cc

Сс

men ufually mean by fuch Words; namely, not authoriz'd, or never authoriz'd; not commiffion'd, or never commiffion'd: And Mr. Bingham might have fav'd himself and his Reader too a great deal of Time and Trouble, if he bad but rightly confider'd my VIth Definition in Page 34, of the 3d Edition of Lay-Baptifm Invalid: which is this; "By a Lay-Adminiftration, "I mean, that which is perform'd by one, whe never was Commission'd oz Impower'd for that Aa, by those whom God has appointed to be the Conveyers of his Authority and Commiffion to "Men for that purpose." For certainly Baptifm by fuch Perfons as thefe, is Lay-Baptifm; and because never Commiffion'd, therefore nauthoziz'd Baptism. Indeed, if there can be any fuch thing as the giving of a Real Authority to Laymen to Baptize, then, when Authoriz'd, they'll cease in that Refpect to be Laymen, baving [if they can have] a Sacerdotal Power to Baptize 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 conferr'd on them, it wants still to be prov'd.

He Demands at the Bottom of his 149th Page, "How can it be faid with Truth, that no Coun"cil can be produced for the Validity of Lay « Baptism, or Unauthoriz’o Baptism, when He himfelf, that is, the Author of Lay-Baptifm Invalid] 66 owns that the Council of Eliberis Authorized "the One, and fo many Councils confirm'd the "Validity of the Other." He takes Occafion to put this Question, and thus to misrepresent me from my Words, in Page 26 of my Preliminary Difcourfe to LayBaptifm Invalid, Edit. 3d. where Speaking of Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, and the Determinations of fome Councils, &c. about them, I conclude the Paragraph

graph in thefe Words; namely, "I have no need to dwell upon this, because my Province is only confin'd to Lay, i. e. [that is] Unauthoziz'd Baptilm, fuch as is perform'd by Perfons, who never were authoziz'd for that purpofe; who act in "Direct Oppofition to that Order of Men, who * are impower'd by Chrift to authorize others to

Baptize And the Adversary can bring forth "in their behalf not one Council, either General or Provincial, till the Corrupt Ones of the "Church of Rome." And all this I do ftill infift upon, and affirm in answer to his Question, that the Council of Eliberis is not for "Lay, that is, Unauthoziz'd Baptism, "fuch as is perform'd by Perfons who never were

authorized for that purpose, who act in Direct Oppofition to that Order of Men, [i. e. Bishops] "who are impower'd by Chrift to Authorize occ thers to Baptize.

This is the Connection of my Words; and I will not depart from them, but challenge Mr. Bingham and all his Friends to prove, that the Council of Eliberis's Canon, made with Defign to Authorize and Impower fome of their own Laicks to Baptize, was a giving Countenance to the Baptifms above-mention'd, which I am difputing againft. But of this fee more in Page 58, &c. of the following Treatife, that I may not be further Guilty of Repetition; whereby the Reader will eafily fee, that our Lay-Baptifms are not favour'd by that Council; and in Page 193, &c. that the Ancient Churches who allow'd of the Validity of fome Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, did not efteem thofe Baptifms to have been deftitute of Commiffion, or Unauthoriz'd, that is, never Authoriz'd; for they esteemed the Clerical Orders of the Baptizers to have been Valid.

Mr. Bingham's 150th Page about Tertullian is anfwer'd in Page 39, &c, of this Treatife, to which I add,

that

"

"the

that 'tis very strange, he should charge me with a Miftake for faying, That Tertullian refers us to "Law and Practice" of the Church, by his faying concerning Hereticks, we "have a Kule to Rebap"tize them" when Mr. Bingham himself cannot deny but acknowledges, pag. 150, 151. that Tertullian makes the then Rebaptization of Hereticks to have been the Practice of the Church in Tertullian's Days, and that this was founded upon a Rule: For fays our Hiftorian, I own he speaks of the Practice of Rebaptizing Hereticks as Heathens: But the Kule by which he justifies this Practice is not the Rule of the Church, but the Rule of Christ," pag. 150. And he calls this, of Rebaptization "The Practice of the Church," in Page 151. Mr. Bingham would infinuate to bis Reader, that I make what Tertullian calls a Rule for this Practice to be " the " Law and Rule of the Church, diftinct from the "Law of Chrift". But our Reverend Hiftorian Should have produc'd fomething, if he was able, from my own Words, to have proved this, which he cannot do ; and therefore herein he acts very much beneath himself: I fpeak of " the Law and Practice of the Church without concerning my felf whether he made a Law "C and Rule diftinct from the Law of Chrift" or no, and without once specifying what lozt of Kule it was whereon she founded her Practice: If she founded it upon the Law of Chrift and the Apostles, as Mr. Bingham words it, p. 150. why then she took this Law for her Rule, and fo 'twas her Law too; so that even according to Mr. Bingham himself, it was the Law and Practice of the Church: It was "her Law", because She made it the Kule of her Practice; and it was "her Law and Practice", because she bound those who would be admitted to her Communion, to be fubfect to it. And Mr. Bingham cavils at my calling it her Law

a 3

and

and Practice", as related by Tertullian, when his own Account of Tertullian's Words makes it to be fo

too.

His Note concerning St. Ignatius, pag. 152. is sufficiently answer'd in the following Page 35.

And all that follows of Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms 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] defires me to do; I hereby affure him, that if the Perfon who Baptiz'd me was Epifcopally ordain'd [as he certainly was] and if he had been a Heretick, and publickly cenfur'd as fuch [which he never was] nay though he had never given ublick Notice to the World, that he had repented of and forfaken his Herefy, and fo I might have been tempted to believe, that he was therefore a Heretick, at the very Time that he gave me Baptifm; [All which, God be praised, I am fully satisfied is no ways applicable to that Reverend Prieft who baptiz'd me; yet,] If all this bad been justly chargable on him, I should not in the least [confidering the Now Laws of the Catholick Church, and of the Church of England in particular ] have fufpected the Validity of Baptism, given me by fuch a one, with Water in the Name of the Trinity; but should have reckon'd my felf an Incorporated Member of Christ's Church, &c.

But to conclude my long Preface, I leave this with our Reverend Hiftorian, as he is a Clergyman] and do affirm, that 'tis a Propofition very easy to be proved against any Man whatsoever, That if Baptifm perform'd by Persons who were Never really and truly Commiffion'd by Bishops to Baptize, and who act herein, Rebellionfly against, and in Oppofition to, the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, be Good and Valid Baptism; Then, Authoritative Preaching, Adminiftring the other Sa

cra

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 Unauthoriz'd, never Commiffion'd Lay-Perfons: The Gonfequence of which, is, the utter Diffolution and taking away of the Neceffity of the Chriftian Priesthood, therefore of Chrift's Authority here on Earth, and fo of all Reveal'd Religion too; which is a Dreadfull Confideration; and much more fo, if any who ought to be the Guardians of thefe Sacred Things, fhould endea vour by their Writings and Preaching,to establish the dangerous Premiffes, from whence fuch prophane Confequences do naturally flow.

London, May 29th, 1713.

a 4

THE