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 and emphatically that they had not done it with any intention of changing the doctrinal teaching of the Church on this point-that, in fact, of "all the sundry alterations proposed" they had "rejected all such as were of dangerous consequence (as secretly striking at some established doctrine or laudable practice of the Church of England, or indeed of the whole Catholic Church of Christ) ." and that they did freely "profess to the world that the Book as it stood before established by law, did not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound doctrine," etc. (Preface, Bk. Com. Prayer, 1661). If then it can be demonstrated that the Church of England taught the legitimacy of Lay Baptism before 1661, and specifically so in this Rubric, and if in altering the wording of this Rubric, the Revisers themselves as specifically state again that the alteration was not made with the purpose of changing its doctrinal significance (viz.: the legitimacy of Lay Baptism), it follows inevitably that the Church of England since the year 1661 has continued to hold that doctrine. This in itself is conclusive, and should settle the question, if question it be. It may be of interest, however, to note the words of Blunt, himself a High Churchman. After noting that the words "one of them" in the former Rubric were changed to "lawful minister," he himself remarks: "These successive alterations have been supposed to narrow the theory of the Church of England respecting Baptism, and to restrict its valid administration to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. But although these additions and alterations were probably made with the object of checking Lay Baptism, it cannot be said that they contain any decision against their validity; nor, indeed, can it be supposed, for a moment, that the prudent men who superintended the various revisions of the Prayer Book would have reversed, merely by a Rubric, the long established tenet of the Church of England that Lay Baptisms are in some cases necessary, and are not to be repeated." Moreover, he significantly adds, in comment on the expression "lawful minister": "It must not be forgotten that 'minister' in the Book of Common Prayer means 'executor officii,' and that if it was used here in that sense, the addition of 'lawful' does not by any means of necessity restrict it to a clergyman. The 'alius minister ad hoc magis idoneus' of the Rubric, given in the preceding note, shows that the word 'minister' was used even of a Lay person in the case of the ministration of Baptism long before the Reformation." (Annot., Bk. Com. Pr., p. 405.) But while all this is true and moreover a great admission for a High Churchman-yet it is all wholly unnecessary to establish our point. We have only to remember that the Church of England taught the legitimacy of Lay Baptism prior to 1661, specifically setting it forth in the Rubric above quoted. We have only to remember that the Revisers of 1661 have, in so many words, declared that no doctrinal teaching of the Prayer Book prior to that year was affected in any way whatever by the amendments and alterations which they introduced. and emphatically that they had not done it with intention of changing the doctrinal teaching Church on this point-that, in fact, of " sundry alterations proposed" they had "reje such as were of dangerous consequence (as striking at some established doctrine or practice of the Church of England, or ind whole Catholic Church of Christ) ." and did freely "profess to the world that the stood before established by law, did not any thing contrary to the Word of God. doctrine," etc. (Preface, Bk. Com. Г If then it can be demonstrated that England taught the legitimacy of before 1661, and specifically so in thi in altering the wording of this Rul themselves as specifically state agai tion was not made with the purp doctrinal significance (viz.: the Baptism), it follows inevitably t England since the year 1661 ha that doctrine. This in itself is concl settle the question, if question it interest, however, to note the wo self a High Churchman. After m "one of them" in the former R to "lawful minister," he hims successive alterations have bee the theory of the Church o Baptism, and to restrict its Bishops, Priests, and Deacon |