s. III. First, be infifts upon it, that the Pretended Baptifm which is adminifter'd by Perfons who never were Commiffioned to Baptize, or who never were impower'd, never authoriz'd to Baptize, is Null and Void, and no Chriftian Baptifm: This is the Subject of bis * Treatifes of Lay-Baptifm already published; this their Defign to prove; and this Baptifm, the Author calls Lay-Baptifm; Baptifm deftitute of a Commiffion; unauthoriz'd Baptifm, becaufe done by fuch as were never authoriz'd And in feveral Places of thofe Treatifes be calls this falfe Baptifm, by the Name of Invalid Baptifm, upon Suppofition that he has prov'd it to be fo. So that throughout thofe bis feveral Books, the Terms of Lay-Baptifm, Unauthoriz'd Baptifm, and Inva"lid Baptifm," do all mean this one and the fame Thing, Baptifm by those who never were Commiffion'd, Authoriz'd, or impower'd to Baptize. This he thought be bad fufficiently declared before; efpecially by adding a new Definition in his 3d Edition of Lay-Baptifm Invalid: But that no one may henceforward mistake his Meaning, he thinks it very pertinent to declare it once more, in Answer to the Vth Page of Mr. Bingham's Preface, where he fays, and reckons it a great Error, that 1 frequently Confound the Terms of Lap-Baptism, Inauthoziz d Baptifm, and Invalid Baptifm, together, &c. For, any Man that does but look into the Treatifes before mention'd, may eafily fee, that all which has been there faid upon this Subject, is confin'd to Baptifm by Perfons never Commiffion'd at all to Baptize : Are not thefe Lay-Baptifms? Sure if fuch Perfons are not Laicks, then there are no Laicks at all in the Church.

*

Lay-Baptifm Invalid. Sacerdotal Powers. Diffenters Baptifm Null and Void. The Bishop of Oxford's Charge Confider'd.

Are

Are not fuch Baptifms Unauthoriz'd, i, e. never Authoriz'd? Certainly they are. And when they have been prov'd to be Invalid,is it any wrong confounding of Terms to call them Lay, Unauthoriz'd, and Invalid Baptifms? What is it then that Mr.Bingham requires? What Name would he have us give to Baptifms perform'd by Perfons who were never Commiffion'd, if we must not call them Lay-Baptifms? This cavilling at Words difcovers an Inclination in him to make Things look like Errors, when they are fo far from being fo, that they are exactly right and juft; and let him prove the contrary if be can.

S. IV. Secondly, Thofe Things which were never defign'd to be determin'd Negatively or Affirmatively in the feveral Treatifes written by the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid, are thefe, 1ft. A fuppofed Power of Bishops [which fome fay they have] to Commiffion Laymen to Baptize in Cafes of Extremity. Whether Bishops can or cannot fo commission Lay-Men, the Author (whatever his private Opinion is about it,) had no Mind publickly to determine, because his Business was only with thofe,who were without all Difpute never commiffion'd by Bifhops, in any Refpect whatsoever, to Baptize; and fo is utterly foreign to the other Queftion, How far Bifhops have Authority to impower or commiffion Men for Sacred Miniftrations. I have in feveralPlaces indeed, fhew'd the Danger of their endeavouring to veft Lay Men with Power to Baptize, in Cafe of fuppos'd Neceffity; I have also oppos'd fome pretended Arguments, which have been advanced to prove, that Bishops have fuch a Power to authorize Lay-Men; and even in this Book I have fhew'd, that the Catholick Church has determin'd nothing in Favour of fuch aPower: But yet in all this I will not concern my self so far,as publickly to determine whether Bishops have or have not fuch a fuppos'd extenfive Power for Cafes of Extremity; and let Men take which Side of

the

the Question they please, the Truth I am concern'd about will stand good, that pretended Baptifm by Perfons never commiffion'd by Bishops to Baptize [ who are therefore certainly Lay-Men] is utterly Null and Void. If Bishops can really veft their own LayMen with Power to Baptize, in want of the Clergy, then 'twill follow, that fuch Lay-Men fo Baptizing, are not Laicks in that Act of Miniftration, because vefted with a Prieftly Power for that Purpose, by the Hypothefis : But this Propofition wants to be prov'd; and I care not whether it can be prov'd or no, for it no ways affects the prefent Controversy; fince there must be always Bishops in the Church to veft Men with Commiffion to baptize, bow Contracted or Extenfive foever the Power of Bishops is for this Purpose; and fince there can be no valid Miniftration of Baptifm without an Episcopal Commillion really given to the Baptizer: Which is the great Propofi tion I am concern'd for.

2dly, The Validity or Invalidity of fome ancient beretical and fchifmatical Baptifms, were not defign'd to be infiited upon by that Author; because they were also different from the Cafe before us; their Baptifms were perform'd by Perfons who had been commiffion'd by Bifhops to Baptize; and fo whatever the Nature of their Baptifms was, it had no Comparison with that fort of Baptifm which is evidently and professedly perform'd, not only by those who were never Epifcopally Commiffion'd, but alfo in Oppofition to the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, or the Apoftolical Order it felf. A new Ufurpation this, of fo monstrous a Nature, that whatsoever may be fairly pleaded in behalf of the Ancient, Heretical, and Schifmatical Baptifms, cannot be faid in Defence of thefe, as will be feen in due Time.

4. V. In the Hiftorical Account of thofe Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms, I have indeed express'd a great Value and Esteem for St. Cyprian and bis Colleagues

A 4

Eccle

Ecclefiaftical Laws or Canons against them. Laws fo ftrict, as that they Condemn'd all fuch Baptifms to be Null and Void. And why should not the Spiritual Supreme Governors of the Church, have Power to make fuch Laws, as hall fo far limit and reftrain the Commiffion they give to Ordain'd Perfons, that when they prefume to do any thing by Virtue thereof, in Herefy or Schifm, their A&ts fhall be wholly Null and Void by Virtue of fuch Laws? St. Cyprian and his Colleagues did make Ecclefiaftical Laws to this purpose (as we shall fee hereafter) and in fo doing I reckon that they acted like themselves, and took the most effectual way to beat down Herefy and Schifm: If the rest of the Churches, who in their Difcipline differ'd from St. Cyprian and his Colleagues, had made fuch Laws as they did, thofe Laws being in fuch cafe Univerfal, might in all likelihood, have preferv'd the Unity of the Church, and prevented the many Dreadful Herefies and Schifms which afterwards enfu'd: But thefe Churches would not concur fo far with That Bleffed Martyr; They would not agree with him, to make frustrate and void, during their Herefy and Schifm, the Commiffions, once receiv'd by their Heretical and Schifmatical Subjects; and because they were not fo Null'd by fuch wifh'd-for Laws,therefore their Miniftrations were by those Churches efteem'd to be Good and Valid in themselves, tho' the Perfons concern'd in them, both Administrators and Receivers, were tainted with the Sinful Circumftances of Herefy and Schifm; Infomuch, that tho' these Churches did not declare thofe Baptifms to be Null and Void in the Adminiftrations, for want of Commiffion in the Administrator, yet they reckon'd, that the Spiritual Graces were impeded, or binder'd from Defcending on the Baptized, by reafon of the Sins of Herefy and Schifm, till the Baptized return'd to the Unity of the Church, and as Penitents,receiv'd Abfolution by Impofition of the Bishop's Hands, and then the Spiritual Graces of Baptifm were reckon'd to take effect. Thus thofe Churches held fuck

Baptifms

Baptifms to be valid in themselves as to their Miniftra tion, and fo do I too, because there was no want of Commiffion; and tho' I fubmit to this not fo ftrict Difcipline as that of the Cyprianick Churches; yet I fhould value and efteem St. Cyprian's Difcipline, rather than this, if it were establish'd in the Church: But this my preferring one before the other, is no Argument that I therefore efteem to be null and void, what I think not fo perfect in its Circumftance as the other.

S. VI. Mr. Bingham fays that the Author of LayBaptifm Invalid's "Notions concerning the Invalidity "of Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifm, do, in "their direct and immediate Confequence

191

un

"church and unbaptize the whole Church of Eng"land, unless it can be fhew'd that we had our Baptifm from fome other Church originally, CC than from the Heretical and Schifmatical Church "of Rome," Preface p. V. This indeed is a momentous Confideration, and of fo mighty Importance, that it would have been but just in Mr. Bingham to have nam'd that Author's black Notions in his own Words, and at the fame time too as he brings in fo heavy a Charge against him; and profecutes it to the utmost for almost two Pages together, without fo much as naming One of thofe difmal Notions and Arguments he talks of. But to accufe beavily and pofitively a long while before we come to a Trial of Men's fuppofed Crimes, has fomething in it of Policy and Cunning to win upon the Faith of the credulous. But by what I have already faid in this Preface, and fhall further fay in the Profecution of this Difcourfe, the Reader may easily fee, that I have no fuch Notions as tend to the unchurching and unbaptizing of our Church of England, or indeed of any other Epifcopal Church in the World, that retains the Ellentials of Chrift's Holy Inftitutions, as our Church most certainly does: And if Mr. Bingham, or any other, can prove that I have

any