'unbaptized' is that which has been stated above. For ourselves we confess, not only that we cannot deduce any thing like this conclusion, but that we cannot even perceive the process by which other minds are enabled to arrive at it.

*

If it be meant, that a lawful minister' is essential to baptism, we can only request the archdeacon to be more explicit in detailing his mode of reasoning. Meanwhile, we will adduce certain considerations, which satisfy us, that that mode of reasoning, whatever it be, was not adopted by those who composed our articles. Let it be remembered, then, that these articles were framed A. D. 1562, and that the rubrick, at that very time, authorized lay persons to baptize in case of necessity. Let it be remembered too, that in the convocation, at which these articles were agreed on, a paper was brought in by Sandys, then bishop of Worcester, and its averment admitted without remark from any one, the first head of which was, that the rubrick, which gives women a liberty to baptize in case of necessity, might be altered. His reason was, because the Holy Scriptures declare women incapable of administering the sacraments.' With this reason we have here nothing further to do, than as it shows what were the sentiments of convocation respecting the rubrick at a time when it was directly brought under their view; and how little it was then imagined that baptism by men, though laicks, could be deemed by the church to be no baptism. As far, therefore, as the articles are concerned, and if they are to be understood in the sense of those who framed them, it is plain, that unless we suppose that they were framed to contradict the rubrick, there is nothing in them which declares a 'lawful minister' essential to baptism.

If, however, the archdeacon means that these articles, &c. prove that all are considered by the Church as 'unbaptized,' who are baptized in this country by persons not of her communion, we must then entreat him to account for some other phænomena apparently at variance with his theory. In the analysis of Sir John Nicholl's argument, it has already been noticed, that at the time of passing this law there were many inhabitants of this country, who, during the Usurpation, had received baptism from the hands of men not episcopally ordained; and we may now add, that a large proportion of them must have received it from those who were not members of the Church of England. Yet it has been seen, that these persons were confirmed by the bishops of that time without scruple. This, therefore, is, of itself, a strong reason for supposing that those very bishops in framing the rubrick, did not mean to designate all such, asunbaptized.' But a still stronger reason is derived from the consequence which must follow from the rubrick, if such be the meaning of unbaptized;' namely, that all these persons were deprived by law of Christian burial. Is it credible that such could be the intention with which the word was inserted by con

6

* See Collyer's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I. p. 485. VOL. I.-No. I.

vocation? If so intended, could parliament have endured to give the force of law to an ordinance, by which many of its members, in communion with the Church, must have seen their families cut off from all participation in the most interesting of religious rites? Could this have been done without opposition, and even without remark? Yet the history of that, not distant period, is without the smallest trace of any emotions excited by an enactment, which, if Dr. Daubency rightly interprets it, must have operated in so pow. erful a manner. We do not read of any persons being impelled by the rubrick or any other cause, to seek re-baptism from a minister of the Church of England for nearly half a century; and when at length the instance of Mr. Lawrence occurred, we do not find it was even then pretended, that the judgment of the church in 1661, had been thus decisive. If, indeed, such a plea could have been established, there would have been no longer any ground of controversy between him and his opponents.

We are aware, that the archdeacon has armed himself with an answer to all remarks of this sort, by admitting that there may be 'exceptions to his conclusion, and that such exceptions may furnish a field for the exercise of discretionary judgment in ecclesi astical governours.'-p. 24. But thus peremptorily to assign meanings, and thus imperfectly to provide for objections which start up at every step, is not so much to interpret as to make laws. And who is it, that here attributes this enormous and indefinite power to ecclesiastical governours? The same person, who, in p. 110, denies that the opinions of bishops Fleetwood and Warburton are of any value in the question; and who, p. 115, as has been already observed, triumphantly quotes the saying of Lord Camden, that the discretion of a judge is the law of tyrants: in the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly, and pas sion, to which human nature is liable.'

But what does Dr. Daubeney say to the acknowledged practice of admitting converts from among the dissenters to all the privileges of the Church of England, and even to its orders, without being re-baptized? a practice, to which it is owing, that our Church numbers among its members the two greatest ornaments of this or any other church during the last century, bishop Butler, and archbishop Secker. Why it seems, that their baptism is, under circumstances, capable of being recognised as valid'-p. 45. Of the meaning of the word recognised, Dr. Daubeney has, in another part of his book, favoured us with a very accurate definition, which we beg leave to insert in this place, as explanatory of the sentence just quoted. By recognising any thing, we do not change either its nature or character, but only renew our knowledge of it as it is.'-p. 103. The baptism of dissenters, therefore, is, under circumstances, (e. g. their conversion,) capable of being again known by us to be, what we indeed knew it to be before, but with a knowledge requiring renovation, namely, that it is in itself, in its own nature and character, valid baptism.

Must we trespass on the patience of our readers any longer? Yes,

we will not leave the archdeacon room to say, that we condemn him for one or two instances of confusion both of sentiment and language, however gross, or for the weakness of a single part of his argument, however necessary to his conclusion. We proceed, therefore, to his more direct attack on Sir John Nicholl's reasoning. After a few preliminary observations, he proposes to state the nature of the ground on which the judgment has been built.' And here we have seriously to complain of the extremely inadequate, confused and erroneous view of the learned judge's argument, which his analysis presents. Whatever may be thought of some of the incidental positions advanced in that argument, whatever difference of opinion may be entertained of the truth of some of its premises, or the soundness of its conclusion, at least it must be allowed by every candid reader, that the general course of the reasoning is luminous and powerful. Yet those who acquire their notion of it only from the pages of Dr. Daubeney, would naturally suppose that the learned judge is as ignorant of the rules of logick, as he is represented to be of the law which he administers. In p. 15, Sir John Nicholl purposes to examine the history of the law, in order to see whether any argument can thence be drawn either for or against the general meaning of the word "unbaptized.' If,' says he, the Church of England has recognised lay-baptism, &c. &c. it will necessarily follow, that it cannot mean, (by the word "unbaptized,") to exclude from burial all persons who have not been baptized according to the forms of its liturgy. Accordingly, he proceeds to inquire, from history, whether the Church of England has thus recognised lay-baptism or not. Nothing, surely, can be more plain or logical than such a course; yet, in the 9th page of the archdeacon, all this is given as an inference from what has preceded. From these premises,' (that is, from the statement of the general meaning of the term unbaptized, and from a view of the context,) you draw the following conclusion; that if the Church of England has recognised lay-baptism,' &c. Such a perversion of very plain passage, if we could believe it intentional, would call forth our loudest reprobation; as it is, we cannot but express our astonishment, that so practised a controversialist, as archdeacon Daubeney, should have erred so grossly in apprehending the argument of his adversary. But this, we are sorry to say, is not the only instance of the same kind to be met with in the tract before us. In p. 63, inconsistency is insinuated against the learned judge, where not only there is no foundation for the charge, but the very words adduced to establish, do, in fact, disprove it. By the law of the English Church,' says Sir John Nicholl, down to the Reformation, lay-baptism was allowed and practised; it was regular, and even prescribed in cases of necessity.' "Were I disposed to cavil,' says his censor, I should object to the word regular in the above sentence; and I might quote you against yourself, where you say "That the Church of England has recognised laybaptism to be, though irregular, yet valid.” ' Now, in truth, Sir John Nicholl, in the passage thus referred to, does not say what

6

is here said for him; his words are, If the Church of England has recognised,' &c. meaning that it would be sufficient for his purpose that lay-baptism should have been recognised as valid, even though it were considered as irregular. But, supposing the words to be as quoted, what inconsistency is there in saying that lay-baptism was, in certain cases, regular before the Reformation, and considered irregular afterwards? Though, therefore, we are unwilling to think the archdeacon disposed to cavil,' yet, we must express our regret that he should, with so little reason, seek to depreciate the argument which he is opposing.

But not to weary our readers with a detail of petty mis-statements of this sort, we will examine the principal objections urged by him against the learned judge's argument. The first affords a lamentable instance of the confused view taken by Dr. Daubeney of the subject in question. Sir John Nicholl, considering that the whole stress of the cause lies on the word 'unbaptized' in the rubrick before the office of burial, makes it the principal object of his argument to ascertain the import of the word in that particular place. The first step taken by him for this purpose is, to state its general meaning unconnected with the rubrick; which is accordingly given by him, not as the full import of the word as it stands in the rubrick, but expressly as a step towards arriving at the true interpretation. Yet the archdeacon is pleased to speak of this as the interpretation, which you, (Sir John Nicholl,) have affixed to the word unbaptized in the rubrick!' p. 23.

His next objection, which he deems a strong one, must be given in his own words. It attaches to your indiscriminate use of the term Christian church; where, in p. 11, you give us to understand, that persons baptized into the forms of what you represent to be diferent churches, as the Romish or Greek church, the Presbyterian Church, that of the Calvinistick Independents, or the Church of England, have all been baptized into the Christian church.'

Here is a good deal of confusion, and not a little of misrepresentation. Persons baptized into the forms of different churches,' is a phrase for which Dr. Daubeney only is answerable. Utterly unintelligible as it is, there is, however, an apparent purpose in using it; for without it there would be no colour or pretence for insinuating, as is presently done, that Sir John Nicholl maintains, 'that baptism into these different churches, as distinguished from the Church of England, admits the baptized parties into that one church of Christ of which the Church of England is admitted to be a branch.' The language of the learned judge gives not the slightest ground for this strange accusation. He does not talk of baptizing into a particular church, but leaves both the notion and the terms in which it is expressed, to his censor, who is so partial to it, that he will give us another opportunity of remarking on it before we have done. His real position is, that baptism, according to any of these forms, provided the essence of baptism have taken place, is baptism, and admits into the Christian church. If he

6

errs in this opinion, he errs with the sanction of no light authority. Among others, archbishop Whitgift must bear equal blame with him; for he, (Def. of Ans. to Adm. p. 519,) says distinctly, So farre as I can reade, the opinion of all learned men is, that the essentiall forme, and, as it were, the lyfe of baptisme, is to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoste, which forme being observed, the sacrament remaineth in full force and strength, of whomsoever it be ministred.' And further, p. 521, he argues on it as certain, that 'baptisme ministred by he reticall ministers, which be no members of the church, is, notwithstanding, good and effectuall.' Happily, therefore, Dr. Daubeney, even if he admit the learned judge's notion, may yet, with as good a right as before, have the dying words of Whitgift in his mouth, pro ecclesiâ Dei, pro ecclesiâ Dei.'-p. 141.

6

To return; the position of Sir John Nicholl, whether true or false, certainly involves no indiscriminate use of the phrase 'Christian church;' still less does it afford any pretence for a charge, which follows in the archdeacon's next page, that he' represents that Christian church as consisting of different religious societies, not only independent of, but unconnected with, each other by any common principles of unity:' and again, that, according to his description of the church,' (which he has not attempted to describe at all,) the sin of schism cannot possibly exist.' We would willingly forget who it is that advances these charges, and against whom they are brought; we would gladly, too, if it were possible, dissemble the conclusion, which is forced upon us, that nothing can here protect Dr. Daubeney from the disgrace of wilful misre presentation but an absence, (casual let us hope,) of those qualities as a writer which can alone give any value to his opinions.

Whether it be to strengthen these accusations we know not; but the archdeacon is pleased to represent the judge as speaking of the Presbyterian Church, and that of the Calvinistick Independents; again, p. 29, he talks of the Presbyterian and Independent churches,' as if so named by Sir John Nicholl. So far, however, as Christians of the latter denomination are concerned, Sir John purposely goes out of his way to avoid the application of the word church' to them. He speaks of the form, (in ministering baptism,) of the Romish church, of the Greek church, of the Presbyterian Church, the form used among the Calvinistick Independents, and the form used by the Church of England.' This part of the complaint, therefore, is not so much without evidence, as contrary to it.

With regard to the Presbyterian Church, Sir John Nicholl has pronounced no opinion, whether it be, or be not, a member of the Christian church. He has, indeed, used the phrase, and so, in truth, has Dr. Daubeney, p. 20, where he speaks of the esta blished Church of Scotland.' He has also asserted that, in the common use of language, it may be said, that persons baptized according to the form of the Presbyterian Church, have been admitted into the Christian church. But the truth or falsehood of