k^ 
 
*C^ PRINCETON, N. J. '^* 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnew Coll. oji Baptism, No. 
 
 
A RESPECTFUL 
 
 EXAMINATION 
 
 OT THE 
 
 JUDGMENT DELIVERED DEC. 11, 1809, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Right Hon. Sir J. NICHOLL, Knt. L.L.D. 
 
 OFFICIAL PRINCIPAL 
 
 Of the Arches Court of Canterbury ; 
 
 AGAtNSt 
 
 THE REV. JOHN AVIGHT WICKES, 
 
 FOR 
 
 Ulcfiisfins to Iiutp an g[nfant ^fjiftr, 
 
 WHICH HAD bee:* 
 
 BAPTIZED BY A DISSENTING MINISTER; 
 
 ^ LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 SIR JOHN NICHOLLj 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. CHARLES DAUBENV, L.L. B. 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF SARUM. 
 
 *' Now give ine leave to demand, whether the Churcli be under pro- 
 tection, or under persecution; if tlie Curate be not enabled by Law 
 to refuse Christian Burial to those of whose Salvation he can give no 
 account, because they withdraw themselves from his Cure.'' 
 
 Thurridike's Discourse of the forlearancc, ^c. ch. 29. ad fin. 
 
 BATH, 
 
 PRINTED BY MEYLER AND SON, 
 
 ABBEY CnUHCH-YARD; 
 
 >^D SOLD Et MBSSRS. RiVINGTO.V, ST. PAUL's CHURCII-YARt. 
 J.ONDON. 
 
fftOPERTy ,;■ 
 
 
 THE MOST REVEREND, THE RIGHT REVEREJfD, 
 AND THE REVEREND 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOPS, THE BISHOPS, 
 AND THE CLERGY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ; 
 
 THE FOLLOWING 
 
 EXAMINATION 
 
 IS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, 
 
 ADDRESSED 
 
 BY THEIR FAITHFUL AND AFFECTIONATE 
 SERVANT IN CHRIST, 
 
 CHARLES BAUBENY. 
 
" YERUM apud Sapientes, atque in famosa nobiiiq : Ecclesi^, 
 et cujus specialiler Filius sum; — Qus dixi, absq ; prsejudicio sane 
 dicta sunt sauius sapientis. Hujus prsesertim Ecclesia: aulhoritati 
 atq : examini totum hoc, sicut et cselera qiise ejus modi sunt, uni- 
 ver»a reservo: Ipsius si quid alitersapio,pafatus judicio emeadare." 
 
 S. Bernard Ep : Iliad Canon. Lugdun, 
 
 ERUATA. 
 
 . ^. -i, 1. 3 — insert comma after '♦ made.'' 
 
 ■"♦yV > 24 1. i3_for" ries" r. rhes. 
 
 4fc, 1. 2.5 — for disi)line"r, discipline. 
 5" iast Jine in note — for " j;" r. £. 
 ' lOy, 1. 19 — for " purlieu'' r. purview. 
 
 ill. last line, insert is. 
 121*, last Jine — for " subject" r. suhjecls. 
 
r 
 
 A LETTER, | ^% '^' J: 
 
 ■I f. ^ 
 
 SIR, 
 
 T 
 
 HE publication of your judgment, in a cause 
 that has lately come before you, as " Official 
 Principal of the Arches* Court of Canterbury,*' 
 relative to the refusal of a Clergyman to bury a 
 child who had been baptized by a Dissenting 
 Minister, has put it in the power of every duly 
 informed person, to examine the strength of the 
 ground on which that judgment was made to 
 stand. And I cannot but consider it to be a 
 circumstance in some respects favoura^/le to thi 
 Church of England, as a sound branch of the 
 Apostolic Church of Christ, that the „/aestiori 
 which, in my opinion, has been unnecessarily 
 agitated, should ^^ brought to some decisive 
 issue; because, in that unparalleled license of 
 opinion which at present prevails on ecclesiastical 
 subjects, nothing can tend more to the unity of 
 the Church of Christ, and the consequent pre- 
 servation of the true faith in this country, than 
 
the due ascertainment of those rights and privi- 
 leges, which belong to the Church, as a divinely 
 incorporated society. 
 
 But, exclusive of the concern which I take, in 
 common with my clerical brethren, in the judg- 
 ment which you have pronounced, I feel myself, 
 in my official character, particularly interested 
 in it ; your judgment being in decided contra- 
 diction to an opinion which I was once called 
 upon to give, and which, on that account, I con- 
 sidered myself bound in duty to give, to one of 
 my inquiring clergy, on this same point. 
 
 Now, Sir, the only way by which to free my- 
 self from the appearance of presumption in your 
 eyes, is to endeavour to convince you, that the 
 opinion delivered by me on that occasion, was 
 not an opinion hazarded at random ; but the re- 
 sult of that maturity of judgment, which corres- 
 ponded, in a degree at least, with the importance 
 of the inquiry. And though I may not make 
 use of that decisive language which you have ap- 
 plied to the subject before you, I must yet take 
 leave to say, that no evidence which you have 
 adduced, no argument which you have made use 
 of, no conclusion which you have drawn, has in 
 the least tended to alter my opinion on the point 
 at issue. 
 
 Under these circumstances, I feel it incum- 
 bent on me, injustice to the office which I. 
 have the honor to hold in the Church, to state 
 the reasons why my opinion differs so widely, 
 from your judgment on the present question,. 
 
leaving my ecclesiastical superiors, the spiri- 
 tual governors of the Church in this country, 
 to judge, whether the ground, on which your 
 judgment necessarily places the Church of Eng- 
 land, or that on which my opinion places her; be 
 the ground, on which the Church of Christ, as a 
 spiritual society, invested by its divine Founder 
 with the most important of all privileges, ought 
 to stand. 
 
 It not being my wish to preclude the opinion 
 of any one, I shall adopt that mode of treating 
 the present subject, which is calculated to bring 
 it in the fairest way before the reader; by briefly 
 stating, in the first place, the nature of the 
 ground on which your judgment has been built * 
 and in the next, the several objections I have io 
 different parts of it. This done, I shall proceed 
 to the vindication of these objections, by what 
 appear to me at least to be suitable evidence and 
 argument; and from this vindication I shall feel 
 myself justified in drawing that conclusion, 
 which may leave the proper impression on the 
 mind. 
 
 All that I have to request on this occasion is, 
 that I may be permitted to separate the fallibility 
 of Sir J. Nicholl from the authority of the judge, 
 and to write as a professional man, on a subject 
 with which I ought to be acquainted ; without 
 being considered as intending the least disrespect 
 to the person, against whose opinion I feel myself 
 called upon, by my duty to the Church, thus 
 publicly to protest. 
 
I begin, Sir, wkb stating the nature of ths 
 ground on which yotir judgment has been buih. 
 But in so doing, it will not be expected that 
 I should examine every position which you have 
 thought fit to advance ; for that would lead into 
 an endless field of controversy foreign to the 
 object before me ; which is merely to point out 
 to notice those prominent parts of your state- 
 ment, on which the strength of the cause in 
 hand was in your opinion supposed to consist. 
 You set out with stating, that " The plain sim- 
 ple import of the word iinhaptized. in its general 
 sense, and unconnected with the Rubric is, ob- 
 viously, a person not baptized at all, not initiated 
 in the Christian Church." — p. 10. You then pro- 
 ceed to state that a person who had been baptized, 
 whether " according to the form of the Romish 
 Church, the form of the Greek Church, the 
 form of the Presbyterian Church, that of the Cal- 
 vinistic Tndependants, or according to the form 
 of the Church of England, had been admitted 
 into the Christian Church : the essence of Bap- 
 tism, according to what has been generally re- 
 ceived among Christians, as such, having taken 
 place."—/}. II. 
 
 Having thus stated what appears to you to be 
 '^ the general meaning of the word unhaptized in 
 its ordinary acceptation and use ;" you proceed 
 to ask '' whether there is any thing in the law 
 itself, or its context, that varies or limits its 
 meaning? The context is, that the office (of 
 Burial) shall not be used for persons who die ex- 
 
>cQfnmunicate, or that lay violent hands upon 
 themselves." — p. 11. Having thus stated what, 
 in your opinion, is to be understood by the word 
 unhaptized in the Rubric, you go on to inform 
 the court that by an excommunicate person, we 
 are to understand a person who *' is no longer to 
 be considered as a Christian ; no longer to be 
 considered as a member of the Christian Church 
 universal, but as an Heathen and a Publican." 
 p. 12. And on the ground of this definition, 
 after having first observed that " the articles of 
 our religion, though confirmed by Act of Parlia- 
 ment, only extend to this country and to the 
 subjects of this country, therefore the discipline 
 of the Church and its punishment by excommu- 
 nication can extend only to this country ;" you 
 go on to state, that " all his Majesty's subjects, 
 whether of the Church of England, or whether 
 dissenting from that Church, either as Papists, 
 or as any other description of Dissenters, are 
 bound to consider an excommunicated person as 
 an Heathen and a Publican, be the person him- 
 self of the Church of England, or of any other 
 class or sect." — p. 12. You proceed to the fol- 
 lowing conclusion from your premisses: "Taking 
 the context of the law, (namely, the Rubric) put- 
 ting unhaptized persons in association with ex- 
 communicated persons and with suicides, both of 
 whom are considered as no longer Christians, it 
 leads to the same construction as the general 
 import of the words ; namely, that burial is to 
 be refused to those who arc not Christians at all; 
 
s 
 
 and not to those who are baptized accordino; ta 
 the form of any particular Church." — p, 13. 
 
 " Having then considered the words in their 
 general meaning, and as connected with the con • 
 text of the law," you proceed to observe, that 
 *^the general law (of the Rubric) is, that burial 
 is to be refused to no person. This is the law, 
 not only of the English Church ; it is the law 
 not only of all Christian Churches ; but it seems 
 to be the law of common humanitv ; and the li- 
 mitation of such a law must be considered stric- 
 tissimi Juris :'" p. 13 — by which I understand 
 you to mean, that this law must be limited by 
 the strictest letter of it. 
 
 You go on to state, that " it is with some de- 
 gree of surprise that the court has heard the sug- 
 gestion of there being ?io law to compel the Cler- 
 gy to bury Dissenters. This seems to be most 
 strangely perverting, or rather inverting all legal 
 considerations. The question, you go on to say, 
 is not, is there any law expressly enjoining the 
 Clergy to bury Dissenters, but does any law 
 exclude Dissenters from burial ? It is the duty of 
 the Parish Minister to bury all persons within his 
 parish, all Christians." *' The Canon says, that 
 (the Ministers) are to christen any child and to 
 bury any corpse ; and hence it has been sug- 
 gested that the Canon means they are only to 
 bury those who have been first christened accord- 
 ing to the form of the Church : but the Canon 
 says no such thing ; nor does the Rubric say any 
 such thing ; there is nothing of the sort to be 
 
found in any express law.'* — p. 14. From these 
 premisses you draw the following conclusion ; 
 that " If the Church of England has recognized 
 persons^ though not baptized in its own forms 
 and by its own Ministers, yet as validly bap- 
 tized ; if it has recognized lay baptism to be, 
 though irregular, yet valid ; and so valid that the 
 person who has been baptized by a Laic cannot 
 properly be baptized again ; it will necessarily 
 follow, that it cannot mean to exclude from burial 
 all persons who have not been baptized accord- 
 ing to the forms of its Liturgy ; that it can only 
 mean to exclude those who have not been baptized 
 at all by any form, which can be recognized as 
 an initiation, a legal and valid initiation into 
 the Christian Church." — p. \5, 
 
 Having in the next place informed the court, 
 that " The law of the Church of England and its 
 history are to be deduced from the ancient ge- 
 neral Canon Law ;" you proceed to introduce 
 different extracts from what is called the Canon 
 Law and Popish Constitutions, to prove the va- 
 lidity of Lay Baptism ; that *' It was so compleat 
 and valid, that it was by no means to be repeat- 
 ed." — p. 19. '^ So (you state) the matter stood 
 at the Reformation ;" since which time, from 
 Rubrics in some early Liturgies in Edward VI 
 and Q. Elizabeth's time you conclude, that 
 ** All private Baptism was by Laymen antece- 
 dent to the time of King James." — p. 22. There 
 could (you say) have been no doubt upon the 
 Rubric of Edward VI. coupled with what was 
 
10 
 
 the old law, so far as respected the validity of 
 Lay Baptism ; and the Bishops certainly had not 
 authority to alter the old law." — p. -/S. 
 
 You in the next place proceed to the con- 
 ferences which were held at Hampton Court; 
 upon which your observation is, that " Neither 
 the King nor the Bishops maintained that Bap- 
 tism, if de facto performed by a Laic, was inva- 
 lid; but that it was thought fit at that time to 
 enjoin the administration even of private baptism 
 to be by a Clergyman, as much more orderly and 
 proper,'''' — p. 24. You consider, on the ground 
 of his Majesty's Proclamation for authorizing an 
 uniformity in the book of Common Prayer, in 
 which his Majesty says, ' We have thought meet 
 that some small matters might rather be explained 
 than changed ;* that the Kubric which was di- 
 rected to be inserted on this subject at the con- 
 ferences, was not meant to make so important a 
 change " in the established constitution of the 
 Church, as it had existed, not only in early times, 
 but as it had existed after the Reformation had 
 taken place, as that a Baptism administered, 
 even by a Laic, should be considered as wholly 
 null md iiF/iilid ;" but that the Rubric only 
 fiseant to say, that " In the regular and ordinari/ 
 and decent administration of private Baptism, it 
 became the duty of the lawful Minister to per- 
 form the office. But if the old law (as you call 
 it) was meant to be compleatly changed, the 
 'iiew laiv (the Rubric) would most expressly and 
 distinctly have declared it." — •/>. 25. 
 
11 
 
 From this consideration of the Hampton Court 
 conferences, you proceed to the examination of 
 the office for private Baptism, " which (yoa 
 say) leads to the same conclusion ; namely, that 
 Baptism by a Layman was decreed to be a valid 
 Baptism, and that it by no means follows from 
 asking (in the office for private Baptism) ' By 
 whom was this child baptized ?' that the person 
 who administers the ceremony is essential to the 
 validity of the Baptism ;" and, " If any doubt 
 could be made upon what is meant by the Rubric 
 in this respect, it would be cleared up most sa- 
 tisfactorily by adverting to what (you call) the old 
 laiv;'' which determined that " It was the use of 
 the water and the invocation of the Trinity that 
 was essential to the Baptism, the duo 7iecessaria.'* 
 •— /;. 28. " Hence (you conclude) it is obvious, 
 that the person performing the Baptism was not 
 essential by the Rubric." — p. 29. " After the 
 restoration, the Rubric was revised, and was con- 
 iirmed by Act of Parliament ; and no alteration 
 made except in the title of the office :" from 
 which alteration in the title you infer, that "The 
 title was considered as in too precise a manner 
 requiring both the existence of the necessity, and 
 the intervention of a lawful Minister ; and the 
 title was therefore left in more general termsJ"-^ 
 p. 30. 
 
 From these premisses taken together you thus 
 conclude : " That it appears impossible to en- 
 tertain a reasonable doubt that the Church did 
 at all times hold Baptism by water in the name 
 
12 
 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Koly 
 Ghost to be valid Baptism, though not adminis- 
 tered bv a Priest who had been epifxopally or- 
 dained." — p. 31. And by way of corollary to 
 the foregoing conclusion, you add, " If that is 
 the construction of Baptism by the Church of 
 England," namely, ** that Baptism though ad- 
 ministered by a Layman, or any other person,'* 
 is valid, " then the refusal of burial to a person 
 vnbaptized, that term simply being used, cannot 
 mean that it should be refused to persons who 
 have not been baptized by a lawful Minister."— 
 p. 31. 
 
 You proceed to the usurpation ; during 
 which period a great number of persons must 
 hav^e received Baptism from persons not episco- 
 pally ordained, which persons, you observe, were 
 not rebaptized at the Restoration, but only con- 
 Jimied. — p. 32. 
 
 Your next observation respects Presbyterians 
 or Dissenters from the Church of England, re/. > 
 have come over to that Church, and becom<% 
 members of it, who have not been rebaptized* 
 The same observation you have applied to Ca- 
 tholic Convents ; '' Still less (vou say) are these 
 persons excluded altogether from the right of 
 Burial ; and yet if the term unhaptized in the 
 Jlubric means w^hat has been contended for, 
 ■namely, those persons who have not been bap- 
 tized by a lawful Minister of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and according to the form prescribed by 
 the Church of England, no persons dissenting 
 
13 
 
 from the Church of England, neither Catholics nor 
 Protestants are baptized in that form." — p. 23. 
 Your conclusion is, that " If those persons are 
 considered by the practice and contitution of 
 our law as lawfully baptized, it appears there is 
 an end of the question/' — p. 33. 
 
 " In the Canons and Rubrics of King James, 
 (you observe) there is nothing that expressly in- 
 terdicts the burial service from being performed 
 for persons unhaptizeciy — p. 34. But the 68th 
 Canon excepts from burial " one denounced ex- 
 communicated majori excommunicatione.'''' — pi 
 34. " Now an infant baptized by a Presbyterian 
 Minister or by a Layman would never have been 
 within this exception ; therefore (you conclude) 
 during the reigns of King James and Charles I. 
 a Minister would certainly have violated the 
 Canon, by refusing to bury a person so baptized; 
 unless that person came within the general de- 
 scription of not being a Christian at all.'''' — p. 35. 
 
 You proceed to observe, that " The word 2in~ 
 baptized having been introduced into the pream- 
 ble to the Burial Service upon the Restoration, 
 it seems to be utterly incredible, that the Convo- 
 cation, in receiving the Rubric, or the King and 
 Parliament in confirming it, could have meant, 
 by introducing the word unbaptized into the Ru- 
 bric before this office, that those only who had 
 been baptized according to the form of the. 
 Church could receive the performance of this 
 ofHce. It would be most extravagant to suppose 
 that such was the intention of introducing it into 
 
14 
 
 this Rubric. You then conclade, that "In 
 every view of this subject, and the more accu- 
 rately and fully it is considered, the more clearly 
 it appears, that burial in such a case cannot be 
 refused ; and it should in no view of the subject 
 be forgotten, that the question is a question oC 
 disability and exclusion from the rights which 
 belong to his Majesty's subjects generally^ an 
 exception from a general law.^' — p. 36. 
 
 You next proceed to view the subject as af- 
 fected by the Toleration Act : to which you add 
 the Act of 2,3d George III — which laid a duty 
 upon Registers of Baptisms of Protestant Dissen- 
 ters ; " which (you say) is a recognition of 
 Baptisniby Protestant Dissenters." — p. 38. The 
 conclusion you draw from the effect of what is 
 called the Toleration Act thus follows : " Pro- 
 testant Dissenters then, being allowed the exer- 
 cise of their religion, See., it can no longer be 
 considered that any acts and rites performed by 
 them are such as the law cannot in the due aci^ 
 ministration of it take any notice whatever of, 
 or that a Baptism performed by them, where at- 
 tended with what our Church admits to be the 
 essentials of Baptism, is still to be looked upon 
 as a mere nullity ; or that infants so baptized are 
 to be rejected from burial, as persons unbaptized 
 at all ; or, in other words not being Christians." 
 —-p. 38. 
 
 Having thus examined the laiv, you proceed 
 to bring forward the opinion of different writers; 
 particulary Bishop Fleetwood, Hooker and 
 
Id 
 
 Wheatle}^ ; and subjoin some reasoning as cor- 
 roborative of the conclusion, which you have 
 drawn from your several views of the subject. 
 
 In taking leave of the case you say, that " If 
 the legal rights of the Church were affected, it 
 would not be more the duty than the inclination 
 of the court to uphold them." — p. 40. 
 
 But " if the law has not excluded persons bap- 
 tized by Dissenters from the ordinary right of 
 Christianity and humanity, the Ministers of the 
 Church will not surely be degraded by performing 
 the office." — p. 46. " It is (you proceed to say) 
 by a lenient and liberal interpretation of the laws 
 of disability and exclusion, and not by a captious 
 and vexatious construction and application of 
 them, that the true interests and the true dignity 
 of the Church establishment are best supported/* 
 —p. 46. 
 
 Your conclusion upon the whole of the case 
 is, *^ That the Minister in refusing to bury this 
 child, in the manner pleaded in the articles, has 
 acted illegally,'" — p. 46. 
 
 In thus pointing out what appear to me to be 
 the prominent parts of your statement, (and chisl 
 trust has been fairly done,) I have purposely passed 
 over some matters of lesser consequence ; upon 
 the idea, that if the judgment cannot stand firm 
 on your strongest ground, to try it on the com- 
 paratively weaker ground, would be time thrown 
 away. Admitting the statements to be correct, 
 the inferences just, and your conclusions legiti- 
 jnate, it will follow that your judgment isincoor 
 
16 
 
 trovertible. But, Sir, as, consistently with the 
 duty which I owe to the Church, no such conces- 
 sion can on my part be made. I trust I may be 
 permitted, without incurring the imputation of 
 calling in question the integrity of your judicial 
 character, to point out to your private notice the 
 several objections I have to make to those different 
 parts of your statement, which have been above 
 detailed, considered as constituting the main 
 ground on which vour judgment has been built. 
 But, as preparatory to this part of the subject, it 
 may be proper to lay down some few general prin- 
 ciples, 36 the foundation on which I build, which 
 if not admitted to be sound, no proof or argu- 
 ment that ma, be raised upon them, can be con- 
 sidered to be of much avail. The principles here 
 referred to are these : First, that the Church of 
 Christ is a certain visible society of divine institu- 
 tion ; originally collected and organized by the 
 Apostles ; having been placed under their govern- 
 ment, as a spiritual society, by authority imme- 
 diately derived from Jesus Christ. By this autho- 
 rity is to be understood, what has been commonly 
 known by the title of the Power of the Keys; a 
 power which was first exercised by the Apostles, 
 and has since continued to be exercised by the 
 Bishops, who are considered to have succeeded 
 them as Governors of the Church, by what an 
 early writer called a vicarious ordination, (vica- 
 ria ordinatione" — Firmilian: Cypriano Ep 75.) 
 Jesus Christ, the divine head of the Church, being 
 then the source of all power in it^ no person can 
 
17 
 
 act with effect in the spiritual affairs of that 
 Church, at least so far as we are qualified to de- 
 termine on this subject, who is not able to deduce 
 his ministerial commission from Christ himself, or, 
 which is the same thing, from those to whom this 
 power of the Keys was originally delivered : it 
 being absurd to suppose that any one can act in 
 the name of Christ, who has not received autho- 
 rity from Christ so to do. The next principle 
 laid down is, that the Bishops of the Church of 
 England being able to deduce their ministerial 
 commission from the Apostles, are persons who 
 have regularly succeeded to the administration of 
 the power of the Keys in the Church of Christ. 
 Consequently, the established Church of England, 
 over which these Bishops preside as spiritual Go- 
 vernors, is a true branch of the original Aposto- 
 lical Church of Christ; whilst a member of this 
 Church, is one who belongs to the society 
 of Christians, which consists of lawful Go- 
 vernors and Pastors, and of the people of God 
 committed to their charge : who, having been 
 admitted into this Church by baptism, continues 
 a member of it, till he is cut off by the just sen- 
 tence of those Governors in the Church, who 
 have the power of the Keys, to receive in and shut 
 out : or till he cuts himself off from that mystical 
 body by a causeless schism and separation from it. 
 In the foregoing general principles, originally 
 established by the Apostles, and since confirmed 
 by the practice of the Church in all ages, I flatter 
 myself. Sir, we do not widely disagree; it is to be 
 
18 
 
 lamented therefore that there should be any dif- 
 ference of opinion between us on subjects, with 
 which these principles are necessarily connected. 
 — ^There are still however two points on which it 
 is my wish to be clearly understood. Aware from 
 experience how difficult it is, particularly in the 
 present day, for any man to write on Ecclesias- 
 tical subjects, without rendering himself ob- 
 noxious to misrepresentation, I beg to observe, 
 that should the maintenance of the Apostolic 
 constitution of the Church of Christ be consider- 
 ed as necessarily comprehending under it the least 
 degree of intolerance or want of chanty towards 
 those who may differ from me in opinion on that 
 head, I formally protest against it. For venera- 
 ting as I do our excellent establishment, solicit- 
 ous as I am for its preservation, and mortified as 
 I must be to see it disgraced either by clerical 
 indifference, or sectarian encroachment, I yet 
 should consider that I acted unworthy of myself, 
 were I to employ such unchristian means in its 
 defeoce. But should no more be understood bv 
 it than a conscientious attachment on conviction 
 to the cause in which I am professionally engaged, 
 it is a charge to which, in my judgment, every 
 Minister of the Church may be proud to plead 
 guilty. The ground on which the Church of 
 England stands will be equally strong, whatever 
 may be the allowance which the great Searcher of 
 hearts may see fit to make for those who separate 
 from it. With this consideration before me, I 
 have never thought it to be a necessary conse- 
 
19 
 
 quence of the firmest conviction with respect 
 to the Apostolic character of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and the duty of communion with it, that I 
 should speak uncharitably of those who are un- 
 happily, at least in my opinion, of a different per- 
 suasion : being desirous of leaving all judgment 
 in this case, with that God, who judgeth both 
 in wisdom and in mercy. 
 
 The only privilege that is claimed on this oc- 
 casion, and which, it is presumed, cannot be 
 denied, is, that as a Minister of an Episcopal 
 Church, I may be allowed to write consistently. 
 This being premised ; I beg to state in the first 
 place, with the view of precluding objections 
 from those who may think it inexpedient to meet 
 my arguments, that by maintaining the Church 
 of England to be a sound branch of the Aposto- 
 lic Church of Christ, and the only lawful Church 
 in this country, I must not be understood as ne- 
 cessarily unchurching other Christian societies^ 
 though formed, as I conceive, on a less perfect 
 model. On this head I profess myself to be in- 
 competent to determine how far, or under what 
 circumstances the originally Apostolic model of 
 Church Government may be dispensed with, nor 
 am I called upon " To judge them that are with- 
 out." At the same time, I must take leave to 
 say, in justice to the cause in which I am en- 
 gaged, that as the known, ordinary, covenanted 
 mercies of God are the surest and most comfort- 
 able security for all Christians, it is most earnesly 
 to be wished that all Churches could ba formed 
 
 c 
 
20 
 
 after that pattern, which alone appears to possess 
 the sanction of Divine Institution. — In the second 
 place, that in considering the comnnission en- 
 trusted to the Ministers of the Church of Eno>- 
 land, as that by which they alone are legally au- 
 thorized in this country to administer the Sacra- 
 ments ; I must not be understood as unchristian- 
 izing those who have been baptized by persons 
 whom that Church considers to be unauthorised^ 
 because on this head I am equally incompetent 
 to form a judgment. For Divine Ordinances, 
 though constituting a rule for man's obedience, 
 prescribe no limits to Divine Mercy. Indeed 
 this is a point which does not belong to the sub- 
 ject I have in hand : which confines my attention; 
 to the authorized administration of Baptism, as 
 essential to its legality , in the judgment of the 
 Church of England^ and necessary to make the 
 baptized parties members of that Church. I am 
 not now called upon to prove the invalidity of 
 Lay Baptism considered abstractedly in itself: 
 but to prove the non-admissiou and consequent 
 invalidity of such Baptism by the Constitution of 
 the Church of Engtimd, v\hich confessedly pro- 
 ceeds on the s^round of the reg-ular Commission. 
 And on this head I believe the Church of Eng- 
 land and the established Church of^ Scotland are 
 perfectly agreed : the difterence between them 
 bcinsr onlv this: that the former deduces the 
 Apostolical Commission through the line of 
 Episcopacy, the Jatter through that of Presbyte- 
 rian purity : whilst both Churches equally disal- 
 low the irregular assumption of it. 
 
21 
 
 To be fairly understood on these two points, 
 is that justice which I persuade myself, I shall 
 not solicit in vain ; my object being, as I trust, 
 it will be clearly seen, to maintain the authority 
 of the Divine Commission, as it has been legally 
 established in this country, without interfering 
 with the liberty, or conscience of those who sepa- 
 rate from it. Such of my Brethren, if any such 
 there be, who may think this to be an object of 
 no importance, must see things in a light very 
 different from that in which I have been accus- 
 tomed to view them. But though it would be 
 injudicious to obtrude opinions offensively oa 
 others, without any prospect of ultimate good ; 
 I consider it to be inconsistent with integrity, by 
 criminal silence to countenance others in error ; 
 and should think it still more so, were I to con- 
 firm them in it, by doing an act, which might 
 lead them to conclude, that my opinion on the 
 present subject coincided with their own. And 
 I must confess, it does not appear to me to be 
 necessary that, to avoid being placed on ground 
 on which I do not on this occasion profess to 
 stand, I should relinquish ground, which I 
 consider it to be both an honour and a duty to 
 maintain. 
 
 Leaving then Dissenters of every denomination 
 in the undisturbed possession of their respective 
 opinions, I must still be considered as not thereby 
 admitting the Unity of the Church, for which 
 hrist so earnestly prayed, to be a matter of no 
 importance : which I indirectly should do, were 
 
 C 2 
 
o/y 
 
 I to concede, in conformity with your novel po- 
 sition, that an irregular and unauthorized, does 
 equally with the regular and authorized Commis- 
 sion, admit to the Communion of that hranch of 
 the Christian Church, which has been established 
 in this country. 
 
 From these premises, you« will readily con- 
 clude, that, without relinquishing the strong 
 ground of the Evangelical Commission, as origi- 
 nally delivered exclusive!!/ to the Apostles, and 
 from them derived to their regular successors ; 
 on which the Church of England must ever stand 
 unshaken ; it is my oresent intention not to tra- 
 vel out of the record; but to meet you where 
 you are to be found ; for the purpose of proving 
 what appears to me at least to be capable of 
 proof, that the judgment which you have pro- 
 nounced, taking it in the light in which you 
 yourself have placed it, has neither law, nor pre- 
 cedent, nor reason to support it. 
 
 At the same time. Sir, aware as I am of the 
 deference publicly due to the office of the Judge, 
 and desirous at all times of paying that respect to 
 authority which is essential to the preservation of 
 social order, I venture to proceed only on the 
 assumption, that the advocates employed on the 
 occasion did not bring before the court all those 
 strong points which belong to the defendant's 
 cause. Admitting the truth of this assumption, 
 the judgment pronounced not being final, was 
 open to appeal ; a circumstance which will, I 
 trust, apologize for that freedom of discussion ia 
 
23 
 
 which 1 have allowed myself. And though the 
 defendant did not think proper to avail himself of 
 the privilege of appeal, I should think that I did 
 injustice to yoLir character, were I to suppose 
 you unwilling to revise a judgment that you may 
 at any time have pronounced, should you see 
 reason to submit it to such a trial. 
 
 On this presumption, Sir, I proceed. 
 
 My first objection respects the interpretation 
 which you have affixed to the word unbaptized 
 in the Rubric. The particular reasoning which 
 you have annexed to this part of your subject I 
 shall not at present enter into, because it will 
 fall under notice in some future part of this 
 letter. My attention is at present directed to 
 your latitudinarian interpretation of the word 
 unbaptized. Now, were I to meet with this 
 word in any general publication, or were I to 
 hear it used in what you call " Common par- 
 lance j" p. 11,1 should not think myself justified 
 in annexing any definite idea to the term ; be- 
 cause I might not have it in my power, to ascer- 
 tain (ho, precise sense in which it had been used, 
 either by the writer, or the speaker. But when 
 I see this word made use of in a Rubric^ or order 
 made by the Governors of the Church of Eng- 
 land for the direction of the Clergy in the dis- 
 charge of their ministerial office ; as a Minister 
 of that Church, I am furnished with a standard, 
 by which to ascertain its meaning in the place m 
 which I find it. For this purpose I do, what, it 
 is presumed, is generally done in similar casesj 
 
24 
 
 interpret one law by another which relates to the 
 §ame subject ; and considering both as laws in 
 force, and proceeding from the same authority, 
 draw that conclusion from them which may con- 
 sist with the concurrent sense of both. Com- 
 paring then the jgth and 23d articles of our 
 Church with the 11th Canon, and thence pro- 
 ceeding to the Ordination Service, in which the 
 Bishops, who alone have public authority in this 
 country to call and send Ministers into the Lord's 
 vineyard, by a formal act deliver a sacred com- 
 mission to those whom they ordain, which autho- 
 ries them to minister in the congregation ; I con- 
 clude from these premises, that the word '* 7iw- 
 baptized,^' occurring as it does in the Rubric of 
 the Church of England, must, by the Ministers 
 of that Church, be taken in connection with 
 those other rules and ordinances of the Church, 
 which together constitute a standard for their 
 direction, in the discharge of their ministerial 
 office. Hence it follows that the word unhap- 
 tized thus occurring, must by the Clergy be un- 
 derstood in an Ecclesi/istical sense ; according to 
 which sense all are considered to be iinhaptized 
 who have not been baptized by persons to whom, 
 in conformity with the articles of the Church 
 of England, " the office of ministering* in the 
 congregation has been lawfully committed." 
 
 Exceptions to this conclusion, however they 
 may furnish a Held for the exercise of discre- 
 tionary judgment in Ecclesiastical Governors, 
 cannot, I conceive, do away the legitimate in- 
 
25 
 
 terpretation of a Rubric, considered as a general 
 rule for the direction of the Clergy. Nor can I 
 see on what principle, in enforcing the duty of 
 the Clergy, a word should be taken in a sense 
 unconnected with the rule of that duty ; except 
 it be for the purpose of obtaining that latitude of 
 interpretation for it, which the Rubric in ques- 
 tion was not intended to countenance ; a latitude 
 which the composers of the Rubric could not 
 possibly have had in contemplation ; and which 
 to me appears to be incompatible with that 
 sound interpretation to which every law ought to 
 be subjected. "What may be the general mean- 
 ing of the word unhaptized in the world, was not 
 the point on this occasion coram judice : but 
 what was the par^/aJar meaning intended to be 
 conveyed by it in the Rubric to the Clergy : it 
 being for the purpose of determining with respect 
 to the conformity of a Clergyman to the ordi- 
 nances of the Church of which he was a Minis- 
 ter, that the cause in question \yas instituted. 
 On this ground I conceive that the latitude of in- 
 terpretation which you have annexed to the word 
 unhaptized cannot be admitted. For should it bo 
 admitted, the Rubric under consideration would 
 be more calculated to lead the Clergy into con- 
 tinual doubt on a most important subject, than 
 to become, what, it is presumed, it was in- 
 tended to be, a rule of direction for them, taken " 
 in connection with that general system of eccle- 
 siastical discipline, to which they had subscribed. 
 
25 
 
 My next objection, and a strong one it is, at- 
 taches 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 cf/^reni Churches, 
 as the Romish or Greek Church, the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, thatoftheCalvinistic Independants, 
 or the Church of England, have all been admitted 
 into the Christian Church. 
 
 By the Christian Church, it is presumed, is to 
 be understood the Church of Christ ; one of 
 whose principal characteristics is, that it is at 
 vMity in itself. " One God, one Christ, one 
 Church, one Faith, and the people as it were 
 glued together into one solid united body of 
 concord."* Such is St. Cyprian's description of 
 the one Church of Christ. Of this one Catholic 
 Church, of which Christ is the Head, all particu- 
 lar Churches, national or provincial, are so many 
 different branches or members ; which, though 
 in some respects independent of each other, are 
 still connected together by their admission to the 
 ^ame rights and privileges, by their communion 
 in the same spirit, and by the administration of 
 authority derived to their several Governors from 
 the same Divine source. In this sense the word 
 Church was used by St. John in his salutation to 
 the Seven Churches in Asia. In this sense it was 
 
 * " Vnus Deus cnim & Cbristus unus; Ecdesia ejus u?ia, 
 fides una ; et plebs in solidam corporis iinitatem concordiae 
 
 glntino copiilata,'* — S, Cypr : de Unltat : Eccles : 
 
27 
 
 used in the 6th Canon of the first General Coun- 
 cil, which related to those ancient customs and 
 privileges which were to be preserved to the 
 Churches then settled in different countries and 
 provinces. And in the same sense it is used in 
 the Articles, Canons, and Homilies of the Church 
 of England not less than in our laws; as in the 
 first article of magna charta, where the King 
 grants for himself and his heirs for ever, " That 
 the Church of England shall be free, and have all 
 her whole rights and liberties inviolable." 
 
 How this description of the Church as a con- 
 nected society, under one Priesthood, and one di- 
 vine head, accords with that Christian Church 
 which you represent as consisting of different re- 
 ligious societies, not only independent of, but un- 
 connected with each other by any common prin- 
 ciples of unity, I must leave you. Sir, to judge. 
 It will be sufficient for me to observe, that it can- 
 not be that Church of Christ, of which the Scrip- 
 ture speaks, and of which the Church of England 
 is at this time a con-picuous branch. For it is an 
 assemblage of Christians of all denominations and 
 persuasions, of those in communion with the 
 Church of England, and those in separation from 
 it; amalgamated, if I may so say, into one general 
 body, which you distinguish by the comprehen- 
 sive title of the Christian Church. But, be- 
 fore it can be expected that we should become 
 converts to this latitudinarian system, we must at 
 least be provided with a new Bible and a new Li- 
 turgy; since, according to your description of the 
 
28 
 
 Church, the Sin of Schism, against which such 
 strong things are said in the former, and against 
 which members of the Church of England are 
 taught to pray so earnestly in the latter, cannot 
 possibly exist. 
 
 You will be pleased to observe, I am not 
 here giving an opinion with respect to what it 
 would be presumption in me to hazard a judg- 
 ment, I mean, the condition of those who, from 
 diiferent causes, may not be Members of this 
 one Church of Christ, but only describing what, 
 on the authority of scriptural and primitive evi- 
 dence the Church of Christ really is. " All 
 the Churches of God, (says the learned Bishop 
 Pearson on the ground of this evidence,) are 
 united into one, by the unity of discipline and 
 government ; by virtue whereof the same Christ 
 ruleth in them all. For they have all the same 
 pastoral Guides appointed, authorized, sanctified, 
 and set apart by the appointment of God, by the 
 direction of the Spirit, to direct and lead the peo- 
 ple of God in the same way of eternal salvation : 
 as therefore there is no Church where there is no 
 order, no ministry ; so where the same order and 
 ministry is, there is the same Church." — /;.34I. 
 Pearson on the Creed. And where the Apostolical 
 Government, namely, of Bishop, Presbyters, and 
 Deacons is not to be found, there (says Ignatius) 
 *' it is not called a Church," Ignat. Epist. ad 
 Trail. 
 
 The Romish and Greek. Church then are out 
 of the present question ; because, as deriving their 
 
 M: 
 
39 
 
 government from that originally Instituted by the 
 Apostles, they arc considered as branches of the 
 Apostolic Church of Christ. But neither the 
 Presbyterian, nor Independant Churches stand in 
 this predicament. For these Churches do not 
 possess what we consider to be the Apostolic 
 Government. Consequently, on the principle 
 above laid down by Bishop Pearson, they can- 
 not be branches of the one Church of Christ; 
 whence it follows that Baptism into these di(fcrent 
 Churches, as distinguished from ihc Church of 
 England, cannot admit the baptized parties into 
 that one Church of Christ, of which the Church of 
 England is admitted to be a branch. 
 
 This language of indiscrimination and conse- 
 quent confusion I moreover object to, on the 
 ground of its being no less unecdesiasticaly than 
 unconflitiitio7ial; iinecdesiastical, because it does 
 not correspond with the sense in which the word 
 Church has been uniformly used in the ecclesias- 
 tical records of this country : unconstitutional, 
 because it equally militates against the established 
 meaning annexed to it by our constitution : which 
 acknowledges no other Church in this country 
 but the Ch-iirch of England ; regarding all meet- 
 ings of Christians for religious worship, not in 
 communion with the Church of England, as so 
 many separations from that Church. And it is 
 submitted to your consideration, Sir, whether the 
 authorities to which I have here appealed, in con- 
 nectian with the lUh Canon, and what is called 
 
30 
 
 the Act of Toleration, do not fully bear me out 
 in the positions that have been just laid down. 
 
 From this indiscriminate representation of the 
 Christian Church, so incompatible with that cha- 
 racter of unity J by which the Church of Christ 
 has been particularly distinguished, you proceed 
 to observe, that " Such being the general mean- 
 ing of the word (unbaptized) in its ordinary appli- 
 cation and use, and standing unconnected with 
 this particular law (namely the Rubric in which it 
 is found) is there then any thing in the law itself, 
 in its context, that varies or limits its meaning ? 
 
 It has been generally understood, that the surest 
 way to determine the meaning of any word, is to 
 consider it in connection with its context. Why 
 then is this word in the Rubric to be consi- 
 dered differently ? We are not inquiring what 
 may be the of?zer«/ meaning annexed to the word 
 unbaptized taken abstractedly, but what is its/jctr- 
 ticzilar meaning, when found in the Rubric. — 
 You ask, whether ^' there is any thing in the Ru- 
 brick that varies or limits the meaning of this 
 word ?" that is, if I understand you right, thatvaries 
 the meaning of the word in question from itSjg-e- 
 neral acceptation in the world, or limits it to any 
 particular meaning in the place in which it occurs. 
 To me it appears, that the very circumstance of the 
 word unbaptized being found in a Ruhiic of the 
 Cbiirch of England, limits it to the sense of that 
 Church. To ascertain what that sense is, refer- 
 ence must be had to those ordinances and con- 
 stitutions of the Church, which are calculated to 
 
31 
 
 furnish the necessary Information on this subject. 
 Whilst no method appears to me better calculated 
 to put out of sight the true meaning of any public 
 document, than thatofaffixinga g-enera/and inde- 
 terminate sense to a word, which, by the parties 
 who inserted it in the document, was intended to 
 have a particular and local signification. And 
 with what propriety it can be supposed, that a 
 word addressed in a Rubric to the Clergy, for 
 their information and direction in the discharge 
 of their Ministerial Office, was intended to be 
 taken in that general and indeterminate sense 
 which is calculated to convey neither; (for if by 
 the word unbaptized the Clergy were merely to 
 understand that they were not to read the Burial 
 Service over a person ivko had not been baptized 
 at all, the Rubric in question furnished no new 
 idea to their minds, nor any new rule for their 
 practice ;) I say, with what propriety such a sup- 
 position can be entertained, I leave with yourself 
 to consider. 
 
 To what you say on the subject of excommuni- 
 cation much might be replied, did I think that 
 the cause you had in hand was concerned in it. 
 That a person who appears to possess such inde- 
 finite notions on the subject of the Church, should 
 have acquired no correct knowledge on that of 
 excommunication, is what was to be expected. 
 There can however be no pleasure in dwelling 
 upon errors merely as such. My attention is con- 
 fined to the conclusions, to which those errors 
 appear to have led ; so far as they have been made 
 
 / 
 
31 
 
 contributory to the judgment which you have 
 pronounced. 
 
 The conclusion immediately referred to, is that 
 which you have drawn from " putting unbaptized 
 persons in association with excommunicated per- 
 sons and with suicides ; both of whom are consi- 
 dered (you say) as no longer Christians," and 
 thence concluding *■' that Burial is to be refused 
 to those who are not Christians at all, and not to 
 those who are baptized according to the forms of 
 any particular Church.'* — p. 13. 
 
 The truth of this conclusion, as it appears to 
 me, turns upon the admission, that excommuni- 
 cated persons and suicides are no/ Christians at all: 
 the circumstance of their having been associated 
 with unbaptized persons in the Rubric leading 
 (you say) to the same construction as the general 
 import of the words " unbaptized persons," which 
 you interpret of persons who are not Christians at 
 all ; in consequence of their having never been 
 baptized ; and that it is on the ground of the case 
 of the unbaptized, of the excommunicated, and of 
 the suicide being parallel cases, that burial is 
 equally refused to them all. Such appears to be 
 the tenor of your argument. 
 
 Now Sir, as the subject strikes me, it by no 
 means follows from the circumstance of the 
 Church having come to the same decision, with 
 respect to the refusal of burial to unbaptized, 
 excommunicated persons, and suicides, that these 
 several parties must necessarily be in the same 
 condition. To me, it appears, that the Church 
 
33 
 
 in her decision on this subject has proceeded on 
 the same general principle with respect to all the 
 parties, without considering them as all standing 
 precisely on the same ground-, as, in Courts of Civil 
 Judicature, the same judicial sentence is pro- 
 nounced on criminals of very different descrip- 
 tions. Thus, to the unbaptlzed person, by which 
 you understand a person that has not been bap- 
 tized at all, burial is refused, because the party 
 has not been admitted into the communion of 
 the Church, and therefore has no title to Church 
 privileges: whilst to the excommunicated and 
 suicides burial is refused, because, in consequence 
 ©f their conduct, they have been cut off from 
 Church communion ; and thereby have forfeited 
 those Church privileges, to wlych their baptism 
 had once entitled them. To these different par- 
 ties then burial is refused for different reasons. 
 Whilst to them all, indiscriminately, burial is re- 
 fused on the same principle-, namely that general 
 one, upon which the Church has uniformly acted 
 at all times. In conformity to which principle, 
 *' The office of burial belonged only to the Fide-- 
 leSjOv Communicants ; that is such as died either in 
 the full communion of the Church, or else if they 
 were excommunicate, were yet in a disposition to 
 communicate by accepting aud submitting to the 
 rules of penance and discipline in the Church.'* 
 Bingham, v. 2. p. 247, The cases then of the 
 unbaptized, of the excommunicated, and suicides 
 not being parallel, the argument, and conse- 
 quently the conclusion, which you have drawn 
 
34 
 
 from their supposed parallelism, must of course 
 fall to the ground. 
 
 You proceed to observe, " That the general 
 law is, that burial is to be refused to no person. 
 That this is the law not only of the English 
 Church, but of all Christian Churches; and that 
 it seems lo be the law of common humanity." — ■ 
 p. 13. Such general language appears calculated 
 not so much to elucidate a subject, as to con- 
 found it. 
 
 May I then be permitted to ask, what are we to 
 understand by the general law here mentioned? 
 No general law that I am aequaintcd with has 
 determined any thing on this point. By the law 
 of our Church, which forms a part of the statute 
 law of the land, burial is refused to different per- 
 sons under different circumstances. And it can- 
 not have escaped your knowledge, that the 
 Romish Church, which comprehends within its 
 pale so great a portion of Christendom, uniformly 
 refuses the Rites of Burial to all Protestants, as 
 Heretics. By this general law then we must ne- 
 cessarily understand what you call the law of 
 common humanity. But this law does not 
 respect the Clergy more than if does mankind at 
 large. According to this law, indeed burial is 
 not to be withhekl from any human creature, be 
 his condition what it may. And with this law 
 Baptism has certainly nothing to do. But, our 
 attention is now directed to that express law which 
 bears exclusively on the Clergy, as a direction, in 
 part at least, for their Ministerial conduct. And 
 
35 
 
 when a Law can be found, either in the Statute 
 Book, or in the Constitutions of our Church, 
 which forbids the Clergy from refusing Burial to 
 any person, however circumstanced, the question 
 at issue will be at an end : but it is submitted to 
 your consideration, Sir, wheiherit will not be ati 
 end totally incompatible with the judgment 
 which you have pronounced. And when you 
 shall have duly attended to the tenor of our Bu- 
 rial Service you will, I persuade myself, conclude, 
 that this law of common humanity which you 
 here bring forward to notice, can have nothing to 
 do with it; since the Performer of the Service in 
 question does' not regard the subjects of it in a 
 state of nature, biit in that of grace; not merely 
 as his fellow creatures, but as fellow heirs with 
 himself of the Kingdom of Christ. 
 
 The two following pages (14 and 15) proceed 
 on that fundamental error, which pervades, as I 
 conceive your whole statement; in consequence 
 of the indefinite idea which you have annexed to 
 the word Church ; namely that Baptism, by whom- 
 soever administered, provided it be in the ap- 
 pointed form, becomes " a legal and valid initia- 
 tion into the Christian Churchy" an error which 
 you attempt to support by what, in its applica- 
 tion to the present subject, appears to me to be 
 a fallacy ; namely, that the law is supposed to 
 permit, what it does not expressly forbid* On this 
 unsound ground you build the. following observa- 
 tions: " The Court, you observe, has heard 
 
36 
 
 with some degree of. surprize, the suggestion of 
 there being no law to compel the Clergy to bury 
 Dissenters. This (you say) seems to be most 
 strangely perverting, or rather inverting all lega! 
 considerations." 
 
 You will permit me, Sir, to express my more 
 than common surprize, that a Court professing 
 to judge according to Law, should be surprized 
 at the suggestion of a notorious fact ; namely, 
 that there was 720 Law, w*hich strictl^y bore upon 
 the case which was before tbe dourt for judge- 
 ment. By a Court which cannot be siipposed to 
 act without Law, (for in so doing, it would be a 
 second iligh Commission Court, an arbitrary Cou^t 
 which the Constitution of this Country no longer 
 acknowledges ;) it might be concluded, that a 
 suggestion with respect to ih& non-existence of zx\y 
 Law bearing directly on the case in hand, would 
 be deemed not a subject for surprize, but for pri- 
 mary and deliberate consideration. But, that 
 the mere making such a suggestion, should be 
 considered to be "perverting or rather inverting 
 all legal considerations," is language which bv 
 me would have been incomprehensible, had not 
 you furnished an explanatory comment upon it. 
 Should I not be mistaken in your meaning, it 
 appears to me, that the opinion intended to be 
 conveyed under the head of these " Legal consi- 
 derations,'* is briefly this; that what is not ex- 
 pressly, totidem verbis, prohibited in atiy Law, 
 considered to be permitted by it. 
 
37 
 
 This I conclude tob© your mearilfig frdm tbs 
 observations which you have immediately sub» 
 joined, as an exemplification of the principle here 
 supposed to be laid down. ** The question fyoii 
 j^roceed to say) is not, is there any Law expressly 
 enjoining the Clergy to bury Dissenters; but does 
 {iny Law exclude Dissenters from Burial r"-^*^ 
 The Canon (you go on to say) does not limit th^ 
 duty to the Burial of persons who are of the 
 Church of England, but directs the Minister t0 
 bury all persons who are brought to the Church." 
 That is, 83 I understand the Canon, all "persona 
 who have a right to Burial by the Minister of th(* 
 particular Church, to which they may be brought. 
 ** The Canon, you proceed to observe, has th?. 
 single exception, expressly, of excomnjunicated 
 persons. The Rubric adds the other express ex- 
 ceptions of persons unbaptized and suicides."-"* 
 *• Exceptions then, you conclude, being to be 
 construed strictly, arc not to be extended so as t© 
 limit the general Law, in order to give to the ex- 
 ception the meaning which has been contended 
 for in argument; namely, that of excepting all 
 persons who have not been baptized by a lawful 
 Minister of the Church of England, otherwise 
 -the Rubrie should have expressed it." 
 
 Your argument then when compressed, should 
 I rightly understand it^ will run thus :-=--'What the 
 Rubric does not expressly forbid, is considered to 
 be comprehended in it. The Rubrie does not 
 expressly forbid to Dissenters the office of feuriaJ, 
 
 B 2i 
 
38' 
 
 Therefore Dissenters are to be buried by it: 
 and therefore the Clergy offend against the Lavw 
 who withhold that ofhce from them. Such must 
 be the process of your argument, to bring con-, 
 viction home lo the Clergyman, against whom- 
 your judgment was pronounced. And admitting- 
 that you are warranted in thus taking into thc; 
 Letter of the Rubric any thing that is not ex- 
 pressly excluded from it, the Clergyman in ques- 
 tion must stand convicted. But this mode of 
 expounding the Rubric is not, it is presumed, 
 that which the composers of it meant should' 
 be adopted. Indeed, I am inclined to think,- 
 that it can lay claim to no higher origin than 
 your own. To me, it appears, that a par- 
 ticular Law made for a particular purpose, to 
 be understood correctly, must be understood in 
 its reference to that particular purpose for which 
 it was made. , To interpret such a haw general I ij, 
 is to take the surest way of defeating the object 
 which the Legislators had in view in enacting it. 
 It may be observed further,, that " Dolus latet 
 mgeneralihiis,'^ Before then you had proceeded 
 to argue on the ground of some g^neralLaw, it h' 
 submitted to consideration ; whether your rea- 
 soning would not have been more regular and le- 
 gitimate, had you first pointed out to notice the 
 general Law to which you refer ; where this LaW 
 is to.be found ; and in what language it is drawn 
 up. Khy \h\s general Law I am to understand 
 that Law of which ,you .speak in a former part of 
 your statement, according to which "Burial is to 
 
 i 
 
be refused to no person ; that Lam-of commenhitJ^. 
 vuiniti/, which (you say) belongs to all Churches-" 
 -^p. 13. this Laio will, I conceive, prove too 
 much for your present purpose. For, according 
 to this general Law of humanity, not only baptiz*.^ 
 ed persons, but persons of every description; 
 Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, would be 
 equally entitled to the office of Burial in the 
 Church, 
 
 : You will say, perhaps, that it could not be sup- 
 posed that your language was meant to be taken 
 in such an unlimited sense. — I answer ; a person 
 who has been repeatedly insisting on the unlimit- 
 ed sense of the word unhaptized in the Rubric, in 
 contradiction to that limited one, in which it was 
 intended that the word should be understood, can 
 have no just cause for complaint on this head. 
 Nor ought he, who sticks so close to the Letter, 
 when it may conduce to the establishment of the 
 point he has in view, to think it hard measure, 
 should he himself be taken strictly Zjj/ his ownLet*'- 
 ter. At the same time, it is a matter of surprize' 
 to me, that it should not occur to you. Sir, that an 
 argument which thus proves generallyy can con- 
 tribute no great strength to the particular oase, 
 for the support of which it is brought forward. 
 " The general conclusion, however, meant to be 
 drawn from your premises; incorrect as they ap-- 
 pear to me, is this ; tha^. Dissenters not being to 
 be found among the exceptions expressly mad« by- 
 the Rubric in question ; the word: 2m^o/?/;ze^ is 
 to. bp taken, n<)t mii^eeQlesiastii^^l^tnsQs'^^ sp- : 
 
p^Mt© naei»tr{5rs^ofthe Cburefe, but in the mest 
 unlimited sense ; as comprehending under it all 
 persons ** who have been baptized according to 
 the forms of any particular Church." Such ap-? 
 pears to be the force of this your principal argu^ 
 raent; to which it has been my wish that full jus- 
 tice should be done, before I proceeded with my 
 reply to it. " Vaieat quantum valere potest.'* 
 
 The reasoning made use of on this occasion, 
 sheuld it be admitted to be just in its application 
 to a general Law made forthe community at large, 
 strikes, roe, as totally inapplicable to a particular 
 La\y, made for a particular order of men, for the 
 purpose of directing them in the discharge of an 
 oiilGe, which to them has been exclusively com- 
 jnitled. It has already been observed that the lan- 
 guage of the Rubric is to be taken, not in what 
 may be the common language of the world in the 
 present day, but in that ecclesiastical sense, in 
 >vhieh it was meant to be taken, at the time of its 
 composition ; it being the language of the Gover-?- 
 nors of the ChuFch of England lo the Clergy of 
 that Church. Unless therefore the discipline q> 
 the Church has since been altered, the Lawg of the 
 Chur-eh must be understood in the sense in which 
 they were originally composed. Or this ground 
 I maintain, and without fear of contradiction, that 
 no exception with respect to Dissenters was ne- 
 cessary to be made in the l^ubric ; becstuse when 
 understeod, as it was intended that it should be, 
 the Rubric sufficiently limited itself: all your 
 icasenin^ therefore on this point appears to me to 
 
41 
 
 be, though indirectly, yet fully answered by this 
 one question ; by whom and Jbr whom was the 
 Rubric made ? 
 
 Permit me, Sir, to observe further ; that what- 
 ever advantage may be taken of the loose form- 
 ing of s^ny general Law with respect to cases not 
 expressly excepted by it,^the same advantage can-, 
 not be taken of any particular act prcomn^ission 
 by whjch certain individuals are appointed to the 
 discharge of a partJQular office. For suqh an act 
 or commission necessarily limits itself, l?y confin* 
 ing the discharge of the office in question, to the 
 parties to whom it has been authoritatis^ely deli- 
 vered. And though it may not in express t^rms 
 make void the assumed acts of uncommissioned 
 individuals, it does by necessary cpnsequence 
 invalidate them. And for this obvious reason ; 
 because the granting a commission which con-r 
 fers certain powers and privileges on the parties 
 to whom, it is granted, plainly implies that those 
 powers and privileges are exercised but by 
 virtue of that commission. And it is ngt neces- 
 sary that therp should be any express ex.clusioa 
 of others from the exercise of it, bpcause such 
 exclusion every commission, from the nature pC 
 it, virtually comprehends. On this principle the 
 Church of England proceeds in her 23d article, 
 wherp she determines that it is not lawful for ?iny 
 one to administer the Sacraments of the Church 
 who has not received what she considers to be the 
 only lawful authority so to do. Every Law made 
 by the Cburch fw: the ^ire^tion of the Qergy ia 
 
42 
 
 the discharge of their ministerial office, must 
 therefore, it is presumed, be interpreted, not^ene-^ 
 rallj/f but with particular reference to the com- 
 mission which they have received. In corres- 
 pondence with the tenor of that commission 
 every unauthorized administration of Baptism 
 being, in the judgment of the Church, an unlaws 
 ful act ; as such, so far as respects the admission 
 .of the party into her comrnunion, it is regarded 
 by her as no act at all, but the transgression of 
 an established Law. On this ground, no express 
 exclusion of Dissenters from the office of Church 
 Burial \vas necessary to be inserted in a Law 
 made solely for the direction of the Clergy in the 
 discharge of that offioe ; because every Clergy- 
 man must be supposed to know that Dissenters 
 from the Church of England could not be mem- 
 bers of, or in con)munion with that Church ; 
 and that, as such, the services of the Church did 
 not belong to thein. Under these circumstances 
 to have inserted in the Rubric an express exclu- 
 sion of Dissenters from the office in question 
 would have been a needless waste of words. 
 , In conformity then with the principle, which 
 has been above pointed out, on which the 
 ancient Church uniformly proceeded, namely, 
 " that the office of Burial belonged only to the 
 FideieSj or regular communicants with the 
 Church, the Rubric in question, in its present 
 form, taken in the sense of its composers, unless 
 those composers are not to be given credit for 
 any correct notions on the subject of the Evan- 
 
43 
 
 gelical Commission, is. calculated to convey de- . 
 cisive information to the Clergy to whom it is 
 addressed. 
 
 Before we proceed, permit me, Sir, to ask one 
 question. — On the supposition that the word un- 
 baptized in the Rubric was meant to convey no 
 precise meaning to the Clergy, and that it was 
 to be understood by them generalli/ of all persons 
 who had never been baptized in any way, what 
 reason can be given for the insertion of such 
 word in the Rubric at all ? — Since the Clergy 
 certainly could not want to be informed, that 
 persons, so circumstanced, were not subjects for 
 Christian Burial. 
 
 From a respect due to your judgment. Sir, I 
 have thought it incumbent on me to follow your 
 reasoning on this point through its different 
 windings ; I might otherwise have stated my ob- 
 jection to the conclusion drawn from it in the 
 following more summary way. — The 23d. article 
 of our Church constitutes a part of the Statute 
 Law of the Land; as do also the Rubrics or 
 directions contained in the Book of Common 
 Prayer. These two parts of the same Statute 
 Law cannot be considered as intended to con- 
 tradict each other. By the 23d article it is 
 declared to be unlmvful for any persons to ad- 
 minister the Sacraments, but those who have 
 received lawful authority so to do : and by per- 
 sons lawfully authorized are understood, accord- 
 ing to the constitution of this country, the Clergy 
 of the Church of England. Ev-ery administration 
 
oi ^ sacrament then, not by the Clergy of th^ 
 Church of England, is by the 23d article of that 
 Church, and the Statute Law of the Land, dpter- 
 inine4 to be an un/au^a/ administration.. Con- 
 sequently, Baptism administered by Pis5,enter3 
 from the Church of England cannot, according 
 ^ your conclusion become, consistently with the 
 institution of this country, *^^ le^^l a^nd valici 
 initiation into that branch of the Christian Church 
 which has, been establislied l?y it.'V 
 
 In the next trial that you make upon the me<m-. 
 Ing of the Rubric, ypu do not appear to be more, 
 Siuccessful th^r^ ir^ the one that has j^s^t passed 
 under notice.-^" If the Church (you say) has^ 
 recognized persons, thoiigh not baptized in its 
 ©vvn forms and by its own ministers, yet ss vdlidlijt 
 baptized ; if it has recognized lay Baptism to be, 
 though irregular, yet f a/zc?, ^nd so v^ilid that thp 
 person who has been baptized by a Laic cannot 
 properly be baptized again ; it will necessarily 
 fellow, that it cannot mean to exclude from burial 
 3II persons who have not been baptized accord- 
 ing to the forms of its Liturgy ; that it can only 
 mean to exclude those who have iiot been baptized 
 at all by any form, which can be recognized as 
 an initiation, a legal and valid initiation into the 
 Christian Church." p. 15. 
 
 Now, Sir, were I to admit your premises, it 
 would not I conceive, necessarily follow fronr» 
 them that " the Church of England can only 
 mean to exclude from burial those, who have not 
 been baptized at all by any form, which can be 
 
4S 
 
 recpgni?ed as a legal an^.v alid initiation into the, 
 Christian Church. "<s^That important circum- 
 stance which alone entitles the party to burial in 
 the Church of England is here left out of the 
 account. The Church ofEngland, on the gene* 
 ral principle which has been already pointed out, 
 buries those only who are supposed to h^ in 
 actual communion, or desirous of being restpi-edi 
 to communion with her at the time of their deat;h. 
 And in the case of thpse persgns who may have, 
 been irregularly baptised out of the Church, it is 
 not sufficient that their baptism is^ vjnder cir« 
 cumstances, capable of being recQgm:^^^ as pali^, 
 it must actually have been r^Qogni^^d as suchj tQ 
 entitle the parties to the office of Christian Byri^l ; 
 as will more fully be made to appear under ^ 
 subsequent head. 
 
 It may be here sufficient tP observe, that the 
 known axiom of " factum valet, quod fieri npn 
 debet" — will not bear you out in the language 
 which you have applied to this part of the subject. 
 An irregular and unlawful Baptism, as every 
 Baptism, in the judgment of the Church of 
 England must be, which has not been adminis- 
 tered by a duly authorized person, however the 
 validity of it may under certain circumstances be 
 admitted, can never become a legal initiation 
 into what is consiidered in this country to be the 
 only true and lawful Church of Christ. Whilst 
 the distinction between those two terms legal, 
 and validi which you bring together as applicable 
 to the same subject, appears to me most necessary 
 to be attended to. For an irregular Baptism, 
 
46 
 
 considered per se, entitles the party to nothing 
 in' the Church ; for this obvious reason ; because 
 it docs not make the party a member of it. With 
 respect to the possible validity of such a Baptism, 
 that must be left, as it ever has been, to the 
 judgment and discretion of the Governors of that- 
 Church. But till such validity has htcu actually 
 admitted by them, or (to adopt your phraseology,) 
 till the Baptism has been actually recognized by 
 the Churchj the party in question has no claim to 
 the privileges of Church membership.— Such was 
 the universal doctrine of the ancient Church ; 
 the only doctriye that is compatible with the no- 
 tion of the Church, as a divinely instituted society 
 under an appropriate government. — The conclu- 
 sion- therefore which you have drawn from the 
 premises under consideration, namely, that the 
 Church can only mean to exclude from burial 
 those -who have not been baptized at all by any 
 form, which can be recognized as a legal and 
 t;fl!/fc? initiation into the Christian Church, in the 
 sense in which you use this language, is a con- 
 clusion that the Church of England does not 
 admit; because the Governors of that Church 
 know how to distinguish between the possibility 
 of an irregular Baptism being in certain cases 
 recognized, and the circumstance of such re- 
 cognition having actually taken place; whilst, 
 according to the tenor of our Liturgy, no person 
 ean be considered to be a Member of the Church 
 ' to which that Liturgy belongs, who has not been 
 *' received into the congregation of Christ's 
 
flock," and " grafted Into the body -of Christ's. 
 Church" by a minister whom the Church of 
 England regards as duly authorized for that 
 purpose. 
 
 In fact. Sir, the whole of your reasoning on- 
 this head appears to proceed on- that common, 
 fallacy, which consists in concluding horn parti- 
 culars to generals. — The ancient Church certainly 
 did recognize irregular Baptisms as valid, under 
 qertain circumstances ^ This exception in favour 
 ofparticular cases proves, that the ancient Church 
 did not recognize the validity of irregular Bap^ 
 tisms universally. This very exception therefore. 
 tends to the confirmation of the general rule, by 
 which the practice of the Church was directed. . 
 
 The Church of England, in like manner, has at 
 different times recognized irregular Baptism as 
 valid under certain circumstances. But unless it 
 can be proved, what I conceive it is not in your 
 power to do, that the Church of England recog- 
 nizes irregular Baptisms of every kind indiscrimi' 
 nately ; you appear to me to prove nothing to th« 
 point which you are here labouring to establish. 
 In a word theUj and to sum up this part of the 
 subject. — ;Much useless repetition appears to have 
 been employed by you to prove, that the Churcb 
 of England, in her Rubric, did not mean to ex^ 
 elude from burial all persons who have not beeq 
 baptized according to the] forms of its Liturgy, 
 hut those only ivho have not been baptized at all ; 
 and on this ground it is maintained, that all those 
 who have beeri baptized in any way, .that can be 
 
46 
 
 rfecdgrtized by the Christian Church, are entitled 
 to Christian Burial. — But the tight to be establish- 
 ed does not, in ttiy bpirtidn, turn npdti this point. 
 It is not the Baptism, whether regular of irte^ii' 
 lafy which the party has received, but the circum- 
 stance of the party dying in actual communion 
 with the Church, that determines his right td 
 burial. The Churchman rnay be excommuni- 
 cated ; the Dissenter may never have been admit- 
 ted into comrtiunion ; under these circumstances, 
 both parties, as dying out of Communion jvith the 
 Church, stand, wiih respect to their right to bu- 
 rial, on an equal footing.-^With all due deference 
 therefore to your judicial character, it is submit- 
 ted to your private consideration, whether iil 
 reasoning on this part of your subject ybu did not 
 fail in making out your case, in consequence of 
 that circumstance, on which alone the right of 
 burial turns, having made no part of your state- 
 ment. 
 
 ■ The extracts^ which you have tnade from thft 
 Canons of the different Councils, and Popish 
 Constitutions, have been manifestly introduced 
 for the purpose of furnishing information to the 
 Court, With respect to the displine of theatioierlt 
 Church, on the subject of Rebaptiiation ; in thfc 
 Case of those who had been baptised without thfe 
 pale of the Church ; which constitutes part of 
 the strong ground, on which your judgment was 
 meant tt) be built. My objection to these ex- 
 tracts is, that they furnish that partial represen- 
 t^tibti of th6 discipline of the ancient Church, 
 
which is more calculated to give a plausible sup- 
 port to etror than to establish truth— that it looks 
 like the representation, not of a Judgte, who is 
 supposed id regard all sides of a question, and to 
 be decided in his sentence by the prevailing 
 weight of evidence that bears on the case in hand, 
 but that of an Advocate, who is accustomed to 
 bring forward just so much evidence as makes 
 for his cause, and to keep out of sight every 
 thing that might make against it. Such, I mean 
 to say, is the appearance which youi* representa- 
 tion must assume in the eyes of those, who are 
 competently informed. At the same time. Sir, £ 
 ani well aware that it was to be expected, stand- 
 ing in the character in which you did, that you 
 should state to the Court your own opinion of the 
 case, on which you was about to pronounce sen* 
 tenc6. And it would be highly disrespectful to 
 you, not less than unbecoming in me, to Suppose 
 Ihat you could have any other object than the sa- 
 tisfaction of the GoUrt, with respect to what you 
 cGnceivdd to bie the equity of that sentence, in 
 view* All i have to lament on this occasion is, 
 that in justice to the discipline of the ancient 
 €hurGh, net less than to that of our own, sucli 
 opinion does not dppear to have been drawn from 
 so complete information on the subject to whiclii 
 -it refers, as might have befcn obtained. But, Sif , 
 as you have formally appealed to, and appafently 
 ky ^ i^ohsiderable stress en, the authority of the 
 ancient Ghurch in this case, I readily meet you 
 oh tfeat ground, in the presumption that you will 
 consider yourself to be concluded bv it. 
 
The great object you apparently had in view, 
 in bringing forward the extracts now under no- 
 ticcj was to prove the validity of Lay, or any 
 other irregular Baptism ; in your own words, 
 that Baptism, " if administered by a Laic, by a 
 Heretic or Schismatic, was valid Baptism ; and 
 so valid, that it was not to be repeated." p. 18. 
 
 Though many exceptions to this position are 
 to be found in the records of the ancient Church, 
 for there were many disputed cases of this kind, 
 about which good Catholics themselves were di- 
 vided ; concerning which it was the advice of the 
 great St. Basil, that men should observe the cust 
 toms and practice of the Churches in which 
 they, lived; still, to the position which you 
 have advanced, considered as expressing the ge- 
 neral sense of the ancientChurch, so far as it re- 
 spected the administration of the mere form of 
 Baptism, I readily subscribe. 
 
 But the question is not so much, whether the 
 ancient Church did or did not practise rebaptiza- 
 tion ; as in what light irregular and unauthorized 
 Baptisms were regarded j and under what cir- 
 cumstances, and in what way the validity of such 
 Baptisms was admitted by the Church, so as to 
 entitle the parties in question to the privileges 
 of Church Communion, as necessary to establish 
 their right to Christian Burial. In consequence 
 of that imperfect acquaintance, which you ap- 
 pear to have with the discipline of the ancient 
 Church, you have, as it appears to me, been in- 
 advertently led to conclusions from supposed 
 
51 
 
 parallel ca^cs, between which no real analogy is 
 foaii'i to exist. To this defect of information is 
 to be attributed that gross mistake into which you 
 fall, when you attempt to set up the practice of 
 the ancient Church, in her admission of the va- 
 lidity of irregular Baptism, as conclusive upon 
 the Church of England in the present day. 
 
 Now, no two cases can more widely differ.—' 
 The only two sorts of irregular and unauthorized 
 Baptism, of which the ancient Church was called 
 upon to take cognizance, were, the Baptism ad- 
 ministered by Heretics and Schismatics, and that 
 administered by Lay persons in cases of neces- 
 sity. In the first of these ca.es^ the validity of 
 the Baptism was generally admitted, on the re- 
 turn of the baptized party to the communion of 
 the Church. In the latter case, the Baptism, 
 having been administered by persons in commu- 
 nion with the Church, was admitted, on the> 
 ground of its necessity.— But the Baptism for 
 which you pleaded was not the Baptism of a partj 
 desirous of returning to the communion of th© 
 Church ; nor was it a Baptism of necessity ; but 
 3 Baptism administered in wilful schism ; the 
 subject of which died in a state of actual se- 
 paration from the Church. Allowing you then 
 the whole range of ecclesiastical History, from 
 the days of the Apostles to the present time, I 
 may challenge you to produce one single case 
 parallel to that, on which you sat in judgment, in 
 which the office of Burial, according to thftform 
 
51 
 
 of the Church was deemed proper to be per- 
 formed. As this appears to be one great hinge 
 on which the cause in question turns, I may be 
 excused for being somewhat more particular. 
 
 To qualify us to form a correct judgment on 
 this part of the subject, it will be necessary tO' 
 consider the light in which irregular and unau- 
 thorized Baptisms were regarded in the ancient 
 Church ; what was considered to be their inherent 
 validity, and what Avas deemed necessary to sup- 
 ply their acknowledged imperfection. And here 
 it vvill not be my object to multiply quotations, 
 but merely to bring forward evidence sufficient 
 to ascertain, what was the general sense of the 
 ancient Church on this subject. 
 
 All irregular and unauthorized Baptisms, by 
 which are to be understood all Baptisms adminis- 
 tered by persons uncommissioned ; as in the case 
 of Laymen, or by those who had by ecclesiastical 
 sentence been deprived of their ministerial com- 
 mission, as in that of Heretics and Schismatics, 
 •were by the ancient Church considered to be in 
 themselves essentialli/ defective; and therefore 
 requrred some very important additions to be 
 made to "them by the Church, to render them so 
 far valid, as to entitle the- subjects oi ihein to t'ic 
 privileges of Church membership. — A Baptism 
 for instance Avhich had been administered bv an 
 Heretic or Schismatic, to which our attcntiori 
 should be chiefly directed on this occasion, was 
 considered to be an unauthorisedy criminal, Qnd 
 anticpiscopal usurpation; a Baptism- of form with- 
 
53 
 
 out effect; the outward and visible Sacrament, 
 unaccompanied with the inward and spiritual 
 Grace. — The great defect of heretical and schis- 
 matical Baptism was, that it did not minister the 
 Spirit at all ; or at least not to such a degree as 
 was essential to sanctification Jlnd salvation ; He- 
 retics and Schismatics not having it in their power 
 to grant remission of sins. This great defect was 
 therefore judged necessary to be supplied in the 
 case of all who had been thus baptized, on their 
 admission to the communion of the Church, 
 Those who had received irregular Baptism from 
 Heretics and Schismatics, were considered in- 
 deed as having received the visible Sacrament, 
 or outward form of Baptism ; so that upon 
 their repentance and return to the Churchy it was 
 not deemed necessary that their Baptism should 
 be repeated. Still their Baptism wanted the in- 
 ternal and invisible Grace, which compleats all 
 other graces, and which Heretics and Schismatics 
 were not supposed qualified to give nor they who 
 received Baptism at their hands qualified to re- 
 ceive, till they returned with repentance and 
 charity to the unity of the Church. And then 
 the Church, by imposition of hands and invoca-^ 
 lion of the Holy Spirit, might obtain for them 
 those blessings and graces, which might have 
 been had in Baptism, had they not by their 
 separation from the Church put in a bar against 
 themselves. — Such was the judgment of Austin 
 on this subject, as it has been particularly deli- 
 vered by him in his book De Baptismo: to which 
 
 £ 2 
 
54 
 
 the sense and practice of the ancient Church was 
 generally conformable.* 
 
 Although then such unauthorized Baptism, 
 provided it had been administered in due form, 
 was not repeated on the admission of the partv 
 into the Communion of the Church ; the essential 
 defect of it was however on such occasion deemed 
 necessary to be supplied. For which reason it 
 was an established rule in the ancient Church, that 
 Imposition of Hands should be given to persons 
 thus baptized, in order to their obtaining that 
 Grace of the Holy Ghost by prayer, which they 
 wanted before ; in consequence of their having 
 received Baptism from those who had no power 
 to give the Holy Ghost. For according to the 
 established service of the ancient Church, the Im- 
 position of the Bishop's Hands immediately suc- 
 ceeded to the regular administration of the Form 
 of Baptism, as constituting a most essential part 
 of it.-f- 
 
 * See Binghtm's Works, folio, vol. 2, page 530, and seq: 
 '* An Account of the Practice of the Ancient Church." 
 
 f Nay, ao essential to the perfect administration of Baptism 
 was the Imposition of the Bishop'i Hinds, in- the early days cf 
 the Church, considered to be, that Corntlius, who lived in thf; 
 time of Cyprian, speaking of Noratian, who was baptized only 
 with Clinick fiaptism on a sick bed, says, he never received 
 those things, which hy the Laws of the Church he was obliged 
 io receive; that spiritual seal, -which was the completion of 
 Baptism, and which succeeded to the service of the font; when 
 by the prayer of the Bishop, and the Imposition of his Hands, 
 the Holy Ghost was poured on the baptized party. 
 
 *' ijSt T«y XtitTu)* iTvyiy oisi^^vyu* rot nocroi, uy yjjfn fA.iTXxixSatt:t 
 Kara «» rw Ex>t/.t>cr/ai Kajoraj t« ti a-^fxyi^nisK vno t« E'7r/3-'<o7«*.* 
 
 Eutth. I. 6, f. 43. 
 
Innocent, Bishop of Rome, who was contempo- 
 rary with St. Austin, speaking of the Baptism 
 of Arians, said, "Their ministration was defective 
 in this ; that they could not give the Holy Ghost ; 
 and therefore, such as were baptized by them 
 were imperfect, and were to be received (into the 
 Church) bi/ Imposition of Hands ; that they might 
 thereby obtain the Grace of the Holy Ghost" — In- 
 nocent, epis. 18, ad Alex, and Antioch, chap. 3. 
 
 Pope Leo, speaking of Heretics, said, "They 
 Lad only the form of Baptism, without the grace 
 of sanctification ; and when they came over to the 
 Catholic Church, tiiough the form of Baptism 
 was not to be repeated, yet what was wanting in 
 it was to be supplied ; that by Imposition of the 
 Bishop's Hands they might receive the Grace of 
 the Holy Ghost." — Epis. g2, ad Rustic, chap. l6» 
 In another epistle he says, " That such as received 
 Baptism from Heretics, were to be received (intp 
 the Church) only by the invocation of the Holy 
 Spirit, and by Imposition of Hands; and that, be- 
 cause they had before only received the Form of 
 Baptism, without the sanctifying power of z7."-«« 
 Epis. ad Nicet. chap. 7. 
 
 That such was the general sense of the ancient 
 Church on this subject, besides the testimony of 
 numberless individual writers, the decrees of dif- • 
 ferent Councils might, were it necessary, be 
 brought to prove. 
 
 Hence it appears, that though the ancient 
 Church did not re-baptize any who had been bap- 
 
66 
 
 tized in the proper form by Heretics and Schis- 
 matics, still persons, thus baptized, were not ad* 
 rnitted into the Communion of the Church but 
 hy the ■Imposition oj the Bishop's Hands ; and till 
 they had been so admitted, ih&y were not ranked 
 among the Fideles; to whom alone, in confor- 
 mity with the general principle on which the 
 Church proceeded, the office of Burial belonged. 
 With respect to Lay Baptism, as it was admi- 
 nistered in the ancient Church, it does not seem 
 to bear on the subject, which you had before you. 
 The charitv of the Church toward the cases of in- 
 dividuals, induced hertocarrv her notions of Lay 
 Baptism to an indefiriite, and I hesitate not to say, 
 unwarrantable extent. As a general rule, how- 
 ever, Lay Baptism was considered to be allowed 
 only in caSes of extreme necessity, when no law- 
 ful Minister could be procured. But such Bap- 
 tism was generally administered by persons who 
 were themselves in communion with the Church, 
 and who were bound to bring the party thus bap- 
 tized to ike Bishop, for the confirmation of their 
 imperfect Baptism, should the baptized party sur- 
 vive. The Council of EHberis made an express 
 Canon on this head ; "That when men were on 
 a voyage at sea, or in any place where no Church 
 is near at hand, if a Catechumen happened to be 
 extremely sick, and at the point of death, that 
 then any Christian, who had his own Baptism en- 
 tire, might baptize him : but with this proviso, 
 ^hat in case the baptized party survived, the bap- 
 
 ■J 
 
57 
 
 tizcr should bring him to the Bishop, that hy Im- 
 position of Hands, he might be perfected." — Con- 
 cil Elibcris, can. 38. 
 
 In the Church of Rome this practice of Lay 
 1-aplism in cases of necessity was by degrees ex- 
 tended to women,' though in contradiction I be- 
 lieve to what has been considered to hav^e been 
 the general opinion of the ancient Church on this 
 head : still, however, under the same sanction, 
 and upon the same principle. But, Sir, the Bap- 
 tism for which you pleaded, as entitling ihe party 
 to the office of Burial, was not, as has been above 
 observed, a Baptism in communion with the 
 Cliurch, but in direct opposition to it; in a word, a 
 Baptism administered in wilful Schism ; the sub- 
 ject of which had never been admitted into the 
 communion of the Church. 
 
 Had then the whole evidence. relative to the 
 practice of the ancient Church on the subject of 
 Baptism been brought before the Court, it must 
 have been decisive against the point which you 
 attempted to establish by your/j«772a/ appeal to it. 
 For the point at issue certainly was not, whether 
 the ancient Church refused to baptize persons 
 who had been previously baptized by others, for 
 this by no means came up to the case in hand ; 
 but whether the Church did acknowledge those 
 -who had been baptized out of the Church, to be 
 in communion ivitk the -Church; and thereby en- 
 titled to Church privileges, before they had been 
 solemnly admitted into that communion by the 
 administration of those fori7is, which were by th« 
 
58 
 
 Church deemed necessary to supply the original 
 defect of their irregular Baptisms. And on this 
 liead I venture to repeat what has been already 
 advanced ; that there is no case to be toniid 
 throughout the whole course of Eccl'siafttical His- 
 tory, which will bear you out in the conclusion 
 which you appear to have so confidently drawn 
 froiB the practice of the ancient Church, on this 
 part of your subject ; namely, that Baptism hy 
 whomsoever administered does in itstlj constitute 
 ** a legal and valid initiation inio the Chrit>fian 
 Church;" and on that ground entitle the bapu^icd 
 to the office of Church Burial. 
 
 The admission of which point is pcrtainly not 
 iiiore incompatible with what we consider to be 
 the constitution of the Church of Christ, than 
 it is with ihecs|;ablished disciphneof that Cliurch 
 in thib country. 
 
 The difference j^etween us on this subject is 
 cerainl^ most essential: and it proceeds from a 
 want of proper discrimination having been made, 
 on your part, between an event which bad actually 
 taken place, and the po sible contingency of 
 such event. 
 
 Whilst the great and fundamental error on 
 which you appear to me to have proceeded in the 
 establishment of your novel position with respect 
 to Baptism, consists in your not noticing an essen- 
 tial distinction made by the ancient Lhurch on 
 that important subject; and thence drawing a 
 conclusion for the Church of England which that 
 Church not only does not acknowledge, but 
 
which she expressly disclaims ; namely, that ir- 
 regular unauthorized Baptism constitutes ** a 
 valid and legal initiation into the Christian 
 Church." Whereas the validity of unauthorized 
 Baptism was not, in thcjudgment of the ancient 
 Church, the necessary consequence of its admi- 
 nistration, but always became a subject for the 
 subsequent exercise of ecclesiastical discretion : 
 the ancient Church never considering persons 
 irregularly baptized as, by their Baptism, mem- 
 bers of the Church ; but only as capable, under 
 certain circumstances, of being made such, with- 
 out being subjected to a second Baptism. The 
 only admission therefore that can be made in be- 
 half of unauthorized Baptism from the practice of 
 the ancient Church is this : that although it did 
 not in itself make the parties members of the 
 Church, it still threw no impediment in the way 
 of their being made such by the subsequent act 
 of a duly authorized Minister. By which judi- 
 cious discrimination the ancient Church secured 
 the authority of the divine commission, without 
 absoUitel nullifying unauthorized Baptism. But, 
 Sir, by placing all Baptisms authorized and un- 
 authorized on the same footing, with respect to 
 their admitting the parties to Church member- 
 ship ; you thereby, as I conceive, put out of sight 
 the authority of the divine commission ; making 
 that to be "a legal ^x\(\ valid initiation into the 
 Christian Church," which the ancient Church 
 considered to be, in itself, no initiation at all. 
 Whilst the conclusion which you attempt to draw 
 
Go 
 
 froiTi the non-pcrfbrmancc of Church ol^.ces to- 
 wards Dissenters from the Church, that we there- 
 by viillifi/ their Baptism, is ccrraiiilv incorrect. 
 The Baptism of a Dissenter from the Charch of 
 England is, what it is in itself, independant of the 
 judgment of the Church of England upon it. 
 Should it not thercfore'be in itself a nullity, the 
 rejection or non-admission of it by the Ciuirch of 
 England cannot make it such. The ancient 
 Church did not consider unauthorized Baptism 
 t-o bean absolute nnllili/, ahhongh she did not ad- 
 mit the subjects of it to her communion, until tney 
 had renounced their heresy and schism. Nor 
 has the Church of England, that I know of, any 
 where, in direct and express terms, declared the 
 unauthorized Baptisms of Dissenters to be null 
 and void ; though by indirectly declaring them 
 to be illegal^ she cannot consider them as consti- 
 tuting, in themselves, a legal and valid initiation 
 into her communion. But the distinction be- 
 tween a Baptism being a mere nullity ; and being 
 admitted to be .so far valid as, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, not to be judged necessary to be re- 
 peated : and being in itself, " a valid and legal 
 initiation into rlic Christian Church," is, it is pre- 
 sumed, a distinction, which toyou,!5ir, it must be 
 nnneccssarv to point out. On the ground of this 
 distinction, which vou have omitted to remark, 
 but on which, I conceive, the judgment of this 
 case ought to turn, I take my stand ; considering 
 it to be of essential importance to the constitution 
 rji the Cluirch of Christ, not less than of advantage 
 
64 
 
 to those who separate from it, that the authority of 
 the divine commission under which its Ministers 
 act, should at all times, be distinguishable by its 
 appropriate characteristics. 
 
 During the times of the ancient Church, those 
 who had received unauthorized Baptism had an 
 important object before them in returning to the 
 Church : namely, that the irregular Baptism 
 which they had received, when in their state of 
 separation from the Church, might be rendered 
 perfect on their admission into its communion. 
 The same object must, in every age of the Church, 
 with a view to its unity and preservation, be of 
 equal importance. The Ministers of the Church 
 of England consequently, will not, as the subject 
 strikes me, discharge their duty towards the com- 
 mission, with which they have been entrusted, 
 should they become instrumental in putting this 
 object out of sight, by leading Dissenters, by an 
 ill-judged concession, to conclude, that authorized 
 and unauthorized Baptism equally admit into the 
 communion of their Church ; a concession which 
 makes them, at least indirectly, countenancers, if 
 not promoters of schism. Whereas, accordmg to 
 the tenor of your argument, if I rightly under- 
 stand it, irregular Baptisms, by which are meant 
 Baptisms not administered by a lawful Minister 
 of the Churchj become in themselves " a legal and 
 valid initiation into the Christian Church." Tak- 
 ing these last words in the sense in which they 
 were used by the ancient Church, and arc at pre- 
 sent used by the Church of England, the two 
 
62 
 
 standards by wliiet you profess to try the question 
 at issue, my position is ; that irregular Baptisms 
 considered simply in themselves^ do not constitute 
 cither a legal or valid initiation into the Christian 
 Church. The validity of such Baptisms, indeed, 
 may be, and, under certain circumstances, as it 
 has been already observed, have been admitted 
 by the Governors of the Church ; but till such 
 admission has actually taken place, the parties 
 thus baptized are not members of the Church ; 
 and consequently unentitled to its privileges. In 
 a word, the question at issue, so far bs the prac- 
 tice of the ancient Church is concerned in it turns 
 upon this single point: — Did the ancient Church 
 acknowledge the privileges of Church member- 
 ship as belonging to those, who, having been £r- 
 r.egularly baptized out of the Church, and never 
 by any subsequent act admitted into it, died at 
 length in a state of actual separation from it ? 
 
 No such acknowledgement, so far at least as 
 my acquaintance with Ecclesiastical History ex- 
 tends, is any where to be found in it. — This, 
 Sir, as it strikes me, is, so far as relates to this 
 point, th& jugulum caiis^; which must be my 
 excuse for dwelling longer on this part of your 
 statement, than the importance of it might other- 
 wise have demanded. 
 
 From having pressed the discipline of the an- 
 cient Church into your service, you proceed to 
 try the same experiment on that of the Church of 
 England ; with what success it remains now to 
 be considered. 
 
You say, p, 21. that "It 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 particular constitutions, down to the 
 Reformation, Lay Baptism was allowed and prac- 
 tised ; it was regular and even prescribed in cases 
 of necessity." Where I disposed to cavil, I 
 should object to the word regular in the above 
 sentence; and I might quote you against yourself, 
 where you say, p. 15. " That the Church of 
 England has recognized Lay Baptism to be, 
 though /rre^w/ar, yet valid." — But admitting that 
 Lay Baptism, on the plan of theKomish Church, 
 was practised in the Church of England down to 
 the Reformation, as it most probably was; our 
 attention, I conceive, should now be directed to 
 what has been the acknowledged practice of the 
 Church of England since that memorable sera ; 
 when our wise forefathers, with the express view 
 of freeing our country from the errors of Popery, 
 thought proper, in their their first commission for 
 the revision of our Ecclesiastical Constitutions, to 
 publish this declaration : — " Leges omnes, decreta 
 atque instiluta, quae ab autkore episcopo Roniano 
 prqfecta sunt, prorsus ahroganda censuimus,*^--^ 
 Whilst from what has been just said on this part 
 of the subject, it has, if I mistake not, been 
 made fully to appear, that such a circumstance 
 proves nothing in favor of the point at issue ; I 
 may therefore be excused from dwelling upon it. 
 
 And were! I to admit all that you say on the 
 ground of the Liturgies of Edward VL and Queen 
 
04 
 
 Elizabeth, from which you conckide, " That 
 all private Baptism was administered by laymen 
 antecedent to the time of King James, and 
 that it was only public Baptism which was ad- 
 ministered by a Priest," I say, were I to admit 
 this, (which you, Sir, have rather taken for 
 granted than proved,) I should concede nothing 
 which would stand you in any stead. — The 
 Rubrics to which you refer in the Liturgies of 
 Edward and Elizabeth are the id and 5th of 
 Edward VI., which re-appeared in the Liturgy 
 which was set forth in the first year of Elizabeth. 
 But these Rubrics referred only to that practice 
 which the Church of England had received from 
 the Church of Rome, which was grounded on a 
 permission granted to women or Lay persons to 
 baptize infants in cases of extremity ; before any 
 separation of the Church of England had taken 
 place; consequently they could not refer to the 
 Baptism for which you pleaded; such kind of 
 Baptism not being at that time in contemplation. 
 At the same time I have to observe, on the autho- 
 rity of Bishop Taylor, in his " divine institution 
 of the office ministerial;" — that the Rubric in 
 the first Liturgy of King Edward, permitting 
 midwives to baptize in cases of extreme danjrer 
 was left out in the second Liturgy, which is now 
 used ; an omission which the Bishop considered 
 to be a virtual rejection of the permission that had 
 been previously granted. 
 
 From the Rubric however, to which you refer 
 98 occurring in the Liturgy of Edward, and in 
 
65 
 
 lliat of Elizabeth, which gives directions to» 
 pastors to in;>truct their parishioners in the fo rtii 
 of ministring Baptism it evidently appears, that 
 ihese irregular Baptisms, in cases of exticmitVy 
 were administered under the cognizance, and by 
 the permission of the Church ; and were con- 
 sidered as Baptisms in communion with the 
 Church ; and as such, of course admitted by the 
 Church. But Baptisms administered by permis- 
 sion from the Church, and corhsequenlly in com- 
 munion with it, and Baptisms in direct oppositiorr 
 to the Church, are two such different kinds of 
 Baptism, that, consistently with the rules of 
 sound reasoning, the same conclusion cannot be 
 drawn from both. The Rubric however to- which 
 you here refer appears to have reference to two 
 Canons or Constitutions of Otho and Peckham. 
 In the former of which it is directed that " For 
 cases of necessity the Priests on Sundays shall 
 frequently instruct their Parishioners in the form 
 of Baptism." — In the latter, that infants baptized 
 by laymen or women (in imminent danger of 
 death) shall not be baptized again. *' Aud the 
 Priest shall afterwards supply the rest : — in con- 
 formity with the general practice of the ancient 
 Church, which has been already noticed. 
 
 You cannot however, Sir, but be aware that 
 you are now treading on Popish ground ; and that 
 no Canons or Constitutions of the Romish Church 
 are binding on the Church of England, as an in- 
 dependent Church; such only excepted, as the 
 Governors. of that Church in: ConvQcation may 
 
66 
 
 have thought proper to acknowledge or adopt. 
 At the same time it must be remembered, that 
 according to the first statute of Elizabeth, the 
 four first General Councils only were admitted to 
 constitute a Standard of Doctrine for the Church 
 of England. — The Reformation, it is well known* 
 constituted an important aera in Ecclesiastical 
 History. At that period the Church of England, 
 newly divorced from her unfortunate connection 
 with the Church of Rome, set on foot a plan of 
 discipline of her own; which, taking the Holy 
 Scripture for its basis, was intended to bear as 
 near a resemblance, as the difference of times 
 would admit, to the primitive model. An dit is 
 but justice to add, that the doctrines, discipline, 
 and service of our national Church were at that 
 time regulated by the most circumspect and ju- 
 dicious proceedings. For our pious Reformers 
 professed to proceed on the principle held forth 
 by Archbishop Parker to the Convocation, in the 
 words of Cyprian ; that " if the channel which 
 formerly flowed plentifully, happens to fail, the 
 way is to examine the fountain, and then we shall 
 know what occasions the stoppage. By this 
 method the holy Bishops ought to govern them- 
 selves. If the colours are almost rubbed out, If 
 we are at a loss in any part of belief and practice, 
 let us apply to the holy Evangelists, to the 
 writings and traditions of the Apostles. And 
 then let us execute closely upon the Jirst scheme, 
 and form our conduct upon the Divine Institu- 
 tion.** Cyprian. Epist. ad Pompeian. 
 
67 
 
 To the public standard of our Church, framed 
 on this principle, we are now to appeal for the 
 judgment of our Reformers, on every subject to 
 which it refers. The question then is, not what 
 were the Constitutions of OtJio and Pechham, in 
 the corrupt days of Popery, on this subject ; but, 
 •what may be fairly concluded to have been the 
 opinion of our Reformers, on the subject of Lay 
 and female Baptism, from those public docu- 
 ments which ihey judged proper to be set forth 
 for the government and direction of our Clergy. 
 
 In the 19th and 23d articles of our Church, 
 the compilers evidently seem to have had before 
 them the decided judgment of the Apostolical 
 Writers of the first century, on the subject of 
 the Evangelical Commission* '^It is not laivful, 
 (said Ignatius) M'iihout the Bishop, (or authority 
 derived from him) either to baptize or celebrate 
 the offices : but what he approves of, this is well 
 pleasing to God; that every thing done (in the 
 Church) may be safe and binding." — " Let that 
 Sacrament be judged effectual and firm, which 
 is dispensed by the Bishop, or him to whom the 
 Bishop has committed it."'}' — In the Bishop the 
 administration of the Sacrament was originally 
 vested : and under him, and by virtue of autho- 
 
 * *' Ovy. j|ov £$-/ X^'P'^ '^** E'TTiax.o'rrov uts pizTTTi^iiy, ars ^o^»i» 
 /3tbaio> wan ay 'spaa'a^t" 
 
68 
 
 tiiy derived from him, in the Presbyters and 
 Deacons. Such, in the purest days of the 
 Church, was the judgment of Apostolical men, 
 on the subject of the Apostolic Commission. — 
 Numberless cases of extreme necessity must 
 doubtless have occurred in the infancy of the 
 Church, and yet, in the general rule laid down 
 for the regular administration of the Sacrament 
 of Baptism, no provision was made for any 
 such cases. And from the strong language of 
 Ignatius on this subject, it should seem to have 
 been the opinion of those early days, that no de- 
 viation from the regular administration of the 
 Sacrament was on any occasion to be permitted, 
 but that all extreme cases were to be left with 
 God. The language of our 23d article is much 
 in unison with that which has been above quoted 
 from Ignatius : in which the general rule for the 
 legal administration of the Sacrament is laid 
 down ; but without any provision being made in 
 it for those extreme cases, which could not have 
 failed to have presented themselves to the consi- 
 deration of our Reformers. And when it is con^ 
 sidered, that private Baptism by Lay persons in 
 such cases was then practised, the circumstance 
 of no express clause in confirmation of that prac- 
 tise being to be found in any of the constitutions 
 sent forth by our Reformers, can, I think, be 
 accounted for, but upon the principle that they 
 did not wish to give sanction to the continuance 
 of that practice in the reformed Church of 
 England. Our Reformers might have thought. 
 
69 
 
 that the practise of Lay Baptism was not to be 
 reconciled with the strict tenor of the Apostolic 
 Commission ; as that subject was understood in 
 the first century of the Church ; that it was a 
 practise which had crept into the Church in the 
 second century ; that it had its origin in error % 
 and was supported by a misinterpretation of 
 some Texts of Scripture. At least such has 
 been the opinion of well-informed men on this sub- 
 ject. The learned Vossius in particular, thought 
 that none of the Texts of Scripture, that were 
 usually appealed to on this subject, would bear 
 the weight that was attempted to be laid upon 
 them. And the doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land is, that Sacraments are only generally ne- 
 cessary unto salvation; that is, necessary when 
 they may be regularly had. A doctrine which 
 excludes that ground of absolute necessity, on 
 which the admission of irregular Baptism was ori- 
 ginally built. In renouncing the error of the 
 Church of Rome on this subject, our Reformers 
 must be fairly supposed to have discarded, vir- 
 tually at least, the practice that had confessedly 
 been built upon it. Our Reformers might alsohave 
 judged it inexpedient to make any express prohibi- 
 tion of a practice, which had so long prevailed ; 
 influenced by the consideration, that they would 
 thereby have given needless offence to the Ro- 
 manists, whom it was their object to preserve in 
 communion with the newly-reformed Church ; 
 on which accountjthey might have deemed it mor^ 
 
 f2 
 
70 
 
 desirable to suffer a practice, which they did not 
 approve, to fall silently into disuse, than expressly 
 to oppose it. — A consideration to which it may 
 be attributed, that the strong paragraph against 
 the real and bodily presence in the Sacrament, 
 to be found in the articles agreed upon under Ed- 
 wiird VI. was omitted in the articles afterward es- 
 tablished under Elizabeth. Whilst a similar omis- 
 sion, having in view the same desirable object of 
 union between Romanists and Protestants, (be- 
 fore invincible prejudice, in consequence of the 
 famous bull of Pope Pius the Fifth, had been 
 stirred up between them) took place in the book 
 of Common Prayer. — These arguments, or rather 
 presumptions, though not in themselves conclu- 
 sive, are, I conceive, entitled to notice from the 
 respect due to the character of our Reformers ; 
 who carried on the great work in which they 
 were engaged, with not less zeal, but at the same 
 time with a greater portion of judgment and 
 moderation, than any other Reformers in Europe. 
 
 We now proceed to enquire what light may 
 be thrown on the practice of Lay Baptism, sub- 
 sequent to the Reformation, from that indirect 
 evidence which may fairly be brought to bear on 
 this subject ; for positive evidence we confessedly 
 have none. In this part of your statement. Sir, 
 you appear to me to have brought forward but 
 a part of that evidence which was to be pro- 
 duced. I proceed to proof. — 
 
 In p. 21 you refer to the I2ih article, passed 
 in Convocation in the year 1575, which you 
 
71 
 
 quQle thus; "That to resolve, douhts by whom 
 private Baptism is to be administered, it is direct- 
 ed, that in future it ^chall be administered by a 
 minister only^ and that private persons shall not 
 intermeddle therein." — This quotation, though 
 but a partial extract from the article in question, 
 contains language capable of conveying, it is pre- 
 sumed, but one idea to the intelligent mind ; 
 namely, that from the date of this article, private 
 Baptism was to be administered by a minister, 
 and by no other person. After informing the 
 Court, however, that the doubt which this arti- 
 cje was intended to solve " seems to have been, 
 not uhether Lay Baptism was valid, but whether 
 ii\vQ.s regular SiU A orderly,'^ you conclude thus: 
 "The most to be deduced from this article there- 
 fore is, that it was thought at that time by the 
 Convocation, that it would be more proper, re- 
 gular, or decent, to have the ceremony of private 
 Baptism performed by ministers ; and therefore 
 it was directed to be performed by them, and 
 Laics were restrained from doing it." — p. 23d.— 
 The article from which you have made the above 
 partial extract should, I conceive, be given en- 
 tire. It stands thus on the Journal of the Con- 
 vocation. " Tvvelfthly.— And whereas some am- 
 biguity and doubt has arisen amongst divers, by 
 what persons private Baptism is to be administer- 
 ed ; for as much as, the Book of Common Prayer 
 allowed by statute the Bishop of the Diocese is to 
 expound and resolve all such doubts as shall arise 
 .cgnccrning the manner, how to understand, do. 
 
72 
 
 and execute the things contained in the same 
 book ; it is now by the said Archbishops and 
 Bishops expounded and resolved, and every of 
 then) doth expound and resolve, that the said 
 private Baptism, in case of necessity, is only to be 
 ministred by a Inivjul 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 in 
 his Diocese in this Province ; and thereby all 
 other persons shall be inhibited to intermeddle 
 with the ministering of Baptism privately, it be- 
 ing no part of their vocation." — Now, Sir, were 
 I permitted to appear as an advocate for the de- 
 fendant in this cause, and to consider you in the 
 character of an advocate for the plaintiff, I should 
 venture to maintain, that your gloss on this article 
 was calculated not so much to explain it, as to 
 draw away the attention of the Court from the 
 plain and direct meaning of it. The doubt which 
 this article was intended to solve, " was not (you 
 say) whether Lay Baptism was valid, but whether 
 it was regular and orderly."" — Whereas, I con- 
 • ceive, the doubt intended to be solved by it was, 
 ly whom private Baptism, in case of necessity> 
 was to be admiuistred, and that alone : and this 
 doubt is positively and unequivocally determined 
 by the article in question. Not a word is to be 
 found in the article respecting the " validity of 
 Lay Baptism," or the " more proper, regular. 
 
73i 
 
 and decent administration of private Baptism by 
 a regular minister ;" but simply, «^ by what 
 persons private Baptism is to be administered." — . 
 To this circumstance it was the sole object of the 
 article to direct the attention. In this view of 
 the article in question, I trust, I may be per- 
 mittcKl, without incurring the imputation oftak^ 
 ing upon me absolutely to impeach your judg- 
 ment, to submit it to your consideration, 
 whether reasoning somewhat to the following 
 purport would not have done more justice to the 
 article under consideration, than the comment 
 which you have annexed to it. — Our Reformers, 
 you might have said, had made a positive article 
 which confined the administration of the Sacra- 
 ments to laivful Ministers. They had made no 
 provision for the administration of private Bap- 
 tism by Lay men in cases of necessity. In the 
 course of some years after the Reformation, it 
 became a matter of doubt witb some (Lay Bap- 
 tism not having been expressly prohibited by 
 by any Canon,) whether the practice of private 
 Baptism by Lay persons in cases of necessity, 
 which had more or less prevailed in the Church 
 of England since her separation from the Church 
 of Rome, was to be continued. The solution 
 of this doubt was the object of the article in 
 question: the decided language of which was 
 intended to put an end to that irregular practice 
 in the Church of England. 
 
 The above construction would have placed this 
 article in its true light ; and could not have failed 
 
to lead the Court to the proper conclusion upon 
 it. Whilst from the circumstance of this article 
 having been passed in Convocation in the year 
 1575, it might have been observed ; that the fair 
 probability was ; nor, it is conceived, according 
 to your conclusion in p. 11 — " that all private 
 Baptism was by Laymen, antecedent to the time 
 of King James;" — but that Lay Baptism was an 
 occasional practice then growing into disuse ; for 
 if it had been at that time, what you represent it 
 to be, i\\& general and established practice in the 
 Church of England, there could have been no 
 occasion for the provision of a particular article 
 in the Convocation of 1575, to resolve doubts, and 
 ambiguities on this subject. 
 
 The circumstance of this article not having 
 been confirmed by the Crown, however it may 
 affect its public authority, does not affect its tes- 
 timony, as a Church document, expressing the 
 sense of Convocation in the year 1575 on the sub- 
 ject to which it refers ; vbich testimony, so far as 
 it goes, is in decided opposition to the continu- 
 ance of the practice of Lay Baptism in the Church 
 of England. 
 
 But other evidence might have been produced 
 to prove that this practice of private Baptism by 
 Lay persons in cases of necessity, was growing 
 out of use, and had not the sanction of the Church 
 of England ; so far as the judgment of that 
 Church can be collected from incidental pro- 
 ceedings, -• 
 
 So early as the year 1562—3 a proposal was 
 
75 
 
 made in Convocation, that the Rubric which 
 gives to women the llherty to baptize in case 
 of necessity, might be altered. A. proposal which 
 was approved by Bishop Grendall, then Bishop of 
 London ; under whose presiden ship, as Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, the article above referred 
 to was afterwards passed in the year lo75. 
 
 In the year I5S3, under the primacy of Arch- 
 bishop Whiigift, several of the Clergy refusing 
 to subscribe to the Book of Common Prayer, were 
 summoned before the Archbishop, and several 
 other Bishops, to give reasons for their non-con- 
 formity. One of their reasons was, a doubt re- 
 specting the practice of baptizing by women ; 
 which had been originally introduced by the 
 Romish Church about the ilth century. To 
 this the answer made on the occasion vi^as, that 
 *' The Book did not name women v*'hen it spake 
 of private Baptism ; and their subscription was 
 not required to any thing ivhich ivas nut expressed 
 in the Book." Flence it appears that the Rubric 
 complained of, which gave permission to women 
 to baptize, had been altered ; and that the prac- 
 tice was at that time not acknowledged by the 
 Governors of our Church. 
 
 In the first year of James, what was called the 
 Millenary Petition was presented. The first ar- 
 ticle of which contained an objection to Baptism 
 being administered by zvomen. Whence it ap- 
 pears, that the Romish practice of female Baptism 
 was not yet totally discontinued. To the prci-en- 
 tation of this petition succeeded the Hampton 
 
76 
 
 Court Conference ; at which this sul)ject of Lay- 
 Baptism in cases of necessity, on which some 
 doubt seemed still to remain, was debated and 
 finally settled. The result of this conference was, 
 that it was recommended to the Bishops by the 
 King, with the view of taking away completely 
 alljuture doubts on this subject, that the office 
 for privaie Baptism should be so explained and 
 worded, as to restrain in future all private Bap- 
 - tisiTi to a lawful Minister, Accordingly in the 
 Book of Common Prayer which was set forth the 
 same year, the alterations were printed in the Ru- 
 bric thus : — '^And also they shall warn them, that 
 without great cause they procure not their chil- 
 dren 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 laivful Minister (or in his absence, 
 any other lawful Minister that can be procured) 
 and them that be present, call upon God for his 
 Grace, and say the Lord's Prayer, if the time will 
 suffer ; and then the child being named by some 
 one that is present, the Minister shall dip it in the 
 water, or pour water upon it." " And other ex- 
 pressions, in other parts of the service, which 
 seemed before to admit of Lay Baptism, were so 
 turned as expressly to exclude it." — Gibson, 369. 
 When then it is considered, what had passed 
 on this subject during the reign of Elizabeth ; 
 the opinions which the Governors of our Church, 
 both in and otit of Convocation, had at different 
 times given upon it ; the ground on which the 
 
if 
 
 doubt on this subject was built ; and the altera- 
 tion which was directed to be made in the Rubric 
 at the Hampton Court Conference, for the ex- 
 press purpose of preventing the existence of any- 
 future doubt upon it ; I can conceive no evidence 
 more decisive against the practice of Lay Bap- 
 tism in the Church of England, than what the of- 
 fice for private Baptism, as it now stands in our 
 Liturgy, is calculated to furnish. 
 
 To you, however, the result of this confe- 
 rence appears, it should seem, in a very different 
 light ; or you could not have considered it as fur- 
 nishing any support to that side of the question, 
 on which your judgment was pronounced. Ac- 
 cording to a loose mode of interpretation, which 
 you have adopted on this occasion, a positive Law 
 made for the direction of Ministers in the dis- 
 charge of their peculiar office, is not considered 
 as intended to prevent any other persons from 
 taking upon them the discharge of the same of- 
 fice; the Law in question not having in express 
 terms excluded them from it. How far such a 
 mode of interpretation, were it generally adopted, 
 might carry us, it may be presumed. Sir, you had 
 not taken into full consideration. 
 
 The Rubric in quesiion directs that private 
 Baptism shall be administered by a I awful Minister'. 
 but it does not expressly say that it shall not be 
 administered by any other person. In conse- 
 quence of this omission, you maintain that " It 
 by no means follows from asking by whom was 
 this child baptized, that it was essential by whom 
 
7S 
 
 the cerciiroiT)' was performed i" or as you else- 
 where coiiclQcle, " That the person performing 
 the Baptism was not essential by the Rubric." — - 
 It is unnecessary for me to repeat what has 
 been above said on the subject of a commission 
 limiting its exercise to the party to whom it is 
 delivered ; which appears to me to apply to the 
 liubrie under consideration ; which being di- 
 rected exclusively to the Clergy of the Church 
 of England, must be supposed to refer to that 
 authority, by which, in the judgment of that 
 Church, the legality of the ministerial act is to 
 be determined. Admitting these premises to 
 be correct, your conclusion that it was "not 
 essential by whom the ceremony was performed," 
 strikes me in nearly the same light, as if you 
 were to maintain, that a direction sent forth by the 
 King to his Ambassador, or Magistrate, for the 
 discharge of their respective offices, on some 
 particular occaaion, does not prevent any other 
 persons from taking upon themselves to act in 
 the same offices, should the direction contain in 
 it no €Tp?e5s prohibition to the contrary. — Laymen 
 are not expressly excluded by the Rubric, there- 
 fore they are to be considered as included in it. — ^ 
 But, however, the mode of reasoning which you 
 have applied to this subject miglu pass in a Court, 
 it is certainly very dilfcrent from what the Gover- 
 nors of our Church must think admissible in the 
 interpretation of a {»]ain Church Rubric ; if we 
 may judge from the answer given by the Arch- 
 bishops and Bishops in 1583, to the -non-coi>- 
 
79 
 
 forming Clergy, which gave them to undcrstancl^ 
 as it has been above recorded, " That their sub- 
 scription was not required to any thing, ivliich 
 was not expressed in the book.'''' — Considering then 
 to whom the Rubric was directed, and that it 
 was not likely to be made a subject for cavil and 
 evasion, it was drawn up, not with the customary 
 forms of legal precision, but in plain language, 
 with the intent that it should be plainly under- 
 stood. The idea intended to be conveyed by it, 
 when taken in connection with the object which 
 the alteration of the Rubric was meant to secure, 
 was too plain to admit of doubt. Under these 
 circumstances, a direction that all private Baptism 
 should be administered by a lawjul Minister, vir- 
 tually excluded all other persons from the per- 
 formance of that office; thereby rendering an 
 express exclusion of them unnecessary . For it 
 should be remembered that the object of the re- 
 gulation provided by the office under considera- 
 tion was restrictive ; intended not only to direct 
 what was to be done by the lawful minister, but 
 also, virtually to restrain all other persons from 
 the doing of it. The question then, " By whom 
 was this child baptized ?" — which to you ap- 
 pears of little importance ; to me, when taken as 
 it ought to be, in its reference to the direction 
 contained in the Rubric, considered as addressed 
 to the Ministers of theChurch of England, appears 
 to be an essential one. And in the case of a child, 
 which had been privately baptized, being brought 
 to me for public admission *' into the congregation 
 
«0 
 
 . of Christ's flock/' were the question proposed on 
 the occasion, '^By whom was this child baptized?" 
 thus answered ; " By the midwife, or some other 
 lay person ;" I should feel myself called upon by 
 the letter and spirit of the Church Service to bap- 
 tize him. — In short, as it appears to me, if the 
 Rubric in question, under the circumstances in 
 which it was made, by directing private Baptism 
 to be administered by lawful ministers, did not 
 mean to exclude other persons from that office, 
 but that it was still (as you seem to think) a 
 matter of no importance, '•' by whom the cere- 
 mony was performed;" the Rubric had no defini- 
 nitive object ; and therefore as a direction to the 
 Clergs , must be regarded as perfectly useless. 
 
 When then Iconsider the various circumstances 
 which have related to irregular Baptism sub- 
 sequent to the Reformation, in conjunction with- 
 that Conference, the object of which was to do 
 away all future doubt on that subject, by the pro- 
 vision of an express Rubric upon it ; at which 
 Conference the Bishops assembled, (who, had 
 they been unanimous, were constitutionally in- 
 competent to make a rule of discipline for the 
 Church of England,) differed widely in opinion 
 on the subject in question ; when I consider 
 moreover that this Conference had no reference 
 to the Baptism of Dissenters continuing in wilful 
 separation from the Church, (for on that head the 
 Bishops of that day would doiibtless have been 
 unanimous;) the only question at that time being, 
 whether the Governors of the Church could, or 
 
81 
 
 should, authorize laymen or midwives to baptize 
 in cases of necessity ; when I consider these 
 circumstances, which immediately respect the 
 Church of England, in connection with those 
 which have been already pointed out respecting 
 the discipline of the ancient Church ; you will 
 not, I flatter myself, think it extraordinary that I 
 should express surprise at meeting with a passage, 
 which, in my judgment, so decidedly militates 
 against the truth of Ecclesiastical History both 
 ancient and modern, as that which is to be found 
 in p. 30 of your statement; in which you say, 
 *' that it appears impossible to entertain a reason- 
 able doubt that the Church did at all times hold 
 Baptism by water in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to be valid 
 Baptism, though not administered by a Priest 
 who had been episcopally ordained.'* — Admiting 
 the foregoing conclusion on your part to be 
 correct, it is respectfully submitted to considera- 
 tion, whether the Court should not have 
 been informed, in what way the article passed in 
 Convocation in 1675, to which you have briefly 
 adverted, together with the diff'erence of opinion 
 which prevailed among the parties assembled at 
 the Hampton-Court conference, was to be recon- 
 ciled with your language on this subject ; and on 
 what principle a new Rubric for the purpose of 
 doing away all future doubt on the then contro- 
 verted subject wasjudged necessary to be promuU 
 gated. 
 One observation still remains to be made, on 
 
82 
 
 this bead; but that to me appears so conclu- 
 sive of the sense of the Church in her service for 
 private Baptism, that I am rather surprised fhat it 
 should have escaped your notice when analizing 
 that service : since it resolves all possible doubt 
 on this suLject by one short question. The offi- 
 ciating minister, on the admission into the 
 Church of any child which had been privately 
 baptized, is directed^ should circumstances per- 
 jTiit, to certify to the congregation assembled, 
 that the child in question has been bap*ized " ac- 
 cording to the due and prescribed order of the 
 Church." When then it has been considered, 
 what the Church says in the Preface to the Book, 
 .of Ordination, respecting the offices of the 
 ^linisters, who are alone suffered " according to 
 the order of the Church of England" to execute 
 any Ecclesiastical function ; what she -^avs in her 
 23d article, and in the Rubric which precedes 
 the service for private Baptism ; permit me to 
 ask. Sir, whether it can be certified with truth, 
 that any child has been baptized according to the 
 order of the Church of England, which has not 
 been baptized by a Minister of that Church ? To 
 me it appears to be as clear as the sun at noon- 
 day, that any Clergyman, who, in the admini- 
 stration of the office under consideration ; should 
 certify to the congregation, that a child, which 
 had beeii otherwise baptized than by a lawful 
 Minister of the. Church of England, had been 
 baptized " aceo"-ing to the due order of the 
 Church/' would bear his deliberate and solemn 
 
83 
 
 testimony, to what, under the circumstances of 
 the case, he must know not to be true. When 
 then such a dechiration, as is prescribed in the 
 service, cannot with truth be made, it clearly fol- 
 lows, according to the tenor of the office in ques- 
 tion, that the child presented is to be baptized 
 by the officiating Minister on the occasion. 
 
 The authority by which you support the con- 
 trary conclusion is that of Lindwood. For in 
 page 28, you explain the phrase which occurs in 
 the Rubric, " done as it ought to be," " by ad- 
 verting to the Commentary of Lindwood, where 
 he has stated in his gloss the terms ' rite 
 oninistratus,^ ' legitime factum,* and 'forma de* 
 bita,* to mean the use of water and the form of 
 words : this (you conclude) can leave no doubt 
 what was the meaning of the Rubric, thus illus- 
 trated as it is by reference to the ancient law 
 and to Lindwood." 
 
 But, Sir, permit me to ask, is it necessary that 
 the Clergy of a Protestant Church should look to 
 a Popish Civilian for directions in their ministerial 
 office ; especially in a point which plain seme 
 alone is sufficient to determine ? For can any 
 Clergyman say with truth that " all things, re- 
 lating to the private Baptism of the child in ques- 
 tion, were done as they ought to he,'* when the 
 answer returned by the presenting parties to the 
 leading question, which the off-ciating man is 
 directed to propose to them, has not been in con- 
 formity with the order of the Church of England ? 
 
84 
 
 By the phrase riie mlristratut, used by Lint! wood, 
 mus't, it is presumed, be understood, minis- 
 tered according to the Rites of the Church ; 
 and by that of legitime factum, done according 
 to the Laws of the Church. But, what might 
 be rite minntrains, and legitime factum in the 
 days of Lindwood, when the Church was in 
 bondage to Popery, may be neither the one 
 nor the other in the judgment of the Church of 
 England, since her separation from the corrup- 
 tions of that Church. What weight soever then 
 the authority of Lindwcod miQ-ht have in its 
 application (o the Church of Rome, it certainly 
 can have none with the Clergy of the Church of 
 England on a point, which that Church has so 
 decidedly and unequivocally determined for 
 them. 
 
 But most important evidence yet remains to be 
 produced, which, had it been brought before the 
 Court, must have removed any doubt with re- 
 spect to the intention of the Rubric before us; 
 admitting it possible that such doubt might still 
 have existed. -And that this evidence, which is 
 to be found in the Q^th CanoUy a Canon imme- 
 ately following the one to which you so frequently 
 refer, should have totally escaped your notice, 
 seems to be somewhat unaccountable. The Title 
 to the 69th Canon could not fail, it might be 
 supposed, to have drawn to it your particular 
 attention. It runs thus : " Ministers not to de- 
 fer christening, if the child be in danger." This 
 Canon appears to have been made with the ex- 
 
83 
 
 press view of preventing, as far as possible, the 
 danger of children dying unbaptized, in conse- 
 quence of the new regulation which had taken 
 place in the order for private Baptism. It reflects 
 therefore a strong light on the Rubric which 
 precedes the office for infant Baptism, and may be 
 considered to be at least an indirect confirmation 
 of it. The Canon immediately respects a case of 
 necessity f in which Lay persons had occasionally 
 administered Baptism rather than the child should 
 die unbaptized. The administration of such 
 Baptism having been lately confined by the 
 Rubric to the lawful minister ; it became neces- 
 sary that some provision should be made for his 
 prompt attendance on all occasions, in which his 
 ministry might be necessary. The Canon there- 
 fore denounces punishment [on every Minister, 
 through whose wilful and gross negligence, any 
 child, of whose danger he had been duly in- 
 formed, dies unbaptized. This Canon is there- 
 fore evidently constructed on the principle laid 
 down in the Rubric, that infant Baptism, even 
 in case of necessity, was to be administered by a 
 lawful Minister, to the exclusion of all other 
 persons. For, on the supposition that the Rubric 
 in question, according to your comment upon 
 it, means no more than " that in the regular and 
 orderly and decent administration of private 
 Baptism, it became the duty of the lawful Minis- 
 ter to perform the office ;" at the same time that 
 it did not mean to prohibit any other persons from 
 © 2 
 
86 
 
 performing (hat office in cages of necessity, upon 
 the notion that '* it was not (to make use of your 
 words) essential by whom the ceremony was per- 
 formed;" it was in the nature of things most im- 
 probable, we might say impossible, that any child 
 should ever be in the predicament, in which the 
 Canon supposes the negligence of the Minister to 
 have j)laccd him. The Canon consequently, should 
 your reasoning on the subject be correct, must 
 be considered as providing a remedy against an 
 evil, which was never likely to occur. 
 
 Before I quit this part of the subject, I have 
 some few observations to make on the language 
 which you apply to it. 
 
 With the view, it is presumed, of giving, as 
 much as may be, an air of /e^a/i^z/ to your judg- 
 ment ; you talk, much of the old Latv, and the 
 established Constitution of the English Church; 
 in which you presume that so important a change 
 was not meant to be made, as the prohibition of 
 Lay Baptism in cases of necessity amounted to. 
 But before you had talked about an important 
 change having been made in the established 
 Constitution of the English Church, it appears 
 to me that you should have informed the Court, 
 what the established Constitution of that Church 
 really icas ; and how far the admissibility of 
 Lay Eap'.ism constituted a part of it. My notions 
 on this subject have been derived from that plat- 
 form of discipline laid down by our Reformers, 
 in connection with those subsequent Acts of 
 Convocation which bear upon it. Of the old 
 
87 
 
 Laiv, hy which we understand the Canons of the 
 ancient Church, v.hich admitted the validity of 
 Lay Baptism under certain circumstances, the 
 Reformers could not have been ignorant. They 
 however made no provision for the confirmation of 
 those particular Canons, with a view to their still 
 continuing in force in their newly reformedChurch 
 Not a single Canon, or Constitution of the newly- 
 reformed Church of England relative to this sub- 
 ject being to be found. Whence it maybe con- 
 cluded, that our Reformers did not consider the 
 admission of Lay Baptism as making any part of 
 the Constitution of that Church, which they 
 were employed to re-model. In the Convoca- 
 tion held in the first year of Archbishop Grindall's 
 primacy, the Governors of the Church knew 
 nothing of that established Constitution of the 
 English Church of which you speak; for the}'' 
 made an article in express contradiction to that 
 practice, which you represent as forming a part 
 of it. The result of the Hampton Court Conter- 
 ence was, the introduction of a Rubric into our 
 Prayer-Book, for the express purpose of prevent- 
 ing the continuance of a practice, which you re- 
 present to have been so established, that no 
 Church Ordinance could be meant to set it aside. 
 And now in the nineteenth century you bring 
 forward to the notice of the Court, what you call 
 *' The Established Constitution of the English 
 Church," as the ground on which the practice of 
 Lay Baptism cannot fail to stand firm ; at the 
 
 ^ 
 
8S 
 
 same time that Lay Baptism has been long un- 
 known in the English Church, in consequence 
 of its having been long unpractised by the mem- 
 bers of it. 
 
 This apparently legal ground which you have 
 taken, you proceed to strengthen by an opinion 
 which prevailed in the ancient Church on the 
 subject of Baptism to the following effect ; that 
 " It was the use of the water and the invocation 
 of the Holy Trinity that was essential to Bap- 
 tism ; those, as Lindwood has explained, were the 
 duo necessaria,** — P. 28. 
 
 I forbear, Sir, from analizing the strength of 
 this opinion, from a respect due to the parties 
 who may have maintained it ; to whom on many 
 accounts we look up with reverence. I shall 
 only take leave therefore to observe briefly upon 
 jt, that I know of no authority producible either 
 from Scripture or primitive practice, which will 
 justify our considering the water and the form 
 in Baptism, or the bread and wine in the Lord's 
 supper, exclusive of the important office of the 
 duly commissioned minister, as constituting a 
 perfect sacrament in the one case, more than in 
 the other. 
 
 A further reason why this opinion of Lind- 
 wood*s is passed over in silence is, because the 
 Church of England is not concerned with it ; 
 the reformed Church of England having no 
 where, that I am aware of, made that opinion 
 her own ; it being, as I conceive, the established 
 
89 
 
 judgment of that Church, that the lawful com- 
 mission of the minister is esiential to the perfect 
 administration of an Evangelical iacrament. 
 
 But, Sir, should I admit jour positions, that 
 the Church did at all times hold Baptism by- 
 water and in the form to be compleat Baptism ; 
 and that the Church of England did at this day 
 regard Baptism, by whomsoever administered, to 
 be so far valid as not to be repeated ; I should 
 consider these positions as proving nothing in 
 support of the right, for the estalishment of which 
 your judgment was appealed to ; because that 
 right, if established at all, must be established on 
 very different ground. 
 
 In a word then, and to conclude on this im- 
 portant part of the subject. 
 
 The grand position on which you build is, 
 that Baptism, when in due form, by whomsoever 
 administered, constitutes " a legal, and valid 
 initiation into the Christian Church." This po- 
 sition you maintain on the ground of what you 
 call the ancient Law of the Church, in con- 
 nection with that of the Church of England. 
 Whereas, the ancient Church, as I trust, it has 
 been made to appear, did not consider unautho- 
 rized Baptism to be in itself a legal and valid 
 initiation into the Church ; the parties thus irre- 
 gularly baptized not being regarded as members 
 of the Church ; but in case of the subsequent ad- 
 mission of these irregularly baptized parties into 
 the Church, the form of Baptism which they had 
 received was not on such occasion judged neces- 
 
sary to be repeated, but only the defect of it to 
 be supplied. Whilst the orders of Dissenters 
 being diiallovved by the Church of England, ac- 
 cording to her express declaration in the Preface 
 to our Ordination Service, all unauthorized Bap- 
 tisms must, in her judgment, be both illegal and 
 invalid. By making then, according to your po- 
 sition, unauthorized Baptism, that is, the Baptism 
 of a separatist from the Church, '^a legal and valid 
 initiation into the Christian Church," that is into 
 the Church of England, that being the only 
 Christian Church in the eye of the Ecclesiastical 
 Law of this country; you certainly proceeded on 
 a principle, that has never been acknowledged 
 either by the ancient Church, or by the Church 
 of England ; in the administration of whose laws 
 you were officially engaged. 
 
 Having now examined what appears to be the 
 main strength of your statement, I pass on to the 
 comparatively weaker parts of it, to which of 
 course less attention need be paid. 
 
 The reasoning which you have built on the 
 circumstance of the alteration made in the Title 
 to the Rubric, p. 30, appears to stand on the 
 weakest ground ; I might say, on no ground at 
 all. For admitting that the mere title of the 
 office has been abridged, the Rubric which im- 
 mediately follows it, and to which the attention 
 of the officiating Minister \s principally directed, 
 remains precisely what it was, at its original 
 construction. 
 
 What passed during the Usuitp ATI o n, con 
 
stituted an extreme case, from which no conchi- 
 sive argument relative to the practice of the 
 Church of England can, be drawn. And though 
 the Bishops after the Restoration did not re- 
 baptize those who had received irregular Baptism 
 during the Usukpatio^t ; they still, according 
 to the practice of the ancient Church in cases of 
 irregular Baptism, considered that Imposition of 
 Hands was necessary to their admission into the 
 Communion of the Church of England. 
 
 What you say with respect to Dissenting and 
 Catholic Converts to the Church of England, 
 appears to me not to have the least relation to 
 the case which was before you for judgment, 
 *' If these persons (you say) are considered by 
 the practice and constitution of our law, as laiv- 
 fulhj baptized, it appears there is an end of the 
 question." *' Dissenting and Catholic Converts'* 
 (as you call them) 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 con- 
 sequently 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. And in respect to 
 Dissenting Converts in particular, permit me to 
 observe. Sir, that the case of Dissenters on their 
 conversion being admitted into communion with 
 the Church iviihout rebaptizationj and that of 
 
92 
 
 Dissenters dying in a state of separation from the 
 Church, without having been admitted into com- 
 munion with the Church at all, are cases toto 
 ccelo different from each other. The judg- 
 ment of the Church consequently on these two 
 different cases cannot be brought under one and 
 the same question. But, should I subscribe 
 to your whole premises, your argument will then, 
 I conceive, stand thus: — Dissenting and Catho- 
 lic converts to the Church of England are con- 
 sidered by the practice of our Law, as legally 
 baptized ; therefore a child baptized by a person 
 dissenting from the Church has a right to the 
 office of burial by the Church. This is not, 
 I think, that sort of logic, which would have 
 done either of us much credit in the schools. At 
 the same time I must take leave to remark, but 
 without the least intentional disrespect to you. 
 Sir, that general want of precision in your lan- 
 guage, whenever you have occasion to introduce 
 what you call the law ; which here seems to 
 cover a gross fallacy under the words " Lawfully 
 Baptized by the constitution of our law/' By the 
 constitution of what law, are Dissenters con- 
 sidered to be lawfully baptized in the eyes of 
 the Church of England? I know no law by which 
 this point can be determined, but the Law of that 
 Church: and that is decidedly against the legality 
 of such Baptisms. And it is the discipline of 
 the Church of England, according to the esta- 
 blished constitution of that Church, which a 
 Judge in an Ecclesiastical Court is supposed to 
 
93 
 
 administer. But piprsons to be considered as 
 laivfully baptized by the Church, and persons to 
 be adnniued by the Church on their conversion^ 
 to have been so far validly baptized, as to render 
 the repetition of their Baptism unnecessary, being 
 two very different predicates, cannot, consistently 
 with sound reasoning, be made to meet in one 
 and the same conclu;=ion. 
 
 The circumstance which you mention, that 
 the Canon and Rubric of King James do not in- 
 terdict the Burial Service from being performed 
 for persons unhaptized, proves only to my mind, 
 that it was not thought necessary to interdict 
 what was never practised, because not considered 
 to be admitted by the established Constitution of 
 our Church. 
 
 To the conclusion which you draw from the 
 only exception in the 68th Canon, relative to ex- 
 communicated persons, " That a Minister in the 
 reigns of King James and King Charles would 
 certainly have violated the Canon by refusing to 
 bury an infant baptized by a Presbyterian Minis- 
 ter, or by a Layman, unless that person came 
 within the general description of not being a 
 Christian at all," I briefly answer thus :*i-As this 
 is a matter of opinion only not of proofs I may 
 take leave to give it as my opinion, that a Minis- 
 ter of the Church would not under such circum- 
 stances have violated the Canon ; because the 
 Eaptism of a person dissenting from the Church 
 was at that time considered to be not only un- 
 lawful, but administered in direct opposition to 
 
9* 
 
 tbe legal establishment of this country : a Baptism 
 consequently, in support of which no Canon of the 
 Church would at that time have been interpreted. 
 But without entering into any needless discussion 
 of this point, it will be sufficient at present to 
 observe, that what might have been the operation 
 of the t58th Canon in the Reigns of King James 
 and Charles, when the Dissenters were subject to 
 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, docs not prove what 
 is •to be the operation of the same Canon in the 
 present day, when Dissenters are withdrawn 
 from that jurisdiction : and consequently are no 
 longer regarded as Members of our Church. 
 For the Canons having been made with a view to 
 the Discipline of the Church of England, to be 
 understood properly, they must be taken in their 
 immediate application to that object. The 68th 
 Canon therefore in its original and intended 
 meaning applies to the Clergy andMembers of the 
 Church of England : consequently the christen- 
 ings and burials referred to in it, must be those and 
 those onlij^ of which the Ministers of that Church 
 arc bound to take official cognizance. For the 
 Canon by its construction evidently proceeds on 
 the supposition, that those whom the Minister 
 of the Church might be called upon to bury, had 
 previously been christened by him. To affix to 
 this Canon a more enlarged signification, for the 
 purpose of making it apply to the burial of Dis- 
 senters, who had not been admitted into the 
 Church by Baptism, is not, I conceive to eccplain, 
 so much as to pervert it. 
 
95 
 
 The general conclusion therefore which you 
 attempt to establish on what appears to you to 
 be the comprehensive latitude of the 68th Canon; 
 ace a'ding to which you understand, that no per- 
 sons are meant to be excluded from burial by the 
 Church, but those who were not Christians ; that 
 is, those who had not been baptized at all ; is by 
 no means warranted by the premises from which 
 it is drawn. Excommunicated person-^ are not 
 deprived of the rite of burial, on the ground of 
 their not being Christians at all ; for by Baptism 
 they have been made Christians ; but because 
 they have been cut off from communion with the 
 Church ; which involves in it a deprivation of all 
 Church privileges. On the same principle, to 
 Dissenters the rite of burial is not refused, on the 
 ground of their not being Christians at all ; for 
 into this question the Church does not enter; but 
 because they did not die in actual communion 
 with the Church : the voluntary excommunica- 
 tion of the one, and the judicial excommunica- 
 tion of the other subjecting both parties, in the 
 judgment of the Church, to an equal deprivation 
 of all Church privileges. This, as it has been 
 above observed, was the principle on which the 
 ancient Church uniformly proceeded in all such 
 cases. As you therefore in your statement have 
 laid a great stress on what you call the old Laiv of 
 the Church, considered as forming a standard, 
 by which to determine what should be the present 
 practice of the Church of England, you must, I 
 
66 
 
 conceive, admit the authority of this law uni- 
 versall/j. or not appeal to it at all. 
 
 To the reasoning, or rather the supposition, 
 which you have annexed (p. 35.) to the circum- 
 stance of the word unhaptized having been intro- 
 duced into the preamble to the Burial Service, I 
 beg leave to oppose some reasoning of my own, 
 leaving it to the reader to determine, to which 
 most attention should be paid. 
 
 " It seems, (you say) to be utterly incredible, 
 that the Convocation in revising the Rubric, or the 
 King, or Parliament in confirming it, could have 
 meant by introducing the word 'unbaptized' into 
 the Rubric, that those only who had been bap- 
 tized according to the form of the Church, could 
 receive the performance of this office. It would 
 be most extraordinary to suppose, that such wa 
 the intention of introducing it into this Rubric.'* 
 P. 35. What seems to you, Sir, to be utterly 
 incredible, appears to me, viewing the subject 
 through a different medium, in consequence of 
 my considering hy whom the Rubric in question 
 was revised, namely, by the Governors of the 
 Church of England in Convocation, to be most 
 credible. Indeed I should think it extraordinary 
 had the attention of the Governors of the Church 
 of England on this occasion been otherwise direct- 
 ed, than to the Members of that Church. And it 
 would be absurd to suppose that in their direction 
 to the Clergy they would introduce a word into 
 the Rubric,merely for the purpose of forbidding a 
 
97 
 
 practice which had never existed in the Church. 
 They must have known that the Clergy could 
 not want to be informed, that persons who had 
 not been made Christians at all, were not to be 
 buried with Christian burial. They could not 
 then possibly mean that the word " unbaptized" 
 should apply /o such persons; and consequently 
 they must have meant, that the word should 
 be taken in its ecclesiastical sense, as referring to 
 all who had not been lawfully baptized into the 
 Church. That such were the persons meant by 
 the Convocation under the word "unbaptized'* 
 in the Rubric, appears demonstrable from the 
 70th Canon ; according to the tenor of which no 
 other Baptisms but those which are entitled to 
 entry in the parish register fall under the cogni- 
 zance of the parish Minister. The Canon liter- 
 ally directs that in every parish a parchment 
 book shall be provided, "in which every chriS' 
 tening in that parish shall be written and record- 
 ed by the Minister." The Canon evidently pro- 
 ceeds on the principle, that no other Baptisms 
 take place in the Parish, but those of the Church, 
 It is not to be supposed then that the Governors 
 of the Church of England, who in their Canon 
 took no notice of any Baptisms, but those of thmt 
 Church, could mean by the word " unbaptized,''* 
 which had been subsequently inserted in a Eu" 
 brie, that the attention of the Clergy should be 
 directed to any other Baptisms than those, of 
 which alone they had been directed to take cog- 
 nizance. And the reason why the word was in- 
 
m 
 
 troducerl into the Rubric at this time might pro- 
 bably have been this. 
 
 • One great object which the Legislature had in 
 view, after the Restoration, was to heal the 
 lamentable schism, which had taken place in the 
 Church ; by bringing back the Nonconformists 
 to her Communion. To effect which purpose 
 some laws inflicting pains and penalties on Non- 
 conformists were made. When nonconformity 
 was an object for punishment with the State, it 
 could not be supposed that it would in any way 
 be encouraged by the Church ; which it indi- 
 rectly would have been, if the parties in question 
 were, in the rite of Burial, to be on the same 
 footing with the members of the Church. That 
 the Church then might co-operate with the State 
 in the promotion of the same object, so far aS 
 her discipline might be available to that end, the 
 "word " unbaptized" was introduced by the Con- 
 vocation' into the Rubric ; the meaning intended 
 to be conveyed by it to the parties concerned be- 
 ing, as I conceive this: — that all those persons 
 who persisted in wilful separation from the 
 Church, should henceforth be regarded as in a 
 state of actual Excommunication; and under 
 sftch circumstances, the validity of their Baptism 
 not having been recognized by the Church, they 
 were unentitled to any of those privileges, which 
 in every age of the Church have been considered 
 as belonging to those on! i/, who live and die in 
 actual Communion with her. And in this case 
 the Governors of our Church did but copy after 
 
that discipline, which had been universally praC" 
 tised by the Ancient Church in all similar cases. 
 The conclusion however, drawn by yourself 
 from your own premises, is this — " In every view 
 of this subject (you say) and the more accurately 
 and fully it is considered, the more clearly it 
 appears, that burial in such case cannot be 
 refused ; and it should in no view of the subject 
 he forgotten, that the question is a question of 
 disability and exclusion from the rights, which 
 belong to his Majesty's subjects generally, an ex- 
 ception from a general LaivT p. 36. — The pre- 
 ceding language points out to notice a very pro- 
 minent feature of your statement ; namely, that 
 want of discrimination, to which, as it appears 
 to me, much of the error and false reasoning to 
 be found in it, is to be attributed. Till clear 
 and precise notions with respect to the Church, 
 in its spiritual character, as distinct from thb 
 State, have been acquired ; no correct judgment 
 on this subject can be formed. On the supposi- 
 tion, ihat the Church is a creature of the State, 
 in which light you seem to consider her ; the 
 conclusion you have here drawn might challenge 
 consideration. In such case, the ecclesiastical 
 and civil rights of his Majesty's subjects would 
 be, just what the Constitution of the State might 
 think fit to make them ; and would of course 
 belong generally to all, whom that Constitution 
 regarded as placed in a condition to claim them. 
 But we consider, and the ConstitHtion of this 
 
 H 
 
100 
 
 Country (thank God,) has considered also, that 
 there are rights belonging to the Church, as a 
 spiritual society y which have been derived from 
 higher authority than that of the State; of which 
 his Majesty's subjects are piirtakcrs, not as his 
 Majesty's subjects, but as acknowledged Mem- 
 bers of that Church. These rights are not general, 
 but particular : since ihey belong only to persons 
 particularly circumstanced. The general rights 
 of his Majesty's subjects may certainly coexist 
 with these /jarifcw/ar rights of individuals; still 
 they are not necessaril}' comprehensive of them : 
 on the same principle, that the gewercr/ privi- 
 leges of Englishmen, as such, give them no title 
 tothe /;<2rizcw/ar privileges of any society, though 
 formed in England, of which they may not be 
 component members. With this different view 
 of the subject immediately before us, you will 
 not be surprised that I should consider the lan- 
 guage that you have applied to it to be of that 
 indejinite kind, which is more calculated to lead 
 into error, than to convey correct information : 
 and as such you must give me leave, in justice 
 to the cause I have in hand, respectfully to pro- 
 test against it. 
 
 With respect to that general Laiu of which 
 you speak, as bearing on the present subject ; 
 when you shall have clearly and definitively 
 pointed out what is to be understood by that 
 Law, and where it is to be found, I pledge my- 
 self fairly to meet its contents. 
 
101 
 
 Your appeal to the Toleration Act appears to 
 be so far from proving any thing in favor of the 
 cause that was brought before you for judgment, 
 that to my mind it furnishes the most decided 
 argument against it : whilst it is also marked 
 by that same want of discrimination, which 
 has been already noticed. Had you, Sir, clearly 
 distinguished between the Law of the Church, 
 and that of the State, on this occasion, together 
 with the different operations of each ; that part 
 of the subject, on which we are now entered, 
 could not have been attended with much diffi- 
 culty. 
 
 The Toleration Act was not intended to make 
 any alteration in the discipline of the Church, 
 but only in the condition of the parties who 
 thought fit to separate from it. Previous to the 
 passing of that Act, Dissenters from the Church 
 were subject to pains and penalties for non-con- 
 formity. By that Act, these pains and penalties 
 were, under certain regulations, suspended ; in 
 consequence of which conditional suspension, 
 Dissenters now exercise their worship in their 
 own way without interruption. And should 
 there be any attempt to deprive them of any part 
 of the indulgence granted by this act, there is 
 no doubt but that, so far as that Act extends, in 
 any of his Majesty's Courts they would not fail 
 to find redress. Still, it must be remembered, 
 that the Act of Toleration is the Act of the 
 State. What this Act grants to Dissenters, it 
 
102 
 
 grants to them expressly, in their character of 
 Dissenters from the Church ; as Members of the 
 State, not as Members of the Church. Indeed 
 it could not be supposed as intending to grant 
 to Dissenters from the Church of England any 
 privileges of that Church ; (qv the toleration of 
 whose dissent from which the Act in question 
 was expressly made. But though an Act of 
 Parliament may tolerate or establish what reli- 
 gion the makers of it think proper, yet no Act 
 of Parliam.ent can change the constitution of 
 "Christ's Church, or take away the sin of Schism ; 
 which consists now as it ever did, in a wilful and 
 needless separation from it. Whilst then the 
 Liturgy and Canons of our Church remain un- 
 altered, the suspension of Ecclesiastical disci- 
 pline, in the case of Dissenters, does not annul 
 the judgment of the Church with repect to their 
 actual condition ; Schism consequently continues^ 
 in the eyes of the Church, to be just the same 
 sin it was before the Act of Toleration took place. 
 The sin of Schism has indeed thereby acquired 
 an Indemnity; but that indemnity has not taken 
 away the sin of Schism. Hence it follows that 
 all who separate from the Church of England, 
 become, by the tenor of the yth Canon, liable to 
 excommunication : and though the exercise of 
 Ecclesiastical discipline on this subject has been 
 suspended, still so far as the judgment of the 
 Church is concerned, they are, as Schismatics, in 
 the same condition they would have been, had no 
 such suspension taken place ; and though not 
 
103 
 
 actually excommunicated, yet are in a state ofviv" 
 /?/«/ excommunication ; in which state, according 
 to the spirit of the Osth Canon, they must be 
 judged unentitled to partake in the offices of the 
 Church. 
 
 It is admitted that, '* Rites and Ceremonies 
 performed by Dissenters, having been permitted 
 by the Law, are, (as you say) such as the Law 
 can recognize in any of his Majesty's Courts of 
 Justice." But, Sir, by recognizmg any thing, we 
 do not change either its nature or character ; but 
 only renew our knowledge of it, as it is. The 
 recognition in his Majesty's Courts of Rites and 
 Ceremonies performed by Dissenters, does not 
 make them different from what they were before 
 the Law, which recognizes them, was enacted ; 
 but only takes cognizance of them as they are ; 
 for the Law by protecting the performance of 
 them, does not thereby make them the Kites and 
 Ceremonies of the Church of England; nor are 
 these things matters of cognizance " by Courts 
 administering the Laws of that Church." On 
 the same principle, the Baptisms of Dissenters 
 are not the Baptisms of the Church of England, 
 nor can any Law of the State make them such. 
 In fact, the Baptisms of Dissenters, however per- 
 mitted, or even legalized, it you please, by the 
 Toleration Act, arc, in the judgment of the 
 Church of England, precise!^ what they were, 
 before that Act existed. With respect to such 
 Baptisms being considered by the Church " as 
 mere nullities" this will depend upon circum- 
 
104 
 
 stances, on which judgment must remain with 
 the Church. Should the validity of them on any 
 occasion be admitted by the Governors of the 
 Church, that event will certainly place them in a 
 different light. But till such validity has been 
 admitted, the parties thus irregularly baptized 
 are not Members of the Church ; nor can any 
 mere Act of the State make them such ; without 
 interfering with thatpower of the keys, which was 
 committed by the divine Head of the Church to 
 its spiritual Governors upon Earth ; and in the 
 due exercise of which they have been secured by 
 the Constitution of this Country. 
 
 The distinction between the two nowers of 
 Church and State, which, to the disadvantage of 
 both, has so often been unfortunately confound- 
 ed, but by a due observance of which, each power 
 is kept within the bounds of its own proper juris- 
 diction, is as old as the Church itself. It was 
 not invented by man, but ordained by Jesus 
 Christ, to distinguish his kingdom from the 
 kingdoms of this world ; the things which belong 
 to God, from these which belong to Caesar: 
 and it is a distinction, bj all the rules of Logick ; 
 which teacheth us that different subjects, and the 
 accidents of different subjects, are really different 
 from one another: and that those things are 
 really distinct, of which one can exist without 
 the other. And thus distinct from the State did 
 the Church actually exist, during the first 300 
 years of its History. As the Sacraments of the 
 Church are the Sacraments of Christ, the ad-. 
 
105 
 
 ministrators of them must consequently be the 
 Ministers of Christ. Whatever allowances then 
 may, on the ground of charity, have been made 
 for those irregularities, which from time to time 
 have taken place in these matters, still the gene- 
 ral principle on which the Church has proceeded, 
 is, that, extraordinary cases excepted, which must 
 be left with God, nothing, in the communication 
 o-f Church privileges, can supply the defect of the 
 ministerial commission. 
 
 Such was the principle on which the primitive 
 Church of the first Century uniformly proceeded. 
 And this was the principle, sanctioned by general 
 practice, which the venerable fathers of our 
 Church had before them at the Kcformation. 
 In conformity with which principle, established 
 by the example of Christ and the authority of his 
 Apostles, no man, or number of men, considered 
 merely as such, can any more commission a per- 
 son to ofHciate in Christ's name, than they can 
 enlarge the means of Grace, or add a new Sacra- 
 ment for the conv«yance of spiritual advantages. 
 The Ministers of Christ are as much positive 
 Ordinances, as the Sacraments ; and we might as 
 well think, that Sacraments not instituted by 
 Christ might be binding upon Christ, and prove 
 means of communicating grace from him to us, 
 as that those may pass for Ministers of Christ who 
 have no authority from him. The lano:uage ap- 
 plied to this important subject has changed, it is 
 true, with the changing opinions of the world ; 
 whilst the subject itselt', the Church of Christ, 
 
io6 
 
 being a kingdom not of this world, can never 
 change; but partakes of the character of its 
 divine Founder, '' the same yesterday, to day, 
 and for ever." 
 
 Still I have said that the Toleration Act fur- 
 nishes the most decided argument against the 
 cause which was brought before you for judg- 
 ment. And the argument is this— The Tolera- 
 tion Act you observe, has " changed the whole 
 shape of the thing." It certainly has, and in 
 the following important respect. The Tolera- 
 tion Act considers Dissenters to be no longei* 
 Members of the Church of England ; and as such 
 exempts them " from prosecutions in any Ecclesi- 
 astical Courts, for their non-conformity." The 
 Canons then can now be considered as bearing 
 ojily on those who still continue Members of the 
 Church. Had not the Toleration Act granted to 
 Dissenters this exemption from Ecclesiastical 
 discipline, an obstinate Dissenter might at this 
 time have been placed in that situation, which 
 might have precluded him from Church Burial 
 on the ground of the 68th Canon. In conse-. 
 quence of this exemption, the 68th Canon doess 
 not now bear upon him. But the Legislature, 
 by thus exempting the Dissenter from prosecu- 
 tion in any Ecclesiastical Court, for his non-con- 
 formity, could not mean, that he should thereby 
 be at liberty to put himself, when he 'pleased, 
 under the Canons ; (from the operation of which 
 he himself had been secured,) for the purpose of 
 -instituting a prosecution in an Ecclesiastical 
 
107 
 
 Court agninst a Clergyman of the Church, from 
 which he V'irn^elf, at his own desire, had been 
 permitted to separate. 
 
 You observe, (p. 34.) that the 68th Canon 
 onlv excepis from burial one " denounced ex- 
 communicated majori excommunicatione for some 
 grievous and notorious crime, and no man to 
 testify of his repentance.' To which you add, 
 that *' an infant baptized by a Presbyterian 
 Minister or by a Layman^ would surely not have 
 come within this exception." — Surely not. But 
 no infant can at any time, let him be baptized by 
 whom he may, come within the exception men- 
 tioned in the 68th Canon ; because excomunica- 
 tion majori excomviunicattone, pre-supposes a 
 sufficient degree of personal responsibility in the 
 party in question. The just conclusion therefore 
 to be drawn from the foregoing circumstance, 
 appears to me to be this ; that it being impossi- 
 ble that any infant should be in the bituation, in 
 which the 6Sth Canon places the person to whom 
 Burial is to be refused ; no Bishop, it is pre- 
 sumed, will feel himself justified in enforcing the 
 sanction of the 68th Canon in a case, to which 
 that Canon cannot apply. But you sa (p. lO) "If 
 the child did not die unabaptized, then the Mi- 
 nister has violated the 68ih Canon, by a refusal, 
 not justified by any excepiion contained in it.'* 
 To an hypothetical position it may be sufficient 
 to answer hypotheLicailij ; that, supi^'osing a child 
 to have died bapiized, in the jt. 'gmcnt of the 
 Church of England, a Clergytuan cer'aiulv could 
 
108 
 
 Mot be justified in bis refusal of burial, on the 
 ground of an exception contained in a Canon, 
 by which the child in question could not be af- 
 fected. At the same time I beg leave respect- 
 fully to observe; on the principle that every law^ 
 particularly when regarded with a relation to its 
 penalty, should be taken in its letter ; from the 
 circumstance of nothing being said in the 68th 
 Canon on the subject of Baptism, coupled with 
 the consideration that the Canon was made for 
 those who have been baptized into the Church of 
 England, together with the impossibility of the 
 party in question coming within the exception 
 mentioned in it, that no Minister, by his refusal 
 to bury a child who had been baptized by a 
 Dissenting teacher, could, by any legal construc- 
 tion practised in this country, be deemed a vio- 
 lator of the 68th Canon. For unless the 68th 
 Canon, besides the exclusion which you have 
 noticed, did also contain an express direction to 
 the Clergy to bury all persons, by whomsoever 
 baptized, I do not understand how the refusal to 
 bury a child, circumstanced as the one in ques- 
 tion, could become a violation of it. And were 
 the Minister concerned in the present cause to 
 speak for himself, he would probably say, that 
 the office of burial was not refused the child on 
 the ground of the 68th Canon ; but on the prin* 
 ciple, on which the Ancient Church uniformly 
 proceeded, and on which the Church of England, 
 in conformity with her established discipline, must 
 be supposed to proceed; namelyabecause, the child 
 
had never been admitted into the communion of 
 thatChiirch, to whose members the office in ques- 
 tion, did, in his judgment, exclusively belong. 
 To what you have advanced on the subject of 
 the statute passed in the 25ih of Geo. III. it is 
 unnecessary that I should say any thing, since it 
 cannot fail to occur to you, Sir, on further con- 
 sideration, that a statute made for the single 
 purpose of levying a tax on regis; ercd Baptisms, 
 respects Dissenters, so far as they might be con- 
 cerned in it in their civil character only, as sub- 
 jects of this realm ; and could have nothing to 
 do with the determination of any religious rights: 
 that it could not impose any fresh duty x)n the 
 Ministers of the established Church, which had 
 not been previously imposed upon them by the 
 discipline of that Church ; that the duty which it 
 is the object of your judgment to enforce, could 
 not be within the purlieu of that statute ; and 
 consequently, that your appeal to it can add no 
 strength to your argument. 
 
 On the opinions of different writers, relative 
 to the point at issue, I may be brief; because 
 those of them, whom you conclude to be in 
 your favor, do not appear to have had that 
 particular case before ihem, to which your judg- 
 ment ought to have been immediately directed. 
 The admission of the validity of Lay Baptism 
 under certain circumstances by the Church, and 
 the right of a person baptized in Schism, and dy- 
 ing out of communion with the Church, to burial 
 by the Church, are two such different cases ; that 
 
110 
 
 it cannot be supposed, but that a very different 
 opinion would have been given upon them, by 
 suciT a man as Hooker. With respect to the 
 other anthorilies to which you have appealed in 
 support of your judgment, as they were Bishops 
 of the Church of England, it will be becoming 
 in me to be silent; particularly, as it is not 
 necessary that any thing should be said ; since 
 their opinions, as individuals, do not constitute 
 the standard, by which the Constitution of the 
 Church of England is to be determined. Of 
 their authorities therefore I may without injury 
 to the cause I have undertaken, leave you in full 
 passession. 
 
 The language v/bich you make use of in taking 
 Jeave of the case, I am unwilling to notice : be- 
 cause it does not appear to me to be the language 
 suited, either to the cause, or to the character of 
 the person who used it. 
 
 Li alluding to the conduct of the Clergy you 
 observe, that '^ It is by a lenient interpretation of 
 the Laws of Disability and Exclusion, and not by 
 a captious, and Vexatious construction and appli- 
 catioa of them,, that the true interests and the 
 true dignity of the Church establishment are best 
 supported. " — P. 46. 
 
 When you shall have favored us with the pre- 
 *cise meaning intended to be conveyed in the fore- 
 going passage, we may be able to determine, how 
 4ar*tbc true interests of the Church establishment 
 -may, or may not be supported by it. And this 
 .ap.peai-s most necessary to be done ; because th^ 
 
Ill 
 
 general language of your statement is of so loose 
 and indefinite a kind, as to leave the reader at 
 a loss to determine, where, in your opinion, the 
 boundary between the Church and the Meeting 
 House is to be drawn. In considering this 
 language however in i(s application to the con- 
 duct of the Clergy, with an immediate reference 
 to the point at issue, I must beg to observe, that 
 the case in question did not relate to a matter of 
 indulgence, but of right. In the opening of your 
 statement you very properly remark, " That it is 
 not matter of option ; it is not matter of expedi- 
 ency and benevolence, whether a Clergyman 
 shall administer the Burial Service or refuse it ; 
 but a positive matter of duty ; that should a per- 
 son die unbaptized within the true meaning of 
 'the Rubric, he was enjoined by law not to per- 
 form the service." What is required then of the 
 Clergy in this case, according to your own 
 judgment, is a strict observance of the Law to 
 which they are professionally bound to conform ; 
 it being a positive matter of duty, not of expedi- 
 ency or benevolence, that they have before them. 
 — On this ground. Sir, I take my stand. And af- 
 ter having paid all due and respectful attention to 
 what you have said on the subject of Lay Bap- 
 tism, I feel myself called on by my professional 
 character to maintain, that in the true^ i. e. the ec- 
 clesiastical meaning of the Rubric, the Clergyman 
 against whom this complaint was exhibited, Wxts 
 justified in considering the child in question to 
 be unbaptized ; and in consequence of the child 
 
11^ 
 
 never having been aclmiKed a Member of the 
 Church of England, was authorized, by the uni- 
 versal practice of the Church, not to perform 
 the service. 
 
 With respect to *' the true interests and true 
 cHgnity of the Church Establishment;" they, it will 
 be agreed on all hands, must be best supported, 
 when the Clergy, in the dischage of their high 
 office, act conscientiously on a principle of duty. 
 The Clergyman in question must be supposed to 
 have acted on this principle. Because, accord- 
 ing to that rule of charity, which ought to prevail 
 universally, every man is to be given credit for 
 acting on a good principle, should there be no 
 strong ground to conclude that he acts upon a 
 bad one. And in proportion to the disgrace 
 which the acting on a bad principle reflects on a 
 Clergyman, ought to be our backwardness to 
 admit the fact. 
 
 Permit me then to a k, whether a Clergyman 
 acting in his profession, as he considered, on a 
 principle of duty, ought to have received such 
 language, as you indirectly applied to him in a 
 Court, sitting under the authority of the Church ; 
 from which he might reasonably have expected, 
 under the circumstances of his case, all that pro- 
 tection and indulgence, which the equity of such 
 a Court was capable of extending towards him ? 
 We now turn to the other side of the case. 
 And here we find a Dissenter, himself enjoying 
 The Rights of Conscience in their fullest extent, 
 engaged in carrying on a vexatious suit in the 
 
113 
 
 Ecclesiastical Court, for the purpose of conipet- 
 ling a Clergyman to perform a service, which, 
 consistently with the dictates of his conscience^ he 
 cannot perform ; because, in the performance of 
 it, he must not only indirectly assert an untruth, 
 but act in opposition to those principles, which 
 in his judgement are of the greatest importance i 
 A service which the Dissenter himself disap- 
 proves, (for this was a portion of our Liturgy to 
 which the original Dissenters particularly ob- 
 jected;) and from which he can derive no possi- 
 ble advantage : in insisting on which therefore, 
 the only object a Dissenter can be supposed to 
 have in view, must be the gratification of a little 
 mind in the obtaining, if so it might be, of a 
 temporary triumph over the Clergy of the esta- 
 blishment. Permit me now. Sir, to request you 
 hold the scale with an even hand; and then to 
 tell me, on which side the charge of vexation 
 ought to be placed ; on the side of the party 
 who, with no object of advantage to himself, 
 brings a vexatious suit ; or on that of the person, 
 who, Jrom a principle of duty, is reluctantly 
 obliged to defend himself against it ? — Injustice 
 to your character. Sir, I ought not, I think, to 
 wait for an answer. 
 
 To your conclusion upon the whole of the 
 case, " that the Minister refusiug to bury this 
 child acted illegally;'' it will be sufficient for me 
 thus briefly to object. No man can be consider- 
 ed to have acted illegally ^ who has not acted 
 against the letter or spirit of soJD.e known law. 
 
114 
 
 You observe, (p. \ 7) that " the Court has only 
 to administer the law as it finds it." To this 
 position we readily subscribe. At the same time 
 it is submitted to consideration, whether the 
 law by which a sentence is to be justified, ought 
 not to be fiv^i found, before the sentence, which 
 is supposed to proceed from it, be pronounced* 
 On the present occasion, no Law of the State was 
 produced by you bearing directly or indirectly on 
 the point at issue. The only Law of the Church 
 to which you appealed, was the 68 th Canon, 
 But this, for reasons above specified, cannot ap- 
 ply to the present case. It follows then, upon 
 the principle laid down in Scripture, *' where no 
 law is, there is no transgression;'* and adopted 
 by our excellent Constitution ; which permits no 
 man to be condemned, but on the ground of 
 some knoivn law ; that the judgment which you 
 have pronounced is not to be maintained ; and 
 ought therefore to have been appealed from, not 
 only as illegal in itself, but as what may be made 
 severely oppressive to a body of men, who might, 
 it is presumed, in reason expect better things. 
 Your judgment,Sir, I beg leave to repeat itjOught, 
 in my opinion, to have been appealed from ; and 
 for a reason which, I trust, I may be permitted, 
 without disrespect to the judge, to submit to the 
 consideration of Sir J. Nicholl. — Every Law must 
 be understood in the sense of its makers; unless 
 in consequence of a subsequent revision, the 
 sense of the law in question should be changed 
 by authority equal to that by which it was origi- 
 
Hi 
 
 nally enacted. The 68th Canon, that Ecclesi* 
 astical Law, on which your judgment appears to 
 be built, derives its authority from the Convoca- 
 tion in l603. No subsequent Act of Convoca- 
 tion having altered the letter of this Canon, and 
 the establishment of ihe Church in this country 
 continuing the same it vv^as when this Canon was 
 made, it must consequently be understood, by 
 the Clergy of the present day, according to the 
 meaning of iu original makers. But the original 
 makers of the 68th Canon, could have no such 
 case in contemplation, as that to which your judg- 
 ment was directed ; to no such case consequently 
 can this Canon, in their sense of it, be applied. 
 The question then is, and with all due respect it 
 is submitted to consideration j how far, consist- 
 ently with the ends of justice, the discretion of a 
 judge may accommodate an old law to the cir- 
 cumstances of a modern case, to which the law 
 in question, at the time of its construction, could 
 have had no possible reference. I tike not upon 
 me to answer this question ; but without any di- 
 rect application to the case in hand, I beg leave 
 to submit to notice ^vhat a great luminary of the 
 law once said on this important subject : " It is 
 better (said the late Lord Camden) to leave a 
 rule inflexible, than to permit it to be bent by the 
 discretion of a judge. The discretion of a judge 
 is the law of tyrants : it is ahvays unknown ; it 
 is different in different men ; it is casual, and 
 depends upon constitution, temper, and passion. 
 
 < 
 
lldr 
 
 In the best, it Is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, 
 it is every vice, folly and passion, to which 
 human nature is liable." And when it is consi- 
 dered, that a society for supporting what are. 
 called the Civil Rights of Dissenters ^actually 
 exists, (under which plausible misnomer, to judge 
 from the present cause. Ecclesiastical Rights are 
 meant ;) on the strength of whose fund, if I am 
 rightly informed, all vexatious prosecutions of 
 this kind are to be carried on; I can have no 
 hesitation in saying, on the ground of this as^ 
 sumed fact, that wh^n Sectarists thus associate, 
 it is time for the Clergy to act in concert, with 
 a view to self-defence ; unless they are content- 
 ed to let judgment go against them by default ; 
 or, what is of still higher consideration, lobe 
 recorded in 'J^cclesiastical History, as faithless 
 deserters from that sacred commission, with 
 which they have been auihoritatively intrusted : 
 Confident, that if the Clergy of the Church of 
 England, do but stand on the vantage ground, 
 on which the constitution of their country has 
 placed them, whilst they are prepared to satisfy 
 Gainsaycr?, that in the discharge of professional 
 duty, tocy are not governed by illiberal prejudice, 
 but by conscientious conviction ; at the same 
 time that they manifest towards those who un- 
 happily separate from them that spirit of charity, 
 which is not less the glory of our Church, than 
 it is the characteristic of Christ's religion ; their 
 eneiTiies will never, we trust, be permitted to 
 prevail against them. An opinion in which I 
 
127 
 
 feci myself supported, Jn some degree at leasts 
 hy the coRsideration, that a cause, precisely she 
 same in kind with the one brought before you^ 
 has been lately tried in the Consistory Couht 
 of Glocester ; the issue of which, thoogh, in 
 consequence of your previous judgmeot io the 
 Court of Arches, it was not defended on the 
 broad ground which I have had the honor to lay 
 before you, and on which, in my opinion, it cer- 
 tainly might have ,been ; was still favourable io 
 the defendant : The conclusion on the part of his 
 advocate being this ; " That he had acted legality 
 jusii/zabl^f and according io the Uulric$^ Canons, 
 and Constitutions of the Churchy and that, if he 
 had acted otherwise, he would have been liable 
 tp the censures of his Ordinary, for disobedience 
 of them. It is therefore prayed, that this suit 
 niay be dismissed with costs, to be paid by the 
 PROMOTER." It will be sufficient to add, that 
 the judgment of the Court accorded with the 
 prayer of the defendant. 
 
 In passing over the ground which I marked 
 out to myself on the present occasion, it hasbeea 
 my object. Sir, to do justice to the arguments 
 which you advanced, not less than to the proofs 
 which you adduced, in support of the judgment, 
 which, as " OfHcial Principal of the Arches 
 Court of Canterbury," you lately pronounced. 
 If I have omitted to comment on some matters 
 of lesser moment, which might furnish subject 
 for animadversion to a captious opponent^ it 
 
 32 
 
IIB 
 
 because I wish to appear In the more respectable 
 character ofanhoncst Minister of theChurch, who 
 would wish to attain to the full and complete 
 sense of his author, at the same time that he is 
 anxious for the preservation of an establishment, 
 in which he conceives the honor of God and the 
 peace of his country are essentially concerned ; 
 but which the latitudinarian principles, upon 
 which your judgment proceeds, appear to him 
 materially to affect. Indeed nothing but the 
 consideration of your statement, as it strikes me, 
 being calculated to put out of sight the original 
 Gonsiitution of the Church of Christ, which the 
 established Church of this country is, under God, 
 I trust, intended to preserve among us, would 
 have induced me to enter upon its examination ; 
 being fully persuaded, that were the subject of 
 the Church, in these days so generally neglected, 
 better understood ; there would be among us 
 more of true piety, of charity, and of those vir- 
 tues which chracterize the Christian profession, 
 than is now, alas ! to be found, And this task I 
 should most readily have foregone, could I have 
 heard that any person, whose opinion would 
 not fail to derive weight from his more exalted 
 station, was about to undertake it. For any 
 thing in the shape of controversy, however from 
 some unavoidable circumstances I have been 
 occasionally engaged in it, is certainly what I do 
 not love. 
 
 In proceeding however to the conclusion, 
 which remains to be drawn from what has been, 
 
119 
 
 advanced, I would be understood, as not mean- 
 ing to charge you, Sir, with an intention hostile 
 to the Church of Christ ; for that might not b* 
 more unjust to you, than it would be unbecom- 
 ing in me ; but rather as desirous of submitting 
 to your consideration, with all due respect, some 
 few things in a plain way, which to my mind 
 seem calculated to convince you ; that the prin- 
 ciples which you have laid down, are irrecon- 
 cileable with the establishment of that Church in 
 this country, if not with its existence in the 
 world. 
 
 In the present day, when so much less atten- 
 tion is paid to Church matters, than at some for- 
 mer periods of our history, correct information* 
 on these important subjects is rarely to be obtain- 
 ed, but from those who -have made them theic 
 professional study. 
 
 But, whilst we cannot but deeply lament that 
 general want of zeal for our religious establish- 
 ment, through the beguiling spirit of liberali- 
 ty, falsely so called^ now creeping upon us p 
 than which nothing can furnish a more demon- 
 strative proof, that a rectitude of sentiment in: 
 religion, is no longer considered to be of that 
 essential importance, that it ance was ; we yet 
 flatter ourselves, that there is still to be found a 
 great botly of sound principled professors, who, 
 alive to the cause of genuine Christianity, regard 
 the Church of Christ as the divine candlesticky 
 placed by particular Providence, for the purpose 
 of preserving the light of Gospel truth in this 
 
1^0 
 
 favoured country. And thus seeing it, we must 
 bope, in spite of those occasional defections from, 
 and that growing inditFercncc to, the things of 
 Christ which we deplore, that the Clergy of the 
 Church ofEngland, as a body, will still continu« 
 to be, what their predecessors in the ministry 
 generally have been, the most learned, the most 
 zealous and most orthodox of Christian Divines. 
 
 Whilst then I may be expected to write as a 
 professional man, I write in hopes that the differ- 
 ence of opinion, now unfortunately subsisting 
 between us, on the question at issue, is more to 
 be attribmed to the different employments in 
 which our lives have been engaged, than to any 
 other cause. 
 
 Did the question at issue relate to the burial of 
 a Dissenter, a> a. mere matter of connivance, or 
 convenience, or accomodation, it would not be 
 a matter of much importance ; and need never 
 to have been brought under discussion. But 
 when this buriaJ is insisted upon as a right on the 
 one side, and made compulsory on the Clergy 
 on the other, it must be considered, not merely 
 in itself, bat iii connection with the conclusions 
 to which it leads, and the consequences which it 
 involves. In condescension to the prejudices of 
 others, St. Paul went so far as to circumcise Ti- 
 mothy, even after th? Apostolical Decree, made in 
 full Council at Jerusalem, had abrogated circum- 
 cision. — Acts XV i. 3, 4. Yet afterwards, when 
 circumcision was considered to be an engagement 
 to ihe whole Law^ and the conceding this one 
 
121 
 
 point, was but to teach the parties in question to 
 ask more until nothing remained to be deniedj 
 then he suffers not Titus to be circumcised, 
 " nor give place to them by submission, no, not 
 for an hour." — Gal. ii. 3, 5. 
 
 When you say that " If the Law has not ex- 
 cluded Dissenters from this ordinary right ot 
 Christianity and humanity, the Ministers of thd 
 Church will not surely be degraded by perform- 
 ing the office ;" — you do not appear to me. Sir, 
 to place the subject on its proper ground. No 
 Clergyman, I flatter myself, would feel himselt 
 degraded in performing this or any other charita- 
 ble office towardsDissenterSjShould he really think 
 that, in so doing, he might become the instru- 
 ment of real good to any of his Christian Brethren. 
 But though charity should be universal, still it 
 must not interfere with those other principles of 
 duty, by which the Minister of Christ's Church 
 ought to be distinguished. Whilst therefore, in 
 the true Spirit of the Gospel, he makes every 
 charitable allowance for the different opinions ot 
 others, he must not himself be so unsettled, as 
 in any way to compromise his own. 
 
 It is not, I confess, without some degree of 
 diffidence, accompanied with a due portion ot 
 respect for your official character, that I have 
 taken upon me to deliver an opinion in decided 
 opposition to the judgment which you have pro- 
 nounced on a case, the circumstances of which 
 you must be supposed to have well weighed^ 
 And should my sentiments on Church subject 
 
be proved to be erroneous, there will still remain 
 to me the satisfaction of thinking, that I err in 
 company with some of the most exalted Chris- 
 tians, and best informed Divines that this or any 
 other country ever produced. Presuming how- 
 ever, that the Church of Christ, is to be seen in 
 the light in which it has been placed in a former 
 part of this letter, as a spiritual society, instituted 
 by Christ, for the express purpose of conveying, 
 through his ambassadors and ministers, spiritual 
 privileges and blessings to its members ; to know 
 that he is a member of such a favored society, 
 cannot but be a subject of primary satisfaction to 
 every considerate man. When then I look back 
 to the infant days of this Christian Society, and 
 find the government of it originally delivered by 
 Christ to his Apostles; and, following the history, 
 trace the same government successively handed 
 down to the present Governors of the Church in 
 this country; I c^n be at no loss to determine, to 
 what Society of professing Christians it is not 
 more my interest, than it is my duty to belong. 
 And though I must respect every Dissenter, who 
 really dissents from the Church of England, on a 
 conscientious principle; still uhen I regard the 
 excellent form of doctrine and discipline, after 
 the primitive model, exhibited by that pure 
 branch cf the Church of Christ, from which he 
 separates, together with all the blessings derivable 
 from communion with the Church of England, 
 I cannot but deeply lament his separation. For 
 the Church of England shews in the most perfect 
 
123 
 
 way, how the spiritual life, like the natural, pr©- 
 ceeds, in connection with her, as a tender mother, 
 by gradual stages of advancement from its infan- 
 cy in Baptism, till it arrives, through the aids of 
 grace successively derived from God's Ordi- 
 nances, unto the measure of the stature of the 
 fullness of Christ. Whilst I most earnestly wish 
 that the consideration so peculiarly necessary in 
 the present day, might prevail with him, which 
 induced Bishop Morton, in his epistle to the 
 non-conformists of his day, to remind them "(be- 
 sides their notorious scandals given to the Church 
 of God itself,) of their breaking of the hedge of 
 peace, and opening the gap for the wild boar out 
 of the Romish forest to enter in, and root out that 
 goodly vine, which many Pauls, (industrious 
 Bishops) and many Apostles, (faithful Martyrs,) 
 have planted and watered." And when I consi- 
 der moreover, the great objects which our Savi- 
 our had in view in putting his Church un<ler a 
 regularly appointed government, when he for- 
 mally committed the power of the keys to his vir- 
 tual representatives on earth ; namely, the pro- 
 motion of peace, unity, and concord among 
 Christians, as the best means of preserving the 
 true faith in the world ; when considering these 
 things, I must confess myself to be at a loss to 
 reconcile that multifarious system of religious 
 worship and goverment, which is to be found in 
 what yoQ call by the general name of the " Chris^ 
 tian Churchy" with this divine, this consistent 
 plan. Indeed it must be concluded, that th« 
 
124 
 
 iinhaDpy divisions which have taken place among 
 Christians ii7 religion^ Oiatter?;, which are calcu- 
 lated so effectuallv to defeat the above important 
 objects, cannot have proceeded from the God of 
 Order, but from that grand enemy of the Church 
 of Christ, the author and promoter of confusion, 
 and of every evil v.^ork. 
 
 Observing then in your stateiTJent, that all de- 
 nominations of Christians are represented as 
 equally Members of *• tke Christian Church \^ I 
 am led to conclude, either that by the Church, 
 of which you speak, cannot be meant that Society 
 originally instituted by Christ; or that your oe?zer- 
 alizing system is calculated to efface every mark, 
 by which the true Church of Christ was meant 
 to be distinguished. Should it indeed'be the policy 
 of the present day to give up the established 
 Constitution of our Church, in compliment to 
 those who separate from it, or from fear of those 
 who loudly declaim against it ; nothing, I con- 
 ceive, can be more favorable to such an yielding 
 system, than that generalizing notion on which 
 your judgment proceeds; which, by making no 
 distinction between the regular and irregular ad- 
 ministration of the Sacraments, places the Church 
 and the Meeting House on the same level. But, 
 should our Governors be disposed, as it must be 
 presumed that they are, to deliver down to pos- 
 terity the Church of this country under that 
 apostolical form, in which they have received it ; 
 they will not fail to bear their decided testimony 
 against that unlimited construction, which you 
 
1^5 
 
 appear to annex to the discharge of the Evangeti- 
 cal Commission. 
 
 The existence of every society, as such, 
 must depend on its alEFairs being managed by 
 £hose, to whom the government of it has been 
 rfegularly committed; and to whom, as governors, 
 the admission of Members, to the rights and pri- 
 vileges of that society necessarily belongs* Stscb 
 fs the general pJan on which all societies, regu-^ 
 iar'y formed, have been conducted. If then, 
 according to the general notion which von appear 
 to entertain of the Christian Chiirch ; the Baptism 
 of the Presbyterian, of the lodependant, or of 
 any other of that anomalous Host of Ministers, 
 which the loose construction oi the Toleration 
 Act has poured forth upon this divided country, 
 does admit to the rights and privileges of the 
 Apostolic Church of England ; of which these 
 Ministers, as professedly dissenting from that 
 Church, are not themselves Members ; the Church 
 of England does not, in such case, stand upon a 
 level with any other regular society, either civil 
 or religious, that we are acquainted with. For if 
 the Church of England be compellable to admit 
 (he validity of irregular Baptism, in contradiction 
 to her own established order ; she is thereby de- 
 prived of that privilege, exercised by every other 
 religious society, of making a rule for herself in 
 the administration of her religious concerns : 
 being, in such case, obliged to submit to a rule 
 made by those who separate from her communion. 
 Under these circumstances the Church of Eng- 
 
12(5 
 
 land ; as a branch of that separate society ori- 
 ginally founded by Christ, cannot, without a per- 
 petual miracle in its favor, continue long in the 
 world. For how can any society subsist as such^ 
 when deprived of the power of making a rule for 
 its members ? And yet, Sir, if I mistake not, 
 such is the general system for which you plead ; 
 for the apparent purpose of investing wilful 
 Dissenters from the Church of England with a 
 title to those rights, which belong only to its 
 own Members ; in direct contradiction to what 
 has been the uniform practice of the Church of 
 Christ, from the days of the Apostles down to 
 the present time. 
 
 To the foregoing statement permit me to sub- 
 join the following short though pertinent consi- 
 derations: — If all Ministers of religion are to be 
 considered as equally Ministers of the Church of 
 Christ, and Baptism by a person who may derive 
 his authority to officiate in holy things from him- 
 self, or from the Magistrate, admits to the privi- 
 leges of the Church of England equally with Bap- 
 tism by the Minister, who has received the regu- 
 lar commission from the head of that Church ; we 
 shall^ I conceive, find it difficult to produce an 
 argument, by which the exclusive rights of the 
 Clergy of this country can be supported. The 
 Church of England, it may be said, will still be 
 the national Church ; but that, it must be sup- 
 posed, cannot be of long duration; since, to 
 speak in the phrase of Tindal, it is not reasonable 
 that revenues should be annexed to one opinion 
 more than another, when all are equally lawful. 
 
n7 
 
 Should we therefore admit the correctness of that 
 generalizing notion, which you appear to have 
 adopted on this occasion, according to which, 
 professing Christians of every description and per- 
 suasion are made Members of one and the same 
 Christian Church, I know of no purpose to which 
 such admission could minister so much, as to that 
 of preparing the public rnind for the downfall of 
 our envied Establishment.* 
 
 • A circumstance, which appears to be necessarily connect 
 ed with the deciwon under notice, is, with all due deference, 
 submited to the jadgment of my Ecclcbiastical Superiors. Thr 
 Church of England, treading in the steps of the primitive 
 Church, hath decided ; and the constitution of this country hath 
 establistied her decision, as part of her Ecclesiastical disciplinej 
 that no ministration of Sacraments in this country is lawful, but 
 such as is performed by Ministers duly authorized. On this 
 ground, the Orders, ot pretended Orders, as they are called in 
 the Act of Toleration, of persons separating from the Church 
 of England, (Romanists excepted) are by her disallowed ; a« 
 not furnishing authority for rhe lawful discharge of the minis- 
 terial office. No person unfurnished with lawful authority to 
 discharge an office, can, it is presumed, be capable, properly 
 speaking, of performing z legal act in it. But by the decision 
 of Sir J. Nicholl, what, in the judgment of the Church, is an 
 illegal administration of a Sacrament, has been made a legal 
 initiation into the Church. If then the decision of Sir J. Ni- 
 choll is competent to legalize a Sacrament, which is declared 
 to be illegal by the established constitution of the Church of 
 England, it must be equally competent to Irgalize Orders, con- 
 sidered to be illegal by the same authority. Should therefore 
 the Clergy be called on to submit to the decision of Sir J Ni- 
 choll in the one case, I would ask, on what principle the Bi- 
 hQps can refuse to submit to it in the oihcr ? Oa the suppoii- 
 
'128 
 
 Bat, a consideration of strll greater importance 
 presents kself to my mind on this subject ; and 
 it rs this: — In consequeDce of that heterogeneous 
 mixture of professing Christians of every descrip- 
 tion, which yoa bring together into one and the 
 same Christian Church ; shoald the true Church &f 
 Christ, by the judgment of Heaven, be no longer 
 to be distinguished among us, the standard of 
 faith must be lost with it ; and in such case, re- 
 ligiotis distinctions will become subjects of indif- 
 
 Jion ihen xhzx Sir J. Nkholl shoulJ, oa some faUire occasion, 
 dterde lor iba legality and validity ef irregular Orders, as 
 ^uslifying for the discharge of ihe ministerial office in the 
 Ghuicb oi Eag!a!id J which he cei laiiil}? might do with the same 
 prepritiy ihal lie Kss deevLifdon the legality/ and vaiidiiy of isr- 
 legaiar Bapfistn.as admitting inSo its communion ; ii not being, 
 as ] conceive, in the power of Sir J. Nicholl to pjoduce any law, 
 \»hicb has determined Baplism by an senautkorizeU person, {o, 
 fee, in itself, " a legal and valid initiation into the Christian 
 Church ;" 1 would be glad to know, on what principle a Bi- 
 shop could rcltjse his license to a person in egulafly ordained, 
 sbooid he be furnished with all other necessary credentials, 
 which would not justify a Clergyman in refasing to acknow- 
 ledge the official act of such an irregular Minister. For the 
 coKiptttncy of Sir J. NichoU to make a decision in contraclictioa 
 to the established constitution of the Church of England, which 
 shaH be binding upon its Cicigy, mnstj it is presumed, be tqua!, 
 ©n whai'ever part of thai body it nnay bs brought to. bear. In a 
 word, it must bind universathj, or not at all. And when it is 
 considered, that the Judge is not the Maker, but only the 
 Interpreter and Declarer of the law, no doubi, it is presunied, 
 can remain on this subject — Suoiild the foregoing reasoning be' 
 incorrect, I shall hold roysslt obliged to the person who will 
 point out its fallacy. 
 
129 
 
 ference ; because men will be at a loss to ascertala 
 by^ what authority in religious matiers they ought 
 to be determined. This state of things, which 
 can be acceptable to none but to the free-thinker, 
 every sincere lover of the truth, as it is in Christ 
 Jesus, will most earnestly deprecate ; from the 
 consideration that it cannot fail to contribute to 
 the growth of that general infidelity, in sowing 
 the seeds of which the grand enemy of souls seems 
 at this time to be most industriously employed. 
 
 The foregoing considerations, lead me to the 
 following general conclusion ; that I should 
 consider myself as an apostate from the sacred 
 cause, for the promotion of which I am solemnly 
 pledged, were I, by what you call " a lenient and 
 a liberal,^* but what I should consider to be a 
 loose ard mistaken " Interpretation of the Laws 
 of Disability and Exclusion," to become acces- 
 sary to the promotion of this unscriptural senti- 
 Hafent; that the spirit of unity among Chris- 
 tians, for which our Saviour so earnestly prayed ; 
 and which his Apostles so strongly inculcated ; 
 was no longer considered to be a subject of im- 
 portance. 
 
 In this view of things, you cannot be surprised 
 to find me strongly, though respectfully, protest- 
 ing against your judgment ; and particularly ori 
 the ground, that it would oblige the Clergy, 
 against the dictates of their conscience, to con- 
 nive at the unchristian sin of Schism j by com- 
 pelling them to read a service, w'hich indirectly 
 leads to the persuasion, that it is a matter of indif- 
 
130 
 
 fcrenco, whether a person lives in communion with 
 the Church, or with the Meeting House. Unless 
 then, you can convince me, that, because the 
 Legislature of this country has thought fit to 
 tolerate Schism, it therefore ceases to be a sin 
 in the eyes of the divine Head of the Church ; 
 or that such a sin can have no existence under 
 the Christian dispensation ; in which case, I shall 
 only say with the learned Sherlock, ** that the 
 whole Christian Church, ever since the Apostles* 
 time, has been in a great mistake ;*' I must take 
 leave to think, that a Minister of the Church will 
 draw upon himself a most awful responsibility, 
 who shall in any way become instrumental in 
 promotrng such a persuasion in the world. 
 
 You may say perhaps, that I have pushed 
 your language beyond its intended meaning. 
 
 To this it is answered ; that I am not now 
 considering what was the particular meaning 
 annexed by yourself io the language here referred 
 to J but what ideas such language is calculated 
 to convey to the minds of sound Churchmen, 
 It is possible. Sir, and I think most probable, that 
 you may not have seen the subject of the Church 
 in the light in which it has been here placed. 
 But should it have been placed in a true light, it 
 will not, I flatter myself, on that account, meet 
 with an unv/elcome reception from the ofRcial 
 principal of an Ecclesiastical Court. 
 
 In fact. Sir, the subject, which your statement 
 has brought immediately before the public, de- 
 rives much of its apparent difficult) from that too 
 
general ignorance with respect to the Constitu- 
 tion of Christ's Church, which has long been 
 growing upon us. And it is in consequence of 
 that ignorance having at length advanced so far, 
 as in a manner to put out of sight the just cri- 
 terion, by which alone a correct judgment upon 
 it is to be formed, that the question at issue be- 
 tween the Church and the Meeting-House, has 
 now, for the first time, been brouglit fordeci'^ioa 
 iato a Court. But if clear and undeniable evi- 
 dence in support of the principle here laid down, 
 that no person dying in a state of separation from 
 the Communion of the Church has any just claim 
 to the privileges of Church membership, is to 
 be drawn from the general discipline of the 
 Church in every age ; it is presumed, that the 
 separation from the Church of England, which 
 has taken place in this country since the days of 
 King Edward, when the present discipline was 
 first established, and since the primitive days of 
 Queen Elizabeth, when it was ratified and con- 
 firmed, will not be considered as furnishing any 
 sound argument against if. For in proportion as 
 wer trace back our steps through the pages of 
 the best informed Divines, up to the fountain of 
 our reformed establishment, our thoughts will 
 acquire that degree of consistency, which belongs 
 to the subject now under consideration. Indeed 
 could it have been foreseen, that an indulgence 
 granted to individuals for conscience' sake, and 
 for political reasons, would ever have been made 
 a ground for encroachment on the established 
 Discipline of the National Church, some provi* 
 
id2 
 
 eion would doubtless have been made against it. 
 But it was not to be foreseen that those who vo- 
 luntarily separated from the Church, because 
 they objected to her services, would ever become 
 suitors for the performance of them. Against 
 such an anomalous proceeding it never occurred 
 to our Legislators that any new remedy was nc- 
 (iessarv to be provided ; because they considered 
 the Churchj as a regular society, to be self pos- 
 sessed of a remedy adequate to the purpose. This 
 wisdom of our forefathers, however, is in these 
 days either deemed foolishness, or not properly 
 understood. Since we are now told from autho- 
 rity, that there exists a law which settles the 
 point at issue : whilst the object of your decision 
 is to determine, what ought to be the conduct of 
 the Clergy in conformity with the tenor of that 
 law : at the same time that you withhold from 
 them the satisfaction of knowing to what precise 
 Act of the Legislature* they are called upon to 
 
 • The 68th Canon as it has been already observed, cannot 
 be applied to the present case. Because every interpretation of 
 the Canons, to be correct^ must be in conforaiity with the 
 principle on which the Canons were first made. To in., 
 terpret ihem otherwise, is to divert them from their intended 
 object, and consequently to misapply ibem. The Canons of 
 the Church of England are, it is true, to the Dissenters, in con- 
 sequence of the Toleration Act, become a dead letter^ But be 
 this as it may ; every appeal to them as a living Utter to the 
 Clergy, as the ground of that ecclesiastical discipline on which 
 they profess to stand, miist, it is presumed, be accompanied 
 wiih a stiict adherence to the sense affixed to them by their 
 original establishers ; unless that sense has been either super- 
 seded, or altered by sotue subsequent and equally competent 
 authority. 
 
133 
 
 yield obedience. A satisfaction, to which it is pre- 
 sumed, that the Clergy of the Church of England, 
 from their known attatchment to the Constitution 
 of their country, might have been entitled. 
 
 When indeed I hear you say, that " If the 
 legal rights of the Church were affected, it would 
 not be more the duty than the inclinatioa of the 
 Court to uphold them ;'* I am bound in justice 
 to conclude, and it is with satisfaction I think, 
 that it was not from any disaffection to the 
 Church, but from your seeing the Rights of the 
 Church in a light different from that m which I 
 have placed them, that your judgment in the 
 present case has proceeded. But, by legal rights 
 are to be understood, as I apprehend, those 
 Rights belonging to the Church, as a spiniual 
 Society, which have been secured to it by the 
 established Constitution of this Country. Among 
 which we reckon principally, the adminis ration 
 of the Sacraments by Ministers lawfully appointed 
 by those, to whom authority has been committed 
 for that purpose ; together with the secure pos- 
 session of Church privileges and offices by those, 
 who have been regularly admitted into her com- 
 munion. Any unlawful interference therefore 
 with the spiritual office of the established Minis- 
 ter, or any irregular claim to a participation of 
 Church privileges or offices by those who are not 
 Members of her Communion, must, it is pre- 
 suined, be deemed, by an Ecclesiastical Courts, 
 to be an invasion of the legal rights of the Church. 
 If not, I should be glad to be informed, in what 
 the /e^a/ rights of the Churchy to which you allude^ 
 
do really consist. And when you shall have con- 
 sidered . e im| or! ant distinction between those 
 spiritual Rights, which the Church derives from 
 Christ, and those legal Rights and Privileges 
 for which she is indebted to her connection 
 with the State; (a debt which has ever been 
 acknowledged with service and gratitude ;) there 
 will not, I persuade myself, remain any great 
 difference of opinion between us on the present 
 subject.' — For it must ever be remembered, that 
 to any particular or national Church all worldly 
 alliances are but temporary considerations ; the 
 Church may be either with or without them, as it 
 was in the first ages: but the Church itself, un- 
 der the relation which it bears to Jesus Christ, 
 abideth for ever. 
 
 On the subject of Toleration, after what has 
 been already said, it is not necessary that I should 
 dwell. You. Sir, cannot possibly be a greater 
 advocate for it than I am. But then let it be To- 
 leration rightly understood and equally practised. 
 In such case religious liberty will not be interfered 
 with ; the Church will not be encroached upon ; 
 and our Constitution will continue undisturbed. 
 At the same time it may be observed, that it was 
 not the wish or intent of our Governors to e7iaci 
 by L'au\ separation from t; e| hurc i O: England ; 
 because, the Acts of Uniformity remaining unre- 
 pealed, conformity to the Church still continued 
 to be a legal obligation : and, to make use of 
 the language of a learned Commentator, " there 
 is always a difference to be made between Tole- 
 ration and Establishment.'" But being convinced 
 
135 
 
 that separation from the Church was not to be 
 prevented by legal penalties, their next object, 
 with a view to general peace, was to protect by, 
 Xa?/; conscientious Separstists, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, from the former consequences of il- 
 legal separation. And hence it came to pass, that 
 the improving Constilution of our Country at 
 length exhibited a singular specimen of political 
 wisdom, in an Established Church, and a free 
 Toleration. Indeed compulsion in religious 
 matters, it has been long known, can be produc- 
 tive of no good effects ; w^hilst, as a violation of 
 Man's natural Rights, it will, in all cases, be 
 resented accordingly. And no one who possesses 
 any portion of the true spirit of Christianity, can 
 wish that any other means should be employed 
 to bring Dissenters back to the Church, than 
 those of argument, persuasion, and good offices. 
 When these do not succeed. Dissenters should 
 be left to God, with our best wishes and prayers^ 
 For Christianity in its genuine character, is cer- 
 tainly the most charitable and benevolent insti- 
 tution that can be ; one mark among many 
 others, that it descended from the most benevo- 
 lent of all Beings. 
 
 Still, Sir, the Rights of the Church and 
 those of the Meeting-House need never inter- 
 fere with each other. The Toleration Act, 
 though not the best constructed in our Sta- 
 tute Book, has dravn a plain line of distinc- 
 tion between them. Dissenters originally sepa- 
 rated from the Church, because they objected to 
 her services, and revolted against her discipline. 
 
 k3 
 
136 
 
 The Toleration Act gratified their wishes by re- 
 lievine them from both. But it will not be de- 
 nied, that a Clergy man may plead conscience for 
 not reading the Burial Service over a person, ivho 
 is not a Member of the Church of England, as 
 well as a Dissenter" does for not conforming to 
 the Liturgy of that Church. And should we 
 say with a stronger reason on his side, it would 
 not, it is presumed, be saying too much. 
 
 If then the Right of Conscience, on what weak 
 ground soever it be set up, is religiously respected 
 and legally protected on the one side, should it 
 not be equally respected and protected on the 
 other ? Or are the Clergy the only persons in this 
 kingdom to whom the plea of Conscience is to be 
 denied ? — For reaMy I am at a loss to distinguish 
 between bringing the sentence of an Ecclesiasti- 
 cal Court against a Dissenter for not conforming 
 to the Constitutions of the Church of England, 
 and bringing it against a Clergyman for not con- 
 forming to the prejudices of a Dissenter. It ap- 
 pears to me to be the same species of persecution 
 differently applied. And if Dissenters are pro- 
 tected by the Toleration Act in their separation 
 trom the Church, at the same time that they 
 may claim a right, when they please, to partake 
 in the offices of the Church, without relinquish- 
 ing their separation, the Toleration Act does 
 not merely tolerate schism, but encourages it. 
 
 This matter does not appear to me to admit ot 
 any compromise. Either Dissenters are Mem- 
 bers of the Church of England, or they are not. 
 Th» Toleration Act considers them as Separatists 
 
137 
 
 from the Church, and provides for them as such. 
 No Minister of the Church of England, therefore, 
 who knows any thing of the nature and consti- 
 tution of Christ's Church, of which the Church 
 of England is a conspicuous branch, can admin- 
 ister to them the offices of that Church, whilst 
 they continue in wilful separation from it, with- 
 out making himself, by his connivance, an indi- 
 rect encourager of their schism. 
 
 I hesitate not to say further, that the Clergy 
 must not be so well informed, as they might be, 
 with respect to the state of the primitive Church, 
 the practice of what you call the ancient Church, 
 and the established Constitution of the Church 
 of England, should they not be able clearly to 
 discriminate between what appear to be your 
 notions of the Christian Church, and what ought 
 to be their own. 
 
 Should, however, occasional inconveniences 
 result to Dissenters on this account, a circum- 
 stance on which you lay some stress, (though to 
 me, Sir, vou appear to have considerably magni- 
 fied them) this circumstance can neither change 
 the nature ot truth, nor the constitution of the 
 Christian Church. 
 
 If then that constitution is not to be main- 
 tained because ot the inconveniences which may 
 result to the Separatists from it, on the same 
 principle the Law must be abolished, because of 
 the consequences which necessarily attach to its 
 transgressors. The conclusion from the premi- 
 ses in both cases, to me appears equally correct. 
 As then the inconveniences which you detail have 
 
138 
 
 been occasioned by separation from the Estab- 
 lishment of this Country, those who are the vo-^ 
 luntary Separatists ought to look to themselves: 
 for their remedy; and not in reason to expect 
 that the Church should forego her established 
 system of order and discipline, to accommodate 
 those uho despise her services and separate from 
 her communion : And should the prejudice in 
 favor of Burial by our Service, operate so far as 
 to bring one Dissenter from the way of schism 
 into the unity of the Church, it is a consideration 
 of itself suiBcient to prevent the Church of Eng- 
 land from conceding a point, which might lead 
 
 to the conclusion, that communion with her 
 was a matter of indifference. 
 
 Such, I am inclined to believe, is the light in 
 which this subject is seen by the great Body of the 
 English Clergv ; by those of them at least, who 
 have given themselves time to think upon it. 
 
 It remains therefore to be considered by the 
 Governors of our Church, whether they will 
 deem it expedient, that the perverse humours of 
 a few ignorant and self-willed Separatists, (for 
 persua;!ed I am, that no well-informed liberal- 
 minded Disstnter is to be found among them,) 
 should be gratified at the expense of the feelings 
 and consciences of the Established Clergy. Such 
 an attempt, should it in these times be deemed 
 judiciOus, will not, I am persuaded, prove suc- 
 cessful. l:ut admitting that it should, such suc- 
 cess will oiily lead to the solution of one ques- 
 tion j not whether Toleration shall be continued 
 
139 
 
 to Dissenters, for that b^s been fully secured to 
 tbepn,. and is most amply enjuyed bv them ; but 
 how long the Members of the Church shall be 
 permitted to possess their Establishment, 
 
 For it is to be remarked that the Ecclesiastical 
 Law, as it has been administeied on this 
 occasion, appears not so much to support the 
 discipline of the Churchj as to favor the preju- 
 dices of those who wilfully resist it. The Bap- 
 tist Teacher, for instance, may bring a complaint, 
 against a Minister of the Church of England/ 
 for refusing to bury a person whom he has bap- 
 tized. The Ecclesiastical Court pronounces 
 judgment against the Clergyman, on the ground 
 that the baptism which the party has received, 
 having been with water, and in the form, has 
 thereby become " a legal and valid initiation* 
 into the Christian Church. By this judgment the,. 
 Clergyman of the Church is compelled toacknow-,,^ 
 ledge the legality and validity of the Baptism i-n 
 question. At the same time, should a person j 
 who has been regularly baptized into the Church ' 
 think proper to join himself to the religious as- 
 sembly of this same Baptist Teacher ; the Teach- 
 er, not considering the Baptism of the Church 
 of England as making the party in question a 
 confirmed Member of his peculiar sect, baptizes 
 him again. The Eccjesiasticai Law then, thus 
 administered, compels the Clergyman, in contra- 
 diction to the established principles of the Church 
 of which he is a Minister, to acknowledge the 
 validity of irregular Baptism ; whilst the Baptist 
 
]40 
 
 Dissenter, in consequence of his being exempted 
 from Ecclesiastical Discipline, and thereby be- 
 come, in his religious concerns, a Law unto him- 
 self, rejects, ad libitum^ the authorized Baptism 
 of the Church of England. A predicament this, 
 in which it would not have been easily believed 
 by our Forefathers that the Establishment of this 
 Country could ever have been placed. 
 
 With the preceding considerations before mc, 
 I have no apology to make for my defence of the 
 Apostolic Church of England against those lati' 
 iudinarian principles, which your judgment on 
 this occasion has brought before the Public : at 
 the same time, no one would be more readv than 
 myself to make an apology, should it be found, 
 that either through inadvertence I had misrepre- 
 sented you, or, from too great zeal for the cause 
 in which I have been engaged, had in any part 
 of my subject been wanting in the respect due 
 to your official character. It may be, that my 
 education and course of reading have led me to 
 see points, which to me appear essential to thq 
 religious Establishment of my Country, in a dif- 
 ferent light from that, in which they arc now seen 
 even by some of my professional Brethren. Still, 
 on this ground I take not upon me to impeach 
 the integrity of others ; I answer only for my 
 own ; leaving judgment with that All-wise Being, 
 who is alone qualified to measure principles and 
 conduct by an infallible standard. Bui however I 
 may differ in opinion from others, and how im- 
 portant soever the points on which that difference 
 
141 
 
 «f opinion may turn, it will at all times be my 
 wish, as it has been my endeavour on this occa- 
 sion, that the delivery of -ny sentiments, so far 
 at least as it can consist with " holding fast'* 
 what appears to me to be the tru'h, should be 
 accompanied with the true spirit of that religion, 
 which all, who profess the name of Christ, ought 
 to have most at heart to promote. 
 
 The ground on which I have entered, I am 
 well aware, is not of the most promising kind. 
 It is indeed a melancholy reflection, that who- 
 ever dares stedfastly to maintain the Constitutioa 
 of the Church, must expect to be branded with 
 opprobrious and uncharitable epithets. And that 
 man can be little acquainted with the present 
 state of the Church in this Country^ who docs 
 not know, that whoever in these times looks to 
 public fame, must enlist himself under a different 
 banner. In fact, correct information with respect 
 to the Church, as a divinely instituted Society, Is 
 liow so rarely to be found, at the same time that it 
 is become a subject so unwelcome to that great 
 Body of Christians, who think that they have been 
 left at liberty to worship God in their own way ; 
 that no credit is to be derived from the mainte- 
 nance of a Doctrine, which the changing opi- 
 nions of the world tend to render every day more 
 unpopular. But these considerations, unpropi- 
 tious indeed in their aspect towards the Estab- 
 lishment of this Country, will not deter a man 
 of fixed principles from adhering to what appears 
 to him to be the cause of truth ; because, in the 
 
\A1 
 
 settling of his principles,, he considered not how 
 the world has practised, but how God has taught. 
 For ruth, though mankind are continually per- 
 muted to wander from it, is itself stationary. 
 The opinion or practice of the multitude, how 
 great soever that multitude may be, can have no 
 influence upon it ; its standard having been fixed 
 by an higher authority. The voice of the multi- 
 tude was against Noah, when at the divine com- 
 mand he was bnilding the Ark. The voice of 
 the multitude was against the Father of the 
 Faithful, when by the/direction of God he quitted 
 his idolatrous country. The voice of the multi- 
 tude was still more loudly raised against the Son 
 of God, who was himself "The Way, the Truth, 
 and the Life." And as a late excellent Divine of 
 our Church observed, '' There never was a time 
 from the beginning of the world, when there 
 was not a party against the Church of God ; 
 and our Israel must have its enemies, as that 
 Church had which came out of Egypt." But 
 however men may indulge their own imagina- 
 tions and prejudices in making what they call 
 Churches for themselves, the Church of Christ 
 must still be what, according to the Institution 
 of its divine Founder, it was intended that it 
 should be, both in time and in eternity. And if 
 God sent his only begotten Son into the world 
 to reveal to it a certain system of faith and doc- 
 trine, and to establish a Church in it, for the more 
 sure preservation of what, under such circum- 
 stances, must be regarded as a system essential 
 
145 
 
 to the Salvation of his fallen creature ; it is sub- 
 mitted to consideration, how far, in the reason of 
 things it can be a matter of indifference, whelher 
 we act in conformity with the divine plan or 
 not. 
 
 Should then the cause which I have taken 
 in hand really be, what I persuade myself it is, 
 the cause of the Church of Christ; I may hum- 
 bly hope, that my endeavours, how inadequate 
 soever to their object, will be accepted by that 
 Divine Master, under whom I am proud to hold 
 a commission. In such case, with the dying 
 words of the pious Archbishop Whitgift in my 
 mouth, " Pro Ecclesia Dei ; pro Ecclesia Dei;"" 
 I shall have no reason to envy, whatever degree of 
 popularity may be acquired in any other way. 
 
 Possessing, Sir, as I am disposed to flaiter my- 
 self that I do, the most ardent wishes for the 
 general good of mankind ; no plan more likely 
 to promote it in this Country presents itself to 
 my mind, than that which preserves the Church 
 of Christ in its essentially distinguished character 
 among us ; at the same time that every indul- 
 gence. Compatible with the welfare of the com"- 
 munity, be granted to those who unhappily dis- 
 sent from it. 
 
 When Religionists cannot be joined together 
 in the unity of the same spirit, the next point of 
 importance to be secured, is, that they should 
 dwell together in the bond of Peace. This point 
 the Toleration Act was wisely intended to secure. 
 And this desirable point will effectually be se- 
 
144 
 
 cured by it, so long as no encroachments shall 
 be made on either side ; whilst the Dissenter is 
 permitted to abound freely in his own opinion ; 
 and the Churchman continued in the undisturbed 
 possession of those Rights, essential to the well- 
 being, and it may be, to the existence of that 
 Church, which the Constitution of this: Country 
 is pledged to maintain. 
 
 I conclude wi?h the words of the great Am- 
 brose.* — "Quanquam sciam pro hoc libello plu- 
 rimos mihi Jiacerdotes, qui quae loquimur agere 
 nolunt, infidelitcr esse detracturos ; Credo ta- 
 mcn plurimos, qui hsec agunt vel agere obniiun- 
 tur, fideliter pro nobis oraturos. Sed sicut lace- 
 rationibus obtrectatorum minime praegravamur, 
 sic demum probatorum, et sanctorum virorum 
 orationibus ad juvamur/* 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 Sir, 
 PFith all due respect, &c, 
 
 CHARLES DAUBENY. 
 
 BATffy Jan. I, 1811. 
 
 In bis Book " De dignitate Sacerdotal! .** 
 
 riNis. 
 
 Mt^jlcrand Sou, Fiinter!>, Batk. 
 
^KRMONS AND OTHER THEOLOGICAL WORKS^ 
 
 Printed ior, and fold by F. C. and J. Rivington, No. 62, 
 St. Paul's Church-yard. 
 
 AcuTTER. Sermons On various Occafions. By the P.ev. W. Agut- 
 TER, A.M. Chaplain to the Afylum for Female Orphans. 
 8vo. gs. 
 
 Apthorp. Difcourfes on Prophecy, read in L:ncoln's Inn Chapel 
 at Warburton's LcfturCj by East Apthorp, D. D. late Rector 
 of St. Mary Le Bow. 2 vols. 8\'o. 10s. 
 
 UANorNEi.. Eight Sermons, preached at the B;"^nton Lefture in 
 1780, by James Bandinel, D.D. of JeUis College. Second 
 edition. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Ijarrow. Eight Sermons, containing Anf.vers to fome popular Ob- 
 jections againll: the ChrilHan Revelation^ preached at the Bamp- 
 ton Lecture in 1799- By William Barrow, LL. D. and 
 F. S. A. of Queen's College. 8vo. 7s. 
 
 Benson. Sermons on various Subjects, Moral and Theological, by 
 Martin Benson, A.M. Minilkr of Tunbridge Vvelis Chapel. 
 8vo. 6s 
 
 Berkeley. Sermons, by the late George Berkeley, LL.D; 
 Prebendary of Canterbury. 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 fiisHop. Sermons, chiefly on pradical Subjefts, by th© Rev. Sam. 
 Bishop, A.M. late Head Mailer of Merchant' Taylors School, 
 8v'o. 6s, 
 
 Eb,ack.enbury. Fifty-three Difcourfes, containing a connedcd 
 Syftem of Dodtrinal and Praftical Chriftianity ; for Families 
 and Country C'ongregations. By the Rev. Edward BrackEnj 
 BtTRv, A. B. Vicar of Skindleby, in the County of Lincoln. 
 2 vols. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 Erewster. Le(flures on the Ad? of the Apoftles, delivered in the 
 Parifh Church of Stockton-upon-Tees, during Lent, in the Years 
 1803, 1804, 1805, and 1806; with three Maps of the Travels 
 of the Holy Apolllcs. By John Brewster, M.A. Rector of 
 Boldon, &c, Durham, 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 BuRNABY. Occafional Sermons and Charges, by the Rev. Andrew 
 BuRNABY, D. D, Archdeacon of Leicclter, and Vicar of Green- 
 wich. 8vo, los. 6d. 
 
 Carr. Sermons, by the late Rev. George Carr, Senior Clergy- 
 man of the Englifh Epifcopal Congregation in Edinburgh. 
 2 vols. i2mo. 7s. 
 
 CLARKE. Forty Sermons on D.)ftrin»l and Praiflical Subjeds, fe^ 
 lofted from the Vv'orks of the Rav. Dr, Samuel Clarke, for 
 the Ufe of Families. By the Rev. Samuel Cl.4Pham, M. A. 
 Chaplain to Earl Camden. 8vo. 9s. 
 
 Cij^aRke. Sermons on the Charader and profeflional Duties of Sea- 
 men, preached on board H. M. S. Impttueux, oy James StanieK 
 Clarke, F.R.S. DomclUc Chaplain to H.R.H, the Prince of 
 Waks, cr. 8vq. ^a. 
 
 CUEAVER , 
 
I B'johi printed far F. C. and J. RlvlNBiaN. 
 
 C-L EATER. Eleven Sermons on Selc(fl Sabjcifls, bv William, Lord' 
 Bifhop of St. Asaph : alio fo'ir Sermons of the late Willi Ati 
 Cleaver, M. A. of Lincoln College. 8vo. 9s. 
 Cleeve. Selc(.'t Sermons, dedicated to the Queen, by the Rev. 
 Alex. Cleevf., A.R. Jate Vicar of Wooller, in Northum- 
 berkind. 8vo. los. 6d. 
 Clements. Eight Sermons, preached (at Lady Mover's Lefturc); 
 in St. Paul's Cathedral in 1757, by William Clements, A.M. 
 late Librarian at Sioii College. Svo. 4s. 
 If OWE. Twelve Sermons on the Advantages which refult fron* 
 Chrilliani:y, Sec. for the Ufc of Families ; to which are added, 
 Philanthrop'.c Trads. By James Cowe, M. A. Vicar of Sun- 
 bury. Second edition. Svo. 6s. 
 Pavbpny. 'Eii^.ht Difcourres on the Connexion between the Old 
 arid New Tcll.iment, confidercd as two Parts of the fame Di- 
 vine Revelation, &c. &c. by the Rev. Charles Daub en y. 
 Archdeacon of Sanim. Svo. 9s. 
 -— — Difeoinfjs on various Subjefts and Occafions, by the fame 
 
 Author. Vol. IL Svo. 8s. 
 Delant's Sixteen Difcoarfes upon Chrlftian Do(5^rine and Duties," 
 
 Svo. 5s. 
 Prummonw. Sermons on public Occafions, and a Letter on Thco- 
 icigical Study, by Robert, late Archbifliop of York; with. 
 A'Jeraoirs of his Life, by G. H. Drummond, A. M. Prebendary 
 of York. Svo. 6s. 
 Jarquhar. Sermons on various S.ubjefts, by the late John Far- 
 
 QUHAR, M. A. Minifter at Nigg. Fourth edition. 8vo. 6s. 
 Farrer. Sermons on the Parables, a new edition; the whole Series 
 rccompofed, and contained In one volume. By John Farrer, 
 / M. A. Redor of the United Parifh.^s of St. Clement, Eaikheap, 
 
 .Tnd St* Martin Orgars. Svo. 9s. 
 -»■•■ Sermons on the Miffion and Chara(fler of Clirlft, and the 
 Beatitudes; preached at the Bampton Ledure In 1803, by the 
 fame Author. Svo. 7s.. 
 Caroiner. Sermons on various SubjciJts,. preached at the 0(5l.''.gon 
 '^ Ch.ipd, Bath, by tlie Rev. John Gardiner, D. D. Redor of 
 Braibford, and Vicar of Shirley, in the County of Devon. Se- 
 cond edition, Svo. 8s. 
 CiLso^r. Scrmcns on pradical Subjcds, by the Rev. D. Gilson,- 
 M.A. kite Curate of St. Saviour's, Southwark. a vols. 
 8vo. 163. 
 ^LE'C. Sermons, prcaclic^cccafionally at the Epifcopal Chapel ;> 
 Stirling, during the eventful Period, from J 793 10 1803, by the 
 Right Rev. Bilhop Gleig. Svo, 7s. 
 CouD.vRD. Sermonb, preached before the Univcrfity of Cambridge, 
 by P. S. GoDDARD, D.D. late M after of Clare Hall. 8vo. 5s. 
 <SbRDoN. Sermons on fevend Subjeds and Occafions, particularly 
 on the Feftivals and Fafcs of the Church of England, by the 
 Rev. Sir A. Gop-eu3f, Ban, M, A. Redox of Weft Tilbury, 
 Ei]ex. Svo. %%, Graves, 
 
Books printed for F. C. (ir.J J. Rn'IKCTOK. 3 
 
 Craves. Sermons on the Clerlcnl Charader, on Miracles, Sec. Sec, 
 by the late Rev. Richard Graves, M.A. Redor of Claver*. 
 ton, Somerfet. 8vo. 5s. 
 Gray. Difcourfcs on various S-jbicfls, ilhiftrative of the Evidence, 
 Influence, nnd Doctrines of Chrillianity, hy the Rev. Robert 
 Gray, D. D. Prcbendi'ry of Durham. 8vo. 6s. 
 ■ Sermons on the Principles upon which the Reformation of the 
 
 Church of EngLand was eftabii{hed, preached at the Bamptoi* 
 Lecture in 1796; by the fame Author. 8vo. 6s. 
 Haggitt. Sermons to Country Congregations, by the late Rev. 
 Ge*rge Haggitt, A.M. Rcftor of Jjeechamwell, Norfolk, 
 Sixth edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 
 Kervey. Sermons, Trads, and Letters, by James Hervev, A.M. 
 late Redor of Wyilon Favcll, Northamptonfnire. 4 vols. 8vcu 
 1 1. 4s. 
 Hewlett. Sermons on different Subjeds, by tbe Rev. Jojbn HEWr 
 LETT, B. D. Morning Preacher at the Foundling Hofpitah 
 3 vols. Svo. il. js. 
 Heylyn. ' Selcd Difcourfes on the principal Points of natural and 
 revealed Religion ; alfo, "^l heological Ledures on the ten firil 
 Chapters of St. Matthew. By Juhn Heylyn, D. D. late 
 Prebendar)- of A^'ellminlkr. 2 vols. 8vo. 12s. 
 Horne. Sermons, and other Works of Gxorce Horne, D.D. 
 late Lord Bifhop of Norwich ; hiindfomely printed in 6 vols. 
 8vo. 3I. 3s. 
 HoRSLEY. Sermons, by Samuel Horsley, LL.D. F.R.S. F.A.^ 
 
 late Lord Bifliop of St. Afaph. 2 vols. 8vo. il. is. 
 Innes. Fourteen Difcourfcs on pradical Subjeds, by the Rev. G. 
 
 Inkes, of A-berdccn. 1 2mo. 3s. 
 Jones. Sermons, and other Works, i'lieologfcal and Mifcellaneous, 
 of the late William Jones, M.A. F.R.S. Redor of Pafton, 
 Northampjonfliire, and Minilter of Nayland, in Suffolk. A new 
 - edition, in 6 vols. Svo. 3I. os. 
 
 Four Difcourfes ; i. On the Religioiis Ufe of Botanical Phi- 
 
 lofophy. 2. Confideraticns on the Nature and Econ<nny of 
 Eeaiis and Cattle. 3. On the Natural Hiilory of the Eanl> 
 and its Minerals. 4. On the Natural Evidences of Chriftianity, 
 preached on Mr. Fairchild's Foundation, in 1784, 5, 6, and 7; 
 by the fame Author, izmo. 2s. 6d. 
 JeRTiN. Sermons on different Subjeds; to which are added, the 
 Dodrine of a Future State, ;;s it may be colleded from the 
 Old Teftament ; and four ('barges to the Clergy of the Arch, 
 deaconry of London. Ey the lafc Rev. John Jortin, DD. 
 Archdeacon of Loixlon, 5:c. A new edition, 4 vols. Svo. 
 il. i6s. 
 
 Difcourfcs concerning the Truth of the Chriftian Religion, 
 
 and Renuiks on Eccleliaftical Hiftory. By the fame Author. 
 A new edition. 3 vols, 8vo. il./js. 
 Keeling's (Rev. Earth.) Eight Difcourfes. Svo. 4s. 
 
 KETt. 
 
4 Sooks printed for F. C. and J. Rivincton. 
 
 K.ETT. Eight Sermons, containing a Pveprefentation of the Condu(?l 
 and Op;nions of the primitive Chriftians, with Remarks on 
 certair. Aficrtions of Mr. Gibbon and Dr. Priellley ; preached 
 at the Bampton Lefture in 1790, by Henry Kett, M.A. 
 Fellow of Trinity College. Second edition, 8vo. 7s. 
 Layard. Sermons, by Charles Peter La,yard, D.D. F.R.S. 
 F. A. S. late Dean of Briflol. Second edition. 8vo. 12s. or 
 on royal p3per il. is. 
 Leighton's Abp.) Eighteen Sermons. Svo. 5s. 
 Logan. Sermons, by rhe late Rev. John Ljjgan, F.R.S, Edinb. 
 one of rhe ^iniflers at Leith. Fifth edition. 2 vols, Svo. 158, 
 Macdokald. Twenty-nineiiiifcellaneous Sermons, by A. Macdo- 
 nald, kite Minifter of the Englifb Church at Glaigow. Svo. ^s, 
 Milne. Sermons, delivered in St. Andrew's Chapel, Banff, by the 
 Rev. James Mu.\e, A.M. Minifter of tliat Chapel. Svo. 
 7s. 6d. 
 Morgan. Sermons on fevera] Suhjefts, by John Pilkington- 
 Morgan, M, A. late Vicar of Hitchin, Herts. 2 vols, crown 
 8vo. 9s. 
 Morton. Sermons on various interefting Svibjedls, by the Rev. 
 Joshua Morton, Vicar of Rifely, in the County of Bedford, 
 Svo. 7s. 
 Nance. Sermons on various Subjefts and Occafions, by the Rev. 
 John Nance, M.A. Fellow of Worceilier College, Oxford. 
 Svo. 6s. 
 Nares. Difco'jrfes before the Hon. Societv of Lincoln's Inn, by 
 the Rev. Robert Nares, A.M. F.R.S. F. A.S. Archdeacon 
 of SrafFord, &c. Svo. 7s. 
 ■ A connefted and chronological View of the Prophecies re- 
 lating to the Chriftian Church; irt twelve Sermons, preached in 
 Lincoln's Lin Chapel, from 1800 to 1804, at Bp. Warbu^ton's 
 Lefture, by the fame .'\uthor. Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 N^REs, Sermons, compofed for Country Congregations, by the Rev. 
 Edward Nares, A.M. Redor of Biddenden, Kent. 8vo. 73. 
 Neve. Seventeen Sermons, compofed for a Countrv Congregation, 
 by the Rev. Timothy Neve, D.D. late Lady Margaret's 
 ProfelTor of Divinity in the Univerfity of Oxford. Svo. 6s. 
 O'Beirne. Sermons on feveral Occafions; to which are added three 
 Charges, and a circular Addrefs to the Clergy of the Diocefe of 
 OfTory, on the State of Ireland in 1787 ; by T. L. O'Beirne, 
 D.D. Lord Bifr.opof Meath. Svo. 6s. 
 pWEN. The Intent and Propriety of the Scripture Miracles con- 
 fidered and explained, in a Scries of Sermons, for the Hon, R^ 
 Boyle's Lefture in 1769, 70, ?nd 71, by the Rev. Dr. Henry 
 Qwi; N, late Redor of St. Olavc, Hart-Street. 2 vols. Svo. los. 
 Partridge, Sjrmons., altered and adapted to the Englifb Pulpit, 
 fro.Ti French Wrircrs, by the Rev. Samuel Partridge, M, A, 
 F.S.A. Vicar of Bollon. 2 vols. Svo. 15s. 
 A', B, Thf volumes ?.?c fold feparately. 
 
 Plumtre., 
 
Books printed for F. C. mid J. P-ivIweTos. g 
 
 J*LUMPTRE. The Chrlftian Guide, or an Attempt to explain, in a 
 Series of conneded Difcourfcs, the leading Articles of Chrif- 
 tianity ; for the Ufe of -Families and young P.^rfons. By 
 Charles Pi,umptre, M. A. Redor of Long Newton, in th(i 
 County of Durl^.am. 8vo. 7s. 
 
 Plumptre, Four Difcourfes on Subjeds relating to the Amufement of 
 the Stage ; preached at Great St. Mary's Church, Cambridge; 
 with copious Notes. By JaMes Plumptke, B.D. Fellow of 
 Clare Hall. Svo. 7s. 
 
 Pott. Three Sermons for the Feftivals and Fafts of the Church of 
 England, with a Difcouirfe' on the Lord's Day, or Chnftian 
 Sabbath. By Joseph Holden Pott, M. A. Prebendary of 
 Lincoln, and Archdeacon of St. Alban's. lamo. is. 
 
 * Elementary Difcourfes, defigned for the Ufe of a young Per- 
 
 fon after Confirmation; with Devotions, felj(^t.?d chiefly from 
 the Book of Common Prayer. By tlje iame Author. i2mo. as. 
 
 Ramsay's (Rev, J.) Sea Sermons, or a Scries of Difcourfes for the 
 Ufe of the Royal Navy". 8vo. 4s. 
 
 Randolph. Sermons, preached at Laura Chapel, Bath, during the 
 Seafon of Advent in 1799. By the Rev. F. Randolph, D.D. 
 Prebendary of Briilol. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Rennell. Sermons, on various Subjei!\s, by Tpjomas Rennell, 
 D. D. Dean of Winchefter, and Mafter of the iemple. 8vo. 7s. 
 
 RiDDocH. Sermons, on fcveral Suhjefts and Occafions. By the 
 late j.AMEs RiDDocH, A. M. one of the Minifters of St. Paul's 
 Church, Aneidcen. Third edition. 3 vols. Svo. il. is. 
 
 Robertson. Sermons on the praflical Obligations of a Chrillian 
 Life; for the Use of Families. By the Rev. Theodore 
 Robertson, LL. B. 2 vols. Svo. i ^i. 
 
 Scattergood. Fifty-two Sermons upon fcveral Occafions. By 
 Samuel Scattergood. A new edition. 2 vols. Svo. 1L4S. 
 
 Secker. Sermons, on various Subjefts, by Thomas Secjcer, LL.D, 
 i;',te Lbrd Archbilliop of Canterbury. 4 vols. Svo. il. 
 
 Southgate. Sermons, preached to Parochial Congregatior-.s, by 
 the late Rev. Richard Southgate, B. A. with a Biogra- 
 phical Preface, by George Gaskin, D. D. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s, 
 
 S^EBBiNG, Sermons on pradical Subjects, by the late Rev. Henry 
 Si ebbing, D.D. Preacher to the Hon. Society of Gray's Inn, 
 3 vols. Svo. 18s. 
 
 A^. //. The third volume may be had feparate. 6s. 
 
 Sterne's (Rev. Lawrence) Sermons. 6 vols, foolcf. Svo. T5's. 
 
 Stephenson. The Romilh Church ; or, an Kiftorical and Criticaf 
 View of fome of the leading Dodriaes of the Church of Rome, 
 in a Series of Difcourfes, preached at Bifhop's Wearmouth, in 
 1806; being, partly, a Compilation from Seeker, and others, 
 with Notes. By the Rev. George Stephenson, M. A. Vicar 
 ot Keiloe, and Curate of Bilbop's V/carmouth, Du-rham. Svo. 
 
 Stevens, 
 
€ Books printed for F. C. and J. RlviNGTO>f. 
 
 Stevens, Sermons, by the late William Stevens, D.D. Reftor 
 of Great Snoring Norfolk, and Ledurer of St. George's, Han- 
 fU"er Square. 3 vols. 8vo. il. is. 
 Thomas. Sermons and Charges of the Right Rev. John Thomas, 
 LL. D. late Lord Bifhop of Rcchcik-r ; with a Life of the 
 Author, by G. A. Thomas, A.M. Reftor of Wickham, Hants. 
 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. , 
 
 TowKsoN. Ihe Works of the Rev. Thomas Townson, D.D. 
 late Archdeaeon of Richmond, Sec. confifting of Difcourfes on 
 the Gc/pt'ls, and on the Evangelical Hiitory, &c. kc. to which 
 is prefixed, an Account of the Author, by Ralph Churton, 
 M.A. Archdeacon of St. David's, Sic, &c. A new edition, 
 with two plates. 2 vols. 8vo. i8s. 
 Tucker. Seventeen Sermons on fome of the m.oil important Points 
 on Natural and Re^ealed Religion, refpeaing the Happinefs 
 both of the prefent and of a future Life. By Josiah Tucker, 
 D.,D. late Dean of Glocelkr. 8vo. 5s. 
 Yak Mildert. An Kiflorical View of the Rife and Progrefs of 
 Infidelity, with a Refutation of its Principles and Rcafonings ; 
 in a Series of Sernaons, preached for the Hon. R. Eoyle's Lec- 
 ture, from 1802 to 1805. By the Rev. William Van Mil- 
 bert, M.A. Rcftor of St. Mary-ie-Bow. Second edition, 
 with the ApjX'ndix confiderably enlarged. 2 vols. 8vo. il. 
 
 iV. B. The Appendix may be had ll-parate, to complete the 
 lirft edition, 4-s, 
 Walker. Sermons, on praciical Subjeffs, by Robert Walk er_, 
 late one of the Miniflers of the High Church of Edinburgh; 
 with a CharaCier of the Author, by Hugh Blair^ D.D. A 
 new edition. 4 vols. 8vo. il. 4s. 
 Wells. Difcourfes, &x:. on feveral Subjctfts, by the late Chris- 
 topher Wells, B. D. Reiflor of Reraenham, Berks. 2 vols. 
 8vo. 16s. 
 W'hitaker. Family Sermons, by the Rev. E. W.Whi taker, Reflor 
 of St, Mildred's and All Saints, Canterbury. Second edition^ 
 3 vols. 8vo. il. IS. 
 
 Eight Sermons on Education, by the fame Author, ovo. 4s. 
 
 Whitaker. Six Difcourfes on 2 ThelL ii. 11. wherein the Divine 
 Conduft is traced, from the Time of Adam to the prefent Dif- 
 penfation of Grace we lire under, &c. By the late J. Whita^ 
 KER, M.A. Vicar of Penbury, in Kent. 8vo. 5s. 
 Wilson. Thirty-three Sermons, fek'fted from the Works of the 
 Right Rev. Thomas Wilson, D.D. late Bilhop of Sodor and 
 Man. 2 vols. 1 2mo. 6s. 
 Wilson. Sermons on feveral Subjeffs, by the Rev. H. B. Wilson^ 
 M. A. one of the Malkrs of Merchant Taylors School. 8vo, 
 10s. 6d. 
 WooLLcoMBE. Setmons, en various Subjefls, by the Rev. Wjl* 
 LiAM WooLLco.MBE, M.A. late Prebendary of Eigeter. •8r(>« 
 JOS. ijd. 
 
THEOLOGICAL WOKKS, 
 
 Primed for, and fold by F. C. and J. RiviNCTtfflr, 
 
 Abb A DIE. The A-ccomplifhnicnt of Prophecy, In the Chara^eff 
 and Condiift of Jefiis Chrift. By James Abbadie, D. D. 
 formerly Dean of Killaloe. lamo. 49. 
 
 Addison. The Evidences of the Chriftian Religion, by the Right 
 Hon. Joseph Addison. With the Notes of the k'urned Ga- 
 briel Seigneux de Correvon; trar.llated into Englilh, hjr 
 the Rev. Richard PuRDY, D. D. 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 'fisLL. An Enquiry into the Divine Miffions of John the Baptift^ 
 and Jefus Chrift. By William Bell, D. D. Prebendaiy of 
 St. Peter's, Weftminlter. 8va. New edition. los. 6d. 
 
 Erev/stek. Meditations for the Aged: by John Brewster^ 
 M.A. Reftor of Boldoa, &c. Durham. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 — ^ — Meditations of a Reclufe, chiefly on religious fubjefts. Ej5 
 
 the fiune Author. 8vo. Third edition. 8s. ■ 
 •Churchman's R je m e m b r a n c e u . Being a Col ic6lion of fcarce and 
 valuiible Traifts in defence of th-c Dextrine and Dlfcipline of the, 
 Church of-Ea'gland, Vol. L containing Five Numbers. 8vo. 
 10s. 6d. 
 
 ^LARKE. A Paraphrafe on the four Evangelifts, with Critical Nofic» 
 on the more difficult Paffages. By Samuel Clarke, D. D, 
 late Reftor of St, James's, Weftrainiler. 1 vol. 8vo. 8s. 
 
 Cruttwell,, a Concordance of Parallels, colledied from Bibles 
 and Commentaries, in various languages, with the authorities- 
 to each ] by the late Rev. C, Cruttwell. 4to. il. is. 
 
 Daub EN Y. A Guide to the Church, in feverai Difcoorfcs. By 
 the Rev. Charles Daubeny, Archdeacon of Sarura. 2 vols. 
 8vo. Second edition. 17s. 
 
 V'indici:e Ecclefi^e Anglicanss ; an Auf*^'er to Mr. Otertom'* 
 
 *' True Churchmen afcercaincd." By the fame Author. Svo, 
 8s. 
 
 Ecclesiastical and Unlverfity Annual Regiller, for the year 
 1809. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 I'he fame for the year 1S08. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 Faeer. a Differtation on the Propbeciet, that hare been fulfilled, 
 arc novv fulfilling, or will hereafter be fulfilled, reip.tive to the 
 great Period of 1260 years. Sec. &c. By the Rev . GEoR«g 
 Stanley Faber, B. D. Rciilor of Redniarihail, Durham. 
 Fourth edition. 2 vols. 8vo, xl. is. 
 
 A General and connefted viev/ of tke Prophecies, relative to 
 
 the Converfion, Reitoration, Union, and Future Glory, ot the 
 Hoiifes of Judah and Ifrael, &c. &c. By the fame Author, 
 
 / Second edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 17s. • 
 
 — »— A Differtation on the Myllerics of the Cabiri, By the Airap 
 Author. 2 vols. 8vo. i6s. 
 
 CJray, A Key to (..e Old Tcftament and Apocrypha. By the 
 Rev. Robert Gray, D. D. Prebsiidary «f Dwhcm. Fifth 
 edition, 8vo, 9s. HaRE. 
 
8 Siohs prhtrd far F. C'. and'j. RiviNGToy. 
 
 Karf. a Treatife on rhc Conciiif^ of God to the Human Specie^/ 
 and on the Divine Milfion of Jefus Chrift. By the late Rev-. J. 
 HAREy A. M. Redor of Cohi St. Donys, GlouceOerfliirc, and 
 Vicar of Stratton St. M:!rgaret, Wilts. Second edition. 8vo. 
 los. 6d. 
 
 - An EfTay on the neceffity of Revealed Religion. By the 
 
 fame Author. i2mo. Third edition. 2s. 6d. 
 
 — ' — An Eflay on the Unreafonablencfs of Scepticifm. By the 
 fame Author; Kandfomely ptinted; izrrto. 6s. 
 
 Hooker. An Analyfis of Hooker's Eight Books of Eccleflafticat 
 Polity. By theRey. J. Coi.Lixsox, M. A. Reflor of Gatcf- 
 head, Durham. 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 H«aNE. Efiays and Thoughts on various fubjc<fts : with Nine Pa- 
 pers from ihe Olla Podrida, and Poems. By the Right Rev.; 
 Georgs Horme, D. D. late Lord Bilhop of Nottvich. izmo. 
 
 Kett. Hiftory the Interpreter of Prophecy; or a View of the 
 Scriptural Prophecies and their Acccmplifiim.ont in the pad and 
 prefent Occwrrences of the World ; with Conjeftures refpefiing 
 their future completion. By the Rev. Hixay KfexT, M; A. 
 Fifth edition, with additional notes. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 Le Mesurier. The Doftrine of the Eucharirt ct»niidered, as main- 
 tained by tlie Church of Rome and the Church of Er.gland re- 
 fpedivcly. By the Rev. THo>.t^\s Li IVIesurier, M. A* 
 Re(5tor of Ncwnton Longvillc, Bucks. 2^^xo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 MiCK^LTs. An Jntrodudtion to the Ntnv Tcflament, by J. D. 
 MicH,ELis; tranflated irom the Germ.an by Herbert Marsh, 
 D.D. F. R.S. Margaret Profeiror of Divinity at Cambridge^ . 
 6 vol?. 8vo. 2I. 8s. or on Royal Paper 3I. 3s. 
 
 Revival of the Roman and Greek Errpires : being Obforvations oh 
 DanicPs Mctallick Image. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 Scholar armed (The) agaisilt the Errors of the Time ; or a Col-s 
 leftion-of Trafts on the Principles and Evidences of ChriilianitVi 
 Second edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 16s. 
 
 Trimmer. A Heap to th.e L'nlearned In the Study of the Holy 
 . Scriptures : benig an attempt to explain the Bib.ie in a familiar 
 way, adapted to common :;pprchenfions. By Mrs. Trimmer. 
 Second edition. 8\o. 12s. 
 
 Wilson. Letters on the Truth, and certainty of Natural and Rc- 
 vealad Religion, intended as an Ir'trodudion to Bifhcp Butler's 
 Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed. By the Rev. 
 Joseph Wilson, A. B. izmo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 W^ix. Scriptural Illuftrations of the 39 Articles of the Church of 
 England. By Sa.muel Wix, A. iVL Vicar of St. Bartholomew 
 the Lcfs. Svo. 8s.' 
 
 W^ORDswoRTH. EccleGafllcal Biography: or Lives of eminent 
 Men, connefted with the Hiilory of Religion in England ; from 
 tte commencement of the Reformation ro the Revolution ; fe* 
 le<.'lcd and illullrated with Notes. By Christopher Words* 
 w.9A?w> M.A. Dcao isvd K«<^«r ef Ecvkin^. G vols. Svo. 3L 15s'. 
 
% 
 
REMARKS 
 
 VPON A 
 
 REPORT 
 
 OF THE JUDGMENT 
 
 PEUVERED By THE RIGJIT liONOURABLB 
 
 SIR JOHN NICHOLL, KNT. LL.D. 
 
 OrriCIAI' fRlWeiFAL Of THE ARCHES COUJIT Of CANT£HBUST, 
 VrOV THB 
 
 ADMISSION OF ARTICLES 
 
 ^SSIIUITEP JN A CAUSE OF OmCE PROMOTED AGAINST THE 
 
 KEV. W. W. WICKES, 
 
 fOR REFUSING TO BURY, ACCORDING TO THE RITES OF 
 
 Jil^ CHURCH OF ENGLAND, A CHILD BAPTIZED 
 
 ^Y A PISSENTING MINI^IER. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 TBINTED FOR F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON, 
 
 62, ST. Paul's church-yard; 
 
 AND J. HATCHARD, l^O, PICCADILLY. 
 
.•-:ir-f 
 
 IVhUl-u bj. La^^ unJ ujll'f i^.iSl- J*-l«/v S'juara Ixuci,!!. 
 
REMARKS, &c. 
 
 — e»»^W«»-— 
 
 1 HE judgment of the Court of Arches, against 
 the Kev. Jolin Wight Wicke.s, for refusing to bury 
 an infant cliild of two of his parishioners, who 
 hm\ been baptized by a Dilfenting j\iinister, is an 
 event of no little importance. Among the think- 
 ing part of the community, it has already excited 
 much attention; and, undoubtedly, the conse- 
 quences, naturally resulting from this decision, 
 cannot be conte[nplated by serious men witli in- 
 difference. 
 
 The Court is represented by I\Ir. Gurney as 
 having no doubt at all upon the grounds stated ia 
 the judgment, in admitting the articles exhibited : 
 that is. in giving its decision against tlie Clergyman. 
 'Till I came to the >ery last sentence of this 
 judgment, in which the Court is said to profess 
 to feel tio doubt at ail^ — I must confess that I was 
 strongly impressed (and I should suppose that 
 most readers would be strongly impressed) with 
 the idea, that much doubt had been fd.t upon 
 
 B the 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 the subject. I infcn ed it, iVom the general manner 
 of the worthy and respectable Ollicial towards 
 the reverend deiendant; — from the nature of 
 much of l]is argument and proof; — fiom t!ie un- 
 common laboriousness evinctd in defence of his 
 decision; — and from his conscientious solicitude to 
 procure, from books and other sources, previously 
 to his coming into Court, plenary information 
 upon the contested subject. 
 
 Canon the 68th, it appears, together with the 
 Rubric before the Burial Service, constitutes the 
 law to which both parties appeal. The Canon 
 directs, " That no minister shall refuse or delay 
 *' to christen any child, kc. — or to bury any 
 " corpse, kc. in such manner and form as is 
 *' prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer." 
 Of the Canon Sir J. observes, that it was made 
 not meiely " for the protection of the Clergy, 
 ** but for their discipline also." (P. 8.) The 
 Rubric before tiie office of Burial is in this form, 
 " Here is to be noted, that the office ensuing is 
 " not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or 
 " excommunicate, or iiave laid violent hands upon 
 " themselves." " These directions, contained in 
 *' the rubric, are clearly," says Sir J., " of bind- 
 *' ing obligation and authority." (P. 8.) "They 
 " form a part of the statute law of the land." 
 (P. 9') Then observing that it is not a- matter of 
 option, whether a clergyman shall adujinister the 
 - 4 • . burial 
 
C 3 ) 
 
 burial service, or shall refuse it, he proceeds to 
 state the question. The question is, *' Whether 
 ** this infant, baptized with water, in the name 
 *' of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
 "by a Dissenting Minister, who is pleaded to 
 " have qualified himself according to the regula- 
 *' tions of the Toleration Act, did die unbaptized^ 
 " icitliin the true fncamng of the rubric. If the 
 ** child died unbaptized, the minister was not only 
 ** Justified, but it was his duty, and he was en- 
 *' joined by law not to perform the service. If the 
 " child did not die unbaptized, than he has vio- 
 " lated the canon, by a refusal neitiier justified 
 " by any exception contained in the canon itself 
 *' expressly, nor by any subsequent law." Sir 
 J. acknowledges that the Court is under very con- 
 siderable ol)ligation to the counsel on both sides, 
 for the assistance which it has received in consi- 
 dering this question, and thL'U disposes his dis- 
 cussion into tu'o parts, in these words. " To as- 
 *' certain the true meaning of the law, the ordi- 
 ** nary rules of construction must be resorted to; 
 *' first, by considering the words in their plain 
 *' meaning, and in their general sense, uncon- 
 *' nected with the law; and in the next place, by 
 " examining whethei" any special meaning can be 
 " affixed to tlie words, when connected wit!) the 
 *'■ law, either in its context, or in its iustory." 
 (P. 29.) To all this, 1 apprehend, no one can 
 
 B a reason- 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 reasonably object. But from this point: in the 
 report of the judgment, 1 fear that 1 can no longer 
 follow the steps of the worthy Ofticial, and I am 
 nuich afraid, that tiiey who are disposed to follow 
 the same track, are not fully apprised whither it 
 may lead both him and them. 
 
 Siv J. has prescribed to himself so clear and so 
 proper a method in delivering his sentiments, tiiat 
 I cannot do better than pursue the order of his 
 arguujents, and offer my remarks upon them as 
 they occur. 
 
 " The plain import of the word ' unbaptized,' " 
 says Sir J., p. 10, '' in its general sense, and uncon- 
 *' nected with the rubric, is obviously a person 
 " not baptized at all; not initialed into the 
 *' Christian Church.'' I must confess myself 
 rather fond of p/ui/i imports, obvious and simple 
 senses of any words, and am not aware of any 
 legitiuiate meaning for the word baptism, which it 
 is intended to refer to the sacrament, but *■' ini- 
 tiation into the Christian Church." • As for " com- 
 " mou parlance,''' I am not so fond of that, if it 
 be its manner to confound together the ordinances 
 of the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the 
 Presbyterian C'hurch, (as Sir J. in this report 
 calls it), the Independent Calvinists, (1 perceive 
 Sir J. allows them no Church), and the Church 
 of England, and then to say that each of their 
 ordinances of initiation into their several conaiiu- 
 
 iiions 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 nions is baptism; that each of these fcan admit 
 into the Christian Church. If Sir J. attributes 
 this opinion to common purlance, — well. No 
 better divinity is to be expected from the illiterate 
 vulgar. Bui if he means it as his own opinion, 
 I shall here only observe, that this is obviously a 
 mere petitio principii: which by and by shall be 
 duly answered. 
 
 But I cannot help lamenting the frequent mis- 
 chief which arises from the want of correct deli- 
 nitions; particularly in those leading words of any 
 author or speaker, upon which sometimes all de- 
 pends. With respect to the word before us, ils 
 orijjinal and simple meaning is neither more nor 
 less than the act of dipping or pouring water upon 
 man or things. And this mere act gJ ablution^ 
 anv person is competent to perform. But when it 
 is put for the sacrament of Christ, then it signi- 
 fies not a mere washing, — but a washing per- 
 formed by the authority and commission of Jesus 
 Christ: " Go ye, and baptize." " In the ordi- 
 " nary mode of speech, and in the common use 
 *' of language," baptism is taken for the sacra- 
 ment of initiation into the Christian Church, 
 jkit it is plain that if there can be no initiation 
 into the Church of Christ but by persons duly 
 authorized, then that washing which is not per- 
 formed by the divine authority, ca^uiot pro])erly 
 
 be 
 
( 6 ) ■ 
 
 be called baptism: and this incorrect mode n{ 
 speaking, and promiscuous use of the word to 
 signify either the true or the spurious sacrament, 
 throws a mist of confusion o\er the whole report, 
 and lead^, as it ever must, to inconclusive rea- 
 soning. 
 
 In p. II., it is rightly observed '* that cxcom- 
 *' munication, in the meaning of the law of the 
 " English Church, is not merely an expulsion 
 " from the Church of England, but from the 
 *' Church generally;" for proof of which the 33d 
 article is cited. But in p. \'2 it is said, that the 
 Chin"ches punishment by excommunication can ex- 
 tend to their country only. Has not Sir J. inad- 
 vertently fallen, if not into a contradiction, at 
 least into an inaccuracy, not very unlike oner 
 
 True it is, that it is not in the power of one 
 particular Church to interfere in any way with the 
 o-overnment of another. The Church of England 
 cannot expel from the universal Church a member 
 of the Church of Rome, nor has that presump- 
 tuous Church any power over her sisters. 'J'o pre- 
 tend to this is a species of schism, of which none 
 but the Romish Church is guilty, and is contrary 
 to the very nature of episcopacy, and the practice 
 of the Apostles and Fathers. True it is, the civil 
 disabilities which by the law of England are con- 
 sequent upon the English Church's sentence of 
 
 excom- 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 excommunication, cannot reach to countries where 
 the laws of England do not oblige. But it" the 
 excommunication of one Church be expuUion 
 from ail Churches, if excision from a branch of 
 the Church in any one country be excision from 
 the Church ^universal, or (to use the words of the 
 very sentence of excommunication) to be cut off 
 ab onmi aacictule Ecclcsice Dei, how can it be said 
 that the excommunication of the English Churcii 
 extends no further than Eni!;land? 
 
 By excommunication, however, Sir J. admits 
 that the English Church intends the proper reverse 
 of that which she intends by baptism; for bap- 
 tism, he says, admits into the Christian Church, 
 ([). II.) and excommunication is expulsion from 
 the Church generally, (p. 12.) If then the dif- 
 ferent baptisms (I use the word in the incorrect 
 acceptation of it) of the various parties enume- 
 rated by Sir J. admit into the Christian Church, 
 the various exconimunications of these sects must, 
 in like manner, expel from the Christian Church. 
 For their excommunications are evidently just as 
 good as their baptisms. He will admit that there 
 can be no baptism without the authority of Christ. 
 None can bear the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
 but those to whom Jesus Christ has given them : 
 and none can enter, but by these keys; for when 
 he asserts that the Romanist, the Greek Chris- 
 tian, the Presbyterian, the Independent, all are 
 
 admittecl 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 admitted into the Churcli by their respective bap- 
 tisms, lie means, of course, that each of iheiu 
 has the authority of God for so doing. ]3ut he 
 who bears the key, can shut the door of the 
 Church as well as open it. All of them therefore 
 do as effectually excommunicate by the authority 
 of God, as they all can validly baptize. Sir J. 
 then has certainly, upon this point of excommu- 
 nication, been a little inaccurate in his exauiina- 
 tion, and has withheld too from the Dissenters a 
 very material portion of their claims upon the 
 Church ; for it necessarily follows from the ad- 
 mission of their ha{>tisms, that they have not only 
 a right to our burial service for those who die i;i 
 their various communions, but a right likewise by 
 our canon and rubric, of requiring us to refuse the 
 honour of our burial service to them who die 
 under the ban of their various and contradictory 
 excommunications ; and then a diffjcuhy will arise, 
 incapable, I fear, of solution, even in the Court 
 of Arches. For since their baptism has been 
 decreed by the Court of Arches to be a true 
 initiation into the Christian Church ; and con- 
 sequently their excommunication a true ex- 
 pulsion from it; I imagine I may challenge any 
 one to produce from the institution and nature of 
 the sacrament, and the reason of the thing, any 
 argument for the validity of Dissenters' baptism, 
 that shall not as strongly prove the validity of 
 
 Dissenters' 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 Dissenters' excommunication. They must stand 
 or fall together. The contradictions, however, 
 which thicken upon our view every step we ad-* 
 vance in our examination of unauthorized bap- 
 tism, make me suspect, that in those Churches in 
 which it has been in any degree allowed, it has 
 not been so much from a conviction of its vali- 
 dity, as from merely prudential or political mo- 
 tives. 
 
 In the following passage, ([). 13), we have ano- 
 ther instance of the perplexities arising from an in- 
 discriminate use of terms: " Taking the context 
 " of the law, tS:c. — it leads to the same con- 
 •' struction as the general import of the words ; 
 " namely, that burial is to he refused to those 
 ** who are not Christians at all, and not to those 
 " who are baptizt^d according to the forms of any 
 " particular Church.'' By burial Sir J. most pro- 
 bably means our Church scn'ice. \\y baptized he 
 here intends a baptism administered without the 
 commission and aulliority of God; and by Church, 
 I suppose, he means any congregation of our va- 
 rious Dissenters, as well as the Cueek, the Romish, 
 and the various Reformed Churches. This, if I 
 am not mistaken, he teaches us in these words, 
 that Non-Cliristiaiis are those who have never re- 
 ceived any sort of baptism in the name of the 
 Blessed Trinity ; those who have by any way been 
 excommunicated i and those who have deprived 
 
 them* 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 themselves of life. A second lesson which we are 
 taught by comparing this passage with p. 1], is 
 this, that not only real and true Churches, but also 
 heretical or schis'iratical congregations, of what- 
 ever kind, (which also he dignifies with the title of 
 Churches,) are, equally, stewards of the mysteries 
 of God, the holy sacraments. Which in detail will 
 run thus : The Church of Rcaie, the Greek Church, 
 the Church of England, the Presbyterian Church, 
 the Church of the Independents, the Church of 
 Anabaptists, the Church of Whitfield, the Church 
 of Wesley, the Church of Huntington, the Church 
 of Dr. ilippon, &c. ^c. &c. ;^c. (for the sake of 
 saving time and paper, I refer the leader to the 
 various pious publications of the day, to which 
 Sir J.'s two booksellers can direct him) ; all these, 
 I sa}', are equally entrusted by Jesus Christ with 
 the custody of the holy truth, and the administra- 
 tion of the sacraments; so that it is injpossible 
 for a man to fail of obtaining the pure sacra- 
 ments; a thing which much perplexed the pri- 
 mitive Christians, who knew no better. But now 
 times are altered, and all those schismatical con- 
 gregations, which our canons declare excommu- 
 nicate ipso facto, are to be considered as so many 
 Churches, capable of administering the sacraments 
 of our Blessed Lord. 
 
 Another instance of the same kind occurs in p. 
 J 3, where Sir J. is represented as saying that 
 
 '^ the 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 " the general law is, that burial is to he refused 
 ** to no person, which is affirmed to he the law 
 " not only of the English Church, hut of all 
 " Christian Churches, and the law too of common 
 *' humanity." Here the word burial must neces- 
 sarily be used in two senses, viz. for the act of 
 simple sepulture or interment, when it is made 
 to .apply to foreign Christian Churches, and to 
 common humanity; but for sepulture with our 
 burial service, when it is connected with the 
 law of our Church ; two as different things in 
 themselves as can well be instanced: and there- 
 fore 'lis pity that the discussion should be ob- 
 scured, by confounding them. In what follows, 
 I confess myself unable exactly to comprehend 
 what the report means to assert, for as the report 
 ^ runs, there appears to be first a broad assertion: 
 then a retractation : here the law is made to ap- 
 pear one thing; a little further it takes a different 
 shape. Let us attempt however to grasp this 
 Proteus paragraph, at least till we can obtain from 
 it what most probably was the speaker's sense. 
 First it is said, the law of the English Church re- 
 fuses burial (its burial service) to no person. That 
 is, I presume, there is no law which actually re- 
 fuses burial to any person. But surely here wc 
 might rather expect from such high authority to 
 be directed to some positive law of the Church 
 which gives that privilege to any out of her own 
 
 communion. 
 
C 12 ) 
 
 communion ; for we know not any other case in 
 which she takes upon her to legislate for any but 
 her own niemhers, or in any \^ ise to judge those 
 who are without *'. l^ut no such law is to be 
 found; else doubtless it would have been pro- 
 duced, and a speedy end put to this interesting 
 suit. We are directed, under pain of lying under 
 the imputation of " strangely perverting, or rather 
 " inverting, all legal considerations," not to call 
 for this plain law; and are told, " that the ques- 
 " tion is not, is there any law expressly enjoining 
 *' the Clergy to bury Dissenters ; but, does any law 
 "exclude Dissenters from burial?" Now, really, 
 this seems to be, on the part of the learned Offi- 
 cial, so much like doubling upon the scent, in 
 order to avoid the pursuit, that it will be impos- 
 sible to prevent the readers of the report from per- 
 ceiving, that although it was asserted that the law 
 of our Church refuses burial to no person, yet 
 the fact really is, that there is no law which will 
 
 * And if this be the casfe, some persons may perhaps think 
 that the long argument concerning the Churches judgment ou 
 the validity or invalidity of unauthorized baptisms, is wiioUy 
 beside the question, since the Church of England, in pro» 
 viding a service for those of her own houshwld, and exclud- 
 ing those of them who by omission or commission were un» 
 worthy of it or unfit, could never liave in contemplation the 
 excommunicate, unbci])lized, or suicide of any dissenting 
 communion > 
 
 authorize* 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 authorize the grant of it to any but hef own' 
 lueinbers any where to be found. 
 
 1 am perfectly aware of Sir J.'s opinion, tliat 
 the Clergy are bound to bury Dibsenters, and as 
 far as it is the opinion of a learned civilian, I 
 respect it much. But opinion is not law. Sir 
 J.'s successor may hold a dilferent opinion upon 
 the same subject, but we cannot say that the law 
 is then changed; God forbid it should. God 
 forbid that any Clergyman should be amenable to 
 the changeable opinions of the different Officials 
 Principal of the Court of Arches, and not, as 
 every Englishman ought to be, to public written 
 laws alone. We must not therefore be diverted 
 from the true question ; Where is the law to compel 
 the Clergy to do a thing, which is evidently un- 
 reasonable in itself, and in its consequences they 
 think extremely injurious not only to the Church, 
 but to pure religion? 
 
 A little further we meet however with a restric- 
 tion to this supposed law of the Church. It is 
 said to be the duty of the parish minister to bury 
 all persons <Ii)ing within his parish, and then a 
 further restriction, to all Christians. So that 
 h€re, it should seem, it is denied to be the law 
 that burial is to be refused to no person. The 
 minister is here to deny it lu all but parishioners, 
 and to all but Christians. Again it is said, the 
 minister is to bury all person- ihat are brought to 
 
 the 
 
( 1+ ) 
 
 the Church, &c; and it is observed, that nothing 
 can be more large than the canon is in this re- 
 spect. Now come further restrictions, however, 
 which contract this largeness not a little: for it is 
 added, that " the canon has the single exception 
 *' expressly of excommunicated persons." The 
 rubric adds the other express exceptions " of 
 *' persons unbaptized and suicides.'' I am really 
 at a loss to know what Sir J. intends to deliver as 
 the law of the Church; whether that the burial 
 service is to be refused to no person, or whether 
 it is to be refused to some. ^V^ht■n he argues for 
 the first and large law, he places himself upon 
 the ground of the ()8th Canon, which he says was 
 made to punish the refusal of burial; " it not 
 " limiting," says he, " the duty of the Clergy to 
 *' the burial of persons who are of the Church of 
 *' England," he is to bury all persons who are 
 brought to his Church, &c. He takes the canon, 
 and selects just as much of it as he chooses for 
 his purpose, and leaving' all the rest, calls this 
 the law of the Church. I trust that this is not the 
 method in which this eminent civilian is accus- 
 tomed to demonstrate the law in other cases. Is 
 it indeed possible that he can be arguing seriously 
 when he maintains that the canon punishes refusal 
 of burial in all cases, or with the single excep- 
 tion of persons excommunicated? 
 
 Sir 
 
( I.'. ) 
 
 Sir J. may perhaps alledge, that exceptions are 
 not laws, and may wish an exception to be treated 
 with a different construction from that of a general 
 law. But surely exceptions are as truly parts of 
 a law, as the general rule with which the statement 
 of the law may set out. All persons so and so, 
 are described by law liable to serve in the militia^ 
 except, it it is added, Clergymen, medical men, 
 and so forth. Now is it not as truly and correctly 
 a part of that law, that the Clergy, &c, shall be 
 exempted, as it is that others shall serve? What 
 is the nature of grammar, and the bulk of the 
 volume which teaches it, but the specification of 
 exceptions to a few short general rules, which 
 constitute but a very small part of grammar? But 
 I presume not to differ with this learned person hi 
 nice distinctions of law, in which I am conscious 
 I must be many degrees his inferior; I only insist 
 upon this position, that that cannot be considered 
 as the law, which is given and considered only in 
 part, and by mutilated fragments ; because one 
 sentence taken separately from the context, will 
 frequently give a sense the reverse of that which 
 appears when taken in conjunction with it. Now 
 Sir J. is reported to affirm that, according to the 
 law of the Church, burial is to be refused to 7io 
 person, (see p. 8), and that nothing can be more 
 large than the canon in this respect. To the canon 
 let us go, " No minister shall refuse or delay to 
 
 *' christen 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 " christen any child according to tlie form of the 
 " Book of Common Prayer, that is brought to the 
 ** Church to him upon Sundays or hoUdays to be 
 *' christened, or to bury any corpse that is brought 
 " to the Church or church-yard, (convenient 
 " warning being given him thereof before), in 
 ** such manner and form as is prescribed in the 
 ** said Book of Common Prayer; and if he 
 " shall refuse to christen the one or bury the other, 
 " except the party deceased were denounced ex- 
 ** couununicated, inajori e.icominunicatione, for 
 " some grievous and notorious crime, and no man 
 *' able to testify of liis repentance, he shall be 
 " suspended by the Bishop of the diocese from 
 " his ministry, b}' tlie space of three months." 
 
 Here the Minister is enjoined, under pain of 
 suspension, not to refuse, what? — to christen any 
 child in any manner? under any circumstances? 
 according to any form ? — No, he is not to refuse 
 baptism to any child under these circumstances, 
 the baptism must be according to the form (juxta 
 ritiim) of the Book of Common Pra^'er: the 
 child must be broujiiit to the Church to him: and 
 he must be brought on Sundays and holidays. If 
 M'C wish further to know what that form is, — we 
 must go to the Common Prayer, and there we 
 may see it. So that these directions respecting 
 the minister's duty, must be gathered from what is 
 here in the canon prescribed, and from the other 
 
 rules 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 i'ules and directions contained in the book to 
 which the canon refers. Were I to christen a 
 child at the Church, without the observance of 
 the directions given in the Common Prayer, it is 
 evident that I should be transgressing this very 
 canon, which enjoins my observance of the 
 Common Prayer. 
 
 Again, the Minister is enjoined not to refuse to 
 bury any corpse that is brought to the Church, or 
 Church-yard, in such maniier and form (sub modo 
 €t forma) as is prescribed in the said Book of 
 Common Prayer. He is not enjoined to bury any 
 corpse, in any manner, in any form, under any 
 circumstances. No, he must bury those that are 
 brought to him, only in the maimer, and with the 
 form of the Church Service. Now, as in the case 
 of christening a child, the manner of the ceremony 
 is directed in the rubrics, and the form in that which 
 may be called the text, — so in the case of burial, 
 the manner is prescribed in the rubrics, the form, 
 in the text, — the canon referring us in the case 
 of burial as well as of baptism, to the Book of 
 Common Prayer, for particulars of our duty. 
 The very first rubric in the burial service is the 
 prohibition, denying that service to the unbap- 
 tized, the excommunicate, and the suicide. This 
 is the first direction respecting the manner of 
 using that solemn service, and the canon has re- 
 ferred us to those directions in a more exact manner 
 
 C than 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 than in the case of christening: for with respect 
 to that, the for )?i only (ju.vta ritinn) is specified. 
 In prescribing respecting burial, the mannej^ is 
 mentioned as well as form, (sub modo kt forma), 
 as if the canon were more anxious for the exact 
 conformity with the Book of Common Prayer in 
 the latter duty than in the former. Does the 
 canon sanction the rubrics in the office of bap- 
 tism, and does it not sanction the rubrics in the 
 order for burial? Did Sir J. ever doubt the first, 
 can he doubt the latter? The second rubric 
 directs the Priest and Clerks to meet the corpse, 
 and to say or sing the verses which form the in- 
 troduction of the service. Does not the canon 
 enjoin the minister to observe the directions of 
 this rubric ? And can any one say that this shall 
 be observed, and not the first ? The canon there- 
 fore, it is plain, in enjoining the minister to ob- 
 serve the manner and form prescribed in the Book 
 of Common Prayer, enjoins him not to use the 
 office of burial in several excepted cases. 
 
 Hence likewise, it will appear, that this canon i* 
 not quite so "/^ro-e in this respect," as the learned 
 civilian seems to make it, for it evidently restrains 
 the minister in three diti'erent cases; and if we 
 take in likewise that restriction, which appears to 
 be in Sir J.'s mind, viz. that the minister is bound 
 only to his parishioners, (p. J 4), (a restriction 
 not mentioned, I think, in canons or rubric), the 
 
 largaiess 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 iargeacss of the canon dwindles down to a size 
 much inferior to what it may have at first ap- 
 peared ; to a size much better adapted to the pur- 
 poses for which it was originally framed. And hence 
 also it will appear, that the report cannot be con- 
 sidered as correctly stating, " that the canon has 
 *' the single exception expressly of excommuni^ 
 *' cated persons," (unless its accuracy is to be shelr 
 tered under the word cvpressly ; ) for be it granted, 
 that the exception of excommunication alone is ex- 
 pressly mentioned; yet all exceptions to be found 
 in those further directions, to which the minister is 
 referred, are necessarily contained^ (I mean to 
 use a stronger word than implied), in the canon. 
 But since the canon expressly refers the minister 
 to the rubrics and text, that is, to the entire Book 
 of Common Prayer for a detail of directions, I 
 must contend for leave to say that, in a very 
 proper and admissible sense, the canon does e.r- 
 presily contain all the exceptions of the office in 
 the Book of Cojnmon Prayer. 
 
 We have seen however, that immedialelv after 
 the assertion, that the canon " has a single ex- 
 *• ception," it is also asserted, that *' the rubri« 
 •' adds the further express exceptions of persons 
 ** unbaptized and suicides. And as it has been 
 ** already granted that the rubric forms a part of 
 ** the statute law of the land," (p. 9), I am con- 
 tented, and it will not be forgotten, 1 trust, that 
 , C 2 eve^-y 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 every clergyman is more strongly bound to the 
 observance of these than any other public law or 
 ecclesiastical injunction whatever. He is bound 
 by his subscriptions at ordination ; by his declara- 
 tion of conformity before the ordinary; by his 
 pledge to the congregation at the time Gf his de- 
 claration ; and by his declaration of assent and 
 consent, as prescribed in the act of uniformity. 
 
 Before I close my remarks upon thi^ place, I 
 must take leave to notice a third inaccuracy in the 
 use of terms, of serious consequence in all con- 
 troversy upon the subject in hand. The question, 
 says the report, is this: whether any law exists to 
 exclude Dissenters from burial? The question is 
 not respecting Dissenters, as such, as separatists 
 from the Church; the question is, respecting 
 persons irulij baptized. I do not undertake to 
 vindicate them who may contend for the excep- 
 tion of all persons who have not been baptized by 
 a lawful minister of the Church of England, ac- 
 cording to its prescribed service; they clearly have 
 much reason on their side, though they should 
 not be able to stretch the law quite to meet their 
 notions. In the body of those ^vho dissent from 
 our Church, and are usually termed Dissenters, 
 are many persons who have received not only tiiie 
 baptism, but baptism according to the manner and 
 form of the established Church. I see no ground 
 for withholding from such the honour of burial in 
 
 tho 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 tlie manner and form of the said Church, nay, of 
 any Christian Church in which they may die ; for 
 as by baptism they become members of the Uni- 
 versal Church, they are entitled to the honour of 
 Christian burial, in any part of the Universal 
 Church. To make this therefore the common 
 cause of all Dissenters, can answer no purpose 
 whatever, but that of exciting the whole of them 
 to join their opposition to the Church, who never 
 thought of refusing any of them the honour of 
 her burial service, but those who die unbaptized, 
 excommunicate majori excommnnicatione, and 
 suicides. And do not the Dissenters in geiteral 
 observe similar rules of discipline? It is to be 
 lamented that so vague a term as that of Dis- 
 senter, which at least conveys no specific, only a 
 negative idea, sliould have been so loosely used 
 in the Court of Arches, upon an occasion de- 
 manding a very careful and very critical use of 
 words. 
 
 Lastly, I cannot but remark, (upon that 
 passage already noticed, in which Sir J. en- 
 deavours to call us off from our demand for the 
 la\y, which, he says, compels us to bury Dis- 
 senters), with how much greater force and pro- 
 priety such a mode of arguing would have become 
 an advocate for the Clergy. Let us see how it 
 looks. " It was with a great degree of surprise 
 " that several Dignitaries and very respectable 
 
 " Clergy 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 Clergy have heard of the existence of a law to 
 compel the burial of Dissenters with the service 
 of the Church of England. This seems to 
 them most strangely perverting, or rather in- 
 verting, all ecclesiastical law. The question is 
 not, say they, is there any law expressly pro- 
 hibiting their burial; but does any law imply 
 that the Dissenters have a right of burial with 
 the Church service?" 
 Had the counsel for the defendant offered this 
 argument in favour of the Clergy, it would have 
 have had propriety and force. For although the 
 Dissenters should not by any express law be ex- 
 cluded, yet this can make but little for them in 
 argument, since Dissenters were never necessarily 
 or by implication included in the right of Church 
 privileges. Th^y themselves despise Church pri- 
 vileges, they ridicule theni; most of them they 
 declare to be sinful; and accordingly they leave 
 the Church, for what they deem better cornmu-» 
 nion. How then can any tacit right be allowed 
 them? they have expressly excluded themselves* 
 Will Sir J. force our loathed offices and liturgy 
 upon them? 
 
 On the other hand, it never can be supposed 
 that the Church intended to include within the 
 range of her benefits and privileges, such persons 
 as openly declare a conscientious dislike of her 
 ceremonies, and a decided opposition to her ec» 
 
 clesiastical 
 
< 23 ) 
 
 clesiastical discipline, and such as, in hei' panons^ 
 are expressly deemed excommunicate. It is un- 
 reasonable to suppose it. If the}' are now to be 
 considered as entided to the right ol" Cliurch bu- 
 rial, it is absolutely necessary to produce some 
 overt grant, — some express law, which will sur- 
 mount what most would deem the insuf)erabJe bar 
 to such a grant, (I mean their continued hostility 
 to the Church, and contempt of all her ministra- 
 tions), and give them that right which they cannot 
 claim upon any other ground. 
 
 We now follow the learned Official throuo-h his 
 
 o 
 
 laboured examination of the history of the law. 
 " In order to see," says he, *' whetiier the rubric, 
 *' though it has not this exception in express 
 " terms, still by the general term * unbaptized,' 
 " has this limited meaning, ' not baptized ac- 
 ** cording to tlie form of the English liturgy, and 
 " by a lawful Minister of the Church of England.'" 
 I have already expressed my disapprobation of 
 this limited meaning, and my readiness to con- 
 sider the word as expressing the want of what Sir 
 J. calls " legal and valid initiation into the Chris- 
 " tian Church." Let us attend to what he de- 
 livers upon the very extensive question of lay 
 baptism: — that question, indeed, upon which the 
 whole controversy is ultimately made to hinge. 
 
 He enters upon this subject with first informing 
 us that " the law of the Church of England and 
 " its history are to be deduced from the ancient 
 
 " caoon 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 " canon law, — from the particular constitution 
 " made in this country to regulate the Engli^i 
 " Church, — from our own canon, — from the ru- 
 *' brie, and from any acts of parliament that may 
 " have passed upon the subject: and the uhole 
 '* may be illustrated also by the Mri tings of 
 ** eminent persons." Through those different 
 channels he ably conducts us, collecting certain 
 documents to prove the validity of lay-baptism, 
 which we will examine in the order he presents 
 them. I must first however premise, that the 
 greater part of this learned research can not avail 
 much to the settling the present dispute; for the 
 question, (although such an inquiry may be both 
 useful and enterlaining), is not what teas the opi- 
 nion of the early Church of England, but what 
 is the law of the Church of England now? for I 
 suppose it not likely that a Clergyman of the year 
 1810 is to be ultiifiately directed in the practice 
 of his clerical duties by constitutions of Otho 
 and Othobon. , 
 
 Moreover, it is an article of our faith, (Art. 
 19), that Churches are not infallible : — and that 
 the Church of Rome hath erred. But the 
 Church of England, in the time of Otho and 
 Othobon, was under the influence, or rather, sub- 
 mitted to be part of the Church of Rome: and 
 accordingly partook of her corruption. What- 
 ever documents therefore are drawn from the 
 canons and constitutions of our national Church 
 
 of 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 of that day, must be received as Popish, and 
 from the authority of all such our national Church 
 was set free at the Retbrmation, when it was de- 
 clared in the first commission issued for the revi- 
 sion of their canons and constitutions, that — • 
 " leges omnes, decreta atque instituta, quae ab 
 ** Authore Episcopo Romano profecta sunt, prar^ 
 .** SUB abroganda censuimus." 
 
 " If we enquire into the antient canon law,'* 
 says Sir J., " it will appear that from the ear^ 
 " liest times, baptism by a layman, or even by 
 *' a woman, was held to be valid." The situa- 
 tion which Sir J. holds, it must be presumed, 
 has induced him thoroughly to acquaint him- 
 self with antient canon law. But I must con- 
 fess that my inconsiderable acquaintance with 
 this law, slight in comparison, I should ima- 
 gine, with that of Sir J.'s, has not furnished the 
 same result. I have consulted learned friends, — ' 
 I have read upon tiie case, — but that has not yet 
 appeared to me which appears to Sir J. It is usu- 
 ally admitted that little mention is m.ade of lay- 
 baptism in the first ages of the Church. The ab- 
 solute necessity of an authorized administrator 
 was generally supposed, and therefore, tacitly at 
 least, admitted. The disputes which then agi- 
 tated the Church, were not respecting baplism by 
 laymen, but baptism administered by heretics and 
 schismaticSf which is quite a different thing. For 
 
 those 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 those men had been vested with the sacerdotal 
 character, and therefore were not laymen; so that 
 no arguments from their case can be applied to 
 the case of those who are only laymen, and alto- 
 gether opposers of the sacerdotal function. But 
 this confusion of heretical or schismatical wiih lay 
 baptism, has unfortunately prevailed in almost all 
 the later controversies upon the subject, and bai 
 given a specious sanction to the validity of lay- 
 baptism; for which, I will venture to affirm, no 
 authority can be deduced from the earliest and 
 purest ages of the Church. 
 
 Sir J., in the sequel of his judgment, gives us 
 many quotations from particular constitutions, and 
 from later documents, for a demonstration of his 
 point. But the reader must observe, that he very 
 briefly passes over the antient canon law, (which 
 6urely is sounder authority than Popish canon law), 
 and the earliest times, (which were undoubtedly 
 the purest), without a single citation of a canon, 
 or even an opinion, and with only this extraordi- 
 nary notice: that ** if the antient canon law be 
 ** enquired into, — it will appear that lay-baptism 
 " was held to be valid!" 
 
 Many most learned and eminent divines have 
 maintained the reverse of this position; with them 
 Sir J. cannot censure me for concurring, till that 
 procf of his assertion be clearly made out, into 
 which he appears disinclined to enter. With 
 
 respect 
 
( er ) 
 
 respect to the validity of a woman^s baptism, it is 
 to be observed, that any argument that will prove 
 the validity of the laymaii's will likewise prove 
 this ; nay, it will prove any baptism to be good, 
 administered by man, woman, or child, or by 9, 
 Biao's own hand; for when once the divine autho- 
 rity and commission to administer the sacraments 
 ;a,re set aside, it is impossible to shew any real 
 difference between this unauthorised washing, and 
 any ordinary ablution, made for common purposes. 
 Even the determination of Alexander, an Eastern 
 Bishop, pronouncing the baptism of some boys, 
 diverting themselves with an imitation of that holy 
 mystery, to be valid, must, upon these principles, 
 be deemed good. Wherefore it is but just to ob-^ 
 serve respecting the female baptizers of the Roman 
 Church, that their pretensions to minister a true sa- 
 crament are superior to those of persons who were 
 neverin any way whatever authorized, and whoactin 
 avowed opposition to the lawful apostolical ministry 
 of Christ, because these received a formal licence 
 from Bishops to administer this sacrament, and 
 were regularly instructed how to perform their 
 duty ; whereas the multifarious company of lay- 
 baptizers, acting without licence, acknowledge no 
 authority, but every one, each for himself, vio- 
 lently seizes the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
 to admit w horn he pleases ! 
 
 For 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 For proof of all this, Sir John '' refers us t* 
 ** the passages of Scripture which have been re- 
 *' ferred to by the Church itself, as the founda- 
 " tion of its law, &c," I wish he had referred 
 us to the place where the Church refers to the 
 passages, that we might have seen for what pur- 
 pose she uses them. From our Lord's conversa- 
 tion with Nicodemus, (John iii. 5.) Sir J. infers, 
 that " the Church has held that baptism was so 
 ** strongly enjoined as a matter of indispensable 
 ** necessity, that rather than omit it altogether, 
 *' the ceremony was to be performed even by a 
 " layman." That the Church in the earliest times 
 held this doctrine, stands at present, (as has been 
 observed), without proof either from Sir J., or (as 
 far as I know) from any one else. If he allude 
 to our present Church of England, the assertion 
 is made in the very teeth of her declaration to the 
 contrary. In the catechism she has declared, that 
 a sacrament is (not absolutely ^ but only) geiierailif 
 necessary to salvation. In her offices of baptism, 
 she commits this sacrament into the hand of her 
 ministers alone, and makes no exception in favour 
 of others ; and in the exhortation used in the 
 office for the baptism of adults, she most decidedly 
 rejects the absolute necessity of this sacrament, 
 and speaks of the " great necessity of it where it 
 ** may be had.'* Now this is a plain indication of 
 
 her 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 opinion, that baptism cannot always be had. 
 But lay baptism may always be had, if the notion 
 be true that any man can baptize. In this short 
 passage, therefore, I cannot but perceive a strong, 
 opposition to the validity of lay baptism, — an 
 effectual condemnation of that sort of baptism 
 which may always be had, and a full comment 
 upon the word ''generally,'' as used in her cate- 
 chism. Lay-baptism, I repeat it, may always be 
 had, at any time, and in any place whatever. It 
 would be sufficient for my present argument were 
 I to limit the assertion to this restriction : viz. 
 whenever two persons may meet ; but I go much 
 further, and challenge any one who rejects the 
 necessity of the sacerdotal authority and com- 
 mission, and allows the competency of any lay 
 person to baptize, to show cause why he ought 
 not to admit of self-baptism. He admits that I, 
 (a layman), may baptize my footman or my 
 nurse, — and that they may baptize me. Why am 
 not I equally capable of performing the ceremony 
 on myself? If 1 can do it for another, why may I 
 not do it for myself? 
 
 The next passage cited is that which relates our 
 Lord's commission to the eleven Apostles to bap- 
 tize: "Go YE, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 ** them, &c." — the very passage which divines 
 have uniformly brought to prove the nullity of lay- 
 baptism ! How differently people see 1 How dif- 
 ferently 
 
C 30 ) 
 
 ferently people read ! for Sir John's quotation of 
 tliis text (p. 10), omits the emphatic ye — a most 
 important part of the text, especially when consi- 
 dered in conjunction with the promise which imme- 
 diately follows, " And lo, I am with you always," 
 &c. Every commission, like a two-edged sword 
 which cuts both ways, operates in the two-fold 
 way, of including the person to whom it is given, 
 within its grant of special powers, and of ex- 
 cluding all others. "Go ye," was addressed to 
 the eleven alone, — all others therefore were ex- 
 cluded from the commission to baptize. 
 
 The third place of Scripture is that in the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, " One Lord, one faith, 
 " one baptism," which, says Sir John, Jias been 
 held by the Church to prohibit a second baptism. 
 Certainly it may be cited to prohibit a second real 
 baptism, but not to prohibit a man from receiving 
 true baptism where he has received only one that 
 is invalid, which is the same as receiving none. 
 I beg leave however to offer my opinion, that the 
 
 original words Et? Ky^toc, jtucu 7rjr»?, tv ^x7rri<r(jt.oi,—^ 
 
 make full as much against a difference of baptism 
 as against an iteration of it. Though the exact 
 tra?islatio}i of Ei, is " one," the exact sense of it 
 is better expressed by " same," — for if you will 
 argue for interpreting '' one baptism," only in 
 that sense, which shall prohibit baptism a second 
 time, you must interpret the two preceding parti- 
 culars, 
 5 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 culars, '' One Lord," " one faith," in the same 
 sense. But the Apostle's subject is not baptism : 
 it is an exhortation to unity : and he is illustrating 
 the necessity and the excellence of unity by shew- 
 ing how much of these is in all the divine appa- 
 ratus for man's redemption. There is a oneness 
 of body, — a oneness of spirit, &c., and a oneiiess 
 of baptism; a quality of unity in it; and hence I 
 am led to doubt whether the Apostle at all had in 
 view the unlawfulness of rebaptization, but that 
 he rather alluded here to the necessity of its being 
 administered in one and the same manner, and by 
 one and the same authority. Perhaps such a 
 version as this may be thought more correct: 
 *' We have one and the same Lord, one and 
 " the same faith, one and the same baptism." 
 Now the allowance of lay-baptism in its various 
 branches, is, as much as is possible, to do away 
 XhQ unity of baptism. To admit as many various 
 sorts as the caprice of mankind may invent, to 
 admit as many baptisms as there are opinions in 
 religion ; is this to have one faith, one baptism ? 
 This very passage, which the learned civihan has 
 brought to assist in his apology for lay-baptism, 
 1 am of opinion, may easily be turned against 
 liim. But neither of us, it is to be observed, 
 (p. 17), " are entering into any question of 
 *' theological controversy; we both are mer^ely 
 " endeavouring to trace and to ascertain the fact, 
 
 " —what 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 " — what has been held by the Church to be 
 *' the law." Proceed we then to the next autho- 
 rities. 
 
 We are next presented with a string of cita- 
 tions, from the text of the canon law, and after- 
 wards from the Legatine and Provincial Constitu- 
 tions : some of vvhich do bear upon the point, 
 some do not. For instance, that called the 26th 
 section, which sjieaks of the *' merita ministro* 
 " rum," and appears to be equivalent to our 
 26th article of religion, cannot, I think, be made 
 to bear upon our subject. Another speaks of 
 heretical baptism, which is equally irrelevant. 
 But take the strongest of them, such as they are, 
 and let the advocates of lay-baptism make their 
 best use of them. They are all of them autho- 
 rities, culled from the Pope and his Legates in 
 the darkest and most superstitious ages, and I 
 cannot permit the Church of Rome to lord it over 
 my faith. There was little necessity to shew us 
 that the Papists have commonly coincided with the 
 decision of the Court. Lay- baptism has often 
 been cherished in that corrupt communion, and it 
 is there that it has gained that accession of sanc- 
 tion, \vhich now gives it so imposing and so po- 
 pular an aspect. I knew it to be a doctrine of 
 Popery: almost peculiar to Popery: and I now 
 find that this particular doctrine is stepping for- 
 ward with confidence, and demanding to be 
 
 established 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 established, at the very time when Popery in ge- 
 neral is more than usually turbulent and impor- 
 tunate. If, however, the Court of Arches should 
 dieem it necessary to make the constitutions of our 
 Papal Church a rule of conduct for our Pro- 
 testant Church towards her dissenting brethren, 
 surely it would not willingly be partial, — partial to 
 them, to the prejudice of the Church. We tru^t 
 then that the Court will please to remember, that 
 the very same constitutions (as itself has informed 
 us) which, in cases of urgency, have permitted a 
 layman to administer baptism, have also declared, 
 that if he shall interpose without necessity, he is 
 punishable, (p. I9.) Now in this realm, there is 
 no necessity whatever for our dissenting brethreti 
 to interpose in the office of baptizer. If they 
 move the Court upon the ground of these an- 
 tient constitutions, to determine upon the vali- 
 dity of their baptism, upon the same ground^ thie 
 Court is bound to punish them. But let me once 
 for all observe, that in almost all of these consti- 
 tutions, it is the necessity, the urgency of the 
 case, and its being done upon occasion where no 
 priest can be procured, that are made to justify the 
 irregularity of the practice, and this upon the 
 Popish ground of the absolute necessity of that 
 sacrament, not the true Protestant Church ground 
 of general necessity; these examples therefore do 
 liot Gome up to our present dissenting baptisms, 
 
 D which 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 which are performed not only without necessity, 
 but in direct opposition and contempt of the 
 Church. 
 
 '' So the matter stood," proceeds Sir J. " at 
 " the time of the Reformation, and that period 
 " is a very important one; for if lay-baptism had 
 ** been considered as one of the errors of the 
 " Romish Church, it would have been corrected, 
 " &c., but the fact is otherwise; for the use of 
 " lay- baptism was manifestly continued by the 
 " English Reformed Church/' It is not to be ad- 
 mitted, I should think, that whatever doctrines 
 or practices of the Romish Church remained un- 
 condemned at the time of the Reformation, were 
 therefore not considered as errors. JNIany of the 
 great Reformers of that time were tender of pre- 
 judices and practices, which are now openly re- 
 probated and rejected. " That you may know 
 " how far we were from reformation in the rei^n 
 *' of Henry VIII. it will be sufficient to mention 
 " the six articles, which every oi^ that denied 
 *' w^s burnt, by Stat. 31, transubstantiation, — 
 *' communion in one kind, — the lawfulness of 
 *' Priests' marriage, — the lawfulness of breaking 
 *' a vow of chastity, — the lawfulness and neces- 
 " sity of private masses, — and the expediency of 
 " auricular confession." At this very time, w^e still 
 see here and there a little of the dregs of Popery : 
 ' — for instance, those anomalous incumbencies, 
 
 called 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 called donatives; — and those other irregular 
 cures, which are to this day made independent 
 upon any Bishop. Reformation is a gradual pro- 
 cess, not an instantaneous change, like the me- 
 thodist conversion* It is not more strange, there- 
 fore, to find lay-baptism after the Reformation, 
 than consubstantiation, or two or three other 
 Popish errors. 
 
 In p. 22, is mentioned an article agreed upon 
 in Convocation, in the year 1575, which states, 
 ** That to resolve doubts by whom private baptism 
 " is to be administered, it is directed that in 
 " future it shall be administered by a Minister 
 " only, and that private persons shall not inter- 
 " meddle therein." It appears then, that in 1575 
 there were doubts upon the subject, — and that 
 convocation was inclined to prohibit lay-baptism. 
 Doubts about what? Doubts, I should have 
 thought, upon the lawfulness, or the goodness, or 
 the validity of baptism, administered not by a 
 priest. No. According to the Court of Arches, 
 we are wrong; the doubt was, whetlier lay-bap- 
 tism was regular and orderly ! I should have 
 thought there could have been no doubt on that 
 point, for by all the apologists of lay-baptisms, 
 these have been deemed irregular, though valid, 
 in opposition to the sacerdotal baptisms, which 
 have been always distinguished by the name of 
 
 regular. 
 
 D 2 * King 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 King James the First is next brouglit under 
 notice, with the Hampton Court conference, for 
 the purpose of showing, that at that time nothing 
 occurred to derogate from the validity of lay- 
 baptism. The King, it is said, " seemed more 
 " inclined to no baptism at all, than that the 
 " office should be performed by a laic." The 
 King's words are much stronger than these, — and 
 include his opinion likewise, that baptism was not 
 ahsoluLehj necessary. "'This necessity of bap- 
 '' tism," says he, " I so understand, that it is ne- 
 ^ycessarif to be had, if laze fully to be had; that 
 '' is, ministered by lawful ministers, by whom 
 " alone, and no private person, in any case, it 
 " may be administered." He adds, " though 1 
 " utterly dislike all rebaptization on those whom 
 " women or laics have baptized." From the last 
 sentence. Sir J. concludes that the Kin^ consi- 
 dered lay-baptism as valid ; — -from the first, toge- 
 ther with the alteration of the rubric, others are 
 inclined to conclude the reverse. 
 
 We are next referred to the rubric itself, as 
 published by King James, which is said to lead to 
 the same conclusion, viz. the validity of baptism 
 administered by a laic. For the sake of dispatch, 
 I must beg the reader to turn to the whole Office 
 for Private Baptism. Sir J. deduces, (and so 
 does Bishop Fleetwood), from this office, that the 
 administrator is not of the essence of the sacra- 
 ment. 
 
( S7 ) 
 
 ment. Asking the question, *' by wiiom was this 
 " child baptized, Sec." (says Sir J.), p. 27. " by na 
 " means proves that the person who administers 
 " the ceremony is essential to the validity of bap- 
 tism." This certainly does not/;7'ore it, because the 
 question is not enjoined, but when the child has 
 been baptized hi/ a laic fid minister^ but it strongly 
 suggests it ; few, perhaps, who had not previously 
 favoured the non-essentiality of the administrator, 
 would deny, at least, that the aspect of the ques- 
 tion is towards it. 
 
 But I must get the Court of Arches to in- 
 struct me what I am to do, when the child be- 
 fore me has been baptized, but i>ot by a lawful 
 minister. 'Till I am better informed, I should, 
 in this inverted case, proceed in an inverted 
 conduct. I should^ ask no question, but, ac- 
 cording to the favourite canon of Sir J., delay not 
 a moment to christen the said child, though con- 
 trary, I fear, to the opinion of Sir J. N. By the 
 rubric T am not to ask any question ; by- the canon 
 I am not to delay to christen; but by Sir J.'s opi- 
 nion I shall be guilty of re-baptizing one already 
 a member of the Church! an ofience for which, I 
 believe, 1 am liable to ecclesiastical censure. 
 Now as it is evident by the rubric that the pre- 
 scribed questions are to be put only when the 
 child has been baptized by a lawful minister, (other 
 than the IMinister of the parish), it is absurd to 
 
 suppose 
 
C 38 ) 
 
 suppose that the first question, " By >vhom," &c, 
 is put to ascertain whether it were a lawful mi- 
 nister at all; it is put to ascertain what lawful mi^ 
 nister it was; in order, in the first place, before 
 any other enquiry shall be made, to give public 
 satisfaction that the baptizer was a lawful one, 
 and not a pretender; this circumstance being 
 vow considered as so essential, that if it be not 
 at once ascertained, no further proceedings can 
 be allowed. Besides, I would ask for what pur- 
 pose, with what design, could the Church think 
 it proper to put such a question as this, *' By 
 *' whom was this child baptized," when it is taken 
 for granted, that she cares not at all by whom 
 baptism is conferred? She puts a question, to be 
 answered, which is of no importance, and this 
 question stands the first! The congregation con- 
 cerned are collected round the font; — the Minister, 
 in the sacred robe, the representative of Him who 
 opened the kingdom of Heaven to ail believers, 
 — places himself before the people, — the infant 
 candidate for salvation is brought to him, and 
 every solemn circumstance accompanies the pious 
 
 office; — the ]\Iinister breaks silence, how? by 
 
 putting a question of prime importance? No such 
 thing. He might be supposed to frame his ques- 
 tion thus : " I must confess to you all, here pre- 
 ** sent, that the question I am about to put is of 
 ?* no consequence at all : it is perfectly insignifi- 
 
 " cant 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 " cant with respect to the bushiess in hand, I 
 " mean with respect to the validity of tlie child's 
 " baptism, — for it matters not by whom he re- 
 *' ceived his baptism. I ask the question, how- 
 ** ever, (as I am directed to do), By whom was 
 " tliis child baptized?" Sir J.'s reasons of " pro- 
 " priety and conveniency," for putting this ques- 
 tion, are not, I fear, convincincr, any more than his 
 giving emphasis to the word essential ; especially 
 when the report is observed, (p. 27, line 24), ar- 
 bitrarily to substitute the words the cd^'sntials, for 
 the words of the service so?nc things essential^ 
 which materially alters the case : for it is evident 
 that it being already ascertained tliat the child has 
 been baptized by a laxvful minister, (since it ap- 
 pears from the rubricks, this office is only to be 
 used in such cases), the minister of the parish is 
 directed further^ to enquire respecting the " matter'* 
 and " words" essential to this sacrament in par- 
 ticular, the sacerdotal character of the adminis- 
 trator being pre-supposed in both sacraments. 
 
 The fact is clearly this. Christ hath " ordained" 
 two sacraments " in his Church." To give vali- 
 dity to either of them, three things are necessary, 
 the authorized administrator,- — the matter, — and 
 the words or form of ministration. If any person^ 
 not a memher of the Church, can administer the 
 form of a sacrament, it can hardly be a sacrament 
 of Christ, " ordained in his Church." But the 
 
 Church 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 Church of England secures this point, in the net* 
 vice under examination, by making baptism by a 
 lazifut ministej^, the sine qua non, that without 
 which the minister has no authority to proceed hi 
 the ceremony, and tlien putting the other questions 
 respectin-g the matter and the words. " The old 
 " law," we are told, (p. 28), " tvould clear up 
 ^' any doubt, if any could be made upon the sub- 
 " ject," viz. the law which Lyndwood explains. 
 But I must take leave to demur to this clearing 
 up a Prote^*'\nt's doubts by a Papal civilian, and 
 upon a point too almost peculiar to the reign of 
 Popery. 
 
 But " the concluding part of the rubric is said 
 " tO; be decisive upon the subject, for it is, If 
 *' they which bring the infant to the Church do 
 *' make such uncertain answers to the Priest's 
 *' questions as that it cannot appear that the child 
 " was baptized with water, in the name of the 
 " pHther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 " (whiph are essential parts of baptism), then 
 ** let the Priest baptize it in the form before ap- 
 " pointed for public baptism of infants, saving 
 *' that at the dipping of the child in the font, he 
 *' shall use this form of words: If thou art not 
 " already baptized, I baptize thee," &c. Upon 
 this Sir J. observes, If there were a doubt respect- 
 ing the water and the invocation, then the child 
 was to be conditionally and hypothetically re-bap- 
 tize^. 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 tized. But supposing, says he, (p. 29), " ibat a 
 '* doubt arose whetlier the former baptism had 
 ** been administered by a lawful minister!" Ihat 
 is, (for Sir J.'s supposing in cflect amounts to this.) 
 supposing that a doubt should arise, when all doubt 
 had been at an end; supposing that the mi- 
 nister of the parish, who knows the child to have 
 been baptized by another lawful minister, and 
 permits him to be brought, expressly upon this 
 proviso, viz. that he has been lawfuUy baptized, — 
 should be suddenly and unexpectedly seized with 
 a doubting, — what then is to be done? For my 
 part, I could hardly have supposed it a supposeable 
 case. Sir J. however does suppose it, and says that 
 it might easily happen He says, the persons 
 ^' present might not be able to answer who the 
 " person was that baptized, — or whether he was 
 "a lawful minister!" and gravely observes, 
 ** Here are no directions in the rubric for a con- 
 " ditional re-baptization," — and logically inters, 
 *' Hence it is obvious that the administrator of 
 " the baptism was not essential by the rubric." 
 
 I must confess myself utterly unable to follow 
 Sir J., unless he grant me the right of supposing 
 what, I hope and trust, cannot easily happen. If 
 6uch a doubt arise, it must arise on the part cither 
 of the parish Minister, or of the people. If on 
 the part of the Clergyman, it can be only by sup- 
 posing that the friends of the child, in the first 
 
 instance, 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 instance, or in general, any persons who are conr^ 
 patent to inform him of the simple and accessiblo 
 fact, are to be suspected of being liars and de- 
 ceivers. If the doubt arise on the part of the 
 congregation, then we must suppose that they 
 suspect their parish Minister to be a deceiver: — ■ 
 for he attends them and their infant at the font, 
 under the express proviso of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, that the child is baptized by a lawful Mi- 
 nister. Sir J. has a worse opinion of mankind 
 than I have, to allow that a case of such com- 
 bined fraud, or of such unjustifiable suspicion in 
 holy things, might very easily happen. In the ab- 
 sence of the parish Minister, who is so likely to 
 officiate for him as some neighbouring Clergyman? 
 and in so interesting a concern, is it likely that 
 the Minister should be altogether unknown? As 
 to their being " able to answer whether the person 
 " who had administered the baptism was or was 
 *' not a lawful Minister," that is a question never 
 put to them ; that is, properly speaking, no busi- 
 ness of theirs, except indeed as to- the obligation 
 of not bringing the child there, unless it had been 
 baptized by a lawful Minister. It is rather the Mi- 
 nister's duty to take care that none such be brought, 
 because, by the rubric, they are not entitled to 
 the subsequent ceremony of receiving him as one 
 of the flock of true Christian people. My con- 
 clusion then, with submission, 1 offer to the 
 
 learned 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 learned Official, in this manner, viz. If the people, 
 find all the neighbourhood, be not unaccountably 
 false, or the Clergyman unaccountably disobedient 
 to the written law of the Church, (viz. the 
 rubric), the case supposed may be deemed an 
 almost impossible one. 
 
 During the times of the Usurpation, it is re- 
 marked, baptism must have been frequently re- 
 ceived from persons not episcopally ordained; 
 and it is argued, that these baptisms were valid, 
 because, upon the Restoration, the Bishops con- 
 firmed upon such baptisms, and in many instances 
 ordained. They must also, it is said, have buried 
 great numbers of persons who were thus baptized. 
 The learned Official shall make what use he 
 pleases of those times, or of any other times of 
 usurpation, and rebellion, and blood, and confu- 
 sion, without the smallest objection from me. 
 When the fountains of the great deep were broken 
 up, it was well that the ark of Christ's Church 
 could be kept afloat at all. When the gates of 
 Hell, to all human appearance, had so nearly 
 prevailed against her, was it a time to insist upon 
 her exact just rights? Could he expect that, when 
 Just recovering from the agonies of death, she 
 should be giving laws, as if she were flourishing 
 in the prosperity of an authorized convocation ? 
 
 If Presbyterians, or other Dissenters, (p. 32), 
 
 *' came 
 
( ^i ) 
 
 " came over to the Church, and have become 
 " members of it," says the report, " nay, have be- 
 * come ministers of it, they have never been 
 " re-baptized." Substitute " not always" for 
 " never," the position may be admitted. But we 
 must observe, that to " come over' to the Church, 
 as Presbyterians and other Dissenters have often 
 done, — and to " become members of it,'' as Dis- 
 senters very rarely do, — are totally different 
 things. Various motives induce men to come over^ 
 and generally they do it in the easiest way possible. 
 Tis conscience that leads men to become members 
 of the Church, and I know but one way to do it, 
 viz. by Church-baptism. Does Sir J. know any 
 other way? From time immemorial, many persons 
 have, in various modes, been brought clandes- 
 tinely into the Church; and at this time many are 
 entering in, but not, alas ! by the proper door of 
 the sheepfold ! In that well-known authentic de- 
 scription of the Christian sheepfold, however, the 
 reader will recollect a marked distinction between 
 them who come ove}\ and those who cowe in. 
 And I must be permitted to remark, that in the 
 writings and sentiments and practice of those 
 persons who are said to come over, there is like- 
 wise, in general, a marked difference. In those of 
 the former you generally may discover, according 
 to the Apostle's saying, " They are not all Israel, 
 
 " which 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 ** which are of Israel." (Horn. ix. 6). Their 
 speech bewrayeth them. This however, only by 
 the bye. 
 
 But they have even become Ministers of the 
 Church of England, says Sir J. Admitting this, 
 1 leave it to more competent men than I am to 
 justify those who countenanced such practices: 
 practices which the Church has no where sanc- 
 tioned in any public acts and laws. But let those 
 who have come over, look to it themselves. Were 
 they ever refused baptism? There is a service, 
 constructed on purpose for those who come over 
 to the Church. When they come to the font, the 
 Minister asks them if they have been baptized; if 
 they say. Yea, — it is plain that he cannot baptize 
 them ; they must say, No, before they can be made 
 members of our Church ; and which they will 
 say," must be left to their conscience. 
 
 But I could wish to be in possession of the opi- 
 nion of prime authority upon this case. Suppose a 
 V person baptized by a layman, or (which is the same 
 tiling in ecclesiastical law), a dissenting teacher, 
 should present himself to me for baptism, and persist 
 in saying, No. The Court of Arches has decided 
 upon the validity of his first baptism: and valid 
 baptism I must not iterate, on pain of censure. 
 But he will say, No; and the Church uniformly 
 prescribes a lawful Minister. What is the right 
 conduct? Must I refuse to this poor man that pure 
 
 baptism 
 
( 46- ) 
 
 baptism, the only lawful baptism that the Church 
 acknowledges, — and which nothing but the highest 
 respect for the Church could make him desire? and 
 at the same time must I lionour all those various 
 and contradictory baptisms of the sects as true 
 ones, who despise our baptism, and set up their own 
 in open opposition to the Church ? As for Catholic 
 (the reporter should have said Romish) converts, 
 never being re-baptized, that is little to the purpose 
 of the present argument, unless I be supposed to be 
 arguing not only for the essentials of Catholic bap- 
 tism, but for the necessity of baptism by the Book 
 of Common Prayer alone, a thing for which, I re- 
 peat it, I do not mean to contend; — my meaning 
 being only this, that the Book of Com.mon Prayer 
 does contend for those three essentials to a sacra-* 
 ment, which the Church Catholic has prescribed. 
 
 Romish converts are also not re- ordained 
 if they wish to enter the ministry. They are 
 not refused Christian burial. But what can we 
 fairly gather from all this, with respect to the 
 general question, but that the Church evidently 
 intends to mark a very essential difference be- 
 tween the ordinations of the Church of Rome, and 
 those of our Dissenters? And if she allow the 
 ordinations to be good, of necessity she acknow- 
 ledges their administration of the sacraments to 
 be good: and of course she would not think of 
 refusing them that office of burial, which is in- 
 8 tended 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 tended for all persons rightly initiated into the 
 Christian Church. This example then of Romish 
 converts, so opportunely for me brought forward, 
 I take leave to seize to my own use and behoof. 
 It directly proves the correctness of a former state- 
 ment, that our Church does not like " common 
 *' parlance" and this report, confound together 
 all her aliens under the one indiscriminate title of 
 Dissenters. She makes a difference between 
 those who have, and those who have not been 
 validli/ entered into the Church Catholic, acknow- 
 ledging the former for her Christian brethren, — • 
 but no where, that I know, recognizing as such 
 the latter. A proof likewise I draw from hence, 
 that our Church by no means designs to insist 
 upon the previous reception of her peculiar ritual 
 in baptism, as the only tide to her peculiar ritual 
 in burial. Is it to be supposed indeed that she 
 refuses the right hand of brotherhood to the 
 members of all other Churches, whether Protestant 
 or Papal, whether as corrupt as that of Rome, or 
 as pure as that little sister Church, in the North, 
 of small growth, so little spoken for (Cant. 8.) 
 the Episcopal Church in Scotland? Were this the 
 tenet of our English Church, a tenet in itself so 
 narrow-minded and illiberal, and, in point of or- 
 thodoxy, so repugnant to Cyprian's excellent de- 
 finition, " Episcopalus est unus, cujus a singulis 
 
 '' ill 
 
( 48^ ) 
 
 *' in soliduin pars tenetur," how would her ad- 
 versaries rejoice, how justly, indeed, might they 
 annoy her with reproach*? 
 
 But let us further apply to our Dissenting friends 
 the argumentum ad hominem, and offer them this 
 dilemma. Do they contend with us for the honour 
 of our burial, upon the ground of their baptism being 
 a lay-baptism? Then it follows, that they admit 
 their Ministers to be merely laymen. But it never 
 was admitted even by themselves, that laymen could 
 administer the sacraments, which they do, and 
 therefore, upon this principle, they must admit 
 their Ministers to be both presumptuous and sa- 
 crilegious. Do the.y pretend to holy orders, I 
 mean, that their ordinations are valid, according 
 to the will of God ? This they all do, and are 
 much irritated if you deny it. 'Jlien it follows, 
 that Sir J.'s attempts to serve them, by putting 
 their title to the wished for honour upon the foot- 
 ing of their being lay-baptized, will be derogatory 
 to their ordinations, and affronting to their prin- 
 ciples, as it includes the tacit confession, that 
 their ordinations are not to be defended. " Call 
 *' you this backing of your friends," Sir John? 
 
 -* By lawful Minister, it is by no raeanB necessary to uiider- 
 itand a lawful Minister only of the Church of England, — 
 but aoy Minister of any real Church, lawfully called and sent, 
 (ATt. 23.) 
 
 What 
 
( 49 ) 
 What bitter revilings have others suffered for ths 
 crime of demonstrating^ (not taking for granted), 
 the nullity of dissenting ordination ? 
 
 But allow that their business is not to argue, 
 but to obtain the decision of the Court of Arches 
 respecting the law of the Church, &c. Can a law be 
 made plainer than this ? She considers Dissenters' 
 ordination so utterly invalid, that she admits none 
 so ordained into the ministry without a re-ordi- 
 nation. But Dissenters, as well as Churchmen, 
 hold that invalid ordination vitiates all ministra- 
 tion; their baptism is therefore vitiated, if their 
 ordination be invalid. But the Church declares 
 their ordination invalid, consequently she declares 
 their baptism to be so. Perhaps the learned Offi- 
 cial may call for an express law for the re-bap^ 
 tizing Dissenters, &c. He will pardon me here : 
 he has taught me better than to allow such a 
 demand as this. Once more I adopt his argument 
 and style of p. 14, " and am surprised at the 
 *' suggestion of there being no law for the re- 
 " baptism of Dissenters, &c. The question is 
 " not, is there any express law for this iteration, 
 *' but does any law prohibit it?" In Sir J.'s own 
 case, this mode of argument was thought suffi- 
 cient, and he concluded for the burial of a Dis- 
 senter. He must admit the sufficiency of it in 
 my case; and conclude for their re-baptization. 
 Bat let us not forget our Romish friend, whom we 
 
 E ' have 
 
( 50 
 
 have kept waiting for the judgment of the Church 
 as to him. She admits his ordination, and conse- 
 quently his sacraments. It is by the common par* 
 ticipation of the " one baptism, and the one 
 " bread, that we, being many, are made one 
 *' body, and all members of Christ, and of one 
 "another." (1 Cor. x.l7, &c.) That is, brethren 
 of on^ houshold. She therefore admits him to 
 burial too, and in the service, thrice acknowledges 
 him for brother, and one of the number of God's 
 elect. 
 
 I close this portion of my task with observing, 
 that the law of the land concurs vvjth the law of 
 the Church, in considering the Dissenter's ordina- 
 tion in general (for 1 must again remind my 
 reader, that this vague and negative title is ex- 
 tremely improper for correct discussions) as null 
 and void : for in the Act of Toleration, Dissent- 
 ing Ministers are spoken of as persons in pre- 
 tended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders. 
 (Those who are said by this act to be in holy 
 orders, come not under our present considera- 
 tion ; for it is plain that they are not those Dis- 
 senters whom Sir J. so frequently mentions.) A 
 Hian in pretended holy orders, we have hitherto 
 supposed, can produce nothing but a pretended 
 sacrament. The Court however has determined 
 that he can ; that even a layman can ; and I sup- 
 pose the Clergy are now bound, under pain of it* 
 
 displeasure, 
 $ 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 displeasure, to believe it, or at least to act as if 
 it were true. This appears to be a hard case. 
 
 In following the learned Civilian, in the 23d 
 page of the Report, we find him noticing a law 
 which requires the Church burial of Popish recu- 
 sants. Would he could have found a similar 
 law for Protestant recusants '.—that would have 
 been of inestimable value, in preventing this un- 
 happy suit. There are occasions, it seems, when 
 the law can speak out. 
 
 Sir J. observes, (35th p.), " In no view of tjie- 
 ** subject should it be forgotten, that the question 
 " is a question of disability and exclusion from 
 " the rights which belong to his Majesty's sub- 
 " jects generally; — an exception from a general 
 " law!" If I rightly understand the learned 
 Official, he considers the exclusion of a corpse 
 from the burial service as an exclusion from a 
 civil right, for such only can be understood by 
 " a right which belongs to his Majesty's subjects 
 ** generally." What then does he consider as a 
 man's spiritual, ecclesiastical right? I am totally 
 at a loss how it is possible to consider it in this 
 TJew. I can perhaps inform the reader, however, 
 of a circumstance which may interest him, and 
 assist him in a conjecture. He must know then, 
 that the motley body of the Dissenters in general 
 have a select association, with large funds, to 
 
 E 9» which 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 which they give the title of a Society for securing 
 to the Dissenters their civil rights. For many 
 years past, this society has been watching the 
 motions, and trying the temper and the patience 
 of the Clergy upon the subject of burial; and 
 when they. have refused to read the service over 
 their dead, they have interfered to bully the Cler- 
 gyman, and to complain to the Bishops: and this 
 present suit is brought, I understand, inconsequence 
 of their instrumentality. To a plain man it might 
 appear that there is no good reason for such an as- 
 sociation, no occasion for such a purse; for it is as 
 clear as the day, that the civil rights of his Majesty's 
 subjects, of all sorts and denominations, are 
 equally secured to all of them. Now as the 
 •worthy Official is doubtless made acquainted with 
 the circumstances of this Society's interference, 
 the idea of calling the honour of our burial ser- 
 vice a civil right, may have been suggested, by his 
 candid supposal, that that Sogiety could not be so 
 intolerant, and so dishonest, as to persecute ^ 
 Clergyman for his religious opinion, under the 
 pretence of a civil right. Sir J. is reported to have 
 stated it to be a question of disability and exclu- 
 sion. From what is it an exclusion ? It is an 
 exclusion from the use of a certain service of the 
 Church, which they themselves despise. But the 
 Church service is not of a civil, but a spiritual 
 
 • nature. 
 
( ^3 ) 
 
 nature. Its object is not the life, the person, or 
 the fortune of any man. It respects only his soul, 
 and his salvation; and such a riglit belongs not to 
 his Mqj est i/'s subjects, as such; to Jews, Turks, 
 Infidels, and Heretics, all of whom may be very 
 loyal and worthy subjects of the Kins;. It belongs 
 only to the members of the Christian Church; to 
 those who (as Sir J. has very riizhtiy liuiited 
 it) " are properly initiated into the Christian 
 " Church." But have not Englishmen, who do 
 not quite forget the miseries of 1648, much to 
 fear from men who prosecute for a spiritual pri- 
 vilege, under colour of a civil right? It was only 
 the converse of these proceedings then, when 
 they associated against the Church and State, mo- 
 nopolizing all the civil rights they pleased, under 
 the pretence of spiritual privileges. 
 
 In the last place, the learned Official takes a 
 view of the question, as it is affected by the Tole- 
 ration Act, (p. S6). By that act, it is justly said, 
 a " very important change was worked in the si- 
 *' tuation of his Majesty's Protestant Dissenting 
 " subjects." If we adhere to the express sense of 
 that Act, we shall find, I believe, that it was, in 
 fact, an act merely to exempt Dissenters from 
 former pains and penalties; to tolerate for bear 
 with) their religious worship, and to extend to 
 them (as far as the nature of their separation 
 made it practicable), due protection, and all the 
 
 civil 
 
( i4 ) 
 
 civil rights of an Englishman*. But this Act of 
 Exeniption touched not a single doctrine of the 
 Churchi it chan«;ed not an hair of the ancient 
 system, it offered not the shadow of an opinion on 
 la single illustration either of faith or practice. The 
 same wide gulf of distinction between the true 
 Dissenter and the true Churchman still remained, 
 and no facility of connection was by this act 
 formed. Why then should it be noticed here? 
 Let us hear the learned Civilian. " The baptisms 
 *^ now administered by Dissenting Ministers stand 
 *' upon very different grounds from those by mere 
 " laymen." Sir J. here makes a difference be- 
 tween Dissenting Ministers and laymen. The To- 
 leration Act however makes no such difference, 
 for it speaks of them as in pretended holy orders, or 
 pretending to holy orders, neither does the Church, 
 Is not Sir J., in this instance, a little forgetful of 
 that law, " which," (as he justly remarks, p. 17), 
 " the Court has only to administer as it finds it?" 
 What does he understand by a Dissenting Mi* 
 nister? Or what does he understand the law to 
 mean by that description ? Is it not any one, whe- 
 ther in holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, 
 
 * Or as the Lord Chancellor ITardwicke affirmed iu the 
 case of Dr. Trebec and Keith, " The Act of Toleration was 
 *' made to protect persons of tender consciences, and to 
 ^' exempt them from penalties." 
 
 (thai 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 (that is, mere laymen, I should humbly conceive), 
 who regularly qualifies himself according to this 
 act? Does he perceive any thing in swearing alle- 
 giance, or in a sixpenny certificate of that act, that 
 can change a lavnian into a Clergynian? Whatl 
 Does the learned Official give this as the law of 
 the Court of Arches, that a sixpenny licence can 
 make a Clergyman as well as a Bishop can? 1 had 
 conceived that both Church and State liad always 
 considered Dissenting Ministers as mere laymen ; 
 the former in her Articles, &c., the latter in tnis 
 very Toleration Act ; and consequently their bap- 
 tisms as standing precisely upon the same ground 
 as heretofore. No. We are told, that nozv then- bap- 
 tisms are recognized in courts of law. Recognized 
 as what? Not surely as what they were not before. 
 They are now recognized as what they were ad- 
 mitted to be before the passing of that Act. 
 Surely the bare circumstance of recognition cannot 
 alter any thing whatever. But " cauld it be main- 
 " tained now," continues Sir J., " that such a 
 " baptism was to be considered as a mere 7iul- 
 " lityf' (P. 36). Here we must have a little 
 explanation, a little defining of what is intended 
 by the word nullity. Does he mean nullity in a 
 court of law? No one denies it in this sense. 
 Or does he mean nullity as in point of soundness 
 and validity ? Enough has been said already upon 
 this point. It has been proved that the act of 
 
 exempting 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 exempting Dissenters from pains and penalties, 
 cannot in ake any change in the nature of their 
 minisiration. 
 
 We come now to a passage, (p. 36), which the 
 reporter, I conceive, ought to be called upon to 
 correct, as a mistake; for it is not to be supposed 
 that any one could, in a case like this, designedly 
 use equivocal terms, or so misapply the main 
 term in the whole argument, as to confound the 
 venerable Church Clergy with every sectarian 
 teacher of the lowest order, who avails himself of 
 his toleration certificate. Yet the report actually 
 applies the term " lawful Minister ;" — the peculiar 
 expression of our articles, canons, and rubrics, 
 denoting a lawfully ordained Clergyman of the 
 Church — to the dissenting ministry ! I see how the 
 words are guarded: they are called " lawful Mi» 
 *' nisters, because they are allowed by law," — 
 ** lawful Ministers for the purposes of their oxvn 
 *' worship, &c." ! ! 1 But to proceed. 
 
 The Report suggests, (p. 37), that the law re- 
 cognizes the Dissenters' rites and ceremonies in 
 his Majesty's Courts of justice, beoause they are 
 not defective in that which the Christian Church 
 universally holds to be essential. This appears to 
 . me to be completely gratis dictum, with no proof 
 whatever. Our Courts of law admit them purely 
 to answer the purposes of law: by way of testifying 
 to the mere fact of a birth, or burial, &c. But they 
 
 ^0 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 do not therefore recognize them as valid ministra- 
 tions. It'they were ever so defective in acknovvjedged 
 essentials, what is that to our Courts? With respect 
 to the Church register, it is different. The law en- 
 joins a register of acknowledged baptisms, and then 
 makes any legal use of it that is necessary. More- 
 over, if in the contemplation of the law, dissent- 
 ing baptism were as good as Church baptism, 
 why has it not required one general register for 
 all the various sorts of baptism in the sanie parish? 
 ^But this was never done. Sir J., it seems, wishes 
 it were done! (p. 44). I pray God to avert so 
 tremendous an innovation! We may be thankful 
 that the law entertains so different a view of the 
 subject, " that no other than the parish register 
 ** can be admitted as evidence in a Court of jus- 
 " tice, in the nature of a public document; the 
 " registers of Dissenters can be referred to onlv 
 ^' as private entries." (See p. 44.) Formerly, 
 when I have met with the argument which would 
 ratify Dissenters' baptism, by the operation of a 
 duty upon their registers, before I read it as the 
 opinion of Sir J. N., I used to smile. And often 
 have I thought how convenient it would be in 
 many other cases, where a proof of validity is 
 wanting, would the King be pleased to lay a con- 
 scionable tax upon them; it would save many a 
 laborious pleading both in law and divinity. Why 
 therefore do not the Dissenters get their ordina- 
 tions 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 tions and their Eucharistical sacrament faxed?—- 
 the^' might then be recognized by law, we see, and 
 brought up to the same level of validity as that of 
 their baptism. In fact, the law takes no concern 
 whatever with the doctrine of baptibm, but only with 
 the act, which, "in common parlance," passes under 
 that name. You may as rightly argue that the lavsr 
 recognizes the Quaker's affirmation for an oath, 
 because it is received in a Court of justice, as 
 that it recoij;nizes the religious ablutions of the 
 various sectaries for baptism, because they are 
 sometimes appealed to in the course of evidence. 
 " Having thus examined the law- itself, it may 
 ** seem superfluous," says Sir J., " to consider 
 " what may be the opinions of ecclesiastical 
 *' writers upon the subject, but they lead to the 
 *' same conclusion." The superfiuousness of such 
 a considerati()n is certainly not selC-evident, since 
 many deeply-informed scholars have examined the 
 opinicns of ecclesiastical writers, and have come 
 to the opposite conclusion; very many, especially 
 of those who have made the nature and constitu- 
 tion of the Christian Church their particular 
 study. In short, as far as 1 have been able to 
 judge of the matter, it appears that all apologies 
 for lay-baptism are grounded neither upon the 
 nature of the Christian Church, nor upon the 
 reason of the thing, but merely upon some occa- 
 sional concessions in practice of the Church. 
 
 She 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 She has sometimes permitted baptism by laics, 
 therefore it is inferred the doctrine is good. 
 
 The Court is then reported to have noticed the 
 several authorities which were brought forward by 
 the counsel, and to have given its remarks. Bp. 
 Fleetwood and Hooker seem to be the favourites. 
 Sound Divines have thought that the Puritan Cart- 
 wright had much the advantage over his learned op- 
 ponentuponthesubjectof baptism; andifthereader 
 will turn to the 5th Book of tliat writer, he will find 
 much less of argument upon this subject than is 
 usual with Hooker. He gives you no deductions 
 from the nature of the priesthood, and the reason 
 pf the thing, but makes an impassioned appeal to 
 your feelings upon the notion that the child with- 
 out baptism is liable to perish; which is, in other 
 words, the notion of the absolute necessity of 
 baptism. Bp. Fleetwood has been successfully 
 refuted by Lawrence, whose Treatises upon this 
 subject, we may judge, were not easily answered, 
 by the manner in which Fleetwood treats him; 
 &buse and contempt being no arguments. Why 
 Bingham was not cited by the dissenting side, I 
 do not guess. Perhaps he was known to have 
 been elaborately exposed likewise, by R. Law- 
 rence, and by Dr. Brett. How it came to pass 
 that the authority of VVheatly alone was brought 
 ill support of the defence, is best known to the 
 learned counsel. And why the Court thought fit 
 
 tp 
 
( GO ) 
 
 to be so unnecessarily severe upon that most 
 learned and useful man, it is not easy to compre- 
 hend. The Court calls hiiu intemperate, and says 
 that he is of an uufeelin:2; spirit, " a spirit little 
 ** consonant either to Christian charily or common 
 " humanity;" and insinuates that he is severe, 
 and of a persecuting temper, and holding notions 
 inconsistent with the principles of common justice 
 and equity; and all this with no disposition to de- 
 preciate his character ! (p. 44). I believe the 
 public were not aware of this wicked Wheatly 
 before. I must own that we have been excellent, 
 I may say, bosom friends for many years; and I 
 have respected him much, because he gives me 
 authorities for what he gives me as law, and is 
 modest, " when he gives us only hisovvn best opi- 
 " nion." His book has passed through many edi- 
 tions; for among Divines, his authority falthough 
 "not infallible) has been generally considered as 
 extremely good, though it ap|<?ars that the Court 
 of Arches is of another opinion. It has been 
 generally thought that the following opinion is 
 well-founded: " The Church," (bespeaks of the 
 same regulations and directions as noz» are the 
 Clergyman's law), " only provides that none but a 
 " Minister, or one duly ordained, presume to in- 
 "■ termeddle in it: (haptism). Well knowing that 
 " the persons by whom baptism is to be adminis- 
 " tcred, are plainly as positive a part of the insti- 
 
 " tution 
 
(( 
 
 \ 
 
 ( 61 ) 
 
 tution as any thing else relating to that ordi- 
 nance. And consequently, that the power of 
 administering it must belong to those only whom 
 Christ hath authorized by the institution, 'lis 
 true there are some few of the primitive writers 
 who allow laymen to baptize in case of neces- 
 ** sity, but there are more and earlier of the 
 " Fathers who disallow that practice; and upon 
 ** mature consideration of several passages, it will 
 '* generally be found that these latter, for the most 
 " part, speak the judgment of the Church, whilst 
 " the former only deliver their private opinion. 
 *' If it be asked whether baptirjm, when performed 
 " by an unordained person, be, in the sense of 
 " our Church, valid and effectual? I answer, that 
 ** according to the best judgment we can form, 
 *' from her public acts and offices, it is not." He 
 then cites the S9th canon, which speaks of the 
 case of a child dying unbaptized, through a Mi- 
 nister's negligence ; but this case is not possible, if 
 it was in the contemplation of the canon to admit 
 a layman's administration. (See W. on the Office 
 for Private Baptism.) And in the very passage 
 upon which the Court was so severe, I cannot per- 
 ceive what the Court of Arches saw in it, viz. that 
 Wheatly " is not explaining, but making the law." 
 (p. 42). That he is guilty of "legislation," (p. 44), 
 instead of illustration. ^^ 1 1 hink," says he, "that 
 ** for the determining the question before us," 
 
 (Order 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 (Order for Burial of the dead), " there is no dd- 
 " casion to enter into the merits of the cause." 
 This, surely, is said with becoming diffidence. 
 And again, " The best way to put an end to this 
 " controversy, is to desire those that have sepa- 
 ** rate places of worship to have separate places 
 " of burial too; or at least to be content to put 
 " their dead into the ground, without requiring 
 " the prayers of a Minister, whose assistance in 
 " every thing but in this and marriage, they neglect 
 *' and despise." Does the reader perceive in all 
 this any thing dictatorial and aathoritative? Does 
 it not appear a very reasonable proposal to termi- 
 nate the controversy, offered only as the proposal 
 of a private individual? 
 
 Now let us hear a proposal of the learned Offi- 
 cial, in behalf, he says, of all his Majesty's sub- 
 jects, whether Churchmen or Dissenters. A pro- 
 posal, perhaps, which does not come unexpect- 
 edly upon the reader, but which will make the 
 ears of many of his Majesty's best subjects to 
 tingle. He would have burials at the Church 
 encouraged, merely for the sake of their being 
 registered ! And baptisms (of all sorts and sects) 
 registered in one general parish register! (p. 44.) 
 Nothing, surely, but the extreme of benevolence, 
 and the most profound policy, could have sug- 
 gested such a plan ! The intelligent reader will 
 readily perceive that no scheme could be better 
 
 contrived 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 contrived for settling all ungodly disputes upon 
 baptism, and other religious subjects ! Its effect 
 too in forcing people to be friends is admirable. 
 Here is the Dissenter, (who baptized his child in 
 open enmity, and in avowed contempt of the 
 established Church), novv comes to the Church, 
 and hears her, nevertheless, most kindly declare, 
 that that sort of baptism is tlie very thing she has 
 always liked, and so she puts it down in her own 
 book. Nothing again, in their life-time, can 
 persuade the Dissenter to walk together with the 
 Churchman, as friends, to the house of God. 
 But this plan provides, most charitably, to oblige 
 the Church to call her inveterate foe her dear de- 
 parted brother; and to pass him down to poste» 
 rity as such, in the auihentic pages of her re-, 
 gister! Sir J. is resolved, at all events, that 
 *' there shall be no separation between the Church 
 *' and their Protestant dissenting brethren," (see 
 p; 46), and that the world shall know it; and so, 
 as he cannot make them friends, " lovely and 
 *' pleasant in their lives, in their death" he is de- 
 termined, *' they shall not be divided." (2 Sam. 
 i. 23). I leave my reader to pursue his reflec- 
 tions, v/hen he finds himself inclined. I trouble 
 him with a few more observations, and take my 
 leave. 
 
 The reader must have before this time observed 
 tha-t Mr. Gurney's report of this judgment, some- 
 what 
 
( 6* ) 
 
 ivliat resembles a pleading for the promoters^ 
 (Common Law Courts, I have heard, consider 
 themselves rather on the defendant's part). We 
 may observe, I say, that the Court is represented 
 as taking the Dissenters under its wing, from the 
 very first. It suggests several fictions in law, as 
 it were for them: for instance, — that a " spirit of 
 " candour actuates them," " that they have no 
 *' object in view but to ascertain what the law is, 
 *' in order to set the question at rest generally, 
 *' and that they may live in charity and kindness 
 " with the Clergy." (P. 6.) *' That no blame 
 *' whatever can be imputed to them for instituting 
 " the present suit." (P. 45.) " That it is dif- 
 ** ficult to be imagined that they could do it for 
 *' the purpose of establishing their Ministers as 
 " ' lawful Ministers,'" (p. 45), &c.. It speaks of 
 this refusing the burial service, as inflicting dis- 
 abilities and exclusions, and shews a number of 
 incommodities and difficulties under which they 
 must labour, not from the general wa?tt of the 
 rite of sepulture, the service itself, (for they usu- 
 ally bury in their own ground), but from the re- 
 fusal of it when the zvhim takes them to demand 
 it, according to the particular ritual of our 
 Church, &c. &c. On the other hand, the cle- 
 rical defendant, who perhaps to some might appear 
 to have as natural and as fair a ckim. to the at- 
 tention of an ecclesiastical court, seems to be 
 
 kept 
 
( ^5 ) 
 
 kept a little in the back gmund. None of his in- 
 commodities or his difficulties are at all noticed, 
 although, in common with his adversaries, he is 
 stated to be a man of candour and peace. It is 
 hardly fair, surely, not to mention the scruples 
 and difficulties which must occur to many well- 
 jnformed and conscientious Clergymen, if com- 
 pelled to pronounce that solemn service over the 
 remains of persons of such a description, as 
 renders this service highly unsuitable, unreason- 
 able, and almost ridiculous. 
 
 If he be well acquainted with primitive prac- 
 tice, before the prevalence of the Romish here- 
 sies, he will find that pure (not Popish) antiquity, 
 gives no countenance to unauthorized baptism. 
 Almost the whole of those testimonies apparently 
 favouring it, being spoken not of lay and unaur 
 thorized, but of heretical and gchismatical mini^ 
 strations. He will find abundant gi'ound to judge 
 nith the Orthodox after the Council of Nice, with 
 St. Basil, Bishop of Ca^sarea, and with St. Chrysos- 
 tom of Constantinople, that laymen cannot bap- 
 tize. The last-mentioned father thus speaks in 
 his treatise on the Priesthood, Book, 3,—^^^ If no 
 " one can enter into the kingdom of heaven, 
 " unless he be born again of water and of the 
 ** Spirit, — and if he who eateth not the flesh of 
 '' the Lord, and drinketh not his blood, is deprived 
 *' of eternal life; and since all this can be effected 
 
 ¥ " by 
 
( 6S ) 
 
 " by no other hands whatever, but the sacred 
 ** hands alone of the Priest, — how can any one, 
 ** without these (sacraments) either escape the 
 " flames of hell, or obtain the reward prepared 
 *' for him?" If he consider the Protestant English 
 Churchj he may in its infant days find it still retain- 
 ing indeed a fevv of the innovations and corruptions 
 of Popery; still permitting, but always disapproving 
 them. But now she is grown to maturity, she 
 puts away those childish things. If he is to shape 
 his practice by her present express injunctions, it 
 seems scarcely possible to entertain a doubt re- 
 specting his duty; and if he would defer to mo- 
 dern practice, in a case where the pure ecclesi- 
 astical question was determined upon, unconnected 
 as it usually is with politics and party, l,et him 
 attend to the instructions of the Society for the 
 conversion oi" the negroes, to their Missionary, in 
 the year \79'J' At tjie head of this Society 
 was the late venerable Bishop of London, and the 
 instructions of course, we must suppose, were given 
 under the sanction of his opinion." With regard to 
 " what you mention relative to those Negroes who 
 '' are baptized by the IMethodists, the Society are of 
 ** opinion, that if they are not baj)tized by Mi- 
 *' nislers of the established Church, you should 
 " bapdze tiiem again/' If he be enjoined to 
 foUoM' tlic inferred and hidden sense, instead of 
 tlie obvious directions of her code, still how uii- 
 1 suitable 
 
C 67 ) 
 
 suitable must he feel the Church service, for the 
 burial of those who at the very time despise it. 
 Mast he not deem it unreasonable too, to express 
 all that tenderness and respect, due to the most 
 unexceptionable member of the Church, — for one 
 who had professed himself a decided opponent of 
 the Church, — who had withdraM'n himself from 
 it, and had even incurred by the canons tire cen- 
 sure of being ipso facto excommunicate? The 
 maxim of the canon law is expressly on his side; 
 " Quibus non commuiicavimus vivis, nee com- 
 " muniramus defunctis." (See Johnson, Vol. IF. 
 186, and Bishop Gibson's Codex). And how, 
 ■without a deforce of mockeiy, can he thrice repeat 
 the name of brother over one, who in his life- 
 time would never acknowledge the relation? one 
 who perhaps would never allow the validity of 
 our baptism, (for this is the leading point of dissent 
 with the Anabaptists,) and who consequently denied 
 our title to the name of Cin'istian? Must not the 
 INIinister think it extraordinary, and somewhat 
 oppressive, to be obliged against his conscience, and 
 against the obvious law of the Church, to be com- 
 pelled to call him brother, who professes himself not 
 to have the same mother? to be compelled to rcco<^^- 
 nize the sacraments of one whom nothinir could 
 compel to allow his? to bury as a Christian one 
 who would not buiy him as a Christian? I readily 
 grant that all this avails nothing to prove the law. 
 
 But 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 Bi^ I think any one will readily grant, that if the 
 Church be obliged to submit to such duplicities 
 and inconsistent practices, if she be forced thus 
 to equivocate, and to speak untruths, whenever 
 her foes siialPbe pleased to send for her to make 
 them sport,— that" her strength is gone. ■ She is in 
 her dotage, and in a rapid decay. 'Tis a miracle, 
 but uotliing less, that can save her. And is all 
 y this to be passed by, with this slight notice of her 
 abject state? *' Surely the Ministers of the 
 " Church will not be degraded by performing the 
 *' office ?" Is it possible that Sir J. is serious 
 " in doubting of the importance of the suit to 
 " the interests and dignity of the Church?" Does 
 he seriously imilgine that the *' generality of the 
 *' Clergy will rejoice?" The worthy Official 
 knows better. 
 
 Xm ENB. 
 
 Tjftw akd Gilbert, IVinUnti St. Jahii'ji Squaie, hoiuUiM. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 BILL, 
 
 BETTER REGULATING AND PRESERVING 
 PARISH AND OTHER REGISTERS. 
 
 ADDRESSED TO TH8 
 
 RIGHT REVEREND THE LORD BISHOP OF SARUM, 
 
 REF. CHARLES DAUBENY, LL,K 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF SARUM. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR F. C. ANl> J. RIVINGTON, 
 
 NO, 62j ST. Paul's church-yard. 
 
 i8n. " 
 
ttw ;»•.!.: Gilbert Printers, St. John'f-S quare Landon. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE LORD BISHOP OF SARUM, &c* 
 MY LORD, 
 
 FOUR copies of the Bill under consideration 
 having been sent to me, in my official character 
 as one of your Lordship's Archdeacons ; for 
 the purpose, it is presumed, of their contents 
 being communicated to the clergy within my 
 jurisdiction ; the following Remarks, which 
 convey, at least in part, the sentiments of those 
 among my brethren, with whom I have had 
 opportunity of conferring on the subject, are, 
 from a sense of official obligation, coupled with 
 a regard for the feelings of the clergy, most 
 respectfully submitted to the attention of your 
 Lordship ; 
 
 By your Lordship's 
 
 dutiful and obedient servant, 
 
 CHARLES DAUBENY, 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF SARUM, 
 
REMARKS, <Sc. 
 
 1 HE Bill under consideration, according to 
 its preamble, has for its object ** the amending 
 the manner and form of keeping aad preserving" 
 
 Parish Registers. To this end, the first 
 
 section of the Bill proposes, that the Register 
 shall be kept by the officiating Minister of 
 every parish and chapelry for the time being. — - 
 The third, that the officiating Minister shall 
 make the entry of every baptism, marriage, 
 and burial, immediately after the solemnization 
 of each. — And the fourth, that the Register 
 Books, being deposited in a chest safely locked, 
 shall be kept by, and remain in the power 
 and custody of the Rector, Vicar, or Curate 
 for the time being ; and, in the case of non- 
 residence, the said chest to be kept in the 
 church, or other acciistofned place. 
 
 Such are, in part, the provisions made in thifj 
 Bill " for the better regulating and preserving 
 Parish Registers/' — 
 
 The provisionsmade by the 70th Canon for 
 the same purpose, are as follow. — A parchment 
 book for the register is to be provided. This 
 book is to be kept in the parish chest under 
 
three separate locI-:s : of which the Minister 
 and Church-A\ ardens are to have each his re- 
 spective key : so that neither party can have 
 access to the Register without the knowledge 
 of his Co-Trustees. — The entries to be made 
 every Sunday after church by the Minister in 
 the presence of the Church-Wardens. — Every 
 page of the said book, when filled, to be signed 
 by the Minister and Church-Wardens. — At 
 the end of every year a true copy of the said 
 Register Book, signed by the Ministers and 
 Church Wardens, to be transmitted to the 
 Bishop or his Chancellor. — And in case of neg- 
 ligence, or non-performance of any thing con- 
 tained in the said Canon, " the Minister and 
 Church-Wardens to be convened before the 
 Bishop, and proceeded against by ecclesiastical 
 censure." 
 
 From the foregoing comparison of the 70th 
 Canon with the Bill under contemplation, it 
 appears, that the provisions made by the Canon 
 for the keeping and preserving Parish Registers 
 are better in kind than those provided by the 
 present IMll ; particularly in the following 
 respects. According to the Bill, the entry is 
 to be made by the Minister without the attend- 
 ance of any witness. Whereas the Canon 
 directs the entry to be made by the Minister 
 in the presence of the Church- Wardens, 
 
 2 
 
According to the Bill, the Parish Register is 
 to remain in the sole custody of the officiating 
 Minister. The Canon directs it to be in the 
 joint keeping of Minister and Church-Wardens, 
 in the Parish Chest under three different locks. 
 The Canon also directs that every page when 
 filled, shall be signecT by Minister and Church- 
 Wardens. And that a true copy of tlie 
 Register, signed both by Minister and Church- 
 W«rde/is shall annually be transmitted to the 
 Bishop. From these premises the fair conclu* 
 sion is, that the drawer of the Bill in question, 
 did not know that such an ecclesiastical law as 
 the 70th Canon existed ; or, his object being to 
 preserve Registers from fraudulent practices, he 
 would not, it is presumed, have exchanged the 
 greater security presented by the Canon, for a 
 lesser one contained in this BUL 
 
 Still it is said, that Parish Registers have 
 been, generally speaking, so negligently kept, 
 as to render some regulation on that subject 
 absolutely necessary. 
 
 This may in some degree be admitted* — 
 The question then respects the remedy to be 
 applied to the evil. — The remedy proposed by 
 the Bill, in addition to the provisions already 
 noticed, consists in an obligation imposed on 
 the officiating Minister, to verify upon oath 
 before a civil Magistrate, at the expiration of 
 
8 
 
 every year, within ten days, the contents of 
 his Register Book, under the penalty of being 
 " disqualified for the exercise of all ecclesi- 
 astical duties for three months, at the discre- 
 tion of the Ordinary/' — To the first of the 
 preceding provisions, the Clergy, so far as my 
 information has extended, unanimously and 
 loudly object; because they consider their 
 office unnecessarily degraded in the eyes of 
 the Public, by putting them, as Ministers of 
 the Church, on a footing with the lay officers, 
 and even with the ale-house keepers of their 
 respective parishes, who are obliged annually 
 to verify the discharge of their offices before 
 a civil Magistrate. An obligation not only 
 degrading in itself to the Clergy, but which 
 might be attended with circumstances some- 
 times inconvenient, and at all times ungra- 
 cious to them; and would not in fact prove 
 more, than what has hitherto been supposed 
 to be sufficiently proved by the official signa- 
 ture of the Clergyman for the time being. — 
 For that Clergyman who could so far disgrace 
 himself, as wilfully to make a false entry in 
 his Register, and at the end of the year, by 
 bis signature bear dehberate testimony to the 
 truth of its contents, would not hesitate to 
 confirm his former wickedness by the formality 
 of an oath. — Circumstances which, from the 
 
respect dae to the Clergy, as a body, ouglit, 
 It is presumed, to be regarded as equally in- 
 admissible. — But a difficulty here presents 
 itself, for which this Bill has not provided. — 
 It happens in most Parishes, that the duty of 
 the Church has occasionally for difierent rea- 
 sons been performed by different Clergymen. 
 At the expiration of the year, when the Re- 
 gister Book is to be verified on the oath of the 
 Rector or Vicar, in what way are those entries 
 to be verified which have at different times 
 been made by Ministers, who may then be 
 resident in distant parts of the kingdom? — 
 To the second of these provisions the objec- 
 tion is, that the punishment, which in itself is 
 considered to be severe beyond the degree of 
 offence, appears to be prescribed to the 
 Bishop by the civil power; whereas the Bi- 
 shop, in the exercise of ecclesiastical disci- 
 pline *, should, according to the constitution 
 of the Church, be left, it is conceived, to his 
 own judgment and discretion; to which the 
 Clergy are prepared dutifully to submit. 
 
 * The words of the Bill are these — " Every such officiating 
 Minister so offending shall thereby become diiquali/ied frotn exer- 
 cising or performing all and singular his duties, &cc. for any 
 Unv not exceeding three months, at the discretion of the Or* 
 dinary of the Diocese, &c," — by which the sentence of dis([iia- 
 lification appears to be passed by this Bill on the Cleigyinen, 
 leaving only the mitigation of that sentence to the Bishop. 
 
10 
 
 Whilst to the Sections 8 and 27 of the Bill 
 under notice the Clergy aee strong reasons to 
 object; because by them they are made a 
 sort of Inquisitors general in their Parishes; 
 and under certain circumstances. Informers 
 against, and indirect Prosecutois of their 
 Parishioners; oftices which no Minister who 
 regards his professional calling, will willingly 
 undertake. They moreover think that such 
 an inquisition being set on foot would operate 
 so far in some cases, as to prevent base-born 
 children from being baptized in the Church 
 at all, and probably terminate in the sepa- 
 ration of the children in question, together 
 with their connections from the Church. 
 
 Such are, in brief, the objections, which the- 
 Clergy, as Clergy, have to make to the pro- 
 visions of the present Bill; so far as they re- 
 late to the safe keeping and preserving of 
 Parish Registers. For to any nezi) mode of 
 keeping the Register by a more complicated 
 entry of particulars, as proposed in the present 
 Bill, no objection ought to be made ; should 
 the Legislature determine the adoption of such 
 
 new mode to be necessary. But if the end, 
 
 which this Bill professes to have in view, is to 
 be obtained without recourse being had to 
 ungracious means; it will doubtless be deemed 
 inost consistent with sound policy, and the re- 
 
11 
 
 ipect due to the clerical order, thai such mea«s 
 should not be u?mec€ssarili/ employed. 
 
 It remains then to be considered, whether 
 the ecclesiastical power does not, or cannot 
 provide a remedy fully adequate to the evil 
 complained of. If it does or cff//, the pro- 
 jected Bill is in itseU imnecessar}/ ; at the same 
 time that it is ungrateful to the ieehngs of 
 the Clergy; by taking them from under that 
 jurisdiction, to which, as Clergy, they const!- 
 iutionalli/ belong; and in some degree making 
 them accountable, in the first instance, to the 
 civil power, for the discharge of at least a part 
 of their ecclesiastical duty. 
 
 Influenced then by a regard for the feelings 
 of my clerical brethren^ I venture with all due 
 deference to the judgment of those to whom 
 the Bill in question has been submitted, to 
 propose a remedy which, admitting the prac- 
 ticability of it, appears to be much more ef- 
 fectual than the one provided in the Bill under 
 notice; at the same time that it is free from 
 those objections, to which some of the provi- 
 sions in the present Bill are, in the opinion of 
 the Clergy at least, justly obnoxious. 
 
 With submission to the judgment of my 
 superiors in the Church, I propose, in the first 
 place ; that the 70th Canon, so far as times will 
 admit, be brought into full effect. And should 
 
12 
 
 any additional security beyond that provided 
 in the said Canon be deemed necessary ; it h 
 fiirtiier proposed, that every Clergyman at 
 Institution shall take an oath, with an express 
 view to the 70th Canon ; binding himself, so far 
 as may be, to the regular observance of it. 
 And that two copies of the Register, kept by 
 him, shall have the following declaration sub- 
 joined to each, and signed by the Rector, 
 Vicar, or Curate of the parish in question. 
 
 " In conformity with the oath taken by me 
 at my Institution to &;c ; I A. B; Rector^ 
 Vicar, or Curate of, &c. do hereby solemnly 
 declare that the Register of the Parish of, Sec. 
 for the year. Sec. has, so far as might be, been 
 regularly kept by me or my Curate, according 
 to the directions contained in the 70th Canon ; 
 and that the two copies delivered by A. B. and 
 C D. Church- Wardens, &c. at the Visitation 
 of, &c. for the year, &c. are true and faithful 
 copies of the same." 
 
 Signed, A. B: Rector, Vicar, or Curate, &c. 
 
 And as a still further security it, is pro- 
 posed that the Church-Wardens of each Parish, 
 on producing the said cojiies of the annual 
 Register at the Visitation of, &c. shall take 
 the following oath; which shall be subjoined 
 to the preceding declaration of the Rector, 
 Vicar, or Curate. 
 
13 
 
 *' We, A. B. and C. D. Church- Wardens of 
 the Parish, &c. do swear, that the Register of 
 the Parish, &c. has been regularly kept, so far 
 as might be, according to the 70th Canon ; and 
 that the two copies of the said Register here 
 presented by us at the Visitation of, &c. for the 
 Year, &c. are true and faithful copies from the 
 Original, without any wilful or fraudulent era- 
 sure, obliteration, interhneation, or alteration 
 whatever, to the best of our knowledge and 
 belief." 
 
 Signed, A. B. and C. D. 
 
 And after each visitation one of these copies 
 thus attested to be lodged in the Registry of 
 the Bishop; the other to be sent by the Rector 
 or A^icar to the office in London ; should such 
 office ever be estabhshed. ^ ' 
 
 The preceding Plan, should it be approved, 
 furnishes, it is conceived, a much more effectual 
 security for the keeping and preserving of Parish 
 Registers, than the Bill in question ; at the 
 same time that it may be carried into effect, 
 without wounding the feehngs of the Clergy ; 
 because it is conformable to ecclesiastical order, 
 to which the Clergy cannot with propriety ob- 
 ject. 
 
 The preceding Remarks respect principally 
 the security provided by the present Bill for 
 
14 
 
 the safe keeping of Parish Registers, compared 
 with the provision made for the same object 
 by the 70th Canon. 
 
 But as the provision made in the 70th 
 Canon may be objected to, in consequence of 
 its present impracticabihty, (the attendance of 
 Church- Wardens at divine service not being to 
 be regularly depended upon ;) it is presumed 
 that the spirit of the Canon being substituted 
 for the lettei' of it, the following regulation 
 might answer every purpose of legal proof. — • 
 It is proposed then, that the entries in the 
 Register shall be made every Sunday by the 
 officiating Minister, in the presence of the 
 Clerk, and some one respectable Parishioner, (in 
 the absence of the Churchy-Wardens ;) and for- 
 mally attested by the Church- Wardens in their 
 
 annual returns. ^Whilst for the security of 
 
 the Parish Register Book from damps and ac- 
 cidents, a cupboard detached from the wall 
 might be fixed on brackets, either in the 
 Vestry or Chancel; in which the Register Book 
 might be kept under a patent lock. 
 
 To secure the foregoing Plan being duly 
 carried into effect, let Regulations go forth in 
 every Diocese from the Bishop, and their ob- 
 servance enforced. Whilst for the better pre- 
 servation of the Copies of Registeis in the 
 Registry of the Bishop, it is further proposed ; 
 
15 
 
 that these Copies, instead of being tied up in 
 bundles, according to the present practice, be 
 made upon sheets of printed forms, and so 
 transmitted to the Bishop; to the end that the 
 said sheets, annually transmitted, may from 
 time to time be bound up in alphabetical order, 
 and thereby form volumes easy of access. 
 
 But on entering further into the provision.^ 
 of the present Bill, the following objections 
 present themselves. — 
 
 In the first place, as to the security of the 
 public Registers ; a matter, it is presumed, o£ 
 primary consideration. 
 
 Should then the general Office be established 
 in London, for the purpose of all the original 
 Registers of the province of Canterbury being 
 lodged in it; from accidents by fire or civil 
 commotions, they may all at once be destroyed f 
 a risk which, in the present mode of keeping 
 Parish Registers, is not incurred. 
 
 In the second place, with respect to granting 
 Certificates, the proposed Plan is ou many ac- 
 counts ver}^ objectionable. 
 
 These Certificates, according to this Bill, 
 are, for the province of Canterbury, to be 
 granted only in London. This measure must 
 certainly be attended with inconvenience, 
 trouble, and incalculable expence to individuals, 
 in every part of the kingdom, particularly to 
 
16 
 
 fecamen and soldiers ; who, instead of obtainin*- 
 certificates, as they now do, at an easy expence 
 from their respective Parishes ; will be obho-ed 
 to procure them through the medirmi of a te- 
 dious, comphcated, and expensive Agency; 
 attended with difficulties, which to them mav, 
 in some cases, be insurmountable. 
 
 To the preceding objections may be added 
 the consideration, that the IMinisters, to whom 
 the present Bill creates a great increase of trou- 
 ble, are deprived by it of their fees, in large 
 Parishes, to a considerable amount * ; without 
 any remuneration for their additional employ- 
 ment ; which, on the supposition that all the 
 enactments of the present Bill are to be com- 
 plied with, will, in large parishes, be very great. 
 — Another set of men, who must suffer by the 
 present Bill, will be the Registrars of the Dio- 
 ceses ; to whose keeping the Copies of the 
 Parish Registers are committed ; whose emolu- 
 ments from this source are considerable. 
 
 On this head it remains also to be remarked, 
 how much of the valuable time of the Minister 
 or Curate in large Parishes must be taken up, 
 in making aqd setting down all the proposed 
 enquiries specified in the schedules subjoined 
 
 • I have been informed that the Curate of a large Parish ia 
 London receives at least forty Pounds per annum, from copies 
 ef Rfcgi«terK and Certificates. 
 
17 
 
 to this Bill ; (some of which it is conceived, are 
 useless ;) and in those long conversations be- 
 tween the Minister and Parishioners, to which 
 some of the entries will necessarily give oc- 
 casion *. 
 
 To those provisions in the Bill which respect 
 Dissenters, the Clergy see the following just 
 reasons to object. 
 
 In the first place, to be a kind of officiating 
 ^Clerks, for the purpose of transmitting the me- 
 morandums of the births and burials of Dis- 
 senters, which this Bill makes the Clergy ; is 
 considered by them to be no part of their eccle- 
 siastical duty; it is an office consequently which 
 no professional obligation binds them to under- 
 take. To be compelled therefore by the civil 
 power to do this, under the penalty of suspen- 
 sion from their ecclesiastical functions for neg- 
 lect, the Clergy must consider, not only to be 
 a hard measure, but also to be incompatible 
 with the constitution of the Church. At the 
 same time it is to be observed, that suspension 
 from ecclesiastical functions is the proper act of 
 those spiritual governors of the Church, from 
 whom the Clergy originally derived their minis- 
 terial office ; and it is presumed, that no Bishop 
 would feel himself justified in suspending a 
 
 * In some large Parishes it is supposed that two days in a 
 w^ek will be insufficient for these purposes. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 Clergyman, for what was not in itself an eccle^ 
 siastical offence. 
 
 At the same time it cannot escape observation, 
 that the Bill in question, by being optional to" 
 the Dissenters, will not serve the purpose of pro- 
 viding a general Register for the Kingdom ; 
 because, under such a circumstance, it will be 
 but partially carried into effect. Whilst the 
 expediency and policy of a law being made 
 Optional to Dissenters, and compulsory on the 
 Clergy, under a severe sanction, may be left to 
 the judgment of its framers. 
 
 To the foregoing considerations, to which 
 others might be added, may still be subjoined 
 that of the painful situation in which a Minister 
 must be placed in a parish where Dissenters are 
 numerous ; the particulars of which are obvious; 
 together with the necessary circumstance of his 
 being called upon to make a large sacrifice of 
 time in drawing out two Registers according to 
 the new and complicated form prescribed in 
 this Bill, and in receiving and transmitting to 
 the general office all memorandums with which 
 Dissenters may think proper to charge him ; 
 a work which is for the most part foreign to his 
 ecclesiastical duty ; and which, as a mere civil 
 regulation, ought, it is presumed, to be provided 
 for accordingly. 
 
19 
 
 Without then presuming to direct the Legis- 
 lature on this occasion, it is humbly submitted 
 to consideration, should some new regulation on 
 the subject of Parish Registers be deemed ne- 
 cessary ; whether, as the Clergy, who derive 
 their ministerial commission from ecclesiastical 
 authority, are compellable by that authority to 
 keep the Registers of their respective parishes, 
 according to a plan prescribed ; some means 
 might not be adopted by the Civil Power, from 
 which Dissenters derive their ministerial licence, 
 to compel them to keep their own Registers, in 
 such way as by that power shall be deemed ex- 
 pedient ; since such compulsion would not in- 
 terfere with the rights of Conscience ; as, in the 
 case of Dissenters, it could respect only a matter 
 of civil regulation. 
 
 How far the measure of a general office in 
 London, to be established and supported, ac- 
 cording to the provisions in this Bill, at a very 
 considerable annual charge to the public ; and 
 carried into effect, not without great inconve- 
 nience, trouble, and expence to individuals in 
 every part of the kingdom ; in addition to the 
 present mode of keeping Parish Registers, as 
 improved by the preceding, or any other ap- 
 propriate regulations, may be necessary, ap- 
 pears to me to be at least a subject of the most 
 questionable nature. 
 
 b2 
 
20 
 
 To the preceding remarks, which principally 
 respect the manner in which the Clergy in their 
 professional character will be affected by the 
 Bill in question, may be added those considera- 
 tions, which, as they concern the community at 
 large, it may not be improper to take into the 
 account; and which, it is presumed, will not be 
 deemed unimportant. 
 
 In the first place it should seem, as if the 
 magnitude of the object for which this Bill 
 professes to provide, has not been duly con- 
 sidered ; and that the framer of it had not sat 
 down to count the cost, before he began to 
 build. 
 
 The new Office in London, (for on this oc- 
 casion we comprehend both the proposed Offices 
 in one) is to be the general receptacle for all the 
 Parish Registers now existing in the Kingdom, 
 together with all those which may be annually 
 added to them. The new Office then is, in the 
 first instance, to provide for the reception of all 
 the present existing Registers belonging to the 
 Church of England. These at the lowest may 
 be calculated at 60,000 *. These 60 thousand 
 old Registers, the sides of two rooms, each 50 
 
 * This calculation, it is probable, will be found to be much 
 under the mark. I have been given to understand that the 
 number will certainly not fall short of 100,000. 
 
feet long by 20 feet high, will not be more than 
 sufficient, if they will be sufficient to contain. 
 
 Accordin<^ to the ratio then of this calcula- 
 tion, a room of 75 feet long, by 20 high, will be 
 wanted to make provision for the Registers 
 which will be annually remitted to this public 
 Office ; which upon a moderate calculation, con- 
 sidering that, according to this Bill, there can- 
 not be less than three to the smallest Parish, 
 will amount to 40 thousand. 
 
 It follows then that in the course of 25 years, 
 this national Repository will have accumulated 
 one million of Parish Registers, in addition to 
 the 60 thousand with which it originally com- 
 menced. To provide a receptacle for this 
 million of Registers, 25 rooms, each 75 feet by 
 20 high, will, according to the preceding cal- 
 culation, be wanting. What sum or sums might 
 be levied on the Public for the erection of a 
 national building of the above enorraouSj and 
 annually increasing dimensions, is not a neces- 
 sary subject for calculation ; since it is sufficient 
 to observe (it being our object to take the Bill 
 only on its own ground ;) that the sum provided 
 in the Bill for this purpose, when we consider 
 the solidity of the building required with its 
 necessary appendages, together with the es- 
 pence at which all public plans are generally 
 
n 
 
 carried into effect, will not be more than sufTi* 
 cient to provide room for the 100 thousand 
 Registers, which uill be poured into it within 
 the space of 13 months after its completion. 
 But the Bill proposes only the sum of £9»000 
 for the erection of this great national Reposi- 
 tory : for it is to be observed, the sums allot- 
 ted for both provinces are here taken collec- 
 tively, for the sake of simplifyingour calculation 
 and avoiding unnecessary prolixity. Taking 
 then this Bill, as it now lies before the Public; 
 the exper.ce created by this new mode of keep- 
 ing Parish Registers will be nearly as follows. 
 
 per AnnuH). 
 Salaries to principal Registrars - - . 2,000 
 
 Interest on £ 9^000 the expence of building - 450 
 
 Six books for Registers, 3 original and 3 duplicates, 
 for each Parish and Chapelry ; to be furnished 
 by Government at the commencement of this plan, 
 t;i ill amount to 72 thousand; reckoning 12,000 
 Parishes, including Chapelries. Taking these 
 six books at the rate of c£4, and, it is presumed, 
 that Government will not be able to provide si.i 
 folio books bound, each containing 96 leaves, at a 
 cheaper rate ; the aggregate charge to Government 
 for these books will be ^f 48,000. The expence 
 which has attended the Bill 'already printed, that 
 which will necessarily attend the printing and cir- 
 culating 12,000 copies of the Act when passed, 
 together with the conv;eyance of the Register 
 Books, to all parts of England, and other inci- 
 dental expencjBs, may be carried out at c£2,00Q. 
 
33 
 
 The whole consequently making together the fol- 
 lowing aggregate sum. £ 
 Salaries to Registers -.----.. 2^000 
 Interest on c£9,000, Expence of building. - 450 
 Interest on i^48,000. for books - - . - 2,400 
 Interest on ^£^,000. for conveyance, &c. - - 100 
 
 Annual expence to the Public. - - - - ^ 4,950 
 
 To this annual expence, must now be added 
 the great charge which this Bill necessarily 
 brings upon the Parishes. — For, according to 
 this Bill, after the first year, each Parish is to 
 provide its own Registers. Taking these Re- 
 gisters at six to each Parish, 72 thousand will 
 be wanting for the general provision. These 
 72 thousand Register Books, according to the 
 preceding calculation, will cost £48,000. 
 And in this sum of £48,000, no allowance is 
 made for the additional wants of those many 
 large Parishes, for whose use 3 original books 
 will not be annually sufficient; nor for the 
 expence of conveyance; at the same time that 
 the calculation proceeds, on the ground of each 
 Register book being to be procured for the 
 sum of ISs. and 4d. — which, at the present 
 high rate of Printing and Stationary, is cer- 
 tainly a very questionable circumstance. — • 
 These things considered, the annual expence 
 to the Parishes may be fairly carried out at 
 
£50,000', exclusive of the sum which will be 
 required to furnish Iron Chests, with their ne- 
 cessary appendages, for all the Parishes and 
 Chapelries ; which on a moderate calculation 
 will not, it is conceived fall short of ^20,000. 
 
 Taking then the whole annual expenditure in- 
 cidental to this new plan, the account will stand 
 as follows: 
 
 The sum above carried out, as an annual charge 7 AO-n 
 
 on the Public. .----_-.. ^ ' 
 
 Annual charge to Parishes -----. 50^000 
 
 Expence of iron chests, i^20j000, — Interest - 1,G00 
 
 Making together --------- 55,950 
 
 ^he whole sum to be annually expended in 
 the prosecution of this plan. 
 
 With this sum on paper before us, the na- 
 tural enquiry of every one who contributes to 
 it will respect the tanti in this case; and the 
 obvious question will be what advantage is the 
 Public to derive from this new plan of keeping 
 Registers, which may serve as a reasonable set 
 off, against such a considerable annual expen- 
 diture? — This certainly ought in the first in- 
 stance to have been made clearly manifest ; 
 before the public should be called upon to 
 submit to the risk and expence, which must 
 }n this case necessarily accompany the pro? 
 
25 
 
 posed change of system. This has not been 
 done. The only advantage proposed by this 
 Bill, as specified in the preamble of it, relates 
 to the form of keeping and preserving Regis- 
 ters in one General Othce. — But the objections 
 to the Parish Registers being ail collected in 
 one place have been already in part pointed 
 out: and must, it is presumed, be obvious. — 
 I pass on therefore to consider further the 
 dissatisfaction, the inconvenience and expence to 
 individuals, with which the prosecution of this 
 new plan must necessarily be attended. As 
 the Registers are now kept, the Laity have 
 easy access to them ; and the advantage of 
 making their enquiries in the Parish to which 
 the Register belongs. Now, it sometimes hap-- 
 pens that the enquiry is made by persons who 
 are not informed with respect to the precise 
 nature of the enquiry to be made; whilst by 
 the assistance of the Register, together with 
 the local information generally to be picked 
 up on the spot, they not unfrequently obtain 
 their desired object. But in the case of all 
 the original Registers being deposited in Lon- 
 don, this important advantage will be entirely 
 lost to the community. Whilst in the case 
 of those who want Certificates, as seamen, 
 soldiers, and their wives/ in particular, applica- 
 
26 
 
 tion must, in the event of this Bill passing 
 into a law, be made to the attorney of the next 
 town ; this attorney applies to his agent in 
 London; this agent to the General Office, &c. 
 so that by the time the Certificate is returned 
 to the applicant, in consequence of its having 
 passed through this circuitous route, it proba- 
 bly costs the poor man as many pounds as it 
 might have cost him shillings, had it been 
 procured as heretofore, from the hand of the 
 Parish Minister. Hence it follows, that to the 
 great annual expenditure, as above carried out, 
 necessary to the prosecution of the new plan, 
 must be added the important considerations of 
 the dissatisfaction, the inconvenience, and accu- 
 mulated expence, which will attach to indivi- 
 duals, in procuring information from the office 
 in London; at the same time that they are de- 
 prived of that more complete information which 
 they might, in many eases, have obtained at a 
 much easier rate, had the Registers remained 
 in their present keeping. These are consider^ 
 ations which belong particularly to the Laity; 
 and in which the poorer part of the Laity are 
 most concerned. 
 
 But on the supposition that my calculation 
 for the expence of the building, on a propor^ 
 tionate contraction- jof its dimensions, be re-^ 
 
 5 
 
27 
 
 duced even to one half; the annual expence 
 to the Parishes remains the same; and it will 
 remain to be proved, how far any future Le- 
 gislators may think an advance, from time to 
 time, of additional sums for the necessary ex- 
 tension of an annually increasing building, to 
 be a iustifiable expenditure of pubhc money; 
 and how far an immense building, (for immense 
 it must be on the lowest calculation;) erected 
 for the purpose of becoming a national depot 
 for Parish Registers, the greatest number of 
 which will necessarily contain, for the most 
 part, blank leaves *, will at some future day, 
 be regarded as a monument of Legislative 
 wisdom. 
 
 Three additional objections to this Bill of a 
 civil nature, and those strong in their kind, 
 which appear to have escaped the attention of 
 its framer, still remain to be noticed. The 
 first of these objections has been suggested by 
 QDQ qf the principal Magistrates of the county 
 
 * The Bill in question provides for the annual return of the 
 Registers to the General Office. A new set of Registers must 
 therefore of necessity be annually provided by the Parishes. 
 And when these annual Registers have been deposited in the 
 great national B.eceptaclf ; it will be found, that some thousands 
 of Parishes will not ha.ve filled up more than three leares of 
 the ninety six, which their Registers contain ; and many Pa- 
 riithes aot UsUf a page. 
 
28 
 
 of Wilts; and respects the inconvenience 
 which must necessarily result from the lodge- 
 ment of the Parish Registers in London; and 
 the consequent circumstance of no Copies or 
 Certificate* being to be procured but from 
 the General Office. The Justices of the Peace, 
 at their quarter Sessions and other meetings, 
 are perpetually under the necessity of requir- 
 ing Copies of the Registers, in the various li- 
 ti2:ations about Parish settlements. 'Jlie delav 
 and additional expence, in sending to London 
 on every occasion of this sort, must be too 
 obvious, to require being pointed out. A 
 second objection relates to the Militia lists. In 
 M'hat way these lists are to be made out by the 
 Constables, where the Parish Rl'egisters, which 
 contain the Data, on which they proceed in 
 this business, shall be deposited in London, this 
 Bill no where directs. The last objection re- 
 spects the annual delivery of the Parish Re- 
 gister to the Office in London by the officiating 
 Minister. On this head the Bill in question 
 requires of the Parish Minister what he may 
 Slot be able to perform. The law considers 
 tlie Parish Register to be in the keeping, not 
 solehf of the Minister, but of the Minister 
 and Church-Wardens. I'he Church- Wardens 
 therefore, who have their separate keys to the 
 
29 
 
 chest in which the Register is kept, may legaliif 
 refuse to dehver it to the Minister for the 
 purpose of this Bill. A compulsory power 
 will therefore be necessary to make them deliver 
 up iheir public trust. And such a power will 
 have to militate against the prejudices existing 
 in every Parish in England ; the Inhabitants 
 of which will certainly think their Parochial 
 Records more safe in the custody of Ofiicers of 
 their own appointment, than when removed out 
 of their Parishes, and committed to the care of 
 they know not whom, and deposited they, for 
 the most part, know not where. 
 
 The considerations immediately preceding 
 regard the poUcj/ of the intended establishment; 
 those which immediately follow apply to the 
 expediency of some of the provisions contained 
 in the present Bill, when viewed through a 
 religious medium. It is a principle con- 
 firmed by experience, that the influence of the 
 clerical order on Society is generally in pro- 
 portion to the respectability of character whicii 
 that order possesses in the public mind. What- 
 ever therefore necessarily operates to the de- 
 gradation of that order, on which the state of 
 public morals so much depends, must even- 
 tually be disadvantageous to the Communit}'. 
 On the ground of this established principle, it 
 
so 
 
 may, it is presumed, with confidence be sub- 
 mitted to the consideration of those to whom 
 the general welfare of the Community is com- 
 mitted, how far the clause in this Bill whicii 
 obhges the Clergy, many of them old, infirm, 
 and poor, to trudge with their Registers under 
 their arms some miles perhaps, for the purpose 
 of swearing to their contents before the next 
 resident Magistrate ; in conjunction with all 
 the indecorous circumstances which may ac- 
 company such an humiliating expedition ; will 
 tend to raise them in the public estimation ! 
 How far their being called upon to declare 
 upon oath, that they are not among the greatest 
 rascals in England, will tend to produce this 
 effect ! — For a Clergyman, to whom the care 
 of keeping the Parish Register has been com- 
 mitted, as part of his professional duty, to be 
 oblis^ed to declare on oath that he has not 
 wilfulbj falsified it, does certainly imply thus 
 much. How far the liability of the Clergy 
 to take their trial as Felons, for an omission in 
 their Registers, which an informer will of course 
 represent to be a zi-ilful out ; and which the 
 accused party will be obhged to go through 
 the process and expence of a Court, before it 
 may be proved to be otherwise ; will tend to 
 place the Clergy in the light in which they 
 
31 
 
 ought to stand ! — It is further submitted to 
 the consideration of our Governors, without 
 meaning to draw any invidious comparison 
 between Churchmen and Dissenters ; whether 
 the contrasted condition by which this Bill 
 distinauishes the Minister of the Church of 
 England from the Dissenter, does not obviously 
 tend to degrade the former in the public 
 opinion ! — In the case of the DiSsenter, no 
 oath before a Magistrate is required : in his 
 case, no inquisition is deemed necessary. 
 Such confidence is placed in him, that his 
 simple memorandum is to be received without 
 examination ; and admitted as legal evidence 
 when copied by the clerk in the public Office. 
 Whilst the Member of the Church of England 
 is to be subjected to severe inquisition, and 
 prosecution ; at the same time that the signa- 
 ture of the Minister of that Church, though 
 attested by his Church-AVardens, is not per- 
 mitted to be legal evidence, nor even to possess 
 any authority, unaccompanied with his per- 
 sonal oath. Can such dea^radins; circum- 
 stances be otherwise regarded than as an in- 
 direct hbel on the Clergy of the Establish- 
 ment ? When then this Bill, which pro- 
 fesses to provide for the safe keeping and pre*- 
 serving Parish Registers, is placed before him ; 
 
52 
 
 must it not strike every considerate person* 
 that the framer of it, in his anxious sohcitude, 
 for the attainment of his object, took care, as 
 it ^vere, to doiiblij lock the door against the 
 possible fraudulent practices of the Clergy; at 
 the same time that he tlirezv open folding 
 doors to the possible fraudulent practices of 
 Dissenters, in the delivery of their unauihenti- 
 cated memorandums ; as if the only danger 
 which the Communit}' had to apprehend on the 
 present subject, was from the unprincipled 
 conduct of the Clergy of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 The falsification of a Parish Register, we are 
 sorry to admit, has been proved in a case lately 
 brought before the Public ; but, was this fal- 
 sitication proved to have been the act of a 
 Clero-yman ? Those who attended to the evi- 
 dence produced in the case referred to, can 
 answer this important question ; but were we, 
 for argument's sake, to admit the fact, is it to 
 be reconciled with any common degree of can- 
 dor, of justice, or of charity, that because one 
 falsification of a Parish Register, and one only 
 has been proved to have taken place within the 
 memory of man, the whole body of the Clergy 
 should have their professional character 
 branded with an indeUble- stigma? Surely the 
 
33 
 
 Clergy may flatter themselves with the ex- 
 pectation of more equitable treatment. When 
 then it is considered on the one hand, with 
 what scrupulous caution the Parliament med- 
 dles with the rights and property of Indi- 
 viduals ; and on the other, with what little cere- 
 mony this obnoxious Bill disposes of the rights 
 of the Clergy, by taking away those fees of 
 office which they have * immemorially re- 
 ceived ; at the same time that it makes much 
 additional labor, and that, for the greatest part 
 of a civil nature, compulsory upon them under 
 severe Penalties, but without any remunera- 
 tion whatever; as if the Clergy were the only 
 part of the Community exempted from par- 
 liamentary protection ; when, again, it is re- 
 membered, that a Bill has lately been thrown 
 out of the House of Lords, for no other ap- 
 parent cause, than that of its being displeasing 
 to the Dissenters; it is not, we trust, too much 
 to hope from the liberality, the wisdom and 
 
 * The Plan of a Register Book for ecdesiasticdl purposeSy 
 <*ommenced in the 30th of Henry the 8th. — To the keeping of 
 it certain Fees to the Clergy or Bishop's Registrar have beea 
 usually attached. The Parish Register Book has since been 
 made use of for various civil purposes. This Bill imposes on 
 the Clergy much additional labor and expence in keeping the 
 Register, at the same time that it deprives them of their former 
 «moluracnts. 
 
the equity of our Governors, that q Bill which 
 is universally reprobated by the Clergy, and 
 which cannot fail to be as universally disap- 
 proved by the Laity, when they shall under- 
 stand and feel it, will not be suffered, in this 
 land of constitutional fi'eedom, to pass into a 
 Law, 
 
 THE END. 
 
A 
 
 Lately published, price 5s. 
 
 RESPECTFUL EXAMINATION of the JUDGMENT, 
 delivered December n, 1809, by Sir John Nicholl, againft the 
 Rev. J. WiCKES, for refufing to bury an Infant Child, which had 
 been baptized by a Diflenting Minifterj in a Letter to Sir John Nicholl. 
 
 By the Rev. CHARLES DAUBENY, LL.B. 
 
 Archdeacon of Sarum. 
 
 Sold by F. C. and J. Rivington, No. 62, St. Paul's Church-yard j 
 and by the Bookfellers at Oxtord, Cambridge, and Bath, 
 
 Of whom may be had, by the fame Author, 
 
 1. A GUIDE TO THE CHURCH: in feveral Difcourfes. To 
 which are added, Two Poftfcripts ; the firft, addreffed to thofe Members 
 of the Church who occafionally frequent other Places of Public 
 Worfhip ; the fecond, to the Clergy. With a new introduftory Preface 
 to the Reader. 
 
 The fecond Edition, in two Volumes, 0£lavo, price in boards, 17s. 
 
 a. DISCOURSES ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS AND OCCASIONS. 
 With a Preface addreffed to the Congregation alfembled in Chrift 
 Church, Bath. In one Volume, 06tavo, price 8s. 
 
 3. VINDICI^ ECCLESI^ ANGLICANS : in which fome 
 of the falfe Reafonings, incorreft Statements, and palpable Mifrepre- 
 fentations, in a Publication entitled, The True Churchman afcertained, 
 by John Overton, A. B. are pointed out. In one Volume, Oftavo, 
 price 8 s. 
 
 Printed by Law aad Gilbert, St. John*s Square, London. 
 
i 
 
« 
 
?<