Now fhould I from hence infer, that Mr. Bingham "would infinuate," that the Council made a Decree about the Re-baptization of Perfons baptiz'd “by all Hereticks in General,” would not Mr. Bingham have just Reason to complain of the Incivility of fuch a forc'd Inference? And would not the Judicions Reader also have reafon to find fault with the Impertinence of thus impofing upon his Time and Patience? But this is trifling, and I beg the Reader's Pardon for concerning my felf thus much with only a Difpute about Words. Mr. Bingham is pleas'd in this place to say that Athanafius" rejects the Arian Baptifm as Invalid ;- and that he allowed the Baptifm of all others;" and for this be referrs you back to his Chap. I. Sect. 20. as if he had there prov'd it; when behold in that very Chapter and Section he fays exprefly that Athanafius" concludes the fame of the

Manichees and Montanifts, and Samofatenians," viz. that "their Baptifm was of no Effect." And let the Reader judge whether this is "allowing the Baptifm "of all others but the Arians." This Inconfiftency with himself, is not the only One that Mr. Bingham bas committed; as will be feen in the following Treatife.

His 145th Page, where he Remarks on a Paffage 1 cite out of Pacianus, is Anfwer'd in Page 98.

His 146th Page, concerning Optatus, is already Anfwer'd by what I faid juft now on his Remark concerning St. Athanafius.

He acknowledges, Page 146, that my Reflections on the Council of Eliberis are just enough: But

In his 147th Page he fays, I am not so just and accurate in my Reflections on the First Council of Arles; Becaufe, 1ft, I" Diminish the Authority of this Council by following the faulty Subfcriptions [fays be] which make but 33 Bifhops to have been at it ; Whereas it was [Jays Mr. Bingham] a Plenary Council of the Whole Western Church, as St. Austin calls it, consisting of 200 Bishops, &c.

But

σε

But in Anfwer to this, the Learned Du* Pin affirms, that "This Council was compos'd of 33 Weftern Bifhops, with fome Priefts and fome Deacons.' And be gives good Reafons for this, against Baronius, and a Miftaken Text of St. Auftin, in thefe Words: "Baronius thought, that this Council confifted of 200 Bishops, which he Grounded upon a Paffage "of St. Austin, in his Book against the Epiftle of Parmenianus, Ch. V. but he misunderstood that Paffage; for there he do's not speak of the Council of Arles, but of the Council of Rome, which confifted only of 19 Bishops, and not of 200, as they are reckon'd in the Text of St. Austin, according to the Common Editions; but this Place has been reftor'd in the Laft Edition, by a "Manufcript in the Vatican Library; and instead "of reading it as it was, Ut DUCENTOS JU"DICES, apud quos victi funt, victis litigatoribus "credant effe poftponendos, It is now thus reftor'd," "Ut CONTRA JUDICES, apud quos victi funt, vis "Etis litigatoribus credant,&c. There are but 33 Names (c at the Head of the Council's Letter; but of these 33, there are 4 Priefts and 1 Deacon, and 6 Exorcifts. They endeavour to prove, that there was a greater Number of Bifhops at this Council, becaufe Conftantine in his Letter to Chreftus, and the Second Council of Arles teftify, that "there were Bishops in it from all Parts of the "World. But thefe 19 Bifhops are found to be "from all Parts of the Weft, and fo it is not neceffary to admit a greater Number of them, to verify what is faid by Conftantine, and the Fathers "of the Second Council of Arles. Ado fays that

Du Pin's Ecclef. Hift. 4 Cent. p. 247. & Council of Arles. Note b.

600 Bishops were prefeht at this Council, but "this is in no wife probable." Thus far Du Pin.

And now I would ask our Reverend Hiftorian, what if 1000 Bishops were there prefent, do's Their Determi nation concerning the Baptifm of Hereticks in the Name of the Trinity, that they should not be re-baptiz'd, amount to any thing in our prefent Difpute, about Baptifm by Perfons who never had an Epifcopal Commiffion to Baptize? Were thofe Hereticks, fuch Baptizers, or no? Were they meer Laymen, or were they in Epifcopal Orders?

sr

2dly, He fays in the fame Page that I am mistaken, when I fay, "That the Ancient Hereticks and Schifmaticks, whofe Baptifms that Council allow'd, "had commonly receiv'd Ordination from the "Hands of fome Catholick Bishop or other"and that therefore those Baptifms were not AntiEpifcopal." And the Reafon be gives why these are Miftakes, ftands thus: For [fays he] many of the Herefies and Schifms of thofe Times had a Long Succeffion of Falfe Bishops of their Own, who were not Ordain'd by Catholick Bishops, as the Novatians, &c. who certainly did not act by any Authority of the Catholick Church, whilst they were out of the Holy Catholick Church, and in Manifeft Oppofition to it? They were Anti-Epifcopal pro perly speaking, Anti-Epifcopal Baptifms were in fome Senfe, the Subject of that Council, &c. In Answer to all which, Mr. Bingham doubtleß knows that the Novatians and other Hereticks and Schifmaticks began their Herefies and Schifms in Epifcopacy; he cannot fairly deny that they had their firft Bishops ordained and confecrated by Catholick Bishops; That these first heretical and fchifmatical Bishops fo ordained, had not their Orders null'd and voided by thofe Churches who allowed their Baptifms; That the Ordinations perform'd by these Heretical and Schifmatical Bishops were therefore Epifco

pal; and confequently the long Succeffion was truly Epif copal, having been begun by Catholick Bithops, and banded down fuccefsfully by an unrepeal'd, not vacated Epifcopal Commiffion; hence [the Commission being still but the fame that was at first given by Catholick Bishops, namely, Epifcopal.] The Baptizers who were ordained by Virtue of this one and the fame Epifcopal Authority, are truly faid to have "received Ordination from "the Hands [viz. Convey'd to them by their Ordainers from the Hands] of Catholick Bishops ", who vefted their Ordainers with the fame Power to ordain,which the Catholick Bishops themselves were vefted with. Mr. Bingham fays, This was a long Succeffion of Falle Withops". If by Falfe Bishops he means Bishops who were false to the Truft repos'd in 'em, [as all Hereticks and Schifmaticks most certainly are ] then there will be no need to dispute about this Term; but if by "False Bishops" be means Counterfeit or no Bifhops, who had no real Epifcopal Authority conferr'd on them; The Churches who efteem'd their Ordinations to have been Valid, and therefore did not pronounce them Null, are contrary to him; witneß the Great Council of Nice, &c. And therefore in the Sense of thofe Churches they were not "Anti-Epifcopal, properly speaking," as Mr. Bingham would have it; neither were their Baptifms Anti-Epifcopal Baptifms. But I must referr the Reader to what I have faid more upon this Subject in Page v, vj. of this Preface, and in Page 193, &c. of the following Treatife, which is all that I think needful to fay to him, in Anfwer to every thing he has advanc'd about Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, in his Scholaftical Hiftory, and the Appendix thereto.

In his 149th Page he is pleas'd again to Cavil at the Term unauthoriz'd fo often made ufe of by me: In answer to which I tell him once more, that by unauthoziz'd and uncommillion'd," I conftantly defign what all English

men

men ufually mean by fuch Words; namely, not authoriz'd, or never authoriz'd; not commiffion'd, or never commiffion'd: And Mr. Bingham might have fav'd himself and his Reader too a great deal of Time and Trouble, if he bad but rightly confider'd my VIth Definition in Page 34, of the 3d Edition of Lay-Baptifm Invalid: which is this; "By a Lay-Adminiftration,' "I mean, that which is perform'd by one, whe never was Commiffion's oz Impower'd for that Act, by those whom God has appointed to be the Conveyers of his Authority and Commiffion to Men for that purpose." For certainly Baptifm by Such Perfons as thefe, is Lay-Baptism; and because never Commiffion'd, therefore Unauthoziz'd Baptism. Indeed, if there can be any fuch thing as the giving of a Keal Authority to Laymen to Baptize, then, when Authoriz'd, they'll cease in that Refpect to be Laymen, baving [if they can have] a Sacerdotal Power to Baptize in Want of the Clergy; which will make fuch their Baptifm to be Sacerdotal, Authoriz'd Baptifm, and So not properly Lay-Baptifm. But that Laymen can bave this Power conferr'd on them, it wants still to be prov'd.

CC

He Demands at the Bottom of his 149th Page, CC How can it be faid with Truth, that no Council can be produced for the Validity of LayBaptism, or Unauthoriz’o Baptism, when He himfelf, that is, the Author of Lay-Baptifm Invalid] 6C owns that the Council of Eliberis Authorized the One, and fo many Councils confirm'd the Validity of the Other.' He takes Occafion to put this Question, and thus to misrepresent me from my Words, in Page 26 of my Preliminary Difcourfe to LayBaptifm Invalid, Edit. 3d. where Speaking of Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, and the Determinations of fome Councils, &c. about them, I conclude the Para