Obrazy na stronie
[blocks in formation]

MR. Bingham's Account of the Apoftolick Commission to Bap

tize, of the Conveyance and constant Necessity thereof to the End of the World,

5 He makes the Commission to Baprize, Effential to the Ministration of Baptism,

5 The Pseudo-St. Ambrose's Opinion, that the Apostles at first commission'd all Christians both to Teach and Baptize, refused,

7 Mr. Bingham, from this Author , infers, that no one can have a

Power of Baptizing, but he that receives some way or other a Commission from the Apostles,

8 And that the Original Power of Baptizing was lodg'd solely and

entirely in Bishops, and derivatively convey'd from them to others; ipferr'd by him from the Ancient Writers, His Notion of Bishops Ratifying Irregular Baptisms , by adding

what was wanting in the Circumstances of Baptism, by an after Confirmation, consider'd and set to Rights, ibid.



His Distinction between Irregularity and Invalidity,confider'd, 13 His Notion of Baptism minister'd without a Commission, that iç was

esteem'd Valid, notwithstanding the Sinfulness of the ACT OF MINISTRATION, refuted,

13, 14, doc. His Attempt to prove, that the Ancients did not suppose Baptism

to be wholly founded upon Sacerdotal Powers, prov'd to be contrary to and inconsistent with his own Affertions, 16,to 18 His Fancy, that Baptism by an Irregular Priest, if allow'd to be

Valid upon the Account of his Priestly Character, must be Authoriz'd and Unauthorizd, Regular and Irregular, Lawful and Unlawful at the same time, and in the very same Aet and ReSpect, and therefore a Contradiction ; prov'd to be very fallacious,

19 His ill-grounded Gueffes, at the Reasons why the Ancients al

low'd of the Validity of Baptism by an Irregular Priest, His odd Notion of Deacons not being Priests and consequently that

Baptism perform'd by them in Absence of the Priests, is not Baptism by a Sacerdotal or Priestly Power ; refuted, 16, 25



TEftimonies for and against Lay-Baptism Examined, 30

Mr.Bingham owns that Lay-Men were always debarr'd from the

Ministration of Baptism in ALL ORDINARY CASES, ibid. This prov'd to be a Nulling of all Lay-Baptisms perform'd in Or

dinary Cafes ; consequently that our Diffenters Baptisms are Null and Void,

ibid. Mr. Bingham states the grand Question wrong, concerning Lay

Baptism in Extraordinary Cafes, if he would bring it to our Cafe about which we are difputing,

32 The Grand Question of our Lay-Baptisms truly stated, ibid. No Testimonies for Lay-Baptism in the firft 200 Years of Christianity,

33 Therefore no ancient Catholick Tradition, no general Sense and

Practice of the Church, can be found whereon to establish the Practice of Lay-Baptism,

ibid. Mr. Bingham owns thar Particular Churches, are Exceptions 2

gainst his pretended general Practice of the Church in this

Matter, Mr. Binghan's whole Evidence amounts to no Catholick Tradition for Lay-Baptism,

34 St. Ignatius, Anno 71, makes Baptism to be Null and Void, when

perform'd by one who was never commiffion'd by the Bishop,

32, 33



St. Hermas mentions none but Episcopally or Divinely Authoriz'd Baptizers, for Cases of Extremity,

38 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, br. His false Reafon upon which he founds their pretended Right,refured,

43 His other particular Fancies, may with as much Reason be callá

the Church's General Sense and Practice, as his Notion of LayBaptism may,

44 He gives us not one Instance of any such Baptism, allow'd of by the Church in his Days,

47 His Words are full and direct against our ordinary Lay-Baptifms, and by Consequence prove their Nullity,

ibid. St. Cyprian and Firmilian about the Year 255. reckon'd Lay-Baptisms to be Null and Void, as St. Basil witnesses,

48 St. Cyprian's own works plainly thew, that he esteem'd all Bap

tisnis to be void, that were perform’d by such as were reckon'd to be destitute of Priestly Power and Authority, 51 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 The 47th Canon call d Apoftolical, the fame,

57 The Council of Eliberes in Spain held by 19 Bishops Anno 305,

does not favour Baptism by Persons, who never were conimisfion'd by Bishops to baprize,

58, III This Council is against Tertullian's private Opinion, of Lay-Men's

Right in themielves to baptize in Absence of the Clergy, 59 And 'tis also against Mr. Bingham's Guess that the Ancients might

efteem Baptism by whomsoever Christian performid to be good and valid, 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-fel

lows in Sport; and of Alexander the Bishop's determining the Baptism to be Valid, expos’d,

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

65 Sozomen's Account of it taken only from Rufinus,

67 He was no very judicious Writer,

68 Socrates Scholasticus, the most Judicious and Diligent of the three Historians,

69 This latter,though quoted by Mr. Binghamto vouch for the Truth of that Fable", does not speak one word, either of the Boy


59, 60

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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

69, 70 He says he Copy'd from Rafinus, such Passages, in the relation whereof Rufinus did not forsake the Truth,

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 ie upon a new Supposition of his own, that spoils the Design of Mr. Bingham's relating it,

72 Johannes Moschus, another of Mr. Bingham's Vouchers, a Ridicu

lous Visionary Monk of the 7th Century; who writes this Fable, among other idle Legendary Stories of Miracles, Dreams, do not to be credited; some Particulars whereof are instanc'd,

73 Nicephorus Califtus, another of his Vouchers, a Fabulous Writer

of the 14th Century, tho' Mr. Bingham says he relates this Story, yet in truth he do's not relate it,

75 And if he had, would have been but a sorry Evidence, ibid. A juft Reflection on Mr. Bingham's producing such Fabulous

Writers, to vouch for the Truth of this Fable, so pernicious in its Consequences, if believ'd to be true, juft and right, ibid. The little or no Credit this story has among Learned Men, 76 Even Papists themselves reject it,

77 This a Reproach to some Protestants who believe it,

78 But Protestants too have given their Testimony againft it, 79 The Circumstances of the Story it self spoil its Credit, ibid. The Authors who believ'd this Scory, are no Evidences that it

was agreeable to the General Sense and Practice of the Church,

84 Mr. Bingham owns, there was Neither Canon nor Precedent PER

HAPS to Warrant the suppos’d Fact of Athanafius ; and that it would be STRANGE, if any such Canon should be made in the Church,

99 His believing that “ 'tis no easy Matter to produce an Ancient Canas

DIRECTLY TO CONFRONT Alexander's suppos'd Determi. nation, is nothing to the purpose,

91 Because the Institution of Baptism and Laws of the Church, do

confine Baptism to a Commission, and consequently forbid such a Determination in favour of its Validity when without a Commiffion,

ibid. Mr. Bingham supposes, but do's nor prove, and therefore is call'd

upon to prove it, that an Uninstituted Ministration of Baptism, may be made Valid by a Post-fact Confirmation of the Bishop,


If the Fable of Athanafius had been true, yet nothing to the Purpose could have been inferr'd from it,

95 Nor any thing have been safely concluded from it, ibid. The Dreadful Consequences of admitting Bishop Alexander's sup

posed Opinion, to have been Just and Right, ibid. Which Proves the whole Story to be foolish and Ridiculous; and

therefore contrary to the General Sense and Practice of the Catholick Church,

97 Hilary, Deacon of Rome, about Anno 350, affirms, that in his time Laymen did not Baptize,

ibid. Paciamus, Bishop of Barcelona, Nulls Baptism by Persons not ha

ving a Priestly Power, Optatus, Bishop of Milévis's SUPPOS'D NOTION of the Validity of Baptism by any Person whatsoever, prov'd to be Singular and Popish, and not Countenanc'd by the Catholick Church,

104 His Words more Justly and Candidly interpreced; inferr no such Latitudinarian Principle,

106 St. Bafil, Bishop of Cefares, Anno 359, Nulls Lay-Baptism, 109 St. Chryfoftom, Archbishop of Constantinople, Anno 398, do's the fanie,

114 A Paffage quoted by Mr. Bingham out of the Apostolick Constitutions, do's so likewise,

117 St. Jerom in the Latter end of the IVth Century, his Notion of

Laymen's Power to Baptize in case of Necessity, founded on

No Law of God, or of the Ancient Catholick Church, But on a False Principle of his own, much the same with that

of Tertullian, He Contradicts this Nocion ty his Dialogue against the Luciferian

Schismaticks, wherein he Confutes the Luciferians by this Principle, That if the Arion Clergy were but Laicks, the Baptism administer'd by them ought to be rejected,

123, to 138 The Inconsistency of St. Jerom's first Notion, with the Scope of this Dialogue,

131, 139 He Nulls Lay-Baptism by faying, “That without Priests there is no Church,

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

140 St. Augustin, as quored by Mr. Bingham from Gratian, misrepre

fenced by him to the English Reader, in favour of Lay-Baptism,

143 His Words prove No Matter of fait, of Laymen's Baptizing, ibid Another Pallage of that Father, as quoted by Mr. Bingham from

Gratian, makes the Apoftolick Commission to be a Necessary Condiţion of Baptifm,

145 Ano

I 20

I 22

« PoprzedniaDalej »