Worship Regulation Act, under which any English citizen, whether baptised or not baptised, can become an accuser of his parochial clergyman. In each and all of these instances any distinct independence of the Church as a body corporate has been deliberately and effectually treated as a nullity; while, in this silent but portentous revolution, the bishops one and all have become accomplices. The socalled 'royal supremacy,' which was originally asserted to be only the restoration of ancient rights to the Crown, is now a mere pretext, under which the enemies of the Church deal with her at their pleasure, and use her own institutions as instruments for effecting her further degradation and ruin, and the overthrow of Christianity itself. These things have been openly done in the face of heaven, and are well known to all men.-Pastoral, pp. 7, 8.

Then follows a general protest against the royal supremacy as now exercised, with an appeal to the ancient law and customs of the realm in evidence of now extinguished canonical rights of the Church- rights,' as is declared, now extinguished by a fraudulent pretence, whereby certain State officers, sheltering themselves under the far-stretched prerogative of the Crown, have erected a new tribunal which deals with things spiritual at their personal pleasure, or at the dictates of an ever-varying Public Opinion.'

As to specific details, the Pastoral then continues:

In particular, we protest against the mode of the appointment of bishops, whereby their due election and confirmation are degraded to a sacrilegious pretence; against the division of dioceses, as well as against the appointment of bishops to new dioceses, by royal letters patent alone. We also protest against the mode of erection of certain colonial dioceses, and the manner and custom of appointment thereto. We likewise protest against the scope, terms, and language of the unauthorised oath of homage taken by bishops on their appointment; against the tolerated neglect and carelessness which still prevail in the mode of the administration of baptism; against the disuse of chrism in confirmation, and the inadequate form for the administration of that sacrament now in use within the Church of England; as well as against the total abolition of the apostolic practice of anointing the sick with oil-by which every baptised person is curtailed in his spiritual privileges. and robbed at the hour of death of an important part of his rightful heritage. Many persons heretofore have lamented the loss of this lastnamed sacrament: we, by the favour of God, are now enabled to restore it. Against the complete abrogation of spiritual discipline amongst the clergy and laity we likewise protest; by the continued neglect and abeyance of which, the lament, officially made year after year in the Commination Service for Ash Wednesday, becomes an empty and hypocritical form of words. We furthermore solemnly and unhesitatingly protest against the toleration allowed to the State clergy of imparting the nuptial benediction to the shameful concubinage of divorced persons. And finally, we protest against the Public Worship Regulation Act, and the reference of appeals in spiritual causes to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council.-Pastoral, pp. 9, 10.

The practical point, by which certain persons freely combine in self-defence for securing spiritual advantages, and for working to accomplish Corporate Reunion, is then thus clearly defined :

Therefore, in the Name of God the Trinity, and under the patronage and protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, St. Gregory the Great, and St. Augustine of Canterbury, we have solemnly and formally associated ourselves together in the Order of Corporate Reunion,

promising a true and hearty allegiance to our chosen superiors in the said Order, and to one another, in accordance with the constitutions of the same, now or hereafter to be determined on by lawful authority. We make this free and voluntary submission for our own common use, benefit, and protection; believing it to be the only means at present reserved to us of contending against the grave and complicated evils which exist and which threaten to overwhelm us. And, in thus associating ourselves together, we solemnly take as the basis of this our Order the Catholic faith as defined by the seven general councils, acknowledged as such by the whole Church of the East and the West before the great and deplorable schism, and as commonly received in the Apostles' Creed, the Creed of Nicæa, and the Creed of St. Athanasius. To all the sublime doctrines so laid down we declare our unreserved adhesion, as well as to the principles of Church constitution and discipline set forth and approved by the said seven general councils. Furthermore, until the whole Church shall speak on the subject, we accept all those dogmatic statements set forth in common by the Council of Trent and the Synod of Bethlehem respectively, with regard to the doctrine of the sacraments.—Pastoral, pp. 12, 13.

A little later and every fundamental act in fully constituting the Order was duly completed. 1. A right faith had been confessed. 2. Sacramental integrity had been secured; and, 3, a valid succession unquestioned either by East or West. Thus the O.C.R. was fully equipped.

In securing this impregnable position (as official representatives both of East and West allow it to be), no universally-received canon of the Catholic Church was broken, no diocese was in any way invaded, no lawful episcopal rights were intruded upon. Strange as this may read to some, it is nevertheless strictly true. The grand act of charity and benevolence thus rendered to those Catholic Reunionists in the Church of England who can look beyond the length of their own noses, was, moreover, no injury to any diocesan prelate and no contempt of lawful authority. On the contrary, it was asked for and granted expressly to enable the Spiritual, in due course, to become independent of the Temporal; and to restore to those who in the future may use them, those divine gifts which some hold to have been long ago ignorantly forfeited. While, if report be accurate, nothing sacramental was left undone, and no act and deed was left unrecorded, even by civil authorities officially recognised at the English Foreign Office,-to insure the existence of an undoubted and abiding record of certain most important and momentous acts; which, when disestablishment, disendowment, and disruption overtake the Establishment, may, perhaps, turn out to be important and momentous indeed.

In addition to the first Pastoral, containing the fundamental principles of the Order, a formal decree was soon afterwards issued, authorising the use of the old Sarum Liturgy. This, issued on the 27th of September, 1877, was duly signed by all the rulers and formally attested by a public notary. A form for administering the sacrament of confirmation, approved by theologians of great repute

both Eastern and Western, was also shortly afterwards adopted and issued-i.e. on St. Andrew's Day, 1877. This form embodies the chief liturgical characteristics of the old but abolished English service, and that used throughout the whole Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, wherever the Holy Sacrament is reserved, as in the chapels of convents, private colleges, and confraternities, a Form for giving Communion' is of course required. This, therefore, was also provided. In addition to these, a Pontifical in English,-containing forms for the ordination of a subdeacon,' deacon, and priest, followed by another for the consecration of a bishop,-was duly promulgated by the issue of an official Pastoral dated the 8th of December, 1878.

A solemn protest against the admission of an avowed infidel to Parliament, when all other spiritual rulers kept silence, was likewise formally made-in the autumn of 1880-in the following terms:

The subject upon which We are impelled by a sense of duty to make our public protest is weighty and grievous. It is the admission of an avowed and aggressive infidel into the legislature of this country, against which we note with sorrow that not one of the bishops of the Established Church has lifted up his voice. The circumstances attending this lamentable proceeding are beyond expression distressing and shameful; and closely following upon it, we hear voices raised in favour of removing every check to the caprices of that assembly, which has distinguished itself by the admission into its body of the individual to whom we are referring. Englishmen, we solemnly protest against this indignity in the Name of God.

The fifth of the six points already set forth now demands special and detailed notice.

As regards conditional baptism, the Prayer Book of the Established Church distinctly enjoins it, when any reasonable doubt exists in any specific case as to either the fact or validity of any baptism. It is more than a mere question of permission: it is obligatory. Though seldom enough administered, no one can reasonably blame the O.C.R. for having insisted upon baptism sub conditione as a preliminary to membership. Of course, it follows that a similar practice would logically ensue in all sacraments which impart a character. For instance, no person could be a proper subject for Confirmation, Orders, or Unction unless he had been already baptised. Invalid baptism would, as a consequence and of course, render each subsequent sacrament likewise invalid.

On this crucial point not only true principles, but patent and

1 Father Hutton, of the Birmingham Oratory, in his recent weighty, plain-spoken, and interesting treatise, The Anglican Ministry (London, 1879), complains of certain omissions' in the Order of Corporate Reunion forms of ordination, notably and characteristically the references to the obligation to perpetual chastity in the form for ordaining a subdeacon' (p. 454). He needs, however, to be reminded that these omissions, as he may readily discover for himself, are precisely and exactly those which a Roman Congregation sanctioned in the ordination of subdeacons for the Greek Uniate Rite-which in fact have been approved at Rome.

acknowledged facts, must be carefully and impartially considered. For without such a process reasonable misunderstandings in regard to the subject under consideration might easily arise.

The question of the validity of baptism, from a Christian standing-point of course, lies at the root of the subject before us-the specific work of the O.C.R. Just as by birth a person comes into the world, so by new birth a person is introduced into the Church. There is no other door or way of entrance besides, except the Baptism of Blood-i.e. martyrdom. No person, as some sectaries seem fondly to imagine, can put himself out of a state of nature in which he was born, into a state of grace by a mere act of his own will. The deed by which a child is made a Christian is as much independent of himself as was the act in consequence of which he first came into existIn this particular the parallel between Birth and New Birth is very striking. This being so, the gravity and importance of the subject of valid baptism were rightly enough apprehended by the founders of the O.C.R. Nor can any Christian complain of the necessary sharpness and obvious stringency of their rules concerning admission. Where laxity is notoriously so prevalent, and license so unbounded, a plain regard for our Lord's express injunction and dogmatic utterance must be the leading duty of all who have, or believe themselves to have, a commission to teach in His Name.

ence.

That the sacrament of baptism in the Establishment has been often very carelessly administered is, alas, too true! That it is also now more than ever neglected-except with High Churchmen, who are still a minority-and likely in the near future to be still further neglected, needs no proof. The views' and sentiments of many in authority within the Established Church are all in favour of unlimited freedom, neglect, and self-pleasing.

Cardinal Newman has stated his own conviction on this subject, from his experience as an Anglican, in the following pregnant sentences:

Previous baptism is the condition of the valid administration of the other sacraments. When I was in the Anglican Church I saw enough of the lax administration of baptism even among High Churchmen, though they did not of course intend it, to fill me with great uneasiness. Of course there are definite persons whom one might point out, whose baptisms are sure to be valid. But my argument has nothing to do with present baptisms. Bishops were baptised not lately, but as children. The present bishops were consecrated by other bishops; they again by others. What I have seen in the Anglican Church makes it very difficult for me to deny that every now and then a bishop was a consecrator who had never been baptised. Some bishops have been brought up in the North as Presbyterians, others as Dissenters, others as Low Churchmen, others have been baptised in the careless perfunctory way once so common; there is, then, much reason to believe that some consecrators were not bishops, for the simple reason that, formally speaking, they were not Christians.2

2 Anglican Sacerdotalism.' Letter by John H. Newman, pp. 269–271, in the Month for September 1868.

The Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of Frome, one of the most experienced and intrepid of the Ritualists, writing of the last century,3 gave similar testimony:

'Baptism, as a sacrament, was well-nigh lost among the English people. Common basins were brought into the churches, while the fonts were made into flower-pots for the gardens of the parsonage. It was very questionable in many cases whether the water when used really did touch the person of the child meant to be baptised. The prayers which in the Baptismal Office asserted the doctrine of the new birth were frequently altered in the recitation, or altogether omitted. The water was often not blessed or consecrated; and the whole service was studiously mutilated, to escape the doctrine which it involved.1

While in the Churchman's Guide to Faith and Piety, its compiler (the late Mr. Robert Brett), enjoining in the text that in Holy Baptism water should be poured, and not sprinkled, three times, adds the following practical foot-note:

Parents and sponsors should require this to be done, for the hurried and slight sprinkling which many children receive often makes it doubtful whether they have really been baptised with water according to Christ's command. (P. 721.)

As to the practice during the last two generations these three testimonies appear very strong. Those whose words have been quoted are certainly representative men; yet neither of the two recent Lambeth Synods nor either of the Provincial Convocations of the National Church have pretended to deal with a practical danger which must surely be drying up what sap, if any, remains in the branch of a spiritual tree long since visibly severed from its parent trunk.

But, to continue the evidence. Quite recently, at the Swansea Church Congress of 1879, the Rev. G. A. Seymour of Winchester spoke as follows:

There is amongst our people a lamentable neglect of the sacrament of baptism; and he further stated that hardly more than ten per cent. of our people in our large towns are baptised in the Church of England. He considered that amongst Christian nations, England was in this particular the lowest in the scale, except perhaps America.3

Some people are ready to condemn in the strongest terms the apathy and idleness of the clergy during the last century. But it may be reasonably doubted whether, on the whole, the two sacraments which the Church of England has thought fit to retain were not administered with quite as scrupulous regard to validity as they are now. The influence of the Laudian revival and of the Nonjurors was in turn considerable; while no such heresy as that involved in the Gorham judgment, which has so largely undermined all faith in the true doctrine of baptism, had been then promulgated and sanctioned.

The Church and the World: article, 'Some Results of the Tractarian Movement of 1833,' by William J. E. Bennett (p. 9). London, 1867.

Guardian, October 8, 1879. In the number of the same serial for January 28, 1880, the Rev. J. W. Horsley puts the following on record: A minister now settled in Massachusetts tells us of a Congregational church in which there has not been an infant baptism for twenty years. Nor need we go far from New York for another illustration. In a prosperous suburban Presbyterian Church, not far from