esult of the
impasse to which it would otherwise be brought by the grotesque
teaching that the Deity would condemn everlastingly the soul of an
unbaptised infant. This, according to Augustine, being the Christian
religion, naturally some loophole had to be fabricated, because priests
are not always at hand in moments of emergency, and consequently the
validity of lay baptism had necessarily to be recognised.

But there is one office which the Anglican, no less than the Roman
Church, would reserve to the priest, and that is the celebration of the
Eucharistic Supper.[8] It is abundantly clear to historians that the
root-source of the superstitious belief in orders is to be found in the
Eucharist and the theories which sprang up in the third century
concerning the elements. It cannot be doubted that previously to the
age of Cyprian, the communion was held to be what its name
designates--an holy assembly, a pledge of unity symbolised by the
common partaking of bread and wine after the example of Christ. Now,
it is clear from the Ignatian epistles, writings of the second century,
whoever may have been their author, that the Christians of those days
were accustomed to hold Eucharistic meetings other than those over
which a presbyter or elder presided. The practice is indeed reproved
by the writer, but in exceeding gentle tones. "Break one bread," says
the writer; "be careful to have only one Eucharist"; "let that be the
valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by some one
commissioned by him".

It is surely positively inconceivable that Ignatius of Antioch, or
whoever the author of these letters is, can have held the sacramental
doctrine subsequently introduced and have used language of such mild
remonstrance to the Asiatic Christians he addresses. What would the
present occupant of the See of Antioch, of Lincoln, or of Rome say to a
number of Christians who assembled together to-day, took bread and
wine, and after repeating the Lord's prayer--for they did no more in
the early centuries--proceeded to partake of it? Their holy horror is
scarcely conceivable. And yet, these lay folk would be the true
Christians, not their sacerdotal denunciators. Let us repeat, there
was no office open to the priest which was not equally open to the
layman. Merely considerations of order and procedure restricted
ecclesiastical functions to a particular body or caste of men, and
consequently the theory of the essential d