these inquiries, but after them, and before those as to the ' matter' and 'words.' At the same date was added the rubric which orders conditional baptism simply if they which bring the infant to the church do make such uncertain answers to the priest's questions as 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).'' And when, in 1661, the office for baptizing adults was drawn up, the reason assigned for its need was simply the growth of Anabaptism, whereby many had grown up unbaptized. If the revisers had considered lay baptism invalid, they would certainly, as Maskell says, have given as a further reason the growth of irregular ministrations, whereby many had already in those days grown up without baptism by a 'lawful minister.' 2 It is difficult to arrive at any other conclusion than that the intention was to discourage, but not to condemn, lay baptism.

Various opinions, however, were still held by divines of note. Jeremy Taylor was strongly against lay baptism, and believed that the omission of its sanction in the Prayer-Book was tantamount to its rejection.3 Dean Comber was also opposed to it. On the other hand, Thorndike fully accepted its validity when administered by a Christian.5 So also did Sparrow and Bramhall."

Somewhat later than these came the pamphlet controversy which Roger Laurence either initiated or fomented. He is described as a 'book-keeper,' or merchant's clerk, in London,7 who, having received dissenters' baptism in his infancy, was, at his own special request, baptized hypothetically by the curate of Christ Church on March 31, 1708.8 In 1710 he published the first edition of Lay Baptism Invalid. The most original part of the book is written with a pedantic affectation of mathematical accuracy, in propositions, with definitions, axioms, demonstrations, and corollaries, after the manner of

1 Maskell, pp. 235, 236; Sir H. Jenner, Report of Case of Mastin v. Escott, by W. C. Curteis (London, 1841), p. 282.

2 Maskell, p. 245; Sir J. Nicholl, Kemp v. Wickes, p. 31.

3 Taylor, Ductor Dubitantium, III. iv. 15, § 2.

4 Comber, Comp. to Temple, ed. 1701, p. 602.

5 Thorndike, Rights of the Church, iii. 23; Covenant of Grace, xix. 12; Laws of the Church, viii. 11.

6 Sparrow, Rationale, ed. 1839, p. 242; Bramhall, Works, Ang. Cath. Lib. vol. ii. pp. 81, 618.

7 Bishop White Kennet, The Wisdom of looking Backward, &c (London, 1715), pp. 88, 221.

Lay Baptism Invalid, p. lxxii. and Scott's Preface, p. vii.

Euclid, which make it tedious to read. But there is force in its arguments, and it attracted attention. It apparently led Bishop Burnet to preach in support of lay baptism at Salisbury, on November 5 and 7 of the same year; Bishop Fleetwood wrote a formal reply to it in 1711;' and Bishop Talbot in his Charge at Oxford also defended lay baptism. Laurence, who was always ready to rush into print, published separate answers to each of the three bishops,2 and in 1712 brought out a third and enlarged edition of Lay Baptism Invalid. A more formidable opponent than his episcopal adversaries came on the field in the same year in the person of Bingham, who thought the controversy of sufficient importance to make him suspend his work upon the Antiquities while he wrote the first part of his Scholastical History of Lay Baptism, with a special appendix against Laurence's book.

Meantime the subject had come before the Convocation of Canterbury in 1712, in connexion with some utterances of Dodwell, Camden Professor at Oxford, who was for rebaptizing dissenters. Archbishop Tenison, with some of the bishops, drew up a resolution against this opinion; but, owing to the fear of Archbishop Sharp, of York, that it might encourage irregular baptism, it was not brought before the northern Convocation. In the southern province it was passed by the Upper House, with some dissentients. It was sent down to the Lower House on May 14, but the majority there were opposed to considering it, and thus Convocation was saved from committing itself rashly to a decision; and no attempt has since been made to obtain a synodical declaration on the subject. The controversialists, however, were too excited in the dispute to suspend their judgment, like Convocation, and carried on the controversy for some years.

The discussion was indirectly revived, in the present century, by two cases in the law courts. The first was an action brought against the Rev. J. W. Wickes, rector of Wardleycum-Belton, for refusing to bury a child who had been baptized by a Calvinistic Independent preacher.3 It was tried in the Arches Court, and Sir John Nicholl, the official principal, gave judgment on December 11, 1809, against the defendant.

1 The Judgment of the Church of England in the Case of Lay Baptism and of Dissenters' Baptism, published anonymously.

2 Against Burnet: Sacerdotal Powers, 1711, with an appendix containing a Letter from Dr. Biett. Against Fleetwood: Dissenters' and other unauthorised Baptisms null and void by the Articles, Canons, and Rubrics of the Church of England, 1712, 2nd ed. 1713. Against Talbot: The Bishop of Oxford's Charge considered, 1712.

3. Judgment in Kemp v. Wickes, pp. 5, 6.

The judgment was not particularly able. It discussed the question of lay baptism; but Nicholl's investigation of the subject was incomplete, and, from his point of view, it was not of much importance, since he maintained that a dissenting minister was more than a layman, under the State Toleration Acts, and that 'unbaptized' in the Burial Service Rubric meant unbaptized by anyone whatsoever. A similar suit was tried in 1841, when the Rev. T. S. Escott, vicar of Gedney, in Lincolnshire, was prosecuted in the Arches Court, by Mr. Mastin, a farmer and Wesleyan class teacher, for refusing to bury a child who had been baptized by a Wesleyan minister. No stress was laid by the counsel on any supposed clerical claims of the minister; 2 and, therefore, the question turned almost entirely on the validity of lay baptism. Sir Herbert Jenner (afterwards Jenner-Fust) delivered judgment on May 8, 1841, against Escott, chiefly on the ground that lay baptism was admittedly acknowledged in the Church of England up to 1604, and that the later rubrics had not formally rescinded its acceptance. An appeal was made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and Lord Brougham gave judgment on July 2, 1842, sustaining the decision of the Arches Court; but the subject was not one upon which he had any original knowledge, and he did not contribute anything of value to its elucidation.

Thus, the question stands at present to some extent an open one in the Church of England. Practically, however, while less bound to allow lay baptism than the Roman Church, or perhaps even the modern Greek Church, her clergy are far more ready to accept the validity of irregular baptism than the clergy of any other part of Christendom. For, whereas these always find an excuse for re-baptizing their converts, even from other Catholic communions, the English clergy, with rare exceptions, seem to admit almost any schismatical baptism without demur, and almost without inquiry even as to the due use of the essential matter and words.

It is singular that a subject of such vast importance, discussed in some form or other, at intervals, through nearly the whole course of Church history, should still be open to dispute. It is impossible, on the one hand, to ignore the grave questions of principle involved in accepting the validity of lay baptism; but it is equally impossible, on the other hand, to disregard the constant, if hesitating, tendency of the Church to allow it, especially in the later days of the West. A final 1 Judgment in Kemp v. Wickes, p. 36.

2 Curteis, A full Report of the Case of Mastin v. Escott, &c. p. II.

judgment upon such a serious and debated point can only now be given by a general council.

All that can be attempted, then, in conclusion, is to suggest the practical bearing of the inquiry upon the treatment of baptism by irregular ministers. These may all be classed under one or another of five heads: 1. Heathen, Jews, and unbaptized persons. 2. Heretical and schismatical priests. 3. Lay Churchmen. 4. Women. 5. Dissenters.

1. To allow baptism by heathen or the unbaptized is no doubt a logical deduction from confining the essentials absolutely to the matter and words. But it must be remembered that the earlier decrees which recognize lay baptism usually qualify the recognition by the condition that the baptizer should himself be a Christian; and there is something so anomalous in the idea that one who is outside the divine covenant can admit others into it, that it does certainly seem as if the liberty must here be extended too far.1

2. The early Eastern and African Churches were clearly against accepting the ministrations of heretical or schismatical priests under formal excommunication. The maturer mind of the Church has been in the direction of such a full recognition of the indelible character of orders, that the general view now is that their acts must permanently carry the force of their sacramental commission. Therefore it would seem that those who are baptized in an episcopal schism, like that of Bishop Colenso or Bishop Beccles, need nothing more than reconciliation with the Church, though, until such reconciliation, it may be maintained, with St. Augustine, that the grace of their baptism is in abeyance.

3. Baptism by lay Churchmen presents greater difficulties. For, whatever be the sanction of custom, there is the crucial objection that baptism belongs to the bishops as successors of the Apostles, and the laity have received no ministerial authority as the priesthood have. Kelsall dealt with the question as though it were only a matter of discipline, in which the bishops could give leave to the laity if they wished.2 But sacraments require more than a disciplinary permission for their administration. As Waterland pointed out in his reply, and as Laurence and others maintained, the only apostolic way of giving a commission to minister sacraments is by ordination, and this makes a man a clergyman in perpetuity,

1 Lyndwood, however, does not hesitate to extend the validity of lay baptism even to this extreme case: 'et idem dico,' he says, 'de non baptizato baptizante' (lib. i. tit. 7, p. 41, Oxford ed. 1679).

2 Kelsall in Waterland, p. 97.

and takes him out of the category of laymen.1 Tertullian felt this so strongly that he was obliged to rest his plea for lay baptism on the doctrine of the lay priesthood. But there is a clear distinction between the priesthood of the laity and that of the clergy. The former are priests 'unto God,' 'to offer up spiritual sacrifices,' upwards ;3 while the clergy are in addition priests unto men, to act as channels of God's grace downwards. Baptism distinctly belongs to the second kind of priesthood, and therefore not to the priesthood of the laity. Nevertheless, in the face of the long and wide acceptance of lay baptism, it is the clear duty of a lay Churchman, in a case of necessity, to lay aside whatever scruples he may feel, and reverently to baptize the dying person. In the event, however, of recovery, it is surely best to take measures to supply whatever may be lacking through the irregularity of the administration.

4. It has never been given to women to exercise the office of a ministerial priest, and, therefore, greater hesitation has always been felt in allowing them to baptize. Still, seeing that their baptism is accepted in theory in the Roman Church, and in some parts at least of the Greek, and that it was at one time formally sanctioned in the English Church, and has been defended by some of her great theologians since, it is certainly the duty of a Church woman, in the absence of a Church man, to baptize in urgent necessity. But whatever doubts hang round lay baptism are stronger in this case than in the other; and, therefore, there is a proportionately greater need to supply its possible defects if there is an occasion for doing so.

5. No Church layman in these days is likely to baptize without real necessity, and the cases will therefore be comparatively rare. But it is not so with dissenters' baptism. Their so-called ministers baptize constantly, without any necessity, and with far less right than a layman in communion with the Church. Mr. Baldwin sums up the special objections to it clearly. While admitting that God may possibly, and perhaps probably, accept baptism as valid when it is administered in case of extreme danger of death,' by a layman 'in communion with the ministry of the Church,' 'acting under the protection of the bishop, and as the lawful minister's deputy,' he says:

'The case is wholly and radically different when a "minister" of a religious sect presumes to "baptize." He is not in communion with

1 Waterland, pp. 144, 145.

2 Tert. Exhort. ad Cast. vii.

3 Rev. i. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 5.

4 St. Matt. xxviii. 18, 19; St John xx. 21; 2 Cor. v. 20; vi. I.