i'': •'^''><'^&:;. >:'•- i." ■v.'^-\ "t t*'.* • « •M?':^.^^ — y ' ^— — ^^^^^HP'-W' ■ •' ^^ I V'' ■ LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N. J. Presented by '"*^^»— C..- Division /7:>S ^^c who with great Rudenels, inconfiflent with his Prieflly Chara^er has^ by Partial flotations from my Two Books of Sacerdotal Powers, and DiHcnters Baptifm Null and Void, endeavoured to perfuade the World, that J Separate the Divine Commifjton from the Chriftian Mlniflry, and that I hold and affirm, that Blfhops have Power to Authorize Laymen to Baptize, would have done but Common Juflice to have confidcr'd, and let the World fee what I have faid here in Anfwer to a ^icflion put to me concerning fuch a Power in Bipops. He knew in his To the Reader. v his Confcience^ or might know^ that this 'wa$ in the Second Edition of Lay-Baptifm Invalid, for he refers to that Edition in his abufive Pamphlet. He cannot deny ^ that in the fame Edition^ V.i^^. I ufe thefe very I^Vords^ viz. "When it can be ^ PROVED, That Chrift has vefted his Church " with fuch a Power, it will necefTarily fol- " low, 6ff.'* He might have known^ that this was in Anfwer to an Objection which affirm'd^ that the " Validity of Lay-Baptifm flands on " the Authority of the Church's Power to *' GRANT SUCH LiCENCE to Lay-men m Extre- .'' mi ties." He cannot chufe but be confcious to himfelf^ if he read the Book^ that 1 in the fame Edition^ P. if j-, if 6. fijew'd the Danger of the Church's making ufe of fuch a fuppofed Power ^ thefe PaJ/ages are in p. 148, 149, and i fo. of this prefent Edition. His Confcience mufi alfo tell him^ that in p. 83. of Sacerdotal Powers, (which he •pretends to quote^ thd^ he does it very unfairly) I fay concerning Baptifms Adminifiefd by virtue of the Canon of the Council of Eliberis, thefe TVords^ " If any THING CAN BE SAID for the Vali- " dity of thofe Lay- Baptifms.''' And p. 8f . con- cerning Midwife-Baptifm, allowed by the Church of Rome, I fay thus^ " So that upon Suppofition., ^^ which I DARE NOT GRANT, that thofc Mid" *' wife-Baptifms could be defended as Valid, *' upon the Account of their Bifnops having *' firft granted them fuch Power, i^c'' — Laflly^ to let the IVorld fee a little more of the Integrity of this Writer.^ he cannot be ignorant that he is very unjufi in his ^otation^ from p. 6, and 7. o/Dif- fenter's Baptiun Null and Void 3 for in p. 7. be- fore the Period is fmiflo'd^ I fay^ concerning the. Church's Power to Authorize her Laymen to A 4 ' Baptize i vi To the Reader. Baptizcy thus, " Which, whether right ok *' NO, is no ways applicable to our Laymen and " Dijfentersy who are utterly deftitutc of any " fuch Plea, ^c:' By all which Pafages the Im- partial Reader may eafily fee^ that I do not affirm^ that Bifiops have Power fo to Authorize Lay- men j but thaty if Bifiops could be fuppos'd^ or ' prov'd to have fuch a Power ^ yet even then our Diflenters Baptifms are Null and Fold notwith- fianding. The whole Argument runs upon \jf they had Power'] \_whether Right or no^ 8cc.]] But thefe. neceffary Connexions he purpofely O' mittedy becaufe he knew that if he had inferted them 'twould have difcovered the Falfenefs of his Charge^ and have fpoiVd his Defign^ of en- deavouring to render a P erf on odious^ when he was not able to confute that Truth which he had af" ferted. How aukwardly foever I may have de- fended it^ that mufi be left to more impartial Judges than this Gentleman has fJoew'd him f elf to be \ however^ thus much Fie and his Friends have difcovered by their Attempts hitherto^ that they dare venture no farther than to nibble at fuch little things^ as are wholly foreign to the main Matter difputeds and this they do without any Argument at all^ while the Merits of the Caufe lie neglected by them^ as being in their Opinion^ either not worth their Regard^ or elfe^ becaufe the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm is too great a 'Truth for them exprefly and directly to endeavour to o- ver throw. This Writer calls upon me to an- fiver him pofitively^ whether I will hold and main- tain^ that " Bifhops can Authorize Laymen to " Baptize." I hereby affnre him^ that I will give him no positive A^;fwer to this ^lefiion. I will mt Declare my Qlf abfolutely, fither for or a- gainfi To the Reader. vii gainft that Power for Cafes of Extremity^ hut league it as I found it, and will keep my own Pri- vate Opinion about it, to my felf-y which I am fur e I have a Right to do, without any Obligation to fuhlifh it for the Sake of fuch unreafotiable and ill-grounded Challenges, as this angry Gentleman has made me\ and this fh all he all the puhlick No* tice that I will take of his unhandfome Performan- ceSy {and which indeed is more than due to them) after I have told him, that fome Great Men hold, that Bifhops, hy their Jpofiolic Authority, can Authorize Laymen to Baptize in Cafes of Extre- mity, i. e. in want of a Prieft : that it is with thefe Gentlemen I have treated in my Three Books {giving /i;^«^ Argumentum ad hominem) upon their own Principles. 7'hat there are others who affirm, that Bifhops have not fuch Power 5 and that ^tis my Jfjertion, that whether they have or have not this Power, my Principles fland firm, that Perfons not Commifjion'd, not Authoriz'd, /. e, not really Authoriz'd, ( for 'tis not Authority^ if "^tis not real) do not Minider Valid Baptifmi And this is the Cafe of our DifTenters Baptifms, let what will become of that other §ueflion. For, if BifJoops have not fuch a Power, then 'tis plain, that the Miniflration of Baptifrn is an Incommu- nicable Fundbion of the Standing Prieflhood^ and fo, no Lay- Miniflration whatfoever can be Valid, by being allow'd, tolerated, licens'd, approved of, or authoriz'd by BifJjops, This effetlually ruins the Caufe of Necefjity, which our Author would plead: Be caufe, if Bifl)ops cannot Authorize Lay- men, validly to Baptize in TVant of a Priefi -^ it muft be, becaufe Lay-Chrifiians (as fuch) have not a Capacity to Receive the Divine Commijfion for fuch an Exigence: And if they have not this Capacity, viii To the Reader. Capacity, then the Exigence it felf cannot em* pwer or authorize them j except a Negative has more of Potentiality than the Pofitive Power of the Bijloops -, which is abfurd. And therefore etk Diffenters (upon this Suppojition) are utterly ex* eluded from Mini firing Valid Baptifm j as they would alfo^ if Necejfity could empower Laymen : For they are under no Cafe of Necefjtty^ where Priefts are to be had. And again: If Bijhops have fuch a Power to Authorize their own Lay^* men^ as before fpecified-y our Bijhops have not fo Authorizd their Laymen : And if they had^ our Dijfenting 'Teachers are not Those Laymen 5 hut Laymen Ant i- Epif copal ^ in Rebellion againft Epifcopacy it felf-y who intrude into other Men's Provinces^ and wickedly attempt (UncaWd and Unfent) to Mini ft er where there is not fo much as any Pretence of NeceJJity for their Intrufion. And therefore^ in both Cafe s^ our Diffenters cannot Mi'^ nifter Valid Baptifm. This^ concerning their dear Friends^ the Diflen- tcrs, the Adverfaries know they cannot get over^ and therefore it Is that they make fuch a Buftle^ to raife a Duft that MerCs Eyes may be blinded^ and fo hinder'' d from feeing this great Truth. 'To ob^ Jlrucl which ^ they endeavour to perfuade the World^ that the Priefthood it felf is in New Dangers from thofe very Doctrines^ which are the only Sup- port of ity while they themfelves are fuch Ene* mies to the Priefthood^ that they are endeavouring effe6iually to defiroy it by their pernicious Princi- ples^ oppofing the Churches Spiritual Independen- cy, the Chriftian Altar, and Sacrifice, Abfoluti- on, and the Mini Illation of Baptifm, as Chrift him felf appointed it. And this puts me in mind of a late very dangerous Step.^ that was going to be. madcj To the Reader. ix made^ and which if it had taken EffeU^ mighty ivithout an extraordinary preventing Providence'^ in a little time have defiroy^d the whole Sacerdotal Power and Authority with us-y and this was an Attempt to eftablifi a flrange, and before to us unheard-of Declaration^ that (as thofe who indited it fay) "In Conformity with the Judgment " andPradice of the Catholick Church, and of ** the Church o( England, in particular. . " Such Perfons as have already been Baptiz'd, ** in or with Water, in the Name of the Father, " Son, and Holy Ghofl, ( Altho' their Baptiftn " was Irregular for want of a proper ^* Administrator) ought not to be Baptized a-- '^ gain, "ithe plain Engliih of which, is^ that fuch Per- fons as have already been, contrary to the Law o?Chn£\^n^afh'd or Sprinkled with IVater, by any One whatfoeve?\ whether Un-authoriz'd Man^ Woman^ or Child, Chrifiian, Jew, or Heathen, nay, whether they wafh d thcjyifelves, or let one of thofe others do it, provided it v:as but done with the fe Words, [In the Name of the Father, &;c.] ought not to be Baptized by a Proper Adminiftra- tor whom Chrift has appointed. For in all thefi Cafes, the Wafhing is Irregular for want of a pro- per Adminiftrator, and therefore not, what de- ferves the Name of Christian Baptism > tho* the Declaration begs the ^eftion that it is fo, by faying [ fuch Perfons as have already been Bap- tized, l^c^ For this Irregularity is an EiTential \xxQ:^\u\^,becaufe contrary to the Pofitive In- ftitution of Chrifiian Baptifm ; am{ 'tis Irregular for no other Reafon, but its being without, or con- trary to that Rule 5 as this Book is defign'd to prove. An Endeavour to make the JVorld believe, that X To the Reader. that fuch TVaJhings as are Irrregular for want of a Proper Adtniniftrator, are Valid Baptifmsj and this without any Limitations^ either for Cafes of Neceffity^ or for the excluding of Women^ Hea* thens^ or St age- Players^ 6cc. is fuch a Latitude^ that it does not fall fhort of even the worfi Cor- ruptions of the Church of Rome. Nay^ the De- crees offome of their Popes, 6cc. concerning Mid- wife-Baptifm, and that given by Pagans, limit Jhem to Cafes of Neceffitys hut this defign^d De- claration makes not even this Provifton, to fecure the Authority of the Chriftian Priefthood for the Adminiftration of Baptifm, but opens a Door for all Intruders, even where there is no Pretence of Necefftty. It advifes indeed, that " Men take *' heed that they ufurp not an Office whereun- " to they be not caird, for God will call them " to account for fo Doing : " But alas, what Ef- fect can this Advice have, when the Declaration before pronounces their Mini ftrations Valid -, P^alid without any Exception of Time, Perfon, Place, or Circumflance. Will God call Men to account for their Valid Miniftrations ? For their effeding that which he has appointed to be effe6bed ? For their doing of that, which he concurs with, and from the Valid Performance whereof, he has by no Law excluded them? For, if he has by any of his Laws excluded them from /^^ Valid Minillration of Chriflian Baptifm, then their Attempt to Mi- nifter it, is an Invalid A5t. If ^ he has by no Law excluded them from the Valid Miniftration thereof, then their Attempt to Minifter it, is no Breach of any Law of his-, for, where there is no Law, there is no Tranfgreffton, and confequently they will not be caWd to account for it j which plain- ly Jloews the great Inconftjlency of fuch a Declara- tion, To the Reader. xi Uon. Befides^ this Declaration was dejlgn^d^ it fays^ " To teach a Truth, to take a Yoke of '' Doubtfulnefs from Men's Confciences, and "to refift an Error not much differing from *' DoNATisM and Anabaptism. The fuppofed T'ruth it would teach^ has beenfeen already. Its Latitude^ its Contrariety to the Scri" pture^ to the Judgment of the Univerfal Churchy and of the Church of England in particular^ which never made a Law or Canon of fo univerfal and un- limited a Nature, are evident to all ferious and knowing Enquirers into this Matter, Tertullian Himfeif^ who by degrees fell into this fingular La- titude of allowing Laymen to be Priefts, in Cafes of Necefjity^ contrary to the Do6lrine and PraBice of the Catholick Church-, exprefly and ahfolutely Excludes Women^s Power to Baptize. Dc Bap- tifmoCap. 17.— T^z&f Conftitutions of the Apoflles^ Book 111. Chap. 6, p, £5? 10. repudiate all Lay* Miniftrations^ and particularly Lay-Baptifm^ and Baptifm by fVomen.'-^So does St. Epiphanius a- gainft the Colly rid ians utterly difallozv of Baptifm bytVomen. See his JVorks^ Book III. Tom. 2. Which Teftimonies I thought proper to add here (to thofe of my Preliminary Difcourfe) upon this Occafion^ that Men may fee what a pretended Truth fome would Eftablijh^ and how Conforma- ble it is to the Judgment and Practice of the Ca- tholick Church.— The " Yoke of Doubtfulnefs," i^c. would he laid heavier on^ rather than taken from^ Mens Confciences by fuch a Declaration > which fays^ ■ That " God will call Men to account for ufurp- " ing an Office [_of Baptixing~] whereunto they " be NOT Call'd." For^ will not the fcrup?i- lous Perfony who was pretendedly Baptized by one of sii To the Reader. ofthefe^ and tomeyto know it^ he very apt tofay^ How cm Irefl fatisfied in ^Baptifm declar'd to be Irregular, for want of a proper Adminiftra- tor, [_i.e. One caWd of God'] When the UncalPd pretended Jdmimjirator^ will by God himfelf be ' caird toAccowhtas an U fur per of the PrieftlyOf- Jice^ for Bapti2ing me ? Will God judge him for fo doing ? And fhall I efcape his Judgment for know- ingly concurring with i^' or acquiefcing in^ his ftnful A61 ? By what means fhall I extricate my felf out of this Difficulty ? If "'tis Sin in him, 'tisfo in me too, by my approving of it-, and yet (that this Scruple may ceafi ) approve of it I mufi. But how can I approve of it^fince it was ftnful in the very AB? And thus I find no Relief from fuch a De- claration, which involves me in Sin, and prohibits my being extricated out of it. 'The fuppofed Error it was defigmd to oppofe, is this J That pretended Baptifm, Admifiiftred with- out the Divine Authority or Commiffion \ i. e. by One who has not this Commifjion, is not Chriftian Baptifm, hut Null and Void. Is not this much Differing from the Real Error of Donatifm, which was. That the Donatifts Rcbaptiz'd thofe who came over to them from the Catholick Church, tho' they had been before rightly Baptized in or with Water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofl, and by One in Real, Valid Holy Orders toe ? What has this to do with the Matter before us ? ■ And as for Anahaptifm, its Error is twofold: Firft, It Nulls Baptifm in an Infant, howfoever and by whomfoever Adminijler'd. Secondly, In Grown Perfons, if they were not piling' d all over in Water 'y in both which they make the Age of the Perfon Baptized, and the very great Qu A N- To the Reader. xiii Quantity of Water fufficient to cover the Per" fon^ EfTential to the Miniftration of this Sacra- ment ', Error sfo infinitely Different from the Cafe before us^ that One would wonder how Men could Invent the Notion^ of their being not mlich Dif- ferent from what is Afferted^ and^ I hope^ fairly proved^ to be a Great Truth in this Effay, fhe Author of a Pamphlet^ calPd^ The Judg- ment of the Church of England in the Cafe of Lay-Baptifm and DifTenters Baptifm, has pub- lifh'd what he calls The Second Part of the Judg- ment, 6cc. 'TJj an amazing thing to fee Men fo expofe themfelves : For this Gentleman amufes the World with a Repetition of all that he had f aid be- fore \ and gives his Reader the faine 'Things over again^ but in other Words^ and in a Method fome- thing diver fified from the former-^ putting People to an Unnecejfary Charge^ beftdes a Trial of their Patience^ to bear with the Reading afecond Time what they had read before > which is ft ill the more aggravated by his Want of Argument j by his not fo much as endeavouring to confute the Reafons brought againft his FirHF^n^ in the An^wtr there- to^ caird, DifTenters Baptifoi Null and Void ; (for he tells his Reader^ that he does not dejign this as a Reply to that Book 5 j by bis unheco^ning Lan- guage^ in giving III Names to what he knows he cannot confute > and laftly^ by his induflrioufly E- vading the Merits of the Cause j when he knows that the Church of England has concerned Her Self therewith^ that i&^r Articles of Religion are built upon it^ and that he is obliged in his own Defence to enter into it. This Author mightily triumphs in BifJjcps con- firming Children^ pretendedly Baptized by Dijfent- ing Teachers^ as if they therefore acknowledged thofe Baptifnis xiv To the Reader: Baptifms to he Valid.^^But I can tell hm^ thai there are feme who fay^ that thofe Baptifms are not Valid before Confirmation^ hut made 'ualid by Confirmation -j this ( tho* I ahfolutely deny it) I can prove to be the Foundation upon^. which Confirmation has been given to Perfons fo pretendedly Baptized -^ and our jluthor would do well to confider^ whether thofe Bifiops he [peaks of^ did not Confirm them upon the fame Foundati^ on^ before he fo pofttively affirms^ that thofe Bi- pjops allowed their Baptifms to he Valid: For^ if ^tis truefthe Nature and Benefits ofChriftian Baptifm^ 40 '7/V no other than a Divine Pont ivelnfiitution^ 41 Confequently^ ourOhligationto receive it^ and from the Perfons hy whom 'tis ordered to he admini^ fter'd^ is wholly and only founded upon the Di- vine Conima?id^ ibid. Prop. I. TJjdt the Divine Authority of the Admi- niftrator^ is an EJJential Part of Chriftian Baptifm^ 42, Prov'd, ifl:, From God's making the Divine Authority of the Adminifirator^ to he an EJJential Part of his The CONTENTS. own Pofitrce Injiitutiens under the Mofaic Law^ 44 zdly, By the Example of our Saviour's not taking upon him to Minifter in fuch Holy Things^ till he was particularly and externally Commijfion'' d for thatPurpofe^ 46 jdly, From the fFords of Inflitution of Chriflian Baptifm^ 48 4thly, From the Deftgn and Benefits thereof^ 60 f thly, From the confiant Practice of the 'true^ and Pretended Miniflers of the Chriflian Churchy 6f (Sthly, From the DoUrine and Practice of the Church ^/England, 67 Prop. II. Tloat the Divine Authority of the Admi- nifirator of Baptifm^ is as much obliging and Tieceffary to usj as the Water and¥ oxra of Ad- mini firing in the Name of the 'trinity^ yf Corollary. Hence no Human Authority can difpenfe ivith the Omifjion of the Divine Authority of him *who adminijlers^ jS Prop . I [ I . JVhofoevcr affirms Baptifm to he wholly Null and Invalid^ for want of either Water, or the Form of Adminiflring in the Name of the Trinity j ought [for the fame Reafon) to ac^ knowledge Baptifm as much Null and Invalid^ ivhen it wants only the Divine Co??imiJJion of the Ad-minifirator^ 77 Corollary. Hence the Invalidity of fuch B apt ifms^ as are adrninifter'd by Unauthorized Perfons^ cajinot ^c* Partial, ^/^/ Entire, 78 therefore. The CONTENTS. Therefore Impojition of the Bifhofs Hands^ is not fufficient to make fuch Baptifm Falid^ 79 The Church of England, in her Office of Confirma- tion^ (appointed only for 'validly Baptized Per-- fons) gives us not the leafi Intimation of any fuch Efficacy in the Impofition of the BiJJjop's Hands ^ 8 1 Of the pretended Pra6iice of Antient Churches to this Pur pofe^ ibid. The Unavoidable Mifchiefs that mufi follow upon Allowing the Validity of Lay-Baptifm^ 84 ''Twill he then in vain for the True Miniflers of Chriil, to tell the People of the Damning Nature of Schifm^ 8/ Prop. IV. He who knows himfelf to have been in- validly baptiz'd by one who never had the Di^ vine Commiffion^ can have no jufi Grounds to expeH the Supernatural Benefits annexed to the One True Chriftian Baptifm^ till he has done his utmoft for the Obtaining of them^ by endeavour^ ing to procure that One Baptifm from the Hands of a divinely Authorized Minifter^ Sy The great Danger they incur ^ who know themfelves to have been invalidly -baptiz'd by a Layman^ in Oppofttion to^ and Rebellion againfi thofe who were truly Authorized to baptize^ ^'^ It highly concerns thofe who are ignorant of this^ to undeceive themfelves^ if poffible^ that they may be fur e of the Validity of their Baptifm^ 8p Objections Anfwered. I. Chrift^ in the iVords of Infiitution^ does not^ ( in exprefs Terms ) confine Baptifm to the Ad- a 3 niinifiratioi^ The CONTENTS. wimftration of his Apofiles and their Succejforsf foas that none can Admtnifier'true Baptifm'l^iit ■ they^ and fuch only as theyJh^U Authorize^ 90 II. ms Dotlrine confines the Efficacy of the Sacra- 77ients to the Di'uine Authority of the Admini- flratoTj infovnuch^ that if an UncommiffiorP d PerfonMinifiers^ he Adminificrs no Sacraments at all^ i)z III. JVhoJoas this Divine Authority is in Dif- pite^and'cpnfequently the Foundation of Bap-^ tifrn is 'very precarious and uncertain^ <)6 The Diligent and Induftrious^ who live inConfcim- iious Communion ivith the 7'rue Churchy need not beinSufpenfe about this Dif put e-y and why ^. ib. tfhis Divine Rl^ht of Admimflring^^ is inEpifcppa- ] cy only.^ ', 5)8 The Authors who have abundantly prov'^d this^ fe- ferVd to^ ibo IV. "'TIS uncharitable to deny the Validity of the Baptifm of Foreign Churches^ and fome among our felve-s^ ibid The Author'' s Charity for fome who are invincibly Ignorant^ loz, 103 V. The Example of Zipporah, MofesV Wife^ who Circumcised her Son^ 103 VI. Fieri non debet j fadum valet: i.e. // is not Lawful to he done, yet bcin^ done^ 'tis Va- lid^ ' lOf VU. The Council of ^Viberis^ Anno 30 f. and the Church of England at the Beginning of the Re- formation, The CONTENTS. formation, allow* d of Lay-Baptifm in a Cafe of NeceJJity 5 as the Church of Rome does to this Day .y 107 I'he Church of England faw Reafons afterwards not to give Liberty for fiich Baptifms^y and therefore now in her Liturgy, requires Baptifm ( even in Cafes of NeceJJity ) to be Adminiflred by a Lawful Minijier^ no ^/.Cyprian, and BiJhopT^y\ox'*s Opinion^ if the , Cuftom of fuch Lay-Baptifm had continued^ ib. yill. Of the Cenfers that were Hallowed by the ^wo Hundred and Fifty Princes ftnful Offering of Incenfe^ 1 1 z fhe Subje5l of this ElTay, the Author believes to be a Fir ft Principle of Chriftianity, 11^ "ithe great Danger of not Ajfer ting and Vindicating it-i ibid. His Jhort Addrefs and Requeji to the Clergy^ 1 1 6 And Caution to thofe who endeavour to ufurp the Sacred Office^ ibid. His Prayer for the Church and Clergy^ 1 1 7 Appendix. i'he Reafon for making this Addition in Anfwer to Further Objections. IX. Of Unchurching the Foreign Reforry^ d Church-' es^ who are without Epifcopal Ordination^ this the ObjeBor fays is contrary to the Concefions of many Epifcopal Divines of the Church of England, 118 a 4 fhe The CONTENTS. The Author's charitable Thoughts of many Foreign- ers^ 111 The Epifcopal Divines fpoken of^ have by their Concejffions^ contradiUcd the DoEtrine and avow- ed Practice of the Church of England, iiz A Comparifon of a True Prieft of the Tribe of Aaron, undertaking to defend the Falidity of the Prieflhood which ]croho^m had fet upy 115 No Cafe of Ncceffity can of it [elf Authorize us ta affume the great Office of mediating between . God and Man ^ iz^- Epifcopacy cannot be utterly extin6l^ i i(S But if it were^ 'tis fafer for us to wait and hope for fo?ne new Revelation of God's IVill^ to ap- point Minifiers^ than take it upon our felves^ X. Of the Nullity of their Orders and Miniflra^ tions who have not been Baptiz'd^ and yet have been Epif cop ally Ordain- d to the Miniftry^ 1 18 An EJJay towards an Anfwer to this Objection^ But with SiibmiJJion to the better Reafons of the Clergy^ 1 39 The Author's final and determinate Anfwer to the ObjeBiony ibjcl. XL 0/ the Powers of the Hierarchy^ to relax Stated Rules in Cafes of Neceffity, and of Con- firming and Ratifying by Chrifm or Impojltion ■ of Hands^ fuch Heretical^ Schifmaticalj or Mi- mical Baptifms^ as are done without^ nay and againjl the Confent of the Hierarchy^ 140 Oar Hierarchical Powers have provided no A^ of Confirmation of fuch Baptifms^ 142- Tue The CONTENTS. ^oe Powers of the Hierarchy are for ever limited (in things fundamental) to the Canon of the Holy Scriptures^ 14^ Their Hazard in difpenftng with things fundamen- tal^ and our Injecurity in fuch Difpenfations^ Jf the external Rite of fuch Baptifms does not con- fer Spiritual Graces^ &c. as the Objection [up- pofes^ then no after AEl of the BijJoop^ can con- firm thofe Baptifms y hut the external Rite mufi he performed hy a Lawful Minifier^ 1 44 Why feme Churches allowed of Antient Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms^ 1 47 ^he ill Ufe that Hereticks and Schifmaticks may make of the Church' s fuppo fed Power to Licenfe Lay-men to Baptize in Cafes of Extremity^ 14S ^he Benefit of Ajjerting the Minifiration of the Priefthood to he EJjcntial to the Adminiflration of Chrijlian Sacraments^ j j- 1 XII. Of the Church of the Jews changing the Firft Pofture of Standing to eat the Pafchal Lamh^ into that of Leaning or Lying along^-^ Of David and his Mens eating the Shew-Bread^ which was not lawful hut for the Priefis alone ^ and of our Saviour's telling the Jews that God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice. 15^5 None of thefe Script 'ire Inftances at all parallel to the Adminifiration of Chrijlian Baptifm prov'd at large. I ft, The Poflure of Eating the Pafchal Lamb J If4 2d, The Shew-hread^ I cj 3d5 I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice^ \6i XIII. T^he late Bifhcp of SarumV hoafted unan- fwerable Obje^ion^ cotjcerning the U fur pat ion of The CONTENTS. ^ of the Jewifli High Priejihood and Atonement ^ XIV. Of our Saviour's commanding not to for- bid the Man who caft out Devils^ — when the Apoftle would have him forbid becaufs he fol- lowed not Chrifi and his Jpofiles^ i p 5 XV. Of the Scriptures calling All Chrijlians^ Priefls, ^c. ipj* ^he Coyiclufton^ in a Serious a?id Humble Addrefs to the Mofl Reverend^ the Right Reverend^ and the Reverend^ The Governors and Minifters of Chrifi over his Flock in all Parts of the Univer- fal Churchy 205 ERRATA. IN a Letter to the Author, p. xxxii. In the marginal Note inftead of Hercttcus read H^reticus. p. xxxiii. is tdiie paged xxiii. ibid. Jine lo, inftead of hav- Read having. p. xliv. 1. 2. dele we. p. Ivi. In the marginal Note 1. i, tor § 70, r. § 60. ^^%-:^'X'^'rj7t'ii^^j^-^:'t'. A LET- A LETTER to the AUTHOR. SIR, HE deplorable State of Chriftla- nity in thofe Parts of it which have reformed from Popery in Dofl:rine, is chiefly to be afcrib'd to the Contempt orNegleQ: of the Divine Inflitutions, relating to the Conftitution and Oeconomy of the Church. This in par- ticular hath brought all the Diforder and Confufion in Matters of Religion, for which England is fcandalous above all o- ther Chriftian Countries 5 having ever fince the Great Rebellion, abounded with Reli- gious Sefts and Factions, which owe their Original, more or lefs, to the direful Change and Overthrow of that Government,which Chrift ordain'd for his Church, and his A- poftles left in it, and which throughout all Ages was continued without Interruption in the Chriflian World for 1500 Years, as that very Form of Church-Government, which all Chriftians thought was ordain'd to ii A Letter to the Author. to continue unto the End of the World. There never was in all that Time any Church founded but in, and with Epis- copacy,- nor did ever any Se£t of Men afifume the Title of a Church, till they could get a pretended Bifhop, from whom they had their Priefts, and their Priefts their Miflion, till the Time of the Reformati- on; nor did any Chriftian Priefts, or Peo- ple of an Epifcopal Church, ever rife up againft their ^//^^/^j" as fuch^ and rejeft the whole Order^ but thofe of Great Britain, under the Pretence of farther Reformation ; by which they have brought fuch Confu- fions, and fo exposed Religion among us, that it is in a great Meafure loft, fo that we may fay (as was long fince faid oi Ju- ftice in the Iron Age of the World) that fhe hath taken her Flight from Earth to Heaven. Could any Church, or Father of theCatholick Church, in Anticnt Times, have imagined or believ'd without the Gift of Prophecy, that an Age would come, when the Presbyters of a National Church would take upon them to depofe their Bi- Jhops^ and teach the People that their Or- der \\'2i% contrary to God's Word, or grier vous and unneceiTary to the Church! Could they have imagin'd, that in a flourifh- ing Church, pure in Doftrine and Worfliip, confifting of Two Provinces, an Aifembly I of A Letter to the Autho-r. \\\ t)f feveral Presbyters fhould be held mOppo- fition to their Bifhops, and their Lawful So- vereign Lord theExternal or CivilBiflhop of his Church, by the Command of Rebels in aftual Arms againft their King ! Could they ever imagine, that in three famous Nati- onal Churches reform'd after the Antient Pattern of Churches fettled in the Primi- tive Times, and profeffing the fame Holy- Faith, a ftrong Party of Presbyters and People, fhould be fo wicked, as by Force to depofe the whole College of Bifl^ops, and as much as they could, extirpate the whole Order as unlawful and needlefs, nay, as an Antichriftian Ccnftitution, and a Yoak which we nor our Fathers were able to bear ! Yet, Sir, I am one of thofe furviving Men who liv'd in thofe Times and faw all thofe things done, and the direful Confe- quences of fuch Doings s the firfl: of which was the fetting up a Government of the Church by Presbyters afluming Epifcopal Authority, who with their Seci were cal- led Presbyterians. But thefe did not long flourifli 5 for as they had taught the People that Epifcopal Ordinations or Miflions were not necefla- ry, fo others foon faid the fame of their Ordinations by Tresbyters, aflerting, that ©nly Gifts, and the Call of Gifted Men by the Congregation was fuificient for theMi- niftry 5 iv A Letter to the Author. niftry; and fo from the Sefl o^Treshytery fprang up that of th^ Independents among 11S, and from them again, others, who thought Gifts alone were a fufficient Call to the Miniftry, and in this Abomination of ^efolation^ Laymen fir ft invaded the Sa- cred Office of the Miniftry among us. When I was a Young School-Boy in a Tittle Village near HelmJIey in Torkjhire, I faw a Man in Gray Clothes ftep up into the Pulpit on the Lord's Day, where after a long Prayer hepreach'd to the People, a9 well as I can guefs from what I now re- ■ member, after the Manner of the Fifth Monarchy Anabaptifis, Being afterwards removed to School 2ii North- Allerton^l faw an Officer of Crom'-jvell's Army go up into the Pulpit, and thereafter a long Prayer, he made a long Sermon, of which, as I then underftood little, fo I remember no- thing, but that he talk'd much of T>ead Ordinances^ and Gifts of the Spirit, and a Carnal Miniftry^ meaning no doubt the Mi- nijlry of the Church. By that tw^z^iake- rifm, which began in Wefimorland, was much increased in that Place, where I oft- en faw not only Men, but Women Preach both in the Fields, and in Houfes, without any other Call, but their pretended Moti- ons of: the Spirit, whea (you muft. Sir, ex- cufc my Impertinence to tell you, that). a A Letter to the Author. v k School-Fellow older than my felf by three or four Years, though of a Lower Form ia the School, whohad been carefully bred up in Church TrincipleSy and like another Zi- mothy inftrudled by his Parents from his Childhood in the Scriptures, fo baffled their Speakers, by asking them who fent them to "Preach, and urging the Places of Scripture againft them, which fpeak of God the Fa- ther's fending our Saviour, and His fend- ing the Apoflles, and They others 5 and by requiring of them a Vijtble Proof of their pretended Call by the Spirit, that they came not of a long Time after to that Place, and as I remember, not till that Boy, fo mighty in the Script tires, was taken from the School. Indeed, Sir, the Neceffity of an Immedi- ate, or Mediate Call and MiJJion from God to any T)ivine Miniftryy is fo plainly taught in the Scriptures as appears by the * Mar- gin. ■* The Mission of Moses, And the Lord faid^ Come now therefore, and I -will send tl>ee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayejl bring forth my People, 8cc. out of Egypt. Exod. iii. 10. Now therefore go, and I vpill be -with thy Mouth, and teach thee -what thou fJjalt fay. Exod. iv. 12. He sent Mofes his Servant, Pfal. cv. 26. The Mission of the Jewish Priests, Tahe thou unto thee Aaron thy Brother, and his Sons with him, from among the Children of Israel, that He may Minijler unto me in the Trieji's Office, even Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, Eleaz,er, and Itha- mar, Aaron V Sons, Exod. xxviii. 1. And the Lord fpake unto Aaron, ■■ , uThott and thy Sons rvith thee fjall keep your Priests vi A Letter to the Author. ginA^2X I have often wondered how any fort of Chriftians, pretending to the Knowledge of them, fliould take upon them the Mini- fterial Office, without the Ordinary Regu- lar Call from Man as God hath appoint- ed, Priests Office. . n I have given ^o«r Vnep Office unto 'j/ou r.i a Service of Gift, and the Stranger that co?ncth nigh (i.e. as a Trlef) /J;all he pit to Death, Numb, xviii. i, 7. Uzz'-ah the King tran[greff''d agamfi the Lord hii God, P.nd went into the Tt?r/ple cf the Lord to burn mcerfr upon the Altar cf In- cenfe, am Azariah the Vriefl -jpent u djter hin, and -A^ith ktm Jourfcore Trieji: of the Lord that were iaUa7a Ma:: And they wiTHSTcoD Uzziah the King, and. faid unto hi?n. It apper-^ TAiNETH KOT ur.to thee, Uzziah, to burn Inccnfe umo the Lord, but to the PncfL the Sons of Aaron, that are Cokszcrated to burn Incenfe : Go out of theSanciuary, for thou hdfi trefpaffedi See. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, 17, 18. For every High Pricji taken FROM AMONG Men, ts Ordain' d for Men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both Gifts and Sacrifces for S: the Baptist, the Laft of the Jewifh Prophets and immediate Fore-runner of our Saviour. There 7t>as a Man se'nt from God, rchofe Name teas John ■ . He rvat sent to bear Witnefs of that Light ( i. c. of Chrifi ) . He that sent me to Baptize, &c. 6^/. John i. 6, 8, 7,7,. Behold! I SEND MY Messenger (/. e. John the Baprill) bcjoretky Face, rehfch jljall prepare thy Way before thee, St. Mark i, 2. and xi. 10. The Mission of Christ, The Second Pcrfon of the Eter- nal Tr miry. —__«_ St. John the Baptill fpcaking of Him, fays He it is, who comtng after me, is p-cfe^red be- fore me, St. John i. 27, 50. And our Lord fpcaking of Him- iclt, fays. He that receiveth me, reccivcth him (i. c. God the Father) that sent me, St. Matth. x. 40. St. John xiii. 20. And He that dcfpfcth me, d'fpifeth him that sent me, St. I.ukc x. 16 , God sent not his Son into the A Letter to the Author] v'U fedj or an extraordinary Call from God, without one of which, neither Chrift, noi* the Holy Spirit, neither Angels nor Med, prefum'd to aft authoritatively in things pertaining to God. But the World to condefnn the World, but that the World through him might be fnved, St. John iii. 17. Jefus faith, , .i ^ idy Meat is to do the Will of him that sent mey St. John iv. 34. Me that honoureth not theSon, honoureth not the Fa- ther -which hath sent htm . , . Hg that heareth fny Wordt And believeth on him that sent me, hath everlafiing Life, n ■ 1 feek not mine own Will, hut the Will of the Father which hath SENT me. The Father hath sent me. And the Father himfelf -which hath sent me, St. John v. 23, 24, 30, 36, 37.. ■ The living Father hath sent me, St. Johr*^ vi. 5-7. The Father that sent me, St. John viii. 16, 18. »i . Say ye of htm (i.e. of Chrift) vohom the Father hath fayiciijied ( \. e. confecrated or fet apart for the Office of the Meffias) and sent into the World, 6cc. 5"^. John x. 36. —>i ,Thac they may believe thai thou hajl sent me, St. Johnxi, 42.- . .i. I have not fpoken of my self, but the Father -which sent me, he gave me a Commandment -what I fl)0uld fay, and -what I fjjould fpeak, St. John xii. 49. >, "And this is Life eter- nal, that they might knoto thee, the only true God, and Jefui Chriji whom thou hast sent. / have finifhed the Work -which thou gavest me to do. I came out froM thee. . . . ..n Thou haft sent me into the World. .i ■ Thou haft sent me^ St. John xvii. 3, 8, 18, 25-. , i>Gg 1 ■ And sent his Son to be the Propitiation for our Sins, i St. John iv. 9, 10. . ,God SENT forth his Sen made of a Woman, Sic. Galat. iv. 4. — Thus we fee that Chrtft glorifiep not himself* to be made an High Prieft, but he that faid unto him. Thou art my Son, Hcb. v. j^. .mlVherefore let us ■ i Confider the Apoftle and High Frieft of our ^rofe^ton Chrift Jejus^ who was FAiTHFVt to him that appointed himt Hcb. iii. i Ths till A Letter to the Author. But mod: efpecially have I wonderM, and( ftill do wonder, how Clergy, men, I mean. Presbyters who were regularly fent^ by Epifcopal Ordination, according to the Will of our Lord, the Founder of his Church, The Mission of the Holy Spirit, the third Perfon of the eternal Trinity. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghoji, Vfhom the Father will send in my Name, St. John xiv. 26, ■ . ''When the Comforter is come whom i will send unto you from the Father, ez'cn the Spirit of Truths who proceedeth from the lather^ Sec. 6"/. John xv. 26. ■ ilflgonot away, the Comforter mil not come unto yoH\ but if I depart, i will SEND him unto you, 5"^. John xvi. 7.- He fiall not fpeak OF himself i 6ut whatfoever he fljall hear, that (Jjall hefpeak, Ter. 13. I He fljall glortfie me, for he JJjall receive of mine, and fJjall fJjew it unto you, ver. 14. ■ According- I7; the Holy Ghofl: was fent from Heaven on the Day of Pentecoft, as St, Peter teftified to the wondring Multitude, telling them, . Thisjefus . being by the right Hand ff God exalted, md having received cf the Father the Fromife of the Holy Ghofi, he hath shed forth this, which ym 720W fee nnd hear (\. e. he hath sent forth the Holy Ghost, who has caufed thofe aftonifhing miraculous Wonders which you now fee and hear j A6ls ii. 32, ^.m .And St. Faul tells the Galatians, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son (i. c. the HolyGhofl) into your Hearts, Galat. iv. 6. And St. Teter reckons the Holy Ghojl sent down from Heaven, among: fhofe things which the Angels dejlre to look into, i 5"/. Peter i. 12. The Mission of Angels. ■ 1 They are all Minijlnng Spirits SENT forth to miniflcr, Heb. i. 14. _ The Angei Gabriel was szm from God unto a Gity, c^c. to a Virgin e- fpoufid to a Man whofe Name was Jofeph. . ,St. Luke i. 26. •——The iame Angel appeared before unto Zacharias, and told Jiim, — — Ia7}i Gabriel that /land in the Pre fence of God, and AM RENT to fpeak unto //^ee.— .ver. 19. ?ct€r f.iid, Now I knoro $f a Surety that the Lord hath sent his Angel, and hath deli- vered me 9ut of the Ha^d* of Herod, (^c, AiSls xii. 11.—*—' The A Letter to the Author. ix church, and xht nnvariable ^nd univerfal JpoftolicalTraEiice of it for 1 500 Years, I fay, I Itill wonder, how fuch Presbyters could firft preach againft the Epifcopal Order> and then proceed to pull down their Tl'Jt ReveliUion of J-efus Chrijl, vehlch God gave unto him^ 6cc. He sent and jigmfiid it by his Angel unto his Servant John, Re^elat. i. !.■■■■ '-.The [even Spirits of God sent forth irao all the Earth, Revdat. v. 6. The Lord God sent his An- gel to floew unto his Servants the things which muft Jhortly bt done, Revelat. xxii^ 6. The Mission of the Apostles. After the twelve Apo- ftles are nam'd, 'tis faid, Thefe Troelvejefus sent forth, and commanded them faying ■ . . Vreach ■ i . freely ye hsive ViZ- CEiwET>, freely give, St. Macth. x. 5-, 7, 8. ■ ^As my Father huth fent me, even fo send I you, St. John xx. All Fower is given unto me m Heaven and in Earth : Go ye there' fore and teach (ov rather Difciple ) all Nations, baptizing them » . ^ teaching them ^^ and lo Jam with you always, even unto the End of the World. Amen. St. Matth. xxviii. 18, ip, 20. I And to iuppiy the PJace oi Judas Ifcarioty one of the Twelve, the Apoftles prayed and faid. Thou, Lord, -which knowefi the Hearts of all Men, Jljero -whether of thefe two (/. e» of Jufius or Matthias ) thou hafi chosen, that he may take part of this Minijlry and Apojilefjip, Adts i. 24, 25*. And they gave forth their Lots, and the Lot fell upon Matthias, and he •was numbered with the eleven Apojlles, Ver. i6. ' God hath STLT fame in the Church. First, Apojlles, 1 Cor, xii. 28. ». ■ ■ Our Lord faid to Ananias concerning the Apoftle St. Paul, mm .He is a chosen Vejfelunto me, to bear my Name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the Children of Jfrael, A£ts ix. if. ^ ■■ ■ As they minifter'd to the Lord, and fajled, the HolyGhoJi fd» i Cor. i. I. and fays in another Place, ■■ I artt ordained a Treach- er, and an Apofile, . a Teacher of the Gentiles, i Tim. ii. 7. - I Hoxofhall they preach, except they be sent? Rom. x. ly. When he (i. e. Chriftj afcended up on high, ■ . he gavz fome uipojlles, i. e. he gave fome the Power and Authority of being his Ambafftdors, Ephef. iv. 1 1. The Mission of the Seventy Disciples, and of the Deacons. After thefe things f he Lord appointed other Seven- ty alfo, and sent them two and two before his Face, St.- Lukex. I. The Twelve (/. e. the Apoftles) called the Mul^ titude of the Difctples unto them, and f aid, > >t Look ye out a- wong you [even Men of honeft Report, full of the Holy Ghojl and Wifdom, vhcm we may appoint over this Bufinefs, {i.e. of taking care for the PoorJ^i And they choje Stephen, ^c. rohom they SET BEFORE the Apostles i and when they hadprayed, THEY LAID THEIR Hands ou them, A(5ls vi. J, f, 6. I The Mission of the Apostles Successors. »■ St. Paul and St. Barnabas ordained them Elders in every Churchy Ads xiv. 25. — — For this Caufe left I thee ( i. e. Titus) in Crete, that thou fwiddefl fet in Order the things that are want- ing, a>;d ORU AW Elders in every City, as I (i.e. St. Paul) had Appowr En thee. Tit. i. ^. .~-~-~ Stir up the Gift of God which is in thee (i.e. Stir up that Epifcopal Authority, and the Gifts annexed thereto, wherewith God has endowed thee ) BY the putting ON OF MY (i.e. St.Paul's) Hands, 2 Tim. !• <>• — — The Things that thou haji heard of me, .. ■ . ■ the fame commit thou to fatihftd Men, who JJjall be able to teach others alfo, 2 Tim. ii. 2. ■ . , Lay Hands fuddcnly on no Man^ J Tim. V. 21 ■ ■ ■ rhc feven Stars are the Angkls (i. e. the Bifliops, or itiprcmc fpiritual Governors ; of the fevery Church- A Letter to the Author. xi upon them the Epifcopal OiBce anci Pow^ er in ordaining and fending of other pre- tended Presbyters into the Church, as they did a little before the Reftoration, in all or moft Parts of the Nation, after the A- bolition of Epifcopacy, and the Downfal of the National Church with it, in the Times of which I fpeak. Such Arch-fchif- maticks as thefe were Mr. Bowls oiTork^ Mr. Baxter of Kiderminjler, and Mr. Hughes of Tlymouthy not to mention «, Rev. I. 20.— —Of which St. Folycarp, Bifhop of Smyrnti was one. Now that thefe SuccelTors of the Apoftles, to whom the Power of ordaining others into the Mmiftry was committed, were not mere Vrefhyters, is evident from hence. That they had the Overfight of the Church of God^ i Pet. v. 2. A Power to receive an Accu$ation again/i ("and therefore were each of them a Judge of) an Elder, or Minifter of a confequently inferior Order, i Tim. v. 19.. It was alio their Province to re6uke with all Authority, yo as to let no Mm defpife thenty Tit. ii. if. , to reje^, i,e. excommuni- cate, a Man that is an Here tick y after the firfi and fecond Ad- monitiony Tit. iii. 10. 1 n. Without preferring one before a- nothery doing nothing by Partiality, i Tim. v. 21.——^ Hence the particular Angel y or Birtiop of the Church in Perga- mosy was juftly reproved for tolerating th^m that held tht. Bo^rine of Salaam y and the Nicolai tans in that Church, Rev.ii, 14,, 15*, 16. So alio was the particular Angel or Bifhop of Ttyatira, for suffering the falfc Prophetefs y^;?:^^^/, Rev. ii. 20.. .And they could never have been thus juftly cenfur'd^ if they had not been vefted with the Powers and Authority a- Dove- mentioned, and thefe Powers do vaftly exceed all thst 5:an be duly claim'd by any mere Fresbyter, or Body of Fref- byters whatfoever.. b 3 SMEa xii A Letter to the Author. SMECTTMNUUS, * in and about London^ where I prefume pretended Pref- byters vverealfo Ordain'd, by mere Pref- byters in thofe fad Times of Confufion. I was once at one of their pretended Ordinations, which I fmce found, was much after the Fr^;^f^ Form. Thus, and this. Sir, was the Original of the Tresbpe- rian Miffion in England, and it is againft the Authority of the pretended Minifters of this M^i^ion^who were never duly authorizdy and therefore cannot Adminifter truly Va- lid Baptifm, that you have wTitten your excellent Book with great Strength and Perfpicuity, as well as Modefty, and con- firmed your Do£lrine with your Pradice. Indeed, you have written it throughout with fo much Modefty and Caution, that in fome Places, it hath an Air almoft of Diffidence and Miftruft, altho' you have faid nothing as to the Invalidity of their Adminiftrations, but what our beft Divines have written before you. I beg Leave to prefent you with what I find to this Pur- pofe, in the firft Volume of the Pofthu- moiis Sermons of one of the greateft of them, iBiJhop Beveridge'] Entituled,Z/:?^ dignity and Authority^ and Office of the * Sttf,jen MarX-al, Edmund CMamy, Thomas Toung^ Mat' fhevf Nevpcomhy IVilliam Spurfiaw, Triefthcod. A Letter to the Author. xiii ^riefthood. In the third Sermon on this Text, Therefore^ feeing we have this Mini- firy as we have received Mercy, we faint not, at the loj. Page you'll find thefe Words, "-^In the next Tlace we muft obferve^ ^' that although the Triefis^ if any bepre- *^ fenty lay on their Hands alfo, yet it is ex* " prefy ordered, that the Bijhop fball fay " the Words, Receive ye the Holy Ghoft, *' 6'C. For if a mere Trieji Jhould fay them, ^^ or any one but a Biflhog, the Ordination ^^ was reckoned Null andVoid, with ^' more to that Purpofe. So in his Sermon ^* on A^s xiii. ?. And when they had fa^ ^' fied, and prayed, and laid their Hands on '^ them^ they fent them away, you have ^' thefe Words at/'. 309. As the right Or- ^' dination of thofe who adminijter the <^ Means of Grace muft needs be acknow-i " ledged to be ( neceffary) for feeing we ^^ can have no Grace, nor Tower to do goody ** but what is delivered totis from Godthro^ *^ our Lord and Saviour J e fits Chrift, in the ^' Ufe of the Means which he hath eft ablifh^ ^' edfor that Turpofe, unlefs thofe Means <' be rightly and duly Adminiftred, they <^ lofe their Force and Energy, and fo can " never attain the End wherefore they ^' were eftablifhed. Neither is there any ^' thing more neceffary to eftablifh the <^ Means of Grace, than that they who ad- b 4 " minifter iC xiv /^ Letter to the Author. " minifter them be rightly Ordained and " Authorized to do it according to the In- " ftitution and Command of him that did ^^ ejiablijh them. For feeing they do not " work naturally, but only by virtue of the ^' Inftitution, and Promife annexed to it, ^^ unlefs that be duly obfervedy we have no ^' Ground to expeEi^ that the Promife ftiould be performed, nor by Confequence that they *^ Jhould be effectual to the Turpofes for " which they were ufed. So in his Sermon " on this Text. Nowthenwe are Ambaffa- *' dors for Chrift, &c. p. j86. For that can ivine Autho- rity of it^ mil ft be called in ^lueftion,-^^ and encourage every bold Intruder toufurp the fa- A Letter to the Author. xvii credMinijlryy in Oppojition to that Commtjji^ oriy which hath been conftantly handed down from Chrift andhis Apoftles to this very T>ay. In the fame Place you fay you hope, that none defied with this T^ivine Authority will fight againft it^ &c. which if any Clergy- man fhould do, in theManner as you there mention, I could not but fufpeft, that he was one of thofe who took Gifts and Pre- fentsof the T^iffenters^ to let the Names of their Children, who had no other but Schif- mutical Lay-BaptifmSy beRegiftred among the true Baptifms of the Church. This unwarrantable Practice, which you have obferved to ht fcandaloujly praUtifed in fome ^laces^ I can confirm to be true 5 For I knew fome Minifters of this City ( now dead) who were guilty of this Praftice, and are gone to God to give an Account of it ; and I my felf, foon after I was prefent- ed to the Vicaridge diAlhallows Barkin^ had feveral, and fome very great Offers, ii'om'DiffenterSy to enter their Childrens Names, as baptized, in theParifli Churclj Regifter; and a Parochial Prieft of a great City in this Kingdom, who gave me a Vifit about a Year fince, did affure me, that all the Minifters of that Place, himfelf only excepted, were guilty, of this execrable Praftice^ execrable I call it, becaufe it is ^ double Falfification of our Tarochial T>ip' tychs^ xviii A Letter to the Author. tychsy as they are Regifters and Records both of Church and State, and I think both Deprivation, and the Pillory, to be juft Punifliments for thatMinifter, who dares do fo great and mifchievous a Wickednefs, or fuffei* it to be done. I fay, I (hould be tempted to fufpeO: any Clergyman, thatfliould write in the Man- ner you mention, againft you, to be one of that corrupt Sort, or at ieaft of another, who to court the Favour and Applaufe of thi^^D iff enters, either never preach in Dfe- fence of the Church againft them, or if they do, they do it no otherwife than bare- ly to fliew, that the Church oi England \s z fafe Commtmton, and that thofe, who thro' Miftake feparated from it, would be in noT) anger of T>amnation if they return- ed to it. But to fhew that Separation from it is Schism, and by Confequence a damning Sin, and that theSeparatifts of all forts from it, are, without the extraordi- nary Mercy of God, in great and apparent danger of T>amnationy thefe Gentlemen love not to touch upon that Point, nor rife to that Heighth, which long before the Re- volution occafioned the Diftinftion be- tween High and Low Church-men, and |:he former to be called by ill, or ignorant Men, High-Flyer s^Tantivies, and other fuch ppprobnous Names. It was, I fuppofe, a Re- A Letter to the Author. xix Reflexion upon thefe Men, and the Indig- nation he had againft their double Praftices, which Provoked a Divine not very many Years fince, to utter aSarcafm upon them from the Pulpit, in Words to this Purpofe, That fome (at the Time he fpoke it ) were become Fathers oj the Churchy who never were her true Sons. Sir, I wifh all Clergymen, who are con- cerned in either of thefe Remarks, would ferioufly confider your pious and feafonable Addrefs to us in the Conclufion of your Appendix. We are all concerned, ( as you befeech and conjure us to do,) to confider our high and holy Calling to the Triefihoody and to vindicate our unalienable Rights to adminifler the Holy Sacraments^ arid to let the People under ft and^ that the Miniftration ofthemisY.ss'E.^riKi. to our Office^ and our Office ejfential to the Miniftration of them \ and that our long and general Silence in not ajjerting^ and defending this great Truth, haihy as you obferve, been the Occa- fion of much Ignorance among the Teopky of the Nature of Schifm^ and the direful Con- fequences of it-, which fome of our Order ftill are, as I am fure fome have been, fo a- verfe (contrary to their Truli, and the Du- ty of it) to fet before the People. I remem- ber, when fome of the London Clergy, re- folving to do this, as you now befeech us, and XX A Letter to the Author. and for the fa me Reafons ; it was oppofed by the free-thinking Divines, efpecially by one of them, whom I will not name, for no other Reafon, but that it would be cen- fared as preaching up our felve$ ; a Reafon, whereof the Weaknefs and ill Confequen- ces are fliewn by an excellent Perfon, in the Preface to his Companion for the Feftivals and Fafts of the Church , The Mi- nistration OF Baptism to such as are OF RIPER Years. This new Office was made prefently after the Refiaurationj and is Part of the Liturgy that now is con- firmed by Aft of Parliament. And the general Title of it is: The Minijtration of Baptifm to fuch as are of riper Tears, and able toanfwerforthemfelveS', And of which it is faid in the Treface before the Book of ^ Rhhich in the Miniflration of pivate Baptifm. Common- Xxii A Letter to the Autho]\ Common-Prayer, IVhich although not fi ni- ceffary when the former Book was compiled^ yet by the Growth ^Anabaptifm, through the Licentioufnejs of the late Times crept in amongft usy is now become necejfary^ and may be always ufefulfor the baptizing of Natives in our Tlantations^ and others converted to the Faith. Here, Sir^ the Church declares the Occafion of making this Office, viz, the Growth oi Anabaptifm-y and then alfo ob- ferves how ufeful it is for the baptizing of Converts to the Faith. But I muft ofaferve, that tliere were other Occafions for making that Office, as well as the Growth oiAna- hapttfm\ as t\\Q Growth of ^lakerifmyU^On which Account it is alfo neceflary : And none of your Adverfaries will deny, but in Parity of Reafbn it is as ufeful, and is ac- cordingly ordinarily ufed, for the baptizing of Converts from that monfl:rous Herefy 5 and for the fame Parity of Reafon it may be faid, that the Office was alfo intended for fuch. ThcTreface alfo, tho' it menti- ons the Growth ofAnabaptifmy doth not fay whether it was intended hx Anabap- tijfsnot yet dipped, ox Anabaptifls dipped in Water, in the Name of the Father, (yd Tho' I am of Opinion, it was intended for them, as well as the others \ becaufe their Miniil:ration was null and void. There are many other Cafes, in which this Office is neccffary A Letter to the Author. xxiii neceflary and ufeful, and ought to be ap- plyM ; as in the Cafe of thofe adult Perfons, who had the Misfortune to be baptized, but not in the Name of the Fat her , and of the Sofiy and of the Holy Ghoft s or if in their Names, yet not in their Names as 2i Realy but a Nominal Trinity y as, I fuppofe, the Bedellijlsy who were a numerous Se£t at the Rejioration in fome Parts of the Nation> did, and the Socinians now do. Sir, I be- lieve none of your Adverfaries will deny> but this OiBce is as proper for Adult Perfons fo unhappily baptized, as for Anabaptifts, or Convert Unbelievers: And if it be a Pro- per office for fuch as were baptized in that Manner, and in Parity of Reafon -was in« tended for them ; why fhould it not be thought as proper for thofe, who were un- happily baptized without a Lawful or Au- thorized Minifter, (which the Church re- quires j and in Oppofition to the Church and her Miniftry 5 as the pretended Mini- fters among the Tresbjterians^ as well as among the Independents and Anabaptifls do ? If it fhould be laid, that People baptized by Unlawful, or Unauthorized Minifters, are not mentioned vjixh Anabaptijis, and Con- verts to the Faithy in the Preface of the Church j I anfwer, that neither are the ^akersy &c. mention'd in it 5 nor indeed was it more needful to mention them there, c than Scxiv A Letter to the Author. thzn t\\t fakers 2inA others I have men- tioned : For all which the Office is proper and ufeful, and, in Parity of Reafon, may beapply'd to Perfons whofe firft Baptifnr, fo called, is Null and Voidy as well as to them. The Cafe of thefe, as well as thofe, did not lie before the Convocation 5 and happening to be Caftis omiffiy the Church and the Clergy muft now proceed in them by Parity of Reafon 5 which, I think, puts thofe Adults, who only have had Null and Invalid Baptifm, in the fame Cafe with thofe who have None --, that is, in the Cafe of Competent Catechumens, who ought to be baptized. I fubmit thefe Obfervations to your Thoughts, and the Confideration of all who fhall read it ; and if my Opinion as to this office is wrong, I hope my Error rs pardonable, becaufe it is not hurtful to the Church, nor cafts the leaft Difhonour upon her Learned and Pious Bifliops and Prierts, her Reprefentatives, who made that Office, which before was wanting. What you fay a little before, concerning the Validity of Lay-Baptifm^ viz. " That the Learned Au- *' thor never defign'd, that any thing in <' his Excellent Book fhould favour Lay- *^ Baptifm, in Oppofition to the Sacerdotal *' Power, is evidently true ^ becaufe it is plain from his Words, he means Lay-Bap- tifm A Letter to the Author. xxv iifm Adminiftred by Lay-Men^ fo and fo qualified, to dying Perfons, by the Autho- rity and Allowance of the Church; as in the J 8 th Canon of the Council oi EliberiSy which you cite in your preliminary TUf- courfe. And it is very praife-worthy ia you, that upoii fecond Thoughts, you cor- reft your felf in your Premonition, where you tell us, " Tou do not prejume to deter- " mine, whether the Church, which hath ^^ Tower from Chrtft to give a Man a ft and- ^^ ingCommiJJion to be a^rieft, cannot, in ^^ Cafes of extreme Nece'ffity^ give him a *' Commifjion pro hac vice, ( or pro hie " (^ nunc) to do a Sacerdotal Afl:. This Commiffion of that Council proceeded * from an Ancient, but a Pious and Innocent Erroneous Opinion, (as I think I may call it) that Baptifrn was absolutely necejffa- ry to Salvation, as the Communicating of infants proceeded from another the like Erroneous Belief of the abfolnte Neceffity of Receiving the Holy Eucharift in order to Salvation. This Error of the abfolute Ne- ceffity of Baptifm, defcended in ihQ-^ Latin Church to After-Ages, and acquired fucli Firmnefs of Belief by conftant Praftice, * Tertull. de Bapti/mo. Cap. xvii. Vid. Vofliura lie Baptijma Difpuf, xi. V. vi. vii. t According to the Canon Law: InmceJJitate quiltbet poteji iapiz^are^ dum modo intrndit faare quod Sfclejia infrndit, c 3 that xxvi A Letter to the Author. that it remained * fome Time uncorre£l- ed by our Church after the Reformation > but afterwards the Title of the Office for Private Baptifm was altered thus: " Of " them that are to be baptized in Time " ofNeceJJity by the Minifter of the Parifh, ^' or any lawful Minifter that can be pro- *' cured :" And the Rubrick was according- ly altered in this Manner 5 " Let the law- " ful Minifter, and them that be prefent, '' call upon God for his Grace^ and fay the *' Lord^s Trayer, if the Time will fufferi ** and then the Child being named by fome one *' that is prefent, the laid lawful Minifter *^ Jhall dip it in IVater^ or pour Water upon «' it, faying thefe JVords^ I baptize thee, " &cr To this Change of the Title and Rubrick of them that are to he Baptized in Trivate^ (in K. Edward's Book) exaQly agrees the Rubrick of our prefent Liturgy, cited before in the Margin ^ as you will fee in the Miiiiftration of Private Baptifm ^ As appears from this Ru&rick of the Office for them that Be Baptize J tn Private Hottviii y? Letter to the Atahor. Sir] From thefe Obfervatibns, I think I may conclude, Firfi, "Thzt thQabfolute in-^ difpenjible Neceffity of Baptifm, is not the Doftrine of the Church of Englmid, Se- condly, That fhe approves of no Baptifm, or thinks no Baptifm duly and validly Ad- miniftred, but what is Miniftred by duly Authorized and Lawful Minifters; and confequently, that fhe rejfefts all Lay-Bap- tifm. Thirdly^ That fhe cannot count thofe duly Authorized and Lawful Minifters, who take upon them the Miniftry within the Pale of her Jurifdiftion, in Contempt of, and Oppofition to her Epifcopat and Epifcopal MifHon, or Power of Ordinati- on ; and by Confequence, that fhe muft look upon Baptifm Adminiflred by fuch Minifters, as Null and Void, from the Be- ginning. From thefe Conclufions, and the Confequences ifTuing from them, I have further Reafon to think, that the OfHce of The Mhiiftration of Baptifm to fuch as are of Riper Tears ^ ought to be applied to Perfons invalidly Baptized by fuch unlawful Mifiifiers among us, as were never duly Authorized, as well ^stoAnabaptifis and Converts to the Faith, or to the Difciples of fuch modern Manichivims Officiis, and reckoned by Anto- niiis Muretus in the 9th Chap, of his 13th Book of various LeBionSy among the Pre- fages of things that hive happened, as Boys have afted them in Play. Laftljy Such Reception this Story of Athanafius hath had in the World, that it is cited as tvwthy "Dv. George Abbot, in the Lefture which he read in the Divinity-School at Oxford, de Circtimcifione &, Baptifmo, 1 5 97, which Lefture he made, to excufe the Firft Praftice of our Church after the Re- formation, which he faith Facilitate larga with great J^atitude or Indulgence for fome time tolerated the Baptifm of Lay-men and Women in abfolute Neceility, for the Ig- norance of the People, and Hardnefs of their Hearts. This Story favoured the loofe Doftrine of St. Avguftin, as to the Miniflration of Baptifm, and therefore we need not woader that f He fpoke fo fa- vourably of Ludicrous^ and Jocular^ as well S02.0M1 Eccl. HifV. Lib. 2. Ch. 17. \ De Baptifmg CQritra Donatiflos, [Jb, 7. Vfrfui finem Libri m Tom. 7. A Letter to the Author. xxxi as well as Mimical and Hiftrionical Bap- tifms. But as current as by Misfortune this Story hath been, and as many as it hath mifled into Error, it is now exploded for very good Reafons by Learned Men 5 as by Dr. Cave in his Hijloria Liter aria^ by du Tin in his Notes onAthanafe in his Nouvelk Bibliotheque^ and by the Learned Benedi^ins in his Life,/^. 1 1. printed before bis Works, whither I refer you. k^ for Hiftrionical Baptifm by Heathens^ that alfo is urged by the Patrons oHLay- Baptifm in favour of their Opinion. * Of this they cite this Story out of the Cronicon Alexandrinum'-y that in Mockery of thp Chriftians, the Heathen-Players Baptized one of their Companions in warm Water, upon the Stage, and then put upon him a White Garment, upon which he immedi- ately cried out that he was made a Chri- ftian, and would die as fuch. The Spefta- tors hearing him declare this, flew upoa the Stage, and taking him from thence, ftoned him to Death, f Ado Viennenfis tells another Story in his Martyrology of Atiguft, 2 5. of St. Geneftusj who being Bap- tized by Heathens to ridicule Chriftian Baptifm, alfo became a Chriftian: But * VoJJiiis de Baptifmo, Difp. i r. Sc(fV, 25?. t Uu/, Diip. I o. Se6t. 13. then ^xxii A Letter to the Author. then fuppofingthe Truth of thefe Stories, they are 2iSperfe6tly miraculous, zsthQ<2on^ verfion of fome Pagan Executioners of Martyrs, who declared themfelyesChrifti- ans at the Place of Execution, and there fuflFered Death with them, and were Bap- tized in their own Blood, And therefore, the miraculous Manifeftation of God's Grace at Hiftrionical Baptifms to teftifie the Truth of the Chriftian Religion, and con- found its Adverfaries, are no Argument for Lay-men, and for the worfl: of Lay-men, and Lay-men falfly pretending to a true Miflion, to take upon them to Adminifter Baptifm as the Men you write againft pre- fume to do. Nay,Sir, fuch an unwarranta- "ble Latitude hath the Church of Rome gi- ven to the Adminiftration of Baptirm,-{^ that fome of her Topes have allowed the Bap- tifm oiJews^^nA Heathens; and '♦^ the Pope in the Council o^ Florence doth exprefly de^ cree, that in cafe of Neceffity, not^onlya faithful QX\x\^\2iVi Lay-man ox Woman, but an //"^rf^if/^ or P^^^;^ may Validly Baptize. As to the Cafe of Neceffity fo called, it is, as I have already obferved, founded t Ibid. I)///?. II, 1 8. * In Dccreto Eugenii Papae ad Armenos: Minijler hujus Sacramenti ejl Sacenlos, cut ex officio competit B>iptiz,are. InCau- Jfa autem NcccfTitatis, nonfolum Sacerdosy vel Diaconus, fcdetiam Laicus, vel Mulicr, imo edam Paganus, O'Hcrcticus Baptizar^ ptejly Sec. ia A Letter to the Author, xxiii in tlie imiftaken Opinion of the abfolute Jsl^ceffity of Baptifm to Salvation. Which Opinion is of Two Sorts, one more antient, grounded on the literal Stridnefs of the Precept, or Inflitution of Baptifm, which was the Error of TertuUiany who therefore, in cafe of Neceflity, * allowed Lay-men of the Church, but -f not PTomen^ to Bap- tize. The other is more modern, as hav- hs Rife from the Pelagian Controverfy, and that was the indifpenfible Neceflity of Baptifm to wafh away Original Sin. This StriSnefs of Opinion, as to the in- difpenfible Neceflity of this Sacrament, to wafli off the Guilt of Original Sin, made St. Auguftiriy that ditrus Tater Infmtiumy fo very loofe, as to the Minifter of it in cafe of Neceflity. And therefore upon the Quefl:ion, whether one^ who was not a Chriftian^ could give Baptifm^ *He delive- red his Opinion, uncertainly, faying, he would not determine it, becaiife it had not been determined in any Council, And fo from this Error of the abfolute Neceflity of Baptifm to Salvation, the Church of Rome came by degrees to allow the Mir * De Bapttfmo. Cap. 17. t See Epiphanius Adverfus Hs.nf. Lib. Ill, Tom. II, P. 105-7. Tertul. de pAfcrip. adverf. Hint, Cap. 41. I. I I y I I iiy * Dccretum EH^e?7ii P. ad Arrnenos in Com. Florcnt. Com, laU. c^ Copr. Tom. 13. P. 73)-, BramhalP^ A Letter to the Author. xxxv Bramhalls Letter to Sir Henry de Vic, at the 979 Vage of his Works, and in the 7 Difp. of Ve^ius\ Book de Baptifmo. I am extremely pleafed with the modefi: Refleftion you make in your Premonition, upon what you had faid to prove the Validi- ty of Holy Orders conferred on Unbaptized ^erfons. For whereas you diftinguifli Qua- lifications for the Miniftry, into Terfonal and Authoritative y give me Leave to tell you, that I think all Qualifications for it are TerfonaU and that of Terfonal ^lalifi- cations^ the want of y2^?;/^; obferves, without a- ny Breach of Charity. And as it pleafes God to let the Governors of his Church be fonietimes exercifed with great Difficul- ties, fo were they in fome of the Golden Ages of it exercifed with this C^ucftion; * Ccntr(^ Crejconimn, Lib. 2. but, A Letter to the Author. xli but, as the fame Father * ofaferves, falva Unitate, without Dividing the Unity of the Churches. To prove this, he cites the Words of Sr. C>'/>ri^;^,vi^hich he fpoke at the Opening of the Council of Carthage^ in which he was at the Head of the moft ri- gid Side ; to (hew his Moderation in this Difpute ; of which you may fee a ihort, but clear Account, in the Learned Note upon Meam Sententiam^ in z\id, P. ofC/- prims Works, printed at Oxford 1682. The Words are thdt: Super eft , ut dehac ipfa re JinguUy quid fentiamus^ proferamusy nemmemjiidlcantcs^ mit a jure Commimionts aliqtiem, fi diver Jum fenferity amoventes. So in his Epiftle to Jubaianus^ tho he t i renu- cufly and warmly defends his Opinion, yet he concludes with great Modefty and * Meeknefs5 H^ec tibibreviter pro nofirame-- diOcritate refcripfimtis, Frater chanffime^ nemini prafcribentes^ ant pr^judicantes, quo mimis unufquifque Epifcoporum, quod put at faciat^ habens arbitriifui liber am pot eft at em. Nos qtiantum in nobis eft propter Hareticos cum Collegis & Co'Epift:opis noftris noncon- tendimus^ cmn qiilbus "Divinam Concordi- * Ibid. Ncque enim parvi momenti, quod inter Epifco^os An- terioris JEtatis quam effe inciperet Pars Donat:, sjia quazftio fluduavit, e^ I'armi hai^ent mter fe Collegarum, ialya Unita- te, Sententid}, d z amy xlii A Letter to the Author. am^ & dominicafn Tacem tenemiis^ maxime cum & Jlpoftolus die at-, fi qtiis ant em puta- eL Thefe Paflages plainly fliew, that the Peace and Unity of the Church was not to fuflPer in this Contention ; but that the Bifhops and Churches of both Sides were to be left to their own Cuftoms, and the Praftice of their Fathers i as St. "^ Bafil fpeaks in his Firfl: Canonical Letter to Amphiloehi' ns^ Bifhop of leonmm, about the Baptifm of the Nonjatians. Indeed, there was no Rea- son why the Bifhops fhould divide Com- munion, and break the Unity of the Epif- copal College in this Controverfy : Be- caufe, Firfl, Both Parties agreed in their Sentiments of the direful, facrilegious, and damnable Nature of Herefy and Schifm, and particularly of the Schifm made by the Novatians and ^onatifls, Seeondljy They both run back, and unravelled the Succeffions of their Anti-Bijhops to Inter- ruptions s Optatus Milev. in the one, as well as Cyprian in the other Schifm. Third- hy Both compared them to Corahy T>a- than and Abiram, and likewife to Adulte- rers, and looked upon their Ordainers * oT^ Sii ri 'i^H Tui Kx6' tKx^ijv Zal^oit iVsc&flti. Tom. if. p- in- as A Letter to the Author. xliii as Traditors. And laftlj. Both aflerted, that in thofe Schifms none could be faved in the ordinary way, without Returning to the Church. But then, tho' they a- greed in the Charge of Schifm, they dif- fered as to the Manner of ReconciUng Schifmaticks ', one Side being for Baptiz- ing thofe again who were Baptized in Schifm ; becaufe they thought their Bap- tifm to be "^ Null, Extraneous^ and Tro- phanei and that Schifmatical Churches were f only hke Churches, but were not real Churches ; and by confequence, that their Bifliops and Priefts could not Valid- ly Baptize, or do any other Prieftly Kd:. Therefore they had one way of Reconcil- ing Penitents, who had been Baptized in the Church, when they returned to it frorn the Schifm, and another of Reconciling thofe who had been Baptized in the Schifm, when they came over to the Church. The former they only lookM upon as •* Cypr. Ep//?. 71, 72, 73. Eil'tt. Oxon. f Cyprianus Jubaiano. ^uando ad nos non om^nno fert'meaty quid Hops Ecclejk facimt, dummods teneamus i^ potejiatis noftr NLitricc7n i^chint, fatis Jit iti Voenitentiivn Manum imponere; ut quia ovis fuerat, hanc Ovem ac alienatsttn 0* errabundam in Ovde fuum ^A/Ior recipict : Ji autem quis ab H&reticis "uenit, Bapiizatus in Ecclejla prins r.on fuit fed alimus in totum^ ^ profanus z'cnity B.'ipttx.andus efiy ut ovis fixt, quia, unn ejl aqua in Ecdejia fvicia^ onatiJls, ought not now to be Matter of Difpute, For, the Converfion of fuch is the main Point; and the Manner of Admitting them, ought to be left to the Cuftom of Churches. Here I cannot but obferve to you, with what t Lenity and Gentlenefs the Church of ^w<^ treated the T)onatifts, "^ She allowed their Ordinations as well as Bap- tifms ; and in a Diocefc where there was a Church-Bifliop, and a Donatiji-Bliho^iy f She offered a Partition of fuch a Diocefe, in which the Senior of them fliould divide, and the Junior chufe. I! She alfo received the Clergy-men among the Donatifisy up- on their Converfion, to the fame Honour that they enjoyed among the T>onatifis\ * and alfo admitted thofe who were Bap- tized in their Infancy by the T>onatiJtsy not only into the Church, but alfo to the Miniftry of the Altar, when they were con- verted, and had received Impojit ion of Hands. Without Converfion, and Admiflion into the Unity, to which the Church-Bifiiops invited them by thefe Conceffions and Ho- nours, there could be no Re- union, or •J- African Code in the Cler^y-man^ Vade Mecum, Vart 2, Cm. 66. •^Can,6c), \ Can. 118. \\Oin. 68. * Cm. 47, S7' * ■ , . , making A Letter to the Author. xlix making the Two into one Communion a- gain. But the Donatift Bifliops having Numbers and Strength on their Side, re- fufed and flighted all the Offers of the Church, and fo added Obftinacy and Con- tempt to their Sin. * St. Auguftin tells us, they were fo proud and uncondefcending, that they would not come to any pacifick Conference with them, (^t ill forced by the Emperor) but prided themfelves in their Schifm. Sir, I have referred you above to the Canons of the African Code^ as they are abridged in the Second Part of the Vade Mecum^ becaufe I had a mind to notify that excellent and ufeful Book to the World, for which the Author deferves great Praife and Thanks. But, Sir, neverthelefs I de- fire you, who underftand Latin^ to read them at large in that Language, in Jufteh Bibliotheca Juris Canoniciveteris^ Tom, i. and when you have leifure, the Conferen- ces at Carthage between the Catholicks^ and the T)onatiJts in Optattis Milevitanus's * Exhort, ad Concord. Ecclef. Epijl. i66. Nihil in nos aliquando probare 'potuijlis, ze/iri Ej>ifcopi conventi a nobis, nun- quam pacifice cum nobis conferre volnerunt, cjuaji fugientes cum peccato*-ibus loqui. ^^uis ferat iftam fuperbiam, quaji Paulus -dpoftolus r.on contiilerit cum peccatoribus, 0> cum %alde facrilegis. ^uaji ipfe Dominus ncn cum Judacis h quibus cruc'ijixus iJcourfes newly Publiflied againft ottr pretended new Vrophets^ to which I refer you ; and it is natural to conclude, that they either had no Notion of a Church without Bijhops^ or that they feared to be detefted as falfe Prophets for reieding the Apoftolical Order ; and therefore accord- ing to the Pradi'ce of the Catholick Church unto that time, from which they durft not depart, they founded their New Churches in and with Epifcopacy 5 of all which they looked upon the Church of Tepuza^ a City oiThrygiaj to be the Mother, as Hient- falem was of the Catholick Church. I My lii A Letter to the Author. My next Inftance fhall be in Novatian, the Founder of the Novatian Schifm, who got himfelf to be Ordained by Three un- worthy BiOiops in fuch an indirefl: and fcandalous Manner, as you may read in the 43d Ch, of the 6th Book of theEcclefi- artical Hiftory of Eufebius, According to this received Principle of the NecefTity of a Bifliop to a Church, moft of the Troubles in the ancient Churches were not for pul- ling do-jvn Bifhops, but zhom fetting of them np^ that every Party might have a Bifliop for a pretended Principle of Unity; and fo the Novatians^ though they were divided from the Church for a long time, yet main- tained an Epifcopal Succeflion, that they might in all Places have the Form and FaOiion, and Appearance of a Church. Thus the Party of the IDofjatifts in Africa^ fo called ixom'Donatus a Cafis Nigris, who began to trouble the Church in the time of MenfurinSj Trimate of Carthage-, after his Death fet up Majorinns againft C£cilia?tj his next lawful Succeflor, who had been truly Elefted and Confecrated into his Place. They knew the People of that Ci- ty would not follow them without a Bifliop/ and having by that means formed a mighty Party there, they were headed by * thofe . • Hcnricus Vates (h Schifm.-^ie Domtijlumm. Cap. 2. I Other A Letter to the Author. liii other Bidiops, who condemned C^cilian^ and fet up Majormis againft him, and thereby formed the moft deplorable Schifm that ever was in any of the Churches of Old. The People then had no Notion of a Church without a Bifliop, (unlefsin a vacant Church where the Altar continues) much lefs of a Church fet up againft Epif- copacy. For had they thought that a Church could be without a Bifhop, and Epifcopal Succeflbrs, the Mifleaders of them at any time into Here/} or Schifm^ need not have taken fo much Pains, or ufed fo many indiredi Arts to be made Bi- ILops, but have fet up Tre'sbyterian Church- es^ which was fo contrary to Catholick Praftice, and the common Principle of Bi- fhops being the Apoftles SuccelTors, and Principle of Unity in their refpeftive Churches, that they either never thought of doing it, or if they did, they thought they could never do it with Succefs. So in the famous Sub-divifion from the Church among the T)onatiftSy which feparated from them, as they had feparated from the Church, * MaximiamiSy a faftious Deacon, was fet up by them, againft Trimianus their Bifliop of Carthage, as they ac firft fet up Majormis againft Cacilian: which they * Auguft. dz Cejlis cum Eraeri/lo D&Mtifi. lEpifcop, need liv A Letter to the Author. need not have done, if a Church witholif^ a Bifhop would have ferved their turn. This Seft of the Maximianifts is mentioned in that memorable Canon of x\\q African Code, wherein the Fathers Ordained, that Legates floould be fent to preach Peace to the 'Donatijis^ both Clergy and People^ and to fliew them, that they departed from the Church as unjuftly as theiV/^^/- mtanifts divided from them, and that they fliould alfo be exhorted to receive Con- verts from the Maximianifts ^2^^ the Church did from them, viiss. allowing their Ordina- tion and Baptifm But Sir, to fliew thofe who know not the Story, how the Principle of Epifcopa- cy was tranfmitted to latter Ages, and kept its Ground to the i 5th Century, per- mit me to relate the Opinion and Proceed- ings of the Tresbyters of thofe Bohemians and Moravians, who in Perfecution retir- ing to a Mountainous Country near Silejiay grew very folicitous how the People fliould have the Miniftry continued unto them af- ter they were dead. * In this Deliberation they had fome Thoughts, which Neceffity ■* EcrkTia: Sclavonics Bohema in Gcnte potiflTimum racu- catce Hifloriola. §, ^9, 60, 61. fed quajfahat anhnos untus^ ati fatis legitima foret Ordinat'w, fi Vresbyter presby[cru7n crearet j mn vcro Epifcopus ? -(^ quotnodo talem Ordinatienem, ji lis move-^ ntur defenfwi ejjent,/ive apHd alioi fve apid fuos, fuggefted A Letter to the Author. Iv fuggefted to them of ordaining other Presbyters to fucceed them. But fearing that fuch Ordinations would not be Legi- timate nor defenfible, if called in Quelti- on; at length in the Year 1467. themoft eminent among them that were difperfed through Bohemia and Moravia^ met toge- ther to the Number of about feventy, who addrefling themfelves to God with Prayers and Tears, befeeched him to (hew them if their Purpofe wxre agreeable to his Holy Will, and if that were the time for it, and then proceeded in the following Manner to know the Will of God by Lot : They chofe by Suffrages Nine Men from among themfelves, whom they thought in oft worthy to be BiJIoops, and having put into the Hands of a Child Twelve little Papers folded up, theydirefted him to di- ftribute them among the Nine Perfons: Nine of the Papers were Blanks and oa the other Three only were written EST, it is, to wit, the WillofGodySffhich they had begg'd him to difcover to them. It might have fo happened, that every one of the iV/wd* Perfons might have got 2^ Blank Ta^ per^ w^hich would have been a fign to them of the Negative TVill oiGoi. But it came to pafs, that the Three written Tapers fell into the Hands of Three among them^ who were noted for their Piety, Learning, and Prudence* e Thefe Ivi A Letter to the Author. Thefe * they embraced with Joy, as gi^ ven unto them from Heaven, and then de- liberated about their Confecration. And to that End fent Three of their Minifters to a part oi ihcWaldenfes, who being ba- ni filed out of France^ came to refide in the Confines oi Auftria and Moravia. To thefe they related their fad State, and hav- ing asked their Counfet, Stephanus, one of their Biftiops, calling to him another Bi- Ihop, and fome Minifters, he made known to them the Purity of their Doftrine, the grievous Perfecutions they had fufFered in France and Italy, and f the lawful uninter^ rnptedSticcejJion of their Bifhops from the firft Plantation of Chriftianity to that time. To them therefore the Bohemian Mini- flers, Eledted by Lot, were fent to be Con* fecrated Bifhops, after which they refol- ved to unite with the WaldenfeSy who were fuddenly fcattered by a new Perfecution, in -which, Stepljen their Bifhop fufFered Martyrdom, being inhumanly burnt at Vi- enna. II Joh. Amos Comeniiis was the laft Bifliop of this Bohemian Succeffion, wha * ibtd, §.70. \ Cut?ique ilicii WaWcnfifs legitimos fe habere Epifcopos legit't- ir*a?»que e$' "o» interrHptc:??i ab Apojiohi ufque [iiccfJJionQm affir- ninrent^ crectrmtt tres enojlroruynMimJir'tsEpifcopos, Sec. Inpraztar. ji^ae Rationcm diiciplinse m Umtftte Fratrnm Bohemorum. jj Joh. Amos Comcnii Dedkatomm Alloquium. p. 8,9, 10'. lived A Letter to the. Author, Ivix Ijved to fee the * utter Ruin of the Bohe* fman and M5r^i^/^?2, Churches, occafioned t^y their Impajtieqqe f under the Crofs^ ia t;aking upvir«?/againft their lawful Spve- r^eign, and fetting up another againft iiim. .. But having mentioned Ofe^//^- above,' as an Ufarper upon the Epifcopal Office in prefuming to Ordain Tresbyters^ give me Ihave to tell the Story, becaufe, as Lawyers, fpeak, it is 2l Book-cafe^ which fliews the Invalidity of Tresbyterian Ordination, This QoIhithuSy 2i,^ytshytQv o^i Alexandria^ took' upon him, in Oppofition to his Billiop, to Ordain certain ^resbyters^ and among the reft one called II Ifchyras^ who accufed Ma- car ius^ a Presbyter qS. Athanajiut^ for break-^ iog the Chalice "while he was Adminiftring , at the Holy Altar ; and this fcandalous Story was one of thofe which the Arians invented, and brought againft Athanajius^ and were all examined, and found to be Lies by a great * Council, which met at Alexandria m the Year of our Lord, 540. * Hoc egerunt ut ecu exquijitis divexettionibus ad impatienti- 201, c^ dehinc ad Arma, prorttarent* \ Eons deducin ejiy ut intra Bohemiam, c^Moraviam nul- lum amplius Evangeitcis Templum, nulU Schola, nhHum privd^ (umReligmis Exercitium. &c. * Athanafii. ^pol, 2. Iviii A Letter to the Author. As to this particular Story> the Coun- cil upon Enquiry declared, * Firft^ that in the Place where the //(?^ C/ir/^ was faid to be broken by MacarmSy there was no Church ; Secondly, nor Presbyter there to Adminifter ; nor Thirdly, was the Day in which the Faft was faid, a Day of Com- munion, nor Laji of all was Ifchyras a Prieft, f being only Ordained by ColhithtiSy ijvho died a Tresbjter, and whofe Impojition of Hands was of no Authority, or Validi- ty, and that, all who were Ordained by him, were Laymen, and communicated in theAffemblies as fuch. To this Tefti- mony of theCIiurch, let me add another of a Spanijh Bijhop ; who having fore Eyes at an Ordination of Presbyters, only laid his Hands upon them, fuffcring a Presbyter to read the Words of Ordination. This coming to be debated in the * Second Council of Sevil, was, upon mature Deli- beration, thus determined. Firjl, That the Presbyter, had he been alive, fliould have been cenfur'd for his Prefumption. And SecondlyyThattht Presbyters and Deacons * AAA' 6Ti f/jtidiv Ift oXax^ Ikh %ue, yufi ; otu fA>*iTi rvTreq f 'AAA' oTk KOAAOY0OS ir^iQ-^vrt^ei- m iTiXiv7v;(n, >^ vxTof * Concil. Hifp. 1 1 . Cap. _j-. fo ^ A Letter to the Author. lix fb Ordained, fliould be depofed from their Sacred Orders, which they had wrongfully received. This fhews, that this Council were of Opinion that "Tresbyters could have no E(fential^2iVt in Ordination ; and there- fore that they are Hable to Cenfure merely for Reading the Words of Ordination, which formally conftituts a Tresbyter or "Deacoriy tho' with the Allowance of his Bifhop; who is not fuppofed to have Pow- er to Authorize him to do that, which he only had Authority to do himfelf. Upon what you have written, about the Form ofBaptifm^ In the Name of the Father, &:c. Sir^ Give me Leave to rcr commend to your Perufal what is written by a very Learned Divine, and an OlcJ Sufferer for the Church of England \ Mr. Chriftopher Elderfieldy in his Book of Rege- neration and Baptifniy from Tag. 183, tQ Tag. 207. I cannot but declare my Confent to what you have written; viz. Thu fuppo- fing it were ( as it is not ) pofjibky for the Church to be deprived at once of all her Bi^ Jhops ; it wotdd be our Dtity^ as well as Safe- ty, in that T>eftitution, to wait and pray^ and hope for a new Revelation of the IVill of God, rather than to take upon our fe Ives to make Bijhops, for which we have no Au- thority. And I concur with ypu alfo iii e 3 your tx A Letter to the Author. your Conclufion, That noT^oEtrine what fa- ever can be proved falfe^ [^r, as I beg leave to add^ ought to be reject ed'\ hecaufe Ntim- hers of Men may be involved in the fad Con- feqtiences that arife from it. To which let jme alfo add, More efpecially when they are involved in them, not without their own Knowledge, or by their own wilful IgnQ- rance or Miftake, or, which is ftill worfej, by Worldly Inrerefts and Evil Paflions. This, Sir^ will appear plainly, if we con- fider the Received Trinciples of Chriftiani- ty ; which are either Speculative, or Prac- tical :, that is, either Doftrines, or Com- mands. By the Speculative Principles, I mean all the Received Doflrines of Faith;^ which we are bound to believe in orc^er to Salvation^ and by the Tragical, thofe which oblige us to fome PraQical Duty; which are again of Three Sorts, Morale Ritual, ^nd Political. And there are none of thefe Principles which fome Men among us, in this Age of Deftruftive Latitude, will not give up, or ftrive to bend and re- lax, for Fear or Favour ; when great Num- bers of Men, efpecially of Men in Power, are concerned in the Confequenccs of them. To inftance in one of the Specula-^ tive Principles: You cannot but know that fome do not like our Preaching up the Doctrine of Chriji's being God, or God of A Letter to the Author. . L. i of God. of the fame Effence or Stibftance with the Father, and theBeliefof it asne- cefTary to Salvation 5 becaufe fo many Ari- ans ^nd Socimans, and other inexcufable Unbelievers, are- involved in the dange- rous Confequences of that Doftrine : and for their fakes, and, it may be, fecretly for their own, they rack their Inventions to find out New, Loofe, and Evafive Expofi- tions of that Fundamental Myftery of Chriftianity, and exprefs them in odd un- certain Terms, unknown to all Antiquityy and as different in Senfe as in Sound, from the Language of the CathoUck Church, I have faid Inexcufable Unbelievers, tho' thefe Gentlemen of Large Thoughts, and pretended Large Charity, would excufe them ; becaufe the Myftery is Incompre- henfible, and the Manner of the Thing, as taught by the Catholick Church, Incon- ceivable by Human Underftanding; bur, let me fay, no otherwife inconceivable by us than fome Natural Myfieries are ; which, tho' we cannot conceive, yet we believe. They will tell us in Behalf of thefe Unbe- lievers, That Men's Minds are as different as their Faces ; That our Brains ^ and the Cells in them^ are of different Make *, and. That all Men cannot believe alike. But, Sir^ to (hew the Vanity of fuch Apologies, let us fuppofe that fome of our Countrymen e \ were bcii A Lelter to theAutJo'or. were Trading among a People very re- mote from the Sea ^ imagine under the Foot of Mount C^?/r^/?/j; and had told them, that the Waters of the River which run through the Capital City of England, did twice every Day, and fometimes oftner, , run backwards up the fame Channel, down which the Stream had run not long before ; And that the King of that People, as well as the People, wondring at this Rela- tion, fhould fend Letters to the ^een^ to defire Her Majefty, that if it was true, fine would be pleafed to confirm the Truth of it by an Anfwer with her Royal Seal; and that, after he received Her Majefiy^s moft Authentick Letter, fliould neverthe- lefs declare he would not believe theThingy becaufe he could not conceive the Manner of it, nor how it could poflTibly be done; and thereupon alfo did brand the Firft Re- lators of this Inconceivable. Natural My- ftery, asLy^rj-, and then banifli them out of his Dominions; Suppofing all this, Sir ; Do you think it were reafonable to make an Apology for fuch a Prince's obftinate In- credulity; who, upon the Authority of fuch Teftimonies, would not believe the Thing, becaufe it was not only above his Undcrftanding, but that of all the Philo- fophers in his Kingdom? I fay, would it be reafonable for fuch a Prince, and his Philofo- A Letter to the Author. Ixiii Philofophers, to disbelieve, or doubt of that Thing,after fuch undoubted Human Autho- rity for the Truth of it ; or for others to pa- liateor excufe their obftinate Unbelief, be- caufe Men's Minds are not all alike, and their Brains of different Make ? Sir, I wifli the Gentlemen, for whofe Sake I have made this Comparifon, vv^ould confider it, and no longer, under Pretence oiUniverfal Charity^ and the different Features of Minds, write in fuch Manner of the great Myftery of our Religion, as to confirm our Doubters or Unbelievers in their Seep" ticifm or Unbelief, and thereby give them Occafion to rejeO: it as uncertain or falfe, rather than be involved in the Dreadful Confequence of their Unbelief, fliould it be, as it certainly is, a Divine Truth. Then, as to the Practical PrincipIeSj" which I call Precepts, or Commands, they are alfo as neceffary to be obferv'd, as the other are to be believed-, and, if I ma^ fo fpeak, are as dear to God as any Article of Faith ; and yet there is none of them, which fome Men of Latitude zmong us will not foften, and trim up into another Senfe, topleafe the TranfgrelTors of them to their Eternal Ruin. Thus, Sir, that very Sed, which not only neglefts, but defpifes the Two Sacra- ments as Temporary Inftitutions, or Ritual Ordi- 1x1 V A Letter to the Author. Ordinances, appointed only for the Infant State of theChurch, are not only allowed the Title of Chriftians, but reckon'd in the ordinary State of Salvation, by fome Free- Thinkers, in t\\^ Broad Way, which lead-" cth to Deftruftion. And then, as to the Political 'Do^irines^ or Principles, relating to the Government of the Church; tho' it was the Confentient Belief of all Chrifti- ans for Fifteen Hundred Years, that BiChops were the Succeflbrsof the Apoftles, and as fuch only have Power to Ordain Minifters in the Church ; yet have we Men, and Men of no ordinary Figures in the Church, that not only never Preach this Doftrine themfelves, but do not love that others ihould Preach it, or Inftrud the Youth in it; becaufe, fay they, It Unchurches the Foreign Churches. But, Sir, in the Name of God, is it this Received Principle of the CatholickChtirch that Unchurches Foreign Churches 5 or do they Unchurch them- felves, in continuing wilful TranfgrelTors of it ? As, not to fpeak more of the Moral Precepts of Chriftianity ; Is it, for Inftancc, the Doftrine of Sobriety, or Juftice, or temperance, or Purity, or Humility, that damns fo many Millions ofChriftians; or do they damn themfelves by their wilful Violation of them? The Pofitive Laws of God are all Sacrofanfl, efpecially thofe he hath A Letter to the Author. Ixv hath Ordain- d for Governments, and he will in no wife excufe the wilful Negleft, Conr tempt, or Tranfgrcffion of them 5 but Cr very fuch Tranfgrcffion and Difobedience again ft the Polity of the Chriftian Theor cracy, let the Number of Offenders be ne- ver fo great, fhall receive a juft Recom- pence of Reward. And therefore judge, iSVr, who aft moft like Primitive Chrifti- ans, and the Faithful Servants of Chrift; thofiy who in all Meeknefs and Charity, fet this Received Principle concerning thp Oecumenical Theocracy of the My ftical Ifrael^ the Neceffity of Conformity and Obedi- ence, and the Confequences of Difobedi- ence to it, before the other Churches 5 or thofe, whofoothand flatter them in their Error, becaufe they are whole Nations j tho* moft of them have abandoned the Di- vine Order of Biihops, purely for Human Reafons of State 5 and particularly, becaufe they have alienated the Revenues, by which they were maintained. Yet, &>> the fame Perfons, who had rather this "Principle were fupprefs'd, than that thofe Nations fhould, as they fpeak, be Unchurch- ed by it, would ( at leaft many of them ) make no Difficulties to Unchurch Lefler Bodies of Chriftians by it 5 and let the Con- fequences which arife from it, have their full Force upon a few, tho' the Trafgreffi- Ix VI A Letter to the Author. oxiof theTrincipky and the Confequencej of the Tranfgreflion, equally afted a great as well as a imall Number, and condemn whole Nations of Chriftians as much, and as effeflually, as fingle Men. But thefe Gentlemen fliould confider, that they are the Multitudes, and great Numbers, that will be condemned at the Day of Judg^ ment. Furthermore, Sir, you know, what indifpenfible Obligations lie upon all Chri- ftians, and Chriflian Nations, to profefsthe Faith once delivered to the Saints^ and to con- tend earneftly for it-, and accordingly, how carefully it was guarded, and how zea* loufly contended for againft all Hereticks, who (from the Beginning) opposM it, oir any Part of it. And therefore, if we muft believe, and contend for T>ivine Revelati- ons, which have always been opposed ; why fhould we not as zealoufly obferve, and contend for that T>ivine Inftitution^ which was never opposM for 1 500 Years? I mean, that Form of Government which all Chri- ^ ftianity received and praftisM for fo many ^ Ages, as that only Ecclefiaftical Polity, which was appointed by Chrift to continue iintothe End of the World. Sir, I have taken Occafion from your Aflertion to fay thus much in Behalf of Epifcopacy, as a Receiv'dTrinciple of Chri^ flianity 5 and from thence to fliew, how it concerns A Letter to the Author. Ixvii concerns all oil r Divines, efpeclally of the Epifcopal Order, to fet the Dangerous Confequences of Rejefting it, before the Foreign Churches 5 and thereupon to invite, encourage and exhort, nay, to conjure them in the Name of Chrift, to join the Apoftoli* cal Government to the Apoftolical Faith of the Church; that thereby they may be- come vi^holly Pure and Primitive, and not only in Part, but in Whole, as we are, and all Chriftian Nations ought to be. This,' furely, would better become the Men of Higher Stations and Charafters in the Church i than, in finful Complaifance to Foreign Churches, to condemn Books of moft Excellent Inftruftion for the Younger ^ott at School i becaufe they teach them, that Bijhops were Succeffbrs to the Apojiles in the Church ; and only have Tower to Or- daiifiy and fend forth Labourers into God's Vineyard, Thefe Gentlemen furely forget. That as the Nature of the Church, as a SeBy confifts in Doftrines ; fo, as fhe is a Society ^ it confifts in that Frame of Polity whicli God hath Ordained for the Government: thereof Wherefore, inftead of Condemn- ing, they fhould rather Recommend all fuch Books, as inftrucb xht Laitj (Young or Old) in Primitive Chriftianity 5 and en- courage them to read all fuch Trafls and Difcourfes, in their ovv^n or any other I Tongue, Ixviii A Letter to the Author, Tongue, as will give them true Views of the State of the Primitive Church in the Beft and Pureft Ages, and of the Manners cjf the Primitive Chriftians in them. And were this diligently done fay thetClergy^ the Church would foon find gre^t Benefit, and God receive much Glory by it j and the iJ/r^y-i'/^^^/ of our Countries, after your. Example, would return in Flocks to her> Folds. Youv Enquiring Genius^ and the Provi- dence of God, led you to read fuch Books ; and his Bleffing upon Rqading of them, made you fee, and correft: your Error;; And tho' you have an Advantage above: mpfl: others of the Laity, in Underfl:and- ing Latin \ yet there is already a great deal> written m Englijhy to let Pious and Inqui- fitive Perfons into the Knowledge of the. JPrimitive Church, and Primitive Chrifti- anity: Such as Dr Cave\. 'Primitive Chri- Jiianity i and his Learned and Elaborate Lives of the Fathers*^ Fleury, Qf the Man- ners, and Behaviour of the primitive Chrifti- ans^ turnM into Englijh \ The Ecclefiajiical, HiftorianSy in a Noble New Edition, illu- ftrated with Maps by the Learned Dr, Wells s The Genuine Epiftles of the Apoftoli- cal Father Sy by the Learned Bifljop /^Xy^ which is come forth in a Second Edition : The Learned Mr. Binghanis Origines Ec- ^lefiafticay A Letter to the Author. Ixix: ctefiafttc£^ Qt Antiquities of the Chnftiart Church j worthy to be read by all Men : The Second Part of the Clergyman's Vade Mecum, commended above: Mv\ Reeves*^ Apologies of the Antient Chriftiansy for which he well deferves the Thanks and Praife of all Lovers of Primitive Chriftia- nity ; who cannot but delight to hear them fpeak in our Language the fame Things, with the fame United Force of Wit and Reafon, and with the fame Charms of Elo- quence that they did m their own. To thefe let me add the Sermons and other Trafts of the late Bifliop Beveridge^ where- in much of Primitive Chriftian Antiquity- may be learned i as alfo the Sermons of the late Bifbop £////, ( which will e're long fee the Light) and in which likewife many- Primitive Chriftian Dodrines are taught. There are other Excellent Pens at Work in Books of the like Nature with thefe 5 and I cannot but hope, that God hath exci- ted the Spirit of Cultivating the more Ear- ly Ecclefiaftical Antiquities j in Mercy to his Church. I could name * feveral other Englijh Trafts upon feveral Subjefts, full of Primitive Chriftian Divinity, were fucli a Bibliotheque fit for this Place. And be- fides thofe which are written in Englifi^ there are many Excellent Pieces of the * As the Principles of the Cjprianick Age, and the Defence of it, worthy to be read hy all Learned Men. I fame Ixx A Letter to the Author. fame Kinds written in French : As T)u Tins JSlouvelle Bibliotheqtie des Aiitenrs Ecclefia- y?/^//^.r, tranflated \mo Englifh: Tillemonfs Memoir es, Tour fervir a P Hijioire Ecclefi- aftique, which a!fo deferve^ to be tranflated : ThcWorks o( St. Cyprian, in Fre?2ch 5 which I cannot but wift that all EngliJInnen, who are not vetfcd in Latin, but underlknd that Language, would carefully read. Were our People exercifed in fuch Writings as thefe, " and their Minds feafon'd 'vx^ith the Antient Doflrines and Principles w^hich are in them, we fhould foon fee the Spirit of Primitive Chriftianity begin to revive among them, in the Soundnefs and Orthodoxy of their Faith, in the Piety of their PraQice, in their Zeal for the Divine Inftitutions, in their Love and Reverence of the Clergy, and in their Prayers and Endeavours, for Supplying whatever is wanting to make the Church oi England {m the Sanftity of her Clergy and People, and in the Striftnefs of her Difcipline, and every other thing ) as Pure, andPerfefl, and Venerable, as the Primi- tive Church. Sir, Your Book^ had I Time to write them, would furnifh me with Matter for more Ufeful RefleQionsand Obfervations ; but thefe are fufficient to fliew you, with how much DJigence and Delight it hath been read over by Tour Friend, and Servant y G E O, H I C K E S. A Preliminary Difcourfe O F T H E Various Opinions of the Fathers concerning R e - baptization , and Invalid Baptifms; with Remarks. IN St. Cyfrianh Days, about the middle of the third Century, arofe a great Debate in the Church concerning the Validity of Baptifm, adminifter'd by fuch as were thea either Hereticks or Schifmaticks : St. Cyprian, with the reft of the Bifhops of the African- Churches, together with many of the Eaftem Bifhops, maintained, '' That Catholick Bi- (hops were obhged to condemn all fuch Baptifms, and to hold them void and null, and by confequence not ftrait to confrm, but firft to baptize all fuch, as having re- ceived no other than thofe Falfe Baptifms, inthofe Falfe and Antichriftian Communi- ons, left them, and came over to the One, True, Catholick, and only Salutary Com- munion. " Stephen Bifliop of Rome^ and his Party, *' maintaia'dj That by the Evangelical Law B '^Catholick s A Treliminary Difcourfe of the " Catholick Biniops were bound to ratify *' Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, and " to bold tliem Good and Valid, and to ad- " mit fuch as having been baptized by He- " reticks or Schifmaticks, dcferted them, and '' came over to the True Catholick Commu- *^ nion, without giving them Catholick Bap- ^' tifm, or ufing any other Rite at their Re- ^' ception, than that of Impofing the Hand " for the Collation of the Holy Gholl. ^' The Stefhanims muilerM up a great ma- *^ ny Arguments for the Validity of fuch Bap- *' tifms; they pleaded that Hereticks them- *' felves were not fo nice, as to baptize thofe *^ who came over from other Herefies to their " Communion : That all Catechumem^ who " died unbaptized, were not therefore damn- '^ ed ; mucli lefs thofe who had received Bap- " tifm, tho' from Hereticks or Scliifmaticks : That to refufe thofe who were willing to forfake Herefy or Schifm, unlefs they would confent to be re-baptiz'd, was to obflruQ: their coming over : That thofe who had been baptized by Vhilif in Samaria^ were not re-baptized by the Apoftles when they came among them {^Acts 8.) and that they received Impofition of Hands only, for the Collation of the Holy Ghoft : That tho^ fome in St. Va,ui\ Time preach'd Chrift out of Envy and Strife, /. e. from a Contentious and Schifmatical Humour, yet he w^as plea- fed that Chriil was preached {yinL i. 15.) *^ That various Opinions of the Fathers^ Sec. 5 '' That fome Schifmaticks, particularly the *^ Novatiansj obferved the due Form, and " propofed the due Interrogatories in Bap- " tifm : That the Efficacy of the Sacraments " did not depend on the Orthodoxy or the " Charity of the Adminiftrators; and that if ^* Perfons were baptiz'd in the Name of Chrift " any manner of way, it was no matter who '^ baptized them : But the main Argument *' (as St. Aufiin afterwards reckoned it) was, " that Stephen Bifhop of Rome had had it *' handed down to him by conftant Tradi- " tion from St. Feter and St. Faul^ Founders ^' of the Church of Rome) that thofe who " came over from Heretical or Schifmatical " Communions, to the Communion of the " True Catholick Church, fhould not be re- " baptized ; and that all his Predeceflbrs, Bi- *^ fhops oiRome^ fince the Days of thofe Apo- ^' ftles, had always conformed their Praftice ^* to fuch unqueftionable Tradition ; they *^ had always Ratified, never Repudiated He- " retical or Schifmatical Baptifnir *' The Arguments of the Cyfrianifts againft •* the Validity of fuch Baptifms were briefly *' thefe. St. Cyprian rejefts the Baptiims of *' Novatianm upon this very Score, that he *^ was not a Bifhop ; Cornelim was the only ^* True Bifhop of Rome\ no Valid Baptifms *^ could be performed in that Church but by " him, or in dependance on him : Novatia^ ^^ nm difowned all Dependance on him, fepa- B 2 "' rated 4 A Preliminary ^ifcourfe of the *' rated from him, and pretended to be Bi^ " fliop of Rome in Oppofition to him ; his ** Baptifms therefore could not be Valid, they " could not be True Chriftian Sacraments, *^ St. Cyprian's 69 Epift. And in the fame *' Epiftle thefe Three [to fet up an Epifcopal " Chair] [to affume a Primacy] [and to pre- " tend to a Sovereign or Independent Power *' of Baptizing and Oifering, L e. Confecra- *' ting the Holy Eucharift] he plainly makes ^' Equivalent Phrafes, and by them exprefles " the one Crime oi Novatianm in ftanding up *' as an Anti-bidiop to Cornelius : That all his " Miniftrations were of the fame Kidney with *^ thofe of Corah, Dathan and Jhiram, which " were wicked, damnable and naught, becaufe " performed in Oppofition to the High-Prieft " Aaron : That it was unaccountable in B I- " SHOPS to Ratify Heretical or Schifmatical " Baptifms ; it was a Proftitutiou of the Ho- " nour both of the Catholick Church and the '' EPISCOPAL COLLEGE ; it tended to *' liinder People from coming over from He- ^* refy or Schifm ; it encourag'd them to think *' thcmfelves fafeand fecure enough in either ; '' for if there they had true Baptifm, v/hy not ^ likewife a true Church and true Remiflion " of Sins ? To weaken the Authority of a pre- ** tended Cuftom to the contrary, he lays it " down for an undoubted Truth, That we *' are not to be determined by any C U S- ^^ T 0 M S of that nature, but to examine " whether various Opinions of the Fathers^ &c. 5 ^ whether they will bear the Teft of Reafon. " He affembled at Carthage a Council of 71 " Bifhops, who confirmed all that had been " determined a little before in another Synod ^^ held in the fame City, concerning the Bap- ^' tifm of Hereticks, viz. that it was null and ^' void ; and about the fame time, immedi- ** ately after this Council, he writ a long Let- ^' ter to Jubaiantis^ a Bifhop who had confult- *^ ed him about this Queftion, wherein he ^' urges abundance of Reafons and Texts of ** Scripture to fupport his own Opinion, and ^' anfwered the Objedions that were brought ^' againft it. In another Letter to Fompey Bi- ^' (hop oiSahra, he oppofes the TRUTH of '' the Gofpel, and the FIRST TRADITI- *' ONS of the Apoftles, both to the Cuftom ^' and Tradition which Stephen had alledg'd *' for himfelf. Firmtlian Bifhop of Cefarea in " Cappadocia^ in his Letter to St. Cyprian, 0- ^' penly condemns the Procedure of Stephen '' Bifhop of Rome [who had anfwered St. Cj- " prian very roughly] extols St. Cyprian^^^Qu- ^' duft, declares himfelf entirely in favour of " his Opinion, proves it by feveral Reaibns, ^' and affures him it was the ancient Cuftom " of the Aftatick Churches, and that it had " been regulated many Years before in two " Numerous Synods held at Synnada and ho- " nium. The fame Firmilian anfwers Stephen^ ^^ Plea of the conftant Tradition he had hand- ^^ ed dowa to him from St. Fenr and St. Pau!^ Bg 1^ as 6 A Treliminary Difcourfe of the " as before mentioned ; that his, viz, Stephen^ " Allegation was utterly falfe, he could have ^' no fuch Tradition from thofe Apoftles (/. e. '' St. Fcter and St. Paul) from whom he pre- " tended to have it,and that for this very good '^ reafoujthat in their Days there were no He- *' retical Communions, by confequence no ^' Heretical Baptifms, no Baptifms out of the ^' true Communion of the Church Catholick, '^ and that therefore he flander'd them^by fa- ^' thering fuch a Tradition on them, feeing it '^ was certain that they taught the quite cx)n- *^ trary in their Epiftles ; that St. Paul {Acts ^'19) re-baptized thofe who had been bapti- *' zed by "Jotm the Bapti(i^ ought not wq then *' (fays he) to hptize thofe who come frorri *' Herefy to the Church ? Will any Man fay " that tlie Bifliops now a-days are greater *' than St. Paul was ? which they muft needs ^' be,if they are able to do that which he could " not, if they by Impofition of Hands only,can " give the HolyGholt to Hereticks when they ^' come to them.'' St. Cyprian in his Letter to "Jubauurus reafons to this purpofe againft the Validity of fuch Baptifms. '' 'Tis evident " where and by whom the REMISSION OF " SINS C which is given in Baptifm) can be " given ; for our Lord gave firft to Peter ^ &c. ^^ that Power, that v^hatjoever be (Jjould Icofe *' on Earthy fhould he loojed in Heaven ; then, *' after his Refurredion, he gave it to all the ** Apoftles, when he faid Qohn 20. 21, 22, 'vartom Opinions of the Fathers.^ 8cc. J ^^ 25.) Js my Father hath fent me^ Sec. Whence ^' we learn, that none have Authority to *' BAPTIZE and REMIT SINS but' the " BISHOPS, and thofe who are founded in *^ the EvangeHcal Law> and our Lord's Infti- " tution, and that nothing can be bound or ^^ loofed out of the Churchy ieeing there is none " there who has the Power of Binding and ^' Loofing. Jefus Chrift (fays Vortunatus in the '^ Venerable Council of C^^rz-Z^^^f, ^//?/>f^ 256) ^' our Lord and God, the Son of God the Fa- ^^ ther and Creator, built his Church upon a ^' Rock, and not upon Herefy, and he gave " the Power of Baptizing to BISHOPS, and *' not to Hereticks. Thofe therefore who are ^^ out of the Churchy and ftand againft Chrift, " and fcatter his Flock, cannot baptize, being ^^ out of the Church?^ It would be endlefs to mention all the Te- ftimonies and Arguments brought in that Age againft the Validity of fuch Baptifms, I Jhall therefore name but one more, which feems to be of great moment for the Difco- very of what was meant by Hereticks and Schifmaticks in thofe Days ; and that is Ittr^ niilian^ who in one of his Letters fays, '' That '' he, and all the Bifhops who met with him *' in the Synod of honium^ decreed that all ^^ thofe fhould be holden as Unbaptized, who ^^ were Baptized by fuch as had once beea ^^ Bifhops in the Catholick Church, if they f^ were Baptized by them att^r they had Sfi- B 4 '^ PAR4- 8 A Treliminary Vifcourfe of the '' PAR ATED from the Church.'' By which, and the other Monuments of that Age, it is evident, they held, that even Bifhops, and all other lawful Minifters, loft their VERY AU- THORITY'to do any thing more in the Mi- nifterial Functions, when they either Schif- matically or Heretically feparatedthemfelves from the Church of Chrift. Hence doubtlefs it came to pafs that St. Cyprian and his Col- legues efteemed all their Minifterial Afts, done while in Schifm or Herefy, to be Null and Void, and confequently that the fuppofed Sacraments adminiftred by them, and thofe whom they ordained, were no true Chriftiari Sacraments, and therefore Invalid and Ineffec- tual. This, I fay, appears to me to be the true Foundation of that great Difpute con- cerning the Validity of Heretical and Schifma- tical Baptifms, and which " St. Cyprian mana- ^' ged with fo much Chriftian Humility and " Charity, that tho' Stephen Bifhop of Rome " was fo far from agreeing to the Reafons of ^' the Atricans (whether becaufe he imagined " they had a Defign to condemn the Roman " Church, or becaufe he thought this Que- " ftion was of too great confequence) that " he was enrag'd againft St. Cyprian and his *' Collegues, and ufed their Deputies ill ; nay, •^ he prohibited all Chriftians belonging to *' his Church to receive or lodge them, de- " priving them not only of Ecclefiaftical *^ Communion, but alfo refufing them the ^^' common various Opinions of the Fathers^ Sec. 9 ^* common Civilities of Hofpitality ; yet he " [/. e. St. Cyprian'] could not think of break- ^' ing Peace with them, of giving up Com- ^' munion with them, of Abftaiiiing or Ex- - communicating them ; notwithftanding5^^- ^' fhen had taken upon him to excommunicate ^^ thofe who oppos'd the Ratification of Here- " tical and Schifmatical Baptifms. Upon the ^' whole, the Perfecution of the Church by " Valerian^ Anno 257. put an end to this " Controverfy. St. Cyfrian NEVER altered " his Opinion ; the Greek Churches were, for ^' a long tinie after him, divided upon this *' Queftioii : The Council of Aries firft de- *^ cided it in the Weft ; St. Auftin followed its " DeciGon ; the Weftern Church has embracM ^' this Opinion ; viz.. That Baptifm by Here- " ticks, in the Name of the Trinity, is Valid : ?^ And tho^ the Eaftern Churches have not a- *^ greed with her abfolutely in this Point, yet ^* they always made a Diftinftion between; f^ Hereticks, and differently receivM them. In the Canons that are callM Apoftolical, we have thefe Remarkable Canons, according to the Divifion of Cotelerim. Cmon 38. " We order, that a Bifhop, " Prieft or Deacon, who has receivM Bap- ^* tifm, 'k3c. from an Heretick, be depo- 4< fed- Qi-^ as the Learned Author of the (^lergy-manh Vade-Mecum obferves, " The Bi-- ^' fhopj Prieft or Deacon^ who allows the Bap" •! ^{/^? 8cc. of Hereticks. Canon (4 lo A Trelimmary Titfcourfe of the Canon 39. " If a Bifliop or Prieft do again *' Baptize one who HAS REALLY received ** Baptifm before ; or if he do not Baptize one *' that has been polluted by Wicked Men ; ( /• e. Baptized by Hereticks, 8ee Canon j8.) ^* Let him be deposed, as one that makes NO *' DISTINCTION betwixt PRIESTS and ^' PRETENDERS, In the 4th Century, St. Athanafim re- je£ls the Baptifm of Hereticks. Pacianm *' jfays, That Baptifm purifies from Sins, and ** Unftion brings down the Holy Spirit ; and ^' both the One anlfcot4rfe of the to Baptize: It only appointed Some to do this, wlio had not Authority to do it before of them- felvcs. Befides, it is plainly reftrainM to fuch as were ir^ Communion v/ith, and Subjeftion to their Bifhops ; they were not to be under PENANCE, i3c. And therefore if this had been a General Council, as it certainly was not, our Lay-Baptizers who act in Oppofition to Epifcopacy, could have received no Autho- rity from this Canon. *^ The Council of Arles^ calPd by the Em- '^. peror Anno 314, confifting of Thirty three ^' Weftern Bifliops, Canon 8. determines the ^' famous QUESTION about the Re bapti- *' zation of Hereticks, and ordains concerning *' the Africans^ who had ALWAYS Re-bap- '' tiz*d them, That if any one leave a Herefy, ^' and return to the Church, he fliall be ask'd *' concerning the Creed ; and if it be known *' that he was BaptizM in the Name of the Fa- ^' thery of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghojty Im- *' pofition of Hands only, fhall be given hixn, *' that he may receive the Holy Spirit : But if ^' he does not acknowledge the Trinity,'' I fuppofe 'tis meant, if while a Heretick he did cot acknowledge the Trinity, or if the Here- tick who Baptiz'd him did not acknowledge the Trinity, (the latter is the moft hkely) ^' he ^' Iball be Re-baptizM. By the way, in this Canon there is not one Word about LAY-BAPTISM : And as for the Hereticks who then Baptiz'd, they had al-^ ways,, various Opinions of t he Yathers^^c. 1 3 ways, or at leafl: moft commonly, received Or- dination from the Hands of fome CATHO- LICK BISHOP or other ; nay, generally the HERETICAL BISHOPS were Confecrated before they fell into Herefy, by CATHO- LICK BISHOPS, or elfe afterwards by fome Trick or other, got private Confecration from them, that fo their Herefies might go dowa the better with the People : And the fame we " find concerning Schifmaticks in thofe Days. I defire that this may be more particularly taken notice of; becaufe it effedually filences all Objefliions brought from this Council's al- lowing of the Validity of Heretical and Schif- matical Baptifms. For fuch their Allowance is no ways favourable to the Baptifms we are now difputing againft ; for they are not only Lay^ but Anti-Efifcofal Baptifms ; which were not the Subjefl: of this Council. The Council of Mr^, Amo 325, confiftiiag of about 300 Bifhops, Canon 19, ordains, *' That the Pauliantjh ( who^. by the way, did not Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ) '' fliall be Re-baptiz'd who ^* return to the Church. After the Council of Nlcey It was a Pi-e- ■yailing Principle, " That thofe whom a Lauk ^^^ ^Baptizeth are to he Re-haptized -^ (ovitwrif ** the undoubted Principle whereby the Orthodox *' confuted the Luciferians, who began their *^ Schifm, upon occafion of the Council of [' Alexandria's allowing the Ordination of the ^^ Arian 14- A preliminary T)ifcour[e of the " Arian Bifhops; " For thus the Orthodox :irgued againft thofe Schifmaticks : Thofe whom a Laick Baptizeth are to be Re-baptiz'd; but thofe whom an Arian Prieft Baptizeth, are not to be Re-baptizM ; therefore an Arian Prieft is not a Laick. And even Lucifer him- felf, the Author of that Schifm, granted the Major Propofitio'n to be true. In the Council of Carthage ^ Anno 548, be- fore they proceeded to make Canons, the Pre- fident advis'd thus : '^ We muft have fuch re- *' gard to this time of Peace, that we neither *^ weaken the Obligation of the Laws, nor ** yet prejudice the prefent Unity by TOO ^' MUCH SEVERITY. Then the firft Head *^ proposed was about Re-baptization ; he " askM whether that Man Ought to be Re- *^ baptiz'd who at his Baptifm made Profeffi- *^ on of believing the Trinity. The BISHOPS ^^ anfwered, God forbid ; We declare that *^ this Re-baptization is unlawful, contrary *' to the Orthodox Faith, and the Ecclefiafti- " cal Difcipllne. St. Bafil Bifhop o?CcefareA Anno 369, fays, ** Thofe whom a Laick Baptizeth are to be Re" ^' bapttz'd ; he alfo riiaintains, that the Anci- " ents were perfuaded that the Baptifm of <^ Hereticks was ABSOLUTELY void : As " for Schilmaticks, he likes well enough St. ^^ Cyprian and Firmltan\ fubjefting them to '' the SAME LAW ; becaufe being SEPA- ** RATE from the Church, they had not the !' Holy various Opinions of the fathers^ S^c. 1 5 ^' holy Spirit, and fo could not give it ; but " fays, he would not hinder the allowing of *^ the Baptifms of Schifmaticks, fince the Bi- *' fhopsof ^j/^ had thought it convenient to " admit them : But tho^ the Encratttes were ^^ Schifmaticks, he declares that their Bap- *' tifm ought not to be approved, and that ^' thofe ought to be re-baptized to whom ^' they had given Baptifm, becaufe they gave ^^ it with Precipitation, on purpofe to HIN- ^' DER the receiving of it from the Church ; *' neverthelefs, if the contrary Cuftom [r?/ 4;/- *^ lowing the Baptifm of Hereticks and Schifma^ *' ttcks^ were eftablifhed, he confeffes it ought *' to be foUow^ed.'' The Council oiLaodicea^ h^tw^tnAnno ^60 and J 70, Canon 8. fays, " That they muft be *' wholly Baptized anew who come from the *^ Sefl: of the Montanifisr The third Council of Conflantinople^ Anno 38 J, in the laft Canon, concerning the Man- ner of receiving Hereticks, who offer them- felves to return into the Bofom of the Church, it is ordained, " That the Avians^ Macedonians^ *' SahbatimSj Novatians^ Quartodecirnani^ Te^ ^' tratites and Apolltnarifis^ Ihall be received ^^ after they have made Profeflion of their *' Faith, and anathematiz'd their Errors, by " tlie Un£tion of the holy Spirit, and the *^ Chrifm wherewith they fball be anointed *' on the Forehead, the Eyes, the Hands, the ^^ Mouth, the Ears, at the pronouncing of *^ tliefe 1 6 A Treliminary 7)ifcourfe of the " thele Words, This is the Seal of the holy Spi^ " rit. As to the Eunomians^ the Montamfls^ " the SabelltanSj and all the other Hereticks, " the Council ordains that they fhall be re- " ceived Hke Pagans, i^c. and at laft they « fhall be Baptized." '' The Council ofCapua^ Anno ^90, decla- " red. That it was not lawful to ufe Re-bap- " tization, RE-ORDINATION, and the " TRANSLATION of BISHOPS. The fecond Council oiCarthage^ Anno J90, in the 8 th Canon declares, " That if a Prieft " Excommunicated by his own Biflhop, un- *^ dertake to offer up the Sacrifices in private, *' and to fet up ALTAR againft ALTAR, " thereby making a SCHISM, he ought to " be anathematized, becaufe there is but « ONE CHURCH, ONE FAITH, and *' ONE BAPTISM " My Remark upon this Canon is, That this ONE BAPTISM cannot be fuppos'd to be out of this ONE CHURCH, and therefore is only in it. The third Council of Carthage^ Anno 598^ Canon 100, fays, "-' That a Woman ought *' not to take upon her to baptize." " St. Chrjif oft om Archbifhop oiConftantinopUy " Anno 398, isexprefs for the Invalidity of " Lay-Baptifm, and that it can be no more " adminiltred by a Laick than the Eucharift, *^ (fays he) But all thefe are Things which '' can he admimped BY NO OTHER MANf LIVING but by thofe SACRED HANDS '' ALONE> (( various Opinions of the Fathers ^Si^Q. 1 7 '' ALONE, the Hands I fay of the PRIEST. ChrjJ\ Lib. IIL de Sacerd, C. 5. *' In the 5th Century flourifliM St. Augupji^ ^' Biihop of Hipo in Jfrica ; he argued vigor- " oufly againft the Donatfts^ who began their " SCHISM by a Separation of fome African " Bifhops, and proceeded fo far as to reckon " all other Churches as unclean, and indeed '^ to be no Churches at all ; and confequently " when any Catholick came over to their Par- '' ty, they would not admit him without Re- " baptization, making ufe of St. Cyprian and ^^ his Collegues Authority, who taught, That ^' Baptifm adminiftred by Hereticks and " Schifmaticks could not be valid, becaufe '' they were out of the Church ■ and the '' Donattfis efteemed the Catboltcks to be no " better than fuch." St. Jugufiin, in Oppofition to them, under- takes to prove, *' That tho' his Party were " not the Church, yet the Donmfts were not " to baptize them a fecond time ; he confei- *^ fes, that Baptifm performed without na- " ming the TRINITY, is Null •, but affirms, *' That if it be adminiftred in the Name of '' the TRINITY, itis Valid,WHOSOEVER " he be that adminifters it, and ought not to " be repeated : That neither the Minifter's " FAITH as to Religion, nor his Sanaity, '^ avail any thing to the Validity of Baptifm : [' Tliat it is God, and not the Minifter, who C " gives 1 8 ATrelimtnary Difcourfe of the ^^ gives the holy Spirit, and worketh the Re-^ '' miffionofSins." But here, before I proceed further, I muft obferve, that it does not hence follow, that ' becaufe the Faith or San£lity of the Minifter avails nothing to the Validity of Baptifm, therefore his AUTHOR IT Y by which he afts, avails nothing thereto : For AUTHO- RITY may very well be, and often is DIS- TINCT and SEPARATE from both thofe excellent Qualities. And again ; Every one will grant, that it is God^ and not the Mini-^ jier^ who gives the Holy Spirit, i3c.- What then ? Does it thence follow that any Perfon may ftand in God's ftead, as appointed by him to Adminifter ? Can it be reaibnably ex- pected that God fliould concur with the USURPATIONS of thofe who aft therein without HIS COMMISSION, nay, and in OPPOSITION thereto [as is the Cafe with us ?] Certainly no ; it cannot : For, however he may difpenfe with the WANT of a Sacra- ment, yet he has no where promifed to give EFFICACY tQ thofe Adminiftratians, which are in any Refpe£t contrary to the ElTentials of his own Inftitutions ; and to me it fecms a mere Fool-hardinefs and Prefumption to ex- pect it. But to proceed : St. Augufiin^ in the 7th Book of Baptifm, Qif. 53. fays thus : " It is asked whether that " Baptifm is to be approved which is admi- *^ laiftred various Opinions of the Fathers^ Sec. 1 9 ^' niftred by an Unbaptized Perfon, who out " of Curiofity has learned the Way of bapti- *' zing among Chriftians ? It is asked farther, ^' Whether it be neceffary for the Validity of ^' Baptifm, that he who either adminifters or '" receives it, befincere? And if they fhould ^' be only in Jeft, whether their Baptifm " ought to be adminiftred again in the *' Church? Whether Baptifm conferred in ^^ Derifion, as that would be, which fhould " be adminiftred by a Comedian, might be ^' accounted Valid ? Whether Baptifm admi- ^' niftred by an Ador may become Validy '' when he that receives it is well difposM ?" He anfwers to thefe, and fuch like Qtie- ftions, " That the fecureft way is to return *' no Anfwer to Queftions that never were " decided in any Council, General or Natio- *^ nal. But he adds ; Should any Man, meet- ^' tag with me at fuch Council, ask my Ad- " vice about thefe Queftions, and that it were ^' my Turn to declare my Opinion, having ^' not heard other Mens Opinions, which I " might prefer before my own, i^c. I fhould " without difficulty acknowledge, that they " all receive Baptiim truly, in any Place " whatfoever, and by WHOMSOEVER ad- " miniftred, if on their Part they receive it " with Faith and Sincerity. I am apt alfo '' to believe, that fuch as receive Baptifm in " the Church, or in what is fuppofed to be [[ the Church, are truly baptized, as to the C 2 *^ Sacra- CO A Treliminary T)ifcourfe of the " Sacramental Part of the Aftion, whatfo- ^' ever be their Intention : But as for Baptifm " adminirtred and received out of the Churchy *' in Raillery, Contempt, and to make Sport, *'^ I could not approve the fame without a ** Revelation.'^ He endeavours to overthrow the Reafons and Teftimonies of the Cyprtamjls againft the ValidityofHereticalandSchifmaticalBaptifms by the Comparifon of concealed Hereticks and tvil Miniflers^' with khOtvn Hereticks and Schif- maticks, '^ For (fays he) if the Baptifm admi- '-^ niftred by the FORMER is Valid, and not ^^ to be renewed, why fliould not the fame '' thing be faid of the LATTER, fince all die *' Reaibns that are aHedg'd for the Nullity of *' the Baptifm of Hereticks, may alfo belong '' to evil Mir/ifiers? It is faid, for Example, ^' That to give the Holy Gbofi^ one mufi hxve it : ^' That Hereticks have it not ; and confequently *' that they cannot give it. Why may we not *' reafon after the fame manner concerning ^' Baptifm conferred by conceaPd Hereticks, *' or by wicked Priefts ? Have they the Holy " Gholl to give ?'' Thus St. Jugujim. I cannot but take Notice here, that this Great Man does not appear (to me) to have made the Comparifon according to the Defign of St. Cyprian and his Collegues : for, by the manner of handling thisDifpute in thofe Days, ^tis plain to me that the Hereticks and Schif- maticks were fuppofed to be (by their fepa- rating various Opinions of the Fathers^ &c. 1 1 rating themfelves from the Communion of the Church) AS EXCOMMUNICATE, and confequently to have loft all Valid Power and Authority for the Adminiftration of Chriftiau SacramentSjbeing themfelves out of the Church : Whereas the ConceaPd Heretick and Evil Mini- fter, not having feparated themfelves from, nor been excluded out of the Church, can- not, during this their Secrefy, lofe that VI- SIBLE AUTHORITY wherewith they were at firft inverted ; and we have no OTHER Authority to truft to, except we had the Gift of difcerning Spirits. So that the Reafons againft the Validity of Baptifm adminiftred by KNOWN Self-Excommunicate Hereticks and Schifmaticks, will not equally hold good againft the Validity of Baptifm conferred by UNKNOWN Hereticks and Evil Priefts,who ftill continue in external Comrnunion with the CHURCH, becaufe the former were by the Cyfrianifts fuppofed to have not, but the latter have that VISIBLE AUTHORITY and COMMISSION, which Chrift gave them to adminifter his Sacraments, as is plain froni the Example o^Jud.ts Ifiariot^ whom our Sa- viour vefted with the divine Commifllon, notwithftanding his great Wickednefs. Leo Bifhop of K^?'/?^ i^ his i8th Anfwer to feveral Queftions put to him by Rufticus Bi- fliop oiNorhonne^ Anno 442, fays, ^* That it is ^' fufficient to lay Hands upon, and call upon ^^ the Holy Spirit, over thofe that do remem- C J [' bcr a 1 A Treliminary T)ifcQurfe of the *' ber that they have been Baptized, but " know not in what SeO:.-' Gennalius^ a Prieft of Marfeille^ aiErms, *' That there is BUT ONE BAPTISM, and " that \ve muft not baptize them again who " have been baptized by Hereticks, with the ^' Invocation of the Name of the Trinity j ^' but they who have not been baptized in '^ the Name of the Trinity, ought to be re- baptized, becaufe fuch a Baptifm is not " true.'' The fecond Council of Jrles^ Canon 17, fays, " The Bonofiaci^ who baptize as well as *' theJria^Sj in the Name of the Trinity ; it " is fufficient to admit them into the Church ^' by Chrifm, and Impofition of Hands." St. Gregory^ about the latter End of the 6th Century, fpeaking about the Return of feve- ral Sorts of Hereticks into the Church, fays, *' That they are. Baptized when they RE- *' ENTER into the Church; the Baptifm f' which they have received, not being true, *' fmce it was not given in the Name of the '.' Trinity. When It is UNCERTAIN whe- ^' ther a Perfon l^as been Baptized or Con- ^' firmed, we muft Baptize or Confirm them, *' ratl:er than fuffer them to perifh in this *' Doubt. Gregory II. a little after, Jmo 700, in his Decretal Epiftle, anfwering feveral Quefl:ions put to him by Boniface^ Article 8. '' forbids tQ *' Rc-baptize thofe v/Iio have been once Bap- *' tizec^ various Opinions of the Fathers^ 8cc. 0, ^ ^' tized in the Name of the Trinity, altho' it *' were by a wicked Priejl. '^ Gregory III. Orders that they fliall be ^^ Baptized again in the Name of the Trinity, ^' who have been Baptized by Heathens. And " alfo that thofe fliall be Re-baptized, who " have been Baptized by a Prieft that hatli '^ Sacrificed to Jupiter ^ or eaten Meat offer'd " to Idols. Thus far I think may fuffice to have Colleded what has beenfaid about.Re- baptization. And I fhould not have given my felf^ or the Reader, the Trouble of this Account of Men's various Judgments and Opinions in this Cafe ; were it not that I expefled to hear from fome, that I had wholly negleded to fearch into Antiquity, concerning the Senfe of the Primitive Fathers about it. To Obviate which Objeftion, and becaufe I have been told, that ^' it becomes me to reft fatisfied in the Deter- '^ minations of the Chriftian Church about ^' this matter, I thought it not amifs to en- ?uire into them thus for ; to the intent, that might fee whether 1 could procure any WELL-GROUNDED Satisfaftion fromtlieir Authority \ and indeed I muft acknov/ledge, that if this had been a Thing Indifferent in its own Nature, and not DETERMINED by the Word ofGod^ but left to the Wifdom and Prudence of the Church to Decree as flie fhould think convenient and neceffary,! ought to have acquiefc'd with 7;^"^ Determinations; ' C 4 It 7\ ATrclimtnaYy Vijcourfe of the If {lie had in General Council made any about Unauthoriz?d2in& Anti-Efifcofal Baptrfms, which in Truth (he has not; nor any Provincial Council neither, as it plain by the foregoing Colleflion. The Church o^ Rome has indeed affuniM to herfelf a pretended Power of declaring all Bap- tijms in or with Water in the Name of the Fath^r^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghojiy by whom- ibever adminifter'd, whether by a Woman or Layman, Heretick or Orthodox^ Communicant or Schifmatick, of what fort foever, to be Good and Valid: But this Her Determination ought to be brought to the Teft, and weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary. Baptifm, and all things Effential thereto, are ¥undamentals of Chriltianity ; 'tis ( in the Apoftles Stile ) a Principle of the Doctrine of Chrift ; 'tis a Pofitive ln]tttution made by God Himfelf ; and the Holy Scriptures as inter- preted by the Doctrine and Praftice of the Primitive Catholick Church, are CLEAR ENOUGH for the Determination of all the NecefTaries thereof, as well as of all other Fundamental Points of our Religion ; and therefore the Decrees of fome Particular Fa- thers and Councils have no more weight with me in this matter (of Lay-Baptifm) than what they receive from their Conformity to thofe Divine Oracles, which are the only Original Rule of our Faith and Practice in Fundamen- tals, as 2^\ found Protejhnts have ^ffirm'd. various Ofinions of the Fathers^ Sec o, 5 If any ftiall ask me, who muft be Judge between you and the Councils ? I anfwer, The fame that muft be Judge between the Contradi5tiou.s Canons of Different Councils ; the fame that muft be Judge between me, and a Council that Commands me to Worfhip Saints and Angels, i^c. Now who this is upon Earth, I cannot tell ; a Living Infallible Judge we have none ; and therefore I muft look for a Rule or Guide, /. e, the Holy Scrip- ture ; and if the Councils and I Differ about this Rule, I muft have recourfe to the BEST and PUREST Ages of Chriftianity, and fee what the Apoftolick Fathers, and the Coun- cils next after them, underftood by that Rule. After all, I muft be allow'd a Judgment of Difcretion for my felf ; in Conjunftion with thefe, and a JUST DEFERENCE to the. Canons of that particular Church whereof I am, or ought to be a Member ; and by all thefe Methods, I am brought to conclude for my felf, that Lay-Baptifm, B Y O N E I N OPPOSITION to the Church, can never be Good and Valid. 'Tis by this Rule that I reckon the Coun- cils of C^r^/^^^e, Iconlum sind Syrmada^ together with the Cuftoms of the Jfiatick and African Churches, confirming St. Cyfrian\ Doftrine, h^ve as much (if not more) Authority to fway my Judgement in the Matter of Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms; as the Council oiArleSj and th? After-Determinations of other Coun- cil^ 26 A TreUminary T>ifcourJe of the cils and Fathers ; for, thefe latter can pretend to no more Divine Authority than the for- mer ; and it may be, upon a Juft Examination, will be found^to have much lefs ; tho' I have no need to dwell upon this, becaufe my Pro- vince is only confin'd to Lay- i. e, unautho- rizM Baptifm — fuch as is perform'^d by Perr fons who never were authorized for that pur- pofe ; v/ho aft in direfl: Oppofition to that Order of Men who are impowerM by Chrift to authorize others to Baptize ; againft Such Baptizers, I have produced Several Teftimo-^ nies from the Pureit Times ; and the Adver- fary can bring forth, in their behalf, mt One Coumlj either General or Provincial, till the Corrupt Ones of the Church of Rome. I am very well fatisHed that there is but O N E T R U E CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, which ought not to be repeated upon thofe who have receivM it : I find my felf under an Impoflibility to believe, that this ONE BAPr TISM is any other, than what Chrift himfelf Inftituted Juft before his Afcenfion into Hea- ven ; I reckon an Effential Part of this Infti- tution ( and I humbly hope in the Sequel of this' Difcourfe to prove it ) to be the DIVINE AUTHORITY of the ADMINISTRATOR as well as the Water, and the Form of Ad- minift ration, ; I cannot he fatisfied, that the Perfon who is faid to have BaptizM me, ever had this Au- thority -, nay, I am fully cqnvincM of the conr trary ;; variom Opinions of the Fathers^&.c. ay trary ; and alfo, that he was aftually in oppoji^ tion to it ; and tho' his meaning were never fo good, yet I cannot think God concurrM witU luch an Ufurpation, when it was done without Any Neceffity at al/j in a Chrifiian Country^ where truly Authorized Mlnifiers might have been had, with as much^ if not greater eafe and f peed than he : For which Reafons I find no folid Foundation for believing, that I have received this ONE BAPTISM, efpecially fince I my felf fhould with great Reafon have refus'd his Admini- ftration, as it would have been my Duty^ if I had been put to my own free Choice ; which, it's certain, I could not then, being but an Infant. I cjoubt not but fome will fay, *' That I need not concern my felf fo much about '* that which I had no hand in^ and wherein I *' was wholly Paffive ; // there was any Fault in " ftich my Baptifmy ^twas none of mine ^ but theirs '^ who had the Care of me : To whom I re- turn this fhort Anfwer, That the Parent's, or Godfather's and Godmother's Act and Deed is interpretatively the Child's, and he mufl: make it really his own when he comes to Years, by taking it upon himfelf ; fo that if THEN he owns their Sinful Ad (knowing it to be fuch) he makes himfelf PARTAKER with them in the Sin. But to return once more to the Difpute ia St. Cyprian's time, and the Decrees then and fince made about it ; I cannot DilTemble niy Thoughts, that the Arguments and Deter- minations q8 a Trelimtnary Dtfcourfe of the minations againll: his Doftrine and Practice, having nothing of that Reafon and Solidity, which an Inquifitive Perfon might juftly ex- peft ill them : And that on the contrary, St. Cyfrian and his Colleagues defend their AlTer- tion [ that the B.iptifms of Hereticks arJ Schif^ maticksjr^ lnvalid~] with fo much Judgment and Cogency of Argument, (^founded upn the Topck of fuch Hereticks and Schifmaticks, hr ing dejiitute of Holy Orders while they were out cf the Church of Chrift ) that I wonder how it could poflibly have come to pafs, that their Doftrinefhould be afterwards exploded ; efpe- ciatly when I confider, that what they taught andpraftic'd herein, was confirmed by NU- MEROUS COUNCILS in thofe earlier Days, wherein Truth was more prevalent than after- wards ; and Tertullian long before affirm'd the fame thing, " That Bapifm is referv^d to the *^ Bi[hop : Hereticks are not able to give it, ' ' becaufe they have it not ; and therefore it *' is that we have a RULE to Re-baptize *^ them. Here Tertullian talks of ^ Rule to Baptize fuch Perfons; which plainly {hews, that he is not fpeaking fo much of his own Private Ofmion as of the Law and Praftice of the Church. This is his relation of Matter of Fafl; ; and as fuch, to be received for a Tefti- mony of the Church's Opinion concerning the Baptifm of Hereticks, in his Days. But his ftrange odd Notions ( in his Exhortation to ChaftitVj vartom Opinions of t be FatheYs^8(.c. 29 Cliaftity, and his Book of Baptifm) " That *' La^cks are Pr/>/?i,becaufe it is written, "C/;r/7? *' hath made us Kings and Priefts unto God " and his Father: That when Three are ga- ^' ther'd together altho^ they be Laicks they make a, Church ; and that Lajmen may Baptize in Cafe *' of Neceffity and Abfence of a Prieft " ; tliefe appear to be only his own particular Sentiments, and he cannot be calFd a Witnefs of the Chur- ches CuHom and Allowance in thefe things ; for he talks of no Rule^ no Law of the Church relating to them, as he does when he fpeaks of the Baptifm of Herettcks^ by faying we have a Rule to re-baptize them. And 'tis cer- tain, that no Church, till the 4th Century, can be producM to have any Rule for the al- lowance of Lay Baptifm^ and then, none but the Council of Eliberis^ which I have before obfervM and remarkM on Pag, 1 1 . On tiie contrary, againft Lay Baptifm we have the Teftimonies of St. Bafily St. Chryjojlome^ and the Catholicks difputing with tlie Lucrfenam in the fame Century, which is more than a Ballance againlt TertulltarPs private Ofiniort concerning fuch Baptifm, i^c. But to go ilill further backward to the Days wherein fome of the Apoftles might be ftill living ; St. ig- natmsy a Glorious Martyr, and Bifliop of -^/?- tiochy Anno Doni, 71. in his Epiltle to tlie Smyr- neans, fays, " Let that SACRAMENT be " judg'd effectual and firtn^ which is difpens'd [' by the BISHOP oi- him to whom the Bifhop '' has ^o A Treliminary Difcourfe of the " has committed it. It is not LAWFUL *' without the Bifhop, either to Baptize or " Celebrate the Offices ; but what he approves *' of, according to the good pleafure of God, '' that is FIRM AND SAFE, and fo we do '' every thing SECURELY. This is fo exactly agreeable to St. CypriarPs Doflrine, that 'tis no wonder he adher'd to it all the Days of his Life ; and it feems to me, that nothing could have given Credit and Refutation to the contrary Opinion, but the monftrom increafe of HERESY and SCHISM afterwards, which, together with many other Caufes concurring, brought into the Church oiRomey and the reft of the Wejlern Churches, whom fhe had fubjefted to herVafralage,nabu- dance of Damnable Doftrines and Pradices, infomuch^ that at laft there was but little of Solid and Subftantial Religion to be found in the Churches of Her Communion. And 'tis very obfervable, that even among fome of us who have reformed from Her Errors, there is too much of Her Leaven ftill remaining ; for one of Her very Great and Peculiar Cor- ruptions^ in the Matter of Lay Baptifm and Midwives Baptifm, is ftill efpousM by too many who ought to oppofe it ; and not only fo, but rather than part with it, they will fwallow another of Her Errors too, and affert the abjolute Neceffity of Baptifm to all ; and what k worfe than Popery it felf, affirm, that the want of it Peoples Hell with many Millions^ as the various Opinions of the Fathers^ &c, 5 1 the Author of a Book falfly Intituled, Tl^g^ "^fudgment of the Church of England, in the Cafe of L^y Baptifm^ and of Dtffenters Baptifm has done. And what is the moft aftoniQiing of all is, that they who oppofe the Pop/jh Doarinc before fpoken of, are callVl Promoters of POPERY, particularly by Dr. Burnet the late Biiliop of Sarum ; jult as the Church's beft: Friends are called her greateft Enemies : But 'tis eafie from hence to difcover,who they are, that would introduce and ejiablijl) POPERY among us. And now, after all that has been faid, I declare, that it is not my Defign to meddle with theCyprianickDifpute in this Difcourfe; my bufinefs is not to enquire whether thofe who were once duly Juthoriz^d, and afcerwai'ds fall into HERESY or SCHISM, and thereby feparate themfelves, or arc excluded from the Church, can Adminifter Valid Sacraments and Ordinations during this their Separation: No, I fhall not fo much as touch upon this at all, becaufe I don't think my Cafe aifecled by it ; all that I need concern my felf about, is, whe- tlijer thofe who aft in oppopion to the acknow- ledged and duly Authorized Minifters of Chrift; and who themfelves were NEVER duly Au- thorized, can Adminifter truly Valid Baptifm, and whether the Receivers of thofe Baptifms can fafely reft fatished with them, efpecially when they know of this want of Power and Authority in the Adminiftrator. This is'my Cafe,andthis is all that I concern m\'felf about. And 5 1 A Treliminary T^ifcourfe of the And therefore I wrote the following ESSAY in a Mathematical Method of Defimtioriy Axiom^ and Propofitton, for the Information of my own Judgment, in this great Affair : It was not at firft defign'd for Publick View, but finding others have been, and it may be ftill do Labour under the fameCircumftances with my felf, I thought it might not be unaccepta- ble to them ; and if they {hall reap any bene-^ fit thereby, or if fome abler Pen will undertake to mend my Faults, by letting the World fee fomething more Corrcci and Exa&: for that furpofe^ (the only Motive of my Writing) I fliall obtain my end, which God be praifed is not mixt with any Alloy of Worldly Gain, or defire of Human Applaufe for this Under^ taking. As for Caviling and Difputing 'tis not my defign to concern my felf (and lofe my pre- cious time ) in fuch endlefs Imfertinencies. If any one will candidly fhew me my Errors^ I fliall heartily thank him for fo doing ; but I declare before hand, that no lefs than fuch De^ 7itonjlration as the Nature of the Thing will bear, can ever go down with me for Con- viftion ; I am not to be put off with the Au- thority of any great Names, Separate from Scripture^ and the Confentient DoBrine and Pra- ctice of the Primitive Churchy for, this has caufed too much Error in the World already, and 'tis high time now to reform from it. London^ 2 2d of Ocloberj 1722. Lay- ?5 Lay^BapHfm Invalid, *••< r,'..,. • .1.111 , , I .-^'i W'' -N • '•• ' . THE INTRODUCTION. Of the Nature and Obligation of Divine Pofitive Inftitutions of Religion^ Definitions^ I. A Divine Pofitive Infiitution of Religlori XjL is, that which God himfelf requires and commands to be done, and which {having no intrinfick or moral Excellency in it f elf) with- out his Command and Appointment^we could never have been bound to the Obfervance of; nor ever have conveyM to us by the Obferva- tion thereof, any SUPERNATURAL Be- nefit or Advantage whatfoever. II. The Ejfential Parts of i Divine Pofitive Infl:itution, are thofe which we are obligM ^nftantly to obferve, as long as the titmoft du- D rationj ^4- The IntroduBiort. ratiorf^ of the Force and Obligation of the In- jftitution it felf. III. I call an Aft Invalid for the purpofea of fuch an Inftitutiori, when we have no jufi Reafon or Motive from Divine Revelation to expeft, that God fhould fo far concur with that Aft, as to convey by MEANS THERE- OF, thofe Supernatural Advantages he has an^ nex'd to the Inftkution. IV. By the Supernatural Advantages An- nexed to an InftitHtion, I mean all thofe Spi^ ritual Privileges and Benefits which by Nature we cannot have, and which God has pro- mised to beftow, upon Condition of our duly Performing that Inftitution, which he has made to be the Ordinary means of Conveying thofe Benefits to us- V. By the Divine Authority of the Admi- niftrator, I mean that Commifjion which God at firft gave to Men^ and which they have ever fmce handed down to others, by his Order and Appointment, to Adminifter in his Holy Ordinances. VI. By a Lay Adminiftration I mean, That which is performed by One who never was cow* m//ion''d or Impov/er'd for that Aft, by thofe whom God has appointed to be the Convey- ers of his Authority and Commilfion to Men, lur tliat purpofe. AXIOMS The IntYoduBton. 55 AXIOMS OR, Undeniable Maxims. I. The Effential Parts of any thing, aYe of the fame Nature as the whole, IL God himfelf may diffenfe with any of his own Pofitive Inftitutions, either in whole or in Part ; and beftow the Benefits annexM to them, when, to whom, and how he pleafes. IIL No Ecclefiaficd or Civil Authority can Difpenfe with any Divine Pofitive Inftitution, either in whole, or in any Effential Part, fo long as it is binding and obliging to us. IV. The only way to determine whether an Acl is Valid or Invalid, for the Purpofes of a Divine Pofitive InftitQtion, is, to know whe- ther that Aft be Lawful or Unlawful^ Agree- able, or Contrary to the Will of God; which is to be found no where^ but either in the In- ftitution itfelf,or in fome other Part or Parts of his WrittenWord ,relating toth^ fame Infitution. V. No Power or Authority on Earth, can by any after-Aft ( not appointed by God for that , D 2 purpofe) a^ The IntYoduBion. purpofe) make that which before was Invalid, to become as Valid a's Conforming to the Di- vine Inftitution it felf would have made it. VI. He that krtows to do good, and does it not, to him it is Sh ; and a Continuance in Sin, can bring no Supernatural Benefit or Ad- vantage. PROPOSITION I. Every Ejfential Fart of a Divine Pofitive Inftitution of Religion, is of Equal Obligation and NecelTity to us. DEMONSTRATION. This is evident, Firflr, from the very Nature of fuch an Inflitution, which (by Dejinitioni.) has no intrinfick excellency^ or moral Virtue to oblige us to obferve it, till the Divine Command lays that neceffity upon us ; fo that now we are obliged only by virtue ofthcJuthmty Com- mandi'ng ; which being but One^ ( /. e. That of God) muft necieffarily reach to every Ejfenual Part of the Inflitution, and thereby make them all of equal Authority and equally ne- ceffary and obliging to us ; becaule they are every one of tlie fame Nature as the Inftitution k felf (by Axiom i.) And • « Secondljcp The tntroduSiion^ ^j Secondly, This is further evident (from Definition 2. ) fince wc are conftamly bound to qhferve every fuch Effential Part as long as the Inftitution it lelf Ihall have any porce or Virtue. Therefore, fince every one of thefe Parts have but one Authority^ without any In^ herentVinuQ feparate therefrom ; and are alfo binding as long as the Inftitution (hall laft ; it muft needs be certain, that they are a/l of equal Obligation and Necefffty to us. But this is fo very plain ^t the firft Propofal, to all Intelli- gent Perfoijs, that it hardly deferves th^ Name of a Pfopofition to be Demonftrated ; and therefore I fhall not Ipfe more time about it. COROLLARY. HENCE it follows, that as no Human Authority can difpenfe with any Divine Pofi- tive Inftitution (^ Axiom j.) fo neither can Ithey give any Superiority of Excellency, or Necemty to one Effential Part thereof mor^ than to another, becaufe, they are all equally neceffary and obliging \ and have their whole Force and E^nergy merely frojn the Diving Command. PROPOSITION II "Whofoever juftly efteems ^n Ad {faicL to be done in furjuance of a Divine Pofitive In* fiittition^ tp be wholly Null and Invalid for ^ 0 ? \im 3^ The Introdii&ion. want of one Effential Part of that Inftitution, ought alfo to acknowledge^ that fuch an Ad is as much Null and Void, when it wants hut any other One Effential Fart of the lame Inftitu- tion. DEMON. For he can reafonably judge that Aft to be Invalid, only becaufe it is unlawful, or contrary to the Inftitution ; (^Axiom 4.) So that, the want of that Effential Part being un- lawful, he thence concludes the Invalidity of the Kdi : Now, forafmuch as all the Effential Parts of the Inftitution are of equal Authority and Neceffity to us (by the foregoing Prcpcfition^ it muft neceffarily follow, that the Omijfion of any one of them will be equally Unlanful or In- valid ; and confequently fuch a Deficient A£l, as wants any one of thofe Effential Parts, be- ing by him juftly efteemM Invalid, ought alfo for the fame Reajon to be efteemM as much In- valid, when he knows it to want hut any other One EJfential Part of the fame Inftitution : Which was the thing to be prov'd. COROLLARY. HENCE it unavoidably follows, that there can be no fuch Thing ^s a Partial Invalidity j thro' the Omiflion of any Effential Part of a Divine Pofitive Inftitution : For, if the Afl: be wholly Null for want of one fuch Part, it muft be alfo entirely Void for the want of any ^ Other The IntroduSiion. 39 otiier, by reafon of the Equal Authority and, Neceffity of every Eflential Part. PROPOSITION III. He who knows himfelf bound to conform to a Divine Pofitive Inftitution in all its Ejfen* fid PartSy and is convinced that he has not fo far conform'd ; can have no juft Grounds to expe£l the Supernatural Benefits annexM to that Inftitution, till he has done his utmoft for the Obtaining of them, by endeavouring an Entire Conformity to every Eflential Bart of the faid Inftitution. Demon. This wants but little Proof: For thus entirely to obey the Inftitution, is cer- tainly good; and he who knows this, and does it not, to him it is Sin; (^ Axiom 6.) which if he continues in, no Supernatural Advantage can accrue to him thereby, ( by the fame Axiom) much lefs thofe Benefits an^ nexM to the Obfervance of the Inftitution : And confequcntly, he ought to do his utmoft for the Obtaining of them, by endeavouring, ^c. as was to be demonftrated. D4 1^5^ 40 LAY-BAPTISM Invalid. An E S S A Y, &c. CHRISTIAN Baptifm, is a Divine Pofitive Inftitution of our moft Holy Religion ; wl^ereby 'tis appointed, that the APOSTLES, and their SUCCES- SORS, to the E^d of the World, fhould l^y Virtue of a Particular Commiffion which Chrtfi gave them for this Purpofe ] either themfelves in Perfon, or by THEIR SUBSTITUTES, enter into Difciplefliip, or into the Church of Chrift, All Nations, Baptizing them if^ the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Hdy Ghefl, 8cc. The Supernatural Privileges and Benefits annexM to this Inftitution, are. The Pardon of Sins, the Gift of the Holy Ghoft, and Eternal Life after Death : Or, as the Church of England words it, '' Being hy '' Nocture born in Sin, and the Children ofWrathj ^' we are hereby made the Children of Grace^ ^' Members of Chrifi, Children of God, ^d In^ *' heritors (or Heirs) of the Kjngdom of Hea- Sf ven: Which Va|l and Unfpeakable Ad- vantages none can ordinarily have any Right or Lay^Baptifmy &c. 41 /or Title to, but thofe who are duly admitted ^XQ them by this 0»e True Chriftian Baftifm. I'hat it is a Pofitive Inftitution^ is certain from hence; Becaufe, before the Divine Command enjoin'd it, we were never bound 10 obfervc it, either in whole, or in parr. AValliiag us th^n with Water ^ had no intrinfick pr moral Virtue, to give us any Sprit ud M- 'va/jtagas : Nor would it have had any thing more of Efficacy for that Purpofe, if we had been wafJiM with Water, and at the fame time ufed the Words, In the Name of the Fa^ ther^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghojl ; for thefe Words being pronounc'd, could then have had no more Virtue than others. Nei- ther would it have fignified any thing to us, whether we had been wafhM either by our felves alone^ or hy fome other Perfon ; pr whe- ther that other Perfon were a Common Man, or one fet apart by Confent of the People for that End. None of thefe Things could, by ^ny Excellency in their own Nature, hav0 conveyM to us any Spiritual Benefits whatfo- ever ; nor could we have been oblig'd, in a Religious Senfe, to obferve any one of them ; becaufe the Divine Cqmniand had not enjoin'd them. This, I fuppofe, all will acl^now- ledge ; and confequently, that our Qblig^tioa to receive ChrtjHan Baptifm^ 3.nd from them by whom it is orderM to be adminifterM, is i^hoUy founded upon the Divine Command^ on yfhkh alone d^p^uds the whole force and E- /^7 Lay-Baptifm nergy of a Divine Pofitive Inftitution of Re- ligion ; (according to Definition i. ) and that therefore the Adminiftration of Chriflian Bap- tifm in all its PartSy is no other than a mere Fofitive Infiitutwn^ exactly agreeable to the •faid Dsfimion. This being premised, I pro- ceed now todemonftratevvhatare theEflential Parts of this Great Inftitution of Chriftianity, m the Part of the Adminiftration thereof PROPOSITION I. That on the Part of the Adminiftration^ The Divine Authority of the Adminiftrator^ The Matter \_Water^^ and the Form of Admini- firing, [ In the Name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghoft^ ] are every one of them Ejfential Parts of the Divine PofitiVQ Inftitution of Chriftian Baptifm. DEMON. That the Water, and the Form of Adminiftration in the Name of the Trinity, are EfTential Parts of this Inftitution, was never difputed by any but Hereticks; and even thefe ( except fuch as the Quakers ) ne- ver oppos'd againft the Water\ being fo, but only againft the Form of Adminiftration in the Name of the Trinity. I fliall not make it my bufinefs to endeavour their Conviftion, who oppofethe plain and exprefs Words of the Inftitution, and from whence All Sound. and Orthodox Chriftians have unanimoufly a-j . gi*eec5, Invalid. ^^ greed, to pronounce Baptifm Null and Void, W'hen Adminifter'd without exprelRng the Names of all the three Sacred Per Jons ; becaufe fuch Baptiims are direftly againft the Inftitu- tion it felf. Taking it therefore for granted by all, who have any value for this Holy Ordinance, that the Water and the form of Adminiftratioa m the Name of the Trinity, are Effential Parts thereof; I fliall fpend no time about the Proof of it; but proceed to Demonilr ate, that the Divine Authority of the Admimftrator^ is alfo an Effential Part of the fame Inftitution ; or ( which is the fame thing ) that the Divine Authority of the Admimjirator^ is to be con- fiantlj obfery'd by us, as long as the utmoft Du- ration of the Force and Obligation of the Di- vine Pofitive Inftitution of ChrtjHan Bapttjm j And, that it is fo, will be evident, 1. From the General Confideration of God's making the Divme Authority of the Admimltrar tor^ to be an Ejfential Part of nis own Pofitive Inftitutions under the Mofaic Law. 2. By the Example of our Saviour's not ta* king upon him to Minifter in fuch Holy Things, till he was -particularly and externally Commtffion^d for that purpofe. J. From the Words of Inftitution of Chri-j ftian Baptifm. 4. From the Defign and Benefits thereof. 5- Froni 44- Lay^Baptifm 5. From the conftant Practice of thofe who traly arcj and of others who pretend to be the Lawful Mimfters of the Chriftian Church, 6. From the Doctrine and Pra^ice of the Church of England in particular. F/V/, I fay the General Confideration of God's making the Divine Authority of the Adminiftrator, to be an EfTential Part of his own Pofitive Inftitutions under the Mofaic Law, will go a great way towards proving the like under the Gofpel-Difpenfation ; be- caufe, the Things that were then written, were not written for their fakes only^ but alfo for our Example ( as the Apoftle has told us ) and as he has moft excellently argued, almoft throughout his whole Epiftle to the Hebrews^ wherein he makes the Comparifon between the Mofaic Law, and the Gofpel^ and gives a vaft preference to the latter before the former. 'Tis therefore worthy our Confideration, that in the Law, none could approach the Divine Prefence in the Adminiftration of his Pofitive Inllitutes, but thofe who were firfl: Juthoriz^d by him for that purpofe : And therefore we find that when Corahy Dathdrij and Ahirant^ exceeded their own Bounds no farther, than the Offering of Incenfe, there was no lefs than a Miracle wrought, the very Earth was made to open its Mouth and fwallow them, their Wives and their Children, and alj that tfiey lud; and a Fire from the Lord confum'cf Twq Invalid. d^c Two hundred ^nd fifty Princes, Accomplices with 'em in the fame Crime ; to make them a ftanding Example to future Ages, that none might Ufurp the Authority of Adminiftring in his Pofitive Inftitutions without a Com-- mifjion firft receivM from iiim. Nay, fo Jea- lous was God of this Honour ^ that he fuddenly ftruck lIz>zA dead, only for putting forth his Hand to fave the Ark (as he thought) from falling when it was fhook ; hts Z^al was no defence for him, God would not pardon, but punifli him for it, becaufe 'twas none of his Bufine[s to meddle in fuch Holy Things. So King Saul^ notwithftanding his Plea of A^^-* ceffity for want of a Prieft^ and the Danger of falling into the Hand^ of his Enemies before he had made his Peace with God, had liis Kingdom rent from him, for prefuming only to offer a Sacrifice himfelf, it being none but the Prieft's Office fo to do. More Examples of this kind might be broupht, but thefe I think are fufficient to fhew, that God fet fuch a mighty Value upon the Commjjion he gave to [ome Orders of Men^ that he would not ac- cept of, even his own Appointments^ wlien they were fropharU by UNHALLOWED, UNCOMMISSIONED Hands: And what is this, but to make the Divine Comrrnf}ion to be an Ejfemial Part of fuch Pofitive Inftitu- tions ? Infomuch, that if any fliould have knowingly concurred with thofe who ufurped it^ they would have made tliemfelves PARTA- KERS 46 Lay-Baptifm KERS in the Sin, as well as the Punifhment of the Ufurpers ; as we fee was exemplify'd in the Cafe of Corah and his Company, for no lefs than Fourteen tboufand [even hundred of them were deftroyM by a Plague, befides the great Number of thofe who were before fwal- low*d alive into the Earth, and burnt with Fire from the Lord : and if fo, may we not juftly infer that God is ftill as Jealous of This Honour under the Gofpel, the Minifters where- of being of fo much greater Dignity, by how much the Gofpel is more excellent than the Law o£Mofes f It is certain that even now, m the Chriftian Diffenfationy No Man can take this Ho?iour to himfelf\ hut he that is called of God^ as was Aaron ^ and Jaron\ Call wa^ not by his great Gifts ^ and the inward Dilates of the Spirit, but by an EXTBRNAL COM- MISSION firft given by God himfelf to Mofes^ and then by Mojes^ at the Command of God, to Aaron. But, Secondly J The Example of our Saviour's not taking upon him to Minifter in Holy Things between God and Man, till he was particularly and externally CommifftorH by God for that purpofe ; isa further Advance towards proving, that the Divine Authority of the Ad- miniftrator of Baptifm, is an Effential Part of this Inftitution. For, notwithftanding he was full of the Holy Ghoft, which was not given by Meafure, but entirely to him ; notwith- ftaRding his Manhood was infeperably united 10 Inmlid. 4y to the Second Pcrfon of the moft Glorious Trinity, whereby he was more than fuffici- ently, nay, infinitely gifted for fuch a purpofe; and notwithftanding the great Neceflities, and confequent Miferies of all Mankind, which were continually wanting his Undertaking to Adminifter for them in Things pertaining to God ; yet he kept himfelf in his fri Bapttfrri of fuch beneficial Offices ? Was he not fuffi- ciently gifted ? Yes certainly he was. Did not the Extream Mtjeries of Man's Spiritual Bondage call loudly for relief? beyond all doubt they did. Why then did not even Lom- fnffion it felf, the Bleffed Jefus, then perfonally among them, undertake their fpeedy Reicue ? Was it becaufe his Hour was not yet confie ? Doubtlefs it was not come ; but why ? be- caufe he had not yet received his COMMIS^ SION from his Father, So that, if our Lord's Example may be allowM in this Cafe to be Conclufive, it is plain, that not all the Gijts imaginable, nor all the frejjing ISIeceffities that may be pleaded, can ever of themfelves give lufflcient Warrant to Minifter Author it at iveljy for Men^ in things pretaining to God, when thofe things are of fuch a Nature, as that a Commtjfton from him muft be firft obtainM by the Perfon who undertakes to Adminifter: And that therefore fuch a Perfon ought to be dtdy CommiffiorM for fuch Adminiftrations. Now that Chriftian Baptifm is fuch an Infti- tution as necejfarily requires, and conflantlyfuf- pfes the Divine Authority of the Adminiftra- tor, I fhall endeavour to Demonftrate, Thirdly^ From the Words of Inftitution t And in order thereto, 'twill be very well worth while to obferve, that our Saviour, a little before his Afcenfion into Heaven, ap- pointed the ELEVEN APOSTLES, and THEMONLY (notwithftanding the vaft - Numbers Invalid i 49 Numbers of other Difciples whicfi he had at the fame time,) to go to a pai^ticular Moun-^ tain in Galilee^ which he had told them ofj (St. Mdtth^ 28. i6.) Where, when they were affembrd, he came to them, and firft afferted his Own Forver and Authority \9\\tvQ^it\\ he was Invefted, to Authorize and Commiffion them for the Great Office he was then going to con- fer on them, faying, All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earthy ver. 18. Whereby he fufficiently affur'd them^ that they rnight reft fecure and fatisfy'd, that The Commijfiofi he was going to give them was of full Force and Virtue, and fufficiently Valid to impower them to ad for the future according to the Contents thereof. And indeed the great things he was about to Authorize them to do, were of fo uncommon a Nature, and of fuch vaft Confequence to Mankind, that they might very well have doubted even of the J ufficiencj of their Commiflion, if our Lord had not thus fix'd their Faith in his Power and Authority ta give it them : When therefore he had thus prepared their Minds, he then proceeds to give thena This Commiffion as the Conjec^uent of that Power which was given him over all things; faying, GO YE THEREFORE and Teach (or rather) DISCIPLE ALL NATI- O N S, B A PT I Z I N G THEM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOSTy teaching them to obferve all things ^hatfoever I 5d Lay-Baptifm have commanded, you \ AND LO I AM WITH YOU ALWAY, EVEN UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. Thefe are the Words of .Inltitution of Baptifm, wherein 'tis clear at firft fight, that tlie Eleven Afoftles were the peculiar Perfons to whom the Authority of Bap- tizing was committed \_Go ye'] and not only they, but alfo all thofe who fhould fucceed them, to the end of the World ; ILo I am with you always ' even unto the end of the World] ; for our Saviour's Prortiife to be with them Jo lo/?g^ cannot poiTibly be meant of their parti^ cular Perfons which were not to live to the end of the World, and therefore it muft fignify the Jpoflles in another Senfe, ^'i;s^. thofe whom THEY and THEIR SUCCESSORS Ihould Appoint throughout all Ages. So that, by the Words of Inftitution above-* fecited, it plainly appears, that as long as the World fcall laft, The Jpojlles and their Succef^ fors are the Perfons Commiffion^d to Difciple the Nations, Baptizing th^m^ and hereby 'tis mcejjarily implfd^ that ^ often as this OneBap^ tifk is performed, fo often 'tis done by 0}2e wht> has this Commiffion given to him y otherwife the Promife of being with fuch Commiffiodd Perfons to the end ot the World, would have been in vain and of na neceflity : And if it were not defigM by the Inftitution, that Bap- tizing fliould be perf€)rm'd to the end of the World by a Succeffor of the Apoftles or his Sul^ pitutc ^ it might for the very fame Reafon be faid^ In'valid^ 5 1 faid, that teaching was not defign'd to be by fuch a Succejfor td the end of the World, and fo the whole Commiffion would be but Temforary^ and confequently the MINISTERS of Chrift, and BAPTIZING and TEACHING would be but Temporary ; and Chrift's Promife of be- ing with his Apoftles in thefe their Miniftra- tions to the end of tlieWorld, would have been made without any defign of fulfilling it, which is a Blaffhemom Contradi^iton to the Infallible Veracity of our Bleffed Lord ; and therefore as long as the World (hall laft, there muft be ■Baptizing^ and as long as there fhall be Bap- tizing, there muft be fuch a One to perform ir, as Chrift has promised to be with, viz, a Sue- cejjor to ths JpojHes or his Suhflttutey to the ut- moft bounds of that Dwration. For 'tis very remarkable, that Chrift does not here fay, Lo I am with Baptizing^ Lo I am with Teaching alway, i^c. But, GO YE, Baptizing, Teaching, and LO I AM WITH YOU. The Prumife ( of his Prefence and Concurrence) is, to be with THEM, not with the Jfits fefarate from them, but with THEM performing and doing thofe Afts; and becaufe tis to be with Them Baptizing alivay even to ths End of the World, and becaule their particular Perfons were not to continue here lb long, therefore THEY are necelTarily TO B E in fome other, refpeft always, i5c. And this can be no otherwife than by Succeffion ; and then the SuQceffim muft be fuch, as that it may be E 2 juftly 5^ Lay^Bapiifm jtiMy called Them, othervvife Thoje to whom the Promife was made will in all refpefts ceafe to bs, and confequently the Promife it felf will be of no efFeft, which is abfurd* This Suc- ceffion then muft be liich, as that the Apoftles muft remain to the End of the Wprld; and that can be by no other way than One of thefe Two, either f/r//, by God himfelf miracii- loufly interpofing always to appoint their Sue- cefTors, which he has no where promis'd to do, and therefore this is not to be expefted' ; or Sccojidly^ By the Apoftles continuing them^ fehes in a Succeflion by feme AQt of their own, viz. by a Spiritual Generation of fuch as may in one refped or other be themfelves ; that is, by their Ordaining, fuch as they were, and Verting them, fome with the whole ordp- nary Af^fiolick Authority , and otliers with part thereof; to the intent, that all who aft in the Sacred Funftion of Baptizing, whether in a Higher or Lower Degree, may be juftly En- tit u led to have this Promife verify 'd and made good v^ith refpeft to their Aft^ Lo I am with you [Baptizing] alway : For if he who Bapti- zes be not One of the \Tou'] an Apoftle or Sent of Chrift, in a Higl^or Lower Degree, to whom the Pwimife was made, his Ad can claim no Rigfit to the Promife, and therefore will be a CoHtradi^iion to this Sacred Inftituti- on. So that it muft neceflarily follow, that rhislnftitution requires Baptifm always to be Adminiftrcd by One Vefted with Apoftolick Authority^ Invalid. 5:^ Authority, either in whole or in part, to the End of the World. THIS will further appear from the Nature of a Commiffion^ which is lixdufiveoidW others, but thofe to whom it is given ; for 'tis well known, that when a Prince gives a Commiffwn to any of his Subjefts for the executing of fome great Office^ it is with defign to appropriate that Office to that particular Subjeft, that ^o/^e may ad in it but he, and thofe whom he fhall Authorize : So here. The Commifflon of Bap- tizing, gifc. given by our Saviour to his Jpoflles a»d their SuccejforSy i^c. to the End of tlie World, is excluftve of all others, and confer- quently none can ad therein to the Purpofes for which the CommiflTion was given, but they and fuch as they (hall Authorize for that purpofe ; and therefore it neeeflarily follows, that the Adminiflrator of Baptifm muft have the Divine Commiffion or Authority, before he prefume to Ad in this fo Appropriate an Office and Miniftration. Once more : The Words of Inftitution are a Peremptory Command of our Bleffed Lord, re-^ quiring His Apoftles and their Succeffors, and fuch as are or fhall be Ordain'd by them, exprefly to Difciple all Nations, Baptizing them. His Command is Exprefs and Pofitive, Goye^ Baptizing. They are conftantly bound therefore to Difciple, by Baptizing / 54- Lay '-Bapttfm Command, when 'tis in their power, to Bap- tize all fuch Perfons, becaufe the Command is laid upon them, and no other ; fo that if at any time a capable Perfon offers himfelf, or is offer'd, to any of them to be receivM into the Church by his Baptizing of him ; (fuppo- fing that Perfon never to have been before fo received by One of them into the Church) th^ proper Minifterof Chrift refufing fo to receive him, will by fuch refufal neceffarily give us to underifand, either that he difcegards the Exprefs Command of our Saviour.whichis a Sin againft this Inftitution ; or elfe, that the Inftitution does not command liira, or any other Minifter of Chrift to perform this Office to all capable Perfons, who have not been fo initiated by fome one or other of them,, whicli is a Contradiflion to this exprefs Command ; becaufe it will always hold true concerning a Perfon fo refused ; That theMinifters of Chrift were commanded to Difciple him, Baptizing him, and yet not one of them has ever fd Difcipled him. They were commanded 'to do this, and rtot one of theni has done itj which, if fuch Refufal be right, is making the Command to be of none eflefl:,and fo deftroys tlie Obl'gatton of the Inftitution it felf, becaufe, none elfe are commanded thereby to perfornt this Sacred Office, and confequently none elfe have any Duty incumbent upon them ( but the direft contrary as we fhall fee by and by) ibr that purpole > and therefore by reafon of our ; Invalids 55 our Saviour's Command, thq Divine Autho- rity of the Adminiftrator is an EiTential Part of the Inftitutionof Baptilm- ' But the Form of Adminiftring Baptifm ( in the Name of the F^ther^ and of the ^on^ and, of the Holy Ghoji ) being : Eifential, for even the Vdidity thereof, , is an invincible Argument; for the Divine Authority of the Admimfyator^ that it fliould. be alfo aa Ejfennal Part of this Inftitution, ♦becaufe, as often ^s any one Ad- miniflers Baptifm truly and rea/lj in. the Name of the Trinity, lb often he ejifnejly affirms, and that truly toOy that he does it by Virtue of that Power and Authority which he receivM from the Trinity for fo doing. This will be evident beyond ContradiLtioii, when we im- .partially enquire into the j//// Meaning and comnion Acceptation of theExpreirion [^Inthe ISIdme of] vyhen us'd by one who Afts for ano= .ther ; which we Qiall conft antly find iignifies, that he 'vyho comes, and does any thing in another's Naii>e, does it by iijs Power a^d Authority >yhp; fent hiiri.: ^' Thus Bleffed h ^ he thap:,€ometh in the .Name of the Lord^ (Pfal. 11 8. 2,6) is the famp, as Bleffed be he whom the Lovd hath Sent, or who comes with the Authority and Commiffion which the Lord hath given hini. So When \y^v\^s young Men -' camcy theyfpake to Nabal according to ailthofe ^' words y inthe N^me o/ David (i Sa?n. 25. 9.) 'tis no more than if it had been faid, they fpake (Q NlAbd according to all thqfe Words, ;B 4 ar4 56 Lay^Baj^tifm and made ufe of David*s Name to let Nabal know that he Se^t them. Thus again, '^ Hag- '* gai the Prophety 8cc. Vr of hefted unto the Jetvsy ^^ in the Name of the God of Jfrael, (Ezra. 5. It) What is this but to fay that Haggai prd- phefied what God had Senty and Ordered him to Prophefy to 'em ? When our Saviour fays, *' I am come in mj Father^ Name (John 1 5. 4 J .) He plainly declares that he was Sent by his Father, or came by his particular Appointment. Again, when our Bleffed Lord affirms, " The " Works that I do in my Father^ s Name they hear *' Witnefs of me^ (John jo. 2 5. J he in plain Terms afferts, that he did thofe Works by Virtue of that Power and Authority which he had receivM from his Father. And Laflly^ (to name no more Texts to this purpofe) When St. Pml fays, '''I—havejujged already^ — IN THE *^ NAME of our Lord jefus Chri/ly—to deliver ^* fuch a one (i.e. the Inceftuous C(7r/W;/^» ) untoSatan^ &c. i Cor. V. Jj 4, $. He plainly afferts, that it is by Authority received frorii our Lord Jefus Chrift, that he adjudgM and determined that Sinner to be excommunicated. So when a Magiftrate declares that he afts ra the Name of his Prince, every one immedi- ately underftands thereby that he a&s by the Authority which he receivM from him ; but this is too plain to want more Examples ; and therefore we may juftly conclude, that every time the Minirter fays, I Baptize thee in the Nsme of the fat her y and of the Sony and of the ' Holy Invalid. 57 Holy Ghoft^ It is the fame as to fay, I Baptize thee by Virtue of that Authority and Commtffion which I have receiv'd from the Father, the Son, and the Jloly Ghoft; and therefore when he Baptizes a Perfon, and pronounces the Words, In the Name of the Father ^ ice. if he be one who is not vefted with the Divine Authority, he cannot be truly faid to Baptize in the Name of the Trinity ; for 'tis a perfeft Contradi^ion to fay fuch a ihing is truly done in the Name of another^ when really it is not done in his Name^ or by his Authority and Com- miffim^ which is the only intelligible way of doing fomething in another's Name. Thus we fee how our Lord has infeparably United the Divine Authority o£ tliQ Adminijlrar tor J with the truth and reality of the Form of Jtdminijlration ) infomuch, that the Form it felf is no further true, as to the Defign there- of, than as it is attended with the Truth and Reality of the Divine Commiffion given to him^ who Adminifters; fo that, whenfoever this- Form is truly us'd according to the Intent of this Inftitution, the Divine Authority and Commiflion of him who Adminifters, is ne^^ cejfarily and confiantly imply'd and fupposM. And really if we examine into all the Divine Tofitive Injlitutions that ever were made, we ftiall find none of them (b indifpenfibly require the Divi?$e Authority of the Adminiftrator, and attended with fuch a Solemn Form of AfTerting and Declaring his Authority every time of Ad- miniftrai 5^ Lay-Baptifm miniftration, as we find in th^ Divine Pofitive inilitution of Chriftian.Baptifm, which en-^ joyns this Form in the Name; [or by the, Au- thority of the Trinity ] to be conftantly ob- fervM and usM to the E/d of the World:^ and confequently, the Divine Authority pf the Adminiftrator of Baptifm, i^ m EJfemal Paf^t of that Great Inftitution. But here I expect fome wr^l tell me, Xhaf I lay too much Strefs upon the Form of Aci- rniniftring Baptifm w the Name of the Trinity;; becaufe in the Greek it is faid, Go je^ ^^. Baptizing them into the Name (inftead of m the' Name") of the Father, '^c. And \X\q} in the Name fignifies hy the Authority and Commijjion of the Trinity, yet into the Name does not fignify fo, but rather, into the Belief and Ser- vice of the Trinity ; which does not imply fo neceflarily the Divine Authority of ^I^e lAdqi^ niftrator, as I plead for. , -; . ^; ,'| ; •, Tq whom I anfwer, That tho^the Greek j3oes fignifie Into the Name^'^^ct it dpes not therefore follow that this is the O/^/j.Senfe of the Word in the Original Language wjierieia St. Matthew wrote his Gofpel, which the beft Criticks afFi;:m W3.s Hebreiv^ otSjro-Chaldaicky the Language of the jfai7.f .ia our Saviour's Time, whereof the Greek is but a Tranflatioq. 'Tis certain, that the Univerfal Church of Chrift has in all Ages retained, and conftantly praftisM the Form in the Nmte of the Tnnft^y i aud all AnciQnt and Modern Tranflations (rom Invalid. 5^ from the Greek it felf, have inferted in the Text of the Inftitution In the Name^ rather than Into the Name, : Which plainly intimates, that the former is the moft Genuine Senfe of St. Mdhheivh Original Word ; and therefore, fuiEciently authorizes me to lay fo great a Strefs upon the Ufual Form of Adminiftring Baptifm In the Name of the Trinity. Which neGeflarily fuppofes the Adminiftrator thereof to be veiled with the Divine Power and Corn- million ; wherein I am the more confirmM by the 26th Article of the Church of £;^^/^;^^, which exprefly affirms, That the Adminiftra^ tor does Minifter by " ChriJPs Commijfwn md '' Authority. Dr. Hammond indeed, in his Practical Ca- techifm, Lib. 6, §. 2. mentions the Greek [ into the Name'] ; but then, he applies it only to the Part of the Perfon Baptized, and fays, that it fignifies, " That he devotes and delivers ^v himfelf up to be ruled^ as an Obedient Servant y ^^ by the Directions of this Great Mafler^ a wil- ^' ling Difciple of this Bleffed Trinity. But this is nothing to our prefent Purpofe ; which is only to enquire, what the Form of Admi- niftration fignifies on the Minifter's Part : And this the fame Author tells us in the forecited place ; viz. " That the Words [ / Baptize thee " in the Name of the Father^ and of the Son^ f ^ and of the Holy Ghofl ] being prefcriPd by *^ Chriji to his Difciple s ( i. e. Apo files ) muft ^' indtfpenfibly be us d by all in the Adminiftra- f tion • and the Meaning of them on the Mmtjler'^s " Pars 60 Lay^Baptifm *•' Pari ts^ That rvhat he does^ he does mt of " himfelf, but IN THE NAME or Power of, ^' or by Commijfion from the Blejfed Trinity. Nay, tho' the Minifter in Baptizing (hould fay, i Baptize thee into the Name of the Father, ^c. (^which would be contrary to the Univerfal Form ) yet even then he would thereby affert the Divine Comrmiflion by which he afted : Becaufe, on his Part, Bap- tizing the Perfon into the Name^ muft Tignify, that by that Aftion he admits him into the Service of the BlelTed Trinity : Which being a Service of Infinite Benefit, and attended with Ineftimable Supernattiral Rewards to the Perfon admitted, mull neceffarily fuppofe the Perfon admitting, to be vefted with a parti- cular Power, and Supernatural Authority for fo great a Purpofe ; becaufe, m Natural Potver or Authority is fufficient to confer any the leaft Supernatural Benefit or Advantage. But this Truth will be further confirmed, by the Arguments that may be drawn, fourthly, From the Defign and Benefits of Chrifl:ian Baptifm. For, "by the Words of In- ftitution 'tis plain, that the Defign thereof is to Dffciple all Nations; (St. Matth, 28.) or, which is the fame thing, to enter them into the Church of Chrifl: ; which in feveral Pkr ces of Sacred Scripture, is called the Kjngdom of God, and the KJngdom of Heaven. Now 'tis evident to whom our Saviour gave the /J/jj of the Kingdom of Heaven ; vtz,, to his Ap®ftlt;s Imaltd. 6 1 Apoftles exprefly, and in them to thQivSuccef^ fors\ and confequently, that he gave to therit^ and thofe only whom they fhould authorize, the Supernatural Power of Admitting Perfons into the Church by Baptifm, which is the only Rite of Initiation into this Sacred So- ciety. One of the great Privileges of True Chri- ftian Baptifm, is, That it is for the Forgive* nefs of Sins : This is a Supernatural Benefit ; and therefore it may be juftly ask'd, Who can forgive Sins, but God only : And if none can, then certainly no Man can alTume to himfelf the Power of Conveying this Forgive- nefs of Sins to others by the Means of Baptifm, except he be endowed for that Purpofe with Power from on high^ even from God himfelf: And if any fhould, without the Divine Com- miflion, fuppofe himfelf to have this Power, 'tis plain, that his Miniftrations muft be in- efFeftual for fo great a Purpofe, becaufe he is deftitute of the Divine Character : He does not truly perfonate God, the Beftower of this great Privilege, but runs without being fent ; and God has not any where, either by Promife or Covenant, oblig'd himfelf to Ra- tify and Confirm the Precipitate Ads, and Ufurp'd Adminiftrations of fuch Rafh and Prefumptuous Undertakers. But we know to whom our Lord gave this Authority ; viz, to his Apoftles, ( and therefore will confirm iheir A£t§) when he (aid, VVhofefosvsr Sms j-e " remit ^ 6l Lay-Bapiifm *' remit ^ they are remitted unto them ; arid therefore they only^ and fuch as they appoint, can Mediately remit Sins by Chriltian Bap- tifm. Another great Privilege of Chrifikn Baptifm hy That they who receive it. are thereby in-^ titPd to all the unffeakable Advantages of Free Denizens of Heaven^ tho' they were before but Aliens and Strangers^ and therefore had no Claim, nor any Right or Title to this Freedom. Now, let any Man but ferioufly refleft, how unreafonable 'twould be for a Stranger and Foreigner in any State or King- dom, to imagine, that every, even Natural Subjecl there, couM have Authority to grant him a Valid Naturalization^ and thereby en- dow him with all the Rights and Immunities \vhich the Free-born Subjefts of that State or Kingdom do enjoy ; would it not be Ridicu- lous for him to accept (knowingly) of fuch a pretended Naturalization ? And if he fhould ; can it be thought reafonable, that he fliould enjoy all the Advantages annexed to a True and Lawful Naturalization, to be receiv'd from the Haijds of thofeonly who are Autho- rizM for that purpofe ? Certainly No ; a well Regulated State or Kingdom that has Laws for Naturalizing Strangers, would never al- low it ; and fliall it then be once thought, that every SubjeB^ of how mean a Station fo^ ever he be in this Spiritual Kingdom of Gody can have Authority to Intitle Strangers to aill £h<3 Invalid. 6:^ the fupernaturd Advantages which are confe^ quent to a Legal ami Valid N^'uraltz^ation ? And indeed all the Benefits and Privileges of True Ghriftian Baptifm are Jo great and mmy^ that it would be endlefs to recount them ; let it fuffice to fay, that it is a Sign, a Seal, a Means of Conveyance, and a l^Ledgs to affure us of thefe Supernatural Advantages^ 'viz,, of being Incorporated into the Houjhold^ and thereby made Members^ of Chrift, ChiU dten of God, and Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven, and of all the unfpeakable Happi- neltes thereof, which Eye hath not feen, nor Eif heard neither have enter'd into the Heart of Man to Conceive. N O W> if any reafonable unprejudiced Man will but duly refleft on thefe fo inconceivable and ineftimable Privileges, fo infinitely above air the Powders of Nature, either to Obtain or Beftow, without fome fupernatural Dona- tion, 'twill be very difficult, nay, I may fay, tmfoffihle for him to believe, that God, who is the God of Order, and not of Co^fufio/j, will feertow them by the Mediation of thole to whom he has given no Authority for that Pui'pofe : Efpecially, when he remembers, that Gt)d has ftt apart a Peculiar Order of Men, to ht'the^'^td^Pards6it\\t{Q\m Myfleries^ and to wliom-he ha^ giv'n the Power of the Keys^ t^ljepeby tOHdmic into, and exclude out of his Spiritual Kiilvt^om^ as the Sacred Scripture dO'S'fuffickiKly inform us; Thefe Men he has 64 Lay-Baptifmi has dignifyM with extraordinary Marks and fignal CharaLler ol Honour^ znd feparated them from the reft of Mankind ; that they might refrefent his Sacred Prefence among us, and that we might have a ftrong Confidence and well- grounded AlTurance of their Divine Miffion^ and of our own Happinefs in being admitted through Baptifm into the Number and Privi-^ leges of his Children, by their Juthoriz^^d Minifirdtion, For the Baptifm wherewith they initiate us into Chrift's Spiritual Kingdom, is not Theirs^ but HIS, 'tis He that Baptizes us by their Miniftry. His Father fent him to be the One Mediator between God and Man ; as fuch, He fent His Apoftles and their Succeflbrs, to be His Refrefentativesy to perform Afts of Medi- ation between God and Man in his Steady and by his Authority, that fo they might be HIS OWN ACTS, and become therefore accepta- ble to His Father for our Spiritual Benefit and Advantage : For, fays he to thefe fame Apo- ftles whom he authorized to Baptize ; As my Father hath fent me^ even fo fend lyou : Lo, I AM mth you alway ; thereby making them to perfonate himfclf, that he, tho' in Heaven, might vifibly here on Earth, mediate for us himfelf by their Miniftry, which is HIM- SELF, becaufe they aft by his Authority, be- ing fent by him : without him no Miniftratj- ons in our behalf can be acceptable to his Father : For, fays he, no Man cometh to the Father Invalids G< Bther BUT BY ME, Joli. xiv. 6. AU with^ out me ye can do noihmg^ Joh xv. <;, Hence we Had why the Scripture fays that "Jefus made and Bapt!z,d Dtfaples, Joh. iii. 22. iv. i^ be- Cttule He did it by thofe whom he had fent for that piirpofe: For, verfe 2. Jefa htmjelf [/. d in Jus own Perfon] Baptized not, but his Dif- -.ples : He Bapuzed,but^twas by them,vefted with his Authority \ and thereby it became his own Aft; even fb, that Baptifm might always be juftly interpreted to be don^ by him ( vvho is the only proper Mediator, and whole Mediatorial Ads alone, are, as fuch, accepcable to his Father, in our behali.) He Vefted his Apoftles and their Succeirors, and fuch as are Ordain'd by them, with HIS OWN AUTHORITY to Baptiz;e to the End of the World, that they might perforate him in this Act of Mjdiationy and that eonfequently HE might continue to make and Baptiz.e Dtfii-, fles by their Miniftry ; which he cannot be faid to do, by the A£t of one whom he never fent : For which Reafon, added to thofe others I have brought under this 4th Head, we may truly fay, That the Divine Authority of him- who Adminifters Baptifm is an Eifential Part of that Holy Inftitution. But thisisconHrm'd alfo, .. /J • Fifthly^ By the conftant Praftice of thofe who truly are, and of others who pretend to be, the Lawful Minifters of Ghrift in his CJhurch. F THE 6,6 . Lay-Ba^tifm THE L^nf/d Minifiers in all Ages have claimM the Authority of Baptizing, even from the tioie of our Saviour's firjl giving the Com- miflion to his Eleven Apoltles, unto this Day^ and for this very Reajon^ becaufe they Derh'^d their Minifterial Power and Authority from Chrift : But if the Divine Authority of the Adminiflrator of Baptifm vi^ere not an Effcn- tial Part of that Inftitution, their Claim would have been unjuft when founded upon their D/- vme Rig^^Jt^ and fo every Man would have had as much Authority to Bapti2:e as they : But fbrafmuch as they were never accused of In-' juftice for making this Claim, (except by fuch- Wretches as the Author of the Rights^ &c.- who would confound all Order m the Chri- ftian' Church O^J^d finceaH Sober Cbtiftians, who know their Duty, never laid Claim to this Authority; it neceffarrly follows, that the Lawful Minifter's Claim is? good, and confe- qjLiently that the Divine Authority of him wfaa Adminifters^ is an EfTential Part of Baptifm. A S for thofe who fret end to be, but are not, the Lawful Mim'fters of Chrift ; 'tis well known, that tlifey plead for the Authority of Baptizing upon this very fcorcy that they efteem their Minifterial Commiffion to be of Divine Right ; and therefore will never fuffer their Common Peofle to Adminifter Baptifm :• From whence it follows, that they alio tnfra-* ^//^^ confirm this Affertionof the Divine Au- ifeh'ority of the Adminiftrator of Baptifm : other- wife^ invalids > 67 "^ik their claiming the Power of Baptizing, by Virtue of the f apposed Divine Right of their Miffion, would be a: meer foolery, and indeed a Contradiftiori. SO that, the Lawful Minifter's claiming the Authority of Ba;ptizing, becaufe his Miffion is truly of Divine Right ; and the unlawful Mi* nifter's claiming the fame Authority, becaufe he efleems his MiflTion alfo to be of Divine Right, do both confpire by their Pra£tice to Confirm' this Truth, That the Divine Autho- rity of the Adminiftrator of Baptifm is an Ef- fential P'art of that Holy Inftitutibri ; and this is not a little Corroborated, Av.if)X) Sixthly and Laftly, From' the Doflrine and Pra(9:ice of the Church of England. For in her 2jd Article- of Rfligion, flieaf- firms, That ** it is not Lmful for any Man to " take upon him the Oiiice of Miniftring the ^^ Sacraments^ &c. before he be Lawfully calTd " <^;;^/^;?/^ to execute the fame. Now what can this Article mean by [ it is not Lawful?^ Gertairtly nothing elfe but that it is Sinful, or' Contrary to the Divine Law in the Holy Scrip. Cure, for fhe is not treating ofCivily but Spiri-^ t-ual Things. But againft what hsiW in the Sa- cred Scriptures is this a Sin ? Surely againll:' that Law which treats of thefe Sacrament Sy and'. this Law is principally in the Inftitution of them ; fo that the plain meaning of this Arti- cle muft be, that it is contrary to the very In- ftitution of the Sacraments for any Man to take F 2^ 'i^ upon 68 Lay^Baptfm upon him " the OiEce of Admlniftring them^' '^ before be be Lawfully calPd and fent to ex^ *' cute the fame. A N D in her 26th Article fhe teaches^ *^ that the Adminiftrators of the Sacraments " do not Minifter in their own Name, but in *' Chart's, and by h\s Commijjion and Author ity^ AND left every One who h^is acquired (tho' not juftly) the Reputation of being fuch a Lawful Minifter, fhould fancy himfelf to have ChrijPs Commiffiony becaufe the People made choice of him, and fome others of higher Rank among them, took upon them to Ordain him, Separate from, andlndepen* dent of the Bifhop \ In the Preface to her Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Confecrating of Bi- fhops^ Priefts, and Deacons, fhe teHs us thus y. *' It is evident unto all Men diligently reading *' Holy Scripture^ and Ancient Authors, that *^ from the Jfojtles time there have been thefe *^ Orders oi Minifters in Chrift's Church, *^ Bifbops^ Priejis and Deacons ; which Offices •^ were evermore had in fuch Reverend Efti- ^' mation, that ^^^iV/^/; might prefume to exe- *• cute any of them, except he by Pub- *' lick Prayer,withImpofition of Hands, were ^ approved, and admitted thereunto by Larv" ** //// Authcrity. [ And what fhe means by this Lawful Author ityy is plain by the Words immediately following.] *^ And therefore, tS^'r^ ♦^ No Man ihall be accounted, or taken to be ** a Law- Invalid. 69 *^ a Lawful Bifbop, Prieft or Deacon, In tin ^' Church of England^ or fuffer'd to execute ^* any ofthefaid Funa:ions,except he be calTd, ^ 6jff. thereunto, according to the Form here- '' after following, OR HATH HAD FOR. ^' MERLY EPISCOPAL CONSECRATI- '' ON; OR ORDINATION; whereby Ihe confines the lawful Authority, fo evidently to Epifeopacy ; that a Man muft be wiltuily blind who dares to deny it. ALL which put together, fufficiently prove /that by the Doftrine of this Church, the Di- vine Authority of the Adminiftrator of Chri* •ftian Sacraments, is an Effential Part of their inftitution; and confequently, that the Di- vine Authority of the Adminiftrator of Bap- tifm (which is one of thofe Sacraments) muft be alfo an Effential Part of that Holy In- ftitution. SO ii.kewife by her Pradice flie confirms this^ Truth ; for in her Office of Ordering of Priefts, the Bifliop fays to the Prieft: " Re- ** ceive the Holy Ghoft for the Office and ^' Work of a Prieft in the Church of God no^ ^' committed unto thee by the Impofition of our " Hand§. Whofe Sins thou doft forgive, ^^ they are forgiven ; and whofe Sins thou ^^ doft retain, they ar^ -retained. And be ^' thou a faithful Difpenfer of the Word of ^* God, and of his Holy Sacraments^ in the ^' Name of the Father, and of the Son, and " of the Holy Ghoft, Ame^. And delivering F J W 70 La/rBaptifm to the Prieft k^eeliqg, the Bible into his Hand, the Biflipp adds, "Take thQuApTUO'^ " RITY to freafh the \Vord ofGody and to Mi- *^ nifter the Holy Sacraments. By. alji which 'cis plain, that fbe reckons the Adm^iniftration of the Sacraments to be Ejfential tp fhp Office of the Prieft, ajid that he mujlhaye Cpwm^f' [ton even from the Holy Trinity j l?y ?:he Mer djacion of the Bilhop, conveyM |p i>im, to qualify and authorize hipi to adipini.fter thp fame. And in Conformity to tli^s her Rule of Praflice, whea any Perfgn, tho' formerly a Teacher^ and oiie who has affum'd to himfelf before, the Power pf haftizwgdindi ^dmini- ftring the Ldr^V Supper^ notwithftanding his liaving continued ^ven in the tolerated Pr2iQi\c6 bf thefe Ufurpations for many Y^ars tpgetheF, jiay, tho' chofen thereto by the Cqnfent of {he People, who fubmitted to, and acknbwledgM all fuch his Miriiftrations to be Falid md Gpod^ when fuch a Man, I fay, forfakes his BerefieJ or Schtfmsy arid returns, or defires to be uni- ted, to her Communion, arid to be reckoned ia the Number, and to h'^ve Licenfe to act as one of^^r lanful Mm/fers, fhe will not allow him fuch a Licenfey he muft be received only to' Lay Communiony if he was never before di^ innhly author iz? id ' by hnpofition of Epi] copal Hands^ and now refufes to accept fuch t^tho'- lick Ordination : She thereby declares that he Wants the Divine Qomrnifjion to a,ft in fuch Ho^ ly Miniftrations, and that ih^e will not >icquf efce Invalid. - 71 irice with his former Uiurpations ; he muft dif^ claim and renouncs them now>, if in her Com- munion he would be allowed to Officiate in the Word and Sacraments, as the reil of her Mi- nifters do. But why all this, if his Power and Authority liad been fuffiaent before, for the Purpofesof the Holy Sacraments? If his CommilGon was good then, 'tis fo noA^, and 'tis needlefs to Re-ordain him ; but if it was Invalid^ fhe a£ts confident with her felf in re- fufing to admit him among her Minifters, TO WHOM ALONE (he gives Authority for thefe great Purpofes. And really it ought not to be diifembPd, that if fuch a Man's Admi- niftrationsof the Sacraments were before^^^r^^- ahle to, and not Breaches of their Inttitution, his Miniftry before was alfo valid ; and there- fore 'twould be even un]uji to require him to take up a new Commiffion^ and from ANO- THER SORT of Authority than what he had received it from at firft ; becaufe the Defign of handing down Chrift's Commiffion to Mi- nifters, vn all Ages, is, that there may be con- ftantly fuch Perjons to adminifter the Holy Sacraments, as he in the firft Inftitutioa of thofe Sacraments did authorize and require : But forafmuch as the Church of EngUj^d re-^ quires fuch Perfons, as above-mentioned, to receive the Divine AuthoriPy^^hich ftie reckons .they wanted before, to qualify them for the Adminiftration of Sacraments, 'tis plain that fhis her Practice difcourages us to hope, tiiat p 4 with- 7 ^ i^ •* Bapttfm withoQt the Divine Authority they are quali- fyM for fuch Miniftrations ; and confequtntly confirms us ^n chis, that the Divt?ie Commfffian of the Adminiftrator is an Ellential Part of the Inftitution of a Sacrament. 'N?.yS fo very Cautious is Ihe, nor lO allow the t^/^/^'^rv, that file raiakes not fo niuch as any Exception for Cafes of ii-bfolute NaceffU) ; no, not tho' an ufi- baptizM Perfon were giving up the G. oft, ihe has hot declared that any one may hap izc hitti but the Mimjier of th, Farijh\ or i'a ins Ablence any othQV lawful Mmflerth?xx^ii\ be procurM; as in her Office for private Baptijm^ which is the only Office flie has provided for Cafes Of Neceffity: And what fhe means in the Rii- brick thereof, by imfui: Mimfter^ is eafily de- termined by her 26th Article of Religion, viz. *^ One who minifiers m Chrijlls I^amcj and by his *^ Commiffion and Authority, ! But of this I have treated more largely in iny Book of Diffenters Baptifms null and void by the Articles^ Canons^ and Ruhricks of the Church of England : To which give me leaVe to add here, that in her Offices for PuUick Bap- tifr/i^ file repuires the PRIEST to addrefs to God in behalf of the baptized thus. " Grant *' that r\'hoJoever is /?^r^' ( as.in the Office for Infants); Or, ^^ T^hat theyheinghere {2i%vc\X\SQ Office for thofe of Riper Years) " DEDICA- f* TED to thee by OUR OFFICE AND MU \^ NISTRY, may alfo be endued with heavenly \\ Virtues^'' 8cc. '^'his Dedicasion of Perfons to i'^-^ * -• ■. God God by Baptifm, is plainly aflerted here by tiie Church, to be, by the Office^ of thofe who \n-\ her 26ch Article (he fays) " Mtmjler in ^^■Ctjrijl-s Namcy and by his Commijfion and Ati^ 'M'thority\ plainly Connefting the Divine Au- • thorjty of the Adminiftrator of Baptifm, with the Baptifm it felf, and fo clofely too, that fhe no where in any of her Publick Afts, gives us the lead encouragement to think that this De- dication can be by any other; and therefore, what God and his Church have [o joynU to- gether^ Let no Man put afunder, '^•^ A N D now to fum up all that has been laid under thefe Six Heads. F O R A S M U C H as God under the Mf^ fate Difpenjation^ which was but the fore-run^ net oi\\\t'Chnjfian^ made the Divine Autho^ r/>; of the Adminiftrator an Effential Part of his then Pofitive Inflitutibns/ infomuch as Hot to accept of the Performance of the latter ^vithqut the former: Forafmuch, as Chrifl himfelf, notwithftanding his Own ^etfonal £a- cellencies and Perfe^ions^ and the prefpng Ne^ cejjities of the whole World, which ftqod ia need of his Miniftrations, would not leaveliis frivate Station to take upon him fo great an Office till duly Authorized by the Divine £jf- ternd Commijjion : Forafmuch, as in the Words •of the Inftitutibn of Baptifm, our Lord Com- itiiffionM no other th^in his Eleven Apoflles and, their Succeflbrs and Subftitutes to Baptize to the End of the World: Forafmuch a^s their 74 Lcfy-Baptifm Commiflion (as all others SsTq') is Exclufpve o( all, but thofe to whom 'twa.s given ; and tlie v.very Form of Adminiftratioo' of Baptifm, m ^the Name, or by the Authority of the Trinky requires, and neceffarily fuppofes and implies the Divine Authority of hinfi who Adminifters : Forafmuch, as the Words of Inilitution are an exprefs Command to the Apoftles and their SucceiTors and Subfl-itutes, to Baptize all ca- pable Perfons who have not been Baptized by -them. Forafmuch, as the Benefits ot Baptifm are fo great and SUPERNATURAL, that none can give or convey them by Baptifm, but fuch as God has appointed ; forafmuch^ as Chrift himfelf Baptizes us by the Miniftry of thofe whom he has fent for that purpofe ; and we cannot be faid to be Baptized by him, when 'tis done by one whom he never fent ; jporafmuch, as all who call themfelves the Divinely Authorized Minifterspf Chrift, have in all Ages claimM the Power of Baptizing upon the AccQ^t of their Pivine Comnnffion : And Laftly \ Forafmuch, as th^ Church of 'EnglAnd by her Dotirtne ^nd fra^ice, gives fufficient ground to believe, that none can Adminifter Sacraments bv]t thofe who are Divinely Authorized io\' that purpofe, and that Xo pretend to do fo, is contrary even to the yery Inftitution of the Chriftian Sacraments, jgeeing all thefe Premifes ar^ true, and not to be deny'd, without running into unavoidable lAConfilleacies and ContradiQions, it mu{^ neceffa? Invalid. 75 ^eceffarily be granted^ that the Divide Au- thority ot the Adminiftrator of Baptifm is an %^mtial Parf of that Holy Inftitution, to b^ obfervM as often and as long as Baptifm fhall be neceffary to be iVdniinifter'd, even to the fend of the World. PROPOSITION II. THAT every Eflential Part of Chriftian ^aptifm ; ( viz. The Divine Authority of the Jidminiftrator, The Water , and the Form of ^dminijirationin the Name of the T'nnity) is pf equal Obligation and Neceffity tp us. DEMON. This will follow from the firfl: Propofition of the Introduction ; which I fhal| apply to this Divine Ppfitive Inftitution ; For the very Nature of this Inflitqtion js fuch, that it had ho Jntrinfick Excetlencjy or Moral Virtue, either in the Perfon Bapttzi?fg, or ia the Water ^ ox in the Fqrm of fVords wl^erc- with Baptifm is given, to b}nd or oblige us to obferve the fame, till the Divine Comniand Jaid that Neceffity upon us, as indeed we fin4 it did ; fo that now we are obligM to obferve this Inftitution, purely ar/d only by Virtue of ihis Divine Command \ which, forafmuch as it extends it felf to every one of the faid Ejfentiai Farts thereof ( as has been proy'd in the pre- ceeding Propofition, wherein 'twas Demon- ft rated, Tka^ the Divine Authority of the Ad- mini fir at or 7^ Laj^Ba^tifm ^ninijlration of Bafttfm is an Effer?tial Fart there' ■of as mil as the Water and iJ^e Form) will makp jthem all of equal Juthority^ and confequently 'oi' equal Nscejjity and Obligation to us ; becaiife, the Divine Jutuority of the Adminiftrator, the iVater^ and the Form of Adminiftratiori, are every one oi them diftinclly gf the fame Na- ture (/. ^..but mter Pofitive Iiiftitut^s) as the whole Tnftitution it fell^ And again, being all Effential Fd.tts \_ or fuch as are confiantly to be ohferv^d as long as the Ordinance of Bdptijm [hall he obliging'] 'tis evident, that for the fame Rea- ibn as one part may be omitted, another niay be fo likewife, and confequenr,Iy< that every one of them is upon all ...coun . whatjoever^ of equal Obligatioa and Neceflity to us. Jf!.lA^.:i;^.OlJR:'pLLARY. i^ HEN C E It follows, that as no Humane Authority can, Difpenfe with the whole Infti- tution ofBaptifm, where 'tis binding and obli- ging (Axiom J.) fo neither can they Difpenfe with the Omiffion of either Water,or the Form of Adminiftration, in the Name of the Tri- nity, or the Divine Miffion of him who Admi- iiiircTs. Nor can any fuch Authority deter^^ mine, that one of thefe Effential Parts of the Adminiftration of Baptifm, is rrtore excellent than another, becaufe they have every one ^irtinftly, the fame Authority Commanding, frori^ Invalid. ^7 from which alone they receive their whole Force and Efficacy, and are only by Virtue of that one Authority^ made equally neceflary and binding to us. PROPOSITION III. .m: ■../■] . c'^'Uh V, . ; WHOSOEVER affirms Baptifmtobe wholly Null 2ind hvalidy by reafon of the OmtJ^ Jon either of Water^ or of the Form of Ad- miniftring in the Name of the Trinity, ought alfo for the jams Reafon to acknowledge, that Baptifm is as much Null and Invalid when ic Wiants only the Divine Authority or Commiffio?^ of the Adminiftrator. DEMON. This will follow from tlie Se- cond Propofition of the Introduftion. FOR the only Reafon why the Orniffim of either Water, or the Form, makes fuch a Bap- tifm Void, muft be, becauie fuch Omiflion is Unlawful^ or Contrary to the Inftitution of Baptifm {Axiom 4. ) So that he muft affirm fuch Baptifm Noll, becaufe 'tis Adminifter'd either with fuch Matter or Form as the Infti- tution has not appointed ; or, becaufe *tjs not AdminifterM with fuch Matter oi' Form as the Inftitution requires. Now, forafmuch as Ghrift, who appointed the Water and the Form^ appointed alfo the Perfon who fliould Adminifter both the one and the; other : And fince the Divine Authority of this Adminiftra- tor is an EiTential Part> and as much obliging and ^% Lay - Baftifm and neceflary as Water and the Forrn, thofe' Two other Effential Parts of the Inftitution^ ( by^ the ift and id Profofttions ; ) it muft necef- farily follow, that the Want of Divine Autho-^' rity in him who Adminiftersjis ecjually a Breach of, or contrary to, the faid Inftitution ^ an^ therefore, if the want oi^dXQV^ ot theForniy makes any Baptifm to be rvholly Null and Void, becaufe contrary to the Inftitution ; the Want alfo of only the Divine GommMIion m the Adminiftrator, muft for thQ fame Reafon make that Baptifm fo MinifterM to be wholly Invalid^ and of no Effeff, being ; thence they conclude, that there " was a Partial Invalidity in the Baptifm be- '* fore ; bu>t that it was made wholly Valid by ^ Impofition of Hands.' But this is only Gratis Dictum : For the Pri- mitive Church when fhe refus'd to give a Se^ sond Wrjhmg^ refufed it upon this Account, That {he efteemM the Baptifm before to be the One Vdid Baptifm ; and the Impofition of Hands en joy n\l by Her, was no other than that which was ufed, either at the Confirmation of air other validly Baptized Perfons^ or elfe at the reftoring of Returning Penitents, and to the £ime Ends a^nd Purpofes \ not with any De- Invalid^, 8 5 fign to give an iLjfentid and Total Validity to that A£t of Baptifm which had an Ejjential h- "validity before : And this is what is meant by PERFECTED in the Council of £//fcm, viz. That the Baptized Perfon Ihould be Confirmed by the BiHiop, as all other Baptized Chriftians usM to be ; becaufe, all Valid Baptifms were reckoned by the Church, to be coj^ifumrnated and finiOiM by Con^rmation^ or Impofition of the Bifhop's Hands, which in thofe Days was immediately performM after Baptifm, or as foon after as poffibly could be. For thefe Gentlemen to fay, that the Anci- ents reckon'd any Baptifm with Water in the Name of the Trinity, by whomfoever admini- fter'd, to be that One Baptifm which ought not to he repeated^ is a great Miftake ; for the Cypria- nifis and the Eajiern Churches affirnjM and praftis'd otherwife; and particularly^ in the Baptifm of the Montani flsy whOj tho' they were Wafh'd in or with Water, in the Name of the Trinity, were not admitted into the Church without a Second Baptifni— . And St. Bafil^ St. Chryfo/iomej and the Catholicks after the Ni- cene Council, condemn the Baptifm of Lay- men as Null and Void, tho' they were done with Water in the Name of the Trinity ; and fo do the Apoftolic Canons, the Baptifm of Hereticl^y as is plain by the Inftances in my Preliminary Difcourfe . But to tell us, that the Primitives callM fuch Heretical and Schil- matical Baptifms as were not repeated, and G 2 fuclif §4- Lay^Baptifm fucli Lay-Baptifms as they had by Canon al- low'd,/^r//j)' Invalid ; and that they made them totally Valtd by Impofition of the Bifhop's Hands, is to impofe upon us very great In- confiftencies. For, if (as we all agree) there be but one Baptijm^ it muft certainly be that which has no Invalidity^ being AdminifterM exactly according to the Effentials of the In- ftitution; and therefore thofe other Baftifms which are notfo Adminifter'd^and are therefore confeffedly imferfecl and partly Invalid^ muft be of another kind diftinft from that One True Baftifn?^ and this will introduce Two Sorts of Baptifms in the Chriftian Church; which is utterly contrary to their own Affertion, as well as that of the Holy Scripture, which ac- knowledges no more than One Baptifm for the Remtffion of Sins ; and confequently tliefe im- perfect Baptifms are no Baptifms at all, and fo are entirely void, and of no effe£t. And in- deed, to allow the Contrary, is in effeci to deftroy the whole Mimjlry of the Chrifiian Frieflkood ; and to open a Door of Licentiouf- r^efs to all Intrudors into that Sacred Office, and thereby put every Man upon a Level, in- fomuch that at laft all may fet up for them- fclves, and refufe to give any regard or atten- tion, any deference or refpeO: to our bleffed Lord and Mafter, in the Perfon of his Au- thcH'iz'd Ambaffadors and Minifters ; for where will the Confufion end, if every Man may be iuppos'd capable of giving Valtd Ba^tifm ? Will they Invalid. 8< diey not argue ; What need we attend upon others for thefe Miniftrations, when we have as much J^aUd Power therein as themfelves ? If our Baptifms are VaHd, fo may our Admi- nift rations of the Lord's Supper, and much more our Preaching to, and Teaching fuch People, as we can gather to our felves. If Validity may beallow'd to all thefe^ by whom- foever Adminifter'd,then farewel all Rule and Order in the Church ; and Chrift's fetting fome therein ; Firft, JpoJIlcs ; Secondarily, ProphetSy &c. for the perfecting of the Saints, for the Work of the Miniftry ; and his pro- mifing to be with them to the End of the World, was to no purpofe. And it will not ferve, to fay, that fuch Men will be guilty of Sin in thofe Ufurpations, except we i'ay alfo, that their Authoritative Acts of Mmiflrtng ia what they call the Holy Sacraments are Sins too, and confequently, contrary to the Infti- tution of the Real Sacraments, and therefore of no ejfeci tO convey the Supernatural Graces and Benefits annexM to them: For, if ever Men can be once perfwaded, that any unautho^ rtz^d Perfon can by means of the mere OpH^s Operatum^ of what they call Sacraments, con-» vey thofe unfpeakable Advantages which are annex'd to Real Sacraments, it will be in vain FOR YOU TRUE MINISTERS to tell them of the Sm of Ufurping the Sacred Office, when you in effeft atfure them, that every Chriftian can Validly Exercife it ; and as fruit- G 3 lefs 86 Laji'-Baptifm lefs will it be, to preach to them the Danger of Schijm^ or caulelefs Separation from the Church, when you, by allowing the Validity of their Uncommtjfioned Teachers Miniftrations/ of fuppos'd Sacraments, give them an Argu- ment to confound all that you fhall fay for their Conviftion^by your affirming that their pretended Sacraments are a^ true^ and effectual as your authorized Adminiftrations ; and that, ( fince they thereby receive as miich Spiritual Benefit as others cio by yours, hecaufe God a^, much concurs nnth juch their Sacraments^ as with, thoje Mimfer'^d by you ) your charging them with Schijin in adhering to Mimjters who have, no Divine MiJi^^n is ridiculous and nonfenfical; becaufe, they have ALL ^^ Paltd a Commiffiori' as your own, which you your felves muft. needs grant, by allowing the Validity of their fuppos'd Sacraments. Nay further, if it be al- lowed that fuch their Sacraments are Valid, then, any Excommunicated Per [on (tho^ never, AuthorizVl by a Divine Commiffion ) if he can but gather a Congregation to himfelf, jTiay fet up for a Valtd Mtntjier^ and even they who know thts^ may receive Valid Sacraments at his Hands, tf the want of a Divine Miffion in the Admtntftrator does rjot Invalidate the Sa^ craments : Which is a Confequence fo horridy and attended with fuch infinite Confufwns^ that it ihould make fober Chriftians even tremble to think of it : And this brings me to my laft' Propofition, viz,, PRO^ Invalid. T 87 PROPOSITION IV. •rr .bij:. ■ THAT he who knows himfelfto have been invalidly Bapnz?d^ by one who never had the DIVINE COMMISSION, can have m ju/t Grounds to expert the Sttfernatural Graces and Benefits annex'd to t\iQ One Tme Chriftian Bapnjm^ till he has done his utmofi for the Ob- taining of them, by endeavouring to procure That One Baptijm from the Hands of a divinely Authorized Minifter* DEMON. For, however God may dif- penfe v/ith the WANT of this Sacrament, (^Jxiom 2. ) to thofe who know nothing of it ; fuch as Infants, or others who think they have received it, tho' they have not, and would receive it, if they could be perfwaded that they had not ; Or laftly, thofe who know that they never receiv'd it, and are heartily defirous of it, but cannot poflibly at- tain it ; yet, as he who knows to do good^ and does it not^ to him it is Sin (Axiom 6.). So he who KNOWS that he ought to be Bap- tized by a Minifter vefted with the DIVINE AUTHORITY for that Purpofe, and NEG- LECTS to be fo BaptizM, incurs the Guilt of Sin ; and confequently, while he continues in that Guilt, can {by Axiom 6.) expefl: none of the Supernatural Benefits annex'd to the due P^rfgrojance of his Neglected Dutj^ of Re- G 4 ceiving 8S Lay^Baptifm ccmng fuch Falid Bapifm. This is fo clear and evident that there is no need to enlarge upon it : Only I would further add, That if lie knows himfelf to be invalidly Baptized by one who never had the Divine Commiffion, and who notwithllanding prefuniM to Baptize him, in Oppofition tOj and Rebellion again fi^ thofe who were truly AuthorizM for that purpofe ; Iiis acquiefcing with fuch a Baptifm, will be an Addition to his Sin ; becaufe he thereby lu-ilies himfelf a PARTNER in the other's REBELLION, and ftrengthens him and hij; Adherents in their Wickednefs of Oppojing Chrift's Lawful Minifters ; concerning whom our Bleffed Lord has pofitively affirmM, That l;c who defptfes them^ defpij'es him\ and he that defpife^s him^ defptfes him that fen't him^ And what greater Contempt can he oflPer'd to them, than to take part with fuch as oppoj'e them in all the Miniftracions of that Sacred Office, to \yhich our Saviour has appointed them? This fliould make us exceeding careful, not to con- Qtir with fuch Men in their Ufurpation ; efpe-* cially confidering, that by this our Concur- rence, we involve our felyes in the Guilt of Rebellion, even againft God himfelf; The Coa- fequence of which mult needs fall infinitely fhorc of any the leaft Advantage, and, on the contrary, bring upon us the fevereft of his Wrath, inilead of thofe Supernatural Graces and Benefits which he has promisM to thofe who duly obey his Holy laftitutcs- AS Invalid. 89 A S for thofe who do not, but yet may knowy whether the Baptifm they have receiv'd be according to Chrift's Inftitution> or no, and confequently, Valid or mt Valid ; it high- ly concerns them to make ufe of thofe Facul- ties wherewith God has bleffed them, that they may not be dcceivM in fo great an Affair as this is. For, wilful Ignorance^ and Careless- nefs in Spiritual Things, will never excufe theni at the Day of Judgment. Nor will it then ferve their Turns to plead, that they fol- lowed the Inftruftions and Examples of their Teachers ; for our Lord, who is Truth it felf, has faithfully aflur'd us, that if the Blind lead the Blindj both /hall fall into the Ditch : And the Unprofitable Servant, who improved not his Lord's Talent, but hid it in a Napkin, was for his Sloth and Idlenefs branded with the dreadful Name of Wickedy and caft into outer Darknefs, to teach us Diligence in the moft Important Things of another Life. And Avhat can be of greater Importance to us, than to know, whether we are truly initiated into the Chriftian Church, and thereby entitled to all ihoj'e infinite Benefits and FrivdegeSy thofe ineftimable Graces and Bleflings which every Member of the Church has a Right 3,ndl 11 le to ? Certainly, it highly congerns us to know the Truth ot our Claim to fuch vafl: Benefits, lince our Saviour has told us. That ^:^xcep.t a Man he born of Water ^ kc. he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God; he caanat be a '■' " ■■ Mem- 90 Lay-Baptifm Member of that Kingdom here in the Chwdf Militant ; the only known Ark of Salvatiqi; from the Wrath to come \ nor in Heaven herer after, in the Church Triumphant \ if thro' his Careleffhefs and Negligence' he has not been really initiatedov enter"* d thereiato, by th^t Qne Baptif?n which Chrift has inftituted, and Com^ m/jjion'^d his Jpojlles^ and them only^ with: their Succeffors and thetr SubftttuteSj to Admin i/ieir^, for that Purpofe to the End of the. World. , ; ► AND now, having gone thro' all that I defign'd to fay 2ibout Invalid Baftifmj I fhall conclude with my Aflfwers to fome few Oh- jettions, that iTiay probably b'^ftarted againft this Effaj. OBJECT I Q N S. Obj. I. Q O M E may Objed, That tho^ [3 thrift bid his Eleven Jpojlles dK^ ciple the Nations, Baptizing them^ &:c. yet he did not therefore confine. Baptifm to the jft and their SuccelTors Miniflration, fo as that f2onL' can Adminifter True Baptifin but they, and fuch only as they fhall authorize : For if he had, he would in exprefs Words have told us, that no others flhould. liave Authority tg Baptize hut they*'" • > •. ,1 Anjiver, 'Tis univerfally granted, that ouict Lord confinM the Matter of Baptiun to Water^ and the iorm to In the Name of the Trimtj^ joierely Invalid. 91 merely by his faying thefe Words, Bapizing thm in the Name of the bather ^ and of the Sony and of the Holy Ghofi. So that no other Mattey or iorm can be introducM for the Adminiftra* tion of Valid Baptifrn, tho' Chrift has not ia exprefs Words forbidden us to introduce them* Even fo, tho' he has no where faid in. exprefs Words, That none hut his Apoftles^ and their SuccefforSj and fuch as they (Jjould appointy might have this Authority ; yet I affirm, that he has confin'd true Chriftian Baptifm to their Mini- firation only ; becaufe, he has done as much as if he had faid fo in exprefs and pofitive Words; for, he gave that Commiffion PARTICULAR-* LY to them^ and to no others^ and promised con-- fiantly to concur with^ and fupport them in the Exercife thereof, to the End of the World ; and he has made no fuch Promife to Lay Bapti- zers ; and this is as full and exprefs, as his appointing no other Matter than \_Water^'] and no other Form than \ln the Name of the Trini- tj/j2 2.S is very evident to all, who give them- felves leave to think juftly, and adequately on the Words of Infiitution. Befides, this Com- miffion is of fuch great Moment, that the A- poftles themfelves could never have lawfully undertaken to Minifter in it, if Chrift himfelf had not particularly authorized them fo to doj becaufe, Baptifm is, by Virtue ody of Chrift's Inftitution, made a Means of conveying SU- PERNATURAL BENEFITS, which they had no NATURAL RIGHT to confer on any 9^ Laj^Baptifm any Man by meam thereof , and they could ac- quire no SUPERNATURAL ONE to do fo, till Chrift gave them that Power by 2i particular Defignation-^ as we find he did, in the very Words of Inftitution; and therefore, fincethe Apoftles themfelves could never have prefumM to a£l in this great Miniftration, without a particular Divine Commtffion ; it being impofli- ble for even them to adminifter Baptifm valid, for fupernatural Ends and Purpofes, without it ; it muft needs follow, that no others can do fo, iut by Virtue of this^ or fome other new Cornm'ifjion ; and if they have no new one^ they muft do it by Virtue o( the Old; and confequently he who adminifters Baptifm, valid for Supernatu- ral Purpofes (ANDTIS NOT CHRISTIAN BAPTISM IF IT BE NOT THUS VALID) mull necefTarily be vefted with the Divine Ccmmifjion^ given at firft to the Eleven Apoftles, and by their Succcffors convey'd down to him : And if fo, then all others are excluded from any Valid Miniftration hereof, becaufe they are Defittute of this Divine Cornmiflion, which was never once given to them for fuch a purpofe. Obj, IL Others may probably obieftc That at this Rate I confine the Efficacj of the Sacra- ments, and particularly of Baptifm, wholly to the Divine Authority of the Admiiiiftrator ; and fo, if the Perfon who Minifters, has not been Commiffion*d by Chrift, he adminifter^ no real Sacraments at all. Jnf. When the outward Elements of the Chriitian Sacraments are rightly adminifter'd according to all the Ejfentid Parts of their In* fiitution^ then, md then onlj^ they become effi^ caciom to the worthy Receiver of them ; and this their Efficacy proceeds only from God's Concurrence with his Promife, made to fuch due Adminiftration of them : So that, in Chriftian Baptifm, the Efficacy depends no more upon the Divine Commiffion of him who Adminifters, than upon the iVater^ and the Form of Adminiftration ; but upon God's per- forming his Promife, to beftow the Supematw ral Graces thereof, by the Mediation of his own- Mini (ier'^s applying the Water in the Name of the Trinity: And therefore, as the Church has conftantly affirm'd, that God does not give Efficacy to Water adminifter'd even by his own Minifter^ without the ufe of thefe Words [ In the Name of the Father^ and of the Sony ahd of the Holy Ghofi'] becaufe an EjfentialPart of the Inftitution is omitted ; So, we have no Reafon from Divine Revelation (which is our ONLY GUIDE in this Cafe) to believe, that he will give Efficacy to Water adminifter'd with the pronouncing of the faid Fohjt^d^ ^^ the- 96 Luy^Baptifm the Matter and Form of Adminiftration : Andf this Perfon is AS MUCH the Reprefentative oi God the giver, as the matter is the Reprefenta-^ tion of the Graces given ; infomuch, tJiat we have at leaft as much reafon to omit tlie Sym- bolical Elementy as we have to leave out the Divine Authority or Commiffiony which repre- fents no lefs than God himfelf ; and therefore thofe Adminiftrations of iht former j which are deftitute of the latter ^ are no Chriftian Sacra- ments or (which is the fame) Means and Fled^ ges of Supernatural Graces, Obj. III. But if this be fo, ( others will fay) you have brought us to a fine Pafs, For 'tis well known, that this Divine Autho* ricy is very much controverted, and where to fix it, is not yet determinM : So that, while we are in this Sufpenfe, we muft be always doubting concerning the Validity of our Bap* tifm ; and thereby you put this Divine Infti- tution upon a very Vrecarim and Uncertain Foundation. Jnf. That the Divine Right of who fliall Miniiter in things pertaining to God, has been, and ftill is very much Difputed by fome Ignorant and iooltfh Men, and alfo by others of corrupt Prmciples and wicked Defignsy we find to be too true, by woful Experience ; but what then, do's that argue that it is not to he determined who has this Divine Right ? cer- tainly no ; for, tho' through Herefy and Schijm the Minds of many Men are fo dreadfully blinded ' Invalid. 97 blinded that: they do not difcover this great Truth ; yet, God be prais'd, they who con- tinue in the Communion of the Tndj Catho- lifk and Apofiolick Churchy and are Diligent and Inquifitive to know God's Will, and to hve according to that knowledge, need never be put to fo great a plunge, as to be in doubt and fufpenle concerning this Difpute, or the Validity of their Baptifm, which they haver receiv'd from the Lawfully Ordain'd Mini- jfters of Chrift • becaufe, fuch Minillers muffc be vifible and knowriy as long as there is or ihall be, any tvuXy Organized Church of Chrill in the World ; and that there fhall be always fuch a •^Church is plain by our SavioUr^s Promife, That the Gates of Hades jha/l not pre v ail agamji it y and as for the Valid Minifters thereof, that they fhall alfo continue, is as certain, by his promifing thus to his Apoftles, Lo I am with you alrvayy even unto the End of the H^orld • and this is further confirmed by the Apoftle St* Paulh afluring us, that when Chrift Afcended up on High, he g^ve fome Afoflles^ and fome Prophets J and fome Evangelifls^ and fome Pajlors^ and Teachers, for the PERFECTING of the SaintSi^ &c. — ^— - V/7/ we all come into ths UNYTY of the Faithy &c. ^ unto a PER- FECT MAN. Now 'tis certain, that this Perfection and enttre 'Unity will not be com- pleated till the End of the World, and there- fore thefe Valid Officers appointed to bring about fuch excellent Purpofes, muft continue H A 9? Lay-Bapifm Co long and be vifihle among us : And that the Continuance of fuch Valid Minifters who have Commiffion for the effefting of thefe Noble ends in the Chiirch, is to be fo plain and per- fptcnotis, as that it {hall be eafie to difcovef and diftinguifh them from Non-Commiffion'^d new Vp-ffans, is evident by another Defign^ for which our Lord appointed thern, "uiz. That tve henceforth fljoaldhe no more Children tofs*d to nMd fro^ and carried about mth every Wtnd,i>f DoHrine by the flight of Men^ ' and tunnifig Crap- tinefs whereby thsy lie in vcait to deceive^ ( £/>//. 4. 14.) For how can Valid Minifters of Ghriflt defend us againft every \yind of Doftrine, and the Cunning 'Craftinefs of ID^r^/V-^r/, if they are not to ,be vifible and known to us T So that as fure as God is true/'fo fure weare^ that his Validly CotnmiffionM Minifters, /; el Jpoftles 2.nd Prophets^ Sec. ftdlltohtinue,- and be known in the Church to the Confummati? on of air things ^ and therefore we fhall never Want fnch as haVe Capacity td Ad-rtiiiiifter hiis Holy Sacraments, and confequently -need ne*. ver be in Sufpenfe about the K^?//W//; of out* Baptifm Admi^iifterM. by their Hands ; fo that my affirming Baptifm to be Invaltdhv want of fuch Divine Aqthority or- CommifTion in the Admihiftrator^'tlo's not put- this Divine Inftitution upon an uncertain, hut d. fure ai)5 /^//^V Foundation. • ' " "' ' ■' ' • ■^' ^- B UT here r expea that^'t wiU'fee ask^ In whom do I fuppofe this Divine Aithorityto Invalid^ ^9 be fixM ? I anfwer, that I do not only fuppofe^ ;but firmly and undoubtedly Bdteve^ after a ilrid ^nd impartial Enquiry which I have de- ' :erarcly made into this Matter ; that 'twas Jed by Chrift himfelf at firft^ and continue >.iv'eyM down to this Day, in EPISCO- f^U.i" ONLY; and of this I 2imas sertain^ i> tl.ac our firft Day of the Week was appoin- iCed by Gliriit and his Apoftles, to be the Chrtiiian Sakbath: Nay,,tho' I am very well latisfy'i that this our Chriftian Sabbath is of Divin Appointmtat ; yet I can fafely affirm, that ilie Aigamuits by which it is, to be provM, are not fo numerom z^ thofe for the Divine Right of Epifcopacy ; as may eafily be demonftrated whenfoever it fhall be put to the Trial. As for thofe who are of another Opinion, I wifli they had either more Know- ledi,e, or more Humility ; it is none of ^my Bufinefs here, to endeavour their* Conviftion : But if they would ufe their utmoft Diligence .to do the Will of God in all other Inrtances of their Duty, and feek to him for that Wifdom which is from above, enquiring without Pre- judice, by attentively reading the Sacred Oracles \ and comparing therewith what has been faidby many excellent Authors upon this Subjeft ; .1 Jiope they would then know of this Docfrme whether it he of God \ which that they may, I hqartily recommend thefe few Modern Books to their ferious Perufal, viz., H 2 A 100 Lay^Ba^ifm J Modejl Proof of the Order and Government fettled by Chrifi and his ApoJlLes in the Churchy Printed for "John IVjat, at the Rofe in St. Paurs Church'lLardy 1705. A Difcourfe [hewing tvho they are that are now qnaliffd to Adminifler Baptijm and the Lord^s Supper, Printed for C. Brome, at the Gun at the Weji-End of St- Paul's, 1698. Dr. Potter of Church Government, Printed for Tm. Child, at the White^Hart m St. Paur$ Church-Tardy 1707, Br.'HiQkts's Two TreatifeSj one of the Chri-^ Jlian Priejihoodj the other of the Dignity of the Epifcopal Order. Printed for Richard Sarey at GrayS'Inn-Gate in Holhrn, 1707. And a little Book call'd, The Plain Man's Guide to the True Church, Printed for R. C/^- veU at the Peacock in St. PauPs Church-Tardy 1708. IV. But fome it's likely will charge me with Uncharitablenefs, in denying the Validi- ty of the Baptifms of Foreign Churches, where there is no Epifcopal Ordination ; and of many Good and Pious Men who are withi- owe fuch Ordination among our felves. Jnf.Tht^ Invalid. loi Jfjf. The Main Drift of my EiTay is a- gainft the Validity of that Baptifm which Men know themfelves to have received from Perfons who were never Divinely Commifli- oned, and yet prefume to ufurp this Authority in Oppofition to the Divine Right of Epifcopa- cy , which being duly confiderM, frees me from Anfwering to this Charge, with refpeft to fuch Foreigners, fome of which have told you that they do not Afl: in Offofition to Epif- copacy ; and have pleaded, that they lie un- der a Neceffity not to have Bifhops among them ; but that they highly value and reve- rence that Order in our English Church. Whe- ther this Plea of Neceffity be good ; or whe- ther it aiFeds them fo far^ as to hinder theic Receiving Epifcopal Ordination from other Proteftant Churches, tho' they cannot have Bifhops refiding among themfelves, is not my Bufinefs (here ) to enquire : But this Fm fure of, That there is not the leaft Reafon, ( nay, 'tis impious ) to compliment away the Great Truths of God, to pleafe any, tho' never fo great a Party of Men. THE Divine Right of Epifcopacy is plaia from Scripture, and was never call'd in Que- ftion by any confiderable Number of Men, till within thefe laft Two Hundred Years ; and muft we i>ow lay it afide, for fear of Op- pofing new upftart Notions and Opinions? God forbid ! Muft our holding faft the found Dodrine of Chrift and his Apoftles, be call'd H J uncha"- loi Lay - Baptifm uncharitable and unkind, becaufe it^ does Pot fuit with the Temper arid Dirpofitior) ; :yet 'tis certain that fuch.a Jfreedom given .by me woul^ n^vcr be Valid?: The Man muftj^ceive a Legal Freedom, not- xvitjiftaiK^ingj tjie. Counterfeit one he had of ^e. The hKe'ma-y be juijly'affirm'd of the Nataralizaycfe.Of Foreigners^ and many othej: g^'^at .ConQign's of this Worlds,, And if this lidakim :vvilij^ot hold good iathefe, and A- bundance of rothcr Worldly .Things, how inuch lefs m ijiofe of an iiifinitelyi higher N^^ tyre, in the.Di\^me,Pofitive InlliDations which jGod has madie to be the Means and Pledges of- ^ufernatUYdi 'benefit s^ tO be conferred on us ^y the Miniftratipn of hys^ own farticui^lj f^omm Ipori^d and Atithoiz^d Jmhdjfadors ? Efpe^ pi^lly ^\^t^\yQ rennember, that this Ma^xiqi was never appointed by him; to be our Ruie and Guide in any of our Affairs, much lefs in fhofe of a Religious and Spiritual Nature ; as without all doubt Chrifl:ian BapDifm is. B^- fides, The Qb,)e£Lion acknowledges that iti.i^ w/ Lawfuly therefore 'tis Sinful : 'Tis a Sin againft an tffential of the ^nftitution ; and ;iow S U C H A SI N F U If Aft fhould be Y A LI D for SUPERNATURAL P U R> EOSESjj Imjolid. 107 I* OSES, IS utterly inconcelv.able; nay, 'ti§ abominable to jifiirm it. ■ * VII. Another Objection which I have heard of, is, That the Council of Eltberts^ Anno 3:o5VallowM oi >Lay'Bdpifm in at Cafe of Ne- cellrty ; That ithe Church of Rome dots fo to this* I>ay ; And? that the Church oi England did fo in the Reign of King Edward the Vlth^ of Queen Eliz^abeth^ and in the Beginning of King "James the Ift- ; as is plain, by the feve- ral Common-Prayer Books in thofe Days, par- ticularly King E^iv^r^'s, Anno 1 552, and King "^ames^Sy 1621'. to bQ St^n 2it Sion-Co liege Li- brary in London. ' r; Anfw. I grant the Truth of thefe Matters of Faft ; and yet affirm. That thofe Allowan- ces, be they of what Confequence they will, are notof any Validity for our Unauthorized and Anti-Epifcopal Baptifms. As for the Council of Eliberis^ I have cited It Fag. II and 12" of my Prelimtnary .Difcourfe^ and made fuch Remarks thereon, as will ut- terly fruftrate tlie Defign of this Objeftion ; and therefore L refer the Reader back to it^ for bis Satisfadion. Next for the Church of Rome^ her AlloWr ances in this Cafe are jio Rule to us Proteft?ints, who have feparated from her, for her many grofs Errors, both in Doctrinp and Praftice : She began to quarrel with St. Cypy/an, and other Primitive Bifhops, and carried it very unchriftianly againft them, for not, allou^ing io8 Laj^Baftifm any Validity In Heretical arid Schifmatlcal Baptifms, which they lookM upon as bad as Lay Baptifms ; and fhe has ever fince p»r- fifted in this ill Humourj fo far as at laft to condemn thofe who do not believe the Vali-^ dity of Baptifm AdminifterM by Women, whofe Authoritative Afts in the Church of God, are both contrary to the Law of Nature, and alfo forbidden by the Holy Ghoft himfeif. Nay fo far have her Bifhops proceeded, as.to pronounce Baptifm Valid tho^ adminifterM by an Unbaptiz.M Heathen. '' St. Bafd in his ^' loth Epiftle, complains of the Weftern Bi- *^ fhops, and particularly the Roman^ Quod *' Veritatem neque Norunt^ neque difcere fujli- ^' ^e^t, — — Cum its qui veritatem ipjis annnnci- *' ant contendentes^ hcerefm autem per fr iffos ^' fiahilientes : That they neither know the Truth^ *' nor care to learn it j but they contend with them '^ who tell them the Truthy and hy themselves ^^ efiahlilh Herefy : For which Reafon their Authority ought not to be objefted in this Matter by a Proteftant; efpecially confidering that {uch an Objector will not fubmit to their Decifions, even in things of a much more inferior Nature. The Praftice of the Church of England in this Cafe, would have been look'd upon as a formidable Objection, if She her felf had not anfwerM it already by purging her Liturgy of fo Inconfiftent a Kubrick: 1 call itinconfiitent, l^ccaufe, efpecially in King James the Birft's ;: . ' Reign, Invalid. 1 69 Reign, She had dcclarM in her Articles of Re- ligion, that it is unlawful^ i. e. fmful for any Man to Adminifter Sacraments until he be Lawfully called am fent \ and at the fame time allowM by her Kubrick to Private Baptifm, that any one there frefent might Baptize the In- fant ( in a Cafe of Neceffity.') This can be re- concile to her Articles of Religion by no other way, but by fuppofing that She, by her Ku- brick, authorize and im^^ov/t\: A Lay-men for fuch Cafes, as. much, as if She had Ordain'd them by Impofition of Hands. If any will af fert this, which will be odd enough if they do, yet ftill it will not favour the ©aptrfm now difputed againft ; for they are utterly deftitute of any fuch fuppofed Impowerino and Authorizing Rubrtck^ as that was efteemed to have been ; Tho'yet, even in that Common-Prayer-Booky upon the Prieft's Examination afterwards into the Lawfulnefs of the Child's Baptifm, it was required, that this Queftion fhould be put to thePerfons who brought the Child to Church; 'Viz. '* M^fjether they thtnk the Child be Lawff^Sy *' and ferfeBly Baptized ; which ( confidering the preceding Queftions, ^^ PVhether ^trvas Bap- *^ tiz^d with Water y and in the N^me cf ths ^^ Trinity^ 8cc.) fcems to be needlefs, and to no purpofe, except by asking their Thoughts a- bout the Lawfulnefs and Perifedion of fuch a Baptifm, they meant to make it/^jr/y// or un- lawful^ as the Perfons they put fuch a Queftion to, fliould think it; Which is '^ very ftrange, •'^■^^^ \ and lib Ldy^Baptifm and indeed a precarious and uncertain Foun- dation for us to build the Validity of our Bap- tifm upon^ in fuch a Cafe of Neceflity/ ..A^d therefore 'tis no wonder that the Church .of Englandj afterwards expunged this Qiieftio.^ out of the Rubrick ; and alfo, for very weighr ty Reafons took away the Liberty of Laj-Bap^ uz>wg^ in her prefent Liturgy, by requiring^ even in Cafes of Neceffity^that Baptifm flipuld be AdminifterM by *' The Mimjhr of the Fn^/lkf *' or my other Lawful Minifter that canhes^)^0^ *' cur"* A ; which is a fubftantial Anfwer tG^aii) Objetlions that may be rais'd from her Iv^jt mer Pradice. But if fuch a Cuftom had byeft ftill continued, St. C|//?w/^ long fince laid jt: down for an tfndoubted Truths ^' That ive ar,^ not to be deter mi rM by any Cujlpms of that Nature^ *' hut to examine, whether they will bear the J>jf? 5^ of Reafon. And Bifliop Taylor fays,, (fpeakr pg of Baptifm by Midwives ) " This C^ifior^f *' came in at. a wrong Door^ itlean'dr^poi^ af^lf^ ^^ and Sufprflitiou6 Opinion ) and they thought ** it better to Invade the Frieji^s Office^ than to ^' trufl God with the Souls which he made ivith *' his own Hands ^ and Redeemed wtth his $Qj(i^s *' Blood ; hut this Cujlom was not to be fol/qifd', if it had Jli/l continued ; for even then^ sfhgy confefsH it was Sin^ Faftum valet, fieri no^ debuit ; and Evil ought nop , to be done fox 4 good endy 8rc. 7 his Cuftom therefore is of tl^ ^' Nature of fhofe which are to be l^id sofide^ " No Man Bapti^s but h^ that is in H^fOrf ^ ders^ n Imalidi I Iff " dersj faid Simeon , 4s m *' difference^ but matter of Ordet fnly, If-a^ ^ Ef[e6i be SfirrtU'My the Agent m>ufi be fo tio^ Thus far that Great Bifhop-: 'And if his Rea- fohs are good again'ft Woniehs^ Baptizing, 'as I think they" are^ flrey win be^ as good to iall Iptents and Pufpofefagatnft'^ Man's 'pi:efu- '-■ ' miag 1 1 1 Lay > Bap'tifm ming to do the like without the Dwine Com miffion \ becaufe, he is equally deftitute of a Spiritual Power, and infaci is as little in Holy Orders as (he. ^ VIII. The laft Objeaion that I fhall men^ tion is, what fome Great Men have made ufe of, to Eftablifli the Validity of Laj-^Bafttfrn ; and that is, That tho' it was a Sin for the Two Hundred and Fifty Princes to offer Incenfe • yet by even that Sinful Offering,' the Cenfers^ wherewith they offer'd, were halloiv'^d; and God himfelf declared them to be {o^Numb. i6; In like manner, tho' it be a Sin for Lay-men to Baptize, yet the Perfon fo Baptiz'd is thereby Hallow'd and Sanftify'd; and confequently fuch a Baptifm is Valid. Jnfw. This Objeftion has np rnajiner of Force for the purpofe defign'd, becaufe 'tis not in the leaft parallel to Chriftian ^aptifm; for the Cenfers (mere fenfelefs things) were capable of no Sufer'/iatural Spiritual Graces and Privileges to hQ enjoyed by them, Jpy virtue of that Offering; but the Objefts of Baptifm> Scnfible, Rational, and Immortal Souls, are to be poffefs'd of, and to be made happy 'by> fuch unfpeakable Benefits and Advantages as are annex'd to Baptifm. The Cenfers were wholly Paflive • but the Baptiz^'d Perfon is not fo, for even in Infancy he is Aftive by his Sponfors ; and when he copies to Xears, muft be fo in his own Perfon. > TJi^e Ccnfei-s, tho' tl^ey were hallovv'd> yet they;. were pot haI-> ' * ^ ' iow\J Invalid, I j :j lowM Co the fame purpofe, as the Cenfers wherewith Jaro// offerM Incenfe ; for God did mot order thofe Two Hundred and Fifty Cen- fers to be continu'd, for the fame ufe to which thofe Sinners put them^ but required them to he made broad Plates for a Covering of the AU tar : To be a Memorial unto the Children of If- rael, that no Stranger which is not of the Seed of Aaron come near to offer Incenfe before the Lordy ( Numb. 1 6. 39, 40. ) So that, if thefe Cen- fers are a Parallel Inftance for Perfons Bap- tizM by uncommiffion'd Pretenders, then, the ufe that God order'd them to be put to, (llould teach us to make a like ufe of fuch Sinful) y- Baptiz'd Perfons, viz. To make them Me- morials to all Chriftians, that none who are not Commtffiodd by Chrift, fhould dare to Gorrle near to Baptize in theChriftian Church : But how fhall fuch Sinfully- baptizM Perfons become fuch Memorials fo efFedually, as by renouncing their falfe, and receiving true Chriftian Baptifni from Chrift's Authorized Minilters, and thereby fruftrate as much as they can, the prefumptuous V furcations of* thofe who have no Divine Miffion for fo great a Miniftration ? This is the moft proper In- ference that can be drawn from thefe Cenfers, with refpe£t to fuch as are unlawfully Bap- tized : Tho^ after all, they have nothing ia them that can with any Coherence, be jultly adapted to the Inftitution of Chriftian Bap- tifm, or any one ElTential Part thereof: The I Two 114. Lay - Baptifyri Two Hundred and Fifty Princes^ indeed, if compared to the UnauthorizM Adminiftrators of Baprifm, may be fomething to the purpofe ; and ib may the Incenfe, if compared to the Water in Baptifm : Becaufe, as this, when rightly AdminifterM, is the means of Spiritual Benefits ; fo Incenfe, when rightly ofTer'd, /. e, fay a Divinely CommilHonM Perfon, was a means likewife of procuring the Favour of God, by making an Atonement, for the Sins of the People, But as for the Cenfers, they were o^lj the Veffels wherein this Incenfe, the Outward Means of the Atonement, was contained ; fo that they have not the leaft re- ference, either to the Perfon Adminiftring, or the Water of Baptifm, or to. the Perfon Bap- tized ; and therefore, if the Objector will have them to be Parallel to any thing at all in this matter, they muft be fo to the Veffel, which contains the Baptifm- Water : And he may make as much ufe as he pleafes of that ParaHelifm, which is nothing at all to our prefent purpofe. UPON the Whale ; the Grand Defign of thefe Princes was (in oppofition to the Efta* bli(h'd Prieftliood ) to offer Incenfe before the Lord, contrary to a Divine Poftive Infiitution, rvhich cor/firi*d that Action to Aaron and his Sons ordy. This Offering being thus unlawful, for want of the Divine Authority of tli€ Perfons Adminirtringy was fo far from being accepted, that \jl was a crying Abomination \ and inftead of Inmlid^ 1 1 5 of procuring a BlefTing, either for themfelves or their Abettors, drew down upon them fwift Deftruftion ; the Princes being immediately confumM by a Fire from the Lord, and Four- teen Thoufand Seven Hundred of their Parti- zans deftroyM by a Plague. Even fo, if any thing about Baptifm may be hence inferred, we may juftly fear, that the Adminiftration of fup- posM Baptifm by Non-commiflTion'd Perfons, in Oppufition to the Divinely eftabhiVd Prieft- hood of the Chriftian Church, inftead of be- ing a Means of conveying Spiritual Graces and Benefits, to thofe who kno^^ir/gly receive, or acquiefce in it, will rather exclude both fuch Giver and Receiver, (tho^ they efcape God's Judgments here) front the infinite Pri* vileges of his Children hereafter, without a fincere and fpeedy Repentance. Some other Objeftions I have endeavourM to obviate in the Progrefs of this EflFay, and therefore fliall only further declare, that I fincerely believe the Subjeft of this Difcourfe to be a Subftantial Truth \ nay, even a firft Principle of Chriftianity, and that without the couragious Afferting and Vindication thereof, the whole Chriftian Priefthood and the Divine Authority of it, muft be call'd in queftfon ( as we fee it has lately been in Pub-* lick Print) and confequently in time fo far deny'd, as to encourage every bold intruder to ufurp that Sacred Office and Miniftry, even in oppofition to that Divine Commiffion, I 2 whick tl6 Lay^Baptifm which has been conftantly handed down froRl Chrift and his Apoftles, to this very Day. I hope theretore that AWc who are vefted with this Divtrw Authortty^ will fight againfl: it by appearing publickly in oppofition to the Subjcftof this Eilay : As for my manner of arguing to defend it, there may be fome unde- ftgrPd haidts therein^ which I humbly fubmit to their juft Correction, and prudent Cenfure ; hoping they will execute both, with fo much Wifdom and ConduQ:, as (to make me fee my own Errors, and at the fame time) not to pre- judice, but add Strength and Cogency to the Caufe I have pleaded, which ought' by no means to iuffer for my Weaknefs in its Defence. A S for the mere Pretenders to this Divine Authority, I have nothing to fay to them or their Followers, but only to defire 'em to take care not to deceive tliemfelves, but ferioufly to enquire whether there is any Legality in that pretended CommilTion, by which they Ad ; which till they C2inJolidlji prove, I Ihall always efteem to be utterly liivalid for the Adminirtration of Chriftian Sacraments. I fliall not trouble my felf to enter the Lifts with them, tho' they quarrel never fo much with what I have faid ; they have Work enough already cut out to their Hands, in thofe excellent Books which I have mentioned in my Anfwer to the Third Objeflion ; and to their Jrq^nmeyjts I refer them for the DI- VINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPACY, that they Invalid, 1 17 they may fave themfelves the trouble of de- manding them from me. I F they Ihall oppofe my Affertion of tlie Neceflity of a Divine Commiflion to Admini- fter Bapcifm, they will thereby Confound them- felves when they affirm that they Baptize by Virtue of fuch a Commiifion : And then I " Ihall not think them worth my Anfwering. I conclude all with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God, that this my weak Endeavour may be for his Glory, and that he would keep U4 from all FALSE DOCTRINE, HERESY AND SCHISM ; that all who frofefs and call them f elves Chrifiians may he led into the WAY OF TRUTH, and hold the faith in Unity of Spirit y in the Bond of Peace ^ and in Righteoujnefs of Life • and that he would be pleased to Illuminate ALL BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEA^ CONS, with true Kj^owledge and Under ft anding of his Word^ that both by their Preaching and Living they may fet it forth andfjew it according- ly J and rightly and duly Adminifter HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS, that fo JEROBOAM'S PRIESTS may not PROPHANE HIS SER^ VICE, hut that THE SEED OF AARON may ftill MINISTER before him ; to whom^ nnth his Eternal Son^ and Holy Spirit^ Three Perfons^ but One God^ be afcrib'^d, as is moft due. All Honour J Praife^ and Glory ^ Mighty Majefty and Dominion^ by every Creature that is in Heaven and Earthy and under the Earthy For eycr and ever Amen. J I A P^ iiS APPEND IX. SINCE the Publication of the Firft Edi- tion of this Book, I am inform'd, that fome Gentlemen of no mean Charafter, have made further Objeftions againft the Subjeflt thereof, which (^becaufe they look very plau- fible at firft fight, and may therefore preju- dice too many againft what I have proposed) I fliall endeavour here to anfwer, as briefly and plainly as lean. Ohj.i^. AND Firft 'tis faid, that if Lay Baptilm be Invalid, and the Divine Commifli- on to Baptize be convey'd from the Aqoftles in Epifcopacy only, then all thofe Foreign Reforni'd Churches wliich have noEpifcopal Ordination are efFeftually Unchurched, as be^ ing (by the Principles afferted by me) defti- tute of a Chriftian Miniftiy, and confequent- ly of Chriftian Baptifm ; u^hich is a confe- quence fo dreadful, and even conirary to the Concefftons of iTjany Epifcopal Divines of the Church of £/?g/W,' that none ought to admit of that Doctrine, fi'oni which ( if granted ) fo great a mifchief muft necelTarily arife. Mfr. That Lay-Baptifm is Null and Void, I humbly conceive, I have provM ; if not, let the Authors of this Objection fliew, either the Infufficjency, or Fallacy of the Arguments 1 have produced for that purpofe j oiherwife ATT ENT> IX. 119 I fhall take it for granted, that they acknow- ledge fuch Bapcifms to be Invalid ; or eile, that at beft they can give no iblid Reafons for their Validity. And therefore, till I hear furr ther from them upon this fingle Topick, I fhall give my felf no more trouble about it, but proceed to the conveyance of the Divine CommiflTion to Baptize, and this ( fuppofmg Lay-Baptifm to be Invalid) can be conveyM from the Apoftles in the Chriftian Miniltry only ; fo that all our Bufinefs here, is to know how the Chriftian Miniftry wa§ handed down, and fucceffively continued from the Apoftles to our Days, and this will determine who can Adminifter Valid Baptifm. THAT the Chriftian Miniftry was con- veyed from the Apoftles in Epifcopacy only, we have a Cloud of Witneffes ; Firft, The Inftitution of our Saviour himfelf; Secondly, The Praftice of the Apoftles, both recorded in the Sacred Oracles of infallible Truth, the Holy Scriptures ; Thirdly, all Ecclefiaftical Hiftory ; and Fourthly, the conftant and un- interrupted Practice of the Univerfal Church of Chrift in all Ages and Places, for One Thoufand Five Hundred Years together from the Apoftles Days. Thefe all bear teitimony to this great Truth, as has been fufticiently demonftrated by a vaft number of the beft Chriftian Writers, particularly fome of our pwn Nation, and that very lately, (yid, Thofi I have mentiorPd in A^^fivsr to ths Third Ohje-. I 4 iUan^ 130 ATTEN'DIX. clion^ and another Entitled^ The Divine Right of Epifcopacy, Primed for Richard Sare, at Grays Irm-Gate in Holhom^ 1708,) who have obviated and anfwerM the Objeftions of all Enemies fo excellently well, that it would be no lefs than Prefumption in me, to attempt to fay any thing more upon that Subjeft, after fuch Learned Authors ; to whom therefore I refer the Reader for his fatisfaftion in this Point, and pafs on to confider the ObjeSion itfelf. I F then the Premifes above-mentionM be true ; If Lay-Baptifm be Invalid, 'k^c, then ( fays the Objector ) " All thofe Foreign Re- *' fornPd Churches J &C. are effectually Unchurc\?d^ ^' being deftitute of a Chrijiian Miniflry^ and ff confequently of Chrijiian Bapifm, Why truly, if thofe Foreign ReformM are Unchurched, upon the truth of thofe Premifes, I cannot help that, 'tis the Objedor himfelf that tells me they are fo ; and I know of no way for him to help them out of that Difficulty at prefent, but either to prove the Premifes falfe ; or elfe to perfwade them to receive Epifcopal Ordination. But 'tis faid, ^' this t' is a- dreadful confequencc. It may be fo, and very dreadful too, if they are fo far Un- cliurch'd as to be reduc'd to a flate of abfo- lute Infidels, which I hope the Objedor does not mean when he fays they are Unchurched; if he does, I mufl tell him, that ( tho' I am no Latitudinariaa ) I have xnoi'e charitable Thought:^ ATTENT>IX. 151 Thoughts concerning Thoufands of them thaa he has, upon the Suppofition of their being deftitute of Chriftian Baptifm : For I believe Abundance of them may be included in the Number of thofe whom I have fpoke of ia the Words of a moft Excellent Modern Au- thor ; f to.vards the End of my Anfwer to the Fourth Obje^iion^ and that therefore they may very fairly be eiteemM AS MUCH IN THE CHURCH as the Catechumeniy or Candidates for Chriftian Baptifm, were usM to be in the Primitive Times. This, I think, abates much of the Dreadfulnefs of the Confequence to the Honeft and Sincere ; but it cannot be hence inferred, that their Miniftry and Mini- ftrations are Good and Valid ; or that they who know their Defeds, fliould concur and communicate with 'em in fuch their Deviati^- ons from the Divine Inftitutes. BUT (to proceed) this, fays the Objeftor, is ^' even contrary to the Conceffions of many ^' EpifcoPal Divines of the Church of England. Ifuppofe he means fonte of the Writers fince the Reformation, who have endeavoured to make Excufes and Salvo's for the Presby^ terian and Lay-Ordinations Abroad : In re- ference to whom, I muft needs fay, that 'tis juftly to be fear'd they have done more Hurt by fuch their Conceffions, than at the Time of their Writing them they were aware of: For 'tis not to be doubted, that many put a great Value upon the Judgment of fuch '' Leari^-- Ill ATT ENT>IX. Learned and Good Men, and thereby have bcQn induc'd to believe that fuch Ordinations are Good and Valid ; and confequently, that there's no need for thofe Foreign Reformed to feek for Epifcopal Ordination ; whereby too inany of the Foreign Teachers thennfelves are, inftead of being curM of, confirm'd in their Errors, and ( it may be ) hindered from fo much as but Enquiring whether they are in the Right or no. With Submiffion to better Judgments, fuch large Conceffions of thofe waxt)f Epffcojfd Divines have been not only pre- judicial and hurtful to the ReformM Abroad, but even contrary to the Doftrine and avowM Praftice of the Church of England^ which they were oblig'd in Confcience, by their Sub-» fcription, lo fupport and maintain. For, does Ihe not teach in her 23d Article, That '' It *^ ts not /anful ( therefore 'tis fmful, and con* ^- trary to their Inftitution ) for any Man to. ** take ufen hrm the Office of Mmijiring the Sa* ^' cramcntSy hefare he he lawfully Ca/Pd and Sent f And doss (he not confine this LAWFUL CALLING AND S-.NDING, to EPISCO- PAL OROINATION, in the Preface to her Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining,, and ConfecratingofBiQiops, Prieftsand Dea- cons ? Does Ihe not call this EPISCOPAL ORDINATION CHRIST'S COMMISSI- ON AND AU THOillTY ; when in h^r 26th Article fhc teaches, That the Minifter, when he Adminifters the Sacramefits, ^oes it *^ f» QhriJPi ATTEN'DI X. I3J ** Chrift'^s Name^ and by his Commijjion and Au^ ** thorttj ? Is flie not fo exaftly confiftent to all this, that (lie will not admit anyofthefQ Foiwign Teachers into the Number of- her Priefts, no nor of her Deacons neither, with- out Epifcopal Ordination ? Is not all this fb true, that none can deny it ? And does flie not thereby, as much as may be, prevent all fujh Conceflions, and reprove thofe^ who make them, contrary to her Doftrine and Praftice ? I think flie does ; and confequently, that her Articles, relating to this matter, are not of fo loofe and variable a Contexture as fome (who ought to know better) have repre- fented them to be, (like a Nofe of Wax) that may be wrefted to ferve any Turn, and defend almoft all Contradidious Doftrines and Pra- ftices whatfoever ; without confidering that her Articles, Kubricks and Canons, i^c. Con* cerning tliQ Divine Right of Epifcopal Ordi- nation,when duly comparM with one another, do make the moft perfeQ: Harmony and A* greement ; and have nothing in them, that is either contradictory or inconfiftent to them- felves, or difagreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and Praftice of the Primitive Church. i F in the Days of Jeroboam^ the Son of N^bat^ who made Ifrael to fii^y a Prieft of the Tribe o? Aaron fhould have undertaken to de- fend the Validity of the Priellhood which Ji?- roboam had fet up ; would he not have been juftly c^iifurable ? Would he not have adled ' ' ' contrary iH jiTT END IX. contrary to the Principles of the True Church of the Jem at Jerufalem? Certainly he would ; notwithftanding the vaftly Superior Numbers in the Ten Tribes who forfook the True Priefts, and the Smallnefs of the Numbers in the Two other Tribes, who would not folloiv that Multitude to do this Evil. And the Reafon why he would have been juftly blameable, is evideflt ; Becaufe Jeroboam made Friefls of the Lorvefi of the People^ which were not of the So?7S of Levi J I Kings 12. 51. For that this ( as well as their Idolatry ) was his and the T^n Tribes Sin, is evident by JbijaPs Speech tQ them, (2 Chron. ij. 9, 10.) Have ye not caji cut the Pr lefts of the Lord, the Sons of Jarony and the Levites, and have made you Priefts after the manner of the Nations of other Lands ? &c. But as for /^Sj ( /. e. the Members of the True Church of God, the other Two Tribes o{ If- raelj the Lord is our God^ 8cc. And the Prieft^s which minijier unto the Lord, are the Sons of Aaron, and the Levites wait upon their Bufi?iefs. Here you fee that Ahijah triumphs and glories in the True Priefthood with them, becaufe Vwas that which God himfelf appointed ; and he upbraids the Ten Tribes, for their having fet up other Priefts, without any Regard to the Divine Inftitution of the Priefthood. Their mighty Numbers, and the feeming Neceffity of their being forcM thereto by the Secular Power, was no Argument for him to allo\y pf their Priefthood. How much lefs ought AT TE 1^7) IX. 125 tliofe Writers among us to have ftudied fo in- duftrioufly, as fome of them have done, to prove the Validity of their Miniftry, who are not One Tenth of the Prefent Univerfai Church, and who differ from them and the whole Church throughout all Ages, in not Re- quiring their Minifters to be Vefted with the Divine Authority by Epifcopal Ordination. I A M well aware of what is pleaded by thofe Epifcopal i)ivtnes ; 'viz. That thofe Fo- reign Reform'd were under a Cafe of Necef- fity, and fome of them fay, they are fo ftill. But I am not yet fatished what they mean by this Cafe of NecelTity : The Church of £^g- /^W, whereof thofe Epifcopal Divines are Members, has not declared it : The Scripture is wholly filent about it, and (on the contrary) has recorded the Dreadful Punifhments inflict- ed upon fome, who ^^ to all Appearance) had a great deal of Reafon to plead, that they were under great Circumftances of Neceffity, to affume to themfelves thofe Offices, where- in they miniftred contrary to the Divine In- ftitutions : As in the Cafes oi Saul^ i Sam, 1 j. from yer. 8. to Ver. 14. and Uzzah^ 2 Sam. 6. 6, 7. So that I am utterly at a Lofs to know, how thofe Writers could difcover any Cafe of Ncceffity, that of ufelf was fufficient to au- thorize Men to take upon them the Great Of- fice of Mediating between God and Man. There is not one Inftance (that I know of) in all the Sacred Oracles, of any one's being in- ilatcd 126 ATTENT>IX. ftated into fuch an OfEcCj even in the grea^- eft Cafes of Necelfity, without an explicit Revelation of God's Will, thati:he Man fliould aO: therein, when the ordinary appointed Means of giving him his Commiffion was wanting. And if the Excufers of thofe Fo- reign Ordinations can {hew me fuch an In- ftance, I fhall be very much obliged to then> if they will be pleasM to do it. NAY further ; Suppofin^that 'twere pof* fible to determine a Cafe of Neceffityj that might be fufEcient to empower Men to admi- nifter Valid Sacraments, without Receiving a Commiflion for fo doing, by God's appointed Means of Epifcopal Ordination ; yet I don't find, that any of the abovefaid Writers have proved by good Arguments, that the faid Fo- reigners were ever under fuch a Cafe of Ne* ceffity, much lefs that they are fo norv : And till this is prov'd^ I fee no Reafon to be at all con- cluded by the Writings of even the beft of Men, when they make fuch Provifo's as God has not made^ and who can give us no Proof of their being guided in their Diftates by the infallible Spirit of Truth, as the Bleffed Apo- ftles and Prophets were. I K N O W that fome do beg the Quefti- on, by fuppofing, *^ What if the Epilcopal *' Order were utterly Extinft, and no Bifhops ^' could be found to confer Holy Orders; *' muft there be no Minifters therefore in the ** Chrirtian Church? And muft the Vifible *' Church ATTEN'OIX. 137 " Church of Chrift ceafe to have a Being as ^ fuch in the World ? This, at firfl: Propormg^ looks to be a very weighty Queftion ; but when we juftly refleft on the Divine Veracity, which has infollibly alTur'd us, That Chnfimll be with his ApoftLes, ( i. e, them and their ^titcef* fors^ the Btfhops) airvay e^ven unto THE END OF THE WORLD -, and that the Gates of Hades flj (ill neuer prevail again fl the Church ; then the Impertinence and Folly of this lii'hat if 2 does immediately difcover it felf: Becaufe it fuppofes what in Fa£t never was, nor ever will be ; and therefore needs no Anfwering becaufe not to be granted. But alas! Suppo- fing that it were (as it is not) poflible, for the Church to be univerfaliy deprived of her Valid Spiritual Fathers, the Bifhops ; 'tis our Duty^ as well as Safety, rather to wait and hope for fonie New Revelation of his Will, for another Inilitution of Men to fucceed in the Chriitiaa Priefthood, than to take it upon our felves by fuch Ways and Means as he has not hitherto appointed, and which will therefore prove in- effeftual for the fupernatural Purpofes of !u*s ; own Divine Inflitution ; (becaufe MAN by his own Authority only,can never makeaHumaa equal to a Divine Inftitution ; ) but this Cafe has never happened yet ; and therefore, no So- ciety of Men, either paft or prefent, can be at all excusM upon this fuppos'd Foundation. AN D now to conclude all that I have to fay totbisObjedion 5 no Doftrine whacfoever can ii8 ATTENT>IX. €an be provM to be falfe, by the Mifchiefs of thofe Confequences which neceffarily arife from it, when thofe Confequences themfelves are not contradiftory to fome frevion^s Truths ; and when Men by either their wilful Sins, or fupine Neglects, are the only Caufes of the Mil- chiefs of thofe Confequences, for which Truth and its Affertors are no ways anfwerable. This I believe is a Maxim that will ftand the Ted of a ftrift Examination, and hold good in the Cafe before us : And I pray God to touch the Hearts of thofe who are concerned in k, with a due fenfe of their Deviations from his Holy Inftitutes, that they may compleat a thorough.. Reformation ; that the Chriftian Priefthood may recover its Ancient Spiritual Glory ; and that we may be all blefs'd with the Happinefe of a Univerfal Communion of Saints here in the Church Militant, fo as to be in titled to an entire and eternal Union and Communion with the Church-Triumphant in the Kingdom of Heaven. Obj. X. 'Tis further objefled ; That if Lay- Baptifm be Invalid, then all thofe who never received any other Baptifm are uncapable of Holy OrderSjhaving never been BaptizM ; and therefore the Orders of feveral Epifcopally Or- dain'd Perfons among us are Null and Void^ and confequently fo are all their Minifterial Afts too, becaufe they never received any o- ther than Lay-Baptifm. This will involve the Church into the utmoft Confufioa j and there-^ tore ATTEN7)IX. 139 fore the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifni ought not to be allowM by any, who value the Order and Peace of the Church. Jf7fiv. THIS Objeftion raifes a Confe- quence from an uncertain, and it may be a falfe Foundation ; for it takes for granted, that the Unworthinefs of a Perfon to receive Holy Orders, or his being not duly qualified for them, by reafon of his being Unbaptiz'd, ren- ders Holy Orders, if conferred on him, Null and Void ; or, in fhort, that na^f of Baptifm Nulls Holy Orders in any Perfon Ordained to the Minifry. This Affertion does not yet appear eafy, if at all to be prov^d^ for thefe following Reafons. ift. Becaufe there is a vaft difference be- tween a Perfonal Capacity or Qualification, and an Authoritative One. For, a Perfonal Quali feat ton iox the Miniftry, is, what a Man is bound to be endow'd with, IN COMMON with all other Chriftians, whether he be Or- dained to the Miniftry or no ; and therefore Baptifm and Holinefs of Life being equally in- cumbent on all Chriftians, Minifters as well as Lay-men, may jujlly be diftinguifh'd by the Name of Perfonal QMalijications, ■ B U T an Authoritative Qudijication for the Miniftry is that only, whereby a Man is fefc- rated and difiingmjh'^d from the reft of Man- kind, and thereby empower^ to Perfonate and Reprefent t\\Q Divine Prefence, for the convey- ance of Spiritual and Supernatural Benefits to K us. i;o ATT ENT>IX. US. This is what we call the Divine Cotn- mifTion , conveyM from the Apoftles in Epifcopacy, and given to the OrdainM Perfon by Impofition of the Bifhop's Hands. 2dly^ A PERSONAL Qualtpation may be, and in faO: often is wanting^ when an Authors^ tativeOiie remains Good and Valid ; and there's abundance of Rcafon that it fliould be fo, be- cau'ie,thc Perfoml OtiAiifkation chiefly 'refpeds, the Man himfelf, who is, or ought to be, pof- lefs'd of it, fince he only will reap the benefit of having, or find the mifery of. being defti- tuteofir. But the Authoritative ^altjicationy as fiTch, relates only to God, and the People ; to God, as the Miniiter is to be his Proxy and 'Reprejcntative \ and to the People, as-theyare to receive from God the Supernatural Benefits of his Proxy^s Miniftrations. The People re- ceive no more advantage from the Perfonai (Qualification of God^s Reprefentative, than they do mifchief from bis Perfonai Immora^ litks'j that IS, none at all, (except but by tterr own Learning or Imitation of them, ) becaufe they are neither anfvverable for the one or the other, any farther than as they are Encouragers or Abettors of them : If he be deftitute of any fuch Qualifications, let him look to that, 'tis none of their bufinefs with refpcft to the Validity of his Miniftrations : All that tlicy are bound to take care of, nfon that fwgle account, is, -that -lie be TRULY SENT ; and'if tliey are but-onCe fecure df that^ then m ATT ENT>IX. Ti;ji jn all his Miniftrations they are not to fuppofc Jiim, but Chrift himfelf C whom he Perfonates^ to be Adminillring to them ; for, all Sacra- -irients, on the Part of the Adminijl ration^ are Good and Valid, only upon this ONE FOUN- DATION ; without this, of.Chrift the Great High Prieft's Adminiftringj either himfelf in Perfon, or by his Proxy, all Chriftian Sacra- ments muft fall to the Ground, and be of no ufe or advantage to Mankind : And therefore if we can but folidly^ /. e> upon good Founda- tion, believe, that he does thus Adminifter to us, we need never concern our felves with the Perfo/fal Qualtfica,twns of his Reprefentative,for the Validity of thofe Adminiftrations, which receive their whole Efficacy from t\\Q Author t- tat we Qualifications of Chrift himfelf, who has promised to make good, and confirm them, when performed by one whom he hasfent, - T O Exemplify all this in the Cafe before us : Holinefs of Life is required as a Perfonal Qualification, previous to Holy Orders ; This is evident from St. PauPs Epiftles to Timothy znATttm^ and yet 'tis well known, that our Lord himielf chofe ""judas Ifcarwt^ a covetous Thief, and one whom he himfelf branded with the Name of ^ Devil] I, fay, 'tis well known, that he chofe this wicked Wretch to be no lefs than an Jpojilej and fent/^/?-/^ to Preach and Baptize, to caft out Devils, and to heal the Sick, as well as the reft of the Apoftles; for which Reafon, all his JVJinifterial Ads were K 2 Good T^a ATT E NT) IX. Good and Valid, notwithftanding his being deftitute of the Perfond Qualification of Holt^ nefs of Ltfe ; and 'tis univerfally acknowledged, that the fame is true of all other wicked Bi- fhops, Pnelb,and Deacons wliatfoever, other- wife wx could never be fatisfied with the Va- lidity of Ordinations in any Age of Chriftia- nity. And therefore, tho' Holinefs of Life is a necefjary Perfond QualifcMion for the Mini- ih-y, becaufe of great Edification to the Peo- ple, fjc. Yet if a truly Ordained Minifter fliould be a wicked Man, the People ought not to fiifpeft the Validity of his Miniftrati- ons by reafon of the Wickednefs of his Life, becaufe, 'tis Chrift that Adminifters by him as his Proxy only^ and Chrift^s Miniftrations are certainly Good and Valid ; let his vifible Re- prefentative be never fo wicked, he himfelf (and not the People, except they concur with, and encourage him in his Wickednefs,) muft anf^^er for that. This isexaftly agreeable to the 26th Article of the Church of England ; and therefore there is no need longer to infifl: upon k, but to proceed to Baptifm, another Perfond Qualificatton for Holy Orders. I T is certainly the indifpenfable Duty of Et^ery Mmtfier to be Baptized, as well as to be perfonally Holy, becaufe ^tis a Divine Law to which all ought to pay Obedience. For which Reafon I cannot omit commending the lauda- ble Cuftom of the Church oiRome^ who (tha' Corrupt and fcandaloufly Wicked in other Matters, ATT EN'DIX. 1^5 Matters, yet) requires her Candidates for Ho- ly Orders to prove their Baptifm, before they can be admitted into the Miniftry : And I fhould heartily rejoice to fee the Governors of the Church of England require the fame of her Candidates for the Minilterial 'Function, who, 'tis to be fear'd, ever fince the Refor- mation,have never been enjoynM to bring Cer- tificates of their Baptifm, as well as of their Good Behaviour and Chriftian Converfation. This Omiffion, I charitably believe, proceed- ed only from an Opinion, that none would fre^ fume to enter into Holy Orders before they were Baftiz^d^ and that therefore ^twas nsedUfs to re- quire a Froofof their Baptifm : But however, if this Cuftom had been preferv'd, 'tis reafonable to believe, that the Englifb Clergy would (fbme of them) have been more ftricl in keep- ing their Pari]b-Regi(lers of Perfons Baptiz'd by Lawfully Ordained Minifters, and not have fufFer'd Schifmatical Lay^Baptifms to have beea Regifter'd among the Trtte Baptifms^ as 'tis now fcandaloufly praftic'd in fome Places, to the great Grief of many, and I hope almoft all Englifh Clergymen, who have conftantly pp^ i^s^At\\is unwarrantable Pracfice^ and vyill (to their Praife be it fpoken ) nev^r fqffer fuch Regifters to be m^de in their Parifh Books. I fay, if this good Cuftom of requiring Certifir Gates of their Baptifm had been continued, 'ti^ very likely, that no Lay-BaptizM Perlba would have got fucb a Certificate from the K 5 Minilkf 134- ATT ENTflX. Minifter of any Parifli ; becaufe a Minifter's giving fuch a Certificate, would have been a publilhing of his own fault, in making a Re- girter that is contrary to the Laws and Cuiloms of the Church j for he muft have mentioned the Lay-man's Name, who was laid to have BaptizM thePerfon,and thereby have declared, that he himfelf took part with Schtfmamksy and confequently muft have incurrM the Pen-» allies of the loth and i^jth Canons of the Church of England : And this might have been an ef- fectual means of preferving the Regtfters en* tire, and confequently of keeping out of the Miniftry, thofe who receivM Baptifm from Lay-Preachers ; ho other Lay-men being at leaft now fo prefumptudus, as once to pretend to Baptize. But this only by way of Di^ greffion. AN D now to return ; Chriftian Baptifm 15 certainly K-Perfonal Qfial if cation {ov Holy Or- ders ; and that it is no more than a Perfonal Oncj I infer from hence, becaufe all Ghriltiaris i^re EQJJA.LLY bound to be Baptiz'd, Mini- fters a IX. 1^5 but the CommifTion that makes him a Chri- ftian Miniiler, or one [et apart to Mimftcr tn the Divine Offices of the Chrijiian Religion. His being Bapttz^ed is not his Commtffion ; for, if it is, then all Baptiz'd Perfons are, as fuch, Com- miffiond Officers of the Church ; and fo there is no need of any other Ordimtton^ which is ab- furdjandcontrary to the Principles upon which this Objeftion is raised. Again, His being Bap- tiz'd, is no Inftituced Ejfential Part of bis Corn* miifion\ for, if it be, then all Baptiz'd Perfons, as fuch, have One Infticuted Ejfer^id Fart of a Com million, tho' ^ot a whole Comm/jfion ; which is alfo abfurd, becaufc a Commiffioa is but ONE THING, and the EjfentmlMarts thereof cannot be feparated without Violence gnd Deftrudion to the whole ; and therefore all Bapti?.'d Perfons, if they haveO/^^ Ejfential Pare of a Commiffion, muft have the whole; which brings us back to the firil: Abfurdity, and confequently Baptifm it fetf,being no Con- ftituent Eifential Part of his Commiffion, or Ordination, He who is Deftitute of Baptifm, is not by reafon of that WANT ALONE, Peftitute of Holy Orders. If it be objeLled, that while he is Unbaptiz'd, he isout of the Church : And how can he, who is not of the Church, admit another by Baptifm into the thurch ? I Anfvver, Tho' he is out of the Church with refped to any Benefits himfeif, yet not with refped to t!ie Spiritual Benefits, he has Authority and Cpmmiilioa mediately to K 4 convey 156 ATT EN'DIX. convey to others : For, a Man may be a True Alejfe^/ger to carry that Good to another,which lie himfelf neither does, nor ever will enjoy. A Mailer of a Family may fend a Neighbour, or a Strar?ger^ rvho is not of his Family y and give him full Power and Authority to adopt and enter into his Family, fome Poor, Deftitute, Orphan Children, whom he Commiferates. And tlio' that Stranger be not of the Family himfelf, yet his Adopting thofe poor Children into th:.t Family, ftands good ; becaufe the Alafter of the Family fent and impotver'^d him to do it. And this I take to be very parallel to the Cafe in hand : And therefore he who is not of the Church, becaufe UnbaptizM, may ^f truly admit a Perfon into the Church by Baptifm, as he who (tho? Baptized ) thro' his Wickednefs, is deftitute of the Holy Ghoft, can convey the Gift of the Holy Ghoft by his Miniftration of Sacraments to others : For, as 'tis not the Perfonal Holinefs of the Admini- ftrator, that conveys Holinefs to me in the Miniftration of any Sacrament ; fo neither does liis having received that Sacrament, fignify any thing to me for the Validity thereof, when he Adminifters it to me ^j virtue of a Divine Com- mtffion e:xplicitlj given to him. This COMMIS- SION ALONE, is that which makes the Mi- niftration not his, but God's own Ait, and as fuch (^without any other Appendant Caufe^ 'tis Good and Valid. Hence our Bleffed Lord caird both Unbaptiz'd and Uoholy Men, vfz, his r ATTENDIX, 1^7 his Apoftles, who cannot be provM to have been Bafriz^d in the Name of the Trinity before his Refuneftion ; and one of them, Judas If- carioty a Thief, a Devil in his Difpofition, to the Adminiftration of Holy Things, as if he would thereby teach us, to look with Faith OH HIS AUTHORITY ONLY, without con- fiding in any of the beft Accomplifhments of thofe on whom he has conferrM it. And if wt: do but look back to the Condition of the Jewijh Church, during their forty Years fo- journing in the Wildernefs, we fhall find that none of them were Ciit:umcisM in all that fpace of time ; and tho' the Uncircumcis'd was by God's own Appointment to he cut off from among his People \ yet the Miniftry of thofe Priefts ^nd Levires, who were born in the term of thofe Forty Years, was not Null'd and made Void for their want of Circumcifi- on ; which doubtlefs was as much njeceffary to qualify them for Holy Orders, as Baptifm is now to qualify our Chriftian Priefts. UPON the Whole ,• As neither the Baptifm, nor Perfqnal Holinefs of the Minifter, can me- diately Baptize or make us Holy, but THE DIVINE AUTHORITY refiding in him ; fo neither can the Bapttfm or Perfonal Holinefs o£ the Bifhop confer Holy Orders, but THE DIVINE AUTHORITY from Chrift and his Apoftles, vifibly conveyM to and refiding jn him: 'Tis by virtue of THIS ALONE that Koly Orders are given; and if either the Bi- |Jl0|| 1^8 ATT EN'DIX. ihop or Ordaia'd Perfon, or both, have anjf Perjbml hcafacity^ viz.. of Wickednefs,or want ofBaptifm, the Fault is their own, and they muft anfwer for it : But as for the Ordination, that rnufl remain Good and Valid, by reafon of the External Divine CQiXim\S\ow4e UBo given to the BiQiop. For, if every Ferfond, Dcfe^i of what is requirM, either in the Admi- niftrator or Recipient, could Invalidate thQ Adminiftration, either of ^aptifm or Hoijf. Orders, we flipuki never have an. End of Re- baptizations .and Reordinatioi}S ; Nay, wq could never have any Certainty, either of Valid Bapciiins or Ordinations, becaufe we fliould always find but too many Occafions, to call ia queftion the Sufficiency of the Preparations, and Perfonal Qualifications of both Minifl:ers and People, who are all equally expos'd to the fame Human Frailties, and liable to be try'd with the famC: innumerable Temptations. AND therefore I humbly conceive, our beft way is (XdQn't-fay ON{:..Y but) CHIEF^ LY to regard, ;Wd infill on.fa^Vifible Divine Authority and CommiiTion, handed down ii'Qm Chrift and his Apoftles, by th^t 'ORDER, pf Men, \w\\o\\^VQ,divays hadppwqf to convey it to others; this, .with x\\^ Bright- Matter ^pa ^orm of Adminiitration, are what we oughi; pefteem to ipc ,the Qnly Effcmi4i of BapriUn ^nd Ordination, , m the Part of; the Admins ftratioa of , them,;; and as, for the reft, eveiy QneViii- pamcuj^^ og^uft. 49 his^.paji; to the nt- ATT E N'DIX. 1^9 moft of his Power, to fecure thofe Perfonal iQualifications, which God has requir'd of both Minifter and People, under no lefs Penalty than that of Eternal Damnation, upon the wilful negleft of thenx* T H U S far I have prefum'd to declare my Thoughts, concerning the Uncertainty and (as far as I can fee) the Falfenefs of the Foun* dation, upon which this whole Objeftion is raised, humbly fubmitting all I have faid ia oppofition to it, to the better Reafons and Ar? guments of my Superiors, the truly Ordain'd Minifters of Jefus Chrift, whether Bifliops, Priefts, or Deacons ; fincerely declaring, that if any thing has dropM from me, that is con- trary to the Truth of Chriftianity, I do here- by Recant it, and will do fo in a more parti- cular manner, as fooa as I can difcover my Error. - AND now, whether what I have faid againft Ordinations, and Holy Miniftrations; being NuU'd for want pf Bapcifm, be true or po; if the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm be a Truth, let every one take care to keep him- felf from, or extricate himfelf out of, the mif- chievous Confequences of it. And if the Nulhng of Holy Orders and Miniftrations, be a real Confequencc of this Truth, then there's no other Remedy, but that they vyho are in- volved in it, fhould extricate ttem.felves out of it, by Epifcopal Baptifm and Reordination. It is not enough co fay, that ^' 2'/^// willmvolve '' the. HO jiTTENBIX. " fhe Church • mo the utmofi Confufton ; for, want of Baptiftn and a Valid Miniftry is the moft pernicious Confufion,and infinitely grea- ter than what can proceed from fuch Perfons receiving Valid Baptifm and Holy Orders ; and therefor, if the Premifes are true, the Risk muft be run ; for Truths of fo great Im- portance muft not be ftifled, and made to give way to fupposM Confufions ; becaufe, what- foever miichief may a rife, can never be the Refult of Divine Truth ( which is always Good and Beneficial ) but of Mens Sins and Impieties, in ufurping thofe Sacred Offices, which they never received any Commiffion to Ad m. So that, they who value the Order and Peace of the Church, ought not to dif- allow of the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm, upon the Account of this Confequence, but rather to enquire ferioufly, whether Divine Revela- iim gives us any Foundation to believe, that fijch Bdprifms are Good and Valid; and if th^y are not, wiiether the Nulling of Holy Orders be a real Confequence thereof; and if it be, they fhould affert and maintain it to the ut- molt of their power, nay even to Martyrdom it felf, ii the defending fuch a Truth did ex- pofe them to it, rather than fuffer themfelves to be deftitute both of a Chnjtian PriefthoocL and QiJrtlhun Baptifm. Obf XL BUT others fay, that to avoid the fatal Confequences of adhering too rigo- foufly to this Docirine of Lay-Bfiptifms being Invalid^ ATT EI^'DIX. 141 Invalid, the Authority of the " Ponders Hkrar-^ *' chical are uery Divine^ and the fame which *' Chrijt had J nGt to the 'violation of his Larvs^ but '' to DISPENSE with them to EDIFICATI- ^' ON, for which they may be impower^d to Relax ** ft a ted Rules in cafes that appear necejfarj or *' expedient. And that thu'efore, tho Hereti-^ ^' ca\ Schifmaiicaly and Mimical Baptifms are ^^ done without^ nay^ and again ft the confent of the *' Hierarchy, ^;^^ therefore are not entire^ or valid *' in themjelves^ yet they are made fo on the Poft* *' Faffy by the Spiritual Powers^ J'^f^^y ^ that '* the External Rite foall not be Reiterated \ but *' as to any Spiritual Graces they are not to be had •' thereby^ till thofe defective and Irregular A^s *' are fupplfd^ Righted and Confirmed^ by th^ ** Chrifm of the Bi/bop^ or Impofition ofhts Hands^ ** or fuch Right by which he fhall fx the Perfan ^^ Baptized into a State af Canonical Vnion with ^' the Church, So alfo, the Validity of Lay- " Baptifm, as well to its Internal^ as External " Privileges y ft and s on the Authority of the " Church'^s Power to grant fuch Licenfe to Lay- ^^ men in Extremities, All which being con-' fider'd, Lay-Bapcifms ought now to be ac- knowledged Valid, efpecially to fuch as have been confirmed by the Bifhop. Anfw, THIS Objeflion is for the moft part in the very Words of a Learned and Reverend Oppofer, of One of the nioft Poyfonous Books, that, it may be, was ever fuffer'd to be Pub- liOi'd in the Ciiriftian World, falfty html'd^ the 141 AfT ENDIZ the RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ASSERTED. The worthy Au- thor, who has done the Church good Service^ in anfwering that pernicious Book, I dare fay, never defigned^ that any thing in his moft Excellent Book fhould be conftru'd to favour our Lay-Baptifms, which are evidently w Opj' fofition to the Divine Right of Epifcopacy^ and for which the Hierarchical Powers of the Church of England have provided NO ACT OF CONFIRMATION. So that, in thefe Nations, our Lay-Baptizers, and their Profe- lytes, can reap no Benefit by any thing af^ ferted in this Objection. I H A V E already, under the Corollary of the Third Propofition, declared my Reaibns againft the Difpenfing Power pleaded in this Objeftion ; to which I fliall further add, That I acknowledge the Divine Powers of the Hterar^ chy ; but with this Reftriftion ; That fince the Settling of the Canon of t;he Holy Scriptures^ they are for ever limited IN THINGS FUN- DAMENTAL to that Rule, from which they have no Authority to deviate, and confequcnt- ly not to dtffenfe with any of the Effentials of Baptifm, which (without all doubt) is a Fun* damental of Chriftianity : Such a Diffenjation muft be a ViolanonoiChxl^^^ Law ; and how that fhould be to Edification^ is inconceivable,; fince Chrill, our Great Lawgiver, has prqvd* ded Fundamentals fufficient for the Edification of his Church, in all Circuioiftances whatfo- ever ; ATTEN91X. 14? )t^t i and Obedience to his Laws about Fun- -damentals, is moft certainly thebert Edifica- tion : Otherwife, He who is Omnifcient Wif. -dom it felf,would never have made fuch Laws* And therefore, with Submidion, there fee ms to be no Necefltty for Empowering the Go- verno^rs of the Church *^ to relax his Suted •^ Rtiles^ no not in Cafes that appear necejfary ;^* or expedient, Befides, if Ghrift has made Stated Rules for the Effentials of Chriltian Sa- craments, without providing for fuch preten- *ded Cafes of ^Neceffity ; the Hierarchical Powers muft certainly run a great Hazard of Sin, in attempting to difpenfe with Things for which he has made no Provifion ; and the Perfons difpens'd with can have no jufi Satis^ fa^ion'm fuch Difpenfations ; efpecially when the feeming Caufe of them is removed, as it certainly is in the Cafe of Perfons baptiz'd by Vnaiithoriz'd Lay-men, contrary to the Stated Rule, who may afterwards obtain Epifcopal ©a^ptifm agreeable to-the Law of Chrill, if the ''Hierarchic d Pvwers will hut (rive them Leave. THIS Lfay in Oppofition to tliofe who kffirm, that the Hierarchical Powers ARE *' 'ACTUALLY ENDOWED ^wtth Juthortty ^^%' difpenfe mHx-Chrijrs Lm% and to relax " -Stated 'RkUs^' in Cafes that appear necejfary *^' ttMexpedihff^^ ; which the Learned Author, ^hofe Words4hey ufe, does not fay. A!] that he intimates, is only, that they MAYBE €rt>powcr'd to do- far Which plainly Pcitw% -''^^'V'^-'' '■ that 144- ATTENDIX. that he would not irenture to affirm that they really are ; and 'tis reafonablc to believe, that upon Second Tlioughts, he will not allow (o much, as that they maj he fo empowered: Be- caufe what may be, may not he^ as far as we know. Nay, 'tis more agreeable to Reveal'd Religion, to fay, that they are not fo em- powered ; becaufe a Thing of fo great Mo^ ment would never have been left out of the Divine Oracles, to be handed down to us thro' all Ages, by the UNCERTAIN METHOD of Oral Tradition only. And therefore, 'tis very unfafe for us to truft in fuch [ may he's ], when the Receiving, or not Receiving, of Spiritual Sufernatural Privileges and BentfitSy depends upon the Truth or Faliity of fuch a Difpenfing Power, as it certainly does in the Adminiftration of Chriftian Sacraments, "//e- " reticalj Schifmatical and Mimical Baftifms, are in this Objection acknowledged to be '' not ** Entire or Valid in themfehes ; therefore in themfelves thery are utterly and entirely In- valid ; (J?y the Corollary of the Third Propofition.') It is alfo laid, That ^' ^ to any Spiritual Graces^ *' they are not to be had thereby^ tilly&co Which is a plain Indication, that of THEMSELVES they are of r^o Efficacy to the Purpofes of Chri^ ftian Baptifm ; the Adminiftration whereof is certainly efficacious for the Conveyance of Spiritual Graces. Again : They are call'd here *' Defective and Irregular A6fs. But why are they Dcfecfive ; except but for their being uncapable uncapaHi&^jiiLjM'oducing'the proper Effects of true, Baptifm ? And why fliould they be Jterm'd Irregular Acis ; except only but for be- ing contrary to the Stated Rule, (or, whicli is the fame) the EirftJnllitation of Chriftiaii Baptifin ? ._ '» . .'.j;':r;v;.:'- S O that die £f/^rW.vK/^ perforni'd by thefe Hereticd^ Schijmatkal ap^d. Mimieal Baj/^ tizers, being thus acknowledge to be contra- ry to t\\Q Inftmtio'/i of Baptifm, and utterly incapable in, it felf of ibejng the Means to convey any Spiritual Graces \ what has it to do with.Chriftian Baptifm ? Certainly it muft be a mere Nullity, and all one as if it had ne- ver been perjform'd : Becaufe, if it had no Virtue to confer Spiritual Graces, it had no Virtue to confer any Bcnefii; at all ; for even the outward Privileges are no Privileges, when feparate from the Spiritual Graces. Thus, all Perfons on whom the faid External Rite was performed, can receive by means thereof none of the Benefits of Chriftian Bap- tifm ; which are all Spiritual and Supernatu- ral; and confequently, muft remain in the State of the Unbaptiz'd, till they receive True Chriftian Baptifm ; which, how they can re- ceive, without repeating the External Rite by a Proper Adminiftracor, is utterly inconceiv- able. It is faid indeed, That " thoje Defeciive ^' and Irregular Acfs (/. e. the External Rites of thofe Heretical, Schifmatical and Mimical ^1 Baptifms) are Supplfd^ Righted^ and Conjirnyd ' L bj t46 ATfEN'DlX. *' by the Chrifm of the Bifhof, or Imfofition ofhU *^ Hmds, 8cc. For Anfwer to which, I refer the Reader to the Corollary of the Third Prop* fition ; and further add, That this is only faid, and not prov'd ; and I believe never will, till it can be demonftrated, that, that which be- fore was no Baptifm at all in tlie Chriftian Senfe of the Word, is now made True Chriftian Baptifm, ( without the Aft of Baptization ) merely by the Bifhop^s Chrifm, or Impofi-* tion of his Hands. Either the firft External Rite was the ONE BAPTISM the Scripture fpeaks of, or it was not ; if it Was, then it was Entire and Valid Baptifm, ^nd confequently Wants no fuch Aft of the Bifhop to fr^pply md right it ; but if it was not thatO N E BAP- TISM, then nothing can make it fo, but the very Aft of Baptization by a Chriftian Mini- fter : For it may with as much reafon be af- firni'd,that Baptifm is AdminifterM really and truly by fuch Aft of the Bifhop, ' to all other Unhapttz^d Perfons as Well as to thofe ; and fo at laft, Baptifm it felf will be render'd need* lefsjwhen the want of it can htfo eafilyfupply'^d: But no lefs than a Divine Revelation will fuP. fice to convince us, that this is true ; and till that is pi*oduc'd, we muft continue to believe, riiat not all the Afts of the Higheft Created Powers on Earth, are fufficient to make that which before was- no Baptifm,to become Chri- ftian Baptifm, without the Aft of Baptization by a proper Minifter, as Chrift has appointed ia AfTEN7)IX. 147 in the Inftitution : And that confequently^ they who never received any other than Lay- £aptifm, are Hill unbaptiz.'d, notwithftanding their being fuppos'd to have been coniirm'd bytheBifhQp. • Ihb hoF;- Thus far, upon S«fp6fition that the An- cient Heretical and Sghifmatical Baptifms were of the fame Natqr^; with thofe of Un- authoriz'd Lay-men's Bctptifms ;, which this Objedion feems to reprefent them to have be«n ; becaufe it fays, that they were not Va- lid in themjehes That no Spiritual Graces rvere to be had thereby^ &c. Tho' in truth thofe Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms were not of the fame Nature with UnautborizM Lay- Baptifms ; for they were i)erform'd by Perfons who had receiv'd fipifcopal Ordination, and fo were authorized to Baptize. So that, whatfoever was the Fault of thofe Baptifms, the Churches who allow'd them, r^ckon'd that they were Valid in themj elves (as want- ing no Efjential Part of the Inftitution ) tho' accidentally Criminal, by reafonof the Un- charitablenefs of the Separation of thofe He- reticks and Schifmaticks, who adminifter'd and receiv'd thofe Baptifms: And during this Uncharitablenefs, they reckoned, that the Bap- tized received no Benefit by their Baptifm, till they came into the Umty of the Church ; when, upon their Repentance of, and Abfolu- tion from, the Guilt of their Uncharitable Se- paration, by Impofition of th® Bifhop's Hands, L 2 the the Obftacle w^s tliought to be taken aWay, which before hirider'd the Benefit of the Sa^ crament, and fo the Graces due to their Bap^ -//////, ^ if it had been done in Charity, and which were impeded and hinder'd, by reafon of their Uncharitabteoefs and Sirful Separa- tion from the Church ; upon their Coming in- to her Unity, took place, and became effectual to their Spiritual Advantage. This was the Opinion of thofe Ghiitches, who allowM thofe Baptifms to be V&Ud in themf elves : And how true this their Opinion' was, T am not con- xern'd ; becaufe the -Baptifms I am difpnting;, -are vuyz {i\q\\ HerettG^l 2inA Scyijmdtk^^^ Bap'- ■trjmsy hmt plainly Uk^uthoriz^d ; not only mtk^ out xny Goinmiflioa^t all,but a:lfo //^ Ofpofi'tion :to^ Epifcopacy >'it-Celf'; which thofe^ Ancient , Churches f^cve^y eBcpsrienc^dy nor enter'd into .any'Confaltation atout. 5 '..•/::.:*• / i':-As for tht^^al^iff'hf Lay-Baftifm,Thu it *^'>'Jt^?/ds or> the Juthority oftheCbtircWs Power y •5^ to gY4nl 'juih Lice?? j^^ to Lay-men in Exiremi^ -« 'i/.*^ ;'' whetl it can be prov'djthatO?-//? has -y^psd his Church' mth'fuch a> Pomr,^'ii^v^\\\ ^e^ 'ceifarily follow, that flich Authorized Lay- Baptifm, tnCajcs of Extremity^ muft be Valid •>ipon that Foundation : But even then our ■ Ordij^my Lay-'Baptifms'^w^ be Null and Void, becaufe they are tteftitute of the Plea of Ne- ^■iliry^ and aifo of any fuch Authority given -them by the Church; in a Country where rCbrirtiaa Pricfts ^re to be had. And there- •• ' fore, ATTEND IX. 149 fore, 'tis in yaini to claicn any Benefit from the fupposM Power of the Church ; becaufe ihe her feh' is fupposM not to have Authority to exercife tliis Power, except in EXTREMI- TIES, which (God be prais'd) we do nptji?.^ labour under. But, after all, 'tis dangerous for the Church to give any fuch Liberty to Lay-Perfons for Cafes of Neceffity, as fome People call "^em :, Becaufe, this would be an Oc- cafion ,of Peftroying the very Unity of the Church, and expofe her to the Endlefs Dlvifi- ons and Separations, which Hereticks and Schifmaticks would make from her. For, if by Virtue of this fupposM Power, flie fhould once make a Canon to Licenfe Lay-men to Adminifter Valid Baptifm in Cafes of Extre^ mity, then, fuch Dividing Hereticks and Schifmaticks, calling their pretended Scruples and Tenderneffes of Confcieme^ by the Name of CASES OF EXTREMITY, would eftablifh the Validity of their Lay-Adminiftrations, up- on the Authority of the Church from whom they feparate, and vindicate their Oppofitions |:o her, by the Power which flie (in fuch cafe) would be conftru'd by Implication to give un- to them. And fo every Private Perfon, after having blinded his Underilanding by heark- liing to Falfe Teachers, might plead. That he was under a NECESSITY to feparate from the Church, by reafon that he cannot over- come his Scruples about her Dodrine and Worfhip *, and therefore might join himfelf to L 3 gny I50 ATTENDIX. any Congregation he fliould like beft, without the leaft Fear of Dividing from the Church : Becaufe, whereTnie Sacraments^ nnth all the Ef- fenttals relating thereto^ md the Word ofGod^ are^ there rnufi be a Tri4e Church ; and he could find Proper Sacraments adminifterM in thefe New Congregations even by Lay-Adminiftra- tors, who would be prefumM to aft by the Authority of the Church her felf. This would be to build the Church and its Unity upon fo precarious a Foundation, that we fliould not know what Schifm and Caufelefs Separation inean, tho' the Scripture tells us there are, and will be fuch Sins : And the Apoftle's Pronoun- cing Damnation upon thofe who are guilty of fuch Sins, {^GaL 5. 20, 21.) would have n0 Force and Efficacy upon Men's Confciences^ if they fhould once perfwade themfelves (as they too often do) that they feparate for Ne- crffity^ and can {tcfon that very Jaour/t) receive Valid Sacraments from Lay-Hands : Ancl then ^tvvill be in v^'m to fay, that fuch Lay- Adminiftrations muft be confirm'd by the BiQiop, before they can be Valid Sacraments. For it will be demanded, by what Authority the Bifliop requires fuch Adminiftrations to be confirmM by him ? And if good Teftimonials from Holy Scripture are not produced for this Purpofe, the Bifliop's Supplying and Righting fuch Irregular Afts, will be made a Jeft o^ and the Separattfis will conclude themfelves as much in the Church as the Bilhop himfelf, while :4TTENT>IX. 151 while they Adminifter and Receive as good Sacraments as he ; fince he cannot prove their Lay-Adminiftrations neceffary to be Confirm'' d.^ Righted and Sufflfd^ by impofition of his Hands, i^c On the contrary, if it had but been conftantly aflerted and defended, That the Sacraments of the Chrtjlian Church are^ by Inflitution^ of fuch a Nature^ that the Chrifiian Prieflhood is one Infef Arable and Effential Re- lation to them^ or^ that the Divine Authority of the Adminiflratory is AS MUCH and as durable a fart of their Inflitutionj as the very Matter ^ or outward Elements of them. If Men had been always taught^ that in the Sacraments^ the Priefi" is AS MUCH the Refrejentative of God the Giver J as the outward Elements are of the Graces giveny and that confec^uently^ thefe tatter are no Chrifiian Sacraments when feparate from God^s Authorized Refrefentative the Prieff : And that the Church her f elf cannot by any Authority given to her, alter the nature of thefe things. If thefe Topicks had been conftantly infilled on, with- out Jrimming to pleafe any Party of Hereticks or Schifmaticks whatfoever ; 'Tis more than probable, that Men would have been much more tender of the Unity of the Church, and more cautious of feparating from her, than now we find they are ; fince how far foever their vain Curiofity might have prompted them to have follow'd Newfangled Lay-Teachers fo pleafe their itching Ears, yet the Con- fideration of their being deftitute of CHRI- j. 4 5'riAN 151 ATT E NT) IX. STIAN SACRAMENTS, might have terri- ■fy'd them from mtbdrmving from the Com- munion of the Chriftian Priefthood, and thereby have preveritcd, at leaft, many of thofe' fml Sepdratwns ixom the only Salutary Cowmuhion^ which abundance of poor Wret- ches have fallen into, meerly thro' the falfe notion of better Edification, and a vain belief of being fure to find true Chriftian Sacraments in Communion with their New Jet uf Lay* Teachers, And 'tis juftly to be fearM, that the continual feparations from the Church in all Ages, and particularly in ours, have chiefly fprung from this w^retched Opiriion of the mcer O^hs 0 per at urn of Sacraments being real Sacraments, whether Adminifter'd by a Prieft or a t^y-Man ; as if Chrift's appointing the Ordei oi^ Priefthood in the Chriftian Church, fignify?d nothing at all, notwithftanding 'twas •the refult of the moft confummate Wifdom of our Great Lawgiver. B IJ T, becaufe 'tis pleaded from Scripture Inftancesy that Cafes of Neceirity and Extre- mity, have taken place of Divine Inftituti- ons,. and that therefore Baptifm, in Cafes of .cictream.Neceffity, may be Validly Admini- fter'd by a Lay-man, notwithftandmg the Iri- itinution requires it to be AdminifterM by a Prieft: And forafnuch, as many Lay-bap- tiz'd Pcrlbns encourage themfelves by luppd- fing theirs tobe-a Calerf Neceflity^^andtCon- fcquently that they : liave received true Chri- t" I ftiaa AT TENT) IX. 155 ftian Baptifm, Ifliall therefore, inAnfwerto the next Objeftion fhew, that thofe Inftances producM from Scripture are not parallel to Chriftian Baptifm, and that there is nothing in them that can favour Lay-Baptifm, even in Cafes of the greateft Extremity. Obj. XII. IN the Inftitution of the PalTo- ver, it was appointed that the Jews fhould eat the Pafchal Lanib ^' with their Loins gird- ^' ed^ their Shoes on their Feet^ and their Staffs ^^ in their Handy Exod. 12. 11. which figni- fies a ftanding Pofture : The Church of the Jem afterwards changM this Pofture into that of Leaning or Lying along ; and our Saviour finding this Cuftom prevailed in his Days* comply M with it when he celebrated the Paf- {ovQVj {Mat. 26. 20.) Which plainly fliews, that we may many times comply with the Churches changing even a Divine Inftitution for a Human one; and why not therefore with the Churches allowing of Lay-Baptifm in Cafes of Neceflity ? Again, our Saviour reproving tiiQjeivs for their over Rigid Nicenefsin obfer- Ving the Divine Inftitution of the Sabbath, tells them, " That David n4jen he had need did *^ take and Eat the Shew-Bread^ andgaz^e to them *^ that were with him ; which was not lawful for ^^ him to eaty neither for them that were with himy ^' btit for the Priejls alone (St. Mat. 12. 4. St. Mark 2. 25, 26.) making David\ Ne- ceflity a fufficient Reafon,- for difpenfing at that time with God's own Pofitive Inftitiiti- oa 154 ATTENTflX. on about the Shew-Bread. And further, our Blefled Lord upon the fame occafion reproving the Jervsj fays, that God will have Mercy and not ^acrijice^ (St. Mat. 1 2. 7.) Which is fuffi- cient to inftruft us, that in Cafes of NecefTity, the Pofitive Inftitutions of God himfelf muft be fometimes difpens'd with, for the fupply of our Wants, and confequently that Baptifm in Cafes of Neceffity, where a Prieft cannot be had, may be Validly AdminifterM by a Lay- jTjan, to fupply the Spiritual Wants of thofe who are Unbaptiz'd. Jfifw. THIS Objeftion confifts of fo ma- ny Particulars, that 'twill be neceiTary for me to confider it, in the fame order wherein it lyes. And, i/- THE Pofture of (landing to Eat the Pafchal Lamb, was no more than a Temporary Inftitution, peculiar to the Celebration of the Fitft Paffover in Egyft^ the very Night the *[je\\s were to depart out of that Country, This is plain, from the Reafonof God's ap- pointing them to Eat in fuch a Pofture of Travellers, tn hajle^ viz. becaufe he would ** ///2/i through the Land of E^ypt that Nighty ^' and Smite all tho' Eirfl-born m Egypt both of " Ma^ and Bcafl^ (ver. 1 2.) which would have fuch an Effcft upon the Egyptians, that they would be very preifing and Urgent upon jtlie Children of IJrad to depart out of their Country to he rid of their Company, for ^}}ofe fake they had fuffered fo raanyiand •'; ■ ' ■ ' great ATTEN'DIX. 155 great Plagues, and were now depriv'd of their Firft-born, throughout all their Houfes and Families : See Exod. 1 2. from ver, 29. to ver^ 54. And, if the Children of Ifrael had not been that Night in fuch a Travelling Pofture, they would not have been prcparM for fo fuddea and hafty a Departure, as the diftrafted and terrifyM Egyptians obligM them to, whereby they might have been exposM to abundance of Inconveniencies, both from the Fury of the Egyptians^ and their own Unpreparednefs for a Midnight Journey : And therefore that they might not be thus incommoded, God required them to eat the Pafchal Lamb " IN HASTE, *' mth their Loins girded^ and their Shoes on their ** Feet^ and their Staff in their Hand^ to be ready for their Journey at any Warning that fhould be given them that Night ; but after their Departure, the Reafon of this Appoint- ment ceas'd, and therefore fo did the Appoint- ment it felf, and confequently was no longer binding and obliging ; and we never find this Travelling Pofture repeated in any of the after Celebrations of the Paffover: but that it was only a Temporary Inftitution^ peculiar to that firft Celebration, I appeal to the Learned "Jews both Ancient and Modern, and alfo to our beft Commentators upon the Place, (fee Bilhop P^/^r/V/^, Grotias^ Diodati^ PooPs Synof- fis^ Sec.) to whom I refer the Reader, that I may not be more prolix upon this Subjeft. THE 156 ATTE NT>IX. THE Poilure of Standing then, being not enjoynM to be conftantly us'd, was no E^ential Van o{ the Inftitution of the Paflbver, and therefore 'twas afterwards indifferent what Po- fture the Jews fhould Eat the Pafchal Lamb in ; for which Reafon, their Church certainly had Power to appoint any innocent Pojhreihf^ Ihould think fit ; and fince Leaning or Lying dang was detcrminM by her, and prevailed iii our Saviour's Days, and he was pleasM to conform to ic, we ought to follow his Example in complying with fuch InfHtutions of the Church as are not contrary to the Law of God. But this Inftarice do's not allow us to comply with the Church's CHANGING a Divine In- ftitution for a Human one ; becaufe, the Church of the Jews did not herein CHANGE a Divine into a Human Inftitution-^ for the Pofture of Standing was then no Divine AfPointment he- cauje not Effential to the Pajfover^ and therefore the Church of the jF^i-didnot CHANGE this into another Ceremony, but APPOINT the indifferent Ceremony of Lying or Leaning, when there was no Divine Inftitution at that time, obh'ging them to any other Polture. AND therefore, we ought not, from the Juthority of this Inliance^, tO comply w^ith the Church's allowing of Lay-Baptifm in Cafes of Ncceihty, becaufe, Baptifm by a PRIEST is Eflcntiat to CliriiHaa Baptifm, and as mucl^ obliging as the Inftitution of WATER itfelf^ during the utmoft term of the ChriftianDifr penfatiofij ATTEN'DIX. 157 fperifation, as I have provM under the Fh'ft ^riH Second Propohtions.^ And a Lay-man's Baptizing to confer fupsrnatural Benefits, is NO -INDIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE in^the Powbr ; {- < --^ >^' -- 2. A S for the Inftance of -DMid^ an5 hr^ Men's Eating the Shew-Bread-, lead Med •fliould from hence encourage themfelves to break through all the Divine Laws to fupply theirNeceffities,'tisneceffarytoconfider, what Circumftances of NecefTity will excufe our breaking amere pofitive Inltitution of R eligion. ^ -Firji, T H E N, confidering that all God's pofitive Inftitutions are appointed for our Obedience, nothing can ej^cuf^ us from the Breaclvof any of one them, butfome other '• MORE 158 ATT EN7)I JC. MORE INCUMBENT Duty, which at the fame time ftands in Competition with the pofitive Duty. Secondly^ .THE means of fupplying our Neceflities, muft either be fuch as are of a mtural Efficiency^ or elfe efficacious by Virtue of a Dfvtne Inftitution^ Adminiftr'd juft as God himfelf has appointed, BOTH thefe Circumftances concurred in David and his Men's eating the Shew-Bread^ and not one of them is to be fowd in l^y- Baptiim. For, -•':!'' := ^i-xi \fi: T H O' by the pofitive Law 'twas not' lawful for any but the Priefts to eat it, yet by the Law of Nature, and Reveal'd Religion top, it ^vas neceflary to feed the neceflitous Hun- gry ; and Davtd and his Men wanting Bread, and there being at that time no other tofup- ply their Neceflity, (\ Saw. 21. 6.) the Prieft gave him theHallow'd Bread, that fo the Law of Charity to the Lives of Men, enforced by a double Obligation, viz. by the Law of. Na- ture and ot RevealM Religion, might take Place of the mere pofitive Law about the Shew- Bread, which had no other Obligation than from the pofitive Inftitution only, with which the faid Law of Charity flood at that tim^ in competition : and this is exaftly agreeable fO what the Learned Dr. Hammond fays, in his Paraphrafe upon St. Matth. 12. 5, 4. whighj becaufe fo very appofite to this purpofe, I fhaU here tranfcribe fof the Reader's Information : His His Words are thefe, " Remember the Story of ' " David, I Sam, 21,6. And by that you rvH *' difcern that thd Cafe of Hunger was excepted^ ^' and refer'v'd in the Law concerning Holy^ ** Days or Things: For there David md his *' Company being frefs*d with Hunger^ were hy *^ the Priefi allowed to Eat the Shew-Bread-; *^ which being Confecrated^ did particularly belong " to the Prieft^ Levit. 24. 9. Tet mighty itfeems, ^' (by the Intention of the Law^giver) be by him *^ employ'^d in my Charitable Ufe^ for the Relief *' of others^ as long as there were more ready Con* ^ fecrated for the f acred UfeSy i Sam. 21^ 5. ^ and accordingly y tho* the Priefi pretended not *^ to dijpenfe with any (fo much as Ritual) Part ^ of God^s haw (as appears by the Exception in- '* terpos'^d by him^ Ver. 4. If the Toung Meri '' have kept themf elves from Women) yet he ^ doubts not to give them freely of the Confecrat^ ^ ed Bread ; thereby ajjuring uSy that it was as ** Lawful for the Priefi to give fome Part of the ** Confecrated Bread to relieve the Hungry y as to ** Eat it himfelfy and fo that in the Law of Holy ^ Things y not being touched hy any but the Priefi s^ ** the Cafe of Hunger or Difirefs was referv*dy " in which it might by the Priefi be lawfully given ** to others. Thus far that Learned Author. But nothing of all this occurs in Lay Bap- tifm : for the pofirive Law requires that Bap- tifm fhould be adminiftred by a Prieft of God's Appointment ; and there is no Law of but equal, much lefs oi greater Obb'gation, that i6o AfTEN'DIX. that requires a Lay-Man to Baptize at all ; Natural Religion does not oblige him to Bap- tize ; becaufe Baptifm , is no Part of Natural Religion : Andas for RevealM Religion, That has not required him to Baptize ; and there-- fore, inCafesof greateftNeceflity, if he does Baptize, he afts without any Duty incumbent on hrth,^ contrary to a pofitivelnftitution, which is no ways confident with this Inftance of David and his Men. idlyy THE Means of fupplying the Ne^ ceffityof D^i^/^iandhisMen was Bread, which lias a Natural Phyfical Efficiency to fatisfy Hunger, and confequently to preferve Hu- man Life ; but Baptifm has no Natural Phy- fical Power to convey to us the Forgivenefs , of Sins^ and the Gift of the Holy Ghofl : Its Effica- cy for fuch Supernatural Purpofes depends on- ly on a pofitve Inftitution, and therefore, /!r not at all parallel to the Inftance of the Shew- Bread ; and confequently, under this Second Rule, nothing can be inferrM ixomDavid and his MenV Eating that Bread, to a Lay-man's Adminiftring Valid Baptifm •• becaufe they are things of quite different Natures and Ef- fects, and no ways applicable to one another^ So that to bring Lay-Baptifm to this Second Rule, it muft be prov'd Efficacious by Virtue of a Druir.e Injlitution^ Admim fired jufl as IX. i6i I M fhort, to furti up all that I have faid, or need to fay, about this Inftance of the Shew- Bread : Bread, before 'tvvas fet apart for Sa- cred Ufes, was common for all Men to Eat for the fatistying of their Hunger; but the Adminiftration of .Paptifm for Supernatural Furpojcs was never thus common: The Priefts giving the Shew- Bread, when no other was to ie had^ was then an Afl: of Charity, to which he was oblig'd by the very Law of Nature, enforced by the ReveaPd Will of God : But Lay-Baptifm is no Duty incumbent on us, either by the Law of Nature, or ReveaPd Religion ; the Law of Nature didates nothing to us about Baptifm for Supernatural Pur- pjfes, and Reveald Religion is wholly filent about Laj-Baptifm for fuch Ends : The Shew* Bread had a Phyfical Natural Efficiency to fatisfy Hunger, and preferve Life ; and there- fore the Prietl had encouragement to give it, becaufe he had no reafon to doubt of its good Efed ; but Baptifm has no Natural Phyfical Effi:iency for Supernatural and Spiritual Gra- ces ; its Effcfts are purely owing to a Pofitive Inftitution only ; and therefore we have no encouragement to hope for its EfFefts, whea the Inititution is not obfervM in all its Eflen- tial Pai ts, as it certainly is not^ when a Lay- man Adminilters. Further, in the Eating of the Shew-Bread there was /fo Contradtcfw/i ; the Prieft did not give it to be Eaten contrary to the Pofitive Inltitution, with a defign by M fo i62 ATTEND IX. fo doing to obferve the fame Pofitive Inftitu- tjon ; bat ia Lay-Baptifm there's a perfett Contradiction : The Pofitive Inftitution of Baprilni is broken, that by fo doing, the fame Pofitive Inftitution may be obferv'd and kept whole. From all which 'tis very clear and evi- dent, that the Eating of the Shew-Bread, and the Adminiftrarion of Valid Baptifm (in Cafes of Neceflity) by a Lay- hand, are things infinitely different in their Nature, and confe- quently not at all applicable the one to the other. To which I beg leave to add, that the Eating of the Shew-Bread was NO AUTHO- Rl FA FIVE ADMINISTRATION /^r the conveyancs of Supernatural Graces^ as Valid Bap- tifm moft certainly is : And therefore 'tis no wonder, that God put a good Conftruclion upon DAvid and his Men's Eating that Bread to iatisfie their hunger, when no other was to be had ; and yet upon all occafions, feverely punifh'd tlie Sacrdegion-s Ufurfations of every one that attenapted to oiEciate in fuch Autho- ritative Adminiftrations, as he had appointed for the conveyance of Spiritual Benefits ; the great Ncccffittes that urg'd them thus to offici- ate, were never admitted or allowed of, fo much as but to mitigate their Crime, much lefs to make their Adminiftrations Valid: This is apparently evident in theCafeof 6>//'s taking upon him to offer a Sacrifice in his great Difirefs, when his Enemies were coming upon him, when he might have been flain before he could ATfENT)IX. i6i could make his peace with God, when the Prieft Samuel was not prcfent ; when he had Waited and ftrove fo Iong> that he at laft forced himielf to offer a Sacrifice to procure the Di- vine Favour. We fee, that all this NECES- SITY and the ABSENCE OF THE PRIEST- this eager defire to obtain a Bleffing ; was no excufe for his affuming the Prieft's Office ; God would and did punifli him for it, by ren- ding the Kingdom from him, and giving it to / another, as you may fee in i Sam. ij. This 1 is a ftanding Example, upon which we fliould / always fix our Eyes, and thereby learn, that however God may excufe in forae cafes of Neceffity, he will never do it in fuch great Inftances, as the taking upon our felves to Ad- , minifter, or willingly concurring With thofe who do Minifter in the Prieft's Office, with- out being called ofGod^ as was Aaron. 3. A S for that other Text, where 'tis faid / will have Mercy and not Sacrifice^ it will as little kv\'Q for the Validity of Lay-Baptii'm as the reft. For the occafion of our Saviour's ufing thofe Words, and the place of Scripture from whence he quoted them, do evidently prove, that the Defign of this Text is only to convinced . us, that juch Pofitive Infiitutions at are here ccilTd h^ the Name ^/SACRIFICE, Ypere nev^r appoint ^.d to jrujirate and make z o:d our Obligation to the Genuine Moral Duties of Natural Religion ^ particularly ih' e of Ju/hce and Equity^ and of compajjton and charny to the JM r Aeccffities 1^4- ATTEhI'DIX. Ncceffities and Wants of our Fellow-Creatures ^ hut that on the ^ontrar)^ our Want of fucb Excellent Moral Virtues^ and our being of an unjuji^ un^ char ii able and cruel temper^ nill make thoje Pof- tive Duties when perform d by m^ both loathjomc and abominable in the fight of God. THIS I fay is evident, Firft, from the occafion of our Saviour's referring the 'Jews to that Text, " / wtll have Mercy and not Sa- cnfice ; for the Difciples being hungry plucked the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath-Day, which the Phar/Jees obferving, affirmed, that it was a Breach of the Sabbath, and therefore un*- lawiul for them to do at that time ; but our Saviour ( who very well knew the barbarous Cruelty of tlieir temper) bid them remember the Cafe of David and his Men's Eating the Shew-Bread, Si)r. and then tells them, ''Ifj^ *' had known what this meanethy *^ / will ha^e ^' Mercy and not Sacrifice^ ye would not have con* ^ demned the GUILTLESS, St. Mat. 12. 7. Whereby lie proved the Innocence of his Dif- ciples, that they Iiad not at all broken the Sabbath, by thus plucking the Ears of Cora to alTwage their hunger ; and that confequent- ]y, the Moral Duties of Mercy, and Works of abfolute Neceflity, w^ere never intended by the Pofitive Inftitution of the Sabbath, to be reckoii'd as Breaches of the Duty of Reft, which God required on that Holy Day. 2dly. THE Place of Scripture from whence our Lord quoted thofe Words is Hofeiir6. 6. 1 defired ATT E NT) IX. 1.45 defired M.:rcy mid not Sacrifice. Tliis does not mean that God did not require Sacrifice ; for 'tis plain that he did require it, and all other Pohtive Duties figdified by that general Word; and the Jjws at that very time were bound to obferve and obey all che Pofitive InlHtutions of the Moiaic Law, under no leis penalty than that of" *' Cur fed be he that coaler moth not all the Words of this Law to do them Deut. 27. 26. So that the not Sacrifice here muft mean [NO T ONLY SACRIFICE] or [NOT SACRI- FICE ALONE] and therefore, the plain Pa- raphrafe ot this Text is, *' I defir'^d or Requir'^d '' NOr ONLY SACRIFICE, not only your ^' Obedience to my mere Pjjit ve InJiuutionSy but ^' alfoyour Ohjcrvance of my iVloral Law ofM rcy '' and Kjndnefs. 'Twas the want of thi and other Moral Virtues, together with their be- ing guilty of cruel Murders, Robberies, aad other Immoralities, that God complained of, almoft throughout this whole Chapter, and for which he abhor'd their very Sacrifices, tho* they were of his own Appointment, and they were then bound and oblig'd to offer them to him : This is alfo confirmed by Micah. 6. and Ifa, I. II, 12, I J, 14, 15, &c. All which be* ing duly confider'd, fufficieatly declares the fenfe and meaning of [ / will have Mercy and not Sacrifice J that the defign thereof Js not to make void our Obligation to obey the Pivine Pofitive Infl:itutions ; but to conviqce us, that the Moral Puties of h'aturnl Religion^ rein- Mj forc^4 i66 ATT ENTf IX. forc'd by Divine Revelation, are fo far from being inconfiltent with, that they muft con- ftantly accompany and attend our Obedience to, fuch Pofitive Inftitutions, and that our Approaches to God in his Pofitive Inftitutions, without fuch Moral Virtues, are fo far from being accepted that they are hated and ab- horred by him. AND therefore, all that (at mofi:> can be inferr'd from thofe Words of our Saviour i:^, that n>her/ a mere Pofitive Injiitutw/i jtands in Tfccefjary Comjjetttion with a Moral Duty of natural Religion^ retnforc*ci by Livine Revelation^ then the mere Pofiuve Inftttution mujt give nay to the Moral Duty for that lime and circumflance, NOW then, to try to apply this to the Cafe before us. There's a Divine Pofitive In^ flitution, requiring B-ipufm to be Admini- fter'd by One who has \^hiilVs Commilfion for fo doing. This Baptiim is appointed to be a Means of conferring fuch merciful Graces and Benefits, as our miierable Nature could never have made any claim or title to, and which all the powers of Nature could never have beftowM on us. Ic happens, that a Per- fon wanting thelc ineltimable Benefits moll earnellly dtfires to obtain them by Baptifm; but a Miniiler with ChrilFs CommiiTion, is neither now, nor likely hereafter to be had: What then mull be done in this extrcam Ne- ceflity ? Why, fays the Objcdor, i. o.i mil have Mercy ard not Sacrtfce : And thtref'^'re, iiiice ATT ENT>IX. 167 fiiice Sacrifice now ftands in competition with Mt:rcy,the Sacrifice mull: give way to Mercy; the Divine Authority of the Adminiilrator mutt not now be infifted on; but the Mercies and Favours muit be bellowed on the Perlba by a Lay-man's Adminittring Baptifm to him. This teems to be well faid ; but upon exami- nation 'twill be found, that no fuch thing can be julHy inferred from this Text, becaufc, the Mjrcji there fpoken of, is a Moral Dwj of Na- tural Religion, and to be extended to the In* digent and Necelfitous by Natural Mtans ; but the Mercies to be received by Chriftian ^ap- tifm are infinitely above all Naturd Keligiony and confequently not to be conveyM by any Natural Mains. The reafon why we are oblig'd to perform thofe Natural Afts of Mercy, evea when they feem to run counter to fome mere Poficive Inftitution, is becaufe Natural Conjci* ence dictates this Duty, and Divine Revdatio-a has reinforcM its Obligation ; whereas we are bound to obferve a Pojitiv^ Inflitution merely upon the account of a Divine Law promui^'d to us, without which we could never have been obliged to the Obfervation of it. But this Reafon is wholly wanting in Lay-Bap- tifm ; for Natural Confcience dictates riothing to us about beftowing of Super natural Mercies by means of any kind of Baptifm whatfoever; and as for RevealM Religion, that is wholly filent about a Lay-man's being ever capable pf conveying (uch Mercies to us by Means M 4 ^ of i68 ATTEN9IX. of Baptifm ; fo that the Lay-man has this Du- ty incumbent on him neither by the Law of Nature, nor of Divine Revelation ; and there- fore, if he baptizes for Spiritual Purpofes, that he way (hew mercy^ he ventures to do other- wife than the Pofitive Inilitution of Baptifm requires, and at the fame time is deftitute of any the leaft Encouragement from the Text objefted ; becaufe there is no Law (either Natural or Rcveal'd ) that obliges him fo to do. BUT further : When God wiH have mer- cy^ dfid not facrt^ce^ ic is not inten^d that one or more Effential Parts of a mere Poficiveln- llitucion, fhould be more necelTary and obli- ging to us than the other EiTvi^ntial Parts there- of: No; all that God then requires of us is, to prefer a A/|oral betbre a mere Pofitive Du- ty ; as is evident from what I have already faid on this Subjefl:. But our AlTertors of the Validity ofLay-Baptifm in Cafcsof Ne:e{rity, i\o unavoidably run themfelves ii^to this In- confiilency, of making one or more Effential Parts of a mere Pofitive Inftitution, to be of greater NecJJLj and Obligation, than another iUTcntial Part of the (Imie Inllitution : Por, they make ifWr and ths Form of baptijm to be more neceffary and obliging, than the Divtric Authority of tlie Jdrru/'Jijlrator. But tliis Notion I have already endeavoured to confute in the Svcond Proi^ofition, to which I refer the Reader ; and defire him here to ob- ferve. ATT EN7)IX. 169 ferve^ how very difagrecable this is with God's requiring Mercy^ a Moral Duty, a^d /wt Scicnfice^ a mere Pofitive one. For 'tis in ef- fed to make God iay, [inllead of, 1 will have Mercy ^ and not Sacrifice^ ] / will have ^acrifice^ and not Sacrifice ; fince there is not one of thofe Effential Parts of Baptifm, but what is mereh of Pofitive Inftiturion This,of making one ElTei-itial Part of fuch an Inftitution to give way to the other ElTential Parts thereof^ in Cafes of Neceffity, without a pa'ticular Revelation of God's Will for fo doing, is fo ftrange, fo Unfcriptural a Pradice, that there is not One Example of it in all the Sacred Writings of the Old and New Teftament, from the firrt Chapter diGenefu to the laft of the Revelations: But on the contrary, we have a flagrant Inilance of God's Punifliing this Praftice in the Perfon of sW, who in his N E C E S S I T Y, that he might obtain MERCY, made one Effential Part of a Pofi- tive Inftitution to give way to another of its Effential Parts. For the Prieft, one Effential Part of the Pofitive Inftitution of Burnt-Of- ferings, being abfent, he reckon'd the Burnt- Oifering to be more Effential than the Admi- niftration of the Prieft, and therefore ojfer'^d a Burnt-Offering himjelf; for which rafh Acti- on, Samuel faid to him. Thou haft donefooiiftj^ hy 0' iz, the Mintjiration of the Priejl^ was fo far from be- ing efteemM a Valid Offering to God, that it prov'd ( in Head of a Means of Mercy ) a Judgment and a Curfe to the Offerer and his Pofterity. THUS we fee, that tlio' God will have us fometimes extend our Mercy rather than of- fer 6'^m^^^; yet when MERCY is to be ob- tained FROM HIM by means of Sacrifice ; i, e. fuch mere Pofitive Duties as he has required, he will not grant us the Mercy we fue for, by means of but Part offuctj Sacrifice. No ; we muft cither beg it of him by our Obfer- vance of the ivhole hflitutiim ; or elfe, when we CANNOT have the whole, fit down contented till we can , fince he has declarVi his Abhorrence of fuch Panial Sacrifices, and thereby taught us that they are rio Sacrifices /it all. 'Tis worth while to obferve here, what Samud tells SaiAy (after he had reprov'd him for Breakiig God's Commandment a- bout Burnt OrFcriiigs ; ) ior now (fays he") vcouii the Lcrd ha've ejtablijbcd thy Kjngdorn ufon Ifrael for e^er^ I Sam. ij. l J. As much as if lie had faid, " It thou hauji not attempted ♦' t<^ ATTEtiDIX. 171 ^* to gain the Divins Favour bj fo unwarran'^able ^' an Action \ if thou had/t b;ien patient m thy " Necejfity^ and not endeavour"^ d to render God *' propitious othee by juch an unlawful Method j " He ts a God of Mercy^ and would not have ^' imputed Sin to thee for want of a Burni-Of^ *^ ferif/gy when it could not be had according to " his Inflitution; but on the contrary^ would *' have e/leem^d thy not Medling therein, to be ^* an Act of Obedience to his Command, and con^ ^' fequently Ktho* there had been no Burnt Offering ^' made to him ) would have been gracious and ^' merciful to the and thy Children after thee ; ^^ and as a Reward of thy Faith and Obedience^^. ^' would have eflabltflfd the Kjngdom to thee and ^' thy Sons for ever^"* This, I fay, is plainly the Scope and Meaning of Samud\ Words to Saul : Wliereby we are alfo encourag'd not to diftruft the Divine Goodnefs, but conftantly and patiently to wait and pray for ir, without prefuming to endeavour to obtain it by partial Sacrifice, when we are under fu jh fad Circum- ftances, as not to be able to fcek for it by whole Burnt-Off.rrngs ; when we cannot have ENTIRE BAPTISM, according to the In- ftitution ; when there is noPrieft to Admini- fter it to us ; th-n 'tis a greater Ad of Faith and Obedience to refufc, tlian to accept of fuppofed Bapcifm fio n a Lav-Hdnd Nay, for one who knows the Nature ai.d Extent of the Inititution of Chriliian Baptilm, to ac- cept of, or acquicfce in Lay-Baptifm in Cales of 171 ATTE N'DIX. of fuppos'd NecelTity/tis a great Prefumpdon : Becaule, 'tis expecting God's Mercy to be con- veyed by fuch Hands, as he has not appotntedfor that Purpoj'e^ and to whofe Miniftration he never requir'd our Obedience : 'Tis the Super- ftition of making that abfolutely neceffary to Salvation, wliich God has not made fo. As if when we WANT thofe Means which he has appointed, he could not extend his Fa- vours and Graces without them : As if there WQVQz greater Degree of Holinefs in Water and a Form of Words, than in tlie Inftitution of the Cliriftian Priefthood : As if none could be faved without the former, but every body without the latter : As if Water could be a Means of Graces ^/^'^;^, without the Mediati- on of one who does truly perforate God the Grver. In fhort, 'tis Sqperftition, nay, and Prefumption too, to expetl Mercy by mean^ of but P A R T of a Sacrifice, when God ap- pointed that the WHOLE fliould be the Means of obtaining that Mercy. And 'tis fo exadly parallel to Sr^uc'^s Cafe, and fo infinitely di.iereut fiom the Defiga of the Text objeft- ed, that we may very fairly conclude, that Lay-Baptifm cannot be Valid, even in Cafes of Neceffity. It cannot be fudicient, '' to/up" *' pl^ the Spiritual i4^ants of thofe who are Un^ " bapt^z?d ; becaufe there's no Comparifori between the Natural Means of Adminillriug to the ordmary Wants of the NecefTitous an4 Jiidjgent5and the Supcrmturc^l Jppointed Mean^ of ATTEN^IX. 175 of fupplying the Spiritual Wants of the Vn-i- baptiz'd : For thefc latter are of fo extraordi- nary a Nature, than no lefs than Mercies Su- pernatural are fufficient for fo great a Purpofe; clnd therefore no other Method muft be ufed to obtain fuch Mercies, than what he who is to beftow them has appointed. Ohedience ( in this Cafe ) is better thm Sacrifice^ efpeci- ally than fuch a falfe Burnt-Offering as Sard ( in the Inftance above-mention'd) prefum'^d to offer to God. And may we all take warn- ing by his Punifhment, not to confine God to our Will- Worfhip *, not to meddle in his Pofi- tive Inftitutes, and expeft that he fhould con- cur with our foolifh and prefumptuous Inter- pofing,in fuch Miniftrations as he has confinM to the Authority and Adminiftration of his and his Chrift's Appointed Priejfts and Mini- liers only. Obj. XIII. The Expofition of the J 9 Ar- ticles of the Church, which goes under the Name of Gilbert Bifhop of Sarum^ has this Remarkable Paffage upon the 2^d Article ; Page 259, and 260. Viz. *^ It is to be conjidcr'^d^ ^' that the Htgh-Priejl among the Jews, was the ** Chief Perjoa in that Dtjpenjatwn ; not only *^ the Chief tn Rule^ but he that xvas by the Di- *' vine Apfowtment to Officiate in the Chief JSl ** of their Religion ^ the yearly Expiation for the *' . Kiiws of ths whole Nation^ by which Atonement ^' was made for the Sins of that Peopb. ^ " HERE IT MAY BE VERY REASd- " NABLY 174 ATT ENT>IX. «' NABLY SUGGESTED, That fince none *' h.{iies tfj(^ High-Prieft might make this Atom^ *^ merit ; then no Atonement rvas made^ if any ** other ie(ides the High-Priefl fljonldjo Officiate* *^ To this tt is to be added^ That God had bj an « EXPRESS LAW fixed the High-Priefihood *^ tn the ELDEST ^/ Aaron'/ Family ; and that *' therefore^ tho* that being a Thiocracy^ any *' Prophet empower'* d of God might have tranf- *' ferr'^d this Office from one Per] on or Branch of ^' that Family to another ; yet wi thorn fach an *' Authority^ no other Perfon might make any ^' juch Change. But after all this ^ (^not to men"- , ^' tion the MACCABEES, and all their Sue- *' ^'liT^^^-^ ^/ ^^^ Afmonean Family ) as Herod ^' had begun to change the High-Priejl at Plea- *^ Jurey Jo the Romans not only continued to do *' thisy but in a mojl mercenary manner ^ they fet *' this Sacred Function to Sale, Here were as *^ great Nullities in the High-Priefl s that were ^' in our Saviour'^s Time^ ^ can be well imagined ^^ to be. For the Jews keeping their Genealogies *^ Jo exactly as they did, it could not hut be well ^' known in whom the Liight to this Office rejled ; *' and they all knew that he who had tt^ purchas'*d *^ it , yet thefe were in Jaff High-Prtejls : And " fmce the People could have NO OTHER, the *' Atonement was Jttll performed by thetr Mini- " Jlry. Our Saz^iour Owned Cajaphas, the Sa- " crilegious and UJurptng High-PrieJi^Qoh, xviii. /* 2 2, 2j.) and as juch he prophejied ( Joh. xi; !*\i-)' r/;// (hcwsy That where the Neceffity " wap ATT E}^D IX. 175 *^ w/is Real and Unavoidable^ the Jews were " hound to think that God didy in Confiderarion ** of that, d/fpenfe mih hts own Precept. This " may b-^ a juji Inducement for us to helievey *' That trhenjoc'vcr God {by his Providence^ *' brings Chrifitans under a Vi{ible Neceffi'y, of ** h^tng either mthout all Order and Joint -Wor^ '^ jfjipy or of 'Joining in an Unlawful and Defiled ^\ Worfhify or Ttnally, of break in^^ thro"* Rules and *' Methods, in order to the being united in Wor- '^ fljip and Government'^ That of thefe Three, ^' of which one muft he chofen, the lafi is the *' leafl Evily and has the fewefi Inconveniencies " hanging upon it, and that therefore it may he *' choJenP Thus far the Expofitor. Af|er whom comes another Writer, and applies all this to the Pofitive M^mfirations of the Chri- ftian Priefthood ; and from hence would conclude, That the Baptifms of our Anti- Epiicopai Diffenters, and of fome Foreigners wiio are dellicute of Epifcopal Ordination, ought to be erteem'd good and valid : And fa ^ great a Strefs does he lay upon our Expofitor's •Judgment in this Matter, that he gives us this great Encomium upon the abovelaid Paf- fage in thcfe Words : *^ This is an Argument ^' ur^d by the Good Rifhop of Sarum, in his '** Articles, in t^jis very Cafe I am arotting upon ; " and \is SO FULL to the Purpofe, that I do *' notthinktt{:.A?IiQ\^^ of an Anfwer. A'fiv. Becauuj" this Objedion is Authorized by 10 great a Name ; and boafted to be fo very 176 ATTEN'DIX. very full to the purpofe, I jQiall endeavour to refute it in a Double Refpefl:. JP;;/,, Upon Suppofition, (tho^ not granting) that all things aflerted by the Expofitor, concerning the Jew- ijh Higli Priefthood and Atonement, were; cxaftly as He in his Articles has reprefented them. And Secondly^ Upon account of the real Truth of thofe Matters of Fafl: related by the Expofitor, concerning the Inftitution and Change of the High-Priefthood. i/?. Tho' all things concerning the Jewijh High-Priefthood and Atonement, were exaft- ly as the Expofitor has reprefented them, yet it will not follow from thence, that Un» authorized Baptifms, fuch as thofe mentioii'd in the Obje£lion,are Good and Valid. Becaufe the Chrillian Church never was yet reduced to the fuppofed miferable State of the J^wi^ Church, and indeed never, will be ; for the" fup- posM Ufurpation affefled the whole Church of the Jeivs ; becaufe, the Atonement by the Jewijb High-Priefl could only be made in that One Place called the Holy of Holies^ whi.h was in the Temple at Jerujalem : Even a True High-Priell could not do it in any other put of the World ; fo that, when a (jiurper had got pofleffion of the Temple, and was by force of the C.vil Power maintained therein ; The Jcivsj if they had adher'd to the True High-Priefl could have had no benefit by his Mtntftratton of an Atonement, becaufe he couid have made no Atonement for them, be- ing AVTENT>IX. 177 ing forcibly kept out of the Ho[y of Holies : But the Miniftratioas of the Chriltian Priefthood are not fo confinM to Place^ they are equally ValiJ over the face of the w^hole Earth ; fo that ir vvicked Civil Powers in one Country, fh )uld even Deltroy Cliriftian High Priefts, the Biiliops : Yet ftill God's Promife of being wich liis Apoltles, his High-Priefts to the End Of ih. World ^ and that the Gates of Hades (hall not prevail againfl hts Churchy fecures us thus much, that this Deftruftion, of Chriftian High Priefts, iliall not be Univerfal ; fome (liall be found on Earth with Powers to give Vahd Ordination : if they are Deftroyed m one Domi* niou; they will be found in another; and the Miniftrations of Baptifm by thofe who are Ordain'd by them, will be Valid in every- place. Which is a very different Cafe from that ofthQjeivijh Priefthood. But further, the Objeftion does not come up to the point, in the Matter before us ; it is not fufficient to juftifie the Anti-Epifcopal Ufurpations of Proteftants who dare not com- municate with the Church of Rom-^ by reafon of her intolerable Corruptions in Doftrineand Worfliip ; for, even in the word: times of Popery, they that reform'd without Bifhops to head them, might, if they would, have procured Mimjiers to be Ordain'd by RE- FOMED Bidiops in Engiar/d^ if their own Corrupt Bifhops r^/vi'^ to Ordain them. And 'tis not fufficient to objeft, that the Labour N and 178 ATf E¥ST>1X. and Travel, l^c thus to obtain Valid Ordi- nation, is exceflive great, and in many Cir- CLimftances, next to impoffible ; for Men can ealily remove thefe Obllacles ; thefe mighty imaginary Mountains of Trouble and Danger, are no hindrance to them, when they are ea- gerly bent after Health, Pleafure^ or Worldly Riches ; then the r emote fi Indies are not too far for them to travel ; the dreadful dangerous Wonders of the Deep do not terrify them ; the fear of Robbers and Pirates, nay ofmercilefs Murderers too, does not hinder their eager purfuit after perifliing Treafures, and many times foolifli Trifles : And is not a Valid Mi- niftry vaftly preferable to thefe ? Are not the Divine Infl-itutions unfpeakabty more advan- tagious, nay. Infinitely Richer, as they con- vey and Inlbre to us ineftimable Treafures of Eternal Extent and Duration ? Certainly they are ; and therefore no Pains, no Induftry, how great foever, can be too much, fince 'tis no LcJ's than our Duty by all, pofliblc means, to procure and obtain them. So that, whatfo- ever Validity may be fuppofed to have beea in the Miniftration of the "Jewiflj Ufurping High Prieft, the Church of the "Jcws^ being by the Hypothefis,- abfolutely deprived of any Recourfe to, or Dependance on the Trtie One^ can by no means be apply'd to Ufurping Lay- men's Miniitrations in the Chriilian Church \ bccaufe, tlic Church, where fuch Lay-men pretend to Miaiilcr is not univerfally deorived of ATT END IX. 179 bf any recourfe to, or dependance on true Chrillian High Priefts ;;they may procure Ordination fi*om fome.or other of them ; they may have, confequentlyj Inftituted Miniftra- tious if they will take pains to obtain them; Which upon the frefem Suppofttw^j the Jews could not obtain with all their power, becaufe the Atonement could be made o^ly at the One Altar J in the San^um Sanciorum at Jerufalem, from wliich the Inftituted High Prieft was (by fuppofltion ) forcibly kept by the Secular Power of the Romans—, — . And therefore the Baptifms here pleaded for, being not parallel to the fupppfed Cafe of the Atonement ; be- caufe Baptifm can be had as it was Inftituted, (which the Atonement ( 'tis fuppofed ) could not ) mull not be allowM to be Valid, as the Atonement is fuppos'd to have been. And much lefs can it from this Inftance be inferrM, that Baptifm by our Jnti-Epijcopal Diffenters is Valid ; for, they Unauthoriz?d attempt thisy even where Chriftian Wgh Priefls are in the aflual Execution of their OiBce; and they aim at the Priefthood it felf, in oppofition to^ and rebelUQn againft the Vicarious Power of Chrift, in thofe Chriftian Bifbops to whom they owe Subjedion ; and from whofe Hands they ought, and yet refufe to receive Autho- rity for fuch Miniftrations ; which is fo mon- ftrous an Attempt of Ufurpation ; and the perfifting in, concurring with, and encoura- ging of it, fo perverfly Impious, that the N 2 ' Church i8o ATT ENTflZ Church was never, till within thefe Laft Two Hundred Years, exercisM with the like Flagitious Wickednefs: And therefore, our' Expofitor's own Condition, of God's accep- tance of fuch Uninftituted Miniftrations, will not here take place, ^ — for his Provifo is this ; That the People could have no other ^ and That the Neccfjlty n'ds real and unavoidable .?imon^ the "jews ; but it is not SO among Chriftians : It never was, nor ever will be fo, for the Reafons I have mentioned. And his fuppofing '' Chrijiians to be brought by God's Provi- ^' dence under a vifible Neceffity of Breaking ^^ through Rules and Methods^ in order to the '^ bein;i United in WorJIjip and Government^ is not fuificlent to make Valid the Uninftituted Minillrations of any Number of Men, from this fupposM Inftance of the "^emfl) Church ; till the imagined Neceffity of thofe Men can be provM to be as Real and Unavoidable^ and as Univerfal too^ aS that of the Jer^i[lj Church is here reprefented to have been.-^— — Tho' after all, the Cafe Was otherwife in that Church ; for notwithftanding the wickednefs of Htrod and the Rdmafi Governors, and of the jvi'Jtoo, in difpoffng of the High Prieft- hooc], tlie EJfential, Injhtution of that High Pricllliocxi was nor Vacdted. For, 2^/j, Tho' our Expofitor fays, that ^' God *' had ^j . A N EXPRESS LAW fixed the '' ///-/W^m///;^^^^^^^ of ** A\i\-on'sTamilf''\ I muft crave leave to fay, that ATT EN7)IX. i8i tbat this Exprefs Law is not to be difcoverM in .the Canon of Holy Scripture. There we find the Inftitution of the Jsmflj High Prieft- hood to have been exprejly in Aaron and, his Sons, For thus fays God to Mofes^ '' Take *' th&u unto thee Aaron thy Brother^ and his *^ Sons with him^ from among the Children of ^' Ifrael, that he may Minijler unto me in the ^^ PriejPs. Office.--^^ And thou (Ijalt make ^^ Holy Garments for Aaron thy Brother^ for ^' Glory y and for Beauty, Exod. xxviii. i, 2. The Defcriptign of tliofe Glorious Garments is in the following part of that Chapter ; and they were appointed to be wore by him when he went into the Holy Place^ i. e. within the Vail : Then at the 40th verfe the Coats, Girdles, and Bonnets, for Jaron\ Sons, are appointed ; and verfe 41. God fays to Mofes concerning Jaron'^s Garment, and his Sons Coats, tifr. " Thou Ihalt put them upon Aaron '' thy Brother and his Sons with him^ and j^ alt ^' Anoint them^ and Con fe crate them^ and Sanctis ^^ fy them^ that they may Mintfler unto me {n ^^ the Priefl'^s Office. "And (verfe ^2, 3.nd 45.) " thou fhalt make them Linen Breeches y to cover *^ their Nakednefs^ &c. And they ffjall be upon ^^ A^ron and upon his' Son s^ rvhen they come in *' unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation^ or *' when THEY come near unto the Altar to ^' Minijler in THE HOLY PLACE , ^^ It fhall be a Statute for ever unto htm^ and f hii Sip ED after him. Again, Zxod. xl. N I 13, i4j i8i ATTENTHX. 1 5^-14, 1 5. God commands Mofes to put up-^ on Acp'on the Holj Garments and Anoint him^z^ **^ And to bring his Sons and, Clpath them^ *• and Anoint them^ — that they may Mtnifler *' in the Pr lefts Office : for their Anointing ftjall ** jurely he an everlajlir/g Priefihood^ throughout *' their Generations. In the xvi. ch, of Levi^ ^' ticus we have an exaO: Defcription of the Atonement, and of the High PrkiVs Mini- ftration thereof in the Holy Place once a Year, and not one Wordof ^^nVs ELDEST SON, but iiidcfinitely in verfe 32. 'tisfaid, *' And *' the Priejl whom he [Ijali Anoint, and nhorn he ^' jhall Consecrate to Mini[hr in the Prteft'^s " Office in his FATHERS STEAD [Ij all make *' the ATONEMENT. - — ^ud verfe 34, *' This fljall be an LverUfiing Statute unto you to ^' make an Atonement^ &c. Further, Lev.jiy.u 10. God fpeaks of the High Prieft without any particular defignation of the Eldeft to that Office ; " He t,jat is the High Priejl among ^' his Brethren^ iufc. So A^umbers iii 10. Thou *' fhall afj^oint Aaron Ax\D HIS SONS, and *' they jhall wait on their Priejl s Office^ and the ^' Stranger that comet h nigh fhall be put to Death, ^' Likewife, Numb, xviii- i. The Lord J'pake ^' unto Aaron, thou and thj Sons with thee [hall *^ benr the Iniquity of your Prieflhoud. And *' ver. 7. Thou and thy Sons with thee jhall keep ** your Priefis Oj/ice for ei'.ry thing or the Altar ^ " AND WITHIN THE VAIL, ^/;^ YE Ijjall ferv^. 1 haruc given your Prieft s OJfice unto a ATT ENt>IX. 18^ ^* tirito you, as a Service of Gift, and the " STRANGER that cometh nigh fljall he put " to Death. Thus we fee, that the High Priefthood was ( by Exprefs Law ) in Aaron and hts Sons ; and no Mention made, that it fhould be and remain in the Line of the Eldeft Son only. I know 'twill be anfwer'd, That God him- felf commanded Mofes to Confecrate Eleazar^ the Eldelt Son o^ Jaron, to be High Prieft in the Stead of his Father, A^umb. xx. 25 , 26, 27, and that therefore the Law confinM the High Priefthood to the Eldeft Son's Line. In Return to this ; No one will deny fo plain a Matter of Fad, as that o[ Eleazar\ SuccefTion to the High Priefthood, and that it was by the Exprefs Co nmand of God ; but the Confequence which the ObjeHor draws from this paiticular Inftance, is not to be al- lowed : Becaufe, the Standing Law about the High Priefthood, is, That it Ihall be in Aaron and his Sons. And there is another Law concerning the fame Office, that excludes the Eldeft, as well as any other of Aaron\ Sons, from that Great Dignity, if he fhould chance to have any Impediment mentioned in that Law : For, fays God unto Mojes, Lev. xxi, 17, to the sjd. " Speak unto Aaron, faying ; " WHOSOEVER he be of thy Seed m their ^' Generations that hath any Blemiflj, let him not " approach tQ offer the Bread of his God • for "_ WHATSOEVER MAN he he that hath a N 4 '^ Bkmij]^ i84 ATTENDIX. '' Blemifjy he jha/1 not approach ; a Blind Man^ '^ or a Lame J or he that hath a flat i\'o)j^ or '' any thing fuferfluom^ or a Man that is hro!:en' ** footed^ or brohtn-handed^ or crook-b/ick^d^ or *' a Dwarf] or that hath a Bi.mi\h in his Eye, <^ or be jcurvyor fcabbed, 8rc. NO MAN that ^' hath a BUrntflj of the Seed of A^ron the Vriefl^ [' Jhall come nigh to offer the Offerings of the *' Lord made by fire : He hath a Blemtjh^ Stc^ *' he fjjallnoi go in unto the VAIL, Qy com:: nigh ^' unto the Altar^ becaufe he hath a Biemi^. This is pofitive and exprefs: And it cannot be fairly affirmed, That God woui 1 icciirc all the Eide{l Shs from e'^jtry one of thcfe Ble- miQies, that they might Minjfter before hin^ within the Vail. This is not to be fuppos'd, that God v\ ould always interpofe in Behalf of Them only^ and give them no Promife of fuch his more than Ordinary ( no lefs than Mira- culous ) Providence over their particular Peiv fcns. So far is he from giving 'em this Secu- rity, that he fays, li Nofoe'ver^ whatfoever Man '' he be of thy Seed in their Generations^ that ^^ hath a Blemijhj he jjjall not go in unto the '' Vail, As much as if he had faid; Even the otherwife moil: Efteem'd Perfon of the Seed of Aaron^ whether for being the Firft- born, or the Chief for Wildom, Knowledge, i5c, if he hath a Blemilh, he fliall not be High Prieft, nor make an Atonement before me. One of thefe Blemifhes rnight have hap- pened to the Eldeft, as well as to another; and AT TEND IX. 185 and therefore, God's Appointing Eleazar (the Eldeft Son of Aarori) to fucceed his Father ia the High' PrielVs Office, is no Argument that it was a Standing Law of God, that this Of- fice was always to remain confinM to the EI- dcll of Aaro'tPs Sons. And fiace any of thofe Sons might happen to have a Blemifl"), thercr fore God made no exprefs Law (as our Expo? fitor fays he did) to FIX the High- Priejikwd in the ELDEST of AaroaV f^fw//; ; For the Law exfrefly fJxd it in Ac^ron and his Sons, tliat if one of them had any Blemifh, or indeed any other Impediment, another Son might validly enter into the Holy Place. For, the Atonement was expredy commanded to be made 0»ice a Year; and it muft not liave been omitted to be made, even tho' the High Prieft in PolTellion had chanced to have a Ble-? niiih, as long as another Son of Aaron was to be had, and a Vail (or Holy Place) was ia being, until the Coming of the Great High Prielt, Chrift Jcfus : For, fays the Law, '' This f' jhallbe AN EVERLASTING Statute " unto you^ [^t, e. Everlaiting till the Coming of Chrift") to make an Atonement for the Chit- ^' dren of Ifrael, for all their Sn^s, ON CE A '^ YEAR,.Lev.xvi. 34.'' -Which could not have been obeyed, if none but the Eldeft of Aaronh Family muft (by the Law) have en^ terM within the Vail ; and if he had been at the fame time fo blemiflfd, as that he might xiot entei: therein. For the Atonement muft Cia i86 ATTEN'DI X: (in fuchCafe) have ceas'd to be perform'd du- ring the Life of fuch a High-Prieft ; which is contrary to the Exvrefs Law:, that required it to be conftantly made Once a Year ; and therefore the High-Priefthood was not by Exprejs Law fx'^d in the Eldert of Aaron\ Family. This we find in Faft to have been true ; for the Scrip- ture records feveral High-Prieits who were hot of the Line of Eleazar the Eldeft, but of Ithamafy the Younger Son of Aaror/. For Exr ample: £//, in the Time of the Judges, i Sam, ii. 27, 50. Ahiah^ i. e. Ahimdech y in the Reign of King Saul^ 1 Sam. xiv. j. xxi. i. andxxii.i 5. called alfo^^foWWtheHigh-Prieft, St. Mark ii. 26. whom King Saul flew. So likewife another AhimeUch, in the Reign of of King Ddvidy 2 Sam, viii. 18. and in the Reign of King Solomon^ Abtathar. Thefe, "'tis plain, were not in the Line of Eleazar ; tor hh Sons are mentioned particularly by Name, i Chro/7, vi, and not one of thefe High- Pricfts is reckonM among them : Yet they ex* ecuted the Office, and no Mark of Infamy is fet upon them for fo doing, becaufe they were not the Stra'^/^ers^ who by the Law of Mofes were to dye for coming within the Vail ; for they were of the Sons of Aaron. And cer- tainly, if they had been Invaders of the High- Prielthood, God would have given us fome Notice of his Difpenfing with his own fup- pofed Law, or elfe fome Mark of his Difplea- jurc at their Ufurpation, to have warn'd others from ATTEl^'DIX. 187 from the like Sin for the future ; As he did upon King Satd^ for but Offering a Burnt-Of* fering, when he had no Authority to do fo, being no Prieft. This Argunaent might be profecuted much further; but I think enough has been faid, to prove, That God did mt by an Exprefs Larv\ fix the High- Prieft hood in the Eldeft oiAaron*s Family : And therefore, when any other of AarorPs Sons got into the High4^riefthood, the EffentiaL Law of God concerning the High Priefthood ( which required that it rtiould be fft Aaron and his 60ns) was not vacated. And this was the Cafe of the Maccahes^ and all their Succejjors of the Aiinonean Family ; they were of the Sons of Aaron^ and therefore VaHd High-Priefts; becaufe the Inftitution required, that a Prieft of the Sons of Aaron fhould be Anointed and Confecrated High-Priefiy and that no other Ihould be fo. To come now to the High-Priefts in Herod's and the Romans Time, they were alfo of the Sons of Aaron: For, notwithftanding the Wicl^ednefs of fetting tiiat OiBce to SaU^ i^^c. Jofefhus alTures us, that it was done with this particular Regard, that thofe who obtai/vd it were in Holj Orders. His Words are thefe: ^* Herod having now received the Kjngdom jrom ^^ the Romans, made no lor;ger an) Scruple of ^^ Chufwg the High-Priefls out of the Afmonean ^^ Kace ; hut conferr'^d the Honour indifferently ^^ upon Perfonsy tho* never /o oh/cure^ provided ^ they were but in HOLY ORDERS." Jo/^^ yhu4*s (c i88 ATT E NTf I X. fhtis^s Jeivifjf Antiquities^ Book XX. Cap. 8. pag. 1206. ^vo. This fliews, that H^rc?^ and the Rom^f.iSy as wicked as they were, had fo much regard to the Jew/jh Laws, as not to proftitutc the High Priell-hood to any who were iiot of the Seed of Jaro/2 : And therefore it is reafonable to conclude, that the High-^ Prietts in our Saviour's time were Valid Higl> Priefts, becaufe of their D-jfcent from Aaroriy whereby God's Inrtitution o^^the High-Prieft- hood was preierv'd, tlio' wickedly Circum- ftanriated by the buying and felling of fo Sa- cred an Office. Thirdly, and Laftly, TheExpofitor's Aflerv tion , " 1 fmt\ the Atonement was jlill prform'^JL *' by their f/.. ef. what He calls the Ufurping *' Higli-Prieft's) Mimflry, is begging the Que- ftion ; 'tis aJKrming what he r : ^jt to have prov'd, and has not once attempLed to do any f:hing towards it: And till jie do's make it good, I fliall take the liberty to deny, that his fuppos'd Uiurping Hjgli-Priefts perform'd any Atonement at all : Aqd the Reafon why I do deny it, is, Becaufe if they were not iiiftiruted lligli-Priells, their pretended Sacerdotal Acis, attempting to propitiate the Divine Nature, were as Null to that Purpofe, as King Saul'^'s was before them ; that is, wholly Null and Void ; and for the fame Reafon as his was. JBut further, eventho' thofe High-Priefts were, ^s I have eadeavour'd to prpve them, ^ighf ' PrieftJi ATT END IX. \^ Prieft according to the exprefs Law or Infti- tution of the High Priefthood : Yet it does not appear that any Atonement for the Sins of the Jeivs was made by their Miniftration in our Saviour's time : For with wlmt Senfe can it be faid, that Atonement was made for them, who were then appointed to Wrath and Vengeance? For that People, over whom our Saviour wept, becaufe through the Hardnefs of their Hearts tney were Spiritually blinded ; The things that belon£d to their Peace were hid from their Ejes ; They were then in actual Bondage to the Ro- mans iov their Sins ; They were at that time filling up the Meafure of their Iniquities ; and for their Impieties, the Wrath was coming uvon- ther^, to, the titmoft ; infomuch that the dreaciful Days were fpeedily coming, wherein their Glorious City and Temple fliould inevitably be deftroy'd, themfelves in vaft Multitudes be flain' with the Sword, and the remainder of them be led Captive into all Nations Was any Offering made then by the moft Regular Jewifh High-Prieft, of any Efficacy to atone for luch Sinners: If it was, let the Expofitor in- form us how we may know it ; and wlien lie has done this, then let him try how he can prove, that the Offerings of his fuppos'd Un- inftituted High-Priefts were of the lame Vali- dity : If he does not prove this, his whole Ob- je£tion is loft ; for till the Atonement he talks of, is ^rvv*d to have, been Valid j Unauthorized Baptifms 190 ATT END! X. Baptifms will not be prov'd Valid by his pre- tended Atonement. He fays, That, " vJjere the Neceffity was real '' ard unavoUabie, the Jews WERE BOUND *^ to think ^ that God did, tn Confideration of that j *^ Difpenfe with his own Precept. " This mufl: be acknovvledgM in one Senfe, and abfolutely. denyM in another. It muft be acknowledged that God in fuch real and unavoidable Neajfities^ Difpenfes with his own Precept ; that is^ does not expeO: Us to Obey it, when 'tis out of our Power to Obey it : He then Difpenfes with our Non-ability to perform it ; and fo imputes not to us the Omiffion of it. But then 'tis ab- folutely to be deny'd, that in fuch real and un-* avoidable Neceffity ,where we cannot have Us Positive Injlitutions^ He Difpenfes *with them by allowing us to COMMUTE, and put inftead thereof a Humane Injlitution, to ferve for the fame Purpofes as the Divine One : This, I fay, is abfolutely to be denyed, becaufe ic infers, that God equalizes a Humane Inftitu- tion, with His own Divine One ; whidi is ab- furd, befides contrary to the Faith and I'rachc^ of the Jewsj who always (^when they th,ouglit and praftis'd as the Mojaic Law diredcd them) reckon'd that God would not, in Cafes q£ greateft Neceffity, allow them to Subfiitute their own Inventions, in the room of hisPofi-' rive Inilitutions. For thus when they wer^ iq: Captivity in Babjlon 70 Years, they did not, dare to Sacrifice, becaufe they were Deftitute of ATT ENV IX. 191 of the Temple and Altar where God had pla- ced his Name, and where the Infticution re- quirM their Sacrifices to be oflfer'd. The fame we find in that People to this Day •, for ask but any of the Knowing Perfons among them, why they do not now otfer material Sacrifices to God 'ds former Iji" and they'll tell you, they dare not,becaufcthey have not the APPOINT- ED Temple and JUar: If you tell them they may build Altars, and offer thereon ; they'll anfweryou, That God will not fo DISPENSE ivith his Praept^ and that fuch Sacrifices will be an Abomination to him, and therefore of no Benefit, but rather of dangerous Confequence to them ; and that it is fafer for them to believe, that God und^r their prefent Circumftances, expeOis no material Sacrifice at all, than in cue Expofitor's Senfe to think, that God, in Co^fi^ deration of their red and unavoidable Neceffity [of an Altar and Tem.plej will dtjfsnfe with their Building any Uninfiituted Ones^ and ma- king Sacrifices and Burnt-ofFerings in and up- on them. The fame we fhould have found, if in the time our Expofitor refers to, that People had been deltitute of InjHtuted Pligh-Priefts and Priefts ; they knew that a STRANGER was not to come nigh y they had Experience enough of God's Judgments on fuch^ notwiLiiilanding their Pleas of Neoejjity ; and therefore they were hound to ihinK the direct Contrary to what our Expofitor is pleasM to affirm; and confequently foare Chriftians too, if any Ar- guments i9i ATTEN^DIX. gumentSjWith refpeft to them, may be drawn irom the Jews Faith and Praftice about fuch Pollitive Inftitutions. The Expofitor and his Friend endeavour to make fuch Arguments in the Objeftion ; and therefore 'tis very juil to deal u^itlT them in their own way, and confe- quently to conclude againll them from the Duty of the J^'^vs^ to that of Cbriftiam-^ That when we cannot have, or obtain GotPs Poltive T/iJlitutions^ we muft not let u^cur Oivn i.iftead thereof; but are BOUND to bdieve^ that in thefe Refpects,God difpenfes with our l^'ant of them ; that we mult wait his Leifure till he fhall blefs us with them ; and in the mean time not dare to Break ihro^ fuch his Rules anii Me^ thods prefcrib'd to us ; and confequently, not to Baptize without an Adminiltrator, who is Vefted with his Commifiion : Since fuch a Baptifm is no Inftituted Baptifm, and its Mi- • niftration for all the Purpoles of xhtlnli^-itect One^ is equalizing a Humane to a D'vine In- rtitution ; which is not only an Abfurdity, but an Abomination too. And, I think, this is enough in Anfwer to the late Bifhop of Sa- rum^s Boafted Unanfwerable Obje<^tion. The following Objeftions are brought by one who ftiles himfelf a Clergyman of the Church of England^ in his printed Letter ta Dr. Brett, concerning his excellent Sermon againft Lay-Baptifm \ and he tells us )uft be- fore he brings them, Pag. 17. lliat '' to fhew " that u ATTEN'DIX. IQ3 ^^ that every Chrifi/a^^ a4 Chriftian^ has a natu- \^ ral Right to Baptizes ; thp^ he grants, '^ that ^' he that does it, not Ordain'd, as he*ought ^^ to be, and not in Cafes of abfolute Neccf- *' fity, afts prefumptupuflyj and is very Au- ^' dacious. He will ufe ah Argument or two drawn from the ^crifttdres, Ohj. XIV. His firft pretended Argument is taken from St. Mark ix. 38, 39, 40. or St. Luke xi. 49, 50. " "[fohn anfwer'^d^ I^J^^'i-t Maflery *' we I aw one caflmg out Devils in thy Name ; *^ and he followed not tu,^ and we forbad him^ he» *' caufe he followed not m. But Jefusfaid^ For- bid him noty for there is no Man who JJjall do ^' a Miracle in my Name that can lightly ffeak ^' evil of me : For He that is not againjl m^ IS " ON OUR PART. The Senfe of which Words the Objeclor fays, is this : '^ He that ^' purfues the fame End that we do;- that *' ftrives to Beat down the Kiiigdom of Satan ^^ as we do, is not to be forbidden, he isoix ^' our fide : And does not every one that Bap- ^' tizes a Child, or Perfon adult, bring his ^^ helpi^7g4mnd to fubvert the Kingdom of ^' Satan ? and fliall we prefume to forbid ^' him, i5c.f Jn/w. He that does his LAWFUL Endea- vour to Beat down the Kingdom of Satan, ought not to be forbidden ; but he that ufes UNLAWFUL Endeavours to that End, ought to be prohibited ; becaufe ( to ufe the Apoftle's Words) he does Evtl [he aQ:s con- O trary 194- ATT EN^IX trary to God's Law ] that dood may come of it.- St. Paul fays, that the Damnation of thofe who affirm and praftice this, is juft : And therefore, he who ufes his Endeavours unlaw- fully^ i. e. contrary to the Law of God, tho* he may defign to Beat down, yet, in reality^ he promotes the Kingdom of Satan, which is advancM by nothing more than by Difobedi- ence and Rebellion againft God's Laws. And this is the Cafe of the Lay-Baptizer with us^ The Laws of God, and of this Church, have excluded him from the Miniftration of Bap- tifm ;. therefore when he attempts to Minifter, he is Difobedient and Rebellious againft thefe Laws; and fo adJs ftrength to the Kingdom of Satan, inftead of heating it down. Befides, the Man objected, did miraculoufly Ca^ out Devils in Chrifi'^s Name ; this ejf equally beat down Satan's Kingdom : For, hoxv can Satan caji out Satan, fays our Lord ? And when our Advocates for Lay-Baptifm can prove, tliat fuch Baptifm has a Miraculous Efficiency for the Deftruclion of Satan's Kingdom ; (for to fay this without proof, is only begging the Queftion ) or when our Lay-Baptizers them- felv cs fhall work as uncontroverted a Miracle as that was, for the Confirmation of their Practice, then 'twill be time enough tO' be- lieve the Validity of thofe Baptifms ; but till that time comes, we muft conclude the Ob- )iedor at beft to be mirtaken^ if not worfe, a Pervepter ATT ENDIX. 195 Perverter of the Sacred Text he adduces, for thtl'^^iUdity of fuch Unauthorized Baptifms. Obj. XV His Second Imaginary Argu- ment to this purpofe, is taken from 1 St. Pet. ii. 5, 9. ^^ 2e aifb are built up a Spiri" ** tual Ho u fey m Holy Priejlhood, to offer up *^ Spintud S^crtfceSy acceptable to God through ** Chrifl "Jefus, But Te are a chofen Ge^ ^' neratton^ a Royal Pr left hood, St. '[john Rev- ^' i. 6. tells us, that Chrift has made m Kjngs ** and Pr lefts unto God and his Father . And ^' he gives us the fame Appellation, Chap. v. 10. " This is applyM to all Chriftians, *^ therefore* all Chrittians are Priefts, confe- ** quently may Baptize — • That this is no Novelty he brings Tertullim\ Authority to prove ; ^' Nonne ^ Laid Sacerdotes fumu^ ^ " Scriptum ejl emm^ Regnum quocj^ue nos 5i? ^a- ^' credotes Deo ^ Patrijuo fecit. Differ entiam ^^ inter Ordinem ^ Plebem conftituit Ecclefiay iff *^ Honor per Or dims conceffum Sancftficatm: ^' adeo iibi Ecclefiaftici Ordinis nan eft Concejfu^^ ^' gjf Offers i§ Tinguisy l3 Sacerdos es tihifolus. And prefently after, '^ Igiturfi babes jus Sacer* *' dotts in temetipjoy ubi neceffe ^/?, habeas opor^ ^' tet etiam Dijciplinam Sacerdotis^ ubi neceffe ** fit habere jus Sacerdotis. Exhor. Caftit. The *' leaft that thefe Words imply, is certainly, *' that in Tertulltan\ Judgment, the Laity ^' have a Right to the Priefthood, and n^here *^ V/V a Cafe of Neceffity may exercife that Right. " And hence 'tis evident, that only Order O 2 '' and 196 ATTEl^'OtX. *' and Rdgularity makes feme Aft, and re- *' drains others trom afting in that Capacity.. To which add, what he calls his Third Argun^ient, that in G^/. iii. 28. 'tis faid, "7;; ^' Lhrijr Jefus there ts neither 'Jew nor Greek j *' neithsr Sert'ant nor Yree^ neither Male nor *' Female^ for ye are all one in Chrtfi J^p^s. *' Therefore 'tis not abfotutely necejfary m it *' felf that Baptifm fliould be perforni'd by ^^ an Epifcopal Hand, bc^caufe in Chrifttliere " is no diftinftion of Perfons. Jnfwj This Gentleman fliould have taken into his Account the Promife of God to the Jews^ " Te fiall he unto me ci KJngdom O F *' PRIESTS, and an Holy Nation, Exod,xix, 6. Upon a right confideration of which, he would have prefervM himfelf frorft the miP chief, of fo u^fafe an Interpretation of the Parallel Texts of the New Tcftament, and hk Readers too, from the Infeffwn whicli fome of them may draw in, from his PuWicatioil of it. That Text in Exodus never exalted the Common- People of the Jews, to be Proper Lite- ral Prk/lsy nor gave them any Right to the Pofjtive Infticuted Funftions of the Prieft- liood^ fo far from that, that thofe among them, who thought they might perform thofe Pricilly Fundlionsy upon their Attempt todo fo, found to their Sorrow, tlmt they were n&tjtich Pricjh : (King Saul is a (landing Proof of this,) And the Judgments inflifted on' ilicm are recorded ia the Sacred Oracles*, to warii ATTEN'DIX. 197 warn us all to avoid lach Falfe and Prefiimp- tuous Notions, and the Dangerous Praftices confeqiient thereupon* The Common Javs then were only Priefts in a Figurative Senfe of the Word, t. e. As God Selected and Confecrated his Proper Priefts, and took them from among Men^ pub- lickly to offer fucli Gifts and Sacrifices to him as he had appointed them : So, he took and feparated to himfelf fi'om among other Na- tions, the People of the y^/i'i-, that they might acceptably offer to him fuch Services, particu- larly Publick Ones, as he fhould appoint them alfo. Even God's Froper Friejls were limited by him, what Publick Services they fhould perform to him, infomuch, as that none of them could Validly Minifter in the peculiar Office of the High Prieft who was their Head, and they were all dependant on himr So the Common "Jews^ the Figurative Priefts were limited in th^ir Publick Services ; they were none of them to Minifter, except j^re? Prpphetico in the Peculiar Offices of the Proper Priefis^ who w^r^ alfo their Heads ancj Governors, in the Publick Divine Services, It was a gre^t Privilege for the Common Jews to be admitted by God, to offer him the Pub- lick Services, or Figurative Sacrifices of Pray- crs and Praifes, together with thofe of them- felves, Souls and Bodies, to hi^ reafonable Service; and to be accepted by him when they did this as he had appointed them, in 0 J fubor^ I9S ATT Ei^T>lX. fubordination to, and dependance on his Pofi* tive Inftituted Priefts ; and this was their Figurative Priefthood. They are called Priefts, only in this remote improper Senfe of the Word viz. becaufe, they were feparate from other Nations, and juch their Services were accepted of by God, as the Proper Prtejis were taken from among Men, and their Pofi ive h.jtituted Ojjtrt^.gs and Services were acceptable to him, upon the account of hib thus depara^ ting and Conjecraii/ig of them. This Separation^ and Confecration of his Inftituted Proper Priefts by God himfelf, was not (as the Objeftor would have it) only for Order and Regularity^ but alfo that they might be Shadows and Types oiChrtJi^ the Gr^at titgh Prieft which was to come, in whom alone we can be accepted. They, and the Bloody Offerings and Sacrifices made by them for thq People, were appointed to reftmble H I M, and the Sacrifice he was to make for the Sins of the whole World, as St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Hebrews has abundantly prov^. And this had infinitely more in it than bare Order and Regularity^ 'twas an Inftituted Method, of interceding with God by the Mediation of jcfus Chrift, in behalf of fallen Man ; 'twas an appointed way of executing Chrift's Medi- atorial Office, by vifibie Reprefentatives of him, and Types of his Miniftrations, to re- concile us to God, and God to us. 'Tis ATT EN^DIX. 199 'Tis the fame now in our Chriftian Difpen- fation : The Apoftles and their Succeffors are appointed not only for Order and Regularity^ but alfo, and more efpecially, to Reprefent oux Saviour^ to be His Vicegerents and AMBAS- SADORS, to bear his Charafhr and Authority \ for fays He, Js my Father hathfint me^ even jo fend 1 you, L^ I AM ivith you ! Ht hat Ihars you, Hears ME. This continues vifibie to us. His Mediatorial Office^ and maices thvir lufti- tuted Minifteriai Afts to be His, and for that Reafon acceptable to God for our Spiritual Be^ nefit and Advantage. Hence we difcover, that TertulUarPs Notion conceraing the Pricit- hood of Private Chriftians was a Montaniilir ipal Error; for their Priefthood fpokenofia the feveral Texts objected, amounts to no more than that Figurative Pnefihood which belonged to the Common Jews, as God's Sct gullah or peculiar People, for the Reafons I liave given before concerning them To which add, that the Text in St. Peter confirms this, by naming the Sacrifices they are to pfFer, for he fays their Priefthood is '* to offer uf Spiritual Sacrifices, i. e, thole of Prayers and Praifes, i^c. As for the other Pofitive Sacri- fices, appointed by Chrift to be made by his Inftituted proper Priefts, viz, the Dedication of Perfons to God by Baptifm ; the offering of the Commemorative Sacriiice of ChrilVs Body and Blood in the Eucharift ; and prefi- (ling in all other Publick Divine Service to Q 4 mediatQ ooD ATT EN^D IX. mediate between God and the People ia Chrift's ftead, thefe are Sacrifices peculiar to the Order of the Clergy, and this Text never defign'd them to be peribrmM by Lay-Chri- ilians. For fays St. Paul ''Are all Jpojiles ? 'Tis His ftrong Negation, as much as if he hadfaid, ALL Chrillians are NOT APOS- TLES. The Afoftles and their Succejfors zyq Chriftian Priefts, becaufe their Minifterial Office is to Mediate with God, as Chrift's Reprefentatives, in our behalf: this the Scrip- ture abundantly proves, and the Universal Church conftantly teftifies. Common Chri- ftians are not fuch Priefisj they have not this Office of being Chrift's Reprefentatives, com- mitted to them, for who can take this Honour 'to himfeif] hut be that is caltd of God' as was Aaron? The Text adduced will as much prove them Literal Kings^ as fuch Priefls ; for 'tis faid, Chrifl: has wade m KINGS and Priefts. If People once perfwade themfelves, that this Great Office belongs to them, becaufe they are Chriftians; God's Authority in His Kings will be trampled under Foot, and difpifed among Men. It behoves Princes, and all other inferior Orders, to take care of fuch dan- gerous Interpreters of Scripture as thefe would be.^ Chriflians as fuchd.\^Q highly exalted, by their Redemption from the Slavery and Bon- dage of Sin and Satan ; frorti the vile Servitude to their own Lufis ; and from the Burden of die M-jJm Law of Coftly ^Ceremonies, -^c ' " • • • In ATTEN'DIX. aoi In this they are KJ^g^j being brought into th^ Glorious Liberty of the Sons of God, and ha- ving through the Aids and Affiftances of the Holy Ghoft, a Capacity of overcoming all the Powers of Darknefs. But they'll lofe this their Spiritual Dignity, if they affumeto themlelves the Title and Office of Kings iri the proper Literal Senfe of the \yord : and fo they will their Priefthood too, if they pre- fume, like Saul^ tp attempt to Minifter ia the Pofuive Injiituted Pundions of Chrift's Appointed Priefts, Thus we fee that Chriftians, as fuch, are no ptherwife Priefts than the Common Jews were ; only thus much they are higher ad- vanced than the Jews^ that they ^vi^fQngs too, by that Spiritual Freedon), Liberty, and !Power, \yhich I have mentioned, and whicH the Jews^ under their Difpenfation^ could not boaft of, as we may. There is another Senfe wherein Chriftians, as fuch^ Colleclively taken, may be term'd Kings and Priefts ; and that is, as they are the Members of that BODY, whofe Head 'Chriji Jejws is King and Prieft in the highefi Senfe of thofe Words : It is no Novelty to call the Body by the Name given to the Head: For the Scripture it felf calls the Churchy which is the Body of Chrift, by the Name CHRIST. I Cor, xii. 1 2. ¥oY as the Body is Onc^ and hath many ijfemhers^ and all the Members of that One Body ^: being many^ are One Bodj: fo alfo is ' J CHRIST 301 ATTEN7)IX. CHRIST, or the Body of Chrift, which is His Church. And fince the Scripture calls the Churcli, Chrijlj 'tis no Wonder to find the fame Divine Writings call Chriftians, i. e. a/l the Church of Chrijl, Kjngs and Vriefis ; for rhofe Texts fpeak of the Univerfai Body, the Church colleftively taken: " A ^primal *' Houje ; a Holj Priejlhood ; a Royal Priejibood. This is ^he meaning of that other Text, *' Kj^g^ ^ - '^' Pr/ '//i ; i. e, in One Body ye are Kjngs and Priejls^ becaufe ye are tfie Body of Ghrift,who is KING AND PRIEST. And as any fingle Member ( as Juc- ) of that Body, is not Chrtjl in the proper Senfe of the word ; fo neither is any Member thereof, as jfuchj a King or Prieft in the proper Senfe of thofe Words. They are only fo in a Figura- tive Senfe, as they are related to, and are ia Union with their Head : And fo they are likewife as they are Members of the Refpe- ftive particular Churches, whofe vifible Spiri- tual Heads, the Bilhops, are Spiritual Kings and Pritfts by Chrift's Inftitution ; to whoii^ the Members are uaited, and confequently in ilibjcdHon: And theretore, tho' Chrill re-^ fpefts no particular PerfoH^ more or lefs, for being of a Jc^vijh or Gcnnle Offfpring ; for bei.ig Bona or :reey Mds ov tcmaie^ but re- gards the Obedie^x, dc. of all alike; yet h? makesa I X. to whom he has given the KEYS, and com- mitted the Cuftody of the TWO GREAT SEALS of the K^J/7gdom of Heaven ; jo that whatjoever they fhall bind on Earthy (hall be bound in Heaven ; and whatjoever they fhall looje on Earthj fljall be loofed in Heaven, I humbly befeech them, in the Bowels of Jefus Chrift^ to confider the great Dignity of their High and Holy Calling, and their UNALIENABLE Right to Adminifter thofe SACRAMENTS, which the Infinite Wifdom of our great Law- giver has appropriated to their Sacred Fun- dion. For, if the Miniftration of the Sacra- ments is not ESSEN TI AT to their Office, and THEIR OFFICE ESSENTIAL to the Miniftration of Valid Sacraments, what fig- nifies the Inftitution of the Priefihoody and to what purpofe did our Bleffed Lord promife to be with his Priefts, and concur with their Miniftrations to the End of the World ? If the prefumptuous Miniftrations of Lay-men aft- ing of themfelves, or in oppofition to the Church and her Priefts, is not inconfiftent wich the Nature and Property of True Sacra- ments : Or if they can be Trt^e and Valid Sa- craments when given by their Hands, how, and by w!iat means fhall we be convinced of the NecefTity of the Chriftian Priefthood to the Ciiurch, by Divine InftitUtion, and its Perpetuity, till the Confumrhation of all things ? How Ihall we be perfwaded to value the Miniftratipns of a Prieft more than thofq of ATT EN'DtX. ^05 of a Lay-man, and what Arguments ca^ be producM for the Prelervation of the U/iity of the Church, and to keep us from Eternal Schifms and Separations from Her ? Your lo^g Silence in not alTerting and defending the D/g- nity of your Office^ and the unalienable Nature of thofe Sacraments which Chrift has infeparably annexed thereto, tho' it may have proceeded from a Notion of HumiUty and Modefty, that yoti might not l?e thought to f reach ttp your [elves ^ hut Chri(t Jefus the Lord ; yet (with fubmiffion be it fpoken ) feems to have been the occafion of much Ignorance among the Laity, of the Nature of Schifm, and their Duty to you, and confequently of encouraging the Enemies of the Clergy and of their great Mafter in Hea- ven, to blafpheme him, and trample the Au- thority you have from him, under their Feet. Atheifm, Deifm, Prophanenefs, Blafphemy, and Sacrilege, are now grown Impudent and Bare-facM, Bold and Rampant \ they fcorn any longer to dwell in Obfcurity and Darknefs, when they are become the tialhionable Ac- complilhments oi our pretended great Wits^ and Men of dtjimgm(ljed Senfe and '^judgment. Tliey have a grand Defign in hand, (and their Emif- faries liave profecuted it bur with too much fuccefs ) to reprefent your Office every-where, and to all forts of Men, as Tyranny,Impofture, and Ufurpation ; to wrefi: the Sacraments out of your Hands, that you may become ufelefs and infignificant ; to make the giddy Multi-^ tude believe, that all you do is nothing but Vrief* ao6 ATT ENT>I X. Frieftcraft^ to bring and keep them under a worfe than Egyptian Bondage ; to expofe you to the Rage and Fury of an ungovernMe Moh^ and fo at laft to hits you, and all Reveai'd Religiori^ offof the Stage of this World, What elfe mean their feveral execrable Books and Pamphlets that are now induilrioufly pubUfh'd, of fet Purpofe to decry your Office, and redi- cule your Miniftrations ? How fliall the Ig- norant be defended from their Infeftion, but by the Antidote, which fome of you, both by Books and Sermons, have already begun to apply, couragioufly following the Example of the great St. Paulj who magnified his Office^ and thereby the Authority of Jefus Chrift who fent him ? God be praifed for thefe happy Be- ginnings, thefe firft noble Performances in maintaining your Office, and in defence of the True Rights of the Chri(tian Churchy depofited in your Hands by the great Author of our mofl: Holy Religion : And may he, by the blelTed Influences of his Spirit, ftirupmany MORE OF YOU to Cry aloud and fpare not^ to lift up your Voices like a Trumpet ^ to jheiv the People their Tranfgreffion^ and thoje who flrive xvith the Prieji their Stnylh. Iviii. i Hof. iv. 4. and Rom. ii. 8. That they may learn to KNOW and jubmit to, thoje who are over them^ (jn the Lord) and who watch for thetr .SW^,Heb. xiii. 17. That they rnay efleem them VEKY- HIGHLY in love for thetr WORKS fake, 1 Theff. v. ij. Be- caufe they are the Mimfters of Chriftj and 6tervards ATT ENV IX. 007 Stewards of tht MYSTERIES of God, i Cor. iv. I. That to the People may eflfedually be enabled to mark and a^void thofe, who tho' they come to us in Sheefs-Cloathing, and tranf- form themfehes into the Appearance of ApoJHes ofChrtfi, andMtniftersofRfgbteoufnejs, are yet invv-ardly but ravening iVol'eSy falfe Jpofiles^ deceitful Worker s^ and Mi/iiflers of Sat an ^ in St-, PauPs Language; for they caufe Divifwns and Offences contrary to the Doctrines which we have learned ; nay, contrary to tlie very Principles^ or Foundations of ihe Doclrine of Chrtjl, of Bap^ tifms, and of Laying on of Hands \ and there* fore fhould be avoided, that we may keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace : Which that we may all learn to do, and by your confentient CONSTANT WARNINGS be prefervM from the dreadful Sin of hating found Docfrine, and heaping to our felves Teachers deftitute of the Divine Commiflion, who* ferve not our Lord Jtfus Chri;t, but their own Bellies : May God of his Infinite Mercy grants through Jefus Chrijl ; to whom he Glory for ever mnd ever. Amen. FINIS. BOOKS lately Trinted for RiCHARii King at the Frinces-Arms in Sti PaulV Church-Yard. A Defence of the Do(9:rinc and Difciplinc of the Churcli of England in two Parts. Con- taining the Objedions of DilTenters, fairly repre- fented from their own celebrated Writers; And fully anfvver'd from Scripture, the Primitive Fa- thers, and our own Pious and Learned Reformers. With an Introdudion, giving a fuccinft Hiftory ©f the feparation thro' the feveral Reigns of our Kings and Queens. Being a compleat Syftem off the whole Controverfie. By WiUtant Nichols^ D. D. Author of the Commentary on the Book of Common-Prayer. A Colle^ion of the Principal Liturgies, ufed by the Chriftian Church in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharift : Particularly the, Ancient, -y-z,. the Clementine, as it ftands in the feook calFd the Apoltolical Conftitutions; the Liturgies of St. Jamesy St. Mark, St. Chryfoftom, St Baftly &c. Tranflated into Englijh by feveral Hands. VV^ith a Differtation upon them, (hewing their Ufeful- nefs and Authority, and Pointing out their feve- ral Corruptions and Interpolations. By ThomoA Bretty L. L. D. Price 6 s, A Difcourfe concerning the NecciTity of difcer- ning the Lords Body in the Holy Communion. With a Preface, giving an Account of the Errone- ous Opinions of the Papijlsy Lutherans^ and Cat-* 'vinifis, upon this Subjed by Thomas Brett y L. L, D. Price \ s. A further Proof of the NecefTity of Tradition to explain and interpret the Holy Scripturesiy Price i s. THE erouD liart O F Lay-Baptism Invalid: Shewing, That The Ancient Catholick Church Never Had Any Ecclesiastical Law, Tradition, or Custom, FOR THE Validity of Baptifms jPerform'd by Perfons who Never were Com- j mifTion'd by Bilhops to Baptize. All Prov'd from the RevGfcnd Mr. Bmgbams Scholaftical Hlftory of Lay-Baptifm , and frcm other Evidences nmproduc'd by that Hiftorian. By the Author of Lay-B^ptifm Invaltd Other FoHTiJation can no Man lay , than that is laid. — 21' arc built upon the Foundation of the APOSTLES, — -. Jefus Chrijl himjelf biing the Chief CoTner-Stone. i Cor. iij. ii. Ephef, ij lo. Quam Periculofum fic autem in Divinis Rebus uc quis cedat jure fuo & poteftate, Scriprura Sanfta decJarar, cum in Genefi Efau Prlirtatus fuos inde perdidcrlc, nee recipere id poftmodam potuerir quod fcmel ccjjitk Cypr. Epif. ad Jubaian.73. p 151. Pans IS4*^« London : Printed for H. Clement s, at the Half- M)on in St. VaxiV^ Church -Yard. MDCCXIII. PREFACE. S I have hitherto avoided all tmneceljary Ca^ villlngs and Dijputes^about Words and Things that have no Relation to the Merits of the Caufe, in this Controverfy • and as I have nil along Confidted the Juft Honour ayid Refutation of the Clergy y and ufon a Vrlncifle hlch we prof ef to Plead for ^ and Dlfcover to Others, ?. II. If any of my Opponents have been thus Trouble^ fome to their Readers In this Dlj}>ute , their Performances of that kind will meet with the Deferved Cenfare of the Dlfcernlng and fudlciom ; and if to make their ylfferti-^ ens go off the Better ^ they have thought fit to treat me with hcivillty ; I paf It by^ with only pitying their A 2 Tempers, g The Preface. Tempers, and advlfing them to fix their Eye more fteddily upon the Great Matter it felf jvhich is now in Debate ; and then they II fee that ^tis too Noble a Subje(5l to he mixd 7vith [iich an Alloy ; and that it will focner he de- termind by feparating from cur Rcajonings about it, all ungenteel Reflections upon Perfons, and all Partialities in favour of fome^ who are Deeply concern'd in its Con-" fequences. But tho I refolve to be as Civil to my Opponents as the Merits of the Caufe will alloji^y yet they mufi not ExpeB that I will Compliment any of their Errors, or that I will befofcft and kind to their Dangerous Notions, as to skreen and hide them from that jufr Reproach which is due to them. If my Learned Adverfaries make falfe Arguments to defend Error, I JJjjU not Efieem fuch their Methods to be only M.i&:^kQs jbutfomething worfe, confidering the Greatnefs of their Knowledge ; and if my Endeavours to Expofe their falfe Reafonings be unpleafant to them, I care not ; /wee Important Truths of a Spiritual Concern are infinitely more valuable to me, than the Tlea- fure and Satisfaciion of even the Greateft of Men^ who fiand in publick Oppofition to them. The Author of Lay-Baptifm Invalid, whatever his T^ame is, has abundant Reajoji not yet to publijJ] it in Print ; and therefore in this Difcourfe will not anfwtr Mr. Bing- ham by the Name of L2LWrenCQ,tho^ that Rtverend Hifio- rian has been pleased uncivilly to print that Name at large in his Title-PageySzc. v^ithout the Leave cr Confent of the T erf on, whom he fuppofes and aflerts to be the Aj.itthor he aims at. But not to detain the Reader any longer from the Matter in Hand, I v^ill here, once for all, jhew hiWy rirfl, fVhat it is that the Author of Lay-Baptifm In- valid do s infift upon ; And, Secondly, what thofe Things are^ which -nnre never defignd to be infijhd upo?i in his jtvcral Treatijcs, And, c. IIL The Preface. Hj §. III. Fh'Jl, he Inflfts upon it^ that the Pretended Bap- tlfm which is admi?nfie'/d by Perfons who never were Commiffioned to Baptize^ or who never were impow^ er\ly ntver authorized to BaptJz,ey is Null and Foidy and no Chriflian B'lptifm : J'his is the Subject of his * Jrea* tifes of Laj-Baptifm already publijlied ; this their Dcfign to prove ; and this Baptifjn, the Author calls Lav-Bap- tifin ; Baptifm defticute of a Commiflion ; unau- thoriz'd Baptifm , becaufe done by fuch as were never authoriz'd * Ajjd in fever al Places of thofe Treat ifes he calls this falfe Baptifm^ by the Name of Invalid Bap- tifm, upon Supposition that he has provd it to be fo. So that throughout thofe his feveral Books , the Terms of " Lay- Baptifm, Unauthori?.'d Baptifm, and Inva- ^^ lid Baptifm," do all mean this one and the fameThingy Baptifm by thofe who never were Commiffion'd, Authoriz'd, or impovver'd to Baptize. This he thought he had jujjiciently declared before • ejpe dally by adding a new Definition in his :^d Edition of Lay- Baptifm Inva^ lid: But that no one may henceforward mi flake his Mean^^ ingy he thinks it -very pertinent to declare it once more^ in Anfwer to the \th Page of Mr. Bingham'/ Preface^ where he fays , and reckons it a great Error , that I fre- cfuently " Coufountl the Terms of ILap^iStiptlTmaT^n^ ^' ailtljou^ n iSapttfrn , and Invahd Baptifm, toge- ^^ ther, &c, Fory any Man that does but look into the Treat ifes before mention d, may eafdy fee , that all which has been there jaid upon thisSuhjeclj zs con fin d to Baptifm by Perfons never Commiffion'd at all to Baptize : y^r^ ?wf //j^/e Lay-Baptifms ? Sure if fuch Perfons an not Laicks, then there are no Laicks at all in the Church, * Lay-Bapriffn Invalid.' Sacerdotal Powers. DifTenters Baprifm Null and Void. The BiOiop of Oxford's Charge Confldtif'd. Arc iv The Prefiice. bo^ ^re notfuch Bapfifms Unauthoriz'd, i, e. tjcver Aathi rizfd ? Certainlynhey are. And when they have been trovd to be Invalid^zj it any vjrong confoimdwg of Terms tocaUtbem Lay, Unauthorized^ avd Invalid Baftifws ? What is it then that A/r.Bingham requires ? PFhat Name v^ould he have us give to Baptifws performed by Ferjcns who ivere never Commifiion'd , if jve muft not call them Lay-Baptifms ? This cavillinf]^ at Words dlfco- vers an Inclination in him to make Things look like Er- rors, when they are fo far from bei?tg foy that they are ex- actly right and juft ; and let him frove the contrary if be can, §. IV. Secondly ^ Thofe TJjings which werr jiever de- (tgnd to be determind Negatizuly or j^jfirmatlvdy in the feveral Treat ijes written by the Author of Laj^Haftijm htvalidy are thefe ^ ifi, A fuppofed Power of Bijbops [ 7vhich feme fay they have J to Commiffion Laymen to Baftiz,e in Cafes of Extremity. IVhether Bijhofs can or cannot fo commiffion Lay-Men^ the Author (whate- ver his private Opinion is about it j ) had no Atind fublickly to deterr/iinej becaufe his Bufnefs was ofdy vnth thofe^who were ipithout all Diffute never comniiffion'd hy BipJOpSy in any Refpett what(otvery to Baptiz^e ; and fo is utterly foreign to the other ^iefiion ^ How far Bi- fhops have Authority to impower or commiffion Men for Sacred Miniftrations. I have in fever d? laces indeed yfloew'd theDanger of their endeavouring to veflLay Men with Tower to Baptize, in Cafe of fuppos'd Neceffi- ty ; I have alfo opposed fome pretended Arguments , which have been advanced to prove^ that Bishops have fuch a Tower to authcriz,e Lay- Aden ; and even in this Book I have jhew'dj that the Catholick Church has deter m in d nothing in Favour of fuch aVojver: But yet in all this I will vot concern my f elf fo far, as pMicklyto determine whether B'fhops have or have not fuch a fuppos'd extenfive Bower f(nr Cafes of Extremity ; and let Men take which Side of The Preface. v the ^eflton they pleafe j, the Truth I am concerned tf- hout jM fiand good , that pretended Baptifm by Perfons nebcr commiffion*0 iip Mljops to Baptize, [ 7vho are therefore Cectaittlp ilap^^Cll ] /y utterly Null and Void. If Bifiops can really ^efi their own Lay- Men with Vower to £aptiz,ey in want of the Clergy ^ then ^twill follow , that fuch Lay-Men fo Baptizing, are not Laicks in that A^ of Mini ftration, becaufe 'vefied with a Priefily Vower for that Purpofe, by the Hypothefis : But this Vropofition wants to he provd ; and I care not whe- ther it can he provd or no , for it no ways affects the prefent Controverfy ; fnce there muft be always 25l(5opi5 in the Church to ^efi Men with CommiSxon to baptize, how Contrathd orExtenfive foever the Tower cf Bijhops is for this Furpofe ; and fince there can be no valid Mi- niftration of Baptifm ivithout an CpiTcopal Commifliott vt'^Wy given to the Baptizer : Which is the great Bropofu tion I am concern d for, 2dly, The Validity or Invalidity of fome ancient heretical and fchifmatical Baptifms , were not defigr^d to be infill ed upon by that Author ; becaufe they were alfo difftre?7t from the Cafe before 7^s ^ their Baptifms were per- formed by Perfons who had been commiffion'd by Bi- fliops to Baptiz^e ; and fo whatever the Nature of their Baptifns was ^ it had no Comparifon with that fort of Baptifm which is evidently and profe(fedly perform^ dy not only by thofe who were never Epifcopally Commiffion'd, but alfo in Oppoftion to the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, or the Apofiolical Order itfelf A new U fur pat ion this, of fo monftroiis a Nature , that whatfoever may be fairly pkaded in behalf of the Ancient , Heretical, and Schif matical Baptifyns, cannot be Jaid in Defence of thefe, as will he feen in due Time, §, V. In the Hlfi or ical Account of thofe Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, I haqje indeed exprefs\l a preat Value and Efleem for St. Cyprian and his Colleagues A 4 Ecck" vj The Prefcice.^ .Etclejhfiical Laws or Canons againfi them. Laws fo ■ firitl^as that they Condemn d alljuch Baft'ifms to he Null and Void, And ivhy jlwiild not the Spiritual Supreme Go- 'V'ermrs. of the. Churchy have Power to make juch Lawsy as jliall (q far limit and reftrain the Commljjion they git'e to Ordain'd P.erlons^ that when they frefume to do ■any thln^ by. Virtue thereof,, in Hereby or Schifm^ their Ath p:;U he wholly Null and Void hy Virtue cf fiich Laws ? St. Cyprian and his Collear. :s did make Ecclefiaftical Laws to this furpofe (as we fhall fee hereafter) and In fo doing I reckon that thcj .'cnd like themfel-ves^ and took the m.ofi ejftctual way tc hcrt down Herefy and Schifm : If the refi of the Churches ^ 2:'ho in their Dfcipline dif- fered from St. Cyprian and his Colleagues^ had made fuch Laws as they did^ thofe Laws being in fuch cafe Univerfal^ might in all likelihood ^ have frefervd the Unity of the Churchy and prevented the many Dreadful TIerefies and Schifms which afterwards enfud : But thej'e Churches would not concur fo far with That Blejjed Mar- tyr ; They would nc,t agree with him, to make fruflrate and voidy during their Htrefy and Schifm y the Commif- fions, once rcceivd by their Heretical and Schifmatical SubjeSfs ; and becauje they were not fo Nulled hy juch wiJl]^d-forLa7i''Syt here fore their Miniflvations were hy thofe Churches efiQem^d to be Good and Valid in themfelves^, tho^ the Vafons concerii^d in themy both Adminiftrarors and Receivers, were taijited with the Sinful Circum- itances of Herefy and Schifm ; hfomtichy that tho' thefe Churches did not declare thofe Baptifms to be Null and Void in the Admiftifirat ions y for want of Commiffiori in the Adr^iiniftrator, yet they reckon dy that the Spi^- X'ftual Graces were impeded, or hinder d from Defending on the Baptized^ by reajcn of the Sins of Herefy and Schifmy till the Baprizxd return d to the Unity of the Churchy and as VemtintSyre'ceivd Ahfohtion hy Imfojition of the Bipop's Handf, and then the Spiritual Graces of Rapt If n were rccko'f'^d ta take effaf. Thus thofe Churches held fuch Baptijms The Preface. vij Bitftlfms to he 'valid in themfelves as to their Minifira- tlcn y and jo do I too , hecaufe there was no want of Commiffion • aijd tho' I fubmiC to this not fo ilrid Difcipline as that of the Cyprianick Churches ; yet I fiould 'value and efieem St. Cyprian'x Difcipline , rather than thisy if it were efiahajWd in the Church : But this my preferring one before the other ^ is no Argument that I therefore cfeern to be null and 'void , what I think not fo ferfecl in its Circunjftance as the other, §. VI. Mr. Bingham fays that the Author of Lay- Baftifm In^valid's *^^Notions concerning theJnViaUDttp ^'^ of Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifm^ do, in ^^ their dired and immediate Confequence — un- ^^ church and unbapcize the whole Church of £«^- " land y unlefs it can be fliew'd that we had our *^ Baptifm from feme other Church originally, ^^ than from the Heretical and Schifinatical Church ^^ of Rome, " Preface p. V. This indeed ts a momen^ tous Confideration^ and of fo mighty Importance^ that it would ha've been but jufi in Air. Bingham to have namd that Author* s black Notions in his own Words , and at the fame time too as he brings in fo heavy a Charge a- gainft him ; and frofecutes it to the ntmofi for almofi two Pages together ^ without fo much as naming One of thofe dilmal Notions and Arguments he talks of. But to ac- cufe heavily azd pofitively a long while before we come to a Trial of Men^s fuppofed Crimes, has fomething in it of Policy and Cunning to win upon the Faith of the cre^ dulous. But by ivhat I have already faid in this Vreface, and jlja II further fay in the Profecution of this Difcourfcy the Reader may eafdy fee, that I have no fuch Notions as tc7id to the unchurching and unbaptiz^inq^ of our Church ^/ England^ or indeed of ^iny other Epifcopal Church in the World, that retains the ClTcntralS ofChrifs Ho^ ly Infitutiom , as our Church mofi certainly does : And yf Air. BlDghani, or any other ^ ca?j prove that I have any viij The Preface. -finy fuch unchurching Principles^ Iwlll pihlkldy re- pent of and retract them ,• hut if he cannot pro'vethisy he is in common J uftice hound to acknowledge his Mi- ftake (to make the heft of it ) and pihlickly to take off that Reproach^ which he has fo openly laid on cm'^ who hopes he has heen 'very far from deferving ic_,from his or 5ny other Clergyman's Hands. 5^. VII. " Our Superiours legally affembled in ^^ Convocation ^ hefore they acquiefce in this Gentle^ mans Tropofal ^ ^' Whether it might not be proper ^^ to have a peculiar iFo;m of Confirmation or Im- ^^ pofition of Hands, for fuch as were baptized by *^ Hereticks and Schifmaticks^upon their Return to " the Unity of the Church , &c. without " (what he calls) l^ebapcijatiou, " Preface Pag. VII. 'f/j hiifT/hly hop\i 7vill in their great J-Vifdom diftinguijlj the Baptifin of fuch Hereticks and Schifmaticks as ha^ue heen Epilcopally:, i- e, 'validly ordain d ,, fro7n that of others who nem vccetucii aitp cBpifcopal, i. e. ^alid C3UintiiTrOU at all. All Forms of Impofiticn of Hands that are yet to he found in primitive Churcb-Hiftoryy he- long only to Vcrfons haptiz^edhy the former Sort of He- reticks and Schifmaticks ; and there is not one ancient Fre- cedent of a Form of Confirmation^ of fuch as were pre- tcndediy Baptiz'd hy the latter ^O^C. So that the Pe- culiar Form proposed with refpeci to t\)t[t, will he Pe- culiar indeed .' and 7i>holly ?mv^without any Example or Trecedcnt in the Ancient Church of Chrift. I mention tbisy only 7i;iih Sahmiffion to that Reverend and Learned Body of the Clergy y ejpecially hecauje I find ^ that our Hi- fiorian makes no Provifo whatfoever for this umd'arp SDittiUrt^DU ; tho' there is plainly ahundrrnce of Reajcn for it 'y hecaufe ctherwife^ a CommTftcit once realvedyand net vacated^ will he reduced to anEquality with a UO Coitl^ tnifOfOn ever received at all ; while the Mini ftrat ions of thofe 7vho IjaijC ^ Commiffiony will he Equivalent to the Mi^ The Preface, ix Minijlrntions of thofe v^ho \\t\Stl Ijai) onc^ and thereby the Word of God bimfelf 7i>ill he made of no EffeH, ^. VIII. Be fides y ^tls "very chfervahle^ that the Form of Confirmation which Mr, Bingham fuhjoins to give fome Light into this Matter ^ fag. VIII. is not more ancient than the Ninth Century^ and by Con fequence wants the true and noblcCharader of what Is CatljoIic!\^ i. e. hcis ^ntiC'^^litp, ^UlnitlCrralitPj and Conrcnt; and he might with as muchReafcn ha^e gfv en anln fiance o/3magC^- t'2la;t(Ijip and Invocation of Saints , from the Second General Council 6f Nice ^ about the Tear 787. who pretended more Authorities fron^r Fathers and Scripture too/or the efiabl^nng of thofe Y,novs^than our Reverend Hlfrorian can produce , for the Confirmation ofi Ferfons precendly baptized^/y //W^ ^j never were Commiffi- on'd to Baptize ; for indeed he can produce no Authori^ ty at all for that Sort of Confirmation, I Jay our Reve-^ rend Hifiorian might as reajonahly have producd^the Au- thority of that Counciljfor the eftablijlnng of thofe S^Olaj^ trcUS ^"^^(11^9^^ as this Form of Confirmation for the Ex- Cmplar of a Form to be made^to confirm the Falfe Bap- tifms ofthofe, who have been only waflied or fprinkled by our Hereticks and Schifmaticksy who were never com- mijfiond to Baptiz^e , if his Exe?nplary Form had been us\l to confirm fuch falfe BaptifmSy as indeed it was not - for the Form be produces ^does notythrcughout the whole Ce- remony and Vrayersy make the leaf mention of any SDcfCCt in the Baptifm it felf , before received by the Confir?nd Perjon^ and as for the Prayer of Con fir mat 1072* s, befeechi?jg God to give the Perfon " the Seal of the Divine Un- " clion^ and the Infpiration of the Holy Spirit ", it contains no more in Subfiancc^with Reference to the pre- ceding Baptifm yt ban what is as proper to be j aid over an- other y who was baptized by an Orthodox Prleft in the Unity of the Church ; as neither js there in the following Words of another Prayer ^ which fpeak of the Confirmed Perfon X The Preface. Terfona^noiv "Perfedand Confammate wich the '^ true Faith ^ In God^ and with the Seal of His ^^ Holy Un6lion. " For Confirmation was ahi^ays reckon d by the Church to Perfed and Confummate with the True Faith , and with the Seal of God's Holy Und:ion^ even all 'validly haftiz^'d Verjons in the Church it [elf. So that here is nothiitg in all this Forr/iy peculiar to any ImferfeBlon in the Baftijm it Jelf] before rcccivdy hut only in Reference to the Errors of the Ptrfon ^I'ho w^s recei'ved into theCommunio7i of the Church : And this might ha^ve heeii well put into the Form^ even for a Ferfon in all Refpc^s rightly haptlz'd before^ if he fell in- to any dangerous Errors y as all Hereticks mofi certainly did ; and ^tis notorious they -were Eplfcopal Verfons ^ and therefore^ a Form to he compos^l after the Example^ and in Turfuance of the Defign and Furpofe of that Form , will not be fujficicnt to confir?n Verjons fuppofedly baptizJ'd by Hereticks and Schifmaticks^ who ?K-ver were vejhd with a Divijte Comn7i(fion. As is the Caje of our Anti-Epif- copal Diffenters Baptlfms. ^. IX. I know fo?ne of my Readers will expect^ that J Jliouldfay fomething to Air. Bingham'x Appendix ; but I muft tell them , that to [peak particularly to every thing that Gentleman has been pleased there to ir?fnuate, and which is foreign to the Merits of the Caufe, ^s to fpend Time and Faper to no Purpofe , and to incur the jufi Difpleafurc of the Candid rfw*/ Judicious , without doing any Service to others who are not jo. What is wor^ thy &f an An/wer, and deferving of the Reader's Notice y Ijhall remark upon [ as hereunder^ only In this preface y referring to the feveral Pages of the follu7ving Treatije, where my Anfwcrs are more fully to he found. Our Reverend Hiftorians Obfervation [ in his 1^.1 ft Page] upon a Pajfage in my Difourfe i/ Sacerdotal Powers, Chap. V- P^^g- 120. is very juft and right y that injiead of thefe Words y 7himely , '' Thofe whom a " La- The Preface. xj '^ Laick Baprizeth are to be Rcbaptized ; but thofe ^^ \vhom an Arhn Pricft Baptizeth are not to be ^' rebaptized : Therefore an Aria7f Prieft is not a ^'^ Laick. This Argument fo confounded Hilary the ^^ Deacon that he was fore d to deny the ^a|0?, -which his ^' Mafier Lucifer had granted before , viz. ^CtiaC t^OfE '^ \»l)om a liaick i5apt(?eil; are to ht Mebnpci^cti* '* If jljould have been thus : " This Argument fo Co7jfounded Hilary the Deacon^ *' that he was fore' d to Deny the Afumftion [O? ^iuo?] ^^ which his Aiafter Lucifer had Grazned before ; viz. '' mim SUIjofe tofjom an Hrian pjiett »ptt5et^, arc '^ not to be veM^ti^eU:' Andfo 'tis mended in the Se- cond Edition of Sacerdotal Pov^^ers^ f. 76. and 1 thank Mr, Bingham /or the Notice, that I may not let any unde- figned Slip \jis this was~\ pafs uncorrected by me. Mr. Bingham^ 141/ Page concerning St. Jerom'/ Notion of the Validity of Lay Baptifmy is largely Anfwer'd in Fage 120, &C. of this Jreatife. His 142^ Tage of St. Chryfoftom'j Ajjertion concern- ing thelnvalidity of Lay-Baptifm^is Anfwerd in Fage 114* His 142, 14:5, 144 Pages y ofSt.B2ii\Ys Opinion yis An- fjverd in Page 109. His Demand in Page 145-. '^ In what Writing of " the Stephanians I find this Maintain'd^ That They " who had received Baptifm from Hereticks or Schifma- ^' ticks J were in a State of Salvation ? Is nothing but Ca-ptioufnefs and Cavilling, for himfelf and all who have Iqok'd into St. Cyprian'/ PfWks do know^ that Ste^ phen BiJJwp of Rome did bold, that fuch Baptiz'd Per- Ibns 7i^ere in a State of Salvation, for they efieeynd them to have been Validly Baptiz'd, and therefore re- fused to give them any other Baptif?^?, (7wr/ quarrell'd with St,Cypn2.ny&c. for judgi^ig orhervvife ; and fure they who held Men to have been Validly Baptiz'd, eifecm'd thc-ni to have been in a State of Salvation^ otherwife what figni fed the Validity of their Baptifm ? But for further A^'^Jwer to this Captious Queftion, the Reader xij The Preface, Reaihr way ^nd enough in St. Cyprian'^ Eftfites to]\:^ baianus ^7?^ Pompeius, ^W/w Firmiiian'i Epiftle to St, Cyprian \- m all which the Jrgumtnts of Pope Ste- phen and His Followcrs^^ are pamcularly mention'd, avd endeavour d to be Anfwer'd by St, Cyprian and Fir- milian ; and tho^ Air. Bingham flakes hi?}7Jelf Ignorant of the Scephanians maintai^mig^ " that they who had " received Baptifm from Hereticks or Schifmaticks " were in a State of Salvation." Tet as Learned * and Judicious an Author as any Modern Writer what- foe'vcry has exprejly ajjerted that they affirm' d^ '^ That " all Catechumens who dy'd unbaptiz'd^, were not " therefore damn'd ; mnti) Icfs t gofe toijo ftati vz^ '^' cetbD iD?ii>ttfm, tgo' from ipcrcticks oj a>clj(fmacick0, iMch PS the 'very Argument of. the Stephanians^ that I have mention d i?i the Flace C7t which Mr, Bingham r/iakes hts Remark^ and from which alone he Deduces his Captious ,^ejl'ion. His next Remark^ p. 14^. is , That 7 " would infl- ^' nuate^ that Athanafim was of Cyprians Opinion, '' and rejeaed the Baptifm of HI! f^eceticlts in 0e^ *' neral," which he inferrs from my faying , '^ That '^ Atha?mfiMs in the 4th Century reje^led t!jc ji5aptifm '^ of ^)rrcttch0.'' The falfenefi of his Inference difco'uers itjelf ; for J " the Baptifm of Hereticks/' which are my "Words , do not mean the "^ baptifm Of all ^riT^ tlC[\S in Ci5CnCraI/' as He would represent ; and He would think it 'vtry odd and unbecoming mc, if 1 jJwuld thiis force fame Words of his ^ which are as capable as mine are ifU) Univerfal a Senfe : For Example ^ he fays in his :>^th Page, "^ The Council of JV;Vf never made any *' Decree about the Re-baptlzation of Perfons bap- '' tiz'd by Laymen, but only bp l^cretical Pjictlis;* * See Vindication of a Difcourfe of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, Page 30^. The Preface. xiij New jlyoidd I from hence infeVy that Mr. Bingham " would infiniiate," that the Council made a Decree " about the Re-baptization of Perfons baptiz'd " bp alll^eccticks in dijeneral/ ivouUnot il Wefiern " Biftiopsj with fome Priefts and fome Deacons." And he gives good Reafons for this, againfi Baroniiis, and a Mifiaken Text of St. Auftin , in thefe IVords : *^ Baronir4s thought^ that this Council confifted of *^ 200 Bifhops, which he Grounded upon a PafTage " of St. Attfiin, in his Book againft the Epiftle of ^^ Tarmeniamrs, Ch. V. but he mifunderllood thac " Paffage ; for there he do's not fpeak of the Coun- " cil of Aries, but of the Council o^ Rome, which *^ confifted only of 19 Bifhops, and not of 200, " as they are reckon'd in the 1 ext of St. Aufiin, ^^ according to the Common Editions ; but this " Place has been reftor'd in the Lafl Edition^, by a " Manufcript in the Vatican Library ; and inftead '' of reading it as it was, " Ut DUCENTOS JU^ ^^ DICES, apid quos 'vitti [unt, %nclis litigator thus ^^ credant effe ^ofif077endos , It is now thus reftor'd/' ^^ lit CONTRA JUDICES, apud qms e7 u'ere Anti-Epifcopal pro- " ptrly J^eakingy — Anti-Epifcopal Baptifms Ji^ere ^^ in fome Senfe, the Subject of that Councily &C. In Anfwer to all 7vhich^ Mr, Bingham doubtlej^ knows that the Novatians and other Hereticks and Schifmaticks began their Herefies and Schifms in CSptTcopaCp ; he can^ not fairly deny that they had their firfi Bijhops ordained and confecrated by Ca ti&OliCk 315t(6ops! ; That thefe firsf here-^ tical a?id fchifinatical Bi^wps fo ordained y had not their Orders imU^d and voided by thofe Churches who allowed their Baptifms ; That the Ordinations performed by thefe Heretical and Schifmatical Bifwps were therefore Epijco- a pal; xvj The Preface. fal ;^and confeqmntly the long Succejfion was tttllp C]^tf^ COpaf, having been begun by CatljOlfck 315tliop0j and han- ded down fuccefsfully by an unrepeal'd, not vacated £- fifcopal CommiJJion • hence [the Commijfion being ftill but the fame that was at firfi given by Catholick BijhopSy namely y dSpiTcopal.] The Baptizers who were ordained by Virtue of this one and the fame Efifcofal Authority, are truly faid to have " received Ordination from *^ the Hands [viz. Conveyed to them by their Ordainers from the Hands ] of CatljOllCfe ISilljOpBl ", who ve- fied their Ordainers with the fame Tower to ordain^which the Catholick Bifhops themfehes were vefied with. Mr. Bingham fays , *^ This was a long Succejfion of if aUe liiiljops ". If by Falfe Bijhcps he means Biftiops 7vho were falfe to the Trull repos'd in 'em, [as all He- reticks and Schifmaticks mofi certainly are 3 then there will he no need to diffute about this Term ; but if by *^ Falfe Biftiops" he means Counterfeiter no Bifliops, 'ii)ho had no real Epifcopal Authority conferred on them ; The Churches who ejhem^d their Ordinations to have been Valid , and therefore did not pronounce them Nully are contrary to him ; witnef the Great Council of INice, d^c. And therefore in the Se7jfe of thofe Churches they were not " Anti-Epifcopal, properly fpeaking/' as Mr. Bingham jvould have it ; neither were their Bap- tifms Anti'Epifcopal Baptifms. But I muft referr the Reader to what I have faid more upon thts SubjeH in Tage VjVJ. of this Freface^ and in Page 195, &c. of the foUo7ving Treatife^ which is all that I think needful to fay to him J in Anfwer to every thing he has advanced about Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, in his Scholafiical Hlftory^ and the Appendix thereto. In his i^()th Page he is pleased again to Cavil at the Term liuatlt jlOJl^'U/o often made ufe of by me : In anfwer to 7vhlch I tell him once more, that by imautljOjij'D and MUCOmmifCoU'Il," I confiantly defign what all EngHfli- The Preface. xvij men ufuaJly mean by fucb Words ; namely, not autho- riz'd, or never authoriz'd ; not commiflion'd, or never commiffion'd : And Mr, Bingham might have favd himfelf and his Reader too a great deal of Time and Trouble^ if he had but rightly confiderd my Wth Definition in fage t^^, of the ^d Edition of Lay-Baptifm Invalid : vjhich is this ; " By a Lay-Adminiftration, " I mean, that which is performed by one, to^a " neljec teas Commiflfon^D o) JmpDtoer'ti foj tlm j^tf, *^ by thofe whom God has appointed to be the ** Conveyers of his Authority and Commiffion to " Men for that purpofe." For certainly Baptifm by fuch Perfons as thefe, is ^ap^lSaptlfm ; a7jd becaufe ne- ver Commiffion'd, therefore Mxxmtlm^'D 2i3apttrm. Indeed, if there can be any fuch thing as the giviijg of a I^eal ;3uC|)0Jltp to Laymen to Baptiz^e^ then, when Au^ thoriz^d, they II ceafe in that Rejfe^ to be Laymen, ha^ ving [if they can have] a Sacerdotal Power fo Bap^ tize in V/ant of the Clergy ; which will make fuch n)eir Baptifm to be Sacerdotal, Authoriz'd Baptifm, and fo not properly Lay-Baptifm. But that Laymen can have this Power conferrd on them, it ivants fill to be. proved. He Demands at the Bottom of his i^(^th Vc ^^ How can it be faid with Truth, that no Coun ^^ cil can be produced for the Validity of ILap;; «' 315apctTm, or t^nautljo^i^D ^ptifm, when He him- felf, [^that is, the Author of Lay-Baptifm Invalid^ *^ owns that the Council of Eliberis Authorized ^^ the One, and fo many Councils confirm'd the ^' Validity of the Other,'' He takes Occafon to put this ^efiion , and thus to mifrevrejcjjt me from my Words ^ in Page 2.6 of my Preliminary Difcourfe to Lay- Baptifm Invalid,, Edit. ;d. where fpeaki^tg of Hereti- cal and Schifmatical Baptifms, and the Determinations cf foms CoimciU, &C, about them, I conclude the Para^ a 2 p'^ph xviij The Preface. graph in thefe JVords ; namely, " I have tio iieed to *^ dwell upon this^ becaufe my Province is only '^ confin'd to Hap, i.e. \_tbat is] tSluautljO^iYD 315ap^ " tifm, fuch as is performed by Perfons, liiljO ncbec ^^ tore autljo^i^'U for that purpofe ; who ad in *^ Dired Oppofition to that Order of Men, who ^^ are impower'd by Chrift to authorize others to " Baptize And the Adverfary can bring forth " in their behalf not one Ccimcil > either General " or Provincial , till the Corrupt Ones of the ^^ Church of Rome" Jr^d all this I do fiill injifi upon, and affirm in anjwer to his ^neftion, that the Council of Eliberis is not for " ilap, that is, Zlnmilmift} Baptifw, ^' fuch as is perform'd by Perfons who ueljcr tere *^ aittljO^t^'D for that purpofe, who ad in Dired Op- " pofition to that Order of Men, [ i. e. Bifiops ] " who are impower'd by Chrift to Authorize o- " thers to Baptize. Th/s is the CcnneBion of my Words ; and I will not de- part from them, hut challenge Air, 'Bingh2,m and all his Friends to prc've, that the Council of Eliberis'j Canon, made V-'lth Defign to Authorize and Impower fome of their own Laicks to Baptiz>e, was a gi'ving Countenance to the Baptifms ahove-mentioitd, which I am dlfputing again f;. But of this fee more in Fage 5-8 , Szc. of the following Treatife, that I may not he further Guilty of Re- petition ; whereby the Reader will eafily fee , that our Lay-Baptifms art not fa'vour d by that Council'^ and in Tage 19;, &C. that the Ancient Churches who allowed of the Validity of fome Heretical and Schijmatical Baptifms^ did not efieem thofe Baptifms to have been deftitute of Commijfion, or Unauthoriz/d, that is, never Authorized ; for they efteemed the Clerical Orders of the Baptiz,ers to have been Valid. Mr. BinghamV i^o/Z> Tage about Tertullian is an^ fwerdin Tage ;9, &c, of this Treat ife^ to which I add^ that The Preface. xix that ^tls z'ery ftravge , he flwttid charge me 'with a Mi- il:ake for faying ^ That Tertullian refers us to "the *■' Law and Practice " of the Church ^ by his faying ^^ concerning Hereticks , 7ue " have a ikltU to Rebap- tize them ", when Mr, Bingham him f elf cannot dtny but acknowledges, fag, ifo^ ifi. ?^^f Tertullian makes the then Rebapiz^ation of Hereticks to have been the Practice of the Church in TertuIlianV Days, and that this was founded upon a Rule: For fays our Hlfiori^ an, " I own he fpeaks of the practice of Rebap- *' tizing Hereticks as Heathens : But the l^tile by ^^ which he juftifies this Pradice is not the Rule " of the Church , but the Ktlle of C^rilf, " pag. i^o. And he calls this^ of Rebaptization , '' 2Clje practice of tlje Cljtrrclj , " in Page i^r. Mr. Bingham 7Vould injimtate to his Reader, that I make what Tertullian calls a Rule/or this PraBice to be " the *' Law and Rule of the Churchy diftincfl from the '^ Law of Chrift '. But our Reverend HijI^orian fljould have producd fomething, if he was able, from my own Words, to have proved this, which he cannot do ; and therefore herein he acts very much beneath himfelf: Ifpeak of " the Law and Pradice of the Church", without concerning my felf whether ^e made ^^ a Law " and Rule diftindt from the Law of Chrift " or no, and without once fpecifying what fOJt Of J^tllC it was whereon fie founded \)tt ^jactice : If jhe founded it upon the Law of Chrift and the Apoftles , as Mr. Bing- ham words it, p. I JO. '^^hy then fie took this I,aw/t;r ibCC ^X\X\2, and Jo 'twas l)tt llatO too ; fo that even ac- cording to Mr, Bingham himfelf, it was the Law and Pradice of the Church : It was " gee llalJJ ', becaufe fie made iv the i^Ule Of fiCC P^atttCe ; and it was ^' l;tt lla'a) anti ^^jactice " , becaufe fie bound thofe who would be admitted to her Communion , to he TullfCCt to it. And Mr, Bingham cavils at my calling it " her Law a 3 " and XX The Prefaced ^^ and Pradice '^ as related hy Tertullian ] when his own Account of TertuUian'j Words makes it to befo too. His Note concerning St, Ignatius, pag. lyi. is fuff- cimtly anpivcrd in the following Page i;^. ■ And {tU that follows of Heretical and Schifmatical Bapifms in Vage 19:55 of this Book. And as for the Conclufton of hts Appendix, with a Latin Sentence, that he may fee I have tranjlated ity and made the Af plication as he [ it feems 3 dejires me to do • I hereby affttre him, that if the Ferfon who Baftiz^^d me was Cptfcoyallp OJlHailt'D \jts he certainly was'\ and if he had been a Heretick, and fublickly cenfur'd as fuch f v^hich he ne'ver was '] nay though he had never given fublick Notice to the World ^ that he had repented of and forfaken his Herefy , and jo I might have been tempted to believe^ that he was therefore a Heretick , at the very 'Xime that he gave me Baptifm ; [ All which^ God be ■praifedy 1 am fully fatisfied is no ways applicable to that Reverend Prieft "ii'ho baptized me ; yetf\ If all this had been juflly char gable on him, I jlwuld not in the leafi [ confidering the Now Laws oftheCatholick Churchy and cf the Church of England in particular ] have fufpecied the Validity of Baptijm , given me by fiich a one , 7mth Water in the Name of the Trinity ; but jhould have reckon d my Jelf an Incorporated Member of Chrifi's churchy &c. But to conclude my long Preface , J leave this with [ cur Reverend Hijlorian , {_ as he is a Clergyman ] and i do affirm, that ^t'ls a Tropo/ition very eafy to he 'proved j againfi any Man whatfoever^ That if Baptifm performed I by Terfons who were Never really and truly Commif- \ fion'd by Bifiops to Baptiz^e, and who att herein. Rebel- lioufiy againfi^ and in Oppofuion to^ the Divine Right of / Epifcopacy, be Good and Valid ^aptifm ; Then, Autho- ^ fitative Preaching, Adminiftring the other Sa^ crq^- The Preface. xxj crament ] the Power of Excommunicating , of Binding and Loofing, of Retaining and Abfolving "^ Men's Sins, and all the SftritualFun^ionsofthe Clergy^ are alfo Good and Valid^ ovhen attempted hy Unau- thorized , never Gommiffion'd Lay-Perfons : The Gonfequence of which ^ is y the utter Dijfolution and ta^ king away of the Neceffity of the Chriftian Prieft-< hood , therefore of Chrift's Authority here on Earthy and fo of all Revealed Religion too\ which is a Dreads full Conjtderation ; and much more fo ^ if any who ought to he the Guardians of thefe Sacred Things ^ fhould endea-^ vour hy their Writings and Preaching^to efiahlijh the dan^ gerous Tremijfesy from whence fuchfrofhane Confequences do naturally flow . London, May 29th, 1713. a 4 ^ THE THE CONTENTS. T M' CHAP. L H E Occanon and Nature of the prefent Difpute, Paie CHAP. ir. R. Bingham s Account of the Apoflolick Commlflion to Bap- tize, of the Conveyance and conftant Neceflity thereof to the End of the World, $ He makes the Commiffion to Baptize, ElTential to the Miniftratioii of Baptifm, $ The Pfeudo-St. jimbrofes Opinion, that the Apoftles at firft com- miflion'd all Chriftians both to Teach and Baptize, refuted, 7 Mr. Bingham , from thi3 Author , infers , that no one can have a Power of Baptizing , but he that receives fome way or other a Commiffion from the Apoflles, 3 And that the Original Power of Baptizing was lodg'd foUly and entirely in Bilhops, and derivatively conveyed from them to thers J inferr'd by him from the Ancient Writers, 1 1 His Notion of Bifhops Ratifying Irregular Baptifms , by adding what was wanting in the Circumflances of Baptifm, by an at- Kr Confirmation, confider'd and fee to Rights, ibid. The CONTENTS. Kis Diftinftion between Irregularity and Invalidity,confider'd, i ^ His Notion of Baptifm minifter'd mthout a CoinmiJJloni that it was efteem'd Falid^ notwithflanding the Sinfulnefs of the Act of Ministration, refuted, 1 3) 1 4> &c^ His Attempt to prove, that the Ancients did not/fuppofe Baptifm to be wholly founded upon Sacerdotal Potoen , prov'd to be contrary to,and inconfiflent with his own AfTertions, i5,to iS His Fancy, that Baptifm by an Irregular Prieji , if allowed to be Valid upon the Account of his Prieflly Charafter , mufl be j^uthoyizd^ViA Unauthorized^ Regular itid Irregular j Lawful ^nd Unlawful at the fame time , and in the very fame y^B and lie* JpeEf^ and therefore a Contradiftion j prov'd to be very falla- cious, 19 His ill-grounded GuefTes, at the Reafons why the Ancients al- Jow'd of the Validity of Baptifm by an Irregular Priefi:, 22 His odd Notion of Deacons not being Priejis,ind confeqiiently that Baptifm performed by them in Abfence ot the Priejifi is not Baptifm by a Sacerdotal or Prieflly Power j refuted, i5, 25 CHAP. III. HTEflimonies for and againfi: Lay-Baptifm Examined, 30 Mr. Bingham owns that Lay-Men were always debar r'd from the Miniflration of Baptifm in all Ordinary Cases, ibid. This prov'd tobeaNulHng of all Lay.Baptifms perform'd in Or- dinary Cafes ; confequently that our DifTenters Baptifms are Null and Void, ibid. Mr. Bingham dates the grand ^ejfion wrong, concerning Lay* Baptifm in Extraordinary Cafes , if he would bring it to our Cafe about which we are disputing, 32 The Grand Queflion of our Lay-Baptifms truly ftated, ibid. No Teflimonies for Lay-Baptifm in the firft 200 Years of Chri- flianity, 3? Therefore no ancient Catholick Tradition , no general Senfe and Praftice of the Church, can be found whereon to eftabhfh the Prai^bce of Lay-Baptifm, i^i^* Mr. Bingham owns that Particular Churches, are Exceptions a- gainfl his pretended general Praftice of the Church in this Matter, S^j 33 Mr. Bingham s whole Evidence amounts to no Catholick Tradition for Lay-Baptifm, 34 Sf. Ignatius, Anm 71, makes Baptifm to be Null and Void, when perform'd by one who was never comnufUon'd by the Biftiop, ' ■• ' ' •' ■^■"" " ' ?5 Sc r/&e C O N T E N T S. St. fiermaf mentions none but Epifcopally or Divinely Authorii'd Bapcizers, for Cafes of Extremity, ^g Tertullians private Notion, about the Year 200, of Lay-Men's Right to baptize in Abfenre of the Clergy ^ no Evidence of any Law, Tradition or Cuftom of the Cathohck Church, for their pretended Right, 59, &c* His falfe Realon upon which he founds their pretended Right,re« futed, 4^; His other particular Fancies, may with as much Reafon be call'd the Church's General Senfe and Praftice, as his Notion of Lay- Baptifm may, 44 He gives us not one Inftancc of any fuch Baptifm, allovv'd of by the Church in his Days, 47 His Words are full and direft againfl our ordinary Lay-Baptifms, and by Confequence prove their Nullity, ibid. St. Cyprian and FirmUian about the Year 255. reckon'd Lay-Bap- tifms to be Null and Void, as St. Bapl witneffes, 48 St. Cyprians own Works plainly fhew, that he efteem'd all Bap^ tifnis to be void , that were performed by fuch as were rec- kon'd to be deflitute of Prieftly Power and Authority, 51 Firmilians Letter to St. Cyprian proves, that FirmUian and the Council of iconium held the fame, 54> 5 5 Several of St. Cyprians Collegues in the Council of Carthage^ the fame, 55, $5 The 47th Canon call'd Apofiolical, the fame, 57 The Council of EUberv! m Spain held by 19 Bifhops jfnm 505, does not favour Baptifm by Perfons, who never were conunif- fion'd by Bifhops to baptize, 58, 1 1 r This Council is againfl: TertuUians private Opinion, of Lay-Men's Right in themlelves to baptize in Abfence of the Clergy, $f And 'tis alfo agamft Mr. Bingham's Guefs that the y4ncients might efteem Baptifm by whomfoever Chrifiian perform d to be good and njalidy $p, 69 The Council of Eliberii^ Canon, is no Argument for the Praftice of the Catholick Church, 61 The Fable of Athanafius , when as Boy , baptizing his Play-f«I- lows in Sport ^ and of Alexander the Bilhop's determining the Baptifm to be Valid, expos'dj 52 Rufinus, the firfl Author of it, a very credulous and carclefs Hi- ftorian, 6^ Sozomens Account of it taken only from Kufnusy 67 He was no very judicious Writer, 68 Socrates SchoUfiicusy the moft Judicious and Diligent of the three Hiflorians, 6^ This latter,though quoted by Mr. Bingham to vouch for the Truth pi ,that Fable , docs not fpeak one Word, either ot the Boy Afha» rhe CONTENTS. ^j4thanafius"h Baptizing the other Boys •, or of Alexanders fup- pos'd Determination about it, (5p, 70 He fays he Copy'd from Rnfinw^ fuch Paffages, in the relation whereof R«/w«^ did not forfake the Truth, 71 And theref \*-e his omitting this Fable, is an Argument that he did not believe Rufinut'^ Relation of it, ibid. Another of Mr. Bingham s Authors for the Truth of this Fable, founds it upon a new Suppofition of his own, that fpoils the Defign of Mr. Bingham s relating it, 72 yohamtes Mofchits, another of Mr. Bingham s Vouchers, a Ridicu- lous Vifionary Monk of the 7th Century ^ who writes this Fa- ble, among other idle Legendary Stories of Miracles, Dreams, &c. not to be credited j fome Particulars whereof are in- ftanc'd, 73 Nicephorus Calijius^ another of his Vouchers, a Fabulous Writer of the 14th Century, tho' Mr. Z3;w^^^7» fays he relates this Story , yet in truth he do's not relate it, 7 5 And if he had, would have been but a forry Evidence, ibid. A jufl Refleftion on Mr. Bingham's producing fuch Fabulous Writers, to vouch for the Truth of this Fable, fo pernicious in Its Confequences, if believ'd to be true, )uft and right, ibid. The little or no Credit this Story has among Learned Men, 75 Even Papifts themfelves rejeft it, 77 This a Reproach to fome Proteftants who believe ic, 78 But Proteftants too have given their Teftimony againft it, 79 The Circumftances of the Story it felf fpoil its Credit, ibid. The Authors who believ'd this Story, are no Evidences that it was agreeable to the General Senfe and Practice of the Church, 84 Mr. Bingham owns, there was Neither Canon nor Precedent per- haps to Warrant the fuppos'd Faft of Mhanafiur j and that it would be Strange> if any fuch Canon fliould be made in the Church, 90 His believing that " */// no eafy Matter to produce an Ancient Canon " DIRECTLY TO CONFRONT Alexander'/ fuppos'd Determi" •' nation y is nothing to the purpofe, 91 Becaufe the Inflitution of Baptifm and Laws of the Church, do confine Baptifm to a Commirtion, and confequently forbid fuch a Determination in favour of its Validity when without a Com-^ miffion, ibid. Mr. Bingham fuppofes, but do's not prove, and therefore is call'd upon to prove it, that an Uninftituted Miniftration of Baptifm, may be nude Valid by a Poft-faft Confirmation of the Biihop, 93 If The CONTENTS. If the Fable of Mhanajtus had been true, yet nothing to tfie Purpofe could have been inferr'd from it, 95 Nor any thing have been fafely concluded from it, ibid. The Dreadful Confequences of admitting Bifhop Mexanders fup- ;>tf/>^ Opinion, to have been Just and Right, ibid. Which Proves the whole Story to be Foolijb and Ridiculous \ and therefore contrary to the General Senfe andPraBice of the Ca- tholick Church, 9-7 Hilary^ Deacon of Rome^ about j^nno 3 5O5 affirms, that in his. time Laymen did not Baptize, ibid. Pacianus, Bifhop o£ Barcelona, Nulls Baptifm by Perfons not ha- ving a Prieftly Power, 98 Optatufy Bifhop of Milenjiis SUPPOSED NOTION of the Validity of Baptifm by any Perfon whatfoever, prov'd to be Singular and Popifh, and not Countenanc'd by the Catholick Church, 104 His Words more Juflly and Candidly interpreted, inferr no fuch Latitudinarian Principle, io5 St. Bafil^ Bifhop oicafarea^ Jnm 9^p, Nulls Lay-Baptifm, 109 St. Chryjojiom^ Archbifhop of Conjtannnople, jinno $98, do's tl^ fame, 1 14 A PafTage quoted by Mr. Bingham out of the Apoftolick Confti- tu tions, do's fo like wife, 1 1 7 St. Jerom in the Latter end of the IVth Century, his Notion of Laymen's Power to Baptize in Cafe of NecelT-ty, founded oa No Law of God, or of the Ancient Catholick Church, 120 But on a Falfe Principle of his own, much the fame with thac of TertuUian-i 12 2 HeContradifts this Notion by his Dialogue againfl the Luc if en' au S(:hiirnaticks,wherein he Confutes the Luciferiavs by this Prin- ciple, That if the Arian Clergy were but Laicks, the Baptifm adminifler'd by them ought to be re)efted, 1 23, to 1 38 The Inconfiftency of St, Jeronss firft Notion, with the Scope of this Dialogue, 131, 13P He Nulls Lay-Baptifm by faying, " That without Priejls there if " no Church, 139 Mr. Bingham s Cavil at Dr. Forhs's and Mr. Reeves's Wordi,, upon this Dialogue, confider'd, 140 St. ^ugujiiny as quoted by Mr. Binghflvi from Gratian, mifrepre- fented by him to the Englijh Reader, in favour of Lay-Bap- tifm, 145 His Words prove No Matter ofFaSf, of Laymen s Baptizing, ibid. Another Palfage of that Father, as quoted by Mr. Bingham from Gratiany makes the j^pojlolick Commijfm to be a NeceiTary Con- dijion of Baptifm, 14$ Ano- The CONTENTS. Another PafTage Gratian attributes to St. y^ugufiixy which by Nc- ceiTary Conlequence Nulls our Lay-Baptifms, 145 A Story Gratian relates as from St. Augufiin in favour of Lay- Baptifm, ibid. St. Attgujlin^ if he did relate it, owns that 'twas only a Report y and the Author unknorvn, 147 St. y^ugtijiins fuppos'd Opinion, That fuch a Cafe, as a Layman's Baptizing a Perfon in Danger of Death, where no other was prefent, might happen ; and that a Perfon fo in Danger ought not to be left unbaptiz'd, fairly confider'd, 147, 143 St. Augu{ii7is Genuin Works, prove Nothing of any Law, Tra- dition, or Cuftom of the Catholick Cliurch for Lay-Baptifm, i$o, CO 162 He Hefitates, and is not pofitive, that Lay-Baptifm in Cafe of Neceflity is Valid j this proves, that he did not know of any Catholick Tradition for the pretended Validity thereof, 150, 151 which is further Confirm'd, by his not being able to Clear fuch pretended Baptifms from the Guilt of Sin, 155 His Notion of Ufurped Lay-Baptifm in Ordinary Cafes, being Unlawful, and to be repented of by both Giver and Receiver, and that 'tis yet Valid ; refuted at large, ^ 1 54, to 160 He acknowledges this not to have been the Determination of any General Council, but his own Private Opinion, 155, i^^ He was not wholly free from introducing Novelties in Religioii, Gelajtus, Bifhop of Row»^, j^nno 492, His Saying of Laymen's ha- ving Power granted them to Baptize in Cafes of Extreme Ne- ctflity , is no Proof that this was the General Senfe and Practice of the Church, 162, idj Mr. Bingham's falfe Inference from Gelafius's Words, That Lay- 3V1EN had as much Power to Baptize in Abfence of Deacons, as Deacons had in Abfence ot the Presbyters and Bifhop, ex- pos'd, 162 Gslafius is no Evidence for the Validity of Baptifm by Perfons who were never CommifTion'd by Bifhops to Baptize, 164 Jfidore^ Bifhop of Sevil, Anno $95, founds the Power of Bapti- zing upon the CommifTion Chrifl gave to his Apollles, ids. 166 His faying of Laymen's being permitted or impower'd to Bap- tize, is ftill confining the Power of Baptizing to a CommifTion to be fir ft receiv'd by the Baptizer, 16 j The Unaccountable Lengths fome Men ran into, concerning the Minifttr of Baptilm, after St. Augujii?i'i Days, ibid. The The CONTENTS. The Summ of Mr. Bingham s whole Evidence, in his own Words,^ is, That the General Senfe and Practice of the Church for the firft 600 Years, was grounded upon the Apoftolick Commiflion, given to all Eaptizers in Cafes Ordinary and Extraordinary 169 From whence it follows, that the General Senfe and Praftice of the Ancient Catholick Church, do's not Countenance the pre- tended Validity of Baptifms, perform'd by Perfons, who ne- ver were Commiflion'd by Bifhops, 170 Mr. Bingham s whole Evidence is not fo much as a Proof, that the Ancient Catholick Church for the firfl 5oo Years, did ever Au- thorize or Commiffion Laymen to Baptize, in want of the Clergy, ibid. CHAP. IV. Vjr. Bingham's Objeftions againft the Teftimonies of St. Cyprian, St. Bajil, and Su Chryfofiom, anfwer'd, 1 74 CHAP. V. TJ I S Acknowledgments, concerning the Great Queftion now in DifpUte, viz. «■« whether the Ufurped and Uaauthorizd Bap* " tifm of Laymen, was aUoxpd[hy theAnrienc Catholick Church] ** to be Falid? Wherein he eftabliihes our Affertion, 189 CHAP. vr. T^ H E Ancient Churches, who allow'd of Heretical and Schif- matical Baptifms, did not reckon thofe Baptifms to have been Unaufhorizd, Uncommiljiond, Anti Epifcopal Lay-Baptifmr, tho' Mr. Bingham endeavours to make them look as iuch, 193 Of the Rite of Impofition of Hands, whereby repenting Here- ticks and Schifmaticks were rectiv'd into the Church, 208 CHAP. VII. M r Bingham's Account of the fuppofed Praftice of Lay-Bap- tifm by the Modern Greeks^ Mofovitv-, and Foreign Re- form'dj examin'd, 102 Of The contents: of the Modem Greeks, ibid. Of the Mofcovttesj 240 Of the Foreign Reform'd, 246 CHAP. VIIL 'T'HE whole Evidence of Antiquity fumm'd up ; proving,' That the Far Greater Majority of Ancient Teftiraony, is a- gaiiifl all Pretended Baptifms perform'd by Perfons, who ne- ver were Authoriz d by Bifhops to Baptize •, and confequently, that fuch Baptifms are not VaUd by any Ecclefiaftical Law, Tradition, or Cuftom of the Ancient Catholick Church, 2 $9, to 25p The Conclufion, containing a True State of the Queftion abouc Suppofed Cafes of Nece£ity^ where Epifcopally Authoriz'd Bap- tizers are not to be had 25p E K R A r A. PAge 5. Line 29. for Bapcifm, read Chriftian Sacraments, P. 55. J. the laft, /or, by Virtue any, read^ by Virtue of any. P. 59- I- 15. read SchoUftic^l Wfiory P. 117. 1. 19. /fl,., this of the Invalidity, ready this Applicable to the riivalidicy. P. \26. In the Note 1. 4. read, eft enim. P. 127. J. 2. read, do not a^t. L. 13. read^ whom you do noc. L. 1 $, i^, 2 2. blot out *' the Double Comma's. P. 144. 1.22. rf^^ Fallacy. P. 224. I.21. read H^ CoUecfhti. P. 269. 1. 5. read, I have faid. P. 272. 1. iQ. read, and Deacons, THE SECOND PART O F Lay-Baptifm Invalid CHAP. I. Tbe Occajion and Nature of the prefejit Difpute. I HAT there maybe no Miftalce in the Nature and Defign of this Controverfy-, the Reader is de- ^^^^ defir'd to bear this always iii ll^JPi^fmi^ll j-f^jiiid^ and to keep his Eye con- tinually upon it 5 That the Occafion thereof is a moft Novel, and formerly unheard of, Unchri- ftian Ufurpation, attempted at the Reformation^ and fince that time to this day, by Men who never receivd any Divine Commillion *, and who yet, in Oppofition to, and Rebellion againft, their Spiritual Sovcre'gns, refufing to receive any fuch B Com- 2 The Occafion and Nature Part IL Commifiion from them, endeavour to advance themfelves into the High-Priefts and Priefts Office, and to minifter in fuch Holy Things, as God has appropriated to that Sacred Cotmmjjion^ which he f^ives to Men for that Purpofe : And this they do, not upon the pretence of IMeceffity^ arifing, as fome fuppofe, from the want of fuch as are Com- miflion'd, but in an obftinate perverje Refiftance againll: Chrift's Spiritual Vicegerents^ undervaluing and trampling upon that Authority wherewith He has inverted them. § II. It is alfo to be remembred. That God always us'd (if we may believe the Divine Ora- cles) to fet a Mark of his fevereft DIfpleafure, not only upon fuch Vfurping Adminiftrators them- felves, but alfo upon thofe who adher'd to and en- couraged them in their Ufurpations ^ as I have formerly obferv'd and inftanc'd upon this Occafion ^ and He has made fuch Ufurpers and their Ad- herents fenfible of his Wrath and Fury, not only when they have attempted Sacred Miniftrations, without any plea of KecefTity^ as didG?r^^ and his Company, and King Vzziah •, but alfo, when, to all appearance, they had a fair plea of Neceflity to excufe their Ufurpations, MThat could be an Ex- cufe, as we fee that it was not in the Cafes oiSaul and Vzza. ^ III. Hence it behoves fuch Ufurpers, and thofe who concurr with, abett, and encourage their Ufurpations, ferioufly to confider what they are doing •, and upon what foundation they can ven- ture to affirm any Validity to be in fuch pretended Minijfrations ^ when God himfelf has branded vthcrs iike theirs^ With indelible Marks of Infamy and Chap. I . of the prefect Difpute. j and Reproach, by the Everlafting Sacred Hiflory of his Juft Indignation and moll Righteous Ven- geance againfl: luch Ufurpers, and their Encou- ragers and Abettors. § lY. It was this Conflderation, that at firfi: fet the Author of Lay-Baptifm Invalid^ upon enqui- ring, whether God has a kinder Regard for fuch Ufurpations now^ than He had formerly ^ and whether He will now admit of and receive as good and valid, the pretended Miniftration of Chriftian Sacraments, from fuch Ufurpers Hands, as Yienever did fo much as once Authorize, Commilhon, or Impower for Sacred Miniftrations, fince He has Ordain'd and Set apart a particular Order of Men, whom He Vefted with his own Authority for fuch Purpofes ? Upon a ferious Enquiry into this Matter, and a deliberate Search into the Di- vine Inflitution of the Chriftian Priefthood and Sa- craments, and the Nature thereof, He could not chufe but think thus much ^ That the CommiJJion of him who minifters Chriftian Sacraments, is at 7nuchy as durable^ and as conftantly an obliging Pofitive Divine Inftitution, as either tlie Alatter or Form of the Sacraments is *, and that confequently, a Miniftration i/^^/r///^ of either of thefe latter, which is fo difpleafing to God, as to be therefore \v\io\\yNuil and Void •, is, but an Equal Offence againft the Inftiv(Jv^ , •^ ^tution of'Ba^iifia^, with another falfe Miniftration ^ c^^ '"^^Vhich is deftitute only of the Divine Qommijfion -, and that therefore this lutrer^ where there is no Commif' fion, is as much Offenfive to the Divine Majefty, and confequently Null and Void, as the other, upon the very fame Reafon and Foundation : And this, with refpedl to Baptifm^ he has endeavour'd to prove, from the Inflitution it f elf of Baptifm, keep- B 2 ing 4 The Occafion and Nature^ &c. Part IL ing clofe to the Rule which our Saviour fet his Church herein. And the Oppofers of this, muft produce no lefs than Vincentius h\rinenjis\ Golden Rule, viz. Traditio, feiTipet^ ifbique^ & ah omnibus credit a^ to prove that it was a CathoHck Tradition, always, in every Place, and by all taught, be- lieved, and pradis'd, at leaft by the generality of the Ancient Church, viz. That the Inftitution of Bjpfifm does not hinder, but that Perfons who rirre never Comtmffirn'd at all to Baptize^ may adininilkr Legally Valid Baptifm ^ I fay, Legally Valid, with re^ed to the Divine haw -^ for if it wants of that Legal Validity, what fignifies any other pretended Validities of Mens Invention > If they do not pro- duce fuch an Univerfal Tradition as this, for the Interpretation of the Inftitution of Baptifm, in favour of Miniftrations performed by fuch as were never ConmiJJion' d ^ their pompous Show of Quotations from fome few Latin Fathers, will a- mount to no more than a bare Difcovery of fome of their private Opinions ^ which, in Matters of fuch vaft Moment as this is, will fall infinitely fhort of Deciding the Merits of the Caufe. § V. Let us then fee what Mr. Bingham has done towards the Difcovery of this Univerfal Tradition ^ and whether his Scholaftical Hiftory does not ra- ther prove, that the Univerfality of the Church's Tradition, is, That the Inftituion of Baptifjn re- quires the Divine Commiffion of the Minifter ot Bap- tifm conftantly to accompany the Miniftration thereof-, and becaule ^^;7/?^/;?r/>', therefore, that the Commilfion is Efjentia/ to the Valid Miniftration thereof^ Ejfentia/^ by reafon of its Equal Obliga- tion and Neceility with the Matter and the Form hy the Inftitution, CHAP. Chap. 2. Of the Jpofiolick Commiffion^ ^c. CHAP. II Our HtJloriarPs Account of the Jpofiolick Com- mifjion to Bctpiz^e ; of the Conveyance^ and conjlant Neceffity thereof to the End, of the World. § I. "W ff E firfl: very rightly begins with the i i Commiffion given to the Apoftles, p. 2. JL A where he fays, " // is certain, the '* Commiffion to Baptize^ was Originally given by our '' Saviour to the Eleven Apoflles , for Jo it is ex- " prefs/y faid^ Mat. xxviii. 16, &c. Then he adds ^ That " By the Tenor of th^ Commiffion, it is " certain they were invefled with Authority^ not only " to Baptize themfelves^ hut to communicate tljlS '' POtOeU to others : tor the CommiffiOll ailD '^ ^Oti3£t of Baptizing, was not to Diewiih them, but " to Continue to tlje (£nn of tlje CMo^JD, p.?. Upon which 'tis very remarkable, that He makes the Commiffion to Baptize of conftant Duration and Obligation, in and to the Church -, for he fays, 'twas to Continue to the End of the World : And the very great and prelfing Necelfity of this, he urges thus •, " But then two ^ue ft ions arife from '' hence: Whom they actually '3i\\t\)0JX^''(\ to Baptize ^ ^* And to whom they gave Commiffion to \\l{tl)On^t " others to Baptize ? For (fays he) botfj tiJCfe " things were jBeccffacp, to pjcfecDc tije " CljUrCl), according to the ©^OCC Of CIjJlC, at '' leap: in jfUtUte SffCS, p. 3- Pray obfcrve this, for 'tis a granting of the Thing difputed for, B 3 wV:j. 6 Of the Afofiolick Commifflon^ Part II. viz. That the Church cannot be preferv'd, Chri- jftian Baptifin cannot be had, without the Comwijfion to Baptize ^ for, if it can, then, whom the Apepes a[lua]ly Author'izi^ and to whom they gave ComwjJJion to Authorize others^ to Baptize^ were not Necejjary to preferve the Church : For where lies the Neceflity, i^ it can be preferv'd without the Commillion to Baptize > But this Hiftorian fays they were 'Kecefjary 5 /. e. the Commilfion, who fhould Bap- tize^ was Keceffary to preferve the Churchy accord- ing to the Order of Chrift^ in future Ages. And this amounts to no lefs, than that the Commiifion to Baptize was ISieceffdry to Preferve Baptifm -^ be- ' caufe if Baptifm is not Preferv'd, the Church itfelf is not preferv'd, fince Baptifm is the Incorporation of all its Members ^ and therefore, where there is 'No CommiJJion^ there is no Baptifm^ no Churchy ac- cording to the Order of Chrift \ if we may believe Mr. Bingham himfelf This is a fair fetting out for him at the Beginning of his Work, and \^ de- ilrudive of the main Defign of his Hiftory, and fhews that the Divine has the better of the Hiftorian, ^ II. He next proceeds to Anfwer the Two Que- llions he jufl: now propos'd, and proves, firft, That the Apoftles gave Commiflion to Bilhops, Presby- ters and Deacons to Baptize ^ •=- — and then fays, " but fill it remains a ^ueflion ^whether they extend.- " ed this Commijficn to any others, either in Ordi- ** nary or Extraordinary Cafes, p. ^ He fays, ^- The Ancient Author, under the Kame of St. Am- " brofe, was of Opinion, That the Apofiles fir ft found " // nccejfary, for the Augmentation and Encreafe " of the Church, to ©jaitt a General CommiJJion to " all Cl)?itt(at1|33 both to Teach and Baptize -, but chap. 2. and conjtant Necejjtty thereof. 7 " as foon as that NeceJJity was over^ as fonri as " the World, was generally Converted^ and. Churches e relied^ Governors and other Officers were appointed in all Churches^ and then this General Commiffton " tUaS UlltljUjaiUrt ^ > that none, even among the " Clergy^ was to p^efUUie to meddle with any Office " to which he toljS not appOIIlteD. Mv. Bingham goes on with his Quotation, thus ^ " Hence it came "" to pafs^ that Tieither Deacons were allow d to ^' Preachy nor the Inferior Clergy nor Lay-men to '' Baptize, p. 3 & 4- ^ut the Latin, as hlmfclf quotes it in the Margin, p. 3. is, " Hinc ergo eft^ ""' unde nunc neqiie Diaconi in popido Predicant, nequs ''' Clevici velLatci 'Baptljiint. t All in the Pre- fent Tenfe ^ which is a Proof that the fuppolititious St.Ambrofe faid, concerning the Time that he lived in, Hence it comes to pafs, that jOotU neither Dea- cons are allowed to Preach, nor the Inferior Clergy nor Lay-men to Baptize : plainly excluding all Lay- men of his time and knowledge, without exception, from that Power •, and whoever was the Author, whether Hilary the Deacon ofRome, or Remigius of Jjyons, he cannot be fuppos'd to have written ear- lier than the middle of the Fourth Century. But now, Is the Opinion of this fpurious St. Am- hrofe. That the Apoftles did at firft " (S^aUt a " (General Commiffion to all Cljjiffiang both *^ to Teach and Baptize, " true or no ? If it were true, would all the Greek and Latin Writers, for 35:0 Years together, have been filent about this Matter } And if they had faid any thing to con- firm it, would our Reverend Hiftorian have omitted their more primitive Evidence, and inftead of it, t A^ihyof, Com, in Ephef, iv. p. 948. B 4 hav^ ^ Of the Jpojlolick CommiJJicr?^ Part II, have given us only one Quotationfrom a doubted Au- thor, whofe Ability and Veracity both are very juftly fufpicious, upon the account of his Ohfcur'ity^ his great T>i\\ance from the Days of the Apoftles, and his Singularity of Opinion about this Matter, for which he vouches no former Author > If it were true, would the Apoftle St. Yaul have given us reafon to believe the contrary, by affirming, in his Days, when the World was not Generally Qcn- verted^ An. Chr. ^9. That God — fet fome in his Churchy firft Apoftles^ fecondarily Prophets^ thirdly VLt^t\}tl& s upon which he makes this Interroga- tion Are all Teachers ? i Cor. xii. 28, 29. which is a ftrong Affirmation, that all Chriftians ivere not then Teachers •, contrary to the Opinion of the fpurious St. Afuhrofe^ that the Apoftles did at firft grant a general Commiffion to all Chri- ftians to Teach •, and fince he is wrong in this, 'tis reafonable to believe he is fo in the other, viz, the general Covimiffion to all Chriftians to Baptize, which he conneds to that of their Teaching : And there- fore our Hiftorian has prov'd nothing of Lay- Chriftians being at firft Authorized to Baptize, from this Quotation : fince his Author's pretended Evidence is contrary to Scripture, in one Inftance ; and not eftablifh'd thereby, but wholly fin- gular rvith refpe^ to all Antiquity before him, in the other. ^ III. After this Quotation ^ Mr. Bingham fays, concerning the Power of Baptizing received from the Apoftles, by way of Paraphrafe upon his Au- thor's Words, " That bis Author feems to have been ^' of Opinion, that as HO OIXZ Cm fiaBC a *' Power of Baptizing, but He that receives, fome 'I way or other ^ a ^t^X^\X^\\SX^\\ from them^ U^e. '' the Chap 2. and conftant NcceJJity thereof. ^ the Apoftles -, ] So^ Sec, p. 4. This is our Hi- ftorian's own Comment 5 and I defire it may be taken the more notice of, becaufe I fhall make Ibme further life of it hereafter ^ in the mean time, it plainly intimates, in conjundtion with this Quo- tation, That the Commillion to Baptize COH Olll? be executed by the Apoftles and their Succeflbrs, and fuch as are j^ppointed, Authorized, Impower'd or Commijfion'd by them, be they who they will, whether Men in (landing Holy Orders, or^ in want of fuch, others who are not fo, if they can be at all Comimjiion d : And whether they can or no, I trouble not my felf j but leave that to be difputed between Mr. Bingham and his Antagonift the Do6lor at Greenwich^ Author of a little Pamphlet, Intituled, New Dangers to the Chriftian Friefthood^ (who reckons the ftanding Priefthood to be in very great Danger, upon this Principle, of Bifhops ha- ving Power to Authorize Lay-men to Baptize) which has been Anfwer'd in the Preface to the Third Edition of Lay-Baptifm Invalid, § IV. Mr. Bingham proceeds with his Author's Opinion ♦, " When the Keceffities of the Church re- " ijuir'dit^ they [?. ^. the Apoftles] had Power to '' Authorize others, befides the [landing Minifters^ '' to Baptize ^ which Power they both might and did *' recall again ^ as foon as thofe Kecejjities of the " Church zvere over: And upon this Principle it " was^ chiefly, that the Ancient Bifhops of the Church " allow' d Deacons and fome times Lay-?ncn to Baptize^ 8cc,p. 4. But our Hiftorians Author has not prov'd the Truth of his Opinion. He has given no An- cient Teftimony of the " Apofl/e's Commif/toning " others befides the (landing Minijlers to Baptize"': This pretended Matter of Fadt is fo far from being well I o Of the Jpojlohck Commiflion^ Pa r t II. well attefted, that it is not attefted at all j we have nothing but his bare ipfe dixit for it, at 300 Years Diftance from the Apoftles, and have reafon to believe it to be falfe ; See § II. And therefore to found the Principle of Bifhops Power to Authorize Lay-men to Baptize, upon this not prov'd but pretended Matter of Fa£l only, is very weak and precarious. Befides, why are Deacons here rank'd with Lay-men, among thofe who are not ftandwg Minifiers to Baptize ? Did not Mr. Bingham reckon 'em before as ftanding Alim" fters ? p. 3. How Ihall we account for thefe things > But further, If it could be prov'd, as it has not yet been, that Bilhops have Power, and by virtue thereof h^ve fometimes allow'd or authorized Lay-men to Baptize, " when the Necejfities of the " Church reqiiird it •, " Is it not a jeft to talk at this rate, if Lay-men can in fucli Cafes " have a '^ Vovoer of Baptizing " without the Bifhop'^s Com-^ tniffion ^ Either flich Exigencies alone gave them a Power, or they did not. If they did, then they flood in no need of being Authorized by Bjfhops 5 and fo Bifhops taking upon them fo to Authorize ihem^ was a pretence of Power which fignify'd no- thing : If fuch Exigencies alone did not Impower them to Baptize, then, if they had pretended to Baptize, having never received the Bifhop's Com- jnilfion, ihQj would have exerted no Tower of Bap- tizing, and fo their Act would have been No Bap- ti/m : It remains then, that the whole Power of Legally Valid Baptifm muft be refolv d into the CommiJJion of the Baptizer, in conjundlion with the Matter and the Form. Otherwife the Power of Giving and Withdrawing a Commijjion to Baptize will be but a Banter. And without this Frinciple^ [of the Neccffity of the Apoftolick Commiffion to Baptize] Chap. 2. a^^d conjlam NeceJJjty thereof, 1 1 Baptize] it will be impojfible to acccuvt for the Vra[{ife of all the Bifhops of the Catholick Church, who appropriate to themfelvcs alone the Power of giving others Commijfwn to Baptize. § y. Mr. Bingham tells us next, That many PafTages of the Ancient Writers '^ Jpeak of the Ori- " ginal Fewer of adminiflring Baptifm, as lodgi " loielP aitO entitelp in the hands ofBiJhops, as " the Apoftles immediate Succefjors^ [This is ac- knowledg'd] He proceeds, " and mtlMmM^ *^ conveyed from them to other s^^' — whom they '' Authorized to be either the fianding and Ordinary *' Minifters of Baptifm, or e/fe only the ©CCilflUlial *' and Extraordinary Minivers ofit^ in Times of abfo- " lute NeceJJity^ and great Exigences of the Churchy p. ^ This of " only the SDCCtlOpnal and " Extraordinaty Miniftcrs of Baptifin, be/ides Bi- fhops, Priefts and Deacons, who are the '''fianding ^' and Ordinary Minijlers " thereof, he has not yet brought Evidence for. Then he goes on, That the Antients " thought Baptifm CljieflP to be the " Bifhofs Office •, and when it was done by others^ it " was ffill DOtte bp W aUtljO^ttP, and reputed " as 1)IJS 3Ct h which he alfo Ratified as Occafion *' required^ by adding njhat was wanting Irt tl)t '^ CltCtllUflanCES of the Solemnity, in a fubfequent " Confirmation, p. 8. This is very Right, they did think fo, and the Bifhop did fo Ratifie and Confirm what was wanting in the CirCUntOanCCj^' of the Solemnity, but never what was wanting of the Ejjentials relating to the Sacrament, " in a ^ fubjequent Confirmation.'' Let our Hiftori'aii produce' any ancient Inftances of thefe latter fort of pretended Confirmations, if he is able-, which be has not yet done. And the Commiffion to Baptize, 12 Of the Afojiolick Commijfion^ Pa k t II. Baptize, is not a Circumftantial, but an Ejjential relation to Baptifin. § VL He fays, That this Point was clear among ^' them beyond all Difpute^ That PresLyters had only a Derivative and Subordinate Fovoer to Baptiz^e as " well as ethers^ and fo long as they kept to this *^ Rule^ their Baptifms were Regular and hawful^ as " done in Conformity to the Eftablijh'd Rules and *' Orders of the Church : But if theyfet themf elves " in Oppojition to their Bifhop^ and either aUed with- " out or againft his Confent, aS abfOlUtC ailD 3n« " BEPCnDent of him^ then their Baptifms and all " their other Offices were Irregular and Vnlaz^ful^ '' becaufe done in a SchifmaticalWay^ and in a pro- " f^J^^d Contempt of Autho>rity^ and all the jianding " Rules and Laws of the Churchy p. 9, 10. This of Presbyters Derivative and Subordinate Power to Baptize, is not to be deny'd : But then it is to be enquired, What Presbyters among the Antients did ever oilFer to Baptize, as 3l^fofUtE nnn 3lntJcpenDent of TSifljops f Mr. Bingham has not produced any ancient Inftance of fuch modern Rebels -, no, the Schifmaticks of old adher'd to, and depended upon fome Bifhop or other. And if it be proper to call their Baptifms Irregular and Unlaw- ful, Y^^ fheir Irregularity and Unlawfulnefs had a reference only to the Circumftantial Rules and Laws of the Church •, as aBaptifm adminifter'dbyaPriefl, with us, in a Private Houfe^ where there is no Necelljty for fuch Private Baptifin, may be call'd Irregular and Unlawful^ becaufe contrary to the Church's Kubrick ^ it may be fairly aggravated to fuch a pitch, as to be affirm'd to be '' in Oppofition *' to the Bijloop^ and without or againft hisConfent.^^ And yet all this is but a Circumftantial Irregularity^ which Chap. 2, and confiant NeceJJiiy thereof. i ^ which is certainly a great Sin, but yet not fuch a one as that which is an Ejfential Irregularity^ or breach of the EffentialLam or Inditution ofBaptifm, This anfwers what our Author fays, " That a " plain Diflinti'wn 77111ft needs have been made dvoays^ '' between the JltrCgUlailtl? and the 3!nDaIltlit}? " of any Baptifm ^ fince the want of a Lawful Co?n- '' m'lffion and Authority would render the AU: of Ad- '• miniftration Sinful and Irregular^ but not abfolute- " ly Invalid^ p. 10. For here he begs the Que- ftion, as if want of Commiifion for fome Circuin- ftance relating to Baptifm, were exadly the fame as toant of Cottimiffion to 'Baptije ^ or as if an Officer CommilFion d to Baptize, but reftrain'd from Executing his Comilfion by fomeEcclefiaftxal Law refpeding fome particular Circumftances, were but equal in Authority and Power to Bap- tize, with One who never received any Commillioa or Authority to adminifter that Sacrament at all : Juft as if a Man fhould fay, that the Irregularity of a Lay-Perfon's Wafhing, who never was at all in any refped whatfoever Commilfion'd to Bap- tize, is but oixkiQ fame 'Nature with that Irregula- rity which a Prieft Commiffion'd to Baptize com- mits, when he executes his Commiifion with fome finful Circumftance, contrary to the Injun6tion or particular Licence of his Bifhop for that parti- cular Occafion ^ thus confounding Circumftantial with Effential Irregularities : And without making this Necelfary Dittindtion, § VII. He next tries, " How it came to pafs^ ** that Baptifm mimffred by a Fresbyter Illegally and " without QomnnJJlon^ [as he calls it] was never- '^ thelefs efleem'd Valid ^ notwithftanding the Sinful- " nefs of the M Of ^\mx^tm\i But 14 Of the Apofioltck Commijjion^ P a r t II. But in his ftating of this Queftion, he is very iincorred, nay, unintelligible ; he fpeaks of a P?E0bptec UJitljotrt ConmiilTion* who can underftand this > If he i^.'SLYreshyter^ then heZ?jy a Comm'jjfion ^ for 'tis only his having a CommifTion that makes him a Presbyter •, and when he has no Commijjion^ or is without a Commij]io?7, which I take to be all one, he is no Presbyter at all ; So that here Mr. Bingham makes an Enquiry concerning a Perfon who is a Presbyter and no Presbyter^ who is in Commiflion, and yet '' without a Commiffion " ^ '^ and this is enquiring about nothing at all. But however, to find his Meaning, if I can : By Bap- tifm, miniftred by a Presbyter^ illegally^ and iUltlj- OUt CanimiffiOU) he may mean, fuch a Baptifin as is miniftred by a Presbyter who is Commillion'd by his Bifhop to Baptize ^ but he does it in fuch a Circimftance for which Circurnfl:ance he receiv'd no CommiJJion •, nay, he does it, probably, in fuch a Circumftance as is prohibited both by the Laws of God and his Church ^ and it may be our Hiftorian would enquire, how it came to pafs that fuch Bap- tifms were neverthelefs eileem'd "Valid > There is another thing which wants to be cleared in his Wording the Queftion, and that is this ^ What he means by tf)e ©infUlnCfSl Of tflC M Of J^iniCration i For a Presbyter or Pricft's Ad ofBaptifm, as fuch, is rot a Sinful A3 ^ when it has all the Eftentials relating to Baptifm. The AU of Minifl ration is good in it felf \ all the Sin is only in the Ctrauv^iance that attends the A6t : So that by '' the Sufuhiefs of the A&ofMinijlration,"" I believe our Author here means, the Sivfulnefs of that Circumftance whirh accompanies the A6t of Mini- ftration. With Submiflion, I think, thefe things ought to havj been more clearly exprefs'd, becaufe very Cliap. 2, and confiant Necejfity thereof^ i ^ very much depends upon that Enquiry which is to be made about them ^ and I am forry this learned Gentleman puts me to the Trouble of thus endea- vouring to fet in a clear Light a Queftion of fo great Importance, which he hasTi? darkly propos'd to refolve. § VIII. "We come now to fee how he rcfolves this Queftion *, and firft, he difapproves of doing- it, by fuppofing an indelible Charatter and Power in the Priefthood, which is faid by the School-men to be " given to a Presbyter at his Ordination^ by which " they think aU his minifterial A^s jland good^ tho *' done in an irregular Manner againjl the Laws and " Canons of the Church •, and that a Frieji cannot be " dive ft ed of this Power after he is once legally Or- " dained to it," Now as to this indehbleChara^fter which our Hiftorian argues againft, I find no ne- ceffity to take either Side of the Queftion j Whether there is an abfolutely indelible Chara^er and Power conferred on Priefts in a valid Ordination, or whe- ther there is not } This will not touch the Truth I am concerned for, wlicther they have it, or have it not •, only I muft make fome Obfervations upon Mr. Bingham's fuppofed Reafons, againft the An- tients allowing the Baptifm perform'd by fuch dif- orderly Priefts to be good and valid upon the Ac- count of their indelible Charader. And firft he fays, That the Antients " did not '' fuppofe Baptifm founded wholly upon ^aCCCDOt^l *' ppU)er05 nor tied fo abfolutely to the Office of a " Prieft^ but that it might in ordinary Cafes alfo be " adminifter'd by DeaCOrtg, if they had the Btjhop's " Commiffion •, and by Lay-men in extraordinary Cafes '" ofprejftng Necefity, if tljep f)an tt)Z TSlOjOp'S '' ILicenre ana autfiojitp to do it, a* wejiaufee " here- 1 6 Of the Jpojl click CcmmijJloTJj P A r T IL *' hereafter^ fays our Author i^^ p. lo. In giving this his fuppos'd Reafon, he has committed feveral Miftakes^ for firfl:,his AlTertion, that the Antients did notfupporeBaptirmtobe/i hk AU, " p. 8. All which was plainly iounding Baptifm wholly upon Sacerdotal Fowers^ if the Apoftolick Commiffion, Epifcopal Authority, and the Bifliop's il^?, can be called Sacerdotalj and if no one can have a Fower of Baptizing without it. But nOtD, indeed^ 'tis other- wife with our Hiftorian, becaufe he likes not the indelible Character of the Priefthood. '' The An- *' tients did not fuppofe Baptifm wholly founded upon '-' Sacerdotal Fowers^' they did, and they did not^ I am forry for the Occafion of this Remark. idly. His here reckoning DcaCOUS among fuch as have not Sacerdotal Fowers, by making their Bap- tizing an inftance that Baptifm was not by the An- tients wholly founded upon Sacerdotal Powers, is anothef Inconfiftence with himfelf^ for in his Ori- gines. Vol. I. p- 250, 251. he flicws, That *^' Op- tattfs / Chap. 2» (Vid conjiant Neceffity thereof.-;^ 17 " tatm gives all the Three Orders of Bifhops^ " Presbyters and DCilCUUg, the Title /^^l^ilCtt^ '' IjaoO:"— That, "' according to hm^every^l^^zt " had its Share tho' in different Degrees in the Ch^i- ^iJiian Priefthood : "' That " Bijhops, Presbyters '" and Deacon^ had each their refpehive Share in '^ the Priejlhood: '' That it waif one A[i of the '' P;itW& ©ffiCe to offer up the Sacrifices oj the " Peoples Prayers^ '' Sec, And that '' another A^ " of the Office \j,e, the Prieft's Office] iX}iU in " GodiS 'Name to hlejs the People^ particularly ly " admitting them to the Benefit ofRemiffion of Sins ^ " by Spiritual Regeneration or ISaptifUl : " That " thus far SDCOCOniS i^ere anciently allozved to mi- " 7ii(}er in Holy Things^ ^ i^CHUltOJjEl between " God and the People,"''— And 'Lafily, in his 2d Vol. Chap. I. where he is fliewing, how the infe- rior Orders of the Clergy, in the Primitive Church, '' differ d from the i\X^zm\ Orders ofBifhops, Pres-^ " bytersand'S^Ziii^W^M'' He faysof thefe fuperior Ordersj p. 9, 10. That they are by the Antients calFd '' Holy and Sacred, the |)iCl*aiXl)P : "•-;;— That " they xKere always ordain d at the Altar^ " — with the Solemn Rite of '' Impofition of Hands^ " — " to minifler before God as li^jlCftSj " in which re- fpedts, '^ £)€cICOnS are f aid by Optatus and others^ " to have their Share and Degree in the Chriftian " P<2iefltlOOO : " And Mr. Bingham quotes the Re- verend and Learned Dr. Hicks's Opinion to the fame Purpofe, without gain-faying it, t^oL i. /?. 25 t. But notv/ithftanding all this, our Hiftorian fo far forgets his Origines^ as now, to make Deacons Bap- tizing, an Inlknce of Perfons Baptizing, without Sacerdotal Powers : Nay, Thirdly^ even his intro- ducingBaptifm b)^ " Lay-men in extraordinary Cafes^ " ^//k>'W/k'Btl|)Op*!E{aUt&OlttPj" as another C In- i8 ^f the Jpoftoltck Ccmmi^ffionj Part IL InftancedfPerfons Baptizing without 5.7rf;-(^^/^/P^a^- ers, is ariOtherCoiitradidtion to what he had laid be- fore,/'s. Viz. " That when [OiSaptirm] wa^idone by *' UtCC; 05 it way ft ill do?7e by the Bifhofs auHjOritp, '^ and reputed his^d'' Now the Bifhop's Sit, I hope^ is a Sacerdotal Foxier , and if a Lay-man can be fo far authorized by his Bifliop, as that the Lay-man's All ofBaptifii (hall be reputed to be the TSlfljOP'S Set, is not thi-sfuppofed Baptifm founded upon a Sa- cerdotal Pozver, when the Baptifm by facJT-a Lay- rtian (if there cart be fuch a one) is the BiJJ}op's A&^ Again, the Reverend Hiftorian in his Origines^ Vol. I. /?.42. has been fo kind to La^^-miniftrations, as to tell us, witliout endeavouring to refute the Notion, that Tertullian grants no other PliCftfjOOO to Lay-7Ken^ fal^C " that they may QSaptlJC in Cafe *' cfabjohite Kcceffity^ Zee. '' Thefe are our Hifto- rian's own Words, " No other P?iefflj005,y?7t^^ that^ '' they may ^DiiptlJC ^ '' which is plainly to make the Power of Baptizing, a Power of P^'CfiijOOD. Let Tertullian s Opinion about Lay-men be true or falfe for the prefent ^ Mr. Bingham here makes Baptifm to be one Part ofFriefthood, by faying, " A^ other 10?teffljoot!, fave tDat tljep mai? T5aptt?e: " And therefore, if Lay-men " ??ury Baptize^ '' they there- in have one Power of Priefthood at leaf!:, according to our Author in hisOrigines-^ but, on the contrary, in his SchoJaftical Hijhry, their Baptizing even with the Biftjop's Authority^ is an Inftance of Baptifm not founded on a Sacerdotal Fewer: Thefe things do not hang well together. However, I charitably hope, they are but mcer Slips, the Effeds of Human Frailty, and not purpofely defign'd by our Reverend Hiftorian. § IX. His fecond fuppos'd Reafon againft the An- tients allowing the Validity of Baptifms, performed by Chap. 2. d'ad confiant Neceffity thereof, \a by irregular Friefts^ to be founded on their i/iJelible Charader, is thisj p. lo, ii. " The indelible Cha- " rathr of a Priejt^ do's not authorize or quaJijie " him to alt contrary to the Commiffion of his Bijhop: " ^or then hk Baptizing would be authorized and " zinauthoriz.ed^ regular and irregular^ lawful and " unlawful^ at the JameTime^ and in the very fume " All and Ref pell ^ which isa 7vanfcftContraditlion. In this there is a great deal of Art, but no good Reafoning ^ for an irregular Frieft's At! of Baptizing iimply confiderM, is not contrary to the CommiJJion of his Bijloop^ but 'tis doing exactly that which his Biihop commillion'd him to do, when he Baptizes with Water, in the Name of the Trinity^ and when his CommilTion was not before made Null and Void by that Power which veiled him with it : He commits fome Irregularity indeed againft the Lavv^s of the Church ^ but his Power to Baptize, if 'tis not nultd^ ftill remains, and therefore in Bap- tizing^ he afts nothing without, or contrary to the Bifiop's CommiJJion to Baptize, wlierewith he ftill remains invefted : He rebels againft his Bifhop by Baptizing in fome prohibited CircumftaiK:e, by ex- crcifing his Fundion illegally ; and in^ fo doing oppofes the Laws of the Church, as a Prieft of the Church of England do's, when he unnccelfarily Bap- tizes in private Houfes, or when he Baptizes Chil- dren without God-fathers and God-mothers, or when he ufes the Publick inftead of the Private Form in Houfes : But his Sin is not againft his Bi- fhop s Commiffion it felf to Baptize, but againft fome Circumftantial Law relating to the Execution of the Commilfion. So that his KQi of Baptizing is not, as Mr. Bingham fays, both authorized and nnauthoriz'd, for 'tis authoriz'd -, but the Circum- iiaiice tliat attends it, i^unaHthensd- The Bap- C 2 tifm 20 Of the JpojloUck CommiJJior?^ Part II, tifm it felF is rcgi(Id?\ bccaufe done by virtue of a ComniilTion Itill remaining •, but the Circumftance is irregular, becaufe againft a Circumftantial Rule. And the Baptifm it felf is lawful^ becaufe no other than comiiiiflion'd Baptifm; but the Circumftance 2tnlavcful^ becaufe contrary to a Circumftantial Law, as is plain by the above-mention'd Inftance of an irregular Prieft of the Church of England\ illegally executing his Commilfion to Baptize. So that the manifcft Contradidion Mr. Bingham talks of, as arifing from a Suppofition of the indelible Cha- racter of an irregular Prieft, and the Validity of his Baptifm founded thereon, do's not appear ^ for Baptilm, by fuch a Prieft, is not " both authorized *^ and imauthorrJ'd^ regular and irregular^ lawful " and unlawful^ at the famz Time^ and in the very " fame Aa and Refpe^: " For the \SZt^ fattlC M is even at that filtllC t\\\\Z authoriz!d^ regular^ and Jcivcjul in it felf, becaufe commiilion'd ^ but the Cir- cumftance only, is unauthorised^ irregular and un- Jazvful. The Irregularity is not ad idem^ fecundum kdem^ & eodem refpe[fu^ and therefore no Contra- diction ; that is, the A^ it felf being commiffion' d^ is right •, but the Circumftance which accompanies the Ad is wrong: And therefore the Ad: it felf ftands good and valid, tho' the Circumftance attending it ought fincerely to be repented of, by all that are any ways concerned in it, which implies no Con- tradidion at all. O'.ir Hiftorian, if he would have done any thing here tothePurpofe,ftiould have produced Authorities from thofe Anticnts, who allowed of the Validity of Bap- tifm in the Name of the Trinitj^ adminiftred by heretical, fchiiinatical, and other irregular Priefts^ I fay, he fhould have given us a Hiftory of fuch An- tients, nulling and making void the Commiflion of thofe Chap. 2. (^nd con fl ant Necefflty thereof. 21 tliofe Pfiefts during their Herefy, Scbifm, or other Irregularity^ or he lliould have given us InlianccG troni fuch Antients, that they judged fuch Priefts Commiiiions to be made null and void by their Herefy, Schifm, or Irregularity it felf ^ without one of thefe he does nothing : As yet he has given us no fuch Inftance, and indeed he never will. For 'tis notorious, that thofe ancient Churches which allow'd of the Vdlidity of thofe Baptifms, did a Kb acknowledge the Holy Orders of the Baptizers, and efteem'd their Epifcopal Ordination to be good and valid- — Witnefs the Council of ^tce. Anno 525. which decreed concerning xhtNovatian Schifmaticks, who came over to the Catholick and Apoftolick Church, thus^ '' COep iDljo ace ojnainu iljall " continue mtlje Ciergp* ^ " Or, as Mr. Bwg- ham himfelf words it, SchoLiftical Hifto?y, p. 92. " The Great Council of Nice decreed. That upon " their return to the Churchy theyjloould continue in ^' the fame Station and Clerical Degrees they were " in before^ only receiving a recon dilatory Impofition " of Hands, by imy cfAhfolution,"" '' ThefePuri- *' tans were not only Orthodox as to their Faith, '*^ but they retained Epifcopal Ordination ^ tliereforc '' Orders receiv'd among them, were not lookM '^ upon as Null or Inialid. " And " the Church of ^' Africa \ allow'd the Ordinations, a^ well ai^Bap- " tifms'' of theD^/?^//^Schifmaticks, who alfo re- fain d Epifcopacy to be valid. All which plain- ly fnews, that thofe ancient Churches, who efteem'd the Baptifm^ we fpcak of to be vahd, did alfo * Canon 8. according to B.'lfamon, and Zonaras, ard Bijlop reverfd^e-, vid. Clergyman's Vadc-Mecum, Pa^.i. p.s3. t African Cede, in the Clergyman's Vadc-Meeum, Canon 6S, y^9, &ii8. C 3 recKou 2. 2 Of the JpoJloUck Commijfwn^ P A r T IL reckon the Prieftly Character of thofe Schifmatlcal Clergy-men, who perForm'd them, to be at leafl fo far hidelcted, as that they did not lofe that Sacred Charadler, even in their Schifm •, That the Schifin^ it felf did not blot it out, but that it ftill remained upon them -, otherwife they could not have admitted them to Continue or Remain among tlie Clergy, upon their Converflon, as they cer- tainly did, toitfjout Re=JID?mnotioiu For thele Reafons, 'tis plain, that thofe Antients reckoned the Charader of the Priefthood to be In- deleted, fo long as it was not adually Blotted out or Taken away by that very Authority, i. e. the Epifcopal Power which at firfi: gave it : And therefore all Mr. Bingham's Arguings, againfl: thofe Antients founding the Validity of Baptifms (per- formed by fuch Irregular Priefts ) upon their In- delible Character, amount to nothing ^ becaufe, tho' Priefts fhould be prov'd, not to have an abfO-- UttelP 3inDeiibIe Cftaracter? yet fo long as their Sacerdotal Character is not Deleted by the Authority which gave it, itmuft remam Jndckted, as it did in tht Cafe before us, except our Hiftorian can find fome other wa3r, whereby they may be deprived of it, and which thofe Antients acknowledg d did actual- . \y fo deprive them. — But this he has not yet done. § X. However, as if he had made it good, That the Character of the Priefthood of thofe Irre- gular Priefts was loft ^ he tells us, ^^ That the Irre- '' gular Baptifms of fuch Friefts, being efteemd Vidid, fo as not to be repeated^ tho Irregularly and Unlawfully givcn^ could not be thought Valid, upon thje Notion of their being once Ordain d ' friejis, and having Hit fltHellblC Cfjatactcr Chap. 2. and confia^Jt Necejjity thcYjpj „j ^' of the Ftieflhood upon them , but upon fome other Notion and Foundation^ which cijually e:<- " tended to DcaCOnS as weU as P^lCft^ ; ^nd " made the Baptifm of a Deacon^ iho' Irregularly and ^' Unlawfully pe?'jormd^ as Valid as that of a Prieft, " in the fame Circumllances : And that HlUft bC ^' (fays he) upon one oj thefe two Grounds^ cither^ ^\ That Baptifm, bp U)i30mrO£iCr Cij^lCinU per- ''" forni d^ "iyias Valid ^ and not to be repeated^ pro- " vided It was done with due Matter and horw : Of " elfe^ That the Bijhops of the Churchy as Chief Mi- *' mfters of Baptifm^ had Power to Receive and Con- ^^ firm thoje Baptifms^ which were otherzioifc Irre- '^ gularly^ and in Qppofition to their Authority and ^' Commijfion^ perform d in the Churchy p. ii, 12. Here we fee again confirmed, what I obftrv'd be- fore, That our Hiftorian feparates Deacons^ from fuch as have the Charadter of Pnejlhood-^ and thereby contradicls himfelf : See p. 17. before. But the Defign of this is plain, by his Two propofed GueflTes, which are evidently made to promote the Belief of One of thefe Tw^o Things:, i//, That thofe Antients reckoned Baptifm performed with Water, in the Name of the Trinity, by any Chri- flian^ tho' never Commijfion'd to Baptize, was Good and Valid, (not excepting Apofcate or Excommu- nicate Chriftians) nay, even tho' it were (^one by fuch VncommiJJtond Perfons, in Oppofition to the Divine Right of the Apoflolick Order, i.e. Epi- fcopacy •, for, he fap, '' bp luOOUlfOCDri' €U2I' fiiiin pe?forf?2'd : Which is a L atitude ot tbat vail: Extent, that it fufficiently juilifies the Severity of my Obfervation. But then, if this fhould fail, and fuch Bap- tifins be provM Null and Void, then lie reckons, 2dly, That Bifliops might Confirm and tljCl'Cbp C 4 make 24 Oj the Jpoflotick CommtJJlon^ Part IL make fuch Bapbfms to become Valid. If One of thefe Two be not his Defign, then he defigns no- thing at all •, and fo might have fpar'd us the trouble of concerning our felves with fuch his Guelfes ^ and if he do's defign to induce us to be- lieve either of thofe Notions, he mufi: bring better Evidence for the Truth thereof, than has yet been produc'd, or than what his Scholaftical Hiftory can furnifh us withal : He feems to be fomething fenfible of this, in his following Words , for, not trufting wholly to either of thofe Two fuppofiti- tious Principles, he concludes his Paragraph, thus ^ " But \}tfim\SZt IttUaS, (fays he) this is certain^ " That the Validity of an Irregular Prieji's Baptifm^ ^^ ZJcas not owing to his Indelible Chara[lcr *, fince the " Baptifm of £)ri!COn05 and Lay-men who had not ^^ the Character of Priefts^ was fometiwes authorized *' and allow'' d as Valid ^ which is evident fro?n plain ^' ?Aatters of Fa&^ which I now proceed to give a " further Account of\ (fays ourHifforian, p. 12. — ) Upon which 'tis very remarkable, that hitherto he hef rates concerning the Certainty of his Two foregoing Suppofitions, — by faying, " However '^ it was •, " tho' he had faid juft before, that ft '^ tttUff ht upon one of thofe two Grounds • firfl, lifting us up with the Expedfation of a Certainty, by his [mUft bC \ ] and then letting us fall into our former Doubtfulnefs, by his [t)OtDeiJer ittol^t] But at laft, after thefe various Fluduations, he endeavours to fix our Minds, upon what, he fa3^s " (£( CEltilin^ viz. That the Validity of an Irregular ^' PriefTs Baptifm was not owing to his Indelible Cha- " ra[ler:'' And this is anfwer'd, by faying, that his Character was Indeleted^ it remained good, be- caufe not blotted out by the fame Powers who im- prefs'd it. Thofe Powers did not pretend to take away Chap. 2. and. con (1 ant Neceffitj thereof, 25 away his Charader, as we have before obfcrv'd ^ therefore the Baptifms pertorm'd by him were Sacerdotal, and lo toundcd upon a Sacerdoia' Com- mjjfion^ and confequently Vahd •, and his follow- ing pretended Reafon to the contrary, viz. That " the Validity oj the Baptijm was not owing to his "' 3m£i\b\t Cljiirnaer, fincc the Baptij?n of " Deacons and l^aymen, who had not the Cha- \ ^' racier oj Priefts^ was Jometimes authorized and I ^' allowed as Valid^ '' is an evident Falacy ^ bccaufe \ built upon a falfe Foundation, That Deacons had \ not the Character of Priefts , when himfelf ac- [ knowledges, in other Places before noted in/?. 17. That Deacons have tbeir Share in the Chnftian ; Friefthood ^ na}^, and he has given the Name or ' Character of Fr left hood ^ even to Lay-men Bap- tizing in Cafe of Neceflity, as I have prov'd be- fore in p. 17, lo. § XL He next proceeds to give us an Hiftorical Account of Deacons Baptizing •, and tells us. That the}^, " by fonie ancient Canons^ are invefted with " the Power of Baptizing in ©^Diliacp CilfcS, as ^' well as Friefls, p. 12. That "^ fom other An- '' cient Rules feem ahjolutcly to forbid Deacons to " miniver Baptijm in Ordinary Cafcs^ confining the ^^ Office only to Bijhops and Presbyters^ p. i4,_for which he produces the Canons call'd Apoftolical, and the Conftitutions under the Names of the Apoftles : That ''yet notwithflanding this, " a Deacon way Baptize, if he has a Commijjion aril " Authority from his Bifl)op to do it, p. 16. — ior which he quotes the fame Conftitutions : That, " In Oife of Kcceffity, [5/. Chyfolfom] not only " permits, but pojitively enjoins Deacons to Baptize, p. 18 : And proceeding upon the fame Subjects to /?. 22. fi6 Of the Afojiolkk Commijjlon^ Part IL p. 22. he at laft concludes thus ^ ^' 5^ Neccjjary^ " we fee ^ was this Diflindion between ^l^iWUl^ " and ^ffijCtCaO^Dinatp QA^x, to adjuft Matters, in " the Fraffice of the Primitive Church ^ whi/ft^ on " the one hand^ the Honour and Dignity of the *' Friefthood m$ tO \}t ^Itkfnl}', and yet Deacons " allowed on the other hand^ to 7ninifler Baftijm in " fome Cafes, tho' they were llOt P<2i0ft|3 in the " friU: fenfe, in the Opinion of thofe who allow' d " the7n to do it. This of Deacons not being Friefts in the ftri^ fenfe, amounts to no more than faying, they are ItOt TBlfljOpS ^ for Biihops alone have the whole Tozver of the Chriflian Prieilhood in themfelves 5 but others derive the Prieilhood from them, as « [ Presbyters do in the next fubordinate Degree ♦, and J^ \ Deacons under them, in the third and loweft Order j /as Mr. Bingha?n himfelf has obferv'd. And as for I the Neceflity of a Diftintlion between Ordinary and I Extraordinary Cafes, to adjuft Matters in the Fra- I &ice of the Frimitwe Church •, this is certain, from ' all that he has faid to this part of his Hiftory ^ That as the Apoflolick Conmijjion was always infilled upon, to Impower Men to Baptize in Ordinary, fo it was likewife required to Impower them to Bap- tize m CjCtraO^HlIluCV, Cafes ^ to the intent I that this COttlUnffiOn might " Continue to the \ '' End of the World -, '' becaufe it was " J!5eCCD I " farp to p^efecDc the church, atmms to [ " tlje SDjtier of €lrM^ — in future Ages ^ " as our Hiftorian has excellently obferv'd, in his /?. ^ and upon which I have remarFd, ^.5,6. For this, the Three Orders of BiJJjops, Friejh, and Deacons, were Inflituted, that they might, the Inferior in fubordination to the Superior, minifter Baptifm by tl e fiimc CommifflOlt) in £),25inatp and Chap, 2. and conjiant Necefflty thereof. nj and €;t:trt10?Binar}> €a(e0 too, and that in the Abfence of one, tlie other might ftill be enabled to fupply the Wants of the Church, by one and the fame COmmifUOU 0 TDaptlfm. The Reftraining of Prefbyters and Deacons, fometiines from the Exercife of this Power, during the Prefence of the Bifliop. was to preferve the Dignity of the Superior Order, and to keep the Inferior in that juft Subor- dination which 'twas their Duty to obferve (as in our Church the Prieft is not to give the Blefling m Prefence of the Bifliop, nor the Deacon to Baptize in Prefence of the Presbyter- ) but this occafional Reftraining the Exercife of their Function for fbme Times and Circumftances, was not a taking away their Commilfion to Baptize in thofe Circumftances, but only a making them give way to their Superi- ors : For which Reafon, Deacons, wlio werePriefts of the Third Order, and in their Ordination were vefted with a Commilfion to Baptize, were alfo re- ftrain'd from the Exercife of that Function during the Prefence of a P^ICfl of the Second Order, to pre- ferve the Dignity of the Second Order. But this Re- ftraint was no more a Nulling or making Void the Deacon's Commilfion which he had receiv'd to Bap- tize, than it was of the Priefts ^ for we do not find by any thing which our Hiftorian has yet produced, that Clergy-men, of any Order, tranfgrelhng tliefe Circumflantial Rules of the Church, were actually di vefted o/i \k\t\x Com7n[IJion by thojc ancient Churches who efteem'd their Miniftrations valid : On the contrary we fee, by the Kiccnc Council, and the African C' " in the Primitive Church-,— Whether in any Cafes " they had Power to Baptize .^ " p. 2 2, 2 5 . And upon this he concludes, That " they had ItO pOUJEU in " ordinary Cafes : '' Whether they had in any ^A-/r^- ordinary ones^ he fays, " There are few among the " Antients that have in dired Terms decided, p. 23." At laft he concludes that this Queftion may be de- cided thus : " If the Antients (fays he) granted Li- " berty to meer Monks and Lay-men to Baptize in '' extraordinary Cafes, it will readily follozv, that " they would never fcruple to grant the fa?nc Power '*' to the Inferior Clergy, who were at /eaU one Degree '^ above Monks and Lay-men. We cannot therefore *''' better determine this ^uejlion, than by proceeding " to that other concerning the Power granted to " Lay-men, in reference to the Adminiftration of '' Baptifm; which is the ffranH iDuettiOn in this " whole Affair, p. 24. CHAP- JO Tejtimomes for and agar/ifi Part IL CHAP. III. TeJUmomes for and ^gainft hny-Bapifms • and, all Mr, Bingham'i Evidences examined and frov'^d to make nothing for the fret ended Vali^ dity ofBaptifrnSj fer formed bjPerfons who never were CommtJJIon d kj B/Jbops to Baptize, §L/^UR Author firfl: acknowledges, that " /> vJ^ " is Ceitatlt that Uy-men were alfiaa^jS^ ^' debarrd from medling with the Admintflrdtion cf " Baptifm in all i^l^XiXiitVCaJcs, Here tlien comes in a very apt Queftion, By what LazQ or Rule fhall Baptifm by Lay-men in 0,233Utarilp CafCg be pro- iiounc'd good and valid? How fhall that Bap- tifin, which is given by Perfons who never were at all commffiond to Baptize, and who attempt to do It 0?5inaVlip5 be determined to be iallUf^Is not this a Law Cafe, a Queftion to be anfwer'd only hy the Rule of our Chriftian Law, and theEnforce- inent thereof by the Laws of the Catholick Church > The Chriftian Law, vijj, the Inftitution of Bap- tifm, excludes fuch ?7^i;^;"^^;^;;;;//?^;7'6/ Perfons-, and the Laws of the Churcli '^ ahvays debarrd them^ " by our Reverend Hiftorian s own ConfeiTion \ Where then ftiall we fcek for, and find the Validity of their pretended Miniftrations ? Is it to be determined without a Law or Rule > By what tlicn fliall they be guided, who endeavour to perfwade us of their Validity > Is arbitrary Will and Pleafure alone fufticient to convince the Judgment > Or, is there fuch a Cliarm in the Formality of ferioufly imita- H^ting an opus operatum alone^ as that a Thing Ihall Chap. J. Lnj'Bapifm^ExahH'nPd^ Sec. ?! (hall be Good and Vahd, when done-, tho' done without, and contrary to, fomething elfe, which the Law makes CffCIttlAi to the very Doing thereof? This ivill be New, indeed^ for " // /i " certain^ that Lay-men were always debarred from medii'ng with the Adminiftration of Baptifin \n " «!t ©.JUlUaUP CafCg : " To which I add, The/ were always fo debarred, botli by the Law of God, and of his Church •, and therefore, our D'ljfentcrs Baptiiins are deftitute of any Law for their Vali- dity, becaufe perform'd by Lay-men in Ordinary Cajcs ^ and confequently, they who pronounce them Valid, efteem them to be Valid without Lav/: And how fafe this is, in a Matter of fuch vafl Moment ^ how fatisfying to thofe who want to be fecur'd of a Valid Baptifm ^ I leave the De- fenders of fuch a Novel Opinion to Anfwer. § II. But, it may be, fomevvdllfay. That thefe Baptifms may be pronounced Valid, upon the fame account as Baptifms perform'd by Irregular Deacons were. To which I Anfwer ^ If that be true, then thefe Lay-men muft be prov'd to be equal in Power and Authority with fuch Irregular Deacons. But our Reverend Hiftorian will not allow this : for he immediately fubjoins, '* All the " former Allegations^ zMch make it the proper Office " of Bifl)ops and. Presbyters^ even to the exdufion " ^/ Deacons, are certainlp of mticfj ffreatet '^ ifO^CC again\\ the Ufurpations of Lay-??ien, p. 22. Wliich plainly makes the Cafe of fuch Lay-Ufur- pations to be very different from that of Irregular l)eacons ^ and therefore, whatfoever Arguments will hold for the Validity of fuch Deacons Bap- tifms, v/ill be no-ways competent for the Validity of thofe Lay-Baptifms. § IIL 5 2 Te [I monies for ani Part IL § m. " But (fays lAx.^mgham) fiiU the Grand *' Qiieftion remains^ Whether ever they [/.^. Lay- " men] were allow d to do it in Extraordinary Cafes " of extreme Necejftt)\ when no Ficblick Minijier *' could be procured to do it ? And this (fays he) '^ mud he refolvd in the Affirmative^ as to the gCHE- '' rai }9?ilCtlCe of tlje CljUlXlj, tho there are " fouie Cmpttons ofpnrticuiatCfjurdjcg/^? " //;^ contrary^ P- 2^. But, with fubmiirion, tho* the Queftion propos'd, and endcavour'd to be re- iblv'd, by the Reverend Hiftorian, in the Affirma- tive, be worth enquiring into ^ yet it is not the S:ranD €lUeClOn which now exercifes the Church: For, that about which we are now concerned, is^ Whether Ferfons umtontz tmmMion'i} at alt to Baptize, can adminifter Valid Baptijm^ efpecially, when they attempt to Baptize, even in Oppofition to the Divine Right of the Apoftolick Commif- fion, to be received only from Bifliops, the Suc- cefTors of the Apoftles > And, Whether the An- cient Catholick Giurch has given her Teftimony for the Validity of thefe pretended Baptifms > This is the Great Thing that ought to be enquired into, and fairly determined either in the Negative, or the Affirmative, according to the juft Merits of the Caufe. And this, our Reverend Author's Scholaftical Hiftory cannot refolve in the Affirma- tive 5 even tho' he could prove, (as he cannot) That Lay-men " vjere allOttfO to Baptize in Ex- " traordinary Cafes^ zchcn no Yuhlick Minifler could " be procurd to do it^ and that they were fo in the General IpjactiCC of the church : His Tcftimonies for which, I come now to examine ^ and fhall, as I go along, fee of what \5^Q^ they are to the Great Qiicftion now before us, Of Baptifm by Ferfons never Cornmiffion' d to Baptize. Chap. 3. Laj'Baptifmy Examin^i^ Sec. jg § IV. And, F/V/?, 'Tis very remarkable, That our Reverend Hiftorian can produce no Teftimo- nies from the Apoftles, o^* their Cotemporarics ^ Nor from the Apoftolick Fathers who next fuc- ceeded them •, Nor, laftly, from any of the An- tients who liv'd before Tertullian : So that, for about the firft Two hundred Years of Chriftianity, we hear nothing of I.ay-Baptifms being adminifter'd, iior of any thing in favour of them, either di- redly or indirectly. A ftrange and long Silence this, in a Matter which is pretended to be the '' general practice of tfie €lmcl% " what would, the Adverfaries againft Epifcopacy fay^ if Antiquity had been fo long filent about the Power and Autliority of Bifhops ? And then, by what Rule fhould we have been determined of the Jus Divinum of Epifcopacy, {{Scripture^ and the Writings of the Antients for about the firft Two hundred Years of Chriftianity, had been fo abfo- lutely filent about it, as they are about the Vali- dity of Lay-Baptifm ? § V. But, Seconily, In a Matter of fuch Im- portance as this is, if it had been the jJCIieral Practice of the Church, and fo fafely to be rely'd on, as fome reprefent it to be •, would there have been any confderahk Exceptions againft fo gCHCCal a P^ZaCtiCe? infomuch, as that whole Churches have refus'd to come in to it , or, to ufe the Reverend Hiftorian's Words, Would there have been " fome '* Exceptions of particular Churches to the con- trary ? " Do's not this fpoil the Pradice's being CatljoHcfe, while particular Cljurclie'Ej, Co- temporary with thofe other Churches who are fuppos^d to have pradtisM it, refiis'd to fuffer or D alW J4 Tejiimonies for and againfi Part IL allow of any fuch Practice. In this fuppofed Dif- ference of the Churches, fome will fay. That one Side vv^as wrong, for allowing^ what the other Side refused to allow ^ and others^ 'tis likely, will fay. That thefe latter were in the wrong, and thofe others in the right : What muft we then do, when we find {iich a Difference > Certainly, we muft have fOUlE Utile or other, whereby to difcover which of them was in the wrong, and which in the right j other v\nTc, the Fundamentals of Religion muft be determin'd only by Number of Votes • ( which God forbid : ) This Rule muft be the Hol}^ Scripture, and therein, the Divine Pofitive Inftitution of Baptifm, and the Laws of God about fuch Pofitive Innitutions as that is •, all which do as much ex- clude Perfons who never were Qommij]iorC d.^ as they do any Matter and Yorm which were never Ap- pointed : And 'tis by this Rule of the Holy Striy- ture, that the different YraUkes of Churches muft be tried ^ and by which, fometimes, the {t'w^^ have been found to be in the right, whilft the greater Number have been in the wrong : But here there is no fear of any fuch Matter, with refped to thofe Ancient Churches who allow'd, and the other Ancient Churches who did not allow of, the Validity of Lay-Baptifiii : For all the fuppos'd Evi- dence that is brought for Defence of it, will not amount to a Catholick Tradition •, being deftitute of any Proof from Scripture, and the firft Two hundred Years of Chriftianity, as 'tis alfo of the Authority of any one ancient General Council that ever was Held in the Church of Chrift, and con- fifts only of a falfe Notion ofTertul^ian's, about the Year 200 •, a particular Provincial Council of SpanJJh Biiliops, Held, fome tlunk. Anno ^o^ ; a fabulous Story of a Baptifm by Boys in Pla}^, about Chap. j. La^-Baftifm^ Examin^d^^z. ic about the fame time ^ a Notion of St, Jcronh^ founded upon TertuUians falfe Principle, and in- confiftent with himfelf ^ Optatus\ Dangerous Pofi- tion, if it can be interpreted as fonie Men would have it ^ StAugi^fiins ill-grounded Opinion ^ Thefe in the Fourth Century : A Saying of Gelafius Bifhop of Rome, Anno 492 , and another o[ 1/iJore Bifhop of Sevi/, Anno 5:95;. Thefe are all that can be found in the firfl Six hundred Years of Chri- ftianity ^ — and the ftrength of their Evidence is now to be enquired into, and other oppofite Evi- dences to be brought againft them—- — § VI. But before I concern my felf with Mr. Bingham's Evidences, I fhall take what offers it felf againft thefe BaptiCns, from the Days of the Apoltles. St.lgnatius, about the Year of Chrift 71, affirms. That ^ " It is not latUftll, without the Bijhop, to " Baptize. That, '' Without TBinjOpId, 13,2ie(f 0, " and. Deacons, there is HO CljUtCJ) of the E/e^: And, That " He is tottljOtlt^ i^ho do's any thing " without the Bifhop s^ and Presbyters, and Deacons, Thefe are that Apoftolick Father's pofitive AfTer- tions, relating to thofe Sacred Miniftrations, which were depofited in the Hands of BiOwps, Prie/lsj and Deacons, It is not Lawful^ (fays he) without the Bifhop, to Baptize. In thefe Words there are Two Things to be enquired into : ift. What he means by Without the Bifhop ^ It is not to be fup- pos'd that St. Ignatius meant, that the Bifhop muft always be prefent in Perfon at every Baptifm •, for we find, that Philip the Deacon Baptized, in the * Epift. to the S.nyrreinsj N. S. Epift co chc Tralliars, D 2 the 5 6 Tcfiimonies for and againfi Part IL- the Abfence of the Apoftles ^ and Presbyters and Deacons were Inftituted to Officiate, in thofe Sacred Functions to which they were Ordaind, in the Abfence as well as in the Prefence of the Bilhop ^ and this, by reafon 'twas impoflible for the Bifhop always to be Perfonally prefent : And therefore, zvithout the B[fhop^ muft fignifie, without Com- miffion or Authority received from the Bifhop •, Presbyters and Deacons then being Men Autho- riz'd and Commillion'd by the Bilhop to Baptize, are not here fpoken of ^ but Perfons wha never were fo Commiilion'd, and are therefore call'd L.aicks, 2dly\ What Law do's this bleffed Saint and Martyr refer us to, when he fays, // is not jLatofnf f It muft be either to the Law of God, or to the Law of the Church, or to both of thefe together : If to the Law of God •, then, 'tis plain, that Baptifin by a Perfon who never had a Com- miifion from the Biiliop, if any fuch had then been attempted, would have been contrary to the Law of God, and therefore there was no Law of God by which to pronounce it Valid ^ confequently, no Valid Law of the Church for that Purpofe ^ be- caufe, the Church can have no Law fufficient to make that Valid before God, which is not Valid by any of his Laws. If St. Ignatius refers us to any Laws of the Church, and means, that, in re- fpedl of thofe Laws, " it is not Lawful ^ " then, 'tis plain, that the Church had at that time no Law of herF, whereby fuch a (iippos'd Baptifin could have been pronounc'd Valid, in the fenfe of the Church ^ In fuch Cafe, its pretended Validity muft have been judg'd of by fome previous haw of God : But tliat Law is not to be found \ and therefore, fuch a fuppns'd Baptifm could not have been pro- nounc'd A^alid, "by virtue r'^any the then Laws of Chap. J* Lay-Baftifm^ ExamitPd^hc. ]l of the^Chiircli. Laftly, li ^i, Ignatius has an eye to both the Laws of God, and his Church ^ then, fiich a fuppos'd Baptifin mull: not have bcenVaUd, by virtue of any Law wliatfoever ^ and tlieretore Invalid, for want of all Law whatfoever to give it Vahdity. And this is the more confinn d, by his afferting, That without Bi/hcps^ Fricfts^ and Dca- cons^ there is no Church of the Eleft ^ and, that He is " (lailtljOUt, " /. e. Out of the Cliurch, " who do's any things \_i^e. any Sacred Pofitive Fundion, that belongs peculiarly to the Office of t-he Clergy,] '^ without the Bijlops^ and Preslytcrs, " and Deacons,'^ For in thofe Days, if Laicks had attempted fuch Miniflrations, they, and their Dependants, being and having''//^ B'lfhops^ Fncfts, ^' and Deacons^'' but aiding without them, would have been 110 CljUCClj ^ and if no Churchy then their pretended Miniftrations would have been HP Ci)2iftiaU ^aCCamenW -, becaufe, where there is "' no CijUtCljj there are no Sacraments •, and therefore no Baptifm. The only Queftion that remains, is, Whether St. Jg" nati7fs\ Words are not to be reftrain'd to Ordinary Cafes only ^ and, whether Extraordinary CafeSjwhere Bifhops^ Friefts^ zndDeacons cannot be had, are not to be excepted > In Anfwer to which, 'tis plain that St. Ignatius makes no Exceptions ^ his Words are gene- ral, and he referrs to no Rule or Cuflom then in the Church, for any Exception whatfoever ^ fo that, it Men will make Exceptions, they muft have rr.ifon to do fo ^ otherwife their Exceptions will be arbitrar)% and without foundation. If there be any reafon for an Exception, it muft be founded either on the Law of Nature, or elfe the Pofitive Revealed Law of God ; The Law of Nature has no Rule for fuch an Exception, becaufe Baptifm is a thing D 3 about jS TeJlimoHies for and againfi Part IT^ about which that Law is no-wa3''s concerned ^ and the Reveal'd Pofitive Law of God has no fuch Rule for fucli an Exception ^ if it has, Where is it > It has not yet been produced ^ fo that Men have nothing whereon to ground fuch an Exception. Some, it may be, will fuppofe, that the Church had then a Law or Rule that excepted fuch Ex- traordinary Cafes : But Suppofing, without Pro- ving, will not do ^ and they cannot fhew us any fuch early Primitive Law *, and confequently^ 8t. ]gnat'mi\ Words cannot be fairly interpreted to be reftrain'd to Ordinary Cafes only, and there- fore they mufl: include Extraordinary Cafes alfo. § VIL St. Herman ^ who was Cotemporary with St. Vaul, tho' he had fo ftrid an Opinion of the "^ NecclTity of Baptifm, that he reckon'd the ^igh- teous Me72 and Prophets^ who Dy'd before the Coming of Chrifl:, flood in need of Chriftian Bap- tifm^ even in their Separate State ^ yet, to fupply this their Neceffity, none are mention'd by him to have gone to them to give 'em Baptifm, but " t Tbe Apoftles and Dolors of the F reaching of the " 5*^77 cf God. " The Apojiles and Teachers, wha '' preach'd ihe Nawe of the Son of God '^'\ Men whq had Chriffs and the Apoftles Commiliion to mi- nifter in Holy Things ^ not the leaft Hint of any who never were Connniifion'd to Baptize, ^ that went to fupply their want of Baptifm. But if our modern Notion, That Lakks^ in want of the Clergy, may Baptize, had then been held by the Church ^, confidering, that the Laity were al- ways vaftly more Numerous than the Clergy, it ^ Vif. iii. N. ;. .^iw/Z.six. N. i/j 1(5, f J/w/7. xix. A', ir, WOuW Chap. J. Lay-Bap t /J m J Exami^i*d^ ^c, ^m would have been but natural enough to fuppofe, that fome of thofe Prophets, &c, were baptizd by common Chriftians alio ^ but in this our St. her- vuta is abfolutely iilent, and mentions no other Baptizers, for this fuppos'd Cafe of Necdiity, than theApoftles and Teachers, who preach'd the Name of the Son of God : And how could they Preach except they were fent or commiiriond> according to the Great Apoftle of the Gentiles, But to come now to Mr. Bingham s Evidences : § VIII. This Reverend Hlftorian gives us firfl of all, Tfr//^Z//^;?'s Opinion upon the Matter, about the Year of Chrift 200, tranflated from his Book de Bdprijho, c, 17. Thus " the chief Fneft, zx:ho i^ " the Bijhop, hcui Power to give Bdptijm -, and after '^ him Presbyters and Deacons •, yet not without the " Authority of the Bi/hop, for ^the Honour of the " Churchy in the Prefervation of which Peace p$ " prefervd, J|n aitOtftCC Eefpeit, Lay-men have " alfo a Right to give it ^ for' what is received in com- '' mon^ may be given in conunon. Baptifm is God's '' peculiar^ and may be conferrd bj) illK But Lay- " men are in a much greater Degree obliged by the " Rules of Modefty in the Ufe of their Power^ fince " they^ who are ©UpCtlO? to them^ are obliged not *' to afjume to themfelvcs the Office which belo?7gs to " the Bifhi>p only : Emulation is the Mother of Strife ^ " all things are Lawful fays the Apoftle^ but all things ^' are not Expedient. Therefore it ought tofuffice " them to life this Power in h'ecejfities^ when the '' Condition of the PtaCC, or Cime, or l^etfOll " requires it : for then their charitable AJf (lance is " accepted, when the Qrcumflance oj one in Danger ^' prefjes them to it. And in this Cafe he would be " guilty of a Mans Deflru&ion^ that emitted to do D 4 " wha^ 4© Tejl monies for anH agatnft Part IL ''* what he lavofuUy might ^^^ p. 25,26. Thus far Tfr- tuUian\ Opinion. But by what Rule iliall we dif- cover that it was then a Cathohck Tradition of th§ Church, and not TertuUian's private Opinion only ? Our Reverend Hiftorian would have it, That 'twas then '''' the common ?ra[lice of the Church P' ift^ Be- caufe " /lo learned Man before " Mr. Dodwell, and foine others, " ever thought " that it was '^ only ^' TevUiWmns ozvn private Opinion, and not the com- *' mon Pra^ice of the Church : " 2dly^ Becaufe of *' the Coherence of Tertullian j Difcourfe. " " In *' the former Tart of it ( fays Mr. Bingha?n ) he k *' certainly fpeaking of the Fra^lice oj the Churchy '^ zx)hen he fays ^ Presbyters and Deacons aU by the " h'ljhofs Authority^ when they ad mini ft er Baptifm '' /;/ ordinary Cafes» It would be fir ange then^ if he ^' J})ould invert hk Difcourfe immediately in the next *' Words^ and not mean the FraSlice of the Churchy " when he comes to /peak of Lay-men^ "p. 27. Thefe are Mr. Bingham's Two fuppos'd Reafons : The Firft amounts to nothings becaufe our Reverend Hiftorian cannot prove, that all Learned Men, be- fore Mr. Dodwell, Sec- efteemed this PaiFage of Ter- juUians, to be an Evidence of the General Practice of the Church. What no Learned Man ever thought before Mr. Dodwell, and others, is a meer Ne- gative, and h^rd to be difcover'd, except by fome pofitive Declaration-, fo that till Mr. Bingham produces the Declaration of thofe Learned Men, {hewing, that this PafTage of Tertullian is an Evidence for the General PraBtce of the Church, his fayingthat ^'' no Learned Man before [JAT.DodweW] ^' ever thought, " as Mr. Dodwell, and fome others thought, is giving no Reafon at all: As neither would his producing their Teftimony only, if it were not ^\io back'd with fuch Arguments for the Truth Chap. 3- L^y-Baptifm^ Exami/Pd^ Sec. 41 Truth of their Evidence, as will ftand a fair Exa- mination. And then, as to the Second, viz. ^^ The *' [_fuppos'd~\ Cobere?7ce of TeituWian sDifcoipfe^''' &c. Upon a juft Obfervation of his own Words it will be found, that his Notion was not the Pra- dice of the Church ^ for as Mr. Bingham hinilelf acknowledges, TertuUians Words do plainly re- fped: the Church's Pr ad ice in the former Part of his Difcourfe, where he fi:)eaks of the Fower of the Bifhops, Priefts^ and Deacons^ to Baptize 5 and men- tions onlyPriefts, and Deacons, as ading in Subor- dination to, and by Authority of the Bilhop, '* for *' the Honour of the Church. " But what is this Honour of the Churchy except our fubmitting to her Rules and Orders ? Kow can her Honour be pre- ferv'd, but by our obeying her jufl: Laws, and fol- lowing her well-grounded Traditions and Cufloms? Therefore her Laws and Cuftoms, concerning Bap- tifm, are here referred to by TcrtuUian, when he fpeaks of her Honour ^ in the Power of the Bifhop, and under him, of Presbyters and Deacons, to Bap- tize. His faying immediately after this, Alioquin, otherwife, or '' in another refped^ " is a plain Tran- fition from his former Subject of what had a refer- ence to the Church's Law or Cuftom ^ and evidently fhews, that he is going to fay fomething that is feperate and diftind therefrom: For, fays he, " in another refpcU^ " i- e. in refped of fomething elfe foreign to the Church's Law or Cuftom before referred to, " Lay-men have a^Jo a Right to give it: " As much as if he had faid, by the Law or Cuftom of the Church," The Chief Vriefi^ who is the Bifhop^ " has Power to give Bnpt'ifm^ and after him Pre shy ^^ ters and Deacons., yet not zoithout the Authority " of the Bifhop'^ for the Honour of the Church: '' in the Prefervatiou of which Honour, by our ol>- ferving 42 Tefiimonies for and again ji Part II, ferving this her Law, ^' Veace is preferv'd : " Other- wife, or " in another refped " diftindt and feparate from the Confideration of this Law or Cuftom, " Lay-men have aljo a Right to give it ^ " which is the fame as faying, that Lay-men have a Right in themfelves to Baptize, fcperate and diftindt from the Confideration of the Church's Law or Cuftom : So that Tertullians Notion of Lay-men's Right to Baptize, is not founded upon any ILiltU or Cuftom of the Church at that time giving them fuch a Right^ or on any A6t of the Biihop pretending to veft them with hk Authority : vSo far from thefe, that he ipeaks of Lay-mens Right by way of Antithejis to 'em, by introducing it with an Alioquin^ other- wife^ making it to have '■'^another rejped^^ than that of the Church's Law, and the hfhoj)s Autho- rity. Confequently their Right to Baptize, here fpoken of by Tertullian^ being neither founded on any Law of the Church, nor on any Authority re- ceiv'd from the Biihop, muft be a pretended Right which the Church never gave them, and therefore is not the Church's Tradition •, becaufe 'tis incon- ceivable how the Church fhould have a Tradition forLap-meitS Eigljt to Baptize, without any Au- thority receiv'd from the Bifhop, when at the fame time the Tradition was univerfal, that all Power to Baptize was originally in the Apoftles, and their Succeffbrs the Bifhops*, and tliat none could have any Right to Baptize, but thofe who were in fome refpedt or other commiffiond by them : As Mr. Bing- ham has very well obferv'd in his 4th and 5 th Pages. This Ihews that TertuUian's ElffW Of Lapnieit to Baptize, was his own particular Notion only. And this is not a little corroborated by his mann r of fpeaking, when he refers to the Laws and Pradice of the Church , for then he gives us fuch Chap. J. Lay-Baftifm^ ExamirPd^^Q, 4J fuch plain Tokens of his fpeaking about them, that we cannot well mifs of underftanding him. Thus in the Place before us, his fpeaking of the Honour of the Church bemg preftrv'd by the Power of the Bifhop to Baptize, and of Priefts and Deacons in fubordination to, and by his Authority, is an evi- dent Token of his referring to the Church's Law and PradHce. So again ^ When he Ipeaks of Per- fons who had received Heretical Baptifm, he fays, ^' We have -^ a JBlUie among us to Re- baptize thon-^"'' plainly thereby referring to the Law and Practice of the Church where he liv'd. But nothing like thefe has he to guide us to the genera/ Practice of the Church giving Lay-men tl l^lgljt to Baptize ^ but the direct contrary, by his A/ioi]uin^ 8cc. as lias been l^rov'd before. And therefore, 'tis no other than his own private Opinion, and no general FraHice of the Church. ^ IX. Which is further confirm'd by the imagi- nary Reafon upon which he endeavours to found their pretended Right^ and 'tis this : ^' tor what is " received in common^ may he given in common -^^'^ as Mr. Bingham Words it. A Principle fo falfe, that multitudes of Inftances may be brought to demon- ftrate its contrariety to Truth and Reafon : And even TertuUian himfelf contradicts this Notion a little after in the Cafe of Baptifm by Women, whom he will not allow to have any Right at all to Bap- tize-, which certainly they muft have, if" what '' is received in common y may he given in common. For Women as well as Men receive Baptifm, and may therefore give it, if this Principle be true, as * Tertul, de Pudicitia, c. 19, Edit. Rigal. Lutct. i654, it 44 Teftimonies for and again fl Pa r T IL it moft certainly is not, in Cafes that relate to a CornmiiTion^ for 'tis plain, that all the Citizens, properly fo calfd, of the City of 'London^ receive the Freedom of the City in common, and yet that Freedom may not be given in common by every fuch Citizen *, it muft be done by thofe Officers of the City, who are in Commiffion to give Freedoms \ other wife, the pretended Freedom will prove a Nul- lity in all refpedts whatfbever. So in Cafes of Na- turalization of Foreigners, and abundance of other Inftances that might be brought to (hew the Fallacy of TertuUians falfe Maxim, the very propofing of which betrays the Weaknefs of it, and the confe- quent Danger of that Practice, which is built upon no better Foundation. ^ X. Thus TertttUian gives us nothing but his own Word for it, and a falfe Reafon to fupport it, that *■' Lay-men aljo have a Right to give Baptifm. '' And now I would fain know, whether this alone is /efficient to convince any reafonable Man, that Lay-men then had fuch a Right? Is the bare Word of fuch an ancient Writer, his lingle Opinion, with- out the neceffary Adjuncl of the ChurcVs Rule to fupport it, a powerful Reafon to perfwade us, that it was in his Days tlie general Fra[lice of the Church? If this be enough, tiien we mufi: fwallow TertiiUians oth^r A'ojlrums^ as Dodrines and Pra- ctices of the Church too ^ for he is as pofitive in fome of them, as he is in this. Thus he makes Lay-men to he Priefts^ ^ purely upon a wrong Interpretation of a Text in the Firft Chapter of the Revelations, which makes all Chriftians to be as piuch and as * Nonre Sf Laki Sacerdotes fumus ? Scriptum eft Regnum qunque not i$ SdceU^esy Dec ^ Putri fuo fecit, TertuK de Ex- hor. Caftit. cap. 7. proper Chap. J. Lay-Baptifm, Exam//^% 8^'c. 45 proper Kirigs, as it makes them proper Priefts, /. e. not at all. How Chriftians, as fuch, are Kings and Priefts in a figurative Senfe, I have already Ihew'd in "^ another Place. He reckons the difference t be- tween Clergy and Laity to be founded on the Church's Authority^ when, in truth, it is founded on God's Law^ and the Inftitution of Chnjl hiwfelf: InCon- fequence of this he teaches, that in the Ahjence of the Oergy^ \ Lay-men are Priefts for themfehes, and have Power not only to Baptize, but alfo to Offer and Minifter the Memorial of the Sacrifice of Chrift's Body and Blood, [_& Offers & Tinguis^ fays he^] nay, further, he affirms, That where Three are gather d together^ tho they be but Laicks^ they are a Church : The Confequence of which, is, that they muft alfo have thofe Spiritual Powers which belong to the Church : Hence they may not only Baptize and Adminifter the other Sacrament, but alfo Ordain^ Excommumcate^ and Abfolve^ and Retain Sins^ otherwife they cannot conftitute a Church ^ which plainly fhews the Falfenefs of the Principle from whence fuch Confequences flow. And all thefe are Errors fo very notorious, and fo contrary to Scripture-Rule, that who can dare to fay, they were Traditions of the Catholick, Primi- tive Church ? And yet they muft be fo, if Tertu/- lian\ Notions muft be received for the Church's Dodrines and Practices. * Lif-Baptifm Invalid, ;^ Edit. p. 156, &c. t Differentiam inter ordinem & plebem conOituit Feck' fiae Auftoricas & Honor per ordinis concelTum fandtificatus. II Adeo ubi Ecclefiaftici ordinis non eft concclTus, & offers, & tinguis, & facerdos, es tibi folus. ** Sed ubi tres Ecclefia ell: licet Laici. Tertul. ic Exhort, CMflitatiSt cap.j, Eiit.Rigal, Lutet. Far 1634. § xr. 4^ Teflimomes for and again fl Part It. § XI. I might alfo inftance feveral of his other Errors and Paradoxes, as his falfe Notion, Of the Soul of the tirft Ma/j's being made out of the Sub- fiance of God j His Error concerning the Sex of Souls '^ That the Soul ii corporeal, and not properly a Spirit ^ That the Soul can fuffer nothing without the Body ^ That God himfelf is corporeal, becaufe nothing is incorporeal. That Chrifi^ the Son of God^ wds always feen by Men in true and real ¥lejh^ before he wm' Born of the Holy Virgin -^ and. That Second Marriages are as Wicked as Whoredom: Thefe Errors of this ancient Writer, are, with ^ others mentlonM in the Margin, col- leded together in Faradoxa TertuUiani cum An- tidoto Jacobi Famelii^ in the ni Yol. of his "Works, Printed at Faris^iS:^'^, - — And does his holding them, fhew, that the Church held them too ? * I De Angelis dcfertoribus qui duKerunt fiHas Hominum. 2 De Angelorum apparicionibus in vera humana carnc. :; De Anima primi Hominis ex materia Dei. 4 De Animab'js pofterorum Adse ex traduce. 5 De Anima' Sexu- 6 Animam pcccatricem potius quam carnem. 7 De Aiiima corporej, quod proinde propric fpiritus nort fit 8 Animam nihil pati poffe fine corpore. 1 1 Animus Hominum peffir.as poft mortem in D^monas vcrti. If De Deo corporeo, eo quod nihil incorporale fit. i8 De EcQafi/zv? Amentia, /iie fpiritu Prophetic© Montani, & Infanarum Vatum PrifcilldE & Maximilla, & Simi- lium. 19 Filium Dd Chriftum, fcmpcr vlfum ab hominibus in ver^, etfi ncn nata «rne. 2f Dc Nuptiis fecundis damnaticis tanqiiam ftupris. 26 Dc Paracleto Montano. 28 Pfythicis, quo nomine Catholicis calumniam fecit. No Chap. J. Lay-Baftifm^ ExamirPd^i^c, ^--i No fuch Matter •, and therefore^ his aflerting, Lay- men to have a Ktght to Baptize^ in Calls ot fup- pos'd Kecejfity^ without appealing to the Church's Law or Rule for fuel) a Rjght^ is no Argument, that the Church in general held any fuch Notion ^ but only proves, that it was his own private Opi- nion ^ and confequcntly, it mud ftand or fall, by the Goodnefs or Badnefs of the Argument which he brings to fupport it. His Argument has been al- ready prov'd to be falfe, in the IXth Sedtion of this Chapter : And therefore, upon the whole, we may fairly conchide, that TertuUian is no Evi- dence of ^;7>'^^;7fn//Pr/^/7/Vd'^//;^ Church countenan' cing the pretended Right of Lay-men to Baptize, in Cafe of Neceflity. Nay, he has not given fo much as one Inftance of any fuch Baptifm by a Lay- man, allowed of by the Church ^ no Hiftorical Ac- count of any fuch Matter, but only his fingular private Opinion, what he thought a Lay-man might do, in want of the Clergy ^ and this founded upon a falfe Principle. But then, as to the Cafe before us, of Baptifm by Laicks, Perfons never Com.milfion'd by Bifliops, at- tempting to do this where the Clergy are to be had ^ TertuUian is full and direct againft them, and refers us to the Law and Practice of the Church, when he aiTerts, That " The Chief Pneft, who is the Bijhop^ '' has the Power to give Baptifm ^ and after hiw^ " Presbyters and Deacons •, yet not without the Au- " thority of the Bi^fhop, for the Honour of the Church, This ivas the ftanding Rule and Law of the Church, purfiiant to the Law of God : So that, if Lay- men had then pretended (astliey do now) to have ufurp'd the Power of Baptizing, where Bifhops, Prielts, and Deacons, were to be had ^ it would have been againft the Honour of the Church, a Breach 4? Tejllmonies for and agatnfc Part II* Breach of her Law and Cuftom, as well as of the Law of God •, and confequently, deftitute of any Law cither of God, or his Church, whereby to judge and pronounce their Ufurped Miniftration Good and Valid. And thus our Reverend Hiftorian has produc'd nothing of the CljUrCtj'S P?aCtiCe in favour of r , Lay-Baptifin, in any ^Cafe whatfoever, for the ^^.f^[ fpace of the firftiThree) hundred Years, the pureft Ages of theChriftian^'Church : So that^ if I fhould proceed no farther, but Conclude here, I might venture to fay. That the Validity of pretended Baptifms, perform'd by Perfons who never were Coinmiffion'd by Bifhops to Baptize, never was a Tradition of the Catholick Church, becaufe not attefted by her in the purefi: Ages, the firft Three hundred Years of Chriftiani'ty : But, on the con- trary, Baptifm by Perfons fuppos'd to have no Power or Authority from Bifliops, was exclaim'd againft, in that very Period, by no lefs Men than the bleffed St. Ignathfs Bifhop of 'Antioch^ as I have prov'd before, pag, 35; by St. Cyprian Bifhop of Carthiige •, and by Firmilian Biihop of C^farea^ and their Colleagues. For, § XIL About the Year of Chrift 25:6, St. Cy- prian and Firmilian lield the Baptifm of Hereticks and Schifmaticks to be 'Null and Void, upon this fcore, that, Becaufe they were Broken off from the Church, and become Lay-men^ therefore they had no Power to Baptize : Their being become Lay- men, made them to have no Power to Baptize 5 and their want of Power, made their Baptifms Null and Void, in the Opinion of thefe two Bifhops. That this was their Opinion, St. Bajil^ who fate in the Chair ofCiSz/j/'^j, about an Hundred and thirteen Years Chap. J. Lay-Baptifm^ ExamirPd^ S^C. 49 Years after Firmilian, teftifies : And that his Tefti- mony may not be queftion d, it Ihall ftand here in Mr. Binghivih own Tranflation, and he intro- duces it thus : " St. Bafd brings in Cyprian^ and h>- ml'ian his PredecefTor in the See oiCfJarea^ argu- " ing after this manner^" then follows St. Cyprian and ¥irmilian\ Argument, thus tranflated •, ^ '^ Here- ticks and Sch'jfmatich are broken off from t he Churchy " and become ILap-men, and tf\tttfo;t ijaDc na " POtoei: to TBaptlje, or to Ordaln ', being no '^ longer able to give the Gift of the UolyGhoff^ " which they have loft themf elves \ Vc^Zlti^\Z'ifuch as ^' are Baptized bp tbCtH^ are to be Re-baptized with " the Crue TSaptifm of the Church, as being only " Baptized by Lapmeit* The whole Strefs of this Argument, we fee, is founded upon laP'ttlCnS having no pOloer to Baptize, and the confequent Neceflity of giving CtUe 'Baptlfm to fuch as were Olllp TBnp-- tif 0 top JLaP-'UteU* whether St. Cyprian and F/-r- w7/7/Ws pronouncing Hereticks and Schifinaticks to be no more than hay-men, was right or no ^ or, whether they efteem'd them to be redu'd to Lay-meny by their Herefy or Schlfin only ^ or rather, by virtue of the Laws of thofe Churches to whom they ow'd Subjedtion ^ 'tis no matter at prefent to enquire : Be that how it will, this is certain, That they made the want of a Commiffiony i. e. Lay-mens want of Power to Baptize, the Standard by which they judg'd of the Invalidity of Baptifm by Hercticks and Schifinaticks : Baptifm by Lay-men was Null and Void, in their Opinion -, and they, confe- quently, pronounc'd Baptifm by Hereticks and Schifinaticks to be fo too, becaufe they efteem'd * J5«///. ^i>i/? I. (id Ampbilcckium, ap. u E tbeoi 5o Tejlimomes for and againji Part IL them to be but Lap-mClU This Evidence is very dcftrudtive of what fome fay, That TertuUian\ Notion about Lay-Baptifm, was xh^ general Fra^ice of the Qmrch in his Days : For, is it at all likely, that Two fuch Biihops as thefe were, fhould, fo foon as about 56 Years after TertuUian\ Writing his Book de Baptifmo^ make ufe of fuch an Argu- ment as this? If T^m////^//'s Notion oUhe Va/idiry of hay-Bapiifm had been founded upon the general Fra- Uice of the Church at that Time, thefe two Biihops muft, at that rate, have been greater Strangers to, and more ignorant of, the Church's general FraSice^ than TerruUian, a private Prieft ^ or elfe the general Tra[fice muft have ceas'd, by that time St. Cyprian and Yirmilian came to difpute againft Heretical •and Schifmatical BaptiCns : Suppofitions ^o ill grounded, that no reafonable Man can believe them ^ and 'till there Ihall be produced good Rea- fons to the contrary, we muft conclude, that StCyprian a,nd^irmlian\ Opinion, of the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm, was then a ftanding Principle, in their Churches at leaft : Becaufe 'tis unreafonable to believe, that in fo Publick a Difpute as that was, about Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifm, two fuch celebrated Biiliops as St. Cyprian and F/r- tnil'ian^ fhould ufe an Argument founded on the Jnvaliditjr of Lay-Baptifm, if the Validity of Lay- Baptifm had at the fame time been a received Principle in thofe Churches. This Teftimony of thofe two great Bifliops, upon fb Publick an Oc- cafion. That Lay-Baptifm was then efteemd to be Null and Void^ is of io great Confequence, that our Reverend Hiftorian is fomething particular in his Endeavours to weaken the Credit of it ; But his feveral Objeclions fhall be Anfwer'd in the fol- lowing Chapter* §XIIL Chap. 5. Laj-Baptifm^ Examiri^d^ Src. 51 § XIII. And tho' their Evidence is tranfmitted to us by St. Bafil^ and therefore fufficicntly eftablifli'd by bis Authority ^ yet even in 8t. Cy- prians Works tliemfelves, we find goo J Proofs, that St. Cypnan^ Vinmiian^ and others their Col- leagues, held pretended Baptifins to be Null and Void, when performed by Perfons who were lup- posM by them to have had no Commiirion to Bap- tize. Thus St. Cyprian, in his Epiftle to Januanus ^\ fays, '' It IS mcejjary that O^Jatet Jhould be firfl " Cleanid and SanHified by t&e P^IEtt ^ that by " his Baptifm^ the Sins of the Baptizd Yerfon 7?iay " be wafl)d away.'*'' In his Epiftle to Stephen Biihop of Rome^ he acquaints him, t That he and his Colleagues, in Council Decreed, '' by Common '' Confent and Authority^ That if any Fresbyters or *^ Deacons^ who were firji Ordained in the Catholick *' Church^and afterwards rebelled and flood out againjl ^' Her •, or^ If^^y whowere^amongHereticks^Ordaind ^* by the profane Ordination of ¥a/fe Bifhops, Sec. — " If any ofthefe return d to the Church, they fhouli *' be receivd to Communion only as hoy-men. " In his Epiftle to Jubaianus, he affirms, That * Oportet ergo mondari 8c Sarftificari Aquam prius k Sacer- dotdy ut poffic Baptifmo fuo peccata Hominis qui Baptizatur, abluere. £;■//?. 70. Fere /V, 15-48. Pag i^y. t Addimus plane & Adjun^imus Frater charifTlmc Corcenfu Si Au^oritate Commuyu, ut etiam fi qui Ptesbytcii, auc Diaconi, qui vel in Ecclefia Catholica prius Ordinati fucrinr, & poft- modum perfidi ac rebelks contra Ecdefiam fteterinr, yel apud Hareticos a pfeudo-Epitcopii & antichriftis contra Chrifti diipofi- tionem, profana Ordinatione promoti fint & contra Altare unum arque Divinuni Sarrificia foris fdlfa ac facrilega offcrre conati funr, eos quoque luc conditione fufcipi cum rcvertuntur, ut Commument Ldci, 8fc. nee debcrc eos revcrtcntcs ca apud nos Ordinationis 8c Honoris Arma retincrCj quibus contra nus rcbellaverlDt. £^iji 72 p. 141, 142. 52 Teftmonies for and again fi Part IL " ^^Kone have Authority to Baptize^ or give Rem if- " Jion of Sins, but the 'BlfljOpg, and thofe who are '^ founded in the Evangelical Law, and iMXt iL0?D'3 " 2ppUmintEnt ^ and. That nothing can be Bound *' or hoofed out of the Church, feeing there is None " there zvho has tf)C POttlCi: of Binding and Loafing, *' — «_ X/;^/ this is founded upon the Authority of *' the Holy Scriptures. — That No One can "^ ufurp to himjelf, in Oppofition to the Bifhops and '• ?riefs, what he has HO iRfCjljt and POtUeC *^ to perform *, and inftances the Examples ^Corab^ " Dathan, ^/?rf Abiram'x endeavouring to ufurp to " themf elves the Tower of Sacrificing, in Oppofition " to Alofesj ^;?J Aaron the Frieft, So again, in his Epiftle to Magnus, fpeaking of the Baptifm given by Hereticks and Schifmaticks, he calls it, ^ a Frofane WaJInng •, and gives this for a Reafon, why thofe who come over from them to the Church, ought to be Baptiz'd in the Church : \ ""' JVe fay, " (fays he) That all Hereticks and Schifnaticks are " utterly deftitute of all POttet and Right : " In Confequence of this, he calls their Altars, 1| Fal/e Altars ; their Prieflhood, Unlawful ^ and their Sa- ^* Intelligimus, non nifi in Ecclefia Prxpofitis, 8c in Evangdica Lege, ac Dominica Ordinatio, ne fundatis licere Baptizare, re- mifTam peccatorum dare , fcris autem nee I»gari aliquid poffe necfolvi, ubi ncn fit qui aut ligare pofTit aliquid, aut folvere. Nee hoc frater charifTiTie fine Scripture divinst juftoritate pro- poninius, uc dicamus cerra Lege, cunfta elTe difpofita •, ncc fojfe quenquam contra Epircopos 8c Sacerdotes ufurpare fibi aliquid, a^od mn fit fui Juris & poteftatis. Nam & (.here, Da- tham, 8c Abyron, (fy-c.- Epiff.y:;, />. 145'. * Hrophar.um Lavacrum. t Dicimus omnes oranino Hasreticos & Schifmaticos nihil ha- bere Potfjiatis ac ^urif, II Falfd Altaria, & illicita Sacerdotia, Sc S.icrificia Sacrilega, 8t nomina adulterata fingentes. crifices, Chap. J. L^p'Baptifmy ExamirPd^ Src. c? crificcs. Sacrilegious. He affirms, That "^ they vainly Contend, [who fay, That] " any one can he Bdptizd and Sanii'jfied with Saving Baptifm^ zvherc " 'tis manifeft that ti)Z ToapttjeU Ijilg not lUr '^ t&Oiltp or CommiJJion to Baptize. " And he asks, t '^ How can they Juft'ifie and SanUiJic the Baptizi^ who are the Prieft's Enemies, and en- deavour to ufurp to themfelves things unfit and unlawful for them^ and which were never granted " them by any Law or Authority whatfoever 1 " Thefe, among many other Inftances that might be brought from St.Cyprians own Works, do plainly Ihow, That he efteem'd it neceflary that the Bap- tifmal Water lliould be Sandified by the \pl\tQ. j That Hereticks and Schifmaticks were, in his Opi- nion, but as Eay-men \ That they had no |i?0lurr, 9Ut6o^ltp or Elfffit to Baptize ^ and that, bc- caufe they had not this Right or Authority, therefore their Baptifms were Null and Void. Whether thofe Hereticks and Schifmaticks were rightly judged by him to be but Lay-men, is ano- ther Queftion ^ but this is certain, that St. Cyprian efteem'd their Baptifms to be Invalid, for want of Commiffion and Authority to Baptize •, and there by plainly fhew'd, that he efteem'd the Com- milTion to be Eftential to the Miniftration of Bap- tifm \ and confequently, that a fuppofititious Bap- tifin, by a Perfon who never had a Commilfion to Baptize, [which is the ver}^ Cafe of our Lay- * Fruftra Contendunt Baptix^iri Sr San[iifi:ari illic aliquem falutari Baptifmo pofTe, ubi conftet Eaptizantem Eaptizandi Li- ccntiam non habere, - f Quomodo tales juflificare Scfaoif^ficareBaptizatos poffunt; qui Hoftes Sacerdotum, aliena Sc illicita & mtto fibi fure conccffj ttfurpare conantur ' Ef'iji> 76. p. 167, 17c, 171. E 3 Baptifms] 54 Tefiimomes for and, againft Part IL Baptifi-ns] inuil: be Null and Void, wliatever be- came of Baptifins by Hereticks and Schifmaticks who ill thofe Days ufed to be Ordani'd by Biftiops. § XIV. Virmilian was alfo of the fame mind j for, in his Epiftle to St. Cyprian^ he affirms of Hereticks who have cut themfelves off from the Church : That ^ ''' They can have nothing of Grace^ '' or Power, [or autllOJltJ) •,] Jince all Grace and " Authority is eftablijh'd in the Churchy vjhere the " Bifhops prefide, zvho have the Fower or Authority *' cf Baptizing, cf Laying on of Hands^ and oj Ordi- " nation. For as an Heretick has not the Authority *^ of Ordaining, or of Laying on of Hands, fo neither '' has he the POtDCt or aUtftO^lt]? of Baptizing.-^ He fays, t '' That this wa^ long before Eftahlifh'd " and Confirm d in a Council at Iconium, held by " him and the Bifhops ^/Galatia and Cilicia, and ^' the refl of the neighbouring Regions^ firmly to " be held and maintain d againfl Hereticks, when ^' any Doubt Jbouid arife about thk Matter, ■ Th:y Decreed, 1| '^ That all thofe Jhould be holden "* Hacretici ^\ fe ab Ecclefia Dei Sciderint, nih\l ib^kr? Potefta- tis aut Gratia? poj[r<^?/7, quando omnis Foteftas & Gratia in Eccle- fn Conflituta fit •, ubi prxfident majores natu qui &Baptizandi & iTianum imponendi, & ordinandi poflident poteftatem. Has- retico enim fjcut Oidinare non licet, ncc Manum imponere, ita nee Baptlzare. — firmilianl El^ifi. inter Eiiji. Cjpr. LXXV. p. 15-9. f C^uod totum nos jampridcm in Iconio^ colledi in unum convc- nientihus ex GaUtia & Cilicia, & ceteris proximis Regionibus confirmavimus, tenendun^, contra Hxreticos firmiter & vindi- candunn, cum 3 quibufdam de ifta re dnbitarctur. p. \6o, II No? etiam illos quos hi qui prius in Ecclefia Catholica Epi- fcopi fuerant, Sc poftmodum fibi (>oteflatem Cencee Ordiintionii affumentcs Baptizavera^t, pro non Bjptizatis habcndos judica- yimus, t)^c, p. 165-, as Chap. J • Lay-Baptifm^ Examin^dyZcc. 5^ " as not ISaptlYD, who were Baptizd by fuch as " had once been Bifiops in the Citholick Churchy if " they were Baptized by them after they had Jcpa- *' rated from the Churchy and ajfim'd to themf elves " the Power of the Prieft/y Order. '' All which PaiTagcs of Virmilians Letter to St. Cyprian do abundantly prove, that he and his Colleagues, AlTembled in the Council ot Iconium^ were entirely of St. Cyprians Opinion, That there was no Baptifm, where there was no Prieftly Poi^er to Baptize ^ and confequently, that Baptifrri by Lay-men, Perfons not having this Prieftly Power, is Null and Void ^ whatever becomes of that other Queftion, Whether the then Hereticks and Schifmaticks were or were not, in reality, reduced to the State and Condition of meer Lay-men. §XV. So again, feveral oi^t.Cyprian\ Colleagues in the Council of Carthage^ confifting of 87 Biihops, exprefsly affirm'd the lame thing : Thus Novatt^ a Thamugade fays. That ^ " According to the De- " cree of their Colleagues^ Men of moft f acred Me- mory^ all Hereticks and Schifmaticks ~ who feem to have been Ordain d^ fhould^ upon their Con- verfton to the Churchy be receivd among Laicks. ConfefTor Pomponius k Dionyfiana fays, + " T// " manifeft, that Hereticks CailHOt TBaptlK, ^^^ * Secundum Decretum Colleearum noftronim farKftifTimac memoriae virorum, omnes Schifmaticos 8c Hxreticos qui ad Ec- clcfiam convcrfi funt, 8c qui Ordinati videbantur inter Laicos recipi. ConcilCanhag. inter S.Qpr.Oper. p :;^^. t Manifeftara eft Haercticos non poiTe Baptizare, 8c RemiU fionem Peccarorum dare, qui potcftatem non habent, ut auc fol- vere aut ligare aliquid in tcrris poflint. F. 360. E 4 " £i^^ c6 Tefiimonies for and agamfl Part IL " give Remiffion oj Sins, who have not the POtPCC " of Binding or hoofing any thing on the Earth. Confeffor Claris a Mafcula affirms. That ^ " Hereticks, who have ItO POtoCt out^ of the " Church, ' cannot Baptize any one with their '' Baptifm.'' In Confequence of this Siippofition, That He- reticks were deftitute of Fower and Authority to Baptize, [as Lay-men, Perfons who were never Commiffion d, mofl: certainly are, ] thefe Fathers determined, That thofe who were Baptiz'd only by fiich Hereticks, fhould, upon their Converfion, be Baptiz'd in the Church : It matters not, whe- ther thofe Hereticks were utterly defbitute of all Power to Baptize, or no : We plainly fee, that St. Cyprian, Firmiiian^ and their Colleagues, grounded the Invalidity of their Baptifms, upon their fup- pofed want of Power and Authority ^ which is an undeniable Proof, that 'twas their Opinion, That if there was in reality no Commiffion, there certainly could be no Baptijm \ which is the very Cafe about which we are now Difputing : For our Lay-Baptifms are notorioully fuch, as are per- form'd by Perfons who never received, and there- fore have not any CommifTion, Power, or Autho- rity to Baptize-, and confequently, according to St. Cyprian^ firmilian, and their Colleague Biftiops, AfTembled in the Councils of Iconium and Carthage^ thefe Baptifms being without CommifTion, Power, or Authority, are wholly Null and Void. * Hacretici qui nee poteftatem foris, nee Ecclefiam Chrifli Hiabcnt, neminem Bapcizare Baptifmo ejus poffunt. ?, 36;. § XVI. Chap. J. Lay-Baftifm^ Exam'rad^^^Q. 57 § XVI. The Canons call'd Apoftolical are very ancient^ and Three of them, wherein the Baptifin of Hereticks is rejected, are fuppos'd ^ by the Learn- ed DuPi/i^ to be the very Canons of the Synods of Iconium t^ Synnada^ and therefore at leaft as early as the Year of Chrift 25:5, or 256.-- — One of thefe Three, which is the 47th of the Apoftohck Canons, is this : ''" \ If a Bijhop or Vresbyter do again Baptize " oTie^ who has really receivd Bapt'ifm before ^" or, ^^ if he do not Baptize one that hat been polluted by Wicked Men^ let him be deposed oji one voho con- " temns the Qrofs and Death of Chr'ift^ and tllilfeCfil " no ©ittinCtlOn between Priejfs, anO COtllltCC-- The Fathers who made this Canon, rcckon'd that a Man wa^ polluted^ when he was pretendedly Baptiz'd by the Wicked Men here fpoken of^ who thofe Wicked Men were, the Conclufion of the Ca- non determines, namely, counterfeit or fa/fe Prie/h ^ Perfons whom that Council reckoned to be no Friefts, at the time of their fuppos'd pretended Miniftration ^ for they are fpoken of, by way of Oppofition to PjlCftS /Imply confider'd : So that by this Canon, if a Perfon had been only Baptiz'd by one, who was but a counterfeit Priefi, a Bi- ftiop, or Presbyter, was to be depos'd, if he did not Baptize that Perfon ^ and the Reafon why he was to be depos'd, was this, becaufe he made no ^ Du Pins Ecclcf. Hifl. Cent. i. p. 14. Lond. t Epifcopus vel Presbyter eum qui vcre habct Eaptifma fi de integro Baptizaverit, vel fi eum qui ab impiis pollutus e(i, non Baptizavcrit, deponatur, ut qui irrideat Crucem Domini, 8c Mortem, 8f non Defernat Saccrdotcs, a falf's Sucerdotibus, Can. SS. Apof. XLVir. teS Teft monies for and again fl Part !!• Dijiinffion between Friefls and Pretenders ^ between thofe who were really vefted with Prieftly Power, and others, who in thofe Days, and by thofe Fa- thers, were accounted to have no fuch Power, and therefore only to have before pOiiUteD^ and not BaptizM thePerfon, which comes fully up to our prefent Cafe. Our Lay-Baptizers, namely, our Difienting Teachers, being but Pretenders only, falfe and counter'eit Priefts, having no more adlual Power of Priefthood than the meaneft Mechanick Laick in the World has. § XVIl. Mr. Bingham's Second Inftance of Lay men's being allow'd to Baptize in Cafes of Neceility, is about one hundred Years after his Firft ^ and he takes it from the 5/?^/7{/?; Council oiEliberk^ held by 19 BijQiops, faid to have been afferabled about the Year of Chrift 305. Canon 38. " They there appoin- " ted (fays he^ pag. 27.) that when Men were upon " a Voyage at Sea^ or in any Place where no Church " was at hand^ if a Catechumen happen d to be ex- " treamly Sick^ and at the Point of Deaths that then *^ any Chrift ian, who had his own Baptif7n entire j and " was no Bigamift^ might Baptize him, " Upon which our Reverend Hiftorian Remarks, That *' Th/s 3Utl)0?ltp was not given to all Chriftians in " all Cafcs^ but with feveral Limitations and Reftri- " ^ions, I ft, It muft be a Cafe of abfolute NeceJJity *• when Baptifm could not other wife be had* 2dly, " The Ferfon Baptiung muft have his own Baptifm en- *' tire. 3dly, He muft be no Bigamift'' And upon the whole, Mr- Bingham affirms, That '' in '' the main^ the Matter is indifputable^ that they [z.f. the Spanifto Bifliops of that Council] plainly '* intended in fame extraordinary Cafes to give hay- *' men a Licenfe and ^UtftO^ltl? to adminifter Bap- " tijrn. Chap. J. Lay-B^iftifw., ExamhPdj Sec. 59 " tifm^ which could not then be /aid to be UltaUtfjO- ^^ tIJ'O in Spain, fince it had the beft Authority the " Church could give it • n^hich is the ]de termination *^ and Authority of a Council^ '' pag. 27, 28. In all which there are feveral Things worth Obfer- vation. i/?. That Mr. Bingham reckons this Council QdlDZ 3llt]bO?itp to fome Lay-men to Baptize in extraor- dinary Cafes : How the Dodtor at Greenwich will hke this, who affirms, that fuch a Suppofltion expofes the Chriftian Priefthood to new Dangers, I know not ^ but it may be, he will have a more favourable Opinion of this Notion, now 'tis efpous'd by our^^ ^1 Reverend Hiftorian, for vjho^Q-^ttii^rical Hifiory lUiJL. am informed he has a mighty Value and Efteem : — But if the Council of Kliberk intended to give a Real Authority to fome, and not to all Lay-men to Baptize, then 'twill follow, 2dly, That this Canon is not DCClatatiftC of any Right in Lay-Chriftians as fuch ^ to give Bap- tifm in Cafes of Extremity, but rather the con- trary, that they have no fuch Right in themfelves, becaufe the Bilhops gave them Authority^ according to our Hiftorian ; which thofe 5/?^;7//7; Bilhops could not be faid to have done, if Lay-men had fuch Authority before: And this alfo is therefore de- ftrnctive of Ter tuUi an s^oxiow of Lay-men's having a Right in themfelves to Baptize in the Abfence of the Clergy. For the Councils intending to Autho- rize fome LaP'-niCIt (according to Mr, Bingham) and not Cltf)Crjj»5 to Baptize in fuch Cafes, is an Evidence, that thofe Bilhops did not Efteem all Lay-Chnfians as fuch, to have that Fewer and Au- thority. Hence it follows, 9^/>, That this Canon is a good Argument againft Mr. Bingham's Suppolition, in pag. 1 1, 1 2.— where 6o Tejlimomes for and t7gamjl Part II, ( where he guefTes that the Antlents might Efteem \ fome irregular Baptifms to be validj upon this \ Principle, " That Baptifm, by ttljOmfOeDer Clj^l* / '' ffiau petfO^VTVtl, was valid, and not to be re- { " peated: For, if the Bilhops of this Council had j known of any fuch Principle, what need had they / to make a Canon to give Authority to fome Sort of > Lay-Chriftians to Baptize, if all Chriftians^ as fuch, had that Authority in themfelves ^ andBaptifm, by whomfoever Chnflian adminiftred , was then good and valid, in the Opinion of the Catholick Church > There was another Condition imposM on thofe Baptizers, by the Spanifh Biihops of that Coun- cil, which Mr. Bingham has not taken notice of, and "t was this •, " That ^ // the Baptized furvived^ he '' tKiho Baptized him^ was obliged to prefent him to ^^ the Bijhop to be Confirnid by Imp oft ion of Hands .• " Which taken in Conjunftion with Mr. Bingham's other Obfervation, that the Baptizer was to have his own Baptifm entire ^ (which, by many Learned Men, is fuppos'd to fignifie, that he was to be one who had not forfeited the Benefits of his Baptifm by lapfing, or falling into fuch Sins as had brought him under Penance for them, as T)u Tin upon this Canon has obferv'd ^ and Mr. Bingham himfelf, pag. 28. from Albafpiny^ plainly fhews, that the Baptizer was to be one in Communion with his Bifliop : He was to be no Separatiji from the Churchy no Schifmatical render of her Sacred Body-, no Rebel againft Epifcopacy it felf-, but one in adual Communion with the Church-, one who own'd and acknowledged the Spiritual Power of Bifhops^ and that fo far, as to bring the Bap- * Ita ut (i fupcrvixerit, aH Epifcopum eum pcrducat, ut per manus iir.pofitionem perfici pofllt, Concil. Elibtr. Caii XXXVIII. tiz'd Chap. 5. Laj-Bappifr^y ExmiirPd^ 8^c. 61 tiz'd to be Confinn'd by Impoiition of the Bifliop's Hands. But our Lay-Baptizers are not fo^ and therefore nothing in Favour of their pretended Bap- tifins can be pleaded from this Canon^ if it were of any Obligation in our Church, as it moll cer- tainly is not. Mr. Bingham is pleas'd to tell us, That '^ // will '' not here be material for any One to OhjeQ^ That " this zvas but the Determination of a Private 'Na- " tional Council ^ for ( fay s he ) we are not now " enquiring what Obligation any other Church is '' under to follow this Rule^ but only what was " Matter of Faff, and the Fraffice of the Ancient *' Church,''' pag. 29. But, with Submilfion, this Objedion is very material^ and for this Reafon, becaufe, we are enquiring, not into the Pradice of a particular Church or two^ but of the ancient Catho- lick Church, that we maybe able to diftinguifh///- gular unwarranted Notions, from truly ancient and wen-grounded Catholick Traditions and Yrallices. This Council was but Provincial ^^ it fays nothing about any former Catholick Tradition or Pradtice ; it fpeaks of no general Cufiom then in Ufe about this Matter, at the time of 'its SefTion •, it was never received into the Code of the Catliolick Church, as confonant to the Senfe of the Catholick Church \ and therefore has nothing in it ot fuffi- cient weight to convince us, that this Canon is a Teftimony of the General Pradice of the Church in thofe Days. We muft have more than one fingle Provincial Council to ihew us the General Pradice of the Ancient Church : And after all, even if this had been a General Council, it would not have determined, that all Lay-Chriftians, as filch, have in themfelves a Right to Baptize, in Cafes of Extremity ^ w^j, it would not have fo much 62 Tejl monies for and agamfi Part IL much as Authorized or Impower'd all Baptized Lay- tnen for that Purpofe, becaufe it do's not Autho- rize Bigamifts-, much lefs would it have Authorized Schifmaticks, who feparate from their Bifhop's Communion : And therefore, the pretended Bap- tifm, given by Perfons who never were at all Commilhon'd to Baptize, and who attempt to give Baptifm Ordinarily^ without the leaft appearance of Neceifity, and this even in Oppofition to, not only fome particular Bifhops, but the Divine Right of Epifcopacy it felf ^ I fay, fuch pretended Bap- tifms would not have had the leaft Countenance from this Council, if it had hQQ\\2.GeneralO?7e ^ and therefore, certainly, fince 'twas but a Provincial cne^ thofe fpurious Baptifm s, can upon no account whatfoever, be favour'd by the Canon of that ^panijh Council, even if Bifhops could, by a Canon in Council, Authorize or Impower their own Lay- Communicants to Baptize, which, it has not yet been prov'd that Bifliops can do ^ and I do not trouble my felf to enquire whether they can or cannot •, it being foreign to the prefent Controverfy, which relates to thofe who were never at all fup- pos'd to have been Authoriz'd by Bifliops. § XVIir. The Reverend Hiftorian's Third In- ftance, is taken from the Story of Bo3^s Baptizing in Play at the Sea-fide, in the days of Alexander Bifhop of Alexandria ; and he introduces it thus : " Whilfi this Matter [of the Spamjh "^i^o-^s in the Council of E liber is ^ their making a Canon to Au- thorize fome of their Lay-men to Baptize, &c.'] " was this determirid in the Wit% there happen i " another fa?nous TranfaSion in the Caff, '^Mch *' drew on a \i\\t DftemUnatlOlt in the Church ^'s Account of this Storr,hc tonk it from Rufnus-., and therefore is no additional Evi- * ^tM\\xicor,cernin?,iheU^tmi\Vntvgiof%oz\zXt% ardSoZQ- men, pei^xd to their EcdefmirtcAl Biihry. t Du Pin's Ecclcf. Hjft. Cent. V. p. !o3. ^^tc>■ {h) Ad {^IJ °" ' F 2 dence 68 Tejlimonies for and againfi Part IT* dence for the Truth of it, fo that it ftill ftands on^y upon the ffrfl: Foundation which liiijinus laid 5 and what that is, will be fomething more difco- ver'd, by what I have farther to lay concerning Socrates Scholafticus : In the mean time, we have no more reafon to regard this Story, for Sozoinen\ having tranfcrib'd it hom Rufinus^ than we have to efteem other Trivial and Childifh PalTages which are found to occur in feveral Places of 5^^<^w^/7^s Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, and which he might probably have taken from other Writers who followed Con- jef/ures, in their Relations, and for that reafon were often miftaken ^ of this fort, of Trifling and Childifhnefs, is, "^ " his Digreffio/7, in his ift Book, "' concerning the Building of the G'/^'Hemona ^ and '' concerning the Argonauts Carrying the Ship Argo *' on their Shoulders feme furlongs ^ alfo his De- " fcription ^/Daphne without the Walls of the City " Antioch, which occurs at Chap. 19th of his 6th " Book ^ ^777^ that Obfervation of his^ concerning the " Beauty of the Body, where he treats of that Virgin " zioith whom the blcffed Athanafius Ahfconded a long " while? All w^hich, betray what Judgment he had, as an Hiftorian, and make him to be lefs valuable, in that refpcd, than Socrates Scholafticus was. For this latter, in colleding his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, has f '' made itje of a jingular SuDlCIOUf^ '' nrfjs nun Diltuence : Uis judidoufnefs is ma- " nifejhd^ by his Remarks and Sentiments inter- '*' woven everywhere throughout his Books. *' lie judges incomparably well^ both of Men^ and "^ and alfo of Ecclefiaftical Bufincfs and Affairs, " There is nothing in him but what is ©,2iltJ€ tlllD * Valefius, ofthi Life and Wrh'wgs o/Socratcs andSozomtu. t Ibid, CC Ci O Chap. ^. L^^j-Baftifwy ExaT^^rPd^ &c. 69 ©CClOtlS i nothing that you can expunge^ as Super fluot/s ^ but^ on the contrary^ Jome ?u\]'jges occur in Sozomen, that are Trivial and Chi/d^fh. Socrates'i" Di/igence is- declar d by 7nany in- *^ fiances ^ chiefly by this, in regard he frequently '^ annexes a Note of the Times, that is, the Confu- " /ates and Olympiads^ efpccially where he 77h'ntions " fuch Matters as are more momentous, 'Nor has " he Carelefsly or Negligently written his ITijlory, us " Rufinus did, who (as has been obferv'd before) ''' fee?ns to have composed his Two Books of Ec- " clefiafticalHiflory zvithout looking into any *^ Records. Our Socrates did far otherwife ^ for " having jrom all places got together the Bej\ Menu- ^^ ments^ that is, the Epiftles of Prelates, the Affs ''' of Synods^ find the Books cf EcclefiajVical Writers^ ^' agreeable to their Authority^ he compos'^d his *' Hijhry. This Diligent and Judicious Ecclc- fiaftical Hiftorian is brought in by Mr. Bingham, to vouch foi: the Truth of Rufinus's Story, of Mr. Btngha^ns jf amOU9 CranfaitiOn, oFBaptifm by Boys at Play at the Water-fide ^ Mr. Bingha?H names Socrates no lefs than twice, as an ancient Hiftorian who may challenge our Belief of this Story ^ for he fays, before the beginning of it, That '^ There happen d a Fa?nous^ Sec. zchich drczo "^ on a Determination^ &c. // we may give " credit to any of the Ancient Hiftorians, S>U- " CratCgj&c. w/;^aH EelatC/V," pag. 29 : And then, after the Conclufion of this Story, he fays, '• Socrates, Sec. have the fame Story,"' pag. ;t. and is fo particular, as to refer us to Socrates\ tccle- fiaftical Hiftory, Book i. Chap, i^ ^ For my part, I am confounded at Mr. ZJ;a?^ /^^;//'s Pofitivenefs in this Affertion, and wonder at tlie Greatncfs of hi$ Miftake in fo plain a Matter, (if it be indeed a F 3 Miflake 70 Tejtimonies for and again fl Part IL Miftake in a Man fo much converfant in Eccle- iiaftical Writers as Mr. B'mghcjm is. ) However, I will not aggravate this Slip, left 1 fliould thereby make mj'-feil'guiltjr of too levere a Cenfure : But this I am certain of, that Sccrntes Scho/ajiici/s fays not one word of the Boy Athannjius's Baptizing other Boys^ nor of A^exundcr the Bifliop's determining, that thokfup- pos'd Baptized Children ought not to be Baptized again. I fay, Socrates has iK>t one v/ord of this in all his Hiftory : And that the Reader may fee that I do not wrong Mr. Bi/^gham^ I will here tran- fcribe from the i^th Chapter of the iftBookof Socrares's Ecclefiaftical tiiftory^ all that lie relates concerning Athanafws\ Play at the Water-fide, and of the Notice v/hich Biihop Alexander took of it ", and 'tis this : " Upon the Death ^/' Alexander B'lfhop ^/Alexandria, Athanafius was promoted to *^ the Frefidency over that Church. Rufinus relates^ That this Ferjon^ when he was very youngs did^ together with thoje that were his equals in Age, ply at a kind of an Holy Sport ^ th:^ Flay zvas an Imitation of the Sacerdotal ¥untiion^ and of thoJe Ferfons Order that were Clergy- men ^ in this Sport, there/ore, Athanafius wa-i^ eleaed Bifhop^ and every one of the reft of the Children atled either a Fresbyter or a Deacon, This Sport the Children playd at^ on that Day zvhereon was celebrated the Memory of Peter the Martyr and Bifiop, Alexander Bijhop of Alexandria accidentally pajjing by (It that time^ faw all their Flay •, and having ajterwards font for the Children^ he enquired of them^ what Flace had been allotted to every one of J hem in the Flay^ f^tppofing^ that from what had been dose^ Jomcthmg might be portended \joncernwg each of them {\ and he gave Order^ '' that Ci Chap. J. Ltij-Baptifin^ Examhi*d^^c. ji ''^ that the Children Jhould be ediuiitcd in the Churchy " iUid inJirucJed in Learning^ but jnoft efpccidlly Athanafius. Afterwards^ when he zvas cowc to " a mciturity of Age^ he Ordain d him Deacon^ and took him along zvith him to Nice, that he ?;/ight " ajjlft him in the Difputations there, at Jiich time " as that Synod was Convened. Theje 'Things Ru- " finus has related concerning Athanafius, //; his *^ Books [of Ecclefiaftical Hiilory •,] nor is it dt all ^' unlikely that thefe things happen d^ for many fuch- ^' like Ads arc frequently found to have been done, " Thus 7nuch we have hitherto /aid concerning " Athanafius. Thus idx Socrates., and he has nothing more re- lating to this Matter : So that we may phiinly fee what part o^ Rufinus's Story he had reafon to be- lieve, and hand down to Poflerity, and what part he reckoned not to be agreeable to Truth •, he lays, in his ^ Uificry^ That he " makes ufe cf thcje ^'' Palfages, in the Relation whereof Rufinus IjiltlJ " nOtfO^faUentljeCtUtlj/' plainly intimating, that Rufinus^ in fome PafTages of his Ecclefiaftical Hijfory, had forfaken the Truth, and that he would not make ufe of any fuch his falfe Pailages ^ and therefore, in his Tranfcripts from Rufin/zs, what Socrates omits in his Hiftory, which Rufnus relates in his, may be look'd upon as falfe, or at Laffc not well attef}:ed, in the Opinion of our judicious Socrates ^ and fince Socrates has wholly omitted the Story of Athannfims Baptizing the Boys in Play, and alfo of Alexanders determining, that they ought not to have their Baptifin repeated, 'tis a jfign that he reckon d this part of the Story to be ^ Bosk 2. Ca\ I. F 4 one ^2 Tejlimonies for and againjl Part IL one Inftance of Rufinus's forfaking the Truth, and confequently, that he did not beheve it, and fo would not ftufF his Hiftory with fuch an odd improbable Relation. The Author of the Life of ^t, Athanafinsy (ano- ther of Mr. Bingham s Hiftorians) in Photi//s, is an unknown Writer. Fhoti^/s does not fo much as guefs who he was , and therefore, tho' he has the fame Story, yet being an unknown Author, his Evidence is of no weight in this Matter, efpe- cially if we confider, that he is fo fingular in one part of this Story, as to reckon, that what the Children did in their Play, was done by DlSlHC ^3|nflUiCt 0|31nfpii:atlOn. Avery extraordmary Addition this to Rujinus's firft Story, and which betrays the Credulity of this unknown Author, who- ever he was : Belides, if what he fays be true, it vvill follow, that this Baptifm was Authorized and Commiflion d by God himfelf, being done by a 'Divine Inftinff^ and fo fpoils Mr. Bingham's Defign in quoting this Story. But this, of a Divine lnflin[i m the Boys, none but thofe who give credit to idle Fables, will ever believe. Another of Mr. Binghd?ns fuppofed Vouchers for the Truth of this Story, is Johannes Mo/chus^ p:ig. 31. But fure our Reverend Hiftorian is hard pnt to it for good Evidence, when he ftoops fo low, as to make ufe of fuch ridiculous Authors as this Monk, who, in that very Book which Mr. Binghatn quotes, [viz. Mofchus Fratim Spir.'] ''' relates *'• many grange Stories and Miracles that drferve little *' credit^ (as Du Fin tells us j) for Inftance, in his * Alexander ad fevocat, auditque non illos facra irrififTe, fed ut ex e>entii co\]\guS feciffi Divino quod^m lajlinlh^ &c. Photii KibliotlL Ccd. 25-3. pag. 145c, 4Sth Chap. J. Laji'Baptifm, Ex^^miyPd^i^c. J 7 45th Chapter, he lays, " A llecluje promjci the " LVu/V, he would adore the Virgin s Image no tnore^ *^ to he delivered from his Temptation^ and that he *^ was reprovd by his Elder j or doing fo. In the 47 th, he relates, " That the Virgin having Appear d twice to a Jefter uttering impions Speeches agamji '' her^ and having zvarn'd him to do Jo more, but to " no purpofe, Jhe Appeared to him the third time^ " and that having fignd his Hands and Feet with the " Sign of the Croj):, he found himfelf^ when he " awoke ^ without Hands and Feet. In the 79th5 '' That a Catholick^ being Servant to a Scveriaii, " having left with his Mafter the Key ofhh Cheft^ " where he had laid up the Euchanii in a Linen- " Cloth^ the Mafter having drjlgnd to Burn it^ be- " caufe his Servant did not come back, found that " the F articles of the Eucharift had brought forth '' Ears of Corn, In the 196th Chapter, he re- lates, ^' That fo7?ie Children of the Province of *' Apamea would needs reprefent the Celebration " of the Holy Myftcnes^ and that having chofen one ^' of them/elves to perform the Office of a Prieft^ " and two others of Deacons, they fet fo77ie Bread " upon a Stone ^ and that he that ailed the Prieft did ^'pronounce the Words of Oblation, zvhich he had " gotten liy heart. • That having thus per- '' formed all the Ceremonies, before they brake the " Bread, to give the Communion, Eire care down ^' from Heaven, which confumed the Oblation, and " the whole Stone whereon it was laid. That the *' Bifl:iop of the Place^ hearing of it, built a Alona- " ffery in that Place, and made all thofe Children *' Monks. To this Example, he adds that reported " *);Rnfinus, of the Bapt/fm /y Sr. Athanaims, who ^*^ zvof then but a Child, tofome other Children. And in the aoyth, " There is jnention made cfTzoo " Angels 74 Tefiifuonies for and. againfl Part IL " Angeh who flood Surei-les for a Girl which had a " wind to he Boptizd. The fame Book is full of an infinite number of Relations and miraculous ftrange Stories of Appa- ritions, Revelations, Yifions, and Miracles faid to be wrought by Hermits, by Fore-telling Things to come, Difcovering Mens Thoughts, Commanding Lions and Wild Beafts *, when Dead, fpeaking to the Living from their Graves •, and fuch-like fabu- lous Trumpery : Among thofe Whims, Rufinm\ Story is alfo related. And let the Judicious de- termine, whether this Johamies Mofculus^ a Monk of the yth Century, fo ioolillily Credulous even to Superftition, can give any Reputation to the Story before us. If this muil be our Way to get at the General Fra[iice of the Primitive Church, and we refolve to ttUfi to fuch Legendary Writers as Johannes Mofchiis^ we fliall foon return again to all the Corruptions of Popery : For, where fliall we flop, when we follow fiich Dreaming, Yifionary Guides, as he was } Mr. Bingham tells us. That Ntcephorus O/iftus relates the fame Story : Upon this, one vv^ould have thought, that Kicephorus gives us a particular Ac- count of It :, but when we look into his HiRory, there WQ find, that after he has told a Story of a Jew^ Bap- tized with Sand inftead of Water, in aDefart Place where no Water was to be had, and of his being after- wards commanded to be Baptized witli Water ^ he then adds only this^ ^ '' Wflories fay, that fome- shing like this happen d alfo in the time of the Great Athanafius. " This is all that 'Nicephorus fays. * Nkr^h C'llif}. Erclef. H'lfl. lib. V ca\t. 37, Pms i6;o. Si.nile quidd.:m accidilTe etiam Tub Athanaiio magno Hiftoria? tradunt. And Chap. J. Lay-B'ftifmj ExcmirPd^ S^c. 75 And how can it be affirm'd, that " Nicephorr/s '' CaliJ}us relates tije fame ©tO^p, when he only fays thofe few Words > And whiit he fiiys, amounts to no Relation of the Story at all •, imce nothing of the Boy Athamifiuss Baptizing hjs Play-fellows, 01 oi Alexiwder\ Dctcnninnig the Validity of this fuppos'd Ludicrous Baptifin, can be gathered from ]\jcephorus's Words, confider'd as they fh-md in his Hiftory, feparate jrom any oibcr that was written before him. Indeed, he does immediately add an- other Story of a Jew Boy, Baptiz'd in Play, by Chriftian Children, at the Sea fide near Conlhin- nople^ in his own Days : But then, if we confider that this Writer Kiccphorus Qilijlus^ a Monk of ConftafitinoplCj ^ liv'd and wrote in the \\th Cen- tury^ that he has mix'd his Hiftory with a great many irab!eS,andhasfairn into llUl HP i?3 (ltd UCg, (as the learned Du Fin informs us) 'tis ea/ie to ac- count for Nicephorus's relating fuch Stories as this ; and the ea/ie Credulity of a Vahiihus Writer in the i^th Century^ is but a /^^t)* Evidence for, nay, a Dif reputation to, the Truth of any Talcs of this nature. Mr. Bingham\ referring us to filCfj ^W- tl}O<20, for the Confirmation of Rujins St or}^ is no-ways anfwerable to the Charadcr he lias ac- quired among Learned Men \ and, for a Reverend Triejl of the Church of England to referr us to the Authority of fuch Fabulous Writers, as Jchannes Mofchus, and Kieephor//s Cali/h/s, in the Dar/: Ages of the Church, to convince us ot the Truth of an odd whimfical Story, which in its natural Confc- quences tends to the utter Abolition ot the whole Prieftly Chara(^er, if the Matter tliereof be allowed ^ Du ?lni Ecclef ffifl. Cent, xiv, pig. 87. Und. to 7 6 Tejlimonies for and again jt Part II. to be trUCj S\\% and tlgllt, is a wtxy ajlonijhing things and the Principle from whence it proceeds hard, if at all, to be accounted for, efpecially in a Man who doubtlefs, has given his Allent to the 2 1 ft and 2 2d Articles of the Church oj England^ which warn us againft trufting to Mens Miftakes, and ill-grounded iabulous Inventions in Matters of Religion, The Reader, I hope, will charitably cenfiire the Zeal of this Refledion, fince it proceeds from no- thing elfe but a neceflary Indignation, which all good Chriftians ought to have, againft Cuchfabulous Stories, as ftrike at the very Root of our Saviour's Holy Inftitutions. But 'tis time to proceed. Secondly^ We have no reafon to believe that there is any Truth in this part of the Story, fince it has fo little or no Credit among Learned Men : The Induftrious and Judicious Eccleiiaftical Hifto- rian Socrates^ a very good Judge, and Competent by reafon of his Abilities, the beft Monuments he procured from all Places, and the early Days he liv'd in, this Writer, fo well qualified, as I have before obferved, tho' in his Two fir ft Books he follows Rufinus in many tilings, yet, in his I ft Book, and 15 th Chapter, where he Copies one part of the Story from Rufinus^ he abfolutely paflc's over in filence the other part of it, about the Lu- dicrous Baptifin, and the pretended Determination relating thereto, as not worthy tlie Notice of him- felf, or his Reader ^ which certainly he would not have done, if he had believed that it was fo Famous a TranfaUion as Mr. Bingham calls it, and if he had found any fuch Determination of the Bifliop and his CLrgy about it, as our Reverend Hiftorian talks of ^ for Socrates fays of himfelf. That he makes " lefc of fuch Taffages^ in the Relation whereof " Rufinus Chap. J. Lay-Biiftifm^ ExmurPd^^c, 77 *' Rufinus hath not faj(ilkrn//j(? CrUtij." But a Man of Socrates\ Judgment and Knowledge was not 10 be imposed upon by the llngle Authority of only one fuch Writer as Rufinus^ and therefore, finding no better Authority than his, he does not follow him in this part of his Story, but wliolly leaves him, and thereby gives us to undcrfland that he had no reafon to believe it, and confe- quently, that it dcferves not the Regard and Efteem of Future Pofterity. And we find none of the following Ancient Fathers, or Counils, no, not even St. Auguftin himfelf, appeal to this Story, for the Validity of Lay Baptifm •, this latter efpecial- ly, who pleaded for the Validity of Baptifm, by who?Tifoever adminifter'd. In the Name of the Tri- nity, would doubtlefs have made ufe of the Au- thority of this pretended ""^ famous Trdnfatl'ion^^' if he had known of it, and belicv'd it. If he did not know of it, the Caufe mufl: be its great Ohfcurity\ and the little, or rather no notice whicli the Church took of it ^ this argues its Worthlefsnefs : If he knew of it, and did not believe it, and fo would not appeal to it, 'tis an argument that it had then no eftablifhed Credit, and might therefore juflly be neglected by him. There is another fort of Men who rcjecl: this Story as a Fable, and who cannot be fufpccted to have any other Motive for fo doing, than an im- partial love to Truth, and they are fome Learned Men of the Communion of the Churcli of Rome^ whofe love to Truth, makes 'em, in fome Inflances, forget their Partiality for the Corruptions of that Church, and even Defpife fome Fables, the Belief of which would conduce very much to the fecming Reputation of their Erroneous Pradlxes. This very Story of Athanafius^ if it were true, would add very 7 8 Tejlimon'ies for ani again jl Part IL very mucli ( in fome Mens Opinion ) to the Repu- tation of Baptifm by Lay-men and Woinen, taught in that Church : And yet the heft Judges, even among them, are not hereby tempted to own this Fable tor a Truth, but, on the contrary, thejr efteem it to be but a Fidtion, becaufe they find no Marks of Truth upon it. Mr. Bingham is not fb kind to his Reader, as to difcover any of thefe Oppofers of that Story •, 'twould have fpoiFd its Credit if he had, and therefore I fhall here pro- duce fome of their Teftimonics againfl: it. The Learned Du Pin^ Dotlor of the Sorbon^ calls it, ^ '" A Story — • very hnprobable^'^ and that '^^ it '' P'lO^^s among Learned Men^ rather for a Fable than *' a ''Criltlj) and gives good Reafons for the Im- probability of the Truth of it, which I will fhew by and by. The Learned Monks of the BenediSi/i Order tell us alfo, t That " it labours under very '' great Sufpicion among Learned Men *, '' and thefe Monks likewife ihew Reafon why this Story do's not deferve TiIIj Credit. And fhall the Judiciouf^ nefs and Impartiality of Fapijls^ fland in Compe- tition with the Judgment and Integrity of Fro- teftants ^ Will the Rejorm'd defend a Story, which [if true] favours Fopery^ when Fapifls themfelves Ihew the Improbability of the fame Story > God forbid ! 'Tis well we have alfo had the Evidence of thofe who have Reformed from Fopery^ fuch ^ Du Pin'j Hijlor) of Ecdefiafiica Writers, Century IV. p. 28. Lond. 1656. t Verum hxz Rufini Hifloria grandi apud eruditos laborac fulpicione. Vita J. Aihan. Oper.i ^ StuJ'u Aiomcborum Ordinh as Chap. 5. La)~Baftijmj Examined, &c. ncj as Spanheini^ our Learned Dr. Cave, * as in the Margin, and Others, againft it ^ otherwile, the Fdpifis (as Tilings go at this time of day) might have reproach'd ns, tor being as great Favourers of Idle Fab/es and Stories to fiipport our own Fancies as we charge them to be, in the Defence of their Corruptions. But, Thirdly^ The Circumftances of the Story it felf are fuch, as that it defervcs not to be credited^ for the Time and Place, in which this fportiveBaptilm, and the Ratification thereof, is fiid to have hap- pened -, viz, in the Time of the Epifcopat ot A/cx- ande}\ and in the Church o^ Alexandria^ betray the unlikelihood of it : For as the Learned Du f Fin has obferv d, " i^, Tim Story of Children Baptized z^)' Athanafius [in his Childhood] do's not at all agree with the Difcipline of the Church ^Alexan- dria tipon the Subjeli of Re-baptization^ and 'tis a thing unheard of that it Jhould be approved of or " that anp COlllfl approve a Baptifm of this Nature^ ^ Mitto qua? de eo adhuc pucro Fpifcopi perfonam inducntc Eaptifmunique per facram quendam Ludum rclebrantc, vuI«o narrant. Fabulam certe efi":-, 8c nunc, & olim fuipicatus fum. Primus hanc Hirtoriam extulit Rulinus, fcriptor nir.us creJulUf^ quique hscc ex folo audicu refeit, ipfc a re gefli inregro pent* fk'culo remotus : Nee leve pra;judiciuai \\^£r'\ debet, rem aJcL> memorabilem omnes hujus a.vi Icriptores lacuilfc, neminemqi ante Ivufinumde eo vel verb'dum inaudivilfe, ncque alia dclunr, qux idem ru:;deant argumenta, modo his immoiari veDcm. HijK Literatia AutoreGuiUCave S S. Theol Picjcf. Vol. i. />. 141, i 42. Ths whole Evidence u fomded upon i':e fmgk Autho ity of Ruti- nus, nho 'tU pliin was tke prft Repoitcr cf ths Story, 4 /v^an infi- nitely carele/s in his Accounts ofTun^s^ and nho took. «P ^hit, onlf at .1 popular Tradition, at near &n hundred Texn dilian.e from ths Tvirg it felf. Cave's Lives ot the Primitive Father-, Vol. 2. p. 72. t Du PinV Hif\ory of Ecckfia(\tcal Writers^ Ccr.tury IV. p. 2% Note (d.) as CC So Tejilmomes for and again fi Part II^ ^'' as Alexander of Alexandria k fuppos'd to have '' done. 2dly, It do'^s not agree with the Age of '' St, Athanafius : For Alexander wa^ not ordain d " Bijhop of Alexandria, according to the Teftimony " ^/ 5/. Jerome, until the Tear ^ii. and St.Kxh^nd.- " lius, being ordain d Bijhop in 326, was not^ in *^ this Interval^ of an Age to play Juch little Franks. And tho it were fuppos'd, againji the Authority " of St, Jerome, that Alexander was ordain d in 31^. " tlm would not remove the Difficulty-^ for it cannot ^' be faid^ that St. Athanafius playd at thk Sporty " when he was abOtlE 10 0^ 12 Tears old-^ front " whence it would follow, that he was ordain d Bijhop ^' at the 2$th or 2-jth Tear of hi^ Age\ which is not ^' very probable. '' Baronius places Alexander in that See, either in 310 or 311. tlw^l Athanafms m the Year 326, 15 or at moft 16 Years after ^ and cites The odor et^ /. i. ^.26. and Athanafim himfelf, ApoL 2. According to which Account, if the Story were true, he muft have been a very young Bifhop, not above 25 or 26 Years old at moft, which does not agree with the Church's Difcipline in thofe Days: Nor could he poffibly have made fuch a Figure in the Council oiNice, convened A.D. 327* as he plainly did. Socrat. /. i. r. 8. and T^^^^^r^-r. /. I. 0.2$. See alfo G. N'az. Orat, 21. p. 380, 381. Nay, by the Calculation of the Learned Benediclmes^ t in their Account of St. Athanafius^ Life, when he is faid to haveplay'd at this Sport, he could hardly be lefs than Eighteen Years of Age ^ and how a Youth of thofe Years, and fo folid as Athanafius f Etfi enim per Athanafii sctatem minime rcpugnaret ejuf- modi Lufus, quod baud tjcile tamen concedaturde adolefcente, cui ex memorvJtis fuperius, vix minus iucdcviginti annorum turn adjcYi^'Uv.mHU was Chap. J. Lay-Baft ifm^ Exami/Pd^ 8cc. 81 was, could be guilty of fuch childlifhnefs, let any one [n his Senles judge. Add to this, that Alex- ander the Bilhop (as thofe Learned \\ Monks have obfeiVd) " was not fuch a Man as would have " efteeni'd Childrens Sport to be good and vahd in " fo weighty and ferious a Matter as this is. '2,d/)i, The very Words of R/^//7///'s Story jhew, that he himfelf could not rely upon it ^ for notwithlland- ing, that by way of Preface, he fays, he'll relate fome tew things of St. Arhanajius as he received them " from thofe wholiv d and conversed voith him : " Yet, when he comes to Alexander sfuppos'd Deter- mination of not re-baptizing the Children, lie feenis either not to have received it from tliofe wlio were fo converfant with Athanafufs^ or elfe to douht of the Truth of it • for he do's not faj^, that Alexander determined: No, he does not venture to be i\y po- iitive^ but thus, " l)Z IjQS fatO to have determined^ " that the Baptifm ^ ought not to be repeated'" The very Language of a Man who tells a Story, the Truth of which he is not fure of, and the Vouchers for which he dare not wholly rely on: And yet, notwithflanding this Uncertainty of Rufin//s him- felf, about the great Thing we are fcarching into, viz. Bilhop Alexander\ Determination, Mr. Bing- ham endeavours to make it pafs for a ''genuine " Piece of Hiftory,'' pag. 31. And indeed, if the Determination it felf be not genuine, all the reft of the Story is of no Confideration in this Debate 5 for what does the Play of Children Hgnifie, be it of what fort foever, fo long as the Governours of II N'on U etxt Alexander ({ui tarn fcria in re, Lkdum puerorum futum haberet. Vita S. Athan p* ^• * Stati^iffe tridituf, illi$^ &c. tttrari Baptifmuyn non debcrt, flufin. Ecckf. Hift. ut fupra. G the 82 Teflimonies for an^ again ft Part IL the Church make no grave and ferious Determina- tions about it > Our Rufinus, the firft Author who pubhfh'd the Story of Athanafius's Play, do's not venture to relate Alexanders fuppos'd Determina- tion as a thing certain-, he feems to have fome Fears, that fuch an odd unprecedented Determina- tion, was not very likely to be made by fo grave a Bifhop ^ he would not rilk his own Reputation fo far as to vouch for the Truth of it, but refers us to others for that [and they alfo are unknown] " traditur flatu'ijje : " " He is /aid to have deter- " mwd " a forry Proof for '^ an authentic k Piece " cfHtflory/' when the original Hiftorian himfelf hands it to us in fuch uncertain, doubtful Terms. Mr. Bingham fays, " If is fome Confirmation^ that *' Knfinfays^ he had it from the Mouth ofthofe who *' convers d with Athanafius,'' pag. 31. But Mr. Bing- ham muft prove that Rufin fays. He had Alexander s Determination of not Re-baptizing, from the Mouth of thofe who convers'd with Athanafius, This do's not at all appear ^ for Rufin do's not conclude his whole Story with telling us, that he had all the preceding things from the Mouth of tliofe who con- vers'd with Athanafim : He fays nothing like this at the End of his Relation. Before the Beginning thereof indeed, he makes a fliort Preface to inform his Reader, after he had fhew'd that St. Athanafu/s was made Bifhop of Alexandria upon the Deceafe oi Alexander, that he did not think it improper + to npeat fome few things concerning the Rife of + Venm non mihi abfque ordine viderur, pauca de hujus vfri [Sc. Athanafii] origine fupr^ repctere, & cujusa puero infti- tutionis fuerit, ficuti ab his qui cum ipfo litam duxerant accepi- mus ipemorarc. i^vfni ffiji, Ecclef, Lib. i. f. 14. St. Chap. j« Laj-Bcfptifmy ExamirPd^ S^c. 8 j St. Athanafius\ and to mention what fort of Edu- cation he had from a Child, as he had received \\\\ from thofe who liv'd and conversed with him. Here we fee, that what Rujinus hinifclf fays Iia received from them, was no more than a tew things concerning St. Athanafius\ Rife and Educa- tion from a Child: So that Bilhop Alexander's fup- pos'd Determination, of not Baptizing the other Children, having nothing to do with St. Athjnalufs\ Rife and Education, cannot be tairly fiid to have been received by Rufim/s^ irom tliofe Perfons who liv'd and convers'd with him. Mr. Bingham Ihould have let his Readers CeeRuJi/ius's Preface to the Storj, and alfo his Words towards the Concluflon thereof, that they might have been enabled to pafs a right Judgment, what Parts of the Story Rufinui referrg to, when he fays he had them from thofe who liv'd and convers'd with St. Atha^afu^ •, tor the Conclu- flon of the Story plainly difcovers thofe ^c\v things which he fays he had from them, and they are in fhort thefe, ^ " That Alexander order d Athana- '' fius, &c, to be brought up for the Service of the ''* Church'., That in a fhort time after ^ Athanafius " having been fufficiently inftru^Ied^ — zvas rejford " by hps Barents to the Biffoop •, That from that time " he was like Samuel, brought up in the Temple of * Athanafium vero, atquc cos quos ludus illc vcl Prcs'ntcros habere vifus fueac vel miniftros, convocatis parcntibus, {uh Dei obteflitione tr^dit HcckfiitfuaE nutriendos. Tarv.) autcm tempore cum a Notario inregre, & a Grammatico fuffici enter Atlia- nafius fuirfct inftruftus, continuo tanquam fidcle Domini com- mcndatum, ^ parentibus reftituitur S.ccidoti, a-' veluc Simiic! quidam in tempIoDomiui nutritur, & ab eo pcrgentc ad Pjtres in fencftute bona, ad porcandum poft fc Ephod Sacerdpule dcli- gitur. Rufm, HijL Ecd, Lib, i. c 14. G 2 the 84 Tefiimo^ies for and again ft Part II. *' the Lord I and that finally upon the Death of Ahx" " ander, he zvas ordained Bifhop in hpsjiead" Thefe are the kw tilings relating to St,Athanafim\ Rife and Education, which Rufinus fays he had from thofe who were converfant with St. Athanafim. And if Alexander^ fuppofititious Determination about not Baptizing the other Boys, can be prov'd tQ have an}^ necelTary dependance on St. Athanafius^ Rife and Education, then, it may be allow'd, that Vjifin fays, he received that alfo from thofe who were converfant with ^t.Athanafius: This does not yet appear, but the contrary, by Rufin/^'s faying of that Determination •, only " traditur ftatuiffe^ " tt l0r(ltQ^ That he determined ', ufing a more doubtful way of (peaking here, than he does, v/hen he fpeaks of the Rife and Education of St. Athanafim: Add to this, that Socrates^ who had St. Athanafius\ Books, together with the Affiftance of thofe who alfo were converfant with him, wholly omits this Paflage, tho' he had Rufinus\ Hiftory before him, when he tranfcrib'd fome other Parts of the Story from it. This confirms the Remark I made before^ that Rufira/!£ did not receive that PalTage from thofe who conversed with St. Athanafim \ for if he did, why fhould fo judicious an Hiftorian as Sccrcites^ difcredit it fo far as to refufe to Copy it from him } Mr. Bingham fays, " Adivit it were a fabulous •*' Report^ yet we wujl charitably believe of the ancient *' Uiftorians, both Greek and Latin, that they be- *' lievd thewfelves^ at leaft^ what they reported, "^ thatfuch a ?a[i had happened at Alexandria^ and '' if It had been contrary to the general Senfe and " Vraifice of the Church in their times, they would *' IjilttlP have related it fo plaufibly without pajfng ^^ fome Cenfure and ReHeUion on it ;-— — Which^ the ancient Chap* J* Lay-Bipttfmj Examin^d^ &c. 85 " ancient Hifionans having not done^ it vuy rcd- ^' Jonahly be concluded^ that^ at leaft^ they thought " the Determination of Alexander and h^s Council^ ^' to be agreeable to the general Senfe and Fratlice of " the Church^'' pag. 31,32. But in Anfwer to this, do's not Mr. Bingham know, that it is a common thing for Hiflorians to tran- fcribe from thofe who wrote before them, fuch Tranfadlions as they relate to have happened ^ and that Writers do often thus follow^ one another, not becaufe they beh'cve every thing they tranfcribe, but becaufe they would not have their own Writings to be accus'd, of omitting fuch Rela- tions, as others took notice of before them in their Hiftories of the fime Time? It is often enough feen, that this is the only Defign oifome Hijiorians, and that they leave their Readers to judge for thcm- felves, whether fome of their Relations be true or falfe, without paifmg anyCenfure themfelves upon the Things which they relate. But what if ancient Hiflorians did themfelves believe, the fabulous Re- IDorts they hand down to us> Do's it therefore fol- low that they thought tliofe Fables to be agreeable to the general Senfe and ?ra[lice of the Church > Where lies the reafonablenefs of this Confequence ^ are Hiflorians Thouglits always intent upon, and declaratory of, the Church's Belief and Pradice^ No fuch Matter. But it is pleaded, it the Fable " had '' been contrary to the genera! Senfe and Fra^ice of ^' the Church, they would IjatDlp have related it fa " plaufibly, without pajfing feme Cenfure and Ke- " flexion on it. This makes nothing tor the Mat- ter-, becaufe, what tliey would fjatCip have done is no Argument, finc.i we find many Writers have overcome tliis uvagmary Difficulty: For, the lame Superftition, eafie Credulity, or Heedlefncfs, that G 3 makes S6 Tejlimomes for and again fi Part IL makes Men to believe a ¥ahle^ which is contrary to Truth \ caufes them alfo to relate without any Cen- fure, fuch Stories as are et^en contrary to the gene- ral Senfe and. VraHice of the Church-^ and doubtlefs, 'tis from this corrupt Fountain, that feveral Churches have, in procefs of time, been overflow'd with Error and Snperftition, by firft not cenfuring new Fables that were ftarted contrary to the ge- neral Dodrine and Pradlice of the Church •, then fuffering them to be handed down to Pofterity, by Perfons of Note and Charader, till at laft the In- fedion has fpread fo far, as that Lyes themfelves have been firmly believ'd to be fubftantial Truths in thofe Churches.--— Mr. Bingham ihould not handle this Matter in fuch duhiDi^s Terms, as to fay, " Cftcp tUOtllD " l^arBlp have related it, &:c." 'Tis a Thing of too great Importance for us to be put off with fuch m- conclufive ways of arguing. Hiftorians have many times been fo carelefs^ as to relate, without Cenfu re and Refledion on them, feveral things which were even contrary to the general Senfe and Pratftice of the Churchy and this, whether they do it eafily or Jattiip, is no Matter, fo long as they do it ^ 'tis a Proof againfl Mr. Bingham\ way of arguing. I know 'twill be expeded that I fhould give fome In- ftances of this \ and therefore I will do fo, even out of two of the Hiftorians which Mr. Bingham has produced for the Truth of this Fable. Johannes Alofchms Fable related by him without any Cenfure, concerning Children's celebrating the Holy Eucha- rift, by the Hands of a Child, whom they chofe to do the Office of a Prieft,e^os being miraculoufly heaFd of a dangerous Diilemper, by being Baptiz'd lUitfj ^aull tor want of A\'atcr ia a defart Place, is no Argument, that he believ'd Baptizing with Sand^ or healing Dillcmpers thereby, was agreeable to tlie general Senfe of the Church : And if Johannes Mojchus^ and A7V^^j;?^'s Hiftorians, viz, the Author of the Life of St. Athanafius in Fhotius^ did not believe, that Alexanders Determination was made upon Mr. Bingham s Foundation •, for that Author, who- ever he was, ^ fuppos'd, that the ftory'd Baptifm hj the Boy Athanafius, was done by fome certain Dfi^ine Infpiration^ and he judg'd fo by the fup- pos'd Event, viz. Alexanders ordering the Chil- dren not to be Re-baptiz'd -, as if he thought, that Alexander had known of the Divine Infpiration, and that he confequently efteem'd the Baptifm to have been by God's Appointment, and therefore not to be repeated. What is this but a Suppofition, that the Baptifm was by Divine Com million and Authority? Nay, his judging fo by the fuppos'd Event of Alexander^ Determination, fignifies his Opinion to have been, th^t Alexander would not, or fhould not, have made fuch a Determination, if he had thought that the Baptifm had been done without the Divine CommilTion and Authority: * Alexander ad fe vocar, auditque non illos ficra irrlfiffc, fed Ut ex eventu CoUigas feciffe Divino quodam inftinftu. Photii. Bibiioth. Cod. 2j8. p. 1450. For Chap. J. Lay-Bafttfrn^ ExamirPd^ ^c. 89 For why {hould he fay, " That we may coUefl the " Baptifm to have been by Divine Infpiratwn^ from *' Alexander'! Determination about it 5 '' If he had believ'd that Alexander had Authority to make fiich a Determination concerning Baptifm perform'd by Perfons who never had any Divine Comnuiiion > Thus we fee, That there is no Ground to believe the Story of il/(fA-.7/7(/tv's Determination, [Not to Baptize the Children who were before fuppos'd to have been Baptiz'd by the Boy Athdnajius in Play, without any Divine Commilllon.] I (ay. There is no Ground to Believe this Story to have been agree- able, but rather contrary to the General Senfe and Practice of the Church ^ fince Rufinus^ the firft Publilher of it, relates the Determination as doubtful ^ not venturing to be pofitive about it. Socrates^ the more Judicious and Competent Hi- ftorian, utterly difcredits it, by not giving it any room in, but wholly leaving it out of his Hiftory, that part of it which he tranfcrib'd from Rujinus^ And the unknown Author of the Life of St. Athanafim^ xho he believes the Stor)^ of the Determination o'i Alexander, yet does it upon the foundation, of the Baptifms having been before done by Divine Infpiration ^ whicli, when true and certain^ is the fame as the Divine Commillion, and fo do's not favour Baptifms done without any Commiifion at all. All thefe, thus difcountcnancing the Notion oi Alexander s Determining Baptifm to be Good and Valid, when done without a Divine Commiflion, are fo many Evidences a^ainU this No- tion's being the General Senfe and ?ratlice of the Church •, and, together with all that has been (kid before, do abundantly betray the Story o[ Alex- ander's fuppos'd Determination to be no better than a meer Fable. Mr, 90 Tejl monies for and agamjl PartIL Mr. Bingham tells us. He believes '' There is no '^ Canon that does antecedently Authorize one Touth, " lDit()CIUt jOeCeffltp to Baptize another, pag. 32. But this Reverend Gentleman would have done us more Juftice, if he had alfo added, That there is no Canon at all for Boys to Baptize, even in Cafes of ffteateft 5I3eCf ITltP -, for his Words ftand fo loole, as to leave room for his Reader to believe, that there may be a Canon for Youths to Baptize in times of Necejfitj^ He fa3^s again, " As to the fa^ of Aih^mRus^ any '^ One will readily own^ that there wa^ neither Canon " nor Precedent ^ P£tib^p05 to warrant the 'Doing it -, *' and it would be ft range, if any fuch Canon Jhouid he '' made in the Church,'' pag. 32. But why mufl: we have this pttljilpS clapp'd in ? It is more fair, to let the Reader know CCVtailllj?, that there never was any luch Canon or Precedent at all : Thefe Pcrbapg'S are no fure Guides to Enquiring Perfons, efpecially in Cafes which require more pofitive Determinations. The following Words, indeed, are fomething more home, " It would he " fi range, if any fuch Canon floould be made in the Church. " This is very right -, it would fb : But why ? What is the reafon that it would be fo ftrange > The Anfwer is very eafie •, Becaufe it never was the General Senfe and Yra^ice of the Church ', She never had any precedent for it: This is the reafon why fuch a Canon would be a flrange thing. And now, is it not a fair Queflion to ask, W^as it not as ftrange a thing, for a Biihop to Ratifie, what it would liave been ftrange for the Church antecedenrly to Autliorize } Was it not wholly new and ftrange, for Alexander to De- termine tliat to be Valid, for which he had no Pre- cedent or Canon : For if there was no Precedent or Canon Chap. J. Lay-Bnftifm^ ExamhPd^ &c. 91 Canon for the Boy Athanofim\ Baptizing, (and it would be ftrange^ if any fuch Canon ihould be made.) Upon what foundation could Ale:Kander Determine the Validity of Athanafius\ Baptizing, when there was no Precedent of, or Canon for, fuch a Baptifm before \ and certainly, there was no Ex- ample of, or Canon for, any fuch Determination ^ So that, if Alexander had made the pretended Determination, it would have been a Novelty of his own \ and confequently, no- ways Agreeable to, or Declaratory of, the General Senfe and Pra- ftice of the Church. Mr. Bingharjis believing, that 'tis no eafie matter " to produce an ancient Canon ^ DirrCtlp tO COIt-- ^' ftOnt the fuppos'd Determination of Alexander^ " by Declaring^ That fuch Irregular Baptifms are ^^ utterly NuU and Void, thd" they have the Poftnate " Allowance of the Church where they are done^ " vohich ( he fays ) was the peculiar Circumftance " of the prefent Cafe^ pag. 323 ^3. is nothing at all to the purpofe : Becaufe, the Inftitution of Bap- tifm, and the Laws of the Church, by requiring Baptifm conffantly to be adminiflerM by One vefted with the T>ivine Commiffion, witliout making any Exceptions in favour of Baptifm by fuch as never had that Commiiiion •, do leave thefe ])re- tended Baptifms in the fame ffate, as the Inftitu- tion of Baptifin found them at fird, viz, in the State of Uninftituted Adminiftrations, /. e. wliolly Null and Void for the Purpofes of the Inftitured Miniftration ^ becaufe, no Miniftration whatfoever of Baptifin, could ever have been Valid for Chri- ftian Purpofes, but by virtue of aDivine Tnftitution ; and the Miniftration we are fpeaking of, was utterly deftitute of any fuch Inffitution, except Mr. Bing- ham can prove it to have been by Divine Infpira^ tion. 92 Tejlimomes for and again fl Part IL tion, as one of his Authors, we fee, fancied it to have been ^ and 'twas alfo without any Precedent or Canon to Authorize it, and fo had neither Divine or Human Law, whereby to determine its Validity. And, certainly, when neither God nor his Church, had by any Law, given Validity to fuch Adts \ The firfl: Determiner of their Validity muft have run a great risk of Prefumption, in pronouncing that Validj which neither God nor his Church had ever before declared to be fo : This would have been a Determination without any Rule •, And if fuch Determinations are fit to be made, and good and valid when done, then we fliall have no Se- curity for the Continuance of Divine Inftitutions ; lince Man's arbitrary Will and Pleafure, without any Law, may fubftitute fomething elfe inftead of them. It is not therefore enough for Mr. hing- ham to fay, that we can produce " no Ancient Canon " diredly to Confront fuch Determination, by De- " daring fuch Baptifms to be utterly jl5uU attO " flJOlDi tho" they have the V oft nate Allowance oj the " Church, For if the Canon of Holy Scripture, and alfo the Canons of the Ancient Church, do con- ftantly reftrain the Miniftration of Baptifm, to thofe who have a Divine Commillion, as they mofl: certain- ly do ^ this reftraining of the Miniftration to the Commiifion, is a Confequent Nulling of pretended Miniftrations, which are done by thofe who never had that Commilfion-, (as I have largely endea- vour'd to prove ^ elfewhere : ) And therefore, 'till there fhall be produced fome Law of God, or fome Canon of the Catholick Church, agreeable thereto, for the making Valid fuch Uninflituted * Dijfenten Baptifm Null and Void, 8cc Chap. J. Laj'Baftifm^ ExamirPd^ kc. 9^ Minifirat'ions ^ it will ftand good, that they arc Null and Void in themfelves : And how, or 1)/ what Law, either of God or the Churcli, any Fojl- nate Allowance of the Bilhop do's make them to be good and Valid, let our Reverend Hiftoriaii inform us, if he can, for as yet he has not. He fays, indeed, '' There ftXHl to he Two Ways " of allovoing any A3^ either by an antecedent Au- '^ thorny given to a Man to perform it ^ or^ by afub- '^ fequent Confirmation of the Thing, when done irre- " gularly and without Authority, which is, ex pofl " fa6to, an Allowance of it. And thus (fays he) *^ it is plain ^ the Baptifms given by AthanaiTus, ^' were Allowed and Confirm'' d by Alexander in the *' Church^'' pag. 2^, But here Mr. Bingham Is ?2ot Certain ^ he fays, *^ There ^CCUl to be *^ Two Ways of Allowing, " &c. This is not coming clofe to the Point ^ either there are certainly Two fuch Wa3'-s of Allowing Baptifin, or there are not : We muft have no Medium in tliis Cafe •, there is no contenting with S^ap-bC TSapUfmS, thofe who would be Jure of True Baptifin. If there iire really Two fuch Ways in the Church, of Allow- ing^ See. as Mr. Bingha?n fpeaks of, let him prove them ^ let him give good Rcafons why One of them, viz. the Allowing of an Uninft.tutcd Mini- ftration of Baptifm, by a Pofl- Fact, is Valid •, as, we are fure, Baptifm performed by virtue of an Antecedent Com^niffion, is ^ and then we Ihall have an end of the Difpute about the Conftant and Unalterable Neceflity of a Previous CommifTion. But, 'till our Reverend Hiftorian, or fomc other, fhall produce good Proof for this, we fhall ac- knowledge but One Valid Way in the Church of Allowing Baptifm, viz. by an Antecedent Autho- rity given by the Bilhop, to a Man to Baptiz.\ The 94 Tefiimomes for and again fi Part !!♦> The Other Way which Mr. Bi/igham propofes, of allowing Baptifm, performed without a Com- miiiion, " by a^fubfequent Confirmation of it, which (he fays) ix, ex poft fado, an Allowance of it^ " is a Power which none can claim but Chrift the Supreme Head and Sovereign of the Church, and thoie who have received that Power from him. Let Mr. Bingham prove, That Bilhops have received that Power from Chrift , and then alfo this Point fliall be given up to him. 'Till then, it is evident, that Bifhops are only Chrift's Deputies, and asfuch, are bound up to the Obedience of his Laws, and can validly act ( in this Cafe ) no farther than he has CommifiionM them : And fince the Commiflion for them to allow fuch Baptifms, by an After- Ad, do's not appear, we muft conclude, that it is not in being, and confequently, that they cannot Va- lidly allow of fuch Baptifms as are pertorm'd by Perfons who never were Commiffion'd to Baptize. '' And thus J 'tis plain ^""^ Alexander had no Autho- rity to Confirm the Baptifms faid to be given by the Boy Athanafius in Play. And in Fad, by what has been largely faid before upon this Story, he never did confirm this Suppofititious Ludicrous Baptifin ^ nor was it ever confonant to the General Senfe and Pradice of the Church, that he fhould confirm fuch a Baptifm. It is now high time for me to beg the Reader's pardon, for detaining him fo long upon the Reiuta- tion of this Fable. Mr. Bingham is fo very zealous for it's Credit and Reputation, as " a genuine Fiece '' of Hi ft cry ^ " and his Name and Charader are fo advantagious for the Recommendation of it, that I thought it well worth while to be thus copious, in difcovtiing the Weaknefs and Infufficiency, of the Foundation upon which, 'tis built, that Men may Chap. J. Laj-Baftifm^ ExamirPd^ZcQ, 95 may avoid the Danger of trufting and relying on it. I fhall conclude my Obfervations upon this Fable, by remarking *, That it it liad bt-cn a real Truth, If Athcwafius the Boy had Iportively Bap- tized his Play-fellows, and If Alexander the Bifliop had, by the Advice of his Clergy, appointed that thofe Children Ihould liave no other Baptifm ; yet, nothing to the Purpofe could be julHv and fafely inferred from it. For, i/?, We are feeking for the General Senfe and Pradice of the Church •, and this Act of OnC 15ifl)0p5 never once taken notice of by the Ancient Catholick Cliurch in Council, by way of approving it, or any thing like it, could not juftly have been faid to be the General Senfe and Practice of the Church, and therefore it would have been nothing to the purpofe of our Enquiry. 2^///, Neither could any thing have been fafely concluded from it; for the natural Inference would have been only this, T\\2Lt Alexander reckoned the fportive Baptifm performed by the Boy, in the Name of the Trinity, to be Good and Valid, even tho' done without any NeceiTity, where Priefts were to be had. Now, if Men will venture to affirm, that Alexander's fup- pos'd Opinion was juft and right, and that there- fore all fuch fportive Baptifms, are equally good and valid; and this they muft affirm, if they will maintain the other -, then it will unavoidably fol- low. That the facrcD nitu trcmcnnotid Juftitiu ttOUg of tfjC DCltp, and the moft profound Re- verence and Refpett which we owe to the Mediato- rial Authority ol our Lord Jefus Chrift, in the ap- pointed Miniftration of them, by thofe who bear his Comwilfion, will be of no greater Value and f:ftee?n, than Childrens Plav ; bccaufe, as the pre- fent Lord Bifhop oi Oxford has excellently well ob- fervd. 9<5 Tefi monies for and agdmfl Part II, ferv'd, " There is no ^ Majis and Minus, in the ^' Validity or Invalidity of Sacrament s^ which cannot *^ be partly Validy and partly Invalid. " And there- fore Chiidrens Sport and Play, in Imitation of Chriftian Sacraments, is advancM to an equal Dig- nity with the inftituted Miniftration of them ^ and what is this, but taking off our Obligation which we owe to the Divine Inilitutes, and making God's own Appointments to be but of a trifling Nature, fince all the World agrees in this, That the Play of Children, is no better j and that we are under no Obligation to their Sports and Paftimes. This is an unavoidable Confequence of the /uppos''d Truths and imaginary Right and Juftice, of the ftory'd Determination of Alexander : And how fafe and fecure it is, let all good Chriftians judge, when it cuts the very Sinews of all Divine Inftitutions, and carries on the accurs'd Defign of Atheifts and De- ifts, to reprefent all revealed Religion^ as needlefs, ridiculous, and childifli, and confequently to be defpis'd and trampled on by the heedlefs^ unthink- ing^ and deceivd Multitude, For my part, I would not ( to gain the whole World ) be concerned in propagating or defending Premiffes fo dread* fully dangerous^ in their Confequences : And I fincerely pray to God, that none of his A^nbaffa- dors^ who are by him intruded with the facred 'De- fofitum of his Divine Sacraments^ may ever profti- tute thefe ineftimable Jewels, nor caft thefe inva- luable Vearls before Swine^ \)j debafing the Mini- iiration of them fo low^ as to make the giving of them, to amount to no more in Worth and Value, than the inconfiderateVlay of filly Children. — But t Bijhop oj Oxford'; Cburge, 1712. pag. 14. not Chap. J. L(jy-Baptifm^ ExamirPd^ Sec 97 not to be farther prolix upon this Matter, thcStor/ before us deferves to be valued but as a Fiction ^ and if it had been true in Fad, would have been foolifli and r'ldiculom ^ and as fuch, highly un- worthy of being efteem'd, to have any the leaft Confonancy with the General Senfe and Practice of the Church. Thus Mr. Bingham is hitherto got no farther than the Council of E/iberis, and that alfo has nothing in it, that can declare the An- cient Catholick Church's Senfe, in favour of any Validity in pretended Baptifins, byPerfons who /jever were CommiJJion'd to 'B^^xize y (as I have before noted.) § XIX. About Fifty Years after this Council, we find its Canon to Authorize fome fort of Lay- Chriftians to Baptize, in want of a Prieft, was fo little known or taken notice of, by thofe who were 77ot of the Church (?f Spain, that Hildry the Deacon oiRomej who is moft reafonably fuppos'd, to be the Author of the Comments on the Epiftles of St. Pau/, bearing the Name of St. Ambrofe^ fays, concerning the Churches of his Time and Know- ledge, thus i ^ " I50UJ5 neither the Inferior *' Clergy nor hay-men are allowed to Baptize- The Inferior Clergy were but Lay-men, being inferior to Deacons, and having no Spiritual Power con- ferred on them •, neither thefe, nor any otlier Lay- men, we fee, were allow'd to Baptize in thofe Days, in the Churches that were within his know- ledge : He had a particular fancy. That at firft " the Apoflles Impowerd all Chrijiians to Preach and * Nunc • rcquc CJcrici vcl Laici Baptizant. Am- krof. Com . in Ephef. iv. p. c^-^8. H '[ Baf^ 98 Tefiimonies for and, againft Part II. " Baptize,"' This has been Anfwer'd in pag. 7, 8* Now, tho' his Evidence for what he fuppoles the Apoftles to have done, above Three hundred Years before liis Time, be not good, for the Reafons I have there given *, 3^et he may reafonably be admitted, for a Witnefs of the Senfe and Practice of the Churches of his own Time and Place, and he is pofitive as to thefe, that " Lay-men were not allowed *^ to Baptize,^' This is an Argument,that the Canon of the Spanifb Council of^ EHber^^mcide to Authorize fome fort of their own Lay-men to Baptize, in Cafes of Extremity, when a Prieft was not to be had, was not the General Senfe and Pra^ice of the Church in Hi/arys Days •, for if it was, the Church of Rome may reafonably be fuppos'd to have had the fame Pradice, and Hilary the Deacon of Rome may as reafonably be thought to have known of it, and fo could not have juftly faid, That in his Time Lay-men were not allow'd to Baptize : He makes no Exceptions for Cafes ofNecejJtty^ as if they were allowed to do it m thofe Cafes ^ and therefore we may conclude, That in the Churches of his Time and Knowledge there was no fuch Pradice as the allowing of Lay-men to Baptize, even in Cafes of Neceffity, nor any Canon to Im- power them to do fo. § XX. The next in order, who inftruds us in this Matter, but whofe Evidence is wholly omitted by Mr. Bingham^ is " Pacianus Bifhop of Barcelona, " no lefs famous for the Holinefs of his Life^ than '*' the Eloquence of his Difcourfe^ " fays St. Jerom. This holy Bifhop, in his Sermon of Baptifm ad- drefs'd to the Catechumens^ fets forth the Mifery of Man by the Fall of our Firft Parents, and proves. That we are all by Nature born in Sin ; then Chap. J. Laj'Baptifr//j ExamhPdy &c. yo then he proceeds to (hew the great Necefiity of our Regeneration, andNew Birth by Jefus Chrift: Says he, ^ " Are not we begotten by Chrift, that wc ma^f " be favd thro Him ^ • He Ihews how this New Birth was brought about, viz. in fhort^ By our Saviour's taking upon him, and uniting unto Himfelf, our whole Human Nature • By his Myftical Marriage therein to his Spoufe the Church ^ By the Defcent of his Holy Spirit^ the Celeftial Seed, upon our Souls, whereby we grow in the Bowels of our Mother the Church ^ and being born of her facred Womb, are quicken'd and en- liven d in Chrift. '' Thus t (fays he) Chnfl '* [perfuosSacerdotes] ftP 8l0P^iett0, begets Chil- " dren in his Church •, and the Spirit of God brings " them forth, at the Font^ [i.e. in Baptifm^ Manibus ^' Sacerdotis, by the Hands oftheVrieft, Then * Nunquid nos 21 Chrifto geniti fumus, ut propter ipfum falvi c{Te poffimus ? Novifllmis temporibus animdm utique cum came accepit Chriftus ex Maria, hanc vmit iaivam fa ere, hanc apud inferos ron reliquit, hanc Spiritui fuo con- junxit, & fuam fecit. Et hx funt nuptia? Domiri, uni carni conjundlx, ut fecundum Hind mni^num Sacrimcntum fiercnt duo in came una Chridus & Ecclcfia. Ex his Nupciis Chr:ftiana plebs nafcitur, veniente de fuper Spiritu Donr^.ini : ncftrarumquc animarum fubftantia?, fuperfufo & admixto protinus Scmcntc Coelefti, vifceribiis matris inolcfi-imus, alvoquc ejus ciTufi vjvi. ficamur in Chrifto. t Sic generat Chriflus in EcclcHa per fuos Sacerdoui. Atque ita Chiifli Semen, id eft, Dei Spiritus, novum Homineni alvo matris agitatum. 8c partu fontis exceptum, manibus Sacerdoii( eifundir, fiJe tamen pronuba. r Hdcc autem Complcri alijs nequcunr, nifi Lavjcri 8c Chrifmatis ^ Antifiim Sacramenro. Lavncro. n pccc.ua pur- gantur, Chrilmace Sandtus Spiritus faperfunditur, uiraquc vcro ifta, manu & ore Antiftitis impetramus : atque ita torus Homo renafcitur & innovMur in Chriflo. S. Pidam B,ircilonciijn Fpifcopi Sermo ad Fiddles Cdtechumtnos dc Haptijmo, Bibliotlf. Fatrum, Tom. 4. CoJon, p 247. H a fuinniing leo Tefi monies for and againjl Part 11. / fumming up the whole Matter, he exprefsl/ ! affirms, That " Thefe Things [i. e, our Regenera- " tion, and New Birth] CattUOt be accomplipd, '' any oiherwife than by the Sacrame?n ofBaptifm I '^ and Chnfm^ and. [the Miniftry] of the Bifhop. \ " By Biiplifm^ Sins are purged away ^ by Chrijm, \ " [/. e, Coniirmation ] the HolyGhofi is poured out i " upon us ^ and bOtfj t&Cft we obtain by the Hand j " and Mouth of the Bijlwp : And fO the whole Man \ *' is Born again and Renew d in Chrift. " From / which Words of this holy Biihop, nothing lefs can be colled ed than this, That he reckon'd, That the Regeneration and New Birth cfChriftians^ according to Divine Revelation, on which he founds his whole / DJicourfe) cannot be accompfiflyd by any other ;' Baptifm than that which is adininiller'd by One ■ having a Priefl/y Tower to Baptize : I fay, no lefs than this can be inferred from his "Words ^ i^, Be- caufe he makes it necejjaryfor us to be Regenerated hy Chrift himfelf. 7dly^ Becaufe he fays, Chrift do's this by his Frieds, i. e. fuch as have his Au- thority and Commiflion to minifter in this part of V his Prieftly Office, ^dly^ Becaufe he affirms, It I cannot be accomplifh'd otherwife than by the Sa- crament ofBaptifm and Chrifm, and [the Miniftry] €f tljC OBlfljOp, which plainly implies, that they muft both, in fome fenfe or other, be miniftred to us by the OBfiljIOp •, becaufe he fays, in the Words immediately following, that we obtain the 16C= nefitS of both {Baptifm and Chrifni\ " By the Hand " and Mouth of the 15itt^09^'' So that, according to Facianus^ the Baptifm muft either be miniftred hy the Biftiop himfelf in Perfon^^ or elfe [that it may be ftill by his Miniftry] it muft be by One, who is really Commiffiond^ Authoriz^d^ or Impowerd by him j which makes it to be the ISifl&Op'S Sct, and Chap. J. Laj/'-Baptifmj Examin^dy &:c. loi and confequentlj, to be Chrifi's^ whofc more imm^- dia/e Reprejentative he is. Thus this holy Father, without any Regard to (what foine call) Cafes of Neceifity, teaches us, That the New Birth cniUlOt be effeSed but by Epifcopal Bdptifm ^ he knevv of no other Way to accomplifh it, he affinns that there CcinitOt be any other Way , and this he teaches his Candidates for Baptifm, without giving them any hopes of ever attaining to this New Birth, (in the grcateft Extremity) with- out it. If in his Days the Church had any right fenfe of Regeneration, and a New Birth, to he effected by fuch Wafhings as are now performed by Pcrfons who never were at all Commiliion'd by the Biihop to Baptize, and whofe A6ts, confequently, cannot upon any account whatfoever, be truly faid to be the Bifhop s Miniftration, and therefore they are not Chrift's : I fay. If the Church had then hold fuch Walhings to be Good and Valid Baptifms, and had believ'd this upon good grounds ^ would lb holy a Bifliop as Vacianus^ have been fo bold as to have limited the Outward Means of our Spiri- tual Regeneration and New Birth, to EpjfcopaL Baptifm, &c. only ? If he had known of our modern Latitude^ and the Goodnefs and VdHdity thereof-, would he not, at leafl:, have encouraged his Catechumens fo far, as to have let them know, that in ahfence of a Priefl, they might be brought to this Second Birth by the Hands ot ar^y Lay- Chriftian whatfoevc?\ tho' he was never Conmiffioni to Baptize > Sure, if this had been the then Ge- neral Senfe and Pra^ice of the Church, was Pa- c'lani^ Biihop oi Barcelona ignorant of it > Or, if he knew it, would he have hidden fo ufcful a Piece of Knowledge from his Catechumens, and H 3 led 162 Tejl monies for and again [I Part II, led them into a contrary, and ( what fome of our Moderns call ) an Uncharitable Klotion^ That only Epjfcopal Baptifm^ and no other, can be a Means of our Second Birth > No, certainly, fo holy a Bifhop would never, in his Inftruding of the Ig- norant, have inftilVd an Uncharitable^ \ialfe Do- Urine into them, contrary to the Lawful^ General Senfe and Practice of the Church, if Baptifm, by tUgamfoeDa* Clj^lftiait perform'd, was then juftly efteem'd to be Valid, by the Church's Ge- neral Senfe and Pradice. Is it not rather evident, that Epifcopal Baptifm alone ^ was, in the General Senfe and Fraffice of the Church in his Days, the only Means of our Regeneration ? Do's it not plainly appear to have been fo, by his Inftruding fuch as were, before their Baptifm, to be taught the more necejfary Truths of Chriftianity, That this only was the Means of their Second Birth ? If any Baptifm with Water, and pronouncing the Form, Jn the Name of the Trinity^ had been Valid, as fome now fay it is, What need was there oi keep- ing Catechumens under fo long a Difcipline and Inftrudion as was then pradis'd, and telling them. That their Regeneration and New Birth could not be accomplifh'd '^ any otherwife than by the Sacra- *^ ment of Baptifm and Chrifm.^ a?id the Minifry of " the Bijhop ^ ' and that we obtain the Benefits of '*' TSCt^O tljCfe hy the Hands and Mouth of the '' Bifnop > If our Modern Notions had been true. Catechu* mens might have been Regenerated in Baptifm by a Shorter Way •, for the great Zeal they had, to procure asfoon aspoiiible this Spiritual Benefit, would have made 'em run to any other than an Epifcopal Hand for Baptifm, if they had been taught, that fuch Baptifm j^jasas good as the BiJJwps: They might have fav'd them- Chap. J. Laji'Baptifmj Exam'nPdy^c, loj themfelvres the Yenance of Long Delays^ Sec. imposed on them before they were admitted to kpifccpul Bjp- tifm ^ and might have obtain d the Long d- fur End of all tlieir Toil and Labour^ by another Baptifm in a much Shorter Time, and with k/s Fdins^ with- out fub?nittir?g to fuch appointed Preparations, and confining themlelves to the WiU and Fleafure oj the Bifhop^ for the Time of their Initiation into the Church oF Chrift, upon our Modern Schemes of Liberty and Latitude, But Pacianus and his Catechumens were not fuch Free-thinkers ; they were limit ted in their Opinions by Divine Lavos^ and Ecclejiaftical Confiitutions agreeable thereto ^ and fn Conformity to thefe^ that holy Bifhop taught, and his Catechumens beUev'd, (as thofe of other Churches, doubtlefs did, if we may juclge of their Belief by their pious Pra&ice, of fubmitting to thefe appointed Delays, and waiting patiently for Baptifm by the Bifhop s Authority) " That the ^^ Regeneration and New Birth oj Chriflians, cannot " be accompli fh'd any otherwife^ than by Epifcopal Bjp- *'' ti/m,"' &c. and that confequcntly, thofe IVafiings which are not Epi/copal^ are Incffedtive Adts, and not Means of Accomplifhing our Spiritual Regene- ration ; and therefore Null and Void for the Pur- pofes of Epif copal Baptifm : For if tlit-y are good and valid, then our Regeneration and New Birth can be accomplifh'd witliout the Bifhop's Baptifm and Chrifm ^ which is contrary to Pacianus\ M- fertion, who fays^ That " they cannot be aLCcmphJlid. " without 'em. § XXI. In the fame Century livM Optati^s Bilhop of Mlevis^ a City of Numidui in Africa^ whofe Opinion Mr. Bingham gives us in his 44th Page, thus •, '* Opt at us (fays our Hiftorian) H 4 '* thought 104 Tejiimomes for and. again fi Part II. " thought that Chrift gave a CommiJJion to his Apoftles *' to Baptize^ but yet not fuch an one^ as perempto- " rily annuU'd and evacuated all Bapti/ws that were " performed by any other. Our Saviour (fays ^' Opt at i^) gave Commandment in whofe Name ^' the Nations Jhould be Baptized : But he did not ^^ Determine, without Exception^ by whom they Jhould '' be Baptized, He faid not to his Difciples, This " flMllye do^and no other Jhall do it. For'^^\xA}{^Z\^tt ^' Baptizes In the Name of the father, Son^ and " UolyGhoft, fulfils the Work of the Apoftles. Optatus concludes, " That it was the Name of the ^' Trinity^ and not the Work of the Agent ^ that " Jan[lijies the Myftery -, and that the Minifters of ^' BaptTfm were only Labourers^ and not Lords of '^ the Action. ^^ This Quotation Mr. B/??^^^;;^ pro- " duces, to fhew that Optatm held, " All thofe to " have Baptifm, \X\^ZU^m\Mt or by toftattlfueaer '^ Baptizd.^ that had receivd it in Faith^ and with^ " out Dijjimulation, in that form of Words which is " prefcrib'd by the Gofpel, '' Sec. for Mr. Bingham adds, a little after thofe Words, thus ^ "^ Optatm " wa^ plainly of the fame Opinion^ p. 45;. Now, upon the reading of Optatus\ Words, if they muft bs taken in the full Senfe of his [^uifquis] flSlljO- t\Stt 5 'tis plain. That he utter 'd only his ovin private Opinion, and not the General Senfe and Fra^l'ice of the Church. For, iX The word i^uifquk'] aHIjOeSet, is of both Genders, and includes Women as well as Men ^ and fo if we take Optatus\ Opinion in the full Extent of his own Words, we fhall make him * Quif^uu in Nomine Patris FiJii & Spiritus Sanfti Baptiza- verit, Apoftolonm Opus implcvit. Oftit, contra P amen, lib.f, fag, CO. to Chap. J. Lay-Bt^ftifniy ExamirPd^ &c. 105 to have held, That Baptifin ordinarily peribrm'd by any Perfon, whetiier diiomau as well as Man, if done with the Ufe ot the Form, in the Name of the Trinity, was Good and Valid ^ for no lefs than this is included in the full Senfe of Optatms ^ifquis [Whoever, &c.~\ This Latitude, is con- trary to what Mr. Bingham acknowledges, viz. That " As to ordinary Cafes^ it is agreed on all ^' hands^ That Women were abjolutely forbidden to " meddle with any Ecclefiaftical Office^ and Baptifm " in particular,"' And Mr. Bingham as iairly agrees alfo, '^ That the Ancient Church did not allow *' them to Baptize in Extraordinary Cafes of extreme *^ 'Neceffity^'"'' p. 46. And, finally, he does not venture to Determine, that Baptifin by Women is good and valid, but leaves it '' /(? the Judgment " of others^ and farther Enquiry^'' pag- 49- And yet this Palfage ot Optatus^ [Whoever Baptizes^ Sec.'] allows of the Validity of Baptifm by Women, tho' the General Senfe and Pradtice of the Ancient Church gives not the leaft Countenance to the fuppos'd Validity thereof by Mr. Bingham's own ConfelTion. And, 2dly, Optatus's l^uifquis~\ Whoever, Sec. is of fo great a Latitude, That it admits of Bap- tifm to be Valid, tho' performed hv Unbaptiz'd Infidels^ Jews, or Pagans, whether Men, Women, or even Children, who were never Commilhond for this Sacred FuncHon ^ a Latitude fo^ver^ unac- countable, that Mt. Bingham confefTcs, 'tis ' One of " the Novelties of Fopcry,— \}.9S. mtttl)) without *' Precedent in the Primitive Church,'' pag. ico. And therefore, upon Mr. Bingham's own Principles, Optatus\ ^uifguis [Whoever Baptizes, &'c.] allow- ing of the Validity of Baptifm by Women, and alfo by Unbaptiz'd Infidels^ Jews, or Pagans, whether lo6 Tefiimonies for and againjl Part 11. whether Men, Women, or Children ^ was no-ways confonant to the General Senfe and fraSice of the Church, but a Novell Singular Opinion of his own, and therefore of no value in our prelent Enquiry after the Ancient Church's Catholick Tradition : And fo Optatus's Opinion is a perfedt Blank in this Difpute ^ bccauje his [Qyiifquis,] his Whoever Bap- tizes. &c. is ot fo unlimitted an Extent and Lati- tude^ as that it can no ways be accounted for in the Church's General Senfe and Fra&ice •—- — § XXII. But I am not fo uncharitable as to be- lieve that Optdtm was fo great a Latitudinarian as fbme of our Moderns reprefent him ^ I don't think that He would have flood by this fingular Notion which Mr. Bingham fathers on him, vii. That « Baptifm, \^l]tttiOtUt or by tDSOnifOeSet: ad- *^ mimftred^ is Good and Valtd^ in his pag, 45^. For tho' Optatus does uncautioufly fay, ^uifquis ~ — Baptizaveritj 8cc. Whoever Baptizes " fulfils the Work of the Apoftles ^ which if taken in an unlimitted Senfe, makes all Baptifm by Perfons never Commiliion'd, in Ordinary and Extraordinary Cafes, whether by Men, Women, or Children, Chriftians in or out of Communion with their Bifhop, Excommunicates, or Apoftates, Infidels, Jews, Turks, or Pagans, f^^^:. if done with the Form, In the Naniu of the Trinity, to be Good and Valid: Which Latitude of Baptifm by Women, Infidels, Jews, Turks, or Pagans, Mr. Bingham acknowledges, has no Precedent in the General Ssnfe and Practice of the Church, and the latter of Baptifm by Infidels, he calls " One of the Novelties " of Popery,'" 8cc. (as before obferved : ) Yet, I fay, to do fomething towards taking off the Reproach, which, by fuch a Latitudinarian Notion, is caft on this Chap. J. Lay-Baptifmy Exami/Pd^ 8.^'. lo^ this Bifhop, I Ihould charitably coniider the Oc- cafion ot his Words, and from tlience judge ot his Meaning by them : He was engag'd in Difpute with the DoM^nifts, a Puriianicu/^ Schifmatical Sect, who (tho' they retained Epifcopucy) fcparatcd from the Church, becaufe they reckon 'd the Catho- licks to be defied, and polluted^ and abominable^ not to be Communicated withal, by reaibn oi-'tlieir Communion with fome whom the Do/mtijis charg'd to have been Traditors^ to have yielded in tune of Perfecution, and to have delivered up the Holy Books into the Hands of the Heathen : Upon this account, they reckoned the Catholicks to be the Schifmaticks^ and that they were fo impure, that all their Ordinations, and other Miniftrations, were Null and Void ^ and the Do/id/i/fs^ in con- fequence of this falfe Charge, Re-baptiz'd all who came over to their Party, tho' they had been be- fore Baptized in the Church, by Catliolick Bilhops, Priefts, or Deacons. Opt at us ^ in the Book quoted by our Reverend Hiftorian, endeavours to convince the Do/iatiJIs, that if the Catholicks had been Schifmaticks, yet their Baptifm would be Valid notwithftanding, and therefore ought not to be repeated : In his Ihfi Book^ he wonders that Varmeman the Donafi/} fhould fay, (of the fuppos'd Schifmaticks, after this manner, ) t " How can a Man that is defii'd, *' cleanfe another by ajafje Baptifm ? How can an " impure Man punfie ? How can One that makes *' others faU^ lift up thofe that are fallen down ^ " How can One that is Guilty, grant Pardon ^ or '' One that is Condemn dy Ahjoive ? Optatus de- " nies, that this can be faid of thofe that are only t Dh ein\ Ecclef.HiJ}, Cent, iv. p. S3, 89. Lond. Schifma- I o 8 Tefi monies for and again fl Part If. *' Schifmaticks, who, as bethinks, may Lawfully *' adminifter the Sacraments. He tells Farme- man " ^ Schifm^ which breaks the Bond of Fence ^ is " begotten by Difcord, nounjh'd by Envy, and con- " firmd by Difputes ♦, th//s impious Children forfake " the CathoHck Church their Mother^ withdraw and ^^ feparate themfelves- — being cut off from the Church, " and become Rebels and Enemies : But they inno- '' vate nothing in Do^rine^ ftill retaining what they *' had learned from their Mother, "' And he con- cludes, That ^^ Schifmaticks have preferv'd the *' True Sacraments of the Church, tho' they are " feparated from its Body. " In his 5 th Book, the very Book from whence Mr. Bingham takes his Quotation, Optatus proves, that in the Sacrament of Baptifin, it is not abfolutely neceflary, '^ f that " the Minifter fhould be Faithful and Jufl: •, be- " caufe the Minifters are chang'd every Day, and " it is Jefus Chrift who Baptizes — - And the Ho- ^' linefs of the Minifter, do's not contribute " to the Holinefs of the Sacrament ^ juft as the Church of England teaches concerning "' || the IJnworthinefs " of the Minifter^ which hinders not the Effe [I of the " Sacraments : '' All which being duly weighed and confider'd, by a Man of a candid Temper, will in- cline him to believe, that Optatus's '^ ^ui/qups^ '' toljOeSet Bdptizes--- fulfills the Work of the Apo- files •, " was defign'd by him only to mean the Bap- tizers he was then difputing for, viz. the then Mi- nifters of Baptifin, whom the Donatifts reckoned to be Schifinaticks, and fo polluted, that (even tho' they were ordain'd Biftiops, Priefts, or Deacons) their Miniftrations were defiled by them, and upon * D« Pin's Ecclef. Bift. Cent.iv. p. 83, 89. t Ibid. p. 93. Und, \\ As in f:cr '2,6th Article, that Chap. J. Lay-Baptifm, ExaminU^ he. 109 that Account wholly Null and Void ^ Optatifs^ in Oppofition to this, fhews, that if the Minifters of Baptifm were fuch Sinners, yet their Sins did not hinder the Efficacy of the Sacraments adminifter'd by their Hands : And fays, " Whoever Baptizes " [i.e. candidly interpreting his Words] whoever Minifter, whether Catholick or Schifmatick, Bap- tizes '' In the 'Name of the father^ ami of the So/t, *' and of the Holy Ghoji, fulfils the Work of the Apo- " ftles" And we know, that in thofe Days, the allow'd Minifters of Baptifm, whether Catholicks or Schifmaticks, were only fuch as were Conttlltr^ fiOn'S bP 'BlfljOpg : And this will make nothing for the Validity of pretended Baptifms, performed by Perfons who never were Epifcopally Commijfwnd to Baptize. So that, whether we take Optat//s^s Words in this more candid Senfe of them, with regard to the Subjedt of his Difpute, or in the full Extent and Meaning of them, as they ftand by themfelves ^ this Father is no Evidence, that the general Senfe and Pradtice of the ancient Churcl?, gives Countenance to any Validity in pretended Baptifms, perform'd by fuch as never were Com- miffion'd to Baptize. § XXIII. The next ancient Writer I fhall con- fider, is St. Bafil^ Bifliop of C^farea in Cappadocia^ Ordain'd about the Year i6<^^ whom our Reverend Hiftorian takes notice of in his 39th Page thus: " As to St. Bafil^ it will be readily own\l, that " he had fomewhat of a fingular Opinion in this *' Matter •, for he was for Re-baptizing all Perfons " that were Onl? 'Btlptl? tl bP ILaP-mcn, as he '' was alfo for Re-baptizing all that were Baptiz'd '^ by Heretical and Schillnatical Priefls ^ for he " brings in Cyprian^ and Firmi/ian his Predeceifor, "' in tio Tefiimomes for and again fl Part IL " in the See of Cafarea, arguing after this manner : *' ^ Hereticks andSch'ifmaticks are broken off from '' the Church, atio becouic Lapntien, ani tl}ere- *' fO^e have noFower to Baptize CljCCCfO^e *' fuch a^ are Baptizd by them, when they return to *^ the Churchy are to be Re- baptized with the true " Baptijm oj the Church, ajS \m% OUlp 'Baptlj'O *' fipliap-'ttiem" This is a very full Evidence againft the Validity of Lay-Baptifm •, for whether St. Bafil\ Opinion, that Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms were the fame as Lay-Baptifms, was true or falfe, this is certain, that he makes the Invali- dity of Lay-Baptifm, to he the Standard, the in- contefted Principle, whereby he Judges of the In- validity of Baptifm by Heretical and Schifmatical Priefts. There were before, and in his Days, no publick Difputes of any Churches againft the Inva- lidity of Baptifm by Lay-men, /. e. Men who had no Fewer or Commijjton to Baptize ^ for St. Bafd cer- tainly means fuch Perfons, when he fpeaks of Lay* men •, becaufe he reckons Heretical and Schifmatical Priefts to be but a^ Lay-men, and therefore to have no Fewer to Baptize, /.^. as if he had faid, Lay-men are fuch Perfons as are deftitute of Power to Bap- tize ', Hereticks and Schifmaticks are become Lay- men, and therefore Hereticks and Schifinaticks have no Power to Baptize : I fay, the Churches before, and in the Days of St. Bafd, had no Difputes againft the Invalidity of Baptifms by St. Bafd's Lay-men 5 If they had, where are the publick Records of this Difpute> Mv. Bingham neither has, nor can ever produce, any fuch Records -, and therefore we ftiall conclude, that thelnvalidity of Baptifms performed Baftl Epifl. I. ad Ampbil. cnf. i. by Chap. 5. Lc7j-Baptffmy ExamirPd^ ^c. m by St. Bafirs Lay-men, i,e, by Perfons deP'itute of Power to Baptize, was an allowed Principle in the Churches of his Days. Nay, the Practice of the Ancient Churcli of Spai/i, [the Bifhops whereof, in the Council of Eliberis^ made a Canon to impower fume, and not others^ of their own Lay-men, who vv^cre in Communion with their Biihops, to Baptize in extreme Cafes, where Priefts could not be had,] confirms tlie general Principle of the Invalidity of Baptifm perform'd by Perfons not autho- rized, /. f. by St. Bdftl\ Lay-men j becaufe, it Bap- tifiTi by Perfons not CommifHon'd, had been then valid in the general Senfe and Pradice of the Church, thofe Spanijh Biihops would have had no need of making a new Canon, to Authorize fome Lay-men to do that^ which the Catholick Church in Dodlrine and Practice efteem'd to be good and valid^ when done by any Lay-chriftian, without fitch a fuppos'd Authority, But Divine Revelation^ and the general Senfc and Fra&ice of the Church, had excluded fucli Ldy-men from that Miniflration, this Excluflon of them ren- dered their Attempts, if they fhould have endea- voured to Baptize, Null and Void, for want of the CommilFion required by the Inflitution, which as much^ and as conft ant iy requires theComiiiilfion, as it does the Water and the Fomi : The Council of Eliberls^ doubtlefs found things in this State ^ The Biihops thereof, 'tis reafonableto believe, law Lay- men confcientioufly refrain from ufurping the Mi- niftration of Baptifm, upon the Account of their having no Power to Baptize^ Laj'^-men doubtlefs abftain'd from it, as we do now, upon a common Principle of their Inability to minifler the Means of our Regeneration and new Birth, to be ad mi- ni fter'd 112 TeJUmonies for and again fl Part II. nifter'd by Chrift's commiflion'd Reprcfentatives : Some Catechumens^ at a great Diftance from a Church, it's very likely dy'd without Baptifm for want of fuch a Commiflion'd Minifter : The Spa- nijh Bifliops, hearing of fuch fort of Accidents, conflder'dj how fuch Catechumens^ in fuch Extre- mities, might receive valii Baptifm ^ and fuppofing themfelves to have fufficient Power fo to do, made a new Canon to authorize fome of their own Lay- Communicants, to Baptize fuch Catechumens in thofe Extremities, that ^o, fuch Lay-men might take Courage, and Ad: by a fupposi Commiffion m that Miniftration, which they before had reafon to think could be of no Value if they attempted it without a CommilTion ^ and that Catechumens might not die in fuch Extremities without fuppos'd Baptifm ^ and alfo that thofe Spanijh Bilhops might not incurr a luppos'd Guilt, of letting Men die without afuppos'i Commiffion (Lhapt I fm. The Canon evidently fuppofes, that Lay-men in Spaln^ had no Power in themfelves to Baptize ^ and no Churches oppos'd St. hafif^ AfTertion of the Invalidity of Baptifm by Lay- men, Perfons not impowered by Bifhops to Bap- tize 5 he only found, that fome Churches did not agree with him, that Heretical and Schifmatical Priefts, were the Same as Lay-men : And there- fore, tho' his Opinion of Heretical and Schifma- tical Baptifms being Null and Void, was not the general Senfe and. Fra&ice of the Church in his Days, becaufe many Churches differ'd from him therein ; yet his Opinion of the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm, /. e. Baptifm by Perfons never Commiffiwnd^w^s agree- able to the general Senfe and YraB'ice of the Church 5 becaufe, no Church in Council did then or before, publickly oppofe that Principle, but, on the contrary, all Canons confirmed and eftabliih'd it, by wholly con' Chap. J. Lay-Bnptjfm^ Ex^imin'd^ ^r^^ ^ ^ ^ Confining the Miniftration of Baptifm to B'lJJ.wps, and thoje on'y who are ConmiJJiond^ or fuppos'd u\ be Commillion d by them, and making no Excep- tions b}^ any Pubhck Eccle/iaflical Declaration whatfoever, in favour of the Validity of Baptifm by Perfons who never were fo Cotnnnjfiond. In lliort, St. Bafirs Argument from St. Cyprian and Firt?:ilidn^ reduc'd into Form, ftands \.\\n^\ Bap- tifm by Lay-men, Perfons not Impovver'd or Com- million'd to Baptize, is Null and Void— Heretical and Schifmatical Priefts, are become Lay-men j therefore Baptifm, by Heretical and Schifmatical Priells, is Null and Void. The Major Propofition, viz. Baptifm by Laymen, Perfons not Jmpovver'd to Baptize, is Null and Void, was not publickly oppos'd by any Churches^ but the Minor, viz., that Heretical and Schifinatical Priefts were be- come Lay-men, was Deny'd by feveral Churches^ and therefore in Compliance with thofe Churches, he would not wholly infifi: upon his Conclufion, That Baptifm^ by Heretical and Schifmatical Priefts^ was Null and Void\ for He acquiefc'd in the Cu- ftoms of fome Churches, who reckoned the Bap- tifms of fome Schifinaticks to be Good and Valid. But this was no ways a Departing from the Incon- tefted Principle, That Bdptifm by Laymen ^ ? erf on? not Commijfion d or hv.powerd to Baptize^ was Null and Void '^ becaufe, his allowing fome Schifmaticks not to be reduc'd to Lay- men, was only an Abate- ment from the Rigour of his Affertion, which He made before, concerning Hereticks and Schifma- ticks without Diftindtion, when other Churches did not allovvr, that all Schifinaticks whatfoever were be- come Lay men. Thnfe Churches did not Difpnte againfl: His other Principle, of th^ Invalidity of Baptifm by Perfons Not Commiifion'd •, and there- I fore 114 Tejlimonics for and againjl Part II. fore it flood good, notwithftanding His Compli- ance, and their Pradice, with refpect to the other by Schifmatical Priefts. ^ XXIV. St. Chryfoftom, Arch-Bifhop of Co^i- fld?itt?2ople^ Anno 398. whom Mr. Bingham takes Notice of in his 17th, i8th, and 58th Pages, is full againfl: the Validity of Baptifm perforin d by Per- fons who never were Commiffion'd to Baptize. His "Words, as Mr. Bingham has noted 'em, are thefe ^ ^^ ^ T/i plain Madnefs to defptfe fo Great a Fower\ Iviz, that of the Prieft] " without which tPC CaU^ ^^ not obtain Salvation, or the good Things that are *^ promjfedus, for // jSO SDUC can enter into the " Kingdom of Heaven, tXiVfX he be born of Water '' and the Holy Ghoft ^ and he that eats not the flefh *' of the Lord^ and drinketh not his Blood, IS De-- *• pnJjell of Eternal Life-, and all tljcfe t&ingS '' are performed, 13l> 5150 ©tljCr, te Thofe Sa- ^^ cred Hands, I mean the Hands of the Prieji : *' How can anp one, without thefe either efcape ^^ the Fire of Hell^ or Obtain the Crown that is laid ^^ up in Heaven. 1 " // there be a Necejfity^ " and a Child be found Vnbaptiz'd, and ready to " D/>, // is Lawful for a Deacon to Baptize it, " Thefe two Paifages from St. Chryfoftom, do efta- blifh what I obferv'd before from Pacianus Bifhop of Barcelona, That No One can Adminifler Baptifin, as the Means of our Regeneration and New Birth, but fuch as either in a higher or lower Senfe have a Prieflly Tower. St. Chryfoftom is Exprefs and Po- sitive, that this Means of Regeneration is per- * Chryfof. de S ace r dot, lib. iii. c. ^. t St. Cbryfoft. Horn. 61, Tom. 7. Edit, Savil, ^ 423. form'd Chap. J- Lay-Bapt/fm^ ExamirPd^ &rc. iic forin d " TBp 3120 ©tljCC but Thofe Sacred Hands: This is abfolutely an Excluding ot'all others What- foever, nay, even in Cafes of Neccifity, tor, in ar- ticulo mortis^ when an UnbaptizM Child is ready to Die, St. Chryfoftom points out no other tlian a Frieft/y Hand to Baptize it, viz.. a Deacon, nA who is Co far a Tr'icji^ as lie has received the Fnefi- 1y Power to Adminifter this Sacrament in the Ab- fence of the Bilhop, who has the whole Priefthood, and of the Presbyter, who has the Next Degree of Sacerdotal Power. Mr. Bingham knows and ac- knowledges, that Deacons have fo far a fhare oi: the Priejt/y Power^ as they arc authorized to Bap- tize, &c. He knows alfo, that when Presbyters a/id Deaeo/is (Pcrfons Ordain'd by tlie Bifliop to Baptize) do Adminifter this Holy Sacrament, their Att is, in the Language of the Ancients, The Bi- /hop's Ail, becaufe they received their Commiihon from him : Thefe Things confider'd, whoever of thefe, whether Presbyter or Deacon Baptizes, ^tis done by a Prieft/y Power. And St. Chry/ojlom is clear, that without th/s Power " U)C CailltOt Ob^ '' tiiilX Salvation^ or the good Things that are pro- mised //r. " One of the Means of Salvation v/\\kh he fpeaks of, is^ the Sacrament of Baptifm^ and he fays polhtively, that it is " performed 1)P llO OtljCr " but the Sacred Hands of the P^lCft." If tlien, a Perfon never CommilfionM to Baptize, and \vhc> is therefore Deftitute of Prieflly Pozcer, attempts to Baptize, we " cailllOt Obtnilt ^altliltiOlt by his Ha/td, '' becaufe there is no Prii-ft/y Poicer : He do's not minifter the Means of Salvation ^ He gives us no Baptifm of Regeneration, becaufe fuch Baptifiii is performed bj) UO OtljCr than '' the Shred Hands of the Priefi ^ '' and the Hands of this Ufurper niX not thofe Sacred Hands, confequently he performs J v /lothing 1 1 6 Teji monies for and againfi Part IL nothing, and we obtain nothing by his Means-. If fuch Sacrilegious Hands do minifter real Bap- tifm^ Baptifm whereby we may be born again, then there are other Hands befides tlie Priefts, that perform this ^ tho' St. Chryfoftom fays there are no other : And if the pretended Baptifnis, by Perfons who have no Frieji/y Fower^ are Means of Salva- tion, then 'tis plain, we can obtain Salvation with- out the Friefi/y Fower, tho' St. Chryfojhm affirms exprefly, that without this Power " U)e CanilOt ob- " tain Salvation:''' But I will fooner take this Saint's Word, in this important Matter, than truft to the dangerous Pofitions of fome, who came after him ; becaufe, his Affertions are clearly founded on the Divine Oracles, the Holy Scriptures of the Word of God, that Sacred Standard of Truth, and only Safe Rule of our Faith and Pradice : There, as we difcover Chriftian Baptifm, whereby we are born again, to be with no other Matter than Water^ and in no other Form than that in the Name of the Trinity, whether Ordinarily or Extraordina- rily ^ fo, we as certainly find no other Adminijlra- tor thereof, than one who is vefled with Apoftolick^ i. e. Frieftfy Fewer or Authority, whether in Or- dinary Cafes, or in Times of Greateft Necelfity ^ and our St. Chryfofiom^ keeping his Eye upon this Sure Rukj affirms, that we cannot be favccl without this Frieftly Fewer x, and that there is no other than the Hand of one who is vefted with this Power to miniftcr to us Cbriftian-Baptifm, the Means of our Salvation : In no Cafe whatfocver can it be done by another, for even in Abfence of the Bilhop and Presbyter, none but a Deacon veft- ed alfo with Frieflly Fewer to Baptize^ had Autho- rity to do it: So far was he from the unaccounta- ble Latitude of our Days, that lie knew of no- other Chap. J. Lay-Baptifm^ ExamhPd^\c, nj other Minlfter of BaptiTm, in Times of grcateft Extremity, than an Epifcopal Deacon, who was lb far a Prieft as he was impower'd by the Bilhop to Baptize: And thus by St. Chryjojhms Rule, agreeable to that of the Holy Scripture, we can- not obtain Salvation ^ receive Baptifm, the Means thereof, Ordinarily, or in Times ot Extremity^ " without the FncjVy Power, '' § XXV. About the latter end of the Foujth, or beginning of the Fifth Century, appear'd the Con- IHtutions calld Apoftolical, as the Right Reverend Bilhop Pear/on, and after him the Reverend and Learned Dodtor ^Grabe inform us. Thcfe Confti- tutions, tho' in Matters relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, they have been interpolated by Anti- Trinitarian Hereticks', yet in Matters of Ancient Difcipline, they inform us of feveral Things high- „ ly worth}'' of our Obfervation^ among which, \\ii^ j^^^Mcc of the Invalidity of pretended Baptifm, perform'd • by Perfons who were never Commillion'd to Bap- tize, is very remarkable, which I ifiall give the Reader in Mr. B'wgha?ns own Tranflation, png. 41, 42. Thus, " It is an horrible thing j or a Man to '' thrii\i himjelf^ into the Prieft' s Dignity, or Ojjice^ " as the Corahites, ani Saul, anl^Jzzv^^ did-^ lU ^^ it wof not Lawful for a StrdllffCr, that w.u not " of the Tribe of Levi, to offer any thing, or ap- " proach the Altar without a Prieft ^ fo do ye no- '^ thing without the Bifhop. For if any Man do's '' any thing without the B'lfJwp^ he do's it 111 QtlUtt " it fhaU not be reputed to him a* any Service, As " Saul, when he had offered Sacrifice without Sa- * Spicileg. Patrum, Tom» i. p. 284. I ^ " n\Ui\ Il8 Tefiimomes for and again fl Part IL " mue], was told that he had BOlie Oiailllp-, fo '' VuilMtUt LaJ^-mait do's any thing without a '^' Vrieft^ he ILabOUtg lit fllatn. And as King " Uzzias, when he had invaded the VriefTs Office^ *^ wa^ Jmitten with heprofy for his Tranfgrejfion j '' fo eHerp tU^^mtiWfloaU bear hk VuniOoment that *' contemns God^ and infults hps Friefts^ and takes '^" Honour to hitfifelf^ not imitating Ctjliftj who glo- *' rifyd not hiwjelf hut JIaid till hk father faid, " Thou art a Frieji for ever^ after the Order of ^'' Melchizedeck. " Now 'tis evident, that this whole Difcourfe is founded upon Scripture, and the Senfe of it when apply'd to Baptifm, is no lefi than this : F/Vy?, That whoever Lay-man, what Perfon fo- cver, that was never Commiflion'd to Baptize, at- tempts this Frieftly Yuntfion^ which upon no ac- count whatfoever belongs to him, is a very great Tranfgreflbr in the fight of God, and his pretend- ed Service is " Va\n as to what concerns him/elf-^ *' jor it Jhall never be accounted to him as accept a* *^^ ble Service^ worthy of a Reward^ but rather Itl- *' Eiitabl}) make him liable to Wrath and Funijh- " fiient. '' So far Mr. Bingham acknowledges, pag. 42. And, Secondly^ 1 add, Tjiat from this Difcourfe "'tis plain, that fuch a pretended Baptizer ads alio in I J//?, with refped to thofe whom he attempts to Baptize ^ he do's them Ji3o ©€l*i)ICC at all, if we will but be fb juft as fairly to confider the Scrip* titre-Inftanccs here referred to, and to which our Ufurper is compared : He is compared to the Cora- hit es:, nov/ every Body that knows the Hiftory of €ordh'*s Rebellion, knows alfo that Corah ofFer'd In- renfc 111 Clilin, with refpecl to himfelf and to the reft of his rebellious Accomplices of the Congrega- tion, Chap. J . Lny-Biiptifm^ ExamirPd^ &:c. 1 1 9 tlon, iov whom he pretended ^0 offer '^ for the Pu- nilhment fell on him, and that part of the Congre- gation alfo who did not oftcr, but appJOllll Of 5lS SDffcrinff: So Sai^rs pretended Burnt-OffLring woi Vai/i^ with refpecl to himfelf and otliers, for who was there that received any Benefit by it } The Punifhment extended not only to him, but alfo to others, for himfelf and his Children too were for ever Deprivd of the Kingdom for this Vfurpation, Alfo \Jzziah\ attempting to offer Incenfe, if he had proceeded fo far as to gain a Party to concur with him in the Ufurpation, would doubtlcfs have brought upon himfelf and his Accomplices, for de- fending his Sacrilege, a dreadful Punifliment from God ; But the Friefis timely and couragioufly in- terpos'd, ftop'd his Progrefs, and thrufi him aivjy from the Altar of the Lord, and fo he had no Party in his Defence, that concurr'd with his Sacrilegious Ufurpation. The ©tlMnbCt: alfo that was not of the Tribe of hevi^ if he had attempted to offer an]?- thing, or approach'd the Altar without a Priefl, his Attempt vv^ould have been Vain y and he would have done No Acceptable Service, either for himfelf, or others concurring with and abetting his Uufurpation ^ for, the fame reafon whicli would have made his pretended Service Vain, as to him- felf, would have made it alfo Vain as to others who fhould have concurred with him^ becaufc, they be- ing concerned with him in the Sin, cannot be fup- pos'd to receive any Benefit from that Sin of his, which they concur with and encourage. The Paffagc of the Conftitutions, now before us, fays, by way of Inference from the before-mention d Inflanccs, '' So ZGhatever jLnP'lUiIlt do's any thin^ without a '' Priefl, he Labours tit GtUn," i. r. he Labours in Vain as Saul, Sec Laboured ill CJ^UI , that is, I 4 ^« I20 Tefiimonies for and ogainjl Part IL as they in their Ufurpations Laboured in Va'in^ and brought No Benefit to thewjelves or others-^ fo our Lay-man, in his Ufurpation, Labours in Vuin^ and to no Purpofe in his pretended Miniftrations ^ he brings no Benefit, but rather Wrath and Funrjhmcnt to hnnfelf and others for whom he pretends to mi- nifter, who concur with and approve of his ufiir- ped Acts. Our Reverend Hillorian is fo fenfible of this, that he acknowledges, Fage 41. That this PafTage '^ @€Cni0 to pronounce fever ely of ufurfd *' and unauthorized Anions ^ as utterly NuU and ^' Void'^'' but by what has been faid, 'tis plain this Paffage do's more than ©CCUl to pronounce fo, it do's really fay they are done tit Clatn : '^ What- *^ ever Lay-man dos any thing without a Prieji he " Labours in Vain^'''' and therefore his Act is utter- ly Null and Void. § XXVI. Mr. Bingham^ Page ?^. produces St./*?- rom in the latter end of the Fourth Centur}^, as an Evidence for Lay-Baptifm : His Words are thefe, " St. Jerom — Derives the Tower of Presbytery and " Deacons to Baptize^ from the Original Power of " the BiJJ?op ^ yet in Cafes of Neceffity^ he, (i, e^ St. Jerom ^) fays " it was aJfo allowed frequently to *' Lay-men: Ycr in Juch Cafes ^ he that had received "' Baptifm^ might give it to others,'^ Thus Mr. Bing- ham gives us St. Jeroms Words. St. Jerom m this Place fays, that it is JLatUfUl for LaicJks to baptize, " when Jsleceffity Compels^'' SjJcere Laicis^ fays he] * Sine Chrifmatc & Juffione Epifcopi, neque Presbyter nequc Diaco ius jus habent Bapcizandi. Quod frcquentur (ii tamen Neccftitas cogit) Scimus etiam licere Laicis. Ut enim acci- pit qui f, iti 8c dare potcd. Hmomni Dialog, cum Luciferian^ Chap. J. Lay-Baptffi/jy Ex^mirPd^hQ, 121 But now the Queftion is to What Law do's he refer us for the Lawfuhiefs of this> hirft^ Is it to tlie Law of God ? Secondly^ Is it to the Law of the Ancient Catholick Church? Or, Thirdly^ Is it to Ibme private Maxim, which with liiin ftands in- ftead of a Law, as a felf-evident Principle, that wants no other Law to enforce ir > One ot thefe he muft refer us to, when he talks of a JLillUfUl ^^ ♦, otherwife his faying 'tis Lawful has no Signi- fication at all. F/>/?, Then, I fay that he refers us to A'^ Law of God for the Lavcfalnefs of Laicks Baptizing in Cafes of Keceility ^ becaufe there is no fuch Law extant in his written \Vord, if there is, Jet it he produced, that Men may not remain in Ignorance about it. Secondly^ St. Jerc?j2 can refer us to A'^ Law of the Ancient Catholick Churchy, for Ihe never made any fuch Law. If fhe did, when and where did file make it ? In which of her General Councils was it enadled? Certainly not in any One of themj and no lefs than this, can make it a Law cf the Catholick Church'^ and whatfocver {dL\\sJl)on of this, is infufficient to fhew the general Senfe and Frjiiice of the Ancient Church, Shall it be then fuppos'd that St. Jerom has an Eye to the SpaniP? Council of E/iberis's Canon, made to impower foine fort of Lay-men to Baptize Catechumens^ in danger of Death, when a Prieft could not' be had > "U'liy even this will not do neither ^ for that Council being but a particular Provincial One, and f ) very Sin- gular in this Matter, that we liave no other In- ftance of the like in the whole Chriftian World in thofe Days, its Canon was Jio Law to the Churches where St. Jerom liv'd, and fo the Lawfulnefs of (.ay-mens Baptizing could have no reference to that 12 2 Testimonies for r^nd. againfl Pa r t II. that Canon, except it could be prov'd that he is Ipeaking only of the Lay-Subjeds of the Spanijh Bifhops of that Council, that it was Lawful for them to Baptize in Cafes of Extremity ^ yet even this would not ferve for our Lay-Baptifins, which are notorioufly without any Necellity, by Perfons who are not fo much as fuppos'd to Ad by virtue of any Canon, and who attempt to Baptize, not only without having been ever Commifllon'd at all, but alfo in dire[l profefs'd Oppofition to that Apoftolick, /. e. Epifcopal Authority, from whence alone all Commiflions to Baptize muft flow. St. Jerom never once fpoke of fuch pretended Baptifms as thefe 5 for the Church in his Days had no Expe- rience of them. But to return to the Lay-Bap- tifins he fpeaks of: Do's St. Jerom then refer us to the Will and Pleafure of the particular Bifhops of thofe Laicksj and fay, that 'twas Lawful for them to Baptize, becaufe their refpedive Bifhops autho- rized them to do fb, in Abfence of the Clergy > But how fhall we know this, where do*s it appear? And if it were fo, this would not determine it to be Lawful by the general Senfe and Fni^lice of the Church, for the Will and Pleafure only of fbme particular Biihops, is no Law of the Catholick Church'^ and befides even this alfo, if it were al- lowed that particular Bifliops could and did autho- rize their own Lay-men, will not prove the Law- fulnefs or Validity of our Lay-Baptifms, which are evidently fuch as are done by Perfons never au- thorized at all by their refpedive Biihops. So that it muft follow therefore that, Thirdly, St. Jerom^ as a fuppos'd Evidence of the general ^^w^t and Practice of the (>hurch, re- fers us to 710 other Law^ whereby to determine the Lawfulnefs of Laicks Baptizing in Cafes of Necef- fltjr, Chap. J. Lay-Baft ifm^ Examrad^ &c. 12? fity, than that falfe Maxim, which, with 'a little Variation, he plainly appears to have borrovv'd from Tertiilliany when he fays, That what a Man ha^ receivd^ he can alfo give to others ; as if this were an undoubted Principle, and in the General Senfe and Pradtice of the Church, of equal force with a Law j and that therefore, St. Jerom knew that 'twas Lawful for Laicks to Baptize in Cafes of Extremity : But the Weaknefs of this Pofition I have already expos'd, Fage 43. to which I fur- ther add here, that if this falfe Principle was the General Senfe and FraU'ice of the Church, then it will follow, that if Lay-niens Baptifrns are Law- ful upon that Foundation, then, a meer Presbyter having receiv'd a Yovoer to Baptize, to Adminifter the other Sacrament, to Preach, and to Abfolve, t^c. can Lawfully give this Power alfo to others \ and even a Deacon too may give Power to Baptize, if iKihat is receivd can he given to others by the Re* ceiver ^ Confequences fo falfe in Fad, (tho' neceifa- rily ariflng from fuch a fuppos'd Maxim) that the Principle from whence they flow was certainly at no Time the " General Senfe and Fratiice of the Ancient Church ^ and therefore this Principle being the Mea- fiire of the Lawfulnefs of Lay-Baptifm in St. Jc- ro7n\ Opinion, is no Argument for the Lawfulnefs thereof in the General Senfe and Practice of the Church, about which we are ftill Inquiring. § XXVIL Let us then fee whether St. Jerom do's not on the other fide, make Lay-Baptifm to be In- valid, upon Catholick Principles : And in order thereto, 'tis to be obferv'd, that after the Great Council of JV/r^, Lucifer Bifliop of Calaris m the Ifland of Sardinia^ refolv'd to have no Conver- fation or Correfpondence with any of the Bifhops, who 124 Teflimonies for and agawji Part II. who had received into their Communion, thofe that had formerly iign'd the Arian Creeds. He with- drew himfelf therefore into his own Ifland, and fe- parated from the Communion of ahnoft all the Bi- Ihops in the World ^ he dy'd in this Refolution, and left fome Followers, calFd hudferians^ who fpread themfelves over all the "World. Thefe Luci- jenan Separatifts infilled upon it, that the Orders of the Ar'ian Biihops and Clergy were Null and Void, becaufe they were Hereticks ♦, and that up- on their Repentance and Union to the Catholick Church, they ought not to be received into the Number of the Clergy, when the fame 'Luc'ifenans receiv'd YjXY'Anans to Communion, only by Impo- lltion of Hands, tho' they had been Baptiz'd by the Ar'ian Clergy. St. Jerom^ in his Dialogue againft thofe Schifmaticks, introduces an Orthodox Chriftian difputing with a Luciferian^ in Defence of the Practice of the Catholicks, who receiv'd not only Lay-repenting Ar'ians to Communion, but alfb receiv'd Arian Biihops, Priefts, and Deacons, up- on their Repentance, in the fame Rank and Degree of Clergy-men, as they held while they were He- reticks : And the Argument which Orthodox ufes in Defence of this Practice of the Church, is in fhort thus^ You acknowledge by your Pradtice that the Baptifm adminifter'd by the Arian Clergy is good and valid, becaufe you receive their Laicks Baptiz'd by them without repeating their Bap- tifm ^ You ought therefore to acknowledge the Or- ders of their Clergy, otherwife you muft rejed the Baptifm adminifter'd by them, whom 3^ou do not own to be Priefts. The huafcrian was not able to get over this, he had no Reply (in our Modern Stile) that Baptifm, by Perfons who have no Prieftly Power, is good and valid ; He mi£,ht have Chap. 3. Lay-Baptifmj Examin^d^ 8^c. 125 confounded Orthodox\ Reafoning with this An- fwer, if it had then been agreeable to the General Scnfe and ^raU'ice of the Church ^ but he yielded to the force of the Argument, and was convinc d by this Principle, that Baptifm by One Not having a Prieftly Power to Baptize, ought to be rejeded -, and therefore we may conch ide that this was a re- ceiv'd Maxim in the Church in thofe Days. But to give the Reader a little farther Infiglit into this Dialogue^ that he may fee the Truth of what I fay, I fhall here fct down the Senfe of fome of it, out of St. Jerom^ according to the BeneiiUme Monk's Edition, thus : cc (i) Orthodox, " Shew me, why you receive a Laick, who comes over from the Avians^ when you receive not an \_Aria7i\ Bifhop > (2) Luciferian, " I receive an Arian Laick, who ConfeiTes that he has been in an Error 5 and the Lord would rather have the Repen- tance, than the Death of a Sinner. (9) Orthod. " Receive therefore the Bilhop alfo, who likewife Confeffes that he has been in an Error •, and the Lord would rather have the Repentance, than the Death of a Sinner. (4) Lucif, " If tlie Arian Biihop Confeffes that he has Err'd -, Why do's he continue a Bi- (i) Oithod. Exponc mihi quareLaicumvenicntem ab Arianis rccipias, Epifcopum non recip'us? (2) Lucij. Rtcipio Laicum qui crralTe fe confitctor, 8c Do- minus iravult poenitentiam peccatorisqujm mortem. C3) O)thod, Recipe ergo & Epifcopum, qui & erralTc fe confi- tetur, 8c Dominusraavult pcnitentiam peccatorisquam mortem. (4) Lueif. Si errare fe confirctur . Cur Epifcopus perfc- verat ^ Dcponat Sacerdotium, concede Tcniam pinit^nti. Ihop? 126 Tejiimonies for and, agatnfi Part IL *' fliop ? Let him give over his Priefthood, and !^ I grant Pardon to the Penitent. (5;) Orthod. '^ And I will Anfwer you in your *'' own Language. If an \_Arian Baptiz'd] Laick ^^ ConfelTes that he has Err'd •, How do's he con- ^' tinue (in the State of) a [Baptiz'd] Laick ^ Let ^' him lay afide his Laical Priefthood, that is, the " Baptifin [which he receiv'd,] and I alfo grant ^' Pardon to the Penitent, ^u ~ — What- " foever is Unlawful for a Chriftian, is as much *^ Unlawful for a Laick as for a Bifhop. He *' that repentSj condemns his former Crimes. If -^ it is not Lawful for a Penitent \_Aria/i] Bifhop " to continue [a Bifhop] as he was before^ then *^ ^Ifo, it is not Lawful for a Penitent [dr/j//] " Laick to remain in the State [of Baptifm which ^' he receiv'd in Arianifm^ for which he now re- '' pents. (6) Licaf " We receive [Penitent An^in'] " Laicks, becaufe none of them would be Conver- " ted, if they knew that they were to be Re-bap- " tiz'd ^ and fo we fhould be the Caufe of their *^ Perdition, if we fhould not allow of the Bap- " tifm they receiv'd of the ^IW^;? Clergy. (f) Orthod. Refpondebo tibi & Ego fermonibus tuis, C\ Lai- cus crraiTe fe confitetur, quomodo Lalcus pcrfevcrat? Deponat Sacerdotium Laici, i. e. Baptifma, 8c ego do veniam pocnitenti. Scriptum efte nim regnum quoque, nos & Sacerdotes Deo Patri fuo fecit. (Apce. i. 6.) omnc quod non licet Chriftiano, Commune eft tarn tpifcopo quam Laico. Qui pocnitentiam agit, priora condemnat. Si non licet Epifcopo poenitenti perievcrare quod fuerat, non licet 8c Laico popnitenti permanerc in co, propter guod pocnitentiam confitetur. (6) Lucif. Recipimus Laicos, quoniam tiemo convertetur, ft fe fcicrit Re-baptizandum, 8c ita iict ut nos fimus caulTa perditi onis eorum fi rcpudicntur. {7) Orfhvl Chap. 3. Lay-Baptifm^ EocamirPd^ Scc. 127 (7) Orthod. " [As for us,] we do no[ad ^'^ inconjiftently mth our /elves ^ for we either re- " ceive the Bijhop^ zcith the People whom he Baptized -^ " or if we do not receive the Bijhop [as fuch,] zve " know^ that his People alfo 7?iuft be re'jeUed^ [i. e, not receivd as Baptized Laicks^ " There- '' fore, I pray you. That you either allow him to " facrifice, {i.e. to be a Prieft, having Power to adininifter the Sacrifice of the Euchariil) " whofe " Baptifin [adminiftred by him] you allow of; " or elfe rejedt that Baptifin which vv^as adiiii- ^ niftred by him, who you do not efteem to be a " Prieft. (8) Lucif " [Tho' I allow of the Baptifm he " adminiftred,] yet the Laick he baptiz'd, I re- ^' ceive (upon his Repentance) by Impofition of "^ Hands, and Invocation of the Holy-Ghofl: ^ be- " caufe I know, that the Gift^ of the Holy-Ghoft *^ cannot be conferred by Hereticks. (9) Orthod, '' When a Man is baptiz'd [as he " is among the Arians] into or in the Name of the " Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft •, he is then made " the Temple of the Lord, a new Temple of the " Holy Trinity. How can you fay, that among " the (7) O/fW.— Nos nobis adverfa non facimus: Aur Epifcopum cum populo recipimusquem facit Chriftianum, Jut fi Epifcopmn non recipimus, fcimus ctiam nobis populuin rejiciendum— Quamobrem oro te, ut aut facriftcandi ci licentiam tribuas rujus Baptifma probas : Aut reprobss ejus Biptifmi que>n non exiflimas ^acerdotem- f8) Lucif. Sed ego rccipio Laicum pnenitentem, per manus Impofitionem & invocationcm Spiritus Sanfti, Sciens ab Hoerciicis Spiritum Sanftum non poffe conferri. (9) Orrfeo^.— Quum in Patre, & Filio 8: Spiritu Sanfto Bapti- zatus homo Templum Domini fiat, quum vcteri ade deftrurta novum Trinitatis delubrum scdificetur, quomodo dicis fine ad- VCDtU IsS Tefiimonies for aiii againfl Part IL " the Arians^ Sins may be remitted, without the '' Defcent of the Holy-Ghoft ? [for Bap- tifm is for the Remilfion of Sins.] ^ " It is " evident, that there is no True Baptifm without ^^ the Holy-Ghoft. • If an Arian cannot *' give the Holy-Ghoft, he cannot truly Baptize ^ ^'' becaufe, without the Holy-Ghoft, there is no " True Baptifm of the Church : Therefore, when *' you receive a Perfon baptiz'd by an Arian^ and *' call on the Holy-Ghoft to defcend on him •, either *^ you ought to baptize him, becaufe he could not " be baptiz d before without the Holy-Ghoft •, or, '^ if he was at firft baptized in the Spirit, then ^' forbear to call on the Spirit to defcend on him, *' fince he received the Holy-Ghoft when he was *' baptiz'd. (lo) Luc'if " But pray, have you not read in " the Ads of the Apoftles, That they who had ^* been before baptizM by John the Baptift, when *' they anfwer'd to the Apoftle's Queftion, that they *' had not fo much as heard whether there was any '^ Holy-Ghoft, did afterwards obtain the Gift of ventu Sp'.ritus San£Vi apud Arianos percata polfe dimitti.' — Apparec Baptifma non ede fine Spiritu Sanfto.- • Si Arianus Spiritum Smdtum non poteft Dare, ne Baptizare qui- dem poteft, quia Erclefia? Baptifma fine Spiritu Sanfto nullum eft. Tu vero quum Baptizjtum ah eo recipias, & poftea invoces Spiritu m Sinftum, aut Baptizare eum debes quia fine Spiritu Sanfto non potuit Baptizari ; aut fi eft Baptlzatus in Spiritu, define ei invocare Spiritum, quem tunc quum Baptiza- retur accepit. (lo) Lucif. Obfecrote, nonne legifti inaftibus Apoftolorum, COS qui jam ii Johaime Baptizati jueant, quum ad interroga- tionem Ap^ftoli refpondilTent, fence auditu quidem compariife, quid cfTec SpiritusSandtus, poftea fuille S,'iritum Sanftum confe- quutos ? Unde marifcftum eft, polTe aliqiem Baptizari, & tameti non habere Spiritum Sacftuni. " the Chap. J. Lay-Baptifrnj Exami/Pd^ ^c, 129 '^ the Holy-Ghoft ? Whence it is manifcfl, tliat a " Perfon ma/ be baptiz'd, and yet not have th« !' Holy-Ghoft. (11) Orthol • . But R7/// fliid to thofe fame Perfons, " John indeed Baptized the Feop/e ^' with the B^ptifm of Repentance, faying^ that they ' JJjould believe on him zvho voa^ to come after hnn, that -k, on J ejus ^ for the RemiJJion of Sins, And " when they had heard theje things they i 'Tis in the Acts of the .** Apoftles. (15) Orthod. " Truly I do not deny that this " is the Cuftom of the Churches, that, when Per- ^' fons have been baptiz'd by Presbyters and Dea- ^^ cons, at a great Diftance, in fmall Cities [where Bifhops do not refide] '^ the Bifhop Ihould come " and lay his Hands on them, with Invocation of ^' the Holy-Ghoft. But if you now enquire, " why a Perfon baptiz'd in the Church may not *^ receive the Holy -Ghoft, but by Impofition of the " Hands of the Biftiop, when we aflert that the " Holy-Ghoft is alfo given in True Baptifm : You " are to underftand, that this Cuftom defcends to ("15} Orthod. Non qnidem abnuo banc effe Ecclefianim con- fuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longe in minoribus urbibus per Presbv- teios & Diaconos baptizati funt, Epifcopus ad invocationem SjRfti Spiritus manum impofiturus excurrat. Quod fi hoc loco quacris; Quare in Ecclefia Baptizatus, nifi per manus Epifcopi, non accipiJt Spiritum Sanftiim, quern nos aflerimus in vero Baptizmate tribui : Difce, banc obfervationcm, ex ea auftoritate defcendere, quod poll afcenfum Domini, Spiritus San*flus ad apo- flolos defcend it. Et multisin locisidem faftitatum reperimus, ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quam ad legem neceffitaris. Alioqui (i ad Epifcopi tantum imprecationem Spiritus Sanftus defluit, lu- gendi funt qui in Icftulis, a^c. per Presbyteros 8c Diaconos bap- tizati, ante dormierunt quam ab Epifcopis inviferentur. Ecdefiic falus in fummi Sacerdotis dignitate pendct : Cui fi non exors qvx- dam, 8c ab omnibus emincns detur poteftas, tot in Ecclefiis efficientur Schifmata quot Sacerdotes. Inde venit, ut fine Chrif- inate & Epifcopi JufTionc, neque Presbyter, nequc Diaconus jus iiabeant baptizandi. C^uod frequenter, fi tamen reccffitas cogit, fcimus etiam liceic Laicis» Ut enim accipit quis, ita Sc dare potcft, (^f> " US Chap. J* Lay^Baptifm^ ExamnPd^ &rc. in *' us from this Authority, that after our Lord's *^ Afcenfion, the Holy-Ghofl: came down on tlie " Apoftles. And in many Places we find tlie " fame Cuftom [_viz. of Conferring the Holy- Ghofl: on baptizM Perfons by Impolition of tlie Bifliop's Hands] " to be obferv'd rather for tlie " Honour of tlie [Bilhop's] Priefthood, than for " any Law of Neceflity. Otherwife, it the Holy- " Ghofl: defcends by reafon of the Bi (hop's Prayer *' only^ then they are to be bewaifd who were " baptiz'd in their Beds, 'cfc. by Presbyters and *^ Deacons, and dy'd before they could be vifited " by the BiflK)ps. The Safety of the Cluirch de- '^ pends on the Dignity of the High-Priefl:, [/. /?, whom I efteem to be Ko Frieji^ bap- " tiz'd the Arian La'ick-^ the Arian Laick " coidd get no other Baptifm ttnder his Circum- *' Jiances, therefore the Baptifm he received was " a Baptifm in iKecefftty perform'' d by a 'Lay- " man^ according to my Opinion^ and good by " your Frinciple ^ conjequently tho I allow of *' the Baptifm^ 1 am not obliged to acknowledge *^ /;/;;/ for a Frieft^ viz. the Arian Frie/i who " ad7;t/niferd it.'' This would have been a very natural Retort upon St. ^erom, if his fingular Notion of the Lawfulnefs of Laicks baptizing in Cafes of Necclfity, liad been then tlie General Senfe and Fra&ice of the Church ; but the Luciferians next Subfequent Anfwer Ihews that he had no Knowledge of any fuch Kotion, that he took no notice at all oi'St.Je- rcnh advancing it, and therefore 'tis unac- countable how St. Jcrom brouglit it into his Difcourfe, when it had no depcndance at all upon his Argument -, but is inconfiftent with It, and even deftrudlive of that Catholick Principle, upon which he was endeavouring ?o Confute the Practice of the hueifcrian.?* But to proceed ^ the hucife^'ian^ witliout taking any notice of St. Jerom's Saying about Laicks Chap. J. Laj-Bdptifm^ Exdm'nPd^ ^c, ji^ Laicks baptizing-, as if it was a fingiilar No- tion that would do him no Service in his Dif- pute vvdth Orthodox, anfwers thus : C( (14) Ludf. " Be it fo, viz. that among the Ana/7 s there is indeed no Bap^ifm, and that therefore the Holy Spirit cannot be given by them, becaufe they have not yet receiv'd Rem if- fion of Sins , all this helps much towards \uy gaining the Victory. An Arian is not baptized, how then can he be a Prieft > Among them there is not a baptized Lay -man, how then can there be a Bifhop ? &c, (17) Orthod. "I do not at prefent fo much re- proach, or defend thQAnans, as I endeavour to con- vince you. For the fame rcafon that you receive a (14) L'mf — Efto quippc apud Arianos nc Baptifma qi.iJcm elTe, ic ideoSpiritumiiandutn ab eis non polTe dari quianccdura remifTIonem peccatorum accepcrint, totum hoc vidorii me^ profi.itj & argumcntorum tuorum paleftra mihi palmam vi:>oiiz fudat. Arianus Baptif'ma non hahec & quomodo Saccrdotium ha'cc? Laicus apud cos non eft & quomodo Epikopus cllc po- tcft ? Mihi rccipere mcndicum non li.ct, tu recipis rcgcni ? Vos hofli caftra traditis, 8c a nobis pcrt'uga rejicicndus eft ? ("ly^ Orthod. Ego — non fam in prifcnti Arianos vel improbo, vcl dcfendo, quam illam curfus mci meram circumco, eadcni ra- tione a nobis Hpifcopam rccipi, qua Laicus a vobis recipitur. Si errant! concedis vcnianr, & ego ignofco pa-iircnti. bi i.i tide fua baptizato baptizans nocere non potuit, & in fide fua Sicer- dotem conflitutum conftitucns non inquinavit. Subtiiis dlHixc- iis, & ideo {implies anim.e facile tlccipiuntur. Dcrccptio urn Laiciquam Epifcopi Communis eft : Igitur parvulcrum inter fc certantium ritu, quidquid dixeris dicam: Affirmabis, affirma- boj negabis, negabo. Arianus Baptizat i Ergo Epifcopus eft: Non Baptizat ; ru refuta Laicum, & ego non rccipio Sacerdotcm. Sequar tc quoquumque ieris, aut pariter in luto hifitabimus, aut parifcr ^xpcdicmur. K :? *' Penitent 1^4 Tejlimonies for and again ft Part II. "' Penitent [^Ar'uin Laick] we receive a Penitent " [^Anan Bilhop.] It you grant Pardon to the *' Laick who Err'd ^ I alfo Forgive the Penitent ^^ BifJ?op, If the Baptizer could not hurt him '' whom he baptiz d, in his falfe Faith, then he *'* who ordained, did not defile the Prieft whom he *' ordain'd, in' his falfe Faith. Herefy is a fubtil " thing, and therefore fimple Souls are eafily de- ""^ ceiv'd. Bifhops, as well as Laicks, are Lyable ^' to be Deceived. Therefore, as Children ufe *' to do when ftriving with one another, whatfo- " ever you Ihall fay, I will fay •, what you fhall " affirm, I will affirm ^ what you fhall deny, I will " den}'^. [If you fay that] an Arian Bifhop bap- "^^ tizes, [and this you muft fay, if you receive Lay- repenting Arians v/ithout Re-baptizing them] " I **^ fay he is therefore a Bifhop. [If you fay] he do's '-^ not baptize, then I fay, do you Convince the " Laick [that he received no Baptifm from the Arian Bifhop] " and I difapprove of the Priefl- '^ hood of him who baptized. I will follow you " whitherfoever you fhall go •, either we will both ^^ together flick in the Mud, or we will equally " get clear out of it. (t6) Ludf. " But a Laick ought therefore to ^' be pardon d, becaufe in his Simplicity, thinking ^' the Arians to be the Church of God, he ap- " ply'd to them-, and believing, w^s, according " to his own Faith, baptized. (163 Lucif. Scd Laico ideo ignofccndum efl, quia Ecclefiam Dei putans fimplicitcr acceffit, ^ juxra fidcm fuam credens bap- tizafjs •- Prove to me, that a Laick com- ing from the Ariansj is baptiz'd, and I will not deny him Penance r but if he is not a Chriftian, (17) Orthod. Novam rem afferis, ut Chri/lianus quifquam faflus fit ab eo qui non fuit Chriftianus. Accedens ad Arianos, ia qua fide bapclzatus eft ? Nempe in ea quam habebjnt Ariani. (iS3 Luc'if.— Laicus etiam extra Ecdefiam fiJc baptizarus paenitens recipitur. Epifcopus vero, aut p* nitcntiam non agit, 8c facerdos cfl, aut li pxnitentiam egerit cffe Epifcopus dcfimt. Qujmobrem refte nos laicum 8c fulcipimus panitcntem, 8c E- pif.opum fi in Sacerdotio pcrfevaiare vult, repudiainus. (19) Orthod. Neque enim h jc modo quaerirur : An Epifcopus Poenitens effe non poffit, & laicus pofTic ? Sed an Hctreticus baptifma habeJt ? qui fi ut conftat baptifma non ha- bet, quomodo potefl ede psenitcns antequam Chriftianus ? Proba mihi ab arianis venientem Laicum habere Baptifmum, & tunc €i paenitentiam non negabo. Si vero Chriftianus non eft, ft non ^ ,. K 4 habucriC cc 1^6 Tejlmonies for and again Jl Part IL '' if he had not a Priefl: who could mate him a *^ Chriftian, [as 'tis plain he had not, if we deny the Orders of the Avian Clergy] " how fhall a " Man be admitted to do Penance, who is not yet ,'' a Chriftian > (20) Luc'if. *' Do's it then feem reafonatle to " you, that an Arian fhould be a Billiop ? (21) Orthod, " You your felf allow him to be '' a Bilhop, by your receiving an Arian Laick *^ baptiz'd by him, [and thereby you acknowledge the A^alidity of his Orders, becaufe you do not reject but allow of the Baptifm which the Laick xeceiv'd from him] '' and in this you are to be '" reprov'd. Why you do feparate from our Com- ^' munion, when you not only agree with us in " Faith, but in receiving of Hereticks alfo ?~ — • '''' For I receive [_a^ a Bij7?op] an Arian Bilhop, " coming over from the Arians to the Church ^ up- *' on the very fame Principle that you receive [as a Lay-Chriftian] " an Arian-1.2.iQk baptiz'd by *^ him.' We agree in the Faith, we agree in ^'^ receiving Hereticks, let us alfo agree in One ■*' and the Same Communion. habuerit Saccrdorem, qui eum facerit Chriflianum, quomodj) acet pa?nitcntiam Homo qui necdum credit ? ' '^(20) Lucif. /Equumne tibi vidctur, ut Arianus Epifcopus {kI (21) Othd. Tu eum Epifcopum probas, qui ab eo recipis Baptizatum •, 8f in hoc reprehendendus es. Quare a nobis parietir 'bus Icpararis, quum in fide & in Arianorum nobiibum receptionc 'conlentiii? Eddem enim ratione Epifcopum ab arianis "recipio, qua tu recipis Bjptizatum. — Confcntimus in •tide, Confcntimus in Hireticis r^cipieodjs, Confentiami|s etiam ■10 Couycntu. (22) Lucif ^ Chap. J. Ltij/'Bapt/fry £jc^wV/V, &rc. i?^ (22) D^clf. '' — Behold, I give way, I fiib- *' mit, and acknowledge that you have Conquered me"^ Thus much may fuffice to fliew the Catholick Principle infilled on by St. Jerom in tliis Dialogue ; I have not always confined my fclf to the very Letter of the Words, but expatiated fometimes by way of Paraphrafe, that the Senk and Meaning of the Difpute againft the Lucifenans^ might be the more Evident to the Englijh Reader-, and that he might be thereby the more enabled to fee the Truth of what I have before afferted, and here re- peat again, viz. That the Great Argument, hy which the Luaferian was Convinced, was. That If the Liiciferians rejected the Orders of the Aria/z Clergy, they ought alfo to reject the Baptifms ad- minifter'd by them-, but the Lticifernws in their Pradice, allow'd of thofe Baptifms, becaufe they admitted Arian Repentant-Laicks to Communion, without re-baptizing them -, and therefore the Lu- aferians were bound to acknowledge the Prieftly Power of the Arlan Clergy, who baptiz'd thofe Laicks: This is fo plain, in the Dialogue before us, that he who runs may read it \ and the whole Ar- gument turns upon this, That where there is not 3 Prieftly Power, there is No True Baptifin adini* nifter'd j for, fays Orthodox^ fzi} Lucif, En tollo manus, ccdo, vicifli. • . ^ S. HkroyiymuJ idverfui Lucif crixnoSj p. 290. ^c, pfer^i Tom. IV, F.iris 1 706. N^ 7. X j 8 Tejtimonies for and again fl P A r T IL N° 7. " If we do not receive the [Arian] Bijhop [as a Bifhop] '' we know that the People [bap- tiz'd by him] ^' miji alfo be reje[ied^'' [not receiv'd as baptized Laicks.] — -" Reje^ that Baptifm which was admini^ " fterd by him, whom you do not efleem to be " a Frleft. W 15;. " An Arian BiJJwp baptizes, therefore he ^^ U a Bifljop, If he does not^ i. e. cannot *' baptize, I difapprove of hk Friefthood. N° 19. " If an Armi Laick, had not a Pjieff^ " who could tnake him a Chriftian ; how fhould " he [be admitted to] do Penance, viz. the ^^ Arian haick^ who is not yet a Chrijiian. N° 21. " T'ou your [elf approve an Arian to be a '' BiJhop, by your receiving an Arian haick '^ baptized by him, &c. By fuch Arguments as thefe, Orthodox aflerts againft the Luciferian, that the Arian Clergy were not Lay-men, but had Prieftly Power : He con- cludes the Validity of their Priefthood from tlie Validity of the Baptifm they adminifter'd ; He afferts, that if they had no Priefthood, the Bap- tifm adminifter'd by them ought to be rejeded. And to this, as to an Invincible Argument, the 'Lucferian fubmitted, and was overcome by the force thereof-, and confequently St. Jerofn here confuted the 'Lucferian, by infifting upon a then known Principle of the Invalidity of Baptifm jx^r- form'd by Perfons deftitute of a Prieftly Power; and fo is an Evidence of the Church's Senfe in thofe Days, againft the Validity of our pretended Bap- tifms, performed by thofe who certainly were never vefted Chap. J. Lajf'Baptifmy ExamirPd^ 8cc. 159 vefted with any fuch Power and Authority, as our DifTenters 'tis evident never were. And for a further Confirmation of this, let it be obferv'd, that St. Jerom in the fame Dialogue, do's afterwards, towards the Conclufion, exprefly af- firm, That, -^ Without P^lCftg there is no Church -^ which would be a Notorious Falfity, if in his Days, it was a Jufl and Sound Principle of the Ca- tholick Church, that Perfons who never were Priefts in any refpec^ whatfoever, could minifter Valid Baptifm, for where there is Valid Baptifin there is moft certainly a Church ^ becaufe, Baptifm is Our Admiifion into the Church: And to^ with- out Priefts, there would be a Church, which is con- trary to this Fatlier. St. Jerom do's here therefore Null all pretended Baptifm by Perfons that are 'Not Vriefls^ becaufe [according to him] whtxQ there is No Priefi: there is No Church ^ and certainl}?- if there is No Church (i. e. where there is No Prieft) there is No Baptifm : And if no Baptifm, then the pretended Baptifms of fuch 12(1 P^t^ftlS, are Null and Void, if this Father may be fuppos'd to be Conliftent with himfulf in this and the reft of his AiTertions againft the Luci- fenan Schifmatick. We have feen, in the Gourfe of this T>iaIogue^ that St. Jerom made a Slip, ivhen he faid. That iii Cafes of Neceffity 'twas lawful for Laicks to Bap- tize^ we have obferv'd how inconfiftent this is with the whole Scope of his Argument againft the Schifmaticks, whom he was endeavouring to con- vert upon Catholick Principles-, that it is very pdly, and without any Connection, brought into a ^ Ecdefia autem non eft, qu2E non habet Sjccrdotes. S. Ukm. OPer, Tom. IV. adier. Ludf, 302. PAru 1706. Dlf- 1 4^5 Testimonies for and agatnfi Part II. jDifcourfe of another Nature, and which was made Oil a quite contrary Principle and Foundation. It is alfo plain, from what has been largely faid before, Pj^^ 121, &c. that this of the Lawfulnefs of Laicks baptizing, was not the then general Senfe and Practice of the Church ^ and that let it be taken in what tolerable Senfe it will, our Lay- Baptifms receive no Countenance from it : And laftiy. That the very Foundation, upon which St. Jerom fuppofes Laicks Baptifm to be Lawful, is felfe in Fact, and dangerous to other Sacred Infti- tutions, as well as to that of Baptifm , and there- fore upon the whole we may venture to fay, Tliat if our Reverend Hiftorian had but tho- roughly read over, and duly confider'd St. Jerome Dialogue, he might have been convinced that he liad no reafon to cenfure [as he do's] Two fuch Excellent and Learned Men as Dr. Forks, and Mr. Reeves^ and in fo publick a Manner too, [ in his x-^d and 34th Pages] as guilty of Error and Miftake, for affirming, That " after the Council of " Nice, this Vropofition^ that thofe, whom a Laicic ^' Baptizeth, are to be re-baptiz'd, zqos' look'd upon ^ to hefo tvite^ that it voiu the undoubted Frinciple '^ whereby the Orthodox conjuted the Luciferians. " For by the Dialogue we plainly fee that it was fb ^ and it is to be wonder'd how it comes to pafs^ that one fo well vers'd '^ in Greek and Latin Fathers " as our Reverend Hiftorian is, do's not fee it too. Mr. Bingham fays, pag. 34. " Who that reads thefe '' Words [viz. after the Council of l\!ice, Scc.'\ in ^ thefe Learned Writers [/. e. Dr. Forbes, and Mr* Reeves'] '' would not atfirftjight be tempted to '' think, that the Council of Nice had fomewhere '^ made an Order ^ that Verfons baptized by hay-men " Jhould be re-baptiz'd •, and that the Catholicks gene- [[ rally CIuip. J* Laj-Baptifmy ExamirPd^? Moment, a Thing only in the Air, of no weight, but a very TnJIle^ not worth our Notice. St. Augufiin is made, how** ever, to fa}^, that this " was a Cafe that every one * Quod fi forte hoc quod narnvi, e^c Non vult all- quis credere (non cnim hoc Siripturarum Divinarum auftorit^, fed incerto au^ore fania commendat) non repugnabo : fed in- terrogabo, fi taJe ahquid contingat, quid futurum eft? NoQ cnim poteft quifquam dicere rclinquendum effe ilium qui morte imminentc baprizari defiderat. Qucm BaptiZJtum i pctnitcntc quifquis non credit Contigiirc oportct ut Credac polfe coothk gcre. Apud Gratian de Con ecrat. Dtl\, 4. df. ;6. L 2 !* «^J? 148 Teflimonies for and againfi Part II. " muft own might happen -^''^ and what then? What fignifies the Poflibility of fuch a Cafe ? Our Inqui- ry is after Matters of faS, attefted to by the An- cient Catholick Church. A Thoufand ridiculous Cafes are pofTible to happen •, nay, fome, (as we find by Experience) which are Superftitious even to a degree of Madnefs and Diftradtion^ have hap- pen'd ^ and fome Popilh Writers, ^c. are full of Relations of fuch Accidents. Bat the Confequen- ces and Inferences which are rais'd from 'em are not always juji and good, but frequently falfe^ and repugnant to the Laws both of God and Man. Our fuppos'd St. Augufitn fays, '^ If any thing ^' like this JhoiM happen^ No One can fay, that in *^ fuch a Cafe, a Alan who defires Baptifm in immi- *' nent danger of Death, is to be deferted and left " tinbaptiz'd.^'' This is very true, he ought not to l)e deferted, by thofe who have the Vower of Giving him Baptifm ^ but if there are none prefent, and no other to be procured, but Lay-hands, fuch as never receivd the Fower of Giving Baptifm^ then 'tis Nonfenfe to fay, that he is deferted by them who have it not in their Power to give him what he wants-, [and to fay that Necefftty gives them this Power, is begging the Queftion] fo that, if he dies unbaptiz'd, he is riot Deferted and Left un- baptiz'd, but he is takCH alunp unbaptiz'd. If in a defert Place I fee a miferablo Objedt, a Man dangeroufly wounded by Robbers, and wallowing in his Blood, ready to Expire^ I fearch his Wound, and find it fo large, as that 'tis out of my Power to clofe it up, or flop the Blood from ifTuing out of it 5 I can only Sympathize with the poor Man in his miferable defperate Cafe, and fend up my Prayers to God for his departing Soul ; He in this Cafe Chap. J. Lay-Baptifmj Examiri^d^hc. 149 Cafe is not fcrfaken by me, tho' he dies without that Relief which he wanted, and which I had not at all in my Power to adminifter to him. Or, fuppofe, which is a juft Parallel to tlie Cafe before us ^ A Chriftian, who never received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, upon the near Approach of Death, fears that he fhall not be faved without it, and therefore with vehement Cries and Tears begs of me to procure him the Reception of it. We are very remote from any Place where Priefls are to be had, and after all Diligence us'd, none can be procured to give it him ^ he is afTur'd of this, but yet continues unfatisfied, and carneftly de/ires me to give it him, believing that in this Cafe it will be the fame thing ^ I tell him 'tis utterly out of my Power, mine is an ineffedive Hand, I never was veil- ed with Chrift's Authority, and therefore lie would receive Nothing from me but Common, Not Sacra- mental Bread and AV^ine ^ however, I aifift him with my charitable Prayers, ^c, and he dies with- out receiving what I had no Power to give: 'Tis certain, the Man is not Deferred and Left, with- out tha Sacrament, by me ^ God took him away from it, and to his moft wife Difpofal he mud he left, as muft all fuch unbaptizM Perfons we are now fpeaking of ^ and if our fuppos'd St. Auguftin reckoned, that, rather than leave them thus to God, any Chriftian prefent, had better minifter Water to them, with the Form, In the Name of the Trinity ; It is certain, that he only fpoke dog- matically, giving but his own private Opinion in fuch a Cafe ^ for he refers us to no Law, no Ca- non, nor Cuftoin of the Catholick Church for fuch a Practice. Thus far may fuffice in Anfwer to the Pafhiges Mr. Binghm has produced out of Gratian, "' a L B !' ^^onk. i^o Tefimcnies for and again fl Part IL '' Monk J zvho frequently quotes fpunous ^ Books ^ " a^ the genuine Writings of the fathers:''' And whofe Authority, with relation to thefe Paffages, is therefore fo little to be rely'd on, that even our Reverend Hiftorian himfelf intiinates, that they may hi quefbion'd \ and therefore^ as not relying on them, he gives us a Qiiotation out of St.^i//- guflin's genuine Works, and fays, pag. 36. " But " if any one thinks thefe Paffages doubtful, becaufe " they are only related by Gratian^ he may read " the fame in St. Auguftins undoubted Works. In " his Books againft Farmenian the Donatift^ he ufes '^ this Argument to prove, that the Baptifm of " Hereticks ought not to be repeated, viz, t Be- ^' caufe^ tho' it be but a hoy-man that gives Baptifm *' to a Man in extrcam 'Kccefftly^ when he is ready '' to Feri^fh', i}Z cannot tijinlt any one can pioujly " /^>', that it ought to be repeated. If it be done " without Neceffity, it is indeed HH ajfUtpatlOH *' of another Maris Office ^ but if he be compell 'd by '' 'Keceffity^ h is either no Fault at all, or but a very *^ light one. " This is Mr. Bingha;ns Tranflation of St. Ai/guftins Words ^ wherein 'tis very remark- able, tliat our Reverend Hiftorian fays of that Fa- ther, " ^Z cannot tfjinfe any one can pioufly fay, " &c. " whereas in Truth, St. Auguftiifs Words are, [ '^ JBcfCfO an pie qmfquam dixerit efje repe- *" tendum~\ 3 feHOU) nOt whether any One can pi- " ^/Te!it and Tra^ice of the Pri- mitive Churth^ in relition to Fe^fons bapti^'d by Laymen, p. 42. + Au^uftin. Contra Epiflol. Parmen. lib. z. C. n- ^f fi Liticm aihjuis ptreunti d.derir, vectffua:e Com^ulfufj quod cum ipfe gcciferet dandum ejje addidicit^ HCCctO an pe quif^uam dixerit ejfs tffete/'.dixWj 8cc. whole Chap. J. Laj'BjptiJwy Examin^d^ ^c, 151 whole PafTage then [to come as near as I can to Mr. Bingharns Tranflation, without doing any Violence to the Senfe of St. Auguftins Words] is this, " If a " hay-man^ Cowpcll 'd by l\'ecejjity^ J})ould give Bup- ^' tifm to a Man that is ready to ?crif})^Scc. 3 kllOlU ^^ not whether any one can poiifly fay^ that it ought *^ to he repeated. If it be done without Kecejfity, it " h indeed ilU iirUCpatlOlt of another AUn^ Of- " fice-, but if he be COmpeirO faP jGleCCffitV, // is " either no fault at aU, or but a iJCtP Itffljt ©lie*" ^' Now in this PafTage, thus fet to rights, 'tis wor- thy our Obfervation. Fir ft ^ That StAugufiin here fpeaks Dogmatically, giving his own private Opinion only, and not the Lawful Senfe and Pradlice of the Church : He only puts a Cafe, that if a Lay-man fhould fo baptize ^ he do's not relate- any /Matter of Fad of a Lay- man's having done fo, and of its being agreeable to the Senfe and Pradtice of the Church, but, like a Cafuift, fuppofes if fuch a thing fhould happen ^^ and then he refolves upon it with a great deal of Hefltancy, as one not fuficiently inform d what fliould be done in fuch a Cafe •, '' / know not [fays he] " whether any one can pioufly fay^ that [fuch a Baptifin] " ought to be repeated.'' I know not^ is ftrange Language, about an Undoubted Lawful Determination of the Church : If flie had deter- mined the Unlawfulnefs of Repeating fuch a Bap- t;fm, fure St. Augufiin would have Il^HOlUlt of this •, and if fuch a Determination had been P/^//f, then fure St. Auguflin muff have call'd it Impious., to have faid, '' That fuch a Baptifm ought to be re- " peated: " But inftead of any thing like this, for him to fay [_Nefcio an pie quifquam dixcnt~] % fenoto not whether any one can pioufly fay foj plainly fhews tliat he did not know, that it was L 4 contrary 1 5.2 Teflimontes for an A again fr Part II. contrary to Piety to fay, " They ought to be re- " feated -, " for he that does not know, liLl&etljei* I can pioujly fay a thing, do's not know that 'tis impious for me to fay it, becaufe [the Latm word Ari] iO&Ctfj^r? has always a Reference to two things^ and when one of them only is nam'd in a Propoiition, the contrary thereto is al- ways to be underftood ^ as v/hen a Man fays^ I fettOtti not lUfjetfjet you are an honeji Man, he plainly means thereby, 31 feltOlU tlOt whether you are, or are not an honeft Man ^ thereby fhewing that he does not know what to determine on either iide, tho' ftill his Partiality to one fide rather than the other, is evident enough •, and he fhews that he queftions the Honefty of the Man, tho' he is not able to prove him dijloneft. So here, St. Au- iuftin\ '' 31 fenOto ttOt tD{)etf)Cr any one can p'l- '^ oufly Jay^ that the [fuppofed] Baptifm ought ^^ to be repeated',^'' muft mean, that he did not Jtnow, whether, on the one Hand, ^twas Fious, or on the other Hand, contrary to Fiety to fay fo : His Partiality, 'tis true, is plain enough, that he queftions the Piety of faying that fuch a Baptifm ought to be repeated *, but then he plainly Inews [by his I know not tD^etljCt) fee] that he was not able to prove it a Contradidtion to Piety, to fay that it ought to be repeated : From whence 'tis evident that St. AugujWne did not know^ that it w^s at that Time the Fiom Lawful Senfe and Pra- dice of the Church, to call fuch pretended Bap- tifm s, t\\t One Chriflian Baptifm, which ought not to be Repeated ^ for if he had known fo, in- ftead of faying, J know not whether any One can pioufly fay they ought to be repeated, he might have confidently affirnfd, '' / k^7ow that 'tis ttOt '' pious to fay fo.'^ But we fee, that this Fa- tlier Chap. J. Lay-Baft ifm^ ExamhPd^ &;c. 15? ther did not venture to be thus Pofitive, but Hefi- tates, and fpeaks of it in doubtful Terms, which he does not ufe to do when he fpeaks of the Gene- ral Senfe and Fra^ice of the Qatholick Church-^ for then he is Clear, Exprefs, and Pofitive enough j thus for Example, The then "^Qatholick Fratlice^ of allowing the Validity of Heretical and Schifma- tical Baptifms in the Name of the Trinity, per- form'd in Separation from the Church, is Plain- ly, and Fully, and Pofitively affirm'd by him, to have been Searched and Inquird into^ Confidcrd^ Feffe^iedy Confirmed and Ejiablijh'd^ with the Con- fent and Agreement of the whole \Qhrifl'ian~\ World, But nothing like this, has he, or could he have faid in all his Works in behalf of nfurped Lay- Baptifms-^ and therefore we may conclude, that he knew of A' No, this is not the Lan- guage of an Evidence of the Church's General Tious Senfe and ?ra[lice •, and is therefore no more than his own private Opinion, which has nothing to do with our prefent Enquiry. Mr. Bingham^ in his 45 d Page, produces another Paflage from St. Aiiguftin^ in favour of Lay-Bap- tifms, even in ordinary Cafes, thus ^ St. Auguftins Words are thefe, " * Though it be ufurped with- *' out Kecefity^ and given fap Hlip J^aU to ano- " ther^ that which k given cannot he [aid not to he '^ given ^ tho it may be truly faid to be unlawfully gi- '' ven. Therefore the ^\\\mli\\ ajfUrpatlOlt ^ " to he corrected by a ilWttU ailD clffeCtiOUittC " Eepentance* And ifu be not ^t^ixzazt^^ that " which is given will remain to the pUnifljtllCnt ^' of the Vfurper^ ttf zjoell of him zvho giiS30 It un- " lawfully^ a^ of him tUljO reC£ii3'B it unlawfully: "'' But yet it cannot be accounted a^ not given. Ko " devout Soldier ever violates the Royal Stamps tho"" it he ufurp'd by private Men: For iho fome by Stealthy and in a Clandeftine way, fet the Royal Stamps not to the publick Money, but their own • yet the Money fo Jiamp'd^ when they are either ^ Augufl. Contra Epift. Parnien. Lib. 2. C. xiii. / ^' punijh'd. cc Chap. J. Laj-B^ptifmj Ex^mind^ &rc. 15^ '\ punijh'd^ or pardon d for their Offence^ having the Royal Standard upon it^ is not drfac'd^ but broi/^ht " into the Kings Treafury. '' '' Whence ( fays " Mx. Binghafn^ pag. 44.) 'tis plain, He [St.id/^- gujlin'] " thought, that Baptifin given by Lay- " men Itt SD^Oiliarp CaftlSj which was an Ufurpa- " tion of the Prieft's Office, ivas not to be repeated, " And this he afTerts in another Place againft the " Donatifls ^ ^n iiot His tljc 2)£tcimuiatioit '' of anp (general Counci!, but as lju5 oton ''• SDpimon:" " For " he fays. If he were aMem- ^' ber cffuch a Synod wherein this ^mfi'wn was di?- " bated^ he fwuld not fcruple to ajjert all thcfe to " have Baptifm, '^ \})tjZttiomt or by \J)\}OmiOZUt " Baptized, that had receivd it in Faith, andzcithout " Diffitnulation, in that Form of Words which is p^^e- '^ fcrib'd by the Gofpel ; tho' if they wanted Charity, " and were out of the Catholick Church, it would net " profit them to Salvation, or any other Spiritual Loncerns, " Thus we fee how far St. il/^^z//?/;? was carry M In the Heat of Difpute againft the Donatifls -, for,becaufe they Re-baptized even the Catholicks, who had been before validly Bapt'z'd In theNnme of the Trinity, by Catholick Priefts, [and this they did, upon pretence of their former Baptifins being a Pollution, as being defil'd by the Minlftration of tliofe, whom they caird Wicked and Profane, and for that rea- fon not Minifters of Jefus Chrift] There- fore St. Auguflin, in his Difpute againft this Pra- ctice of the Donatifts, ran into the other Extreme, and aderted fas we fee in thefe PalTages) That: Baptifm performed '' by an? SSail v:ho7nfoevcr. * Amji> dc Baptifmo, lib. vii. chap, f^, or 156 Teftimomes for and agaiyifi Part II, " or wherejoever^'^ if clone with the Form of Words, In the Name of the Trinit7, was good and vahd, and not to be repeated : A Latitude fo extremely fingular, that it allows of Baptifm, not only by Chriftian Lay-men, but even by Apoftates, Jews, Turks, Pagans, and all other forts of In- fidels, not only in Cafes of Extremity, when Priefts are not to be had •, but alfo in Ordinary Cafes, where they are or may be prefent. Such a Liberty is this, that nothing Sacred, no Divine Inftitution whatfbever can be of any Force upon Mens Confciences, if it fhould be unwerfally allow d of: And fo unwarrantable is the Notion, that Mx, Bingham (as I have before obferv'd, pag. 105:.) acknowledges. That Baptifm by Jews and Pagans, " is one of the Novelties ofTopery^ " zohoUy New^ " ^ and UttCClp without Precedent in the Primitive " Church. " Nay, even in this Place our Reverend Hiftorian confefTes, That this oifuch Vfurped Bap- tifm^ was afTerted by St. Auguftin^ ^- Not as the *' Determination of any ®mzt^\ COltltd^ " But " as his own ©piniOtt*" So that it was nothing lut St. Auguftin\ private Opinion, not the General Senfe and VraUue of the Church \ which is the Great Thing we are enquiring after, and ^\\\q\\ hitherto we cannot difcover, by all that Mr. Bing- ham\ Scholaftical Hifory has yet related. As for St. Auguftin^ his Reafons for pretended Baptifms, (tho' ufurp'd and performed by aup r^aitj without Necellity) are none at all -, for ha fays, " That which is givcn^ cannot be f aid not to be *' given ^ tho it may be truly f aid to be unlawfully ^'- given.'' This is plainly a begging of the Q.ue- ftion ^ for 'tis the thing deny'd : We fay, in fuch Gale, Chriftian Baptifm IjS ItOt gi^jeil at all, and therefore not fo much as unlawfully given 5 let thofe who Chap. J. Lay-Baftifin^ Examin'd^ &c. 157 who are Friends to St. Auguflins odd Opinion in this Matter, prove, ( what he has not prov'd ) That Chriftian Baptifni is really, tho' unlawfully given^ and we will have done. When Laws are Enadcd for making Conveyances of Eftates, or Privileges to Men 5 if thofe Laws require that the Convey- ance ihould be made by the Sign Alanual^ and Seal and Delivery^ of the Principal Owner^ or his Law- ful Attorney ^ 'tis falfe, to fay, That the Convey- ance is reaUy and validly made by a Cheating XJfurper who is not fo authorised ^ no Law will allow this to be a Valid Conveyance^ no, tho' it was done witli all the other necejjary Requijites of the Law ^ 'tis an abfolute Nullity, and is very parallel to the Cafe before us. St. Auguftin brands fuch pretended Bap- tifms with the odious Name of UnUlttlflll fllfurpa-- tlOnS 5 and fo they juftly deferve to be termed, for they are Ufurpations againft all the Laws of God, and his Church •, and if fo, then there is no l^alD whereby to determine them Valid •, and they cannot have a Legal Validity, without fome Law or other whereby to try their Validity. He fays, " The unlawful Ufurpation is to be cor- " reSed^ by a fincere and affeSionate Repentance. This is undoubtedly neceilary. But wherein do's this Repentance confift > Repentance muft be differently exprefs'd ^ and its Fruits muft be ac- cording to the Kature of the Sin committed. Con- felfion, Sorrow, Prayer for Pardon, Refolution to do fo no more, and Conftanc y in keeping this Re- folution, are not fufficient to conftitiite "' a fincere " and affelhonate Repentance''^ for fome fort oi Sins ; The Proper and Genuine Work of True Re- pentance, is, to undo (as much as lies in our Power) the Wickednefs we have committed. Hence Reftitution is neceffary, in Cafes othjuflice. Robbery^ 158 Tefiimomes for and, again fi Part IL Robbery^ and Defamation •, and fuch Ufurpations as are made by Perfons, who, by all the Laws of God and his Church, are utterly excluded from facred Mimftrat'wns^ cannot properly be faid to be truly repented of without undoing and making void^ in Fadt, as much as we can, the thing which was endeavoured to be ufurped. Thus, if a Presbyter ihould wickedly prefume to attempt to Ordain Men to minifter in Holy Things, his Repentance would be but falfe and fpurious, if he did not, to the utmofl: of his Power, caufe tho^Q falfe Ordinations to be undone, either by difcovering the Perfons he had fo pretendedly Ordain dy that they might be known not to be in Holy Orders ^ or elfe, by en- deavouring to caufe them to be validly Ordain d by the Bilhop, if they are duly qualified for Holy Or- ders. And in this Cafe, it would not be juft, to fay they received Holy Orders before, tho unlawfully 5 for in truth, they receivd them not at all : This I defire our Epifcopal Friends to confider. And as for thofe who are not entirely Epifcopal, but think the Presbyterian Scheme to be as good as that of Epifcopacy, [ tho' they will never be able to prove it, to be any other, than a very wicked and facri- legious Ufurpation] I ask them, Whether if a Man, whom they efteem to be but a meer Lay- man^ fhould prefume to attempt to give Holy Or- ders ^ I fay. Would fuch a Man's Repentance for this Sin be fufficient, without difcovering (to his power) the Perfons he fo pretendedly Ordain'd, and endeavouring, either to have them known as Perfons not Ordain d^ or elfe to procure them to receive ivhat the Presbyterians call Valid Orders ? Sure, our Friends to the Presbyterian Scheme will not call this true Repentance : And if not, then there is no reafon to fay. That the wicked Ufurpa- tions Chap. 3 . Lay-Baft I fm^ ExamirPd^ 8cc. i 5 9 tions of Perfons pretending to Baptize, who never were Commiilion'd, are duly repented of, without their endeavouring to procure Baptifni by a Valid CommJJJion, to be given to thofe whom they, in their wicked Ufurpations, did but pretendedly bap- tize before •, for the fame rcafon that holds for one, will hc^Id for this other alfo. St. Auguflin fays farther, concerning fuch a Ufurpation, " If it be not correUed [7. t'. by Re- pentance,] '' that which is given will remain to the '*^ Funijhment of the Vfurper^ as well of him who " gave it unlawfully, as of him who receivd it un- " lawfully 3 but yet it cannot be accounted as not '' given.^' Still begging the Qijeftion, that Bap- tifm is given in thefe Cafes : And it may as juftly be faid, that Holy Orders are given in the other Cafe I put above. The Ufurpers Repentance I have already fpoken of \ and if he does not truly repent of nitU COJCCCt his Ufurpation, his ufurped A61 will remain to his Yunijhment^ (faysSt. il«« guftin. I am now to fee what muft be the Repentance of the fuppojed Receiver ^ and that is already dis- covered, by the Repentance of the pretended Giver : For as this latter, in the Cafe of a Falfe Ordina- tion, was bound to endeavour the Difcovery of the Falfly-OrdainM Perfons, that they might be known as not Ordain d, and fo receive Valid Ordi- nation i So, the Receiver of thofe Falfe Orders, muft repent of, and correct what was prctendedly received by him , he muft not cla'tm the Privileges and Prerogatives due to Valid Holy Orders •, and if he would enjoy them, he muft difclaim all pre- tended Right to them as due by virtue oj the Court* tcrfeit Ordination, and muft receive Valid Orders from fuch as have Power to give them. Even fo tlie i6o Tefi monies for and. again fl Part II. the Receivers of thefe pretended Baptifms^ if they fnuft repent of their Part in the Uliirpation, muft necefTarily acknowledge, that they have acquired no Right to the Privileges of a Valid Baptifm^ by virtue of the U/urped M : The Ufurped Ad was Unlawful, with refpedt to all the Laws of God and his Church j therefore his Repentance muft be fuch, as to exprefs his a[iual Obedience to thoje Laws : He do's not fhew fuch Obedience to^^ but even adual Rebellion agalnft thofe Laws, while he claims (by virtue of a Ufurper's Adt, in Oppofition to all thofe Laws) the fame Privileges as are Conferred by others whom thofe Laws do Authorize to Conferr them ^ this is making the XJfurpation to be only a Circumjlantial faulty when in truth 'tis alfo an Effential one^ by reafon of its Contrariety to the Eflential Law of the Inftitution \ as I humbly hope I have prov'd ^ in another Place -, and there- fore, Repentance for it, as a Fault againft a 0>- cumftantial Law only^vjhtn 'tis in truth, a Rebellion againft all Law whatfoever, as well Effential as 0>- cumftantial^ is a continuing the Ufurpation in a very great degree ^ and the Demanding of Privi- leges by virtue thereof is in fome fort an Equali- zing its pretended Legality^ with the Lawfulnefs of the Commifftond ABs^ and fo a Falfe and Counter- feit Repentance. The Penitent then, muft wave his pretended Right to the Privileges of a Com- mifiion'd Baptifm ^ and feek for them, hy endea- vouring to procure Baptifm from thofe who are Ommifftond to give it him \ and this his Endea- vour^ fhews his fincere Repentance for his part in the Ufurpation *, and then, what was pretendedly given to him before, being now forfaken by him, "■ Lay 'Baptifm Invalid* '' will Chap. J. L^y-B^ptjfr/^ Examin'i^'kQ. j5j Wll not ''remain to his Funifhment,'" as St. /!;/- guftin fays it will, if the Ulurpation '• be not '' corref/ed by a fincere anl affcliionate Rfnem- ance. " As for ^t.Augu^'uh Simile about unlawful Coin- ing of Mone}^ I have anfwerM it long fince in * another Book to which the Reader is referred : And I have infifted thus long on St. Au^u/fin\ Notions, which he advanced in Defence ot'Liy Ufurpations '^ becaufe (as I have proved) they were only his own pm^ate Opinions, and not the Senfe of the Ancient Otholick Church : And be- caufe I find fome t Men of Character among our felves, have copy'd thefe Notions from him, with- out fo much as producing any Argument to fup- port them, whofe Great Names are notwithliand- ing ( in tlie Opinion of fome Men) fufficient to recommend them to be receiv'd as good and whole- fome Doctrines, I fhall therefore, from the Learn- ed Du P/;73\conclude all that I have to fay of the Great St. Augnftin, by (hewing the Reader, that He was not wholly free from introducing Novel- ties in Religion •, and that the Latin Fathers after him, copy'd his Principles, and follow'd hiuj, as their great Leader and Guide, in Matters of Di- vinity. Du P/Vs Words are thefe : jj " He [_i,e, St.Augi^f^in'] " flurts^ fever a/ ^uejh on s never " thought of before, nnd refolves many of them by ^' the meer flrength of his Wit. He often left the '' Notions of hi Predecejfors, to follow a ]dM) '^ toljollp ht% tohether m atholick conflant Tradition from the Apoftles Days, whereoii to found the Au- thority of Lay- .oien :-^ — He fays only ot Baptizing ]M 2 ' vvheu 164 Tefi monies for and again fi P A r T IL wlien extreme Necefllty compels [hj reafon of the Abfence of the Clergy] that \J'''La'ici^Chrijiia?7isfa' " cere plerumque COllCetlltUi: :] It is often [or fometimes] '" gCtHttCB to Lay-men to perform it.'"" This do's not deWmine U)ljO they were that gtaittCtl this, nay more, it {hews, that even then it was not 9llDap0 granted •, and it is therefore impoffible from hence to conclude, that it was the ancient Qatholick Churches ©^tlltt \ and if it was not hers, 'tis no matter whofe it was elfe. It may be Gela- fim himfelf, or fome of his late Fredecejfors^ Bi- fhops oiRome^ made this Grant to impower fome of their own hay-men for fuch Cafes, as the Spanijl) Bifiiops in the Council of Eliberis had done before them •, or elfe it may be, that Gelajim only points at what thofe Spanifh Biihops had done ; But whe- ther it be one, or the other, or both of thefe, it amounts to nothing but the Pradice oi fome parti- cular Bifhops, not of the ancient Catholick Chursh : Nay further, if this had been (as it certainly was not) the ancient Church's general Senje and Praflice^ yet this PafTage of GelaJi/AS would not have been an Evidence, that pretended Baptifm, by Perfons 77^ t;*?^ commijTtond to Baptize, v/as the general Senfe and VraBice of the Church, For, Secondly^ His faying, ^^It is granted to Lay-Chri- '' (fians •, " plainly fhews, that they had not the Authority and Power in themfclves as Lay-Chri- ftians: For the Thing gCaittCO was not in their Power before 'twas gnilttCD ♦, if it was, then it was ItO ©?ant, and it would have been a meer Jefl: to talk of granting a POtoCr to Lay-Chriftians, if they had it in themfelves without fuch a ©^arit T Lay-Chriftians, as fuch therefore, had no fuch Power, becaufe Gelajius fays it was granted to them. Confequently, ;/ they could have fuch a Power C hap. 3 . Laj'Baftijh^ ExJ7nin*'d^ Sr c. 1 6 5 Vower conferrd on thov, this would not pro\ e an/ thing in Behalf of thofe, who evidently have it ?icr^ and indeed ?iever had it-^ which is the Cafe of uur haicks, againft whofe pretended Baptifnis vv^e are now difputing. And therefore Qelafu/s is no Evidence for any Validity in iuchy/?///7^/>j Biip- ufms, § XXX. Ifidore^ Bifhop of Sm/ in 5/7x?/>7, about one hundred Years alter Gelafius, viz. Anno 5:9,. is Mr. Binghu7?2\ next fuppos'd Evidence, png. 37. And our Reverend Hiftorian gives us that Bilhop^s Words thus: ^ '''' It is unlawful either for prrcjte " Men^ or the inferior Clergy, [Clericis iineGradu] (who were Laymen J '' to B^ptr.e^ jor the Office be- " longs only to Prie/is. We read in the G^Jpel that '' it was given by Commiffion to no other but tl^e Apo- " /?/^J" h J^fifs after his Refurredion^ f^yi^g itnto " them^ as my Fatlier hath fent me, fo Tend I- you 5 And when he had f aid this he breathed on the m^ faying^ Receive ye the holy Gho/L "W'ho- fbever Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them*, and wliofoever Sins 3''e retain, they are retained. And in another Place, Go Teach all Nations, Baptizing them In the Name of tlje Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gholh Whence it is ??ianifeft, that the Alinijfry of Bap t if m was committed only to Pricfls-^ nor is it lawful jor Deacons themfelves to perform the Mylhry without a BifI)op or a Presbyter : Except in their Ahfcnce^ the extreme Necejfity of Sicknefs compel them to do it. In which Cafe alfo hayChnjYians are often pCrttlltteD to doit'^ lejl any oneJ})ould be called ^ Jfidor. dc Offi:. Ecckfiaf, Lib. 2. c, 24. M 3 !* out (.(. t66 Tcflimonies for and again fi Part IL *•' out of the World without the Remedy or Means of "^ Salvation.'' This is Mr. Bingham s laft Evidence in this Matter. And now we will examine to what purpofe 'tis in our prefent Difpute. And firft, Ifdore founds the Power of Baptizing upon the CommiiTion given to the Apoftles : So far we are agreed. Secondly^ He hence infers, That *' the Mmifiry of Baptijm was committed only to " friejh, " Now if by Priefts he means only Bi- /hops and Presbyters^ JJidore himfelf was miftaken ^ for that Miniftry was given alfo by the Apoftles to Deacons^ as Mr. Bingham himfelf has very juftly^ obferv'd ^ fee p. ^. ot his Scholafiical Hiflory, Con- fequently, by the Divine Law^ ^twa^ Lawful for Dea- cons to Baptize. But, Thirdly^ IJidore fays, It is not " Lawful for Deacons themf elves to perform the *^' My ft cry [Myfterium — eziihre abfque Epi/copis vel " Presbyteris'] or rather to perfedt the Myftery, " without the Bifhops or Presbyters: Except^ in " their Abfence^ the extreme 'NeceJJity of Sicknefs ^^ compel them to do it. This was a Matter of Or- der only, as it is now in our Church, that Deacons ihould give way to Bifhops and Presbyters, their Superiors, and not prefume to take place of them, hut only Baptize in their Abfence: Therefore, when ifidore fays, 'tis not Lawful for them to Baptize, &c. He t annot be fuppos'd to reckon them but equal to Laicks^ for 'tis plain, that the Apoftles gave them Powder to Baptize, i^^hich they did not give to Laicks, And therefore their Exercile of that Power, in an irregular Circumftance, when Bifhops and Presby- ters were prefl'nt, or might be liad, tho' it was un- lawful, yet it was not fo with refped to the EfTence of the Commifnon, as if they never had rcceiv'd any CbmmilTion at all j but 'twas only unlawful with refpect to the Circumftance of Order : It being a ft^nd- Chap. J. Lay-Baptifmy Examin'd^ &C. 167 a ftandlngLaw of the Church, that Deacons (hoiild adl in Subordination to Biihops and PrclLy ters, and give way to theni in Sacred Miniftrations. Vourth- ly^ His telling us of the Power of Baptizing in want of the Clergy S^oi ^ Laicis jidelibr/s pier urn- que fermitt'itur^ 8cc.] That " it is often [or fome- times] " permitted {_aUoTvd or granted^ to Lay- " Chnftians to Baptize^ left any one Jlwuld be call'd *' out of the World without the Remedy or Msd/is of " Salvation \ " is ftill confining the Power of Bap- tizing to a iuppos'd Commiffion to be firfl: received, and abundantly fhews, that Lay-Chriftians have not that Power in themielves as Chriftians, but it muft be acquir'd by an explicit Termijfion or Grant -, fo that, if luch a Commiffion could he given to La}'-- Chriftians, yet even then, this PafTage would not favour the Wafhings perform'd by our Laicks, zcho never had any Commiffion at all. And further, here is no Evidence that Lay- men were in the general Senfe and Fra^ice of the Church impower'd to Bap- tize in Abfence of the Clergy. IJidore appeals to no general Council^ or uninterrupted ancient Catholick Tradition or VraUice : And being a Spanijh Bifhop, 'tis juft and reafonable to believe, that he only has an eye to thePradice of the Spanijh Churchy in Con- fequence of their Council of Either ^^ wliicli was no general Council^ and deterniin d nothing relating to Wafhings by Perfons who never were commijfund to Baptize. As for fome Mens particular Opinions about the Minifterof Baptifm, 'tis no wonder that [efpecially after St.Auguftins Days] they ran fuch unaccount- able Lengths, as at lafl: to reckon, that 'twas no matter who perform'd it, fo that 'twas done with Water and Invocation of the Holy Trinity •, for they foUow'd the Opinion of that Father, That V^atcr, M 4 and l6S Tefitmomes for and again fi Part II. and the Name of the Trinity, were dhfolutely ne- cejjary to the Salvation of all Men. St. Augu^in did not allow, that even Infants could be fav'd without "Water *, and hence he was for having Water apply 'd by any one, with the Ufe of the Form, in the Name of the Trinity, as we have feen before;, and to fuch a Latitude did Men run at lafl:, that they in exprefs Terms affirmed Baptifm to be vahd, tho' performed by a Pagan. Thus C rati an reckons Ifidore ^ to have affirm'd , which if true, fhews how valuable his Authority is in the Cafe of Baptifm performed hy fuppofcdly authorized LayChriftia/zs. So the fame Gratian quotes a t Pope of Rome afTerting the Vali- dity of Baptifm by a Pagan ^ and in || another Place, that it is all one whether performed by a Chriftian or Pagan, fo tliat it was done in the Name of the Trinity : Nay, if it was done only in the Name of Chrift, by a Pagan, the Perfons ih baptizd ought not to receive any other Baptifm. So extravagant have Men been in their Notions of the meer Imitation of an opz/s operatum in this mat- ter. But Mr. Bingham confefTes this to be a Vopijh Novelty, and fo indeed he ought in reafon to ac- knowledge, that Baptifm by Perfons never commif- * Ifidor Non iteratur Baptifmj quod a Pagano Miniftratur. ^pud Gritun de Coofecrat. Dijl.d^. cap, xxii. /'rt|. 15,8:;. Edit, T^iUr. \6io. f Romanus Pontifex, non homirem judirat qui Baptizat : fed ^pirituiii Dei fuhminiftrare gratiam Baptifmi licet i aganus fit qui Bspiz't. Ibid. cap.T^yW']. II A quodam judeo neJcitis utrum ClniOi-ino an Pagano, multos in patria veftra !iaptizatos afferitis, ^ quid de iis fit 3gcnduii) confuiitis. Hi prol'cfto fi in Nomine S'anftc Triniratis, vcl ta'tiMP -n Chrifti Nomine, ficut in aftibu^ Apoflolorum legi- mus, baptizari funt (unura quippc idrmque eft, ut fanftus cx- ponit Ambronas [ iib.'u de Spiritu Sanilo, f;?/). 3,] conflac tos iiipn cfTc d?nu6 bapcizandos. I'yjd eap.-aw'* Chap. J. Lay-Baftifwy ExamhPd^^c. i6g fiorfd at dU to Baptize^ is as much a Novelty of corrupt Popery, iince the ancient Catholick Church never determin d any thing in favour of thefe, any more than fhe did in favour of Pagan Bapti/m-^ and a Pagan ()aS HS tttUCtjP^w^^r and Authority to Bap- tize, as our Laicks who never were commijjiond any more than he. XXXr. Our Reverend Hiftorian is fofenfible, that what he has producM from the Antients is nothing to the Purpofe ot pretended Baptifms by Perfons never commiHion'd ^ that lie fums up his whole Evidence in a very remarkable Manner, in thefe Words, fag, 38. '^ Thus we have fe en \_fays he'] for fix bun- " dred Tears, the general %zm aiiD pjactice " of the antient Church, grOUnHeU^ a^theyfuppofe^ " i^pon the COUmiiffiOn given to the Apoji/es, " whereby Bijhops, as the npoflles SucceJJors, are ^' qualified fir fi to give Baptifm thewfelves, and then " to grant a ComnnffiOn to others to Baptize^ ^^ and that either to Presbyters or Deacons, or to " Presbyters alone in OMM^V^^^t^, and in Cafes " extraordinary and of extreme Necefjity to Deacons " and Lay-wen,^'' Thus Mr. Bingham acknowledges, that all his Evidences confpire in this, that the general Senfe and PraSice of the ancient Church was, that Baptifm, whether in ordinary or extraordinary Cafes, was adminifi:red by the Bifhop, or elfe by fuch as had [or at lea ft were fuppos'd to have had ] an Epifcopal CommilFion to Baptize -, from whence it necefTarily follows, that even this fuppos'd gene- ral Senfe and Practice of the Church, as ftated by Mr. Bingham^ docs not give Countenance to the Vahdity of pretended Baptifms performed OjOltta- rilp as well as PrtraO?Dinar(l{>, by Perfons who never had an Epifcopal Commiffwn, and who yet prefume \ 1 70 Tejl monies for and againfi Part IL prefume to attempt to Baptize, in Oppofition to the Divine Right of Epifcopacy : So far from this was the fuppofed General Senfe and Pradice of the Ancient Church, that even in Cafes of Extreme 'Neceffity^ we fee Baptifm was fuppos'd to be per- formed, by none but fuch as were reckoned to be Impowerd. by the Bijhop : Infomuch, that our Laicks pretended Baptifms, tho' done in Extremity, where none of the Clergy can be had, can claim nothing of Benefit from the General Senfe and Fraf/ice ^ the Ancient Church for the firft 600 Years of Chriftianity, by Mr. Binghanis own Account of the Matter, whereby he makes Baptifm, even in Cafes oi Extreme NeceJJity^ to be founded upon a Commljjion given by Bifhops to Deacons and hay-men to Baptize, § XXXII. But not to leave this Matter here ^ I affirm, That all Mr. Bingham\ Evidence fumm'd up together, do's not amount to fo much as a Proof, That the Ancient Catholick ChurcFs Senfe and Pradice for the firft 600 Years, was, to Com- tnijjion or Authorize Lay-men to Baptize, in want of the Clergy. For, The firft 300 Years have not fo much as One Evidence of any One Lay-man fo Autho- rized* TertuUians Opinion was fingular. That Lay- Chriftians, as fuch, had that Power in themfelves : He did not fuppofe any fuch Authority given to them by the Bilhops ^ nay, he fuppos'd them alfo to have Power to minifter the other Sacrament of the Eucharift^ in abfence of the Clergy. But St, Cyprian^ Yirmilian^ and their Colleagues, are plain Evidences againft this his fingular Notion of Lay-mens Power to Baptize, and the Founda- tion -Chap. J. Lay-B(2ftifmy Examini^ &€. 171 tion upon which he grounds their pretended Power, has been already overthrown. The Council of Eliherit^ which made a Canon X.0 Authorize fome particular fort of their own Lay- men, who were in Communion with their Biihop, to Baptize a Catechumen in Danger of Death, when the Clergy could not do it ^ has been large- ly prov'd to be a Contradiction to TerruUians No- tion ^ and that it was but a Provincial Council of Spamjh Bifhops, not a General Council, and there- fore not Declaratory of the General Senfe and Pra- dice of the Ancient Catholick Church ^ fince, in the whole fpace of thefirft 600 Years, this Council ftands fingular by it felf ^ no other Council what- Ibever, whether General or Provincial, during that Period, made any fuch Canon. The Story of the Boy Athanafiuis Baptizing his Play-fellows in Sport, and oi Alexander's determin- ing, that the Children Ihould have no other Bap- tifm ^ befides its being Fabulous, is no Inftance of ^ Laicks Baptizing by the Bifhop's Commillion and Autliority : If it had been true, it would not have been an Inftance of the General Senfi and Pra- dice of the Ancient Catholick Church ^ being, upon that Suppofition, but the Private Adt of one fingle Biihop only : Nay farther, the fuppofing the whole Story to be true, and the Determination thereupon to be jufl: and good, would naturally tend to the Expofing of all Divine Inftitutions, to be Ridi- cuPd and Defpis'd, as Infignificant and Childilh things, and fo make way for the Extirpation of all ReveaFd Religion out of the World. St. Jerom\ Saying, Of the Lawfuhiefs of Laicks Baptizing in Cafe of Neccihty, has btcn prov'd to be built on Tertullid/j's falfe Foundation ^ to be no Inftance pf the General Senfe and Praf/ice cj the Ancient 1^2 Tefli'rnonies for and agamfi Part IL Ancient Caiholick Church , but to be an Inconfiflency with himr^f, and a Contradidion to that Catholick Principle, whereby he confuted the L/^^/Jm^;? SchiP matick, who reckon d the Ar'ian Clergy to be but Lay-men, and whofe Baptifm, St. Jerom affirmed, ought therefore to be rejedtedj if the huciferians Opinion were true. St. Augufljns Opinions have been examined •, he proves nothing, but fuppofes the Vahdity of an Imitated Opus Operatum, without any Argument ^ he fpcaks things upon Hear- fay only •, he hefitates, and cannot determine, as to his K?7owledge^ about Ufurped Lay-Baptifms being Valid ^ he gives us no Proof of any General Council, nor of any Tra- dition fhewing the General Senfe and VraUice of the Ancient Catholick Church, for Laymens being Authorized to Baptize. And, Laftl3% Gelafius and IJidore, tho' they fay that Lay-men were often Authorized to Baptize, in Cafe of Necelfity, yet neither of them points at the General Senfe and Praffice of the Church -^ No Ge- neral Council, No Catholick Tradition^ No Uni- verfal Practice of the Biihops of the Catholick Church •, they leave us in the dark, as to thefe ^ and therefore 'tis jufl: and reafonable to inferr, that they fpeak only, either of their own or Ibme otiier particular Mens Pra6lices, and therefore are of No Authority to us in this Matter. Upon the Whole, The profound Silence of the Days of the Apoftlcs and Apoflolick Fatliers, and of the Three firft Centuries of ChriRianity, con- cerning Lay-mens being at all CommiJJiond to Bap- tize, is a full Proof, that the Bifhop's Authorizing of them to Baptize, can never be founded on any CatfjOllCk CratJitiOU of the Primitive Church ofChnft: And more, If there had in truth been fuch Chap. J. Lay-Baptifmy Exami?j^dy ?>cc. lyj fuch a CatljOUCfe CratlltiOn^even from the Times of the Apoftles to this Day, [as there never was,] yet ftill tins would be of no Advantage to the pre- tended Baptifms of our Laicks, [i.e, our Dij]'enters^ who were never Commiflion'd by Bifhops, [and indeed, who cannot be Commiflion'd, for they have no 'Blfl)Op0] to Baptize. This is the Refult of all Mv.Binghafns Evidences: But at the End of this Book, I Ihall fum up the whole Evidence for and j^^//?/? Baptifin byPerfons who never were Commiffiond^ or who were fuppos'd to have m Commiffion^ to Baptize ^ which it is not fo proper to do here, before I have Anfwerd Mr. Bingham's Obje^fions, againft feveral of t\\Q Teftimonies of the Ancient Fathers againft Unau- thorized Baptifms, and alfo his ObjeSions relating to the Antient Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms allowed of by the Church, which Mr. Bingham endeavorus to make look like our Unauthorized Lay-Bapri/ms* CHAP. iy4 Ohje^iiom agaiftjl St.Cy^xidiay Part IL CHAP. IV. Answers ft^Mr.BinghamV Objections, againfi the Tejltmomss of St. Cyprian, 5^Ba^ll, ^?;?^ 6V. Chryfoftom, rvho reckoned fretended Baptifms by Perfons never Com- mijJiorPdj to he Null and Void. Object. ^ '■■^HE Evidence of thofe Three I. I Fathers 1 have already (hewn, X Chap.WV ^ XII, XIII, XXIII, XXIV. And our Reverend Hiftorian, in his 38th Vage^ fays, That if their Evidence were entirely on our Side, " // would not weigh llEtp tllUClj ^ becaufe '' it would be only their Private Sen/e, and not the " Pra^ice of the Churchy which is the Subjed of our ^' prefent Enquiry, ^^ A N s w. Now our Side, /. e» the Propofition we infift upon, is this. That pretended Baptifms, by Perfons never Qommijfion'd to Baptize^ is Null and Void. Thefe Three Fathers, (befides others which I have produc'd ) are entirely with us in this Point, as I have already prov'd. Mr. Bingham has brought no Evidence of any One Church upon Earth, for the firft Six hundred Years of Chriftianity, de- termining the contrary •, the Story of the Boy Athanafius Baptizing his Play-fellows, and of the Church of Alexandria's allowing it to be Valid, having been prov'd to be but a meer Fidion : So that all Mr. Bingham's Evidence for this Side of the Queftion, is from no other than the Private Opi- nion s oiTertuUian and St. Jerom^ Two Presbyters ^ and Cliap. 4. St> Bafil, ^c. Anfmr'd. ,7^ and Optati^ and St.Augujlw^ Two Bifhops^ the Two firft upon falfe Principles, and the other Two meerly upon their own private Opinion, witliout giving any good Reafon for it: And one of them, St. Auguftin^ at the fame time hefitating and doubt- ing about it, as I think I have largely proved. As for any other Evidence Mr. Bingham has brought, VIZ, from the SpaniJI) Council of bJiberisy St. Auguft'tn^ Oelaftus and Ifidore^ they wholly relate only to Baptifmjfepp^xV to have been authorizd by Bifhops'^ which is foreign to our prefent Enquiry, tho' even tfiCP are no Proofs of i\\Q general Senfe and FraSice of the Churchy but only Ihow how tar fome Biftiops thought themfelves to have been impower'd to authorize others to Baptize^ namely, their own Lay-men in want of the Clergy. And whether they thought and pradtis'd rightly or no, this is certain, that their particular Practice has not been prov'd to be the Senfe and Fratiice of the ancient Catholick Church. And further j nothing in favour of pretended Baptlfms, by Laicks never au- thoriz'd by their Bilhops, and ading in oppofitiou to them, can be at all inferred therefrom. And therefore the Teftimonies of St. Cypnan, St. Baf/^ and St. Chryfojlom^ againft the Validity of fpurious Baptifms perfonnd by Perfons who never were Epifcopally CommifTion'd, and therefore have no Prieft/y Power to Baptize, are of very great Weight and Importance-, ly?, Becaufe their Evidence is founded on the Divine Pofltive Inftitution of Bap- tifm^ 2d/y, Becaufe it is corroborated by other concurring Evidence-, And ^d/y, Becaufe it never was gainfay'd or opposed by any Law or Tradition of the ancient Catholick Church, nor fo nuich as by any authentick Law or Tradition of but one Particular, Ancient, Orthodox Church of Chrift. But 1 76 OhjcBiorjs againfl St, Cyprian, Part. IL But Mr. Bingham has particular Objedions againfl the Evidence of thofe Fathers refpedlively, which I now come to Anfwer. Object. II. He fays, " When Chryfoflom "' confines the office of Bapnfm to the Hands of a '' p?ieff, he only vxtm^ in ojoinai:? Care0, otherwife Deacons^ who are nO H^^lEttlS) would, be abfOlUtClp excluded from it in all Cafes what- foever, af well oj l^aymen ^ and yet Chryfoftom aUOU)0 Deacons to Baptize in Cafes of Neceffity^ which makes it evideTtt^ that his D'ifcourfe only re- lates to the Minifiration of Baptifm in ordinary " Cafes, Answ. All this is very fallacious ^ forMr.B/>^- ham cannot fairly deny, that Deacons are fo far Vriefls as they are impower'd to Baptize: See what Ihavefaid, p. 16, & 17. HimfelffaySj That Baptifm pcrforniM by the Bifhop's Authority, was reputed as his A[l: See his 8th Page. He therefore muft acknowledge, that when Deacons Baptize by virtue o^ that Cotnmijfon they received from theBiihop, 'tis Baptifm by a Fricfi/y Fewer and Authority^ and done by the Hands of a Pricfl, a Deacon being fo far a Prieft • and moreover his AS being the Bijhop's AB^ who is the High Prieft, And therefore Mr. Bing- ham's Objedlion is loft^ for 'tis plain, that St. Chry- foftam^s confining the Office of Baptifm to the Hands of a l^^iett, relates both to ordinary and extraor- dinary Cafes too, becaufe, even for Cafes of Extre- mity, he points out no other than the Hands of a Prieft of the loweft Order, viz, a Deacon to Bap- tize-, and therefore St. Chryfoflom ahfolutely excludes all fuch, as can upon no account whatfbever be faid to be veiled with Frieflly Authority^ viz, all who never chap. 4. St, Bafil, iJc. Anfrer'^d, 177 never were authorized by Biihops to Baptize. The Reader may alfo fee Mr. Bingham s whole Objedtioii provided againft in p. T14, and tlierefore this may fuffice here in Anfwer thereto. O B J . III. His next Objedllon is againft St. Bafil\ Evidence thus, in his 39, 40, and 41 Pages, ""' As to 5^. Bafil— " he hadfomewhat of a OnffUldt SDpIlUOn *^ //7 this matter-^ for he wa^for re-baptizing all Fcrfons " that were only baptized tip H^^^XiKW^—But he wdf " not foftiff' Of to unchriftian thofe that were *' baptized by Schifmaticks^ or break the Cow muni on " of the Church upon it : for he gives his Advice — " That Menjhould quietly comply with the Rules and *' Fraffice of their own Church where they livd. " But forafmuch (fays he) as fome of the Afut'ick " Churches think otherwife, that the Baptifm of " fuch, by way of DIfpenfation for the fake of " great Multitudes, ought to be receiv'd, let it be *^ receivd. '' Whence Z\ tftttlfe (fays 3Ir. Bingham) " it may be inferrd^ that tho^ St. Bafil, in his own " Opinion^ did not approve of the Baptifm either of " Schifmaticks or Lay-men, yet he thought it might " JI and goody if the Church thought fit to receive and " confirm it-^ and this he feems to affert upon the '^ common Principle of the Antients^ that a Latitude *' ofFower wa^ left with the Rulers andGovernours " of the Church to ratifie fuch Baptifms, when they " found it neceffary for the Benefit and Edificatior. of " the Church' But if Otfjertolfe, St. BafilV Opt- " nion cannot Prejudice the contrary Do[!rine, or be " thrown into the Ballance againft the COmmOrt " COnftnt and Fraflice of the Church. And yet it " may be obferv'd, that St. Bafil /peaks pet^apj^- " not of Lay-Baptifm in Cafes of 'Neceffity., but of ^' ufurping the Office, as Hereticks did in aJtJtnari^ ^ ^ ^ N " Cafes': 178 Ohjections aga'wjt St. Cyprian, Part II^ " Cafes t Which makes a wide Difference in the " Cife, and belongs to a XmiZ mffiCUit dUCftlOIt, '' that is, Whether tmailtljO?l5'D Ti5apttfm0, were *' ever tatlfiCO and made good by the Jubfequent *' COltficmattOn and Reception of the Chidrch^ A N s w. The Reader, by confidering what I have faid already, Fage 109, &c. upon St.BaJifs Evidence againft Lay-Baptifm, may obferve, that St. Bajii fpeaks of Lay-men as Perfons /tot having Authority to baptize ^ that he makes their want of Power and Authority to be the Reafon of the Invalidity of their Baptizing -^ that he reckon d the Schifmatick-s here fpoken of, to have been by their Separation from the Church reduc'd to jLaP'-mCIt, and that confequently they had UO POlUCl* to minifter in holy Things, and that therefore becaufe they were as Lay- men, Perfons without CommiiTion, their Baptifms were Null and Void : And 'tis notorious againft the firft part of Mr. Bingha?ns Objedion, that he was not Singular in this Principle ^ for ^t. Cyprian and Yirmilian are quoted by him, as having been of the fame Principle •, and I have alfo prov'd from St. Cyprians Works, that they and others of their Colleagues were really k •, and con- fequently Mr. Bingha?n's Charge of Singularity againft St. Ba/il is very unfair, efpecially if it be alfo confider'd that his Epiftle to Amphilochius Bi- Ihop of Iconnim^ out of which his Evidence is ta- ken, is a Canonical Epiftle^ and reckon'd as Canon Law in the Code of the Greek Church. Thus much for Mr. Bingham's Charge of Singularity againft St. Bajli. Now for the Conf^quence Mr. Bingham draws from tliat Father's acquiefcing in the Practice of fome Afiatick Churches^ who receiv'd the Baptifms of Chap. 4- St. B'^Cily ^c.J/7fwer'^J. 1-9 of Schifmaticks. ~ — '^ Whence I think (Hiys Mr. Bingham) " it may he Inferrd, that tho' St. Bafil, in his own Opinion^ did not approve of the Bap^- " tifm, either oj g)C()ifmatICkS or ILaj^mCIl, yet ^^ he thought it might jhnd good, if )he Church *' thought fit to receive and confirm it. " Here Mr. Bingham blends and confounds together 8)Cl)lfnu1-- tiCal and ILaP'-'Baptlfm, and infers, thiit 8t. /)\;. /// thought they might botlj flailO (JOOrJ -, when ^tis notorious by St. Bajirs Firft Canon of that Epiftle, and the Connection of his Words, that lie fpeaks of nothing elfe, that 7}hiy ftand good, but the ©CljifmatlCal 'BaptifmS receive! and al- lovv'd of by the Afiatick Churches-., and Mr. Bing- ham might have feen this, even in St. BaJiPs Words as himfelf has tranflated them, which are thefe ^ '' But forajmuch oi fome of the Afiatick Churches " think otherwife^ that the T3apt(fni Of fUCfj, \yiz. of the Furitans^ Encratites^ HydroparaflatAy and Apota^ites^ the Schifmaticks he was juft be- fore fpeaking of] ^'' by way of Difpen/ation for the " fake of ©;eat i^aititiiiarg;, ought to be re '' ceivd\ let it he rcceivd,^' 1 fiiy, from thcfe very Words, 'tis plain, that St. Bafil fpeaks of none but the ®Cl}irmr(tItal TSiiptifmo^, the Bap- tifms received by '• ®,2Cat 99u!tltUpC.^i" for we know that thofe Schifmaticks were Numerous^., and that confequently ^o v/ere their Baptifms, yet we know alfo that they had Epjfcofat Orders ^ and whether their Orders were Null and Void, by rea- fon only of their Schifm, is another QiK'ftion. St. Bafil thought they were^ and coulequently tliat they were as luay-men. Some Afiaticks did not Null their Orders •, St. Bofil therefore, for the fake of ^UltittlUCg concern'd in this, and becaufe of the Pradtice of thofe Afiatick Churches which did N 2 not i8o Objecliom againft St. Cyprian, Part. II, not Null the Orders of thofe SchiCna ticks, faid, " Let their Baptifm be receivd, " This does not lignify, that he meant, Let Lay-Baptifms, Bap- tifrns by F efforts never CommiJJiond^ be receiv'd: He only abated of his Rigour of Condemning the Schifmaticks to be but meer Laicks^ he would have lik'd it, if they had by thofe Churches been reduced to that State^ as they were by the Cypria- nick Churches-^ but fince thofe Afiatick Churches did not fo far condemn them, he acquiefc'd in the Difcipline of thofe Churches, and reckoned that their ^ Orders and Ba^tifms might be receiv'd : But 'twas never heard of, that in thofe Churches, Lay-men^ really and mcontejlahly fuch, afTumM to themfelves any Power at all to baptize, without, or in oppofition to their Bifhop's Commiliion , and therefore the ®?eat ^UltltUBeiS here fpoken of hy St. Bafil^ muft lignify only the great Multi- tudes of Perfons that were concerned, in the EpiP copal Orders and Baptifins given and receiv'd, by the Schifmaticks before fpoken of by that Fathen This, together with what I have before faid in Vage 1 09, &c. I think to be a fufhcient Anfwer to this part of Mr. Bingham's Objection againft St. Ba- li's Evidence. There is another remarkable Thing in Mr. Bing- ham's Objection, which muft not be pafs'd over, and 'tis this, That he doubts of his own Infer- ence, which he makes from St. Bafi/\ Words •, for firft'he introduces it with an " 3i tljlllfe It map " be inferrd^ that tho St, Bafil did not ap- " prove of the Baptifm of Lay-men^ yet he thought '' ;'/ wight jtand good^ Sec, " This fhews that he • ^ CUr0-wAris Vadc mecum. Pan II. p. 201. cannot Chap. 4- ^f' Bafil, tsfc. A?7J]ver^d, tSi cannot be Pofiitive in his Inference ^ for if he couldj his '' 1 think it may be^ 8cc, is a needlcfs Mo- defty; and not only fo, but prejudicial to his Rea- der, as it leaves him undetermin'd in this Matter : But I doubt not, Mr. Bingham eafily forefaw, that it would be objected againft his ti\h^ bZ Inference about ILaP'-OiSaptirm, that St.Bafil was only fpeak- ing of the Afiaticks admitting of Schtfrnatical Bup- tifms, and that St. Bafil do's not fay, that Lay- Baptifms might ftand good \ and Mr. Bingham ha- ving blended and confounded Lay-Baptifms with Schifmatical Baptifms, concludes his Inference with a mif giving Air of Sufpicion, that it would not do : He helitates about it, and fays^ " 13llt if " OthCttolfe, [/. e, if St. Baji/ did not think that JLai?=T5apttfmiS5 as well as Schifmatical Baptifms, might ftand good] " St, BafilV Opinion (fays Mr. Bingham) " cannot prejudice the contrary Do^Irine^ " or be thrown into the Ballance againjl the common " Confent and FraSice of the Church. '"' Thus we fee that himfelf cannot afTure us of the Truth of his own Inference about Saint Bafii's fuppofed Thoughts of allowing Lay-Baptifm ^ and therefore we may conclude, that St. Bafi/ do's not appear to have thought, that Lay-Baptifm, /• e. Baptifm by Perfons having no Power, being never authoriz'd to Baptize, could ftand good and vahd ^ but the con- trary: And Mr. Bingham's faying, that St.6j/7/'s Opinion, " cannot be thrown into the^ Ballance " againfl the common Confent and Pra^icc of the " Church','' is taking for granted whzt he ha^ not provd, that the common Confent and FraHice of the Ancient Churchy was, to allow as valid^ pretend- ed Baptifms performed by Perfons never Commif- fion'd to Baptize. N 3 ^^' 182 Objcciions agatnfl St, Cyprian, Part II. Mr. Bingham fays further, that " it may he Ob- " fervdthdt St. B^fil JpeaAs pCtljapS, not of Lay- *' Baptifm in Cafes of Neceffuy, but oj Vfurping the ^' O^ffice^ ay tieret'icks did in ordinary Cafes. " But theie lpcrf)ap5'0 will not ferve our Turn, they are T\o Arguments •, nay^ they are Fallacious upon the Judgments of fome fort of Readers, who are too apt to be carried away with fuch ungrounded Suppofitions : What has St. Bajil faid in all his Wri- tings, that can give the leaft Colour for fuch a PEr^ilpg* There is nothing in all his Works, that looks towards Lay- Bap f if m in Cafes of Kecef- fity^^ and when he fpeaks of Lay-Baptifms, he do's it in fuch Terms, as include all Cafes what- foever, and 'Ko Exception made for Extraordinary Cafes, nor Limitation to Ordinary Ones. At this rate, a Man may Limit and Reftrain the moft XJnfcerJal Fropofitions •, thus, for Example, " Go *' ye Difciple all Rations ^ Baptizing them In the *' Name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and of the '' Uoly-Ghoft. " By Mr. Bingham's way of ]^a^ ijapfiniJ) may not he defign'd to reftrain the i'orm ot Baptizing " In the Name of the Trini- ly^ " to That form alone, for all Cafes whatfo- ever \ there may be fuppps'd. Cjifes of Kecef- fity ! when Men cannot procure Baptifm in th^ Form ^ their Baptizers, tho' Epifcopally Or- dain'd, may have falfe J130tlpn)S> COUCevlUUff tl>C .'D^ltp-, and in Confequence thereof, may Mutilate and Change the I'orm^ and refufe to give Baptifm in the prefcrib'd Form : Some reckon, however, that Water is abfolutely Neceffary to Sal- vation, therefor*", in their Imagination, this would he a Cafe (f-Keceffity^ and fo the NcWy \W Unin- fiituted iorm^ will do, becaufe. Water muft be ap- ply'd :, and therefore^ the Inftitutcd Form \ptU Chap. 4. St. Bafil, t^'c J/ifwer'^d, i8j &n:p0 was not appointed for Cifes of KeccJJity ! efpecially confidering that Even a Pope oj Rome has faid, that Baptilln is good and valid, if done In the Name of Jefus only ! But who is tlierc, that do's not fee the Folly of this way of l^CCijapO As for Mr. Bingham's Sup^^ofition, " That a La- tituie of Power WiU left with the Rulers and Go- " vernours of the Church to Ratify fuch Baptifms [/. ^. Baptifnis by Lay-men, Perlbns deftitutc of Power, never authorized to Baptize] "^ when they ^^ found it necejfary. See. '' 'Tis a Proportion tliat ha^ not been proved^ and I have faid fo much up- on it ^ elfewhere, that I fee no Neceffity to trouble my Reader with any thing more upon it, till Mr. Bingham^ or Somebody elft, Ihall offer their aCglimentS for fuch a Ratifying Power •, and therefore I proceed to our Reverend Hiftorian's next Objedion, which is this. Object. IV. Againft St. Cyprian's Evidence, he obje-ds thus in his :> 9th Page, " If it were not ''for 5f. BafllV Teftimony (fays he) 3 ftOtllD " Doubt whether Cyprian had ever made ufe of ''''fuch an Argument of this,"' [viz. That Here- ticks and Schifmaticks, broken off from the Church, were become Lay-men, and that therefore the Bap- tifms of Hereticks and Schifmaticks wt-re Null and Void, becaufe they were become Lay-men.'] " -A NSW. But here, either Ut. Bingham believes St. Bafrs Teftimony concerning St. Cvpnan, or 'Mr. Bingham do's not believe it. If he believes it. f. X^j'Bjptifm Invalid. 184 OhjeBwns againfi St. Cyprian, Part IL then there's an end of his Doubt about St. Cyprians Argument- — and fo his following imaginary Rea- fous againft St. Cyprians ever having us'd fuch an Argument fall at once. But if he do's not believe St. Bafi, then he might have plainly told us fo, and not have amus'd us with an " If it were not ^' for St. B'dfiYs Tejiimony. " This looks, however, as if he could not charge St. Ba^I with being a falfe Evidence ^ tho' ftill he endeavours to take off from the Worth of his Teftimony, by his fol- lowing Three Obfcrvations. Firji, " Becaufe (fays Mr. Bingham) no fuch Ar- " gument [about Lay-men] that I know of is to be " found in his [i, e. St. Cyprian's] Works. But if Mr. Bingham do's not know of any fuch Argument in St. Cyprians Works, others do know of it^ and 'tis plain enough there to be found, that St. Cyprian and his Colleagues, reduc'd Hereticks and Schifmaticks, though ordain'd before in the Church, to the State of hay-men -^ that they re- ceiv'd them only to Lay-Communion upon their Re- pentance *, that they reckoned them 'Not of Friefts^ but Deftitute of P^teffl]? POtPeC and aUtljOJitp, and that they charg'd their Miniftrations to be Null and Void, for want of fuch Friefily Power^ as I have prov'd before, Fage 5 1, &c. Secondly^ His next Obfervation againft St. Cypri- ans having ever made ufe of fuch an Argument is, " Becaufe Tertullian, whom Cyprian commonly calTd " !)iSi ^aflcr, made a great Difiin^li on between " the Baptrfm of Hereticks and the Baptifm of Ca- ** tholick Lay'7nen^ at leaft in Cafes ofKecefjity '' for he was againft Re-baptizing, thofe that tDCtC :' fa 'ISaptijeO h Lay-men, tho he voa^ oi much Chap. 4- 5^. Bafil, i^c Anfwer^d. iSj " for Re-baptizing thofe that were Baptized ^ by He- " reticks^ as Cyprian himfelf. Here I muft not let pafs a remarkable Fallacy, and 'tis this ^ Mr. Bingham fays, Tertullian " WiU " againft Re-baptizing thofe that y^tt fa TSclp-- *^ tlJ'D by Lay-men*^' An uncautious Reader will be apt to believe from hence, that Tertullian has related it to be Matter of Fa^l, that Perfons UJCtC OSnptiJ'O by Lay-men in his Days^ when 'tis certain that he relates A^^ fuch Matter of Fj^, but is only fpeaking of Lay-men, as if they might Baptize, not as if they had Baptized in Cafes of the Clergy's Abfence. His Words are plain enough, as Mr. Bingham has 'em in his 26th Page, [ t '' Etiam Laicisjm C^ j "] Lay-men (fays Ter- tullian) have alfo a J^lffftt to give it [/. e, Bap- tifm.] This fhews that 'twas Tertullian s Opinion, that they had a Right -^ but it do's not prove it Matter of Ya&^ that any of them SlCtetl according to this Pretended Right. Mr. Bingham therefore Ihould have faid, that Tertullian would have been " againft Re-baptizing Perfons, if tf)eP IjaH UtW *^ fo Baptized by Lay men^'^ which vvould have pre- vented his Reader from miftaking a pretended Matter of ¥aS inftead of a fuppos'd Matter of Right : This being clear'd, there is no doubt but Tertullian would have been againft what Mr. Bing- ham calls Re-baptizing fuch Perfons. But what then, do's it therefore follow, that St. Cyprian was of T^r/;^///Ws Principle in this Matter, becaufe he call'd Tertullian his Mafter > This is admirable! I efteem, and may call Cicero my Mafter, tlierefore * Tertul. De Baptifmo, Cof. i y, t Tertul. De Baptifmo, C^p. 17. I mutt 1 86 Objections agaiyifl St. Cyprian, Part IL I muft be a Heathen becaufe Cicero was fo*, I and a great many other Members of our Church have been mightily pleas'd with Mr. Bingham's Antiquities of the Chriftian Churchy therefore whatfoever Mr, Bingham fays and believes, I and they muft believe it too, whether it be right or wrong ! But our Reverend Hiftorian will find him- felf very much miftaken if he thinks fo •, for we may Highly Value a Man, and even call him Our Mafier too, for fome of hk Excellencies^ when at the fame time we may fee his Faults, and Mi- ftakes, &c. and diffent from, nay, and abhor them too 'j tho it may be we do not always make pub- lick proclamation of them. And this, no doubt^ was the Cafe with the blefled St. Cyprian-^ he valued Terticllian for his great Accomplifh- ments of Wit, Sec, he caU'd him his Mafter, but 'tis no ways reafonable to fuppofe, that he there- fore believed his many Errors- Is it rational to believe, that he followed him in Montani/m^ and in thofe Errors I have mentioned in Page 46. of •which I have there given a particular Catalogue in the Margin, for a Memorandum to the Learned Reader? Mo, certainly that Pious Father was not "jfo blind, as to be led into his fuppofed Maffers Errors and Miftakes, and particular!}'' in the Mat- ter now before us, which I humbly hope I have proved to have been One of Tertullians Singu- larities ^ and in P^^^ 48. "that ^t, Cyprian did not tollow him in it, but aflerted the contrary Do- ctrine of the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm, i. e. pre- tended Baptifm perform'd by Perfons deftitute of a Commiflion to Baptize. Thirdly^ Mr. Bi?7gham\ laft Obfervatjo^ againfl S^int Cyprians ever havhig made ufe of fuch an Chap. 4- S/-. Bafilj i^c, J^fwer'd. 1S7 an Argument, as that of the Invalidity of Lay- Baptifm, is this, vi::. " Cyprian a/ways paid a Jar ^' greater Deference to Catholic k Lay-men than he " did to Heretical Friefls , as efteewing the One ^^ Members of the Church, and the Other quite cut *^ off from- It: lie admitted the One into his Coun- *' cils, and did nothing without their Conjent in " many Ecclefiaftical Caufes-^ but the Other he '' abandon'd and abhor d^ an Men that had abandon d " the Faith^ and renouncd their Chrijhanity by their " Heretical DoUnne, ' And what is to be infer'd from all this ? Did St. Cyprian thcrelore approve of Baptifm by Catholick Lay-men, this is mecr Amufement ^ as if, becaufe St. Cyprian lov'd and valu'd Catholick Lay-men, and voluntarily took their Confent \x\ many Ecclefiafti( al Cafes ^ there- fore he v/ould not have been offended, he would not have efteem'd their Attempts Null and Void, if they had endeavoured to do any thmg in the Sa- cerdotal Aliniftration of Holy Sacraments I This is juft as good Senfe, as if I ihould fay, that Mr. Bingham loves and effeems a pious, judicious, and orthodox Lay-man of the Church of England^ better than he do's a Schifmatical or Heretical Prieft, who feparates, or is excluded, froui h.r Communion ^ and that he would follow the Ad- vice of the Former in Church Matters, and not admit of the other fo much as into his Company, much lefs to be las Advifer and Counfellor in Ec-^ cleiiaftical Affairs ^ and from thence conclude, that if the Church-Lay- man Ihould, thro' a fal/e Zeal, &c. attempt to ordain Men into the Mini- niftry, Mr. Bingham's Love and Eftecm for him, would oblige him to acknowledge the Validity of fuch a fuppojed Ordination^ \\\o at the fame time he would not have allow'd the like of the Hereti- cal I S 8 OhjeBlons ^gainfi^ &€• P A R T IL cal or Schifmatical Prieft had attempted to Or- dain. Who is there that do's not fee the TVeaknefs of fuch a Suppolition } And upon what Founda- tion can Mr. Bingham guefs that St. Cyprian was of fb Partial a Temper, as to efteem pretended Bap- tifm by Church-Lay-men, Perfons having no Au- thority to Baptize, to be good and Valid, when "'twas at the fame time his Princlplea that Hereti- cal and Schifmatical Baptifins were Null and Void, ibecaufe perform'd by Perfons who were fuppos'd to be deftitute of Prieftly Power and Authority to minifter in Holy Things ? —But enough upon Mr. B'wghatns Obfervations about this Matter ^ for himfelf, do's but fay of 'em, " Thefe are " pJDftable atffUmeUtS to incline a Man to think, " that Cyprian woi of the fame Mind with his " Mafter Tertullian, af to the Foint of Lay- Bap- ^' tif^y had not St. BafiPx Authority been again/i " them. Page 40." We have feen, that St.fi^- jf/'s Teftimony is good : That there is not fo much as any Probability in Mr. Bingham's fuppofed Ar- guments : And that St. Cyprian did not follow his Matter's Errors, particularly in the Fretended Triefthood of Lay-men, but taught the contrary Doctrine, as is plain by the Teftimony of St Ba- fil^ and by Inferences that may be, and have been drawn from feveral Paflages in St. Cyprian s own Works. And thus all our Reverend Hiftorian's Objedions againft the Evidence of St. Cyprian, St. Bafii^ and St. Chryfojiom, are of no Weight or Im- portance. CHAP. Cl^P- 5- 1S9 CHAP, V. Mr. Bfngham'y Jcknowledgme^its c oncer mng the great Que fl ion now in Difpute^ viz. Whe-^ ther the Ufurped and UnauthorizM Bap- tifm of Lay-men, was allowed to 'be Valid ? § I./^UR Reverend Hiftorian handles this Que- V^ ftion in his 4ifl Page-, and here one would naturally have expedled to have found abun- dance of uncontefted Evidence and Teftimony from the Ancient Catholick Church, that fuch pretend- ed Baptifms were, by Her, held to be Good and Valid ^ if it had ever been, the General Senfe and Trustee of the Ancient Catholick Churchy to efteem them as fuch. But inftead of producing any Evi- dence for their Pretended Validity-, (and confe- quently for the Validity of our DilTenters fuppofi- titious Baptifms, which are evidently Ufurped and Unauthorized Baptifms by Lay-men) Mr. Bingham very fairly and ingenuoufly confefTes, that this of *' Unauthorized Ufurped Lay-Bapti/m makes a U)(DC *' Difference in the Caje, Page 41. and is a mOJC " Difficult €lliefllOn," [yiz. than that of Lay- Baptifm [fuppos'd to be] Authorized by Bilhops, in Cafes of Eitrtmity, about vv^hich he had been Treating before.] He fays this Queflion of '' U- " furped and Unauthoriz d Baptifm of Lav-men ha^ " UUlCft more difficulty than the former. ' And he gives this particular Reafon why 'tis ^o '' mUClj tnO?e Difficulty becaufc (fays he) a great many -' of y?5 Becaufe " The Apoftolick Commijfon to Bap- " tize^ W(U to continue to the end of the WorId^'\ according to Mr. Bingham^ in his 3d Page. Secondly^ Becaufe the Conveyance of this Com- miffion to others, '' waf uecelFatP to p?rferi)e the '' Church, according to tfjZ S)Mt Of €l};i% in ^^ future Ages^^^ as in his gd Page. TZ)/W/V, Becaufe '' A^^ One ttSXX fiaSC a Power " of Baptizing, but he that receives, fome way or " other ^ a Commiffton from the Apoft/es. " See his 4th Page. Fourthly, Becaufe ^^ The Original Power of Admi- " ni firing Baptifm is lodgd folely and entirely in the ^' Hands oj Bifhops, oj the Apoflles immediate Sue- ^^ cejjors, and derivately Convey d from them to " others^""' in Cafes Ordinary and Extraordinary alfo, as in his $th Page. Fifthly, Becaufe " When Baptifm wof done hy *' others, [/. e, not by the Bifhop] the Antients thought '^ It wa^ ftill done by his Authority^ and re- " futed oi his AEl"" S.e his 8th Page. Sixthly, and Laftly, Becaufe Mr. Bingham, m fumming up his whole Evidence, in his 38th Page, fays, " Tht/s we have feen for Six hundred Tears, " the Chap. 5- for Ufurped Laj^Baptifm. k^x '' the General Senfe a/d PraSice of the Ancient " Churchy grDUnUCD, /?J they Jiippoje^ UpOll i\)Z *' ^WXWVSSxm given to the Apojiles-, i^hereby Bi- " fJjops^ a^ the Apoji/es Succeffors, are qiialijied jirj} '^ to give Biiptifm themjelves^ and. then to ^^illlt il " ComiUiffiOn to others to Baptize-^ in Qr- " dinajy Cofes^ and in Cafes Extraordinary and of " Extream jQCCCfntp, ^c. Thefe are Reafons which make the prefent Qiie- ftioii of Unauthorized Ufurp'd La3r-Baptirnis fo aerp Difficult, that there is " H luiOc Diffcc- " twit '' between thefe pretended Baptifins, and the others, fuppos'd to have been miniftcr'd hj Epifcopal Authority-, fo that we fee even from M.i.Bingham\ own Account of the Matter, tliat the general Senfe and Practice of the Ancient Church has nothing in favour oiVfurp^dUnaiithoriz'dLay' Baptifms, ^ III. It is therefore evident, that the gene- ral Senfe and Pral/ice of the Andent Churchy can- not be caird in as an Evidence, for the pretended Vahdity of fuch jafe Baptifms-^ No! No! they ftand by themfelves, utterly Deftitute of that Ca- tholick Teftimony, and have Nothing to fupport them but the weak, fallacious, and imaginary Rea- fonings of a private Spirit onl}'. For, F/Vy?, The Apoftohck CommilTion to Bap- tize, is here difcontinued and broken off. Secondly^ The Conveyance of that CommifTion is here wanting, and fo, that which is " Ji^CCCfla^ " t:P to Preferve the Churchy according to the Qr- '' der of Chrift is abfent. Thirdly, Here is a Deflitution of Power to Bap- tize, becaufe here is No One that has received any manner 192 NoCatholickTraditionfor^hc. PartIL manner of way vvhatfoever, A Qommiffion from ths Apoft/es. Becaufe, Fourthly, The Original Power of adminiftring Baptifm, " LoJg'd Jolely ani entirely in the Hands '' oj Bijhops — the Apoftles immediate Succeffors^ IS " not \)ttZ Derivate/y Convey d from them to the " Ufurping Unauthorized Lay-Pretender, Fifthly, Here being A"^ Baptifm done by the Bi- floop's Authority^ the pretended Baptifm cannot be reputed as the TBifljap'S 3*. Sixthly, and Lajily, In this A61 there is nothing to be feen of the general Senfe and Fra^ice of the Ancient Church, for the firft Six hundred Years, which was confefTedly ^' gtOUltUeB t^pon the *' COttimiffiplt granted in Cafes Ordinary and Ex- " tracrdinary too^,""^ for here is l^o Grant of any Commijfion at all and fo, thefe pretended Bap- tifms are deftitute of any laftl, KUlC^ or ailCl^ Cttt CatljOliCk Ctanitton, whereon to ground their pretended Validity. § IV. And yet notwithftandlng all this, our Re- verend Hiftorian, in his 4^d, 44th, and 45th Pages, Inftanres the Fidion of the fuppos'd Sportive-Bap- tifm, faid to have been given by the Boy Athana- fiiH^ to his Play-fellows and the private Opi- nions of St. Auguftin and Optatus, in favour of thofe Pretended Baptifms, performed by Lay-Per- fons, who never were Commijfion d to Baptize -, but I have already confider'd thefe in their proper Places, and therefore have no need here to repeat the^ Arguments brought againft them -, fince 'tis plain, by all that has been hitherto faid, that thefe Pretended Baptifms are utterly Deftitute of the ge- neral Senfe and Fra^ice of the Ancient Church, whereon to found their Pretended Validity. CHAR Chap. 6. jg-, CHAP. VI. That the Ancient Churches^ who alloisPd of He- retical and Schifmaticdl Bipt/fmsy did not reckon thofe Bajnifms to have been U^uu- thoriz^^dy UncommilfwrPd Anti-Ej/ifcopal Jtap- § I. T Am obliged thus far to Concern my felf A with the Ancient Heretical and Schifmati- cal Baptifiiis, becaufe our Reverend Hiftorian en- deavours to reprefent them, as of t\\Q fajjie Kutitre with Unauthonz'd hny-Baptifms : The Ternis he makes ufe of, and his AfTertions about them being fuch, as will eafily induce fome fort of Readers^ who have not been Converfant in thefe Matters, to belie\% that when the Ancient Churches allow'd of the Validity of Heretical and SchifmaUcal Bap- tlfms, they did it upon the fame Principle which fome now hold, for the pretended Validtty of falfe Baptifins, performed by Perfons who never were EpifcopallyComm'iJfiond to Baptize: Thus, for Ex- ample, Mr. Bin/ham fays of the Ancient Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, That they were ^' cln-- "^ aUtbO?i5'D ♦, '' That " Uereticks and Schifmjticks, " and Degraded Clergy-men, had not any Legal 9U* " thOlit^ from the Church to Baptize-,'' That " They aHed not only UlltfjOUt IptC aUtftOMtP, '' but againtt l)ZX giltlj02ltp, in aU their Mim^ ^^ flrations, Page 51. although their Baptifms were *' receivd Of GtaltU, under fuch an Irregular, and '' Unlawful Aiminifiration, " pag. J2.— " What they O " did jg^ Of Heretical an ci Part II. " dii wai done (properly f peaking) by an QJltailtljO' '' ?t5'n, Cn?mnai, aiiti-^pifcopal afurpation, " &c. " piig. 5:4. Such Terms as thefe naturally lead an uncautious Reader into this Notion, that thofe Ancient Heretical, and Schifinatical Bap- tifms, were of the fame Nature with our 3ntl- CplfCOpal. einaUtlJOJl^'D Lay-Baptifms^ for by fuch Colours as thefe, they have an appearance [yet 'tis but an appearance] of being utterly deftitate of any Commiifion at all, as much as our Lay-Bap- tifms arc, that are performed by Perfons who never were at all autljO^lJ'O or ComnilffiOlVD for that Purpofe. § II To give the Reader therefore a fair In- fight into this Matter, it is to be obferv'd, that there were two Sorts of Difcipline in the ancient Churches about Heretical and Sch'ifmatical Bap- tifms. F/>^, That of the Cyprianick Churches, who made EcclrJiaftica/'Laws, that if the Clergy fell into He- refy or Schifm, their Ordinations, and other Mini- fi rat ions, fhould be null and void; and that con- fequentl}'' theBaptifms given by them, during their Hercfy or Schifm, fhould be look'd upon as no Chri- ftian Baptifm : And therefore Perfons fo baptized by them, Ihould, upon their Repentance and Recon- ciliation to the Church, be received by Baptifm as Heathens were. Agrippinm ^, Bifhop of Carthage, in a Synod of the Provinces of Africa and 'Numidia^ eftablilh'd this Difcipline. * Cypr,. Epift. ad Qulntum. 71.— p. 14?. Parif. So chap. 6. Schifmatical Baptifms. ig; to cancel o? annul tljcic 2D?iiiuatton, " or give them a new Ordination,''' But further, whether Mr. Bingham had acknowledg'd this or no, [as we fee he has] yet 'tis plain, that the Churches, who in their Practice differ'd from the Difcipline of the Cyprianick Churches^ made no Laws or Eccle- fiaftical Canons for the NuUing of the Orders oi He- retical and Schifmatical Clergy- men: So far from that, that the Great Council of Nice^ in the 8th Canon, allows of the Ordinations of the Novatian Schifmaticks : And in the African Code^ Canons 68, 69, and 118, the Ordinations of the Donatift Schif- maticks, are received for good and valid, as I have before noted, pag. 21. from all which 'tis notorious, that in the Difcipline of thofe Churches, who al- lowed Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, in the Name of the Trinity, to be good and valid ^ the Baptizers who were Heretical and Schifmatical Bi- jhop^^ Vriejis and Deacons^ had a valid Commiffion to Baptize X, their Orders were not null and void:, there were nO LaiDjQi of thofe Churches to make them fo-, but, on the contrary, their Ecclefiaftical 'Laws or Canons decreed them to be indelcted^ that they remain'd valid, and fo they were nOt La?* men, Perfons BcSttute of Conmiiffion, but ftill B'lfhops,, Priefts and Deacons, with an indeleted^ unrepeal d Cowvvffwn to Rapt ize. Confequently Per- fons baptiz'd by them, in Herefy and Schifm, had in the '^enfe oj thofe 'Churches all the external Requi- fites of the Adminiftration appointed by the Infi- iution of Baptifm, (and therefore infilled on by us) viz. Chap. 6. Sclnfmatical Bapttfms, 1^9 viz. Water ^ the Form in the Name of the Trinity, and the Cornmijfion oF the Haptizer^ thefe Three were in all thofe daptifins : And therefore, whatfo- ever Difcipline thofe Churches us'd at the receiving of thofe Penitents, it had no reference to the KuUity of the Comm'ijjion of the Baptizer, any more xXwnx It had to the NulTity of the Water ^ or of the Form of Baptizing. § IV. Hence it comes to pafs, that all Mr 5/^^- ham\ Terms us'd by him, when he calls thofe Hap- tifms aintiutl)0?i?'ii) anti'Cpifcopal cUfurpa' tlOttlS^ &c. as before obferv'd, mufl: be underftood in fuch a qualified Senfe of thofe Words, as Men mean, wlien they fpeak of a Thing done by a Per- fon in a prohibited Circuwftance, yet in purfuance and by virtue of a Commijfion received by lum, to do that very thwg. Thus a Prieft executing his Commijjion to baptize, in the prohibited Circum- ftances of Oppofition to fome lawful Command of his particular Bifhop :, of Difobedience to the Canons and Kubricks of the Church whereof he is a Mem- ber -, or laflly, in the flnful Circumftance of He- refy or Schifm ^ If that Church has no Ecclefiaftical Laws or Canons to null and make void his Com- miifion, during thofe finful Circumftances j If that Church has not decreed his Commilfion, to be ipfa fa[io^ null and void in thofe prohibited Circum- ftances, then, the Baptifm adminifter'd by him, in the Name of the Trinity, cannot p^OpcrlM be faid to be 3in(lUt()0?l?tJ h for 'tis plain, he had a Com- miffion when he baptiz'd, and therefore the Baptifm it'felf was atltftO^lj'O t As neither can that Bap- tifm, in ftridl Propriety of Speech, be calfd ^wiv CptfCOpal) which was adminifter'd by a ?ric\] or l>€acon^ who had at the Time of Baptizing, an o 4 cpifcopal 200 Of Heritical and Part IL CplfCOpal CcmmiTfiOn, and who did not fet up a p^eienncn altar Againft epifcopacp it felf •, or Difown the DlWllE Elgljt of the Apoftolick, 7. e, Epjfcopal Order \ but acknowledg'd, fubmit- ted to, and depended on it, and received all Power, Commiffion, and Authority from TBifljOpg, and from ti)em onlp, to minifter in H0I7 Things, how much foever they tranfgrciTed the Laws of God, and his Church, in other Inftances, which was plainly the Cafe of the Heretical and Schifma- tical Bnptizers we are now fpeaking of, who were no other than Bijhops^ Priefts, and Deacons^ Con- fecrated and Ordain d by Bilhops ^ and tho' Here- tic ks and Schifmaticks^ yet vefted with Epif copal Tower and Authority^ to long as thofe Churches did not Vacate, lS[uU^ and make void the Cotlinilf^ flOn<3 of them, or of the Bifhops who were their ©^Uainerg : So that, in the Dired and Proper Senfe of the Words, the Baptifms they adminifter'd In the Name of the Trinity, cannot in the Senfe of thofe Churches be call'd OltaUtljO^lf 0 and 3ntt'^ptfC{ipal Baptifins ^ for they were as much Authorized and Eptfcopal then^ as any Baptifms now given by wicked Prieffs EpifcopaUy Ordain d^ and receiv'd by the Baptiz d, in Sinful Circ urn- fiances. The Circumftance indeed, whether of He- re/y, Schifm^ or other Tranjgreffion of the Rules and Orders of the Church, is doubtlefs very Sin- ful, and therefore Unauthorized-^ and by reafon of the Difbbedience, may [in a remote Senfe of the Vv'ord] be callM Ant i-Epif copal too, as It has a Tendency in its Confequences, to deftroy the juft Authority and Pozver of Bifhops ^ but ftill this Cirrumftance, wherein the Baptifm is admini- flcr'd, is not the Ahniff ration it felf •, the Miniftra- tion is one thin^j the Circumfiance wherein^ 'tis given Chap. 6. Schifmatical Baftifms, 201 given, is another^ and that which can jufily be charged on the Circumftance, cannot fairly be ap- ply'd to the CommiJJiond Miniflnition ^ becaufe, tho' the Circuniftance of Hercfy, Schifin, &c. is certainly wicked and unnuthoriz d -^ yet the Mini- ftration of Baptifin with Water, In the Name of the Trinity, by a Perfon Yefted with an Epifcopal Commijfton^ not Vacated, NulFd, or made Void by the Hercfy or Schifin, or by any Lhw of the Church, isj in it felf^ no other than that CommillionM Bap- tifm^ which the Church her felf Adminiftcrs \ and it proceeds from Mr. Bingham s not duly attending to this Diftinti'wn between the Authorized Bdpt'ifm^ and the Ciramflance wherein 'tis admin iller'd, that he affirms " AU the Baptifms of Hereticks^ '"^ Schijmaticks^ and Degraded Fricfts, are fljllillt' " tljOjij'tl:." and that " // wa^ agreed on all " lPiin505 that tiereticks and Schifmaticks, and *^ Degraded Clergy-men had not any Legal 3UtIjO- " ?(tp to TBaptlje^ Voge 51." when 'tis plain they had the Church's legal 9Utl)0;itV-, inice they were Epjfcopally Ordain d^ and the Church did 77ot Null their Orders, by any of her Laws, but the contrary, as we have feen before ; and /ince Mr. Bingham himfelf fays of them. That " the "- Church did not intend to deny the (]IaItDltP // *' their Ordination,"' ?age ^^. Thus, running in- to Inconfiftencies and Contradidions, for want of a due Regard that ought to be had, to the Dif- ference betvv^een a Cfjing and its CirClimffaUCC only. § V. It is from hence that our Reverend Hiflo- rian thus concludes his Account of Heretical and gchifmatical Baptifms in his 91 ft Page, *' Upon the *' whole (fays he) the llefult of our Enquiry con- '' cerning 202 Of Heretical and Part IL " cerriing Uereticks ani Schifmaticks^ and Degraded Clergy-men^ is thii-^ "" Firft, They all ad in Oppofition to the Church" s '' Lawful aUtlja?itP) and therefore ftatie llOt her " Lawful Authority to Baptize,'" In Anfwer to which, 'tis evident by all that has been faid upon this Subject, that the Cyprianick Churches, did, by Ecclefiaftical Laws, enacted in numerous Synods of their Bifhops, make Null and Void the Com- miflions of their Heretical and Schifmatical Cler- gy ; fo that, by Virtue of thofe Laws, they were, by thofe Churches, reckoned to be deftitute of Authority and Tower for Sacred Miniftrations, during their Schifm or Uerefy: But the other Churches, who would not come up to the Cyprianick Difcipline in this Matter, made no fuch Nullifying LawT, bUt tfje COntrarp^ and therefore, their Heretical sind Schifmatical Subjeiis of the Clergy had not their CommilTions, which they at firfl: receiv'd of the Church, made 'Null and Void^ but they remained ftill Indeletedy not Vacated, by the Church ^ and therefore they had ftill her Lawful Authority ^ for if they had it not, then 'tis plain they had not her Authority at all, for her Authority is no other than a lattiful SDllC •, if they had not her Autho- rity, then they had not her CommiJJion ^ if they had not her CommifTion, then they had no Epif copal CommiJJion, for her Commiflion is only Epifcopal •, if they had no Epifcopal Commiflion, then they were but Laicks ^ if they vv^ere but Laicks, then they were A^^ Friejis^ and their Ordination was Null and Void', when yet Mr. Bingham fays, " The '' Church did not intend to Deny the OaliOltp Of " tljnt SDiniuatlOn, Page 88. and that " They '' were aUowd to be p^JClllS fill. Page 89. He goes on and fays, J^^ Secondly, Chap. 6. Schifmatical Baftifms, 20? '' Secondly, Notwithlianding thps [/. e. notwith- ftanding their not having the Church's Lawful Authority to Baptize~\ " their Baptifms^ if done in " due Form^ are Va/iJ^ and not to be repeated.'' But the Difcipline of the Cypnanick Churches did not allow this-, for as they vacated their Commif- iions, fo in confequence thereof they null'd their Baptifms too-, but the other Churches, as they did not null their Commiflion and Authority, fo nei- ther did they make void their Baptifms-^ and fince they were CommilfionM Baptifuis, no won- der they flood good and valid in thofe Churches. Mr. Bingham proceeds, '"■ Yet, Thirdly, Thofe Baptifms have great Defi- *' ciencies, particularly^ that they do not 7ninifter Re- " miffion of Sin? ^ and other invifihle Graces of the " Holy Spirit- which Deficiencies are to be " flippl})'ll by Impofition of Hands^ and Invocation *"' of the Holy Spirit^ upon their [_i.e. the Bapti- zed's] " Repentance^ and return to the Catholick *' Church : And this^ zvhether Hereticks aUmg in ^' that Capacity be confider^d^ " Fourthly, Either a^ Clergy-men or hay men], '^ or in a middle State betwixt both^ &c." But our Reverend Hiftorian do's not here diftinguifh : For the Cyreat Deficiences he fpeaks of, are not '\\\ thofe Baptfms themfelves, properly fpeaking •, for he may remember, what himfelf fays of Baptifms wick- edly circumftantiated, even in the Church it fclf, viz. that " the failie DcfiCiCnC^ 1^^ many times '' in the Baptifm of thofe who were baptizd in the '' Church, becaufe they were baptized in Enmity " and Hatred of their Brethren, and in that State " COUlD not Jjc1l)e forgwenefs of Sins. See his 8 1 ft Page. Mv. Birtgham fure do's not mean that thefe j2 o 4 Of Heretical and P A R T II. thefe Baptifms in the Church, have in t&ettlftlijeiS, this great DeflCiencp -, no, they have certain- ly no Deficiency at all, the Fault is only in the Circumftance, not in the Baptifm-^ the Perfons baptiz'd, as hiinfelf acknowledges, " are hereby " made Partakers of all fUClj P^li^llegeS, ^ the *' receiving the outward and vifible Sacrament *' of Baptijm can RlilC to fuch as Hebar them- "-' Selves (byfome ©iiftacle Of tljeiC OtDII) /r^;/? *^ /^^ Invjfible and Spiritual Grace of it^ Page 77. The Invifible and Spiritual Grace of (t^ is the In- vifible and Spiritual Grace of the 'BaptiftU It fdf, that which is infeparably annex'd to it* *^ But this Grace is not receivd. " That is very true ^ but the reafon why 'tis not received, is not from any Deficiency \x\ theBaptifm, for 'tis [accord- ing to Mr. Bingham] the Sinner's " iDtUlt SDbfta- **^ Cle," and by this he " Dcbar0'' himfelf from the Invifible and Spiritual Grace of the Baptifm. This Grcurhftance of Wickednefs in the Sinner is the Caufa impediensy the Obftacle or Impediment which Obfiiructs the Divine Influence of the Spiritual Grace ^ and therefore hinders the Baptized from re- ceiving it*, the Baptifm it felf is Efficient, and has no Defed •, but the Recipient is not at pre- {knt capable, by reafon of Ins Sin, to receive the Spiritual Benefits annexed thereto ^ take away this Obftacle, by 3.fincere and hearty Repentance^ and the inward Spiritual Grace will be received by Vir- tue of the former Baptijm. This is the Cafe of fome wicked Perfons who are baptiz'd even in the Church it felf ^ and Mr. Bingham cannot deny, but in the Senfe of thofe Churches, this alfo was much the fame, with refpedl to the Heretical and Schif- matical Baptifms we are fpeaking of^ for he, from St. Auguftin\ Authority, " Juppofes fuch as are ^Baptiied «; Chap. 6. Schifwaticcil Baf>t'tfms. 205 ^^ Bciptized by Hereticks and Schifmaticks to be " much in the fame State of bad Men in the Church'^ Nay, more he fays, " They need— ^^ Onlp EepcntaUCe and abfOfUtiOn to return ^' to the Church again •, the Seal and CharaQer cf their Baptif?n remaining in th^ rcfpeii for ever JinOCllblC upon them^ fo a^ to qualify them to be admitted ever after to Pardon and torgiuene/s' upon a true Repentance, Thefe are Privileges that a wicked Man ha^y by Virtue of h^ having receivd the outward Form of Baptifw, or the vi- *' fible Sacrament \\\ tljC Cljlirclj, tho all the Time, " by his own fault, he be ncftltUte cf Pardon of Sins, and all the invifible Graces and Operations " of the Holy Spirit. As the Baptifm ^ Simon Ma- " gus wa^ a true Baptifm, tho he was an Unworthy, " and therefore an fllllp^afitaWe EtCClDcr of it -, '' and a^ the Sacrament of the Eucharift is a ttllC " SaCrnmeUt) tho many Men eat it, not to their SouVs Health, but to their own Datnnation^ be- caufe they are unworthy Receivers of it. New "' a^ the Cafe was with wicked Men^ who thi/s re- " ceivd Baptifm in the Church. ®a t()C " ^WZmtQ Juppofed the Cafe of t{)Ofe to be who " were baptized bp ^ftCt(Cb0 or ®Cl)lf- '' ttiatlCfe05 ^c. Their Baptifm, if done in due ''Form was the MMz ©acraUICHt of " Baptifm anti qiiallfieD them for fome, if " not all of the fore mentioned Privileges, fo that *^ upon their Repentance and return to the Church ^* . the Church by Impofttion of Hands and In- *' vocation of the Holy Spirit, ?inght obtain for them " thofe Bleffings and Graces, which might have been " had in Baptifm, if they themjelves had not been " the Obfiacle, and put in a Bar againft them. Thii- '^ Mr, Bingham takes to be tJje tru^^State of thii '' Matter^ C( 2 o6 Of Heretical and Pa r t IL *' Matter^ as generally deliver d by fuch of the An- " cients^ cut defended the Validity of Heretical Bap- " /{/>;/." See his 77th, 781^ and 79th Pages. And to this alfb we do agree^ in confideration, that thofe Ancients did likewife acknowledge the Validity of the Epif copal Orders of the Baptizers, confequently that their Baptiim was Epifcopally Au~ thorit'd Bapti/m ^ therefore that it had no Defici- ency in it felf all the Fault being only in the G>- cumftance of the Herefy^ or Schifm, wherein their Miniftrations were perform'd j To that this finful Circumftance, this Obftacle^ which (to ufe Mr. Bingham s own Words) " ptlt a OBat againft^ "' the Spiritual Graces of thole Baptifms, and hin- der'd the receiving of them, being remov'd and taken away by the Repentance of the Baptized and their return to the Church ^ by Impofition of Hands, and Invocation of the Holy Ghojt^ thofe Spi- ritual Graces then took place, and were receiv'd by the Baptized, without a Second Baptifm, be- caufe the Firfl had no Deficiency in its Miniftra- tion, but was whole and entire^ being CommiJJiond Baptifm with Water, In the Name of the Trinity : And when our Advocates, for the Baptifms we are difputing againft, Baptifms by Perfons never Com- miJJiond at all to Baptize, can prove, that thefe falfe Baptifms given by our Lay-Dijjenting-Teachers^ are fuch Epifcopally CommiJJiond Baptifms^ as thofe Ancient Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms were, tben toe fljall Ija&e none ttJitlj ttjis D fpute^ bat till then, it mull be ackaowledg'd, that whatfo- ever can be fairly faid for the Validity of thofe Heretical and Schif?natical Baptifms^ which were Epifcopal, is no vv^ays applicable to thefe, which are not only without an Epifcopal Commijjion, but are alfo in the mofl iireS and proper Senfe of the word Chap. 6. Schifmathal Bapifms. 207 word Ant i-Epjf copal, in oppojjtion to the very Order of Bilhops 5 a Ufurpation, this of fo un- heard of a Nature till of late, that the Ancient Catholick Church had no Experience of it ^ and confequently, could never have any Tradition or Cuftom in favour of its pretended Validity, § VI. By all that has been faid, 'tis plain tliat our Church of England always had Valid Baptifms^ becaufe fhe always had an Epif copal Commijfion to baptize. Even when (he was [as Mr. Bingham calls her] an Heretical and Schifinatical Church, while under the Slavery of the Romijh Yoke, her Epifco- pal Commiinon wa^ good and valid, becaufe there were no Eccleftaflical Laws or Canons of the Catholick Church, or of any Church to whom Hie may be fuppos'd to have ow'd Subjodion, tliat made her Epifcopal Coinmijjion null and void upon the Account of her [fuppos'd] Herefy or Schilin ^ therefore all her Baptifms were even then good and Valid in themfelvcs, being Commiffwnd Bap- tifins In the Name of the Trinity : They had na iDsffltj as they were the Sacrament of Baptifin^ whatfoever Deficiencies of Spiritual Graces fhe is fupposM to have then laboured under, were not owing to the Imperfection of the Sacrament, but to the Sinfulnefs and Uucharitablenefs ot the fuppos'd Herefy or Schifm Ihe is faid to have been in: Twas only by this Oh\\acle, that thofe Spiritual Benefits can be fuppos'd to have been ohjirurted, which Obftacle being rcmov'd by her Repentance and Reformation^ thofe Spiritual Graces take effed^ but htv Commijfion it felf is -^^ f;iorf than it was before, the Validity thereof is jufl the fame, only the Obftacle is now remov'd, vyliich before [is fuppos'd to have] hinder'd the receiving of ^ o S Of Heretical and. Part II. of thofe Inward and Spiritual Graces, which are conjiantly annexed to the Conmiffion it felf whe- ther the CommilTion'd Baptizer be JKUtCfeCO or no-, as our Church has taught us in her Twenty- Sixth Article. § VII. Before I conclude tliis Chapter, I mufi: obferve, that the Kite oflmpofition of Hands, where- by Men who had formerly been Baptiz'd by tie- retical and Sch'ijmatical Priefts, were received into the Church, was not appointed to fupply tluj /up- pos'd Defeli in the Baptifm it felf which they had received, for it was the Rite whereby Penitents, even thofe that had been baptized in the Church it felj^ were us'd to be received-, it was the Cere- mony of Reconciliation^ and Abfolution, and not us'd to give any pretended Validity to a Baptifm, or Ordination, which was [before fuch Impojition cf Hands] fuppos'd to have been IJjniJclltD* And this was the Cafe of the Schifmatical Novatian Clergy, whofe Orders the great Council of Nice^ which was a General Council^ did not pretend to make aicllltl by Impofition of Hands ^ for Mr. Bingham himfelf obferves in h;s 9 2d Page, That *' ^ the great Council of Nice decreed in the Cafe of '' the Novatians, that upon their Return to the " Church, they IftOUltl ContlUUe in the fame Sta- " tion and Clerical Degrees they were in before^ *' only receiving a JReCOIlCUtiltO^P Impofition of " Hands by way of 9bfolUtian, " which was plainly allowing the Validity of their Orders ^ and the Impofition of Hands was Reconcilia'ory^ and ty way of SbfOlUtlOn^ according to Mr Bingham-^ and the Canon has nothing in it, that fuppofes any * Con. Nic. Cin. %. Defea chap. 6. Schifmatical Bciptif?ns, 2oo DefeS in the Ordination it felj of the Novatian Schifmaticks to be fupply'd by Impolltion of Hands. And when the Cafe of our Dijjenters (hall be prov'd to be the farne with thofe J^ovjtiaus -, when their having UO ^pifCOpal CommifllOn fhall be prov'd to be the fame with the Kovatians^ who plainly IjaO OUC •, then, and not till then, can a " lleCOnClIiatO^P Impcfition cf Hands, by '' way of atlfOlUtian, " be fufficient, for the re- ceiving of our Dijjenters as validly Baptizd Per- fons^ in the Senje of the Qatholick Church •, for there are no Inftancesj tliat can be brought, to prove, that the Ancient Catholick Church ever re- ceived, by Impofition of Hands, without Bap- tifm^ fuch Perfons as were only walh'd before, by thofe who were known (or fuppos'd) to have l?een neaet: Cpifcopallp Commiflion'o to Baptize, P CHAP. fr« Of the Practice of pAR-T II. CHAP. TIL Mr. Bingham^ Account of the fuppos'^d Pra-- ^ice of Lay-Baptifm hy the Modern Greeks^ Mufcovitesy and Foreign Reform^dj Examin*d'^ and proved to he no, Evidence of the Gene- ral Senfe and Practice of the Church. §^1. /^UR Reverend Hiftorian begins his Ac- v^ count of the Modern Gr^^^i*, with tel» ling us in his loift Page, That " in the Greek '' Church there has been fOttlC DtfpUte about thk *^ Matter^ [/.(?. of Lay-Baptifm] and fome Jeem- *^ ing 5Iilt(ntlOn in the Decrees of their Councils^ " tho they have more generally agreed, with the La- " tins fo far^ cu to i^UOtU the Baptifm of Lay men 1' in CilfeS Of CtttCme Neceffity, His firfl: Inftance is from the Time of the Pa- triarch 'NicephoruSy in the beginning of the Ninth Century, whofe two Canons allow of Baptifm by a Chrijiian Lay-7nan^ ^' where there ii no P^ICft* ^ Mr. Bingham reckons, " this was the declared Senfe *' of the Greek Churchy 9Utl)entlCalIp delivered in *^ thofe two Canons fnade in a Patriarchal Council^ '^ where 270 Bip^ops were prefent^ if tljC COUltCtl ** of Conftantinople, Anno 814. was the Council in " which thefe Canons were made^ Page 105. In his 10 2d Page he produces Georgius Hamartolm, about the Year 840. making " a WtteC ^rti^^rtiSe *^ again^ the LaUlfUlnefS of thk, as either not " knowing the Decrees of Nicephorus, or elfe as ^! COIttentning and infulting them^ Page lo^— That Chap. 7. the Greek Churchy &:c. 211 That in the Twelfth Century " there vcere fome '^' who made ©PpofltlOll to them -, for Miihael ^^ Glycas, about the Tear 11 20. ta^es occjfwn to " urge Several Arguments aoainjl the ClallBltP of ^^ Lay-Baptifm in anp CilfCS Of JlCCeffitP ?o7;.//- ''' foever^ Page 104.-— Tliat '' ./^6V/r loo ]?j;-^- /{//^r, (7;?^ Theodorus Scutariota, maintdind the Invalidity of Luy-Boptifn^ Page 105. That, *' that which feCUl^ to bear dozen the forefaid *' Authority [of Kicephorus's two Canons j is ano- ther Decree ?nade in the Council r/Conftantinople, " under Lucas Chryfoberges the Patriach^ An. 1 165. Mr. Bingham acknowledges, That '' th^s Council cannot be denyd to fpeak plainly agaifift the Va- lidity of Lny-Baptifm^ and in favour of [what he calls] " Re-baptization^ in the Cafe that war then " laid before them^ which war the ®.2l1lUtirp Mi- " nifter of Baptifm by fuch as counterfeited Or- *' ders, and pJCteilSCD tO bC l9?!C(f05 when they *' were not fo. Page ic6.— That '' the T6cfl ©JC£k " COtlterS ^/ late Days, in /peaking of the Mt- " nifler of Baptifm and the Pra[lice of their ^^ Churchy altDiipS except the Cafe of Extre)Tic A>- *^ ceffity^ in which they allow a Loy-man, or £JJO^ '^ nian to Baptize^ rather than fit ffer a Child to die " without Baptifm.''' He produces ^' Jeremy, the " //7/^ Patriarch of Conftantinople, " as allowing of this-, alfo another '^ Evidence from wh.it Siiice- ^' rus ha^ ohfervd out of Metrophanes Ciitopu- " lus, a late Writer of that Communion ^ Arci'- " dius'j" Remark out of Gabriel Scvcrus, Arch Bi- " fhop of Philadelphia ^ '' and laftly, our Learned Dr. Smithy who gives this Account trom one of their Publick ConfeiTions of Faith, Printed \6t2- " That it is not Lawful and Proper for any One to " Baptize, but a lattfUl J^^iefi, Except in a P 2 " Time 212 Of the PraHice of Part II. *' T'nrie of KeceJJity, ani then a Secular Verfon^ *^' whether Man or CSIOttinttj ^ay do it. Page 107, 108. Thefe are Mr. Bingham s Evidences for the Pra- ctice of the Greeks • and now let us fte the Force ot their Teflimonj, as to the Matter we are en- quiring about, which is, whether the Ancient Ca* iholick Church has any Law, Tradition, or Cu- ftom, for the Validity of pretendei Baptifm^ by Perfbns never Commiifion'd to baptize ^ for if we don't keep our Eye upon this, we fhall be very apt to wander from the great Foint now in De- bate. § II. It is then to be obferv'd, that in Mr. Bing- hafns whole Scholaftical Uiftory^ there is not fo much as ©llC 3lnflnnce of the ^ Greek Church's having ever attempted to Authorize their hay-men to baptize in Cafe of Necefht}^, for the firft Eight Hundred Tears of Chriftianity, nor any Proof that the Greek Church ever had in that Period any pre- tended Baptifms by Verjons never Commijjion d to baptize. So that, for the frft Eight Hundred Tears, that Church has no Ru/e^ Ecclefiaftical haw, or Cufiow, whereby to determine the pretended Vahdity of any Lay-Baptifms whatfoever ^ and this Negative is a good Argument, that the Vali- dity of Baptifm by haicks, never was the General Senfe and Fra^ice of the Ancient Catholick Church ^ for, if the Ancient Catholick Church had efteem'd it fo, it is a moft: unaccountable thing, to find nothing of this attefted to by the Greek Church for Eight Hundred Years together, when we confider the ©?Cat CjCtent »f that Church, that it was fo Significant a Part of the Catholick Church, as that the moft celebrated and moft receiv'd Councils were Chap. 7. the Greek Churchy Src. 21 j were held in it, and when we confider alfo the Great Nuwber of Greek Autliors, wIk )ro A\'ri- tings make fo remarkable a Figure as thty do, among the Works of the Primitive lathers ^ and who, both Councils and Greek Fathers^ are thus filent for Eight Hundred Years togetlier, in fo hnportant a Matter^ as this of the pretended gene- ral Senfe and Practice of the Church, in favour of Baptifm by Laicks, muft needs have been, if it had ever been a Cathoiick Tradition^ Ecclejiajiicul LaWy or Cuftom. § III. Add to this, that tho' there was fuch a. profouTid Silence in the Greek Church, concerning any Validity in fuch Baptifms, for the hrfl: Eight Hundred Years ^ yet, there was 110 fUClj ^l'- Icnce about their Jnl^aiitlttp^ for, we have al- read}^ fecn, that St. Chryfofiom and St. B^ifil, in the Fourth Century, pronounced them to be Ji^Ull tlllO (LlOiD* St. Bafil's Epiftle, wherein he affirmed this, was a Canonical Epiflle, and received into tlie Code of the Greek Church, as part of their Canon Law ^ fo that this was the Senfe of the Ancient Greek Churchy and was never opposM by any Greek Council, or the contrary taught by any of the Greek Fathers, till the Time of the Corrupt Ages of the Churchy when other S)Upcrftitiantf very dangerous to Cbriftianity^ crept into the Greekj as well as into the Latin Church. § IV. Mr. Bingham begins his Account of the fuppos'd Pradtice of the Greek Church (as to Lay Baptifm) in the Ninth Century, one ot the mofl corrupt and fuperftitious Ages of the Church; wherein the Pradtice of the itlO^fljiPPinff Of TniiinCSJ was carried on, both in the Kaft and Hell ■^' p 3 with 214 Of the.PraBke of Part IL with a high Hand^ and ^'Nicephorus Patriarch of Conflantinoflc^ [our Reverend Hiftorian's Author"] was a very zealous Promoter of tlm Super ftition^ infoniuch as to Suffer and Die in Banilhment for it, as if it had been the Caufe of God-^ wh'ch is no grejt Rfpitation^ to \\\s fuppojed two Canons^ pro- duced by our Reverend Hiftorian in favour of Lay-Baptifm -, and his Authority is of no more Va- lue in tfus Cafe, than it is in the other, of the Ufe of IniiljreS in Divine Worjhip, k V. 'Tis true, Mr. Bingha7?t glories in this as " the Vecldred Senfe of the Greek Church authen- " tically de/ivcrd in thefe two Canons^ made in a *'' Vatriarchal Council^ where 270 Bijhops were pre- ' fent, %i t!)e Council of Coiiftantinop'c, " Anno 814. WiZi" the Council in which thefe Canons " were madc^ [fays he] Page 105;." But the Rea- der may eafily fee, that Mr. Bingham dare not fa 3^^ CljlS toajeJ tfje Council-, he puts it only upon the weak Foundation of an, " Jf ^^^^ Council of *' Conftantinople, &c.— wa^ the Council^ in which ^'' they were made, " Our Reverend Hiftorian do's not fo much as attempt to prove ^ that thofe two Canons were made in that Council -^ and there- fore we may fairly conclude, that it is not to be provd ^ this Gentleman however fhews his Inclina- tion to have it i^o^ but it is no ways becoming . a faithful Hiftorian^ to prejudice his Readers with jrg, Q9il?-'be% and Pcrljnpl5% fo frequently ^sour Author do's ♦, becaufe, abundance of People do not fo much mind every fingle word, [jf, l^£r!^np03 &c.] but that they may be carried ' -^ t>u Flfii Ecclefufil^J Hiftory, Cent. IX. f- i? T* amy Chap. 7. the Greek Churchy Sec. ii^ away with a Behef of what is annex J to fuch '' airs and i^cJP'-be'0," efpecially, when the roll of the words are big and oftentattois : As here, we have the glaring fhew, of '' The dec lard Sen/e of " the Greek Church ailt&eitttcallp DtllUCCn, *' a;2d a Yatnarchal Council of 270 X^ldjOpg^'* thefe are great Things, apt enough to fill up the whole Imagination of many carelefs Readers^ who may negleft the 31f to which they are join'd : But let us a little enquire, what reafon Mr. Binghjm has thus partially to Name tl}i$y any more than the other Councils, faid to have been held by A'/- cephorus^ Nay, upon what good Foundation he could fuppofe thofe two Canons, to have been made in any Authentick Council at all ? Nicephorus was made Patriarch of Conflantincfle^ Anno 806 i in that fame Year a ^' Council was held .at Conjiantinople about the Reftoration of Jojcph the Steward of that Church to liis Office, out of which he had been turned by Nicephorus^ Prede- cefTor Tarafius the Patriarch ^ and there are no Records of any fuch Canons made in that Coun- cil. In the Year 809. Nicephor//s held another t Coun- cil, " In which Jofeph wof not only Confirm d in his " viace, but the fecond, aDiiltcrauiEi, £0acnao:e " ^Conftantine Copronymus the Emperor^ who " after he had divorced his Wife, married another " nam'd Theodota, woi HeClat'D liltuful, bJI " DlTpenfatlOltj and every one that fhould main- ^' tain the CPIltUacP v^a^ Anathematized, " Nei; ther did this Council make thofe Canons-, and ii f' Du Phi's Chron. IX. Cent. t Du Pin's Ecclef. Hiji, Cent. IX. ;. /, P 4 they 2 1(5 Of the Practice of Part II, they had, 'twould have been but very little to their Reputation^ to have been decreed by thofe who could (2L0nfiL*m even aUUitecp it felf! In the Year 813. Leo Arment^i polTefs'd himfelf of the Empire, and was Crown d by Nicephon^ the nth of (a) July. This Leo declared againft aninge 3IlO<2fi)ip in favour of the Iconoclajis, who were {b) ^icephoruss Enemies^ upon the account of his great Zeal for that Superftition, " The " Emperor refolving to root out that Corruption^ " confulted with Antonir/i Metropolitan of Silea^ *' to aflift him in this (c) Defign, promifing to '' make him Patriarch of Conflantinople inftead of *^ Nicephorus^ which Amoniu£ promised the Empe- " ror he would." Du Pin., in his Chronicle of the Ninth Century, fays, "that this Year, 81^. was " held the Council of Conftantinople^ againft Anto- '' nius of Silea. " Labhe fays 'twas in the {d) Year 814. and that it confifted of 270 Bifhops^ fo that this muft be the Council Mr. Bingham fpeaks of. Now 'tis plain, that there appears to have been no other Bufinefs tranfafted at that Council, but the AnathefJiatizing oi Antonim^ for endeavouring to put down Image Worfhip, There are 110 ftlClj CailOllS of that Council Extant ^ and therefore Mr. Bing- havi has no more reafon to fuppofe Nicephorz/s's two Canons to have been made in tljIjS COUUCil^ tlian he has to afHx them to either of the other two Councils held by that Patriarch. (a ) Dm P/Vs Chron. IX. Century. {b^ Dn Fins Ecc/ef Htfi. Ceut. IX. p l. (0 Concil labhci, Tdt. 7 p 120. '(i) lb d. ii9c, lliere Chap. 7» the Gi'Qtk Cfmrchj ^c, 217 There was another Council at Confldntirjcple^ Anno 814. but it was held by the Iconoclafls [Op- pofers of Image Woriliip] atter Kicephcrus\ Ba- nilliment for his fuperftitious Zeal to promote and uphold that great Corruption, when Tbeodojius the Iconoclaft was made Patriarch in his Head, who prefided in that Council ^ fo that ]\'iccphor//s^ to be fure, neither would, nor could fit in that Coun* cil, and confequently his two Canons were not made there-, in fhort, they cannot be prov'd to have been made by him in any Council at all •, and therefore our Reverend Hiftorian can hardly clear himfelf from the Imputation of Partiality, when he pitches upon the Council againfl Anton'ius^ ra- ther than any other, and all becaufe of the great fhow that it makes of 270 Bifhops ^ v/ho, if they had made thefe two Canons^ would have no more fhew'd the Senfe of the Ancient Cathoiick Church in this Matter, than they did in the other oi'bnj^e Worjbip, when they Anathematized a Bifliop for oppofing that great Superftition. ^ VI. It is true, that immediatcl}^ after tliis Council, Anno 814. Labbe places Seventeen Ca- nons of Kicephcrus^ among which are the two Ca- nons we are fpeaking of; but then 'tis as true, that Labbe do's not reckon them as Alls of that Council^ but acknowledges that * he t(^ok tliem from the fame Author as our Reverend Hiftorian received them, viz. from Leunclavu^s ^ and that he * Concil. LM.Tow. 7. p. i2rc. Kiderr. qurque fiibjiciemus Leges Synodic.is ab eodcm Ni cphoro Saiirtiras ex. Libo HI. Tom. I. Jurif (^raco Romam a JoJH' c LcL-nrlavio Concinnati: fieque enim Inda^are ullatenus potuimus a! quem potiffinuni /\flnum fint rc^ocandi. could 2 1 8 Of the Practice of Part IL could not at all affix them to any particular Year ivherein they were made, and therefore by confe- quence to no particular CounciL Labbe indeed calls 'em Sy nodical Lawsy but Le- unclavim from whom he took 'em, gives 'em no other Name than only the ^Canons of Nicephorus the Corfeffor^ and fays nothing of their having been made in any Synod at all. But fome are apt to think they were decreed in a Synod of Bifliops, becaufe they are found in Leunclav'ws\ Third Book, which bears this Title, [Lib. III. ^ii con- fine t Sententias Synhoda/es, & San Hi ones Pontificias Archiepifc9porum ^ Patriarcharum CoJiftantinopoIps.'] *^ The Third Book, containing the Synodical Jiidg- *^ ments^ and Pontifical Decrees of Arch-Bifhops, " and Patriarchs of Conflantinople : " In which 'tis to be obferv'd, that Leunclaviijs gives his Reader to underftand, that in his Third Book he had col- lected two forts of Decrees-, Firft^ Thofe which were made in Councils at Conflantinople. Second- iy^ Others that were made by particular Arch-Bi- Ihops and Patriarchs of that See. When they are Canons or Decrees of Councils, he exprefly calls them fo •, when they are Conftitutions of Particu- lar Patriarchs, or Arch-Bifiops, he entitles them as fjch, and does not give Notice of any Council whatfoevcr as having appointed them: Thus for Example, in his Third Book, Page i86. he gives *js a Cnnftitntion of St. ]^ohn Chryfoftomy^ Arch-Bi- ftiop ot Conftafitinople^ and do's not call it Synodi- cal. In Page 187. he has a Synodical One, made by Gennadjuf, Patriarch of Conjiantinople^ in a Ccuncil a\iemhlcd there with him^ and fo Leuncla- * Lciirvclar. Jus Grxco. R^m. Vol, i. L\h, IIL p. i^^. Chap. 7- the Gt^tk Churchy he. 219 vlus exprefTes it ; but when he gives us Nicepho- rus's Canons, he only calls 'em " Canons of Nice- " phorus the Confeffor,'" as I have before obfcrv'd, without faying that they were ever made in any Council^ and he is remarkably particular in this Diftindion •, fo that, fince there is no Council ta which thefe two Canons can be appropriated^ we may conclude, that they were made by no other than 'N'lcepborus himfelf ^ and every Body who has look'd into Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, knows that particular Popes, Patriarchs, Arch-BiCiops, Bi- fhops, and Abbots, &c. have made many Canons by their own Authority, without any Councils aP fembled, and concurring with them in thofe Ca- jions. § VII. Add to this, that thefe two Canons are not to be found in the Colledion of Nicephorus^s Thirty Seven Canons, nor in that of his Nine Ca- nons, both publiih'd by ^ Cotelerius ^ only Leun- clavius (from Harmenopub^) in his Colle6tion of the Greek and Roman Laws, has publilh'd Seven- teen Canons, attributed to Kicephorus^ all which are in Cotelerii^s's Collections, except the 2d, 3d, 9th, 1 2th, 13th, and i6th of the Seventeen : Thefe Six Canons look very fufpicioufly, being mix'd with Eleven others, whicli Eleven are found in the former Colledions, v:hen the Six are not be found in them ^ among thefe Six are the Two Ca- nons for Lay-Baptifin, about which we are dif- puting, viz. the 13th and i6th of the Seventeen^ io that their being Nicepborus's, is founded only upon the fingle Teftimony of Harmenopu/us, who ^ later Monumenta, Eccfef. Gr^c^ Tom. 3. p. 44/. wrote 220 Of the Practice of Part II. v/rote his Epitome of the Greek Canons about the Year 115c. from whom Leunclavim fays he took them j which Evidence, fuppofing it to be as good as can be defir'd, is nO 9rgUment that they were of any Fublick Authority^ as the Authentick Senfe of the Greek Church, but only that they were the Decrees of One Patriarch. And we have feen that he was not fo very exadlly found in Principle and Praffice, but that he could be carried away with a ialfe Zeal for the Promoting of Superftition, and did not fcruple to ratify and confirm even 35111* terj? it felf. § VI ir. But further, thefe Canons appear to have been but of very little, if of any Authority at all in the Greek Churchy for if they had been the dcclard Autheniick Senfe of that Church : How fhould fome of the Greek Writers [_who never mere ccciai oj Qontumacwus oppofing the flanding Rules and Orders of their Church~] write fo zealoufly as Xh^y have done, againft the LntUfUlncfS of Lay- Baptifin, even in Cafes of pretended Kecef/jty ^ As Georg'u/s tiamartolus^ about the Year 840. Glyca^^ Anno. 1120. and Theodorus Scut ar'wta^ Anno 122c. Sure thefe knew the general Senfe and PraU'ice of the Greek Church x, and why fhould we believe they would have written {o boldly againfl: it, if this Imd been the approvd Ljzvful Senfe and Practice thereof > They plainljr pafs over and negled thefe Two Canons, as if they never had been-, or if they had any Knowledge of them, the}^ look'd up- on 'cm only as the Opinion of one Man, to be only of Private, if of any Authority, and not tlie dcclar'd Authentick Senfe of the Greek Church, which we may rtafonably believe they would have bc\'n more tender of Oppofin^r, if it had been r tru^y Chap. 7* ^^J^ Greek Churchy See. 221 " truly CathoUck and agreeable to the Word of God!' Since Mr. Bingham do's not give us any Inflancc of their Contradiding the (landing Rules and Or- ders of their Church in any other rcfpeit what- foever. § IX. And great reafon had thofe Writers fo ftrenuoufly to oppofe Lay-Baptilm in any Cafe whatfoever ^ for the Inftitution it felf gives not the leaft encouragement to fuch a Pradtice, but the contrary : St. Bafil^ in his Canonical Epiltle to Amphiloch'u^^ part of the Canon Law of the Greek Church, pronounced fuch Baptifm Null and Void ^ St. Chryfoftom^ Arch-Biihop of Conftantujople^ did the fame •, thefe both in the Fourth Century : The Conftitutions, calVd Apoftolical, very much e- fteem'd by that Church, abfolutely prohibit Laicks from meddling in fuch Holy Things^ and the Greek Church, for the firft Eight Hundred Years of Chriftianity, had nothing that favoured luch a Practice as that of Lay-Baptifm^ fo that even if Nicephorr/s^ Anno 814. had endeavoured by his Patriarchal Authority to introduce fuch a Novel- ty^ and thofe Writers had known of this his Dc- Hgn, yet they had good Foundation v\'hereon to build their Arguments againft it-, efpecially, if we alfo confider that it was a Novelty ot fome of the Latins^ and that the Emiflaries ot the Bilhops of Rome were very early in their Attempts upon other Churches^ particularly the Greek Church, to make them fubmit to their Erroneous Ido^Mncs and YraBices -, for even St. Bafil, in his Tenth Epiftle, complains of the Weftern Biihops in his Days, particularly the EomaU, [ '' ^uod vent a- " tern neque Norunt^ 72 e que d'lfcere fujVwent • '' Cum lis qui vrritatm ipjis annunciant Ccnteriden- 222 Of the Prat'Hce of Part IL " /fxj her&fin autem per fe ipfos ftabi/ierires.'' 2 " That they neither know the Truth, nor care to " learn it ^ but they contend with them who tell *' 'em the Truth, and by themfelves eftablifh He- " refy." Our Nicephori^\ familiar Correfpoa- dence with the then Bifhop of Rome^ Pope Leo IIL whereof we have an Inftance in ^ a Letter Nice- fhorm wrote to him, Anno 8ii. in which he ac- knowledges the Invocation of Saints, and Worfhip of Images and excufes himfelf to the Pope that he did not write to him fooner -, and fays, that the Caufe was, that he was made to believe that the Church of Rome was at Enmity with that of Constantinople ^ but now the Caufe of the D/y/- fion being removd^ he doubted not but there would be a perjeU Agreement between the two Churches. I fay, this and fuch like familiar Correfpondence oiNicephorus^ and other Greeks^ with the Bilhops of Rome then and afterwards, together with the reftlefs Endeavours of the Bifhops of that Church, to make other Churches fubmit to their Erroneous Dodrines and Practices, without which the Church of Rome^ in her corrupt Ages, would have no per- feU Agreement with any other Church ^ gave but too juft occafion to others of the Greek Church who were jealous for the Truths of Chriftianity, to give that Church timely Warning of Dangerous Romijh Novelties creeping in among them ^ of which Number Georgius Uamartolus^ Glycas^ and The odor ffs Scutariota^ appear to have been, in vi- goroufly oppofing the pretended Lawfulnefs of Lay- Baptifm, which was firft ftarted only in the Latin Church 3 and in Defence of which, we have no In- * Du Fin IX. Cent, ftance Chap. 7. the Greek Churchy Sec. 22? fiance^ in the Primitive Greek Church: And Aice- phorus\ fuppos'd Two Canons, in the Minth (Jen- tury, were but of his private Authority, and not at all regarded, but negleded and contemned, if they were fo much as known by thofe Writers from the Year 840. to 1220. ^ X. But our Reverend Hiftorian will have it that Nicephorus's Two Canons " continued in force " among the Greeks for Jome Ages after [the Year 840.] Fage 103. Of this he is very Fofttive-^ and now let us fee what is his Reafon for it ? Why truly no more than this, viz. " i^or Harmenopu- *' lus, who lived in the 7?iiddle of the Twelfth (Jen- ** tury, and wrote hk Epitome of the Greek Canons *' about the Tear 1150. has infer ted them both into " his CoUeSiony and they are the OUlp CatiailS " that are rnentiorid upon this Subje[f^ ivhich (tC\\\9 " to argue ^ that they were tfjCll the jUnding Rule of *' the Greek Churchy " Page 104. This is his whole Argument ^ in which there are feveral things worth our Notice : Firft^ That he aflerts the Two Canons continued in force for fome Ages, becaufe they were inferted by a Writer, in his Collcdion of Canons, above Three Hundred Years after Nicephorus: This is juft as good an Argu- ment, as if I fhould fay, that a Modern Eng/i/h Writer's collecting Ancient Englilh Canons^ made Three Hundred Years ago, whether by Men in the right or the wrong for making them, is a good Proof that fuch Old Englifh Canons continued m force in the Church of England all that while, to the time of his CoUe&ing them -, the Weaknefs of which be- trays it felf. Secondly, He fays they are the ©nip Canons that are mention'd upon this Sub- jetl: This confinns what I obferv'd before, that there o 224 Of the Practice of Part II. there were none fuch in the Greek Church for the firft Eight Hundred Years ^ and now they ftand Singular by themfelves for Three Hundred and Fifty Years after, during which Time we have not yet had fo much a^ one Argument^ that they were of any ft an ding Authority^ or Force in the Greek Church ^ the Pradtice countenanc'd by them was oppos'd very early after they are fupposd to have been made, viz, by Georgius Hamartolus with- in Twenty Six Years alter, and by Glycas not above Thirty Years before Uarmenopulus collected them 5 fo that in thefe Three Hundred and Fifty Years they made no Figure in the Greek Church, as Lawful Conftitiitions thereof, fince they were either not known, or contemn' d and defpis'd^ by two Writers who are not accus'd of being either Hereticks or Schifmaticks, and who very well knew, and did not quarrel with, the Lawful and Genuine Rules of their Church." But, Thirdly^ Harmenopulus's in- ferting them in thh Collection, and they being " the " SDnIp CaitOnS mentioned upon this Subje&, " fCCltlfi to argue^ that they were then the ftand- " ing Rule of the Greek Church:' Firft, Our Re- verend Hiftorian was pOfltlfiE that they continued in Force for fome Ages •, and for this Pofitivenefs one would have thought he was going to introduce as Pofitive a Reafon, when he begins it with a iTO?, but at laft he finifhes with only, it SecmiS j fo that all he has faid to prove their continuing in Force for fome Ages, amounts to no more, than that liarmenopulus\ Colleding them do's but '' fecni to argue ^'^ iX. is no convincing Argument that they were then the ftand Ing Rule of that Church, it only feems fo ; But Mr. Bingham muft give us more than Seeming SlrgUtttenW for the Greek Church's Standing Ru/es^ Eccleftaftical Laws and €^ Chap. 7. the Greek Churchy 8cc. 225 and Canons about this matter^ (all is not Gold that ghfters) 'till our Reverend Hiftorian proves tliein to be the Authenuck Conftitutwns of that Church, we fhall efleem thole Two Canons not to have been the Greek Church'' s f}unding Ru/e^ but a ifingular Innovation of no Pubhck Authority or Obligation. § XI. And now let us fee what can be made of thefe Two Canons •, why truly no more than this: That if Bifl)ops have Fozver by Canon to authorize their own Lay-men to Baptize, in vv^ant of a Prieft, (which ha^f not yet been provd that they have) then NJcephorus^ by thefe Two Canons, authorized his Greek Lay-men for that purpole. And what vv^ould this be to us if it were fb? Nothing at all certainly ^ for hk Canons^ even in that cafe, have no Obligation upon us : Our Lay-men can receive no Authority at all from them, and therefore they are of noU(e in our prefent Crotroyerfie, which is, about the Validity of that pretended Baptifm which is given by Perfons, who, upon no account whatjoever^ caa be faid to have been at all commillion'd or autho- riz'd by Billiops to Baptize, if Bifliops could h au- thorize their own Lay-Communicants. § XII. Before I proceed any farther I muff take notice, t]]at Mr. Bingham rejects all OIycai% Arguments againft Lay-Baptifm, and fays of 'em ixomCotelerius, That ''/;;5 Arguments arc groundel " upon Several Mijhkes in matters^ of lad, which '' n;akes them weak and inconclufive^'" pag. 104. But becaufe Giyccm was miftaken in fome Fads, nay fomeblltpCCtCnnetl JFaitfii Do's it therefore fol- low that he has no good Argument agamft this Pradice? Let us try one of that Greek Writer's Ar- Q^ guments 226 Of the Fracttce of Part IL guments, and fee how our Reverend Hiftorian can difprove it. " Glycol alledges the Authority of ths *^ Apofiolical Canons prohibiting hay-men to meddle " with the Prieft's Office^ whatever Cafes of NeceJJity " mayfeem to require it. '' Mr. Bingham finds fault with this, and fays, " The Cafe of NeceJpJy is never '' fo 7?iuch as once mentioned in all the Apofiolical *^ Canons or Confitutions ^ only hay-men are fever ely " prohibited lU gCltCtal from thrufling themfelves *^ into the Offices of the Ecckfiaftical YunBion^ " J^ag. 104. Now who is there that do's not fee, that My. Bingham^ by this Obfervation, confirms G7y<;^/s Allegation > " The Cafe of NeceJJity is llOt OHCe '' niClttlOnea in all the Apofiolical Canons or Conjii- *' tutions,'' fajrs Mr. Bingham-^ and I in return do fay, that for this very reafon. Glycol had good Authority to affirm. That " Lay-men were prohibited *^ to meddle with the Friefi^s Office^ whatfoever Cafes '* of 'NeceJJity may feem to require it. " For, fince the Apoftolical Canons or Conftitutions do not once mention, they confequently make no Provifion for, any Cafe of Neceffity whatfoever. And fince Lay- ftjen are feverely prohibited lit ffCnCCilI, by Mr, Bingham's own Confeffion, therefore, this Prohibition is abfolute and unlmitted^ it includes all Cafes^ and confequently the pretended Cafe of NeceJJity^ becaufe it excepts none ^ and all this becaufe it re- lates to a Thing, which was never valid before 'twas commijjion'd^ and owes its Validity to the Obfer- Vation of the firft Inftitution, which annexed it to a CommiJJion^ and made no Trovifo for its Validity without a CommiJJion in any Cafe whatfoever : There- fore the ceneral lP?o6ibition of the Apoftoifcal Canons, againfi: Perfons who have no CommiJJion^ includes even the fuppos'd Cafe of Neceffity, and excludes fuch Perfons (as Glycaf very well infers) from Chap. 7. the Greek Churchy 8cc. 227 from meddling in the Prieft's Office^ whatfoever Cofex cf NeccJ/ity XWAV fteUl to require it. For there is no Cafe of Neceiiity that can tcallP require ir, becaule the TnftitLition points at no fuch Cafe, nor iwdkz^ any Provifion for it-, the word Cafe may in fome Mens Opinion fecm to require it^ yet it do's but feetu to do fo: For if we put theni upon the Proof that the Cafe CCCtainlJ) CCqUtrCS it, they are at a great fiarJ^ and have no Arguments to produce for it ^ nay, fo far from that, tliat fome of cm fay, 'Tis/inful for an uncommiffiond Verjon to med- dle in it, when at the fame time they call it necej]ary^ and run themfelves into the Contradidion oi alTer- ting the NecelTity of a Sin, or that the ('afe is a Cafe of Necellity, and that fome-body muft fupply it, tho' by finning againfl the Law of God himfelf, as we have feen by fome late Attempts about this matter, fet forward by thofe, from whom we ihould leafi have expedted them, 6 XIIL But to return to the Greek Church : It is plain, that hitherto we have found no authen- tick Attofhers giving Countenance to the fu])pos'd Validity of Lay-Baptilln •, and as for tlie Tefti- xnony of particular Writers of that Church, W% evident from what has been faid, that \hs.Maicnty is againft the Validity thereof, fo far as to the Year 1220, when TJjfodorus Scutariota maintained the Invalidity of fuch Baptifm. Let us now fee what the Greek Church affembled in Council has Jone, and her Authentick Serife againft fuch Bap- tifms as thofe are^ againfl which we arc now difpu- ting, viz, Baptifms performed by Perfons who never were Epifcopally ordain'd, and who vet prefume to reckon themfelves as Miniflers oi Chrif^, ^nd to Baptize as if they were really iucb. Ci2 fa 228 Of the VraBice of Part. II. In the Year Il66. there "ixiaf a great Council at Cojiliamweple ^5 where were prelent Three Patri- archs, Lucoi' Cbryfoberges of Cor^ftant'wople^ Atha* nafius of Antioch^ and 'Nicephonis of Jerujalent^ with Fifty {^vtw Metropolitans^ befides other Bi- fhops.— — ■ Mr. Bingham owns, that in this Synod, a ^^ ^ueftion voof put by Manuel Arch-Bijhop cf ^' Heraclea, " '' Whether a Man ought to be re- " ceived as a Chriftian^ who was baptizM by one " who pjetenseo to be a p^icft, but was not " fo > For fuch a Cafe bad lately happened in his " Dioceje, In anfwer to this the Synod decreed^ " That fuch ought to be te^bOptifH 5 becaufe the '' Adminif ration of Baptifm is OlllP COmitllttell to " Bijhops and Priefis, according to the 4.6th and ^-jth " Canons of the Apoflles^'' pag. 106. Our Reverend Hiftorian acknowledges alfo. That " this Council "' cannot be denyd to /peak plainly againft the 23ali* " attp of LaP'TiSaptlfm, and m favour of [what he calls] " Re-baptization in the Cafe that zva^ then *' /aid before them, which was the O^Dlltatp 351111' " firatlOll of 'Baptifm by fuch as counte?feited " Orders, and ptCtenHell tO be Friejis when they *^ lD£Ce not fo* " And this is moft evidently our prefent Cafe *, for our hay-Baptifms are by Perfons pretending to be in Orders who are not fo, and they give their falfe Baptifms ordinarily, claiming the ordinary Miniftration of Baptifm: And therefore the declared, authentick Senfe of the G/rd"/^ Church, in a Synod of Three Patriarchs, Fifty feven Metropoli- tans, and other Bifhops, is full and dire [I againft the Validity, and pojitivefor the Invalidity of their hlfe Baptifms-, and Mv^Binghman CailltOt p?0DUCe any * Cave Htfl, Lit, Fol i. f,6y6. Vol 2. p. 418, 419. Chap. 7. the' Greek Churchy Src. 229 one Council that was ever held, either in the Eaffern or li^eJhr/2 Church for the firft Twelve hundred Years of Chriftianity, that ho can prove would have decreed any otlicrvvife than this Council did in this matter. (> XIY. Our Reverend Hiftorian feems not wil- ling to believe, that the Decree of this Council was io extenfive, as fome of the Enemies of Lay-Baptifin may be apt to believe^ for he fays thus, " hut lohether they [_ie. the Members of that Council] intended by this, wholly to invalidate the Bapttfrn of 2?€^C0nS and Lay-men^ in extraordinary Cafes of ahfolute Necefity^ when neither a Bifhop nor Pres- byter can be had-^ as they have not exprefs'd them- " felves pattlClllatIp upon this point •, fo it is more '' than I can pretend pOfltliJell? to determine, " pag. ic6. Here again Mr. Bingham repeats his art- ful but very unfair way of joyning £)fclCOnS with hay-men, as if Deacons were no more Partakers of the Prieftly Power, than Lay-men: But the Fallacy of this I have already fufficlently exposed, and therefore fhall here only fpeak of Lay- men, Ver- fons never commiffiond by Bifliops to baptize ^ and I do affirm, that Baptifin by fuch Perfons, tho' done when none of the Priefthood can be had, is by this Synodical AS declared Null and Void. Firft^ Becaufe the Baptifin by the Pretender to Holy Orders, who deceivd the baptiVd, was to the Receiver, equivalent to a Lay-Baptifm in want of a Priefl:, and efteemM Null and Void by thofe Bi- fliops ; for, this pretended Baptifin was as much a Cafe of Neceffity to the baptiz'd, as if no Prieft could have been had, becaufe the Deceiver appear'd Of a Prieft', as fuch he was receiv'd by the bap- tizL and he had, at the time of his Baptifm, no Q^ 9 Medium 2^0 Of the Pra^ice of Part IL Medium by which to difcover the Fallacy^ and therefore 'twas to him equivalent to a Cafe of Keceliity, becaufe ( by reafon of the Delufion ) he had no free Choice to be baptized by a Frieft ^ and therefore, fince that Council would not admit this pretendediy baptjzd Perfon Mf a Chr'iftian without Sacerdotal Baptiftn^ and all becaufe the Pretender had no FriejUy Charader^ and for this only reafon too\ it muft needs be, that they nulfd 2, pretended Baptifm receiv'd from a Lay-man, by one in a Cafe of Neceffity, when he could (in his Circumftances) have no Prieft to baptize him. And, Secondly^ The Reafon given by that Council proves this Alfertion ^ for they affirm'd exprefly, That " fach Otigljt to be re-baptizd, beCHUfe the '^ AdmniJJraiion of Baptifm is OHij) committed to *' Bifhops and Priejis^ according to the /\6ih and ^-jth " Canons of the Apoftles.'" The Power of Bapti- zing being committed Onlj? to thofe who are vefted with a Frieft ly Fewer, is made the Reafon why Friefly Baptifm was decreed to be given to him, who before -wzsfalfly baptized, by one who had no fuch SacerdotalFower '^ and this without diftinguifh- ing, that it might be otherwife in any Cafe what- foever: Tis ahfolute and unlimitted without any Exception, and therefore includes all Cafes ordinary and extraordinary: 'Tis apply'd by the Council, particularly to the Cafe before us, which was an C]t:traO?tlinitrp Cafe to the pretendediy baptized, by reafon of the Dehfwn and Cheat put upon him •, they did not decree in his favour, becaufe he was thus deluded, and under that Circumftance could have no other BaptiCn, which made his a Cafe of Ne- celfty ^ that therefore, becaufe his was fuchaCafe, his falfe Baptfm was good and valid ^ no, they deter- mined only upon this Frinciplff that there was really m Chap. 7. the Greek Churchy &c. 251 no Prieftly Power, therefore no P>iiptifin , and for this reafon, and this only, they decreed that he IhoLild be baptiz'd : It is not recorded, whether the counterfeit Prieft pretended to niiniftcr Ordinarily^ where true Priells were to be had, or Extraordi- narily where they were Abfent ; and let the Ad- verfary chufe which of them he will, the Cafe was ftill the fame to the pretendedly Baptized ^ for, -the falfe Baptizer made him believe, that lie was fuch a One as could give True Baptifm^ and the Baptized being deceiv'd, took him for fuch. If true Priefts were to be had, he efteem'd the counterfeit One, under his Delufion, as true, and therefore as eligible, as any of them, and fo faw no NecefLty of Addreffing to One of them for Baptifm, rather than to him ^ which put him under a Kccejfity of being fuppofedly baptiz'd by him : And it true Priells could not be had, it would but have beeu the fame Cafe of K;ecejfity •, but notv/itlidanding, upon fifting the Matter, 'twas only the w.wt of Qonmiffion^ that was the reafon of the Invalidity of \\\t Baptifm, in the Senfe of that Council ^ and the Cafe is but jufl the fame, when a Laick, a Perfon never Commijfion'd to baptize, attempts to give Baptifm in an Extraordinary Cafe, where Priefts are not to be found ^ for, the Laick's Open^ ar?i, KnozmVfiirpation, of what was never Committed to him, do's no more vejl him tciib a Comjnijfion^ than the covert and fly Pretences of the counter- feit Prieft, [who is no Prieft at all] do's Autho- rize him ^ they are both equally zvithout any Com- viijfion ^ and the Abfence of true Priefts, do's not give any Advantage to the Lay-Ufurper's Cafe j for, this Negative can confer no Fofitive Fewer or Authority to baptize ^ the Laick never had it be- fore, for fuch a Cafe, either by the Law of Ka- d 4 ^^''^ j2^ ^ Of the Practice of Part II. ture^ for that has nothing to do in the Matter; or by the Law of God, for that never vefted him with it, or laftly, by any fuppos'd Dona- tion of the Catholick Church, or of the Bifhops, to whom he owes Subjedion, [if either the Catholick Churchy or thofe Bifhops, could make fuch a Dona- tion, or Gift of Power, to I.aicks ^ ] confequently this Laick, in Abfence of the Priells, is as much without a CommJJion^ as the counterfeit Prieft was ^ and fince this Council decreed, the pretended Bap- tifm adminifter'd by the counterfeit Prieft, to be Null and Void, " becaufe the Adniiniftration of ** hapttjm voaf never Committed to him, " and he had therefore BO P?l£(llp CljaractCr •, it necef- farily follows, that the fame Decree cenfures pre- tended Baprifm to be Null and Void, when given by a Laitk, one never Com7mJJtond to Baptize^ tho' done in Deftitution and want of Friefts^ becaufe the Laick, even in this Cafe, has no more a Com- TTiifJion than the Counterfeit Frieft : The Miniflra- tion of Baptifm was no more Committed to this Laick, than it was to that Lnpoflor ^ they are both equally haicks^ both exadtly alike, 'Non-Corn- vtijjiond. And if any favourable Conflrudlion may be made for pretended Baptifm by one, rather than by the other, to the Advantage of the fuppofedly Bap- tized ^ it is more equitable to allow of that which was performed by the COUUteitn't P^lCtt, than to acquiefce in that, which was done by the known prefumptuous Lay-man ^ becaufe, the fuppo- ftdly Baptized has a better colour of Excufe, by reafon of the Cunning of the Impoftor, and the frcat Difficulty^ if not hipoffibility (under his Cir- tumftances) of difcovering the Cheat, when he had ho Sujpicion of it^ nor ^uy Grounds given why he (houl^ Chap. 7* the Gvtdi Chnrchj he. 23 j (hould fufped: the Adminijlrator^s Commijfton ; when on the other hand, the prefumptuous ,.t6 Lay-man, who puts on no Uifguife, is caf/ vbe difcover'd ^ for the People are us'd to receive Baptifm from the Hands of the Pricfls, they know 'tis their Office to give it, fo that when a known ha'ick prefumes to do it in any Cafe whatfoeyer, there's fomething (hocking in it ^ and the meaneft unprejudic'd underftanding of thofe Men, who are ufed ( as all ought ) to ftudy their Bibles, may eafily fee, that A'^ Appearance of Neccjfity can veil: Men with that Sacred Office which God lias appropriated to others, to mi- iiifter in Holy Things •, and therefore, they are in fuch Cafe, lefs excufable for fubniitting to fuch open iinvoarranted Vfurpations. But this Council of Conjfantinop/e ufed no fuch fa/Je Judg- went^ they decreed the falfe Baptilin, given by the Cunning Impoftor^ to be Null and Void, notwith- ftanding all the pleadable Difliculty of fufped- ing or difcovering the Cheat ^ and confequent- ly the fame Determination ftands good, againfi: the Validity of pretended Baptifm, given (tho' in Abfence of the Clergy) by known Lay- men, Perfons never Commiffion'd to baptize- becaufe there is /efs colour for Eiculc, in fa- vour of thofe who receive thefe falfe Baptilins, than there is in behalf of fuch as are almoft tinavoiiahJy deluded, by tlie other Cunning and Subtile H^JCtentlCtS* But without favouring one more than the other, they are both equally without Comm'iffion •, and therefore by this Greek Council their Mimjlraticns are both Null and Void. ^ XV. Our 2J4 Of the Praciice of Part II, ^ XV. Our Reverend Hiftorian fays, Page iq6. *^ If it was' fo \y\z. if this Council defign'd to Invalidate fuch Lay-Baptifms] ^' then 1 can fuy^ *' h was plainly contrary to the Decrees of the *' jr02mei' Council nmtt jeicepijo^ug, whu^ *^ prevail d in PraSice both before and Jin ce this ^ Council^ and flill do's in the Greek Church to this " D^'.'' And then he charges fome Learned Per- fbns with Error for thinking otherwife. But Mr, Bingham has not yet produced the Council which he talks of, he has given us nothing but an 31f for his fuppofed Council under ISJicephorus •, nay^ he cannot prove that this Patriarch's Two Canons were ever made by any Synod at all, but yet he calls 'em the Decrees of the jfOJltlCi: COUUCtf, very emphatically, as if he had given Proof of fome particular Synod wherein they were made, xvhich he has not at all done •, fo that Mr. Bi?7g- ham is here very pofitive upon an fiJtlCCCtnintPj (to make the beft of it) even in direct Oppofition to what is €i3tnent and Cettailt^ for he mfifts up- on a fuppojititious CounciV s Decrees^ againft an undoubted Decree of an Incontefted, Indifputable Authentick Council •, and would make us believe that the former (tho not provd) were of moft force, in that " they prevail' d in Pra[fice^ both be- '' fore andfince this CcttaiU aUD (UatlifptlteD " Council : How they prevailed in Pradice be- fore, we have feen already •, Mr. Bingham has hi- therto produc'd no Evidence for this their fuppos'd Trevalency-^ and if he had, it ftill wants to ba prov'd that this PradHce was founded upon the general Scnfe of the Greek Churchy and not rather upon the falfe Principles, introduced among fome Latinizing Greeks, by the Craft and Cunning Chap. 7. the Greek Church, &c. 2j<; Cunning of Popifli Emiflaries, who have been con- tinually endeavouring to corrupt that poor, op- preiTed, and afflided Church: But this Council of Conftantmople^ held by Three Patriarchs, Fifty Seven Metropolitans, and other Bilhops be/idcs, is a GldKing Evidence^ that tliis Corruption of Po- pery had not yet in the Year 1166. prevailed \n the Greek Church •, for if it had, 'tis inconce'wahlc how fuch a 'Kumerous Synods as that was, ihould make a Decree fo directly contrary to the Popifh Notion of Lay-Baptifm. § XVI. But our Author goes on with his Endea- vours to prove, that this Piece of Popery '''prevailed *' in the Greek Church, fince this Council^ and ftiH " do's to this Dny s Vor (fays he) ihe 'Brft ^lZZ)li " aainterS of lute Days, m f peaking of the ?i\ini' " j\er of Bapufm, and the Fratlice of their Churchy " ahcays except the Cafe of Extrewe Kecefjtty, in *' which they allow a Lay man^ or jjiUuniilU, to " baptize, rather than juffer a Child to die with- ^' out Bapri/m,'' And he inftances Jeremy Patri- arch oi Conflantinople^ in the Sixteenth Century; Suicerus\ Obfervation out of Metrophancs Crtto^ pulus •, Arcudius's Remark out of Gabriel Sever/fir^ Arch-Biiliop of Fhilade/phia, and our Dr. S/ath^$ prefent State of the Greek Church. § XVII. In Anfwer to all which 'tis evident, that our Reverend Hiflorian^s ToCtt 0?rck IkltU ttt$^ as he calls 'em, have betray'd thenifclves to be Vncatholick in their Principles^ and the Pra- ftice they fpeak of, to be alio Vncatholick and Fo- fifh ', for th y efpoufe the Caufe of Baptifm by Wo- men, whom Mr. Bingham acknowledges ncv.r to jiave been allowM by the Ancient Church to Bap- tize : 2^6 Of the Vr act ice of Part IL tize : This fnovvs of what Party thofe Greeks are, who allow ot this, and that they learn'd and took it from the corrupt Church of Rorne^ the known Promoter and Abettor of this Erroneous and Un- cathol'ick Practice 5 but the Authors mention'd by our Hiftorian, are no more than particular ISien^ and their Authority of no Importance againft that of the Council of G?;;^^;?//;^^/?/^, Anno 11 66. And ^tis very Notorious, that in thefe latter Ages the Greeks are, by the Craft and Subtilty of the Ro- mjh Emiflaries, divided into two Parties ^ one that adheres to the Principles and Practices of their Anceflars^ the Ancient Greeks:^ and the other that embraces the Novelties and Superftitions of the Church of Rome, Dr. Smithy in the Preface to his Account of the Greek Church, Ihews us how CyriUus hiicaris Pa- triarch of Conftdntionople, 16 21. by oppofing the Defigns of the Jefuits^ got to himfelf the Hatred and. Ill-will of the Latinizing Greeks-^ and from Tage 239. and forward of that Book, how by the Jniiigation of tlie fe/uits^ and Conf piracy of fome Greek Bifhops^ he was Frofecuted^ Dethrond^ Ba- mfFd, and at lafl: BarbarouJIy Murder d. An. 1638. In Page 249. we fee how the Romijh Emiffaries and 'Latinizing Greeks bribe the Turks to get their ozvn Tarty-Men advanced to the Patriarchate ^ there we :find how the Church of Rome i^ nds Titular Bifiops ^mong them, and how the Romijh Ambaffadors, as well as Romifh Priefts^ difturb and rend that poor di ft re [fed Churchy by Corrupting the Greek Bifhops. Sir PatilRicaut^ late Conful at Smyrna^ in hfs Prefcnt State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, Anno 16-j^^. tells us in his Preface, Page i^. that a Confellion of Faith, fuppos'd to have been writ- ten Chap. 7. the Greek Churchy Sec. 2^7 ten by CyriUus Patriarch of Conftantinople in the Year 1629. was bcliev'd in a great mcafiirc to have been father d on him by the Jefuits^ to ren- der him odious both to Greeks and Latins, In the 28th ?age of his Book he afTures us, that " The *"' Roman Pr lefts frequent all Places where the " Greeks Inhabit^ endeavouring to draw them unto " their fide^ both by Preaching and Writings^ c) " which one being written in the Vulgar Greek by " Francis Richard a Jefuit^ and Printed at Paris, " caWd^ TcL^yct rrt; Pce)juctiJir;g ^Y.-nnM^ixc^ zvai *' di/pers^d in all Parts where that Languge wa-f " Current, That, [Page 20.] " Whereas now the " Ancient StruBures and Colleges of Athens are '^ beccnne ruinous and all Greece Poor and ^^ Illiterate^ fuch Spirits and Wits among them, xcha '^ afpire unto Sciences and Knozdedge^ are forced to " Jeek it in Italy , where fucking from the fame *• tountain^ and eating Bread ?nade with the fame '•' heaven of the Latins, it is natural that they ^' fhould conform to the fame Principles and Do- '"'- Hrine. So that it will not be firange, if in Ex- " pofition of thofe Points wherein the Church of " God for fome Ages hath been filent, and but noto '' controverted in thcfe latter Days, the GreeS '' P? lefts ^fhould with little Variety follozv the Senfe " of the Latin, I'ohich they take up at adventure^ " not being of themfelves capable either to prove or *' try the meaning of the Scriptures^ or examine the " Ancient Tenets of their own Church. '' And in Page ?3^. " Italy is the fole Gymnafion and Li- " bra^y of their Knowledge and Learning-^ for ift " moft Points of Controverfy, where the Patriarchal " Authority is not concern d, they exaUly^ concur " with the Senfe of the Roman Schools. '' And theFriar$ of the Church oiKome are ^0 induftri- QMS 2 j 8 Of the Practice of Part II. ous to make the World believe that the Oriental Churches are like their own, that the fame Wri- ter in his 447th ?age aflures us, that '"-fome'" Friars of the Roman Church perfvvaded the Armenian Pa- triarch and Biihops at Conftantinople to fubfcribe a Confeifion agreeable to the Tenets of the KotJian Faith — a Copy of which Sir Faid Ricaut faw and read, as it was delivered to hiin froiii the Mertabet^ or Armenian Bifliop. Dr. Smithy in the 6th Vifge of his above-men- tion'd Preface, fays, '*^ // i^ manifeji to all who un- " derjianl Antiquity^ how much the prefent Greeks " have in fever al Points of DoSrine varied from " the Belief of their Anceftors^ and have corrupt- " ed the Simplicity and Purity of Religion by odd " Opinions and fancies, " So that 'tis now no won- der if we find fome of their late particular Bifhops Latinize fo far, as to run into the Ropery of Bap- tifm by hay-men and Women, What Regard then is due to Jeremias the Pa- triarch's Opinion in this Matter, when he ^ was difpleas'd with the Lutherans for believing " In- ^ vocation of Saints to be vain and frivolous^''' and for defpifing that Adoration which is paid to their Images and Holy Relicks^ as tliey are called > Mr. Bingham might with as good a Grace have pro- duced that Patriarch's Teftimony for thefe Popifh Corruptions, as for the other -, and the reft of his Inftances are of fo modern a Date, that we have realbn to believe they are no better than the meer Effedts, of fome Greeks being too much infected with the Super ftlt ions of the Church of Ro^ne. * Vu Fini XVi. Cent. torn. 2. />. 441. Lond, § XVIIIc Chap 7. the Greek Churchy &c. 239 § XVIII. Dr. Smth tells us, in the 109th Page of his Account of the Greek Church, " They believe *' fuch an abfolute NeeeJJity oj this Sacrament — at " that they entertain (jilCO ilHH CCUel 'CijOUffljt^ of the State of Injants^ which by Jonie Misfortune and Cqfualty are deprivd of it^ to prevent which '' Mifchief and fecure their hears^ where thre is a. " real anu cctratn Danger of imminent Death in '^ the Abfence of a Prieft^ zvho is at alt other times the " OnlPlatoftll 90in(fter Otthis Sacred Rue, It :s " allozved to Lay-Ferfons of either Sex, iU it is ex- " prefy laid down in their Fublick Qonfejfion of " Faith^ Written in the Vulgar Greek, and Frintei *' in the Tear j66 2. " " It is not lawful and proper ^' for any one to baptize but a lawful Prieft, except " in time of Neceility ^ and then a Secular Perlbn, " whether Man or Woman, may do it.'' By this we fee, that the i\cafOll of this Pradice of feme of the Greeks^ is the uncharitable and cruel Opinion which fome of the K^?^^/7{/?j hold of Infants tlying without Baptifm, and which thofc Greeks have learn'd from them: That thePradice founded upon that Opinion, is no other than Popifl), ^\nct it allows SBOttien as well as Lay-men to baptize; which is a peculiar Practice of the corrupt Church of Rome. And 'tis no fufticient Anfwcr to fay. That this is the Senfe oi \\\t genuine Greek Church-^ becaufe 'tis '' exprefly laid down in their Fubltck " Qonfeffion oj \aith. Anno 1662.'' For \t cannot be proved that the true Greek Church, without any Mixture ofRom{/h Friefts and Fryars, or Latinizing Greeks, made that Confefllon of Faith ^ nay, it h moft likely, that Foptjh Emiffaries had a great Hand in making it : For Dr. Smith, in the 6th Page of his Preface-, to the above-cited Book, makes the bdd 2^o The Vra^kc of Part II. bold Determinations of this very Qonfejjion of Faith^ Anno 1662. and of the Bethleemetuk Synod, faid to have been Held in 167 1. to be fuch Inftances *'' oi will incline any fober and confidering Man to " believe^ that the Greeks have of late, more than *^ ever, been wrought upon by the fly Artifices and " underhand Dealing of the ttlbtle (i^miflarieS Cf *' Rome, who watch continually over the poor Greeks, " and take Advantage of their Poverty and Dijirefs, " to bring them to a farther Compliance, and in time " to a downright Subjetiion,^^ So that upon a fe- rious Confideration of the whole Matter, Mr. Bing- ham^s producing thefe Modern Inftances of fome par- ticular Greeks allowing of Baptifm by Lay-men, and even by Women, amounts to no more, than if he had given us the like Inftances from the Church cfRome-, for 'tis well known, that, that Church has infedled fome of the Greeks with her falfe Doftrines and unwarrantable PracHces, infomuch as that fome of their late Synodical Determinations, and ConfelTions of Faith, have been made by the Infti- gation of Popifli Priefts, and founded upon Romifh Principles, efpecially in fome Doctrines and Pra- ctices which were never held or us'd in the Ancient Greek Church, as this of Baptifm by Lay- men and Women never was, before fom.e of their Bifhops and Clergy were too eafily wrought upon by the cun- ning Craftinefs of Popifh Emifiaries in the declining Ages of the Church, § XIX. As for the Mofcovites, Mr. Bingham lays, pag. 109. " Their Rules and Canons give par- " ticular Orders about thU matter -," and for Proof nf this he fays, pag. no. That " the firft Canon of *' John their Metropolitan, who is commonly calTd " their trpp})£t^ gives this DiretTion^ That Children, '^ in Chap. 7. the Mofcovite Churches, 241 '' in Cafe of KeceJJtty^ Jhould be baptized iDltljOllt a " If^jttCtt* " And this is all he produces tor the Practice of the Mofcovite Churches , one fuig/e ALins Authority-^ no Synod ox Council mentioned wherein this Canon was made, and yet this inuft (land tot the authentick Senje and brattice of thoje Churches. Strange arguing this I as if the Opinion of One Bifiop was the Opinion of all thoJe Churches : But tl>j contrary to this is very evident trom Mr. B/v^- ham's own Obfervation, in the AVords immediately following, which are thefe ^ ^' TbePeop/e i?:deed do " not a/ways ohferve this Rule^ for fome Authors '' tells us, niaiip of them think a Fnejl fo abfO-: '' \\Xti\\^ reqinfite to perform this Office, that^ M)iit^ " tut Qliiit Oi Battilt^ happen, they Kill not per- '' mit It to be done by any other but a Vncfi ; '' From whence 'tis plain, the Mofcovites do not think their Metropolitan to be in the right, tho' he do's fay, That " Children may be baptizd " in Cafe of Ne- ceflity '^ without a Friejh " § XX. But Mr. Bingha?n replies to this, That " we are to judge of the Senfe and Fra^ice of a " Church from the Eulc0 am CauoHiS itianc bv "' its ©OiJetnOUtSj and not by the Fra^ice oj the *^ Vulgar^ who often trangrefs their Rules, either " through Ignorance, KegleU or Contempt -, m which '' Caje it would be injurious to any Church, to judge " of her DoHrines by the contrary Pra^ice of the '*• common People. " In return to this I mull tell our Reverend Hiftorian, that there are fome firfi Principles in Chnjiianity, which wiien the common People have been thoroughly inform' d of, and ae- cuftom'd to, they cannot be cafily drawn trom them, but will perfift in them, in Oppofition to the contrarv Novel Innovations of fome of their mi- R ftaken 242 The Pracffce of Part IL ftaken Governours : It is eafie to 'conceive upon what Principle ibiiie in high Stations may have been tempted to enad that which they ought not ^ and which the Vulgar, upon the common Principles of Chriftianity, are bound not to iubmit to: As for Inftance j ^' ^ Several Bijhops of Lithuania, and Ruflia- " Nigra, who had hitherto continued in the Commn- " mon of the Gretk Churchy wrought upon hy fever al " Temporal Advantages and Honours^ zvbich they " proposed to gam in the Diet and Government of " Poland, fent Two of their Number to Rome, in *' the Tear 1595, in order to their being tCCOltClTO " to tt}at %imt\h But their going thither, " end doing this in the Name of all the EUtljeiltiCfe "■^ C1)UCC{}C0 was protefted againft^ and a public k ** A^ made of it /^ Conftantine, Duke articular Bidiop, ilicws the Senfe of that Church : and this is the Cafe before us. John the Metropolitan ot the Mofcovite^, has a particular Canon which a^'rms, K 7 ^^^*t 244 ^'-^^ ?ra[itce of the Part IL that Baptifm in Time of Neceflity may be given mthout a Prieji : This Canon do's not appear to have been made by any Synod or Council of that Church, but by his fingular Authority ^ the Peo- ple, " iK)hatever Qaje oj 'NeceJJity happens^ will not " permit it to be done by any other but a Frieji : They regard not their Metropolitan s Canon ♦, and why > Mot thro' Ignorance or Neg/eff^ as Mr. Bing- ham Infinuates, but from a Religious Principle -^ becaufe they think No Man fufficient for this Ho- ly Fun<5tion, in any Cafe of Neceffity whatfoever^ but a Frieft •, as is plain by the ^ Author quoted hj Mr. Bingham, in his ii ith Page 5 and the fame is alfo attefted to by t Gerhard, another of this Reverend Gentleman's Authors. And even Ar^ cudius, a Romifi Prieft, another of our Hiftorian's Authors, who wrote a Book, Printed in the Year 1626. to make the World believe that the Oriental Churches agreed with the Roman, is free enough to Acknowledge, 1| That ""'for the moji part all Grecia^ * Joh, Fabri. de RelijSl. MofcovU* p. 1 76 Huic muneri fungendo quxcunque Neceffitas inciderit, Uemo hommm fufficere putatur nifi Sacerdos extiterit. f Geihard Loc. Com. Tom. ^. Ve Bdptifmo, r. 57. t>.z\i. In Mofcoviras aliqui perhibent baptizandi muneri quxcunque tie- ccffi as inciderir, neminem hominum fufficere, nil! Sacerdos exti- terit. Jn cpere de variU rerum Mcfcovhic. Autorib. p. i ;6. II Pcftquam de materia Sc forma Baptifmi Egimus, fupereft ut cle iTiiniftro aliquid dicamus: Quod co alacrius aggrcdior, quo totam terme Grajeiam, RufTiam, Mofcoviam, & alias Provincias quae in fide Chiifti ritu Graeco perfeverant, ck impcitia in eo verfari errore, fcrupulo & religionc animadvci to ; uc abfcntc Prcs')ytero malint permittere, ut Infantes (\ t Baptifmo c vita dccedant, quam eos falurari lavacro abluere; quod exiftiment fibi laicis ne in ncceflicatc quidem licere hoc munere fungi, Arcud. de CQ?icord. EccUf, Orient.^ Occid, L\b. 1. c. xi. />. 24. Paris \Ci6, RufTia, Chap. 7.' the Mofcovite Churches. 245 *' Ruflla, Mofcovia, and other Provinces, ivho^ af- " ter the wanner of the Greek Church, continue in " the hiith ofChnJf, when a Frieft ts Ahfent^ had ^^ rather fuffer their Infants to Die zathout [what he calls] " Baptifm, than fuffer them to be baptized [as he terms it] " by any other^ bccaufe they think '' that it is not Lawful^ e\JCll lit jRlCCelTltP, for " Laicks to Execute this Office, " He is pleas'd in- deed to call this, their Error^ and to fay that it proceeds from their Ignorance, and want of Know- ledge-, but that is ufual enough with Rcnujh Friefts 5 'tis their Cuftom to call every Body that differs from the falfe Tenets of their Church, ^- norant and Erroneous-^ but that is no Proof, that they are fo. Here are confefTedly vaft Muhitudes of Chriftians, inhabiting far Extended Kingdoms, and Provinces, who hold, that Laicks cann:t Bap- tizc^ even in want of Fnejh ^ 'tis a part of their Religion to think fo- and in confequcnce of this, ?7o falfe Notions of Charity and Natural Aifodlion to their Tender Infants, can prevail with them to fuffer Laicks to meddle in this Sacred Function, even in Times when no other can be Iiad -, no, they venture the Souls of their Children, and leave them to the Mercy of God, without attempt- ing to fecure their Salvation by uninflituted, un- commanded^ and in their Opinion, prohibited Alini- ff rations ^ they don't think, they mull do Evil, or what they think to be Evil, that Good may come of it ^ and whence fhould it come to pafs, that Chri- ftians {hould, in fuch prodigious Numbers, run Unanimoufly into this Opinion and Practice, of cfteeming it better, and therefore fuffcring their Children rather to Die without Lay-Baptifm, when Prieffs are not to be had, than let them be pro- fanely Wafh'd by Laicks ^ Do's it not at lead pro- R 3 ceed ^4<5 The Practice of Part II^ ceed from hence, that they have been us'd to be taught no other than Prieji/y Baptifm ? And that they have been accuftom'd to no other ? And who have been their Teachers, but the Biihops, Priefts, and Deacons of thofe Churches > They have not been us'd to the Impudent Ufurpations of Unor- dain'd Lay-Teachers, as we are-, fo that this Opinion and Pradice of theirs, being fo Univerfal, muli proceed originally from their own Clergy of the Gree^ and Mofcovite Churches ^ and their per- fevering in them, in Oppofition to fome fev/ fingu- lar Novel Romjh Attempts to the contrary, mufl be attributed to this, that the Rornifi Priefts and La- tin i zing Greeks^ have not ypt been fo powerful in their Attempts, but that ftill the Greeks and Mof- covites for tijC ITlOfl pStt diifent from them in this Matter : We have no lefs than the Evidence of [_Ar- cudius] a Modern Romijh Prieft for this, who wrote his Book on purpofe to {hew the Agreement of tlie Eajlern Churches with the Lcitin •, and who yet, when he comes to the Article of Baptifm, is forc'd to acknowledge, that for the moft part all Greecej Ruffia, Mofcovy, and other Provinces in Commu- nion with the Greek Church, diffent fo very much from the Roman Church about the Minister of Bap- tifm, as that they fuffer tlieir Children rather to Die without Lay-Baptifm, when a Prieft cannot be had, than let any Laick pretend to Baptize them \ and purely upon this Principle, " That it '' is not latofUf, even in Times of Neceffity, for " Vucks to Execute the Office of Baptizing, k XXI. Having been thus long upon the Senfe and Practice of the Greeks and jMuf covites^ I ftiall be the more brief upon that of the Foreign Re- Jorm'd i bcc4ufe, they can be no Evidence of the general Chap. 7. the Foreign Reforni^d. 227 general Senfe and Pra&ice of the Ancient Otho/ick Churchy except tliey produce her txclejiaftudl Liwy^ Trdditions, or Cufhrns^ [tor the Validity of Kap- tifms perfonn'd by Perfons who were never Coni- milFioii'd by Bifhops to baptize] wliich I am furc they cannot do. And fir ft for the Lutherans ^ Mr. Binoham in his Tilth r^7^^, &c. introduces/6>W(? of thcffi tl^I^^xx- ing that ^'' any Ferfon u)ho js a Chnjhan^ Man, cr " (HUoniait, may be the €ttrao;?r)lliaCl> Ahml. er of Baptif?n' when there is imminent Dan- " ger of Death, and a MinifJer of the Word cannot " be had. " And here we may ealily fee, that ihefe Lutherans are fo far IpOptfl)^ in that they allow of Baptifm by O^lOUlCIlj which by Mr. Bingham s own Confelfion, never zcdi allovcd by the Ancient Catholic k Church-^ fo that, in this ot Ikp- tifm by Women , the Lutherans Mr. BinL]ha?n fpcaks of, are Uncatholick •, and as for the ether, of Bap- tifm by Lay-men^ we have abundantly Qciw al- ready, that they have jlI30 Catl)OllCfe P^UlCipIC whereon to found that Practice, fince the An cent Catholick Church never had any Ecclefiaflical Law, Tradition, or Cuftom for it. The fuppofcd Rea- fons they give [as in his 112th and luth Pages] for the Baptifm of Lay men and Women, arc very weak, infignificant, and falfe, and have lx.'cn al- ready obviated and anfwer'd in feveral ^ Treat ifes publifhed long fince. Mr. Binghajn himfelf do's not care to be concerned " what weight and jorce " there is in their [pretended] Arguments, " and * Uy-Eaptifm Invalid. Sicerdoul Potvers, Dijfenters Bapnfm ma and Void. R 4 there- 248 The Practice of Part IL therefore I will not trouble the Reader with thein. § XXIJ. Mr. Bwgham's next Inftance is of the lielvetick Body, the Followers of Zu'wgluis^ where^ in he tells us [in his 114th and ii^th Pages] that Zuingliiis was of Opinion, " that Baptifm ( in " Cafe of Neceflity) might be given by 9np ^' S^ait} [^uivis Homimm] yea by a COOttian "' alfo-," which is plainly the FopifJo Novelty in its full Extent^ and therefore needs no further Confu- tation. " His Followers difapprov'd of this Lati- ^^ tude of Baptifm by (uHomen, and therefore af- " ter bis DG^ih prohibited it,'' fays Mv. Bingham: So far they did well. But faj^s our Reverend Hi- ftorian, ^'No Prohibition zioof [by them] kid up- " on ^Cltj in Cafes of Necejjtty^ nor any Order " made for Re-haptizing thofe who were irregularly " baptizd by Otftetg/' And what do's this fig- nify more, than that they have laid afide one Piece of iJ^OpctP) and not provided againfl: ano- ther ^ that is, Baptifm by Women is forbidden ^ but ftill \^%nvk Hominum~\ Any Man, [as Zuinghj^ words it] may baptize ; His Followers have not forbidden this-., that is, they have not forbidden Turks, Jews, or Pagans to Baptize, fo they be but Men, [for all this is included in Zuinglim\ ^ui- vis Hominum, 3np ^cttl] a very hopeful Refor- formation indeed! as Mr. Bingham has defcrib'd it ; fo that, we need not wonder why they made no Order for what he calls Re baptizing. Thus far may fuffice, for v/hat Mr. Bingham has told us, of the Pppecp of fome of the Lutherans an4 Z^^irrglians. § XXIIL Chap. 7. the Foreign RefornPd. 249 § XXIII. And now for the Oihinifls. Our Re- verend Hiftorian owns in his 115th Page, that '' Calvin freely declares his mind again ft the Law- " fulnefs of Lay-Baptifm in ^np ^;\{z U)ljiUfa= " eJJCr. That '' he thinks there can be 1^0 ilZ^ '^ CeffltP fiifficient to aUtljO^Ije private Men or " Women, to do the Office of a li)llbl!Ck ^Piniflcr^ Mr. Bingham tells his Englifh Reader, that '' Calvin " owns indeed, that the ConttatP l^JdCtiCC had '' generaUp p^epail'tl, not only fevcral Ages be- '' fore his own Time, but, in a manner, from the " firft beginning of the Church, haymen allDaPjS *^ baptized in danger of Death, If a Aliniftcr could *' not be had in due Time. But that He, [/. e. Ca!- vin'] thinks the Grounds they v\'cnt upon were ^' not juftifiable. " By Mr. Bingham's thus repre- fenting the Senfe oi Calvin, the Reader may be in- duced to think, that Calvin could not but own, that Lay-Baptifin had gencrallp p?Ci)»nrtI, that is, had been the ^cnEVal l^.HCtiCE of the Catholick Church, and that Lay-men had altuaPS baptiz'd, &c. whereas in Truth, Calvin's Words, as Mr. Bingham has 'em in his Margm, contain nothing that fliews he own'd this to have {JCIlCrallP p;e^ ftaiTD-, not one Word that acknowledges " Lj>'- *' men altDtlPS Baptized, Sec "' For the whole of what he fays'is only, "^That " Many Ages before^'" his Time, " and Jo far, cu almofl from the firjl be- * Calvin Inflit. Lib. J., cap. if. A'. 20. Quod autcm multis ^b hinc fcculis, adeoque ab ipfj fcrc EcdcfKC exordio, ufii re- ceptum fuit, ut in pcriculo mortis Laici Baptizarcnr, fi mi- niflcr in tempore non adelTet, non video quam firma rationc defendi queat, " ginning 250 The Practice of Part IL " ginning of the Churchy it wof a Received Cuftom [he do's not fay it geiterallp p^elljailll] "• that " hay-men flwuli Baptize'^ [he do's not fay Lay- men alU)ap0 baptiz'd] '' in danger of Death, if '' a Minijier could not be had in due Time-^ and " that He [j. e, Calvin] did not fee how or by what ■^ /ubftantial Reafon this'' Cuftoin '''could be de- ''^fended*'' So that this Cuftom which Calvin thought was fo early taken up, do's not appear from his Words, to have been own'd by him as a Practice that Generally Prevailed ^ for a fuppos'd Cuftom of fome few lingular Perfons, may be call'd a Cuftom, and an early one too, without being the Cuftom or Pradice of the Church it felf: Some of the Members of the Church may have fuppos'd Fra^lices of their own, which never were own'd by the Church as her Cufioms and Tradi- tions ; fo that, it Calvin reckon'd, that there was a receiv'd Cuftom very early for Lay-men to bap- tize in danger of Death, when Clergy-men could not be had-, this do's not prove that he thought it was a Cuftom receiv'd by great Multitudes, much lefs that it ©eiierallp P^eSail'tlj as xMr. Bingham. exprefTes it ^ and whoever they were, that hy Calvin's Suppofition took up this Cuftom [which by all that has been faid before, was not by any one fO Catlp receiv'd as he [/'. e. Cal- vin! fancy 'd it, yet Calven contemns their Au- thority, and plainly ftiews, that he thought their Pradi ce cpiilB iiot be Defen5eD* But notwithftanding all this, Mr. Bingham fays in his 1 16th Page, that Calvin " dos not pemilp-- '' tiifXxV pronounce fuch Baptifms^ abfolutely jf!5uU .^' auD 2IOIII3 but the contrary. " And for this he quotes Chap. 7. the Foreign RefornPd. 251 quotes Arch-Bifhop ^ Whitgijt's Words, becaufe they have thefe Expreflioiis, viz. " // u fufjicient " for us to know the llaml and Seal of the Lord in ^*^ his Sacraments, by UlfjamfOe\)Cl' they he deli- verd lice JJjcill he fujficienily defended [/. e, againft the Anahapti^s, who deny'd Baptifm to be right, becaule given by Idolatrous Perfons in the Church of Rome~\ " // v^e think th.it we " were huptiz'd, not in the JOaUie Of illip 39(111, " but in the l\ame of the Wither^ Son^ and Holy '' Ghoft^ and therefore Baptifm not to be of i)hin^ " but of God, by toljOnifOEUCU it be nnnijler'd. And becaufe of this [tDljomfoCUer] Mr. Bingham concludes, that Calvin do's not abfolutely KuU and Yoid Baptifin by Lay-men. But, in anfwer to this, if the word UaljOllircefaer, as Arch-B:lhop Whit- gift has it, mufl: be taken in its full Extent and Meaning ^ then Calvin will be made to have efteem'd as Good and Valid, all the pretended Bap- tifms of Lay -men and Wumen, Jch^s, Turks, Infi- dels^ and Fagans, which is plainly a Novelty of C02tlipt Popecp* And not only fo, but the Validity of Baptifm by Private Perfons, if it be included in this word toljomfOClJCr, vv^ill be an Inconfiftency and Contraditiion to w^hat Mr. Bing- ham faid before, viz. that '' Calvin declares his '' Mind anainft the LataftliUCK of Lay-Baptifm in '' anp Cafe toijatfOCDCi:-, " and that ''he thinks " there tm be no WiittiixX^ fiijfcient to authO-- " tlje private Men or Women to do the Office of a '' publick MinilJer-,"' fo that, Calvin \k'\\\ be made to fpeak inconfiftently with himfolf, and to con- tradict his zjwn Principle. For, if Baptifm by * Whitgift's Defence cf the Arfner to the AdrnwU- Traft. 9. >.ri8. c^ Calvin Jnjiit, Cap. 17. bcft. 16. Lay- 252 The Practice of Pa r T 11. Lay-meiij or Women, be not JLatUfUl /// a?7y Cafe whatfoever ^ and there can be no NeceJ]ity fufficient to SUtljO?lJC it [according to Calvin:'] Then 'tis plain, that in Calving Opinion, fuch pretendei Baptifms, have 5t50 ILatt), J^Ule, or 9Utl}0?ttPi for it they' have, then they are Lawful and Au- thorizd, which Calvin fays they are not\ fince then they have no ILatU or IRulCj and are Defti- tute of any 3Utl)0?itp in Calvin s Senfe, it necef- farily follows, that ^' the fpaitU and S)tal of the " L(?ri cannot be in fuch falfe Miniftrations^ and ^' therefore they are 2ltiaItDi'' for if the Uani and Seal of the Lord is in them, then they have lik autlj0?ttp, and are therefore latDfUlj becaufe the Hand and Seal of a Frincipal, really fet to any Inftrument, is either by himfelf, or his Au- thorized Attorney or Reprefentative, and fo is His, and therefore Uis Authority ^ and confe- quently ILatDfUl? and therefore Valid^ becaufe JpiS t)an5 atttJ ©eal: But Calvin fays on the con- trary, that they are not Lawful in any Cafe what- foever^ no Neceffity can be fuffcient to Autho- rize them ^ therefore the Hand and Seal of the Lord cannot be in them, and confequently they rannot be Valid, by U)ljOnifOel3Cr perform'd, if we take whomfoever, in the full extenfive Mean- ing of the Word, to include Private Men and Women^ Perfons never Authorized or Commilfion'd to Baptize-, that is, Calvin reckons fuch Baptifms Vahd, by faying the Lord'^s Hand and Seal is in them ^ tho' by what he faid before, they are Inva- lid^ becaufe utterly Unlawful, and void of Autho- rity-, except it can be prov'd, that, in this Cafe, there U Validity where there is UO HatD) 110 IRuIe, no J3ann ano Seal of the Lord, and J^.othing of l)\& SlUtlJCntP* Thus Chap. 7* the Foreign Reform'* d. 20 Tims we fee dilvin's Inconfiftcncy, if his toljOIll^ fOetlCl muft be taken in the full Latitude of the Word, to include Lay, i. e, Uncommiilion'd Bap- tizers ^ and therefore they who would make him ConJij}ent with himfelf, mud underfland by his UJljOmfOeijrr, only vvhomfocvcr '' ^ublick Mini^ " fter^'' whether Reformed Proteftant, or Idola- trous Fapift^ lince Arch-Bifhop Whirgifis Words, taken from Calvin^ were levelfd againfl the then Arjdbaptifls^ who deny'd Baptifm to be Right^ be- caufe given by Idolatrous Bopt'tzers in the Church of Rome. For, 'tis plain, that Calvin not only declares his Mind againft the Lawtulnefs of Lay- Baptifm in ailP Cafe lUljatfOCDcr, as Mr. Bing- ham has rightly obferv'd ^ but that the fame Cal- vin did in a Publick and Authentick manner Sign to it "^5 that fuch Baptifm is utterly Null and Void in exprefs Terms, AVitnefs his Hand to the PuWlCH ^^ of the Minifters and Doclors in the Church of Geneva, [as they are calfd] who were at the National Synod of Lyons, Anno i^6^ wherein, Article the Firft, it is exprefly affirmed that fuch Baptifm " Is of BO Jf 0,2Ce, \?0)3}£ty dalitlitPj or (Effect)" and to which John Calvin Ugn'd his Name in full Length. Mr. Bingham acknowledges that Beza^ Calvin s Succeffor, " declares pofitively againfl the Validity " of Baptifm adminifterd by private Fcrfons, p. 116. And that it is certain the Vrench Reform'd do all join with him " m the Do^rine cj the Invalidity " and Nullity of LayBaptiJm, p. 11 7- And it is * Ai ma) be pen in QuickC Synodicon, yd i. Chap. XXI. ^ ro. Or rrore e^fily in a little 6r;(:, cill'a\ The Jud^mcnr of chc Reform'd in Fran:e, &c. CoDceming the Invalidity of Lay. Baptifm, Fiie 16. Fri«/f<^/cr il Clcfrcotf, Anr.oiyn- ^ notorious 254 ^^^- Practice of Part IL notorious that this was afferted by them in no lefs than Six National Synods, namely, the Firft held at Varls^ Anno 1559. the Second at Foi^iers 1560. another at LyoTis 1565. where the Deputies of Ge- neva were alfo prefent agreeing thereto^ another at Roche/ 1571. where Beza of Geneva was Mode- rator-, the National Synod of Gvz/?, Anno 1605. and that at Roche I ^ Anno 1607. to which Mi. Bing- ham adds another Synod of Alcnfon 1637* ^" ^^^ 1 1 8th Page, and juftly concludes, that the Do- drine of the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifin " is in- *' difputahly the Pra&ice of the French Churchy " to which he fhouJd have added that of Geneva too. as is pkin by two at Icaft of thofe Seven Synods. Thefe were juJl National Synods^ and very folemnly heid'^ and Mr. Bingham cannot produce fuch full flagrant Evidence among the Lutherans^ for the other fide of the Qiieftion. Befides, he thinks that the Dutch alfo join with the French in this particular Page 119th, as he judges by the General Current of the Dutch Wri- ters ^ fo that here are no lefs than the French and the Genevans, in National Synods •, and the Dutch alfo for us againft the Validity of Lay-Bap t if m. Mr. Bingham comes next to the Pa/at ines, and fays, Page 1 20. '' The Churches of the Palatinate, " CoUimanlp JoUow the Do^rine of the Calvi- ""' nifts •," So that licre our Reverend Hiftorian ac- knowledges, that the Palatine Proteftants are com- monly againft the Validity of Lay-Baptifm — very well. But fays he, ''" In (Dnt Cafe /owe of their " Divines make an Kxception^ as in a Time of " great Perfecution^ or Difpejfwn of the Minifry " in fome grand Diffipitwn of the Church. And for this he produces but One of their Divines, Dr. Alt- ing^ who fays, " Baptifm adminijier'd by private " Men Ciiap. 7« the Foreign Reform'^d, 255 *'" Men^ in a grand Difperfton of the Churchy \& '' not to b£ reiterated.'" But what figiiifics the Saying of one Man only, among the Falatines^ when [according to Mr. Di/Jgham~] the CJ)Urcl)CS oi the Falatinate commonly follow the Contrary Doctrine ^ efpecially, when 'tis alfo confider'd, that this very Dr. Alting^ fays of this fame Bap- tifrn thus, " We do not fay n U llffitimiltC, or *' ILatUfUlj" and thereby is mconfijhnt with him- felf, and fo we may leave liim as a Dodor of no Moment in this Affair -, for, he brings falfe Argu- ments againfl repeating the Baptifm, which he ac- knowledges to be Unlawful and 3!(IlffItimatC, and therefore ^alfe and Invalid. He endeavours to prove, that they fhould not be rei)eated, '' be- '' caufe the fenjifl) Circumcifions and FopifJ) Bap- '• tifins were not repeated, tho' they were per- '• form'd and attended with many SuperlHtions *' in the corrupt State of the JewiJJ) and RowiP) " Church." As if Corruptions ol'Supcrftition, ^c. attending a True Commijfion, were juft^ the fame as no Co7nmiffton at all-^ the Fallacy of which be- trays it felf. Thus we have feen the Thoughts of the Foreiga Reformed in this Matter ^ we have obferv'd from Mr. Bingham, that fome of the Lutherans and Zuinglians are ictp l^Oplflt) about it. And it has been prov'd, that the Vrench Protejfants^ the Gene- vans^ the Dutch, and the Valatmes, do not fub- mit to this Corruption of PopeC? 5 but have very juftly reformed from it in Principle and Doctrine. But fays Mr. Bingham, '' The Dutch and French " Churches are [by fome] reckon d of no Account *' but ClnClJUlXh'D, becaufe they want tfifcopacy, " and confequcntly "^^IWZ Q^tJltiatlOng, andChri- '' fiian Sacraments^ in their Opinion-^ and then *' Kihat 2^6 Ti}e Pra^ke of Part IL *' what figni fie s their Teflimony^ in fuch a Caje^ if *^ a^ foon a^ they have deliver d their Evidence " about Chnftian Baptifm, they fhall be Cajhierd^ " and pojitively declard to be no Chnjlians ^ See his 119th Page. This of Unchurching has been long fiiice anfwer'd in ^ another Place ^ and if fome do hold that there are " no True Ordinations *^ and Chrijhan Sacrament s^^' where there is no Epi/copacy^ they are very much in the right of it ^ and if Mr. Bingham do's not approve of this, [which he emphatically calls] djeit Opinion, [as if it were feparate, and of another Nature, from what he Holds himfelf] then let him give us a Scholaftical Hijiory, of the Senfe and Pra^ice of the Churchy in Defence of the Contrary Principle^ if he is able ^ that fo we may fee from Authentick Teftiinonies, that there were anciently True Or- dinations and Chriffian Churches and Sacraments without CpifCOpacp^ But this I am fure he will never be able to prove from any of the Antiqui^ ties of the Chriflian Church ^ for the dired contra- ry is notorious Matter of Fact, as is -Evident both from Scripture and Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, That there never was any Chriflian Churchy True Ordi- nations^ or Chriflian Sacraments^ without Epifcopa- cy, no one Inftance whatfoever can be produced in Proof that there was \ and therefore we muft ftill Hold [what he calls] our Opinion, which is more than barely fo, for 'tis an Ancient Catholick^ and therefore a Subflantia! Truth. And tho' tlie hrench and Dutch are fb deeply concerned [as our Reverend Hiftorian fays fome reckon them to be] in this Tr jth • yet ftill CljeiC Lay-Bjltrfm Invalid, Evidence Chap. 7« ^^^^ Foreign RefornPd. 257 Evidence againft Lay-Baptifjn is very S'igmfica?7r^ and of great Imfortance both to themfelves and us. For, ^ JP/r^, It fhews them the great Neceflitj'- of fecu- ring to themfelves a Real, and therefore Valid MiJJion 5 fince, by their own ConfeJJion^ they have no Chrijhan Baptifm, if their Baptizers are not in Valid Holy Orders. And, Secondly^ Their Evidence is a Benefit to us, be- caufe it fhews the prevailing Power of Truth -, which Men [ferioufly confidcring the Nature of Things] are oWiged tofubmit to, even tho' them- felves are involved in the Confequences of it. It is no finall Motive of Credibihty, when a Truth is attefted to, not only by thofe who are its avowed Frie/rds, and Pradtice according to it, but alfo by thofe very Men, who, In the Opinion of unpre- judic'd Standers by, are obliged, confidering their Circumftances, either to oppofe and gainfay it, or elfe to reform their own Practice, that they may be truly confiftent therewith. It is a pleafant and delightful thing, to fee Men in love with CcUtl) in tlje atlttract: it is no Abatement of the Truth how much foever they are concerned in the Con/c- quences which they themfelves have made ^ thofe Confequences map inUeED [and ought to] bC CC- fO^m'U, but the Truth they are Witnefles for, is unchangeable^ and is not in the leaft alter'd by their contrary, irregular Circumftances and Fra clues. Nathan's Parable to King David contain'd an ex- cellent Truth, gf the great Deformity, and heinous Demerit of Mens ading contrary to the Rules of Juftice and Equity. David alfentcd to this Truth -^ and in the Cafe that Kathan put to him was fo very zealotis, that he, like a Juft and Righteous Judge, refolv'd, that the Man who was guilty of - ^ S the 258 The Prague of, &c. Part II. the Injuftice Nathan complain'd of, Jhould furely die. The King did not reckon, that the Application was to be made tohimfelf^ no matter for that, the Truth was ftill the fame: And when Nathan faid unto him, '' CljOU art t^t S^Htt •/' he ftill ac- knowledged the Truth he had affented to before, he fubmitted to the Juftice of the Sentence himfelf had pronounc'd, and fincerely repented of, without endeavouring to excufe or extenuate, tl)0 jSDcCaflOU which himfelf had given for Nathan\ Parable ^ and God grant that the French, and the Dutch^ and other Reformed abroad, 6^e Bi/Jjop oj OxfordV Charge Confider'd, CHAP. 2 59 CHAP. VIII. The whole Evidence of A?2tiquitj funPd uf ; proving J That the far greater Majority of An^ cient Teflimony^ is agamft all fretcrdcd Bap- tifms perform'^d by Perfons^ who never were aiithoriz'^d by Btjljops to baptize^ and confe- quently that fuch Baptifms are not valid by any Ecdefiajlical LaiVy Tradition or Cuflo?n of the ancient Catholick Church : The Conclufwn containing a true State of the Quejhon about fupposM Cafes of Neceflity, where Epifip- pally Authorized Baptizers are not to be had, WE have already feen in Chiip."^. That the ancient Catholick Church never attempted to Authorize or Qommiffion Lay-men to baptize, m any Cafe whatfoever ^ and that all xht Endeavours of this fort have been made only hj fame few par- ticular Ferfons, who can upon no account whatfo- ever be faid to make up, %\)t ailCICnt CatfjOllCfe Ci)Urclj5 and whofe Attempts, if they were right, are alfo of no Importance to favour the Practice of thofe who Iiave not tvcw fo much as any Pre- tence to this fuppos'd Authority^ and Com million, from Bifhops to baptize, as certainly our Laicks [the Diifenting Teachers] have not. It remains now that I fuin up the whole Evi- dence relating to Baptifms performVl by a reji [or fuppos'd^ Epif copal Commiffi(m, and concerning other pretended Baptifms by Perfons who never had fuch a Commiflion at all, that the Reader may, S 2 ill 26o The Evidence of Part II, in a narrow Compafsj fee the whole Evidence of the Antients for and againft thefe never-Qomm'-iffion d Baptifms, and pafs ludgment accordingly ; And that he may do it the more eafily, I note the Whole in the following Table, in which the An- tients, 6^r. who are thought to have been for hap- tijms by Perfons never Commiffiond by Bifhops, are noted on the Left-fide-, and thofe, whofe Evi- dence is for Baptifms performed by Epifcopal Au- thority only, are on the Right, with the Pages in this Book, where their feveral Teftimonies, and the Arguments thereupon, are to be found, thus : The Antients^ &c. whofe The Antients^ &c. whofe Tefli monies are thought Te ft monies make for to make for the Vali- Baptifm performed by dity of Baptifm by Fer- Epifcopal Authority on- fons never Commjjfond ly^ andwhoNuliUnau- by Bijhops. thoriz'd Baptifms, Jefus Chrift, in his In- ftitution of Baptifm, gave his Commiifion only to his Apollles, the firft Biihops, and to fuch as they and their Succeffors fhould Authorize, Fage 5. This Commiifion to con- tinue to the End of the World, and necef- fary to p^efCtiJ^ t?}e CfiUVC!) according to the Cha p. 8 . Antia^uity fum^d uf. 2 6 1 the ©jure Of CljHtt, as Mr. Bingham owns, The Truth of this Nulls Uncoinmillion'J Bap- tifms, /J 6, 28. None baptiz'd at firfl but by Authority re- ceiv'd from the Apo- ftles, according to one of Mr. Bingham s Au- thors, p. 7. No one can have a Fouer of Baptizing, but he who receives foine way or other, a Com- mijfion from them, ac- cording to Mr. Bing- ham's faid Author, ^.8. The Original Power of Baptizing lodged y^/^- ly and entirely in Bi- ihops, and derivative- ly convey'd from them to others, oidinarily and extraordinarily, according to Mr. Bing- ham^ p'lJ. Baptifm by fuch Perfons was reputed as theT3(c n)op'0 act, it^id. Lay-men ahcays debarred from Baptizing in all 0?Ulnarp Cafes, ac- cording to Mr. Bing- ham^ A?o. S 3 He 262 The Evidence of Part. IL He owns that pattlCU- lat CljUrCfteS would not allow Lay-men to baptize in want of the Clergy, p. 92. I. and IL Centuries. III. Century, TertuUian^ about Anno 2 GO, thinks Lay-men have a Right in them- felves to baptize in abfence of the Clergy, But founds ft upon a falfe Principle, which allows Women to bap- tize, ^.45;. I. and II. Centuries, Stj£natir/si3.Ys, "^ With- *' outBiJhops^ Triefts, " and Deacons^'' there is no Church, p, 35?. And without the Bifliop it is not Lawful to baptize, p-^'y' St. Uermas names no other than Authorized Baptizers for greatefl Extremities, p. 38. III. Century, TertuUian refers us to the Pradice of the Church whereby the Bifhop had the Power of Baptifm, and after him Presbyters and Deacons, yet ttOt with- out the aUtfiO^it}? of theTBlfljOp, p. 39. 41. He will not allow Wo- men to baptize, p. 47, St. Cyprian makes Bap- tifm without a Prieft- ly Power, i. e, Epifco- pal Commiflion, to be Null and Void, p. 48, firmilian does the fame^ TSlovatm IV. Century, ^ Thamugade^ p. 7^ Chap. 8. Jntiqiitty fum*d up. Novatuf the fame Confeffor Fowponu^s a Dionyfiana, do's fo like- wife, p. 5 J. Confeflbr C/j/v/y u Maf- cula the fame, p. 56. The XLVII Canon caird Apoftolical, nulls Bap- tifm tbr the fame Rea- Ion. About this time comes in the Yahle of the Boy Athanafius bapti- zing his Play-fellows in Sport, and the pre- tended Determination of Bifliop Alexander^ that the Baptifin was Valid, refuted at large, p. 62. P-57. IV. Century, Nineteen Bifhops in the Spamjh Council of £7/- herii^ made a Canon, which [according to Mr. Bingham'] veiled fame of their own hay- men^ but not all, with Authority to baptize in want of the Clergy; but this with parti- cular Limitations and Reftridions, /. 58. So this Council is of no Benefit for unauthc riz'dBdpriJms^ but the diredl contrary, p. 59. The Author of the Life o{ Athdnafi//s in Pho- rir/s^ fuppofes that the Boy Athanafiifs bap- tiz'd liis Play-fellows by a S)iwne Jn« ffinct, /.72. S 4 And 264 Opratus, Bifhop of M/7(f' vis^ [if his "Words are taken in their full La- titude] allows of Bap- tifm not only hyChri- flianLay-men^ butalfo by Women, nay by un- baptiz'd Infidels, Jews^ er Fagansj even in or- dinary Cafes, jp. 103* Ths Evidence of Part II. And this he judg'd froni Alexander s fuppos'd Determination about it, ^ p. 88. Therefore [in his Opi- nion] Alexander took it for a divinely Au- thorized Baptifm, ibid. Mr. Bingham fays^ It would be ffcange/ // any Canon fhould be made in the Church for fuch ludicrous Bap- tifms, p, 90. Fifty Years after the Council of Eliberist, Hilary^ the Deacon of Rome WitnefTes, that Lay-men did not then baptize, p, 97. Facian, Bifliop of Bar- celona, teaches, that the New Birth cmmot be effeded but by Epif- copal Baptifm, p-^y- Optatus\ Words candid- ly interpreted, fpeak only of Baptifm ad- minifter'd by the then ordinary Minifters of Baptifm, whether Ca- tholicks or Schifma- ticks •, and they were Epifcopally Commif- fion'd, p' 106. St. Chap. ?. Antioj^uity But Mr. Bingham ac- knowledges this Lati- tude was never allow'd by the Churchy and that 'tis a Nove/ry of Popery^ p. 105. St. JittOXXl reckons it frequently Lawjul for Lay-men to baptize •, but this when NecelFi- ty compels, p. 1 20. He refers to no Law of God^ or the Catholick Church for this, p. 121. His falfe Maxim where- on he founds this Pow- er of Lay-men, /?. 1 2 2. This AfTertion of his, inconfiftent with his Dialogue againft the Lucijcriansy jp-i3J» St. Bafil^ B (hop of Cf- farea^ Nulls Lay-Bap- tifm^ />. 109. St. Chr)fof}om, Arch-Bi- fhop ot Conjlantinople^ do's the lame, ^. 1 14. The Conflitutions called Apoftohcai do fo like- wife, pill. S)t* SierCim, derives the Power of Presby- ters and Deacons to baptize, from the ©^i-- Binai Ipolucr of tlje TSilllop, Z'. 120. li'^t.Jerom on the other fide, means that feme Bijhops authorized Lay- men to baptize in Cafe of Neceility, then 'tis plain his Evidence is only for what he thought were hp't/co- pjUy Authorized Bap- n/ms^ p. 127. He SmM Lay-Bap- tifm in his Dialogue a- gainft the Luiijenans^ in which he confutes their Aflertion, that Arian Friefls were / j- icks, by tliis Principle, " That if they were " Lauks ^ the Bap- *' tifms admiiiider'd '* by them ought to be ** rejededj p.i2:{,t^c. He ^66 St. Auguftin allows of the Validity of Baptifm in ordinary as well as extraordinary Cafes, tho' performed by anp ^atl 5 which includes Jews and Vagans as well as Chriftians^ He founds uncommif- fion'd Baptifms upon hearfay Stories, /.145, 147. And falfe, or rather no Arguments, p. 148, In expounding Scripture he follow'd a Path Th2 Evidence of Part. IL He fays, That without Vrlefts there is m Church'^ therefore fay i,no'BaptiTm5p.i99. St. Auguftin^ as quoted by Gratlan^ fpeaking of Lay-mens bapti- zing in Cafe of Ne- ceffity, fOUnUiS It Upon 9utljo?itp oj ^tMXiXtmmdefcend' ed bp TBlC^OpS from the Apoftles, p-i44. Another PafTage of his as quoted by Gratlan^ which Nulls Baptifms by our Laicks, p. 1460 St. Auguflin hejitates a- bout the Validity of tifurped Lay -Baptifm in time of fuppofed Neceffity, /?. 151, He is not pofitive, but fuch zUfurpatio^ is a ®m. ^ /?. 155. Therefore 'twas not the general Senfe and Pra- dice of the Church, He acknowledges that the Validity of I.ay- Baptifm in ordinary Cafes [ tho' his own Opinion] was not the Determination of ailp BenetalCouucil,^^;?- Jeg^iiemly Chap. 8- Antifiitj fum^d up. 267 fequently 'twas not the general Senfc of the ancient Catholick Church, p. I5 But then our Confidence in this Mercy is abated^^ nay, is liable to be confounded, by our Sin and Prefumption, in doing and acqui- efcing in z finful ]\]jm\\rat'ion^ which is a Breach of the Effential Law of God about this Matter. Whereas, 6,:hly and Laftly^ Ry refufing the Kever-com- fn'iffion^d Vretender^ when we can have No Com- mifjiond Baptifm, we exprefs our V'lous Regard to the Divine Inftitution -, we fhow, That we muft not door acquiefce in Evil^ with a defignthatG^^i way come of it : But we refer ourfelves to the Divine Mercyj withgut venturing to break his Law ^ and fa Chap. 8. Anticj^uity fum'^d uf. 271 fo we efcape the Imputation of Prefumption, and are the more capable Objeds of his Pity andCom- paflion, tho' we have no Claim to it by virtue of an Explicit Baptifmal Covenant^ when we Die in this Cafe without the Inftitutcd Alimjiration of Baptifin by a Commiffion. In fhort, Upon the prefent Suppofition, Pcrfons pretendedly Baptiz d by Non-commillion'd Ufurp- ers, and fo Dying, niuft be referred to an Uncave^ mmted Mercy iot Acceptance, [becaufe they were not received into Covenant by the hfiitutcd Mi- mftration '^'] as muft alfo others, who [refufe tliofe Falfe Baptifms, and] Die without True Baptifin, becaufe they cannot procure Conwiiffion'd Bdptijfm. But the difference to the Difadvantu^e of the fir fl is very great, for their Cafe is attended with Sin. even in the Baptized himfelf, when he confcnts to, acquiefces in, defenils, and never endeavours to amend the Ufurpation, [as is the Cafe of /^^i 9?!any with us, who are come to Years of Difc^e- tion, &C.'] Whereas thefe latter^ who fo Die uv/^- cut CommiJJiond Baptifin, are fo far from having • any Sin to anfwer for, upon the account oirejufmg