« PoprzedniaDalej »
in the Institution : And that consequently, they who never receiv'd any other than LayBaptism, are itill unbaptiz’d, notwithstanding their being suppos'd to have been confirm'd by the Bishop.
Thus far, upon Supposition that the An. cient Heretical and Schismatical Baptisms were of the same Nature with those of Unauthoriz'd Lay-men's Baptisms; which this Objection seems to represent them to have been; because it says, that they were not Valid in themselves That no Spiritual Graces were to be had thereby, &c. Tho? in truth those Heretical and Schifmatical Baptisms were not
of the same Nature with Unauthoriz'd Lay į Baptisms; for they were perform’d by Persons — who had receivid Episcopal Ordination, and
so were authorized to Baptize. So that, whatsoever was the Fault of those Baptisms,
the Churches who allow'd them, reckon'd o that they were Valid in themselves (as wanti ing no Esential Part of the Institution) tho' * accidentally Criminal, by reason of the Unj charitableness of the Separation of those Her i reticks and Schismaticks, who administer'd . and receiv'd those Baptisms. And during this
Uncharitablenefs, they reckon'd, that the Baptiz'd receiv'd no Benefit by their Baptism, till they came into the Unity of the Church;
when, upon their Repentance of, and Absolu$ tion from, the Guilt of their Uncharitable Se paration, by Imposition of the Bishop's Hands, L 2
the Obstacle was thought to be taken away, which before hinderd the Benefit of the Sacrament, and so the Graces due to their Baptisöin if it had been done in Charity, and which were impeded and hinder?d, by reason of their Uncharitablenefs and Sinful Separation from the Church ; upon their Coming in. to her Unity, took place, and became effectual tu their Spiritual Advantage. This was the Opinion of those Churches,
who allow'd those Baptisms to be Valid in themselves. And how true this their Opinion' was, I am not concern’d'; because the Baptisms I am disputing, are not such Heretical and Schifmatical" Baptisms, but plainly Unauthoriz’d; not only with out any Commission at all but also in Opposition to Episcopacy it self; which those Ancient Churchés never experienc’d, nor enter’d into any Consultation about.
As for the Validity of Lay-Baptism, That it .! ftands on the Authority of the Church's Power,
to grant such License to Lay-men in Extremi so 'ties ;" when it can be provld, that Christ has Vested his Church with such a Power, it will ne ceifarily follow, that such Authoriz'd LayBaptism, in Cafes of Extremity, must be Valid upon that Foundation: But even then out Ordinary Lay-Baptisms must be Null and Void, because they are destitute of the Pléa of Nediffity, and állo of any such Authority given them by the Churchi, in a Country where Chriftian Priests are to be had. And there :
ICAS (in such case)
fore; 'tis. in vain to claim any Benefit from the suppos’d Power of the Churchı; because The her self is suppos'd not to have Authority to exercise this Power, except in EXTREMÍ. TIES, which (God be prais’d) we do not yet labour under. But, after all, ’tis dangerous for the Church to give any such Liberty to Lay-Persons for Cales of Necesity, as some People call 'em : Because, this would be an Oscasion of Destroying the very Unity of the Church, and expose her to the Endless Divisions and Separations, which Hereticks and
Schismaticks would make from her. For, if B.
by Virtue of this suppos’d Power, she should once make a Canon to License Lay-men to Administer Valid Baptism in Cases of Extremity, then, such Dividing Hereticks and Schismaticks, calling their pretended Scruples and Tendernesses of Conscience, by the Name of CASES OF EXTREMITY, would establish the Validity of their Lay Administrations, upon the Authority of the Church from whom they separate, and vindicate their Oppositions would be constru'd by Implication to give unto them. - And so every Private Person, after having blinded his Understanding by hearkning to False Teachers, might plead, That he was under a NECESSITY to separate from the Church, by reason that he cannot overcome his Scruples about her Doctrine and Worship; and therefore miglit join himself to
will be fuck Sins :
And the Apollon
any Congregation he should like bett, without
Authority of the Church her felf. This would
: For it will be demanded, by what Authority the Bishop requires such Administrations to be confirm'd by him? And if good Testimonials from Holy Scripture are not produc'd for this Purpofe, the Bishop's Supplying and Righting such Irregular Acts, will be made a Jeft of and the Separatists will conclude themselves as much in the Church as the Bishop himself
while they Administer and Receive as good Sacraments as he ; since he cannot prove their Lày-Administrations neceffary to be Confirm’d, Righted and Supply'd, by impoficion of his Hands, &c. On the contrary, if it had but been constantly asserted and defended, That the Sacraments of the Christian Church are, by Inftitution, of such a Nature, that the Cliristian Priesthood is one Infeparable and Essential Relation to them, or, that the Divine Authority of the Administrator, is AS MUCH and as durable a part of their institution, as the very Matter, or outward. Elements of them. If Men had been always taught, that in the Sacraments, the Priest is AS MUCH the Representative of God the Giver, as the outward Elements are of the Graces given, and that consequently, these latter are no Christian Sacramients when separate from God's Aathorized Representative the Priest : And that the Church her felf cannot by any Authority
given 10 her, alter the nature of these things. If these Topicks had been constantly insisted on, without Trimming to please any Párty of Hereticks or Schifmaticks whatsoever : 'Tis more than probable, that Men would have been much more tender of the Unity of the Church, and more cautious of separating from her, than now we find they are; since how far soever their vain Curiosity might have prompted them to have follow'd New
fangted Lay-Teachers to please their itching Ears, yet the Confideration of their being deftitute of CHRI