So Nicephorus Califtus his Story *, which he relates without any Cenfure, concerning a Jew's being miraculously heal'd of a dangerous Diftemper, by being Baptiz'd with Sand 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 Mofchus, and Nicephorus Califtus, had been fo vain as to believe these Fancies, to have been agreeable to the Church's general Senfe and Practice, yet fuch fabulous Writers Belief alone, without other concurring authentick Evidence, do's not prove that the Church's general Sense 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 banded down to us by fabulous Writers, if they believ'd them to have been agreeable to the Senfe and Practice of the Church, must be receiv'd as fuch; and fo the fenfelefs Dreams of Purgatory, of Adoration of Saints and Angels, and of the Worshipping of Images, together with the reft of the vain Trumpery of the Church of Rome, as related by fome vifionary, fabulous Writers, muft be acknowledg'd to be, according to the general Senfe

*Judæus- quidam in Locis Defertis, & inaquofis nobifcum iter faciebat. Quum vero Morbo Repentino ita affligeretur, ut crederetur moriturus comitibus fuis obfecrando inftitit ut Divini Lavacri participem facerent Illi itaque detractis homini veftibus, arena quæ ibi erat pro aqua ufi, in Nomine Pa. tris, c. tertiùm arena in eum conjecta Baptizarunt. Per hane tam infolitam, & admirandam facrorum myfteriorum initiationem, imbecillitate omni tanquam vinculo quodam is folutus, longe melius quam illi validus jam prorfus iter fecit. Niceph. Calif. Ecclef. Hift. Lib. iii. 6. 37. Paris 1630.

G 4

and

and Practice of the Church, which will bring us to a fine Pafs indeed, if this be a good way of arguing.

.

it

But further; Mr. Bingham cannot prove, that even Rufinus himself, the firft Relater of Alexander's fuppos'd Determination, did really believe, that he made any fuch Determination at all: His fpeaking of it in fuch dubious Terms as traditur ftatuiffe, "is faid that he determin'd," plainly implies his Diffidence about this Part of the Story; that Socrates Scholafticus utterly difbeliev'd it, is plain by his refufing to Copy it from Rufinus, as I have largely obferv'd before. 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 Alexander's Determination was made upon Mr. Bingham's Foundation; for that Author, whoever he was, fuppos'd, that the ftory'd Baptifm by the Boy Athanafius, was done by fome certain Divine Inspiration; and he judg'd fo by the fuppos'd Event, viz. Alexander's ordering the Children not to be Re-baptiz'd; as if he thought, that Alexander had known of the Divine Infpiration, and that he confequently efteem'd the Baptifm to have been by God's Appointment, and therefore not to be repeated. What is this but a Suppofition, that the Baptifm was by Divine Commiffion and Authority? Nay, his judging fo by the fuppos'd Event of Alexander's Determination, fignifies his Opinion to have been, that Alexander would not, or fhould not, have made fuch a Determination, if he had thought that the Baptifm had been done without the Divine Commiffion and Authority:

* Alexander ad fe vocat, auditque non illos facra irrififfe, sed ut ex eventu Colligas feciffe Divino quodam inftinctu. Photii. Biblioth. Cod. 258. p. 1430.

For

"

For why fhould he say, "That we may collect the Baptifm to have been by Divine Infpiration, from "Alexander's Determination about it; If he had believ'd that Alexander had Authority to make fuch a Determination concerning Baptifm perform'd by Perfons 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 Commiffion.] I fay, There is no Ground to Believe this Story to have been agreeable, but rather contrary to the General Senfe and Practice of the Church; fince Rufinus, the first Publisher of it, relates the Determination as doubtful; not venturing to be pofitive about it. Socrates, the more Judicious and Competent Hiftorian, utterly difcredits it, by not giving it any room in, but wholly leaving it out of his Hiftory, that part of it which he transcrib'd from Rufinus. 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 Inspiration; which, when true and certain, is the fame as the Divine Commiffion, and fo do's not favour Baptifms done without any Commiffion at all. All thefe, thus discountenancing the Notion of Alexander's Determining Baptifin to be Good and Valid, when done without a Divine Commiffion, are fo many Evidences against this Notion's being the General Senfe and Practice of the Church; and, together with all that has been faid before, do abundantly betray the Story of Alexander's fuppos'd Determination to be no better than a meer Fable.

Mr.

Mr. Bingham tells us, He believes "There is no "Canon that does antecedently Authorize one Youth, without Neceflity 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 greatest Neceffity; for his Words ftand fo loofe, as to leave room for his Reader to believe, that there may be a Canon for Youths to Baptize in times of Neceflity.

c

He fays again, "As to the Fact of Athanafius, any One will readily own, that there was neither Canon nor Precedent, Perhaps, to warrant the Doing it ; and it would be strange, if any fuch Canon should be "made in the Church," pag. 32. But why muft we have this Perhaps clapp'd in? It is more fair, to let the Reader know Certainly, that there never was any fuch Canon or Precedent at all: Thefe Perhaps's are no fure Guides to Enquiring Perfons, efpecially in Cafes which require more pofitive Determinations. The following Words, indeed, are fomething more home, "It would be "Strange, if any fuch Canon Should be made in the CC Church. This is very right; it would fo But why? What is the reafon that it would be fo ftrange? The Answer is very eafie; Because it never was the General Senfe and Practice of the Church; She never had any Precedent for it: This is the reason why fuch a Canon would be a ftrange thing. And now, is it not a fair Question to ask, Was it not as ftrange a thing, for a Bishop to Ratifie, what it would have been ftrange for the Church antecedently to Authorize? Was it not wholly new and ftrange, for Alexander to Determine that to be Valid, for which he had no Precedent or Canon: For if there was no Precedent or

Canon

:

Canon for the Boy Athanafius's Baptizing, (and it would be strange, if any fuch Canon fhould be made.) Upon what foundation could Alexander Determine the Validity of Athanafius's Baptizing, when there was no Precedent of, or Canon for, fuch a Baptifin before; and certainly, there was no Example 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 Pratice of the Church.

'

Mr. Bingham's believing, that 'tis no easie matter to produce an ancient Canon, directly to Con"front the fuppos'd Determination of Alexander, by Declaring, That fuch Irregular Baptifms are utterly Null and Void, tho' they have the Postnate "Allowance of the Church where they are done, "which (he fays) was the peculiar Circumftance

r

of the prefent Cafe, pag. 32, 33. is nothing at all to the purpose: Becaufe, the Inftitution of Baptifm, and the Laws of the Church, by requiring Baptifin conftantly to be adminifter'd by One vefted with the Divine Commiffion, without making any Exceptions in favour of Baptifm by fuch as never had that Commiffion; do leave thefe pretended Baptifms in the fame ftate, as the Inftitution of Baptifm found them at first, viz. in the State of Uninftituted Adminiftrations, i. e. wholly Null and Void for the Purposes of the Inftituted Miniftration; because, no Miniftration whatsoever of Baptifin, could ever have been Valid for Chriftian Purposes, but by virtue of a Divine Institution and the Miniftration we are speaking of, was utterly deftitute of any fuch Inftitution, except Mr. Bingbam can prove it to have been by Divine Infpira