other districts, I do not know; but I do not think that in that in which I write one clergyman in ten reads the appointed prayers in the church. I say this after much inquiry from the clergy themselves, and in no degree at random. I need not add, that there is little reason to believe that the seasons are generally remembered in private or family devotion, more especially by the laity; for they are not likely to remember them except they are exhorted on the subject from the pulpit, and of course no clergyman could with any decency make the exhortation if he neglected to read the appointed prayers. I have frequently expostulated with my clerical brethren on the subject, and always had the same answer, that the seasons are obsolete, and neglected by the bishops.

Of course this does not preclude the possibility of many, both among clergy and laity, praying much, both for those who have entered, and for those who are entering, holy orders. It does not preclude the possibility, but it does very grievously lessen the probability, of their doing so. It is to this duty what the disuse of Sundays and holy seasons would be to the duty of public worship; men might still meet for it if they would. The church directs public prayer daily; but how many would regularly preserve the habit at all but for the recurrence of the Lord's day? Such I conceive is the effect produced at this moment by the too general neglect of the ember seasons, a neglect which finds its only excuse (and very often, I believe, its real cause) in the general impression that they are no longer observed by the bishops themselves.

Let it be observed that, by proving that the bishops in any case adopt some other day for weighty and sufficient reasons, (who can doubt that it is so?) we do not advance a step toward the removal of this evil. We do, indeed, shew that they do not neglect the canon, and so prevent any ill which might arise (as you well observe) from the example. So far it is well and important. But the feeling of which I speak arises, not from any censure of the bishops, not because men impute motives to them, but merely because they think that as a fact (whether for good reasons, or bad, or none,) the seasons are not observed.

I have troubled you at some length, because the subject appears to me so incalculably important, that if we may venture to mention it at all, we must surely do so with deep seriousness. For who that believes that the prayer of Elias had power to stop the rain from a whole land for three years, and then to bring it up from the sea,—that the prayer of the Philippians was an essential instrument to the more abundant salvation of the great apostle, St. Paul,-and that the prayers of the church delivered St. Peter from prison, and added thirty years to his apostleship,-who that believes all these things, and numberless other like records of God's word, can think anything unimportant which tends in any degree to check the prayers of the church on behalf of the ministry of the word? For myself, I cannot but think that our divisions and our weakness, the uncertain tone of our doctrines, and other evils which we more or less see and deplore, are capable of no remedy except we shall mingle with our labours an increased and VOL. XIV.-July, 1838.

F

more earnest intercession to God on behalf of the church and ministry.

I add a calculation which I have made from the British Magazine, shewing the real state of the facts as to ordinations, presuming the correctness of your lists. In the year 1837, it appears, there were ordained 429 deacons and 414 priests, by twenty-four bishops, at forty-two several ordinations. Of these twenty-four bishops, seven (a number almost sacred) held ordination on the canonical days, twenty-two on other days, (the same bishop of course is sometimes counted in each list, if he had one ordination on the appointed day, and another on some other day;) the number of ordinations was ten on the canonical day, thirty-two on other days; the number of candidates admitted on the canonical days to the order of deacons was 126, and to that of priests 113. From this calculation, which I presume is nearly correct, it appears that about one third of those bishops whose ordinations are recorded, have ordained on one or other of the four seasons; that about one third of the total number of ordinations have been on some of them; and on these ordinations nearly one third of the priests and deacons have been ordered. No one more earnestly desires that the proportion could be reversed, or even that all should be ordained at the appointed time, than I do; but meanwhile there is surely no excuse for neglecting the seasons on the ground that they are obsolete.

I will only add, that some clergymen who pass the appointed seasons unnoticed use the prayer in church when they happen accidentally to hear that their diocesan intends to ordain. Is this allowable? I have wished to do it, but have not ventured, having no authority. May it not be worth considering whether a bishop, who is always or generally hindered from ordaining on the canonical seasons, might not advantageously inform the clergy of the times which he substitutes, and authorize them to adopt this custom? Such authority would no doubt remove all scruple. I am, Sir, yours, with great respect,

C. B. G.

OBSERVANCE OF THE EMBER SEASONS.

SIR, AS your late numbers have contained some letters referring to the Ember Weeks, I take the liberty of troubling you with a few remarks on the same subject. My observations, however, shall not relate to the duties of our bishops. Whatever irregularity may seem to prevail as to the time of holding ordinations, any one who has read, in your last number, an article on that subject, will be convinced that there are circumstances unknown to, or at least forgotten by, the public, which oftentimes make it impracticable for a bishop to ordain at the particular season appointed by the church. However, as I have already said, I do not purpose to speak of the duty of our bishops in this respect. Charity should begin at home. Our superiors have been admonished of their irregularities; it seems, therefore, high time that we (I speak as a clergyman) should understand our own.

The irregularity to which I refer is that of our taking so little pains to induce the people to observe the ember days as the church requires them—that is, with prayer and fasting, that God may pour forth his Spirit upon those then about to be ordained. That such negligence prevails to a lamentable extent cannot, I fear, be denied. Since this is the case, and as no one else has, as far as I have seen, directed your readers' attention to the subject, I hope I shall not be thought deficient in respect to my elder brethren in the ministry if I make a few remarks on what seems to me to be an indefensible disobedience to the authority of the church.

Having thus craved pardon for assuming, for once, the office of lecturing my betters, I would proceed to make a few remarks upon the thirty-first of the canons. In that canon the church of England asserts certain usages of the primitive church, and upon them founds an injunction to the bishops with reference to the times and places for their ordinations. With places I have nothing now to do; my remarks relate to times alone.

In the thirty-first canon the church states-first, that the ancient fathers, following the examples of the apostles, appointed that ordinations should be preceded by the prayers and fastings of all Christian people; secondly, that, to secure to the candidates for holy orders the benefit of the fasting and prayers of the universal church throughout the world, those same ancient fathers enacted, that ordinations should nowhere be held except at times especially appointed, which appointed seasons were to be preceded by certain days of fasting and prayer; thirdly, the canon states that the ember days, or jejunia quatuor temporum, were originally instituted for this purpose. Having stated these facts, the canon appoints that, in the church of England, bishops should never-except, of course, in case of necessity-admit any to holy orders but only at those four seasons when Christians, according to apostolic usage, fast and pray for God's blessing upon those about to be ordained.

No true churchman can help admiring the zeal of those who have lately, in earnest and yet respectful terms, prayed our superiors that ordinations may be held at those seasons when the church humbles herself for the express purpose of obtaining of God a blessing upon those about to be admitted into the ministry. But surely the priesthood are bound to do their part, as well as the bishops are bound to perform theirs. As to what are the duties of the parochial clergy in this matter, allow me, Sir, to venture to make a few remarks.

The church of England commands all her members to fast, as well as pray, on the ember days. It therefore necessarily follows that it is a part of a pastor's duty to urge them to do so. If we do not instruct them in this matter, we cannot account ourselves to be pure from the blood of all men, inasmuch as we have not declared unto them all the council of God. It is not sufficient for us to fast on the ember days ourselves; that, doubtless, we must do, for the same reason that we must daily read the morning and evening prayer either in public or in private. But it is not sufficient that we ourselves obey the church ;

we are surely bound to use all our influence to bring our flocks also to submit to her authority.

With reference to this particular command, that we should all fast on the ember days, it were easy to shew that a devout obedience on the part of our parishioners would be most beneficial both to themselves and the whole church. They would thus learn to perform that sanctifying duty of fasting. Again, by fasting, they would be obeying a positive command of our divine Redeemer; and lastly, by their prayers and fastings, doubtless, a great blessing would be gained to all ranks of the clergy, not merely of our own national church, but also of the whole catholic church throughout the world.

But even if we could not perceive any benefit likely to arise from the general observance of the ember days, still we are positively enjoined, by the first rubric after the Nicene creed, to do this much at least to give notice from the communion table every Sunday of any fasting days which may occur in the week following.

We are bound, then, to inform our parishioners before the ember days that the church expects all Christians to observe them as days of abstinence, and of more than usual devotion. And if the letter of the rubric require our giving them notice, the spirit of it makes it incumbent upon us to do all we can, both in public and private, to get them to yield a devout compliance.

I would say one word about the obligation which lies especially upon all clergymen to obey the directions of the church, whether expressed in rubrics, or canons, or in the preface to the book of Common Prayer. As we are taught in scripture that it is our duty to obey the church, we are bound to comply with every precept of hers, unless she command anything plainly repugnant to the word of God, or the literal observance of which would, under present circumstances, defeat the purpose that she had evidently in view in its enactment. But as long as she enjoins what we know to be both practicable and harmless, to say the very least, every act of disobedience has, 1 feel assured, guilt attached to it of a much more serious nature than is commonly imagined.

I would now conclude my letter by stating, in a few words, what I do not think any churchman can deny-namely, first, that every clergyman is bound not merely to fast on the ember days himself, but also, secondly, to give notice of them the Sunday before; and thirdly, to do all he can to induce his parishioners to observe them according to the practice of antiquity and the design of our own church; and lastly, that unless we do all this, it seems somewhat indecorous in us to have publicly called upon our superiors to ordain after ember days, as the canon requires them, when we ourselves connive at the neglect of those duties, on account of which the precept was given, that holy orders should be administered only after "the fasts of the four seasons."

I feel, Sir, that I have not done justice to what I look upon as a matter of great importance. However, one great end of these remarks will be attained, if they have the effect of eliciting the thoughts

and deliberate opinions of those amongst your correspondents who, by their writings, shew themselves so well qualified to speak upon any subject connected with the practice and spirit either of the Anglican church or the church of the fathers.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

S. E.

TITLES OF THE POPE.

SIB, With reference to the discussion concerning the terms "Dominus Deus Noster Papa," it may be some information to many readers, that perhaps the largest collection of blasphemous appellations and descriptions, and that just specified among the rest, applied to the Bishop of Rome, is to be seen in a very curious, rather uncommon, and closely printed quarto tract, entitled, ROME RUINA FINALIS, ANNO DOм. 1666, Londini 1655, pp. 7-18. The initials subscribed to the work are WA. TH. RW. JG. SS. JW. The last only, JW., is subscribed to the preface. I should be glad to have the authors so designated ascertained. From the date, I should suppose they might be members of the assembly of divines of Westminster. It is a work of profound erudition. It might in some degree be excusable to assign to this anticipation or prophecy, at least in part, the celebrated fire of London in the same year as that in which Rome is thus foredoomed. Rome perhaps thought she had a right to dispose of her own purgatorial fire as she deemed fitting and just, and to inflict upon the capital of protestantism that judgment which the hereties of England had foretold for her. The eternal city, however, had the triumph of outliving the fatal year. I am not aware that any but such protestants as ought to learn before they teach, represent the more atrocious appellation in question as generally given by papists to the pope; and that it appears only in a glossa on the margin of the decretals will probably be considered as but a trifling diminution of its authority and force, when the general character of the book where it is found (the great body of the statute and common law of ecclesiastical Rome) is recollected; and when it is recollected how absolutely the press of Italy was under the inspection and command of the rulers of the Italian church. To allow any credit to that church for withdrawing the offensive appellation, it should first be ascertained what were the motives or impulsive causes for so doing, and how far the act has been voluntary. Rome has been compelled to do many good things; she has been taught, for the time, or the occasion, to be tolerant. The Vatican, however, discharges her regular growls against tolerantism.

JOSEPH MENDHAM.