independence so long as the worst passions of human nature be appealed to, and the pride and self-sufficiency of man be flattered under the specious garb of a scheme of moral renovation, or spirituality in religion so long, in short, as dignities shall be evil spoken of, and constituted authority shall be despised, so long shall licentiousness be rampant in our land, and the voice of Heaven speaking through the church shall be treated as a thing of nought. Whilst such is the case, this poor country may tremblingly look for the Almighty's fiat of extermination, which (it may be) is only yet kept back for the sake of those few righteous men who secretly work for the recovery of their lapsed country, and whose silent prayers ascend to Heaven as the incense of the saints on earth. Yet let us not despair; the prospect, though dismal indeed it be, is not so dark but that there are beams of mercy in the distance, which well may cheer our hearts in the hope that they are yet in store for us; the cry of wickedness is indeed so loud as to drown the voice of teaching and remonstrance, but who shall say that God's voice will not yet be heard, though instead of the still small voice, it assume the awful tones of thunder? The timid heart may be apt to feel some misgivings, when it sees the judgment which God permits covering the earth (as a flood) with faction and with schism, but still there is an ark which shall ride unhurt upon the tempestuous waters, and bid defiance to the waves that dash against its side, and which shall eventually land its faithful crew upon the mount of Ararat in Heaven: that ark is the Church of Christ, and alas for those who shall leave it in these times of peril. The safety of the country, without a question, rests on the maintenance of the church as the national religion. And though the poor man has been taught by factious persons to despise the privilege of belonging to Christ's Church, and to take the word of some bold adventurer for the doctrines and method of salvation, though he has left the communion of saints, and turned his back upon the ancient fabric in which his fathers knelt and worshipped, yet shall not we feel pity for his delusion, and seek to bring him back into the right way, and provide him with that which is emphatically the "Poor Man's Church," though for a while he may reject the offer? Our forefathers felt so deeply the danger of trusting to the voluntary fancies of the human heart in the all-important matter of religion, that they held it to be an imperative duty to adopt the Church of Christ as an essential part of the constitution of the state. Nor let the liberalists of the present age be shocked if it be contended that such an act exhibited greater wisdom than the infidel schemes of modern utilitarians, and deeper piety than the cant of modern sectaries. Shall it be said that we can calmly see the poor man reft of his church, and banished from its ordinances? If we are churchmen, and really believe that the church is the channel of covenanted grace, it cannot be a matter of indifference to us to witness the daily attempts that are being made by the united body of Romanists and dissenters to sever the holy union which now exists between church and state, and so to rob the lower orders of the due ministration of the sacraments as now provided for them. VOL. II. 4 P The unity of the one Catholic Church, the apostolical succession which conveys authority to its ministers, the expediency as well as positive necessity of episcopal government, and the scriptural nature of an established religion, are all points which have been long and often dwelt upon, and proved beyond a doubt to all but the most sceptical and disbelieving. This is the ground which a consistent churchman must assume, and it is the only one on which he may safely rest his cause. He cannot unite with that school of expediency which would merge his higher principles of catholic truth; and, though the fashionable mania may be spread, to make such advocates as Dr. Chalmers the champion of what political churchmen look upon only as the ESTABLISHED Church, he feels there are nobler principles at stake, the maintenance of the Episcopal Church of Christ. In the support of that-the only-church, he looks for the perpetuation of the ordinances of the gospel, and the poor man's participation in them. Or, if we regard the matter as lovers of our country, besides interesting ourselves in the welfare of the souls of our individual brethren, we cannot but see that the incessant attacks of the dissenters upon our most holy faith are fast weakening that bond of union which alone can make a nation prosperous, and are silently but most effectually preparing the way for Romanism, whose ambition looks forward to the time (which God in his mercy avert!) when the church, as restored to something like her primitive purity at the awful period of the reformation, shall be swept from the face of England, and leave a gap where popery may step in, and assume the spiritual despotism which in former times she strove to claim. Whether, then, on the principles of patriotism, or from the higher and nobler conviction of the divine appointment of the holy church, within whose pale we must look for our salvation, we cannot be silent in these days of schism and rebellion; we cannot be so unjust to our poorer brethren as to leave them in the snares of the wily demagogue or the visionary enthusiast; we cannot allow them to be charmed to their destruction, even though they would repel the proffered hand that would rescue them from their danger. The specious arguments of the teachers of dissent may win their way upon those untutored souls who measure truth by sound and not by substance. The sophistry of the infidel philosopher of the present day may even induce doubts upon those most essential doctrines of the gospel, by which alone men can look for peace in this world, or happiness in the world to come; and so, because their fancy may be pleased, their pride be flattered, and the evil passions of their nature may be gratified, the unhappy victims of the machinations of the devil may range themselves on the very side of the evil spirit who is working their destruction, and in loud and specious accents may demand the rights of private judgment, liberty of conscience, and independence. The picture is too real to need farther illustration. Let us then defend these deluded men from their infatuated selves; we appeal to the people of England against them, yet in their own behalf, and the appeal has already been responded to. A few sad instances of deluded chartists led on by evil-designing men to their own destruction-perhaps (unless God is very merciful) another list of horrors in a great rebellion, to prove the evils of anarchy and independence another sectarian despotism, to show the emptiness of the cry of "liberty of conscience"-and then it may be that the fever will have passed away, and England (though heaven forefend such fiery ordeal!) may arise again, and even in her ruins smile to see her monarchy restored, and the Catholic Church of Christ again established as that which her Divine Head hath graciously permitted her to be, "THE CHURCH OF THE PEOPLE." F. J. M. ON THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTERS TO THE ON THE CASE MASTIN v. ESCOTT. SIR,- The suit, "Mastin v. Escott, clerk," now before the Ecclesiastical Courts, in which an action has been brought against a clergyman of the Church of England, for refusing to celebrate the rites of the church at the burial of one who had been baptized among the Wesleyan Methodists, involves several questions of ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline of such extreme importance that it will not, probably, be considered improper for a clergyman of that church, pendente lite, to offer some observations upon it, with a view to bringing before the court some considerations, which, on a previous occasion, Kemp v. Wickes, appear to have been overlooked. I. The first question that presents itself is that of the validity of lay baptism for the person who is alleged to have baptized this child not having been in holy orders, it seems clear that, if the absolute invalidity of lay baptism can be established, the defendant was acting most properly in his refusal. 2 3 Now, if we had nothing but the Scriptures to guide us on this point, it does not readily appear to what other conclusion we could arrive but that lay baptism is invalid: because the commission to baptize was given to the apostles only; the promise of continual presence in the administration of it to them only; and the promise to ratify in heaven what was done on earth to them only; nor is there any instance recorded in the Scriptures of Christian baptism having been conferred by any but the apostles, and those immediately commissioned or directed by them. Nor can the argument of analogy from the rite of circumcision, which might apparently be performed by any one, be much insisted upon; because it seems undeniable that the spiritual gifts bestowed by baptism are far greater and more unspeakable than the privileges conferred by circumcision; and therefore the administration of them may reasonably be supposed to have been more jealously guarded and confined to "the stewards of the mysteries of God." But, if we interpret Scripture, not 1 Matth., xxviii. 16, 19; Mark, xvi. 14—16. 2 Matth., xxviii. 20. Matth., xvi. 18; xviii. 18. by our own private inductions, but by the testimony of the Church's practice, we are forced to alter this opinion, and to admit the validity of lay baptism; because the Church at large, both in the east and west, though highly disapproving of such baptism, except in cases of necessity, has agreed to receive it. The received opinion and practice of the church in the west may be gathered from the canon law. Decret. III. Pars. De Consecratione. Dist. IV., cc. 19, 21, 24, 36, &c.: and the judgment and practice of the Greek church (see Smith's account, Lond., 1680, pp. 109, 110), is no less clearly established; the following rule being printed in their confessions of faith, 1662: "It is not lawful and proper for any one to baptize but a lawful priest, except in time of necessity; and then a secular person, whether man or woman, may do it." Nor has the Church of England exercised that liberty which, as an integral portion of the catholic church, she possesses, to establish a discipline different from this: but though, in the alterations in the rubrics and directions concerning baptism, put forth in the reign of James I., and confirmed by convocation in the time of Charles II., an evident disposition appears to discourage lay baptism, by requiring that even in cases of necessity baptism shall be administered by a lawful (i. e., an episcopal) minister; yet the only cases in which the ministers of the Church of England are enjoined to make use even of the conditional form of re-baptization, is when it is doubtful whether the right words, or the right matter, have been used. [See rubric at the end of the Office for Private Baptism.] The church seems to have allowed by her practice that there was reason for the dread, expressed by so many ecclesiastical writers, of incurring sacrilege by a repetition of baptism, which the apostle declares to be one; or by treating as of no effect the invocation of the thrice Holy Name; so that if the only allegation on the defendant's part were, that the child had only received lay baptism, it does not seem that this would justify his refusal to celebrate the rites of the church for it: something more than the mere silence of the church being, in reason, necessary, to set aside a principle which can be shown to have obtained for at least 1200 years preceding; although the maxim, "where there is no law, there is no transgression," might save him from legal punishment for such refusal. II. The second question is that of the validity of schismatical baptism. For it appears that the individual by whom the child was baptized was not only not in holy orders, but was a separatist from the Church, a leader of separatists, one who had gathered a congregation within the British dioceses, without and contrary to the bishops of the same, and in open violation of the laws of the Church. In other words, that he was a schismatic, and baptized in schism; and, consequently, that the child had only received schismatical baptism. And it is alleged that, whatever may be the validity of lay baptism within the church, i. e., by laymen who are in communion with the church, yet that, at any rate, schismatical baptism, i. e., by persons who are in a state of separation from the church, must be accounted invalid. In what light, then, are we to regard schismatical baptism? Now, if the question were, whether baptism, performed with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by schismatics, were to be counted so utterly invalid that when they who had received such schismatical baptism should seek to be received into the church, they should be required to receive baptism from the ministers of the church, we shall find any thing but a unanimous opinion expressed by the church at large: most weighty and most important authorities being to be alleged on either side. In favour of the validity of such baptism, and against a repetition of it, we have the canon appended to the decrees of the second general council (Constantinople), and confirmed by the 95th of the Trullan council, enjoining such persons to be received by confirmation or chrism: we have the practice of the church of Rome, both prior to the council of Constantinople, as exhibited in Pope Stephen's Controversies with St. Cyprian; and subsequently to it, as set forth in the Canon Law, Decr. iii. P. de Consecrat. Dist. iv., c. 28, 29, 32, 43, 44, &c., &c., enjoining such persons to be received by confirmation or imposition of hands: and the profession of the Church of Rome to this day; for in the Catechismus ad Parochos it is laid down, that in cases of necessity, not only Christian men and women, of whatever sect they may be, may administer baptism, but even Jews, infidels, and heretics, provided they intend to do what the church intends. See Catech. ad Paroch. p. ii., de Baptism. s. 22; and though last, by no means unimportant, we have the decision of the Scottish bishops in their synod, two years ago, 1838, when, having the case under their consideration, they neither enjoined nor recommended the administration of baptism to such persons, but only provided (canon 17) that in cases where the parties themselves entertained doubts as to the validity of their schismatical baptism, the clergy should confer conditional baptism upon them. On the other hand, against the validity of schismatical baptism, and in favour of the baptizing anew those who, from among the schismatics should desire reconciliation with the church, we have the decrees of the African church in Cyprian's time, and the other earlier synods, to which he refers; and now, the uniform practice of the Greek and Latin churches. The Greeks, on the separation of the east and west, baptized anew all who joined them from among the Latins, as I believe they continue to do· to this day; which we find the occasion of grievous complaints and outcries from the latter, (see iv. Conc. Later., c. 4.) And the Latins have, of late (I know not from what date), adopted the practice, which they at first inveighed against, and now, notwithstanding the rule cited above from the Catechismus ad Parochos, still professedly received among them, always, I believe, baptize anew any who join them from among us. With such weighty testimonies in conflict, he must be a bold man who will speak dogmatically upon the subject, as to what ought to be done. The safest course appears to be, not merely to permit, but, at least, to recommend CONDITIONAL baptism in all such cases: thus equally avoiding the danger of sacrilege by repeating baptism, if already conferred, and avoiding, also what seems, at least, as great a danger, namely, the leaving people to rest their salvation on baptism so doubtful that, concerning it, the voice of the church affords no warrant for its final acceptance in the courts above. But the rules of the Church of England, as at present existing, do not seem to warrant this course; the only cases in which conditional re-baptization is openly authorized being where doubt occurs as to the matter or words. The question, however, concerning the validity of schismatical baptism, in the case before us, is not, whether, on a party so baptized seeking reconciliation with the church, he may be admitted to communion by |
