justify the lowering for all the standard of Christ, which alone ensures the welfare of society and of the race"-(Report of the Committee on Marriage of 1920, p. 111).

2. The Canadian Church

The Canadian Church in its revision of the Prayer Book in 1915 and 1921, added this rubric to the office for the Solemnization of Matrimony. NOTE-That no clergyman within the jurisdiction of the Church of England in Canada shall solemnize a marriage between persons either of whom shall have been divorced from one who is living at the time. The purpose of doing so was of course only the publication in a more accessible form of what had always been the law of the Church. It is an example that might well be followed in our own revision.

3. The Greek Church

The lapse of the Greek Church and its daughter, the Russian, from the law of Christ concerning marriage, had its beginning in yielding to the worldly power exercised over it by the half Christianized State in the fifth century. By the removal of the seat of empire from Old to New Rome (Constantinople) the Western Church was largely released from this debasing influ

ence.

4. Federal Legislation Versus State Anarchy

The text of the proposed amendment to the Constitution introduced by Senator Wesley L. Jones, of Washington, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows: "Congress shall have power to establish and enforce by appropriate legislation uniform laws as to marriage and divorce: Provided, That every State may by law exclude, as to its citizens domiciled therein, any or all causes for absolute divorce in such laws mentioned." This provision completely protects South Carolina in its right to refuse absolute divorce, as it has always done, for any cause, and other States with a comparatively high standard in their right to retain that standard. The resolution was introduced on April 18, 1921, and is still before the Committee.

5. If the State Separates, Let the State Reunite "No permanent relief can be looked for until every Christian minister shall refuse to solemnize the marriage of any person

having a divorced husband or wife still living. This involves no particular hardship. The Church once blesses a union presumably entered upon for life; the parties then go to the State and break the union. When the Church is asked to bless another union, has she not a right to say: 'If the civil law was good enough to separate you from the one to whom we united you, it is quite good enough to unite you to someone else; we will have no part or lot in the matter. Go to the magistrate.'"-(Francis A. Lewis, Esq., of the Philadelphia Bar, and Former Deputy of the General Convention).

W

The Proposed Prayer Book

THE REV. JOHN COLE MCKIM, M. A.

E hear from all sides the complaint that the Joint Commission on The Book of Common Prayer has exceeded the terms of its reference. It seems clear that they have done so, but it is difficult to see how any "enrichment" (by which we can only understand addition) of such a book, without in any way affecting its teaching, is possible. When boys are told, on the one hand, that they must learn to swim and, on the other hand, that they must hang their clothes on a hickory limb but not go near the water, one sympathises with their efforts to come home with dry hair.

I dislike to pass over, in a first article, much that is admirable, but it is only fair to all concerned to bring the graver objections to public notice as soon (in the short time that the commission has left us) as is possible. This paper, therefore, deals with THE MINISTRATION OF HOLY BAPTISM, OFFICES OF INSTRUCTION, MATRIMONY, and INSTITUTION OF

MINISTERS.

I

THE PROPOSED BAPTISMAL OFFICE

"and Parents shall be admitted as Sponsors if it be desired." This provision (p. 103 of the Third Report) is insuperably objectionable because it might operate, in conceivable cases, to compel the priest to accept as sponsor an atheist or agnostic (to say nothing of Jews, Turks, Infidels, Heretics and open and notorious evil livers). It is gravely objectionable for other reasons.

(a) It runs directly counter to tradition which is in favour of others than natural parents taking the patrinal obligation for two obvious reasons:-(i) Christian parents assume, at the time of their marriage, all the obligations of god-parents so that it sets up a false distinction to suggest that parents who have not stood sponsor are not bound to educate their children in the

faith. (ii) One end which is served by the patrinal system is to provide for the religious nurture of children in the event of the death, disability, unbelief, or apostasy of the parents. One can understand that, in the early days of our country when there might be none others than the father to make the responses, it was felt necessary to relax the old rule forbidding him to do so, but such necessity would arise less often now than then, so that it cannot be urged that the desire for further relaxation is timely.

(b) It has often been objected that our whole use of the patrinal system is farcical. The proposed change would add colour to the objection. When, hitherto, the system has seemed farcical this has been due to the levity of the individuals concerned: it was not the fault of the book.

Another change which embodies an attack upon the necessity, dignity, and importance of the Sacrament is the softening of the requirement that people "defer not the Baptism of their Children longer than the first or second Sunday after their birth, or other Holyday falling between. ." It cannot be

said that this meets special modern needs, since modern roads and conveyances make compliance easier than it ever was before. A change corresponding to modern conditions might have been made by omitting Holy before day. Specific reference to "the great necessity of this Sacrament" is excluded by the omission of the homily of the Gospel at adult baptisms.

Another objectionable feature is to be found in the rubric at the bottom of p. 104: " If a child so baptised (i. e., privately) be afterward brought to the Church. The italics are mine. Our present rubric makes it expedient that, if the child live, it be brought to the Church to be made a member of the same and to receive the omitted ceremonies.

In addition to these insuperably and gravely objectionable features, there are two defects in construction.

(1) The rubric on p. 97 gives the officiating priest no warning that, from this point, infants and adults are to be differently dealt with.

1 One cumulative effect of several changes proposed in the baptismal and marriage services is to weaken the present book's insistence upon the unity and sanctity of the family by lessening its emphasis upon the strongly inter-related marital and parental responsibility and authority. Such revision does not meet a present day need, so that if it be an adaptation "to present conditions" it must be in some other than a religious or moral

sense.

(2) The form of examination for adults should follow that for infants and not be treated as a sort of appendix.

CONCLUSION, The proposed service is, not only on several points, but in its cumulative effect, insuperably objectionable; there does not seem to be widespread demand for change in any one direction: the proposed service should be rejected and the present services retained.

II

OFFICES OF INSTRUCTION

Here the good by far outweighs the bad. There is one passage which ought to be rejected for, in introducing it, the commission has gone far beyond the terms of its reference and has introduced matter which is at present under sharp debate. I give the passage:

Q. How were you made a Christian?

A. I was made a member of the Church when I was baptised. Q. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and all baptised people the members.

This passage contains teaching not found in the Catechism or Prayer Book, suggests a different effect of baptism than that now mentioned in the Catechism, and does not "represent the mind of the whole Church" as the Commission seems to claim. The first question might be amended, agreeably to the present Catechism:

Q. How were you made a Christian?

A. I was made a Christian by being baptised (with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost).

The other question "What is the Church?" may safely be omitted. Granted these omissions and amendments, the rest of the proposed offices need not be opposed, though I venture to suggest some further corrections.

(a) Q. What is your bounden duty as a member of the Church?

A. My bounden duty is to go to Church and to worship God every Sunday;

Consistently with what has been suggested above, this might better read: