that Nicephorus's Authority for Image-Worship, is of no Calue at all, to prove that ImageWorship was the general Senfe and Practice of the ancient Catholick Church; and fince, by. Mr. Bingham's own Confeffion, 'tis not of any greater Halue for Lay-Baptifm, it unavoidably follows, that his Authority for Lay-Baptifm is of no Walue at all, to prove, that the Practice of Lay-Baptifm was agreeable to the general Senfe and Practice of the ancient Catholick Church, which is the very Thing, for which I brought. all my Arguments against Nicephorus's two Ca nons; and which Mr. Bingham does now before he is aware] manifeftly establish by this Concef fion.

66

But farther, Mr. Bingham's Suppofition, that the Practice of Lay-Baptism, allow'd of by Nicephorus's two Canons, might chance to be a gainst a Divine Law" and that Nicephorus's, or the Second Council of Nice's Teftimony would not be fufficient to justify the Law "fulness of the Practice of Image-Worship, does moft evidently corroborate what I just now obferv'd, that Nicephorus's Teftimony, in his two Canons, is no Argument, that the Practice of Lay-Baptifm was agreeable to the general Senfe and Practice of the ancient Catholick Church; for, if Nicephorus's Teftimony for Lay-Baptifm, which confeffedly might chance to be against a Divine Law, be, as Mr. Bingham owns, of na greater Halue, than his Teftimony for ImageWorship; and if his Teftimony for Image-Worship would not [tho' ftrengthen'd by the concurrent Teftimony of the Second Council of Nice] be fufficient to justify the Lawfulness of that idola

trous Practice; it neceffarily follows, that Nicephorus's two Canons for Lay-Baptifm, are not fufficient to justify the Lawfulness of Lay Baptifm, any more than of Image-Worship; and if not fufficient to justify its Lawfulnels, then his Teftimony is no Proof, that the Practice of Lay-Baptifm was agreeable to the general Senfe and Practice of the ancient Catholick Church; except Mr. Bingham will fuppofe, that what might chance to be against a Divine Law, might be agreeable to the general Senfe and Practice of the ancient Catholick Church, which is one of the vileft Reproaches that can be cast upon her, and ought therefore to be detefted and abborr'd...

$ XXX. Again, be fays, the Question of Lay-Baptifm in the Greek Church, about which he is concern'd, is “ not whether it was Law“fut or Unlawful in it felf; but whether it "was then the Practice of the Greek Church; " and his [viz. Nicephorus's] Teftimony is "fufficient to decide this to be their Practice, "tho their Practice might chance to be a"gainst a Divine Law, which is another "Question. "

At this rate, he might have spar'd all his Writing for to what Purpofe does be tell us of Practices, if he is not concern'd, whether they are Lawful of Unlawful? It was thought by his Friends, that he would have show'd the World what was that Practice of the Church, which might fafely be rely'd on, and follow'd as a fure Pattern to copy after that he would have prov'd the Church's Practice to have been fuch, as that the Oppofers of Lay-Baptifm might reft fatisfy'd

there

therein, and quiet their Scruples, and lay afide any farther Difputes about it, which certainly muft be fomething that is truly Lawful; otherwife he writes to no Purpose at all, but only to amuse Mankind. And, indeed, fo he does in Effect now tell us; fince he owns, that his Question about the Practice of Lay-Baptifm in the Greek Church is not whether it was Lainful or Unlaw"full" No, he proposes their fuppos'd Practice for our Imitation, or elfe he proposes it for nothing at all] but troubles not himself whether it be Lawful or Unlawful, that is "another "Question "? with which he does not concern himself: A hopeful Way to quiet disturbed Confciences! but if this is not Mr. Bingham's Quetion, 'tis ours, for 'tis a Matter of the highest Confequence, to diftinguish between Lawful and Unlawful Practices, because particular [efpecially Modern Churches may take up, and have follow'd Practices unlawful in themselves, which the truly ancient Catholick Church, about whofe Practice we are now enquiring, was always a Stranger to, and did never in the leaft countenance or encourage by her Example. We piously believe, that the truly ancient Catholick Church, properly fo call'd, never took up the Practice of what was unlawful in it felf; " tho' some particular Churches, particularly Modern ones did; and therefore we conclude, that the Practices of fome particular Churches are many Times no Argument at all, that fuch their Practices are lawful, and agreeable to the Senfe and Practice of the ancient Catholick Church, when the ancient Catholick Church herself did never, by ber Praice, give Teftimony to their Lawfulness; and

d 2

'til

'tis for this very Reason thought highly necessary by the Author of Lay-Baptifm Invalid, to confider Queftions of Fact and Right together; and happy would it have been for Mr. Bingham, if he had done fo too; for then he would have diftingu fh'd what was truly Catholick and Lawful, from what is but private, modern, unlawful, and therefore dangerous to the Souls of Men.

§ XXXI. But why is Nicephorus's Teftimonyfufficient, as Mr. Bingham fays it is, to decide that Lay-Baptifm was the Practice of the Greek Church in the 9th Century? Is his Teftimony fuffici ent, because Mr. Bingham fays it is? No certainly, his two Canons appear to be no other than his private Dictates; there is not fo much as one Proof, that they were ever made in any Greek Council at all ; as I have abundantly fhew'd from Page 213 to 220, of the Second Part of Lay-Baptifm Invalid. He asks me in his 61ft Page, "How came Harme"nopulus to make ufe of them as Canon-Law, "in a Collection of Rules to direct Men in their "Practice? This Question I have already answer'd very fully in Pages 219, 220, 223, and 224, of the Second Part of Lay-Baptifin; to which I add, that Mr. Bingham cannot prove that Harménopulus collected them as Canon-Law, or Rules to direct Men in their Practice, any more than many other fuch Writers have collected Ancient Canons, who as we fee every Day] do not make use of them as Rules to direct Men in their Practice, but only write them as Hiftorical Curiofities, of no manner of Obligation, at the time when they collect them.

And farther, tho' it could be prov'd [as it cannot] that these two Canons were the authentick

Senfe

Senfe of the Greek Church, in the Ninth Century, yet they are of no manner of Advantage to Mr.Bingham's Caufe, for which he writ his Scholaftical Hiftory, as may be feen in Page 225, of the Second Part of Lay-Baptifm Invalid.

§ XXXII. Upon the whole, all Mr. Bingham's Evidence for Lay-Baptifm in the Greek Church, commences from the Beginning of the Ninth Century, one of the corrupteft Ages of Chriftianity, and confift's only of the private Opinion of particular Men, and thofe not corroborated so much, as but one Council of the Greek Church; his whole Evidence being no more than these two obfcure Canons of Nicephorus; The Opinion of Jeremy, the late Patriarch of Conftantinople; Metrophanes Critopulus, a late Greek Writer; Gabriel Severus, Archbishop of Philadelphia; and Dr. Smith's Extract out of one of their Confeffions of Faith, printed anno 1662, which Confeflion of Faith is of obfcure Original; and Dr. Smith in the 6th Page of his Preface to his Account of the Greek Church, makes the bold Determinations of this very Confeffion of Faith, anno 1662, enough "to "incline any fober and confidering Man to

believe, that the Greeks have of late, more "than ever, been wrought upon by the fly "Artifices and under-hand Dealing of the fub"tle Emiffaries of Rome. And this Confeffion of Faith, and Jeremy the Patriarch, Metrophanes Critopulus, and Gabriel Severus, do all allow Women, as well as Laymen, to Baptize, which by Mr. Bingham's own Confeffion [Schol. Hift. Part I. p. 46. ] "the Ancient Church did not allow them to do;" and every body knows,

d3

that