Page images
PDF
EPUB

be had without the order, and consequently that there may be a valid administration of it, which, nevertheless, is totally irregular, that is, contrary to the rule established by the Apostles. That the wilful invasion of the Apostolic order-the wilful introducing of confusion into the Apostolic system-or the needless casting away any of its distinguishing features, is unquestionably a sin of the nature of sacrilege, more or less deep according to the knowledge and consciousness of those who commit it, seems obvious to the slightest reflection; but this sin on the part of the administrator, cannot be attached to those who accept his offices, believing them to be performed according to the order authorized by Christ.

I proceed to shew from the writers already quoted, that these views are not peculiar, but are the doctrines of those who were, and still deserve to be considered, the standards of the Episcopal Church.

To make complete the outward substance of a sacrament,' saith Hooker, (Ecc. Pol. B. 5. 1 vol.597) 'there is required an outward form, which form sacramental elements receive from sacramental words. Hereupon it groweth, that many times there are three things said to make up the substance of a sacrament; namely, the grace which is thereby offered, the element which shadoweth or signifieth grace, and the word which expresseth what is done by the element. So that, whether we consider the outward by itself, or both the outward and inward substance of any sacraments, there are in the one respect but two essential parts, and in the other but three, that concur to give sacraments their full being.'

Again saith he, (ib. 627) after relating at large, the course of the primitive Church, 'By this it appeareth that baptism is not void in regard of heresy, and therefore much less through any other moral defect in the minister thereof.

(ib. p. 620) If baptism seriously be administered in the same element, and with the same form of words which Christ's institution teacheth, there is no other defect in the world that can make it frustrate, or deprive it of the nature of a true sacrament ;'-' Baptism is only then to be re-administered, when the first delivery thereof is void in regard of the fore-alleged imperfections, and no other.' 'Shall we now,' continues Hooker, 'in the case of baptism, which having both for matter and form the substance of Christ's institution, is by a fourth set of men voided, for the only defect of ecclesiastical authority in the minister, think it enough that they blow away the force thereof with the bare strength of their very breath, by saying' 'We take such baptism to be no more the sacrament of baptism, than any other ordinary bathing to be a sacrament?'-'If (p. 621) at any time it come to pass, that in teaching publickly or privately, in delivering this blessed sacrament of Re■generation, some unsanctified hand, contrary to Christ's supposed ordinance, do intrude itself to execute that whereunto the laws of God and his Church have deputed others, which of these two opinions seemeth more agreeable with equity, ours that disallow what is done amiss, yet make not the force of the word and sacraments, much less their nature and very substance, to depend on the minister's authority and calling; or else theirs which defeat, disannul, and annihilate both, in respect of that one only personal defect, there being not any law of God which saith, that if the minister be incompetent, his word shall be no word, his baptism no baptism?' (a)

Strange enough it should seem to some modern theologians, to find Hooker's Presbyterian antagonist insisting that

(a) In a note to this argument, Hooker quotes the maxim of the Decre tals: Prohibita fieri, si fiant, non tenent. In prohibitionibus autem circa res favorabiles, contrarium obtinet.'

1

the minister is of the substance of the sacrament, considering that it is a principal part of Christ's institution; (see note on page 622) while it is Hooker, the advocate for the divine institution of Episcopacy, that opposes him.

Once more, however, let me quote what Hooker copies (p. 646.) from St Augustine on the point in question. 'I doubt (saith St. Augustine) whether any man which carriieth a virtuous and godly mind will affirm, that the baptism which laymen do in case of necessity administer should be iterated; for to do it unnecessarily, is to execute another man's office; necessity urging, to do it, is then either no fault at all, (much less so grievous a crime that it should deserve to be termed by the name of sacrilege) or, if any, a very pardonable fault. But suppose it even of very purpose usurped, and given to any man, by every man that listeth; yet that which is given cannot possibly be denied to have been given, how truly soever we may say it hath not been given lawfully.'

Lastly, Hooker addresses himself (p. 624) to the very common and certainly plausible argument, which likens the minister to the civil judge, whose acts are all void if he has not a full commission. That it fareth not,' saith he, ' in actions of this nature, as in jurisdictions, may somewhat appear by the very opinion which men have of them. The nullity of that which a judge doth by way of authority without authority, is known to all men, and agreed upon with full consent of the whole world; every man receiveth it as a general edict of nature; whereas the nullity of baptism, in regard of the like defect, is only a few men's new, ungrounded, and as yet unapproved imagination. Which difference of generality in men's persuasions on the one side, and their paucity whose conceit leadeth them the other way, hath risen from a difference easy to observe in the things themselves. The exercise of unauthorised jurisdie

tion is a grievance unto them that are under it: whereas they that without authority presume to baptize, offer nothing but that which to all men is good and acceptable. Sacraments are food, and the ministers thereof as parents or nurses; at whose hands, when there is necessity, but no possibility of receiving it, if that which they are not present to do in right of their office, be of pity and compassion done by others; shall this be thought to turn celestial bread into gravel, or the medicine of souls into poison? Jurisdiction is a yoke which the law hath imposed on the necks of men in such sort, that they must endure it for the good of others, how contrary soever it be to their own particular appetites and inclinations. Jurisdiction bridleth men against their wills; that which a judge doth, prevails by virtue of his very power; and therefore, not without great reason, except the law hath given him authority, whatsoever he doeth, vanisheth. Baptism, on the other side, is a favor which it pleaseth God to bestow, a benefit of soul to us that receive it, and a grace which they that deliver are but as mere vessels, either appointed by others or offered of their own accord to this service.' &c.

To these extracts from Hooker, I add the following from bishop Burnet, (on the 19th Art. p. 188) 'There may be many things necessary, saith he, 'in the way of precept and order, both with relation to the sacraments and to the other parts of public worship, in which, though additions or defects are erroneous and faulty, yet they do not annul the sacraments.' 'We think none ought to baptize but men dedicated to the service of God, and ordained according to that constitution that was settled in the Church by the Apostles; and yet baptism by laics, or by women, such as is commonly practised in the Roman Church, is not esteemed null by us, nor is it repeated: because we make a difference between what is essential to a sacrament, and what is requisite in the regular way of using it.'

And again he saith, a little after, Therefore men's being in orders, or their being duly ordained, is not necessary to the essence of the sacrament of baptism, but only to the regularity of administering it; and so the want of it does not void it, but does only prove such men to be under some defect and disorder in their (ecclesiastical) constitution.'

I shall conclude my extracts on this point with the following remarks of bishop White, of whom, although he is still amongst us, I must take leave to say, that there are few men whose moderation and wisdom in theological questions deserve higher praise.

'If the act of baptism,' saith this respected author, (Lectures on the Catechism, p. 119) have been performed in the sacred name of the Trinity, and with the use of the element of water, although by one not owned among us as a duly ordained minister; our Church disapproves of the last mentioned circumstance, but does not require us to repeat the act; or rather, she discourages us from doing so.' In his Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, p. 280-294. he is much more full upon the subject, and states at large the unanimous resolution of the two Archbishops of England, with the bishops of the Provinces who were in London in A. D. 1712, 'that lay-baptism should be discouraged as much as possible; but if the essentials had been preserved in a baptism by a lay hand, it was not to be repeated.' In which he fully concurs. As to the general practice of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States in this matter, it has hitherto been in accordance with those views, and with none other.

« PreviousContinue »