This, Mr. Editor, is a grave and powerful attack* on our two learned universities, and a decided premium to excitement and innovation. I shall therefore leave the merited flagellation to be given by yourself, and only tell any of my young ball-going acquaintances, when they see two or more persons engaged in argument upon the weightiest matters of science and morals, they must only trip it on the light fantastic toe the more earnestly, inasmuch as upon their sylph-like movements depend the steadiness and gracefulness of the profound philosophers. Professor Whewell, get into a ball-room with all speed! Thirdly, "Should a clergyman of private property abstain from all places of public resort, except the churches?" Certainly not; he should be more in the world than any other man, but not of the world. Your correspondent suggests a question which perhaps was never before asked. He should be at all meetings connected with the religious interests of his church, and those of any public usefulness in his neighbourhood.

Fourthly, I do not believe that the presence of our Lord at the marriage feast in Cana can be brought forward in support of the modern ball-room, without great violence to the real facts of the scene, and the real causes of our blessed Lord's determination.

Fifthly, It is stated that Bishop Jebb and Alexander Knox are no authorities on the subject, because they themselves were physically incapacitated. Now, Sir, if there can be an ungenerous mode of attacking the principles of any man, it is this. Can we suppose that these superior minds would seriously frame rules of conduct for others on their own bodily infirmities? In a letter to the Rev. J. M'Cormich (vol. ii. 1. 15,) the bishop says, that he relinquished such things because they were wrong, and not out of any ascetic feelings; and in fact, he was rather physically inclined towards them. Alexander Knox, too, in his Letter to a young Lady, (vol. iv.) hopes that her mind will soon be set on higher occupation. I think your correspondent equally unfortunate in his remark on the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, and my letter that succeeded must partly have

Is this serious? At all events, the universities will survive the attack, without any interference.

But if this discussion is to go on, as seems likely, should it not be looked at on a larger scale? Suppose attendance at balls to be pronounced wrong, on the ground of members of a clergyman's congregation being less disposed to admit him to the exercise of his ministry in private by reason of this circumstance, must not this go further? Every one has heard it said of both laymen and clergymen, “Such an one likes a good dinner." Now, very many people would have even more doubts of the spirituality of a man who indulged his appetite, than of that of a man who occasionally went to a ball, and more repugnance to admit his ministry, both because the one is more loathsome, and because even occasionally doing it shews a love of it, while (as many elderly people who go, whether right or wrong, for the sake of younger ones, could testify,) a clergyman MAY (it is not said, does) go to a place of amusement when he had rather, as far as inclination goes, be at home. But are clergy to refuse to dine in society because they thus make themselves liable to this remark? This observation is made for no other purpose than suggesting a question, whether the mode of considering the point hitherto adopted, involves the real principle on which it ought to be decided. Again, a hard gallop after the hounds is a boisterous amusement, and is condemned. Is a hard gallop on the downs with a friend or two wrong? This is another instance which tends to shew that the thing must be looked at more narrowly.-Ed.

convinced him of his mistake. I can trace a clear relinquishment of vain amusements in the scriptures, and in the writings of those of olden and modern time who, as far as I can judge, have written most in agreement with the scriptures. I think there are few of higher authority or weightier argument than Bishop Jebb, and perhaps your correspondent has not read his valuable Letter to a Clergyman. I shall say no more at present, but should like to hear Dr. Pusey's sentiments on the subject. I am, Sir, &c. CLERICUS FELIX, M.A. May 8th, 1838.

CLERICAL ATTENDANCE AT BALLS.

SIR,-My attention has been drawn to some letters in the last number of the British Magazine on the subject of clerical attendance at balls; and as the correspondent who first addresses you on the question invites the remarks as well of your readers in general as of Dr. Pusey in particular, I make no apology to him, or to yourself, for noticing his queries. And I do so chiefly with the view of pointing out what seems to me a great danger in all such discussions,-the danger, I mean, of making an unscriptural distinction between the duties of the clergy and laity. With respect to matters purely indifferent (if any such there be), such a distinction ought, no doubt, to be made; but I would suggest, 1st, that these are, at all events, very much fewer than persons are apt to imagine; and 2nd, that the reasons given by your correspondent against clerical attendance at balls, if they be (as I believe they are) good reasons, are grounds of principle, not of mere expediency, and, as such, are of course just as applicable to unordained as to ordained Christians.

I will explain myself more at length. The case may perhaps be conceived of an amusement quite innocent in a layman, which yet, from being esteemed unclerical, and so having a tendency to weaken a clergyman's influence, would be by him, upon St. Paul's principles of charity, to be avoided. Such a case may, I say, be conceived, though I am hardly prepared with an example of it. But surely, if persons would estimate such matters upon high Christian principles, if they would consider not so much what is lawful and safe as what is becoming in a Christian, (ǎžov ris Kλnσews,) they would find it necessary to discard from their catalogue of " things indifferent" many pursuits and recreations which they had before included in it. On the other hand, should they find, with respect to things esteemed unclerical, that they are not unbecoming in a Christian, it may be a question whether they should not attempt to correct the popular estimate respecting them before they concede to it; clear though it be, that should they fail in correcting it they would be bound to concede to it, for the sake of avoiding offence.

With respect to balls, I think that, tried according to this high stan

In a little work on the ball-room, which I have just prepared for the press, I have endeavoured to shew this, as far as I was enabled to do, from the works of authors around me.

dard of Christian principle, they must be found wanting. They have, surely, a plain tendency to encourage vanity, frivolity, love of display, and the worldly temper generally; and though I am far from saying that this tendency always issues in an effect,-that, because their tendency is worldly, therefore all who partake of them are necessarily so,yet I think it must be owned that the tendency is in itself a sufficient reason for inducing scrupulous Christians (not clergymen merely) to abstain from them.

The mistake, surely, which many persons make is, in looking upon abstinence from worldly amusements as equivalent to conquest of the world; whereto it is plainly but a step at best, and not necessarily even so much. But it does not follow that because abstinence from worldly amusements is not (as too many make it) a criterion of the spiritual mind, it is therefore right for Christians to participate in them. Yet many argue as if the truth of the latter of these propositions necessarily followed upon the proof of the former of them.

But my chief object in troubling you with these remarks is less to observe upon the character of particular amusements than to suggest a principle of decision in such cases generally. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, F. O.

May 14th.

[The suggestion is very valuable, and a discussion of the question to which (independent of the particular application) it naturally leads would be extremely useful. Whenever we hear the subject talked of, one of the most common and most powerful arguments is, that the clergy ought to set an example-but then (as we lately heard a young lady observe) it is an example which nobody is to follow. A. C.]

CLERICAL ATTENDANCE AT BALLS.

SIR, IS Anglo-Cambrensis prepared to rate the attendance at balls as of more advantage or more allowable than the use of meat? If not, it should seem that the safest rules to apply to it are those which St. Paul applied to this latter indulgence; the propriety of which was made a question by some "weak in the faith," as the propriety of the former is now by (as it should seem) the same class of persons.

"One believeth that he may" attend balls; "another, who is weak," attendeth not. "Let not him that" attendeth "despise him that" attendeth "not; and let not him which" attendeth not "judge him that" attendeth; "for God hath received him." "He that" attendeth, attendeth "to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that" attendeth" not, to the Lord he" attendeth "not, and giveth God thanks." This, then, abstractedly, is the nature of Christian liberty, which those who take either view are equally bound to bear in mind, and to avoid the sin of infringing by their thoughts either of contempt or condemnation towards one another.

But the apostle does not stop here, but goes on to shew how charity should prevail over liberty, so as to induce us to forego somewhat of the latter, out of love to our brethren, lest we should injure them; he

does not mean out of deference to their censoriousness, or through fear of their rash judgment or bitter speeches; but through fear lest we should tempt them to do what they in their weakness may deem sinful.

"Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that" these things are indifferent in themselves; "but to him that esteemeth anything to be" sinful, "to him it is" sinful. "But if thy brother be grieved [i. e., be led through false shame to do the same that you do, thus sinning against his conviction through force of your example,] with thy" balls, "now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy" balls "for whom Christ died. Let not, then, your good be evil spoken of. . . . Let us, therefore, follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For" balls "destroy not the work of God. All [such] things, indeed, are" indifferent; "but it is evil for that man who" attendeth "with offence"—i. e., against his conscience. "It is good neither to❞ attend balls, or races, or coursing meetings, "nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth; and he that doubteth is damned, if he" attend, “because he" attendeth "not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification," Rom. xv. 1, 2; compare also 1 Cor. viii.

May I, without offence, suggest to both your correspondents, that that which those passages should impress upon those who have the views of " Anglo-Cambrensis" is, that they should regard the Christian edification of their neighbours, however weak in the faith, rather than their own liberty and enjoyment, and be willing to abridge this rather than injure that; and that "Clericus Felix" may learn that conscientious scruples about the lawfulness (in God's sight) of things not forbidden by him, instead of being (as those who entertain them are apt to imagine) proofs of exalted piety, are, in the apostle's judgment, indications of a weak conscience, and weakness in the faith which, for eharity's sake, ought indeed to be borne with, and allowed for, and to a considerable extent complied with, by those who do not entertain them, but which forfeit all claim to charitable allowance, and bring those who entertain them into sin, when they lead them to condemn others who, with as pure a conscience, and a higher and stronger faith, think themselves either free to partake in the questioned pursuits, or, even more, partake of them with the hope of carrying a beneficial influence into occupations and amusements, which, if left wholly to the careless and worldly minded, would probably become much more dangerous than they otherwise need be to the young and inexperienced? These observations are offered under correction: and must necessarily be qualified by many considerations, into all of which it is not possible to enter in the short compass of a letter. But I suppose, if we lay down, abstractedly, as the two great principles of our action—

charity towards others, and self-denial towards ourselves, we are propounding that which no Christian man will venture to deny to be the safest rule for him to walk by. I am, Sir, yours truly,

ALPHA.

EMBER SEASONS.

SIR,-In a late number you have touched a very important subjectthe ember days, one I believe on which more would have been said had it been less important. For myself at least I cannot but say (what I doubt not has been felt by many others) that when I have thought of calling attention to it, in your Magazine or elsewhere, I have been restrained by the thought that the evils arising from the neglect of these days are so great and so obvious that no bishop can fail to be aware of them, and to have weighed them already. And if so, why canvass the subject? For surely, unless some real good is to follow, it is not well that churchmen should discuss or too minutely inquire into the reason of the conduct of their bishops; and no good can be expected from a discussion of the disadvantages which must have been familiar to the mind of every bishop who, for the sake of some greater good, feels it his duty to incur them.

This feeling, among others, has kept me hitherto silent. I now address you a few words on the subject, because, if I mistake not, in mentioning the evils occasioned by the neglect of the appointed seasons, you have omitted the most weighty; and although all might have been passed over without injury, I cannot but think it injurious that we should speak of the matter at all without setting it more fully before ourselves.

I think, then, the great evil which follows the neglect of these seasons (in whatever degree they are at any season neglected) is, that the custom of prayer (public and private) for the clergy and for candidates for ordination is practically discouraged. Men easily get to think the ember seasons obsolete. Then they neglect to make these seasons a special time for such prayer. Next they lose the habit of such prayer altogether. I know well that it ought not to be so; but I know no less that so it is. Your correspondents use the prayers, and complain; but there are many, many more, to my own certain knowledge, who do not complain, but do not use them, and that avowedly because it would be a mockery to use them as the bishops do not observe them. I know (let me repeat it) that this is very wrong; that if the bishops did not do their duty, we should still do ours; that if no English bishop ordained at the four seasons, there would be many in Scotland, Ireland, America, France, Germany, and all Christendom, who do; (God forbid that we should limit those prayers to the narrow range of our island, or any other short of those of the catholic church,) I know that it is a great mistake to think that our bishops do not ordain at those seasons, for I think none of them passes without an English ordination. But in spite of all this I mention facts which I know when I say that the effect of that degree of irregularity which actually prevails is what I have stated. What the case may be in