strictness in the matter also came from the Calvinistic side, and was enforced by the earlier Presbyterians :-' Denying as they did, and blaspheming our ministry as anti-Christian, they could not do otherwise than deny our Baptism, which, according to their teaching, none but a duly authorised minister is competent to give' (p. 16). But he does not notice the considerable amount of Anglican authority which there also is for the stricter practice. He mentions, indeed, the nonjurors Brett and Laurence (p. 15 n.), but not Waterland, whose 'Letters on Lay-Baptism 1 are very decided against its validity, and represent the judgment of a man who has always commanded respect, especially among the school of Anglicans to which the Bishop of St. Andrews belonged. Nor does he refer to Maskell, whose then recent Dissertation on Baptism' contains some valuable arguments on his own side. He was not, however, writing a set treatise on the subject, and was certainly justified in saying that Canon XVII. of the Scottish Code of 1838 did not enforce re-baptism, but directed conditional Baptism in cases where the applicants shall express a doubt of the validity of the Baptism which they have received from the minister of the sect to which they formerly belonged.' Nevertheless we must remember that not only is there the question of a valid ministry, but also the doubt whether baptism has been administered at all. There is, I understand, unfortunately very good reason for in Scotland. Strangely enough, in so well educated a country, where judicial records are admirably preserved, baptismal registers have been very much neglected since 1848, even in the Established Church, in which they have long been ordered to be kept. And as the children only of

this doubt

They have recently been reprinted from his Works, with notes by F. Nutcombe Oxenham, and a preface by the Bishop of Argyll (Haldane Chinnery), Lond. 1892.

godly' parents are admitted to Baptism, the parents are often afraid to bring them to the minister lest they should be refused. Very many, therefore, remain unbaptised.

For my own part, if I may express an opinion in passing on the general aspects of so difficult a subject, I should remark that while the command to baptise is given to the Apostles, and through them undoubtedly to the Apostolic ministry, it is, nevertheless, naturally inferred from Scripture that they rarely baptised with their own hands. St. Paul, who was justly very eager to maintain his full rights and position as an Apostle, and most unlikely to have done anything singular, or calculated to prejudice his claims to Apostolic powers, states this distinctly as regards himself (1 Cor. i. 14-17). It is matter of inference as regards the Twelve; but our Lord's own example naturally suggests the idea that Baptism was recognised as, so to speak, a minor ministry (John iv. 2), and the remarkable fact should be noticed that the passive voice-' they were baptised,' &c.—is regularly used in the New Testament as regards Christian Baptism. The single exception in the Acts proves the rule, viz. that of Philip the Deacon, who, being alone with the Ethiopian, necessarily baptised him in person (Acts viii. 38), and he of course was not an Apostle. Yet of John the forerunner it is as regularly noticed that he baptised,' evidently in his own person. It seems clear from this, at any rate, that little stress was laid at first on the person who administered baptism among Christians. The faith of the recipient and the other conditions of the Sacrament are the points especially dwelt upon. See particularly Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12, 1 Peter iii. 21.

When we come to sub-Apostolic times we find the same thing true. In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,' generally dated about the end of the first or beginning of

the second century, the directions about Baptism are general, though the Baptiser' is bidden to fast before it, as well as the Baptised.' The command to appoint 'Bishops and Deacons' is connected with the Eucharist, but not with Baptism. In the same way, in Justin Martyr, where a rather lengthy description of Baptism and the Eucharist is given, Baptism is spoken of as if administered by the whole body of faithful Christians ('Apol.' i. 61 &c.), whereas the ministry of the clergy is distinctly referred to in regard to the other sacrament. Even the well-known text of St. Ignatius, which forbids to baptise or to hold a love-feast without the Bishop' ('Smyrn.' 8), does not by any means necessarily imply that he was the actual minister of Baptism. Doubtless even in the second century there were two tendencies, a laxer and a stricter one, and these two have continued side by side ever since. On the one side, it is clear that the Apostles were the right persons to determine the conditions of Baptism, and in the great case of Cornelius they exercised this authority in a most momentous manner, by ratifying the decision of St. Peter, that Gentiles were to be baptised. It is further clear that Bishops succeeded generally to this authority, sometimes to such an extent, and with such a closeness of grasp, as to be the sole ministers of Baptism, as was the case in the Church of Milan in the fourth century.' On the other hand, the tradition that laymen might, under proper conditions, be ministers of Baptism has always existed in the Church, from the time, at any rate, of Tertullian, though not always without protest, and subject to greater or lesser attempts to limit it. The question as to heretical Baptism has, from

See the remarkable passages on this point quoted in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. of Christian Antiquities, s. v. Baptism, p. 166-an article by the late Wharton B. Marriott.

time to time, been diversely decided, the East tending to be stricter in this point than the West. Schismatical Baptism was, however, theoretically at least, accepted in both regions of the Church,' if administered in the right form and with the right matter, and with the right faith on the part of the recipient, even though the validity of the orders of the sects in question were denied. There can, therefore, I think, be no doubt that the balance of authority is in favour of a charitable acceptance of Presbyterian and Nonconformist Baptism, whenever the conditions required by the Church are adhered to, as they certainly are according to the general intention of the chief bodies into which our fellow Christians are divided. And surely in this matter the strongly-expressed design and desire of our Saviour to create one Church must count for very much. Faith and Baptism are by Him and His Apostles so closely connected, that where we find the one Faith sufficiently existing on the part of Christians, and the intention to administer the

The Council of Arles, A.D. 314, which ruled the custom of the West, upheld the anti-Cyprianic view, and decreed that a convert from heresy should be asked to repeat his Creed, and if it should be found that he had been baptised 'in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto' he was only to receive imposition of hands. The Council of Nicæa, A.D. 325, distinguished between the Novatian schismatics (Canon 8) and the Paulianist heretics (Canon 19). The Cathari or Novatians were accepted on rather easy terms. Nothing is said as to their baptism, which was clearly admitted, though their clergy appear to have been technically re-ordained (χειροθετουμένους αὐτοὺς μévelv ovtws èv tậ kλńpw), but admitted, as far as possible, to the same position as they previously held. The Paulianists, or disciples of Paul of Samosata, though there is evidence that they used the threefold name in Baptism, were to be re-baptised, and their clergy (with some formality) re-ordained. See the evidence carefully collected on these points by Dr. Wm. Bright in his Notes to the Canons of the First Four General Councils, pp. 25 foll. and pp. 66 foll. (Oxf. 1882). The re-ordination of the Novatian clergy is a moot point, but Dr. Bright's evidence for it appears to me sufficient, and it is the natural interpretation of Canon 8. It is, in this case, a practically decisive precedent for the admission of Presbyterian baptism. My uncle, in his Ecclesiastical Union between Scotland and England, Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1888, supposes that they were not re-ordained, quoting various good authorities for his opinion (p. 18).

one Baptism equally apparent among them, we must have very clear proof indeed that the consequent blessing does not follow. And when we see in fact the fruits of the Spirit's presence following (though not always with the sweetness and maturity that we should find if all other conditions of Church-life were present), we cannot doubt that a valid Baptism has been administered.

The true policy for the Church, and the most consistent with antiquity, seems to me to be to make much of Confirmation as a perfecting of Baptism, and to be very clear and distinct in our teaching on this head. It is this view of Confirmation as an admission into the full privileges of the Catholic Church that makes it important to insist upon it in such cases as a condition preceding Holy Communion, according to the teaching of our Prayer Book. This is distinctly taught in the Charge which has led to this discussion,' and must be remembered as the proper safeguard of the freedom and charity which is recommended.

The reader will pardon this digression; for I take it for granted that no one is likely to read this memoir unless he is already interested in the question of Reunion, or is willing to be drawn to take interest in it. And those who know the present condition of opinion and practice in Scotland 2 will be aware that an attempt is sometimes made to introduce a rigorous teaching and practice on the subject, which

See p. 17, where he also refers to Bingham's Scholastical History of Lay Baptism, part 1, ch. 1, § 21, 'What defects there are in the Baptism of heretics and schismatics, and how those defects may be supplied.' The Bishop of St. Andrews, however, did not in after years insist absolutely on Confirmation of all Presbyterians who joined the Church as communicants. He left a note for this volume, saying that he had uniformly acted on the same principle as that by which Bishop Torry was guided: see his Life, p. 188, 205;' i.e. to recommend without forcing it.

2 The two books which I have quoted above, The Minister of Baptism, by Mr. Elwin, and the reprint of Waterland's Letters, are an outcome of this movement. Both are useful contributions to the history of a difficult subject.