commanded, nor any specific rules be given us for regulating its measure, duration, or frequency; yet there is, nevertheless, good ground for believe ing, that, under the qualifications already mentioned, it is a duty incumbent upon Christians in general, and plainly taught in God's holy word. This opinion is supported, 1. By many examples recorded in Scripture. David fusted while under divine rebuke, in the matter of Uriah, through the illness of the child. Ahab fusted when the judgments of God were denounced against him by Elijah. The Ninevites fasted upon the preaching of Jonah. Jehosophat proclaimed a fast throughoutJudah, when the confederated forces of Ammon and Moab came up against the land, And Jesus Christ, by the solemn fast with which he consecrated himself to his public ministry, hath sanctioned the practice, and proposed it to our imitation, as a suitable preparation for any extraordinary service, in which special help and direction are to be sought from above*. In all these instances the fact is recorded with incontestible marks of divine approbation. David was forgiven his complicated guilt, though God saw fit for his correction to take the child; Nineveh was spared; Jehosophat obtained the victory over his enemies; and even wicked Ahab himself, whose repentance was but short-lived, procured a delay of the sentence which had been denounced against him. 2. By plain and undeniable infereace. Our Lord's manner of speaking, (e. g. Matt. vi, 16.) is decisive to shew, that he not only allowed, but approved the practice, though he condemned the hypocritical and ostentatious manner in which the Pharisees had been accustomed to observe it. 3. But there are not wanting instances of a divine command being given, for solemn and public fasts on some special occasions, though there are none which prescribe fasting as a constant duty. Of this sort is the well known instance in the prophecy of Joel, where, in a time of national calamity, the prophet, in the name of * In conformity to which example, it seems to have been the custom of the primitive Church, to set apart persons appointed to any extraordinary ministra tion with fasting and prayer. See Acts God, commands to "blow the trumpet in Sion, to sanctify a fast, and call a solemn assembly:" and it is probable, that Isaiah refers to a similar mandate, xxii. 12. 4. The obligation to this practice may also be argued from its utility, and with reasonable persons no other consideration will be required to promote its observance. But this view of the subject belongs properly to another head, under which we are to enquire, Thirdly, into the ends and uses of fasting. And, 1. Fasting is a natural expression of grief and sorrow, (for nothing more effectually destroys the inclination for food than distress of mind); and it is therefore a fit companion for mourning and supplicationt. For both which reasons, there is an evident suitableness and decency, at seasons devoted to penitence (such as the present) in abstaining, if not from all refreshment, at least from some usual repast. 2. Fasting is not only becoming as the companion of penitential exercises, but it is also a great help to prayer and devotional duties in general. Most temperate men are sensible of a material difference between the state of their minds before and after their ordinary meals; for which reason godly persons, of all ages and countries, with whose habits of life we are acquainted, have found it useful, as well as deemed it proper, to connect fasting with prayer; an extraordinary temperance with an extraordinary devotion. 3. This practice may be also recommended as useful for keeping under the body, and bringing it into subjection to the mind; as counteracting sensuality, and promoting an habit of self-government and superiority to animal indulgences, and all those fleshy lusts which war against the soul. A refined sensuality is but too prevalent even among the more seri ous professors of religion of the present day, and is observable in an excessive fondness for luxury and shew in their dress, furniture, table, &c. the ex It is very significant also, as implying an acknowledgment of all good things being forfeited through sin; it is well calculated, consequently, to awaken our pious gratitude for mercies, too apt to be thought of by us with far less thankfulness than they deserve. pences of which are commonly carried to the extent of their fortunes and stations, and sometimes beyond them so that there is, in most instances, no perceptible difference, with respect to those things, between such persons, and others, who pretend not to "set their affections on things above," and with little truth can it be generally said of them, that their "moderation is known unto all men." Perhaps a neglect of the duty now under consideration and at no period of Christianity, probably, has this duty been so much disused as at this day-may be assigned as one of the secondary causes of this culpable conformity to the world. Where there is good health, a plentiful table, and little laborious employment, a special reason for occasional abstinence, or fasting, exists; as without it, an habit of Christian temperance cannot well, perhaps, be acquired or preserved. A man who goes frequently to the brink of a precipice is in danger of falling; and he who every day approaches the line, which divides temperance from excess, is but too likely sometimes to trespass beyond it. So far, therefore, as fasting, with more or less rigour, is a means fitted to acquire, or preserve, an habit of holy moderation in all the enjoyments of sense and appetite, so far it is virtually enforced and commanded by all those precepts which require us to deny ourselves," to "mortify the deeds of the body," to "set our affections on things above," to "use the world as not abusing it.” 4. I shall mention one more excellent use that may be made of fasting, and that is, its being rendered subservient to charity. I have heard of some pious persons, whose incomes were slender, but whose love to God and their neighbour was fervent, who have practised fasting upon this principle. Having no other method by which they might spare something to relieve the still greater necessities of others, they have fallen upon the expedient of omitting one meal in a week, in order to give to the poor what that meal would have cost them. Such charity shews strength of principle, and greatness of soul, beyond the ordinary standard; and a self-denial, so applied, adds magnanimity to benevolence. To join, at all times, this with the other uses of abstinence, would be to render our fasts more pleasing to God, and more honourable to the cause of religion. The result of the whole, then, is this-that fasting, like alms-giving, is a duty, left, for very wise and obvious reasons, in a great degree to our own discretion, and respecting the circumstances of which little or nothing is positively determined. Neither of these cases admit of absolute rules, consistently with the genius of the Christian Religion; for such rules would unavoidably be too relaxed with respect to many, and too rigorous with respect to others. No outward action is truly estimable in the sight of heaven, but as it proceeds from a right frame and state of the heart; and where that right disposition exists, there will be little occasion for more precise rules. The truly benevolent man, impelled both by the love of his neighbour, and a desire of glorifying his Saviour, will be in no danger of abusing the discretion which is left to him, of regulating his acts of charity by a just regard to his real ability. The same reasoning will apply to the subject before us. Let a man be seriously disposed to make the salvation of his soul his grand concern, and his own experience will soon instruct him how far, and in what respects, either a total or partial abstinence, occasionally practised, may be rendered subservient to his best interests; and so far he will account it his duty to adopt the practice. Desiring the end, he will neglect no means which he finds calculated to promote it. Will you indulge me, Mr. Editor, with room for two or three general reflections upon the subject which has been discussed? And, First, it is obvious how remote the Christian doctrine of fasting is from any imputation of superstition; and how widely, in this respect, genuine Christianity differs from all false religions. Free from the cruelty, it is free also from the folly and impiety of Pagan, Mahommedan, and Popish austerity. It insults not our reason by arbitrary impositions, of which we can see neither the use nor the end. It does not degrade the God of Wisdom and Goodness in our eyes, by commanding us any bodily mortification for its own sake, as if it were acceptable to him, only because it makes us suffer. It calls not to fasting, or any other act of self-denial, as valua ble and meritorious in itself, in order to expiate guilt, or as a composition for favourite vices. It offers not an indemnification for restraint at one time in greater indulgence at another; now excessively rigorous in its Lent, then excessively licentious in its Carnival. On the contrary, the characters of wisdom, goodness, and holiness, appear in all its institutions and injunctions; every thing partakes of the perfection of him from whom it proceeds; every thing is worthy of God, and beneficial to man. Secondly. We may take occasion to observe, from the laws of self-denial in general, and this duty of fasting in particular, that our nature is depraved, which requires such discipline to keep it under due regulation. Were not the lower faculties in a state of disorder, and ever ready to rebel against the dictates of right reason; did not the body bring the soul into bondage, and the animal part in us basely triumph over the spiritual; there would be no more occasion for such prescriptions, than there is occasion to prescribe a regimen to a man who is in health. Regimen supposes disease; every selfdenying injunction of our religion is to be justly estimated only by viewing it in this light. He who is sick must be content to forego many gratifications, and must submit to many a restraint, of which the healthy have no need. Let us ever remember, that Christianity considers us as diseased, and proposes for its end our recovery to spiritual health; and we shall no longer question the wisdom and fitness of its prescriptions. Finally. From what has been explained upon this subject, we learn, that in fasting, as in praying, and every other act of religious service, the soul is the chief object of consideration; the body coming under regulation and discipline only for the sake of the soul, that our animal nature, instead of subverting the order which God hath established by acting the master over our higher faculties, may become a good and faithful servant to the rational and spiritual principle within us. "Bodily exercise profiteth little," and therefore, if, in the ensuing Lent, our body only keep the appointed fasts, such fasts will be as worthless in the eyes of an holy God as those for which Israel were anciEntly reproved, when their external To the Editor of the Christian Observer. PREFIXED to the second volume of the Homilies of the Church of England, there is "an admonition to all ministers ecclesiastical," which concludes thus-" And where it may so chance some one or other chapter of the Old Testament to fall in order to be read upon the Sundays or holidays, which were better to be changed with some other of the New Testament of more edification, it shall be well done to spend your time to consider well of such chapters before-hand, whereby your prudence and diligence in your office may appear, so that your people may have cause to glorify God for · you, and be the readier to embrace your letter, to your better commendation, to the discharge of your consciences and their own." I think it worthy of enquiry, whether the clergy are still considered, by virtue of the foregoing admonition, as having the option of occasionally selecting chapters to be substituted in divine service for those appointed by the Rubric, or whether, by any act of convocation subsequent to the reign of Elizabeth, the said "admonition" is rendered wholly nugatory, though still prefixed to the different editions of the homilies, for instance, that of 1683, a period of later date than that of the Act ot Uniformity. I also request any of your correspondents, conversant with the ecclesiastical history and writings of the age of Queen Elizabeth, to give a list of the names of those of the English clergy of the Established Church, who, during the first thirty years of her reign, were avowedly known as writers, maintainers, and preachers of what in later days has been called the Arminian's exposition of the points in controversy between them and the Calvinists. I am acquainted' with many writers who hold the opinions of the latter, for the most part according to the sublapsarian scheme, but have not yet been able to find any author or divine in the Establish ment, within the above-named period, who can be proved (without public censure) to have written or preached on the former side of those questions. Having frequently seen it asserted by respectable writers, that there was great difference of private sentiment subsisting amongst our reformers and their immediate successors, respecting the interpretation of the doctrinal articles, I have been desirous to obtain more satisfactory evi-, dence of such a difference, than I have hitherto been able, after much enquiry and examination, to procure. I should particularly wish this query to be applied to the members of the famous convocation of 1562, and those Bishops and Clergy who were actually concerned in framing the articles, or were their immediate cotemporaries. INDAGATOR VERITATIS. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. YOUR Correspondent O. surely betrays an unnecessary impatience under the restraint of a Coroner's warrant. He will not be convinced by Dr. Burn's observations, and puts his queries with the same confidence as if the subject had never been considered, nor the doubts ever answered. If that respectable writer cannot satisfy him, I fear an anonymous answerer of my description, giving an opinion against his wish, is not likely to do so. However, I cannot but think Dr. Burn's view of the matter to be consistent with sound sense' and legal propriety. After noticing the prohibition, in the Rubric, of Christian burial, in the cases of those who have laid violent hands upon themselves, and a Canon to the same import, he quotes a corrected edition of that Canon, published in the year 750, and a farther Canon in the reign of King Edgar, (A. D. 960) which make this addition; "if they do it voluntarily by the instigation of the devil." Burn further observes, that we should not without necessity understand our Rubric to be so much severer than the preceding constitutions, as to place mad people in a contrary predicament, and to punish them for that which in them was no crime. He adds, "that the proper judges, whether persons who died by their own hands were out of their senses, are doubtless the coroner's jury. The minister of the parish hath no authority (as he observes) to be present at the viewing of the body, or to summon or examine witnesses, and therefore he is neither entitled nor able to judge in the affair, but may well ac-" quiesce in the public determination, without making any private enquiry. Indeed, were he to make one, the opinion which he might form from thence could usually be grounded only on common discourse and bare assertion, and it cannot be justifiable' to act upon these, in contradiction to the decision of a jury, after hearing" witnesses upon oath." Admitting the Rubric (thus qualified with respect to cases of mental derangement) to be the Clergyman's guide in these instances, can he be said to transgress it, by conforming himself to the Coroner's Warrant, though it is not, strictly speaking, a mandate, but an official notification coupled with an authority? He naturally wishes in such a case to do his duty, but he is in doubt about a material fact, and from that uncertainty is in danger of acting wrong. Here the common law imparts its kind aid to the ecclesiastical institutes an enquiry by the oaths of a jury and witnesses, and relieves the minister from his difficulty, by furnishing him with a certificate of the result. Would it become him, as a clergyman and a citizen, to resist that constitutional information, and to act from hearsay or opinion, especially by leaning to the less charitable side of the question? Supposing the certificate to be false, I cannot perceive any moral evil attached to a compliance with it; but I think the morality of slighting this" ordinance of man," and of bidding defiance to an established mode of procedure, calculated purposely to free a minister from such a dilemma, might fairly be questioned. I call it " established," because we have no reason to suppose it of less antiquity than the of fice of coroner itself, which in this country is at least coeval with our Rubrics in point of date. I might here instance the obedience which the common law pays to the ecclesiastical, in issuing the writ of Excommunicate Capiendo in consequence of the Bishop's certificate of the fact, and other similar compliances, all which infer the reasonableness of a like acquiescence by ecclesiastical persons, in the acts of common law tribunals. Is a coroner's inquest then infallible? By no means. On the contrary, it is liable to great abuse and perversion, and in no case more so than in that of selt-murder. But which of our excellent institutions is not abused? Can nothing then be done by a Clergyman in such circumstances? Yes, surely. He can warn his hearers against wickedly corrupting this mode of judicial proceeding; against sporting with the obligations of an oath, and giving encouragement to self-murder, by treating it in a way inconsistent with the laws both of God and their country. But here I am stepping out of my province, and dictating to an experienced minister of the Gospel, from whom (if he be the person I suppose) I should be happy to receive instruction. An attention to the apostolic protest against "doing evil that good may come," would be a preservative from every wrong extreme in this, and indeed in most cases. May we be enabled clearly to understand this rule, and rightly to apply it! A COUNTRY ATTORNEY. THE following communication, as well as that to which it is intended as a reply, furnish a pleasing specimen of the spirit in which theological discussions ought ever to be conducted. We should rejoice to see the moderation and candour exhibited in them, very widely diffused. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I OBSERVE that my remarks on the use of the term Co-operation, have been The writ de excommunicate capiendo, is a process from the temporal courts, by virtue of which, the excommunicated party is taken and imprisoned until he shall become reconciled to the Church; and from this punishment, which is to maby the only formidable part of excommuucation, he cannot be freed, but by another writ, grounded on a second certificate from the Bishop of his being restored to absolution. favoured with the notice of one of your readers, who, under the signature K. R. has stated, in your number for December last, his objections to what I had advanced. I am indebted to him both for the courtesy of his language, as it respects myself, and for the freedom of his objections, as they respect the subject of my late brief essay. That the subject has been brought before the readers of the Christian Observer, is a circumstance at which I feel the more satisfaction, since it has attracted the attention of at least one among them, who deems it of sufficient importance to interest his exertions for the developement of its merits. I will not, Sir, take up your pages, or the time of your readers, by a particular vindication of what I have advanced in support of my objections to the use of the term in question. My arguments, such as they are, still speak for themselves, and shall be left to their fate; for, provided that your readers will balance the considerations upon which I object to the use of the word Co-operation against those by which K. R. would justify it, I shall (whatever be the result) have nothing left to desire in this matter; since, in what I have written, I wished to be considered as an advocate stating arguments and enumerating evidences, and not as a judge attempting to establish an authoritative decision. My purpose at present is, to state was merely glanced at in my former more explicitly a consideration which communication, and to comment on two or three passages in K. R.'s letter. I conceive then, Sir, that it is an evil by no means uncommon, and one which we cannot be too diligent in combating, that very many of the professors of Christianity are either unaware, incredulous, or unmindful of this grand truth, that a Christian, in every act which he performs aright, and in every effort which he successfully employs in the work of his salvation, depends absolutely and entirely upon the grace of God for the will to desire or design what is good, and the ability to pursue or accom plish it. Now, I conceive, that it is the tendency of the word Co-operation (as it is commonly used, and in the connection which I have before stated) to convey to a mind not fully |