offend the minds of sober men: and only departed from them in those particular points, wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches which were their first founders. In which respect, amongst some other very ancient ceremonies, the sign of the cross in baptism hath been retained in this church, both by the judgment and practice of those reverend fathers and great divines in the days of King Edward the Sixth, of whom some constantly suffered for the profession of the truth; and others being exiled in the time of Queen Mary, did after their return in the beginning of the reign of our late dread Sovereign, continually defend and use the same. This resolution and practice of our Church hath been allowed and approved by the censure upon the Communion Book in King Edward the Sixth his days, and by the harmony of confessions of latter years; because indeed the use of this sign in baptism, was ever accompanied here with such sufficient cautions and exceptions against all popish superstition and error, as in the like cases are either fit or convenient.

"First, the Church of England since the abolishing of popery hath ever held and taught, and so doth hold and teach still, that the sign of the cross used in baptism, is no part of the substance of that sacrament: for when the minister dipping the infant in water, or laying water upon the face of it (as the manner also is) hath pronounced these words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' the infant is fully and perfectly baptized. So as the sign of the cross being afterwards used, doth neither add anything to the virtue and perfection of baptism, nor being omitted doth detract anything from the effect and substance of it.

"Secondly. It is apparent in the Communion Book, that the infant baptized is, by virtue of baptism, before it be signed with the sign of the cross, received into the congregation of Christ's flock as a perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed unto the sign of the cross. So that for the very remembrance of the cross, which is very precious to all them that rightly believe in Jesu Christ, and in the other respects mentioned, the Church of England hath retained still the sign of it in baptism: following therein the Primitive and Apostolical Churches, and accounting it a lawful outward ceremony and honourable badge, whereby the infant is dedicated to the service of Him that died upon the cross, as by the words used in the Book of Common Prayer it

may appear.

66

Lastly, The use of the sign of the cross in baptism, being thus purged from all Popish superstition and error, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it, upon those true rules of doctrine concerning things indifferent, which are consonant to the word of God, and the judgments of all the ancient fathers, we hold it the part of every private man, both minister and other, reverently to retain the true use of it pre

scribed by public authority, considering that things of themselves indifferent, do in some sort alter their natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful magistrate, and may not be omitted at every man's pleasure contrary to the law, when they be commanded, nor used when they are prohibited."

By the Rubric at the beginning of the office of private Baptism baptism, it is provided in substance that the curates of every at home. parish shall warn the people that without great cause and necessity they procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses.

By Canon 69 of 1603, "If any minister being duly, without Canon 69. manner 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, and before his restitution shall acknowledge his fault, and promise before his ordinary, that he will not wittingly incur the like again. Provided that where there is a curate or substitute, this constitution shall not extend to the parson or vicar himself, but to the curate or substitute present.

Rubr. "The child being named by some one that is present, the minister shall pour water upon it, saying the baptismal formula.

"And let them not doubt but that the child so baptized is Office of lawfully and sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized private baptism. again. Yet nevertheless, if the child which is after this sort baptized do afterward live, it is expedient that it be brought into the church, to the intent that the congregation may be certified of the true form of baptism privately before administered to such child."

By a provincial constitution women, when their time of child- Lay baptism. bearing is near at hand, shall have water ready for baptizing Old constithe child in case of necessity (h). And for cases of necessity, tutions. the priests on Sundays were enjoined frequently to instruct their parishioners in the form of baptism (i). Which form was to be thus: I crysten the in the name of the Fader, and of the Sone, and of the Holy Goste (k).

Infants baptized by laymen or women (in imminent danger of death) shall not be baptized again: and the priest shall afterwards supply the rest (7).

If a child shall be baptized by a lay person at home by reason of necessity, the water (for the reverence of baptism) shall be either poured into the fire or carried to the church to be put in

Prayer Books of Edward VI.

Convocation, 1575.

Prayer Book of James.

the font; and the vessel shall be burnt or applied to the uses of the church (m).

By the Rubrics of the Prayer Books of the 2nd and of the 5th Edward VI. it was ordered to the following effect: The pastors and curates shall often admonish the people, that without great cause and necessity they baptize not children at home in their houses; and when great need shall compel them so to do, that then they minister it on this fashion: First, 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, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

In the manuscript copy of the articles made in convocation in the year 1575, the twelfth is, "Item, Where some ambiguity and doubt hath risen among divers, by what persons private baptism is to be administered; forasmuch as by the Book of Common Prayer allowed by the statute, the bishop of the diocese is authorized to expound and resolve all such doubts as shall arise, concerning the manner, how to understand, and to 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, That the said 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. And that every bishop in his diocese, shall take order, that this exposition of the said doubt shall be published in writing, before the first day of May next coming, in every parish church of his diocese in this province: And thereby all other persons shall be inhibited to intermeddle with the ministering of baptism privately, being no part of their vocation."

This article was not published in the printed copy; but whether on the same account that the fifteenth article was left out (namely, because disapproved by the crown) does not certainly appear. However the ambiguity remained, till the conference at Hampton Court, in which the king said, that if baptism was termed private, because any but a lawful minister might baptize, he utterly disliked it, and the point was there debated; which debate ended in an order to the bishops to explain it, so as to restrain it to a lawful minister.

Accordingly, in the Book of Common Prayer, which was set forth in the same year, the alterations were printed in the rubric thus: "And also they shall warn them, that without great cause and necessity they procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses. And when great need shall compel them so to do, then baptism shall be administered on this fashion: First, let the lawful minister and them that be present call upon God for his grace, and say the Lord's Prayer,

(m) Lind. p. 241.

if the time will suffer; and then the child being named by some one that is present, the said lawful minister shall dip it in the water, or pour water upon it." 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 (n).

Fleetwood.

Nevertheless, Bishop Fleetwood says, that lay baptism is not Bishop declared invalid by any of the offices or rubrics, nor in any public act has the church ever ordered such as have been baptized by lay hands to be rebaptized by a lawful minister, though at the time of the Restoration there were supposed to be in England and Wales 200,000 or 300,000 souls baptized by such as are called lay hands. He says, whether the indispensable necessity of baptism be the doctrine of the Church of England or no, he cannot with certainty determine; but because he is persuaded that the church does not hold lay baptism to be invalid, he is so far persuaded that the church holds baptism to be indispensably necessary where it can possibly be had, and will have lay baptism (when a lawful minister cannot be had) rather than none at all (o).

By the older canon law baptism is regularly confined to priests; Older canor. but in cases of necessity, laymen and even women were allowed law. to perform the ceremony. Baptizandi autem cura ad solos sacerdotes pertinet, ejusque ministerium nec ipsis diaconis explere permittitur, absque episcopo vel presbytero: nisi his procul absentibus, ultima languoris cogat necessitas: quo casu et laicis fidelibus, atque ipsis mulieribus baptizare permittitur (p).

Giannone, speaking of the latter part of the third century, Giannone. remarks that it was the custom of these days, for persons of rank and consideration to adopt the very pernicious habit of deferring their baptism till the eve of their exposure to some great and unusual peril, or till the latter days of their life; in other words, they remained Catechumens till the near approach of one of these two events. After mentioning that it was a matter of historical notoriety that such had been the case with Constantine, and inferring from this fact the falsity of the claims of the Roman Church to that territory which they asserted had been granted by the emperor at his baptism, he gives these reasons for the prevalence of this custom: "People imagined that by deferring their baptism till the last moments of their existence, they thereby not only escaped the rigorous severities which in these days the church enjoined upon Christian penitents, but moreover that this procrastination of their baptism gave them a greater security for the eternal welfare of their souls. Because, as any one might administer this sacrament, even an infidel, neophyte or harlot, as the matter of it being water was always at hand, and as the form was simple and couched in very few words, he would indeed be the most

(n) Gibs. p. 369.

(o) Fleetwood's Works, p. 530.

(p) Inst. Juris. Can. II. 3; X. iii. 42. See also Lind. 50.

Kemp v.
Wickes.

Mastin v.
Escott.

Dr. Lawrence's opinion, that a clergyman is bound to baptize the child of a Dissenter.

unfortunate of men who should meet with so sudden a death as not to be allowed sufficient time for the application of these healing waters, which through the infinite merits of Christ would in an instant cleanse him from the pollutions contracted in this mortal life, and at once and infallibly transport him into the happiness of another, immortal and eternal" (q).

The Roman Church undeniably held the doctrine that baptism with water and invocation of the Trinity might be administered by anybody (r). Many eminent writers, and amongst them the learned Bingham, are of opinion that the Anglican Church has always said "fieri non debet, factum valet."

The whole question underwent an elaborate discussion in the case of Kemp v. Wickes (s), in which Sir J. Nicholl held that a child baptized by a Dissenter, with water and the invocation of the Trinity, was baptized in the sense of the rubric to the burial service, and of the 68th canon, and therefore that the burial of such child was obligatory on the clergyman. It is hardly necessary to say that the canons, being promulgated in 1603, before the legal existence of Dissenters, could have had, at the period of their enactment, no reference to that body, and it would seem that a baptism performed by lay hands, in the case of an imminent emergency, was that which was contemplated by the canon in question. The question was again mooted in Mastin v. Escott in 1841; and the case which began in the Arches Court was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Both courts confirmed the law laid down in Kemp v. Wickes (t).

In 1806, Dr. Lawrence, a very eminent civilian, was consulted as to whether a clergyman was bound to baptize the child of a Dissenter, knowing that such child was to be brought up in dissent from the doctrines of the Church of England. To this question the following opinion was returned:

"By the 68th canon, any minister who shall refuse or delay to christen any child brought to him on Sundays or holydays, after due notice, is liable to be suspended from his ministry for three months. The phrase any child' is general. There is no distinction of parishioners who frequent the church or any other place of divine worship. The reasons given by the clergyman himself in this case might be easily shown to be weak and

(9) Giannone, Istoria Civile di Napoli lib. 2, c. 4, s. 1. He says Tasso alluded to this custom in his description of Clorinda's death :

"A me, che le fui servo, e con sincera
Mente l'amai, ti diè non battezzata ;
Nè già poteva allor battesmo darti,
Che l' uso nol sostien di quelle parti."-

(r) Many authorities are referred to in Sir Herbert Jenner's judgment in Mastin v. Escott, 2 Curt. p. 700.

(8) 3 Phillim. p. 276.

La Gerusalemme liberata, Canto 12.

(t) Mastin v. Escott, 2 Curt. p. 692; 1 N. of C. p. 552; 4 Moo. P. C. C. p. 104; also a Special Report by Dr. Curteis.