Lastly, this practice has a direct tendency to lessen the respect due to the clergy, because it shews them in the contemptible character of respecters of persons, and ready, even in sacred things, to depart from the strict line of duty to gratify the caprice, or to suit the convenience of the rich and noble. There is, I imagine, not one, even of those ministers who would not hesitate to comply with the wishes of a rich or noble parishioner, and baptize his child at his own house, who would consider himself justified in always administering baptism in this manner to all children of his parish. And yet there is no reason or authority which justifies him in allowing this licence in one instance, which would not equally justify him in allowing it in all. And on the other hand, there is no argument which proves the injurious consequences which would follow the universal adoption of this practice, which does not at the same time condemn each particular instance of it. Surely then it is unworthy of the minister of God to depart from the prescribed order of the Church in administering her religious ordinances, in order to please the rich and noble, when he would refuse to do so for those, who, whatever their temporal condition may be, are, as regards their spiritual rights and privileges, in no ways inferior to their brethren.

But I am sensible that I am extending these remarks beyond the space which you may be able to allow me; I shall therefore only request you to permit me to add a few words upon the excuses which are made in favour of this practice. I have never happened to hear more than three.

First I have heard it said, that, whenever it is allowable to baptize privately, it is allowable to do so with the public form. This is certainly a most gratuitous assumption. Our Church admits of two sorts of baptism, public and private, and has provided a particular form for each of them: and what possible authority can any of her ministers have to substitute the one form for the other? But, even if we were justified in doing so, this would not authorize the practice which we are considering; for it rarely, if ever happens, that the child is dangerously ill at one of these christenings, and therefore it is not in a state in which our Church would allow of its being even privately baptized.

Others say, that we are not bound to abide so strictly by the rules of our Church, and they instance cases in which the strict observance of the rubrick is universally relaxed. I have already admitted that there may be cases in which, either from necessity, or from some pressing and universally acknowledged expediency, the strict observance of the rubrick may be dispensed with. But I have, I think, shewn sufficiently that this is not one of those cases: at any rate, there is a wide difference between the neglecting of a rubrick and the substituting of one service for another. This is an extent of discretionary power which could not be safely intrusted to the ministers of any Church.

But lastly, there are others, who without pretending to allege any arguments in their favour, shelter themselves under the authority of the many excellent men, and some even of the highest dignitaries of our Church, who themselves have given into this practice. But it

is not the example of one, or two, or twenty dignitaries, of whatever rank they may be; nor of multitudes of learned and pious men, which can justify us in the performance of any action which is contrary to our engagements to the Church. Our ordination vows and ministerial engagements are personal engagements; for the due execution of which we are personally responsible. If we have solemnly promised to conform to the Liturgy as by law established, and to administer the sacraments according to the rules of our Church, how does it relieve us from the guilt of unfaithfulness to our vows, to say, that others believe that they need not be kept so strictly? This is not a case to be decided by mere authority-we have undertaken a plain and solemn engagement-we wish to know whether we may depart from it. We should seek counsel of God in earnest prayer, and decide for ourselves; for the guilt, if guilt there be, in breaking our engagements, must rest upon our own heads. At the same time I would most earnestly, though respectfully, entreat the members of that sacred order, whom I venerate from my soul as the successors of the Apostles, to consider seriously how much importance is attached to their authority, and how perilous a thing it is to sanction, by their example, a practice which, if their clergy were to adopt it generally, and act upon it indiscriminately, both with rich and poor, they would feel themselves called upon to condemn. I would also remind them of the painful and dangerous situation into which they put clergymen, and particularly young clergymen, who, although their conscience condemns this practice, may be led to comply with it when they find their scruples met with such an answer as this: "Why Sir, I cannot see why you should object, for I know that I am asking nothing irregular, for I was present the other day at such a person's house, when such an archbishop, or bishop, baptized his child with the public form, neither mother nor child being ill at the time."

I know not, whether what I have said will be sufficient to convince any one, who has hitherto allowed of this practice, of the illegality of it, and of its injurious consequences to the Church. But if I have only succeeded in raising a doubt in the minds of any of my brethren, I would entreat them to remember, that even if they doubt, they are bound to desist. It is a known rule of St. Paul's, that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. And, therefore, in a matter of mere indifference in itself, he says, He that doubteth, is damned if he eat. If then, we do but doubt of this practice, we are liable to condemnation if we persist in it, and are therefore bound to refrain from it.

1. COR. XIV. 40.

ELDON TESTIMONIAL.

MR. EDITOR,-Having observed in some of the public prints, that the committee of the Eldon Testimonial meditate the appropriating the amount of subscriptions to the foundation of six open scholarships at University College, Oxford, allow a well-wisher to this highlymerited token of public estimation, and a contant reader of your

valuable Miscellany, to offer a few suggestions on this interesting subject. The propriety of selecting Oxford, in preference to Cambridge, or any other university, for an endowment, receiving its birth from such a spirit, is unquestionable; its general Protestant character, and, in particular, its late rejection of Mr. Peel, viewed with the circumstance of being the alma mater of the truly venerable and intrepid Earl, fully establish an indisputable claim to such preference. But why should University College receive such distinction, barely upon the plea of numbering the noble Lord amongst its members? Is this a sufficient ground? Did this college, in the recent glorious and ever-memorable contest, singularly exert itself in the Constitutional cause? On the contrary, does it not appear from the poll-book, that about one-half of its forces took their stand under the Protestant champion. and the other fell into the ranks of Popery? It may be asked, What disposal, then, would you make of the proceeds of this public testimony? I would suggest the endowment of some objects of competition, between the junior members of the University of Oxford, and unconnected with any particular college. It is needless to add that they should bear the name of Eldon. Such application would, equally with the above project, answer the end proposed; and from a strictly open character, confer a greater benefit upon this seat of learning. Oxford, through the munificence of the present Dean of Westminster, displays before the competitors for classical fame, a fine field of emulation, but excites no such rivalry in mathematical science; and (which I deem above all a desideratum) there is no university foundation for promoting the knowledge of the Hebrew Language and Literature. With regard to public prizes, Oxford has such encouragement in Theological Prose, but not in Sacred Poetry; and there is no prize in the Greek Language.

It may be unnecessary to state, that in all these respects the sister university is most liberally endowed.

Should, Mr. Editor, this article be admissible, your insertion thereof will great oblige your obedient servant,

Aug. 22, 1829.

ECCLESIASTICUS.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF SCRIPTURAL FACTS AND CUSTOMS,
By analogous Reference to the Practice of other Nations.

ADAM.

Genesis v. 2.-" And called their name Adam in the day when they were created." In addition to the usual definition given by commentators respecting the word Adam, from Adamah, red mould or earth, it is worthy of remark that by a singular coincidence the word Adam in the Sancrit signifies The First.— Maurice's Indian Antiquities, Vol. I. P. 24.

The beginning of the Kaly Yong, or present age of the Hindoos, is reckoned from about 3102 A. c. They say that there was then a conjunction of the planets; and their tables shew the conjunction. The account given by the Brahmans is confirmed by the testimony of our European tables, which prove it to be the result ofa true observation, the particulars of which may be seen by consulting a work of Mr. Bailly, sur l'Astronomie Indienne et Orientale. The cause of the date

given to their civil time he does not explain, but we are by some told that the circumstance which marked that epoch was the death of their hero Krishna, who was supposed to be the god Vishnu in one of his incarnations; others say it was the death of a famous and beloved Sovereign Rajah Judishter. But which ever of the two it may be, the Hindoos, considering the event as a great calamity, distinguished it by beginning a new age, and expressed their feelings by its name, the Kaly Yong, or age of unhappiness or misfortune.

Respecting the latter of the two causes assigned, it is singularly coincident with the death of Adam, which, according to the Scripture Chronology, took place within a few years of the date of the Kaly Yong.—Sketches of the Hindoos, Vol. I. p. 297.

It is from the summit of the mountain called Hammalleel, or Adam's Peak (as tradition reports), that Adam took his last view of Paradise before he quitted it, never to return. The spot on which his foot stood at the moment is still supposed to be found in an impression, on the summit of the mountain, resembling the print of a man's foot, but more than double the ordinary size. After taking this farewell view, the father of mankind is said to have gone over to the continent of India, which was at that time joined to the island; but no sooner had he passed Adam's Bridge, than the sea closed behind him, and ent off all hopes of return. This tradition, from whatever source it was originally derived, seems to be interwoven with the earliest notions of religion, and it is difficult to conceive that it could have been engrafted on them without forming an original part. I have frequently had the curiosity to inquire of black men concerning this tradition of Adam. All of them, with every appearance of belief, assured me that it was really true, and in support of it produced a variety of testimonies, old sayings, and prophecies, which have for ages been current among them. The origin of these traditions I do not pretend to trace, but their connection with scriptural history is very evident; and they afford a new instance how universally the opinions, with respect to the origin of man, coincide with the history of that event as recorded in the Bible.-Percival's Ceylon, p. 206.

SYMEONIS CANTICUM, CUM DOXOLOGIA,

VERSIBUS EXPOSITUM.

NUNC, ut pollicitus, tuum

Dimittis famulum, magne Deus, domum;

Læto pectore, quòd tua

Jam tandem est oculis visa meis salus,

Quam tu conspicientibus

Spectandam populis omnibus exhibes,
Lumen nobile gentium
Cunctarum, et populi grande decus tui.
Patri gloria maximo,

Et Nato, atque Sacro Spiritui simul,
Esto, ut principio fuit,

Ut nunc est, et erit sæcla per omnia.

Ꮎ

SCHISM.

(Continued from page 569.)

HOLDING on our drear and weary road through the thorny wilderness of Mr. Towgood's mistakes, we arrive at the following:

As much, Sir, am I at a loss when endeavouring to reconcile to reason and good sense another of your additional beauties and splendors of public worship, viz. bowing at the name of Jesus. As for that passage of the apostle, Philip. ii. 10.-That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, the learned men of your Church, I presume, universally disclaim it, as not in the least authorizing or enjoining this practice. Your great Dr. Nichols vindicates your Church from such an uncouth and ridiculous abuse of this text, and affirms that it is not once mentioned in any of your ecclesiastical constitutions as to this matter; and adds, that you are not so dull as to think that those words can be rigorously applied to this purpose. But if this text be acknowledged, not in the least, to authorize or require this act of worship, what shadow of argument, Sir, can you possibly bring, either from reason or scripture, which shall so much as seem to support it? Why then does your Church command, Canon XVIII. that, when in time of divine service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, duly and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present? Is not this, Sir, by your own confession, an act of will-worship, a commandment, an invention of men, not in the least founded upon the authority and will of God?-P. 94.

What Mr. Towgood "presumes" is, for once, right. He is fair enough to give our Church credit for not mistaking Philip. ii. 10, for a liturgical precept. But he is determined to visit us for other delinquencies.

We have, we think, sufficiently gone over the question of ecclesias. tical rights (the question, we will remind our readers, which, in Mr. Towgood's opinion, embraces the whole matter in controversy); we therefore only repeat, that a ceremony, enjoined by lawful Church authority, is obligatory upon Christians, unless it can be clearly shewn that such ceremony is positively contrary to Scripture; and hence, too, suspicion of such contrariety may fairly beget conscientious scruples about communion. Mr. Towgood shifts upon us the burden which it is his own duty to bear: "What shadow of argument," says he, can you possibly bring from reason or Scripture which shall so much as seem to support it?" Whereas we might more reasonably call for a shadow of argument which should so much as seem to OPPOSE it. Could Mr. Towgood have produced this, he would have made some way; as it is, he can only fall back upon his old battered argument that the Church has no right to ordain gestures at all.

But the truth is, the custom is supported both by Scripture and by reason. No person of information, certainly, ever supposed that St. Paul, in the text above cited, intended to direct the Philippians in their liturgical gestures. Yet, as the very use of gestures is expression, so nothing could more vividly express the truth contained in this text, than the gesture now under consideration.

But Mr. Towgood now finds out that the Church has been inconsistent, and does not go far enough and eagerly inquires,

Why, Sir, must this lowly reverence be made at the name of Jesus, and not at the name of Christ, at the name Immanuel, Jehovah, or God? Is there not in all these, something at least as venerable and worthy of peculiar honours; indeed something much more so than there is in the name of Jesus? a name not at all peculiar to our blessed Saviour, but which was common to him with a great many other men?-Pp. 94, 95.

The answer is very simple. The gesture is, in truth, intended to be a lively comment on the text to the Philippians. Now this purpose would not be served by bowing at the names mentioned by Mr.