« ÎnapoiContinuați »
of all who can have them? Can a True Apoftolical Church (as ours is) be suppo'd to do all this, and yet esteem unauthoriz'd Lay-Baptisms to be Valid ? Does she mean that Cafes of Necessity will make such things Valid, as are in their own Nature Invalid, and could never have had any Validity at all, but by virtue of a Divine Law ? Could Baptism have been Good and Valid for Spiritual Purposes, if Christ's Law had not made it fo? Is this Law obey'd, when an unauthoriz?d Person attempts to Baptize? Is the pretended Baptism he gives, the instituted Miniftration of Christian Baptism? Do's our Church believe it to be so? In what Article of her Religion do's she own this ? Where is it to be found ? And if our Defenders of those pretended Baptisms do not tell us where, we must conclude, that 'tis because they are not able. And indeed they cannot' but know, that to make any Baptism Valid for Supernatural Purposes, there must be a Divine Supernatural Law, they can not be ignorant, that our Church appeals to that Law, when she says, 'Tis not lawful for any Man to administer the Sacraments before he be Called and Sent, as in her 23d Article ; and therefore she would not venture upon fo bold an Alfertion as that of the Validity of such un
authoris’d Baptisms, either in Express or more General Terms; becaufe she knows, and has therefore pronounced them to be, contrary to Christ's Institution; and for that Reason, has made her Articles and Laws, to oblige us to obtain and adhere to, no other than the Authoriz'd Baptism. And that we may all be secur’d of obtaining this Baptism, she is fo very severe againit, the Lawful Minister, who by his Negligence, suffers a Child in danger of Death, to die without Baptism, that in her 69th Canon The thus Censures him; “ If any Minister,
“ being duly without any manner of Collu« fion, informod of the weakness and danger
of Death of any Infant unbaptiz'd in his “ Parish, and thereupon desired to go or
come to the Place where the said Infant 6 remaineth, to Baptize the fame, shall ei“ther wilfully refuse so to do, or of purpose,
or of grofs Negligence sball so defer the 6 time, as when he might conveniently have “ resorted to the Place and Baptize the said " Infant, it dieth through such his Default “ unbaptized; the said Minister shall be " Suspended for three Months, and before « his Restitution shall acknowledge his Fault,
and promise before his Ordinary, that he " will not wittingly incur the like again : the Provided, that where there is a Curate
or Substitute, this Constitution shall not
extend to the Parfon, or Vicar himself, " but to the Curate or Substitute pres
“ (ent.” This Censure she inflicts only upon the Minister or his Curate present, because they only are the Administrators of Baptism; but certainly, if the Lay Father of the Child, or any other Lay Persons in the Family, were suppos’d by the Church, to have in their power the valid ministration of Baptism in such Cases, the Church would have extended this Censure against him or them also, for suffering such a Child to die Unbaptiz'd; but this our Church would not do, because such Persons, by her 37th Canon, have not upon any account whatsoever, the Power of Baptizing.
5. XV. I know that our Author, and some others, will still tell me, that I have not prov’d, - That our Church has, by her Articles, Canons, and Rubricks, made or declar'd Lay. Baptism to be Invalid; because I have not produced any thing said by her, that do's in Direct and Express Terms, affert Lay-Baptism to be Null and Void.
But I must, in answer to this, tell them, that this Objection smells rank of Fanati. cism; all Ene nies to Truth, amuse the lg
norant with this Evasive way of Arguing; Thus, the Quakers call for Express Texts of Scripture, to prove the Necessity of the Christian Sacraments, to the End of the World : The People call?d Anabaptists, re. quire express words of Scripture for the Baptism of Infants : The Sabbatarians, or Seventh-day Men call for positive Texts, to prove the First Day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath: And all our Sectaries demand Direct and express Texts, for Divine Right of Episcopacy ; but these their Clamours, were never thought sufficient and just Answers, to the many Proofs that have been brought for those Doctrines, from General Texts of Scripture, as Expounded by the universal Practice of the pure Primitive Church. Our Author himself observes in his 12th Page, That “ Men may make Premises if they will
, but “ Consequences make themselves; If Baptism “ be absolutely necessary from a Lawful ” pand, and a Lay-hand be not a Lawful “ Hand, then Lay-Baptism is not the Bap: “ tism that is absolutely Necessary; It must & therefore be had from a Hand that is Law.
$ ful.” Here he makes a full Period, and this he argues, to shew King James the First's Inconsistency with himself, in asserting the absolute Necessity of Bap
tism from a Lawful Hand; and yet denying (what he calls) Rebaptization, to those who were Baptiz'd by Lay Hands, whom the King affirm'd also to be Unlawful Hands. This Argument of our Author against King James, ftands equally good in the present Cafe before us, for the Church has made such Premises by her Articles and Laws, as determine, that to administer Sacraments, unauthorized Hands are Unlawful Hands; the Law by which She comes to know this, has also determin'd, that 'tis necessary for us to receive Sacraments from Lawful Hands,
the Consequence makes it self, that Baptism by unauthoriz'd Hands, is not the Baptism that is Necessary : -Therefore by the Laws of Christ, and of our Church, it must be had from Lawful, i, e. Authoriz'd Hands; this we gain from our Author's Argument against King James. But not to put these Gentlemen off thus ; It is no, torious, that Publick Acts, or Laws, either of Church or State, which empower Men to confer such Privileges on others, as they could not obtain before such Publick Adis or Laws were made ; I say 'tis evident, that such publick Laws are generally made in such Terms, as do not Exprefly Null and make Void, the Attempts of uncom.