3 5 on the ground of the form used.' As regards baptism by Christian laymen, it was allowed in necessity, among others, by Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth century, by Isidore, bishop of Seville, at the beginning of the seventh, by St. Bernard in the twelfth; 2 and the Council of Arles, in 1260, directed curates to teach their people how to baptize in due form, as also did councils at Ravenna in 1311 and 1314,* and at Salzburg in 1420. Indeed no opposite opinion seems to have been expressed. There is not quite the same unanimity as to baptism by women; for, though Urban II. at the end of the eleventh century is represented, in the canon law, as allowing it, Hugo of St. Victor, in the twelfth, speaks of it as still a disputed point." Grave doubts were felt as to pagan baptism. Gregory II. directed that it was not to be accounted valid, and so did his successor, Gregory III. But Nicolas I., in the ninth century, says that baptism by a Jew should not be repeated, if conferred in the Name of the Trinity; and, as time went on, all hesitation disappeared. St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, examines each case of irregular baptism, and successively allows its validity, when administered by a deacon, a Christian layman, a woman, and by one who is himself unbaptized, a Jew, or a pagan, if it be done with the Church's intention. 10 John of Ragusa maintained the same doctrine before the Council of Basle, in 1433. Scotus also took this view; 12 and it was authoritatively decreed by Pope Eugenius in the Council of Florence in 1439. 13 The Council of Trent, in the sixteenth century, followed in the wake of the Council of Florence, still, however, requiring the intention of the Church.14 The canon law, compiled under Gregory XIII., at the end of this century, decreed the same extensive validity in every case; 15 and so does the Roman Ritual,16 with the further qualifying clause, 1 11 9 Leo, Ep. xcii. Ad. Rustic. 18; xxxvi. Ad Leon. Raven. 2; lxxvii. Ad Nicet. 7. Gennadius, De Eccles. Dogmat. lii. Greg. I. Ep. Íxi. Quirino Episc. Greg. II. Ep. xiv. Ad Bonif. 8. 2 Gelas. Ep. ix. Ad Episc. Lucan. 8. Isid. De Offic. Eccles. II. xxiv. Bern. Ep. cccciii. Ad Henric. Archidiac. 3 Conc. Arel. can. 2. 5 Conc. Salz. can. 28. 4 See Kelsall in Waterland, p. 83 note. 6 Decret. II. xxx. 3. Dict. Christ. Ant. 'Baptism,' § 81. Greg. II. Ep. xiv. Ad Bonif. 23; Greg. III. Ep. i. Ad Bonif. 1. 7 8 9 10 11 See Martene, I. i. 3. 13 15 16 12 Scotus, Sent. IV. vi. I. Eugen. Decret. ad Armenos. 14 Conc. Trid. Sess. vii. De Bapt. iv Rit. Rom. Tit. de Min. Bapt. 'unless for a reasonable cause it seems otherwise to the bishop.'1 Thus, in the Roman Church, the principle of lay baptism is carried theoretically to an extreme form; but the reservation of intention, and the discretion given to the bishop, leave great room for elasticity in applying the theory to practice. As a matter of fact, her clergy guard the validity of baptism with a most rigid scrupulosity; and, like the Easterns, rebaptize, though in a conditional form, all converts from other parts of Christendom, even when there can be no question. whatever as to the matter and words having been duly used. The Roman acceptance of an irregular minister, although it seems so emphatic, practically scarcely exists except on paper. In reality, probably every living member of her communion has, at some time or other, been baptized by a Roman priest. In England lay baptism had established itself early. Archbishop Theodore, in the seventh century, while decreeing a sentence of excommunication on any layman who baptized unnecessarily, says: 'It is allowed to all the faithful to baptize, compelled by necessity, when by chance they have found that dying persons have not been baptized.' And, in 'the greatest necessity,' he allowed that women also might administer the sacrament.2 The Excerptions of Ecgbriht, Archbishop of York, in about 740, repeat almost the same words.3 The Sarum and York Manuals give the same liberty; and Lanfranc, in the eleventh century, bears witness to the general permission. In the thirteenth century, for some reason, canons on the subject abound, and are all to the same effect, often directing the clergy to teach their people how to baptize. Maskell quotes from Hostiensis, Lyndwood, and the Pupilla Oculi, as summing up the opinion of canonists in the same sense." The question of baptism by those outside the Church does not appear in the English canons; but so far as baptism by Churchmen in cases of necessity is concerned, their voice was absolutely unanimous. In the disordered times of the Reformation opinions were divided upon this, as upon every other subject. Abroad the Lutherans accepted lay baptism. So did Zuinglius, allowing 1 Rit. Rom. Rubric on Bapt. of Adults. See Pusey, Tertullian, p. 295. 2 Theod. Panit. xliii. 3; xlviii. 21. 3 Ecgb. Can. 95; Johnson, Eng. Can. Ang. Cath. Lib. vol. i. p. 235. 4 See Wilkins, Concilia, vol. i. p. 361. 5 Host. Summa, III. xlii. 3; Lynd. Provinciale, I. 7; III. 24; Pup. Oc. II. ii. See Maskell, pp. 211–215. 6 Bingham, p. 100. it by women in necessity,' though afterwards the Helvetic Confession in 1566 forbade any but men to administer it.2 Calvin, in a letter dated Nov. 13, 1561, allows baptism by men and rejects that by women; but in the Institutes he inclines to reject lay baptism altogether, and his followers adopted this stricter view.4 Whatever doubts were felt by individuals, the compilers of the first English Prayer-Books showed no disposition to interfere with the prevailing custom. In 1549, 1552, and 1559 the direction as to private baptism, 'when the need shall compel,' ran thus: 'Let them that be present call upon God for His grace and say the Lord's Prayer, if the time will suffer. And then one of them shall name the child and dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying these words, N. I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And let them not doubt but that the child so baptized is lawfully and sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized again in the church.' There would seem to be no room for doubt that by 'one of them' a layman is contemplated, at any rate inclusively with a priest, especially as both the Sarum Office and the Consultation of Hermann, which were the two chief sources of the English service, expressly provide for lay baptism.5 To what extent laymen actually baptized in post- Reformation times it is difficult to determine. It certainly remained the custom, under the English Prayer-Book, to administer an oath to midwives, by which they pledged themselves to baptize in the due form. Baptism by women was at any rate common enough for Sandys, Archbishop of York, to think it necessary to urge that the Queen should take measures to put a stop to it. If it had been unusual, the Protestant reformers would scarcely have made it such a frequent topic of complaint as they did. Whitgift, at that time Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, published in 1574 his celebrated Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, in which he replied categorically to sundry objections by Cartwright, and defended lay baptism 1 Zuing. De Bapt. ii. See Bingham, p. 103, and Whitgift, Defence of Answer to the Admonition, Parker Soc. vol. ii. pp. 511, 526. 2 Conf. Helv. Art. 20. 3 Calv. Inst. IV. xv. 20-22. 4 See Bingham, p. 105. 5 See Proctor, History of Book of Common Prayer, 9th ed. pp. 387, 390, notes. 6 Sandys, Works, Parker Soc. p. 433; see also his will, p. 448. 7 See Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. vol. i. pp. 164, 178; vol. ii. pp. 130, 149, 356, 357, 361; Bullinger, Decades, vol. v. p. 370. VOL. XXV.-NO. XLIX. C in cases of necessity. He held his judgment somewhat in suspense as to the lawfulness of its administration by women, thinking the rubric in the Prayer-Book meant that private baptism is rather to be ministered by some minister (which in time of necessity may soonest be come by) than by any woman.' But, whether lawful or not, he maintained that all baptism with water and the right words was valid, by whomsoever administered, and that the most learned men in the Church had always been of this opinion.3 2 The subject came prominently before Convocation in 1575; and, among the articles passed by the two houses in that year, the twelfth decreed that— 'Private baptism, in case of necessity, is only to be ministered by a lawful minister or deacon, called to be present for that purpose, and by none other.' 4 It is doubtful whether this article was ever promulgated.5 At any rate, it did not close the controversy. The Puritans were still actively protesting against baptism by women ten years later, while better Churchmen as a rule opposed their objections. Thus, Hooker, in 1594, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, warmly defended lay baptism, including that by women.' His argument is defective in some points, but it has no doubt largely influenced later English opinion, by the weight of his name. Others followed on the same side. Abbott, afterwards Archbishop, in his Oxford lectures in 1597, accepted its validity, though strong as to its irregularity.8 The University of Oxford, in their answer to the Millenary Petition in 1603, also affirmed its validity, even if perchance' it were administered by women, contrary to the spirit of the Prayer-Book." The Vice-Chancellor, and heads of houses at Cambridge, endorsed this answer with their approval in a formal letter to the Oxonians, dated October 7, 1603.10 The matter received much attention at the Hampton 1 Whitgift, vol. ii. pp. 519-540. 2 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 493. Comp. vol. ii. p. 540. 3 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 528; Strype, Life of Whitgift, vol. iii. p. 139. 4 Remains of Grindal, Parker Soc., p. 188. 5 See Scott, Preface to Lay Baptism Invalid, P. xxxvi. 8 Strype, Life of Whitgift, vol. i. p. 386. 7 Eccl. Pol. V. lxi. lxii. · Abbott, De Bapt. Prælect. ii. (Oxon. 1597) pp. 70, 99. See Bingham, pp. 111, 115. 9 Answer of University of Oxford to the Petition of Ministers of the Church of England desiring Reformation of Ceremonies (Oxford, 1603), p. II. 10 See Answer to Exceptions against the Bishop of Oxford's Charge by Mr. L. and Dr. B. (London, 1713), p. 122. Court Conference in 1604. In the result, the bishops agreed to certain alterations, whereby the Prayer-Book gave explicit authorization only to baptism by a 'lawful minister.' The title of the office for private baptism was expanded by adding the words, 'by the minister of the parish, or any other lawful minister that can be procured.' In the rubrics, for baptize not their children at home,' there were substituted the words, 'procure not their children to be baptized at home;' and the phrase, 'them that be present,' was replaced by 'the minister that be present;' and 'one of them shall name the child and dip him in water,' by 'the child being named by some one of them that is present, the said lawful minister shall dip it in the water;' together with one or two other slight alterations of the same kind.' And thus the rubrics were left in 1661, except for a few trifling amendments, the chief of which was the omission of the restrictive words from the heading of the office. It cannot be seriously doubted, although it has been questioned, that a 'lawful minister' here means one in holy orders. But it does not follow from this that the Church of England in 1604 repudiated the validity of lay baptism. The Roman office, exactly in the same way, speaks of the minister only as 'sacerdos,' and yet allows a layman to baptize in emergency. The restriction affects the regularity, but not necessarily the validity, of a lay administration. One of the inquiries by which the sufficiency of a private baptism is to be tested is, 'By whom was this child baptized?' It has been argued that this question would be unnecessary, unless it were material to the validity that the baptizer should have been a ‘lawful minister.'3 But the same question stood in precisely the same position in the original offices of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, which certainly allowed lay baptism. The object of the inquiry, therefore, can only be to elicit such information as may enable the clergyman to judge whether all is likely to have been done in due order, which can be the only intention of the corresponding question, 'Who was present when this child was baptized?' Indeed, this is put almost beyond doubt by the insertion, in 1604, of the clause as to some things essential to this sacrament,' not before 1 Cardwell, Conferences, pp. 139, 172, 174-176, 219. 2 Maskell, Holy Baptism, p. 233; Phillimore, Book of Church Law, p. 43. 3 Scott, Preface to Lay Baptism Invalid, p. xlvii.; Blunt, Dissenters' Baptism and Church Burials (Exeter, 1840), p. 103; Burgess, Reflections on the Judgment of Sir H. Nicholl, p. 29. It was also urged by counsel in the case of Mastin v. Escott. |