while they were Hereticks, or Schifmaticks, or under the Sentence of Degradation, their Ordination "remain'd entire, remain'd entire," notwithstanding their being depriv'd of the "Power and "Honour of their Places; " none ever faid, "that [to qualify them to minifter in Holy "Things] the Church mult of Receflity give "them a New Ordination." But every Chriftian, that is in his Senfes, will fay, and al the Ancients have faid and practis'd accordingly, that Laymen must needs be ordain'd to Holy Offices, before they can be qualify'd to ferve in the Sacred Ministry of the Church; and confequently, there is an effential Difference between the abovefaid Heretical, Schifmatical, and Degraded Priests, who want not because they have Valid Ordination, and Laymen who never had it; and therefore the Ministrations of the former are essentially Different from thofe of the latter; confequently, Baptifm by fuch Heretical, Schifmatical, and Degraded Priests, was not of the fame Nature with Baptifm by Perfons who never were ordain'd or commiffion'd to Baptize, and therefore the pretended Validity of these latter does not follow from the Validity of the former.

to the Second where he still his other Books

§ XLVII. I am now come Part of his Scholaftical Hiftory, confirms all that he has faid in before; for in pag. 147. he undertakes to difcourfe of, and examine the Notion of an "Indelible Character imprinted in the Ordination of a Prieft." He fays, [p. 148.] that "the beft Way to come by the true Notion and Im

port

port of this Term, is to examine first what it was taken to fignify in Baptifm? For [fays he, ແ p. 149.] an Indelible Character was always Suppos'd to be imprinted as much in Baptifm, as in Ordination. "And that is this, "as it relates to Baptifm; that a Man who is "once truly Baptiz'd, can never do any "Thing, that will fo far eraze or cancel his Bapέσ tifm, as that he shall need upon any Occa

K

fion to be Re-Baptiz'd with a Second Baptifm. "Thus far the Ancients believ'd an Indelible "Character in Baptifm. Tho' a Man turn "his Back on Chriftianity, and totally apoftatize " and fall away from the Profeffion of it. "Tho' he excommunicate himself, or be excom"municated by the Church. Tho' he curfe " and blafpheme Chrift in a Synagogue, or in a "Temple, as many of the old Apoftates did, &c. "Yet after all, if this Man turn again to Chri"stianity, he was not to be receiv'd by a Second "Baptifm: His Repentance and the Church's Al"folution was fufficient in that Cafe to reinstate "him in his ancient Profeffion, and he was not "to be Re-baptiz'd, to be made again a Chriftian. "The Church had but one Baptifm for the Re"miffion of Sins, and the Virtue of that was "fo fat Indelible, that it would always qualify "the Man that had receiv'd it to be admitted el to Communion again, after the greatest Apo"ftacy, only by a true Repentance and Recon"ciliatowy Impofition of Hands, without Re"baptizing. This was what the Ancients under"Stood by what we now call the Indelible Character 66 of Baptifm, fays Mr. Bingham." Thus according to him,a Person once truly Baptiz'd,remain'd ftill a Baptiz'd Perfon, even in the greatest Apo

stacy:

ftacy: He was, tho' turn'd Jew, Turk, or Hea then, ftill a Baptiz'd Perfon, and therefore in that Refpect, of a higher Degree and Order [if it may be proper to ufe fuch Terms here] than any Perfon whatfoever, who never was Baptiz'd at all; for the once Baptiz'd Perfon, whofe Baptifm remains indeleted, always ftands more nearly related to the Church, as Baptiz'd, than any fuch never Baptiz'd Perfons can do, because he does not want Baptifm to qualify him for the Privileges of the Church, as they do. And therefore, there is ftill an Effential Difference, with respect to Baptifm, between fuch a never Baptiz'd Perfon, and an Apostate Christian who was once Baptiz'd.

S XLVIII. Mr. Bingham fays, p. 150. of the Ancients, That "they were far from thinking "that a Man who was fuch an Apoftate had “ any Right or Authority, whilst he was an Apo"ftate, to challenge any of the Common Privileges "of a Chriftian." As for his authonity to challenge, &c. he had better have left that out, for it is utterly foreign to his prefent Subject, about the Right of Baptiz'a Perlons, who, confider'd only as Baptiz'd, have no Authority, tho' they may have Right, to challenge the Common Privileges of a Chriftian; for Right and Authority are not convertible Terms. An Apoftate Chriftian has certainly no moze Right than an Impenitent Wicked Chriftian profeffing Christianity has, to the Common Privileges of a Chriftian, but he has as much Right fo long as his Baptifm remains indeleted, not taken away; his Baptifm gives him Right upon his Repentance and Abfolution, and the Baptifm

of

of the Impenitent Wicked Christian, who profeffes Chriftianity, does give him no more than fuch Right upon his Repentance and Abfolution also.

§ XLIX. Mr. Bingham, p. 150. fays of fuch an Apoftate, "His Baptifm was fuch as nothing "could obliterate; it would remain with him "s when he was an Apoftate; " and in p. 151. he adds, "Yet there is fomething of a Chriftian "in this Apoftate, that is, his Baptifm; in "refpect of which, he is not a perfectly a "Po-Chriftian, as one that never was Bap“tiz'D: And if in this refpect only, in fuch a

qualify'd Senfe, any one will give him the Title

of an Apoftate Chriftian, which is, as the "Schools Speak, only a Chriftian fecundum quid, " in respect of the Baptifm, which he once re"ceiv'd in the Chriftian Church, and which will

for ever continue with him; I cannot think it worth while to contend about Words or Names, "when Men are otherwife agreed about the Im&6 port and Signification of them. " The Sum of which is this, that an Apoftate, who was once Baptiz'd, is, even while a few, Turk, or Pagan, ftill a Christian in respect of his Baptifm, and therefore not the fame as a No-Chiftian, a few, Turk, or Pagan, or any other who never was Baptiz'd. This I defire the Reader to take Notice of, becaufe we are now going to fee how he runs the Parallel, and what Conclufions he makes from hence, concerning the Indelible Character of the Chriftian Priesthood.

S L. He begins p. 151. with this Title, "That the Indelible Character of Ordination is "of the fame Nature, " that is, of the fame Nature with the Indelible Character of Baptifm. He fays, p. 152. "A Prieft, when he "is ordain'd, receives such a Confecration to "a Minifterial Office by Impofition of Hands, as "needs not upon any Decasion to be a second "Time repeated to establish him in the Execu “tion of such an Office. There is the Inde

lible Character of it, the very fame as in Bap" tism; a Man needs no moze to be Rc"Dwain'd, than to be Re-Baptiz'd. Here he artfully drops his Parallel, and therefore I will pursue it for him, because he says, that "the Indelible Character of Ordination is of the "fame Nature" with that of Baptifm. Hence it follows [to use his own Words, only changing what relates to Baptifm into what belongs to Ordination] "That a Man who is once truly ordain'd, 66 can never do any Thing, that "will fo far eraze or cancel his Ordination, "as that he thall need upon any Occafion to be " Re-ordain'd with a fecond Ordination. "Thus far [by reafon of the Sameness of Nature, which, Mr. Bingham fays, there is between the Indelible Character of Ordination, and that of Baptifm] "the Ancients believ'd an Indelible "Character in" Ordination, according to him. "Tho' a Man turn his Back on Christianity, and ર totally apoftatize and fall away from the Profef"Sion of it. "Tho' be excommuni

c

cate himself, or be excommunicated by the "Church. Tho' the Prieft degrade himfelf by wickedly forfaking the Exercise of