« ÎnapoiContinuați »
tials of the Thing Administred, because, even fome of them might have been omitted by the hafte, &c. of the Essential Admini: strator: For, the Office or Authority of the Baptizer, tho' Essential to the administration of this Sacrament, is not sufficient to give Validity by it self, without the Esentials of the Thing to be adminiftred, which are Water and the Form in the Name of the Trinity - These are the 6 Some Things Essential to this Sacrament; which the Church speaks of, and the Commission is the other Essential to the administration of it, which the Church also equally asserts in her Articles. Without these three Essentials requir’d by Christ's Institution, and the Church's Articles, Canon's and Rubricks, the Church knows of no Perfect Baptism; and 'tis only upon the account of all [i.e. these ) things, being done as they ought to be, that the prohibits by a following Rubrick in this Of. fice, a Re-baptization.
Before I take my leave of our Author upon this Head, I must recommend to him these two Memorandums, which are ve. ry much to the purpose of what I am answering to his Objection.
ift. That ift. That the Authoriz'd Minister be ing Essential to the administration of the Sacrament, causes, that when an Unauthoriz’d Person attempts to administer it, he does nothing in the Design of the Law; just as when a Porter attempts by his pretended Authority to give a Freedom of this City, tho' with all the other Formalities repuir’d, yet gives no Freedom, because the Chamberlain is the Essential Adminiftrator of Freedoms by the Law.And,
zdly. That the Essential Matter and Words of a Sacrament to be administer'd, may be ready at Hand, and yet signify nothing to the purpose of a Sacrament, for want of due Application by an Essential Minister ; just as the Essential Words of a Covenant may be ready drawn up, the Parchment Stamp'd, the Sealing. Wax Drop'd, the Impression of the Seal made thereon ; and it may be Sign'd too; and yet signify nothing to the purpose of a Covenant, for want of either the Principal who is to Sigo, Seal, and deliver the Deed; or elfe his Attorney appointed by him, to do it in his stead; Let who will else do this, it amounts to nothing, 'tis a meer Nullity in the Eye of the Law to all Intents and Purposes; tho' the Law should
omit to say so in express Words; yet the very Nature of the the thing as the Law ftands, do's necessarily infer that it is null and Void : And if the Law should be fo Express, as to declare it null for want of being Stamp'd, it does not thence follow that it is Good and Valid when only Stamp'd, and not Sign'd and Seald by the proper Person; for the want of this proper Person will still make it Null, tho’ the Letter of the Law do's not expresly Null it for that Want.
70 ol 이
$. XX. I had like to have forgot to take Notice of another thing Insinuated by this Author, which in the Opinion of some People may be thought very Material; and 'tis in Page 18, 19, and 32, &c. where he would Argue, that the Church of England do's not necessarily Invalidate Lay-Baptism by requiring in her Office of Baptism, that the -lawful Minister should Baptize; he fays, that the Invalidity of Lay-Baptism, is no necessary Consequence of this Order of our Church; because, the Church of Rome in all the Rubricks of her Office of Baptism, only mentions the Priest, the Sacerdos; she tells us in none of them, that the permits or allows of any other but a Sacerdos, and yet do's not in Confe
quence of these her Rubricks (which seemi to confine the Power of Baptism to the Priest-) make Null and Void Lay-Baptism, for every Body knows that the allows it to be Good and Valid. This is what our Author thinks a good Argument: But the Answer thereto is exceeding easie. The Church of England restrains and confines the Power of Baptizing to the lawful Minister, by all her present Publick Acts; The no where either in her Canons, Articles, or Rubricks, allows any other this Power for Cases of greatest Extremity, and therefore, we reckon that her Design is, to Invalidate Lay-Baptism ; But the Church of Rome, seems to confine this power to the | Sacerdos in all the Rubricks of her Office ; tho' in reality by her Publick Canons she declares that she gives that Power to Laymen, and by these her Canons now in force, which are her Laws as much as her Rubricks are, — she tells all the World, that her Rubricks are not design'd to confine the Power of Baptism only to the Priest ; but that she also allows of the Validity of Lay-Baptism; which the Church of England no where do’s. And therefore the Argument from the Rubricks of the Church of Rome, to the Rubricks of the Church of England is utterly False.
S. XXI. I am now come to what our Author calls his second Proof, Page 23 ; and to it I shall tack his third and Laft, page 36, being, both alike Substantial; and to be overthrown by the same Arguments. His second Proof, That the Church hath by no Publick Act of hers, made ör Declar'd Lay-Baptism to be invalid, is taken, “from the filence of the Church of Eng.
“ land in this particular, that she has
sons, as well as those that were Baptiz'd by Lawful Ministers. That most people will conclude from hence, that a Bi
Joop who lo confirmed, held those Baptisms “ to be Valid, and he thinks this is as plain
as if it were deduc'd from Definitions, 66 Axioms, and Propositions, page 27,
" &c. This last is a pretty Rub upon the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid, but how good the Argument is, Let the In. telligent Reader judge. His third Proof as he terms it, is fetch'd “ from the Sia “ lence of the Preachers, and the Writers of " the Church of England in this point " from 1660, to the Tear 1900,