which the minister is to pray, leaving him to use his own words; for had this been the meaning of the canon, the nonconformists would have had no need to petition, the canon itself granting them the liberty which they desired-that of using extempore prayer.

With respect to the assertion in the address, "in the early period of our church it appears to have been uniformly the custom of the minister to use in the pulpit his own conceived prayer," all I have to say is, that if it be correct, Wheatley must have examined the subject on which he professed to treat very superficially, for he asserts the very contrary. His title page contains a direct contradiction to it-" An historical vindication of the fifty-fifth canon, shewing that the form of bidding prayers has been prescribed and enjoined ever since the Reformation, and constantly practised by the greatest divines of our church." In the work itself, he cites the injunction on this subject published in King Edward's reign, and shews how it was observed by Parker in his funeral sermon on Martin Bucer, by Bishop Gardiner in his sermon before the king, and in several of Bishop Latimer's sermons; likewise the injunction put forth by Queen Elizabeth, observed in a sermon extant of Jewel on Luke, xi. 15, and in one by Pearce, Dean of Ely. He also cites Bishop Andrews as observing the canon published in the reign of James I., which is almost word for word the same as the injunction of Elizabeth; and then he makes this remark, "I know of no other person (except Bishop Andrews) in this king's reign that has left us the form he was wont to use; but I believe if anybody will be at the pains to find one out, I may venture to promise him it will be a form of exhortation." He then shews that the observance of the injunction of this canon was made, in the following reigns of Charles I. and II., the subject of inquiry at the visitations of the bishops and archdeacons. It is to be remarked, that the forms of bidding prayer used by the divines above mentioned were not exactly similar. They differed from each other in length and in phraseology, according to the liberty allowed by the canon; but they were all agreeable to the nature of the form therein prescribed-i.e., they were not forms of prayer addressed to God, but forms of exhortation to the people. There is, indeed, an authority for turning the subjects of this bidding form into a form of prayer; of which authority, however, the ministers who signed the address would not be willing to avail themselves. It is that of the famous Cartwright, the early champion of nonconformity. He,* though he dreaded the desk, would often steal into the pulpit, and then turn the heads of the bidding form, together with some others of his own, into a form of prayer; and the irregularity which followed his example was one cause of enforcing the injunction of Elizabeth by a fresh sanction. How to reconcile the sentiments of Bishop Hall, quoted in the address, with this view of the subject, I really do not see; but how weighty soever his individual authority is, (and it is not easy to overvalue it,) yet, with that

Bishop Wittenhall, quoted by Wheatley, page 32.

of Bishop Wilkins added to it, it cannot be considered equal to the authority of the law-the law as it is interpreted by ancient and general usage.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Dec. 29, 1836.

B.

me.

PROTESTANT MONASTERIES.

SIR, The remarks of your correspondent "F. K." in the September Number, upon protestant monasteries, so evidently proceed from one seeking greater degrees of holiness, that to deliver an opinion differing from his is somewhat painful. The question, nevertheless, whether monasteries are necessary for maintaining a spirit of piety within us, or whether they are conducive to such an end, is so important a question, and the statement of different views upon any subject so tends to elicit truth, that I venture to send you what has occurred to Before stating the grounds for the opinion I have come to, let me assure your correspondent that I join him heartily in viewing with abhorrence the notion, that "the further we run from the church of Rome, the nearer we shall come to the truth of Christianity." Nothing, I feel persuaded, can be more injurious to the true welfare of the church of England, than for its members to reject practices in the church of Rome, for no other reason than because they are there to be found; and yet to what a frightful extent is this carried at the present day, when the written laws of our own church are neglected in consequence. Had our reformers, in their extreme anxiety to deliver us from the errors of the church of Rome, laid aside things essential, there might be some excuse for our not wishing to do a work they left undone; but when they wisely retained great points, and we refuse to adopt them, has not our church a right to cry out shame upon us for raising a suicidal hand against her? The neglect of the daily service, the nonobservance of fasts and festivals, and such like transgressions against our own laws, may please some, as bringing us further from the church of Rome; but they seem to forget that we may be thus brought further from the head of all churches. But why, it may be asked, thus express yourself whilst writing about monasteries? I do so from the conviction that it is the neglect I have been alluding to which has led "F. K." to ask anxiously whether monasteries cannot be established in this land. Desirous of gratifying a spirit thirsting after more religion, he looks here and there for the means, but looks in vain, and then fancies that a monastery would afford him all he wants. That he labours under some mistake on this head he will perhaps himself be disposed to allow, should I be able to shew that all he requires is attainable out of a monastery, and more than this, that such establishments will hardly stand a very important test of their being catholic rather than Roman-catholic.

One of " F. K.'s" main objects for wishing to establish monasteries is, as he expresses it, "To carry into full effect the provision made by the church of England for the daily service of God, including a due observance of the festivals, fasts," &c. Now, surely, it requires no monastery to carry into effect so desirable an end: our liturgy was

never drawn up to be used in monasteries alone; though we cannot be surprised that such a mistake should be fallen into amidst days of such melancholy neglect. Are there not many, and is not, happily, the number daily increasing, of those who make their parish church answer this end of a monastery? In regard, also, to private devotions, what obstacle is there in the way of practising abstinence and devotion on the days given notice of, or at least set apart, by our church for such holy exercise? If we have the courage to smile at a world's scoffs, if we have a sufficiently deep sense of sin to exercise sharp self-denial, and a soul disposed to use such devotions as Archbishop Laud used, (according to the arrangement by Dr. Lake, in that invaluable, though, I fear, very rare little work of his, the "Officium Eucharisticum,") or such as "Kettlewell's Office for the Penitent" affords, there will be no need of a monastery for the right observance of the fasting days of our church.

With regard, also, to that other great object which is professed to be sought in the monastery, namely, the means of a regularly conducted, quiet, studious, devotional retreat; may not such a retreat be found in a man's own well-ordered family? Have we not works of the most profound study executed out of the monastery? Let us look, for instance, to Bingham, the learned author of the "Christian Antiquities;" and here we see a man with delicate health, small preferment, and a family of ten children, writing a work which cost him twenty years unremitting labour. I speak of his small preferment and large family, because this cost him much additional labour, since he had often the tedious task to perform of transcribing many whole folio pages, to supply the deficiencies of a mutilated book, of which a complete copy might have been purchased for a few shillings. In this indefatigable author we see how a man's house may be made his study, under circumstances apparently the most unfavourable; and the need, therefore, for carrying on study is, not of a monastery, but of wise regulations, and a judicious management of time.

Again, as to the test which I would put monasteries to, for the purpose of discovering whether they are truly catholic, or otherwise.-When, in the church of Rome, I view with pain such vital errors as the virtual deification of the blessed Virgin Mary, the withholding from the people food sent down from heaven for their support, the use of an unknown language, and other errors which might be named, I am led to weigh carefully her differences from us. The practice of the primitive church in the first three hundred years are the scales in which I weigh these differences: and the accuracy of them our sister church herself, I think, will not dispute. Oh that as a sister she would consent to place our differences in these scales, and for us mutually to abide the issue, gladly putting aside all of bad weight, and retaining only the precious and genuine! We are, if I mistake not, (and with much humility, I trust,) weighing carefully our church's practice, looking into the catholic fathers, with the aid of our most learned men, and sparing no pains to arrive at the truth; and why should not our sister do the same? Why might we not mutually hope, in such a case, that the day would arrive when differences between us there

should be none ?* But to return to our subject. Putting monasteries In the first to the test I have been suggesting, what do we find? three hundred years of Christianity, there was no regular monastery; mention is constantly made of ascetics, that is, men who led a most rigid life of piety; but still they lived in the world, striving to be free from the evil of it. By such a conduct they beckoned men away from the vanities of the world, and taught them how there were joys in store for them well worth their seeking. To have left the world would have been to leave many perishing through ignorance; and the love they bore their brethren, and the greater love they bore their Saviour, made them well content to live in a world of sin and sorrow, and act as instruments in saving souls, by a meek example and a fervent zeal. The seeds of the monastic life appear to have been sown in the Decian persecution, about the middle of the third century, when many persons in Egypt fled to the neighbouring deserts and mountains, as a safe retreat from their raging enemies. The persecution ended, so attached had many become to their situation, that they refused to return to the world; but, at the same time, no community was formed, for they lived separately, scattered here and there. At length Pachomius, in the reign of Constantine, built some monasteries in Thebais,-led to do so, as we may imagine, from the pain of seeing many pious Egyptians living in deserts and mountains. Looking to this origin of monasteries, and remembering how, in the earliest ages of the church, the most pious had not recourse to them, I am inclined to imagine that, unless in the case of extreme necessity, the establishment of monasteries would not be advisable. This, however, I allow, may be a matter of doubt; but the great work to be done, and about which there can be no doubt, is, to place our church in that position that the piously disposed shall have no occasion to cry out piteously for the means of satisfying the demands of their spirit, breathing with an ardent love for their holy religion. That such a work may be undertaken in true earnest, and that it may prosper, is, and shall be, my constant prayer.

I am, Sir, your instructed reader,

OMICRON.

BAPTISM BY IMMERSION.

SIR,-The object of my former letter was to direct attention to the subject of the mode in which baptism ought to be administered, and not to enter fully into the practicability of restoring the ancient usage; for the discussion of which, perhaps, a public journal is not the most proper place. This being the case, I should have been willing to let "Ecclesiasticus' " letter pass, as referring almost entirely to the latter subject; but as he directly challenges a reply, I must beg the insertion of these few remarks, lest I should seem to treat him with a disrespect which I do not feel.

I most cordially subscribe to the sentiment which he expresses,

[While the Romish church retains her claim to infallibility, can there be any

hope from a comparison of doctrines ?-ED.]

VOL. XI.- Feb. 1837.

"that any change in religion is in itself an evil, and the more highly to be deprecated in proportion to the greatness of the mystery about which it is concerned." It was this consideration which prompted me to trouble you with my former letter. Baptism is so great a mystery, that it may be regarded as somewhat hazardous silently to acquiesce in a change in the mode of its administration, which is admitted to be contrary to primitive usage, to the practice of the church for fifteen hundred years, and to the written regulations of that branch of the catholic church to which we belong. I have to regret that " Ecclesiasticus" has not addressed himself to the main question proposed, but has contented himself with setting forth many difficulties which, from our modern habits, stand in the way of restoring immersion. I would rather have discussed the subject in a different order :-first, what is the right mode of administration? and if this should be decided in favour of primitive usage, then, how may we best surmount the difficulties which stand in the way of its adoption?

The first argument of "Ecclesiasticus" is founded on a supposed analogy between the Lord's supper and baptism. The due administration of the former does not depend upon the quantity of the elements received; therefore the quantity of water used in holy baptism is not important. In reply, I submit that the question is not concerning the quantity of water, but concerning the true import of our Lord's command to baptize. When he used this word, did he intend that his apostles and their successors should sprinkle a drop of water on the forehead, or that they should immerse the body in water? I suppose that "Ecclesiasticus" will admit, that in the holy eucharist we do literally obey our Saviour's command. Do we do so in the administration of baptism? If Jesus had commanded his disciples to eat their daily food in remembrance of him, and had said of that, This is my body, there might have been some analogy, and then I think it would have been dangerous to allow of our present practice; but as the case really stands, there is no analogy at all. I could have wished that "Ecclesiasticus" had refrained from this painful supposition with respect to the holy eucharist-a mystery never to be contemplated but with pious awe, and never to be associated with offensive ideas.

In the next argument, I would venture to suggest that "Ecclesiasticus" is not quite correct in the matter of history. The objection entertained against clinical baptisms did not arise from the distinction between affusion and immersion, but they were held in disrepute because they were not in the highest sense voluntary, but were in a sense forced upon the recipients by the fear of death; or at least these late baptisms argued that they had culpably delayed the holy rite. (See Bingham, book xi. chap. ii. sect. 5.) Is "Ecclesiasticus" quite sure, therefore, that he is right in attributing the discredit thrown upon these baptisms, not only by some in the church, but by the early fathers themselves, to a "narrow-minded spiritual pride and uncharitableness"? The baptisms, indeed, were held as good and valid as those by immersion; but the clinics themselves seem to have been justly exposed to suspicion, and therefore denied some privileges which were enjoyed by those who had been baptized in the regular way. "Ecclesiasticus' remarks convey the notion that the fault