m-r0M 
 
 Bap 
 mm 
 
^ PRINCETON. N. J. <^> 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Ag/iezv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 'Sec 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/validityoflaybapOOmood 
 
-^ THE 
 
 VALIDITY 
 
 O F 
 
 LAY-BAPTISM 
 
 EXAMINED: 
 
 AND 
 
 The Arguments for and against it 
 fairly ftated. 
 
 InaLETTERtoa Friend; 
 
 Occafioned by fome Paflages in a Book, lately 
 publifhed, entitled, The Ruhrick in the Book 
 cf Common-Prayer^ and the Canons of the Church 
 of England conftdered. 
 
 By JAMES ' M O D T, 
 
 Redlor of Dunton, in Bucks. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by G. Woodfall, for the Author; 
 
 And Sold by E. Withers, at the Seven Stars in 
 Fleet-Street^ hang Chancery Lane, 1755. 
 
 (Price One Shilling.) 
 
^ 
 
(9) 
 
 THE 
 
 Validity of Lay-Baptism, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 AT your Requeft I fliall lay be- 
 fore you the chief Arguments 
 for and againft the Validity of 
 Lay-Baptifm, with fuch Stric- 
 tures of my own, as (hall feem neceffary to 
 ■conftite or confirm what has been formerly 
 advanced on either Side of the Queflion. 
 
 The firft Argument which the Advocates 
 fpr Lay-Baptifm bring for its Validity, is 
 founded upon the A(fls of the Apoflles, Chap, 
 ii. ver. 41. where three thoufand were bap- 
 tized at once j and Chap, iv, 4, where five 
 
 B thouf^-j 
 
( lo ) 
 
 thoufand more were baptized at one Time : 
 which J fay they, cannot be fuppofed to be 
 performed by 5/. Peter alone in the firft Cafe, 
 or by Peter and John in the fecond ; from 
 whence it is inferred, that thefe Apoftles did 
 not baptize fo many themfelves, but that they 
 only baptized fome of them, and ordered 
 fome others, there prefent, to aflift them, and 
 do the Office for the reft. For, fay they, 
 there were then no Priefts or Deacons ordain- 
 ed, and therefore they v/ho affifted the Apof' 
 ties and baptized, muft have been only Lay- 
 Men. Again, from Acfs x. 42. it is con- 
 cluded that Peter did not baptize Cornelim 
 and his Company himfelf, and yet he was the 
 only Perfon in holy Orders there prefent, but 
 he €07nmanded them to be baptized in the Name 
 ef the Lordy by fome of the Lay-Brethren 
 attending him. And that they were not 
 of the Clergy they think is clear from ver. 45, 
 w^here they are called they of the Circumcifion^ 
 which means nothing more than Jrijoi con-; 
 verted to Chriflianity, 
 
 If then (argue they) the Apoflles could 
 authorize the Miniftration of Lay-Men, there 
 feems no Reafon to doubt, but Bilhops, whea 
 
 they 
 
they fee Caufc, may do the fame. And when 
 they do, it may veryjuftly befaid to be their 
 Work ; for they who do a Thing by another, 
 may properly be faid to do that Thing them- 
 fclves. From whence it is concluded, that all 
 Baptifms performed by whatever Hands, 
 whether by the inferior Clergy, or even Cbri- 
 (iian Layr Men, are good, if allowed by the 
 Bifliops* 
 
 But this Conclufion feems to be a little too 
 haftily drawn. For, in the firft Place, it does 
 not appear from the Words of the Texts above 
 cited, but that the Apoftles themfelves might 
 baptize the Perfons therein mentioned. For 
 John the Baptijl baptized as great, if not a 
 greater Number without any Afliftants men* 
 tioned 5 as appears from Math. iii. 5. Mark 
 i. 5. ^c. where we read that then ijoent out 
 to him Jerufalem and all Judea, and all thi 
 Regions round about Jordan, and were bap* 
 tized of Inm in Jordan, cofif effing their Sins. 
 In A^s, chap. iv. ver. 4. there is no Mention 
 at all made of Baptifm, only it is faid, that 
 ma7iy of them that heard the Word (which 
 Peter and John preached in the Temple) 
 keliived > and (bt Number of tb< Men was 
 B 2 ^hut 
 
< 12 ) 
 
 about Jive thoufand. No doubt, but aftef 
 their Belief they were baptized i but when, »r 
 by whom is not expreffed. They could not 
 at that Time be baptized by the Apoftles, or 
 any prefent by fheir Order, becaufe the two 
 Apoftles while they were preaching, w-re 
 taken by the Captain of the Temple, and the 
 Sadducees, and put into Prifon. Nay, I 
 think, if we confider the particular Circum- 
 ftances of Peter ^ his Words will not abfolute- 
 ly exclude him from baptizing Cornelius and 
 his Company. This Apoftle was almoft 
 eaten up with the > .Ife Notion of the Jewst 
 that they alone were the eled People of God > 
 fD that he could not bear to tiiink of the 
 Centiles being admitted into the Kingdom of 
 Cbrifl. A Vifion was forced to be thrice re- 
 peated, and all little enough to open his Eyes, 
 and make him underftand. And at laft, 
 when, not without Reludtance, he obeyed the 
 heavenly Vifion and went to Cornelius ; it 
 was with Amazement that he, and thofe of 
 the Circumcifion that accompanied him, faw 
 the holy Spirit iall upon the Converts ; tho* 
 this was, according to Cbri/i's Promile, in 
 Completion of the Prophecy of Joel, chap. ii. 
 ver. 28. ^sPeier himfelf coafeffed when the 
 
 Hoi 
 
( 13) 
 
 lIolyGhoft came down upon them on the 
 Day of PefitecoH. And then he cries out, as 
 at laft convinced. Can any Man forbid 
 Water? And ke commanded tkem to be bap^ 
 tizeds thereby declaring them fit Subjeds 
 for the Miniilration of Baptifm, rather than 
 ordering others to adminifter it. But ad-; 
 mitting what is contended for above, that the 
 Apoftles ordered fome others there prefcnt to 
 baptize ^ this will not make it a Cafe in Poinf. 
 For as this is fuppofed to be done in the 
 Prcfence, and by the exprefs Order or Com- 
 mand of the Apoftles, it amounts to a Sort of 
 Ordination for that Ad:, and for that prefent 
 time. ^' Go ye therefore and difcipleail Na- 
 " tions, baptizing them, G?^.'* was the Com*- 
 miffion given by Cbrijl to the Apoftles, after 
 ** all Power was given unto him in Heaven 
 *' and Earth." Math, xxviii. ver. 1 8. Andaf-^ 
 ter they had received this their Commil- 
 fion, and *' were endued with Power from 
 *' on high,'* Luke xxlv. ver. 49. Go and 
 baptize thefe Perfons, was a Commiffioa 
 from them for the Adl and Time prefent,, 
 fufficient of itfelf to qualify, ordain, and 
 authorize thofe, to whom this Order was 
 iffued, for Mimftration. For the Chriftians 
 
 of 
 
( H) 
 of thofe Days, immediately upon their re-*' 
 cciving and embracing the F li ;h, had the ex- 
 traordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghofl: poured 
 out upon them 5 which qualified them to be 
 employed in many Things, for which, Chri- 
 ftians now, with only the ordinary Affiftance 
 of the Spirit, are not qualified. And let me 
 add, if 1 may do it without Offence to my 
 Superiors, that the Apofties being endued 
 with Power from on high in a Manner in 
 which our Biihops do not, I prefume, pretend 
 to be now endued, fo as to be enabled to work 
 Miracles, and fee into the very Hearts of 
 Men, &c, they might, then^ do many Things, 
 which their Succeffors, for Want of fuch 
 miraculous Powers, cannot, now^ take upon 
 them to do, 
 
 • But how does the Cafe in Debate come up 
 to the Cafe by Suppofition ? A private Lay- 
 MaB, without any Commiffion, Permiflion^i 
 or even Privity of his Diocefan, takes upon 
 him to baptize, in, what he calls, a Cafe of 
 Ncceflity. And the Lawful neis of the A61, 
 and Validity of the Baptifm is defended, be- 
 caufe the Apofties in their own Prefence, and 
 at their own exprefs Command, ordered Per-* 
 
 fons^ 
 
(.5) 
 
 fons, fuppofed to be Lay-Men, tci,atjpiiniftcf 
 Baptifin. \^.' -, "^ 
 
 Where is ihtfamenefs of the Cafes, or even 
 the leafl Likenefs ? For the Apoftles did not^ 
 by their own State of the Cafe, authorize the 
 Miniilration of Lay-Men ex poji fa6lo\ but 
 did, themfelves prefent, command them lo b& 
 their Affiftants in the Miniftration of Bap- 
 tifm 5 which makes a material Differences^ 
 nay, quite alters the Cafe. A King, by his 
 perfonal Command, may order any of hii 
 Attendants, or Officers to do an Aft, which, 
 without fuch Command, would be in itfelf 
 invalid, and fubjeft the Doer to Pains and 
 Penalties, or even Lofs of his Life. 
 
 But allowing, for the prefent, that Bi(bopfi 
 can give Power to Laics to baptize in Cafes of 
 Neceffity, (which is a Do&ine and PraOice 
 fufficiently Popifh ;} this mull be done by 
 fome open Declaration of theirs, fome Ku- 
 brick, Canon or Order, publickly made and 
 delivered j as in the Church of Rome. A 
 fuppoicd tacit Permiffion, or mere Conni- 
 vance can no more give a Power to Lay-Mca 
 to baptize, or make their Baptifins valid i 
 
 than 
 
( i6) 
 
 than a Connivance at Crimes cognizable by 
 their Courts, can abfolvc the Offenders from 
 the Guilt, though it may from the Punifh- 
 ment. To inftance in human Affairs, a 
 Steward to a Lord of a Manor by a proper 
 written Inftrument can impower any indiffe- 
 rent Pcrfon to admit, pro hac mce tantum,2L 
 Copyholder into his Copyhold ; becaufe he 
 afts by, and under the Deputation of a Perfon 
 duly qualified to grant fuch deputative Power, 
 And in this Cafe, the Steward by doing the 
 Aft by that other Perfon, does it by himfelf. 
 But no Perfon, without fuch Deputation, can 
 take upon him, under any Pretence to admit ; 
 or if he fliould admit, would his Admiffion 
 be valid i becaufe in that Cafe, for Default of 
 a proper Deputation, the Steward cannot fay 
 he did that K6i by another, and fo it is 
 not done by himfelf. Neither has the Ste- 
 ward any Power to make fuch Admifiion of 
 Force, or Virtue to the Tenant. And Bifhops 
 are only Stewards to Cbrijty the Lord of 
 Lords. 
 
 Can then a Bifliop be faid to do an Ad by 
 imother, to which Adl he is not even privy ? 
 Can he expojl faSio^ pronounce and make an 
 
 Aa 
 
(17) 
 
 Adt valid, or invalid as he fliall think fit? 
 The A61 of B-iptifm, when done, muft be 
 cither valid, or invalid in itfelf, vviih regard to 
 the Perfon who is baptized ; and not have 
 its Validity remain in e/fe, until the Bifliop, 
 by his Declaration, (liall put it i?t pojfe. And 
 if the Baptifm be in itfelf valid, as to the 
 Recipient, it Hands in no need of the Bifhop's 
 Ratification : If it be in itfelf invalid, the 
 Billiop cannot give it any Force or Virtue. 
 
 Had there been any In (lance in the Scrip- 
 tures, where the Apoftles had declared Bap- 
 tifm, performed by Lay-Men, without their 
 Order, or Privity, valid ; it would have been 
 a parallel Cafe, and determined the Point. 
 But the Texts produced above, fay no fueh 
 Thing. It is not from them an evident Point 
 that mere Lay-Men did baptize, or afTuT: them 
 to baptize by the Apoftles Order. Nor, 
 allowing this to be the Cafe, does it come fully 
 up to the Point in Debate, 
 
 The Author of Lay -Baptifm invalid^ in 
 
 one of his Pieces, obferves, " that all the A- 
 
 •* poftles were then at Jerufalern^ and if 
 
 ** each of them had taken his Share, it would 
 
 C *' not 
 
( i8 ) 
 ^* not have amounted to above two hundred 
 '' and fifty Perfons to be baptized by an 
 '* Apoftle in a Day, which might eafily be 
 '* done, as it was then theCuftom to baptize 
 *'■ in Rivers or Brooks ; for ten, twenty, 
 ^' thirty, or even more Perfons might be 
 " baptized at once, by one Apoflle applying 
 ** Water to them all at once, and only once 
 '^ faying, I baptize ye in the Name of the 
 ** Father^Sf^. if there had been any Need of 
 " it, as 1 think there was not, becaufe the 
 " Apoftles might authorize, by their Power, 
 ** a fufficient Number of Perfons to do the 
 *' Work ; as it fcems St. Peter did, in the 
 *' Cafe oF the Baptifm of Cornelius and his 
 '^ Company 5 where the Scripture tells us he 
 ^* commanded th-m to be baptized, (Sc, 
 " They were not then baptized by unautho- 
 *' rized Perfons, but by fuch as adled by the 
 *' Apoftles Command; as here alfo it is plain 
 " that the three thoufand were not baptized 
 *' by Perfons who aded witLout^ much lefs in 
 «* Oppofition to the Authority of the Apoftles • 
 " for they continued fteadfallly in the Apoftles 
 ** DoSrine and Fellowflnp \ which they 
 ** could not be faid to have done, if they had 
 
 " aded 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 *' adled without, or in Oppofition to their 
 Authority or Commiirion." 
 
 <( 
 
 The next Proof is drawn from the Pradtice 
 of the weftcrn Churches j which Pradice is 
 faid to be founded upon a Caftom, or Tra- 
 dition, which they declared came down to 
 them from the Apoftles, of receiving all thofe 
 Hereticks, who were baptized in the Name 
 of the Trinity, only by Impofition of Hands. 
 And this Cuftom, or Tradiiion is fuppofed to 
 be derived from the Cafes abovementioned, 
 viz. ABs ii. ver, 41. x. 48, but with how 
 little Reafon or Probabihty, I hope, I have 
 there fliewn. 
 
 This Practice of receiving Hereticks, baptiz- 
 ed in the Name of the Trinity, by Impofi- 
 tion of Hands only, without re-baptizing 
 them, was confirmed in the patriarchal 
 Council of A^les 314, and in the General 
 Council of Nice 325. In this Council of 
 Nice^ there are two Canons relating to this 
 Affair: In the eighth Canon the Novatians 
 are decreed to be received in their refpedlive 
 Orders; and fo, as they fappofe, without Re- 
 Baptization. In the XlXih 'tis appointed 
 C 2 that 
 
(20) 
 
 that the Taulianifls returning to the Church 
 be re-baptizcd. And the Reafon of this is faid 
 to be, becaufe the Novatians baptized in the 
 Name of the Trinity \ but that the Paiilia- 
 nifis did not ufe this Form. Give me Leave 
 to make a Stridlure or two here. I find that 
 the Council of Arks which ^* confided of 
 *' thirty-three wefiern Bifhops, in her eighth 
 *' Canon determined the Queftion about the 
 '' Re-Baptization of Hereticks," and ordains 
 concerning the Africans^ who had always 
 re-baptized them, " that if any leave an 
 " Herefy and return to the Church, he fliall 
 •* be a{ked concerning the Creed, and if it be 
 *« known that he was baptized in the Name 
 «^ of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
 *' Ghoft, Impofition of Hands only fliall 
 *' be given him, that he may receive the 
 *' holy Spirit ; but if he does not acknow- 
 ** ledge the Trinity, he (hall be re-baptized." 
 But not a Word about Lay-Baptifm. And 
 the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice, re- 
 ferred to above, is fo far from determining 
 that the Hereticks therein ordered to be re- 
 ceived into the Church without Re-Baptiza- 
 tion, were baptized by mere Lay- men ; that 
 it proves thefe Nova'ians to be Clergymen, 
 
 and 
 
(21 ) 
 
 and acknowledged by the Nicene Fathers, to 
 have had valid Ordination. For it decrees 
 that upon their Return to the Church, *« they 
 *' fliall continue in iht fame Station and cleri^ 
 ** cal Orders they were in before, only receiv- 
 ** ing a reconciiiatory Impojition of Hands by 
 ** Wayof Abfolution." As the late Rev. Mr. 
 Bingham^ who w^as an Advocate for Lay- 
 Baptifm, juftly paraphrafes the Canon in his 
 fcholaftical Hiftory of Lay-Baptifm Part I. 
 Page 92. 'Wit Greek is ;t«^««A'«*«c «»"«f menew 
 .T»ci» ra j.x»^». Which proves they mufl have 
 been of the Clergy before, or they could not 
 remain or continue among them after their 
 Return : for they were to continue, or re- 
 main after their Return what they were 
 before their Return, therefore they were of 
 the Clergy before their Return. So that there 
 mufl: have been Biiliops and Priefts, Gfr. a- 
 mong the Novatians, whom the Council here 
 acknowledges to be in real valid Orders 
 though Schifmaticks. For if the Nice?ie Fa- 
 thers had not thought fo, they would not have 
 decreed that the Novatians (hould (MENEIN) 
 remain in the Clergy. So that this Canon 
 has no Relation to Baptifm by Perfons who 
 were never at all commiflioned to baptize. 
 
(22) 
 
 or by mere Lay-Men, which is the Point in 
 Debate. And as to the Paulianifts mention- 
 ed in the nineteenth Canon ; I find this Ac- 
 count of Paulinus ^from whom they were 
 named viz, *' that Meletius Bi(hop of An- 
 *' //(?c/?,madePropolals to himhisAntagonift/' 
 [who though he was of the fame Faith, yet 
 kept up a Church divided in Communion 
 from Melettus] *' to join their Flocks and 
 " difpute no longer about Primacy and Go- 
 ** vernment, \i\thQi\itlbrone\i2Ly^ Meletius] 
 *^ that creates the Dii'pute, I will try to 
 ** take away this Caufe alfo ; we will lay the 
 ** holy Gofpel upon the Seat, and then each 
 ** of us take his Place on either Side of it. 
 ** And if I die firft, you fhall take the Go- 
 " vernment of the Flock alone ; but if it be 
 ** your Fate to die before me, then I will 
 " feed them according to my Power : But 
 ** Paulinus would not acquiefce nor hearken 
 ** to him." Bingham^ Antiquities, vol. I, 
 Page 163. 
 
 By this it appears, that Paulinus^ though a 
 Schifmatick, was yet looked upon as a real 
 Bifliop, and owned to be, fo by Meletius his 
 Propofal to Paulirj''. of hisfharing with him 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 in his own epifcopal Throne during his Life, 
 and of wholly poffefling and enjoying it after 
 his Death, if he furvived him. But if the 
 Paulianijis did not baptize in the Name of 
 the Trinity, as St, Augufline believes they did 
 not, then their Baptifms were abfolutely null 
 and invalid, by whomfoever adminifl:ered, and 
 therefore, upon their Return to the Church, 
 they were to be received into it by good and 
 *i;^//^Baptifm. So that thefe Councils deter- 
 mine nothing in Favour of the Validity of 
 mere Lay-Baptifm, that is, of Baptifm ad- 
 miniftred by Perfons never once commiffion- 
 ed at all to baptize ; but relate to the Validity 
 of Baptifm adminiftred by Clerics, though 
 Hereticks and Schifmaticks : It being the 
 Opinion of thefe Councils that the Herefy or 
 Schifni of the Minifter did not fuperfede his 
 Commiffion, or null and void his minifterial 
 Adls and facerdotal Powers. But to return. 
 
 The Sum then of the Proof is this j about 
 the Year 257 Pope Stephen and all his Col- 
 legues of the weftern Churches, except thofe 
 in Afric^ and even feveral of thefe X.00 declare, 
 that the Pradice of receiving Hereticks into 
 the Church who were baptized in the Name 
 
 of 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 of the Trinity, without Reiteration of Bap- 
 tifm, was an antient Cuftom, or Tradition^ 
 which came down to them from the Apof- 
 tlesj and the Church of Afric [which is 
 fuppofed to have received her Chriftianity 
 from the Church of Rome] received alfo this 
 Cuftom along with her Chriftian Faith ; 
 which (he followed until Agrippiniis altered 
 it, about the Year 190, as it is fuppofed. 
 Whence it is alfo further fuppofed, that ihe 
 received her Chriftianity and this Tradition^ 
 or Cuftom along with it about the Year 120. 
 
 That this Cuftom was derived from the 
 Apoftles, Peter and Paul^ is notfo fully prov- 
 ed, as the Importance of the Matter in De- 
 bate, requires it fliould be. But as my De- 
 fign is not to endeaver to prejudice, but in- 
 form you, by fairly ftating the Arguments 
 and Proofs for both Sides of the Queftion ; I 
 (hall leave it to your own Judgment to place 
 all the Weight upon this oral Tradition, you 
 {hall think it able to bear. And I fhall only 
 beg Leave to obferve, that to bring this Ar- 
 gument home to the Point in Hand, there 
 fhould be fuller Proof, than, I think, there is, 
 that the Hereticks received into the Church 
 
 without 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 without Re-baptization, were baptized by 
 mere Laymen : For fome of thefc Heretics 
 might have been regularly baptized before 
 they feparated from the Church, or might be 
 carried by their Parents when they went from 
 the Church, but yet might have been baptiz- 
 ed by the Church, by duly qualified Perfons 
 of the Chuich Catholic ; and upon feeing 
 their Error, they might return to her again, 
 and fo be received by Impofirion of Hands 
 only. And there might be fome of the Clergy 
 among them who had been regularly ordained 
 before they became Heretics, &c. For the 
 Proof that is brought in Support of the con- 
 trary Allegation amounts to no more than 
 fome general AfTertions, that the more an- 
 tient Heretics had no Bijhops among them ; 
 and fome declamatory Appeals made by fome 
 of the Fathers to the Heretics, for them to 
 (hew a regular Succeffion of Bifhops from the 
 Apoftles, &c. telling them, at the fame Time, 
 that none of the Bijhops ever apojlazed^ but 
 that the Churchy difperfed throughout the 
 Worlds having received the Faith from the 
 Apoflki and their Dijciples, carefully pre^ 
 ferved it^ inhabiting^ as it were^ one Houfe^ 
 and of the Bijhops pre/iding in the Churchy 
 D neither 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 neither the mojl eloquent of tbem fays any Thing 
 but what the Law, the Prophets y ajid our 
 Lord pre ache th^ nor he that is weak- in Speech 
 diminijheth /i6i^ Tr a d it i on 5 for there being 
 but one Faith, neither he, who was able to 
 difcourfe fully about it, made it larger, nor 
 he, who had little to Jay, lefjhied it. Here 
 it is to be noriced, that the Succeffion of 
 Bifbops in every Church is made the Canal by 
 which the apoilolical Dcdrincs flowed down 
 to them. So that the v/hole is put upon oral 
 Tradition, and not upon the written Word, 
 
 1 now fubmit to your Determination the 
 Evidence produced to prove that the Heretics 
 received into the Chuixh by Impofition of 
 Hands only, were baptized by mere Laymen ; 
 only (hall beg leave to obferve, that if it 
 fliou'd appear that they had among them Per- 
 fons duly qualiiied to adminiiler the Sacra- 
 ments before they became fubjedt to that De- 
 nomination \ then the original of the Tradi- 
 .tion might be that Perfons, baptized by cleric, 
 tho' heretical Hands, w^ere not to be re- bap- 
 tized, bat admitted into the Church by Im- 
 pofition of Hando only. Which will put the 
 Queftioa upon a quite different Footing. 
 
 And 
 
( 27 ) 
 And in Truth, this was the Cafe, The 
 Heretics received into the Church, by Impo- 
 fitlon of Hands o?7h\ were not fuch as had 
 beenbapuzed by mere Laymen, but by fuch 
 as had received epifcopal Ordination from the 
 Hands of Ibme catholic Bijhop or other, and 
 vvhofe Ordination was valid in the Opinion of 
 thofe Cnurches who allowed thefe Baptifms. 
 For generally the heretical Bipops were con- 
 fecrated, before they fell into Herefy, by ca- 
 ibolic BiJljGps^ or elfe afterwards, by fome 
 Trick or other, got private Confecration from 
 them, that fo their Herefies might go the bet* 
 ter down with the People. Novatian was 
 confecrated by three Bipops, Paidinus was 
 acknowledged a BiJJjop by Mektius whom he 
 rivalled in the See of Antioch. And the 
 Difpute was not, as here fuppofed, whether 
 Perions baptized by Laymen, who never had 
 any Commiffion, were to be re-baptized or 
 no. But whether Bifhops, Priefts and Dea- 
 cons, after they became Heretics, or Schif- 
 madcs, and while they continued in their 
 Herely and Schifm, were to be looked upon 
 as valid Adminiftrators of the Sacraments 5 
 and fo whether Perfons, baptized by fuch, 
 were to be re-baptized or no upon their Ad- 
 
 D 2 miffion 
 
( 28) 
 
 mifiion into the Church. St. Cyprian and 
 bis CoUegues were for difannulling the Mi- 
 niftries of luch Clerics ; and fo having Per- 
 fons baptized by them, to be re-baptized up- 
 on their being received into the Church. St. 
 Stephen and his Collegues, on the contrary, 
 allowed the minifterial Ads of Ibch Clerics, 
 and therefore ordered fuch as were baptized 
 by them to be received, upon their return, 
 into the Church by Impofition of Hands only. 
 So that what is urged by the Advocates for 
 Lay-baptifm from Antiquity, is not for their 
 Purpofe ; for the Baptifms adminiftred by he- 
 retical, fchifmatical, or fuch like Priefts, 
 were not Baptifms of the fame Nature with 
 our falfe Baprifms performed by Perfons who 
 never were at all commiffioned to baptize ; 
 and confequently the Pradice of thofe 
 Churches is no Proof that they held Lay- 
 baptijm to be valid. 
 
 Let us now return, and take a View of the 
 other Side of the Queftion. 
 
 It appears that Pope Stephen excommuni- 
 cated feveral Bifliops upon Account of their 
 diffenting from this Opinion and Pradice of 
 
 receiving 
 
(29 ) 
 
 receiving Heretics into the Church by Impo- 
 fition oi Hands only ; which proves that either 
 thefe excommunicated Bi(hops knew nothing 
 of, or held doubtful this Tradition: For had 
 they been convinced that this v^as a Cuftom, 
 or Tradition, handed down to them from 
 the Apoftles, it can never be fuppofed that 
 they would fo obftinately ki themfelves in 
 Oppofition to an apoftolical Cuftom or Tra- 
 dition ; efpecially, if we confider the Account 
 given above by Eufebius oi xh^ Uniformity in 
 Faith and Practice of the Churches of thofe 
 Times, in carefully preferving the Tradition 
 that they bad received from the Apoftles, 
 
 The Churches of Phrygia^ Cappadocia^ 
 Cilicia^ Pontus and Gallatia, which laft was 
 early planted by St. Paul^ from whom they 
 make this Cuftom, or Tradition, to be de- 
 rived 3 and feveral others of the neighbouring 
 Provinces did not follow it 5 St. Cyprian and 
 his Collegues, who were Bi(Jjops of the nu- 
 merous and far extended African and eaftern 
 Churches, oppofed Pope Stephen in this Prac- 
 tice, and were unanimoufly againft it. The 
 Greek Churches were againft it : and two of 
 its moit eminent Fathers, St. Bajil and St. 
 
 CbryJbU 
 
( 30 ) 
 Chryfoftom have clearly determined againft it. 
 The iirft, who was Bijhop of Ceefarea lays, 
 that " thofe whom a laic baptizes are to be 
 " re-baptized/* And the latter, who was 
 Arch-bifhop oi Conliantinople^ ^g^, declares, 
 that '' Baptifm can be no more adminiftred 
 *' by a Layman than the Eacharift : But all 
 *^ theie are Things (fays he) which can be 
 *' adminiftred by no other Man livings bat 
 «' by thoie facred Hands aloiiCy the Hands, I 
 « fay of the Prie/ir 
 
 And what makes very much againft the 
 Validity of Lay-bapcifm is, that for about the 
 firft Tvv^o hundred Years of Chrift we hear 
 nothing of Lay-baptifms being adminiftred, 
 nor of any Thing in Favour of them, either 
 direftly, or indiredlly. And in the Year 
 1166 Lucas Cbryfoberges held a general 
 Council of the Greek Church in Trullo^ in the 
 imperial Palace at Conjlantinople^ at which 
 were prefent three Patriarchs, Lucas of Con-- 
 Jtantinople^ Athanafius of Antiochy and M- 
 cephorus of "Jerufalem^ together with Fifty- 
 feven Metropolitans^ befides other Bifliops, as 
 Dr. Cave informs us. Hift. Lit. Vol. L 
 p. 676. and Vol. II, p. 418 — 19. 
 
 Now 
 
(30 
 
 Now in this Synod [according to Math. 
 BhJJer^ Biihop Beveridge^s Pande6ts, Vol. II. 
 p. 42.] Manuel^ Biihop of HeracUa^ afked 
 wliether he ought to receive, as one of the 
 faithful, a Perfon who had been baptized by 
 a Layman who pretended to be in holy Or- 
 ders ? Becaufe there was fuch a Cafe in his 
 Diocefe. And the Synod determined that 
 fuch were to be re-baptized j becaufe the 
 Miniftry of Baptifm was committed only tO 
 Bifliops and Priefts, according to the Forty- 
 fixth and Forty- feventh apoftolical Canon. 
 And Math, Blajlar alfo himfelf, who flou- 
 rifhed in that Church near Two hundred 
 Years after this Council was held, viz. in 
 the Year 1335, teftifies this to have been the 
 Senfe of that Church in his Time ^ and fays 
 that '' if a Man fliall fay that Baptifm given 
 ** by a Layman ought to be reputed true 
 " Baptifm, he may as well fay, that thofe 
 *' who are ordained by a Layman, who has 
 *' feigned himfelf to be a Bifhop, ought to be 
 ** efteemed a Clergyman after the Fraud has 
 *' been deteded, which is abfurd.'' And 
 he intimates, that the Advocates for the Vali- 
 dity of Lay-baptifm, had nothing to fet up in 
 Defence of this Dodtrine, but a Story, which 
 
 is 
 
(3» ) 
 
 is now generally rejeftcd as falfe and forged, 
 of St. udlbana/ius baptizing Children whilfta 
 Boy ; and that thole who were fo baptized 
 were judged to have received true Baptifm. 
 To which Matb, Blajiar replies " that what 
 " is done contrary to the Canons^ ought not 
 ^* to be drawn inco Example." Which is an 
 Evidence that the Canons of the Greek 
 Church, in his Tiniie, were again ft the Va- 
 lidit^^ of Lay-baptifm. And Simeon oiThef- 
 falonica (as cited by Dr. Taylor in his DuEior 
 Duhitantmm^ Qaarto Edition, p. 638, 639.) 
 declares ^* that no iVIiin bap.izes but he that 
 *« is in holy Orders.' Now this Simeon 
 flourifhed about the Year 1410, and died not 
 till 1429, and was a Metropolitan of the 
 Greek Church. So that we may conclude, 
 that till within thefe Three-hundred Years 
 lall: paft, it was not the Senfe of that Church 
 that *' Faiih in the Trinity gives Validity to 
 *' Baptifm adminiftred by Laymen." 
 
 Thus ftands the Cafe in Difpute with Re- 
 gard to Antiquity. How far favourable to 
 the Validity of Lay-kaptijm, 1 leave you to 
 judge. 
 
(33 ) 
 
 I come next to the Arguments for the 
 Validity of Lay-baptifm drawn from the 
 Senfe of ou^ own Church in her Articles and 
 Rubrics, And thefe may be comprehended 
 under the two following Articles, 
 
 Firfl, It is [aid the Church of England 
 does by no publick A5i of hers make^ or de^ 
 clarey Lay-baptifm to be ifivalidy or order 
 Children baptized by Lay- men to be re-- 
 baptized. And, Secondly, T^hat the Prieji 
 is not an effential Admini/iratory and there^ 
 fore if the Baptifm be performed in its Effen^ 
 tialSy that is^ according to the Church, the 
 Matter and the Words, though fhe condemns 
 the Ufurpation of this Office by a Lay^man^ 
 yet 'With Regard to the innocent Recipient ^ 
 the Baptifm is valid, though irregular. 
 
 As to the firft Article. 
 
 The Church does not indeed in fo many 
 Words declare the Nullity of Lay- baptifm ; 
 but is this fufficient of itfelf to prove that fhe 
 holds, or admits Lay-baptifm to be valid ? 
 And yet this fhould be proved to be the dire(ft 
 Confequencc of her Silence by thofe who 
 E would 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 would make that Silence an Argument and 
 Proof of the Validity of Lay-baptifm« 
 Where does the Church, by any publick Adl 
 of hers make, or declare, Lay-adminiftration 
 of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be 
 invalid ? And yet, I prefume, her Silence in 
 this Point, is no Proof, that Bread and Wine 
 ferioully given by a Lay-man, or Woman, 
 as the Lord's Sacrament, is therefore the 
 Lord's Sacrament. And if not, then neither 
 can her Silence in Relation to the other Sa- 
 crament of Bapcifm be Proof that ihe allows 
 the Validity of Lay baptifm. For the very 
 fame Arguments which are brought to prove 
 that the Church does not difallow the Vali- 
 dity and. EfBcacy of Baptifms irregularly 
 adminiilred by Lay-hands, will equally prove 
 that ihe does not difallow the Validity and 
 Efficacy of the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper irregularly adminiftred by Lay-hands, 
 
 Let us fee how this reafoning from the 
 Silence of the Church will hold in human 
 Affairs. 
 
 An Aft of Parliament enadls that any Per- 
 fon or Perfons making Information upon Oath 
 
 before 
 
( 35) 
 
 before the next Jiiftjce of the Peace o^fuch, 
 or fuch Matters, fliall be entitled to fuch, and 
 ftich Rewards, Damages, or 6cc. but does 
 not declare that in Cafe the faid Information 
 be made before any other Perfon than a Ju- 
 ftice of the Peace, that then they Onll not be 
 intitled to the faid Reward, or 5:c. S'jppofe 
 now the Information be made before a neigh- 
 bouring Gentleman, not in the CommilTion 
 of the Peace, who happens to live fome Miles 
 nearer to the Informer than any Juftice of the 
 Peace -, and fuppofe every Form and Punc- 
 tilio be obferved, and no Defedl any where 
 but in the proper Officer before whom the 
 Infjrmation is enadted to be made: Will 
 fuch Information intitle the Perfon to the 
 Reward, &c ? Or will the Silence of the 
 Adt of Parliament in not declaring the faid 
 Information to be null and void if n^.ade before 
 any Perion but a Juftice of the Peace, be 
 allowed to be conftrued into the Validity of 
 the faid Information when actually, though 
 irregularly made before an uncommiflioned, 
 and therefore before an unqualified Perfon ? 
 And if fuch a ConflrucSion will not be fufFer- 
 ed to be put upon an Ad: of the State, or to 
 be pleaded in Court : Why muft it be put 
 E 2 upon 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 upon an A(fi of the Church, wliich enadls 
 that " it is 7ict laivful for any Man to take 
 " upon him the Office of miniftring the Sa- 
 ** craments before he be laivjully calhd and 
 ^^Jent to execute the fame," though fhe does 
 not, in fo many \yords, declare the Mini- 
 ftry of Perlons not lawfully called, or fent to 
 be invalid. And why muft it be brought as 
 a proof that (he allows Lay-baptifm ? For if 
 an Ad: of the State which appropriates the 
 Execution of any Office to a particular Perfon 
 or Perfons doth thereby not only prohibit all 
 others from mtddling with the Office, but alfo 
 makes their Afts, if they prefume to do fo, 
 null and invalid to all Intents and Purpofes, 
 then, this Ad of the Church, that none (hall 
 baptize but thofe who are Unvjully called 2ind 
 fent, does not only prohibit the Laity from 
 baptizing in any Cafe, or under any Pretence 
 whatfoever, but alfo nulls and invalidates 
 fach Lay-baptifms. When the Church in 
 her Twenty-third Article declares that ** it 
 *' is not lawful for any Man to take upon him 
 *' the OffiCe of Miniftring the Sacraments 
 " before he be laivfully called and fe?2t to 
 ** execute the fame." And again in her 
 Twenty-fixih Article when flie %?^ ** We 
 
 *' give 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 «* give not to our Princes the Mi^iiflring either 
 ^' of God's Word, or of the Sacraments/' 
 I a{k when (lie thus fpeaks, does (he only 
 mean to declare that the lawfully called and 
 fent Minifter is only juft requiiite, for the 
 Form- fake, to the Adminlftration of the Sa- 
 craments, and that they may be as validly and 
 effectually adminiftred by Lay-men, though 
 at the fame Time fl:ie prohibits them from 
 meddling with thefc Offices ? 
 
 If the Church allows of Lay-baptifm to be 
 valid, or doth not difallow it to be invalid^ 
 which is the fame Thing ; the Articles can 
 only mean as above. For if the Recipient 
 partakes of all the fpiritual Benefits of Baptifm 
 though adminiftred by Perfons not lawfully 
 called or fent, contrary to the Intent, nay 
 exprefs Words of the Articles ; then Lay- 
 baptifm is in every Refpedl as good as Cleric- 
 baptifm. And it will be difficult to give any 
 C>ther Reafon for fo exprefly prohibiting Lay- 
 men to baptize, fave to appropriate to the 
 clerical Order an Office which brings them 
 fome Gain from, and gives them fome 
 Weight among the People : Though at the 
 fame Time it is acknowledged that what that 
 
 Order 
 
(38) 
 
 Order does, can be done, with as much Ef- 
 ficacy to the Recipient, by any one not of 
 that Order. But if this Conftrudlion of the 
 Articles be fo abfurd as fcarcely to be admit- 
 ted ; then, by declaring the Miniftration of 
 Baptifm by Lay-hands to be unlawful with 
 Regard to the x^dminiftrator, as the Church 
 does by her Twenty third Article, flie mud 
 be underflood to mean to declare, that it is 
 alfo null and invalid as to the Recipient. 
 
 By what Authority, and in whofe Name, 
 I aflc, doth the lawiuily called and fent Mi- 
 nifter ad ? Is it not in the Name of Chrift, 
 and by his Authority and Commiflion, that 
 he adminifters the Sacraments r And are not 
 they effedtual becaufe of Chrift's Jnfliti^^ticn 
 and Promife ? And if fo, then we fee the 
 Reafon of the Church's Declaration, that 
 none but thofe who are lawfully called and 
 fent ought to adminifter the Sacraments, 
 (of which Baptifm is one) namely, becaufe 
 the Prieft afts, not in his own Name, but in 
 Chrifl's Name. And he ads thus, by Vir- 
 tue of the CommifTion and Authority given 
 him by Ordination 5 which Commiffion and 
 Authority is derived from Chrift's Inftitution 
 
 and 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 and Promife given to his Apoftlcs, and by 
 them tranlmitted down by a regular and un- 
 interrupted Succeffion of Perlons lawfully 
 called and fent. As then it is the Inftitution 
 and Promife of Chrift which makes the Sa- 
 craments effedual ; and the Perfon who is to 
 adminifter them, ads not in his own, but in 
 the Name of Chrift, and by his Commiffion 
 and Authority, it follows that the Sacraments 
 are noi effectual unlefs the fame be miniftred 
 by Perfons who ad in Chrifl's Name, by his 
 Commiffion and Authority, and under his In- 
 ftitution. But Lay-men ad not in his Name, 
 nor by his Authority or Commiffion, neither 
 under his Inftitution, &c. And therefore 
 the Sacraments [of which Baptifm is one] 
 adminiflred by Lay-men are null, void, and 
 invalid. 
 
 When Chrifl gave the Commiffion to his 
 Difciples '' Go ye teach all Nations baptizing 
 *' them in the Name &c/' Did he intend 
 that his Commiffion fhould be of no Value, 
 of no Efficacy in the Adminiftration of Bap- 
 tifm ? Were they not, by Virtue of that 
 Commiffion to be looked upon as his Repre- 
 sentatives, as his Miniflers upon Earth? 
 
 V/ere 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 Were not the Oiiices they were to execute 
 under that Commiffion to be deemed as his 
 Ads, and as done by him ? And laftly, did 
 not the Commiffion given unto them confer 
 Virtue and Validity on the Ads they did, 
 provided they executed them in the Manner 
 and Form prefcribed to them by the Inftitu- 
 tor? Or did Chriil make the Matter and 
 Form the fole Inftrument to convey the 
 fpiritual Benefits of Baptifm, exclufive of the 
 commiffioned Adminiftrator ? Iffo, for v^^hat 
 ferveth the Minifter and the Commiffion ? 
 If the fpiritual Benefits can be conveyed to the 
 Recipient from the Matter and Form alone 
 whoever be the Adminiftrator 5 a Lay-man 
 is, in this Cafe, as valid an Adminiftrator as a 
 Clergyman. And to what Purpofe then is a 
 particular Commiffion given to a particular 
 Order of Men, appropriating them to an 
 Office, which, notwithftanding this Appro- 
 priation, any one, v/ithout this Commiffion 
 can execute as validly and eftedually as the 
 Perfons who are particularly commiffioned to 
 execute the Office ? 
 
 Did not Chrift inflitute the Adminiilrator 
 as well as the Matter and Form ot Baptifm ? 
 
 And 
 
( 4« ) 
 
 And did iliis his Inllitution make the one fo 
 valid and efficacio'js, and leave the oiher 
 quite dcftiiLue of any V^alue or Efficacy at «!!, 
 in the very Office which he was fpecially 
 appointed to cxccuLe? For this rnuft be the 
 Cafe, if a Lay-man, by adminidring the 
 Matter and Form, can convey all the Bene-, 
 fits of Baptifm. And if a Lay-man cannot 
 do thisj he can do nothing -, for there are no 
 Degrees of Validity 5 fo that what is not 
 wholly valid, is wholly invalid. And if a 
 Lay-hand can convey ail the fpiritual Benefits 
 of Biptifm, he can do every Thing without 
 a Commiffion, which a lawfully called and 
 ^ent Perfon can do by Virtue of his Com- 
 miffion. 
 
 But it may be afked, if the Church of 
 England thought Lay-baptifm to be invalid, 
 why did ffie not, in Cafe of Lay-baptifm, 
 order Rebaptization. 
 
 This Queftion, I mufl obferve, anfwers 
 itfelf ; For if Ihe holds the Invalidity of Lay- 
 baptifm, ihe has no Occafion to fay any 
 Thing about the Matter i becaufe the Child, 
 in that Cafe, is to be confidersd as unbaptized, 
 F ' ani 
 
(42) 
 
 and treated as fuch. And if Queftlons are 
 fuch weighty Arguments, I afk hi my Turn, 
 where dolh the Church forbid Re-baptization? 
 
 An eminent Divine of our own Church, 
 in a late Piece of his *, acknowledges if it 
 fliall appear upon '' the Queftion iy whom 
 ** was this Child baptized? that it was bap- 
 ** tized by a Lay-hand ; but that at the fame 
 ^* Time it was baptized with Water ^ and 
 " with the right Form of Words^' (which 
 according to him, are the EJentials of Bap- 
 tifm) that even then the Child cannot be 
 admitted as being already lawfully baptized, 
 becaufe ** all is not well done and according 
 '' to due Order concerning the Baptifm of the 
 " Child.'' Bat what is there wanting in this 
 Cafe ? Nothing but a commiffioned Admi- 
 niftrator. And he and his Commiffion, the 
 Doftor fays, are not mentioned in the Rubric 
 at the End of the Office for private Baptifm, 
 ** as if this were a Point not ejfential^ not 
 
 *' abfolutcly 
 
 * The Rubrick in the Book of Common- Prayer, 
 and the Canons of the Church of England^ as far as 
 they relate to the Parochial Clergy, confidered by 
 7honias Shfirp D. D. Archdeacon of Nnthumbgrland^ 
 
 1753' 
 
(43 > 
 
 *^ abfolutely neceflary." Can then a Point 
 TiOt eiTeiuial, not abfolutely necsffi^ry, be yet 
 fo effential fo abfolucely neceffary as to 
 prevent the Child from being received into 
 the Church as already bapuzcd ? Baptilni 
 by Lay-hands (the Form of Adminiftration 
 being Itridly adhered to) is either in its own 
 Nature valid or invalid, one or the other it 
 mull be, there can be no Medium. If it is 
 yalid, then the Child ought to be received as 
 already baptized. If the Child cannot be. 
 received as already baptized, then Lay- 
 baptifm is, in the Eye of the Church, inva- 
 lid ; and the Child is to be looked upon as 
 manifeffly and confeffedly unbaptized -, and is 
 to be publickly baptized. For what can be 
 plainer ? The Child, in the Cafe above, is 
 either validly baytized or not^ If it is validly 
 baptized, then Lay-baptifm is valid. If the 
 Child is not validly baptized, then Lay- 
 baptifm is invalid. If Lay-baptifm be valid 
 the Child ought to be received as already 
 baptized. If Lay-baptifm be invalid, the 
 Child cannot be received as already baptized, 
 becaufe it is really unbaptized, and therefore 
 ought to be publickly baptized, 
 
 F z And 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 And It appears, not a little furprizing, to 
 have the Validity of Lay-baptiim founded 
 Dpon the Non-effentiality of a commiiTioned 
 Adminiftrator, and at the fame Time to have 
 the Deficiency of a commiffioned Admini- 
 ftrator owned as a Bar to the receiving the 
 Child into the Church as already baptized. 
 Since a Thing that is not neceffary or effen- 
 tial to the Validity of an Ad, cannot afFedt 
 the A6t as to its Validity. And if ic befup- 
 pofed to afFedl its Validity, it is tacitly owning 
 it to be neceffary and effential to the Validity 
 of the Aa. 
 
 I agree with the Doflor that the " hypo- 
 <^ thetical Form cannot be ufed if by the An- 
 " fwer made to the firfl: Interrogatory, iy 
 ** whom was this Child baptized ? It fliould 
 *' appear that the Child was baptized by a 
 *' Lay-hand ; becaufe that Form is prefcribed 
 ** only in Cafes where through Hafte or 
 *« Fear, or &c. there might happen fome 
 <« Omiffion in the Matter and Form." 
 
 And it is obfervable that the Rubric does 
 not enjoin any Queftions at all to be aflced 
 -roncernicg the Child's previous Baptifm, 
 
 unleis 
 
U5 ) 
 
 unlefs it was baptized by a lawful Minlfter. 
 For tht Rubric lays ** but if the Child were 
 ** baptized by any other lawful Minifter 
 *^ (than the Minifterof the Pariili} then the 
 *' Minifter of the Parifh, where the Child 
 ** was born or chriftened, ihall examine and 
 " try whether the Child be lawfully baptized 
 *' or no/' That is, when he is fatisfied 
 about the Lawfulnefs and Validity of the Ad- 
 miniftrator j he \%then^ and not till then^ to 
 fatisfy himfelf about the Legality and Validity 
 of the Adminiftration, or the Matter and 
 Form -y becaufe through Hafte or Fear, in 
 Cafes of Extremity, a lawful Adminiftrator 
 might be guilty of fome Omiffions. Again, 
 The Rubric in the Form of private Baptifm 
 orders ** that the Minifter of the Parifh, or 
 ** in his Abfence, any other lawful Minifter 
 *' that can be procured,'* fhall adminiftcr 
 private Baptifm, in Cafes of Neceflity, after 
 the Manner there prefcribed, and then fays, 
 " let them (viz. that are prefent) not doubt 
 <* but that the Child fo baptized is lawfully 
 ** and Jiifficiently baptized, and ought not to 
 *' be baptized again'' If then a Child 
 lawjully and jufficiently baptized, ought not 
 to be bapazcd again j it follows that a Child 
 
 not 
 
(46) 
 
 not bwfuUy and fufficiently baptized, ought 
 to be baptized again j but a Child baptized by 
 a Lay-hand is not lawfully and fufficiently 
 baptized, therefore a Child baptized by a 
 Lay*hand ought to be baptized again. 
 
 I come next to the fecond Article, Whether 
 the lawfuily called and fent Minifler be ejfen-^ 
 iialto the 'ualid Admtiiiflration of Baptifm? 
 
 The only Argument I have ever met with 
 for the Prieft not beiug effential to the Ad- 
 miniitration of Bapcifm is founded upon the 
 Rubric in private Baptifm > where the Matter 
 and Form are called fome Things ejjential to 
 the Sacrament, and alfo effential PartSy as in 
 the Rubric at the latter End of this Office. 
 
 Now had the Church declared the Water 
 and the Words to be the only efjentials of 
 Baptifm, then the Argument would have 
 been good \ but calling them fome Things 
 effential, or effential Farts-, doth by no 
 Means make them effential V/ holes, or exclude 
 the Prieft from being alfo an effential Part, 
 Nay faying that they are effential Parts, fup- 
 pofes that there is jomethi?ig elfe that is effen- 
 tial. 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 tial. And what is that but the k'wfulJy 
 calkd^nijhit Adminiftrator ? 
 
 The Rubric, by the Queftions ordered to 
 be put to thofe who bring the Child to be 
 received into the Church, feems fo far from 
 excluding the Prieft from being an effential 
 Adminiftrator, that it rather fuppofes too 
 much might be attributed to him, and his 
 facred Charader, even to the making them 
 fanftify Omiffions, &c. And therefore it 
 further demands *' with what Matter and 
 " with what Words was this Child baptized ?" 
 That having firfl fecured the Lawfulnefs of 
 the Adminiftrator, the Church might next 
 be alTured of the Eflcntiality of the Things 
 adminiftred ; becaufe fome of thefe might be 
 omitted by an eflential Adminiftrator. And 
 the Office or Authority of the Baptizer, 
 though eflential to the Adminiftration of this 
 Sacrament, is not fufficient to give Validity 
 by itfelf, without the Eflentials of theThings 
 10 be adminiftred, which are Water and the 
 Form in the Name of the Trinity j which 
 are the jome Things eflential to this Sacra- 
 ment, which the Rubric here fpeaks of, and 
 •the Com7niJJion is the gther effeiitial to the 
 
 AdminiftradQa 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 Adminiflration of it ; as appears by the 
 Twenty-third and Twenty-fixth Articles^ 
 And thefe three are the Things required to 
 the having all Things done as they ought to 
 he. 
 
 Suppofe the Adnniniftrator had been called 
 an ejjential Part^ or fomething effential to 
 Baptifm, and nothing had been faid about 
 the Matter and Forn?^ would this have ex- 
 cluded the Water and the Words from bein^ 
 effentials ? If it be faid the Scripture makes 
 them effentials. I afk where doth the Scrip* 
 ture do this in Exclufion of the Adminiflra- 
 tor ? For go ye baptize ^ is as much an ejjen- 
 tial^ as in the Name of the Trinity : And 
 therefore no one can be a valid Adminiftrator, 
 but he who has received this facred Commif- 
 fion lawfully derived to him by a fucceilive 
 Ordination irom the Apoftles. But a Lay- 
 man has received no fuch Commiffion, and 
 therefore his uncommiffioned Afts, are inva- 
 lid Ads. And I fliould be glad if the Advo- 
 cates for the Non-effentiality of the prieftly 
 CommiiTion to the Validityof Baptifm would 
 be pleafed to produce fome pofitive Proofs, 
 where the Law of Chrift lays a greater Strefi 
 
 either 
 
(49) 
 
 either upon the Matter or the Torm^ than it 
 does upon the Commijjhn. 
 
 In the Office for ordering of Priefts, the 
 Bidiop deUvering to the Prieft, kneeling, the 
 Bible into his Hand fays, " take thou Autho- 
 ** rity to preach the Word of God, and to 
 " minider the Sacraments." Is not this mak- 
 ing the Adminiftration of the Sacraments to 
 be eflential to the Office of Priefl ? For what 
 availeth this Authority given him, if the Sa- 
 craments can be validly adminiflired without 
 this Authority ? So in the Office for publick 
 Baptifm, the Prieft prays to God in Behalf of 
 the Baptized thus, *' Grant that whofoever is 
 *' here/' or (as in the Office for thofe of riper 
 Years) " that they being here dedicated to 
 ** thee by our Office and Minillr\\ may alfo 
 ** be endued wich heavenly Virtues," 6cc. Is 
 not this Dedication of Perfons to God made 
 by Virtue of the priejily Office and Miniliry ? 
 And can it be validly made by Perfons wholly 
 void and dcilitute of fuch Office and Mini- 
 ftry ? And can the Church, after fuch open 
 Declarations, be fuppofcd to allow the V^ali- 
 dity of Lay-baptifm ? I think not. 
 
 G The 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 The Scripture does no where, that I know 
 of, in expreis Terms null and make void a 
 Baptifm performed without Water, nor with- 
 out the Form in the Name of the Trinity. 
 But it is null and void by the Law of Chrift, 
 becaufe that requires Water and the Form. 
 If then a Baptifm v/ithout the Matter and the 
 Form be null and void, becaufe the Matter 
 and the Form are required ; by Parity of 
 Reafon, a Baptifm without a commiffioned 
 Adminiftrator is null and void, becaufe a 
 commiffioned Adminiftrator is required by 
 thiC Articles of the Church of England 
 founded upon the Law of Chrift. 
 
 The Church in her Thirtieth Article calls 
 the Bread and V/ine '' both Parts of the 
 ^\ Lord's Sacrament," but fays nothing of 
 the Adminiftrator. 
 
 Will it thence follow that a commiffioned 
 Adminiftrator is not an Eftential of this Sacra- 
 ment \ or may a Lay-hand adminifter this 
 Sacrament alfo efxedlually ? If a commiffioned 
 Adminiftrator is an Eftential of the Sacrament 
 of the Lord's Supper j where, and by what 
 is he made fo, which does not equally make a 
 
 commiffioned 
 
(so 
 
 commifiioned Adminiftrator efTentul to the 
 Sacrament of Baptifm ? And if the only Sa- 
 craments which Chriil: has ordained in his 
 Church as generally neceffary to S.ilvation, 
 can be validly and eftedlually adminillred by 
 Lay-hands, to what End hath he ordained 
 the Priefthood ? And what will become of 
 it ? The State, indeed, whilil it fees fit may 
 by its Authority vefl: the fole Adminiftration 
 of the Srxraments in the Clergy, but this will 
 be only Prieflcraft, fupported by State^ 
 craft. For if the Matter and Form^ or the 
 outward Parts and Symbols of the Sacraments 
 be the only EJjcntiah^ every one will per- 
 ceive that where thefe are preferved, the Sa- 
 craments will be valid and efFedual by what 
 Hands foever they are adminiftred. For if a 
 commiuioned and authorized Minifler be not 
 elTential to the Adminiftration of the Sacra- 
 ments, or be not an cflential Adminiftrator, 
 he is nothing. For to talk of the CommiffioiA 
 and Authority of the Adminillrator though 
 not effential as yet being requifuey is making a 
 Dirtindion without any Difference, fince, if 
 a Lay-hand can adminilTer Baptifm (for Jn- 
 ftancej validly and effectually as to the Reci- 
 pient j what IS further required r To what is 
 G z the 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 the commiffioned Minifter requifite ? If any 
 one of the Servants of a Lord of the Manor 
 can validly and eflfedlually admit a Tenant into 
 his Copy-hold, and put him in f all Poffeffion 
 thereof; a Man of common Senfe would laugh 
 at the Steward, if, allowing this, he ftiould 
 tell him that iieverthekfs his Commijjion a?id 
 Authority^ though not efjentialy was yet 
 reqiijfue. , 
 
 Although fome of our own Communion 
 have made fo light of the prieftly Commifiion 
 as to look upon it as only requifite for Form- 
 fake, and to be no Way ejj'cntial to the Admi- 
 niflration of the Sacraments, yet the Prefby- 
 terians fet an higher Value upon their mini- 
 Jierial CQmmtjjion^ efteeming it of divine 
 Rights and therefore difallow the Validity of 
 Lay-baptifm. For their Dlreciory, publifl^ied 
 by the higheft Authority they ever had in 
 'England^ declares that " Baptifm is not to be 
 *< adminiftred in any Cafe^ by ^u-^ private 
 " Ferfon, huihy 2i Minijler of Chri ft ^ called 
 " to be the Steward of the Myfleries of God/' 
 And the Confeftlon oj Faiths published by the 
 fame Authority^ fays *' there be only two 
 «* Sacraments ordained by Chrifl: our Lord in 
 
 " the 
 
(53) 
 
 «^ the Gofpel ; that is to fay, Baptifm and the 
 '« Supper of the Lord : Neither of which may 
 <« be difpenfed by any^ but bv a Minifter of 
 '' the Word lawjully ordained/' 
 
 And fome Time before this Cartwright 
 the Puritan, as cited by Hooker m hisecclefi- 
 aftical Polity, Book V. Sedt. 62. fays '' Whc- 
 *^ ther he be a Minifter or no Jependeth not 
 " only the Dignity, but the Bei?tg of the 
 *' Sacrament^ fo that I take the Baptifm of 
 " Women to be no more the holy Sacrament 
 " of Baptifm, than any other daily ^ or ordi- 
 ^' nary Walhing of the Child." 
 
 So that if this Conceffion of the Validity of 
 Lay-baptifm be intended for their Sakes ; it 
 is paying them a Compliment, which in the 
 fame Circumftances, they would not return- 
 
 The Twenty feventh Article of the Church 
 of England dt^^n^s Baptifm to be ** not only 
 " a Sign of Proleffion and Mark of Difference, 
 " but alio a Sign of Regeneration, or new 
 *' Birth J whereby, as by an Iiilruraent, 
 ** they that receive Baptifm ng,.tty^ are 
 [' grafted into the Church/' 
 
 Now 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 Now they do not receive Baptifin rightly^ 
 in the Senfe of the Church, that receive it 
 from Lay-hands, becaufe in her Twenty- 
 third Article £he makes commiffioned Mini- 
 fiers the only rig/, t Adminiftrators of Baptifm ; 
 and therefore fuch an Adminiftrator is eflential 
 to the right Adminiitration of this Sacrament; 
 and fo Lay-baptifm is invalid. 
 
 Thofe who plead that the Unworthinefs of 
 the Adminiftraior in Lay-baptifm may yet 
 not afFed: the Efficacy of this Sacrament as 
 to the Recipient, would do well to confider 
 that the Church fpeaks of commiffioned 
 Adminiftrators when fhe declares in her 
 Twenty-fixth Article, that the Unworthinefs 
 of the Minifters hinders not the Effedls of 
 the Sacraments. And fhe gives this Reafon 
 for it *^ becaufe they minifter not in their 
 " own Name but in Chrift's, and by his 
 ** Commiffion and Authority." So that it 
 is adting as Chrift's authorized Minifter, that 
 gives the Efficacy to the Adminiftration. 
 But a Perfon cannot ad: in Chrift's Name, 
 or by his Authority, or be his Minifter, unlefs 
 he be lawfully called and fent; but a Lay- man 
 is not lawfully called and fent, and therefore 
 
 cannot 
 
iss) 
 
 cannot afl as Chilfi's Minifter, in his Name, 
 or by his Authority, which gives Efficacy to 
 his Miniftry, therefore the Adminiilration of 
 a lawfully called and fent Perfon is neceffary, 
 and that of a Laic null and void, 
 
 I muft obferve that the Writers in Defence 
 of the Validity of Lay-baptifm, which 1 have 
 leen, keep notftridfly to the Point in Debate, 
 but generally drop it at the laft, and talk of 
 what God in his Mercy may do with Regard 
 to the Recipients of Baptifm by Lay-hands ; 
 but then, they fnould not, at the fame Time, 
 infill upon the Validity of Lay-baptifm. For 
 if Lay-baptifm be, as they fay, valid, the 
 Recipient is as fafe, and as much an admitted 
 Member of Chrift and Child of God, as the 
 Recipient of Baptifm by a commiffioned 
 Minifter. And if Lay-baptifm does not, 
 ipjojaBoy ingraft the Recipient into the 
 Church, &c. it is not valid andeffedlual. 
 
 Indeed, this flying to the Mercies of God 
 for the Validity of Lay-baptifm, is in Fadt 
 giving up the Pointy it is faying that God, if 
 it fo pleafes him, may, in his Merc}^ to che 
 Recipient, make valid and ratify an /id:, 
 
 vvnich 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 which of itfelf is invalid. And if this be all 
 that is contended for, I dare fay the moft 
 ftrenaous Oppofers of the Validity of Lay- 
 taptiim will not controvert it, or prefume to 
 limit the Mercies of God. But let it flill be 
 remembered, when it is faid " that the Sal- 
 " vation of a Child may be as fafely truffed 
 *' with tlie Mercies of God without Baptifm, 
 •' as with one that is irregular, that is to fay 
 " performed by Perfons not authorized, or 
 " commiffioned to give it," that this is giving 
 up the Validity of Lay-baptifm. Since if 
 Lay>baptifm be in its own Nature valid and 
 effedual, the Child who receives it, is in the 
 iame State of Salvation, as the Child who is 
 baptized by an authorized, or commiilioned 
 Minifter. And if, as above, the Child who 
 is baptized by a Lay-hand, and a Child un- 
 baptized be put upon the fame Footing, Lay- 
 baptifm is not valid. 
 
 About the Year 1712 this Controverfy run 
 pretty high. And I have here laid before you 
 for your Decifion, the mod material Argu- 
 ments on both Sides of the Queflion, not 
 omit ling what has been lately, though inci- 
 dentally, advanced by a Writer of diftinguifhed 
 
 Abilities, 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 Abilities, more particularly in the critical and 
 cafiiiftic Way ; whofe Performance, and 
 feeming Inclination to the Side of the Validity 
 of Lay~baptifm, has, as you fay, been the 
 chief Motive of giving me (as you are pleafed 
 to call it) this Trouble, which I (hall never 
 look upon as fuch, when I am able to give you 
 any Satisfaction. 
 
 I fliall conclude with relating a remarkable 
 Incident that happened at the Time above- 
 mentioned, when this Controverfy took up 
 pretty much the Attention of the publick, 
 
 A certain Dodor of Divinity was very 
 warm in his Commendation of a Pamphlet 
 publidied at that Time called ibe 'Judgment 
 of the Church of England in the Cafe of Lay- 
 baptifm^ Csf^. as an unanfwerable Book, and 
 which contained the true Dodtrine of the 
 Church of Enghvidy &c. Yet this very fame 
 Dodor, at the very fame Time that he was 
 crying up a Book in Favour of the Validity 
 of Lay-baptifm 5 did publickly, in the hearing 
 of good and credible Witneues, fay to this 
 Effeft, *' that he would rather fuffcr a Child 
 *' of his to die without Baptifra, than let a 
 H [[ Lay- 
 
it 
 
 (58) 
 
 Lay-perfon baptize ic, if no Minifler could 
 *' be had." Which fhews that a Pcrfon, for 
 Reafons beft known to himfelf, may recom- 
 mend a Dodrine to the Publick, which in 
 his Heart he condemns and difbelieves. 
 
 / am^ 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Tours, &c. 
 
 JAMES MOODY.