sellor of the English Reformers, in his treatise addressed to Archbishop Cranmer on the English Service-book, strongly recommends an alteration in most of these points, and especially in the engagements of the sponsors, warning him that a departure here from the gravity and simplicity of Christian truth leads and will lead men to reject infant baptism altogether.* And most remarkably his prophecy has been fulfilled. Baron von Bunsen, while strongly condemning the English Baptismal Service, much as he admires the English Prayer-book, calls attention to the fact that from England has proceeded not only the sect of the Quakers, rejecting Sacraments altogether, but that of the Baptists also in its modern and permanent form, whch has made such surprising progress among the Anglo-Saxon race, though not in those Protestant countries where the baptismal theory has been less rigid.t

But what then can be done? For these very points, so obnoxious to some, are those which are most earnestly clung to by a large proportion of the clergy, and by many of the laity also, and among them by men whose learning and piety and self-devotion render them worthy of the vast influence they undoubtedly possess. Nor is it possible to think that these men would ever consent to a change which they would consider to be apostasy from the Church.

We believe that there are ways of meeting the difficulty. And first of all that which seems to be the best way, though we confess we have little hope of seeing it adopted the reconstruction, namely, of the service on such a principle as to leave all controverted points to be expressed in the plain words of Scripture. Many texts, many which are not recited and scarcely referred to in the present services, might (if desired) be so advanced as to express unequivocally to the minds of Anglicans the doctrines for which they contend; while all these would be received with equal deference by their fellow-churchmen of other opinions, provided only that in the accompanying prayers and thanksgivings, the Church allowed God's Word to commend itself by its own unborrowed light. Let it not be

6

See M. Buceri Censura super libro sacrorum Ecclesiæ Angli'canæ.' It is true that his criticisms are directed against the first Baptismal Office of Edward VI. (1549), which contained exorcism and other things; and that they produced some effect upon the second Prayer-book, published (1552) after Bucer's death. But the alterations then made still fell short of what Bucer urged and as the Office now stands, it remains even more obnoxious to his remon

strances.

† Hippolytus, vol. ii. (2nd edition.)

said that such a course would be impracticable; or, if practicable, only to be realised by the sacrifice of all distinctive doctrine. We point in answer to the Office for the Holy Communion. On the subject of that sacrament there exists within the English Church at this moment as wide a difference of opinion as upon baptism itself. And yet the Christian wisdom of our Reformers has produced a service in which all concur; in which all devout Churchmen, of whatever shade of opinion, find their convictions and aspirations expressed, without any sense either of a void left unfilled, or of too strong an assertion needing to be explained away. Nay, the same testimony would be borne to it by the great majority of the Protestant Dissenters. We unhesitatingly believe that a similar office might be compiled for the administration of baptism. We do not doubt that were Cranmer and his coadjutors now alive, with the added experience of three centuries to guide and warn them, they would readily construct one.* Nor can we doubt that the same faculties still exist within the Church, and are only dormant because not evoked. Such a task would require doubtless great wisdom, great fairness, great reverence for truth, great skill and tenderness of touch. But are such graces too high for a Church to expect to be endowed with them, if only sought aright? Here, however, is the disheartening part of the matter. We are often told that it is vain to look now for such qualities in the Church; and indeed, till there is more of that penitential feeling with which so humiliating a confession ought to be accompanied, and a tenderer consideration also for alienated Christian brethren, we must not think of this better and more excellent way as being practical yet.

Other ways still remain; which though less satisfactory would be more easy of execution. For instance (1) a slight modification of the parts of the service most objected to, such as that which was proposed in the American Revision of 1785†, leaving

* Even were it only by adhering more closely to the beautiful services contained in the Simplex Deliberatio of Archbishop Hermann of Cologne, from which they have already drawn very largely. The necessities of the times forced them to retain much of the familiar Roman Offices; though not on the ground of deference to primitive antiquity, to which these last have no claim.

It is not generally known that at the first Convention of the American Episcopal Church held at Philadelphia in 1785, these alterations of the Baptismal Service were not only proposed, but adopted. The interrogations addressed to the sponsors were simply to be Dost thou believe all the articles of the Christian faith, as contained in the Apostles' Creed; and wilt thou endeavour to

6

all the rest unaltered; or (2) the permissory omission, or permissory modification (according to a specified form) of these particular portions, if absolute change be forbidden - a method for which it will be recollected there are many precedents in the Prayer-book already, some in the Communion Service itself; or (3) that which commends itself most to our judgment of these secondary plans — the admission, by a simple alteration of the rubric, of the present office for Private Baptism to be used in the Church as well as in private houses for those who object to the other form; the rubric giving a discretionary power to the minister, as to some extent it does already, to select what parts of the longer office he thinks fit, and extending that discretion also to the Thanksgiving with which the Private Office now concludes.* The advantages of this plan are first, that it is rubrical only; and secondly, that the objection cannot be urged against it that it involves any doctrinal innovation whatever. For the Church already in the strongest language affirms that children so baptized have been lawfully and

'Wilt thou endeavour to

' have this child instructed accordingly? ' have him brought up in the fear of God, and to obey His holy will ' and commandments?' The thanksgiving after baptism was altered to 'We give Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath 'pleased Thee to receive this infant for Thine own child by baptism, and to incorporate him into Thy holy Church. And humbly we 'beseech Thee,' &c. In the Catechism the child is asked 'When did 'you receive this name?' Ans. I received it in baptism, wherein I became a member of the Christian Church.' Q. What was pro'mised for you in baptism?' Ans. That I should be instructed, &c., ' and brought up,' &c. &c. It is understood that these amendments were rescinded in deference to the expostulations of the English Episcopate when consenting to consecrate the American Bishops White and Provoost in 1787. The far more rapid advance of the Wesleyan Episcopal Church since then in the United States, and the enormous growth of the Baptist denomination, cannot, but suggest reflections on the wisdom of this proceeding.

* It was not till the revision of 1662 that this thanksgiving was made a necessary part of the Private Office. It is peculiarly objectionable to the opponents of Baptismal Regeneration, as involving the assertion 'It hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit.'

Some such additional clause as follows might be introduced into the present rubric:-'And it shall be lawful to use the same form of 'administration in the church, at any time not during the celebration ' of Divine Service; if the parents or guardians of the child shall signify 'their desire therefor [pledging themselves to instruct and bring up 'the child in the knowledge and obedience of the Christian faith'].

6

sufficiently baptized;' and the worst that can be said against the arrangement is that it would be a relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline. And ought not such a relaxation to be granted, for the sake of those whom too imperious a rule has driven, and is still driving, out of the communion of the Church? That it is but an expedient, and a temporary expedient, we do not deny. We look for the time, and doubt not it will come, when the better and more harmonious course of which we have spoken will be adopted instead. But meanwhile an inestimable contribution would have been made to the cause of peace and union, and the ground prepared for the growth of that higher wisdom and broader appreciation of truth which will both incline and enable the authorities of the Church to compose an office for the administration of Baptism worthy to be ranked with that for the Holy Communion.

As the alterations to be made in the Catechism must depend upon the altered Baptismal offices, we will not follow them in detail now, nor touch upon other points in which the Catechism seems justly open to censure.

We are of course aware that very grave objections may be urged against these suggestions, as indeed against any other objections whch may seem insuperable to those who forget or refuse to see the far greater evils which attend the present state of things. But in fact the only effectual way for discovering the true solution of such difficulties, is by the erection of a tribunal authorised to collect information and opinions from all quarters, and impartially to weigh all the contending arguments. The refusal of the Bishops to allow such a tribunal to be constituted (for their consent to this proposal would have been sufficient to insure its adoption) seems to be a sore injury done to the cause of truth and charity. Should such a Commission as has been asked for be granted, and after full inquiry come to the conclusion that the Prayer-book cannot be revised without unwarrantable risk to the highest interests of the Church, then, however the conclusion might be deplored, and whatever anticipations it might give rise to, the effort would at least show a generous desire to promote the noblest of earthly causes. That such a desire exists among the Bishops, we cannot doubt. But the difficulties and embarrassments which are foreseen have hitherto checked any measures of advance; and these difficulties are magnified in the prospect. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, shrinks more especially from subjecting the Liturgy to the discussions and controversies, not to say dissensions, ' which the passage of any changes through both Houses of Par

liament and of Convocation must necessarily give rise to."* But is this fear a well-grounded one? We firmly believe, that as far as Parliament is concerned, whatever proposals came before the Houses in the last stage, authenticated by the consent of the Church, would be received with the reverential forbearance and reticence which became the nature of the subject; and no proposals would come before them which had not passed that ordeal. While as to the consent of the Church itself, there might be other and better ways devised for ascertaining that, than through Convocation. Convocation (as we have elsewhere shown) has no claim to be considered the organ of the Church.f It does but represent the clergy, and even them very defectively; while its separate organisation in the two English provinces and in Ireland would make it practically still more objectionable. Neither is precedent by any means conclusive in favour of consulting Convocation in this matter: so as to leave no choice open to those who desire to adopt a constitutional course. Better ways might therefore be adopted for taking the sense of the Church-ways which it would be part of the duty of the Royal Commission to devise, obtaining for them the sanction of the Legislature, after all the details of the proposed changes had been patiently and thoroughly considered, and the Report of the Commissioners published.

But irrespectively of these difficulties in detail, there seems to be far too little willingness as yet among the Bishops to attempt effective measures of comprehension. In some quarters certainly such willingness was not to be looked for. But it might have been hoped that a man like the Bishop of London would have shown a warmer sympathy with a cause that roused the noblest energies of his great predecessor at Rugby, Dr. Arnold; and a juster consideration for what he termed the 'scruples' of the remonstrant clergy. Surely scruples is not the word for the calm, reasonable objections of those who show that the language now forced upon them is inconsistent with convictions which they are allowed, nay encouraged to retain by the long consent of the Church, and by the solemn decision of her Courts of Judicature: while as a proof that these objections are no accidental product of mere idiosyncrasy, they point to the present state of the Christian Church in England, and to the experience of three eventful centuries.

Since the debate in the House of Lords, the season for epis

Report of the Debate of May 8. 1860, in the Guardian.' † See Ed. Rev., No. ccxiii.