PART II. therefore I will not trouble the Reader with them.

66

cr

6 XXII. Mr. Bingham's next Inftance is of the Helvetick Body, the Followers of Zuinglius, wherein he tells us [in his 114th and 115th Pages] that Zuinglius was of Opinion, "that Baptifm (in "Cafe of Neceffity) might be given by any Dan, Quivis Hominum] yea by a Woman "alfo," which is plainly the Popish Novelty in its full Extent, and therefore needs no further Confutation. "His Followers difapprov'd of this Lati<c tude of Baptifm by Women, and therefore after his Death prohibited it," fays Mr. Bingham: So far they did well. But fays our Reverend Hiftorian, "No Prohibition was [by them] laid upon en, in Cafes of Neceffity, nor any Order "made for Re-baptizing those who were irregularly baptiz'd by others. And what do's this fignify more, than that they have laid afide one Piece of Popery, and not provided against another; that is, Baptifm by Women is forbidden; but ftill Quivis Hominum] Any Man, [as Zuinglius words it] may baptize: His Followers have not forbidden this; that is, they have not forbidden Turks, Jews, or Pagans to Baptize, fo they be but Men, [for all this is included in Zuinglius's Quivis Hominum, Any Dan] a very hopeful Reforformation indeed! as Mr. Bingham has defcrib'd it; fo that, we need not wonder why they made no Order for what he calls Re baptizing. Thus far may fuffice, for what Mr. Bingham has told us, of the Popery of fome of the Lutherans and Zuinglians.

§ XXIII

§ XXIII. And now for the Calvinists. Our Reverend Hiftorian owns in his 115th Page, that "Calvin freely declares his mind against the Law"fulness of Lay-Baptifm in Any Cafe whatlo= "ever. That "he thinks there can be Mo Re"ceffity Sufficient to Authorize private Men or "Women, to do the Office of a Publick Minifter. Mr. Bingham tells his English Reader, that "Calvin "owns indeed, that the Contrary Practice had generally prevail'd, not only feveral Ages be"fore his own Time, but, in a manner, from the "firft beginning of the Church, Lay men always "baptized in danger of Death, If a Minifter could

પ

not be had in due Time. But that He, [i. e. Calvin] thinks the Grounds they went upon were not juftifiable." By Mr. Bingham's thus reprefenting the Sense of Calvin, the Reader may be induc'd to think, that Calvin could not but own, that Lay-Baptifm had generally prevail'd, that is, had been the General Practice of the Catholick Church, and that Lay-men had always baptiz'd, &c. whereas in Truth, Calvin's Words, as Mr. Bingham has 'em in his Margin, contain nothing that fhews he own'd this to have generally prebail'd; not one Word that acknowledges" Lay"men always Baptiz'd, &c." For the whole of what he fays is only, That " Many Ages before, his Time," and so far, as almost from the first be

* Calvin Inftit. Lib. 4. cap. 15. N. 20. Quod autem multis ab hinc fæculis, adeoque ab ipfa fere Ecclefiæ exordio, ufu receptum fuit, ut in periculo mortis Laici Baptizarent, fi minifter in tempore non adeffet, non video quam firma ratione defendi queat.

ginning of the Church, it was a Receiv'd Custom [he do's not fay it generally prevail'd] that

cr

ર

ર

Lay-men Should Baptize" [he do's not fay Laymen always baptiz'd] in danger of Death, if a Minifter could not be had in due Time; and "that He [i. e. Calvin] did not fee how or by what fubftantial Reafon this" Cufton "could be defended." So that this Cuftom which Calvin thought was fo early taken up, do's not appear from his Words, to have been own'd by him as a Practice that Generally Prevail'd; for a fuppos'd Cuftom of fome few fingular Perfons, may be call'd a Cuftom, and an early one too, without being the Custom or Practice of the Church it felf: Some of the Members of the Church may have fuppos'd Practices of their own, which never were own'd by the Church as her Cuftoms and Traditions; fo that, if Calvin reckon'd, that there was a receiv'd Custom very early for Lay-men to baptize in danger of Death, when Clergy-men could not be had; this do's not prove that he thought it was a Cuftom receiv'd by great Multitudes, much lefs that it Generally Prevail'd, as Mr. Bingham expreffes it; and whoever they were, that by Calvin's Suppofition took up this Custom [which by all that has been faid before, was not by any one fo early receiv'd as he [i. e. Calvin] fancy'd it, yet Calven contemns their Authority, and plainly fhews, that he thought their Practice could not be defended.

But notwithstanding all this, Mr. Bingham fays in his 116th Page, that Calvin "do's not peremp « toxily pronounce Such Baptifms, abfolutely Mull “and Hoid, but the contrary." And for this he

СС

quotes

*

251 quotes Arch-Bishop Whitgift's Words, becaufe they have these Expreffions, viz. " It is fufficient for us to know the Hand and Seal of the Lord in bis Sacraments, by whomsoever they be deliver'd we shall be fufficiently defended [i. e. against the Anabaptifts, who deny'd Baptifin to be right, becaufe given by Idolatrous Perfons in the Church of Rome]" if we think that we were Baptiz'd, not in the Name of any Man, "but in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy "Ghoft, and therefore Baptifm not to be of Man,

but of God, by whomsoever it be minister'd. And becaufe of this [whomsoever] Mr. Bingham concludes, that Calvin do's not abfolutely Null and Void Baptifm by Lay-men. But, in answer to this, if the word whomsoever, as Arch-Bishop Whitgift has it, muft be taken in its full Extent and Meaning; then Calvin will be made to have efteem'd as Good and Valid, all the pretended Baptifms of Lay-men and Women, Fews, Turks, Infidels, and Pagans, which is plainly a Novelty of Corrupt Popery. And not only fo, but the Validity of Baptifm by Private Perfons, if it be included in this word whomsoever, will be an Inconfiftency and Contradiction to what Mr. Bingham faid before, viz. that " Calvin declares his "Mind against the Lawfulness of Lay-Baptifm in any Cafe whatsoever;" and that "be thinks "there can be no Recellity fufficient to Autho rize private Men or Women to do the Office of a "publick Minifter;" fo that, Calvin will be made to speak inconfiftently with himself, and to contradict his own Principle. For, if Baptifin by

* Whitgift's Defence of the Arfwer to the Admonit. Tract. 9. p. 518. ex Calvin Inftit. Cap. 17. Sect. 16.

Lay

PART II. Lay-men, or Women, be not Lawful in any Cafe what foever; and there can be no Neceffity fufficient to authorize it [according to Calvin:] Then 'tis plain, that in Calvin's Opinion, fuch pretended Baptifms, have o Law, Rule, or Authority; for if they have, then they are Lawful and Authoriz'd, which Calvin fays they are not; fince then they have no Law or Rule, and are Deftitute of any Authority in Calvin's Senfe, it neceffarily follows, that "the band and Seal of the "Lord cannot be in fuch falfe Miniftrations, and

therefore they are Invalid;" for if the Hand and Seal of the Lord is in them, then they have His Authority, and are therefore Lawful, because the Hand and Seal of a Principal, really fet to any Inftrument, is either by himself, or his Authoriz'd Attorney or Reprefentative, and fo is His, and therefore His Authority; and confequently Lawful, and therefore Valid, because his Hand and Seal: But Calvin fays on the contrary, that they are not Lawful in any Cafe whatfoever, no Neceffity can be fufficient to Authorize them; therefore the Hand and Seal of the Lord cannot be in them, and confequently they cannot be Valid, by whomsoever perform'd, if we take whomsoever, in the full extenfive Meaning of the Word, to include Private Men and Women, Perfons never Authoriz'd or Commiffion'd to Baptize; that is, Calvin reckons fuch Baptifms Valid, by faying the Lord's Hand and Seal is in them; tho' by what he faid before, they are Inva lid, becaufe utterly Unlawful, and void of Authority; except it can be prov'd, that, in this Cafe, there is Validity where there is no Law, no Rule, no hand and Seal of the Lord, and Nothing of his Authozity.

Thus