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 Apostles,
And that the Original Power of Baptizing was lodg'd folely and entirely in Bishops, and derivatively convey'd from them to others; inferr'd by him from the Ancient Writers, His Notion of Bishops Ratifying Irregular Baptifms, by adding what was wanting in the Circumftances of Baptifm, by an af- ter Confirmation, confider'd and fet to Rights,
13, 14, &c.
His 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 Affertions, 16,to 18
His Fancy, that Baptism by an Irregular Prieft, if allow'd to be
Valid upon the Account of his Prieftly Character, must be
Authoriz'd and Unauthoriz'd, Regular and Irregular, Lawful and
Unlawful at the fame time, and in the very fame Act and Re-
Spect, and therefore a Contradiction; prov'd to be very falla-
cious,
His ill-grounded Gueffes, at the Reafons why the Ancients al-
low'd of the validity of Baptism by an Irregular Priest,
His odd Notion of Deacons not being Priefts,and confequently that Baptifm perform'd by them in Abfence of the Priests, is not Baptifm by a Sacerdotal or Prieftly Power; refuted, 16, 25
The Grand Queftion of our Lay-Baptifms truly stated,
No Teftimonies for Lay-Baptifm in the first 200 Years of Chri-
ftianity,
Therefore no ancient Catholick Tradition, no general Senfe and Practice of the Church, can be found whereon to establish the Practice of Lay-Baptifm,
St. Hermas mentions none but Epifcopally or Divinely Authoriz'd
Baptizers, for Cafes of Extremity,
Tertullian's private Notion, about the Year 200, of Lay-Men's
Right to baptize in Abfence of the Clergy; 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-
fured,
He gives us not one Inftance of any fuch Baptism, allow'd of by
the Church in his Days,
His Words are full and direct against our ordinary Lay-Baptifms,
and by Confequence prove their Nullity,
St. Cyprian and Firmilian about the Year 256. reckon'd Lay-Bap-
tifms to be Null and Void, as St. Bafil witneffes,
St. Cyprian's own Works plainly fhew, that he esteem'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,
Firmilian's Letter to St. Cyprian proves, that Firmilian and the
Council of Iconium held the fame,
He fays he Copy'd from Rufinus, fuch Paffages, in the relation
whereof Rufinus did not forfake the Truth,
71
And therefore his omitting this Fable, is an Argument that he did not believe Rufinus's 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 spoils the
Design of Mr. Bingham's relating it, 72
Johannes Mofchus, another of Mr. Bingham's Vouchers, a Ridicu- lous Vifionary Monk of the 7th Century; who writes this Fa- ble, among other idle Legendary Stories of Miracles, Dreams, c. not to be credited; fome Particulars whereof are in-
ftanc'd,
Nicephorus Califtus, 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,
And if he had, would have been but a forry Evidence, A juft 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,
The little or no Credit this Story has among Learned Men,
Even Papifts themselves reject it,
Because the Inftitution of Baptifm and Laws of the Church, do confine Baptifm to a Commiffion, and confequently forbid fuch a Determination in favour of its Validity when without a Com- miffion,
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 Post-fact Confirmation of the Bishop,
« PreviousContinue » |