made it a doctrine of the Church of England; they could not agree upon the matter, and the measure came to nought; or, in other words, was prevented. Such things are only half understood by reason; and are intelligible to faith alone. They are the Lord's doing, and are marvellous in our eyes." (P. 220.)

I leave this curious doctrine of synodical infallibility to be discussed by others, who have a more direct interest in it; and, having replied to Mr. Blunt's arguments, will now proceed to adduce some additional testimonies to the doctrine of the Church from the writings of her Divines. Mr. Blunt says, that "before the age of Charles I., what are generally esteemed the highChurch Divines were almost universally in favour of the validity of laybaptism; and after that age still many were so, though a most marked change took place at that period, and from that period gained ground." (P. 122.) This change he, following Mr. Keble, attributes to the influence of the genuine remains of Ignatius, then newly brought to light, and, perhaps, not without reason; since, if Mr. Blunt is to be taken as a specimen of the influence exerted by those writings, it has been as great as the most ardent admirer of the martyr could wish. He quotes him a dozen or fourteen times, and appears to believe the silly fable of his inspiration. (P. 183.) We will, therefore, now confine ourselves to those who had the privilege of reading his Epistles, and who were certainly as capable of understanding them aright as any who have held the invalidity of lay-baptism. Bishop FELL, the biographer of Hammond, in his edition of Cyprian, speaks thus: "Agnosco gravem et diuturnam de hæreticorum baptismo controversiam, egregiis D. Augustini scriptis feliciter tandem aliquando discussam, et ejus verbo utar, eliquatam; cujus invictis rationibus cessit, qua patet Christianus orbis ; et unam fidem saltem de baptismo habuit, quod et unicam agnovit semper, donec hoc nostro seculo Anabaptistarum furores, non ecclesiarum modo, sed etiam gravissimo rem-publicarum dam

no, recruduerunt." (CxP. Opp., p. 244.) In English thus: "I acknowledge the important and long-continued controversy concerning the baptism of heretics, happily discussed at length at a former time in the excellent writings of St. Augustine, and, if I may use his expression, cleared up; to whose unanswerable reasons all Christendom has yielded, and has had but one faith concerning baptism, which only it always acknowledged, until in this our age the ravings of the Anabaptists have broken out again, not only to the injury of the churches, but to the most serious prejudice of states also." The writings of St. Augustine contain many strong passages on the subject of re-baptization; but I will quote no more at present than the three following sentences. "To re-baptize a heretic, therefore, who has received these marks of holiness which Christian discipline has given, is altogether a sin; but to re-baptize a Catholic is a most outrageous wickedness." (Ep. 23, ad Maxim.) Quamquam etsi laicus aliquis pereunte dederit necessitate compulsus, quod cum ipse acciperet, quomodo dandum esse addidicit, nescio an pie quispiam dixerit esse repetendam. Nulla enim cogente necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurpatio est ; si autem necessitas urgeat, aut nullum aut veniale delictum est. Sed etsi nulli necessitate si fiat, et a quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum fuerit non potest dici non datum, quamvis recte dici potest illicite da tum. (Contra Ep. Parm., lib. ii., c. 29.) Which is thus forcibly translated by Hooker, (Ec. Pol. v. 62,) "I doubt whether any man which carrieth a virtuous and godly mind, will affirm, that the baptism which laymen do in case of necessity administer should be iterated. For to do it unnecessarily is to execute another man's office: necessity urging, to do it is then either no fault at all, or, if any, a very pardonable fault. But suppose it even of very purpose usurped, and given UNTO

ANY MAN BY EVERY MAN THAT LIST

ETH; yet that which is given cannot possibly be denied to have been given, how truly soever we may say

made it a doctrine of the Church of England; they could not agree upon the matter, and the measure came to nought; or, in other words, was prevented. Such things are only half understood by reason; and are intelligible to faith alone. They are the Lord's doing, and are marvellous in our eyes." (P. 220.)

I leave this curious doctrine of synodical infallibility to be discussed by others, who have a more direct interest in it; and, having replied to Mr. Blunt's arguments, will now proceed to adduce some additional testimonies to the doctrine of the Church from the writings of her Divines. Mr. Blunt says, that "before the age of Charles I., what are generally esteemed the highChurch Divines were almost universally in favour of the validity of laybaptism; and after that age still many were so, though a most marked change took place at that period, and from that period gained ground." (P. 122. This change he, following Mr. Keble, attributes to the influence of the genuine remains of Ignatius, then newly brought to light, and, perhaps, not without reason; since, if Mr. Blunt is to be taken as a specimen of the influence exerted by those writings, it has been as great as the most ardent admirer of the martyr could wish. He quotes him a dozen or fourteen times, and appears to believe the silly fable of his inspiration. (P. 183.) We will, therefore, now confine ourselves to those who had the privilege of reading his Epistles, and who were certainly as capable of understanding them aright as any who have held the invalidity of lay-baptism. Bishop FELL, the biographer of Hammond, in his edition of Cyprian, speaks thus: Agnosco gravem et diuturnam de hæreticorum baptismo controversiam, egregiis D. Augustini scriptis feliciter tandem aliquando discussam, et ejus verbo utar, eliquatam; cujus invictis rationibus cessit, qua patet Christianus orbis ; et unam fidem saltem de baptismo habuit, quod et unicam agnovit semper, donec hoc nostro seculo Anabaptistarum furores, non ecclesiarum modo, sed etiam gravissimo rem-publicarum dum

but

no, recruduerunt." (CvP. Opp., p. 244.) In English thus: “I acknowledge the important and long-continued controversy concerning the baptism of heretics, happily discussed at length at a former time in the excellent writings of St. Augustine, and, if I may use his expression, cleared up; to whose unanswerable reasons all Christendom has yielded, and has had but one faith concerning baptism, which only it always acknowledged, until in this our age the ravings of the Anabaptists have broken out again, not only to the injury of the churches, to the most serious prejudice of states also." The writings of St. Augustine contain many strong passages on the subject of re-baptization; but I will quote no more at present than the three following sentences. "To re-baptize a heretic, therefore, who has received these marks of holiness which Christian discipline has given, is altogether a sin; but to re-baptize a Catholic is a most outrageous wickedness." (Ep. 23, ad Maxim.) Quamquam etsi laicus aliquis pereunte dederit necessitate compulsus, quod cum ipse acciperet, quomodo dandum esse addidicit, nescio an pie quispiam dixerit esse repetendam. Nulla enim cogente necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurpatio est; si autem necessitas urgeat, aut nullum aut veniale delictum est. Sed etsi nulli necessitate si fiat, et a quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum fuerit non potest dici non datum, quamvis recte dici potest illicite datum. (Contra Ep. Parm., lib. ii., c. 29.) Which is thus forcibly translated by Hooker, (Ec. Pol. v. 62,) "I doubt whether any man which carrieth a virtuous and godly mind, will affirm, that the baptism which laymen do in case of necessity administer should be iterated. For to do it unnecessarily is to execute another man's office: necessity urging, to do it is then either no fault at all, or, if any, a very pardonable fault. But suppose it even of very purpose usurped, and given UNTO

ANY MAN BY EVERY MAN THAT LIST

ETH; yet that which is given cannot possibly be denied to have been given, how truly soever we may say

it hath not been given lawfully." There can be no doubt, therefore, of the opinion of Bishop Fell, while we have that of St. Augustine before

us.*

Mr. Blant thinks it is hard to gain the opinion of ARCHBISHOP POTTER; but, surely, the following sentences do not need an interpreter: -"It was the common opinion, that laymen may lawfully baptize in cases of extreme danger. Neither can any instance be produced where this practice was condemned by any Council, or so much as found fault with by any of the primitive Fathers; unless, perhaps, St. Basil....... However, his judgment is less to be regarded, because he defends the error of Cyprian and Firmilian, which had long before been condemned and exploded by the Church." (Works, vol. ii., pp. 236, 237.) Now, when it is remembered, that the Archbishop's avowed design in the treatise quoted was to exhibit the government of the Church, chiefly as described in Scripture, and in the writings of the three first centuries, the examination of which he thought to be the best method of ascertaining the sense of Scripture; it appears to me impossible to doubt as to what his

* Bishop JEREMY TAYLOR has sometimes

been claimed as an advocate for the invalidity of lay-baptism; but without sufficient reason, as the following extract will show :- St. Augustine did not know whether baptism administered by a layman should be repeated or no. He knew not, nor do I. But Simeon of Thessalonica is confident that the baptism is null. I cannot say so; nor can I say, let it be received." (Div. Inst. Off. Min., Works, 1822, vol. xiv., p. 448.) The passage of St. Augustine, referred to here, is designated by the words, Nescio an piè quispiam,

&c.; and it is therefore evident that the good Bishop has mistaken the meaning of the Father, who does not intend to intimate his doubts, but rather his certainty. He is so sure himself, that he doubts whether any good man can doubt on the subject. My object, however, in introducing this quotation is, not to set Bishop Taylor right; but to show that the maintainers of the invalidity of lay-baptism have no right to call him as a witness on their side, or, at least, that his testimony will not be of much service to them. He says strong things in the Ductor Dubitantium against the lawfulness of lay-baptism; but deelines there, as in the place before us, to give a direct opinion against its validity. Doubtless he felt it was a serious thing to differ from the whole Christian world.

opinion was. No honest man, who disbelieved the validity of lay-baptism, could have written the passage quoted above.

46

BISHOP GIBSON's opinion is peculiarly valuable, both because he is known to have been well skilled in ecclesiastical law and usage, and a strict disciplinarian in his diocess; and also because the advocates for the invalidity of lay-baptism rely much upon his declaration, already quoted in this article, that, after the Hampton-Court Conference, the Liturgy was so altered as expressly to exclude it." We have, in the former article, appealed to his recorded acts while Archdeacon of Surrey, in proof that he did not consider the alterations of the Liturgy as tantamount to a declaration of the doctrine of the Church: we have seen him protesting, in Convocation, against the refusal of the document sent down by the Bishops: we have now to see him as a Bishop, expressly disavowing the doctrine for which Mr. Blunt contends. On the 20th of October, 1738, Mr. John Wesley and his brother Charles waited on Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of London, to answer some complaints which he had heard against them; and the following conversation then took place. The Bishop said, "There is a heavy charge brought against us Bishops, in consequence of your having re-baptized an adult, and alleged the Archbishop's authority for doing it." Mr. J. Wesley answered, that he had expressly declared the contrary, and acquitted the Archbishop from having any hand in the matter; but added, "If a person, dissatisfied with lay-baptism, should desire Episcopal, I should think it my duty to administer it, after having acquainted the Bishop, according to the Canon." "Well," said the Bishop, "I AM AGAINST IT MYSELF, WHEN

ANY ONE HAS HAD BAPTISM AMONG

THE DISSENTERS." About three weeks after this, Mr. Charles Wesley had another interview with his Lordship, of which he gives the following account:-"I have used your Lordship's permission,' said I, 'to wait upon you. A woman desires

Ꭰ

made it a doctrine of the Church of England; they could not agree upon the matter, and the measure came to nought; or, in other words, was prevented. Such things are only half understood by reason; and are intelligible to faith alone. They are the Lord's doing, and are marvellous in our eyes." (P. 220.)

I leave this curious doctrine of synodical infallibility to be discussed by others, who have a more direct interest in it; and, having replied to Mr. Blunt's arguments, will now proceed to adduce some additional testimonies to the doctrine of the Church from the writings of her Divines. Mr. Blunt says, that "before the age of Charles I., what are generally esteemed the highChurch Divines were almost universally in favour of the validity of laybaptism; and after that age still many were so, though a most marked change took place at that period, and from that period gained ground." (P. 122.) This change he, following Mr. Keble, attributes to the influence of the genuine remains of Ignatius, then newly brought to light, and, perhaps, not without reason; since, if Mr. Blunt is to be taken as a specimen of the influence exerted by those writings, it has been as great as the most ardent admirer of the martyr could wish. He quotes him a dozen or fourteen times, and appears to believe the silly fable of his inspiration. (P. 183.) We will, therefore, now confine ourselves to those who had the privilege of reading his Epistles, and who were certainly as capable of understanding them aright as any who have held the invalidity of lay-baptism. Bishop FELL, the biographer of Hammond, in his edition of Cyprian, speaks thus: Agnosco gravem et diuturnam de hæreticorum baptismo controversiam, egregiis D. Augustini scriptis feliciter tandem aliquando discussam, et ejus verbo utar, eliquatam; cujus invictis rationibus cessit, qua patet Christianus orbis ; et unam fidem saltem de baptismo habuit, quod et unicam agnovit semper, donec hoc nostro seculo Anabaptistarum furores, non ecclesiarum modo, sed etiam gravissimo rem-publicarum dam

no, recruduerunt.” (CYP. Opp., p. 244.) In English thus: "I acknowledge the important and long-continued controversy concerning the baptism of heretics, happily discussed at length at a former time in the excellent writings of St. Augustine, and, if I may use his expression, cleared up; to whose unanswerable reasons all Christendom has yielded, and has had but one faith concerning baptism, which only it always acknowledged, until in this our age the ravings of the Anabaptists have broken out again, not only to the injury of the churches, but to the most serious prejudice of states also." The writings of St. Augustine contain many strong passages on the subject of re-baptization; but I will quote no more at present than the three following sentences. "To re-baptize a heretic, therefore, who has received these marks of holiness which Christian discipline has given, is altogether a sin; but to re-baptize a Catholic is a most outrageous wickedness." (Ep. 23, ad Maxim.) Quamquam etsi laicus aliquis pereunte dederit necessitate compulsus, quod cum ipse acciperet, quomodo dandum esse addidicit, nescio an pie quispiam dixerit esse repetendam. Nulla enim cogente necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurpatio est; si autem necessitas urgeat, aut nullum aut veniale delictum est. Sed etsi nulli necessitate si fiat, et a quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum fuerit non potest dici non datum, quamvis recte dici potest illicite datum. (Contra Ep. Parm., lib. ii., c. 29.) Which is thus forcibly translated by Hooker, (Ec. Pol. v. 62,) "I doubt whether any man which carrieth a virtuous and godly mind, will affirm, that the baptism which laymen do in case of necessity administer should be iterated. For to do it unnecessarily is to execute another man's office: necessity urging, to do it is then either no fault at all, or, if any, a very pardonable fault. But suppose it even of very purpose usurped, and given UNTO

ANY MAN BY EVERY MAN THAT LIST

ETH; yet that which is given cannot possibly be denied to have been given, how truly soever we may say