefathers, who, though they held separate assemblies, did not hold them in Church hours, whose preachers never administered the Sacraments, and who frequented the church, and partook of the ordinances at the appointed times, though, I say, they have dissented from the practice, yet they retain the claims of their forefathers; but I think, on every sound principle of church communion, they must be considered as a part and parcel of the dissenting body.* With respect to the attachment, or friendly disposition of these our brethren towards the church which they have left, it may perhaps be *Many churchmen might feel disposed to consider our Wesleyan brethren, as greater dissenters from the Church, than even the Independents; for the latter, as a body, dissent from the discipline, but not from the doctrine of the Church, whereas the former dissent both from her discipline, and from her doctrine, inasmuch as they deny the doctrines mentioned in our Seventeenth Article. considered, that as a body, they are better affected towards us than other classes of dissenters; but if it be true that the Wesleyan Methodists are as eager in erecting new places of worship, and increasing the number of their members, as any other sect of Christians, and if there be any foundation for the numerous complaints of the parochial clergy, concerning their zeal in drawing away the attendants on church to their own places of worship, we may surely doubt whether the anticipation of Dr. Clarke would be at all realized, namely, that if the bodies of the various dissenters were to rise up against the church, the vast bodies of methodists would not hesitate a second to be our light infantry.' I do not mean to insinuate that the methodists would aid and assist in the demolition of our goodly fabric, 66 in INSIDIOUS PROGRESS OF POPERY. SIR,-I address you as a guardian of Christian truth, as one whose desire and aim is todefend the faith against the attacks both of liberalism and fanaticism. At the same time I am disposed to believe that the Christian Guardian would be very suitably and usefully employed in arousing Protestants to beware of, and purge out the leaven of Popery, which having been unwarily admitted, is now prejudicially working among them. statements have been listened to and approved, there is but one step to the reception of the papal distinction between sins, as mortal and venial,-to the belief that purgatory, penances, &c. may satisfy for sins, from which the blood of Christ could not completely cleanse the guilty,—that no one is now to be rejected for some particular transgressions, because our bodies are more frail than they were formerly. And when men have proceeded so far, they will soon uphold in credit, according to the example of the papacy, the decretals of Gratian,* by which the consciences of men may gradually become seared, and themselves be given up to strong Your readers will, I think, unhesitatingly acknowledge, or at least those of them, "who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil," that all statements which impugn the holiness and immutability of the moral law, and the unalterable obligation of men to conform all their inward and outward actions to this law, are but too skilful pioneers of the papal Right Rev. J. Davenant, D. D. Lord Bishop army, arrayed though they be in Protestant uniform. When such *Those who desire more particular information on these papal doctrines and practices may consult the Rev. Josiah Allport's Translation of an Exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, by the of Salisbury; a work well deserving the perusal of all lovers of sound doctrine. delusion to believe a lie. Thus are they brought to consent that the Word of God should be made of no effect by the traditions of men. If these things be so, Mr. Editor, we cannot be too much on our guard against misconceptions and misstatements of the nature of Divine law, and of human obligation. Whilst the purity, excellency, and authority of the Divine law are clearly stated and firmly upheld, we do not handle the word of God deceitfully, but rely only on the obedience and death of Christ, by which the law was magnified and made honourable, and are able by principles drawn from the doctrine which is according to godliness, to urge the necessity of good works. But if on the other hand our views of this subject are built on the opinions of men, and have been engendered by a spurious charity which confounds the mercy of a Being infinite in wisdom and justice, with the weak and blameworthy indulgence of a human parent, then are we in imminent danger of making shipwreck of faith and of a good conscience on the rocks either of popery, antinomianism, pelagianism, or socinianism. The least departure from the path of truth cannot be innocent: it will be attended with consequences in a greater or less degree injurious to the real interest of the individual, as well as to that of others, whose interest he is bound to promote. Perhaps, Mr. Editor, you will allow one who has had intercourse with various denominations of Christians, to publish his opinion, that one fruitful source of errors on the nature of the divine law and of human obligation is a determination to cleave to received hypotheses. This I think might be shewn without much difficulty. However, if a few additional remarks may be admitted, they will tend, I hope, to establish the reasonableness and propriety of the preceding observations. The Church of Christ militant here upon earth, would indeed be much sounder in doctrine, and far less rent with divisions, if the statement made by papal doctors in order to defend connivance at sin, namely, that our bodies are more frail than they were formerly, had never been allowed by protesters against popery improperly to influence their reasonings. In some investigations the consideration of human depravity and of the gpónua σapkos (the fleshly mind) which remaineth even in the regenerate, has a legitimate influence on our reasonings, in others, its influence ought in no wise to be admitted, and if it be admitted, the effect must be baneful. Of this latter kind are investigations on the nature of Divine Law, and of human obligation, and it is by following papal example in these matters, that too many Protestants have imbibed and promulged those erroneous views referred to above. Those views, I mean, which so disorder the mental vision, that men thus affected, walking onwards step by step, without knowing whither they go, are at length irrevocably entangled in the intricate meshes of the papal net. Alas! the spirit of this statement, that our bodies are more frail than they were formerly, improperly influences the preaching of a part of the clergy of the Church of England, and the Theological views of many both in the Church of England and England and among the dissenters. The former expressly affirm in their public teaching that God, who is and can never cease to be, the Governor of all his rational creatures, whether angels, men, or devils, does not require perfection of us, which must mean, I think, that we are not obliged to conform all our words, thoughts, and actions to His holy law. The latter maintain that man must have something |