« PoprzedniaDalej »
of these, and comes to know it, be very apt to say,
I escape bis Judgment for know-
The supposed Error it was designed to oppose, is this; That pretended Baptism, Administred without the Divine Authority or Commission; i.e. by One who bas not this Commision, is not Christian Baptism, but Null and Void. Is not this much Differing from the Real Error of Donatism, which was, That the Donatifts Rebaptiz'd those who came over to them from the Catholick Church, tho' they had been before rightly Baptiz'd in or with Water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and by One in Real, Valid Holy Orders too? What bas this to do with the Matter before us?
And as for Anabaptism, its Error is twofold: First, It Nulls Baptism in ar Infant, howsoever and by whomsoever Administer'd. Secondly, In Grown Persons, if they were not plung'd all over in Water; in both which they make the Age of the Perfon Baptized, and the VERY GREAT
QUANTITY of Water suficient to cover the Perfon, Essential to the Ministration of this Sacrament; Errors fo infinitely Different from the Case before us, that one would wonder how Men could Invent the Notion, of their being not much Different from what is Afferted, and, I hope, fairly proved, to be a Great Truth in this Esay. The Author of a Pamphlet, callid, The
Judgment of the Church of England in the Case of Lay-Baptism and Dissenters Baptism, has publis'd what he calls The Second Part of the Judgment, &c. 'Tis an amazing thing to see Men so expose themselves: For this Gentleman amuses the World with a Repetition of all that he had said before; and gives his Reader the Same Things over again, but in other Words, and in a Method fomething diversified from the former; putting People to an Unnecessary Charge, besides a Trial of their Patience, to bear with the Reading a second Time what they had read before; which is still the more aggravated by his Want of Argument; by his not so much as endeavouring to confute the Reasons brought against his First Part, in the Answer thereto, calld, Diflenters Baptism Null and Void; (for he tells his Reader, that he does not design this as a Reply to that Book ;) by bis unbecoming Language, in giving Ill Names to what he knows he cannot confute; and lastly, by his industriously Evading the MERITS OF THE Cause; when he knows that the Church of England has concern'd Her Self therewith, that her Articles of Religion are built upon it, and that he is oblig'd in his own Defence to enter into it.
This Author mightily triumphs in Bishops confirming Children, pretendedly Baptiz'd by Disenting Teachers, as if they therefore acknowledg'd those
I there are some who fay, that those Baptisms are not Valid before. Confirmation, but made valid by Confirmation; this. (tho I absolutely deny it) I can prove to be the Foundation upon whichi Confirmation has been given to Persons so pretendedly Baptiz'd; and our Author would do well to consider, whether those Bishops he speaks of, did not Confirm them upon the fame Foundation, before he so positively affirms, that those BiShops allowed their Baptisms to be Valid: For, if 'tis true, that some act upon this false Foundation, others may have done so likewise ; and this will Spoil our Writer's Supposition, however insuficient to make those Baptisms Valid, as I have endeavoured to prove in this Elay.
I have in this Fourth Edition added some further Arguments to prove the main Proposition, so much avoided by this Author, and endeavour'd to Answer new Obje&tions for the Satisfaction of some who may be led away by them.
Í have nothing more to request of my Reader than Christian Juftice and Equity in bis Censures, and that he would beartily join with me in this Prayer to Almighty God, That it would please Him to bring into the Way of Truth, all such as have Erred, and are Deceived.
Τ Η Ε
Letter to the Author, Pag. i, to lxx
A Preliminary Discourse of the VaA rious Opinions of the Fathers, con
cerning Rebaptizations, and Invalid
Baptisms; with Remarks, Page 1, St. Cyprian and his Collegues Opinion of Heretical :: and Schismatical Baptisms,
ibid. The Opinion of Stephen Bishop of Rome, and his
Party, concerning such Baptisms, The Arguments of the Stephanians for their Validitý,
ibid. The Cyprianists Reasons for their Invalidity, 3 St. Cyprian's Christian Humility and Charity towards bis Antagonists,
9 The contrary Temper of Stepheni Bishop of Rome,
ibid. The Apoftolick Canons establish Șt. Cyprian's Opi
nion, St. Athanafius rejets Heretical Baptism, The Council of Eliberis allows of Lay-Baptism in Case of Necesity, but with a particular Proviso,
II The Council of Arles determines the famous Dispute. about Rebaptizing Hereticks.
12 But nothing concerning Lay-Baptism, 13 The Orthodox after the Council of Nice reject Lay-Baptism,
ibid $1. Bafil
St. Bafil does fo too,
14 'His Opinion of Heretical and Schismatical Baptism,
IS The Councils of Laodicea, Constantinople, Capua,
and Carthage, The Third Council of Carthage disallows Baptism by Women,
16 St. Chrysostom against the Validity of Lay-Baptism,
ibid. St. Augustin's Argument against the Donatists, not conclufive for the Validity of Lay-Baptism,
18 Nor his Arguments against the Cyprianists, 20, 21 The Author's Cafe, and Disfatisfaction, His Short Answer to some who would perfuade
Him, that the_Baptism adminifter'd to him in Opposition to Epifcopacy, was good, because done in his Infancy,
27 His Thoughts about the Dispute in St. Cyprian's Time,
ibid. His Resolution however not to meddle with it, 31 His Design in this Discourse,
32 The INTRODUCTION. Of the Nature and Obligation of Divine Positive
Institutions of Religion.
DEFINITIONS of A Divine Positive Institution,
33 The Essential Parts of such an Institution, ibid. An Invalid AET,
34. Supernatural Advantages annex'd to falch an Infitta tution
ibid. The Divine Authority of the Administrator, ibid. A Lay- Administration,
ibid. Axioms, or U ndeniable Maxims.