to by Tertullian, who lived at the close of the second, and the commencement of the third century. It is evident, therefore, that the practice was general in his time; and if it were general at so early a period, the conclusion is evident: namely, that it was derived from the apostolic age, and ought to be observed by the Christian Church in all places and at all times. When Whitgift and Cartwright entered into those matters which were then at issue between the Church and the Puritans, the former, in allusion to sponsors, has the following pertinent remark :

"It is also manifest by these authorities, that godfathers or sureties were required at the baptizing of infants: which Tertullian also signifieth in his Booke de Baptismo. But you yourselves confesse godfathers to be of great antiquitie in the Churche of Christ; for you say that Higinus brought them in, and Higinus was the ninth Bishop of Rome, and lived Anno 141.”*

Cartwright, as is usual in the present day, objected that the sponsors promised more than they could perform; and to establish his position, he quoted St. Paul's words, Rom. vii. ver. 15-21, in which the apostle speaks of man's inability to save himself, ascribing his salvation to the mercy of God. Whitgift's reply is so masterly, and so complete an answer to all the cavils of modern Dissenters on this head, that we feel no hesitation in quoting it. We feel sure, indeed, that our readers will be grateful for the quotation :

"But what is this to the promise of godfathers made at the baptizing of infantes? If you would have a man to promise nothing but that which is in his power to performe, then must you simplic condemne all promises made by man, for theyre is nothing in his power to performe; no, not moving of his foot, not coming to dinner or supper. Therefore, as all other promises bee made with these secrete conditions, if God will, so much as lyeth in me, to the uttermost of my power, if I live, so is the promise in baptism made by the godfathers likewise."+

In endeavouring to traduce the Book of Common Prayer, Cartwright adopted the method of those who wish to obtain the victory by whatever means-namely, that of seeking for objections to the book which really could not be applied to it with any reason. To bring the practice of sponsors into disrepute with the people, he glanced at the characters of those who were admitted to the office. Whitgift, in his reply, confines himself to those objections which are tangible, and which are alleged against any particular ceremonies. He thus answers his opponent's cavil on the point in question, and the answer is an admirable one:—

Touching the last, which you rhetorically say you will speak nothing of, that is, the evil choyse of witnesses, I thinke in part it is true; 'Whitgift's Defence," Fol. 1574. p. 613. +"Whitgift's Defence," 613.

but you speake that without the booke, and therefore without my compasse of defense; for I mean not to take upon me the defense of any abuse within the booke (if there be any), much less without the booke."*

Undoubtedly improper persons are sometimes admitted as sponsors, and we are the last to defend the practice; but surely the misconduct of individuals in assuming the office, or of others in permitting them to assume it, does not involve the unscripturalness, or the condemnation of the practice itself. As well might the use of wine be discarded, because persons abuse it; or that of food, because there have been individuals who have shortened their days by gluttony. On such a principle, indeed, it would be difficult to defend not merely rites and ceremonies, but even the doctrines of our holy religion, since there is not one which has not been abused at one period or other by certain individuals.

In order to carry out the views of the Church on this important subject, it is indispensable that the baptismal service should be performed at the appointed time, namely, after the second lesson at morning or evening prayer, before the whole congregation. As the ordinance is celebrated in almost all our churches, it is reduced to mere private baptism. At all events, the intention of the Church is completely defeated, in not performing the service in the presence of all the people. The rubric is followed in some churches; but why is it not followed in all? As matters now stand, the congregation never consider themselves as at all concerned in the solemnization of this sacred ordinance, except in the case of their own children or the children of their friends; whereas the whole assembled people ought to be witnesses of the reception into the Saviour's fold of those infants who are presented to the Lord in baptism. We cannot but hope that an improvement, in this respect, will soon become general. Some of our Bishops, and among others the Bishop of Exeter, have recommended a strict adherence to the rubric in this particular. This is well; but we should wish to see our prelates proceeding a step further: we would have them not merely recommend, but command. So unaccustomed have the people been to the administration of baptism during the service, that there might be some objection to the return to the legitimate practice; but we are persuaded that any clergyman would be able, by a simple explanation, to remove any such objections from the minds of reasonable persons: and with respect to the unreasonable, little uneasiness need be experienced. The common objection would be the additional length of the service; but any

"Whitgift's Defence," 613.

reflecting person would soon feel ashamed of assuming such a line of argument. In the most populous parishes the service. need not be administered more frequently than every second Sunday; and as it would occur only once during the day, no one could complain of being detained twenty minutes at most longer on such an occasion. It would be easy too for the clergyman to meet the wishes of the objectors in part, by shortening his sermon on that particular day to the extent of ten minutes. However, the objection as to time is too absurd ever to be seriously advanced; and we are not aware of any other that can be raised.

Among what may be termed the Antiquities of the Christian Church, the rite of Confirmation also holds a prominent place. It gives us much pleasure to select these points, because they illustrate the principles on which our venerated Reformers acted. We have the testimony of the early fathers that confirmation was an apostolic rite; nor is it possible for the opponents of the ceremony to establish the contrary. It was not objected to until modern times; and even now most of the reformed churches retain the practice. The Puritans were willing to retain it, provided it were administered by the parochial clergy. Still they declaimed against its abuse in the Church of Rome, as our present Dissenters are accustomed to do. Whitgift's reply, on this point, to Cartwright, is so well and so forcibly put, that it will do exceedingly well for our modern objectors:

"If that be a sufficient reason to abolishe it, bycause it hathe bene horribly abused, then what shall you reteyne, either in the Churche, or in the common lyfe of man? But I have before, in talking of apparell, declared the vanitie of this reason; and yet the confirmation that is nowe used was never abused by the Papistes, for they had it not, neyther any similitude of it, but only the name, whiche cannot contaminate the thyng."*

The next subject, on which we would enter, relates to the use of a prescribed Form of Prayer.

Even the opponents of liturgies admit that their use was com mon in the fourth century. If then the practice was general at that time, it is incumbent on them to show when they were introduced; or the inference is, that liturgies had been used by the Church from the beginning. The opponents of liturgical forms cannot, however, make out their case; consequently, the evidence of all antiquity, even previous to the fourth century, is in our favour. In the fourth century, the mention of and allusion to

VOL. VIII.-D D

"Whitgift's Defence," 1725.

liturgies are frequent in the works of Christian authors. The Emperor Constantine prepared a form of prayer for the use of his soldiers; a step which he would not have taken, if in those days a liturgy had been deemed unlawful.

The members of the Anglican Church have the consolation of knowing that their liturgy, that precious legacy from our martyred Reformers, is founded on holy Scripture, and on the liturgies of the primitive Church. Great portions of our liturgy are couched in the language of sacred Scripture; and no words can be more acceptable to God in prayer than the words of the Holy Spirit. Many portions also are taken from the liturgies in use in the early Church. In framing our Book of Common Prayer the Reformers had a view to the ancient liturgies; knowing that those early forms had been sanctioned by some of the holiest and wisest men who ever lived, if not by some of the apostles themselves. It is certain that they had been prepared and approved by some of the fathers, who had conversed with the apostles, and had succeeded them as rulers in the Christian Church.

Let any devout and unprejudiced person, who has been accustomed to the worship of the Anglican Church, attend for a few times the worship of our English Dissenters. He will be at a loss to account for his own feelings, so unlike what they have ever been when engaged in the solemn services of God's sanctuary. He will find himself a mere spectator, or hearer of a sermon or lecture, but not at all connected with the worship itself, as is the case in the Anglican Church. One of the greatest possible privileges is secured by our Church to all who worship within her pale: we allude to the share which the people take in the public service. Certain portions of the liturgy are repeated by the minister, while others are recited by the people; and thus the worship is mutual between the congregation and the minister. The former feel that they are not excluded—-that they are not mere hearers-that they do not come to church simply to listen to another, but to offer up their own prayers, in conjunction with the appointed minister, to the throne of God.

It was said by a wise heathen, "Catonem non intellexit civitas nisi cum perdidit;" and we say the same of the Anglican Church. Let her be destroyed, and then her excellence will be understood; for it would be found that the destruction of the Church would prove the severest blow to the existence of true religion. The command of St. Paul to the Corinthian Church, "Let all things be done decently and in order," implies that the Church at Corinth possessed a power to regulate such matters as rites and ceremonies; and that power has never been recalled.

There were other topics of equal interest, which we had in

tended to bring before our readers: but we forbear. We trust, however, that this notice of Christian Antiquities may be the means of exciting in the breasts of some of our readers a desire

to pursue the matter for themselves. Few subjects possess greater interest to the Christian student. If we feel pleasure in searching into the origin of nations, and in tracing their history through successive generations-if we are interested in the manners and customs of our forefathers, we ought surely to feel equal, nay greater, interest in studying the ancient things of the Church-in searching into its early history, in examining into its rites and ceremonies, and in tracing the connexion between the customs of our own Church and those of antiquity. We do not apprehend that, in general, the tendency of the present day is to defer too much to the ancients: on the contrary, we believe that the tendency is, whatever some persons may allege to the contrary, to the opposite extreme. We have, for instance, pamphlets in which it is attempted to prove that the primitive fathers are not safe guides. The very attempt to establish such a position, within the compass of a small pamphlet, is unreasonable; but it may be regarded as an indication of the feelings of many of the present generation.

We do not, by these remarks, wish to persuade our readers to take the fathers as their only guides; they were fallible men like ourselves; but we wish to pay that deference to their writings and opinions which is due to men who lived in the early ages of the Church, and who could not have been influenced in their profession by any worldly motives. The study of Christian Antiquities will lead to the due appreciation of the fathers: it will, on the one hand, prevent the student from valuing them at too high a rate; and on the other hand, it will prevent them from being ignorantly and unjustly depreciated. It will, in fact, lead to just conclusions respecting the views and practices of the ancient Church.

With these remarks we take our leave of a subject which ought to recommend itself to every intelligent Churchman. With regard to the learned author of the great work just published by Mr. Straker, we would observe that his views on all subjects were exceedingly moderate. His object appears to have been, to give a fair and impartial account of the rites, ceremonies, discipline and government of the ancient Church. That he has succeeded in his object, must be allowed by all who are competent to form an accurate estimate of his important labours. In these volumes, the reader may trace the origin of all those practices which are still retained in the Anglican Church; he may satisfy himself respecting any early custom; and above all, he will ob