Obrazy na stronie


His Distinction between Irregularity and Invalidity,confider'd, 13
His Notion of Baptism minister'd without a Commission, that it was

esteem'd Valid, notwithstanding the Sinfulness of the ACT OF


13, 14, Buc.

His Attempt to prove, that the Ancients did not suppose Baptifm

to be wholly founded upon Sacerdotal Powers, prov'd to be

contrary to,and inconsistent with his own Assertions, 16,0 18

His Fancy, that Baptism by an Irregular Priest, if allow'd to be

Valid upon the Account of his Priestly Character, must be

Authoriz'd and Unauthoriz'd, Regular and Irregular, Lawful and

Unlawful at the same time, and in the very Same A&t and Re-

Spect, and therefore a Contradiction; prov'd to be very falla-

His ill-grounded Gueffes, at the Reasons why the Ancients al-

low'd of the Validity of Baptism by an Irregular Priest,

His odd Notion of Deacons not being Priests, and consequently that

Baptism perform'd by them in Absence of the Priests, is not

Baptism by a Sacerdotal or Priestly Power ; refuted, 16, 25



St. Hermes mentions none but Episcopally or Divinely Authoriz’d

Baptizers, for Cafes of Extremity,


Tertullian's private Notion, about the Year 200, of Lay-Men's

Right to baptize in Absence of the Clergy ; no Evidence of

any Law, Tradition or Custoin of the Catholick Church, for

their pretended Right,

His false Reason upon which he founds their pretended Right,re-



His other particular Fancies, may with as much Reason be called

the Church's General Sense and Practice, as his Notion of Lay-

Baptism may,


He gives us not one Instance of any such Baptism, allow'd of by

the Church in his Days,


His Words are full and direct against our ordinary Lay-Baptisms,
and by Consequence prove their Nullity,


St. Cyprian and Firmilian about the Year 256. reckon'd Lay-Bap-

tisms to be Null and Void, as St. Bafil witnesses,


St. Cyprian's own works plainly shew, that he esteem'd all Bap-

tisms to be void , that were perform'd by such as were rec-

kond to be destitute of Priestly Power and Authority,

Firmiliar's Letter to St. Cyprian proves, thac Firmilian and the

Council of Iconium held the same,

54, 55

Several of St. Cyprian's Collegues in the Council of Carthage, the


55, 56

The 47th Canon call d Apostolical, the same,


The Council of Eliberis in Spain held by 19 Bishops Anno 305,

does not favour Baptism by Persons, who never were conimis-

fion'd by Bishops to baprize,

58, III

This Council is against Tertullian's privare Opinion, of Lay-Men's

Right in themielves to baptize in Absence of the Clergy, 59

And 'tis also against Mr. Bingham's Guess that the Ancients might

efteem Baptism by whomsoever Christian perform d to be good and


The Council of Eliberis's Canon, is no Argument for the Practice

of the Catholick Church,


The Fable of Athanafius, when as Boy, baptizing his Play-fel-

lows in Sport; and of Alexander the Bishop's determining the

Baptism to be Valid, expos’d,


Rufinus, the first Author of it, a very credulous and careless Hi-



Sozomen's Account of it taken only from Rufinus,


He was no very judicious Writer,


Socrates Scholasticus, the most Judicious and Diligent of the three


This latter, though quoted by Mr. Binghamto vouch for the Truth

of thač Fable, does not speak one Word, either of the Boy


Athanafius's Baptizing the other Boys ; or of Alexander's sup

pos’d Determination about it,

69, 70

He says he Copy'd from Rufinus, such Passages, in the relation

whereof Rufinus did not forsake the Truth,


And therefore his omitting this Fable, is an Argument that he
did not believe Rufinus's Relation of it,


Another of Mr. Bingham's Authors for the Truth of this Fable,

founds it upon a new Supposition of his own, that spoils the

Design of Mr. Bingham's relating it,


Johannes Moschus, another of Mr. Bingham's Vouchers, a Ridicu-

lous Visionary Monk of the 7th Century; who writes this Fa-

ble, among other idle Legendary Stories of Miracles, Dreams,

&c. not to be credited; fone Particulars whereof are in-



Nicephorus Califtus, another of his Vouchers, a Fabulous Writer

of the 14th Century, tho' Mr. Bingham says he relates this

Story, yet in truth he do's nor relate it,


And if he had, would have been but a sorry Evidence, ibid.
A just Reflection on Mr. Bingham's producing such Fabulous

Writers, to vouch for the Truth of this Fable, so pernicious in

its Consequences, if believ'd to be true, just and right, ibid.

The little or no Credit this story has among Learned Men, 76

Even Papists themselves reject it,


This a Reproach to some Protestants who believe it,


But Protestants too have given their Testimony against it,


The Circumstances of the Story it self spoil its Credit, ibid.

The Authors who believ'd this Story, are no Evidences that it

was agreeable to the General Sense and Practice of the



Mr. Bingham owns, there was Neither Canon nor Precedent PER-

HAPS to Warrant the suppos'd Fact of Athanafius ; and that

it would be STRANGE, if any such Canon should be made in

the Church,


His believing that “ 'tis no easy Matter to produce an Ancient Canon

DIRECTLY TO CONFRONT Alexander's suppos'd Determia

xation, is nothing to the purpose,


Because the Institution of Baptism and Laws of the Church, do

confine Baptism to a Commiffion, and consequently forbid such
a Determination in favour of its Validity when without a Com-


Mr. Bingham supposes, but do's not prove, and therefore is call'd

upon to prove it, that an Uninstituted Ministration of Baptism,

may be made Valid by a Poft-fact Confirmation of the Bishop,


[ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »