supplies the strongest argument in favour of its authenticity. But it is obvious that in Whitgift's case a firm belief in the validity of layadministration was joined with an equally firm resolution to put down the practice as disorderly. The same remark applies to King James, who was more urgent than the Puritans for the alteration of the rubrics, and yet "utterly disliked all re-baptization on those whom women or laics had baptized."

*

We need not, therefore, dwell longer on this Canon. Mr. Blunt,

after having laid the greatest possible stress upon it throughout his work, admits in the Appendix, (page 195,) that it does not in words declare lay-baptism to be void; and he furnishes the most satisfactory testimony in favour of our view of its spirit and intention, by reprinting from Strype's Records a memorial addressed to Whitgift, as Archbishop of Canterbury, (though he did not fill that station till eight years after the Convocation of 1575,) praying that the baptism of women may be inhibited and declared void. To which the Archbishop makes answer, in substance as follows:-" It is a question if it be lawful for women to baptize in times of necessity; but that their baptism is lawful and good, no learned man ever doubted, except one or two of late." (Blunt, 194.)

The alterations made in King James's Prayer-Book furnish Mr. Blunt with his second argument. As these alterations were detailed in the paper already alluded to, I need not give any further account of

* A narrative of the Conference by Dr. James Montague, Dean of the Chapel Royal, represents the matter as having had its origin with the King. He conferred with the Bishops and Deans by themselves, before the Puritans were admitted to the Conference; and "His Majesty," says Dr. Montague, "propounded six points unto them. For the private baptism it held three hours at the least; the King alone disputing with the Bishops, so wisely, wittily, and learnedly, with that pretty patience, as I think never man living ever heard the like. In the end he won this of them, that it should only be administered by Ministers; yet, in private houses, if occasion required; and that whosoever else should baptize should be under punishment."(Cardwell's Conferences, p. 139.)

them. It is freely admitted, by those who are opposed to Mr. Blunt, that their general bearing and effect has been correctly stated by Bishop Gibson, when he says, those expressions which "seemed before to admit of lay-baptism were so turned as expressly to exclude it." (Codex i., p. 369.) But there are ample grounds for believing that the reason of these changes was not what Mr. Blunt suggests,-a growing disposition to deny its validity: on the contrary, there are no stronger testimonies in favour of its validity, than are given by the very persons by whom these alterations were made; namely, the King, Whitgift, and Bancroft. Mr. Blunt appears to suppose, that the alterations, "one and all of them, were the acts of the Church in Synod," (p. 108,) and, as such, claim from Episcopalians a higher degree of deference than is due to the decisions of individual Bishops; but this is a mistake. King James consulted neither Convocation nor Parliament; but, as soon as the revision of the Liturgy was complete, issued his warrant to "the Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical," for its publication. (Cardwell's Confer., pp. 143, 217.) The only other topic under this head that appears to call for any additional remark is, the directions given in the Office of Private Baptism for trying the lawfulness and sufficiency of such baptism when the child is brought to church. King James's Prayer-Book prescribes, that if the Minister officiating at the church did not himself baptize the child, he shall ask five questions of those who bring it: 1. Who officiated? 2. Who was present? 3. Then the third question is ushered in with this remarkable preface: "Because some things essential to this sacrament may happen to be omitted through fear or haste in such times of extremity, therefore, I demand. further of you, With what matter? 4. With what words was this child baptized? 5. Whether think you the child to be lawfully and perfectly baptized?" Mr. Blunt is confident that neither this rubric, nor that at the end of the Office, which gives

directions for hypothetical baptism, "can be taken to pronounce or imply the slightest decision on the subject." (P. 103.) But we are thus driven to the awkward alternative of supposing, that a lawful Minister, sent for on the occasion, might have been so ignorant, or so discomposed, as to be incompetent for the service. Again if no decision is implied, how does it happen that the two rubrics tally so exactly? The first declares that some things are essential, and directs inquiry to be made as to the matter and form employed; the second specifies the matter and form, and declares, that if they are found to have been duly employed, the essentials of baptism have been preserved. The first inquires concerning the administrator, before things essential come into notice; the second declares what "things are “essential," and passes by the administrator altogether. If it is replied, "The rubric has relation to the acts of a lawful Minister, and of no other person," (p. 103,) that may be granted, as the Church cannot be supposed to provide for irregularities. The question is, how she deals with them when they have been committed; and the examination of these rubrics clearly developes the principle adopted by her. She holds the office of the administrator to be as necessary to the validity of the rite, as the presence of a competent number of witnesses is, and no more. If she had intended to shut out the possibility of recognising lay-baptism, it would have been easy to have inverted the order of the questions; to have put the second first, and the first second, with the preface now affixed to the third; and, in the same way, to have introduced mention of a lawful Minister in the rubric at the end: here, however, as in other points of even greater moment, (such, for instance, as that of prayers for the dead,) her silence is conclusive. I am glad to be able to support this view of the force of the rubrics by the authority of one of the writers of the Notes on the Common Prayer, appended to Nicholls's Commentary, who is supposed to have been no less a person

than Bishop Overall. He says, the third and fourth questions relate to the substance of baptism, and the last to ceremonies; which might have been omitted through haste at home; (such, for instance, as the sign of the cross, I suppose ;) but were afterwards to be performed at church.

Our author's third argument rests on the very few and trivial alterations made in the Liturgy at the last review in 1661. He mentions but two. The first is, that the title was made more general than it was in King James's book. The effect of this alteration, he thinks, was, to take away the last "loop-hole which had been left for the advocates of lay-baptism to creep through." Sir John Nicholl, on the contrary, thought (as we saw on a former occasion) that its effect was to make the loop-hole somewhat wider than before, and to relieve the advocates of lay-baptism from the necessity of creeping at all. And as there is no documentary evidence of the purpose which the revisors entertained, we may as well attribute to them a kind and charitable one, as any other; and we may the more readily do this when we know what their private views and opinions were. Mr. Blunt thinks that King James's book, by restricting the use of the prescribed Office to a lawful Minister, gave opportunity for others to baptize, provided they did not use the form set forth by authority; while the present book binds the administration, under all circumstances, to a "lawful Minister" only, by "taking those words out of the title, and throwing them into the rubric." (P. 107.) But he forgets that they stood in the rubric of King James's book, as well as in the title of the Office. And what will he say to the following statement as to the sufficiency of baptism, so directly opposed to that which he pronounces to be "beyond all doubt and cavil?" (P. 107.)—“ Note. That a child baptized with water, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is sufficiently baptized, although not baptized by a lawful Priest, as may be

collected from the rubric; and so it is if the child be baptized by any other form;" that is, than that set forth in the Common Prayer. Dean Watson's "Clergyman's Law," from which the above extract is taken, (vide vol. i., p. 586, 2d edit., 8vo.,) is still, I believe, a respectable authority in Doctors' Commons. But to return to Mr. Blunt. "One other alteration there was," in the present book, which he thinks "well worthy of our notice, as marking the progress of sound principles on the subject." It was, the removal of the fifth question from the direction for trying private baptisms. This was "doubtless " expunged, says Mr. Blunt, as "being perfectly out of place concerning a sacrament of the Gospel administered by Christ's own commission and authority." It is quite possible, however, that it may have been dropped because the preceding questions were sufficient to elicit all the requisite information concerning the essentials of baptism, and for no other reason. But as this is not important to our purpose, we will pass on to his fourth and last general argument.

Here

he produces, 1. The Canon of 1603, No. 69; which allots the punishment of three months' suspension to the Minister who, either wilfully or by his negligence, allows any infant to die unbaptized, after he has been informed of its sickness. 2. Extracts from Visitation Articles in seven diocesses or archdeaconries, inquiring if any child has so died unbaptized through the default of the Minister. Coupling with these documents the Canon of 1575, which inhibits private persons from intermeddling with the ministry of baptism; and the preface to the Ordination Services, which states that it is unlawful for any unordained person to execute ministerial functions, Mr. Blunt finds it easy to conclude that the Church supposes that all children not baptized by a lawful Minister must die unbaptized. This involves her, says Mr. Blunt, in "the guilt of destroying many thousand souls;" unless, indeed, she believes the invalidity of laybaptism; for if it be not invalid,

she prevents, in all cases where a Clergyman cannot be procured, the valid administration of the rite; and thus incurs a guilt, which, for a mere point of form, it will scarcely be supposed that she would deliberately take upon her." (Page 118.) Most true! It cannot be supposed that the English Church, nor any other community calling itself Christian, can deliberately take upon itself any guilt whatever; still less, the guilt of destroying souls; and, least of all, of destroying many thousand souls. What must we think of her, if Mr. Blunt has represented her truly? A Minister, by his default, suffers a child to die upbaptized, and incurs thereby the guilt of destroying its soul. What punishment could be too severe for such an offence? Deprivation, and the greater excommunication, would surely be insufficient, nay, trifling, in comparison of such guilt as he has incurred. Both morally and ecclesiastically considered, he is a sinner of the deepest die. But the gentle Church of England allows him to escape with three months' suspension. Tell it not in Gath! The sale of advowsons, pluralities, non-residence, are nothing to this. Three months' suspension satisfies the authorities of the Establishment for the loss of a soul; while the celebration of marriage without banns or license is not to be expiated under three years!

Mr. Blunt, however, appears to shrink from his own doctrine; though in retreating from it he falls into a gross absurdity. The Church, he says, "does not indeed presume to limit the grace of God, and to say, as she used of old, that where 'the birth by water' cannot be obtained, the spiritual birth is unobtainable also; but, mindful of the covenant, and grateful for the promise, she well knows that if, in disobedience to her Lord's command, she forbid the rite of baptism to any who ought to receive it, the guilt will be upon her of effecting their eternal destruction, though they, perhaps, may be pardoned what on their part is a necessary deficiency." (Page 115.) Perhaps,

in his second edition, Mr. Blunt will explain upon what theological principles an infant may be supposed to need pardon for dying unbaptized, when the Clergyman was sent for, but did not come to baptize it; and, more especially, how, supposing the infant to be pardoned, and therefore, of course, not destroyed, the guilt of "effecting its eternal destruction" can be chargeable anywhere. On both these points, further information will certainly be needed before we can come to Mr. Blunt's conclusion. The fact of the case, as it now stands, appears to be this: The established Church teaches that baptism is generally necessary to salvation; that is, as explained in the Office of Adult Baptism, necessary where it may be had. Where the default of the Minister hinders the administration, she punishes him and her system thus becomes complete and consistent; inasmuch as she takes it for granted that no other persons will attempt to discharge the duties of his office. But it does not follow that, because she refuses to contemplate the infraction of her rule as a possible or probable event, and thus, in fact, to legalize what she has declared to be

a

transgression, she pronounces lay-baptism, when performed, totally invalid. The two things are essentially different; and it argues little for Mr. Blunt's logic that he has confounded the law which prescribes a certain course of conduct, with the power above the law which enforces its penalties in one case, and indemnifies the transgressor in another. Neither the Canon of 1603, nor the Articles of Visitation, could be drawn up otherwise than we find them; for they contemplated the detection and punishment of negligent Clergymen; and that they were not intended to have any bearing whatever on the question of the validity of lay-baptism, is obvious from the fact, that the Canon was passed in a Convocation of which Bancroft was the President, and the first of the seven Visitation Articles quoted by Mr. Blunt, from which all the rest appear to be copied, was drawn up

for his primary metropolitan visitation.

It is still further evident, that no allusion to lay-baptism was contemplated in the Canons of 1603, when we call to mind that the sixty-eighth of these Canons forbids the refusal of burial to any person except one who dies impenitent, after he has been denounced excommunicate, majori excommunicatione; but makes no other exception. Lay-baptism was unquestionably practised then'; perhaps, extensively practised. Why did not the Convocation exempt the Minister from burying those whom a layman, or a schismatic, had baptized? If it is said, that the rubric excepting unbaptized persons from burial was not added till the last review, we grant that; but reply, with SHEPHERD, that rubric was not a new law, but merely explanatory of the ancient canon law, and the previous usage of the country. It was always the custom to refuse burial to the unbaptized; but never the custom to count non-Episcopal baptism invalid, and deal with it as such.

Mr. Blunt has a theory wherewith to account for the discrepancy which appears between the known private opinions of individuals, and the construction which he puts upon public documents, emanating from these same persons in their official charac

ter.

"If her Bishops have often intended less than the changes which they introduced express, it is surely no cause for wonder, (though it be for praise,) that they were led by the Spirit, in their synodical capacity, to introduce more truth into the Church than they themselves, in their personal capacity, were as yet willing, perhaps able, to receive." (P. 122.) Upon the same principle he accounts for the rejection, by the Lower House of Convocation in 1712, of the declaration transmitted from the Upper House concerning the validity of lay-baptism. "When they" (the Bishops at the Lambeth Conference immediately preceding the Convocation) "would have put forward a declaration which, according to the principles I am advocating, would have