V| 
 
 3HU 
 
 -; 
 
 <3l 
 
 •/"! 
 
 ■ 
 
&  PRINCETON.    N.     J.  <J> 
 
 Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
 
 Agnciv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 
 
 1010 
 
■M/#:/Ur» 
 
 ^^•^fcT    H    E 
 
 G   F 
 
 Lay-Baptism  Invalid: 
 
 Shewing,  That 
 
 The  AncieiitCathQiick  Church 
 
 Had 
 
 E  C C  L  E  S  I  AS T  1  C  A  L    L  AW, 
 
 Tradition,  or  Custom, 
 
 FOR    THE 
 
 Validity  of  Baptifms 
 
 Perform'd  by  Perfons  who  never  were  Corn- 
 miilion'd  by  Bifhops  to  Baptize. 
 
 AH  Prov'd  from  the  Reverend  Mr.  Bingham9 % 
 Scholaftical  Hifiory  of  Lay-Baptifm ,  and  from 
 other  Evidences  not  produced  by  that  Hiftorian. 
 
 By  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid. 
 
 Other  Foundation  can  no  Man  lay,  than  that  is  laid Te  are  built 
 
 ■upon  the  Foundation  of  the  APOSTLES,  — -  Jefus  Chn'ji  himjelf 
 being  the  Chief  Corner-Stone .    i  Cor.  iij.  n.    Ephef.  ij.  10. 
 
 Quam  Periculofum  fie  autem  in  Divinis  Rebus  uc  quis  cedat 
 jure  fao  &  p^fej>te,  Scriptura  Sancta  declarar,  cum  in 
 Genefi  EfaU  pfmatu;  fuos  inde  perdideric,  nee  recipere 
 id  poftmodum  pocuerir  quod  fund  cejfit*  Cypr.  Epif.  ad 
 Jubaian.73.  p.  iyi.    Paris  1548. 
 
 T 
 
 London  :    Printed  for  H.  Clement s*  at  the  Half- 
 Mwn'm  St.  Paul's  Church  -Yard.  MDCCXUI. 
 
 w    agaacaeaftsaa** 
 
**  ** 
 
 It 
 
'HM 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 §. 
 
 lA 
 
 S  I  have  hitherto  avoided  all  unneceffary  Ca- 
 villings and Diffiutes, about  Words  and  Things 
 that  have  no  Relation  to  the  Merits  of  the 
 Caufe,  in  this  Controversy  ;  and  as  I  have 
 all  along  Confulted  the  Juft  Honour  and  Refutation  of  the 
 Clergy,  and  upon  a  Principle  of  Great  Reverence  and 
 Efteem/or  their  Sacred  Char  abler,  have  been  exceeding 
 Scrupulous  and  Fearful,  of  Saying  and  PublijJoing  any  thing 
 that  might  reafovably  be  interpreted  to  be  difrefpe&ful  or 
 uncivil  to  any  of  them,  how  much  foever  they  have 
 (fome  of  them)  Differed  from  me  ;  So  I  refolve  (by  God's 
 Grace)  fiill  to  preferve  the  fame  Temper  and  Difyofition  $ 
 and  in  the  folio-wing  Remarks  to  Avoid  the  great  Imper~ 
 tinence  of  Troubling  my  Self  and  the  Reader,  with  Strife 
 and  Wrangling  about  mean,  little,  pedantick  Things, 
 'which  ferve  only  to  Cloud  and  Obfcure  That  Truth, 
 which  we  prof  ef  to  Plead  for,  and  Difcovcr  to  Others, 
 
 ?.  II.  If  any  of  my  Opponents  have  been  thus  Trouble- 
 fome  to  their  Readers  in  this  Difpute ,  their  Performances 
 of  that  kind  will  ?neet  with  the  Defervtd  Cenfure  of  the 
 Difcerning  and  Judicious  ;  and  if  to  make  their  Ajferti- 
 ons  go  off  the  Better,  they  have  thought  fit  to  treat  me 
 with  Incivility  •  J  paf  it  by,  with  only  pitying  their 
 A  a  Tempers, 
 
ac\ 
 
 ij  T* he  Krefaa 
 
 Tempers,  and  advifing  them  to  fix  their  Eye  more  fteddilf 
 upon  the  Great  Matter  it  [elf  which  is  now  in  Debate ; 
 and  then  the/ 11  fee  that  'tts  too  Noble  a  Subjeft  to  he 
 mix  d  with  fuch  an  Alloy  ;  and  that  it  will  Jo  oner  he  de- 
 termind  by  feparating  from  our  Reafonings  about  iti  all 
 imgenteel  Refleclions  upon  Perfons,  and  all  Partialities  in 
 favour  of  fome,  who  are  Deeply  concern'd  in  its  Con- 
 ferences. 
 
 But  tho  I  refolve  to  be  as  Civil  to  my  Opponents  as  the 
 Merits  of  the  Caufe  will  allow,  yet  they  mufi  not  ExpeB 
 that  I  will  Compliment  any  of  their  Errors,  or  that  1 
 will  be  fo  foft  and  kind  to  their  Dangerous  Notions,  as 
 to  skreen  and  hide  them  from  that  juft  Reproach  which 
 7s  due  to  them.  If  my  Learned  Adverfaries  make 
 falfe  Arguments  to  defend  Error ,  I  JJiall  not  Eft eem  fuch 
 their  Methods  to  be  only  Miftakes,£ftf  fomething  worfe% 
 confidering  the  Greatnefs  of  their  Knowledge  ;  and  if  my 
 Endeavours  to  Expofe  their  falfe  Reafonings  be  unpleafant 
 to  them,  I  care  not  \fince  Important  Truths  of  a  Spiritual 
 Concern  are  infinitely  more  valuable  to  me,  than  the  Plea- 
 jure  and  SattsfaElion  of  even  the  Greateft  of  Men,  who 
 ftand  in  publick  Oppofkion  to  them. 
 
 The  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  whatever  his 
 Name  is, has  abundant  Reajon  not  yet  to  publifl)  it  in  Print  ; 
 and  therefore  in  this  Difcourfe  will  not  anfwer  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham by  the  Name  of  'Lawrence,  tho'  that  Reverend  Hifto- 
 rian  has  been  pleased  uncivilly  to  print  that  Name  at  large 
 In  his  Title-Pagefiiz.  without  the  Leave  or  Confent  of  the 
 P  erf  on,  whom  he  fuppofes  and  afferts  to  be  the  Author  he 
 aims  at.  But  not  to  detain  the  Reader  any  longer  from 
 the  Matter  in  Hand,  I  will  here,  once  for  all,  fliew  himi 
 Fir-ft,  What  it  is  that  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm  In- 
 valid do's  infift  upon  ;  And,  Secondly,  What  thofe  Things 
 are,  which  were  never  defignd  to  be  infifted  upon  in  his 
 jtvtral  Treatijcs.      And, 
 
 ?.  III. 
 
The  Preface.  iij 
 
 §.  III.  Fir  ft,  he  infifts  upon  it,  that  the  Pretended  Bap- 
 tifm  which  is  adminifterd  by  Perfons  -who  never  were 
 Commiffioned  to  Baptize,  or  who  never  were  impow- 
 erd,  never  authorized  to  Baptize,  is  Null  and  Void,  and 
 no  Chriftian  Baptifm  :  This  is  the  Subjecl  of  his  *  Trea- 
 tifes  of  Lay -Baptifm  already  pMiflied  ;  this  their  Defign 
 to  prove  ;  and  this  Baptifm,  the  Author  calls  Lay-Bap- 
 tifm  ;  Baptifm  deftitute  of  a  Comraiffion  ;  unau- 
 thoriz'd  Baptifm  ,  becaufe  done  by  fuch  as  were  never 
 authoriz'd  *  And  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,  Unauthoriz'd  Baptifm,  and  Inva- 
 "  lid  Baptifm,"  do  all  mean  this  one  and  the  fameThing^ 
 Baptifm  by  thofe  who  never  were  Commiffion'd, 
 Authoriz'd,  or  impower'd  to  Baptize.  This  bethought 
 he  had  fufficiently  declared  before  ;  efpecially  by  adding  a 
 new  Definition  in  his  ^d  Edition  of  Lay- Baptifm  Inva- 
 lid: But  that  no  one  may  henceforward  miftake  his  Mean- 
 ing, he  thinks  it  very  pertinent  to  declare  it  once  more,  in 
 Anfwer  to  the  Vth  Page  of  Mr,  Bingham'/  Preface, 
 where  he  fays ,  and  reckons  it  a  great  Error  ,  thatlfre- 
 yuently  "  CottfOtlttD  the  Terms  of  2lap^BapttfmT"l&tt* 
 cc  autljoji?  t>  3i5aptrtm ,  and  Invalid  Baptifm,  toge- 
 "  ther,  &c.  For,  any  Man  that  does  but  look  into  the 
 Treatifes  before  mention  d,  may  eafily  fee  ,  that  all  which 
 has  been  there  faid  upon  thisSubjecl,  is  confind  to  Baptifm 
 by  Perfons  never  Commiffion'd  at  all  to  Baptize  : 
 Are  not  thefe  Lay-  Baptifms  ?  Sure  if  fuch  Perfons  are 
 not  Lajcks,  then  there  are  no  Laicks  at  all  in  the  Church, 
 
 *  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid.!  Sacerdotal  Powers.  DifTencers 
 Baptifm  Null  and  Void.  The  Bifhop  of  Oxfords  Charge 
 Confider'd. 
 
 Are 
 
iv  The  Preface. 
 
 Are  not  fuch  Baftifms  Unauthoriz'd,  I.  e.  never  Autho- 
 rized ?  Certainly  they  are.  And  when  they  have  been 
 frovd  to  be  Invalid,**  it  any  wrong  confounding  of  Terms 
 to  call  them  Lay,  Unauthoriz'd,  and  Invalid  Baptifms  ? 
 What  is  it  then  that  Mr.Bingham  requires  ?  What  Name 
 would  he  have  us  give  to  Baptifms  performed  by  Terfcns 
 who  were  never  Commiffion'd  ,  if  we  muft  not  call 
 them  Lay-Baptifms  ?  This  cavilling  at  Words  difco- 
 vers  an  Inclination  in  him  to  make  Things  look  like  Er- 
 rors, when  they  are  fo  far  from  -  being  fo,  that  they  are  ex- 
 actly right  and  juft;  and  let  him  frove  the  contrary  if 
 he  can. 
 
 §.  IV.  Secondly  ,  Thofe  Things  which  were  never  de- 
 fignd  to  be  determined  Negatively  or  Affirmatively  in  the 
 feveral  Treatifes  written  by  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm 
 Invalid,  are  thefe  ,  xft.  A  fuppofed  Power  of  Bijhops 
 [  which  fome  fay  they  have  ]  to  Gommiflion  Laymen 
 to  Baptize  in  Cafes  of  Extremity.  Whether  Bifwps  can 
 or  cannot  fo  commiffion  Lay- Men,  the  Author  (whate- 
 ver his  private  Opinion  is  about  it ,  )  had  no  Mind 
 piblickly  to  determine,  becaufe  his  Bufinefs  was  only  with 
 thcfe,who  were  without  all  Difpute  never  commiffion'd 
 by  Bijhops,  in  any  Refpebl  whatsoever,  to  Baptize  ;  and 
 fo  is  utterly  foreign  to  the  other  JQueftion  ,  How  far  Bi- 
 fhops  have  Authority  to  impower  or  commiffion 
 Men  for  Sacred  Miniftrations.  I  have  in  fever alTlaces 
 indeed,  foew'd  theDanger  of  their  endeavouring  to  vefiLay 
 Men  with  Tower  to  Baptize,  in  Cafe  of  fuppos'd  Necejfi- 
 ty  ;  I  have  alfo  opposed  fome  pretended  Arguments, .  which, 
 have  been  advanced  to  prove,  that  Bijhops  have  fuch  a 
 Tower  to  authorize  Lay-Men  ;  and  even  in  this  Book  I 
 have  jhew'd,  that  the  Catholick  Church  has  determined 
 nothing  inFavour  of  fuch  aTower:  But  yet  in  all  this  I  will 
 not  concern  my  felffo  far, as  publickly  to  determine  whether 
 £>jfljops  have  or  have  not  fuch  a  fupposd  extenfive  Tower 
 for  Cafes  of  Extremity ;  and  let  Men  take  which  Side  of 
 
 the 
 
The  Preface.  v 
 
 the  Jgueflion  they  fleafe ,  the  Truth  I  am  concerned  a- 
 hout  will  fiand  good ,  that  pretended  Baptifm  by 
 Perfons  nefcer  commtrtt'on'O  ty  3I5t(?>ops  to  Baptize, 
 [  who  are  therefore  cmaitllp  Happen  ]  is  utterly  Null 
 and  Void.  If  Bifrops  can  really  vffi  their  own  Lay- 
 Men  with  Power  to  Baptize,  in  want  of  the  Clergy,  then 
 'twill  follow  ,  that  fuch  Lay-Men  fo  Baptizing,  are  not 
 Laicks  in  that  Act  of  Ministration,  hecaufe  vefted  with 
 a  Priefily  Tower  for  that  Purpofe,  by  the  Hypothefis  :  But 
 this  Propofition  wants  to  be  proved  ;  and  I  care  not  whe- 
 ther it  can  be  provd  or  no  ,  for  it  no  ways  affedb  the 
 prefent  Controverfy  ;  fince  there  muft  be  always  HBtfJopjBS 
 in  the  Church  to  veft Men  with  Commiflion  to  baptize, 
 how  Contracted  orExtenfivefoever  thePouser  of  Bijhops  is 
 for  this  Purpofe  ;  and  fince  there  can  be  no  valid  Mi- 
 niftration  of  Baptifm  without  an  GDptfcopal  CommtffiOlt 
 vpatty  given  to  the  Baptizer  :  Which  is  the  great  Propofi- 
 tion  I  am  concern  d for. 
 
 2diy,  The  Validity  or  Invalidity  of  fome  ancient 
 heretical  and  fchifmatical  Baptifms  ,  were  not  defignd  to 
 be  infilled  upon  by  that  Author  ;  becaufe  they  were  alfo 
 different  from  the  Cafe  before  m  ;  their  Baptifms  were  per- 
 formed by  Perfons  who  had  been  commiffion'd  by  Bi- 
 fhops  to  Baptize  ;  and  fo  whatever  the  Nature  of  their 
 Baptifms  was  ,  it  had  no  Comparifon  with  that  fort  of 
 Baptifm  which  is  evidently  and  profeffedly  performed,  not 
 only  by  thofe  who  were  never  Epifcopally  Commiffiond,  but 
 alfo  in  Oppoftion  to  the  Divine  Right  of  Epifcopacy,  or 
 the  Apoftolical  Order  it  felf     A  new  Ufurpation  this,  of 
 fo  monstrous  a  Nature  ,  that  whatfoever  may  be  fairly 
 pleaded  in  behalf  of  the  Ancient ,  Heretical,  and  Schif- 
 matical  Baptifms,  cannot  be  Jaid  in  Defence  of  thefe,  as 
 will  be  feen  in  due  Time. 
 
 i.  V.  In  the  Hifiorical  Account  of  thofe  Heretical  and 
 Schifmatical  Baptifms,  I  have  indeed  exprefsd  a  great 
 Value  and  Efiecm  for  St.  Cyprian  and  his  Colleagues 
 
 A  a  Eccle- 
 
vj  The  Preface. 
 
 Ecclejiaftical  Laws  or  Canons  againft  them.  Laws  fo. 
 ftritl,  as  that  they  Condemn  d  alljuch  Baptifms  to  be  Null 
 and  Void.  And  why  jhould  not  the  Spiritual  Supreme  Go- 
 vernors of  the  Church,  have  Power  to  make  fuch  Laws, 
 as  jhall  fo  far  limit  and  reftrain  the  Commiffion  they 
 give  to  0rdain'd  Perfons,  that  when  they  prefume  to  do 
 any  thing  by  Virtue  thereof,  in  Herefy  or  Schifm,  their  Mh 
 fliall  be  wholly  Null  and  Void  by  Virtue  of  fuch  Laws  ? 
 St.  Cyprian  and  his  Colleagues  did  make  Ecclefiaftical 
 Laws  to  this  purpofe  (as  we  (hall  fee  hereafter)  and  in 
 fo  doing  I  reckon  that  they  acted  like  themfelves,  and  took 
 the  mo  ft  effectual  way  to  beat  down  Herefy  and  Schifm  :. 
 If  the  reft  of  the  Churches,  who  in  their  Discipline  dif- 
 fered from  St.  Cyprian  and  his  Colleagues,  had  made 
 fuch  Laws  as  they  did,  thofe  Laws  being  in  fuch  cafe 
 UniverfaL,  wight  in  all  likelihood,  have  frefervd  the 
 Unity  of  the  Church,  and  prevented  the  many  Dreadful 
 Herefies  and  Schifms  which  afterwards  enfud  :  But  thefe 
 Churches  would  not  concur  fo  far  with  That  Bhjfefi  Mar- 
 tyr ;  They  would  not  agree  with  him,  to  make  frufirate 
 and  void,  during  their  Herefy  and  Schifm,  the  Commif- 
 fions,  once  receivd  by  their  Heretical  and  Schifmatical 
 Subjects  \  and  becauje  they  were  not  fo  NulFd  by  fuch 
 wiffd-for  Laws, therefore  their  Min'fft Wat ions  were  by  thofe. 
 Churches  efieenrd  to  be  Good  and  Valid  in  themfelves^ 
 tbo*  the  Perfons  concern  d  in  them,  both  Adminiftrators 
 and  Receivers,  were  tainted  with  the  Sinful  Circum- 
 stances of  Herefy  and  Schifm  ;  Irfomuch,  that  tho  thefe 
 Churches  did  not  declare  thofe  Baptifms  to  be  Null  and 
 Void  in  the  Adminiftrations,  for  want  of  Commiffion 
 in  the  Adminiftrator^  yet  they  reckon  d,  that  the  Spi- 
 ritual Graces  were  impeded,  or  kinder  d  from  Defending 
 on  the  Baptized,  by  reafon  of  the  Sins  of  Herefy  and  Schifm, 
 till  the  Baptised  return  d  to  the  Unity  of  the  Church,  and 
 as  Penitents,  receivd  Abfolutim^  by  Impojjtion  oft[je  Rijlicfj 
 Hands,  and  then  the  Spiritual  Qrates  of  Baptifm  were 
 reckoii'd  to  take  eifefi*  '  Thus  \hofe  Churches,  held  fuch 
 
 ■  '    '     Baptifms 
 
The  Preface.  vij 
 
 Baptifms  to  he  'valid  in  themfelves  as  to  their  Miniftra- 
 tion  ,  and  fo  do  I  too ,  becaufe  there  was  no  w&nt  of 
 Commiffion  ;  and  tho  Ifubmtt  to  this  not  fo  ftrid 
 Difcipline  as  that  of  the  Cyprianick  Churches ;  yet  I 
 flwuld  'value  and  efieem  St.  Cyprian'/  Difcipline  ,  rather 
 than  this,  if  it  were  eflablijtfd  in  the  Church  :  But  this 
 my  preferring  one  before  the  other ,  is  no  Argument  that  I 
 therefore  efieem  to  be  null  and  'void  ,  what  I  think  not  fo 
 perfeff  in  its  Circumfiance  as  the  other, 
 
 §.  VI.  Mr,  Bingham  fays  that  the  Author  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm  Invalid's  "Notions  concerning  thejttfjalt&ttp 
 <f  of  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptifm,  do,  in 
 (C  their  direct  and  immediate  Confequence  ~-  un- 
 c?  church  and  unbaptize  the  whole  Church  of  Eng- 
 "  land ,  unlefs  it  can  be  (hew'd  that  we  had  our 
 ff  Baptifm  from  fome  other  Church  originally, 
 <c  than  from  the  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Church 
 cc  of  Rome,  "  Preface  p.  V.  This  indeed  is  a  momen- 
 tous Confederation,  and  of  fo  mighty  Importance,  that  it 
 would  have  been  but  jufi  in  Mr,  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  profecutes  it  to  the  utmoft  for  almoft  tw» 
 Pages  together  ,  without  fo  much  as  naming  One  of  thofe 
 difmal  Notions  and  Arguments  he  talks  of.  But  to  ac- 
 cufe  heavily  and  pofitively  a  lon^while  before  we  come  to 
 a  Trial  of  Mens  fuppofed Crimes,  has  fomething  in  it  of 
 Policy  and  Cunning  to  win  upon  the  Faith  of  the  cre- 
 dulous. Put  by  what  I  have  already  faid  in  this  Preface, 
 and  Jhall  further  fay  in  the  Profecution  of  this  Difcourfe, 
 the  Reader  may  eafily  fee,  that  I  have  no  fuch  Notions 
 as  tend  to  the  unchurching  and  unbaptiz,ing  of  our  Church 
 of  England,  or  indeed  of  any  other  Epifcopal  Church 
 in  the  World,  that  retains  the  (j&fifettttalS  ofChrift's  Ho- 
 ly Infiituxiom  ,  as  our  Church  mo  ft  certainly  does  X  And 
 if  Mr.  Biogham,  or  any  other  l  can  prove  that  I  have 
 
 any 
 
viii  The  Preface. 
 
 cny  fuch  unchurching  F 
 
 pen:  :-;-.:  ::: 
 
 bits       -  Jd  :  : B  acknowledge 
 
 fell  e 
 
 fbat  Repr ;   ; .: .  .  -riw 
 
 r.Tv;  :.'  ':..v  ::r>  \ -■<  -•■  -'  r    .:eierving  ir.frcrn  his  cr 
 C :/.:.  C  iris  Hands. 
 
 <c 
 
 c.  VII.       Our  Snperiotirs  Ic 
 
 ;-:::n,  Je/»re  they  aco  ■  this  G. 
 
 rptftl,  a  Whether  it  might  not  be  proper 
 **  tc  JNPH  of  C  d  or  Im- 
 
 k<   r:.::::n  oi  Hands,  f:  ::zei  by 
 
 "  Hemida  and  Scr  ;n  dibit  fo 
 
 "   rfic  U:::*   ■;:  the   CfaftTCh  .    &t\   wirhouc 
 
 '•'  (-  Ufbspt  VII. 
 
 tmbly  bofd wilt  in  their  great  Wifdem  di 
 the  B  '.icks  as  . 
 
 \\ttitttttz\::i 'j:v.  Cptfropal,    i.  e.    i 
 TlHron  *«*     -^*  lw*w  ^  Impfition  of  Em 
 that  are  jcf  r  j  A*  /«nr^  /»  prn?  .  &r- 
 
 mer  Sort  c/"  He- 
 at icks;  and  there  ?re- 
 
 :     ■-'  :.   7. 
 
 Bapriz'd  ::::::£:::.     So  tl  *  tbi  Pe- 
 
 culiar Form  r-.-:  rjnrrr,  awl  fe  Pe- 
 
 IT  indeed  wholly  newpvithsut  any  Exam': 
 
 I  mention 
 ~l*n  to  ti  l:.:rned 
 
 .  J..    .- 
 
 ftr  tto  r.mf 
 Cv«:   *.:* 
 
 C:mm*fE:n  ;:.:'.:• 
 
 vacated,  will  k  reduce  :    :nE  -  W  Com* 
 
 rmf  ficn  ever  na'i'Vtd  at  all  •  :*;&;/:?  1 1     J  fi 
 
 ■';c  -  ..ahn:  r;  r£fi 
 
The  Preface.  ix 
 
 M'mifirations  of  thofe  who  nttiCC  l;atU»f,  and  thereby  tin 
 I  of  God  bimfelf  will  be  mad* 
 
 _ighi 
 •.;;  than  the  Ninth  Ccntmy,  an*  h  c-  tfHauevMmn 
 
 md  nobleCharacter  vfwbat  is  Caftolfcft,  i.  e. 
 3ntiq  MV>  anfocrfalttp,  and  Content;  W  A*  arigfc 
 
 m  □ :  h Reafon  bw  g*w*  cnlr.fr  ance  of  3rttag^ 
 lU-l'^ip  *»^    Invocation  t  :  ,  /rc;»  rife  Second 
 
 General  Council  of  NIrc,  about  the  Tear  787.  u'&o 
 pretended  nu      Antborities  from  Fathers  and  Scripture 
 
 r  the  eftahlfolng  of  thofe  Errors,^7*  our  Reverend 
 UiB  Ian  can  produce ,  for  the  Confirmation  of  F  erf  on  s 
 pretendly  baptized,*/  7^  <?/ never  were  Gommifli- 
 on'd  to  Baptize  ;  /cr  oafcoJ  fc  c.:-  t  no  Authori- 
 
 ty at  r.Ufor  that  Sort  of  Confirmation.  I  fay  our  Rev:- 
 rend  Htfivrian  might  a:  rta  c?;ab!j  have  froducdjbc  Amu 
 thori:  Cotmci  I  fir  the  e  ng  of  thofe  3Boifc 
 
 trcUS  |3?a£iCt!?,  a:  this  Farm  r  Confirmation  for  the'Ex* 
 emplar  vf  a  F^rm  to  be  m  mfrm  :':e  Blfe  Bap- 
 
 tiims  :  befh3  -who  have  been  only  wafhed  or  fprinkled 
 by  our  Ffereticks .and  Schifmaticks,  who  were  never  cm- 
 mijfimd  to  Bafth.  ,  if  his  Exemplary  Jfyrm  bad  been 
 us'd  to  c.  j  fal  e  Baftifms3  as  indeed  it  was  not ; 
 
 f:r  1  he  Form  he  fn  ts  mtfbromgbont  the  whole  Ce- 
 
 remony and  Pr^ytrs,  mail  I  mention  of  any  iDcfttt 
 
 :-  Bapcifm  it  ieif  ,  hefirre  received  by  the  Confirmed 
 Ferfi*l  and  as  for  the  Prayer  ;~  C.  :'sy  btfetching 
 
 Gedn  :'.-.  ttbt  ?-.  n  iC  the  Seal  of  the  Divine  Un- 
 (*  ction,  and  the  Infpiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  \ 
 
 fvith  Reference  to  toe  pre- 
 mjjban   what  0  as  proper  to  k  1 r  an- 
 
 other ^  who  was  baftvxld  .7  an  Orthodox  Friefi  in  the 
 Unity  of  the  Church  ;  as  neither  is  there  in  the  following 
 -  Frayer,  which  fpeak  of  the  Confirm' J 
 
 Ferfon 
 
x  The  Preface. 
 
 Terfon  as  now  "Perfed  and  Confummate  with  the 
 cc  true  Faith  >  in  God,  and  with  the  Seal  of  His 
 "  Holy  Undion.  "  For  Confirmation  was  always 
 reckon  d  by  the  Church  to  Perfeft  and  Confummate 
 with  the  True  Faith  ,  and  with  the  Seal  of  God's 
 Holy  Unction,  even  all  validly  baptized  Perjons  in  the 
 Church  it  felf.  So  that  here  is  nothing  in  all  this  Form, 
 peculiar  to  any  Imperfection  in  the  Baptifm  it  [elf,  before 
 received,  but  only  in  Reference  to  the  Errors  of  the  Terfon 
 who  was  received  into  the  Communion  of  the  Church  :  And 
 this  might  have  been  well  put  into  the  Form,  even  for  a 
 Terfon  in  all  Refpecls  rightly  baptized  before,  if  he  fell  in- 
 to any  dangerous  Errors ,  as  all  Her  sticks  mofi  certainly 
 did  ;  and  'tis  notorious  they  were  Epifcopal  Perfons  ;  and 
 therefore,  a  Form  to  be  composed  after  the  Example,  and  in 
 Turfuance  of  the  Defign  and  Purpofe  of  that  Form ,  will 
 not  be  fufficient  to  confirm  Perfons  fuppofedly  baptized  by 
 Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks,  who  never  were  vefted  with 
 a  Divine  CommiJJion.  As  is  the  Cafe  of  our  Anti-Epif- 
 copal  Dijfenters  Baptifm s. 
 
 $.  IX.  Iknow.fome  of  my  Readers  will  expecf,  that  I 
 fliouldfayfomething  to  Mr.  Bingham'/  Appendix  ;  but 
 I  muft  tell  them  ,  that  to  fpeak  particularly  to  every 
 thing  that  Gentleman  has  been  pleased  there  to  infinuate, 
 and  which  is  foreign  to  the  Merits  of  the  Caufe,  is  to 
 fpend  Time  and  Paper  to  no  Purpofe  ,  and  to  incur  the 
 jufi  Difpleafure  of  the  Candid  and  Judicious,  without 
 doing  any  Service  to  others  who  are  not  Jo.  What  is  wor~ 
 thy  of  an  Anfwer,  and  deferving  of  the  Reader's  Notice, 
 Ifhall  remark  upon  [  as  hereunder]  only  in  this  Preface, 
 referring  to  the  fever  al  Pages  of  the  following  Treatife, 
 where  my  Anfwer s  are  more  fully  to  be  found. 
 
 Our  Reverend  Hiftorians  Objervation  [  in  his  1 41/2 
 Page]  upon  a  Pajfage  in  my  Difcourfe  of  Sacerdotal 
 Powers,  Chap.  V.  Pag,  120.  is  very  jufi  and  right,  that 
 infiead  of  tbefe  Words ,    namely  ,  "  Thofe   whom  a 
 
 ?  La- 
 
The  Preface.  xj 
 
 ec  Laick  Baptizeth  are  to  be  Rebaptized  3  but  thofe 
 fC  whom  an  Arian  Prieft  Baptizeth  are  not  to  be 
 €C  rebaptized  :  Therefore  an  Arian  Prieft  is  not  a 
 <c  Laick.  This  Argument  fo  confounded  Hilary  the 
 cc  Deacon  that  he  was  fore  d  to  deny  the  ^ajO$,  which  his 
 "  Mafier  Lucifer  had  granted  before ,  viz.  Cbat  tJjOfe 
 
 "  tobom  a  Itaick  15ajm?etl)  are  to  bt  ftefcaptt^k  "     It 
 
 Jliould  have  been  thus  : 
 
 "  This  Argument  fo  Confounded  Hilary  the  Deacon9 
 <c  that  he  was  fond  to  Deny  the  Affumption  [0?  ^m0?3 
 cc  which  his  Mafier  Lucifer  had  Grafted  before  ;  viz. 
 
 «c  COat  Cljofe  toljom  an  #cian  p?tei!  ^aptisetlj,  ate 
 «  not  to  be  re^bapttjea."  ^w/o  '**  weW<^  ;*  *fe  s<?- 
 cond  Edition  of  Sacerdotal  Powers,  p.  76.  and  1  thank 
 Mr.  Bingham /or  the  Notice,  that  I  may  not  let  any  unde* 
 figned  Slip  [as  this  was~\  pafs  uncorre&ed  by  me. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham'*  141/  Page  concerning  St.  Jerom'r 
 Notion  of  the  Validity  of  Lay  Baptifm,  is  largely  An fwer* a\ 
 in  Page  120,  &C.  of  this  Treatife. 
 
 Bis  142^  Page  of  St.  Chryfoftom'j  Ajjertion  concern- 
 ing thelnvalidity  of  Lay- Baptifm, is  Anfwerd  in  Page  114* 
 
 His  142,  145,  144  Pages,  ofSt&zhYs  Opinion  js  An- 
 fwerd  in  Page  1 09. 
 
 His  Demand  in  Page  145" .  tC  In  what  Writing  of 
 <c  the  Stephanians  I  find  this  Maintain'd,  That  They 
 c  who  had  received  Baptifm  from  Hereticks  or  Schifma- 
 <c  ticks,  were  in  a  State  of  Salvation  ?  Is  nothing  but 
 Captioufnefs  and  Cavilling,  for  himfelf  and  all  who 
 have  laoKd  into  St.  Cyprian'/  Works  do  know,  that  Ste- 
 phen BiJJwp  of  Rome  did  hold,  that  fuch  Baptiz'd  Per- 
 fons  were  in  a  State  of  Salvation,  for  they  efiesmi 
 them  to  have  been  Validly  Baptiz'd,  and  therefore  re- 
 fused to  give  them  any  other  Baptifm,  and  quarrell'd 
 with  St.  Cyprian,  &c-  for  judging  ocherwife  ;  and 
 fire  they  who  held  Men  to  have  been  Validly  Baptiz'd, 
 efleernd  them  to  have  been  in  a  State  of  Salvation, 
 otherwifc  what  fignified  the  Validity  of  their  Baptifm  ? 
 But  for  further  Anjwer  to  this  Captious  Queftion,  the 
 
 Reader 
 
xij  The  Preface. 
 
 Reader  may  find  enough  in  St.  Cyprian'/  Epifiles  toju- 
 baianusW^ompeius,  and  in  Firmilian'j  EftftU  to 
 St.  Cyprian  ;  in  all  which  the  Arguments  of  Pope  Ste- 
 phen and  His^  Followers,  are  particularly  mentioned, 
 and  endeavour  d  to  be  AnfweSd  by  St.  Cyprian  and  Fir- 
 milian  ;  and  thy  Mr.  Bingham  makes  himjelf  Ignorant 
 of  the  Stephanians  maintaining,  "  that  they  who  had 
 "  received  Baptifm  from  Hereticks  or  Schifmaticks 
 fC  were  in  a  State  of  Salvation.5'     Tet  as  Learned 
 I*  and  Judicious  an  Author  as  any  Modern  Writer  what- 
 foever,  has  exprefly  ajjerted  that  they  affirm  d,   "  That 
 "  all  Catechumens  who  dy'd  unbaptiz'd,  were  not 
 cc  therefore  damn'd ;  mutl)  Itfs  tgcfe  toljo  fjatl  tt* 
 <c  cnb'D  ^ayttfm,  tjjo'  from  ^erectcks  oj  &c&trmattcte, 
 
 which  is  the  'very  Argument  of  the  Stephanians,  that  I 
 have  mention  d  in  the  Place  on  which  Mr.  Bingham 
 makes  his  Remark,  and  from  which  alone  he  Deduces 
 his  Captious  .Queftion. 
 
 His  next  Remark,  p.  14^.  is ,  That  I  "  would  infi- 
 cc  nuate,  that  Athanafius  was  of  Cyprians  Opinion, 
 Si  and  rejected  the  Baptifm  of  Sill  ^erettcfts  in  <®Z* 
 u  llCral;"    Which  he  inferrs  from  my  faying,   "  That 
 "  Athanafius  in  the  4th  Century  rejected  tfje  315apttfttt 
 *    Of  l^f  retf  CkS.''     The  falfenefi  of  his  Inference  dif covers 
 ttfelfi  for,  cc  the  Baptifm  of  Hereticks/'  which  are 
 my   Words  ,  do   not   mean  the  u  jlSapttfttt  Of  all  ^ZXC* 
 tick®  in  CD»f  ncral>;'  as  He  would  reprefent ;  and  He  would 
 think  it  very  odd  and  unbecoming  me,  if  1  fliould  thus 
 fores  fome  Words  of  his,  which  are  as  capable  as  mine  are 
 of  Co  Univerfal  a  Senfe  :    For  Example,  he  fays  in  his 
 %\th  Page,  u  The  Council  of  Nice  never  made  any 
 Decree  about  the  Re-baptization  of  Perfons  bap- 
 <c  tiz'd  by  Laymen,  but  only  fcp  heretical  fftfeite" 
 
 *  See  Vindication  of  a  Difcourfe  of  the  Principles  of  the 
 Cyprianie  Age,  page  3^4. 
 
 Noil/ 
 
The  Preface.  xiij 
 
 Now  fhould  I  from  hence  infer,  that  Mr.  Bingham 
 "  would  infinuate,"  that  the  Council  made  a  Decree 
 "  about  the  Re-baptization  of  Perfons  baptiz'd 
 "  tip  alUgerettcfeg  in  general;1  would  not  Mr.  Bingham 
 
 have  juft  Reafon  to  complain  of  the  Incivility  of  fttch  a 
 forcd  Inference  ?  And  would  not  the  Judicious  Reader 
 alfo  have  reafon  to  find  fault  with  the  Impertinence  of  thus 
 impofitig  upon  his  Time  and  Patience  ?  But  this  is  trifling; 
 and  I  beg  the  Reader's  Pardon  for  concerning  my  felf  thus 
 much  with  only  a  Difyute  about  Words.  Mr.  Bingham 
 ts  pleased  in  this  place  to  fay  that  Athanafius cc  rejects  the 
 "  Arian  Baptifm  as  Invalid  ;  —  and  that  he  allow- 
 "  ed  the  Baptifm  of  all  Qtl)tX$ ;"  and  for  this  he  referrs 
 you  back  to  his  Chap.  I.  Sett.  20.  as  if  he  had  there  provd 
 it  ;  when  behold  in  that  very  Chapter  and  Section  he  fays 
 exprefly  that  Athanafius  "  concludes  tge  fame  of  the 
 iC  Manichees  and  Montanifts,  and  Samofatenians?  viz, 
 that  "  their  Baptifm  was  of  no  EffecV'  And  let 
 the  Reader  judge  whether  this  is  "  allowing  the  Baptifm 
 "  of  all  btljeflS  but  the  Arians."  this  Inconfifkency 
 with  him  felf  is  not  the  only  One  that  Mr.  Bingham  has 
 committed*,  as  will  be  feen  in  the  following  Treat ife. 
 
 His  14^  Page,  where  he  Remarks  on  a  Pajfage  I  cite 
 out  of  Pacianus,  is  Anfwerd  in  Page  98. 
 
 His  14.6th  Page,  concerning  Optatus,  is  already  An- 
 fwerd  by  what  If  aid  juft  now  on  his  Remark  concerning 
 St.  Athanafius. 
 
 He  acknowledges,  Page  146,  that  my  Reflections  on 
 the  Council  0/Eliberis  are  juft  enough  :    But 
 
 In  his  14.7th  Page  he  fays,  I  am  not  fo  juft  and  accu- 
 rate in  my  Reflections  on  the  Fir  ft  Council  of Aries  ,•  Be- 
 caufe,  ift,  I "  Diminifh  the  Authority  of  this  Coun- 
 cil by  following  the  faulty  Subfcriptions  [fays  he~\ 
 which  make  but  ;;  Biihops  to  have  been  at  it  ; 
 "  Whereas  it  was  [fays  Mr.  Bingham]  a  Plenary 
 cc  Council  of  the  Whole  Weftem  Church,  as  St.An- 
 "  ft  in  calls  it,  confifting  of  200  Bifhops,  &c. 
 
 But 
 
5cW  The  Preface. 
 
 But  in  Anfiver  to  this,  the  Learned  Du  *  Pin  affirms, 
 that  "  This  Council  was  compos'd  of  3  :>  Wefiern 
 "  Bifliops,  with  fome  Priefts  and  fome  Deacons." 
 And  he  gives  good  Reafons  for  this,  again  ft  Baronius, 
 and  a  Miftaken  Text  of  St,  Auftin ,    in  thefe  Words  : 
 cc  Baronius  thought,  that  this  Council  confifted  of 
 cc  200  Bifliops,  which  he  Grounded  upon  a  Paflage 
 fc  of  St.  Auftin,  in  his  Book  againft  the  Epiftle  of 
 cc  Varmenianus,  Ch.  V.  but  he  mifunderftood  that 
 Cf  Paflage ;  for  there  he  do's  not  fpeak  of  the  Coun- 
 <€  cil  of  Aries,  but  of  the  Council  of  Rome,  which 
 ic  confifted  only  of  19  Bifliops,  and  not  of  200, 
 cc  as  they  are  reckon'd  in  the  Text  of  St.  Auftin^ 
 cc  according  to  the  Common  Editions ;   but  this 
 cc  Place  has  been  reftor'd  in  the  Laft  Edition,  by  a 
 cf  Manufcript  in  the  Vatican  Library  ;  and  inftead 
 "  of  reading  it  as  it  was,  "  Ut  DUCENTOS  JU- 
 cc  DICES ,    apud  quos  <vitli  funt>    <viclis  litigator  ibus 
 €  credant  effe  poftponendos.   It  is  now  thus  reftor'd/' 
 ■    Ut  CONTRA  JUDICES>  apud  quos  vicli  funt,  vi- 
 €C  Bis  litigatoribus  credant, &c.  There  are  but  3  %  Names 
 <c  at  the  Head  of  the  Council's  Letter  ;  but  of  thefe 
 €C  %%,  there  are  4  Priefts  and  1  Deacon  and  6  Ex- 
 €C  orcifts.    They  endeavour  to  prove,  that  there 
 was  a  greater  Number  of  Bifliops  at  this  Coun- 
 cil, becaufe  Conft amine  in  his  Letter  to  Chreftus  ± 
 "  and  the  Second  Council  of  Arks  teftify,  that 
 cc  there  were  Bifliops  in  it  from  all  Parts  of  the 
 cc  World.     But  thefe  19  Bifliops  are  found  to  be 
 "  from  all  Parts  of  the  Weft,  and  fo  it  is  not  rie- 
 <c  ceffary  to  admit  a  greater  Number  of  them,  to 
 "  verify  what  is  faid  by  Conftantim,  and  the  Fathers 
 <c  of  the  Second  Council  of  Aries.     Ado  fays  that 
 
 *  Du  Pins  Ecclef.  Hid.  4  Cent. p.  247-  &  Council  of  ArUs. 
 
 Note  b. 
 
 iC 
 
The  Preface.  xv 
 
 Cff  600  Bifliops  were  prefent  at  this  Council,  but 
 *(  this  is  in  no  wife  probable."  Thus  far  Dm  Pin* 
 And  now  I  would  ask  our  Reverend  Hifiorian,  what 
 if  1000  Bifliops  were  there  prefent,  do's  Their  Determi- 
 nation concerning  the  Baptifm  of  Hereticks  in  the  Name 
 of  the  Trinity y  that  theyjbould  not  be  re~baptiz?dy  amount 
 to  any  thing  in  our  prefent  Dlfiute>about  Baptifm  by  Per  font 
 who  never  had  an  Epifcopal  Commijjion  to  Baptise  ?  Were 
 thofe  Hereticks,  fuch  Baptiz,ers,  or  no  ?  Were  they  meer 
 Laymen,  or  were  they  in  Epifcopal  Orders  ? 
 
 adly,    He  fays  in  the  fame  Page  that  I  am  miftaken, 
 when  I  fay ^  "  That  the  Ancient  Hereticks  and  Schif- 
 <c  maticks^  whofe  Baptifms  that  Council  allow'd, 
 cc  had  commonly  receiv'd  Ordination  from  the 
 "  Hands  of  fome  Catholick  Bifliop  or  other—— 
 €€  and  that  therefore  thofe  Baptifms  were  not  Ami- 
 fC  Epifcopal/'     And  the  Reafon  he  gives  why  thefe  are 
 Mi  flakes,  ftands  thus  :    "  For  [  fays  he]  many  of  the 
 c  Herefies  and  Schifms  of  thofe  Times  had  a  Long  Sue- 
 c  ceffion  of  Falfe  Bifliops  of  their  Own,  who  were 
 c  not  Ordain d   by    Catholick    Bifliops,    as    the 
 "  J2ob&tWU0j  &C  who  certainly  did  not  act  by  any  Au- 
 c  thority  of  the  Catholick  Church,  whllfi  they  were 
 out  of  the  l^olp  Catholick  Church,  and  in  Manifefi 
 Opposition  to  it? They  were  Anti-Epifcopal  pro- 
 perly freaking, —  Anti-Epifcopal  Baptifms  were 
 in  fome  Senfe,  the  Subjecl  of  that  Councily  &c. 
 In  Anfwer  to  aU  which,  Mr.  Bingham  doubtlef  knows 
 that  the  Novatians  and  other  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks 
 began  their  Herefies  and  Schifms  in  (EjUTcojjaC?  ;  he  can- 
 not fairly  deny  that  they  had  their  fir fi  Bifliops  ordained  and 
 confecrated  by  Cat&OltCft  JBtUJOpjS  ;  That  thefe  firs!  here* 
 tical  and  fchifmatical  Bifliops  fo  ordained  ,  had  not  their 
 Orders  nulTd  and  voided  by  thofe  Churches  who  allowed 
 their  Baptifms  ;  That  the  Ordinations  performed  by  thefe 
 Heretical  and  Schifmathal  Bifliops  wen  therefore  Epifco* 
 
 %  pal  1 
 
 re 
 
xvj  The  Preface. 
 
 pal ;  and  confequmtly  the  long  Succefjion  was  ttUty  Cpt'D 
 COpalj  having  been  begun  by  CatljOilCft  W\Q)*W>  and  han- 
 ded down  [uccefsfully  by  an  unrepeal'd,  not  vacated  E- 
 fifcopal  Commijjion  ;  hence  [the  Commijjion  being  ftill  but 
 the  fame  that  was  at  fir  ft  given  by  Catholick  Bifwps, 
 namely,  <2?|)tfC0JjaI.]  The  Baptiz,ers  who  were  ordained 
 by  Virtue  of  this  one  and  the  fame  Epifcopal  Authority, 
 are  truly  faid  to  have  cc  received  Ordination  from 
 "  the  Hands  [viz.  Convey  d  to  them  by  their  Ordainers 
 from  the  Hands  ]  of  Cfttljolicfc  ISifljOps!  ",  who  ve- 
 fled  their  Ordainers  with  the  fame  Vower  to  ordain, which 
 the  Catholick  Bifhops  themfclves  were  vefted  with. 
 Mr.  Bingham  (ays  ,  <c  This  was  a  long  Succefjion  of 
 JFaIfe31§u7)0$)S  ".  If  by  Falfe  Bijhops  he  means  Bifhops 
 who  were  falfe  to  the  Trull  repos'd  in  'em,  [as  all  He- 
 reticks  and  Schifmaticks  mo  ft  certainly  are  ]  then  there 
 will  be  no  need  to  difpute  about  this  Term  •  but  if  by 
 1  Falfe  Bifhops"  he  means  Counterfeiter  no  Bifhops^ 
 who  had  no  real  Epifcopal  Authority  conferred  on 
 them  ;  The  Churches  who  efteemd  their  Ordinations  to 
 have  been  Valid,  and  therefore  did  not  pronounce  them 
 Null,  are  contrary  to  him  ;  witnef  the  Great  Council  of 
 Nice,  &c.  And  therefore  in  the  Sevfe  of  thofe  Churches 
 they  were  not  "  Anti-Epifcopal,  properly  fpeaking," 
 as  Mr.  Bingham  would  have  it ;  neither  were  their  Bap- 
 tifms  Anti-Epifcopal  Baptifms.  But  I  muft  referr  the 
 Reader  to  what  I  have  faid  more  upon  this  Subject  in 
 Page  v,vj.  of  this  Preface,  and  in  Page  193,  &c.  of  the 
 following  Treat  if,  which  is  all  that  I  think  needful  to  fay- 
 to  him,  in  Anfwer  to  every  thing  he  has  advancd  about 
 Heretical  and  Schifnatical  Baptifms,  in  his  Scholaftical 
 Hiftory,  and  the  Appendix  thereto. 
 
 In  his  149^  Page  he  is  pleas \l  again  to  Cavil  at  the 
 Term  tttiattifjO?i?'&  fo  often  made  ufe  of  by  me  :  In  anfwer 
 to  which  I  tell  him  once  more,  that  by  lmatttljO^tJ'D  and 
 «nC0mmtfli0lV&>"  I  conftantly  defign  what  all  Englifh- 
 
 men 
 
The  Preface.  xvij 
 
 men  ufually  mean  by  fuch  Words  ;  namely,  not  autho- 
 riz'd,  or  never  authoriz'd  ;    not  commiflion'd ,  or 
 never  co  mmiffion'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  Ylth 
 Definition  in  Page  34,  of  the  %d  Edition  of  Lay- Rapt ifm 
 Invalid :  ivhich  is  this ;  "  By  a  Lay-Adminiftrationj 
 "  I  mean,  that  which  is  performed  by  one,  tolja 
 cc  nefcer.  to&s  Commtflton'o  oj  ampotoer'n  fo;  tliat  Htt> 
 <c  by  thofe  whom  God  has  appointed  to  be  the 
 cc  Conveyers  of  his  Authority  and  Commiffion  to 
 U  Men  for  that  purpofe."     For  certainly  Baptifm  by 
 fuch  Perfons  as  thefe,  is  3Lap4!5apttTm  ;  and  becaufe  ne- 
 ver Commiffion'd,    therefore  3fttatftIjO}t?'0  Wtytitm. 
 Indeed,  if  there  can  be  any  fuch  thing  as  the  giving  of  a 
 l&al  iltltljOJttp  to  Laymen  to  Baptise,  then,  when  Au- 
 thorized, they  II  ceafe  in  that  Reffiett  to  be  Laymen,  ha- 
 ving [ff  tlJey  can  have]  a  Sacerdotal  Power  to  Bap- 
 tiz,e  in  Want  of  the  Clergy  ;  which  will  make  fuch  their 
 Baptifm  to  be  Sacerdotal,   Authoriz'd  Baptifm,  and 
 fo  not  properly  Lay-Baptifm.     But  that    Laymen  can 
 have  this  Power  conferrd  on  them,  it  wants  fill  to  be 
 prov  d. 
 
 He  Demands  at  the  Bottom  of  his  14.9th  Page, 
 cc  How  can  it  be  faid  with  Truth,  that  no  Coun- 
 cc  cil  can  be  produced  for  the  Validity  of  Hap* 
 «  115apttTm,  or  Sinamlp^'D  baptifm,  when  He  him- 
 felf, [that  is,  the  Amthor  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid] 
 ft  owns  that  the  Council  of  Eliberis  Authorized 
 cc  the  One,  and  fo  many  Councils  confirm'd  the 
 cc  Validity  of  the  Other.'  He  takes  Occafion  to  put 
 this  JQueftion  ,  and  thus  to  mifreprefent  me  from  my 
 Words,  in  Page  26 of  my  Preliminary  Difcourfe  to  Lay- 
 Baptifm  Invalid,  Edit.  3d.  where  fpeak'mg  of  Hereti- 
 cal and  Schifmatical  Baptifm s,  and  the  Determinations 
 of  fame  Councih,  &C.  about  them,    I  conclude  the  Para- 
 
 a   X  graph 
 
xviij  The  Preface. 
 
 graph  in  thefe  Words  ;  namely,  cc  I  have  no  need  to 
 4|  dwell  upon  this,  becaufe  my  Province  is  only 
 
 *  confin'd  to  ILap,  i.  e.  [that  is]  flSnattttyoji?'*  315ap^ 
 <c  tifm,  fuch  as  is  perform'd  by  Perfons,  fortjo  netoec 
 
 *  mtt  aut&otf  ?'0  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 
 
 c  in  their  behalf  not  one  Council ,  either  General 
 "  or  Provincial ,  till  the  Corrupt  Ones  of  the 
 <c  Church  of  Rome"  And  all  this  I  do  fiillinfiji  upon, 
 and  affirm  in  anfwer  to  his  Jgueftion,  that  the  Council  of 
 Eliberis  is  not  fir  "  Hap,  that  is,  {ElnatttljO^fc  Baptifm, 
 if  fuch  as  is  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  nefcer  toere 
 <c  antfjotfyo  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- 
 cc  thers  to  Baptize. 
 
 This  is  the  Connection  of  my  Words  5  and  I  will  not  de- 
 part from  them ,  hut  challenge  Mr,  Bingham  and  all  his 
 Friends  to  prove,  that  the  Council  of  Eliberis'/  Canon, 
 made  with  Defign  to  Authorize  and  Impower  fome  of 
 their  own  Laicks  to  Baptize,  was  a  giving  Countenance 
 to  the  Baptifms  above-mentioned,  which  lam  difputing 
 again f.  But  of  this  fee  more  in  Page  ^  8  ,  &C  of  the 
 following  Treatife,  that  I  may  not  he  further  Guilty  of  Re- 
 petition ;  whereby  the  Reader  will  eafily  fee  ,  that  our 
 Lay- Baptifms  are  not  favour7  d  by  that  Council;  and  in 
 'Page  193,  Sic,  that  the  Ancient  Churches  who  allowed  of 
 the  Validity  of  fome  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptifms, 
 did  not  ejleem  thofe  Baptifms  to  have  been  defiitute  of 
 Commifjion,  or  Unauthorized,  that  is,  never  Authorized  ; 
 for  they  efieemed  the  Clerical  Orders  of  the  Bapti&ers  to 
 have  been  Valid. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham'/  i^oth  Page  about  Tertullian  is  an- 
 fwer d  in  Page  39,  &C.  of  this  Treat ife,  to  jvhich  I  add, 
 
 that 
 
The  Preface.  xix 
 
 that  'tis  very  firange  ,  he  fiould  charge  me  with  a  Mi- 
 flake  for  faying  ,  That  Tertullian  refers  us  to  (C  the 
 "  Law  and  Practice  "  of  the  Church  ,  by  his  faying 
 <f  concerning  Hereticks  ,  we  "  have  a  ikule  to  Rebap- 
 cc  tize  them  "  3  when  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  cannot 
 deny  but  acknowledges,  fag.  ifo,  if  i.  that  Tertullian 
 makes  the  then  Rebaptiz,ation  of  Hereticks  to  have  been 
 the  Practice  of  the  Church  in  Tertullian'*  Days,  and 
 that  this  was  founded  upon  a  Rule:  For  fays  our  Hiftori- 
 any  "  I  own  he  fpeaks  of  the  practice  of  Rebap- 
 u  tizing  Hereticks  as  Heathens :  But  the  ftule  by 
 cc  which  he  juftifies  this  Practice  is  not  the  Rule 
 "  of  the  Church  ,  but  the  ftttle  of  Cljriff, "  pag. 
 jfo.  And  he  calls  this,  of  Rebaptization  , 
 "  KA)t  practice  of  tlje  Cljttrclj  ,  "    in    Page  i?r. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  would  infinuate  to  his  Reader,  that  I  make 
 what  Tertullian  calls  a  Rule/cr  this  Traclice  to  be  c<  the 
 u  Law  and  Rule  of  the  Church,  diftin£  from  the 
 <c  Law  of  Chrift  \  But  our  Reverend  Hi /fori  an 
 fiould  have  produc  d  fomething,  if  he  was  able,  from  my 
 own  Words,  to  have  proved  this,  which  he  cannot  do  ; 
 and  therefore  herein  heads  very  much  beneath  himfelf: 
 Ifpeak  of  cc  the  Law  and  Practice  of  the  Church", 
 •without  concerning  my  felf  whether  floe  made  "  a  Law 
 cc  and  Rule  diftincl:  from  the  Law  of  Chrift  *  or 
 no,  and  without  once  fpecifying  what  fO?t  of  l&Ult  it  was 
 whereon  fie  founded  \)tt  %0JclCtlCe  r  If  fie  founded  it  upon 
 the  Law  of  Chrift  and  the  Apoftles ,  as  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham words  it,  p.  i^o.  why  then  fie  took  this  "Law  fir 
 \)M  Ifotle,  and  fo  'twas  \)tt  tUtD '  too  ;  fo  that  even  ac- 
 cording to  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf ,  it  was  the  Law  and 
 Pra&ice  of  the  Church  :  It  was  "  gee  ilaU)  '\  becaufe 
 fie  made  it  the  Mule  of  fiCC  Practice  ;  and  it  was 
 <c  Ut  Halt)  atl&  PjatttU  ?  ,  becaufe  fie  bound  thofe  who 
 would  be  admitted  to  her  Communion  ,  to  be  falijrct  to  it. 
 And  Mr.  Bingham  cavils  at  my  calling  it   "  her  Law 
 
 a  %  "  and 
 
xx  The  Prefaced 
 
 (c  and  Practice  ",  as  related  by  Tertullian ,  -when  his 
 cwn  Account  of  Tertullian^  Words  makes  it  to  be  jo 
 too. 
 
 Bis  Note  concerning  St.  Ignatius,  pag.  i  ^2.  is  fuffi- 
 ciently  an  fiver  d  in  the  following  Page  3  $".  ~~ 
 
 And  all  that  follows  of  Heretical  and  Schifmatical 
 Baptifm  s  in  Page  193,   of  this  Book; 
 
 And  as  for  the  Conclufion  of  his  Appendix,  with  a 
 Latin  Sentence,  that  he  may  fee  I  have  tranflated  it, 
 and  made  the  Application  as  he  {_  it  feems  ~]  defer es  me  to 
 do  ;  I  hereby  ajfure  him,  that  if  the  Perfon  who  Baptized 
 me  was  dJtfcupalip  OJ&attt'ti  [_as  he  certainly  was]  and 
 if  he  had  been  a  Heretick,  and  public kly  cenfuf *d  as  fuch 
 £  which  he  never  was  J  nay  though  he  had  never  given 
 fublick  Notice  to  the  World  ,  that  he  had  repented  of  and 
 forfake?i  his  Herefy  ,  and  fo  I  might  have  been  tempted  to 
 believe,  that  he  was  therefore  a  Heretick  ,  at  the  very 
 'Time  that  he  gave  m .  Baptifm  ;  [  AH  which,  God  be 
 fraifcd,  1  am  fully  fatisfied  is  no  ways  applicable  to  that 
 Reverend  Prieft  who  baptized  me  ;  yetf]  If  all  this 
 had  been  pi  fly  chargable  on  him,  I  flwuld  not  in  the  lea  ft 
 £  confedering  the  Now  Laws  of  theCatholick  Church,  and 
 of  the  Church  of  England  in  particular  ]  have  fufpe  died 
 the  Validity  of  Baptijm  ,  given  me  by  fuch  a  one  ,  with 
 Water  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity  ;  but  jhould  have 
 reckon  d  my  {elf  an  Incorporated  Member  of  ChrijFs 
 Church,  &c. 
 
 But  to  conclude  my  long  Preface  ,  J  leave  this  with 
 cur  Reverend  Hifiorian  ,  \_as  he  js  a  Clergyman  ]  and 
 do  affirm,  that  'tis  a  Prcpofetion  very  eafy  to  be  proved 
 againfe  any  Man  whatfoever,  That  if  Baptifm  performed 
 by  Perfons  who  were  Never  really  and  truly  Commif- 
 fion'd  by  Bifiops  to  Baptize,  and  who  att  herein,  Rebel- 
 lioufly  againft;  and  in  Oppofition  to,  the  Divine  Right  of 
 Epiicopacy,  be  Good  and  Valid  Baptifm  ;  Then,  Autho- 
 ritative Preaching  3  Adminiftring  the  other  Sa- 
 cra- 
 
The  Preface.  xxj 
 
 crament  ]  the  Power  of  Excommunicating ,  of 
 Binding  and  Loofing,  of  Retaining  and  Abfolving 
 Men's  Sins,  and  all  the  Spiritual  Functions  of  the  Clergy, 
 are  alfo  Good  and  Valid,  when  attempted  by  Unau- 
 thoriz'd ,  never  Gommiffion'd  Lay-Perfons  :  The 
 Consequence  of  which,  is ,  the  utter  Dijfolution  and  ta- 
 king away  of  the  Neceffity  of  the  Chriftian  Prieft- 
 hood  j  therefore  of  ChrifVs  Authority  here  on  Earth, 
 and  fo  of  all  Reveal' d  Religion  too ;  which  is  a  Dread- 
 full  Confederation  ;  and  much  more  fo  ,  if  any  who  ought 
 to  be  the  Guardians  of  thefe  Sacred  Things,  fljould  endea- 
 vour by  their  Writings  and  Preaching,to  efiablifo  the  dan- 
 gerous Premises,  from  whence  fuch  prophane  Confequences 
 do  naturally  flow. 
 
 London,  May  29th, 
 1713. 
 
 a  4  THE 
 
 v-. 
 
^3 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 __ 
 
 CHAP.     I. 
 H  E  Occafion  and  Nature  of  the  prefent  Difpute, 
 
 P'g' 
 
 CHAP.    II. 
 
 M 
 
 R.  Bingham  s  Account  of  the  Apoftolick  Commifllon  to  Bap- 
 tize, of  the  Conveyance  and  conftant  Neceflity  thereof  to 
 the  End  of  the  World,  5 
 
 He  makes  the  Commiflion  to  Baptize,  Effential  to  the  Miniftration 
 of  Baptifm,  $ 
 
 The  Pfeudo-St.  Jmhofis  Opinion,  that  the  Apoftles  at  firft  com- 
 miflion'd  all  Chriftians  boch  to  Teach  and  Baptize,  refuted, 
 
 Mr.  Bingham ,  from  this  Author  ,  infers ,  that  no  one  can  have  a 
 Power  of  Baptizing  ,  but  he  that  receives  fome  way  or  other 
 a  Commiffion  from  the  Apoftles,  8 
 
 And  that  the  Original  Power  of  Baptizing  was  Iodg'd  fokly  and 
 entirely  in  Bifhops,  and  derivatively  conveyed  from  them  to 
 others  ;  inferr'd  by  him  from  the  Ancient  Writers,  1 1 
 
 His  Motion  offcBifhops  Ratifying  Irregular  Baptifms ,  by  adding  ^•f*^  * 
 what  was  wanting  in  the  Circumftances  of  Baptifm ,  by  an  at-^.  " 
 
 ;\r* 
 
 .-ti- 
 
 ter Confirmation,  confiderd  and  let  to  Rights,  ibid.  l-~j>h  *. 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 His  Diftin&ion  between  irregularity  and  Invalidity ,confider'd,  1 5 
 
 His  Notion  of  Baptifm  minifkr'd  without  a  Commijfon,  that  it  was 
 efteem'd  Valid*  notwithftanding  the  Sinfulness  of  the  Act  of 
 Ministration,  refuted,  1  g,  14,  &c, 
 
 Kis  Attempt  to  prove,  that  the  Ancients  did  not/fuppofe  Baptifm 
 to  be  wholly  founded  upon  Sacerdotal  Powers  ,  prov'd  to  be 
 contrary  to,and  inconfiftent  with  his  own  AfTertions,  1 6, to  1 8 
 
 His  Fancy,  that  Baptifm  by  an  Irregular  Prieji  ,  if  allow 'd  to  be 
 Valid  upon  the  Account  of  his  Prieftly  Character,  muft  be 
 ,u4uthorizd  and  Unauthorized,  Regular  and  Irregular,  Lawful  and 
 Unlawful  at  the  fame  time  ,  and  in  the  very  fame  Aft  and  Re- 
 Jpett,  and  therefore  a  Contradiction  ;  prov'd  to  be  very  falla- 
 cious, 1 9 
 
 His  ill-grounded  fcuefies ,  at  the  Reafons  why  the  Ancients  al- 
 io w'd  of  the  Validity  of  Baptifm  by  an  Irregular  Prieft,        22 
 
 Kis  odd  Notion  of  Deacons  not  being  Priep^nd  confequently  that 
 Baptifm  perform'd  by  them  in  Abfence  ot  the  Priefts,  is  not 
 Baptifm  by  a  Sacerdotal  or  Prieftly  Power  •,  refuted,     16,25 
 
 CHAP.    III. 
 
 TpEftimonies  for  and  againft  Lay-Baptifm  Examined,  30 
 
 Mr. Bingham  owns  that  Lay-Men  were  always  debarr'd  from  the 
 
 Miniftration  of  Baptifm  in  all  Ordinary  Cases,        ibid. 
 
 This  prov'd  to  be  a  Nulling  of  all  Lay-Baptifms  perform'd  in  Or- 
 dinary Cafes  ;  confequently  that  our  Diffenters  Baptifms  are 
 Null  and  Void,  ibid. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  ftates  the  grand  Quefion  wrong,  concerning  Lay- 
 Baptifm  in  Extraordinary  Cafes  ,  if  he  would  bring  it  to  our 
 Cafe  about  which  we  are  difputing,  •  32 
 
 The  Grand  Queftion  of  our  Lay-Baptifms  truly  ftated,         ibid. 
 
 No  Testimonies  for  Lay-Baptifm  in  the  firft  200  Years  of  Chri- 
 stianity, 33 
 
 Therefore  no  ancient  Catholick  Tradition ,  no  general  Senfe  and 
 Practice  of  the  Church,  can  be  found  whereon  to  eftablifl)  the 
 Practice  of  Lay-Baptifm,  ^id. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  owns  that  Particular  Churches,  are  Exceptions  a- 
 gainft  his  pretended  general  Practice  of  the  Church  in  this 
 Matter,  32>  33 
 
 Mr.  Bingham's  whole  Evidence  amounts  to  no  Catholick  Tradition 
 for  Lay-Baptifm,  34 
 
 St.  Ignatius,  Anno  71,  makes  Baptifm  to  be  Null  and  Void,  when 
 perform'd  by  one  who  was  never  commiflicn'd  'by  the  Bifhop, 
 
 3$ 
 
 St. 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 St.  Herwas  mentions  none  but  Epifcopally  or  Divinely  Attthorizd 
 Eaptizers,  for  Cafes  of  Extremity,  38 
 
 Tertullians  private  Notion,  about  the  Year  200,  of  Lay-Men's 
 Right  to  baptize  in  Abfence  of  the  Clergy  5  no  Evidence  of 
 any  Law,  Tradition  or  Cuftom  of  the  Catholick  Church,  for 
 their  pretended  Right,  39,  &c* 
 
 His  falfe  Reafon  upon  which  he  founds  their  pretended  Right,re- 
 futed,  43 
 
 His  other  particular  Fancies,  may  with  as  much  Reafon  be  calfd 
 the  Church's  General  Senfe  and  Practice,  as  his  Notion  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm  may,  44 
 
 He  gives  us  not  one  Inftance  of  any  fuch  Baptifm,  allow'd  of  by 
 the  Church  in  his  Days,  47 
 
 His  Words  are  full  and  direct  againft  our  ordinary  Lay-Baptifms, 
 and  by  Confequence  prove  their  Nullity,  ibid. 
 
 St.  Cyprian  and  Firmilian  about  the  Year  2$6.  reckon'd  Lay-Bap- 
 tifms to  be  Null  and  Void,  as  St.  Bafll  witneffes,  48 
 
 St.  Cyprians  own  Works  plainly  fhew,  that  he  efteem'd  all  Bap- 
 tifms  to  be  void  ,  that  were  perform' d  by  fuch  as  were  rec- 
 kon'd to  be  deftitute  of  Prieftly  Power  and  Authority,         $1 
 
 Firmilian  s  Letter  to  St.  Cyprian  proves,  that  Firmilian  and  the 
 Council  of  honittm  held  the  fame,  5  4,  §  5 
 
 Several  of  St.  Cyprians  Colkgues  in  the  Council  of  Carthage,  the 
 fame,  5$,  5$ 
 
 The  47th  Canon  call'd  Apoftolical,  the  fame,  57 
 
 The  Council  of  Eliberu  in  Spain  held  by  10  Bifhops  Anno  305, 
 does  not  favour  Baptifm  by  Perfons,  who  never  were  commif- 
 fion'd  by  Bifhops  to  baptize,  58,  in 
 
 This  Council  is  againft  Tertullian's  private  Opinion,  of  Lay-Men's 
 Right  in  themlelves  to  baptize  in  Abfence  of  the  Clergy,     5^ 
 
 And  'tis  alfo  againft  Mr.  Bingham's  Guefs  that  the  Ancients  might 
 efteem  Baptifm  by  whomfoever  Chrifiian  perform  d  to  be  good  and 
 'valid,  $9,  60 
 
 The  Council  of  Eliberis's  Canon,  is  no  Argument  for  the  Practice 
 of  the  Catholick  Church,  61 
 
 The  Fable  of  Athanafius ,  when  as  Boy ,  baptizing  his  Play-frJ- 
 
 lows  in  Sport ;  and  of  Alexander  the  Bifhop's  determining  the 
 
 Baptifm  to  be  Valid,  expos'd,  62. 
 
 Rufinus,  the  firft  Author  of  it,  a  very  credulous  and  carelefs  Hi- 
 
 ftorian,  65 
 
 Sozomens  Account  of  it  taken  only  from  Rufnus,  ti 
 
 He  was  no  very  judicious  Writer,  68 
 
 Socrates  Scholajlicus,  the  moft  Judicious  and  Diligent  of  the  three 
 
 Hiftorians,  69 
 
 This  latter,though  quoted  by  Mr.  Bingham  to  vouch  for  the  Truth 
 
 of  that  Fable  ?  does  not  fpeak  one  Word,  either  ot  the  Boy 
 
 Atbai 
 
the  CONTENTS. 
 
 Athanajtus's  Baptizing  the  other  Boys  •,  or  of  Alexanders  iup-* 
 pos'd  Determination  about  it,  69,  70 
 
 He  fays  he  Copy'd  from  Rufinm^  fuch  PafTages,  in  the  relation 
 whereof  Rufir.us  did  not  forfake  the  Truth,  71 
 
 And  therefore  his  omitting  this  Fable,  is  an  Argument  that  he 
 did  not  believe  Rufinuis  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 
 
 Deftgn  of  Mr.  Bingham's  relating  it,  jz 
 
 Johannes  Mofchus,  another  of  Mr.  Bingham's  Vouchers,  a  Ridicu- 
 lous Vifionary  Monk  of  the  7th  Century  j  who  writes  this  Fa- 
 ble, among  other  idle  Legendary  Stories  of  Miracles,  Dreams, 
 &c.  not  to  be  credited  -y  fome  Particulars  whereof  are  in- 
 ftanc'd,  75 
 
 Nicephorut  Calijlus,  another  of  his  Vouchers,  a  Fabulous  Writer 
 of  the  14th  Century,  tho'  Mr.  Bingham  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  Reflection  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,  juft  and  right,        ibid. 
 
 The  little  or  no  Credit  this  Story  has  among  Learned  Men,       76 
 
 Even  Papifls  themfelves  reject  it,  77 
 
 This  a  Reproach  to  fome  Proteftants  who  believe  it,  78 
 
 But  Proteftants  too  have  given  their  Teftimony  againft  it,       79 
 
 The  Circumftances  of  che  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  Athanafius  ;  and  thap 
 it  would  be  Strange,  it  any  fuch  Canon  fhould  be  made  in 
 the  Church,  po 
 
 His  believing  that  "  ***/  no  tafy  Matter  to  produce  an  Ancient  Canon 
 "  directly  to  Confront  Alexander'/  fuppos'd  Determi- 
 "  nation,  is  nothing  to  the  purpofe,  £1 
 
 Becaufe  the  Inftitution  of  Baptifm  and  Laws  of  the  Church,  do 
 confine  Baptifm  to  a  Commiflion,  and  confequently  forbid  fuch 
 a  Determination  in  favour  of  its  Validity  when  without  a  Com- 
 miflion,  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  made  Valid  by  a  Poft-faft  Confirmation  of  the  Bilhop, 
 
 u 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 If  the  Fable  of  Athanafms  had  been  true,  yet  nothing  to  the 
 Purpofe  could  have  been  inferr'd  from  it,  9$ 
 
 Nor  any  tjhing  have  been  fafely  concluded  from  it,  ibid. 
 
 The  Dreadful  Confequences  of  admitting  Bifhop  Alexander*  fup- 
 pofed  opinion,  to  have  been  Just  and  Right,  ibid. 
 
 Which  Proves  the  whole  Story  to  be  Foolijh  and  Ridiculous ;  and 
 therefore  contrary  to  the  General  Senfe  and  Pratt  ice  of  the  Ca- 
 tholick  Church,  97 
 
 Hilary,  Deacon  of  Rome,  about  Anno  3  $0,  affirms,  that  in  his 
 time  Laymen  did  not  Baptize,  ibid. 
 
 Pacianus,  Bifhop  of  Barcelona,  Nulls  Baptifm  by  Perfons  not  ha- 
 ving  a  Prieftly  Power,  98 
 
 Optatuf,  Bifhop  of  Mileviss  supposd  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  Juftly  and  Candidly  interpreted,  inferr  no  fuchV 
 
 Latitudinarian  Principle,  105 
 
 St.BaJil,  Bifhop  of  C<efarea,  Anno  369,  Nulls  Lay-Baptifm,   109 
 
 St.  Chryjojlom,  Archbifhop  of  Confl  antinomic,  Anno  398,  do's  the 
 fame,  114 
 
 A  Paffage  quoted  by  Mr.  Bingham  out  of  the  Apoflolick  Confti- 
 tutions,  do's  fo  likewife,  #    117 
 
 St.  Jerom  in  the  Latter  end  of  the  IVth  Century,  his  Notion  of 
 Laymen's  Power  to  Baptize  in  Cafe  of  Neceffity,  founded  on 
 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  Tertu'dian,  122 
 
 He  Contradifts  this  Notion  by  his  Dialogue  againft  the  Lucifer ian 
 Schifmaticks,wherein  he  Confutes  the  Luciferians  by  this  Prin- 
 ciple, That  if  the  Arian  Clergy  were  but  Laicks,  the  Baptifm 
 adminifter'd  by  them  ought  to  be  reje&ed,  123,  to  138 
 
 The  Inconfiftency  of  St.  jerom's  firft  Notion,  with  the  Scof»e  of 
 this  Dialoiue,  131,  139 
 
 He  Nulls  Lay-Baptifm  by  faying,  "  That  without  Priejls  there  is 
 "  noChurcf,,  13? 
 
 Mr.  Bingham >  Cavil  at  Dr.  Forhs's  and  Mr.  Reeves's  Words,  upon 
 this  Dialogue,  confider'd,  t      14° 
 
 St.  Auguftiny  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Bingham  from  Gratiav,  mifrepre- 
 fented  by  him  to  the  Englijh  Reader,  in  favour  of  Lay-Bap- 
 tifm, 14? 
 
 His  Words  prbye  No  Matter  of  Fail,  of  Laymen's  Baptizing,   ibid 
 
 Another  ParTage  of  that  Father,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Bingham  from 
 Gratian,  makes  >he  Apfiolick  Commijfion  to  be  a  Neceffary  Con- 
 dijion  of  Baptifm,  '4$ 
 
 Ano- 
 
The   CONTENTS. 
 
 Another  PafTage  Gratian  attributes  to  St.  Auguflin,  which  by  Ne- 
 cefiary  Confequence  Nulls  our  Lay-Baptifms,  14$ 
 
 A  Story  Gratian  relates  as  fr(3nj  St.  Augufiin  in  favour  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm,  ibid. 
 St.  Augujiirjy  if  he  did  relate  it,  owns  that  'twas  only  a  Report, 
 and  the  Author  unknown^  147 
 St.  Augajtins  fuppos'd  Opinion,  That  fuch  a  Cafe,  as  a  Layman's 
 Baptizing  a  Perfon  in  Danger  of  Death,  where  no  other  was 
 preient,  might  happen  ;  and  that  a  Perfon  fo  in  Danger  ought 
 not  to  be  left  unbaptiz'd,  fairly  confider'd,                147,  148 
 St.  /fuguftiris  Genuin  Works,  prove  Nothing  of  any  Law,  Tra- 
 dition, or  Cuftom  of  the  Catholick  Church  for  Lay-Baptifm, 
 
 150,  to  162 
 
 He  Hefitates,  and  is  not  pofitive,  that  Lay-Baptifm  in  Cafe  of 
 
 NecefTity  is  Valid  ^  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,  153 
 
 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  $4,  to  160 
 
 He  acknowledges  this  not  to  have  been  the  Determination  of  any 
 
 General  Council,  but  his  own  Private  Opinion,         15$,  155 
 
 He  was  not  wholly  free  from  introducing  Novelties  in  Religion, 
 
 i5i 
 Gelaftuf,  Bifhop  of  Rome,  Anno  492.  His  Saying  of  Laymen's  ha- 
 ving Power  granted  them  to  Baptize  in  Cafes  of  Extreme  Ne- 
 ceffity,    is  no   Proof  that  this  was  the  General  Senfe  and 
 Practice  of  the  Church,  162,  163 
 
 Mr.  Bingham 's  falfe  Inference  from  Gelafiiis's  Words,  That  Lay- 
 men had  as  much  Power  to  Baptize  in  Abfence  of  Deacons,  as 
 Deacons  had  in  Abfence  of  the  Presbyters  and  Bifhop,  ex- 
 pos'd,  162 
 
 Gelafius  is  no  Evidence  for  the  Validity  of  Baptifm  by  Perfons 
 who  were  never  Commiffion'd  by  Bilhops  to  Baptize,         1 54 
 IJidore,  Bifhop  of  Sevil,  Anno  595,  founds  the  Power  of  Bapti- 
 zing upon  the  Commiffion  Chrift  gave  to  his  Apoftles,      1 55, 
 
 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 
 Minifter  of  Baptifm,  after  St.  Avgujii?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  Baptizers  in  Cafes  Ordinary  and  Extraordinary 
 
 i£o 
 
 From  whence  it  follows,  that  the  General  Senfe  and  Practice  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,  1 70 
 
 Mr.  Bingham's  whole  Evidence  is  not  fo  much  as  a  Proof,  that  the 
 Ancient  Catholick  Church  for  the  firft  600  Years,  did  ever  Au- 
 thorize or  Commiffion  Laymen  to  Baptize,  in  want  of  the 
 Clergy,  ibid. 
 
 CHAP.    IV. 
 
 *\Ar.  Bingham 's  Objections  againft  the  Teftimonies  of  St.  Cyprian, 
 St.  Bajtl,  and  St.  Chryfoftom,  anfwer'd,  174 
 
 CHAP.    V, 
 
 TJ I S  Acknowledgments,  concerning  the  Great  Queftion  now 
 
 in  Difpute,  viz.  «  Whether  the  UfnKed  and  Unauthorized  Bap- 
 
 "  tifin  of  Laymen,  was  allow  d  [by  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church] 
 
 u  to  be  Valid*     Wherein  he  efta Millies  our  AfTertion,  189 
 
 CHAP.    VI. 
 
 T^  H  E  Ancient  Churches,  who  allow'd  of  Heretical  and  Schif- 
 
 matical  Baptifms,  did  not  reckon  thofe  Baptifms  to  have 
 
 been  Unauthorized,  Uncommi(fion  d,  Ant iEpif copal  Lay '-Baptifms \ 
 
 tho'  Mr.  Bingham  endeavours  to  make  them  look  as  fuch, 
 
 Of  the  Rite  of  Impofition  of  Hands,  whereby  repenting  Here- 
 ticks  and  Schifmaticks  were  receiv'd  into  the  Church,        208 
 
 CHAP.    VII. 
 
 A/Jr  Bingham*  Account  of  the  fuppofed  Praftice  of  Lay-Bap- 
 
 tifin  by  the  Modern  Greeks,  Mofcovites,  and  Foreign  Re- 
 
 form'd,  examin'd,  102 
 
 Of 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 Of  the  Modern  Greeks,  ibid. 
 
 Of  the  Mofcovitesy  240 
 
 Of  the  Foreign  Reformd,  246 
 
 CHAP.    VIIL 
 
 THE  whole  Evidence  of  Antiquity  fumm'd  up;  proving, 
 That  the  Far  Greater  Majority  of  Ancient  Teftimony,  is  a^ 
 gainft  all  Pretended  Baptifms  perform'd  by  Perfons,  who  ne- 
 ver were  Authoriz'd  by  Bifhops  to  Baptize ;  and  confequerttly, 
 that  fuch  Baptifms  are  not  Valid  by  any  Ecclefiaftical  Law, 
 Tradition,   or  Cuftom  of  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church, 
 
 2$9>  to  269 
 
 The  Conclufion,  containing  a  True  State  of  the  Queftion  about 
 Suppefed  Cafes  of  Necetfny,  where  Epifcopally  Authoriz'd  Bap- 
 tizers  are  not  to  be  had,  %6$ 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 PAge  3.  Line  29.  for  Baptifm*  read  Chriflian  Sacraments. 
 P.  56.  1.  the  laft,  /or,  by  Virtue  any>  ready  by  Virtue  of  any. 
 P.  $9.  1.  is.  read  Scholaflictl  Hiftory. 
 P.  117.  1- 19*  fir*  this  of  the  Invalidity,  read,  this  Applicable  to 
 
 the  Invalidity. 
 P.  i25.  In  the  Note  1. 4.  read,  eft  enim. 
 P.  127.  1.  2.  read,  do  not  aft.    L.  13.  read,  whom  you  do  not, 
 
 L.  1 5,  16,  22.  blot  out  « the  Double  Comma's. 
 P.  144.  I.22.  read  Fallacy. 
 
 P.  224.  L  2 1.    read  His  CoHeffion.  ^ 
 
 P.  269.  1.  5.  read,  I  have  faid.  ^ 
 
 P.  272.  1. 10.  read,  and  Deacons, 
 
'-&* 
 
 THE 
 
 SECOND    PART 
 
 O  F 
 
 . 
 
 Lay-Baptifm  Invalid 
 
 CHAP.    I 
 
 The  Occafipn  and   Nature   of  the 
 prefent  Difpute. 
 
 HAT  there  may  be  no  Miftake 
 in  the  Nature  and  Defign  of  this , 
 Controverfy,  the  Reader  is  de- 
 deftYd  to  bear  this  always  in 
 mind,  and  to  keep  his  Eye  con- 
 tinually upon  it  ^  That  the  Occafion  thereof  is 
 amoftNovel,  and  formerly  unheard  of,  Unchri-. 
 ftian  Ufurpation,  attempted  at  the  Reformation, 
 and  fince  that  time  to  this  day,  by  Men  who 
 never  received  any  Divine  Commiffion  -,  and  who 
 yet,  in  Oppofition  to,  and  Rebellion  againft,  their 
 Spiritual  Sovereigns,  refufing  to  receive  any  fuch 
 
2  The  Occasion  and,  Nature       Part  II. 
 
 Commifllon  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  Commiffion,  which 
 he  gives  to  Men  for  that  Purpofe  :  And  this  they 
 do,  not  upon  the  pretence  of  Neceffity,  arifing,  as 
 fome  fuppofe,  from  the  want  of  fuch  as  are  Com- 
 miffion'd,  but  in  an  ob  ft  mate  perverfe  Refinance 
 againft  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  Ufurping  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  Neceffity3  as  did  Corah  and  his 
 Company,  and  King  Uzziah  $  but  alfo,  when,  to 
 all  appearance,  they  had  a  fair  plea  of  Neceflity  to 
 ,excufe  their  Ufurpations,  if  That  could  be  an  Ex- 
 cufe,  as  we  fee  that  it  was  not  in  the  Cafes  of  Saul 
 and  Uzza. 
 
 §  III.  Hence  it  behoves  fuch  Ufurpers,  and  thofe 
 who  concurr  with,  abett,  and  encourage  their 
 Ufurpations,  ferioufly  to  confider  what  they  are 
 doing  3  and  upon  what  foundation  they  can  ven- 
 ture to  affirm  any  Validity  to  be  in  fuch  pretended 
 Minifl  rations  •,  when  God  himfelf  has  branded 
 ethers  like  their  s^  with  indelible  Marks  of  Infamy 
 
 and 
 
Chap,  i .        of  the  prefent  Difpute.  j 
 
 and  Reproach,  by  the  Everlafting  Sacred  Hiftory 
 of  his  Juft  Indignation  and  moil  Righteous  Ven- 
 geance againft  iuch  Uiurpers,  and  their  Encou- 
 ragers  and  Abettors. 
 
 §  IT.  It  was  this  Confederation,  that  at  firft 
 fet  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  upon  enqui- 
 ring, whether  God  has  a  kinder  Regard  for  fuch 
 Ufurpations  now,,  than  He  had  formerly  5  and 
 whether  He  will  now  admit  of  and  receive  as  good 
 and  valid,  the  pretended  Miniftration  of  Chriftian 
 Sacraments,  from  fuchUfurpers  Hands,  as  He  never 
 did  fo  much  as  once  Authorize,  CommifTion,  or 
 Impower  for  Sacred  Miniftrations,  fince  He  has 
 Ordain'd  and  Set  apart  a  particular  Order  of 
 Men,  whom  He  Veiled  with  his  own  Authority 
 for  (uch  Purpofes  ?  Upon  a  ferious  Enquiry  into 
 this  Matter,  and  a  deliberate  Search  into  the  Di- 
 vine Inftitution  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  as 
 much,  as  durable,  and  as  conftantly  an  obliging 
 Pofitive  Divine  Inftitution,  as  either  the  Matter  or 
 form  of  the  Sacraments  is  ;  and  that  confequently,  a 
 Miniftration  deftitute  of  either  of  thefe  latter,  which 
 is  fo  difpleafing  to  God,  as  to  be  therefore  whollyAfotf 
 and  Void -,  is,  but  an  Equal  Offence  againft  the  Infti- 
 tution of  Baptifm,  with  another  falfe  Miniftration 
 which  is  deftitute  only  of  the  Divine  Commiffion-,  and 
 that  therefore  this  latter,  where  there  is  no  Commif- 
 fion, is  as  much  Off  en  five  to  the  Divine  Majefty,  and 
 confequently  Null  and  Void,  as  the  other,  upon 
 the  very  fame  Reafon  and  Foundation  :  And  this, 
 with  refpecl  to  Baptifm,  he  has  endeavour'd  to 
 prove,  from  the  lntiitution  it f elf  of  Baptifm^  keep- 
 
 B  2  ing 
 
4         The  Occafwn  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  Lirinenfis\  Golden 
 Rule,  viz.  Tradit'w,  fenipEtj  ubique,  & ab  omnibus 
 credita^  to  prove  that  it  was  a  Catholick  Tradition, 
 always,  in  every  Place,  and  by  all  taught,  be- 
 liev'd,  and  pra&is'd,  at  leaft  by  the  generality  of 
 the  Ancient  Church,  viz*  That  the  Inftitution  of 
 Baptifm  does  not  hinder,  but  that  Perfons  who  were 
 never  Commiffion^  d  at  all  to  Baptize ',  may  adminifter 
 Legally  Valid  Baptifm  *,  I  fay,  Legally  Valid,  with 
 refpecl:  to  the  Divine  Law  5  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  performM  by  fuch  as 
 were  never  Commijjtcrfd  •,  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  j  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  Baptifm  re* 
 quires  the  Divine  Commiffion  of  the  Minifter  of  Bap- 
 tifm conftantly  to  accompany  the  Miniftration 
 thereof*,  and  becaufe  conftantly,  therefore,  that  the 
 Commiffion  is  Effential  to  the  Valid  Minifiration 
 thereof*,  Effential,  by  reafon  of  its  Equal  Obliga- 
 tion and  Neceflity  with  the  Matter  and  the  Form 
 by  the  Inftitution. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
Chap.  2.   Of  the  Afofloluk  Commiffion.,  Sec. 
 
 CHAP.    II. 
 
 Our  HifloriarPs  Account  of  the  Jpoftolick  Com- 
 mijjion  to  Baptize  ;  of  the  Conveyance^  and 
 confiant  Neceffity  thereof  to  the  End  of  the 
 World. 
 
 §  I.   "1      WE  firfi:  very  rightly  begins  with  the 
 
 I — I    Commiffion  given  to  the  Apoftles,  p.  2. 
 
 ML  JL   where  he  fays,   "  It  is  certain,  the 
 
 '*  Commiffion  to  Baptize^  was  Originally  given  by  our 
 
 "  Saviour  to  the  Eleven  Apoflles  *,  for  fo  it  is  ex- 
 
 "  pre/sly  faid^    Mat.  xxviii.  16,  &c.       Then  he 
 
 adds  ^  That  "  By  the  Tenor  of  this  Commiffion,  it  is 
 
 c  certain  they  were  invejied  with  Authority,  not  only 
 
 w  to  Baptize  themfelves^    but  to  communicate  tf)tj$ 
 
 "  Pofoet:  to  others :  For  the  Commilfion  ana 
 
 <c  POtMEt  of  Baptizing,  was  not  to  Die  with  them,  but 
 
 "  to  Continue  to  tije  Cnn  of  tlje  CKIotfo,  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  preffing  Neceffity  of  this, 
 he  urges  thus  ^  "  But  then  two  ^ueftions  arife  from 
 <c  hence:  Whom  they  atlually  SUltljOtfj'O  to  Baptize  ? 
 Cc  And  to  whom  they  gave  Commiffion  to  2Uttf)0){?C 
 cc  others  to  Baptize  1      for  (fays  he)  feptij  tfjefe 
 
 "things  were  Btttttwy,   to  P?eferse  tije 
 
 "  CljUtCl),  according  to  the  SDflltt  Of  C&tff,  at 
 "  leap:  in  jflltttte  Spg,  p.  3.  .  Pray  obferve 
 this,  for  'tis  a  granting  of  the  Thing  difputed  for, 
 
6  Of  the  Apoftolick  Commijfion^     Part  IL 
 
 viz.  That  the  Church  cannot  be  preferv'd,  Chri- 
 ftian  Baptifin  cannot  be  had,  without  the  Commijfion 
 to  Baptize  -,  for,  if  it  can,  then,  whom  the  Apcflles 
 actually  Authorized,  and  to  whom  they  gave  Commijfion 
 to  Authorize  others,  to  Baptize^  were  not  Necejjary  to 
 preferve  the  Church  :  For  where  lies  the  Neceihty, 
 if  it  can  be  preferv'd  without  the  Commiilion  to 
 Baptize  ?  But  this  Hiftorian  fays  they  were 
 'Necejjary  5  u  e.  the  Commiilion,  who  fhould  Bap- 
 tize3  was  Necejjary  to  preferve  the  Church,  accord- 
 ing to  the  Order  of  Chrift,  in  future  Ages.  And 
 this  amounts  to  no  lefs,  than  that  the  Commiifion 
 to  Baptize  was  Necejjary  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 
 A^  Commijfion,  there  is  no  Baptifm,  no  Church,  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  is  de- 
 ftructive  of  the  main  Defign  of  his  Hiftory, 
 and  fhews  that  the  Divine  has  the  better  of  the 
 Hiftorian. 
 
 k  II.  He  next  proceeds  to  Anfwer  the  Two  Que- 
 fiions  he  juft  now  propos'd,  and  proves,  firft,  That 
 the  Apoftles  gave  Commiilion  to  Bifhops,  Presby- 
 ters and  Deacons  to  Baptize  ;  — -  and  then  fays, 
 c  but  ftill  it  remains  a  Que  ft  ion, whether  they  extend- 
 "  ed  this  CommiJJion  to  any  others,  either  in  Ordi- 
 c-  nary  or  Extraordinary  Cafes,  p.  3.  He  fays, 
 "  The  Ancient  Author,  under  the  Name  of  St.  Am- 
 "  brofe,  was  of  Opinion,  That  the  Apoftles  firft  found 
 "  it  necejjary,  for  the  Augmentation  and  Encreafe 
 u  of  the  Church,  to  ©jaitt  a  General  Commijfion  to 
 iC  all  C&tfltan&  both  to  Teach  and  Baptize  *  but 
 
 V  as 
 
Chap.  2.      and  confiant  NeceJJlty  thereof.         j 
 
 n  as  Joon  as  that  ATeceffity  mas  over,  as  foon  as 
 "  the  World,  was  generally  Converted,  and  Churches 
 c'  e retted,  Governors  and  other  Officers  were  appointed 
 u  in  all  Churches,  and  then  this  General  Commijfion 
 "  toag  tt)itl)tl?atim  $  Jo  that  none,  even  among  the 
 "  Clergy,  was  to  p^fltUte  to  meddle  with  any  Office 
 "  to  which  he  ttJaiS  UOt  8pp0intCD*  Mr. Bingham 
 goes  on  with  his  Quotation,  thus  ;  "  Hence  it  came 
 4t  to  pafs,  that  neither  Deacons  were  allow  d  to 
 (c  Preach,  nor  the  Inferior  Clergy  nor  Lay- men  to 
 cc  Baptize,  p.  3  &  4.  But  the  Latin,  as  himfelf 
 quotes  it  in  the  Margin,  p.  3.  is,  "  Hinc  ergo  eft, 
 u  unde  tlUnC  neque  Diaconi  in  populo  Predicant,  neque 
 "  Clerici  velLaici  'Baptist*  t  All  in  the  Pre- 
 fent  Tenfe  -,  which  is  a  Proof  that  the  fuppofititious 
 St.Ambrofe  faid,  concerning  the  Time  that  he  lived 
 in,  Hence  it  comes  to  pafs,  that  J5otD  neither  Dea- 
 cons are  allowed  to  Preach,  nor  the  Inferior  Clergy 
 nor  Laymen  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  of  Rome ,  or  Remigius  of 
 Lyons,  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- 
 brofe,  That  the  Apoftles  did    at  firft  "  <55jattt   a 
 
 "  General  Commtttum  to  all  C&ittian0  both 
 
 <c  to  Teach  and  Baptize, "  true  or  no  ?  If  it  v/ere 
 true,,  would  all  the  Greek  and  Latin  Writers,  for 
 35>a  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  Ambrof  Com.  in  Ephef.  iv.  p.  9.18. 
 
 B  4  have 
 
8  Of  the  Apoftolick  Commiffiorj,      Part  IL 
 
 have  given  us  only  one  Quotationfrom  a  doubted  Au- 
 thor^ whofe  Ability  and  Veracity  both  are  very  juftly 
 fufpicious,  upon  the  account  of  his  Obfcurity,  his 
 great  Diftance  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.  Paul  have  given  us 
 reafon  to  believe  the  contrary,  by  affirming,  in 
 his  Days,  when  the  World  was  not  Generally  Con- 
 verted, An.  Chr.  $9.  That  God  —  fet  fome  in  his 
 Church,  firft  Apoftles^  fecondarily  Prophets,  thirdly 
 %LZfitt)Zt8  ^  upon  which  he  makes  this  Interroga- 
 tion — —  Are  all  Teachers  ?  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  29. 
 which  is  a  ftrong  Affirmation,  that  all  Chriftians 
 were  not  then  Teachers  •,  contrary  to  the  Opinion 
 of  the  fpurious  St.  Ambrofe,  that  the  Apoftles  did 
 at  firft  grant  a  general  Commiflion  to  all  Chri- 
 ftians to  Teach  ^  and  fince  he  is  wrong  in  this,  'tis 
 reafonable  to  believe  he  is  fb  in  the  other,  viz.  the 
 general  Commijfion  to  all  Chriftians  to  Baptize,  which 
 he  connects  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  lin- 
 gular with  refpeS  to  all  Antiquity  before  him,  in 
 the  other. 
 
 §  III.  After  this  Quotation  •,  Mr.  Bingham  fays, 
 concerning  the  Power  of  Baptizing  receiv'd  from 
 the  Apoftles,  by  way  of  Paraphraie  upon  his  Au- 
 thor's Words,  u  That  his  Author  feems  to  have  been 
 <c  of  Opinion,  that  —  as  \\Q  0!te  Catt  Ijafie  a 
 u  Tower  of  Baptizing,  but  He  that  receives,  fome 
 "  way  or  ether,  a  COnittliffiOtl  from  them,  [*.  e. 
 
 u  the 
 
Chap  2.      and  constant  NeceJJity  thereof.  9 
 
 the  Apoftles  \  ]  So,  &c.  p.  4.  This  is  our  Hi- 
 ftorian's  own  Comment  ;  and  I  defire  it  may  be 
 taken  the  more  notice  of,  becaufe  I  fhall  make  fome 
 further  Ufe  of  it  hereafter  -,  in  the  mean  time,  it 
 plainly  intimates,  in  conjunction  with  this  Quo- 
 tation, That  the  Commiflion  to  Baptize  Cftlt  OltlJ? 
 be  executed  by  the  Apoftles  and  their  SuccefTors, 
 and  fuch  as  are  appointed,  Authorized,  Imp  owe  rd 
 or  Commiffiotfd  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 
 Commijfiond :  And  whether  they  can  or  no,  I 
 trouble  not  my  felf^  but  leave  that  to  be  difputeti 
 between  Mr.  Bingham  and  his  Antagonist  the 
 Doctor  at  Greenwich,  Author  of  a  little  Pamphlet, 
 Intituled,  New  Dangers  to  the  Chrijiian  Priefthood, 
 (who  reckons  the  {landing  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  -,  (C  When  the  Neceffities  of  the  Church  re- 
 c  quired  it,  they  \_i.e.  the  Apoftles]  had  Power  to 
 "  Authorize  others^  be/ides  the  ft  an  ding  Minifters, 
 *  to  Baptize  ;  which  Power  they  both  might  and  did 
 c  recall  again,  as  Joon  as  thofe  Necejfities  of  the 
 "  Church  were  over :  And  upon  this  Principle  it 
 u  was,  chiefly,  that  the  Ancient  Bifhops  of  the  Church 
 c  allowed  Deacons  andjometimes  ^ay-men  to  Baptize^ 
 Zee.  p.  4.  But  our  Hiftorians  Author  has  not  prov'd 
 the  Truth  of  his  Opinion.  He  has  given  no  An- 
 cient Teftimony    of  the  "  Apoftle^s  Commijfioning 
 
 others  befides  the  Handing  Minifiers  to  Baptize": 
 This  pretended  Matter  of  Fact  is  fo  far  from  being 
 
 well 
 
I  o         Of  the  Apoflolick  Commiffion,     Pa  r  t  II. 
 
 well  attefted,  that  it  is  not  attefted  at  all  *  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  Fadt  only,  is  very 
 weak  and  precarious.    Befides,  why   are  Deacons 
 here  rank'd  with  Lay-men,  among  thofe  who  are 
 not  Jianding   Minijiers    to    Baptize  ?     Did    not 
 Mr.  Bingham  reckon  'em  before  as  Jianding  Mini- 
 flers  ?   p.  5.      How   (hall   we    account   for  thefe 
 things  >    But  further,  If  it  could  be  prov'd,  as  it 
 has  not  yet  been,  that  Bifhops  have  Power,  and  by 
 virtue  thereof  have  fometimes  allow'd  orauthoriz'd 
 Lay-men  to  Baptize,  "  when  the  Necejfities  of  the 
 M  Church  requird  it  ^ "    Is  it  not  a  jeft  to  talk  at 
 this  rate,  if  Lay-men  can  in  fuch  Cafes  "  have  a 
 "  Power  of  Baptizing  n  without  the  Bifhop s  Com- 
 tnijfion  ?    Either  fuch  Exigencies  alone  gave  them  a 
 Power,  or  they  did  not.     If  they  did,  then  they 
 flood  in  no  need  of  being  Authorized  by  Bifhops  5 
 and  fo  Bifhops  taking  upon  them  fo  to  Authorize 
 them^  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- 
 miifion,  they  would  have  exerted  no  Power  of  Bap- 
 tizing, and  fo  their  Ad  would  have  been  No  Bap- 
 tifm :    It  remains  then,  that  the  whole  Power  of 
 Legally   Valid  Baptifm  muft   be    refolv'd   into  the 
 CommiJJion  of  the  Baptizer,  in  conjunction  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  Principle^ 
 [of  the  Neceffity  of  the  Apoftolick  Commiflion  to 
 
 baptize] 
 
Chap.  2.      and  conftant  Necefjity  thereof.        1 1 
 
 Baptize]  it  will  be  impoffible  to  account  for  the 
 fratfife  of  all  the  Bifhops  of  the  Catholick  Church, 
 who  appropriate  to  themfelves  alone  the  Power  of 
 giving  others  Commijfion  to  Baptize. 
 
 §  V.  Mr.  Bingham  tells  us  next,  That  many 
 Parages  of  the  Ancient  Writers  "  fpeak  of  the  Ori- 
 *c  ginal  Power  of  adminijiring  Baptifm,  as  lodgd 
 "  fOtelP  ait&  entire!}?  in  the  hands  of  Bifhops,  as 
 "  the Apoft/es  immediate  Succeffors,  [This  is  ac- 
 knowledge] He  proceeds,  "  and  Derttatlfcelt? 
 *c  conveyed  from  them  to  others"  — ■  whom  they 
 <c  Authorized  to  be  either  the  ft  an  ding  and  Ordinary 
 <c  Minifters  of  Baptifm,  or  elfe  only  the  SDCCafiOttat 
 "  and  Extraordinary  Minifters  of  it,  in  Times  of  abfo- 
 <c  lute  NeceJJity,  and  great  Exigences  of  the  Church, 
 —  p.  ?.  This  of"  only  the  ©CCaODnal  and 
 "  Extraordinary  Minifters  of  Baptifin,  befides  Bi- 
 fhops, Priefts  and  Deacons,  who  are  the  "ftanding 
 *'  and  Ordinary  Minifters  rj  thereof,  he  has  not 
 yet  brought  Evidence  for.  Then  he  goes  on,  That 
 the  Antients  "  thought  Baptifm  Ct)ieflP  to  be  the 
 "  Bifhotfs  Office  -,  and  when  it  was  done  by  others,  it 
 "  was  ftiU  D0He  b?  Jjtg  attttWitp,  and  reputed 
 u  aS  1)13  SlCt  -,  which  he  alfo  Ratified  as  Occafwn 
 *  required,  by  adding  what  was  wanting  \W  tl)Z 
 "  CttCUttlflanCeS  of  the  Solemnity,  m  a  fubfeauent 
 w  Confirmation,  p.  8.  This  is  very  Right,  they 
 did  think  fo,  and  the  Bifhop  did  fo  Ratifie  and 
 Confirm  what  was  wanting  in  the  CitCltnittatlCe^ 
 of  the  Solemnity,  but  never  what  was  wanting  of 
 the  EJfentials  relating  to  the  Sacrament,  "  in  a 
 "  fubfequent  Confirmation^  Let  our  Hiftorfan 
 produce  any  ancient  Inftances  of  thefe  latter  fort 
 of  pretended  Confirmations,  if  he  is  able  •,  which 
 he  has  not   yet  done.    And  the  Commiflion  to 
 
 Baptize, 
 
12         Of  the  Jpojlolick  Commijfion^      Pa  r  t  II. 
 
 Baptize,  is  not  a  Circumftantial,  but  an  Effential 
 relation  to  Baptifm. 
 
 §  VI.  He  fays,  That  this  Point  was  clear  among 
 
 '  them  beyond  all  Difpute,  That  Presbyters  had  only 
 
 a  Derivative  and  Subordinate  Power  to  Bapthe  as 
 
 well  as  others,    and  fo   long  as  they  kept  to  this 
 
 c  Rule,  their  Baptifms  were  Regular  and  Lawful,  as 
 
 ?  done  in  Conformity  to  the  Eftablijh'd  Rules  and 
 
 *  Orders  of  the  Church  :  But  if  they  fet  themf elves 
 "  in  Oppofition  to  their  Bifhop,  and  either  atfed  with- 
 u  out  or  againft  his  Confent,  80  9t)f0lUtC  attQ  3|lt* 
 
 <  BepenBettt  of  him,  then  their  Baptifms  and  all 
 "  their  other  Offices  were  Irregular  andUnlawful5 
 cc  becaufe  done  in  a  Schifmatical  Way,  and  in  a  pro- 
 w  fejsa  Contempt  of  Authority,  and  all  the  flanding 
 
 *  Rules  and  haws  of  the  Church,  p.  9,  10. 
 
 This  of  Presbyters  Derivative  and  Subordinate 
 Power  to  Baptize,  is  not  to  be  deny'd  :  But  then 
 it  is  to  be  enquir'd,  What  Presbyters  among  the 
 Antients  did  ever  offer  to  Baptize,  as  2lt)foJtttC 
 
 ano  3fnneperment  of  T5tfl)op0 1  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, yet  their  Irregularity  and  Unlawfulnefs  had  a 
 reference  only  to  the  Grcumjlantial  Rules  and  Laws 
 of  the  Church  •  as  a  Baptifm  adminifter'dbyaPrieft, 
 with  us,  in  a  Private  Houfe,  where  there  is  no 
 Neceflity  for  fuch  Private  Baptifm,  may  be  call'd 
 Irregular  and  Unlawful,  becaufe  contrary  to  the 
 Church's  Rubrick  5  it  may  be  fairly  aggravated  to 
 fuch  a  pitch,  as  to  be  affirm'd  to  be  cc  in  Oppofition 
 a  to  the  B{fhop,  and  without  or  againft  his  Confent ." 
 And  yet  all  this  is  but  a  Orcumftantial  Irregularity, 
 
 which 
 
<t 
 
 Chap.  2.     and  ccnfkant  Neceffity  thereof.         1 3 
 
 which  is  certainly  a  great  Sin,  but  yet  not  fuch 
 a  one  as  that  which  is  an  Effential  Irregularity,  or 
 breach  of  the  Effential  Law  orlnditution  of  Baptifm. 
 
 This  anfwers  what  our  Author  fays,  "That  a 
 "  plain  Dijiinclion  mujl  needs  have  been  made  always, 
 tc  between  the  SiCtCgUlaritP  and  the  SiittmliMtP 
 "  of  any  Baptifm  •,  fince  the  want  of  a  Lawful  Com- 
 *  miffion  and  Authority  would  render  the  A3:  of  Ad- 
 miniftration  Sinful  and  Irregular^  but  not  absolute- 
 ly Invalid^  p.  10.  For  here  he  begs  the  Que- 
 ftion,  as  if  want  of  Commiffion  for  fome  Circum- 
 ftance  relating  to  Baptifm,  were  exa&ly  the  fame 
 
 as  iuant  of  Commtroon  to  'Bapttf  e  *  or  as  if 
 
 an  Officer  Commiffion  d  to  Baptize,  but  reftrain'd 
 from  Executing  his  Comiffion  by  fome  Ecclefiaftical 
 Law  refpedting  fome  particular  Circumftances, 
 were  but  equal  in  Authority  and  Power  to  Bap- 
 tize, with  One  who  never  receiv'd  any  Commiffion 
 or  Authority  to  adminifter  that  Sacrament  at  all ; 
 Juft  as  if  a  Man  fhould  fay,  that  the  Irregularity 
 of  a  Lay-Perfon's  Walhing,  who  never  was  at  all 
 in  any  refpect  whatfoever  Commiffion'd  to  Bap- 
 tize, is  but  of  the  fame  Nature  with  that  Irregula- 
 rity which  a  Prieft  Commiffion'd  to  Baptize  com- 
 mits, when  he  executes  his  Commiffion  with  fome 
 finful  Circumftance,  contrary  to  the  Injunction 
 or  particular  Licence  of  his  Bilhop  for  that  parti- 
 cular Occafion  -,  thus  confounding  Circumftantial 
 with  Effential  Irregularities  :  And  without  making 
 this  NecefTary  Diftin&ion, 
 
 §  VII.  He  next  tries,  "  How  it  came  to  pafs, 
 a  that  Baptifm  mimjlred  by  a  Presbyter  Illegally  and 
 cc  without  Commiffion,  [as  he  calls  it]  was  never* 
 cc  thelefs  efteem'd  Valid,  notwithstanding  the  Sinful" 
 "  nefs  of  the  %t  Of  ^MtCtrattOH  ? 
 
 But 
 
14        Of  the  Apftolick  Commijfion^      Pa  rt  II. 
 
 But  in  his  ftating  of  this  Queftion,  he  is  very 
 uncorrect,    nay,  unintelligible  $    he  fpeaks  of  a 
 
 $lt$byuz  tuttfjout  Conmitfliotn    who  can 
 
 underftand  this  ?  If  he  is  a  Presbyter,  then  hetay  <z 
 Commijfion  -,  for  'tis  only  his  having  a  CommiiTion 
 that  makes  him  a  Presbyter  •,  and  when  he  has  no 
 Commijfion,  or  is  without  a  Commijfion,  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  Commiffion,  and  yet <c  without  a  Commijfion  "  ^ 
 "  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  tflttf}- 
 OUt  CGmmtfiJort)  he  may  mean,  fuch  a  Baptifm 
 as  is  miniftred  by  a  Presbyter  who  is  Commiflion'd 
 by  his  Bifhop  to  Baptize  5  but  he  does  it  in  fuch 
 a  Circumftance  for  which  Circumftance  he  receivd 
 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  efteem'd  Valid  > 
 
 There  is  another  thing  which  wants  to  be  cleared 
 in  his  Wording  the  Queftion,  and  that  is  this  -, 
 What  he  means  by  tfje  ©mfUittefSl  Of  tlje  M  Of 
 30tmftrat!Ott  t  For  a  Presbyter  or  Prieft's  Aft 
 of  Baptifm,  as  fuch,  h  not  a  Sinful  Aff,  when  it 
 has  all  the  Eflentials  relating  to  Baptifm.  The 
 All  of  Mini  ft  ration  is  good  in  itfelf^  all  the  Sin  is 
 only  in  the  Circumftance  that  attends  the  Act :  So 
 that  by  "  the  Smfulnefs  of  the  Atl  ofMinfiration, 53 
 I  believe  our  Author  here  means,  the  Smfulnefs  of  that 
 Circumftance  which  accompanies  the  Act  of  Mini- 
 ftration.  With  Submiffion,  I  think,  thefe  things 
 ought  to  have  been  more  clearly  exprefs'd,  becaufe 
 
 very 
 
Chap.  2.     and  conftant  Neceffity  thereof.         1 5 
 
 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  has/0  darkly  proposed 
 to  refolve. 
 
 §  VIII.    We  come  now  to  fee  how  he  refolves 
 this  Queftion  ^  and  firft,  he  difapproves  of  doing 
 it,  by  fuppofing  an  indelible  Character  and  Power  in 
 the  Priefthood,  which  is  faid  by  the  School-men  to 
 be  "  given  to  a  Fresbyter  at  his  Ordination ,  by  which 
 "  they  think  aU  his  minijierial  Atfs  ftand  good,  tho 
 u  done  in  an  irregular  Manner  againft  the  Laws  and 
 "  Canons  of  the  Church  $  and  that  a  Prieft  cannot  be 
 "  divefted  of  this  Power  after  he  is  once  legally  Or- 
 u  dained  to  it"    Now  as  to  this  indelible  Character 
 which  our  Hiftorian  argues  againft,  I  find  no  ne- 
 ceffity to  take  either  Side  of  the  Queftion  ^  Whether 
 there  is  an  abfolutely  indelible  CharaSer  and  Power 
 conferr'd  on  Priefts  in  a  valid  Ordination,  or  whe- 
 ther there  is  not  >  This  will  not  touch  the  Truth  I 
 am  concern'd  for,  whether  they  have  it3  or  have 
 it  not  ^  only  I  muft  make  fome  Obfervations  upon 
 Mr.  Bingham's  fuppofed  Reafons,  againft  the  An- 
 tients  allowing  the  Baptifm  peribrm'd  by  fuch  dif- 
 orderly  Priefts  to  be  good  and  valid  upon  the  Ac- 
 count of  their  indelible  Character. 
 
 And  firft  he  fays,  That  the  Antients  "  did  not 
 u  Juppofe  Baptifm  founded  wholly  upon  J^aCCtBOtftl^ 
 "  ppUietjS>  nor  tied  fo  abfolutely  to  the  Office  of  a 
 "  Prieft,  but  that  it  might  in  ordinary  Cafes  alfo  be 
 "  adminifteSd  by  DeaCOttg,  if  they  had  the  Btjhofs 
 Commifjion  ♦,  and  by  Lay-men  in  extraordinary  Cafes 
 *  of  pr effing  -Neceffity,  tf  tltf?  fmD  tfje  TBiftOp'jS 
 
 "  iUcenfe  mro  autijojttp  to  do  it,  ai  wejhau/ee 
 
 "  here- 
 
1 6        Of  the  Apoftolick  Commijjlon^      Pa  r  t  II. 
 
 "  hereafter,  fays  our  Author?  p.  10.  In  giving  this 
 his  fuppos'd  Reafon,  he  has  committed  feveral 
 Miftakes  \  for  firft,  his  AfTertion,  that  the  Antients 
 did  not  fuppofe  Baptifm  to  be  founded  wholly  upon  Sa- 
 cerdotal Power  s,\s  inconfiftent  with  what  he  had  faid 
 before,  z;/^.  That"  the  Commijjion  and  Power  [given 
 "  the  Apoftles]  to  Baptize,  was  tO  COMMlte  t0 
 "  tljeCnn  Of  t&e  pi(J?I0  ?'  That  £C  whom  they 
 a  authorized  to  Baptize,  and  to  whom  they  gave  Com- 
 *c  mijjion  to  authorize  others  to  Baptize?  were  both 
 "  of  them  "  IteCCflTarp  tO  p?£feL*iie  the  Church 
 f  according  to  the  (B$)Zt  Of  Cljtlft  in  future  Ages? 
 
 p.  2.  "  That  no  one  can  ija&e  a  potoec  of 
 
 .,  Baptizing,  but  he  that  receives  fome  way  or  other 
 "  a  CommtfflOn  from  them?  i.  e.  the  Apoftles, 
 p.  4.  tc  That  the  Original  JE>0tUCt  of  adminijlring 
 cc  Baptifm?  —  is—  "  lodgdfolely  and  entirely  in  the 
 
 *c  Hands  of  Bi/hops?  p.  5. That  "  when  it  was 
 
 u  done  by  others,  it  was  fill  done  by  hk,  the  Bijhofts, 
 "  Authority,  and  reputed  as  hk  All,  *  p.  8.  All 
 which  was  plainly  founding  Baptifm  wholly  upon 
 Sacerdotal  Power j-,  if  the  Apoftolick  Commiffion, 
 Epifcopal  Authority,  and  the  Bifhop's  AS,  can  be 
 called  Sacerdotal,  and  if  no  one  can  have  a  Power  of 
 Baptizing  without  it.  But  ttOtD)  indeed,  'tis  other- 
 wife  with  our  Hiftorian,  becaufe  he  likes  not  the 
 indelible  Character  of  the  Priefthood.  <c  The  An- 
 "  tients  did  not  fuppofe  Baptifm  wholly  founded  upon 
 "  Sacerdotal  Powers?  they  did,  and  they  did  not  $ 
 I  am  forry  for  the  Occafion  of  this  Remark. 
 idly,  His  here  reckoning  3D0aCOH0  among  fuch  as 
 have  not  Sacerdotal  Powers,  by  making  their  Bap- 
 tizing an  inftance  that  Baptifm  was  not  by  the  An- 
 tients wholly  founded  upon  Sacerdotal  Powers,  is 
 another  Inconfiftence  with  himfelf^  for  in  his  Ori- 
 gines9  Vol.  I.  p>  2jo,  251.  he  fhews,  That  ?  Op* 
 
 tatus 
 
Chap.  2.     and  conflant  NeceJJity  thereof.         17 
 
 "  tatus  gives  all  the  Three  Orders  of  Bijhops, 
 "  Presbyters  and  DeaCOllg,  the  Title  of  pjtefc 
 <c  JjOOp;  "—That,  "  according  to  bmr  every  (DfOZt 
 cc  W  //j  Share  tho  in  different  Degrees  in  the  Cbri- 
 cc  ftian  Priefihood:"  That  "Bijhops,  Presbyters 
 c;  and  IDEflCQHg  /W  ^w'&  f^***  refpeSive  Share  in 
 cc  /fo  Priejihood:  "  Tfe/  1/  way  0tf<?  iiff  0/  rfe 
 cc  P?ieft'0  ©ffi'Ce  /*  #<rr  *p  the  Sacrifices  of  the 
 "  Peoples  Prayers^ "  &c.  And  that  "  another  AS 
 "  0/  fife  0$a'  [/.*.  the  Prieft's  Office]  war  in 
 "  God's  Name  to  blefs  the  People,  particularly  ly 
 cc  admitting  them  to  the  Benefit  of  RemiJJion  of  Sins \ 
 "  by  Spiritual  Regeneration  or  TSapttfm  X  That 
 "  thus  far  IDCOCQttjS  were  anciently  allowed  to  mi- 
 "  nifier  in  Holy  Things,  as  £?9eGtatO?£  between 
 "  Gtfi  and  the  People*— —  And  Laftly,  in  his  2d 
 Vol.  Chap.  1 .  where  he  is  (hewing,  how  the  infe- 
 rior Orders  of  the  Clergy,  in  the  Primitive  Church, 
 "  differ ld  from  the  fUpettO?  Orders  of  Bijhops,  Pres- 
 <c  bytersandlD2&tQ\\$>"  He  fays  of  thefe  fuperior 
 Orders,  p.  9,  10.  That  they  are  by  the  Antients 
 call'd  "  Holy  and  Sacred,  the  |)ierarC|)P  :  "~^-~ 
 That  "  they  were  always  ordain  d  at  the  Altar,  "— 
 with  the  Solemn  Rite  of  cc  Impofition  of  Hands,  " — 
 ;c  to  minifter  before  God  as  |j3^tc!t05 *  in  which  re- 
 fpects,  cc  2)£clCOU0  are  faid  by  Optatus  and  others, 
 ■  to  have  their  Share  and  Degree  in  the  Chri ftian 
 "  P^teflljODll  :  "  And  Mr.  Bingham  quotes  the  Re- 
 verend and  Learned  Dr.  HicAs's  Opinion  to  the 
 fame  Purpofe,  without  gain- faying  it,  Vol  1.  p.  2$  r. 
 But  notwithftanding  all  this,  our  Hiftorian  fo  far 
 forgets  his  Origines,  as  now,  to  make  Deacons  Bap- 
 tizing, an  Inftance  of  Perfons  Baptizing,  without 
 Sacerdotal  Powers :  May,  Thirdly,  even  his  intro- 
 ducingBaptifm  by  u  Lay-men  in  extraordinary  Cafes, 
 iC  if  they  had  the  T5i(i)np'0  9ttt!}0Htp  *  "  as  another 
 
 C  fo- 
 
1 8         Of  the  ApoftolickCommiffion,    Part  IL 
 
 Inftance  of  Perfons  Baptizing  without  Sacerdotal  Pow- 
 ers, is  another  Contradidtion  to  what  he  had  faid  be- 
 fore, p.  8.  viz.  "  That  when  [TDapttfttt]  was  done  by 
 cc  fltfjCl  05  //  was  fill  done  by  the  Bi/hofs  atttljOUtp, 
 <c  and  reputed  his  SlCf  "  Now  the  Bifhop's  3(t3 1  hope, 
 is  a  Sacerdotal  Power  ;  and  if  a  Lay-man  can  be  fb 
 far  author  iz'd  by  his  Biihop,  as  that  the  Lay-man's 
 AS  o/Baptifm  Ihall  be  reputed  to  be  the  'BffljOP'jS 
 Sltf^  Is  not  tlmfuppofed  Baptifm  founded  upon  a  Sa- 
 cerdotal Power,  when  the  Baptifm  by  fuch  a  Lay- 
 man (if  there  can  be  fuch  a  one)  is  the  Bijhofis 
 Aft?  Again,  the  Reverend  Hiftorian  in  hisOrigines, 
 Vol.  i.  p.  42.  has  been  fo  kind  to  Lay-miniftrations, 
 as  to  tell  us,  without  endeavouring  to  refute  the 
 Notion,  that  Tertullian  grants  no  other  P?i€fff}00ll 
 to  Lay-men,  faitf  u  that  they  may  OSc!ptt?0  in  Cafe 
 "  ofabjolute  Necejfity,  &c."  Thefe  are  our  Hifto- 
 rian's  own  Words, tc  No  other  y£>#Zftl)OtiO,fave  that, 
 t%  they  may  T5nptt?C  > n  which  is  plainly  to  make  the 
 Power  of  Baptizing,  a  Power  of  Pjt'eff  IjOCD.  Let 
 Tertullian  s  Opinion  about  Lay-men  be  true  or  falfe 
 for  the  prefent  ^  Mr.  Bingham  here  makes  Baptifm 
 to  be  one  Part  of  Priefthood,  by  faying,  "  No  other 
 
 p?tcff6oou,  fave  t?mt  t&ep  map  T3aptt?e: "  And 
 
 therefore,  if  Lay-men  "  may  Baptize,  M  they  there- 
 in have  one  Power  of  Priefthood  at  lean:,  according 
 to  our  Author  in  his  Origines;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
 in  his  Scholaftical  Hijlory,  their  Baptizing  even  with 
 the  Bijhop's  Authority,  is  an  Inftance  of  Baptifm  not 
 founded  on  a  Sacerdotal  Power:  Thefe  things  do  not 
 hang  well  together.  However,  I  charitably  hope,  they 
 are  but  meer  Slips,  the  Effects  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,  perform'd 
 
 by 
 
Chap.  2.     and  constant  Nscejjity  thereof.         r^ 
 
 by  irregular  Friefts,  to  be  founded  on  their  indelible 
 Character,  is  this,  p.  io,  n.  "  The  indelible  Cha- 
 "  ratter  of  a  Frieft,  dos  not  authorize  or  qualifie 
 "  him  to  aft  contrary  to  the  Commiffion  ofhk  Bijhop: 
 "  Far  then  his  Baptizing  would  be  authorized  and 
 c'  unauthorised^  regular  and  irregular,  lawful  and 
 "  unlawful,  at  the  jame  Time,  and  in  the  very  fame 
 "  Aft andRefpeft,  which  is  a  manif eft  Contradiction. 
 
 In  this  there  is  a  great  deal  of  Art,  but  no  good 
 Reafoning  ;  for  an  irregular  Friefts  Aft  of  Baptizing 
 limply  confider'd,  is  not  contrary  to  the  Commiffion 
 of  hk  Bijhop,  but  'tis  doing  exactly  that  which  his 
 Bifhop  commiffion'd  him  to  do,  when  he  Baptizes 
 with  Water,  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  and  when 
 his  Commiffion  was  not  before  made  Null  and 
 Void  by  that  Power  which  vefted  him  with  it :  He 
 commits  fome  Irregularity  indeed  againft  the 
 Laws  of  the  Church  ♦,  but  his  Power  to  Baptize,  if 
 'tis  not  nulfd,  ftill  remains,  and  therefore  in  Bap- 
 tizing, he  acls  nothing  without,  or  contrary  to  the 
 Bifiop's  Commiffion  to  Baptize,  wherewith  he  ftill 
 remains  invefted :  He..rehels  againft  his  Bifhop  by 
 Baptizing  in  fome  prohibited  Circumftance,  by  ex- 
 ercifing  his  Function  illegally  ^  and  in  fo  doing 
 oppofcs  the  Laws  of  the  Church,  as  a  Prieft  of  the  * 
 Church _of  England  do's,  when  he  un'neceifarily  Bap- 
 tizes in  private  Houfes,  or  when  he  Baptizes  Chil- 
 dren without  God-fathers  and  God-mothers,  or 
 when  he  ufes  the  Publick  inftead_  ofjhe  Private 
 Form  irTI-toufes :  But  his  Sin  is  not  againft  his  Bi- 
 IhopsCommiffion  it  felf  to  Baptize,  but  againft 
 fome  Circumftantial  Law  relating  to  the  Execution 
 of  the  Commiifion.  So  that  his  Act  of  Baptizing 
 is  not,  as  Mr.  Bingham  fays,  both  authoriz'd  and 
 unauthorizd,  for  'tis  authoriz'd  *,  but  the  Circum- 
 ftance that  attends  it,  is  unauthorizd.    The  Bap- 
 
 C  2  tifm 
 
2o         Of  the  Apoflolick  Commiffwn,    Part  II. 
 
 tifm  it  felf  is  regular,  becaufe  done  by  virtue  of  a 
 Commiflion  ifall  remaining  •,  but  the  Circumftance 
 is  irregular,  becaufe  againft  a  Circumftantial  Rule. 
 And  the  Baptifm  it  felf  is  lawful,  becaufe  no  other 
 than  commiffion'd  Baptifm  \  but  the  Circumftance 
 unlawful,  becaufe  contrary  to  a  Circumftantial  Law, 
 as  is  plain  by  the  above-mention'd  Inftance  of  an 
 irregular  Prieft  of  the  Church  of  England's  illegally 
 executing  his  Commiflion  to  Baptize.  So  that  the 
 manifeft  Contradiction  Mr.  Bingham  talks  of,  as 
 ariflng  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 
 Baptifm,  by  fuch  a  Prieft,  is  not  6€  both  authorized 
 
 c  and  unauthorized,  regular  and  irregular,  lawful 
 cc  and  unlawful,  at  the  fame  Time,  and  in  the  very 
 "  fame  Afi  and  Refpetf : "  For  the  Serp  filtt1£  M 
 is  even  at  that  ffttttC  tftttC  authorized^  regular,  and 
 lawful  in  it  felf,  becaufe  commiffion'd  -,  but  the  Cir- 
 cumftance only,  is  unauthorized^  irregular  and  un- 
 lawful The  Irregularity  is  not  ad  idem,  fecundum 
 idem,  &  eodem  refpetfu,  and  therefore  no  Contra- 
 diction ^  that  is,  the  A3  it  felf  being  commifftond,  is 
 right  ^  but  the  Circumftance  which  accompanies  the 
 Act  is  wrong:  And  therefore  the  Adt  it  felf  ftands 
 good  and  valid,  tho'  the  Circumftance  attending  it 
 ought  fjncerejy^to  be_repented^  of^by  all  that  are 
 any  wa}^s  concern'd  in  it,  which  implies  no  Con- 
 tradiction at  all. 
 
 Our  Hiftorian,  if  he  would  have  done  any  thing  here 
 tothePurpofe,fnould  haveproduc'd  Authorities  from 
 thofe  Antients,  who  allowed  of  the  Validity  of  Bap- 
 tifm in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  adminiftred  by 
 heretical,  fchifmatical,  and  other  irregular  Priefts-, 
 I  fay,  he  fhouid  have  given  us  a  Hiftory  of  fuch  An- 
 tients, nulling  and  making  void  the  Commiflion  of 
 
 thofe 
 
Chap,  2.      and  confiant  Necejfity  thereof.       21 
 
 thofe  Priefts  during  their  Herefy,  Schifm,  or  other 
 Irregularity  ^  or  he  ihould  have  given  us  Inftances 
 from  fuch  Antients,  that  they  judg'd  fuch  Priefts 
 Commiifions  to  be  made  null  and  void  by  their 
 Herefy,  Schifm,  or  Irregularity  it  felf  5  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  Validity  of  thofe  Baptifms,  did  alio 
 acknowledge  the  Holy  Orders  of  the  Baptizers,  and 
 efteem'd  their  Epifcopal  Ordination  to  be  good  and 
 valid- — Witnefs  the  Council  of  Nice,  Anno  325. 
 which  decreed  concerning  theNovatian  Schifmaticks, 
 who  came  over  to  the  Catholick  and  Apoftolick 
 Church,  thus-,  "  C&EP  tDf)0  tltC  OfOailVXl  fljclll 
 "  CCmttttUe  ItttJje  CfetgP*  *  "  Or,  as  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham himfelf  words  it,  Scholaftical  Hiftoiy,  p.  92. 
 "  The  Great  Council  of  Nice  decreed,  That  upon 
 c  their  retu?-n  to  the  Church,  theyfljould  continue  in 
 u  the  fame  Station  and  Clerical  Degrees  they  were 
 c  in  before^  only  receiving  a  re  conciliatory  Impofition 
 "  of  Hands,  by  way  of  Abfoluticn."  u  Thefe  Puri- 
 c  tans  were  not  only  Orthodox  as  to  their  Faith, 
 c  but  they  retained  Epifcopal  Ordination  ;  therefore 
 c  Orders  receiv'd  among  them,  were  not  look'd 
 •c  upon  as  Null  or  Invalid.  "  And  <c  the  Church  of 
 cc  Africa  \  allowed  the  Ordinations,  at  well  oj  Bap- 
 "  tifms  "  of  the  Donatift  Schifmaticks,  who  alio  re- 
 tain'd  Epifcopacy  to  be  valid.  All  which  plain- 
 ly fhews,  that  thofe  ancient  Churches,  who  efteem'd 
 the  Baptifms  we  fpeak  of  to  be  valid,  did  alfb 
 
 *  Canon  8.    according  to  Balfamon,  and  Zonaras,    and  Br(l:op 
 Eeveridge;  vid.  Clergyman's  Vadc-Mecum,  Pan.  2.  p.  48. 
 
 f  African  Cede,  in  the  Clergv  man's  Vade-Me<.um,  Canon  63, 
 ,69,3c  1 18. 
 
 C  3  reckon 
 
2  2         Of  the  Jpoftolick  Commiffwri)     P  K  r  t  II. 
 
 reckon  the  Prieftly  Character  of  thofe  Schifmatical 
 Clergy-men,  who  perform'd  them,  to  be  at  leaft 
 fb  far  Indeleted,  as  that  they  did  not  lofe  that 
 Sacred  Character,  even  in  their  Schifm  -,  That  the 
 Schifin  it  felf  did  not  blot  it  out,  but  that  it  ftill 
 remain'd  upon  them  \  otherwife  they  could  not 
 have  admitted  them  to  Continue  or  Remain  among 
 the  Clergy,  upon  their  Converfion,  as  they  cer- 
 tainly did,  toitljout  Ee*flD?Witatfo!n 
 
 For  thefe  Reafons,  'tis  plain,  that  thofe  Antients 
 reckoned  the  Character  of  the  Priefthood  to  be  In- 
 deleted,  fo  long  as  it  wa3  not  actually  Blotted 
 out  or  Taken  away  by  that  very  Authority,  i.  e. 
 the  Epifcopal  Power  which  at  firft  gave  it :  And 
 therefore  all  Mr.  Binghanh  Arguings,  againft  thofe 
 Antients  founding  the  Validity  of  Baptifms  (per- 
 formed by  fuch  Irregular  Priefts)  upon  their  fo- 
 delible  Character,  amount  to  nothing  •,  becaufe, 
 tho'  Priefts  fhould  be  prov'd,  not  to  have  an  abfO= 
 
 iutclp  33n5eltbie  C&acacte^  yet  fo  long  as  their 
 
 Sacerdotal  Character  is  not  Deleted  by  the  Authority 
 which  gave  it,  it  muft  remain  Indeleted,  as  it  did  in 
 the  Cafe  before  us,  except  our  Hiftorian  can  find 
 fome  other  way,  whereby  they  may  be  deprived  of  it, 
 and  which  thofe  Antients  acknowledg'd  did  actual- 
 ly 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  h  he  tells  us,  cc  That  the  Irre- 
 6C  gular  Baptifms  of  fuch  Priefts,  being  efteemd 
 "  Valid,  fo  as  not  to  be  repeated,  tho  Irregularly 
 c  and  Unlawfully  given,  could  not  be  thought  Valid, 
 u  upon  the  Notion  of  their  being  once  Ordain  3, 
 'A  Priefts,    and  having  mi  WNOtUtAl  CgatnCteC 
 
 "  of 
 
Chap.  2.     and  conft ant  Neceffity  thereof         25 
 
 c  of  the  Prieflhood    upon   them  ;    but  upon  fome 
 c  other  Notion  and  Foundation,  which  equally  ex- 
 "  tended  to  DeaCOtlg  as  well  as  PW&&  h    and 
 u  inade  the  Baptifm  of  a  Deacon,  the 1  Irregularly  and 
 w  Unlawfully  perform  d,  as  Valid  as  that  of  a  Prieft, 
 x  in  the  fame  Circumstances :    And  that  ttltlft  JlE 
 c  (fays  he)  upon  one  of  thefe  two  Grounds,  either., 
 cc  That  Baptifm,  t)£  MjOtnfOtffcC  CfrtiftUm  per- 
 cQ  formd,  was  Valid,  and  not  to  be  repeated,  pro- 
 <c  vided  it  was  done  with  due  Matter  and  form :    Or 
 "  elfe,  That  the  Bifhops  of  the  Church,  as  Chief  Mi- 
 *c  nifters  of  Baptifm,  had  Power  to  Receive  and  Con- 
 cc  firm  thofe  Baptifms,  which  were  otherw'ife  Irre- 
 "  gularly,  and  in  Oppofition  to  their  Authority  and 
 u  CommiJJion,  performed  in  the  Church,   p.  11,  12. 
 Here  we  fee  again  confirm'd,  what  I  obferv'd  be- 
 fore, That  our  Hiftorian  feparates  Deacons,  from 
 fuch  as  have   the  Character  of  Prieflhood  ^    and 
 thereby  contradicts  himfelf :  See  p.  17.  before.    But 
 the  Defign  of  this  is  plain,  by  his  Two  propofed 
 Guefles,  which  are  evidently  made  to  promote  the 
 Belief  of  One  of  thefe  Ttvo  Things  h    ifl,  That 
 thofe  Antients  reckon  d  Baptifm    perform'd   with 
 Water,  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  by  any  Chri- 
 ftian,  tho'  never  Commijfiorfd  to  Baptize,  was  Good 
 and  Valid,  (not  excepting  Apoftate  or  Excommu- 
 nicate Chriftians)    nay,   even  tho'  it  were  done 
 by  fuch  Uncommijfiond  Perfons,  in  Oppofition  to 
 the  Divine  Right  of  the  Apoftolick  Order,  i.e.  Epi- 
 fcopacy  •,    for,  he  fays,  "  top  ltrt)Omftl£ia  C(M* 
 fllilll  performed  :  Which  is  a  Latitude  of  that  vaft 
 Extent,  that  it  fufficiently  juflifies  the  Severity  of 
 my  Obfervation. 
 
 But  then,  if  this  mould  fail,  and  fuch  Bap- 
 tifins  be  prov'd  Null  and  Void,  then  he  reckons, 
 2dfy,  That  Bifhops  might  Confirm  and  t&etefcp 
 
 C  4  make 
 
24        Of  the  Apoftolick  Commiffwn,    Part  IL 
 
 make  fuch  Baptifms  to  become  Valid.  If  One  of 
 thefe  Two  be  not  his  Defign,  then  he  defigns  no- 
 thing at  all  ♦,  and  fo  might  have  ipar'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  muft  bring  better 
 Evidence  for  the  Truth  thereof,  than  has  yet  been 
 produc'd,  or  than  what  his  Scholaftical  Hiftory 
 can  furnilh  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  5 
 "  But  {jOtUeiei:  tttDaSJ,  (fays  he)  this  is  certain, 
 u  That  the  Validity  of  an  Irregular  PrieJFs  Baptifm^ 
 *c  vcas  not  owing  to  his  Indelible  Char  after  •,  fince  the 
 u  Baptifm  of  JDeftCOHlS)  and  Lay-men  who  had  not 
 <c  the  Char  after  of  Priefts,  was  fome  times  authorized 
 "  and  allow  d  as  Valid -?  which  is  evident  from  plain 
 cc  Matters  of  Fa  ft,  which  I  now  proceed  to  give  a 
 "  further  Account  of  (fays  our Hiftorian,  p.  12. — ) 
 Upon  which  'tis  very  remarkable,  that  hitherto 
 he  befit ates  concerning  the  Certainty  of  his  Two 
 foregoing  Suppofitions,  —  by  faying,  "  However 
 "  it  was  \ 33  tho'  he  had  faid  juft  before,  that  it 
 iC  ttttlff  1)0  itpon  one  of  thofe  two  Grounds  ^  firft, 
 lifting  us  up  with  the  Expectation  of  a  Certainty, 
 by  his  [tntltt  ht  *,  ]  and  then  letting  us  fall  into  our 
 former  Doubtfulnefs,  by  his  [JjOttefcet  it  toag  t] 
 But  at  laft,  after  thefe  various  Fluctuations,  he 
 endeavours  to  fix  our  Minds,  upon  what,  he  fays 
 "  IS  ClVtfttft)  viz.  That  the  Validity  of  an  Irregular 
 ^  PriefFs  Baptifm  was  not  owing  to  his  Indelible  Cha- 
 iC  rafter : "  And  this  is  anfwer'd,  by  faying,  that 
 his  Character  was  Indeleted^  it  remain'd  good,  be- 
 caufe  not  blotted  out  by  the  fame  Powers  who  im- 
 prefs'd  iti    Thofe -Powers,  did   not  pretend  to  take 
 
 away 
 
Chap.  2.      and  constant  Neceffity  thereof.        2$ 
 
 away  his  Character,  as  we  have  before  obferv'd  ^ 
 therefore  the  Baptifms  perform'd  by  him  were 
 Sacerdotal,  and  fo  founded  upon  a  Sacerdotal  Com- 
 miffwn,  and  confequently  Valid  ;  and  his  follow- 
 ing pretended  Reafon  to  the  contrary,  viz.  That 
 "  the  Validity  of  the  Baptifm  was  not  owing  to  his 
 
 *  3ln»eIiMe  Character,   fmce  the  Baptifm  of 
 
 "  3OCtlC0n*S  and  Lay-men,  who  had  not  the  Cha- 
 "  racier  of  Priefts,  was  fometimes  authorized  and 
 Cc  allow  d  as  Valid, ,3  is  an  evident  Falacy  -,  becaufe 
 built  upon  a  falfe  Foundation,  That  Deacons  had 
 not  the  Character  of  Priefts  ,  when  himfelf  ac- 
 knowledges, in  other  Places  before  noted  in  p.  17. 
 That  DcaCOtlg  have  tbeir  Share  in  the  Chriftian 
 Priefthood  •,  nay5  and  he  has  given  the  Name  or 
 Character  of  Priefthood,  even  to  Lay-men  Bap- 
 tizing in  Cafe  of  Neceffity,  as  I  have  prov'd  be- 
 fore in  p.  17,  18. 
 
 §  XI.  He  next  proceeds  to  give  us  an  Hiftorical 
 Account  of  Deacons  Baptizing  ^  and  tells  us,  That 
 they,  "  by  fome  ancient  Canons,  are  invefted  with 
 "  the  Power  of  Baptizing  in  ©jUinatP  Cafe&  as 
 "  well  as  Priefts,  p.  12.  That  "fome  other  An- 
 '  cient  Rules  feem  abfolutely  to  forbid  Deacons  to 
 "  minifter  Baptifn  in  Ordinary  Cafes,  confining  the 
 <c  Office  only  to  Bijhops  and  Presbyters,  p.  14,  for 
 which  he  produces  the  Canons  calPd  Apoftolical, 
 and   the   Conftitutions  under   the  Names  of  the 
 
 Apoftles  :    That  "  yet  notwithftanding  this,  
 
 "  a  Deacon  may  Baptize,  if  he  has  a  Commiffion  and 
 "  Authority  from  his  Biflwp  to  do  it,  p.  16.  —  for 
 which  he  quotes  the  fame  Conftitutions  :  That, 
 "  In  Cafe  of  Neceffity,  [St.  Chyfoftom]  not  only 
 "  permits,  but  pofitively  enjoins  Deacons  to  Baptize, 
 p.  18  :    And  proceeding  upon  the  fame  Subjects  to 
 
 p.  22. 
 
26         Of  the  Apofiotick  CommiJJion^     Part  l\t 
 
 p.  22.  he  at  laft  concludes  thus  \  c'  So  Neceffary, 
 "  we  fee,  was  this  DiftintTwn  between  SD^DiaiatJ? 
 "  <wi  <£jtfrafl#Itnatp  Gffes,  to  adjuft  Matters,  in 
 ce  the  Prattice  of  the  Primitive  Church  ;  whilfl,  on 
 "  the  one  hand,  the  Honour  and  Dignity  of  the 
 "  Priefthood  toajl  tO  Itf  ^Efettf  D  *,  and  yet  Deacons 
 c  allowed  on  the  other  hand,  to  minifler  Baptifm  in 
 u  fome  Cafes,  tho  they  were  ItOt  PiUCftg  in  the 
 "  frill  fenfe,  in  the  Opinion  of  thofe  who  allowed 
 "  them  to  do  it. 
 
 This  of  Deacons  not  being  Priefts  in  the  ftriff 
 fenfe,  amounts  to  no  more  than  faying,  they  are 
 HOt  TBllftOpg  5  for  Bimops  alone  have  the  whole 
 Power  of  the  Chriftian  Priefthood  in  themfelves  5 
 but  others  derive  the  Priefthood  from  them,  as 
 Presbyters  do  in  the  next  fubordinate  Degree  •,  and 
 Deacons  under  them,  in  the  third  and  loweft  Order  \ 
 as  Mr.  Ringham  himfelf  has  obferv'd.  And  as  for 
 the  Necefhty  of  a  DiftinUion  between  Ordinary  and 
 Extraordinary  Cafes,  to  adjuft  Matters  in  the  Pra- 
 8ice  of  the  Primitive  Church  ;  this  is  certain,  from 
 all  that  he  has  faid  to  this  part  of  his  Hiftory  \ 
 That  as  the  Apoftohck  Commijfon  was  always  infilled 
 upon,  to  Impower  Men  to  Baptize  in  Ordinary,  fo 
 It  was  lifcewife  requir'd  to  Impower  them  to  Bap- 
 tize in  CCtraajStmitP,  CafeS  ;  to  the  intent 
 that  this  CommifftOlt  might  "  Continue  to  the 
 *  End  of  the  World  h  *    becaufe  it  was  "  J!3£CCf« 
 
 "  dtp  to  p^efcm  the  church,  acrotfunn;  to 
 
 u  tfjt  £%m  Of  CfJliff,  —  in  future  Ages  *,  " 
 as  our  Hiftorian  has  excellently  obferv'd,  in  his 
 p.  3.  and  upon  which  I  have  remark'd,  /?.  5,6. 
 For  this,  the  Three  Orders  of  hiffwps;  Priefts, 
 and  Deacons,  were  Inftituted,  that  they  might,  the 
 Inferior  in  fubordination  to  the  Superior,  minifter 
 
 Baptifm  by  tie  fame  CommiiTtoii,  in  C^tnarp 
 
 and 
 
Chap.  2.     and  conftant  Neceflity  thereof.        27 
 
 and  CjCttaOJtimarp  CafCjS  too,  and  that  in  the 
 Abfence  of  one,  the  other  might  ftill  be  enabled  to 
 fupply  the  Wants  of  the  Church,  by  one  and  the 
 fame  COmmiirum'D  T3aptifUl*    The  Reftraining 
 of  Prefbyters  and  Deacons,  fometimes  from  the 
 Exercife  of  this  Power,  during  the  Prefence  of  the 
 Bifriop.  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  in 
 Prefence  of  the  Bifhop,  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  Commiffion  to  Baptize  in  thofe  Circumftances, 
 but  only  a  making  them  give  way  to  their  Superi- 
 ors :  For  which  Reafon,  Deacons,  who  werePriefts 
 of  the  Third  Order,  and  in  their  Ordination  were 
 vefted  with  a  Commiffion  to  Baptize,  were  alfo  re- 
 ftrain  d  from  the  Exercife  of  that  Function  during 
 the  Prefence  of  a  $9?ttfi  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  Commiffion  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  produc'd, 
 that  Clergy-men,  of  any  Order,  tranfgrelling  thefe 
 Circumftantial  Rules  of  the  Church,  were  actually 
 divefted  of  their  Com?mjJion  by  thofe  ancient  Clmrches 
 who  efteeirfd   their  Miniftrations  valid :  On  the 
 contrary  we  fee,  by  the  Nicene  Council,  and  the 
 African  Code,  before  referr'd  to,  that  the  Commiffions 
 of  irregular  Clergy-men,  whether  Bifhops,  Priefts 
 or  Deacons  (who  had  a&ed  in  Schifm  which  they 
 ought  not  to  have  done)  remain'd  ftill  good  and 
 valid ,  for  thofe  Churches  did  not  require  them  to 
 
 be 
 
2  8  Of  the  Apoftolick  Commijjion^      Pa  r  t  II, 
 
 be  re-confecrated  or  re-ordairfd.  Our  Hiftorian 
 then,  if  he  would  make  tha  irregular  Practices  of 
 Deacons  Baptizing  in  Circumftances  prohibited  by 
 the  Church,  to  be  equivalent  to  the  attempted 
 Ufurpations  of  Perfons,  who  never  were  at  all  com- 
 imffiorfd  to  Baptize,  and  who  yet  prefume  to  endea- 
 vour to  do  it,  even  in  oppofition  to  the  Divine 
 Right  of  the  Apoftolick  Order,  muff,  i/?,  produce 
 Inftances  of  fuch  Non-epifcopal,  or  Anti-epifcopal 
 Deacons,  who  never  receiv'd  a  CommiiTion  at  all 
 to  Baptize,  and  yet  prefuufd  to  attempt  that 
 Holy  Miniftration.  idly,  Ke  muft  prove,  that  the 
 Antients  held  fuch  their  p  ^tended  Baptilms,  if 
 ever  there  were  any,  to  be  good  and  valid,  ^dy,  He 
 muft  make  it  clear,  that  the  ancient  Catholick 
 Church,  as  well  as  fome  particular  Men,  thought 
 fo  too :  Or,  ^thly,  in  Cafe  he  fails  of  thefe  (as  I 
 am  confident  he  will)  then  he  muft  prove,  that 
 the  ancient  Catholick  Church  held  Deacons  Com- 
 miffions  to  Baptize,  to  be  null'd  and  made  void  by 
 their  Baptizing  irregularly  •,  but  that,  at  the  fame 
 time,  thofe  very  Baptifms  were  good  and  valid, 
 if  done  with  Water  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity  : 
 Either  he  inuft  prove  this  Fourth,  or  the  other 
 Three  Proportions^  elfe  it  will  ftand  good,  that  the 
 Irregularities  of  ancient  Deacons  Baptizing  contrary 
 to  fome  Circumftantial  Rules  of  the  Church,  have 
 no  Comparifon  with  thofe  Ejjential  Irregularities 
 which  our  Modern,  never  commij]ion>d  Ufurpers, 
 commit,  who  adt  in  Oppofition  to  that  very  Apo- 
 ftolick CommiJJion  which  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  ac- 
 knowledges, in  effect,  to  have  an  effential  relation 
 to  Baptiim,  by  faying,  That  it  was  "  tO  COtlttlttie 
 C£  tO  tlje  CitU  Cf  tljC  aH0?la  •, "  and  that  it  was 
 <c  neCCflarp  tO  p#f£tUe  the  Church,  &c.  "  For 
 he  can  fay  no  more  than  this  concerning  the  Water  ^ 
 
 and 
 
Chap.  2.     and  conftant  Necejfity  thereof,         29 
 
 and  the  form  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity  5  and 
 therefore  makes  the  Apoftolick  Commiflion,  as  much 
 an  Effential  of  the  Institution,  as  they  are. 
 
 §  XII.    Our  Hiftorian's  "  next  Queftion,  is  con- 
 ?  cerning  Sub-deacons,  and  the  reft  of  the  Inferior 
 ct  Orders,  who  went  by  the  Name  of  the  Minor  Clergy 
 "  in  the  Primitive  Church-, —  Whether  in  any  Cafes 
 "  theyhad Power  to  Baptize?"  p.  22,  23.  And  upon 
 this  he  concludes,  That  u  they  hadWQ  Potter  in 
 *•  ordinary  Cafes  :  w  Whether  they  had  in  any  extra- 
 ordinary ones,  he  fays,  u  There  are  few  among  the 
 "  Antients  that  have  in  dire tl  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 
 cc  extraordinary  Cafes,    it  will  readily  follow,  that 
 *c  they  would  never  fcruple  to  grant  the  fame  Power 
 "  to  the  Inferior  Clergy,  who  were  at  leaft  one  Degree 
 tc  above  Monks  and  Lay-men.    We  cannot  therefore 
 cc  better  determine  this  Queftion,  than  by  proceeding 
 cc  to  that  other  concerning  the  Power  granted  to 
 "  Lay-men,    in  reference  to  the  Admimftration  of 
 £t  Baptifmh  which  is  the  gtattH  duefftCUt  in  this 
 *  whole  Affair,  p.  24, 
 
 CHAP. 
 
jo        Teft monies  for  and  againft       Part  II. 
 
 CHAP.     HI. 
 
 Teflimonies  for  and  againfk  Lay-Baptifms ;  and 
 all  Mr.  Bingham'i  Evidences  examined  and 
 proved  to  make  nothing  for  the  pretended  Vali- 
 dity ofBaptifmSj  performed  by  Perfons  who  never 
 were  Cornmiffion  d  by  Bi/hops  to  Baptize. 
 
 §L/^\UR  Author  firft  acknowledges,  that  u  it 
 v-/  "  is  ttltaill  that  hoy-men  were  altimpS 
 *  debarrd  from  med/ing  with  the  Adminifiration  of 
 "  Baptifn  in  all  OfOUXQtV  Cafes.  Here  then  comes 
 in  a  very  apt  Queftion,  By  what  Law  or  Rule  fhall 
 Baptifm  by  Lay-men  in  OtfJtttaritp  CafeS  be  pro- 
 nounc'd  good  and  valid?  How  fhall  that  Bap- 
 tifm 5  which  is  given  by  Perfons  who  never  were  at 
 cU  cornmiffion  d  to  Baptize,  and  who  attempt  to  do 
 It  OjWitaUlp,  be  determine  to  be  IffiltDj?  Is  not 
 this  a  Law  Cafe,  a  Queftion  to  be  anfwer'd  only 
 by  the  Rule  of  our  Chnftian  Law,  and  the  Enforce- 
 ment thereof  by  the  Laws  of  the  Catholick  Church  > 
 The  Chriftian  Law,  viz.  the  Inftitution  of  Bap- 
 tifm, excludes  fuch  never  cornmiffion  d  Perfons  ^  and 
 the  Laws  of  the  Church  cc  always  debarrd  them?  " 
 by  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  s  own  Confeffion  $  Where 
 then  fhall  we  feek  for,  and  find  the  Validity  of 
 their  pretended  Miniftrations  >  Is  it  to  be  determin'd 
 without  a  Law  or  Rule  >  By  what  then  fhall  they 
 be  guided,  who  endeavour  to  perfwade  us  of  their 
 Validity?  Is  arbitrary  Will  and  Pleafure  alone 
 fufficient  to  convince  the  Judgment  >  Or,  is  there 
 fuch  a  Charm  in  the  Formality  of  ferioufly  imita- 
 tating  an  opus  operatum  alone^  as  that  a  Thing 
 
 ihal! 
 
Chap.  J.      Lay-Baptifa,  Examined,  Sec.         51 
 
 (hall  be  Good  and  Valid,  when  done^  tho3  done 
 without,  and  contrary  to,  fbmething  elfe,  which 
 the  Law  makes  vEffCMtttll  to  the  vei*-  Doing 
 thereof  >  This  will  be  New,  indeed  -,  for  u  it  is 
 "  certain,  that  Lay-men  were  always  debarr'd  from 
 "  medling  with  the  Adminiftration  of  Baptifin  in 
 «  all  SD^tliatp  CafeS  %  "  To  which  I  add,  The/ 
 were  always  fo  debarr'd,  both  by  the  Law  of  God, 
 and  of  his  Church  ;  and  therefore,  our  Dijfenters 
 Baptifms  are  deftitute  of  any  Law  for  their  Vali- 
 dity, becaufe  perform3 d  by  Lay-men  in  Ordinary 
 Cajes  -,  and  confequently,  they  who  pronounce 
 them  Valid,  efteem  them  to  be  Valid  without 
 Law :  And  how  fafe  this  is,  in  a  Matter  of  fuch 
 vaft  Moment  -,  how  fatisfying  to  thofe  who  want 
 to  be  fecur'd  of  a  Valid  Baptifin  ;  I  leave  the  De- 
 fenders of  fuch  a  Novel  Opinion  to  Anfwer. 
 
 §  II.  But,  it  may  be,  fome  will  fay,  That  thefe 
 Baptifms  may  be  pronounced  Valid,  upon  the 
 fame  account  as  Baptifms  perform7 d  by  Irregular 
 Deacons  were.  To  which  I  Anfwer  *,  If  that  be 
 true,  then  thefe  Lay-men  muft  be  provd  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,  which  make  it  the  proper  Office 
 "  of  Bijhops  and  Presbyters,  even  to  the  exclufion 
 
 "  /Deacons,  are  certainty  of  mucf)  greater 
 
 c  Jf042Ce  again  ft  the  Ufurpations  of  Lay -men,  p.  22. 
 Which  plainly  makes  the  Cafe  of  fuch  Lay-Ufur- 
 pations  to  be  very  different  from  that  of  Irregular 
 Deacons  >,  and  therefore,  whatfoever  Arguments 
 will  hold  for  the  Validity  of  fuch  Deacons  Bap- 
 tifms, will  be  no-ways  competent  for  the  Validity 
 of  thofe  Lay-Baptifms. 
 
 §  III. 
 
u 
 
 52  Tejl  monies  for  and  Part  IL 
 
 §  lit  "  But  (fays  Mr.  Bingham)  ft iU  the  Grand 
 Queftion  remains,  Whether  ever  they  [  7.  ?. .  Lay- 
 "  men  ]  qere  allow  d  to  do  it  in  Extraordinary  Cafes 
 u  of  extreme  Neceffity,  when  no  Fublick  Mini/ier 
 cc  could  be procurd  to  do  it  *  And  this  (fays  he) 
 c  mujl  be  refolvd  in  the  Affirmative^  as  to  the  ($Z\XZ= 
 cc  ral  Practice   Of  tljC  Cf)Ul'C!j,    thd  there  are 
 
 cc  fame  empttong  of  particular  €lwtim  to 
 
 "  the  contrary,  p.  2?.  But,  with  fubmiffion,  tho3 
 the  Queftion  propos'd,  and  endeavour'd  to  be  re- 
 folv'd,  by  the  Reverend  Hifrorian,  in  the  Affirma- 
 tive, be  worth  enquiring  into  ;  yet  it  is  not  the 
 fftaitO  CUteflt'On  which  now  exercifes  the  Church: 
 For,  that  about  which  we  are  now  concerned,  is, 
 
 Whether  Fer/ons  ixzut  once  couroiiffiottn  at  all 
 
 to  Baptize,  can  adminifter  Valid  Baptifm,  especially, 
 when  they  attempt  to  Baptize,  even  in  Oppofition 
 to  the  Divine  Right  of  the  Apoftolick  Commif- 
 fion,  to  be  receiv'd  only  from  Bifhops,  the  Suc- 
 cefTors  of  the  Apoftles  >  And,  Whether  the  An- 
 cient Catholick  Church  has  given  her  Teftimony 
 for  the  Validity  of  thefe  pretended  Baptifms  > 
 This  is  the  Great  Thing  that  ought  to  be  enquired 
 into,  and  fairly  determin'd  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  tho5  he  could  prove,  (as  he  cannot) 
 That  Lay-men  "  were  allOitfO  to  Baptize  in  Ex- 
 *c  traordinary  Cafes,  when  no  Fublick  Minifler  could 
 iC  be  procurd  to  do  it,  and  that  they  were  fo  in  the 
 Altera!  J9?attiCC  of  the  Church  :  HisTeffcmonies 
 for  which,  I  come  now  to  examine  -,  and  mall,  as 
 I  go  along,  fee  of  what  Vie  they  are  to  the  Great 
 Queftion  now  before  us,  Of  Baptifm  by  Perfons 
 never  Commifliotfl  to  Baptize. 
 
 §  IV. 
 
Chap.  3*      Lay-Baptifm,  Examz/fd,  &cc.        55 
 
 §  IV.  And,  Firfl,  'Tis  very  remarkable,  That 
 our  Reverend  Hiftorian  can  produce  no  Teftimo- 
 nies  from  the  Apoftles,  or  their  Cotemporaries  ; 
 Nor  from  the  Apoftolick  Fathers  who  next  fuc- 
 ceeded  them  -?  Nor,  laftly,  from  any  of  the  An- 
 tients  who  liv'd  before  TertuIIian :  So  that,  for 
 about  the  firft  Two  hundred  Years  of  Chriftianity, 
 we  hear  nothing  of  Lay-Baptifms  being  adminifter'd, 
 nor  of  any  thing  in  favour  of  them,  either  di- 
 rectly or  indiredtly.  A  ftrange  and  long  Silence 
 this,  in  a  Matter  which  is  pretended  to   be  the 
 
 Cc  general  practice  of  tlje  C&ttrcjk *    what 
 
 would  the  Adverfaries  againft  Epifcopacy  fay, 
 if  Antiquity  had  been  fo  long  filent  about  the 
 Power  and  Authority  of  Bifhops  ?  And  then,  by 
 what  Rule  mould  we  have  been  determin'd  of  the 
 Jus  Divinzzm  of  Epifcopacy,  if  Script ure,  and  the 
 Writings  of  the  Antients  for  about  the  firft  Two 
 hundred  Years  of  Chriftianity,  had  been  fo  abfb- 
 lutely  filent  about  it,  as  they  are  about  the  Vali- 
 dity of  Lay-Baptifm  > 
 
 §  V.  But,  Secondly,  In  a  Matter  of  fuch  Im- 
 portance as  this  is,  if  it  had  been  the  general 
 Practice  of  the  Church,  and  fo  fafely  to  be  rely'd 
 on,  as  fome  reprefent  it  to  be  ^  would  there  have 
 been  any  conjidcrable  Exceptions  againft  fo  general 
 ft  p^ittf  tCe5  infomuch,  as  that  whole  Churches  have 
 refus'd  to  come  in  to  it  5  or,  to  ufe  the  Reverend 
 Hiftorian's  Words,  Would  there  have  been  "  fome 
 tc  Exceptions  of  particular  Churches  to  the  con' 
 trary  ?  "     Do's  not  this  fpoil  the  Practice's  being 
 
 CatfjolKk,   while  particular  C&urcljeg,  Co- 
 
 temporary  with  thofe  other  Churches  who  are 
 fuppos'd  to  have  pra&is'd  it,  refus'd  to  fuffer  or 
 
 P  allow 
 
34  Te ft  monies  for  and  againfl      Part  II. 
 
 allow  of  any  fuch  Praclice.  In  this  fuppofed  Dif- 
 ference of  the  Churches,  fome  will  fay,  That  one 
 Side  was  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 
 fuch  a  Difference  >  Certainly,  we  muft  have 
 fOttte  HUlC  or  other,  whereby  to  difcover  which 
 of  them  was  in  the  wrong,  and  which  in  the  right  ^ 
 otherwife,  the* Fundamentals  of  Religion  muft  be 
 determined  only  by  Number  of  Votes  5  ( which  God 
 forbid  :  )  This  Rule  muft  be  the  Holy  Scripture, 
 and  therein,  the  Divine  Pofitive  Inftitution  of 
 Baptifm,  and  the  Laws  of  God  about  fuch  Pofitive 
 Inftitutions  as  that  is  ^  all  which  do  as  much  ex- 
 clude Perfons  who  never  were  CommiJJiori*  d,  as  they 
 do  any  Matter  and  form  which  were  never  Ap- 
 pointed :  And  'tis  by  this  Rule  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture, that  the  different  Practices  of  Churches  muft 
 be  tried  j  and  by  which,  fometimes,  the  feweH 
 have  been  found  to  be  m  the  right,  whilft  the 
 greater  Number  have  been  in  the  wrong  :  But  here 
 there  is  no  fear  of  any  fuch  Matter,  with  refpect 
 to  thofe  Ancient  Churches  who  allow 'd,  and  the 
 other  Ancient  Churches  who  did  not  allow  of,  the 
 Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm :  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  of  Tertullians,  about 
 the  Year  200  5  a  particular  Provincial  Council  of 
 Spanijb  Bifhops,  Held,  fome  think,  Anno  305  5 
 a  fabulous  Story  of  a  Baptifm  by  Boys  in  Play, 
 
 about 
 
Chap.  J.     Lap-Baft  ifmy  Examined,  &C.         3^ 
 
 about  the  fame  time  •,  a  Notion  of  St.  Jeroms, 
 founded  upon  TertuUians  falfe  Principle,  and  in- 
 confiftent  with  himfelf  5  Optatus\  Dangerous  Por- 
 tion, if  it  can  be  interpreted  as  fome  Men  would 
 have  it  ^  St.Aitguftins  ill-grounded  Opinion  3  Thefe 
 in  the  Fourth  Century  :  A  Saying  of  Gelqfius 
 Biihop  oiRome,  Anno  492  5  and  another  of  I  fid  ore 
 Bilhop  of  Sevil,  Anno  595.  Thefe  are  all  that  can 
 be  found  in  the  firft  Six  hundred  Years  of  Chri- 
 ftianity  5  —  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  mall  take  what  offers 
 it  felf  againft  thefe  Baptifms,  from  the  Days  of 
 
 the  Apoftles.  
 
 St.  Ignatius,  about  the  Year  of  Chrift  71,  affirms, 
 That  *  "  It  is  not  -fotUfttl?  without  the  Bijhop,  to 
 "  Baptize.  That,  u  Without  TlSfftOPfe  P^ieff^ 
 "  and  DcaC0ltS5  there  is  UO  CljUtClj  of  the  Eleil: 
 And,  That  "  He  is  UHtljOUt,  who  do's  any  thing 
 u  without  the  Bifhop  s^  and  Presbyters,  and  Deacons, 
 Thefe  are  that  Apoftolick  Father's  poiTtive  AfTer- 
 tions,  relating  to  thofe  Sacred  Miniftrations,  which 
 were  depofited  in  the  Hands  of  Bijhops^  Priefts, 
 and  Deacons.  It  is  not  Lawful \  (fays  he)  without 
 the  Bifhop,  to  Baptize.  In  thefe  Words  there  are 
 Two  Things  to  be  enquired  into:  1/?,  What  he 
 means  by  Without  the  Bifhop  $  It  is  not  to  be  flip- 
 pos'd  that  St.  Ignatius  meant,  that  the  Bifhop  muft 
 always  beprefent  in  Perfon  at  every  Baptifm^  for 
 we  find,  that  Philip  the  Deacon  Baptized,  in  the 
 
 — — _______ __—-.— —™— ...    .,, — , ! .       .     ■      — ■ 
 
 *  Epift.  to  the  Smyrna  N-  8-  Epift  ro  the  T/aSiatis9 
 N.  2,  5,  7. 
 
 D  2  the 
 
3  6  Testimonies  for  ana  again  ft       Part  II. 
 
 the  Abfence  of  the  Apoftles  5  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  Bifhop  ^ 
 and  this,  by  reafon  'twas  impoffible  for  the  Bifhop 
 always  to  be  Perfonally  prefent :  And  therefore, 
 without  the  Bifhop^  muft  fignifie,  without  Com- 
 miffion  or  Authority  receiv'd  from  the  Bifhop  5 
 Presbyters  and  Deacons  then  being  Men  Autho- 
 rize and  Commiffion'd  by  the  Bifhop  to  Baptize, 
 are  not  here  fpoken  of  •  but  Perfons  who  never 
 were  fo  Commiilion'd,  and  are  therefore  call'd 
 Laicks.  idly,  What  Law  do's  this  blelTed  Saint 
 and  Martyr  refer  us  to,  when  he  fays,  It  is  not 
 JUMttl  J?  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- 
 mifllon  from  the  Bifhop,  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- 
 fpedfc  of  thofe  Laws,  "  //  is  not  Lawful-,"  then,  'tis 
 plain,  that  the  Church  had  at  that  time  no  Law 
 of  hers,  whereby  fuch  a  fuppos'd  Baptifin  could 
 have  been  pronounc'd  Valid,  in  the  fenfe  of  the 
 Church  -;  In  fuch  Cafe,  its  pretended  Validity  muft 
 Jiave  been  judg'd  of  by  fbme  previous  Law  of  God  : 
 But  that  Law  is  not  to  be  found  ^  and  therefore, 
 fuch  a  fuppos'd  Baptifm  could  not  have  been  pro- 
 nounc'd Valid,    by  virtue *5ny    the  then    Laws 
 
 *  of 
 
Chap,  j .     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  8cc.  3  7 
 
 of  the  Church.  Laftly,  If  St.  Ignatius  has  an  eye 
 to  both  the  Laws  of  God,  and  his  Church  ^  then, 
 fiich  a  fuppos'd  Baptifm  muft  not  have  been  Valid, 
 by  virtue  of  any  Law  whatfoever  5  and  therefore 
 Invalid,  for  want  of  all  Law  whatfoever  to  give  it 
 Validity.  And  this  is  the  more  confirm' d,  by  his 
 aflerting,  That  without  Bifbcps,  Priefts,  and  Dea- 
 cons, there  is  no  Church  of  the  Elelf  5  and,  that 
 He  is  "  aailtijOUt,  "  /.  e.  Out  of  the  Church, 
 "  wfo  *fo\r  tftfy  ffoag,  [*.*.  any  Sacred  Pofitive 
 Fun&ion,  that  belongs  peculiarly  to  the  Office  of 
 the  Clergy,  ]  cc  without  the  Bifhops^  and  Presbyters, 
 c  and  Deacons. n  For  in  thofe  Days,  if  Laicks 
 had  attempted  fuch  Miniftrations,  they,  and  their 
 Dependants,  being  and  having  cc  no  Bifhops^  Priefls, 
 "  and  Deacons^  but  afting  without  them,  would 
 have  been  HO  Cfjlircf)  ♦,  and  if  no  Churchy  then 
 their  pretended  Miniftrations  would  have  been  ttfl 
 C&HHan  SmcramentS  $  becaufe,  where  there  is 
 6  ltO  CljUCCD)  there  are  no  Sacra?nents  ^  and 
 therefore  no  Baptifm. 
 
 The  only  Queftion  that  remains,  is,  Whether  St.  lg- 
 n at i tts\  Words  are  not  to  be  reftrain'd  to  Ordinary 
 Cafes  only  3,  and, whet  her  Extraordinary  Cafes,  where 
 Bifkops,  Priefts)  and  Deacons  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  Cuftom  then  in  the 
 Church,  for  any  Exception  whatfoever  ^  fo  that,  if 
 Men  will  make  Exceptions,  they  muft  have  reafon  to 
 do  fo  •  other  wife  their  Exceptions  will  be  arbitrary, 
 and  without  foundation.  If  there  be  any  reafon 
 for  an  Exception,  it  muft  be  founded  either  on 
 the  Law  of  Mature,  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 
 
3  8  Teji monies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 about  which  that  Law  is  no-ways  concern'd  ^  and 
 the  Reveafd  Pofitive  Law  of  God  has  no  fuch 
 Rule  for  fuch  an  Exception  \  if  it  has.  Where  is  it  ? 
 It  has  not  yet  been  produc'd  5  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  Suppofmg,  without  Pro- 
 ving, will  not  do  •„  and  they  cannot  fhew  us  any 
 fuch  early  Primitive  Law  •,  and  confequently, 
 St.  Jgnatimi  Words  cannot  be  fairly  interpreted 
 to  be  reftrain'd  to  Ordinary  Cafes  only,  and  there- 
 fore they  muft  include  Extraordinary  Cafes  alfb. 
 
 §  VII.  St.  Hernia* ^  who  was  Cotemporary  with 
 St.  Paul,  tho°  he  had  fo  ftricl  an  Opinion  of  the 
 *  Neceffity  of  Baptifm,  that  he  reckon'd  the  Righ- 
 teous Men  and  Prophets,  who  Dy'd  before  the 
 Coming  of  Chrift,  ftood  in  need  of  Chriftian  Bap- 
 tifm, even  in  their  Separate  State  j  yet,  to  fupply 
 this  their  Neceffity,  none  are  mention'd  by  him 
 to  have  gone  to  them  to  ghre  5em  Baptifm,  but 
 "  t  The  Apoflles  and  Do  ft 'or s  of  the  Preaching  of  the 
 "  Son  of  God.  *  The  Apoflles  and  Teachers,  who 
 Cc  preached  the  Kame  of  the  Son  of  God-,"  Men  who 
 had  drift's  and  the  Apoflles  Commilfion  to  mi- 
 ni fter  in  Holy  Things  *,  not  the  leaft  Hint  of  any 
 who  never  were  Commiflion'd  to  Baptize,  that 
 went  to  fupply  their  want  of  Baptifm.  But  if  our 
 modern  Notion,  That  Laicks,  in  want  of  the 
 Clergy,  way  Baptize,  had  then  been  held  by  the 
 Church  :>  considering,  that  the  Laity  were  al- 
 ways vaftly  more  Numerous  than  the  Clergy,  it 
 
 *  Vi).  iii.  N.  ;-  Simil.x'ix,  /NT.  iy,  16. 
 ■}•  .Hmii.  xix.  N.  if. 
 
 would 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Bap  ifm7  Examined,  Sec.         39 
 
 would  have  been  but  natural  enough  to  fiippofe, 
 that  fome  of  thofe  Prophets,  &c.  were  baptiz'd  by 
 common  Chf  iftians  alfo  5  but  ill  this  our  St.  Her- 
 nias is  abfolutely  filent,  and  mentions  no  other 
 Baptizers,  for  this  fuppos'd  Cafe  of  Neceffity,  than 
 the  Apoftles  and  Teachers,  who  preach'd  the  Name 
 of  the  Son  of  God :  And  how  could  they  Preach 
 except  they  were  fent  or  commiflion'd }  according 
 to  the  Great  Apoftle  of  the  Gentiles,  But  to  come 
 now  to  Mr.  Bingham  s  Evidences : 
 
 §  VIII.    This  Reverend  Hiftorian  gives  us  firft 
 
 of  all,  Tertullians  Opinion  upon  the  Matter,  about 
 
 the  Year  of  Chrift  200,  tranflated  from  his  Book 
 
 de  Baptifm  0,  c.  17.  Thus  tc  the  chief  Prieft,  who  is 
 
 '  the  Bifhop,  has  Power  to  give  Baptifm  *,  and  after 
 
 c  him  Presbyters  and  Deacons  -,  yet  not  without  the 
 
 c  Authority  of  the  Bifhop,  for  the  Honour  of  the 
 
 c  Churchy   in    the  Prefervation  of  which  Peace  is 
 
 cc  prefervd.    Jjtt  attOt&fU  J&efpetf,  Lay-men  have 
 
 c  alfo  a  Right  to  give  it  -,  for  what  is  received  in  com- 
 
 c  mart)  may  be  given  in  common.    Baptifm  is  God's 
 
 c  peculiar,  and  may  be  conferrd  ty  ml*     But  Lay- 
 
 c  men  are  in  a  much  greater  Degree  obliged  by  the 
 
 '  Rules  of  Modefly  in  the  Ufe  of  their  Power,  fince 
 
 c  they,  who  are  ®W$ZC\Ql  to  them]  are  obliged  not 
 
 to  affume  to  them) elves  the  Office  which  belongs  to 
 
 x  the  Bijhop  only :  Emulation  is  the  Mother  of  Strife  ^ 
 
 all  things  are  Lawful  fays  the  Apoftle,  but  all  things 
 
 c  are  not  Expedient.     Therefore  it  ought  tofuffice 
 
 1  them  to  ufe  this  Power  in  Keceffnies,  when  the 
 
 i;  Condition  of  the  place,  or  CtUie,  or  PeifOtt 
 
 requires  it :  for  then  their  charitable  Ajfftance  is 
 
 accepted,  when  the  Circumflance  of  one  in  Danger 
 
 '■  prejjes  them  to  it.     And  in  this  Cafe  he  would  be 
 
 :c  guilty  of  a  Mans  Delirutfion,  that  omitted  to  do 
 
 D  4  *  what. 
 
40  Tejl  monies  for  And  again  ft      Part  II* 
 
 c  what  he  lawfully  might*  p.  25,26.  Thus  far  Ter- 
 tuUians  Opinion.  But  by  what  Rule  fhall  we  dif- 
 cover  that  it  was  then  a  Catholick  Tradition  of  the 
 Church,  and  not  TertuUian's  private  Opinion  only  > 
 Our  Reverend  Hiftorian  would  have  it,  That  'twas 
 then  "  the  common  Pratfice  of  the  Church :M  ift,  Be- 
 caufe "  no  learned.  Man  before  "  Mr.  DodweU,  and 
 fome  others,  "  ever  thought  "  that  it  was  u  0/7^ 
 :  TevtnWians  own  private  Opinion,  and  not  the  com- 
 ^  men  Pratfice  of  the  Church : "  2dly,  Becaufe  of 
 "  the  Coherence  of  Tertulliarix  Difcourfe. "  "  I# 
 "  the  foimer  Part  of  it  (  fays  Mr.  Bingham  )  he  is 
 "  certainly  fpeaking  of  the  Pratfice  oj  the  Churchy 
 c  when  he  fays ,  Presbyters  and  Deacons  atf  by  the 
 "  Bifiop's  Authority,  when  they  adminifter  Baptifm 
 <c  in  ordinary  Cafes.  It  would  be  ft  range  then,  if  he 
 "  Jhould  invert  his  Difcourfe  immediately  in  the  next 
 c  Words,  and  not  mean  the  Pratfice  of  the  Church, 
 u  when  he  comes  tofpeak  of  Lay -men  "  p.  27.  Thefe 
 are  Mr.  Bingham's  Two  fuppos'd  Reafons  :  The 
 Firft  amounts  to  nothing-,  becaufe  our  Reverend 
 Hiftorian  cannot  prove,  that  all  Learned  Men,  be- 
 fore Mr.  DodweU,  &o  efteemed  this  PafTage  of  Ter- 
 tuUians,  to  be  an  Evidence  of  the  General  Practice 
 of  the  Church.  What  no  Learned  Man  ever  thought 
 before  Mr.  DodweU,  and  others,  is  a  meer  Ne- 
 gative, and  hard  to  be  difcover'd,  except  by 
 forne  pofitive  Declaration  -,  fo  that  till  Mr.  Bingham 
 produces  the  Declaration  of  thofe  Learned  Men, 
 ihewing,  that  this  PafTage  of  Tertullian  is  an 
 Evidence  for  the  General  Pratfice  of  the  Church,  his 
 faying  that  "  no  Learned  Man  before  [  Mr.  DodweU  ] 
 li  ever  thought,  "  as  Mr.  DodweU,  and  fome  others 
 thought,  is  giving  no  Reafon  at  all:  As  neither 
 would  his  producing  their  Teftimony  only,  if  it 
 were  not  alfo  back'd  with  fuch  Arguments  for  the 
 
 Truth 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-BaptifM)  Examined,  8cc        4i 
 
 Truth  of  their  Evidence,  as  will  ftand  a  (air  Exa- 
 mination. And  then,  as  to  the  Second,  viz.  "  The 
 CC  tfuppos'd']  Coherence  of  Tertullianj  Difcourfe^ 3' 
 &c.  Upon  a  juft  Obfervation  of  his  own  Words5 
 it  will  be  found,  that  his  Notion  was  not  the  Pra- 
 ctice of  the  Church  5  for  as  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf 
 acknowledges,  Tertullians  Words  do  plainly  re- 
 fpect  the  Church's  Pradtice  in  the  former  Part  of  his 
 Difcourfe,  where  he  fpeaks  of  the  Power  of  the 
 Bifhops,  Priefts^  and  Deacons,  to  Baptize  ;  and  men- 
 tions only  Priefts,  and  Deacons,  as  acting  in  Subor- 
 dination to,  and  by  Authority  of  the  Bifhop,  Qc  for 
 K  the  Honour  of  the  Church.  "  But  what  is  this 
 Honour  of  the  Church,  except  our  fubmitting  to  her 
 Rules  and  Orders  >  How  can  her  Honour  be  pre- 
 ferv'd,  but  by  our  obeying  her  juft  Laws,  and  fol- 
 lowing her  well-grounded  Traditions  and  Cuftoms? 
 Therefore  her  Laws  and  Cuftoms,  concerning  Bap- 
 tifm,  are  here  referred  to  by  Tertullian,  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  u  in  another  refpetl, "  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  diftinct  therefrom:  For,  fays  he, 
 "  in  another  refpetl, "  i.  e.  in  refpect  of  fbmething 
 elfe  foreign  to  the  Church's  Law  or  Cuftom  before 
 referr'd  to,  "  Lay-men  have  aljo  a  Right  to  give  it :  " 
 As  much  as  if  he  had  faid,  by  the  Law  or  Cuftom 
 of  the  Church, "  The  Chief  Priefts  who  is  the  Bifhops 
 has  Power  to  give  Baptifm,  and  after  him  Presby- 
 ters and  Deacons,  yet  not  without  the  Authority 
 c  of  the  Bifloop  $  for  the  Honour  of  the  Church : J3 
 in  the  frefervation  of  which  Honour,  by  our  ob- 
 
 ferving 
 
42  Tefiimonies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 foving  this  her  Law,  Cc  Peace  is  prefertfd : "  x  Other- 
 wife,  or  "  in  another  refpetl  "  diftindt  and  feparate 
 from  the  Confideration  of  this  Law  or  Cuftom, 
 4C  hay-men  have  alfo  a  Right  to  give  it  ^ "  which  is 
 the  fame  as  faying,  that  Lay-men  have  a  Right  in 
 themfelves  to  Baptize,  feperate  and  diftinct  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  LafiJ  or  Cuftom 
 of  the  Church  at  that  time  giving  them  fuch  a  Right, 
 or  on  any  Ad  of  the  Bifhop  pretending  to  veft 
 them  with  bis  Authority :  So  far  from  thefe,  that 
 he  fpeaks  of  Lay-wens  Right  by  way  of  Ami  thefts 
 to  'em,  by  introducing  it  with  an  Alioquin,  other- 
 wife,  making  it  to  have  cc  another  refpett "  than 
 that  of  the  Church's  Law,  and  the  Bifhop vs  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- 
 ceivM  from  the  Bifhop,  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 
 for  La^mntS  Efgljt  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 
 SuccefTors  the  Bifhops:,  and  that  none  could  have 
 any  Right  to  Baptize,  but  thofe  who  were  in  fome 
 refpecl  or  other  comrniffion  d  by  them :  As  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham has  very  well  obferv'd  in  his  4th  and  5th  Pages. 
 This  fliews  that  Tertullian's  Etffljt  Of  JLajmiCit  to 
 Baptize,  was  his  own  particular  Notion  only. 
 
 And  this  is  not  a  little  corroborated  by  his 
 manner  of  fpeaking,  when  he  refers  to  the  Laws 
 and  Pra&ice  of  the  Church ;  for  then  he  gives  us 
 
 fuch 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifw,  Examined,  &c.         45 
 
 fuch  plain  Tokens  of  his  fpeaking  about  them,  that 
 we  cannot  well  mifs  of  under  {landing  him.  Thus 
 in  the  Place  before  us,  his  fpeaking  of  the  Honour 
 of  the  Church  being  preferv'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  Practice.  So  again  5  When  he  fpeaks  of  Per- 
 fons  who  had  received  Heretical  Baptifm,  he  Jays, 
 "  We  have  *  a  J&ttlC  among  us  to  Re- baptize  them^* 
 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  general  Prattice  of  the 
 Church  giving  Lay-men  ft  JBUgljt  to  Baptize  h  but 
 the  direct  contrary,  by  his  Alioquin,  &c.  as  has  been 
 prov'd  before.  And  therefore,  'tis  no  other  than 
 his  own  private  Opinion,  and  no  general  Prattice  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 :  cc  For  what  is 
 "  received  in  common,  may  be  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,  may  be  given  in  common. 
 For  Women  as  well  as  Men  receive  Baptifm,  and 
 may  therefore  give  it,  if  this  Principle  be  true,  as 
 
 *  Tertuh  de  Pudicitia,  c.  19.  Edit:  Rigal.  Lutct.  1634, 
 
 it 
 
44  Te ft  monies  for  and  againf      Part  IL 
 
 it  moft  certainly  is  not,  in  Cafes  that  relate  to  a 
 Commilfion  ^  for  'tis  plain,  that  all  the  Citizens, 
 properly  fo  call'd,  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  ^ 
 otherwife,  the  pretended  Freedom  will  prove  a  Nul- 
 lity in  all  refpedts  whatfoever.  So  in  Cafes  of  Na- 
 turalization of  Foreigners,  and  abundance  of  other 
 Inftances  that  might  be  brought  to  fhew  the  Fallacy 
 of  TertuIIians  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  Tertullian  gives  us  nothing  but  his 
 own  Word  for  it,  and  a  falfe  Reafbn  to  fupport  ir5 
 that  u  Lay-men  alfo  have  a  Right  to  give  Baptifm.  J) 
 And  now  I  would  fain  know,  whether  tbk  alone  is 
 fufficient  to  convince  any  reafonable  Man,  that 
 Lay-men  then  had  fuch  a  Right?  Is  the  bare  Word 
 of  fuch  an  ancient  Writer,  his  iingle  Opinion,  with- 
 out the  neceffary  Adjunct  of  the  ChurcFs  Rule  to 
 fupport  it,  a  powerful  Reafon  to  perfwade  us,  that 
 it  was  in  his  Days  the  general  Fratfice  of  the 
 Church  ?  If  this  be  enough,  then  we  muft  fwallow 
 Tertullian's  other  Noftrums,  as  Doctrines  and  Pra- 
 ctices of  the  Church  too  -y  for  lie  is  as  pofitive  in  fome 
 of  them,  as  he  is  in  this.  Thus  he  makes  Lay-men 
 to  be  Friefts,  *  purely  upon  a  wrong  Interpretation 
 of  a  Text  in  the  Firft  Chapter  of  the  Revelations, 
 which  makes  all  Chriftians  to  be  as  much  and  as 
 
 *  Nonne  &  Laid  Sacerdotes  fumus  ?  Scriptum  eft  Regnum 
 quoins  rim  £5"  Sace>  dotes,  Deo  &  Putri  fuo  fecit.  Tertul.  de  Ex- 
 hoT.  Caftit.  cap.  7. 
 
 proper 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.         45 
 
 proper  Kings,  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  fou?ided  on  the  Church's 
 Authority,  when,  in  truth,  it  is  founded  on  God's 
 Law,  and  the  Institution  of  Cbrift  him/elf:  InCon- 
 feqtience  of  this  he  teaches,  that  in  the  Abfence  of 
 the  Oergy,  ||  Lay-men  are  Priefts  for  themfeives, 
 and  have  Power  not  only  to  Baptize,  but  alio  to 
 Offer  and  Minifter  the  Memorial  of  the  Sacrifice  of 
 ChrifFs  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^  Excommunicate,  and  Abfo/ve, 
 and  Retain  Sins,  other  wife  they  cannot  conftitute 
 a  Church  5  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  Tertul- 
 Han's  Notions  muft  be  receiv'd  for  the  Church's 
 Doctrines  and  Practices. 
 
 *  Ldv-Baptifm  Invalid,  %d  Edit.  p.  \$6,  &c. 
 
 t  Differenti.im  inter  ordinem  &  plebem  confiituit  Ecclc- 
 f\x  Auftoricas  &  Honor  per  ordinis  conceflum  fanftiflcatus. 
 ||  Adeo  ubi  Ecclefiaftici  ordinis  non  eft  conceflus,  &  offers,  & 
 tinguis,  &  facerdos,  es  tibi  folus.    **  Sed  ubi   tres  Ecclefia  eft 
 
 licet  La ici. TmuU  de  Exhort.  C aft itatis,  cap.  7.  Edit.Mgal, 
 
 lutet.  Par.  16^ 
 
 $  xi. 
 
46  Tejli monies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II, 
 
 §  XL  I  might  alfo  inftance  feveral  of  his  other 
 Errors  and  Paradoxes,  as  his  falfe  Notion,  Of  the 
 Soul  of  the  Firji  Man's  being  made  out  of  the  Sub- 
 fiance  of  God  5  His  Error  concerning  the  Sex  of 
 Souls  •,  That  the  Soul  is  corporeal,  and  not  properly 
 a  Spirit  >,  That  the  Soul  can  fuffer  nothing  without 
 the  Body  -,  That  God  him f elf  is  corporeal,  becaufe 
 nothing  is  incorporeal.  That  Chrift,  the  Son  of 
 God,  was  always  feen  by  Men  in  true  and  real 
 Flejhj  before  he  was  Born  of  the  Holy  Virgin  • 
 and,  That  Second  Marriages  are  as  Wicked  as 
 Whoredom:  Thefe  Errors  of  this  ancient  Writer, 
 are,  with  *  others  mention'd  in  the  Margin,  col- 
 lected together  in  Paradoxa  Tertulliani  cum  An* 
 tidoto  Jacob i  Fame  Hi,  in  the  2d  Vol.  of  his  Works, 
 Printed  at  Paris,  1635.  — —  And  does  his  holding 
 them,  fhew,    that   the  Church    held   them  too  ? 
 
 f  1  De  Angelis  defertoribus  qui  duxerunt  filias  Hominum. 
 
 2  De  Angeiorura  apparitionibus  in  vera  humana  came. 
 
 3  De  Anima  primi  Hominis  ex  materia  Dei. 
 
 4  De  Animabus  pofterorum  Adae  ex  traduce. 
 f  De  Animas  Sexu. 
 
 6  Animam  peccatricem  potius  quam  carnem. 
 
 7  De  Anima  corporea,  quod  proinde  pioprie  fpiritus  non 
 
 fit. 
 
 8  Animam  nihil  pati  pofTe  fine  corpore. 
 
 1 1  Animjs  Hominum   peftinas  poft   mortem  in  Dxmonas 
 
 verti. 
 if  De  Deo  corporeo,  eo  quod  nihil  incorporale  fit. 
 
 18  De  Ecdaixfive  Amentia,  five  fpiritu  Prophetico  Montani, 
 
 &  Infanarum  Vatum  Prifcillse  &:  Maximilian,  8c  Simi- 
 lium. 
 
 19  Filium  Dei  Chriftum,    Temper  vifum  ab  hominibus  in 
 
 vera,   etfi  non  nata  came. 
 2>*  De  Nuptiis  fecundis  damnaticis  tanquam  ftupris. 
 26  De  Paracleto  Monrano. 
 28  Pfychicis,  quo  nomine  Catholicis  calumn'um  fecit. 
 
 No 
 
Chap,  j*      Laj-BaptiftK,  Examm^Sic.        47 
 
 No  fuch  Matter  9  and  therefore,  his  afferting,  Lay- 
 men to  have  a  Right  to  Baptize,  in  Cafes  ot  flip- 
 pos'd  Necefjtty,  without  appealing  to  the  Church's 
 Law  or  Rule  for  fuch  a  Rights  is  no  Argument, 
 that  the  Church  in  general  held  any  fuch  Notion  5 
 but  only  proves,  that  it  was  his  own  private  Opi- 
 nion 5  and  confequently,  it  muft  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  Se&ion  of 
 
 this  Chapter  : And  therefore,  upon  the  whole, 
 
 we  may  fairly  conclude,  that  Tertullian  is  no  Evi- 
 dence of any  general  Prattice  of the  Church  countenan- 
 cing the  pretended  Right  of  Lay- men  to  Baptize,  in 
 Cafe  of  Neceffity.  Nay,  he  has  not  given  fo  much 
 as  one  Inftance  of  any  fuch  Baptifm  by  a  Lay- 
 man, allow'd  of  by  the  Church  ^  no  Hiftorical  Ac- 
 count of  any  fuch  Matter,  but  only  his  lingular 
 private  Opinion,  what  he  thought  a  .  Lay-man 
 might  do,  in  want  of  the  Clergy  9  and  this  founded 
 upon  a  falfe  Principle. 
 
 But  then,  as  to  the  Cafe  before  us,  of  Baptifm  by 
 Laicks,  Perfons  never  Commiifion'd  by  Bilhops,  at- 
 tempting to  do  this  where  the  Clergy  are  to  be  had  $ 
 Tertullian  is  full  and  direct  againft  them,  and  refers 
 us  to  the  Law  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  when  he 
 a/Terrs,  That  "  The  Chief  Prieft,  who  is  the  Bifhop, 
 <c  has  the  Power  to  give  Baptifm  •,  and  after  him, 
 u  Presbyters  ani  Deacons  •,  yet  not  without  the  Au- 
 '  thority  of  the  Bifbop9  for  the  Honour  of  the  Church. 
 This  was  the  ftanding  Rule  and  Law  of  the  Church, 
 purfuant  to  the  Law  of  God  :  So  that,  if  Lay- 
 men had  then  pretended  (  as  they  do  now  )  to  have 
 ufurp'd  the  Power  of  Baptizing,  where  Bifhops, 
 Prielrs,  and  Deacons,  were  to  be  had  9  it  would 
 have  been  againft  the  Honour  of  the  Church,  a 
 
 Breach 
 
48  Testimonies  for  and,  againjl      Part  IL 
 
 Breach  of  her  Law  and  Cuftom,  as  well  as  of  the 
 Law  of  God  •,  and  confequently,  deftitute  of  any 
 Law  either  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  CljtlCCfj'S  l^flCttCe  in  favour  of 
 Lay-Baptifm,  in  any  Cafe  whatfoever,  for  the 
 fpace  of  the  firft  Three  hundred  Years,  the  purefl: 
 Ages  of  the  Chriftian  Church  :  So  that,  if  I  mould 
 proceed  no  farther,  but  Conclude  here,  I  might 
 venture  to  fay,  That  the  Validity  of  pretended 
 Baptifms,  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  never  were 
 Commiffion'd  by  Bifhops  to  Baptize,  never  was  a 
 Tradition  of  the  Catholick  Church,  becaufe  not 
 attefted  by  her  in  the  purefl:  Ages,  the  firft  Three 
 hundred  Years  of  Chriftianity  :  But,  on  the  con- 
 trary, Baptifm  by  Perfons  fuppos'd  to  have  no 
 Power  or  Authority  from  Bifhops,  was  exclaim'd 
 againft,  in  that  very  Period,  by  no  lefs  Men  than 
 the  bleffed  St.  Ignatim  Bifhopof  Ant'wcb,  as  I  have 
 prov'd  before,  pag,  35^  by  St.  Cyprian  Bifliop  of 
 Carthage  -,  and  by  ftrmil'um  Bifliop  of  Cxfarca^  and 
 their  Colleagues.     For, 
 
 k  XII.  About  the  Year  of  Chrift  256,  St  Cy- 
 prian and  Yirmilian  held  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  j 
 and  their  want  of  Power,  made  their  Baptifms 
 Null  and  Void,  in  the  Opinion  of  thefe  two  Bifhops. 
 That  this  was  their  Opinion,  St.  hafii,  who  fate  in 
 the  Chair  of  C&farea^  about  an  Hundred  and  thirteen 
 
 Years 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.         49 
 
 Years  after  Yirmilian,  teftifies  :  And  that  his  Tefti- 
 mony  may  not  be  queftion'd,  it  (hall  ftand  here 
 in  Mr.  Bingham's  ov/n  Tranflation,  and  he  intro- 
 duces it  thus  :  "  St.  Bafil  brings  in  Cyprian,  and  Fir- 
 "  milian  his  PredecefTor  in  the  See  oiCdefarea,  argu- 
 "  ing  after  this  manner  -, *  then  follows  St.  Cyprian 
 and  Firmifians  Argument,  thus  tranflated  5  * u  Here- 
 '  //V/^j-  and  Schifmaticks  are  broken  off  from  theChurch, 
 
 cc  and  became  Lay-men,  and  tfjerefoje  fjatoe  na 
 
 "  POttieu  tO  'Bapttje,  <?r  /<?  Ordain  h  being  no 
 cc  Aw^r  able  to  give  the  Gift  of  the  Holy-Gholi, 
 "  which  they  have  lo\l  them/elves  •,  t\)ZXtfolZ)fuchas 
 cc  are  Baptized  b}>  tftCUlj  *rc  to  be  Re-baptized  with 
 "  the  CCtie  03;fpttfm  <?///;*  Owrrf>,  as  being  only 
 
 *  Baptized  by  Lap=mem 
 
 The  whole  Strefs  of  this  Argument,  we  fee,  is 
 founded  upon  LdLVWtnS  having  110  pOtoet  to 
 Baptize,  and  the  confequent  Neceffi  ty  of  giving 
 CtUC  Toapttfm  to  fuch  as  were  CttlP  TSap* 
 tlfS  bp  La^mnn  Whether  St.  Cyprian  and  Fir- 
 milians  pronouncing  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  to 
 be  no  more  than  hay-men,  was  right  or  no  •,  or, 
 whether  they  efteenvd  them  to  be  redu'd  to  ~Lay-men, 
 by  their  Herefy  or  Schifm  only  -,  or  rather,  by 
 virtue  of  the  Laws  of  thofe  Churches  to  whom 
 they  ow'd  Subjection  -,  'tis  no  matter  at  prefent  to 
 enquire  :  Be  that  how  it  will,  this  is  certain.  That 
 they  made  the  want  of  a  Commijfion,  i.  e.  Lay-mens 
 want  of  Power  to  Baptize,  the  Standard  by  which 
 they  judged  of  the  Invalidity  of  Baptifm  by  Hereticks 
 and  Schifmaticks  :  Baptifm  by  Lay-men  was  Null 
 and  Void,  in  their  Opinion  -,  and  they,  confe- 
 quently,  prenoune'd  Baptifm  by  Hereticks  and 
 Schifmaticks  to  be  fo  too,    becaufe  they  efteenVd 
 
 *  B*fil,Efift.  I.  ad  AmphiiAkiunr,  ap.  1, 
 
 E  them 
 
$o  Teflimonies  for  and  againji       Part  If. 
 
 them  to  be  but  LftP  tltEtU    This  Evidence  is  very 
 deftruclive   of  what   fome  fay,   That  TertuUians 
 Notion  about  Lay-Baptifm,  was  the  general 'PraSice 
 of  the  Church  in  his  Days  :   For,  is  it  at  all  likely, 
 that  Two  fuch  Bifhops  as  thefe  were,    Ihould,  fo 
 foon  as  about  56  Years  after  TertuUians  Writing 
 his  Book  de  Baptifmo,  make  ufe  of  fuch  an  Argu- 
 ment as  this  I  If  'TertuUians  Notion  of  the  Validity  of 
 Lay-Baptifmhad  been  founded  upon  the  general  Pra- 
 &ce  of  the  Church  at  that  Time,  thefe  two  Bifhops 
 mufl,  at  that  rate,  have  been  greater  Strangers  to, 
 and  more  ignorant  of,  the  Church's  general  Pr a  ffice, 
 than  Tertullian^  a  private  Prieft  5  or  elfe  the  general 
 Fratfice  mufl:  have  ceas'd,  by  that  time  St.  Cyprian 
 and  Yirmilian  came   to  difpute  againfl:  Heretical 
 and   Schifmatical  Baptifms :    Suppofitions    fo  ill 
 grounded,    that    no   reafonable  Man  can   believe 
 them  ^  and  'till  there  fhall  be  produc'd  good  Rea- 
 fons  to   the  contrary,    we  mufl:  conclude,    that 
 StCyprian  zmMirmilians  Opinion,  of  the  Invalidity 
 of  Lay-Baptifm,   was  then  a  {landing  Principle,  in 
 their  Churches  at  leaf!  :    Becaufe  'tis  unreafonable 
 to  believe,  that  in  fo  Publick    a  Difpute  as  that 
 was,    about  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptifm, 
 two  fuch  celebrated  Bifhops  as  St.  Cyprian  and  F/>- 
 milian,  mould  ufe  an   Argument  founded  on  the 
 Invalidity  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  Bifhops,  upon  fo  Publick   an  Oc- 
 cafion,  That  Lay-Baptifm  was   then  efteemd  to  be 
 Null  and  Void,  is  of  fo  great  Confequence,  that  our 
 Reverend  Hiftorian  is  fomething  particular  in  his 
 Endeavours  to  weaken  the  Credit  of  it :    But  his 
 feveral  Objections  fhall  be  Anfwer'd  in  the  fol- 
 lowing Chapter. 
 
 §  XIII. 
 
Chap.  3.      Lay-Baptifm9  Examined)  Sec.        51 
 
 §  XIII.  And  tho'  their  Evidence  is  tranfmitted 
 to  us  by  St.  Baji!)  and  therefore  fufficiently 
 eftablifh'd  by  his  Authority  3  yet  even  in  St.  Cy- 
 prians Works  themfelves,  we  find  good  Proofs, 
 that  St.  Cyprian,  Yirmilian,  and  others  their  Col- 
 leagues, held  pretended  Baptifms  to  be  Null  and 
 Void,  when  performed  by  Perfons  who  were  (hp- 
 pos'd  by  them  to  have  had  no  Com  million  to  Bap- 
 tize. Thus  St.  Cyprian,,  in  his  Epiftle  to  Januanus  *, 
 fays,  M  It  is  necejjary  that  {QHatl?  Jhould  be  firjl 
 "  Cleans  d  and  Sanctified  by  t\)Z  jg^teff  •,  that  by 
 "  his  Baptifm,  the  Sins  of  the  Baptizd  Per/on  may 
 "  be  waJFd  away.03  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  Rresbyters  or 
 "  Deacons,  who  were  firjl  Ordained  in  the  Catholick 
 u  Churchy  and  afterwards  rebelled  and  flood  out  againfl 
 Ct  Her  •,  or,  If  any  who  were,  among  Hereticks,  Ordain  d 
 Cc  by  the  profane  Ordination  of  Fa/fe  Bijhops,  &c.  — 
 "  If  any  of  thefe  return  d  to  the  Church,  they  Jhould 
 cc  be  received  to  Communion  only  as  Lay-men" 
 In  his    Epiftle  to    Jubaianus,    he   affirms,  That 
 
 *  Oportet  ergo  reundari  &  Sar&ificari  Aquam  prius  k  Sacer* 
 dote,  ut  poffic  Baptifmo  fuo  peccata  Hominis  qui  Baptizatur, 
 abluere.     Epifl.jo.    Paris,  1^48.  Pag  137. 
 
 f  Addimus  plane  &  Adjungimus  Frater  charifTime  Ccncenfu  fe 
 AuUorhaie  Commum,  ut  etiam  (i  qui  Presbyteri,  aut  Diacom, 
 qui  vel  in  Ecclefia  Catholica  prius  Ordinati  fuerinr,  8e  poft- 
 modum  perfldi  ac  rebelles  contra  Ecclefiam  fteterinr,  vel  apud 
 Haeretico's  a  pfeudo-Epiicopis  &  antichriftis  contra  Chrifti  difpofi- 
 tior.em,  profana  Ordinatione  promoti  fint  &  contra  Altare  unum 
 arque  Divinum  Sacrificia  foris  falfa  ac  facrile^a  efferre  conati 
 func,  eos  quoque  h:c  conditione  fufcipi    <um  revercuntur,  ut 
 
 Communicent  Lticiy  8cc.  nee  debere  eos  revertentes  ea  apud 
 
 nos  Ordinationis  3c  Honoris  Arma  retincrc,  quibus  contra  nos 
 rebellaverint.    Epijl,  72  p.  141, 142. 
 
 E  2  w  **Nvne 
 
$£  Tefiimonies  for  and  againjk      Part  II. 
 
 "  **A 'one 'have  Authority  to  Baptize,  or  give  Remif- 
 "  fwn  of  Sins,  but  the  'BtfijOpS,  and  thofe  who  are 
 'c  founded  in  the  Evangelical  Law,  and  GUt  llO^'S 
 "  appointment  y  and,  That  nothing  can  be  Bound 
 C£  or  hoofed  out  of  the  Church,  feeing  there  is  None 
 *c  there  who  has  tf)C  JpOlWt  of  Binding  andLoqfing. 
 u  — —  That  this  is  founded  upon  the  Authority  of 
 "  the  Holy  Scriptures.  —  That  No  One  can 
 cc  ufurp  to  himfelf  in  Oppofition  to  the  Bifhops  and 
 6'  Priefts,  what  he  has  nO  El'gijt  and  pOtOCi: 
 cc  to  perform  -,  and  inflances  the  Examples  <?/~  Corah, 
 "  Dathan,  and  AhiramV  endeavouring  to  ufurp  to 
 "  themf elves  the  Power  of  Sacrificing,  in  Oppofition 
 <c  to  Mofes,  and  Aaron  the  Prieft.  So  again,  in 
 his  Epiftle  to  Magnus,  fpeaking  of  the  Baptifm 
 given  by  Kereticks  and  Schifmaticks,  he  calls  it, 
 *  a  Profane  Wafhing  -,  and  gives  this  for  a  Reafon, 
 why  thofe  who  come  over  from  them  to  the  Church, 
 ought  to  be  Baptiz'd  in  the  Church  :  t  u  We  fay, 
 "  (fays  he)  That  all  Here  ticks  and  Schifmaticks  are 
 "  utterly  deftitute  of  all  PoUtfr;  and  Right ;  M  In 
 Confequence  of  this,  he  calls  their  Altars,  ||  Falfe 
 Altars  -,  their  Priefthood,  Unlawful  -,   and  their  Sa- 
 
 **  Intelligimus,  non  niii  in  Ecclefia  Pi  acpofitis,  8c  in  Evangelica 
 lege,  ac  Dominica  Ordinatio,  ne  fundatis  licere  Baptizare,  re- 
 roirTam  peccatorum  dare ,  foris  autem  nee  Jigari  aliquid  polfe 
 necfolvi,  ubi  non  lit  qui  aut  ligare  pofilt  aliquid,  aut  folvere. 
 Nee  hoc  trater  chiriffixe  fine  Scripture  divinsc  auclorirate  pro- 
 ponimus,  uc  dicamus  cerra  Lege,  - —  cunfta  efTe  difpoftta  5  nee 
 pcjfe  quenquam  contra  Epifcopos  8c  Sacerdotes  ufurpare  fibi 
 aliquid,  q<cd  non  fit  fu't  Juris  &  poteftatis.  Nam  &  Chore,  Da- 
 tham,  8c  Abyron,  fyc.    Epijl.j],  p.  14/. 
 
 *  Frophanum  Lavacrum. 
 
 f  Dicimus  omnes  omnino  Haereticos  &  Schifmaticos  nihil  ha- 
 bere Pcttjlatis  ac  furti. 
 
 ||  Falfa  Altaria,  &  illicita  Sacerdotia,  8c  S^crificia  Sacrilega, 
 8c  nomina  adulterata  fingentes. 
 
 crifices, 
 
Chap.  i»     Lap-Baptifm,  Examined)  &c.         53 
 
 crificcs,  Sacrilegious,  He  affirms,  That  *  they 
 va>nly  Contend,  [who  fay,  That]  "  any  one  can  be 
 H  Baptized  and  Sanctified  with  Saving  Baptifm,  where 
 "  'tis  ?nanifeft  that  ti)Z  ODapttjet*  Ijag  JlOt  3U^ 
 "  tljOJIt?  ^  Commijfion  to  Baptize.  5>  And  he 
 asks,  t  "  #<?w  <^#  f^y  Juft'fo  and  Sanclifie  the 
 "  Baptized y  who  are  the  Pri eft's  Enemies,  and  en- 
 "  deavour  to  ufurp  to  them f elves  things  unfit  and 
 c  unlawful  for  them,  and  which  were  never  granted 
 u  them  by  any  haw  or  Authority  whatfoever  *  " 
 
 Thefe,  among  many  other  Inftances  that  might 
 be  brought  from  St  Cyprian's  own  AVorks,  do  plainly 
 fhow,  That  he  efteem'd  it  necefTary  that  the  Bap- 
 tifmal  Water  mould  be  Sanctified  "by  the  P^i'eft  :, 
 That  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  were,  in  his  Opi- 
 nion, but  as  Lay-men  ^  That  they  had  no  Potter* 
 9Ut!jO#tp  or  Etfffit  to  Baptize  -,  and  that,  be- 
 caufe  they  had  not  this  Right  or  Authority, 
 therefore  their  Baptifms  were  Null  and  Void. 
 Whether  thofe  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  were 
 lightly  judg'd  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 
 CommhTion  and  Authority  to  Baptize  •,  and  there- 
 by plainly  fhew'd,  that  he  efteem'd  the  Com- 
 mhTion to  be  EfTential  to  the  Miniftration  of  Bap- 
 tifm  •,  and  confequently,  that  a  fuppofititious  Bap- 
 tifm,  by  a  Perfon  who  never  had  a  CommifTion  to 
 Baptize,    [which   is  the  very  Cafe  of  our  Lay- 
 
 *  Fruftra  Contendunt  Bapti^ri  &  SanZlificari  illic  aliquem 
 falutari  Baptifmo  poffe,  ubi  conftet  Baptizantem  Eaptizandi  Li? 
 centiam  non  habere,  - 
 
 f  Quomodo  tales  juilificare  &  fanftificare  Baptizafos  poffunt $ 
 fjui  Hoftes  Sacerdotum,  aliena  &  illicifa  &  mUo  fibi  fure  conceffa 
 ufurpare  conantur? Epijt*  76.  p.  167, 170,  171. 
 
 Baptifms] 
 
54  Tefi monies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 Baptifins]  muft  be  Null  and  Void,  whatever  be- 
 came of  Baptifins  by  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks 
 who  in  thofe  Days  ufed  to  be  Ordam'd  by 
 Bifhops. 
 
 §  XIV.  Eirmilian  was  alfo  of  the  fame  mind  ; 
 for,  in  his  Epiftle  to  St.  Cyprian,  he  affirms  of 
 Hereticks  who  have  cut  themfelves  off  from  the 
 Church  i  That  *  "  They  can  have  nothing  of  Grace, 
 cc  or  Power,  [or  autfiptft?  -,]  fince  all  Grace  and 
 "  Authority  is  eftablijtid  in  the  Church,  where  the 
 "  Bifhops  prefide,  who  have  the  Power  or  Authority 
 u  of  Baptizing,  of  haying  on  of  Hands,  and  of  Or di- 
 cc  nation.  For  as  an  Here  tick  has  not  the  Authority 
 "  of  Ordaining,  or  of  haying  on  of  Hands,  jo  neither 
 "  has  he  the  potDCt  or  SUitiJOtftp  of  Baptizing.— 
 He  fays,  t  "  That  this  was  long  before  Eft ab lift? d 
 w  and  Confirmed  in  a  Council  at  Iconium,  held  by 
 "  him  and  the  Bifhops  <?/Galatia  and  Cilicia,  and 
 cc  the  reft  of  the  neighbouring  Region  s^  firmly  to 
 c  be  held  and  maintain  d  againft  Hereticks,  when 
 
 "  any  Doubt  Jhould  arife  about  this  Matter. 
 
 They  Decreed,  ||  cc  That  all  thofe  Jhould  be  holden 
 
 *  Hzretici  fi  fe  ab  Ecclefia  Dei  Sciderint,  nihil  habere  Potefta- 
 tis  aut  Gratia?  poffumt9  quando  omnis  Poteftas  &  Gratia  in  Ercle- 
 fu  ConHituta  fit  *,  ubi  pnefident  majores  natu  qui  8cBaptizandi 
 &  manum  imponendi,  &  ordinandi  poffident  potefhtem.  Hje- 
 retico  enim  ficut  Oidinare  non  licet,  ncc  Manum  imponere, 
 ita  nee  Baptizare.  ,«  ■  ■  Firmiliani  Epi(i.  inter  Epift.  Cjpr. 
 
 IXXV.  p.  ifo. 
 
 f  Quod  totum  nos  jampridem  in  Iconio,  colkcli  in  unum  conve- 
 nientibus  ex  Gilatia  &  Cilicia,  8c  ceteris  proximis  Regionibus 
 conftrmayimus,  tenendum,  contra  Hxreticos  firmiter  &  vindi- 
 candum,  cum  a  quibufdam  de  ifta  re  dubitaretur.  p.  160. 
 
 (j  Nos  etiam  illos  quos  hi  qui  prius  in  Ecclefia  Catholica  Epi- 
 uopi  fuerant,  &  poftmedum  fibi  poteftatem  derica  Ordinaticnit 
 afTumentes  Eaptizavera. t,  pro  non  Biptizatis  habendos  judica- 
 yimus,  &t.  p.  1 6?, 
 
 "  as 
 
Chap.  3.     Laji-Bapttfm,  Examined,  8cc.  5^ 
 
 "  as  t!Ot  03iiptt>533,  who  were  Baptized  by  fucb  as 
 <c  bad  once  been  Bijhops  in  the  Gitbolick  Church,  if 
 "  they  were  Baptizd  by  them  after  they  had  fepa- 
 cc  rated  from  the  Church,  and  ajfumd  to  themf elves 
 Ci  the  Power  of  the  Prieftly  Order. 5J 
 
 All  which  PafTages  of  Fir  mi  Hans  Letter  to 
 St.  Cyprian  do  abundantly  prove,  that  he  and  his 
 Colleagues,  Affembled  in  the  Council  of  Iconium, 
 were  entirely  of  St. Cyprians  Opinion,  That  there 
 was  no  Baptifin,  where  there  was  no  Prieftly  Power 
 to  Baptize  -,  and  confequently,  that  Baptifm 
 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  of  St. Cyprians  Colleagues 
 in  the  Council  of  Carthage,  confifting  of  87  Bifhops, 
 exprefsly  affirm'd  the  fame  thing  :  Thus  Novatus 
 a  Thamugade  fays,  That  *  cc  According  to  the  De- 
 6  cree  of  their  Colleagues,  Men  of  moft  f acred  Me- 
 mory,  all  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  - ■    who 
 
 feem  to  have  been  Ordain  d,  Jhould,  upon  their  Con- 
 verfwn  to  the  Church,  be  receivd  among  Laicks. 
 
 ConfeiTbr  Pomponius  a  Dionyfana  fays,  t  "  TCw 
 "  manifeft,  that  Hereticks  CattllOt  'BftpttK,  and 
 
 *  Secundum  Decretum  Collegarum  noftrorum  fanflifTimaE 
 memorix  v  rcrum,  omnes  Schifmaticos  8c  Hsreticos  qui  ad  Eo 
 
 clefiam  convv  rfi  funt, &  qui  Ordinati  videbantur  inter  Laicos 
 
 recipi.     Concil  Carthag.  inter  S.  C)pr.  Oper.  p.  ^4. 
 
 f  Manifeftam  eft  Hsreticos  non  poife  Baptizare,  8c  Remif- 
 fionem  Peccarorum  dare,  qui  poteftatem  non  habent,  ut  auc  foN 
 vere  aut  ligare  aliquid  in  terris  poflint.    P.  360. 
 
 E  4  "  grve 
 
56         Teftimonies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 tc  give  Remijfion  of  Sins,  who  have  not  the  POtDCC 
 "  of  Binding  or  hoofing  any  thing  on  the  Earth. 
 
 Confeflbr    Clarus    a    Majcula     affirms,     That 
 *  "  Hereticks,  who   have  ItO  lp)Cfoer  out   of  the 
 
 tc  Church,  ' cannot  Baptize  any  one  with  their 
 
 "  Baptifm." 
 
 In  Confequence  of  this  Suppofltion,  That  He- 
 rcticks  were  deftitute  of  Fewer  and  Authority  to 
 Baptize,  [as  Lay-men,  Perfons  who  were  never 
 Commiifion'd,  moft  certainly  are,  ]  thefe  Fathers 
 determin'd,  That  thofe  who  were  Baptized  only  by 
 fuch  Hereticks,  mould,  upon  their  Converfion, 
 be  Baptized  in  the  Church  :  It  matters  not,  whe- 
 ther thofe  Hereticks  were  utterly  deftitute  of  all 
 Power  to  Baptize,  or  no  :  We  plainly  fee,  that 
 St.  Cyprian,  Yirmilian,  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  Baptifm  •,  which  is  the  very 
 Cafe  about  which  we  are  now  Difputing  :  For  our 
 Lay-Baptifms  are  notorioufly  fuch,  as  are  per- 
 formed by  Perfons  who  never  receiv'd,  and  there- 
 fore have  not  any  Commiffion,  Power,  or  Autho- 
 rity to  Baptize^  and  confequently,  according  to 
 St.  Cyprian,  Firmi/ian,  and  their  Colleague  Bifhops, 
 Affembled  in  the  Councils  of  Iconium  and  Carthage^ 
 thefe  Baptifms  being  without  Commiffion,  Power, 
 or  Authority,  are  wholly  Mull  and  Void. 
 
 *  Iteetici  qui  nee  poteftatem  foris,  nee  Ecclefiam  Chrifti 
 figberit,  neminem  Baptizare  Baptifmo  ejus  pbilunt.    P.  363. 
 
Chap.  J.      Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  Ike.        57 
 
 §  XVI.  The  Canons  call'd  Apoftolical  are  very 
 ancient  ^  and  Three  of  them,  wherein  the  Baptifm  of 
 Hereticks  is  reje&ed,  are  fuppos'd  *  by  the  Learn- 
 ed Du  Pin^  to  be  the  very  Canons  of  the  Synods  of 
 Iconium  &  Synnada,  and  therefore  at  leaft  as  early 
 as  the  Year  of  Chrift  2?  5,  or  256.— -One  of  thefe 
 Three,  which  is  the  47th  of  the  Apoftoliek  Canons, 
 is  this :  "  Ufa  Bijhop  or  Presbyter  do  again  Baptize 
 "  one,  who  has  really  receivd  Baptifm  before  5 "  or, 
 "  if  he  do  not  Baptize  one  that  has  been  polluted  by 
 c  Wicked  Men,  let  him  be  deposed  tu  one  who  con- 
 "  temns  the  Crofs  and  Death  of  Chrift,  and  ttiafteg 
 u  110  DtttirifltOtt  between  Priefts,  i1tt»  COUttteC* 
 
 ?  felt  p?teff0. 
 
 The  Fathers  who  made  this  Canon,  reckon'd 
 that  a  Man  was  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  Priefts  $ 
 Perfons  whom  that  Council  reckon'd  to  be  no 
 Priefts,  at  the  time  of  their  fuppos'd  pretended 
 Miniftration  -,  for  they  are  fpoken  of,  by  way  of 
 Oppofition  to  PjtefiS  fimply  confider'd :  So  that 
 by  this  Canon,  if  a  Perfon  had  been  only  Baptiz'd 
 by  one,  who  was  but  a  counterfeit  Prieft,  a  Bi- 
 fhop, or  Presbyter,  was  to  be  depos'd,  if  he  did 
 not  Baptize  that  Perfon  3  and  the  Reafon  why  he 
 was  to  be  depos'd,  was  this,  becaufe  he  made  no 
 
 *  Du  Fins  Ecdef.  Hift.  Cent.  1.  p.  14,  Lond. 
 
 t  Epifcopus  vei  Presbyter  eum  qui  vere  habct  Eaptifma  fi  dc 
 inregro  Baptizaverit,  vei  fi  eum  qui  ab  impiis  pollutus  eft,  non 
 Baptizaverit,  deponatur,  ut  qui  irrideat  Crucem  Domini,  8c 
 Mortem,  8c  nm  Dccermt  Sacer  dotes,  d  faljis  Steer dotibus.  Can.  SS. 
 fcpof.  XLYH. 
 
 Pijti* 
 
5  8  Testimonies  for  and  again  ft      Pa  r  t  II# 
 
 Diftinttion  between  Priefts  and  Pretenders ;  between 
 thofe  who  were  really  veiled  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  p0iUtt£5?  and  not 
 Baptized  the  Perfon  ;  which  comes  fully  up  to  our 
 prefent  Cafe.  Our  Lay-Baptizers,  namely,  our 
 PifTenting  Teachers,  being  but  Pretenders  only, 
 falfe  and  counterfeit  Priefts,  having  no  more  aclual 
 Power  of  Priefthood  than  the  meanefl  Mechanick 
 Laick  in  the  World  has. 
 
 §  XVII.  Mr.  Bingham's  Second  Inftance  of  Lay- 
 men's being  allowed  to  Baptize  in  Cafes  of  Neceffity, 
 is  about  one  hundred  Years  after  his  Firft  $  and  he 
 takes  it  from  the  Spanijh  Council  of  Eli  be  m,  held  by 
 1 9  Bifhops,  faid  to  have  been  affembled  about  the 
 Year  of  Chrift  305.  Canon  58.  "  They  there  appoin- 
 u  ted  (fays  he,  pag.  27.)  that  when  Men  were  upon 
 "  a  Voyage  at  Sea,  or  in  any  Place  where  no  Church 
 u  was  at  handy  if  a  Catechumen  happen  d  to  be  ex- 
 "  treamly  Sick,  and  at  the  Point  of  Death,  that  then 
 c  any  Cbriftian,  who  had  his  own  Baptifm  entire,  and 
 cc  was  no  Bi garni  ft,  might  Baptize  him.  M  Upon 
 which  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  Remarks,  That 
 "  This  9llt!)0?>tp  was  not  given  to  all  Chriftians  in 
 
 all  Cafes,  but  with  Jeveral  Limitations  and  Reftri- 
 
 cc  llwns.     lit    //  muft  be  a  Cafe  of  abfolute  KeceJJity 
 
 '  when  Baptifv  could  not  atherwife  be  had,     2dly, 
 
 The  Perfon  Baptizing  muft  have  his  own  Baptifm  en- 
 a  tire.  3dly5  He  muft  be  no  Big  ami  ft"'—  And 
 upon  the  whole,  Mr.  'Bingham  affirms,  That  u  in 
 "  the  main,  the  Matter  is  indif put  able,  that  they 
 \_i.e.  the  Span iflo  Bifhops  of  that  Council]  plainly 
 "  intended  in  fome  extraordinary  Cafes  to  give  Lay- 
 cc  men  a  Licenfc  and  £UltIj02if}?  to  admimfter  Bap- 
 
 "  tijm% 
 
Chap.  1 .     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &x\        59 
 
 "  tifm^  which  could  not  then  be /aid  to  be  UttiltltfjO- 
 "  ttJ'B  in  Spain,  fince  it  bad  the  bed  Authority  the 
 "  Church  could  give  it  -,  which  is  the  Determination 
 *  and  Authority  of  a  Council, 'J  pag.  27,  28.  In  all 
 which  there  are  feveral  Things  worth  Obfer- 
 vation. 
 
 iji,  That  Mr.  Bingham  reckons  this  Council  JjaSc 
 9tttf)0?ttp  to  fome  Lay-men  to  Baptize  in  extraor- 
 dinary Cafes ;  How  the  Do&or  at  Greenwich  will  like 
 this,  who  affirms,  that  fuch  a  Suppofition  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 
 Reverend  Hiftorian,  for  whofe  tiiftorical  Hiftory  I 
 am  informed  he  has  a  mighty  Value  and  Efteem:— • 
 But  if  the  Council  of  Eliberk  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  tDttUtiltiKZ  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  Biihops  gave  them  Authority^  according 
 to  our  Hiftorian  3  which  thofe  Spanifh  Biihops  could 
 not  be  faid  to  have  done,  if  Lay-men  had  fuch 
 Authority  before :  And  this  alio  is  therefore  de- 
 ftructive  of  Tertullians  Notion  of  Lay-men's  having 
 a  Right  in  themfelves  to  Baptize  in  the  Abfence  of 
 the  Clergy.  For  the  Councils  intending  to  Autho- 
 rize fOttie  La^metl  (according  to  Mr.  Bingham) 
 and  not  Otl)Cr&  to  Baptize  in  fuch  Cafes,  is  an 
 Evidence,  that  thofe  Bifhops  did  not  Efteem  all 
 Lay-Chriftians  as  fuch,  to  have  that  Power  and  Au- 
 thority.   Hence  it  follows, 
 
 idly,   That  this  Canon  is    a   good  Argument 
 againft  Mr,  Bingham  s  Suppofition,  in  pag.  1 1, 1 2. — 
 
 where 
 
60  Teflimonies  for  and  a  gain  ft      Part  II. 
 
 where  he  guefTes  that  the  Antients  might  Efteem 
 fome  irregular  Baptifms  to  be  valid,  upon  this 
 Principle,  "  That  Baptifm,  by  Xnfjomftietiet:  Clj?l* 
 
 *  fftcUI  petfO^m'D)  was  valid,  and  not  to  be  re- 
 "  peated:  For,  if  the  Bifhops  of  this  Council  had 
 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  Chriflians^  as  fuch, 
 had  that  Authority  in  themfelves ;  and  Baptifm,  by 
 wbomfoever  Chriftian  a  dm  iniftr  ed ,  was  then  good  and 
 valid,  in  the  Opinion  of  the  Catholick  Church  > 
 
 There  was  another  Condition  impos'd  on  thofe 
 Baptizers,  by  the  Spanifh  Bifhops  of  that  Coun- 
 cil, which  Mr.  Bingham  has  not  taken  notice  of,  and 
 'twas  this  •,  "  That  *  //  the  Baptized  furvived,  he 
 "  who  Baptized  bim,  was  obliged  to  prefent  him  to 
 "  the  Bifhop  to  be  Confirmed  by  Impofitwn  of  Hands :  * 
 Which  taken  in  Conjunction  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  fignihe,  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  Du  Pin 
 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  Bifhop :  He  was  to  be  no  Separatiji  from 
 the  Church  ;  no  Schifmatical  render  of  her  Sacred 
 Body^  no  Rebel  againft  Epifcopacy  it  felf$  but 
 one  in  actual  Communion  with  the  Church-,  one  who 
 own'd  and  acknowledge  the  Spiritual  Power  of 
 Bifhops  -,  and  that  fo  far,  as  to  bring  the  Bap- 
 
 *  Ita  ut  fi  fupervixerit,  ad  Epifcopum  eum  perducat,  ut  per 
 manusiir.pofitionem  perfici  poflit,  Concil.Eliber.  Can,  XXXVIII. 
 
 tiz'd 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifm^  Examined)  &c.         6i 
 
 tiz'd  to  be  Confirmed  by  Impofition  of  the  Bifhop's 
 Hands.  But  our  Lay-Baptizers  are  not  fo^  and 
 therefore  nothing  in  Favour  of  their  pretended  Bap- 
 tifms  can  be  pleaded  from  this  Canon,  if  it  were 
 of  any  Obligation  in  our  Church,  as  it  moft  cer- 
 tainly is  not. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  is  pleas'd  to  tell  us,  That  tC  It  will 
 
 £  not  here   be  material  for  any  One  to  Objetf,  That 
 
 c  this  was  but  the  Determination  of  a  Private  Na- 
 
 "  tional  Council*,  for  (fays  he)   we  are  not  now 
 
 x  enquiring  what  Obligation    any   other  Church  is 
 
 under  to  follow  this  Rule,  but  only  what  was 
 "  Matter  of  Faff,  and  the  PraUice  of  the  Ancient 
 c  Church"  pag.  29.  But,  with  Submiffion,  this 
 Obje&ion  is  very  material,  and  for  this  Reafon, 
 becaufe,  we  are  enquiring,  not  into  the  Practice  of 
 a  particular  Church  or  two,  but  of  the  ancient  Catho- 
 lick Church,  that  we  maybe  able  to  diftinguifhyZtf- 
 gular  unwarranted  Notions,  from  truly  ancient  and 
 well-grounded  Catholick  Traditions  and  Prattices. 
 This  Council  was  but  Provincial  5  it  fays  nothing 
 about  any  former  Catholick  Tradition  or  Practice ; 
 it  fpeaks  of  no  general  Cuftom  then  in  Ufe  about 
 this  Matter,  at  the  time  of  'its  Seffion  5  it  was 
 never  receiv'd  into  the  Code  of  the  Catholick 
 Church,  as  confonant  to  the  Senfe  of  the  Catholick 
 Church  ;  and  therefore  has  nothing  in  it  of  fuffi- 
 cient  weight  to  convince  us,  that  this  Canon  is  a 
 Teftimony  of  the  General  Practice  of  the  Church 
 in  thofe  Days.  "We  muft  have  more  than  one 
 fingle  Provincial  Council  to  fhew  us  the  General 
 Practice  of  the  Ancient  Church :  And  after  all, 
 even  if  this  had  been  a  General  Council,  it  would 
 not  have  determin'd,  that  all  Lay-Chriftians,  as 
 fuch,  have  in  thernfelves  a  Right  to  Baptize,  in 
 Cafes  of  Extremity  *    nay,  it  would  not  have  fo 
 
 much 
 
62  Tejlimonies  for  and  again fi     Part  II. 
 
 much  as  Authorized  or  Impower'd  all  Baptized  Lay- 
 men for  that  Purpofe,  becaufe  it  do's  not  Autho- 
 rize Bigamifts  ^  much  lefs  would  it  have  Authoriz'd 
 Schifinaticks,  who  feparate  from  their  Bifhop's 
 Communion  :  And  therefore,  the  pretended  Bap- 
 tifm,  given  by  Perfons  who  never  were  at  all 
 Commiifiond  to  Baptize,  and  who  attempt  to  give 
 Baptifm  Ordinarily,  without  the  leaft  appearance 
 of  Neceffity,  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  been  a  Genera/One  ^  and 
 therefore,  certainly,  fince  'twas  but  a  Provincial 
 one^  thofe  (purions  Baptifms,  can  upon  no  account 
 whatfbever,  be  favour'd  by  the  Canon  of  that 
 Spanifh  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  Bifhops  can  do  5  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  Bifhops. 
 
 §  XVIII.  The  Reverend  Hiftorian's  Third  In- 
 fiance,  is  taken  from  the  Story  of  Boys  Baptizing 
 in  Play  at  the  Sea-fide,  in  the  days  of  Alexander 
 Bifhop  of  Alexandria  •,  and  he  introduces  it  thus  : 
 "  Whilft  this  Matter  [  of  the  Spanf/h  Bifhops  in  the 
 Council  of  Eliberk,  their  making  a  Canon  to  Au- 
 thorize fome  of  their  Lay-men  to  Baptize,  &c.~\ 
 "  was  thus  determined  in  the  Wtilt%  there  happen  d 
 "  another  famous  Tranfattion  in  the  Caff,  which 
 t"  drew  on  a  Jtfte  Determination  in  the  Church 
 
 ^Alexandria,  if  we  may  give  credit  to  any  of  the 
 
 "  ancient 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifnz,  ExamirPdj  &C.  6j 
 
 c'  ancient  Hi  ft  or  i  an  s,  Socrates,  Sozomen,  and  Rufin, 
 cc  who  all  Relate  ttt  Rujin  (fays  he)  had  the 
 tc  Story  from  the  Mouth  of  tbqfe  who  liv'd  and  con- 
 "  vers'd  with  Athanafius  5  and  the  Account  of  it, 
 "  according  to  hk  Relation,  k  tbfc :  Alexander,  Bi- 
 <c  fhop  of  Alexandria,  on  a  certain  Day,  being  the 
 a  Feftival of 'Peter  the  Martyr,  after  the  Solemn  Ser- 
 "  vice  of  the  Church  was  over,  was  entertaining 
 cc  himfelf  with  a  Profpecl  toward  the  Sea,  whilft  he 
 <c  expeffed  hk  Clergy  to  come  and  dine  with  him*  In 
 u  hk  Profpecl,  at  fome  diflance  upon  the  Sea-fhorey 
 w  he  beheld  a  Number  of  Touths  at  Play,  atfing  the 
 Cc  Part  of  a  Bifhop,  and  doing  all  things  which  were 
 a  ufed  to  be  done  in  the  Church :  And  viewing  them 
 "  intently  for  fome  time,  he  at  lafifaw  them  come 
 "  to  the  Secret  and  Myftical  Rites  of  Religion, 
 "  upon  which,  being  fomcSBfjat  perpferD,  he  fent 
 Cc  immediately  for  his  Clergy,  andfloewd  them  what  he 
 "  himfelf  had  fe en,  ordering  them  withal  to  go,  and 
 "  bring  the  Boys  before  him.  Who  being  asUd,  What 
 <c  Play  they  were  at,  and  what  they  had  done,  and 
 c  after  what  manner  ?  They  atfrft  denyd  all  the  whole 
 "  Matter,  as  Children  us'd  to  do  through  fear-,  but 
 <c  afterward,  they  told  every  thing  in  order  as  it  was 
 <c  done,  confejjing,  that  they  had  Baptizd  certain 
 "  Catechumens,  by  the  Hands  of  Athanafius,  who 
 "  atted  the  Part  of  the  Biflwp  in  the  Play.  Then  ex- 
 c  amining  farther  of  thofe  who  were  f aid  to  be  Bap- 
 "  tiz'd,  What  Que  ft  ions  they  were  a  slid,  and  what 
 cc  Anfwers  they  made  I  And  being  like  wife  inform  d 
 "  by  him  who  had  been  the  chief  Atfor*,  when  he  found 
 c  that  all  things  had  been  done  according  to  the  Rites 
 '  of  our  Religion,  after  he  had  conferred  with  a 
 ce  Council  of  his  Clergy,  \)Z  10  fatD  tO  XfiW  XSZttt- 
 "  nitffD,  [Statuiffe  traditur,  fays  Rutin,]  That 
 "  the  Baptifm  of  thofe,  on  whom  Water  bad  been 
 
 pourV 
 
64  T eft  monies  for  and  again f      Part  II. 
 
 c  poured,  witb  the  proper  Interrogatories  nnd  Re- 
 "  fponfes,  ought  not  to  be  repeated,  but  only  have 
 u  thoje  things  added,  which  the  Priefts  were  ufed  to 
 
 c  perform.  *  Socrates,  and  t  Sozomen,  have  the 
 "  fame  Story  -,  and  the  Author  of  the  Life  of  Atha- 
 "  nafius  in  Photius,  with  Johannes  Mofchus,  and 
 w  many  others,"  fays  Mr. Bingham,  pag.  29,30, 31. 
 Then  he  Names  tc  Archbifhop  Whitgift,  Abbot,  Co- 
 tc  tolerius,  Pagi,  and,  he  fays,  many  others  that 
 <c  might  be  namd,  Men  of  Char  alter  in  their  Age^ 
 <c  have  appear  d  in  its  Behalf  and  defended  it  as  a 
 cc  genuine  Piece  of  Hiftory.  And  it  isfome  Confir- 
 ic  mat  ion,  that  Rufin  fays  he  had  it  from  the  Mouth 
 cc  of  thofe  who  conversed  with  Athanafius.  And  Ni- 
 "  cephorus  Califtus,  who  alfo  relates  the  Story,  || 
 "  gives  a  parallel  lnftance  of  another  Fail  much  like 
 "  this,  which  happened  in  his  own  time  at  Conftanti- 
 "  nople, "  pag.  31.  Thus  far  Mr.  Bingham.  It  is  a 
 wonderful  Thing  to  fee  with  what  Air  of  Gravity^ 
 and  Solemnity  of  Expreffion,  this  Reverend  Hifto- 
 rian  introduces  the  Story  of  this  ludicrous,  fportive 
 Warning:  He  fays  of  it,  cc  There  happen'd  ano- 
 "  ther  fatttOU0  CrattfactlOlt  in  the  Eaft."  This, 
 before  one  comes  to  read  the  Story  it  felf,  looks  as 
 7  3  if  it  was  fome  mighty  important  Affair  which  was 
 y«Mr^cf  a  very  Publick  Nature,  and  undoubtedly  attefted 
 to  by  the  Bifhops  of  the  Eaftern  Church ;  for,  he 
 
 fays,  it  "  drew  on  a  Itfec  Determination  in  the 
 
 "  Church  ^Alexandria,"  i.  e.  a  like  Determina- 
 tion to  that  of  the  Council  of  Eliberis,  he  was 
 juft  before  fpeaking  of.  Now  who  is  there,  that  at 
 firft  reading  of  this,  would  not  naturally  expect 
 
 *  Hift   Lib.  1.  cap.  iy. 
 
 t  I  ib.  2.  cap.  17. 
 
 ||  Niceph  Hift.  Lib.  3.  c,  37. 
 
 to 
 
 ^fti* 
 
Chap.  j.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.         6$ 
 
 to  find,  that  a  Provincial  Council  of  Bifhops  was 
 afTembled  at  Alexandria,  upon  the  Account  of  this 
 pretended  u  famous  Tranfatlion,  'J  and  that  they 
 had  made  fome  new  Canon,  as  the  Council  of  Eli- 
 berk  did,  about  Lay-Baptifm  >  For,  he  fays,  it 
 cc  drew  on  a  like  determination  5  "  when,  behold, 
 parturiunt  montes,  &c.  a  Mountain  has  brought 
 forth  a  Moufe.  This  famous  Tranfatlion  was  no- 
 thing but  Boys  Play,  in  the  <£&tt)  /'.  e.  at  the 
 Water-fide  near  Alexandria  5  and  the  Dltltttlittft* 
 ttOlt  it  is  faid  to  have  drew  on,  was  no  more  than 
 this,  That  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria,  (having  taken 
 Council  with  the  Priefts  that  were  about  him, 
 whom  he  was  before  expecting  to  Dine  with  him) 
 is  faid  to  have  determin'd,  that  the  Boys  Baptized 
 in  Play,  mould  not  be  Baptiz'd  again:  A  famous 
 Tranfatlion  this !  and  as  important  a  Determina- 
 tion too  !  If  it  had  been  true  in  fad,  which  we 
 have  no  reafon  to  believe  it  was,  if  we  confider, 
 1/?,  The  Ecclefiaftical  Writers  whom  Mr.  Bingham 
 appeals  to  for  the  Truth  thereof,  -idly,,  Its  little  or 
 no  Credit  among  Learned  Men.  And  idly,  The 
 Circumftances  of  the  Story  it f elf.     For, 
 
 Firft,  The  known  Perfon,  from  whom  we  ori- 
 ginally have  this  Story,  is  no  other  than  Rufinus; 
 and  from  him  Sozomen  alone,  among  the  ancient 
 Ecclefiaftical  Hiftorians.  The  Firft,  a  Man  re- 
 markably credulous,  and  befides  fo  very  carelefs 
 in  his  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,  that  Socrates  Scholafti- 
 cus  complains  of  it,  *  and  fays,  That  he  "  haf 
 "  errd  concerning  the  Notation  of  the  Times :  *  And 
 gives  one  In  fiance  thereof  in  the  Troubles  of 
 St.  Athanafius  *,  That   "  he   voat    alfo  ignorant   of 
 
 *  Socrates  EcJef  Hift   Book  ii.   cap.  1. 
 
 ¥  Sf. 
 
66  Toft  monies  for  and  againft       Part  IL 
 
 u  5/.  AthanafiusV  Banifhment  into  the  Gallias,  and 
 "  of  mttal  Ctijer  tljingS;'  That  Socrates  "  ba- 
 "  ving  at  firft  followed  Rufinus,  [as  his  Author] 
 cc  wrote  the  Yirft  and  Second  Book  oj  his  [  i.  e.  So- 
 c'  crates' s]  Hiftory  according  to  his  [  i.  e.  Rufinus] 
 
 "  Authority"- ct  But  [fays  Socrates']  when  we 
 
 "  had  afterwards procurdAthanafius's  Books,  where* 
 
 x  in  he  laments  his  own  calamitous  Sufferings,  &c. — 
 
 cc  we  thought  it  more  expedient  to  Credit  him  (which 
 
 "  had  fuffer  d  thefe  Hard/hips)  and  thofe  who  had 
 
 "  been  preSent  at  the  tranfi fling  of  thefe  Matters^ 
 
 "  rather  than  Such  as  have  follOtUetJ  Conjeotttireg 
 
 <c  in  their  Relations  thereof  and  for  thatReafon  have 
 
 "  been  WltfttikZlU"    Befides,  "  having  got  Several 
 
 cc  Letters  of  Perfons  at  that  time,  tl£t*P  (Stottltertt, 
 
 "  to  our  utmoft  Ability,  we  have  tUllgCntlP  traced 
 
 out  the  Truth*    Upon  which  Account,    we  have 
 
 c  been  nccejfitated  £tttt?£ip  to  ditlate  again  the  Firft: 
 
 and  Second  Book  of  this  Work    [i.  e.  Socrates's 
 
 Ecclefiaftical  Hiftorv]  making  ufe  nevertheless  of 
 
 <c  thofe  Paffages,  M  tljeKelattCHt  ttljCtCOf  Rufinus 
 
 cc  Ijatfj  not  fo?fafeen  tlje  Crutiy   By  all  which 
 
 'tis  plain,  that  the  Credulity  of  Rufinus,  his  Care- 
 lefnefs,  his  following  Conjectures,  and  his  deviating 
 from,  and  forfaking  of  Truth,  in  fome  Matters  of 
 his  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,  were  the  Reafons  which 
 induc'd  Socrates  to  write  over  a-new,  the  Firft  and 
 Second  Books  of  his  Hiftory,  which  he  at  firft  took 
 from  Rufinus  -,  whofe  Authority  he  afterwards 
 found  was  not  to  be  depended  upon  in  many 
 Cafes,  when  he  had  confulted  more  Authenthick 
 Records :  And  why  we  fhould  depend  upon  RufinvSs 
 Hiftory,  concerning  this  ludicrous  Baptifm,  when 
 the  Judicious  Socrates  Scholafiicus  found  Rufinus  to 
 fee  fo  apt  to  follow  Conjectures,  and  to  depart  from 
 Truth,  that  he  refus'd  to  Copy  this  Story  from  him, 
 
 as 
 
 cc 
 
Chap.  3.      Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &tc*        6j 
 
 as  I  fhall  by  and  by  prove  -,  I  fay,  why  we  fhould 
 believe  Rufinus,  when  an  ancient  competent  Judge 
 of  fuch  Matters,  who  knew  his  Errors  in  Hiftory 
 better  than  we,  did  not  believe  him  in  this  Matter, 
 is  hard  to  underftand  -,  especially,  when  we  find, 
 that  even  the  Moderns  have  difcover'd  Rufinus  to 
 have  been  fo  carelefs  and  negligent  in  Writing,  as 
 that  "  be  *  feems  to  have  composed  bk  Two  Books  of 
 
 c  Ecclefiaflica/  Hiftory,  wit  bout  looking  into  any  Re* 
 "  cords.  He  tranflated  Eufebius'j"  t  Ecclefiaftical 
 "  Hiftory  with  great  Liberty  ;  be  added  thereto  a  Re- 
 <c  lation  of  St,  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  his  Miracles^ 
 cc  and  an  Harangue  of  Lucian  the  Martyr,  which 
 *  are  not  in  Eufebius. —  There  are  fever  al  faults  in 
 
 c  bk  Translation :  He  makes  Z&oh  arias,  fpoken  of  in 
 "  St.  Luke,  to  have  been  a  Martyr  at  Lyons  ;  he 
 "  confounds  St.  Biblias  with  Blandina,  &c."  Thus 
 he  deals  with  another  Man's  Works.  And  as  for 
 his  own,  u  There  are  many  Hiftorical  Faults  in  his 
 
 c  Hiftory.     Thefe  are  J  owe  -,  Hefuppofes  that  Atha- 
 nafius  bid  bimfelf for  fix  Tears  after  he  was  con- 
 
 c  demrfd  by  the  Council  of  Tyre  ;  He  perverts  the 
 
 c  Order  of  Time  in  the  Hiftory  of  St.  Athanafius. — 
 
 He  fays,   that  St.  Hilary   was  Excommunicated, 
 
 u  ttrtMClj  fS  falfe :    And  he  confounds  the  Time, 
 
 *  when  he  fays,  that  St.  Hilary  was  BamJFd  after 
 C£  the  Council  of  'Milan,  &c. "  And  thus  we  fee  what 
 a  correct  and  careful  Hiftorian  Rufinus  was! 
 
 As  for  Sozomens  Account  of  this  Story,  he  took  it 
 from  Rufinus ;  and  therefore  is  no  additional  Evi- 
 
 *  Valefius  concernh?  the  Life  and  Wntirgt  of  Socrates  and  Sozo- 
 men,  prefixed  to  their  Ecclefiaftical  Bilhry. 
 
 f  Du  Pin's  Ecclef.  Hift.  Cent.  V.  p.  10S.    Notes  (h)  vd  QJ 
 Loud. 
 
 F  2  dence 
 
6  8  7  eft  i  mo  rues  for  and,  again  ft        P  a  r  t  IL 
 
 dence  for  the  Truth  of  it,  fo  that  it  ftill  ftands 
 ony  upon  the  flrft  Foundation  which  Rufinus  laid  ^ 
 and  what  that  is,  will  be  fomething  more  difco- 
 ver'd,  by  what  I  have  farther  to  lay  concerning 
 Socrates  Scholafticus  :  In  the  mean  time5  we  have 
 no  more  reafon  to  regard  this  Story,  for  Sozomen\ 
 having  tranfcrib'd  it  from  Rufinus^  than  we  have 
 to  efteem  other  Trivial  and  Chtldifh  PafTages  which 
 are  found  to  occur  in  feveral  Places  of  Soz.omen\ 
 Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,  and  which  he  might  probably 
 have  taken  from  other  Writers  who  follow'd  Con- 
 jetfures?  in  their  Relations,  and  for  that  reafon 
 were  often  miftaken  ^  of  this  fort,  of  Trifling  and 
 Childifhnefs,  is,  *  "  bis  Digreftion,  in  his  ift  Book, 
 cc  concerning  the  Building  of  the  City  Hemona  ^  and 
 u  concerning  the  Argonauts  Carrying  the  Ship  Argo 
 lC  on  their  Shoulders  feme  furlongs  ^  alfo  his  De- 
 c'  fcription  of  Daphne  without  the  Walls  of  the  City 
 c'  Antinch,  which  occurs  at  Chap.  19th  of  bis  6th 
 "  Book  •,  and  that  Obfervation  of  hk^  concerning  the 
 "  Beauty  of  the  Body^  where  he  treats  of  that  Virgin 
 ?  with  whom  the  blejjed Athanafius  Abfconded  a  long 
 "  while."  All  which,  betray  what  Judgment  he  had, 
 as  an  Hiftorian,  and  make  him  to  be  lefs  valuable, 
 in  that  refpedt,  than  Socrates  Scholafticus  was. 
 
 For  this  latter,  in  collecting  his  Ecclefiaftical 
 Hificry,  has  t  '■  made  life  of  a  fingular  JjUfclCtQifD 
 "  H£f£  aim  Dtltljence  :  His  Judidoufnefs  is  ma- 
 tC  nifefted)   by  his   Remarks  and  Sentiments  inter- 
 
 c  woven  everywhere  throughout  his  Books, — 
 
 "  He  judges  incomparably  well^  both  of  Men,  and 
 *  and  alfo  of  Ecclefiaftical  Bufinefs  and  Affairs, 
 tc  There  is  nothing  in  him  but  what  is  (ZDffibZ  8UU 
 
 *  ValefiuSj  of  the  Life  and  Writings  o/Socrates  WSozcmen. 
 t  Ibid. 
 
 "  Serious  * 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baptifm^  Examined,  &c.         69 
 
 cc  @>£tt0tl3  *,  nothing  that  you  can  expunge,  as 
 "  Super fluow  *,  but,  on  the  contrary,  fome  Faff  ages 
 "  occur  in  Sozomen,  that  are  Trivial  and  Qhildifh. 
 u  Socrates^  Diligence  is  declard  by  many  — —  In- 
 "  fiances  5  chiefly  by  this,  in  regard  he  frequently 
 lf  annexes  a  Aote  of  the  Times,  that  is,  the  Confu- 
 "  late s  and  Olympiads,  efpe daily  where  be  mentions 
 "  fuch  Matters  as  are  more  momentous.  Nor  has 
 "  he  Car  clef  sly  or  Negligently  written  his  Hiftory,  as 
 M  Rufinus  did,  who  (as  has  been  obferv'd  before) 
 
 u  feems to  have  composed  his  Two  Books  of  Ec- 
 
 "  cleflaftical  Hiftory without  looking  into  any 
 
 <c  Records.  Our  Socrates  did  far  other  wife  -,  for 
 u  having  from  all  Places  got  together  the  Beji  Monu- 
 "  ments,  that  is,  the  Epiftles  of  Prelates,  the  Affs 
 iC  of  Synods,  and  the  Books  cf Ec  cleflaftical Writers, 
 Cc  agreeable  to  their  Authority,  he  composed  his 
 <:  Hiftory.  This  Diligent  and  Judicious  Eccle- 
 flaftical Hiftorian  is  brought  in  by  Mr.  Bingham, 
 to  vouch  for  the  Truth  of  Rujinus's  Story,  of 
 Mr.  Bingham's  Jf  atltOUg  CrailfacttOn,  of  Baptifm 
 by  Boys  at  Play  at  the  Water-fide  ;  Mr.  Bingham 
 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  a  There  happened  a  Famous,  Sec.   which  dreio 
 
 "  on  a  Determination,  Sec.  ■ //  we  may  give 
 
 "  credit  to  any    of  the  Ancient  Hiftorians,    5j>8* 
 
 "  crates,  sec.  who  all  Eelate  //,/'  pag.  29  •.  And 
 
 then,  after  the  Conclufion  of  this  Story,  he  fays, 
 "  Socrates,  Sec.  have  the  fame  Story  "  pag.  it.  and 
 is  fo  particular,  as  to  refer  us  to  Socrates\  Eccle- 
 flaftical Hiftory,  Book  1.  Chap.  I?.  For  my  part, 
 I  am  confounded  at  Mr.  Bingham's  Pofitivenefs  in 
 this  Affertion,  and  wonder  at  the  Greatnefs  of  his 
 Miltake   m  fo  plain  a  Matter,  ( if  it  be  indeed  a 
 
 F  3  Miftake 
 
70  Tejlimomes  for  and  again fl      Part  II. 
 
 Miftake  in  a  Man  fo  much  converfant  in  Eccle- 
 fiaftical  Writers  as  Mr.  Bingham  is. )  However,  I 
 will  not  aggravate  this  Slip,  left  I  mould  thereby 
 make  my  felf  guilty  of  too  fevere  a  Cenfure  :  But 
 this  I  am  certain  of,  that 
 
 Socrates  Scholafticus  fays  not  one  word   of  the 
 Boy  Athanafius's  Baptizing    other  Boys-,    nor  of 
 Alexander  the  Bifhop's  determining,  that  thofe /#/?- 
 pos'd  Baptiz'd  Children  ought  not  to  be  Baptiz'd 
 again.       I  fay,  Socrates  lias  not  one  word  of  this 
 in  all  his  Hiftory  :  And  that  the  Reader  may  fee 
 that  I  do  not  wrong  Mr.  Bingham,  I  will  here  tran- 
 fcribe  from   the  i?th  Chapter  of  the  iftBookof 
 Socrates's  Ecclefiaftical  Uiftory,  all  that   he  relates 
 concerning  Athanafius  Play  at   the   Water-fide, 
 and  of  the  Notice  which  Bifhop  Alexander  took  of 
 it  •  and  'tis  this  :  "  Upon  the  Death  of  Alexander 
 cc  Bijhop  0/ Alexandria,  Athanafius  was  promoted  to 
 c:  the  Presidency  over  that  Church,    Rufinus  relates, 
 u  That  this  Per/on,  when  he  was  very  youngs  did, 
 tt  together  with  thofe  that  were  his  equals  in  Age, 
 u  play  at  a  kind  of  an  Holy  Sport  -,  this  Play  was  an 
 u  Imitation  of  the  Sacerdotal  Puntfion,  and  of  thofe 
 c  Perfons  Order  that  were  Clergy-men  -,  in  this  Sport, 
 *  therefore,   Athanafius    was    defied  Bijhop,    and 
 c  every  one  of  the  reft  of  the  Children  ailed  either 
 cr'  a  Presbyter  or  a  Deacon.    This  Sport  the  Children 
 u  playd   at,  on   that   Day  whereon   was  celebrated 
 the  Memory  of  Peter    the  Martyr   and  Bijhop. 
 Alexander  Bijhop  #/ Alexandria  accidentally  pajjtng 
 by  at  that  time,  Jaw  all  their  Play  *,  and  having 
 afterwards  fent  for  the  Children,  he  enquired  of 
 them,  what  Place  had  been   allotted  to  every  one 
 of  them  in  the  Play,  juppofing,  that  from  what 
 had  been    done,  fome thing    might   be  portended 
 ^concerning  each  of  them-,}  and  he  gave  Order, 
 
 "  that 
 
 ft 
 
Chap.  j.     Lay-Baptifm,  Exami/fd,  &cc.         71 
 
 <c  that  the  Children  fhould  be  educated  in  the  Church, 
 
 "  and  inft  ruffed  in   Learning,    but  mo  ft   efpe daily 
 
 "  Athanafius.     Afterwards,  when  he  was  come  to 
 
 "  a  maturity  of  Age,  he  Ordain  d  him  Deacon,  and 
 
 u  took   him   along  with  him  to  Nice,  that  he  might 
 
 cc  affift  him   in  the  D/fputations  there,  at  fuch  time 
 
 c  as  that  Synod  was  Convened.      Thefe  Things  Ru- 
 
 "  finus  has  related  concerning  Athanafius,  in  his 
 
 tc  Books   [of  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory  (\  nor  is  it  at  all 
 
 6  unlikely  that  thefe  things  happen  d,  for  many  fuch- 
 
 cc  like  Alls  are  frequently  found  to  have  been  done. 
 
 c  Thus  much    we   have    hitherto  faid  concerning 
 
 <c  Athanafius. 
 
 Thus  far  Socrates,  and  he  has  nothing  more  re- 
 lating to  this  Matter  :  So  that  we  may  plainly  fee 
 what  part  of  Rufinus's  Story  he  had  reafon  to  be- 
 lieve, and  hand  down  to  Pofterity,  and  what  part 
 he  reckoned  not  to  be  agreeable  to  Truth  •,  he  fays, 
 in  his  *  Hiftcry,  That  he  "  makes  ufe  of  thofe 
 cc  Pajfages,  in  the  Relation  whereof  Rufinus  fjatfj 
 "  ItOt  fOtfaltCtt  tije  Cttltlj  *"  plainly  intimating, 
 that  Rufinus,  in  fome  PafTages  of  his  Ecclefiaftical 
 Uiftory,  had  forfaken  the  Truth,  and  that  he  would 
 not  make  ufe  of  any  fuch  his  falfe  PafTages  -,  and 
 therefore,  in  his  Tranfcripts  from  Rufinus,  what 
 Socrates  omits  in  his  Hi  ft  or y,  which  Rufinus  relates 
 in  his,  may  be  look'd  upon  as  falfe,  or  at  leaft 
 not  well  attefted,  in  the  Opinion  of  our  judicious 
 Socrates  -,  and  fince  Socrates  has  wholly  omitted  the 
 Story  of  Athanafius\  Baptizing  the  Boys  in  Play, 
 and  alfo  of  Alexanders  determining,  that  they 
 ought  not  to  have  their  Baptifm  repeated,  'tis  3 
 fign  that  he  reckon'd  this  part  of  the  Story  to  be 
 
 *  too\  2.  Cap.  1. 
 
 F  4  one 
 
7 2  Teftimonies  for  and  againft      Part  II* 
 
 one  Inftance  of  Rufinus's  forfaking  the  Truth, 
 and  confequently,  that  he  did  not  believe  it,  and 
 fo  would  not  fhiff  his  Hiftory  with  fuch  an  odd 
 improbable  Relation. 
 
 The  Author  of  the  Life  of  St.  Athanafius7  (ano- 
 ther of  Mr.  Bingham  s  Hiftorians)  in  Photius,  is  an 
 unknown  Writer.  Photius  does  not  fo  much  as 
 guefs  who  he  was  •,  and  therefore,  tho5  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  lingular  in  one 
 part  of  this  Story,  as  to  reckon,  that  what  the 
 Children  did  in  their  Play,  was  done  by  IDtfttllC 
 *  jlntttntt  0?  SiuljJteattQin  A  very  extraordinary 
 Addition  this  to  Rufous*  s  firft  Story,  and  which 
 betrays  the  Credulity  of  this  unknown  Author,  who- 
 ever he  was  :  Befides,  if  what  he  fays  be  true,  it 
 will  follow,  that  this  Baptifm  was  Authoriz'd  and 
 Commifnon'd  by  God  himfelf,  being  done  by  a 
 Divine  Inftintf^  and  fo  fpoils  Mr.  Bingham's  Defign 
 in  quoting  this  Story.  But  this,  of  a  Divine  Inftinil 
 in  the  Boys,  none  but  thofe  who  give  credit  to 
 idle  Fables,  will  ever  believe. 
 
 Another  of  Mr.  Bingham's  fuppofed  Vouchers  for 
 the  Truth  of  this  Story,  is  Johannes  Mofcbus, 
 pig.  £  i"*  But  fure  our  Reverend  Hiftcrian  is  hard 
 put  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.  Bingham 
 quotes,  [viz.  Mofchus  Prat  urn  Spir.~]  u  relates 
 *•  many  grange  Stories  and  Miracles  that  deferve  little 
 u  credit ,  (as  Du  Pin  tells  us$)  for  Inftance,  in  his 
 
 *  Alexander  ad  fe  vocat,  auditque  non  illos  facra  irrififTe,'  fed 
 :■:  e-entu  colligas  feciffe  Divino  qncdim  Inftintto,  &c.    Photii 
 Biblioth.  Cod.2y8.  pag,  1430* 
 
 45* 
 
Chap.  J.      Lay-Baptifw,  Examined,  &c.         7J 
 
 45th  Chapter,  he  fays,  "  A  Reciufe  promifed  the 
 "  Devil,  he  would  adore  the  Virgin's  Image  no  more^ 
 <c  to  be  delivered  from  his  Temptation,  and  that  he 
 <c  was  reprovd  by  his  Elder  for  doing  fo.  In  the 
 47  th,  he  relates,  "  That  the  Virgin  having  Appear  d 
 "  twice  to  a  Jefter  uttering  impious  Speeches  againjl 
 "  her,  and  having  warrfd  him  to  dofo  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  Crofs,  he  found  him/elf  when  he 
 "  awoke 3  without  Hands  and  Feet.  In  the  7?th5 
 "  That  a  Catholick,  being  Servant  to  a  Severian, 
 "  having  left  with  his  Mafter  the  Key  of  his  Che  ft ^ 
 "  where  he  had  laid  up  the  Eucharili  in  a  Linen- 
 w  Cloth,  the  Mafter  having  defignd  to  Burn  it^  be- 
 cc  caufe  his  Servant  did  not  come  back,  found  that 
 "  the  F articles  of  the  Eucharift  had  brought  forth 
 cc  Ears  of  Corn.  In  the  196th  Chapter,  he  re- 
 lates, fc  That  fome  Children  cf  the  "Province  of 
 cc  Apamea  would  needs  reprefent  the  Celebration 
 cc  of  the  Holy  Myfteries,  and  that  having  chofen  one 
 u  of  themfelves  to  perform  the  Office  of  a  Priefi, 
 "  and  two  others  cf  Deacons,  they  fet  fome  Bread 
 <c  upon  a  Stone,  and  that  he  that  atfed  the  Prieft  did 
 *c  pronounce  the  Words  of  Oblation,   which  he  had 
 
 "  gotten  by  heart. That  having  thus  per- 
 
 cc  formed  all  the  Ceremonies,  before  they  brake  the 
 "  Bread,  to  give  the  Communion,  Fire  came  down 
 cc  from  Heaven,  which  confumed  the  Oblation,  and 
 cc  the  whole  Stone  whereon  it  was  laid.  That  the 
 cr  Bifoop  of  the  Place^  hearing  of  it,  built  a  Mona- 
 "  fiery  in  that  Place,  and  made  all  thofe  Children 
 "  Monks.  To  this  Example,  he  adds  that  reported 
 u  by  Rufinus,  of  the  Baptifm  by  St.  Athanafius,  who 
 -c  was  then  but  a  Child ',  to  fome  other  Children.  — 
 And  in  the  207th.,  "  There  is  mention  made  of  Two 
 
 tc  Angels 
 
74  Tefl monies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 "  Angels  who  flood  Sureties  for  a  Girl  which  had  a 
 ci  mind  to  be  Baptized. 
 
 The  fame  Book  is  full  of  an  infinite  number  of 
 Relations  and  miraculous  ftrange  Stories  of  Appa- 
 ritions, Revelations,  Vifions,  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,  Rufinixs 
 Story  is  alfo  related.  And  let  the  Judicious  de- 
 termine, whether  this  Johannes  Mofcu/us,  a  Monk 
 of  the  7th  Century,  fo  foolilhly  Credulous  even  to 
 Superftition,  can  give  any  Reputation  to  the  Story 
 before  us.  If  this  muft  be  our  Way  to  get  at  the 
 General  Pratfice  of  the  Primitive  Church,  and  we 
 refolve  to  tttlft  to  fuch  Legendary  Writers  as 
 Johannes  Mofchus,  we  mall  foon  return  again  to 
 all  the  Corruptions  of  Popery  :  For,  where  {hall 
 we  ftop,  when  we  follow  fuch  Dreaming,  Vifionary 
 Guides,  as  he  was  ? 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  tells  us,  That  Nicephorus  Caiifttts 
 relates  the  fame  Story  :  Upon  this,  one  would  have 
 thought,  that  Nicephorus  gives  us  a  particular  Ac- 
 count of  it  \  but  when  we  look  into  his  Hiftory,  there 
 we  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  with  Water  ;  he 
 then  adds  only  this,  *  "  Uiftories  fay,  that  fome- 
 thing  Tike  this  happen  d  alfo  in  the  time  of  the  Great 
 Athanafius. "     This   is  all   that  'Nicephorus  fays. 
 
 *  Ntceph.  Cali ft.  Ecclef.  Hi  ft.  lib.  3.  cap.  57.  Paris  167,0. 
 Simile  quidd^m  accidiffe  etiam  Tub  Athanafio  magno  Hiftorize 
 tradunt. 
 
 And 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Rapifm,  Examined,  Sec.        75 
 
 And  how  can  it  be  affirm'd,  that  cc  Nicephorus 
 "  Catiftus  telatejS  tlje  fame  S>tfl?P,  when  he  only 
 fays  thofe  few  Words  ?  And  what  he  fays,  amounts 
 to  no  Relation  of  the  Story  at  all  5  flnce  nothing 
 of  the  Boy  Atbanafiuss  Baptizing  his  Play-fellows, 
 or  of  Alexanders  Determining  the  Validity  of  this 
 fuppos'd  Ludicrous  Baptifm,  can  be  gather'd  from 
 Nicephorus  s  Words,  confider'd  as  they  ftand  in  his 
 Hiftory,  feparate  from  any  otber  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  Conftan- 
 nople,  in  his  own  Days  :  But  then,  if  we  confider 
 that  this  Writer  Nicephorus  Califlus,  a  Monk  of 
 Conftantinop/e,  *  liv'd  and  wrote  in  the  14/&  Cen- 
 tury, that  he  has  mix'd  his  Hiftory  with  a  great 
 many  jf  aMeg,  and  has  fall'n  into  matt?  S$}lffafee& 
 (as  the  learned  Du  Fin  informs  us)  5tis  eafie  to  ac- 
 count for  Nicepborus's  relating  fuch  Stories  as  this  5 
 and  the  eafie  Credulity  of  a  fabulous  Water  in  the 
 14/&  Century,  is  but  a  forty  Evidence  for,  nay,  a 
 Dif-reputation  to,  the  Truth  of  any  Tales  of  this 
 nature.  Mr.  Bingham's  referring  us  to  fllC?)  9U* 
 11)0,20,  for  the  Confirmation  of  Rujins  Story,  is 
 no- ways  anfwerable  to  the  Character  he  has  ac- 
 quir'd  among  Learned  Men  -,  and,  for  a  Reverend 
 Trie  ft  of  the  Church  of  England  to  referr  us  to  the 
 Authority  of  fuch  Fabulous  Writers,  as  Johannes 
 Mofcbus,  and  Nicephorus  Califtus^  in  the  Dark  Ages 
 of  the  Church,  to  convince  us  of  the  Truth  of  an 
 odd  whimfical  Story,  which  in  its  natural  Confe- 
 quences  tends  to  the  utter  Abolition  of  the  whole 
 Prieftly  Character,  if  the  Matter  thereof  be  allow'd 
 
 Du  Pin's  Ecclef.  ffift.  Cent,  xjv,  ptg.  87.  Lond. 
 
 to 
 
j6  Tejtimonies  for  and  againft      Part  II. 
 
 to  be  ti'UC,  \\\%  and  tljjljt,  is  a  very  ajlonifhing 
 thing,  and  the  Principle  from  whence  it  proceeds 
 hard,  if  at  all,  to  be  accounted  for,  efpecially  in 
 a  Man  who  doubtlefs,  has  given  his  Affent  to  the 
 21ft  and  2  2d  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England, 
 which  warn  us  againft  trufting  to  Mens  Miftakes, 
 and  ill-grounded  iabulous  Inventions  in  Matters  of 
 Religion. 
 
 The  Reader,  I  hope,  will  charitably  cenfure  the 
 Zeal  of  this  Reflection,  fince  it  proceeds  from  no- 
 thing elfe  but  a  neceffary  Indignation,  which  all 
 good  Chriftians  ought  to  have,  againft  fuch  fabulous 
 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 
 k  any  Truth  in  this  part  of  the  Story,  fince  it 
 has  fo  little  or  no  Credit  among  Learned  Men  : 
 The  Induftrious  and  Judicious  Ecclefiaftical  Hiito- 
 rian  Socrates,  a  very  good  Judge,  and  Competent 
 by  reafon  of  his  Abilities,  the  bed  Monuments  he 
 procured  from  all  Places,  and  the  early  Days  he 
 liv'd  in,  this  Writer,  fo  well  qualified,  as  I  have 
 Before  obferved,  tho5  in  his  Two  firft  Books 
 he  follows  Rufinus  in  many  things,  yet,  in  his 
 I  ft  Book,  and  15th  Chapter,  where  he  Copies  one 
 part  of  the  Story  from  Rufinus,  he  abfolutely  pafTes 
 over  in  filence  the  other  part  of  it,  about  the  Lu- 
 dicrous Baptifm,  and  the  pretended  Determination 
 relating  thereto,  as  not  worthy  the  Notice  of  him- 
 felf,  or  his  Reader  ♦,  which  certainly  he  would  not 
 have  done,  if  he  had  believ'd  that  it  was  fo  famous 
 a  'TranfaSion  as  Mr.  Bingham  calls  it,  and  if  he  had 
 found  any  fuch  Determination  of  the  Bifhop  and 
 his  CLrgy  about  it,  as  our  Reverend  Hiftorian 
 talks  of  •  for  Socrates  fays  of  himfelf.  That  he 
 makes  a  ufe  of  fuch  Raffages^  in  the  Relation  whereof 
 
 "  Rufinus 
 
Chap.  3*     Lay-Bapt/fw,  Examined,  &e.         jj 
 
 "  RuEnus  hath  not  fOjfilfcrn  ffe  Cttltlj* "     But 
 
 a  Man  of  Socrates'*  s  Judgment  and  Knowledge  was 
 not  lo  be  imposed  upon  by  the  fingle  Authority  of 
 only  one  fuch  Writer  as  Rufinus^  and  therefore, 
 finding  no  better  Authority  than  his5  he  does  not 
 follow  him  in  this  part  of  his  Story,  but  wholly 
 leaves  him,  and  thereby  gives  us  to  underftand 
 that  he  had  no  realbn  to  believe  it,  and  confe- 
 quently,  that  it  deferves  not  the  Regard  and 
 Efteem  of  Future  Pofterity.  And  we  find  none  of 
 the  following  Ancient  Fathers,  or  Counils,  no,  not 
 even  St.  Aitguftin  himfelf,  appeal  to  this  Story,  for 
 the  Validity  of  Lay  Baptifm  ^  this  latter  efpecial- 
 ly,  who  pleaded  for  the  Validity  of  Baptifm,  by 
 vohomfoever  adminifter'd,  In  the  Name  of  the  Tri- 
 nity, would  doubtlefs  have  made  ufe  of  the  Au- 
 thority of  this  pretended  "famous  Tranfaliwn^  if 
 he  had  known  of  it,  and  believ'd  it.  If  he  did  not 
 know  of  it,  the  Caufe  muft  be  its  great  Obfcurhy, 
 and  the  little,  or  rather  no  notice  which  the  Church 
 took  of  it  ^  this  argues  its  W orthkfsnefs  :  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 
 eftablimed  Credit,  and  might  therefore  juftly  be 
 neglected  by  him. 
 
 There  is  another  fort  of  Men  who  reject  this 
 Story  as  a  Fable,  and  who  cannot  be  fufpected  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  Church  of  Rome, 
 whofe  love  to  Truth,  makes  'em,  in  fome  Inftances, 
 forget  their  Partiality  for  the  Corruptions  of  that 
 Church,  and  even  Defpife  fome  Fable?,  the  Belief 
 of  which  would  conduce  very  much  to  the  feeming 
 Reputation  of  their  Erroneous  Practices.  This  very 
 Story  of  Athanafius^   if  it  were  true,   would  add 
 
 very 
 
78  Tejli  monies  for  and  againfi      Part  II, 
 
 very  much  (in fome  Mens  Opinion)  to  the  Repu- 
 tation of  Baptifm  by  Lay-men  and  Women, 
 taught  in  that  Church  :  And  yet  the  beft  Judges, 
 even  among  them,  are  not  hereby  tempted  to  own 
 this  Fable  for  a  Truth,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they 
 efteem  it  to  be  but  a  Ficlion,  becaufe  they  find 
 no  Marks  of  Truth  upon  it.  Mr.  Bingham  is  not 
 fo  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  Teftimonies  againft  it.  The 
 Learned  Du  Pin,  Doctor  of  the  Sorbon,  calls  it, 
 *  w  A  Story  —  very  Improbable, "  and  that  "  it 
 *•  pajfes  among  "Learned.  Men,  rather  for  a  fable  than 
 u  a  Cttltljj  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  Beneditfin 
 Order  tell  us  alfb,  t  That  "  it  labours  under  very 
 "  great  Sufpicion  among  Learned  Men  ; "  and  thefe 
 Monks  likewife  fhew  Reafon  why  this  Story  do's 
 not  deferve  any  Credit.  And  {hall  the  Judicious 
 xiefs  and  Impartiality  of  Papifts,  ftand  in  Compe- 
 tition with  the  Judgment  and  Integrity  of  Pro- 
 te ft  ants  ?  Will  the  Reformed  defend  a  Story,  which 
 [if  true]  favours  Popery,  when  Papifts  themfelves 
 fhew  the  Improbability  of  the  fame  Story  >  God 
 forbid  !  'Tis  well  we  have  alfo  had  the  Evidence 
 of  thofe  who   have  Reformed  from  Popery,  fuch 
 
 »  Du  Pin'/  Hijhr)  ofE-cdeMi^l  Writers,  Century  IV.  p.  28. 
 I-ond.  1 696. 
 
 f  Veriim  hsec  Rufini  Hiftoria  grandi  apud  eruditos  laborac 
 fufpicione.  Vita  S,  Ath^n.  Q$$ta  &  Studio  Aionxckornm  Qrdinh 
 J'.  ISenedUti,  pg.  ^ 
 
 as 
 
Chap.  3.     Laj-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.         79 
 
 as  Spanheim,  our  Learned  Dr.  Cave,  *  as  in  the 
 Margin,  and  Others,  againfl:  it ;  otherwife,  the 
 Fapijis  (as  Things  go  at  this  time  of  day)  might 
 have  reproach'd  us,  tor  being  as  great  Favourers  of 
 Idle  Fables  and  Stories  to  fupport  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  fnch,  as  that  it  defer ves  not  to  be  credited  5  for 
 the  Time  and  Place,  in  which  this  fportive  Baptifm, 
 and  the  Ratification  thereof,  is  fa  id  to  have  hap- 
 pened *,  viz.  in  the  lime  of  the  Epifcopat  of  Alex- 
 ander, and  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria^  betray  the 
 unlikelihood  of  it :  For  as  the  Learned  Du  t  Fin 
 has  obferv  d,  "  lfl.  This  Story  of  Children  Baptized 
 c  by  Athanafius  [in  his  Childhood]  do's  not  at  all 
 *  agree  with  the  Difcipline  of  the  Church  of  Ahxan- 
 c  dria  upon  the  SubjeB  of  Re-baptization,  and  'tis  a 
 c  thing  unheard  of  that  itjhould  be  approved  of  or 
 c  that  OttP  COUlO  approve  a  Baptifm  of  this  Nature^ 
 
 *  Mitto  qua?  de  eo  adhuc  puero  Epifcopi  perfonam  induente 
 Baptifmumque  per  facrum  quendam  Ludum  celebrante,  vulgo 
 narrant.  Fabulam  certe  effe,  %c  rune,  &  olim  fufpicatus  fum. 
 Primus  hanc  Hiftoriam  extulit  Rufinus,  feriptor  nimis  credulu/, 
 quique  ha?c  ex  folo  audicu  refert,  ip.re  a  re  gefta  integro  penk 
 fa?culo  remotus  :  Nee  leve  prasjudicium  videri  debet,  rem  adeo 
 memorabilcm  omnes  hujus  acvi  fcriptores  Jatuitfe,  neminemq;  ante 
 Rufinumde  eo  vel  verbulum  inaudivifle,  neque  alia  defunt,  qua; 
 idem  fu^deant  argumenta,  modo  his  immorari  vellem.  Hift. 
 Literaria  AutoreGwl.CaveS  S.Tr.eol.PrOJef  Vol.  I.  p.  141,142. 
 
 the  whole  Evidence  U  founded  upon  the  fingle  Authority  of  Rufi- 
 nus, ithb  'tit  plan  was  the  fir  ft  Reporter  of  the  Story,  a  Man  infi- 
 nitely eareJe  s  in  his  Accounts  of  Things,  and  nho  took  **P  this,  only 
 at  a,  popular  Tradition,  at  near  an  hundred  Tears  diflance  from  the 
 Tci  ..if.    Cave's  Lives  of  the  Primitive  Fathers,   Vol  2. 
 
 P-  7 
 
 f  Di  Pin'i  Hiflory  of  Ecclefiajlical  Writers,  Century  IY.  p.  28. 
 Net         J 
 
 16  as 
 
80  Teftimonies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II, 
 
 u  as  Alexander  of  Alexandria  is  fuppos^d  to  have 
 "  done.  2dly,  It  do^s  not  agree  with  the  Age  of 
 u  St.  Athanafius :  For  Alexander  was  not  ordain  d 
 "  Bijhop  of  Alexandria,  according  to  the  Teftimony 
 "  of  St.  Jerome,  until  the  Tear  321.  and  St.  Athana- 
 cc  fius,  being  ordain  d  Bijhop  in  326,  was  not,  in 
 cc  this  Interval,  of  an  Age  to  play  fuch  little  Franks. 
 <c  And  tho  it  were  fuppos'd,  againji  the  Authority 
 "  of  St.  Jerome,  that  Alexander  was  ordain  d  in  315:. 
 *c  this  would  not  remove  the  Difficulty ;  for  it  cannot 
 w  be  /aid,  that  St.  Athanafius  playd  at  this  Sport, 
 u  when  he  was  frbOiJC  to  0?  12  Tears  old;  from 
 "  .whence  it  would  follow,  that  he  was  ordain  dBifhop 
 "  at  the  25th  or  27th  Tear  of  his  Age-,  which  is  not 
 u  very  probable.  "  Baronius  places  Alexander  in 
 that  See,  either  in  310  or  311.  and  Athanafius  in 
 the  Year  326,  15  or  at  moft  16  Years  after;  and 
 cites  The  odor  et,  l.i.  c.26.  and  Athanafius  himfelf, 
 Apol.  2.  According  to  which  Account,  if  the  Story 
 were  true,  he  muft  have  been  a  very  young  Bifhop, 
 not  above  2$  or  26  Years  old  at  moft,  which  does 
 not  agree  with  the  Church's  Difcipline  in  thofe 
 pays:  Nor  could  he  poflibly  have  made  fuch  a 
 Figure  in  the  Council  oiKice,  convened  A.D.  327. 
 as  he  plainly  did.  Socrat.  /.  1.  c.  8.  an&Tbeodoret. 
 /.  1.  c.2*>.  See  alfo  G.  Xaz.  Orat. 21.  p.380,381. 
 Nay,  by  the  Calculation  of  the  Learned  Benedi  times, 
 t  in  their  Account  of  St.  Athanafws\  Life,  when  he 
 is  faid  to  have  play M  at  this  Sport,  he  could  hardly 
 be  lefs  than  Eighteen  Years  of  Age  5  and  how  a 
 Youth  of  thofe  Years,  and   fo  folid  as  Athanafius 
 
 f  Etfi  enim  per  Athanafii  xtatem  minime  repugnaret  ejuf- 
 jnodi  Lufus,  quod  haud  facile  tamcn  concedaturde  adolefcente, 
 cui  ex  memontis  fuperius,  yix  minus  dwdni^inti  annorum  turn 
 adfcnpfcrimui. 
 
 was 
 
Chap.  3 .     Lay-Baptifm,  Examin'dy  Sec.         81 
 
 Was,  could  be  guilty  of  fuch  childlifhnefs,  let  any 
 one  in  his  Senies  judge.    Add  to  this,  that  Alex- 
 ander  the  Bilriop  (as  thofe  Learned  ||  Monks  have 
 obferv'd )  "  was  not  fuch  a  Man  as  would  have 
 "  efteem'd  Childreris  Sport  to  be  good  and  valid  in 
 u  fo  weighty  andferious  a  Matter  as  this  is.     %d/y9 
 The  very  Words  of  Rufiwas  Story  fhew,  that  he 
 himfelf  could  not  rely  upon  it  ^  for  not  withhold- 
 ing, that  by  way  of  Preface,  he  fays,  he'll  relate 
 fome  lew  things   of  St.  Athanafius  as  he  received 
 them  cc  from  tbofe  wholivd  and  conversed  with  him : M 
 Yet,  when  he  comes  to  Alexander  s/uppos^d  Deter- 
 mination of  not  re-baptizing  the  Children,  he  feems 
 either  not  to  have  received  it  from  thofe  who  were 
 fo  converfant  with  Athanafius^  or  elfe  to  doubt  of 
 the  Truth  of  it  \  for  he  do's  not  fay,  that  Alexander 
 determined:  No,  he  does  not  venture  to  be  fo  po- 
 fitive  ^  but  thus,  "  $)Z  tjS  fatQ  to  have  determined, 
 "  that  the  Bapt'ifm  *  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, 
 notwithstanding  this  Uncertainty  of  Rujinus  him- 
 felf, about  the  great  Thing  we  are  fearching  into, 
 viz.  Bifhop  Alexanders  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  ^ 
 for  what  does  the  Play  of  Children  fignifie,  be  it 
 of  what  fort  foever,  fo  long  as  the  Governours  of 
 
 ||  Non  U  eiit  Alexander  qui  tarn  feria  in  re,  Ludum  puerorum 
 ratum  haberet.     Vita  S.  Athan    p.  %■ 
 
 *  Statuiffe  trid'uur,  iSu9  &c.  itcrarl  Baptifmum  non  debere. 
 Rufin.  Ecckf.  Hift.  ut  fupra. 
 
 G  the 
 
§2  Testimonies  for  and  again  ft       Part  IL 
 
 the  Church  make  no  grave  and  ferious  Determina- 
 tions about  it  >  Our  Rufinus,  the  firft  Author  who 
 publiflfd  the  Story  of  Athanafiuss  Play,  do's  not 
 venture  to  relate  Alexanders  fuppos'd  Determina- 
 tion as  a  thing  certain  ^  he  feems  to  have  fome 
 Fear^^that  fuch  an  odd  unprecedented  Determina- 
 tion, was  not  very  likely  to  be  made  by  fo  grave 
 a  Bifhop  ^  he  would  not  rifk  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  jlatuiffe : 3>  "  He  is  /aid  to  have  deter- 
 "  mind  *  a  forry  Proof  for  "  an  authentic k  Piece 
 "  ofHiftory"  when  the  original  Hiftorian  himfelf 
 hands  it  to  us  in  fuch  uncertain,  doubtful  Terms. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  fays,  cc  It  is  fome  Confirmation,  that 
 "  Rufin  fays^  he  had  it  from  the  Mouth  ofthoje  who 
 <c  convers  d  with  Athanafius,"  pag.  3 1 .  But  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham muft  prove  that  Rufin  fays,  He  had  Alexanders 
 Determination  of  not  Re-baptizing,  from  the  Mouth 
 of  thofe  who  convers'd  with  Athanafws.  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  thofe  who  coi> 
 vers'd  with  Athanafius :  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.  Athanafius 
 was  made  Bifhop  of  Alexandria  upon  the  Deceafe 
 of  Alexander,  that  he  did  not  think  it  improper 
 t  to  repeal  fome  few  things  concerning  the  Rife  of 
 
 f  Verum  non  mihi  abfque  ordine  viderur,  pauca  de  hujus 
 viri  [Sc.  Athanafii]  origine  fupra  repetere,  &cujusa  puero  infti- 
 tutionis  fuerit,  ficuti  ab  his  qui  cum  ipfo  \itam  duxerant  accepi- 
 mus  ir.cmorare.    Rufini  HijU  Ecclef.  Lib,  1.  c  14. 
 
 % 
 
Chap.  5.      Lay-Baptijhiy  Examhfd,  &c         8  J 
 
 St.  Athanafius^  and  to  mention  what  fort  of  Edu- 
 cation he  had  from  a  Child,  as  he  had  receiv'd  'em 
 from  thofe  who  liv'd  and  convers'd  with  him. 
 
 Here  we  fee,  that  what  Rujinus  himfelf  fays  he 
 received  from  them,  was  no  more  than  a  few 
 things  concerning  St.  Athanafius*  Rife  and  Educa- 
 tion from  a  Chid  :  So  that  Bifhop  Alexander  s  fup- 
 pos'd  Determination,  of  not  Baptizing  the  other 
 Children,  having  nothing  to  do  with  St.  Athanafius's 
 Rife  and  Education,  cannot  be  fairly  laid  to  have 
 been  receiv'd  by  Rujinus ,  from  thofe  Performs  who 
 liv'd  and  convers'd  with  him.  Mr.  Bingham  fhould 
 have  let  his  Readers  fee  Rujinus  s  Preface  to  the  Story, 
 and  alfo  his  Words  towards  the  Conclufion  thereof 
 that  they  might  have  been  enabled  to  pafs  a  right 
 Judgment,  what  Parts  of  the  Story  Rufinus  referrs 
 to,  when  he  fays  he  had  them  from  thofe  who  liv'd 
 and  convers'd  with  St.  Athanafius  5  for  the  Conclu- 
 fion of  the  Story  plainly  difcovers  thofe  few  things 
 which  he  fays  he  had  from  them,  and  they  are  in 
 fhort  thefe,  *  "  That  Alexander  order  d  Athana- 
 c  fius,  &c.  to  be  brought  up  for  the  Service  of  the 
 Churchy  That  in  a  fhort  time  after,  Athanafius 
 having  been  fufficiently  inftrutfed, —  was  reflorl 
 by  his  Barents  to  the  Bifhop  •  That  from  that  time 
 he  was  like  Samuel,  brought  up  in  the  Temple  of 
 
 *  Athanafium  vero,  atque  cos  quos  ludus  ilk  vel  Presbvteros 
 habere  vifus  fuerat  vel  miniftros,  convocatis  parentibus,  fub  Dei 
 cbteftatione  tndit  Ecelefisefua?  nutriendos.  Parvo  autem  tempore 
 cum  a  "Notario  inregre,  &  a  Grammatico  fufficienter  Atha- 
 nafius fuiffet  inftru&usj  continuo  tanquam  fidele  Domini  com- 
 mendatum,  a  parentibus  reftituitur  Sacerdoti,  ac  velut  Samuel 
 quidam  in  templo  Domini  nutritur,  &  ab  eo  pergenfe  ad  Patres 
 in  feneftute  bona,  ad  porcandum  poft  fe  Ephod  Sacerdotale  dcli- 
 gitur.     Rufin.  Hifl,  Eccl.  Lib.  1.  c.  14, 
 
 c< 
 
 G  2  the 
 
84  Tef  monies  for  and  ngainft     Part  II. 
 
 "  the  Lords,  and  that  finally  upon  the  Death  of  Alex- 
 "  ander,  he  was  ordained  Bifhop  in  bisftead"  Thefe 
 are  the  few  tilings  relating  to  St.  At  hanqfitas  Rife 
 and  Education,  which  Rufinm  fays  he  had  from 
 thofe  who  were  converfant  with  St.  Athanafws.  And 
 if  Alexanders  fuppofititious  Determination  about 
 not  Baptizing  the  other  Boys,  can  be  prov'd  to 
 have  any  neceffary  dependance  on  St.  Athana(itts\ 
 Rife  and  Education,  then,  it  may  be  allow'd,  that 
 Us/fin  fays,  he  receiv'dthat  alfo  from  thofe  who  were 
 converfant  with  St.  Athanafws:  This  does  not  yet 
 appear,  but  the  contrary,  by  Rufiw/s's  faying  of 
 that  Determination  -,  only  "  traditur  ftatuiffe^ M  It 
 ISfflitJ}  That  he  determin'd  •,  uhng  a  more  doubtful 
 way  of  (peaking  here,  than  he  does,  when  he  fpeaks 
 of  the  Rife  and  Education  of  St.  Athanafws:  Add 
 to  this,  that  Socrates,  who  had  St.  Athanafius's 
 Books,  together  with  the  Amftance  of  thofe  who 
 alfo  were  converfant  with  him,  wholly  omits  this 
 PafTage^  tho'  he  had  Rufinus\  Hiftory  before  him, 
 when  he  tranferib'd  fome  other  Parts  of  the  Story 
 from  it.  This  confirms  the  Remark  I  made  before3 
 that  Rufinus  did  not  receive  that  Palfage  from 
 thofe  who  conversed  with  St.  Athanafws  •,  for  if 
 he  did,  why  mould  fo  judicious  an  Hiftorian  as 
 Socrates^  difcredit  it  fo  far  as  to  refufe  to  Copy  it 
 from  him  > 
 
 Atfr.  Bingham  fays,  "  Admit  it  were  a  fabulous 
 "  Report,  yet  wemuji  charitably  believe  of  the  ancient 
 "  Hiftorian s,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  that  they  be- 
 cc  lievd  them/elves^  at  leaf,  what  they  reported, 
 'c  that  fuch  a  Faff  had  happened  at  Alexandria  ^  and 
 *c  if  it  had  been  contrary  to  the  general  Senfe  and 
 "  Praffice  of  the  Church  in  their  times,  they  would 
 iS  f)cil*lllp  have  related  it  fo  plaufibly  without  paffng 
 %i  fome  Qenfure  and  Reflection  on  it .— —  Which,  the 
 
 ancient 
 
Chap.  j.     Lay-Baptifm)  Examined,  &c.         85 
 
 "  ancient  Hiftorians  having  not  done,  it  way,  re  a- 
 "  jonably  be  concluded,  that,  at  leaf},  they  thought 
 "  the  Determination  of  Alexander  and  his  Council, 
 "  to  be  agreeable  to  the  general  Senfe  and  Practice  of 
 "  the  Church"  pag.31,32. 
 
 But  in  Anfwer  to  this,  do's  not  Mr.  Bingham  know, 
 that  it  is  a  common  thing  for  Hiftorians  to  tran- 
 fcribe  from  thofe  who  wrote  before  them,  fuch 
 Tranfadtions  as  they  relate  to  have  happened; 
 and  that  Writers  do  often  thus  follow  one 
 another,  not  becaufe  they  believe  every  thing  they 
 franfcribe,  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  lame  Time?  It  is  often  enough  feen, 
 that  this  is  the  only  Defign  offome  Hiftorians,  and 
 that  they  leave  their  Readers  to  judge  for  them- 
 felves, whether  fome  of  their  Relations  be  true  or 
 falfe,  without  palling  anyCenfure  themfelves  upon 
 the  Things  which  they  relate.  But  what  if  ancient 
 Hifiorians  did  themfelves  believe,  the  fabulous  Re- 
 ports they  hand  down  to  us?  Do's  it  therefore  fol- 
 low that  they  thought  thofe  Fables  to  be  agreeable 
 to  the  general  Senfe  and  Prattice  of  the  Church  > 
 Where  lies  the  reafonablenefs  of  this  Confequence ; 
 are  Hiftorians  Thoughts  always  intent  upon,  and 
 declaratory  of,  the  Church's  Belief  and  Practice?  No 
 fuch  Matter.  But  it  is  pleaded,  if  the  Fable  "  had 
 "  been  contrary  to  the  general  Senfe  and  PraUice  of 
 u  the  Church,  they  would  IjfttDlp  have  related  it  fo 
 "  plaufibly,  without  faffing  feme  Cenfure  and  Re* 
 "  fletlion  on  it.  This  makes  nothing  for  the  Mat- 
 ter -,  becaufe,  what  they  would  fjfltUlp  have  done 
 is  no  Argument,  fince  we  find  many  Writers  have 
 overcome  this  imaginary  Difficulty:  For,  the  fame 
 Superftition,  eafie  Credulity,   or  Heedlefnefs,  that 
 
 G  1  makes 
 
S6  Tefii monies  for  and  Again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 makes  Men  to  believe  a  Fable,  which  is  contrary  to 
 Truths  caufes  them  alfo  to  relate  without  any  Cen- 
 fure,  fuch  Stories  as  are  even  contrary  to  the  gene- 
 ral Senfe  and  Frattice  of  the  Churchy  and  doubtlefs, 
 'tis  from  this  corrupt  Fountain,  that  feveral 
 Churches  have,  in  procefs  of  time,  been  overflow'd 
 with  Error  and  Superftition,  by  firft  not  cenfuring 
 new  Fables  that  were  ftarted  contrary  to  the  ge- 
 neral Doctrine  and  Practice  of  the  Church  h  then 
 iuffering  them  to  be  handed  down  to  Pofterity,  by 
 Perfons  of  Note  and  Character,  till  at  laft  the  In- 
 fection has  fpread  fo  far,  as  that  Lyes  themfelves 
 have  been  firmly  believ'd  to  be  fubftantial  Truths 
 in  thofe  Churches.*— — 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  fhould  not  handle  this  Matter  in 
 fuch  dubious  Terms,  as  to  fay,  u  %\)Z)>  tilMtlO 
 "  Jjattllp  have  related  it,  &c.M  Tis  a  Thing  of  too 
 great  Importance  for  us  to  be  put  off  with  fuch  in- 
 conclufive  ways  of  arguing.  Hiftorians  have  many 
 times  been  fo  carelefs,  as  to  relate,  without  Cen (lire 
 and  Reflection  on  them,  feveral  things  which  were 
 even  contrary  to  the  general  Senfe  and  Practice  of 
 the  Church  •,  and  this,  whether  they  do  it  eafily  or 
 IjfttOtp,  is  no  Matter,  fo  long  as  they  do  it  •,  'tis  a 
 Proof  againfr.  Mr.  Bingham's  way  of  arguing.  I 
 know  'twill  be  expected  that  I  fhould  give  fome  In- 
 ftances  of  this  5  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 
 Mofchus's  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,£?V.  [See  p.  73.]  is  no  Proof, 
 that  Johannes  Mojchus  reckon'd  this  to  be  agreeable 
 to  the  general  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church : 
 
 So 
 
Chap.  J.     Lajf-Baptifm,  ExamwJd,  Skc.         87 
 
 So  Nicepborm  Qaliftus  his  Story  *,  which  he  relates 
 without  any  Cenfure,  concerning  a  Jews  being 
 miraculoufly  heal'd  of  a  dangerous  Diftemper,  by 
 being  Baptiz'd  UHtlj  ©ftttf)  for  want  of  Water  in 
 a  defart  Place,  is  no  Argument,  that  he  believ'd 
 Baptizing  with  Sand,  or  healing  Diftempers 
 thereby,  was  agreeable  to  the  general  Senfe  of 
 the  Church  :  And  if  Johannes  Mofcbus,  and  Nice- 
 pborits  Califtus,  had  been  fo  vain  as  to  believe  thefe 
 Fancies,  to  have  been  agreeable  to  the  Church's 
 general  Senfe  and  Pratfice,  yet  fuch  fabulous  Wri- 
 ters Belief  alone,  without  other  concurring  authen- 
 tick  Evidence,  do's  not  prove  that  the  Church's  ge- 
 neral Senfe  and  Practice  was  of  the  fame  Nature 
 with  their  ill-grounded  Fables  •,  for  if  this  were  a 
 way  of  difcovering  the  Church's  general  Senfe  and 
 Practice,  then  all  the  idle  Stories  which  have  been 
 handed  down  to  us  by  fabulous  Writers,  if  they 
 believ'd  them  to  have  been  agreeable  to  the  Senfe 
 and  Practice  of  the  Church,  muft  be  receiv'd  as 
 fuch  ^  and  fo  the  fenfelefs  Dreams  of  Purgatory,  of 
 Adoration  of  Saints  and  Angels,  and  of  the  Wor- 
 fhipping  of  Images,  together  with  the  reft  of  the 
 vain  Trumpery  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  related 
 by  fome  vifionary,  fabulous  Writers,  muft  be  ac- 
 knowledge  to  be,  according  to  the  general  Senfe 
 
 *  Judaeus—  quidam  in  Locis  Defertis,  &  inaquofis — ncbifcum 
 iter  faciebat.    C^uum  vero  Morbo  Repentino  ita  affligeretur,  ut 
 
 crederetur  moriturus —  comiribus  fuis  obfecrando  inftitit 
 
 ut  Diyini  Lavacri  participem  facerent ■  Illi  iraque  detraftis 
 
 bomini  veftibus,  arena  qua?  ibi  erat  pro  aqua  ufi,  in  Nomine  Pa- 
 tris,  &c  tertium  arena  in  eum  conje&a  Baptizarunt.  Per  hanc 
 tjm  infolitam,  8c  admirandjin  facrorum  myfteriorum  initiati- 
 onem,  imbecillitate  omni  tanquam  vinculo  quodam  is  folutus, 
 Jonge  melius  qujm  iili  validus  jam  prorfus  iter  fecit.  Mcepb, 
 Ctiifi,  Effkf,  fit)},  Lib  iii.  c  37.     Farts  1630, 
 
 G  4  mi 
 
S3  Teftimomes  for  and  again  ft     Part  II. 
 
 and  Practice  of  the  Church,  which  will  bring  us  to  a 
 fine  Pafs  indeed,  if  this  be  a  good  way  of  arguing. 
 
 But  further  ^    Mr.  Bingham  cannot  prove,  that 
 even  Rufinus himfelf,  the  firftRelater  oi Alexanders 
 fuppos'd  Determination,  did  really  believe,  that  he 
 made  any  fiich  Determination  at  all :  His  Speaking 
 of  it  in  Jucb  dubious  Terms  as  t  r  adit  ur  flat  uijje,  "  it 
 "  is  /aid  that  he  determirid^ M  plainly  implies  his 
 Diffidence   about  this  Part  of  the  Story  5  that  So- 
 crates Scholajlicus  utterly  difbeliev'd  it,  is  plain  by 
 his  refusing  to  Copy  it  from  Rufinus ^  as  I  have 
 largely  obferv'd  beiore.     Add  to  this,  that  another 
 of  Mr.  Bingham  s  Hiftorians,  viz.  the  Author  of  the 
 Life  of  St.  Athanafius  in  Photius,  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 
 hy  the  Boy  Athanafius,  was  done  by  fome  certain 
 Divine  Inspiration  $  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  Inspiration, 
 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  Supposition, 
 that  the  Baptifm  was  by  Divine  Com  million  and 
 Authority?  Nay,  his  judging  fo  by  the  fuppos'd 
 Event  of  Alexander  s  Determination,   Signifies  his 
 Opinion  to  have  been,  that  Alexander  would  not, 
 or  mould  not,  have  made  fuch  a  Determination,  if 
 he  had  thought  that  the  Baptifm  had  been  done 
 without  the  Divine  Coinmiffion   and   Authority: 
 
 *  Alexander  ad  fe  vocac,  auditque  non  illos  facra  irrififle,  fed 
 Ut  ex  evemu  Colltgas  fecifTe  Divino  quodam  inftindtu. 
 Photii.  Biblioth.  Cod.  z$ 3.  p.  1430. 
 
 For 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baftifm,  Examined,  &c.        89 
 
 For  why  fhould  he  fay,  "  That  we  may  collett  the 
 "  Baptifm  to  have  been  by  Divine  Infpiration,  from 
 "  Alexander' j  Determination  about  it  * "  If  he  had 
 believ'd  that  Alexander  had  Authority  to  make  fuch 
 a  Determination  concerning  Baptifm  perform'd  by 
 Perfbns  who  never  had  any  Divine  Commiffion  > 
 
 Thus  we  fee,  That  there  is  no  Ground  to  believe 
 the  Story   of  Alexander's  Determination,  [Not  to 
 Baptize  the  Children  who  were  before  fuppos'd  to 
 have  been  Baptiz'd  by  the  Boy  Athanafius  in  Play, 
 without  any  Divine  Cominiflion.]     I  fay5  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  5    fince  Rujinus,  the  firff 
 Publifher    of    it,    relates    the    Determination  as 
 doubtful  j   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.  Athanafius,  tho'  he  believes  the  Story  of 
 the  Determination  of  Alexander,  yet  does  it  upon 
 the  foundation,  of  the  Baptifms  having  been  before 
 done  by  Divine  Infpiration  5    which,  when  true 
 end  certain,  is  the  fame  as  the  Divine  Cominiflion, 
 and  fo  do's  not  favour  Baptifms  done  without  any 
 Commiifion  at  all.    All  thefe,  thus  difcountenancing 
 the  Notion  of  Alexander  s  Determining  Baptifm  to 
 be  Good  and  Valid,  when  done  without  a  Divine 
 Cominiflion,  are  fo  many  Evidences  againfl  this  No- 
 tion's being  the  General  Senfe  and  Fra3ice  of  the 
 Church  •,  and,  together  with  all  that  has  .been  faid 
 before,  do  abundantly  betray  the  Story  of  Alex- 
 ander's fuppos'd  Determination  to  be  no  better  than 
 a  meer  Fable. 
 
 Mr, 
 
90  Teftimonies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  tells  us,  He  believes  "  There  is  no 
 ct  Canon  that  does  antecedently  Authorize  one  Touth, 
 "  ttJltiWUt  Ji5eCCffttp  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  gteateff  3l3eceffitp  ^  for  his  Words  ftand  fo 
 looie,  as  to  leave  room  for  his  Reader  to  believe, 
 that  there  may  be  a  Canon  for  Youths  to  Baptize 
 in  times  of  Necejlity. 
 
 He  fays  again,  "  As  to  thefatf of  Athanafius,  any 
 <c  One  zvill  readily  own,  that  there  wo*  neither  Canon 
 "  nor  Precedent  ^tl%\X^%to  warrant  theDoing  it  5 
 <c  and  it  would  be  ft  range,  if  any  fuch  Canon  fiould  be 
 u  made  in  the  Church,"  pag.  32.  But  why  muft 
 we  have  this  J^Cljapg  clapp'd  in  >  It  is  more 
 fair,  to  let  the  Reader  know  Cei'tfiUlIp,  that  there 
 never  was  any  fiich  Canon  or  Precedent  at  all  : 
 Thefe  Petljftpg'g  are  no  fure  Guides  to  Enquiring 
 Perfons,  efpecially  in  Cafes  which  require  more 
 pofitive  Determinations.  The  following  Words, 
 indeed,  are  fbmething  more  home,  "  It  would  be 
 "  ft  range,  if  any  fuch  Canon  Jhould  be  made  in  the 
 "  Church. *  This  is  very  right  •,  it  would  fo  : 
 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  Pratlice  of  the 
 Church  -,  She  never  had  any  Precedent  for  it :  This 
 is  the  reafon  why  fuch  a  Canon  would  be  a  ftrange 
 thing.  And  now,  is  it  not  a  fair  Queftion  to  ask, 
 Was  it  not  as  ftrange  a  thing,  for  a  Bifhop  to 
 Ratifie,  what  it  would  have  been  ftrange  for  the 
 Church  antecedently  to  Authorize  >  Was  it  not 
 wholly  new  and  ftrange,  for  Alexander  to  De- 
 termine that  to  be  Valid,  for  which  he  had  no  Pre- 
 cedent or  Canon  :  For  if  there  was  no  Precedent  or 
 
 Canon 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examw'd,  &c.        91 
 
 Canon  for  the  Boy  Atbanafwss  Baptizing,  (and  it 
 would  be  ftrange,  if  any  fuch  Canon  ihould  be 
 made.)  Upon  what  foundation  could  Alexander 
 Determine  the  Validity  of  Athanafws\  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* 
 clice  of  the  Church. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  s  believing,  that  'tis  no  eafie  matter 
 cc  to  produce  an  ancient  Canon^  BltOtlp  tO  CCtt- 
 cc  ftont  the  fuppos'd  Determination  of  Alexander, 
 "  by  Declaring,  That  fuch  Irregular  Baptifms  are 
 cc  utterly  NtiU  and  Void,  tho  they  have  the  Poftnate 
 "  Allowance  of  the  Church  where  they  are  done, 
 "  which  (he  fays)  was  the  peculiar  Circumftance 
 "  of  the  prefent  Cafe,  pag.  32,  33.  is  nothing  at 
 all  to  the  purpofe  :  Becaufe,  the  Inftitution  of  Bap- 
 tifm, and  the  Laws  of  the  Church,  by  requiring 
 Baptifm  conftantly  to  be  adminifter'd  by  One 
 vefted  with  the  Divine  Commijfion,  without  making 
 any  Exceptions  in  favour  of  Baptifm  by  fuch  as 
 never  had  that  Commiillon  3  do  leave  thefe  pre- 
 tended Baptifms  in  the  fame  ftate,  as  the  Inftitu- 
 tion of  Baptifm  found  them  at  firft,  viz,  in  the 
 State  of  Uninftituted  Adminiftrations,  i.  e.  wholly 
 Null  and  Void  for  the  Purpofes  of  the  Inflituted 
 Miniftration  •,  becaufe,  no  Miniftration  whatfoever 
 of  Baptifm,  could  ever  have  been  Valid  for  Chri- 
 ftian  Purpofes,  but  by  virtue  of  a  Divine  Tnftitution  •, 
 and  the  Miniftration  we  are  fpeaking  of,  was  utterly 
 deftitute  of  any  fuch  Inftitution,  except  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham can  prove  it  to  have  been  by  Divine  Infpira- 
 
 tion, 
 
92  Tejlimomes  for  and  againfi     Part  II, 
 
 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  Acts  j 
 The  firft  Determiner  of  their  Validity  muft  have 
 run  a  great  risk  of  Prefumption,  in  pronouncing 
 that  Valid,  which  neither  God  nor  his  Church  had 
 ever  before  declar'd  to  be  fo  :  This  would  have 
 been  a  Determination  without  any  Rule  ^  And  if 
 iiich  Determinations  are  fit  to  be  made,  and  good 
 and  valid  when  done,  then  we  fhall  have  no  Se- 
 curity for  the  Continuance  of  Divine  Inftitutions  j 
 iince  Man's  arbitrary  Will  and  Pleafure,  without 
 any  Law,  may  fubftitute  fomething  elfe  inftead 
 of  them.  It  is  not  therefore  enough  for  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham to  fay3  that  we  can  produce  "  no  Ancient  Canon 
 u  dire&ly  to  Confront  fuch  Determination,  by  De- 
 "  daring  fuch  Baptifms  to  be  utterly  I3utt  attO 
 "  (UOltS  tho  they  have  the  Poftnate  Allowance  of  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  Commilfion,  as  they  moft  certain- 
 ly do  ^  this  reftraining  of  the  Miniftration  to  the 
 Commiflion,  is  a  Confequent  Nulling  of  pretended 
 Miniftrations,  which  are  done  by  thofe  who  never 
 had  that  Commilfion-,  (as  I  have  largely  endea- 
 voured to  prove  *  elfe  where  :  )  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  Uninjiituted 
 
 *  Dijfenters  Baptifm  Null  and  Vuid,  &c. 
 
 Mini* 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.        95 
 
 Miniftrations  \  it  will  ftand  good,  that  they  are 
 Null  and  Void  in  themfelves  :  And  how,  or  by 
 what  Law,  either  of  God  or  the  Church,  any  Pojl- 
 nate  Allowance  of  the  Bifhop  do's  make  them  to 
 be  good  and  Valid,  let  our  Reverend  Hiftorian 
 inform  us,  if  he  can,  for  as  yet  he  has  not. 
 
 He  fays,  indeed,  cc  There  fCCtll  to  be  Two  Ways 
 "  of  allowing  any  A&,  either  by  an  antecedent  Au- 
 cc  thorny  given  to  a  Man  to  perform  it  \  or,  by  afub- 
 "  fequent  Confirmation  of  the  Thing,  when  done  trre- 
 "  gularly  and.  without  Authority,    which  is,  ex  poft 
 "  fadto,  an  Allowance  of  it.      And  thus  (fays  he) 
 "  it  is  plain,  the  Baptifm  s  given  by  Athanafius, 
 "  were  Allow  d  and  Confirm  d  by  Alexander   in  the 
 u  Church,^  pag.  33.       But    here  Mr.  Bingham  is 
 not   Certain  5    he  fays,    "  There    ^£Ettl    to   be. 
 w  Two  Ways  of  Allowing, "  &c.    This  is  not  coming 
 clofe  to  the  Point  5  either  there  are  certainly  Two 
 fuch  Ways  of  Allowing  Baptifm,  or  there  are  not : 
 We  muft  have  no  Medium  in   this  Cafe  •,  there  is 
 no  contenting   with    $0t\yM  'BapUfttl&    thofe 
 who  would  be  Jure  of  True  Baptifm.     If  there 
 are  really  Two  fuch  Ways  in  the  Church,  of  Allow- 
 ing, See.  as  Mr.  Bingham  fpeaks  of,    let  him  prove 
 them  •,   let  him   give   good  Reafons  why  One  of 
 them,  viz.  the  Allowing  of  an  Uninftituted  Mini- 
 ftration  of  Baptifm,  by  a  Poft- Fad,  is  Valid  *,  as, 
 we  are  fure,  Baptifm  perform'd  by  virtue  of  an 
 Antecedent    Commiffion,    is  ;    and    then     we   Ihall 
 have  an  end  of  the  Difpute  about  the  Conftant  and 
 Unalterable  Neceffity  of  a  Previous  Commiffion. 
 But,  'till  our  Reverend  Hiftorian,  or  fome  other, 
 lhall   produce  good  Proof  for  this,  we   ihall  ac- 
 knowledge  but  One  Valid  Way  in  the  Church  of 
 Allowing  Baptifm,  viz.  by  an  Antecedent  Autho- 
 rity given  by  the  Biihop,  to  a  Man  to  Baptize. 
 
 The 
 
94  Tefl monies  for  and  againft      Part  II. 
 
 The  Other  Way  which  Mr.  Bingham  propofes,  of 
 allowing  Baptifm,  performed  without  a  Com- 
 miifion,  cc  by  afubfequent  Confirmation  of  it,  which 
 (he  fays)  is,  ex  poll  facto,  an  Allowance  of  it,  "  is 
 a  Power  which  none  can  claim  but  Chrift  the  Supreme 
 Head  and  Sovereign  of  the  Church,  and  thofe 
 who  have  received  that  Power  from  him.  Let 
 Mr.  Bingham  prove,  That  Bifhops  have  received 
 that  Power  from  Chrift  \  and  then  alio  this  Point 
 fhall  be  given  up  to  him.  'Till  then,  it  is  evident, 
 that  Bifhops  are  only  Chrift's  Deputies,  and  asftich, 
 are  bound  up  to  the  Obedience  of  his  Laws,  and  can 
 validly  act  (in  this  Cafe)  no  farther  than  he  has 
 Commiflion'd  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  perform'd  by 
 Perfons  who  never  were  CommxfEon'd  to  Baptize. 
 "  And  thus,  '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  Suppositious  Ludicrous 
 Baptifm  ♦,  nor  was  it  ever  confonant  to  the  General 
 Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  that  he  fhould 
 confirm  fach  a  Baptifm. 
 
 It  is  now  high  time  for  me  to  beg  the  Reader's 
 pardon,  for  detaining  him  fo  long  upon  the  Refuta- 
 tion of  this  Fable.  Mr.  Bingham  is  fo  very  zealous 
 for  it's  Credit  and  Reputation,  as  "  a  genuine  Piece 
 c'  cfHifiory"  and  his  Name  and  Character  are  fo 
 advantageous  for  the  Recommendation  of  it,  that 
 I  thought  it  well  worth  while  to  be  thus  copious, 
 in  difcovering  the  Weaknefs  and  Infufficiency,  of 
 the  Foundation  upon  which  'tis  built,  that  Men 
 
 may 
 
Chap.  5.     Laj-Baptifm7  Examined,  %cc.        95 
 
 may  avoid  the  Danger  of  trufting  and  relying  on 
 it.  I  fhall  conclude  my  Obfervations  upon  this 
 Fable,  by  remarking  ^  That  if  it  had  bren  a  real 
 Truth,  If  Atbanafius  the  Boy  had  fportively  Bap- 
 tiz'd  his  Play-fellows,  and  If  Alexander  the  Bifhop 
 had,  by  the  Advice  of  his  Clerg)^  appointed  that 
 thofe  Children  ihould  have  no  other  Baptifm  ; 
 yet,  nothing  to  the  Purpofe  could  be  juftly  and 
 fafdy  inferred  from  it.  For,  1/?,  We  are  feeking 
 for  the  General  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church  5 
 and  this  Act  of  0110  TSifljOP)  never  once  taken 
 notice  of  by  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church  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<//y,  Neither  could 
 any  thing  have  been  fafely  concluded  from  it; 
 for  the  natural  Inference  would  have  been  only 
 this.  That  Alexander  reckon'd  the  fportive  Baptifm 
 perlonn  d  by  the  Boy,  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity, 
 to  be  Good  and  Yalid,  even  tho3  done  without  any 
 Neceffity,  where  Priefts  were  to  be  had.  Now,  if 
 Men  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  Alexanders  fup- 
 pos'd  Opinion  was  jufl:  and  right,  and  that  there- 
 fore all  fuch  fportive  Baptifms,  are  equally  good 
 and  valid  j  and  this  they  muft  affirm,  if  they  will 
 maintain  the  other  -,  then  it  will  unavoidably  fol- 
 low, That  the  factcn  ann  ttemenaoug  3ififftut< 
 
 ttOng  Of  tf)€  Dntp,  and  the  moft  profound  Re- 
 verence and  Refpect  which  we  owe  to  the  Mediato- 
 rial Authority  ot  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  in  the  ap- 
 pointed Miniftration  of  them,  by  thofe  who  bear 
 bis  Commiffion,  will  be  of  no  greater  Value  and 
 Efteem,  than  Childrens  Play^  becaufe,  as  the  pre- 
 sent Lord  Bifhop  of  Oxford  has  excellently  well  ob- 
 
 ferv'd. 
 
g6  Tefi monies  for  and,  againfl     Part  II# 
 
 ferv'd,  "  There  is  no  *  Majis  and  Minus,  in  the 
 u  Validity  or  Invalidity  of  Sacrament s,  which  cannot 
 <£  be  partly  Valid,  and  partly  Invalid.  "  And  there- 
 fore Childrens  Sport  and  Play,  in  Imitation  of 
 Chriftian  Sacraments,  is  advanced  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  Iniiitutes,  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  -,  and  that  we  are  under  no 
 Obligation  to  their  Sports  and  Paftimes.  This  is 
 an  unavoidable  Confequence  of  the  fuppos^d  Truth, 
 and  imaginary  Right  and  Juftice,  of  the  ftory'd 
 Determination  of  Alexander:  And  how  fkfe  and 
 fecure  it  is,  let  all  good  ChriiHans  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  childifh,  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  concern'd 
 in  propagating  or  defending  PremifTes  fo  dread- 
 fully dangerous,  in  their  Confequences  :  And 
 I  fincerely  pray  to  God,  that  none  of  his  Ambaffa- 
 dors,  who  are  by  him  intruded  with  the  facred  De- 
 pojitum  of  his  Divine  Sacraments,  may  ever  profti- 
 tute  thefe  ineftimable  Jewels,  nor  caft  thefe  inva- 
 luable Pearls  before  Swine,  by  debafing  the  Mini- 
 ftration of  them  fo  low,  as  to  make  the  giving  of 
 them,  to  amount  to  no  more  in  Worth  and  Value, 
 than  the  inconfiderate  Play  of  filly  Children.  —  But 
 
 *  Bijbop  of  Oxford V  Cbiirge)  171 2.  p^g.  14. 
 
 not 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifkt,  Examined,  Sec.         97 
 
 not  to  be  farther  prolix  upon  this  Matter,  the  Story 
 before  us  deferves  to  be  valued  but  as  a  Ficlion ; 
 and  if  it  had  been  true  in  Fad,  would  have  been 
 foolifh  and  ridiculous  j  and  as  fuch,  highly  un- 
 worthy of  being  efteem'd,  to  have  any  the  leaft 
 Conibnancy  with  the  General  Senfe  and  Practice 
 of  the  Church.  Thus  Mr.  Bingham  is  hitherto  got 
 no  farther  than  the  Council  of  Eliberisy  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 
 never  were  CommiJJiorfd  to  Baptize  j  (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  £0 
 little  known  or  taken  notice  of,  by  thofe  who  were 
 not  of  the  Church  of  Spain,  that  Hilary  the  Deacon 
 of  Rome,  who  is  moft  reafonably  fuppos'd,  to  be 
 the  Author  of  the  Comments  on  the  Epiftles  of 
 St.  PW,  bearing  the  Name  of  St.  Ambrofe,  fays, 
 concerning  the  Churches  of  his  Time  and  Know- 
 ledge, thus  \  *  w  ji3QU)} neither  the  Inferior 
 
 c  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- 
 ferr'd  on  them  5  neither  thefe,  nor  any  other  Lay- 
 men, we  fee,  were  allowed  to  Baptize  in  thofe 
 Days,  in  the  Churches  that  were  within  his  know- 
 ledge :  He  had  a  particular  fancy,  That  at  firft 
 "  the  Apoftles  Impowerd  all  Chriflians  to  Preach  an$. 
 
 *  Nunc  ■    neque  Clerici  vel  Laid  Baptizant.    Am- 
 
 kof.  Com .  in  Ej>heft  iv,  />.  5148. 
 
 H  "  Bap- 
 
9  8  Teflimonies  for  and  again  ft       Part  II. 
 
 iC  Baptize"  This  has  been  Anfwer'd  in  /w£.  7,  8. 
 Now,  tho'  his  Evidence  for  what  he  fuppofes  the 
 Apo-ftles  to  have  done,  above  Three  hundred  Years 
 before  his  Time,  be  not  good,  for  the  Reafons  I  have 
 there  given  ♦,  yet  he  may  reafonably  be  admitted, 
 for  a  "Witnefs  of  the  Senfe  and  Pradice  of  the 
 Churches  of  his  own  Time  and  Place,  and  he  is 
 pofitive  as  to  thefe,  that  "  hay-men  were  not  allowed 
 4C  to  Baptize."  This  is  an  Argument,that  the  Canon 
 of  the  Spanifh  Council  of  EHbertsjna.de  to  Authorize 
 feme  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  PraSice  of  the 
 Churcli  in  Hilarys  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  juflly  fa  id,  That  in  his 
 Time  Lay-men  were  not  allow'd  to  Baptize  :  He 
 makes  no  Exceptions  for  Cafes  ofNeceffity,  as  if 
 they  were  allow'd  to  do  it  in  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  ofNeceffity,  nor  any  Canon  to  Im- 
 power  them  to  do  fb. 
 
 §  XX.  The  next  in  order,  who  in  fir  nets  us  in 
 this  Matter,  but  whofe  Evidence  is  wholly  omitted 
 by  Mr.  Bingham,  is  Cc  Pacianus  Bifhop  of  Barcelona, 
 u  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.  3.      Laji-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.        99 
 
 then  he  proceeds  to  fhew  the  great  Neceflity  of  our 
 Regeneration,  and  New  Birth  by  Jefus  Chrift:  Sa}rs 
 he,  *  "  Are  not  we  begotten  by  Chrift  ?  that  we  may 
 
 "  be  favd  thro*  Him  ? ■    He  fliews  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)  Chrift: 
 u  [perfuosSacerdotes]  6?  fifg  P?fefffo  begets  Chi/- 
 <c  dren  in  his  Church  5  and  the  Spirit  of  God  brings 
 "  them  forth \  at  the  Font,  [i.e.  in  Baptifm,~]  Manibus 
 Cc  Sacerdotis,  by  the  Hands  ofthePrieft.  - Then 
 
 T**    Nunquid   nos  a  Chrifto  geniti  fumus,  ut  propter  ipfum 
 
 falvi  efTe  poffimus  ?  — Noviflimis  temporibus  animam 
 
 utique  cum  came  accepit  Chriftus  eK  Maria,  hanc  venit  falvam 
 fa  ere,  hanc  apud  inferos  non  reliquit,  hanc  Spiritui  fupxon- 
 junxit,  8c  fuam  fecit.  Et  hx  funt  nuptia?  Domini,  unl  carni 
 con;unclse,  ut  fecundum  Hind  magnum  Sacramentum  fierent  duo 
 in  carne  una  Chriftus  8c  Ecclefia.  Ex  his  Nuptiis  Chriftiana 
 plebs  nafcitur,  veniente  de  fuper  Spiritu  Domini :  noftrarumque 
 animarum  fubftantia?,  fuperfufo  &  admixto  protinus  Semente 
 Ccelefti,  vifceribus  matns  inolefcimus,  alvoque  ejus  efFufi  vivi- 
 
 ficamur  in  Chrifto. t  Sic  generat  Chriftus  in  Ecclefia  per 
 
 Jlios  Sacer dotes. Atque  ita   Chrifti  Semen,  id  eft,  Dei 
 
 Spiritus,  novum  Hominem  alvo  matris  agit3tum,  8c  partu  fontis 
 exceptum,  manibus  Sacerdotv  effundic,  fide  tamen  pronuba. 
 -  •  Hsec  autem  Compleri  alias  nequeunr,  nifi  Lavacri  8e 
 
 Chrifmatis  <fy  Antiftitis  Sacramenro.  Lavacro.  n.  peccaca  pur- 
 gantur,  Chrifmace  Santtus  Spiritus  fuperfunditur,  utraque  vero 
 ifta,  manu  8c  ore  Antiftitis  impetramus :  atque  ita  torus  Homo 
 renafcitur  &  innov.nur  in  Chrifto.  S.  Pacidni  Barcilowifis 
 Fpifcopi  Sermo  ad  Fideles  Cdtechumsnos  de  Btptifmo.  Bibliotb. 
 Pittum,  Tm,  4,  Colon*  p.  247. 
 
 H  2  furaming 
 
ioo  Tcftimonics  for  and  again  ft     Part  II, 
 
 fumming  up  the  whole  Matter,  he  exprefsly 
 affirms,  That  "  Thefe  Things  [/.  c.  our  Regenera- 
 *  tiou,  and  New  Birth]  cannot  be  accomplffid, 
 u  any  otherwife  than  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm 
 4C  and  Chrifm,  and  [the  Miniftry]  of  the  BiJ))op. 
 cc  By  Baptifm,  Sins  are  purged  away  ^  by  Chrifm9 
 "  [/'.  e.  Confirmation]  the  Holy-Ghoft  is  poured  out 
 "  upon  us  5  and  LlOtD  tfj^fC  zve  obtain  by  the  Hand 
 "  and  Mouth  of  the  Bijhop :  And  fo  the  whole  Man 
 "  is  Born  again  and  Renew  d  in  Chrift. n  From 
 which  Words  of  this  holy  Bifhop,  nothing  left  can 
 be  collected  than  this,  That  he  reckoned,  Tliat  the 
 Regeneration  and  Nezv  Birth  of  Chrift  1  an s,  according 
 to  Divine  Revelation,  on  which  he  founds  his  whole 
 Difcourfe)  cannot  be  accomplijftd  by  any  other 
 Baptifm  than  that  which  is  adminifter'd  by  One 
 having  a  Prieftly  Power  to  Baptize  :  I  fay,  no  lefs 
 than  this  can  be  inferr'd  from  his  Words  $  ift>  Be- 
 caufe  he  makes  it  necejfaryfor  us  to  be  Regenerated 
 by  Chrift  himfelf.  ?d'y^  Becaufe  he  fays,  Chrift 
 do's  this  by  his  Pried  s,  i.  e.  fuch  as  have  his  Au- 
 thority and  Comtniflion  to  minifter  in  this  part  of 
 his  Prieft/y  Office.  id/y,  Becaufe  he  affirms,  It 
 CfittttOt  be  accomplifh'd  otherwife  than  by  the  Sa- 
 crament of  Baptifm  and  Chrifm,  and  [the  Miniftry] 
 Of  tljC  TStfljOfU  which  plainly  implies,  that  they 
 muft  both,  in  lome  fenfe  or  other,  be  miniftred  to 
 us  by  the  T5tfl)0p  ^  becaufe  he  fays,  in  the  Words 
 immediately  lollowing,  that  we  obtain  the  OdC 
 nefit-S  of  both  [Baptifm  and  Chrifm~\  "  By  the  Hand 
 "  and  Mouth  of  the  T>tfl)0p>"  So  that,  according 
 to  Paciant/s,  the  Baptifm  muft  either  be  miniftred 
 by  the  Bifhop  himfelf  in  Perfon  •,  or  elfe  [that  it 
 may  be  ftill  by  his  Miniftry  ]  it  muft  be  by  One, 
 who  is  really  Commijjiorid,  Authorized,  or  Impowerd 
 by  him  *,  which  makes  it  to  be  the  T5lfl)0p  £  &&, 
 
 and 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.       101 
 
 and  confequently,  to  be  Chrift's,  whofe  more  imme- 
 diate Reprefentative  he  is.  Thus  this  holy  Father, 
 without  any  Regard  to  (what  fbme  call)  Cafes  or 
 Neceility,  teaches  us,  That  the  New  Birth  CflttnOt 
 be  effetfed  but  by  Epifcopal  Baptifm  •,  he  knew  of 
 no  other  Way  to  accomplish  it,  he  affirms  that 
 there  CStUtOt  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  greater!:  Extremity)  with- 
 out it. 
 
 If  in  his  Days  the  Church  had  any  right  fenfe 
 of  Regeneration,  and  a  New  Birth,  to  be  effected 
 by  fuch  Warnings  as  are  now  perform'd  by  Perfons 
 who  never  were  at  all  Commiifiond  by  the  Bifhop 
 to  Baptize,  and  whofe  Ac~ts,  confequently,  cannot 
 upon  any  account  whatfoever,  be  truly  faid  to  be 
 the  Bifhop's  Miniftration,  and  therefore  they  are 
 not  ChrinYs  :  I  fay,  If  the  Church  had  then  held 
 fuch  Warnings  to  be  Good  and  Valid  Baptifms, 
 and  had  believ'd  this  upon  good  grounds  •,  would 
 fo  holy  a  Bifliop  as  Pacianus,  have  been  fo  bold  as 
 to  have  limited  the  Outward  Means  of  our  Spiri- 
 tual Regeneration  and  New  Birth,  to  Epifcopal 
 Baptifm^  Sec.  only  ?  If  he  had  known  of  our 
 modern  Latitude,  and  the  Goodnefs  and  Validity 
 thereof  ^  would  he  not,  at  leaft,  have  encourag'd 
 his  Catechumens  fo  far,  as  to  have  let  them  know, 
 that  in  abfence  of  a  Prieft,  they  might  be  brought 
 to  this  Second  Birth  by  the  Hands  of  any  Lay- 
 Cbriftian  whatfoever^  tho3  he  was  never  CommiJJiond 
 to  Baptize  ?  Sure,  if  this  had  been  the  then  Ge- 
 neral Senfe  and  PraSice  of  the  Church,  was  Pa- 
 cianus  Bifhop  of  Barcelona  ignorant  of  it  ?  Or,  if 
 he  knew  it,  would  he  have  hidden  fo  ufeful  a 
 Piece  of  Knowledge  from  his  Catechumens,  and 
 
 H  3  led 
 
102         T eft  imonies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 led  them  into  a  contrary,  and  (what  fome  of  our 
 Moderns  call )   an  Uncharitable  Notion,  That  only 
 Epifcopa/  Baptifm,  and  no  other,  can  be  a  Means 
 of  our  Second  Birth  >    No,  certainly,  fo  holy  a 
 Bifhop  would  never,  in  his  Inftructing  of  the  Ig- 
 norant, have  inftilFd  an  Uncharitable,   Malfe  Do- 
 Srine  into  them,  contrary  to  the  Lavoful,  General 
 Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  if  Baptifin,  by 
 ttJljaUlfOCter   Cljtfftiait    performed,     was    then 
 juftly  efteem'd  to  be  Valid,  by  the  Church's  Ge- 
 neral Senfe  and  Practice.     Is  it  not  rather  evident, 
 that  Epifcopal  Baptifm  alone,  was,  in  the  General 
 Senfe  and  Praffice  of  the  Church  in  his  Days,  the 
 only  Means  of  our  Regeneration  >     Do's  it   not 
 plainly  appear  to  have  been  fo,  by  his  Inftructing 
 fuch  as  were,  before  their  Baptifm,  to  be  taught 
 the  more  necefjary  Truths  of  Chriftianity,  That  this 
 only  was  the  Means  of  their  Second  Birth  ?     If  any 
 Baptifm   with  Water,  and  pronouncing  the  Form, 
 In  the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  had  been  Valid,  as 
 fome  now  fay  it  is,  "What  need  was  there  of  keep- 
 ing Catechumens  under  fo  long  a  Difcipline  and 
 Inftruction  as  was  then  practised,  and  telling  them, 
 That  their  Regeneration  and  New  Birth  could  not 
 be  accomplinYd   "  any  otherwife  than  by  the  Sacra- 
 "  went  of  Baptifm  and  Chrifm,  and  the  Miniftry  of 
 ¥  the  Bifhop  $  '  and  that  we  obtain  the  Benefits  of 
 "  TSOtiJ  tljefe  by  the  Hands  and  Mouth  of  the 
 u  Bilhop  > 
 
 If  our  Modern  Notions  had  been  true,  Catechu- 
 mens might  have  been  Regenerated  in  Baptifm  by  a 
 Shorter  Way  5  for  the  great  Zeal  they  had,  to  procure 
 asfoon  aspoiiible  this  Spiritual  Benefit,  would  have 
 made  5em  run  to  any  other  than  an  Epifcopal  Hand  for 
 Baptifm,  if  they  had  been  taught,  that  fuch  Baptifm 
 v)dsas  good  as  the  Bi/hops:  They  might  have  fav'd 
 
 them- 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifa,  Examined,  &C.       iog 
 
 themfelves  the  Penance  of  Long  Delays,  Sec.  imposed 
 on  them  before  they  were  admitted  to  Epif  copal  Bap- 
 tifm 5  and  might  have  obtain  d  the  Longed-for  End 
 of  all    their  Toil  and  Labour,  by  another  Baptifm 
 in  a  much  Jhorter  Time,  and  with  icfr  Pains,  with- 
 out Submitting  to  fuch  appointed  Preparations,  and 
 confining  themielves  to  the  Will  and  Pleqfure  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  limitted  in  their  Opinions  by  Divine  Laws, 
 and   EccleSiaftical  Confutations    agreeable  thereto  ♦, 
 and    in  Conformity  to  thefe^    that  holy  Bifhop 
 taught,  and  his  Catechumens  believ'd,  (as  thofe 
 of  other  Churches,  doubtlefs  did,  if  we  may  judge 
 of  their  Belief  by  their  piousPrattice,  of  fubmitting 
 to  thefe  appointed  Delays,  and  waiting  patiently  for 
 Baptifm  by  the  Bifhop's  Authority)    " That  the 
 ■  Regeneration  and  New  Birth  ofChriftians,  cannot 
 c  be  accomplifh'd  any  otherwife,  than  by  Epif  copal  Bap- 
 *  tifmf  8co  and  that  confequently, thofe  Wajhings 
 which  are  not  Epif  copal,  are  Ineffective  Acls,   and 
 not  Means  of  Accomplifhing  our  Spiritual  Regene- 
 ration -,   and  therefore  Null  and  Void  for  the  Pur- 
 pofes  of  Epif  copal  Baptifm :  For  if  they  are  good 
 and  valid,  then  our  Regeneration  and  New  Birth 
 can  be  accomplifh'd  without   the  Bifhop's  Baptifm 
 and  Chrifm  5  which  is  contrary  to  Parian  m\  Af- 
 fertion,  who  fays3  That  "  they  cannot  be  accomplished 
 4C  without  'em, 
 
 §  XXL  In  the  fame  Century  liv'd  Opt  at  us 
 Bifhop  of  Milevis,  a  City  of  Numidia  in  ASrica, 
 whofe  Opinion   Mr.  Bingham  gives  us  in  his  44th 
 
 Page,  thus  *   ^  Opt  at  us  (fays  our  Hiftorian) 
 
 H  4  "thought 
 
104         Ttftimonies  for  and  ogainft     Part  II. 
 
 u  thought  that  Chrift  gave  a  Commiffion  to  his  Apofiles 
 "to  Baptize,  but  yet  not  Juch  an  one,  as  perempto- 
 "  rily  annul? d  and  evacuated  all  Baptifms  that  were 
 u  performed  by  any  other.  Our  Saviour  (fays 
 Cc  Opt  at  its)  gave  Commandment  in  whofe  'Name 
 ct  the  Nations  fhould  be  Baptized  :  But  be  did  not 
 c  Determine,  without  Exception,  by  whom  theyjhould 
 u  be  Baptized.  He  j aid  not  to  his  Difciples,  This 
 "  /hall ye  do,  and  no  other  Jhall  do  it.  For*,W)0Z%Zl 
 u  Baptizes  in  the  Name  of  the  lather,   Son,   and 
 
 u  holy-Ghcft,  fulfils  the  Work  of  the  Apofiles. 
 
 Opt  at  us  concludes,  u  That  it  was  the  Name  of  the 
 M  Trinity,  and  not  the  Work  of  the  Agent,  that 
 ;:  fanSijies  the  My  fiery  -,  and  that  the  Minifters  of 
 "  Baptifm  were  only  Labourers,  and  not  Lords  of 
 ct  the  Aclion."  This  Quotation  Mr*  Bingham  pro- 
 "  duces,  to  fhew  that  Opt  at  us  held,  "  All  thofe  to 
 "  have  Baptifm,  WtftZiOZKet  or  by  M)Om(OZ^tt 
 <c  Baptized,  that  had  receivd  it  in  Faith,  and  with- 
 u  out  Dijjimulation,  in  that  form  oj  Words  which  is 
 "  prefcrib'd  by  the  G  of  pel,"  8cc.  for  Mr.  Bingham 
 adds,  a  little  after  thofe  Words,  thus  ;  cC  Opt  at  us 
 "  was  plainly  of  the  fame  Opinion,  p.  45.  Now, 
 upon  the  reading  of  Opt  at  m\  Words,  if  they  muft 
 be  taken  in  the  full  Senfe  of  his  [Quifquis]  £311)0* 
 Z^Zt  5  'tis  plain,  That  he  utter 'd  only  his  own 
 private  Opinion,  and  not  the  General  Senfe  and 
 FraSice  of  the  Church. 
 
 For,  1/?,  The  word  [guifquis]  Wll)QZKZt,  is 
 of  both  Genders,  and  includes  Women  as  well  as 
 Men  ;  and  fo  if  we  take  Opt at us 's  Opinion  in  the 
 full  Extent  of  his  own  Words,  we  fhall  make  him 
 
 *    Quifcjuit  in  Nomine  Patris  Filii  8c  Spiritus  Sanfti  Eaptiza- 
 verit,  Apoftolonm  Opus  implevit.     Opt*t,4ontra  Parmen,  lib.$* 
 
 to 
 
Chap.  J-     Lay-Baptifw,  Examined)  &C.      165 
 
 to  have  held, That  Baptifm  ordinarily  perform'd  by 
 any  Perfon,  whether  (KUOttiait  as  well  as  Man,  if 
 done  with  the  life  of  the  Form,  in  the  Name  of 
 the  Trinity,  was  Good  and  Valid  -,  for  no  lefs 
 than  this  is  included  in  the  full  Senfe  of  Optatuss 
 §>uifquis  [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  absolutely  forbidden  to 
 "  meddle  with  any  Ecclefiaftical  Office,  and  Baptifm 
 "  /*  particular."  And  Mr.  Bingham  as  fairly 
 agrees  alfo,  4C  That  the  Ancient  Church  did  not  allow 
 "  them  to  Baptize  in  Extraordinary  Cafes  of  extreme 
 *c  Neceffity,^  p.  46.  And,  finally,  he  does  not 
 venture  to  Determine,  that  Baptifm  by  Women 
 is  good  and  valid,  but  leaves  it  cc  to  the  Judgment 
 '  of  others,  and  farther  Enquiry,"  pag.  49.  And 
 yet  this  Paifage  ot  Opt at us,  [^Whoever  Baptize .r,&c.] 
 allows  of  the  Validity  of  Baptifm  by  Women, 
 tho'  the  General  Senfe  and  Pra&ice  of  the  Ancient 
 Church  gives  not  the  leaft  Countenance  to  the 
 fuppos'd  Validity  thereof  by  Mr.  Bingham's  own 
 Confeffion. 
 
 And,  2dly,  Optatus\  ^^uifquls'j  Whoever,  Sec. 
 is  of  fo  great  a  Latitude,  That  it  admits  of  Bap- 
 tifm to  be  Valid,  tho3  perform'd  by  Unbaptiz'd 
 Infidels,  Jews,  or  Pagans,  whether  Men,  Women, 
 or  even  Children,  who  were  never  Commiffion'd  for 
 this  Sacred  Function  ;  a  Latitude  fo  very  unac- 
 countable, that  Mr.  Bingham  confefTes,  'tis  One  of 
 "  the  Novelties  of  Popery, —  p.  98.  UttCtlp  without 
 "  Precedent  in  the  Primitive  Church,"  pag.  100. 
 And  therefore,  upon  Mr.  Bingham^s  own  Principles, 
 Optat?//s  §£uifquis  [Whoever  Baptizes,  &c.~\  allow- 
 ing of  the  Validity  of  Baptifm  by  Women,  and 
 alfo  by  Unbaptiz'd  Infidels,    Jews,    or  Pagans, 
 
 whether 
 
I  o  6         Te ft  i monies  for  and  again  ft      P  a  r  t  II. 
 
 whether  Men,  Women,  or  Children  5  was  no-ways 
 confonant  to  the  General  Senfe  and  Brattice  of  the 
 Church,  but  a  Novel,  Singular  Opinion  of  his  own, 
 and  therefore  of  no  value  in  our  prefent  Enquiry 
 after  the  Ancient  Churches  Catholick  Tradition  : 
 And  fo  Optatus\  Opinion  is  a  perfect  Blank  in  this 
 Difpute  -,  becaufe  his  [Quifquis,]  his  Whoever  Bap- 
 tizes, &c.  is  ot  fo  unl'wntted  an  Extent  and  Lati- 
 tude, as  that  it  can  no  ways  be  accounted  for  in 
 the  Church's  General  Senfe  and  Brattice  — 
 
 §  XXII.  But  I  am  not  fo  uncharitable  as  to  be- 
 lieve that  Opt  at  us  was  fo  great  a  Latitudinarian  as 
 fome  of  our  Moderns  reprefent  him  -,  I  don't  think 
 that  He  would  have  flood  by  this  lingular  Notion 
 which  Mr.  Bingham  fathers  on  him,  viz.  That 
 u  Baptifm,  toljetCfOEiCr  or  by  WfymtWUt  ad- 
 *;  mini  fire  A,  is  Good  and  Valid,  in  his  pag.  45T. 
 For  tho3  Optatus   does  uncautioufly  fay,  Qiiifquis 
 
 —  Bapthaverit,  Sec.    Whoever  Baptizes  ■ — 
 
 "  fulfils  the  Work  of  the  Apoflles  ,  which  if  taken 
 in  an  unlimitted  Senfe,  makes  all  Baptifm  by 
 Perfons  never  Commifiion'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,  &c.  if  done  with 
 the  Form,  In  the  Name  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 
 Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  and  the  latter  of 
 Baptifm  by  Infidels,  he  calls  cc  One  of  the  Novelties 
 "  of  Popery,"  &c.  (as  before  obferved : )  Yet,  I  fay, 
 to  do  fomething  towards  taking  off  the  Reproach, 
 whichD  by  fuch  a  Latitudinarian  Notion,  is  caft  on 
 
 this 
 
Chap.  1-     Lay-Baptifr/tj  Examined,  &c.      ioj 
 
 this  Bifhop,  I  fhould  charitably  confider  the  Oc- 
 cafion  of  his  Words,  and  from  thence  judge  of  his 
 Meaning  by  them  :     He  was  engag d   in  Difpute 
 with  the  Donatifts,  a  puritanical,  Schifmatical  Seel, 
 who    (tho5   they  retain  d   Epifcopacy)    feparated 
 from  the  Church,  becaufe  they  reckon 'd  the  Catho- 
 licks   to  be  defied,  and  polluted,    and   abominable^ 
 not  to  be  Communicated  withal,  by  reafon  of  their 
 Communion  with  fome  whom  the  Donates  charg'd 
 to  have  been  Traditors,  to  have  yielded  in  time 
 of  Perfecution,  and  to  have  deliver 'd  up  the  Holy 
 Books  into  the  Hands  of  the  Heathen  :    Upon  this 
 account,   they  reckon'd  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  Donatifts,  in  con- 
 fequence  of  this  falfe  Charge,  Re-baptiz'd  all  who 
 came  over  to  their  Party,  tho3  they  had  been  be- 
 fore Baptiz'd  in  the  Church,  by  Catholick  Bifhops, 
 Priefts,  or  Deacons. 
 
 Optatus,  in  the  Book  quoted  by  our  Reverend 
 Hiftorian,  endeavours  to  convince  the  Donatifis, 
 that  if  the  Catholicks  had  been  Schifmaticks,  yet 
 their  Baptifm  would  be  Valid  notwithftanding, 
 and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  repeated  :  In  his 
 Yirft  Boo^  he  wonders  that  Parmenian  the  Donatifl 
 fhould  fay,  ( of  the  fuppos'd  Schifmaticks,  after 
 this  manner, )  t  "  How  can  a  Man  that  is  defil'd, 
 "  cleanfe  another  by  a  falfe  Baptifm  $  How  can  an 
 "  impure  Man  punfie  ?  How  can  One  that  makes 
 <c  others  fall,  lift  up  thofe  that  are  fallen  down  ? 
 "  How  can  One  that  is  Guilty,  grant  Far  don  ?  or 
 "  One  that  is  Condemn  d,  Abfolve  ?  Opt  at  us  de- 
 ^  nies,  that  this  can  be  faid  of  thofe  that  are  only 
 
 t  Dh  Pins  Ecclef. HiJ}.  Cm.  iv.  p< 88,  89.  Lond. 
 
 Schifma- 
 
t  o  3  Teft  monies  for  and  again  ft     Pa  r  t  IT. 
 
 "  Schifinaticks,  who,  as  he  thinks,  may  Lawfully 
 M  adminifter  the  Sacraments.  He  tells  Panne- 
 man  "  *  Schifm^  which  breaks  the  Bond  of  Peace,  is 
 "  begotten  by  Difcord,  nouriftid  by  Envy,  and  con- 
 u  firmd  by  Difputes  ;  thus  impious  Children  forfake 
 "  the  Catholic k  Church  their  Mother,  withdraw  and 
 €C  fepwate  them fe  Ives — ■  being  cut  off  from  the  Church, 
 c  and  become  Rebels  and  Enemies :  But  they  inno- 
 cc  vate  nothing  in  Doc7rine,  ftill  retaining  what  they 
 <c  bad  learned  from  their  Mother.  "  And  he  con- 
 cludes, That  <c  Schifinaticks  have  preferv'd  the 
 "  True  Sacraments  of  the  Church,  tho3  they  are 
 "  feparated  from  its  Body.  M  In  his  5thBook5  the 
 very  Book  from  whence  Mr.  Bingham  takes  his 
 Quotation,  Opt  at  us  proves,  that  in  the  Sacrament 
 of  Baptifm,  it  is  not  abfolutely  necefTary,  cC  t  that 
 "  the  Minifter  mould  be  Faithful  and  Juft  5  be- 
 "  caufe  the  Minifters  are  chang'd  every  Day,  and 
 
 u  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  tC  ||  the  Vnworthinefs 
 "  of  the  Minifter,  which  hinders  not  theEjfeclofthe 
 "  Sacraments :  *  All  which  being  duly  weighed  and 
 confider'd,  by  a  Man  of  a  candid  Temper,  will  in- 
 cline him  to  believe,  that  Opt  at  us*  s  "  £Luifquis, 
 u  fiOljOCiJer  Baptizes— fulfills  the  Work  of  the  Apo* 
 files  5 "  was  defign'd  by  him  only  to  mean  the  Bap- 
 tizers  he  was  then  difputing  for5  viz.  the  then  Mi- 
 nifters  of  Baptifm,  whom  the  Donatifts  reckon'd  to 
 be  Schifinaticks,  and  fo  polluted,  that  (even  tho' 
 they  were  ordain'd  Bifhops,  Priefts,  or  Deacons) 
 their  Miniftrations  were  defiled  by  them,  and  upon 
 
 *  Du  Pins  Ecchf.  Bift.  Cent.w.  p. 88,89. 
 
 t  Ibid,  p  93.  Lorn/.  \\  As  in  he  i6tb  Art'ule* 
 
 tfiat 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Bap! i fin,  Examined,  8tc.      109 
 
 that  Account  wholly  Null  and  Void  ^  Opt  at  us,  in 
 Oppofition  to  this,  {hews,  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,  cc  Whoever  Baptizes  n 
 [i.e.  candidly  interpreting  his  Words]  whoever 
 Minifter,  whether  Catholick  or  Schifmatick,  Bap- 
 tizes cC  In  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
 "  and  of  the  Holy  Ghofi,  fulfils  the  Work  of  the  Apo- 
 u  tiles. 3'  And  we  know,  that  in  thofe  Days,  the 
 allow'd  Minifters  of  Baptifm,  whether  Catholicks 
 or  Schifmaticksv  were  only  fuch  as  were  COttlttttf- 
 fiOlt'5  I)?  TBtftjOpS  t  And  this  will  make  nothing 
 for  the  Validity  of  pretended  Baptifms,  perform'd 
 by  Perfons  who  never  were  Epifcopally  Comm'iJJioni 
 to  Baptize.  So  that,  whether  we  take  Optatm\ 
 "Words  in  this  more  candid  Senfe  of  them,  with 
 regard  to  the  Subject  of  his  Difpute,  or  in  the  full 
 Extent  and  Meaning  of  them,  as  they  ftand  by 
 themfelves  5  this  Father  is  no  Evidence,  that  the 
 general  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  ancient  Church, 
 gives  Countenance  to  any  Validity  in  pretended 
 Baptifms,  perform'd  by  fuch  as  never  were  Com- 
 miifion'd  to  Baptize. 
 
 §  XXIII.    The  next  ancient  Writer  I  fhall  con* 
 
 fider,  is  St.  Eafil,  Bifhop  of  C&farea  in  Cappadocia9 
 
 Ordain'd  about  the  Year  369,  whom  our  Reverend 
 
 Hiftorian  takes  notice  of  in  his  39th  Page  thus: 
 
 •  As  to  St.  Bafil,  it  will  be  readily  own'd,  that 
 
 "  he  had  fomewhat  of  a  fingular  Opinion  in  this 
 
 "  Matter  *,  for  he  was  for  Re-baptizing  all  Perfons 
 
 "  that  were  Ottlp  'Bapt!?0  bp  Lap-'ttiett,  as  he 
 
 c  was  alfo  for  Re-baptizing  all  that  were  Baptiz'd 
 
 c  by  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Priefts  ^  for  he 
 
 <c  brings  in  Cyprian,  and  firmilian  his  PredeceiTor, 
 
 *  in 
 
no        Tefi  monies  for  and  again  ft      Part  IL 
 
 "  in  the  See  of  Cue/area,  arguing  after  this  manner: 
 <c  *  Here  ticks  and  Schifmaticks  are  broken  off  from 
 
 <c  the  Church,  ants  become  Lap  men,  *n&  ttjere- 
 
 a  fOje  have  no  Power  to  Baptize VLl)tttfO}Z 
 
 cc  fuch  as  are  Baptized  by  them,  when  they  return  to 
 "  the  Church,  are  to  be  Re-baptized  with  the  true 
 "  Baptifm  of  the  Church,  ag  being  Oillp  'Bapt^'O 
 "  by  JLapmeiu"  This  is  a  very  full  Evidence 
 againft  the  Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm  -,  for  whether 
 St.  Bafd\  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  be  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  Power  or  Commijjion  to  Baptize,  for  St.  Baft  I  cer- 
 tainly means  fuch  Perfons,  when  he  fpeaks  of  Lay- 
 men ;  becaufe  he  reckons  Heretical  and  Schifmatical 
 Priefts  to  be  but  as  Lay-men,  and  therefore  to  have 
 no  Power  to  Baptize,  i.e.  as  if  he  had  faid,  Lay-men 
 are  fuch  Perfons  as  are  deftitute  of  Power  to  Bap- 
 tize j  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  are  become  Lay- 
 men, and  therefore  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  have 
 no  Power  to  Baptize :  I  fay,  the  Churches  before, 
 and  in  the  Days  of  St  Baft/,  had  no  Difputes  againft 
 the  Invalidity  of  Baptifms  by  St.  Bafifs  Lay-men ; 
 If  they  had,  where  are  the  publick  Records  of  this 
 Difpute?  Mr.  Bingham  neither  has,  nor  can  ever 
 produce,  any  fuch  Records ;  and  therefore  we  fhall 
 conclude,  that  the  Invalidity  of  Baptifms  perform'd 
 
 Baft  I  Epifl,  i.  id  Amfhil.  caf.i. 
 
 by 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examir?dy  Sec.       111 
 
 by  St.  BafiPs  Lay-men,  i.  e.  by  Perfons  deftitute  of 
 Vomer  to  Baptize,  was  an  allowed  Principle  in  the 
 Churches  of  his  Days. 
 
 Nay,  the  Practice  of  the  Ancient  Church  of 
 Spain,  [the  Bifhops  whereof,  in  the  Council  of 
 Eliberis,  made  a  Canon  to  impower  fome,  and 
 not  others,  of  their  own  Lay-men,  who  were 
 in  Communion  with  their  Bifhops,  to  Baptize 
 in  extreme  Cafes,  where  Priefts  could  not  be  had,] 
 confirms  the  general  Principle  of  the  Invalidity 
 of  Baptifm  perform'd  by  Perfons  not  autho- 
 rize, /.  e.  by  St.  BafiPs  Lay-men  3  becaufe,  if  Bap- 
 tifm by  Perfons  not  Commiffion'd,  had  been  then 
 valid  in  the  general  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the 
 Church,  thofe  Spanijh  Bifhops  would  have  had  no 
 need  of  making  a  new  Canon,  to  Authorize  fome 
 Lay-men  to  do  that^  which  the  Catholick  Church 
 in  Doctrine  and  Practice  efteem'd  to  be  good  and 
 valid,  when  done  by  any  Lay-chriftian,  without 
 fuch  a  fuppos  A  Authority. 
 
 But  Divine  Revelation,  and  the  general  Senfe  and 
 VraUice  of  the  Church,  had  excluded  fuch  Lay-men 
 from  that  Miniftration,  this  Exclufion  of  them  ren- 
 dered their  Attempts,  if  they  fhould  have  endea- 
 vour'd  to  Baptize,  Null  and  Void,  for  want  of  the 
 Commiflion  requir'd  by  the  Inftitution,  which  as 
 much^  and  as  cenftantly  requires  the  Commiflion,  as 
 it  does  the  Water  and  the  Form :  The  Council  of 
 Eliberps,  doubt lefs  found  things  in  this  State  ^  The 
 Bifhops  thereof,  'tis  reafbnable  to  believe,  faw  Lay- 
 men confeientioufly  refrain  from  ufurping  the  Mi- 
 niftration of  Baptifm,  upon  the  Account  of  their 
 having  no  Power  to  Baptize  ^  Lay-men  doubtlefs 
 abftain'd  from  it,  as  we  do  now,  upon  a  common 
 Principle  of  their  Inability  to  minifter  the  Means 
 of  our  Regeneration  and  new  Birth,  to  be  admi- 
 
 nifter'd 
 
JX2         Tejlimonies  for  and  again fl     Part  IT. 
 
 nifter'd  by  Chrift's  commiffion'd  Reprefentatives : 
 Some  Catechumens,  at  a  great  Diftance  from  a 
 Church,  it's  very  likely  dy'd  without  Baptifm  for 
 want  of  fuch  a  Commiifion'd  Minifter :  The  Spa- 
 nijh  Bilhops,  hearing  of  fuch  fort  of  Accidents, 
 confider'dj  how  fuch  Catechumens,  in  fuch  Extre- 
 mities, might  receive  valid  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  fo,  fuch  Lay-men  might 
 take  Courage,  and  Act  by  a  fupposd  Commiffion  in 
 that  Miniftration,  which  they  before  had  reafon  to 
 think  could  be  of  no  Value  if  they  attempted  it 
 without  a  Commiffion  $  and  that  Catechumens  might 
 not  die  in  fuch  Extremities  without  fuppos'd  Baptifm  ^ 
 and  alfo  that  thofe  Span  iff?  Bilhops  might  not  incurr  a 
 iuppos'd  Guilt,  of  letting  Men  die  without  a  fuppos'd 
 Commiffion *d Baptifm.  The  Canon  evidently  fuppofes, 
 that  Lay-men  in  Spain,  had  no  Power  in  themfelves 
 to  Baptize  ;  and  no  Churches  oppos'd  St.  Baji/'s 
 Affertion  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  VraUice  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  Commiffion  d,was  agree- 
 able to  the  general  Senfe  and  Fratfice  of  the  Church  5 
 becaufe,  no  Church  in  Council  did  then  or  before, 
 publickly  oppofe  that  Principle,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
 all  Canons  cpnfirnVd  and  eftablifh7d  it,  by  wholly 
 
 ton* 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.       nj 
 
 Confining  the  Miniftration  of  Baptifm  to  Bijhops, 
 and  thofe  ony  who  are  CommiJJion  d,  or  fuppos'd  to 
 be  Com  mill  ion  d  by  them,  and  making  no  Excep- 
 tions by  any  Publick  Ecclefiaftical  Declaration 
 whatfoever,  in  favour  of  the  Validity  of  Baptifm 
 by  Perfons  who  never  were  fo  Commijfwnd. 
 
 In  fhort,  St.  Bajil's  Argument  from  St.  Cyprian 
 and  Yirmilian,  reduc'd  into  Form,  ftands  thus:  Bap^ 
 tifm  by  Lay -men,  Perfons  not  Impower'd  or  Com- 
 miffioif  d  to  Baptize,  is  Null  and  Void — Heretical 
 and  Schifmatical  Priefts,  are  become  Lay-men  9 
 therefore  Baptifm ,  by  Heretical  and  Schifmatical 
 Priefts,  is  Null  and  Void.  The  Major  Proportion, 
 viz.  Baptifm  by  Laymen,  Perfons  not  Impower'd 
 to  Baptize,  is  Null  and  Void,  was  not  publick  ly 
 oppos'd  by  any  Churches-,  but  the  Minor,  viz. 
 that  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Priefts  were  be- 
 come Lay-men,  was  Deny'd  by  feveral  Churches  ^ 
 and  -therefore  in  Compliance  with  thofe  Churches, 
 he  would  not  wholly  inlift  upon  his  Conclufion, 
 That  Baptifm,  by  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Priefts, 
 was  Null  and  Void 5  for  He  acquiefcd  in  the  Cu- 
 floms  of  fome  Churches,  who  reckond  the  Bap- 
 tifms  of  fome  Schifmaticks  to  be  Good  and  Valid. 
 But  this  was  no  ways  a  Departing  from  the  Incon- 
 tefted  Principle,  That  Baptifm  by  Lay-men,  Verfons 
 not  CommiJJion  d  or  Impowerd  to  Baptize,  was  Null 
 and  Void  •,  becaufe,  his  allowing  fome  Schifmaticks 
 not  to  be  reduced  to  Lay-men,  was  only  an  Abate- 
 ment from  the  Rigour  of  his  Aflertion,  which  He 
 made  before,  concerning  Hereticks  and  Schifma- 
 ticks without  Diftin&ion,  when  other  Churches  did 
 not  allow,  that  all  Schifmaticks  whatfoever  were  be- 
 come Lay- men.  Thofe  Churches  did  not  Difpute 
 againft  His  other  Principle,  of  the  Invalidity  of 
 Baptifm  by  Perfons  Not  Commiirion'd  -,  and  there- 
 
 I  fore 
 
H4        Teftwomes  for  and  again  ft       Part  II. 
 
 fore  it  flood  good,  notwithftanding  His  Compli- 
 ance, and  their  Pra&ice,  with  refpett  to  the  other 
 by  Schifmatical  Priefts. 
 
 §  XXIV.  St.  Chryftojlom,  Arch-Bifhop  of  Qw- 
 ftantmople,  Anno  398.  whom  Mr.  Bingham  takes 
 Notice  of  in  his  17  th,  18th,  and  38th  Pages,  is  full 
 againft  the  Validity  of  Baptifm  perform'd  by  Per- 
 fons  who  never  were  Commiffion'd  to  Baptize.  His 
 Words,    as  Mr.  Bingham  has  noted  'em,    are  thefe ; 
 
 c  *  T/'5  plain  Madnefs  to  defpife  fo  Great  a  Power y 
 [viz.  that  of  the  Prieft]  "  without  which  U)C  CiltV 
 
 u  ItOt  obtain  Salvation,  or  the  good  Things  that  are 
 u  promifed  us.  For  if  J13o  2DttC  can  enter  into  the 
 1,1  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  ttCt^t  he  be  born  of  Water 
 "  and  the  Holy  Ghoft  5  and  he  that  eats  not  the  FlefJj 
 <c  of  the  Lord,  and  drinketh  not  his  Blood,  \8  3DC- 
 f1  pttXlCtl  of  Eternal  Life-,   and  all  tljCfe  tljttTOg 
 
 '  are  perform  d,  1?})  J|5d  SDtljet*,  but  Thofe  Sa- 
 :e  cred  Hands,  I  mean  the  Hands  of  the  Prieft : 
 *'  How  Cfttt  ftlt|>  QttC,  without  thefe  either  efcape 
 <c  the  Fire  of  Hell,   or  Obtain  the  Crown  that  is  laid 
 
 iC  up  in  Heaven. 1  "  If  there  be  a  ~Keceffity^ 
 
 <c  and  a  Child  be  found  Unbaptiz^d,  and  ready '  to 
 "  Die,  it  is  Lawful  for  a  Deacon  to  Baptize  it. n 
 Thefe  two  Pallages  from  St.  Chryfoftom,  do  efta- 
 blifh  what  I  obferv'd  before  from  Pacianus  Bifhop 
 of  Barcelona,  That  No  One  can  Adminifter  Baptifm, 
 as  the  Means  of  our  Regeneration  and  New  Birth, 
 but  fiich  as  either  in  a  higher  or  lower  Senfe  have 
 a  Prieft ly  Power.  St.  Chryfoftom  is  Exprefs  and  Po- 
 fitive,  that  this  Means  of  Regeneration  is  per- 
 
 *  Clrrtfof.  de  Saccrdir.  lib.  iii.  c.  $. 
 
 t  St  Chrtfofl.  Horn.  61.  Tom.  7.  Edit.  Savil,  p.  425. 
 
 form'd 
 
Chap.  J.      Lay-Baptijm,  Examined,  8cc.      n^ 
 
 form' d  "  TB?  5130  ©t&eC  but  Thofe  Sacred  Hands: 
 This  is  abfolutely  an  Excluding  of  all  others  What- 
 fbever,  nay,  even  in  Cafes  of  Neceifity,  for,  in  ar- 
 ticulo  mortis,  when  an  Unbaptiz'd  Child  is  ready 
 to  Die,  St.  Chryfoftom  points  out  no  other  than  a 
 Prieft/y  Hand  to  Baptize  it,   viz..  a  Deacon,    who 
 who  is  fo  far  a  Prieft,   as  he  has  receiv'd  the  Prieft- 
 ly  Power  to  Adminifter  this  Sacrament  in  the  Ab- 
 ience  of  the  Bithop,  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  of 
 the' Prieft/y  Power,  as  they  are  authoriz'd  to  Bap- 
 tize, &c.     He  knows  alfo,    that  when  Presbyters 
 and  Deacons  (Perfons  Ordam'd  by  the  Bilhop  to 
 Baptize)  do  Adminifter  this  Holy  Sacrament,  their 
 Adt  is,   in  the  Language  of  the  Ancients,  The  Bi- 
 fhotfs  Atf,   becaufe  they  receiv'd  their  Commiffion 
 from  him  :    Thefe  Things  confider'd,  whoever  of 
 theft,   whether  Presbyter  or  Deacon  Baptizes,  'tis 
 done  by  a  Prieft/y  Power.     And  St.  Chryfoftom  is 
 clear,  that  without  this  Power  cc  tue  CillUlQt  Ofe 
 c  tattt  Salvation,  or  the  good  Things  that  are  pro- 
 mised 7ts. *    One  of  the  Means  of  Salvation  which 
 he  fpeaks  of,  is,  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm  \  and  he 
 fays  poifitively,  that  it  is  "  performed  tip  ttO  Ottjtt 
 u  but  the  Sacred  Hands  of  the  Ptfeff*"     If  then, 
 a  Perfon  never  Commiilion'd  to  Baptize,  and  who 
 is  therefore  Deftitute  of  Prieft/y  Power,  attempts  to 
 Baptize,  we  "  CflnttOt  Obtain  €>nlfiattOtt  by  his 
 Hand, "  becaufe  there  is  no  Prieft/y  Power  ;  He  do's 
 not  minifter  the  Means  of  Salvation  ^  He  gives  us 
 no  Baptifm  of  Regeneration,  becaufe  fuch  Baptifm 
 is  perform'd  bp  ItO  Otljet  than  "  the  Sacred  Hands 
 of  the  Prieft^  and  the  Hands  of  this  Ufurper  dXZ 
 Hot  thofe  Sacred  Hands,  confequently  he  performs 
 J  2  nothing 
 
1 1 6       Teft monies  for  and  againfi        Part  II. 
 
 nothing,  and  we  obtain  nothing  by  his  Means.  If 
 fuch  Sacrilegious  Hands  do  minifter  real  Bap- 
 trfm,  Baptifm  whereby  we  may  be  born  again., 
 then  there  are  other  Hands  befides  the  Priefts,  that 
 perform  this  5  tho'  St.  Chryfoftom  fays  there  are  no 
 other :  And  if  the  pretended  Baptifins,  by  Perfbns 
 who  have  no  Prieftly  Power  ^  are  Means  of  Salva- 
 tion, then  'tis  plain,  we  can  obtain  Salvation  with- 
 out the  Prieftly  Power,  tho?  St.  Chryfoftom  affirms 
 exprefly,  that  without  this  Power  "  \M  CdllltOt  ob- 
 w  tain  Salvation:"  But  I  will  fboner  take  this 
 Saint's  AVord,  in  this  important  Matter,  than  traft 
 to  the  dangerous  Portions  of  fome,  who  came  after 
 him  5  becaufe,  his  AfTertions  are  clearly  founded  on 
 the  Divine  Oracles,  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Word 
 of  God,  that  Sacred  Standard  ot"  Truth,  and  only 
 Safe  Rule  of  our  Faith  and  Practice  :  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  Admimftra- 
 tor  thereof,  than  one  who  is  vefted  with  Apoftolick, 
 i.  e.  Prieftly  Power  or  Authority,  whether  in  Or- 
 dinary Cafes,  or  in  Times  of  Greater!:  Necelfity  - 
 and  our  St.  Chryfoftom^  keeping  his  Eye  upon  this 
 Sure  Rule,  affirms,  that  we  cannot  be  faved  without 
 this  Prieftly  Power  ^  and  that  there  is  no  other 
 than  the  Hand  of  one  who  is  vefted  with  this 
 Power  to  minifter  to  us  Cbriftian-Baptifm,  the 
 Means  of  our  Salvation :  In  no  Cafe  whatsoever 
 can  it  be  done  by  another,  for  even  in  Abfence  of 
 the  Bifhop  and  Presbyter,  none  but  a  Deacon  veft- 
 ed alio  with  Prieftly  Power  to  Baptize,  had  Autho- 
 rity to  do  it:  So  far  was  he  from  the  unaccounta- 
 ble Latitude  of  our  Days,    that  he  knew  of  no 
 
 other 
 
Chap.  3.      Lay-Baptifm,  Examw'd,  8tc.       117 
 
 other  Minifter  of  Baptifm,  in  Times  of  greateft: 
 Extremity,  than  an  Epifcopal  Deacon,  who  was 
 fo  far  a  Prieft  as  he  was  impower'd  by  the  Bifhop 
 to  Baptize:  And  thus  by  St.  Chryfoftoms  Rule, 
 agreeable  to  that  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  we  can- 
 not obtain  Salvation  ^  receive  Baptifm,  the  Means 
 thereof.  Ordinarily,  or  in  Times  of  Extremity, 
 "  without  the  Pricftly  Power.  " 
 
 §  XXV.  About  the  latter  end  of  the  Fourth,  or 
 beginning  of  the  Fifth  Century,  appear'd  the  Con- 
 ftitutions  called  Apoftolical,  as  the  Right  Reverend 
 Bifhop  Pear/on,  and  after  him  the  Reverend  and 
 Learned  Doctor  *Grabe  inform  us.  Thefe  Confti- 
 tutions,  tho3  in  Matters  relating  to  the  Doclrine  of 
 the  Trinity,  they  have  been  interpolated  by  Anti- 
 Trinitarian  Hereticks  ♦,  yet  in  Matters  of  Ancient 
 Difc  pline,  they  inform  us  of  feveral  Things  high- 
 ly worthy  of  our  Obfervation  •,  among  which,  this 
 of  the  Invalidity  of  pretended  Baptifm,  performed 
 by  Perfons  who  were  never  Commiflion'd  to  Bap- 
 tize, is  very  remarkable,  which  I  ihall  give  the 
 Reader  in  Mr.  Bingham  s  own  Tranflation,  pag.  4i9 
 
 42. Thus,  "  It  is  an  horrible  thing  for  a  Man  to 
 
 "  tbrufl  himfelf  into  the  Prieft* s  Dignity,  or  Office^ 
 c  as  the  Corahites,  and  Saul,  and  Uzzias  did-,  as 
 "  //  was  not  Lawful  for  a  ^tK&WQZt)  that  was  not 
 a  of  the  Tribe  of  Levi,  to  offer  any  thing,  or  ap- 
 "  p roach  the  Altar  without  a  Prieft  ^  fo  do  ye  no- 
 cc  thing  without  the  Bifhop.  Per  if  any  Man  do's 
 "  any  thing  without  the  Bifhop,  he  do's  it  ttt  SlftUH 
 "  it  fhall  not  be  reputed  to  him  as  any  Service.  As 
 u  Saul,   when  he  had  offered  Sacrifice  without  Sa- 
 
 *  Spicileg.  Patrirn,  Tom.  1.  p.  284. 
 
 I  1  "  mud, 
 
I  iS         Tejl  monies  for  and  again jt      Part  II. 
 
 "  muel,  was  told  that  be  had tJOlte  £iautl}>-,  fo 
 Cc  tUljateiJCr  LaP  mail  dos   any  thing  without  a 
 *J  Fneft,    he  ILabOtltS  ill  fllaiiU     And  a*  King 
 "  Uzzias,  a?fe;z  /;<?  JW  invaded  the  Frieft's  Office^ 
 c  was  fmitten  with  Leprofy  for  his  Tranfgrejjion  j 
 u  yi  eDCrp  iLap4tiait./M  &wr  6*s  Fumfhment  that 
 c  contemns  God,   and  infults  his  Friefts,  and  takes 
 cc  Honour  to  him/elf  not  imitating  Cljttff,  who  glo- 
 ic  rifyd  not  himfelf    but  fiaid  till  bis  Father  faid, 
 "  Thou  art  a  Frieft  for  ever,    after  the  Order  of 
 <c  Melchizedeck. "    Now   'tis   evident,    that    this 
 whole  Difcourfe  is  founded  upon  Scripture,   and 
 the  Senfe  of  it  when  apply'd  to  Baptifm,    is  no 
 lefs  than  this : 
 
 Firft9  That  whoever  Lay*man,  what  Perfon  fi> 
 ever,  that  was  never  Commiffion'd  to  Baptize,  at- 
 tempts this  Frieftly  Function,  which  upon  no  ac- 
 count whatfoever  belongs  to  him,  is  a  very  great 
 TranfgrefTor  in  the  fight  of  God,  and  his  pretend- 
 ed Service  is  "  Vain  as  to  what  concerns  himfelf , 
 ,c  for  it  Jhall  never  be  accounted  to  him  as  accept  a- 
 a  hie  Service,  worthy  of  a  Reward,  but  rather  fit- 
 "  etsjtablp  make  him  liable  to  Wrath  and  Funijhr 
 "  ment.  "  So  far  Mr.  Bingham  acknowledges, 
 pag.  42. 
 
 And,  Secondly,  I  add,  That  from  this  Difcourfe 
 3tis  plain,  that  fuch  a  pretended  Baptizer  acts  alfa 
 in  Vain,  with  refped  to  thofe  whom  he  attempts  to 
 Baptize  •,  lie  do's  them  Ii3fl  @£tiW  at  all,  if  we 
 will  but  be  fo  juft  qs  fairly  to  confider  the  Scrips 
 iure-Inftances  here  referr'd  to,  and  to  which  our 
 Ufurper  is  compar'd:  He  is  compar'd  to  the  Cora- 
 Villi  si  now  every  Body  that  knows  the  Hiftory  of 
 Coratrs  Rebellion,  knows  alfo  that  Corah  offer'd  In? 
 cenfe  lit  (Llatn,  with  refpecl  to  himfelf  and  to  the 
 reft  of  his  rebellious  Accomplices  of  the  Congrega- 
 tion, 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay+Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.       119 
 
 tion,   for  whom  he  pretended  to  offer ,  for  the  Pu- 
 nifhment  fell  on  him,  and  that  part  of  the  Congre- 
 gation alfo  who  did  not  offer,  but  app?0tf0  Of 
 Ijt'S  ©ffentlff  t  So  §<wfo  pretended  Burnt-Offering 
 was  Vain,    with  refpedr  to  himfelf  and  others,  for 
 who  was  there  that  receiv'd  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  XJzziatis  attempting  to  offer  Incenfe,    if  he 
 had  proceeded  fo  far  as  to  gain  a  Party  to  concur 
 with  him  in  the  Ufurpation,  would  doubtlefs  have 
 brought  upon  himfelf  and  his  Accomplices,  for  de- 
 fending his  Sacrilege,  a  dreadful  Punifhment  from 
 Goti :    But  the  Priefts  timely  and  couragioufly  in- 
 terposed,  ftop'd  his  Progrefs,  and  thruft  him  away 
 from  the  Altar  of  the  Lord,  and  fp  he  had  no  Party 
 in  his  Defence,  that  concurr'd  with  his  Sacrilegious 
 Ufurpation.     The  gDttflt10CP  alfo  that  was  not  of 
 the  Tribe  of  Levi,    if  he  had  attempted  to  offer 
 any  thing,    or   approach'd  the  Altar   without  a 
 Pried,  his  Attempt  would  have  been  Vain-,   and  he 
 would  have  done  No  Acceptable  Service,  either  for 
 himfelf,   or  others  concurring  with  and  abetting  his 
 Uufurpation  -?  for,  the  fame  reafon  which  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  \  becaufe,  they  be- 
 ing concern  d  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  Paffage 
 of  the  Conftitutions,  now  before  us,  fays,  by  way 
 of  Inference  from  the  before-mention'd  Inftances, 
 c  @>0  whatever  Ln^Utait  do's  any  thing  without  a 
 "  Prieft,   he  Labours  M  ©flUt,"  i.e.  he  Labours 
 in  Vain  as  Sau/7  &c.  Labour'd  fit  OXtilX  1  that  is, 
 
 I  4  a$ 
 
120        Tefi  monies  for  and  againfl      Part  II. 
 
 as  they  in  their  Ufiirpations  Labour'd  in  Vain,  and 
 brought  No  Benefit  to  themf elves  or  others-,  fo  our 
 Lay-man,  in  his  Ufurpation,  Labours  in  Vain,  and 
 to  no  Purpofe  in  his  pretended  Miniftrations  -,  he 
 brings  no  Benefit,  but  rather  Wrath  and  Punifhment 
 to  hirnfelf  and  others  for  whom  he  pretends  to  mi- 
 nifter,  who  concur  with  and  approve  of  his  ufur- 
 ped  Acts.  Our  Reverend  Hiftorian  is  fo  fenfible 
 of  this,  that  he  acknowledges,  Page  41.  That  this 
 Paffage  ct  <&ZCVZ$  to  pronounce  f eve  rely  of '  nfurtfi 
 <c  and  unauthorized  Atfions,  as  utterly  Null  and 
 cc  Void-,"  but  by  what  has  been  faid,  'tis  plain  this 
 PalTage  do's  more  than  §S>£E1tl  to  pronounce  fo,  it 
 do's  really  fay  they  are  done  lit  Qai'lt  X  "  What- 
 "  ever  Lay-man  dos  any  thing  without  a  Prieff  he 
 "  Labours  in  Vain,*'  and  therefore  his  Act  is  utter- 
 ly Null  and  Void. 
 
 §  XXVI.  Mr.  Bingham,  Page  33.  produces  Sti-fa 
 rom  in  the  latter  end  of  the  Fourth  Century,  as  an 
 Evidence  for  Lay-Baptifm  :  His  Words  are  thefe, 
 "  St.  Jerom — Derives  the  Power  of  Presbyters  'and 
 
 ■  Deacons  to  Baptize,  from  the  Original  PowSr  of 
 cc  the  Bifoop;  yet  in  Cafes  of  Kecejjity,  he,  (j.  e. 
 St.  Jerom*)  fays  "  it  was  a  Jo  allowed  frequently  to 
 "  Lay-men :    For  in  fitch  Cafes,  he  that  had  receivd 
 
 ''  Baptifm,  might  give  it  to  others.0'  Thus  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham gives  us  St.  Jeroins  Words.  St.  Jerom  in  this 
 Place  fays,  that  it  is  LatDftti  for  Laicis  to  baptize, 
 
 6  when  NeceJJtty  Compels,"  [Li cere  Laicis,  fays  he] 
 
 *  Sine  Chrifmate  &  Juffione  Epifcopi,  neque  Presbyter  nequc 
 "Diacotus  jus  habent  Bapcizandi.  Quod  frequentur  (fi  tamen 
 Neceffitas  cogit).  vScimus  efam  Iicere  Laicis.  lit  enim  acci- 
 pit  quis%  ita  &  dare  poteft,  Hierotomi  Dialog  enm  Luciferhti, 
 f.  4. 
 
 But 
 
Chap.  J  •      Lay-Baptifmy  Examined ,&c.       121 
 
 But  now  the  Queftion  is  to  What  Law  do's  he  refer 
 us  for  the  Lawfulnefs  of  this>  Firft,  Is  it  to  the 
 Law  of  God  ?  Secondly ,  Is  it  to  the  Law  of  the 
 Ancient  Catholick  Church?  Or,  Thirdly^  Is  it  to 
 fome  private  Maxim,  which  with  him  ftands  in- 
 Itead  of  a  Law,  as  a  felf-evident  Principle,  that 
 wants  no  other  Law  to  enforce  it  ?  One  of  thefe 
 he  muft  refer  us  to,  when  he  talks  of  a  HatOftll 
 Set  •,  otherwife  his  faying  'tis  Lawful  has  no  Signi- 
 fication at  all. 
 
 Fir  ft  9  Then,  I  fay  that  he  refers  us  to  No  Law 
 of  God  for  the  Lawfulnefs  of  Laicks  Baptizing  in 
 Cafes  of  Neceflity  ^  becaufe  there  is  no  fuch  Law 
 extant  in  his  written  Word*  if  there  is,  let  it  be 
 produced,  that  Men  may  not  remain  in  Ignorance 
 about  it. 
 
 Secondly,  St.  Jcrom  can  refer  us  to  No  Law  of 
 the  Ancient  Catholick  Church  ^  for  ihe  never  made 
 any  fuch  Law.  If  Ihe  did,  when  and  where  did 
 fhe  make  it  ?  In  which  of  her  General  Councils  was 
 it  enacted  ?  Certainly  not  in  any  One  of  them  ^ 
 and  no  lefs  than  this,  can  make  it  a  Law  of  the 
 Catholick  Churchy  and  whatfoever  falls  flwrt  of  this, 
 is  inefficient  to  fhew  the  general  Senfe  and  Fratlice 
 of  the  Ancient  Church.  Shall  it  be  then  fuppos'd 
 that  St.  Jerom  has  an  Eye  to  the  Spanifh  Council  of 
 Eliberis's  Canon,  made  to  impower  fome  fort  of 
 Lay-men  to  Baptize  Catechumens,  in  danger  of 
 Death,  when  a  Prieft  could  not  be  had  ?  Why  even 
 this  will  not  do  neither  ^  for  that  Council  being 
 but  a  particular  Provincial  One,  and  fo  very  Sin- 
 gular in  this  Matter,  that  we  have  no  other  In- 
 ftance  of  the  like  in  the  whole  Chriftian  World  in 
 thofe  Days,  its  Canon  was  no  Law  to  the  Churches 
 where  St.  Jerom  liv'd,  and  fo  the  Lawfulnefs  of 
 Lay-mens  Baptizing  could  have  no  reference  to 
 
 that 
 
122         Tefiimomes  for  and  again fl      Pa  r  t  II. 
 
 that  Canon,  except  it  could  be  prov'd  that  he  is 
 fpeaking  only  of  the  Lay-Subje&s  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-Baptifms,  which 
 are  notorioufly  without  any  Neceflity,  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  Commiffion'd  at 
 all,  but  alfo  in  direff  profefs'd  Oppofttion  to  that 
 Apoftolick,  /.  e.  Epifcopal  Authority,  from  whence 
 alone  all  Commiilions  to  Baptize  muft  flow.  St 
 Jerom  never  once  fpoke  of  fuch  pretended  Baptifms 
 as  thefe  ^  for  the  Church  in  his  Days  had  no  Expe- 
 rience of  them.  But  to  return  to  the  Lay-Bap- 
 tifms he  fpeaks  of:  Do's  St.  Jerom  then  refer  us  to 
 the  Will  and  Pleafure  of  the  particular  Bifhops  of 
 thofe  Laicks,  and  fay,  that  'twas  Lawful  for  them 
 to  Baptize,  becaufe  their  refpective  Bifhops  autho- 
 rized them  to  do  fo,  in  Abfence  of  the  Clergy  ? 
 But  how  mail  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  Fratlice  of  the 
 Church,  for  the  Will  and  Pleafure  only  of  fbme 
 particular  Bifhops,  is  no  Law  of  the  Catholuk 
 Church  \  and  befides  even  this  alfo,  if  it  were  al- 
 low'd  that  particular  Bifhops  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  refpe&ive  Bifhops.  So  that 
 it  mult  follow  therefore  that, 
 
 Thirdly,  St.  Jerom,  as  a  fiippos'd  Evidence  of 
 the  general  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  re- 
 fers us  to  no  other  Lawy  whereby  to  determine  the 
 Lawfulnefs  of  Laicks  Baptizing  in  Cafes  of  Necef- 
 
 fity, 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examirfd,  &c.      123 
 
 fity,  than  that  falfe  Maxim,  which,  with  3  little 
 Variation,  he  plainly  appears  to  have  borrow'd 
 from  TertuUian,  when  he  fays,  That  what  a  Man 
 ha*  receive!,  he  can  alfo  give  to  others \  as  if  this 
 were  an  undoubted  Principle,  and  in  the  General 
 Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  of  equal  force 
 with  a  Law  •,  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,  Page  43.  to  which  I  fur- 
 ther add  here,  that  if  this  falfe  Principle  was  the 
 General  Senfe  and  Praclice  of  the  Church,  then  it 
 will  follow,  that  if  Lay-mens  Baptifins  are  Law- 
 ful upon  that  Foundation,  then,  a  meer  Presbyter 
 having  receiv'd  a  Power  to  Baptize,  to  Adminifter 
 the  other  Sacrament,  to  Preach,  and  to  Abfolve,  tffc. 
 can  Lawfully  give  this  Power  alfo  to  others  ^  and 
 even  a  Deacon  too  may  give  Power  to  Baptize,  if 
 what  is  receivd  can  be  given  to  others  by  the  Re- 
 ceiver j  Confluences  fo  falfe  in  Fact,  (tho3  neceffa- 
 rily  arifing  from  fuch  a  fuppos'd  Maxim)  that  the 
 Principle  from  whence  they  flow  was  certainly  at  no 
 Time  the  "  General  Senfe  and  Praclice  of  the  Ancient 
 Church  ^  and  therefore  this  Principle  being  the  Mea- 
 fure  of  the  Lawfulnefs  of  Lay-Bap tifm  in  St.  Je- 
 romes 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  Nice,  Lucifer  Bifhop  of  Calaris  in 
 the  Ifland  of  Sardinia,  refolv'd  to  have  no  Conver- 
 sion or  Gorrefpondence  with  any  of  the  Biihops, 
 
 who 
 
124  Teft /monies  for  and  againft      Part  II. 
 
 who  had  received  into  their  Communion,  thofe  that 
 had  formerly  fignd  the  Arian  Creeds.     He  with- 
 drew hi mfelf  therefore  into  his  own  Ifland,  and  fe- 
 parated  from  the  Communion  of  almoft  all  the  Bi- 
 ihops  in  the  World  ^    he  dy'd  in  this  Refolution, 
 and  left  fome  Followers,    calFd  Luciferians^  who 
 fpread  themfelves  over  all  the  World.     Thefe  Luct- 
 jerian  Separatifts  infifted  upon  it,  that  the  Orders 
 of  the  Arian  Bifhops  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  receivM  into  the 
 Number  of  the  Clergy,  when  the  fame  Lucifer  ians 
 received  Lay-  Arian  s  to  Communion,  only  by  Impo- 
 fition  of  Hands,  tho3  they  had  been  Baptiz'd  by 
 the   Arian  Clergy.      St.   Jerom,    in   his  Dialogue 
 againft  thofe  Schifmaticks,  introduces  an  Orthodox 
 Chriftian  difputing  with  a  Luaferian,  in  Defence  of 
 the  Practice  of  the  Catholicks,  who  received  not  only 
 Lay-repenting   Arian s  to  Communion,     but  alio 
 receiv'd  Arian  Biiliops,   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 
 fliort  thus  ^    You  acknowledge  by  your  Practice 
 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  reject  the 
 Baptifm  adminifter'd  by  them,  whom  you  do  not 
 own  to  be  Priefts.     The  Ltic'ferian  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 
 
 con- 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifw,  Examiri*dy&c.       125 
 
 confounded  Orthodox^  Reafoning  with  this  An- 
 fwer,  if  it  had  then  been  agreeable  to  the  General 
 Senfe  and.  Fraflice  of  the  Church  ^  but  he  yielded  to 
 the  force  of  the  Argument,  and  was  convinced  by 
 this  Principle,  that  Baptifm  by  One  Not  having 
 a  Prieftly  Power  to  Baptize,  ought  to  be  rejected  9 
 and  therefore  we  may  conclude  that  this  was  a  re- 
 ceiv'd  Maxim  in  the  Church  in  thofe  Days. 
 
 But  to  give  the  Reader  a  little  farther  Infight 
 into  this  Dialogue,  that  he  may  fee  the  Truth  of 
 what  I  fay,  I  mall  here  fet  down  the  Senfe  of  fome 
 of  it,  out  of  St.  Jerom,  according  to  the  Benedittine 
 Monk's  Edition,  thus  : 
 
 cc 
 
 (1)  Orthodox.  cc  Shew  me,  why  you  receive 
 a  Laick,  who  comes  over  from  the  Arians,  when 
 you  receive  not  an  \_Arian\  Bilhop  ? 
 
 (2)  Lucif erian.  "  I  receive  an  Arian  Laick, 
 who  ConfelTes  that  he  has  been  in  an  Error  ^ 
 and  the  Lord  would  rather  have  the  Repen- 
 tance, than  the  Death  of  a  Sinner. 
 
 (2)  Orthod.  "  Receive  therefore  the  Bifhop 
 alfo,  who  likewife  ConfefTes  that  he  has  been  in 
 an  Error  •,  and  the  Lord  would  rather  have  the 
 Repentance,  than  the  Death  of  a  Sinner. 
 (4)  Lucif  u  If  the  Arian  Bifhop  ConfefTes 
 that  he  has  Err'd  -,  Why  do's  he  continue  a  Bi- 
 
 (i)  Orthod.    Exponc  mini  quare  Laicum  venientem  ab  Ariani* 
 recipias,  Epifcopum  non  recipias? 
 
 (2)  Lucif.    Recipio  Laicum  qui  errafle  fe  confitetar,  8c  Do- 
 minus  travult  pcenitentiam  peccatoris  qujm  mortem. 
 
 (3)  Oithod.    Recipe  ergo  &  Epifcopum,  qui  &  errafle  fe  confix 
 tetur,  &  Dominus  raavult  p;.nitentiam  peccacoris  quam  mortem. 
 
 (4 )  Lucif.    Si  errare  fe  conficetur :    Cur  Epifcopus  perfe- 
 verar  >  Dcponat  Sacerdotium,  concedo  Teniam  poenitenti. 
 
 fhop> 
 
I2<5        Teftimvnies  for  and  againfi      Part  II, 
 (hop }    Let  him  give  over  his  Priefthood,  and 
 
 cc 
 
 I  grant  Pardon  to  the  Penitent 
 
 ($)  OrthoJ.  cc  And  I  will  Anfwer  you  in  your 
 "  own  Language*  If  an  [Arian  Baptiz'd  ]  Laick 
 iC  ConfefTes  that  he  has  Err'd  ^  How  do's  he  con- 
 cc  tinue  (in  the  State  of)  a  [Baptiz'd]  Laick  ?  Let 
 cc  him  lay  afide  his  Laical  Priefthood,  that  is,  the 
 "  Baptifin  [which  he  receiv'd,]  and  I  alfo  grant 
 
 <c  Pardon  to  the  Penitent,  0V.    ™ —   What- 
 
 cc  foever  is  Unlawful  for  a  Chriftian,  is  as  much 
 6C  Unlawful  for  a  Laick  as  for  a  Bifhop.  He 
 *  that  repents^  condemns  his  former  Crimes.  If 
 cc  it  is  not  Lawful  for  a  Penitent  [Arian]  Bifhop 
 "  to  continue  [a  Bifhop]  as  he  was  before -5  then 
 <c  alfo,  it  is  not  Lawful  for  a  Penitent  [Arian] 
 "  Laick  to  remain  in  the  State  [of  Baptifm  which 
 u  he  receiv'd  in  Arianifm^]  for  which  he  now  re- 
 a  pents. 
 
 (6)  Lucif  "  We  receive  [Penitent  Arian'] 
 "  Laicks,  becaufe  none  of  them  would  be  Conver- 
 "  ted,  if  they  knew  that  they  were  to  be  Re-bap- 
 cc  tiz'd  y  and  fo  we  fhould  be  the  Caufe  of  their 
 tc  Perdition,  if  we  fhould  not  allow  of  the  Bap- 
 "  tifm  they  receiv'd  of  the  Arian  Clergy. 
 
 (5")  Orthod.  Refpondebo  tibi  8c  Ego  fermcnibus  tuis,  fi  Lai- 
 cus  crraffe  fe  confitetur,  quomodo  Laicus  ptrrfeverat?  Deponat 
 Sacerdotium  Laid,  i.  e.  Baptifma,  8c  ego  do  veniam  pcenitenti. 
 Scriptum  efte  nim  regnura  quoque,  nos  &  Sacerdotes  Deo  Patri  fuo 
 fecit.  (Apce.  i.  6.)  omne  quod  non  licet  Chriftiano,  Commune 
 eft  tarn  Epifcopo  quam  Laico.  Qui  poenitentiam  agit,  priora 
 condemnat.  Si  non  licet  Epifcopo  pceniienti  perfeverare  quod 
 fuerat,  non  licet  8c  Laico  poenitenti  permanere  in  eo,  propter 
 quod  poenitemiam  confitetur. 
 
 (6)  lucif,  Recipimus  Laico?,  quoniam  nemo  convertetur,  fi 
 fe  fcicrit  Re-baptizandum,  8c  itafc  ut  nos  fimus  cauffa  perditi 
 onis  eorum  fi  repudientur. 
 
 (7)  Orthol 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baft  ifm.  Examined,  &c.       127 
 
 (7)  Orthod.    "  [As  for  us,]  we  do  no  a& 
 
 6C  inconfiflently  with  our  f elves  ^  for  we  either  re- 
 "  ceive  the  Bifhop,  with  the  People  whom  he  Baptized  % 
 "  or  if  we  do  not  receive  the  Bijhop  [as  fiich,]  we 
 "  know,  that  his  People  alfo  tnuji  be  rejetfed,  [i.  & 
 
 not  receivd  as  Baptized  Laicks.'] —    u  There- 
 
 <c  fore,  I  pray  you,  That  you  either  allow  him  to 
 "  facrifice,  (i.e.  to  be  a  Prieft,  having  Power  to 
 adminifter  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Eucharift)  "  whofe 
 "  Baptifm  [adminiftred  by  him]  you  allow  of; 
 "  or  eife  rejed  that  Baptifm  which  was  admi- 
 u  niftred  by  him,  who  you  do  riot  efteem  to  be  a 
 cc  Prieft. 
 
 (8)  Lucif  "  [Tho5 1  allow  of  the  Baptifm  he 
 cc  adminiftred,]  yet  the  Laick  he  baptiz'd,  I  re- 
 cc  ceive  (upon  his  Repentance)  by  Impofition  of 
 *c  Hands,  and  Invocation  of  the  Holy-Ghoft  ^  be- 
 "  caufe  I  know,  that  the  Gift  of  the  Holy-Ghoft 
 cc  cannot  be  conferred  by  Hereticks. 
 
 (9)  Orthod.  ec  When  a  Man  is  baptiz'd  [as  he 
 "  is  among  the  Arians]  into  or  in  the  Name  of  the 
 u  Father,  Son,  and  Holy-Ghoft  ^  he  is  then  made 
 ce  the  Temple  of  the  Lord,  a  new  Temple  of  the 
 cc  Holy  Trinity.    How  can  you  fay,  that  among 
 
 "  the 
 
 (7)  Orthod. —  Nos  nobis  adverfa  ncn  facimus:  Auc  Epifeopum 
 cum  populo  recipimus  quern  facit  Chriftianum,  aut  fi  Epifcopum 
 
 non  recipimus,  fcimus  etiam  nobis  populum  reddendum 
 
 Quamobrem  oro  te,  ut  aut  facrificandi  ei  licentiam  tribuas  cujus 
 Baptifma  probas :  Aut  reprobes  ejtu  Biptifmi  quern  non  exijiimas 
 Sacerdotem > 
 
 (3 J  Lucif.  Sed  ego  recipio  Laicum  pofcnitentem,  per  manus 
 impofitionem  &  invocationem  Spiritus  San&i,  Sciens  ab  Hcereticis 
 Spiritum  San&um  non  poffe  conferri. 
 
 (9)  Orthod.— Quum  in  Patre,  8c  Filio  &  Spiritu  Sanfto  Bapti- 
 zatus  homo  Templum  Domini  fiat,  quum  veteri  zde  deftrufta 
 novum  Trinitatis  delubrum  #din*cetur,  quomodo  dicis  fine  ad- 
 
 ventu 
 
128         Tef  monies  for  and  againf       Part  IL 
 
 "  the  Avians,  Sins  may  be  remitted,   without  the 
 
 "  Defcent  of  the  Holy-Ghoft  > [for  Bap- 
 
 tifm  is  for  the  Remiilion  of  Sins.]  ■  "  It  is 
 
 u  evident,  that  there  is  no  True  Baptifm  without 
 
 "  the  Holy-Ghoft.   ■      If  an  Avian  cannot 
 
 "  give  the  Holy-Ghoft,  he  cannot  truly  Baptize  $ 
 c*  becaufe,  without  the  Holy-Ghoft,  there  is  no 
 cc  True  Baptifm  of  the  Church  :  Therefore,  when 
 c<  you  receive  a  Perfon  baptiz'd  by  an  Arian^  and 
 cc  call  on  the  Holy-Ghoft  to  defcend  on  him  5  either 
 *c  you  ought  to  baptize  him,  becaufe  he  could  not 
 "  be  baptiz'd  before  without  the  Holy-Ghoft  ^  or, 
 <c  if  he  was  at  firft  baptized  in  the  Spirit,  then 
 "  forbear  to  call  on  the  Spirit  to  defcend  on  him, 
 cc  fince  he  receiv'd  the  Holy-Ghoft  when  he  was 
 "  baptized. 
 
 (10)  Lucif.  "  But  pray,  have  you  not  read  in 
 cc  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  That  they  who  had 
 c<  been  before  baptiz'd  by  John  the  Baptift,  when 
 <c  they  anfwer'd  to  the  Apoftle's  Queftion,  that  they 
 <c  had  not  fo  much  as  heard  whether  there  was  any 
 cc  Holy-Ghoft,   did  afterwards  obtain  the  Gift  of 
 
 ventu  Spiritus  Sanfti  apud  Arianos  pecata  poffe  dimitti? 
 
 Apparec  Baptifma  non  efle  fine  Spintu  Santto. . 
 
 Si  Arianus  Spiritum  Smclum  non  poteft  Dare,  ne  Baptizare  qui- 
 dem  poteft,  quia  Ecclefia?  Baptifma  fine  Spiritu  Sanfto  nullum 
 eft.  Tu  vero  quum  Baptizatum  ah  eo  recipias,  &  poftea 
 invoces  Spiritum  S^nftum,  aut  Baptizare  eum  debes  quia  fine 
 Spiritu  Sanfto  non  potuit  Eaptizari;  aut  fi  eft  Baptizatus  in 
 Spiritu,  define  ei  invocare  Spiritum,  quern  tunc  quum  Baptiza- 
 retur  accepit. 
 
 (10)  Lucif.  Obfecrote,  nonne  Iegifti  inaclibus  Apoftolorum, 
 eos  qui  jam  a  johanne  Baptizati  fuerant,  quum  ad  interroga- 
 tionem  Ap  ftoli  refpondilTent,  fe  nee  auditu  quidem  comparilfe, 
 quid  eflet  Spiritus  Sanftus,  poftea  fuiiTe  Spiritum  Sanftum  confe- 
 quutos?  Unde  marifeftum  eft,  pofle  aliq'em  Baptizari,  &  tamen 
 non  habere  Spiritum  Sanftum. 
 
 *  the 
 
Chap.  3.     Lny-Baptifm,  Examined,  &x.       129 
 
 <c  the  Holy-Ghoft  ?  Whence  it  is  manifeft,  that  a 
 "  Perfon  may  be  baptiz'd,  and  yet  not  have  the 
 !c  Holy-Ghoft. 
 
 (11)  Ortbol.     ~ 7-    But  Paul  faid  to  thofe 
 
 fame  Perfons,  "  John  indeed  Baptized  the  People 
 "  with  the  Baptifm  of  Repentance,  faying^  that  they 
 €c  JhoUld  believe  on  him  who  was  to  come  after  him9 
 "  that  is,  on  Jefus,  for  the  RemiJJion  of  Sins.  And 
 "  when  they  had  heard  thefe  things .  they  were  bap- 
 u  tizd  in  the  Name  of  our  Lord  Jefm  Chrifi  •    and 
 
 c  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy 
 "  Gboft  immediately  fell  on  them,  Acts  xix.  1,  &c. 
 cc  If  they  therefore  were  baptiz'd  with  the  True 
 cc  and  Lawful  Baptifm  of  the  Church,  and  fo  did 
 "  afterwards  obtain  the  Holy-Ghoft ;  do  you  alfo 
 "  follow  the  Rule  of  the  Apoftles,  baptize  thofe 
 "  who  have  not  Chrift's  Baptifm,  \J.  e.  the  Laicks 
 baptized  by  Arians,  who  you  fay  are  not  Priefts] 
 cc  and  then  [when  you  have  given  them  Chrift's 
 Baptifm]  "  you  may  call  on  the  Holy-Ghoft  to 
 "  defcend  on  them. 
 
 (12)  Lucif — "  But  do  you  not  know,  that  this 
 "  is  the'Cuftom  of  the  Churches,  viz.  that  the  Bi- 
 
 (n)  Orthod.—  Dixit  autem  Paulus :  Johannes  quidem  Baptizavit 
 Baptifmo  Voenitentix  Plebem,  dicens  in  advenitmem  pofl  eum  ut  ere' 
 derent,  hoc  eft  in  Jejuni,  in  remiflionem  peccatorkm.  Hit  auiitti  Bap" 
 tizati  fitm  in  Nomine  Domini  Noftri  tfefu  Chriiii.  Et  qmm  impofuijjet 
 illis  rnanus  Paulus,  continuo  cecidit  Spirits  SanftM  fuper  eosm 
 Si  ergo  Baptizati  funt,  vero  &  legitimo  Ecclefise  Baptizmate, 
 &  ita  poftea  Spiritum  Sanftum  confequuti  funtj  8c  ta  Apofto- 
 lorum  fequere  au&orkatem,  &  Baptiza  eos,  qui  Chrifti  noa 
 habent  Baptifma,  8c  poteris  invocare  Spiritum  Sanftjm. 
 
 ( 12}  Lucif —  Ah  nefcis  etiam  Ecclefiarum  nunc  efle  morem, 
 ut  Baptizatis  pcftea  manus  imponantur,  &  ira  invocetur  SpiriUs 
 Sanftus  ?  Exigis  ubi  Scriptum  fit  ?  Iu  aftibu*  Apcftolorum. 
 
 K  «  ihop 
 
I  jo        Tefl monies  for  and  againft       Part  IL 
 
 "  mop  ftiould  lay  bis  Hands  on  thofe  who  have 
 "  been  already  baptized,  and  call  on  the  Holy- 
 u  Ghoft  to  defcend  on  them?  Do  you  demand 
 u  where  this  is  written  ?  Tis  in  the  Acts  of  the 
 "  Apoftles. 
 
 (13)  Orthoi.  "  Truly  I  do  not  deny  that  this 
 a  is  the  Cuftom  of  the  Churches,  that,  when  Per- 
 "  fbns  have  been  baptiz'd  by  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
 <c  cons,  at  a  great  Diftance,  in  fmall  Cities  [where 
 Bifhops  do  not  refide]  tc  the  Bifhop  mould  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 
 f  receive  the  Holy-Ghoft,  but  by  Impofition  of  the 
 ?  Hands  of  the  Bifhop,  when  we  afTert  that  the 
 **  Holy-Ghoft  is  alfo  given  in  True  Baptifm :  You 
 
 are  to  underftand,  that  this  Cuftom  defcends  to 
 
 « 
 
 ( 13)  Orthod.  Non  quidem  abnuo  hanc  efle  Ecclefiarum  con- 
 fuetudinem,  ut  ad  eos  qui  Ionge  in  minoribus  urbibus  per  Presbv- 
 teros  &  Diaconos  baptizati  funt,  Epifcopus  adinvocationem  SaE&i 
 
 Spiritus  manum  impofiturus  excurrat. Quod  fi  hoc  loco 
 
 quaeris;  Quare  in  Ecclefia  Eaptizatus,  nifi  per  manus  Epifcopi, 
 non  accipiat  Spiritum  San&um,  quern  ncs  afierimus  in  vero 
 Baptizmate  tribui :  Difce,  hanc  obfervationem,  ex  ea  auftoritate 
 defcendere,  quod  poft  afcenfum  Domini,  Spiritus  San&us  ad  apo- 
 frolos  defcendit.  Et  multis  in  locis  idem  faftitatum  reperimus,  ad 
 honorem  potius  Sacerdotii  quam  ad  legem  neceflitacis-  Alioqui 
 fi  ad  Epifcopi  tantum  imprecationem  Spiritus  Sanftus  defluit,  lu- 
 gendi  funt  qui  in  leftulis,  &c.  per  Presbyteros  &  Diaconos  bap- 
 tizati, ante  dcrmierunt  quam  ab  Epifcopis  inviferentur.  Ecrkfiz 
 falus  in  fummi  Sacerdotis  dignitate  pendet :  Cui  fi  non  exors  q»x- 
 dam,  &  ab  omnibus  eminens  detur  poteftas,  rot  in  Ecclefiis 
 efficientur  Schifmata  quot  Sacerdotes.  Inde  venit,  ut  fine  Chrif- 
 mate  &  Epifcopi  jiflione,  neque  Presbyter,  neque  Diaconus  jus 
 habeant  baptizandi.  Quod  frequenter,  fi  tamen  receffitas  cogit, 
 fciraus  etiam  licere  Laicis,  Ut  enim  accipic  quis,  ita  &  dare 
 poteft,  <&c, 
 
 "US 
 
Chap.  j.      Lay-Baj>tifni)  Examined,  Sec.      i  ji 
 
 cc  us  from  this  Authority,  that  after  our  Lord's 
 <c  Afcenfion,  the  Holy-Ghoft  came  down  on  the 
 "  Apoftles.  And  in  many  Places  we  find  the 
 "  fame  Cuftom  \_viz.  of  Conferring  the  Holy- 
 Ghoft  on  baptized  Perfons  by  Impoiition  of  the 
 Bifhop's  Hands]  "  to  be  obferv'd  rather  for  the 
 
 *  Honour  of  the  [Bifhop's]  Priefthood,  than  for 
 "  any  Law  of  Neceffity.  Otherwife,  if  the  Holy* 
 <c  Ghoft  defcends  by  reafon  of  the  Bifhop's  Prayer 
 <c  onlyj  then  they  are  to  be  bewaifd  who  were 
 cc  baptiz'd  in  their  Beds,  &c.  by  Presbyters  and 
 tc  Deacons,  and  dy'd  before  they  could  be  vifited 
 cc  by  the  Bifhops. ;  The  Safety  of  the  Church  de- 
 <c  pends  on  the  Dignity  of  the  High-Prieft,  [/.  e. 
 theBifhop]  "  to  whom,   if  there  were  not  given 
 
 *  fome  certain  Power  and  Authority,  not  to  be 
 "  fhared  in  by  others,  but  Eminent  above  all, 
 "  there  would  be  as  many  Schifms  and  Divifions  in 
 "  the  Churches  as  Priefts.  Hence  it  comes  to  pate, 
 cc  that  without  the  Chrifm  and  Confent  of  the  Bi- 
 cc  fhop,  neither  Presbyter  nor  Deacon  have  Autho- 
 rity to  Baptize :  Which  for  all  that,  if  Neceffi- 
 ty compels,  we  know  is  frequently  Lawful  for 
 Laicks.  For  even  as  a  Man  receives,  fo  he 
 can  give  to  others  the  Thing  he  received. 
 
 Note  here,  'Tis  very  remarkable,  that  in  this 
 laft  Anfwer  of  the  Catholick,  Saint  Jerom 
 ftrangely  brings  in  the  Notion  of  the  Lawful- 
 nefs  of  Baptifm  by  Laicks  in  Cafes  of  Extre- 
 mity, without  any  Connection  or  Reference 
 to  his  former  or  following  Difcourfe,  but  in- 
 deed inconfiftently  with  his  Argument  againft 
 the  Ludferian^  I  fay  inconfiftently,  becaufe 
 the  Luciferian,  upon  this  Principle,  might 
 have  overthrown  Orthodox  %  whole  Argument : 
 K  2  for 
 
 cc 
 
I  j  2         Testimonies  for  and  again  ft      Part  IT. 
 
 for  'twould  have  been  very  natural  for  the 
 Luciferian  to  have  anfwer'd,  u  Tou  fay  that  I 
 "  muft  rejeft  a  Baptifm  adminifterd  by  One 
 "  whom  I  do  not  efteem  to  be  a  Prieji.  [See  O- 
 "  thodox,  p.  127.]  I  fay  that  1  am  not  obligd 
 "  to  rejettfuch  a  Baptifm  $  becaufe,  upon  your 
 ft  own  Principle,  and  alfo  that  of  the  Catholick 
 cc  Churchy  [if  this  Principle  was  Hers]  "Laicks 
 "  may  Lawfully  baptize  in  Cafe  of  Extremity^ 
 u  where  Priejis  are  not  to  be  had  -,  the  Arian 
 "  Prieft,  whom  1  efteem  to  be  No  Prieft,  bap* 
 "  tizd  the  Arian  Laick;  the  Arian  Laick 
 u  could  get  no  other  Baptifm  under  his  Circum- 
 "  fiances,  therefore  the  Baptifm  he  received  was 
 "  a  Baptifm  in  Necejjity  performed  by  a  Lay- 
 u  man,  according  to  my  Opinion,  and  good  by 
 "  your  Principle  ♦,  confequently  thd  I  allow  of 
 Cc  the  Baptifm,  1  am  not  obligJd  to  acknowledge 
 cc  him  for  a  Prieft,  viz.  the  Arian  Prieji  who 
 "  adminifterd  it."  This  would  have  been  a 
 very  natural  Retort  upon  St.  Jerom,  if  his 
 fingular  Notion  of  the  Lawfulnefs  of  Laicks 
 baptizing  in  Cafes  of  Neceflity,  had  been  then 
 tlie  General  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church  5 
 but  the  Luciferian\  next  Subfequent  Anfwer 
 fhews  that  he  had  no  Knowledge  of  any  fuch 
 Notion  •,  that  he  took  no  notice  at  all  of  St.Je- 
 ronh  advancing  it,  and  therefore  'tis  unac- 
 countable how  St.  Jerom  brought  it  into  his 
 Difcourfe,  when  it  had  no  dependance  at  all 
 upon  his  Argument  •,  but  is  inconfiftent  with 
 it,  and  even  deftru&ive  of  that  Catholick 
 Principle,  upon  which  he  was  endeavouring 
 to  Confute  the  Practice  of  the  Luciferians. 
 But  to  proceed  ^  the  Luciferian,  without 
 taking  any  notice  of  Sbjerom's  Saying  about 
 
 JLaicks 
 
Chap.  3.     Laj-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.       15  J 
 
 Laicks  baptizing  ^  as  if  it  was  a  fingular  No- 
 tion that  would  do  hirn  no  Service  in  his  Dif~ 
 pute  with  Orthodox,  anfwers  thus : 
 
 cc 
 
 u 
 
 t. 
 
 (14)  Ludf.  a  Be  it  fo,  viz.  that  among  the 
 Arians  there  is  indeed  no  Baptifm,  and  that 
 therefore  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  be  given  by 
 them,  becaufe  they  have  not  yet  received  Remif- 
 fion  of  Sins  ^  all  this  helps  much  towards  my 
 
 gaining  the  Victory. An    Arian    is  not 
 
 baptiz'd,  how  then  can  he  be  a  Prieft  ?  Among 
 them  there  is  not  a  baptiz'd  Lay-man,  how  then 
 can  there  be  a  Bifhop  ?  &c. 
 
 (1?)  Ortboi.  "  I  do  not  at  prefent  fo  much  re- 
 proach, or  defend  the  Arians,  as  I  endeavour  to  con- 
 vince you.  For  the  fame  reafon  that  you  receive  a 
 
 (14)  Lmf. —  Efto  quippe  apud  Arianos  ne  Eaptifma  quidenj 
 effe,  8c  ideoSpiritum  Sandum  ab  eis  non  poffe  dari  quia  necdum 
 remiflionem  peccatorum  acceperint,  totum  hoc  vi&oria?  mea? 
 profLit,  8:  argumentorum  tuorum  paleftra  mihi  palmam  viftoria? 
 fudat.  Arianus  Baptima  non  habec  8c  quomodo  Sacerdotium 
 ha1  et  ?  Laicus  apud  eos  non  eft  &  quomodo  Epifcopus  efle  po- 
 teft?  Mihi  recipere  mendicum  non  licet,  tu  recipis  regem? 
 Vcs  hofti  caftra  traditis,  8c  a  nobis  perfuga  rejiciendus  eft  ? 
 
 fiy}  Ortbid.  Ego— non  tarn  in  prafenti  Arianos  vel  improbo, 
 vel  defend o,  quam  illam  curfus  mei  raetam  circumeo,  eadem  ra- 
 tione  a  nobis  Epifcopum  recipi,  qua  Laicus  a  vobis  recipitur.  Si 
 erranti  concedis  veniam  •,  &  ego  ignofco  poenitenti.  Si  in  fide 
 fua  baptizato  baptizans  nocere  non  potuit,  8c  in  fide  fua  Sacer- 
 dotem  conftitutum  conftituens  non  inquinavit.  Subtilis  eftltoe- 
 fis,  &  ideo  fimplices  anima?  facile  decipiuntur.    Deceptio  cam 
 
 Laid  quam  Epifcopi  Communis  eft : Igitur  parvulorum  inter 
 
 fe  certantium  ritu,  quidquid  dixeris  dicam:  Affirmabis,  affirma- 
 bo-,  negabis,  negabo.  Arianus  Baptizatj  Ergo  Epifcopus  eft; 
 Non  Baptizat  5  tu  refuta  Laicum,  &  ego  non  recipio  Sacerdotem. 
 Sequar  te  quoquumque  ieris,  aut  pariter  in  luto  hsfitabimus, 
 aut  pariter  expediemur. 
 
 K  3  "  Penitent 
 
cc 
 
 a 
 
 AC 
 
 I  j  4         TefUmonies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 Penitent  [iin'jff  Laick]  we  receive  a  Penitent 
 u  [4rw«  Biihop.]  If  you  grant  Pardon  to  the 
 'c  Laick  who  Err'd;  I  alfo  Forgive  the  Penitent 
 "  Biflwp.  If  the  Baptizer  could  not  hurt  him 
 whom  he  baptized,  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- 
 cc  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  (hall  fay,  I  will  fay  ^  what  you  fhal! 
 affirm,  I  will  affirm  ;  what  you  fhall  deny,  I  will 
 deny.  [If  you  fay  that]  an  Arian  Biihop  bap- 
 tizes, [and  this  you  mull:  fay,  if  you  receive  Lay- 
 repenting  Arians  without  Re-baptizing  them]  "  I 
 "  fay  he  is  therefore  a  Biihop.  [If  you  fay]  he  do's 
 "  not  baptize,  then  I  fay,  do  you  Convince  the 
 feC  Laick  [that  he  receiv'd  no  Baptifm  from  the 
 Arian  Bifhop]  "  and  I  difapprove  of  the  Prieft- 
 c;  hood  of  him  who  baptized.  I  will  follow  you 
 cc  whitherfoever  you  mail  go  ^  either  we  will  both 
 c&  together  ftick  in  the  Mud,  or  we  will  equally 
 "  get  clear  out  of  it. 
 
 (16)  Lucif.  "  But  a  Laick  ought  therefore  to 
 cc  be  pardon  d,  becaufe  in  his  Simplicity,  thinking 
 &:  the  Arians  to  be  the  Church  of  God,  he  ap- 
 "  ply'd  to  them;  and  believing,  was,  according 
 ■■  to  his  own  Faith,  baptiz'd. 
 
 (16)  Lucif.  Sed  Laico  ideo  ignofcendum  eft,  quia  Ecclefiam 
 Oci  putans  fimpliciter  acceflit,  &  juxta  fidcrn  fuam  crcdens  bap- 
 tizatuS  eft. 
 
 (17)    Or- 
 
CC 
 
 Chap.  5.     Lay-Baptifm,  Exawi#*d7  &c.        135 
 
 (17)  Ortbod.     "  You  alTert  a  new  Thing,  that 
 c  any  One  may  be  made  a  Chriftian,  by  him  who 
 
 "  is  no  Chriftian  himfelf.    Into  what  Faith  is  he 
 "  baptiz'd,  that  goes  over  to  the  Avians  ?  Certain- 
 ly  into  the  Faith  of  the  Anans. 
 
 (18)  L»W£     "  A  Laick  baptiz'd  in 
 
 "  Faith,   even  out  of  the  Church,   is  receiv'd  to 
 cc  Communion  upon  his  Repentance.   But  a  Bilhop 
 
 c  either  does  not  do  Penance  becaufe  he  is  a  Prieft, 
 
 "  or  if  he  does  Penance  he  ceafes  to  be  a  Bifhop ; 
 
 c  wherefore  we  rightly  receive  a  Penitent  Avian 
 
 Laick,  and  we  reject  an  Avian  Bilhop  if  he  will 
 
 continue  in  his  Priefthood. 
 
 (19)  Or t hod.  "  Our  Queft ion  now,  is  not,  Whe- 
 ther a  Bifhop  can  undergo  Penance,  as  a  Laick 
 may^  but,  Whether  the  Lay-Heretick  has  re- 
 ceiv'd Baptifm,  who,  if  (as  'tis  plain)  he  has 
 not  Baptifm,  how  can  he  be  a  Penitent  before  he 
 is  a  Chriftian  >  Prove  to  me,  that  a  Laick  com- 
 ing from  the  Arians,  is  baptiz'd,  and  I  will  not 
 deny  him  Penance  1  but  if  he  is  not  a  Chriftian, 
 
 "if 
 
 (17)  Ortbod.  Novam  rem  afieris,  ut  Chriftianus  quifquara 
 fa£us  fit  ab  eo  qui  non  fuit  Chriftunus.  Accedens  ad  Arianos,  io 
 qua  fide  bapcizatus  eft  ?  Nempe  in  ea  quam  habetant  Ariani. 
 
 (i3J  Lucif. —  Laicus  etiam  extra  Ecclefiam  fide  baptizarus 
 psenitens  recipitur.  Epifcopus  vero,  aut  pxnitentiam  non  agit, 
 8c  facerdos  eft,  aut  ft  pa?nitentiam  egerit  effe  Epifcopus  dcfmit. 
 Quamobrem  refte  nos  laicum  8c  fufcipimus  poenitentem,  8c  E» 
 pifcopum  fi  in  Sacerdorio  perfevarare  vult,  repudiamus. 
 
 ("19)    Ortbod.  Neque  enim  hoc  modo  quaericur :   An 
 
 Epifcopus  Pcenitens  efTe  non  pofTit,  &  laicus  poflit?  Sed  an 
 Hzreticus  bsptifma  habeat  ?  qui  ft  ut  conftat  baptifma  non  ha- 
 bet,  quomodo  poteft  e(Te  pxnitens  antequam  Chriftianus  ?  Proba 
 mihi  ab  arianis  venientem  Laicum  habere  Baptifmum,  &  tunc 
 ei  paenitentiam  non  negabo.    Si  vero  Chriftianus  non  eft,  fi  non 
 
 K  4  habuerit 
 
 cc 
 
136        Tefiimonies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 cc  if  he  had  not  a  Prieft  who  could  make  him  a 
 "  Chriftian,  [as  'tis  plain  he  had  not,  if  we  deny 
 the  Orders  of  the  Avian  Clergy]  "  how  (hall  a 
 cc  Man  be  admitted  to  do  Penance,  who  is  not  yet 
 y  a  Chriftian  > 
 
 (20)  Lucif  cc  Do's  it  then  feem  reafonable  to 
 "  you,  that  an  Avian  mould  be  a  Bifhop  ? 
 
 (21)  OrtboL  "  You  your  felf  allow  him  to  be 
 u  a  Bifhop,  by  your  receiving  an  Avian  Laick 
 ?  baptiz'd  by  him,  [and  thereby  you  acknowledge 
 the  Validity  of  his  Orders,  becaufe  you  do  not 
 rejecl,  but  allow  of  the  Baptifm  which  the  Laick 
 receiv'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  \ju  a  Bifhop]  an  Avian  Bifhop, 
 <c  coming  over  from  the  Avians  to  the  Church  ^  up- 
 "  on  the  very  fame  Principle  that  you  receive  [as 
 a  Lay- Chriftian]    cc  an  Avian-Lakh  baptiz'd    by 
 
 "  him.- We  agree  in  the  Faith,  we  agree  in 
 
 cc  receiving  Hereticks,  let  us  alfo  agree  in  One 
 ■u  and  the  Same  Communion. 
 
 liabuerit  Sacerdorem,   qui  eum  facerit  Chriftianum^  quomodo 
 aget  pa>nitcntiam  Homo  qui  necdum  credit  ? 
 
 (20J    Ludf.  /kquumne  tibi  videtur,  ut  Arianus 
 
 Epifcopus  fit  ? 
 
 (21)  Orthnd.  Tu  eum  Epifcopum  probas,  qui  ab  eo  recipis 
 Baptizatum  *,  &  in  hoc  reprehendendus  es.  Quare  a  nobis  parieti- 
 bus  fepararis,  quum  in  fide  &  in  Arianorum  nobifcum  receptione 
 
 confentias?  Eadem  enim  ratione  Epifcopum  ab  arianis 
 
 recipio,  qua  tu  recipis  Baptizatum. Confentimus  in 
 
 fide,  Confentimus  in  Haeieticis  recipiendis,  Confentiamus  etiam 
 jo  CopyentUi 
 
 (22)  lucif 
 
Chap,  Ji      Lay-Baft -ifm,  Examined,  &c.       137 
 
 (22)  Lucif  <c  —  Behold,  I  give  way,  I  fub- 
 C£  mit,  and  acknowledge  that  you  have  Conquer'd 
 [[  me*. 
 
 Thus  much  may  fuffice  to  Ihew  the  Catholicfc 
 Principle  infilled  on  by  St.  Jerom  in  this  Dialogue  5 
 I  have  not  always  confin'd  my  felf  to  the  very 
 Letter  of  the  "Words,  but  expatiated  fometimes  by 
 way  of  Paraphrafe,  that  the  Senfe  and  Meaning 
 of  the  Difpute  againft  the  Luciferians^  might  be  the 
 more  Evident  to  the  Englifh  Reader-,  and  that  he 
 might  be  thereby  the  more  enabled  to  fee  the 
 Truth  of  what  I  have  before  alTerted,  and  here  re- 
 peat again,  viz.  That  the  Great  Argument,  by 
 which  the  Lucif erian  was  Convinc'd,  was.  That  If 
 the  Luciferians  rejected  the  Orders  of  the  Arian 
 Clergy,  they  ought  alfo  to  reject  the  Baptifms  ad- 
 minifter'd  by  them^  but  the  Luciferians  in  their 
 Practice,  allow'd  of  thofe  Baptifms,  becaufe  they 
 admitted  Arian  Repentant-Laicks  to  Communion, 
 without  re-baptizing  them  s  and  therefore  the  Lu- 
 ciferians were  bound  to  acknowledge  the  Prieftly 
 Power  of  the  Arian  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  a 
 Prieftly  Power,  there  is  No  True  Baptifm  admi- 
 nifter'd  $  for,  fays  Orthodox, 
 
 (zi)    Lucif,    En  tollo  manus,  cedo,  vicifli.  ■ 
 
 *  S.  Hieronymus  adverfus  Lnciferhno$,  p.  290.  &c, 
 0pert>  Tom.  IV.  Paris  1706. 
 
 N°  7. 
 
I  j  8         Tefimonies  for  and  againft      Pa  R  T  II, 
 
 N°  7.  "  If  we  do  not  receive  the  [Arian]  Bifhop 
 [as  a  Bifhop]  'c  we  know  that  the  Peop/e  [bap- 
 tiz'd  by  him]  cc  mufl  alfo  be  re  jetted*  [not 
 receiv'd  as  baptiz'd  Laicks.] 
 
 — -u  R*/>ff  rfctf  Baptifm  which  was  admini- 
 <c  y?^r'rf  by  him,  whom  you  do  not  ejieem  to  be 
 cc  a  Prieft. 
 
 N&  1?.  u  An  Arian  B//#0/>  baptizes,  therefore  he 
 u  is  a  Bifhop.  If  he  does  not,  i.  e.  cannot 
 "  baptize,  I  difapprove  of  his  Priejlhood. 
 
 K°  19.  <c  If  an  Arian  Laick,   had  not  ft  P?teff, 
 
 u  a?fo  r<?#/J  «wfo  /;/?#  a  Chriftian  -,    how  Jhould 
 c  he  [be  admitted  to]  *fo  Penance,    viz.  /fo 
 cc  Arian  haick,  who  is  not  yet  a  Chriftian. 
 
 N°  21.  "  You  your  f elf  approve  an  Arian  f0  be  a 
 Cc  Bifhop,  by  your  receiving  an  Arian  Ld/V£ 
 cc  baptized  by  bim,  &c. 
 
 By  fuch  Arguments  as  thefe,  Orthodox  afTerts 
 againft  the  Lucifenan,  that  the  Arian  Clergy  were 
 not  Lay-men,  but  had  Prieftly  Power :  He  con- 
 cludes the  Validity  of  their  Priefthood  from  the 
 Validity  of  the  Baptifm  they  adminifter'd  :  He 
 aiferts,  that  if  they  had  no  Priefthood,  the  Bap- 
 tifm adminifter'd  by  them  ought  to  be  rejected. 
 And  to  this,  as  to  an  Invincible  Argument,  the 
 Luc'iferian  fubmitted,  and  was  overcome  by  the 
 force  thereof ;  and  confequently  St.  Jerom  here 
 confuted  the  Luciferian,  by  infilling  upon  a  then 
 known  Principle  of  the  Invalidity  of  Baptifm  per- 
 formM  by  Perfons  deftitute  of  a  Prieftly  Power; 
 and  fb  is  an  Evidence  of  the  Church's  Senfe  in  thofe 
 Days,  againft  the  Validity  of  our  pretended  Bap- 
 tifms3  perform' d  by  thofe  who  certainly  were  never 
 
 veiled 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifm>  Examined,  Sec.      139 
 
 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  Conclusion,  exprefly  af- 
 firm, That,  *  Without  P#eft0  there  is  no  Churchy 
 which  would  be  a  Notorious  Falfity,  if  in  his 
 Days,  it  was  a  Juft  and  Sound.  Principle  of  the  Ca- 
 tholick  Church,  that  Perfons  who  never  were 
 Priefts  in  any  refpeft  whatfoever,  could  minifter 
 Valid  Baptifm,  for  where  there  is  Valid  Baptifm 
 there  is  moft  certainly  a  Church  h  becaufe,  Baptifm 
 is  Our  Admiffion  into  the  Church :  And  fo,  with- 
 out Priefts,  there  would  be  a  Church,  which  is  con- 
 trary to  this  Father.  St.  Jerom  do's  here  therefore 
 Null  all  pretended  Baptifm  by  Perfons  that  are 
 Tiot  Friefts,  becaufe  [according  to  him]  where 
 there  is  No  Prieft  there  is  No  Church  •,  and 
 certainly  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 
 3150  lP?teft&  are  Null  and  Void,  if  this  Father 
 may  be  fuppos'd  to  be  Confiftent  with  himfelf  in 
 this  and  the  reft  of  his  AfTertions  againft  the  Luci- 
 ferian  Schifmatick. 
 
 We  have  feen3  in  the  Courfe  of  this  Dialogue^ 
 that  St.  Jerom  made  a  Slip,  when  he  faid,  That  in 
 Cafes  of  Neceifity  '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 
 odly,  and  without  any  Connection,  brought  into  3 
 
 *  Ecclefia  autem  non  eft,  qua?  non  habet  S-icerdotes.  S. 
 micron.  Oper,  Tom.  IV.  ndver.  Lucif.  20Z.  Paris  1706. 
 
 Dif- 
 
140  Testimonies  for  and  againft      Part  II. 
 
 Difcourfe  of  another  Nature,  and  which  was  made 
 on  a  quite  contrary  Principle  and  Foundation.    It 
 is  alfo  plain,  from   what   has  been  largely  faid 
 before,  Page  121,  &c.  that  this  of  the  Lawfulness  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 
 laftly,    That  the  very   Foundation,    upon  which 
 St.  Jerom  fuppofes  Laicks  Baptifm  to  be  Lawful,  is 
 falfe  in  Facl,  and  dangerous  to  other  Sacred  Infti- 
 tutions3  as  well  as  to  that  of  Baptifm-,  and  there- 
 fore upon    the  whole  we  may    venture  to  fay, 
 That   if  our  Reverend  Hiftorian    had  but  tho- 
 roughly read  over,  and  duly  confider'd  St.  Jerom 's 
 Dialogue,  he  might  have  been  convinced  that  he 
 liad  no  reafbn  to  cenftre  [as  he  do's]  Two  fuch 
 Excellent  and  Learned  Men  as  Dr.  Forbes,   and 
 Mr.  Reeves,  and  in  fo  publick  a  Manner  too,  [  in 
 his  33d  and  34th  Pages]   as  guilty  of  Error  aud 
 Miftake,  for  affirming,  That  "  after  the  Council  of 
 c  Nice,  this  Proportion,  that  thefe,  whom  a  Laick 
 tt  Baptizeth,  are  to  be  re-baptiz'd,  was  looked  upon 
 <c  to  be  fo  true,  that  it  was  the  undoubted  Principle 
 ;C  whereby  the  Orthodox  confuted  the  Luciferians.  " 
 For  by  the  Dialogue  we  plainly  fee  that  it  was  £0  -, 
 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 
 
 c  Words  [viz.  after  the  Council  of  Nice,  &c.]  in 
 
 tt  thefe  Learned  Writers    [/.  e.    Dr.  Forbes,    and 
 
 Mr  .Reeves]  Cc  would  not  at  firfi  fight  be  tempted  to 
 
 think,  that  the  Council  of  Nice  had  fomewhere 
 
 made  an  Order,  that  Perfons  baptized  by  Lay-men 
 
 fhould  be  re-baptiz'd  -,  and  that  the  Catholicks  gene- 
 
 1  rally 
 
 cz 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  Sec.       141 
 
 cc  rally  made  ufe  of  this,  as  an  undoubted  Principle^ 
 c  to  confute  the  Luciferians  ?  "  What  a  ftrange  In- 
 sinuation is  this,  againft  the  Ingenuity  and  Integri- 
 ty of  thofe  Two  Learned  Gentlemen  !  Would  Mr. 
 Bingham  take  it  kindly  to  be  ferv'd  thus  him- 
 felf  ?  I  appeal  to  his  own  Confcience,   whether  he 
 himfelf  believes,  that  thofe  Excellent  Perfons  had 
 any  fuch  defign  in  their  Words,   as  to  make  the 
 World  believe,  that  the  Council  of  Nice  made  fuch 
 an  Order.     Who  but  the  Carelefs,  &c.  would,  in 
 reading  thofe  Learned  Mens  Words5"  be  at  firft  fight 
 "  tempted  to  think  "  any  fuch  thing  >     If  Men, 
 <c  at  firft  fight ,"  are  apt  to  be  heedlefs,  let 'em  look 
 again,  and  then  they'll  find  that,  as  fecond  Thoughts 
 are  often  beft,  fo  is  a  fecond  Inspection.    Mr.  Bing- 
 ham knows,    that  before  his  Scholafiical  Hiftory 
 came  forth,  there  were  Men,  who  pleaded  the  Au- 
 thority of  "  Ancient  Caiholick  Tradition  "   for  the 
 Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  particularly  the  corrupt 
 Church  of  Rome,  and  others,  tho3  not  of  her  Com- 
 munion, yet  fo  far  however  agreeing  with  her  in 
 Fopery :  He  knows  that  the  Plea  of  Antiquity  is 
 a~very  powerful  Motive,  to  caufe  fome  Men  to  be- 
 lieve Doctrines   and  Practices  ;    Dr.  forbes  and 
 Mr.  Reeves,  no  doubt,  had  an  eye  to  this,  in  the 
 Queftion  of  Lay-Baptifm ;   and  they  have  prov'd 
 to  the  World,  that  the  pretended  Validity  of  Bap- 
 tifm  by  Lay-men,  was  not  fo  old  a  Do&rine  as 
 fome  Men  reprefent  it :  The  particular  Inftance  here 
 produe'd  by  them,  {hews,  that  even  after  the  firffi 
 300  Years    of  Chriftianity,    it  was  not  known 
 in  the  general  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church, 
 but  that  the  very  contrary  was  held  by  the  Catho- 
 licks  in  the  Fourth  Century  -,  becaufe,  when  the 
 Luciferian  Schifmaticks  feparated  themfelves  from 
 the  Communion  of  the  Church    which  they  did 
 
 "  after 
 
142         Tefi monies  for  and  again  ft      Part  II. 
 
 "  after  the  Council  of  Nice  "  [held  A  C  325;.] 
 The  Orthodox  confuted  thofe  Luciferians  by  this 
 "  undoubted  Principle,  that  thofe,  whom  a  haick 
 "  Baptizeth,  are  to  be  re-baptizd. "  This  St.  Jerom 
 afTertedyi  late,  as,  in  the  Year  384,  long  after  the 
 Council  of  Nice.  This  the  huciferian  Schifmatick 
 could  not  gainfay,  but  fubmitted  to  it,  as  is  evi- 
 dent from  the  before-mentioned  Dialogue —  And  this 
 being  "  after  the  Council  of  Nice, 0i  'twas  highly 
 reafonable  for  thofe  Learned  Men  to  fay,  That 
 'twas  fo  3  becaufe  thereby  we  may  difcover,  not 
 only  the  Novelty  of  the  Notion  of  Lay-Baptifms 
 being  Valid,  but  alfo,  that  [notwithftanding  the 
 *  Council  of  Nice  had  decreed,  that  the  Orders  of 
 the  Novatian  Schifmaticks  were  good  and  valid 
 yet]  the  Orthodox  did  not  believe  any  thing  done 
 that  Council  could  favour  the  Validity  of  Lay- 
 Baptifms,  tho'  fome  of  the  Favourers  of  thofe  falfe 
 Baptifms  might,  from  this  Councils  A3  about  the 
 "Novatian  Schifmaticks,  falfly  infer  the  Validity  of 
 luch  Baptifms,  fince  'tis  notorious  that  fome  reckon 
 (as  Mr.  Bingham  very  well  knows)  Lay-Baptifm, 
 and  the  Ancient  Schifmatical  Baptifm,  to  be 
 much  of  the  fame  Nature  \  but  of  this  more  here- 
 after. And  thefe  may  be  the  Reafons  why  thofe 
 Excellent  Writers  fay,  and  that  very  truly  too, 
 That  "  t  after  the  Council  0^  Nice,  this  Proportion, 
 "  that  thofe,  whom  a  Laick  Baptizeth,  are  to  be  re- 
 "  baptized  3  was  looUd  upon  to  be  fo  true,  that  it 
 "  wastheundoubtedPrinciple,  whereby  the  Orthodox 
 "  confuted  the  Luciferians. "    But  for  a  further 
 
 *  Canon  8. 
 
 f  Forbes't  Inftruft.  Hiftor.    Lib.  jo.   Cap.  14.  /7.  f. 
 R.ccvss'%  Note  on  Vincentius  Linn.  p.  263. 
 
 V'mii- 
 
Chap.  J.     Laj-Baptifm,  Examined,  8cc.       14} 
 
 Vindication  of  thofe  Two  Learned  and  Judicious 
 Writers.,  I  refer  the  Reader  to  the  Reverend  and 
 Learned  Dr.  Bret,  who  has  abundantly  prov'd 
 Mr.  Bingham,  and  not  thofe  Excellent  Perfons,  to 
 be  miftaken  in  this  Matter,  as  may  be  feen  in  that 
 Learned  Doctor's  "  Enquiry  into  the  Judgment  and 
 "  Practice  of  the  Primitive  Church,  in  relation  to 
 "  Perfons  being  Baptizd  by  Lay-men,  "  from 
 pag.  30,  to  40. 
 
 §  XXVITI.  St.  Auguftin  comes  next  under  our 
 Confideration.  Mr,  Bingham  fays  of  him  thus,  in 
 pag.  34.  He  "  was  Co-temporary  with  St.  Jerom^ 
 "  and  of  the  fame  Opinion  with  him  in  this  Mat- 
 '  ter.  In  his  Epiftle  to  Yortunatus,  which  is  pre- 
 cc  ferv'd  in  *Gratian,  he  fays,  In  time  ofNeceJfity, 
 "  when  a  Bijhop  or  Presbyter,  or  other  Minifiery 
 "  could  not  he  found,  and  a  Man  defird  Baptifm, 
 cc  who  was  in  danger  of  Death,  in  that  cafe  lift?* 
 
 "  men  toere  ufen  to  sm  |>im  that  Sacrament 
 
 cc  which  they  had  receivd,  rather  than  hejhould  end 
 "  his  Life  without  it. " 
 
 But  in  Anfwer  to  this,  it  is  to  be  obferv'd,  That 
 Mr.  Bingham,  in  tranflating  this  PafTage,  is  more 
 pofitive,  and  thereby  induces  his  Enghfh  Reader 
 to  believe,  much  more  than  the  Latin  will  allow  5 
 for  according  to  this  Tranflation,  it  looks  as  if 
 St.  Auguftin  afTur'd  us,  That  'twas  Matter  of  Fact, 
 that  in  fuch  a  "  Cafe,  Laymen  were  UftXl  tO  <&i\)Z 
 •c  that  Sacrament,"  &c.  whereas,  in  truth,  it  was 
 to  St.  Auguftin  himfelf  a  Hear-fay  only  :  He  do's 
 not  tell  this,  as  if  himfelf  were  an  Evidence  of  the 
 Truth  of  it,   but  that  it  was  reported  fo  ;   his 
 
 *  Ap.  Gratian  de  Confecrat,  VijL^.  Cap,  %i. 
 
 Words 
 
144        Testimonies  for  and  againft       Part  IL 
 
 Words   are  thefe,  as  Mr.  Bingham  has  'em  in  his 
 
 Margin  :    "  In  Necejfitate,  cum urge t  peri- 
 
 "  culum  ejus  qui  petit ,  ne  fine  ifto  Sacramento  banc 
 "  vitamfineat^etiam  Lai  cos  folere  dare  Sacrament  urn 
 "  quod  acceperunt,  §>0lemttg  auBtre*  Mt  lift 
 "  tO  ^eat)  that,  In  time  of  Neceffity,  OV.  Lay 
 f  men  are  ufed  to  give  that  Sacrament ,"  &c.  St.Au- 
 guftin^  [if  thofe  are  his  Words]  do's  not  fay,  (as 
 Mr.  Bingham  reprefents  it)  That  Lay-men  were 
 us'd  to  give  that  Sacrament  h  but  only  gives  us 
 to  underftand,  that  there  us'd  to  be  fuch  Reports. 
 Now  what  does  this  fignifie,  towards  clearing  the 
 Matter  we  are  enquiring  after  ?  If  fuch  Reports 
 were  fpread  Abroad,  and  came  to  St.  Auguftins 
 Ear  5  do's  it  therefore  follow,  that  the  Thing  re- 
 ported was  true,  and  that  it  was  alfo  the  General 
 Senfe  and  Pratt  ice  of  the  Church  >  Muft  we  have 
 no  better  Proofs  for  her  General  Senfe  and  Pratfice, 
 than  fuch  Hear* fay  Stories  >  If  Mr.  Bingham  do's 
 not  give  us  better  Evidence  than  this,  the  World 
 will  eafily  fee  through  the  Falacy  :  And  'tis  very 
 unaccountable,  for  a  Man  of  that  Gentleman's 
 Character  and  Function, to  make  his  Englifh -Reader 
 believe,  that  St.  Auguftin  himfelf  fays  ( in  this  Place) 
 that  Lay-men  did  Baptize  •,  when  in  truth  he  only 
 fays,  w  We  ufe  to  Hear"  fo. 
 
 But  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  goes  on,  and  tells 
 us  from  Gratian,  That  "  This  Cuftom  St.  Auguftin 
 "  fOUtlBS  UpOtt  9Utl)0(2itp,  defcended  by  Bifhops 
 ?  from  the  Apoftles  ^  for  in  the  fame  *  Epiftle  he 
 
 *  A  p.  Gr  it'un  de  Confecrat.  Diff.  4.  Cap.  36.  Sanilum  eft 
 Baptifcna  per  fe  ipfum,  quod  datum  eft  in  Nomine  Patris,  8e 
 Filii,  &  Spiritus  San&i;  ha  ut  in  eodem  Sacremento  fit  etutm 
 aufto>ira$  Tradifionis  per  Dominum  ncftrum  ad  Apoftolos,  per 
 illos  autem  ad  Epifcopos,  8c  alios  facerdotes,  vel  etiam  Laicos 
 Chriftiancs  ab  eadem  Origine  &  Stirpe  vcoientes, 
 
 p.  e. 
 
Chap.  3.      Lay-Baptifnt,  Examined,  &c.      145 
 
 [/.  e.  St.  Auguftin~]  fays,  'c  Baptifm  is  Holy  in  it f elf 
 '  if  it  be  given  In  the  Name  of  the  father,  Son,  and 
 u  Holy-Ghofl :  9ltD  t\)ttt  tg  in  this  Sacrament  the 
 <c  Authority  of  the  CommiJJion,  which  our  Saviour 
 "  gave  to  the  Apoftles,  and  by  them  to  Bijhops,  and 
 cc  other  Priefts,  and  even  to  hay-men  defending  from 
 "  the  fame  Stock  and  Original"  This  Tranflation 
 do's  not  give  the  full,  plain  Senfe  of  the  Words,  as 
 Gratian  has  tranfcrib'd  them  -,  they  ought  rather 
 to  be  tranflated  thus,  that  the  Englifh  Reader  may 
 fee  the  true  Meaning  of  them  :  rt  Baptifm  is  Holy 
 cc  in  it f elf,  if  it  be  given  In  the  Name  of the  father y 
 c  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft  -,  [Ita  ut  in  eodem  Sacra- 
 cc  mentofit  etiam  Au&oritas,  &c.~]  ^Ot&at  ttittZ 
 "  \)Z  ftlfO  in  this  Sacrament,  the  Authority  of  the 
 <c  Commiffion  which  our  Saviour  gave  to  the  Apolilesy 
 c  and  by  them  to  Bijhops  and  other  Priefts,  and  even 
 c  to  Chriftan  Lay  men  defending  from  the  fame  Stock 
 "  and  Original.*  This  PafTage  (hews,  that  the 
 Baptifm  which  is  Holy  in  it  f elf,  muft  not  only  be 
 given  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  but  muft  alfb 
 have  the  atttljOJttj)  of  Cljjtff'g  CommifllOm 
 Now  if  this  Commiffion  was  really  given  to  Chri- 
 ftian  Lay-men  by  the  Apoftles,  as  Gratian  here 
 makes  St.  Auguftin  fuppofe  it  was,  (tho'  St.  Au- 
 guftin never  did  prove  any  fuch  thing,  nor  indeed 
 any  other  Writer  whatfoever,  either  before  or  after 
 him  ; )  I  fay,  fuppofmg  Lay-men  could  really  have 
 this  Commiffion  •,  yet  ftill  'tis  notorious,  that  Our 
 Lay-men  about  whom  we  Difpute,  never  had  any 
 fuch  Commiffion  at  all  •,  and  therefore,  whatfoever 
 may  be  pleaded  from  this  PafTage,  for  Baptifms 
 by  fuch  fuppofe  dly-Commijfiorid  Lay-men,  can  no- 
 ways be  apply 'd  to  the  pretended  Baptifms  per- 
 formed by  our  Laicks^  who  bave  not  the  leaft  ap- 
 L  pearance 
 
146  Teftimomes  for  and  again  ft     Part  IL 
 
 pearance  of  any  fuch  fuppofed  Commiffion  ever 
 given  to  them. 
 
 To  this  may  be  added  another  Paffage  which 
 Gratian  attributes  to  St.  Auguftin  -,  *  "  Baptifm  is 
 
 not  fuch  as  he  is  who  miniflcrs  it,  but  fuch  as 
 c  He  is  [i.*Chrift]  by  ttll)0fe  POtUCt  atlfl  9U* 
 "  tf)0  Jltp  it  is  given, J"  &c.  From  hence  it  fol- 
 lows, that  the  pretended  Baptifm  given  by  our 
 Laicks  is  no  Chriftian  Baptifm,  becaufe  it  is  not 
 performed  by  Chrift's  Power  and  Authority  :  He 
 by  whofe  Authority  they  give  it,  it  nothing  but 
 a  common  unconfecrated  Perfon  :  Such  as  he  isv 
 fuch  is  the  pretended  Baptifm  they  give  5  therefore 
 3tis  Nothing  but  a  common  Warning,  becaufe  he  is 
 Nothing  but  a  common  Perfon :  For  our  Laicks 
 pretended  Power  and  Authority,  is  receiv'd  by 
 them  from  No  One  vvhatfoever,  that  is  confecrated 
 to  give  them  a  valid  Power  ^  and  confequently 
 their  Warnings  perforrnd  by  Authority  of  an  un~ 
 confecrated  common  Perfon,  are  Not  Chriftian 
 Baptifm,  but  common  "Warnings  only.  But  to 
 proceed, 
 
 Mr.  Bingham,  in  his  35th  and  36th  Pages,  next 
 tells  us  out  of  Gratian,  that  St.  Auguftin  "  relates 
 a  a  Story  of  a  certain  Catechumen,  who  being  at 
 "  Sea,   and  in  danger  of  being  caft  away  in  a  Storm, 
 
 was  baptized  by  a  Penitent,  becaufe  there  was  no 
 <c  other  Chriftian  in  the  Ship  with  them  •, "  and  that 
 St.  Auguftin  concludes  upon  it,  "  That  tho*  fuch  a 
 "  Fa S  had  not  happened,  yet  it  was  a  Cafe  that  every 
 
 *  Baptifmus  talis  eft,  qualis  ille  eft  in  cujus  poteftafe  datur, 
 non.qualis  eft  ille  per  cujus  miniftcrium  datur.  Auguftin  fuper 
 joannem  in  parte  prima,  Tni&,  y.  ad  Cap*  1 .  apud  Gratian  de 
 Confecrat.  Difl,  4.  Cap,  xxW, 
 
 u  cm 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baft ifm.  Examined,  &c.       147 
 
 "  one  muft  own  might  happen ^  and  then  Ko  One 
 "  could  fay ,  that  In  fuch  a  Cafe  a  Man  who  dejired 
 "  Baptifm  in  imminent  danger  of  Deaths  wa*  to  be 
 "  deserted,  and  left  unbaptizd. 
 
 But  to  do  juftice  to  this  Paffage,  and  to  the 
 Reader  too,  I  will  give  him  a  little  further  infight 
 into  the  Credit  of  this  fuppofed  Faff,  than  our  Re- 
 verend Hiftorian  has  thought  fit  to  do :  It  is  then 
 very  true,  that  Gratian  makes  St.  Auguftin  relate 
 fuch  a  Story  ^  but  'tis  alfo  as  true,  that  the  fame 
 Gratian  makes  St.  Auguftin  fay  of  this  Story  thus, 
 "  *  If  any  one  refufes  to  believe  what  I  have  related^ 
 "  (for  it  is  not  founded  on  Authority  of  the  Holy 
 "  Scriptures,  but  reported  by  an  UltttnOttm  DQUttt* 
 "  ftti  iitttijO?  )  I  will  not  thwart  him.  "  This 
 plainly  difcovers  that  St.  Auguftin  himfelf,  [if  he 
 did  relate  fuch  a  Story]  had  no  Foundation  where- 
 on to  rely  for  the  Truth  of  it-,  'twas  by  his  own 
 Confeffion  only  a  Report ,  and  the  Author  of  it 
 $30t  J&ltOtDtt?  therefore  not  to  be  depended  on: 
 He  did  not  think  it  to  be  of  fuch  Importance  as 
 to  be  infifted  on -,  no,  he  would  not  Oppofe  any 
 One  that  refus'd  to  believe  it :  So  that,  here  we 
 are  amus'd  with  a  Story  of  No  Moment,  a  Thing 
 only  in  the  Air,  of  no  weight,  but  a  very  Trifll?7 
 not  worth  our  Notice.  St.  Auguftin  is  made,  how* 
 ever,  to  fay,  that  this  "  was  a  Cafe  that  every  one 
 
 *  Quod  d  forte  hoc  quod  narravi,  fac.- Non  vult  all- 
 
 quis  credere  (non  enim  hoc  Scriptunrum  Divinarum  au&oritas, 
 fed  incerto  auftore  fama  comrnendat)  non  repugnabo  :  fed  in- 
 terrogate, fi  tale  aliquid  contingat,  quid  futurum  eft?  Norj 
 enim  poteft  quifquam  dicere  relinquendum  effe  ilium  qui  morte 
 imminente  bapizari  defiderat.  Quern  Baptiz^tum  a  poenitentc 
 quifquis  non  credit  ContigirTe  oportct  ut  Credac  po(Te  contio* 
 gere.    Apod  Gratian  de  Con  ecrat.  Di/7.  4.  pp.  3$. 
 
 L  2  *  mu/i 
 
148        Testimonies  for  and  again  ft       Part  II. 
 
 cc  muft  own  might  happen -^  and  what  then?  What 
 iignifies  the  Poifibility  of  fuch  a  Cafe  ?  Our  Inqui- 
 ry is  after  Matters  of  Fait,  attefted  to  by  the  An- 
 cient Catholick  Church.  A  Thoufand  ridiculous 
 Cafes  are  poflible  to  happen  ^  nay,  fome,  (as  we 
 find  by  Experience)  which  are  Superfluous  even 
 to  a  degree  of  Madnefs  and  Diffraction,  have  hap- 
 pen d  •,  and  fome  Popifh  Writers,  &c.  are  full  of 
 Relations  of  fuch  Accidents.  But  the  Confequen- 
 ces  and  Inferences  which  are  rais'd  from  'em  are 
 not  always  jufi  and  good,  but  frequently  falfe, 
 and  repugnant  to  the  Laws  both  of  God  and 
 Man. 
 
 Our  fuppos'd  St.  Auguftin  fays,  cc  If  any  thing 
 c  like  this  jhould  happen,  ~No  One  can  fay,  that  in 
 &  fuch  a  Cafe,  a  Man  who  ie fires  Baptifm  in  immi- 
 "  nent  danger  of  Death,  is  to  be  defer  ted  and  left 
 "  unbaptizd"  This  is  very  true,  he  ought  not  to 
 be  deferted,  by  thole  who  have  the  Fower  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  Neceffity  gives  them 
 this  Power,  is  begging  the  Queftion]  fo  that,  if  he 
 dies  unbaptiz'd,  he  is  not  Deferted  and  Left  un- 
 baptiz'd,  but  he  is  tafeClt  alBilP  unbaptiz'd.  If 
 in  a  defert  Place  I  fee  a  milefable  Object,  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  ifluing  out 
 of  it  j  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.  3.     Lay-Baptifrn,  Examined,  &C.        149 
 
 Cafe  is  not  jorfaken  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, 
 fiippofe,  which  is  a  juft  Parallel  to  the  Cafe  before 
 us  \  A  Chriftian,  who  never  received  the  Sacrament 
 of  the  Lord's  Supper,  upon  the  near  Approach  of 
 Death,  fears  that  he  (hall  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  Priefts  are 
 to  be  had,  and  after  all  Diligence  us'd,  none  can  be 
 procured  to  give  it  him  •,  he  is  affur'd  of  this,  but 
 yet  continues  unfatisfied,  and  earneftly  defires  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  ineffective  Hand,  I  never  was  veil- 
 ed with  Chrift's  Authority,  and  therefore  he  would 
 receive  Nothing  from  me  but  Common,  Not  Sacra- 
 mental Bread  and  Wine ;  however,  I  affift  him 
 with  my  charitable  Prayers,  &e,  and  he  dies  with- 
 out receiving  what  I  had  no  Power  to  give :  'Tis 
 certain,  the  Man  is  not  Deferted  and  Left,  with- 
 out the  Sacrament,  by  me  5  God  took  him  away 
 from  it,  and  to  his  moft  wife  Difpofal  he  muft  be 
 left,  as  muft  all  fuch  unbaptiz'd  Perfbns  we  are 
 now  {peaking  of  5  and  if  our  fuppos'd  St.  Auguftin 
 reckon'd,  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  5  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  Cuftom  of  the  Catholick  Church  for  fuch 
 a  Practice. 
 
 Thus  far  may  fuffice  in  Anfwer  to  the  Paffages 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  has   produced   out  of  Gratian,  "  a 
 
 L  1  :c  Monk, 
 
150         Ttjlimonies  for  and  again  ft     Part  II, 
 
 *c  Monk,  who  frequently  quotes  fpurious  *  Books^ 
 "  of  the  genuine  Writings  of  the  hitbers:"   And 
 whofe  Authority,  with  relation  to  thefe  Paffages, 
 is  therefore  fb  little  to  be  rely'd  on,  that  even  our 
 Reverend  Hiftorian  himfelf  intimates,  that  they 
 may  hi  queftion'd  -,  and  therefore,  as  not  relying 
 on  them,  he  gives  us  a  Quotation  out  of  St.  Au- 
 guftins  genuine  Works,  and  fays,  pag.  36.    u  But 
 "  if  any  one  thinks  thefe  PafTages  doubtful,  becaule 
 cc  they  are  only  related  by  Gratian,  he  may  read 
 "  the  fame  in  St.  Auguftins  undoubted  Works.    In 
 "  his  Books  againfl:  Farmenian  the  Donatift,  he  ufes 
 '*  this  Argument  to  prove,    that  the  Baptifm  of 
 "  Hereticks  ought  not  to  be  repeated,  viz.  t  Be- 
 c:  cauje^  tho*  it  be  but  a  hay-man  that  gives  Baptifm 
 "  to  a  Man  in  extrcam  Neceffity,  when  he  is  ready 
 *  to  Perijb  h .  Ije  CanitOt  tijtllfe  any  one  can  pioujly 
 ci  fay,  that  it  ought  to  be  repeated.     If  it  be  done 
 "  without   'Necejjity,  it  is  indeed  flit  fllfUrpattOn 
 a  of  another  Mans  Office-,   but  if  he  be  compelled  by 
 "  KeceJJity,  it  is  either  no  Fault  at  all,  or  but  a  very 
 iZ  light  one."     This  is  Mr.  Bingham's  Tranflation 
 of  St.  Auguftins  Words  5  wherein  'tis  very  remark- 
 able, that  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  fays  of  that  Fa- 
 ther, cc  JPC  CiltlttOt  tltfnfc  *n$  one  can  pioujly  fay, 
 tc  &c."  whereas  in  Truth,    St.  Auguftins  Words 
 are,   [ cc  5i3£fCiO  an  pie  quifquam  dixerit  effe  repe- 
 ?  tenduni\   %  feltOlD  ttOt  whether  any  One  can  pi- 
 If  oufty  fay  that  it  ought  to  be  repeated.  "      The 
 
 *  Dr.  Bett\r  Enquiry  into  the  Judgment  and  Praftice  of  the  Pri- 
 mitive Cturih,  in  relation  to  Pe>fons  bapti^d  by  Laymen,  p.  42. 
 
 f  Auguftin.  Contra  Fpiftol.  Parmen.  lib.  2.  C.  12.  Et  ft 
 laieta  aliquis  pereumi  d:derit,  neceffitate  Cotnpulfu*,  quod  cum  ipfe 
 tmferet  dandum  effe  aMidicit,  mido  an  pie  quifquam  dixerit  ejfe 
 few,  %c. 
 
 whole 
 
Chap.  5.     Lay-Baptifrrtj  Exarnirfdy  &C.       151 
 
 whole  Paflage  then  [to  come  as  near  as  I  can  to  Mr. 
 Bingham's  Tranflation,  without  doing  any  Violence 
 to  the  Senfe  of  St.  Auguftins  Words]  is  this,  "  If  a, 
 "  Lay-man,  Compell  'd  by  NeceJJity^  fhouli  give  Bap- 
 c:  tifm  to  a  Man  that  is  ready  to  Peri/h,  Sec.  3J  ftHOtU 
 c  ItOt  whether  any  one  can  pioufly  fay,  that  it  ought 
 c  to  be  repeated.  If  it  be  done  without  Necefjity,  it 
 u  is  indeed  ait  (EJftltpattOtt  of  another  Mans  Of 
 "  ficeh  but  if  he  be  COttlpell'B  bP  J3eCCffttp,  it  is 
 "  either  no  Fault  at  all,  or  but  a  tietp  llgljt  ©Ite/ 
 "  Now  in  this  PafTage,  thus  fet  to  rights,  'tis  wor- 
 thy our  Obfervation. 
 
 Fir  ft,  That  St  Augufiin  here  fpeaks  Dogmatically, 
 giving  his  own  private  Opinion  only,  and  not  the 
 Lawful  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church :  He  only 
 puts  a  Cafe,  that  if  a  Lay-man  Ihould  fo  baptize  5 
 he  do's  not  relate  any  Matter  of  Faff  of  a  Lay- 
 man's having  done  fo,  and  of  its  being  agreeable 
 to  the  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  but,  like 
 a  Cafuift,  fuppofes  if  fuch  a  thing  ihould  happen  -, 
 and  then  he  refolves  upon  it  with  a  great  deal  of 
 Hefitancy,  as  one  not  fujfciently  inform  d  what 
 mould  be  done  in  fuch  a  Cafe  \  cc  I  know  not  [fays 
 he]  ,;  whether  any  one  can  pioufly  fay,  that  [fuch  a 
 Baptifin]  "  ought  to  be  repeated"  I  know  noty 
 is  ftrange  Language,  about  an  Undoubted  'Lawful 
 Determination  of  the  Church  :  If  fhe  had  deter- 
 min'd  the  Unlawfulnefs  of  Repeating  fuch  a  Bap- 
 tifm,  fure  St.  Augufiin  would  have  IftnO&Jtt  of 
 this  -,  and  if  fuch  a  Determination  had  been  Piom^ 
 then-  fure  St.  Augufiin  muft  have  call'd  it  Impious, 
 to  have  faid,  "  That  fuch  a  Baptifm  ought  to  be  re- 
 cc  peated:  "  But  inftead  of  any  thing  like  this,  for 
 him  to  fay  [Nefcio  an  pie  quifquam  dixerif]  % 
 fttlOto  ItOt  whether  any  one  can  pioufly  fay  fo; 
 plainly  Ihews  that  he  did  not  know,  that  it  was 
 L  4  contrary 
 
152         Teft  monies  for  and  again  ft      Part  IL 
 
 contrary  to  Piety  to  fay,  "  They  ought  to  be  re- 
 "  peated ,  "   for  he  that  does  not  know,  (KLUjetljn: 
 I  can  pioufly  fay  a  thing,  do's  not  know  that  'tis 
 impious   for   me   to  fay  it,     becaufe   [the  Latin 
 word  Ait]  (KLUjCtljCr^   has  always  a  Reference  to 
 two   things.,     and   when    one    of    them  only    is 
 nam'd  in  a  Propofition,  the  contrary  thereto  is  al- 
 ways to  be  underftood  5    as  when  a  Man  fays.,  I 
 imaftl  not  tofjCtljet  you  are  an  honeft  Man,    he 
 plainly  means  thereby,  31  fettOti)  MOt  whether  you 
 are,   or  are  not  an  honeft  Man  ^    thereby  mewing 
 that  he  does  not  know  what  to  determine  on  either 
 ilde,   tho'  ftill  his  Partiality  to  one  fide  rather 
 than  the  other,  is  evident  enough  ^   and  he  (hews 
 that  he  queftions  the  Honefty  of  the  Man,  tho'  he 
 is  not  able  to  prove  him  dijhoneft.     So  here,  St.  An- 
 guftins,  cc  3|  iUtOfo  not  foljetfjEt:  any  one  can  pi- 
 oufly  fay,   that   the  [fuppofed]  Baptifm   ought 
 <c  to  be  repeated-"    muft  mean,  that  he  did  not 
 know,  whether,    on  the  one  Hand,  'twas  Pious,  or 
 on  the  other  Hand,  contrary  to  Piety  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  lfiews 
 [by  his  I  know  not  tDf)EtljCt5  &c]  that  he  was  not 
 able  to  prove  it  a  Contradiction  to  Piety,  to  fay 
 that  it  ought  to  be  repeated  :  From  whence  'tis 
 evident  that  St.  Augufline  did  not  know,    that  it 
 was  at  that  Time  the  Pious  Lawful  Senfe  and  Pra- 
 ctice of  the  Church,  to  call  fuch  pretended  Bap- 
 tifms,   the  One  Cbriftian  Baptifm,   which  ought  not 
 fo  be  Repeated  ;    for  if  he  had  known  fo,    in- 
 ftead  of  faying,   I  know  not  whether  any  One  can 
 pioufly  fay  they  ought  to  be  repeated,  he  might 
 have  confidently  afTirm'd,  "  I  know  that  'tis  ttOt 
 "  y?iQ\t8  to  fay  fo."    But  we  fee,  that  this  Fa- 
 ther 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baptifm,  ExamirPd,  &c.       153 
 
 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 Serif e  and  Fraftice  of  the  Catholick  Churchy  for 
 then  he  is  Clear,  Exprefi,  and  Pofitive  enough  j 
 thus  for  Example,  The  then  *  Catholick  Fraftice^  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,  Confiderd, 
 Ferfefted,  Confirmed  and  EftabliJFd,  with  the  Con- 
 fent  and  Agreement  of  the  whole  [Chriftian~\  World. 
 But  nothing  like  this,  has  he,  or  could  he  have 
 faid  in  all  his  Works  in  behalf  of  ufurped  Lay- 
 Baptifms  ;  and  therefore  we  may  conclude,  that  he 
 knew  of  No  Fiow,  Lawful  Senfe  and  Fraftice  of  the 
 Catbolick  Church,  in  favour  of  the  Validity  of  fuch 
 pretended  Baptifms,  which  is  further  Confirm'd 
 by  the  other  Obfervation  upon  this  PafTage  of  his, 
 viz. 
 
 Secondly,  That  he  plainly  fhews,  he  cannot  clear 
 fuch  Ufurpations  from  the  Guilt  of  Sin :  He  fays, 
 of  a  Lay-man's  being  fuppofedly  Compelled  by  Ne- 
 ceffity,  to  baptize,  "  that  it  is  ettljCt  no  Fault  at 
 cc  all,  or  but  a  very  light  OXit*  "  Now  if  it  had 
 been  agreeable  to  the  then  General  Fious  Senfe  and 
 Fraftice  of  the  Church,  'tis  reafonable  to  believe 
 that  he  would  have  known  it  to  be  fo  -,  and  then 
 
 *  Dc  iis  vero  qui  ab  Ecclefia?  unirare  feparati  funt,  nulla  jam 
 quseftio  ell,  quin  8c  Ijaccant  &  Bate  ^ofllnt,  &  quin  perniciofe 
 habeant,  perniciofeque  tradant  extra  vinculum  pacis.  Hoc 
 enim  jam  in  ipfa  totius  orbis  unitate  difcufTum,  confideratum, 
 perfeftum  afque  firmatum  eft.  S.  Auguft.  Contra  Epift.  Parmen. 
 lib.  2.  c.  xiii.  Sell.  30.  Tom.  9.  p.  45%  Fans  1694. 
 
 with- 
 
154  Teftimonies  for  and  again  ft     Pa  R  T  II. 
 
 without  any  Hefitancy,  he  might  have  faid,  it  is 
 not  only  no  Fault  at  all^  but  a  commendable  Pious 
 AcJion,  arifing  from  a  well  inform'd  Judgment, 
 and  due  Senfe  of  Duty  •,  but  St.  Auguflin,  as  know- 
 ing of  no  fuch  General  Senfe  and  Pratiice  of  the 
 Churchy  tells  us,  that  either  'tis  no  Fault  at  all,  or 
 elfe  but  a  Light  One.  Who  can  believe  that  this 
 Saint  would  have  allowed  the  Pious  General  Senfe 
 and  Pratiice  of  the  Churchy  to  be  any  Sin  at  all,  of 
 how  fhnall  a  fort  foever  >  No,  this  is  not  the  Lan- 
 guage of  an  Evidence  of  the  Church's  General 
 Pious  Senfe  and  Practice  -,  and  is  therefore  no  more 
 than  his  own  private  Opinion,  which  has  nothing 
 to  do  with  our  prefent  Enquiry. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham,  in  his  43d  Page,  produces  another 
 Paffage  from  St.  Auguftin,  in  favour  of  Lay-Bap- 
 tifms,  even  in  ordinary  Cafes,  thus  -,  St.  Auguftin  s 
 Words  are  thefe,  u  *  Though  it  be  ufurped  with- 
 a  out  Kecefity,  and  given  bj>  atlj?  SgJatt  to  ano- 
 u  ther,  that  which  is  given  cannot  be  /aid  not  to  be 
 cc  given,  tho  it  may  be  truly  faid  to  be  unlawfully  gi- 
 "  ven.  Therefore  the  ^\X\dMi\\  (HfUrpattOtt  k 
 "  to  be  corretled  by  a  MtttZ  aitO  affectionate 
 
 u  Eepentance*  And  if  it  be  not  Corrected,  that 
 
 H  which  is  given  will  remain  to  the  PuntfljttlCltt 
 **  of  the  Ufurper,  as  well  of  him  who  gatl£  It  un~ 
 "  lawfully^  as  of  him  tDljO  reCettfD  it  unlawfully: 
 u  But  yet  it  cannot  be  accounted  as  not  given.  No 
 tt  devout  Soldier  ever  violates  the  Royal  Stamp,  tho1 
 u  it  be  ufurped  by  private  Men:  For  tho  fome  by 
 *  Stealth,  and  in  a  Clandestine  way,  fet  the  Royal 
 u  Stamp,  not  to  the  publick  Money,  but  their  own  • 
 "  yet  the  Money  fo  flamtfd,  when  they  are  either 
 
 *  Auguft*  Contra  Epift.  Parmen.  Lib.  2.  C.  xiii. 
 
 <c  punifh'd, 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay^Baptzfm,  Examined,  &c.      155 
 
 "  punifh'd,  or  pardon "d for  their  Offence,  having  the 
 Royal  Standard  upon  it,  is  not  defacd^  but  brought 
 "  into  the  Kings  Treafury. "  "  Whence  ( fays 
 "  Mr.  Bingham,  pag.  44.)  tis  plain,  He  [St.Au- 
 gujlin"]  "  thought,  that  Baptifm  given  by  Lay- 
 "  men  fit  S^DitUir?  Caftg,  which  was  an  Ufurpa- 
 c  tion  of  the  PriefFs  Office,  was  not  to  be  repeated. 
 "  And  this  he  afTerts  in  another  Place  againfl:  the 
 
 "  Donates  s  get  not  as  tfee  Dftetntttratfon 
 tt  of  anp  Qpeneral  Council,  but  as  fjtg  o&m 
 
 "  jSDptntOn  : "  "  For  "  he  Jays,  If  he  were  a  Mem- 
 '  ber  offuch  a  Synod  wherein  this  Queffwn  was  de- 
 "  bated,  he  Jhould  not  fcruple  to  affert  all  thofe  to 
 "  have  Baptifm,  *  H)ttdOt^tt  or  by  WjOmfOefceC 
 c  Baptizd,  that  had  receivd  it  in  Faith,  and  without 
 "  Diffimulation,  in  that  Form  of  Words  which  is  pre- 
 :c  JcriVd  by  the  Gofpel  \  thd  if  they  wanted  Charity, 
 H  and  were  out  of  the  Catholick  Church,  it  would  not 
 "  profit  them  to  Salvation,  or  any  other  Spiritual 
 "  Concerns." 
 
 Thus  we  fee  how  far  St. Auguftin  was  carry'd  in  the 
 Heat  of  Difpute  againfl:  the  Donati/is  ;  for,becaufe 
 they  Re-baptized  even  the  Catlwlicks,  who  had  been 
 before  validly  Baptiz'd  In  the  Name  of  the  Trinity, 
 by  Catholick  Priefts,  [and  this  they  did,  upon 
 pretence  of  their  former  Baptifms  being  a  Pollution, 
 as  being  defifd  by  the  Miniftration  of  thofe,  whom 
 they  calPd  Wicked  and  Profane,  and  for  that  rea- 
 fon  not  Minifters  of  Jefus  Chrift]  ;  There- 
 fore St.  Auguflin,  in  his  Difpute  againfl:  this  Pra- 
 ctice of  the  Donatifts,  ran  into  the  other  Extreme, 
 and  afferted  ( as  we  fee  in  thefe  PafTages)  That 
 Baptifm  perform'd    "  by  anj>  $J9ait  whomfoever^ 
 
 f  Auguft,  dfi  Baptifmo,  lib.  vii,  chap.  53, 
 
 or 
 
T  5 6         Teftimomes  for  and  againft      Pa  r  t  II, 
 
 ct  or  wberefoever,"  if  clone  with  the  Form  of 
 Words,  In  the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  was  good 
 and  valid,  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 
 Inititution  whatfoever  can  be  of  any  Force  upon 
 Mens  Confciences,  if  it  mould  be  univerfally  allow  d 
 of:  And  fo  unwarrantable  is  the  Notion,  that 
 Mr.  Bingbam  (as  I  have  before  obferv'd,  pag.  105;.) 
 acknowledges,  That  Baptifm  by  Jews  and  Pagans, 
 tt  is  one  of  the  Novelties  of  Popery, "  wholly  New, * 
 "  and  UttCCiP  without  Precedent  in  the  Primitive 
 "  Church.  *  Nay,  even  in  this  Place  our  Reverend 
 Hiftorian  confefles,  That  this  oifuch  Ufurped  Bap- 
 tifm, was  afTerted  by  St.  Auguflin,  "  Not  as  the 
 ?  Determination  of  any  <&Zl\Zt&l  COttttCtf*  "  But 
 "  as  hk  own  ©pilliOtU "  So  that  it  was  nothing 
 but  St.  Auguftin's  private  Opinion,  not  the  General 
 Senfe  and  Pratlice  of  the  Church  ♦,  which  is  the 
 Great  Thing  we  are  enquiring  after,  and  which 
 hitherto  we  cannot  difcover,  by  all  that  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham s  Scholaftical  Hijlory  has  yet  related. 
 
 As  for  Sti  Auguftin,  his  Reafons  for  pretended 
 Baptifms,  (tho'  ufurp'd  and  perforrn'd  by  $111) 
 iDitH}  without  Neceility)  are  none  at  all  ;  for  he 
 lays,  cc  That  which  is  given,  cannot  be  f aid  not  to  be 
 <c  given,  tho  it  may  be  truly  faid  to  be  unlawfully 
 ct  given. w  This  is  plainly  a  begging  of  the  Qiie- 
 ition  5  for  'tis  the  thing  deny'd  :  We  fay5  in  fuch 
 Cafe,  Chriftian  Baptifm  tg  tlOt  gttien  at  all,  and 
 therefore  not  fo  much  as  unlawfully  given  j  let  thofe 
 
 who 
 
Chap.  3.     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  Sec.       157 
 
 who  are  Friends  to  St.  Auguftins  odd  Opinion  in 
 this  Matter,  prove,  (  what  he  has  not  prov'd  )  That 
 Chriftian  Baptifm  is  really,  tho'  unlawfully  given, 
 and  we  will  have  done.  When  Laws  are  Enacted 
 for  making  Conveyances  of  Eftates,  or  Privileges 
 to  Men  ;  if  thofe  Laws  require  that  the  Convey- 
 ance fhould  be  made  by  the  Sign  Manual,  and  Seal 
 and  Delivery,  of  the  principal  Owner,  or  his  Law- 
 ful Attorney  *,  'tis  falfe,  to  fay,  That  the  Convey- 
 ance is  really  and  validly  made  by  a  Cheating  XJ fur  per 
 who  is  not  fo  authorized-,  no  Law  will  allow  this 
 to  be  a  Valid  Conveyance,  no,  tho5  it  was  done  with 
 all  the  other  neceffary  Reqiiifites  of  the  Law ;  'tis  an 
 abfolute  Nullity,  and  is  very  parallel  to  the  Cafe 
 before  us.  St.  Aug  u ft  in  brands  fuch  pretended  Bap- 
 tifms  with  the  odious  Name  of  Utllatuf til  aifUtpa* 
 tlOflS  •,  and  fo  they  juftly  deferve  to  be  term'd, 
 for  they  are  Ufurpations  againft  all  the  Laws  of 
 God,  and  his  Church  ;  and  if  fo,  then  there  is 
 HO  1L<JU)  whereby  to  determine  them  Valid  ;  and 
 they  cannot  have  a  Legal  Validity,  without  fome 
 Law  or  other  whereby  to  try  their  Validity. 
 He  fays,  tc  The  unlawful  Ufurpation  is  to  be  cor- 
 reffed,  by  a  fincere  and  affectionate  Repentance. 
 This  is  undoubtedly  neceffary.  But  wherein  do's 
 this  Repentance  confift  >  Repentance  muft  be 
 differently  exprefs'd  ;  and  its  Fruits  muft  be  ac- 
 cording to  the  Nature  of  the  Sin  committed.  Con- 
 feffion,  Sorrow,  Prayer  for  Pardon,  Refolution  to 
 do  fo  no  more,  and  Conftancy  in  keeping  this  Re- 
 folution, are  not  fufficient  to  conftitute  tt  a  fincere 
 "  and.  affectionate  Repentance"  for  fome  fort  of 
 Sins  :  The  Proper  and  Genuine  Work  of  True  Re- 
 pentance, is,  to  undo  (as  much  as  lies  in  our 
 Power)  the  Wickednefs  we  have  committedo 
 Hence  Reftitution  is  neceffary,  in  Cafes  oilnjuftice, 
 
 Robbery, 
 
158         Teftimonies  for  and  again fl     Part  II. 
 
 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 
 /acred  Mini  fir  ations,  cannot  properly  be  faid  to  be 
 truly  repented  of  without  undoing  and  making  void, 
 in  Fac\  as  much  as  we  can,  the  thing  which  was 
 endeavoured  to  be  ufurped.  Thus,  if  a  Presbyter 
 lhould  wickedly  prefuine  to  attempt  to  Ordain  Men 
 to  minifter  in  Holy  Things,  his  Repentance  would 
 be  but  falfe  and  fpurious,  if  he  did  not,  to  the 
 utmoft  of  his  Power,  caufe  thofe  falfe  Ordinations 
 to  be  undone,  either  by  difcovering  the  Perfons  he 
 had  fo  pretendedly  Ordain  d,  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  Bifliop,  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  -, 
 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, mould  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  Ordairfd,  or  elfe  to  procure  them  to 
 receive  what  the  Presbyterians  call  Valid  Orders  t 
 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-Baptifm<>  Examined,  &c.      159 
 
 tions  of  Perfons  pretending  to  Baptize,  who  never 
 were  CornmiflloiVd,  are  duly  repented  of,  without 
 their  endeavouring  to  procure  Baptifm  by  a  Valid 
 Commiffioriy  to  be  given  to  thofe  whom  they,  in 
 their  wicked  Usurpations,  did  but  pretendediy  bap- 
 tize before  -0  for  the  fame  reafon  that  holds  for 
 one,  will  hold  for  this  other  alfo. 
 
 St.  Auguflin  fays  farther,  concerning  fuch  a 
 Ufurpation,  "  If  it  be  not  corrected  [/.  e.  by  Re- 
 pentance, ]  u  that  which  is  given  will  remain  to  the 
 tc  Puniflwient  of  the  Ufurper^  as  well  of  him  who 
 "  gave  it  unlawfully,  as  of  him  who  receivd  it  un- 
 "  lawfully  ^  but  yet  it  cannot  be  accounted  as  not 
 "given."  Still  begging  the  Que'ftion,  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  Blt5  tOlttCt  his  Ufurpation,  his  ufurped 
 Ail  will  remain  to  bis  Punijhment^  (fays  St.  Au\ 
 guftin. 
 
 I  am  now  to  fee  what  muft  be  the  Repentance 
 of  the  fuppofed  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-Ordain'd  Perfons,  that  they  might  be 
 known  as  not  Ordain'd3  and  fo  receive  Valid  Ordi- 
 nation •,  So,  the  Receiver  of  thofe  Falfe  Orders, 
 muft  repent  of,  and  correct  what  was  pretendediy 
 received  by  him  $  he  muft  not  claim  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  of  the  Coun- 
 terfeit Ordination,  and  muft  receive  Valid  Orders 
 from  fuch  as  have  Power  to  give  them*     Even  fb 
 
 the 
 
%6o        Tejlimonies  for  and  againfl      Part  IL 
 
 the  Receivers  of  thefe  pretended  Baptifms,  if  they 
 muft  repent  of  their  Part  in  the  Ufurpation,  muft 
 neceflarily  acknowledge,  that  they  have  acquir'd 
 tio  Right  to  the  Privileges  of  a  Valid  Baptifm^  by 
 virtue  of  the  U/urped  Aft  :  The  Ufurped  Acl:  was 
 Unlawful,  with  refpecl:  to  all  the  Laws  of  God  and 
 his  Church  ♦,  therefore  his  Repentance  muft  be  fuch, 
 as  to  exprefs  his  aftual  Obedience  to  thoje  Laws  : 
 He  do's  not  fhew  fuch  Obedience  to?  but  even  aclual 
 Rebellion  againfi:  thofe  Laws,  while  he  claims  ( by 
 virtue  of  a  Ufurper's  Adt,  in  Oppofition  to  all  thofe 
 Laws)  the  fame  Privileges  as  are  Conferr'd  by 
 others  whom  thofe  Laws  do  Authorize  to  Conferr 
 them  5  this  is  making  the  Ufurpation  to  be  only 
 a  Grcumftantial  Fault,  when  in  truth  'tis  alfo  an 
 Ejjential  one,  by  reafon  of  its  Contrariety  to  the 
 EfTential  Law  of  the  Inftitution  ^  as  I  humbly 
 hope  I  have  prov'd  *  in  another  Place  •,  and  there- 
 fore, Repentance  for  it,  as  a  Fault  againfl:  a  Cir- 
 cumftantial Law  0;7/v,when  'tis  in  truth,  a  Rebellion 
 againfl:  all  Law  whatsoever,  as  well  Ejjential  as  G>- 
 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  Commiffiorid  A8s,  and  fo  a  Falfe  and  Counter- 
 feit Repentance.  The  Penitent  then,  muft  wave 
 his  pretended  Right  to  the  "Privileges  of  a  Com- 
 miflion'd  Baptifin  5  and  feek  for  them,  by  endea- 
 vouring to  procure  Baptifm  from  thofe  who  are 
 Cmmifforid  to  give  it  him  5  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, 
 
 *  laj-Baptifm  Invalid* 
 
 *  v/ill 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay *Baptifmy  Examined,  Zee*       161 
 
 will  not  "remain  to  his  Vunifhment*  as  StAu* 
 guftin  fays  it  will*  if  the  Uibrpation  "  be  not 
 "  corrected    by   a  fincere  and  affectionate  Repent* 
 
 ance. ' 
 
 As  for  St.  Auguftins  Simile  about  unlawful  Coin- 
 ing  of  Money,  I  have  anfwer'd  it  long  fince  in 
 *  another  Book  to  which  the  Reader  is  referred  : 
 And  I  have  infilled  thus  long  on  St.  Auguftins 
 Notions,  which  he  advane'd  in  Defence  of  Lay- 
 Ufurpations  ;  becaufe  (as  I  have  proved)  they 
 were  only  his  own  private  Opinions,  and  not  the 
 Senfe  of  the  Ancient  Catholick  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  notwithstand- 
 ing ( in  the  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  Pin,  conclude  all  that  I  have  to  fay  of  the 
 Great  St.  Augujiin,  by  fhewing  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  him,  as 
 their  great  Leader  and  Guide,  in  Matters  of  Di- 
 vinity.      Du  Pin's  Words  are  thefe  :  ||  "  He 
 
 \j*e.  St.Auguftin']  <c  ftarts  fever al  ^ueflions  never 
 
 thought  of  before,  and  refolves  many  of  them  by 
 cc  the  meer  ftrength  of  his  Wit.  He  often  left  the 
 <c  Notions  of  his  Predeceffors,  to  follow  a  Pat& 
 
 fotjailp  I2eto,  whether  in  ©cpatsnwnjj  t&e 
 
 @CriptUre5  or  in  Opinions  of  Divinity.     That 
 
 *  Diffemers  and  other  Vnauthori^dBaptifrns  Null  Arid  fold,  8c& 
 +  Appendix  to  the  Bijhop  of  Oxford'/  Chtrge,  Anno  1712. 
 ||  Vh  Pin's  Etc lef.  Hift.  Cent.  V.  ^.  206,  207.   Lgnd. 
 
 M  "  mfy 
 
 cc 
 
«-.c 
 
 162         Teflimomes  for  and  again  ft     Part  II, 
 
 **  may  be  faid  of  him  as  to  Divinity^  which  Cicero 
 ^  /aid  of  bimfelf  as  to  Philofophy,  That  he  was 
 "  ^agt1U3  flDptttatOfc"  —    [A  great   Opi- 
 
 niator.  ]  u  i/<?  framed  (if  we  may  Jo  fay) 
 
 "  the  Body  of  Divinity  for  all  the  Latin  Fathers  that 
 came  after  him.  They  have  not  only  taken  out  of 
 hfs  Books  the  Principles  they  make  life  of  but 
 w  often  they  have  only  copied  them."  So  that  it  will 
 be  no  wonder,  to  find  fome  of  the  Latin  Writers 
 after  him,  afferting  the  fame  as  he  did,  in  behalf 
 of  Lay-Baptifms  :  But  all  that  he  has  faid,  a- 
 mounts  to  no  Evidence,  that  Baptifm  by  Perfons 
 never  CommifTion'd,  was  Good  and  Valid,  in  the 
 General  Senfe  and  PraUice  of  the  Ancient  Church. 
 And  as  for  his  own  Opinions  in  this  Matter,  they 
 ftand  upon  fuch  weak  Foundations.,  (as  has  been 
 already  prov'd )  that  they  are  of  no  Importance 
 to  our  prefent  Enquiry. 
 
 $  XXIX.  Gelafws  Bifhop  of  Rome,  Anno  492. 
 is  Mr.  Bingham's  next  fuppofed  Evidence  i  Our 
 Reverend  Hiftorian  tells  us,  pag.  36.  That  this 
 Bifhop,  in  his  Epiftle  to  the  Bifhops  of  Lucania, 
 Brutia,  and  Sicily,  *  "  Refrains  the  Office  of  Bap- 
 w  tizing  in  Ordinary  Cafes  to  Bifhops  and  Presbyters 
 c  only  •,  excluding  beacons  from  it,  except  in  Cafes 
 c  of  Extreme  "Neceffity,  when  the  Superior  Minifters 
 41  were  abfent :  In  which  Cafes,  it  was  often  &h 
 "  lOUl'B  to  Lay-Chriftians  to  perform  it. ?  And 
 the  Inference  that  Mr.  Bingham  draws  from  hence, 
 is  this  5  "  So  that  Lay-men  had  ag  ttUlClj  9lttf)0* 
 u  tltp  to  perform  it  in  the  Abfence  of  Deacons, 
 *c  ag  DeaC01tS  Ijall  to  do  it  in  the  Abfence  of 
 £  the  Presbyters  and  Bifhop. " 
 
 *  Gtlaf.  Epift.fy  ad  Epifcop*  Luc  an.  cj/>.  9. 
 
 But 
 
Chap.  J.     Lay-Baftifm,  ExamhPdy  &c.       163 
 
 But  in  Anfwer  to  this,  i/?,  Mr.  Bingham  has  not 
 prov'd,  neither  can  he  prove,  That  the  Apoftles 
 ever  Authorized  Lay-men  to  Baptize  at  all  ^  and  he 
 cannot  deny,  but  acknowledges  that  they  did  Au- 
 thorize Deacons  :    So  that,  by  Apoftolick  Inftitu- 
 tion,   Deacons  had  Authority   to  Baptize  in  Ab- 
 fence  of  the  Superior  Orders  •,  which  Authority,  in 
 Ab fence  of  the  Deacons,  appears  never  to  have  been 
 given  by  the  Apoftles  to  Lay-men.       idly,  He  has 
 not  prov  d,  That  the  attCteitt  CatljOllCk  CljUtCij 
 gave  Authority  to  Lay-men  to  Baptize  in  abfence 
 of  the  Deacons  •,  and  'tis  notorious,  that  it  was 
 the  Office  of  the  Deacons  to  do  this  in  abfence  of 
 the  Bifhops  and  Presbyters.      From  which  Con- 
 federations  'tis   evident,   that   Mr.  Bingham's    In- 
 ference from*Gelaf!z/s  is   a  Miftake^  when  he  fays, 
 That  a  Lay-men  had  ag  ttlUClj  aUtf)0?ttP  to  [Bap- 
 "  tize~]  in  the  abfence  of  Deacons^  as  Deacons  had 
 *c  to  do  it  in  the  abfence  of  the  Presbyters  and 
 "  Bijhops  5  for  Lay-men  never  were  fo  Author  iz'd  by* 
 the  Apoftles,  or  by  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church, 
 as  Deacons  were.      And  now  let  us  enquire  into 
 the  Force  of  what  Gelafws  himfelf  fays  about  Lay- 
 mens  Baptizing. 
 
 We  are  feeking  for  the  General  Senfe  and  Pra- 
 ctice of  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church,  iff,  In  re- 
 fpect  to  Lay-mens  Baptizing,  by  virtue  of  a  fup- 
 pos'd  Authority  given  to  them  ^  and  2d/y,  In  rela- 
 tion to  Baptifm  by  Perfons,  who  never  were  at  all 
 Commiilion'd  for  that  Purpofe. 
 
 As  for  the  Firft,  Gehfiws  "Words  point  out 
 nothing  whereby  we  can  dheover  any  fuch  general 
 Senfe  and  'Practice  of  the  Church  ^  he  referrs  us  to  no 
 general  Council,  no  Catholick  conftant  Tradition 
 from  the  Apoftles  Day  si,  whereon  to  found  the  Au- 
 thority of 'Lay-men .-— — He  fays  only  of  Baptizing 
 
 M  2  '  when 
 
164         Tejli monies  for  and  again  ft      P  a  r  t  IL 
 
 when  extreme  Necefllty  compels  [by  reafon  of  the 
 Abfence  of  the  Clergy]  that  ["LaicisChriftianisfa- 
 "  cere  plerumque  COHCEDttUt:  X  ]  It  U  often  [or 
 fometimes]  iC  gtantEft  to  Lay-men  to  perform  tf." 
 This  do's  not  determine  tDl)0  they  were  that  gtft!tt£t) 
 this,  nay  more,  it  fhews,  that  even  then  it  was 
 HOt  alttftpjS  granted  -,  and  it  is  therefore  impoffible 
 from  hence  to  conclude,  that  it  was  the  ancient 
 Catbolick  Church's  ®?attt  \  and  if  it  was  not  hers, 
 'tis  no  matter  whofe  it  was  elfe.  It  may  be  Gela- 
 fim  himfelf,  or  fome  of  his  late  Predecejfors,  Bi- 
 fhops  of  Rome,  made  this  Grant  to  impower  fome 
 of  their  own  Lay-men  for  fuch  Cafes,  as  the  Spanifh 
 Bifhops  in  the  Council  of  Eliberis  had  done  before 
 them  ^  or  elfe  it  may  be,  that  Gelafius  only  points 
 at  what  thofe  Spanifh  Bifhops  had  done :  But  whe- 
 ther it  be  one,  or  the  other5  or  both  of  thefe,  it 
 amounts  to  nothing  but  the  Practice  of  fome  parti- 
 cular Bifhops,  not  of  the  ancient  Catbolick  Church  : 
 Kay  further,  if  this  had  been  (as  it  certainly  was 
 not)  the  ancient  Church* s  general  Senfe  and  Praclice, 
 yet  this  Paffage  of  Gelafius  would  not  have  been  an 
 Evidence,  that  pretended  Baptifm,  by  Perfons  never 
 commijfiond  to  Baptize,  was  the  general  Senfe  and 
 VraSice  of  the  Church.    For, 
 
 Secondly^  His  faying,  "  It  is  granted  to  Lay-Chri- 
 "  liians-^  plainly  fhews,  that  they  had  not  the 
 Authority  and  Power  in  themfelves  as  Lay-Chri- 
 ftians :  For  the  Thing  JJtattteO  was  not  in  their 
 Power  before  'twas  JjnUttEtl  $  if  it  was,  then  it  was 
 HO  @?attt,  and  it  would  have  been  a  meer  Jeft  to 
 talk  of  granting  a  PafoeC  to  Lay-Chriftians,  if 
 they  had  it  in  themfelves  without  fuch  a  ®y\\\t  ♦ 
 Lay-Chriftians,  as  fuch  therefore,  had  no  fuch 
 Power,  becaufe  Gelafius  fays  it  was  granted  to 
 them.    Confequently,  if  they  could  have  fuch  a 
 
 Power 
 
Chap,  j,     Laji-Baptifwy  Examir^d^hc^       165 
 
 Power  conferrd  on  them,  this  would  not  prove  any 
 thing  in  Behalf  of  thofe,  who  evidently  have  it  not, 
 and  indeed  never  bad  it  ;  which  is  the  Cafe  of  our 
 Laicks,  againft  whofe  pretended  Baptifms  we  are 
 now  difputing.  And  therefore  Gelajlus  is  no 
 Evidence  for  any  Validity  in  fuchfpurious  Bap- 
 tifms. 
 
 §  XXX.  lfidore,  Bimop  olSevil  in  Spain ,  about 
 one  hundred  Years  after  Gelaft/s,  viz.  Anno  795*. 
 is  Mr.  Bingham 's  next  fuppos'd  Evidence,  pag.  37. 
 And  our  Reverend  Hiflorian  gives  us  that  Bifhop's 
 Words  thus  :  *  u  It  is  unlawful  either  for  private 
 "  Men^  or  the  inferior  Clergy,  [Clericis  fineGradu] 
 (who  were  Lay-men  J  "  to  Baptize*,  for  the  Office  be- 
 "  longs  only  to  Priefts.  We  read  in  the  Gofpel  that 
 cc  it  was  given  by  CommiJJion  to  no  other  but  the  Apo- 
 x  files  -,  Jefus  after  bit  RefurreUion,  faying  unto 
 "  them,  as  my  Father  hath  fent  me,  fo  fend  I 
 "  you  -,  And  when  he  had  faid  this  he  breathed  on 
 c<  them,  faying,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Gbojl*  Who- 
 "  fbever  Sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto 
 "  them^  and  whofoever  Sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
 "  retaind.  And  in  another  Place,  Go  Teach  all 
 Cc  Nations^  Baptizing  them  In  the  Name  of  the 
 "  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
 "  Whence  it  is  manifeft,  tbat  the  MiniJIry  ojBaptifm 
 "  was  committed  only  to  Priefts  *,  nor  is  it  lawful  for 
 "  Deacons  them) elves  to  perform  the  Myftery  without 
 "  a  Bijhop  or  a  Presbyter :  Except  in  their  Abfence^ 
 "  the  extreme  Necejjity  of  Sicknefs  compel  them  to 
 <c  do  it.  In  which  Cafe  alfo  LayChriftians  are  often 
 "  permitted  to  do  it$  left  any  onejhould  be  called 
 
 *  Jfidor.  de  Offic.  Ecckfiaf.  Lib.  2.  c .  24, 
 
 M  3  *  hi 
 
j  66         Tejt monies  for  and,  again jl     Part  II. 
 
 a  out  of  the  World  without  the  Remedy  or  Means  of 
 <c  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,  Ifidore  founds  the  Power  of  Baptizing 
 upon  the  Commiilion  given  to  the  Apoftles:  So  far 
 we  are  agreed.  Secondly,  He  hence  infers,  That 
 u  the  Mini/try  of  Baptifm  was  committed  only  to 
 "  Friefts. M  Now  if  by  Priefts  he  means  only  Bi- 
 fhops  and  Presbyters,  J/idore  himfelf  wras  miftaken  $ 
 for  that  Mimftry  was  given  alfo  by  the  Apoftles  to 
 Deacons,  as  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  has  very  juftly  < 
 obfervd  j  fee  p.  3.  of  his  Scbolaflical  Hiflory.  Con- 
 fequently,  by  the  Divine  Law,  °twa*  Lawful  for  Dea- 
 cons to  Baptize.  But,  Thirdly,  Ifidore  fays,  It  is 
 not  "  Lawful  for  Deacons  the  mf elves  to  perform  the 
 **  My  fiery  [Myfterium — explere  abfque  Epifcopis  vel 
 u  Presbyteris~]  or  rather  to  perfect  the  Myftery, 
 u  without  the  Bifhops  or  Presbyters:  Except,  in 
 *e  their  Abfence,  the  extreme  ~Necejfity  of  Sicknefs 
 €C  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, 
 but  only  Baptize  in  their  Abfence :  Therefore,  when 
 Ifidore  fays,  'tis  not  Lawful  for  them  to  Baptize,  &c> 
 He  cannot  be  fuppos'd  to  reckon  them  but  equal  to 
 Laicks^.for  'tis  plain,  that  the  Apoftles  gave  them 
 Power  to  Baptize,  which  they  did  not  give  to  Laicks. 
 And  therefore  their  Exercife  of  that  Power,  in  an 
 irregular  Circumftance,  when  Bifhops  and  Presby- 
 ters were  prefent3  or  might  be  had,  tho'  it  was  un- 
 lawful, yet  it  was  not  fo  with  refpect  to  the  EfTence 
 of  the  Commiffion,  as  if  they  never  had  received 
 any  Commiffion  at  all  ^  but  'twas  only  unlawful 
 v/ith  refpefl  to  the  Circumstance  of  Order :  It  being 
 
 3  ftand- 
 
Chap,  l .     Lay-Baptifm,  Examined,  &c.       16.7 
 
 a  Handing  Law  of  the  Church,  that  Deacons  mould 
 a£t  inSubordination  to  Bifhops  and  Prefby  ters,  and 
 give  way  to  them  in  Sacred  Miniftrations.  fourth- 
 ly,  His  telling  us  of  the  Power  of  Baptizing  in 
 want  of  the  Clergy  \§>uoi  &  Laick  fidelibt/s  pier  uni- 
 que permittitur,  &c]  That  "  it  is  often  [or  fome- 
 times]  "  permitted  [allowed  or  granted~]  to  Lay? 
 cc  Chnftians  to  Baptize,  /eft  any  one  fhould  be  calTA 
 "  out  of  the  World  without  the  Remedy  or  Means  of 
 "  Salvation  -, ,3  is  ftill  confining  the  Power  of  Bap- 
 tizing to  a  fuppos'd  Commiffion  to  be  firft  received, 
 and  abundantly  fhews,  that  Lay-Chriftians  have 
 not  that  Power  in  themfelves  as  Chriftians,  but  it 
 muft  be  acquir'd  by  an  explicit  Yermijfion  or  Grants 
 fo  that,  if  fuch  a  Commiffion  could  be  given  to  Lay- 
 Chriftians,  yet  even  then,  this  PafTage  would  not 
 favour  the  Wafhings  performed  by  our  Laicks,  who 
 never  had  any  Commiffion  at  all.  And  further,  here 
 is  no  Evidence  that  Lay-men  were  in  the  general 
 Senfe  and  Praclice  of  the  Church  impowerd  to  Bap- 
 tize in  Abfence  of  the  Clergy.  Ifidore  appeals  to 
 no  general  Council,  or  uninterrupted  ancient  Catholick 
 Tradition  or  Yratlice :  And  being  a  Spanijh  Bifhop, 
 ^tis  juft  and  reafonable  to  believe,  that  he  only  has 
 an  eye  to  the  Practice  of  the  Spanijh  Church,  in  Con- 
 fequence  of  their  Council  of  Eliberis,  which  was  no 
 general  Council,  and  determined  nothing  relating  to 
 Warnings  by  Perfons  who  never  were  commiffion  1 
 to  Baptize. 
 
 As  for  fome  Mens  particular  Opinions  about  the 
 Minifter  of  Baptifm,  'tis  no  wonder  that  [efpeciall? 
 after  St.  Auguftin's  Days]  they  ran  fuch  unaccount- 
 able Lengths,  as  at  laft  to  reckon,  that  'twas  no 
 matter  who  perform' d  it,  fo  that  'twas  done  with 
 Water  and  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ^  for  they 
 follow'd  the  Opinion  of  that  Father,  That  Water, 
 
 M  4  and 
 
1 68        Testimonies  for  and  againfi      Part  II. 
 
 and  the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  were  abfolutely  ne- 
 ceffary  to  the  Salvation  of  all  Men.  St.  Auguftin  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  laft,  that  they  in  exprefs 
 Terms  affirm'd  Baptifm  to  be  valid,  tho'  performed 
 by  a  Pagan.  Thus  Cratian  reckons  Jfidore  *  to 
 have  affirmed  ^  which  if  true,  fhews  how  valuable 
 his  Authority  is  in  the  Cafe  of  Baptifm  perform'd 
 hy  fuppefedly  authorized  Lay-Cbriftians.  So  the  fame 
 Gratian  quotes  a  t  Pope  of  Rome  afferting  the  Vali- 
 dity of  Baptifm  by  a  Pagan ;  and  in  ||  another 
 Place,  that  it  is  all  one  whether  perform'd  by  a 
 Chriftian  or  Pagan,  fo  that  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  fo 
 fcaptiz'd  ought  not  to  receive  any  other  Baptifm. 
 So  extravagant  have  Men  been  in  their  Notions  of 
 the  meer  Imitation  of  an  opm  operatum  in  this  mat- 
 ter. But  Mr.  Bingham  confeffes  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  Eaptifma  quod  a  Pagano  Miniftratur. 
 'Apud  Gmthn  de  Confecrat,  Diji.q..  cap.  xxii.  /><*£.  1983.  Edit. 
 Taur.  1620. 
 
 f  Romanus  Pontifex,  non  hominem  judicat  qui  Baptist :  fed 
 fpiritum  Dei  fubminiftrare  gratiam  Baptifmi  licet  Faganus  fit 
 flui  Baprizat.  Ibid,  £<*/>.  xxiii. 
 
 II  A  quodam  Judeo  nefcitis  utrum  Chriftiano  an  pagano, 
 raultos  in  patria  veftra  baptizatos  arteritis,  &  quid  de  iis  fit 
 agendum  confulitis.  Hi  profeflo  fi  in  Nomine  Sanfta?  Trinitatis, 
 vel  tantum  in  Chrifti  Nomine,  ficut  in  aftibus  Apoftolorum  legi- 
 inus,  baptizaci  funt  (unum  quippe  idcmque  eft,  ut  fanftus  ex- 
 ponit  Ambrofios  [  Lib.  i.  de  Spiritu  Santto,  cap,  3.I  conftat  eos 
 ;ion  clfe  denua  baptizandos,  toii.  <aj>.  xxiv. 
 
 fiorCH 
 
Chap.  j.      Lay-Baptijm9  Examwdy&cc       169 
 
 fortd  at  all  to  Baptize,  is  as  much  a  Novelty  of 
 corrupt  Popery,  fince  the  ancient  Catbolick  Church 
 never  determined  any  thing  in  favour  of  thefe,  any 
 more  than  Ihe  did  in  favour  of  Pagan  Baptifm  ;  and 
 a  Pagan  &a0  30  UtUClj  Power  and  Authority  to  Bap- 
 tize, as  our  Laicks  who  never  were  commijjiorid  any 
 more  than  he. 
 
 XXXI.  Our  Reverend  Hiftorian  is  fbfenfible,  that 
 what  he  has  produc'd  from  the  Antients  is  nothing  to 
 the  Purpofe  of  pretended  Baptifms  by  Perfons  never 
 commiflion'd -,  that  he  fums  up  his  whole  Evidence 
 in  a  very  remarkable  Manner,  in  thefe  Words, 
 pag.  38.  cQ  Thus  we  havefeen  [Jays  he"]  forfixbun- 
 "  dred  Tears,  the  gettetal  %ZXtiZ  ftttD  P?aCtICC 
 "  of  the  antient  Church,  gtQWXOtfyattheyfuppofe, 
 "  upon  the  ComttUflSOt!  given  to  the  Apofiles, 
 cc  whereby  Bifhops,  as  the  Apoflles  Succejjors^  are 
 cc  qualified  firft  to  give  Baptifm  themfelves,  and  then 
 "  to  grant  a  ComtlUlUOn  to  others  to  Baptize, 
 <c  and  that  either  to  Presbyters  or  beacons,  or  to 
 "  Presbyters  alone  in  QMMiy  Cafe0,  and  in  Cafes 
 "  extraordinary  and  of  extreme  Neceffity  to  Deacons 
 "  and  Lay-men"  Thus  Mr.  Bingham  acknowledges, 
 that  all  his  Evidences  confpire  in  this,  that  the 
 general  Senfe  and  PraUice  of  the  ancient  Church  was, 
 that  Baptifm,  whether  in  ordinary  or  extraordinary 
 Cafes,  was  adminiftred  by  the  Bifhop,  or  elfe  by 
 fuch  as  had  [or  at  leafl:  were  fuppos'd  to  have  had  ] 
 an  Epifcopal  Commiffion  to  Baptize-,  from  whence 
 it  necefTarily  follows,  that  even  thisfuppos'd  gene- 
 ral Senfe  and  PraUice  of  the  Church,  as  ftated  by 
 Mr.  Bingham,  does  not  give  Countenance  to  the 
 Validity  of  pretended  Baptifms  perform'd  fl?Htna- 
 nlp  as  well  as  ejtfrafljDtttanlP,  by  Perfons  who 
 never  had  an  EpjJ rcopal  Commiffion,  and  who  yet 
 
 prefume 
 
170  Teflimonies  for  and  again  ft     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  Practice  of 
 the  Ancient  Church,  that  even  in  Cafes  of  Extreme 
 'Kecefjity,  we  fee  Baptifm  was  fuppos'd  to  be  per- 
 formed, by  none  but  fuch  as  were  reckon'd  to  be 
 Jmpowerd  by  the  Bifhop :  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  Praffice  of 
 the  Ancient  Church  for  the  firft  600  Years  of 
 Chriftianity,  by  Mr.  Binghams  own  Account  of 
 the  Matter,  whereby  he  makes  Baptifm,  even  in 
 Cafes  of  Extreme  Necefity,  to  be  founded  upon  a 
 Commijfion  given  by  Bifhops  to  Deacons  and  Lay-men 
 to  Baptize, 
 
 §  XXXII.  But  not  to  leave  this  Matter  here  h 
 I  affirm,  That  all  Mr.  Binghams  Evidence  fumm'd 
 up  together,  do's  not  amount  to  fo  much  as  a 
 Proof,  That  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church's  Senfe 
 and  Practice  for  the  firft  600  Years,  was,  to  Com- 
 miffion  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, 
 
 TertuMarfs  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  Bifhops  5  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-Baptijnij  Examined,  &c.      171 
 
 tion  upon  which  he  grounds  their  pretended  Power, 
 has  been  already  overthrown. 
 
 The  Council  of  Eliberis,  which  made  a  Canon 
 to  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  Tertullians  No- 
 tion 5  and  that  it  was  but  a  Provincial  Council  of 
 Spanijh  Bifhops,  not  a  General  Council,  and  there- 
 fore not  Declaratory  of  the  General  Senfe  and  Pra- 
 ctice of  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church  •,  fince,  in 
 the  whole  fpace  of  the  firft  600  Years,  this  Council 
 ftands  lingular  by  it  felf  ^  no  other  Council  what- 
 foever,  whether  General  or  Provincial,  during  that 
 Period,  made  any  fuch  Canon. 
 
 The  Story  of  the  Boy  Atbanafiws  Baptizing  his 
 Play-fellows  in  Sporty  and  of  Alexander's  determin- 
 ing, that  the  Children  mould  have  no  other  Bap- 
 tifm  •,  befides  its  being  Fabulous,  is  no  Inftance  of 
 a  Laicks  Baptizing  by  the  Bifhop's  Commiffion 
 and  Authority  :  If  it  had  been  true,  it  would  not 
 have  been  an  Inftance  of  the  General  Senfe  and  Pra- 
 ctice of  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church  ^  being,  upon 
 that  Suppofition,  but  the  Private  Ad  of  one  fingle 
 Biihop  only  :  Nay  farther,  the  fuppofing  the  whole 
 Story  to  be  true,  and  the  Determination  thereupon 
 to  be  juft  and  good,  would  naturally  tend  to 
 the  Expofing  of  all  Divine  Infti  tut  ions,  to  be  Ridi- 
 cul'd  and  Defpis'd,  as  inlignificant  and  Childifli 
 things,  and  fo  make  way  for  the  Extirpation  of  all 
 RevealM  Religion  out  of  the  World. 
 
 St.  Jerorns  Saying,  Of  the  Lawfulnefs  of  Laicks 
 Baptizing  in  Cafe  of  Neceflity,  has  been  prov'd 
 to  be  built  on  TertuUiarfs  falfe  Foundation  5  to  be 
 po  Inftance  of  the  General  Senfe  and  Pratfice  of  the 
 
 Ancient 
 
172        Teftimonies  for  and  againji     Part  IL 
 
 Ancient  Catbolick  Church  •,  but  to  be  an  Inconfiftency 
 with  himfelf,  and  a  Contradiction  to  that  Catholick 
 Principle,  whereby  he  confuted  the  Luciferian  Schif- 
 matick,  who  reckon'd  the  Avian  Clergy  to  be  but 
 Lay-men,  and  whofe  Baptifm,  St.  Jerom  affirm'd, 
 ought  therefore  to  be  rejected,  if  the  Lucifer ians 
 Opinion  were  true. 
 
 St.  Auguftins  Opinions  have  been  examin'd  *,  he 
 proves  nothing,  but  fuppofes  the  Validity  of  an 
 Imitated  Opus  Operatum^  without  any  Argument  j 
 he  fpeaks  things  upon  Hear-fay  only  -,  he  hefitates, 
 and  cannot  determine,  as  to  his  Knowledge^  about 
 Ufurped  Lay-Baptifms  being  Valid  ^  he  gives  us 
 no  Proof  of  any  General  Council,  nor  of  any  Tra- 
 dition {hewing  the  General  Senfe  and  Practice  of 
 the  Ancient  Catholick  Church,  for  Laymens  being 
 Authorized  to  Baptize.      And, 
 
 Laftly,  Gelafius  and  Jfidorey  tho'  they  fay  that 
 Lay-men  were  often  Author 'izd  to  Baptize,  in  Cafe 
 of  Neceffity,  yet  neither  of  them  points  at  the 
 General  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church  •,  No  Ge- 
 neral Council,  No  Catholick  Tradition,  No  Uni- 
 verfal  Practice  of  the  Bifhops  of  the  Catholick 
 Church  •,  they  leave  us  in  the  dark,  as  to  thefe  3 
 and  therefore  'tis  juft  and  reafonable  to  inferr, 
 that  they  fpeak  only,  either  of  their  own  or  fbme 
 other  particular  Mens  Practices,  and  therefore  are 
 of  No  Authority  to  us  in  this  Matter. 
 
 Upon  the  Whole,  The  profound  Silence  of  the 
 Days  of  the  Apoftles  and  Apoftolick  Fathers,  and 
 of  the  Three  firfl:  Centuries  of  Chriftianity,  con- 
 cerning Lay- mens  being  at  all  Commijfiond  to  Bap- 
 tize, is  a  full  Proof,  that  the  Bifhop's  Authorizing 
 of  them  to  Baptize,  can  never  be  founded  on  any 
 CatfjOltCfe  CtatltttOlt  of  the  Primitive  Church 
 ofCbnft :    And  more,  If  there  had  in  truth  been 
 
 fucb 
 
Chap.  J-     Lay-Baptifmy  Examined,  8c c.       175 
 
 fuch  a  Cat&OltCfe  CtraWttOn?even  from  the  Times 
 of  the  Apoftles  to  this  Day,  [as  there  never  was,] 
 yet  ftill  this  would  be  of  no  Advantage  to  the  pre- 
 tended Baptifms  of  our  Laicks,  [/.  e.  our  Diffenters^] 
 who  were  never  Commiffion'd  by  Bifhops3  [and 
 indeed,  who  cannot  be  Commiffion'd,  for  they  have 
 HO  TBfl&OplS]  to  Baptize. 
 
 This  is  the  Refult  of  all  Mx.Bingbams  Evidences: 
 But  at  the  End  of  this  Book,  I  fhall  fum  up  the 
 whole  Evidence  for  and  againft  B^tiGn  byPerfbns 
 who  never  were  Commijfiorid^  or  who  were  fuppos'd 
 to  have  no  Commiffion^  to  Baptize  *,  which  it  is  not 
 fo  proper  to  do  here,  before  I  have  Anfwerd 
 Mr.  Bingham's  Objections,  againft  feveral  of  the 
 Teftimonies  of  the  Ancient  Fathers  againft  Unau- 
 thorized Baptifms,  and  alfo  his  ObjeSions  relating 
 to  the  Antient  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptifms 
 allow'd  of  by  the  Church,  which  Mr.  Bingham 
 endeavorus  to  make  look  like  our  Unauthorized 
 Lay-Baptifms. 
 
 CHAR 
 
i  74     Objections  againft  St.  Cyprian,  Part  II. 
 
 CHAP.    IV. 
 
 A n swe rs^ Mr. Bingham'/  Objections, 
 againft  the  Teftimonies  of  St.  Cyprian, 
 St.  Bafil,  and  St.  Chryfoftom,  who  reckon  d 
 fretended  Baftifms  by  Perfons  never  Com- 
 mifjiotfd)  to  be  Null  and  Void. 
 
 Object.  *"*■"*  H  E  Evidence  of  thofe  Three 
 I.  5        Fathers  I  have  already  fhewn, 
 
 JL    cbap.m.  §  xii5  xin,  xxin, 
 
 XXIV.  And  our  Reverend  Hifiorian,  in  his  38th 
 Page,  fays,  That  if  their  Evidence  were  entirely  on 
 our  Side,  "  It  would  not  weigh  iH&J)  \Xi\\t\)  ^  becaufe 
 cc  it  would  be  only  their  Private  Senfe,  and  not  the 
 "  Pr  alike  of  the  Church?  which  is  the  Subjell  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  Commiffiorfd  to  Baptize^  is  Null  and 
 Void.  Thefe  Three  Fathers,  (befides  others  which 
 I  have  produced  )  are  entirely  with  us  in  this  Point, 
 as  I  have  already  prov'd.  Mr.  Bingham  has  brought 
 rio  Evidence  of  any  One  Church  upon  Earth,  for 
 the  firft  Six  hundred  Years  of  Chriftianity,  de- 
 termining the  contrary  ;  the  Story  of  the  Boy 
 Atbanafuts  Baptizing  his  Play-fellows,  and  of  the 
 Church  of  Alexandria*  allowing  it  to  be  Valid, 
 having  been  prov'd  to  be  but  a  meer  Fiction  :  So 
 that  all  Mr.  Bingham's  Evidence  for  this  Side  of  the 
 Queftion,  is  from  no  other  than  the  Private  Opi- 
 nion s  oiTertullian  and  St.  Jerom^  Two  Presbyters  5 
 
 and 
 
Chap.  4.    St.  Bafil,  65V.    AnftvefL  175 
 
 and  Optatus  and  St.  Auguftin,  Two  Bifhops*  the 
 Two  firft  upon  falfe  Principles,  and  the  other  Two 
 meerly  upon  their  own  private  Opinion,  without 
 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  prov'd. 
 
 As  for   any   other  Evidence  Mr.  Bingham   has 
 brought,  viz.  from  the  Spanifh  Council  of  Eliberis, 
 St.  Auguftin^  Gelafws  and  Ifidore,  they  wholly  relate 
 only  to  ftzytfim  fuppos^d  to  have  been  authorized  by 
 Bijhops  -j  which  is  foreign  to  our  prefent  Enquiry, 
 tho3  even  tljCJ?  are  no  Proofs  of  the  general  Senfe 
 and  PraUice  of  the  Church,  but  only  fhow  how  far 
 fome   Bifhops  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  pra&is'd  rightly  or  no, 
 this  is  certain,  that  their  particular  Practice  has 
 not  been  prov  d  to  be  the  Senfe  and  PraUice  of  the 
 ancient  Catholick  Church.    And  further ;  nothing  in 
 favour  of  pretended  Baptifms,  by  Laicks  never  au- 
 thorized by  their  Bifliops,  and  a&ing  in  oppofition 
 to  them,  can  be  at  all  inferr'd  therefrom.    And 
 therefore  the  Teftimonies  of  St.  Cyprian,    St.  Baf/y 
 and  St.  Chryfoftom,  againft  the  Validity  of  fpurious 
 Baptifms  perfonnd  by  Perfons  who   never  were 
 Epifcopally  CommiffionM,  and  therefore  have  no 
 Priefi/y  Power  to  Baptize,  are  of  very  great  Weight 
 and  Importance^    lft,  Becaufe  their  Evidence  is 
 founded  on  the  Divine  Pofitive  Inftitution  of  Bap- 
 tifiti;    idly,   Becaufe  it  is  corroborated  by  other 
 concurring  Evidence ;  And  ^dly,  Becaufe  it  never 
 was  gainfay'd  or  opposed  by  any  Law  or  Tradition 
 of  the  ancient  Catholick  Church,  nor  fo  much  as 
 by  any  authentick  Law  or  Tradition  of  but  one 
 Particular,  Ancient,  Orthodox  Church  of  Chrift. 
 
 But 
 
i7 6     Objections  againfi  St.  Cyprian,  Part.  IL 
 
 But  Mr.  Bingham  has  particular  Objections  againft 
 the  Evidence  of  thofe  Fathers  refpe&ively,  which 
 I  now  come  to  Anfwer. 
 
 Object.  II.    He  fays,   "  When  Chryfoftom 
 "  COnfine^  the  Office  of  Baptifm  to  the  Hands  of  a 
 
 cc  P?iett,  he  only  means  in  o?mnat|>  Cafes, 
 
 ?  otherwife  Deacons,  who  are  UO  P^tCffjSj  would 
 c  be  abfOltttelP  excluded  from  it  in  aU  Cafes  what- 
 foever,  as  well  as  Lay-men  ♦,  and  yet  Chryfoftom 
 allOitJg  DeaCOttS  to  Baptize  in  Cafes  ofNecejfity, 
 which  makes  it  evident,  that  his  Difcourfe  only  re- 
 lates to  the  Miniftration  of  Baptifm  in  ordinary 
 Cafes. 
 
 cc 
 
 IC 
 
 Answ.  All  this  is  very  fallacious ;  for  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham cannot  fairly  deny,  that  Deacons  are  fo  far 
 Priefts  as  they  are  impower'd  to  Baptize :  See  what 
 I  have  faid,  p.  I 6,  &  17.  Himfelf  fays.  That  Baptifm 
 performed  by  the  Bifhop's  Authority,  was  reputed 
 as  his  AS:  See  his  8th  Page.  He  therefore  muft 
 acknowledge,  that  when  Deacons  Baptize  by  virtue 
 of  that  Commiffion  they  received  from  the  Bifhop,  'tis 
 Baptifm  by  a  Priejily  Power  and  Authority,  and 
 done  by  the  Hands  of  a  Prieft,  a  Deacon  being  fo 
 far  a  Prieft  3  and  moreover  his  Aff  being  the  Bijhop's 
 Aff,  who  is  the  High  Priefl.  And  therefore  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham s  Objection  is  loft-,  for  'tis  plain,  that  St.Cbry- 
 foftom's  confining  the  Office  of  Baptifm  to  the  Hands 
 of  a  PtfCft,  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 h  and  therefore  St.  Chryfoftom  abfclutely  excludes 
 all  fuch,  as  can  upon  no  account  whatfoever  be  faid 
 to  be  vefted  with  Priejily  Authority,  viz.  all  who 
 
 never 
 
Chap.  4-     St.  Bafilj  tjc    Anfwefd.  177 
 
 never  were  authoriz'd  by  Bifhops  to  Baptize.  The 
 Reader  may  alfo  fee  Mr.  Bingham  s  whole  Objection 
 provided  againft  in  p.  114.  and  therefore  this  may 
 fuffice  here  in  Anfwer  thereto. 
 
 O  b  j.  III.  His  next  Objection  is  againft  St.  Bajifs 
 Evidence  thus,  in  his  39,  4o3  and  41  Pages,  6'As  to 
 St.  Bafil—  "  he  hadfomewhat  of  a  filtgttlat  SDptntan 
 
 *c  in  t  his  matt  er  ^  for  he  was  for  re-baptizing  all  Perfons 
 <c  that  were  only  baptized  tip  HftpllKt\>--But  he  was 
 
 u  not  Jo  ft  iff- as  to  unchriftian  thofe  that  were 
 
 4  baptized  by  Schifmaticks,  or  break  the  Communion 
 
 c  of  the  Church  upon  it :  tor  he  gives  his  Advice — 
 
 "  That  Menjhould  quietly  comply  with  the  Rules  and 
 
 "  Practice   of  their  own  Church  where  they  livd. 
 
 u  But  forafmuch  (fays  he)  as  fome  of  the  Afiatick 
 
 c  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.  '  cc  Whence  31  tljtttfe  (fays  Mr.  Bingham) 
 
 '  it  may  be  infer fd,  that  tbo*  St.  Bafil,  in  his  own 
 
 "  Opinion^  did  not  approve  of  the  Baptifm  either  of 
 
 c  Schifmaticks  or  Lay-men,  yet  he  thought  it  might 
 
 "  ft and  good \  if  the  Church  thought  fit  to  receive  and 
 
 c  confirm  it;  and  this  he  feems  to  after t  upon  the 
 
 c  common  Principle  of  the  Antients^  that  a  Latitude 
 
 '  of  Power  wai  left  with  the  Rulers  andGovernours 
 
 c  of  the  Church  to  ratifie  fuch  Baptifms,  when  they 
 
 c;  found  it  neceffary  for  the  Benefit  and  Edification  of 
 
 "  the  Church.     But  if  OtfjCtttHfe,  St.  BafilV  Opi- 
 
 c  nionm  cannot  Prejudice  the  contrary  Doffr'we,  or  be 
 
 "  thrown    into   the  Ballance  againft  the  COttlltlOtt 
 
 "  COnftttt  and  Pratfice  of  the  Church.     And  yet  it 
 
 Ci  may  be  obfervd,  that  St.  Bafil  fpeaks  perfiap& 
 
 c  not  of  Lay- Baptifm  in  Cafes  of  Neceffty,  but  of 
 
 "  ufurping  the  Office,  a/  Heretkks  did  in  OJtJfnatP 
 
 N  "  Cafes % 
 
178     Qh]ccticns  again  ft  St.  Cyprian,  Part  XL 
 
 "  CilfCS  t  Which  makes  a  wide  Difference  in  the 
 cc  Cafe,  and  belongs  to  a  UtO?C  Difficult  fldUCftlOll, 
 cc  that  is,  Whether  UltaittfjO?t?aD  15apttftt1g,  were 
 u  ever  tattfiEO  and  made  good  by  the  Jubfequent 
 <c  COHficmattOU  and  Reception  of  the  Church? 
 
 Answ,  The  Reader,  by  considering  what  I  have 
 faid  already,  Page  109,  Sec.  upon  St.  Bajifs  Evidence 
 againft  Lay-Baptifm,  may  obferve,  that  St.  Baft 
 fpeaks  of  Lay-men  as  Perfons  not  having  Authority 
 to  baptize  ^  that  he  makes  their  want  of  Power  and 
 Authority  to  be  the  Reafon  of  the  Invalidity  of 
 their  Baptizing 5  that  he  reckond  the  Schifmaticks 
 here  fpoken  of,  to  have  been  by  their  Separation 
 from  the  Church  redue'd  to  Lawmen,  and  that 
 confequently  they  had  ttO  }|3ott)Ct  to  minifter  in 
 holy  Things,  and  that  therefore  becaufe  they  were 
 as  Lay-men,  Perfons  without  Commiffion,  their 
 Baptifms  were  Null  and  Void :  And  'tis  notorious 
 againft  the  firft  part  of  Mr.  Bingham's  Objection, 
 that  he  was  not  Singular  in  this  Principle  ♦,  for  St. 
 Cyprian  and  Firmilian  are  quoted  by  him,  as  having 
 been  of  the  fame  Principle  5  and  I  have  alio 
 proved  from  St.  Cyprians  Works,  that  they  and 
 others  of  their  Colleagues  were  really  fo ;  and  con- 
 fequently Mr.  Bingham's  Charge  of  Singularity 
 againft  St.  Bajil  is  very  unfair,  efpecially  if  it  be 
 alfo  confider'd  that  his  Epiftle  to  Amphilochitss  Bi- 
 fhop  of  Iconium,  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.  Bafil 
 
 Now  for  the  Confequence  Mr.  Bingham  draws 
 from  that  Father's  acquiefcing  in  the  Practice  of 
 feme  Afiatick  Churches^   who  receiv'd  the  Baptifms 
 
 of 
 
Chap.  4.    St*  Bafil,  i§c.  Jnfwer'd.  179 
 
 of  Schifmaticks. cc  Whence  I  think  (fays  Mr. 
 
 Bingham)  "  it  may  be  inferrdy  that  tho  St.  Bafil, 
 "  in  his  own  Opinion \  did  not  approve  of  the  Bap' 
 cc  tifm,  either  0/  ©CfjtfiliattCfeg  or  JLajMrtfn,  yet 
 cc  he  thought  it  might  ftand  good,  if  the  Church 
 "  thought  fit  to  receive  and  confirm  it. "  Here  Mr. 
 Bingham  blends  and  confounds  together  2>Ci)tfttia*  * 
 tICal  and  JLap--'Bapttfm,  and  infers,  that  St.  Ba- 
 fil thought  they  might  bOtl)  UaitB  ffOOD  >  when 
 'tis  notorious  by  St.  Bafil"  s  Firft  Canon  of  that 
 Epiftle,  and  the  Conne&ion  of  his  Words,  that  he 
 fpeaks  of  nothing  elfe,  that  may  ftand  good,  but 
 the  ^  ©CljtfmattCal  'Bapttfmg  receivd  and  al- 
 lowed of  by  the  Afiatick  Churches  ^  and  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham might  have  feen  this,  even  in  St.  Bafil's  Words 
 as  himfelf  has  tranflated  them,  which  are  thefe  $ 
 w  But  forafmuch  as  fome  of  the  Afiatick  Churches 
 "  think  otherwife,  that  the  QBapttftll  Of  fttClfc 
 [viz.  of  the  Puritans^  Encratites,  Hydroparaflat&, 
 and  Apotattites,  the  Schifmaticks  he  was  juft  be- 
 fore fpeaking  of]  "  by  way  of  Difpenfation  for  the 
 "  fake  of  <D?m  ^UltttUBC£,  ought  to  be  re- 
 c  ceivd\  let  it  be  receivd"  I  fay,  from  thefe 
 very  Words,  'tis  plain,  that  St.  Bafil  fpeaks  of 
 none  but  the  S>Cf)tfmatttal  T5apttfm&  the  Bap- 
 tifins  receiv'd  by  cc  <S5#at  SPUitttUHe0  i"  for  we 
 know  that  thofe  Schifmaticks  were  Numerous^  and 
 that  confequently  fo  were  their  Baptifms,  yet  we 
 know  alfo  that  they  had  Epif copal  Orders  •,  and 
 whether  their  Orders  were  Null  and  Void,  by  rea- 
 fon  only  of  their  Schifm,  is  another  Queftion.  St. 
 Bafil  thought  they  were5  and  confequently  that 
 they  were  as  hay-men.  Some  Afiaticks  did  not 
 Null  their  Orders  •,  St.  Bafil  therefore,  for  the  fake 
 of  39UltttU5E0  concern'd  in  this,  and  becaufe  of 
 the  Practice  of  thofe  Afiatick  Churches  which  did 
 
 N  2  not 
 
i8o    Objections  againfi  St.  Cyprian,  Part.  IL 
 
 not  Null  the  Orders  of  thofe  Schifmaticks,  faid, 
 "  Let  their  Baptifm  be  receivd.  "  This  does  not 
 fignify,  that  he  meant,  Let  Lay-Baptifms,  Bap- 
 tifm s  by  Perfons  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 
 reduc'd  to  that  State,  as  they  were  by  the  Cypria- 
 mck  Churches*,  but  fince  thofe  Afidtick  Churches 
 did  not  fo  far  condemn  them,  he  acquiefc'd  in 
 the  Difcipline  of  thofe  Churches,  and  reckon'd 
 that  their  *  Orders  and  Baplifms  might  be  receiv'd : 
 But  'twas  never  heard  of,  that  in  thofe  Churches, 
 Lay-men,  really  and  incontejiably  fuch,  afTum'd  to 
 themfelves  any  Power  at  all  to  baptize,  without, 
 or  in  oppofition  to  their  Bifhop's  Commiilion}  and 
 therefore  the  <S5#at  90Ulttttt5eg  here  fpoken  of 
 .by  St.  Bafil,  muft  fignify  only  the  great  Multi- 
 tudes of  Perfons  that  were  concern'd,  in  the  Epis- 
 copal Orders  and  Baptifms  given  and  receiv'd,  by 
 the  Schifmaticks  before  fpoken  of  by  that  Father, 
 This,  together  with  what  I  have  before  faid  in 
 Fage  lop,  See.  I  think  to  be  a  fufficient  Aflfwer  to 
 this  part  of  Mr.  Bingham  s  Objection  againft  St.  Ba~ 
 fit'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.  Bajifs  Words  *,  for 
 firft  he  introduces  it  with  an  "  31  tljltlfe  it  Uiaj> 
 
 "  6e  inferrd,  that  the?  St.  Bafil did  not  ap- 
 
 u  prove  of  the  Baptifm  of  Lay-men,  yet  he  thought 
 '•c  it  might  ftand  good,  &c "    This  fhews  that  he 
 
 J  CUr^-mws  Vademecum,  Fart  II.  />.20i 
 
 cannot 
 
Chap.  4-     St.  Bafil,  gjff.  Anflvefd.  igj 
 
 cannot  be  Positive  in  his  Inference  -,  for  if  he 
 could,  his  "  /  think  it  may  be^  &c.  is  a  needlefs  Mo- 
 deily  5  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  eaflly  forefaw,  that 
 it  would  be  objected  againfl:  his  tttap  bZ  Inference 
 about  lUpODapttfttt)  that  StBaJil  was  only  fpeak- 
 ing  of  the  Afiaticks  admitting  of  Schifmatical  Bap- 
 tifms, and  that  St.  Bafil  do's  not  fay,  that  Lay- 
 Baptifms  might  Hand  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  hefitates  about  it,  and  fays,  "  T5ut  tf 
 "  Otfjettotfe,  [/.  e.  if  St.  Bafil  did  not  think  that 
 3Lap-'Bapttftt10,  as  well  as  Schifmatical  Baptifms, 
 might  ftand  good]  "  St.  Bafil^  Opinion  (fays  Mr. 
 Bingham)  "  cannot  prejudice  the  contrary  Dcffrine, 
 &  or  be  thrown  into  the  BaUance  againfl  the  common 
 "  Qonfent  and  PraSice  of  the  Church. "  Thus  we 
 fee  that  himfelf  cannot  affure  us  of  the  Truth  of 
 his  own  Inference  about  Saint  BafiV s  fuppofed 
 Thoughts  of  allowing  Lay-Baptifm  ^  and  therefore 
 we  may  conclude,  that  St.  Bafil  do's  not  appear  to 
 have  thought,  that  Lay-Baptifm,  i.  e.  Baptifm  by 
 Perfbns  having  no  Power,  being  never  authoriz'd  to 
 Baptize,  could  ftand  good  and  valid  ^  but  the  con- 
 trary :  And  Mr.  Bingham's  faying,  that  St.  Baft's 
 Opinion,  u  cannot  be  thrown  into  the  BaUance 
 c  againfl  the  common  Confent  and  PraUice  of  the 
 "  Church-"  is  taking  for  granted  what  he  ha*  not 
 provd,  that  the  common  Confent  and  PraUice  of  the 
 Ancient  Church,  was,  to  allow  as  valid,  pretend- 
 ed Baptifms  perform'd  by  Perfons  never  Commit 
 fion'd  to  Baptize. 
 
 N  %  Ms. 
 
182     Objections  againft  St.  Cyprian,  Part  II. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  fays  further,   that  "  it  may  be  Ob- 
 "  fervd  that  St.  Bafil  /peaks  petljilpg?  not  of  Lay- 
 <c  Bapti/m  in  Cafes  oj  Necejfity,  but  oj  V/urping  the 
 cc  Office,   a*  Heretic  As  did  in  ordinary  Cajes. "     But 
 theie  pett)ap05Sl  will  not  ferve  our  Turn,    they 
 are  No  Arguments  5  nay,  they  are  Fallacious  upon 
 the  Judgments  of  fome  fort  of  Readers,   who  are 
 too  apt  to  be  carried  away  with  fuch  ungrounded 
 Suppojitions :  What  has  St.  Bafil  faid  in  all  his  Wri- 
 tings, that  can  give  the  leaft  Colour  for  fuch  a 
 Pccljapg  i    There  is  nothing  in  all  his  Works, 
 that  looks  towards  Lay-Bapti/m  in  Cafes  of  Nece/- 
 fity-,  and  when  he   fpeaks  of  Lay-Baptifms,    he 
 do's  it  in  fuch  Terms,  as  include  all  Cafes  what- 
 foever,  and  A^  Exception  made  for  Extraordinary 
 Cafes,   nor  Limitation  to  Ordinary  Ones.     At  this 
 rate,    a  Man  may  Limit  and  Reftrain  the  moft 
 Univer/al  Proportions  ;    thus,  for  Example,  "  Go 
 *c  ye  Di/ciple   all  Nations,    Baptizing  them  In  the 
 "  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,   and  of  the 
 c'  Holy-Ghoft. "     By  Mr.  Bingham's  way  of  $ei> 
 I)ftpfifl2?5    may   not  be   defign'd   to   reftrain   the 
 Form  of  Baptizing  cc  In  the  Name  of  the  Trini- 
 ty, '•'  to  That  form  alone,   for  all  Cafes  whatib- 
 ever  •,    there    may    be    fuppos'd   Cafes  of  Nece/- 
 fity  !    when    Men    cannot    procure    Baptifm    in 
 this  form  •,   their  Baptizers,  tho5  Epifcopally  Or- 
 dain d,  may  have  falfe  j3ot(on£  coitcetrmng 
 
 tl)€  1Dt\tl>\  and  in  Confequence  thereof,  may 
 Mutilate  and  Change  the  form,  and  refufe  to  give 
 Baptifm  in  the  prefcrib'd  Form :  Some  reckon, 
 however,  that  Water  is  ab/olute/y  Neceffary  to  Sal- 
 vation, therefore,  in  their  Imagination,  this  would 
 be  a  Cafe  of  Neccffty,  and  fo  the  New,  tho'  Unin- 
 Hit ut ed  Form,  will  do,  bccaufe,  Wrater  muft  be  ap- 
 ply'd  i  and  therefore,   the  Inftituted  Form  19£r> 
 
 -  ms 
 
Chap.  4-     St.  Bafil,  t$c.  Anfwer*L  i8j 
 
 ijitpiS  was  not  appointed  for  Cafes  of  KeceJJity ! 
 efpecially  confidering  that  Even  a  Pope  of  Rome 
 has  faid,  that  Baptifin  is  good  and  valid,  if  done 
 In  the  Name  of  Jefus  only !  But  who  is  there,  that 
 do's  not  fee  the  Folly  of  this  way  of  Ptfljapf* 
 
 tog* 
 
 As  for  Mr.  Bingham  s  Suppofition,  u  That  a  La- 
 titude  of  Power  was  left  with  the  Rulers  and  Go- 
 "  yernours  of  the  Church  to  Ratify  fuch  Baptifms 
 [/.  e.  Baptifms  by  Lay-men,  Perfons  deftitute  of 
 Power,  never  authoriz'd  to  Baptize]  cC  when  they 
 u  found  it  necejjary,  &c. n  Tis  a  Propofition  that 
 has  not  been  proved  ♦,  and  I  have  faid  fp  much  up- 
 on it  *  elfewhere,  that  I  fee  no  Necelfity  to  trouble 
 my  Reader  with  any  thing  more  upon  it,  til! 
 Mr.  Bingham,  or  Somebody  elfe,  fhall  offer  their 
 Arguments  for  fuch  a  Ratifying  Power  •,  and 
 therefore  I  proceed  to  our  Reverend  Hiftorian's 
 next  Objection,  which  is  this. 
 
 Object.  IV.  Againft  St.  Cyprian's  Evidence, 
 he  objects  thus  in  his  39th  Page,  *  If  it  were  not 
 "for   Sr.BafilV  Tejiimony   (fays  he)   3  fljOUlD 
 
 DOttbt  whether  Cyprian  bad  ever  made  ufe  of 
 "fuch  an  Argument  a*  this,"  [viz.  That  Here- 
 ticks  and  Schifmaticks,  broken  off  from  the  Church, 
 were  become  hay-men,  and  that  therefore  the  Bap- 
 tifms of  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  were  Null  and 
 Void,  becaufe  they  were  become  Laymen.'] 
 
 A  n  s  w.  But  here,  either  Mr.  Bingham  believes 
 St.  Bajifs  Teftimony  concerning  St.  Cyprian^  or 
 Mr.  Bingham  do's  not  believe  it.    If  he  believes  it, 
 
 *  Uj-Baptifm  Invalid. 
 
 N  4  then 
 
i S4     Objections  againfi  St.  Cyprian,  Part  II. 
 
 then  there's  an  end  of  his  Doubt  about  St. Cyprians 
 Argument— — and  fo  his  following  imaginary  Rea- 
 fons  againfi:  St.  Cyprian  s  ever  having  us'd  fuch  an 
 Argument  fall  at  once.  But  if  he  do's  not  believe 
 St.  Bafil,  then  he  might  have  plainly  told  us  fo, 
 and  not  have  amus'd  us  with  an  u  If  it  were  not 
 vc  for  St.  BafilV  TejVvnony"  This  looks,  however, 
 as  if  he  could  not  charge  St.  Bafrf  with  being  a 
 falfe  Evidence  ;  tho'  ftill  he.  endeavours  to  take 
 off  from  the  Worth  of  his  Teftimony,  by  his  fol- 
 lowing Three  Obftrvations. 
 
 JSrft,  "  Becaufe  (fays  Mr.  Bingham)  no  fuch  &r- 
 "  gument  [about  Lay-men]  that  I  know  of  is  to  be 
 tC  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  j  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  the)'-  re- 
 ceiv'd  them  only  to  hay-Communion  upon  their  Re- 
 pentance ^  that  they  reckon'd  them  Kot  as  Priefts, 
 but  Deftitute  of  P?teffl}?  Potter  and  ShltljOJttp, 
 and  that  they  charg'd  their  Mini  fixations  to  be 
 Null  and  Void,  for  want  of  fuch  briefly  Power,  as 
 I  have  prov'd  before,  Page  5 i,  Sec. 
 
 Secondly,  His  next  Obfervation  againft  St.  Cypri- 
 ans having  ever  made  ufe  of  fuch  an  Argument  is, 
 ^  Becaufe  Tertullian,  whom  Cyprian  commonly  caWcl 
 "  IjlS  Q5i1ffer5  made  a  great  Diftintfion  between 
 ■c  the  Baptifm  of  Hereticks  and  the  Baptifm  of  Ca- 
 
 *c  rholick  hay-men^  at  leafi  in  Cafes  ofNecejfity- 
 
 ct  for  he  was  againft  Re-baptizing,  thofe  that  \$ZtZ 
 :   fO  Q5aptl5£l3  by  hay-men,  thd  he  wax  ai  much 
 
 "  for 
 
Chap.  4.     St.  Bafil,  fefr.  Anfwefd.  185 
 
 "  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  5  Mr.  Bingham  fays,  Tertullian  "  war 
 "  againft  Re-baptizing  thofe  that  Wit  fO  05ap-- 
 <c  tI5'D  by  Lay-men."  An  uncautious  Reader  will 
 be  apt  to  believe  from  hence,  that  Tertullian  has 
 related  it  to  be  Matter  of  Faff,  that  Perfons  foete 
 Qi$apti5'5  by  Lay-men  in  his  Days  -,  when  'tis 
 certain  that  he  relates  No  fuch  Matter  of  Faff,  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  Lmcisjus  eft  ;"]  Lay- men  (fays  Ter- 
 tullian) have  alfo  a  &tij{)t  to  give  it  [/.  e.  Bap- 
 tifm.]  This  fhews  that  'twas  Tertullian  s  Opinion, 
 that  they  had  a  Right  5  but  it  do's  not  prove  it 
 Matter  of  Faff,  that  any  of  them  Rett?}  according 
 to  this  Pretended  Right.  Mr.  Bingham  therefore 
 fhould  have  faid,  that  Tertullian  would  have  been 
 "againft  Re-baptizing  Perfons^  if  tftfP  lja5  been 
 "  fo  Baptized  by  Lay  men,  *  which  would  have  pre- 
 vented his  Reader  from  miftaking  a  pretended 
 Matter  of  Faff  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  Tertullian  s  Principle  in  this  Matter,  becaufe  he 
 call'd  Tertullian  his  Mafter  >  This  is  admirable!  I 
 efteem,  and  may  call  Cicero  my  Mafter,  therefore 
 
 *  Tertul.  Dc  Baptifmo,  Cap.  i  y. 
 t  Tertul.  pe  Baptifmo,  Cap.  17. 
 
 I  mutt 
 
1 86     Objections  again  ft  St.  Cyprian,  Part  II. 
 
 I  mud  be  a  Heathen  becaufe  Cicero  was  fo^  I 
 and  a  great  many  other  Members  of  our  Church 
 have  been  mightily  pleas'd  with  Mr.  Binghams 
 Antiquities  of  the  Chriftian  Church  •,  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 
 Mafter  too,  for  fome  of  his  Excellencies,  when  at 
 the  fame  time  we  may  fee  his  Faults,  and  Mi- 
 ftakes,  &c.  and  diffent  from,  nay,  and  abhor  them 
 too  ^  tho'  it  may  be  we  do  not  always  make  pub- 
 lick  Proclamation  of  them.  And  this,  no  doubt, 
 was  the-  Cafe  with  the ,  blefTed  St.  Cyprian  ^  he 
 \ralued  Tertullian  for  his  great  Accomplifh- 
 ments  of  Wity  Sec.  he*  call'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  Montanifm,  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  ?  No,  certainly  that  Pious  Father  was  not 
 fo  blind,  as  to  be  led  into  his  fuppofed-  Mafters 
 Errors  and  Miftakes,  and  particularly  in  the  Mat- 
 ter now  before  us,  which  I  humbly  hope  I  have 
 proved  to  have  been  One  of  Tertullians  Singu- 
 larities ^  and  in  Page  48.  that  St.  Cyprian  did  not 
 follow  him  in  it,  but  afTerted  the  contrary  Do- 
 ctrine of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  U  e.  pre- 
 tended Baptifm  perform'd  by  Perfons  deftitute  of  a 
 Commiffion  to  Baptize. 
 
 Thirdly,  Mr.  Bingham's  laft  Obfervation  againft 
 Saint  Cyprians   ever    having  made  ufe    of    fuch 
 
 an 
 
Chap.  4.     Sf.Bafil,  i3c.  AnfveSd.  187 
 
 an  Argument,  as  that  of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm,  is  this,  viz,  "  Cyprian  always  paid  a  far 
 <c  greater  Dej ere nee  to  Catholick  hay-men  than  he 
 "  did  to  heretical  Priefts  ;  as  efteeming  the  One 
 <c  Members  of  the  Church,  and  the  Other  quite  cut 
 "  off  from  it:  He  admitted  the  One  into  his  Coun- 
 cC  cils,  and  did  nothing  without  their  Qonfent  in 
 "  many  Ecclefiaftical  Caufes;  but  the  Other  he 
 <:  abandon  d  and  abhor  d,  cm  Men  that  had  abandon 1 
 u  the  Faith,  and  renounc'd  their  Christianity  by  their 
 "  Heretical  Dotlrine.  "  And  what  is  to  be  inferd 
 from  all  this  >  Did  St.  Cyprian  therefore  approve  of 
 Baptifm  by  Catholick  Lay-men,  this  is  meer 
 Amufement  ,  as  if,  becaufe  St.  Cyprian  lov'd  and 
 valu'd  Catholick  lay-men,  and  voluntarily  took 
 their  Content  in  many  Ecclefiaftical  Cafes  •,  there- 
 fore he  would  not  have  been  offended,  he  would 
 not  have  efteenfd  their  Attempts  Null  and  Void, 
 if  they  had  endeavour'd  to  do  any  thing  ill  the  Sa- 
 cerdotal Miniftration  of  Holy  Sacraments  !  This 
 is  juft  as  good  Senfe,  as  if  I  fhould  fay,  that 
 Mr.  Bingham  loves  and  elteems  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,  from  her 
 Communion  5  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  his  Advifer  and  Counfellor  in  Ec- 
 clefiaftical Affairs  5  and  from  thence  conclude, 
 that  if  the  Church- Lay- man  ihould,  thro5  a  falfe 
 Zeal,  'See  attempt  to  ordain  Men  into  the  Mini- 
 niftry,  Mr.  Bingham's  Love  and  Efteem  for  him, 
 would  oblige  him  to  acknowledge  the  Validity  of 
 fuch  a  fuppofed  Ordination,  tho'.  at  the  fame  time 
 he  would  not  have  allowed  the  like  of  the  Hereti- 
 cal 
 
1 88  Objections  againfi,  &X.       PART  II. 
 
 cal  or  Schifmatical  Prieft  had  attempted  to  Or- 
 dain. Who  is  there  that  do's  not  fee  the  Weaknefs 
 of  fuch  a  Suppofition  ?  And  upon  what  Founda- 
 tion can  Mr.  Bingham  guefs  that  St.  Cyprian  was  of 
 io  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  Principle,  that  Hereti- 
 cal and  Schifmatical  Baptifms  were  Null  and  Void, 
 becaufe  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  were  fuppos'd  to 
 be  deftitute  of  Prieflly  Power  and  Authority  to 
 
 minifter  in  Holy  Things  > — But  enough  upon 
 
 Mr.  Bingham's  Obfervations  about  this  Matter  ^ 
 for  himfeJf,  do's  but  fay  of  'em,  "  Thefe  arc 
 "  pJObaWe  atgttmentlS  to  incline  a  Man  to  think, 
 "  that  Cyprian  was  of  the  fame  Mind  with  his 
 "  Mafter  Tertullian,  as  to  the  Point  of  Lay-Bap- 
 cc  tifm,  had  not  St,  BafilV  Authority  been  againfl 
 "  them,  Page  40."- — We  have  feen,  that  St.fr*- 
 JiPs  Teftimony  is  good :  That  there  is  not  fo  much 
 as  any  Probability  in  Mr.  Bingham\  fuppofed  Ar- 
 guments :  And  that  St.  Cyprian  did  not  follow  his 
 Matter's  Errors,  particularly  in  the  Pretended 
 Prieflhood  of  Lay-men,  but  taught  the  contrary 
 Doctrine,  as  is  plain  by  the  Teftimony  of  St  Ba- 
 fd,  and  by  Inferences  that  may  be,  and  have  been 
 drawn  from  feveral  Paflages  in  St.  Cyprians  own 
 Works.  And  thus  all  our  Reverend  Hiftorian's 
 Objections  againfl:  the  Evidence  of  St.  Cyprian,  St. 
 Bajil,  and  St.  Chryfoftom,  are  of  no  Weight  or  Im- 
 portance. 
 
 CHAP, 
 
Chap.  5.  j  89 
 
 CHAP.     V. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham7*  Acknowledgments  concerning  the 
 great  Que  ft  ion  now  in  Difpute,  viz.  Whe- 
 ther the  Ufurped  and  Unauthorized  Bap- 
 tifm  of  Lay-men,  was  allowed  to  'be 
 Valid  ? 
 
 §  I./^UR  Reverend  Hiftorian  handles  this  Que- 
 v^/  ftion  in  his  41ft  Page-,  and  here  one 
 would  naturally  have  expecled  to  have  found  abun- 
 dance of  uncontefted  Evidence  and  Teftimony  from 
 the  Ancient  Catholick  Church,  that  fuch  pretend- 
 ed Baptifins  were,  by  Her,  held  to  be  Good  and 
 Valid  ^  if  it  had  ever  been,  the  General  Senje  and 
 Vraffice  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  DifTenters  fuppofi- 
 titious  Baptifms,  which  are  evidently  Ufurped  and 
 Unauthorized  Baptifins  by  Lay-men)  Mr.  Bingham 
 very  fairly  and  ingenuoufly  confeffes,  that  this  of 
 "  Unauthorized  Ufurped  Lay-Baptifm  makes  a  tDtUC 
 <c  Difference  in  the  Cafe,  Page  41.  and  is  a  ttlOJC 
 cc  Difficult  £UtefftOn,"  \yiz.  than  that  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm  [fuppos'd  to  be]  Authorized  by  Bifhops, 
 in  Cafes  of  Extremity,  about  which  he  had  been 
 Treating  before.]  He  fays  this  Queftion  of  "  U- 
 "  fwped  and  Unauthorized  Baptifm  of  hay-men  ha* 
 "  ttlUCt)  more  difficulty  than  the  Former, "  And  he 
 gives  this  particular  Reafon  why  'tis  fo  "  IllUClJ 
 XWOlt  Difficult?  becaufe  (fays  he)  a  great  many 
 
 "of 
 
190  No  Catholick  Tradition      Part  IL 
 
 <c  of  the  Authors  who  have  jufli fie  d  the  Lawfulnefs  of 
 "  Lay  Baptifm,  in  Cafes  of  Aeceffity,  ate  tDljOlIp 
 "  fllCtlt  upon  this  Point. "  "  For  [continues  he] 
 u  neither  Tertulliao,  nor  the  Council  of  Eliberis, 
 <c  nor  St,  Jerom,  nor  Gelafius,  nor  Ifidore,  have 
 "  faidmw  tljttUT  upon  it\    they  ©It!?  confider  the 
 
 ?  Cafe  ofmtmxh  **d  no  otljer*" 
 
 §  II.  And  to  this  I  mull  add  fome  other  Rea- 
 fons,  why  this  of  Ufurped  Unauthorized  Lay-Bap- 
 tifin  is  fo  very  Difficult  a  Queftion  $  and  they  are 
 thefe  from  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf. 
 
 firft)  Becaufe  "  The  Apoflolick  Commiffion  to  Bap- 
 a  tize,  was  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  World^ 
 according  to  Mr.  Bingham,  in  his  3d  Page. 
 
 Secondly,  Becaufe  the  Conveyance  of  this  Com- 
 miffion to  others,  "  was  neCCffiU*)>  to  p^Cftt&e  the 
 a  Church,  according  to  tlje  ©tftfC  Of  €l)M,  in 
 "future  Ages"  as  in  his  3d  Page. 
 
 Thirdly,  Becaufe  "  No  One  tittl  ftaiJC  a  Power 
 M  of  Baptizing,  but  he  that  receives,  fome  way  or 
 *  other,  a  Commiffion  from  the  Apoftles. "  See  his 
 4th  Page. 
 
 Fourthly,  Becaufe  "  The  Original  Power  of  Admi- 
 a  ni firing  Baptifm  is  lodged  folely  and  entirely  in  the 
 cc  Hands  of  Bifhops,  ax  the  Apofllcs  •  immediate  Sue- 
 c  ceffors,  and  derivately  Convey  d  from  them  to 
 "  others"  in  Cafes  Ordinary  and  Extraordinary 
 alfo,  as  in  his  5  th  Page. 
 
 Fifthly,  Becaufe  "  When  Baptifm  was  done  by 
 "  others,  [i.  e.  not  by  the  Bifhop]  the  Antients 
 thought  4C  it  wax  ft  ill  done  by  his  Authority,  and  re- 
 "  puted  ax  his  Aff*    Se  his  8th  Page.  " 
 
 Sixthly,  and  Laftly\  Becaufe  Mr.  Bingham,  m 
 fumming  up  his  whole  Evidence,  in  his  38th  Page, 
 fays,  "  Thus  we  have  feen  for  Six  hundred  Tears, 
 
 u  the 
 
Chap.  5.     for  Ufurped  Lay-Baptifa.  191 
 
 cc  the  General  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Ancient 
 "  Church,  gtOWtOem  as  they  fuppoje,  UpOH  tlje 
 "  COUIUttffion  given  to  the  ApojUes^  whereby  Bi- 
 "  Ooops,  as  the  Apoftles  Succeffors,  are  qualified firft 
 tC  to  give  Baptifvi  themf elves,  and  then  to  (£>#*ttt  & 
 
 "  COtnmtuiOlI  to  others  to  Baptize  v in  Or- 
 
 "  dinary  Cafes,  and  in  Cafes  Extraordinary  and  of 
 "  Extream  3l2eCCffltp5  &c. 
 
 Thefe  are  Reafons  which  make  the  prefent  Que- 
 ftion  of  Unauthorized  Ufurp'd  Lay-Baptifms  fo 
 
 fierp  Difficult,  that  there  is  "■  a  tuiBe  Differ* 
 
 "  EttCC  "  between  thefe  pretended  Baptifms,  and 
 the  others,  fuppos'd  to  have  been  minifter'd  by 
 Epifcopal  Authority  *  fo  that  we  fee  even  from 
 Mx.Bingham^s  own  Account  of  the  Matter,  that  the 
 general  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Ancient  Church 
 has  nothing  in  favour  of  Ufurp'dUnauthoriz'd  Lay- 
 Baptifms. 
 
 ^  III.  It  is  therefore  evident,  that  the  gene- 
 ral Senfe  and  Prallice  of  the  Ancient  Church,  can- 
 not be  call'd  in  as  an  Evidence,  for  the  pretended 
 Validity  of  fuch  jalfe  Baptifms-,  No!  No!  they 
 ftand  by  themfelves,  utterly  Dejiitute  of  that  Ca- 
 tholick  Teftimony,  and  have  Nothing  to  fupport 
 them  but  the  weak,  fallacious,  and  imaginary  Rea- 
 fonings  of  a  private  Spirit  only. 
 
 For,  Firft,  The  Apoftolick  Commiflion  to  Bap- 
 tize,  is  here  d if  continued  and  broken  off. 
 
 Secondly,  The  Conveyance  of  that  Commiflion 
 is  here  wanting,  and  fo,  that  which  is  "  l2£C£ffa- 
 c  tP  to  Preferve  the  Church,  according  to  the  Qr- 
 u  der  of  Chrifi- —is  abfent. 
 
 Thirdly,  Here  is  a  Deftitution  of  Power  to  Bap- 
 tize, becaufe  here  is  No  One  that  has  receiv'd  any 
 
 manner 
 
192     No  Catholick  Tradition  for,  &c.  Part  IL 
 
 manner  of  way  whatfoever,  A  Commiffion  from  the 
 Apoftles.    Becaufe, 
 
 Fourthly,  The  Original  Power   of  adminiftring 
 
 Baptifm,  "  hodgd  folely  and  entirely  in  the  Hands 
 
 c  of  Bifhops — the  Apoftles  immediate  Succeffors^  f£ 
 
 c  I10t  l)EC0  Derivately  Conveyed  from  them  to  the 
 
 "  Ufurping  Unauthorized  Lay-Pretender. 
 
 Fifthly,  Here  being  No  Baptifm  done  by  the  Bi- 
 JJjop's  Authority )  the  pretended  Baptifm  cannot  be 
 reputed  as  the  /Bift)0p'3  9Ct, 
 
 Sixthly,  and  Laftly,  In  this  Act  there  is  nothing 
 to  be  feen  of  the  general  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the 
 Ancient  Church,  for  the  firft  Six  hundred  Years, 
 which  was  confefledly  "  gUOUUDCD  upon  the 
 <c  COttimtffion  granted  in  Cafes  Ordinary  and  Ex- 
 "  traordmary  too**  for  here  is  No  Grant  of  any 
 Commiffion  at  all- — and  fo,  thefe  pretended  Bap- 
 tifms are  deftitute  of  any  ILatD,  EtllC,  or  31101-- 
 fttt  CatljOltCfe  CraBtttOn,  whereon  to  ground 
 their  pretended  Validity". 
 
 §  IV".  And  yet  notwithstanding  all  this,  our  Re- 
 verend Hiftorian,  in  his  43  d,  44th,  and  45  th  Pages, 
 Inftances  the  Ficlion  of  the  fuppos'd  Sportive-Bap- 
 tifm,  faid  to  have  been  given  by  the  Boy  Athana- 
 fius,  to  his  Play-fellows— —and  the  private  Opi- 
 nions of  St.  Auguftin  and  Opt  at  us,  in  favour  of 
 thofe  Pretended  Baptifms,  performed  by  Lay-Per- 
 ibns,  who  never  were  Commiffion  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  (aid,  that  thefe 
 Pretended  Baptifms  are  utterly  Deftitute  of  the  ge- 
 neral Senfe  and  Fratfice  of  the  Ancient  Church, 
 whereon  to  found  their  Pretended  Validity. 
 
 CHAR 
 
Chap.  6.  ig j 
 
 CHAP.    VI. 
 
 That  the  Ancient  Churches,  who  allowed  of  He- 
 retical and  Schifmatical  Biptifms,  did  not 
 reckon  tbofe  Baptifms  to  have  been  Unau- 
 thorized, UncommiJJiorfd  Ant  i-Epif copal  %JXV- 
 
 'Bapttfm& 
 
 §  I.  T  Am  obliged  thus  far  to  Concern  my  felf 
 A  with  the  Ancient  Heretical  and  Schifmati- 
 cal Baptifms,  becaufe  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  en- 
 deavours to  reprefent  them,  as  of  the  fame  Native 
 with  Unauthorized  Lay-Baptifms :  The  Terms  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 
 believe,  that  when  the  Ancient  Churches  allow'd  of 
 the  Validity  of  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Bap- 
 tifms, they  did  it  upon  the  fame  "Principle  which 
 fome  now  hold,  for  the  pretended  Validity  of  falfe 
 Baptifms,  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  never  were 
 Epifcopally  Commijfwnd  to  Baptize :  Thus,  for  Ex- 
 ample, Mr.  Bingham  fays  of  the  Ancient  Heretical 
 and  Schifmatical  Baptifms,  That  they  were  cc  flJn* 
 "  attt!)0?t5'C  •, M  That  "  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks, 
 "  and  Degraded  Clergy -men,  had  not  any  Legal  3tt* 
 "  tt)0?ttp/>^  the  Church  to  Baptize^—- -That 
 "  They  afied  not  only  tDtt&OUt  l)Zt  3Utlj0tftp, 
 
 c<  but  agatnff  tyct  autfjojttp,  in  au  their  mini- 
 
 "  ft  rat  ions,  Page  51.  although  their  Baptifms  were 
 c  received  as  (HalfUj  under  fuch  an  Irregular^  and 
 "  Unlawful  Admimftration, "  pag.  $2.—-"  What  they 
 
 O  "  did 
 
1^4  Of  Heretical  and  Part  IL 
 
 "  did  voaJ  done  (properly  f peaking)  by  an  CffltaUtijO* 
 
 *  fc%  Criminal,  antt'Cptfcopai  CMUrpation, 
 
 66  &c.  "  pag.  5:4.  Such  Terms  as  thefe  naturally 
 lead  an  incautious  Reader  into  this  Notion,  that 
 thofe  Ancient  Heretical,  and  Schifmatical  Bap- 
 tifms,  were  of  the  fame  Nature  with  our  9ntt- 
 CplTCOpal  (UnautBQJtfD  Lay-Baptifms^  for  by 
 fuch  Colours  as  thefe,  they  have  an  appearance  [yet 
 'tis  but  an  appearance]  of  being  utterly  deftitute  of 
 any  ComiTiiifion  at  all,  as  much  as  our  Lay-Bap- 
 tifms  are,  that  are  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  never 
 were  at  all  SUttl)0?t5'0  or  Comttltflion'll  for  that 
 Purpofe. 
 
 §  II  To  give  the  Reader  therefore  a  fair  In- 
 light  into  this  Matter,  it  is  to  be  obferv'd,  that 
 there  were  two  Sorts  of  Difcipline  in  the  ancient 
 Churches  about  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Bap- 
 *ifms. 
 
 Fir/?,  That  of  the  Cyprianick  Churches,  who  made 
 Ecclefiajrical  Laws,  that  if  the  Clergy  tell  into  He- 
 refy  or  Schifm,  their  Ordinations,  and  other  Mini- 
 fir  at  ions,  mould  be  null  and  void}  and  that  con- 
 fequently  the  Baptifms  given  by  them,  during  their 
 Herefy  or  Schifm,  mould  be  look'd  upon  as  no  Cbri- 
 filan  Baptifm :  And  therefore  Perfons  fo  baptized  by 
 them,  mould,  upon  their  Repentance  and  Recon- 
 ciliation to  the  Church,  be  receiv'd  by  Baptifm  as 
 Heathens  were. 
 
 Agrippinus  *,  Bifhop  of  Carthage,  in  a  Synod  of 
 the  Provinces  of  Africa  and  Numidia,  eftablinYd 
 this  Difcipline. 
 
 *  Cypr.  Epift.  ad  Quintum.yi.— p.  140.  VarU. 
 
 So 
 
Chap.  6.       Schifmatical  Baptifms.  195 
 
 So  did  alfo  the  Councils  *  of  Carthage,  tinder 
 St.  Cyprian,  make  Ecclefiajiical  haws,  whereby  they 
 reduc'd  to  Lay-men,  thofe  Heretical  and  Schifmatical 
 Clergy-men,  who  either  feparated  from  the  Church 
 after  their  Ordination,  or  were  ordain  d  among  He- 
 reticks  and  Schifmaticks  -,  and  they  nutfd  all  their 
 Baptifms,  as  being  deflitute  of  Authority  and  Com- 
 miffion. 
 
 St.  Cyprian  s  Colleague  Yikewi&,Firmilian  tBifhop 
 diCxfarea,  appeals  to  the  Council  of  Iconium,  held 
 long  before,  for  the  Obligation  and  Neceifity  ot  this. 
 
 Dionyfuts,   Bifhop  of  Alexandria,   "  alledges  the  . 
 C£  Decrees  of  the  Councils  of  Icomum  and JSynada  forT fy 
 cc  Confirmation  "  of  this  Cuftom  -,  as  Mr.  Bingham  in-  "** 
 forms  us,  pag.56.     And  the  fame  Dionyfws  fpeaks 
 of  thefe  Councils  ||  as  held  long  before  his  Days,  and 
 calls  'em  the  Bifhops  populous  (or  numerous)  Affcm- 
 blies. 
 
 Thus  we  fee  that  the  Invalidity  of  Heretical  and 
 Schifmatical  Ordinations  and  Baptifms^  held  by  the 
 Cyprianick  Churches,  was  not  matter  of  private  Qpi* 
 nion  only  ^  but  Ecclefiaftical  Canon  Law,  and  Deter- 
 mination of  Synods,  whereby  the  Bifhops  of  thofe 
 Churches  bound  their  Subjects  fo  firiSly  to  the  Union 
 of  the  Church,  as  that  their  Clergy  ihould  not  break 
 her  Union  by  Herefy  or  Schifm,  under  any  lefs  Pe- 
 nalty, than  that  ot  lofing  their  Holy  Orders ;  The 
 Commiffion  they  receivd  before  in  the  Church,  was 
 made  null  and  void  by  thofe  Laws  of  the  Church  to 
 which  they  ow'd  Subjection  *,  and  if  any  of  them 
 were  ordairfd  by  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Bifhops^ 
 thofe  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  condemn'd   fuch  Ordina- 
 
 *  Epift.  72.   ad  Stephanum  de  Concilio,    p.  141,      Park, 
 Concit.  Carthag.  de  Baptiz.  Fteret.  p.  252.  Paris. 
 f  Inter  Cypr.  Epift.  74.  p.  1^9,  160.  Paris, 
 j!  Pionyf  Epift  apud  Bufeb.  Lib.  vii.  6  7. 
 
 O  2  iiont 
 
1 96  Of  Heretical  and  Pa  rt  IL 
 
 tions  to  be  invalid,  and  fo  all  their  Miniftrations, 
 by  the  fame  Laws,  were  made  to  be  of  no  legal 
 force  or  Validity  in  thofe  Churches.  And  as  for  the 
 Laity  of  thole  Cyprianick  Churches,  thefe  Laws 
 were  of  great  Influence  to  keep  them  alfo  in  the 
 Unity  of  the  Church  $  becaufe,  by  the  Terror  of 
 thofe  Sanctions,  they  plainly  faw,  that  (tho5  their 
 Bifhops  did  not  pretend  to  null  and  void  Baptifm 
 once  receiv'd  in  the  Church)  yet  they  invalidated 
 all  Ordinations  and  Miniftrations  done  out  of  the 
 Church,  as  well  as  the  Orders  of  their  feparating 
 Clergy:  And  fo  the  Lay- members  of  thofe  Churches 
 had  no  hopes3  either  of  their  Childrens  receiving 
 Valid  Baptifm  in  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Congre- 
 gations, or  of  receiving  themfelves  any  Valid  Sa- 
 crament of  the  Lord's  Supper :  And  therefore,  du- 
 ring the  Obligation  of  this  ftridt  Difcipline,  they 
 had  no  great  Temptation  to  leave  the  Unity  of  the 
 Church,  to  joyn  themfelves  to  fuch  dangerous  So- 
 cieties^ as  lay  under  this  fevere  Cenfure  of  their 
 Spiritual  Sovereigns  the  Bifhops,  who,  by  their 
 Power  of  Binding  given  them  by  Chrift,  had  bound 
 them  by  fuch  Difciplinary  Laws,  decreed  and  enact- 
 ed in  numerous  ©pnons  ano  Councils  So  that 
 
 In  Confideration  of  thefe Synodical  Decrees,  the  Bap- 
 tifm s  of  the  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Subjeffs  of 
 thofe  Churches  were  terirfd  21naUtf)0#55D,  GJn* 
 COnmiiffiOtrD,  and  antfCptfCOpal X  And  why 
 may  not  the  Bifhops  of  ChrifFs  Church  make  fuch 
 wholfome  Laws,  if  they  fee  it  fit,  for  the  Govern- 
 ment of  their  own  Churches,  when  they  do  not 
 impofe  them  (as  St.  Cyprian  *  did  not)  upon  other 
 
 Churches, 
 
 *  Ne/tjue  cnim  quifquam  noftrum  Epifcopum  fe  efie  Epifco- 
 yorum  conftituit,   aut  tyrannico  terrorc  ad  obfequendi  necef- 
 
 ficatem 
 
Chap.  6.        Schifmatical  Baptifms.  197 
 
 Churches,  whofe  Spiritual  Governours  think  it  not 
 fit  to  befofevere  in  the  Difcipline  of  their  Churches  $ 
 as  'tis  plain  the  Churches  did  not,  who  acted  other- 
 wife  than  the  Cyprianick  Churches  in  this  matter. 
 For, 
 
 §  III.  Secondly,  The  other  fort  of  Difcipline 
 which  was  pra&is'd  by  the  Churches  who  would 
 not  come  up  to  the  Cyprianick  Severity ',  was,  That 
 they  did  not  null  and  make  void  the  Commiflions  of 
 either.  if},  Thofe  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Cler- 
 gy-men, who  had  been  ordain'd  in  the  Church: 
 Or,  idly,  of  thofe  who  had  been  ordain'd  only  by 
 Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Bifhops:  They  receiv'd 
 their  Orders  Osgood  and  valid,  and  their  Baptifms 
 in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  and  other  Miniftra- 
 tions,  to  be  fo  too :  So  that,  when  they  or  any  bap- 
 tized by  them  returned  to  the  Unity  of  the  Church, 
 they  were  receiv'd  [as  all  other  Penitents  us'd  to  be] 
 by  Impofition  of  Hands  ;  the  Clergy,  as  Clergy- 
 men, and  the  Laicks,  as  Lay-Chriftians  already 
 baptiz'd,  without  requiring  any  other  Ordination  or 
 Baptijm,  than  what  they  had  receiv'd  before. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  is  fo  well  apriz'd  of  the  Truth  of 
 this,  that  he  himfelf  acknowledges,  pag.SS.  upon 
 the  Queftlon,  Whether  Hereticks  and  Sch'fmaticks 
 be  Clergy-men  or  Lay-men,  Priefts  or  not  Priefts,  Bi- 
 fhops or  not  Bifhops  ?  and  fays,  "  When  in  the  Di- 
 ^  fcipline  of  the  Church,  it  was  thought  proper  to 
 fc  deprive  them  of  the  Power  and  Honour  of  their 
 ■'  Pfaceg,  yet  even  in  tljflt  Cafe,  the  Church  did 
 
 fi  atem  Collegas  fuos  adigit,  quando  habeat  omnls  Epifcopus 
 pro  liceruia  &  libertatis  &  Poteftatis  fuse  arbitrfum  prop-ium, 
 tamque  judicari  ab  alio  non  poffic,  quam  nee  ipfe  poteft  jud'i- 
 care,  &-*.  ConciL  Caribjg.  de  Bapti^andif  Hxrctic'is%  p  35-3.  Paris. 
 
 O  3  "  not 
 
198  Of  Heretical  and  Pa RT II. 
 
 [c  not  intend  to  deny  the  (HaliWtp  Of  tfjeir  flDjDt* 
 
 tc  ttattom- He  lays  alfo,  in  his  pag.  89.  That 
 
 '  Hereticks    and    Schifmaticks ,     and    tICgtaOCO 
 
 cc  pjfeff&  ««w  tf^w'rf  /*  a?  P;tcff0  ffiu;5— 
 
 And  p^.  90.      Tft£  Church  indeed  did  not  pretend 
 
 a  wholly  to  cancel  0?  annul  tljctr  initiation, 
 
 c  or  give  them  a  new  Ordination"    But  further, 
 whether  Mr.  Bingham  had  acknowledge  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  Nulling  of  the  Orders  of  He- 
 retical and  Schifmatical  Clergy-men:   So  far  from 
 thaf3  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  Donatifl  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~ 
 flops,  Priejis  and  Deacons,  had  a  valid  Commijjion 
 to  Baptize*,  their  Orders  were  not  null  and  void-, 
 there  were  no  JLaiUS  of  thofe  Churches  to  make 
 them  &}   but,  on  the  contrary,  their  Ecclefajlical 
 Laws  cr  Canons  decreed  them  to  be  indelcted,  that 
 they  remained  valid,  and  fo  they  were  not  Ha?2 
 
 itten.  Perrons  Beftitute  of  Conimiffton,  but 
 
 ftill  Bflops,  Priefts  and  Deacons,  with  an  indelcted, 
 -unrepeafd  Commijjion  to  Baptize.  Conrequently  Per- 
 fons  baptiz'd  by  them,  in  Herefy  and  Schifin,  had 
 in  the  ~enfe  of  thofe  Churches  all  the  external  Requi- 
 jites  of  the  Adminiftration  appointed  by  the  Injii- 
 Uiticn  of  Baptifm^  (and  therefore  inflfted  on  by  us) 
 
 viz. 
 
Chap.  6.       Schifmatical  Baptifms,  199 
 
 viz.  Water,  the  Form  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity, 
 and  the  Commijjion  of  the  Baptizer,  thefe  Three 
 were  in  all  thofe  Baptifms :  And  therefore,  whatfb- 
 ever  Difcipline  thofe  Churches  us'd  at  the  receiving 
 of  thofe  Penitents,  it  had  no  reference  to  the  Nullity 
 of  the  Commijjion  of  the  Baptizer,  any  more  than 
 it  had  to  the  Nullity  of  the  Water,  or  of  the  Form 
 of  Baptizing. 
 
 §  IT.  Hence  it  comes  to  pafs,  that  all  Mr  Bing- 
 }mm\  Terms  us'd  by  him,  when  he  calls  thofe  Bap- 
 tifins ainautijojtfo,   antpCpifcopal  aiftirpa' 
 
 ttOltSj  &c.  as  before  obferv'd,  muft  be  underftood 
 in  fuch  a  qualified  Senfe  of  thofe  Words,  as  Men 
 mean,  when  they  fpeak  of  a  Thing  done  by  a  Per- 
 fon  in  a  prohibited  Ctrcumftance,  yet  in  purfuance 
 and  by  virtue  of  a  CommnTion  receiv'd  by  him,  to 
 do  that  very  thing.  Thus  a  Prieft  executing  his 
 Commijjion  to  baptize,  in  the  prohibited  Circum- 
 ffances  of  Oppofition  to  fome  lawful  Command  o£ 
 his  particular  Bifhop  ^  of  Difobedience  to  the  Canons 
 and  Rubricks  of  the  Church  whereof  he  is  a  Mem- 
 ber ^  or  laftly,  in  the  finful  Circumftance  of  He- 
 refy  or  Schifm  •,  If  that  Church  has  no  Ecclefiaftical 
 Laws  or  Canons  to  null  and  make  void  his  Com- 
 miffion,  during  thofe  finful  Circumftances  •,  If  that 
 Church  has  not  decreed  his  CommiiFion,  to  be  ipfo 
 faffo,  null  and  void  in  thofe  prohibited  Circum- 
 ftances, then,  the  Baptifm  adminifter'd  by  him,  in 
 the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  cannot  pJOpetlp  be  faid 
 to  be  aittaUtfjOHfO  i  for  'tis  plain,  he  had  a  Com- 
 mijjion when  he  baptiz'd,  and  therefore  the  Baptifm 
 it  felf  was  9tttt)Q;i(?'0  X  As  neither  can  that  Bap- 
 tifm, in  ftridt  Propriety  of  Speech,  be  calPd  3t1tt* 
 <£ptfC0pa!5  which  was  adminifter'd  by  a  Prieft  or 
 Deacon,    who  had  at  the  Time  of  Baptizing,   an 
 
 o  4  eptfcopai 
 
200  Of  Heritical  and  Part  II. 
 
 #  CpifCOpai  CommtflSOlt,  and  who  did  not  fet  up 
 
 a  pjetenueo  altar  Againft  epifcopacj)  tt  ftif  h 
 
 or  Difown  the  DlirittE  Etgljt  of  the^Apoftolick, 
 L  e.  Epifcopal  Order  -,  but  acknowledge  fubmit^ 
 ted  to,  and  depended  on  it,  and  receivd  all  Power, 
 Commiffion,  and  Authority  from  O5tfljOp09  and 
 ftOm  tljetU  OttlP,  to  minifter  in  H0I7  Things, 
 how  much  foever  they  tranfgreffed  the  Laws  of 
 God,  and  his  Church,  in  other  Inftances,  which 
 was  plainly  the  Cafe  of  the  Heretical  and  Schifma- 
 tical  Bapiizers  we  are  now  fpeaking  of,  who  were 
 no  other  than  Bijhops,  Priefts,  and  Deacons,  Con- 
 fecrated  and  Ordain'd  by  Biihops  -,  and  tho'  Here- 
 ticks  and  Schifmaticks ,  yet  vetted  with  Epifcopal 
 Power  and  Authority,  fo  long  as  thofe  Churches  did 
 not  Vacate,  Null,  and  make  void  the  COttlttttf- 
 flOH0  of  them,  or  of  the  Bifhops  who  were  their 
 ©?Hatnet;0  %  So  that,  in  the  Direct  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  calFd  SJltatitfjO^'B  and 
 9ntt-(£pifC0pal  Baptifms  \  for  they  were  as  much 
 Authorized  and  Epifcopal  then,  as  any  Baptifms 
 now  given  by  wicked  Priefts  Epifcopally  Ordain  d, 
 and  receiv'd  by  the  Baptiz'd,  in  Sinful  Cirxum* 
 fiances.  The  Circumftance  indeed,  whether  of  He- 
 refy,  Schifm,  or  other  Tranfgrejfion  of  the  Rules 
 and  Orders  of  the  Church,  is  doubtlels  very  Sin- 
 ful, and  therefore  Unauthorized-,  and  by  reafon 
 of  the  Difobedience,  may  [in  a  remote  Senfe  of 
 the  Word]  be  call'd  An ti-  Epifcopal  too,  as  It  has 
 a  Tendency  in  its  Confequences,  to  deftroy  the  juji 
 Authority  and  Power  of  Biihops  -,  but  frill  this 
 Circumftance,  wherein  the  Baptifm  is  admini-  - 
 JlerM,  is  not  the  Mini  ft  rat  ion  it  felf  •,  the  Miniftra- 
 fion  is   one  thing.,   the  Circumfiance  wherein  Yu 
 
 giveq 
 
Chap.  6.       Schifmatical  Baptifms.  201 
 
 given,  is  another-,  and  that  which  can  juflly  be 
 charg'd  on  the  Circumftance,  cannot  fairly  be  ap- 
 ply M  to  the  Commijfiorid  Minift  ration  *,  becaufe, 
 tho'  the  Circumftance  of  Herefy,  Schifin,  &c  is 
 certainly  wicked  and  un  author  izd  ^  yet  the  Mini- 
 ftration  of  Baptifm  with  Water,  In  the  Name  of 
 the  Trinity,  by  a  Perfon  Veiled  with  an  Epif copal 
 Commifjton,  not  Vacated,  NulVd,  or  made  Void  by 
 the  Herefy  or  Schifm,  or  by  any  Law  of  the  Church, 
 is5  in  it  f elf  no  other  than  that  Commiflion  d  Bap- 
 tifm, which  the  Church  her  felf  Adminifters  \  and 
 it  proceeds  from  Mr.  Binghams  not  duly  attending 
 to  this  RiftinSion  between  the  Authorized  Baptifm^ 
 and  the  Circumftance  wherein  'tis  adminifter'd, 
 that  he  affirms  cC  All  the  Baptifms  of  Hereticks, 
 c  Schifmaticks^  and  Regraded  Priefts,  are  (UttftU* 
 "  tlWtfjTJ-,"  and  that  "  It  was  agreed  on  all 
 "  JpcMtig)  that  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks,  and 
 *c  Regraded  Clergy-men  had  not  any  Legal  9UtI)0* 
 "  lit?  tO  TSapttJC,  Fage  $1.  "  when  'tis  plain 
 they  had  the  Church's  legal  %Uttmityh  fince 
 they  were  Epifcopally  Ordain  d,  and  the  Church  did 
 not  Null  their  Orders,  by  any  of  her  Laws,  but 
 the  contrary,  as  we  have  feen  before  $  and  fmcQ 
 Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  fays  of  them,  That  "  the 
 ;c  Church  did  not  intend  to  deny  the  (HaltDttP  of 
 c  their  Ordination^  Page  88.  Thus,  running  in- 
 to Inconfiftencies  and  Contradictions,  for  want 
 of  a  due  Regard  that  ought  to  be  had,  to  the  Dif- 
 ference between  a  Cf)UtJS  and  its  CfrttlttlffattCe 
 only. 
 
 §  V.  It  is  from  hence  that  our  Reverend  Hifto- 
 rian  thus  concludes  his  Account  of  Heretical  and 
 Schifmatical  Baptifms  in  his  91ft  Page,  "  Upon  the 
 "  whole   (fays  he)  the  Refit  It  of  our  Enquiry  con- 
 
 "  cerning 
 
202  Of  Heretical  and  Pa  r  t  II. 
 
 "  cerning  Hereticks  and  Scbifmaticks,  and  Degraded 
 "  Clergy-men,  is  thk\ 
 
 c>  Fir  ft,  They  all  aft  in  Oppofition  to  the  Church's 
 c<  Lawful  atttljO?ttP,  and  therefore  IjaUe  I10t  her 
 u  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* 
 millions  of  their  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Cler- 
 gy 5  fo  that,  by  Virtue  of  thofe  Laws,  they  were,  by 
 thofe  Churches,  reckon' d  to  be  deft i tut e  of  Authority 
 and  Power  for  Sacred  Miniftrations,  during  their 
 Schifm  or  lierefy:  But  the  other  Churches,  who 
 would  not  come  up  to  the  Cyprianick  Difcipline  id 
 this  Matter,  made  no  fuch  Nullifying  Laws,  but 
 tt)Z  Contrary  and  therefore,  their  Heretical  and 
 Schifmatical  Subjects  of  the  Clergy  had  not  their 
 Commiffions,  which  they  at  firft  receiv'd  of  the 
 Church,  made  Null  and  Void,  but  they  remained 
 ftill  Indeleted,  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  Hflfoful  SDlte  \  if  they  had  not  her  Autho- 
 rity, then  they  had  not  her  CommiJJion  ^  if  they 
 had  not  her  Commiilion,  then  they  had  no  Epifcopal 
 CommiJJion,  for  her  Commiffion  is  only  Epifcopal  ^ 
 if  they  had  no  Epifcopal  Commiflion,  then  they 
 were  but  Laicks  -,  if  they  were  but  Laicks,  then 
 they  were  No  Friefs^  and  their  Ordination  was 
 Null  and  Void  ^  when  yet  Mr.  Bingham  fays,  "  The 
 <c  Church  did  not  intend  to  Deny  the  dSalt'OitP  Of 
 *  t\)t\t  ©filiation,  Page  88.  and  that  u  They 
 <c  were  allow  d  to  be  Ptfettg  fill,  Page  89.  He 
 goes  on  and  fays, 
 
 «  Secondly, 
 
Chap.  6.       Schifmatical  Baptifms.  20 J 
 
 u  Secondly,  Notwithjlanding  this  [i.  e.  notwith- 
 standing their  not  having  the  Church's  Lawful 
 Authority  to  Baptize]  "  their  Baptifms,  if  done  in 
 "  due  Yorm,  are  Valid,  and  not  to  be  repeated.* 
 But  the  Discipline  of  the  Cyprianick  Churches  did 
 not  allow  this  -,  for  as  they  vacated  their  Commit 
 fions,  fo  in  confequence  thereof  they  nulPd  their 
 Baptifms  too-,  but  the  other  Churches,  as  they  did 
 not  null  their  Commiffion  and  Authority,  fo  nei- 
 ther did  they  make  void  their  Baptifms -,  and 
 fince  they  were  CommhTion'd  Baptifms,  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  minifter  Re- 
 "  mijfion  of  Sin^  and  other  invifible  Graces  of  the 
 
 a  Holy  Spirit which  Deficiencies-  are   to  be 
 
 "  fltpplp'fl  by  Imposition  of  Hands,  and  Invocation 
 "  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  upon  their  \_i.e.  the  Bapti- 
 zed's]  "  Repentance,  and  return  to  the  Catholick 
 c  Church :  And  this,  whether  Here  ticks  atting  in 
 u  that  Capacity  be  confider*d, 
 
 c  Fourthfy,  Either  of  Clergy- men  or  Lay~men9 
 c  or  in  a  middle  State  betwixt  both,  &c. "  But  our 
 Reverend  Hiftorian  do's  not  here  diftinguifh  :  For 
 the  Great  Deficiences  he  fpeaks  of,  are  not  in  thofe 
 Baptifms  themfelves,  properly  fpeaking  -,  for  he  may 
 remember3  what  himfelf  fays  of  Baptifms  wick- 
 edly circumftantiated,  even  in  the  Church  it  felf, 
 viz.  that  "  the  fame  Deficient?  was  many  times 
 "  in  the  Baptifm  of  thofe  who  were  baptized  in  the 
 u  Church,  becaufe  they  were  baptized  in  Enmity 
 "  and  Hatred  of  their  Brethren,  and  in  that  State 
 "  COUlD  not  ijatie  Yorgivenefs  of  Sins.  See  his 
 8 1  ft  Page.    Mr.  Bingham  fure  do's  not  mean  that 
 
 thefe 
 
2 ©4  Of  Heretical  and  Pa  R  T  IL 
 
 thefe  Baptifms  in  the  Churchy  have  tit  tf)emfe{t)C0? 
 this  gteat  Deficiency  3  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  himfelf  acknowledges,  "  are  hereby 
 "  made  Partakers  of  ail  fUCl)  lg>?tWfege0,  as  the 
 "  receiving  the  outward,  and  vifible  Sacrament 
 a  of  Baptifm  Catt  gtfie  to  fuel?  as  Bebat  them- 
 "  f elves  (by  fome  ©bttacle  Of  t\)t\l  OtDtt)  from 
 a  the  Invifible  and  Spiritual  Grace  of  it,  Page  77. 
 The  Invifible  and  Spiritual  Grace  of  lt>  is  the  In- 
 vifible and  Spiritual  Grace  of  the  TBapttfttt  it 
 felfj  that  which  is  infeparably  annex'd  to  it* 
 "  But  this  Grace  is  not  receivd. "  That  is  very 
 true  •,  but  the  reafon  why  'tis  not  receiv'd,  is  not 
 from  any  Deficiency  in  the  Baptifm,  for  'tis  [accord- 
 ing to  Mr.  Bingham]  the  Sinner's  "  SD&m  ©bffa- 
 "  Cle,"  and  by  this  he  "  DcbatST  himfelf  from 
 the  Invifible  and  Spiritual  Grace  of  the  Baptifm. 
 This  Circumftance  of  Wickednefs  in  the  Sinner  is 
 the  Caufa  impediens,  the  Obftacle  or  Impediment 
 which  Obftructs  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  Defect  ;  but  the  Recipient  is  not  at  pre- 
 fent  capable,  by  reafon  of  his  Sin,  to  receive  the 
 Spiritual  Benefits  annexed  thereto  •,  take  away  this 
 Obftacle,  by  zfincere  and  hearty  Repentance,  and 
 the  inward  Spiritual  Grace  will  be  received  by  Vir- 
 tue of  the  former  Baptifm.  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  refpect  to  the  Heretical  and  Schi£ 
 matical  Baptifms  we, are  fpeaklng  of-,  for  he,  from 
 St.  Auguftiris  Authority,  "  fuppofes  fucb  as  art 
 
 Baptised 
 
c; 
 
 Chap.  6.       Schifmatical  Baptifms.  20 «( 
 
 "  Baptized  by   Hereticks  and  Scbifmatkks   to  be 
 "  much  in  the  fame  State   as  bad  Men    in    the 
 
 "  Church'^ Nay,   more  he  fays,  "  They  need— 
 
 <;  OUlj?  EepentattCe  and  3bf0lUtl0tt  to  return 
 Cc  to  the  Church  again  -,  the  Seal  and  Characler  of 
 Cc  their  Baptifm  remaining  in  this  refpetl  for  ever 
 c  JjUDCllbie  upon  them,  fo  as  to  qualify  them  to 
 be  admitted  ever  after  to  Pardon  and  b'orgivenefs 
 upon  a  true  Repentance.  Thefe  are  Privileges 
 w  that  a  wicked  Man  has  by  Virtue  of  bis  having 
 cc  receivd  the  outward  form  of  Baptifm,  or  the  vi- 
 "  fible  Sacrament  ttt  tty  CljtttCb,  tho  all  the  Time, 
 tc  by  his  own  fault,  he  be  bCtttttltC  of  Pardon  of 
 "  Sins,  and  all  the  invifible  Graces  and  Operations 
 cc  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  the  Baptifm  of  Simon  Ma- 
 "  gus  was  a  true  Baptifm,  tho  he  was  an  Unworthy, 
 cc  and  therefore  an  (Unprofitable  ECCClber  of  it  h 
 Cc  and  as  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharift  is  a  ttllt 
 "  ©aCtameitt)  tho'  many  Men  eat  it,  not  to  their 
 <c  SouPs  Health,  but  to  their  own  Damnation^  be- 
 caufe  they  are  unworthy  Receivers  of  it.  Now 
 as  the  Cafe  was  with  wicked  Men^  who  thus  re- 
 
 ceivd  Baptifm  in   the  Church. £§>Q  tfje 
 
 %l\titnt$  fuppofed  the  Cafe  Of  tljOiC  to  be  who 
 
 were   baptized fy  JpetettCfeS   or   ©Cljtf- 
 
 matfCfeS)   &c*    Their  Baptifm,    if  done  in  due 
 
 Form was  the  bifible  ©acrament  of 
 
 Baptifm attb  qttaltfieO  them  for  fome,  if 
 
 not  all  of  the  forementioned  Privileges,  fo  that 
 upon  their  Repentance  and  return  to  the  Church 
 « the  Church  by  Impofition  of  Hands  and  In- 
 vocation of  the  Holy  Spirit,  might  obtain  for  them 
 thofe  Bleffings  and  Graces,  which  might  have  been 
 c  bad  in  Baptifm,  if  they  the mf elves  bad  not  been 
 "  the  Obftacle,  and  put  in  a  Bar  again  ft  them.    This 
 <c  Mr.  Bingham  takes  to  be  the  true  State  of  this 
 
 "  Matter, 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
2o6  Of  Heretical  and  Part  II. 
 
 "  Matter,  at  generally  deliver  &  by  fuch  of  the  An- 
 "  cients,  at  defended  the  Validity  of  Heretical  Bap- 
 "  tifm.n  See  his  77th,  78th,  and  79th  Pages. 
 And  to  this  alfo  we  do  agree,  in  confideration, 
 that  thofe  Ancients  did  likewife  acknowledge  the 
 Validity  of  the  Epifcopal  Orders  of  the  Baptizers, 
 coniequently  that  their  Baptifm  was  EpifcopaUy  Au- 
 thorized Baptifm  ;  therefore  that  it  had  no  Defici- 
 ency in  it  felf  all  the  Fault  being  only  in  the  C/>- 
 cumjiance  of  the  Herefy,  or  Schifm,  wherein  their 
 Miniftrations  were  perform'd  -,  ib  that  this  finful 
 Circumftance,  this  Obftacle,  which  (to  ufe  Mr. 
 Bingham's  own  Words)  "  Jptlt  a  T3ar  againft  5> 
 the  Spiritual  Graces  of  thofe  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  5  by  Impofition  of 
 Hands,  and  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghofi,  thofe  Spi- 
 ritual Graces  then  took  place,  and  were  received 
 by  the  Baptized,  without  a  Second  Baptifm,  be- 
 caufe  the  Firft  had  no  Deficiency  in  its  Miniftra- 
 tion,  but  was  whole  and  entire,  being  Commiffiond 
 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- 
 miffion  d  at  all  to  Baptize,  can  prove,  that  thefe 
 falfe  Baptifms  given  by  our  Lay-Diffenting-Teachers^ 
 are  fuch  EpifcopaUy  Commiffiond  Baptifms,  as  thofe 
 Ancient  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptifms  were3 
 
 tfjett  toe  fljail  Jjafce  none  toiti)  tljts  Difpute  5 
 
 but  till  then,  it  muft  be  acknowledg'd,  that  whatfo- 
 ever  can  be  fairly  faid  for  the  Validity  of  thofe 
 Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptifms^  which  were 
 Epifcopal,  is  no  ways  applicable  to  thefe,  which 
 are  not  only  without  an  Epifcopal  CommiJJion,  but 
 are  alfo  in  the  moll  direU  and  proper  Senfe  of  the 
 
 v/ord 
 
Chap.  6.       Schifmatkal  B-aptifms*  207 
 
 word  Anti-Epifcopal,  in  oppofition  to  the  very 
 Order  of  Biihops  ^  a  Ufurpation,  this  of  fo  un- 
 heard of  a  Nature  till  of  late,  that  the  Ancient 
 Catholick  Church  had  no  Experience  of  it  5  and 
 confequently,  could  never  have  any  Tradition  or 
 Cuftom  in  favour  of  its  pretended  Validity. 
 
 §  VI.  By  all  that  has  been  faid,  'tis  plain  that 
 our  Church  of  England  always  had  Valid  Baptifmsy 
 becaufe  fhe  always  had  an  Epif  copal  Commijjion  to 
 baptize.  Even  when  fhe  was  [as  Mr.  Bingham  calls 
 her]  an  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Church,  while 
 under  the  Slavery  of  the  Romijh  Yoke,  her  Epifco- 
 pal  Commiffion  was  good  and  valid,  becaufe 
 there  were  no  Ecclejiaftical  haws  or  Canons  of  the 
 Catholick  Church,  or  of  any  Church  to  whom  ihe 
 may  be  fuppos'd  to  have  ow'd  Subje&ion,  that 
 made  her  Epif  copal Commijjion  null  and  void  upon 
 the  Account  of  her  [fuppos'd]  Herefy  or  Schifm  5 
 therefore  all  her  Baptifms  were  even  then  good 
 and  Valid  in  them/elves,  being  CommiJJiorid  Bap- 
 tifms In  the  Name  of  the  Trinity :  They  had  110 
 iDEftCtj  as  they  were  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm^ 
 whatfoever  Deficiencies  of  Spiritual  Graces  fhe  is 
 fuppos'd  to  have  then  labour'd  under,  were  not 
 owing  to  the  Imperfection  of  the  Sacrament*  but 
 to  the  Sinfulnefs  and  Uucharitablenefs  of  the 
 fuppos'd  Herefy  or  Schifm  fhe  is  faid  to  have 
 been  in:  'Twas  only  by  this  Obftacle  ^  that  thofe 
 Spiritual  Benefits  can  be  fuppos'd  to  have  been 
 obftrutfed,  which  Obftacle  being  remov'd  by  her 
 Repentance  and  Reformation^  thofe  Spiritual  Graces 
 take  effed  ^  but  her  Commijjion  it  felf  is  no  more 
 than  it  was  before,  the  Validity  thereof  is  juft 
 the  fame,  only  the  Obftacle  is  now  remov'd,  which 
 before  [is  fuppos'd  to  have]  hinder 'd  the  receiving 
 
 of 
 
2  o  8  Of  Heretical  and  Part  II. 
 
 of  thofe  Inward  and  Spiritual  Graces,  which  are 
 conftantly  annexed  to  the  Commijfion  it  felf  whe- 
 ther the  Commiffion'd  Baptizer  be  CKLitCfeEfl  or 
 no  j  as  our  Church  has  taught  us  in  her  Twenty- 
 Sixth  Article. 
 
 §  VII.  Before  I  conclude  this  Chapter,  I  mud: 
 obferve,  that  the  Rite  of  Impofition  of  Hands,  where- 
 by Men  who  had  formerly  been  Baptiz'd  by  He- 
 retical and  Schifmatical  Priefts,  were  receiv'd  into 
 the  Church,  was  not  appointed  to  fupply  any  fup~ 
 pos°d  Defeff  in  the  Baptifm  it  felf  which  they  had 
 receiv'd,  for  it  was  the  Rite  whereby  Penitents, 
 even  thofe  that  had.  been  baptiz'd  in  the  Church  it 
 felf,  were  us'd  to  be  receiv'd  ^  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  Impoftion 
 of  Hands]  fuppos'd  to  have  been  3|rttialtl3*  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 
 tttafee  (UaltO  by  Impofition  of  Hands  h  for  Mr. 
 Bingham  himfelf  obferves  in  his  9 2d  Page,  That 
 *c  *  the  great  Council  of  Nice  decreed  in  the  Cafe  of 
 "  the  Novatians,  that  upon  their  Return  to  the 
 "  Church,  they  fljOttlB  Continue  in  the  fame  Sta- 
 "  tion  and  Clerical  Degrees  they  were  in  before, 
 "  only  receiving  a  J&eCOnCtifatOJP  Impofition  of 
 "  Hands  by  way  of  aWoUtttOtt, "  which  was 
 plainly  allowing  the  Validity  of  their  Orders  5  and 
 the  Impofition  of  Hands  was  Re 'conciliatory^  and 
 by  way  of  SUbfOlUttCW)  according  to  Mr.  Bingham - 
 and  the  Canon  has  nothing  in  it,  that  fuppofes  any 
 
 *  Con.  Nic.  Can.  8. 
 
 Defeti 
 
Chap.  6.        Schifmatical  Baptijfos,  209 
 
 Defeff  in  the  Ordination  it  felf  of  the  Novatian 
 Schifmaticks  to  be  fupply'd  by  Impofition  of 
 Hands.  And  when  the  Cafe  of  our  Diffenters  (hall 
 be  prov'd  to  be  the  fame  with  thofe  Novatians  ; 
 when  their  having  HO  ^ptfCOpal  ComttltffiOtt 
 (hall  be  prov'd  to  be  the  fame  with  the  Novatians, 
 who  plainly  DaO  OltC  *  then,  and  not  till  then, 
 can  a  "  jReCOrtCl'ItatOJp  Impofition  of  Hands,  by 
 "  way  of  abfOlUtiOn,"  be  fufficient,  for  the  re- 
 ceiving of  our  Diffenters  as  validly  Baptizd  Per- 
 fonsy  in  the  Senfe  of  the  Catbolick  Church  \  for 
 there  are  no  Infiances,  that  can  be  brought,  to 
 prove,  that  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church  ever  re- 
 ceiv'd,  by  Impofition  of  Hands,  without  Bap~ 
 tifm,  fuch  Perfons  as  were  only  waftYd  before,  by 
 thofe  who  were  known  (or  fupposM)  to  have  been 
 
 neser  Cptfcopallp  eommtftton'D  to  Baptize, 
 
 P  CHAP, 
 
2IO  Of  the  Practice  of        Part  II, 
 
 CHAP.    VII. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham'*  Account  of  the  fupposJd  Pra- 
 ctice of  Lay-Baptifm  by  the  Modern  Greeks, 
 Mufcovites,  and  foreign  Reformed,  Examined; 
 and  proved  to  be  no  Evidence  of  the  Gene- 
 ral Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Church. 
 
 §  I.  f\  U  R  Reverend  Hiftorian  begins  his  Ao 
 
 v^  count  of  the  Modern  Greeks,  with  tel= 
 
 ling  us  in  his  ioift  Page,  That  "  in  the  Greek 
 
 i  Church  there  has  been  fOUte  Dtfpttte  about  this 
 
 "  Matter,  [/.  e.  of  Lay-Baptifm]  and  fome  feem- 
 
 cC  ing  2Jclttfitt0n  in  the  Decrees  of  their  Councils, 
 
 c  ihd  they  have  more  generally  agreed  with  the  La- 
 
 c  tins  Jo  far,  ai  to  illfOlW  the  Baptifm  of  Lay  men 
 
 *  in  Cnreg  Of  €XtUmZ  Neceffity. 
 
 His  fir  ft  Inftance  is  from  the  Time  of  the  Pa- 
 triarch Nicephcrt/s,  in  the  beginning  of  the  Ninth 
 Century,  whofe  two  Canons  allow  of  Baptifm  by 
 a  Chrifiian  Lay-man^  "  where  there  is  no  pjieff*  " 
 Mr.  Bingham  reckons,  "  this  was  the  declared  Senfe 
 
 *  of  the  Greek  Church,  SlUt&enttCailP  delivered  in 
 c  thofe  two  Canons  made  in  a  Patriarchal  Council^ 
 
 <c  where  270  Bifhops  were  prefent,  if  tlje  COUftCtt 
 4C  of  Conftantinople,  Anno  814.  was  the  Council  in 
 
 u  which  thefe  Canons  were  made,  Page  105:.' In 
 
 his  10 2d  Page  he  produces  Georgius  Hamartol//s, 
 about  the  Year  840.  making  "  a  WtteC  3j!tbertt&e 
 <c  againjl  the  LaiDfUlnCftS  of  this,  ay  either  not 
 u  knowing  the  Decrees  of  Nicephorus,  or  elfe  as 
 S  Contemning  and  infulting  them,   Page  10?.— 
 
 That 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Church,  &c.  211 
 
 That   in  the  Twelfth  Century  cc  there  were  fome 
 
 "  tofe  w^OppofittOn   /*    tbems  for   Michael 
 
 '  Glycas,    about  the  Tear  11 20.   takes  occafion  to 
 
 "  urge  fever al  Arguments  againft  the  (HftltOftP  <zf 
 
 "  Lay-Baptifm  in  art?  Cafess  of  JSiecdfitp  »&»- 
 
 "  foever,   Page   104.— — That  "  tf3<?#r    100  Tears 
 
 "  after ,   <?#£  Theodorus  Scutariota,   maintain  d  the 
 
 cc  Invalidity   of  Lay-Baptifm,    Page  105.— — That, 
 
 <c  /&//■  which  fCCtHS— — to  bear  down  the  for ef aid 
 
 "  Authority  [of  Nicepborras  two  Canons]  is  ano- 
 
 c  ther  Decree  made  in  the  Council  ^/"Conftantinople, 
 
 ?  #/fr&r  Lucas  Chryfoberges  //;<?  Patriae}),  An.  1 166. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham    acknowledges,    That  cC  /fe  Council 
 
 c  cannot  be  denyd  to  fpeak  p]ainly  againft  the  Va- 
 
 c  //W/Vy  0/"  Lay-Baptifm,  and  in  favour  of  [what  he 
 
 calls]  "  Re-baptization,  in  the  Cafe  that  was  then 
 
 "  laid  before  them,  which  war  the  flD^DHtOl'P  Mi- 
 
 c  /7//?^r  of  Baptifm    by  fuch  as  counterfeited  Or- 
 
 "  ders,  and  p^tettBeD  tO  faC  P?JCfl0,  «***  they 
 
 "  «w*  /w//*,  Page  ic6.— That  "  /A*  Totll  <55?C£fe 
 
 cc  (HUttteVS  0/  ^  Days,   in  [peaking  of  the  Mr 
 
 4  nifter    of  Baptifm    and   the   Pratfice    of    their 
 
 ;c  Church,  altoapS?  except  the  Cafe  of  Extreme  AV- 
 
 c  cejfity,  in  which  they  allow  a  Lay  man,  or  CCIO' 
 
 cc  tlian  to  Baptize,   rather  than  fuffer  a  Child  to  die 
 
 cc  without  Baptifm"     He  produces  u  Jeremy,   the 
 
 "  late  Patriarch  of  Conftantinople, "   as  allowing 
 
 of  this  -, '  alfo  another  cC  Evidence  from  what  Since- 
 
 '  rus  has  obfervd   out  of  Merrophanes  Critppu- 
 
 c  Ins,    a  late  Writer   of  that  Communion  -,    Arcu- 
 
 tc  dius'j  Remark  out  of  Gabriel  Se\rerus,  Arch  Bi- 
 
 "  fhop  of  Philadelphia  \?*    and  laftly,  oujr  Learned 
 
 Dr.  Smith,    who  gives  this  Account  from  one  of 
 
 their  Publick  Confeflions  of  Faith,  Printed  1662 
 
 That  it  fs  not  Lawful  and  Proper  for  any  One  to 
 
 f  Baptize,   but    a  JUfoftU  P#eff,    Except   in  a 
 
 P  2  "  Time 
 
212  Of  the  Practice  of         Part  XL 
 
 6  Time  of  Necejfity,    and  then  a  Secular  Ferfo^ 
 c  whether  Man  or  £2l0fliatt>  may  do  it,  Page  107., 
 108. 
 
 Thefe  are  Mr.  Binghams  Evidences  for  the  Pra- 
 ctice of  the  Greeks  5  and  now  let  us  fee  the  Force 
 of  their  Teftimon)*-,  as  to  the  Matter  we  are  en- 
 quiring about,  which  is,  whether  the  Ancient  Ca- 
 tholick Church  has  any  Law,  Tradition,  or  Cu- 
 stom, for  the  Validity  of  pretended  Baptifm,  by 
 Perfons  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- 
 ham* s  whole  Scholaflical  Hiftory^  there  is  not  fo 
 much  as  €>tte  jiltffattce  of  the  Greek  Cburctfs 
 having  ever  attempted  to  Authorize  their  hay-men 
 to  baptize  in  Cafe  of  Necefhty,  for  the  firft  Eight 
 Hundred  Tears  of  Chriftianity,  nor  any  ProoLthat 
 the  Greek  Church  ever  had  in  that  Period  any  pre- 
 tended Baptifms  by  Ferfons  never  Commiffiond  to 
 baptize. — —So  that,  for  the  firft  Eight  Hundred 
 Tears,  that  Church  has  no  Ru/e^  Ecclejiaftical  Laa\ 
 or  Cuftom,  whereby  to  determine  the  pretended 
 Validity  of  any  Lay-Baptifms  whatfoever  *,  and 
 this  Negative  is  a  good  Argument,  that  the  Vali- 
 dity of  Baptifm  by  Laicks,  never  was  the  General 
 Senfe  and  Frallice  of  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church ; 
 for,  if  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church  had  efteem'd 
 it  fo,  it  is  a  molt  unaccountable  thing,  to  find 
 nothing  of  this  attefted  to  by  the  Greek  Church  for 
 Eight  Hundred  Years  together,  when  we  confider 
 the  ®#at  Client  of  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  Church,  &c.  215 
 
 were  held  in  it  5  and  when  we  confider  alfb  the 
 Great  Number  of  Greek  Authors,  whofe  Wri- 
 tings make  fo  remarkable  a  Figure  as  they  do, 
 among  the  Works  of  the  Primitive  Fathers  -,  and 
 who,  both  Councils  and  Greek  Fathers,  are  thus 
 lilent  for  Eight  Hundred  Years  together,  in  fo 
 Important  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  Catholick  Tradition,  Ecclejiaflical 
 Law,  or  Cuftom. 
 
 §  III.  Add  to  this,  that  tho'  there  was  fuch  a 
 profound  Silence  in  the  Greek  Church,  concerning 
 any  Validity  in  fuch  Baptifms,  for  the  firft  Eight 
 Hundred  Years  ;  yet,  there  was  HO  ftlCf)  &5>f* 
 fence  about  their  3!ttfiaU0ltPi  for,  we  have  al- 
 ready feen,  that  St.  Chryfoftom  and  St.  Bajtl,  in  the 
 Fourth  Century,  pronounc'd  them  to  be  l3ttll  ftttO 
 (HOIll*  St.  Baft's  Epiftle,  wherein  he  affirm'd 
 this,  was  a  Canonical  Epiftle,  and  receiv'd  into  the 
 Code  of  the  Greek  Church,  as  part  of  their  Canon 
 Law ;  fo  that  this  was  the  Senfe  of  the  Ancient 
 Greek  Church,  and  was  never  oppos'd  by  any 
 Greek  Council,  or  the  contrary  taught  by  any  of 
 the  Greek  Fathers,  till  the  Time  of  the  Corrupt 
 Ages  of  the  Church-,  when  other  S>tlperftittOnSf 
 very  dangerous  to  Cbriflianity,  crept  into  the 
 Greek,  as  well  as  into  the  Latin  Church. 
 
 ^  IV.  Mr.  Bingham  begins  his  Account  of  the 
 fuppos'd  Practice  of  the  Greek  Church  (as  to  Lay- 
 Baptifm)  in  the  Ninth  Century,  one  of  the  moft 
 corrupt  and  fuperftitious  Ages  of  the  Churchy 
 wherein  the  Pradice  of  the  a30?fttPPing  flf 
 3j1tt<1gf  $  was  carried  on,  both  in  the  Eaji  and  JVe/i 
 
 P  3  with 
 
5 1 4  Of  the  PraBice  of        Part  II. 
 
 with  a  high  Handj  and  *Nicephorus  Patriarch  of 
 Conilantinopk,  [our  Reverend  Hiftorian's  Author] 
 was  a  very  zealous  Promoter  of  this  Superflition^ 
 infomuch  as  to  Suffer  and  Die  in  Banifhment  for 
 if,  as  if  it  had  been  the  Caitfe  of  God;  which  is  no 
 great  Reputation,  to  his  fuppojed  two  Canons,  pro- 
 duced by  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  in  favour  of 
 Lay-Baptifm  5  and  his  Authority  is  of  no  more  Va- 
 lue iii  this  Cafe,  than  it  is  in  the  other,  of  the 
 Ufe  of  SimageS  in  Divine  Worfhip. 
 
 k  V.  3Tis  true,  Mr.  Bingham  glories  in  this  as 
 
 c  the  Declared  Senfe  of  the  Greek  Church  authen- 
 
 *  ticaliy  deliver  d  in  thefe  two  Canons,   made  in  a 
 
 u  Yatriarchal  Council,  where  270  Bifhops  were  pre- 
 
 a  fent,  3T  tfje  Council  of  Conftantmop:c5 
 
 a  Anno  814.  was  the  Council  in  which  thefe  Canons 
 "  were  made,  [fays  he]  Page  105."  But  the  Rea- 
 der may  eafily  fee,  that  Mr.  Bingham  dare  not  far, 
 CljliS  M$  tl)Z  CfJUimU  he  puts  it  only  upon 
 the  weak  Foundation  of  an,  "  3i£  the  Council  of 
 Ci  Conftantinople,  &c. — was  the  Council,  in  which 
 <c  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  (hews  his  Inclina- 
 tion to  have  it  fo,  but  it  is  no  ways  becoming 
 a  faithful  Hiftorian,  to  prejudice  his  Readers  with 
 3.r&'££aP*e'&  and  p£r8apS'&  fo  frequently 
 as  our  Author  do's  *,  becaufe,  abundance  of  People 
 do  not  fo  much  mind  every  fingle  word,  [Jif? 
 P£i1jap05  &c]    but   that  they  may  be  carried 
 
 i  Dh  Vint  Ecckf><ifii;,;l  Wjlory,  Cent.  IX.  f.  i5  y. 
 
 away 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Churchy  &cc.  215 
 
 away  with  a  Belief  of  what  is  annex'd  to  fuch 
 u  $V&  and  ^ap-'be'S,35  efpecially,  when  the  reft 
 of  the  words  are  big  and  oftentatious :  As  here,  we 
 have  the  glaring  fhew,  of  "  Tfo  declard  Senfe  of 
 
 "  /&?  Greek  cfowvfc  aut&enttcaUj?  DeIiuet;'D, 
 
 "  W  tf  Patriarchal  Council  of  270  15ifl)OP0*5> 
 thefe  are  £/?dr  Things,  apt  enough  to. fill  up  the 
 whole  Imagination  of  many  carelefs  Readers,  who 
 may  negleel  the  3lf  to  which  they  are  joined  :  But 
 let  us  a  little  enquire,  what  reafon  Mr.  Bingham 
 has  thus  partially  to  Name  t^\$y  any  more  than 
 the  other  Councils,  faid  to  have  been  held  by  AT/- 
 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  Conftantinople, 
 Anno  806  -,  in  that  fame  Year  a  *  Council  was  held 
 at  Conftantinople  about  the  Reftoration  of  Jofeph 
 the  Steward  of  that  Church  to  his  Office,  out  of 
 which  he  had  been  turned  by  Nicephorus's  Prede- 
 cefTor  Tarafius  the  Patriarch ;  and  there  are  no 
 Records  of  any  fuch  Canons  made  in  that  Coun- 
 cil. 
 
 In  the  Year  809.  Nicephorus  held  another  t  Coun- 
 cil, cc  In  which  Jofeph  was  not  only  Confirm  d  in  his 
 "  Place,  but  the  fecond,  $fttttt*Mtt& Carriage 
 c  #/~  Conftantine  Copronymus   the  Emperor^  who 
 
 after  he  had  divorced  his  Wife,  married  another 
 "  nanfd  Theodota,  wai  OeClat'O  latufttl,  b? 
 "  DifpCltrattOttj  and  every  one  that  fhould  main- 
 u  tain  the  COttttarp  wo*  Anathematized. "  Nei- 
 ther did  this  Council  make  thofe  Canons  ♦,   and  if 
 
 *  Du  Phi's  Cbron.  IX.  Cent. 
 
 t  Du  Pin's  Ecclef.  Hlft,  Cent.  IX.  p.  f. 
 
 P  4  they 
 
21 6  Of  the  Practice  of        Part  IL 
 
 they  had,  'twould  have  been  but  very  little  to 
 their  Reputation,  to  have  been  decreed  by  thofe  who 
 could  eonfitm  even  aUtliterp  it  felf. 
 
 In  the  Year  815.  Leo  Armenia  pofTefs'd  himfelf 
 of  the  Empire,  and  was  Crown'd  by  Nicephon/s 
 the  nth  of  (a)  July.  This  Leo  declar'd  againft 
 2mage  KtlOtfljlp  in  favour  of  the  honoclajis,  who 
 were  (b)  Nicepborus's  Enemies,  upon  the  account 
 of  his  great  Zeal  for  that  Superfiition.  "  The 
 "  Emperor  refolving  to  root  out  that  Corruption^ 
 "  consulted  with  Antonius  Metropolitan  of  Silea, 
 •  to  aflift  him  in  this  (c)  Defign,  promifing  to 
 u  make  him  Patriarch  of  Conftantinople  inftead  of 
 'c  Nicephorus,  which  Antonius  promis'd  the  Empe- 
 u  ror  he  would."  Du  Pin,  in  his  Chronicle  of  the 
 Ninth  Century,  fays,  "  that  this  Year,  813.  was 
 "  held  the  Council  of  Conftantinople,  againft  Ante 
 "  nius  of  SHea.  ?  Labbe  fays  'twas  in  the  (d)  Year 
 S14.  and  that  it  confided  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  Buiinefs  tranfafted  at  that  Council,  but  the 
 Anathematizing  of  Antonius,  for  endeavouring  to  put 
 down  Image  Worjhip.  There  are  HO  fuel)  CaitOlljg 
 of  that  Council  Extant  5  and  therefore  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham has  no  more  reafon  to  fuppofe  Nicephorus^ 
 two  Canons  to  have  been  made  in  tljt0  CuUItttl> 
 than  he  has  to  affix  them  to  either  of  the  other 
 two  Councils  held  by  that  Patriarch. 
 
 fa )  Du  Pins  Cbron.  IX.  Century. 
 
 1  iQ  D<  Pin's  Ecefff  ffift.  Cent.  IX.  p-  1 
 
 (ej  Condi  Labhei,  Tout,  7.  pr*TWs 
 
 ( i )  tb  d.  I  zoo. 
 
 There 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Church,  &c.  217 
 
 There  was  another  Council  at  Conflantwopfe, 
 Anno  8 1 4.  but  it  was  held  by  the  Iconoclafls  [Op- 
 pofers  of  Image  Worfhip]  after  l\icephorzx\  Ba- 
 nifhment  for  his  fuperftitious  Zeal  to  promote  and 
 uphold  that  great  Corruption,  when  Tbeodofivs  the 
 Iconcclafl  was  made  Patriarch  in  his  ftead,  who 
 prefided  in  that  Council  *  fo  that  'Kicepborus,  to 
 be  fure,  neither  would,  nor  could  fit  in  that  Coun- 
 cil, and  confequently  his  two  Canons  were  not  made 
 there  j  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  againft  Antonius^  ra- 
 ther than  any  other,  and  all  becaufe  of  the  great 
 {how  that  it  makes  of  270  Bifhops 5  who,  if  they 
 had  made  thefe  two  Canon j,  would  have  no  more 
 fhew'd  the  Senfe  of  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church 
 in  this  Matter,  than  they  did  in  the  other  of  Image 
 WorJJiip,  when  they  Anathematiz'd  a  Bifhop  foj: 
 oppofing  that  great  Superftition. 
 
 §  VI.  It  is  true,  that  immediately  after  this 
 Council,  Anno  814.  Labbe  places  Seventeen  Ca- 
 nons of  Nicepberw,  among  which  are  the  two  Ca- 
 nons we  are  fpeaking  of  ^  but  then  'tis  as  true, 
 that  Labbe  do's  not  reckon  them  as  Acts  of  that 
 Council  but  acknowledges  that  *  he  took  them 
 from  the  fame  Author  as  our  Reverend  Hiftorian 
 receiv'd  them,  viz,  from  Leunclavir/s  j  and  that  he 
 
 *  Concil.  Labb.Tom,  7.  p.  1290.  Eidem  quoque  fubjiciemus 
 Leges  Synodic**  ab  eodem  Ni  ephoro  Sanftitas  ex  Lib>o  III. 
 Tom.  i.  Juris  Graco  Rcmar.i  a  Joanre  Lcunclavio  Concinnari : 
 heque  erira  Inda^are  ullatenus  potuimus  ad  quern  potiffimuiT! 
 fyjnum  fint  revocand*. 
 
 could 
 
2 1 8  .Of  the  Practice  of        Part  II. 
 
 could  not  at  all  affix  them  to  any  particular  Year 
 wherein  they  were  made,  and  therefore  by  confe- 
 quence  to  no  particular  Council. 
 
 Labbe  indeed  calls  'em  Synodical  Laws,  but  Le- 
 unclav'ws  from  whom  he  took  'em,  gives  'em  no 
 other  Name  than  only  the  *  Canons  gf  Nicephorus 
 'the  Confeffor,  and  fays  nothing  of  their  having  been 
 made  in  any  Synod  at  all.  But  feme  are  apt  to 
 think  they  were  decreed  in  a  Synod  of  Bifhops, 
 becaufe  they  are  found  in  Leunclavims  Third 
 Book,  which  bears  this  Title,  [Lib.  III.  Qui  con- 
 iinet  Sententias  Synhodales,  &  Sanlliones  Pontificias 
 Archiepifceporum  &  Patriarcharum  Conftantinopolis.'] 
 u  The  Third  Book,  containing  the  Synodical  Judg- 
 *'  merits,  and  Pontifical  Decrees  of  Arch-Bifhops, 
 tt  and  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  :  "  In  which  'tis 
 to  be  obferv'd,  that  Leunclav///s  gives  his  Reader 
 to  undcrftand,  that  in  his  Third  Book  he  had  col- 
 lected two  forts  of  Decrees  ^  tirfis  Thofe  which 
 were  made  in  Councils  at  Conjlantinople.  Second- 
 ly, 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  i  when  they  are  Confutations  of  Particu- 
 lar Patriarchs,  or  Arch-Bijl)ops,  he  entitles  them  as 
 fucb,  and  does  not  give  Notice  of  any  Council 
 whatfoever  as  having  appointed  them:  Thus  for 
 Example,  in  his  Third  Book,  Page  186.  he  gives 
 us  a  Conftitution  of  St.  John  Chryfoftom,  Arch-Bi- 
 ihop  of  Conjiantinople,  and  do's  not  call  it  Synodi- 
 cal. In  Page  187.  he  has  a  Synodical  One,  made 
 by  Gennadim,  Patriarch  of  Conjlantinople,  in  a 
 Council  affembled  there  with  hm,    and  fo  Leuncla- 
 
 *  Leunclay.  Jus  Grsco.  R'^m.  Vol.  1.  Lib.  III.  p.  196. 
 
 vim 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Church,  See.  219 
 
 vius  exprefles  it  -,  but  when  he  gives  us  Nicepbo- 
 rus's  Canons,  he  only  calls  'em  Canons  of  Nice- 
 "  phorus  the  Confefjor"  as  I  have  before  obferv'd, 
 without  faying  that  they  were  ever  made  in  any 
 Council,  and  he  is  remarkably  particular  in  this 
 Diftindion  •,  fo  that,  lince  there  is  no  Council  to 
 which  thefe  two  Canons  can  be  appropriated,  we 
 may  conclude,  that  they  were  made  by  no  other 
 than  Nicepborus  himfelf  -,  and  every  Body  who 
 has  look'd  into  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,  knows  that 
 particular  Popes,  Patriarchs,  Arch-Bifhops ,  Bi- 
 Ihops,  and  Abbots,  &c.  have  made  many  Canons 
 by  their  otvn  Authority,  without  any  Councils  aP 
 fembled,  and  concurring  with  them  in  thofe  Ca- 
 nons. 
 
 §  VII.  Add  to  this,  that  thefe  two  Canons  are 
 not  to  be  found  in  the  Collection  of  Nicepborus^ 
 Thirty  Seven  Canons,  nor  in  that  of  his  Nine  Ca- 
 nons, both  publihYd  by  *  Coteleriits  >,  only  Leun- 
 clav'ws  (from  Harmenopulus)  in  his  Collection  of 
 the  Greek  and  Roman  Laws,  has  publiih'd  Seven- 
 teen Canons,  attributed  to  'Nicepborus,  all  which 
 are  in  Cot ele rims  Collections,  except  the  2d,  3d, 
 9th,  1 2th,  13th,  and  16th  of  the  Seventeen :  Thefe 
 Six  Canons  look  very  fufpicioufly,  being  mix'd 
 with  Eleven  others,  which  Eleven  are  found  in 
 the  former  Collections,  when  tbe  Six  are  not  be 
 found  in  tbem  -,  among  thefe  Six  are  the  Two  Ca- 
 nons for  Lay-Baptifm,  about  which  we  are  dif- 
 puting,  viz.  the  13th  and  16th  of  the  Seventeen; 
 fo  that  their  being  'Nicepborus 's,  is  founded  only 
 upon  the  fingle  Teftimony  of  Harmenopulus,  who 
 
 *  Inter  Monuments,  Ecclef.  Grxc,  Tom.  3.  p.  445% 
 
 wrote 
 
220  Of  the  Practice  of  Part  II. 
 
 wrote  hk  Epitome  of  the  Greek  Canons  about  the 
 Year  u?o.  from  whom  Leunclavius  fays  he  took 
 them  •,  which  Evidence,  fuppofing  it  to  be  as  good 
 as  can  be  defir'd,  is  ttQ  argument  that  they  were 
 of  any  Publick  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  exaclly  found  in  Principle  and 
 Trat7ice,  but  that  he  could  be  carried  away  with  a 
 falfe  Zeal  for  the  Promoting  of  Superftition,  and 
 did  not  fcruple  to  ratify  and  confirm  even  3ftUls 
 
 terp  it  felf. 
 
 §  VIII.  But  further,  thefe  Canons  appear  to 
 have  been  but  of  very  little,  if  of  any  Authority 
 at  all  in  the  Greek  Church  ^  for  if  they  had  been 
 the  dcclard  Authentick  Senfe  of  that  Church :  How 
 mould  (bme  of  the  Greek  Writers  [who  never  were 
 accusd  of  Contumacious  oppofing  the  (landing  Rules 
 and  Orders  of  their  Church]  write  fo  zealoufly  as 
 they  have  done,  againft  the  LnftJfttlttCfS  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm,  even  in  Cafes  of  pretended  NeceJJity  ?  As 
 Georgius  Hamartohts^  about  the  Year  840.  Glycas^ 
 Anno,  ii  20.  and  The  odor  m  Scutariota^  Anno  1220. 
 Sure  thefe  knew  the  general  Senfe  and  Prattice  of 
 the  Greek  Church  \  and  why  fhould  we  believe  they 
 would  have  written  fo  boldly  againft  it,  if  this 
 tad  been  the  approvd  Lawful  Senfe  and  Practice 
 thereof  >  They  plainly  pafs  over  and  neglect  thefe 
 Two  Canons,  as  if  they  never  had  been-,  or  if 
 they  had  any  Knowledge  of  them,  they  looi'd  up- 
 on 'em  only  as  the  Opinion  of  one  Man,  to  be 
 only  of  Private,  if  of  any  Authority,  and  not 
 the  declar'd  Authentick  Senfe  of  the  Greek  Church, 
 which  we  may  reafonably  believe  they  would  have 
 {jeen  more  tender   of  Oppofine,    if  it  had   been 
 
 *  truly 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Church,  &c.  221 
 
 iC  truly  Catholic k  and  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God? 
 Since  Mr.  Bingham  do's  not  give  us  any  Inftance 
 of  their  Contradi&ing  the  Handing  Rules  and  Or- 
 ders of  their  Church  iu  any  other  refpedt  what- 
 loever. 
 
 §  IX.  And  great  reafon  had  thofe  Writers   fo 
 ftrenuoufly  to  oppofe  Lay-Baptifm  in  any  Cafe 
 whatfoever  ^  for  the  Inftitution  it  felf  gives  not  the 
 leaft  encouragement   to  fuch  a  Practice,  but  the 
 contrary :    St.  Bafil^   in  his  Canonical  Epiftle  to  j  £"* 
 Ampbilocbius,  part  of  the  Canon  Law  of  the  Greek  -$70 
 Church,  pronounced  fuch  Baptifm  Null  and  Void  5 
 St.  Chryfoftom,   Arch-Bifhop  of  Conftantinople^   did  -yy  S 
 the  fame  ^  thefe  both  in  the  Fourth  Century  :  The 
 Conftitutions,   call'd   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  favour'd  fuch  a 
 Praclice  as  that  of  Lay-Baptifm  ^  fo  that  even  if 
 Nicepborr/f^   Anno  814.    had  endeavour'd  by  his 
 Patriarchal  Authority  to  introduce  fuch  a  Novel- 
 ty,  and  thofe  Writers  had  known  of  this  his  De* 
 fign,   yet  they  had  good  Foundation  whereon  to 
 build  their  Arguments  againft  it  y    efpecially,   if 
 we  alfo  confider  that  it  was  a  Novelty  of  fome  of 
 the  Latins,   and  that  the  Emiflaries  of  the  Bifhops 
 of  Rome  were  very  early  in  their  Attempts  upon 
 other  Churches   particularly  the  Greek  Church,  to 
 make   them   fubmit  to  their  Erroneous  Doftrines 
 and   Frances  ;    for  even  St.  Bafil,   in  his  Tenth 
 Epiftle,  complains  of  the  Weftern  Bifhops  in  his 
 Days,  particularly  the  JROUIBtt,  [ <c  Quod  verita- 
 
 "  tern  neque  Norunt,    neque  difcere  fuftinent 
 
 *c  Cum  m  qui  veritatem  ipjis  annunciant  Contender 
 
 »  ter, 
 
222  Of  the  Practice  of         Part  II. 
 
 "  tes  ;  ber&fin  autem  per  fe  ipfos  ftabilientes. "  ] 
 <c  That  they  neither  know  the  Truth,  nor  care  to 
 cc  learn  it  •  but  they  contend  with  them  who  tell 
 <c  "em  the  Truth,  and  by  themfelves  eftablim  He- 
 q06  "  rely."  Our  Nicepboruis  familiar  Correfpon- 
 70  r  dence  with  the  then  Biihop  of  Rome,  Pope  LeollL 
 whereof  we  have  an  Inftance  in  *  a  Letter  Nice- 
 phorus  wrote  to  him,  Anno  811.  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  Conftantinople  \  but  now  the  Caufe  of  the  Dim* 
 fion  being  removd,  he  doubted  not  but  there  would 
 be  a  perjett  Agreement  between  the  two  Churches. 
 I  fay,  this  and  fuch  like  familiar  Correfpondence 
 of  Nicephorus,  and  other  Greeks,  with  the  Bifhops 
 of  Rome  then  and  afterwards,  together  with  the 
 reftlefs  Endeavours  of  the  Bifhops  of  that  Church, 
 to  make  other  Churches  fubmit  to  their  Erroneous 
 Doctrines  and  Practices,  without  which  the  Church 
 of  Rome,  in  her  corrupt  Ages,  would  have  no  pert 
 fell  Agreement  with  any  other  Church  5  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 
 Romifb  Novelties  creeping  in  among  them  -,  of 
 which  Number  Georgius  Hamartolus,  Glycas,  and 
 Theodorus  Scutariota,  appear  to  have  been,  in  vi~ 
 goroufly  oppofing  the  pretended  Lawfulnefs  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm,  which  was  firft  ftarted  only  in  the  Latin 
 Church  ;   and  in  Defence  of  which,   we  have  no  In- 
 
 *  Dm  Pin  IX.  Cept, 
 
 ftance 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Church,  8cc.  22 $ 
 
 ftance  in  the  Primitive  G/^/S  Church :  And  Nice- 
 phorms  fuppos'd  Two  Canons,  in  the  Ninth  Cen- 
 tury, were  but  of  his  private  Authority,  and  not 
 at  all  regarded,  but  neglected  and  contemn'd,  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  Nicepborus's  Two  Canons  "  continued  in  force 
 "  among  the  Greeks  for  feme  Ages  after  [the  Year 
 840.]  Pnge  103.  Of  this  he  is  very  Pofitive^  and 
 now  let  us  fee  what  is  his  Reafon  for  it  >  Why 
 truly  no  more  than  this,  viz.  "  for  Harmenopu- 
 tt  lus,  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the  Twelfth  Cen- 
 c  tury,  and  wrote  bis  Epitome  of  the  Greek  Canons 
 c  about  the  Tear  1 150.  has  infer  ted  them  both  into 
 "  his  CoUettiony  and  they  are  the  OtllP  CailOtlg 
 tf  that  are  mention  d  upon  this  Subjetf,  which  feCtltjS 
 "  to  argue,  that  they  were  tljCtt  the  (landing  Rule  of 
 c;  the  Greek  Church,  "  Page  104.  This  is  his 
 whole  Argument  ;  in  which  there  are  feveral 
 things  worth  our  Notice  :  Fir ft,  That  he  afTerts 
 the  Two  Canons  continud  in  force  for  fome  Ages, 
 becaufe  they  were  inftrted  by  a  Writer,  in  his 
 Collection  of  Canons,  above  Three  Hundred  Years 
 after  Nicepborus?  This  is  jufl  as  good  an  Argu- 
 ment, as  if  I  fliould  fay,  that  a  Modern  Englijk 
 Writer's  collecting  Ancient  Englifh  Canons^  made 
 Three  Hundred  Years  ago,  whether  by  Men  in  the 
 right  or  the  wrong  for  making  them,  is  a  good  Proof 
 that  -fiicri 'Old  Englifh  Canons  continued  in  force  in 
 the  Church  of  England  all  that  while,  to  the  time 
 of  his  Collefling  them  -,  the  Weaknefs  of  which  be- 
 trays it  felf.  Secondly^  He  fays  they  are  the 
 £>alp  CanOtt0  that  are  mention'd  upon  this  Sub- 
 ject*  This  confirms  what  I  obferv'd  before,   that 
 
 tberq 
 
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  as  one  Argument  ^  that  they 
 were  of  any  (landing  Authority,   or  Force  in  the 
 Greek  Church  \    the  Pradtice  count  enanc'd  by  them 
 was  oppos'd  very  early  after  they  are  fupposd  to 
 have  been  made,  viz.  by  Georgius  Hamartotus  with- 
 in Twenty  Six  Years  after,  and  by  Glycas  not  above 
 Thirty  Years  before  Harmenopulus  collected  them  \ 
 fo  that  in  thefe  Three  Hundred  and  Fifty  Years  they 
 made  no  Figure  in  the  Greek  Church,  as  Lawful 
 Conftitutions  thereof,   fince  they  were  either   not 
 known,  or  contemn  d  and  defpis'd,   by  two  Writers 
 who  are  not  accus'd  of  being  either  Uereticks  or 
 Schifmaticks,    and  who  very  well  knew,  and  did 
 not  quarrel  with,   the  Lawful  and  Genuine  Rules  of 
 their  Church.- But,  Thirdly  r  Harmenopulus's  in- 
 ferring them  in  this  Collection,  and  they  being  "  the 
 "  ©Itlp   CailOWS    mentioned    upon    this    Subjetl, 
 "  ttZftlH  to  argue,  that  they  were  then  the  ftand- 
 "  ing  Rule  of  the  Greek  Church"    Firft,  Our  Re- 
 verend Hiftorian  was  poTltluT  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 
 JF Oh  but  at  laft  he  finifhes  with  only,  it  pZZ\X\$  -, 
 fo  that  all  he  has  faid  to  prove  their  continuing  in 
 Force  for  fome  Ages,  amounts  to  no  more,  than 
 that    Harmenopulus' §    Collecting    them    do's    but 
 "  ttZXfl  to  argued  it  is  no  convincing  Argument 
 that   they  were  then  the  ftanding  Rule  of  that 
 Church,  it  only  feems  fo ;   But  Mr.  Bingham  muft 
 give  us  more  than  @eetmng  arguments  for  the 
 Greek  Church's  Standing  Rules>  Ecclefaftical  Laws 
 
 and 
 
Chap.  7.      the  Greek  Church,  &c.  225 
 
 and  Canons  about  this  matter  j  (all  is  not  Gold  that 
 glifters)  'till  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  proves  them 
 to  be  the  Authentick  Conftitutions  of  that  Church, 
 we  fhall  efteem  thofe  Two  Canons  not  to  have 
 been  the  Greek  Churctis  (landing  Ru/e,  but  a 
 lingular  Innovation  of  no  Publick  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  Bijhops  have  Power  by  Canon  to  authorize 
 their  own  Lay-men  to  Baptize,  in  want  of  aPneft, 
 (which  ha*  not  yet  been  prov'd  that  they  have)  rhen 
 Nicephorus,  by  thefe  Two  Canons,  authorized-  his 
 Greek  Laymen  for  that  purpofe.  And  what  would 
 this  be  to  us  if  it  were  fo?  Nothing  at  all  certainly ; 
 for  his  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  noLrfe 
 in  our  prefent  Grotroverfie,  which  is,  about  the 
 Validity  of  that  pretended  Baptifm  which  is  given 
 by  Perfbns,  who,  upon  no  account  wbatfoever^  can 
 be  faid  to  have  been  at  all  commiifion'd  or  autho- 
 rized by  Bifhops  to  Baptize,  if  Bifhops  could  fo  au- 
 thorize their  own  Lay-Communicants. 
 
 $  XII.  Before  I  proceed  any  farther  I  mull 
 take  notice,  that  Mr.  Bingham  rejecfs  all  G/ycaf's 
 Arguments  againft  Lay- Baptifm,  and  fays  of  'em 
 fTomCote/eriw,  That  "his  Arguments  are  grounded 
 "  upon  feveral  Miftakes  in  matters  of  Faff,  which 
 
 makes  them  weak  and  inconclufive"  pag.  104.  But 
 becaufe  Glyca*  was  miftaken  in  fome  Facf  s,  nay 
 fome  but  pretettDen  jFattSs  Do's  it  therefore  fol- 
 low that  he  has  no  good  Argument  againft  this 
 Practice?  Let  us  try  one  of  that  Qreek  Writer's  Ar* 
 
 Q,  guments 
 
226  Of  the  Practice  of  Part  II, 
 
 guments,  and  fee  how  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  can 
 difprove  it.  "  Glycaf  alledges  the  Authority  of  the 
 cc  Apoftolical  Canons  prohibiting  hay-men  to  meddle 
 a  with  the  Prieft's Office,  whatever  Cafes  of  Necejjity 
 u  mayfeem  to  require  it, "  Mr.  Bingham  finds  fault 
 with  this,  and  fays,  w  The  Cafe  of  Necejjity  is  never 
 Cc  fo  much  as  once  mentioned  in  all  the  Apoftolical 
 iC  Canons  or  Conftitutions  -,  only  "Lay-men  are  fever ely 
 "  prohibited  tit  general  from  thrufting  themfelves 
 <c  into  the  Offices  of  the  Ecclejiaftical  Funtlion,  a> 
 pag.  104.  Now  who  is  there  that  do's  not  fee,  that 
 Mr.  Bingham,  by  this  Obfervation,  confirms  Glycais 
 Allegation?  "  The  Cafe  of  Necejjity  is  UOt  Ottte 
 <c  ttienttOUell in  all  the  Apoftolical  Canons  or.  Confti- 
 "  tutwns"  fays  Mr.  Bingham-,  and  I  in  return  do 
 fay,  that  for  this  very  reafon3  Glycas  had  good 
 Authority  to  affirm,  That  "  hay-men  were  prohibited 
 4C  to  meddle  with  the  Priefis  Office,  whatfoever  Cafes 
 a  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  Necefhty  whatfoever.  And  fince  Lay- 
 wen  are  fever  ely  prohibited  lit  general,  by  Mr. 
 £/>£ taw's  own  Confeffion,  therefore,  this  Prohibition 
 is  abfolute  and  unlimitted,  it  includes  all  Cafes3 
 and  confequently  the  pretended  Cafe  of  Necejjity, 
 becaufe  it  excepts  none  >,  and  all  this  becaufe  it  re- 
 lates to  a  Thing,  \Vhich  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  Provifo  for  its  Validity 
 without  a  Commijjion  in  any  Cafe  whatfoever :  There- 
 fore the  general  ijPjOljtbtttmt  of  the  Apoftolical 
 Canons,  againft  Perfons  who  have  no  Commijjion, 
 includes  even  the  fuppos'd  Cafe  of  Neceffity,  and 
 excludes  fuch  Perfons  (as  Glycol  very  well  infers) 
 
 from 
 
Chap.  7.      the  Greek  Churchy  &c.  227 
 
 from  meddling  in  the  Prieft's  Office^  whatfoever  Cafes 
 of  Necejfity  ttlftj?  ftCUl  to  require  it.  For  there  is  no 
 Cafe  of  Neceifity  that  can  teallp  require  it,  becaufe 
 the  Tnftitution  points  at  no  fuch  Cafe,  nor  makes 
 any  Provifion  for  it  ^  the  worft  Cafe  may  in  fome 
 Mens  Opinion  feem  to  require  it^  yet  it  do's  but 
 feem  to  do  fo:  For  if  we  put  them  upon  the  Proof 
 that  the  Cafe  CCCtmnlp  CeqUtreS  it,  they  are  at  a 
 great  fiand,  and  have  no  Arguments  to  produce 
 for  it  ^  nay,  fo  far  from  that,  that  fome  of  'em 
 fay,  'Tis  finful  for  an  uncommijjiond  P erf  on  to  med- 
 dle in  it,  when  at  the  fame  time  they  call  it  necejfaryy 
 and  run  themfelves  into  the  Contradiction  of  affer- 
 ting  the  Neceifity  of  a  Sin,  or  that  the  Cafe  is  a 
 Cafe  of  Neceifity,  and  that  fome-body  muft  fupply 
 it,  tho'  by  finning  againft  the  Law  of  God  himfelfi 
 as  we  have  feen  by  fome  late  Attempts  about  this 
 matter,  fet  forward  by  thofe,  from  whom  we  mould 
 leaft  have  expe&ed  them, 
 
 §>  XIII.  But  to  return  to  the  Greek  Church : 
 It  is  plain,  that  hitherto  we  have  found  no  authen- 
 tick  Alt  of  hers  giving  Countenance  to  the  fuppos'd 
 Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm  •,  and  as  for  the  Tefti- 
 mony  of  particular  Writers  of  that  Church,  'tis 
 evident  from  what  has  been  faid,  that  the  Majority 
 is  againft  the  Validity  thereof,  fo  far  as  to  the 
 Year  1220,  when  The  odor  its  Scutariota  maintain'd 
 the  Invalidity  of  fuch  Baptifm.  Let  us  now  fee 
 what  the  Greek  Church  affembled  in  Council  has 
 done,  and  her  Authentick  Senfe  againft  fuch  Bap- 
 tifms  as  thofe  are,  againft  which  we  are  now  difpu- 
 ting,  viz,  Baptifms  perform'd  by  Perfons  who 
 never  were  Epifcopally  ordain'd,  and  who  yet 
 prefume  to  reckon  themfelves  asMinifters  of  Chrift, 
 and  to  Baptize  as  if  they  were  really  fuch. 
 
 Q2  la 
 
228  Of  the  Practice  of         Part.  II. 
 
 In  the  Year  1166.  there  was  a  great  Council  at 
 Conftantineple  *3  where  were  prefent  Three  Patri- 
 archs, Lucas  Chryfoberges  of  Conftantinople^  Atha- 
 nafius  of  Antiocb,  and  Nicephorus  of  Jerufalem^ 
 with  Fifty  feven  Metropolitans,  befides  other  Bi- 
 ihops.— — ■  Mr.  Bingham  owns,  that  in  this  Synod, 
 a  S  §Lueftion  was  put  by  Manuel  Arch-Bijhop  of 
 "  Heraclea, "  u  Whether  a  Man  ought  to  be  re- 
 "  ceived  as  a  Chriftian,  who  was  baptized  by  one 
 
 "  who  pzetenieo  to  toe  a  Ptfeft,  but  was  not 
 
 Cc  fo?  For  fuch  a  Cafe  had  lately  happened  in  his 
 "  Diocefe.  In  anfwer  to  this  the  Synod  decreed, 
 "  That  fuch  ought  to  be  te^aptt?  H  5  becaufe  the 
 "  Adminiftraticn  of  Baptifm  is  Otllp  COttlttUttCtl  to 
 "  Bijhops  and  Priefts,  according  to  the  4.6th  and  4.7th 
 "  Canons  of  the  Apoftles,"  pag.  106.  Our  Reverend 
 Hiftorian  acknowledges  alfo,  That  "  this  Council 
 "  cannot  be  denyd  to /peak  plainly  againft  the  (Half* 
 "  Wt?  Of  lap'Bilpttfm,  and  in  favour  of  [what 
 he  calls]  cc  Re-baptization  in  the  Cafe  that  was  then 
 *  laid  before  them,  which  was  the  $$AXlflt]>  Q&M* 
 "  ftrattOtt  Of  'Bapttfm  by  fuch  as  counterfeited 
 "  Orders,  and  ptetetlOeU  tO  be  Prie/ls  when  they 
 cC  toete  ItOt  fO*  "  And  this  is  mod  evidently  our 
 prefent  Cafe  ^  for  our  Lay-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  Greek  Church,  in 
 a  Synod  of  Three  Patriarchs,  Fifty  feven  Metropoli- 
 tans, and  other  Biftiops,  is  full  and  dire tl  againft  the 
 Validity,  and  pofitivefor  the  Invalidity  of 'their  falfe 
 Baptifms  j  and  Mr.  Binghman  CatttlOt  p?05UCC  any 
 
 *  Cave  ffift. Lit,  Vol  1.  f.676.  Vol  2.  p  418,  419. 
 
 one 
 
Chap.  7.      the  Greek  Churchy  &zc.  229 
 
 one  Council  that  was  ever  held,  either  in  the  Eaftern 
 or  Weftern  Church  for  the  firft  Twelve  hundred 
 Years  of  Chriftianity,  that  he  can  prove  would 
 have  decreed  any  otherwife  than  this  Council  did 
 in  this  matter. 
 
 ^  XIV.  Our  Reverend  Hiftorian  feems  not  wil- 
 ling to  believe,  that  the  Decree  of  this  Council  was 
 fo  extenfive,  as  fome  of  the  Enemies  of  Lay-Baptifm 
 may  be  apt  to  believe  ^  for  he  fays  thus,  "  But 
 "  whether  they  [  /'.  e.  the  Members  of  that  Council  ] 
 (L  intended  by  this,  wholly  to  invalidate  the  Baptifm  of 
 "  JDcaCOttS  and  hay-men,  in  extraordinary  Cafes  of 
 "  abfolute  Necejfity,  when  neither  a  Bi/hop  nor  Pres- 
 a  byter  can  be  had-,  as  they  have  not  exprefs^d  them- 
 "  f elves  pftfttCUlfttlp  upon  this  point  -,  fo  it  is  more 
 u  than  I  can  pretend  pofittiClJ?  to  determine,  " 
 pag.  106.  Here  again  Mr.  Bingham  repeats  his  art- 
 ful  but  very  unfair  way  of  joyning  iD£8CGn0  with 
 Lay-men,  as  if  Deacons  were  no  more  Partakers  of 
 the  Prieftly  Power,  than  Lay-men :  But  the  Fallacy 
 of  this  I  have  already  fufficiently  expos'd,  and 
 therefore  fhall  here  only  fpeak  of  Lay- men,  Per- 
 fons  never  commijjiond  by  Bilhops  to  baptize  $  and 
 I  do  affirm,  that  Baptifm  by  fuch  Perfons,  tho* 
 done  when  none  of  the  Priefthood  can  be  had,  is  by 
 this  Synodical  A8  declared  Null  and  Void. 
 
 Firft,  Becaufe  the  Baptifm  by  the  Pretender  to 
 Holy  Orders,  who  deceivd  the  baptiz'd,  was  to  the 
 Receiver,  equivalent  to  a  Lay-Baptifm  in  want  of 
 a  Prieft,  and  efteem'd  Null  and  Void  by  thofe  Bi- 
 fhops  5  for,  this  pretended  Baptifm  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  receivd  by  the  bap- 
 tiz'd5  and  he  had,  at  the  time  of  his  Baptifm,  no 
 
 Q.  3  Medium 
 
2  3  o  Of  the  Practice  of  P a  r t  II. 
 
 Medium  by  which  to  difcover  the  Fallacy ,  and 
 therefore  'twas  to  him  equivalent  to  a  Cafe  of 
 Neceility,  becaufe  (by  reafon  of  theDelufion)  he 
 had  no  tree  Choice  to  be  baptized  by  a  Prieft^  and 
 therefore,  fince  that  Council  would  not  admit  this 
 pretendediy  baptized  Perfon  as  a  Chriftian  without 
 Sacerdotal  Baptifm,  and  all  becaufe  the  Pretender 
 had  no  Prieftly  Char a tier ,  and  for  this  only  reafon 
 too$  it  muft  needs  be,  that  they  nulfd  a  pretended 
 Baptifm  receiv'd  from  a  Lay-man,  by  one  in  a  Cafe 
 ofNecefTity,  when  he  could  ( in  his  Circumftances) 
 have  no  Prieft  to  baptize  him.     And, 
 
 Secondly^  The  Reafon  given  by  that  Council 
 proves  this  Affertion  •,  for  they  affirm'd  exprefly, 
 That  Ci  fuch  rjUgfjt  to  be  re-baptizd,  becaufe  the 
 <c  Admimf  ration  of  Baptifm  is  Oltfp  committed  to 
 a  Bijhops  and  Pr  lefts,  according  to  the  \6ih  and  tfjtb 
 "  Canons  of  the  Apoflles"  The  Power  of  Bapti- 
 zing being  committed  Ottlj?  to  thofe  who  are  vetted 
 with  a  Prieftly  Power,  is  made  the  Reafon  why 
 Prieftly  Baptifm  was  decreed  to  be  given  to  him, 
 tvho  before  was  fifty  baptized,  hy  one  who  had  no 
 fuch  Sacerdotal  Power  •  and  this  without  diftinguifh- 
 ing,  that  it  might  be  other  wife  in  any  Cafe  what- 
 foever:  Tis  abfolute  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 
 WtraO?Tmtatp  Cafe  to  the  pretendediy  baptiz'd, 
 by  reafon  of  the  Delufton  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  Baptifm,  which  made  his  a  Cafe  of  Ne- 
 ceility ^  that  therefore,  becaufe  his  was  fuch  a  Cafe,  his 
 falje  Baptifm.  was  good  and  valid  •,  no,  they  deter- 
 min'd  only  upon  this  Principle,  that  there  was  really 
 
 nti 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Church,  &c.  231 
 
 no  Prieftly  Power,  therefore  no  Baptifm  •,  and  for 
 this  reafon,  and  this  only,  they  decreed  that  he 
 fhould  be  baptiz'd  :  It  is  not  recorded,  whether  the 
 counterfeit  Prieft  pretended  to  minifter  Ordinarily^ 
 where  true  Priefts  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  he  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  Neceffity 
 of  Addrefling  to  One  of  them  for  Baptifm,  rather 
 than  to  him^  which  put  him  under  a  Neceffity  of 
 being  fuppofedly  baptiz'd  by  him :    And  if  true 
 Priefts  could  not  be  had,  it  would  but  have  been 
 the  fame  Cafe  of  Neceffity  *,   but  notwithstanding, 
 upon  lifting  the  Matter,  'twas  only  the  want  of 
 Commiffion,  that  was  the  reafon  of  the  Invalidity  of 
 the  Baptifm,  in  the  Senfe  of  that  Council  \  and  the 
 Cafe  is  but  juft  the  fame,  when  a  Laick,  a  Perfon 
 never  Qommiffiotfd  to   baptize,     attempts  to  give 
 Baptifm  in  an  Extraordinary  Cafe,  where  Priefts 
 are  not  to  be  found  5  for,  the  Laick's  Open  and. 
 Known  Ufurpation,  of  what  was  never  Committed 
 to  him,  do's  no  more  veft  bim  with  a  Com?niffion, 
 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  without  any  Com- 
 miffion  ^  and  the  Abfence  of  true  Priefts,  do's  not 
 give  any  Advantage  to  the  Lay-Ufurper's  Cafe  5 
 for,  thk  Negative  can  confer  no  Pofitive  Power  or 
 Authority  to  baptize  •,  the  Laick  never  had  it  be- 
 fore, for  fuch  a  Cafe,   either  by  the  Law  of  Na* 
 
 Q.  4  ture> 
 
2  j  2  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  Subjection,  [if  either  the  Catholick 
 Church,  or  thofe  Bifhops,  could  make  fuch  a  Dona- 
 tion, or  Gift  of  Power,  to  Laicks  ^  ]  confequently 
 this  Laick,  in  Abfence  of  the  Priefts,  is  as  much 
 without  a  Commijfion,  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  Adminiftration  of 
 88  Baptifm  waf  never  Committed,  to  him,  M  and  he 
 had  therefore  5130  Ptfefflp  Chattel*  5  it  necef- 
 farily  follows,  that  the  fame  Decree  cenfures  pre- 
 tended Baprifm  to  be  Null  and  Void,  when  given 
 by  a  Laick,  one  never  Commijfiond  to  Baptize,  tho' 
 done  in  Deflitution  and  want  of  Priefts,  becaufe 
 the  Laick,  even  in  this  Cafe,  has  no  more  a  Com- 
 miffion  than  the  Counterfeit  Prieft :  The  Miniftra- 
 tion  of  Baptifm  was  no  more  Committed  to  this 
 Laick,  than  it  was  to  that  Impoftor  >  they  are 
 both  equally  Laicks,  both  exactly  alike,  Non-Corn- 
 nz/JJjond. 
 
 And  if  any  favourable  Conftrucllon  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  Counterfeit  Ptfeff,  than 
 to  acquiefce  in  that,  which  was  done  by  the 
 known  prefumptuous  hay-man  $  becaufe,  the  hippo* 
 fedly  Baptized  has  a  better  colour  of  Excufe,  by 
 reafon  of  the  Cunning  of  the  Impoftor,  and  the 
 great  Difficulty,  if  not  ImpoJJibility  (under  his  Cir- 
 cumftances)  of  difcovering  the  Cheat,  when  he  had 
 no  Sufpicion  of  it,  nor  any  Grounds  given  why  he 
 
 fhoulcj 
 
Chap.  7<     the  Greek  Church,  &c.  233 
 
 fhould  fufpect  the  Adminiftrators  Commiffion  j 
 when  on  the  other  hand,  the  prefumptuous 
 to-  Lay-man,  who  puts  on  no  Difguife,  is  eafy 
 be  difcover'd  •,  for  the  People  are  us'd  to  receive 
 Baptifin  from  the  Hands  of  the  Priefts,  they 
 know  'tis  their  Office  to  give  it,  _  fo  that  when  a 
 known  Laick  prefumes  to  do  it  in  any  Cafe 
 whatfoever,  there's  fomething  mocking  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  No  Appearance 
 of  Neceffity  can  veft  Men  with  that  Sacred  Office 
 which  God  has  appropriated  to  others,  to  mi- 
 nifter  in  Holy  Things  •,  and  therefore,  they  are 
 in  fuch  Cafe,  le/s  excufable  for  fubmitting  to 
 fuch  open  unwarranted  Usurpations.  But  this 
 Council  of  Conjlantinople  ufed  no  fuch  falfe  Judg- 
 ment, they  decreed  the  falfe  Baptifm,  given  by  the 
 Cunning  Impoftor,  to  be  Null  and  Void,  notwith- 
 ftanding  all  the  pleadable  Difficulty  of  fufpecl:- 
 ing  or  difcovering  the  Cheat;  and  confequent- 
 ly  the  fame  Determination  ftands  good,  againffi 
 the  Validity  of  pretended  Baptifm,  given  (tho* 
 in  Abfence  of  the  Clergy)  by  known  Lay- 
 men, Perfons  never  Commiflion'd  to  baptize  5 
 becaufe  there  is  lefs  colour  for  Excufe,  in  fa- 
 vour of  thofe  who  receive  thefe  falfe  Baptifms, 
 than  there  is  in  behalf  of  fuch  as  are  altnoft 
 unavoidably  deluded,  by  the  other  Cunning  ani 
 Subtile  P?CtenBeCjS*  But  without  favouring 
 one  more  than  the  other,  they  are  both  equally 
 without  Commiffton  5  and  therefore  by  this  Greek 
 Council  their  Miniflrations  are  both  Null  and 
 Void. 
 
 §  XV.  Our 
 
2J4  Of  the  Pratfice  of        Part  II. 
 
 ^  XV.  Our  Reverend  Hiflorian  fays,  Page  io6. 
 u  If  it  was  fo  [viz.  if  this  Council  defign'd  to 
 Invalidate  fuch  Lay-Baptifms]  "  then  I  can  fay, 
 *c  it  was  plainly  contrary  to   the   Decrees  of  the 
 
 ie  Sfaimzt  Council  tmoer  Ji3icepi}^u&  which 
 
 <z  prevail  d  in  PraSice  both  before  and  fince  this 
 tt  Council,  and  ftiU  do's  in  the  Greek  Church  to  this 
 "  Day. "  And  then  he  charges  fome  Learned  Per- 
 fons  with  Error  for  thinking  otherwife.  But  Mr. 
 J&ngbam  has  not  yet  produced  the  Council  which 
 he  talks  of5  he  has  given  us  nothing  but  an  3if 
 for  his  fuppofed  Council  under  Nicephorus  •,  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  JfC?mer  CMinCtf* 
 very  emphatically,  as  if  he  had  given  Proof  of 
 fome  particular  Synod  wherein  they  were  made, 
 which  he  has  not  at  all  done-,  fo  that  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham is  here  very  pofitive  upon  an  (UttCCttattttp> 
 (to  make  the  beft  of  it)  even  in  dxreU  Oppofition  to 
 what  is  (EWDCnt  and  Certain*  for  he  infills  up- 
 on a  Juppojititious  Council's  Decrees,  againft  an 
 ■mdoubted  Decree  of  an  Incontefted,  Indifputable 
 Authentick  Council  •,  and  would  make  us  believe 
 that  the  former  (tho  not  provd)  were  of  moll 
 force,  in  that  "  they  prevail" d  in  PraSice,  both  be- 
 *  fore  and  fince  this  Certain  Ottt)  (UltDlfpUteO 
 u  Council:  How  they  prevaiPd  in  Pradice  be- 
 fore, we  have  feen  already  •,  Mr.  Bingham  has  hi- 
 therto produc  d  no  Evidence  for  this  their  fuppos'd 
 Prevalency*,  and  if  he  had,  it  ftill  wants  to  ba 
 prov'd  that  this  Practice  was  founded  upon 
 the  general  Senfe  of  the  Greek  Church,  and 
 not  rather  upon  the  falfe  Principles,  introduc'd 
 among  fome  Latinizing  Greeks,  by  the  Craft  and 
 
 Cunning 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Church,  &C,  23$ 
 
 Cunning  of  Popifh  EmifTaries,  who  have  been  con- 
 tinually endeavouring  to  corrupt  that  poor,  op- 
 prefTed,  and  afflicted  Church:  But  this  Council  of 
 Conflantinople,  held  by  Three  Patriarchs,  Fifty 
 Seven  Metropolitans,  and  other  Bifhops  befides,  is 
 a  Glaring  Evidence,  that  this  Corruption  of  Po- 
 pery had  not  yet  in  the  Year  1166.  prevail'd  in 
 the  Greek  Church  -,  for  if  it  had,  'tis  inconceivable 
 how  fuch  a  Numerous  Synod,  as  that  was,  Ihould 
 make  a  Decree  fo  dire&ly  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  cc  prevail" £ 
 cc  in  the  Greek  Church,  ftnee  this  Council,  andftiU 
 cc  dos  to  this  'Day  5  For  (fays  he)  the  TStQ  <£>ZCtk 
 "  ftfilritetjS  of  late  Days,  in /peaking  of  the  Mini- 
 cc  fter  of  Baptifm,  and  the  Pr  alike  of  their  Church, 
 "  always  except  the  Cafe  of  Extreme  Neceffity,  in 
 u  which  they  allow  a  Layman,  or  ftOOtttfttt,  to 
 "  baptize^  rather  than  fuffer  a  Child  to  die  with- 
 u  out  Baptifm."  And  he  inftances  Jeremy  Patri- 
 arch of  Conflantinople,  in  the  Sixteenth  Century ; 
 Suicerus\  Obfervation  out  of  Metrophanes  Crito- 
 pulus  •,  Arcudius's  Remark  out  of  Gabriel  Severus, 
 Arch-Bifhop  of  Philadelphia,  and  our  Dr.  SmitWs 
 prefent  State  of  the  Greek  Church. 
 
 §  XVII.  In  Anfwer  to  all  which  'tis  evident, 
 that  our  Reverend  Hifiorian's  OSeft  <®?eefe  33Htt* 
 tCtSj  as  he  calls  'em,  have  betray 'd  themfelves 
 to  be  Uncatholick  in  their  Principles  5  and  the  Pra- 
 ctice they  fpeak  of,  to  be  alfo  Uncatholick  and  Po- 
 pifh ;  for  they  efpoufe  the  Caufe  of  Baptifm  by  Wo- 
 men, whom  Mr.  Bingham  acknowledges  never  to 
 have  been  allow'd  by  the  Ancient  Church  to  Bap- 
 tize s 
 
2j6  Of  the  Practice  of         Part  II. 
 
 tize :  This  fhows  of  what  Party  thofe  Greeks  are, 
 who  allow  of  this,  and  that  they  learn'd  and  took 
 it  from  the  corrupt  Church  of  Rome,  the  known 
 promoter  and  Abettor  of  this  Erroneous  and  Un~ 
 cathol'ick  Practice  -,  but  the  Authors  mention'd  by 
 our  Hiftorian,  are  no  more  than  particular  Men, 
 and  their  Authority  of  no  Importance  againfl:  that 
 of  the  Council  of  Conflantinople,  Anno  1 166.  And 
 *tis  very  Notorious,  that  in  thefe  latter  Ages  the 
 Greeks  are,  by  the  Craft  and  Subtilty  of  the  Ro- 
 mijh Emiflaries,  divided  into  two  Parties  -,  one 
 that  adheres  to  the  Principles  and  Practices  of  their 
 Anceflors,  the  Ancient  Greeks  •,  and  the  other  that 
 embraces  the  Novelties  and  Superftitions  of  the 
 Church  of  Rome. 
 
 Dr.  Smith,  in  the  Preface  to  his  Account  of  the 
 Greek  Church,  fhews  us  how  Cyrillus  hucaris  Pa- 
 triarch of  Con 'fiantionnple,  1621.  by  oppofing  the 
 Defigns  of  the  Jefuits,  got  to  himfelf  the  Hatred 
 and  lU-wiU  of  the  Latinizing  Greeks-,  and  from 
 Page  239.  and  forward  of  that  Book,  how  by  the 
 Inftigation  of  the  Jefuits^  and  Confpiracy  of  fome 
 Greek  Bijhops,  he  was  Profecuted,  Dethroned,  Ba- 
 wiJFd,  and  at  laft  Barbaroufly  Murder  d,  An.  1658. 
 In  Page  249.  we  fee  how  the  Romijh  Emiffaries  and 
 Latinizing  Greeks  bribe  the  Turks  to  get  their  own 
 Party-Men  advanced  to  the  Patriarchate  ;  there  we 
 find  how  the  Church  of  Rome  fends  Titular  Bijhops 
 smong  them,  and  how  the  Romijh  AmbaJJadors, 
 as  well  as  Romijh  Priefts^  difturb  and  rend  that 
 poor  diftreffed  Church,  by  Corrupting  the  Greek 
 Bifhops. 
 
 Sir  PaulRicaut,  late  Conful  at  Smyrna,  in  his 
 Prefent  State  of  the  Greek  and  Armenian  Churches, 
 Anno  1678.  tells  us  in  his  Preface,  Page  1?.  that 
 a  Confeffion  of  Faith,  fuppos'd  to  have  been  writ- 
 ten 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Greek  Church,  &c.  237 
 
 ten  by  CyriUus  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  in  the 
 Year  1629.  was  believ'd  in  a  great  meafure  to 
 have  been  father  A.  on  him  by  the  Jefuits^  to  ren- 
 der him  odious  both  to  Greeks  and  Latins.- In 
 
 the  28th  Page  of  his  Book  he  allures  us,  that  "  The 
 w  Roman  Pr lefts  frequent  all  Places  where  the 
 K  Greeks  Inhabit,  endeavouring  to  draw  them  unto 
 "  their  fide,  both  by  Preaching  and  Writings,  of 
 "  which  one  being  written  in  the  Vulgar  Greek  by 
 "  Francis  Richard  a  Jefuit,  and  Printed  at  Paris, 
 "  caWdy  Tdeya  nc,  Por)juciiw<;  'EitxAwizcy  was 
 u  difpers'd  in  all  Parts  where  that  Languge  voa* 
 <c  Current.  That,  [Page  29.]  "  Whereas  now  the 
 "  Ancient  Structures  and  Colleges  of  Athens  are 
 
 *c  became  ruinous —  and  all  Greece  Poor   anl 
 
 u  Illiterate,  fuch  Spirits  and  Wits  among  them,  who 
 "  ttfpire  unto  Sciences  and  Knowledge,  are  forced  to 
 <;  feek  it  in  Italy  *,  where  fucking  from  the  fame 
 <c  fountain,  and  eating  Bread  ?nade  with  the  fame 
 ct  Leaven  of  the  Latins,  it  is  natural  that  they 
 cc  Jhould  conform  to  the  fame  Principles  and  Do- 
 cc  Urine.  So  that  it  will  not  be  ftrange,  if  in  Ex- 
 "  fofition  of  thofe  Points  wherein  the  Church  of 
 "  God  for  fome  Ages  hath  been  filent,  and  but  now 
 cC  controverted  in  thefe  latter  Days,  the  Greek 
 "  Priefts  Jhould  with  little  Variety  follow  the  Senfe 
 "  of  the  Latin,  which  they  take  up  at  adventure, 
 "  not  being  of  themf elves  capable  either  to  prove  or 
 "  try  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  or  examine  the 
 u  Ancient  Tenets  of  their  own  Church.  M  And  in 
 Page  333.  "  Italy  is  the  fole  Gymnafion  and  Li- 
 "  brary  of  their  Knowledge  and  Learning-,  for  in 
 cc  moft  Points  of  Controverfy,  where  the  Patriarchal 
 "  Authority  is  not  concern  d,  they  exaclly  concur 
 "  with  the  Senfe  of  the  Roman  Schools.  "  And 
 the  Friars  of  the  Church  oiKome  are  fo  induftri- 
 
 ous 
 
23S  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  Page  allures  us,  that  "fome"  Friars 
 of  the  Roman  Church  perfwaded  the  Armenian  Pa- 
 triarch and  Bifhops  at  Conjlantinople  to  fubfcribe  a 
 Confeffion  agreeable  to  the  Tenets  of  the  Roman 
 Faith— a  Copy  of  which  Sir  Paul  Ricaut  faw  and 
 read,  as  it  was  deliver'd  to  him  from  the  Mertabet, 
 or  Armenian  Bifhop. 
 
 Dr.  Smithy  in  the  6th  Page  of  his  above-men- 
 tion'd  Preface,  fays,  tC  It  is  manifeft  to  all  who  un- 
 u  derftand  Antiquity  ^  how  much  the  prefent  Greeks 
 <c  have  in  fever al  Points  of  DoSrine  varied  from 
 a  the  Belief  of  their  Ancejlors,  and  have  corrupt- 
 "  ed  the  Simplicity  and  Purity  of  Religion  by  odd 
 tc  Opinions  and  fancies. "  So  that  'tis  now  no  won- 
 der if  we  find  fome  of  their  late  particular  Bi/hops 
 Latinize  fo  far,  as  to  run  into  the  Popery  of  Bap- 
 tifin  by  Lay-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- 
 u  vocation  of  Saints  to  be  vain  and  frivolous ■,"  and 
 for  defpifing  that  Adoration  which  k  paid  to  their 
 Images  and  Holy  Relicks^  as  they  are  called  >  Mr. 
 Bingham  might  with  as  good  a  Grace  have  pro- 
 duct that  Patriarch's  Teftimony  for  thefe  Popifh 
 Corruptions,  as  for  the  other  •,  and  the  reft  of  his 
 Inftances  are  of  lb  modern  a  Date,  that  we  have 
 reafon  to  believe  they  are  no  better  than  the  meer 
 Effe&s,  of  fome  Greeks  being  too  much  infecled 
 with  the  Superftitions  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
 
 *  Du  Pins  XVI.  Cent,  Tom  2.  p.  441.  Lond. 
 
 §  XVIII. 
 
Chap  7.     the  Greek  Churchy  &c.  239 
 
 §  XVIII.  Dr.  Smith  tells  us,  in  the  109th  Page  of 
 his  Account  of  the  Greek  Church,  "  They  believe 
 "  fuch  an  abfolute  Neceffity  of  this  Sacra?nent —  a* 
 "  that  they  entertain  ftatO  atlD  CUiel  CijOUg&tg 
 "  of  the  State  of  Infants,  which  by  J  owe  Misfortune: 
 '  and  Cafualty  are  deprivd  of  it,  to  prevent  which 
 "  Mi/chief  andfecure  their  Fears,  where  there  is  a 
 
 "  teal  ana  certain  Danger  of  imminent  Death  m 
 
 '  the  Abfence  of  a  Prieft,  who  is  at  aU  other  times  the 
 "  OnlpiafofUl  ^tntfter  Of  this  Sacred  R'ne,  it  is 
 "  allowed  to  Lay -V  erf  on  s  of  either  Sex,  a*  it  is  ex- 
 x  prejly  laid  down  in  their  Pub/ick  Confejfion  of 
 ct  Faith,  Written  in  the  Vulgar  Greek,  and  Printed 
 <c  in  the  Tear  166  2. "  "  It  is  not  lawful  and  proper 
 '  for  any  one  to  baptize  but  a  lawful  Prieft,  except 
 c  in  time  of  Neceflity  ;  and  then  a  Secular  Perfon, 
 c  whether  Man  or  Woman,  may  do  it. n  By  this 
 we  fee,  that  the  J&eaftUt  of  this  Pradice  of  fome 
 of  the  Greeks,  is  the  uncharitable  and  cruel  Opinion 
 which  fome  of  the  Roman ijis  hold  of  Infants  dying 
 without  Baptifm,  and  which  thofe  Greeks  have 
 learn'd  from  them:  That  the  Pradice  founded  upon 
 that  Opinion,  is  no  other  than  poptflj,  fince 
 it  allows  iKLlOtttett  as  well  as  Lay-men  to  baptize  5 
 which  is  a  peculiar  Practice  of  the  corrupt  Church 
 of  Rome.  And  'tis  no  fufficient  Anfwer  to  fay, 
 That  this  is  the  Senfe  of  the  genuine  Greek  Church  -y 
 becaufe  'tis  lC  exprefly  laid  down  in  their  Publick 
 "  ConfeJJion  of  Faith,  Anno  1662."  For  it  cannot 
 be  prov'd  that  the  true  Greek  Church,  without  any 
 Mixture  of  Romifh  Prieft s  and  Fryars,  or  Latinizing 
 Greeks,  made  that  Confeffion  of  Faith  •,  nay,  it  is 
 moft  likely,  that  Popifh  Emijjaries  had  a  great  Hand 
 in  making  it :  For  Dr.  Smith,  in  the  6th  Page  of 
 his  Preface,  to  the  above-cited  Book,    makes  the 
 
 bold 
 
240  The  Practice  of  Part  II. 
 
 bold  Determinations  of  this  very  Confejjion  of  Faith ', 
 Anno  1662.  and  of  the  Bethleemetick  Synod,  faid 
 to  have  been  Held  in  167 1.  to  be  fuch  Inftances 
 *  as  will  incline  any  fober  and  confidering  Man  to 
 "  believe,  that  the  Greeks  have  of  late,  more  than 
 <c  ever,  been  wrought  upon  by  the  fly  Artifices  and. 
 "  underhand  Dealing  of  the  Ulfatle  (iftnifl&tteg  Of 
 "  Rome,  who  watch  continually  over  the  poor  Greeks, 
 tc  and  take  Advantage  of  their  Poverty  and  Diftre/s, 
 "  to  bring  them  to  a  farther  Compliance,  and  in  time 
 "  to  a  downright  Subjetfion"  So  that  upon  a  fe- 
 rious  Confederation  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 
 of  Rome-,  for  'tis  well  known,  that,  that  Church  has 
 infedted  fome  of  the  Greeks  with  her  falfe  Do&rines 
 and  unwarrantable  Practices,  infomuch  as  that 
 fome  of  their  late  Synodical  Determinations,  and 
 Confeffions  of  Faith,  have  been  made  by  the  Infti- 
 gation  of  Popifti  Priefts,  and  founded  upon  Romijh 
 Principles,  especially  in  fome  Doctrines  and  Pra- 
 ctices which  were  never  held  or  us5d  in  the  Ancient 
 Greek  Church,  as  this  of  Baptifm  by  Lay-men  and 
 Women  never  was,  before  fome  of  their  Bijhops  and 
 Clergy  were  too  eafily  wrought  upon  by  the  cun- 
 ning Craftinefs  of  Popiih  Emiffaries  in  the  declining 
 Ages  of  the  Church. 
 
 •  §  XIX.  As  for  the  Mofcovites,  Mr.  Bingham 
 lays,  fag.  109.  "  Their  Rules  and  Canons  give  par- 
 "  ticular  Orders  about  thh  matter  •, "  and  for  Proof 
 of  this  he  fays,  pag.  no.  That  "  the  fir  ft  Canon  of 
 "  John  their  Metropolitan,  who  is  commonly  caJTd 
 "  their  Prophet,  gives  thh  Dire  [lion,  That  Children, 
 
 rt  in 
 
Chap.  7.    the  Mofcovite  Churches.  241 
 
 <c  in  Cafe  ofNeceffity,  jhould  be  baptized  fottfjOttt  U 
 "  P?i0ft/3  And  this  is  all  he  produces  for  the 
 Practice  of  the  Mofcovite  Churches  *  one  fngle  Mans 
 Authority  ;  no  Synod  or  Council  mention'd  wherein 
 this  Canon  was  made,  and  yet  this  mufl:  ftand  for 
 the  authentick  Senfe  and  Prattice  of  thofe  Churches, 
 Strange  arguing  this !  as  if  the  Opinion  of  One 
 Bifhop  was  the  Opinion  of  all  thofe  Churches :  But 
 the  contrary  to  this  is  very  evident  from  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham5s  own  Obfervation,  in  the  Words  immediately 
 following,  which  are  thefe  \  tc  The  People  indeed  do 
 u  not  always  obferve  this  Rule,  for  fome  Authors 
 "  tells  us,  Uiaitp  of  them  think  a  Prieft  fo  aMte 
 cc  Ultelp  requifite  to  perform  this  Office,  that^  tDfjftt? 
 "  eiier  Cafe  Of  JSecetfitp  happen,  they  mil  not  per- 
 "  mit  it  to  be  done  by  any  other  but  a  Trie  ft : "  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  n  in  Cafe  of  Ne.- 
 ceffity  "  without  a  trie  ft* M 
 
 §  XX.    But  Mr.  Bingham  replies  to  this,  That 
 "  we  are  to  judge  of  the  Senfe  and  Pratt  ice  of  a 
 
 "  Church  from  the  Euleg  ana  Canons  tnaDe  bp 
 
 tc  ttg  ©OfcetnOtirg,  and  not  by  the  Prattice  of  the 
 *c  Vulgar,  who  often  trangrefs  their  Rules,  either 
 <c  through  Ignorance,  Negletf  or  Contempt  -,  in  which 
 <c  Cafe  it  would  be  injuriom  to  any  Church,  to  judge 
 "  of  her  Dottrines  by  the  contrary  Prattice  of  the 
 "  common  People.  "  In  return  to  this  I  muft  telj 
 our  Reverend  Hiftorian,  that  there  are  Come  firjt 
 Principles  in  Chriftianity,  which  when  the  common 
 People  have  been  thoroughly  inform'd  of,  and  ac- 
 cuftorid  to,  they  cannot  be  eafily  drawn  from 
 them,  but  will  perfift  in  them,  in  Oppofition  to  the 
 contrary  Nox?el  Innovations  of  fome  of  their  mi- 
 lt ftaken 
 
242  The  Practice  of  Part  II. 
 
 {taken  Governours:  It  is  eafie  to  conceive  upon 
 what  Principle  fome  in  high  Stations  may  have 
 been  tempted  to  enact  that  which  they  ought  not  •, 
 and  which  the  Vulgar,  upon  the  common  Principles 
 of  Chriftianky,  are  bound  not  to  fubmit  to:  As 
 for  Inftance  j 
 
 cc  *  Several  Bijhops  of  Lithuania,  and  Ruflla- 
 "  Nigra,  who  had  hitherto  continued  in  the  Commu- 
 "  nion  of  the  Greek  Church,  wrought  upon  by  fever  al 
 iC  Temporal  Advantages  and  honours,  which  they 
 "  proposed  to  gain  in  the  Diet  and  Government  of 
 "  Poland,  fent  Two  of  their  Number  to  Rome,  in 
 <c  the  Tear  159^,  in  order  to  their  being  rECOnCil'D 
 
 "  tO  tijat  CijUtC^ But  their  going  thither, 
 
 "  and  doing  this  in  the  Name  of  all  the  EtttljettttCk 
 a  QZl)l\Vt\)Z$  was  protefted  againft,  and  a  public^ 
 <c  Ail  made  of  it  by  Conftantine,  Duke  0/Oftorovia, 
 tc  andfeveral  others  who  difliHd  this  intendedUnicn" 
 Now  'tis  eafy  to  fee  how  and  upon  what  Motives 
 thofe  Bilhops,  if  they  had  not  been  publickly  op- 
 pos'd,   might  have  caball'd  together,   and  made 
 Rules  and  Canons  in  favour  of  many  of  the  Corrup- 
 tions of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  the  Mofcovites 
 were  never  us^d  to  Practice;  and  'tis  as  eafie  to  fee 
 into  the  Reafon,  why  the  People,  infuchcafe,  would 
 for  a  long  time  have  perfifted,  in  the  Pratlice  of 
 what  their  Bijhops  and  Priejls  had  all  along  before 
 taught  them,  contrary  to  thofe  Innovations :  So  that 
 the  Peoples  not  obferving  fome  lingular  Rule,  made 
 by  one  or  fome  few  of  their  Governours,  is  not  al- 
 ways an  Inftance  of  their  Ignorance,  Negletl  or  Con- 
 tempt of  the  wholfome  Laws  of  their  Church,  but 
 fometimes  is  a  Proof  of  the  Novelty  and  Corruption 
 
 *  Vr,  Smith'/  Accent*  of  the  Greek  Church,  p.  242,  243. 
 
 of 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Mofcovite  Churches.  24 3 
 
 of  the  Impofition  \  and  that  the  People  have  been 
 accuftom'd  to  be  taught  better  things,  and  will 
 therefore  perfift  in  their  ancient  Cuftoms  and  Pra- 
 ctices. 
 
 What  Mr.  Bingham  obferves,  That  cc  we  are  to 
 U  Judge  of  the  Senje  and  Pr -a  tike  of  a  Church  from 
 "  the  Rules  and  Canons  made  by  its  Governours,  and 
 "  not  by  the  Pr  alike  of  the  Vulgar  "  is  very  true  in 
 fbme  Cafes,  but  not  in  all.  3Tis  true,  when  Rules 
 and  Canons  are  made  by  Synods  of  the  Bifhops 
 and  other  Clergy  of  a  Church  fully  and  freely 
 affembled,  then  thofe  Rules  are  the  Senfe  <?/~tne  go- 
 verning Part  of  that  Church  *  and  when  they 
 are  redue'd  to  Practice,  by  the  Members  both  Cler- 
 gy and  Laity,  then  they  are  the  Senfe  and  Practice 
 of  that  Church  :  But  of  fuch  Rules  and  Canons  of 
 the  Governours  and  Clergy  of  the  Mofcovite  Churches, 
 Mr.  Bingham  has  not  given  us  one  Inftance.  On 
 the  other  hand,  'tis  falfe  to  fuppofe  when  only  ont 
 Governour  of  the  Church  makes,  or  fome  few  cabal 
 together  to  make,  a  new  Rule  or  Canon  to  which 
 that  Church  was  not  before  accuftomd^  that  fuch  a 
 Rule  or  Canon  is  the  Senfe  and  Practice  of  that 
 Church,  'tis  no  better  than  a  novel  Impofition  of  one 
 or  fome  of  its  particular  Governours  3  and  theMulr 
 titude  of  Peoples  not  taking  any  notice  of,  but 
 a£Hng  contrary  to  it,  upon  a  religious  Principle,  is 
 an  Argument  that  their  Minds  are  prejudie'd 
 againft  it,  either  by  former  long  Pr  alike  and Cuftom, 
 or  elfe  by  the  Inftructions  and  Teachings  of  the 
 greater  Part  of  their  Clergy,  or  both  of  thefe  toge- 
 ther ;  ,and  in  fuch  cafe  the  Practice  of  the  People, 
 and  not  the  Novel  Canon  made  by  a  particular 
 Bifhop,  fhews  the  Senfe  of  that  Church :  and  this 
 is  the  Cafe  before  us.  John  the  Metropolitan  of  the 
 Mofcovites,  has  a  particular  Canon  which  affirms, 
 R  2  that 
 
244  The  Practice  of  the         Part  II. 
 
 that  Baptifm  in  Time  of  Necefiity  may  be  given 
 without  a  Prieji:  This  Canon  do's  not  appear  to 
 have  been  made  by  any  Synod  or  Council  of  that 
 Church,  but  by  his  Angular  Authority  ^  the  Peo- 
 ple, "  whatever  Cafe  of  Neceffity  happens,  will  not 
 "  permit  it  to  be  done  by  any  other  but  a  Prieji : 
 They  regard  not  their  Metropolitan's  Canon  -,  and 
 why  >  Not  thro'  Ignorance  or  Negletf,  as  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham Infinuates,  but  from  a  Religious  Principle-, 
 becaufe  they  think  No  Man  fufficient  for  this  Ho- 
 ly Function,  in  any  Cafe  of  Necefiity  whatfoever, 
 but  a  Prieft  ;  as  is  plain  by  the  *  Author  quoted 
 by  Mr.  Bingham,  in  his  mth  Page^  and  the  fame 
 is  alfo  attefted  to  by  t  Gerhard,    another  of  this 
 
 Reverend  Gentleman's  Authors. And  even  Ar- 
 
 cudius,  a  Romifh  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,  \\  That  "for  the  moji  part  all  Grecia, 
 
 *  Joh.  Fabri.  de  Kelxg.  Mcfiovit.  p.  \y6-  Huic  muneri  fungendo 
 quaccunque  NecefTitas  incident,  Nemo  bomhhm  fufficere  putatur 
 mfi  Sacerdos  extiterit. 
 
 f  Gerhard  Loc.  Com.  Tom. 4.  De  Baptifmo,  n.  37.  p.z\z.  In 
 Mofcovitas  a!iqui  perhibent  baptizandi  muneri  quxcunque  ne- 
 cefllas  inciderir,  neminem  hominum  fufficere,  nili  Sacerdos  exti- 
 terit-    In  opere  de  varik  rerum  Mofcovhic.  Autorib.  p.  1  ;6. 
 
 ||  Poftquam  de  materia  8c  forma  Baptifmi  Egimus,  fuperefl  ut 
 de  miniftro  aliquid  dicamus:  Quod  eo  alacrius  aggredior,  quo 
 totam  ferme  Graenam,  Rufliam,  Mofcoviam,8c  alias  Provincias 
 qux  in  fide  Chrifti  ritu  Grseco  perfeverant,  ex  impe.itia  in  eo 
 verfari  errore,  fcrupulo  &  religione  animadverto  ;  uc  abfente 
 Presbytero  malint  permittere,  ut  Infantes  fi  e  Baptifrwo  e  vita 
 decedant,  quam  eos  falurari  lavacro  abluere;  quod  exiftiment 
 fibi  laicis  ne  in  neceffitate  quidem  Iicere  hoc  munere  fungi. 
 Arcud.  de  Concord.  Ecclef.  Orient.  S£  Quid.  Lib.],  c.  xi.  p. 24. 
 Paris  1616. 
 
 "  Ruffia, 
 
Chap.  7.     the  Mofcovite  Churches.  24; 
 
 "  Ruffia,  Mofcovia,  and  other  Provinces,  who,  of- 
 <c  ter  the  manner  of  the  Greek  Church,  continue  in 
 u  the  faith  ofChrift,  when  a  Prieft  is  Abfent,  had. 
 cc  rather  fuffer  their  Infants  to  Die  without  [what 
 he  calls]  u  Baptifm,  than  fuffer  them  to  be  baptized 
 [as  he  terms  it]  "  by  any  other,  becaufe  they  think 
 "  that  it  is  not  Lawful,  Cfcett  tit  Btttttith  for 
 cc  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  Romifh 
 Priefts ',  'tis  their  Cuftom  to  call  every  Body  that 
 differs  from  the  falfe  Tenets  of  their  Church,  Ig- 
 norant and  Erroneous-,  but  that  is  no  Proof,  that 
 they  are  fo.  Here  are  confeffedly  vaft  Multitudes 
 of  Chriftians,  inhabiting  far  Extended  Kingdoms^ 
 and  Provinces,  who  hold,  that  Laicks  cannot  Bap- 
 tize^ even  in  want  of  Priefts  -,  'tis  a  part  of  their 
 Religion  to  think  fo  ;  and  in  confequence  of  this, 
 no  falfe  Notions  of  Charity  and  Natural  Affection 
 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  had  5  no, 
 they  venture  the  Souls  of  their  Children,  and 
 leave  them  to  the  Mercy  of  God,  without  attempt- 
 ing to  fecure  their  Salvation  by  uninftituted,  un* 
 commanded,  and  in  their  Opinion,  prohibited  Mini- 
 flrations  •,  they  don't  think,  they  muft  do  Evil,  or 
 what  they  think  to  be  Evil,  that  Good  may  come  of 
 it  •,  and  whence  fliould  it  come  to  pafs,  that  Chri- 
 ftians fhould,  in  fuch  prodigious  Numbers,  run 
 unanimoufly  into  this  Opinion  and  Practice,  of 
 efteeming  it  better,  and  therefore  fuffering  their 
 Children  rather  to  Die  without  LayBaptifm,  when 
 Priefts  are  not  to  be  had,  than  let  them  be  pro- 
 fanely Waftfd  by  Laicks  ?  Do's  it  not  at  leaft  pro- 
 
 R  3  ceed 
 
246  The  Practice  of  Part  II# 
 
 ceed  from  hence,  that  they  have  been  us'd  to  be 
 taught  no  other  than  Prieft/y  Baptifm  ?   And  that 
 they  have  been  accuftom'd  to  no  other  ?  And  who 
 have  been  their  Teachers,  but  the  Bilhops,  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, 
 muft.  proceed  originally  from  their  own  Clergy  of 
 the  Greek  and  Mofcovite  Churches  •,  and  their  per- 
 fevering  in  them,  in  Oppofltion  to  fome  few  Angu- 
 lar Novel  Romijh  Attempts  to  the  contrary,  muft 
 be  attributed  to  this,  that  the  Romijh  Priefts  and  La- 
 tinizing Greeks^  have  not  yet  been  fo  powerful  in 
 their  Attempts,  but  that  ftill  the  Greeks  and  Mof- 
 covites  for  tljE  tttOft  part  diiTent  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  ihew  the  Agreement  of  the 
 Eaflern  Churches  with   the  Latin ;    and  wrho  yet^ 
 when  he  comes  to  the  Article  of  Baptifm,  is  forc'd 
 to  acknowledge,  that  for  the  ntoft  part  all  Greece, 
 Ruffia,  Mofcovy,   and  other  Provinces  in  Commu- 
 vwn  with  the  Greek  Church?  difFent  fo  very  much 
 from  the  Roman  Church  about  the  Minifter  of  Bap- 
 tifm,  as  that  they  fuffer  their  Children  rather  to 
 Die  without  Lay-Baptifm,  when  a  Prieft  cannot 
 be  had,   than  let  any  Laick  pretend  to  Baptize 
 them  5   and  purely  upon  this  Principle,  "  That  it 
 "  H  !10t  JLatDftll,  even  in  Times  of  Neceffity,  for 
 iC  Laicks  to  Execute  the  Office  of  Baptizing. 
 
 $  XXI.  Having  been  thus  long  upon  the  Senfe 
 and  Pra&ice  of  the  Greeks  and  Mufcovites,  I  fhall 
 be  the  more  brief  upon  that  of  the  Foreign  Re- 
 formed 3  becaufe,  they  can  be  no  Evidence  of  the 
 
 general 
 
Chap.  7.       the  Foreign  Reformed.  227 
 
 general  Senfe  and  P  raff  ice  of  the  Ancient  Catholick 
 Church,  except  they  produce  her  Ecclefiaftical  Laws, 
 Traditions,  or  Cujioms,  [for  the  Validity  of  Bap- 
 tifms  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  were  never  Corn- 
 Hiiflion'd  by  Bifhops  to  baptize]  which  I  am  fure 
 they  cannot  do. 
 
 And  firft  for  the  Lutherans -y  Mr.  Bingham  in 
 his  1 1  ith  Page,  &c.  introduces  fome  of  them  avert- 
 ing that  "  any  Per/on  who  is  a  Chhftian^  Man,  or 
 "  ffillOtJian,  may  be  the  CWCaO?8tnatp  Minifter 
 
 "  of  Baptifm -when  there  is  imminent  Dan- 
 
 cc  ger  of  Death,  and  a  Minifter  of  the  Word  cannot 
 "  be  had. :'  And  here  we  may  eaiily  fee,  that 
 thefe  Lutherans  are  fo  far  Pnptfl)3  in  that  they 
 allow  of  Baptifm  by  JKHonieil,  which  by  Mr. 
 Bingham^  own  Confemon,  never  wot  allowed  by  the 
 Ancient  Catholick  Church  ^  fo  that,  in  this  of  Bap- 
 tifm by  Women,  the  Lutherans  Mr.  Bingham  fpeaks 
 of,  are  Uncatholick  $  and  as  for  the  other,  of  Bap- 
 tifm by  Lay-men,  we  have  abundantly  feen  al- 
 ready, that  they  have  BO  CatljOltCk  P#ttCtpJe 
 whereon  to  found  that  Pra&ice,  fince  the  Ancient 
 Catholick  Church  never  had  any  Ecclefiaftical  Law, 
 Tradition,  or  Cuftom  for  it.  The  fuppofed  Rea- 
 fons  they  give  [as  in  his  112th  and  119th  Pages] 
 for  the  Baptifm  of  Lay  men  and  Women,  are  very 
 weak,  iniignificant,  and  falfe,  and  have  been  al- 
 ready obviated  and  anfwer'd  in  feveral  *Treatifes 
 publifhed  long  fince.  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  do's 
 not  care  to  be  concern'd  "  what  weight  and  force 
 "  there  is  in  their  [pretended]  Arguments,*'  and 
 
 *  L^y  Baptifm  Invalid,  Sacerdotal  Powers.  Vijfenters  Baptifm 
 WiM  and  Void. 
 
 R  4  there 
 
248  The  VraBice  of  Part  IL 
 
 therefore  I  will    not    trouble    the  Reader  with 
 them. 
 
 §  XXII.  Mr.  Bingham's  next  Inftance  is  of  the 
 Uelvetick  Body,  the  Followers  of  Zuinglius,  where- 
 in he  tells  us  [in  his  114th  and  115th  Pages]  that 
 Zuinglius  was  of  Opinion,   "  that  Baptifm   ( in 
 "  Cafe  of  Neceffity;   might   be  given  by   3ttp 
 "  ^att5   [SLuivis  Uominum\  yea  by  a  JKHomatt 
 iC  alfo-,"  which  is  plainly  the  Popijh  Novelty  in  its 
 full  Extent^  and  therefore  needs  no  further  Confu- 
 tation.   cc  His  Followers  difapprov'd  of  this  Lati- 
 •c  tude  of  Baptifm  by  3xU0mett>  and  therefore  af- 
 "  ter  his  Death  prohibited  it"  fays  Mr.  Bingham: 
 So  far  they  did  well.    But  fays  our  Reverend  Hi- 
 ftorian,  u  No  Prohibition  was  [by  them]  laid  up- 
 "  on  £39ett)   in  Cafes  of  Neceffity,  nor  any  Order 
 "  made  for  Re-baptizing  thofe  who  were  irregularly 
 "baptiz'd  by  0t|)e£&"    And  what  do's  this  fig- 
 nify  more,    than  that  they  have  laid  afide  one 
 Piece  of  IpOpCtJ^  and  not  provided  againft  ano- 
 ther }.  that  is,  Baptifm  by  Women  is  forbidden-,  but 
 ftill   [Quivls  Uominum']  Any  Man,   [as  Zuinglit/s 
 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  Zuinglitxs  §>ui- 
 vis  Hominum,  2ttJ?  SJSJait  ]  a  very  hopeful  Refojr- 
 formation  indeed!   as  Mr.  Bingham  has  defcrib'd 
 it  \  fb  that,  we  need  not  wonder  why  they  made 
 no  Order  for  what  he  calls  Re- baptizing.     Thus 
 far  may  fuffice,  for  what  Mr.  Bingham  has  told  us, 
 of  the  PopCCg  of  fome  of  the  Lutherans  and 
 Zuinglians. 
 
 §  XXIII. 
 
Chap.  7.       the  Foreign  RefowPd*  249 
 
 §  XXIIL  And  now  for  the  Calvinifts.  Our  Re- 
 verend Hiftorian  owns  in  his  115th  Page,  that 
 <c  Calvin  freely  declares  his  mind  againft  the  Law- 
 "  fulnefs  of  Lay-Baptifm  in  3ttp  Cafe  fo&atfa* 
 "  efter.  That  "  he  thinks  there  can  be  Ji30  JI3e* 
 c;  Ceflltp  fufficient  to  3utfKt?t?e  p/vW*  yJto  <?r 
 "  Women,  to  do  the  Office  of  a  lp>UWtCk  ^ttttfter* 
 Mr.  Bingham  tells  his  Englijh  Reader,  that  "  Calvin 
 "  owns  indeed,  that  the  Ccmttatp  Practice  had 
 cc  ffenetallp  p?etoUi'0>  not  only  feveral  Ages  be- 
 <c  fore  his  own  Time,  but,  in  a  manner,  from  the 
 "  firft  beginning  of  the  Church,  Lay-men  altPapjS 
 cZ  baptized  in  danger  of  Deaths  If  a  Minifter  could 
 "  not  be  had  in  due  Time.  But  that  He,  [/.  e.  Cal- 
 vin'] thinks  the  Grounds  they  went  upon  were 
 cc  not  juftifiable. "  By  Mr.  Bingham's  thus  repre- 
 fenting  the  Senfe  of  Calvin^  the  Reader  may  be  in- 
 duc'd  to  think,  that  Calvin  could  not  but  own,  that 
 Lay-Baptifm  had  geitetall]?  pjefcairtl,  that  is, 
 had  been  the  ©Citetal  Practice  of  the  Catholick 
 Church,  and  that  Lay-men  had  alfoapS  baptiz'd, 
 &c.  whereas  in  Truth,  Calvin  s  Words,  as  Mr. 
 Bingham  has  3em  in  his  Margin,  contain  nothing 
 that  fhews  he  own'd  this  to  have  generally  p?e= 
 SaiTDj  not  one  Word  that  acknowledges  "  Lay* 
 "  men  altOapjS  Baptized,  &c. "  For  the  whole  of 
 what  he  fays  is  only,  *That  "  Many  Ages  before" 
 his  Time,  "  and  fo  far^  as  almoji  from  the  firft  be 
 
 *  Calvin  Jnflit.  Lib.  4.  cap.  1  f .  M  20.  Quod  autem  multis 
 ab  hinc  feculis,  adeoque  ab  ipfa  fere  Ecclefia?  exordio,  ufu  rc- 
 ceptum  fuit,  ut  in  periculo  mortis  Laici  Baptizarcnt,  fi  mi- 
 nifter in  tempore  noo  adeffet,  non  video  quam  firms  ratione 
 defendi  queat. 
 
 ?  ginning 
 
2  jo  The  Practice  of  Part  IL 
 
 "  ginning  of  the  Church,  it  war  a  Receivd  Cuflom 
 [he  do's  not  fay  it  generally  pjettMi'O]  "  that 
 "  Lay-men fhould  Baptize"  [he  do's  not  fay  Lay- 
 men attDapg  baptiz'd]  "  in  danger  of  Death,  if 
 lc  a  Miniftcr  could  not  be  had  in  due  Time-,  and 
 "  that  He  [j.  e,  Calvin]  did  not  fee  how  or  by  what 
 tt  fubftantial  Reafon  this'3  Cuftom  "  could  be  de- 
 cc  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 
 Praclice  that  Generally  Prevailed  \  for  a  fuppos'd 
 Cuftoin  of  fome  few  lingular  Perfons,  may  be 
 call'd  a  Cuftom,  and  an  early  one  too,  without 
 Being  the  Cuftom  or  Pra&ice  of  the  Church  it  felf: 
 Some  of  the  Members  of  the  Church  may  have 
 iuppos'd  Practices  of  their  own,  which  never  were 
 own'd  by  the  Church  as  her  Cuftoms  and  Tradi- 
 tions •,  fo  that,  if  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  ®ettetallp  Pjefcatrn,  as  Mr, 
 Bingham  erpreifes  it-,  and  whoever  they  were,  that 
 by  Calvin's  Suppofition  took  up  this  Cuftoin 
 [which  by  all  that  has  been  faid  before,  was  not 
 hy  any  one  ftl  Catlj?  receiv'd  as  he  [/.  e.  Cal- 
 vin] fancy'd  it,  yet  Calven  contemns  their  Au- 
 thority, and  plainly  {hews,  that  he  thought  their 
 Praace  COUft  ttOt  be  MCUDSC* 
 
 But  notwithstanding  all  this,  Mr.  Bingham  fays 
 in  his  116th  Page,  that  Calvin  w  dos  not  ptttXl^ 
 4C  tO/iViV  pronounce  fuch  Baptifms^  abfolutely  I5lltl 
 *  8tttJ  <XtOt&>  but  the  contrary.  *    And  for  this  he 
 
 quotes 
 
Chap.  7.       the  Foreign  Reformed.  i^x 
 
 quotes  Arch-Bifhop  *  Whitgift\  Words,  becaufe 
 they  have  theft  Expreffions,  viz,  "  It  is  fufficient 
 "  for  us  to  know  the  Hani  and  Seal  of  the  Lord  in 
 t  bis  Sacraments,   by   toljOttlfaeUCt   they  be  deli- 
 
 "  verd -wefball  be  Sufficiently  defended  [/.  e. 
 
 againft  the  Anabaptifts,  who  deny'd  Baptifm  to 
 be  right,  becaufe  given  by  Idolatrous  Perfons 
 in  the  Churdi  of  Rome']  "  if  we  think  that  we 
 "  were  Baptized,  not  in  the  ISattte  Of  Ottp  a0atT, 
 "  but  in  the  'Name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
 ?  Ghoft,  and  therefore  Baptifm  not  to  be  of  Man \ 
 "  but  of  God,  by  SPljOttlfOeSaei:  H  be  minifter'd. 
 And  becaufe  of  this  [WjomfaCOet]  Mr.  Bingham 
 concludes,  that  Calvin  do's  not  abfolutely  Null  and 
 Void  Baptifm  by  Lay-men.  But,  in  anfwer  to  this, 
 if  the  word  UJfKmtfaeDer,  as  Arch-Bifhop  Whit- 
 gift  has  it,  muft  be  taken  in  its  full  Extent  and 
 Meaning  •,  then  Calvin  will  be  made  to  have 
 efteeirf  d  as  Good  and  Valid,  all  the  pretended  Bap- 
 tifms  of  hay -men  and  Women,  Jews,  Turks,  Infi- 
 dels)  and  Pagans,  which  is  plainly  a  Novelty  of 
 Cttfitpt  Popery  And  not  only  fo,  but  the 
 Validity  of  Baptifm  by  Private  Perfons,  if  it  be 
 included  in  this  word  ftrfjamfaetiet,  will  be  an 
 Inconfijiency  and  Contradiction  to  what  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham fa  id  before,  viz*  that  w  Calvin  declares  his 
 +  Mind  againft  the  La&fUllteCS  of  Lay-Baptifm  in 
 "  ait?  Cafe  foljatfoetoi;;"  and  that  "bethinks 
 "  there  Catt  bt  UO  JiSeceffit $>  fufficient  to  autf)0* 
 "  tl^t  private  Men  or  Women  to  do  the  Office  of  a 
 "  publick  Minifter  $ "  fo  that,  Calvin  will  be  made 
 to  fpeak  inconfiftently  with  himfelf,  and  to  con- 
 tradict his  own  Principle.    For,  if  Baptifm   by 
 
 *  Wbitgifrs  Defence  of  the  Anfwer  to  the  Admonir.  Traft.  9. 
 f.  yi8.  ex  Calvin  Infiiu  Cap.  17.  Seft.  16. 
 
 Lay- 
 
2  5  2  The  Pr  alt  ice  of  P  a  r  t  II. 
 
 Lay-men,  or  Women,  be  not  LatDftll  in  any  Cafe 
 zvbatfoever  *,  and  there  can  be  no  ~Necej]ity  fufficient 
 to  atltljO?t?e  it  [according  to  Calvin  i]  Then  'tis 
 plain,  that  in  Calvin's  Opinion,  fuch  pretended 
 Baptifms,  have  I50  iUti),  JRllie,  or  atlt&OJttPi 
 for  if  they  have,  then  they  are  Lawful  and  Au- 
 thorized, which  Calvin  fays  they  are  not-,  fince 
 then  they  have  no  JUtO  or  Utile,  «fid  are  Defti- 
 tute  of  any  aUtfiOJtt}?  in  Calvin's  Senfe,  it  necef- 
 farily  follows,  that  cc  the  fyfttti}  and  %ml  of  the 
 cc  Lord  Cannot  to  in  fuch  falfe  Miniftrations,  and 
 "  therefore  they  are  3jfflffiHDi"  for  if  the  ta/zi 
 and  Seal  of  the  Lord  is  in  them,  then  they  have 
 His  attt{)C$tj?,  and  are  therefore  lafofttl,  becaufe 
 the  Hand  and  Seal  of  a  Principal,  really  fet  to 
 any  Inftrument,  is  either  by  himfelf,  or  his  Au- 
 thorized Attorney  or  Reprefentative,  and  fo  is 
 His,  and  therefore  his  Authority^  and  confe- 
 quently  HattJfUl?  and  therefore  Valid,  becaufe  Jptgi 
 |3an0  anO  Seal  X  But  Calvin  fays  on  the  con- 
 trary, that  they  are  not  Lawful  in  any  Cafe  what- 
 foever,  no  Neceflity  can  be  fufficient  to  Autho- 
 rize them  *,  therefore  the  Hand  and  Seal  of  the 
 Lord  cannot  be  in  them,  and  confequently  they 
 cannot  be  Valid,  by  fofiomfoefcec  perform'd,  if 
 we  take  whomfoever,  in  the  full  extenfive  Mean- 
 ing of  the  Word,  to  include  Private  Men  and 
 Women^  Perfons  never  Authoriz'd  or  Commiirion'd 
 to  Baptize-,  that  is,  Calvin  reckons  fuch  Baptifms 
 Valid,  by  faying  the  Lord's  Hand  and  Seal  U  in 
 them  •,  tho5  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  is  Validity  where   there  is  ttO  LfiU)5    nO 
 
 Eule,  no  Jpans  ana  g>eal  <f  the  Lord,  and 
 
 Nothing  of  pj3  8«t&9## 
 
 Thus 
 
Chap.  7.         the  Foreign  Reformed.  255 
 
 Thus  we  fee  Calvin's  Inconfiftency,  if  his  to&Ottt- 
 fOeSet:  muft  be  taken  in  the  full  Latitude  of  the 
 Word,  to  include  Lay,  /.  e.  Uncommiifion'd  Bap- 
 tizers  \  and  therefore  they  who  would  make  him 
 Confident  with  himfelf,  muft  underftand  by  his 
 toljomfoetirr,  only  whomfoever  "  Publick  Mini- 
 "  fter,  3  whether  Reformed  Proteftant,  or  Idola- 
 trous Papifty  fince  Arch-Bifhop  Whitgifis  Words, 
 taken  from  Calvin,  were  levelfd  againft  the  then 
 Artabaptifts,  who  deny'd  Baptifm  to  be  Right,  be- 
 caufe  given  by  Idolatrous  Baptizers  in  the  Church 
 of  Rome.  For,  'tis  plain,  that  Calvin  not  only 
 declares  his  Mind  againft  the  Lawfulnefs  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm  in  an?  Cafe  tirtjatfoeSn;,  as  Mr.  Bmg- 
 bam  has  rightly  obferv'd  •,  but  that  the  fame  Cal- 
 vin did  in  a  Publick  and  Authentick  manner  Sign 
 to  it  *  that  fuch  Baptifm  is  utterly  Null  and 
 Void  in  exprefs  Terms,  Witnefs  his  Hand  to  the 
 PUbltCft  9ct  of  the  Minifters  and  Dottors  in  the 
 Church  of  Geneva,  [as  they  are  call'd]  who  were 
 at  the  National  Synod  of  Lyons,  Anno  15,63. 
 wherein,  Article  the  Firft,  it  is  exprefly  affirmed 
 that  fuch  Baptifm  "  is  of  J150  jFfltfe,  Pflfoer, 
 flJalfttttp,  or  Cffert/'  and  to  which  John  Calvin 
 fign'd  his  Name  in  full  Length,    fu^j-tjkeli*  *jj«+td   * 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  acknowledges  that  Beza,  Calvin's  :Hxy^ 
 SuccefTor,  "  declares  pofitively  againft  the  Validity 
 "  of  Baptifm  adminifterd  by  private  terfons,  p.  116, 
 And  that  it  is  certain  the  French  Reform'd  do 
 all  join  with  him  M  in  the  DoSrine  of  the  Invalidity 
 "  and  Nullity  of  LayBaptifm,  p.  117.  And  it  is 
 -     ■  I,,...  9 
 
 *  As  may  be  feen  in  QuickC  Synodicon,  Vol.  i.  Chap.  XXI. 
 p.  ro.  Or  fnore  erfily  in  a  Utile  Bo^t  caWd,  The  Judgment  of  the 
 Reform'd  in  France,  Sec.  Concerning  the  Invalidity  of  Lay* 
 baptifm,  Page  1 6".    Printed  fir  H.  Clements,  Anno  171 2. 
 
 notorious 
 
254  The  PrA'ttue  °f  Part  II. 
 
 notorious  that  this  was  afTerted  by  them  in  no  lefs 
 
 than  Six  National  Synods,  namely,  the  Firft  held 
 
 tt  ofif*  at  Parity  Anno  1559.  the  Second  at  Pointers  1560. A ><* 
 
 ffil*'*.*. '  s4*  another  at  Lyons  1563.  where  the  Deputies  of  Ge-*1" 
 
 /1mx«  (**  neva  were  a^°  Pre^ent  agreeing  thereto  ^   another 
 
 '£*JJL  ^^at  ItyM  1571-  where  Beza  of  Geneva  was  Mode- 
 
 i.  rf-A&'y-  rator(    *ne  National  Synod  of  Gap,  Anno  1603. 
 
 wc^>  and  that  at  Rochel,  Anno  1607.  to  which  Mr.Bing- 
 
 ^(flyt^   ham  adds  another  Synod  of  Alenfon  1637.  'm  ms 
 
 fu>.  9>  #/  118th  Page,    and  juftly  concludes,    that  the  Do- 
 
 wCj.  ft. n  Qrine  of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifin  "  is  in- 
 
 ci  difputably  the  Practice  of  the  French  Churchy  "  to 
 
 which  he  mould  have  added  that  of  Geneva  too^  as 
 
 is  plain  by  two  at  leaft  of  thofe  Seven  Synods. 
 
 Thefe  were  full  National  Synods,  and  very  folemnly 
 
 beld^  and  Mr.  Bingham  cannot  produce  liich  full 
 
 flagrant  Evidence  among  the  Lutherans^  for  the 
 
 other  fide  of  the  Queftion. 
 
 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  Palatines,  and 
 fays,  Page  120.  cC  The  Churches  of  the  Palatinate, 
 "  Comment!})  follow  the  Dotlrine  of  the  Czlvi- 
 "  nifts  •,"  So  that  here  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  ac- 
 knowledges, that  the  Palatine  Proteftants  are  com- 
 monly againft  the  Validity  of  Lay-Baptifin — very 
 well.  But  fays  he,  "  In  {Bfte  CafC  fome  of  their 
 "  Divines  make  an  Exception,  as  in  a  Time  of 
 "  great  Perfecution,  or  D'lfperjion  of  the  Miniftry 
 "  in  fome  grand  Dijfipation  of  the  Church.  And  for 
 this  he  produces  but  One  of  their  Divines,  Dr.  Alt- 
 ing^    who  fays,   "  Baptifm  adminifterd  by  private 
 
 "  Men 
 
Chap,  7.        the' Foreign  Reformed.  255 
 
 u  Me #,  in  a  grand  Difperjion  of  the  Churchy  f£ 
 "  ttOt  tO  te  reiterated*  But  what  fignifies  the 
 Saying  of  one  Man  only,  among  the  Palatines, 
 when  [according  to  Mr.  Bingham]  the  CfjUtC&ejS 
 of  the  Palatinate  commonly  follow  the  Contrary 
 Doilnne  •>  efpecially,  when  'tis  alfo  confider'd, 
 that  this  very  Dr.  Alting,  fays  of  this  fame  Bap- 
 tifm  thus,  "  We  do  not  fay  it  is  iLtJJIttmate,  or 
 4C  ILatttftll) "  and  thereby  is  inconfiflent  with  him- 
 felf,  and  fo  we  may  leave  him  as  a  Doctor  of  no 
 Moment  in  this  Affair  j  for,  he  brings  falfe  Argu- 
 ments againft  repeating  the  Baptifm,  which  he  ac- 
 knowledges to  be  Unlawful  and  3!iltgftttt!ate> 
 and  therefore  falfe  and  Invalid.  He  endeavours 
 to  prove,  that  they  fhould  not  be  repeated,  Cc  be- 
 "  caufe  the  Jewijh  Circumcifions  and  Popijh  Bap- 
 cc  tifms  were  not  repeated,  thoJ  they  were  per- 
 u  form'd  and  attended  with  many  Superftitions 
 cc  in  the  corrupt  State  of  the  Jewijh  and  Romijh 
 <c  Church."  As  if  Corruptions  of  Superftition,  &c. 
 attending  a  True  Commijfion,  were  juft  the  fame 
 as  no  CommiJJion  at  aU\  the  Fallacy  of  which  be- 
 trays it  felf. 
 
 Thus  we  have  feen  the  Thoughts  of  the  Foreign 
 Reformed  in  this  Matter  $  we  have  obferv'd  from 
 Mr.  Bingham,  that  fome  of  the  Lutherans  and 
 Zmnglians  are  l)0tp  IpOptfit)  about  it.  And  it  has 
 been  prov'd,  that  the  French  Protejiants,  the  Gene- 
 vans, the  Dutch,  and  the  Palatines,  do  not  fub- 
 mit  to  this  Corruption  of  Popfctp  -,  but  have  very 
 juftly  reform'd  from  it  in  Principle  and  Doctrine. 
 
 But  fays  Mr.  Bingham,  "  The  Dutch  and  French 
 c  Churches  are  [by  fome]  reckoned  of  no  Account 
 "  but  flXttCljUtXb'D?  becaufe  they  want  Epifcopacy^ 
 "  and  confequently  %tUZ  flD;8tfnattCm&  andChri- 
 "  fiian    Sacraments^  in    their  Opinion,   and  then 
 
 "  what 
 
2 $6  The  Practice  of  Part  II. 
 
 "  what  fignifies  their  Teftimony,  in  fucb  a  Cafe>  if 
 w  as  foon  as  they   have  deliver  d  their  Evidence 
 "  about  Cbrijiian  Baptifm,    they  fhall  be  Cqjhier'd, 
 "  and  pofitively  declared  to  be  no  Chriftians  ?    See 
 his  119th  Page.    This    of  Unchurching    has  been 
 long  fince  anfwer'd  in  *  another  Place  ;  and  if 
 fome  do  hold  that  there  are  "  no  True  Ordinations 
 "  and  Chriftian  Sacraments,"    where  there  is  no 
 Epifcopacy,  they  are  very  much  in  the  right  of  it  5 
 and   if  Mr.  Bingham  do's    not   approve    of  this, 
 [which  he  emphatically  calls]   CijetC   SDpttttOn, 
 fas  if  it  were  feparate,    and  of  another  Nature, 
 from  what  he  Holds  himfelf]  then  let  him  give 
 us  a  Scholaftical  Hiftory,  of  the  Senfe  and  Praftice  of 
 the  Churchy  in  Defence  of  the  Contrary  Principle) 
 if  he  is  able  •,  that  fo  we  may  fee  from  Authentick 
 Teftimonies,  that  there  were  anciently  True  Or- 
 dinations and   Chriftian  Churches  and  Sacraments 
 without  CptfCOpacp*    But  this  I  am  fure  he  will 
 never  be  able  to  prove  from  any  of  the  Antiqui- 
 ties of  the  Chriftian  Church  $    for  the  direct  contra- 
 ry is  notorious  Matter  of  Fad,  as  is  Evident  both 
 from  Scripture  and  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory ,    That 
 there  never  was  any  Chriftian  Church,  True  Ordi- 
 nations,   or  Chriftian  Sacraments,  without  Epifcopa- 
 cy,  no  one  Inftance  whatfoever  can  be  produc'd  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  Subftantial  Truth. 
 
 And  tho'  the  trench  and  Dutch  are  fb  deeply 
 concern'd  [as  our  Reverend  Hiftorian  fays  fome 
 reckon  them  to  be]  in  this  Truth  h  yet  ftill  f££)efc 
 
 *  Lay*Baptifm  Invalid* 
 
 Evidence 
 
Chap.  7.       the  Foreign  Reformed.  257 
 
 Evidence  againft  Lay-Bap tifm  is  very  Significant^ 
 and  of  great  Importance  both  to  themfelves  and  us. 
 For, 
 
 Firft,  It  {hews  them  the  great  Neceflity  of  fecu- 
 ring  to  themfelves  a  Real,  and  therefore  Valid 
 MiJJion  •,  fince,  by  their  own  ConfeJJion^  they  have 
 no  Chriflian  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  confidering  the  Nature  of 
 Things]  are  obliged  to  fubmit  to,  even  tho5  them- 
 felves are  involved  in  the  Confequences  of  it.  It 
 is  no  fmall  Motive  of  Credibility,  when  a  Truth  is 
 attefted  to,  not  only  by  thofe  who  are  its  avowed 
 Friends,  and  Pradice  according  to  it,  but  alfo  by 
 thofe  very  Men,  who,  in  the  Opinion  of  unprc- 
 judic'd  Standers  by,  are  oblig'd,  confidering  their 
 Circumftances,  either  to  oppofe  and  gainfay  it,  or 
 elfe  to  reform  their  own  Practice,  that  they  may 
 be.  truly  confident  therewith.  It  is  a  pleafant  and 
 delightful  thing,  to  fee  Men  in  love  with  CtUt!)  IH 
 t&e  Sltlfiiract :  It  is  no  Abatement  of  the  Truth 
 how  much  foever  they  are  concerned  in  the  Confe- 
 quences which  they  themfelves  have  made  •,  thofe 
 Confequences  map  tltDCED  [and  ought  to]  bZ  tt* 
 fO}n\%  but  the  Truth  they  are  WitnefTes  for,  is 
 unchangeable,  and  is  not  in  the  leaft  alter'd  by  their 
 contrary,  irregular  Circumftances  and  Pratfices. 
 Nathans  Parable  to  King  David  contain'd  an  ex- 
 cellent Truth,  of  the  great  Deformity,  and  heinous 
 Demerit  of  Mens  acting  contrary  to  the  Rules  of 
 Juflice  and  Equity.  David  alTented  to  this  Truths 
 and  in  the  Cafe  that  Nathan  put  to  him  was  fb 
 very  zealous,  that  he,  like  a  Juft  and  Righteous 
 Judge,  refolv'd,  that  the  Man  who  was  guilty  of 
 
 S  tbt 
 
258  The  Prance  of,  &c.  Part  IT. 
 
 the  Injuftice  Nathan  complain'd  of,  Jlwuld  finely 
 die.  The  King  did  not  reckon,  that  the  Application 
 was  to  be  made  to  himfelf  ^  no  matter  for  that,  the 
 Truth  was  ftill  the  fame:  And  when  Nathan  faid 
 unto  him,  u  CljOU  at*  tlje  S^ait  j "  he  ftill  ac- 
 knowledge the  Truth  he  had  afTented  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  ©CCaflOlt 
 which  himfelf  had  given  for  Nathan' s  Parable  •,  and 
 God  grant  that  the  French,  and  the  Dutch,  and 
 other  Reformed  abroad,  &c.  may  go  and  do  likewife, 
 fo  as  really  to  put  in  Tratlice  what  is  agreeable  to, 
 and  confident  with  their  own  avowed  Principles ',  in 
 the  matter  before  us ! 
 
 As  for  what  Mr.  Bingham  fays  of  the  Church  of 
 England,  and  Senfe  of  her  Members,  from  his  12  2d, 
 to  his  1 37th  Page,  it  is  needlefs  to  repeat  in  Anfwer 
 thereto  what  has  been  already  faid  in  *  Treatifes 
 already  publifhed,  and  in  which  our  Reverend 
 Hiftorians  Remarks  are  obviated  and  anfwer  d: 
 And  therefore  the  Reader  is  referr'd  to  them,  that 
 I  may  now  proceed  to  fum  up  the  whole  Evidence 
 of  the  Antients  in  the  next  Chapter,  and  fo  con- 
 clude. 
 
 *  Diffemers  and  other  wiauthorifd  Baptifms  Null  and  Void  by  the 
 Amclety  Canons  and  Rubric^  of  the  Church  of  England.  Jbe 
 B//?.'op  oj  OxfordV  Charge  Confide-?  d. 
 
 CHAP- 
 
259 
 
 CHAP.    VIII. 
 
 ■ 
 
 The  whole  Evidence  of  Antiquity  funPd  up : 
 proving,  That  the  far  greater  Majority  of  An- 
 cient Teflimony,  is  againjt  all  pretended  Bap- 
 tifms  performed  by  Perfons,  who  never  were 
 authorized  by  Bifljops  to  baptiz?,  and'  confe- 
 quently  that  fuch  Baptifms  are  not  valid  by  any 
 Ecclefiajlical  Law,  Tradition  or  Cuflom  of 
 the  ancient  Catholick  Church :  The  Conclufion 
 containing  a  true  'State  of  the  Quefiion  about 
 fupposM  Cafes  of  Neceflity,  where  Epifco- 
 pally  Authorized  Baptizers  are  not  to  be  had. 
 
 WE  have  already  feen  in  Chap.?.  That  the 
 ancient  Catholick  Church  never  attempted 
 to  Authorize  or  Commijjion  Lay-men  to  baptize,  in 
 any  Cafe  whatfoever  ^  and  that  all  the  Endeavours 
 of  this  fort  have  been  made  only  by  fome  few  par- 
 ticular Perfons,  who  can  upon  no  account  whatfb- 
 ever  be  faid  to  make  up,  %\)Z  anCtCHt  Cat&OltCk 
 CljtttCl}-,  and  whofe  Attempts,  if  they  were  right, 
 are  alfo  of  no  Importance  to  favour  the  Practice 
 of  thofe  who  have  not  even  fo  much  as  any  Pre- 
 tence to  this  fupposd  Authority^  and  Commiffion, 
 from  Bifhops  to  baptize,  as  certainly  our  Laicks 
 [the  Diifenting  Teachers]  have  not. 
 
 It  remains  now  that  I  fum  up  the  whole  Evi- 
 dence relating  to  Baptifms  performed  by  a  real  [or 
 fuppos'd^    Epif copal  Commijjion,    and    concerning 
 other  pretended  Baptifms  by  Perfons  who  never 
 Jhfid  fuch  a  Commiffion  at  all,  that  the  Reader  may, 
 
 S  2  in 
 
260 
 
 The  Evidence  of 
 
 Part  II. 
 
 in  a  narrow  Compafs,  fee  the  whole  Evidence  of 
 the  Antients  for  and  againft  thefe  never-CommiJJiond 
 Baptifms,  and  pafs  Judgment  accordingly :  And 
 that  he  may  do  it  the  more  eafily,  I  note  the 
 Whole  in  the  following  Table,  in  which  the  An- 
 tients, 6?V.  who  are  thought  to  have  been  for  Bap- 
 tifms by  Perfons  never  Commifjiond  by  Bifhops, 
 are  noted  on  the  Left-fide  ^  and  thofe,  whofe  Evi- 
 dence is  for  Baptifms  perform'd  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 
 Teftimonies  are  thought 
 
 ■  to  make  for  the  Vali- 
 dity of  Baptifm  by  Per- 
 fons never  CommiJJiond 
 by  Bijhops. 
 
 The  Antients^  &c.  whofe 
 Teftimonies  make  for 
 Baptifm  perform'd  by 
 Epif copal  Authority  on- 
 ly^ and  who  Null  Unau- 
 thorized Baptifms. 
 
 Jefus  Chrift,  in  his  In- 
 flitution  of  Baptifm, 
 gave  his  Commiffion 
 only  to  his  Apoftles, 
 the  firft  Bifhops,  and 
 to  fuch  as  they  and 
 their  SuccefTors  fhould 
 Authorize,       Page  5. 
 
 This  Commiifion  to  con- 
 tinue to  the  End  of 
 the  "World,  and  necef 
 fary  to  p^fCtfce  ttje 
 <£l)UtCf)  according  to 
 the 
 
Chap.  8.         Antiquity  fum^d  up.  261 
 
 theSDjnerof  e&tff, 
 
 as  Mr.  Bingham  owns, 
 p.  5. 
 
 The  Truth  of  this  Nulls 
 Uncommifllon'd  Bap- 
 tifms,  p.  6,  28. 
 
 None  baptiz'd  at  firft 
 but  by  Authority  re- 
 ceiv'd  from  the  Apo- 
 files,  according  to  one 
 of  Mr.  Bingham  s  Au- 
 thors, p.  7. 
 
 No  one  can  have  a  Power 
 of  Baptizing,  but  he 
 who  receives  fome 
 way  or  other,  a  Com- 
 miffion  from  them,  ac- 
 cording to  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham's faid  Author,  p.8. 
 
 The  Original  Power  of 
 Baptizing  lodg'dy ole- 
 ly  and  entirely  in  Bi- 
 ihops,  and  derivative- 
 ly convey'd  from  them 
 to  others,  ordinarily 
 and  extraordinarily, 
 according  to  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham^ )         p.  ir. 
 
 Baptifm  by  fuch  Perfons 
 was  reputed  as  theTBf- 
 OjOp'jS  3*,         ibid. 
 
 Lay-men  always  debarr'd 
 from  Baptizing  in  Hli 
 
 /  0?Btnatp  Cafe&  ac- 
 cording to  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham, />,  30. 
 
 S3  He 
 
6*2 
 
 I.  ani  II.  Centuries. 
 
 The  Evidence  of  Part.  II. 
 
 He  owns  that  particu- 
 lar Cljurc&eg  would 
 
 not  allow  Lay-men  to 
 baptize  in  want  of  the 
 Clergy,  p.  32. 
 
 I.  ani  II.  Centuries. 
 
 St  Ignatius  fays,  "  With- 
 ft  outBiJhops^  Priefts, 
 a  and  Deacons"  there 
 is  no  Church,    p.  35. 
 
 And  without  the  Bifhop 
 it  is  not  Lawful  to 
 baptize,  />«35f- 
 
 St.  Hernias  names  no 
 other  than  Authorized 
 Baptizers  for  greateft 
 Extremities,       p.  38. 
 
 III.  Century. 
 Tertuliian,  about  Anno 
 200,  thinks. Lay-men 
 have  a  Right  in  them- 
 felves  to  baptize  in 
 abfence  of  the  Clergy, 
 
 But  founds  it  upon  a 
 falfe  Principle,  which 
 allows  Women  to  bap- 
 tize, |     p.  45. 
 
 III.  Century. 
 
 TertuUian  refers  us  to 
 the  Practice  of  the 
 Church  whereby  the 
 Bilhop  had  the  Power 
 of  Baptifm,  and  after 
 him  Presbyters  and 
 Deacons,  yet  tlOt  with- 
 out the  aUt&Otftp  of 
 theOBlfljOpj  />.3?,4i- 
 
 He  will  not  allow  Wo- 
 men to  baptize,  p.  47. 
 
 St.  Cyprian  makes  Bap- 
 tifm without  a  Prieft- 
 ly  Power,  /.  e.  Epifco- 
 pal  Commiffion,  to  be 
 :  Null  and  Void,    p.  48. 
 
 VirmiJian  does  the  fame3 
 
 M4- 
 
 Novates 
 
Chap.  8.         Antiquity  fum *d  up,  263 
 
 Novate  a  Thamugade^ 
 the  fame,  p.  55. 
 
 ConfefTor  Fomponius  a 
 Dionyfiana,  do's  fo  like- 
 wife,  p.  ??. 
 
 ConfefTor  Claris  a  Maf- 
 cula  the  fame,  p.  56. 
 
 The  XLVII  Canon  call'd 
 Apoftolical,  nulls  Bap- 
 tifm  for  the  fame  Rea- 
 fon,  p.  57. 
 
 IV.  Century.  IV.  Century. 
 
 Nineteen  Bifhops  in  the 
 Spanifh  Council  of  Eli- 
 berjs,  made  a  Canon, 
 which  [according  to 
 Mr.  Bingham']   veiled 
 feme  of  their  own  Lay- 
 men,  but  not  all,  with 
 Authority  to  baptize  in 
 want  of  the  Clergy  $ 
 but  this  with  parti- 
 cular Limitations  and 
 Reftri&ions,       p.  58. 
 So  this  Council  is  of  no 
 Benefit   for  unautho- 
 About   this  time  comes       .  riz'd  Baptijms,  but  the 
 in    the  Fable   of  the        direct  contrary,  p.  5  9. 
 Boy  Athanafius  bapti-    The  Author  of  the  Life 
 zing  his  Play- fellows        of  Athannfim  in  Tho- 
 rn Sport,  and  the  pre-        tius,  fuppofes  that  the 
 tended  Determination        Boy  Athanafius   bap- 
 of  Bifhop  Alexander^        tiz'd  his  Play-fellows 
 that  the  Baptifm  was        by    a    QfylW    3ltt* 
 Valid,  refuted  at  large,        ftl'tltt*  p-  7  2. 
 
 p. 62.    S  4  And 
 
264 
 
 Opt  at  us,  Bifhopof  Mile- 
 vU,  [if  his  Words  are 
 taken  in  their  full  La- 
 titude] allows  of  Bap- 
 tifm  not  only  by  Cbri- 
 flianhay-men,  butalfb 
 by  Women,  nay  by  un- 
 baptiz'd  Infidels,  Jewsi 
 6r  Pagans,  even  in  or- 
 dinary Cafes,   p.  10^ 
 
 The  Evidence  of  Part  II. 
 
 And  this  he  judg'd  from 
 Alexander  s  fuppos'd 
 Determination  about 
 it,  p.  88. 
 
 Therefore  [in  his  Opi- 
 nion ]  Alexander  took 
 it  for  a  divinely  Au- 
 thorize Baptifm,  ibid. 
 
 Mr.  Bingham    fays.    It 
 
 would  be  ttrange/  // 
 
 any  Canon  fhould  be 
 made  in  the  Church 
 for  fuch  ludicrous  Bap- 
 tifms,  p.  90. 
 
 Fifty  Years  after  the 
 Council  of  Eliberis', 
 Hilary,  the  Deacon  of 
 Rome  WitnefTes,  that 
 Lay-men  did  not  then 
 baptize,  p,  97. 
 
 Parian,  Biftiop  of  Bar- 
 celona, teaches,  that 
 the  New  Birth  cattttOt 
 be  effected  but  by  Epif- 
 copal  Baptifm,   p-9<p. 
 
 Optatus's  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*  1060 
 
 St, 
 
Chap.  8.         Antiquity 
 
 But  Mr.  Bingham  ac- 
 knowledges this  Lati- 
 tude was  never  allow'd 
 by  the  Church-,  and 
 that  'tis  a  Novelty  of 
 Popery,  p.  105. 
 
 St.  3ler0ttt  reckons  it 
 frequently  Lawful  for 
 Lay- men  to  baptize  •, 
 but  this  when  Neceffi- 
 ty  compels,      p.  120. 
 
 He  refers  to  no  Law  of 
 God,  or  the  Catho/ick 
 Church  for  this,  p.  1 2 1. 
 
 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 
 Lucifer  ians,     ^131. 
 
 furrPd,  tq.  16$ 
 
 St.  Bafil,  Bifliop  of  O 
 farea,  Nulls  Lay-Bap- 
 tifm,  p>  109. 
 
 St.  Chryfqflom,  Arch-Bi- 
 fhop  of  Confiantinople^ 
 do's  the  lame,  p.  114. 
 
 The  Conftitutions  call'd 
 Apoftolical  do  fo  like- 
 wife,  P'lll' 
 
 0t  SietOm,  derives 
 the  Power  of  Presby- 
 ters and  Deacons  to 
 baptize,  from  the2D#= 
 
 gtnai  po&w  of  tlje 
 TSifljop,        /M20. 
 
 If  St.  y<?/*0/#  on  the  other 
 fide,  means  that  fome 
 Bifhops  authoriz'd  Lay- 
 men to  baptize  in  Cafe 
 of  Neceflity,  then  'tis 
 plain  his  Evidence  is 
 only  for  what  he 
 thought  were  Epifco- 
 paUy  Authorized  Bap- 
 tifms,  p.  122. 
 
 He  JI3UIIS  Lay-Bap- 
 tifin  in  his  Dialogue  a* 
 gainft  the  Luciferians, 
 in  which  he  confutes 
 their  AfTertion,  that 
 ArianVriefls  were  La- 
 ic ks,  by  this  Principle, 
 "  That  if  they  were 
 "  Laicks,  the  Bap- 
 cc  tifms  adminifter'd 
 u  by  them  ought  to  be 
 iS  rejected,  /M23,©V. 
 He 
 
266 
 
 Tbt 
 
 St.  Auguftin  allows  of  the 
 Validity  of  Baptifm 
 in  ordinary  as  well  as 
 extraordinary  Cafes, 
 tlio*  perform5 d  by  flit? 
 Strait  5  which  includes 
 Jews  and  Pagans  as 
 well  as  Cbriftians, 
 />.I43,  I54,@V. 
 
 He    founds    uncommif- 
 
 fion'd  Baptifms  upon 
 
 hearfay  Stories,  p.  143, 
 
 147. 
 
 And  falfe,  or  rather  no 
 Arguments,     p.  148, 
 
 In  expounding  Scripture 
 he    follow'd   a    Path 
 
 WjoUpneto,  *.i6i. 
 
 Evidence  of  Part.  II 
 
 He  fays,  That  without 
 Priefts  there  is  no 
 Church  \  therefore  fay 
 
 i,no'Baptffm,/'.i39. 
 
 St.  Auguftin ?  as  quoted 
 by  Gratian,  fpeaking 
 of  Lay- mens  bapti- 
 zing in  Cafe  of  Ne- 
 ceffity,     fOUtmS     tt 
 
 upon  9ut&o?ttp  OJ 
 
 CommtfaOtt  defend- 
 ed bp  OBlC&OpS  from 
 the  Apoftles,     p.  144. 
 
 Another  PafTage  of  his 
 as  quoted  by  Grafian^ 
 which  Nulls  Baptifms 
 byourLaicks,  p.  146. 
 
 St.  Auguftin  befitates  a- 
 bout  the  Validity  of 
 nfurped  Lay -Baptifm 
 in  time  of  fuppofed 
 Neceffity,         /».  151. 
 
 He  is  not  pofitive,  but 
 fuch  a  Vfurpation  is  a 
 
 Therefore  'twas  -not-  the 
 general  Senfe  and  Pra- 
 ctice  of  the  Church, 
 
 f^ti  154. 
 
 He  acknowledges  that 
 the  Validity  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm  in  ordinary 
 Cafes  [tho5  his  own 
 Opinion]  was  not  the 
 Determination  of  attJJ 
 
 genetalCoimcfl,^*- 
 
 JequemJy 
 
Chap.  8.         Antiquity  fun? <&  up.  267 
 
 fequently  'twas  not 
 the  general  Senfe  of 
 the  ancient  Catholick 
 Church,  p.  15;?. 
 
 He  calls  fuch  Baptifms 
 
 unlawful    ®rurpa= 
 
 ttOttg}  and  fays/That 
 the  unlawful  Ufurpa- 
 tion  muft  be  correttel 
 by  a  fincere  and  affe- 
 ctionate Repentance^ 
 elfe  the  Baptifm  will 
 £  remain  to  the^Mltd)* 
 
 tttCttt   of  the  Giver 
 
 andEctetacr,  p.154. 
 
 This  is  in  effect  a  Null- 
 ing of  fuch  Baptifms, 
 
 P-  J57- 
 
 V.  Century. 
 
 VI.  Century. 
 
 Gratian  makes  Ifi2ore 
 fay,  That  Baptifm  by 
 a  Pagan  is  Valid. 
 
 V.  Century. 
 Gelafius,  Bifhop  of  Rome, 
 
 reftrains  the  Office  of 
 Baptizing  in  ordina- 
 ry and  extraordinary 
 Cafes  to  Perfons  au- 
 thorized by  Bifhops, 
 p.  162,  164. 
 
 VI.  Century, 
 IJidore,  Bifhop  of  Sevil> 
 
 in  Spain  ^  do's  the  like, 
 p.  16$. 
 Mr.  Bingham  makes  the 
 Sum  of  his  whole  Evi- 
 dence to  be,  that  for 
 the  firft  Six  hundred 
 Years  of  Chriftianity, 
 the 
 
268 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  endeavours 
 to  reprefent  as  Unau- 
 thorized, Uncommiffi- 
 crfd,  and  Anti-Epifco- 
 pal,  the  Heretical  and 
 Schifmatical  Baptifms 
 which  were  allow'd  to 
 be  Valid  by  fome  an- 
 cient Churches* 
 
 The  Evidence   of  Part.  II. 
 
 the  general  Senfe  and 
 Yrallice  of  the  Church 
 was  this-,  That  Bap- 
 tifm,  whether  in  #1* 
 
 Btnarp  or  emao?- 
 
 Dittacp  Cafes,  was  ad- 
 minifter'd  either  by 
 the  BiQiop  himfelf,  or 
 elfe  by  fuch  as  had, 
 [or  were  fuppos'd  to 
 have  had]  Apoftolick, 
 i.  e.  Epifcopal  Autho- 
 rity or  fymmiffion  to 
 baptize,  />.  169. 
 
 And  that  the  Queftion 
 of  ufurp'd  and  unau- 
 thoriz'd  Baptifm  by 
 Lay-men,  is  a  more 
 difficult  Queftion^  and 
 he  cannot  refolve,  that 
 their  Validity  has  any 
 Catholick  Tradition 
 of  the  Church,whereon 
 to  fuppole  it  ground- 
 ed, p.  189. 
 
 The  Ancient  Heretical 
 and  Schifmatical  Bap- 
 tifms^  allowed  of  by 
 fome  Churches,  were 
 notUnauthoriz'd,Un- 
 commiffion'd,  and  An- 
 ti-Epifcopal  Lay-Bap- 
 tifms  \  this  prov'd  from 
 the  general  Council  of 
 "Nice^  the  Ajrican  Code, 
 and  Mr. Bingham's  own 
 Account  of'em,/>,  1 j*3 
 
Chap.  8.         Antiquity  fun? A  uf.  269 
 
 So  that  upon  a  juft  Confederation  of  this  Table, 
 and  all  that  has  been  faid  before,  'tis  evident,  that 
 the  Sum  Total  of  all  that  our  Reverend  Hiftorian 
 and  I  have  have  faid  upon  this  Subjecl,  is,  That 
 the  ancient  Catholick  Church  never  had  any  Eccle- 
 fiaftical  Law,  Tradition,  or  Cuftom,  in  Favour 
 of  the  Validity  of  Baptifms  perform'd  by  thofe,who 
 are  notorioufly  known  to  have  been  never  CommiP 
 fion  d  by  Bifhops  to  baptize.  If  Men  will  then 
 venture  to  pronounce  them  Valid,  'tis  plain  that 
 they  have  no  Law  of  God,  or  of  his  ancient  Catho- 
 lick Church,  whereon  to  found  fuch  a  Determination, 
 And  therefore  it  muft  be  done  upon  fome  private 
 Principle  of  their  own :  But  from  fuch  fatal  Pra- 
 ctices, I  pray  God  to  deliver  and  preferve  his 
 Church  for  ever. 
 
 I  (hall  without  any  the  leajl  Vedantry  conclude 
 with  thefe  following  Obfervations  about  fuppos'd 
 Cafes  of  Neceffity,  concerning  which  fome  [without 
 any  Neceffity  at  all]  do  make  fo  great  a  Buftle. 
 
 ift,  Suppofmg  a  Perfon  duly  qualified  for  Bap- 
 tifm,  but  not  Baptiz'd,  mould  be  in  fuch  Circum- 
 ftances,  as  that  he  could  not  poffibly  obtain  Bap- 
 tifm,  tho'  from  a  duly  Ordained  Priefl:  there  pre- 
 fent,  but  with  an  Uninftituted  Form,  not  in  the 
 Name  of  the  Trinity  *,  the  Priefl,  for  Suppofition's- 
 fake,  being  an  Anti-Trinitarian  :  If  this  Perfon 
 ihould  defire  Baptifm  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity, 
 and  yet  accept  of  this  Falfe  Baptifm,  reckoning  it 
 to  be  Right,  becaufe  he  can  have  no  Other  ^  'Tis 
 plain,  he  is  not  atfually  Baptizd,  notwithftanding 
 the  fuppos'd  Neceffity,  and  therefore  is  not  in  Atfual 
 Covenant  with  God  •,  and  confequently^  if  he  Dies 
 without  True  Baptifm,  he  muft  be  left  to  God's 
 Uncovenanted  Mercy  j  but  with  this  Difadvantage, 
 That  he  acquiefces  in  a  Sin,  though  ignorantly,  to 
 make  the  beft  of  it. vdty% 
 
270  The  Evidence  of  Part  IL 
 
 2dlyt  Suppofing  this  Perfon  to  have  a  right  fenfe 
 of  his  Duty,  and  to  Die  with  the  Refufal  of  this 
 Falfe  Baptifm,  becaufe  'tis  contrary  to  the  Inftitu- 
 tion  •,  'tis'  plain,  he  Dies  UnbaptiCd^  and  fo  is  not 
 in  Miual  Covenant  with  God,  and  therefore  muft 
 be  referr'd  to  the  fame  Uncovenanted  Mercy  •,  but 
 with  this  great  Advantage  on  his  fide,  That  he 
 would  do  his  Duty,  but  cannot  :  He  knows  'tis 
 iinful  to  Break  the  Inftitution  ^  and  confequently, 
 through  a  pious,  juft  fear  of  Tr a nfgr effing,  will  not 
 admit  of  an  Uninftituted  Form,,  and  confequently, 
 of  Falfe  Baptifm  inftead  of  the  True  :  He  trufts  to 
 Uncovenanted  Mercy,  with  the  Advantage  of  not 
 breaking  God's  Law  to  obtain  it  :  And  let  any  one 
 in  his  Senfes  judge,  which  of  the  Two  is  the  fafeft 
 to  be  chofen.    So, 
 
 3^/y,  A  Baptifm  rrith  the  form  in  the  Name  of  the 
 Trinity,  perform'd  by  a  PecfOlt  XitWC  COttt- 
 UtlGifJU'D  to  Baptize,  tho'  done  when  noCommifJiond 
 Perfon  can  be  had^  is  as  ?nuch  a  Breach  of  the  Infti- 
 tution as  the  other,  and  therefore  we  mull  have  re- 
 courfe  to  Uncovenanted  Mercy  for  its  Acceptance  : 
 For  by  what  Covenant  has  God  obliged  himfelf  to 
 accept  of  it  ?  But  then  our  Confidence  in  this 
 Mercy  is  abated,  nay,  is  liable  to  be  confounded, 
 by  our  Sin  and  Preemption,  in  doing  and  acqui- 
 efcing  in  zflnful  Miniflration,  which  is  a  Breach  of 
 the  Effential  Law  of  God  about  this  Matter. 
 Whereas, 
 
 4thly  and  Laft/y,  By  refufing  the  Never-cont- 
 miffiorid  Pretender  ^  when  we  can  have  No  Com- 
 mifjiond  Paptifm,  we  exprefs  our  Pious  Regard  to 
 the  Divine  Inftitution  •,  we  {how,  That  we  muft 
 not  do  or  acquiefoe  in  EW?,  with  a  defign  that  Good 
 way  come  of  it :  But  we  refer  ourfelves  to  the  Divine 
 Mercy,  without  venturing  to  break  his  Law  j  and 
 
 fo 
 
Chap.  8.         Antiquity  fum^i  uf.  271 
 
 fo  we  efcape  the  Imputation  of  Prefumption,  and 
 are  the  more  capable  Objecls  of  his  Pity  and  Com- 
 panion, tho'  we  have  no  Claim  to  it  by  virtue  of 
 an  Explicit  Baptifmal  Covenant,  when  we  Die  in  this 
 Cafe  without  the  Injiituted  Mimjiration  of  Baptifm 
 by  a  Commiffion. 
 
 In  (hort,  Upon  the  prefent  Suppofition,  Perfons 
 pretendedly  Baptiz'd  by  Non-commimon'd  Ufurp- 
 ers,  and  fo  Dying,  muft  be  referred  to  an  Uncove* 
 nanted  Mercy  for  Acceptance,  [becaufe  they  were 
 not  receiv'd  into  Covenant  by  the  Jnftituted  Mi- 
 mjiration ^  ]  as  muft  alfo  others,  who  [reiufe  thole 
 Falfe  Baptifms,  and]  Die  without  True  Baptifm, 
 becaufe  they  cannot  procure  Commiffion  d  Baptifm. 
 But  the  difference  to  the  Dif advantage  of  the  fir  ft 
 is  very  great,  for  their  Cafe  is  attended  with  Sin, 
 even  in  the  Baptized  himfelf,  when  he  confents  to, 
 acquiefces  in,  defends,  and  never  endeavours 
 to  amend  the  Ufurpation,  [as  is  the  Cafe  of  too 
 many  with  us,  who  are  come  to  Years  of  Difcre- 
 tion,  &c.~\  Whereas  tbefe  latter  ^  who  fo  Die  with- 
 out Commiffion "d  Baptifm,  are  fo  far  from  having 
 any  Sin  to  anfwer  for,  upon  the  account  oirefufing 
 an  UncommiJJiond  Ufurpers  All,  that  their  very  Reu 
 fufal  of  it,  was  an  Adt  of  Piety  and  Religion  ;  and 
 therefore  their  and  our  Confidence  in  God's  Mercy, 
 is  much  better  founded,  while 'tis  thus  free  from  the 
 bafe  alloy  of  Prefumption. 
 
 And  it  were  to  be  wifrYd,  that  they  who  talk  fo 
 much  of  pretended  Cafes  of  Neceffity,  [efpecially 
 among  us,  where  there  are  really  none]  would 
 ferioufly  confider,    which    of   thefe   Two  is  the 
 
 fafcff  ©Hap  5  and  the  t>erp  great  Dancer  pi 
 
 Encouraging  People  to  fit  down  contented  with 
 that,  which  themfelves  acknowledge  to  be  a  Siny 
 when  'tis  fo  eafie  attlQng  110  to  corrett  and  amend 
 
 it 
 
272  The  Evidence,  &C.  Part  II. 
 
 it,  by  a  Validly  Commijfiond  Baptifm,  every-where  to 
 be  obtain'd,  if  thofe  who  have  Power  will  but  ad- 
 minifter  it,  and  they  who  want  it  will  but  qualifie 
 themfelves  to  receive  and  feek  for  it. 
 
 But  I  Conclude  5  Humbly  and  Earneftly  Praying 
 to  Almighty  God,  cc  Who  gathers  his  Flock  out  of 
 u-  all 'Nations  into  the  Saving  fold  ofJBt\Z  CattjO-' 
 "  ItCft  CljttlXf) ;  Who  has  alfo  appointed  divers  Or- 
 "  ders  [T5lfl30pS,  P?tCu%  Deacons']  in  his 
 *c  Church,"  [in  their  ieveral  Degrees  and  Stations, 
 to  reprefent  the  Great  Mediator  between  God  and 
 Man,  Chrift  Jefus,  for  this  Sacred  Purpofe;] 
 "  That  He  would  be  pleased  to  Infpire  All  Bijhops 
 <c  and  their  Clergy,  with  COUtMge  and  Skill,  and 
 "  jf atfjeilp  Cate,  to  Edfie  and  <55ttarS  their 
 tc  fever al Charges  ; "  to  keep  that  vhich  is  committed 
 "  to  their  Trufl,  and  in  Chrift's  ftead,  here  on  Earth, 
 to  Open  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  to  all  Believers  : 
 That  he  would  Blefs  all  the  Laity  "  with  a  filial 
 a  hove,  and  due  Obedience  to  their  Spiritual  Supe- 
 <c  riors  $  "  That  the  Clear nefs  of  Truth,  and 
 *  Beauty  of  tiolinefs^  daily increafingi?i\)\$<&\)\\Xt% 
 "  through  every  ones  devout  Yurf nance  of  tfiCtfc 
 "  iDlltlCiS,  all ]  Hereticks and Schifmaticks^  may  be 
 converted,  and  "  all  Jews  and  Pagans  be  happily 
 *c  won  into  her  Sacred  Bofom  the  fole  Ark  of  Salva- 
 ic  tioiij"  through  the  Power  and  Merits  of  the  Eter- 
 nal Son  ofGcd,  Jefus  Chrift  our  Lord,  To  whom  with 
 his  Eternal  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghoft,  eternally 
 proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  •,  Three 
 Terfons,  but  One  Incomprehenfible  God  I  be  all 
 Honour,  Praife,  and  Glory,  Might,  Power,  Ma- 
 icfty  and  Dominion,  for  Ever  and  Everp  Amen. 
 
 F  1  N  1  S, 
 
A 
 
 SUPPLEMENT 
 
 T  O    T  H  E 
 
 Firft  and  Second  Parts 
 
 O   F 
 
 LAT-BAP  TISM  Invalid; 
 
 SHEWING, 
 
 That  the  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptisms 
 which  fome  Ancient  Churches  efteem'd 
 to  have  been  Valid,  were  not  Lay-Baptisms., 
 in  the  Opinion  of  thofe  Churches. 
 
 In   ANSWER   to  the 
 
 Second  Part  of  Mr.  Bingham \  pretended 
 Scbolaftical  Hifiory  of  Lay-Baptifm. 
 
 And  prov'd  out  of  that  fame  Book,  and  the  other 
 Writings  of  Mr.  Bingham. 
 
 With  a  CAVEAT  agalnft  Dr.  White  Kenneth  Dan- 
 gerous Notion  of  the  Power  of  Divine  Grace,  and  his 
 Sophiftical  Rule  for  Judging  of  DoElrines :  In  his 
 Sermon  at  the  Funeral  of  the  Duke  of  Devonfhire, 
 and  his  Spittal-Ser mon  on  Eafter-Tuefday,  1 7 1 4. 
 
 By  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid. 
 
 Ex   Ore  tito.  w. 
 
 London,  Printed  by  G.  James,  for  Henry  Clements, 
 at  the  Half  Moon  in  St.  Pauls  Church  yard,  1 7 1 4. 
 
.• 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 O  F     T  H  E 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 H  E  deplorable  Condition  which  » 
 Men    of  Learning   run  them- 
 felves  into,  by  engaging  on  the 
 wrong    Side    of  an    important 
 Quefhon,  Page  i 
 
 §11.  Some  of  Mr.  Bingham's  Er- 
 rors, and  fallacious  Dealings  in 
 the  flrft  Part  of  his  Scholafiicd  Hiftory,  which  he  has 
 not  retraced,  ii 
 
 §  II.   his  childiih  Behaviour  towards  his  Oppo- 
 nent, iv 
 
 $111. his  Rudeneis  in  wrongfully  accufing  *Dr. 
 
 Hides,  ibid. 
 
 §  IV.    his  Mifreprefenting  Things  in  his  Epiftle 
 
 Dedicatory  to  my  Lord  Biihop  of  Wine  heft  er,  v 
 
 §  V.    his  falfe  Charge  on  the  Church  of  England, 
 
 that  (he  has  Rules  for  confirming  Lay-Baptifms,  re- 
 futed, ibid. 
 §  VI.  Our  Lay-Baptiz'd  Perfons  have  no  Right  to  Con- 
 firmation, the  Eucharift,  or  Chriftian  Burial,       viii 
 §  VII.    The  unaccountable  Practice  of  admitting  fuch 
 to  be  Regifter'd  as  Baptiz'd,  in  our  Parifh  Books,  and 
 to  partake  of  the  Holy  Eucharift,  ix 
 §  VIII.     The  Deformity  of  Church  Priefts  burying 
 with  our  Office  of  Burial,  Lay-Baptiz'd  Schifmaticks, 
 who  died  out  of  the  Church's  Communion,         ibid, 
 A  2                       $  IX. 
 
The   CONTENTS. 
 
 §  IX.    A  Remedy  for  thefe  Evils  humbly  propos'd,     x 
 
 $  X.  The  A£t  of  Exemption,  vulgarly  call'd  the  Tole- 
 ration Act,  does  not  oblige  our  Church  Priefts,  to 
 receive  fuch  Lay-Ba£tiz5d  Perfons,  to  the  Eucharifr, 
 or  Chriftian  Burial,  xii 
 
 $  XI.  The  fame  Aft  does  not  take  off  the  Spiritual 
 Cenfures  of  our  Church  againft  fuch  as  our  Dif- 
 fenting  Separatifts,  therefore  they  are  excommuni- 
 cate, ipfo  fafto,  by  our  Canons,  and  fo  have  no  Right 
 to  the  Euchariit,  or  to  Chriftian  Burial,  xiii 
 
 §  XII.  The  illegal  Practice  of  the  Diffenters  fetting  up 
 their  Academies  and  Nurferies  of  Schifm,  Sedition, 
 and  Rebellion,  xiv 
 
 §  XIII.  Mr.  Bingham's  Complaint  of  being  charg'd  as 
 an  Encourager  of  DuTenters,  confider'd,  xv 
 
 §  XIV.  A  fuppos'd  Power  in  Bilriops  to  confirm  Lay- 
 Ordinations,  prov'd  to  be  deftru&ive  of  Epifcopacy 
 it  felf,  xvii 
 
 §  XV.  My  Anfwer  to  thofe  who  ask  why  I  who  am 
 but  a  Laick  &c,  do  fo  zealoufly  concern  myfelf  in 
 there  Matters,  xix 
 
 §  XVI.  A  Repetition  of  what  I  have  faid  of  Bifhops 
 Power  to  delete  the  Prieftly  Character,  xxii 
 
 §  XVII.  From  which  'tis  plain,  that  I  hold  no  fuch 
 Deleting  Power  in  the  Church,  as  Mr.  Bingham 
 does  ;  namely,  a  Power  of  Nulling  only  the  Com- 
 miflions  of  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Bifhops  and 
 Priefts,  without  Nulling  their  Miniftrations  alfo, 
 which  is  a  grofs  Contradiction,     "  xxv 
 
 §  XVII.  The  Deleting  Power,  which  I  fuppofe  to  be 
 in  the  Church,  is  no  other  than  that  which  St.  Cy- 
 prian and  his  Collegues  claimed,  viz.  a  Power  of 
 Nulling  the  Minifterial  Acts  of  Heretical  arid  Schif- 
 matical Clergymen,  which  the  Churches  who  differ 'd 
 from  St.  Cyprian  did  not  claim.  But  I  will  not  quar- 
 rel and  difpute  with  thofe,  who  reckon  that  the 
 Church  has  not  fuch  a  Deleting  Power,  ibid. 
 
 §  'XVIII.  My  Reafon  for  writing  againft  Mr.  Bingham,, 
 thoJ  the  Reverend  and  Learned  Dr.  Brett  has  already 
 fufficientiy  refuted  him,  '       xxviii 
 
 $  XIX, 
 
The   CONTENTS. 
 
 §  XIX.  He  owns  himfelf  not  to  be  exacT:  Matter  of 
 St.  Jerome's  Dialogue  againft  the  Luciferiansy  and  yet 
 would  have  his  Opponents  fubmit  to  his  fanciful  In- 
 terpretation of  it,  xxix 
 
 $  XX.  His  haughty  Call  upon  me,  either  to  make  good 
 my  After  tions,  or  confefs  my  Errors,  anfwer'd,     xxx 
 
 $  XXI.  To  extricate  himfelf  out  of  the  Difficulties  he 
 is  involv'd  in,  he  has  invented  a  new  threefold  Di- 
 ftin£tion  of  Laymen,  ibid. 
 
 §  XXII.  This  he  did,becaufe  he  expe£ted  to  be  charged 
 with  Contradictions,  but  fuch  a  poor  Shift  will  not 
 defend  him,  xxxi 
 
 §  XXIII.  He  begs  his  Opponent  not  to  multiply  Di- 
 fputes  about  hard  Terms,  nor  to  charge  him  with  Con- 
 tradictions •  when  at  the  fame  time  his  Contradicti- 
 ons are  notorious,  and  his  Terms  which  he  ufes  in  this 
 Controverfy  are  very  ambiguous  and  fallacious,    xxxii 
 
 $  XXIV.  He  pretends  to  be  at  a  Lofs  to  know  what  I 
 would  have,  becaufe  I  object  againft  a  Propofal  he 
 made  to  the  laft  Convocation,  to  confirm  Lay-Bap- 
 tifms,  xxxiii 
 
 $  XXV.  I  therefore  tell  him,  once  more,  what  I  would 
 have,  that  my  Demand  is  juft  and  reafonable,  and 
 that  his  Novel  Propofal  to  the  Convocation  is  not 
 fufficient  to  anfwer  it,  xxxiv 
 
 0  XXVI.  He  advances  the  Purpofe  of  his  propos'd  Forrii 
 for  Confirming  Lay-Baptifms,  to  an  Equality  with 
 the  End  and  Defign  of  our  Common  Prayers  of  the 
 Church  of  England,  xxxvi 
 
 §  XXVII.  Some  farther  Reafons  humbly  ofFer'd  againft 
 Bifhops  Confirming  Lay-Baptifms,  xxxvii 
 
 §  XXVIII.  Mr.  Bingham's  difingenuous  Infinuation,  of 
 my  charging  Vo^e  Stephen  with  an  Opinion,  That  Per- 
 fons  Baptiz'd  by  Hereticks  and  Schifrhaticks  "  mrt 
 "  in-  a  State  of  Salvation,  Urf)tle  t\)Z%  COnttnueD 
 "  UT  ^etCfl?  OJ  &cf)tfm,  "  expos'd,  xliii 
 
 §  XXIX.    Mr.  Bingham,  before  he  is  aware,  confirms 
 
 my  Aflertion,   That  the   obfcure  Evidence  he  has 
 
 produc'd  for  Lay-Baptifm  in  the  Greek  Church,  is  of 
 
 no  more  Value  than  the  Teftimonies  he  can  bring 
 
 A  3  for 
 
The    CONTENT  S. 
 
 for  Jtttage  OTo^ll)tp,  and  confequently,  his  obfcure 
 Evidence  is  no  Argument  that  Lay-Baptifm  is  agree- 
 able to  the  general  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Anci- 
 ent Catholick  Church,  xlvii 
 
 §  XXX.  He  avoids  the  Merits  of  theCaufe,  and  is  an- 
 gry at  his  Opponent,  for  considering  his  fuppos'd 
 Matters  of  Facl,  and  Matters  of  Right  together  ;  tho' 
 this  is  the  only  way  of  Diftinguifhing  what  is  truly 
 Catholick,  from  what  is  but  of  obfcure  and  private 
 Authority,  1 
 
 XXXI.  Niccphoruis  two  Canons  for  Lay-Baptifm, 
 no  Argument  that  they  were  the  authentick  Senfe  of 
 the  Greek  Church,  Jii 
 
 §  XXXII.  The  whole  Evidence  of  the  Greeh  for,  and 
 againft  Lay-Baptifm  fumm'd  up  ;  from  whence  'tis 
 Evident  that  the  authentick  Senfe  of  the  Greek  Church 
 is  againft  the  Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  liii 
 
 An  Anfwer  to  Mr.  Binghams  Queftion,  about  a  cruel 
 Opinion  among  the  Greeks,  of  Infants  dying  with- 
 out Baptifm,  Iv 
 
 §  XXXIII.  His  Remark  upon  my  Cljatge  againft  the 
 Advocates  for  Lay-Baptifm,  and  the  Confequence  he 
 draws  from  it,  are  altogether  fallacious,  and  ground- 
 ed upon  Principles  which  he  cannot  prove,  lvi 
 
 §  XXXIV.  His  Call  upon  me  to  prove  my  heavy 
 Charge  againft  them,  That  they  take  away  the  Necejfity 
 of  the  Chrijlian  Priefthood  ;  confequently,  of  Chrifi's  Au- 
 thority here  on  Earth  ;  and  fo  of  all  reveal d  Religion 
 too  ;  fairly  anfwer'd  in  a  fhort  Specimen  of  the  Proof 
 of  this  heavy  Charge,  lix 
 
 §  XXXV.  Their  vain  Endeavour  to  evade  it,  and  Mr. 
 Bingham  s  violent  Anger  againft  me  for  this  Charge, 
 and  for  my  not  blindly  following  his,  and  fome  o- 
 ther  Mens  private  Opinions,  with  a  Popijh  Implicit e 
 Faith  ;  but  his  Patience  is  here  loft,  and  a  bad  Caufe 
 makes  him  forget  his  Character,  for  which  I  pity 
 him,  hi 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP.    I. 
 
 H  E  true  State  of  the  prefent  Controveriy. 
 <)  I.  II.    The  Adversary  reminded  of  the 
 Merits  of  the  Caufe,  viz,,  of  Baptifm  by 
 Per/ens  who  never  were  at  all  commif- 
 fion'd  to  Baptize,  Pag.  i,  2 
 
 §  III.    This,  the  Subjeft  of  the  fiift  Part  of  Lay-Bap- 
 tifm Invalid,  2 
 §  IV.    This  alfo  the  Subject  of  the  Book  of  Sacerdotal 
 
 Powers,  in  anfwer  to  the  Biihop  of  S m's  Attempt 
 
 in  Favour  of  Lay-Baptifm,  2,  3 
 
 §  V.    As  it  is  alfo,  of  Dif enters,  &c.  Baptifms  Null  and. 
 Void,  by  the  Articles,  Canons,  Sec.  of  the  Church  of  En- 
 gland.    In  Anfwer  to  a  Pamphlet,  entituled,  The 
 Judgment  of  the  Church  of  England,   written  in  Fa- 
 vour of  Lay-Baptifm,  3 
 §  VI.     So  is  it  likewife,    of  the  Bifhop  of  Oxford^ 
 Charge  confider'd,    written  in  Anfwer  to  his  Lord- 
 fhip's  Charge  in  Defence  of  Lay-Baptifm,             4 
 $  VII.  Several  other  Writers  in  Favour  of  Lay-Baptifm 
 not  worth  Notice,  and  why                                     5 
 §  VIII.    The  main  Plea  of  all  thefe  Writers  for  Lay- 
 Baptifm,   is,  the  pretended  Practice  of  the  Catholick 
 Church,    which  none  of  them  have  prov'd,       ibid. 
 Great  Things  expecled  from  Mr.  Bingham,  but  the  firft 
 Part  of  his  Scholaftical  Hifiory  is  fo  far  from  proving 
 this  pretended  Practice  of  the  Church,  that  it  proves 
 the  direct  contrary  ;   as  I  have  ihew'd  in  the  fecond 
 Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,                             5,  6,  7 
 A  4                                $  IX. 
 
The   CONTENTS. 
 
 §  IX.  His  vain  Attempt  in  the  firft  Part  of  his  Sck: 
 laftical  Hiftory>  to  make  ancient  Heretical  and  Schif- 
 matical  Baptifms,  allowed  of  by  fome  Churches,  look 
 like  Baptifms  by  Perfons  never  ccmmijfion'd  ;.  and  his 
 Starting  from  the  Merits  of  the  Caufe,  yy  8 
 
 §  X.  This  the  Defign  of  the  fecond  Part  of  his  Schola- 
 fiical  Hiftory,  viz,,  to  make  Heretical  and  Schifmatical 
 Baptifms  look  like  Lay-Baptifms,  tho'  he  /till  fpoils 
 fuch  his  Defign  in  the  fame  Book,  8,  9 
 
 <)  XI.  The  Necefilty  of  keeping  to  the  Merits  of  the 
 Caufe,  tho'  Mr.  Bingham  is  difpleas'd  at  it,        9,  10 
 
 §  XII.  The  Inconfiftency  and  Contradi&ion  he  is  in- 
 volv'd  in,  by  his  inventing  a  new  fort  of  Laymen,  1 1 
 
 §  XIII.  My  Defign  in  the  following  Chapter,  is,  to 
 argue  with  him  upon  his  own  declar'd  Principles,  frill 
 keeping  my  Eye  upon  the  Merits  of  the  Caufe,  11,12 
 
 CHAP.    II. 
 
 H  A  T  by  Mr.  Bingham  s  own  Account 
 of  the  Matter,  the  ancient  Heretical, 
 Schifmatical,  Degraded,  and  Excommu- 
 nicated Priefts  [  whofe  Baptifms  fome 
 Churches  allow'd  to  be  Valid]  were  not 
 meer  Laymen  when  they  Baptiz'd,  but  Priefts  01- 
 dain'd  by  Bifhops,  whofe  Ordination  was  Valid  in 
 the  Opinion  of  thofe  Churches  ;  and  that  confequent- 
 Iy,  the  Baptifms  adminifter'd  by  fuch  Priefts,  were 
 not  Baptifms  of  the  fame  Nature  with  our  falfe  Bap- 
 tifms, performed  by  Perfons  who  never  were  at  all 
 commifiion'd  to  Baptize  ;  and  that  therefore  the 
 Pra£tice  of  thofe  Churches  is  no  Proof,  that  they 
 held  thefe  latter  to  be  Valid  Baptifms. 
 $  I.  His  Argument  for  the  Validity  of  Baptifm,  by 
 unauthorizd  Perfons,  13 
 
 §  II.    The  Fallacy  of  it  expos'd,  14,  15 
 
 <j  III.    That  Baptifms  by  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks, 
 allow'd  of  by  fome  Churches,  were  not  of  the  fame 
 
 Nature 
 
The   CONTENTS. 
 
 Nature  with  falfe  Baptifms,  perform'd  by  Perfons 
 never  ordain'd  or  authoriz'd  to  Baptize,  prov'd  from 
 Mr.  Bingham  himfelf,  1 6 
 
 §  IV.  His  firft  Inftance  of  the  Cenfure  of  the  famous 
 Council  of  Nice,  againft  Melctias  Bilhop  of  Lycopo- 
 lis,  in  Egypt,  16 
 
 §  V.  He  gives  but  a  partial  Account  of  the  Cen- 
 fure, 17 
 
 S  VI,  Vir.  The  Cenfure  did  not  Null  his  Epifcopal 
 Order,  18  to  20 
 
 §  VIII.  The  Councils  Decree  about  the  Bifhops,  &c. 
 Ordain  d  by  him,  mifreprefented  by  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham, 21 
 Four  Arguments  drawn  from  the  Decree,to  prove  that 
 the  Perfons  Ordain'd  by  Mdetius  were  in  Valid  Or- 
 ders,                                                              22  to  24 
 
 <j  IX.  Valefws  and  Du  Pin's  Notion,  that  Impoiition 
 of  Hands,  appointed  by  the  Council  to  be  perform'd 
 over  thofe  Perfons,  was  a  New  Ordination,  is  no 
 Proof  that  it  was  fo,  for  it  was  only  a  Confirma- 
 tion, 24 
 Mr.  Bingham  fallacioufly  reprefents  this  Particular,    25 
 
 §  X.  And  yet,  at  laft,  if  he  would  fpeak  Senfe,  he 
 miftrufts  Valefms  and  Du  Pins  Notion,  and  reckons 
 that  it  was  not  a  New  Ordination,  26,  27 
 
 §  XI.  He  owns,  that  the  Bifhops  Ordain'd  by  Mde- 
 tius were  properly  Bifhops ;  confequently,  Valid 
 Bifhops  ;  and  therefore  Baptifms  by  them,  and  fuch 
 as  they  Ordain'd,  were  not  Lay- Baptifms,  28,  29 
 §  XII.  His  next  Inftance  of  the  clepos'd  and  excommu- 
 nicated Arian  Clergy,  whom  he  reckons  to  have 
 been  lefs  than  Laymen,  29  to  3 1 
 
 $  XIV.  His  new  Notion  of  a  Complete  2U£maH 
 confider'd  and  expos'd,  31  to  33 
 
 §  XV.    The  Arian  Clergy's  Orders  were  not  Null  d, 
 v  33, 34 
 
 $  XVI.  If  they  were,  then  the  Catholicks  countenanced 
 Lay-Ordination,  Lay-Baptifm,  Lav-Confecration,and 
 Adminiftration  of  the  Eucharift,  Lay- Excommunica- 
 tions, and  Lay- Abfolutions ;  which  is  abfurd,        35 
 
 $  XVil. 
 
The   CONTENTS. 
 
 §  XVil.  For  'tis  notorious,  that  the  Catholicks  own'd 
 the  Arian  Clergy  to  have  had  Valid  Orders,  36 
 
 $  XVlII.  And  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  acknowledges  the 
 fame,  37,  38 
 
 §  XIX.  But  yet  fays  they  were  tiot  mt\)Q?if  D  JB^teHs, 
 the  Fallacy  of  which  is  clearly  difcover'd,  39 
 
 §  XX.  And  alfo  of  his  artful  Way  of  Denying  that 
 they  were  Proper  and  pCifctt  pneiftf,  40 
 
 §  XXI.  The  Abfurdity  of  his  *  Notion,  that  thofe 
 Priefts  who  have  no  HtC$£  to  receive,  have  no  3u* 
 t^O^ttV  to  give  the  Sacraments  to  others,  41 
 
 §  XXII.  That  Baptifm  by  the  Arian  excommunicated 
 depos'd  Clergymen,  was  not  of  the  fame  Nature  with 
 our  Lay-Baptifms,  44 
 
 §  XXIII.  Mr.  Bingham's  fallacious  Way  of  inducing 
 Men  to  believe,  That  "  the  Church  reccivd  the 
 *'  Baptifm  of  fomc  Hcreticks    and   Schifmaticks    who 
 
 *  ntter  fjaa  any  £);ocrs  from  my  (Eptfcopal 
 
 "  £D:mnattou,  45 
 
 His  Three  pretended  Reafons  to  prove  that  Nova- 
 tion never  was  a  Bifhop,  46 
 
 $  XXIV.  His  firft  imaginary  Argument  nulls  all  Or- 
 dinations, and  Prieiliy  Miniftrations,  perform'd  ir- 
 regularly out  of  Mens  proper  Diocefes  and  Diftrifts ; 
 and  consequently,  bcfeJC  fjC  IS  attire,  makes  void 
 the  pretended  Ordinations  and  Baptifms  of  all  our 
 Diffenting  Teachers,  47,  48 
 
 §  XXV.  his  fecond  pretended  Argument  nulls  the 
 Orders  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  and  confe- 
 quently,  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  has  no  Valid  Or- 
 ders, 49,  50 
 But  'tis  notorioufly  fallacious,  and  contrary  to  the 
 26th  Article  of  the  Church  of  England,  51 
 
 §  XXVI.  And  renders  all  Ordinations  at  this  time  of 
 Day,  very  precarious  and  uncemin,  52 
 
 g  XXVII.  His  third  pretended  Argurnent  prov'd  to  be 
 of  no  Value,  *2 
 
 §  XXVUI,  XXIX,   XXX.    This   farther   profecuted, 
 
 53  to  5? 
 $  XXXI.    Novaiian  was  a  Valid  Biiho^,  5? 
 
 XXXII. 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 §  XXXII.  Mr.  Bingham  owns  that  the  Bifhops  Or- 
 dain'd  by  him  were  property  O15t(^op0,  and  con- 
 fequently  Novatian  himfelf  mull  have  been  a  Valid 
 Bifhop,  5^>,6o 
 
 §  XXXIII.  He  interprets  the  eighth  Canon  of  the 
 Council  of  Nice,  fo,  as   to  prove  the  fame  thing, 
 
 61  to  63 
 
 §  XXXIV.  And  yet  puts  a  Blind  before  his  Engli/h 
 Reader's  Eyes,  by  his  falfe  Tranflation  of  the 
 Greek,  63 
 
 The  Unaccountablenefs  of  this  in  a  Man  of  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham's Chara&er,  with  fome  wholfome  Advice  to 
 him  upon  this  Occalion,  64 
 
 §  ^XXXV.    His  great  Boafi,  that  he  would  prove  the 
 
 Church  receiv  a  the  Baptifm  of  fome who  never 
 
 had  Epifcopal  Ordination,  and  inftancing  the  Nova- 
 tians  Baptifm,  as  fuch,  is  amoft  notorious  Banter,  66 
 
 §  XXXVI.  The  Reafon  why  I  now  proceed  to  con- 
 fute him  out  of  his  other  moft  celebrated  Wri- 
 tings, 67 
 
 $  XXXVII.  Mr.  Bingham's  Rule  to  know  Valid  Bi- 
 fhops, is  a  Key  to  unlock  the  Secret,  and  difcover  the 
 Fallacy  of  his  frequent  Ufe  of  the  ambiguous  Terms 
 
 of  "  jfalfe  H5ifyo$$  ;  not  a  SDrne  23tfljop ;  not 
 
 "  SCrtie  &i)Cp!)erD5  0^  U5til}0pS,  fapcr-ordaindi 
 u  pretended  Bifhops  into  a  full  See ;  Perfons  not  81V 
 "  tljeilttcallv  £D:DatiVD, "  and  fuch  like,  in  this 
 "  Controverfy,  68  to  70 
 
 $  XXXVIII.  He  acknowledges,  That  "  a  Common 
 "  MtllC  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  was  not  (imply 
 "  and  ahfolmely  of  the  CHenCC  of  Ordination. " 
 This  deftroys  all  that  he  infinuates  in  the  Second 
 Part  of  his  Scholaftical  Hifiory,  70,  71 
 
 §  XXXIX.    He  lliews,  that  Epifcopal  Ordinations  were 
 
 erteem'd  to  have  been  Valid,  even  in  Schifm,        71 
 
 The  fame  again,   from  the  Inftance  of  the  Donatift 
 
 Bifhops,  72 
 
 §  XL.  The  fame  again,  fiom  the  Infhnces  of  the  No- 
 vatian and  Melaian  Bifhops,  74 
 
 §  XLI. 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 §  XLT.  He  produces  Authorities  to  prove,  that  the 
 Character  of  Orders  given  in  the  Church,  was  Jtf* 
 fcCiiWc  ;  even  when  fuch  ordain'd  Perfons  were  fu> 
 fpenDeD  from  the  Execution  of  their  Office  for  their 
 Mifdemeanours,  ye 
 
 This  turn'd  againft  himfelf,  y^9  76 
 
 §  XLU.  His  Account  of  Nexv  Ordinations  examined 
 into,  and  the  Impofition  of  Hands,  which  he  calls 
 New  Ordinations,  prov'd  to  have  been  no  other 
 than  a  Reconciliatory  Imposition  of  Hands  by  way 
 of  Abfolution,  for  Difcipline's  Sake,  to  put  a  Mark 
 of  Infamy  upon  the  Crimes  of  Heretical  and  Schif- 
 matical  Clergymen,  77  to  80 
 
 §  XLIII.  His  Guefs,  that  the  Arian  Clergy  in  France 
 were  not  re-ordain'd,  thoa  they  were  oblig'd  to  fub- 
 mit  to  a  New  Impofition  of  Hands,  is  an  Argument 
 againft  his  Notion  of  the  Re- Ordination  of  the  Mc- 
 letian  Clergymen,  80 
 
 §  XLIV.  His  Account  of  the  general  Councils  of  Nice 
 and  Ephefhs,  their  owning  the  Epifcopal  Orders  of 
 Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Clergymen,  82 
 
 His  Account  of  the  African  Church,  and  molt  other 
 Churches  in  St.  Auguftins  Days,  that  they  thought  the 
 Character  of  the  Priefrhood  to  be  Indelible,  82,  83 
 Infomuch  that  if  a  Clergyman  turn'd  gtpoffate,  or 
 was  fufpended,  or  DCpntfD  for  ang  Crime,  his 
 Character  of  Orders',  they  reckoned,  remain'd  en- 
 tire, 83,  84 
 Hence  'tis  evident,  that  they  did  not  efteem  them  to 
 have  been  Laicks,  85 
 Mr.  Bingham  confirms  all  this,  in  thofe  very  Books, 
 where  he  endeavours  [tho*  very  oddly]  to  make 
 Heretical,  Schifmatical,  and  Excommunicated  Priefts 
 appear  Laymen,  85 
 
 $  XLV.  For,  in  the  firft  Part  of  his  Scholaftical  Hijlory, 
 he  makes  the  Ordination  of  a  Bifhop  or  Prieft,  to  be 
 3nDeltble  and  JltfotOlable,  even  if  he  turns  Hereticl, 
 or  Schifmatiri,  or  Apofiate,  or  is  Excommunicate,  or 
 
 He 
 
The  CONTENTS. 
 
 He  fays,  there  are  none  among  the  Ancient  s^bwt  will 
 allow  them  to  be  Bijhops  or  Priefis  according  to  their 
 refpeftive  Orders,  86 
 
 Con fequently,  none  among  the  Ancients  will  call  their 
 Baptifms  Lay-Baptifms,  ibid. 
 
 §  XLVJ.  He  oppofes  thofe  who  might  fanfy,  that  the 
 Church  reduc'd  Clergymen  to  Laymen,  when  fhe 
 iDbollp  DSpjifo'D  tljem  of  the  Honour  of  their  Places 
 for  their  Crimes,  ibid. 
 
 §  XLVII.    His  Examination  of  the  Doarine  of  the  In- 
 delible Chara&er  of  Orders,  88 
 He  reckons  the  heft  Way  to  know  the  Truth  of  that 
 Do&rine,  is  to  examine  it  by  the  Chara&er  of  Bap- 
 tifm,  which  he  owns  to  be  =Stttseltbie,                   Sp 
 $  XLVI1I,  XLIX.    The  fame,                           90,  91 
 $  L.    He  affirms,  that  the  Indelible  Character  of  Or- 
 dination, is  of  the  fame  Nature  with  that  of  BapV 
 tifm,  92 
 §  L,  LI,  LII.    Hence  Heretical  and  Schifmatical,  Ex- 
 communicate, Apoftate,  and  Degraded  Priefts,  had 
 an  indeleted  Chara£rer  of  Priefthood,          92  to  96 
 §  LII.    He  owns,  that  fuch  were  not  Laymen,         96 
 §  LIU.    His  great  Outcry  for  fear  the  Force  of  the 
 Church's  Cenfures  againft  wicked  Priefts  would  be 
 taken  away,  if  they  lhould  be  fuppos'd  to  be  Prieits, 
 while  under  the  Church's  Cenfures  of  Excommuni- 
 cation and  Degradation,  98 
 §  LIV.    This  fully  anfwer'd,  99 
 §  LV,  LVI.    The  Sum  of  all  Mr.  Bingham's  Alfertions 
 concerning  fuch  Priefts,  put  together,   whereby  he 
 notorioufly  confirms  this  Propoiition,  that  Heretical 
 and  Schifmatical  Baptifms  were  not  efteem'd  to  have 
 been  Lay-Baptifms,  by  thofe  Churches,  whofe  Difci- 
 pline   was    different    from  that  of  the   Cyprianick 
 Churches,                                                               105 
 He  has  not  produc'd  fo  much,  as  but  one  Jn fiance,  of 
 a  Lay-Baptifm,  which  the  ancient  Catholick  Church 
 pronounc'd  to  have  been  Valid  ,•    neither  has  he 
 prov'd  our  Lay  Baptizers  to  have  any  fuch  PiieftJy 
 
 Character, 
 
The    CONTENTS. 
 
 Character,  as  the  ancient  Heretical  and  Schifmatical 
 Baptizers  were  efteem'd  to  have  had,  m 
 
 $  LVII.  Till  he  does  one  of  thefe,  he  can  be  no  Um- 
 pire in  this  Controveriy,  and  his  way  of  writing  will 
 never  bring  it  to  an  Iffue,  112 
 
 The  neceflary  Qualifications  and  Difpofitions  of  the 
 Perfon  who  may  clofe  up  this  Difpute,  ibid, 
 
 A  great  and  difficult  Task  to  be  done  by  Mr.  Bingham% 
 before  he  can  be  admitted  to  be  an  Arbitrator  in  this 
 Controverfy,  113 
 
 §  LVIII.  His  Reafon  why  an  End  ihould  be  put  to  this 
 Difpute,  confider'd  ;  and  the  true  Reafon  given  why 
 he  Ihould  never  have  meddled  in  it,  114,  115 
 
 §  LIX.  His  Defign  to  take  his  Leave  of  this  Subjeft, 
 u  if  the  Adversary  mil  fuffer  him  to  go  on  quietly 
 a  with  a  UT0.:c  necdTar^  WL%1&,  "  animadverted 
 upon,  116 
 
 $  LX.    The  "  general  Wtntfit  ana  £>attsfacttoii 
 
 "  |J0  fiopes  lit  i)a$  gttJCn,  "  by  his  Antiquities  of 
 the  Chriftian  Church,  would  have  been  much  greater, 
 if  they  were  freed  and  purged  from  his  own  erro- 
 neous and  uncorre£l  Observations,  fome  Particulars 
 whereof  are  mention 'd,  117 
 
 §  LXI.  Reafons,  for  inftancing  fome  of  the  Faults  of 
 thefe  his  mofl  celebrated  Writings,  up 
 
 §  LXI  I.  The  Conclulion,  with  fincere  ProfeiTions  of 
 Charity  towards  him,  &c.  121 
 
'  £*N>WS/aN,  *^  /*^ 
 
 //rt\//*N/jvX 
 
 ffi%&^m%ffi6%&mi&g28mffim 
 
 C  A  V  E  AT,  &c. 
 
 R.  Kennets  excellent  Account  of  fome 
 of  the  Properties  of  Chriftian  Cha- 
 rity, in  his  Sermon  laft  Eafler- 
 Tuefday,  Pag.  123 
 
 The  Unnaturalneis  of  a  faithful 
 Preacher's  uttering  any  Thing  in 
 fuch  a  Sermon,  in  Favour  of  the  Oppofers  of  Truth, 
 and  of  the  proud  Difturbers  and  Contemners  of  the 
 Unity  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Authority  of  Chrift 
 in  his  Reprefentatives  the  Biihops,  124,  125 
 
 §  II.  Whether  that  Sermon  does  not  contain  fome- 
 thing  which  is  thus  notoriouily  <&n Charitable,  &c.; 
 will  be  feen  by  the  following  Obfervations,  125 
 §  III.  His  Introduction  to  the  Afperfions  he  caits  on 
 the  Doctrine  of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  1 26 
 §  IV.  This  contains  two  Rules,  the  one  true,  but  the 
 other  felfe  and  fophiftical,  whereby  to  judge  of  falfe 
 Doctrines,  ibid. 
 
 His  true  Rule  ;  by  which  his  Doctrine  of  the  Power 
 of  Divine  Grace,  taught  in  his  Sermon  at  the  Fune- 
 ral of  the  Duke  of  Devonfhire,  is  prov'd  to  be  a  falfe 
 DocTrine,  ibid. 
 
 <j  V.    Becaufe  it  derogates  from  the  Almighty  Power 
 of  God,  1 28 
 
 $  VI.     Tis  uncharitable  againft  Sinners   <c  of  diftin- 
 "  gniflid  Senfe  and  Judgment,  ,:  ibid. 
 
 §  VII.    Tis  alfo  uncharitable  againft  the  "  meaner  fin- 
 "  jn\  Wretches,  129 
 
 $  VIII.  It  implies,  that  even  Devils  themfelves  are 
 more  capable  of  Repentance,  than  Men  are,        130 
 
 And 
 
The   CONTENTS. 
 
 And  laftly,  'tis  dire&ly  contrary  to  the  Do£rine  of 
 the  Holy  Scripture,  130 
 
 §  IX.    Dr.  Kenmt's  falfe  and  fophiftical  Rule  whereby 
 
 to  judge  of  Doctrines,  1 34 
 
 The  great  Danger  of  being  guided  by  it,  136 
 
 §  X  to  XVIII.  His  fad  and  terrible  Confequences  of 
 the  Do&rine  of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  exa- 
 mined, and  found  to  be  nothing  but  trifling  In- 
 linuations,  and  Encouragements  of  Schifm  and  Po- 
 pery, 13810151 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 
 TN  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  third  Edition,  Preliminary  Di- 
 *  fcourfe,  Fage  14.  Line  12.  infead  of  Major3  read 
 Minor. 
 
 THE 
 
(^  '< ■> ,<\  .  <v    ,2    '<-    V-i    "•£ $■£ ">£ W  Vi1 M ■  V* ■'*■£  ■> r;>vi>    ■  ^  '<>V-AX  V  y    i»   i 
 
 THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 HEN  Men  of  Reputed  Learn- 
 ings and  Good  Parts,  are  un- 
 happily engaged  en  the  wrong 
 Side  of  a  Ouefiton  of  Greac 
 Importance,  'tis  a  deplo- 
 rable Thing  to  fee  how  they 
 wound  their  own  Reputation,  by  the  little  Fallacies', 
 mean  pedantick  Triflings,  Inconfiftencies,  and  Self- 
 Contr adit} ions,  which  the  Badnefs  of  their  Caufe 
 does  almoft  fatally  oblige  them  to  have  recourfe  to 
 for  its  Defence. 
 
 And  what  is  yet  a  farther  Aggravation  of  their 
 Misfortune,  is,  that  tho*  they  many  times  do,  by 
 their  own  way  of  Arguing,  efiablijh  that  very  Truth 
 which  they  by  Oppofiticn  are  endeavouring  to  de- 
 ftroy ;  yet  they  themfelves,  at  the  fame  time,  either 
 do  not  fee,  or  elfe  [_give  the  World  Occafion  to 
 believe  that  ]  they  forcibly  jhut  their  Eyes  again ft 
 that  Light,  which  the  Divine  Providence  makes 
 them,  by  fuch  their  Oppofition,  to  hold  out  to  o- 
 thers  for  their  Benefit  and  Advantage. 
 
 But  this  is  not  all  }  for  it  fometimes  csmes  to 
 pafs,  that  to  patch  up  a  decaying  Reputation,  they 
 do  but  go  the  way  more  effectually  to  deftroy  it , 
 and  fo   increafe  yet  more   their   own  Vnhappinefs, 
 
 a  by 
 
ii  The   PREFACE. 
 
 by  a  difingenuous  Pride,  which  makes  them  [corn 
 to  retract  any  the  grojfefl  Errors^  whereof  they 
 have  been  convicted,  by  a  hardy  Perfeverance,  in 
 jljferting  and  Repeating  over  again,  what  they  ne- 
 ver can  prove  ',  and  by  an  angry  and  peevifh 
 Spirit,  which  caufes  them  to  lofe  all  Temper,  and 
 to  run  out  into  imprudent  and  unmanly  Reflexi- 
 ons on  Perfons  and  things,  which  do  not  at  all 
 affect  the  true  Merits  of  the   Caufe, 
 
 §  II.  How  far  Mr.  Bingham  may  be  concerned 
 in  the  Truth  of  every  one  of  theft  Obfervations, 
 I  mufl  leave  to  the  Determination  of  fuch  judi- 
 cious and  Impartial  Readers,  as  have  examined 
 both  Sides  of  the  Controverfy  about  Lay-Baptifm ', 
 but  in  this,  I  doubt  not,  they  will  readily  concurr 
 with  me  ',   That 
 
 His  frequent,  but  falfe  Appeal  to  (a)  Socrates 
 Scholafticus,  as  an  Evidence  for  the  Truth  of  the 
 Fable  of  a  fportive  Baptifm  by  Children,  and  its 
 being  received  as  Valid  by  the  Church  of  Alexan- 
 dria, when  Socrates  has  not  one  word  about  that 
 idle  Story  of  the  Ludicrous  Baptifm,  in  all  his 
 Hiftory  : 
 
 His  Calling  to  witnefs  to  the  Truth  of  the  fame 
 fool: JJj  Dream,  (b)  Johannes  Mofchus,  one  of  the 
 mofi  ridiculous,  fabulous^  vifionary  Writers,  that 
 in fe fled  the  Church  in  the  Seventh  Century  ',  with 
 abundance  of  fuch  fuperftitious  Stories  : 
 
 His  Mifreprefenting  (c)  and  falfe  Tranflating 
 St.  Auguftin'j  Words,  as  taken  from  Gratian,  to 
 
 (a)  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  p.  69,  70,^. 
 
 (b)  Ibid.  p.  72. 
 
 (O   Ibid.  p.  143, 144. 
 
 male 
 
The   PREFACE.  in 
 
 make  his    own  Notions    appear   the    more   plauftble 
 to  an  Englifh  Reader. 
 
 &**  (d)  Perbapfing  upon  St.  Bafii'/  Teflimony 
 againft  Lay-Baptifm,and  thereby  fallacioufly  Inducing 
 bis  Englifh  Reader  to  believe,  that  St.  Bafil,  "  per- 
 haps, did  not  condemn  Lay-Baptifm  in  ex- 
 16  traordinary  Cafes  \  when  St.  Bafil,  in  the  Paf- 
 fage  quoted  by  Mr.  Bingham,  does  not  give  the  leaft 
 Countenance  to  fuch  a  Petljftpg  M  this,  but  /peaks 
 in  fuch  abfolute  and  unlimited  Terms,  as  do  con* 
 demn  Lay-Baptifm  in  all  Cafes  whatfoever: 
 
 Hi*  fe)  fallacious  Speaking  of  TextxiWian's  Notion 
 of  Lay-  Bapttfm,  as  if  it  were  Matter  of  Faft,  that 
 Men  "  were  fo  Baptiz'd  by  Laymen,  "  in 
 Tertullian'j  Days;  when  in  Truth,  there  is  not 
 the  leafi  Proof  yet  produced  by  him,  of  any  fuch 
 early  Matter  of  Fatt  at  all  : 
 
 His  partial  Mi/guiding  his  Engliih  Reader  to  be- 
 Ueve,  that  two  Canons  were,  or  might  be  made  in 
 Favour  of  Lay-Baptifm^  by  a  Patriarchal  Council  C  f ) 
 of  270  Greek  Bifljops,  ann.  814,  when  in  Reality % 
 there  is  no  Proof  whatfoever  that  this  Council  made 
 any  fuch  Canons  at  all ;  and  they  are  manifeftly  no 
 ether  than  the  Canons  of  NkephorilS,  the  Super- 
 ftitious  and  Idolatrous  Patriarch  of  Conftanti- 
 nople : 
 
 /  fay,  Impartial  and  Judicious  Readers  willf 
 doubtlefs,  concurr  with  me  in  this,  That  fuch  grofs 
 Errors,  and  fallacious  Dealings  in  Controverfy,  do 
 loudly  call  for  Mr.  Bingham'/  publick  and  in- 
 genuous Retra&ation  and  Amend ment,becaufe  they 
 
 (d)   Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  p.  182* 
 (O  Ibid.  p.  185. 
 (f)  Ibid.  p.  214. 
 
 a  %  were 
 
iv  The   PREFACE. 
 
 were  fublickly  committed,  to  the  Prejudice  of  Truth  ; 
 and  fince  he  has  not  yet  thus  ingenuoufly  retrac- 
 ed, no  not  fo  much  as  the  grojfefi,  and  moft  un- 
 pardonable of  thefe  Miftakes,  &C  namely,  his 
 falfe  Appeal  to  Socrates  the  Ecclefiaftical  Hifto- 
 rian  ',  he,  of  all  Men  living,  ought  to  have  a* 
 voided  Pedantick  Infultings  about  the  little  Trifle 
 of  another's  wrong  Tranfcribing  a  Major  inftead  of 
 a  Minor,  which  was  [with  Thanks  utterly  thrown 
 away  upon  him,  for  dif covering  the  unwilfid  Slip"} 
 fairly  and  publickly  owtfd,  and  amended,  before 
 Mr.  Bingham  could  have  an  Opportunity  of  thus 
 frequently  and  childifloly  fporting  himfelf  again,  as 
 he  does  in  the  Appendix  of  his  Second  Part,  with 
 that,  which  Men  of  any  Spirit  becoming  the  Cha- 
 racter of  a  Man  of  Senfe  and  Gravity^  would 
 [corn  to  concern  them/elves  about. 
 
 §  III.  But  when  to  this  Childifhnefs  we  add 
 the  great  Indecency,  nay  the  Uncharitablenefs, 
 of  his  inconfiderate  and  imprudent  Flying  out  a- 
 gainft  the  truly  Reverend  and  Learned  Dr.  Hickes, 
 vpon  Account  of  this  Trifle",  as  if  he  was  to  blame 
 for  letting  it  pafs  and  efcape  his  Correction  ',  'tis 
 an  Argument,  that  his  Pajfion  carries  him  beyond 
 his  Reafon,  and  expofes  him  to  the  Cenfure  of  alt 
 wife  and  confiderate  Men  ;  for,  fays  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham, (g)  u  I  cannot  but  a  little  wonder,— 
 14  that  fo  Learned  and  Acute  a  Man,  as  Dr. 
 "  Hickes,  Jhould  carefully  read  over  his  Pa- 
 "  Pers>  [  viz.  of  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm  In- 
 "  valid]  and  never  obferve  fuch  an  Heap  of 
 Ct  Blunders,  &c.  "     As  if  the  Doftor  had  read 
 
 (g)   Schohft.Hift.  Part  II.  appendix,  p.  3. 
 
 over 
 
The   PREFACE.  v 
 
 ever  the  Manufcripts,  where  this  one  Slip  [which 
 by  a  peculiar  An  of  Multiplying,  very  ufeful  ! 
 for  Men  in  his  Cir  cum  fiances,  Mr.  Bingham  calls 
 "  An  Heap  of  Blunders  ]  was  committed, 
 viz..  Sacerdotal  Powers,  and  the  Preliminary 
 Difcourfe  to  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  $d  Edition. 
 When,  in  Truth,  that  worthy  Perfon  never  read 
 over  any  of  thofe  Manufcripts  at  all,  And  fo  had 
 it  not  in  his  Tower  to  cor  reel  that  one  Slip,  to 
 hinder  its  being  printed.  And  therefore,  Mr. 
 Bingham'/  thus  hafiily,  and  without  jufi  Reafon, 
 cenfuring  fo  valuable  a  Perfon,  and  in  fo  Pub  lick 
 a  Manner  too,  for  what  no  ways  concern  d  him, 
 is  fuch  a  Tranfgrejfion  even  againft  the  Rules  of 
 common  Good  Manners,  and  Good  Breeding,  that 
 it  requires  no  lefs  than  his  Public k  Acknowledg- 
 ment of  the  Fault,  by  asking  the  Doclorys  Pardon 
 as  openly  as  he  has  offered  hm  the  Affront.  And 
 this  I  take  upon  me  to  put  Mr.  Bingham  in  Mind 
 of,  tW  I  have  no  Commiffion  for  fo  doing,  from 
 the  Reverend  and  Learned  Perfon  he  has  fo  inde- 
 cently abused. 
 
 §  IV.  He  tells  my  Lord  Bijhop  of  Winchefter, 
 in  the  $d  Page  of  his  Epiftie  Dedicatory,  That 
 "  911  tfje  13ifljap$    of  both  Provinces   were 
 
 "  UnmUniailflP  of Opinion,  there 
 
 u  were  other  Ways  of  fupplying  a  faulty  Bap- 
 u  tifm,  than  by  Re-Baptization,  if  given  in 
 "  due  Form  by  a  Layman  ',  —  "  that  the 
 u  Deficiency,  whatever  it  be,  may  ffiOff  CHT- 
 "  tiiinlp  be  re&ify'd  by  Confirmation :  "  And 
 that  *  fa  fat  both  the  Kltfeg  and  Practice  of 
 u  the  Church  of  England,  for  thefe  laft  200 
 w  Years,  are  clear  *,  for  we  have  neither  Order 
 
 a  3  *  nor 
 
vi  The   PREFACE. 
 
 u  nor  Example   to  encourage  Re-Baptization 
 li  in  any  fuch  Cafe,  &c.  " 
 
 All  which  is  nothing  but  ajferting?  without  Proof? 
 nay  contrary  to  Experience ?  [  witnefs  the  Cafe  at 
 Exeter]   that    "  &\\  tfje  'BtfljOpg   were  una- 
 
 "  nimoufly  "  of  that  Opinion  ? but  what  is 
 
 befl  of  all?  is?  that  he  fays  the  Deficiency  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm  may  niOff  Certainty  be  refbify'd  by  Con- 
 firmation -?  when  neither  he?  nor  any  of  his  Friends 
 in  this  Controverfy?  have  produced  fo  much  as  but 
 one  Argument  in  Proof  of  this  pretended  Cer- 
 tainty.     But    he    boldly  fays?     «  ft)    fat    tfjE 
 
 u  3&Ule0  of  the  Church  of  England  are 
 
 V  clear  ?  "  Clear  for  what  f  Why  clear  for  this 
 Confirming  Power.  Egregious  Falfity  !  has  foe  any 
 Rules  for  confirming  fuch  deficient  Baptifms  ?  where 
 are  they  ?  when?  and  by  whom  were  they  made  ? 
 Let  'em  be  produced?  that  we  may  fee  them?  and 
 believe.  And  now?  behold  his  all- convincing  Re  a- 
 fon?  that  her  Rules?  &C  are  fo  far  clear  ? 
 "  f0|  Lfays  he  ]  we  have  neither  Order  nor 
 u  Example  to  encourage  Re-Baptization.  "  A 
 doughty  Argument  this?  fo  pompovfiy  introduced 
 with  an  oftematious  jf  0?  !  And  it  amounts  to  thus 
 much  :  That  the  Church  has  Rules  for  fvpplying 
 the  Deficiencies  of  Lay-Baptifm  by  Confirmation  -? 
 becavfe?  fie  has  neither  Order?  nor  Example  to 
 encourage  what  is  calVd  Re- Baptizing  ?  that  is? 
 a  HO  JRttfe  to  Baptize?  is  a  3ktl!e  to  fupply  by 
 Confirmation  •,  which  is  all  one  as  to  fay?  that 
 Silence  relating  to  one  Thing  of  a  pofitive  Nature 
 is  a  J&Ui?  about  another  Thing  of  a  pofitive  Na- 
 ture ?  and  if  this  be  good  Arguing^  then  farewell 
 all  Reafoning  for  the  future* 
 
 §  v. 
 
The  PREFACE.  vii 
 
 §  V.     Oh  !   But  fays  he  ;    "  We   have  nei- 
 "  ther  Order,  nor  Example  to  encourage  Re- 
 
 w  Baptization,  no  not  after  the  Rubrick 
 
 "  had  COnfill'tl  the  Miniftration  of  Baptifm 
 ct  wholly  to  the  Hands  of  a  Lawful  Minifter. 
 "  For  ftill  no  Rule   was  made,    that  fuch  as 
 
 "  foere  not  'Bapttj'D  lip  a  UnUifal  ®wfttzt 
 
 "  fhould  be  Re-Baptiz'd  5  but  tl)ZV  Ml't  TC= 
 "  qittt'D  to  receive  the  BifliopV  Confirma- 
 <L  tion,  and  then  were  admitted  to  the  Eu- 
 "  charift,  and  the  Privilege  of  Chriftian  Burial, 
 "  neither  of  which  are  allow'd  to  Uu-Baptiz'd 
 "  Perfons.  " 
 
 Here  he  affirms,  that  u  fuch  as  were  not 
 "  Baptiz'd  by  a  Lawful  Minifter  tUCrC  tt' 
 "  QltiC'D  to  receive  the  Bilhop's  Confirma- 
 c<  tion,  "  but  not  to  be  C  what  he  calls  ]  Re~ 
 Baptized.  I  am  perfectly  confounded  at  the  Tofi- 
 tivenefs  of  this  Affertion  !  What  Rubrick  is  there 
 that  requires  fuch  to  be  confirm  d  by  the  Bifhop  ? 
 Does  not  the  whole  Office  of  Confirmation  run  all 
 along  upon  a  Suppofition  of  the  Ferforfs  having  been 
 already  perfectly  and  rightly  Baptized  by  a  Law- 
 ful Minifter  f  Is  it  not  confecjhent  to  our  Offices 
 of  Baptifm,  which  by  his  own  Confeffion  do  now 
 Confine  "  the  Miniftration  of  Baptifm  fof}0Hp 
 "  to  the  Hands  of  a  Lawful  Minifter  ?  "  Is 
 not  every  Perfon  to  be  confirmed,  fuppos^d  to  have 
 been  Baptized  by  one  of  thofe  Confining  Offices 
 of  Baptifm  f  Are  they  not  all  addrefs^d  to  at  the 
 Beginning  of  the  Office  of  Confirmation,  as  Perfons 
 that  had  God-Fathers  and  God-Mothers^  and  fo 
 are  reckoned  to  have  been  Baptized  at  Church,  or 
 at  Home  by  a  Lawful  Minifter  without  God-Fa- 
 thers and  God-Mothers^  and  afterwards  prefented 
 
 a  4  in 
 
via  The   PREFACE. 
 
 in  the  Church,  and  undertaken  for,  by  their  God" 
 Fathers  and  God-Mothers  ',  all  which  neceffarily  fup- 
 pofes  the  Rubricks  of  our  Offices  of  Baptifm  to 
 have  been  objerv'd  ;  and  confequently-,  that  the 
 Perfons  to  be  confirm  d  were  Baptized  by  Lawful 
 Minifters  t  Where  does  the  Office  of  Confirmation 
 fuppofe  any  one  to  have  been  Baptized  by  a  Lay- 
 man t  In  what  Part  of  that  Office  is  there  any 
 Pretence  to  the  fupplying  of  the  Deficiency  in  a 
 Lay -Baptifm  before  received  I  How  then  can  it  be 
 faid,  that  in  our  Church  cv  the  Deficiency  of 
 *  Lay-Baptifm  may  waft  certainty  be  recti- 
 lt  fy'd  by  Confirmation,  "  when  our  Church  has 
 no  Form  of  Confirmation,  that  pretends  to  re- 
 ctify any  fuch  Deficiency  ?  And  with  what  Truth 
 can  it  then  be  faid,  that  fuch,  only  tc  Lay- 
 "  Baptiz'd  Perfons,  tOCrC  rciJUlC'B  to  receive 
 4C  the  Bi (hop's  Confirmation,  n  when  our  Church 
 has  made  no  Rubrick  at  all)  that  requires  them 
 fo  to  do  ? 
 
 §  VI.  And,  therefore,  their  Ad  million  "  to 
 a  Confirmation,  to  the  Eucharift,  and  to  the 
 li  Privilege  of  Christian  Burial,  '  are  not  ac- 
 cording to  my  Ettle  of  our  C&urcij ;  they 
 
 are  not  our  Church's  Afts,  but  only  the  Perfonal 
 Afls  of  particular  Men  aBing  [to  make  the  befi 
 of  it  ]  without  any  Rule  to  fupport  their  Pratlice  ; 
 for,  by  all  that  our  Church  has  faid,  and  ordered 
 about  thefe  Matters,  fuch  Perfons  have  no  Right 
 to  thofe  Privileges,  but  ought  to  be  dtnyd  them, 
 as  not  having  received  the  Baptifm  which  our  Church 
 exprejly  recjures  to  be  receivd  at  the  Hands  of 
 Lawful  Min  fters,  even  in  Times  of  great  eft  Ne- 
 fejfity,  and  has  made  no  Provifion  at  all  for 
 granting  any  Privileges  whatfoever  to  thofe,    who 
 
 have 
 
The  PREFACE.  ix 
 
 have  been  only  Baptized  by  Perfons  that  never  were 
 Commifion'd  *t  all  for  that  Purpofe  ;  and  her  Ar- 
 ticles, Canons,  and  Rubrich  are  fuch,  as  that  they 
 do,  by  fair  Conftrutlion,  Null  and  make  Void  all  fuch 
 Baptifms  as  I  have  abu dandy  provd  in  (h)  another 
 Place  to  which  the  Reader  is  referred. 
 
 §  VII.      And  ^tis  one  of  the  mofi  unaccountable 
 Things  in  the  World,  to  fee  Perfons  fo  pretendedly 
 Baptiz'd,   regiflred  in  our  Church-Books,    and  ad- 
 mined  to  our  Sacred  Altars,    with  as  great  Free- 
 dom, as  thofe  who  without  all  Difpute  have  received 
 Valid  Baptifm.      Even  the   Gentlemen   who   difpute 
 againft  us,  do  affirm  thofe  Baptifms  to  be  diforder- 
 ly,  irregular,  and  wicked  ;  that  they  are  deficient y 
 avd  want  to  have  their  Deficiency  rectify1  d,  but  they 
 JJmtld  rather  fay  fapptyd  ',  and  yet,  for  all  this,  they 
 who  have  received  fnch  eonfeffedky  deficient  Baptifmsy 
 are   received  to  the  Holy  Eucharifl,  as  freely,  at  if 
 they  had  reeeivd  Perfed,  Catholick  Baptifm  ;   and 
 this,   without    any  Previous  Attempt    to  fup^ly    the 
 acknowledged  Deficiency  of  their  Baptifm. 
 
 §  VIII,  If  thefe  Things  are  thus  wretchedly  pra- 
 ilisd,  what  Wonder  is  it  to  fee  the  dead  Bodies  of 
 departed  Schifmaticks,  who  never  were  incorporated 
 Members  of  the  Church  by  Baptifm,  and  who  al- 
 ways detefted  ar.d  avoided  the  Communion  of  our 
 Church  in  their  Life-time,  and  at  their  Death 
 were  not  reconciled  to  it  ;  yet,  after  Death,  cere- 
 monioufly  owrfd,  as  in  the  Church's  Communion  $  in 
 
 (h)  Diftenters,  and  other  unauchoriz'd  Baptifms,  Null 
 and  Void,  by  the  Articles,  Canons,  and  Rubricks  of  the 
 Church  of  EvgUvJ. 
 
 their 
 
x  The    PREFACE. 
 
 their  Proceffion  to  their  Graves,  folemnly  preceded 
 by  fome  One,  or  more,  of  the  Priefts  of  the  Church  ', 
 gravely  carryyd  into  the  very  Church  it  felf,  {which 
 is  a  Ceremony,  figriifying,  that  the  Departed  dy'd  in 
 the  Church's  Communion  ;  ]  the  Divine  Service,  ap- 
 pointed only  for  the  Burial  of  the  Faithful  departed 
 in  the  Communion  of  Saints,  faid  over  their  Bodies, 
 who,  it  may  he,  never  were  in  vifihle  Communion 
 with  them,  \or,  if  they  feemd  to  be  fo  at  any  time, 
 it  was  without  any  Right  at  all ;  3  ar*d  then^  to  hear 
 fuch  departed  Schifmaticks  calfd  each  of  them, 
 Our  Dear  Brother,  or  Dear  Sifter,  in  the  Senfe 
 of  our  Church,  pgnifying  their  Spiritual  Relation  to 
 us,  as  Members  of  the  fame  Family  and  Commu- 
 nion ;  when,  it  may  be,  they  never  were  fo,  at  leaft, 
 they  never  appeared  to  have  been  fo  :  And  laflly, 
 to  fee  their  Remains  depofited  in  that  Sacred  Place, 
 the  Church  of  God,  into  which,  in  their  Life-time, 
 they  abhorr'd  to  enter,  and  join  with  the  Mem- 
 bers of  the  Church  in  the  Divine  Worjhip  f  To  fee 
 thefe  Things,  I  fay,  tho  'tis  no  great  Wonder  to 
 common  Beholders^  by  reafon  of  the  Frequency  of  the 
 Practice,  yet  'tis  very  Dreadful  to  the  Minds  of 
 thofe,  who  ferioujly  confider,  and  lay  to  Heart  the 
 great  Importance,  and  fad  Confequences  of  fucjo 
 Practices. 
 
 §  IX.  All  which  might  eafily  be  remedy1  d,  by  ob- 
 liging Perfons  concerned,  to  bring  Certificates  well  at- 
 tefled,ofthe  Regular  Baptifm  of  thofe  for  whom  9tis 
 defir  d  that  they  fhould  be  regifler'd,  or  admitted  to 
 the  Eucharifi,  or  to  the  Privilege  of  Chrifiian  Bu- 
 rial :  For  then,  which  of  our  Lay-Diffenting  Tea- 
 chers would  have  the  Hardinefs  to  fubferibe  a  Cer- 
 tificate of  his  having  crept  into  any  Man's  Houfe, 
 and  Baptised   [as  they  call  it  ]  any  Child  or  Per- 
 
 font 
 
The   PREFACE.  xi 
 
 fin  ?  And,  which  of  our  Parifi-Priefis  would  f> 
 far  take  part  with  Schifmaticks,  as  to  Regifter  fuch 
 a  Falfe  Baptifm  among  the  True  ones  ?  I  know  one 
 of  the  Reverend  Incumbents  of  this  City ,  who  was 
 apply'd  to,  by  a  rich  Diffenter,  to  have  his  Child 
 Regifier*d,  as  Baptized,  in  his  Par ijh- Book  ;  he  asFd 
 the  Diffenter,  Is  your  Child  Baptiz'd  ?  The  Dif- 
 fenter  anfver'd,  Yes.     The  Priefi  faidy    Tho'  you 
 
 live  in  my  Parifh,  I  know  nothing  of  your 
 Child's  Baptifm  ;  for  neither  I,  nor  my  Curate, 
 nor  any  body  elfe  of  our  Clergy,  by  my  Leave, 
 Baptiz'd  it.  Who  was  the  Baptizer  ?  The  Dif- 
 fenter  faid,  'Twas  one  of  our  Minifters  C  as  %* 
 calTd  him  \  ]  fays  the  Priefi;,  Then  I  am  refolv'd 
 it  (hall  not  be  RegifterU  The  Diffenter  ftill 
 ferfified,  fometimes  endeavouring  to  Perfuade,  at  o- 
 ther  times  Threatning  what  he  would  do,  if  his 
 Child  was  not  Regifter'd;  and  this  from  Day  to 
 Day,  At  Uft,  my  Reverend  Friend  thought  of  an 
 Expedient,  to  get  rid  of  him  ;  fays  he  to  the  Diffenter^ 
 Bring  me  a  Certificate  of  your  Child's  Baptifm, 
 and  let  your  Teacher,  who  you  fay  Baptiz'd  it, 
 fign  the  Certificate  •,  and  then  I  will  make  him, 
 and  you  know,  what  it  is  for  him  to  invade 
 my  Province,  and  intrude  himfelf  thus  into  a 
 Houfe  in  my  Parifh  about  fuch  Matters  :  The 
 Diffenter  from  that  Day  forward  never  more  askyd 
 him  to  regifter  his  Child.  And  if  the  fame  were 
 •vigoroufly  infifted  upon  by  the  refl  of  our  Clergy^ 
 upon  Account  of  Mens  Admiffion  to  the  Holy  Eu+ 
 coarift,  and  the  Privilege  of  Chrifiian  Burial,  we 
 flwuld  not  have  fuch  frequent  Prophanations  of  our 
 Altars,  and  of  our  Office  for  Burial  of  the  Dead^ 
 as  -now  we  have.  For  no  Man  has  any  Right  to 
 the  Altar,  or  to  Chrifiian  Burial^  of  whofe  Bap- 
 tifm there  is  no   Proof.     And  the  Priefis   of  the 
 
 Church 
 
xii  The  PREFACE. 
 
 Church  are  not  ohligd,  by  any  Law  either  of  Church 
 or  State,  to  admit  a  Man  to  either  of  them,  without 
 good  Proof  of  his  Baptifm.  If  a  Diffenting  Lay- 
 Teacher  jhould  prefnme  to  give  a  Certificate,  that 
 he  BaptizJd  a  Per/on,  there  is  no  Law  either  in 
 Church  or  State,  that  obliges  a  Clergyman  to  ac- 
 cept of  fuch  a  Certificate,  as  a  Valid  Proof  of 
 Baptifm,  to  qualify  a  Man  to  be  admitted  to  the 
 Communion,    or  to  Chrifiian  Burial. 
 
 §  X.  For,  the  AEl  of  Exemption,  vulgarly  called 
 the  AEt  of  Toleration,  does  not  oblige  our  Church 
 Priefls  to  accept  of  any  fuch  pretended  qualifying 
 Certificate  from  the  Diffenting  Teachers  ;  it  only 
 frees  the  Diffenters  from  the  temporal  Penalties,  and 
 Punifijments  due  to  their  Separation  from  the  Churchy 
 hy  Virtue  of  former  AEhs  of  Parliament  ;  it  does 
 not  make  their  Baptiaers  to  be  Lawful  Minifters  \ 
 it  does  not  give  them  Holy  Orders,  but  on  the 
 contrary  does  fuppofe  fome  of  them  not  to  be  in 
 Orders  ;  for  it  exprefly  calls  their  Guides,  by  the 
 Names  of  «  SDeacijeCg  0?  PjeaC&eflS  in  Holy 
 u  Orders,  or  p?etentJCB  |)0lj?  ©JOerg,  "  in 
 fever al  Places  of  the  Acl  ;  plainly  intimating,  that 
 as  fome  of  them  might  probably,  at  that  time,  have 
 been  in  ^)0lp  OjOetS)  C  frr  'tis  not  deny'd,  that 
 fome  of  the  old  Diffenting  Teachers  had  received 
 Epifcopal  Ordination  ]   fo,  others  of  them  had  but 
 
 "  P?etcnnen,  not  real  Doty  ©Sttrg  >  "  *»4 
 
 therefore,  now  fince  the  Deceafe  of  their  old  Tea- 
 chers,  their  remaining  Guides,  who  were  not  or- 
 dain d  by  Bijhops,  have  but  pretended  Orders  ; 
 the  AH  does  not  mend  this  Pretence,  and  turn 
 it  into  a  Reality,  but  leaves  'em  only  Pretenders 
 ftiU\  confequently  their  Baptifms  are  not  the  Bap- 
 tifms  of  Lawful  Mtnifters  ;    and,   therefore,   our 
 
 Priefts 
 
The    PREFACE.  xiii 
 
 Friefts  are  not  bound  to  receive  and  own  them* 
 Again, 
 
 §  XI.  the  AB  of  Exemption  does  not  Null 
 the  Canons  of  our  Church,  but  leaves  them  as  it 
 found  ''em  ;  for  in  all  that  Act,  there  is  not  fo 
 much  as  the  leaft  Mention  of  any  one  Canon  of 
 the  Church,  that  was  defignd  to  be  vacated,  or 
 made  void  by  that  Alt  ',  and,  confequently,  fuch 
 Diffenters,  as  Cl  deny  the  Church  of  England  to 
 t;  be  a  True  and  Apoftolical  Church ;  "  fuch 
 as  are  "  Impugners  of  the  Publick  Worfhip 
 "  eftablifh'd  in  that  Church  ;  "  fuch  as  are 
 u  Impugners  of  any  of  her  39  Articles ;  '* 
 fuch  as  are  «'  Impugners  of  her  Rices  and  Ce- 
 "  remonies  eftablifh'd  by  Law  •,  "  as  fe par ate 
 from  her  Communion,  and  "  combine  together 
 u  in  a  New  Brotherhood,  accounting  the  Chri- 
 w  ftians  who  are  conformable  to  the  Dodtrine, 
 a  Government,  Rites,  and  Ceremonies  of  the 
 
 "  Church  of  England,   to  be  . unmeet  for 
 
 "  them  to  join  with  in  Chriftian  Profeflion  •, " 
 cc  as  affirm,  that — fuch  as  refufe  to  fubfcribe 
 "  to  the  Form  and  Manner  of  God's  Worfhip 
 
 a  in  the  Church  of  England,  "   and  their 
 
 "  Adherents,may  take  unto  them  tl}£  $Lft\T\Z  Of 
 €f-  anotfiet  CljUCCf),  not  eftablifh'd  by  Law  :  " 
 a  As  maintain,  that  there  are  within  this  Realm 
 "  other  Meetings,  Afiemblies,  or  Congregati- 
 H  ons,— —  than  fuch  as  by  the  Laws  of  this 
 a  Land  are  held  and  allow'd,  which  may  rightly 
 cc  challenge  to  themfelves  the  Name  of  True 
 "  and  Lawful  Churches :  "  And  lafily,  "  Main- 
 tC  tainers  of  Conftitutions  made  in  Conven- 
 "  tides.  "  Thefe  are  by  the  III,  IV,  V,  VI, 
 VIII,  IX,  X,  XI,  and  Xllth  Canons  excommuni- 
 cated, 
 
siv  The  PREFACE. 
 
 cated,  ipfo  fa&o,  and  "  not  to  be  reftor'd  " 
 C  we?/  0/  V/»  ]  for  £y  the  Arch-Bifiop  "  after 
 **  their  Repentance,  and  Publick  Revocation 
 16  of  thefc  their  wicked  Errors.  "  The  AEt 
 of  Exemption  frees  Diffenters,  only  from  the 
 temporal  Penalties  of  certain  Laws  ;  but  fuch, 
 as  I  have  mentioned,  are  not  thereby  freed  from 
 thefe  fpiritual  Cenfures  ;  they  are  flill  left  in  this 
 State  of  Excommunication  j  and  ytis  in  the  Opi- 
 nion of  Canonifts,  the  greater  Excommunication, 
 tho*  there  be  no  exprefs  Declaratory  Sentence  ',  and, 
 therefore,  fuch  Schifmaticks  as  thefe  have  certainly 
 no  Right  to  be  admitted  ta  our  Altars-,  while  they 
 impenitently  live  in  thefe  their  Sins  ',  or  to  the  Pri* 
 vilege  of  Chrifiian  Burial,  when  they  die  thus  Ex* 
 communicate* 
 
 §  XII.  There  is  another  very  great  Nufance 
 among  us,  and  fo  long  as  'tis  praclts'd,  thefe  Na- 
 tions will  never  be  freed  from  the  dreadful  Mif- 
 chiefs  of  Schifm,  Sedition,  and  Rebellion  ',  and  that 
 is,  that  the  D  jfenters  have  Academies  or  Nurfe* 
 ties,  wherein  Children  and  Touth  are  brought  up, 
 and  taught  in  the  dangerous  Principles,  that  fo 
 divide  and  confound  us,  by  unlawful  and  unli- 
 censed Schifmatical  School- Maflers  and  Tutors  : 
 There  is  nothing  in  all  the  AEb  of  Exemption, 
 that  gives  the  leaft  Countenance  or  Toleration  to 
 thefe  Diffenting  School- Maflers  ',  and  therefore  e- 
 very  one  of  them  is  a  Tranfgreffor  againfl  the 
 Canons,  which  require  School-  Maflers  to  have  the 
 Bifliofs  Licence,  &C.  and  'tis  not  to  be  fupposd, 
 that  any  of  our  Bifhops  would  grant  a  Licence  t* 
 a  Diffenter  ',  becaufe  the  qqth  Canon  enjoins  11' 
 censed  School- Maflers  to  fubfcribe,  that  they  own 
 the    Supremacy    of    our    Sovereign   for    the    Time 
 
 being  -j 
 
The   PREFACE.  xv 
 
 being  ',  and  that  the  Church  of  England  is  a 
 True  and  Apoflolical  Church,  teaching  and  main* 
 taining  the  Dotlrine  of  the  Apoftles,  &c.  The  79th 
 Canon  requires  School- Maflers  to  bring  their  Scho- 
 lars to  Church  upon  Holy  and  Fefiival  Days  y 
 which  Things  to  be  fure  thefe  Dijfenting  School- 
 Maflers  wTll  not  fubmit  to,  and,  therefore,  they 
 to  be  fure  have  no  Licence  under  the  •  Hand  and 
 Seal  of  the  fiijhop  of  the  Diocefe,  where  they  fet 
 up  their  Schifmatical  and  Seditious  Academies  to 
 teach  and  poifon  Children,  and  Touth,  with  Prin- 
 ciples  pernicious  to  the  Good  and  Welfare  both  of 
 Church  and  State  ;  and  fo  they  may  be  profecuted 
 in  our  Spiritual  Courts,  and  fufpended  from  teach- 
 ing  School  any  longer,  by  the  77th  and  79th  Ca- 
 nons ;  and  happy  would  it  be  for  this  Nation,  if 
 they  were  fo  profecuted,  and  turned  out ',  that  the 
 Seeds  of  Schifm  and  Rebellion  might  not  be  fo 
 early  fowyd  in  the  tender  Minds  of  our  Children 
 and  Touth,  as  now  they  are,  by  fuch  fcandalovfly 
 unlawful  Tutors,  who  go  on  in  this  their  Wicked- 
 nefs  with  Impunity,  Publkhly,  and  in  Defiance  to 
 all  our  Conftitutions  and  Canons,  when  they  have  no 
 Law  whatfoever  to  uphold  them  in  fuch  their  mif- 
 chievous  Practice.    But  to  return  to  Mr.  Bingham. 
 
 §  XIIL  He  mournfully  complains  in  the  Afh 
 Page  of  his  Epiftle  Dedicatory  y  That  he  is 
 "  charg'd  by  fome  as  a  falfe  and  felf-inte- 
 "  retted  Writer  ;  as  one  that  is  writing  a- 
 <c  gainft  the  true  Church  of  England  ;   and  as 
 
 "  ait  dtcatttager  of  piflfentecfif*  " 
 
 As  to  his  being  a  fe  If  inter  e fed  Writer,  J  leave 
 that  to  God  and  his  own  Confcience  j  but  for  his 
 writing  againfl  the  Church  of  England,  'tis  cer- 
 tainly true,    that  he  does  fa    if  he  writes    4t  as 
 
 "  an 
 
xvi  The   PREFACE. 
 
 "  an  Encourager  of  Diflenters  "  from  her  Com- 
 munion ;  and  that  his  Writings  do  EUCOUtniJC 
 them,  is  manifeft ',  for  upon  the  Coming  out  of  his 
 Firft  Part,  they  grew  extravagantly  Bold,  and 
 even  at  Oxford  carrfd  a  Child  in  Publtck  Pro- 
 tejfion  to  one  of  their  Meeting- Houfes,  to  be  pre* 
 tendedly  Baptized  by  one  of  their  Lay-Teachers  ;  a 
 Thing  never  feen  before  in  that  Place,  by  any  of 
 its  then  Inhabitants  :  And  not  only  fo,  but  now, 
 fince  the  Publishing  of  his  Second  Part,  the  Dif- 
 fenters  take  him  to  be  fuch  an  (EttCOtltTtlgCr  Of 
 tfecnij  that  this  his  Lift  Book  was  lately  recom- 
 mended to  a  large  Congregation  of  them,  by  their 
 Teacher,  as  an  unanfwerable  Book,  in  a  Difcourfe 
 held  forth  to  them  in  one  of  the  mo  ft  noted  Meeting- 
 Houfes  of  this  City  !  If  this  is  not  a  fure  Mark 
 of  a  Writer's  being  an  Encourager  of  Diffenters^ 
 then  fuch  a  Writer  can  never  be  known.  But  why 
 do  they  thus  hug  and  carefs  his  Book  t  It  is  not 
 becaufe  of  the  Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  which  it 
 efpoufes  ',  no%  the  Dffenters  are  as  much  againft 
 him  for  that  whimficai  Piece  of  Popery,  as  we 
 are  ;  but  they  value  and  efteem  his  Book,  becaufe 
 it  does  fo  much  favour  their  pjetCH&EO  SDjDUIfc 
 ttOHS  •>  fir  firft,  it  endeavours  to  prove,  that  the 
 Biftwps  who  ordain  d  the  Heretical  and  Schifma- 
 tical  Baptizjrs,  whofe  Bait  fms  fome  Churches 
 efteem  d  to  have  been  Valid,  were  not  Bifhops  : 
 Secondly,  That  the  Perfons  fo  ordain  d  by  thefe  his 
 pretended  Ko-Bifhops,  dld?  notwithftanding,  mi* 
 nifter  Valid  Baptifm :  And  thirdly,  That  the  Church 
 did  not  need  to  give  thefe  Baptizjers  any  New 
 Ordination,  to  qualify  them  to  minifter  in  the 
 Sacred  Offices  of  the  Church ',  but  that  they  might, 
 vpon  receiving  the  Church's  Reconciliatory  1m- 
 pofition  of  Hands,  without  any  New  Ordination, 
 
 perform 
 
The  PREFACE.  xvii 
 
 perform  the  Sacred  Functions  ^  all  this  he  aims  at, 
 and  frequently  afferts  in  the  Second  Part  of  his 
 Scholaftical  Hiftory.  From  whence  the  Diffenters 
 naturally  enough  inferr,  fappofing  the  Truth  of  thefe 
 Tremiffes,  that  there  is  HO  Jlk'CCffltP  for  Epifcopal 
 Ordination  to  qualify  a  Man  to  minifter  in  Holy 
 Things,  fince  Mr.  Bingham  reckons,  that  the 
 Church  was  not  obliged  to  give  Epifcopal  Ordina- 
 tion for  that  Purpofe,  to  Perfons  who  were  before 
 ordain  d  {_  according  to  him  ]  by  Men  who  were 
 not  Bifhops  ;  and  this  is  fo  pleafing  to  Presbyte- 
 rians and  Independents,  and  the  reft  of  our  Church's 
 Enemies,  that  'tis  no  wonder  to  find  them  recom- 
 mending a  Book  as  unanfwerable,  which  endea- 
 vours fo  much  to  promote  their  Caufe  again  ft  E- 
 pifcopacy :  And  fo  long  as  it  does  fo,  Mr.  Bingham 
 may  thank  himfelf  for  being  reckoned  an  Encou- 
 rager  of  Diffenters. 
 
 §  XIV.  If  Mr.  Bingham  and  his  Friends,  who 
 are  in  Communion  with  our  Church,  fhall,  to  fupport 
 his  Reputation,  fay,  that  this  Notion  of  the  Church's 
 allowing  fuch  Ordinations  as  were  not  Epifcopal,  is 
 not  a  favouring  of  our  Diffenters,  and  other  Lay- 
 Ordinations,  to  the  endangering  of  Epifcopacy  ,  be- 
 caufe,  it  is  neceffarily  fuppos'd,  that  thefe  Non- 
 Epifcopal  Ordinations  muft  be  allow'd  and  con- 
 firm'd  by  tCiU  'BlfljOpjS,  and  confequently  there 
 muft  be  Bifhops  always  to  confirm  fuch  Non- 
 Epifcopal  Ordinations,  and  fo  there  is  no  Dan- 
 ger of .  deftroying  Epifcopacy  by  fuch  a  fuppos'd 
 Confirming  Power  in  the  Church  :  I  anfwer,  that  I 
 cannot  affent  to  this,  for  thefe  following  Reafons. 
 
 i  ft.  Becaufe  it  never  has  been  proved,  that 
 Bifhops  have  any  fuch  Confirming  Power. 
 
 b  idly. 
 
xviii         The   PREFACE. 
 
 2dly.  Becaufe  fuch  a  Confirming  Power  would? 
 in  its  own  natural  Ccnfequence,  .be  deftrvblive  of 
 Epifcopacy  it  [elf,  For,  if  Lay-Ordinations  to  the 
 Office  of  a  Biflwp  may  be  confirmed  by  Epifco- 
 pally-Ordairfd  Bifhops,  and  Perfons  may  officiate 
 in  that  Office,  by  Virtue  of  this  Confirmation,  with- 
 out Epifcopal  Ordination  ;  then  "'twill  come  to  pafs, 
 that  there  may  be  Valid  Bifhops  in  the  Church 
 C  who  for  that  Reafon  will  be  real  Bifhops  ]  with- 
 out Epifcopal  Ordination  -,  thefe  Z^-Ordain'd 
 Bifhops  muft  then  be  vefted  with  all  the  Powers 
 of  the  Ep'fcopate,  without  Epifcopal  Ordination, 
 confequently  they  alfo  will  have  the  fuppos'd  Con- 
 firming Power,  and  then  they  alfo  may  confirm 
 other  Lay-Ordain*  d  Biflwps  ;  and  thefe  I  aft  may 
 confirm  others,  and  fo  on,  till  the  Lay-Ordain'd 
 Bifhops  become  vaftly  Super  tour  in  Number  and 
 Power  to  the  Epifcopally- Ordain  d  Bifhops,  and  fo 
 at  laft,  by  reafon  of  the  Deceafe  of  Epifcopally- 
 Ordain'd  Bifhops,  there  may  be  none  but  Lay- 
 Ordain  d  Bifiops  in  the  Church,  and  thus  all  E- 
 pifcopal  Ordination  may  be  utterly  rooted  out  ', 
 which  flews,  that  this  fuppos'd  Confirming  Power 
 is  deftruftive  of  the  'Very  Office,  that  is  fuppos'd, 
 to  be  vefted  with  it ',  viz.  the  Office  of  an  Epifco- 
 pally-Ordain'd  Bifhop,  and  confequently  is  an  In- 
 confiftency  and  Contradiction  to  it  felf,  and  there- 
 fore is  nothing  but  a  rneer  Fancy  ',  for  it  cannot 
 be  fuppos'd,  that  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  who  is 
 infinite  Wifdom  it  felf,  would  eftablifh  Epifcopal 
 Ordination  in  his  Church,  and  veft  Epifcopally-Or- 
 dain'd  Biflwps  with  a  Power  or  Commiffion,  of 
 Confirming  Lay-Ordain'd  pretended  Bifhops,  and 
 thereby  authorize  them  at  laft  to  deftroy  his  own 
 Inftitution  in  the  Order  of  Epifcopal] y-Ordain'd 
 Bifhops  :  This  is  a  Contraditlion   fo  grofs,    that 
 
 Men 
 
The   PREFACE.  xix 
 
 Men  who  invent  it,  muft  not  charge  it  on  ottr  Lord'*: 
 Appointment,  hut  take  it  to  themfelves,  as  an  Inven- 
 tion of  their  own,  and  not  be  offended  with  thofe 
 who  cannot  fwatlow  fo  great  an  Abfurdity,  It  would 
 he  well,  if  fuch  Men  would  but  confider  how  pro- 
 ductive and  fruitful  Error  k  ;  for  we  fee  in  the  Cafe 
 How  before  us,  that  the  corrupt  Popijh  Doblrine  of 
 the  Validity  of  Lay- Baptifm,  has  brought  forth  ano- 
 ther very  dangerous  Error,  namely,  the  Validity  of 
 Lay- Ordination,  to  fupport  and  uphold  it, 
 
 §  XV.  If  any  one  Jliall  ask  me,  why  1,  who  am 
 but  a  Laick,  &c.  concern  my  felf  fo  much  about 
 thefe  Matters,  and  exprefs  fo  great  a  Zeal  againft^ 
 not  only  Laymens  Baptizing,  but  alfo  the  Churches 
 Confirming  fuch  their  Baptifms  ?  I  anfwer,  That  I 
 think  my  Zeal  and  Concern  fljould  be  offcnfive  to 
 none,  who  are  the  True  Friends  of  the  Churchy 
 and  as  for  others  who  may  blame  me  for  Diffenting 
 from  their  Notions,  1  care  not  for  their  Cenfures, 
 fnce  in  fo  Diffenting*  I  oppofe  not  any  Practice  of 
 the  Truly  Ancient  Catholick  Church ,  the  Bra- 
 ttice of  fome  Moderns,  particularly  of  the  corrupt 
 Church  of  Rome,  and  her  Followers,  in  the  Matter 
 of  Lay- Baptifm,  I  have  Reafon  to  write  againft, 
 And  alfo  to  oppofe  the  novel  Fancy  of  Confirming 
 juch  falfe  Baptifms  ;  and  my  Reafons  for  thus  op- 
 pofing,  tho*  I  am  but  a   Layman,  are  thefe, 
 
 lift.  Becaufe  I  have  a  Right  to  Valid  Baptifm,  and 
 therefore  am  perfonally  concerned  in  this  weighty  Mat- 
 ter ;  confequently,  I  may  humbly  offer  to  the  Church 
 my  Objections  again ft  what  fome  Perfons  have  endea- 
 voured to  perfuade  me  was  Valid  Baptifm  \  when  lam 
 fo  nearly  concerned,  both  for  my  felf,  and  others 
 committed,  or  that  may  be  committed  to  my  Charge^ 
 in  the  Validity  of  mine  and  their  Baptifm, 
 
 b  2  2d.ly 
 
xx  The   PREFACE. 
 
 2dly.  Becaufe  I  never  could  find  that  the  An- 
 cient Catholick  Church  did,  by  any  Atl  of  hers, 
 allow  of  the  Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  Baptifm  by 
 Perfons  who  were  never  Commiffion  d  by  Bishops  to 
 Baptize  \  nor  could  I  ever  yet  difcover  that  fie 
 confirmed  any  fuch  Baptifms.  And  by  all  that  has 
 hitherto  been  written,  I  am  more  and  more  eft abliflPd 
 in  this,  That  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church  never 
 did  allow  of,  or  confirm  thefe  Falfe  Baptifms, 
 
 3dly.  Becaufe  1  farther  obferve,  That  our  Holy 
 Mother  the  Church  of  England,  by  her  prefent  Ar- 
 ticles, Canons,  and  Kubricks,  is  fo  far  from  Allowing 
 of,  or  Confirming  fuch  Baptifms,  that  fhe  does  for- 
 bid them,  and  by  jttft  Inferences  drawn  from  thefe 
 her  Publick  Acts,  does  make  them  Null  and  Void, 
 
 4thly.  Becaufe  the  contrary  Affertions  and  Pra- 
 ctices of  particular  Men  are  nothing  but  private  Fan- 
 cies, and  may  therefore  be  very  reafonably  opposed  by  any 
 Chriftian,  provided  it  be  done  with  Decency,  and  due 
 Befpetl  to  his  Superiors  ;  fmce  fuch  their  Affertions 
 and  Practices  are  not  countenanced  by  the  Ancient 
 Catholick  Church,  nor  by  the  Publick  Acts  of  the 
 Church  of  England,  whereof  they  are  Members, 
 
 5thiy.  Becaufe  every  Man  has  a  Right  mode  ft - 
 ly  to  propofe  what  may  contribute  to  the  Eftablifi- 
 ing  of  fuch  Great  and  Important  Truths,  as  relate 
 to  the  Welfare  and  Eternal  Happinefs  of  Mens  Souls  ; 
 which  Valid  Baptifm  moft  certainly  does.     And, 
 
 <5thly.  Becaufe  I  hope,  and  I  find  my  Hopes  not 
 fruitlefs,  that  my  poor  Endeavours  may  ftir  up  the 
 Learned  Clergy  to  oppofe  the  Enemies  of  the  Chri- 
 ftian Priefthood,  to  much  better  Purpofe  than  I  can 
 
 pretend  to  do, And  if  they  who  are  offended  at 
 
 n,y  Zeal,  can  prove  what  Mr,  Bingham  has  not 
 been  able  to  do,  That  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church 
 did  allow   of,   the  Validity  of  Baptifm  by   Perfons 
 
 never 
 
The   PREFACE.  xxi 
 
 never  Commiffiorfd,  or  claim  a  Power  to  Confirm 
 them  \  then  I  promife  7em,  that  I  will  fo  far 
 fubmit,  as  to  own,  that  I  have  opposed  the  Ge- 
 neral Senfe  and  Practice  of  the  Catholick  Church  ', 
 that  Jhe  has  determined  the  Difpute  aga'nft  me  \ 
 and  I  will  never  more  controvert  the  Point  with 
 the  Adverfary  about  this  fuppos^d  Matter  of  Fatl  ; 
 But  if  this  be  not  proved,  [  as  I  believe  it  never 
 will  2  'tis  very  Vnre  a  finable,  and  highly  Dange- 
 rous, to  be  always  appealing,  as  fome  do,  to  the 
 great  and  venerable  Name  of  the  Catholick 
 Church,  for  an  erroneous  Practice,  which  [he  never 
 countenanced  ',  for  by  thus  charging  her  with  our  own 
 novel  Fancies  and  Inventions,  we  too  much  copy 
 after  the  Example  of  the  prefent  corrupt  Church 
 of  Rome,  and  thereby  expofe  the  Authority  of 
 the  Ancient  Catholick  Church,  to  the  Scorn  and 
 Contempt  of  the  Enemies  of  Chriftian.ty. 
 
 §  XVI.  Mr.  Bingham  next,  in  the  fixth  Page 
 of  his  Epiflle  Dedicatory,  tells  my  Lord  Bijhop  of 
 Winchefter,  That  I  "  own  there  is  a  Real  and 
 tc  Effectual  Power  in  the  Church  to  withdraw 
 "  the  Sacerdotal  Commifilon  from  Heretical 
 a  and  Schifmatical  Bifhops  and  Prieifc,  and  de- 
 tc  prive  them  of  their  Authority,  and  reduce 
 "  them  to  the  State  of  Laymen  ,  in  which 
 cc  Cafe  [fays  Mr.  Bingham]  he  confefles  their 
 "  Baptiims  are  as  much  unauthoriz'd,  and  un- 
 <c  commifTion'd,  as  thofe  of  any  other  Laymen. 
 cc  But  then  he  pretends  [fays  Mr.  Bingham]  that 
 ct  no  Church,  except  the  Cyprianick  Churches, 
 u  ever  exercis'd  this  Power  againft  Hereticks 
 "  and  Schifmaticks  :  Tho'  their  Commiffions 
 tc  were  Delible,  and  the  Church  had  Power  to 
 J*  Delete  them  3  yet  no  Church,  befide  the  Cy- 
 b  3  M  priankky 
 
xxii  The   PREFACE. 
 
 u  frianick,  ever  a&ually  deleted  them.  So  that 
 "  according  to  him  [fays  Mr.  Bingham]  He- 
 u  reticks  and  Schifmaticks  were  ftill  acknow- 
 "  ledg'd  by  the  Church  to  be  lafiPfttl  Priefts,  in 
 "  actual  atlll  full  Commiflion  ^  and  the  Church 
 u  was  fo  kind  to  them,  even  during  their  He- 
 cC  refy  and  Schifm,  as  to  leave  them  in  full 
 "  PofiCffiOJt  of  their  Sacerdotal  Authority,  and 
 <c  never  withdraw  her  Commiflion  from  them  *, 
 <c  which  is  fuch  a  Reprefentation  of  the  Pri- 
 11  mitive  Church,  and  fo  grand  a  Reflexion  on 
 "  her  Difcipline,  as  I  believe  no  one  ever  made 
 **  before  him,  fays  Mr.  Bingham. 
 
 'This  of  the  Church7 s  Power  to  withdraw  the  Sa- 
 cerdotal Commijfion,  &c  he  colietls  from  a  Paffage 
 in  the  6th  Page  of  my  Preface  to  the  Second  Part 
 of  Lay-Baptifm,  where  I  ask  thus  • 
 
 "  Why  mould  not  the  Spiritual  Supreme  Go- 
 cc  vernors  of  the  Church  have  Power,  to  make 
 "  fuch  Laws,  as  fhall  fy  fat*  limit  an»  reffraftt 
 u  tl)e  COltimtfftOn  they  give  to  Ordain'd  Per- 
 <c  fons,  that  when  they  prefume  to  do  any  thing 
 ct  by  Virtue  thereof,  in  Herefy  or  Schifm,  tfytit 
 
 "  acts  fljall  be  tnfjollp  mill  aim  23oia,  tip 
 
 "  ajttttte  Of  fUCf)  latt)0  ?  St.  Cyprian  and  his 
 <c  Collegues  did  make  Ecclefiaftical  Laws   to 
 
 ct  this  Purpofe  •, and  in  fo  doing,  I  reckon 
 
 <c  that  they  a&ed  like  themfelves,  and  took  the 
 <c  moft  effe&ual  way  to  beat  down  Herefy  and 
 u  Schifm  :  If  the  reft  of  the  Churches  had  made 
 fuch  Laws  as  they  did,  thofe  Laws  being  in 
 fuch  cafe  Univerfal,  might,  in  all  likelihood, 
 
 "  have  preferv'd  the  Unity  of  the  Church 
 
 "  But  thefe  Churches  would  not  concurr  fo  far 
 u  with  that  Blefled  Martyr*,  they  would  not 
 ll  agree  with  him,   to  make   JFniffratC   aMl 
 
 Ct 
 
The  PREFACE.         xxiii 
 
 u  2l0t9)  during  their  Herefy  and  Schifm,  the 
 "  Commifllons  once  receiv'd  by  their  Hereti- 
 u  cal  and  Schifmatical  Subjects  *7  and  becaufe 
 c<  they  were  not  fa  j|&Uir&9  by  fuch  wifh'd-for 
 "  Laws,  therefore  their  Miniftrations  were  by 
 "  thofe  Churches  efteem'd  to  be  Good  and  Va- 
 "  lid  in  themfelves,  tho'  the  Perfons  concerned 
 "  in  them,  both  Adminiftrators  and  Receivers, 
 4C  were  tainted  with  the  finful  Circumftances 
 4C  of  Herefy  and  Schifm  ;  infomuch  that  tho' 
 <c  thefe  Churches  did  not  declare  thofe  Bap- 
 cc  tifms  to  be  Null  and  Void  in  the  Admini- 
 
 <c  ftration,  for  tuant  of  Commtfiion  in  tlje 
 
 u  StomitlttttatOh  vet  thev  reckon'd  that  the 
 "  Spiritual  Graces  were  impeded,  or  hinder'd 
 M  from  defcending  on  the  Baptiz'd,  by  realon 
 4t  of  the  Sins  of  Herefy  and  Schifm,  till  the 
 "  Baptiz'd  return'd  to  the  Unity  of  the  Church, 
 "  and  as  Penitents,  receiv'd  Abfolution  by  Im- 
 **  pofition  of  the  Bifhops  Hands,  &c. 
 
 So  again,  in  the  1 94th  Page  of  the  Second  Part 
 of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid  \  1  tell  the  Reader,  that 
 **  there  were  two  Sorts  of  Difcipline  in  the 
 "  ancient  Churches  about  Heretical  and  Schif- 
 "  matical  Baptifms.  " 
 
 Firft,  "  That  of  the  Cypriamck  Churches, 
 "  who  made  Ecclefiaftical  Laws,  that  if  the 
 cc  Clergy  fell  into  Herefy  or  Schifm,  their  Or- 
 <c  dinations,  and  Otljec  f$)tmfft;ftttOI10  mould 
 "  be  jaull  ailB  SJOlD,  and  that  confequently 
 <c  the  Baptifms  given  by  them,  during  their 
 "  Herefy  or  Schifm,  mould  be  look'd  upon  as 
 
 u  no   Chriftian  Baptifm,   &c.  "  And 
 
 Page  196.   "  So  that  in  Confideration  of  thefe 
 
 C;  Synodical  Decrees,  the  Baptifms  of  the  He- 
 
 u  retical  and   Schifmatical  Subje&s  of  thofe 
 
 b  4  "  Churches 
 
xxiv         The   PREFACE. 
 
 "  Churches  were  term'd  (EJlinutfiO?!?^,    Qtt* 
 
 "  comttittficm't!,  and  gntkffiptfcopal  t  And 
 
 u  why  may  not  the  Bifhops  of  Chrift's  Church 
 a  make  fuch  wholfome  Laws,  if  they  fee  it  fit, 
 iC  for  the  Government  of  their  own  Churches, 
 a  when  they  do  not  impofe  them  [  as  St.  Cy- 
 a  prian  did  not'}  upon  other  Churches,  whofe 
 "  Spiritual  Governors  think  it  not  fit  to  be 
 "  fo  fevere  in  the  Difcipline  of  their  Churches  \ 
 a  as  'tis  plain  the  Churches  did  not,  who 
 "  a&ed  otherwife  than  the  Cyprianick  Churches 
 8  in  this  Matter  ?  "    For, 
 
 Secondly,  "  The  other  Sort  of  Difcipline, 
 ct  which  was  pra&is'd  by  the  Churches,  who 
 "  would  not  come  up  to  the  Cyprianick  Severity, 
 tc  was,  that  they  did  not  jfHtll  iU10  Utafte 
 u  2J0l0  the  Commiffions  of  either  ^  ift,  thofe 
 cc  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Clergymen  who 
 "  had  been  ordain'd  in  the  Church  }  or  idly, 
 u  of  thofe  who  had  been  ordain'd  only  by 
 u  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Bifhops  :  They 
 "  received  ti)tk  ®Mt$  ag  iSOOtl  ant)  (Billfe 
 ct  and   their   Baptifms  in   the  Name   of  the 
 
 "  Trinity to  be  fo  too  ;   fo  that  when 
 
 "  they,  or  any  Baptiz'd  by  them,  return'd 
 "  to  the  Unity  of  the  Church,  they  were  re- 
 Cc  ceiv'd  [  as  all  other  Tenitents  us'd  to  be  ]  by 
 *{  Impofuion  of  Hands  ^  the  Clergy  as  Clergy- 
 ic  men,  and  the  Laicks  as  Lay-Chriftians  al- 
 <c  ready  Baptiz'd,  without  requiring  any  other 
 44  Ordination  or  Baptifm,  than  what  they  had 
 iC  receiv'd  before.  "  And  this  I  immediately 
 prove  in  the  fame  Place,  [  and  frail  now  more 
 largely  prove  it  in  this  Book  ]  from  Mr*  Bingham 
 himfelf 
 
 9  XVII. 
 
The  PREFACE.  xxv 
 
 §  XVII.     From  all  which  the  Reader  may  eaply 
 fee,    that  I  do  not  fuppofe  the  Church  may  have, 
 fuch  a  Power,  as  Mr.  Bingham  fan  fie  s  ',   namely  y 
 a  Tower   of   Deleting   or    Nulling   only   the  Com" 
 miffions  of  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  B/Jhops  and 
 Triefls,    without  Nulling  their  Minifirations  alfo  \ 
 for  fuch  a  Tower  as  this,  is  no  Tower  at  all,  but 
 a  Contradiction  ;  for,  to  what  Turpofe  can  a  Com- 
 miffion  be  fuppos  d  to  be  null'd,     when   the  very 
 Minifirations,    for  it)l)!Cl)   CllOUC  that  Commijfion 
 was  given,  jhall  be  Valid,  thai*  performed  after  the 
 fuppos'' d  Nulling   of  the  Commijfion  ?    This  would 
 imply,    that  a  Commijfion  to  perform  Minifirations 
 is  made  IHtffetttBC,    [fir  his  ineffective,    if   'tis 
 nulTd  ]    and  that  yet  the  Minifirations  are  effell» 
 ed,    by  the  Perfon  whofe  Commijfion    [once  given 
 him  only  to  effect  thofe  Minifirations  ]    is  become 
 Void  and  Ineffectual.     That  is,  the  T  erf  on  has  not 
 Power  to  effect,    and  yet   he  has   Tower   to   effect 
 the  fame  Minifirations,  which  is  a  mofi  palpable,  and 
 grofs   Contradiction.     The  Tower,  which,  I  fuppofe, 
 may  be  in  the  Church,    [  flltO  J  tDlII  ttOt  qttar- 
 
 rel,  o?  tiifptite  tuttft  tljofe  tofja  MitU  tbat 
 
 fljC  IjilS  110  fllCf)  IStofoCr  ]  k  this  5  namely^ 
 a  Tower  of  Making  fuch  Ecclefiaftical  Laws,  as 
 pall  fruflrate  and  void  the  Commiffions  of  Here" 
 tical  and  Schifmatical  Bijhops  and  Triefis,  by 
 Nulling  all  their  Minifirations  performed  in  He" 
 refy  or  Schifm  :  This  Power  [  if  any  fuch  there 
 be  ]  does  effectually,  and  in  Earneft  null  their  Com" 
 miffions  •  when  it  firihs  at,  defiroys  and  nulls 
 the  Minifirations,  for  the  Sake  of  performing  whichy 
 Commiffions  were  inflituted,  and  are  (riven  ',  this 
 makes  the  Commiffions  themfelves  to  be  of  no  Effect 
 At  all,    by  taking    away    the  Validity  of  the  Acts 
 
 pretended 
 
xxvi  The    PREFACE. 
 
 pretended  to  be  done  by  Commijfion  ;    whereas  the 
 Fancy  of  Deleting  or  Nulling  a  Commijfion,    with- 
 out Nulling   the    pretended  Acls    which    ought    to 
 have  been  done  by  Commijfion,   but  were  not,    and 
 reckoning  them  to  be  Valid,    is  a  meer  Jefi  and 
 Banter   upon   the    Defign    of  Giving   and   Nulling 
 Commijfions.       For-,    the    Defign    of  giving    Men 
 Commijfions,   is  to  make  their  Acls    [  appointed  to 
 be   done    by    thofe   Commijfions  ]    Valid   in   Law  ; 
 and  the  End    of  Taking  away,    or  Nulling  Mens 
 Commijfions,    is,    that  they  may  not  perform  fuch 
 Acls  ;    and   that    if  they   do,    they  may  not   be 
 HegftllP    {3al!D  X     But    thefe    Ends    are    wholly 
 frufirated,    by  fuppofwg  the  Alls  of  fuch  Men  to 
 be  Valid  in  Law,    and  their  Commijfions  Null  at 
 the   fame    time  ',    for  hereby  the  very  Giving  and 
 Nulling  of  Commijfions  are  both  made  a  meer  Im~ 
 pertinence,  and  of  no  Effect  at  all,  fince  the  fame 
 Acls  are  Valid  without  Commijfion,   and  therefore 
 the  Commijfion  was  not  necejfary  to  be  given  ',    and 
 confequently,    'twas  but  a  Jefi  to  pretend  to  Null 
 that,    the    Being    or    not    Being    whereof,    has   no 
 Relation  to  the  Validity   of  the  Minifierial  Acls. 
 Such    a   fancy  d  Tower ',    therefore,    I  never  could 
 imagine  to  be  in   the  Church,    becaufe  "'tis  an  In- 
 confiftency    and    Contradiction.     But    the   other,    I 
 know  not  but  the  Church  may  have,   and  'tis  upon 
 this,    that  I  ask    \_  without    de firing   to    determine 
 others  ]     Why  jhould   not   the   Governors    of  the 
 Church  have  fuch  a  Power,    as  St.  Cyprian   and 
 his  Collegues  claim  d  f    namely,    "  to  make  fuch 
 "  Laws,  as  (hall  fo  far  limit  and  reffraut  tfje 
 c{  COUimtffiOn   they   give    to   ordain'd   Per- 
 "  fons,    that  when   they    prefume  to  do  any 
 "  Thing,    by    Virtue   thereof,    in  Herefy    or 
 f  Schifin,  tljCItr  %$$  fljall  be  ttrfjQlfp  0ilU 
 
 "  ffllO 
 
The   PREFACE.        xxvii 
 
 <c  atlB  StOttl,  by  Virtue  of  fuch  Laws?  Eo 
 <c  clefiaftical  Laws,  by  which  their  Ordinations 
 "  and  otfjCt  aSintflrntlOnSS  lhonld  be  $uH 
 *c  nntl  GCttU  T3b/j  is  the  Deleting  Power  I 
 
 talk  of,  and  ash  why  it  fliould  not  be  in  the 
 Church  -,  namely,  a  Power  of  Nulling  and  Making 
 Void  the  Mini  ft  rations  of  Heretical  and  Schifma- 
 tical  Clergymen  ',  a  Power,  for  Example,  of  Null- 
 ing their  Miniftration  of  Baptifm,  and  thereby 
 making  their  Comm-ffion  to  Baptizje, Null  and  Void  \ 
 for  ^tis  Nonfenfe  to  fuppofe  a  Commiffion  to  re- 
 main Good  and  Valid,  when  at  the  fame  timey 
 the  Ads,  by  Inftitution  confin'd  to  the  Com- 
 miflion,  and  done  by  Virtue,  and  in  Purfuance 
 of  that  Commiffion,  are  Null  and  Void.  The 
 Nullity  of  fuch  Ads  argues  the  Nullity  of  the 
 Commffion,  by  which  they  were  faid  to  be  done  m7 
 and  fo  does  the  Nullity  of  the  Commiffion  argue 
 the  Nullity  of  the  Ads  ;  becaufe  both  the  Commif- 
 fion, and  the  Ads,  are  equally  of  a  pofitive  Na- 
 ture, equally  inftituted,  infeparably  connetled  to- 
 gether by  the  Inftitution ;  the  Alls  had  no  Validity 
 before  they  were  thus  connetled  to  the  Commiffion ; 
 and  feparate  from  the  Commiffion,  the  Inftitution 
 provides  not  for  their  Validity  ',  confequently  they 
 are  of  the  fame  Nature  as  inftituted  ;  therefore  what 
 is  true  of  one,  is  true  of  the  other  }  and  confequently, 
 if  fuch  Alls  are  Null,  the  Commiffion  is  Null  at 
 the  fame  time  ;  and  if  the  Commiffion  is  Null, 
 the  Ads  at  the  fame  time  are  alfo  Null.  St.  Cy- 
 prian and  his  Collegues  did  claim  and  exercife  a 
 Power  of  thus  Deleting,  Nulling,  and  Making 
 Void  the  Commiffions  and  Miniftrations  of  Here- 
 tical and  Schifmatical  Clergymen  ',  they  did  not 
 inconfiftently  feparate  thefe  from  one  another,  fup- 
 pofw?  one  to  be  Valid,  the  other  to  be  Null ;   but 
 
 fiew'd, 
 
xxviii       The  PREFACE. 
 
 Jhew'd,  that  they  nulfd  the  Commifftons,  by  Nutt- 
 ing the  Miniftrations  alfo  ;  their  Ecclepaftical 
 Laws  ftruck  at,  and  voided  both  ',  and  the  other 
 Churches  nulfd  neither  the  Orders,  nor  Miniftra- 
 tions of  fuch  their  Clergymen  :  As  they  received 
 their  Miniftrations  for  Valid,  fo  they  did  their 
 Orders  I  ike  wife  ',  as  ]%a!l  largely  be  proved  front 
 Mr.  Bingham  himfelf,  in  the  Sequel  of  this  Dif- 
 courfe. 
 
 §  XVIII.  His  State  of  the  prefent  Contro- 
 verfy,  and  indeed  all  his  Book,  except  the  Ap- 
 pendix, has  already  been  fufficiently  anfwerd  by 
 the  Reverend  and  Learned  Dr.  Brett,  in  his 
 cc  farther  Enquiry  into  the  Judgment  and 
 "  Pra&ice  of  the  Primitive  Church,  &c  " 
 And  it  would  be  needlefs  for  me  to  fay  any 
 Thing  after  that  Reverend  and  Learned  Gentle- 
 man,  were  it  not  for  Mr.  Bingham'*  magifte- 
 rial  Way  of  calling  upon  Dr.  Brett  and  me,  to 
 fubmit  to  his  pretended  Demon ftrations  \  which 
 are  no  more,  than  meer  ambiguous,  fallacious  In- 
 finuations,  double  Meanings,  and  falfe  Reafonings, 
 that  require  a  much  more  fevere  Animadverfion, 
 than  the  great  Candor  of  that  excellent  Terfon 
 would  allow  him  to  make  upon  them-,  and  which 
 I  therefore  think  neceffary  to  be  done  by  fome  Body 
 elfe  ;  that  Mr.  Bingham  may  know-,  what  Treat- 
 ment  his  Way  of  writing  Controverfy  does  juftly 
 deferve,  and  not  fanfy,  that  the  Reverend  Dotlor's 
 very  great  and  wideferv'd  Civility  is  due  to  him 
 upon  Account  of  any  good  Learning  he  has 
 ftnw'd  [  for  he  has  ftiew  d  none,  that  can  be  truly 
 calVd  fo  ]  in  this  particular  Difpute  ;  for,  his 
 Quoting  a  Multitude  of  Councils  and  Fathers  to 
 110  PttrpOfCj    tho*  it   Jhews    that  he  has  looked 
 
 into 
 
The    PREFACE.         xxix 
 
 into  abundance  of  Booh,  yet  C  if  ^e  nieans  as 
 he  applies  them'}  it  plainly  proves,  that  tho*  he 
 has  read,  he  has  not  learn'd  them  ',  for  how  can 
 a  Man  be  faid  to  have  truly  learn'd,  what  he 
 falfly  interprets,  and  mifapplies  to  a  wrong  Pur* 
 pofe  f 
 
 §  XIX.  He  is  fo  far  ingenuous,  as  to  own% 
 p.  21.  that  he  is  u  at  a  lofs  to  underftand 
 u  St.  Jerome's  Reafoning,  &c.  "  And  p.  37. 
 that  "  he  will  not  pretend  to  be  exaft  Matter  " 
 of  what  he  calls  a  u  difficult  PafTage  of  St.  Je- 
 M  rome  •,  "  viz.  in  St.  Jerome'*  Dialogue  againfi 
 the  Lucifer ians  *,  when  that  very  Paffage  is  no 
 more  difficult  to  be  underftood,  than  any  other  in 
 the  Dialogue  ;  and  yet,  for  all  this,  he  would 
 have  his  Opponents  to  fubmit  to  his  fanciful  In- 
 terpretation of  that  Dialogue,  againfi  what  they 
 are  f at  is f yd,  and  have  provd  to  be  the  true 
 Meaning  of  it  \  and  which  he,  who  owns  Mmfelf 
 to  be  no  exad  Matter  of  it,  mufi  not  pretend 
 to  interpret  to  the  Satisfaction  of  thofe,  who  are 
 not  to  be  led  by  fuch  unexafb  Writers,  as  find 
 Difficulties  in  eafy  Tallages,  that  make  againfi 
 themfelves. 
 
 His  very  long  Appendix  does  chiefly  confifi  of 
 frequent  Repetitions  of  what  thefe  Papers  are  pur- 
 pofely  defigrfd  to  anfwer  ;  and,  therefore,  I  have 
 no  need  here  to  be  particular  about  any  Thin?  of 
 the  Commiffion  of  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks, 
 which  is  fo  largely  handled  in  the  following  Sup- 
 plement ',  and  effectually  anfwer s  all  his  Pofitivenefs 
 about  them,  fo  often  repeated  in  his  Appendix. 
 /  fin  all,  therefore,  in  this  place  only  take  Notice 
 of  fome  remarkable  Pajfages  therein,  which  do 
 fully  demonfirate   the   Temper  of  our   Adverfary, 
 
 and 
 
xxx  The  PREFACE. 
 
 and  the  hard  Shifts  he  is  put   to,   to   hold  up  his 
 Head  in  this  Difpute. 
 
 §  XX.  In  the  7th  Page  of  his  Appendix,  he 
 accofis  me  with  an  Air  of  Authority,  much  above 
 his  Station  ',  "  3  require  him,  I  fays  he  ]  either 
 "  to  make  good  his  AfTertion,  [i.  e.  of  the  Prieft- 
 hood  of  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks"^  "  which  I  am 
 <c  confident  [very  natural /]  he  can  never  do  ; 
 <c  or  elfe  confefs  his  Errors,  and  put  an  end  to 
 "  this  whole  Debate,  fa  for  fig  CQncerttS  tfje 
 "  ^iffO?P  Of  tfje  CfjttrCf)  '■>  and  then  he  may 
 "  difpute,  for  me,  with  whom  he  pleafes, '' 
 fays  our  Hiftorian. 
 
 I  never  knew  that  Mr.  Bingham,  a  private 
 Trie  ft,  and  one  who  has  no  actual,  particular  Au- 
 thority over  me,  as  my  Parijh-Prieft,  had  Power 
 tO  require  me  to  do  that  publick  Penance,  which 
 he  himfelf  is  fo  loth  to  fubmit  to,  tW  there  is  a 
 great  deal  of  Reafon  he  fhould,  namely,  to  "  £0fi- 
 
 fefS  CcrOJSu  This  Epifcopal  Air  is  too  ha- 
 fiily  affunfd  ',  but  to  let  that  pafs,  he  fia/l  fee,  that 
 tho  I  am  not  bound  to  fubmit  to  his  Injunction, 
 yet  for  the  fake  of  others,  who  may  be  mifled  by 
 him,  I  have  made  good  my  Aflertions  in  fuch 
 a  manner,  as  will  abundantly  fatisfy  the  Impartial, 
 that  he,  of  all  Men  living,  has  no  Caufe  to  be 
 thus  affuming,  and  that  I  have  no  fuch  Errors  to 
 recant,    as   he  takes  upon  him  to  retJUtCe  me  to 
 
 confers* 
 
 §  XXI.  To  falve  the  Difficulties  he  is  reduced 
 to,  by  engaging  in  this  Difpute  ',  he  has  now  given 
 us  a  new  Difcovery,  in  the  19th  Page  of  his  Ap- 
 pendix ;  namely,  his  own  fanfied  cC  threefold  Ac- 
 At  ceptation  of  the  Word  Laymen. " 
 
The   PREFACE.         xxxi 
 
 ift,  u  Catholick  Laymen,  who  never  had  any 
 "  Pretence  to  Sacerdotal  Authority,  or  Com- 
 "  miffion  in  the  Church. 
 
 idly,  "  Heretical  Laymen,  who  pretended 
 "  to  have  a  Sacerdotal  Com  miffion,  when  they 
 **  really  had  none.  And  he  inflames  the  No- 
 va tians,  and  fays,  he  has  fhew*d  them  to  be  fo  in 
 the  Ancient  Church ',  when  'tis  manifeft,  that  the 
 Council  of  Nice  ownd,  and  himfelf  alfo  acknow- 
 ledges them  to  have  been  Clergymen  in  Valid  Or- 
 ders ',  and  the  Churches  who  reckoned  the  Baptifms 
 of  thefe  his  fecond  Sort  of  pretended  Laymen  to 
 have  been  Vdid,  did  efleem  thefe  his  fanfied  Lay- 
 men to  have  Valid,  becaufe  indeleted  Epifcopal 
 Orders  \  as  we  ft  all  hereafter  fee  proved,  even  from 
 his  own  Account  of  them- 
 
 3dly,  His  I  aft  Sort  of  pretended  Laymen,  he 
 calls,  "  Such  Laymen,  as  once  had  a  true  Sa- 
 "  cerdotal  Commiffion,  but  were  afterward  de- 
 "  priv'd  of  their  Commiffion,  by  the  fame 
 "  Power  of  the  Church  which  firft  gave  it, 
 "  and  fo  were  reduc'd  to  the  State  and  Con- 
 "  dition  of  Laymen  again,  fays  he.  And  thefe 
 alfo  I  have  proved  from  himfelf,  were  not  Laymen 
 in  the  Opinion  of  thofe  Churches  who  held  their 
 Baptifms  to  have  been  Valid. 
 
 §  XXII.  The  Reafon  why  he  invented  thefe 
 two  I  aft  Sorts  of  pretended  Laymen,  is,  becaufe  he 
 expetls  to  be  charg'd  with  Contradictions ;  for 
 [  as  he  acknowledges  in  the  fame  Page  ]  "  in 
 "  the  former  Part  of  his  Scholaftical  Hiftory, 
 «  he  has  faid,  that  the  (Llftirpfl)  TBapttflll  Of 
 "  LajnilCIl  was  not  decreed  to  be  Valid,  by 
 €t  the  Determination  of  flfl#  General  CQIUI* 
 *C  ClL  "     Now  he    pretends    "  to  prove,    that 
 
 "  the 
 
xxxii        The   PREFACE. 
 
 "  the  Baptifm  of  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks, 
 
 "  is  but  tfte  TBnptifm  of  Lapmen,  by  the 
 
 11  Determination  of  all  the  General  Councils-," 
 and  that  tbefe  fuppos'd  Lay-Baptifms  were  de- 
 termined to  be  Valid  by  thefe  Councils,  is  the 
 Defign  of  his  Second  Part  to  infinuate  ',  which 
 not  only  lt  carries  the  Face  and  Appearance  of 
 ct  a  Contradiction,  r  but  is  as  real  and  dirett 
 a  Contradiction  in  'Terms,  as  any  can  pofftbly  be. 
 And  he  is  fo  well .  aware  of  this,  that  he  begs 
 his  Adverfaries  not  to  charge  him  with  it,  which 
 he  fiill  believes  they  will  do,  and  he  is  very  much 
 in  the  right  to  fuppofe  fo  ',  and  therefore,  to 
 fhelter  him felf  from  the  Force  of  fuch  their  Charge, 
 he  has  invented  this  new  Whim  of  a  threefold  Sort 
 of  Laymen,  which  will  not  at  all  defend  him  ;  for 
 the  Fallacy  of  it  is  fo  very  weak  and  thin,  that 
 the  fmallefi  Strength  can  eafily  pierce  thro*  it. 
 
 §  XXIII.  In  the  21  ft  Page  of  his  Appendix, 
 he  begs  again  not  to  be  charged  with  Contradi- 
 ctions ',  he  defires  I  would  not  multiply  Difputes 
 about  hard  Terms,  &c.  Poor  Gentleman  !  his 
 Task  is  very  difficulty  when  he  can't  prevail  with 
 his  Adverfaries  to  let  him  go  on  quietly  with  his 
 Contradictions  ',  nor  perfuade  'em  to  let  him  vfe 
 ambiguous  Terms,  but  they  will  ftill  be  expofing 
 the  one,  and  difcovering  the  Fallacies  of  the  other. 
 But  if  his  Cafe  be  thus  hard,  he  muft  bear  with 
 it,  fince  'tis  of  his  own  making.  For  his  Contra" 
 ditlions  cannot  be  hid,  he  himfelf  difcovers  'em  5 
 witnefs  the  Contradiction,  which  in  this  very  Page 
 makes  him  ftoop  fo  low  ',  for  here  he  owns,  that 
 "  in  the  Firft  Part  of  the  Scholaftical  Hiftory 
 *  he  aliened,  that  heretical  Ij^iefifeS  were  in 
 *'  fome  Senfe  allowed  to  be  Priefts,  and  their 
 
The   PREFACE.       xxxiii 
 "  ©jWnatton  to  be  (UaliD  even  after  Dd 
 
 u  Q7diMtiO\U  "  j4nd  this  he  does  not  recant. 
 So  far  is  he  from  doing  fo^  that  he  explains  it? 
 by  faying^  that  "  he  itill  allows  the  Character 
 4t  of  a  P#e(f  DegKffieB  for  Herefy,  by  the 
 "  Cenfures  of  the  Church,  to  be  Jn&elible  J  " 
 And  yet  ajferts  a  little  lower,  that  cc  Hereticks 
 u  were  depriv'd  of  all  atttfjOtftp  an&  COltl* 
 "  ttliftton*   and,  during  their  Herefy,  Benp'D 
 
 "  all  ©acerootal  ISomts,  ass  irsucTj  as  anp 
 
 "  Otfjer  LapitlEtU  "  And  this  he  takes  "  to 
 (t  be  HO  COtlttatltCtfOn  to  what  he  faid  be- 
 M  fore,  but  fairly  confident  with  it,  in  the 
 a  Underftanding  of  any  intelligent  and  unpre- 
 "  judic'd  Reader.  "  Wonderful  Conftftency  !  The 
 Sacerdotal  Character  is  SlttfKUMCj  yet  the  Priefi 
 is  "  DEP2ttl1l  Of  ail  Sacerdotal  Powers,  ftg 
 u  tlltlCfj  as  any  other  Lapmnt*  "  Laymen  are 
 abfolutely  without  the  Sacerdotal  Character,  the 
 Priefi  then  is  abfolutely  without  the  Sacerdotal 
 Character,  and  yet  he  has  it,  becaufe  'tis  Inde- 
 lible \  if  thefe  Things  are  confiftenty  intheVnder- 
 flanding  of  fuch  as  Mr.  Bingham  calls  JntClft- 
 0£Ht  5  /  defire  not  to  be  one  of  Ins  Company  of 
 Intelligents^  and  I  doubt  not  but  judicious  and 
 unprejudiced  Readers  will  fcorn  to  have  it  faidy 
 that  their  Under fianding  is  of  fo  low  a  Degree  as 
 this  would  make  it. 
 
 §  XXIV.  In  the  $\fi  Page  of  his  Appendix," 
 he  fays,  "  he  is  a  little  at  a  Lofs  to  know: 
 44  what  I  would  have,  "  becaufe  I  object  againfi 
 a  Form  of  Confirmation  he  proposed  to  the  lafi 
 Convocation,  That  (i)  "  it  is  not  more  ancient 
 
 (i)  Preface  to  the  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  p.9; 
 
 t  "  than 
 
xxxiv        The   PREFACE. 
 
 a  than    the  Ninth  Century,    and   by   Confe- 
 44  quence  wants  the  Noble  Character  of  what 
 
 44  is  Cathoikk,  $.  e.  has  antiquity,  Qnfoer* 
 
 "  (lllitp,  and  COtlfent  5  and  he  might  with 
 "  05  ntUCi)  KcafOtt  have  given  an  Inftance 
 44  of  Image- Wor (hip,  and  Invocation  of  Saints, 
 ct  from  the  fecond  Council  of  Nice ;  "  upon 
 which  my  Objection,  he  asks  me,  "  Why  fo  much 
 44  Anger  againfl;  an  innocent  Form  of  Prayer  ? 
 44  Since  a  Man  may  as  reafonably  object  a- 
 44  gainft  fome  of  our  Common  Prayers,  that 
 44  they  are  taken  out  of  the  Mafs-Book,  as 
 44  this  Author  does  againft  this  Form,  becaufe 
 44  'tis  only  fctch'dfrom  the  Ninth  Century.— 
 44  But  if  our  Author  is  not  more  fparing  in 
 ic  fuch  Objections  as  thefe,  I  ihall  be  oblig'd 
 44  to  be  a  little  more  fparing  in  my  Anfwers," 
 E  fays  Mr.  Bingham.  ]  And  in  this  I  heartily 
 believe  him,  becaufe  fuch  Objections  do  effectually 
 flop  his  Mouth,  and  even  oblige  him  to  be  fparing 
 in  his  Anfwers  to  them  *,  becaufe  in  Truth,  he 
 cannot  anfwer  them  to  any  Purpofe. 
 
 §  XXV.  And  novo,  that  he  may  no  longer  be 
 at  a  Lofs,  /  will  tell  him  what  1  would  have  ;  and 
 he  himfelf  needed  not  to  have  been  thus  at  a  Lofs, 
 if  he  would  have  loolCd  but  four  Lines  farther  than 
 the  Paragraph  he  has  tranfcritfd  ;  for  I  would  have 
 him  Prefent  the  Convocation,  with  an  Ancient  Ca- 
 tholick  Form  of  CQttfirftU!Tg  Baptifms, performed 
 by  Perfons  who  never  were  Commiffion'd  by  Bi- 
 fiiops  to  Baptize.  This  is  what  I  would  have,  and 
 this  is  what  he  cannot  lay  before  the  Convocation  ; 
 but  inftead  of  fuch  an  Ancient  Catholick  Form,  he 
 prefent s  them  with  a  Form  of  Prayer  made  in  the 
 Ninth  Century^  to   be  faid  over  Penitents  return- 
 
 ing 
 
The   PREFACE.         xxxv 
 
 ing  from  their  Herefy  or  Schifm,  to  the  Communion 
 •f  the  Church,  which  he  propofes  for  the  Exemplar 
 of  a  Form  of  Confirmation,  to  be  made  for  fuch  at 
 were  Baptized  by  our  Hereticks  and  Schifmatich , 
 Aden  who  never  received  any  Epifcopal  Commiffion 
 at  all  to  Baptize.  J  tell  him,  that  his  proposed  Form 
 was  not  made,  nor  us'd  for  fitch  a  Purpofe,  and 
 I  prove  it  in  the  8th,  9th,  and  10th  Pages  of 
 that  Preface.  /  tell  him  farther,  That  his  pro- 
 fos9d  Form  was  not  more  Ancient  than  the  9th  Cen- 
 tury, a  very  corrupt  Age  of  the  Church  ;  and  there- 
 fore, if  it  had  been  appointed  for  the  purpofe  of  Coif- 
 firming  Lay-Baptifm,  as  it  was  not,  it  would  not 
 have  been  a  Catholick  Form  ;  it  would  not  have  had 
 the  Noble  Characters  of  Antiquity,  Vniverfality,  and 
 Confent,  which  are  certainly  necefTary  for  the  re- 
 commending of  a  Form,  Valid  for  fo  great  a  Pur- 
 pofe :  And  if  he  can  trace  fuck  a  pretended  Con- 
 firming Power,  and  fuch  a  fuppos'd  Confirming  Form9 
 no  higher  than  the  %th  or  9th  Centuries,  I  repeat 
 it  again,  that  he  may  with  as  good  Reafon  produce 
 the  Second  Council  of  Nice,  to  recommend  Image- 
 Worjhip,  and  Praying  to  Saints,  as  only  fuch  an 
 exemplary  Form,  to  confirm  Lay-Baptifm  by  ;  be- 
 caufe,  the  one  ftands  upon  as  Good,  and  as  Ancient 
 a  Foundation  as  the  other  ;  Nay,  the  Corruptions  of 
 that  Council  claim  the  Preference  by  far,  if  thefe 
 Things  are  to  be  efiimated  and  valued  by  the  Num- 
 bers of  Men,  who  efpous'd  them  ;  for,  this  Form 
 proposed  for  Confirming  of  Lay-Baptifm,  was  not 
 us  d  for  fuch  a  Purpofe  in  the  9th  Century  ;  nay, 
 this  End,  for  which  it  was  proposed,  appears  to  be 
 nothing  but  a  fingular  Peculiarity  of  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham'* own  Contrivance  \  for  he  has  produced  no 
 Vouchers  to  prove  that  it  was  ever  made,  or  us*d 
 at  all,  for  Confirming  of  Baptifms  by  Perfons  never 
 
 c  2  CommiJfiorPd  1 
 
xxxvi       The    PREFACE. 
 
 Commiffiend :  And  thus  he  may  fee  a  why  fo  much 
 ?  Anger  \_as  be  terms  it'}  not  cc  againft  an  Inno- 
 "  cent  Form  of  Prayer,  but  the  mifchievous  End 
 find  Furpofe,  for  which  he  propounded  it  to  the  Con- 
 vocation  ;  and  this  he  might  as  eaftly  have  feen  be- 
 fore,  (if  he  had  been  pleased}  in  my  faid  Preface, 
 where  I  exprejly  tell  him,  Page  9.  That  u  he  can 
 "  produce  no  Authority  at  all,  for  that  fO?t  Of 
 
 "  Confirmation  " '->  And  that  he  "  might  as 
 
 tc  reafonably  have  produe'd  the  Authority  of  " 
 the  Second  Council  of  Nice,  u  for  the  eftablifh- 
 cc  ing  of"  their  "  Idolatrous  Practices,  as  this 
 "  Form  of  Confirmation  for  the  CtHttpIat  of 
 cc  a  Form,  to  be  made  to  confirm  the  Falfe  Bap- 
 ct  tifms  of  thofe,  who  have  been  only  wa/h'd 
 tc  or  fprinkled  by  OttC  fymt\t^%  nttO  ©Cljlf 
 
 "  tnaticfcs,  tu&o  U)cre  uzut  Comnnfliott'o 
 
 "  to  Baptize,  if  his  Exemplary  Form  bad  been 
 ct  us'd  to  Confirm  fuch  Falfe  Baptifms,  as  indeed 
 u  it  was  not.  "  And  1  give  Reafons  immediate- 
 ly after ,  why  it  was  not  us3d  for  the  Purpofe  he  pro- 
 pounded it  ;  and  he  has  not  anfwerd  the  Reafons 
 I  there  produced. 
 
 §  XXVI.  And  now,  what's  become  of  his  Af- 
 fertion,  that  "  a  Man  may  as  reafonably  object 
 "  againft  fome  of  our  Common  Prayers,  that  they 
 "  are  taken  out  of  the  Mafs-Book  ?  &c.  The  Ob- 
 jection is  againft  tljC  Dcfiglt  Of  Mr.  BinghamV 
 PropofaL  Are  any  of  our  Common  Prayers  de- 
 figtfd  for  fuch  Uncatholick  Purpofes  ?  No  cer- 
 tainly, the  End  of  every  Prayer  in  our  Liturgy, 
 even  of  thofe  taken  out  'of  the  Mafs-Book,  is  cer- 
 tainly Scriptural  and  Catholick  ;  as  the  End  for 
 which  he  propofes  his  Form,  moft  certainly  fg  HOt  X 
 but  thus  he  advances  his  own  Uncatholick  Pur- 
 pofe 
 
The    PB.EFACE.       xxxvii 
 
 pofe,  to  an  Equality  with  the  undoubted  Catho- 
 lick  Deiign  of  our  Common  Prayers  ;  his  pro- 
 pos'd  Form  of  Prayer  is  juftly  objected  againft,  not 
 for  it  felf,  but  for  the  novel  Purpofe  of  Confirming 
 Lay-Baptifm^  to  which  [without  any  Catholick  Pre* 
 cedent  for  fo  doing  ]  he  would  have  it  apply  d  \  and 
 then  truly,  that  this  his  pretty  Invention  may  not  be 
 blafted,  he  fays,  "  A  Man  may  fig  reafOttablp  ob- 
 "  jeft  againft:  Tome  of  our  Common  l&apcrSL  * 
 A  hopeful  way  of  anfwering  Objections,  to  make  it 
 B&  tCafOttHble  to  objeti  againft  our  Common- 
 Prayers  [which  are  all  apply* d  to  truly  Catho- 
 lick  and  Apoftolick  Purpofes]  as  his  to  objeti 
 again]}  his  Propofal  of  Confirming  Lay-Baptifms  by 
 his  propounded  Form  of  Prayer,  without  any  Apo- ' 
 ftolick  Rule,  or  Catholick  Precedent  for  fo  doing. 
 If  this  be  all  that  he  can  fay  in  Anfwer  to  fuch  Ob~ 
 jeclions,  he  may  very  well  tell  us,  that  he  "  ffjnll 
 "  bZ  OblfgCQ  to  be  fparing  in  his  Anfwers  -,  " 
 for,  in  Truth ,  he  \$  GbllfJED*  for  his  own  Reputa- 
 tion's fake,  to  make  no  Anfwers  to  fuch  Objections, 
 fo  long  as  he  anfwers  "*em  no  better,  than  by  thus 
 Levelling  the  Dignity  of  our  Common  Prayers, 
 with  that  of  his  own  novel  Invention. 
 
 §  XXVII.  And  now  that  I  am  confident?* 
 A?r.  Bingham'*  New  Propofal  made  to  the  loft 
 Convocation,  of  Confirming  Lay-Baptifms,  I  beg 
 Leave  here  to  obferve,  againft  Juch  a  fuppos*d  Con- 
 firming Power  : 
 
 I  ft,  That  our  Saviour  has  commanded  his  Apo* 
 files,  and  their  Succeffors  the  Bijhops,  and  fuch  as 
 are  Commiffion*d  by  them,  a&ually  to  Baptize  all 
 thofe  who  are  capable  of,  and  have  not  received  Bap- 
 tifm  at  their  Hands  \  this  is  plain  from  the  In- 
 ftitntion    of   Baptifm,    and    other    Places    of  Holy^ 
 
 c  3  Script  me  \ 
 
xxxviii     The  PREFACE. 
 
 Scripture  ;  whereby  "'tis  evident ,  that  he  forbids  them 
 Denying  or  Refufing  to  Baptise  thofe  capable  Pcr- 
 fons  who  were  never   Baptized  by  them, 
 
 2dly,  Hence  it  follows,  that  Chrifi  forbids  all 
 Atts  of  Confirmation,  fuppofd  to  be  performed  by 
 them  inftead  of  that  Baptifm  which  he  requires 
 them  adhially  to  admimfter. 
 
 3dly,  The  Law  of  Chrift,  about  Baptizing,  is 
 plain  and  obvious  ;  but,  as  yet,  there  is  no  Ap- 
 pe avarice  of  any  Law  of  his  about  Confirming,  inftead 
 of  Baptizing  thofe  who  never  were  Baptized  by  his 
 Commijfwnd  Officer  Si  So  that,  by  all  that  has  been 
 difcoveid  of  thrift? s  Witt  and  Pleafure,  every  ca- 
 pable Perfon,  that  has  not  been  Baptized  by  one  of 
 his  Commiffiotfd  Officers,  mnft  be  Baptized  by  one. 
 Upon  this  I  beg  to  know,  by  what  Law  can  an  In- 
 feriour  Power  £viz.  that  of  Bijhops,  which  is  Infe- 
 riour  to  ChriJFs~}  JDlfpCttfe  wit^  *bit  Superiour  Law 
 of  actually  Baptizing,  in  any  Cafe  what fo ever  ?  If 
 there  be  not  produc  d  a  Law,  as  plain  and  obvious, 
 and  as  binding  and  obliging,  for  this  Difpenfing 
 Power,  as  that  other  Law,  which  requires  the  Clergy 
 £  Perfons  fir  ft  authorized  by  the  Bijhops  ]  to  Bap' 
 tize,  our  Minds  will  fill  miftruft  the  Validity  of 
 this  Difpenfing  Power,  and  be  continually  inclind 
 to  an  incurable  Averfion  againft  it,  which  will  ne- 
 cejfarily  arife  from  the  prevailing  Evidence  and  Con- 
 vict ion  of  that  other  Law  of  Baptizing,  which  is 
 Supreme.  And  the  more  we  give  our  felves  Leave 
 to  enquire,  we  Jhall  be  fo  much  the  more  diffatisfyd 
 with  the  fan/yd  Validity  of  that  Baptifm,  which  in 
 Facl  [_  notwithflanding  any  Bifhop's  Attempt  of 
 Confirmation  ]  was  IlCiiet  actually  adminiftred  to 
 its,  by  one  whom  the  In  ft  it  ut  ion  authorizes  and  com^ 
 mamds  to  Baptize,  and  of  whom  we  are,  by  the  fame 
 Jnftitution,  required  to  receive  Baptifm,    £or,  if  after 
 
 fuch 
 
The  PREFACE.        xxxix 
 
 fftch  Attempt   of  Confirmation,  it  JJwuld  be  atFd, 
 Was  the  Man  ever  really  and  truly  Baptized  by  one 
 ff  thefe    infiitnted  Baptiz.ers,  or  no  ?    The  Anfwer 
 will,    in  Truth,    be  ft  ill  the  fame  after,  as  it  was 
 before  the  fupposd  Confirmation  ;  namely,  he  never 
 was    aHually   Baptized    by    an   infiitnted  Baptiz.er, 
 the  Bifliop,  or  one  Commijfiori'd  by  him.     And  if  it 
 fhould  be  faid,  that  he  is  now  interpretatively  fo 
 Baptized,    the  fame  Difficulty   will  ftill  return ;  he 
 is  not  actually  Baptized  by  one,  whom  the  Inftitv- 
 tion  authoriz.es  and  commands  to  Baptise  •   and  'tis 
 Baptifm   aclually  to  be  aiven  by  Commiffion'd  Per- 
 fins,  which  the  Jnfiitution  does   require.      For  this 
 Law  of  the  Inftitution  was    delivered   by  the   Sove- 
 reign Head  of  the  Church,  to  his  Apoftles  and  their 
 Succeffors  the  Biflwps,  and  fuch  as  are  Commiffiond 
 by  them,   with  an  ££??£&  ComttttUlU,   enjoining 
 And  requiring    them    to  do  this,    w  (Jj50   p€?   &c 
 "  'Baptising  ;  "  where  by  tf)CJ>  are  pofitively  com- 
 manded to  initiate  all  Nations  into  the  Church    by 
 Baptising  them,  to  the  End  of  the  World.     But, 
 with  what  Propriety  of  Speech  can  it  be  truly  faid, 
 that  ti)tp  have  actually  obefd  this  exprefs  Com- 
 mand,   with  refpecl  to    a  Perfon,    who   was   never 
 thus  initiated  by  them  ?     'Tis  inconceivable,  except 
 it  fhould  be  allowed  that  this  Command  was  not  de- 
 fignd   to    be  always    literally   obferv'd,    which   will 
 give  a  fair  Handle  to  the  Quakers,  and  other  En- 
 thnfiafis,  who  deny  the  JSleceffity  of  outward  Sacra- 
 ments \    or  except  it  can  be  prov  d,    that    this,    or 
 fome  other  Law    of  the  fame  Sovereign,  does    au- 
 thorize   his    Reprefentatives    to    commute    for    the 
 Ail  of  Baptiz^ation,  by  fome   other  Act  £  fay,   of 
 Impofition  of  Hands'^   to  be  performed  by  them   in- 
 ft  end  thereof.     But  till  this  other  Law  is  produced, 
 B'JJjops^  tvho%  by   the  known  ftanding   Fundamental 
 
 C  4  Law 
 
xl  The    PREFACE. 
 
 Law  of  Chrifl,  are  bound  as  his  Proxies,  either  in 
 their  own  Perfons    £  or   by  thofe  whom  they  Com- 
 miffion~\    to  fign  and  feal   to  us,  by  Baptifm,  the 
 Chriflian  Covenant  between  God  and  us,  cannot,  by 
 a  Poll-Fad   of  Jmpojition  of  Handsy  &c  give  a 
 Legal  Validity  to  the  Vn-  Authoritative,  and  there- 
 fore falfe  Sivn   and  Seal,    of  fuch    pretended  and 
 counterfeit  Attorneys,    as  never  were   at   all  com- 
 m'iffiond  to   fign  and   feal  the  Chriflian  Covenant 
 in   ChriJFs  Stead  \    becaufe,    the  Poft-Facfc   of  a 
 Bifhop  thus  attempting  a  Ratification,    is  not  that 
 Aft  [viz.  of  Baptifm]  which  the  Law  for  Signing 
 and  Sealing  of  the  Chriflian  Covenant  does  exprefly 
 require. 
 
 4thly,     Indeed,  if  Bifhops,  and  Verfons  comm'rf- 
 fiond  by  them,    were  not  obliged  by  the  Law  and 
 Command  of  Chrifl  to  Baptise  ',  and  if  our  Lordfs 
 Promife  to  concurr  with  them  herein  to  the  End  of 
 the  World,    did  not  imply   their    conflant  Obliga- 
 tion to  pay  Obedience  thereto  till  his  fecond  Coming  ', 
 then  indeed  there  mioht    be   fame  Colour   for  this 
 Difpenflng  Power   of  commuting   one  Acb  for  ano- 
 ther,   by  a  PoU-Facl    of  Confirmation  ;    but,  fey 
 afmuch    as  they  are  bound    and   obli£d  by    a  Su- 
 preme Law  of  their  Sovereign,  which  is  of  a  much 
 higher  Nature,    than  any  that    the  Church  can 
 now   make  ;    7tis  plain,    that  Bijhops   cannot   dif- 
 penfe  with  that  Law,  and  refufe  to  pay  Obedience 
 thereto,    when  7tis  in  their  Power  to  fulfill  it,    as 
 it  certainly  is,    where  they  attempt  to  Confirm  in- 
 ftead  of  Baptise.     Tho'  the  Church    [fay,  the  Spi- 
 ritual Governors  thereof"^    as  being    the    Supreme 
 Hierarchical  Powers  on  Earth,  can,  for  all  Emer- 
 gencies, make,  relax,    difpenfe  with,    and  abrogate 
 Canons  about  Circumflantials  ;  yet  flie  can  make  no 
 Canons    of  Validity   to   enervate    the  Effentials  of 
 
 ChriJTs 
 
The  PREFACE.  xli 
 
 Chrift^s  own  Inftitutions,  nor  can  Jhe  abrogate  any 
 of  his  Anointments,  which  he  has  inftituted  to  con- 
 tinue  to  the  End  of  the  World.     She  may  difpenfe 
 with  her  own  Laws  about  indifferent  Things,    but 
 jhe  is  not  therefore  empowered  to  difpenfe  with  the 
 Ejfemials  of  her  Supreme  Lord  and  Mafter^s  In- 
 ftitutions \    and  the  Reafon  of  this    is   plain,    be- 
 canfe  Effentials  are  of  conftant  and  unalterable 
 Obligation  ;    they  were    appointed   not  by  her,    but 
 by  Chrifi,    and    can    always   be  had  in   our  Cafe^ 
 where  Bifhops,  or  Perfons  commiffiorfd  by  them,  do 
 re  fide  among   our  [elves,  and  may  re  fide  even   a- 
 mong    the  Foreign  Reformed,    as   well    at    leafi  as 
 they    did    among    the  Primitive  Chrifiians    in   the 
 three  firfi  Centuries,  when  the  temporal  Powers  of 
 the  Earth  did  not  protect,  but  perfecute  the  Church 
 of  Cbrifiy  and  more  efpecially  the  Bifhops  thereof  j 
 and  yet  for  all  this,    they  were  not  deftitute   of  a 
 very  numerous  Succeffion  of  Bifhops  in  thofe   peri' 
 lous  Times  of  Perfecution. 
 
 5  thly,  And  for  my  part  I  can  fee  no  Motive 
 far  fuch  a  Difpenfing  Power,  as  fiiall  take  away 
 the  Neceffity  of  Epifcopal  Baptifm,  by  fubftltuting 
 a  fuppos  d  Confirmation  in  its  Steady  but  to  pleafe 
 the  -unreafonable  Demands  of  the  Pride  and  In- 
 folence,  Tenacioufnefs  and  Obfitnacy  of  Anti~Epi- 
 fcopal  Heretich,  Schifmatich,  and  other  wicked  and 
 ignorant  Men.  And  if  thefe  muft  be  SO  provided 
 for,  what  wll  it  be,  but  to  provide  Encourage- 
 ments, or,  at  be  ft,  Excvfes  for  grofs  Sin  ?  And 
 what  then  will  be  the  End  of  thefe  Things  ?  Where 
 fljall  we  flop  .?  And  what  Security  fhall  we  have 
 at  I  aft  for  any  one  Inftitution  of  Chriftianity  ? 
 
 <5thly  and  laftly,  Tho*  this  fuppos'd  Difpenfing 
 Power  may,  by  fome,  be  thought  fujfitientj  to 
 awe  fuch  Anti-Epifcopal  Uiurpers  as   much, 
 
 and 
 
xfii  The    PREFACE. 
 
 and  as  efFe&ually,  as  the  clofeft  Doctrines  far 
 
 the  Neceflity  of  Epifcopal  Baptifm, fince 
 
 without  fuch  Difpenfation  and  Confirmation, 
 they  have  no  better  Title  to  Grace,  Remif- 
 iion  of  Sins,  and  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
 than  meer  Heathens : 
 
 Tet,   if  Verfons  pretendedly  Baptized  by  Anti- 
 Epifcopal  Vfurpers,  do  difcover  that  this  Difpen- 
 fmg  Tower  is  not  Efficiently  proved,    they  will  not 
 at  all  be  awd  by   it,    but  the  contrary,  fo  long 
 as  they  aye  taught,  that  there  is  no  Neceflity  for 
 them  to    receive  Epifcopal  Baptifm.      For,  will  it 
 not  be  natural  for  them  to  argue  after   this  man- 
 ner f    u  We  have   been  Baptized  already  by  one  of 
 *4  our    own   Teachers,   who   never    was  Epifcopally 
 ct  Commiffiorfd   to  Baptizje  :    We  are  taught  that 
 4C  we  need   not  now   be  Baptized  by  an   Epifcopal 
 cc  Minifter,  What  Fault  is  there  then  in  our  Bap- 
 44  tifm  ?    Certainly,  none  at  all,    with    refpett  to 
 4t  the  E  (fence  of  the  Infiitution.    It.  is  true,  we  are 
 cc  told  indeed,  that  our  Baptifm  is  irregular,  de- 
 "  ficient,  and  unoperative,  for  want  of  Autho- 
 u  rity  in  the  Baptizjsr,  and  that  therefore  it  mufi 
 cc  be  fupplyd    by  the  Bijhop's  Confirmation  :    But, 
 4C  how  do   thofe,    who  ajfert  this,   prove  that   the 
 "  Bifiwfs  Confirmation  was   inftituted  to  fupply 
 14  this   fuppos  d  Want  of  Authority  ?    Either   #ur 
 44  Baptifm  was  effentially  Good  and  Valid  before, 
 44  or  it  was  not  ',  if  it  was  not,  then  it  mufi  certain- 
 44  ly  have  been  eflentially  Null,  for  want  of  Au- 
 44  thority,  and  confequently  we  are  bound  to  receive 
 *4  Epifcopal  Baptifm,   and  fo  the  Epifcopal  Confir- 
 <c  mation  to  fupply  that  Effential  Defect,   is  ufe- 
 44  left  and  inefficient ',  if  our  Baptifm  was  Effen- 
 Ct  tially  Good    and  Valid    without   Epifcopal  Au- 
 l{  thority  in  the   Baptizjer,    then    "'tis   plain,   that 
 
 44  this 
 
The  PREFACE.         xliii 
 
 Ci  this  Epifcopal  Authority  is  not  EITentially  ne- 
 44  cellar y  to  the  Miniftration  of  Baptifm  ;  and  if 
 44  not  Effential/y  neceffary  to  its  Miniftration,  then 
 44  'tis  not  EjfentiaJly  neceffary,  that  the  Ab fence 
 44  of  this  Authority  in  a  Baptizer  fioould  be  fup~ 
 44  ptfd  by  the  Bifhofs  Authority,  in  a  Poft-Fad 
 44  of  his  Confirmation,  fince  this  Poft-Faft  adds 
 44  nothing  to  the  Ejfence  of  our  Baptifm  it  felf\ 
 44  fo  that  our  Baptifm  is  Good  and  Valid  with- 
 44  out  this  Confirmation,  and  therefore  we  have 
 44  no  need  of  the  Bjhop^s  Confirmation  to  fupply 
 44  a  fuppos^d  Befell:  in  the  Miniftration  of  our 
 44  Baptifm,  any  more  than  they  have,  who  were 
 44  Baptized  by  Epifcopal  Minifters ;  except  the 
 44  Advocates  for  Epifcopacy  c&n  prove  £  which 
 44  they  have  not  yet  done  ]  that  Chrift  or  his  A" 
 14  poftles  did  inftitute  this  Tower  of  Epifcopal 
 ct  Confirmation,  on  purpofe  to  fupply  the  Want  of 
 <c  an  Epifcopal  Commiffion  in  N on- Epifcopal  Bap" 
 44  tifms.  n  This,  I  think,  will  be  natural  for 
 Ant  i-  Epifcopal  Here  ticks  to  conclude  ;  and  that 
 confecjuently,  their  Awe  for  this  unprov'd  Difpen- 
 ling  Power  will  be  none  at  all,  and  they  will  have 
 no  Fear  of  their  Title  to  Grace,  Remiffion  of  Sns, 
 &C.  without  fuch  a  Confirmation  as  this,  fo  long 
 as  they  are  taught  the  No-Neceffity  of  Epifcopal 
 Baptifm,  and  have  not  good  Proofs  laid  before 
 them,  of  the  Divine  Institution  of  this  fuppos'd 
 Tower  of  fupplying,  by  Confirmation,  the  Want  of 
 Authority  or  Commiffion  in  their  Lay-Baptifms. 
 
 §  XXVIII.  In  the  3$d  Tage,  &c.  of  h's  Ap- 
 pendix, he  infinuates  to  his  Reader,  that  I  charge 
 Tope  Stephen  with  this  Opinion,  that  Ferfons 
 Baptized   by  Hereticks   and  Schifmaticks    t4  were 
 
 4C  in  a  State  of  Salvation,  tujjiJe  tljCJ?  COntt* 
 
 "  illl'O 
 
xliv  The   PREFACE. 
 
 "  mt'B  tit  Derety  Ql  &tWm  i  *  which  is  an 
 
 Insinuation  as  falfe,  as  the  Thing  he  infmuates  1 
 charge  on  Tope  Stephen,  is  black  and  horrid  j 
 and  becaufe  it  is  foy  I  muft  beg  the  Reader's  Pa- 
 tiencey  while  I  lay  before  him  the  whole  Pajfage, 
 from  whence  Mr.  Bingham  draws  this  falfe  Infi- 
 nuation  \  'tis  in  Pages  1 1  and  12  of  my  Preface 
 to  the  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid  7 
 where  I  note  a  captious  One  ft  ion  he  made  to  me, 
 viz..  u  In  what  Writing  of  the  Stephanians  I 
 w  find  this  maintain'd,  that  they  who  had  re- 
 a  ceiv'd  Baptifm  from  Hereticks  and  Schif- 
 "  maticks,  ftttt  ttt  ft  State  Of  SalWltfott  ?  " 
 in  anfwer  to  which,  I  tell  him  thus,  that  "  him- 
 "  felf,  and  all  who  have  look'd  into  St.  Cy- 
 "  prianh  Works,  do  know,  that  Stephen  Bifhop 
 "  of  Rome  did  hold,  that  fuch  Baptiz'd  Per- 
 cc  Ions  were  in  a  State  of  Salvation  ;  for  they 
 Ci  efteem'd  them  to  have  been  Validly  Baptized, 
 
 "  Cans  (k)  t&crefoje  refufeu  to  site  tljem 
 *  mv  otfjec  isaptiTm,  ano  quatreli'D  tmtfr 
 
 "  %U  Cyprian,  &c.  fo?  fUBgfaff  Ot&Erttttfc  ] 
 "  and  fure  they  who  held  Men  to  Ijate  bZtll 
 "  (UaltDlV  T5aptt?'D/  efteem'd  them  to  have 
 cc  been  in  a  State  of  Salvation,  otherwife 
 "  what  fignify'd  the  Validity  of  their  Bap- 
 16  tifm  ?  (/)  But  for  farther  Anfwer  to  this 
 tc  captious  Qucftion,  the  Reader  may  find  e- 
 
 (  k )  Thefe  Words  between  the  two  Crotchets,  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham has  fallacioufly  left  out  of  the  PaiTage  he  quotes  from 
 me,  becaufe  they  notorioufly  witnefs  againft  the  Difmge- 
 nuity  of  his  black  Information,  as  we  (hall  fee  by  and  by. 
 
 (/)  The  following  Part  of  my  Anfwer,  Mr.Bingbam 
 wholly  omits,  and  it  abundantly  expofes  his  Difmgenuity. 
 
 a 
 
 11  nough 
 
The    PREFACE.  xlv 
 
 "  nough  in  St.  Cyprians  Epiftles  to  J 'ub :<*; anus 
 iC  and  Pompeius,  and  in  Firmiliatfs  Epiltle  to 
 cc  St.  Cyprian  '7  in  all  which,  the  Arguments 
 "  of  Pope  Stephen,  and  his  Followers,  are  par- 
 "  ticularly  mention'd,  and  endeavoured  to  be 
 **  anfwer'd  by  St.  Cyprian  and  Firmilian',  and 
 lc  tho'  Mr.  Bingham  makes  himfelf  ignorant  of 
 "  the Stephanians  Maintaining,"  "  That  they  who 
 w  had  received  Baptifm  from  Hereticks  or  Scbifma- 
 <c  ticks,  were  in  a  State  of  Salvation  ',  u  yet  as 
 ic  Learned  and  Judicious  an  Author,  as  any  Mo- 
 *'  dern  Writer  whatfoever,  "  [  fee  Vindica- 
 tion of  a  Difcourfe  of  the  Principles  of  the 
 Cyprianic  Age,  pagi  304.  ]  "  has  exprefly  a£- 
 "  ferted,  that  they  affirm'd,  "  u  That  all  Ca- 
 "  techumens,  who  died  Vn-BaptizJd,  were  not 
 "  therefore  damn'd  $  "  «  UlUCl)  ICfg  tl)0k  ti)f)0 
 
 "  ftan  receiti'D  TSapttfm,  tW  from  tym* 
 
 «  tl£k0  0?  ScWftnatiCftSf,  "  which  is  the 
 u  very  Argument  of  the  Stephanians,  that  I 
 u  have  mention'd  in  the  Place,  on  which  Mr. 
 tc  Bingham  makes  his  Remark,  and  from  which 
 tc  alone  he  deduces  his  captious  Queftion.  w 
 Thus  1  have  given  the  Reader  the  whole  Paf~ 
 fage,  from  whence  Mr.  Bingham  has  drawn  his 
 falfe  Infmuation  ',    wherein  "'tis  evident, 
 
 lit,  That  there  is  not  one  Word  about  cc  He- 
 11  reticks  and  Schifmaticks  "  being  Cc  in  a  State 
 
 "  of  Salvation,  toljtfe  t&ep  continue  in  H>e* 
 
 "  tCfp  0?  ©Cftffm*  "  4nd  this  at  once  be- 
 trays his  Difingenuity. 
 
 2dly,  That  the  Perfons,  whom  I  fay  Pope 
 Stephen  held  to  have  been  in  a  State  of  Sal- 
 vation,   were    thofe   to   whom   the    Stephanians 
 
 "  reftlfCO  t0  Rftie any  other  Baptifm,  " 
 
 becaufe  they  reckon  d  they  had  been  Validly  Bap- 
 
 nzJd 
 
xlvi  The  PREFACE. 
 
 tiz?d  by  Hereticks  and  Schifmatich  before,  which 
 pla'nly  determines  them  to  have  been  fuch  Peni- 
 tents as  return'd  to  the  Church,  about  the  Man- 
 ner of  whofe  Reception  St.  Cyprian  and  Pope 
 Stephen  difputed,  and  this  latter  "  refus'd  to 
 "  give  them  any  other  Baptifm,  "  becaufe  he 
 efteem'd  them  to  have  Valid  Baptifm ',  and  cer- 
 tainly Penitents  returning  to  the  Church  mufl  be 
 in  a  State  of  Salvation,  if  they  have  Valid  Bap- 
 tifm ',  and  'twas  only  about  the  Reception  of  re- 
 turning Penitents,  that  the  Difpute  was  rais  d. 
 
 3dly,  This  is  farther  confirm  d  by  the  St€- 
 phanians  Affertion,  u  That  all  Catechumens, 
 "  who  died  Un-Baptiz'd,  were  not  therefore 
 "  damn'd  •,  mufj)  IffS  thofe  who  fjafc  receiv'd 
 "  Baptifm,  tho'  from  Hereticks  or  Schifma- 
 "  ticks ',  "  for  this  plainly  fhews,  they  held  thefe 
 latter  to  be  u  in  a  State  of  Salvation,  "  not 
 "  ttlfnfe  tfeP  COittHIU'ti  in  Herefy  or  Schifm, " 
 as  Mr.  Bingham  mofi  difingenuoufly  reprefents  it ; 
 for  as  J  obfertfd  before,  the  Difpute  between  the 
 Stephanians  and  Cyprianifts  was  not  about  fuck, 
 but  about  Returning  Penitents,  u  who  had  re- 
 "  ceiv'd  Baptifm,  tho'  from  Hereticks  or  Schif- 
 <c  maticks  ;  "  and  therefore  'twas  upon  their  Re- 
 pentance, and  Return  from  their  Herefy  or  Schifmx 
 that  the  Stephanians  reckoned  them  to  be  much 
 more  in  a  State  of  Salvation  than  Catechumens, 
 becaufe  they  judged  them  to  have  been  Validly 
 Baptized.  And  *tis  not  to  be  doubted,  that  Valid 
 Baptifm  is  effectually  operative^  and  an  atlual  State 
 of  Salvation  to  thofe  who  have  receiv'd  it,  and 
 who  do  not  by  their  Wickednefs  and  Impenitence  ob- 
 ftrutb  the  Receiving  of  the  Spiritual  Graces,  which 
 are  never  feparate  from  Valid  Baptifm  it  felf,  but 
 always  convey  d  thereby  to  thofe    who  are  capable 
 
 of 
 
The  PREFACE.         xlvii 
 
 of  receiving  them  *,  as  our  Church  has  admirably 
 well  determined  in  her  mofi  excellent  Catechifmy 
 where  Jhe  exprejly  affirms,  of  Valid  Baptifm,  that 
 a  Per/on  is  Cl  therein  made  a  Member  of  Chrift, 
 "  a  Child  of  God,  and  an  Inheritor  of  the 
 a  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ,  "  and  this  Jhe  as  pofi- 
 tively  calls  in  the  fame  Catechifm,  u  3  S>tfttC 
 "  of  Salvation,  "  as  well  fie  might  \  for,  •*  be- 
 <c  ing  by  Nature  born  in  Sin,  and  the  Chil- 
 u  dren  of  Wrath,  we  are  hereby  made  the 
 "  Children  of  Grace  •,  "  that  is,  by  Valid  Bap- 
 tifm,  the  operative  Efficacioufnefs  whereof  is  always 
 ftill  the  fame  in  it  felf,  and  cannot  be  obftrutled, 
 and  hinder  d,  but  by  the  Sins  and  Iniquities  of 
 the  Recipient. 
 
 §  XXIX.  In  my  Second  Tart  of  Lay-Baptifm 
 Invalid,  p.  210,  &C  /  have  examind  and  ex- 
 posed the  Fallacies  of  Mr.  Bingham'*  Account  of 
 the  fuppos^d  Pratlice  of  Lay-Baptifm  by  the  Mo- 
 dern Greeks,  Mufcovites,  and  Foreign  Reformed, 
 and  largely  proved,  that  all  he  has  faid  about 
 them,  is  no  Evidence  of  the  general  Senfe  and 
 Pratlice  of  the  Church ,  in  Favour  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm. 
 
 I  have  there  proved,  that  the  two  Canons  of  Ni- 
 cephorus,  which  allowed  of  Baptifm  by  a  Chriftian. 
 Layman,  were  not  made  by  a  Patriarchal  Council 
 of  270  Bijhops,  Anno  814.  as  Mr.  Bingham 
 artfully  infinuates,  but  were  only  the  Canons  of 
 Nicephorus,  the  fuperfiitious  and  idolatrous  Pa* 
 triarch  of  Conftantinople,  a  jealous  Promoter  of 
 Image -Worjhip,  who  liv*d  in  the  ninth  Century ', 
 one  of  the  moft  corrupt  and  fuperfiitious  Ages  of 
 Chnflianity,  wherein  the  Pratlice  of  Worfiipping 
 Images  was  carry  W    on  with  a  high   Hand  3    and 
 
 that. 
 
xlviii        The   PREFACE. 
 
 that,  therefore,  u  Nicephorus'-f  Authority  ?'  in  the 
 Cafe  O/Lay-Baptifm]  4C  t'g  Of  HO  tt1D?e  <Haiue?" 
 than  it  is  in  the  other ,  of  the  Vfe  a  of  Images  ia 
 ct  Divine  Worfhip.  '  To  which  Mr.  Bingham 
 anfwers  in  the  6oih  Page  of  his  Appendix,  very 
 ingenuovfly,  that  he  «  DlD  UOt  DefilT  ft  tO  bt  Of 
 
 "  a«P  S&iXttt  (Halite  5 "  and  then  he  adds, 
 
 That  "  the  Queftion  was  not  whether  it  was 
 "  lafiprttl  0?  Unlawful  in  it  felf,  but  whether 
 "  it  was  then  the  Practice  of  the  Greek  Church  : 
 <c  And  his  Teftimony  is  fufficient  to  decide 
 <c  this  to  be  their  Practice,  tl)0'  tljeit  P?a* 
 a  aitt  might  chance  to  be  agafaff  a  SDfirftte 
 "  Halt),  which  is  another  Queftion.  So  if  the 
 u  Queftion  had  been  about  Image* Worfhip,  as 
 <c  to  Fact,  only,  whether  it  was  then  fet  up 
 u  in  the  Greek  Church,  the  Teftimony  of  M- 
 "  cephorus,  or  the  fecond  Council  of  Nice,  had 
 u  been  Good  in  this  Cafe  to  have  prov'd  the 
 
 "  Fad,  tho'  not  fuffictatt  to  fiafce  jtiffffpn 
 41  tlje  tafofulnefg  of  tljs  p?acttce*   But  our 
 
 <c  Author  [  fays  Mr.  Bingham  ]  cunningly 
 u  confounds  thefe  Queftions  of  Fad  and  Right 
 tc  together,  and  labours  artificially  to  work 
 u  his  Reader  into  an  ill  Opinion  of  Nicepho^ 
 <c  rus,  only  to  ruin  his  Credit  as  an  Hifto- 
 "  rian.  »• 
 
 Thus  we  fee  bow  this  poor  Gentleman  gives  w9 
 to  his  Opponent's  Ajfertion,  and  is  forced  to  fub- 
 fcribe  to  what  his  Adverfary  has  prov'd,  that 
 Nicephorus'j  Authority  for  Lay-Baptifm,  is  of  no 
 more  Value,  than  it  is  for  Image -Worfaip  ,  Mr* 
 Bingham   acknowledges,    that  he    u  ftflj  I10t  DC* 
 
 "  fire  ft  to  be  of  anp  crater  ©alue ;  " 
 
 this  is  enough,  he  and  I  need  never  more  td 
 difpvte  about  thefe  two  Canons  ,   for    'tis  certain^ 
 
 that 
 
The  PREFACE.         xlfx 
 
 that  NicephorusV   Authority  for   Image-Worfhip, 
 **   °f   ItO    (LfcrfUC  at    a^j     t0    Prove    that  Image- 
 Worfhip  was  the  general  Senfe  and  Pra&ice  of 
 the  ancient  Catholick  Church-,    and  fince,    by 
 Mr.  Bingham'/  own  Confeffon,    his   not   of  ftX\)> 
 Blt&tZt  GXftlUZ  for  Lay-Baptifm,   it  unavoidably 
 follows,    that  his  Authority  for  Lay-Baptifm  is  of 
 HO  2JflItlC  at  ally   to   prove,  that  the  Practice  of 
 Lay-Baptifm    was   agreeable    to   the  general  Senfe 
 and    Practice    of  the    ancient    Catholick    Churchy 
 which  is  the  very  Thing,    for  which  I   brought 
 all  my  Arguments  againft  Nicephonis'j  two   Ca- 
 tions ;  and  which  Mr.  Bingham  does  now  [  before 
 he   is  aware  ]    manifeftly  eftablifli  by  this  Concef- 
 fion* 
 
 But  farther,  Mr.  Bingham'*  Suppofttion,  that 
 the  Practice  of  Lay-Baptifm,  allowed  of  by  Nice- 
 phorus'/  two  Canons,  w  might  chance  to  be  a- 
 "  gainft  n  Dliline  latU  b  "  and  that  Nicepho- 
 rus'j,    or  the  Second  Council  of  ISiceV  Teftimony 
 
 would  «  not  bz  ftifficfent  to  juftify  the  laai* 
 
 *  flUWZfS  of  the  Pra&ice  of  Image- Worihip,  " 
 does  mofi  evidently  corroborate  what  I  juft  now 
 obferv'd,  that  Nicephorus'j  Teftimony,  in  his  two 
 Canons,  is  no  Argument,  that  the  Practice  of 
 Lay-Baptifm  was  agreeable  to  the  general  Senfe 
 and  Practice  of  the  ancient  Catholick  Church  , 
 for,  if  Nicephorus'j  Teftimony  for  Lay-Baptifm, 
 which  confeffedly  might  chance  tO  fat  again  ft  a 
 Divine  Law,  be,  as  Mr.  Bingham  owns,  of  H0 
 g?eatet  CJctfUe,  than  his  Teftimony  for  Image- 
 Worfhip  ;  and  if  his  Teftimony  for  Image-Worfhip 
 would  not  [  tho'  ftrengthen'd  by  the  concurrent  Te- 
 ftimony -of  the  Second  Council  of  Nice  ]  be  fiif- 
 ficient  to  juftify  the  JUlttrfUlttCfSl  of  that  idola- 
 
 d  trons 
 
1  The   PREFACE. 
 
 trous  Practice  ;    it  neceffarily  follows,    that  Nice- 
 phorus'j   two   Canons    for    Lay-Baptifm,    are    not 
 fufficient  to  juftify  the  Lawfulnefs  of  Lay-Baptifm, 
 any    more   than   of    Imave-Worfnp  ;     and    if  not 
 fufficient  to  jufiify  its  lU\JDfttiuelg>  then  his  Tefti- 
 mony  is  no  Proof  that  the  Practice  of  Lay-Baptifm 
 was  agreeable  to  the  general  Senfe  and  Pra&ice 
 of  the  ancient  Catholick  Church  *,  except  Mr. 
 Bingham  will  foppofe,  that  what  might  chance  tO 
 ht  flpmfl  a  SDftine  LutO,  might  be  agreeable 
 to  the   general  Senfe    and  Pratlice  of  the  ancient 
 Catholick   Church,    which  is  one  of  the  vileft  Re- 
 proaches   that    can  be    caft   vpon   her,    and  ought 
 therefore  to  be  detefied  and  abhorred* 
 
 §  XXX.  Again,  he  fays,  the  Queftion  of 
 Lay-Baptifm  in  the  Greek  Church,  about  which 
 he  is  concerned,  is  "  UOt  tofjEtljeC  it  was  ILatB* 
 "  fill  Ql  (Unlfttofttl  in  it  felf  ;  but  whether  it 
 lc  was  then  the  Practice  of  the  Greek  Church  -, 
 "  and  his  [viz..  IsJicephorus'j ]  Teftimony  is 
 tc  fufficient  to  decide  this  to  be  their  Practice, 
 u  tho'  their  Practice  might  chance  to  be  a- 
 "  gainft  a  Divine  Law,  which  is  another 
 "  Queftion.  " 
 
 At  this  rate,  he  might  have  fpttrd  all  his 
 Writing  ;  for  to  what  Purpofe  does  he  tell  us  of 
 Brattices,  if  he  is  not  concerned,  whether  they  are 
 LatUftll  0?  fUnlatiSfttl  1  Jt  was  thought  by  his 
 Friends,  that  he  would  have  jhew^d  the  World 
 what  was  that  T rati: ice  of  the  Church,  which 
 might  fafely  be  relfd  on,  and  followed  as  a  fure 
 Pattern  to  copy  after  ',  that  he  would  have  proved 
 the  Church's  Pratlice  to  have  been  fuch,  as  that 
 the  Oppofers  of  Lay-Baptifm   might  reft  fatisfyd 
 
 there- 
 
The   PREFACE.  H 
 
 therein,  and  quiet  their  Scruples,  and  lay  a  fide 
 any  farther  D'.fputes  about  it,  which  certaimly  muft 
 be  fomething  that  is  truly  Lawful;  otherwife  he 
 "writes  to  no  Purpofe  at  all,  hut  only  to  amufe 
 Mankind.  And,  indeed,  fo  he  does  in  Effect  now 
 tell  us  •  fmce  ke  owns,  that  his  Queftion  about 
 the  Practice  of  Lay-Baptifm  in  the  Greek  Church 
 is  Ct  not  whether  it  was  ILftttJftll  or  (U'iaU)* 
 fill  %  "  No,  he  propofes  their  fuppos'd  Pratlice 
 for  our  Imitation,  £  or  elfe  he  propofes  it  for  no- 
 thing  at  all  2  but  troubles  not  himfelf  whether  it 
 be  Lawful  or  Unlawful,  that  is  u  W\3tl)Zt 
 u  dtlCfttOtt  "  with  which  he  does  not  concern 
 himfelf:  A  hopeful  Way  to  quiet  difiurbed  Con- 
 fciences  !  but  if  this  is  not  Mr.  Bingham'j  Que- 
 ftion, V/'j  ours,  for  "'tis  a  Matter  of  the  higheft 
 Conference,  to  diftinguifj  between  Lawful  and 
 Unlawful  Practices,  becaufe  particular  [_  efpe- 
 cially  Modern  ]  Churches  may  take  up,  and  have 
 follow  d  Practices  unlawful  in  themfelves,  which 
 
 the  trtrfp  ancient  Cat&olicft  Cijurcfj,  about 
 
 whofe  Practice  we  are  now  enquiring,  was  always 
 a  Stranger  to,  and  d.id  never  in  the  leaft  coun- 
 tenance or  entourage  by  her  Example.  We  pioujly 
 believe,  that  the  truly  ancient  Cat  holt  ck  Church, 
 properly  fo  called,  never  took  up  the  Practice  of 
 what  was  u  unlawful  in  it  ielf;  "  the?  fome 
 particular  Churches,  particularly  Modern  ones  did  *7 
 and  therefore  we  conclude,  that  the  Practices  of 
 fome  particular  Churches  are  many  Times  no  Ar- 
 gument at  all,  that  fuch  their  Practices  are  law* 
 ful,  and  agreeable  to  the  Senfe  and  Practice  of 
 the  ancient  Catholic k  Church,  when  the  ancient 
 Catholick  Church  herfelf  did  never,  by  her  Pra- 
 &ice,  give  Tefimony    to    their   Lawfulnefs  7    and 
 
 d   2  'tis 
 
lii  The   PREFACE. 
 
 "'tis  for  this  very  Reafon  thought  highly  neceffary 
 by  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  to  con- 
 fider  Quefiions  of  Fad  and  Right  together ?  and 
 happy  would  it  have  been  for  Mr.  Bingham,  if 
 he  had  done  fo  too  *,  for  then  he  would  have  di- 
 ftlngufh'd  what  was  truly  Catholick  and  Lawful, 
 from  what  is  but  private,  modern,  unlawful,  and 
 therefore  dangerous  to  the  Souls  of  Men. 
 
 §  XXXI.     But  why  is  Nicephorus'j  Teftimony 
 fafficient,  as    Mr.  Bingham  fays   it  is,   to   decide 
 that  Lay-Baptifm  was  the  Pra&ice  of  the  Greek 
 Church  in  the  §th  Century  ?  Is  his  Teftimony  fuffici- 
 ent,  becaufe  Air.  Bingham  fays  it  is  I  No  certainly-^ 
 his  two  Canons  appear  to  be  no  other  than  his  private 
 Di&ates ',  there  is  not  fo  much  as  one  Proof,  that 
 they  were  ever  made  in  any  Greek  Council  at  all  \ 
 as  1  have  abundantly  Jhew 'd  from  Page  213  to  220, 
 of  the  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid.     He 
 ash  me  in  his  6\ft  Page,  "  How  came  Harme- 
 u  nopulus  to  make  ufe  of  them  as  Canon- Law, 
 "  in  a  Collection  of  Rules  to  direft  Men  in  their 
 "  Pra&ice  ?  This  Quefilon  I  have  already  anfwer'd 
 very  fully  in  Pages  219,  220,  223,  and  224,  of 
 the  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  *,   to  which  I  add, 
 that  Mr.  Bingham  cannot  prove  that  Harmenopa- 
 lus  collected  them  as  Canon- Law,  or  Rules  to  di- 
 rect Men  in  their  Practice,   any  more  than  many 
 ctbsr  fuch  Writers  have  collected  Ancient  Canons ', 
 who   [as  we  fee  every  Day'}  do  not  make  ufe  of 
 them  as  Rules  to  direct  Men  in  their  Practice,  but 
 only  write  them  as  Hiftorical  Curio fities,  of  no  man- 
 ner of  Obligation,  at  the  time  when  they  collect  them* 
 And  farther,  tho7  it  could  be  proved  [as  it  can- 
 not  2  that    thefe  two  Canons  were    the  authentick 
 
 Senfe 
 
The  PREFACE.  liii 
 
 Senfe  of  the  Greek  Churchy  in  the  Ninth  Century, 
 yet  they  are  of  no  manner  of  Advantage  to  ,#/r.  Bing- 
 ham'* Caufe,  for  which  he  writ  his  Scboiaihcal 
 Hiftory,  as  may  be  feen  in  Page  225,  of  the  Se- 
 cond Part  of  Lay-Baptifm   Invalid. 
 
 §  XXXIL  Vpon  the  whole,  all  Mr.  BinghamV 
 Evidence  for  Lay-Baptifm  in  the  Greek  Church, 
 commences  from  the  Beginning  of  the  N  nth  Cen- 
 tury, one  of  the  corruptefl  Ages  of  Chriftianity,  and 
 confifts  only  of  the  private  Opinion  of  particular 
 Men,  and  thofe  not  corroborated  fo  much,  as  but  by 
 fine  Council  of  the  Greek  Church  *,  his  whole  Evi- 
 dence being  no  more  than  thefe  two  obfcure  Canons 
 of  Nicephorus  \  The  Opinion  0/ Jeremy,  the  late 
 Patriarch  of  Constantinople  \  Metrophanes  Cri- 
 topulus,  a  late  Greek  Writer ,  Gabriel  Severus, 
 Archbifhop  of  Philadelphia  ;  and  Dr. Smiths  Ex- 
 tract out  of  one  of  their  Confeffions  of  Faith, 
 printed  anno  1662,  which  Confeflion  of  Faith  is 
 of  obfcure  Original ;  ancl  Dr.  Smith  in  the  6th 
 Page  of  his  Preface  to  his  Account  of  the  Greek 
 Church,  makes  the  bold  Determinations  of  this 
 very  Confeflion  of  Faith,  anno  1661,  enough  t4  to 
 "  incline  any  fober  and  confidering  Man  to 
 44  believe,  that  the  Greeks  have  of  late,  more 
 44  than  ever,  been  wrought  upon  by  the  fly 
 <c  Artifices  and  under-hand  Dealing  of  the  fub- 
 14  tie  ErnifTaries  of  Rome.  "  And  this  Confef- 
 lion of  Faith,  and  Jeremy  the  Patriarch,  Metro- 
 phanes Critopulus,  and  Gabriel  Severus,  da,  all 
 allow  CSlQUICtt)  as  wM  as  Laymen,  to  Baptize ? 
 which  by  Mr.  BinghamV  own  Confeffion  CSchoJ. 
 Hift.  fart  I.  p.  46.]  u  the  Ancient  Church  did 
 not  allow  them  to  do  *, "  and  every  body  knows, 
 
 d  3  that 
 
liv  The   P  R.  E  F  A  C  E. 
 
 that  this  Practice  is  a  peculiar  Corruption  of  the 
 Church  of  Rome,  and  confequently,  may  eajlly  guefs 
 fvhere  thefe  few  Greeks  learned  this  Latitude  :  But 
 in  Oppofition  to  Lay-Baptifm,  «*  Jet  tijCtt  ©pUltOtlS 
 
 "  in  other  patters  tit  tuftat  tljep  tiuil,  **• 
 
 Greeks  have  given  abundant  Tefiimony,  viz-  St. 
 Chryfoftome  and  St.  Bafil  in  the  Fourth  Century  \ 
 Georgius  Hamartolus,  about  the  Tear  840  ;  Mi- 
 chael Glycas,  about  the  Tear  E 120  ^  a  great  Council 
 at  Conftantinople,  where  were  prefent  three  Patri- 
 archs, Lucas  Chryfoberges  of  Conftantinople,  A- 
 thanailus  of  Antioch,  and  Nicephorus  of  Jerufa- 
 lem,  with  Fifty  feven  Metropolitans,  be  fides  other 
 Bifhops,  in  the  Tear  11 66  ;  and  Theodorus  Scu- 
 tariota,  about  thz  Tear  1220  ;  and  if  to  all  this 
 we  add  the  Tefiimony  of  Arcudius,  a  Romifh 
 Priefi,  who  wrote  a  Booh,  Printed  anno  \6i6,  to 
 make  the  World  believe,  that  the  Oriental  Chur- 
 ches agreed  with  the  Roman,  where  he  owns,  That 
 *c  for  the  moll  part,  all  Gretia,  Rujfia,  Mufco- 
 cc  via,  and  other  Provinces,  who,  after  the 
 "  manner  of  the  Greek  Church,  continue  ia 
 *6  the  Faith  of  Chrift,  when  a  Prieft  is  ab- 
 *c  fent,  had  rather  fuffer  their  Infants  to  die 
 "  without  [_what  he  calls']  Baptifm,  than, fuffer 
 *'  them  to  be  baptiz'd  [as  he  terms  it"]  by 
 <c  any  other,  becaufe  they  think,  that  it  is 
 "  not  Lawful,  efeit  lit  jSeceflltP,  for  Laicks 
 tc  to  execute  this  Office.  I  fay,  if  we.  [urn  vp 
 this  whole  Evidence,  which  I  have  produced  in  my 
 Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  we  frail  have 
 a  great  Cloud  of  Witneffss  againft  Lay-  Baptifm *s 
 being  agreeable  to  the  Senfe  and  Practice  of  the 
 Greek  Church  *,  and  thefe  vaftly  Superiour  in 
 Number?    Credit,  and  Reputation,    to  the  private 
 
 Authorities 
 
The  PREFACE.  Iv 
 
 Authorities  produced  by  Mr.  Bingham,  on  the  other 
 Side  ;  as  any  Man  may  eafily  fee,  that  will  hut 
 Impartially  confider  the  Evidence  on  both  Sides, 
 which  is  a  full  Anfwer  to  all  h's  Ittle  Cavi  lings 
 again]}  my  Examination  of  his  Account  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm  in  the  Greek  and  Mufcovite  Churches. 
 
 He  ash  me  in  hs  "}Oth  Page,  u  How  I  am 
 "  aflur'd,  that  the  Uncharitable  and  Cruel  O- 
 "  pinion  Q  of  St.  Auguftin  ]  about  Infants 
 tc  Dying  without  Baptifm,  was  embrac'd  by 
 u  the  Greeks  at  all,  &c.  when  I  have  already 
 told  him  in  my  Account  of  the  Greek  Churchy 
 Page  239  of  the  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  In- 
 valid, That  the  Learned  Dr.  Smith  relates  this 
 •f  them  \  and  that  this  Cruel  Opinion  is  the  Caufe 
 of  a  Notion  amsng  them,  that  QHottlClt,  a*  we^ 
 as  Laymen,  may  Baptise  in  Want  of  a  Priefi  • 
 which,  Mr.  Bingham  very  well  knows,  is  a  j|)Q= 
 Pld)  Jf  (UtCP  5  that  it  is  not  agreeable  to  the 
 Senfe  of  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church ;  and  it  is 
 therefore  a  Jlrrewd  Sign,  that  this  is  only  a  Novel 
 Opinion  of  forne  fvngular  Latinising  modern  Greeks, 
 and  no  Argument  of  the  authentick,  genuine  Senfe 
 of  the  Greek  Church;  as  1  have  abundantly  proved 
 in  the  Pages  before  and  after  the  12,9th  Page  above- 
 mention  d,  where  Mr.  Bingham  might  have  feen 
 his  Que ft ion  anfvoerd,  before  he  put  it. 
 
 I  xtould  here  have  fimjl/d  my  long  Preface,  but 
 J  mufi  not  neglect  to  anfwer  his  very  angry  Re- 
 mark upon  what,  1  find  by  his  Behaviour,  has 
 firuck  him  to  the  very  Quick,  which  is  "  the 
 Stilig)  Zas  be  calls  it  2  in  the  Clofe  of  my  Pre- 
 face to  the  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid. 
 
 d  4  §  XXXilL 
 
Ivi  The   PREFACE. 
 
 §  XXXIII.  In  the  tfthPage  of  his  Appendix, 
 he  fays,  That  my  Charge  -upon  the  Advocates  for  Lay* 
 Baptifm^  ofDijfolving  the  Neceffity  of  the  Chrlftian 
 Triefthood&c.  ct  equally  reflects  vpon  the  Principles 
 a  and  Practice  of  the  whole  Catbolick  Church  in 
 u  all  Ages.  "  This  looks  black  indeed,  Andnow^let 
 tis  fee  how  he  endeavours  to  prove  it.  The  Charge 
 I  lay  on  the  Advocates  for  Lay-Baptifm  is  (  m  ) 
 thus  }  "  I  leave  this  with  our  Reverend  Hifto- 
 "  rian,  &c.  that  if  Baptifm  perform'd  by  Per- 
 "  fons  who  were  ne&EC  realty,  ailO  trtilj? 
 "  COttimfflionTl  h}?  'Blfljopg  to  Baptize,  and 
 u  who  ad  herein  rebellioufly  againft,  and  in 
 <«  Oppofition  to  the  lOMnt  Klgfrt  Of  €* 
 u  pifCOpacp,  be  Good  and  Valid  Baptifm  \  then, 
 
 cc  aut&otftatifie  p?€acf)ing>  amnitrfffrfaff  tlje 
 tc  otfjec  Sacrament,  tlje  Pofoer  of  €r* 
 ct  communtcatmff,ofBtaWng  an&tooQno;, 
 "  of  Eetainmg  ann  ab&fiHitg  S&zw  %in$, 
 
 <c  and  all  the  Spiritual  Functions  of  the  Clergy, 
 ?c  are  alfo  ©OOS  8115  Slaffa,  when  attempted 
 4t  by  unauthorized,  mUt  COttimtfliOtt'a  JLa?* 
 cc  PerfeinS  ,•  the  Confequence  of  which  is,  the 
 "  utter  DifTolution,  and  Taking  away  the  &£* 
 
 l<  ceflitp  of  t!je  C&ffifan  pueffijooti,  there- 
 
 «  fore,  of  CW  $tltf)0?tt)>  here  on  Earth, 
 iC  and  fo  of  all  reveal'd  Religion  too,  which  is 
 "  a  dreadful  Coaflderation  ;  and  much  more  fo7 
 "  if  any  who  ought  to  be  the  Guardians  of 
 ic  thefe  Sacred  Things,  Ihould  endeavour,  by 
 
 ( m )  Preface  to  the  Second  Part  of  Lay.  Baptifm,  p.  20, 
 
 "  their 
 
The  PREFACE.  lvii 
 
 f  their  Writings  and  Preaching,  to  eftablifh  the 
 u  dangerous  Premifles,  from  whence  fuch  pro- 
 u  phane  Confeqnences do  naturally  flow."  This 
 is  the  Charge,  upon  which  Mr.  Bingham  tells  me% 
 J  u  had  done  much  better  to  have  prov'd  this 
 "  folidly,  than  to  have  barely  faid  it."  That 
 "  let  the  Confideration  be  as  dreadful  as  it 
 
 "  will he  has  prov'd  that  it  neither  af- 
 
 "  feds  him,  nor  the,e£r any  more  than 
 
 "  it  does  thetttfjOle  Cflt&QltCft  CfjtttCij,  which 
 u  allow'd  the  Validity  of  Heretical  Baptifm,  at 
 "  the  fame  time  that  fhe  deprived  Hereticks 
 44  of  their  Sacerdotal  CommifTion,  and  efteem'd 
 ct  them  really  and  truly  no  more  Priefts  du- 
 44  ring  their  Herefy,  (tho'  they  once  had  a  Com- 
 "  minion)  than  the  molt  unauthorized  Layman 
 Cc  who  never  had  a  Commiflion  at  all.  And 
 then  he  draws  up  what  he  calls  my  Accvfation  a- 
 gainft  the  Primitive  Church,  thus  ;  c;  If  Baptifm, 
 "  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  are  really  and  truly 
 tc  depriv'd  of  their  Commiffion  to  Baptize,  by 
 iC  the  Bilhops  of  the  Catholick  Church ,  and 
 ct  who  ad  after  fuch  Deprivation,  tlbCliiOttflj? 
 
 14  agamff,  ano  m  ©ppofition  to  tlje  Dtfiine 
 
 4C  Etfffjt  Of  CptfcOpaCP,  be  Good  and  Valid 
 4t  Baptifm,  as  theAncient  Church  aflerted  }  then 
 44  Auhoritative  Preaching,  &c.  are  alfo  Good 
 4t  and  Valid,  when  attempted  by  unauthorized 
 4C  Priefts,  whom  the  Church  makes  Laymen, — ^ 
 44  the  Confequence  of  which  is  the  utter  Diflb- 
 4C  lution,  and  Taking  away  of  the  Neceflity  of 
 4£  the  Chriftian  Priefthood,  &c  "  in  the  reft  of 
 my  Words.  And  thus  we  fee  how  he  has  proved, 
 that  my  Charge  againft  himfelf,  and  his  Adhe- 
 rents7  equally  refleds  upon  the  Principles  and 
 
 Pradice 
 
lviii  The    PREFACE. 
 
 Practice  Of  tlj£  tDfiOle  CntfjOltCft  CftlttCfi  fit 
 cc  all  3jye0>  "  #*tf ,  *'»  ffc*  ^^  pretended  Proof, 
 he  takes  for  granted  fever  al  notorious  Fal- 
 fities. 
 
 i  ft,  That  the  whole  Catholick  Church,  in 
 all  Ages,  allowed  of  the  Validity  of  Heretical 
 Baptifm  ;  which  is  falfe  ',  for  the  numerous  Cy- 
 prianick  Churches  did  not  allow  of  it. 
 
 2dly,  That  the  Bifhops  of  the  Catholick  Churchy 
 re  due  d  Heretical  Priefts  to  the  fame  Incapacity 
 for  Sacred  Functions,  l<  as  the  mod  unautho- 
 "  riz'd  Layman,  who  never  had  a  Commif- 
 cc  fion  at  all,  "  and  fo  nulPd  their  CotnmijfioH  ; 
 when  in  Truth,  the  Churches  who  differed  from 
 the  Cyprianick  Churches,  had  no  fuch  nullifying 
 Difcipline  ;  as  I  have  proved  againfi  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham.    And 
 
 3dly,  He  takes  for  allowed,  that  Heretical 
 Friefis  after  their  Deprivation,  Baptized  in  ic  Op- 
 4C  pofition  to  the  U>M\\t  Etgljt  of  Epifco- 
 Ci  pacy,  "  which  is  a  moft  notorious  Fallacy  put 
 upon  his  Reader  ',  for  'tis  well  known,  that  thofe 
 Hereticks  were  Epifcopal.  And  therefore,  my 
 Charge  of  diffolving  the  Necepty  of  the  Chriftian 
 Friefthood,  fiill  ftands  good  againfi  him  and  his 
 Friends  in  this  Controversy,  without  reflecting 
 "  upon  the  Principles  and  Practice  of  the 
 <c  whole  Catholick  Church  in  all  Ages,  "  as 
 he  falfly  infwuates  ;  for  my  Charge  againfi  them, 
 is  purely  founded  upon  their  holding  the  Validity 
 of  Baptifm  "  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  were 
 "  never  really  and  truly  Commiflion'd  by  Bi- 
 J*  fhops  to  Baptize,  and  who  ad  herein  re* 
 "  bellioufly  againft,  and  in  Oppofition  to  the 
 "  2Dttime  Etff&t  Of    CpifCOpacp  S  "    and  he 
 
The   PREFACE.  lix 
 
 has  not  proved,  neither  can  he  prove,  that  any 
 ancient  Churches,  much  lefs  the  whole  Catholick 
 Church  in  all  Ages,  held  fuch  falfe  Baptifms  to 
 be  Valid  \  for  they  never  were  infefted  with  fuch 
 Bapt;z,ers. 
 
 §  XXXIV.  He  calls  vpon  me,  p.  39.  to  prove 
 this  heavy  Charge  againft  them  \  and  therefore^ 
 that  he  may  fee  how  plain  and  eafy  the  Proof  is,  I  foall 
 here  give  him  a  fliort  Specimen  of  it  \  and  "'tis  this. 
 
 I.  Chrifiian  Baptifm  with  Water  in  the  Name  of 
 the  Trinity  is  a  Divine  Tofitive  Inftitution,  and  the 
 Validity  of  its  Miniftration  is  founded  upon  ChrifPs 
 Commiffim  and  Authority,  if  we  may  believe  Divine 
 Revelation,  and  the  Articles,  Canons,  and  Rubricks 
 of  the  Church  of  England  ',  as  I  have  proved  (n) 
 el fe  where. 
 
 II.  The  Chrifiian  Priefthood,  is  ChrifPs  Com- 
 mffion  and  Authority,  as  is  manifefl  from  Scri- 
 pture. 
 
 III.  Perfons  who  were  never  really  and 
 truly  Cornmiffion'd  by  Bifhops  to  Baptize,  and 
 who  alfo  ad  herein  rebellioufly  againft,  and 
 in  Oppofition  to  the  Divine  Right  of  Epifco- 
 pacy,  have  not  ChrifPs  Commiffion  and  Autho- 
 rity, in  any  Refpetl  whatfoever,  as  has  been  a,- 
 bundantly  provd,  by  many  of  our  excellent  Writers^ 
 again  ft  the  pretended  Ordinations  of  the  Sectaries  ; 
 to  fome  of  which  I  have  referred  in  (o)  another 
 Place. 
 
 (»)  Firft  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid-,  and  Diffenters 
 Baptifm  Null  and  Void. 
 
 (0)  Firft  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  third  Edition, 
 p.  100. 
 
 IV,   If 
 
lx  The  PREFACE. 
 
 IV.  If  then  thefe  never  Commiffion'd  Per- 
 
 fons  can  Validly  minifier  Baptifm,  "'tis  plain  that 
 there  may  be  a  Valid  Mini  fir  ation  of  Baptifm  which 
 is  not  founded  on,  but  is  without,  and  contrary  to 
 Chrifi's  Commiffion  and  Authority,     Confequently, 
 
 V.  It  is  not  neceffary  to  the  Validity  of  the 
 Minifiration  of  Baptifm,  that  there  ffiould  be  ChriJFs 
 Commiffion  and  Authority  in  the  Minifiration  of  it. 
 Therefore, 
 
 VI.  No  need  of  Triefihood,  £  which  is  Chrifi's 
 Commiffion  and  Authority  ]  for  the  Valid  Minifira- 
 tion of  Baptifm,     Confequently, 
 
 VII.  The  Divine  Pofitive  Revelation  which 
 makes  ChriJFs  Commiffion  and  Authority  neceffary 
 for  the  Validity  of  that  Minifiration,  is  frufirated 
 and  made  Void. 
 
 VIII.  Authoritative  Preaching,  Adminifiring 
 the  other  Sacrament,  the  Power  of  Excommunica- 
 tion, of  Binding  and  hoofing,  of  Retaining  and  Ah- 
 folving  Mens  Sins,  &C.  are  each  of  them  no  other 
 than  Divine  Pofitive  lnfiitutions,  and  their  Validi- 
 ty \_as  that  of  the  Minifiration  of  Baptifni\  founded 
 upon  Chrifi's  Commiffion  and  Authority  ;  as  is  ma- 
 nifefi  from  Multitudes  of  Texts  of  Scripture.  Con* 
 feqnently, 
 
 IX.  IVhatfoever  is  true  of  the  Validity  of  the 
 Minifiration  of  Baptifm,  is  true  alfo  of  the  Vali- 
 Udity  of  the  Mininifiration  of  thefe.  There* 
 fore^ 
 
 X.  Per  fans  never  Commiffion  d  can  Validly  mi- 
 nifier thefe,  as  well  as  Baptifm,  and  for  the  very 
 fame  Reafcn. 
 
 XI.  Hence  will  follow  the  No-Neceffity  of  Priefi- 
 hoodj  [which   is  Chrifi's  Commiffion   and    Autho* 
 
 rity  2 
 
The    PREFACE.  Ixi 
 
 rity  ]  for  the  Valid  Miniftration '  of  thefe.       And 
 therefore, 
 
 XII.  The  Divine  Pofitlve  Revelation,  which 
 makes  Chrift's  Commiffion  and  Authority  neceffary 
 for  the  Validity  of  thefe  Minlftrations,  is  made  of 
 no  Ejfett.     Confequently, 
 
 XIII.  Jf  the  Obligation  of  Divine  Pofitive  Re- 
 velation may  be  fet  afide  in  fo  many  Inflances,  it 
 may  for  the  fame  Reafon  in  more,  and  fo  on, 
 till  we  take  away  the  Obligation  of  all  pofitive 
 reveafd  Religion,  properly  fo  called.  Of  fuch  dan* 
 gerous  Conference  is  it,  to  part  with  One  Divine 
 Pofuive  Inftitittion  of  Religion,  as  they  mofi  noto- 
 rioufly  do,  who  fay  and  teach,  that  it  is  not  ne- 
 ceffary for  Perfons  to  be  Baptized  by  thofe  who  bear 
 Chrift's  Commiffion  and  Authority. 
 
 §  XXXV.  They  have  no  way,  whereby  they 
 endeavour  to  extricate  themfelves  out  of  this  Dif- 
 ficulty, but  by  faying,  that  the  Church  may  con- 
 firm Baptifm  given  by  Perfons  who  never  had 
 Chrffis  Commiffion  and  Authority  •  which  Confirm- 
 ing Power  they  have  been  often  called  upon  to 
 prove,  but  have  not  done  it  ;  and  yet,  for'  my 
 not  acquiefcing  in  fuch  their  groundless,  and  ne- 
 ver once  proved  Affertions  ',  for  my  bringing  this 
 Charge  againfi  them,  and  for  my  not  being  fo 
 popifljlp  atllltlteB)  as  blindly  to  follow  his,  and 
 fome  other  Mens  private  Opinions,  with  an  im- 
 plicite  Faith  ;  Mr.  Bingham  is  fo  civil  as  to 
 affirm  \jvhat  he  does  not  endeavour,  becaufe  he 
 is  not  able  to  prove  ]  that  J  €c  infult  the  Fathers 
 "  of  the  Church  with  Contempt  and  Scorn,  and 
 that  "  under  the  Profeflions  of  Refpeft  to  Priefts, 
 I    treat    all  thofe  VUOClP,   who  are   not    my 
 
Ixri  The  PREFACE. 
 
 "  jfonotoers  and  acmirerg*    4»<i  that  he 
 
 may  firike  me  the  more  home,  he  is  pleased,  in  his 
 great   Meeknefs,    to  fet    me    in   the    Place   of  the 
 Devi I ,    and   brand  me    with   one    of  his  mofi  re- 
 markably  wicked  Characters,  calling  me,  *§Dt)C  9C5 
 Mftt   Of  tfie  TB?et!J|€n  ;    and  "taking    to   him- 
 felf  the   Words  vsd    by    St.  Michael    the  Arch- 
 Angel,     when   he    was    difputlng   with   the   Devil 
 about   the   Body    of   Mofes,    he   consigns    me  over 
 [_as  an  obftinate  and  irreclaimable  Fiend  ]    to  the 
 Judgment  of  God,    with   this  dreadful  Sentence  ; 
 «  tOe  10?t»  rebUke  tl)CC*  "    Shocking  Language 
 this,  to  come  from  a  Chriflian  Priefi  !  who  fljould 
 rather  pray  for,    and  endeavour  the  Converfion  of 
 his  Adverfary,  if  he  were  in  the  wrong,   than 
 thus  fearfully  wifh,   that  the  Lord   may  rebuke 
 him  !    But  alas,    the  poor  Gentleman's  Patience  is 
 here  loft ',    the   Badnefs  of  his  Cavfe  betrays  him 
 into  this  indecent  Excefs,    and  whets  his  Paffion ; 
 he  is    [contrary    to    the    Blejfed    Example    of  St. 
 Michael  the  Arch- Angel  ]   got  on  the   worft,  be- 
 caufe    the  falfe   Side    of  the   Ouefiion  j    and  has, 
 without  due  Confederation,    affmnd  to    himfelf  too 
 high    a   Character,     and    hafiily    uttered    what   no 
 ways  befits  a  Man  in  his  fad  Circumftances,    who 
 is  thus  unhappily  engaged  in   the  Defence  of  thoje 
 Lay,     Aiui-Sacerdotal7    Anti-Epifcopal    Falfe 
 Baptifms,    which,    as  a    Chriflian,    and  a  Priefi, 
 he  ought  to  detefi  and   abhorr,    and  with   all  his 
 Power  ana.  Ability  to  oppofe  and  deflroy,    as  they 
 firike  at  his  own  Sacred  Function,    and  therein  at 
 the  very  Authority  even  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi 
 himfelf,    the  Supreme   Head  of  the  Church*     But 
 J  pity  his  Cafe,    that   he  is  fo  unfortunately   hur~ 
 ry'd   by    a    bad  Caufe   into   fveh   wretched  Inde<- 
 
 cencieSy 
 
The   PREFACE. 
 
 Ixiii 
 
 cencies,  as  [  with  Companion  I  fay  it  ]  txfofe 
 him  to  Contempt,  and  which  [  /  am  willing 
 to  have  fo  much  Charity,  as  yet  to  believe  ] 
 he ,  by  this  time,  may  find  ^  Reafon  to  be  furry 
 for,  recent 
 mined  I 
 
 of,     and    wijlj    he    had    never    com- 
 
 St.  VhiVq  and  St. 
 jfames,  17 1 4* 
 
mm^wmmwwmwmwmwMmmm 
 
 SUPPLEMENT 
 
 T  O    T  H  E 
 
 Firft  and  Second  Parts 
 
 o  F 
 
 LAY-BAP  7 I  SM 
 
 INVALID. 
 
 CHAP,    t 
 
 The  true  State  of  the  prefent  Contro-Veffi 
 
 ;  H  E  belt  way  to  deal  With 
 the  Advocates  for  Lay- Bap' 
 tifm^  is,  17?,  To  keep  therii 
 always  very  ftri&ly  ciofe  to 
 
 ttje  Merits  of  tftfCatife, 
 
 from  which,  by  their  fre- 
 quent Wandrings,  they  di- 
 vert the  Attention  of  their  Readers  :  And  idly% 
 To  argue  with  them  upon  t\)Z\t  OtDtl  fdty'HCU 
 plf&   by  which   ['tis  notorious]  they  often 
 
 B  eftablilh 
 
i  The  true  State  of 
 
 eftablifli  the  very  Thing  we  are  contending 
 for. 
 
 §  II.   Firftthen,  C?J£  S^etttg  Of  tljC  Cattfe 
 
 Eas  they  have  been  often  told]  is  this,  viz.. 
 Whether  by  the  Law  of  Chrift,  (which  is  the 
 Inftitution  of  Chriftian  Baptifm)  Lay-Baptifm 
 be  Valid  or  Invalid  ?  Or,  [to  fpeak  fo  plainly, 
 as  that  there  may  be  no  Ambiguity  in  the  Term 
 JLap-TBaptifm]  Whether  the  pretended  Baptifm 
 which  is  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  never  were 
 at  all  commiffiorfd  to  Baptize,  be  Valid  or  In- 
 valid ?  This  is  the  true  Merits  of  the  Caufe  \  and 
 this  is  the  great  Queftion,  to  which  I  muft  en- 
 deavour to  keep  the  Reverend  Mr.  Bingham. 
 
 §  III.  That  fuch  Baptifm  is  wholly  Null  and 
 Void,  I  have  endeavoured  to  prove  from  the  Ho- 
 ly Scripture,  in  my  Book  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid, 
 wherein  I  ftri&ly  confine  myfelf,  to  the  Que- 
 ftion of  Baptifm  by  Perfons  who  never  -mere  at 
 all  commiffiotf  d,  calling  them  Lay^Baptifms  ;  and 
 'tis  only  with  thefe  nefcet  CDttimiffiOn'O  T5ap* 
 ttfUtfil  that  we  are  now  concern'd; 
 
 §  IV.  The  Bifhop  of  S — m  has  been  pleas'd 
 to  call  the  Do&rine  of  the  Invalidity  of  fuch 
 Baptifms,  "  A  Step  towards  Tepery,"  when  'tis 
 notorious,  that  the  contrary  Notion  of  their 
 pretended  Validity,  is  one  of  the  peculiar  Do- 
 Srines  of  the  corrupt  Church  of  Rome.  But  no 
 matter  for  that  ,  his  Lordfhip  would  have  the 
 World  believe,that  the  atttijO?f  tp  Of  tljeCljlircIj 
 favours  the  Validity  of  fuch  uninftituted  Wafh- 
 ings  \  and  therefore  I  anfwer'd  all  his  Lordflup's 
 Allegations,  ia  my  Book  of  Sacerdotal  Towers, 
 
 wherein 
 
the  prefent  Controverfy*  5 
 
 wherein  I  ftil]  limit  my  Difcourfe  to  Bap- 
 tifm  performed  by  Perfons,  who  HCSet  tDECC 
 COmniffficm'D5and  call  them  fijnaittfiojtj'D  Lap* 
 OSaptffnis,  (Hnattt&otfj'D  T5aptffmg.  and  can- 
 
 C0mmtfft0lt'D13apttfmS  5  all  which  Terms  are 
 made  ufe  of  by  me,  one  in  one  place,  another  in 
 another  place,  to  fignify  one  and  the  fame  thing  % 
 namely,  Baptifm  by  Perfons  who  never  were  at 
 all  commifjion'd  to  Baptise  ;  and  this,  purpofely  to 
 avoid  frequent  Circumlocutions. 
 
 §  V.  The  next  that  appear'd  in  Favour  of 
 Lay-Baptifm,  was  the  Author  of  a  Book  falfly 
 intituled,  The  Judgment  of  the  Church  o/England  } 
 but  this  Author  frankly  owns,  that  "  he  did 
 iC  not  pretend  to  enter  into  the  $0U\t$  Of  ti)Z 
 "  Caufe,"  but  only  to  ftiew  the  Opinion  of  the 
 Church  of  England,  in  Anfwer  to  which  I 
 wrote,  cc  Diffenters  and  other  unauthorized  Bap- 
 u  tifms  Null  and  Void,  by  the  Articles,  Canons^ 
 "  and  Rubricks  of  the  Church  of  England."  And 
 this  Book  alfo  was  level'd  againfb  the  fame 
 never  commifftond  Baptifms,  as  the  other  two 
 were.  The  fame  Author,  a  little  after,  fent 
 forth  what  he  calls  The  Second  Part  of  the  Judg- 
 ment,^, in  which  Pamphlet  he  ftill  induftri- 
 oufly  avoids  the  Merits  of  the  Caufe  -,  fills  his 
 Paper  with  much  the  fame  things  he  had  faid 
 in  his  Firft  Part,  and  fairly  tells  his  Reader,  that 
 he  does  not  defign  it  as  a  Reply  to  Dijfenters 
 Baptifm  Null  and  Void, 
 
 §  VI.  Another  Writer  in  Favour  of  Lay- 
 Baptifm,  who  ought  by  no  means  to  have  been 
 negle&ed,  is  my  Lord  Bifhop  of  Oxford,  who 
 in  his  Charge  to  his  Clergy,  endeavours  to  con- 
 
 B  2  vince 
 
4  The  true  State  of 
 
 vince  them  of  the  Validity  of  that  Baptifm^ 
 which  is  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  have  no  E- 
 pifcopal  Orders.  To  all  his  Lordfhip's  Rea- 
 fonings  I  have  reply'd,  in  The  Bijhop  of  Oxford'* 
 Charge  confider'd,  ftill  confining  myfelf  to  the 
 Difpute  about  Baptifm  by  Perfons  who  never 
 were  commijfion'd  to  Baptize.  And  'tis  but  juffc 
 and  reasonable  to  obierve,  that  his  Lordfhip 
 is  more  ingenuous  than  fome  other  of  the  Ad- 
 vocates for  Lay-Baptifm  are  •,  for,  his  Lordihip 
 (a)  exprefly  owns,  that  u  there  is  no  magis  and 
 u  minus,"  Cno  Degrees  of  greater  or  lejfer^ 
 11  in  the  Validity  or  Invalidity  of  Sacraments^  which 
 "  cannot  be  partly  Valid,  and  partly  Invalid"  From 
 which  Concefllon,  we  gain  thus  much  from  his 
 Lordihip  at  leaft,  That  if  Baptifm  by  a  never 
 commiffion'd  Perfon,  be  at  all  JMaltD,  it  muft 
 be  wholly  and  entirely  fo,  and  therefore  j!2tlU 
 fUtU  2JQ15  X  And  whether  it  has  any  Invalidity 
 or  no,  has  been  [  I  think  ]  fufficiently  en- 
 quir'd  into,  in  (b)  another  Place  *,  and  the  Af- 
 firmative, I  hope,  fairly  prov'd,  from  the  Nature 
 of  the  Divine  Inftitution  it  felf  of  Chriftiaa 
 Baptifm. 
 
 §  VII.  There  have  been  feveral  other  Wri- 
 ters of  a  lower  Form,  who  have  endeavour'd 
 to  give  Credit  and  Reputation  to  the  contrary 
 corrupt  and  JS>Qpfflj  Notion  ,  but  their  Perfor- 
 mances are  fiich,  that  they  deferve  no  parti- 
 cular Anfwer,  farther  than  what  has  been  al- 
 ready provided  for,   in  my  Treatife  of  Lay* 
 
 (a)  Bippof  Oxford**  Charge  to  bis  Clergy,  p.  14. 
 (b;   Laj-Eaptifm  Invalid. 
 
 Baptifm^ 
 
the  prefect  Controversy.  5 
 
 Baptifm,  and  what  has  alfo  been  given  in  my 
 other  Books,  to  the  Right  Reverend  Prelates, 
 &c.  before- men  tion'd,  from  whom  they  have 
 borrow'd  and  tranfcrib'd  their  feeming  Argu- 
 ments ,  to  which  they  have  added  but  little 
 of  their  own,  except  very  poor  and  indecent 
 Reflections  on  Perfons,  which  are  foreign  to 
 the  Matter  in  Hand,  and  therefore  utterly  un- 
 worthy of  any  Notice  in  this  Controverfy. 
 
 §  VIII.  'Tis  very  obfervable,  that  all  thefe 
 Writers  infill  very  much  upon  the  pretended 
 SenCe  and  Pra&ice  of  the  CfltfjOflCfc  CfjUtXlj*  as 
 if  that  were  entirely  on  their  Side  of  the 
 Queftion  \  but  alas  !  they  onlyfpeak  big  of  what 
 they  do  not  produce,  and  boaft  of  that  Autho- 
 rity, which  never  was  prov'd  by  any  of  them 
 to  have  been  at  all  in  the  World. 
 
 Indeed,  when  the  Reverend  Mr.  Bingham  em- 
 bark'd  himfelf  in  their  Caufe,   mighty  Things 
 were  expe&ed  from  his  great  Reading  in  Ec- 
 clefiaftical  Hiftory  !    'Twas  thought  by  fome, 
 that  he  [if  Any  Body  could]  would  have  fully 
 prov'd   this  pretended  Authority,   and  fet  it  in 
 a  clear  Light,  to  the  Confufion  of  all  Oppofers. 
 But  when  his  Scholaftical  Hiftory  of  Lay-Baptifm 
 [as  he  calls  it]  came  forth,  it  had  a  very  con- 
 trary Effedl;   for,   'tis  fo  far  from  producing 
 the  pretended  Authority  of  the  ancient  Catholick 
 Church  in  Favour  of  Baptifm  by  Perfons  who 
 never,  were  commijfion'd   to  Baptize  *,  that  it  ex- 
 prefly  aflerts,  that  (c)  the  Commiflion  to  Bap- 
 tize was  «  to  continue  to  tfje  €nt>  of  tlje 
 
 (c)  ScboJaft*  ffifi.  of  Laj-Baptifm,  p.  3. 
 
 B  3  ?  WI«toS  " 
 
6  The  true  State  of 
 
 ct  23IC?flJ  j  "  that  is,  'twas  inftituted  to  conti- 
 nue to  the  End  of  the  World ,  which  makes  the 
 COttinitffiOtt  as  ™vch  Efential,  as  the  Water  and 
 the  Form  in  the  Name  of  the  Trinity  \  be- 
 caufe  they  are  all  three  but  equally  inftituted 
 to  continue  to  the  End  of  the  World.  Bat  this 
 is  not  all*,  for  he  fays  farther,  that  [Tft] 
 «  Whom  the  Apoftles  actually  aUtljOJlj'U  to  Bap- 
 "  tize\  and  [2dly]  to  whom  they  gave  COtT!*5 
 "  ttUfTtOn    to   authorize   others    to  Baptize*  were 
 
 "  faotfi  neceffircp  to  pjeferke  tfjc  Cfturclj,  *c- 
 
 "  cording  to  the  Order  of  Chrift,  at  leaft  in  fu- 
 "  ture  Ages.  "  Whereby  Mr.  Bingham  makes 
 the  CommtCfiOn  to  Baptize,  to  be  even  tteceO 
 Tat?  tO  p?efeti3e  tljC  CfjUtCf),  and  confequently 
 necefTary  to  preferve  Baptifm,  C  becaufe,  no 
 Baptifm,  no  Church,  as  all  our  Antagonists  do 
 allow  by  their  great  Outcries  of  unchurching 
 the  Foreigners.  ]  Nay  more  ftill,  to  let  thefe 
 Gentlemen  fee  what  mighty  Reafon  they  have 
 to  boaft  of  the  Church's  pretended  Authority, 
 in  Favour  of  Baptifm  by  Perfons  never  com- 
 miflion'd,  this  great  Searcher  into  Ecclefiafti- 
 cal  Antiquity  !  fums  up  his  whole  Account  of 
 the  firft  fix  hundred  Years  of  Chriftianity,  with 
 this  very  remarkable  Teftimony,  That  for  fix 
 hundred  Years,  "  the  (d)  general  ©enfeffllB 
 cc  Partite "    of    the    ancient    Church    was 
 
 "  gjotmtieV'  thsyfuppofe,  upon  the  Commfflrtoit 
 
 w  given  to  the  Apoftles,  whereby  T5tflj0|3g5  as  the 
 tc  Apoftles  Succeffhrs,  are  qualify"  d,  firft  to  give 
 "  Baptifm  them/elves,  and  then  to  rjjniTt  3  COttt- 
 "  UltfflOlt   to  others  to  Baptize in  ordi- 
 
 (d)  Sckolaft.  Hift.  p.  38, 
 
 **  nary 
 
the  prefent  Controverfy.  7 
 
 «  nary  Cafes,  and  in  Cafes  etttilOJ&MatP,   and 
 
 <c  of  extreme    Necejfity.  ■  By 
 
 which  'tis  evident,  that  he  makes  the  ancient 
 Church  to  be  an  Evidence  for  no  other  Bap- 
 tifm,  than  that  which  was  performed  by  Per- 
 fons,  who  were  commijfiotid  [or  fuppos'd  to 
 have  been  commiffion'd  ]  by  'Bt'IIjGpS  to  Bap- 
 tize, and  this  for  no  lefs  Space  of  Time  than 
 the  firfi:  fix  hundred  Years  of  Chriftianity  -7 
 and  confequently  [according  to  this  Hiftorianj 
 the  general  Senfe  and  Pra&ice  of  the  Church, 
 during  that  long  Trad  of  Time,  which  in- 
 cludes the  puteft  SlffCS,  was  not  in  Favour  of 
 our  pretended  Baptifms,  perform'd  by  Perfons 
 who  nev-er  were  at  all  commiffiorfd  by  Bijhops* 
 Thus  our  Antagonifts  may  fee,  that  the  Writer 
 in  whom  they  plac'd  fo  much  Confidence,  has 
 done  nothing  to  fupport  their  Caufe-,  but  on 
 the  contrary,  has  expos'd  and  abundantly  di£« 
 cover'd  the  weak  and  fandy  Foundation  on 
 which  they  refled  *,  for  'tis  very  notorious 
 throughout  his  whole  Hiftory,  and  every  im- 
 partial Reader,  that  rightly  confiders,  may  be 
 thoroughly  convine'd  thereby,  that  the  ancient 
 Catholick  Church  never  had  any  Ecclefiaflical  Lawy 
 Tradition  or  Cvflom,for  the  Validity  of  that  pretend- 
 ed Baptifm,  which  is  perform  d  by  Perfons,  who  fl£- 
 
 fcee  mete  commtflion'o  bp  TBifljops  to  Bapti^ 
 
 as  I  have  largely  prov'd  from  Mr.  Bingham's 
 own  Scholaftical  Hiftory^  in  my  Second  Fart  of 
 Lay -B  apt  if m  Invalid* 
 
 §  IX.     There  is  one  Place  in  that  Hiftory, 
 (e)  where  Mr.  Bingham  labours  hard  to  make 
 
 (e)  Setoff,  ffifl.  p.  51. 
 
 B  4  the 
 
8  The  true  State  of 
 
 the  ancient  Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptifms 
 allow'd  of  by  fome  Churches,  to  look  like  our 
 Lay-Baptifms.  But  in  anfwer  to  that,  I  have 
 prov'd  from  fjfg  OtDU  CSIOtfJS,  (f)  that  thofe 
 Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Baptizjers  had  Valid 
 Ordination  in  the  Opinion  of  thofe  Churches } 
 and  that  confeqnently  the  Baptifm  they  ad- 
 minifterM,  was  Epifcopally  commifTion'd  Bap- 
 tifm, and  therefore  not  the  fame^  as  our  never 
 commiffiond  Baptifms  \  and  that  fo,  the  Vali- 
 dity of  thefe  latter  docs  not  follow  from  that 
 of  the  former.  Now  here  'tis  very  obferva- 
 ble,  that  Mr.  Bingham  being  hard  prefs'd,  and 
 uncapable  to  find  any  Teftimony  of  the  an- 
 cient Catholick  Church,  for  the  Validity  of 
 Baptifm  by  Perfons  never  commiffion'd,  ftarts 
 from  this  Point,  forfakes  the  Queftion  which 
 fo  nearly  concerns  us,  and  endeavours  to  di- 
 vert us  from  the  Merits  of  the  Caufe,  to  en- 
 gage us  in  a  Difpute  that  no  ways  belongs 
 to  it. 
 
 §  X.  To  which  End  he  has  fent  forth  ano- 
 ther Book,  which  he  calls  4t  A  Scholafiical 
 "  Hifiory  of  Lay- Baptifm y  Part  II. "  whereas  in 
 Truth,  upon  Perufal  of  the  Book,  'tis  found  to 
 be  a  Hifiory  of  nothing  elfe,  but  of  fome  Here- 
 tical and  Schifmatical  Clergymens  being  de- 
 posed and  excommunicated  ;  with  the  Hifto- 
 rian's  own  Infinuations,  that  fuch  Clergymen 
 utterly  loft  their  Prieflly  Character,  and  fo  were 
 rednc'd  to  meer  Laymen }  and  that  confequently 
 the  Church,   by   allowing   of  the  Validity  of 
 
 CO  Setfltd Hn  of  lay-Baptifm  Invalid,  p.  197,  Cfr. 
 
 JSaptifms 
 
the  prefent  Controversy.  9 
 
 Baptifms  perform'd  by  them,  did  allow  of  the 
 Validity  of  Lay-B3ptifm,  Baptifm  by  Perfons 
 utterly  deftitute  of  any  Prieftly  Chara&er. 
 This  is  the  great  Deflgn  of  all  his  Toil  and 
 Labour  in  this  Second  Part  of  his  pretended 
 Hiftory  of  Lay-Baptifm,  when  yet  he  is  (till  fo 
 unhappy,  as  to  fpoil  this  very  Defign,  by 
 contradicting  himfelf  in  the  fame  Book,  as 
 well  as  in  feveral  Parts  of  his  other  Writings, 
 where  he  teaches,  that  the  Prieftly  Character 
 is  as  Indelible  as  that  of  Baptifm,  and  thereby 
 gives  in,  to  our  AfTertion,  that  the  Baptifm  of 
 Heretical,  Schifmatical,  and  Degraded  Priefts, 
 allow'd  of  by  fome  Churches,  was  not  the. 
 fame,  as  that  pretended  Baptifm  which  is  ad- 
 rninifter'd  by  Perfons,  who  never  had  any 
 Prieftly  Character,  never  were  at  all  commif- 
 iion'd  to  Baptize. 
 
 §  XI.    The  Reverend  Hiftorian  is  very  much 
 nettled  at  the  Term  of  QSaptffm  bp  ]9erfQI10 
 
 tobo  neiier  ttiere  at  all  commtflfcm'D  to  Q3ap-- 
 
 tfjC)  fo  frequently  made  ufe  of  by  me  in  this 
 Controverfy,  and  is  pleas'd  in  feveral  Places  of 
 his  Second  Part  to  call  it  dtttbbltUg  5  but  this 
 does  not  at  all  move  me,  for  I  am  ftedfaftly 
 refolv'd  not  to  be  banter  d  out  of  this  necef- 
 fary  Diftin&ion  j  for,  'tis  fo  plain  a  one,  and 
 free  from  any  Ambiguity  whatfoever,  that  it 
 is  tlje  mod  Hooper  to  exprefs  the  Cafe  about 
 which  we  are  concern'd,  and  efFedually  difco- 
 vers  the  many  Fallacies  that  are  made  ufe  of, 
 to  give  Countenance  to  our  prefent  [and  in 
 former  Ages  of  the  Church  unheard  of]  U- 
 fhrpations.  And  'tis  fo  notorious,  that  fucjj 
 jfalfe  QBapttflTI?  have  not  the  Authority  of 
 
 the 
 
io  The  true  State  of 
 
 the  ancient  Catholick  Church,  in  Favour  of 
 their  Validity,  that  even  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf 
 cannot  but  own,  as  indeed  he  does  ingenuoufly, 
 (^)  that  the  Queflion  about  them   "  makes  a 
 
 "  totfce  Difference  *'*  the  cafe,  "  and  is  "  a 
 
 "  tT10?e  Difficult  Claefffotl,  "  C  «**■  than  that 
 of  Lay-Baftifm  fuppos'd  to  be  authoriz'd  by 
 Bifliops  in  Cafes  of  Extremity,  about  which  he 
 had  been  treating  before]  nay  farther,  that 
 fuch  ufurped  Baptifm  (Jo)  u  was  not  decreed  to 
 *■  be  Valid ,  by  the  Determination  of  any  350- 
 cc  netal  COttttCiis"  and  that  he  "does  (O 
 iC  itOt  pet  temembet  *  [after  all  his  prece- 
 ding laborious  Searches  in  Ecclefiaftical  Anti- 
 quity ]  4C  m\p  ©eneral  Council  that  has  m- 
 
 "  rettly  determined  any  Thing  for  t\)Z  djfc 
 
 u  liCitJ?  of  Baptifm  adminifter  d  by  fuch  Laymen^  " 
 that  is,  "  Laymen  (k)  who  never  had  any  Tre- 
 46  tence  to  Sacerdotal  Authority  or  Commiffion  in 
 tC  the  Church.  "  And  therefore  I  am  ftill  re- 
 folv'd  to  talk  of  thefe  Laymen,  thefe  never 
 commiffion  d  Terfons  \  to  make  ufe  of  this  Term 
 as  of  a  fure  Standard^  and  thereby  to  examine, 
 and  try,  whether  Mr.  Bingham's  nelt)  S)Ctt  Of 
 LftpttlEtt  invented  by  himfelf,  [whofe  Baptifms 
 fome  Churches  allow'd  to  be  Valid  ]  were  as 
 utterly  deftitute  of  Holy  Orders  when  they 
 Baptiz'd,  as  our  never  once  commiffion'd  pre- 
 tending Baptizers  mofb  certainly  are. 
 
 (g)  Sdolaft.  Hift.  Parti,  p.  41. 
 
 (h)  Append,  to  2d  Part  of  Scholaft.  Hift.  p.  19. 
 
 (  i  )  Ibid.    p.  20. 
 
 (k)  Ibid.    p.  10. 
 
 §XH. 
 
the  prefect  Controverfy.  n 
 
 §  XII.    For  you  muft  know,   that  one  Sort 
 
 of  our  EcfcerenDijMffojtan's  napmett  were,  as 
 
 he  tells  you,  (/)  fuch  as  "  once  had  a  ttilt 
 ft  ©aCCrtJOtal  CammtffiOtt,  but  were  afterward 
 "  deprived  of  their  Commiffion,  by  the  fame  Power 
 u  of  the  Church  which  firft  gave  it,  and  fo  were 
 <c  reduced  to  the  State  and  Condition  of  Laymen 
 «  again.  "  Tho'  ftill  he  allows  (w)  the  lS>?feffIp 
 Cf}atact£l*  of  this  new  invented  Layman  to  be 
 even  JllBClfWC  fo  far,  as  "  that  the  Church 
 <c  upon  his  Repentance  tt£05#  JlOt  give  him  a  new 
 "  SD?5tnatI0m "  A  pretty  Sort  of  Laymen 
 thefe,  Men  who  have  no  Sacerdotal  Commiffiony 
 becaufe  they  were  depriv'd  of  it  •,  and  yet 
 truly  they  have  a  Sacerdotal  Commiflion  at 
 the  fame  time,  becaufe  the  Church  tlCCDg  rtflt 
 give  them  a  H£iD  €)U09  by  reafon  that  the  old 
 one  was  ftill  in  Being !  for  to  be  fure  it  was 
 not  null'd,  if  it  was  JttCelt'Me  X  Such  Incon- 
 fiftencies  and  Contradictions  do  Men  run  into, 
 when  they  are  hard  prefs'd  by  the  juft  Me- 
 rits of  a  Caufe0  and  endeavour  to  evade  the 
 convincing  Power  and  Force  of  it. 
 
 §  XIII.  Secondly,  I  fhall  therefore  argue 
 with  Mr.  Bingham  upon  his  own  declar'd  Prin- 
 ciples, and,  keeping  my  Eye  ftill  upon  the  Me- 
 rits of  the  Caufe,  fhall  in  the  following  Chapter 
 fhew,  even  from  his  own  Account  of  the  Matter, 
 that. the  Baptifms  [allowed  of  by  fome  Churches] 
 which  had  been  adminiftred  by  Heretical,  Schif- 
 
 (1)   Append,  to  the  2&  Part  of  Scholqft,  Hifl.  p.  19. 
 (m)   Jbil    p.  21. 
 
 matical, 
 
12  The  true  State  of,  &c. 
 
 matical,  Degraded  and  Excommunicated  Priefts, 
 were  not  the  Baptifms  of  meer  Laymen  :  That 
 is,  were  not  Baptifms  of  the  fame  Nature  with 
 thofe  Falfe  Baftlfmsy  which  are  now  perform'd 
 by  Perfons  who  never  were  at  all  commiflion'd 
 by  Biftiops  to  Baptize  :  And  that  confequent- 
 ly  the  Church's  Teftimony  for  the  Validity  of 
 thofe  Ancient  Baptifms,  is  no  Evidence  in  Fa- 
 vour of  the  pretended  Validity  of  our  never 
 commiflion'd  Baptifms. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
CHAP.    II. 
 
 That  by  Mr.  BinghamV  own  Account  of 
 the  Matter,  the  ancient  Heretical,  Schi[~ 
 matical,  Degraded,  and  Excommunicated 
 Priefls  \_whofe  Baptifms  fome  Churches 
 allow' d  to  be  Valid']  were  not  meer 
 Lay?nen  when  they  Baptized,  but  Priefls 
 Ordairfd  by  Bifoops,  whofe  Ordination 
 was  Valid  in  the  Opinion  of  thofe  Chur- 
 ches ;  and  that  confequently  the  Baptifms 
 adminiflred  by  fuch  Priefls,  were  not  Bap- 
 tifms  of  the  fame  Nature  with  our  Falfe 
 Baptifms,  performed  by  Perfons  who  never 
 were  at  all  commijjion'd  to  Baptize ;  and 
 that  therefore  the  Practice  of  thofe  Chur- 
 ches is  no  Proof  that  they  held  thefe  lat- 
 ter to  be  Valid  Baptifms. 
 
 '$1 
 
 vs*8@*s 
 
 U  R  Reverend  Hiftorian's  Ima- 
 ginary Argument  for  the  Va- 
 lidity of  Baptifm  by  unautho- 
 rized Ferfons\  [that  is,  Per- 
 fons who  never  were  at  aU 
 commijfion'd  -,  for  this  he  mull 
 mean,  if  he  would  difpute  with  me  ]  (lands 
 thus,  (n)    c<  The  Baptifm  of  Hereticks  and  Schif- 
 
 (n)  SthoU  Hift.  Part  II.  p.  79. 
 
 "  matichi 
 
14  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 u  maticks,  and  Degraded  Clerks,  and  Excommu* 
 <c  nicated  Clerks,  is  the  Baptifm  of  unauthorized 
 "  Perfons,  according  to  the  Senfe  of  the  four  firfi 
 u  General  Councils. 
 
 "  But  the  Baptifm  of  Hereticks,  Schifmaticks? 
 cc  Degraded  Clerks,  and  Excommunicated  Clerks, 
 <c  ifminiftred  in  due  Form,  was  altOapjS  received  by 
 "  tbt  ©fjUtClj  without  Re-Baptizing. 
 
 "  Therefore  the  Baptifm  of  unauthorized  Perfons, 
 cc  ifminiftred  in  due  Form,  was  ctltDflPS  received 
 $  h  tfje  CfjtttXf)  without  Re-Baptizing." 
 
 §  II.  If  by  {H[naUtI)0?t5tl5ourHiftonan  means 
 Perfons  Utttl'lp  deftitute  of  Commijfion,  Men  o£ 
 
 the  utp  fame  3jncapacttp  with  thofe  who  nc* 
 uer  mere  at  all  Cottimifficm'ri  >  Perfons  who 
 
 have  no  more  Bp'eftfjCDOi  than  thofe  who  WZ^tt 
 VOttt  ©jDatttiD  h   and  all  this  he  muft  mean,  if 
 he  would  make  the  Church  (  by  this  Argument) 
 to  be  an  Evidence  for  the  Validity  of  Baptifm 
 by  Perfons  who  never  were  at  all  commijfion  d  to 
 Baptize,  [  which  are  the  Baptifms  we  are  difpu- 
 tingagainft]  then  I  affirm,  ift,  That  his  major 
 Proportion  is  falfe,  and  I  fliall  prove  it  to  be 
 fo  out  of  his  own  Mouth,     idly,  That  his  *»/- 
 nor  is  notorioully  falfe,  take  his  Word  Ultatt- 
 *&0?t?'&  in  what  Meaning  you  will ;  and  that  fo, 
 Sdly,  is  his  Conclulion.     For,  with  what  tole- 
 rable Senfe  can  it  be  faid,  that  "  the  Baptifm  of 
 u  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks,  &c.  if  mini  fired  in 
 "  due  Form,  was  altuapg  received  by  tfje  CtjUtCfj," 
 when  every  one  that  has  been  converfant  in 
 Eccleliaftieal  Antiquity,  knows,  that  during  the 
 Three  firft  Centuries,  there  is  no  other  Inftance 
 of  any  Church,  than  that  of  Rome,  receiving  He- 
 retical and  Schifmatical  Baptifms  as  Valid  \  and 
 
 that 
 
and  Schiftnaticd  Baptifms.  15 
 
 that  Stephen,  Bifhop  of  Rome,  was  herein  vigo- 
 ronfly  oppos'd  by  St.  Cyprian  and  his  Collegues, 
 Bifhops  of  the  numerous  and  far  extended  SHtlCfltt 
 and  (EaffCttt  Churches,  who  in  the  Councils  of 
 Carthage,  Iconium  and  Synnada,  unanimously  re- 
 jected fnch  Baptifms,  and  appeal'd  to  the  Ec- 
 clefiaftical  Laws  and  Pra&ice  of  their  Anceftors, 
 for  the  Keceflity  of  fo  doing,  as  has  been  a- 
 bundantly  provM  (0)  elfewhere  ?  So  that,  if 
 by  "  ^HtUB?05"  Mr.  Bingham  means  in  every 
 jive  of  Chrifiianity,  as  he  ought  to  mean,  if  he 
 would  fpeak  Senfe  ;  And  if  by  "  t&e  CljUtCf), " 
 he  under  Hands  the  Catholick  or  Vniverfal  Churchy 
 as  'tis  plain  he  muft,  becaufe  he  fays  "  tf)€ 
 "  QEijttl'Clj) "  without  limiting  it  to  any  par- 
 ticular Diocefe,  Province,  Kingdom  or  Empire* 
 as  a  Part  or  Parts  of  the  Catholick  Church  m7 
 then  'tis  plain,  that  his  minor  Propolition  is 
 falfe,  [except  to  make  it  look  true,  we  muft 
 run  into  the  ^OPCtJt)  of  calling  the  Church  of 
 Rome,  "  tlje  CljtttClk  "  the  Catholick  or  Vniver- 
 fal Church ;  and  except  we  allow  that  9Iti)8P& 
 namely,  Seventeen  hundred  Tears  is  the  fame  as 
 ItOt  SUinapg)  namely,  Three  hundred  Tears,  the 
 firft:  and  pureft  Ages  taken  out  of  the  Seven- 
 teen hundred,  which  I  believe  no  Man  in  his 
 Senfes  will  defire  us  to  do]  and  confequently 
 his  Conclufion  alfo,  that  M  the  Baptifm  of  2Jfl* 
 "  mit^OlifliPerfons,was  aJfoapS  received  by  tf)C 
 u  CfttttCl},  "  is  a  notorious  Falfity,  flnce  nume- 
 rous Orthodox  Churches  of  the  Three  firft  Cen- 
 turies did  abfolutely  rejeft  fuch  Baptifms :  This, 
 
 (o)    Prelim.   Difeourfe   to  Laj-Btptifm  Invalid.     Second 
 Fart  of  Laytfaptifm  Invalid. 
 
l6  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 if  I  fhould  fay  no  more,  is  fufficient  to  (hew 
 what  an  excellent  Reafoner  our  Hiftorian  is, 
 and  that  the  Validity  of  Baptifm  by  Vnautho- 
 riz?d  Perfons,  fuch  as  are  utterly  deflitute  of 
 Commiffion,  is  a  Do&rine  that  ftands  dellitute 
 of  the  truly  noble  Chara&ers  of  SlntiqttftP^  CM- 
 Uecfalttp  and  COHfeilt,  and  fo  is  not  founded 
 upon  the  Senfe  and  Praftice  of  the  Cfltf)OlJCft 
 CfHttCl)?  properly  fo  call'd.     - 
 
 §  III.  I  come  now  to  examine  Mr.  Bingham's 
 major  Propolition  \  namely,  That  a  the  Baptifm 
 u  of  Heretich  and  Schifmatich,  &C  is  the  Bap- 
 "  tifm  of&nmtlmifO  PerfO110,  according  to  the 
 tc  Senfe  of  the  four  fir  ft  General  Councils  ";  And 
 fhall  prove  even  from  himfelf,  that  thofe  Bap- 
 tifms  were  not  of  the  fame  Nature  with  our 
 Falfe  Baptifms  adminiftred  by  Perfons  who 
 never  were  ordain'd,    or  authorized  to  Baptize. 
 
 §  IV.  His  firft  Inftance  is  (/>)  of  the  Cen- 
 fure  of  the  Famous  Council  of  Nice  againft 
 Meletius  Bifhop  of  Lycopolis  in  Egypt,  "  Who 
 lc  in  the  Time  of  the  Dioclefian  Persecution,  had 
 <c  denfd  the  Faith,  and  offered  Sacrifice  to  Idols  \ 
 u  for  which,  and  fome  other  Re  a  fens,  he  was,  ae- 
 u  cording  to  the  Laws  of  the  Church,  deposed,  by 
 u  Peter  Bifhop  of  Alexandria. "  Meletius,  in- 
 u  ftead  of  fubmitting  to  this  Legal  Cenfure,  raised 
 "  a  Schifm  "  againlt  the  Bilhop  of  Alexandria^ 
 u  ordaining  Bifiops  and  Priefts  throughout  Egypt 
 ct  and  Thebais..  And  this  he  continud  to  do9 
 
 "  to  the  Time  of  the  Council  of  Nice.     The  Coun* 
 
 Cp;  Sckohft*  Hid.    Part.  II.  p.  54* 
 
 "  cil 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms.  tj 
 
 a  cil  therefore  to  correEb  this  Prefumption,  and 
 <c  confirm  the  Sentence  which  before  had  been 
 44  pafs'd  vpon  him,  made  this  Peremptory  Decree 
 "  againft  him,   ■  That   Meletius  Jhould  have 
 
 "  na  manner  of  Potoec  o?  2lutfto?ttp  either  of 
 
 4t  Ordaining  or  Making  Elections  ;  that  he  Jhould 
 44  be  confined  to  his  own  City,  and  neither  appear 
 4C  in  the  Country,  nor  in  any  other  City  upon  fuch 
 11  an  Occafiony  but  only  retain  the  bare  Name  and 
 4C  Title  of  his  Dignity.  And  for  fuch  Bijhops 
 lC  and  Presbyters  as  had  been  ordained  by  him9 
 ll  they  Jljould  not  be  admitted  to  officiate,  as  Mi- 
 44  nifters  in  the  Catholick  Church,  till  they  were 
 44  Mur/xaVgpf  x#&iwi*'  faGdwtevTM*  confirmed,  of 
 "  aitt&O&'b"  LfoysMi:Binghaml"by  a  more 
 44  Sacred  Impofition  of  Hands,  together  with  the 
 44  Approbation  and  Allowance  of  the  Bifhop  of  A- 
 44  lexandria  ',  which  Valcfius  And  Du  Pin,  and 
 44  other  Learned  Men,  take  to  imply  a  new  Or- 
 4t  dination.  "  Thus  far  Mr.  Bingham ;  and  he 
 concludes  from  all  this,  that  Baptifms  per- 
 formed in  the  Schifm  by  Meletius,  and  fuch  as 
 were  "ordain'd  by  him,  were  unntttfjOJtJ'O  TBftp* 
 tffttl&  "  and  (q)  yet  the  Council  ( fays  he ) 
 44  made  no  Decree,  that  the  Baptifms  of  all  thefe 
 4t  fijould  be  annul? d,  and  that  fuch  as  came  over 
 4t  from  them  Jhould  be  Re~  baptized  again,  " 
 
 §  V.  And  now,  let  us  fee  whether  thefe 
 Baptifms  were  of  the  fame  Nature,  with  our 
 Falfe  Baptifms  by  Perfons  who  never  were  or* 
 daind  or  commijfion'd.  To  do  which  the  more 
 clearly,  'tis  neceffary  to  obferve,  that  the  Sen- 
 
 (qj  Schohft.  #//h   Part.  II.  p.  55. 
 
 G  tence 
 
1 8  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 tence  of  the  Council,  as  reprefented  by  Mr.  Sing' 
 ham,  docs  not  fo  manifeftly  ftiew  the  Truth 
 of  the  Cenfure  againft  Meletius  and  his  Accom- 
 plices, as  the  Words  of  the  Synodical  Epiftle 
 it  felf  do  *,  for  Mr.  Bingham  gives  us  but  a  par- 
 tial Account  of  this  Matter  ;  he  leaves  out  fome 
 Things,  and  adds  others,  whereby  an  uncau- 
 tious  Reader's  Judgment  is  eailly  byafs'd,  and 
 diverted  from  Truth  to  Falfhood. 
 
 §  VI.  Thus,  he  makes  the  Sentence  to  have 
 been,  "  That  Meletius  jhould  have  M0  HUM* 
 <c  nCt  of  Power  or  Authority,  either  of  Or* 
 cc  darning,  or  making  Elections, "  &C.  Now,  this 
 "  !10  mannCC  of  Power  "  is  mofb  abfolute  and 
 universal}  but  the  Synodical  Epiftle  (r)  of  the 
 Council  of  Nice,  where  this  Sentence  is  re- 
 corded, fays  only,  That  he  "  Jhould  have  no 
 C  'EfatfW,  Lkentiam,  Potefiatem,Authoritatem,Jusf 
 that  is,  Licenfe,  Leave,  Liberty,  Rule,  Domi- 
 nion, Lordfhip,  Sovereignty,  Authority,  Power, 
 Jurifdiftion,  &c.  fo  that  the  Word  'e|k^i*p  figni- 
 fies  fuch  a  Power  as  has  J  ur  if  diction  annex'd 
 to  it,  and  therefore  Dr.  Shorting  very  judicioufly 
 renders  it]  "  JUttCDlCtlDlt  either  to  Ordain,  or 
 cc  to  propofe  the  Names  of  thofe  that  were  to  he 
 ct  ordained,  "  &G  And  Socrates  Schelafticus,  who 
 doubtlefs  well  knew  what  was  the  true  Intent 
 of  this  Sentence,  tho'  he  fays  a  little  after  the 
 Conclufion  of  the  Synodical  Epiftle,  That 
 u  the  Synod  took  away  all  Epifcopal  Power  from  Me- 
 "  letius "  •,  yet  a  little  before,  he  tells  us,  That 
 41  they    received  him,  Meletius,  into  Communion^ 
 
 (  r  )  Socrat.  SchoUft.  Hift*  Lib.  I.  c.  9. 
 
 **  allowing 
 
and  S c  hi f mat  teal  Baptifms.  1 9 
 
 u  allowing  him  indeed  the  Liberty  of  Retaining  the 
 "  DtglHtP  of  a  TBffijOP,  but  they  deprived  him 
 ct  of  the  Power  of  DOtnU  .flit?  tMitg  ^  *  #- 
 M  Jfc<?/> ;  "  which  plainly  fhews,  that  they  did  not 
 Vn-BiJJwp  him,  but  only  took  away  his  J9CtoEC 
 Of  Jurirnitrifltt  t  Now  the  Taking  away  of  a 
 Bifhop's  Jurifdi&ion,  is  no  Reafon  that  he 
 fhouid  therefore  "  have  \\Q  mantle?  of  Power  "', 
 for  fonae  manner  of  Power  may  ftill  remain, 
 even  after  the  Lofs  of  ^.UtlftltCttOll  %  For  Ex- 
 ample, If  a  Bifhop  in  England  were  divefted  of 
 his  Bifhopriek,  by  his  own  Legal  Ceffion  to  an- 
 other, he  would  "lofe  his  3!UttftltCUQtt  of  Or- 
 daining, if  he  were  not  put  into  fome  other 
 Diocefe  ,  he  would  have  no  particular  Diocefe, 
 where  he  could  by  Canonical  Right,  namely,  by 
 the  Canon-Laws  of  this  Church,  oblige  any 
 Candidates  for  Holy  Orders  to  be  ordain'd 
 by  him  j  but  tho'  he  would  have  no  fuch  Jurif- 
 diction,  which  is  but  a  Circumftance  confequent 
 to,  and  not  of  the  very  Effence  of  his  Order, 
 yet  certainly  he  would  ftill  have  fome  Power 
 of  Ordaining,  viz..  That  Eflential  Power  which 
 lie  at  firft  receiv'd  at  his  Confecration  when 
 he  was  made  a  Bifhop  *,  for  then,  he  re- 
 ceiv'dan  Indefinite  Power  of  Ordaining,  by  be- 
 ing confecrated  and  ordain'd  a  Bifhop  at  large  5 
 his  Ordination  made  no  mention  of  any  par- 
 ticular Diftrict,  to  which  his  Power,  as  a  Bi- 
 fhop, mould  be  confin'd  \  and  his  Defignation 
 to  a  particular  Diocefe,  is  Matter  only  of  GV- 
 cumftante,  not  of  Effence  \  for  the  Apoftles  were 
 efTentially  Bifhops,  before  there  was  any  fuch 
 Circumftance  as  a  particular  Diftrict  afiign'd  to 
 each  of  them.  And  therefore,  if  in  our  fup- 
 pos'd  Cafe,  this  Bifhop,  without  a  particular 
 C  2  Diocefe, 
 
io  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 Diocefe,  and  confequently  deftitnte  of  Canoni- 
 cal Jurifdi&ion,  fhould  Ordain  in  another  Man's 
 Diocefe,  without  his  Leave  or  Confent,  no 
 doubt  his  Ad  would  be  irregular,  with  re- 
 fped  to  the  Circumftantial  Canons  and  Laws 
 of  the  Church,  which  require  that  the  Candi- 
 dates for  Holy  Orders  fhould  be  ordain'd  by 
 the  Bifhop  of  the  Diocefe  where  they  refide^ 
 yet  his  Ordination  would  be  Valid,  becaufe  he 
 was  eflentially  a  Biihop,  fince  his  Want  of  a 
 Diocefe  does  not  Null  his  Epifcopal  Power  or 
 Capacity. 
 
 §  VII.  If  it  be  faid,  that  this  was  not  the  Cafe 
 of  Meletius,  becaufe  he  made  no  Cejfion  to  ano- 
 ther, but  was  legally  deprived  of  Jurifdittion  for 
 his  Crimes. 
 
 I  anfwer,  That  a  legal  Cejfton  of  Jurifdi&ion 
 by  an  innocent  Man,  is  as  much  a  Lofs  of  Ju- 
 rifdidion,  as  a  legal  Deprivation  of  it,  for  Crimes 
 committed  j  for,  he  that  legally  furrenders  a 
 Thing,  is  as  much  without  it,  as  he  is,  from 
 whom  it  is  taken  j  'tis  equally  abfent  from  them 
 both,  and  the  one  has  no  more  legal  Right  to 
 it,  than  the  other,  becaufe  the  Law  has  equally 
 divefted  them  of  it  •,  fo  that  until  it  can  be 
 prov'd,  that  a  Bifhop's  Lofs  of  Jurifdittion  is  a  Nul- 
 ling of  his  Orders,  it  will  (band  good,  that  the  Bi- 
 fhop of  Alexandria^,  and  the  Council  of  Nice's 
 Depriving  Meletius  of  Jurifdidion,  was  not  a 
 Nulling  of  his  Orders  which  he  had  receiv'd  in 
 the  Church ;  and  this  is  farther  confirm'd  by 
 the  Council's  Ad  it  felf,  whereby  they  own'd 
 the  Validity  of  thofe  Orders  which  Meletius  had 
 eonferr'd  on  others,  even  after  the  Biihop  of 
 Alexandria  had  Depriv'd  him,  as  we  fhall  fee 
 
 prefentty* 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms.  21 
 
 prefently,  tho'  Mr.  Bingham  has  artfully  con- 
 -ccal'd  it  from  his  Reader.    For, 
 
 §  VIII.  He  makes  the  Council  of  Nice's  De- 
 cree about  thofe  who  had  been  ordaiivd  by 
 Meletius,  to  have  been  that  "  for  fuch  Biftops 
 cc  and  Presbyters  as  had  been  ordairfd  by  him, 
 *c  they  Jhould  not  be  admitted  to  officiate  as  Mi~ 
 M  nifiers  in  the  Catholick  Church,  till  they  were 
 "  confirm  d  or  ntttfjO^tj'l!  ty  a  wore  Sf.cred  Impo- 
 cc  fition  of  Hands,  together  with  the  approbation 
 <c  and  Allowance  of  the  Btjlwp  of  Alexandria.  " 
 Whereas  in  Truth,  the  Sentence,  as  'tis  re- 
 corded in  the  Synodical  Epiftle  before  referr'd 
 to,  ftands  thus  ;  and  it  decrees,  that  tc  as  for 
 T  thofe  that  had  been  ordain  d  by  him  to  any 
 tc  Funtlion,  llClftiy  COllfitUt'tl  by  a  more  Sacred 
 l\  ainpofitfon  Of  ©atlCS,  "  Cas  Mr.  Bingham 
 rightly  renders  it  ]  "  they  Jhould  be  admitted 
 "  into  Communion,  "  [  Dr.  Shorting  renders  it  ] 
 "  they  fiould  flftCEttffll'DS  he  admitted  into  Com" 
 a  munion,  "  ]  u  and  upon  this  Condition  they  may 
 "  [retain,  keep,  or]  COttttttUC  poffefs'd  of  their 
 "  l&efermmt  and  JftatCttPtt.  "  [This  Part  of 
 the  Sentence  Mr.  Bingham  omits,  let  the  Im- 
 partial judge  for  what  Reafon  •,    the  Council 
 
 fays  farther,] "  They  JhaH  have  no  Power 
 
 u  to  propofe  or  nominate  whom  they  pleafe,  or  to 
 u  al~b  in  Any  Thing  at  all,  without  the  Knowledge 
 a  and  Confent    of  fome  Catholick  Bifyop,    who  is 
 
 ^  one  of  Alexander'*  Suffragans.  " "  And 
 
 u  if  it  fiall  happen,  that  fome  of  thofe  who  now 
 4C  hold    Ecclefiaftical    Preferments    die,     then   let 
 
 thofe  that  are  newly  admitted  and  receivd  into 
 M  the  Church  "  [v/jc  the  Bifhops,  Priefts,  and 
 Peacons,  whom  Meletius  had  ordain'd,  as  Va- 
 
 C  3  lefiuj, 
 
11  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 lefius  obfervesj  "  bs  preferred  to  the  Dignities 
 "  of  the  Deceased)  &c  "  From  all  which  'tis 
 manifeft,   that 
 
 \ft.  The  Council  calls  thofe  Perfons  nj&aitfO, 
 who  had  receiv'd  Orders  from  Mdetivs  \  and 
 the  Nkene  Fathers,  in  another  Part  of  the  E- 
 piftle,  call  'em  "  thofe  that  had  been  by  him 
 «  admitted  into  ©aCCCD  fDpttfl  h  "  and  not 
 only  fo,  but  they  receiv'd  them  as  fuch  to 
 minifter  in  the  Churth  without  any  other  Or- 
 dination }  for 
 
 idly.   The  cc  more  Sacred  Imp option  of  Hands  ^  " 
 by  which  they  were  to  be  COnfi'CttfO,  was  pre- 
 vious to  their  being  admitted  into  Communion  \ 
 for  the  Council  appoints,    [and  Mr.  Bingham 
 omits  it]  that  4C  being  CdttfititfO  by  a  more  Sa- 
 cc  cred  Impofition  of  Hands  ^  theyfliould  be  admitted 
 li  into  Communion  \  "  that  is,  they  fhould,  after 
 fuch  Impofition  of  Hands,be  admitted  into  Com- 
 munion^ this  fliews  that  the  Impofition  of  Hands 
 was  only  "  Reconciliatory,  and  by  way  of  Abfolu- 
 "  tiony  "    in  order  to  the  receiving  of  them 
 into  the  Communion  of  the  Church }  fuch  an 
 Impofition  of  Hands  as  us'd  to  be  perform'd 
 over  other  returning  Penitents,   before    they 
 were  admitted  into  the  Church  }    and  there- 
 fore 'twas  not  a  new  Ordination,  for  who  will 
 believe  that  the  Council  appointed  this  for  an 
 Ordination,  when  the  Perfons  were  not  yet  in 
 Communion  ?  Would  a  Catholick  Council  de- 
 cree, that  Catholick  Bifhops  fhould  ordain  Men 
 into  Holy  Orders,  even  while  they  were  out 
 of  the  Communion  of  the  Church  ?   No  cer- 
 tainly •,  but 
 
 %dly.    The  Council  does  not  fay  OJtJcUft'tl  by 
 4  more  Sacred  Impofition  of  Hands^    but   "  CQU- 
 
 "  fitnrtTs 
 
and  Schifmatical  Bapiftns.  23 
 
 "  6ttift;  "  that  is,  eftablifli'd  or  ftrengthen'd 
 by  their  Reconciliation  and  Abfolution,  as  other 
 Penitents  us'd  to  be  by  Impofition  of  Hands ;  or 
 (  to  make  the  utmoft  of  it )  COllfirttl'O  in  "  tl)t 
 "  S)i1Cl4eO  ©?H£rS  "  [as  the  Council  calls  5em] 
 which  they  had  before  receiv'd  of  Afeletius ;  than 
 is,  in  fhort,  no  more  than  this,  that  they  might 
 be  abfolv'd  from  the  Guilt  and  Punifhment  due 
 to  the  circumflantial  Irregularity  of  being  or- 
 dain'd  without  and  againft  the  Confent  of  their 
 Metropolitan  the  Bilhop  of  Alexandria,  which 
 was  the  Crime  that  attended  their  Ordination  i 
 for  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Canons,  no  Ordinations 
 ought  to  have  been  perform'd  in  his  Jurifdi&ion 
 without  his  Leave  and  Confent ;  and  therefore 
 to  fecure  his  Authority,  the  Council  would  ob- 
 lige the  Perfons  fo  ordain'd  by  Meletius,  to 
 fubmit  to  their  Metropolitan  the  Bifhop  of  A- 
 lexandria,  by  receiving  Impofition  of  Hands  ei- 
 ther from  him  or  one  of  his  Suffragans,  that  fo 
 they  might  be  COItfi'Cttl'D  in  their  Sacred  Orders 
 before  receiv'd,  by  their  Abfolution  from  the 
 Guilt  and  Punifhment  of  their  Irregularity.  They 
 were  in  Holy  Orders  before  their  being  thus 
 COttfiMlT) ;  for  if  they  were  not,  then  they  were 
 CQltfitttftl  in  Nothing,  which  is  abfurd ;  for  of 
 JlJOtljtHjJ  there  can  be  no  Confirmation  ;  and 
 consequently  thofe  Perfons  were  in  Holy  Or- 
 ders, before  this  Impofition  of  Hands,  which 
 was  appointed  to  COllftCttl  them,  guc  jthis  is 
 farther  Evident, 
 
 qthly.  Becaufe  the  Council  fays,  cc  upen  this 
 *c  Condition  [of  their  being  fo  COttfintt'n,  &o] 
 41  they  may  retain^  hep^  or  continue  foffefs^d  of 
 iC  their  Preferment  and  Funttion.  '  This  mani- 
 feftJy  fhews  that  they  were  in  Orders  before ; 
 
 C  4  for 
 
24  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 for  if  they  had  no  Sacred  Fun&ion  before  this 
 Confirming  Impofition  of  Hands,  then  'twould 
 have  been  abfurd  to  have  faid,    "  they  may  f OU- 
 
 P  tfttue  poffefid  of  tfjeir  function  h "  for  how 
 
 can  a  Man  continue  poffCfS'O  of  that  which 
 he  never  had  ?  And  how  can  that  be  call'd 
 "  t&efc  jFUWtiOn, "  which  never  was  theirs? 
 The  Decree,  at  the  very  time  that  it  was  made, 
 calls  it  tljetr  JfltttCtion,  this  was  before  they 
 could  fubmit  to  the  requir'd  Impofition  of 
 Hands;  therefore  the  Function  of  a  Bifhop, 
 a  Prieft,  or  a  Deacon,  was  refpe&ively  tljettSj 
 who  had  been  ordain'd  by  Meletius;  tfjcitS 
 before  this  Impofition  of  Hands,  they  were 
 in  Pofleflion  of  it  before  \  and  therefore  upon 
 their  Submifllon  to  their  Metropolitan,  they 
 might  continue  poflefs'd  of  it. 
 
 §  IX.  But  Mr.  Bingham  fays  of  this  Impofi- 
 tion of  Hands,  that  u  Valefius  and  Du  Pin, 
 f%  and  other  Learned  Men,  take  "  it  u  tO  Itliplp 
 "  a  netl)  ©$mattam  "  To  which  I  anfwer, 
 what  if  they  do  take  it  to  tmplp  f°  ?  is  tnis 
 a  Proof,  that  it  therefore  was  a  new  Ordina- 
 tion f  Even  one  of  thefe  two  Moderns,  Du 
 Pin  (Ecclef.  Hifi.  Fourth  Cent.  p.  251.)  fays, 
 that  "  the  Council  permitted  MeletiuS  to  retain 
 f;  the  Name  of  a  Bijhop,  and  the  Honour  annexed 
 "  to  that  Office  •,  but  it  abfolutely  fc&ftl)  fjfttl  tO 
 "  0?tUim  any  Body  j  it  prefer^  d  alfo  the  Kanfc, 
 "  Honour,  an«3  ©{f  ice  of  thofe  whom  he  had 
 fc  Ojtiatn'D  •>  provided  neverthelefs,  that  they  jhould 
 4C  be  COHfintl'D  by  a  more  Sacred  Impofition  of 
 "  Hands  \  "  this  is  his  Relation  of  Matter  of 
 Fadt,  and  then  he  gives  you  a  Remark  of  his 
 own  upon  it,    "  which  is  a  fei'RD  Of  &C=2D?= 
 
 "  lunation,  s 
 
and  Schifmattcal  Baptifms.  25 
 
 ^  tWtattCm,  "  fays  he.  He  modeflly  fuppofes 
 it  to  be  but  a  Kind  of  Re- Ordination  ;  and  in 
 the  Note  (*")  there  is  this  farther  Remark,  that 
 
 *  it  is  commonly  thought  that  this  jimpofitioit 
 
 lc  of   Hands   was  only   a   Ceremony  ',    but 
 
 tc  Valefius  has  very  well  proved,  that  it  was  4 
 "  new  Ordination,  and  this  is  the  Thing  which 
 "  the  Word  does  properly  fignify  \  "  fo  that  Du 
 Tin  takes  his  Notion,  that  it  was  a  Kind 
 of  Re-Ordination,  only  from  Valefius,  againft 
 whom  we  fee  it  is  COmmOtllp  tftOUffflt  [f* 
 by  Learned  Men,  for  ignorant  People  don't 
 think  on  thefe  Things]  that  this  Impofition 
 of  Hands  was  only  a  Ceremony  ;  the  Learned  com* 
 monly  think  of  this  Matter  differently  from  Va- 
 lefius ;  and  therefore  tho'  Valefius  fuppofes  it 
 to  be  a  new  Ordination,  it  does  not  neceflarily 
 follow  that  it  really  was  fo.  Is  his  private  Opi- 
 nion that  it  was  a  new  Ordination,  an  Argu- 
 ment that  the  Council  thought  fo  too,  or  ap- 
 pointed it  as  fuch  ?  Where  does  this  appear  ? 
 The  Words  of  the  Nicene  Fathers  are  "  C0lt= 
 *c  fitltl'D  by  a  more  Sacred  Impofition  of  Hands,  h 
 fAv.  B'ngham  fays,  "  confirmed  or  aUtfjO^'jU  5  " 
 this  OtltijOJIJ'O  is  his  own,  and  put  in  by  him, 
 as  if  he  would  make  it  look  like  a  new  Ordi- 
 nation, when  in  Truth  the  Greek  feGeuvQivrif , 
 lignifies  no  more  than  confirmed,  eftablijh'd, 
 ftrengthend,  and  fach  like  -,  and  therefore  for 
 him  to  add  this  Word  mttfjOJIfD,  when  the 
 Greek  Text  has  it  not,  looks  like  fomething, 
 which,  I  believe,  his  very  Friends  in  this  Con- 
 troverfy,who  have  any  Candor  and  Impartiality, 
 will  not  commend  in  him  :  But  not  to  dwell  too 
 long  upon  that,  which  fo  palpably  difcovers  it 
 felf  j 
 
 §  X. 
 
26  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 §  X.  He,  with  an  Air  of  Diffidence,  as  if  he 
 fufpc&ed  that  this  Impofition  of  Hands  was  in 
 Reality  no  New  Ordination,  fays,  "  Valefius  and 
 *l  Du  Pin,  &c  take  it  to  imply  a  New  Or  din*- 
 
 "  finii"  0)  "  totociier  [fays  he]  it  car* 
 
 a  tcUftlP  implies   a  new  Authority  and  Confirma- 
 ct  tion  from  the  Church,  & c.  "    He  is  at  a  Lois 
 how  to  prove  this  Impofition  of  Hands  to  have 
 been  a  New  Ordination ;    his  Modefty  will  not 
 fufFef  him  pbfttt&llp  to  affirm  that  it  was  one, 
 and  finding  himfelf  defiitute  of  any  Proof  either 
 from  the  Decree  it  felf  of  the  Council  of  Nice, 
 or  from  any  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  his  great 
 Knowledge  in  Ecclefiaftical  Antiquity  is  at  a 
 Stand  about  this  Matter,  and  fo  he  tells  us  only 
 of  a  Notion  of  fome  few  Moderns,  Valefius,  Du 
 Tin,  &c.   who  take  this  Impofition  of  Hands 
 to  imply  a  New  Ordination;   bnt  then  he  does 
 not  fo  much  confide  in  their  Opinion,  as  to 
 endeavour  to  defend  it ;  no,  he  leaves  it  juft 
 as  he  found  it,    and   as   if  he   fear'd  that  it 
 could  not  be  rely'd  on,  he  tells  us,  tC  fjOteitfr, 
 tc  it  certainly  implies   a   new  Authority  and  Con- 
 a  formation,  &o  "    which  is  juft  as  if  he  had 
 faid  thus,  namely,  if  the  Impofition  of  Hands  im- 
 plies not  a  New  Ordination,  "  it  certainly  implies 
 "  a  new  Authority  and  Confirmation ;  "  by  which 
 'tis  plain,  he  makes  this  fuppos'd  new  Autho- 
 rity, &c.    to  •  be  fomething  diftinct.  and  fepa- 
 rate  from  a  New  Ordination',  and  fo  he  has  at 
 laft  found  out  fomething,  upon  which  he  and 
 we  may  all  certainly  depend  •,  namely,  that  this 
 
 which 
 
 (s)  ScloUfl.  Hifl.  Part  II.  p.  55» 
 
and  Schifmatlcal  Baptifms.  27 
 
 Which  he  calls  ct  a  new  Authority  and  Confirma- 
 "  Hon  from   the  Church ,  n     was  really  no  New 
 Ordination  •,    for  if  it  was,   then  the  Senfe  of 
 his  Words  will  (land  thus,  "  Valefius,  &c.  take 
 Ct  it  to  imply  a  New  Ordination  }    fjOlDClJCt,  it 
 u  certainly  implies  a  New  Ordination  \"    this  is 
 as    good    Senfe,    as   if  he   fhould   have  faid, 
 "  !)0ft?£t)£r,  +  e-  if  ^  does  not  imply  a  New 
 "  Ordination,  it  certainly  implies  a  New  Or- 
 "  dination  •,  "     which   is    a  Contradiction  in 
 Terms.      And    therefore,    that    Mr.    Bingham 
 may   fpeak   good  Senfe,    his   undoubted  Con- 
 clullon  is  this,   That  the  Imposition  of  Hands 
 here    fpoken    of,    certainly  implies     [  fome- 
 thing    which     was    not    a     new    Ordinarion 
 but]   a  Confirmation,   as   is   plain  from    the 
 Decree    it    felf  •,     and    then    he    may    make 
 as    much  as    he   pleafes    of   his   own    Term, 
 "  New  Authority,  "    fo  long  as  it  was  not  a 
 New  Ordination.     For  when  an  Ordination  is 
 Valid,  fomeCircumftantialsmay  be,  and  among 
 us  are,  fuperadded,   which  Men  may  call  Nw 
 Authorities,   if  they  pleafe;  for  Inftance,  after 
 a    Man    has    been    Ordain'd    a    Prieft,      he 
 mult,  by  the  Canon,    receive  a  Licenfe  from 
 the  Bifhop  to  preach  *,  and  that  he  may  be  le- 
 gally poflefs'd  of  a  Living,  and  canonically  ex- 
 ercife  his  Function  therein,  without  Interrup- 
 tion from  others,  and  oblige  the  Inhabitants, 
 the  Chriftians  of  that  Diftritt,  to  attend  on  his 
 Miniftrations,  he  mult  have  Inftitution  ;  thefe 
 we  may  call  New  Authorities,  if  we  will  •,  but 
 'tis  plain,  they  are  not  New  Ordinations,  only 
 Circumftantlal  Authorities  given  for  the  fake  of 
 Peace  and  Order.     A  Man  Epifcopaily  ordain'd 
 as  in  Valid  Orders  before  his  receiving  any  ilich 
 
 New 
 
28  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 New  Circumftantial  Authority  •,  As,  no  doubt, 
 were  theBifhops,Priefb,and  Deacons,validly  Or- 
 dain'd by  Afeletius,  before  they  receiv'd  what  Mr. 
 Bingham  calls  a  New  Authority,  which  was  only  a 
 Confirmation  by  Impofition  of  Hands.  ¥oxMele- 
 tius  was  a  Validly  Ordain'd  Bifhop,  his  Orders 
 were  not  Null'd,  but  only  his  Jurifdi&ion  takea 
 from  him  by  his  Metropolitan,  and  by  the  Coun- 
 cil of  Nice  \  his  Orders  therefore  remained,  con- 
 fequently  thofe  whom  he  Ordain'd  were  in  Valid 
 Orders,  which  the  great  Council  of  Nice  did  not 
 deny,  but  acknowledge,  by  only  decreeing  them 
 to  be  confirmed  [not  Ordain'd]  by  their  Metro- 
 politan's, or  one  of  his  Suffragan's  more  Sacred 
 Impofition  of  Hands,  and  fo  to  be  received  into 
 the  Communion  of  the  Church  }  and  upon  this 
 Condition  to  "  Continue  pojfefs^d  of  their  Prefer- 
 U  went  and  Function  ",  which  they  had  before  re- 
 ceiv'd of  Meletius^  as  is  plain  from  all  that  has 
 been  faid  upon  this  Subject. 
 
 §  XL  But  that  Mr,  Bingham 's  Friends  may 
 fee,  that  even  he  himfelf  is  a  Witnefs  to  this 
 Truth,  I  will  prefent  them  with  his  own  un- 
 prejudic'd  Account  of  the  95eletlfflt  TBlfljCJpSf, 
 as  it  ftands  in  his  Origines  Ecclefiafticay  Vol.  I. 
 p.  172.  where  fpeaking  of  Ct  fuch  Bijhops  whom 
 <c  the  ancient  Writers  and  Canons  term  (HflCfiltt 
 <C  Oi3ifl)OP05  not  being  permitted  to  officiate  in 
 *l  their  own  Churchy  were  admitted  to  ai~ly  as 
 a  Chorepifcopi  vnder  any  other  Bijhop  that  would 
 "  entertain  them-  "  He  inftances  the  Novatian 
 and  QgeletUm  'Btff)0P&  as  fo  admitted  to  aft 
 by  the  COiUtCll  Of  Witt,  [  which  is  the  very 
 Cafe  now  before  us]  and  then  he  exprefly 
 and  pofitively  affirms,  without  any  Scruple  or 
 
 Hefitation? 
 
and  Schif mat  teal  Baptifm  s.  29 
 
 Hefitation,  that  "  Sill  fab  Chorepifcopi  as 
 *c  tfjefe,  [namely,  as  thefe  Meletians^  &c] 
 "  were   pJQpetlp    'BtfljOpS,     becaufe   they  were 
 
 *  ojigmallp  o?Htitn'D  'Bifijopg,  befo?e  they 
 
 tc  r^wff  f<?  4$  in  the  Quality  of  Country  Bifhops 
 "  under  others.  "  In  which  Words  'tis  plain, 
 that  he  referrs  to  their  Original  Ordination  by 
 Meletius  ;  and  from  hence  it  unavoidably  fol- 
 lows, that  he  owns  the  Meletian  Bifhops  to 
 have  been  "  P?0petlp  IMfljOpg, "  OJffffttaflP 
 *  OfliaftfO  15tfl)Op0  5  "  [  they  are  his  own 
 Words  ]  and  that  confequently  the  Meletian 
 Bifhops,  Priefts,  and  Deacons  were  properly 
 Bifhops,  Priefts,  and  Deacons,  and  therefore 
 [  to  ufe  Mr.  Bingham's  Phrafe,  Cl  'tis  as  clear  as 
 u  the  Sun  at  Noon  Day,  that  "  ]  Baptifm  per- 
 formed by  thofe  Men,  was  Baptifm  by  Men  in 
 Valid  Epifcopal  Orders,  and  therefore  not  of 
 the  fame  Nature  with  the  falfe  Baptifms  admi- 
 niftred  by  our  Lacks,  who  never  were  ordain'd 
 or  commiffion'd  by  Bifhops  to  Baptize. 
 
 §  XII.  Mr.  Bingham's  next  (t)  Inftance  is 
 of  Arius  the  Prieit,  and  two  Bifhops,  Secundum 
 and  Theonas,  who  were  depos'd  and  excom- 
 municated by  Alexander  Bifhop  of  Alexandria, 
 and  by  the  Council  of  Nice,  for  the  Arian  He- 
 refy  :  And  he  argues  about  them  thus  •,  fays  he, 
 («)  "  By  the  Tenor  of  thefe  direful  Cenfures,  Arius 
 "  and    all   his  Adherents    were    not   only    deposed 
 
 "  from  their  Clerical  Office  ano  £>$er& 
 
 tl  but  alfo  expeird  from  Lay-Communim,   and  all 
 
 ft)  Sckol.Hift.  Part II.  p.  57, 
 (u)  Ibid.  p.  58. 
 
 u 
 
 thi 
 
go  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 "  the  Privileges  of  Chriftians,  J'ave  only  that  their 
 
 cl  Baptifm   em  it  led  them    to    be    admitted  again 
 
 ct  into  the  Churchy    upon  a  true  Repentance.     But 
 
 "  in  the  mean  time  they  were  neither  ftUtljO^ij'O 
 
 "  pjicflte,   nor  compleat  la^C&iftimig, 
 
 4t  xvhilft  they  were  under  fitch  Bonds  of  Excommuni- 
 "  cation',  for  no  Man  is  a  COllipIeat  LftptttilRM* 
 
 cl  #  not  in  full  Communion  with  the  Church.  Vpon 
 44  this  Account,  Catechumens  who  are  tmbapti^d^ 
 4C  and  Heretic ks,  and  Schifmaticks,  and  Excom- 
 44  municate  Perfons,  are  but  imperfetl  Chriflians  : 
 44  The  firfi  of  thefe  communicate  with  the  Church 
 44  in  the  Faith,  but  not  in  the  Sacraments  ',  the  o- 
 14  ther  Three  either  excommunicate  themfelves,  or 
 44  are  excommunicated  by  the  Power  of  the  Keys 
 44  and  Church- Cevfures.  Till  therefore  they  are 
 4C  admitted  again,  and  loofed  by  the  fame  Power 
 •f  of  the  Keys,  they  are  not  in  full  Communion  with 
 4C  the  Church,  and  confequently  but  imperfetl  Chri- 
 44  fiians.  Now,  it  would  be  abfurd  to  fay,  that 
 44  thofe  who  are  not  fo  much  as  Proper  and  Per- 
 44  feci  Lay- Chriflians,  are  Proper  and  Jj3££f€Ct 
 tC  iS^lCftSi  5  that  they  who  have  no  Eight  to  re- 
 44  ceive  themfelves  the  Sacraments,  have  StltfjOJt8 
 44  tp  to  give  the  Sacraments  to  others:  Therefore 
 44  Hereticks,  and  Schifmaticks,  and  Priefts  vnder 
 14  Anathema,  can  have  no  Authority  to  minifter  the 
 44  Sacraments,  nhilfi  they  are  in  that  State  ;  or  if 
 4C  they  do,  it  is  all  done  without  Authority,  and 
 44  by  V  fur  pat  ion.  And  this  was  the  Cafe  of  Arius 
 44  and  all  his  Adherents,  whilfi  they  were  vnder 
 44  the  Anathema  of  the  Council  of  Nice.  The  Bap- 
 "  tifms  which  they  gave  in  that  State,  were  given 
 44  without  Authority,  and  were  not  fo  much  as  the 
 11  Baptifms  of  Per fetl  Lay- Chriflians  :  And  set  the 
 4i   Church  did  not  Re -baptise  fitch  Per  fans  as  were 
 
 44  Baptized 
 
and  Schifmatkal   Baptifas.  31 
 
 44  Baptized  in  due  Form  by  them,  but  only  fup~ 
 4c  plyd  what  was  deficient  in  their  Baptifms  at 
 4C  their  Return   to    the  Churchy    by    Impofition    of 
 
 4C  Hands,    and  Confirmation.  — This  then,   I 
 
 4C  think,  Cfeys  he]  is  Demonfl ration,  that  if  the 
 44  Council  of  Nice  took  away  all  Clerical  Autho- 
 44  rity  from  the  Meletians  and  Arians,  and  left 
 "  one  in  a  State  of  !Upttt£tt9  and  the  other  not 
 Ci  fo  much  as  Laymen,  and  yet  received  the  Bap' 
 4fc  tifms  that  were  given  by  both  thefe^  without  Re- 
 4<  baptizing ',  She  mufi  receive  the  Baptifms  of 
 c4  thofe  who  in  her  Opinion  had  no  Authority  to 
 44  give  Baptlfm,  becaufe  flie  her  felf  had  taken 
 that  Authority  from  them,  &C. 
 
 tc 
 
 §  XIIL  In  Anfwer  to  all  which,  it  has  been 
 already  prov'd,  both  from  the  Ad  of  the  Council, 
 and  from  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf,  that  the  Mele- 
 tians were  not  Laymen,  but  Proper  Bifljops,  Priefts, 
 and  Deacons  -,  and  therefore  we  are  now  at  pre- 
 fent  only  concerned  with  the  Arians  -,  about 
 whom  we  are  to  enquire,  whether  all  that 
 Mr.  Bingham  has  faid,  amounts  to  any  Proof, 
 that  the  Council  of  Nice  efteem'd  the  depos'd 
 and  excommunicated  Arian  Bifliops,  Priefts,  and 
 Deacons,  to  have  been  as  utterly  deftitute  of 
 Sacred  Orders,  as  thofe  Perfons  are,  who  ne- 
 ver were  at  all  ordain'd  or  commiffion'd  by 
 Bifhops  1 
 
 %  XIV.  But  before  I  come  to  fpeak  of  their 
 Orders,  I  mufl:  obferve  that  he  fays,  u  They 
 4C  were  not  compleat  ILOP  Chriftians,  whilfi  they 
 11  were  under  fuch  Bonds  of  Excommunication. 
 u  For  [fays  he]  no  Man  is  a  COmpIfrlt  lflp= 
 u  ttlflib    who  is  not  in  full  Communion  with  the 
 
 14  Church.  " 
 
3  2  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 "  Church —  "    So  again  he  calls  'em  "  not 
 
 "  fo  much  as  proper  and  perfect  Lay-Chriftians  \  " 
 and  towards  the  latter  End  of  this  PafTage,  he 
 fays,  they  were  u  not  fo  much  as  Laymen  \  " 
 tho'  yet  he  acknowledges  that  they  were  Bap- 
 tiz'd  Perfons  \  for  he  fays,  that  u  their  Bap- 
 ct  tifm  entitled  them  to  be  admitted  again  into 
 "  the  Church  upon  a  true  Repentance.  "  So  that 
 the  Excommunication  did  not  unbaptize  them y 
 for  even  while  they  were  under  thisCenfure,they 
 were  baptized  Chriftians,  otherwife  they  could 
 have  had  no  Title  to  any  thing  at  all,  by  Virtue 
 of  their  Baptifm.  The  excommunicated  Arians 
 then  were  baptiz'd  Perfons,  therefore  they  were 
 either  Laymen  or  Clergymen,  for  baptiz'd  Per- 
 fons muft  be  one  or  other  of  thefe  two  Sorts  ;  if 
 they  were  not  Laymen,  then  they  were  Clergy- 
 men, and  we  fhall  prove  by  and  by,  that  Mr. Bing- 
 ham owns  they  were  really  Clergymen  }  in  the 
 mean  time,  I  mull  beg  the  Reader's  Patience, 
 while  I  fhew  him  what  it  is,  that  can  be  under- 
 ftood  by  Mr.  Bingham's  u  compleat  Layman. " 
 Every  Body  knows  what  is  meant  by  a  compleat 
 Chriflian,  but  then  this  Term  is  common  to  both 
 Clergy  and  Laity ,  whereas  "  COttlplCat  Lay- 
 tfc  man,  "  in  Contradiftinction  to  Clergyman,  is 
 a  Term  wholly  new,  and  neceflarily  interrs  De- 
 grees of  Laity  i  fo  that  a  Layman  being  a  Bap- 
 tiz'd Perfon,  who  is  not  ordain'd  or  commiffion'd 
 to  minifter  in  Holy  Things,  and  Mr.  Bingham's 
 CDttipIeat  lapmait  pofleffing  the  Superlative 
 Degree  of  Laity,  it  will  come  to  this  pafs,  that 
 one  Baptiz'd  Man  may  be  a  Layman,  another 
 piore  a  Layman,  and  a  third  moft  of  all,  or  a 
 compleat  Layman  -,  that  is,  one  Man  is  not  or* 
 dairid  or  not  commijfion7dy    another  is  more  not 
 
 ordain'd 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifaf.  33 
 
 erdain'd  or  not  commiffion'dy  and  a  third  is  moft  of 
 nil.  not  ordain }d  or  not  commiffion>d'1  which  in  fhort 
 amounts  to  this,  that  a  meer  Negative  has  De- 
 grees of  Companion,  and  fo  it  will  be  very  pro- 
 per to  fay,  that  one  Thing  is  H0t5  another  is 
 niO?e  ItOt?  and  a  third  moff  IWU  which  is  in- 
 fufferable  Nonfenfe,  and  is  neceflarily  included 
 in  the  new  invented  Term  of  a  u  Compleat  Lay- 
 u  man.  "  But  to  leave  this  ridiculous  Term  to 
 it  felf  •,  there  is  no  doubt,  but  every  Baptiz'd 
 Perfon  who  is  juftly  excommunicated,  is  far  from 
 being  a  perfetl  or  compleat  Chriftian  in  that  State ; 
 but  then  the  very  fame  may  be  faid  of  other  Bap- 
 tiz'd Perfons,  who  tho'  they  are  in  vifible  Com- 
 munion with  the  Church,  yet  have,  by  reafon 
 of  their  wicked  impenitent  Lives,  no  more 
 Right  to  the  Benefits  of  that  Communion,  than 
 the  Excommunicated  themfelves  have,  and  fo 
 are  as  far  from  being  compleat  or  perfed  Chri- 
 ftians,  as  the  Excommunicated  are  \  but  then 
 this  is  equally  Common  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity 
 both  }  and  therefore,  if  this  Want  of  Perfe- 
 ction docs  not  annihilate  the  Baptifm  they  re- 
 ceiv'd,  there  is  no  Reafon  can  be  given  why  it 
 ihould  null  or  utterly  make  void  either  their 
 Lay  or  Clerical  Order. 
 
 §  XV.     But  fays  Mr.  Bingham^  "  Arius  and 
 
 Cl  all  his  Adherents  were  deposed  from  their 
 
 "  Clerical  Office  and  Orders^  "  a  they  were 
 
 "  not  cMtljO^'D  PJt'eftg wbilfi  they  were 
 
 li  under  fuch  Bonds  of  Excommunication.  ■  But 
 what  does  he  mean  by  this  ?  would  he  have  it 
 underftood,  that  their  being  depos'd  and  ex- 
 communicated was  a  jftulitng  of  their  Orders  ? 
 Alexander  the  Bilhop  has  faid  no  fuch  Thing* 
 
 D  no 
 
34  &f  Valid  Heretical 
 
 no  more  have  the  Nicene  Fathers.  Where  is  this 
 nullifying  Cenfure  then  to  be  found  ?  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham has  not  produc'd  it. 
 
 Socrates  Scholafticus  fays,  (w)  u  Alexander  ha* 
 "  ving  convened  a  Council  of  many  Bijhops,  de~ 
 "  graded  [  or  deposed  ]  Arius,  and  thofe  that 
 H  embraced  his  Opinion.  "  Alexander ,  in  his  Let* 
 ter  to  the  Bifhops  of  every  City,  fays,  tc  We  — 
 "  have  anathematized  [curs'd,  or  excommuni* 
 u  cated  ]  Arius,  .  together  with  all  his  Ad- 
 tc  herents,  "    ■■  "  they   are  expelfd   out   of 
 
 *'  the  Church  and  anathematize  d?  "    .  u  we 
 
 4C  .  have  — ,  0pe»/y  declared  them  eftrang'd 
 
 <c  /r.o?»  tta  Catholick  Church  and  Faith,  "  » 
 
 "  it  is  our  Duty  not  to  fay  to  fuch  Men,  fo  much 
 "  as  God  Speed.  "  The  Synodical  Epiftle  of  the 
 Council  of  Nice  fays,  (#J  "  TjW  the  Council's 
 4C  Determination,  which  was  confirmed  by  the  Suf- 
 Ct  f rages  of  all?  was,  that  his  [i.  e.  Arius' J  ]  im- 
 4t  pious  Opinion,  and  execrable  Terms  and  Names 
 <c  fhould  be  anathematized)  "  [  viz*  the  blafphe- 
 mous  Terms  and  Names  he  apply'd  to  the  Son 
 
 of  God.]    i <c  All  thefe  Tenets  the  Holy 
 
 "  Synod  hath  anathematized :  "  ■  "  He  drew 
 
 cc  into  the  fame  Pit  of  Perdition  with  himfelf, 
 <fc  Theonas  JBiJhop  of  Marmarica,  and  Secundus 
 *c  Bijhop  of  PtOlemais.  For  the  fame  Sentence 
 6C  that  had  been  given  againfi  him,  was  pronounced 
 <c  againfi  them  ',  "  viz.  the  Sentence  whereby 
 they  were  depos'd  and  excommunicated.  All 
 this  (hews,  that  Arius  and  his  Followers  were 
 excommunicated  and  depos'd  \  but  it  does  not 
 
 O)    Ecclef.  &ift.  Booh  I.  Chap.  6. 
 (*;    Ibid.  Book  I.  Cbap.  9. 
 
 from 
 
dnd  Schtfmatical  Bapiifms.  55 
 
 from  hence  follow,  that  their  Clerical  Orders 
 were  null'd,  and  made  void  ;  Nay,  the  very 
 Form  of  their  Depofition,  to  be  feen  at  large  m 
 CoteUrius'  Notes,  (y)  on  the  Constitutions  call'd 
 Apoftolictlj  has  nothing  in  it  that  nullifies  their 
 Orders. 
 
 §  XVI.  And  indeed,  if  their  Orders  had 
 been  Null'd,  they  would  have  been  no  other 
 than  meer  Laymen7  Perlbns  as  utterly  incapable  of 
 Miniftring  in  Holy  Things,  as  thofe  who  never 
 were  at  all  Ordain'd  or  Commiflion'd  \  and  con- 
 fequently,  if  ever  the  Church  receiv'd  them  in- 
 to Communion  as  Clergymen,  and  let  them 
 minister  as  fuch,  without  Ordaining  them,  fhe 
 would  have  fufFer'd  and  approv'd  of  tXiCtt  3lap* 
 
 men's  miniftring  in  all  tfje  €>acteo  Mmtiu 
 
 CHS  of  Bifhops,  Priefts,  and  Deacons  *,  and  fo 
 Lay-Ordination,  Lay-Baptifm,  Lay-Confecrationf 
 and  Adminiftration  of  the  Holy  Eucharifi,  Lay- 
 Abfolution,  and  Lay -Excommunications,  &o  would 
 have  been  countenanc'd  and  efteem'd  Valid  in 
 the  Opinion  of  the  Church  \  which  is  an  Ab- 
 furdity  by  no  means  to  be  allow'd  of,  becanfe 
 it  reflects  upon  the  Church  after  the  Council 
 of  Nice,  as  if  fhe  had  been  guilty  of  Conniving  at 
 and  Encouraging  the  moft  Sacrilegious  Usurpa- 
 tions ;  and  makes  even  Epifcopal,  or  indeed, 
 any  fuppos'd  Sacerdotal  Ordination  to  be  an 
 infignificant  and  ufelefs  thing  :  For,  in  the  first 
 place,  What  fignifies  any  Ordination  by  a  Bi- 
 fhop  ?  Or  fecondly,  any  pretended  Ordination 
 by   Presbyters,  if   Lay-Ordination   be  Valid  ? 
 
 (y)  Coteler. Not.  inConftitut.  Jipoflol  Lib.VIII.  Cap.  280' 
 D  1  And 
 
36  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 And  Valid  it  mult  have  been  in  the  Senfc  of 
 thofe  Churches,  who  receiv'd  as  Clergymen,  the 
 Avian  Bifhops,  and  fuch  as  were  ordain'd  by 
 them  \  if  the  Arian  Bifliops,  Priefts,  and  Dea- 
 cons, had  their  Orders  null'd,  by  being  depos'd 
 and  excommunicated. 
 
 §  XVII.    For  'tis  notorious  Matter  of  Fad, 
 that    the  Arian    Bifliops,     Priefts,    and    Dea- 
 cons were,  upon  their  Repentance,  receiv'd  by 
 the  Catholicks  in  the  fame  Rank  and  Degree  of 
 Clergymen,  as  they  held  while  they  were  He- 
 reticks.     And  they  were  thus  receiv'd  into  the 
 Church,   without   the  Catholicks  giving  them 
 any  new  Ordination,  upon  Account  of  the  In- 
 validity of  the  old  *,  which  manifeftly  fhewsone 
 of  thefe  two  Things  *,   either  ift.  That  if  the 
 Catholicks  held  thofe  Arian  Bifliops,  who  or- 
 dain'd, to  have  been  no  other  than  meer  Lakh 
 before,  then  the   Catholicks,   by  receiving  as 
 Clergymen^  Perfons  who  had  been  ordain'd  by 
 them,  efteem'd  Lay- Ordination  to  be  Good  and 
 Valid  }    but  this  of  receiving  Lay-Ordination 
 is  a  very  great  Abfurdity,  highly  dangerous  to 
 the  Chriftian  Religion,    and  contrary    to  the 
 conftant  Do&rine  and  Practice  of  the  Church. 
 It  is  plain  therefore,  idly^  That  the  Catholicks, 
 by  thus  receiving  the  Arian  Clergy  without  Or- 
 daining them,  did  own  their  Clerical  Orders  to 
 have  been  Good  and  Valid,*,  for  if  they  had 
 been  JEJuH,  their  Incapacity  to  minifter  in  Holy 
 Things,   would  have  been  the  fame  in  CilCtp 
 RcfpCft,  as  that  of  Perfons  who  never  were  at 
 all  Orda.tfd,  [_  becaufe  there  are  HO  ©££?£££ 
 Of  3)3tliUtJ>]  and   confequently  the  Catholicks 
 would  have  been  flS  UlUCf)  o6iiff'D  to  ordain 
 
 fuch 
 
and  Schifmaticd  Baptifms.  57 
 
 fuch  Arians,  as  to  ordain  any  other  Layman 
 to  minifter  in  the  Sacred  Functions.  But  we 
 find  that  the  Catholicks  did  not  reckon  them- 
 felves  to  have  been  fo  oblig'd  to  ordain  thofe 
 Annus,  becaufe  they  receiv'd  them  as  Clergy- 
 men, without  Ordaining  them  •,  and  therefore 
 they  eiteem'd  the  Sacred  Orders  they  receiv'd 
 before,  to  have  been  Good  and  Valid,  as  is  very 
 evident  from  St.  Jerome's  Dialogue  againft  the 
 Luciferian  Schifmaticks,  who  feparated  from  the 
 Church,  upon  this  very  fcore,  becaufe  fhe  fo 
 receiv'd  the  Arians  as  Clergymen. 
 
 §  XVIII.  And  Mr.  Bingham  is  fo  very  well 
 appriz'dof  this  Truth  alfo,  that  he  himfelf  has 
 given  his  Teftimony  to  it,  in  the  firft  Part  of 
 his  Scholaftical  Hiftory,  Pag.  88,  and  89.  where 
 he  exprefly  affirms  of  Bifhops  and  Priefts  who 
 turn'd  Hereticks  or  Schifmaticks^  or  Apoflates, 
 or  were  Excommunicated  or  Degraded  \  That 
 u  When  in  the  Difcipllne  of  the  Church  it  was 
 u  thought  proper  to  0£P?l&£  them  of  the  Power 
 "  and  Honour  of  their  Places  \  \)Zt  ZMU  ftt  tf}c1t 
 a  Cftfe,    the  Church  did  not   intend    to  deny  the 
 
 "  aJaltnitp  of  tljeir  ©filiation,  but  fuppoid 
 "  that  fttii  to  remain  fo  entire,  as 
 
 cc  that  if  ever  after  the  Church  fliould  recall  them 
 u  to  thofe  Offices,  fie  would  not  do  it  by  giving 
 "  them  a  New  Ordination,  any  more  than  a  New 
 u  Baptifm ',  which  is  largely  infifted  on  by  Sf.  Au- 
 "  ftin  (z.)  againft  the  Donatifts,  and  St.  Jerome 
 "  againft   the  Luciferians,    {a)  both  which  Setts 
 
 (2)    Auguftin.  contra  Parmen.  Lib.  II.  Cap*  13. 
 ( a  )   Hieron.  advcr.  Luciferian. 
 
 D  3  "  pleaded 
 
3  8  Gf  Valid  Heretical 
 
 «  phaded  for  the  ifrnMMtp  of  IJjetetical  ©?* 
 
 "  9t!tat!0!10,  but  were  reftltCD,  vpon  this  Vrin- 
 ^  ciple  of  the  Catholick  Churchy  that  Baptifm  and 
 ^  Ordination,  tho*  finfully  given,  if  they  be  V did, 
 cC  are  not  to  be  wholly  annuWd  or  afterward  re- 
 "  peated.  "  All  thefe  are  Mr.  Bingham's  own 
 Words,  by  which  he  evidently  makes  it  the 
 Principle  of  the  Catholick  Church,  That  the  Or* 
 ders  of  the  Arian  Heretich  were  Valid  }  for  'twas 
 in  Defence  of  their  Orders,  that  St.  Jerome  wrote 
 againft  the  Luciferians,  and  KcftttCD  them.  The 
 Luciferians  had"  a  Notion,  that  the  ©#f£tS  °f 
 the  Arians  ItJCtC  JltfcOlttS  *,  but  St.  Jerom  wrote 
 his  Dialogue  againft  them,  to  convince  them 
 of  this  their  Error,  and  they  "  \&£tt  JRcftitCtU" 
 fays -Mr.  Bingham  \  from  whence  'tis  manifeft, 
 even  to  a  Demonftration,  that  Mr.  Bingham  him- 
 felf  aflerts  the  Orders  of  the  depos'd  and  ex- 
 communicated Arian  Bifhops  and  other  Clergy, 
 to  have  been  Valid  -,  and  confequently  they  were 
 Valid  Priefts,  even  while  they  were  under  the 
 Cenfure  ,  for,  if  they  were  not,  then  their  Or- 
 ders were  $Uiif,  perfectly  none  at  all,  utterly 
 annihilated ;  and  how  their  Sacred  Orders  mould 
 come  into  Being  again,  without  a  new  Ordi- 
 nation, is  inconceivable :  For  the  Church  is  an 
 utter  Stranger  to  any  way  of  giving  Holy  Or- 
 ders, except  by  that  of  Ordination.  But  we 
 find,  that  the  Arians  were  efteem'd  to  have 
 had  Valid  Orders,  without  any  new  Ordina- 
 tion, and  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  informs  us  that 
 they  had  \  and  therefore  he  mult  acknowledge^ 
 that  while  they  were  under  the  Cenfure,  they 
 were  Valid  Priefts, 
 
 SXJX- 
 
and  Schif matted  Baptifms.  39 
 
 §  XIX.    But  ftill  lie  will  have  it,  tftat  a  they 
 u  were  not  fttttfja&tl  Priefis '?  "    which    is    a 
 notorious  Falfity,  and  a  Contradiction  to  him- 
 felf,  if  by  atltfjO?t?'D  P?iefffe  he  means  Validly 
 crdaitfd  Priefts  ;  for  they  were  Validly  ordaitfd 
 by  his  own  Account  of  them,   as  we  have  al- 
 ready feen  -,    and  Validly  ordain  d  Priefis  are  au- 
 thorize d  Priefts,  that  is,  Priefts  veiled  with  that 
 original  Authority,  which  they  receiv'd  at  their 
 Ordination;  which  Authority  mnft  ftill  remain, 
 fo  long    as  their  Ordination  continues  Valid. 
 As  for  any  other  Authority,  which  is  but  ac- 
 cidental, fuch  as  a  Licenfe  for  Clergymen  to  ex> 
 ercife  their  Sacred  Function  in  a  particular  Di- 
 ftritl,  with   a  Power  to  oblige  the  Christians, 
 inhabiting  that  Diftricl:,  to  attend  upon,  and 
 fupport  them  in  the  Execution  of  their  Office, 
 &c.  fuch  Authority  as  this,  is  only  circumftan- 
 tial, not  ejfential  to  Sacred  Orders  ',  for  a  Man 
 is  a  Valid  [and  therefore  an  eflentially  autho- 
 rised ]  Prieft,  by  Virtue  of  his  Ordination  only, 
 who  is  not  fuch  a  circumft ant tally  authorized  Prieft, 
 who  has  no   fuch   circumftantial  Authority  and 
 Power ;   as   we   fee   every   Day    in    our    own 
 Church.   In  refpeft  to  fuch  an  accidental,  and 
 but  circumftantial  Authority,  Mr.  Bingham  may  call 
 the  Arian  Priefts,   «  not  nutljOJtj'D  P?feff0", 
 if  he  pleafes  ;   but  then  he  ought  to   exprefs 
 and  determine  in  what  Senfe,  and  not  to  make 
 ufe  of  the  little  Artifice,  of  calling  them  fo  in 
 abfolute  and  unlimited  Terms,  fuch  as   are    apt 
 to  miflcad  an  uncautious  and  unexperienced  Rea- 
 der into  a  wrong  Opinion  of  their  having  been, 
 in   all  Refpetts   whatfoever,   "  UOt   aUtf)0?I5'0 
 $?#fftj$  >  whea^tis  notorious,  even  from  Mr. 
 
 D  4  Binghatns 
 
4o  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 Bingham  %  own  Account  of  them,  as  well  as 
 from  the  Arguments  and  Practice  of  the  Anci- 
 ent Catholicks,againft  the  Luciferians,  That  they 
 were  Priefts  ,  that  their  Ordination  was  Valid  ^ 
 and  that  confequently  they  were  eflentially  au- 
 thorize Priefts,  fo  long  as  their  Orders  were 
 not  made  null  and  void. 
 
 §  XX.     Mr.   Bingham   fays   of  thefe    Art  an 
 Priefts,    cc  It  would  be  abfurd   to  fay,  that  thofe 
 Ct  who  are  not  fo  much  as  proper  and  p0tfCCt  HfljJ- 
 "  Cf)?iffh1!l£5    are  proper  and  perfect  lE>?feff&" 
 But  I  have  fhew'd  in  SeEt.  XIV.  That  thefe  A- 
 rians  had  their  Baptifm  entire,  it  was  not   de- 
 leted   by    their  having   been  excommunicated  ; 
 that  confequently  they  muft  have  been  either 
 Laymen,  or  Clergymen  \  that  to  fay  there  are 
 Degrees  of  Laity,  is  Nonfence  \   that  if  they 
 were  not  Laymen,  they  muft  have  been  Clergy- 
 men.    And  in  Sell.  XV,  XVI,  XVII.  That  they 
 were  really  Clergymen,   originally  authoriz'd 
 Priefts  having  valid  Orders,  as  I  have  prov'd 
 out  or  his  own  Mouth  }  and  therefore  his  Terms 
 of  proper  and  pflrfcct  P^!Cf!0  are   nothing   to 
 the  Purpofe,  but  ferve  only  for  meer  Amufe- 
 ment }    for,  fo  far  as  a  Man  is  Validly  ordain'd 
 a  Deacon,  a  Prieft,  or  a  Bifhop,    he  is  a  pro- 
 per  and  prrfeEi  Bifhop,  Prieft,  or  Deacon -,  and 
 the  Reafon  is  plain,  becaufe  [  as  I  have  obferv'd 
 before]  there  are  no  Degrees  of  Nullity,  and 
 confequently  no  Degrees  of  Validity.    Mr.  Bing- 
 ham knows  this  very  well,  and  therefore  he  fays 
 of  the  Meletian  and  Novatian  Bijhops,  that  "  they 
 cC  were  p20petlP  O5tfl)Op0,  [  i.e.  proper  Bifhops] 
 u  becaufe  they  were    originally  ordained  B flops," 
 as  I  have  prov'd  upon  him  in  niy  Xlth  Setl.  and 
 
 confe- 
 
&nd  Schifmatlcal  Bapttfms.  41 
 
 confequently  fince  thefe  Arians  were  originally 
 ordain  d  Priefts,  and  their  Orders  remain'd  Valid, 
 therefore  they  were  properly  Priefts,  that  is,  pro- 
 ber and  perfect  Priefis^  by  Virtue  of  their  valid 
 Ordination. 
 
 §  XXI.  And  yet  notwithstanding  all  this, 
 Mr.  B'mgham->  becaufe  they  were  excommuni- 
 cated,   fays, 
 
 ic  It  would  be  ftbftltU  to  fay that  they  who 
 
 il  have  HO  Ktfffit  to  receive  themselves  the  Sacra- 
 u  ments,  have  3tttf)0$tp  to  give  the  Sacraments 
 41  to  others.  " 
 
 But  as  abfurd  as  he  may  fancy  this  to  be, 
 the  Contrary  to  this  is  a  very  great  Abfurd ity  \ 
 if  by  Authority  he  would  have  us  to  underftand 
 Valid  Orders^  that  Original  Authority  which  a 
 Man  receiv'd  at  his  Ordination.  For  'tis  highly 
 Abfurd,  nay,  a  falfe  and  pernicious  Principle, 
 to  teach,  That,  if  a  Man  has  no  JRfgijt  to  re- 
 
 ceivey  he  cm  fjafce  no  fttcf)  ©jtginal  atttljaiftp 
 
 to  give  to  others  the  Holy  Sacraments  \  becaufe,  if 
 this  Principle  were  true,  then  all  Original  Au- 
 thority to  minifter  the  Holy  Sacraments  would 
 be  as  precarious  and  uncertain,  as  Mens  Words, 
 Thoughts,  and  A&ions  are j  and  fo  we  Laicks 
 could  have  no  certain  Rule  whereby  to  judge  of 
 the  Truth  and  Reality  of  any  Clergyman  s  Au~ 
 thority,  or  Sacred  Orders  \  for  whiclTof  us  [  how 
 charitable  foever  in  our  Opinions]  can  be  poii- 
 tive  of  the  Sincerity  of  any  Man's  Repentance  ? 
 And  if  a  Man's  Repentance  be  not  fincere,  he 
 can  have  no  &U$Jjt  to  receive  the  Sacraments  •, 
 Cfor  what  Right  has  a  Man  to  receive,  without 
 fincere  Repentance  ?  ]  and  if  he  has  no  Right  to 
 receive  them,  he  can  have  no  Authority  to  give 
 
 them 
 
42  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 them  to  us,  according  to  Mr.  Bingham  •,  thus  our 
 juft  SatisfaElion  concerning  a  Man's  0Utl)O?ltp  to 
 give  us  the  Sacraments,  mult  rife  and  fall  with 
 our  Certainty  and  Uncertainty  about  the  Sin- 
 cerity of  his  Repentance,  when  he  minifters  them 
 to  us  •,  and  at  this  rate,  all  Authority  to  minifter 
 the  Sacraments  will  be  but  a  precarious  thing 
 to  the  Receivers  •,  but  this  is  juft  as  abfurd,  tho' 
 not  the  fame  as  the  Popifh  Do&rine,  which 
 makes  our  Receiving  the  Sacraments  to  depend 
 on  the  Intention  of  the  Prieft.  Further  yet, 
 If  this  Notion  of  Mens  having  H0  3tltf)0?ttp 
 to  give,  becaufe  they  have  HO  JftlQljt  to  receive 
 the  Sacraments,  he  true ;  then,  even  the  Autho- 
 rity of  fome  Prielts,  in  vifible  Communion  with 
 the  Church,  may  upon  this  Account  be  loft  too; 
 for,  if  any  of  them  mould  live  wicked,  impe- 
 nitent Lives,  they  would,  while  in  that  State, 
 have  |t0  U1OJ0  JRlgfjt  to  receive  the  Sacraments, 
 than  any  excommunicated  Perfon  whatfoever  \ 
 for  impenitent  Sinners  have  not  the  leaft 
 Right,  they  have  no  Right  at  all  to  receive 
 the  Sacraments  while  impenitent.  Their  Pre- 
 fuming  to  receive  them  is  Sacrilege  it  felf,  and 
 a  high  Aggravation  of  their  other  Sins  %  their 
 being  admitted  is  no  Argument  of  t\)Z\t  3Rt'Kf)t, 
 but  only  an  Inftance,  it  may  be,  of  the  jhort- fight - 
 ednefs  of  thofe  who  admit  them,  and  too  often 
 'tis  the  fad  EfFedt  of  Want  of  Difcipline  ;  but 
 neither  of  thefe  can  give  them  any  the  leaft 
 Right  imaginable  \  and  therefore,  if  they  have 
 no  Right  to  receive  [as  'tis  moft  certain  they 
 have  none  ]  then,  according  to  Mr.  Bingham's 
 Maxim,  'twill  be  abfurd  to  fay,  that  they  have 
 Authority  to  give  the  Sacraments  to  others.  The 
 Confequence  of  which  is  this.  That  it  will  be 
 
 therefore 
 
and  Schlfmatical  Baptifms.  43 
 
 therefore  finful  for  us  to  receive  them  at  their 
 Hands.  But'  this  is  a  pernicious  falfe  Do&rine, 
 contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  repugnant 
 to  the  Do&rine  of  our  Holy  Mother  the  Church 
 of  England,  who  in  her  26th  Article  teaches 
 us  1  that  "  Althovgh  in  the  Vifible  Church  tl)t 
 46  (Eilil  be  ever  mingled  with  the  Good  \  and 
 "  fometime  tfre  ©3ll5  C  *•  '•  the  Wicked  ]  have 
 
 "  COlCf  SlUtf)0?ttp  in  the  Mini  fir  ation  of  the 
 
 "  SflCratWtttjg  %  yet,forafmuch  as  tftEJ?  t!0  not 
 "  tl)t  filtl10  in  their  own  Name,  but  in  ChriJFs, 
 "  and  do  minifier  by  fifg  ComimfTtOIV  ffltD 
 w  9tltlj0?ttp5  we  may  vfe  their  Minifflry  - fit 
 
 "  rccettfnrj  of  tfte  S>aciratncnt0^   Neither  it 
 
 u  the  EjfeEi  of  ChriJFs  Ordinance  taken  away  by 
 "  their  ft([ltrit?fin0f0,  nor  the  Grace  of  God's 
 ."  Gifts  diminifiid  from  fuch,  as  by  Faith,  and 
 <l  rightly  do  receive  the  Sacraments  minifired  unto 
 cc  them,  which  be  effetlual  becavfe  of  ChriJFs  ln- 
 "  fiitution  and  Vromife,  altho"'  they  be  minifired 
 "  by  CM  39ei1*  J?  In  which  Article  our 
 Church  moft  exprefly  affirms,  that  "  fometimes 
 u  Evil,  "  i.  e.  wicked  Men  [  who  fure,  while 
 fach,  have  no  Right  themfelves  to  receive  the 
 Sacraments  ]  Cc  have  CljtCf  fltttlHQttp  in  the 
 u  Minifiration  of  the  Sacraments  ',  "  that  thefe 
 wicked  Men  **  do  minifier  by  Chrifi's  Commif- 
 "  fion  and  Authority,  &c  "  Now  that  thefe 
 Men,  who  have  Authority  to  minifter,  are  fuch 
 as  have  no  Right  to  receive  the  Sacraments, 
 is  evident,  by  the  Church's  fpeaking  of  their 
 CJntoOJtljttiefg  in  the  Title  of  the  Article, 
 and  of  their  being  tttl  30211,  and  of  their 
 2IIfCfcCtHtef0  alfo  in  the  Body  of  the  Article  * 
 this  mull  inferr  their  Want  of  Right  to  re- 
 ceive the  Sacraments,  except  Men  will  be  fo 
 
 hardy 
 
44  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 hardy  as  to  fay,  that  vnworthy,  evil^  and  wicked 
 Men,  while  fuch,  have  Right  to  receive  the  Sa- 
 €raments,  and  therefore  'tis  plain  from  this 
 Article  of  our  Church,  that  Men  who  have 
 no  Right  to  receive,  may  have  Authority  to 
 give  to  others  the  Holy  Sacraments  \  and 
 confequently  'tis  not  abfurd,  but  highly  agree- 
 able to  Chriftianity  to  affirm,  that  meer  Want 
 of  Right  to  Receive^  does  not  take  away  a 
 Prieft's  original  9Utl)0?ltp  which  he  receiv'd 
 at  his  Ordination,  to  give  the  Holy  Sacra- 
 ments. 
 
 §  XXII.  Mr.  Bingham  concludes  about  the 
 Meletians  and  Arians  thus  :  u  This  then  I  think 
 M  [fays  he 3  is  Demonfiration7  That,  if  the 
 "  Council  of  Nice  took  away  all  Clttttal  3tt* 
 "  tf)0|ftp  from  the  Meletians  and  Arians,  and 
 u  left  the  one  in  a  State  of  Laymen,  and  the 
 u  other  not  fo  much  as  Laymen^  and  yet  receiv'd 
 4C  the  Baptifms  that  were  given  by  both  thefe, 
 u  without  Ke~  Baptizing  *,  Jhe  muft  receive  the 
 Ci  Baptifms  of  thofe  who  in  her  Opinion  had  no 
 ct  Authority  to  give  Baptifm,  becaufe  jhe  herfelf 
 Cc  had  taken  that  Authority  from  them,  &C.  " 
 Thus  he  •,  but  it  is  evident,  by  what  has  been 
 already  faid,  that  the  Meletians  were  properly 
 Bifhops,  Priefts,  and  Deacons  •,  and  this  has 
 been  prov'd  not  only  from  the  Council  of  Nice, 
 but  alfo  from  Mr.  Bingham's  own  Account  of 
 them,  as  is  plain  by  Se&ions  VI,  VII,VI1I,  IX,  X, 
 and  XI,  of  this  Chapter  ',  and  it  is  as  true,  that 
 the  Council  did  not  null  the  Orders  of  the  A- 
 rians;  that  the  ancient  Catholicks  own'd,  and 
 Mr.  Bingham  himfeif  alfo  afferts,  their  Clerical 
 Orders  to  have  been  Valid  \  as  has  been  abun- 
 dantly 
 
and  Schifmaticd  Baptifms.  4$ 
 
 dantly  prov'd  in  the  XV,  XVI,  XVII,  and  XVIII 
 Se&ions  •,  and  therefore  I  [  not  only  think,  but] 
 am  fure,  'tis  Demonftration,  that  if  they  had 
 Valid  Orders  [as  Mr.  Bingham  affirms  they  had, 
 and  I  do  not  disbelieve  him  ]  the  Baptifms  they 
 perform'd  were  Baptifms  adminiftred  by  Men 
 who  were  "  Properly  Bijhops,  "  Priefts,  and 
 Deacons  *,  and  that  confequently  they  were  not 
 of  the  fame  Nature  with  our  falfe  Baptifms  per- 
 form'd by  Perfons  who  never  were  ordain'd  or 
 commiflion'd  by  Bifhops  to  Baptize  \  and  that 
 therefore  the  Council  of  Nices  receiving  the 
 Baptifms  of  the  Meletians  and  Arians,  was  not 
 a  Receiving  of  fuch  Baptifms  as  our  never  com- 
 miflion'd Baptifms,  which  are  adminiftred  by 
 meer  Laieks  who  never  had  any  Valid  Ordi- 
 nation or  Cornmiflion  to  minifter  that  Sacra- 
 ment, as  the  Meletians  and  Arians  moft  cer- 
 tainly had. 
 
 §  XXIII.    Before  I  leave  the  Council  of  Nice, 
 
 I  muft  confider  the  A&  of  that  Council  about  the 
 Novatian  Schifmaticks,  whofe  Baptifms  were  re- 
 ceiv'd  by  the  Church j  and  the  rather,  becaufe 
 Mr.  Bingham  tells  the  Reverend  and  Learned 
 Dr.  Brett>  that  (b)  "  the  Church  received  the  Bap- 
 M  tifm.of  fome  Here ticks ,    and  Schifmatichs,   who 
 
 "  ncaet  ftao  anp  ©#ers  from  anp  CptTca 
 
 II  pal  fl)?BtnatiOn  '->  *  and  to  make  this  good, 
 he  is  fo  hardy  as  to  affirm,  (c)  that  "  the  No- 
 **  vatians  "  wanted  "  a  real  and  lawful  Or- 
 "  dination  j  "     that    ct  Novatian   himfelf,    who 
 
 (b)  ScboJ.  Bifl.  Part  II.  p.  5 1. 
 
 (c)  Ibid,  p.  95. 
 
 "  was 
 
4$  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 u  was  the  Father  of  the  Novatians,  was  never 
 ct  ordain  d  a  true  and  lawful  Bijhop,  but  only  was 
 <c  a  Bijhop  in  Pretence  :  Therefore  all  fuch  Mi- 
 ct  niflers,  as  derived  the  Original  of  their  Orders 
 <c  and  Authority  from  him,  were  only  pretended 
 tc  Mlnifters  like  their  Founder.  " 
 
 Now  by  all  this,  a  Reader  that  is  unacquaint- 
 ed with  Ecclefiaftical  Hiitory,  would  be  apt  to 
 judge,  that  Novation  never  was  ordain'd  by  any 
 Bifhop  at  all  •,  but  to  prevent  fuch  a  Miftake, 
 Mr. Bingham  is/0  hotiefl  and  ingenuous!  as  to  ac- 
 knowledge, that  (d)  it  is  own'd  he  had  tfj?C£ 
 Q5lff)0p£  to  ordain  him  \  fo  then,  Novation  was 
 ordain'd  by  no  lefs  than  t\)lZZ  'BlfljOpS,  and 
 this  is  fo  notorious  from  Hiftory,  that  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham cannot  withftand  the  Evidence,  and  there- 
 fore fairly  fubmits  to  it ;  and  therefore  Novation 
 was  certainly  a  Bifiop,  if  three  Bifhops  could  make 
 him  one. 
 
 But  Mr.  Bingham  fays  No,  (/)  "  the  Ordination 
 lt  which  they  gave  him  was  jQuII  from  the  very 
 "  firft-  "  And  the  pretended  Reafons  he  gives, 
 are  thefe : 
 
 I  ft.  "  Becaufe  thefe  three  BifiopS  being  fetched 
 tc  from  the  fartheft  Corner  of  Italy,  had  nothing 
 H  to  do  to  ordain  Novatian  a  B.foop  at  Rome, 
 u  without  a  Regular  and  Synodical  Election.  " 
 
 2dly.  M  When  Novatian  had  got  them  into 
 a  his  PoJfeJfiony  he  fet  fome  of  his  Party  to  make 
 
 them  drun\,    and  Jhut  them  up  Prifoners,    and 
 
 then  m  he  compelled   them  by  Force  to  give 
 
 tc  him  the  Bifboprick  by  an  Imaginary^  and  IQelu- 
 
 ( d  )   Scholafi.  Hifl.  Part  II.  p.  97' 
 (e)   Ibid.  p.  97, 
 
 cc 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms.  47 
 
 41  five,  and  Vain  Ordination,  as  Cornelius  the 
 "  true  Bijhop  words  it  in  his  Epiftle  to  Fabian 
 *  Bijhop  of  Antioch.  " 
 
 3dly.  (/)  u  There  was  another  Reafon  (fays 
 "  Mr.  Bingham)  which  Uttedp  nntttlll'D  the  Or- 
 "  dination  of  Novatian  ',  and  that  was,  that 
 <c  ,  he  intruded  himfelf  into  a  full  See,  where 
 
 tc  another  was  Regularly  and  Divinely  chofen  be* 
 lt  fore  him.  "  u  This  is  the  Argument  jo  much 
 <c  infijled  on  by  Cyprian  in  particular  to  prove 
 *c  him  no  true  Bijhop  ;  "  — —  (g)  he  is  not 
 "  a  fecond  Bifliop,  but  none  at  all  "  And  for 
 thefe  fuppos'd  Reafons,  Mr.  Bingham  would 
 have  it  believ'd,  that  the  Ordination  which 
 Novatian  received,  was  Null  and  Void  from, 
 the  beginning *,  in  anfwer  to  which  1  affirm, 
 that  the  Ordination  was  Valid,  tho'  it  was 
 attended  with  thefe  circumftantiatty  Irregular  and 
 finful  Circumftances. 
 
 §  XXIV.  lft.  Becaufe  it  was  perform'd  by 
 real  Bijhops,  Perfons  veiled  with  a  Power  of 
 Ordaining  and  Making  Bifhops  •,  their  doing 
 it  out  of  their  Jurifdiction  did  not  Un-Bilhop 
 them  ',  and  tho5  their  coming  to  Rome  to  ordain 
 was  an  Irregularity  againft  circumftantial  Ca^ 
 nons,  yet  this  did  not  Null  the  Ordination  they 
 gave  *,  for  if  it  did,  then  the  Afrs  of  all  Bifhops, 
 Priefts,  and  Deacons,  done  irregularly  out  of 
 the  Places  of  their  own  Jurifdiclionjwill  be 
 Null  and  Void^  and  fo  if  a  Prieft  Baptizes  out 
 of  his  own  Parifh,  intruding  into  another  Man's 
 
 (f)  SckoUft.  Hift.  Part  II.  p.  99. 
 ( § )  Ibid,  p*  100. 
 
 Diftria 
 
48  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 Diftrict  without  his  Leave  and  Confent,  or  with- 
 out any  Necefllty  at  all,  the  Baptifm  he  admini- 
 fters  mu ft  be  Null  and  Void,  if  a  Bifhop's  Act.  of 
 Ordination  be  Null  and  Void,  for  his  having  per- 
 formed it  irregularly  out  of  his  own  Diocefe  and 
 Jurifdiction.  But  this  is  abfurd  •,  for  a  Valid 
 Bifhop  is  a  Bifhop  in  all  Places  of  the  Catholick 
 Church,  and  fo  is  a  Valid  Prieft  undoubtedly  a 
 Prieft  in  every  Parifh  ;  their  Ads  of  Ordaining, 
 Baptizing,  &c.  are  Valid  where foever  performed  ; 
 and  their  Defignation  to  particular  Diftrids  is 
 only  a  Circumftance  of  Order,  not  of  EJfence  •,  if 
 they  break  through  this  Circumftance,  the  Eflence 
 is  not  deftrofd.  The  Breaking  thro'  this  Order 
 is  without  all  Doubt  a  Crime  to  be  punifh'd  in  all 
 Parties  that  are  concern'd  *,  but  if  the  Tranfgref- 
 fion  of  fuch  ctrcumftantial  Rules,  deftroy'd  the 
 EfTential  Functions  of  Bifhops  and  Priefts,  then, 
 for  the  fame  Reafon  that  a  Bifhop's  Ad  of 
 Ordaining  irregularly  out  of  his  own  Diftridr, 
 is  a  Nullity,  a  Prieft's  Baptizing  irregularly 
 out  of  his  own  Parifh  is  a  Nullity  alfo  *,  but 
 this  is  an  Abfurdity  which  will  run  our  Author 
 into  a  great  Difficulty,  for  hereby  he  will  not 
 only  make  Null  and  Void  the  Ordination  given 
 to  Novation,  but  alfo  the  very  Baptifms  whofe 
 Validity  he  is  vainly  endeavouring  to  defend  \ 
 for,  all  our  Lay- Baf  timers,  all  our  Dijfenting 
 Teachers  are  Intruders  into  other  Mens  Pro- 
 vinces •,  to  make  the  belt  of  them,  they  break 
 through  all  the  circumftantial  Rules,  Laws, 
 and  Orders  of  the  Church,  and  attempt  to  Bap- 
 tize, where  «  tfjep  !)$&€  tlOtgillff  tO  DO  "  to 
 Baptize,  and  therefore  by  Mr.  Bingham's  own 
 Rule  [which  is  indeed  a  very  odd  one]  for 
 Nulling  of  Holy  Orders,   the  pretended  Bap^ 
 
 tifms 
 
and  Schtfmatical  Baptifms.  49 
 
 tifhis  of  our  Difienting  Teachers  are  Null  *nd 
 Void)  if  they  could  be  fuppos'd  to  be  Priefts, 
 as  they  moil  certainly  are  not,  even  upon 
 Mr.  Bingham's  own  Principle  j  becaufe  their  pre- 
 tended Ordinations  are  alfo  performed,  "  tufiCtC 
 
 "  tbep  fjafce  noting  to  Co  to  o?tmin, "  which 
 
 is  his  firft  pretended  Reafon  againft  the  Vali- 
 dity of  the  Ordination  given  to  Novatian,  where- 
 by he  at  the  fame  time  deftroys  the  fuppos'd 
 Ordinations  and  Baptifms  of  our  DiiTenters, 
 and  at  once  overthrows  what  himfelf  is  endea- 
 vouring to  eftablifh.     But 
 
 §XXV.  idly.  The  Wi&ednefs  of  Novttid*; 
 and  of  the  three  Bifhops  who  ordain'd  him,  was 
 doubtlefs  very  great •,  the  one  for  making  them 
 Drunk,  and  compelling  them  to  ordain  him  ; 
 the  other  for  being  Drunk,  and  being  drawn  by 
 Compulfion  to  give  him  Ordination  :  But  will 
 any  body  be  fo  bold  as  to  fay,  that  thefe  Per- 
 fonal  Iniquities  of  the  Ordainers  did  Un-Biflaop 
 them,  and  utterly  annihilate  their  Epifcopal 
 Capacity  ?  If  this  be  true,  then  where  fhall  we 
 find  Valid  Orders  on  the  Face  of  the  Earth, 
 fince  Ordainers  are  but  Men,  and  fome  of  them 
 may  have  teen  grievous  Sinners  in  one  Age  of 
 the  Church  or  other,  and  thereby  may  have 
 broken  the  Line  of  Succeflion  irreparably,  fo 
 asrfiever  to  be  made  whole  again  ? 
 
 If  Perfonal  Immoralities  in  thofe  who  are 
 Bifhops,  do  Null  their  Epifcopal  Chara&er, 
 and  render  the  Ordinations  perform'd  by  them 
 Null  and  Void,  then  it  will  unavoidably  follow, 
 that  we  have  no  Valid  Orders  in  the  Church  of 
 England  \  flnce  Orders  were  originally  convey'd 
 to  our  Clergy  by  the  wicked  immoral  Bifhops 
 
 E  of 
 
5o  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 of  the  Church  of  Rome,  whom  I  call  Immoral 
 and  Wicked,  upon  Account  of  that  notorious 
 and  grofs  Idolatry,  which  is,  and  has  been  for 
 feveral  hundred  Years,   moft  fcandaloufly  pra- 
 ctis'd  in  that  Apoftatizing  Church*,  and  I  my- 
 felf  can  prove  [  by  having  liv'd  fome  Years 
 among  them  in  Foreign  Parts]1  that  they  are 
 as  much  addicted  to  the  Pra&ice  of  that  fla- 
 gitious Immorality,   as-  ever  the  Jews  or  Hea- 
 thens were.      And  thus  our  Hiftorian,  by  en- 
 deavouring  to  Null   the  Ordination  given  to 
 Novatian^  mod  unluckily  invalidates  his  own 
 Orders,  together  with  thofe  of  all  his  Fathers 
 the  Bilhops,  and  of  his  Brethren  the  reft  of  the 
 Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  \   if  his  pre- 
 tended Argument  fhould  be  allow'd  to  be  a  good 
 one  :,  So  very  unhappy  is  he  in  his  Way  of  Rea- 
 foning  about  Holy  Orders.    And  it  will  be  ut- 
 terly impofiible  for  him  to  extricate  himfelf 
 out  of  this  Labyrinth,  by  faying,  That  Novatiarfs 
 great  Wicked nefs,  in  making  the  three  Bifhops- 
 Drunk,  and  compelling  them  to  Ordain  him, 
 added  to  the  Wickednefs  of  thofe  three  Bifhops, 
 did  all  together  make  the  Ordination  Null  and 
 Void  *,  for  the  fame  Difficulty  will  ftill  remain, 
 becaufe,  if  the  Immorality  of  thofe  who  Ordain, 
 join'd  to  the  Immorality  of  the  Ordain'd,  does 
 make  an  Ordination  to  be  a  meer  Nullity  >  then 
 the  Idolatry,  &c.  of  thofe  who  Ordain'd,  taken 
 together  with  that  of  thofe  who  received  Ordi- 
 nation in  the  corrupt  Church  of  Rome,  mull;  ne- 
 cefTarily  make  Orders  in  that  Church  to  be  Null 
 and  Void  •,  and  fo  the  Romifi  Bifhops,  who  or- 
 dain'd our  firlt  Reformers,  had  no  Orders  them- 
 felves,  confequently  our  Reformers  receiv'd  no 
 Orders,  and  therefore  they  could  conferr  none  T 
 
 and 
 
and  Schijmatical  Bapiifds.  §i 
 
 and  fa,  all  Orders  in  the  Church  of  England  are 
 meer  Nullities,  if  Mr.  Bingham's  odd  way  of  Ar- 
 guing mould  be  efteem'd  to  be  good  Reafon- 
 ing  :  But  alas !  'tis  wretchedly  Fallacious,  and 
 the  Church  of  England  has  determin'd  againft 
 him  in  her  26th  Article,  that  a  wicked  immoral 
 Man  may  have  Chrift's  Commiffion  and  Authority  5 
 and  if  by  that  Commiffion,  a  wicked  Prieft  can 
 mintfter  Valid  Sacraments,  then  a  Bifhop,  tho' 
 Immoral,  can  by  Chrift's  Commiffion  perform 
 a  Valid  Ordination  ;  becaufe,  if  Sacraments  are 
 hot  null'd  by  the  Wickednefs  of  the  commit 
 fion'd  Adminiftrator  of  them,  it  is  highly  Ri- 
 diculous to  fay,  that  Ordinations  are  null'd  by 
 the  Immorality  of  the  commiffion  d  Ordainer  i 
 For,  the  the  fame  Reafon  which  may  be  given 
 for  the  Validity  of  the  Sacraments  adminiftred 
 by  a  wicked  Prieft,  is  good  alfo  for  the  Validity 
 of  Ordinations  performed  by  an  immoral  Bi- 
 fhop,  viz..  u  Becaufe  they  do  not  the  fame  in  their 
 "  own  Name i  but  in  Chrift's,  and  do  minifter  by 
 u  his  Commiffion  and  Authority  \  which  is  true  in 
 both  Cafes  of  miniftring  Sacraments,  and  giving 
 Ordinations,  flnce  they  are  both  of  them  but 
 equally  Divine  pofitive  Inftitutions,  appointed 
 by  Jefus  Chrift.  And  then,  as  for  the  Ordained, 
 the  Scripture  it  felf  is  clear,  that  a  Commif- 
 fion  conferr'd  on  an  immoral  Man  is  not  a  Nul- 
 lity }  for  if  it  were,  our  Saviour  thrift  himfelf 
 would  never  have  ordain'd  or  commiffion'd  fo 
 vile  a  Wretch  as  Judas  Ifcariot,  nor  have  fent 
 him  forth  to  preach  and  work  Miracles,  who 
 was  a  Thief,  a  Robber,  and  even  a  Devil  in  his 
 Temper  and  Cifpofition,  as  the  Sacred  Writings 
 do  abundantly  teftify. 
 
 E  A  §  XXVL 
 
52  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 §  XXVI.  There  is  but  One  thing  more  to 
 be  conftdcr'd  in  Mr.  Bingham  %  fecond  Fallacious 
 Argument  again  ft  the  Validity  of  Novatiarfs 
 Ordination ^  and  'tis  this :  That  Novation  c<  com- 
 "  pelTd  them"  [the  three  Italian  Bifhops]  "  by 
 *c  Force,  to  give  him  th*  Biflioprick  by  an  imagi* 
 <l  nary,  and  delufive,  and  vain  Ordination,  as  Cor- 
 tc  nelius  words  it,  &o  "  Now  the  Whole  of  this 
 Objection  againft  the  Validity  of  the  Ordina- 
 tion, is,  That  it  was  obtained  by  Force  and 
 Compulfion,  and  therefore 'twas  Null  and  Void. 
 But  the  Fallacy  of  this  will  plainly  appear,  when 
 we  call  to  mind,  that  at  this  rate  all  Ordina- 
 tions whatfoever  that  have  been  obtain'd  by 
 fuch  Means,  muft  have  been  meer  Nullities  for 
 the  fame  Reafon  y  and  fo,  wherefoever  any 
 Powers,  either  of  the  Popes,  or  Roman  Empe- 
 rors, have  compelFd  Bilhops  to  ordain  fuch  as 
 they  otherwife  would  not  have  ordain'd,  if  they 
 had  been  left  to  their  own  Liberty,  thofe  Or- 
 dinations muft  have  been  Null  and  Void.  Nay, 
 farther,  if  Force  and  Com pul (ion  upon  thcOr- 
 dainers,  does  Null  their  Ordinations,  then  eve- 
 ry Ordination  muft  be  void,  when  objain'd  by 
 any  fuch  Cheat  or  Trick,  as  puts  Bifhops  upon 
 a  Neceffity  of  Ordaining  •,  and  this  by  reafon  of 
 the  Force  which  is  hereby  put  upon  their  Un- 
 derftanding  and  Will  \  and  fo,  falfe  Titles,  un- 
 faithful Certificates.,  and  undue  Teftimonials, 
 &c  will  make  Ordinations  fo  obtain'd,  to  be 
 meer  Nullities.  But  who  is  there  that  does  not 
 fee  the  Impertinence  of  all  this,  and  how  pre- 
 carious Ordinations  will  be  at  fuch  a  rate  ?  But 
 enough  of  this,  which  deferves  no  farther  Con- 
 flder&tion,  becaufe  it  may  all  be  refolv'd  into 
 
 the 
 
and  Schifmatical  Bdptifms,  53 
 
 the  Immorality  of  the  Ordainers,  and  Ordained, 
 which  has  been  largely  fpoken  to  in  the  XXVtli 
 Sedtion 
 
 §  XXVN.  His  Third  fuppofltitious  Rea- 
 fon  againft  the  Validity  of  that  Ordination, 
 which  was  given  to  Novatian^  is,  That  u  he  ip- 
 cc  truded  himfeif  into  a  full  See  y"  and  this  <c  tit"- 
 Cf  tCClp  ftfttUlll'9  *>**  Ordination,  &c.  "  And  the 
 Reafbn,  according  to  him,  was,  becaufe  w  An- 
 "  other  [viz,.  Cornelius]  was  Regularly  and  Di- 
 u  vinely  chofen  before  him,  [_viz,.  to  be  Biihop  of 
 Rome^\  and  that  therefore  he  was  -ct  not  afecond 
 ct  Btjhop,  but  none  at  all, " 
 
 In  Anfwer  to  which,  'tis  not  to  be  doubted, 
 that  Cornelius  was  the  true  and  lawful  Bifhop  of 
 Rome,  and  that  confequently  Novatian\  Attempt 
 to  get  himfeif  made  Bifhop  of  Rome,   and  the 
 three  Italian  Bifhops  Defignation  of  him  to  that 
 full  Diocefe,  was  a  Nullity,  with  refpect  to  his 
 being  Biihop  of  Rome^   but  the  Ordination  of 
 him  to  be  a  Biihop  was  not  therefore  a  Nullity ; 
 and  the  Reafon  is  plain,  becaufe  Defignation  to 
 a  particular  Diocefe  is  one  thing,  Ordination 
 to  the  Office  of  a  Bifhop  is  another  *,  the  firft  is 
 only  a  Circumftance,  and  infinitely  variable  and 
 changeable  from  time  to  time,  as  long  as  a  Man 
 may  be  tranflated  from  one  Diocefe  to  another, 
 while  he  is  flill  but  the  fame  individual  Bifhop 
 he  was  at  firft,  by  Virtue  of  one  fingle  Ordina- 
 tion only.    But  the  other,  viz..  Ordination  to 
 the  Office  of  a  Bifhop,  is  Matter  of  EfTence,  and 
 can  be,  without  the  Circumftance  of  being  pof- 
 fefs'd  of  a  Diocefe.    For  a  Man  can  be,   and 
 many  have  been  ordain'd  to  the  Epifcopal  Fun- 
 ction, without  being,  immediately  upon  their 
 
 £  3  Ordir 
 
54  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 Ordination,  pofTefs'd  of  particular  Diftri&s? 
 wherein  to' exercife  their  Epifcopal  Authority, 
 as  fole  Bifhops  of  fuch  %ZZQ ;  witnefs  "  fuch 
 u  Bijhops  as  were  ordain  d  to  affifl  fome  other  Bi- 
 "  Jhops,  in  Cafe  of  Infirmity -,  or  Old  Age,  and  were 
 u  to  be  fubordinate  to  them,  as  long  as  they  livdf 
 'c  and  fucceeded  them  when  they  died,  "  as  Mr. 
 Bingham  himfelf  has  told  us  (&)  in  his  Anti- 
 quities of  the  Chrifiian  Church.  Thefe  certainly 
 could  not  be  file  Bijhops  of  the  refpeftive  Sees, 
 whofe  Bifhops  they  were  ordain'd  to  be  Aili- 
 itant  to,  and  yet  they  were  ordain'd  Bifhops  \ 
 which  manifeftly  proves,  even  according  to  him, 
 that  Ordination  to  the  Epifcopal  Fun&ion  is 
 Valid,  where  there  is  no  immediate  full  Pof- 
 felTion  of  a  particular  Diocefe  by  the  Bifhop 
 ordain'd. 
 
 §  XXVIII.  But  farther,  if  when  one  Bifhop 
 is  rightfully  poflefs'd  of  a  City,  the  Ordina- 
 tion of  a  fecond  Bifhop,  and  his  Defignation 
 to  that  City,  while  'tis  fill'd  by  the  firft  Bi- 
 fhop, does,  in  the  Divine  Inftituted  Nature  of 
 the  Thing,  make  the  Ordination  of  this  fecond 
 Bifhop  to  be  Null  and  Void*,  then  'twill  ne- 
 ceflariiy  follow,  that  there  never  could  have 
 been,  in  any  City  whatfoever,  difecbnd  Va- 
 lid Bijhop  ordain'd  to  be  a  Co-BiJhbp  with 
 the  firftj  and  fo  in  the  Nature  of  the  Thing 
 it  feif,  one  City  could  not  have  two  Valid 
 Bifhops.  But  this  is  certainly  contrary  to  Mat- 
 ter of  Fad  •,  for  "  fome  very  Learned  Perfons 
 £  are  of  Opinion,    that   the  Rule  about  one 
 
 (h)   Vol.  1.  p.  167.  liUiu 
 
a 
 
 and  Schifmaticd  Baptifms.  '55 
 
 Bijhop  in  a  City  did  not  take  place  in  the  Apo- 
 
 6C  ftolical  Age.  "     They  think  that "  there 
 
 u  were  two  Bifiops  in  many  Cities,  one  of  the 
 cc  Jews,  and  another  of  the  Gentiles.  Thus  they 
 *•  think  it  was  at  Antiocb,  where  Euodius  and 
 Ci  Ignatius  are  faid  to  be  Bifiops  ordained  by  the 
 "  Apoftles  \     as  alfo    Linus   and    Clemens    at 
 
 tc   Rome Epiphan'lUS  feems  to  have  been  of 
 
 "  this  Opinion"  fays  Mr.  Bingham.  (*')  But  whe- 
 ther it  was  fo  or  no  in  the  Apoftolick  Age ; 
 it  is  certain  Matter  of  Fad,  that  in  After- 
 Ages  of  the  Church  feveral  Cities  had  each 
 of  them  two  Bifhops,  and  yet  the  Ordination 
 of  the  latter  was  not  efteem'd  to  have  been 
 Null,  but  the  direct  contrary,  Good  and  Valid. 
 Thus 
 
 Jerufalem  had  Narciffus  for  its  Bifhop,  and 
 Alexander,  a  fecond  Bifhop,  to  be  his  Co-acU 
 jutor,  in  his  old  Age. 
 
 C&farea  had  Theotecnus  for  its  Bifhop,  and 
 he  made  Anatolius  C  a  fecond  Bifhop  ]  his  Co- 
 adjutor, defigning  him  to  be  his  Succeflbr. 
 
 Jerufaiem  another  Time  had  Maximus  for  its 
 Bifhop,  together  with  Macarius. 
 
 PaUbifia  had  Orion  for  its  Bifhop,  and  he 
 being  grown  old,  ordain'd  Siderius  his  Co-ad- 
 jutor  and  Succeflbr. 
 
 Apamea  had  John,  and  one  Stephen  for  his 
 Collegue. 
 
 Naz.ianz.nm  had  Gregory  NazSanzjen  for  its 
 Bifhop,  together  with  his  aged  Father.  This 
 Gregory  was  only  his  Father's  Co-adjutor.  "  He 
 "  entered  upon    the  Office    with   this  Proteftation, 
 
 £i)  Antti.  of  the  ChrifiUn  Churc^  Vol,  I,  p.  166.  2d  Edit. 
 E  4  ."  That 
 
56*  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 u  That  he  would  not  be  obliged  to  continue  Bifhop 
 11  there  any  longer  than  his  Father  liv'dy  as  he 
 cc  himfelf  acquaints  us  in  his  own  Life,  and  other 
 u  Places  ;  fo  that  after  his  Father's  Death,  he 
 tc  atlually  reftgn'd,  and  getting  Eulalius  to  be  or- 
 tc  daitfd  in  his  room,  he  betook  himfelf  to  a  pri- 
 **  vote  Life.  "    Laftly,  to  mention  no  more  ', 
 
 Hippo  had  Valerius  for  its  Bifhop,  and  St.  Au~ 
 gvftin  fate  with  hirn  for  fbme  Time  as  his  Co- 
 adjutor, which  he  did  by  the  Confent  of  the 
 Primate  of  Carthage,  and  Primate  of  Numidia, 
 who  ordain'd  him. 
 
 Thefe  Inftances  which  I  have  produc'd,  even 
 from  Mr.  Bingham  (h)  himfelf,  are  evident  Proof, 
 that  the  Ancients  thought  a  fecond  Bifhop  in 
 a  City,  ordain'd  during  the  Life  and  a&ual 
 PofTeffion  of  the  firft,  was  a  Valid  Bifhop,  and 
 that  confequently,  in  the  Nature  of  the  Thing 
 it  fclf,  the  Ordination  of  a  fecond  Bifhop  to 
 a  ftili  See  is  not  Null,  but  Valid  as  to  his 
 being  a  Bifhop. 
 
 §  XXIX.  If  it  be  faid,  that  thefe  were  Cafes 
 of  NecefTity,  and  occafion'd  by  the  Infirmities 
 and  old  Age  of  the  firft  Bifhops,  who  could 
 not  difcharge  that  great  Office,  without  the 
 AfTiftance  of  fuch  fecond  Bifhops  ,  and  that 
 confequently,  the  Qrdinations  of  thefe  fecond 
 Bifhops  were  Valid,  and  yet  notwithstanding 
 this,  the  Ordination  of  a  fecond  Bifhop  to  a 
 full  See,  where  there  is  no  fuch  Necefllty, 
 muft  be  Null  and  Void:  I  arrfwer,  that  what 
 we  call  NecefTity,   cannot  alter  the  Nature  of 
 
 (  k  )  Ami*  of  the  ChriflUn  Churchy  Vol.  I.  p.  168,  1^9. 
 2d  EdfU 
 
 ^ 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms.  57 
 
 a  Divine  Tofitive  Inftitution  j  for  indeed  there 
 can  be  no  fuch  Thing  as  any  Necejfuy  at  all  to 
 ad  contrary  to  it.  If  it  be  Ejfential  to  the  Or- 
 dination of  a  Bifhop,  that  there  (hould  be  but  one 
 Bifhop  in  one  City,  and  that  he  fhould  not  be 
 ordain'd  to  a  Fully  but  to  a  prefent  Vacant 
 See}  then,  whatfoever  Perfon  is  ordain'd  to 
 a  Full  See,  he  is  no  Ordain'd  Bifhop,  the  Or- 
 dination is  Null  and  Void,  becaufe  'twas  con- 
 trary to  what  was  EfTential  to  the  Ordina- 
 tion *,  and  fo  Anatclius,  Siderius,  Gregory  Na- 
 z*janz,eny  and  St.  Auguftin,  &c.  who  were  or- 
 dain'd fecond  Bifhops  into  full  Sees,  had  no 
 Valid  Ordination,  and  therefore  were  no  Bi- 
 fhops at  all  ;  there  was  no  abfolute  Necejfity  to 
 have  ordain'd  them  into  the  Full  Sees,  if  'twas 
 EfTential  to  their  Ordination,  that  they  fhould 
 liave  been  ordain'd  immediately  to  fill  Vacant 
 ones  \  for  if  the  firft  Bifhops  could  not  have 
 difcharg'd  their  Office,  they  fhould  have  made 
 a  Ceffion,  and  vacated  their  Thrones  to  them, 
 that  an  EfTential  of  the  Ordination  of  Bifhops 
 might  have  been  preferv'd.  We  can  never  do 
 too  much  to  preferve  and  fecure  fuch  Effen- 
 tials ;  for  the  Ceffion  and  Vacating  of  an  E- 
 pifcopal  Throne,  by  one  who  is  almoft  inca.- 
 pable  of  exercifing  his  Epifcopal  Function,  is 
 to  him  but  a  very  Trifle,  compar'd  to  the  vafl: 
 Benefit  which  the  Church  receives,  by  being 
 fufficiently  fupply'd  with  Valid  Bijhops  \  the 
 moft  that  he  can  lofe,  is  but  a  temporary  Ho- 
 nour and  Profit,  and  'tis  neeefTary  to  part  with 
 fuch  Things,  for  the  fecuring  of  an  EfTential 
 of  Religion* 
 
 §  XXX. 
 
58  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 §  XXX.  If  it  be  anfwer'd,  that  there  was 
 no  need  for  the  fir  ft  Bifhops  to  refign  to  the 
 fecond,  becaufe  'tis  not  Eflential  to  the  Or- 
 dination of  fuch  fecond  Bifhops,  that  they 
 fhould  be  ordain'd  immediately  to  fill  vacant 
 Sees,  but  they  may  be  validly  ordain'd  to  the 
 Office  of  Bifhops  at  large,  and  afterwards  be 
 receiv'd  by  fuch  firft  Bifhops  into  Co-Partner- 
 fhip  with  them,  to  aflift  them  in  the  Difcharge 
 of  their  Epifcopal  Function  ,  I  grant  it,  and 
 that  thefe  fecond  Bifhops  were  Valid  Bifhops 
 by  Virtue  of  their  Ordination  }  but  then  I 
 have  hereby  gain'd  what  I  contend  for,  which 
 Is  this;  That  Ordination  to  the  Office  of  a 
 Bifhop  is  one  Thing,  and  Defignation  to  a 
 particular  Diftricl:,  wherein  to  exercife  that 
 Function,  is  another ;  and  that  confequently, 
 whatfoever  Faults  are  chargeable  on  the  Xte- 
 fignation  of  a  Bifhop  to  a  particular  Diocefe, 
 do  not,  in  the  Nature  of  the  Thing,  necefTarily 
 afiecl:  his  Ordination  to  the  Office  of  a  Bifhop*, 
 and  that,  therefore,  the  Wickednefs  and  Nul- 
 lity of  Novatians  Defignation  to  the  See  of 
 Romey  did  not,  in  the  Nature  of  the  Thing,  ne- 
 cefTarily Null  and  make  Void  his  Ordination 
 to  the  Office  of  a  Bifhop  *,  but  he  was  a  Valid 
 Bifhop,  tho?  he  had  no  particular  Diocefe, 
 wherein  canonically  to  exercife  his  Function- 
 The  Circumftances  that  attended  his  Ordina- 
 tion were  highly  finful,  but  the  Ordination 
 it  felf  was  not  deftitute  of  the  Eflentials  that 
 were  abfolutely  neceffary  to  the  Ordination  of 
 a  Bifhop  •,  for,  as  to  the  Perfon  ordain'd,  tho' 
 he  was  very  wicked,  yet  he  had  a  Capacity  at 
 leafi  of  receiving  Orders  *,  if  Judas  Jfcariot  may 
 
 be 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms.  59 
 
 be  allow'd  to  have  had  fuch  a  Capacity,  as  we 
 find  he  had,  by  our  Saviour's  giving  him  a  Com- 
 miflion  ;  and  then,  as  for  the  Terfons  who  or- 
 daiiid  him,  tho'  they  alfo  were  wicked,  yet 
 they  were  Bifhops,  Real  and  Valid  Bifhops, 
 who  could  give  Orders,  and  they  did  actually 
 give  him  the  Order  of  a  Bifliop.  And  there- 
 fore, Novatian  was  a  Valid  Bifliop,  tho'  the 
 Circumftances  attending  his  Ordination  were 
 irregular  and  finful. 
 
 §  XXXI.  But  farther  yet,  That  he  was  a 
 Valid  Bifhop,  is  evident  by  his  having  ordain'd 
 Valid  Bifhops,  and  other  Clergymen,  whole 
 Orders  were  own'd  to  be  Good  and  Valid  ; 
 which  they  could  not  have  been,  if  he  himfelf 
 had  not  been  a  Valid  Bifliop  \  for  the  Church  is 
 an  abfolute  Stranger  to  Valid  Ordinations  made 
 by  Perfons  who  never  were  Bifhops.  Now,  to 
 prove,  that  the  Bifhops  and  other  Clergymen 
 who  were  ordaiu'd  by  Novatiany  and  by  his 
 Bifhops,  were  in  Valid  Orders,  I  fhall  produce 
 ifit  Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  againft:  himfelf-,  and 
 iMyy  The  Council  of  Nice  againft  him  like- 
 wile. 
 
 §  XXXII.  And  firft,  Mr.  Bingham  affirms 
 of  the  jfcaftattait  'BtfljQpg  who  were  fuppos'd 
 to  have  been  allow'd  by  the  Council  of  Nice 
 to  a&  as  Chorepifiopi ;  I  fay,  he  pofitively  af- 
 ferts  concerning  thefe  Novatian  Bijlwps  whom 
 he  exprefly  mentions,  that  "  3H  fucfj  "  (/) 
 "  Chorepifiopi  fig  tljefe,  "  {.viz,  as  thefe  "  &Qz 
 
 u 
 
 (U  Jnt'q.  of  the  Chriflian  Church,  Vol.I.  p.  172. 
 
 "  dorian 
 
6o  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 *  ftattcltt  'BlfljOpg  "  ]  "  were  p?0petlp  %U 
 «  fljOpg,  becaufe  they  were  OJtgfiUlHp  OJ&atn'B 
 u  T8lfl)Qp0,  before  they  came  to  atl  in  the  Qua- 
 a  lity  of  Country  Bifhops  tinder  others.  "  No- 
 thing can  be  more  exprefs,  than  tkis  which 
 he  here  affirms  of  fuch^  as  the  Novatian  Bifhops 
 were  \  that  they  were  "  P?0petl}>  T5lfl)Dp0*  " 
 Now  if  they  were  pjfjpsrlp  05lfljGP&  fure  they 
 were  Valid  Bifhops,  for  'tis  Noafenfe  to  fay, 
 that  a  Up  QStfljpp  is  "  Properly  a  Bijhop.  " 
 But  why  were  the  Novatian  Bifhops  u  l£)?0s 
 "  petlp  'BtfljOpS  ?  "  His  following  Reafon 
 tells  you  why  they  were  fo ;   fays  he,   "  Qgc* 
 
 "  tattfe  tljep  toete  otfffinaUp  o^ata'D  tsu 
 
 **  fijOpgu  "  But  who.  did  originally  ordain 
 them,  and  make  them  pjopccfp  'BtfljOpg  ? 
 They  were  originally  ordaind  by  other  No- 
 vatian Bifhops,  and  thefe  by  others,  and  fo 
 on,  till  you  come  to  Novatian  himfelf,  whom 
 Mr.  Bingham  (m)  owns  to  have  been  "  the 
 u  Father  of  the  Novatians  •,  "  fo  that  the  No- 
 vation Bifhops  were  «  P?0perl?  'Btfljdpg,  " 
 becaufe  they  were  Otffffaallp  OjOHUt'D  'BtfljOpg  * 
 by  that  Epifcopal  Ordination  which  was  fuc- 
 ceflively  convey'd  to  them  from  their  Father 
 Novatian  ,  and  fince  they  were  pJppctfJJ  1SU 
 fl?apS,  Novatian  mufb  of  Kecefllty  have  been 
 $QP£rfP  a  'BtfljPp*  and  therefore  a  Valid 
 Bifhop  •,  otherwise  the  Novatian  Bifhops,  "  who 
 "  derived  the  Original  of  their  Orders  from  him,  '* 
 could  not  have  been  p^OpecIp  'BtfljOpg,  as 
 Mr.  Bingham  fays  they  were.     But  we  hjave 
 
 Cm;  sckoufl.  trtft.  Part.  II.  p,  9$. 
 
 better 
 
and  Schlfmatlcd  Baptifws.  61 
 
 better  Evidence  than  our  Hiftorian,  to  confirm 
 this  Truth.    For 
 
 §  XXXIII.  Secondly,  The  Council  of  Nice 
 li  decreed  in  the  Cafe  of  the  Novatians,  "  [  as 
 Mr.  Bingham  («)  himfelf  alfo  acknowledges  3 
 <l  That   upon    their    Return    to    the   Churchy   they 
 
 "  jhouid  continue  fit  tlyt  fame  Station  and 
 "  Clerical  Degjees  tljep  toere  in  6rfo?e, 
 
 tl  only  receiving  a  ReCOitCiliatO?))  JlttpOfitlOIl 
 4C  Of  5>anflS  by  way  of  Ahfolution.  "  This  is 
 his  own  juft  and  unprejudic'd  Paraphrafe  upon 
 the  8th  Canon  of  that  Council,  which  I  choofe 
 to  give  the  Reader  in  Mr.  Bingham's  exprels 
 Words,  not  only  becaufe  I  am  refolv'd.,  as 
 much  as  poflible,  to  confute  bim  out  of  his 
 own  Mouth  •  but  alfo  becaufe  they  fully  ex- 
 prefs  the  true  Senfe  and  Meaning  of  that 
 Canon. 
 
 And  now  here  is  a  full  Proof,  that  the  AT/- 
 re»e  Fathers,  afTembled  in  Council,  own'd  Nova- 
 tion to  have  been  a  Valid  Biflwp  *,  for  they  de- 
 creed concerning  the  Novation  Sehifmaticai 
 Clergy,  "  who  derived  the  Original  of  their  Or- 
 "  ders  from  Novatian  ,  "  that  if  they  would 
 come  over  to  the  Catholick  Church,  they 
 ffjOUlQ  COnttlTUS  in  the  fame  Station  and  Cleri- 
 cal Degrees  they  wfre  in  before,  that  is,  before 
 their  Return  to  the  Church  ;  but  before  their 
 Return  they  were  Schifmaticks,  and  had  no 
 Clerical  Degrees  but  what  they  deriv'd  origi- 
 nally from  Novation  \  if  then,  in  the  Opinioa 
 of  that  Council,   thofe  Clerical  Degrees  were 
 
 (  n  )  SdoJaft.  Hift.  Part  I.  p.  92. 
 
 Nujl 
 
€i  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 Null  before,  if  they  were  not  Clergymen  but 
 Laicks,  the  Council  would  have  bantet'd  them 
 by  making  a  Decree,  that  they  fhould  COtltl- 
 tlllt  in  the  fame  Clerical  Degrees  they  were 
 in  before ,  for  this  would  have  been  the  fame 
 as  to  have  faid,  they  were  all  of  'em  Laicks  be- 
 fore, but  upon  their  Return  to  the  Church  they 
 fhall  continue  in  the  fame  Clerical  Degrees  5 
 which  is  ridiculous }  nay,  'tis  egregious  Non- 
 feafe  to  fay,  that  a  Laick  fhall  continue  a  Cler- 
 gyman }  for  how  can  he  continue  to  be,  what  he 
 never  was  ?  The  Terms  are  utterly  inconfiftent, 
 and. as  incompatible  the  one  to  the  other,  as  a 
 Negative  is  to  an  Affirmative.  And,  there- 
 fore, if  we  will  allow  [as  we  ought]  that  the 
 8th  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice  means  any 
 Thing  that  can  be  calPd  Good  Senfe,  it  muft 
 fignify,  that  the  Novations,  in  whofe  Favour 
 this  Canon  was  made,  were  Valid  Clergymen 
 before,  and  that  therefore  the  Council  de- 
 creed, u  they  fhould  continue  or  remain  in  the 
 u  Clergy  \  "  that  is,  as  Mr.  Bingham  rightly 
 explains  it,  "  they  Jhould  COHttnUC  iH  the  fame 
 tc  Station  and  QElCriCHl  £)£IJ?eC0  they  were  in 
 cc  befOje '-> "  fo  that,  if,  upon  their  Return  to 
 the  Church,  they  "  fiould  COilttllUe  Valid  Cler- 
 u  gymen,  "  as  'tis  plain  the  Council  deflgn'd 
 they  mould-,  then  they  were  Valid  Clergymen 
 before  their  Return,  becaufe  they  afterwards 
 did  but  COtttinUC  what  they  were  before.  And 
 therefore,  fince  the  Novatian  Clergy  were  Valid 
 Clergymen,  the  Novatian  Bifhops  who  ordain'd 
 them  were  Valid  Bifhops }  and  confequently 
 Novatian  himfelf  alfo,  from  whom  their  Or- 
 ders were  deriv'd,  was  a  Valid  Bifhop,  by  the 
 8th  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Nee.    And  as 
 
 for 
 
and  Schifmdtical  Baptifm.         6$ 
 
 for  the  Impofition  of  Hands,  which  the  Coun- 
 cil enjoin'd  them  to  fubmit  to,  it  was,  that 
 they  fhould  only  cc  receive  a  Re  conciliatory  Im- 
 "  po fit  ion  of  Hands,  by  way  of  Jbfolution.  As 
 Mr.  Bingham  ingenuoufly  confeftes }  and  'tis 
 well  known,  that  fuch  an  Impofition  of  Hands 
 has  nothing  to  do  with  Ordination,  being  only 
 for  reconciling  and  abfolving  of  Penitents,  and 
 not  for  ordaining  of  Clergymen  to  Holy  Fun- 
 ctions. Confequently,  this  Impofition  of  Hands 
 was  no  new  Ordination  of  the  Novatian  Clergy, 
 and  therefore  they  were  proper,  u  e.  Valid 
 Clergymen,  by  Virtue  only  of  that  Ordination 
 which  was  originally  deriv'd  to  them  from  No- 
 vatian *,  or  rather,  to  fpeak  more  exa&ly,  they 
 were  Valid  Clergymen  by  Virtue  only  of  that 
 Commifllon  to  Ordain,  which  was  originally 
 given  by  Chrift  to  his  ApofUes,  and  by  them 
 to  other  Bifhops,  and  fo  on,  till  it  was  con- 
 vey'd  to  thofe  Bifhops  who  ordain'd  Novation? 
 and  handed  from  him  to  the  Novation  Bifhops 
 who  ordain'd  the  Novatian  Clergymen  we 
 are  now  fpeaking  of. 
 
 §  XXXIV.  But  notwkhftanding  that  thefe 
 Things  were  fo^  notwithstanding  that  the  Nova- 
 tion Clergymen  were  in  real  Valid  Orders,  and  the 
 Council  own'd  that  they  were-,  yet  Mr.  Bingham 
 does  confiderably  cloud  the  Brightnefs  of  this 
 Truth,  by  putting  a  Blind  before  the  Eyes  of  his 
 Engltjl) Reader  j  for  he  falfly  interprets  thtGreek^o) 
 
 And.  lays,  that  the  8th  Canon  of  the  Council 
 
 (o )  ScboUfij  Hifl.  Part  IL  p.  io6. 
 
 of 
 
60t  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 of  Nice  a  appoints  them  tO  bt  teCCtfc'D 
 "  amcng  the  Catholick  Clergy,  by  Impofition  of 
 "  Hands. "  Thefe  are  his  very  Words,  and  to 
 them  he  immediately  annexes,  for  Proof  of  his 
 Aflertion,  the  Greek  Words  I  have  above  tran- 
 fcrib'd  from  him.  Now,  by  Mr.  Bingham's  thus 
 Reprefenting  the  Matter,  an  unskilful  Reader 
 would  be  apt  to  think,  that  the  Novatians  were 
 not  Clergymen,  but  were  order'd  to  be  made 
 fo,  by  being  "  J^eCEitfB  among  the  Catholick  Cler- 
 U  gy->  h  Impofitiw  °f  Hands. n  For  'tis  very 
 natural  to  fay  of  a  newly  ordain'd  Perfon,  who 
 never  was  in  Orders  before,  that  he  was  u  JRf> 
 **  tZiWft  among  [or  into  the  Number  of]  the 
 **  Clergy,  by  Impofition  of  Hands.  "  But  the 
 ^great  Fallacy  thus  put  upon  the  Englijh  Rea- 
 der, is,  in  Mr.  Bingham's  falfe  Tranflating  the 
 Word  me'nein,  Tnto  "  Eeceifc'D,  "  when  it 
 iignifies,  in  Truth,  quite  another  thing ;  nay, 
 the  very  Contrary  to  his  Tranflation,  namely, 
 
 to  «  Eemam  or  Continue  t  And  molt  evi- 
 
 dently  (hews,  that  the  Synod's  Decree  was, 
 "  Let  them  Rentafa  or  ConttnUC  i»  the  Clergy? 
 Tor]  ■*  They  Jhall  Eettfflltt  or  Continue  in  the 
 u  Clergy, "  and  that  confequently  they  were  in 
 the  Clergy  before;  otherwife,  to  decree  that 
 they  mould  Continue  in  the  Clergy,  would 
 have  been  ridiculous,  fince  no  Man  can  be  faid 
 to  continue  in  that,  which  he  never  was  in 
 before. 
 
 It  is  a  very  unaccountable  Thiog  to  conil- 
 der,  how  it  came  to  pafs,  that  Mr.  Bingham^ 
 who  boails  and  infults  fo  much,  upon  Ac- 
 count of  his  Knowledge  in  Creek  and  Latin% 
 could  conftrue  me'nein    by   the  Word  %£-- 
 
 ceto'O,  inftead  of  Ecmatjt  oi  ^Continue*    I 
 
 dare 
 
and  Schifmatlcal  Baptifms.  6% 
 
 dare  not  fay,  or  fo  much  as  imagine,  that  it 
 was  through  Ignorance,  for  this  would  be  S)C' 
 itnCttQn  ;  to  fay  that  'twas  defign'd,  looks  very 
 Severe,  and  has  fomething  too  much  of  the  Un- 
 charitable in  it  \  for,  Can  it  be  fuppos'd,  that  he 
 would  offer  fo  great  an  Affront  to  his  Learned 
 Brethren  of  the  Clergy,  as  to  fancy  that  t!)CJ? 
 would  not  be  able  to  difcover  the  Fallacy  ?  Or, 
 Can  it  be  juft  and  reafonable  to  believe,  that 
 he  had  not  already  had  fo  good  Experience  of 
 the  Great  Learning  and  Sagacity  of  our  two  Fa- 
 mous Univerikies,  but  that  he  might  yet  hope 
 fo  grofs  an  Error  would  efcape  them  too  ?  No  ! 
 thefe  Things  are  not  to  be  fuppos'd  \  for,  how- 
 much  foever  the  London  Laick  may  be  impos'd 
 upon,  in  fuch  Matters,  [tho'  Mr.  Bingham  fees 
 that  he  will  not  in  this  Particular  ]  yet  'tis  not 
 to  be  imagin'd  that  he  could  intend  to  palm  fo 
 grofs  a  Fallacy  upon  thofe  Venerable  and  Truly 
 Learned  Bodies ,  and  therefore,  by  no  means 
 let  us  fuppofe  that  this  was  a  iDcfigH,  when  it 
 lay  fo  Open,  as  that  he  who  runs  may  fee  the 
 Error.  What  was  it  then  ?  Was  it  only  a 
 g>It'p,  an  ©Iierftiyfjt,  a  Q^fftaff  of  the  Eye, 
 fnch  as  may  occafion  a  Miicopying  out  of  an. 
 Author,  a  Major  inftead  of  a  Minor  f  It  mult  be 
 a  prodigious  Charity  to  believe  this,  when  it 
 does  not  appear  that  he  copy'd  the  Word 
 JReCClU'U  inftead  of  Remain,  cut  of  any  other 
 Author  than  his  own  Brain,  when  he  falfly  con- 
 ftrued  the  Word  me'nein,  a  Word  fo  very- 
 common  and  well  known,  that  every  School- 
 Boy,  tho'  but  beginning  to  learn  Greek,  can  find 
 its  Meaning  :  But  not  to  teaze  my  Reader  any 
 longer,!  promife  to  acknowledge  this,  with  the 
 reft  of  his  Errors  committed  in  his  Writings, 
 
 F  to 
 
66  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 to  have  been  only  Slips  and  Over  fight  s%  the  meer 
 Ejfebls  of  humane  Frailty ,  when  1  find  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham to  be  fo  JjltgCttttQUS  as  t0  own->  retraft^  and 
 amend  them\  particularly  thofe,  which  have  been 
 proved  upon  him,  to  have  been  committed  in 
 the  Firft:  Part  of  his  Scholaft'.cal  Hiftory^  not 
 one  of  which  has  he  yet  own'd  or  amended. 
 In  the  mean  time,  I  leave  him  to  the  Cenfurc 
 of  Impartial  Judges,  [not  peufonally  concerned 
 with  him  in  this  Controverfy]  withall  ad- 
 vifing  him,  for  his  own  Sake,  to  let  his  many 
 Falls  put  him  in  mind  of  the  Apoftle's  Charge, 
 u  Be  not  high-minded^  but  fear."  For,  "  Where 
 t%  is  Boafting)  when  Men  do  fo  publickly,  and 
 fo  very  frequently  Humble  and  fall,  where  they 
 may  eafiiy  ftand  upright?  But  to  return: 
 
 §  XXXV.  Having  thus  at  large  prov'd, 
 i fty  From  the  Nature  of  Ordination  it  felf : 
 2dty)  From  Mr.  Bingham's  own  Account  of 
 them  :  And,  $diy7  From  the  Decree  of  the 
 Council  of  Nice,  That  the  Novatlan  Clergy- 
 men were  in  Valid  Orders,  and  that  confe- 
 quently  Novation^  from  whom  they  deriv'd 
 their  Orders,  was  a  Valid  Bifhop  *,  It  hence 
 follows,  that  Mr.  Bingham's  great  Boaft,  that  he 
 would  prove,  (/>)  That  "  the   Church  received 
 
 "  the  Baptifm  of  fome  fo!)0   WtUt   fjfltl 
 
 il  HOP  £$DCtS  from  any  Epifcopal  Ordination  j  " 
 And  his  Producing  the  (<?)  Novations  [  whofe 
 Baptifms  were  efteem'd  Valid]  as  an  lnflance 
 of  this,  is  a   rnoft  notorious  Banter)  &c.    put 
 
 Cp)   SchoU  Bifl.  Part  II.  p.  51. 
 ( q)   Ibid.  p.  95,  CSV. 
 
 upon 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms.  6j 
 
 upon  the  World,  fince  the  Baptifms  admini- 
 ftred  by  them,  were  Baptifms  by  Men  who  had 
 Valid  Epifcopal  Ordination,  and  were  really 
 in  Epifcopal  Orders  when  they  Baptized,  as 
 has  been  fully  prov'd  againfl  him. 
 
 §  XXXVI.  I  might  now  proceed  to  conflder 
 the  Inftanees  he  gives  out  of  the  following  Coun- 
 cils }  but  his  way  of  Arguing  from  them,  is 
 juft  the  fame  as  before }  and  to  baffle  all  that  he 
 fays,  I  need  only  to  repeat  what  has  been  al- 
 ready urg'd  againfl  him.  It  remains  now,  that 
 I  expofe  to  the  World,  and  more  efpecially  to 
 Mr.  Bingham* own  Friends  in  this Controverfy* 
 how  much  he  has  contributed  ftill  farther,  to 
 his  own  Confutation,  by  his  Antiquities  of  the 
 Chriftian  Churchy  which  fome  People  do  fo  high- 
 ly applaud,  as  alfo  by  both  the  Parts  of  his 
 Scholaftical  Hiftory  of  what  he  falfly  calls. Lay* 
 Baptifm,  wherein  he  has  abundantly  teftify'd* 
 That  the  ancient  Heretical  and  Schifmatical 
 Baptifms,  allow'd  of  by  fome  Churches,  were 
 not  fuch  as  our  Lay-Baptifms  pefform'd  by 
 Perfons  never  commiflion'd,  but  Baptifms  by 
 Perfons  who  were  in  Valid  Epifcopal  Orders 
 when  they  Baptiz'd.    For, 
 
 §  XXXVII.  In  his  Antiquities,  Vol.  I.  p.  g& 
 id  Edition,  fpeaking  againfl  Ordination  by  Pref- 
 byters :  He  tells  you  of  a  Queftion  put  to  Pope 
 Leo  by  Rvfticus  Narbonenfis  ;  and  'twas  this : 
 u  Whether  the  Ordination  of  certain  Perfons  might 
 u  ftand  Good,  who  were  only  ordairfd  by  fome 
 cc  Pfeudo-Epifcopi,  Falfe  Bijhops,  who  had  nd 
 ic  Legal  and  Canonical  Right  to  their  Places  ?  To 
 this  Led  anfwersi  "  That  if  the  Lawful  Bifiops 
 
 F  i  *  iff 
 
63  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 "  of  thofe  Churches  gave  their  Cortfent  to  the  Or* 
 u  din  at  ion,  it  might  be  efieernd  Valid  and  ai- 
 "  lorfd  ♦,  otherwife  to  be  difannulfd.  "  This  he 
 produces  for  an  ancient  In  (lance,  which  fome 
 reckon  u  feems  to  make  for  the  Ordination  of 
 u  Presbyters  ;  "  but  he  was  at  that  time  fo 
 jealous  for  Epifcopacy,  that  he  oppofes  this 
 Suppofition  in  the  fame  Place  with  thefe  re- 
 markable Words : 
 
 cc  But  here  [  fays  he  ]  it  is  to  be  confider W, 
 "  That  thefe  Pfeudo-Epifcopi  were  in  fpttlC 
 "  %Z\\$Z  T5lfljDp0,  as  being  OjOatll'D  tho"  ille- 
 W  &aHy  t0  their  Places  •*   F°r  they  fiem  to  be  fuch 
 
 u  as  had  Scfitfttiaticallp  mtruDeD  tljcmfetoes 
 
 "  llttO  OtfjeU  (0Cn0  SCC&  or  at  leaft  obtained 
 4t  them  by  fome  corrupt  and  irregular  Practices.  " 
 
 In  this  Paflage  Mr.  Bingham  affirms,  that  Per- 
 fons,  tho'  illegally  0?5clUt'D  Bifhops  by  other 
 Bifhops,  [  for  he  is  talking  againft  Presbyterian 
 Ordination  3    nay,    though  they  fhould  have 
 
 *  ©cfjifmaticailp  intrtaeii  tJjemfci&es  into 
 "  ot&et  sapens  ®ee&  or  have  obtain'O  tljem 
 
 "  by  fome  COJttlpt  illffl  il'tegtllat  P?amce0  h  " 
 yet,  notwithftanding  all  this,  they  were  [  fays 
 Mr.  Bingham  ]  in  fome  Senfe  TSifljOPfil,  aftd  the 
 only  Reafon  he  gives  why  they  were  in  fome 
 Senfe  Bifhops,  is,  «  a<5  befog  OjOatn't)  S  *  fo 
 that  according  to  him,  their  Ordination  alone, 
 tho5  illegally,  into  full  Sees,  or  by  corrupt  and 
 irregular  Practices,  made  them  in  fome  Senfe 
 Bijtwps ;  and,  therefore,  they  rnuft  have  been 
 at  leaft  Valid  Bifhops,  otherwife  they  could 
 have  been  in  no  Senfe  whatfoever  Bifhops  }  for 
 an  Invalid  or  Null  Biihop  is  in  no  Senfe  at  all 
 a  Bi(hop.  Hence,  even  according  to  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham>  Novatian  who  intruded  hirafelf  Schifma- 
 
 tically 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms*  6% 
 
 tically  into  the  full  See  of  Rome,  was  "  in 
 *  fome  ©enft  a  0i5tfl)0p,  "    and  therefore  a 
 
 v*ud  Bijhop,  «  as  being  oj&am'n  tfjo'  Ate* 
 
 ic  gallp  by  three  Bifhops.  "  So  Maximus  (r) 
 the  Cynicky  who  Schifmatically  intruded  him- 
 felf  into  the  full  See  of  Conftantinople,  Ct  by  the 
 "  Help  of  ftBeil  15ifl]0pg  tW  W4i»y  &/'*»  •  " 
 tho'  he  was  not  Bifhop  of  Conftantinople,  yet 
 he  was  [  by  Mr.  Bingham's  Rule  ]  u  m  fOHIC 
 "  %ttlfZ  a  T5lfi)0p,  "    and  therefore  a  Valid 
 
 Bifhop,  «  ns  being  o?uaiifD  t&o'  tflegallp  " 
 
 by  no  lefs  than  fevea  Bifhops  ;  confequently 
 Bifhops,  Priefts,  and  Deacons  ordain'd  by  them, 
 <c  were  in  fome  Senfe  "  Bifhops,  Priefts,  and 
 Deacons,  and  therefore  Valid  Bifhops,  Priefts, 
 and  Deacons,  cc  as  being  ordtirtd  "  "  tho  ille- 
 lt  g*Rym  "  by  Valid  Bifhops.  The  Confequence 
 of  which  is  this,  that  Baptifms  perform'd  by 
 all  thefe,  were  Baptifms  by  Valid  Bifhops, 
 Priefts,  and  Deacons,  and  fo  were  not  of  the 
 fame  Nature  with  our  Lay-Baptifms,  by  Per- 
 fons  who  never  were  at  all  commiflion'd  to 
 Baptize. 
 
 And  this  Principle  of  his,  a  That  thefe  Pfeudo- 
 ct  Epifcopi  "    [  thefe  Falfe  Bifhops  as  they  are 
 
 term'd  ]  u  were  in  fame  ©enfe  05tfljop&  as 
 
 "  being  OgDamI)  thf  illegally,  &c.  "  ferves  for 
 a  Key  to  unlock  the  Secret,  and  difcover  the 
 Fallacy  of  his  fo  frequently  making  ufe  of  the 
 ambiguous  Terms  of  ct  Jffllfe  lt5i(t)0P,  *  "  not  a 
 M  true  Bijhop  *,  not  true  Shepherds  or  Bifliops  \  fuper- 
 ordaind,  pretended  Bijljops  into  a  full  See7  " 
 Per  fans  not  authentically  ordained,  "    and  fuch 
 
 CC 
 
 ( r )  Schl  Hift.  Part  II.  p.  62. 
 
 F  3  like, 
 
jo  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 like,  throughout  the  fecond  Part  of  his  Scho- 
 laftkal  Hiflory,  to  make  them  look  as  if  they 
 were  no  Bifhops,  and  the  Perfons  ordain'd  by 
 them  no  Priefls,  but  Laymen  \  for  here  we  fee, 
 that  all  thefe  ambiguous  Terms  are  not  fuffi- 
 cient  to  hide  this  Truth,  that  fuch  Falfe  Bi- 
 flops,  a  tho  ordain  d  illegally,"  tho'  "  they 
 u  Schematically  intruded  themfelves  into  Gtlj£C 
 "  90H1S  %U^  "  or  tho'  Ct  they  obtained  them 
 "  by  fome  COjHipt  and  ittetfUlat  Practices  ',  " 
 yet  they  were  in  fome  Senfe  Bifhops,  [confe- 
 quently  Valid  Bifhops  ]  80  bCtllff  OJDafllTl, 
 £that  is,  by  reafon  of  their  Ordination^  u  tho* 
 *;  illegally.  "  The  lllegallity  did  not  here  de- 
 ftroy  or  null  the  Ordination,  according  to  him  : 
 Thefe  which  he  calls  Falfe  Bifljops,  &o  were 
 yet  Bifiops.  And  fo  he  in  this  fhort  Paragraph 
 deftroys  all  his  Infinuations  in  the  2d  Part  of 
 his  Scholaftical  Hlftory,  that  fuch  Falfe  Bifhops, 
 as  he  calls  them,  and  the  Clergy  ordain'd  by 
 them,  were  but  Laymen.    Again, 
 
 §  XXXVIII.  In  the  147th  Page  of  the  fame 
 Book  of  the  Antiquities  ;  after  having  fpokeq. 
 of  the  General  Practice  of  the  Church,  that 
 three  Bilhops  were  requir'd  to  the  Ordination 
 of  a  Bifhop,  he  adds  thus  ',  tp  Tet  it  mufi  be 
 f4  obferv*d,  that  tho1  this  was  the  CQtlttltOtt  Htll£ 
 a  and  Practice  of  the  Church,  yet  it  was  not  £§>IM* 
 
 "  plj?  ant!  3bfoItite!p  of  tlje  €Ktntz  of  £>l* 
 
 ^  BinatitJlt*  And  then  he  gives  us  a  large  Ca- 
 talogue of  Bifhops,  who  were  Ordain'd  contrary 
 to  this  Common  Utile,  fome  only  by  two  Bi- 
 lhops, and  others  by  no  more  than  one,  who 
 were,  notwithstanding,  Valid  Bifhops,  tho'  this 
 Rule  of  the  Church  was  broken.    All  the  Ufe 
 
 that 
 
and  Schrf matted  Bxptifms.  71 
 
 that  I  make  of  this,  is,  That  what  is  CEflett- 
 tlfll  to^  Ordination,  is  one  thing  •,  and  that 
 the  circumftantial  Rules  of  the  Church  about 
 Ordreation,are  another,  that  Mr. Bingham  makes 
 the  coalition  EulC  of  the  Church  tor  Ordina- 
 tions, to  be  "  not  ©iniplp  ann  STbftiiutelp 
 v  of  tfje  Cflcnce  of  {Dalmatian ;  and  than 
 
 confcquently  there  may  be  ail  Cffcntfal  £D?s5t- ' 
 nation,  when  at  the  fame  time  that  Ordination 
 may  not  be  JReijUfar,  or  agreeable  to  the  cir- 
 cumftantial Rules  and  Laws  of  the  Church,  but 
 wholly  contrary  to  fuch  Laws.  And  that  there- 
 fore, if  .an  Ordination  have  what  is  "  g}!!V*s 
 
 pip  ann  abfelhtelp  of  tfce  (Effimee  of  ©jaina* 
 
 tl'Ott,  'tis  eiTentialiy  Valid,  tho'  not  attended 
 with  thofe  Circumftantials  which  the  Church 
 has  appointed.  And  this  Diftin&ion  alone  is 
 fufficient  to  anfwer  all  that  Mr.  Bingham  has 
 advane'd  in  the  Second  Part  of  his  Scholajlical 
 Hlftory^  againft  the  Holy  Orders  of  fuch  Per- 
 fons,  as  were  ordain'd  by  Q15iflj0pS,  in  an  ir- 
 regular Manner,  and  contrary  to  "  the  C0H1- 
 <c  ntOlt  Ettle  and  Prattice  of  the  Church  5  * 
 fince,  even  according  to  him,  ft  COttWlOn  RtliC 
 and  Practice  of  the  Church,  may  be  fuch  as 
 is  u  not  fimply  and  abfolutdy  of  the  Ejftnce  of 
 *'  Ordination.  " 
 
 §  XXXIX.  In  Pages  i53,  164.  of  the  Firft 
 Volume  of  his  Antiquities,  he  mews,  that  the 
 Epifcopal  Ordinations  of.&cljlTtttattCfcd  were 
 efteem'd  to  be  Valid.  For  there  he  tells  you, 
 />.  163.    that 
 
 *  Meletius  Bifiop  o/Antioch  made  "  a  "  Pro- 
 4<  pofal  to  Paulinus  his  Antagonift,  who  though  he 
 "  was  of  the  fame  Faith,   yt  kept  vp  a  Church 
 
 f  4         *  miwu 
 
72  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 ct  nttn'tsetJ  hi  Communion  from  him,  i  and, 
 
 therefore,  he  was  doubtlefs  a  Schifmatick. 
 Meletius's  Propofal  to  Paulinus  was  this, 
 u  Forafmuch  as  the  Lord  hath  committed  to 
 "  me  the  Care  of  thefe  Sheep,  and  thou  haft  re~ 
 tc  ceivyd  the  Care  of  others,  and  all  the  Sheep  a- 
 t(  are*  in  one  Common  Faith,  let  us  join  our  Flocks? 
 "  my  Friend,    and  difpute    no   longer  about  \p}\* 
 
 "  macp  aim  ©o&ratmeiit  > *»d  $**  &* 
 
 "  the  C&?0H8  that  creates  the  Difpute^  I  will 
 iC  try  to  take  away  this  Caufe  alfo  \  we  will  lay 
 ct  the  Holy  Gofpel  upon  the  Seat^  and  then  each 
 "  of  us  take  h.s  Place  on  either  Side  of  it*  And 
 <c  if  I  die  firfl,  you  flail  take  the  Government  of 
 u  the  Flock  alone  ;  but  if  it  be  your  Fate  to  die 
 <c  before   me,    then  I  will  feed  them  according  to 
 
 "  my  Power  j  but  Paulinus  would  not  ac- 
 
 '*  quiefce  nor  hearken  to  him*   " 
 
 Here  we  fee,  that  Paulinus,  the  Schifmatical 
 Bifhop,  was  not  thought  to  have  been  Un- 
 Bifhop'd  by  his  Schifm  *,  no,  ib  far  was  he  from 
 that,  that  Me  let  i  us  own'd  him  to  be  a  Bifhop, 
 by  offering  him  a  Share  in  his  own  Epifcopal 
 Throne,  during  his  Life,  and  that  he  fhould 
 wholly  poflefs  and  enjoy  it  after  his  Death, 
 if  he  furviv'd  him.  Which  Offer  he  could  ne- 
 ver have  juftly  made  him,  if  he  had  utterly 
 loll  his  Epifcopal  Character  by  reafon  of  his 
 Schifm,  ia  the  Opinion  of  thofe  Churches 
 where  this  happened. 
 
 So  again  he  tells  you,  p.  164.  there  was 
 another  fuch  Propofal  made  to  the  D  on  at  i ft  Bi- 
 flops,  by  all  the  Catholick  Biflops  of  Africk  af- 
 fembled  together  at  the  Opening  of  the  famous 
 Conference  at  Carthage.  There  they  offer *d  them 
 sly j  — —   that  if  they  would  return  to  the 
 
 J1  Vnity 
 
and  Schtfmatlcal  Baptifms.  73 
 
 u  Vnity  and  Communion  of  the  Churchy  vpon  due 
 ct  Conviclion,    they  Jlwuld    retain   their  Eptfcopal 
 
 "  Honour  and  Dignity  ftdl ;  "    cC  That  e- 
 
 <c  very  Catholick  Bijhop  Jhould  take  the  other  to 
 li  be  his  (£(!;Pi1ttnCr,  avd  Jlmre  the  Honour 
 iC  with  him  ',  allowing  him  to  fit  with  him  in  his 
 cc  own  Chair,  as  was  vfual  for  Bijlwps  to  treat 
 "  fytil  j^HOU)='Bifl)Gpg  that  were  Strangers  % 
 u   ■  till  fuch  Time    as  one  of  them   jhould 
 
 <fc  die,  and  then  the  Right  of  Succeffion  Jhould  be 
 
 u 
 
 Iways  in  a  fingle  Bijhop  as  it  was  before.  And 
 11  this  they  fay  was  no  new  Thing  in  Africk  ',  for 
 u  from  the  beginning  of  the  Schifm,  they  that 
 ct  would  recant  their  Error,  and  condemn  their 
 u  Separation,  and  return  to  the  Vnity  of  the 
 u  Churchy  were,  by  the  Charity  of  Catholicks,  al- 
 <c  ways  treated  in  the  fame  courteous  Manner.  " 
 il  From  hence  it  is  plain,  [fays  Mr-  Bingham'] 
 "  That  this  had  been  the  Practice  of  Africk  for 
 u  above  one  whole  Century.  " 
 
 And  therefore,  fay  I,  there  was  a  long  Suc- 
 ceflion  of  Donatift  Schifmatical  Bifhops,  Priefts, 
 and  Deacons  for  above  one  hundred  Years,  who 
 in  the  Opinion  of  the  Churches  of  Africk  had 
 Valid  Ordination,  and  fo  were  Valid  Bifhops, 
 Priefts,  and  Deacons  even  during  their  Schifni  ^ 
 for  if  they  had  not  Valid  Orders,  they  had  no 
 Orders  at  all  ;  and  fo  the  Catholick  Biihops! 
 propos'd  to  admit  meer  Laymen  to  be  Co- 
 Partner  Bifhops  with  them*,  which  is  ridiculous 
 to  imagine  ;  nay,  at  this  rate,  the  Catholick 
 Bifhops  would  have  ofFer'd  meer  Laymen,  "  that 
 
 11  //  they  wo  1, Id  return  to  the  Vnity  of  the 
 
 "  Church,  they  Jlwuld  tttvill  their  (£p|fC0* 
 
 11  pfil  Honour   and   Dignity  fill,  "    "  which   is 
 emphatical   Nonfenfc.  2      And ,    therefore  .,   in 
 
 the' 
 
74  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 the  Opinion  of  thefe  African  Fathers,  Schifm 
 did  not  Un-Bifhop  the  firfb  Donatifi  Bifhops, 
 nor  Null  their  Ordinations  perform'd  in  the 
 Schifm,  but  their  Succeffion  was  a  Succeflion 
 of  Valid  Bifhops,  Priefts,  and  Deacons,  fince 
 the  Charity  and  courteous  Treatment  of  the 
 Catholicks  towards  them  was  not  the  denying 
 of  their  Orders  they  before  receiv'd,  and  giving 
 them  a  New  Ordination  \  but  an  Ad  million  of 
 them  to  partake  with  'em  in  their  Ecclefiafti- 
 cal  External  Honours  and  Profits  which  they 
 enjoy'd  in  the  Church,  by  the  Exercife  of 
 their  Epifcopal  Functions  in  their  feveral  Dio- 
 cefes. 
 
 §  XL.  In  Page  172.  of  the  fame  Volume, 
 he  tells  you  of  fome  who  are  thought  to  have 
 been  Chorepifcopi,  and  particularly  names  the 
 Nevatian  and  Meletian  Bifhops  who  were  or- 
 dain'd  in  Schifm,  and  fays,  "  *Tti  plain,  that 
 w  all  fuch  Chorepifcopi  as  tlj£fe  were  p?0petl{? 
 "  Ti5tfl)0pg,  becaufe  they  were  OJtgfafllfP  Op 
 "  Dafo'fl  Qi5tfl)0p£  5  "  but  this  I  have  taken 
 Notice  of  in  two  Sections  before,  and  there- 
 fore will  no  farther  enlarge  upon  it  in  this 
 Place  }  after  I  have  obferv'd,  that  he  hereby 
 makes  Men  to  have  beCIt  pjOPetlP  'Btfijopg 
 by  Virtue  of  their  original  Ordination  to  that 
 Function,  though  ordain'd  even  in  Schifm  by 
 Schifmatical  Bifhops. 
 
 §  XLI.  In  the  Second  Volume  of  his  Antiqui- 
 ties,  p.  183.  he  fays  of  Re-Ordinations  thus  : 
 
 cc  Such  Orders  as  were  given  regularly  in  the 
 u  Church)   they  were  fupposd  like  Baptifm  to  im- 
 
 "  pnfs  a  fort  of  jnBeu'Me  C&aracter,  fi  ** 
 
 u  that 
 
and  Schlfmatical  Baptifots.  75 
 
 *  that  there  was  HO  J13CCCflTttP  upw  any  Occa~ 
 
 tc  fori  to  repeat  them,  but  on  the  contrary  it  was 
 
 tc  deemd  a  Criminal  AB  fo  to   do.      The    third 
 
 u  Council  of  Carthage  following  the  Steps  of  the 
 
 ic  Plenary   Council    of  Gapua  or  Capfa,    decree d, 
 
 u  that  it  was  equally  unlawful  to  Re- Baptise  and 
 
 "  &C--2D250UU     And  thofe  called  the  Apoftolical 
 
 ^  Canons,    make    it   Deposition    both   for   the  Or- 
 
 cc  dalner  and  Ordained  to  give  or  receive  a  £e- 
 
 "  cond  Ordination.  "      "   St.  Auguftin  fays,    it 
 
 "  was  not  the  Cuftom  of  the  CcltljOltCfe  CfjlStCf) 
 
 cc  to  repeat  either  2D]fi££0  or  Baftifm  ;  for  Mm 
 
 "  did  not  ICfe  their  £)^Ctg,    as  to  their  Jlfc 
 
 u  terna!  Character  and  virtue,  though  they. 
 
 "  rrere  rilfpentSCO  from  the  <£rCCUttOn  of  their 
 cc  Office  for  feme  Mifdemeanour.  Optatus  tefti- 
 cc  fies  the  fame,  telling  us,  that  Ponatus  was 
 u  condemn  d  m  the  Council  of  Rome  under  Mel- 
 "  chiades,  for  Et'O^aming  fuch  Bljhops,  as 
 u  had  lapsed  in  Time  of  Verfecution  ',    which  was 
 
 "  contrary  to  tfie  Cutfom  of  tfje  Catljolicfe 
 "  Cljurxk  " 
 
 From  all  which  'tis  evident,  that  Orders  once 
 regularly  receiv'd  in  the  Church,  were  efteem'd 
 by  thofe  Ancients  to  have  been  JUCCllWC ;  they 
 could  not,  it  feems,  be  aillUfjtlatCU,  they  could 
 not  be  loff  ,  they  constantly  remain'd  entire^ 
 even  when  Men  for  their  Crimes  u  were  fu- 
 u  fpended  from  the  Execution  of  their  Office  \  " 
 nay,  tho'  they  a  had  laps'd  "  into  4C  JjEa* 
 ."  Inttp  "  4C  in  Time  of  Verfecution,  "  yet  Mill 
 they  remained  Bifwps  [  if  they  were  at  firft  or- 
 dain'd  Bifhops  in  the  Church]  nothing  could 
 Vn-Bifiop  them,  for  "  there  was  \\0  j£eCCk 
 Cc  fitp  -upon  any  Occafwn  "  to  repeat  their  Or- 
 dination.  No,  "  it  was  not  tije  Cuftom  of 
 
 i"  tlje 
 
j6  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 "  tlje  CfltfjCitCft  CfiUtClj  to   repeat  their  Or- 
 "  ders !  "  Nay  more,  ic  was  even  "  COHtCCltp  to 
 «  the  Cuftom  of  the  Cat&OltCfe  CfjUecfi  "  to  do 
 ft,  if  we  may  believe  Mr.  Bingham,  the  third 
 Council  of  Carthage ,  the  Apoftolical  Canons,  St. 
 Auguftin,  Optatus,  and  the  Council  of  Rome  under 
 Mekhiades.    And  from  hence  it  follows,  that 
 thefe  originally  ordain'd  Bifhops  in  the  Church, 
 having  their  Epifcopal  Chara&er  or  Order  In- 
 delible, "  fo  as  that  there  was  flO  JGJeCCffttP  »/>- 
 "  on  tinp  ©CCafiOtt  to  repeat "  the  giving  them 
 Orders,  were  Valid  Bifhops  even  while  under 
 Sufpenfion,  or  Excommunication,  &c.  becanfe  their 
 Orders  were  not  loft,  but  remain'd  indeleted, 
 not  taken  away  j  confequently  Perfons  ordain'd 
 by  them,  even  while  they  were  under  Sufpen- 
 fton,  or  Excommunication,   were  ordain'd  by 
 Valid  BiJIiops  ?  and  becaufe  they  were  ordain'd 
 by  Valid  Biihops,  therefore  they  alfo  receiv'd 
 Valid  Orders  :    And  thus  it  is  eafy  to  account 
 for  the  Council  of  A7re's  decreeing,   that  the 
 Schifmatical  Bifhops,  &c.  ordain'd  by  Meletius^ 
 who  was  made  a  Bifhop  in  the  Church  \  and 
 the  Schifmatical  Bifhops  and  Clergy  ordain'd 
 by   Novatian,  [who    was    made   a  Bifhop   by 
 three  Church  Bifhops]  fhould,  upon  their  Re- 
 turn to  the  Church,  remain  in  the  fame  Cle- 
 rical Functions  which  they  had  before,  with- 
 out giving  them  a  New  Ordination,  as  I  have 
 before  prov'd  \   from  hence  alfo  we  may  ac- 
 count for  the  Catholicks  letting  the  Arian  and 
 Donatift  Clergy,   remain  in  the  fame  Stations 
 they  held  before  their  Return  to  the  Church, 
 without  repeating  their  Orders.    For  they  had 
 all   of  them  Epifcopal  Orders  originally  con- 
 vey'd  to  them  from  Chrift,  by  Church  Bifhops, 
 
 whofe 
 
and  Schifmatlcal  Baptifms.  77 
 
 whofe  Tranfgreffions  did  not,  ia  the  Opinion 
 of  thofe  Ancients,  Null  the  Orders  which  thofe 
 Bifhops  had  themfelves,  and  confequently  not 
 Void  the  Orders  which  they  gave  to  others. 
 And  fo  all  Baptifms  by  fuch  Perfons  fo  or- 
 dain'd,  were  Epifcopal,  and  therefore  'tis  no 
 Wonder  to  find  the  third  Council  of  Carthage 
 decreeing,  that  it  was  a  unlawful  to  Re-Baptise  " 
 as  well  as  to  "  Re-Ordain ',  "  for,  as  all  Ordi- 
 nations were  Epifcopal,  fo  were  all  Baptifms 
 too  \  and  Mr.  Bingham  has  not,  in  aU  that  he 
 has  written  upon  this  Controverfy,  given  fo 
 much  as  one  Inftance  of  any  real,  well  attefted 
 Scatter  Of  jFatf,  of  a  Baptifm  perform'd  by 
 any  one  Perfon,  who  was  reckon'd  never  to 
 have  had  an  Epifcopal  Commiffion  to  Baptize, 
 which  this  or  any  other  ancient  Council  de- 
 creed was  "  unlawful  "  to  be  repeated.  And 
 I  challenge  him  to  produce  any  one  fuch  In- 
 ftance and  Decree  about  it,  from  the  Records 
 of  the  ancient  Catholick  Church.  But  to  pro- 
 ceed : 
 
 §  XL1I.  In  the  185th  Page  of  his  Second 
 Volume  of  Antiquities,  he  fays,  that  "  fuch  as 
 u  were  ordaitfd  out  of  the  Church  by  Schifmati- 
 *c  cal  or  Heretical  Bifhops,  ■  the  Church  did 
 
 iC  not  always  allow  of  their  Ordinations,  but  forne^ 
 "  times   for  DlfClpIttte   2>afee,     and  to   put  * 
 
 "  Mark  of  jnfamp  upon  t&etr  €rro?&  made 
 
 *  them  take  ft   jftetD  ©SrftiatfatU  " 
 
 Here,  before  I  proceed  any  farther,  the  Que- 
 ftion  that  arifes  about  this  Matter,  is,  Upon 
 what  Principle  were  thefe  [uppofed  New  Ordi- 
 nations enjoin'd  ?  Either  they  were  requir'd, 
 ifty  Becaufe  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  have 
 
 no 
 
-8  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 no  Valid  Orders  at  all,  and  it  was  Simply  and 
 Abfolutely  of  the  Ejfence  of  Orders,  that  they  fhould 
 receive  [what  we  now  for  Argument  fake  call] 
 A  New  Ordination,  the  fir  ft  being  a  meer  Nullity. 
 Or  elfe,  idly,  They  had  Valid  Orders  before, 
 but  were  appointed  to  fubmit  to  this  fuppos'd 
 New  Ordination,  as  to  a  Ceremony  appointed, 
 not  to  give  them  Holy  Orders,  but  to  be  a  Rite 
 of  Abfolution  from  the  Punifhment  due  to  their 
 Crimes,  and  of  Reconciliation  to  the  Unity  of  the 
 Church,  for  Difcipline's  fake. 
 
 If  the  firft  was  the  Reafon  of  thofe  fuppos'd 
 New  Ordinations,  then  'tis  plain  that  they  were 
 not  Re-Ordinations,  but  properly  Ordinations  to 
 the  Sacred  FurMions,  and  fo  the  Church  did  not 
 Re-Ordain,  but  Ordain  only  :  But  if  this  be  true, 
 then  the  Church,  when  fhe  let  the  Novatians, 
 Arians,  and  Donatifts  [who  were  Schifma ticks 
 and  Hereticks  ]  minifter  in  Holy  Things,  as 
 Bifhops,  Priefts  and  Deacons,  upon  their  Re- 
 turn to  her  Communion,  without  requiring 
 them  to  be  Ordain'd  by  [what  Mr.  Bingham 
 calls]  "  A  New  Ordination,  did  omit,  let  pafs, 
 and  neglecl  what  was  limply  and  absolutely  of 
 the  Eflence  of  Orders,  and  reckon  Men  to  have 
 the  Orders  of  Bifhops, Priefts  and  Deacons,  with- 
 out what  was  efteem'd  to  be  limply  and  abfo- 
 lutely of  the  EfTencc  of  thofe  Orders  j  which  is 
 a  molt  egregious  Abfurdity,  becaufe  it  makes 
 Things  to  be,  without  what  is  of  the  Eflence  of 
 their  Being.  And  therefore,  fince  the  Nova- 
 tians,  Arians,  and  Donatifts,  as  great  Schifma- 
 ticks  and  Hereticks,  as  any  whatsoever,  were  e- 
 fteenfd  to  have  had  theOrders  of  Bifhops,Priefts, 
 and  Deacons,  by  Virtue  of  their  firft  Epifcopal 
 Ordination,  without  this  New  Ordination  \   it  is 
 
 plain$ 
 
And  Schiftrtatical  Baptifmf.  79 
 
 plain,  that  they  were  reckon'd  to  have  had  what 
 was  Mential  to  thofe  Orders,  without  this  New 
 Ordination  \  and  confequently,  that  this  New  Or- 
 dination was  not  thought  to  be  of  the  EfTence 
 of  thofe  their  Orders  *9  and  if  not  of  the  Ef- 
 fence  of  their  Orders,  then  confequently  it  could 
 not  have  been  of  the  EfTence  of  Orders  to  o- 
 ther  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks,  who  had  the 
 fame   Epifcopal  Ordination,   as  the  NovatianSj 
 Arians,  and  JDonatifts  had;  and  therefore,  the 
 New    Ordination    Mr.   Bingham    talks    of,    was 
 not  requir'd,  becaufe  it  was  limply  and  abfo- 
 lutely  of  the  EfTence  of  Orders  to  thofe  fup- 
 pofedly  new  Ordain'd  Heretical  and  Schifma- 
 tical  Clergymen,  and  fo  they  were  4in  valid  Or- 
 ders without  it,  [as  much  as  the  Novatians,  A- 
 rians,  and  Donatifts  were]  by  Virtue  of  their 
 firft  Ordination  by  Bifhops }  confequently,  their 
 fuppos'd  New  Ordination  was  no  Ordination 
 at  all,  but  fomething  of  quite  another  Nature. 
 And  therefore, 
 
 Secondly  \  Thefe  fuppos'd  New  Ordinations 
 were  only  a  Rite  or  Ceremony  of  Impofition 
 of  Hands,  to  which  thofe  returning  Heretical 
 and  Schifmatical  Clergymen  [who  were  Ordain  d 
 ovt  of  the  Church,  by  Schifmatical,  or  Heretical^ 
 but  yet  Real  'Bt'fljCpS,  and  had  therefore  Va- 
 lid Orders]  were  appointed  to  fubmit,  where- 
 by they  receiv'd  Abfolution  from  the  Punifhment 
 due  to  their  Crimes,  and  were  reconcil'd  to 
 the  Church,  as  other  Penitents  us'd  to  be  ; 
 and.  this  [as  Mr.  Bingham  fays]  "  For  Difci- 
 u  pline's  fake,  and  to  put  a  Mark  of  Infamy  up- 
 <l  on  their  Errors, "  but  not  as  an  Eflential  of 
 Ordination,  to  give  them  Orders  they  had  not 
 before  ,  for  they  were  all  of  them  as  much  'm  Or- 
 ders 
 
So  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 dcrs  before,  as  the  Avians,  Novatians,  and  Bona- 
 tifts  were  -,  and  confeqnently,  the  Impofition  of 
 Hands  they  received,  was  not  EfTential  to  the 
 giving  of  Holy  Orders,  and  therefore  could  be 
 nothing  but  a  reconciliatory  Impofition  of 
 Hands,  by  way  of  Abfolution. 
 
 §  XLIIL  In  the  1 88th  Page  of  the  fame  Vo- 
 lume, he  fays,  "  In  France,  the  Cuftom  was  in  the 
 u  time  0/Clodoveus,  to  give  a  New  Impofition  of 
 u  Hands  to  the  Arian  Clergy,  that  returned  to  the 
 tc  Catholick  Faith,  as  appears  from  the  firfi  Council 
 u  of  Orleans,  which  made  a  decree  about  it  \  but 
 
 iC  that  perhaps,  vot$  not  mean  a  3i3eio  ®i* 
 
 iC  BUtfitlOH,  but  only  fuch  a  reconciliatory  Impo- 
 H  fition  of  Hands,  as  was  us'd  to  be  given  to  Pe- 
 "  nitents  in  Abfolution.  "  The  Decree  it  felfr 
 as  it  Hands  in  his  Margin,  is  this,  Concil  Aurel. 
 1.  Cap.  12.  a  Be  Hareticis  Clericis,  qui  ad  fi- 
 a  dem  Catholicam  plena  fide  &  voiumate  venerint, 
 u  id   cenfuimus  obfervari  <•  ut  Officium,  quo 
 
 CL  eos  Epifcopus  dignos  effe  cenfuerit,  cum  impofi- 
 u  ta  manks  Beneditlione  fufcipiant. 
 
 Here  we  fee,  the  Council  appoints,  that  thefe 
 Returning  Clergymen  mould,  upon  Impofition 
 of  Hands,  KeceftJe  fuch  Office,  as  the  Biihop 
 fhould  judge  them  worthy,  or  fit  to  difcharge. 
 And  tho'  they  did  thus  Receive  fuch  Office,  yet 
 Mr.  Bingham  here  rightly  gueffes,  that  this  Im- 
 pofition of  Hands,  perhaps,  does  not  mean  a 
 Kew  Ordination.  He  might  have  left  out  his 
 pCtfjclpS,  and  have  afferted  pofitively,  that  it 
 was  no  New  Ordination,  without  leaving  his 
 Reader  to  doubt  and  hefitate  upon  the  Mat- 
 ter *,  For  the  Council  calls  them  Clergymen, 
 before  their  Return  to   the  Catholick  Faith, 
 
 and 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptfms.  8t 
 
 and  before  their  fo  Receiving  their  Office.  But 
 50  let  that  pafs,  hisGuefs  has  hit  on  the  Right 
 in  this  Place,  and  ferves  for  an  Argument  a- 
 gainft  himfelf  in  other  Inftances.  For  'tis  cer- 
 tain, that  an  Adverfary's  meer  Gucfs,  in  Fa- 
 vour of  that  very  Truth  he  is  ufing  all  his 
 Power  and  Skill  to  oppofe,  does  very  often 
 prove  the  Partiality  and  Inconfiftency  of  his  way 
 of  Arguing  againft  that  Truth  •,  and  that  he 
 himfelf,  to  make  the  bed  of  all  that  he  fays, 
 is  only  making  contrary  Conjectures  and  Guef- 
 fes  [if  not  fomething  worfe]  againft  the  very 
 fame  Thing  iu  other  Inftances  }  as  is  plain  in 
 the  Cafe  before  us,  where  Mr.  Bingham  can 
 fuppofe,  that  a  Returning  Avian  Clergyman's 
 EecetlMUJ  mfOfKtt- upon  Impofition  of  Hands, 
 was  not  a  313eiD  ©SmtattOin  and  yet,  that  a 
 Mehtian  Returning  Clergyman's  being  "  C0Hs 
 "  ttmirtl  til  Ijtg  iFtmctlOn,  "  when  he  was 
 COtlfirm'D  by  Impofition,  of  Hands,  was  a  iPetU 
 SD^inatmm  Impofition  of  Hands  on  the  3> 
 thin  l^erCttCft  was  no  New  Ovdination  ',  but 
 Impofition  of  Hands  on  the  $f)e!ettftn  ©Cfjlf* 
 tliattCfe  was  a  New  Ovdination.  A  Man  who 
 EeCCttfO  an  Office  M&  HOt  thereby  Ee* 
 OiBam'O  '•>  but  a  Man  who  was  CEOtttiltUeO  in 
 his  Function,  foag  thereby  Re-ordain'd.  In 
 Ihort,  the  Avian  he  fuppofes  was  not  Re-or- 
 dain'd by  the  New  Impofition  of  Hands  \  but 
 the  MeUtian  he  affirms  was  Re-ordain'd  by  the 
 New.  Imposition  of  Hands ,  and  yet  the  fup- 
 pos'd  Reafon,  why  the  Meletian  is  reckon'd 
 to  have  been  Re-ordain'd,  is  only  this,  that 
 he  was  oblig'd  to  fubmit  to  Impofition  of 
 Hands,  as  the  Avian  was  likewife,  tho'  the 
 Avian  was  not  thereby  Re-ordain'd  :  Egregious 
 
 G  Partiality. 
 
82  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 Partiality  and  Inconfiftency  this !  for  if  it  was 
 at  all  reafonable  £as,  I  doubt  not,  it  was]  for 
 him  to  believe,  that  the  Arian  Clergyman,  who 
 reCClD'O  an  Office  with  a  New  Impofition  of 
 Hands,  was  not  thereby  r£*0fl)iU!fD  h  it  was 
 certainly  contrary  to  Reafon  for  him  to  believe, 
 that  the  Meletian  Clergyman  was  UfcOjUiUtftf, 
 when  he  [tCCeitft!  !10t,  but]  was  COtttmtt'fl 
 in  his  Function,  upon  fuch  a  New  Impofition 
 of  Hands  ;  bat  enough  of  this,  for  I  have  already 
 prov'd,  Seftions  VIII,  XI.  That  the  MeUtians 
 were  not  re-ordain'd}  and  Mr.  Bingham's  no- 
 torious Inconfiftency  with  himfelf  about  them 
 has  been  fufficiently  expos'd. 
 
 §  XLIV.  The  laft  Inftance  out  of  his  An- 
 tiquities,  which  I  (hall  trouble  the  Reader  with, 
 is  in  Vol.  II.  p.  189.  There  he  tells  us,  that 
 Ci  the  General  Council  of  Ephefus  made  an  Or- 
 li  der  concerning  the  Maflalian  Heretich,  otherwife 
 "  call'd  Euchites  and  Enthufialts,  that  if  any 
 Ct  of  their  Clergy  would  return  to  the  Church,  and 
 *'  in  Writing   anathematize  their  former  Errors, 
 
 <c  they  puid  continue  in  tlje  fame  Station 
 
 ic  they  were  in  before  ',  — .  "  that  u  the  Coun- 
 M  ell  of  Nice  ts  thought  to  have  made  the  like 
 '*  Decree  in  Favour  of  the  Novatian  Clergy,  only 
 
 u  given  them  a  Keconciftato?})  3impofition  of 
 
 "  pm®$  by  way  of  Absolution,    nOt   &€*©?& 
 
 "  nation.  And  there  is  notijtng  mo?e  certain, 
 
 u  than  that  the  African  Fathers  ft  tteateD  the 
 tc  Donatifts  ;  particularly  St.  Auftin  in  aU  his 
 iC  Writings  pleads  as  much  for  the  aMfttttP  Of 
 £  K)etetiCaI  S)?tltnatiOnS,  as  Heretical  Bap- 
 u  tifms  ',  and  fays  farther,  that  when  the  Church 
 "  judged  it  expedient  J10t  tO  filffCT  tfjC  Dona- 
 
 "  tift 
 
and  Schifmatlcal  Baptifms.  85 
 
 if  till  Bijhops  tO  Officiate  upon  their  Return  to 
 "  the  Church,    flje  Bftl  t10t   tfierebP   intend  to 
 
 tc  Deny  the  Eealitp  o?  (IMfoitp  of  t&eit  flte 
 "  lunation,  *»*  /*#«'^  t&at  ^  rea**/*  j?*// 
 
 cc  PCrfCft  anil  Cnttre  in  them.  And  this  is 
 u  w hap  St.  All f tin  meant  by  the  Sacrament  of 
 "  SDjtmtatlOn*  as  he  words  it,  or  THE  I N- 
 "  DELIBLE  CHARACTER,  which  was 
 <c  THEREBY  IMPRINTED;  that 
 "  though  a  Man  turn'd  SlpOffate,     or   was   ft|: 
 
 c<  fpenncD,  or  oepjitfn  /*r  an?  Crime,  yet 
 
 *c  (£  wjta#  fo>  Repentance  and  Satisfaction-,  the 
 <l  Church  thought  fit  to  admit  him  to  officiate  4- 
 u  gain,  there  was  nO  iliecelfitp  of  giving  him 
 cc  a  j^eto  ©]5inatt'0n7    no   more  than  a  New 
 
 "  Baptifm,  for  the  c&aractet  of  both  remaftt'D 
 
 <c  entire^    This  was  the  Doclrine  arid  Pratlice  of 
 
 "  the  aftican  Cljurclj,  aim  mofl  ot&erg,  in  the 
 
 41  Time  of  St.  Auftin  \  "   fays  Mr.  Bingham. 
 
 From  all  which,  thefe  following  Particulars 
 are  manifeft,  even  to  a  Demonftration  : 
 
 1  ft,  That  not  only  the  General  Council  of 
 Nice,  [as  I  have  prov'd  before]  but  alfo  the 
 General  Council  of  Ephefus,  did  own  and  ac- 
 knowledge the  Epifcopal  Orders  of  Hereticks 
 to  have  been  Valid  Orders,  even  during  their 
 Herefy.  For,  fays  the  Council  of  Ephefus,  [  as 
 Mr.  Bingham  himfelf  notes  it  in  his  Margin  ] 
 Si  Cleric  i  fuerint,  mane  ant  Clerici.  If  they  were 
 Clergymen,  let  them  remain,  or  continue  Clergy- 
 men. The  Decree  did  not  make  them  Clergy- 
 men, but  only  allow'd  them  to  exercife  their 
 Fundion,  u  that  theyjhould  Continue,  as  Mf .  Bing- 
 ham has  it,  u  in  the  fame  Station  they  were  in 
 "  before,"  that  is,  remain  Valid  Clergymen,  as 
 they  were  before. 
 
 G  %  zdly, 
 
84  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 idly,  From  hence  'tis  plain,  that  the  African 
 Fathers,  and  St.  Auftin,  allerted  the  Validity  of 
 Heretical  Ordinations  perform'd  by  Heretical  Bi- 
 ihops  ;  and  as  for  St.  Auftin's  affirming  the  Va- 
 lidity of  Heretical  Baptifms,  that  is  no  Wonder 
 at  all,  for  thofe  Baptifms,  were  perform'd  by 
 Men  who  had  receiv'd  Epifcopal,  tho'  Here- 
 tical Ordinations  ;  and  'tis  confiftent  enough  to 
 affirm  the  Validity  of  Baptifms  perform'd  by 
 thofe  whom  we  afTert  to  have  been  validly  Or- 
 dain'd  Clergymen., 
 
 sdly,  We  hereby  fee  farther,  that  St.  Au- 
 giftin,  the  African  Church,  and  molt  other 
 Churches  in  his  Time,  reckon'd,  that  when  Re- 
 turning Heretical  Clergymen  were  not  fuffeSd 
 to  Officiate,  or  Exercife  their  Function  in  the 
 Church,  they  were,  for  all  that,  Clergymen  frill, 
 and  not  Laymen,  as  Mr.  Bingham  endeavours  to 
 reprefent  them,  in  the  Second  Part  of  his  Scho- 
 laftical  Hiftory,  for  we  fee  that  the  Church 
 hindering  the  Donatifi  Bifhops  from  Exercifing 
 their  Function,  a  did  not  thereby  intend  to  deny 
 t£  the  EealttP  01  (aalfoftP  Of  tfjett  Ordination, 
 "  but  fuppofd  Cfjflt  to  remain  ft  ill  ^Ztlttt  attH 
 "  Cnttte  in  them. " 
 
 qtkly  and  laltly  *,  We  fee  that  the  African 
 Churches,  and  moft  Churches  in  St.  Auguftin's 
 Time,  thought  that  Epifcopal  Ordination  im- 
 printed fuch  an  indelible  Char after  of  Prieft- 
 hood  on  the  Ordained,  that  even  apoffatp  it 
 felf,  or  Svfpenfton,  or  Deprivation,  tho'  for  aitp 
 CriUlE  committed,  did  not  delete,  blot  out,  or 
 abfolutely  take  away  his  Character  of  Prieft- 
 hood,  but  it  was  fuppos'd  flill  to  remain  Entire 
 in  him  ',  fo  that  upon  his  Repentance,  there 
 was  no  Need,  "  no  i&CC^ffltp  *  of  giving  him 
 
 a 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptiftnt.  85 
 
 a  New  Ordination,  to  qualify  him  to  officiate 
 again  in  the  Sacred  Functions,  becaufe  the  Cha- 
 racter he  receiv'd  at  his  firft  Ordination  remained 
 ftill  Entire  in  him  *,  and  he  that  can  be  fo  har- 
 dy, as  to  fay  all  this  of  meer  Laicks,  Perfons 
 who  never  were  at  all  Ordain'd  or  Commif- 
 fion'd,  will  be  hardy  indeed  ;  and  fo  long  as 
 he  fhall  continue  in  that  unhappy  Temper,  will 
 be  Proof  againft  all  the  Impreflions  that  Rea- 
 fon  and  Argument  will  make  on  Men  of  lefs 
 obftinate  Difpofitions.  But  enough  of  our  Hi- 
 florian's  Antiquities  of  the  Chriftian  Church  }  I 
 proceed  next  to  fhew,  That  he  confirms  all 
 this  of  the  indelible  Character  of  Priefts,  in 
 thofe  very  Books,  where  he  very  unartificially 
 endeavours  to  make  his  Reader  believe,  That 
 the  Prieftly  Chara&er  of  Heretical,  Schifmati- 
 cal, and  Excommunicated,  &c.  Priefts,  was  ut- 
 terly loft,  in  the  Opinion  of  thofe  Churches 
 who  allow'd  of  the  Validity  of  Baptifm  per- 
 form'd  by  fuch  Priefts.  And  they  are  the  Firft 
 and  Second  Parts  of  his  Scholafiical  Hifiory  of 
 what  he  calls  Lay- Baptifm. 
 
 §  XLV.  In  his  Firft  Part,  p.  87,  88. :  he 
 enquires,  tc  Whether  Hereticks  be  Clergymen  or 
 a  Laymen,  Priefts  or  not  Priefts,  Btjhops  or  not 
 Ci  Bifhops  f  "  And  he  himfelf  anfwers  this 
 Qaeftion  in  the  following  Words,  u  If  by  a 
 <c  BiJIjop  or  Prieft  be  meant  one  th.it  has  receiv'd 
 "  fuch  an  ©^lltntfOll  from  the  Church  to  the 
 ct  Office  of  BiJJwp  or  Prieft,    as  that  if  the  Man 
 
 "  turns  ipemicfe,  0?  ©cljtftratfcft,  o?  apo* 
 "  ffate,  p?  in  ercommumcate  o?  BegjaoeB, 
 
 "  yet  his  Ordination  remains  fo  far  JltDCllMC 
 5  and  3|nfii0lnUIC3    as  that  if  the  Chnrch  thhks 
 
 G  3  "  fih 
 
8(5  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 u  fih  after  all  his  Crimes  and  Sufpenfions,  to  ad" 
 a  mit  him  upon  his  Repentance  to  officiate  in  that 
 «<  Station  again,  fjt  fljall  llOt  tieCU  ft  j&Efo 
 "  ©jWltfittOtt)  to  qualify  him  for  it  :  In  this 
 "  Senfe  there  are  \\mt  attlOtlg  tfje  SttCiCntjS, 
 a  but  will  allow  Heretich  and  Schifmatich,  to 
 ^  be  'BlfljOPS  0?  12)?tetfjS  according  to  their  re- 
 *l  fpeclive  Orders.  "  We  fee  here  how  pofi- 
 tive  he  is,  that  there  are  none  among  the  An- 
 cients,  but  will  allow,  that  Heretical,  Schifmati- 
 cal,  Apoftatining,  Excommunicated,  or  IDlglfttllD 
 Bifhops  and  Priefts,  who  were  ordain'd  in  the 
 Church,  had  their  Ordination  ftill  remaining 
 Indelible  and  Inviolable  ;  it  was  not  null'd  by 
 their  Herefy,  Schifm,  Apoftacy,  Excommunication*, 
 or  even  jDejpatiattOn  h  thefe  Things,  [and  a- 
 rnong  them  Degradation  it  felf]  did  not  re- 
 duce them  to  meer  Laymen,  they  did  HOt  HCCB 
 a  jfcetSJ  ©$faatlO!U  [butfure,  Mr.  Bingham  I 
 meer  Laymen  do  (farm  fa  &WXl  Of  2D?Wtia= 
 lion]  to  qualify  them  to  officiate  in  the  Sa- 
 cred Functions.  Thefe  Hereticks  and  Schif- 
 ma ticks  were  *c  Bifhops  or  Priefts,  accord- 
 <c  ing  to  their  refpe olive  Orders  ;  and  "  there 
 *l  are  none  among  the  Ancients,  but  will  allow  this" 
 fays  Mr.  Bingham ',  and  confequently,  fay  I, 
 there  are  none  among  the  Ancients,  that  wtfl 
 allow  that  their  Baptifms  were  Lay-Baptifms  \ 
 Baptifms  of  the  fame  Nature  with  our  Falfc 
 Baptifms,  performed  by  thofe  who  never  were 
 Ordain'd,  or  CommifTion'd  to  Baptize. 
 
 §  XLVI  But,  fays  Mr.  Bingham,  li  Some,  inr 
 *c  deed,  were  agamft  their  being  allowed  to  officiate 
 *c  in  thofe  Dignities,  and  were  for  3Dcp?iSM(Y 
 t  tljem  tDfjOHj?  of  thofe  Honours^  when  they  re- 
 
 41  turned 
 
tc 
 
 and  Schifmdtkal  Baptrfms.  8y 
 
 u  turned  to  the  Catholick  Church*,  as  thinking 
 tc  them  unworthy  to  enjoy  thofe  Privileges,  who 
 iC  had  fo  manifeftly  prevaricated  with  the  Church, 
 "  and  gone  contrary  to  the  Defign  and  Duties  of 
 "  their  Station.  "  This  total  Deprivation  of 
 them,  may,  in  fome  Mens  Fancies,  look  like 
 the  Church's  reducing  them  to  meer  Laymen\ 
 to  prevent  which  Miftake,  Mr.  Bingham  im- 
 mediately fubjoins}  a  But  none  [_i.  e.  none  of 
 "  the  Ancients]  ever  [aid,  that  if  the  Church 
 44  jhould  think  fit  to  allow  them  to  continue  in  her 
 "  Service,  flje  ttltttt  Of  j^eCCffttP  give  them  a 
 ct  New  Ordination,  Thus  far  therefore  they  were 
 "  allowed  to  be  of  the  Cftl'D^  and  UpOll  tfjtg 
 <c  jFOOt    many    Churches    and    Councils    accented 
 
 tl  them  upon   their  Return,  « and  permitted 
 
 <c  them  to  continue  in  their  Offices,  without  a  Re- 
 Ordination.  And  when  in  the  Difcipl.ne  of  the 
 Church,    it  was  thought  proper  to  deprive  them 
 
 c  of  the  poim  ana  honour  of  tfjetc  places, 
 
 u  yet  even  in  that  Cafe  the  Church  did  not  in- 
 "  tend  to  deny  the^  (HaltW'tP  Of  tfjCtC  £>#Ulta= 
 iC  tlOU,  but  furpos^d  that  to  remain  fo  entire,  as 
 a  that  if  ever  after  the  Church  JJwuld  recall  them 
 a  to  thofe  Offices,  flie  would  not   do  it  by  giving 
 
 cc  them  a  New  Ordination.  "    c<"   In  this 
 
 cc  Senfe  Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks^and  SDCgHftU: ft 
 cc  Vriefis,  were  allow  d  to  be  ^(CltS  Itlif,  and 
 "  their  AUs  to  be  (Halite  tho*  done  irregularly, 
 "  fmfully,  and  unlawfully,  aga'mft  the  Rule  and 
 u  Authority  of  the  Church   to  their   own    Vefiru- 
 
 Ci  ttion,   p.  89.  .  w      And   this  is  enough 
 
 out  of  the  Firfl  Part  of  his  Scholaflcal  Hifiory, 
 to  ihew,  that  he  himfelf  owns  with  the  An- 
 cients, that  fuch  Heretical,  Schifmatical,  and 
 3PC&a5eO  Prieflsy  had   ftill  Valid  Orders,  even 
 
 G  4.  while 
 
88  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 while  they  were  Hereticks,   or  Schifmaticksi 
 or  under  the  Sentence  of  Degradation,   their 
 Ordination  "  remained  Z\\t\tZ*>"  notwithstand- 
 ing their  being  depriv'd  of  the    4t  Tower  and 
 tC  Honour   of  their  Places  \  "    "   none  ever  faidy 
 1C  that  [  to  qualify  them  to  minifter  in  Holy 
 c<  Things]   the  Church  mttft  Of  jfreceffttp  give 
 "  them  a  New  Ordination.  "     But  every  Chri- 
 ftian,  that  is  in  his  Senfes,  will  fay,   and   aH 
 the  Ancients  have  faid  and   pra&is'd   accord- 
 ingly, that   Laymen  muft  itCCUS  be  0?tiauf0 
 to  Holy  Offices,  before  they  can  be  qnalify'd 
 to  ferve  in  the  Sacred  Miniitry  of  the  Church  \ 
 and  confequently,  there  is  an  eflential  Diffe- 
 rence between  the  abovefaid  Heretical,  SchiP- 
 matical,  and  Degraded  Priefts,  who  want  not 
 becaufe  they  have  Valid  Ordination,  and  Lay- 
 men who  never  had  it  •,  and  therefore  the  Mi- 
 iriftrations  of  the  former  are  efTentially   Dif- 
 ferent from  thofe  of  the  latter -,  confequently, 
 Baptifm  by  fuch  Heretical,  Schifmatical,  and 
 Degraded  Priefts,  was  not  of  the  fame  Nature 
 with  Baptifm  by  Perfons  who  never  were  or- 
 dain'd  or  commiffion'd  to  Baptize,  and  there- 
 fore the    pretended  Validity    of  thefe  latter 
 does   not    follow   from    the   Validity    of  the 
 former. 
 
 §  XLVIL  I  am  now  come  to  the  Second 
 Part  of  his  Schelafiical  Hiflory,  where  he  ftill 
 confirms  all  that  he  has  faid  in  his  Other  Books 
 before;  for  in  />*£.  147.  he  undertakes  to 
 difcourfe  of,  and  examine  "  the  Notion  of  an 
 4t  Indelible  Character  imprinted  in  the  Ordination 
 "  of  a  Trie  ft.  "  He  fays,  [/>.  148.]  that  «  the 
 *[  heft  Way  to  come  by  the  true  Notion  and  Jm- 
 
 "  fort 
 
and  Schifmatlcal  Baptifm.  89 
 
 "  port  of  this  Term-,  is  to  examine  firft  what  it 
 "  was  taken  to  fgnify  in  Baptifm  ?  For  [  fays  he, 
 u  p.  1 49.  ]  an  Indelible  Char  after  was  always 
 <C  fuppos^d  to  be  imprinted  as  much  in  Baptifm-, 
 cc  as  in  Ordination.  -+  '      u  And  that  is  this, 
 
 ct  as  it  relates  to  Baptifm  ;    that  a  Man  who  is 
 "  once    trttlP    T5apti?'0,      can    never    tlfj    titty 
 cc  Thing ,  that  will  fo  far  erazje  or  cancel  his  Bap- 
 iC  tifm,    as  that   f)Z  fijftll  tlCtO  *pw  any  Occa- 
 u  /ion  to  be  Re- Baptized  with  a  Second  Baptifm. 
 <c  Thus  far   the   Ancients  believd  an  JlltlEiltllC 
 "  CfjntaCtCr   in  Baptifm,       Thoy   a  Man    turn 
 tc  his  Bach  on  Chriftianity,    and  totally  apoftatize 
 u  and  fall  away   from   the  Trofejfion  of  it.-" 
 iU  Tho*  he  excommunicate   himfelf,    or  be  excom- 
 u  municated  by  the  Church.  _ —     Tho*  he  curfe 
 Ci  and  blafpheme  Chrifl  in   a  Synagogue,    or  in  a 
 <c  Temple,  as  many  of  the  old  Apofiates  did,  &c. 
 "  Tet  after  all,    if  this  Man  turn  again  to  Chri- 
 tl  ftianity,  he  was  not  to  be  received  by  a  Second 
 u  Baptifm  :  His  Repentance  and  the  Church's  3b= 
 iC  fOlttttOlt  to  as  fufficient  in  that  Cafe  to  reinftate 
 a  him  in  his  ancient   Profejfion,    and  he   was  not 
 a  to  be  Re-bapti^Cd,  to  be  made  again  a  Chriftian. 
 li  The  Church  had  but    one  Baptifm  for    the  Re- 
 c<  miffion  of  Sins  ,    and  the  Virtue   of  that    was 
 *c  ft  fitC  Indelible,    that  it  would  always  qualify 
 u  the  Man  that  had  received  it  to   be  admitted 
 cc  to  Communion  again,  after   the  (JJCcltCft  &\}fc 
 Ct  ffftCP,    only  by  a  true  Repentance  and  J&ZCQIX* 
 
 "  ctltato??  3!mpofitfon  ot  {panes,  without  Re- 
 
 u  baptizing.  This  was  what  the  Ancients  wider- 
 a  flood  by  what  we  now  call  the  Indelible  Char  abler 
 *'  of  Baptifm,  fays  Mr.  Bingham.  "  Thus  accord- 
 ing to  him,a  Perfon  once  truly  Baptiz'd,remain'd 
 ftill  a  Baptized  Perfon,  even  in  the  greateft  Apo- 
 
 ftacy  : 
 
90  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 ftacy  :  He  was,  tho'  turn'd  Jew,  Turk,  or  Hea- 
 then,  ftill  a  Baptiz'd  Perfon,  and  therefore  in 
 that  Refpetl,  of  a  higher  Degree  and  Order  [if 
 it  may  be  proper  to  ufe  fuch  Terms  here]  than 
 any  Perfon  whatfoever,  who  never  was  Baptized 
 At  all  \  for  the  once  Baptiz'd  Perfon,  whofe 
 Baptifm  remains  indeleted,  always  ftands  more 
 nearly  related  to  the  Church,  as  Baptiz'd,  than 
 any  fueh  never  Baptiz'd  Perfons  can  do,  becaufe 
 he  does  not  want  Baptifm  to  qualify  him  for 
 the  Privileges  of  the  Church,  as  they  do.  And 
 therefore,  there  is  ftill  an  Eflential  Difference, 
 with  refpeft  to  Baptifm,  between  fuch  a  ne- 
 ver Baptiz'd  Perfon,  and  an  Apoftate  Chriftian 
 who  was  once  Baptized* 
 
 §  XLVIII.  Mr.  Bingham  fays,  p.  1 50.  of  the 
 Ancients,  That  "  they  were  far  from  thinking 
 tc  that  a  Man  who  was  fuch  an  Apoftate  had 
 ct  any  Right  or  3tttf)0?ltPi  whilft  he  was  an  Apo- 
 ct  ftate,  to  challenge  any  of  the  Common  Privileges 
 "  of  a  Chriftian.  "  As  for  his  3tltftO?ttP  to 
 challenge,  &c.  he  had  better  have  left  that  "out, 
 for  it  is  utterly  foreign  to  his  prefent  Subject, 
 about  the  EijJ&t  of  'BnpttfD  IMfQttg,  who, 
 confider'd  only  as  Baptiz'd,  have  no  3utf)0?ttJ>, 
 tho'  they  may  have  IRigljt,  to  challenge  the 
 Common  Privileges  of  a  Chriftian  •,  for  Right 
 and  Authority  are  not  convertible  Terms.  An 
 Apoftate  Chriftian  has  certainly  HO  Ul0?£  JEUfffjt 
 than  an  Impenitent  Wicked  Chriftian  profeffiiig 
 Chriftianity  has,  to  the  Common  Privileges  of 
 a  Chriftian,  but  he  has  as  much  Right  fo  long 
 as  his  Baptifm  remains  indeleted,  not  taken 
 away  ^  his  Baptifm  gives  him  Right  upon  his 
 Repentance  and  Abfolution,   and  the  Baptifm 
 
 of 
 
and  Schifmatlcd  Baptifas.  91 
 
 of  the  Impenitent  Wicked  Chriftian,  who  pro- 
 feiTes  Chriftianity,  does  give  him  no  more 
 than  fuch  Right  upon  his  Repentance  and  Ab- 
 folution  alfo. 
 
 §  XLIX.  Mr.  Bingham,  p.  1 50.  fays  of  fuch 
 an  Apoftate,  "  His  Baptifm  was  fuch  as  nOtfjlttO; 
 4C  COtllD  OtilftCtatC  5  it  would  remain  with  him 
 u  when  he  was  an  Apoftate  ;  "  and  in  />.  151. 
 he  adds,  "  Yet  there  is  fomething  of  a  Chriftian 
 u  in  this  Apoftate,  that  is,  Ijtg  'Bflpttfm  5  «■ 
 "  refpetl   ef  which,    he  is  not  ffl    perfect!?    8 
 
 a  SO'-Clj?tfitan?as  one  tljatnefcer  teas  QBap* 
 
 lt  tlj'O  t  And  if  in  this  refpetl  only,  in  fuch  a 
 ct  qualify 'd  Senfe,  any  one  will  give  him  the  Title 
 u  of  an  Apoftate  Cfjjl'fffaiti  which  is,  as  the 
 u  Schools  fpeak,  only  a  Chriftian  fecundum  quid, 
 u  in  refpetl  of  the  Baptifm,  which  he  once  re- 
 l**ceh >  d  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  and  which  will 
 ic  for  ever  continue  with  him  ',  I  cannot  think  it 
 4c  worth  while  to  contend  about  Words  or  Namesj 
 u  when  Men  are  otherwife  agreed  about  the  Im- 
 u  port  and  Signification  of  them.  "  The  Sum 
 of  which  is  this,  that  an  Apoftate,  who  was 
 once  Baptized,  is,  even  while  a  Jew,  Turk,  or 
 Pagan,  ftiil  a  Chriftian  in  refpett  of  his  Baptifm, 
 and  therefore  not  the  fame  as  a  jpQ=C(j?t5 
 fffcltt)  a  Jew*  Turk,  or  Pagan,  or  any  other 
 toljO  neDec  ttfflg  'Baptt^U  This  I  defire  the 
 Reader  to  take  Notice  of,  becaufe  we  are  now 
 going  to  fee  how  he  runs  the  Parallel,  and 
 what  Conclufions  he  makes  from  hence,  con- 
 cerning the  Indelible  Character  of  the  Chri? 
 ftian  Priefthood. 
 
92  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 §  L'.  He  begins  />.  151.  with  this  Title, 
 u  That  the  Indelible  Character  of  Ordination  is 
 u  of  the  (mm  il^attlte,  "  that  is,  of  the  fame 
 Kature  with  the  Indelible  Chara&er  of  Bap- 
 tifm.  He  fays,  p.  152.  H  A  Prieft,  when  he 
 «*  is  ordain'd,  receives  flttf)  il  COttfCCtatiOlt  to 
 ct  a  Miniftertal  Office  by  Impoftion  of  Handsy  as 
 4t  needs  not  UPOtl  ail?  ©CCflflQtt  to  be  a  fecond 
 u  Time  repeated  to  eftablijh  him  in  the  (£jCttiU 
 "  ttOlt  Of  ftlClj  ail  Office*  There  is  the  Inde- 
 tc  lible  Charatler  of  it^  the  very  fame  as  in  Bap' 
 "  tifm  •,  a  Man  neetW  110  ttlOtf  tO  be  EC- 
 a  ©$am'05  than  to  be  Re- Baptized.  •"  Here 
 he  artfully  drops  his  Parallel,  and  therefore  I 
 will  purfuc  it  for  him,  becaufe  he  fays,  that 
 tl  the  Indelible  Charatler  of  Ordination  is  of  the 
 <c  fame  Nature  *  with  that  of  Baptifm.  Hence 
 it  follows  [to  ufe  his  own  Words,  only  changing 
 what  relates  to  Baptifm  into  what  belongs  to 
 Ordination  ^  u  That  a  Man  who  is  once  "  truly 
 ordain'd,  u  CHlt  VX^tl  t!0  atip  CljUtQ;,  that 
 ic  will  fo  far  eraze  or  cancel  his  "  Ordination, 
 lt  Mf  that  he  fljall  t\£tQ  upon  any  Occafion  to  be  " 
 Re-ordain'd  u  with  a  fecond  "  Ordination. 
 u  Thus  far  [  by  reafon  of  the  Samenefs  of  Nature^ 
 which,  Mr.  Bingham  fays,  there  is  between  the 
 Indelible  Charafter  of  Ordination,  and  that 
 of  Baptifm  ]  u  the  Ancients  believd  an  Indelible 
 t4  Character  in  "  Ordination,  according  to  him. 
 tc  Tho  a  Man  turn  his  Back  on  Chriftianity,  and 
 tC  totally  apoftatiz.e  and  fall  away  from  the  Profef- 
 
 ^  fwn    of  it.  *  **      cc  Thoy    he    excommuni- 
 
 ct  cate    himfelf     or    be    excommunicated    by    the 
 
 "  Church:  . "     Tho'  the  Prieft  degrade 
 
 himfelf  by  wickedly  forfaking  the  Exercife  of 
 
 his 
 
and  Schifmattcd  Bapttfms.  93 
 
 his  Prieftly  Fiin&ion,  or  tho'  for  his  Crimes 
 the  Church  mould  fo  degrade  him.  [See  my 
 XLVI.  Section.  J  lc  Thai*  he  curfe  and  blafpheme 
 "  Chrifi  in  a  Synagogue,  or  in  a  Temple,  as  many 
 u  of  the  old  Apoftates  did,  &c.  yet  after  all,  tf 
 ct  this  Man  turn  again  to  Chriftianity,  he  was  not 
 "  to  he  received  [to  the  Exercife  of  his  Prieftly 
 Function  in  the  Church  ]  "  by  a  ficond  "  Or- 
 dination :  Ct  His  Repentance,  and  the  Church's 
 "  3bf0{Utt0tt  was  Efficient  in  that  Cafe  to  re- 
 "  inflate  him  in  V.s  ancient  "  Privileges,  Ho^ 
 nours,  and  Profits  due  to  Chriflian  Priefls  ex- 
 ercifing  their  Sacred  Functions  in  the  Church. 
 u  And  he  was  not  to  be  Re- ordained  to  be  made 
 u  again  "  a  Prieft.  C;  The  Church  had  but 
 tc  one  "  Ordination  for  the  making  of  Priefls  \ 
 "  And  the  Krtue  of  that  was  fo  far  JltUellble, 
 rt  that  it  would  always  qualify  the  Man  that  had 
 <c  received  it  to  be  admitted  "  to  the  Exercife 
 of  his  [Function  in  the  Church  "  again^  after 
 cc  the  greateft  Apoftacy,  only  by  a  true  Repentance? 
 
 <c  and  Eeccmctltatojp  Jmpofition  of  JpanBg, 
 
 tc  without  "  Rc- ordaining.  ct  This  was  what  the 
 <4  Ancients  underflood  by  what  we  now  call  the 
 <c  Indelible  Characler  "  of  Ordination,  and  this 
 they  mull  have  underflood  thereby,  if  they 
 thought  "  that  the  Indelible  Characler  of  Ordi- 
 tc  nation  was  of  the  fame  Nature  with  that 
 <c  of  Baptifm,  "■  as  Mr.  Bingham  fays  it  is  \ 
 for  which  Reafon  I  have  thus  far  carried  and 
 continued  the  juft  Parallel,  as  the  Reader  may 
 fee,  by  comparing  my  XLVIIth  with  this  Se- 
 ction •,  from  whence  it  necefTarily  follows,  by 
 reafon  of  Mr.  Bingham's  AfTertion,  Q  of  the  In- 
 delible Characler  of  Ordination's  being  of  the 
 fame  Mature  with  that  of  Baptifm  ]  that  he 
 
 muft 
 
$4  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 xnuft  acknowledge,  to  be  confident  with  him- 
 felf,  that  a  Perfon  once  Validly  Ordain'd,  re- 
 mained Hill  a  Validly  Ordairtd  Ferfon,  even  in 
 the  greateft  Apoftacy  and  Degradation  \  he  was* 
 tho'  turn'd  Jew,  Turk,  or  Pagan,  Heretick,  or 
 Schifmatick,  Self- Degraded,  or  Degraded  by  the 
 Church,  ftill  an  Ordained  Perfon,  and  there- 
 fore in  that  refped,  of  a  higher  Degree  and 
 Order  than  any  Perfon  whatfoever,  who  never 
 was  Ordain'd  at  all.  For  the  once  Validly  Or- 
 dain'd  Perfon,  whofe  Ordination  is  Indeletedy 
 ftands  always  more  nearly  related  to  the  Church* 
 as  Ordain'd,  than  any  fuch  Never  Ordaitfd  Per- 
 fins  can  do,  becaufe  he  does  not  want  Ordi- 
 nation to  qualify  him  for  the  Exercife  of  the 
 Prieftly  Functions  in  the  Church,  as  they  molt 
 certainly  do;  and  therefore  there  is  (till  an 
 EJfential  Difference,  with  refpe&  to  Holy  Or- 
 ders5  between  fuch  never  Ordain'd  Perfons,  and 
 an  Apoftate,  Heretical,  Schifmatical,  and  De- 
 graded Prieft,  who  was  once  Validly  Ordain'd, 
 and  whofe  Ordination  ftill  remains  indeleted, 
 not  taken  away,  null'd,  or  made  Void.  And 
 this  will  be  confirm'd,  by  confidering  farther^ 
 and  continuing  the  Parallel  between  Baptifrri 
 and  Ordination,  the  Indelible  Character  of  both 
 which  Mr.  Bingham  affirms  to  be  of  the  fame 
 Kature.  For,  by  re-affuming  what  I  have  ob- 
 ferv'd  [in  my  XLlXth  Se&ion]  he  fays  of  the 
 Indelible  Chara&er  of  Baptifm,  it  will  follow, 
 ufing  fall  his. own  Words,  mutatis  mutandis — - 
 That, 
 
 §  LI.  Such  an  Apoftate,  Heretical,  Schif- 
 matical, and  Degraded  Perfon,  who  was  once 
 validly  Ordain'd,  received  fuch  an  Ordinatton, 
 
and  Schlfmatical  Baftifms.  95 
 
 "  as  notljtntj  cauls  obliterate,  *  ™uu  r*~ 
 
 "  main  with  him,  when  he  was  an  Apoftate,  &c. 
 "  There  is  fomething  of  a  "  Prieft,  u  in  this  Apo- 
 u  ftate,  &c  that  is  his  "  ©SltaatiOtt,  "  in 
 "  refpett  of  which  he  is  not  fo  perfectly  a  "  j^0« 
 J&lteft,  "  as  one  that  never  was  "  {DgOftfttl ; 
 that  is,  in  fhort,  fje  tS  a  Pjteff,  and  the  o- 
 ther  is  not)  [  for,  to  fay  there  are  Degrees  in 
 Nullities,  is  Nonfenfe.  ]  u  And  if  in  this  re- 
 "  fpeft  only,  in  fuch  a  qualify* d  Senfe,  any  one  will 
 u  give  him  the  Title  of  an  Af  oft  ate  r  Prieft, 
 14  which  is,. as  the  Schools  fpeak,   only  a  "  Prieft 
 
 *  feemdum  quid,  ft  refpect  of  tlje  "  £>?m'tta= 
 
 ttOtt    iC  which    he  once  received   in   the  Chriftian 
 
 "  church,  ana  fcrfncf)  tmll  fo?  euec  continue 
 
 u  tUttTj  Ijlttl)  /  cannot  think  it  worth  while  to 
 "  contend  about  Words  or  Names,  when  Men  are 
 iC  otherwife  agreed  about  the  Import  and  Signify 
 a  cation  of  them-  "  The  Sum  of  which  is  this, 
 that  an  Apoftate,  &c  who  was  once  ordain'd, 
 is,  even  while  an  Apoftate,  &c.  ftill  a  Prieft 
 in  refpetl  of  his  Ordination,  and  therefore  not 
 the  fame  as  a  J&0*P?tCff>  a  Perfon  who  never 
 was  at  all  ordain'd  or  cemmijftond* 
 
 §  LII.  And  this  Mr.  Bingham  is  bound  to 
 acknowledge,  fo  long  as  he  affirms,  as  he  does, 
 that  u  the  Indelible  Character  of  Ordination  is  of 
 the  "  fame  Nature  "  with  tti3t  of  Baptifm  ', 
 for  the  Character  imprefs'd  on  a  Man  who  is 
 validly  Ordain'd  a  Prieft,  is  Pricfthood  -,  and 
 therefore,  fo  long  as  his  Character  of  Ordina- 
 tion lafts,  C  that  is,  always,  becaufe  'tis  Indeii* 
 ble,  fays  Mr.  Bingham'}  fo  long  muft  his  Prieft- 
 hood  laft,  and  therefore  he  is.  always  a  Prieft,. 
 upon  this  JFIypoi  hefts* 
 
 Mr. 
 
96  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 Mr.  Bingham  fays  of  the  Apoftate  Prieft, 
 that  tl  he  neeW  HO  U10?e  to  be  re- ordain' d, 
 p.  T  5 1 .  M  There  was  \\Q  HCCD  to  ordain  him  a  fe- 
 cfc  cond  time,  in  order  to  admit  him  to  Clerical 
 tc  Communion,"  p.  153.  "  He  was  in  ft  Cftpfi* 
 cf  CltP  to  Officiate  again,  withsut  Re- ordination,  " 
 tC  154.  a  The  Ancient  Councils— -  own *d,  *W 
 tf  ^  /!/*#  ip/w  tp*sj  <?;zce  *r«/y  ordairfd  a  Prieftj 
 "  COttlD  !l?l3Cr  Uiaiit  *  ./ecW  Ordination  to 
 *c  QttOltfp  ^w'w  **  officiate  as  a  Minifter  in  the 
 tl  Church,  P-  T5S»  15^*  All  the  Ancients  allow 
 "  both  Baptifm  and  3D$rftt8tIQtt  to  be  given  in- 
 Ct  feparably  to  thofe  to  whom  they  are  given:  They 
 ct  are  Indelible  fo  far  as  that  neither  of  them 
 u  need  to  be  repeated  upon  Apoftates,  p.  158.  " 
 All  this,  and  abundance  more  of  the  like  Kind 
 he  frequently  repeats  in  feverai  Places  of  his 
 Book,  and  thereby  abundantly  confutes  him- 
 felf,  when  he  calls  Heretical,  Schifmatical,  Ex- 
 communicated, or  Degraded  Priefts,  by  the 
 ISIame  of  Laymen-,  for  he  himfelf  makes  them 
 not  to  be  Laymen  but  Priefts,  by  faying  that 
 they  have  no  need  of  Ordination^  that  they  are 
 Men  who  need  not  to  be  ordained,  who  want 
 not  Orders  to  QttilltfjP  them  to  officiate  as  Mi- 
 nifter s  in  the  Church : "  If  fuch  Men  as  thefe, 
 arc  not  [with  refpecl:  to  Prieftly  Orders]  Ef- 
 fentially  Different  from  Laymen,  Perfons  who 
 never  were  ordain'd ;  If  Validly  ordairfd  Per- 
 fons, who  want  no  Ordination,  are  not  [  with 
 refpecl:  to  Priefthood  ]  EfTentially  Different 
 from  thofe,  who  never  received,  and  therefore 
 want  Ordination,  tc  to  qualify  them  to  officiate 
 "  as  Minifters  in  the  Church  ',  "  then  we  muft 
 defpair  of  ever  knowing  one  Thing  from  ano- 
 ther,  and  irrationally  conclude,   that  'tis  the 
 
 fame 
 
and  Schifmaticd  Baptifms.  97 
 
 fame  Thing  to  have  Valid  Orders,  ar  never 
 to  have  had  any  at  all  ^  that  is,  a  Layman 
 and  a  Clergyman  are  the  fame  Thing  •,  and 
 fo  a  Layman,  one  who  never  was  ordain'd,  is 
 as  much  an  ordain'd  Prieft,  as  he  who  was 
 ordain'd  a  Prieft,  and  whofe  Prieftly  Chara- 
 cter, imprefs'd  on  him  by  Ordination,  remains 
 indeleted  and  not  taken  away.  But  this  is  not 
 the  only  grofs  Abfurdity  that  follows  from  fo 
 wild  a  Notion  9  for  if  Heretical,  Schifmati- 
 cal,  and  Degraded  Priefts,  are  confefs'd  to 
 have  been  fuch  Men,  as  were  "  in  ft  Cvtpft3 
 <c  CItp  to  officiate  again,  without  a,  Re-Ordina- 
 "  tion  }  "    if  it  be  allow'd,    that    u  there  was  . 
 
 u  110  UCCt)  to  ordain  them  a  fecond  Time  j " 
 
 and  that  Hill,  notwithstanding  this,  they  were 
 but  meer  Laymen,  of  the  fame  Incapacity  with 
 thofe  who  never  were  ordain'd  ;  then  'twill 
 follow,  that  meer  Laymen,  who  never  were 
 ordain'd,  have  the  fame  Capacity  to  officiate, 
 as  thofe  Priefts;  and  fo  thefe  Laymen  want 
 no  Ordination,  to  qualify  them  neither  *,  con- 
 fequently  the  Church  needs  not  to  ordain  them 
 to  minifter  in  the  Sacred  Functions  •,  which  is 
 highly  Ridiculous  and  Abfurd,  contrary  to 
 Holy  Scripture,  and  the  Do&riae  and  Pra&ice 
 of  the  whole  Catholick  Church,  and  directly 
 repugnant  to  the  Offices  of  Ordination,  and  to 
 the  23d  Article  of  our  Holy  Mother  the 
 Church  of  England.  And,  therefore,  it  muffc 
 needs  b.e,  that  Heretical,  Schifmatical,  and  De- 
 graded Priefts,  whofe  Chara&er  of  Ordination 
 is  own'd  to  have  remained  indeleted,  or  not 
 taken  away,  were,  upon  the  Truth  of  that  Sup- 
 pofttion,  Priefts  ft  ill,  and,  as  fuch,  had,  while 
 they  were  Hereticks  and  Schifma ticks,  or  were 
 
 H  uuder 
 
98  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 under  the  Cenfure  of  Degradation,  a  Capacity 
 to  minifter  in  Holy  Things,  by  Virtue  of  their 
 indeleted  Ordination,  which  Laymen,  Perfons 
 not  ordain'd,  never  had  ;  and  confequently 
 were,  in  refped  of  Prieftly  Capacity,  EfTentially 
 Different  from  them  •,  and  therefore  their  Mi- 
 niftrations  were  wholly  Different  from,  and 
 not  of  the  fame  Nature  with,  the  pretended 
 Miniftrations  of  meer  Laicks,  who  never  had 
 any  fuch  Prieftly  Capacity  at  all. 
 
 §  L1II.  "  But  [fays  Mr.  Bingham,  p.  152.] 
 11  what  if  a  Trie  ft  jhould  turn  Idolater  or  Apo- 
 "  ftate,  and  offer  Sacrifice  at  the  Heathen  Altars, 
 ct  inftead  of  the  Altar  of  God  f  Would  he  pre- 
 "  ferve  the  Authority  of  a  true  Chriftian  Prieft, 
 <c  rvhilft  he  .was  all u ally  engaged  in  fuch  Diaboli- 
 u  cal  Prevarication  ?  Would  the  Firtue  of  hide- 
 w  lible  Character  have  been  thought  to  extend  [0 
 ct  far  as  this,  by  the  ancient  Councils  of  the  Church? 
 '£  They  who  fay  fo,  and  would  perfuade  the  World 
 cc  to  believe  fo,  muft  fir  ft  reconcile  Contradictions, 
 u  and  fliew  how  a  Man  can  have  the  Authority 
 14  of  a  Prieft,  when  his  own  Apoftacy,  and  God, 
 u  and  the  Church,  by  their  Cenfures,  have  taken 
 "  his  Authority  from  him.  "  So  in  p.  153,  154, 
 155.  "An  Apoftate  Prieft  had  not  the  Bight 
 Cfc  and  Authority  of  a  Chriftian  Prieft,  whilft  he 
 tl  contlnud  an  Apoftate,  notwithftanding  any  Force 
 
 "  of  the  %xam\&z  Cfjnractei-  of  W  flDSnna* 
 
 "  ttOn  5  but  only  was  \\\  a  CapHCttP  to  offi- 
 u  date  again,  without  Re -Ordaining,  if  the  Church 
 cc  Jhould  find  it  neceffary  to  employ  fuch  an  one 
 41  again,  by  reftoring  him  to  the  Authority  which 
 "  by  her  Cenfure s  (he  had  taken  from  him-  And 
 a  unlefs  this  bs  allow  d,   we  make  plain  Nonfenfe 
 
and  Schifwaiical  Baptifms.  99 
 
 u  of  all  the  Ancients  Councils,  and  charge  them 
 c  moreover  with  Tyranny  and  Vfurpation,  in  pre- 
 tending God^s  Authority  to  tale  away  the  Name± 
 and  Offire,  and  Authority  of  the  Priefthood  from 
 Delinquent  Clerks,  when  no  fuch  Power  and  Au- 
 thority was  committed  to  them*  And  there  is 
 an  End  too  of  all  the  Difcifline  of  the  Church, 
 as  to  what  concerns  the  Cenfure  of  her  Delin- 
 quent Clergy  ;  She  may  curb  and  correct  her 
 Laity,  and  deprive  them  of  all  Right  and  Ti~ 
 tie  to  the  Communion  of  Cbrifiian  Laymen  \  hut 
 all  her  Cenfures  are  hut  a  Brutum  Fulmen  a- 
 gainfi  the  Clergy*  For  if  after  Jhe  has  degraded 
 a  Priefi,  and  faid  he  neither  is  nor  jhall  be  4 
 Priest ;  Jhall  neither  have  the  Name,  nor  Of- 
 fice, nor  Dignity,  nor  the  Authority  of  a  Priefi^ 
 but  only  all  and  communicate  as  a  private  Lay- 
 man :  If,  after  (he  has  alfo  excommunicated  a 
 contumacious  Priefi,  and  by  cafiing  him  out  of 
 the  Church  reduced  him  to  a  State  one  Degree 
 below  a  Layman ;  notwhhflanding  all  this,  that 
 Priefi  can  pretend,  that  by  Virtue  of  his  Inde- 
 lible Character,  he  is  as  true  an  authorized 
 Priefi,  after  all  the  Thunderings  of  the  Church 
 againfi  him,  as  he  was  before  :  What  then  be- 
 u  comes  of  all  the  Power  and  Difcipline  of  the 
 u  Church,  and  all  her  Authority  to  cenfure  and 
 <c  filence  Offending  and  Apofiate  Priefis  ?  A  Cen- 
 tC  fure,  it  feems,  may  affetl  the  Confcience  of  a 
 M  Priefi,  but  not  his  Authority  :  That  will  re- 
 Ct  main,  entire  to  him  by  Virtue  of  his  Indelible 
 "  Character,  let  the  Church  ufe  what  Authority 
 41  jhe  will  to  deprive  or  degrade  him.  " 
 
 §  LIV.    To  all  which,  the  Anfwer  is  very 
 Safy  7  That  the  Juft  Cenfures  of  the  Church 
 
 H  2  again  it 
 
 (C 
 
 u 
 
ICO  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 againft  her  Delinquent  Clergy,  are  certainly  ef- 
 fectual,   fo  far  as  her  Ceniures  do  really  ex- 
 tend.    If  her  Cenfnres  did    extend   fo   far  as 
 to    the  abfolute   Nulling   of  fuch  Delinquent 
 Clergy  mens  Ordination,  then  their  Ordination 
 was   abfolutely  made  Null  and  Void,    and  fo 
 their -Ordination  was,  thenceforward,  as  if  it 
 had  never  been  at  all.     But  thus  far,  Mr.  Bing- 
 ham himfelf  tells  us,    the  Church  did  not  ex- 
 tend her  Cenfnres  againft  Heretical,  Schifma- 
 tical,  Apoftatc,  or  even  Degraded  Clergymen  ; 
 for,  when  fhe  depriv'd  them  of  the  Power  and 
 Honour   of  their  Places,   yet,    even  in  that  Cafe^ 
 JJje    did  not  intend  to   deny  the   Validity  of  their 
 
 Ordination, they  were    u  Priefts  ftill^    and 
 
 u  their  Acts  Valid,  fays  he,  as  I  have  prov'd 
 already,  in  my  XLV,  XLVI,  L,  LI,  and  Llld 
 Sections  ;  And  therefore,  ftie  did  not  Null 
 their  Ordination  •,  But  the  Character  of  that 
 remained  with  them  flill,  that  is,  their  Prieft- 
 hood  was  not  obliterated.  What  then,  fays 
 Mr.  Bingham,  ic  Had  they  the  Authority  of  True 
 Chriftian  Priefts  f  Are  they  True  Authorized 
 Priefts  f  What  fignify  then  the  Church's  Cenfures  f 
 I  anfwer,  fo  far  as  Ordination  makes  Men  to 
 have  the  Authority  of  True  Chriftian  Priefts, 
 they  had  the  Authority  of  True  Chriftian 
 Priefts  •,  fo  far  as  Ordination  makes  Men  to 
 be  True  Authoriz'd  Priefts,  they  were  True 
 Authoriz'd  Priefts  \  and  all  this,  becaufe  their 
 Ordination  remained  Indeleted,  not  Null'd,  but 
 Valid,  by  his  own  ConfefTion.  Men  may  have 
 the  Authority  of  True  Chriftian  Priefts,  they  may 
 be  True  Authorized  Priefts,  and  yet  be  defti- 
 tute  of  fuch  a  Circumftantial  Authority,  as  is 
 neceffary  for  the  Regular  Execution  of  that 
 
 Original 
 
and  Schifmatical  Bapttfms.         ioi 
 
 Original,  Ejfential  Authority,  which  they  receiv'd 
 at  their  Ordination  \  they  may  have  this  Ori- 
 ginal Ejfential  Authority,  and  yet,  at  the  fame 
 time,  have  none  of  the  Honours,  Privileges, 
 and  Benefits,  which  Priefts  enjoy  in  the  Church, 
 by  Virtue  of  that  Clrcumftantial  Authority  where- 
 with the  Church  has  vetted  them.  Thus,  for 
 Example,  a  Prieft  Validly  Ordain'd,  is  a  True 
 Authoriz'd  Prieft,  has  the  Original,  Eifential 
 Authority  of  a  Prieft,  tho'  he  wants  the  Cir- 
 cumftantial  Authority  of  his  Bifhop's  giving 
 him  a  farther  Licenfe,  by  Virtue  of  which,  or 
 a  Parifh  where,  to  execute  his  Original  Au- 
 thority ;  tho'  he  has,  confequently,  no  Circum- 
 ftantial  Authority  to  oblige  any  Number  of 
 Chriftians,  or  indeed,  any  One  Chriftian,  to 
 fubmit  to,  or  fupport  him  in  his  particular  Mi- 
 niftrations ;  tho'  he  has  therefore  none  of  the 
 Honours,  Privileges,  and  Profits  due  to  thofe 
 Priefts,  who  have  fuch  farther  Licenfe,  and  In- 
 ftitution  into  a  Living,  yet  ftill  he  is  a  True 
 Authoriz'd  Prieft,  that  is,  an  Effentially  Au- 
 thoriz'd Prieft,  by  Virtue  of  his  Ordination, 
 tho'  he  be  not  thus  Circumftantially  Autho- 
 riz'd. 
 
 This  fhews,  that  the  Church's  juft  Cenfures 
 againft  Offending  Clergymen,  [tho'  their  Or- 
 ders fhould  not  be  Nuli'd  thereby]  ought  not 
 to  be  efteem'd  as  no  more  than  a  Brutum  Ful- 
 men  -,  For  if  by  the  Church's  Cenfures  they 
 lofe  all  Circumstantial  Authority^  all  Power  of 
 Obliging  any  Chriftians  to  attend  on  their 
 Minift rations,  or  of  obtaining  thofe  Honours, 
 Privileges,  Profits,  and  that  Support  and  Main- 
 tenance from  them,  which  otherwife  would 
 be  their  Due  j    if  by  Excommunication,  they 
 
 H  3  are 
 
102  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 are  put  into  fuch  a  fad  and  deplorable  State, 
 as  that,  Cbefides  the  Spiritual  Miferies  their 
 Souls  are   expos'd    to,    daring   that  Cenfure] 
 all  Chriftians  are  bound,    not  only    to  avoid 
 their  Converfation  and  Society,  but  alfo,  not 
 knowingly  to  Communicate   with  them  in  any 
 of  their  Miniftrations;    If  fuch  a  juft  Cenfure 
 puts  them  into  fo  miferable  a  Condition,  that 
 tho'  their  Orders  remain  Valid,    yet,  if  they 
 fet   up  Altar   againft  Altar,  Exerciling  their 
 Functions,  while  under  this  Cenfure,  they  in- 
 cuir  the  Guilt  of  Schifm  j   and   confequently, 
 thofe  who  knowingly  join  with   them,  incurr 
 the  fame  dreadful  Guilt  of  Schifm  with  them, 
 and  thereby  put  an  Obftacle  in  their  own  way, 
 which,   by    reafon   of  their  Uncharitablenefs 
 and  Difobedience,  [in  forfaking  Regular  and 
 Faithful  Priefts,  who  are  in  Communion  with 
 the   Church,    and    following   fuch  Diforderly, 
 Schifmatical  Priefts]  hinders  their  prefent  Re- 
 ceiving  the  Spiritual  Graces  of  thofe  Sacra- 
 inents,  which  are  adminiftred  to  them  by  the 
 Hands  of  Schifmatical  Priefts ;  if  fuch  are  the 
 dreadful  Effe&s  of  the  Church's  juft  Cenfures 
 againft  wicked  Piicfcs,  whofe  Orders  the  Church 
 does  not  null  and  obliterate,  then  certainly  her 
 Cenfnres  againft  them  are  infinitely  more  Dire- 
 ful than  a  Brutum  Fvltnen^  as   Mr.  Bingham  is 
 pleas'd  to  term  it  \  fince  they  take  from  fuch 
 a  wicked,  cenfur'd  Prieft  or  Bifhop,   all  Cir- 
 cun  :  antial  Authority  over  any  Flock  }  all  Pro- 
 perty to  any  particular  Church  or  Altar,  where 
 he  before  had  Poflefllon  and  Right  to  exercife 
 his  Function  *,  all  Honours,  Privileges,  Profits, 
 Support,  and  Maintenance,  which  before  were 
 due  to  him  upon  Account  of  his  Relation  to 
 
 any 
 
and  Schif matted  Baptifms.         103 
 
 any  fuch  Flock,  and  which  were  annex'd   to 
 liis  Property   in   any  fuch  Church  or  Altar  : 
 Since  farther,  thefe  Cenfures  make  him  fall  in- 
 to the  damning  Guilt  of  Schifm,  if  he  contu- 
 macioufly  fets  up  another  Altar  •,  and  not  only 
 fo,  but  involve  thofe  into  the  fame  Guilt,  who 
 knowingly  communicate  with  him  at  if,  fince 
 thofe  who  knowingly   receive   Sacraments  at 
 his  Hands,   do  by  their  Uncharitablenefs  and 
 Difobedience  to  the  Church,  obftrucl:  the  Spi- 
 ritual Graces  of  thofe  Sacraments,  which  Gra- 
 ces they  will  not  receive,  till  by  Repentance 
 of  fuch    their  Uncharitablenefs,   they  remove 
 the  Obftacle  and  Impediment  that  hinder'd  the 
 Receiving  of  them  }  fince  fuch  are  the  Dire  Ef- 
 fects of  the  Church's  Cenfures  of  Degradation, 
 and  Excommunication  againft  wicked  Priefls, 
 it  is   plain,   that   the  Church   does    not   lofe 
 "  her  Power,  and  Difcipline,  and  Authority  to  cen- 
 *  fare  and  fdence  Offending  and  Apojlate  Priefts.  " 
 For,   we  fee  that  tho'  thefe  Cenfures  do  not 
 Null  their  Orders,  yet  they  not  only  ajfett  the 
 Confcience  of  fuch  Prielts,  but  their  Authority 
 too ;  for  they  take  away  their  Circumftantial 
 Authority,    and    fo  they  lofe    not  only  their 
 External   Honours    and  Privileges,    but   with 
 them,   all  Lawful   Support   and  Maintenance, 
 which  they  might  otherwife  enjoy  by  their  Of- 
 fice \   and  as  for  their  Effential  Authority  con- 
 ferr'd  on  them  by  Ordination,    tho'  that  does 
 remain  indeleted,  and  not  taken  away,  yet  by 
 reafon   of  the  Sin  of  Schifm,  0-c.     which    a 
 Man  incurrs,  by  knowingly  fubmitting  to  their 
 Miniftrations,  [while  they  are  under  fuch  Cen- 
 fiire^  he  obltriicts,  and  fo  does  not  at  prefent, 
 fill  he  repents,  receive  the  Spiritual  Benefits  con- 
 
 H  4  veyable 
 
104  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 veyable  by  their  Effential  Authority  ftill  re- 
 maining in  them  ;  and  therefore,  in  this  Senfe, 
 their  original  Effential  Authority,  receiv'd  in 
 Ordination,    tho'  not  null'd,   is  in  fome  fort 
 affe&ed  by  the  Cen Hires  of  the  Church  *,   be- 
 caufe,  if  all  Men  did  their  Duty,  none  would 
 knowingly  leave  the  Priefts  who  are  in  Com- 
 munion with  the  Church,   and  Schifmatically 
 have  recourfe  to  his  Miniftrations  who  is  un- 
 der the  Church's  Cenfures;    confidering,   that 
 tho'  his  Miniftrations  are  Valid  in  themfelves, 
 by  reafon  of  the  Validity  of  his  Orders  which 
 remain  to  him  indeleted  *,  yet  fuch  their  Schif- 
 matical  Application  to  him,  would,  by  reafon 
 of  the  Sinfulnefs  of  it,    becaufe  Schifmatical, 
 hinder  their  receiving  the  Graces  of  thofe  Sa- 
 craments, &c  which  he  adminifters  to  them; 
 and  fo,    his  Ejfentid  Authority,  as  an  ordain'd 
 Prieir,  would  in  thisCircumftance  be  of  no  pre- 
 fent  Benefit  or  real  Advantage  to  him,  during 
 the  Force  of  the  Cenfure.     'Tis  true,  that  all 
 Men  are  not  thus  knowing  and  conscientious 
 of  their  Duty,  to  avoid  the  Communion  of  fach 
 Schifmatical  and  Degraded  Priefts,    and   that 
 fome  thro'  Ignorance,    and  others  tho'   more 
 Knowing,  yet  thro'  Pride,  Rebellion,  Worldly- 
 Mindednefs,  Self-Intereft,  Partiality,   Love  of 
 Mens  Perfons  and  Abilities  on  the  one  hand, 
 and  Hatred,   and  Difaffe&ion  to  them  on  the 
 other,  will  follow  and  communicate  with  fuch 
 cenfur'd  Priefts.     But   this  does  not  abate  of 
 the  red  Breadfulnefs  of  the  Cenfure  \    for  the 
 Reafons  above-tnention'd  will  ftill  take  Place, 
 tho'  the  Cenfure  did  not  Null  and  make  Void 
 their  Orders,   but  leave  them  Valid  Priefts  : 
 For  they  caa  receive  no  worldly  Benefit  at 
 
 prefent, 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms.         105 
 
 prefent,  during  the  Cenfure,  but  from  the  Ig- 
 norant and  Difobedient,  and  what  fuch  cen- 
 fur'd  Priefts  receive  from  them,  will  only  be 
 the  accurs'd  Reward  of  their  Iniquity,  their 
 Schifmatical  Rebellion  againft,  and  Divifion  of 
 or  from  the  Church,  which  without  Repen- 
 tance will  but  increafe  their  own  Damnation 
 in  the  World  to  come. 
 
 §  LV.  And  therefore  Mr.  Bingham\  great 
 Outcries,  as  if  he  fear'd,  that  the  Authority 
 of  the  Church's  Cenfures  againft  wicked  Priefts 
 would  be  of  no  Signification,  if  fuch  cenfur'd 
 Priefts  fhould  be  allow'd  to  be  authorized  Priefts 
 Hill,  while  under  Cenfure,  is  nothing  but  meer 
 Banter  and  Amufemeut;  fince  her  juft  Cenfures 
 againft  them  are  thus  dreadful  in  their  Con- 
 ferences *,  and  fince  he  himfelf,  notwithstand- 
 ing fuch  her  Cenfures  againft  them,  does  affirm, 
 That  Heretical,  Schifmatical,  Excommunicated, 
 Degraded,  and  even  Apoftate  Clergymen  have 
 their  Ordination  dill  remaining  Valid  ^  by  his 
 a  11  er  ting, 
 
 That  the  Schifmatical  Mehtian  Bifhops  or- 
 dain'd  by  Meletius,  the  cenfur'd  Schifmatical 
 Bifliop  even  while  he  was  under  Cenfure,  were 
 
 *  P?0p£t:!P  OMfljOpg,    kcaufe  they  were  OJl'gfc 
 
 "  liallp  0|Qail1*O  Q5t»1)0pg.  "  See  my  Se- 
 ction XI. 
 
 That  the  Heretical,  Schifmatical,  and  (gr> 
 Communicatee  ArUn  Clergy  had  Valid  Or- 
 dination.   Section  XVIII. 
 
 That  the  Schifmatical  Novatian  Bifhops  rt  were 
 
 *  PjOprtiP  Tt5lfljPp0,  becavfi  they  were  QJffrj* 
 "  Italic  OlCaiiVQ  Bifiofs.  "  Sections  XXXII, 
 XXXIII. 
 
 That 
 
IC6  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 That  ffeudo-Epifcopi,  Falfe  B  flops,  [  as  he  calls 
 them  ]  "  were  in  fome  Senfe  B flops,  '  [and 
 therefore,  as  I  have  prov'd,  gJallB  OStfljOpg] 
 "  fl£  faCiniJ  OjOaflfD,  though  illegally,  to  their 
 «  Places,  "    fays  he.     Section  XXXVII. 
 
 That  the  African  Churches  own'd  the  Schif- 
 matical  Donatifl  B flops,  and  did  not  deny  the 
 Reality  or  Validity  of  u  their  Ordination.  "  Se- 
 ctions XXXIX,  XLiV. 
 
 That  u  fuch  Orders  as  were  given  regularly  in 
 u  the  Church,  —  were  fuppot'd  to  imprefs 
 
 t€  a  fort  of  jittBeltble  Character,  P>  as  that 
 
 "  there  was  ltd  JEteCeffttP,  upon  atlP  SDCCafiOtt, 
 
 J4  to  repeat  them.  "     Section  XLI. 
 
 That  "  the  $d  Council  of  Carthage,  following 
 a  the  Steps  of  the  Plenary  Council  of  Capua,  de- 
 
 C(  creed,    that  'twas unlawful  to  I^SDjftaUt 
 
 <l  fuch  as  had  been  ordain  d  in  the  Church.  " 
 Section  XLI. 
 
 That  the  u  Apoftolick  Canons  make  it  Depo- 
 "  fition,  to  Re-Ordain  fuch.  "     Section  XLI. 
 
 That  St.  Auftin  and  Opt  at  us  affirm  it  was 
 contrary  to  the  CuftOtH  Of  tl)Z  CatftOltCfe 
 CljUtCf)  to  Re-Ordain,  becaufe  Men  did  not 
 lofe  their  Orders ,  by  being  fufpended  from 
 the  Execution  of  their  Office  ;  nor  indeed,  e- 
 ven  by  Lapling  in  Time  of  Perfecution.  Se- 
 ction XLI. 
 
 That  Impofltion  of  Hands  given  to  Return- 
 ing Arian  Clergymen,  might  not  mean  a  New 
 Ordination.     Section  XLIII. 
 
 That  the  General  Council  of  Nice,  gave  the 
 Returning  Novatlan  Clergy  Impofition  of  Hands, 
 only  as  Re  conciliatory    u  by  way  of  Abfolution, 
 
 "  not  fte=£>#mattoin  section  xliv.  And, 
 
 That 
 
and  Schlfmatical  Baptifms.         107 
 
 That  the  General  Council  of  Ephefus,  or- 
 der'd  the  Maffalian  Heretical  Clergymen  to 
 u  continue  in  the  fame  Station,  "  g.  e*  of  Cler- 
 gymen, they  were  in  before  ',  and  this  with- 
 out Re-ordaining  them.    Section  XL1V. 
 
 That  it  u  was  the  DoElrine  and  Practice  of 
 "  the  African  Church,  and  UlOft  OtfjEtg  in  the 
 u  Time  of  St.  Auftin, "  concerning  the  3!n3C- 
 libit  CfjarattCt  imprinted  by  Ordination,  that 
 "  tW  a  Man  turned  apoffnte^  or  was  MpetlDeB, 
 <c  or  fcepJtfcfO  for  any  Crime, "  yet  upon  his  Re- 
 turn, ••  there  was  HO  iSCCClfttP  of  giving  him 
 Cc  a  New  Ordination  "  to  officiate  again,  be- 
 caufe  the  Character   of  his  Ordination   "  It- 
 
 "  ttiatu'ti  Entire.  "   se&ion  xliv. 
 
 That  "  if  a  Bifhop  or  Priefi  "  ordain'd  by 
 the  Church,   "  turns  Heretick  or  Schifmatick,  or 
 
 "  Afofiate,   or  is  (Eccammumeate  01  2D0* 
 
 w  UJaDEOj  yet  his  Ordination  remains  fo  far  3|lt* 
 
 "  neltWe  ana  antuof  able,  as  that  if  the  church 
 
 ce  thinks  fit  _—  to  admit  him  upon  his  Repen- 
 ct  tance    to    officiate    in    that    Station   again,    f)t 
 
 "  fljail  not  ueeu  a  i&eto  ©filiation :  —  * 
 
 and  that  vC  in  this  Senfe  there  are  none  ftttlQllg 
 *'  tfie  3tt£fent09  hut  Witt  allow  Hereticks  and 
 ■*  Schifmaticks  to  be  OBlfllOpg  0?  \ftkft8  ac- 
 u  cording  to  their  refpellive  Orders.  "  Se- 
 ftion  XLV. 
 
 That  il  thus  far  they  were  allowed  to  be  of 
 l[  the  Clergy.  "    Section  XLVI. 
 
 That  u  when  in  the  Difcipline  of  the  Churchy 
 u  it  was  thought   proper  to  &Cp?it)e   them  of  the 
 
 «  IPo&ec  ana  honour  of  tfjctr  places,  yet 
 
 *'  even  in  that  Cafe  the  Church  did  not  intend  to 
 
 "  fcenp  tfje  (Haltttitp  of  tijetr  ©sn'nation, 
 
 "  but  fuppos'd  that  to  remain  fcj  Cntiltf,  "  [that 
 
 is, 
 
ic8  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 is,  cnttr??  for  'tis  Nonfeafe  to  fay  there  are 
 
 Degrees  of  Entire  ]  u  as  that  if  ever  after  the 
 <c  Church  fliould  recall  them  to  thofe  Offices ,  Jhe 
 u  would  not  do  it  by  giving  them  ft  jj^Cft)  ©Js 
 cc  Of natt'Ott.  "    Sedion  XL VI. 
 
 That  u  in  this  Senfe  Her et ids  and  Schifma- 
 "  ticks,  and  «Deg?aBeQ  Priefts  were  allow  d  to 
 ic  he  pl'effjS  WH,  W  their  Atls  to  he  £Ia»fl, 
 <c  fita'  dW  irregularly,  finfully,  and  unlawfully, 
 iC  again  ft  the  Rule  and  Authority  of  the  Church.  " 
 Sedion  XLVI. 
 
 That  tc  the  Indelible  Character^  "  imprinted 
 by  Baptifm,  is  fuch,  that  tc  a  Man  who  is  once 
 
 u  truly  Bapti^d,  can  nefler  fco  an?  QT&tng 
 
 <c  fW  ir/7/  /*  /^r  erazje  and  cancel  his  Baptifm, 
 tc  as  that  he  fljail  !t££tl  fl/w»  4»y  Occafwn  to  be 
 ct  Re- Baptized  with  a  fecond  Baptifm  ;  ■■  -  -  *> 
 tc  tt^j  /*  /*r  3lnD£ltbIC9  *  W  **  W0*//af  always 
 u  qualify  the  Man  that  had  received  it,  to  be  ad- 
 tc  mitted  to  Communion  again,  after  the  g£eateff 
 "  8p0toCP?  only  by  a  true  Repentance,  and  J&e* 
 
 "  conciliate?)?  3!mpofition  of  H>an&0 ; . 
 
 <c  ffc/j  ip/«f  n?W  the  Ancients  underftood  by  what 
 u  we  now  call  the  Indelible  Character  of  Bap~ 
 "  tifm,  "    [fays  he]    Sedion  XLVJI. 
 
 Tkat  a  Baptiz'd  Perfon,  tho'  "  an  Apofiate, 
 u  is  not  fo  ferfeftly  a  No-Chriftian,  as  one  that 
 4C  was  never  Baptized.  "     Sedion  XLIX. 
 
 That    u  the  Indelible  Char  abler  of  Ordination 
 
 is  of  the  fame  Nature  with  the  Indelible  Cha- 
 a  racier  of  Baptifm.  "     Sedion  L. 
 
 That    tc  a  Priefi  when  he  is  ordain  d  receives 
 
 "  fuck  a  Confecration  to  a  spnifteriai  ©f* 
 
 a  fice  by  Impofition  of  Hands,  as  I10CDS  ItOt 
 "  UpOit  ail?  ©CCafiOIt  to  be  repeated,  to  efia- 
 ct  Uifjn  him  in  the  Execution  of  fuch   an  Office, 
 
 "  There 
 
 u 
 
and  Schifmaticd  Baptifws.         109 
 
 H  There  is  the  Indelible  Char  after  of  it  [fays  he] 
 i.  e.  of  Ordination.  "     Se&ion  L. 
 
 That  an  Apoftate  Prieft  w  ltec50  110  UlOje 
 44  to  be  Re-Ordain  d.  "     Se&ion  Lll. 
 
 That  tc  J?e  nw  in  a  Capacity  f«  <$<•/- 
 ic  ate  again-)  without  Re-Ordination.  "  Se- 
 ction Lll. 
 
 That  u  fta  ancient  Councils  owrfd^  that  4 
 cc  ,#/<*#  tp/?<?  was  once  truly  ordained  a  Prieft^ 
 "  COUlD  tteD€t  ttailt  *  fecond  Ordination,  to 
 u  qttCllffp  IjllTI  ^  officiate  as  a  Minifter  in  the 
 *  Church.  "     Seftion  LII. 
 
 That   "  *l  rfo  Ancients  allow ©$matt0!t 
 
 cc  to  be  given  infeparably  to  thofe  "  to  whom 
 it  is  given ;  that  it  is  "  3itfl)£f tblC  f°  far*  " 
 as  that  it  does  not  "  ftttQ  to  be  repeated  upon 
 «{  Apofiates.  "    Se&ion  LIL 
 
 §  LVI.  From  the  Truth  of  all  which  his 
 Aflertions,  it  demonftrably  follows,  That  tho' 
 St.  Cyprian,  and  his  Collegues,  the  numerous 
 Bifhops  of  the  African  and  Eaftern  Churches, 
 did  judge  and  decree,  and  by  their  Cenfures, 
 determine  for  themfelves,  and  their  feveral  re- 
 fpe&ive  Churches,  that  Hereticks  and  Schifma- 
 ticks  lolt,  and  had  not  the  Chara&er  of  Ordi- 
 nation, i.e.  their  Priefthood,  but  were  meer 
 Laynien,  and  fo  had  neither  Valid  Orders,  nor 
 Valid  Sacraments  in  their  Herefy  and  Schifm, 
 and  therefore  they  would  never  admit  fuch 
 to  officiate,  as  Minifters  in  the  Church,  upon 
 their  Repentance  and  Converfion  j  and  the 
 Perfons  Baptiz'd  by  them,  were  not  admitted 
 upon  Repentance,  without  receiving  Baptifm 
 in  the  Church,  becaufe  they  were  reckoned  to 
 have  been  only  Baptiz'd   by  Laymen   before;. 
 
 yet 
 
HO  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 yet  the  other  Churches,  who  differ'd  from  them 
 in  their  Dilcipline,  by  receiving  as  Valid  in 
 the  Miniftration,  the  Baptifms  perform'd  by 
 Heretical  and  Schifmatical  Priefts,  did  at  the 
 fame  time  eiteem  the  Orders  of  thofe  Priefts 
 to  have  been  Valid  too ;  for  they  reckon'd  that 
 neither  Herefy,  nor  Schifm,  nor  Excommuni- 
 cation, nor  Degradation,  nor  even  Apoftacy 
 it  feif,  did  ever  Delete,  abfolutely  take  away, 
 or  Null  the  Chara&er  of  Priefthood,  which 
 they  had  receiv'd  by  Epifcopal  Ordination  : 
 ISIo  !  they  remained  p2tC(l0  fftll  5  "  they  had 
 receiv'd  an  Indelible  Char  after,  tC  the  Char  after 
 a  of  their  Ordination  remained  Entire:"  There 
 Was  HO  JBCCeffttp  "  to  give  them  a  New  Ordi- 
 14  nation,  to  officiate  again  ',  "  their  u  Or  din  a- 
 *c  tion  was  given  them  JltfCpatflfa!?*  "  Nay 
 more,  when  the  Church,  to  make  them  an  Ex- 
 ample, thought  it  "  proper  to  DcpjtBE  t^tm  of 
 "  the  Power  and  JpOUOttr  Of  t&efc  PclCES,  " 
 and  fo  to  oblige  them  always  to  abftain  from 
 the  Execution  of  their  Prieftly  Power,  and  to 
 receive  the  Sacrament,  not  among  the  reft  of 
 the  Clergy  in  the  molt  Sacred  Place,  within 
 the  Rails  at  the  Altar,  [as  was  the  Cuftom] 
 but  among  the  Laity  in  a  more  inferiour  and 
 lefs  honourable  Part  of  the  Church  •,  '*  yet 
 u  even  in  that  Cafe  the  Church  did  not  intend 
 u  to  deny  the  Validity  of  their  Ordination.  ' 
 Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks,  and  DcgKlQCB 
 P?telf!&  were  allow'd  to  be  "  Priefts  ft  ill,  " 
 and  their  Afts  to  be  Valid  tho*  done  irregularly, 
 finfully,  and  unlawfully  in  the  Opinion  of  thofe 
 Churches,  if  we  may  believe  Mr.  Bingham  him- 
 felf,  as  an  Hiftorian  giving  a  juft  Account 
 of  the  A&s  of  thofe  Churches.  And  there- 
 fore, 
 
a?id  Schlfmatical  Baptifms.        ill 
 
 fore,  Baptifms  perform'd  by  fuch  Hereticks 
 and  Schifmaticks,  &c  who  in  the  Opinion  of 
 thofe  Churches  did  HOt  tDant  £)$fttittfon,  did 
 not  ftand  in  nt€0  of  a  Prieftly  CharaBer,  but 
 had  that  Chara&er  3|nBe]tbl£  by  Virtue  of 
 their  Ordination  once  receiv'd,  according  to 
 Mr.  Bingham,  [  and  therefore  to  be  fure  In- 
 deleted,  fay  I]  were  not  (  in  the  Senfe  of 
 thofe  Churches  )  Baptifms  by  Laymen  }  they 
 were  not,  in  their  Opinion,  of  the  fame  Na- 
 ture with  thofe  Falfe  Baptifms  which  are 
 now  perform'd  by  Perfons,  who  do  moft  cer- 
 tainly want  Ordination,  becaufe  they  never  were 
 Ordain'd  or  Commiffion'd,  by  any  Bifhops  what- 
 foever,  to  qualify  them,  or  give  them  a  Capa- 
 city to  Baptize.  And  confequently,  thofe  Chur- 
 ches receiving  Perfons  fo  Baptiz'd  by  fuch  He- 
 reticks, and  Schifmaticks,  &c.  without  Re- bap- 
 tizing them,  is  no  Argument  that  they  did 
 receive,  or  would  have  receiv'd  fuch  as  our 
 Lay-Baptiz'd  Perfons,  for  validly  Baptiz'd  \  or, 
 that  they  would  in  General  Council  have  de- 
 creed, that  they  ought  to  be  receiv'd  into  the 
 Church,  without  fubmitting  to  be  Baptiz'd  by 
 one  Ordain'd,  or  Commiffion'd  by  Bifhops.  And 
 Mr.  Bingham,  with  ail  the  Stir  that  he  has  made, 
 \ft,  has  not  prodnc'd,  neither  can  he  produce, 
 any  one  Inftance  of  a  Baptifm  perform'd  by 
 one,  who  was  notorioufly  known  to  have  been 
 never  Ordain'd,  or  Commiffion'd  by  a  Bilhop 
 or.  Bifhops,  which  the  Ancient  Catholick  Church 
 pronounc'd  to  have  been  Valid  in  the  Mini- 
 ftration  :  And  as  for  our  Lay-Baptizers,  Per- 
 fons who  never  were  Commiffion'd  by  Bifhops 
 to  Baptize,  idly,  he  has  not  prov'd,  neither 
 indeed  can  he  prove,  that  they  have  ever  re- 
 ceiv'd, 
 
112  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 ceiv'd,  by  Epifcopal  Ordination,  any  fuch  Prieft- 
 ly  Character  ^  or,  that  they  have  any  fuch  in- 
 deleted  Character  of  Priefthood  at  all,  as  thofe 
 Ancient  Heretical,  Schifmatical,  Excommuni- 
 cated, or  Degraded  Priefts  are,  by  himfelf  and 
 the  Ancients,  acknowledg'd  to  have  had.  And 
 when  he  proves  this,  which  will  never  be, 
 then  'twill  be  time  enough  to  own,  that  he, 
 as  an  Hiftorian,  will  have  done  fomething  to 
 the  purpofe,  in  relation  to  the  Difcovery  of 
 the  Ancient  Catholick  Church's  Practice,  about 
 what  we  call,  and  are  ftill  refolved  to  call  Lay 
 Baftifm* 
 
 §LVII.  Till  he  does  One  of  thefe  two 
 Things,  'tis  in  vain  for  him  to  fet  himfelf  up 
 for  an  Umpire  in  this  Controverfy  }  Inconfi- 
 ftencies,  and  Self-Contradidions,  Perhaps'*,  and 
 May  he's?  Hefitations,  and  uncertain  Guefles, 
 Mifreprefentations  of  the  Ancients,  and  Ap- 
 peals to  Hiftorians,  for  what  they  never  faid, 
 and  to  Legendary,  Viflonary  Writers  for  the 
 Truth  of  Foolifh  and  Ridiculous  Fables,  are 
 utterly  improper  for  the  doling  of  this  Di- 
 fpute.  He  that  would  bring  about  fo  glori- 
 ous a  Defign,  muft  be  a  Man  of  Good  Tem- 
 per and  Sound  Judgment,  as  well  as  of  Much 
 Reading  *,  he  muft  have  that  Gravity  and  Gen- 
 tility, which  will  preferve  him  from  Pedan- 
 tick  Infnltings  upon  Trifling  Occafions.  ..  ■  ■ 
 He  muft  be  fo  Humble  and  Ingenuous,  as  to 
 be  ready  to  retract  and  own  any  Grofs  Er- 
 rors, when  convi&ed  of  them.  He  muft  be  all 
 of  a  Piece,  and  Confiflent  with  himfelf}  Sound 
 in  the  Faith,  and  Zealous  for  the  Juft  Ho- 
 nour of  the  Chriftian  Priefthood,  as  it  is  in- 
 
 ftituted 
 
and  Schifntatical  Baptifms.         115 
 
 ftituted  to  be  Reprefentative  of  the  Priefthood 
 of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jefns  Chrift,  the 
 Great  High-Prieft  of  our  Profeffion  :  And  with 
 all  this,  he  muft  not  be  one  that  harbours  un- 
 reafonable  Jealoufies  and  Fears,  as  if  we  Lay- 
 men of  the  Church  of  England,  who  deny  the 
 Validity  of  pretended  Baptifms,  perform'd  by 
 fuch  never-Ordain'd  orCommifllon'd  Perfons  as 
 ourfelves,  did  thereby  debafe  ourfelves  too  low, 
 and  endeavour  to  bring  ourfelves,  and  others 
 under  fpiritual  Slavery  and  Bondage  to  the 
 Priefts,  by  our  Advancing  the  Prerogatives  of 
 the  Chriftian  Priefthood  too  high,  above  what 
 was  defign'd  by  its  Divine  Institution.  Such 
 an  unreafonably  jealous  Temper  as  this,  will 
 certainly  betray  a  Man  into  too  many  Indecen- 
 cies, and  make  him  the  mod  unfit  Man  in  the 
 World  to  decide  our  Controverfy. 
 
 And  if  the  Reverend  Mr.  Bingham  will  un- 
 dertake to  be  the  Great  Arbitrator  about  the 
 Ancient  Catbolick  Church's  Senfe  and  Practice, 
 and  convince  the  World,  that  fhe  has,  in  Truth, 
 given  her  Suffrage  to  the  Opinion  of  the  Vali- 
 dity of  Baptifm,  perform'd  by  Perfons  who  ne- 
 ver were  at  all  Commifllon'd  to  Baptize  \  then, 
 I  muft  beg  Leave  to  tell  him,  that  he  has  one 
 Great  and  Difficult  Task  to  do,  by  way  of  In- 
 troduction to  fo  Prodigious  an  Undertakings 
 and  that  is,  to  perform  the  heavy,  if  fupport- 
 able  Penance  of  a  Publick  AU  of  Self-Denyal, 
 by  Retracting  openly  the  many  Things  he  has 
 PubliuYd  on  our  Side  of  the  Qiieftion,  as  an 
 Hiftorian,  in  his  Volumes  of  the  Antiquities  of 
 the  Chriftian  Church,  and  the  Two  Parts  of  his 
 Scholaftical  Hiftory,  which  do  manifeftly  fhew, 
 that  the    Ancient  Catholick  Church  has  not 
 
 I  given 
 
114  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 given  her  Suffrage  to  tjiis  Opinion,  as  I  have 
 abundantly  prov'd  in  thefe  Papers,  and  (a)  elfe- 
 where,  out  of  his  own  Works.  And  when  he 
 has  made  thefe  Retra&ations.,  then  he  muft  be- 
 gin his  Work  again  ,  and  when  he  has  fairly 
 gone  through  it,  then  the  Unprejudiced  will 
 fee,  what  mighty  Things  he  fhall  produce.  But 
 till  then,  he  muft  not  fanfy,  that  he  has  brought 
 this  Controverfy  to  a  fair  JJfue  -,  for  fpme  of  his 
 belt  and  mod  valuable  Friends  can  tell  him, 
 and  'tis  not  unreafonable  to  fuppofe  they  have 
 jrindly  hinted  to  him,  that  he  is  very  much 
 miftaken,  if  he  thinks  fo  j  fince,  as  yet,  he  has 
 faid  nothing  at  all  to  the  Purpofe  of  bringing 
 this  Matter  to  a  Conclufion  againft  us. 
 
 §  LVIII.  And  this  puts  me  in  mind  of  his 
 faying,  that  he  (b)  u  thinks  it  now  high  Time 
 ic  to  put  an  End  to  fuch  a  Bifpute,  after  all 
 rt  Things  have  been  fo  fully  difevffed,  and  fet  in 
 41  fo  fair  a  Light,  that  have  any  relation  to  it  \ 
 [this  he  fays  of  the  imagin'd  Conclufivenefs  of 
 his  own  Performances }]  "  and  therefore  [con- 
 tinues he  ]  ""'/  intend  to  take  my  Leave  of  this 
 €C  Subjefl:,  if  the  Adverfary  will  fuffer  me  to  go 
 4t  on  quietly,  with  a  more  necejfary  Work,  in 
 4t  which  I  have  already  made  fome  Progrefs,  and 
 44  /  hope  not  without  General  Benefit  and  Satisfa- 
 4t  t~bion  to  the  Church"  \  ftill  in  Praife  of  his 
 own  Works,  in  colle&ing  the  Antiquities  of 
 the  Chtifrun  Church. 
 
 Now,  here  I  fee,  that  my  very  good  Friend 
 Mr.  Bingham  and  I    mall    agree   in  fomethir.g\ 
 
 (  a  )  Second  Pan  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid. 
 (  b  )   Schol.  fiifl*  Part  II.  p.  168. 
 
 and 
 
and  Schlfmaticd  Baptifms.         nj 
 
 and    that  is,    cc  that  'tis   high    Time  to   put   an 
 14  End  to  this  Mfpute-,"  but  we  (hall  fliil  dif- 
 agree  in  the  Reafon  of  this  our  Agreement ;  for 
 he  reckons  that  there  ought  to  be  an  End  of  the 
 Difpute,  becaufe    ct  all  Things  have  "    by  him- 
 feif  M  been  fvily  difcufs'd  and  Jet  in  a  dear  Light f 
 in  Favour  of  the  Church's  Senfe  for  the  Validity 
 of  Lay-Baptifrn  •,  whereas,  in  Truth,  the  Rea- 
 fon why  he  ought  to  have  done  with  the  Di- 
 fpute, and    indeed    never    to    have    troubled 
 himfelf  with   it,    in  the    manner   he  has,   to 
 his  own  great  Difreputation,   is,  that  all    he 
 has  faid,  or  can  fay,  is  only  like  Striving  in 
 vain  to  put  out  the  Light  of  the  Sun,  which. 
 affects  our  Sight  the  more  ftrongly,    after  the 
 Interpofition  of  a  dark  Cloud :   For,  his  En- 
 deavours to  make  us  believe,  that  the  Ancient 
 Catholiek  Church  has,  by  her  Pra&ice,  evidenced 
 her  Belief,   that  Lay-Baptifm,  Baptifm  by  Per- 
 fons  never  Commidioft'd  by  Bifhops,  is  Valid,  do 
 all  confpire  and  center  in  this,  That  {he  never 
 gave  fuch  her  Suffrage,  to  the  Validity  of  any 
 fuch  Baptifm;  and  that  all  Baptifms,  the  Vali- 
 dity whereof  (he  has  countenanc'd,  were  only 
 Baptifms  by  Men  Epifcopally  Commiffion'd,  who 
 were  fuppos'd  to  have  had  an  Indeleted,  Epi- 
 fcopal  Commiffion  when  they  Baptiz'd.      This 
 he  more  and  more  eftablifhes,  by  his  Endeavours 
 to  the  contrary  •,  and  fince  he  does  fo,  'tis  high 
 time  for  him   to  give  over  the  Difpute,  and 
 not  balk  thofe  who  plac'd  fo  much  Confidence 
 in  his  Abilities  any  longer,  but  ingenuoufly  and 
 honourably  come  over  to  that  Side  of  the  Que- 
 ftion,  which,  he  fees,  grows  yet  more  Evident 
 and  Convincing  to  the  Impartial,   by  his  Op^ 
 poiltion  againft  it. 
 
 I  2  •     §  LIX. 
 
1*6  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 §  LIX.     As  for  his    tc  taking  Leave  of  this 
 "  SnbjeB,    if  the  Adverfary  will  fuffer  him  to  go 
 ct  on  quietly  with  "    what    he    calls    "  a   more 
 **  neJjfary  Work,  &c.  "    He  mull  not  expeft, 
 that  the  Adversary  will  be  fo  Tame,  and  fu- 
 pinely  Negligent,  as  to  let  him  go  on  writing 
 what  he  pleafes,  without  oppofing  him  whea 
 he's  in  the  Wrong  about  important  Truths, 
 If  in  the  prefent  Controverfy  he  fhall  think 
 fit  to  write  again,    as  he  has  hitherto  done,    let 
 him  depend  upon  it,  that  the  Adverfary,  by 
 the  Grace  of  God,   u  will  not  fuffer  him  to  go 
 "  en  quietly  \  "   if  Oppofition  to  his  falfe  ln- 
 iinuations  gives  him   any  Difquiet.    He  mult 
 not  think,   that  we  have  fuch  a  mighty  Va- 
 lue iqv  what  he  calls  a  more  neceflary  Work, 
 meaning  his  Or/gines,   as  that  to  let  him  go 
 on  with  it,  we  fhall  quietly  and  tamely  fwal- 
 low,  without  Examination,  every  Thing  that 
 Jie  fays,  for  fear  of  hindering  his  Profecution 
 of  it  by  our  oppofing  him.    The  Neceflity  of 
 that  Work  is  not  yet  fo  fietp  €?e<1t  as  "thfs 
 comes  to.    It  is  not  of  fuch  vail  Momenj,  as 
 that  his  Going  on  with  it  mull  be  a  Prote^ 
 frion   for   him   to  write   whatfoever  elfe    he 
 ihall  think  fit.     No  !   let  him  be  a  generous 
 and  confiftent  Advocate  for  Truth,  and  then 
 he  may  go  on  quietly  and  profper ;  otherwife 
 he  mull  expecl  Difquiet,   if  neceflary  Contra- 
 diction gives  him  Difturbance. 
 
 §  LX.  The  4C  General  Benefit  and  Satis  fa* 
 "  ttion  "  he  hopes  he  has  given  to  the  Church, 
 by  the  Progrefs  he  has  made  in  his  On'gines, 
 would  have  been  yet  greater  than  it  is,  if 
 
 he 
 
and  Schifmatlcal  Bapttfms.         117 
 
 he  had  been  mote  careful  than  he  has  in  that 
 Work  •,  for  even  thofe  ufeful  Collections  are1 
 not  altogether  free  from  fomething  of  an  Al- 
 loy of  his  own  uncorrect  Obfervations,  which 
 that  Work  wants  to  be  purg'd  m  of  •,  wit- 
 nefs, 
 
 ij?.  His  Remark  where  he  fays,  that  (c) 
 <c  Tertullian  grants  HO  Otl)tt  P?tefll)ao5  to 
 <c  Laymen,    fave    that    they  may   Baptize  * 
 
 ct  when  none  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Order  can  be 
 u  had.  "  When  in  Truth,  Tertullian  errone- 
 oufly  grants  them  much  more,  that  in  the 
 Abfence  of  the  Clergy,  (d)  Laymen  are  Friefis 
 for  themfelvis,  and  have  Power  |10t  0\\\p  to 
 Baptize,  but  alfo  to  offer  and  minifier  the  Me- 
 morial of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift^s  Body  and  Blood, 
 And  if  Mr.  Bingham  mould  fay,  that  he  made 
 this  erroneous  Remark  from  that  Edition  of 
 Tertullian,  which  he  had  at  that  time;  I  muffc 
 only  tell  him,  that  £1  ill  his  Uncorre&nefs  is 
 very  manifeft,  for  he  might  have  been  better 
 inform'd  from  other  Editions  of  Tertullian^ 
 Works,  that  he  gives  more  of  Priefihood  to 
 Laymen,  than  that  they  may  Baptize,  &c  So 
 again, 
 
 idly.      His   Obfervation,    that    Laymen   may 
 Baptize  in  want  of  the  Clergy,    (e)    was   ac- 
 cording   to  the  Principles    and  PraUice   of  the 
 
 « 
 
 (c)  Am\\.  of  the  Ckrifti&n  Church,  Vol.1,  pi  42. 
 
 (  d  )    Nome  o  Laid  Sacerdotes  fumus  ?  ubi  Ec- 
 
 cUfiaftid  Ordinis  von  eft  concerns,  C£  offers,  S5>  unguis,  & 
 Sacerdes  es  tibi  folus.  Term  14.  de  Exhortat.  Caftitatis, 
 Cap.  7.  Edit.  Rigalt.  Lutet.  Parif.  1634. 
 
 (  «  )   Jnti<{.  of  the  CbriftUn  Church,  Vol.  L  p.  42« 
 
 I  3  c'  Primitive 
 
Il8  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 *l  Primitive  Church,  "  is  another  great  Miftake, 
 as  we  have  abundantly  feen  in  the  Courie  of 
 this  Controverfy. 
 
 $dly.  His  Saying  of  Presbyterian  Ordina- 
 tions, that  (/)  "  they  were  COlllttlOnlP  re- 
 **  versed  and  difannulfd,  "  thereby  giving  room 
 to  his  Reader  to  believe,  that  they  might  yet, 
 fometimes  in  the  Primitive  Church,  ftand  as 
 Good  and  Valid,  is  another  Inftance  of  his 
 nncorred  Way  of  relating  Matters  of  Fafr  \ 
 when  he  might,  and  therefore  mould  have  af- 
 firm'd,  that  tC  they  were  flitDiipS  reversed  and 
 "  difannulfd.  " 
 
 qthly.  Speaking  of  Schifmaticks,  whom  he 
 fays  the  Church  made  to  take  a  New  Ordina- 
 tion, he  fays,  a  this  (g)  was  decreed  by  the 
 "  Great  Council  of  Nice,  in  the  Cafe  of  thofe 
 "  Bifljops  and  Presbyters  whom  Meletius  the  Schif- 
 "  matick  ordain  d  m  Egypt  \  —  '  4?  they 
 u  were  not  to  be  admitted  to  ferve  in  the  Catho- 
 u  lick  Church,  till  they  were  firfi  authorized  by  a 
 u  more  Sacred  Ordination  }  "  which  is  a  very 
 great  Miftake,   as  I  have  prov'd  already. 
 
 $thly.  His  Saying  of  the  Impofition  of 
 Hands  given  in  France  to  the  Arian  returning 
 Clergy,  (h)  U  but  that  J}£t1ji1pg  does  not  mean 
 "  a  New  Ordination,  "  when  it  really  was  no 
 New  Ordination,  lhews,  that  he  fometimes 
 guefles  at  Things  without  any  Rule  \  leaves 
 his  Reader,  that  has  not  Skill  to  determine 
 about  thefe  Matters,   very  much  in  the  Dark 
 
 (  f )    jfatiq.  of  the  Chriftian  Church,  Vol.  I.  p.  83, 
 (g)  Vol.  II.  p.  180. 
 <h;  ML  p.  189. 
 
 to 
 
and  Schifmatical  Baptifms.  1 19 
 
 to  doubt  about  Matters  of  FacT:  *,  without  af- 
 iifting  him  to  extricate  himfelf  out  of  the  Dif- 
 ficulty he  plunges  him  into,  by  making  Impo- 
 lition  of  Hands  on  one  who  was  ordain'd  be- 
 fore, to  be  fo  me  times  a  New  Or d  nation,  and 
 at    other    times     4C    perhaps    no    New    Ordina- 
 
 «  t'm.  " 
 
 §  LXI.     I   know   not  how   many  more  of 
 thtfc  PcC&iipfinrc0»    for   what   is    plain    and 
 evident  *,    thefe  Common!^    for    what   has 
 not  one  Exception  ;    thefe  M  fiahs,   and  falfe 
 Obfervatlons  in   our   Hiftorian's  Origines,   may 
 be  yet  difcover'd  by  thofe  who  have  Ability, 
 Time,  and  Lei fu re  to  compare  them  with  the 
 Originals  of  the  "anient  Fathers  and  Coun- 
 cils:  But  fure.4  am/  that  thefe  are  Inftances 
 fufficient  to  prove,  that  he  might  eafily  have 
 been    more   exacl:   and   corrccl  in  his  boafted 
 Origines,  than  he  appears  always  to  have  been  \ 
 and  if  his  Friends  (hall  think   me   too  fevere, 
 Cand  it  may  be  fome  of  'em  may,  after  his 
 Example,  call  me  Rude  3  for  this  Plain  Deal- 
 ing,  I  have  only  to  tell  them,   that  Authors, 
 as  fuchj    Hand  upon  the  fame  Level  with  one 
 another,    and   that  in  this  refpecl:  I  owe  no 
 more  to  Mr.  Bingham,   than    he  does   to  me. 
 As  he  is  a  Priefc  of  the  Moll  High  God,    [ 
 revere    his    Sacred    Character,    and    acknow- 
 ledge,  that  I  am  infinitely  below  him  in  that 
 refpedt :  But  as  he  is  a  Writer  of  Controverfy 
 in  Oppofitioh  to  me,  I  have  as  much  Right  to 
 expofe    his   publick  Errors   for   the  Commoa 
 Good,   and   his   own  Humiliation,   as  he  has 
 mine  -,    and  if  upon  the  Balance  of  both  our 
 Accounts  as  Difputants,    his  Errors  {hail  ap-» 
 
 I  4  Peaf 
 
120  Of  Valid  Heretical 
 
 pear  to  be  much  more  numerous,  more  inexcu- 
 sable, and  fo  [  for  want  of  ingenuous  Acknow- 
 ledgment and  Retra&ation]  even  more  cenfura- 
 ble  than  mine-,  if,  upon  a  fair  and  impartial 
 Examination,  it  fhall  be  found,  that  he  has 
 very  magifterially  infnlted,  at  leaft  as  Learned 
 and  Reverend  3  (/)  Prieft  as  himfelf,  whofe 
 Chriftian  Meeknefs  and  Candor  are  fo  remark- 
 ably Great,  [I  fay  this  without  that  excellent 
 Perfon's  Knowledge  or  Leave  ]  that  a  Man 
 of  any  Ingenuity  muft  even  do  Violence  to  him- 
 felf, to  treat  fo  worthy  a  Perfon  with  the  leaft 
 Incivility  ;  if  laftly  [  which  is  of  the  meaneft 
 Confideration,  becaufe  it  concerns  myfelf]  Mr. 
 Bingham  has,  without  any  j*ft*  Provocation,  and 
 very  much  beneath  the  gravity  of  his  own 
 Character,  rudely  treated  a  L$man,  who  was 
 endeavouring  to  do  fomething  toward  refcuing 
 the  Sacred  Miniftrations  appropriate  to  the 
 Chriftian  Priefthood,  from  the  vile  Ufurpa- 
 tions  of  common,  unconfecrated  Lay-Hands : 
 If  all  thefe  Things  do  plainly  occurr  in  his 
 two  la  ft  Books,  [as  1  will  appeal  to  the  Im- 
 partial if  they  do  not]  then  'tis  manifeft, 
 that  there  is  fomething  in  his  Way  of  writing 
 Controverfy,  &c  which  calls  for  Correction 
 and  Amendment,  and  which  is  no  otherwife 
 to  be  dealt  with,  than  by  thus  plainly  letting 
 him  and  his  Friends  fee  his  Errors  and  Mi- 
 ftakes,  whereby  he  may  learn  for  the  future 
 to  be  more  careful  and  cautious,  and  they 
 may  hereafter  reap  more  Benefit  from  his  La* 
 bours. 
 
 CO  tU  Reverend  ari  Learned  Dr.  Brett* 
 
 §  LXIL 
 
and  Schifwdtical  Baptlftns*         121 
 
 §  LXIl.  I  (hall  have  done  for  this  time, 
 when  I  have  fincerely  told  him,  that  I  have 
 no  Ill-Will  at  all  to  his  Perfon  and  real  In- 
 tereft,  but  would  gladly  ferve  him  in  both 
 with  all  Chriftian  Love,  and  Charity,  to  the 
 belt  of  my  Power,  if  Occafion  did  require.  If 
 he  could  have  finifh'd  this  Controverfy  [and 
 prov'd  the  dired  Contrary  to  what  I  have  af- 
 ferted]  by  found  Reafoning,  and  good  Ar- 
 gument, I  would  not  have  flood  out  againft, 
 but  have  readily  fubmitted  to  his  Decifion. 
 But  fince  the  Cafe  is  quite  'otherwife,  1  muft 
 not  compliment  him  witj^a  falfe  Acknowledg- 
 ment of,  aiKJ^IRfcyd^J^n  that,  which  Jj£ 
 CattltOt  ps  ja^ajr'fee*r  convince  me  of.  I 
 am  alwai^  rcBjpW^eceive  Truth,  let  it  come 
 from  rvfomfoever  it  will  ;  and,  I  pray,  that 
 all  Men  may  have  the  fame  molt  neceffiry 
 Chriftian  Temper  and  Difpofition,  to  the  end 
 that  God  in  all  Things  may  be  glorify' W,  thro" 
 Jefus  Chrift,  to  whom,  with  the  Father,  and 
 the  Holy  Ghoft,  Three  Perfons  Co-Eternal  to- 
 gether, and  Co-Equal,  yet  but  One  God,  be 
 all  Honour  and  Glory  for  ever  and  ever. 
 Amen. 
 
f^^\ 
 
 ¥ 
 
 *f 
 
qr-qpQ^qpQpqpQpQpQPQp.^pQpQpQPQf' 
 
 €#?< 
 
 Hs,     <5r      iff     i&     iJf      t&     fli*     £&     tfr     jl&     1&.     try,     ^ip 
 
 -t,    *A,    ^JV,    rJV.    ifH    »dV>    -VV>    ^W,    ^U  .  *4lr.    -«>,    ^lr>    -JU     -.<►,    -WW, 
 
 CAVEAT 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 Dr.  /FH/7£  KENNETs 
 
 DaneeroufiiAJOTl6N  of  the 
 
 Power  ophhine  Grace ; 
 
 AND    HIS 
 
 Sophiftical   Rule  for  Judging  of 
 DOCTRINE $ 
 
 HENa  Preacher  undertakes 
 
 to  defcribe  "  ti)t  properties 
 of  Cfia'ffian  Cijaritp,  "  as 
 
 Dr.  Kennet  does  in  his  Spittal 
 Sermon  lafi:  Eafter-Tuefday; 
 when  he  very  rightly  tells  us, 
 p.  5.  That  u  for  fear  fome  forward  hafif  People 
 u  fhould    run    away   with    the  jQOttlf)     and   not 
 
 "  tmnerflfnnn  tfje  J13attire,   of  this  eminent 
 
 cc  Grace  and  V.rtue  \   the  Apoftle  [  1  Cor.  xiii.] 
 *'  it  defcriblng  the  'tree  to  be  known  bj  its  Fruits }  " 
 
Cc  he  gives  out  the  many  admirable  Qualities  and 
 "  Properties  of  a  ttllt  CJl?tfftan  Cjjailtp  >  not 
 "  as  we  now  confine  the  Word  to  relieving  the 
 rt  Poor  only j  or  to  forgiving  Injuries,  or  to  de- 
 ic  firing  Reconciliation  ',  but  all  this,  and  H1O20) 
 u  even  the  Utf)OlC  g>piUt  Of  EtfigtOlt,  the 
 41  Love  of  God,  and  of  our  Neighbour  ',    all  tf)8t 
 
 "  toe  can  pap  to  our  Creator  and  ail  that 
 
 t;  we  can  DO  fir  our  Fellow -Creature.  "  When 
 in  another  Place  of  the  fame  Sermon,  he  very 
 juftly  teaches,  [_p.  10.  ]  That  "  Charity  is  vfe- 
 ct  ful  and  ferviceable  unto  others.  '  That  u  it 
 W  is  not  the  Jfohll  Of  CfittlttP,  *«*  ^  POiHd* 
 64  of  it ',  not  the  ^Ceremonial  Part,  and  the  out* 
 u  ward  Show,  but  the  He&fy^nd  the  Spirit,  of 
 tc  tl'UC  unfeigned  JLOtlC,  and  Neighbourhood,  and 
 a  Friendflnp  :  Not  a  meer  Conformity  to  this 
 "  World,  and  the  Courtier  fo  caWd,  but  a  fin- 
 u  cere  j4jfet~lion,  and  the  Chriftian  in  Deed,  and 
 
 "  in  Truth.  "     That    \_p.   13.]    "  it  en- 
 
 "  vyeth  not.  "     That    u  Envy maketh  ©p= 
 
 u  pOfittOll  to  every  good  Word  and  Work ;  would 
 u  fiifie  the   JlltmtlOn,    would    pervert  the  £)fs 
 
 "  cation,  would  Mart  tlje  Reputation,  would 
 
 "  nitfr£p?£fent  the  Deed,  and  even  hate  and 
 11  titil'fjP  the  Doer  of  whatever  Things  in  the 
 w  Eye,  and  Eftimate  of  others,  are  lovely,  and  of 
 c<  good  Report.  "  When  we  hear  a  Man  preach 
 all  this,  and  fee  him  publifh  it  under  the  Title 
 
 of "  Cfje  l^opeittcs  of  C&tffian  Cfjaritp t " 
 
 It  is  not  natural  to  expefr  from  a  Faithful  Di- 
 fpenfer  of  the  Word  of  God-,  that,  in  fnch  a 
 Sermon  efpecially,  he  would  teach  any  Thing, 
 that  is  Inconliftent  with  a  very  neceflary  and 
 indifpenfable  Property  of  this  Chriftian  Duty  5 
 namely,  that  it  tefOtCetlj  UOt  III  INIQUITY, 
 
 but 
 
(  "5  ) 
 
 but  rejoiceth  in  THE  TRUTH,  L  I  Cor. 
 xiii.  <£.  ]  much  lefs,  that  he  would  affirm  any 
 Thing,  in  Favour  of  the  Wickednefs  of  thofe, 
 who  ad  direBly  contrary  to  another  of  the  Pro- 
 perties  of  this  molt  excellent  Virtue,    which 
 
 "  notfj  »«*  w^**  »>  /*//•  tmfcemip  s  *  Or.  5.] 
 
 as  they  molt  notorioufly  do,  who  like  Corah, 
 Dathan,  and  Abiram,  and  their  Company,  en- 
 deavour to  aUiiine  to  themfelves  the  Powers  of 
 the  Chriftian  High-Priefthood  and  Priefthood, 
 without  being  call'd  of  God,  as  was  Aaron  \ 
 by  which  their  Spiritual  Pride  and  Rebellion, 
 they  not  only  diforder  and  difturb  the  Church 
 of  Chrift,  but  alfo  defpife  {jtm,  the  Sove- 
 reign thereof,  ancl  his  Holy  Inftitutions,  by 
 defpifing  his  Representatives,  and  the  Sacred 
 Miniftrations  by  their  Hands,  whom  he  has 
 fent. 
 
 §  II.  Whether  Part  of  Dr.  Kennet\  Sermoa 
 is  not  thus  inconfiftent  with,  and  difagreeable 
 to  its  fpecious  Title  ?  Whether  he  does  not 
 therein  tranfgrefs,  even  againft  that  very  Duty 
 of  Chriftian  Charity,  the  Excellent  Properties 
 whereof,  he,  in  that  Sermon,  undertakes  to 
 defcribe  ?  Whether  it  does  not  contain  fome- 
 thing  that  is  inconfiftent  with  himfelf,  and 
 highly  unbecoming  the  Sacred  Character  he 
 bears,  and  derogatory  from  the  Authority  of 
 our  Lord,  whofe  Reprefentative,  in  fome  re- 
 fpe&s,  he  is  appointed  to  be  ?  will  be  eafy  to 
 determine,  when  we  fhall  have  confider'd  the 
 following  Paragraphs  of  his  Sermon,  and  thofiK 
 fuitable  Remarks  that  are  made  upon  them. 
 
 %  HI- 
 
(12(5) 
 
 §111.  By  way  of  Introduction  to  tliofe  A- 
 fpcrfions  which  he  is  going  to  caft  on  the  Do- 
 ctrine of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptlfm  ;  he  fays, 
 p.  25.  u  We  may  judge  of  Do  Brines  as  we  do 
 "  of  Men :  Thofe  that  tend  to  fjaCll  and  Ufc 
 iC  Cftatttcltlle  Thoughts  of  our  Fellow  Chrtftians,  to 
 
 "  pjejuto'ctal  ann  ttiifcfife&aug  Effetis  agahji 
 
 lt  them,  and  to  drawing,  as  it  were,  a  Circle  of  Sal* 
 <c  vation  round  our  felves,  and  leavlno-  out  our 
 *c  Brethren  to  be  damrfd,  or  by  Miracle  to  be 
 <c  fav'd,  by  the  UitCOftCiiantCD  Mercies  of  God  ; 
 <c  Such  Tenets  are  fo  harflj  and  offenfive  to  Cha- 
 a  rity  and  Brotherly  Love,  that  Ctttafttlp  tljej? 
 "  are  llOt  fOUntlCO  upon  the  Scriptures,  but  on 
 u  the  Perverting  of  them*  " 
 
 §  IV.  Here  the  Doctor  propofes  feveral 
 Rules,  whereby  he  would  have  us  judge  that 
 Doctrines  ct  certainly  are  not  founded  upon  Scri~ 
 <c  ptureSj  but  on  the  Ver  verting  of  them  \"  and 
 they  may  be  reduc'd  to  Two,  the  one  True, 
 and  the  ojther  Falfe  and  Sophiftical. 
 
 Firfl,  His  true  Rule  is,  That  fuch  Doctrines 
 as  tend  to  "  UltC&antaMe  €f)OU0;!)t& "  are 
 falfe  Doctrines  •,  and  here  we  (hall  agree  with 
 him,  taking  the  word  dStlC&fttitttblC  in  its 
 true  Meaning  *,  becaufe  to  have  uncharitable 
 Thoughts,  properly  fo  calPd,  is,  to  think  of 
 our  Neighbour  wrongfully,  unjuftly,  and  without 
 Reafon  \  and  certainly,  no  true  Doctrine  can 
 tend  to  make  us  have  fuch  Thoughts  of  our 
 Brethren,  becaufe  unjuft  Thoughts  cannot  be 
 the  Refult  of  Truth  and  Righteoufneis,  which 
 can  nev/r  produce,  or  caufe  any  Thing  that's 
 wrong.  And  by  this  Rule  we  can  fafely  de- 
 termine, 
 
C  1*7  ) 
 
 termine,  that  Dr.  Kenneth  Novel  Doctrine  in 
 his  Sermon  at  the  Funeral  of  the  Duke  of 
 Devonshire,  viz,  that  u  rfee  mo?e  intelligent 
 "  $h1ttl££  fV  *^*  more  fufceptive  of  Divine 
 "  Grace,  "  is  a  Falfe  and  Anti-Scriptural 
 Do&rine  *,  for  upon  this  Foundation,  he  has 
 utter'd  wrong  Things  both  of  God,  and  of 
 his  Neighbour  *,  and  if  we  believe  his  Do&rine 
 to  be  true?  we  mult  think  unjuftly  of  them 
 too,  and  agree  with  him  in  his  uncharitable 
 AITertions  concerning  Sinners,  in  that  Sermon. 
 For  there,  after  he  had  obferv?d,  that  an  ac- 
 ceptable Death-bed  Repentance  is  4;  not  a  Pre- 
 "  cedent  to  follow,  it  is  rather  a  <2$\ttMlZ  ;  " 
 he  immediately  after  very  partially  adds,  "  This 
 ce  [  viz,,  this  Miracle  ]  rarely  happens  hut  in  Men 
 
 "  of  tuftinffuifl/D  Senft  ann  JfuBgnient ; 
 
 "  (QtttiaFP  abllttfeSl  may  be  altogether  funk,  by 
 u  4  long  vicious  Courfe  of  Life.  The  BUllK 
 "  jfltlttie  is  eafily  extinguiftfd,  the  XOZmtC  fitt* 
 
 ct  ful  OHretcijes  *™  commonly  given  up  to  a 
 
 Eep?0bi1te  ^0i!l9>  and  die  as  ftupidly  as 
 they  liv'd  ',  while  the  WtMtl  StlO  b?tgf)teC 
 l|3(lftS  have  an  Advantage  of  underftanding 
 the  Worth  of  their  Soul,  before  they  repgn  if. 
 "  If  tf)CP  are  allowed  the  Benefit  of  Sichnefs,  tfiej? 
 "  CQttUiianlp  atiJafte  m  of  their  Dream  of  5/>, 
 41  and  repEb,  and  look  upward.  CJjCJ?  acknow- 
 "  ledge  an  Infinite  Being ',  tflPP  feel  their  own 
 u  Immortal  Part  ;  t|)£]?  recoUett,  and  relijh  the 
 ifc  'Holy  Scriptures  \  tfjBP  caI1  for  *k*  Elders  of 
 a  the  Church  ',  tf)EP  think  what  to  anfwer  at  a 
 C1  'Judgment  Seat.  Not  that  God  is  a  RefpeEler 
 <l  of  Per  forts,  but  the  T>\Sttt\Kt  is  in  Men  ^ 
 "  and   the    more   JntClHtjent    ^atttte    U    the 
 
 g  more  fufcepttDe  of  Dftme  ®wt*  5 
 
 §  v. 
 
(ia8) 
 
 §  V.  Here  tlje  Dttlftie  ®?aCC  of  a  late 
 Death-bed  Repentance,  is  call'd  a  Spiracle  > 
 God  is  affirm'd  to  be  no  Refpetter  of  Perfons  in 
 working  this  Miracle  upon  Sinners  *,  the  Sin- 
 ners of  Bffiutffuifl/o  S>enfe  anti  aitagment, 
 
 are  reckon'd,  by  reafon  of  their  niP?C  \X\tth 
 IlgCltt  59fltUre5   to   be  more  capable   of  this 
 
 Miracle,  than  "  meaner  finful  WLtzttins  ", 
 
 of  «  O^mnacp  abflttteg,  *  are  \  the  Miracle 
 is  affirm'd  to  be  commonly  unoperative 
 and  ineffectual  upon  thefe  latter  :  The  Con- 
 fequence  of  all  which  is  plainly  this,  That 
 the  miraculous  Tower  of  God  has  Degrees  of 
 Effectuality,  and  that  it  fometimes  cannot  work 
 upon  meaner  intelligent  Natures }  which  is  not 
 only  egregious  Nonfenfe,  but  Blafphemy  in  a 
 very  high  Degree,  becaufe  it  derogates  from  the 
 Almighty  Power  of  God,  to  whom  all  Things 
 are  equally  pofllble,  and  in  whofe  Power  there 
 are  no  Degrees  of  Potentiality. 
 
 §  VI.  Here  is  alfo  Uncharitable nefs  againft 
 Sinners  of  diftinguiftfd  Senfe  and  Judgment,  and 
 againft  the  meaner  finful  Wretches  •,  tor,  if  this 
 Miracle,  this  Divine  Grate  of  an  acceptable 
 Death-bed  Repentance  ratelp  happens,  but  in 
 Men  of  diftinguijlfd  Senfe  and  Judgment,  then  it 
 COtttttlOnlp  happens  in  thefe  *,  and  this,  be- 
 caufe their  more  intelligent  Nature  is  more  fu~ 
 fceptive  of  Divine  Grace  :  If  they  ftiould  believe 
 this  to  be  true,  it  would  naturally  harden  them 
 in  the  Profecution  of  their  Sins,  and  make 
 them  deferr  their  Repentance,  till  the  time  of 
 Sicknefs,  when,  the  Doctor  fays,  a  they  COttt* 
 
 u  monlp  afoaite  out  of  t&efc  Dpam  of  ©in." 
 
 This, 
 
C  **9  ) 
 
 This  is  apt  to  make  'em  fanfy,  that  their  No- 
 bler and  Brighter  Farts  give  them  a  fore  of  a 
 Right  and  Title  to  the   Divine  Grace,  which 
 meaner  Sinners  have  not  \  that  notwithstand- 
 ing their  iinfnl  Courfe  of  Life,   they  are  the 
 more  peculiar  Favourites  of  Heaven;  that  God 
 has  a  .Miracle  in  Store  for  them,  even  at  their 
 Jaft  Gafp,  which  will  then  be  effectual  for  their 
 Salvation,  becaufeof  the  great  Capacity  of  their 
 intelligent  Nature.     From  hence  they'll  be  apt 
 to  conclude,  that  a  prefent  Amendment  of  Life 
 is  not  fo  neceflary  for  them,  as  for  the  meaner 
 finful  Wretches:    And  fo,   prefuming  that  they 
 fhall  have  the  fame  Advantage  at  laft,  which, 
 the  Dodtor  teaches,  does  COlBHIOnlp  happen  to 
 Men  of  their  Bright  Parts,   they  may  run    on 
 fecurely  in  their  Delufion,  till  they  are  awak'd 
 out  of  it  in  a  miferable  Eternity.     And  there- 
 fore, the  Do&rine  which  makes  'em  thus  de- 
 ceive their  own  Hearts,  is  highly  Uncharitable^ 
 becaufe  it  teaches  'em  to  entertain  falfe  Con- 
 ceits of  themfelves,   and  their  Capacities ;   it 
 confequently  expofes    'em   to    eternal  Mifery* 
 and  rfiuft   therefore  be  notorioufly  Falfe,   and 
 contrary  to  Holy  Scripture. 
 
 §  VII.  So  again,  for  the  meaner  finful  Wret- 
 ches, 'tis  highly  uncharitable  againft  them  too  5 
 for  if  they  believe  the  Doftor,  they  will  pre- 
 fently  be  apt  to  conclude  [after  they  have  gone 
 oti  in  a  long  vicious  Courfe  of  Life  ]  that  'tis  in. 
 vain  for  them  to  endeavour  to  repent,  ilnce 
 they  have  no  reafon  to  fuppofe  themfelves  to 
 have  an  Exemption  from  the  common  Fate  of 
 Sinners  of  the  fame  low  Rank  of  Abilities 
 With  them,  for  the  Doitor  fays,  u  Ci)£P  *& 
 
(  J3°  ) 
 
 "  COUlUIQUlP   given   up   to   a    reprobate   Mind, 
 a  and   die    as    ftupidly   as    they    lirfd.   "      And 
 the  Reafon  of  this  their  Reprobation,  the  Do- 
 dor   teaches,  is,    cc  not  that  God  is  a  Refpetter 
 cc  of   Terfons^    but    the  Difference    "   in   Meny 
 "  and  the   more   intelligent    ^atllte    [  which 
 thefe  meaner  finful  Wretches    find   they  have 
 not]  "  is  the  Xm\%  fttfcepttlie  of  Divine  Grace  "  } 
 and  fo  concluding  themfelves  to  have  little  or 
 no  Capacity,  they  will  be  apt  to  conclude,  that 
 they  are  given  up  to  a  tep?0bate  99tn5  >  and 
 this  will  hinder  all  Endeavours  of  Repentance, 
 and  leave  them  to  die,   either  as  ftupidly  as 
 they  liv'd,  or  elfe  in  the  utmoft  Ravings  of  a 
 defperate  and  fearful  Defpair  of  God's  Mercy  \ 
 which  plainly  fhews  the  vile  Uncharitablenefs 
 of  this  partial  Doctrine,  and  by    Dr.  Kenneis 
 own    Rule ,     its     Vncharitablenefs    proves    the 
 Falfenefs  of  it. 
 
 §  VIII.  And  farther  yet,  for  him  to  fay, 
 that  "  the  more  Intelligent  $fotWXZ  is  the 
 "  niOje  ftlfCeptftie  of  Divine  Grace,  "  does  in- 
 ferr  a  very  wild  extravagant  Fancy,  that  the 
 Devils  themfelves  are  more  capable  of  Re- 
 pentance than  Men  are  \  for  theirs  is,  no  doubt, 
 the  more  Intelligent  Nature  of  the  two;  but 
 who  does  not  fee  the  Madnefs  of  this,  and 
 confequently  of  the  Premifles  from  whence  it 
 naturally  flows?  But  we  need  not  thus  mul- 
 tiply Arguments  againft  the  Falfenefs  of  this 
 Doctrine  -7  the  Scripture  it  felf  does  in  the 
 plaineft  Terms  contradict  it ;  it  evidently  de- 
 monftrates,  that  the  meanefl  Intelligent  Nature 
 is  as  much  fufceptive  of  Divine  Grace,  as  the 
 xnoft  exalted   is,    and    that  God   in  his   juft 
 
 Judgments 
 
(i?0 
 
 Judgments  again!*  Sinners  of  tt10?e  3!ntelftffatt 
 iliatUtCS,  whofe  Guilt  is  fo  much  the  H10?C 
 fl£jJ?<rtJflte&,  by  how  much  they  have  more 
 Abilities  than  their  Inferiors,  has  pafs'd  them 
 by  for  their  Abufe  of  his  greater  Gifts,  and 
 lias  preferr'd  Peribns  of  meaner,  and  more  or* 
 dinary  Abilities,    before   fuch  $$}Z\\   Of  Clflfltt* 
 
 irutflj'D  Senfe  ano  Sitittgnient  5  that  "  he 
 
 .  is  able  "  even  of  dull  tc  Stones  [  Men  of 
 the  moft  ftupid  Intellects  ]  to  raife  '  up  Chil- 
 11  dren  unto  Abraham,   St.  Matt.  iii.  9.  "    that 
 
 c  out  of  the  Mouth  of  Babes  and  Sucklings  " 
 [who  are  not  arriv'd  to  diftinguiftfd  Senfe  and 
 Judgment]  "  he  has  perfected  Praife,  St.  Matt, 
 *c  xxi.  1 6. "  that  [  he  deny'd  his  Divine  Grace  ] 
 11  he  hid  the  Myfteries  of  his  Kingdom  from 
 rt  the    Wife  and  Prudent,  »    [  S^eil    Of  tUflfUI- 
 
 ijtuflj'D  Senfe  ano  Judgment]  "  and  ward 
 
 "  f^w  w«f0  2?^<?j,  "  Men  illiterate,  and  un- 
 learn'd,  [  of  «  0?5tnntP  abilities,  "  and  of 
 a  M  Duller  JFIame]  St.  Matt.  xi.  15."  that 
 among  the  Men  of  nOOiet  aitO  ii&jljtet  lPatt& 
 not  many  "  CJltfe  S0eit  after  the  Flejh,  not 
 11  many  Mighty^  not  many  Noble  are  calCd,  but 
 il  God  hath  chofen  the  fool.fj  Things  of  the  World  3 
 
 u  to    confound    the    WISE*,  M  that   no 
 
 u  Flefi  fhould  glory  in  his  Prefence,  i  Cor.  i. 
 il  26,  27,  29.  "  God  fpeaking  of  fuch  Sin- 
 ners of  diftinguifli'd  Senfe  and  Judgment,  has 
 exprefly  faid,  "  /  will  deftroy  the  Wifdom  of 
 "  the  OEJlfe,  and  will  bring  to  nothing  the  flJnBer* 
 CC  (failOUig  of  the  Prudent.  Where  is  the  WLtiZ  ? 
 4C  Where  is  the  Scribe  ?  Where  is  the  jDtfpUtfl? 
 u  of  this  World  ?  Hath  not  God  made  foolifi  the 
 u  jHBifDom  of  this  World  I  Ver.  19,  20. ?>  The 
 Divine  Oracles  have  clearly  reveal'd  to  us,  in 
 
 K  1  Oppofi* 
 
Oppofition  to  Dr.  Kenneth  Do&rine  of  the 
 "  more  Intelligent  Nature'' s  being  the  more  fufcep- 
 tc  tive  of  Divine  Grace ,  h  thac  'tis  Matter  of 
 Fadt,  that  the  more  Intelligent  Natures,  who 
 had  finned,  did  not  receive  the  Divine  Grace*, 
 and  that  the  lefs  Intelligent  Nature,  who  finned, 
 did  receive  it.  Thus  we  are  aflur'd,  that  to 
 the  Intent  Chrifr.  might  redeem  Loll  Mankind, 
 [the  LESS  INTELLIGENT  NA- 
 TURE] u  and  deliver  them-,  who  thro*  Fear 
 u  of  Death  [the  fad  Confequent  of  their  Sin] 
 44  were  all  their  Life-Time  fubjett  to  Bondage,  he 
 <c  took  not  on  him  the  Nature  of  Angels  j  but 
 "  he  took  on  him  the  SEED  OF  A  B  R  A- 
 iC  HAM,  Hebr.  ii.  15,  16.  "  Or,  as  Dr. 
 Hammond  tranflates  it,  cc  he  does  not  any  where 
 *'  lay  hold  on  Angels  ',  but  he  lays  hold  on  the 
 "  Seed  of  Abraham.  *  Which  he  paraphrafes 
 thus  *,  u  for^  his  not  faid  any  where,  that  he 
 catches  hold  of  Angels  as  they  are  falling,  or 
 running,  or  carry* d  Captive  from  him,  to  fave 
 or  refcue  them  from  Ruin,  or  to  bring  them 
 u  out  of  Captivity  ;  but  only  to  ©Clt  does  he 
 "  this  iFa&QUt  peculiarly.  "  No !  St.  Jude  tells 
 11s  of  thefe  Spirits  of  a  MORE  INTEL- 
 LIGENT NATURE  who  finned,  that 
 God  tc  hath  refertfd  them  in  everlaftlng  Chains 
 u  under  Darlnefs,  unto  the  Judgment  of  the 
 "  great  Day,  St.  Jude,  ver.  6.  "  And  St.  Peter, 
 that  u  God  fpard  not  the  Angels  that  finned^ 
 *  but  caft  them  down  to  Hell,  and  deliver  d  them 
 44  into  Chains  of  Darhnefs,  to  be  referv'd  unto 
 "  Judgment,  2  St.  Pet.  ii.  4.  "  Which  is  a 
 fearful  Example  to  teach  the  more  Intelligent 
 Natures,  particularly  our  Men  of  diftinguiftfd 
 Senfe  and  Judgment^   that   by    how    much   the 
 
 more 
 
 u 
 
C  133  ) 
 
 more   they   are   endow'd    with   Vnderfianding^ 
 with  greater  Abilities,   and   with    nobler  and 
 b?!ff&rer  iPattS,  than  others,  by  fo  much  the 
 more   they   enhance   and  aggravate  the  Guilt 
 and  Punifhment  of  their  Sins,   and  are  there- 
 fore the  more  likely   to    be    given   up   to   A 
 REPROBATE  MIND,   and    to    die    as 
 impenitently,  as  they  liv'd.     And  tho',   upon. 
 a  fick  Bed,  [".after  a  long  Courfe  of  Wicked- 
 nefs]    they  fhould  fome  of  them,   terrify 'd  by 
 the  Ladies   of  a    guilty  Conference,    "  awake 
 1C   out  of  their  Dream  of  Sin,    and  refleB,    and 
 "  look  upward  ;    the?   they  fijould  acknowledge  an 
 "  Infinite    Beings    and  fed    their    own    Immortal 
 "  Part,"   [as  the  Devils  do,  and  tremble]  tho' 
 they  fhould  reco!lecl>  and    [thro5  Preemption, 
 as  is  too  frequent,  falfly]  relflj  the  Holy  Scri- 
 ptures ;    tho'  they  fhould    "  call  for  the  Elders 
 "  of  the  Church  ,    and    think   what  to  anfwer  at 
 "  a   Judgment   Seat : "      Yet,    confideiing   the 
 Exaltednefs  of  their  Intelligent  Nature ,  and  the 
 Nobility,  and  Brightnefs   of    their  Parts,    which, 
 like  the  Fallen  Angels,    they    have   fo   vilely 
 and  fcandaloufly  abus'd,    by  their  repeated  Re- 
 bellions againfl  God  \    employing    them    to   his 
 Difhonour,  to  the  Encouragement  of  Wicked- 
 nefs  and  Vice  ;  and  to  the  Difcouragement  of 
 true  Religion   and   Virtue,    and  confequently 
 to  the   eternal  Mifery    of  great   Multitudes, 
 who  may  have  been  infedted  by,  and  follow'd, 
 and  propagated  the  Iniquities  they  have  given 
 Reputation  to,   by  their  leading  Example :    I 
 fay,  confidering  thefe  Things,   they  have  jnft 
 Reafon  to  believe,  that  it  will  be  a  very  un- 
 common,  and  unufual  MIRACLE,   if  God 
 does  not  verify  this   his  dreadful  Threat  a- 
 K  3  gainft 
 
(134) 
 
 gain  ft  them  :  c*  Becaufe  I  have  calVd,  and  ye 
 u  tCfUfttl  •>  I  kwe  ftretcWd  out  my  Hand,  and 
 "  no  Man  regarded  ;  but  ye  have  fet  ftt  ttOUffljt 
 u  all  my  Counfel,  and  would  none  of  my  Reproofs 
 "  /  alfo  will  laugh  at  YOUR  CALAMITY, 
 "  /  wtH  mock  when  YOUR  FEAR  cometh  -, 
 a  when  your  Fear  cometh  as  Defolation,  and  your 
 u  DeftruBion  cometh  as  a  Whirlwind,  when  Di- 
 *c  flrefs  and  Anguifli  cometh  upon  you.  Then 
 ^i^CALLUPONME,  BUT  I 
 "WILL  NOT  ANSWER^  THEY 
 "SHALLSEEK  MEEARLY,  BUT 
 "THEY  SHALL  NOT  FIND  ME. 
 4C  For  that  they  hated  Knowledge,  and  did  nop 
 F1  choofe  the  Fear  of  the  Lord.  They  would  none 
 <c  of  my  Counfel  ;  they  defpifd  all  my  Reproof. 
 tc  Therefore  fhall  they  eat  the  Fruit  of  their  own 
 "  Way,  and  be  fi/Pd  with  their  own  Devices, 
 "  Prov.  i.  24,  to  31.  5;  And  the  Reafon  is 
 very  manifeft  •,  for,  if  "  the  Turning  away  of 
 "  the  SIMPLE  pall  fay  them,  and  the  Pro- 
 ?  fperity  c/FOOLS  jhall  deftroy  them  ;  "  as 
 God  has  told  us,  Prov.  i.  32.  much  more  may 
 it  be  expected,  that  the  Cuming  fttthip  of  the 
 u  M  O  R  E  I N  T  E  L  L 1  G  E  N  T  "  JhaB  flay 
 them,  and  the  fwful  P20fOCttfP  of  Men  of 
 NOBLER  AND  BRIGHTER  PARTS 
 ilia  T  deftroy  them.     Bat  enough  of  this. 
 
 §  IX.  The  Doctor's  fecond  Rule  whereby 
 to  know  Doftrincs,  that  "  certainly  are  not 
 u  founded  vpon  the  Scriptures,  but  on  the  Per- 
 u  verting  of  them,  "  is,  that  they  are  "  thofe, 
 Cl  that  tend  to  \)CX^ Thovghts  of  our  Fellow 
 
 "  cbriftians,  to  pgejqpfcfri)  aha  mifcl^ijous 
 
 €i  CfftCtS  again  ft  them^    and  to   drawing,   at  it 
 
(135) 
 
 *c  were^  a  Circle  of  Salvation  round  our  [elves ,  and 
 u  leaving  out  our   Brethren  to  be  damnd,    or  by 
 *c  Miracle  to  be  favd  by  the  uncovenanted  Mer- 
 "  cies  of  God\  "    fee  his  Sermon  on  Eafler- 
 Tuefday,    17 14.     And    this,    I  fay,    is  a  falfe 
 Rule,  and  highly  Dangerous  to  true  Religion. 
 For,  it  is  fo  ioofe,  and  indeterminate,  that  it 
 leaves  Room  for  Accufttions  againft  any    the 
 belt  Doctrines  whatfoever,   which  are  utterly 
 contrary    to    the    wicked    Practices   of    many 
 Sinners,  who  are  efteem'd  to  be  our  Fellow- 
 Chriftians  ;  becaufe  he  does  not  lay  it  down 
 as  one  Condition  of  this  Rule,  that  thefe  our 
 fuppos'd  FellowChriftians    mull   be    CljtfftfilitjS 
 tntiCltl}    whofe  Faith  and  Practice  are  in  all 
 Things  regulated  by  the  Word   of  God  \    no,   if 
 they  are  fuch  as  are  commonly  call'd   u  our 
 "  Fellow  Chriftians^  "   without  diftinguifhing  of 
 what  fort  foever,  'tis  enough  for  his  Rule  of 
 Latitude ;    and    fo    for    our    fjaiO    Thoughts 
 of  them,    he  does  not   concern    himfelf   fo 
 far  as   to   inform   his  Hearers   and  Readers, 
 whether  by  the  Laws  of  Chrifiianity^    we  are 
 not  bound  to  think  Ijatt!  Things  of  the  Faith 
 and  Practice  of  fome  of  our  fuppos'd  Fellow- 
 Chriftians,   who  are   known   Heretcks-,   Schif- 
 maticksy    Priefl- Hater J,    Idolater S,  Seditious ,    Re- 
 bellious, &c.  to  think  rightly  of  whofe  refera- 
 ble State  and  Condition,  will  by  many  be  in- 
 terpreted to   be  I3£C))  {jam  ;    no   matter  for 
 this  Caution,   he  makes   no  Provifion  for  it, 
 his  Rule  mull  be  of  a  more  exteniive  Nature, 
 none  that  are  call'd  our  FellowChriftians,  mull 
 lofe  the  Benefit  of  it }    whatfoever  Doctrine 
 makes  us  to   have   hard  Thoughts    of  them, 
 £ho*  never  fo  well  grounded,   tho'  we  cannot 
 
 K  4  thinfc 
 
(  I3«  ) 
 
 think  well  of  them,  and  be  true  to  Chri* 
 ftianity  at  the  fame  time,  muft  certainly  he 
 a  Doctrine  not  of  God,  u  if  it  tends  to  PRE- 
 JUDICIAL  u  AND  MISCHIEVOUS 
 *c  Effetls  againfl  them-,  and  to  drawing,  as  it 
 u  were,  a  Girth  of  Salvation  round  our  [elves, 
 fct  and  leaving  out  our  Brethren  ['tis  to  be  re- 
 member'd  that  they  are,  undoubtedly,  ftill  our 
 Brethren,  be  they  never  fo  wicked]  lt  to  be 
 tc  damn  d,  or  bv  Miracle  to  be  fav^d  by  the  un- 
 ct  covenanted  Mercies  of  God.  ".  Thefe  prejudi- 
 cial and  mlfchievous  Effects  againft  our  Brethren 
 f  no  matter  how  juftly  the  Scripture  expofes 
 them  to  'em]  are  fure  Marks  of  Tenets  that 
 gre  "  harfi  and  offenfive  to  Charity  and  brotherly 
 f*  Love  "  ;  and  that  the  Doctrines  from  whence 
 they  are  inferr'd,  ate  certainly  not  founded  on 
 tthe  Word  of  God. 
 
 At  this  rate,  all  the  harfh  Doctrines  of  the 
 Sacred  Scriptures,  and  all  the  juft  Anathemas 
 of  the  Church  againft  Hereticks  and  Schifma- 
 ticks,  &c.  which  confign  them  over  to  eternal 
 .Damnation,  without  fincere  Repentance  and 
 Amendment,  are  falfe  Doctrines,  unjuft  and 
 cruel  Cenfures,  by  reafon  of  thefe  mifchievovs 
 EjfeEis,  and  dt  awing  a  Circle  of  Salvation  round 
 the  truly  Orthodox  and  Obedient  Members  of 
 Chrift's  Church,  excluding  thofe  Sinners,  our 
 Brethren,  to  be  d.-imn'd  \  or,  by  Miracle  "  to 
 "  be  fivd  by  the  unc  oven  anted  Mercies  of  God. 
 At  this  rate,  §t.  Paul's  black  Lift  of  Sinners, 
 
 who  "  fljaii  not  inljent  tftc  l&iitgDom  of  ®otu 
 
 muft  be  chang'd  into  a  Catalogue  of  glorify'd 
 Saints,  tho'  they  ftill  remain  in  their  vile  A- 
 fcominations ;  and  fo  we  muft  not  be  Co  harfh 
 as  to  affirm,  that  0Ur  JreilOtU  Cf$flianfi?,  who 
 
 live 
 
C  137  ) 
 
 live  and  die  in  the  Works  of  the  Flefh  *7  A- 
 dvltery,  Formication ,  Vncleannefs,  Lafcivioufnefsy 
 IDOLATRY,  [here  is  good  Provifion  tor 
 Papifts  !  ]  Witchcraft^  Hatred,  Variance,  Emu- 
 lation,  Wrath,  Strife,  SEDITIONS,  HE- 
 RESIES, [here  Hereticks,  Schifmaticks,  and 
 Rebels,  need  not  fear  ]  Envyings,  Murders, 
 Drunkennefs,  Revellings,  and  fuck  like  « — *  JJjall 
 not  inherit  the  Kingdom  of  Gody  Gal.  V.  T  9,  2C, 
 2i.  No,  this  makes  us  have  u  hard  Thoughts 
 cc  of  them  \  "  this  tends  to  "  prejudicial  and 
 *4  mifchievous  Effects  againft  them  ',  this,  fome 
 will  fay,  is  u  offenfive  to  Brotherly  Love,  "  to 
 be  thus  fevere  !  for,  it  "  draws  a  Circle  of 
 "  Salvation  round  "  thofe  who  have  the  Fruits 
 of  the  Spirit  *?  Love,  Joy,  Peace,  Long-Suffer- 
 ing, Gentlenefs,  Goodnefs,  jFilttfj,  [  which  muft 
 conftantly  attend  all  the  other  Graces,  Dr. 
 Kennet  ]  Meeknefs.t  and  Temperance,  ver.  22,  23. 
 and  leaves  out  thofe  others  to  be  damn'd. 
 
 So  again,  our  Saviour's  Do&rine,  that  ex- 
 cept a  Man  be  born  of  jKHotXl^  and  of  the 
 Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of 
 God,  St.  Jqh.  iii.  5.  Which  all  found  and 
 orthodox  Chriftians  affirm  to  be  fpoken  of 
 Water  Baptiftn,  may,  by  Dr.  Kenneth  Rule,  be 
 juftly  objected  againft  by  the  Quakers,  who 
 rejed  Baptifm  ',  for  may  they  not  fay,  "  this 
 *c  tends  to  hard  Thoughts  "  of  us  your  Fellow- 
 Chriftians,  [as  they  will  call  themfelves  ]  this 
 tends  to    a    prejudicial    and    mifchievous    Effelts 
 
 ;  again fl  us  %  it  draws  a  Circle  of  Salvation 
 rt  round  you  Baptized  Chriftians,  leaving  out  us 
 a  your  BRETHREN  to  be  damn'd,   or  by 
 
 6  Miracle  to  be  fav*d  by  the  uncovenanted  Mer- 
 fiC  cies   of  God.  "     This   Tenet   is   "  fo   harjh 
 
 "  and 
 
Ct  and  offenfive  to  Brotherly  Love,  that  ttX- 
 <c  tafolp  "  Water  Baptifm  is  a  not  founded 
 Ct  -upon  the  Scriptures,  but  on  the  Perverting  of 
 *'  them,  "  according  to  Dr.  Kenneth  Rule  for 
 judging  which  are  falfe  and  uncharitable  Do- 
 ctrines. 
 
 Such,  and  no  lefs  than  fuch,  are  the  dire 
 Effects  of  being  led  by,  and  following  this 
 his  loofe,  indeterminate \  extravagant  Latitudina- 
 rian  falfe  Rule  for  judging  of  Doctrines }  where- 
 by, the  Force,  Power,  and  Obligation  of  every 
 Doctrine  of  Chriftianity  C  that  tends  to  hurt- 
 ful Confequences  againft  the  Carelefs,  Sloth- 
 ful, Wicked,  and  Difobedient  ]  are  taken  a- 
 way,  and  render'd  of  no  Effect  ;  but  let  us 
 not  be  lC  deceived,  God  is  not  mocked,  for  what' 
 *c  foever  a  Man  foxpeth,  that  Jhall  he  alfo  reap, 
 *  pal.  vl  7.  "  And  therefore  let  Confe- 
 quences be  never  fo  terrible,  Men  muft  look 
 to  themfelves,  and  endeavour  to  efcape  them. 
 Truth  is  not  lefs  Truth,  for  any  mifchievous 
 Confequences  that  Men  involve  themfelves  into, 
 by  departing  from,  or  not  coming  up  to  it. 
 Truth  is  immutable,  and  ftandeth  firm  for 
 ever,  let  Confequences  be  what  they  will  ; 
 and  'tis  only  by  THIS  TEST,  that  all 
 Doctrines  mult  be  try'd,  and  'tis  by  this  we 
 can  fafely  determine,  that  Dr.  Kenneth  Rule 
 for  trying  Doctrines  is  notorioufly  Falfe,  and 
 sherefore  highly  Dangerous  to  the  Chriftian 
 Religion.  Let  us  now  fee  how  he  exempli- 
 fies this  falfe  Rule. 
 
 §  X.  He  gives  us  for  an  Example,  what 
 he  calls  "  The  New  Doclrine,  that  Perfons  Bap- 
 4*  tizjd  by  any  Minifier  not  Eplfcopally  Ordainydy 
 
C  139 ) 
 
 *f  {whether  at  Home,  or  in  Foreign  Protefiant 
 *4  Churches  )  mufi  renounce  their  Baptifm  as  In- 
 tc  valid,  and  ought  to  be  Re-Baptized.  A  Do- 
 "  Brine  [  fays  he  ]  £tp?eflj?  COtttrat}?  to  the 
 "  Judgment  and  Pratlice  of  our  own  Church,  and 
 
 "  fuff  ictentlp  confttteo  h  the  btn  of  our  a>(« 
 
 ct  BinCSi  of  the  pafi  and  preftnt  Age,  p.  25.  ? 
 
 la  anfwer  to  which,  'tis  manifelt  from  all 
 that  has  been  written  upon  this  Subject,  and 
 even  Mr.  Bingham  has  confirm'd  it,  that  the 
 ancient  Catholick  Church  never  had  any  other 
 Baptifm,  than  Epifcopal  \  confequently,  the 
 ancient  Catholick  Church  never  had  a  Do- 
 clrine,  that  Baptifm  by  Perfons  never  com- 
 miflion'd  by  Biftjops,  was  Valid ;  and  there- 
 fore, the  pretended  Validity  of  fuch  Baptifms 
 is,  in  Truth,  the  NEW  DOCTRINE; 
 and  every  Body  may  know  from  whence  it 
 came,  viz.*  from  the  corrupt  Church  of  Rome, 
 and  confequently,  that  it  is  no  other  than 
 POPERY   it   felf. 
 
 What  he  afferts  of  the  UltttJgmettt  °^  m* 
 Church,  is  notorioufly  Fallacious,  and  has  been 
 prov'd  to  be  fo,  in  Dffenters,  and  other  unau- 
 thorized Baptifms,  Null  and  Void,  by  the  Articles, 
 Canons,  and  Rubricks  of  the  Church  0/EnglanoV 
 
 And  that  this  Doctrine  has  been  fufficiently 
 confuted,  &c  is  a  great  Miftake,  it  never  was 
 confuted  at  all  *,  if  it  was,  why  does  he  not 
 name  by  whom,  and  when,  that  we  may  be- 
 lieve him  ?  His  bare  ipfe  dixit  will  not  do, 
 let  him  produce  his  Vouchers. 
 
 §  XL  Next  he  asks,  u  What  is  the  Confe- 
 Cl  quence  of  this  Dotlrine,  fo  induftrioufly  [pre ad 
 a  at  this  Time  f    The  Confe quence    [  he  fays  ]  is% 
 
 "  and 
 
C  Mo  ) 
 
 ct  and  he  doubts  not  was  intended  to  be,  that 
 ct  in  our  own  Communion  "'tis  hard  to  know,  who 
 xi  was  rightly  made  a  Chriftian,   p.  26\  * 
 
 This  is  one  of  his  "  fad  and  terrible  Confe- 
 tc  quences,  "  when  yet  'tis  00  C3f]J  to  know, 
 iC  who  was  rightly  made  a  Chriftian,  ''  as  it  is 
 to  know,  who  is  in  Epifcopal  Orders.  And  if 
 this  be  not  eafy,  then  i  am  fure  all  pretended 
 Orders  whatfoever,  and  all  pretended  Bap- 
 tifms  too,  are  liable  to  the  fame  Objection  of 
 Difficulty,  and  indeed  to  very  much  great- 
 er Objections  •,  but  this  is  nothing  but  meer 
 Trifling. 
 
 §  XII.  Another  of  his  fdd  and  terrible  Con- 
 fequences  is,  That  u  out  of  our  Communion  Pro- 
 u  te ft  ants  are  no  Chriftians.  "  He  means  Prote- 
 ftants  who  are  not  Epifcopally  Baptiz'd.  If  by 
 Chriftians  be  underftood  Perfons  incorporated 
 into  Chrift's  Church,  as  Chrifr,  himfelf  has  ap- 
 pointed, then  'tis  own'd  by  the  AfTertors  of 
 the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  that  this  is  a 
 Confequence  of  that  Doctrine  \  that  fuch  Pro- 
 tectants are  not  Chriftians  in  this  Senfe  of  the 
 Word,  becaufe  'tis  manifefl,  and  has  been 
 prov'd,  that  they  are  not  fo  incorporated  into 
 the  Church  of  Chrift  ^  and  if  Dr.  Kennet  calls 
 this  hard  and  uncharitable ,  he  muft  not  expect 
 that  his  Calling  it  fo  will  be  look'd  upon  as  an 
 Argument  that  it  is  really  uncharitable,  when 
 he  does  not  prove,  that  they  are  actually  in- 
 corporated into  Chrift's  Church  by  UnUlffltttttB 
 QSapti^EtS,  as  'tis  notorious  he  does  not  once 
 endeavour  to  do.  But  in  another  Senfe  of  the 
 Word  Chriftians,  the  AfTertors  of  the  Invali- 
 dity of  Lay-Baptifm   do  believe,   and    hope, 
 
 that 
 
(M*  ) 
 
 that  many  Thoufands  of  fincere  PeiTons  among 
 thofe  Proteftants  are  Chriftians,  tho'  they  have 
 not  yet  received  Valid  Baptifm,  namely,  in  the 
 fame  Senfe  that  the  Ancient  Catechumens^  or 
 Candidates  for  Holy  Baptifm  Were  efteem'd 
 Chriftians,  in  the  Times  of  the  Primitive  Church. 
 For  we  do  not  fcruple  to  believe,  that  Multi- 
 tudes of  'em  have  that  Faith  and  Repentance, 
 which  qualify  Men  for  Baptifm  \  and  that  if 
 they  thought,  or  could  learn,  that  they  were 
 not  yet  validly  Baptiz'd,  they  would  feek  for, 
 and  endeavour  to  receive  Valid  Baptifm,  with 
 even  as  great  Zeal  and  Earneflnefs^  as  any  of 
 the  Ancient  Candidates  for  Baptifm  did  ufe  to 
 do  :  And  we  think  as  favourably  of  their  fu- 
 ture State,  tho'  they  happen  [  not  thro'  their 
 own  Fault]  to  die  without  Valid  Baptifm,  as 
 the  Primitive  Chriftians  did  of  that  of  their  Ca- 
 techumens, who  happen'd  to  die  before  they 
 could  be  Baptiz'd.  But  this  does  not  excufe 
 their  wilful  Neglecl:  of  Epifcopal  Baptifm,  who 
 can  have  it  *,  as  the  Primitive  Chriftians  Cha- 
 rity for  their  departed  Catechumens,  did  not 
 excufe  the  Negleft  which  others  were  guilty 
 ofT  for  not  qualifying  themfelves  for,  and  re- 
 ceiving Baptifm  when  they  might  have  had  \u 
 And  this  the  Advocates  for  Lay-Baptifm  have 
 been  told  often  enough,  in  almoft  every  Piece 
 that  has  been  written  againft  Lay-Baptifm,  if 
 they  would  but  take  Notice  of  it  \  and  if  this 
 Charity  is  not  of  the  fame  Nature  with  their 
 LATITUDE,  it  is,  becaufe  their  Latitude 
 is  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  there- 
 fore in  a  very  high  Degree  tUtCfjfitftabJ^  and_ 
 confequently,  dangerous  to  the  Interefts  of 
 True  Religion. 
 
 §  XIII. 
 
C  »4*  ) 
 
 §  XIII.  Another  fad  and  terrible  Confequence 
 of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  he  fays,  is, 
 cf  That  the  Baptifm  of  Paptftg  «  Good  and 
 cc  Valid  ',  but  that  of  the  Reformed,  and  of  the 
 "  Evangelical,  fuppofe  in  France  and  Germany, 
 <c  is  Void  and  of  no  EffeB. 
 
 A   dreadful  Thing  this,    that  a  Papift   fhould 
 have  Valid  Baptifm  !    This  is  a  terrible  Confe- 
 quence indeed  !   Is  it  poifible  that  Papifts  fhould 
 have  any  Thing  among  them  that's  good,  which 
 Proteftants  abroad  have  not?  Yes,  certainly, 
 'tis  poflible,  and  moft  notorious  it  is  that  they 
 have  ',  for,  as  wicked  as  they  are,  [and  doubt- 
 lefs,  the  Wickednefs  of  that   Church  is  very 
 Great]   they  have  Valid  Orders,  becaufe  they 
 have  Epifcopacy,  which  is  Chrift's  Inftitution  •, 
 and  this  Multitudes   of  Proteftants  have  not. 
 Our  Church  owns  this,  and  praclifes  according- 
 ly •,  for  (he  does  not  Ordain  one,  who  has  been 
 Epifcopally  Ordain'd  in   the  Church  of  Rome7 
 when  he  is  converted  from  his  Errors,  and  re- 
 turns to  our  Church,  but  fhe  reckons  him  to 
 have  Valid  Orders  to  minifter  in  the  Sacred  Fun- 
 ctions }  and  he  minifters  accordingly  by  Virtue  of 
 thofe  Orders.     But  fuch  as  come  from  the  Non- 
 Epifcopal  Proteftants,  and  would  fo  officiate,  fhe 
 requires  to  be  Epifcopally  Ordain  d,  and  regards 
 not  their  former  Pretences  to  Holy  Orders  \  fhe 
 owns  them  not  for  Minifters  of  Chrift,  whatfo- 
 ever  fome  of  her  Communion  may  have  efteem'd 
 and  call'd  them.     And  fince  Papifts  have  this 
 one  good  Thing,  which  fome  Proteftants  have  not  ; 
 and  fince  'tis  no  fuch  terrible  Confequence,  as 
 fliould  make  our  Church  admit  of  the  Validity 
 of  thofe  Proteftants  Lay- Ordinations,  there  is 
 
 no 
 
no  Reafon    why  their  Lay^Baptifms  (hould   be 
 efteem'd  Valid,  for  fear  the  Papifts,  who  have 
 Epifcopal  Baptifm,  fhould  be  thought  to  have 
 Valid  Baptifm,   which  fuch   Proteftants   have 
 not*    For,  their  Lay-Baptifms  are  as  much  con- 
 demn'd,  nay,  null'd,  as  their  Lay-Ordinations 
 are,  by  the  Inftitution  of  Chrift  ^   and  to  this 
 we   muft   adhere,  let  Confequences  be  what 
 they  will.     The  belt  way  to  avoid  ill  Confe- 
 quences, is  clofely  to  follow  the  Holy  Inftituti- 
 ons  of  our  Lord  and  Matter,  and  not  by  our  falfe 
 R  E  F I  N  I  N  G  S,  to  fet  our  felves  up  as  wifer 
 than  he.     Thofe  Proteftants  may  as  eafily  have 
 Valid  Orders,    and  confequently  Valid  Sacra- 
 ments,   which    Papifts   have,     as    the   Primi- 
 tive Chriftians  had,  under  all  the  dreadful  Per- 
 fecutions  they  fuffer'd   during  the  Three  firft 
 Centuries*,    when  the  Violence  of  the  Fury, 
 and  Malice  of  their  Enemies,    was   certainly 
 difcharg'd   principally  on  the  Heads  of  their 
 Bifhops :  This  did  not  hinder  the  Succeflion  of 
 Bifhops,   tho'  'twas  at  that  time  commonly  a 
 Succeflion  to   the    Suffering    of    Martyrdom  \ 
 their  Ordinations  ftill  went  on,  and  fo  they 
 might  ftill    have   gone   on  among   thofe  Fo- 
 reigners,   if  Men  had  more  of  that  true  ge- 
 nuine Spirit  of  Chriftianity,    wherewith  Chri- 
 ftians were  infpir'd  in  thofe  Days*,  but  if  we 
 will  not  have,   nor  be  Bifhops,    except  with 
 worldly  Pomp  and  Splendor,    with  large  E- 
 ftates,   and  noble  Palaces,   and  Equipages:    If 
 in  Places,  where  thefe  Things  cannot  be  had, 
 there  muft  be  neither  Bifhops,  nor  Epifcopally 
 Ordain'd   Priefts  and  Deacons  j    then,    thofe 
 who  are  concern'd  in   the  hindering  of  fuch 
 Orders,  or  in  not  fceking   for  'em,   muft  be 
 
 charg'd 
 
C  H4  ) 
 
 charg'd  'with  all  the  fad  and  terrible  Co  fife- 
 qucnces,  that  follow  from  the  Want  of  a 
 Valid  Miniftry,  and  Valid  Sacrartlents  •,  for 
 Chrift's  Holy  Inftitutions  muft  not  be  di- 
 ipens'd  with  to  give  way  to  the  Pride,  Va- 
 nity, Worldly-Mindednefs,  Sloth,  Idlenefs, 
 Timoroufnefs ,  and  Fearfnlnefs  of  finfui 
 Men. 
 
 §  XIV.  His  fatt  fad  and  terrible  Coilfe- 
 quertce  of  the?  Irivafidity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  he 
 makes  to  be,  u  that  we  dre  nearer  to  P  O- 
 U  P  E  R  Y,  than  we  ate  to  the  reft  of  the  Re- 
 tC  formation.  "      This  is  an  Echo  of  the  B — p 
 
 of"  5 m%  Outcry,  that  the  Doftrine  of  the 
 
 Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  is  a  g&tp  ttitttntttf 
 J30pctp*  But  fuch  Outcries  as  thefe  are  noto- 
 rioftfly  "ridiculous,  fo  long  as  'tis  well  known, 
 that  the  Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm  is  one  of 
 the  peculiar  Corruptions  of  Popery,  and  Dr. 
 Kennet  himfelf,  doubtlefs,  knows  it  to  be  fo, 
 tho'  he  now  reprefents  the  oppofite  Dodtrine 
 to  be  a  nearer  Approach  to  Popery,  than  to 
 the  Reformation.  Strange  Infinuation  this, 
 we  are  the  nearer  to  corrupt  Popery,  the  far- 
 ther we  are  remov'd  from  it  !  By  denying  the 
 Validity  of  Lay-Baptifm,  we  come  nearer  to 
 Popery  which  owns  its  Validity  !  But  alas, 
 'tis  to  be  fear'd,  the  great  Grievance  is  in- 
 finuated  to  be,  that  by  having  CSpfftopfll 
 iSflptifm,  "  rr>e  are  nearer  to  ]3mmh  than  we 
 *  are  to  the  reft  of  the  Reformation.  "  At  this 
 rate,  Epifcopal  Baptifm  is  a  Corruption  of 
 Popery*,  [for  when  we  talk  of  Popery,  we 
 mean  no  other  than  the  Corruptions  of  the 
 Church  of  Rcme~\  and    fo    we  mull    lay  afide 
 
 Epifcopal 
 
C'45) 
 
 Epifcopal  Baptifm,  and  take  up  Lay-Baptifm. 
 as  a  purer  ©finance  !  That  we  may  be 
 u  nearer  to  the  reft  of  the  Reformation,  "  than 
 we  are  to  what  he  calls  ]£>opiup*  Thus  the 
 beft  of  Things,  if  found  among  Papifls,  muft, 
 to  ferve  a  Turn,  be  falfly  calfd  Popery  and 
 we  muft  not  retain  it,  but  follow  its  very 
 Oppofite,  that  we  may  be  like  fome  of  the  reft 
 of  our  Neighbours !  Herd's  Charity  with  a  wit- 
 Jiefs  ;  no  matter  for  Truth  }  the  Primitive 
 Chriftians,  from  the  very  Times  of  the  Apo- 
 flles,  had;  according  to  Chrift's  Inftitution,  no 
 other  than  Epifcopal  Baptifm  j  they  were  in 
 this  refpecl  nearer  to  what  the  Doftor  calls 
 130pCrp,  than  they  were  to  that  Reformation  / 
 which  has  departed  from  Epifcopacy.  But  this 
 Reformation !  mull  be  our  Standard  }  we  muft  not 
 regard  the  Apoftolick,  nor  following  pure  Ages 
 of  the  Church  !  No,  our  New  Reformers  have 
 given  us  a  better  Scheme  of  Religion }  they  are 
 our  fafeft  Guides !  If  we  do  not  concurr  with, 
 and  follow  them,  in  any  one  Particular,  how 
 near  foever  we  thereby  keep  to  the  Original 
 Inftitution]  'tis  all  Popery^  if  the  wicked  Pa- 
 pifts  happen  to  be  blefs'd  fo  far,  as  to  be  in 
 the  Right  in  that  one  Inftance  !  But,  'tis  aa 
 amazing  Thing  to  fee  Men  of  Senfe  and  Learn- 
 ing thus  affront  their  own  Reafon  and  Under- 
 Handing. 
 
 §  XV.  He  fays,  cc  There  be  other  fad  and 
 <c  terrible  Confeqvences  in  i>,  [viz..  in  the  Do- 
 ctrine of  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifm  ]  "  that 
 4C  a  charitable  Chriftian  would  avoid,  and  cannot 
 "  but  abhorr.  It  [eems,  at  THIS  JUNCTURE, 
 44  to  be  calculated  for    the  Services  of  13OP0tP, 
 
 L  4C  smd 
 
(  140 
 
 £c  +nd    for    Lejfenlng    the    Proteflant    Inttrejt    %n 
 "  Europe. 
 
 This  is  all  juft  as  good  as  what  he  faid  be- 
 fore.    No  doubt,  'tis  very  much  for  the  Ser- 
 vices c/POFERY,  to  write  and  preach againft 
 one  of  the  peculiar  Corruptions  of  the  Papifts  ! 
 as  Lay-Baptifin  moft  certainly  is.    But  this  has 
 been  fpoken  to  already.     How  came  the  Do&or 
 to    fanfy    that  it  was    cc  calculated  at  THIS 
 "JUNCTURE?    Has  he  never  heard  that 
 St.  Ignatius,  in   the   Apoftoiick  Age,  efpous'd 
 this  Doclrine  ?  That  'twas  exprefly   taught  by 
 St.  Cyprian,    and  Multitudes    of  his   Collegne 
 Bilhops,   of   the  African  and  Eafiem  Churches 
 in   the  Third  Century  *,   St.  Bafilj    St.  Chryfo- 
 fiome,  and  Pacianus  in  the  Fourth,  and  calcu- 
 lated by  them  from  the  Inftitutions  of  our  Sa- 
 viour himfelf?   Why   this   Infinuation  of  its 
 having  been  calculated  at  tljtg  3|l!tUlttt0,  an? 
 more  than  at  another  ?    But,  how  can  it  be 
 defign'd    to   leiTen    "  the  Proteftant  Interefi    in 
 u  Europe  f.  Does  it  leflen  their  Intereft,  to  put 
 'em  in  mind  of  the  Neceflity  of  following  the 
 Rules  of  our  Saviour  Chrift,  the  Supreme  Head 
 of  the  Church  j  and  confequently,  to  fecure  Va- 
 lid Orders,  and  Valid  Sacraments  ?    What  fort 
 of  Intereft  does  it  leflen  ?   Is  it  their  Spiritual  ? 
 No  certainly,  for  Chriil's  Inftitutions  do  infal- 
 libly promote  that.    Is  it  then  their  worldly 
 Intereft  which  is  lefTen'd  hereby?   If  it  be,  In 
 what  refpeft  does  it  leflen  it?     He  leaves  that 
 to  his  Hearers  and  Readers,  which  fhews  he 
 could  not  tell  in  what  Particular  their  world- 
 ly Intereft  is  lelTen'd  by  this  Doftrine.    And 
 indeed,   he  will  never  be  able  to  prove   that 
 'tis  lefTen'd  thereby  in  any  refpect  whatfoever; 
 
 and 
 
(  I5i  ) 
 
 Whether  [to  fpeak  in  his  own  Words,  p.  13. 
 as  near  as  I  can]  he  has  not,  contrary  to 
 all  Chriftian  Charity,  endeavour'd  to  u  flip 
 a  the  Intention,  to  M  pervert  the  Occafion,  "  to 
 "  felaff  t!jC  EeptttattOIt,  to  a  mifreprefent  the 
 "  Deed,  and  even  to  vilifie  [  the  Oppofers 
 of  Popery  ]  the  Revivers  of  the  Do&rine  of 
 the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Baptifm  ;  a  Doctrine, 
 4C  which,  in  the  Eye  and  Efiimate  of  others^ 
 [particularly  of  fome  of  the  earliefi  and  tDlfcfJ 
 ©apS  of  the  Chriftian  Church]  was,  [and 
 even  is  Co  now,  to  many,  very  many  of  the  Beit 
 and  molt  Learned  Members  of  our  own  Church] 
 "  lOfcdp  antJ  Of  ©005  Repfljt "  ?  Whether, 
 I  fay,  he  has  not  thus  afted,  to  the  Prejudice 
 of  Truth,  and  uncharitably  endeavour'd  to 
 give  Reputation  to  a  Popifli  Error  -7  \  leave 
 to  the  Impartial,  and  Vnprejudic'd  to  deter- 
 mine, who  have  duly  confider'd  the  Nature 
 of  this  Dodrine,  and  his  uncomely  Manner  of 
 treating  it. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
Some  B  O  0 1#$  printed  for,  and  fold  hy  Henry  Cle- 
 ments at  the  Half- Moon  in  St.  £aul\r  Church-yard. 
 
 L^y-Baptfm  Invalid.  An  Eflay  to  prove,  that  fuch  Bap- 
 tifm is  Null  and  Void,  when  adnuniftred  in  Oppofition 
 to  the  Divine  Right  of*  the  Apoflolical  Succeflion.  Oc- 
 cafion'd  chiefly  by  the  Anti-Epik-opal  Usurpations  of  our 
 Enil'p  Dillenting  Teachers.  The  3d  Edition  more  correct 
 and  enlarg'd  than  the  former ;  in  which  fome  Notice  is  taken 
 of  a  Declaration  lately  propos'd  to  be  eftablifli'd,  Qpc:  with 
 an  Appendix,  wherein  the  boafted  Unanfwerable  Objection 
 of  the  B— -  ot"  S- —  and  other  new  Objections  are  aniwer'd, 
 by  a  Lay-Hand.  To  which  is  prefix'd  a  Letter  to  the  Au- 
 thor, by  the  Reverend  George  Hickes,  D.  D. 
 
 j  The  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid  :  Shewing,  tjiat 
 the  Ancient  Catholick  Church  never  had  any  Ecclehaftical 
 Law,  Tradition  or  Cunom,  for  the  Validity  of  Baptifms  per- 
 forra'd  by  Perfons  who  never  were  commiflion'd  by  Bifhops 
 to  Baptize.  All  prov'd  from  the  Reverend  Mr.  Bingham's 
 Schel aftic al  Hifhry  $f  Lay-Baptifm,  and  from  other  Eviden- 
 ces not  produe'd  by  that  Hiftorian. 
 
 Sacerdotal  Powers  :  Or  the  Neceflity  of  Confeflion,  Pe- 
 nance and  Abfolution.  Together  with  the  Nullity  of  unau- 
 thqriz'd  Lay-Baptifm  afferted. 
 
 D'fjenters,  and  other  unauthoriz'd  Baptifm  Null  and  Void, 
 by  the  Articles,  Canons,  and  Rubricks  of  the  Church  of 
 England  ;  In  Anfwer  to  a  Pamphlet  call'd,  The  Judgment 
 of  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  Cafe  of  Lay  Baptifm,  and 
 cf  Biff  enters  Baptifm. 
 
 The  Bifhop  of  Oxford's  Charge  confider'd,  in  reference 
 to  the  Independency  of  the  Church  upon  the  State.  A  pro- 
 per Sacrifice  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  LordVSupper.  The 
 Nature  and  Neceility  of  Sacerdotal  Abfolution.  And  the 
 Invalidity  of  Baptifm  adminiflred  by  Perfons  not  Epifcopally 
 Ordain'd.  In  an  humble  Addrefs  to  his  Lordfhip.  All  thefe 
 by  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptifm  bivalid* 
 
 A  Letter  to  the  Author  oi  Lay-Baptifm  Invalid',  wherein 
 the  Popifh  Doctrine  of  Lay-Baptifm,  taught  in  a  Sermon 
 preach'd  by  the  B —  of  S —  the  7th  of  November  1710,  is^ 
 cenfur'd  and  condemn' d  by  the  Greek  Church,  the  Church  of* 
 England,  the  Reformed  abroad,  and  even  by  our  Englifo 
 Presbyterian  Sectaries ;  which  may  be  added  as  an  Appendix 
 to  Sacerdotal  Vowers. 
 
 The  Judgment  of  the  Reformed  in  Trance,  extracted  out 
 the  Ads  of  their  Publick  Synods,  as  alfo  that  of  Mr.  Calvin, 
 and  other  Genevans,  concerning  the  Invalidity  of  Lay-Bap- 
 tifn.  In  a  Letter  to  the  Author  of  Lay-Baftifm  Invalid.  By 
 a  Prieft  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  Rector  of  a  Church 
 in  the  Cky  of  London. 
 
X