No fuch Matter; and therefore, his afferting, Laymen to have a Right to Baptize, in Cafes ot fuppos'd Neceffity, without appealing to the Church's Law or Rule for fuch a Right, is no Argument, that the Church in general held any fuch Notion; but only proves, that it was his own private Opinion; and confequently, it muft ftand or fall, by the Goodness or Badnefs of the Argument which he brings to fupport it. His Argument has been already prov'd to be falfe, in the IXth Section of this Chapter: And therefore, upon the whole, we may fairly conclude, that Tertullian is no Evidence of any general Practice of the Church countenancing the pretended Right of Lay-men to Baptize, in Cafe of Neceffity. Nay, he has not given fo much as one Inftance of any fuch Baptifin by a Layman, allow'd of by the Church; no Hiftorical Account of any fuch Matter, but only his fingular private Opinion, what he thought a Lay-man might do, in want of the Clergy; and this founded upon a falfe Principle.

But then, as to the Cafe before us, of Baptifin by Laicks, Perfons never Commiffion'd by Bifhops, attempting to do this where the Clergy are to be had; Tertullian is full and direct against them, and refers us to the Law and Practice of the Church, when he afferts, That "The Chief Prieft, who is the Bishop, "has the Power to give Baptifm; and after him, . Presbyters and Deacons ; yet not without the Authority of the Bishop, for the Honour of the Church. This was the ftanding Rule and Law of the Church, purfuant to the Law of God: So that, if Laymen had then pretended (as they do now) to have ufurp'd the Power of Baptizing, where Bishops, Priefts, and Deacons, were to be had; it would have been against the Honour of the Church, a

Breach

Breach of her Law and Cuftom, as well as of the Law of God; and confequently, deftitute of any Law either of God, or his Church, whereby to judge and pronounce their Ufurped Miniftration Good and Valid.

And thus our Reverend Hiftorian has produc'd nothing of the Church's Practice in favour of Lay-Baptifin, in any Cafe whatsoever, for the fpace of the firft Three hundred Years, the pureft Ages of the Chriftian Church: So that, if I fhould proceed no farther, but Conclude here, I might venture to fay, That the Validity of pretended Baptifms, perform'd by Perfons who never were Commiffion'd by Bishops to Baptize, never was a Tradition of the Catholick Church, becaufe not attefted by her in the pureft Ages, the firft Three hundred Years of Chriftianity: But, on the contrary, Baptifm by Perfons fuppos'd to have no Power or Authority from Bifhops, was exclaim'd againft, in that very Period, by no lefs Men than the bleffed St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, as I have prov'd before, pag. 35; by St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, and by Firmilian Bishop of Cafarea, and their Colleagues. For,

XII. About the Year of Chrift 256, St. Cyprian and Firmilian held the Baptifin of Hereticks and Schifmaticks to be Null and Void, upon this fcore, that, Because they were Broken off from the Church, and become Lay-men, therefore they had no Power to Baptize: Their being become Laymen, made them to have no Power to Baptize and their want of Power, made their Baptifins Null and Void, in the Opinion of these two Bishops. That this was their Opinion, St. Bafil, who fate in the Chair of Cafarea, about an Hundred and thirteen

Years

66

66

Years after Firmilian, teftifies: And that his Teftimony may not be queftion'd, it fhall ftand here in Mr. Bingham's own Tranflation, and he introduces it thus: " St. Bafil brings in Cyprian, and Firmilian his Predeceffor in the See of Cafarea, arguing after this manner;" then follows St. Cyprian and Firmilian's Argument, thus tranflated; *"Here"ticks and Schifmaticks are broken off from the Church, "and become Lay-men, and therefoze have no Power to Baptize, or to Ordain; being no longer able to give the Gift of the Holy-Ghoft, "which they have loft themselves; therefore, such as are Baptized by them, are to be Re-baptized with "the True Baptifm of the Church, as being only Baptized by Lay-men.

cr

The whole Strefs of this Argument, we fee, is founded upon Lay-mens having no power to Baptize, and the confequent Neceffity of giving True Baptifm to fuch as were only Baptiz'd by Lay-men. Whether St. Cyprian and Firmilian's pronouncing Hereticks and Schifmaticks to be no more than Lay-men, was right or no; or, whether they esteem'd them to be redu'd to Lay-men, by their Herefy or Schifm only; or rather, by virtue of the Laws of thofe Churches to whom they ow'd Subjection; 'tis no matter at present to enquire: Be that how it will, this is certain, That they made the want of a Commiffion, i. e. Lay-mens want of Power to Baptize, the Standard by which they judg'd of the Invalidity of Baptifin by Hereticks and Schifmaticks: Baptifm by Lay-men was Null and Void, in their Opinion; and they, confequently, pronounc'd Baptifin by Hereticks and Schifmaticks to be fo too, because they esteem'd

*Bafil. Epift. 1. ad Amphilechium, cap. I.. E

them

them to be but Lay-men. This Evidence is very deftructive of what fome fay, That Tertullian's Notion about Lay-Baptifin, was the general Practice of the Church in his Days: For, is it at all likely, that Two fuch Bishops as thefe were, fhould, fo foon as about 56 Years after Tertullian's Writing his Book de Baptifmo, make use of fuch an Argument as this? If Tertullian's Notion of the Validity of Lay-Baptifm had been founded upon the general Pradice of the Church at that Time, these two Bishops muft, at that rate, have been greater Strangers to, and more ignorant of, the Church's general Practice, than Tertullian, a private Prieft; or elfe the general Practice muft have ceas'd, by that time St. Cyprian and Firmilian came to difpute against Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifms: Suppofitions fo ill grounded, that no reasonable Man can believe them; and 'till there fhall be produc'd good Reafons to the contrary, we muft conclude, that St.Cyprian and Firmilian's Opinion, of the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm, was then a ftanding Principle, in their Churches at leaft: Because 'tis unreasonable to believe, that in fo Publick a Difpute as that was, about Heretical and Schifmatical Baptifm, two fuch celebrated Bishops as St. Cyprian and Firmilian, fhould use an Argument founded on the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm, if the Validity of LayBaptifin had at the fame time been a received Principle in thofe Churches. This Teftimony of those two great Bifhops, upon fo Publick an Occafion, That Lay-Baptifm was then efteem'd to be Null and Void, is of fo great Confequence, that our Reverend Hiftorian is fomething particular in his Endeavours to weaken the Credit of it: But his feveral Objections fhall be Anfwer'd in the following Chapter.

§ XIII.

◊ XIII. And tho' their Evidence is tranfmitted to us by St. Bafil, and therefore fufficiently eftablifh'd by his Authority; yet even in St. Cyprian's Works themfelves, we find good Proots, that St. Cyprian, Firmilian, and others their Colleagues, held pretended Baptifms to be Null and Void, when perform'd by Perfons who were fuppos'd by them to have had no Commiffion to Baptize. Thus St. Cyprian, in his Epistle to Januarius *, fays, "It is neceffary that later should be first Cleans'd and Sanctified by the Priest; that by "bis Baptifm, the Sins of the Baptiz'd Perfon may "be wash'd away. In his Epiftle to Stephen Bishop of Rome, he acquaints him, † That he and his Colleagues, in Council Decreed, " by Common Confent and Authority, That if any Presbyters or "Deacons, who were firft Ordained in the Catholick Church, and afterwards rebelled and stood out against "Her; or, If any who were, among Hereticks, Ordain'd by the profane Ordination of Falfe Bishops, &c. If any of thefe return'd to the Church, they should be receiv'd to Communion only as Lay-men.' In his Epiftle to Fubaianus, he affirms, That

'

כל

* Oportet ergo mundari & Sar&tificari Aquam prius à Sacer dote, ut poffit Baptifmo fuo peccata Hominis qui Baptizatur, abluere. Epift. 70. Paris, 1548. Pag. 137.

† Addimus plane & Adjungimus Frater chariffime Concenfu & Au&oritate Communi, ut etiam fi qui Presbyteri, aut Diaconi, qui vel in Ecclefia Catholica prius Ordinati fuerint, & poftmodum perfidi ac rebelles contra Ecclefiam ftererint, vel apud Hæreticos à pfeudo-Epifcopis & antichriftis contra Chrifti difpofitionem, profana Ordinatione promoti fint & contra Altare unum arque Divinum Sacrificia foris falfa ac facrilega offerre conati funt, eos quoque hac conditione fufcipi cum revertuntur, ut Communicent Laici, &c. nec debere eos revertentes ea apud nos Ordinationis & Honoris Arma retinere, quibus contra nos rebellaverint. Epift. 72. p. 141, 143.

E 2

« ** None