et ferving this her Law, "Peace is preferv'd:" Otherwife, or " in another refpect" diftinct and separate from the Confideration of this Law or Cuftom, Lay-men have alfo a Right to give it ; " which is the fame as faying, that Lay-men have a Right in themselves to Baptize, feperate and diftinct from the Confideration of the Church's Law or Custom: So that Tertullian's Notion of Lay-men's Right to Baptize, is not founded upon any Law or Custom of the Church at that time giving them fuch a Right, or on any Act of the Bifhop pretending to veft them with his Authority: So far from thefe, that he fpeaks of Lay-mens Right by way of Antithefts to 'em, by introducing it with an Alioquin, otherwife, making it to have "another refpect" than that of the Church's Law, and the Bishop's Authority. Confequently their Right to Baptize, here fpoken of by Tertullian, being neither founded on any Law of the Church, nor on any Authority receiv'd from the Bishop, must be a pretended Right which the Church never gave them, and therefore is not the Church's Tradition; becaufe 'tis inconceivable how the Church fhould have a Tradition for Lay-mens Right to Baptize, without any Authority receiv'd from the Bishop, when at the fame time the Tradition was univerfal, that all Power to Baptize was originally in the Apoftles, and their Succeffors the Bishops; and that none could have any Right to Baptize, but thofe who were in fome refpect or other commiffion'd by them: As Mr. Bingham has very well obferv'd in his 4th and 5th Pages, This fhews that Tertullian's Right of Laymen to Baptize, was his own particular Notion only. And this is not a little corroborated by his manner of fpeaking, when he refers to the Laws and Practice of the Church; for then he gives us fuch fuch plain Tokens of his fpeaking about them, that we cannot well mifs of understanding him. Thus in the Place before us, his fpeaking of the Honour of the Church being preferv'd by the Power of the Bishop to Baptize, and of Priefts and Deacons in fubordination to, and by his Authority, is an evident Token of his referring to the Church's Law and Practice. So again; When he fpeaks of Perfons who had receiv'd Heretical Baptifm, he fays, "We have a Rule among us to Re-baptize them; plainly thereby referring to the Law and Practice of the Church where he liv'd. But nothing like these has he to guide us to the general Practice of the Church giving Lay-men a Right to Baptize; but the direct contrary, by his Alioquin, &c. as has been prov'd before. And therefore, 'tis no other than his own private Opinion, and no general Practice of the Church. § IX. Which is further confirm'd by the imaginary Reafon upon which he endeavours to found their pretended Right, and 'tis this: "For what is "received in common, may be given in common; as Mr. Bingham Words it. A Principle fo falfe, that multitudes of Inftances may be brought to demonftrate its contrariety to Truth and Reafon: And even Tertullian himfelf contradicts this Notion a little after in the Cafe of Baptifm by Women, whom he will not allow to have any Right at all to Bap tize; which certainly they muft have, if " what " is received in common, may be given in common. For Women as well as Men receive Baptism, and may therefore give it, if this Principle be true, as *Tertul. de Pudicitia, c. 19. Edit. Rigal. Lutet. 1634. it it moft certainly is not, in Cafes that relate to a Commiffion; for 'tis plain, that all the Citizens, properly fo call'd, of the City of London, receive the Freedom of the City in common, and yet that Freedom may not be given in common by every fuch Citizen; it must be done by thofe Officers of the City, who are in Commiffion to give Freedoms ; otherwife, the pretended Freedom will prove a Nullity in all refpects what foever. So in Cafes of Naturalization of Foreigners, and abundance of other Inftances that might be brought to fhew the Fallacy of Tertullian's falfe Maxim, the very propofing of which betrays the Weakness of it, and the confequent Danger of that Practice, which is built upon no better Foundation. § X. Thus Tertullian gives us nothing but his own Word for it, and a falfe Reafon to fupport it, that "Lay-men alfo have a Right to give Baptifm. " And now I would fain know, whether this alone is Sufficient to convince any reasonable Man, that Lay-men then had fuch a Right? Is the bare Word of fuch an ancient Writer, his fingle Opinion, without the neceffary Adjunct of the Church's Rule to fupport it, a powerful Reafon to perfwade us, that it was in his Days the general Practice of the Church? If this be enough, then we muft fwallow Tertullian's other Noftrums, as Doctrines and PraЄtices of the Church too; for he is as pofitive in fome of them, as he is in this. Thus he makes Lay-men to be Priefts, purely upon a wrong Interpretation of a Text in the First Chapter of the Revelations, which makes all Chriftians to be as much and as * Nonne & Laici Sacerdotes fumus? Scriptum eft Regnum quoque nos & Sacerdotes, Deo Patri fuo fecit. Tertul. de Exhor. Caftit. cap. 7. proper i.e. proper Kings, as it makes them proper Priefts, i. e. not at all. How Chriftians, as fuch, are Kings and Priefts in a figurative Senfe, I have already fhew'd in * another Place. He reckons the difference + between Clergy and Laity to be founded on the Church's Authority, when, in truth, it is founded on God's Law, and the Inftitution of Chrift bimfelf: In Confequence of this he teaches, that in the Abfence of the Clergy, Lay-men are Priefts for themselves, and have Power not only to Baptize, but also to Offer and Minifter the Memorial of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, [& Offers & Tinguis, fays he;] nay, further, he affirms, That where Three are gather'd together, tho' they be but Laicks, they are a Church: The Confequence of which, is, that they muft alfo have thofe Spiritual Powers which belong to the Church: Hence they may not only Baptize and Adminifter the other Sacrament, but alfo Ordain, Excommunicate, and Abfolve, and Retain Sins, otherwife they cannot conftitute a Church; which plainly fhews the Falseness of the Principle from whence fuch Confequences flow. And all these are Errors fo very notorious, and so contrary to Scripture-Rule, that who can dare to fay, they were Traditions of the Catholick, Primitive Church? And yet they must be fo, if Tertullian's Notions must be receiv'd for the Church's Doctrines and Practices. * Lay-Baptism Invalid, 3d Edit. p. 196, &c. Differentiam inter ordinem & plebem conftituit Ecclefiæ Auctoritas & Honor per ordinis conceffum fanctificatus. Adeo ubi Ecclefiaftici ordinis non eft conceffus, & offers, & tinguis, & facerdos, es tibi folus. ** Sed ubi tres Ecclefia eft licet Laici. Tertul. de Exhort. Caftitatis, cap. 7. Edit. Rigal. Lutet. Par. 1634. XI. I might also inftance feveral of his other Errors and Paradoxes, as his falfe Notion, of the Soul of the First Man's being made out of the Subftance of God; His Error concerning the Sex of Souls; That the Soul is corporeal, and not properly a Spirit; That the Soul can fuffer nothing without the Body; That God himself is corporeal, becaufe nothing is incorporeal. That Chrift, the Son of God, was always feen by Men in true and real Flefh, before he was Born of the Holy Virgin; and, That Second Marriages are as Wicked as Whoredom: Thefe Errors of this ancient Writer, are, with others mention'd in the Margin, collected together in Paradoxa Tertulliani cum Antidoto Jacobi Pamelii, in the 2d Vol. of his Works, Printed at Paris, 1635. And does his holding them, fhew, that the Church held them too? * I De Angelis defertoribus qui duxerunt filias Hominum. 3 De Anima primi Hominis ex materia Dei. 4 De Animabus pofterorum Adæ ex traduce. 5 De Animæ Sexu. 6 Animam peccatricem potius quam carnem. 7 De Anima corporea, quòd proinde propriè fpiritus non fit 8 Animam nihil pati poffe fine corpore. II Animes Hominum peffimas poft mortem in Dæmonas verti. 15 De Deo corporeo, eo quod nihil incorporale fit. 18 De Ecftafi five Amentia, five fpiritu Prophetico Montani, & Infanarum Vatum Prifcillæ & Maximillæ, & Similium. 19 Filium Dei Chriftum, femper vifum ab hominibus in 25 De Nuptiis fecundis damnaticis tanquam stupris. 28 Pfychicis, quo nomine Catholicis calumniam fecit. No |