of the sacrament? Or will it, in any one way, add to the decency, order, and solemnity of the occasion? To be sure it will not. It is not by such an experiment that the evils he complains of can be remedied. Let the service be performed, according to the rubric, after the second lesson, and he will no longer have to complain of the sponsors dropping in during the sermon. Let the clergy keep registers of their communicants, according to the ancient custom, which many of us observe still; let them keep, also, registers of sponsors, as many of the provincial councils enjoined, and as some among us do even now; let them require that the names of those who intend to introduce neophytes into the church of Christ shall be given in to them a reasonable time beforehand, and if they are not of their own parish, let them require certificates from their own clergyman that they are communicants, and as such worthy, according to the rules of our church, to become responsible for the religious education of those who are admitted to the covenant unconsciously. Every evil he has complained of will be remedied by these means, and the intentions of the church be fully realized. I do not know whether the clergy of Wolverhampton have found it necessary to have recourse to any such measures; but I have been informed by an eye-witness, that in that immensely populous place, it is both comely and edifying to witness the decency and order with which baptism is administered to the crowds of candidates for it which every Sunday brings with it. I am glad of this opportunity of expressing the obligation which I consider the whole church to be under to the clergy of that place, not only on this account, but also on account of the straightforward and most proper course which they have taken in respect to the marriage and registration acts, as mentioned in the February number, which, if it be generally adopted by the clergy, will have the effect of drawing the venom out of those statutes, and rendering them, not only harmless, but salutary to the church.

"Catholicus" says,

One more observation, and I have done. "it is far from his wish or intention to dogmatize on the subject" of immersion; and that he does "not venture to say that we ought to return to primitive practice." I am willing to give him full credit for his intentions; but when he says, that the practice generally adopted by the clergy is "unlawful," and to be attributed to "carelessness or something worse," he must not be surprised that people should consider such language to be very like dogmatism. Again, when he throws out for consideration, that it is "incumbent" upon us to return to immersion, and in the very postscript of his last letter affirms it to have been "expressly enjoined by Christ," he must excuse those who are accustomed to weigh the force of their words, if they think that he is pressing the "ought," and that with no hesitating hand. For, if baptism by immersion be expressly enjoined by Christ, I should think that every minister of his would be bound by the strictest obligation to administer it in no other way. If I could have supposed, from the tenour of his letter, that he merely meant to announce to his brethren the mode of administering baptism which, under a conscientious sense of this "express injunction" from our Lord, he had thought it right to VOL. XI.-April, 1837.

3 H

adopt in his own practice, I should, probably, not have troubled him or you with any remarks; but, imagining him to seek both to abridge the liberty, and to condemn the practice of others, and to introduce into the church a custom, the too probable consequences of which, according to our present habits, I can only contemplate with fear and dread, it seemed to me necessary that his observations should be replied to, and his endeavours opposed. In replying at length, as he made it necessary for me to do, to the numerous allegations in his last letter, that I might not again be accused of refusing to go to "the root" of the subject, I have endeavoured so to express myself as would be least offensive to him. And though it must needs be, that the exposing of the errors into which his over haste has, in this instance, betrayed him, must be unacceptable to him, I assure him, the taste of doing so is hardly less unwelcome to me. For I admire his reverence for antiquity, which led him to entertain the question, and I respect the zeal which, when hastily persuaded that his view was right, moved him to take up the cudgels in its defence. I recognise in him a fellow labourer in a holy cause, and I hope that the present discussion will not prevent our hearty and mutual co-operation in defence of the catholic church. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, ECCLESIASTICUS.

ON BAPTISM BY IMMERSION.

SIR,-I must beg space for a few words in reply to "Ecclesiasticus." It appears that he rests the propriety of our present practice in baptizing on what he terms "one of the first of ecclesiastical postulates," -viz., "that the universal custom of a church, unreproved by those who have authority, is tantamount to a law," notwithstanding any express law of the church to the contrary,-for this is the real question. If this really be so, I will freely admit that it has a most important bearing on the subject, and may go far to decide the point in dispute. I shall feel much and sincerely obliged to "Ecclesiasticus" for directing attention to it. Perhaps I ought to conclude, from the confident manner in which he writes, that this postulate is universally acknowledged, and to be ashamed to confess my own ignorance. I am, however, still more ashamed to continue ignorant, and therefore may I beg "Ecclesiasticus" to instruct me on this point. I am far from denying that he may be right, and Jeremy Taylor may be wrong; but I beg to assure him that I quoted this last-named respectable authority under an opposite conviction, and not, as he lays to my charge, "to evade the force of the question by a cavil," "'* an act which I hope I am incapable of. Will Ecclesiasticus," whoever he

May I beg "Ecclesiasticus" to furnish me with his interpretation of the words evasion and cavil. I must confess myself too dull to see their application to the paragraph in my letter. I may be culpably ignorant, in deferring to Jeremy Taylor's judgment, rather than to his; and if I am proved so, I shall be ready to confess my fault. But what ground is there for the charge of cavilling or evasion ? are not argument,

Hard words

may be, be kind enough to remember that he is writing anonymously, and therefore it cannot, I trust, be imputed to me as a very great fault, that I placed more confidence in the judgment of Jeremy Taylor, writing a well-considered treatise "On the Power of the Church in Canons and Censures, with their Obligations and Powers over the Cónscience," than I did upon the bare and unsupported assertion of an unknown writer. But, I repeat, I am open to instruction and convic tion, and shall feel greatly obliged to "Ecclesiasticus" for furnishing me with the needful authority for receiving this as "an ecclesiastical postulate" under the circumstances in question.* I have always thought, it may be ignorantly, that, as a clergyman, I ought to observe the rubric as strictly as possible, notwithstanding any practice to the contrary which may have obtained. But if "Ecclesiasticus" postulate is to be granted, we must acquiesce in every general custom which has been unreproved by authority. By this rule, e. g., it must be wrong to observe the ember days, and perhaps the minor festivals, or to increase the times of communion above four or six times annually in the country, and once a month in towns. We must not interfere with the clerk or sexton placing the elements on the Lord's Table, by which the idea of oblation and commemorative sacrifice is well nigh lost. Nor ought the bishops to repeat the words of confirmation on "every one severally," a practice lately revived by one excellent prelate of our church. Many other things might be mentioned. Seeing, then, that the admission of this "postulate" must have a very extensive influence in the observances of the church, it is very important that it should be established on incontrovertible grounds.

I must still think the question important "concerning the true im port of our Lord's command to baptize;" and I beg to suggest to "Ecclesiasticus," that it is not simply the meaning of the word, but its use, which must be taken into consideration. It is important, indeed, in the controversy with the Antipedobaptists to shew that the Greek word does not necessarily mean "to dip," because they have urged this meaning as an argument against the validity of any other baptism; but I am sure that I have used no such argument. I have laid no stress on the translation of a word, but I have asked, was the act enjoined by Jesus Christ, that of sprinkling a few drops or perhaps a single drop of water on the forehead?

And here "Ecclesiasticus," doubtless from an oversight, has not treated me fairly. He says I have asserted that Christ has expressly enjoined immersion. I have never said this. What I said was, that a different act has been substituted for that which Christ expressly

* I am well aware, that the custom of the church, when it has antiquity on its side, and does not contravene any established law, is considered to have the force of a law. Thus Hooker says, 66 the judgment of antiquity concurring with that which is received, may induce them to think it not unfit," &c.-E. P. v. 7. And St. Augustin, as quoted by him, "In his enim rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit scriptura mos populi Dei, vel instituta majorum, pro lege tenenda sunt."-Ep.186. And Leslie says, concerning things indifferent, "it is fit we should not deviate from some devout customs that are so established by uncient and general practice, which, in time to come, may have the force of a law."- Christian Sacrifice, p. 48.

enjoined, which must be admitted unless it can be maintained that our Lord intended only a few drops to be sprinkled on the forehead. "Ecclesiasticus" says the word means "to wash." Well, but do we in general wash in baptism. "Ecclesiasticus" seems here, as in other places, to confound affusion with sprinkling; the former allowed by our church in certain cases, the latter never. I admit, of course, that our Lord's command is substantially observed by pouring water on the neophyte; but will this justify the practice of merely touching the forehead with a wet finger? For my own part, I should consider it an important improvement if affusion were adopted instead of the mode generally in use. "When the best things are not possible, the best may be made of those that are."

. I must still think that the analogy between baptism and the eucharist, in respect to the quantity of elements used, does not hold, and am surprised that a person of " Ecclesiasticus'" discernment should maintain it. It was at a meal, or after a meal, that the eucharist was instituted and celebrated; but the meal itself never constituted the substance of the ordinance. "Ecclesiasticus" thinks that I cannot, without inconceivable hardihood, deny that we have diminished the quantity of the eucharistic elements. I really do not know, however, that we have any just ground for asserting that we have. I should certainly suppose that our Lord only distributed small pieces, and that the cup was only sipped. The abuse which arose in Corinth seems

to have been occasioned by the practice of celebrating the Lord's supper at a meal; not that there was surfeiting and drunkenness in the excessive use of the elements themselves-a supposition too horrible to be entertained. Where "Ecclesiasticus" has learned that it is the practice of our church "to give the minutest particle [of bread] that can safely be transmitted from one hand to another, and the smallest quantity [of wine] that may suffice for the purposes of deglutition,” I cannot tell. I can only say, as far as I know, "we have no such custom, nor the churches of God." Yet his argument for an analogy rests upon this supposed practice.

"Ecclesiasticus" is offended with me for expressing a wish, in my former letter, that he had refrained from a painful supposition with respect to the holy eucharist. It is obvious that he intended no irreverence. Yet still I must think it, at least, inconvenient to suggest such an idea as is expressed p. 41, line 6, as well as his allusion to the statues.

I expressed my surprise that "Ecclesiasticus" should maintain that the custom handed down from Christ and the Apostles had ministered to self exaltation and a pharisaical spirit. He now defends this supposition by asking, "Was not circumcision found to minister to such a spirit, as St. Paul observes, they desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh'?" Surely "Ecclesiasticus" will not maintain that the cases are parallel. St. Paul is speaking of the Judaizing teachers, who wished to impose circumcision on the Gentile Christians, for whom it was never intended. And they abused this rite, by seeking, through its unlawful administration, to obtain an improper influence over the converts. But will St. Paul's condemnation of such

an abuse justify any one in asserting that the mode of administering baptism sanctioned by our Lord, as distinguished from another mode afterwards invented, (for this is "Ecelesiasticus' " position,) ministered to a pharisaical spirit? If he merely means that primitive practice, like every other good thing, may be abused, this, of course, none will deny. But then he has not expressed himself very happily, nor is the observation much to the point; for if, in the dispute between the clinics and those baptized in the regular way, the latter manifested any self-exaltation in the superiority of their own mode, it would call for a correction of their spirit, but not for an alteration of their practice. On the only other point noticed in "Ecclesiasticus' " reply, I do not think it needful to enter. I am glad to find that I was mistaken in supposing him to charge the practice itself with indelicacy. I quite agree with him, that, as, to the pure, all things are pure, so, to him that esteemeth anything indelicate, to him it is indelicate. This may be a sound reason for some change, in our degenerate days, only do not let us rest its necessity on our superior delicacy and refinement, and let the change be as small as necessity requires.

CATHOLICUS.

JUSTIN MARTYR.-HUMANITARIANS.

SIR, A note in the Bishop of Lincoln's work on Justin Martyr, (p. 51, 2nd edit.,) on the passage in the dialogue with Trypho, which appears so important with respect to the prevalence, in Justin's time, of the opinion of the mere humanity of our Lord, has led me to a consideration of the passage, under the idea that more might be done towards a decisive settlement of its meaning.

Justin's words, speaking of those who held this opinion, are thus given in the Benedictine edition, p. 144; οἷς οὐ συντίθεμαι, οὐδ' ἂν πλεῖστοι ταύτά μοι δοξάσαντες εἴποιεν· ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἀνθρωπείοις διδάγμασι κεκελεύ σμεθα ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πείθεσθαι

....

In the first place, the only sense which the clause ovd....éïñolv can bear, seems utterly inconsistent with what follows--έreion • πείθεσθαι.

.....

I would, therefore, propose to read, ois où avvтíðeμaι ovd àv, ei πλεῖστοι ταῦτά μοι δοξάσαντες εἴποιεν· ἐπειδὴ...

» The sentence would then be of the same form as οὐκ ἂν, μὰ τὸν Διόνυσον, εἰ δοίης γέ μοι Τοὺς φασιανοὺς οὓς τρέφει Λεωγόρας.

The Benedictine rendering, "Quibus ego non assentior; nec assentiner, etiamsi maxima pars, quæ mecum consentit, idem diceret," and that of the Bishop of Lincoln, "with whom I do not agree; nor should I, even if very many of those who think as I do were to say so," both express a meaning agreeing with the proposed reading, though neither translator has given a hint of any remedy for the Greek.

It should, however, be remarked, that the words, " Maxima pars, quæ mecum consentit,” seem to require πλεῖστοι οἱ ταυτὰ ἐμοὶ δοξάσavτɛs—and, “ very many of those who think as I do," would correspond to πλεῖστοι τῶν ταυτὰ ἐμοὶ δοξασάντων.