would seem wholly unnecessary to cite evidence upon the subject, but in order that no step in the argument may be criticized as unsupported, and that from first to last it may be clearly seen that we appeal only to what has been set forth by AUTHORITY, we will address ourselves to the task.

Lay Baptism

"Yea, 'Baptism by any man in case of necessity,' was the voice of the whole world heretofore. Neither is Tertullian, Epiphanius, Augustine, or any other of the ancients against it." (Hooker, Eccles. Polity,

bk. v., ch. lxi., 3.)

"The universal tradition and practice of the Church from the earliest ages has allowed the validity of Lay Baptism in cases of necessity, a rebaptism never being required for such persons. The question was fully discussed in the Church of Carthage with the above conclusion." (Church Cyclopædia, Art., Baptism.)

"The question of rebaptizing or otherwise was for the most part determined (in the early Church) simply by the question whether the essential elements of Baptism were wanting or no, viz., water and the words prescribed by our Lord. If these were employed the Baptism was regarded as valid, though irregular, and the person so baptized was admitted into Communion, if on other grounds found worthy, after imposition of the hands of the Bishop." (Smith, Cheetham Dict. Chr. Antiq., vol. i., Art., Baptism.)

"This is clearly laid down by the Canon Law: A Priest is the ordinary minister of Baptism: the Baptism of women is forbidden except in the case of necessity: but even the Baptism of a Jew or a Pagan must not be reiterated. (Decret. pars iii. de Consecratione: de Baptismi Sacramento, xix., xx., xxiii.) And we must remember that the Canon Law, which in the Middle Ages was the Law of the Western Church, including the Church of England, has remained no less so since the Reformation, except where contrary to the Statute Law or the royal prerogative. The Legatine and Provincial Constitutions, made under the sanctions of Cardinal Otho and Othobon, the Pope's Legates, and by many Archbishops of Canterbury, are given in Lyndewood's Provinciale (A.D. 1679). The usage in case of necessity of Lay Baptism (men and women) is strictly enjoined. Priests are commanded to teach their parishioners the right Form of Baptism; and Archbishop Peccham censures certain foolish Priests (Stolidi Sacerdotes) who profaned by reiterating the Sacrament after Lay Baptism (Lyndewood, De Baptismo et ejus Effectu, lib. iii., tit. xxiv.)Blunt's Dict. Doc. and Hist. Theology, Art., Lay Baptism.)

"Such Baptisms (i.e. administered by laymen) have always been held valid by the Church of England." (Church Handy Dict., Art., Lay Baptism.)

"The Sarum Manual enjoined that each Parish Priest should often, on the Sunday, set forth to his parishioners the Form of Baptizing in order that, if

need be, they (i.e. the parishioners) might know how to baptize infants. . . . The Sarum Rubric permitted Lay Baptism in cases of necessity only.". (The Prayer Book Interleaved, p. 189.)

Even the Council of Trent held the same view: "Si quis dixerit, baptismum, qui etiam datur ab hæreticis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, non esse verum baptismum: Anathema sit." (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII., Canon IV., De Baptismo.) ("If any man shall say that Baptism, even though it be administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism-Let him be Anathema. ")

The principle thus laid down has been definitely stated from time to time by English Synods from a very early age; and the Pupilla Oculi, which was a standard book of instructions for the Clergy in the mediæval period, has some exhaustive statements on the subject which plainly show that it was the practice to recognize Baptism as valid by whomsoever administered if given with the proper matter and form of words; which practice undoubtedly continued up to the time of the Reformation. This is, at the same time, shown most clearly and authoritatively by the Rubric placed at the end of Ritus Baptizandi in the Salisbury Manual, which is as follows: (Here is appended, in Latin, the specific direction given by the Parish Priest to his parishioners, to be used by them in baptizing children, when

the services of a Priest can not be obtained. He continues)—"The substantial part of the above Rubric was retained in the Book of Common Prayer in the following words: "The Pastors and Curates shall oft admonish the people that they defer not. And also they shall warn them that without great cause and necessity they baptize not children at home in their houses. And when great need shall compel them so to do, that then they minister it on this fashion. First, let them that be present call upon God for His Grace, and say the Lord's Prayer, if the time will suffer. And then one of them shall name the child, and dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying these words," etc. . . "And let them not doubt, but that the child so baptized is lawfully and sufficiently baptized. . . . (Blunt's Annot., Book Com. Prayer, p. 405.) This Rubric, introduced into the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1549), after the form of the Salisbury Manual, is repeated in the second Prayer Book of Edward (1552). It has thus been officially authorized three times by the Church of England since the Reformation (to say nothing of the official sanctions before that time), but in spite of this, because the wording of it was altered in the Revision of 1661, it has been supposed by some that the doctrinal teaching of the Church on this point was officially changed at that time. That this is not the case, however, can easily be demonstrated.

The same men who ordered the alteration of the wording of this Rubric in 1661, also asserted clearly

need be, they (i.e. the parishioners) might know how to baptize infants. . . . The Sarum Rubric permitted Lay Baptism in cases of necessity only.". (The Prayer Book Interleaved, p. 189.)

Even the Council of Trent held the same view: "Si quis dixerit, baptismum, qui etiam datur ab hæreticis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, non esse verum baptismum: Anathema sit." (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII., Canon IV., De Baptismo.) ("If any man shall say that Baptism, even though it be administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism-Let him be Anathema. ")

The principle thus laid down has been definitely stated from time to time by English Synods from a very early age; and the Pupilla Oculi, which was a standard book of instructions for the Clergy in the mediæval period, has some exhaustive statements on the subject which plainly show that it was the practice to recognize Baptism as valid by whomsoever administered if given with the proper matter and form of words; which practice undoubtedly continued up to the time of the Reformation. This is, at the same time, shown most clearly and authoritatively by the Rubric placed at the end of Ritus Baptizandi in the Salisbury Manual, which is as follows: (Here is appended, in Latin, the specific direction given by the Parish Priest to his parishioners, to be used by them in baptizing children, when