"He was sent for to baptize the child of a Dissenter in his parish; upon which occasion, he made use of the office of Baptism as prescribed by the Church of England, which he had got entirely by heart. And he went through it with so much readiness and freedom and yet with so much gravity and devotion, and gave that life and spirit to all that he delivered, that the whole audience was extremely affected with his performance; and, notwithstanding that he used the sign of the cross, yet they were so ignorant of the offices of the Church, that they did not thereby discover that it was the Common Prayer. But after that he had concluded that holy action, the father of the child returned him a great many thanks; intimating at the same time with how much greater edification they prayed who entirely depended upon the Spirit of God for his assistance in their _extempore_ effusions, than those did who tied themselves up to premeditated forms; and that, if he had not made the sign of the cross, that badge of Popery, as he called it, nobody could have formed the least objection against his excellent Prayers. Upon which, Mr. Bull, hoping to recover him from his ill-grounded prejudices, showed him the office of Baptism in the Liturgy, wherein was contained every prayer that was offered up to God on that occasion; which, with farther arguments that he then urged, so effectually {95} wrought upon the good man and his whole family, that they always after that time frequented the parish-church; and never more absented themselves from Mr. Bull's communion."--Pp. 39--41., Lond. 1714, 8vo. Some few dates will prove that Bull could not have been the person alluded to. Bp. Sprat's _Discourse to the Clergy of his Diocese_ was delivered in the Year 1695. And he speaks of the minister of the London parish as one who "was afterwards an eminent Bishop of our Church." We must therefore suppose him to have been _dead_ at the time of Bp. Sprat's visitation. Now, in the first place (as J. K. remarks), "Bull never held a London cure." And, in the second place, he was not consecrated Bishop until the 29th of April, 1705 (ten years after Bp. Sprat's visitation), and did not die until Feb. 1709-10. (_Life_, pp. 410--474.) Southey's conjecture is therefore fatally wrong. And now as regards Bp. Hacket. The omission of the anecdote from the _Life_ prefixed to his _Sermons_ must, I think, do away with his claims also, though he was restored to his parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, and was not consecrated Bishop of Lichfield until December, 1661. Unfortunately, I have not always followed Captain Cuttle's advice, or I should now be able to contribute some more decisive information. I have my own suspicions on the matter, but am afraid to guess in print. RT. Warmington.