grammar, or in arrangement. Let such have the polish of the midnight oil. I am too susceptible myself to wish their feelings hurt. Then, too, of ministers, there may be some few really incompetent to extemporize, as there are, indeed, some few unfit to preach at all; but I take the man of respectable acquirements on either side, the usual kind of congregation, the usual kinds of subjects for discourses, and submit whether something may not be said for extempore preaching. And, truly, I do not despair of having even your correspondent, "G W. F.," to concur in much that I have said; for, though the bias of his mind is evidently in favour of written sermons, yet he has kindly furnished two or three strong arguments for extempore preaching. I will not now go over them, lest he should think I write in a spirit of controversy against him, which is by no means the case; but with a view to elicit what may be said on either side. Indeed, I partly believe, we do not differ so widely. I take him to be one a little biassed by habit, or, perhaps, by some strained notions of orthodoxy towards the written, but who perceives, in his heart, the many advantages of the extempore discourse. I beg leave to assure him, and you, Mr. Editor, that I am, and, by God's grace, ever will be, your obedient servant, ORTHODOX.

SABBATH.

SIR,-It has often struck me as matter of surprise, that, in all the controversies respecting the Sabbath, as observed by Christians, and the authority on which the Lord's-day rests, the statement of Justin Martyr, in his Apology to Antoninus Pius, should be so much overlooked. My attention has been more immediately called to the subject by a letter signed "H.," in your number for August, in which the writer appears to take it for granted, that the observance of the Lord'sday was mere matter of custom, before the destruction of Jerusalem, and states broadly, although I do not see upon what ground, that there is little difficulty" in answering the question, When the observance of that day "was instituted by the inspired apostles for the early church?" that, in fact," it happened when there remained not one stone of the temple upon another."

The statement I allude to is as follows, and occurs near the end of the Apology; the greater part of it has been frequently quoted :—

"On the day called Sunday, there takes place an assembly of all the dwellers in the cities and country to the same place, and the memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read as long as time admits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the presiding minister delivers, by word of mouth, the admonition and exhortation to the imitation of these good things. After this, we all rise together, and offer up prayers; and when we have ceased from prayer, bread is brought, and wine, and water, and the president offers up prayers as well as thanksgivings, according to his power, and the people signify their assent, by saying, Amen. And the distribution of the consecrated elements, and the reception of them by each takes place, and they are sent by the deacons to those who are not present. And those who are in good circumstances, and are so inclined, each according to his own purpose, give what they think fit; and that which is collected is deposited with the president,

and he assists the orphans and widows, and those who are in want, from sickness or any other cause, and those who are in bonds, and sojourners (being strangers), and, in short, provides for all who are in necessity. And we all jointly make the assembling together on the Sunday, because it is the first day, on which God, having changed darkness and inert matter, created the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose again from the dead; for on the day before Saturday they crucified him, and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, HE TAUGHT THESE THINGS."

Now I am not aware that there is any question of the genuineness of this Apology; and in it the writer appears to me to state explicitly, that our Lord himself taught the apostles and disciples to celebrate the Sunday with the reading of the Scriptures, prayer, exhortation, the holy communion and alms-giving; or, at the very least, that he taught them to meet together on that day for religious purposes. I beg, therefore, to submit to your readers, whether the statement of a man of such eminence, living so near the apostolic age, respecting a universal Christian custom, is not worthy of greater attention than it appears to have received. I am, Sir, your sincere well wisher,

J. B. L.

SABBATH.

MR. EDITOR,-A writer in a former number, signing himself "Quærens," suggests, as a subject for consideration and inquiry, " that the Christian Sabbath, as now retained by the Christian world, is the direct, lineal, and legitimate descendant of the original Sabbath of the creation; and that the Sabbath now retained by the Jews is the spurious offspring."

On this subject, I would observe, that the day on which our Lord arose was plainly not the seventh, but the first, day of the week (Matthew, xxviii. 1; Mark, xvi. 9; Luke, xxiv. 1; John, xx. 1.) Again, since our Lord arose on the first day of the week, therefore, the day before, or the Jewish Sabbath, was the seventh day of the week.

Moreover, assemblies of Christians on the first day of the week are mentioned, John, xx. 19, 26; Acts, ii. 1, xx. 7. Also, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, and Revelation, i. 10, are worthy of consideration.

Again, St. Paul, Coloss. ii. 16, plainly absolves Christians from the literal observance of the Sabbath, properly so called.

Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, (229, C.) says "the new law wishes you to keep a perpetual Sabbath (i. e̟,, a perpetual rest from sin), and you, abstaining from work on one day, think that you are pious,"-compare Hebrews, iv. 9, 10, 11.

Again, with respect to the observance of the Lord's-day among Christians, on the first day, not the seventh day, of the week, Justin Martyr (99, A.) has this passage:

"But on Sunday we all in common make an assembly; since it is the first day in which God, having put to flight darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, arose on this day from

VOL. VI.-Nov. 1834.

3z

the dead, for they crucified him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught those things which we have delivered consideration."

for your

There is no difficulty in bringing more passages from the early Fathers, shewing that they observed the first day of the week in commemoration of our Lord's resurrection, and that they did not consider themselves as keeping the Sabbath.

We, therefore, tracing up this practice to apostolic, and therefore Divine, authority, have a sure ground for pressing the observance of the Lord's-day; but we should expose a good cause to unanswerable objections, if we attempted, by means of untenable suppositions, to base the obligation of observing Sunday on the command to hallow the Sabbath.

H. Y.

HALF-DISSENTERS.

SIR,-It has often appeared strange to me that, in spite of the solemn profession of belief in the holy catholic church, which is made in every public service of our church, in spite, too, of the language of the Liturgy, touching the unity of the church, and the way in which it mentions schism in the Litany, in collects for fifteenth and sixteenth Sundays after Trinity, for St. Simon and St. Jude, in several of the prayers, and in Ordination of Priests, still separation is thought of as a matter of indifference by a large number of the middle and lower classes.

Assuming this as a fact, and without stopping to account for the growth of this opinion, is not this further question worthy of attention and careful consideration-What ought to be the conduct of the clergy respecting it? Take the case of a parish where there are a large number of dissenters. If you ask among the poor whether they had any objection or conscientious scruple, in regard to the doctrine or discipline of the church, which compelled or induced them to come out from it, how often is the answer "by no means,"-"none at all;" or you are given to understand that there is no difference between the doctrines at the church and at meeting, or that, so long as we all look to one Saviour, it makes no difference in what way we serve him. These reasons, or rather no-reasons, are not fictitious, as almost every parish priest must know, but they are frequently assigned as sufficient ground for abandoning the church. It is true, that many of these persons do not like to be said to have separated from the church, and, indeed, scarcely consider that they have done so, and even, by occasional attendance there, seem to wish to retain their (so to call it) freedom of it. Now, is a clergyman right in allowing people to continue in ignorance that they have herein done what is wrong? Let us admit that these plain, simple-minded persons may be blameless in the sight of God, seeing that they understand not the impropriety of their own conduct, and that, therefore, as far as his anxiety respects them, he may rest satisfied with leaving them

in ignorance as to the true light in which their conduct ought to be viewed. But is he blameless himself if he allow them to continue in this ignorance? Is he justified in confirming them in their conviction by his silence on the subject? Rather, is it not his bounden duty to set the matter clearly before them? In other words, is it the duty of a clergyman only to exhort his flock to abandon those sins and errors which they know to be such, or is it not also and no less his duty to strive to awaken them to a just sense of sins and errors which may have escaped their own observation? Surely this is one part of the duty of the watchman, and is one of the ends for which he is set in charge over the people. And if it be so, does it not, then, become a matter of serious consideration to every minister, for his own sake (for he watches as one who must give account), whether he may safely neglect to warn his flock against the sin of abandoning the church upon needless or insufficient grounds? How to do this, and how best to do it, as to time, place, and manner, is another and distinct consideration, on which it is far from my intention to hazard an opinion. It may be said such a course would be likely to create ill will in a parish, to exasperate the dissenters against the church, and to give occasion to its lukewarm supporters, and the advocates for unlimited toleration (which, in the improper sense they use it, means indifference), to lay a charge of bigotry. Be it so. But all this, in itself, would not prove such conduct wrong. It must first be shown that the cause is not of sufficient importance to justify the chance of incurring such consequences. Supposing, however, that this view was only kept back, not abandoned, would collision cease, and would all go smooth between church and dissenters? See, as it is, how dissenters have taken the offensive. How often reflections are made by them on the want of Christian charity in members of the church of England, because they make a difference between belonging to the church and being a dissenter. So that the churchman may not rest in peaceable possession of his own opinion, but finds himself called upon to apologize where he ought rather to expect a defence of dissent, and a statement of reasons for leaving the church. May one not suppose that this view of (so called) Christian liberty would never have become so generally received, especially among the middle and lower classes of society, had it not been that churchmen had allowed the grounds upon which dissent is to be condemned to be lost sight of and forgotten, from their not making a distinct statement of them from time to time? If the claims of the church are not asserted and insisted on, ought it to be a matter of surprise that they should gradually be considered as out of date, or untenable, or unimportant in a doctrinal point of view?

Look, again, how in another way dissenters turn this carelessness of people, as to adequate grounds of separation, to their profit. Many a man, who attends regularly at a dissenting place of worship, would be indignant at its being supposed he thereby meant to condemn the established church, or would wish to injure her in any way. And yet these do injure the church, if it were only by their adding to the number of persons counted as regular dissenters, thereby increasing the apparent strength and importance of that body. Moreover, they

often do the church direct injury; as, e. g., when such persons are prevailed upon to vote against church-rates, as if they really had any reasonable objection against maintaining the church fabric, or as if they might fairly be numbered among those who complain of paying to a church whose tenets they disapprove. It is worthy of remark, how many fallacious pleas there are upon which a (so to call him) halfand-half dissenter justifies himself in opposition to the church on this and similar questions. One is a political question (it is said), and has nothing to do with religion; another is a matter of opinion, and in such matters a man must judge for himself; another has nothing to do with fundamental doctrines, and, so long as these are maintained, there may be unlimited variety of opinion, not only held, but acted on, without blame to any; another is a point of Christian charity, that it should be waived, even though right, and justice be with the church, and so on. After all, must not a standing place be taken somewhere, and wherever this be, still it must be a withstanding place against some, who will hold themselves aggrieved. And is one not clearer in taking it on distinct principles, and following them up throughout, than in compromising first, and then being driven to maintain them afterwards? One word more upon the consequence of a rupture with dissenters in a parish. It may be doubted whether the necessity of choosing one part or other decidedly, and the impossibility of halting between two opinions, would not be favourable to the church; and this necessity of choice would, I think, be brought about, or at least promoted, if the arguments against dissent on unnecessary and insufficient grounds were more frequently explained and enlarged upon to common people, and if they were occasionally made the subject of discourse from the pulpit. Surely such subjects are not unfit, nor need there be anything of uncharitableness or asperity in the way in which dissent is mentioned, especially when it is remembered, that this has nothing to do with the opinions of particular sects of dissenters, but is against the licentious use of Christian liberty.* R. F.

RUBRIC IN COMMUNION SERVICE.

SIR,-In your Number for July my attention was arrested by a letter of your correspondent "B." on the "Violation of the Rubric in the Communion Service," in which he alludes to the warning for the communion being read at the wrong time and place. Now whether he is correct or not in this statement I leave others to judge, but perhaps you will oblige me by inserting the following remarks on the same subject:

With regard to the time of giving warning, according to the rubric prefixed to the exhortation itself, it should be after the sermon; but what says the first rubric after the Nicene Creed? “And then also

* This valuable letter deserves great attention. Without dwelling so often on these subjects as to interfere with more weighty ones still, opportunities may be found every year of setting forth the truth plainly and charitably on this matter. When the evils to individuals and to the cause which schism causes are looked at, can there be a doubt as to our duty?-ED.