« PoprzedniaDalej »
and necessary as Water and the Form, those Two other Essential Parts of the Institution, (by the ist and ad Propositions ; ) it must neces sarily follow, that the want of Divine Authod rity in him who Administers,is equally a Breach of, or contrary to, tħe said Institution; and therefore, if the want of Water, or the Forn, makes any Baptism to be wholly Null and Void, because contrary to the Institution; the want also of only the Divine Commission in the Administrator, must for the same Reason make that Baptism so Minister'd to be wholly Invalid, and of no Effect, being equally contrary to the fame Institution. And consequently, whofoever affirms Baptism to be wholly Null and Invalid, by reason of the Omiffon either of Wa. ter or the Form, ought also for the same Reas son to acknowledge, that Baptism is as much Null and Invalid when it wants only the Divine Authority or Commission of the Administras tor. l E. D.
COROLLA RY. FROM this Proposition it undoubtedly follows, that the Invalidity of such Baptisms as are administer'd by Unauthoriz'd Perfons, cannot be partial, but entire: For, if Baptism be wholly void for want of Water, or the Form of Administring in the Name of the Trinity, as the whole Church of Christ have constantly and with great Reafon affirm'd; it
must be also (by this last Proposition) as entirely (and consequently not partially) Invalid, for want of only the Divine Mision of the Administrator; and all this, by reason of the Equal, Authority and Neceflity of every one of thefe Essential Parts.
I mention this, (that there cannot be any Partial Invalidity, but it must be whole and entire] because I have heard from some, that the want of the Divine Mission of the Admi. pistrator of Baptism, makes such a Baptism but partially Invalid; and that, provided the Person is Baptized by such a one with Water, and Pronouncing of [In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, ] ImpoGition of the Bishop's Hand is sufficient to supply the other Defect, and consequently to make such Baptism as Valid, as it would have been if administer'd by one divinely, authoriz'd, that is, wholly and entirely Valid. But that this cannot be, iş evident by the above-mention'd Corollary; wherein 'tis plainly demonstrated, that if in this Cafe there be any Invalidity at all, it cannot be Partial but Entire. And as for the Virtue of such Imposition of Hands, ?tis utterly contrary to Axxiom the 5th, which is a FIRST PRINCIPLE; viz. That no Pomen or Authority, on Earth, can by any AfterAct ( not appointed by God, for that purpose make that which before was, Invalid, to become as Valid, as Conforming to the Divine Institution, it self would have made it. So that, if by Im
position of Hands, they would make such Im
therefore binding and obliging,) at the same time as they gave Imposicion of Hands to fuch invalidly Baptized Perfons, who might instead thereof have been then Baptiz'd by themselves or their Substitutes, who were vefted with the Divine Authority for that Purpose.
A S for the Church of England, she gives us not the least Inciniation of any Efficacy in the Imposition of the Bishop's Hand, to give Validiey to such Baptisms as are fuppos’d to be partly Invalid before: For, her Office of Confirmation is made only for Perfons validlj Baptized; and if they are not fo che Use of that Office upon their Accounts will be a perfect Contradiction: Because the Prayer of the Bishop, before he blesses by Imposition of his Hands, afferts, “That God has Regeneraš “ted the Perfon by Water and the Holy Ghoft; dnd has given unto him Forgiveness of all
his Sins; which takes in the whole Benefit of Valid Baptism, and therefore cannot be faid, with any Sense, over a person whose Baptism is suppos'd to be but partly Válid, and Gonsequently, to convey but Part of clie Benefits of True Baptism. So little has she proa vided for any Method of giving Validity to partly Invalid Baptifmsi »
We have some among us who fay, “That the Ancient Churches, when they found " that Persons had been baptiz?d in or with “Water, in she Name of the Father, and of
mitive Church when the refusd to give a See
the San, end of the Holy Gholj tlid by Laja
Perfonsi or Heretickss or Schifmatickså tley "refus’d to giveluch Persoos Catholick Bapa "tismi, at the Hands of those who were due
ly authoriz doby the Divine Commiffion : Bes
cause they reckon d amj Baptem with Wateo “ in the Name of the Trinity, by whomfoer ver administer'd, to be that iOne Baptism
which ought not to be repeated into a Bue Egyet, at the fame time, they esteem'd fuoli
a Baptism in fome Measure Invalid till ig was perfected, or rather mended, by Impos " lition of the Bishop's Handsei And for this they bring the Council of Elikeris : Anno 3051 Can. 38. (See Prelim. Difc. pag. 11.) And " because that Council requird the Lay-Bap. "uuizid Person to be prefented to the Bishop, "to be PERFECTED by Imposition of & Handsthence they conclude, that there " was a Pertiak Invalidity in the Baptifm before ibut that iti was madeiwholly Kalid by
Imposition of Handsoul qilis 10? . But this is only Gratis Distuma For the Pri cond Washing; refufed it upon this Account, That Sheefteem'd the Baptism before to be tba One i Kalid. Baptifmoos land the Imposition of Hands enjoyn'd by Here was no other than that which was used, either at the Conformation of all other validly Baptized Perfors; or else at the reltoring of Returning. Penitents, and to the fame Ends and Purposes; not with any Des?