there are , of course , those who regard the Church as Christ &apos;s body , not metaphorically , but metaphysically and ontologically , and see it as an extension of the incarnation , and would not think any description of the Church complete in which the phrase body of Christ did not occur ; and no doubt the sentence under consideration was framed thus , with biblical language used in this oddly unbiblical way , in order to leave it open to such persons to expound what is said , not of evangelism , whereby Christ calls men out of the world to himself , but of the Church as supernaturalizing society , or as linking men to Christ through its sacraments , or else of Christ as in some sense continuing his work of redemption by endlessly offering himself to God in organic union with his members . but all these are minority views in the Church of England , of dubious biblical credentials , and scarcely a century old ; they can hardly be said to be rooted in Anglican tradition , and they are certainly not countenanced in any official formulary of the Church of England . as such , they have surely no right thus to deflect the wording of the catechism from the biblical norm of usage . ( 2 ) . the section ( 14-17 ) introduced by the question : what orders of ministries are there in the Church ? ought to be dropped . in the first place , the question presumably refers to the Church universal on earth , but it is answered by a description of bishops , priests , and deacons , and their work in the Church of England . this is odd : is the Church of England , then , to be identified with the Church universal ? and furthermore : it is essential for the catechumen to be instructed in the precise functions of bishops , priests , and deacons in the Church of England set-up before he be admitted to the Lord &apos;s table ? such instruction could only be held essential if this organizational structure were itself essential to the being of the Church , as such , so that where this threefold ministry could not be recognized the Church must be judged non-existent , and the conclusion drawn that there are no valid or efficacious Eucharists there . knowledge about the threefold ministry would then be saving knowledge in the strict sense , for valid sacraments are generally necessary to salvation ; but is this the historic Anglican view ? can it be proved by scripture , which containeth all things necessary to salvation ? the answer is no in both cases . it is true that a vocal minority in the Church of England today holds this opinion in some form , but it does not seem right to give space in the revised catechism to a matter whose presence there could only be justified if this minority view were accepted as being scriptural and normatively Anglican . this section leaves the impression that the ministry is the Church for all practical purposes , and this impression is strengthened when , at a later stage , we read that the Church &apos;s ministry in marriage is to bless the man and the woman in their wedding , so that they may together receive the grace of God &amp;hellip; ( 53 ) . certainly not ! this is Roman doctrine , not the doctrine of the Church of England . the Church is the fellowship of the faithful , not just the minister ; and the Church &apos;s ministry in marriage is to pray for and with the marrying couple - a ministry of which the officiant &apos;s pronouncement of blessing is only one small part . here , too , a change of wording is imperative ; unless , indeed , question 53 be deleted altogether , which we ourselves would favour ( see below ) . ( 3 ) . baptism is defined ( 38 ) as the sacrament in which , through the action of the holy spirit , we are christened or made Christ &apos;s . this definition is not very satisfactory . in the first place , it has no clear meaning ( which fact alone makes it unfit to stand in a catechism ) . in the second place , it most naturally implies that there is a peculiar grace received in baptism ex opere operato . but it is not historic Anglican teaching ( think of the Gorham judgment ) , nor , we think , is it unanimous present-day Anglican opinion , that the grace exhibited in baptism is always received in the rite itself , and never before or after . in the answer to question 42 , however , we are told that confirmation is the ministry by which , through prayer with the laying on of hands by the bishop , the holy spirit is received to complete what he began in baptism &amp;hellip; ; which form of words ( based , it seems , on the audacious assertion in the Scottish prayer book that confirmation is an apostolic and sacramental rite by which the holy spirit is given to complete our baptism ) seems to force us to interpret answer 38 of some sort of baptismal regeneration . yet it is a very odd sort of regeneration , for it is only a partial initiation into Christ and his Church , needing the further grace given in confirmation ( also ex opere operato ? ) to perfect it . such a concept has breath-taking implications . it implies that every baptized Christian throughout the universal Church whose ecclesiastical system does not make available to him episcopal confirmation misses some grace , forfeits some blessing , foregoes some degree of union with Christ . on this view , as Professor G W H Lampe has pointed out , Christian baptism would be reduced to the level of the baptism of John , a preparatory cleansing in expectation of a future baptism with holy spirit ; confirmation would become , not merely a sacrament in the fullest sense ( which the Anglican articles deny ) , but the great sacrament without whose reception no man could call himself a Christian &amp;hellip; ( the seal of the spirit , 1951 , p 13 ) . Lampe calls these monstrous conclusions . we agree . are they historic Anglican teaching ? can they be proved by scripture ? again , the answer in both cases is no . we know , certainly , that this view ( the Mason-Dix line ) has been argued at various times during the past hundred years by a small band of very able men , that it has a certain following today , and that it has actually been embodied in the proposed new confirmation rite . but most Anglicans , we think , still hold to the historic view expressed in the structure of the 1662 confirmation service - namely , that confirmation is simply a domestic institution whereby the Anglican community , acting through the bishop as its appointed representative , welcomes into adult fellowship , on the basis of a personal profession of faith , those who in baptism were originally received , normally as infants , with the status of sponsored members . the congregation prays that the spirit may strengthen the confirmees for the new responsibilities which their increased status in the Church brings . but this is not in the least to imply that in the sight of God the blessings of the spirit which their baptism signified - union with Christ in his death and resurrection , the forgiveness of sins , and a new birth into God &apos;s family , the Church ( 40 ) - are necessarily incomplete till confirmation has taken place . here again , then , we must protest against the intrusion into the new catechism , which the whole Church , it is hoped , will use , of a minority opinion which most Anglican clergy in their teaching of confirmation candidates would wish to ignore , or indeed repudiate . ( 4 ) . at this point , however , we would make a more radical criticism . the passages dealing with the five other ministries of grace ( confirmation , holy order , holy matrimony , the ministry of absolution , and the ministry of healing ) ought , we suggest , to be dropped entirely . for the assumption behind the phrase other ministries of grace evidently is that in each of these five cases ( though , one would gather , in no other case ) the activity of the officiant confers some special gift of God which would not otherwise be received . we saw earlier how clearly this comes out in the tell-tale wording of the statement about matrimony ; and the assumption appears again when absolution is defined as the ministry whereby penitents who have made free confession of their sins in the minister &apos;s presence receive through him ( sic ) the forgiveness of God . ( this , of course , as it stands , is simply not historic Anglican teaching , but a well-known party line . to express the Anglican view of absolution , as witnessed to by the prayer book , the last words would have to read : receive through him assurance of the forgiveness of God - rather a different thing . ) but the assumption that these five types of ministerial action each convey a special grace ex opere operato is without warrant in Anglican theology - not to mention the Bible ! we might , perhaps , be told that no such assumption is implied , and all that ministries of grace means in this context is that God blesses his faithful people through each of these ministerial functions . this is an undoubted truth ; but if nothing more than this is intended , we should at once have to ask why , in that case , only these five receive mention ? why is healing specified when the visitation of the sick is not ? why is absolution spoken of while the preaching of the word is left out ? whichever way we look at it , neither the articles , nor the prayer book , nor the Bible , can justify the selection of just these five activities , and no more , as the Church &apos;s other ministries of grace . the selection is inherently arbitrary and untheological . this idea behind it is presumably that the catechism ought to mention one ministerial action in the Church of England to correspond with each of Rome &apos;s seven sacraments ; but there is no obvious reason why it should . the habit of mind which takes its cue from Rome and aims to keep step with Rome wherever possible is found in the Church of England , but it is not authentically Anglican . we ask again : can it be held that the knowledge of these five ministries of grace is in any way essential to salvation ? can the things that are said , in particular , about confirmation , and matrimony , and absolution , be proved from scripture ? can any warrant or sanction for them be found in existing Anglican formularies , or in the main stream of the Anglican theological tradition ? if not ( and we think that the answer to all three questions is no ) , then they can have no rightful place in a catechism for the Church of England . so much for the new material . but to complete our survey we should also note what has been omitted of the old material . here are the more important deletions . ( 1 ) . the reference to the world , the flesh , and the devil in the first baptismal vow has been replaced by a weak general reference to wrong and evil . ( we gather , however , that the devil , at least , is soon to be restored to his rightful place as an object of specific renunciation . ) ( 2 ) . the assertion of original sin ( being by nature born in sin , and the children of wrath ) has been dropped entirely . this is disturbing , for the new catechism now says nothing positive at all about man &apos;s lost condition by nature . it is true that the biblical doctrine of original sin ( under its ecclesiastical name of Augustinianism ) is having a raw deal in Anglican liturgical circles these days ; but it is there in the Bible , and it ought to appear in an unexpurgated form in the catechism . for the catechism exists to teach the gospel of God &apos;s grace , and you can not understand grace till you have first understood sin . ( 3 ) . the sanction of the second commandment has also gone , so that the new catechism now contains no mention of God &apos;s penal wrath against sin . ( 4 ) . the description of the Church as God &apos;s elect people - the covenant community - has gone . the thought of the covenant relationship seems to be completely absent from the wording of the revised catechism . ( 5 ) . the conception of a sacrament as a visible word of God , summoning its recipients to faith , whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that sacrament , has vanished too . ( 6 ) . so has the demand that those who come to the Lord &apos;s supper should first examine themselves . 