and neceffary as Water and the Form, thofe Two other Effential Parts of the Inftitution, (by the 1st and 2d Propofitions; ) it must neces farily follow, that the want of Divine Autho rity in him who Adminifters,is equally a Breach of, or contrary to, the faid Inftitution; and therefore, if the want of Water, or the Form, makes any Baptifm to be wholly Null and Void, because contrary to the Inftitution; the want alfo of only the Divine Commiffion in the Adminiftrator, muft for the fame Reafon make that Baptifm fo Minister'd to be wholly Invalid, and of no Effect, being equally contrary to the fame Inftitution. And confequently, whofo ever affirms Baptifm to be wholly Null and Invalid, by reafon of the Omifion either of Wa ter or the Form, ought alfo for the fame Reas fon to acknowledge, that Baptifm is as much Null and Invalid when it wants only the Divine Authority or Commiffion of the Adminiftra tor. Q. E. D.

COROLLAR Y.

FROM this Propofition it undoubtedly follows, that the Invalidity of fuch Baptifms as are administer'd by Unauthoriz'd Perfons, cannot be partial, but entire: For, if Baptifm be wholly void for want of Water, or the Form of Adminiftring in the Name of the Trinity, as the whole Church of Chrift have conftantly and with great Reafon affirm'd; it

muft

must be also (by this laft Propofition) as entirely (and confequently not partially) Invalid, for want of only the Divine Miffion of the Administrator; and all this, by reason of the Equal Authority and Neceffity of every one of thefe Effential Parts.

any

I mention this, [that there cannot be Partial Invalidity, but it must be whole and entire because I have heard from fome, that the want of the Divine Miffion of the Adminiftrator of Baptifm, makes fuch a Baptism but partially Invalid; and that, provided the Perfon is Baptized by fuch a one with Water, and Pronouncing of [In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ] Impofition of the Bishop's Hand is fufficient to fupply the other Defect, and confequently to make fuch Baptifm as Valid, as it would have been if adminifter'd by one divinely authoriz'd, that is, wholly and entirely Valid. But that this cannot be, is evident by the above-mention'd Corollary; wherein 'tis plainly demonftrated, that if in this Cafe there be any Invalidity at all, it cannot be Partial but Entire. And as for the Virtue of fuch Impofition of Hands, 'tis utterly contrary to Axion the 5th, which is a FIRST PRINCIPLE; viz. That no Power 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 Inftitution it felf would have made it. So that, if by Im pofition

pofition of Hands, they would make fuch Im perfect or Invalid Baptifms, to be as Valid as the Perfect ones perform'd according to the Inftitution; it lies upon them to demonftrate, that fuch Impofition of Hands was appointed by God himself, either in some Law, or by the Practice of the Holy Apostles, for fuch a Purpose: But this I defpair of ever feeing them do; because the Sacred Oracles gives us not the leaft Encouragement, either in plain Words, or by good Inferences, (to be drawn from fuch as are not so plain) to believe that this Rite of the Impofition of Hands, with refpect to Baptiz'd Perfons, was ever Ordain'd, but to be perform'd on those only, who were before truly and validly Bap tiz'd. There is not one Example of the Apoftles using this Ceremony to make up fuch De fects of Baptifm, nor any thing like it: And if in After-Ages fome us'd this Ordinance for that Purpose, (as 'tis afferted, tho' upon what good Evidence I know not, that they did) they feem thereby to have difpens'd with a' Divine Positive Inftitution, at the fame time that it was binding and obliging; which was taking to themselves an Authority that did not at all belong to them (by Axiom 3.); I fay, They difpens'd with a Divine Politive Inftitution, when 'twas binding and obliging; because they allow'd of the Omiffion of the Divine Authority of the Adminiftrator of Bap tifm, which might have been had (and was

therefore

therefore binding and obliging,) at the fame time as they gave Impofition of Hands to fuch invalidly Baptized Perfons, who might inftead thereof, have been then Baptized by themselves or their Substitutes, who were vefted with the Divine Authority for that Purpose.

AS for the Church of England, fhe gives ús not the leaft Intimation of any Efficacy in the Impofition of the Bishop's Hand, to give Validity to fuch Baptifms as are fuppos'd to be partly Invalid before: For, her Office of Confirmation is made only for Perfons validly Baptized; and if they are not fo, the Ufe of that Office upon their Account, will be a perfect Contradiction: Because the Prayer of the Bishop, before he bleffes by Impofition of his Hands, afferts, "That God has Regenera "ted the Perfon by Water and the Holy Ghost " and has given unto him Forgiveness of all his Sins; which takes in the whole Benefit of Valid Baptifm, and therefore cannot be faid, with any Senfe, over a Person whose Baptism is fuppos'd to be but partly Välid, and confequently, to convey but Part of the Benefits of True Baptifm. So little has she provided for any Method of giving Validity to partly Invalid Baptifms.

A

WE have fome among us, who fay, "That "the Ancient Churches, when they found "that Perfons had been baptiz'd in or with "Water, in the Name of the Father, and of G

"the

1

“the San, sand of the Holy Ghost, thợ by Laj “Persons, or Hereticks, or Schifmaticks, they "refused to give fach Perfons Catholick Bap"tif, at the Hands of those who were du

ly authoriz'd by the Divine Commission : Be"cause they reckon'd any Baptism with Water "in the Name of the Trinity, by whomfort ver administer'd, to be that One Baptifm "which ought not to be repeated But Eyet, at the fame time, they esteem'd fuch

a Baptifm in fome Measure Invalid, till it "was perfected, or rather mended, by Impo "fition of the Bishop's Hands. And for this they bring the Council of Eliberis, Anno 305. Can. 38. (See Prelim. Dife. pag. 1.) And "because that Council requir'd the Lay-Bap "fotizid Perfon, to be prefented to the Bifhop, 66 to be PERFECTED by Imposition of "Hands; thence they conclude, that there "I was a Partial Invalidity in the Baptifm be "fore but that it was made wholly Kalid by Impofition of Handsiq bile Vout

But this is only Gratis Dictum: For the Pri mitive Church when he refus'd to give a See cond Walking, refufed it upon this Account, That the esteem'd the Baptifm before to be the One Valid Baptifm; and the Impofition of Hands enjoyn'd by Her, was no other than that which was ufed, either at the Confirmation of all other validly Baptized Perfons, or else at the reftoring of Returning Penitents, and to the fame Ends and Purpofes; not with any De

fign