Restoration the alteration made by King James 1st (who had thereby, in effect, repealed a statute of King Edward by his sole authority) was confirmed by Act of Parliament. A conference took place at the Savoy in 1661, between certain of the Bishops and the Presbyterians, in order to see whether alterations could be made in the Common Prayer which would be satisfactory to both parties; but in consequence of the demands of the Presbyterians the conferences were broken off. By the 13th and 14th of Charles 2nd the Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer was confirmed by Parliament, and became part of our Statute law, to which all persons are bound to conform; and this Rubric, which is in force at the present time, is prefixed to the service for the Burial of the Dead, in which, for the first time, was a declaration that persons who die unbaptized are not to have the service read over them. The act did not define the sense of the term "unbaptized," whether wilfully unbaptized, or by misfortune, or accident. In its common and general sense, the word could not be understood to be used with respect to the person by whom the rite had been administered; but it was said that the word was used by the Church of England in a more confined sense, and with reference to a person not baptized by one who was himself a lawful Minister according to the Rubric, and that meant a Minister who had been episcopally ordained, for that now these words bore a different interpretation since the year 1661, for that the preface to the ordination service declared that no person should be considered or taken to be priest or deacon who was not

in holy orders and had not had ordination; whereas, in the time of James 1st, a "lawful Minister" might be a person admitted to ordination not by an Episcopal Church, though he could not hold offices in the Church till lawfully ordained. The question, then, would be whether by the designation "lawful Minister," in 1661, it was intended only a person episcopally ordained, not necessarily by a Bishop of this realm, as a person ordained by the hands of a foreign Bishop, on renunciation of his errors, might be received into this Church. Now, the act of 1661 made it necessary for a person to be episcopally ordained to obtain preferment in the Church; but suppose a Presbyterian should present himself for ordination to a Bishop of the Church of England if, on examination, the Bishop found him qualified, he (Sir H. Jenner) apprehended that he would have no difficulty in admitting him to holy orders, and in ordaining him without requiring him to be rebaptized, supposing he had been baptized in his own country. Although, therefore, in using the words lawful Minister," in the baptismal service, the law might mean a person who was a lawful Minister of the Church of England, it did not follow that a Baptism administered by a person who was not an episcopally ordained Minister was not to be acknowledged as a valid act. Bishop Fleetwood, treating of Lay Bap tism, said that, for the first fifty years after the Reformation, the Church of England had allowed Baptism by lay men and women; for the next fifty years she required a lawful Minister to perform the rite; but that she did not say that all who were not episcopally or

dained Ministers were not lawful Ministers, and he showed that such an interpretation would exclude not only Presbyterians, but foreign Protestants; and he proved decidedly, that Baptism by a Presbyter, not of episcopal ordination, was, nevertheless, a good and valid act. The work of Bishop Fleetwood, in fact, embraced the whole argument on both sides in reference to Lay Baptism. But if the administration of Baptism was to be strictly confined to lawful Ministers, and if a lawful Minister were one episcopally ordained and no other, and no Baptism were valid without such Minister, it was extraordinary that the only instance which could be found of a refusal to inter a person who had been baptized in any other form should be that in "Kemp v. Wickes." There must have been a vast number of persons between 1640 and 1660 baptized by Ministers not episcopally or dained; and in the absence of all allusion by historical writers to cases in which such persons had been considered as unbaptized, showed that it was not intended to include within that term persons who had been baptized with water in the name of the Holy Trinity, although not by a lawful Minister; and that, though irregular, the aet was not null and void. In 1712 a controversy had arisen upon this point, which had led to a conference at Lambeth, where the subject had been discussed by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the result was stated by Burnet in his History of his Oren Times. He there states that a "conceit" had sprung up as to the invalidity of Lay Baptism, and that Dodwell had given rise to this conceit; that the Bishops

thought it necessary to put a stop to it, and with that view drew up a declaration to the effect that, although such Baptisms were irregular, yet conformably to the practice of the Primitive Church, and to the doctrine of the Church of England, Baptism with water and invocation of the Trinity ought not to be reiterated. He states that the Archbishop of York at first agreed to this declaration but afterwards retracted; that the Upper House of Convocation passed it, but the Lower House laid it aside, "thinking it struck at the dignity of the priesthood." The publication of the remains of Archbishop Sharpe (the prelate alluded to) by his son gave a different version of the story, as far as he was concerned, though the other facts were the same; showing that his only motive for rejecting the declaration arose from his apprehension of its "encouraging Dissenters in their uncanonical practice." In his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury he expressly stated, that he concurred with the rest of his brethren that Lay Baptisms, in the name of the Trinity, ought not to be repeated. The declaration, therefore, expressed the opinions of all the heads of the Church, that, at this time, according to the law of the Church, Baptism with water, in the name of the Trinity, though administered by lay persons, was good and valid; so that, beyond all doubt, up to 1712, the Church of England held Lay Baptism to be valid, and that persons baptized by laymen after 1661 were not unbaptized persons, and, as such, to be refused Christian burial; and if Lay Baptism was good then, it was good now, for no alteration had since taken place. It was true

that a great number of writers, arguing the question with great ingenuity, had expressed a different opinion, a reference to whose works and arguments would be endless. One of these writers (Bishop Waterland), who had originally defended the validity of Lay Baptism, had been afterwards converted to an opponent of that doctrine by the arguments of Mr. Lawrence, a layman of the City of London, who, having been baptized by a Dissenting Minister, had procured himself to be rebaptized by a curate in the city, and had maintained the invalidity of Lay Baptism with great learning and ingenuity. But his arguments did not shake the doctrine that the Church of England acknowledged its validity; and Bishop Waterland himself admitted that "the stream of authority and of antiquity was against them." The great Hooker, who was looked up to by all persons with a respect and deference due to his learning and piety, clearly showed that the Church of England held Lay Baptism to be valid, though she considered it irregular, and as an intrusion on the Priest's office, for which a party was punishable. The learned Judge then went into different parts of the Baptismal service, the Catechism, and the Articles, to show the construction put by the Church upon the nature of the Sacrament itself; and he argued from the fact of foreign Churches having expressly prohibited Lay Baptism, that had the Church of England intended the same, she would have interdicted it expressly; and he concluded by expressing his opinion that the promoter had sufficiently proved

the articles he had given in, and that Mr. Escott had failed in establishing his allegation. The next question was, what was the punishment to which the Court must subject Mr. Escott under the circumstances? It had been very properly stated, on the part of the promoter, that there was no intention to follow up the proceeding in a vindictive manner, and that he would be satisfied if the Court should monish Mr. Escott to refrain in future, and condemn him in the costs. He (the learned Judge) had already said, he thought that Mr. Escott was perfectly justified in taking the opinion of the Court, and in the case of "Kemp v. Wickes," Sir John Nicholl had contented himself with monishing the party to refrain, and he (Sir H. Jenner) should be glad if he could follow that example. But in that case the party gave an affirmative issue to the articles, and there was no intention to appeal the question to a higher tribunal; whereas, in the present case, his sentence would go before the Judicial Committee, and he might probably defeat the object of both parties by giving an illegal judgment. It was not a proceeding under the Common Law, but under the 68th Canon, which fixed the punishment at three months' suspension, and he must, therefore, though he should have been glad to modify his sentence, pronounce that the party had incurred the penalty.

Notice of appeal was immediately given.

[It may here be useful to state that the above judgment was affirmed.]

.

Money received from the East India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of her Majes ty's Forces serving in India, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71. From the Trustees of the King of the Belgians, the Amount repaid into the Exchequer for the use of the Consolidated Fund, out of the Aunuity granted to Prince Leopold . Imprest Monies, repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public. TOTALS of the Public Income of the United Kingdom.