*

§ XVI. The Canons call'd Apoftolical are very ancient; and Three of them, wherein the Baptifm of Hereticks is rejected, are fuppos'd by the Learned Du Pin, to be the very Canons of the Synods of Iconium & Synnada, and therefore at least as early as the Year of Chrift 255, or 256. One of thefe Three, which is the 47th of the Apoftolick Canons, is this: ૮૯ + If a Bishop or Presbyter do again Baptize one, who has really receiv'd Baptifm before;

or,

be do not Baptize one that has been polluted by Wicked Men, let him be depos'd as one who conແ temns the Cross and Death of Chrift, and makes "no Diftinction between Priefts, and counter“feit Pzielts.

cr

The Fathers who made this Canon, reckon'd that a Man was polluted, when he was pretendedly Baptiz'd by the Wicked Men here spoken of; who thofe Wicked Men were, the Conclufion of the Canon determines, namely, counterfeit or falfe Priests; Perfons whom that Council reckon'd to be no Priefts, at the time of their fuppos'd pretended Miniftration; for they are fpoken of, by way of Oppofition to Duets fimply confider'd: So that by this Canon, if a Perfon had been only Baptiz'd by one, who was but a counterfeit Prieft, a Bifhop, or Presbyter, was to be depos'd, if he did not Baptize that Perfon; and the Reafon why he was to be depos'd, was this, because he made no

* Du Pins Ecclef. Hift. Cent. 1. p. 14. Lond...

+ Epifcopus vel Presbyter eum qui vere habet Baptisma fi de integro Baptizaverit, vel fi eum qui ab impiis pollutus eft, non Baprizaverit, deponatur, ut qui irrideat Crucem. Domini, & Mortem, & non Decernat Sacerdotes, à falfis Sacerdotibus. Can. SS. Apof. XLVII.

Diftin

PART II. Diftinction between Priefts and Pretenders; between those who were really vefted with Prieftly Power, and others, who in thofe Days, and by thofe Fathers, were accounted to have no fuch Power, and therefore only to have before polluted, and not Baptiz'd the Perfon; which comes fully up to our prefent Cafe. Our Lay-Baptizers, namely, our Diffenting Teachers, being but Pretenders only, falfe and counterfeit Priefts, having no more actual Power of Priesthood than the meaneft Mechanick Laick in the World has.

3

§ XVII. Mr. Bingham's Second Inftance of Laymen's being allow'd to Baptize in Cafes of Neceffity, is about one hundred Years after his Firft; and he takes it from the Spanish Council of Eliberis, held by 19 Bishops, faid to have been affembled about the Year of Chrift 305. Canon 38. "They there appoin"ted (fays he, pag. 27.) that when Men were upon

દ

a Voyage at Sea, or in any Place where no Church “was at band, if a Catechumen happen'd to be ex"treamly Sick, and at the Point of Death, that then any Chriftian, who had his own Baptifm entire, and was no Bigamist, might Baptize him. Upon which our Reverend Hiftorian Remarks, That This Authority was not given to all Chriftians in "all Cafes, but with feveral Limitations and Reftriations. ft, It must be a Cafe of abfolute Neceffity when Baptifm could not otherwise be bad. 2dly, The Perfon Baptizing must have his own Baptifm entire. 3dly, He must be no Bigamift: And upon the whole, Mr. Bingham affirms, That "in "the main, the Matter is indifputable, that they [i.e. the Spanish Bifhops of that Council] plainly intended in fome extraordinary Cafes to give Laymen a Licenfe and Authority to adminifter Bap

દ

L

tism,

"tifm, which could not then be faid to be unauthoriz' in Spain, fince it had the beft Authority the "Church could give it; which is the Determination "and Authority of a Council," pag. 27, 28. In all which there are feveral Things worth Obfervation.

ift, That Mr. Bingham reckons this Council gave Authority to fome Lay-men to Baptize in extraordinary Cafes: How the Doctor at Greenwich will like this, who affirms, that fuch a Suppofition expofes the Chriftian Priesthood to new Dangers, I know not; but it may be, he will have a more favourable Opinion of this Notion, now 'tis efpous'd by our Reverend Hiftorian, for whofe Hiftorical History I am inform'd he has a mighty Value and Efteem: But if the Council of Eliberis intended to give a Real Authority to fome, and not to all Lay-men to Baptize, then 'twill follow,

2dly, That this Canon is not Declarative of any Right in Lay-Chriftians as fuch, to give Bap tifm in Cafes of Extremity, but rather the contrary, that they have no fuch Right in themselves, because the Bishops gave them Authority, according to our Hiftorian; which thofe Spanish Bifhops could not be faid to have done, if Lay-men had fuch Authority before: And this alfo is therefore deftructive of Tertullian's Notion of Lay-men's having a Right in themfelves to Baptize in the Abfence of the Clergy. For the Councils intending to Autho rize Come Layment (according to Mr. Bingham) and not others, to Baptize in fuch Cafes, is an Evidence, that thofe Bishops did not Efteem all Lay Chriftians as fuch, to have that Power and Authority. Hence it follows,

3dly, That this Canon is a good Argument against Mr. Bingham's Suppofition, in pag. 11, 12.

where

66

where he gueffes that the Antients might Efteem fome irregular Baptifms to be valid, upon this Principle, That Baptifm, by whomsoever Chai "ftian perfom'd, was valid, and not to be re"peated: For, if the Bishops of this Council had known of any fuch Principle, what need had they to make a Canon to give Authority to fome Sort of Lay-Chriftians to Baptize, if all Chriftians, as fuch, had that Authority in themfelves; and Baptifm, by wbomfoever Chriftian adminiftred, was then good and valid, in the Opinion of the Catholick Church?

ce

*

There was another Condition impos'd on those Baptizers, by the Spanish Bishops of that Council, which Mr. Bingham has not taken notice of, and twas this; "That if the Baptized furvived, he "who Baptiz'd him, was obliged to prefent him to "the Bishop to be Confirm'd by Impofition of Hands: Which taken in Conjunction with Mr. Bingham's other Obfervation, that the Baptizer was to have bis own Baptifm entire (which, by many Learned Men, is fuppos'd to fignifie, that he was to be one who had not forfeited the Benefits of his Baptifm by lapfing, or falling into fuch Sins as had brought him under Penance for them, as Du Pin upon this Canon has obferv'd, and Mr. Bingham himfelf, pag. 28. from Albafpiny,) plainly fhews, that the Baptizer was to be one in Communion with his Bifhop: He was to be no Separatist from the Church; no Schifmatical render of her Sacred Body; no Rebel against Epifcopacy it felf; but one in actual Communion with the Church; one who own'd and acknowledg'd the Spiritual Power of Bishops; and that fo far, as to bring the Bap

*Ita ut fi fupervixerit, ad Epifcopum eum perducat, ut per manus impofitionem perfici poffit, Concil. Eliber. Can, XXXVIII.

༡༽

tiz'd

tiz'd to be Confirm'd by Impofition of the Bishop's Hands. But our Lay-Baptizers are not fo; and therefore nothing in Favour of their pretended Baptifms can be pleaded from this Canon, if it were of any Obligation in our Church, as it moft certainly is not.

Mr. Bingham is pleas'd to tell us, That " It will not here be material for any One to Object, That this was but the Determination of a Private Na“tional Council; for (fays he) we are not now enquiring what Obligation any other Church is "under to follow this Rule, but only what was

Matter of Fact, and the Practice of the Ancient "Church," pag. 29. But, with Submiffion, this Objection is very material, and for this Reafon, because, we are enquiring, not into the Practice of a particular Church or two, but of the ancient Catholick Church, that we may be able to distinguish fingular unwarranted Notions, from truly ancient and well-grounded Catholick Traditions and Practices. This Council was but Provincial; it fays nothing about any former Catholick Tradition or Practice; it fpeaks of no general Cuftom then in Ufe about this Matter, at the time of 'its Seffion; it was never receiv'd into the Code of the Catholick Church, as confonant to the Senfe of the Catholick Church; and therefore has nothing in it of fufficient weight to convince us, that this Canon is a Teftimony of the General Practice of the Church in thofe Days. We muft have more than one fingle Provincial Council to fhew us the General Practice of the Ancient Church: And after all, even if this had been a General Council, it would not have determin'd, that all Lay-Chriftians, as fuch, have in themselves a Right to Baptize, in Cafes of Extremity; nay, it would not have fo

much