An illustration may possibly help us to estimate the true value of the Commissioners’ argument, or, as I should rather say, their sophism. And it seems very important to shew that it is a sophism, because the paragraph in question in their Report is the one thing reiterated over and over again by the advocates of legislation or repression. It is the stock argument, the only argument on which the demand for change is based; and it is often urged as if it were irresistible, and there were no reply to it. Let us, then, examine it, and try to see its true force. Now there is, as it seems to me, a very apt illustration of its fallacy in a matter of ceremonial treated of in the 30th Canon, and a matter, too, be it observed, where the ceremonial referred to, and defended, was certainly not an essential of Christianity, and as certainly, at the time, gave grave offence to many. The 30th Canon, by far the longest and most elaborate of the Canons of 1603, treats of “the lawful use of the Cross in Baptism.” The grave offence taken at this usage is declared in the very first words of the Canon—“We are sorry that his Majesty’s most princely care and pains taken in the Conference at Hampton Court, amongst many other points touching this one of the Cross in Baptism, hath taken no better effect with many, but that the use of it in Baptism is so gravely stuck at and impugned.” And then the Canon, instead of upon this account recommending that the use be restrained, or that persons aggrieved (“Aggrieved Parishioners”) should have provided for them “an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress” instead of this, the Canon goes on to give various godly reasons why the usage should be retained, even though it gave this grave offence—aye, and though the cause of the offence was its being supposed to have a savour of Rome, and though it was a matter in itself indifferent. Without reciting the whole Canon we may remark that the reasons stated are exactly such as, _mutatis mutandis_, might be applied to the very ceremonial brought under censure by the Commissioners; such as, that whilst some derided it, others valued it and were edified by it; that it brought into sight and kept in men’s minds certain great truths of the Gospel; that it had the weight and authority of wide-spread and Catholic use; that not all which was of Roman belief or practice was to be condemned, &c., &c. So the Canon says “it is to be observed that although the Jews and Ethnics derided both the Apostles and the rest of the Christians for preaching and believing in Him Who was crucified upon the Cross; yet all, both Apostles and Christians, were so far from being discouraged from their profession by the ignominy of the Cross, as they rather rejoiced and triumphed in it.” Again, that “the honour and dignity of the name of the Cross begat a reverend estimation even in the Apostles’ times (for aught that is known to the contrary) of the sign of