Imagini ale paginilor

and Validity of such Unauthoriz'd Baptism ; and therefore such Baptifms are Null and Void, notwithstanding our Author's vain Attempt by this Comparison, to prove them Good and Valid as the Authoriz'd Baptisms.

S. XXIV. In his 35th Page he tells his Reader concerning Baptism by Diffenting Teachers, thus, Abundance of People, 1

« doubt, are easily led to think their Baptisms to be Invalid, because, they think, if their Baptisms be allow'd, the rett “ of their Ministerial Performances must a6 be also Valid. But this was held to be no Consequence by the ancient Church of Christ, nor is it a Consequence held by the « Church of England. Tis Baptism 16 alone that is not Invalidated and made "Nüll, tho' conferr'd by an unlawful Mi" nister, or å meer Lay Christian, &c. Here's a plain acknowledgment, that the

other Ministrations of our Dissenting Teachers are Invalid ; For, says he, “Cis “ Baptism alone that is not Invalidata “ ed." But upon what Foundation does our Author intimate, that their other Miniftrations are Null? Are they not establish'd upon the same Foundation as that of Baptism? Is it not the same Lord who Insti


[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

tuted them? 'And are they not equally posi-
tive Institutions of dur Religion? What is
it that makes the Difference? By what
Rule is their Baptism Valid? Or is it Va-
lid tho' founded upon no Rule at all? By
what Law are their other Ministrations,
viz. Of Ordination, Confecration of Bread
and Wine, Excommunication, &c. Null and
Void, if their. Baptism is not so ? Have
they been Authoriz’d to Baptize ? No,
they never were: Let him sew us who
gave them that Authority? Are not their
other Ministrations Null, because they
were never Authoriz'd for them? Certain.
ly that is the Reason of their Nullity.
And the very same Reason stands good for
the Nulling of their Baptisms. Are not
their other Ministrations not only without,
but in Opposition to the Church, and there-
fore Void? Their Baptism is so too, and
therefore Invalid also. Are not the Laws
of Christ and his Church equally leveld
against their. Baptisms, as well as against
their other Ministrations? Yes, they are.
Have those Laws provided more for their
Baptisms, than for their other Ministrati-
ons? No, they have not. Therefore the
same Laws of Christ and his Church that
Null those their other Ministrations, do
Null and Void their Baptisms too; And



bis saying that " this was held to be no Con. fequence by the Antient Church of Christ is a Notorious fallacy, put upon Ignorant Readers; but it cannot be Palm'd upon those who are acquainted with the State of the Antient Church: For 'tis well known, that the Primitive times were not exercis'd with any such Anti-Episcopal Baptisms, as these wherewith the Church is pefter'd in our Days, and therefore the Ancient Church has said nothing about them.

§. XXV. As for what this Writer says, that I may know, concerning the 22d and s6th Articles of our Church; viz. that 6 they were made by many of the same Peo

ple, who made the Office of Baptism and “ 'Rubricks, in 1548 and 1552. And that therefore the Allowance of 'Lay-Baptifm

was not thought to Clash, or be Incon. fistent with those Articles : page 39. I answer, that their fo making those Ru. bricks, is a sign that they did not allow of the Validity of Unauthoriz'd Baptisms, such as our Disfenters are ; and for this, Í must desire the Reader to turn back to what I have said in my 4th Sect. page, 5, 6, 7.

. XXVI. I might here speak to his Appendix and the Letter, annex'd to what


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mrs. Baldwin calls the Second Edition of his Book; but they deserve no particular Answer, being foreign to this Author's Deo clar'd Undertaking, viz. toʻshew the Judge ment of the Church; and the only Design of my Answer thereto, is to let the World See, by her Publick Aets, what her real 0,pinion is of this Matter. Mr. Hooker's Judgment be it what it will, is no Standard for either of us in this Dispute : Mr. Thorndike's Expressions make nothing for Vnauthoriz'd. Baptism; for, his Opinions concerning Lay-Baptism, are plainly Founded upon this Notion, that Bishops can give this power to Lay-men, that they shall Baptize in Case of Extremity, and want of a Priest: This is not the thing at present under Debate; The pretended Baptisms of our Dilenters are of another Nature, not Authoriz'd by the Bishops ; but plainly in Opposition to Episcopacy itself.

-Dr. Cofins's Letter to Mr. Cordel, is founded upon Presbyterian and some Popish Doctors Notions (yet not Positively but Dubiously propos’d by him) concerning Ordinations ; so that the whole Superstructure of that Letter, is only an Amuzement, having no fure Foundation whereon to settle a Doubtful Mind ; 'tis too long for me at present to take. Notice of the particulars of that


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Letter, it shall suffice me to say, That the Generality of our Divines who were Exiles in France with Dr, Cofins; and the Laity too, refused to Communicate with the French Protestants, and even Dr. Cosins, tho’ he went sometimes to their Temples at Charenton, yet never would Communicate with them in what they call’d the Sacraments; by reason of their want of a Miffion : This is what is well attested, and the Evidence can be produc'd, but I have no need to enlarge and be particular upon it; because in Truth ʼtis no part of my present Undertaking, which is confin’d to the Laws of the Church of England, as they now stand; Hooker, Thorndike, and Cosins, be their Opinions wliat they will, are of no weight in this Debate, since the Judgment of the Church of England is not limitted to their particular Sentiments ; I can produce Men as great as they, who thought very Differently from what they did; but this would noć be suitable to iny Subject, which is only to let the Reader See, what our Church by her Publick Acts has taught us to believe, concerning Unauthoriz'd Baptisms.

Suppose our Author could have further produc'd any fufficient Evidence, that a Select number of Bishops of our Church, in


« ÎnapoiContinuați »