MR. Bingham's Account of the Apoftolick Commiffion to Baptize, of the Conveyance and conftant Neceffity thereof to

the End of the World,

He makes the Commiffion to Baptize, Effential to the Miniftration of Baptism,

The Pfeudo-St. Ambrofe's Opinion, that the Apoftles at first commiffion'd all Chriftians both to Teach and Baptize, refuted,

7

8

Mr. Bingham, from this Author, infers, that no one can have a Power of Baptizing, but he that receives fome way or other a Commiffion from the Apostles, And that the Original Power of Baptizing was lodg'd folely and entirely in Bishops, and derivatively convey'd from them to others; inferr'd by him from the Ancient Writers, His Notion of Bishops Ratifying Irregular Baptifms, by adding what was wanting in the Circumftances of Baptifm, by an after Confirmation, confider'd and fet to Rights,

II

ibid.

13, 14, &c.

His Distinction between Irregularity and Invalidity, confider'd, 13
His Notion of Baptifm minister'd without a Commiffion, that it was
efteem'd Valid, notwithstanding the Sinfulness of the ACT OF
MINISTRATION, refuted,
His Attempt to prove, that the Ancients did not fuppofe Baptifm
to be wholly founded upon Sacerdotal Powers, prov'd to be
contrary to,and inconfiftent with his own Affertions, 16,to 18
His Fancy, that Baptism by an Irregular Prieft, if allow'd to be
Valid upon the Account of his Prieftly Character, must be
Authoriz'd and Unauthorized, Regular and Irregular, Lawful and
Unlawful at the fame time, and in the very fame Act and Re-
Spect, and therefore a Contradiction; prov'd to be very falla-

cious,

19

22

His ill-grounded Gueffes, at the Reasons why the Ancients al-
low'd of the Validity of Baptifm by an Irregular Priest,
His odd Notion of Deacons not being Priefts,and confequently that
Baptifm perform'd by them in Abfence of the Priests, is not
Baptifin by a Sacerdotal or Prieftly Power; refuted, 16, 25

CHA P. III.

TEftimonies for and against Lay-Baptism Examined, 30 Mr.Bingham owns that Lay-Men were always debarr'd from the Miniftration of Baptifm in ALL ORDINARY CASES, ibid. This prov'd to be a Nulling of all Lay-Baptifms perform'd in Ordinary Cafes; confequently that our Diffenters Baptisms are Null and Void, ibid. Mr. Bingham ftates the grand Question wrong, concerning LayBaptifm in Extraordinary Cafes, if he would bring it to our Cafe about which we are difputing,

32

ibid.

33

The Grand Question of our Lay-Baptifms truly ftated,
No Teftimonies for Lay-Baptifm in the firft 200 Years of Chri-
stianity,
Therefore no ancient Catholick Tradition, no general Senfe and
Practice of the Church, can be found whereon to establish the
Practice of Lay-Baptifm,

ibid.

Mr. Bingham owns that Particular Churches, are Exceptions againft his pretended general Practice of the Church in this Matter,

32, 33

Mr. Bingham's whole Evidence amounts to no Catholick Tradition for Lay-Baptifm,

34 St. Ignatius, Anno 71, makes Baptifm to be Null and Void, when perform'd by one who was never commiffion'd by the Bishop,

St.

38

St. Hermas mentions none but Epifcopally or Divinely Authoriz'd Baptizers, for Cafes of Extremity, Tertullian's private Notion, about the Year 200, of Lay-Men's Right to baptize in Abfence of the Clergy; no Evidence of any Law, Tradition or Custom of the Catholick Church, for their pretended Right,

39, &c.

His falfe Reafon upon which he founds their pretended Right,refuted,

43

His other particular Fancies, may with as much Reason be call'd the Church's General Sense and Practice, as his Notion of LayBaptifm may,

44

47

ibid.

He gives us not one Inftance of any fuch Baptifm, allow'd of by the Church in his Days, His Words are full and direct against our ordinary Lay-Baptifms, and by Confequence prove their Nullity, St. Cyprian and Firmilian about the Year 256. reckon'd Lay-Baptifms to be Null and Void, as St. Bafil witneffes, 48 St. Cyprian's own Works plainly fhew, that he esteem'd all Baptifnis to be void, that were perform'd by fuch as were reckon'd to be deftitute of Prieftly Power and Authority, SI Firmilian's Letter to St. Cyprian proves, that Firmilian and the Council of Iconium held the fame,

54, 55

Several of St. Cyprian's Collegues in the Council of Carthage, the fame,

55, 56 57

The 47th Canon call'd Apoftolical, the fame, The Council of Eliberis in Spain held by 19 Bishops Anno 305, does not favour Baptifm by Perfons, who never were conimiffion'd by Bishops to baptize, 58, III This Council is against Tertullian's private Opinion, of Lay-Men's Right in themselves to baptize in Abfence of the Clergy, 59 And 'tis also against Mr. Bingham's Guess that the Ancients might efteem Baptifm by whomfoever Chriftian perform'd to be good and valid, 59, 60 The Council of Eliberis's Canon, is no Argument for the Practice of the Catholick Church,

61

The Fable of Athanafius, when as Boy, baptizing his Play-fellows in Sport; and of Alexander the Bishop's determining the Baptifm to be Valid, expos'd,

62

Rufinus, the first Author of it, a very credulous and careless Hiftorian,

Sozomen's Account of it taken only from Rufinus,
He was no very judicious Writer,

65

67

68

Socrates Scholafticus, the moft Judicious and Diligent of the three Hiftorians,

69

This latter,though quoted by Mr. Bingham to vouch for the Truth of that Fable, does not fpeak one word, either of the Boy Atba

Athanafius's Baptizing the other Boys; or of Alexander's fuppos'd Determination about it,

69, 70

He fays he Copy'd from Rufinus, fuch Paffages, in the relation whereof Rufinus did not forfake the Truth,

72

71 And therefore his omitting this Fable, is an Argument that he did not believe Rufinus's Relation of it, ibid. Another of Mr. Bingham's Authors for the Truth of this Fable, founds it upon a new Suppofition of his own, that spoils the Defign of Mr. Bingham's relating it, Johannes Mofchus, another of Mr. Bingham's Vouchers, a Ridiculous Vifionary Monk of the 7th Century; who writes this Fable, among other idle Legendary Stories of Miracles, Dreams, not to be credited; fome Particulars whereof are inftanc'd, Nicephorus Califtus, another of his Vouchers, a Fabulous Writer of the 14th Century, tho' Mr. Bingham fays he relates this Story, yet in truth he do's not relate it,

73

75

ibid.

And if he had, would have been but a forry Evidence,
A juft Reflection on Mr. Bingham's producing fuch Fabulous
Writers, to vouch for the Truth of this Fable, fo pernicious in
its Conféquences, if believ'd to be true, juft and right,
The little or no Credit this Story has among Learned Men,
Even Papists themselves reject it,

This a Reproach to fome Proteftants who believe it,

ibid.

76

77

78

79 ibid.

But Proteftants too have given their Teftimony against it, The Circumftances of the Story it self spoil its Credit, The Authors who believ'd this Story, are no Evidences that it was agreeable to the General Senfe and Practice of the Church, 84 Mr. Bingham owns, there was Neither Canon nor Precedent PERHAPS to Warrant the fuppos'd Fact of Athanafius; and that it would be STRANGE, if any fuch Canon should be made in the Church,

၄၁ His believing that " 'tis no eafy Matter to produce an Ancient Canon DIRECTLY TO CONFRONT Alexander's suppos'd Determi"mation, is nothing to the purpose,

91

Because the Inftitution of Baptifm and Laws of the Church, do confine Baptifm to a Commiffion, and confequently forbid fuch a Determination in favour of its Validity when without a Commiffion, ibid. Mr. Bingham fuppofes, but do's not prove, and therefore is call'd upon to prove it, that an Uninftituted Miniftration of Baptifm, may be made Valid by a Poft-fact Confirmation of the Bishop,

93

95

ibida

If the Fable of Athanafius had been true, yet nothing to the Purpose could have been inferr'd from it, Nor any thing have been fafely concluded from it, The Dreadful Confequences of admitting Bishop Alexander's fuppofed Opinion, to have been JUST and RIGHT, ibid. Which Proves the whole Story to be Foolish and Ridiculous; and therefore contrary to the General Senfe and Practice of the Catholick Church,

97

ibid.

Hilary, Deacon of Rome, about Anno 350, affirms, that in his time Laymen did not Baptize, Pacianus, Bishop of Barcelona, Nulls Baptifm by Perfons not having a Prieftly Power, 98 Optatus, Bishop of Milevis's SUPPOS'D NOTION of the Validity of Baptifm by any Perfon whatsoever, prov'd to be Singular and Popish, and not Countenanc'd by the Catholick Church,

104

His Words more Juftly and Candidly interpreted, inferr no fuch Latitudinarian Principle,

106

St. Bafil, Bishop of Cafarea, Anno 359, Nulls Lay-Baptifm, 109 St. Chryfoftom, Archbishop of Conftantinople, Anno 398, do's the fame,

114

120

122

A Paffage quoted by Mr. Bingham out of the Apoftolick Conftitutions, do's fo likewife, 117 St. Jerom in the Latter end of the IVth Century, his Notion of Laymen's Power to Baptize in Cafe of Neceffity, founded on No Law of God, or of the Ancient Catholick Church, But on a Falfe Principle of his own, much the fame with that of Tertullian, He Contradicts this Notion by his Dialogue against the Luciferian Schifmaticks, wherein he Confutes the Luciferians by this Principle, That if the Arian Clergy were but Laicks, the Baptism adminifter'd by them ought to be rejected, 123, to 138 The Inconfiftency of St. Jerom's firft Notion, with the Scope of this Dialogue, 131, 139 He Nulls Lay-Baptifm by faying, "That without Priefts there is "no Church,

139 Mr. Bingham's Cavil at Dr. Forbes's and Mr. Reeves's Words, upon this Dialogue, confider'd,

140

143

St. Auguftin, as quoted by Mr. Bingham from Gratian, mifreprefented by him to the English Reader, in favour of Lay-Baptifm, His Words prove No Matter of Fact, of Laymen's Baptizing, ibid Another Paffage of that Father, as quoted by Mr. Bingham from Gratian, makes the Apoftolick Commiffion to be a Neceffary Condition of Baptifm,

145 Ano