A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

So much, then, for the legitimate consequences of the principle on which the doctrine of the ministry rests. But when we turn to the practice of the Church, we are struck with an apparent contrariety. In very early times, the baptisms of laymen, and of degraded or schismatical priests, were not in all cases repeated, though there were not wanting those who, like St. Cyprian, were resolved to maintain the strictest view of their invalidity. That such baptisms were suffered to pass in the century next after the apostles, it would be difficult to prove; and in the succeeding age the probability is, that they were only tolerated in cases of extreme necessity. Still the fact is undeniable, that for more than a thousand years lay baptisms have occurred in the Church, and in such cases re-baptization was not always thought necessary.

How, then, could the Church vindicate herself in a procedure which seemed subversive of one of her cardinal principles? for, at first sight, the charge of inconsistency appears inevitable; and yet, as every tyro knows, the ancient Church was tenacious of her rights, and exact in her administration, almost to a proverb. To us, the key to the matter seems to have been this. While the Church acknowledged no authority in laymen to baptize, yet if they did go through the regular forms, the external part of the sacrament was actually performed. Hence, in all cases, diligent inquiry was made whether the element of water was applied, and whether this was done in the name of the sacred Trinity. On proof of this, the concession was made that so far baptism had been given. But while the Church allowed that laymen could perform the external part of baptism, she seems to have denied altogether that they could communicate its spiritual graces; and, therefore, if we mistake not, a lay baptism was never esteemed perfect, complete, and without defect, i. e. valid both in its external and internal parts. A person so baptized, on returning to the unity of the Church, or on application for admittance to its higher privileges, was received without the repetition of the external part of the initiatory sacrament, but was endued with remission and the Holy Spirit, by the laying on of the bishop’s hands in confirmation, these spiritual gifts being those which were wanting in the applicant’s lay baptism. Now, if this were so, the Church stands clear of any charge of inconsistency; nay, more, she exhibits her adherence to principle in the strongest light, by treating lay baptism as a mere form of that sacrament, “without the power thereof.” This, we think, was the ordinary practice of the Church. And though confirmation is an ordinance distinct from baptism, yet it always preserved a closer alliance with that sacrament than with the holy eucharist, being anciently given either in immediate connexion with baptism, or at a period very little subsequent to it.

So far as the irregular baptisms of heretics and schismatics were concerned, it is incontestable that the compensating practice just referred to was very generally adopted. And that confirmation was given, in such cases, not only for the conferring of its own proper graces, but also with the direct object of correcting the deficiencies of a previous baptism, is manifest from the language of early writers. Leo, in writing to Nicetius, bishop of Aquileia, remarks, “that such as received baptism from heretics * * * were to be received only by invocation of the Holy Spirit, and imposition of hands, and that because they had before only received the form of baptism, without the sanctifying power of it.” St. Augustine “supposes,” says Bingham, “that they who are thus baptized received the outward visible sacrament, but not the invisible, internal, sanctifying grace of the Spirit.” These graces, “heretics and schismatics were not supposed qualified to give, nor they who desired baptism at their hands qualified to receive, till they returned with repentance and charity to the unity of the Church again; and then the Church, by imposition of hands, and invocation of the Holy Spirit, might obtain for them those blessings and graces which might have been had in baptism, &c. This was the general sense of the Church; for which reason they appointed that imposition of hands should be given to such as returned to the Church, in order to obtain the grace of the Holy Ghost for them by prayer, which they wanted before, as having received baptism from those who had no power to give the Holy Ghost. Innocent says, that ‘their ministrations were defective in this, that they could not give the Holy Ghost; and therefore such as were baptized by them were imperfect, and were to be received with imposition of hands, that they might thereby obtain the grace of the Holy Ghost.’” “This,” adds Bingham, “was the true and only method of supplying the defects of heretical baptism, as is evident from all the passages which speak of the use of the sacred unction, which was joined with imposition of hands and prayer, to implore the grace of remission of sins, and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were wanting before.” Confirmation was therefore regarded as supplying all that was deficient in the unauthorized baptism of heretics and schismatics; and though less is said about the usurped baptism of orthodox laymen, yet analogy would lead us to judge that a resort was had to the same expedient to relieve their imperfection. Thus much we know, that the ancient Church stood firmly on principle, and yet that laymen sometimes baptized, in direct defiance of that principle, and in such cases the external part was frequently not repeated; therefore, by some process, this imperfect baptism was legalized and consummated, and we read of no other such process than that just stated.

In the Church of England there is some diversity both of opinion and practice with respect to lay baptisms. By some persons they are regarded as valid; by others, as imperfect, till ratified by confirmation, or by the use of the hypothetical form; by a third class, as totally invalid. From the time of Augustine, the first archbishop of Canterbury, till that of Archbishop Bancroft, in the reign of James I., lay baptisms were recognised in our Church; but they were baptisms by authorized persons, persons who had received episcopal licence for the act. In the reign of Edward VI., it was ordered in the Office of Private Baptism, that they “that be present shall 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 water, or pour water upon him, saying,” &c. But the rubric now stands altered thus: “First let the minister of the parish (or in his absence any other lawful minister that can be procured) with them that are present call upon God and say the Lord’s Prayer, and so many of the collects appointed to be said before in the form of Public Baptism, as the time and present exigence will suffer. And then the child being named by some one that is present, the minister shall throw water upon it, saying,” &c. This would seem to show a desire on the part of the Church to prevent laymen from baptizing, though it attaches, of course, such great importance to this holy sacrament, that she permits any lawful minister, i. e. any minister of the Church, to officiate on such an occasion, even though in another man’s parish.

Having now given the reader an abstract of the state of this question, we leave him to judge as well as he can, where lies the preponderance of truth, and the place of greatest safety. That the lawfully ordained ministers of Christ have the power and right of administering true baptism, is incontestable. Whether any others possess the like power, we shall know and acknowledge, when they produce their commission to “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

LAY-BROTHERS, among the Romanists, are the servants of a convent.

A lay-brother wears a different habit from that of the religious: he never enters into the choir, nor is present at the chapters. He is not in any orders, nor makes any vow, except of constancy and obedience. He is employed in the temporal concerns of the convent, and has the care of the kitchen, gate, &c.

The institution of lay-brothers began in the eleventh century. The persons, on whom this title and office were conferred, were too ignorant to become clerks, and therefore applied themselves wholly to bodily work, in which they expressed that zeal for religion, which could not exert itself in spiritual exercises.

In the nunneries there are also lay-sisters, who are retained in the convents for the service of the nuns, in like manner as the lay-brothers are for that of the monks.

LAY-CLERKS. Clerici Laici. Singing men so called in the Statutes of the Cathedrals, founded or remodeled by King Henry VII. In general, their number was commensurate with that of the Minor Canons. Lay-Vicars are sometimes incorrectly so styled.