« PoprzedniaDalej »
and Validity of such Unauthoriz'd Baptism ; and therefore such Baptifms are Null and Void, notwithstanding our Author's vain Attempt by this Comparison, to prove them Good and Valid as the Authoriz'd Baptisms.
S. XXIV. In his 35th Page he tells his Reader concerning Baptism by Diffenting Teachers, thus, Abundance of People, 1
« doubt, are easily led to think their Bap“ tisms to be Invalid, because, they think, “ if their Baptisms be allow'd, the rett “ of their Ministerial Performances must a6 be also Valid. But this was held to be no “ Consequence by the ancient Church of “ Christ, nor is it a Consequence held by the « Church of England. Tis Baptism 16 alone that is not Invalidated and made "Nüll, tho' conferr'd by an unlawful Mi" nister, or å meer Lay Christian, &c. Here's a plain acknowledgment, that the
“ other Ministrations of our Dissenting Teachers are Invalid ; For, says he, “Cis “ Baptism alone that is not Invalidata “ ed." But upon what Foundation does our Author intimate, that their other Miniftrations are Null? Are they not establish'd upon the same Foundation as that of Baptism? Is it not the same Lord who Insti
tuted them? 'And are they not equally posi-
bis saying that “ this was held to be no Con“ fequence by the Antient Church of Christ” is a Notorious fallacy, put upon Ignorant Readers; but it cannot be Palm’d upon those who are acquainted with the State of the Antient Church: For 'tis well known, that the Primitive times were not exercis'd with any such Anti-Episcopal Baptisms, as these wherewith the Church is pefter'd in our Days, and therefore the Ancient Church has said nothing about them.
§. XXV. As for what this Writer says, that I may know, concerning the 23d and 36th Articles of our Church; viz. “ that
they were made by many of the same Peo“ ple, who made the Office of Baptism and « Rubricks, in 1548 and 1552. And that “ therefore the Allowance of Lay-Baptism
was not thought to Clash, or be Incon. “ sistent with those Articles : page 39. I answer, that their fo making those Ru. bricks, is a Sign that they did not allow of the Validity of Unauthoriz'd Baptisms, such as our Dilsenters are ; and for this, Í mult desire the Reader to turn back to what I have said in my 4th Secto page, 5, 6, 7.
S. XXVI. I might here speak to his Appendix and the Letter, annex'd to what
Mrs. Baldwin calls the Second Edition of his
but they deserve no particular An swer, being foreign to this Author's Deo clar'd Undertaking, viz. toʻshew the Judge ment of the Church; and the only Design of my Answer thereto, is to let the World See, by her Publick Acts, what her real Qpinion is of this Matter. Mr. Hooker's Judgment be it what it will, is no Standard for either of us in this Dispute : Mr. Thorndike's Expressions make nothing for Unauthoriz'd Baptism; for, his Opinions concerning Lay-Baptism, are plainly Founded upon this Notion, that Bishops can give this power to Lay-men, that they shall Baptize in Case of Extremity, and want of a Priest: This is not the thing at present under Debate; The pretended Baptisms of our Diflenters are of another Nature, not Authoriz'd by the Bishops ; but plainly in Opposition to Episcopacy itself. ----Dr. Cofins's Letter to Mr. Cordel, is founded upon Presbyterian and some Popish Doctors Notions (yet not positively but Dubiously propos’d by him) concerning Ordinations ; so that the whole Superstructure of that Letter, is only an Amuzement, having no fure Foundation whereon to settle a Doubtful Mind ; 'tis too long for me at present to take. Notice of the particulars of that
Letter, it shall suffice me to say, That the Generality of our Divines who were Exiles in France with Dr, Cofins; and the Laity too, refused to Communicate with the French Protestants, and even Dr. Cosins, tho’ he went sometimes to their Temples at Charenton, yet never would Communicate with them in what they call’d the Sacraments; by reason of their want of a Miffion : This is what is well attested, and the Evidence can be produc'd, but I have no need to enlarge and be particular upon it; because in Truth ʼtis no part of my present Undertaking, which is confin’d to the Laws of the Church of England, as they now stand; Hooker, Thorndike, and Cosins, be their Opinions wliat they will, are of no weight in this Debate, since the Judgment of the Church of England is not limitted to their particular Sentiments ; I can produce Men as great as they, who thought very Differently from what they did; but this would noć be suitable to iny Subject, which is only to let the Reader See, what our Church by her Publick Acts has taught us to believe, concerning Unauthoriz'd Baptisms.
Suppose our Author could have further produc'd any fufficient Evidence, that a Select number of Bishops of our Church, in