Scotch Prayer Book, it is said distinctly "according to the mys"tical interpretation." In both of these cases we are set afar off, but yet allowed to draw near, not prohibited from doing so; and indeed it is to be observed that in almost all the subjects that this view embraces, we are not actually excluded from the higher privileges, so much as that they are quietly withdrawn from our sight. And it may be perceived that, through them all, though we have put into our mouths the expressions of servants, yet the language of mercy is ever breaking forth, which, though we come as servants, is ready to receive us as sons. "Is Ephraim my "dear son? is he a pleasant child? for after I spake against him, "I do earnestly remember him still."

In speaking of the Rubric, the substitution of the term "Table,"

"GOD'S

Holy Table," and in the Scotch of " GoD's Board," for that of "Altar," which is in Edward's First Book (as well as "Board,") is a strong instance of this our judicial humiliation. For what is it but to say that the higher mysteries which this word "Altar" represents are,-not taken away from us (μǹ yévoiro) -but partially withdrawn from view; and doubtless, therefore, lost to many who "consider not the LORD's body." To the participation, indeed, which the word "Table" implies, all are admitted; but the oblation which the term "Altar" indicates is more removed. Thus they are received at "GOD's Board" indeed, but not made so sensible of the presence of Him who admits them as His guests; and, therefore, as the Jews of old, receive not equally the benefits of His presence. Such a loss is, therefore, doubtless a great one, which withholds the Altar from our due acknowledgment: but who reads not in this the visitation upon children's children of the sacrilegious pollution it has undergone in this country? But still, as observed before, mercy is mixed with judgment, and the case so stands with us that it says, "He that can receive it, let him receive it." A great privilege, when it is considered that by the last Review, and the insertion of the word "oblations," we have that which prophets and kings have desired to see, what King Charles the First and Bishop Andrews had not. And perhaps what was made the subject of Bishop Andrews' prayer, when for the Church of

England his supplication was that "its deficiencies should be restored1." And with regard to the Oblation itself, is not the case significative of our position? for it is not that no oblation is made, for we pray that " our oblations" may be accepted, but that the oblation is made in silence. Is not this silence expressive? May it not be considered eloquently significative, more than any words, of our condition, that the higher part of the service, which looks more like the privilege of sons, is performed in humiliation and silence? In the First Book, when the elements were placed on the Altar, the priest was to say the lauds and anthem.

11. Omission of anointing at Baptism and Confirmation.

There is another circumstance now to be observed, of more importance than any which have been hitherto considered, the entire omission of the use of oil at baptism and confirmation. The practice on both of these occasions appears to have been primitive, universal, and, possibly, apostolical. In the First Book of Edward, it was appointed that the white vesture or chrism should be put on the child baptized with these words:

"Take this white vesture as a token of the innocency, which by "God's grace in this holy sacrament of baptism is given unto "thee."

1 See Bishop Andrews' Devotions. For the second day. Intercession. "In behalf of the Catholic Church,

2 In the Sarum Missal we find prayers said in secret on the Oblation. In the

Roman Missal the Rubric says "oblatione facta dicuntur orationes secretæ.”

After the above the priest was to anoint the head of the infant, saying

"Almighty God, the FATHER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, who "hath regenerated thee by water, and the HOLY GHOST, and hath "given unto thee remission of all thy sins; He vouchsafe to “anoint thee with the unction of His HOLY SPIRIT, and bring thee "to the inheritance of everlasting life1."

It is probable that this anointing after Baptism was considered as preparatory to Confirmation, so as to supply the place of that anointing. And in the service for Confirmation there was a prayer that seemed to allude to this external anointing, in which it is said, "Confirm and strengthen them with the inward unction "of the HOLY GHOST mercifully unto everlasting life. Amen."

Now it does not appear that even Bucer himself attempted to deny the ancient authority of this practice, though indeed he appears to have had but little real reverence for antiquity, but the ground for his having this practice rejected is, "because he thought they (i. e. the chrism and anointing) carried more show "of regard and reverence to the mysteries of our religion than 66 men really retained."

66

Now, if it be allowed that there is the strongest Church authority for the use of this significative emblem3, and also that in Christianity there is no such thing as a merely external and significative rite without being in some degree sacramental also; if it be also the case, that if a custom is found to be primitive, it can hardly be conceived, with any deference to the piety of those ages, but that it must have been apostolical: if we consider, moreover, the little likelihood that Apostles would have invented any thing of a sacramental nature of themselves; if, moreover,

See Wheatley, page 382.

2 Wheatley, p. 344.

3 Among the Records at the end of Collier's Ecclesiastical History, are given the answers of the Bishops and Divines at the Reformation to the questions put them, on this point of confirmation "cum Chrismate." These are curious and well worth consulting. Many of them confirm the traditionary authority of anointing, though it was not immediately the point referred to, the question being whether it be found in Scripture. Nor indeed do any appear to deny the antiquity of the usage.

we call to mind the typical signification of oil in Scripture, so exceedingly high and holy, and the occasions of its use, viz. in separating from others the most elevated stations which prefigured the Messiah; in its typical use applied (not as baptism administered to conforming heathens, but) to Prophets, Priests, and Kings of the sacred people.-When we consider these things, surely no one can say the greatness of the gifts which are here withdrawn; how much we have thereby fallen from the high appellations of "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar "people" and we have together with it lost the white robe of baptism. The essentials, indeed, are not touched, but they are things of this kind which we have lost. The lessons of humiliation, of being "buried and crucified with CHRIST," it may be We may still act up to

shown hereafter we have still retained.

our lower dispensation, and have privileges restored on our repentance; but we cannot expect or wish it, I think, without. "He that now goeth on his way weeping, and beareth good seed, "shall doubtless come again with joy, and bear his sheaves with "him."

12. Changes in the Visitation of the Sick.

There are three Omissions in the office for "the Visitation of the Sick" since Edward's First Book, which seem to me capable of the same construction as illustrative of the last subject; and perhaps not more so in themselves than in the reasons by which their disuse is generally supported by our English Ritualists. The first is the practice of anointing the sick, if he required it. There is, I believe, no mention of this custom during the first centuries. But the ground on which its disuse is generally maintained is, that it applied, as mentioned by St. James, to miraculous cures, and therefore is not suitable to our days. Here therefore a broad line of distinction is drawn, between miraculous cures, and those to be now expected, as if we were not in a state to receive what our forefathers did. Can this be warranted, except on the supposition that the faith required must be of this lower and ordinary kind? That the "grain of mustard seed," which is now borne by the tree whose branches fill the earth, is not of the

66

quality of the first seed, which had the promise that it should remove mountains." The next is a trivial omission, but of the same character. In the first of Edward there was this prayer for the sick :

66

"Visit him, O LORD, as Thou didst Peter's wife's mother, and "the captain's servant; and as Thou didst preserve Toby and "Sarah by Thine angel from danger, so restore unto this sick person his former health, if it be Thy will." The rejection of this prayer, it is worthy of observation, is usually approved of for the same reasons, that it refers to miraculous cures not to be now expected.

The other alteration is one apparently still more slight, but not unimportant as bearing on this principle; in the last Review, (in the year 1662), the four last verses of the 71st Psalm, which is used in "the Visitation," are omitted. The grounds of this alteration are, that the psalm then turns to one of thanksgiving, beginning with these expressions-" O what great troubles "and adversities hast Thou showed me! and yet didst Thou turn "and refresh me; yea, and broughtest me from the deep of "the earth again. Thou hast brought me to great honor." But it is observable, that most of the Psalms written under the pressure of affliction do thus turn from deprecation to thanksgiving. And what is this slight omission? Surely it may be considered as a silent and undesigned expression of misgiving respecting the existence of that faith required for the promise to prayer. For the promise is not future only, but present," Whatsoever ye desire, "when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have "them." (St. Mark xi. 24.) Another alteration is, that this office did begin with a Psalm, the 143d, but now with a Litany. We allow that these are not important changes in themselves, but it is not unimportant to notice that, wherever we find changes, they should speak to the same effect.

13. Concluding Remarks.

In all these things we have no reason surely to complain of the judicial withholdings of privileges, but to lament our unfitness to receive them; the fact is, our "iniquities have separated between