tion

have given us only one Quotationfrom a doubted Author, whofe Ability and Veracity both are very juftly fufpicious, upon the account of his Obfcurity, his great Distance from the Days of the Apoftles, and his Singularity of Opinion about this Matter, for which he vouches no former Author? If it were true, would the Apoftle St. Paul have given us reafon to believe the contrary, by affirming, in his Days, when the World was not Generally Con verted, Án. Chr. 59. That God - fet fome in his Church, firft Apoftles, fecondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, upon which he makes this InterrogaAre all Teachers? 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29. which is a ftrong Affirmation, that all Chriftians were not then Teachers; contrary to the Opinion of the fpurious St. Ambrofe, that the Apoftles did at firft grant a general Commiffion to all Chriftians to Teach; and fince he is wrong in this, 'tis reasonable to believe he is fo in the other, viz. the general Commiffion to all Chriftians to Baptize, which he connects to that of their Teaching: And therefore our Hiftorian has prov'd nothing of LayChriftians being at firft Authoriz'd to Baptize, from this Quotation: fince his Author's pretended Evidence is contrary to Scripture, in one Inftance; and not establish'd thereby, but wholly fin gular with respect to all Antiquity before him, in the other.

§ III. After this Quotation; Mr. Bingham fays, concerning the Power of Baptizing receiv'd from the Apoftles, by way of Paraphrafe upon his Author's Words, "That his Author feems to have been "of Opinion, that as no one can have a "Power of Baptizing, but He that receives, Lome way or other, a Commission from them, [i.e.

t

૬૦

the

This is our Hi

the Apoftles;] So, &c. p. 4. ftorian's own Comment; and I defire it may be taken the more notice of, because I shall make fome further Use of it hereafter; in the mean time, it plainly intimates, in conjunction with this Quotation, That the Commiffion to Baptize can only be executed by the Apoftles and their Succeffors, and fuch as are Appointed, Authoriz'd, Impower'd or Commiffion'd by them, be they who they will, whether Men in ftanding Holy Orders, or, in want of fuch, others who are not fo, if they can be at all Commiffion'd: And whether they can or no, I trouble not my felf; but leave that to be difputed between Mr. Bingham and his Antagonist the Doctor at Greenwich, Author of a little Pamphlet, Intituled, New Dangers to the Chriftian Priesthood, (who reckons the ftanding Priefthood to be in very great Danger, upon this Principle, of Bishops having Power to Authorize Lay-men to Baptize) which has been Anfwer'd in the Preface to the Third Edition of Lay-Baptifm Invalid.

cc

66

IV. Mr. Bingham proceeds with his Author's Opinion; "When the Neceffities of the Church requir'd it, they [i. e. the Apoftles] had Power to Authorize others, befides the ftanding Minifters, to Baptize; which Power they both might and did recall again, as foon as thofe Neceffities of the Church were over: And upon this Principle it (6 was, chiefly, that the Ancient Bishops of the Church allow'd Deacons and fometimes Lay-men to Baptize, &c. p. 4. But our Hiftorian's Author has not prov'd the Truth of his Opinion. He has given no Ancient Testimony of the Apoftle's Commiffioning દ્ર others befides the ftanding Minifters to Baptize": This pretended Matter of Fact is fo far from being

well

well attefted, that it is not attested at all; we have nothing but his bare ipfe dixit for it, at 300 Years Distance from the Apostles, and have reafon to believe it to be falfe: See II. And therefore to found the Principle of Bishops Power to Authorize Lay-men to Baptize, upon this not prov'd but pretended Matter of Fact only, is very weak and precarious. Befides, why are Deacons here rank'd with Lay-men, among those who are not ftanding Minifters to Baptize? Did not Mr. Bingham reckon 'em before as ftanding Minifters? p. 3. How fhall we account for these things? But further, If it could be prov'd, as it has not yet been, that Bishops have Power, and by virtue thereof have fometimes allow'd or authoriz'd Lay-men to Baptize, "when the Neceffities of the "Church requir'd it," Is it not a jeft to talk at this rate, if Lay-men can in fuch Cafes "bave a "Power of Baptizing" without the Bishop's Commiffion? Either fuch Exigencies alone gave them a Power, or they did not. If they did, then they ftood in no need of being Authoriz'd by Bishops; and fo Bishops taking upon them fo to Authorize them, was a pretence of Power which fignify'd nothing: If fuch Exigencies alone did not Impower them to Baptize, then, if they had pretended to Baptize, having never receiv'd the Bishop's Commiffion, they would have exerted no Power of Baptizing, and fo their Act would have been No Baptifm: It remains then, that the whole Power of Legally Valid Baptifm must be refolv'd into the Commiffion of the Baptizer, in conjunction with the Matter and the Form. Otherwife the Power of Giving and Withdrawing a Commiffion to Baptize will be but a Banter. And without this Principle, [of the Neceffity of the Apoftolick Commiffion to

Baptize]

Baptize] it will be impoffible to account for the Practife of all the Bishops of the Catholick Church, who appropriate to themfelves alone the Power of giving others Commiffion to Baptize.

SV. Mr. Bingham tells us next, That many Paffages of the Ancient Writers "Speak of the Original Power of adminiftring Baptifm, as lodg'd "folely and entirely in the hands of Bishops, as "the Apostles immediate Succeffors, [This is acknowledg'd] He proceeds, "and Derivatively convey'd from them to others,' - whom they "Authoriz'd to be either the ftanding and Ordinary "Minifters of Baptifm, or elfe only the Occasional "and Extraordinary Minifters of it, in Times of abfo"lute Neceffity, and great Exigences of the Church,

כ,

P. 5. This of" only the Occational and Extraordinary Minifters of Baptifin, befides Bifhops, Priefts and Deacons, who are the "tanding "and Ordinary Minifters" thereof, he has not yet brought Evidence for. Then he goes on, That the Antients" thought Baptifm chiefly to be the Bishop's Office; and when it was done by others, it was still done by his Authority, and reputed as his Act, which he alfo Ratified as Occafion "required, by adding what was wanting in the “Circumstances of the Solemnity, in a subsequent "Confirmation, p. 8. This is very Right, they did think fo, and the Bishop did fo Ratifie and Confirm what was wanting in the Circumstances of the Solemnity, but never what was wanting of the Essentials relating to the Sacrament,

in a

Subfequent Confirmation." Let our Hiftorian produce any ancient Inftances of thefe latter fort of pretended Confirmations, if he is able; which he has not yet done. And the Commiffion to Baptize,

Baptize, is not a Circumftantial, but an Effential relation to Baptifin.

СС

VI. He fays, That this Point was clear among "them beyond all Difpute, That Presbyters had only a Derivative and Subordinate Power to Baptize as "well as others, and fo long as they kept to this Rule, their Baptifms were Regular and Lawful, as "done in Conformity to the Establish'd Rules and "Orders of the Church: But if they fet themselves "in Oppofition to their Bishop, and either acted without or against his Confent, as Ablolute and Independent of him, then their Baptifms and all "their other Offices were Irregular and Unlawful, becaufe done in a Schifmatical Way, and in a pro fefs'd Contempt of Authority, and all the ftanding Rules and Laws of the Church, p. 9, 10.

66

:

This of Presbyters Derivative and Subordinate Power to Baptize, is not to be deny'd But then it is to be enquir'd, What Presbyters among the Antients did ever offer to Baptize, as Abfolute and Independent of Bishops ? Mr. Bingham has not produced any ancient Inftance of fuch modern Rebels; no, the Schifmaticks of old adher'd to, and depended upon fome Bishop or other. And if it be proper to call their Baptifms Irregular and Unlawful, yet their Irregularity and Unlawfulness had a reference only to the Circumftantial Rules and Laws of the Church; as a Baptism adminifter'd by a Prieft, with us, in a Private Houfe, where there is no Neceffity for fuch Private Baptifin, may be call'd Irregular and Unlawful, becaufe contrary to the Church's Rubrick; it may be fairly aggravated to fuch a pitch, as to be affirm'd to be "in Oppofition to the Bishop, and without or against his Confent." And yet all this is but a Circumftantial Irregularity,

'