any

fuch unchurching Principles, I will publickly reof and retract them; but if he cannot prove this, pent be is in common Juftice bound to acknowledge his Mitake (to make the best of it) and publickly to take off that Reproach, which he has fo openly laid on one, who hopes he has been very far from deferving it,from his or any other Clergyman's Hands.

6. VII. "Our Superiours legally affembled in Convocation, before they acquiefce in this Gentleman's Proposal, Whether it might not be proper to have a peculiar Form of Confirmation or Impofition of Hands, for fuch as were baptized by "Hereticks and Schifmaticks,upon their Return to "the Unity of the Church &c. without

(what he calls) Kebaptization, " Preface Pag. VII, 'tis humbly hop'd will in their great Wisdom distinguish the Baptifm of fuch Hereticks and Schifmaticks as have been Epifcopally, i. e. validly ordain'd, from that of others who never received any Epilcopal, i. e. valid Commission at all. All Forms of Impofition of Hands that are yet to be found in primitive Church-Hiftory, belong only to Perfons baptized by the former Sort of Hereticks and Schifmaticks; and there is not one ancient Precedent of a Form of Confirmation, of fuch as were pretendedly Baptiz'd by the latter Sot. So that the Peculiar Form propos'd with respect to thele, will be Peculiar indeed! and wholly new,without any Example or Precedent in the Ancient Church of Chrift. I mention this, only with Submission to that Reverend and Learned Body of the Clergy, especially because I find, that our Hiftorian makes no Provifo whatsoever for this necellary Diftinction; tho' there is plainly abundance of Reafon for it; because otherwise, a Commission once received,and not vacated, will be reduc'd to anEquality with a no Commission ever received at all; while the Miniftrations of those who have a Commiffion, will be Equivalent to the

Miniftrations of those who never had one, and thereby the Word of God himself will be made of no Effect.

. VIII. Befides, 'tis very obfervable, that the Form of Confirmation which Mr. Bingham fubjoins to give fome Light into this Matter, pag. VIII. is not more ancient than the Ninth Century, and by Confequence wants the true and nobleCharacter of what is Catholick, i. e. bas Antiquity, Universality, and Confent; and he might with as muchReason have given anInftance of ImageWhip and Invocation of Saints, from the Second General Council of Nice, about the Year 787. who pretended more Authorities from Fathers and Scripture too,for the establfhing of thofe Errors,than our Reverend Hiftorian can produce, for the Confirmation of Perfons pretendly baptized,by fuch as never were Commiffion'd to Baptize; for indeed be can produce no Authority at all for that Sort of Confirmation. I Say our Reverend Hiftorian might as reasonably have produc'd,the Authority of that Council,for the establishing of thofe Joola trous Practices, as this Form of Confirmation for the Exemplar of a Form to be made, to confirm the Falfe Baptifms of thofe, who have been only washed or sprinkled by our Hereticks and Schifmaticks, who were never commiffion'd to Baptize, if his Exemplary Form had been usd to confirm fuch falfe Baptifms, as indeed it was not; for the Form be produces,does not,throughout the whole Ceremony and Prayers, make the leaft mention of any Defect in the Baptifm it felf, before received by the Confirm'd Perfon; and as for the Prayer of Confirmation's, befeeching God to give the Perfon" the Seal of the Divine Unction, and the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit it contains no more in Substance,with Reference to the preceding Baptifm,than what is as proper to be laid over another, who was baptiz'd by an Orthodox Prieft in the Unity of the Church; as neither is there in the following Words of another Prayer, which speak of the Confirm'd

2

Perfon

Perfon as now

Perfect and Confummate with the true Faith, in God, and with the Seal of His "Holy Unction." For Confirmation was always reckon'd by the Church to Perfect and Confummate with the True Faith, and with the Seal of God's Holy Unction, even all validly baptiz'd Perfons in the Church it felf. So that here is nothing in all this Form, peculiar to any Imperfection in the Baptifm it felf, before receiv'd, but only in Reference to the Errors of the Perfon who was received into the Communion of the Church: And this might have been well put into the Form, even for a Perfon in all Refpects rightly baptiz'd before, if he fell into any dangerous Errors, as all Hereticks most certainly did; and 'tis notorious they were Epifcopal Perfons; and therefore, a Form to be compos'd after the Example, and in Purfuance of the Defign and Purpose of that Form, will not be fufficient to confirm Perfons Supposedly baptiz'd by Hereticks and Schifmaticks, who never were vefted with a Divine Commiffion. As is the Cafe of our Anti-Epifcopal Diffenters Baptifms.

. IX. I know fome of my Readers will expect, that I Should fay fomething to Mr. Bingham's Appendix; but I must tell them, that to speak particularly to every thing that Gentleman has been pleas'd there to infinuate, and which is foreign to the Merits of the Caufe, is to Spend Time and Paper to no Purpofe, and to incur the juft Difpleasure of the Candid and Judicious, without doing any Service to others who are not fo. What is worthy of an Answer, and deferving of the Reader's Notice, I shall remark upon [as hereunder] only in this Preface, referring to the feveral Pages of the following Treatife, where my Answers are more fully to be found.

Our Reverend Hiftorian's Obfervation in his 141ft Page] upon a Paffage in my Difcourfe of Sacerdotal Powers, Chap. V. Pag. 120. is very juft and right, that instead of thefe Words, namely, Those whom a

"La

"Laick Baptizeth are to be Rebaptized; but those whom an Arian Prieft Baptizeth are not to be rebaptized: Therefore an Arian Priest is not a Laick. This Argument fo confounded Hilary the Deacon that he was fore'd to deny the Major, which his Mafter Lucifer bad granted before, viz. That thole whom a Laick Baptizeth are to be Kebaptized. It Should have been thus:

دو

"This Argument fo Confounded Hilary the Deacon, "that he was forc'd to Deny the Affumption [02 Minor] "which his Mafter Lucifer had Granted before; viz. "That Those whom an Arian Pzielt Baptizeth, are “not to be re-baptized." And fo’tis mended in the Second Edition of Sacerdotal Powers, p. 76. and I thank Mr. Bingham for the Notice, that I may not let any undefigned Slip [as this was] pafs uncorrected by me.

Mr. Bingham's 141ft Page concerning St. Jerom's Notion of the Validity of Lay Baptifm, is largely Answer'd in Page 120, &c. of this Treatife.

His 142d Page of St. Chryfoftom's Affertion concerning the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm,is Answer'd in Page 114. His 142, 143, 144 Pages, of St.Bafil's Opinion,is Anfwer'd in Page 109.

His Demand in Page 145. "In what Writing of the Stephanians I find this Maintain'd, That They "who bad received Baptifm from Hereticks or Schifmaticks, were in a State of Salvation? Is nothing but Captioufnels and Cavilling, for himself and all who have look'd into St. Cyprian's Works do know, that Stephen Bishop of Rome did hold, that fuch Baptiz'd Perfons were in a State of Salvation, for they esteem'd them to have been Validly Baptiz'd, and therefore refus'd to give them any other Baptifm, and quarrell'd with St. Cyprian, &c. for judging otherwife; and fure they who held Men to have been Validly Baptiz'd, efteem'd them to have been in a State of Salvation, otherwife what fignified the Validity of their Baptifm? But for further Answer to this Captious Queftion, the Reader

Reader may find enough in St. Cyprian's Epiftles to Ju baianus and Pompeius, and in Firmilian's Epistle to St. Cyprian; in all which the Arguments of Pope Stephen and His Followers, are particularly mention'd, and endeavour'd to be Answer'd by St. Cyprian and Firmilian; and tho' Mr. Bingham makes himself Ignorant of the Stephanians maintaining," that they who had "received Baptifm from Hereticks or Schifmaticks cc were in a State of Salvation." Yet as Learned * and Judicious an Author as any Modern Writer whatfoever, bas exprefly afferted that they affirm'd, That પ all Catechumens who dy'd unbaptiz'd, were not "therefore damn'd; much less those who had re «ceiv'd Baptifm, tho' from Hereticks oz Schilmaticks, which is the very Argument of the Stephanians, that I have mention'd in the Place on which Mr. Bingham makes his Remark, and from which alone be Deduces his Captious Question.

His next Remark, p. 145. is, That I "would inf nuate, that Athanafius was of Cyprian's Opinion, and rejected the Baptifm of All Hereticks in Ge«neral; Which he inferrs from my faying, "That Athanafius in the 4th Century rejected the Baptifm of Hereticks." The falfeneß of his Inference difcovers it felf; for," the Baptifm of Hereticks," which are my Words, do not mean the "Baptism of all Hereticks in General," as He would reprefent; and He would think it very odd and unbecoming me, if 1 fhould thus force fome Words of his, which are as capable as mine are of fo Univerfal a Senfe: For Example, be fays in his 34th Page, "The Council of Nice never made any

Decree about the Re-baptization of Perfons bap"tiz'd by Laymen, but only by Heretical Pzielts.”

See Vindication of a Difcourfe of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, Page 3o4.

Now