Сс

CC

૯૮

"of the Priesthood upon them; but upon fome "other Notion and Foundation, which equally ex"tended to Deacons as well as Piets; and made the Baptifm of a Deacon, tho' Irregularly and Unlawfully perform'd, as Valid as that of a Prieft, "in the fame Circumstances: And that must be (fays he) upon one of these two Grounds, either, "That Baptifm, by whomsoever Christian perform'd, was Valid, and not to be repeated, pro"vided it was done with due Matter and Form: Or elfe, That the Bishops of the Church, as Chief Minifters of Baptifm, had Power to Receive and Confirm thofe Baptifms, which were otherwife Irre"gularly, and in Oppofition to their Authority and Commiffion, perform'd in the Church, p. 11, 12. Here we fee again confirm'd, what I obferv'd before, That our Hiftorian feparates Deacons, from fuch as have the Character of Priesthood; and thereby contradicts himfelf: See p. 17. before. But the Defign of this is plain, by his Two propofed Gueffes, which are evidently made to promote the Belief of One of thefe Two Things; 1ft, That thofe Antients reckon'd Baptifin perform'd with Water, in the Name of the Trinity, by any Chriftian, tho' never Commiffion'd to Baptize, was Good and Valid, (not excepting Apoftate or Excommunicate Chriftians) nay, even tho' it were done by fuch Uncommiffion'd Perfons, in Oppofition to the Divine Right of the Apoftolick Order, i. e. Epifcopacy; for, he fays, by whomsoever Chaiftian perform'd: Which is a Latitude of that vaft Extent, that it fufficiently juftifies the Severity of my Obfervation.

But then, if this fhould fail, and fuch Baptifms be prov'd Null and Void, then he reckons, 2dly, That Bishops might Confirm and thereby make

C 4

make fuch Baptifms to become Valid. If One of thefe Two be not his Defign, then he defigns nothing at all; and fo might have fpar'd us the trouble of concerning our felves with fuch his Gueffes; and if he do's defign to induce us to believe either of thofe Notions, he muft bring better Evidence for the Truth thereof, than has yet been produc'd, or than what his Scholaftical Hiftory can furnish us withal: He feems to be fomething fenfible of this, in his following Words; for, not trufting wholly to either of thofe Two fuppofititious Principles, he concludes his Paragraph, thus ; "But however it was, (fays he) this is certain, "That the Validity of an Irregular Prieft's Baptifm, ૬ was not owing to his Indelible Character; fince the Baptifm of Deacons, and Lay-men who had not "the Character of Priests, was fometimes authoriz'd "and allow'd as Valid, which is evident from plain Matters of Fat, which I now proceed to give a further Account of, (fays our Hiftorian, p. 12.-) Upon which 'tis very remarkable, that hitherto he befitates concerning the Certainty of his Two foregoing Suppofitions, by faying, "However tho' he had faid juft before, that it "must be upon one of thofe two Grounds; firft, lifting us up with the Expectation of a Certainty, by his [muit be,] and then letting us fall into our former Doubtfulness, by his [however it was:] But at laft, after thefe various Fluctuations, he endeavours to fix our Minds, upon what, he fays

ર

r

it was;

رو

is certain, viz. That the Validity of an Irregular "Prief's Baptifm was not owing to his Indelible Cha"racter;" And this is anfwer'd, by faying, that his Character was Indeleted, it remain'd good, becaufe not blotted out by the fame Powers who imprefs'd it. Thofe Powers did not pretend to take

away

away his Character, as we have before obferv'd; therefore the Baptifms perform'd by him were Sacerdotal, and fo founded upon a Sacerdotal Commiffion, and confequently Valid; and his following pretended Reafon to the contrary, viz. That "the Validity of the Baptifm was not owing to his Indelible Character, since the Baptifm of "Deacons and Lay-men, who had not the Cha"rader of Priests, was fometimes authoriz'd and "allow'd as Valid," is an evident Falacy; because built upon a falfe Foundation, That Deacons had not the Character of Priefts, when himself acknowledges, in other Places before noted in p. 17. That Deacons have their Share in the Chriftian Priesthood; nay, and he has given the Name or Character of Priesthood, even to Lay-men Baptizing in Cafe of Neceffity, as I have prov'd before in p. 17, 18.

XI. He next proceeds to give us an Historical Account of Deacons Baptizing; and tells us, That they," by fome ancient Canons, are invested with the Power of Baptizing in Didinary Cafes, as well as Priefts, p. 12. That "Some other An"cient Rules feem abfolutely to forbid Deacons to minifter Baptifm in Ordinary Cafes, confining the "Office only to Bishops and Presbyters, p. 14, for which he produces the Canons call'd Apoftolical, and the Conftitutions under the Names of the

Apoftles: That " yet notwithstanding this,

66

a Deacon may Baptize, if he has a Commiffion and Authority from his Bishop to do it, p. 16.- for which he quotes the fame Conftitutions: That, "In Cafe of Neceffity, [St. Chyfoftom] not only permits, but pofitively enjoins Deacons to Baptize, p. 18 And proceeding upon the fame Subjects to

" So Neceffary,

p. 22. he at laft concludes thus

66

we fee, was this Distinction between D2dinary "and Extrao2dinary Cafes, to adjust Matters, in the Practice of the Primitive Church; whilft, on "the one hand, the Honour and Dignity of the Priesthood was to be pæferv'd; and yet Deacons allow'd on the other hand, to minifter Baptifm in Some Cafes, tho' they were not Paefts in the frit fenfe, in the Opinion of those who allow'd "them to do it.

This of Deacons not being Priefts in the ftria fenfe, amounts to no more than faying, they are not Bishops; for Bifhops alone have the whole Power of the Chriftian Priefthood in themfelves; but others derive the Priesthood from them, as Presbyters do in the next fubordinate Degree; and Deacons under them, in the third and loweft Order; as Mr. Bingham himself has obferv'd. And as for the Neceffity of a Diftinction between Ordinary and Extraordinary Cafes, to adjust Matters in the Pradice of the Primitive Church; this is certain, from all that he has faid to this part of his Hiftory That as the Apoftolick Commiffion was always infifted upon, to Impower Men to Baptize in Ordinary, fo it was likewife requir'd to Impower them to Baptize in Extraazdinary, Cafes; to the intent that this Commission might Continue to the "End of the World; " because it was Necef fary to Preferve the Church, according to "the Dider of Chaft, in future Ages; as our Hiftorian has excellently obferv'd, in his p. 3. and upon which I have remark'd, p. 5, 6. For this, the Three Orders of Bishops, Priefs, and Deacons, were Inftituted, that they might, the Inferior in fubordination to the Superior, minifter Baptifin by the fame Commission, in Dzdinary and

and Extraozdinary Cales too, and that in the Abfence of one, the other might ftill be enabled to fupply the Wants of the Church, by one and the fame commiffion'd Baptifm. The Reftraining of Prefbyters and Deacons, fometimes from the Exercife of this Power, during the Prefence of the Bishop, was to preferve the Dignity of the Superior Order, and to keep the Inferior in that juft Subordination which 'twas their Duty to obferve (as in our Church the Prieft is not to give the Bleffing in Prefence of the Bishop, nor the Deacon to Baptize in Prefence of the Presbyter;) but this occafional Reftraining the Exercife of their Function for fome Times and Circumftances, was not a taking away their Commiffion to Baptize in thofe Circumftances, but only a making them give way to their Superi ors: For which Reafon, Deacons, who were Priefts of the Third Order, and in their Ordination were vefted with a Commiflion to Baptize, were also reftrain'd from the Exercife of that Function during the Prefence of a 2ieft of the Second Order, to preferve the Dignity of the Second Order. But this Reftraint was no more a Nulling or making Void the Deacon's Commiffion which he had receiv'd to Baptize, than it was of the Priefts; for we do not find by any thing which our Hiftorian has yet produc'd, that Clergy-men, of any Order, tranfgreffing these Circumftantial Rules of the Church, were actually divefted of their Commiffion by thofe ancient Churches who efteem'd their Miniftrations valid: On the contrary we fee, by the Nicene Council, and the African Code, before referr'd to, that the Commiffions of irregular Clergy-men, whether Bishops, Priefts or Deacons (who had acted in Schifm which they ought not to have done) remain'd ftill good and valid; for thofe Churches did not require them to

be