duties of "an able minister of the New Testament" was ever deemed, as it ever must be on sound scriptural and catholic principle, a most dangerous tampering with the established ordinances of that God who is jealous of every interference with his communicated prerogatives. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, HENRY ALLEN, Horsham, June 9th, 1841.

Vicar of St. Mary-le-Wigford, Lincoln.

(To be continued.)

THE STATEMENT OF KING JAMES I. RESPECTING THE SENSE OF THE DECISION AT HAMPTON COURT ON THE SUBJECT OF LAY BAPTISM.

MR. EDITOR, I have much pleasure in transmitting the following quotation from Bingham's Scholastical History of Lay Baptism, part 1, chap. iii. sect. 5, which will, I trust, satisfy your correspondent "W. B. Archidiaconus" respecting the first point on which he requests to be informed :

"When one Mr. Crompton had written a book, called St. Austin's Religion, wherein he had asserted, p. 95, That for a layman, and much more for a woman, to baptize, in case of necessity, was, in St. Austin's opinion, a pardonable sin; though pardonable, yet a sin, and the usurping of another's office,' Dr. Featly tells us, (Cygnea Cantio, p. 21,) King James, in part, disliked that which Mr. Crompton had delivered. And when be defended himself by saying, 'That in the conference at Hampton Court women's baptizing was utterly condemned; and whereas, before, women were allowed to baptize in case of necessity, the new rubric restrained baptism to the lawful minister,' the king excepted to this answer, and told him, "That in all the several impressions of the Book of Common Prayer, there was nothing said of a woman's baptizing, neither to warrant it to be done, nor to condemn it when it was done. Neither did St. Austin simply condemn a layman or woman baptizing in case of necessity, as a sin, but saith, either it is no fault, or a pardonable one.' And this, he said, was the sum of the resolution at Hampton Court in this point, however some had mistaken it. . . . . This was the king's judgment, delivered upon this occasion a few weeks before his death."

We learn from "The summe and substance" of the Hampton Court Conference," contracted by William Barlow, Doctor of Divinity, and Dean of Chester," that in that conference "the necessity of baptism his majesty so expounded, that it was necessary to be had, where it might be lawfully had, id est, ministered by lawful ministers, by whom alone, and by no private person, he thought it might [not] in any case be administered; and yet utterly disliked all rebaptization, although either women or laikes had baptized."

"Here," Dr. Barlow continues, "the Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Bilson) spake very learnedly and earnestly in that point, affirming, that the denying of private per sons, in cases of necessity, to baptize, were to cross all antiquity, seeing that it bad been the ancient and common practice of the church, when ministers at such times could not be got; and that it was also a rule agreed upon among divines that the minister is not of the essence of the sacrament. His majesty answered, though he be not of the essence of the sacrament, yet is he of the essence of the right and lawful ministry of the sacrament, taking for his ground the commission of Christ to his disciples, Matt. xxviii. 20, Go, preach and baptize.'

"The issue was a consultation, whether into the rubrick of private baptism, which

leaves it indifferently to all laikes or clergy, the words curate or lawful minister might not be inserted, which was not so much stuck at by the bishops."-Dr. Cardwell's History of Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer, p. 176.

I have been induced to give this long extract from Dr. Barlow, because I thought it might be satisfactory to some of those interested in the present controversy on lay baptism to see an authentic account of the Hampton Court discussion on that subject, written soon after it took place, as well as King James's statement respecting it, which was not made until after an interval of more than twenty years. I am much mistaken, however, if they do not perceive that neither of them affords the least countenance to those who maintain that the church of England holds such baptism to be invalid.

The second point on which your correspondent does me the honour to ask my opinion is one of considerable difficulty. Though, in the case which he mentions, we may have no doubt that all has been efficiently done, we cannot hold, and must therefore be unwilling to pronounce, that it has been well done. Probably, therefore, the course which he follows of conditional rebaptization is the least objectionable he could adopt; but if such a case had ever occurred to me, I think I should have relieved myself from the responsibility of making a decision by requesting the instruction of my bishop.

In conclusion, Mr. Editor, allow me to say that I feel much flattered by the favourable opinion expressed by yourself and your correspondent respecting my late paper. With regard to my present communication, I presume there can be no impropriety in any one, however humble, giving his opinion when it is asked for; but I beg to assure your correspondent that, except under such circumstances, I should never have thought of obtruding my judgment on a person in the high ecclesiastical station which he occupies.

I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,

OMEGA.

THE DUTY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH TO ASSIST THE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND.

SIR,-Permit me, through the medium of your pages, to throw out the suggestion, that the Church of England might assist, in a much greater degree than she does at present, her fallen sister in Scotland; and this is a time, too, when the most important results might be looked for. The established religion in that country seems tottering to its base, many of its more sober thinking members have already taken refuge in the bosom of the church episcopal, and others have wandered off in different directions, more deeply perhaps than before involving themselves in schism, but all anxiously seeking for a resting-place which they have not found in the established faith. Now, Sir, the true church in Scotland is poor, and comparatively but little known; but were she rendered more efficient, she has all that can satisfy the faithful Christian; and yet her sister, the Church of England, is rich, and has different societies for sending forth curates and missionaries, for building churches and chapels, for rearing schools in connexion

with the church, and for spreading sound principles of religion. Why does she exclude Scotland from the field of her labours? These societies are the hands of the church; why should she not give a helping hand to raise from her low estate a beloved sister? We may sympathize with that sister, and speak kindly of her; but what good does this effect, if of our means we coldly forbid her to share? We treat her cruelly if we only pity and do not assist her; it is but to mock her poverty.

Why should we not say to her bishops, We place you upon the same footing as ourselves; do you want additional clergy? here are funds. Do you want churches, or schools, or books? Make out your case, and we treat you as one of us. And would not this be true charity? and might we not expect more abundantly the blessing of Heaven for thus making our sister's cause our own?

And would not multitudes be induced to join her ranks when they saw her recognised in so marked a way by the English church, when they saw her ministry becoming more efficient by influence and education, and when they beheld once more her temples becoming common throughout the land?

And is not this just the time to hold up the church to the people of Scotland, and to point out all her fair proportions, her bright gifts, when so many there, unsettled ones, are looking round for a city of refuge ?

And let it not be said that we need not care for Scotland because there is an established religion: the faithful churchman thinks little of establishments: they may be Mahometan, presbyterian, or Socinian, but no power on earth can make them God's church; and it is to God's one church, be it rich or be it poor, be it established or be it not, that we must ever and alone look.

Besides, to say we need not care for Scotland because there is an establishment, is to say the presbyterian religion is sufficient. Now this is not the way we act elsewhere; we do not refrain from sending additional clergy to places in England just because there may be a large presbyterian place of worship, or presbyterian or other protestant teacher; we, in fact, see the more reason for sending a lawful minister, and so do we act in Canada and everywhere else. Why should we act differently with regard to Scotland?

Nor let it be said that we cannot spare anything for Scotland, seeing our own wants are many. This is at best a selfish view. Let us SHARE with our sister; a little comparatively from us will be much to her; let us give her that, and trust to God for more. We may be quite sure that our funds will be increased many fold for our different objects, so soon as we can tell our faithful members that the catholic and persecuted church in our sister land will partake of what they give. Many hearts there are already that yearn towards her with a sister's holy love, and anxiously ask, "What can we do to help her?"

I would humbly suggest, Sir, that our great societies be thrown open for the bishops of Scotland to apply for aid in the different departments of the church's labour. There may be objections, which I do not see, to this mode of helping a poor branch of the catholic church;

but that she should be assisted, and that the present is a favourable time for making a long pull and a strong pull, I am sure both you and your many readers will agree with me in thinking.

I have the honour to remain, Sir, faithfully yours,
PRESBYTER DUNELMENSIS.

ON DAILY SERVICE.

SIR,-Much has been said, and many attempts have been made, recently to revive the practice of attending daily services of public prayer. It is not my object to offer a syllable in opposition to the practice. Whatever tends to promote general feelings of piety and devotion ought to be warmly encouraged as eminently conducive, not alone to individual security, but also to the well-being of the community. I would only suggest some difficulty in the case, arising from the present actual condition of our ecclesiastical establishment.

Let us suppose the instance (though it is not really a mere supposition) of a parish containing two or three thousand inhabitants scattered (in hamlets and detached dwellings beside the main village) over some ten thousand acres, and therefore many portions of the population distant miles from the church and parsonage; suppose, moreover, that this laborious cure (like numberless others) is very badly endowed, in fact not sufficing for the maintenance of the incumbent (even without a family) in his proper state of respectability, therefore utterly precluding him from obtaining the assistance of a curate; notwithstanding these circumstances, in his zeal (more zeal, I conceive, than discretion) to carry out the apparent intentions of his church, he summons his people to daily morning and evening prayer,-now let me ask, How can this ONE man pay efficient attention to what are now (justly) regarded as essential clerical avocations? What time can he devote to his schools? Especially, when will he have leisure for domiciliary visits among the outlying members of his flock? Allowing the evenings to be sufficient time for study and preparing his sermons, (two weekly, of course,) yet what power will the mind of most persons possess for such employment after the incessant occupation of the morning? It is, I believe, a medical opinion, drawn from anatomical observations, (and I am fully disposed to receive it for a truth,) that the human frame is absolutely unable to support severe toil without the relaxation of one day in seven for rest; but in the case above described the faithful discharge of the duties undertaken would require the whole of every day.

I would beg to submit these considerations to the notice of " D. P.,” and the other writers upon the subject, in your Magazine. It appears to me, that the re-opening of our parish churches for daily services cannot be universally, nor even by any means generally adopted, so long as only one (or even two) clergymen are deemed capable of serving each cure, more particularly since such constant private superintendence of his charge is expected of the minister, which per

haps was not anciently so much practised. Should we ever behold the care of "God's husbandry" divided among a greater number of labourers, the case will be materially altered. At present, it seems as if the wisest plan is to attempt no more than there is strength enough to accomplish. My remarks do not apply to parishes where there are two or three clergymen, and no more duty to perform than they are equal to, but I do conceive it misdirected zeal for any man to undertake so much that he must unavoidably leave undone, or only half fulfilled at least, some portion of his work, beside the tolerably certain prospect of injuring (perhaps fatally, no uncommon occurrence,) his own health, and therefore destroying his usefulness.

I am, your obedient servant,

A. H.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.-SPURIOUS AUTHORITIES.

Sir, It is important that both those who are making up their minds as to what degree of deference they will pay to the fathers of the church, and those who have already made up their minds to respect them as at least considerable witnesses in matters of religion, should be rightly informed concerning their doctrines and practices. A false view of these may prejudice the former in their decision, or mislead the latter in their judgments on various particulars. It may, therefore, be worth while to state in your columns that a passage purporting to be from St. Augustine has lately been brought forward in favour of the invocations practised by the church of Rome, which the Benedictine editors have, with good reason, marked as spurious.

"I will just quote one," he writes, "from the great St. Augustine, of Hippo, (Serm. xviii, de Sanctis in Medio.* Addressing our

blessed lady, he says,

"Sit per Te excusabile, quod per Te ingerimus: fiat impetrabile, quod fidâ mente poscimus. Accipe quod offerimus, redona quod rogamus, excusa quod timemus: quia Tu es SPES VNICA PECCATORUM: Per Te speramus veniam delictorum, et in Te beatissima nostrorum est expectatio præmiorum. O Sancta Maria, succurre miseris, juva pusillanimos, refore flebiles, ora pro populo, interveni pro clero, intercede pro devoto femineo sexu: sentiant omnes tuum juvamen, quicumque celebrant tuam sanctam commemorationem.'

"Now assuredly, if St. Bonaventure used idolatrous language in his psalter, the language of St. Augustine, in this sermon, is equally idolatrous."

If the judgment of the editors, in rejecting this discourse from its place among the writings of St. Augustine, needed further confirmation, it would be in some degree confirmed by the following passage from Serm. xlvi. de Pastoribus, 17 :—

"Modo audietis ipsum revocantem: Erraverunt, inquit, oves meæ in omnem montem, et in omnem collem altum; hoc est, in omnem tumorem terrenæ superbiæ. Sunt enim

This "in medio" shews that the passage is quoted from the breviary, where it stands at the beginning of the lesson. This sermon is so short, that had he quoted from the author himself he would have written "vers finem." It is pleasant not to have to impugn his honesty, but controversy requires care also.