can we award less praise to the advice which Mr. Sewell gives Dr. Pusey, towards the close of the same letter:

"I will venture to entreat you to consider, whether, under present circumstances, the continuation of the Tracts is not pregnant with danger to the cause of peace, and, what is dearer than peace, of truth?"

We would say that it is. But can the series be closed with No. 90, without some further steps being taken? Mr. Newman has already attempted to justify the Tract in question, and avowed his belief not only in its correctness, but in its necessity.

The Hebdomadal Board has recorded its decision; but will that be sufficient to exonerate the University? We think not. It will be necessary, if the matter is to be adjudicated by the University at all, to bring it before the notice of Convocation: and the sooner such a step be taken the better, both for the University and the Church.

Mr. Newman's influence is untouched, and he will, doubtless, go on to propagate his opinions. Let Mr. Sewell condemn them: "And, lastly, though it is impossible to estimate too highly the value of the real catholic testimony of antiquity to the essential doctrines of Christianity, or to look without the highest veneration on the great fathers of the early Church, is it not dangerous to consider ourselves, or to lead others to consider themselves, as disciples of the Catholic Church,' rather than as the dutiful and affectionate children of that branch of it to which we immediately belong? May it not encourage a fanciful and even self-willed spirit, to throw them back upon a distant period of the Church, not for great truths which we are taught by our own Church, and are commanded by her to confirm by such testimony, but for habits of thought and practice, difficult to be realized, impossible to be understood in all their bearings, unfitted, it may be, for our own state, and powerless for effecting the good which is hoped from them-the proof of which need only be sought in the state of society at the time, and in the evils which subsequently sprung from them? From what has come under my own observation, I do think it more than ever necessary to maintain, that our access to the ancient Church must be through the channel of our own English Church, and under the control of living rulers, as well as of written rules."

We shall here close these remarks. We are strongly inclined to hope that the discussion about the 90th Tract will be productive of good. If it only identify the authors of the Tracts separately, it will not have been raised in vain. If it induce the Convocation of Oxford to pass a definitive sentence upon the series, it will be much more beneficial. If it should lead to a cessation of the Tracts altogether, and the re-allegiance of their worthy but much mistaken writers to the Church Catholic, as established in this realm, then shall we have cause to rejoice that ever there appeared that tissue of sophistry and heresy, No. 90 of "THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES."

481

THE PRINTING OF THE BIBLE.

OUR readers are aware, and probably have expected some notice from us on the subject, that a party, composed, as we believe, altogether of English and Scotch Dissenters, are now clamouring for the removal of those restrictions, which a regard for the purity of the sacred text has long imposed on the printing of Bibles and Testaments. The Dissenters have always some favourite war-cry. Sometimes it is Church-rates; then Liberty of Conscience, as if any one wished to deprive them of their freedom: at one time The iniquity of the connexion of Church and State; at another, The Universities, and the exclusive system pursued in those ancient seats of learning. Like Mr. O'Connell, their trade is Agitation! Like him, too, they do not confine themselves to one topic. They are equal in versatility to that learned gentleman, and as rich in expedients. Of late they have broken new ground, and they have discovered that there ought to be a free trade in printing Bibles as well as in corn. Bibles, say they, can be printed and sold at a cheaper rate. The Bible-monopoly is a phrase constantly in their mouths. Large fortunes, say they, have been made by printing the sacred volume, and the cry is, what a shame that men should make the Bible an object of gain! These reforming gentlemen are so pure in their motives, so disinterested in all their actions, that they would not for the world pocket a single sixpence from the printing and circulating of the word of God. Oh, no; such a thing has never entered the thoughts of these virtuous gentlemen-the Bible-printing reformers: they would scorn the very idea of gain from such an employment. Who, however, does not see that the desire of gain lies at the bottom. of the whole business? Some of the party may be disinterested in the part they are taking; but it will be difficult to show that the movers and ringleaders of the crusade are not of the mammon-loving and the mammon-getting generation.

The truth is, that the whole affair is a farce, got up by a few interested parties, who have, by working upon their feelings, enlisted a body of weak-minded religionists into their service: and thus the plea of religion and the glory of God is set up, while the leaders are merely seeking their own interest. It is, indeed, pretended that Bibles would be much cheaper if the permission to print them were general. Taking the paper and the execution into account, it is very doubtful whether a work of the same quality would be rendered to the public a fraction

cheaper than at present. Our own opinion is, that if the price were less, the books would be inferior in paper and execution. No one can complain that the Universities and the royal printers do not use their utmost exertions to render the Bibles as cheap as is consistent with a regard to a proper execution. Like many other Dissenting grievances, the Bible-monopoly, as it is termed, is only so in name, and not in reality: for no poor man, who wants a copy of the sacred volume, can be at any great loss to obtain one.

But our objections to any change in this important matter are derived from other and totally different considerations. They relate to the purity and integrity of the sacred text. We are quite sure that if Bibles could be printed without any restrictions, the erroneous glosses of men would be published to the world as the word of the eternal God. Translations would be multiplied-the numerous religious sects would all have their own versions of the inspired volume; and thus books totally at variance with each other would be put forth as the word of God. The scene would soon become so changed, that the poor man would be bewildered among the many different books, all putting forth the same claims to inspiration. And what check could be imposed to preserve the purity of the text, if the present salutary restrictions were removed?

Let it also be borne in mind, that were such a plan to be carried out, the infidel and the Romanist would be supplied with the strongest arguments in support of their respective systems: the former would point to the various and contradictory versions of the Bible, as an irrefragable proof that even professing Christians themselves were divided in opinion respecting the book from which they pretended to prove the divinity of their system; while the latter would triumphantly appeal to the same facts as so many evidences against the Protestant doctrine respecting the general distribution of the sacred Scriptures. Thus the one would derive an argument from the confusions that must prevail against a divine revelation altogether; the other would appeal to the same facts as so many proofs in favour of the pretended authority of the Church of Rome. We are of opinion that no man, who values the Bible and is anxious to preserve the sacred text uncorrupted, would be desirous of any change in this important matter.

In America there are no restrictions; any person may print the Bible in that land of liberty! And what are the consequences? We believe that it is a well attested fact, that all those ministers and congregations, who are anxious for the preservation of the purity of the sacred text, actually procure the

Bibles which are used in reading-desks and pulpits from England. Yes! Yes! They are fearful of using the Bibles printed in their own country, lest, instead of the word of God, they should read to the people the word of man. This fact speaks volumes on the subject. If, then, the Bible is to be preserved in its integrity, no rashly innovating hand must be permitted to remove those safeguards which we now possess, and which secure to every man in Great Britain a copy of the pure word of God. We say the pure word of God, for no man can allege that there are any material errors in the authorized translation. It has stood the test of time; nor have the various sects that have sprung up, with the exception of the Socinians, raised any objections against its use. As the law now stands, the authorized translation is faithfully given to the public. The Universities, with the royal printers, are responsible for the accuracy of the sacred text. But where would be the responsibility if the restrictions were removed? And what security should we have against the circulation of corrupted books, under the sacred name of the Word of God? It would be impossible, in these days of spurious liberality, for the Legislature to interfere, or to impose other restrictions, with a view to the preservation of the text in its integrity. All such interference would be denounced as an infringement upon Christian liberty; and loud clamour would be raised against any legislative enactments on such a subject.

DISSENTING AND LAY-BAPTISM.

Much has recently been said on this subject. Our readers are aware that the question has been argued in the Court of Arches at considerable length. A clergyman, it appears, had refused to bury a child that had been baptized only by a Dissenting minister, and his refusal was grounded on the allegation that the child had not received any baptism. The learned gentlemen who supported the case of the parties that instituted the suit against the clergyman, were fully aware that baptism by a Methodist preacher or a Dissenting minister could only be regarded as lay-baptism. Being fully aware that the ministry of Dissenters was not recognized by the Anglican Church, they were compelled to rest their cause on the assertion that lay-baptism is valid, and that it is so regarded by the Church herself.

It is not our intention to enter into all the arguments which were brought forward in the Court of Arches: still less are we disposed to defend the conduct of the clergyman, in refusing to bury the child. But though we abstain from touching upon the

merits of this particular case, we need not avoid the abstract question, which the recent proceedings in the Court of Arches have revived.

It is sometimes argued that the Church of England allows the validity of lay-baptism, because the Church of Rome permits midwives to administer that sacrament in cases of necessity. To such an argument, if argument it can be called, it is sufficient to reply, that the fact of the adoption of any particular practice by the Church of Rome, does not prove that it is received in the Anglican Church, or that it has been derived from the primitive ages: since every one knows full well that Rome has widely deviated from apostolic practice, as well as from apostolic doctrine. The argument, therefore, derived from the practice of the Romish Church is of no value whatever in such a question as that now under discussion.

There are two questions connected with this subject, which merit consideration in the controversy. The first relates to the views of the Anglican Church respecting lay-baptism. The second is consequent upon the former, and is simply this: supposing that the Church does, in certain cases, admit the validity of such baptisms, does she necessarily allow of the baptism which is administered by Dissenters? We shall take up the two questions in order.

First, with regard to the question of baptism by laymen: "it appears certain that, in the early Church, laymen were not, in ordinary cases, permitted to baptize; but, in certain cases of necessity, baptisms conferred by laymen were considered valid.* Both these positions are undeniable; but we shall presently see that they do not in any way affect the question of baptism by Dissenters.

It

The rubrics in the first and second liturgies of King Edward, and also in the books of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, appear to leave the matter in some doubt: "First let them 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." is not specified whether the baptism is to be performed by a minister, or whether it may be administered by a layman. Certain it is, however, that in consequence of this rubric, laymen, and even women, did, in cases of great necessity, administer the sacrament of baptism.+ Whitgift and others

For testimonies on this point, see Bingham's Works, vol. viii., edition 1840. Straker.

That such baptisms were only allowed in cases of necessity is clear, from the fact that midwives were permitted to administer the rite when the child at