ISSENTERS' BAPTISMS AND CHURCH BURIALS. STRICTURES UPON THE DECISION OF THE LATE SIR JOHN NICHOLL; WITH AN ATTEMPT AT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND UPON THE SUBJECT. BY THE REV. WALTER BLUNT, M.A., OF GONVILLE AND CA1US COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. &59 ^^^^^ EXETER: PUBLISHED BY P. A. HANNAFORD; SOLD BY LONGMANS and RIVINGTONS, LONDON; PARKER, OXFORD; and STEVENSON, CAMBRIDGE. k * -^ c W3V DISSENTERS' BAPTISMS ASD CHURCH BURIALS. STRICTURES UPON THE DECISION OF THE LATE SIR JOHN NICHOLL; WITH AN ATTEMPT AT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND UPON THE SUBJECT. BY THE REV. WALTER BLUNT, M.A., OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. EXETER: PUBLISHED BY P. A. HANNAFORD; SOLD BY LONGMANS and RIVINGTONS, LONDON; PARKER, OXFORD; and STEVENSON, CAMBRIDGE. M.DCCC.XL. IV London Harrison and Co., Printers, St. Martin's Lane. THE MOST REVEREND AND RIGHT REVEREND ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS SEVERAL ANGLICAN BRANCHES OF CHRIST'S HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE DEDICATED IN HUMILITY AND PROFOUND RESPECT, WITH EARNEST, CONTINUOUS, NEVER-CEASING PRAYER THAT OUR LORD WILL SPEEDILY RESTORE UNTO HIS CHURCH THE SPIRIT OF REVERENCE AND GODLY FEAR, MANIFESTING ITSELF IN A READY AND DUTIFUL OBEDIENCE TO HIS VICEGERENTS UPON EARTH: AND THAT, IN PARDONING MERCY, HE WILL GRANT UNTO US, REPENTANT, AN OUTPOURING OF HIS FAVOUR, IN THE INCREASE OF THEIR NUMBER, FOR THE EXERCISE OF EPISCOPAL FUNCTIONS ; AND THE REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES, THE RESOLUTION OF DOL'BTSj AND THE HEALING OF DISSENSIONS, BY APOSTOLICAL DELIBERATION AND DETERMINATION, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF HIS SPIRIT, OF THE BISHOPS, IN HOLY SYNOD ASSEMBLED. PREFACE. I am not silly enough to suppose that the following pages contain all that can be written upon this now litigated question. I have searched far too deeply into this and other such-like impor- tant subjects not to be fully aware that I know comparatively but very little about them. Hence, I do not expect, that all persons should agree with me in the view which I have taken of it. All that I can hope to do is to show that there are two sides to the question, and to prove that those among the Clergy who object to Bury persons Baptized by Dissenters, are not necessarily " a set of ignorant, hot-headed, obstinate enthusiasts," but have, to say the least, some reason, beside " prejudice," for what they do. The following pages, I believe, contain amply sufficient testimony to show that the question demands a fresh and full examina- tion; and if only I succeed in gaining for it a nevv r VI PREFACE. and patient investigation, I shall be fully satisfied with the little measure of good I may have thus effected, and shall most willingly leave the dis- cussion of it to men of greater learning and ability. Most grateful should I have been to any more experienced and more able person to have taken out of my hands the task which I have now imperfectly performed, and very many have I urged to do so ; but finding that the majority of those with whom I conversed knew still less about it than I did — and finding also that those who knew more were unwilling, or too much occupied, to undertake it — and finding that there was a strong notion and feeling abroad that, because nothing was now written against the established practice, therefore nothing could be advanced against it — and withal, being anxious too, from personal reasons, to explain to many, who mis- understood my motives, the grounds on which I refused Burial to a Dissenter's Child, in a distant Diocese, several months ago, — urged on by these and such-like considerations, I have prevailed upon myself, very reluctantly, to send the follow- ing pages to the press, trusting that they will be received with lenity and candour, which I feel it PREFACE. Vll the more necessary to bespeak in their behalf, from the circumstance of my having- been de- prived of the benefit of consulting a most valuable Library*, at the very moment when its assistance was most desirable. I will only add, that circumstances, which I need not mention, having induced me to com- mence the following treatise in the first person, I have, in preparing it for the press, considered it the more modest and becoming course to retain this somewhat unusual form throughout: for, though many agree with me in the conclusion arrived at, I fear that even there I am still in a minority, and I am not sure that I can lay claim to the approbation of any living person upon the line of reasoning through which that conclu- sion is attained. * The British Museum. Exeter, Sept. 16, 1840. DISSENTERS' BAPTISMS AND CHURCH BURIALS. The Judgment of the late Sir John Nicholl in the case of Kemp v. Wickes, delivered in the Arches Court of Canterbury, in the year 1809, pronounced that the defendant, who was a clergy- man of the Church of England, had acted wrongly,, in refusing to Bury the child of a parishioner, which child had been baptized by an Independent preacher*. This decision has, for the last thirty years, guided almost universally the clergy of the English Church, with respect to the Burial of persons bap- tized by Dissenters. A variety of causes, no doubt, have operated in gaining for it this wide submission. The clergy, in yielding their obedience to it, have done so upon various grounds. Some of them * The Judgment, delivered Dec. 11, 1809, by the Eight Hon. Sir John Nicholl, Knight, L.L.D., Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, upon the admission of Articles exhibited in a cause of Office, promoted by Kemp v. Wickes, Clerk, &c, &c. — Taken in short-hand by Mr. Gurney. London, 1810. 10 dissenters' baptisms have regarded a Judge of the Arches Court of Canterbury as competent, in point of authority, to set the question at rest; others, who might have hesitated to admit this competency of authority, have saved themselves the trouble of investigation, by the reflection that, as the character of the Judge was high, and the matter very important, such a decision would scarcely have been made without a due examination of the subject ; the great majority of the younger clergy, uninstructed upon such mat- ters altogether, have been content to follow in the crowd; all, perhaps, being affrighted more or less, by a no very distant prospect of pains and penalties, difficulties and inconveniences, vexations and ex- penses, which a contrary course of action might, and probably would, bring upon them. This has been the state of the clerical mind, and, therefore, of course, of the minds of the lay members of the Church upon this subject, in that age of shallow divinity which, thanks be to God, is now fast passing away. But a better season at length having arisen upon us — a season of far greater soundness in Theology — of more inquiry and greater earnestness among all the members of our Church — of greater caution, greater zeal, greater piety in its clergy — a strong disposition to hesitate and inquire and restore — a disposition " to stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk therein*" — no * Jeremiah vi. 16. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 11 longer is this decision of the late Sir John Nicholl resisted by one person, perhaps, here and there, marvelled at for his boldness, and censured for his "disobedience to authority" — no longer is it lamented and spoken against by a few, exciting wonder, perhaps scorn, upon their singularity of opinion — but now many clergymen in every quarter of the country, are refusing to submit themselves to its guidance*, while a suspicion of its fallaciousness is fast spreading throughout the entire clerical body, and a conviction of the mischief which it has brought upon the Church. Now, in truth, that a sounder system of theology is abroad, it begins to appear marvellous, and to excite feelings of astonishment, how a large body of the clergy should have ever given themselves up to the guidance of this decision, under the idea that Sir John Nicholl, or any other lay Ecclesiastical Judge, was competent, in point of authority, to set such a question at rest. I am not now about to enter upon the very debatable subject of the consti- tution of Ecclesiastical Courts generally, or to in- vestigate the question whether or not the Arches Court of Canterbury, as it now is, was a proper tribunal to decide upon the individual case which was brought before it ; but I think it must be evi- dent to every moderately well-informed and reflect- ing theologian, that even if such a Court be compe- * Instances of this in eight different dioceses have come to my own knowledge. B2 12 DISSENTERS BAPTISMS tent to declare upon the nature of an individual case, at any rate it is not competent to the promul- gation of a general law. The theory of an Eccle- siastical Court in such matters, whether that theory be right or wrong, is that it should investigate and declare whether, in the individual case which has been brought before it, the individual party or par- ties, against whom the cause has been promoted, have acted rightly or wrongly ; and in accordance with this theory, the decision under consideration was thus delivered: — n Upon the whole of the case, and for the reasons assigned, the Court is of opinion that the Minister, in refusing to bury this child in the manner pleaded in the articles, has acted ille- gally*." But though Sir John Nicholl is manifestly desirous of guiding the entire clergy by this decision, (as in fact he has done,) — though he speaks of (c the suit being interesting to the clergy generally, as ascertaining the law by a judicial decisionf" — though he talks of it as " being probably brought for the sake of deciding the question, rather than of punish- ing the in dividual J" — though, in connexion with this, he tells of " the hope" which " the Court has of setting the question at rest§", — still even he did not claim for the Court over which he presided this competency of authority for the general decision of such a question — he did not, I mean, lay claim to an authority for the pronunciation and promulga- * Judgment, pp. 46, 47. t lb., P- 46. X lb., p. 46. § lb., p. 47. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 13 tion of a general law, which should be binding upon the whole body of the clergy. In fact, whether it be right or wrong for an Ecclesiastical Court, constituted as these courts now are, to pronounce upon the past conduct of an indi- vidual clergyman in the performance of his minis- terial duties, such a court, at any rate, is not com- petent to give authoritative directions as to his future practice. Concerning the service of the tabernacle, and the performance of the Church's rites, the law of the land, as well as the law of God, recognizes the Bishop of the diocese, and no one beneath him, as the proper resolver of the doubts and difficulties of individual clergymen, and the director of their conduct. The instructions, &c, at the beginning of the Prayer-book, "Concerning the Service of the Church," state that, " Forasmuch as nothing can be so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same ; to appease all such diver- sity (if any arise) and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute, the things contained in this Book ; the par- ties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall alway resort to the Bishop of the diocese, who, by his discretion, shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same ; so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in this book. And if the Bishop of the diocese be in doubt, then he may send for the resolution thereof to the Arch- bishop." 14 dissenters' baptisms Such is the ordinance of the Church, an ordi- nance not only manifestly accordant with the will of God, but, to the grea f blessing of the land, adopted by the civil power. Such is her ordinance for the resolution of doubts which may occur to individual clergymen, " concerning the manner how to under- stand, do, and execute," any of her rites. But for the formation and promulgation of a general law, the establishing of a universal decision, an authori- tative declaration concerning the manner how such things are to be " understanded, done, and executed, " by the whole body of the clergy, we can look to no- thing lower than the voice of an Episcopal Synod. Neither in the one instance, nor in the other, can the function be delegated to any lower authority than that to which it has been entrusted ; because, in such cases as those of which I am speaking, the Bishops are called upon to act, not as Ittlctkottoi only, but rather as God's airoardKot and ayyeXoi. The purely episcopal powers, the functions of simple overseership, may be delegated to others; (as they are to the Archdeacon, who, accurately to define the limits of this delegation, obtained of old the denomination of the bishop's ey # ;) but the strictly angelic and apost lie functions, committed unto both by God himself, according to, and only jut according to, the measure of His apportionment, worked out in either by the influence of His Spirit, "dividing to every man severally as He will" — these * See Appendix, Note A. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 15 functions, thus given, thus limited, and thus acting, do not admit of delegation ; — neither can a Bishop commit his apostolic functions to one who is destitute of the apostolic unction, not having the same " sending" with which he was i( sent;" — nor yet can an Episcopal Synod deligate to individual Bishops the exercise of its synodical functions j as it cannot impart to them the grace of united apostleship, that greater measure of the Spirit's guidance which to it, as a Synod, is vouchsafed*. For these reasons I would urge that the decision of the Court of Arches, in the case before us, was totally insufficient to lay the smallest moral obliga- tion on the clergy, as to their course of action on similar occasions ; and that, while each individual clergyman is bound to refer doubts which he may have upon the subject to his Diocesan, and to ask and to follow his directions, a " setting at rest" of the question is not to be obtained — a general decision, binding upon the clergy at large — from any but synodical authority. With respect to the delegation of the higher and apostolical functions of a Bishop, I am glad to be able to bring forward such a witness as Leslie to the truth of the opinion which I have here advanced: — " One Bishop may desire the assistance of an- other Bishop, so there may be coadjutor Bishops — nothing hinders their mutual assistance of one another in their several charges, by agreement, as * See Acts xv. 16 dissenters' baptisms occasion shall require. But they cannot delegate their power to those who are no pastors, to whom Christ has given no such authority. They must first make men pastors and give them ordination before they can commit the flock to their charge. They cannot delegate the Episcopal power (properly so called) to Presbyters, without giving them Epis- copal Consecration, much less can they do it to lay- men." (Leslie, Case of the Regale; Works, Ed. 1721, vol. L, p. 607.) The quotation here given, from one of our best divines, relates only to the delegation of apostolic functions to those who are not Apostles; but I believe that no one who has studied the Acts of the Apostles, and the circumstances attendant upon the assembling of the first* recorded Synod at Jerusalem, can suppose it possible to delegate to individual Bishops, functions which are purely synodical. This is evidently the view which the Church of England holds upon such subjects; as it appears from her manner of deciding a case of general diffi- culty, to which I shall have occasion more fully to refer hereafter. It is well known that before the Reformation children, in danger of immediate death, were permitted to be baptized by midwives, or any other persons who might happen to be present. After the Reformation there seems to have existed * The Jirst, except that at which Matthias was elected and consecrated. ;g AND CHURCH BURIALS. 17 in the minds of the people generally much doubt and hesitation as to whether this practice had still the sanction of authority. The subject was brought before the Bishops of the province of Canterbury, A.D. 1575; and they, after referring to the recog- nition of the authority of each Bishop to settle such doubts in his own diocese which I have just now quoted from the Prayer Book, proceeded, in their synodical capacity, to command every Bishop in the province to forbid the practice, and to publish the inhibition of it in every parish church within his diocese, before a certain day*. This, of itself, is sufficient to point out the doctrine of the Church of England concerning the general determination of such matters of difficulty; and that, in the individual case before us, the Arches Court of Canterbury was not a competent authority to put forth such a general determination, is witnessed not only by Archdeacon Daubeny in his 11 Examination of Sir John NicholVs Judgment," and by the Consistory Court of Gloucester, which sub- sequently decided, in a case exactly similar, that the "defendant had acted legally justifiably , and according to the Rubric, Canons, and constitutions of the church, and that if he had acted otherwise he would have been liable to the censures of his Ordinary for disobedience to them^," but also by the late venerable and learned * Convoc. 1575, Art. 12. t Examination of the Judgment of the Right Hon. Sir John NicholL Bath, 1811. P. 117- 18 dissenters' baptisms Bishop Burgess, in "A Charge to the Clergy of the diocese of Salisbury," A.D. 1826, in which he writes that "The sentence of a learned Ecclesiastical Judge, by which it was decided that the Church Service should be read by the clergy, if required, over the corpse of a person not baptized according to the usage of the Church of England, has a tendency to lower the importance and necessity of baptism and the authority of the Established Church ; yet a clergyman who may think such sentence contrary to the Rubric of the Common Prayer may consci- entiously submit to the law so interpreted by an Ecclesiastical Judge. He may not less conscien- tiously (I think) refuse to read the Service, if he is prepared to risk the expense of prosecution, and make the ultimate appeal*." P. 26. It might however be supposed, and it seems to have been concluded by most of us, that although a decision of the Court of Arches might not be suf- ficient to set such a question at rest, on the grounds of the existence of a competency of authority for that purpose in such a tribunal, still it might do so upon other grounds — as laying upon the clergy a kind of secondary moral obligation, inasmuch as it is scarcely to be imagined that a court of this nature, presided over by a Judge of such high * I do not quote this, as agreeing entirely in the opinions expressed in it, for I believe that it contains more than one fallacy, but merely as a witness to the fact of the incompe- tency of the Court of Arches to bind the Church in this par- ticular. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 19 respectability as the late Sir John Nicholl, would venture to pronounce a decision so important, without a careful examination of the grounds on which such a question should be determined. Hence, perhaps, it is, more than from an idea of the existence in the Court of Arches of any com- petency of actual authority, that the great majority of the clergy have given themselves up to the guid- ance of this decision ; and surely if we consider how much deference it is the province of the humble Christian to pay to the opinion of the good, and wise, and learned, — especially when they occupy positions which give them peculiar advantages for forming a right opinion, and lay upon them peculiar obligations for the exercise of great caution and discreetness in the promulgation of it, — especially, too, when that opinion has been long concurred in by almost all of those who were most able to dis- pute and expose it, and has been at least tacitly adopted by almost all those whose peculiar province and duty it was to resist it, if erroneous, — surely, then, there will appear little room for wonder that this decision has been quietly acted upon by the great majority of the clergy, — that those who, at the time, were in the exercise of their high office, re- joiced in such a settlement of a disputed question, though in a way, perhaps, contrary to their opinions — and that those who have year by year entered the ministry subsequently to the date of the decision, should, for the most part, have quietly and submis- 20 dissenters' baptisms sively acquiesced in it, without any examination of its premises. This state of things, perhaps, would have con- tinued indefinitely, if the controversies, or rather inquiries, which happily have been forced upon us at the present day, had not awakened doubts in the minds of many of the clergy, by presenting diffi- culties, seemingly insurmountable, in reconciling the decision of Sir John Nicholl with the spirit of early Christianity; and these doubts have been strengthened by the appalling view of evils which I shall pre- sently allude to, immediately practical in their cha- racter, and almost unlimited in their extent — evils which are striking at the root of Christianity in this country, and are fostered and upheld by this decision. Inquiry thus having been excited to this subject, and a disposition to examine into the grounds of Sir John Nicholl 's decision, it very plainly appears to many that the late Archdeacon Daubeny, who at the time of its delivery almost alone lifted up his voice against it, was perfectly justified in his denun- ciation of it. If it be asked how it is that this fact, if it be one, was not recognised at the time? — I can only answer, but I may do so I think without fear of contradiction, that people were not so ripe for such inquiries then as they are now — that the clergy, as a body, were not so well informed — that catholic principles were not so widely understood — that the learning and arguments and piety of the objector AND CHURCH BURIALS. 21 were not likely to be so highly appreciated — that there existed more carelessness in the performance of ministerial duty — that the practical evils of the decision had not then been proved — that the war then so occupied the public mind that it had no taste for what might appear mere theoretical in- quiry — and finally, perhaps, there is some truth in an assertion which I have heard, that there is at once a dryness and a diffuseness about Archdeacon Daubeny's Examination, and, to some minds, an apparent weakness, (arising only from the circum- stance of his neglecting often to follow out his prin- ciples and arguments to their full and legitimate extent,) w T hich has caused to lie almost unheeded a book which is a complete answer to Sir John Nicholl's Judgment, and an exposure of the false premises on which that Judgment was founded. I shall presently take occasion to lay before my readers, briefly, the argument, if it may be called so, on which the Judgment of Sir John Nicholl proceeds, and to point out how little it is deserving of the deference which for the last thirty years it has received; but it may be well if, in the first place, I allude to the objections which exist against the performance of the Service — the reasons why many clergymen consider it a burden upon their consciences to Bury persons baptized by Dissenters. If this matter were once decided by legitimate authority — if an Episcopal Synod should declare that such persons were to receive Christian Burial — 22 dissenters' baptisms no clergyman of catholic principles could hesitate for an instant to perform the Service, knowing that, as it would then be schismatical to do so, no blessing, but a curse, would rest upon the refusal. The same would be the case, in the event of an indivi- dual Bishop, as Bishop, giving directions to an indi- vidual clergyman for the performance of the Service. In this case too, I affirm, no clergyman of catholic principles could hesitate, whatever might be his own private opinions, knowing that obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice, and that the Bishop, being God's vicegerent in his diocese, to set himself against the Bishop would be, as Ignatius testifies, to affront Him who is invisible*. But so long as the question is not decided by any such legi- timate authority, so long must there remain, in the minds of many, most serious and weighty objections. The first of these objections, and to most minds the strongest of all, inasmuch as it has an imme- diate relation to the Deity Himself, — and which, if the groundwork of the objection be valid, involves the performer of the Service in the sin of presump- tion, if not of blasphemy, — is founded upon the construction of the Service. The Burial Service is constructed as having reference to one who has " departed hence in the Lord," who, as being a mem- ber of the visible church on earth, is, as far as we can tell, " a very member incorporate of Christ's mystical body," and concerning whom, therefore, * Ep. ad Magn. See Appendix, Note B. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 23 we make use of terms and phrases denoting a near- ness of relationship, (so to speak,) to God in Christ, and claiming for him the covenanted blessings of adopted sonship. Now, putting aside any certainty of feeling as to the invalidity of the person's bap- tism, putting aside, too, the certain conviction of the truth of that which, as we shall hereafter see, was, at the utmost, the opinion of the ancient Church, — that though the baptism of such a person was in such sense valid, that it was not to be re- peated, still that he was not within the Covenant of Grace ; — putting aside the case of all certainty of feeling upon these points, and allowing it only to be a case of uncertainty whether the person had died a member of the Christian Church or not, — surely it would be great presumption, amounting almost to mockery, to make use of, with respect to that per- son, the words "Forasmuch as it has pleased Al- mighty God, of His great mercy, to take unto Himself the soul of our dear brother here departed;" and again, "We give Thee hearty thanks for that it has pleased Thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this fearful world," &c, &c. — Surely where, to say the least, a considerable doubt exists whether Christ's ordinance has ever been complied with — whether the person has ever been admitted to the family of God — hope, earnest hope, is the utmost we can entertain: — such words of confidence are somewhat out of place. On the other hand, however, it is often con- 24 dissenters' baptisms tended that where such doubtfulness exists — where there is an uncertainty whether the person to be buried be a brother or not — it is the office of the Christian Minister to perform the Service, under a charitable presumption that he is so. I strongly sus- pect that this opinion has in it more of laxity and indifference to truth than those who hold it are aware of. It is the disposition of the present age, though it is one, we may hope, which is fast passing away, to display a tenderness toward, almost amounting to a connivance with, the errors and faults of our fellow men, while we display a far inferior amount of zeal for the honour and the word of God. We seem to suppose that the order of Gospel love is to be inverted ; that that toward our neighbour is the primary duty, to which that toward our God is only secondary ; forgetting that all love is false, though specious, which is not grounded on a love of truth, and that " the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned*." In the case, indeed, in which a person has been admitted to the Christian covenant, but afterwards falling into sin has died apparently therein — towards such a person, unless under sentence of excommunica- tion, such a " charitable presumption" as that which we have spoken of, may, or rather must be, exerted ; because we know not the sentence of ' ' the invisible God" upon our brother, as He has not * 1 Tim. 1. v. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 25 caused that sentence to be pronounced by His visible agent and vicegerent ; to our eye, therefore, he is still " a brother " — for it would be horrible impiety in us to climb to the judgment-seat of Christ*. This case, however, preserls no analogy to the case of which I was before speaking ; or rather the ana- logy is against it. In that case the doubt was, whether the person had ever been admitted to the Christian covenant, whether God's unmerited favour had ever conferred upon him an unmerited, inesti- mable privilege; and the doubt was grounded upon the fact of the privilege not having been conferred through the ordinary appointed means, and the con- current fact of God having not pronounced by His agent and vicegerent, the Bishop, whether, in the ab- sence or neglect of these ordinary appointed means, the inestimable privilege had been conferred at all. In such a case what is called " a charitable presump- tion," ought surely rather to be designated a most impious presumption ; it is a daring, undelegated assumption of functions which are simply aposto- lical, — a mockery, in the delivery of a sentence which we have no power and authority to award. The other objection which I shall notice to the performance of the Burial Service over persons bap- tized by Dissenters, is of a character which would usually be called more immediately practical. One of the greatest evils in the Church of England at the present day is the state of the sponsorial disci- * See Appendix, Note C. 26 dissenters' baptisms pline. It is an accusation made against us by our enemies, and we are fully open to the charge, that we admit almost any one to undertake the sponsorial office. Usually no inquiry whatever is made as to the qualification of the persons who present them- selves to " answer'' for a child ; and in many places, from a sickening consciousness of the inefficiency of the system in its present state, (may I not say of its impiety?), the clergy have, or at any rate had, permitted the custom to be almost altogether discontinued. Hence, one of the Church's oldest and wisest institutions for bringing up her children in the fear of God has been rendered almost en- tirely nugatory, and the evils which have resulted, (more even, I believe, from this than from any other cause,) are sufficiently apparent in the well- nigh heathenish condition of a very large portion of our Baptized population. This evil has grown upon us gradually; partly, it is to be feared, from carelessness in the clergy; partly from the great and rapid increase of population, while the number of the churches and ministers has not been propor- tionally augmented ; partly from the decline of dis- cipline, arising from the interference of human law- givers ; partly from the decay of charity, manifest- ing itself in an unwillingness in those who feel its nature to undertake for others a most delicate and most responsible office ; but partly, also, and most largely, from the fancied compulsion which the de- cision of Sir John Nicholl, in Kemp v. Wickes, has AND CHURCH BURIALS. 27 for the last thirty years laid upon the clergy of per- forming the Church's Burial Office over persons baptized by Dissenters. I will explain my meaning in this particular. The Church has made perfect provision for the prevention of the evils which are here spoken of. The 29th canon of 1603 ordains that 1 ' No parent shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child ; nor any godfather or godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf; neither shall any person be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at christening or confirma- tion, before the said person so undertaking has received the Holy Communion." Here, then, it is commanded that the sponsors for each child shall be beside, and beyond, its natu- ral Christian guardians, that the Church may have an increased security for such child being brought up in the knowledge and the fear of God ; and in order to make this security the strongest possible, she further ordains that each person so admitted as a sponsor shall be a Communicant. Now the reason of this ordinance is very evi- dent, namely, that one who is neglecting his own Christian duties, or despising his own highest privi- lege, or one who is not yet considered fit to be ad- mitted to it, is not a proper person to " undertake" for the child that he shall be brought up " sound in C 2 28 dissenters' baptisms the faith," " a good soldier of Jesus Christ." And on the other hand, it is evident that the enforcement of this canon, together with a tender and watchful care concerning admission to the holy Eucharist, must furnish an almost complete remedy to the evils of which we have been speaking. Here, then, the difficulty presents itself which has arisen from the decision of Sir John Nicholl, and it is a diffi- culty (not indeed insurmountable, for this I cannot allow it to be, though many assert that it is so,) which I believe every clergyman of a large parish, who has conscientiously endeavoured to restore, in this essential particular, the beautiful though neglected discipline of our Church, has found it most difficult to contend with. It is a well-known and most lamentable fact, that the great motive among the poor, and it is to be feared, also, among some higher classes of society, in many parts of the country, for desiring Baptism for their children, is, that they may thereby become entitled to Christian Burial. It is a singular cir- cumstance, and one which presents to us some faint ray of hope,, that among the majority of those who seem almost to have no faith at all, and of those, too, who neglect and despise God's chosen ordi- nances, setting up for themselves or frequenting unauthorized assemblies, there is still a great hold- ing to the Church in this particular ; so that those who would desire Baptism for their children for no other reason would, and do, desire it for this ; and AND CHURCH BURIALS. 29 those who have a better motive in securing to their offspring that holy rite, would, for the most part, be careful so to secure it, as to secure for them also the performance of the Burial Service after death. Now, no clergyman, in large parishes especially, can be ignorant of the difficulty which at present exists of procuring sponsors at all at Baptism ; still more so proper and canonical ones. Parents usually, alas ! are careless, often jealous, about the matter, and friends are unwilling to undertake the office. Even the enforcement of the first part of the canon, that which relates to parents, often presents almost insurmountable difficulties ; while the enforcement of the latter part, relating to communicants, increases those difficulties so enormously, that it has a mani- fest and most powerful tendency to make the parents of the child seek at the dissenting meeting-house that convenient lenity and laxity which the Church does not present to them, and procure a baptism for their offspring which the Church, by acting on Sir John Nicholl's decision, has taught them to con- sider complete, but which, with the utmost which can be said of it, is at any rate of very doubtful validity, and which, though esteemed valid for some ages in a large portion of the Christian Church, was never supposed to be a baptism to salvation. Here, however, it is to be observed that it is contended by many, and those, too, of high cha- racter for piety and learning, that the latter clause of the 29th canon of 1603 will not necessarily, 30 dissenters' baptisms perhaps not fairly, bear the interpretation which I have put upon it. It is said, that it does not exclude from the sponsorial office persons who are not communicants, but has relation only to the age of the sponsor, and excludes only those who are not old enough to be communicants. Now it must be acknowledged that the title of the canon (on which this opinion is chiefly grounded) affords to it some support. " Fathers not to be god- fathers in baptism, and children not communicants ;" and a like support to it also, it may be imagined, is furnished by the Latin title, as it is given by Sparrow*, — " Parentes in librorum eorum bap- tismate, et pueri ccense Dominica? incapaces, sus- ceptores esse prohibiti." Still, however, it seems somewhat singular to mention the Holy Communion in this canon merely as a mode of marking age. I am perfectly ready to admit that the age of the person is alluded to ; but I must contend, at the same time, that it is alluded to not as a primary , but as a secondary consideration ; that the Church did not intend to ordain that children shall not be sponsors because they are too young to be so, but that children shall not be sponsors until they have received the communion. Why, then, mention children at all ? Simply because the Church has no notion of any one else within her pale not being a communi- cant. One of the Rubrics, at the conclusion of the Communion Service, ordains * Sparrow's Collection. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 31 * ' That every parishioner shall Communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter shall be one." And the 21st canon of 1603 commands., that " In every parish church and chapel, where sacraments are to be administered within this realm, the Holy Communion shall be ministered by the parson, vicar, or minister, so often, and at such times, as every parishioner may Communicate at the least thrice in the year — whereof the feast of Easter to be one, according as they are appointed by the book of Common Prayer." And the 1 1 2th canon provides, that " The minister, churchwardens, questmen, and assistants of every parish church and chapel, shall yearly, within forty days after Easter, exhibit to the Bishop or his chancellor the names and surnames of all the parishioners, as well men as women, which, being of the age of sixteen years, received not the Communion at Easter before*." From which it most plainly appears that the Church of England does not recognize any one as hers who is not a Communicant, excepting only such as are under the age of sixteen years ; which exception was also frequently pointed out in the * We find these rules made articles of enquiry at the epis- copal visitations, and not left as dead letters. Thus, in the Bishop of London's visitation, A.D., 1604: — "Whether any of your parish, heing of convenient age, have not received the holy communion thrice this last year at least — namely, at Easter, or thereabouts, for once; and what their names are?" 32 dissenters' baptisms Articles of Enquiry at the visitation of the Bishops of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is doubtless for this reason that the word children appears in the title of the canon* which forbids any person to be sponsor for a child, " be- fore the said person so undertaking hath received the Holy Communion." And that I have rightly interpreted this canon, as forbidding the admission of non- communicants to the sponsorial office; and as referring to children, not as children, but only as casnce Dominica incapaces, (which our Church appears certainly to consider them to be,) will further be evident from a reference to ecclesiastical documents of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. " Item — That no childe be admitted to answer as godfather or godmother, except the child hath received the Communion." — Elizabeth's Injunctions, A.D. 1564. (Sparrow's Collection, et Wilkins, iv., 249fO " Whether any person or persons be admitted to answer as godfather or godmother to any child except he or she have before received the Holy Com- munion?" — Articles of Enquiry at Visitation of Bishop of London, 1571. * 29th canon. t In the British Museum there is a copy of the Injunctions, printed 1584, in the margin of which, opposite to this injunction, in a very old hand- writing, are these words: — "Godfathers and godmothers of what sort?" These Injunctions were agreed upon and subscribed by Archbishop Parker, and the Bishops of London, Ely, Rochester, "Winchester, and Lincoln. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 33 " Whether any person or person be admitted to answer as godfathers or godmothers at the christen- ing of any child, except he or she have before received the Holy Communion, can say by heart the Articles of the Christian Faith, the Ten Commandments of God, and the Lord's Prayer." — Articles to be En- quired of Churchwardens and Swornmen, to be An- swered on Oath, 1597. " Have any in your parish been godfathers or godmothers to their own children ? or whether any who have not Communicated be admitted to be god- fathers or godmothers?" — Articles of Enquiry at the Metropolical Visitation of the Archbishop of Canter- bury, 1605; and at Diocesan Visitation of Arch- bishop of Canterbury, 1 609. This, be it remarked, was the Archbishop's enquiry to the entire province, within two years after the above canon was made, and therefore may be fairly taken as an interpretation of it. " 2. Item. — Doth your minister admit any to be godfathers who have not received the Holy Com- munion?" — Articles of Enquiry at Visitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1618. "Doth your minister admit any father to be godfather to his own child, or such as have not received the Holy Communion ?" — Articles of Enquiry at Visitation of the Bishop of Lincoln, 1635. 34 dissenters' baptisms ' ' Hath he (the minister) admitted any to answer as godfather or godmother, any parents, or such as have not received the Holy Communion ?" — Articles of Enquiry at Visitation of the Archdeacon of Norwich, 1638. " Have any been admitted for sponsors at bap- tism who have not first received the Communion ?" — Articles of Enquiry at Visitation of the Bishop of Winchester, 1639. The next preceding question being '* Whether all persons of fit age do receive the Communion ?" " Doth he (your minister) admit such to be a godfather or godmother, who are either one of the parents of the child, or who have not themselves received the Holy Communion?" — Articles of Enquiry at the Visitation of the Bishop of Ely, 1670. The same appears in the Articles of Enquiry at the Visitation of the Archdeacon of Middlesex, 1660, and also of the Archdeacon of St. Albans, 1716, (which are to be found in the Library of the British Museum, as also are the others to which I have referred.) From all of which I argue, that it evi- dently appears to be the intention of the Church, in the 29th canon, to exclude from the spon- sorial office children,] not as children, but as non- AND CHURCH BURIALS. 35 communicants; to which conclusion also the Latin version of the canon itself would lead us : — " Parentes librorum suorum baptismate inter- esse non impellentur, neque eisdem etiam per- mittetur pro propriis infantibus ad sacrum fontem susceptorum loco respondere. Praeterea nulli sus- ceptori aut susceptrici licitum erit aliis verbis in respondendouti, quamqusein libro publicse liturgice hanc in partem sunt prsescripta — nee quisquam ad officium susceptoris vel susceptricis pro parvulis baptizandis vel confirmandis admittetur qui coence dominiccB particeps nondum extiterit." — Wilkins's Concilia, iv. 384; and Sparrow's Collection*. And this conclusion, that the Church intended to exclude from the sponsorial office all persons who were not Communicants, and mentioned children in the title of her canon, simply, because they alone, according to her discipline, could come under the description of persons who are mentioned in the canon; (for they alone, as we have already pointed out, can canonically defer Communicating, and no one may leave off the practice ;) — this conclusion is strongly borne out by a reference to the discipline of the early Church upon this matter : — " The only persons whom the ancients excluded from this office (the sponsorial,) were catechu- mens, energumens, heretics, and penitents, that * Bishop Gibson [Codex, p. 363,) refers to the latter clause of this canon thus — " Nor any to be Godfather before receiving the Communion." 36 dissenters' baptisms is, persons who were yet never in full Communion ivith the Church, as being themselves unbaptized ; or else such as had forfeited the privileges of their Baptism and Church Communion by their errors, or crimeSj or incapacity to assist others, who needed assistance themselves. And by some canons per- sons who were never confirmed, were excluded from being sponsors, both in baptism and confirmation." Bingham's Antiq., B. xi., ch. viii., sect. 10. I have been led into this somewhat lengthy, but necessary digression, not in order to support a theory, but to vindicate the Church of England from charges which are made against her by her adversaries, and to point out a remedy — her own remedy it is — for the enormous and most appalling evils which at present exist in our sponsorial system. If no sponsor were admitted at the font but such as had received the Holy Communion, and no one, of course, admitted who did not con- tinue to receive it, (such being either under penance, or under the greater excommunication, whether for other crimes, or for neglect of the ordinance itself*,) it must be evident to all, that not only would our reproach utterly be put away, but that an ever- growing evil would be stopped ; and to those, who view things with the eye of faith, the truth must be as clear as is the sun in heaven, that the Church's integrity and her holiness would be restored, for God's blessing would undoubtedly be * See Appendix, Note D. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 37 upon her. This, it has been pointed out I think with sufficient clearness is a part of the Church's own sponsorial discipline, and to act upon it would be to do no more than to obey her own most solemn injunctions; doubtless, therefore, it is the duty of every clergyman to do so ; — nor does it, even now, present difficulties absolutely insurmountable *. But we have already seen that the effect of Sir John Nicholl's decision has been to render those difficulties so great, that they are well-nigh suffi- cient to scare the most faithful, zealous, and deter- mined clergyman, while the majority of characters, being ill adapted to contest without contention, and to a firm unwavering, unhesitating course, amid conflicting evils,, are at once overawed by the pro- spect which is presented to them, and venture not to oppose the mischief they deplore. I have thus, I trust, sufficiently cleared myself, and the many who think with me, from the charge which might, nay, actually is, made against us, of a lack of charity, perhaps a lack of wisdom, in opening again what appears to some persons a mere theoretical dispute, which (though it might be not very properly) has so long, in a manner, been set at rest; and thus, having pointed out the great evils, with reference both to God and man, which Sir John Nicholl's " determination of the question " has created, and having also shown that * I have been informed that in one parish in Essex, con- taining from two to three thousand persons, this rule as to sponsors is fully carried out. 38 dissenters' baptisms he had no competency of authority to bind the Church at large, I proceed to examine, briefly, the grounds on which his "Judgment" was pro- nounced, — to try whether, as an opinion, it is worthy of the deference it has received. After stating the facts of the case which had been brought before him, Sir John Nicholl pro- ceeds to comment upon the 68th canon of 1603, which forbids clergymen to refuse to Bury any persons but those who have died under sentence of the greater excommunication, concerning which he tells us, that perhaps it has been rightly argued — "That by the general description, 'persons,' is here to be understood Christian persons, and there- fore, that where application was made for the Burial of any persons who might not be considered as Christians, they did not come within the description of the canon." P. 8. Thus far I entirely agree with him, and should be content to try the issue upon these grounds. He proceeds, however, to enlighten us upon the Rubric, which is prefixed to the Burial Office, and which forbids that Office to be used for any who die unbaptized, or excommunicated, or sui- cides. And after observing that, ' c These directions contained in the Rubric are clearly of binding obligation and authority. Questions indeed have been raised respecting the canons of 1603, which were never confirmed by Parliament, whether they do in certain instances, and proprio vigor e, bind the AND CHURCH BURIALS. 39 laity." (And pray why not them as much as the clergy ?) " But the Book of Common Prayer, and therefore the Rubric contained in the Book of Common Prayer, has been confirmed by Parlia- ment." P. 8. — " The Rubric, then, or the directions of the Book of Common Prayer, form part of the statute law of the land." P. 9.— — He concludes that, " The question is, whether this infant, baptized with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by a dis- senting minister, who is pleade^ to have qualified himself according to the regulations of the Tole- ration Act (!), did die unbaptized, according to the true meaning of the Rubric. If the child died unbaptized, the minister was not only justified, but it was his duty, and he was enjoined by law, not to perform the service. If the child did not die unbaptized, then he has violated the canon, by a refusal neither justified by any exception contained in the canon itself expressly, nor by any subsequent law." P. 10. Indeed ! — This certainly makes the case as simple as possible ! But I fear that it will appear presently that there are other questions to be dis- cussed, relating to the bearing of this Rubric upon the case before us, than the validity of a baptism with water, in the name of the Trinity, and by a dissenting minister who is pleaded to have qualified himself, (qualified himself! most expressive, by the 40 dissenters' baptisms way!!!) according to the regulations of the Tole- ration Act*! ! ! But to proceed : having thus, as he supposes, reduced the question to a simple form, he goes on to explain the meaning of the term " unbaptized " in the Rubric, which he rightly remarks is to be ascertained, " First, by considering the words in their plain meaning and general sense, unconnected with the law; and, in the next place, by examining whether any special meaning can be affixed to the words, when connected with the law, either in its context or in its history." The plain and simple import of the term, he says, is, " A person not baptized at all — not initiated into the Christian Church." P. 11. And then he proceeds — " In the common use of language, it may be said that this "person, A., was baptized according to the form of the Romish Church ; that another person, B., was baptized according to the form of the Greek Church; that another person, C, was baptized ac- cording to the form of the Presbyterian Church; that another person was baptized according to the form used among the Calvinistic Independents ; and that another person was baptized according to the form used by the Church of England; but it could not be said of any of those persons that they were * It is, indeed, singular, that the Toleration Act should he made an element in the question of the validity of a baptism. As if that Act of Parliament could modify the sacraments of the Gospel! The idea is impious! AND CHURCH BURIALS. 41 unbaptized; each had been admitted into the Chris- tian Church in a particular form." — p. 11. Can these have been the words of " The Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury " ? It is indeed too true ! Alas ! for the Church of Eng- land, what danger has she seen! Was Sir John Nicholl a " Calvinistic Independent"? or did he belong to "the Presbyterian Church " ? Was it with him no oft-repeated creed that God's Church is "Holy," "One," "Catholic," "Apostolic"? How was it that, in the responsible office which he held, the ninth and tenth Canons should be utterly lost sight of? * Archdeacon Daubeny rejoiced that " the publication of the Judgment had put it in the power of every duly-informed person to examine the strength of the ground on which that Judgment was made to standf ;" but without such an exami- nation, we have already seen enough to convince every Catholic Christian, though only just learned sufficiently to understand the Creed which he repeats, that this Judgment, which we are considering, (whatever be its own intrinsic merits,) is, as Sw John Nicholl' s opinio?!, unworthy of the deference which has been paid to it ; for any opinion on theo- logical subjects must be received with caution, nay, surely, with hesitation and suspicion, when we know that it proceeds from one who is ill-qualified to give it, as being ignorant of the first principles of the Catholic faith j. * Appendix, Note E. f Examination, p. 1. { Appendix, Note F. D 42 dissenters' baptisms But let us advance a little further, lest it should be thought that I am acting unjustly to one who, for many reasons, was so deservedly respected. Having decided, as we have already seen, that persons baptized by "the Romish Church," by " the Greek Church," by " the Presbyterian Church," by " the Calvinistic Independents," and by "the Church of England," "had each been admitted into the Christian Church, in a particular form,''' Sir John Nicholl proceeds to inquire whe- ther any modification of the general meaning of the term " unbaptized," is furnished by its context in the Rubric. In order to ascertain this, he enters into a disquisition upon the term " Excommunica- tion*;" and after informing us, most truly, that " in the meaning of the law of the English Church" (why not of the whole Church Catholic ?) "it is not only an expulsion from the Church of England, but from the Christian Church generally "; and that the ecclesiastical law excommunicates " Papists, Presbyterians, and Dissenters of all kinds from the Church of England;" and that the thirty-third Article, which pronounces that an excommunicated person is no longer to be considered as a Christian, no longer to be considered as a member of the Christian Church universal, "having been con- firmed by Act of Parliament," an excommunication by this country (!) — though "a foreign country could not indeed notice it(!)" for that " the discipline of * Pp. 11-13. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 43 the Church, and its punishment by excommunica- tion, only extend to this country!" (alas! are we then no longer members of the Catholic Church ?) — " is binding upon all Her Majesty's subjects, whether of the Church of England, or whether dissenting from that Church, either as Papists, or as any other description of Dissenters"; and that, therefore, they " are bound to consider an excommunicated person as an heathen and a publican," be the person him- self of the Church of England, or be he of any other class or sect !" He concludes from this most learned ! most logical ! most luminous ! exposition of the term, that "Taking the context of the law, putting unbaptized persons in association with ex- communicated persons, and with suicides/' (of whom he has rightly concluded, that " having died in the commission of mortal sin, they have un- christianised themselves thereby,") "both of whom are considered as no longer Christians, it leads to the same construction as the general import of the words, namely, that Burial is to be refused to those who are not Christians at all, and not to those who are baptised according to the forms of any particu- lar church." — p. 13. Now, we have already seen, that by the term «.' particular churches," Sir John Nicholl does not mean only particular branches of the " one" " Ca- tholic" "Apostolic Church;" but includes, also, under this description, all those self-formed, inde- pendent, schismatical, and heretical communities, D 2 44 dissenters' baptisms which the tenth Canon of 1603 pronounces to be "pretended Churches ;" and, therefore, at this point of the " Judgment," we may consider the case de- cided, — and that, upon premises directly at variance with the laws and teaching of that branch of the Church Catholic, over whose highest Court of Ec- clesiastical Judicature he most unfortunately pre- sided. In truth, any one who carefully reads the entire "Judgment," cannot fail to perceive that Sir John Nicholl himself considered that the case became clear as the day^ and was perfectly deter- mined by the luminous (!) reasoning which has already been laid before my readers ; and that the remaining five-and-thirty weary pages were only intended by him as an elucidation of the decision to others, and not by any means to set forward the reasons on which that decision was grounded. It would be wasting the time of my readers, and my own, were I to follow out the " Judgment " further ; as we have already seen that not only does it lay no binding obligation upon the clergy, but also that, as an opinion, it is founded upon false principles, and therefore is unworthy of any defer- ence. There will, moreover, be ample opportunity of exposing the unguarded statements, shallow in- formation, and false reasoning of Sir John Nicholl, in the course of our inquiry into the grounds on which the matter is rightly to be determined. I will now only further observe that he seems to deoend for the support of his decision mainly on AND CHURCH BURIALS. 45 the question of lay baptism, — upon which, we shall presently perceive, this matter does not depend, (though, no doubt, it is intimately connected with itj; for, if the dispute concerning the validity of lay baptisms be decided in the negative, of course Sir John Nicholl's Judgment must be set aside ; but if that dispute be decided in the affirmative, it by no means follows that his Judgment is confirmed. However, in running over the evidence concerning the validity of lay baptism, he touches the question more as an advocate than a Judge. He dwells most fully and properly upon all the evidence which could be collected in its favour; but passes over very slightly the evidence against it. Throughout the entire decision of the Judge, it is easy to discern, not only the ignorance, but the prejudices and incli- nations of the man, and, in parts, he cannot even avoid giving expression to them in words. He is quite angry at anything which militates against his opinion. His misstatement of facts is most gross; for instance, the important Canon of Convoc, 1575, to which I have before alluded, and which we shall have occasion to notice more fully hereafter, he makes nothing of; greatly misquoting it ; pronounc- ing that " it appears not to have been published and circulated; it remained in manuscript; it had no authority, not appearing to have been even con- firmed by the Crown ;" which allegations will be shown hereafter to be utterly false. In his notice of Wheatley, to take another instance, he is alike 46 dissenters' baptisms unfair : he misrepresents his argument, saying that "he deals in nothing but assertion, and brings for- ward no authority," — an accusation, which, it is to be hoped, the Judge never would have made, if he had read that part of Wheatley which relates to ' ' the Office for the administration of Private Baptism," as well as that which relates to " the Burial Service*." But Sir John Nicholl does not, after all, venture to rest the defence of his decision only on the ques- tion of the validity of lay baptism, but draws in motives of kindness, fairness, and expediency (all, be it remarked, on one side of the question,) to his aid, — and evidently conscious that all are not suffi- cient for his purpose, he boldly falls back upon his old position, and calls in the Act of Toleration to make dissenting ministers " lawful Ministers ac- cording to the Rubric," thus confounding the " law of the Land" with " the law of the Church ;" — he misquotes an Act of James I. to prove that some classes of Dissenters are compelled to be Buried by the clergy, — forgetful also that stubborn facts stand in evidence against the ultimate deduction which he would draw from his argument, and that though, as he informs us, that " the Toleration Act which allows Protestant Dissenters to have separate places of worship, does not require them to have separate places of burial, " all the older dissent- ing meeting-houses, erected about and near the time of the Toleration Act, have their own burial-ground * Wheatlky On the Common Prayer. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 47 annexed. But I will leave Sir John Nicholl for the present, and as briefly as possible endeavour to investigate the grounds on which the question should be determined : — and for this purpose let us examine the Rubric which is placed at the head of the Burial Service. The Rubric runs thus : " Here is to be noted that the Office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or ex- communicate, or have laid violent hands on them- selves." The last case of prohibition is, of course, beside the mark in the present inquiry ; the matter to be decided is, whether the persons of which we speak do, or do not, come under the Church's defi- nition of those who die unbaptized or excommunicate. Before, however, entering upon this question it is necessary to mark one exception which might otherwise create some confusion. It is possible that, from circumstances either of error, ignorance, or connivance, a person who had never received Baptism might die in full communion with the visible Church. Such a case is not, I think, pro- vided for by the Rubric, though it would seem, at first sight, to come under the exceptions mentioned. When a person is received into full communion with the Church, his baptism, whether rightly or wrongly,, is acknowledged. He is recognized as a " brother" by the Church at large, as " a very mem- ber incorporate of Christ's mystical body." As such he is, of course, entitled to all the privileges of Church communion, and to Burial among the 48 dissenters' baptisms rest ; nor can he be deprived of this privilege but by excommunication, that is, by being put out of the communion into which, whether rightly or not, he has been admitted. I do not indeed mean to contend that St. Cyprian was right in deciding (as he is said to have done), that a person who by some mistake had been admitted to the Lord's Supper before Bap- tism, was not afterwards to be Baptized, inasmuch as " the lesser sacrament was included in the greater." It might, perhaps, have been more justly argued that as Christ's institution had not been complied with in the one case, there was, at any rate, no assurance of the communication of His grace in the other. But be this as it may, a person once admitted to communion with the visible Church, cannot be deprived of any of the privileges of that communion but by a, sentence of excommunication by the Bishop, and therefore he cannot, unless under such sentence, be refused a Christian Burial. This, then, being premised, we have next to consider whether persons baptized by dissenting preachers, and not subsequently received into full communion with the Church, do or do not come under the description of persons of which the Church speaks in the above-mentioned Rubric, as unbaptized or excommunicate. Now it is to be observed that the baptism here spoken of, viz., baptism by what are called dissent- ing ministers, may be considered in one point of view simply as lay baptism, and in another also as AND CHURCH BURIALS. 49 heretical baptism; lay baptism it is, as being minis- tered by persons wbo have not received Episcopal Ordination ; and heretical baptism, as being adminis- tered in a community, which, putting aside any other errors which it may entertain, is guilty of a heresy, common to all the dissenting bodies in this country, the denial of a substantive article of the Creed, "owe," "holy," "Catholic" and "Apostolic Church*." Under each of these points of view I would successively consider it, in order to ascertain whether persons so baptized, and not, as I have before mentioned, afterward received into commu- nion with the Church, come under the exception mentioned in the Rubric, First, then, we have to inquire what is the judg- ment of the Church of England with respect to the validity of lay baptism. And here I am well aware of the difficulties with which we shall have to contend. It is well known that our Church has never directly pronounced any decided judgment upon this subject ; that her opinion is to be drawn from the evidence of indirect testimony. Hence since such men as Hooker and Bingham have pronounced in favour of these baptisms, it is usually supposed., in our day, that the judgment of the Church of Eng- * It is a very common thing to hear the Dissenters called schismatics ; they are rather heretics. " Schism" is within the Church, anything without the Church is heresy. Heresies relate to faith, schisms merely to discipline. See Bingham, Sch. Hist, of Lay Baptism, ch. i., sect. 20. See Appendix, Note F. 50 dissenters' baptisms land is the same. This, I proceed to show, is not the case ; and although it must be allowed that the testimony of Hooker and others presents many dif- ficulties, I shall be able to point out, in the proper place, certain considerations which will, I think, explain them. As for the testimony of Bingham, I believe that few persons will consider it unanswer- able, who will be at the pains to study that of his opponents. There has been, I believe, an instance almost in our own day, of truth being smothered for many years, and hunted into obscurity, by error backed by the authority of a name. The undula- tory theory of light, when first revived by Dr. Young, was, if I mistake not, laughed out of notice by a very silly paper, published in the Edinburgh Review, and attributed to Lord Brougham*. In like manner (to compare great men with small) the de- servedly high authority of Mr. Bingham's name has caused the arguments of his opponents to be almost altogether overlooked. Still I have no hesitation in saying that if any one wishes to become really ac- quainted with the judgment, both of the Church of England now and of the early Church, upon this subject, they cannot do better than study Law- rence's Lay Baptism, Invalid ; and I think that upon an examination of the entire controversy, they will come to Mr. Lawrence's conclusion. I say not this without high authority to support me. Dr. Water- land, in his first letter on lay baptism, writes : — * Edinburgh Review, No. II., Arts. XVII. and XVIII, AND CHURCH BURIALS. 51 "I am not at all surprised at Mr. Kelsall's judgment on the case. It is not very long since that I myself was of the same opinion,, being led to it, as I suppose he may, partly by the good nature of it, and partly by the authority of great names, as the Bishops of Sarum and Oxford, and besides some passages of antiquity not well under- stood; and I was pleased, I confess, to see all, as I thought, confirmed by Mr. Bingham's Scholastic History of Lay Baptism. But second thoughts, and further views, have given a turn to my judgment, and robbed me of a pleasing error, as I must now call it, which I was much inclined to embrace for truth, and could yet wish that it were so. The ar- guments and scruples mentioned in your letter have all., besides many more, been considered, can- vassed, answered, carefully, solidly, and in my humble opinion, fully and completely. If Mr. Kel- sall had seen Mr. Lawrence's answer to Mr. Bing- ham, I hardly think he could despise that gentle- man's learning or judgment. But I must have a care of being too positive, lest T should seem too far to trust my own, or to pay too little deference to his, which I have a great value and veneration for." — Waterland's Works. Van Mildert'sed., vol. x., P . i. With such a testimony to support me — a testi- mony which, as it will presently appear, is coinci- dent with that of, at least, many of our greatest divines — I may venture., I trust, without incurring a charge of presumption, to doubt the authority of 52 dissenters' baptisms Hooker, Bingham, and Kennet, and some others upon this subject, and enter upon an examination of the question. It is a well known fact that, previous to the Reformation, the Church of England, following the example of the Church of Rome, permitted lay baptism, and even baptism by women, when a child was in danger of immediate death. This practice had crept into the Western Church by little and little, and grown up with the progress of defective views concerning the Christian sacraments. As the dogma of the ''opus operatum" came into vogue, this practice, as a consequence, came into vogue with it. It was confessed by all that the commission to Baptize was given by Christ to the Apostles — that it was part of the apostolic office, to be delegated by them, in case of necessity, to infe- rior ministers. Thus Ignatius testifies ovk e%ov e CHURCH BURIALS. 63 of the others. Why then was it not in this copy ? Why had it disappeared from among the Acts of this Convocation ? The reason is well known ; viz , because it ivas rejected by the Crown. Hence it is evident that the date of this MS. is subsequent to the reference of these Articles to the Queen, and the presence of the 12th Article in such a document, (from which the 15th Article, as being disap- proved by the Crown, was excluded,) is strong evi- dence in its favour, that there was no such reason for its exclusion, — that, in truth, the Crown did not reject it. In fact, however, an examination of the Article itself would explain all the difficulties which have been started concerning it, even if they were all true, which we have seen they are not. First, we must observe that this Article is not the enactment of a new law ; but only the declara- tion of one already existing. It is, in fact, only an explanatory Article, " Whereas some ambiguity and doubt has arisen . . . It is now by the said Arch- bishop and Bishops expounded and resolved." It had been pronounced by the Church in her "Articles of Religion," (as we have seen above,) that the sacraments were only to be administered by men Episcopally Ordained; but partly from the inertia of long-established custom, partly from the retention of an ambiguously worded Rubric, some were perplexed with doubts as to whether this general decision of the Church applied to the G4 DISSENTERS' BAPTISMS individual and special case of Private Baptism to be administered in circumstances of extremity. The Article, therefore, as its own words express, was merely explanatory, and was enacted to set these temporary doubts at rest, by declaring that the law for the administration of sacraments, as pro- pounded in " The Articles of Religion," did extend even to this extreme case ; and surely it might well be thought sufficient for such an explanatory Article, to publish it, immediately, " in writing " in every parish church in every diocese, — which was the mode for its circulation ordained by the Article itself, — and of which there is not a shadow of proof that it was omitted to be done. Again, though we have seen that there is no reason whatever for supposing that the Queen's sanction was not given to this 12th Article, still, putting aside the binding nature of a synodal deci- sion, in foro conscientice, though destitute of any lay sanction, however exalted, — still, I say, the Article itself proclaims its own civil authority, — ' ' Forasmuch as by the Book of Common Prayer, allowed by statute, the Bishop of the diocese is to resolve and expound all such doubts as shall arise concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in the said book ; it is now by the said Archbishop, and Bishops, expounded and resolved, and every of them doth expound and resolve:" so that, beside the spiritual authority which every orthodox theologian must recognise in this AND CHURCH BURIALS. 65 Article, whether confirmed by the Crown or not, it has also a civil authority given to it by " Statute,'' and rendering it unnecessary, in point of law, for it to receive any further civil sanction, even if (which we have seen above is by no means to be con- cluded) such sanction were not received by it, toge- ther with thirteen other Articles of that Convocation. In very truth, the Article, if duly examined, will be seen to be a unanimous synodical determina- tion of a doubt, by the successors of the Apostles in the province of Canterbury; and a command from them, in their synodical capacity, to the same succes- sors of the Apostles, in their character of individual Bishops, to publish this exposition of the said doubt in their several dioceses; together xoith a claim of civil authority, given to them by the Statute Law of Eng- land, to enforce obedience to their decision. And, while all those who consider the matter in a theolo- gical point of view will scarcely fail to perceive an analogy to the Synod at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), no catholic-minded Christian will dare to call in ques- tion the authority of such synodical decree; and the mere establishment man must recognise it as obliga- tory, even upon the defective theory which he holds, as having the sanction of the laiv*. Thus far for the authenticity and authority of this Article, which I contend to be unimpeachable; but as some have sought to invalidate its testimony against lay baptism, by a reference to the proceed - * Compare Acts xvi. 4, 5. 66 dissenters' baptisms ings of the Hampton Court Conference, we must turn our attention, for a moment, to those proceed- ings, before we advance any further with the Article itself. It is well known that upon the accession of James the First to the throne of England, the King, being anxious to heal the divisions which he found in our Church, (probably thinking them greater than they really were, and not improbably recog- nising a force and truthfulness in some of the com- plaints of the Puritan divines, from the peculiar circumstances of his own education.) assembled several of the Bishops and other clergy to a confer- ence before his Majesty in person, at his palace at Hampton. This was in the year 1603, twenty- eight years after the enactment of the above Article. The ambiguous Rubric, which the Article of 1575 was intended to expound, had still been left unaltered; and, notwithstanding the exposition given by that Article, and the inhibition which accompanied it, it is not improbable that the prac- tice was by some schismatically continued. Hence it was one of the great complaints against the Book of Common Prayer that it permitted, if not encou- raged, baptism by midwives and other persons not in Holy Orders ; and though, as we have seen, the Church had synodically inhibited it, it is not impro- bable that some of the present Bishops did not dis- courage it with that hearty good-will with which AND CHURCH BURIALS. 67 their opponents would have wished it to be dis- couraged ; for while, in obedience to the Church's decision, it was their Lordships' duty to forbid the practice, still many of them did not hold, as it was contended by the objectors at the Conference, that the rite was absolutely invalid. An account of the dispute upon this point, I extract from " The Sum and Substance of the Conference which it pleased his Excellent Majestie to have with the Lords Bishops, and others of his Clergie (at which the most of the Lords of the Councell were present) in his Majestie's Privy Cham- ber at Hampton Court, January 14, 1603, con- tracted by William Barlow, Doctor of Divinity, and Dean of Chester. Whereunto are added some copies (scattered abroad) unsavory and untrue." — Lond. 1604. Reprinted 1638. " In the third place, the Lord Archbishop* pro- ceeded to speak of private baptism, showing His Majestie that the administration of baptism by women and lay persons was not allowed in the practice of the Church, but enquired of by the Bishoppes in their visitations, and censured, neither doe the wordes in the booke inferre any such meaning, — whereunto the King excepted, urging and pressing the wordes of the booke, that they could not but intend a permis- sion and suffering of women and private persons to baptize. Here the Bishoppe of Worcester^ said that, indeed the wordes were doubtful, and might * Whitgift. f Babington. 68 dissenters' baptisms bee pressed to that meaning ; but yet it seemed by the contrarie practice of our Church {censuring women in this case J that the compilers of the booke did not so intend them, and yet propounded them ambiguously, because otherwise perhaps the booke would not have then passed in Parliament (and for this conjecture, as I remember, he cited the testi- mony of my Lord Archbishop of York*). Whereunto the Bishoppe of Londonf replyed, that those learned and reverend men, who framed the Booke of Com- mon Prayer, intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any, but did indeede by those wordes intend a permission of private persons to baptize, in case of necessity, whereof their letters were witnesses, some partes whereof he then read, and withal de- clared that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church; urging to that purpose, both Actes 2, where 3000 were baptized in one day, for which the Apostles alone to do was impossible, at least, improbable; and besides the Apostles, there were then no Bishoppes or priests. And also the authoritie of Tertullian, and Saint Ambrose, in the fourth to the Ephesians, plaine in that point ; laying also open the absurdities and impieties of their opi- nion who thinke there is no necessitie of baptisme, which worde necessitie he so pressed, not as if God without baptisme could not save the child; but the case put, that the state of the infant, dying unbap- tized, being uncertaine, and to God only knowne, * Hut ton. f Bancroft. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 69 but if it dye baptized, there is an evident assurance that it is saved, who is hee, that having any reli- gion in him, would not speedily, by any meanes, procure his child to be baptized, and rather ground his action upon Christ's promise, than his omission thereof upon God's secret judgement? His Ma- jestie replyed: first to that place of the Actes, that it was an acte extraordinary, neither is it sound reasoning from thinges done before a Church be settled and grounded, unto those which are to be performed in a Church stablished and flourishing. That hee also maintained the necessitie of baptisme, and always thought that place of St. John ' Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, &c.,' was ment of the sacrament of baptisme ; and that he had so deferred it against some ministers in Scotland; and it may seem strange to you, my Lords, saith his Majestic, that I, who now think that you in England give too much to baptisme, did fourteen monthes ago, in Scotland, argue with my divines there, for ascribing too little to that holy sacrament; insomuch, that a pert minister asked me if I thought baptisme so necessary, that if it were omitted, the child should be damned ? I answered him, no; but if you being called to baptize a child, though privately, should refuse to come, I think you shall be damned. Ci But this necessitie of baptisme, his Majestie so expounded, that it was necessary to be had where it might lawfully be had, id est, ministered by law- ful ministers, by whom alone, and by no private 70 dissenters' baptisms person, he thought it might, in any case, be admi- nistered ; and yet utterly disliked all rebaptization, although either women or laikes had baptized. " Here the Bishop of Winchester* spoke very learnedly and earnestly on that point, affirming that the denying of private persons in cases of necessitie to baptize, was to crosse all antiquitie, seeing that it had been the ancient and common practice of the Church, when ministers at such times could not be got ; and that it was also a rule agreed upon among divines, that the minister is not of the essence of the sacrament. His Majestie answered, though he be not of the essence of the sacrament, yet is he of the essence of the right and lawful minister of the sacrament, taking for his ground the commission of Christ to his disciples, (Matthew xxviii. 20), 'Go preach and baptize/ " The issue was a consultation whether into the Rubrike of private baptisme, which leaves it indif- ferent to all, laikes or clergie, the wordes curate or lawful minister, might not be inserted ? which was not so much stuck at by the Bishops." — Barlow, p. 14. Now concerning these proceedings, I must remark they may be valuable as a testimony ; but as an au- thority, they are of no value at all. A " Conference" is not a " Synod;" and its conclusions, at the utmost, can be a mere expression of opinion. It is very true that the opinions here set forth are, for the most * Bilson. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 71 part, the opinions of Bishops, and therefore worthy of all respect ; but then they are the opinions of individual Bishops, and that (I think it will be granted) more in their individual, than in their episcopal and apostolic character. Be this, how- ever, as it may, it certainly will not be contended that the decision of this " Conference," whatsoever that decision might be, could have anything like an equal importance, weight, and authority with the solemn synodical decision above considered; and if the resultive decision could not have that weight, though to that decision the Bishops who were pre- sent agreed, surely it will not be contended that an equal deference is due to the testimony and opinions of the individual prelates assembled. Let us, however, examine briefly what this tes- timony was. First, then, we have the testimony of Archbishop Whitgift himself to a matter of fact, " That the administration of baptism by women and lay persons was not allowed in the practice of the Church, but inquired of by the Bishoppes in their visitations, and censured. ,y Surely, here is a valu- able testimony to the practice and doctrine of the Church, and a testimony it is, not the less forcible because indirect, to the authority and promulgation of the Article of 1575, which we have considered above ; and when we remember that the Article was enacted to explain a Rubric which in itself (as the king contended and Bishop Babington admitted,) was certainly ambiguous, and then turn our atten- 72 dissenters' baptisms tion to Whitgift's further testimony, " Neither doe the wordes in the booke inferre any such meaning, ' and call to mind, at the same time, the fact that when the Article was agreed upon Whitgift was the Prolocutor of the Lower House, — and also that his own copy of the canons of that Convocation is ex- tant, endorsed with his own hand, and containing this article among the rest — surely we shall not fail to perceive a coincidence which is singularly striking, — a mutual relation of circumstances and testimony which is of no slight importance in the determination of the question before us. Bishop Babington gave testimony as to the meaning of the Rubric, and the practice of the Church, coincident with the testimony of Whitgift, and quoted Archbishop Hutton in support of it. Bishop Bancroft contended that the Rubric was not intended " by those who framed the Booke of Common Prayer,'* to be ambiguous, but that it was intended by them to permit private baptism by lay persons, in cases of necessity, " whereof their letters were witnesses" some partes whereof he then read; and he defended the practice with arguments of not so great weight but that I may leave " his Majestie" to answer them, just only reminding the disputants (in the words of Mr. Lawrence), that tr Bishops, in our day, manage to Confirm many hundred persons in a few hours" (and I may add that in our day, also, the Bishops in India Baptize many hundred persons in the same space of time), and throwing out for AND CHURCH BURIALS. 73 their re-consideration the question whether, as Bishop Bancroft asserts, there were " no priests" to assist the Apostles, while the seventy elders were present. Let it, however, be remarked, — for this is more to our purpose, — that in this testimony of Bishop Bancroft there is not one word, either expressed or implied, concerning the Xllth Article of the Con- vocation of 1575, or concerning the then custom of the Church. He only defends the persons " who framed the Book of Common Prayer," from what he considered an imputation of duplicity ; by showing that their intention (or that, at any rate, of some of them, — for be it remarked, that he appeals to no public decision, but only to private lette?*s,) was to permit lay baptism in cases of necessity : and then states his own opinion that they were right. There is no evidence, that I know of, that the letters which Bancroft refers to are not those of the compilers of King Edward's first Prayer Book, by whom the Rubric may be said to have been intro- duced, and who are well known at that time to have been favourable to this practice ; but even if these letters bear testimony to th3 sentiments of our Reformers at the time of the publication of Edward's second Prayer Book, or of its republication under Elizabeth, they do not invalidate that solemn decision of Convocation which was subsequently made upon the subject. Bishop Bilson does not give any evidence con- cerning the custom or doctrine of the Church at F 74 DTSSENTERS' BAPTISMS that time : he is stated only to have delivered his opinion that lay baptism, in cases of necessity, was the practice of the ancient Church, and to have " spoken very learnedly and earnestly" against rebaptization in such a case. The result of the conference upon the subject was the consent of the Bishops, that, to take away all appearance of ambi- guity, the old Rubric should be altered, and " the wordes curate or lawful minister inserted ;" and this alteration, we know, was made and confirmed by Convocation. So that, after all, the Hampton Court Conference, instead of yielding testimony in favour of lay baptism, as it is often asserted to do, does, we see, when duly examined, fur- nish the most convincing evidence that it was con- trary to the doctrine and custom of the Church*. I do not mean to contend that all those among the Bishops who gave testimony at this " Confer- ence" that the Church of England forbade the prac- tice of lay baptism, and consented to the alteration of the Rubric to make her prohibition more evident — I do not mean to contend that they all considered such baptism invalid: for this they certainly did not: but strenuously contended against the iteration of the rite, in such cases ; as did even King James him- * Bishop Gibson writes thus of the result of this conference. " Accordingly in the Common Prayer which was set forth the same year, the alterations were printed in the Rubric as I have noted them before ; and other expressions in other parts of the service which seemed before to admit of lay baptism, were so turned as expressly to exclude it." — Codex, i. 369. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 75 self. Arguments in favour of its validity — except that of custom and antiquity, — they had none that deserved the name : and it has been truly observed by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, that " when an opinion is offered only by the hand of custom, it is com- monly a sign of a bad cause, and that there is nothing else to be said for it*." Yet had custom, long established, such a hold upon the minds of those good and great men, that they did not perceive the inconsistency into which they were drawn. Thus Whitgift, in his controversies with Cartwright, long before this " Conference," and previously, too, to the passing of the canon of 1575, bore witness to the custom and doctrine of the Church against lay baptism, but yet defended the practice. In his Answer to the Admonition to Parliament, we find the following : — Adm. " The third general reason is this, Then by ministers only : Now by midwifes and deacons equally. Ans. " That then the Sacraments were ministered only by ministers you alledge the 28th of Matthew, which place is answered before. Likewise 1 Corin- thians 4, ' Let a man so thinke of us as of the ministers of Christ, and disposers of the misteries of God.' Here is not one word for your purpose, except you take misteries for sacramentes, which if you do, you are much deceived, for by the word misteries here, he understandeth the word of God, * Ductor. Dub., p. 639. F 2 76 dissenters' baptisms and the gospell of Christ, as all learned writers do interpret it. We read in the eight of the Acts that Philip being a deacon, did baptize ; we read also that Moses' wife did circumcise. But where doth this Church of England allow any woman to baptize, or deacon to celebrate the Lord's Supper; and if it did, the dignitie of the Sacramentes doe not depende upon the man, be he minister or not minister, be he good or evil.' — (Whitgift's Answer to ' The Admonition to Parliament,' Ed. 1573, p. 185.) Again : " You say women that may not speak in the congregation, may yet in tyme of necessitie minister the Sacramente of Baptisme, and that in a private house, and to prove the women may not speak in the congregation, you quote 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2. Whereas you should rather have proved that women may not in time of necessitie minister baptisme, for that is the question and not the other. But hereof I have also spoken my opinion before : women may speak'in the congrega- tion if necessary occasion doe require, as Maister Calvin teacheth in his Institutions, ch. 13, sect. 32. {Answer to Admonition.) Again : from his ' Defence of Answer, fyc' (T.C.) " But some will say that the baptisme of women is not commanded by law : if it be not, why do you suffer it, and wherefore are the children so bap- tized accordingly? Common experience teacheth that it is used almost in all places, and few speak against it : and this I am sure of, that when it was put in the AND CHURCH BURIALS. 77 booke, that was the meaning of the most part that were then present^ and so it was to be understanded, as common practice without controlement doth plainly declare/' — (Whitgift.) " All these are but conjectures. Diverse things be suffered, and in many places used without controlement, which notwith- standing by no lawe be commanded. What the meaning was of those who penned the book I know not, neither as I thinke do you. And surely for common practice I can say little, but for mine own experience, this I dare affirm, that I have not known one child so baptized in places where I have had to do, no not since the beginning of the Queen's Majestie's reigne. I speak not of the thing itself, but only of your conjectures : I think if the circum- stances of the book be well considered, it will appear that the meaning is, that private baptisme is rather to be ministered by some minister (which in the time of necessity may soonest be come by) than by any woman. But in this point I submit my judge- ment to such as better know the meaning of the book (being penners thereof,) than I do!"* From which extracts we cannot fail to perceive that the Church discouraged lay-baptism in « cases of necessity,' and that she was understood to do so by one of her greatest divines, before the Convocation of 1575 ; but that, to say the least, it was not sup- posed by the very person who testified this, that such baptism was invalid. It is very singular to observe * See Appendix, Note K. 78 dissenters' baptisms the weakness of the arguments put forth, as above, by this great man against his opponent upon this sub- ject. He makes the broadest statements — very often perfectly false — such as that " All antiquity is on his side" — but his reasoning is very poor. He could reason well enough on other matters — Why not on this? — Why, but because, as it appears to me and those who think with me, he was in the wrong. The same remark is applicable to Hooker's reason- ing upon this matter. He seems often to have lost his power and acuteness when he approached even the confines of the subject. Iwill give a single instance. It is contended by those who doubt the validity of lay-baptism, that if Christ gave the commission to the Clergy only, (as almost all admit,) the rite is no sacrament if administered by laymen, being no longer Christ's perfect institution. This argument was most fairly stated by Cart- wright (though with that coarseness and want of feeling which characterized almost all the Puritan- ical writers*). He is arguing in favor of a strange notion, which it is well -known that the Puritans of that day held, that Private Baptism, not in the con- gregation, is invalid. His argument applies, how- ever, much better to the case before us. * Observable also in Travers. Thougb both these men seem distinguished by Christian mildness and refinement, when com- pared with many others of their school. It is, however, but fair to state that Hooker, in quoting Cartwright, makes the passage appear in worse taste than it really ought, by giving to it an abruptness which it has not in the original. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 79 " The substance of the sacrament doth chiefly depend on the institution of God, which is the form, and as it were the life, of the sacrament ; therefore if the whole institution of Christ be not kept it is no sacrament," from which institution " we ought not to swerve, although we know that infants should be assuredly damned without baptism." In answer to which occurs, perhaps, one of the most touching passages in the works which remain to us of his immortal opponent — a passage in which Hooker's tenderness of heart and delicacy of feeling appear more strongly than in any other with which I am acquainted, in which (and no one who is familiar with the writings and character of that saintly man can feel anything but admiration at the circumstance) he seems to lose sight of the truth of the objector's proposition, in the feelings which are excited by the manner in which it is stated : — " O Sir, you that would spurn thus at such,, as in case of so dreadful extremity, should be prostrate before your feet; you that would turn away your face from them at the hour of their most need; you that would dam up your ears, and harden your heart as iron against the unresistible cries of suppli- ants calling upon you for mercy, with terms of such invocation as that most dreadful perplexity might minister, if God, by miracle, did open the mouths of infants to express their supposed necessity, should first imagine yourself in their case,, and them in yours. This done, let their supplications proceed 80 dissenters' baptisms out of your mouth, and your answer out of theirs; would you then contentedly hear, ' My son, the rites and solemnities of baptism must be kept : we may not do ill that good may come of it ; neither are souls to be delivered from eternal death and con- demnation., by breaking orders which Christ has set?' Would you, in their case, yourself be shaken off by these answers, and not rather embrace, enclosed with both your arms, a sentence which is now no Gospel unto you, ' I will have mercy, and not sacrifice'.'' " — (Eccl. Fol., v. Lxi.) However much this reply may be admired for the feeling displayed, no one, I think, will venture to affirm that it is a satisfactory answer to Cart- wright's argument. The position which Cartwright maintained was in other words simply this, that all the virtue which the sacraments possess as instruments of salvation, they possess not of themselves, but derive entirely from Christ's institution, therefore if that institution be broken, they are no longer sacraments (in the sense the word is now used by us,^ being no longer what Christ instituted, and that, therefore, their salvatory principle is gone. The reply of Hooker, as far as argument goes, is merely begging the question. He takes for granted the saving principle would remain, though Christ's institution were broken, and that, therefore, to refuse this imperfect baptism would be to refuse salvation, (or, as other parts of his works would show that he means, the certainty of salvation); and although he argues justly in the fol- AND CHURCH BURIALS. 81 lowing section that the particular point for which Cartwright is contending — publicity of baptism — is not a necessary part of Christ's institution, still does the truth of his opponent's main position re- main untouched : and it is that only which affects our present subject. Let it not, however, be supposed by any, that I have brought forward the above reply as being the substance of Hooker's defence of his opinion. He writes forcibly upon all subjects, and upon this among the rest. But while on other matters, (in his well-authenticated books,) he seems never to be taken off his guard, on this subject he more than once is weak, and his opponents have the best of the argument. However, the opinions of Hooker upon this subject are too well known to leave any necessity that I should dwell upon them at length. As the opinions of Hooker, they certainly demand no slight degree of deference — a deference which, it is to be hoped, as such they will ever receive. But, after all, his opinion, though worthy of great estimation, is only, be it remarked, the opinion of an individual, and is by no means to be measured with the solemn synodical decisions which I have alluded to above. To him, however, on one point, I shall return presently. The next synodical act, bearing upon this im- portant point of lay baptism, was the revision of the book of Common Prayer by the Convocation, which succeeded immediately the Savoy Conference 82 dissenters' baptisms in the year 1661. The Prayer Book which was the result of this revision is that which we now use, (and which, being confirmed by Act of Parlia- ment is, let it be remembered, part of the law of the land.) Now I think we shall see, upon consi- dering the Office for Private Baptisms, in this our present Prayer Book, and comparing it with that in other Service-Books which preceded it, that, to say the least, it makes nothing against the point for which I am now contending. A different and con- trary conclusion, however, has been drawn from it j and as the argument was well stated by Sir John Nicholl, and that, with much greater fairness than is displayed in many other parts of his Judgment, I will give it at length in his own words. " The Rubric itself, as published by King James, leads to the very same conclusion : certain ques- tions are directed to be asked for the purpose of ascertaining whether the child has been already baptized ; and the questions run in this order and form. If the child were baptized by any other lawful minister, then the minister of the parish where the child was born or christened shall examine and try whether the child be lawfully baptized or no. In which case, if those that bring any child to the church do answer that the same child is already baptized, then shall the minister examine them fur- ther, saying, ' By whom was this child baptized ? Who was present when this child was baptized ? Because some things essential to this sacrament AND CHURCH BURIALS. 83 may happen to be omitted through fear or haste in such times of extremity, therefore I demand further of you, With what matter was this child baptized ? With what words was this child baptized ? And if the minister shall find by the answers of such as bring the child that all things were done as they ought to be, then shall not he christen the child again, but shall receive him as one of the flock of true Christian people.' " Now it by no means follows, from asking, f by whom was this child baptized/ or 'who was present when this child was baptized,' that the person who administers the ceremony is essential to the validity of the baptism, or that those inquiries are made for the purpose of ascertaining whether the baptism be valid or not ; for it is obvious, that it is not essential who were the persons present. Why, then, is it to be inferred as essential, who was the person by whom the ceremony was per- formed ? On the other hand, it may be extremely proper and convenient to inquire into both those circumstances, for the purpose of enabling the mini- ster more satisfactorily to ascertain whether the essentials themselves have been performed ; for if the office has been performed by a lawful minister, then there is less suspicion of irregularity or defect in the performance, and a less minute inquiry may satisfy the minister that the baptism has been pro- perly administered. Again, if the persons present at the baptism were respectable, intelligent persons. 84 dissenters' baptisms or persons who are at the time attending, and who therefore can be further questioned by the minister in respect to the essentials of baptism, it may be material and proper for that reason to inquire who were the persons that were present. Hence it appears that these questions being introduced does not establish that a minister was essential to the administration of the rite ; but more especially, when we find this preamble to the third and fourth questions interposed in the middle of the queries, 1 because some things essential to this sacrament,' (for so I think is the natural mode of reading it, and not in the way in which the emphasis was laid by the counsel, ' because some things essential to this sacrament') 'may happen to be omitted,' (for if anything essential was omitted, it might be proper to consider the baptism as null ;) ' therefore I demand of you, With what matter was this child baptized ? With what words was this child bap- tized?' " If any doubt could be made upon what is meant by the Rubric in this respect, it would be cleared up most satisfactorily by adverting to the old law upon the subject ; and by the old law (as has been already stated,) it was the use of the water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity that was essential to the baptism ; those, as Lyndwood has explained, were the duo necessaria. " Again, if everything has been ' done as it ought to be.' What is meant by the phrase - done AND CHURCH BURIALS. 85 as it ought to be ' is explained by adverting to the commentary of Lyndwood ; for he has stated, in his gloss, the terms ' rite ministratus,' ' legitime factum/ and 'forma debita,' to mean the use of water and the form of words : this can therefore leave no doubt what was the meaning of the Rubric, thus illustrated, as it is by reference to the ancient law and to Lyndwood. " But the concluding part of the Rubric is equally decisive upon the subject ; for it is, ' If they which bring the infant to the Church do make such uncertain answers to the priest's questions, that it cannot appear that the child was baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (which are essential parts of baptism.,) then let the priest baptize it in the form before appointed for public baptism of infants, saving that at the dipping of the child in the font, he shall use this form of words, ' If thou art not already baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' If there were a doubt, then, whether the child was baptized with water, and the invocation (which are here expressly declared to be essential parts of baptism,) then the child was to be condi- tionally and hypothetically rebaptized, the Church being so extremely anxious to avoid iteration. But, supposing a doubt arose whether the former bap- tism had been administered by a lawful minister, was the child in that case to be rebaptized, even 86 dissenters' baptisms hypothetically ? Such a doubt might very easily happen : the persons present might not be able to answer who the person was that had baptized, or they might not be able to answer whether the person who had administered the baptism, was or was not a lawful minister ; he might have been an entire stranger to them; and yet, if that fact ap- pears doubtful, here are no directions in the Rubric for a conditional rebaptization. Hence, it is ob- vious, that the person performing the baptism was not essential, by the Rubric ; and in this respect the Rubric exactly conformed to the old law, for the baptism remained valid, and was not to be repeated ; and even to what King James said at the conference just before this Rubric was ap- proved, that he utterly disliked all rebaptization. " After the Restoration, the Rubric was revised, and was confirmed by Parliament, and no alteration was made, except in the title of the office : for unless I have been misled by a book of some authority, (not having seen the Prayer Book of the time of King James,) the title of King James's office for the administration of private baptism was this, ' Of them that be baptized in private houses in time of necessity by the minister of the parish, or other lawful minister that can be procured.' Now the title of the office stands thus, ' Of the mini- stration of private baptism of children in houses ;' there is an omission, therefore, in the title, of the words 'lawful minister/ or anything referring to AND CHURCH BURIALS. 87 them. This alteration in the title, if it meant any- thing as applied to the present question, seems pretty strongly to infer that the title was consi- dered as, in too precise a manner, requiring both the existence of the necessity and the intervention of a lawful minister ; and the title of the office was therefore left in more general terms—-' Of the administration of private baptism in houses' simply; and it was only in the directory part, as in mar- riages, that it was set forth, let the ' lawful mini- ster' say, so and so ; inferring that lawful ministers were the persons regularly to perform the office, and that it was considered a part of their duty. So the matter still remains." — Sir J. Nicholl's Judg- ment, 26 — 30. This is Sir John Nicholl's reasoning from the Rubric ; and I believe that he has fairly stated an argument which is very often brought forward on that side of the question. I do not suppose that this reasoning would deceive many, even if I left it unanswered, for in more points than one it con- tradicts itself. However, as I am anxious to find out the truth upon the subject, and not merely to point out Sir John Nicholl's fallacies, I shall pro- ceed to an examination and comparison of the Rubric in each of our Service-Books ; after men- tioning a circumstance of which Sir John Nicholl seems not to have been aware, but which would greatly have strengthened his argument: — that the observation which divides the inquiries at the begin- 88 dissenters' baptisms ning of the service, ■ Because some things essential to this sacrament,' &c. &c. and the declaration at the end, that ' water and the name of the Trinity are essential parts of baptism,' first appear in the Service Book of James. I must now request my readers to examine, carefully, the following comparison. The first column contains those portions of the Office which hear upon this subject in the first three Prayer Boos; the second column contains the alterations only which appear in the Prayer Book of James; and the third column bears to the second column the same relation which the second bears to the first. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 89 O < P-< fad o o H W H en ►Si © 8 fej * fiq w < B o w S3 H < o 5 § o u * s' 3 ►ss «3 -t— S" a © e o - 8 I *8 2 R< ^ « * fc_ ~ ~s o3 on <* a 2 23 -U CO »h "T3 PL, p rt ^3 .2 ^ rC P* -Q e a> co rt -t^> IS >; PL, a< a o o3 * S3 03 CO o > p _, -u H tt-i ci 03 CO 5c . £ ° *s t>-. CO g a rt =8 r^=! ^3 <% „ O 3 <# JP H 4 4 ^p H dd 4 -3 p ►d p 03 o co rt O CO Pi -u Pw >-, _g CO -" i-^3 a> 03 t> CO o 03 ■J3 co £-, CD 03 a CD CD +* 2 03 775 **> .. CD ^3 o n *d p ■5 &*> S rP P* 03 CO n=l rG fl H < ^ p ^ •w ® 6 1 as s fc p O CO fl « M o o > IS 9 «0 I* 8 ^ a •2 T3 .2 « o; 2 Ei a ►J Sh 1-1 o w u p .9 PS •< J od filfi Oj CO S o ** m rrt CQ 5 CO r> <*> 'tS <» -3 °* P-i *3 § .a * >> ^ 8 >« o i—i !l 1** 90 5^ JS ^ DISSENTERS BAPTISMS O ._, ^ g O in qj -^ .S 5)=| Ornra o< 3 c •^ *_ m r^. . _■ _i_^i C f* • a <2 .5 -3 g "5 "3 s S v -° '* -g „r Tn so a-s^o^^^^-^ •2Soa_.s\a>_, >^ m »-K M ~ ~* m S fo e .+j a .— _c; w a> ci-i gj a> .^ m p> ^^ ,2 3 "3 r-^-Sr.^^!^^^ k S ^ H . |o" l^ii Mil > S S s «g .S s * g g j - •- r rt .S3 ^? « C £ % £ S 5P g :a d a> <» a o » oj „r .a '£ « _e - ■5 n ^ -o « p;S^ ^-S g u ba s- ra .2 P2 K a 2 B3 S; s .a a qj 4 *in <*> +j £ .2 J2 ro £, is « b rS a r „ a. 5 jS g « S .g o g ^g^Kfi^'S S I .c £ S S ^ ;s g * Ti 3 3 ^ °* a >-. Ba .S <° * § a _i a o> O) ri .a tJ Bi ^ ^ ^ e >> J Z S ts 3 I ST CI, « O Jj ^DoSrfi « < , fii ♦^ o a AND CHURCH BURIALS. 91 o M fete ^S^3^-rSt2 ja cfl 3 M _c J -S m a ^ "^ +3 ** QJ -*» .= *l ■T? r) u fc <8 J) _ r£3 O o Jj © fl >, £ 1£ T P. £ § ^ J S « §" eg 3 2<2^-|^ . .IP | S ,S S «„ 1 « S ^ fl " » § I § § . ,5 ■ i p 1 ^ i r ^ o rt fl Ja « fc w £ a * .s « S » s a a ^ ^ t3 « *S .1 3 -c -a -S *5 o a B ,04j^l |0 3»'S2 u te1;j3S h3 x^^g^aj.S^gtHOC s <1 QhO y-43 o J5 O^Q aj <♦-< -a i ^ 1 1 sa i s ,s i -s ^ 3 ^ i S •- £< * S S ~ -S 3-5 d § 2 „ c ^j-g-s S -a .g ■ -e *■ §^g^^ G 2 92 dissenters' baptisms ca .r s s c* IP -2 « & r=3 bo C ^3 ^ c>j r£5 4 cd pq C3 8 ed ed ^ rfi Pi co cd *^ -° £ T3 _ S eg *« ed X =3 en co «♦< .3 -^ >-» CO eg cd " £ A 2 is cd % ^ -a « 3 2 3 .3 -> ^ e -8 r^ PQ * i o re _ ^3 ^ rC CD O! ^ .13 £ £ efl rJ3 O ^ S .2 5 2 IS- ed 'O G « j_ 5 X eS ^3 ^3 .13 ^3 Ph O ed P-, S3 ed 15 ^ «c -C ^3 AND CHURCH BURIALS. 93 4 B <# ea r3 rB n 13 PI < r*> «8 B CB ed -B m «j— i 53 13 ho cd O c on a .S cd a* o hn cd & rQ r3 13 -r^ rB n CJ -4-T ^ J* re rB 13 B B r *J ;>, a X ^ •J3 53 rg .00 T3 a U CD cj rH o rB "1 r— 1 0) 03 CO 0) 1 C+H bo 0) rH CD en ~B rB cd X "re o a B 3 >> *J CD a o o rB CO M eg cd CO o 13 12 u *a -0 o ■u ■a 3 O (-. r3 09 a 're +a a o as 0) t> cd rB o CO 3 12 O S-. (H rB a -a "Qh V o a Ph S3 CO -»^ O r*> '3 ed -a B 0) 're bo o CD CD CO a 3 & cd So rB re CD B cd o bo re CD a bo 'a u o CO t-4 CD Cfl "s 1 CD -a -4-3 o a CO 5H O DQ V B *a 're td H -Q O -u -u rB faD a o 2 ^a eg o +a a o a o CO re | o > cd CO 'C rB O CD B h CO rB .s a o >-> CD p a u o re 13 a re cj eg fta fes 2 >-, on 'o CO «B _T CJ a o CJ 13 13 a go a cd !a CD •5 rB o o CD u Oi 3 rB rB -rJ -*J rl CD o 13 * rB CJ 94 dissenters' baptisms CO P X H m z P Pi O 1-1 o w K H Ph O o pa E H <{ SO l-H H P* < - O o u H P o pq < o i— i Pi P5 P Pi H W Q §p.3 % p^ oq «« fc>0 .S ,-p rP o P pq ** -P Ph £ Pi , 03 bC en PI ni a> *>= a Ph ■g rP Ph -^ F X, o -p a Ph 03 -O P • SS a, fa « 03 fP *P -P -2 be .S .2 "> -p I 03 •43 -P Ph *^ X) P g> s t3 CO CU ** p 03 P 2 -P AND CHURCH BURIALS. 95 Between the two Service Books of Edward and that of Elizabeth I can discern no difference in the Office with reference to this subject. None is marked by Dr. Cardwell in the former — I have been unable to detect any in the latter, from the very cursory view which I have obtained of its Latin version*. That some change of opinion and feeling on the subject had taken place is evident from the testimony of Whitgift ; from which also we may con- clude, if his testimony is worth anything, that this Office, as reissued under Elizabeth (curious though the assertion appears) was not intended to permit Lay Baptism f . Bishop Taylor goes further, and speaks of an actual alteration in the Rubric. He says, " When in the First Liturgy of Edward VI., a Rubric was inserted, permitting Midwives to bap- tize in cases of extreme danger, it was left out in the Second Liturgiesj." But to what he refers I own I am at a loss to determine. We have seen, how- ever, that in the Convocation of 1575, the very year after this Latin version of Elizabeth's Prayer Book was published, an important explanatory Article was passed, forbidding Lay Baptism alto- gether. A few years later King James' Prayer Book appeared, containing most important alter- ations, not only in form but in spirit, which I will now proceed to examine. The first of the alterations to be noticed, is in * See Appendix, Note L. t See pp. 76, 77- X Office Ministerial, sect. iv. 131. 96 dissenters' baptisms the title of the Office. A reference to the above comparison of the different Service Books, will show that in the three former Books the title of the Office was perfectly general; for anything there expressed to the contrary, the Office might be used by any one. In James' Prayer Book this generality dis- appears, and the use of the office is limited, by the title, to u the Minister of the parish, or any other lawful Minister that can be procured." Again, in the second clause of the First Rubric, in the three former Prayer Books, the words seem to convey an indirect permission to laymen to bap- tize. "And also they shall warn, &c. . . . they baptize not . . . then they minister it on this fashion. 5 ' But the words in this clause, in James' Prayer Book, do not necessarily contain any such permission: "And also they shall warn, &c. they procure not their children to be baptized . the baptism shall be administered on this fashion." The third clause of this Rubric states " on what fashion" private baptism is to be performed, if per- formed at all. In the three former Prayer Books the indirect permission given to laymen, by the second clause, is considerably strengthened in this. " First, let them that be present call upon God for His grace, and say/' &c, then one of them shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying, N., I baptize thee, &c." In James' Prayer Book, on the other hand, the absence, in the second clause, of any permission, direct or indirect, to laymen to AND CHUitCH BURIALS. 97 baptize, is changed, in this third clause, to an indi- rect inhibition, — for it states that when private bap- tism is administered at all, it is to be administered " on this fashion:'' " First, let the lawful Minister, and them that are present, call upon God ; . . then., the said lawful Minister shall dip it into the water, or pour water upon it, saying, N., I baptize thee, . . . &c." Again, the first part of the Second Rubric, in the three former Prayer Books, proclaims that a child baptized thus, by a layman even, (for aught that had been expressed or implied to the contrary,) " is law- fully and sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized again." But the same words in the same Rubric in James' Prayer Book, when taken in con- nexion with what had gone before, proclaim the same thing, concerning those only who "had been baptized by a lawful minister," they contain not even the shadow of a declaration against the iteration of a baptism which had been performed by a layman. The next division of this Second Rubric, in the three former Prayer Books, ordains that if the child, which is after this sort baptized, shall live, it shall be brought into the church, in order that " the priest may examine and try whether the child be lawfully baptized or no." And the form of examina- tion given is, Who administered the rite? Who was present? Whether they called upon God for grace and succour? With what matter did they 98 dissenters' baptisms baptize the child? With what words? What is their opinion about the lawfulness and perfectness of the baptism administered? And then the Third Rubric provides that if the priest shall prove by the answers to these questions, that ■ ' all things were done as they ought to be," he shall testify the same unto those who brought the child. "I certify you that in this case ye have done well," &c. Thus all along admitting a possibility of lay baptism. In the second division, however, of the Second Rubric, in James' Prayer Book, we find something very different. Here too it is provided that " if the child, which is after this sort baptized, do afterwards live, he shall be brought into the Church." But why? — " That if the Priest or Minister of the same parish did himself baptize that child, the congrega- tion may be certified of the true form of baptism by him before used." But what if the Minister of the parish did not baptize it? Why, then, the words ct which is after this sort baptized,*' when taken in connexion with the second and third clauses of the First Rubric, most evidently imply that the child brought must have been baptized by " some other lawful Minister," or the ensuing service of "recep- tion" or " completion," can have no reference to him > — and accordingly the Rubric proceeds, " or if the child was baptized by any other lawful Minister, then the minister of the parish shall examine and try whether the child be lawfully baptized or no" Now how was this examination, concerning the bap- AND CHURCH BURIALS. 99 tism of one who had been baptized by a lawful Minister, to be conducted? Very much as it was before conducted, but with some very significant alterations. If the persons who brought the child said he was already baptized, the Minister was to ask, " By whom was this child baptized? " And although this question in the former Service Books might have been only intended to discover whether the child had been baptized by a member of the Catholic Church, (in default of which, though the baptism might be acknowledged as valid, the service could not be proceeded with, before absolution had been obtained from the Bishop, as we shall see more plainly presently ;) — yet now it is evident, from the Rubrics which have been examined, that the question was not only intended to discover this fact, as in the former Prayer Books, but also to discover whether the child had been baptized by a lawful Minister; in which case, alone, was the clergyman to proceed with the service. And in this conclusion, to which, I contend, the Rubrics naturally and necessarily lead us, I am borne out by the 13th Art. of Enquiry at the Visitation of the Archdeacon of St. Alban's, 1716. " Is your Minister ready to baptize children in danger of death? Have the children so baptized by him, or any other lawful Minister in his absence, been duly brought to the church afterwards, that the congregation may be certified of their lawful baptism, and those parts of the Office performed which were before omitted?" 100 dissenters' baptisms The first question, then, having ascertained that the child was baptized by a lawful Minister, the clergyman was then to ask, as in the former Service Books, " Who was present when this child was baptized?" and then, by the answer having dis- covered the individual who was most likely to be able to give him correct information, and being mindful of the injunction of the Rubric, that " if the child was baptized by any other lawful Minister, then the Minister of the parish shall examine and try whether the child he lawfully baptized or no," he turned to that individual, and prefaced his ' { examination and trial," by reminding him that " some things* essential to this sacrament may happen to be omitted through feare or haste in such times of extremity ;" and then commences with the question, ' ' Whether they called upon God for grace and succour in that necessity f " No ; this question has altogether dis- appeared ! It still might be very proper that they should do so; nay, it might be very improper that they should omit it: but though it might well be considered an indispensable requisite, for the due administration of the rite by "one who taketh this honour unto himself,'" in the execution of the priestly functions!, it could not be regarded as essen- tial to its performance by one who ministered it by Christ's commission. This question, therefore, which * I am quite willing to let Sir John Nicholl have his own emphasis here, f Heb. v. 4. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 101 was in the former Service Books, was omitted, and the enquiries which succeeded it alone retained, the question as to the matter being altered, so as not to indicate the fact, (which the former Prayer Books did,) that the person or persons of whom the enquiry is made did themselves baptize the child. And then the clergyman having found from the examination that " all things were done as they ought to be," did not, as in the old Service Books, address " those who brought the child" — " I certifie you in this case ye have done well, &c," but proclaimed it to the congregation (as is shown by the Second Rubric, and also by the Visitation Article I have just quoted,) — \ ' I certifie you that in this case all is well done, and according unto due order concerning the baptizing of this child." A proclamation which I cannot sup- pose that any man, in his senses, and who has read, carefully, the Rubrics, &c. &c. which precede it, will venture to affirm was intended to be made con- cerning one who had been baptized by a layman*. Let us now turn our attention to the Rubric, at the end of the Office, concerning " Conditional Bap- tism." In the Prayer Books of Edward and Eliza- beth, the words of this Rubric, considered by them- selves, manifestly appear to have a relation to lay baptism — "If they which bring the infant to the church do make an uncertain answer to the priest's questions, and say, that they cannot tell what they thought, did, or said, in that great fear e and trouble * See Appendix, Note M. 102 DISSENTERS 5 BAPTISMS of mind, (as oftentimes it chanceth,) then let the priest, &c," and we have seen that there is nothing in the preceding Rubrics to limit this. But the Rubric in James' Prayer Book assumes a veiy differ- ent character; here the manifestly implied per- mission of lay baptism has disappeared, — " the " uncertain answers" spoken of, are no longer con- cerning ci what they thought, did, or said," but relate to " what was done," under the circumstances con- cerning which the enquiry was made, — and these circumstances, we have seen, are the baptism of the child by a lawful Minister, other than the Minister of the parish. The words " do make an uncertain answer to the priest's questions, and say, that they cannot tell what they thought, did, or said, &c. &c," have entirely disappeared, and we find, instead of them, the words " do make such uncertain answers as that it cannot appear that the child was baptized with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, (which are essential parts of bap- tism), then, &c." We have seen that the title of the Office in James* Prayer Book points it out as the Office of Private Baptism, which is to be used by a lawful Minister. We have seen that the latter part of this Office is only to be used when the child has been baptized by a lawful Minister. We have seen that when the child has been baptized by a lawful Minister, other than the Minister of the parish, an " examination" is to take place in order to ascertain whether the child were "lawfully baptized" by that lawful Minister, — that after ascertaining that a lawful AND CHURCH BURIALS. 103 Minister did baptize the child, the clergyman is further to examine some person "who was present when the child was baptized," as to the manner in which that lawful Minister performed the rite. And we have seen it declared to the person examined, that the reason why this examination was to take place, was " because some things essential to this sacrament may happen to be omitted," (viz., by this lawful Minister,) " through feare or haste, at such times of extremity." When, then, in this same office, we find a subsequent Rubric, referring to this very examination concerning the manner in which the lawful Minister performed the rite, and purporting to be a direction to the clergyman how to act in the event of this examination being unsatisfactory — when, I say, we find such a Rubric proclaiming water and the name of the Trinity to be " essential parts of Baptism/' (not, be it remarked, the " essential parts,") are we to conclude that this Rubric, by not mentioning him as such, implies a denial that a " lawful Minister" is an " essential part of baptism?" or is it not, rather, manifest that it neither pronounces or implies the slightest decision upon the subject, inasmuch as the question was quite foreign to its purpose, the Rubric itself having relation to the acts of such a lawful Minister, and of no other person ? Now from this comparison of the Office in James' Prayer Book, with that in the Prayer Books of Edward and Elizabeth, I think my readers will allow that we fairly arrive at a conclusion concern- 104 dissenters' baptisms ing the meaning of the Rubrics, &c. in the former, opposite to that which Sir John Nicholl has drawn. In a word, we have found this to be the case, that at the beginning of the reign of James I., the Church of England turned out of her Prayer Book all recog- nition of lay baptism — that she provided an office of private baptism to be used by a lawful Minister only — and that she commanded all her children, in the event of there being a necessity for having their off- spring privately baptized, to procure them to be baptized with this office, by such lawful Minister. This might, it would seem, have been thought a sufficient declaration of the Church's doctrine upon this point. After these alterations in her Office, I cannot conceive how it could still appear to any candid mind that she permitted, or in any way recognized, baptism by laymen; still, however, we know it was contended by some persons that the permission and recognition was implied in the Office itself. An observation of the changes made at the last ""review," will point out on what these objec- tions were grounded ; for it was in order to meet these objections that the changes were made. Bishop Gibson, indeed, testifies that "the expres- sions which seemed to admit of lay baptism" in the Service Book of Elizabeth, in that of James, "were so turned as expressly to exclude it*;" but Bishop Kennet states that, at the Restoration, " they desired that baptism may not be administered in a private * Codex, i. 369. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 105 place, at any time, unless by a lawful Minister, and accordingly," he continues, " in The Ministration of Private Baptism the Rubric orders that the people, without great cause and necessity, procure not their children to be Baptized at home in their houses ; and then to be done by the Minister of the parish, or in his absence by any other lawful Minister*'." This alteration, which Bishop Kennet mentions as taking place at the last "review," for the purpose of making the Church's prohibition of lay baptism more clear and stringent, at first sight appears no alteration at all. If, however, we compare minutely our present Office with that in James's Prayer Book, we shall speedily discover in what the alteration consists : — and I think my readers will be as much astonished as I was, to find that " the Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury," in order to prove that the Church of England recog- nises lay baptism, has drawn into his argument an alteration at the very last " review" of her Service Book, which was made by her for the avowed and expressed purpose of rendering her prohibition of it more evident and decided. Now, I must beg my readers to remember that the title of this Office in the Prayer Books of Edward and Elizabeth was so worded as not to indicate any restraint as to the administrator of private baptism ; while the Rubrics, &c. which followed it evidently implied a permission of the performance of the rite * Kemnets Register. 106 dissenters' baptisms by laymen. The title of the Office in James's Prayer Book restricted, as we have seen, the use of that Office to a lawful Minister; and a Rubric in the Office itself provided that when children were bap- tized " at home," then it should be " administered on this fashion." Now although this title, when taken in connexion with the subsequent Rubric, might well have been thought a sufficiently plain indication of the Church's views. Still it might have been argued, and so it evidently was, that as the title of the Office was particular, and not general, it limited the meaning of the Rubric; — that as the title simply proclaimed it to be an Office which related to " them that are to be Baptized in private houses, in time of necessitie, by the Minister of the parish, or any other lawful Minister that can be procured," but did not forbid the performance of private baptism with any other Office, by one who was not a lawful minister, therefore, the Rubric itself did not forbid it, inasmuch as it could relate only to that Office of which it was a part. Now this defect — the only loop-hole which had been left for the advocates of lay baptism to creep through — was removed at the last " review 7 ." The particular character of the title was taken away, and a general character was restored to it. It was no longer called an Office " of them that are to be Bap- tized in private houses, in time of necessitie, by the Minister of the parish, or any other lawful Minister that can be procured,'" but the title which was given AND CHURCH BURIALS. 107 to it was one of extreme generality — every word which might be supposed to limit it was left out — every expression which could be tortured into even the smallest indication of a permission to act otherwise than in the manner which the Office ordains was then erased: — The Ministration of Private Baptism of Children in Houses, is the general and all-com- prehensive title which was then placed, and still con- tinues, at the head of this Office of our Church ; — and the words which were taken out of the old title being thrown into the Rubric, now bind (beyond all doubt and cavil,) the administration of Baptism under all circumstances, to a lawful Minister only. One other alteration there was which is well worthy of our notice, as marking the progress of sound principles on this subject. In the examina- tion of the persons who brought the child to church, as given in the first three Prayer Books, there was an inquiry "whether they think the child be lawfully and perfectly baptized ;" and we cannot wonder at such a question, as well as inquiries about what they "thought, did, and said" at the time of the performance of a rite, which the person who bap- tized the child had no commission to execute. In James's Prayer Book it is provided that the rite shall have been administered by one who had commission; and therefore nothing concerning " thoughts'' at the time of administration appears. This question, however, as to their opiniori of the Baptism which had been administered, somewhat h 2 108 dissenters' baptisms inconsistently, remained. It was expunged at the last *' review," — doubtless, as being perfectly out of place concerning a Sacrament of the Gospel admi- nistered by Christ's own commission and authority. Thus, I think, it must be admitted that the vari- ous alterations of the Prayer Book, when fully and fairly considered, do not, any of them, furnish an argument against the point for which I am contend- ing ; but do, one and all of them, lend their weight in support of it. They were, be it remembered,, the actions of the Church in Synod, assembled under the authority of her Lord, and directed, I trust and verily believe, by the influence of His Holy Spirit. As the alterations of the Church, then, they are to be considered, and not as the alterations of individuals; but it is interesting, if not instruc- tive, to find whose hands were probably employed in preparing this finishing blow to the practice and doctrine of lay baptism in the Church of England ; and to read from Bishop Rennet's Register that " Dr. William Sancroft (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury,) was in these employments diligently useful, especially in helping to rectify the Kalendar and Rubrics ." — p. 633. As the object of this inquiry is to find out the doctrine of the Church, and not by any means to advocate, in opposition to it, my own private opi- nions, I must delay my readers for a few moments longer, before we return to the Xllth Article of 1575, in order to draw their attention to certain AND CHURCH BURIALS. 109 measures which were undertaken by some of the Bishops upon this subject, in the year 1712. The controversy between Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Bingham, and others, had then commenced. Bing- ham's Scholastic History of Lay Baptism had appeared in answer to Lawrence's Lay Baptism Invalid; but Lawrence's Second Part of Lay Baptism Invalid, in answer to Bingham, was not yet published, — and we know not what turn these proceedings might have taken if it had been published. We have already seen the effect which it produced on the opinions of a divine so truly great and learned as Dr. Water- land. I give the account of the proceedings in the words of Bishop Burnet ; and those who are acquainted with his low views on all such matters, will not be surprised at his sentiments concerning the invalidity of lay baptism, and his inability to appreciate the supporters of the tenet : " The Bishops thought it necessary to put a stop to this new and extravagant doctrine ; so a de- claration was agreed to, first against the irregularity of all baptism by persons who were not in Holy Orders ; but that yet, according to the practice of the primitive Church, and the constant usage of the Church of England, no baptism (in or with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,) ought to be reiterated. The Archbishop of York at first agreed to this ; so it was resolved to publish it in the name of all the Bishops of England ; but he was prevailed on to change his mind, and 110 dissenters' baptisms refused to sign it, pretending that this would encou- rage irregular baptism ; so the Archbishop of Can- tcrbunj, with most of the Bishops of his province, resolved to offer it to the Convocation. It was agreed to in the Upper House, the Bishop of Rochester only dissenting ; but when it was sent to the Lower House, they would not so much as take it into consideration, but laid it aside, thinking that it would encourage those who struck at the dignity of the priesthood*." I have given this account from Burnet be- cause he was a Bishop at the time ; but as the matter is very important, I will subjoin another version of it from a Visitation Charge of Dr. Thomas Sharpe, Archdeacon of Northumberland, 1733, which version, he states, is " taken from papers under the hands of both Archbishops" " In the Lambeth Conference, so late as 1712, this point was still designedly kept in the same situ- ation, and preserved entire to the determination of the Ordinary. For in that year the dispute about the validity of lay baptism running pretty high, the two Archbishops, with all the Bishops of their provinces that were in town, came unanimously to this resolution, that lay baptism, should be discou- raged as much as possible. But if the essentials had been preserved in a baptism by a lay hand, it was not to be repeated. But then when it was proposed that a declaration of their sentiments to this pur- '" Burmkt's Own Times, Ed., 1734. Vol. ii. 005. AND CHURCH BURIALS. HI pose should be published in order to silence or de- termine the debates raised upon this question, it was resolved, upon mature consideration, to leave the question as much undecided by any public de- claration as it was left by the public Offices and Canons of the Church ; for the better security of discipline, and to prevent any advantages that might be taken by the dissenters, or seem to be given them in favour of their baptisms, though they do not properly come within the question of lay baptisms in cases of necessity*." f Here, then, was certainly a very proper measure undertaken to settle this matter finally. The Bishops of both provinces assemble and discuss it, (it would be satisfactory to know how many of them,) and seem to have come to a determination on the matter. Just, however, as the determination is to be published, some withdraw their assent, and it is annulled. Again, it seems, the matter was discussed and determined by the Bishops of the Southern Pro- vince, as the Upper House of Convocation ; and again an authoritative declaration of their decision is pre- vented. Now when we observe that that decision was, in fact, that lay baptism was valid, though it was to be " discouraged as much as possible," and when we remember, as we have already seen, that each previous movement since the Reformation had tended nearer and nearer to a declaration of its * Archdeacon Shahpe's Charges on the Rubric of the Com- mon Prayer. Ed. 1753. P. 44. f £ee Appendix, Note N. 112 dissenters' baptisms invalidity, I think we cannot but regard this double prevention as a most merciful dispensation of an overruling Providence, for the protection of our Church from error. For, after all, the mea- sures only came to this — an expression of individual opinion among the Bishops themselves: — "and it was resolved(s&ys Archdeacon Sharpe, upon the autho- rity of original documents,) — it was resolved, upon mature consideration, to leave the question as much undecided by any public declaration, as it was left by the public Offices and Canons of the Church." Thus has no subsequent synodical act inva- lidated, in any degree, the important Canon of 1575; and while (if Bishop Taylor be correct,) that Canon w r as preceded by another measure of the same ten- dency — the rejection of an existing Rubric which permitted midwives to baptize (and that, with an intention to restrain lay baptism generally, as Whit- gift's own testimony proves) , the subsequent altera- tions of the Rubric after the Conference at Hampton Court, and at the Restoration, was each another step taken by our Church toward the decision of this question in the manner in which, I cannot help be- lieving, it will ultimately, and ere long, be deter- mined, — that lay baptism is void. It is, indeed, contended by some, that although the Church of England forbids these baptisms as irregular, she does not consider them to be invalid. Whether this be her doctrine I shall now proceed to examine. It was, I own, the doctrine of Whitgift, Hooker, Bancroft, and others ; if, in fact, they may be AND CHURCH BURIALS. 113 said to go even so far with us as this; but I must pro- test against the tenets of individual men — however high their station, however great their character, — being taken for the doctrine of the Church. This is to be determined only from her public acts; those may be directly at variance with her teaching. Such indeed, I believe, in this matter to have been the case; and that while she, sincerely seeking for the truth, was led on toward it, step by step, by the hand of her pardoning God; to all her individual members, (just as we should expect) the blessing was not so quickly vouchsafed*. Now, if we again turn our attention to the 12th Article of 1 575, which has not been invalidated by any subsequent proceeding, but the principles and spirit of which, as we have seen, all the subsequent acts of the Church have tended to carry out — if we turn our attention again to this Article, we shall presently perceive that it teaches by implication, if not directly, the point for which I am contending. First, then, let us remember that in the preface to the Ordination Services, the Church proclaims it to be unlawful for any one "to execute any of the functions of a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, except he be called, and admitted thereunto, by Episcopal Consecration or Ordination;" and in the 26th of her Articles of Religion, she tells us that the sacraments are not to be refused at the hands of any minister, because of his personal unworthiness, * See Appendix, Note O. 114 dissenters' baptisms inasmuch as " he minister eth them by Christ's commis- sion and authority." From a comparison of these, it would appear that the Church forbids the exercise of, at any rate, to say the least, those ministerial functions which are sacramental by unordained men, because they have not " Christ's commission and authority" When, then, we find the 12th Article of 1575, not merely proclaiming that " pri- vate baptism in case of necessity, is only to be ministered by a lawful Minister or Deacon, and by none other;" but also, that {< all other persons shall be inhibited to intermeddle with the ministry of bap- tism privately, it being no part of their vocation," we cannot help concluding that the Church did not simply mean to restrain an " irregularity," but also to forbid the rite to be administered by individuals the personal defects of the very best of whom might operate prejudicially, he being destitute of commis- sion and authority from Christ. Again, 1 think that it will not be denied that the Church of Eng- land considers Baptism necessary to salvation, whenever it can be obtained — that she understands as positive, the command of our Lord to baptize all disciples — that she is not unmindful of His solemn declaration, that " except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven." She 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 ob- * John iii. 5. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 115 tained, 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. Now the 12th Article of 1575 so positively inhibits lay baptism in every case, and under any circumstances, that if a clergyman cannot be ob- tained to administer the rite, the child must die unbaptized — the restrictions of the Article itself make this a necessary consequence, and the 69th Canon of 1603 recognises it most clearly as such. " If any Minister, being duly, without any man- ner of collusion, informed of the weakness and danger of death of any infant unbaptized in his parish, and thereupon desired to go or come to the place where the said infant remaineth, to baptize the same, shall either wilfully refuse so to do, or of purpose, or of gross negligence, shall so defer the time as, when he might conveniently have resorted to the place, and have baptized the said infant, it dieth through such his default unbaptized, the said Minister shall be suspended for three months," &c, &c. And that this Canon was esteemed an important one, inasmuch as the consequence of the Minister's neglect was that the child would die unbaptized, if it 116 dissenters' baptisms died at all, is testified by the " Articles of Enquiry" at the subsequent Episcopal and Archidiaconal Visitations. " Whether he (your minister) hath deferred or wilfully refused to baptize any infant in his parish, being in danger, having been duly informed of the weakness thereof; and whether the child has dyed in his default without baptism." — Extract from Articles of Enquiry at Met. Visitation of Archbishop of Can- terbury, 1605; also of Diocese, 1609. " Doth he (your minister) refuse to baptize any infant in his parish, being in danger, having notice of the danger, and desired to baptize the same ; and whether any such childe have dyed through his default without baptism" — Articles of Visitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1618; and also in Dio- cese of Norivich. " Doth your minister wilfully refuse to baptize any infant in his parish, being in danger, having been informed of the weakness of the said childe ; and whether the said childe dyeth through his default without baptisme." — Articles of Enquiry at Visitation of the Bishop of Lincoln, 1635. "Whether doth your parson or vicar, where there is no curate, and where there is a curate, whether doth this curate, being duly informed of the weak- ness and danger of death of any infant unbaptized AND CHURCH BURIALS. 117 in the parish, wilfully refuse (being desired) to go to the place where the same infant remaineth, and to baptize it; or of purpose, or of gross negligence, hath so deferred the same, as that through his default any child hath died unbaptized." — Visitation of the Archdeacon of Canterbury, 1636. "Hath your Minister at any time deferred or refused to baptize any infant within the parish, being in danger of death, after notice given and request made unto him ; and hath any child died unbaptized by his default." — Visitation of the Arch- deacon of Norwich, 1638. " Whether hath your Minister, being truly in- formed of the danger of death of any infant unbap- tized, and being desired to go to the place where the child is, to baptize it, neglected to goe ; by means whereof the child died unbaptized." — Visitation of Bishop of Winton, 1639. 11 Doth your parson, vicar, or curate, being duly informed of the weakness and danger of death of any infant unbaptized in his parish, and being desired to go unto the place where the sick child lieth and baptize the same, wilfully refuse to do it, or neglect the time, so that the child dieth without baptism through his default." — Arts, at Visitation of Archdeacon of Middlesex, 1660. By all of which, we see, it is indicated that if the 118 dissenters' baptisms Minister neglected to baptize a child in danger, and that child died, it would die without baptism; — most plainly showing (to say the least) that no lay per- son was permitted to baptize it, under any circumstances. And the same is shown to be the rule by the Visitation Articles of the Bishop of Ely, 1679. Here, then, it appears, that it is evidently the intention of the Church of England, that if a clergy- man cannot be procured to baptize a child in danger of deaths that the child is to die without baptism. And the same is pointed out by the Office of Minis- tration of Private Baptism as it now stands, accord- ing to the alterations of 1661. And from this I conclude that the Church evidently regards lay baptism as invalid, for if it be not invalid, she prevents, in all cases where a clergyman cannot be procured, the valid ministration of the rite ; and thus, as I before said, disobeys the ordinance of her Lord, and incurs a guilt, which for a mere " point of form" it will scarcely be supposed that she would deliberately take upon her — the guilt of the destruction of many thousand souls. This argument is drawn out much more clearly and forcibly than I can do it, by the great Hooker himself: — " Wherefore a necessity there is of receiving and a necessity of administering the sacrament of bap- tism ; the one, peradventure, not so absolute as some have thought, but out of all peradventure the AND CHURCH BURIALS. 119 other more strait and narrow than that the Church, which is by office a mother unto such as crave at her hands the sacred mystery of their new birth, should repel them, and see them die unsatisfied of these their ghostly desires, rather than give them their souls' rights with omission of those things that serve but only for the more convenient and orderly administration thereof. For as on the one side we grant that those sentences of holy Scripture which make sacraments most necessary to eternal life, are no prejudice to their salvation that want them by some inevitable necessity, and without any fault of their own ; so it ought in reason to be likewise acknow- ledged that forasmuch as our Lord himself maketh baptism necessary — necessary whether we respect the good received by baptism, or the testimony thereby yielded unto God of that humility and meek obedience which, reposing wholly itself on the abso- lute authority of His commandment, and on the truth of His heavenly promise, doubteth not but from creatures despicable in their own condition and substance, to obtain grace of inestimable value, or rather not from them but from Him, yet by them as by His appointed means, — howsoever, He, by the secret ways of His own incomprehensible mercy may be thought to save without baptism, this cleareth not the Church from guiltiness of blood, if through her superfluous scrupulosity, lets and im- pediments of less regard should cause a grace of so great moment to be withheld, wherein our merciless 120 dissenters' baptisms strictness may be our own harm, though not theirs toward whom we show it; and we, for the hardness of our hearts, may perish, albeit they through God's unspeakable mercy do live. God, who did not afflict that innocent whose circumcision Moses had over-long deferred, took revenge upon Moses himself for the injury that was done through so great neglect, giving us thereby to understand that those whom God's own mercy saveth without us, are on our parts, notwithstanding, and as much as in us lieth, even destroyed, when under unsufficient pretences we defraud them of such ordinary outward helps as we should exhibit. We have for baptism no day set, as the Jews had for circumcision ; neither have we by the law of God, but only by the Church's discretion, a place thereunto appointed. Baptism, therefore, even in the meaning of the law of Christ, belongeth unto infants, capable thereof from the very instant of their birth, which, if they have not howsoever, rather than lose it by putting it off because the time, the place, or some such-like cir- cumstance, does not solemnly enough concur, the Church, as much as in her lieth, wilfully casteth away their souls." — (Eccl. Pol. v. lx. 7.) Now it is very true that, in this passage, Hooker does not mention the refusal of baptism on account of the absence of a " lawful Minister y "s being one of the cases in which the Church would incur this horrible guilt ; but any one must perceive that his arguments apply to this case as well as to AND CHURCH BURIALS. 121 the cases of "place" and " time," if a " lawful Mi- nister" be not necessary to the valid performance of the rite. And no one, who knows what the opinion of Hooker upon this point was, can doubt that this case was meant to be included by him in the "some such-like circumstance." That the case should not be mentioned by him particularly, is intel- ligible enough, from the consideration of the rever- ence which Hooker felt for that branch of the Church Catholic to which he belonged, and which according to his notions, must have incurred that guilt by her decision in 1575*. And on the other hand, the cir- cumstance (so astonishing to many, that it causes them to doubt the authenticity of the Article) of Hooker's total silence on so important a decision, is explained, in some degree at least, by the evidence which the above extract affords, that he must have considered it not only unadvisable, but sinful. Thus I think, it appears, that the doctrine of the Church of England is most decidedly contrary to the validity of Lay Baptism ; — and if she has come to this doctrine only by degrees, it is no more than was to be expected in her recovery from a long established, and, as it is truly called by Waterland, a most pleasing error, — ay, 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 * Conv. 15/5, Ait. 12. See pnge 57. 122 dissenters' baptisms Church, than they themselves, in their personal capa- city, were as yet willing, perhaps able, to receive. Certain it is that the divines of our Church have come, only by little and little, to the standard of what, I think, we have seen to be the Church's doctrine upon this subject. Before the age of Charles I., what are generally esteemed the High Church divines were almost universally in favour of the validity of Lay Baptism, and after that age still many were so, — though a most marked change took place at that period, and from that period gained ground. It might perhaps be imagined that the reason of this change of opinion and sentiment in our divines is to be sought in political considera- tions ; but I believe, and I think my readers will agree with me, that a much more satisfactory ex- planation is furnished by Mr. Keble, in his Preface to the late edition of Hooker. Mr. Keble is remarking upon the distinction between the school of Hooker, and that of Laud, Hammond and Leslie, — and speaking of the disco- very of the genuine Epistles of Ignatius subsequently to the time of Hooker, he goes on to say, that " He (Hooker) did not feel at liberty to press unreservedly, and develope, in all its consequences, that part of the argument which they, taught by the primitive Church, regarded as the most vital and decisive; the necessity, namely, of the Apostolical Commission to the derivation of Sacramental grace, and to our mystical union with Christ." — (Keble's Hooker, Preface, Ixxvii.) AND CHURCH BURIALS. 123 I subjoin a few extracts which mark the change of tone and feeling upon this subject: — Archbishop Ussher. " What are the outward signs in Baptism ? — They are the outward elements of water, and the outward sacramental actions performed about it. u What are those Sacramental actions ? — First the minister's blessing and consecrating the water, and secondly the right applying it so consecrated to the party to be baptized. " May none but a lawful Minister Baptize? — No, for Baptism is a part of the Public Ministry of the Church, and Christ has given warrant and authority to none to Baptize, but those whom he has called to preach the Gospel — ' Go Preach and Baptize/ Matt, 28, 29. Those only may stand in the room of God himself, and ministerially set to the Seal of the Covenant; and it is a monstrous presumption for women or any other private persons (who are not called) to meddle with such high mysteries, nor can there be any case of necessity, to urge, as will appear afterwards*." — {Body of Divinity, 3rd ed. 1648, p. 412.) * It is true that Ussher in his youth had imhibed some puritanical notions, and that this work, which, at parts, is tinc- tured with them, was written at a very early age, and afterwards published without his consent. It was, however, republished more than once during the author's lifetime, without, I believe, any objection on his part; and no one will dare to assert that he changed his opinion upon this subject, or that he had not at least as much learning and piety to guide him to truth upon the matter, as had any one of his contemporaries. I 2 124 dissenters' baptisms Archbishop Bramhall. " The child wants the use of reason to desire Baptism, the parents do desire it for the child, but want the means to procure it j — shall they christen it with sand ? as was sometimes done in the like case at the instant of death. This would be no celebra- tion, but a bold presumption and profanation of the Holy Sacrament. How much better were it to commit it to the secret and extraordinary mercy of God, who hath not bound his power to the Sacraments, as all divines do agree." — (Discourse of Persons dying without Baptism*.) Hammond. M Christ I doubt not changed the Jewish cere- mony in many things, as in laying aside circum- cision, in commissionating his disciples to Baptize, (and they leaving it in the hands of the Bishop, and those to whom he should commit it, ovk igov io-n %&>/hs- t°^ iTTia/coTrov fiaTTTL^eiv, it is not lawful to bap- tize without the Bishop, saith Ignatius,) whereas it was not among the Jews any part of the Priest's Office, any more than circumcision was." — (Defence of Infant Baptism, 1655, sec. 6 — 1. Bishop Jeremy Taylor. Bishop Taylor heads the 7th Rule of chapt. i, sect. 11, of his Ductor Dubitantium thus: "Actions * See Appendix, Note P. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 125 which are forbidden by the law of nature, either for defect of power or for the incapacity of the matter, are not only unlawful but also void;" and under this Rule occur the following remarks : — " In all moral actions there must be a substantial potestative principle that must have proportion'd power to the effect ; a thing cannot be done without a cause and principle in morality, any more than in nature. If a woman goes about to consecrate the Holy Sacrament, % ei P ctKvpos, it is an ineffective hand ; she sins in attempting it ; and cannot do it afterwards; and it were wiser and truer if men would think the same thing of their giving Baptism, unless they will confess that to baptize children is a mere natural and secular action, to which natural powers are sufficient," &c. &c. Again, under Rule 15 of Book hi, which he heads " The laudable customs of the Catholic Church which are in present observ- ation do oblige the conscience of all Christians," he writes, " But this is to be understood of such customs as are laudable, that is, such as have no suspicion or moral reproach upon them. It was a custom in many churches anciently, and not long since in the Church of England, that in cases of the infants' extreme danger, the midwifes did Baptize them. This custom came in at a wrong door, it lean'd upon a false and superstitious opinion, and they thought it better to invade the Priest's office, than to trust God with the souls which He made with His own hands, and redeemed with His Son's blood. But this custom was not to be followed if it 126 dissenters' baptisms had still continued ; for even then they confessed it was sin, factum valet, fieri non debuit, and evil ought not to be done for a good end. This custom therefore is of the nature of those which are to be laid aside. OvSeh fiaiTTiZei el/xrj x^tpoTovlav e%et, no man Baptizes but he that is in Holy Orders, said Simeon of Thes- salonica; and I think he said truly." — Ductor Dubitantium, Ed. 1696, p. 197. And he speaks as strongly of the matter, and treats it more fully,, in section iv., of " The Divine Insti- tution of the Office Ministerial." Dean Comber, Bearing witness to the doctrine of the Church, 11 As the Apostles only had commission to do this, so with us only lawful Ministers may Baptize." — (Short Discourses on the Common Prayer, Ed. 1684, p. 345 ; 1712, p. 343.) Again and more fully: — "He that doth Baptize ought to be a lawful Minister, for Christ gave this commission only to the Apostles, joyning the office of preaching together with it, so that unordained persons may as well presume to preach as to Baptize. And therefore the Church of old forbad women to Baptize, and Epiphanius accounts it ridiculous in Alarcion and his followers to permit women to do this office. So that our Church requires it to be done by a lawful minister. I know there are some allegations out of antiquity which seem to allow of a layman to Bap- tize in cases of great necessity. But there are others of the Fathers who disallow that practice ; AND CHURCH BURIALS. 127 and certainly it is a great presumption for an ordi- nary person to invade the ministerial office without any warrant ; and as to the pretence that a child may he in danger, I suppose the salvation of the child may be as safe upon the stock of God's mercy without any Baptism, as with a Baptism which is not commanded by God, and to which he hath made no promises. So that where God gives not opportunity of a person who may do it aright, it seems better to leave it undone." Comber's Com- p anion to the Temple, Ed. 1701, p. 602. Dr. Waterland's testimony and opinion has been already given ; and those who wish to become ac- quainted with both sides of the question, without much labour, cannot do better than read his con- troversy with Mr. Kelsall upon the subject ; which is only to be found in print in the tenth volume of Bishop Van Mildert's edition of his works, and the authenticity of which is fully vindicated by the Editor in his preface. Leslie. "A Discourse showing who are qualified to admi- nister Baptism and the Lord's Supper, wherein the cause of Episcopacy is briefly treated. " No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." — Heb. v. 4. Works, Vol. i., Ed. 1721. He is arguing throughout this discourse in favour of the commission to Baptize being only to the Apostles, and he would, I think, have made the 128 dissenters' baptisms exception of Lay Baptism in case of necessity, if he had felt it to be an exception, especially as in his preface to the Discourse on Water Baptism, to which this is a kind of supplement, he speaks most strongly against the Dissenters for not allowing their children to be Baptized privately in case of extremity, but speaks nothing of Lay Baptism under such circumstances. In another part of his works, however, testimony is given of a nature more direct : — " As no man can be a lawful attorney for ano- ther, to sign and seal covenants, in his name, which shall oblige him to the performance, without a letter of attorney, expressly empowering him so to do, whereby that person does oblige himself to stand by and perform such covenants, as if he himself had signed them ; much less can any man take upon himself to be God's attorney or representative ; and as such to sign and seal covenants in His name without His express commission for that purpose." And after showing that the clergy only are thus " God's attorneys" he continues, " the seals of the new covenant are Baptism and the Lord's Supper." Case of the Regale. Works, 1721, Vol. i., 659, 660. Bishop Beveridge. Speaking of the transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit to the clergy, in the apostolical succes- sion, he continues, " And so it is at this day; all the efficacy that there is, or can be, in the admi- nistration of any ecclesiastical office, depends alto- AND CHUltCH BURIALS. 129 gether upon the Spirit of God going along with the office, and assisting at the execution of it, without which the sacraments we administer would be but empty signs, and our preaching no more than beat- ing of the air. Whereas, on the other side, Christ, according to His promise, "being always present, by His Holy Spirit, at the administration of the seve- ral offices, which He has ordained in His Church, they can never fail of their desired effect, if the persons to whom they are administered be but rightly disposed and qualified for it. By this means they that are duly Baptized are "born again," not only of water, but of the Spirit also ; and so, to- gether with the " washing of regeneration, they have the renewing of the Holy Ghost." — Beve- ridge's Works. Home's Ed., vol. ii., p. 93. " Philip, indeed, having had the apostles' hands laid upon him, had thereby received power to Bap- tize them with water and the Holy Ghost." — Vol. ii., p. 95. " For whensoever He, the great Creator and Governor of the world, hath revealed His will and pleasure to his creatures, how He would have them worship and serve Him that made them; He hath still, at the same time, constituted certain officers amongst them, to assist them in it; which officers being, as it were, His own domestics, or immediate servants or ministers, waiting continually upon Himself and His service, He always hath reserved to Himself the constitution or ordination of them ; not suffering any one that had a mind to it, to 130 dissenters' baptisms meddle with any thing belonging to the said offices, without His leave and order first obtained. And if any presume to do it, He doth not only make what they do void, and of no effect; but he punisheth them severely for it : as we find by many instances in Holy Scripture." — Vol. ii., p. 109. " The other inference respects all here present : for from the premises duly weighed, you cannot but all infer, both the necessity and dignity of those Holy Orders which are now to be conferred : the necessity, in that the means of salvation cannot be administered effectually without them ; and the dignity, in that they are effectually administered by them."— Vol. ii., p. 125. "The Fathers do offer themselves to be wit- nesses also in this case, but I shall trouble but these few for the present. As for the sacraments, Basil saith, ' But they being far from us, and laymen, have no power to Baptize or Ordain.' ' For that,' saith Athanasius, ' is the office only of those that are over the Catholic Church. For it belongs to you only, and to none else, to give to drink of the blood of Christ.' Chrysostom joins both sacra- ments together; ' But,' says he, 'if none can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he be born again of water and the Spirit, and he that eateth not the flesh of the Lord, and drinketh his blood, is cast out of eternal life, and all these things cannot be per- forme.d by any one else, but only by those holy hands, I mean the priest's, how can any one with- out them either shun the fire of hell, or be made AND CHURCH BURIALS. 131 partaker of the crowns that are set before us V So that it is the priests or ministers only, and none else, that can administer either of the sacraments." — Vol. ix., p. 451. "It is better, indeed, to have the sacraments administered by worthy than by unworthy ministers ; but, howsoever, the sacraments may be as effectual when administered by unworthy as by worthy ministers. So that the effect of the office is not at all diminished by any defects in the officers : neither is God's grace hindered from being conveyed to such as worthily receive the sacraments, because of the sinfulness of those persons they receive them from. But a man may receive the sacraments effec- tually from an unworthy as well as from a worthy minister : he may be profited by the word preached and the sacraments administered, though the one be administered, and the other preached by wicked and unworthy persons ; I mean, if they be rightly called to the work; if it be their office to preach the word, and administer the sacraments, we may hear the one and receive the other effectually at their hands, notwithstanding any personal infirmi- ties they may be under, or be guilty of." — Vol. ix., p. 470. Bishop Wilson. "They (children of believers,) have, I say, a right to all these blessings, by being Baptized by the lawful steward of the mysteries of God ; for this is one of the mysteries committed by Christ to 132 dissenters' baptisms His ministers, and to them only" — Sermons on 1 Cor.iv. 1. Ed. 1796, p. 276. Bishop Mant. " I speak of the minister of the Church as the person by whom the child is to be Baptized. For the commission to Baptize, together with that of preaching the Gospel, was given by our Lord to His Apostles, and by them transmitted to other minis- ters, whether they were those who succeeded the apostles in the government of the Church, or those who were called to inferior orders and administra- tions in the same. In a word, to all persons, law- fully called and sent, with Christ's commission, the ministration of Baptism unquestionably belongs. "But this ministration belongs to no other per- sons than those, who are sent with Christ's com- mission. For the appointment of Christ is neces- sary to authorise the performance of any act in His name, and to give assurance of any accompanying blessings. Such is the sacrament of Baptism, ad- ministered as it is in the name of Christ, and ordained for the purpose of conveying with it re- mission of sins and spiritual regeneration ; the ordi- nance ' wherein we are made members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven.' But no authority to minister Baptism having been given to any others than Christ's ministers, it should seem that Baptism, as well as the preaching of the Gospel and the ministration of AND CHURCH BURIALS. 133 the other sacrament, cannot lawfully, and with assur- ance of its efficacy, be celebrated by any others. " And this is agreeable to the rules of the Church. For although there may have been afore- time some, who have pleaded for the ministration of Baptism in cases of great necessity by another person than a lawful minister, where a lawful minister could not be had ; and although the Church of Rome, acting under the persuasion of the abso- lute necessity of Baptism to salvation, has allowed persons, not having the ministerial commission,, to Baptize in such cases ; and although in the earliest ages of our Reformed Church, under the influence of the like persuasion, inherited from the Romish Church, allowance was likewise given for such a practice ; yet, subsequently, following the judgment and example of the early Church, she discerned her error, and retraced her steps ; and by three succes- sive corrections of her decision, first, by a restric- tive explanation of her former law in Queen Eliza- beth's time, and then in King James the First's, and again in King Charles the Second's, by a new and positive provision, she determined, that even private Baptism, in cases of great necessity, should be ministered only by a lawful minister. And the ground of her determination must be judged to be, that however excellent be the sacrament of Baptism by reason of its spiritual grace, that grace is not promised except to its due administration ; and that it were better to omit the rite altogether, and to 134 dissenters' baptisms leave the child to the uncoven anted mercy of God, than to make pretence of ministering it unlawfully, and thus attempt to bring the child into covenant with God by an instrument not of His appoint- ment." — Mant's Discourses on the Church, p. 243. Again, in his Notes on the Common Prayer, Bishop Mant writes, quoting, it would seem, with some alterations, from Wheatley: — " If, however, it be asked, whether Baptism, when performed by an unordained person, be, in the sense of our Church, * valid/ and ' effectual,' we may answer, that, according to the best judg- ment we can form from her public acts and offices, it is not. For she not only supposes, in the sixty- ninth Canon, that a child will die unbaptized, if the regular minister does not come time enough to Baptize it ; but in the determination of the Bishops and Convocation in 1575, she expressly declares, that even ' in cases of necessity/ baptism is only to be administered by a ' lawful Minister or Dea- con/ and directly inhibits all other persons from intermeddling with it, though ever so ' privately, as being no part of their vocation :' a plain intimation that no baptism, but what is administered by per- sons duly ordained, is valid or effectual. For if baptism administered by persons not ordained be valid, and sufficient to convey the benefits of it, why should such persons be prohibited to administer it in cases of real necessity, when a regular Minister cannot be procured ? It would surely be better for AND CHURCH BURIALS. 135 the child to have it from any hand, if any hand could give it, than that it should die without the advantage of it. Our Church, therefore, by prohi- biting all from intermeddling in baptism but a ' lawful ' Minister, plainly hints, that when baptism is administered by any others, it conveys no benefit or advantage to the child, but only brings upon those who pretend to administer it, the guilt of usurping a sacred office: and, consequently, that persons so pretendedly baptized (if they lived to be sensible of their state and condition), are to apply to their lawful Minister or Bishop for that holy sacrament, of which they only received a profana- tion before." — Mant on Office of Private Baptism. This list of witnesses might be greatly enlarged ; but I have adduced amply sufficient to point out the change of feeling upon this subject, which has taken place since the discovery of the genuine Epistles of Ignatius. There has, since that period, been a growing tendency among our soundest Divines to- wards the denial of the validity of Lay Baptism ; even as there has, since the period of the Reforma- tion, been an ever-growing tendency in the Church, toward the absolute declaration of its invalidity. There exists not, indeed, any positive, direct decision of the subject by the latter, even as there exists no union of opinion upon it among the former; but we have already seen that the indirect judgment of the Church is so strong — that so much has been 136 dissenters' baptisms implied by her against it — that if, as her Ministers we are not warranted in proclaiming it invalid, at least, as her Ministers, we are not warranted in re- cognising its validity, — and still less are we warranted in claiming her authority to do it — using her own most solemn forms, and calling upon God, in her own words of unhesitating confidence, to recognise in Lay Baptism a covenanted validity and grace, of the existence of which, to say the least, she has shown herself uncertain and suspicious*. But, leaving this question of Lay Baptism, and admitting, for the sake of argument, that the Church of England has not, at any rate directly, pronounced it to be invalid, let us briefly consider these Bap- tisms which we are now discussing, in the other point of view, in which we have seen they are to be considered, viz., as Heretical Baptisms. Now, in order the more clearly to understand the judgment of our Church upon them as such, it must be remarked, that though Heretical Baptism, administered in proper form, may be of two kinds, viz., the one by Clergymen who have fallen into heresy, and have been thrust out of the Catholic Church — the other by Heretics who never were admitted into Holy Orders, — and that these two kinds of Heretical Baptism have been held by some to affect the question of validity differently, whereas all such distinction has been denied by others, — I say, it must be remarked that this distinction, be * See Appendix, Note Q. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 137 it right or wrong, and the disputed question of the loss, or suspension, of Ministerial unction, in a Clergyman falling into heresy and excommunicated, does not enter into the case before us — inasmuch as the great majority of these Baptisms are, beyond all dispute, Lay Baptisms, being ministered by persons who have never received Apostolic Ordi- nation. In the next place, it is to be observed that if the Church of England admits the validity of Lay Baptism at all, she does so upon the tradition and authority of the ancient Church. And, again, it is to be remarked, that instead of receiving that tradition/w%, she receives it, to say the least, with great limitations — inasmuch as, at the utmost, she admits its validity, and positively forbids its practice. These things we have already seen; and we have seen also that our Church looks upon Heretics, of all kinds, with quite as much abhorrence as the Church of old did, — for by her Canons, she places the abettors of Heresy and Schism, ipso facto, in a state of Excommunication ; and by her 33rd Article, she pronounces of every such person that "he ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican." It surely, then, will not be urged that on either of these grounds, viz., of Lay Baptism or Heretical Baptism, the Church of England can look upon these Lay- Heretical- Baptisms, of which I am now writing, with greater leniency than that with which the ancient K 138 dissenters' baptisms Church would have regarded them. We will then, inquire, and that through the medium of that English divine who has most strongly advocated the validity of Lay Baptism and Heretical Bap- tism also, how the ancients regarded Baptism by Heretics. And here, first, I am ready to admit, (for I wish not in disputed points to assume anything in which there may be a shadow of proof against me,) that as the bulk of the ancients, of the West at any rate, (I say not the primitive Church), seem to have re- garded Lay Baptism to be valid, so do they appear to have regarded Heretical Baptism as valid also — provided only it were administered with water, and in the name of the Holy Trinity. Baptism, how- ever, by the Arians, and by some other sects, seems to have been often excepted ; inasmuch as, although it was administered by them in the name, it was not administered in the faith of the Trinity. Upon the first of these points I need not stop to quote authorities, because I am thus far making an admis- sion to our opponents. In support of the second, no more is necessary than to refer to Bingham*, the great champion both of Lay and of Heretical Baptism. I must, however, pause for a moment, in order to consider the mutual bearings of these regulations; for they furnish, I think, one instance among many — and an instructive one it is with re- * Ch. Ant., Book xix., c. ii., sect. 7 and 8j also Schol. Hist, of Lay Bapt., part i., c. i., sect. 20. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 139 ference to this subject — of the inconsistencies which men will always fall into when they attempt to im- prove upon the Ordinances of God. It has ever been the doctrine of the Catholic Church that the Ordinances of God are not inva- lidated by any personal defect in the Minister of those Ordinances. This tenet of the Church, borne out most fully by the Holy Scripture, is founded on the consideration that all worthiness and fitness to administer the Ordinances of God must depend entirely on the Divine Commission of the Minister, and not on any personal qualifica- tions ; for, if otherwise, they would become inef- fectual when administered even by the best of men — " Behold He putteth no trust in His Saints — yea the heavens are not clean in His sight.* " Thus^ as I have already had occasion to observe, the Church of England testifies in her XXVIth Article that, " Although in the Visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments ; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name but in Christ's, and do minister by His Commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing of the Word of God and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's Ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as, by faith, and rightly, do receive * Job xv. 15. K 2 140 dissenters' baptisms the Sacraments Ministered unto them ; which be effectual because of Christ's institution and pro- mise, although they be ministered by evil men." According to this Article and the doctrine ever maintained by the Church Catholic, as taught by Holy Scripture, a Baptism administered with Water and in the Name of the Trinity by one " duly Commissioned to Minister in the Congre- gation" would, in every sense of the word, be valid, — even though the Minister of that Baptism should be unsound in the faith., or should have become an infidel. But this truth, depending entirely on Ministerial Commission, of course does not hold good in cases where that Commission does not exist. In such a case, therefore, many of the ancients found themselves compelled to admit that unsound- ness in the Faith in the Minister of Baptism, at any rate concerning the Holy Trinity, would render that Baptism, in every sense of the word, invalid. But it is surely not a little singular that this consi- deration did not immediately lead them to another, which, if it did not cause them to reject Lay Bap- tism altogether, should, it would appear, at any rate have caused them to reject the Baptism of all Heretics, — that God alone can certainly ascertain the soundness or unsoundness of the faith of any indi- vidual upon earth, since He only is the searcher of the heart. Be this, however, as it may, I am ready to admit, for the sake of argument, that the majority of AND CHURCH BURIALS. 141 the ancients, at any rate in the West and after the third century, did consider Heretical Baptism (by which I here mean Baptism administered in due form by a person not in Communion with the Catholic Church) to be valid : but in making this admission, I must most strenuously contend that the very persons who did so, would have considered it blasphemy to use our present Burial Service over one so Baptized, and not afterwards received into the Communion of the Church. They would have regarded it as a mockery of God to speak of such an one as " our dear Brother here departed," and to praise Him for " His great mercy" in ' ' delivering him out of the miseries of this sinful world," ic and in taking his soul unto Himself :" and however excel- lent may have been the individual, or however young, at the utmost they would have been silent, not in joy- ful, but in sorrowing hope, concerning one who had died without the Christian Covenant; and leaving him to the mercies of an all-pitying Creator, would have thought it audacity to determine upon His reception or rejection of him; and, far from fore- stalling the sentence of his Judge, would not have dared even to speculate upon his fate; but humbly thankful for their own Salvation, knowing that the benefit was undeserved, would have prayed indeed, but in secret, and not tempting their God with the inquiry, Lord where shall this man be P In fact the validity which the ancients ascribed to Heretical Baptism in the name of the Trinity, 142 dissenters' baptisms extended only thus far — that in the event of such persons ever being admitted into Communion tvith the Church, their Baptism should not be repeated. The ancients never held that Heretical Baptism, in any form, was an admission to the Christian Covenant, — that it placed the Baptized person in a state of salvation. They considered it as a mere u outward form" unaccompanied by, destitute of, "inward grace;" which defect, they thought, in the event of a person so Baptized being afterwards admitted into Communion with the Church, was remedied through the laying on of the Bishop's hands, with the holy unction in Confirmation. In support of what I have here stated it is not necessary to refer to ancient writers; it will be sufficient to bring forward Bingham's testimony, who, I must again remind my readers, was the greatest of all modern advocates for the validity both of Lay and Heretical Baptism. His references to authorities are ample. And let it be remembered that 1 am here stating the opinions of the ancients, and not defending them. For I confess that it seems to me that, even upon their own principles, both Heretical Baptism and Lay Baptism must be pronounced invalid, — and, moreover, that no subse- quent rite, however holy, which is not the Sacrament itself, cpii supply " the inward grace" which Christ has joined to " the outward form/' when duly administered and received — but of which they themselves confessed " the outward form" was AND CHURCH BURIALS. 143 destitute, when administered out of the Communion of the Catholic Church. Speaking of the absolution of penitents, and their reconciliation to the Church, Bingham remarks upon some peculiarities in " the reconciliation of Heretics and Schismatics/' and after observing that of these there were three classes, 1st, Those who had fallen into Heresy or Schism after Baptism — 2nd, Those who had been Baptized in it, but ivith the proper form — 3rd, Those who had been Baptized by Here- tics without the proper form — he proceeds to say: " The first sort were reconciled much after the same manner as other penitents, only making a confession and abjuration of their errors. But the second sort, because they wanted the true effect of Baptism, that is, the grace and unction of the Holy Spirit, which they could not have out of the Church in Heresy and Schism, were therefore reconciled not only with imposition of hands, but with the holy unction or chrism added to it, to give the confirma- tion, and denote their reception of the Holy Spirit of peace, upon their returning to the peace and unity of the Church. And the third sort, because they wanted true Baptism, were received after the manner of heathens, with a new Baptism, because their first pretended Baptism was altogether null and void. The two latter sorts of heretics were scarce looked upon as properly penitents in the Church, but were received sub imagine pamit entice, under the image and resemblance of the penance that 144 dissenters' baptisms was usually performed by those who had once been members of the Church." — (Bingham's Chr. Ant., b. xix. ch. ii. sect. 7. See also b. xix., ch.i., sect. 2.) Again, in the Scholastic History of Lay Baptism, he writes, " Now, though the Baptism of heretics and schismatics, and degraded or excommunicated clerks, was reputed valid; so as it needed not to be repeated ; yet it was not esteemed so perfect to all intents and purposes as the regular and authorized Baptism of the Church, because both on the part of the receiver and on the part of the giver there were some deficiencies in it." — (Sch. Hist., P. I., ch. i., sect. 21.) And then, after quoting the opinion of St. Austin, that those who were thus Baptized were somewhat in the condition of Simon Magus, and other bad men and hypocrites Baptized in the Church, who thereby received a valid outward form, not to be repeated, but received not inward grace, — and after defending this opinion from misinterpretation, and again and again stating that the validity con- tended for was an outward validity only, he con- tinues — " Nor was this the singular opinion of St. Austin about the deficiency of Heretical Baptism, but the general sense of the Church : for which reason they appointed that imposition of hands should be given to such as returned to the Church, in order to obtain the grace of the Holy Ghost for them by prayer, which they wanted before, as having received Baptism AND CHURCH BURIALS. 145 from those who had no power to give the Holy Ghost." And then remarking upon the fact that this im- position of hands in prayer, with unction for Con- firmation, was esteemed so necessary, that although it was peculiarly the Bishop's Office, yet Presbyters were allowed to give it where the repentant heretic was in danger of death, he adds — " And therefore it was thought necessary to be done when heretics came over to the Church, to supply the defects of their Baptism, which did not minister with the outward visible form the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit before.'" —(Sch. Hist., p. 1, ch. 1, sect. 21.) Surely with this testimony of the great cham- pion of Heretical Baptism before us, in which, I repeat, he is fully borne out by his references to ancient records — surely we cannot suppose that our brethren of old could have brought themselves to use our Burial Office over persons Baptized by Dissenters, and dying without reconciliation to the Church by absolution and confirmation ; surely we cannot doubt that they would have considered it blasphemy to do so — to speak of that person as having " departed hence in the Lord," to call him, in the Christian sense, " Our Brother," and to thank God that He hath " taken his soul unto Himself," concerning "the validity of whose Baptism" it is testified by Bingham that — " It signified this much, that they were not to 146 dissenters' baptisms be rebaptized when they came over to the Catholic Church ; but it did not signify that they were in a state of salvation while they continued in heresy and schism." — (Bingham, Schol. Hist, of Lay Bapt., Appendix, sect. 6.) Thus may we gather what would have been the practice of the ancient Church with respect to the Burial of the persons concerning whom I am now writing : and that my conclusion is a just one, is further evidenced by the fact which I have more than once brought forward, that such persons, until Confirmed and formally reconciled to the Church, were considered heretics, accompanied by two other facts which I shall presently take occasion to notice more at large, — that all heretics who either voluntarily separated themselves from the Catholic Church, or were openly denounced, were considered, to all intents and purposes, in a state of excommunication, and that to all persons in a state of excommunication, the rites of Christian Burial were positively and absolutely forbidden. As then, I repeat, the Church of England, in admitting the validity of Lay and Heretical Bap- tism, does so, if at all, only on the authority of the ancient Church, and that with great limitations, it cannot be supposed that she would act so incon- sistently as to go beyond the ancient Church in this one point of Burial, — and thus recognise in that Baptism an efficacy for Salvation which they them- selves denied, and call upon God to acknowledge AND CHURCH BURIALS. 147 therein the ratification of a Covenant, which they would have thought it blasphemy to talk of. But let us turn our attention to the second exception mentioned in the Rubric, and under this head the matter will become still more clear: " Here is to be noted, that the Office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excom- municate, &c. &c." Now, in order to understand this regulation it is to be observed that there are two kinds of excom- munication in the discipline of the Church — the excommunicato minor, which places the person excommunicated in a state of penance and suspension from the holy Eucharist, and the excommunicato major, which cuts off the person excommunicated altogether from the Church. The Rubric which we are considering, and which did not exist in our Prayer- Book before the last "Review," does not state which kind of excommunication is intended. But the GSth Canon of 1603 forms a Canon of interpre- tation to the regulation of the Rubric, by forbidding the denial of Christian Burial to those who are only in a state of penance. The Canon provides — " That no Minister shall refuse or delay to bury any corpse which is brought to the Church or Church -yard, convenient warning being given him thereof before, in such manner and form as is pre- scribed in the said Book of Common Prayer. And if he shall refuse to bury, except the party deceased were denounced excommunicated majori excom- 148 dissenters' baptisms municatione , for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testify his repentance — he shall be suspended by the Bishop of the diocese from his ministry by the space of three months." By this, we perceive, that the persons who come under the exception of this regulation are those, and those only, who are no longer members of the Church, and have lost the grace of Baptism. And it is for this reason that they are refused Burial, — not because of the crime, but because they are cut off from the Church, — for the criminal, though convicted, unless excommunicated, is not to be refused sepul- ture. Thus far, they are precisely in the same con- dition as those who are mentioned in the former regulation, viz., those who " die unbaptized:" both are destitute of Baptismal grace — aliens from the Church of God. It must, however, be remarked ? that there are limits to the similarity of the two cases : the one, to become entitled to Christian Burial, as a possessor of Baptismal grace, must receive the rite of Baptism, — the other, to become entitled to Christian Burial, as a possessor of Baptismal grace, need only receive absolution, and become reconciled to the Church — nay, it is sufficient if any one can testify his repentance before death. Hence, it appears, that the exceptions mentioned in this Rubric to the Burial Office are not, as Sir John Nicholl argues, " exactly of the same kind." The first exception is of such persons as have not received the rite of Baptism. The second exception is of AND CHURCH BURIALS. 149 such persons as have received the rite of Baptism, but are destitute of Baptismal Grace. And this last is precisely the position of those persons of whom I am now treating, if their Baptism be valid, — that position, I mean, which has ever been assigned to them by all those members of the Catholic Church, whether in ancient or in modern times, who have most strongly advocated the validity of Baptism by Heretics. Hence I contend, that the Church of England most decidedly refuses Christian Burial to persons who, having received Heretical Baptism, have not subsequently been " reconciled" to the Church, — for she either regards them as " Unbaptized," and therefore places them under the first exception in her Rubric, or else she regards them, as the ancients did, (and it would be a folly and a contradiction to contend that she went beyond the ancients on this subject, when, as we have seen, she receives not their tradition thereupon without great limitations) as Baptized indeed, but destitute of Baptismal Grace, in which, case, her decision is pointed out by the second exception. In a word, the intention of the Rubric, as interpreted by the 68th Canon, evidently is that Christian Burial is to be denied to all who die unbaptized, and all, moreover, who, having been baptized, die " ex- communicate," viz. out of the Communion of the Church, and therefore destitute of Baptismal Grace, as separated from the Mystical Body of Christ. That this is the meaning of the 150 dissenters' baptisms Rubric, and that those persons whose Baptism and Right of Burial we are considering, come under its second exception, even if they escape the first, will appear, J think, perfectly clear from a reference to the customs of the Church of old, as well as to the records and monuments of our own Church, since the Reformation*. First, then, in order to show that Heretics and Schismatics were denied the privilege of the Church's rites in the same degree as excommunicated persons, and w T ere considered as such, we may again refer to Bingham : — "We must note, to avoid ambiguity, that He- retics and Schismatics were commonly ranked in the same class with excommunicated persons. Sometimes being formally cut off from the Church by her censures, and sometimes voluntarily by their own separation; and, therefore, until they had made confession and renunciation of their errors, and were reconciled by imposition of hands and absolu- tion, they were reckoned in the number of those to whom communion of pray ersand this holy Sacrament were denied ; and that whether they had been bap- tized in the Church, or were baptized in Heresy and Schism." — Bingham's Chr. Ant., book xv., c. vi., sect. 6. Here then, it appears, that a person baptized in Heresy and Schism, and not subsequently "recon- ciled" to the Church, was treated, with respect to * Appendix, Note R. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 151 the rites of the Church, as an excommunicated per- son. In order then to see more exactly what that treatment was, I will refer my readers to another passage : — " No one was to receive excommunicated per- sons into their houses, nor eat at the same table with them ; they were not to converse with them familiarly whilst living; nor perform the funeral obsequies for them when dead, after the solemn rites and manners that were used toward other Christians. . . . " The Apostolical Canons forbid any one to communicate in prayer, so much as in a private house, with excommunicated persons, under the same penalty of excommunication. And if they happen to die in professed rebellion and contempt of penance, then they were to be treated as all con- temners and despisers of holy Ordinances were, by being denied the honour and benefit of Christian Burial. No solemnity of psalmody or prayers was used at their funeral ." — Bingham's Chr. Ant., book xvi., c. ii., sect. 1 1. A third extract will place the matter beyond all doubt : — " Another sort of persons to whom the Church denied the privilege of solemn burial, were all ex- communicated persons, who continued obstinate and impenitent in a manifest contempt of the Church's discipline and censures. Under which denomination all Heretics and Schismatics, that were actually de- nounced such by the censures of the Church, were included. For the office of burial belonged only to 152 dissenters' baptisms the Fideles, or communicants, that is, such as were either in the full communion of the Church, or else, if they were excommunicate, were yet in a dispo- sition to communicate by accepting and submitting to the rules of penance and discipline in the Church. In which case their desire of communion was accepted, as the Catechumen's desire of Baptism, and they were treated as communicants though they happened to die without a formal reconciliation to the Church." — Bingham's Chr. Ant., book xxiii., ch. iv., sect. 23. Here, then, we perceive that although the early Church — (I use the word early advisedly; for I cannot find any evidence that the primitive Church did so)* — although the early Church admitted the validity of Heretical Baptism, still they did not admit that the "outward form," in such Baptism, was accompanied by "inward grace ;" and therefore they denied the rite of Christian Burial to all those who had been so Baptized, and not subsequently recon- ciled to the Church. For be it remarked, to prevent misapprehension, that the qualification of the rule concerning Heretics and Schismatics, in the last extract, denoted by the words, " that were actually denounced such by the censures of the Church/' does not apply to such persons, (as is clearly shown by my last extract but two) : — It relates not to those who voluntarily separate themselves from the Church's Communion, — and still less to those who have never been received into it ; but it has refer- * Appendix, Note S. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 153 ence to those only who, entertaining heretical opinions, or acting Schismatically against their Bishops or the Church's regulations, would yet shelter themselves within the Church's pale, and enjoy the privileges of her Communion. Such, then, was the conduct of the early Church upon this matter, as drawn from the testimony of the greatest modern advocate of the validity of such Baptisms; — and we are not left to mere argument — strong though., as we have seen, our ground even then would be — to prove that the Church of England is led therein by her example. We have something like documentary evidence to support us. It will be remembered that the 68th Canon, which forbids the denial of Burial to any one excepting to " a person excommunicate excommunicatione majori," and which, we have seen, forms an interpretation of the Rubric, was published in the year 1603. In the Library of the British Museum there is a Copy of *' The Articles of Enquiry at the visitation of the Bishop of London*, A.D. 1604" — the very next year, be it remembered, after the above-mentioned Canon was enacted; and among these articles we find an inquiry put to the Churchwardens of every parish in the diocese, which shows at once the Church's custom with respect both to Heretics and Schismatics, and also the character of those "grievous and notorious crimes" for which the 68th Canon supposes a person to be excommunicated. * Bancroft. L 154 DISSENT! RS' BAPTISMS " Whether any notorious Recusant, who ob- stinately refuseth to be partaker with the Church of England in publike prayer, and hearing of the word of God preached, who is for his disobedience and contempt excommunicated, and dyeth excom- municate, be buryed in christian buriall, not having before his death sought to be absolved, and testified the same his submission to some honest discreete man who shall upon his oath signifie to the Bishop of the Dioces, whereby his Lordship may give order to the ordinarie before whom he was excommunicate, for his absolution." Now, here it is to be remarked that the 68th Canon forbids, under heavy penalties, the refusal of Christian Burial to any corpse which is brought for sepulture, except that person has died excom- municate, excommunicatione majori. No one, I ima- gine, will therefore contend that persons who died unbaptized were to be Buried : — the Canon, as we have before seen, was an interpretation of the old law of the Church with respect to excommunicated persons ; and it pronounced that those only who, with reference to the Christian Church, were placed in a condition similar to that of persons unbaptized, • — or rather to that which was assigned, of old, to persons Hereticallg Baptized — were not to receive Christian Burial. Moreover, we perceive, from the above " Article of Visitation," that any of the Church's Children who refused to Communicate with her " in public prayer, and hearing of the word AND CHURCH BURIALS. 155 of God preached* ; (put aside Sacraments, for these are not mentioned) were at that time adjudged to this condition and accounted unworthy of Christian Burial. Surely, then, we must necessarily conclude that one who is, to say the least, in the same con- dition of "greater excommunication," having never communicated with the Church, either "in public prayer, or in hearing the word of God preached," or even in the initiatory Sacrament itself, is to be refused Christian Burial in like manner. The same truth, I think, is to be gathered from the history of the Rubric affixed to the Burial Ser- vice. Before the last " Review" it is well known that no such Rubric existed. It was then intro- duced (if we may believe the testimony of one of the strongest advocates for the validity of heretical Baptism), in order to prevent the usage of the Church's fervent language of hope and gratitude, and solemn claims of covenanted promise, with respect to any one concerning whom no such hope and gratitude could be felt, and no such claims could properly be put forward. "Objecting," (says Bishop Kennet,) "to certain other expressions of God's * taking to himself the soul of our dear brother,'—' we pray thee that we may rest in Him, as our hope is that this our brother doth,' &c, &c. ; they put in a Rubric, * Here is to be noted that the office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptizecl, or excommunicate, or who have laid violent hands on themselves'*." Surely, * Kennet's Register. L2 156 dissenters' baptisms then , if this was the very purpose of the introduction of this Rubric, we cannot suppose that a class of persons were intentionally excluded from its provi- sions with respect to whom, as we have already seen, these expressions are as inapplicable as they are to persons under sentence of the greater excom- munication. Nor is there a want of authorities to support the conclusion. In the year 1683, Falkner's Libertas Eccle- siastica appeared, wherein he defends the Liturgy of the Church of England from the charges brought against it by the Dissenters. The following passages will be amply sufficient to show what was the cus- tom of our Church with respect to Burial of Dis- senters in those days. " In the Office for Burial several expressions are misliked, as being thought unmeet to be spoken of every person dying in the Church's Communion, — e. g., ' That Almighty God, of His great mercy, has taken to himself the soul of the person departed ;' when we cannot assert that every person dying in our Communion is eternally saved. " P. 289. Again, — " And whereas this Office calleth the deceased person our brother and our dear brother, these phrases may undoubtedly be applied to every person who, professing Christianity, dyeth in the Church Communion." P. 291. And again, concerning the supplication that " we may rest in Him, as our hope is that this our AND CHURCH BURIALS. 157 brother doth" — he remarks upon the propriety of retaining " such ordinary expressions of the hope- fulness of them who depart this life in Communion ivith so excellent a Church as this." (P. 294.) And in connexion with this, he speaks of " the charity of the ancient Christian Church in expressing their hope of them who dyed in their communion" (p. 295.) The italics are his. I shall, however, no doubt, be told, by those who, with Sir JohnNicholl, consider an Act of Par- liament superior in authority, as to such matters, to the decrees of Apostolical Synods, that though that which is here implied may then have been very true ; viz., that the Burial Office was used only for those who died in Communion with the Church, yet, that the Toleration Act having since been passed, matters are now altered ! We will turn, then, to subsequent authorities. Comber's Companion to the Temple, appeared in the year 1701 ; viz., twelve years after the pass- ing of the Toleration Act. And let me remind my readers that, whether as Dean of Durham, or as Chaplain to King William, the great patron of dis- sent, he was no inconsiderable authority : — and it is worth remembering, also, that the Book, "designed to explain and vindicate the Liturgy of the Church of England," is dedicated to the King, who is styled by the author "a Second Restorer and De- fender of our primitive Way of Worship." Now, in the introduction to the " Office for the Burial of the 158 dissenters' baptisms Dead," we find the following testimony. " The persons capable of Christian Burial are only those within the pale of the Church; for the Rubric ex- cludes all others from this privilege ." And after particularizing the exceptions, he continues, " All other persons that die in the Com- munion of the visible Church, are capable of these Rites of Christian Burial, according to the Rules and Practice both of the Primitive and the present Ages. P. 780. Again. In his Short Discourses on the Whole Common Prayer, which Book was first published in 1684, but republished by himself in 1712, the same author writes, — " The Rubric informs us that this office (viz., Burial,) is denied to some : viz., to those who die in that desperate sin of self-murder, — whom the Jews and Gentiles also suffered to lie unburied, to deter others from so horrid a crime. It is denied also to all that die excommunicated, because they having by their crimes cast themselves out of the Church, cannot be called brethren, nor buried by this Office; nor infants who die unbaptized, and were never yet admitted to the Church" Ed. 1684. P. 422; Ed. 1712. P. 419. Again. In the year 1710, Dr, Nicholls' book upon the Common Prayer was published ; and he gives testimony with sufficient clearness, in his re- marks upon the Rubric to the Burial Office, that that Office is intended onlv for those who have re- AND CHURCH BURIALS. 159 ceived "Redemption of Baptism," and have thus been made members of the Catholic Church, and therein have died. " Unbaptized, — Our Church prohibiting here the Burial Office to be used for persons who die un- baptized, is but agreeable to an ancient practice of the Church. For the first Council of Bracara which was held A.D. 563, determines the like. Item, placuit ut Catechumenis sine redemptione Bap- tismi defunctis neque oblationis commemoratio, neque psallendi impendatur officium. It seemeth good to us that as for catechumens who die before they have Redemption of Baptism, there should be no oblations or commemorations made for them, neither should the office of singing be used at their funerals. — Con. I. Brac, Can. 35. " ' ' Excommunicate. What is here ordered is likewise decreed by the forementioned Council of Bracara. Nulla, pro illis in oblatione commemoratio fiat, neque cum psalmis ad sepulturam eorum cadavera deducantur, qui pro suis sceleribus puniuntur. Let no commemoration be made for them in the oblation, nor let their bodies be brought to the grave with singing of psalms who are punished for their crimes. Con. Brac Can. 16. — Which I take to relate to spiritual punishment as well as temporal, and to prohibit sepulture to be given to excommunicates. But however, the Canon Law in this respect is more express, and quotes the Ancient Canons for it. — Sacris Canonibus institutum ut quibus non 160 dissenters' baptisms communicamus vivis, non communicemus defunctis ; ut careant Ecclesiasticd Sepultura. It is enjoined by the ancient Canons that we should not Commu- nicate with those dead, with whom we did not Communicate living, fyc. — Decret. Lib. iii., Tit. 39, Cap. 12." — And he goes on to quote the Canon Law to the effect that, if any, by mistake, had been thus Buried, and their bodies could be distinguished, they should be dug up and cast out of the Church- yard. That, however, which I wish the reader to observe, in the above extracts from Nicholl, is the testimony which they give to the fact of the Church of England, in the eighteenth century, agreeing with the ancient Church in denying Christian Burial to those who have not " Redemp- tion" of Baptism — and refusing to Communicate with those when dead — denying to them "ecclesiastical sepulture," viz. Christian Burial — with whom she did not Communicate when they were alive. Perhaps however it may be said : This is all very well; but what positive proof is there, after all, that it applies to those whose case we are discussing — that the Church of England regards those persons who are Baptized by Dissenters, and not subsequently "reconciled" by a more orderly Baptism, or at least by Absolution and Confirmation, as being out of her Communion, or, in other words Ex-communicates ? One or two considerations will, I think, make this evident. AND CHURCH BURIALS. 161 When the great Controversy concerning the validity of Lay and Heretical Baptisms was carried on at the commencement of the last century, no complaint appears to have been made against any general custom, countenanced by the Bishops, of ad- mitting to the privileges of Church Communion, without a previous formal reconciliation, persons known to be Heretically Baptized : the charges which were made were of a different nature — viz, that many such persons, sometimes from connivance, and sometimes from carelessness, were admitted into the Church's Communion by Confirmation, without being Baptized by a Clergyman (which the maintainers of the invalidity of their former baptism contended ought first to have been done) — and that many Clergymen permitted the persons of whom I speak, to smuggle themselves into the pri- vileges of Church Communion, without any formal reconciliation whatever. Thus Mr. Lawrence in the Preface (sects, vi. — ix.) to " A Supplement to the First and Second Parts of Lay Baptism Invalid" strongly inveighs against both these evils, and also furnishes much evidence, relating immediately to the present subject of inquiry, that no person could then claim the privileges of Church Communion without being able to furnish proof that he had been duly admitted to that Communion. The pas- sage is well worth examination, as is every page which that author published throughout the entire controversy : — but I forbear to produce it here, not 162 dissenters' baptisms only because of its great length, but because on disputed subjects I prefer the testimony of opponents to that of those with whom I am agreed. Let us turn to Mr. Bingham : — "I have said thus much upon this head to show those who are Baptized in Heresy or Schism what was the true ancient method of reconciliation, and the way to die securely in the peace and Com- munion of the Church — and if all persons concerned would observe this method, there would be no need of disputes about rebaptization in the Church. For it appears that the unauthorized baptism of heretics and schismatics may be reputed valid, and without rebaptizing have its defects supplied by imposition of hands in Confirmation." — Schol. Hist. ch. i., sect. 21. Here, then, it appears that the great advocate for the validity of these Baptisms ascribed to them those defects, in the judgment of the Church of England, which, we have seen from his testimony, they had according to the judgment of the ancient Church ; and these defects, we must remember, were an entire absence of "inward grace/' rendering the person so Baptized incapable of the privileges of Church Communion until such time as they were supplied in the way which he here points out. In his "Epistle Dedicatory" to the Bishop of Winchester, prefixed to the second part of the Schol. Hist., he gives testimony still more valuable and direct. "Nor did I perfectly know your AND CHURCH BURIALS. 163 Lordship's sentiments upon the point, till you were pleased to honour me with a letter of thanks for my book, and tell me that you exceedingly ap- proved of it ; and particularly of that part of it which treats of the deficiency of heretical and schismatical baptisms, and of the obligation those who are so baptized be under, to return to the unity of the Church, in order to have the defects of their baptism supplied by imposition of hands in Confir- mation; which was the usual way of supplying such defects, according to the general rule and practice of the ancient Church." And then, after citing his Lordship's testimony that all the Bishops of both provinces were unani- mously of the same opinion, and alluding to the fact of the Bishop having declined to sign the "intended" declaration at the Lambeth Conference, he proceeds : — " And so far both the rules and practice of the Church of England, for these last two hundred years, are clear, for we have neither order nor example to encourage rebaptization in any such case, no, not after the rubric had confined the ministration of Baptism wholly to the hands of a lawful minister — for still no rules were made that such as were not baptized by a lawful minister should be rebaptized; but they were required to receive the Bishop's Confirmation, and then were admitted to the Eucharist, and the privilege of Christian Burial." — Ep. Dedic. 164 dissenters' baptisms Now, with the soundness of this testimony, as respects the validity of such baptisms, I have in this place nothing whatever to do — having sufficiently for my purpose discussed that question already. But I must beg my readers especially to remark that we have here the evidence of the great champion of those baptisms, that the Church of England does not admit persons so baptized to the privilege of Christian Communion in general, and to the privilege of Burial in particular, unless they have been "reconciled" to the Church by im- position of hands in Confirmation: and moreover to observe his statement, made on the authority of the Bishop of Winchester, that all the Bishops who at "the Lambeth Conference" agreed, we are told, that such baptisms are valid, were also in this matter "unanimously of the same opinion" with himself, — that persons so baptized could not be admitted to the privileges of Church Com- munion, unless subsequently Confirmed. I will produce one more testimony, and one only, to the effect that persons out of the Com- munion of the Church, as we have now seen that those persons are whose case we are discussing, are not entitled to Christian Burial. Among Bishop Rennet's MSS., which form a part of the Lansdowne Collection in the British Museum, there is a letter from the Reverend John Stileman, dated " East Farndon, near Harborough, September 19, 1722," requesting the Bishop's com- AND CHURCH BURIALS. 165 mands concerning the Burial of certain Quakers, whose death he expected. These persons, he states, had been Baptized in their infancy ; but, of course, as Quakers, renounced their Baptism. In the Bishop's answer, dated " Peterbro', September 23," a copy of which is affixed to Mr. Stileman's letter, his lordship directs that gentleman to ascertain, from their own mouths,, whether these persons had been Baptized or not, — and if they had been Bap- tized, whether they renounced their Baptism : and in the event of their having been Baptized, and re- nouncing their Baptism, and not recalling their re- nunciation before death, to refuse to Bury; or at any rate, (to do that which, with all due deference to Bishop Kennet, I must remark that Clergymen are bound, by the fourteenth Canon of 1603, not to do), to leave out parts of the service. " If," (writes the Bishop,) <