Сс

an Argument, as that of the Invalidity of LayBaptifm, is this, viz. "Cyprian always paid a far greater Deference to Catholick Lay-men than he "did to Heretical Priefts; as efteeming the One "Members of the Church, and the Other quite cut off from it: He admitted the One into his Councils, and did nothing without their Confent in many Ecclefiaftical Caufes; but the Other he "abandon'd and abbor'd, as Men that had abandon'd "the Faith, and renounc'd their Christianity by their "Heretical Doctrine." And what is to be infer'd from all this? Did St. Cyprian therefore approve of Baptifm by Catholick Lay-men, this is meer Aniufement; as if, because St. Cyprian lov'd and valu'd Catholick Lay-men, and voluntarily took their Confent in many Ecclefiaftical Cafes; therefore he would not have been offended, he would not have efteem'd their Attempts Null and Void, if they had endeavour'd to do any thing in the Sacerdotal Miniftration of Holy Sacraments! This is juft as good Senfe, as if I fhould fay, that Mr. Bingham loves and efteems a pious, judicious, and orthodox Lay-man of the Church of England, better than he do's a Schifmatical or Heretical Prieft, who separates, or is excluded, from her Communion; and that he would follow the Advice of the Former in Church Matters, and not admit of the other fo much as into his Company, much lefs to be his Advifer and Counsellor in Ecclefiaftical Affairs; and from thence conclude, that if the Church-Lay-man fhould, thro' a falfe Zeal, &c. attempt to ordain Men into the Mininiftry, Mr. Bingham's Love and Efteem for him, would oblige him to acknowledge the Validity of fuch a fuppofed Ordination, tho' at the fame time he would not have allow'd the like of the Hereti

cal

66

cal or Schifmatical Prieft had attempted to Ordain. Who is there that do's not fee the Weakness of fuch a Suppofition? And upon what Foundation can Mr. Bingham guess that St. Cyprian was of fo Partial a Temper, as to efteem pretended Baptifm by Church-Lay-men, Perfons having no Authority to Baptize, to be good and Valid, when 'twas at the fame time his Principle, that Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifins were Null and Void, becaufe perform'd by Perfons who were fuppos'd to be deftitute of Prieftly Power and Authority to minifter in Holy Things?But enough upon Mr. Bingham's Obfervations about this Matter; for himfelf, do's but fay of 'em, These are probablé Arguments to incline a Man to think, "that Cyprian was of the fame Mind with his Mafter Tertullian, as to the Point of Lay-Baptifm, bad not St. Bafil's Authority been against "them, Page 40. -We have seen, that St. Bafil's Teftimony is good: That there is not fo much as any Probability in Mr. Bingham's fuppofed Arguments: And that St. Cyprian did not follow his Mafter's Errors, particularly in the Pretended Priesthood of Lay-men, but taught the contrary Doctrine, as is plain by the Teftimony of St. Bafil, and by Inferences that may be, and have been drawn from feveral Paffages in St. Cyprian's own Works. And thus all our Reverend Hiftorian's Objections againft the Evidence of St. Cyprian, St. Bafil, and St. Chryfoftom, are of no Weight or Importance.

66

ככ

CHAP.

CHA P. V.

Mr. Bingham's Acknowledgments concerning the great Question now in Difpute, viz. Whether the Ufurped and Unauthoriz❜d Baptism of Lay-men, was allowed to be Valid?

I. UR Reverend Hiftorian handles this Queftion in his 41ft Page; and here one would naturally have expected to have found abundance of uncontefted Evidence and Teftimony from the Ancient Catholick Church, that fuch pretended Baptifms were, by Her, held to be Good and Valid, if it had ever been, the General Senfe and Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church, to efteem them as fuch. But inftead of producing any Evi. dence for their Pretended Validity; (and confequently for the Validity of our Diffenters fuppofititious Baptifms, which are evidently Usurped and Unauthoriz'd Baptifms by Lay-men) Mr. Bingham very fairly and ingenuously confeffes, that this of "Unauthoriz'd Ufurped Lay-Baptifm makes a wide "Difference in the Cafe, Page 41. and is a more "Difficult Queftion," [viz. than that of LayBaptifm [fuppos'd to be] Authoriz'd by Bishops, in Cafes of Extremity, about which he had been Treating before.] He fays this Queftion of "U. Jurped and Unauthoriz'd Baptifm of Lay-men has much more difficulty than the Former." And he gives this particular Reason why 'tis fo "much moze Difficult, because (fays he) a great many

of the Authors who have juftified the Lawfulness of "Lay Baptifm, in Cafes of Neceffity, are wholly "filent upon this Point. "For [continues he] "neither Tertullian, nor the Council of Eliberis, nor St. Jerom, nor Gelafius, nor Ifidore, have Said any thing upon it; they Duly confider the Cafe of Pecellity, and no other.».

ct

§ II. And to this I must add fome other Reafons, why this of Ufurped Unauthoriz'd Lay-Baptifm is fo very Difficult a Question; and they are thefe from Mr. Bingham himself.

Firft, Because "The Apoftolick Commiffion to Baptize, was to continue to the end of the World' according to Mr. Bingham, in his 3d Page. Secondly, Because the Conveyance of this Commiffion to others, was necellary to preserve the "Church, according to the D20er of Chaft, in future Ages," as in his 3d Page.

ર

Thirdly, Becaufe "No One cant have a Power of Baptizing, but he that receives, fome way or "other, a Commiffion from the Apostles." See his 4th Page.

Fourthly, Becaufe "The Original Power of Admicc niftring Baptifm is lodg'd folely and entirely in the "Hands of Bishops, as the Apoftles immediate Succeffors, and derivately Convey'd from them to others," in Cafes Ordinary and Extraordinary alfo, as in his 5th Page.

cr

Fifthly, Becaufe "When Baptifm was done by others, [i. e. not by the Bishop] the Antients thought it was ftill done by his Authority, and reputed as his Act." See his 8th Page. A.”

Sixthly, and Laftly, Because Mr. Bingham, in fumming up his whole Evidence, in his 38th Page, fays, “Thus we have feen for Six hundred Years,

"the

દર

"the General Senfe and Practice of the Ancient Church, grounded, as they fuppofe, upon the Commiflion given to the Apoftles; whereby BiShops, as the Apoftles Succeffors, are qualified firft to give Baptifm themselves, and then to Gant a "Commiffion to others to Baptize ;"dinary Cafes, and in Cafes Extraordinary and of "Extream ecellity, &c.

-in Or

These are Reasons which make the prefent Queftion of Unauthoriz'd Ufurp'd Lay-Baptifms fo very Difficult, that there is" a wide Differ"ence" between these pretended Baptifms, and the others, fuppos'd to have been minifter'd by Epifcopal Authority; fo that we fee even from Mr.Bingham's own Account of the Matter, that the general Senfe and Practice of the Ancient Church has nothing in favour of Ufurp'd Unauthoriz'd LayBaptifms.

III. It is therefore evident, that the general Senfe and Practice of the Ancient Church, cannot be call'd in as an Evidence, for the pretended Validity of fuch falfe Baptifms; No! No! they ftand by themselves, utterly Deftitute of that Catholick Teftimony, and have Nothing to fupport them but the weak, fallacious, and imaginary Reafonings of a private Spirit only.

For, Firft, The Apoftolick Commiffion to Baptize, is here difcontinued and broken off.

Secondly, The Conveyance of that Commiffion is here wanting, and fo, that which is "Neceflary to Preferve the Church, according to the Or"der of Chrift- -is abfent.

'

Thirdly, Here is a Deftitution of Power to Baptize, because here is No One that has receiv'd any

manner