this proposition rests not on the Presbyterian Church being, or not being, a member of the one church of Christ, but on a totally different question, viz. whether baptism, in whatever congregation administered, provided the essence of baptism have been preserved, may be said to admit into the Christian church: for it does not follow that any congregation is pronounced a member of the Christian church, because its baptism is said to admit into the church. But the archdeacon's zeal for episcopacy is so inflammable, that the very name of Presbyterian seems sufficient to set it in a blaze. We are not so presumptuous as to attempt to extinguish it; but we may be allowed to congratulate him, that he lives in an age when the practice of the Church of England is no longer in opposition to his feelings. What would these feelings have been, had he flourished in the first century after the Reformation, and witnessed the favour then shown to Presbyterians? Congregations of them placed under the protection of our most orthodox bishops; a synod, composed of Presbyterians, inviting and receiving the co-operation of English divines, deputed by the head of the Church of England, (himself a zealous Episcopalian,) as to a lawful meeting of reformed churches, without any remonstrance from either house of convocation; Presbyterian ministers instituted to English benefices without being re-ordained, and this not clandestinely, nor by connivance, but openly, avowedly, and habitually, till at length, in 1661, Episcopal ordination was made essential to the lawful ministry in the Church of England. A recurrence to these times may at least justify us in asking, whether it be decent or tolerable, that a judge, in one of our ecclesiastical courts, should be publickly and rudely censured by an archdeacon for using the phrase Presbyterian Church,' and saying that those, who have been baptized according to its form, have been admitted into the Christian church. For ourselves, to use the language of the venerable bishop Cosin on a somewhat similar occasion, we love not to be herein more wise, or harder, than our own church is;' and we defy Dr. Daubeney to produce any authoritative declaration of the Church of England against thus denominating the Presbyterian Church, or against allowing baptism according to its form, to be a valid initiation into the church of Christ.

To proceed: after renewing his attack on the general meaning said to be affixed to the word 'unbaptized,' and producing evidence, which plainly proves, on the contrary, that, before he affixes any meaning to the word, the learned judge examines the context, &c.; Dr. Daubeney combats, and, we think, successfully, the argument drawn from the rubrick's associating excommunicates and suicides with the unbaptized.

On the next point he is far from being equally happy. You proceed to observe,' says he, p. 34, that the general law is, that burial is to be refused to no person,' &c.; but," he continues, 'no general law, that I am acquainted with, has determined any thing on this point.' He presently afterwards calls on the judge to 'point out to notice the general law to which he refers, where this

law is to be found, and in what language it is drawn up.' Such is the tendency of his strictures, poured forth through several pages, and renewed we know not how often in the course of his book; though Sir John Nicholl has expressly referred to the 68th canon, which prohibits the refusal of burial in all cases, and punishes such refusal. Nothing,' says he, can be more large than the canon is in this respect. It does not limit the duty to burial of persons who are of the Church of England-all persons, not specially excepted, are entitled by it to burial,' &c. &c. Now let the archdeacon prove, if he can, that the view here taken of the canon is erroneous; let him show, that what Sir John Nicholl has assigned as the general law is, in truth, limited and particular; but let him not presume so far either on the carelessness of his readers, or on the silence which official decorum may impose on the judge, as to proclaim, that no general law has been pointed out to notice.'

To follow him through all the windings of his argument, on this point, is not within our purpose. But we are unwilling to leave unanswered a question proposed with an air of triumph, as if it were decisive of the cause.

'On the supposition that the word "unbaptized" in the rubrick was meant to convey no precise meaning to the clergy, and that it was to be understood generally of all persons who had never been baptized in any way, what reason can be given for the insertion of such word in the rubrick at all? Since the clergy certainly could not need to be informed that persons, so circumstanced, were not subjects for Christian burial.' p. 43.

We will answer his question first, by telling him, that it would have been a sufficient reason for introducing the word into the rubrick, that it limits the general expression of the canon, which might be perversely construed, (as has been shown by himself, p. 39,) into a command of burial even of Jews and Pagans; 2dly, by referring him to the history of the age when the rubrick was composed. He will find that, by the growth of anabaptism through the licentiousness of the late times,' (as the preface to the Common Prayer expresses it,) as well as by the rise of a sect which wholly rejected baptism, there were many who called themselves Christians that had never been baptized at all; that a prohibition of burial, therefore, to such persons, under the designation of unbaptized,' was not so nugatory as the archdeacon may imagine; 3dly, We will answer by asking him a question in return; Why, if the authors of the rubrick meant by the word 'unbaptized' to include all who, though baptized with water and the proper invocation, were not baptized by a lawful minister, did they not take the trouble of expressing themselves to that effect? especially since they must have been aware that there were thousands of persons then in the country, so circumstanced, who stood in need of the information, that they were unbaptized. Surely, this course would have been somewhat more reasonable than what he attributes to the framers of the rubrick, p. 98, viz. that the word unbaptized was introduced to warn the wilful separatists that, the validity

of their baptism not having been recognised by the church, they were unentitled to the privileges belonging to communicants.'

It is not without pleasure, that we come to a part of the subject, in which, though still with much abatement on the score of inaccuracy and mis-statement, we can congratulate the archdeacon on having the better of his adversary. It is that which relates to the sentiments of the ancient church on baptism by hereticks, or schismaticks. Sir John Nicholl has undoubtedly gone too far, when he says, that such baptism was considered as complete. Many passages from the canon law might be adduced to prove, that it was not supposed to communicate the holy spirit, nor to give remission of sins, nor to admit into the Catholick church. Still, however, even in this particular, Sir John Nicholl's argument has been most incorrectly stated. He no where professes, (as is asserted by the archdeacon, p. 62 ) to take the sense of the ancient church as a standard to try the question at issue:-he no where confidently draws a conclusion,' as is stated, p. 58, from the practice of the ancient church, that baptism, by whomsoever administered, does in itself constitute a legal and valid initiation into the Christian church.' This conclusion is not drawn by him from the practice of the ancient church: such practice has, indeed, nothing to do with it, excepting as it may explain the opinions of the Church of England.

And here it is proper to observe, that the Church of England could not on this point go the whole way with the ancient church: it could not adopt all its sentiments, or practice, respecting baptism by hereticks or schismaticks. To have done so, would have been no less than an act of suicide. For the Church of England derived its own baptism from hereticks and schismaticks: if, therefore, it had acquiesced in the decision of the ancient church, it must have acknowledged, that none of its own members had been admitted into the Christian church.

We are aware, that Bingham, (Scholast. Hist. Lay-Bap. ch. i. s. 23,) has endeavoured to remove all difficulties of this sort, by stating that the Church of England, on shaking off the yoke of the Romish church, reforming its errours, and returning to the unity of the Catholick church, got rid of all its disabilities. We have no doubt that it did so. But the present question is, how far the practice and the decrees of the ancient church were satisfied by what was then done. Now the quotations of Bingham himself prove, (as does the argument of Dr. Daubeney, from p. 48 to 62.) that the wishes or the acts of the parties to be received were not held to be sufficient; imposition of hands, or something equivalent, was to be given by the church which received them. It is evident, therefore, that the Church of England could not have adopted the sentiments of the ancient church on this subject: it is evident also, that it not only was not the business of Sir John Nicholl to state, or to inquire into, the whole of the ancient discipline on this point, but that, by taking so wide a course, he would have obscured, rather than enlightened, his subject. His object was to ascertain

the meaning of the Church of England in one of its own laws; and his references to antiquity were limited to the express purpose of illustrating that meaning; of showing, that baptism with water in the name of the Holy Trinity, by whomsoever administered, was considered as baptism, and was not to be repeated. In what light irregular and unauthorized baptisms were further considered by the ancient church, it was not his business to inquire; his sole object being to discover, whether those who had received such baptism, were considered by the canon law as 'unbaptized,' in order to assist him in the inquiry, whether our reformed church, in using that word, meant to include those who had received bap tism at the hands of schismaticks. Now we are decidedly of opinion, that one single quotation of his, (that from 28th Sect. of IV. Dist. Dec. III. de Cons.) is sufficient to show, that the canon law does not consider such persons as 'unbaptized:'' recipiantur ut baptizati, ne Sanctæ Trinitatis invocatio annulletur.'

Before we leave this point we must remark, that the Church of England, departing from the precedents of the canon law, has made no special provision for receiving persons baptized by schismaticks into the church, as if they before did not belong to it. Nay, even the ancient church seems to have founded much of the severity of its judgment on the supposition, that the persons so baptized were themselves at their baptism not in charity with the church. For baptism by a heretick or schismatick in case of necessity, under the apprehension of approaching death, was adjudged to be good baptism, and to admit to the spiritual benefits of the Sacrament. 'Ille, cui traditur, protest salubriter accipere, si ipse non separatus acceperit.' Dec. III. de Cons. Dist. IV. s. 112. But can an infant be thus separatus? Augustine himself, (whose authority on this point was principally regarded,) makes an exception out of his general condemnation of those who were baptized by hereticks, which seems strongly in favour of infants so baptized. 'Illi, &c. neque omnino utiliter habent baptismum, neque ab eis utiliter accipitur, nisi fortè accipiendi necessitas urgeat, et recipientis animus ab unitatis vinculo non recedat.' Aug. de Bap. Lib. VII. c. 52. Surely an infant's mind cannot recede from the bond of Christian unity, nor can any necessity be more urgent than that which operates on him.

Again, it must be remembered, that the judgment of the ancient church respecting baptism by hereticks, rested on a distinction which our church disclaims. The Church of England knows nothing of the outward visible sacrament being given without the inward spiritual grace: on the contrary, it considers the outward and visible part as the sign of the inward, which is given by it, as by the appointed instrument, to all who do not themselves put a

bar in the way of grace. The ancient church, on the other hand,

departing from the simplicity which is in Christ, made the imposition of hands so essential, either as a part of baptism, or as a distinct sacrament, that, in a council held at Carthage under Cyprian, it was said that a man ought to be regenerated by both VOL. I.-No. I.

2 A

sacraments in the catholick church,' and Cyprian himself declared, that a man's sanctification was complete, and he indeed became a child of God, when he was born again by both Sacraments,'* namely, baptism and imposition of hands; the latter of which, conferring the gift of the Holy Spirit, could only, as it was held, be effectually given in the catholick church.

Dr. Daubeney, having thus examined what appears to him to be the main strength of Sir John Nicholl's statement, proceeds to matters which require less of his attention. Even here, however, he advances two or three positions, which we feel it impossible to pass over entirely without notice.

In p. 91, he says, that the bishops, after the usurpation, though they did not re-baptize those who had received irregular baptism during that period, still, according to the practice of the ancient church, considered that imposition of hands was necessary to their admission into the communion of the Church.' For the truth of this very important particular in ecclesiastical history,, not a particle of evidence is adduced: we are bound therefore to consider it as resting solely on the acknowledged fact, that the bishops, after the restoration, went about confirming all who were presented to them, without inquiring by whom they had been baptized. And is it possible, that on such a foundation there should be reared a superstructure so momentous? If the assertion of Dr. Daubeney be correct, the bishops of the Church of England, at the æra to which he refers, considered that Church as no part of the church of Christ. For, as has been already observed, the baptism of the reformed, having been received from an heretical and schismatical priesthood, it would have been necessary, according to the practice of the ancient church, that our forefathers at the reformation, should have been admitted into the true Christian church by imposition of hands; a rite, which was certainly not then performed. Happily, however, the assertion of the archdeacon is a mere gratuitous dictum; advanced, as it should seem, for the purpose of explaining away an awkward matter-of fact in the case of his adversary.

In the same page we are told, that dissenting and Papist converts to the Church of England, do not stand on the same footing in the eyes of that Church: the orders of the church of Rome being admitted by the Church of England, whilst those of dissenters are not. The baptism, consequently, of the Church of Rome, though not the baptism of the Church of England, must still be lawful baptism in the eyes of that Church, on the principle of its having been administered by a duly commissioned priest.' In a writer, who defers so much to the sentiments and practice of antiquity, this position is somewhat surprising. Can it be necessary to remind Dr. Daubeney, that the ancient church held the baptism of schismatical priests to be the baptism of persons without com

Bingham, Ant. b. 12. s. 4.