"THOSE who have been Baptiz'd by Perfons not lawfully Ordain'd, and confequently "they have receiv'd no Baptifm, having receiv'd " it from those who had no Commission to adminifter it, but who were guilty of the highest

"

‘ઠંડ

Sacrilege in Ufurping fuch a Sacred Commillion, "not lawfully deriva to them by a Succeffive “Ordination from the Apostles: [as is the Cafe with us But yet, thro a General Corruption of the Times, fuch Baptifms are suffer d "to pass, whereby the Perfons fo baptiz'd swimming down the Stream, do think their Baptifm to be Valid, and therefore feek not for a Re-baptization", [I had rather fay True Baptifm]" from those who are empower'd to Adminifter it. I fay, where no fuch Re-bap«Ε tization" [or rather True Baptifm]"is 66 taught, and thereby the People know nothing of it; in fuch Cafe, their Ignorance is in a man ner invincible, and their Sincerity and Devoti on in Receiving no Sacraments, yet thinking ແ them True Sacraments, may be accepted by God, " and the Inward Grace conferr'd. But this Cafe does not reach those who do, or may know and act better; and is the whole of my dact Charity in this Matter, and, I think, a suffi cient Anfwer to the Objection,

L

V. Another Objection in Defence of the Validity of Baptifms adminifter'd by fuch as have not the Divine Commiffion, is the Example of Zipporah, Mofes's Wife, who circumcis'd

H 4

cis'd her Son, and thereby faved her Huf band's Life, for God fought to kill Mofes; and when she had circumcis'd her Son, he let him go; and therefore approv❜d of her Act in fo doing, tho' fhe had no Right to do fo by the Inftitution.

Anfw. Whofoever will but look into the first Inftitution of Circumcifion, will find, That God did not fet apart a Particular Order of Men for this Purpofe; but only requir'd, Gen. I 17. 10. Every Man-Child among you shall be circumcis'd, &c, to the 15th Verfe; Every Male must be circumcis'd: But the Perfons who fhould continually adminifter this Circumcifion, are not nam'd in the Inftitution.

Nay, tho' it should be granted, that Circumcifion was to be perform'd by the Mafter, as he was the Prieft of his Family; yet it does not follow, that Apporah did any thing more than what he had a Right to do; becaufe her

upon hersband's Authority was devolv'd

upon her in his Sickness, when he was unable to do it himself; Efpecially, confidering that this Sicknefs was inflicted upon him, becaufe his Son had not been circumcis'd; and that he might therefore order his Wife to do it in his ftead; and confequently, 'twas interpretatively done by himself, because by his Authority; As we find in the Iffue, by God's fparing his Life when the Circumcifion was perform'd; and by Zipporah's Words to Mofes, when he had cut off the Fore-Skin of her.

Son,

Son, and caft it at his Feet, faying, A bloody Husband thou art, becaufe of the Circumcifion, Exod. 25, 26. which plainly implies, that fhe did it for his Sake, and by his Order. But what does all this avail to thofe, who knowingly receive, or acquiefce in Baptism receiv'd, from fuch as have no Divine Commiffion; when they may be Baptiz'd by Chrift's own Minifters, whom he has particularly appointed, exclufive of all others, to Baptize? This is Acting even contrary to the Example here objected; because, by all that can be feen in the Text, fhe acted by a Divine Commiffion, even by Virtue of an Immediate Revelation to Mofes, her Husband, whom God doubtless acquainted with the Cause of his Displeasure, and the Means of appeafing his Anger by this Circumcifion of his Son: Which was an Extraordinary and Unufual Cafe, and not at all parallel to the Unauthoriz'd Ministrations of those who act in Oppofition to that Divine Commiffion, which has been fucceffively handed down from Chrift and his Apoftles, in all Ages.

VI. Another Objection is a Maxim, which fome would perfwade us will hold good in Chriftian Baptifm; and that is, Fieri non debet; Factum valet: i. e. It is not lawful to be done; yet being done, 'tis Valid.

Anfw. Tho' this Maxim may hold good in Circumftantials of fome Secular Cafes, yet it

does

does not therefore follow that it will fo in all, or indeed in any of the Essentials of Worldly Matters, For Example: Tis not Lawful for me to make a Man Free of the City of London; and tho I fhould be never fo ferious and to formal in pretending, or fhould really fuppofe my felf to have fufficient Authority to give fuch a Freedom; yet 'tis certain, that fuch a Freedom given by me would never be Valid: The Man muft receive a Legal Freedom, notwithstanding the Counterfeit one he had of me. The like may be justly affirm'd of the Naturalization of Foreigners, and many other great Concerns of this World: And if this Maxim will not hold good in these, and Abundance of other Worldly Things, how much lefs in thofe of an infinitely higher Nature, in the Divine Pofitive Inftitutions which God has made to be the Means and Pledges of Supernatural Benefits, to be conferr'd on us by the Miniftration of his own particularly Commiffion'd and Authorized Ambaffadors? Efpecially when we remember, that this Maxim was never appointed by him to be our Rule and Guide in any of our Affairs, much less in thofe of a Religious and Spiritual Nature; as without all doubt Chriftian Baptifm is. Befides, The Objection acknowledges that it is not Lawful, therefore 'tis Sinful: 'Tis a Sin against an Effential of the Inftitution; and how SUCH A SINFUL A&t should be VALID for SUPERNATURAL PUR

POSES,

POSES, is utterly inconceivable; nay, 'tis abominable to affirm it.

VII. Another Objection which I have heard of, is, That the Council of Eliberis, Anno 395, allow'd of Lay-Baptifm in a Cafe of Ne ceffity; That the Church of Rome does fo to this Day; And that the Church of England did fo in the Reign of King Edward the VIth, of Queen Elizabeth, and in the Beginning of King James the Ift.; as is plain, by the feveral Common-Prayer Books in those Days, particularly King Edward's, Anno 1552, and King James's, 1621. to be seen at Sion-College Library in London,

i

Anfw. I grant the Truth of these Matters of Fact; and yet affirm, That those Allowan ces, be they of what Confequence they will, are not of any Validity for our Unauthorized and Anti-Epifcopal Baptifms.

As for the Council of Eliberis, I have cited it Pag. 11 and 12 of my Preliminary Difcourse, and made fuch Remarks thereon, as will utterly fruftrate the Defign of this Objection; and therefore I refer the Reader back to it, for his Satisfaction..

3

Next for the Church of Rome, her Allowances in this Cafe are no Rule to us Proteftants, who have feparated from her, for her many grofs Errors, both in Doctrine and Practice: She began to quarrel with St. Cyprian, and other Primitive Bishops, and carried it very unchriftianly against them, for not allowing

any