ciprocal completeness, and he claims the full grace which they were meant to betoken and to convey.

Hence we conclude that Hooker really belongs to the class of those who interpret the expressions in the baptismal services as the language of charitable presumption.

If this seem strange to any, it can only be from lack of acquaintance with the language of Hooker's contemporaries, or from approaching his writings with preconceived ideas derived from other schools of theology.

The historical fact is very material to notice that, among all the controversies raised by the earlier Puritans about the baptismal service, none was ever raised about the doctrine of Regeneration as taught in it. It will be observed that Hooker contests with his opponents the answers of the sponsors, the use of the cross, the validity of lay baptism &c., but that he is not called upon to defend the expressions around which modern controversy has been waged. It was not until other ideas on the Sacraments had become prominent in the Church of England in the time of Charles, that Baptismal Regeneration was generally taught apart from election. Then the language of the service was soon called in question, and the 'controversy, so commenced, has continued to our day.

Indeed, Calvin himself used language with respect to Baptism quite as strong as that of Hooker.1

'Q. Do you attribute nothing more to the water than that it is a figure of ablution?

'A. I understand it to be a figure, but still so that the reality is annexed to it: for God does not disappoint us when He promises us His gifts. Accordingly it is certain that both pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in Baptism and received by us.

'Q. Is this grace bestowed on all indiscriminately?

'A. Many, precluding its entrance by their depravity, make it void to themselves. Hence the benefit extends to believers only, and yet the Sacrament loses nothing of its nature.

Q. If repentance and faith are requisite to the legitimate use of Baptism, how comes it that we baptize infants?

1 Catechism of the Church of Geneva.

'A. It is not necessary that faith and repentance should always precede Baptism. They are only required from those whose age makes them capable of both. It will be sufficient then if, after infants have grown up, they exhibit the power of their Baptism.'

It is thought that these references and observations may suffice to introduce the student to the theological treatment of the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism. The accumulation of literature on this subject bearing upon its Patristic, Scholastic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican treatment is enormous. It is important that all who are teachers of religion should understand clearly the general bearings of the different aspects of the questions raised. But it may be doubted whether much more than this may not frequently prove rather prejudicial than helpful to him who is called upon to minister and to teach among ordinary congregations. For theological subtleties of doctrine and precise theological definition are either distasteful or unintelligible, and are at least seldom edifying or instructive, to most of our people.

INFANT BAPTISM.

The chief controversial work on this subject is Dr. Wall's learned History of Infant Baptism, published at the beginning of the last century. He received the thanks of the Lower House of Convocation. Later editions contain replies to various opponents, some of whom praise him for his candour and fairness. It contains a careful examination of the Patristic statements on the subject, and a discussion of the Scriptural argument. He also wrote a more popular and compendious abridgment, under the title of a Conference between two men that had doubts about Infant Baptism. This has been repeatedly reprinted by the Christian Knowledge Society. On the subject of Infant Baptism the language of our Church is studiously moderate. It is customary to discuss the scanty statements of the earliest fathers bearing upon it. But our Article seems to pass this by, simply saying that it is most agreeable with the institution of Christ. There

18, doubtless, a reference here to the well-known passage alleged in the Gospel in the baptismal service, 'Of such is the kingdom of heaven.' If the kingdom of heaven be taken in our Lord's usual meaning, as His visible Church or kingdom among men, and if baptism be the acknowledged rite of ordinary covenant admission into that Church or kingdom, it would seem at once to follow that the baptism of young children is most agreeable with the institution of Christ. It may also be shown to be 'most agreeable' with the words of institution which include ' every creature.'

Dr. Hey, writing on this Article, gives this summary of precedents deducible from the Scriptures on this question :— 'On the one hand, they mention no instance of Infant Baptism; on the other hand, they afford no instance of Baptism being delayed. Some families are spoken of collectively as being baptized; but the children are not mentioned particularly.'

To this must be added the support afforded by the analogies of circumcision. It is unlikely that Christianity should have introduced a restrictive change in respect of admitting children without a special announcement of it. And this the more because the Church for some years was chiefly composed of converted Jews.

ARTICLE XXVIII.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Sacramentum Eucharistiæ ex institutione Christi non servabatur, circumferebatur, elevabatur, nec adorabatur.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE XXVIII.

'Rightly, worthily, and with faith,' corresponds to the Latin rite, digne, et cum fide. Rite refers to all that is essential in the administration. Digne (used also in Article XXV.) refers to the mode and spirit of reception, which is yet further qualified by the requirement cum fide.

The Latin word used here for 'partaking' is communicatio. It may be observed that our Church uses the Latin word Eucharistia, but prefers in the English version the simple expression, the Lord's Supper.'

If we compare the present Article with the corresponding one (XXIX.) of 1552, it will be noticed that there are a few verbal differences in the first part, and in the last clause, but that the intermediate portion, viz., 'The body of Christ is given . . . . is Faith,' has taken the place of the longer clause in the Article of 1552, which is here subjoined :-'Forasmuch as the truth of man's nature requireth that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in many and divers places, but must needs be in some one certain place therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places. And because (as Holy Scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to confess the real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.'

The same influence which struck out of Elizabeth's Prayer 'Book the advertisement at the end of the Communion Service (restored in 1662) appears to have operated against the above clause, so similar to it, in the line of reasoning adopted against the ubiquity of the Lord's body.