this former constitution, and enjoins precisely the same thing. The provincial constitutions of Archbishop Peccham particularly enjoin, that after baptism by a Layman it is not to be iterated. The passage will be found in Lyndwood 41, Caveant sacerdotes ne baptismum legitime factum audeant iterare; and Lyndwood, in his gloss upon the word baptismum, says, Sive per Laicum, sive per Clericum, etiam per Paganum in casu necessitatis; so that it is good, "whether by a Layman, or a Clergyman, nay even in a case of necessity by a Pagan;" and, in his gloss upon the words legitime factum, he says, two things are essential to it,

duo sunt necessaria verbum et elementum aquæ; and in describing what is meant by verbum, he explains the form of the words to be those which have been always used, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In a further constitution of Archbishop Peccham, to be found in page 244, it is again strongly enjoined not to baptize a second time persons who have been baptized by laymen or by women; and he speaks rather strongly of those Priests who do so baptize, terming them stolidi sacerdotes: and the constitution concludes, Quod si sacerdos rationabiliter dubitet an parvulus in formá debitâ baptizatus sit, dicat, Si baptizatus es, ego non rebaptizo te ; nondum baptizatus es, ego baptizo te in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritûs Sancti. Lyndwood here again cautiously explains the words in formá debitá, as he had before, to mean by the use of the element water, and by the use of the words of the invocation of the Holy Trinity; and that it was in formâ debitú though by a Layman.

si

Now these passages shew, not only that those baptisms were held to be valid, but they show how extremely cautious the Church was that baptism should not be repeated. These references to the ancient law will also serve to explain and illustrate any matter, which could be considered as doubtful in the construction of the more modern law of the Rubric. It therefore seems to admit of no doubt, that by the law of the English Church, as well deduced from the general canon law, as from its own particular constitutions, down to the time of the

Reformation, lay baptism was allowed and practised. It was regular, and even prescribed in cases of necessity : it was so complete and valid, that it was by no means to be repeated. It also clearly appears that, in order to ascertain its validity, no inquiry was necessary to be made into the existing urgency under which it was administered: but only into what was declared to be the essence, whether it had been administered by water, and in the form of the invocation; for, if those forms were used, the baptism by a Layman was complete and valid.

So the matter stood at the time of the Reformation: and that period is an important one: for, if lay baptism had been considered as one of the errors of the Romish Church, it would have been corrected at the time when all the Christian world had their attention pointed to those particular errors. But the fact is otherwise, for the use of lay baptism was manifestly continued by the English reformed church. Liturgies were framed, and acts of uniformity passed by Parliament, in the reigns of Edward the VIth and of Queen Elizabeth. In those the Rubrics run thus: "Let those 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 the water upon him, saying these words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Here is no mention whatever of a priest or lawful minister, as the person who is to officiate upon the occasion: it is directed to be done by "those who are present," or one of them, without singling out or particularizing what the person is to be, who is to administer this sacrament. And the better opinion seems to be, that all private baptism was by Laymen antecedent to the time of King James; that it was only public baptism in the Church which was to be administered by a Priest; and that, wherever there was the sort of urgency and necessity which prevented the child being brought to the Church, and required the child to be baptized at home, the baptism was to be administered by any person without requiring the attendance of the Priest.

The same Rubric, although it enjoins the people not to baptize their children at home, except in cases of necessity; yet, lest the necessity should arise, expressly directs the pastors to instruct their parishioners in the form of doing it. Hence it is evident that subsequent to the Reformation, the English reformed Church itself did allow the practice of Lay baptism.

It

So the practice stood from the reformation to the time of King James the First; except that in the year 1575, among some articles agreed upon at that time in convocation, there appears to have been one (the twelfth article,) which states, "that to resolve doubts by whom privatebaptism is to be administered, it is directed that in future it shall be administered by a minister only, and that private persons shall not intermeddle therein." This article rather appears not to have been published and circulated. remained in manuscript. It had no authority, not appearing to have been even confirmed by the Crown. There could have been no doubt upon the Rubric of Edward the VIth, coupled with what was the old law, so far as respected the validity of lay baptism. And the Bishops certainly had not authority to alter the law; they had only anthority to explain matters which were doubtful; and the doubt seems to have been, not whether lay baptism was valid, but whether it was regular and orderly. Up to that time, wherever private baptism was allowed there was nothing to be found in the ancient canons, the constitutions of the Church, or the Rubric, that required the Minister as a person at all necessary to be present for the orderly administration of such private baptism: it was not even to be inferred, that it would be more regular, for the Minister is not mentioned; on the contrary, in cases where private baptism was necessary (and it was only allowed in cases of necessity) the people were to be instructed how to perform it themselves. The most to be deduced from this article therefore is, that it was thought at that time, by the convocation, that it would be more proper, regular, and decent, to have the ceremony of private baptism performed by ministers; and therefore

VOL. XIV. NO. X.

it was directed to be performed by them, and Laics were restrained from doing it but the article, as before stated, does not appear to have been published.

King James the First (who considered himself a great divine) disapproved of the practice of lay baptism. Soon after his accession, conferences were held at Hampton Court with the Clergy for the purpose of revising and reconsidering the Liturgy, and particularly this article of private baptism. The King expressed strongly his disapprobation of lay baptism; and seemed more inclined to no baptism at all, than that the office should be performed by a Laic: but his divines (most of them prelates of very great eminence) differed from him in respect to preferring the total omission of baptism to its being administered by a Layman. It was, however, agreed so far to alter the Rubric, as to direct that private baptism should be administered by a lawful Minister: but whoever reads the account which has been preserved of these conferences will see, that neither the King nor the Bishops maintained that baptism, if de facto performed by a Laic, was invalid; on the contrary, even King James expressly declared his opinion to be, that if baptism had been performed by a Laic with water and the invocation of the Trinity (which he also admitted to be the essence of the sacrament itself) such baptism was not to be iterated; that is, that the person was not to be re-baptized; for the King's words, as recorded, are, "I utterly dislike all rebaptization on those whom women or Laics have baptized." He himself, therefore, considered lay baptism as valid, though he thought fit to enjoin the administration, even of private baptism, to be by a Clergyman as much more orderly and proper.

The Rubric at that time agreed on was never confirmed by Parliament; but a proclamation afterwards appeared" for the authorizing an uniformity in the Book of Common Prayer;" and his Majesty says in that proclamation, "We have thought meet that some small matters might rather be explained than changed." The proclamation has no suggestion

4 0

of the benefits of National Education then announced is consequently carried a little higher; and at the closing of this account, therefore, it appears that 361 places, comprising a population (according to the last parliamentary census) of 1,403,132 persons, have obtained grants amounting to 32,7091. 11s., by which, according to the first estimates (in many instances much below the actual disbursements in carrying them into effect) an outlay of no less a sum than 127,4801. in the erection of 502 separate school-rooms has been called forth. By these means, and amidst such a population, the inestimable blessings of Christian education have been provided for 26,884 boys, and 25,532 girls on week-days and Sundays, and for 2,721 boys and 2,840 girls on Sundays only. Making a total of 57,977 poor children rescued

from ignorance and vice, and regularly trained up in the knowledge and the worship of God, according to the pure principles of the Established Church. If these details are duly considered, and it is, moreover, taken into the account, that not merely the first institution of so many schools has resulted from the expenditure, but, under the Divine blessing, their permanent establishment; and that together with this, more than 400 additional teachers, well trained to their important callings, have been distributed throughout the country, to give full efficiency to the benevolent design; surely nothing can be wanting to convince the public of the excellent appropriation of the funds so liberally confided to the National Society's disposal, and the extensive and substantial benefits which they cannot fail to produce."