was on the side of the immersed, and that the clinics were unjustly depreciated-a position entirely at variance with the judgment of the church. When he says "that the probable reason of their (the early bishops) persisting in immersion," notwithstanding the self-exaltation and pharisaical spirit to which it [the custom handed down from Christ and his apostles!] ministered in many cases, was, that they found it to be the custom, and their people would have been scandalized by the alteration, he surely conveys a very erroneous impression; for it is notorious, that the early bishops were so far from desiring any alteration, or even contemplating it in the remotest degree, that they considered affusion as an indulgence arising from necessity. The words of St. Cyprian, the defender of the validity of clinical baptism, as cited by Bingham, are:-" In sacramentis salutaribus, necessitate cogente, et Deo indulgentiam suam largiente, totum credentibus conferunt divina compendia.'

In my former letter I cited the weighty authority of Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who says, "In this case we are to stand to the law, not to the custom," and assigns his reasons for this judgment. To this "Ecclesiasticus" thinks it sufficient to reply, "Surely the universal custom of a church, unreproved by those who have authority, is tantamount to a law." Whether this is an adequate reply to such an authority I will leave the reader to judge.

With regard to the schism of the antipædo-baptists, Wall was decidedly of opinion that it was chiefly to be attributed to the relinquishment of immersion by the catholics. It is a matter of fact, that the former quickly followed the latter. "Ecclesiasticus"" knowledge of this sect and their writings must be very limited, if he never heard or read of their urging the practice of sprinkling as an objection against the church. He may find it pressed in no measured terms by Gill. (Body of Divinity, book iii. sect. 2.)

"Ecclesiasticus'" next argument is founded on the alleged indelicacy of the ancient usage. Has he well considered whom he includes in this sweeping charge? Could the practice of immersion have been sanctioned from the very first, if there be real indelicacy in it? or does he think that female virtue and male morality has been better guarded in the church in the last three centuries than in former periods? I wish he had abstained from the allusion to ancient statues: it is surely Besides, not well to suggest such associations with a holy sacrament. the reference to France is not very happy; it was there that immerWould "Ecclesiasticus" teach us to sion was first dispensed with. look there for the example of " female virtue or men's morals"?

I am sincerely sorry that I have given offence by the use of the word fastidious. I suppose that, for the purpose of baptism, an infant might be considered naked without being, as "Ecclesiasticus" expresses it, in a state of perfect nudity. [Was St. Peter so?-John, xxi. 7.] And in that case I cannot think there could be anything to offend delicacy, in a little infant of a month old being dipped in water in the face of the congregation.

Let the case of adults stand by itself; and if a necessity for some change of the early practice be made out here, let it not be applied to cases in which that necessity does not exist. In these corrupt times,

(not because of our greater delicacy, but rather from our want of it,) it might suffice, if our superiors approve of it, that women should be baptized as they are usually bathed. "Ecclesiasticus" must well know what pains were taken in the early church that no indecency should be committed. (See Bingham, b. ii. c. 22; b. xi. c. 11.)

When "Ecclesiasticus" attributes immersion to "inveteracy of custom," surely he forgets that it was practised by the apostles and their successors before such custom could be pleaded.

I regret that I should again have given offence, by imputing the practice of sprinkling, as distinguished from affusion, to carelessness or something worse. "Ecclesiasticus," however, says nothing in defence of this practice. Delicacy cannot here be pleaded as an excuse. what, then, may we attribute a gratuitous departure from the direction of the church, which we have solemnly pledged ourselves to observe?

Το

On the whole, I do not think that the reply of " Ecclesiasticus" will be considered satisfactory by the majority of your readers. It is far from my wish or intention to dogmatize on the subject, but I wish to have the candid opinion of others, who will go more to the root of the matter than "Ecclesiasticus" has thought fit to do.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,

CATHOLICUS.

P.S. "Ecclesiasticus" seems to think that it would have been better not to have mooted this question. I beg to say that I was led to it by the consideration of the way in which the holy sacrament of baptism is abused by the common practice now. It has been so much kept out of sight, that many people seem to forget that it is a sacrament; and, by terming the eucharist THE sacrament, by implication withhold this designation from baptism. Let any one visit the churches of our populous parishes on the Sunday afternoons, when this holy rite is performed, and I think his feelings will be shocked by witnessing the abuse of this holy solemnity. The crowd of sponsors, obviously unknown to the minister,-they may be infidels or anything else,-dropping in during the sermon, as if they had no concern in the services of the church; their frequent inability to answer the questions in the order without being prompted by the clerk; the utter ignorance of the parents and sponsors of the nature and privileges of baptism;-these circumstances all mark a practical corruption in this important point. And what is the consequence? We have again to fight the battle of baptismal blessing, and contend against a host of unbelievers for the efficacy of Christ's holy ordinance.

Under such circumstances it is natural to revert to Tertullian's rule, "Whatever is first is best," and to examine what was the practice of the church in her best days; and I do think it is rather a startling fact to find a different act, almost universally in the western church, substituted for that which Christ expressly enjoined; a different act from that enjoined by our own church, and which obtained for the first 1500 years. I do not venture to say that we ought to return to primitive practice, as far as personal feelings are concerned, I should be glad to find that we may continue our present mode,—but at any rate the subject is worth consideration, and, I humbly think, not to be set aside by such arguments as those which "Ecclesiasticus" has offered.

OXFORD PETITION IN BEHALF OF EPISCOPACY AND

CATHEDRALS-1641.

MY DEAR FRIEND,-It was thought worth while, in 1641, to print, as a pamphlet, the following petition, which was "passed unanimously in a full house," at Oxford, in that year; and so it may not be unadvisable to reprint it now. It was useless then, and it may be now; still one would throw in one's contribution, be it of use or no, for "thou knowest not whether shall prosper either this or that." (Eccl. ii. 6.) It is not, however, so much for the sake of all the contents of the petition that I send it you, (for it was addressed to a greedy, selfish house, and so appealed prominently to topics which it would understand,) as for the date, and for the connexion between the two subjects, the preservation of cathedral property inviolate, and episcopacy. This was well understood in those days, both by friends and foes. The foes were then afraid to attack episcopacy at once, says Bishop (then Dr.) Hacket, "for the king knew well, 'No bishops no king." Therefore they began further off, and attacked the cathedrals, which were ever considered the outworks of "episcopacy." The friends then defended the cathedrals, both for their own sake and for that of episcopacy.

The foes understand it well now, only they think themselves secure as to the destruction of the cathedrals, only they wish to secure to themselves the gold with which it is overlaid. The friends now think that they, too, can employ it well, so they prepare to strip it off themselves: the only question is, who shall defile the temple of the Lord, friends or foes? History will shew that it is better to let the enemy strip it off than to do it one's self. The blows of an enemy are reparable Cyrus gave back the golden vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had plundered and Belshazzar had profaned; what the republicans stole from our church was, after awhile, restored; what Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, robbed the church of, remained in the hands of the spoiler. The wounds of a friend are irreparable: better, in plain terms, to let the cathedral property be applied to churchrates, poor-rates, highway-rates, or whatever else men may think a fit employment for the piety of our forefathers, than to defile our own hands, and be "partakers of other men's sins." Yea, "let them take all." When the nation shall have awakened again, and they who now delude it have fretted their hour upon the stage, it will be restored, though it be to our children's children; but if we meddle therewith ourselves, what is lost is lost for ever. And let those who think that chapters can be weakened or destroyed with impunity look on, less than eight years from 1641, and consider the fate of the Episcopate, the Church, the Ministry, the Civil Constitution, and the Monarch himself.

Yours ever,

The following is the petition :

CANONICUS.

"To the high and honourable Court of Parliament, the humble Petition of the

University of Oxford,

66 Sheweth, "THAT whereas the Universitie hath bin informed of severall petitions concerning the present government of this church, & maintenance of the clergie, which have of late been exhibited to this honourable assembly; wee could not but think our selves bound in duty to God, and this whole nation, in charity to our selves and successors, who have and are like to have more than ordinary interest in any resolution that shall bee taken concerning church-affaires, in all humility, to desire the continuance of that forme of government, which is now established here, and hath bin preserved in some of the easterne and westerne churches, in a continued succession of bishops, downe from the very apostles to this present time; the like whereof cannot be affirmed of any other forme of government in any church. Upon which consideration, and such other motives as have beene already represented to this honourable parliament from other persons & places (with whom we concurre) in behalfe of episcopacy, wee earnestly desire, that you would protect that ancient and apostolicall order from ruine or diminution.

"And become farther suiters for the continuance of those pious foundations of cathedrall churches, with their lands and revenues,

"As dedicate to the service and honour of God, soone after the plantation of Christianity in the English nation :

"As thought fit and usefull to be preserved for that end, when the nurseries of superstition were demolished, and so continued in the last and best times since the blessed reformation, under King Edw. 6. Q. Elizab. & K. James, princes renowned through the world for their piety and wisdome:

"As approved and confirmed by the lawes of this lande, ancient and moderne : "As the principall outward motive and encouragement of all students, especially in divinity, and the fittest reward of some deep and eminent schollars:

"As producing or nourishing in all ages many godly and learned men, who have most strongly asserted the truth of that religion wee professe, against the many fierce oppositions of our adversaries of Rome :

"As affording a competent portion in an ingenuous way to many younger brothers of good parentage, who devote themselves to the ministery of the gospell:

"As the onely meanes of subsistence to a multitude of officers and other ministers, who with their families depend upon them and are wholly maintained by them: "As the main authors or upholders of diverse schooles, hospitalls, high-waies, bridges, and other publique and pious works:

"As speciall causes of much profit and advantage to those cities where they are scituate, not only by relieving their poore & keeping convenient hospitality, but by occasioning a frequent resort of strangers from other parts, to the great benefit of all tradesmen, and most inhabitants in those places:

"As the goodly monuments of our predecessors piety, and present honour of this kingdome in the eye of forreigne nations:

"As the chiefe support of many thousand families of the laity, who enjoy faire estates from them in a free way :

"As yeelding a constant and ample revenue to the crowne:

"And as by which many of the learned professours in our university are maintained.

"The subversion or alienation whereof must (as we conceive) not only be attended with such consequences as will redound to the scandal of many well affected to our religion, but open the mouthes of our adversaries, and of posterity against us; and is likely in time to draw after it harder conditions upon a considerable part of the laity, an universall cheapnesse and contempt upon the clergie, a lamentable drooping and defection of industry and knowledge in the universities; which is easie to foresee, but will be hard to remedy.

"

'May it therefore please this honourable assembly, upon these and such other considerations as your great wisedomes shall suggest, to take such pious care for the continuance of these religious houses, and their revenues, according to the best intentions of their founders, as may bee to the most furtherance of Gods glory and service, the honour of this church and nation, the advancement of religion and learning, the encouragement of the modest hopes and honest endeavours of many hundred students in the universities.

"Who doe and shall ever pray, &c."

DISTRIBUTION OF THE ELEMENTS AT THE LORD'S SUPPER.

MY DEAR FRIEND,-Your correspondent, "T.A.H." (Brit. Mag. vol. x. p.706,) has missed the force of Mr.Palmer's statement as to the words used in the delivery of the blessed elements. Mr. P. says, "Our Lord made use of expressions in the delivery of the sacrament which the apostles commemorated in their thanksgiving and consecration; but there is not the slightest reason to think that these expressions [i.e. those used by our blessed Lord] were ever in any way used at the delivery of the elements in the primitive church. However, in the second and third centuries, it appears that a certain form was used in many, if not all, churches." (Orig. Liturg., t. ii. p. 153.) That is, there is no appearance that the words used by our Lord were ever used by the church at the delivery of the elements, for they were appropriated by the apostles to the consecration; on the other hand, it is certain that a form, and that different from these, was used at the delivery of the elements to each individual, in many, if not all churches, so early as the second or third century, and so probably was apostolic. Mr. Palmer in this passage answers two objections of the Zuingli-Calvinist school, one negative, the other positive: 1st, by a false application of scripture, they objected "that we do not use, in a generality, once for all, to say to communicants, 'take, eat and drink,' but unto every particular person, eat thou, drink thou,' which is according to the popish manner, and not the form that our Saviour did use." To these it is answered, that, as far as appears, these words of our Lord never were so used in the church, which is a plain proof that the universal church did not so understand them, and so that they are not to be so understood; for this is not a matter in which the church could be mistaken. The churches in the second century, observant as they then, everywhere, were of apostolical tradition, must have known. what custom their immediate predecessors had from the apostles. 2nd. Another class might scruple at any words being used other than our Lord had used; as, by a strong perverseness, the Zuingli-Calvinists, having first objected to our not following our Lord, themselves do not follow him. For, whereas our Lord did address those words to the disciples, they neither use these nor any other; but these they commemorate as we do, (at least, they were commemorated in the liturgy of Geneva,) and at the distribution use none. And against these persons might well be objected the general positive practice of the church, of using some such form as we now use, which can be traced up to the second century. This, as "T. A. H." says, is "the strongest possible reason for supposing that it existed in the first also."

I would only add, that I do not "impute the hateful errors of Zuingli to those who adopt this practice;" far from it; it has crept in, doubtless, partly through the difficulties entailed by our neglecting to supply sufficient churches for our large parishes. I only speak of it, historically, as a Zuingli-Calvinist practice, and as tending to promote Zuingli-Calvinist views of the holy eucharist. This is a fact; those communions who retained the higher doctrine of the Lord's supper,—