,1 i\xt ^Mosict ^ 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agneiv Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 loioL 
 
LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY EOBSON, LEVEY, AND FRANKLYN, 
 23 Great New Street, Fetter Lane. 
 
 T(«4*' 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID : 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED 
 
 MiSStntm* Uapti$m null anir tooiir. 
 
 By R. LAURENCE, M.A. 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION, 1723. 
 
 WITH 
 
 airljitions anU Sllustrations, 
 
 ARRANGED AMD EDITLO 
 
 By WILLIAM SCOTT, M.A. 
 
 PKBPBTUAL CURATE OF CHRIST CHURCH, HOXTON. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JAMES BURNS, 17 PORTMAN STREET, 
 
 PORTMAN SQUARE. 
 M.DCCC.XLI. 
 
-^i*. 
 
 
 CONTENTS- 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Editor's Preface . . . . . . vii 
 
 Author's Preface liii 
 
 Preliminary Discourse of the various Opinions of 
 the Fathers concerning Rebaptisation and in- 
 valid Baptisms : with Remarks . . . Ixxix 
 Appendix to the Preliminary Discourse . . cxxvii 
 Introduction. Of the Nature and Obligation of 
 
 divine positive institutions of Religion . 1 
 
 Lay Baptism invalid ..... 7 
 
 Objections answered 63 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 1 . On the Practice of the Greek Church 
 
 2. of the Church of England 
 
 Dissenters' Baptism null and void 
 
 167 
 172 
 174 
 
 b 2 
 

 
 EDITOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 HE only notice of the life 
 of R. Laurence, the au- 
 
 «K thor of the treatises contained in 
 the present publication, which 
 the editor has been enabled to re- 
 cover, is the brief and unsatisfac- 
 tory sentence contained in the eleventh 
 volume of the Annals of Queen Anne, 
 p. 377, a work of no very high autho- 
 rity : — " This unhappy controversy be- 
 gan upon the practice of one Mr. R. 
 Laurence, a book-keeper, who having 
 been born, baptised, and bred in the dissenting way, 
 did, after his return out of Spain, declare himself a 
 convert to the Church of England ; and to express his 
 abhorrence of the friends he left, he declared that he 
 thought his baptism among them was invalid, null, 
 and void ; and accordingly he was rebaptised by the 
 curate of Christ Church in London, without consent of 
 the bishop, and without order or knowledge of the 
 parish-priest." 
 
 This most important circumstance of his life he 
 alludes to at p. Ixxii. Some trouble has been taken to 
 procure the register of his baptism under the date which 
 
Vm EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 he himself gives ; and the books of Christ Church, New- 
 gate Street, to which the above extract seems to refer, 
 have been in vain searched for this purpose. Either, 
 therefore, the baptism was never entered on the regis- 
 ter (and this, perhaps, because Laurence was an adult), 
 or the annalist is incorrect in his information ; and it is 
 the rather suspected that this is the case, because there 
 seems an obvious inconsistency between the statement 
 that Laurence was a " book-keeper in London," if the 
 occupation be that which is now so called, and the fact 
 that in the fourth edition of his Lay Baptism, from 
 which the present is reprinted, he is styled on the title- 
 page " R. Laurence, M.A.,^^ although this might have 
 been a Scotch degree. Indeed, though not remarkable 
 for elegance of language, the work itself, and the learn- 
 ing which it displays, even making all allowance for 
 his use of translations, and the assistance which its au- 
 thor might have derived from Brett, Hickes, and other 
 sources, such as Forbes' work Instructiones Historico- 
 Theologicce, which he seems to have followed implicitly 
 in the Preliminary Discourse, and, above all, the sur- 
 prising skill in reply which he displayed in his various 
 controversies with writers so practised and formidable 
 as Bingham and Burnet, forbids the conclusion that his 
 station in life was merely that of a merchant's clerk. The 
 only facts ascertained are, that he was a layman ; " By 
 a Lay Hand " being the unpretending signature of the 
 three first editions of his principal work ; and that he 
 lived in London, several allusions occurring to " this 
 city " and its regulations. 
 
 The same earnest and thoughtful tone of mind which 
 led him to seek baptism in the Church would, of course, 
 urge him to preserve others from the danger which he 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. IX 
 
 attributed, and with what reason must be judged from 
 the book itself, to a continuance in unauthorised (so- 
 called) baptism. The lirst edition of his Lay Baptism 
 invalid appeared in or before 1710; the third, with 
 many additions, in 1712 ; and the fourth, which differs 
 from its predecessor in few and unimportant respects, 
 in 1723. Whether since that period it has been repub- 
 lished, the editor of the present edition is not aware ; 
 but he is informed that notice was taken of it, and 
 portions reprinted, in a work by Mr. Sikes, when 
 the controversy was revived by Sir John NichoU's 
 celebrated decision. Laurence's book seems to have 
 arrested general attention. Indeed, the peculiar 
 circumstances of the time, the writings of the non- 
 jurors, the stormy proceedings in convocation, Sache- 
 verell's case, the proposed trial of Whiston for heresy, 
 the many valuable works lately written in defence of 
 Church-principles, and the jealousies engendered by 
 the toleration and occasional-conformity act, — all com- 
 bined to make the period one in which a discussion 
 like that on lay baptism, involving almost every point 
 which then occupied men's minds, would make a deep 
 impression. And it did so. Bishop Burnet, in two ser- 
 mons preached at Salisbury, Nov. 7, 1710, attacked 
 what he called the new doctrine. Laurence replied in 
 Sacerdotal Powers (1st edition, 1711 ; 2d edition, 1713). 
 As an appendix to this was added a letter from Brett 
 to Laurence, in which Burnet's " popish doctrine " is 
 censured (1711). Bishop Fleetwood produced his 
 Judgment of the Church of England in the case of Lay 
 Baptism, Sfc, 1711, which was immediately answered 
 by Laurence's tract, reprinted in the present publica- 
 tion. Dissenters^ Baptism null and void (1st edition, 
 1712; 2d edition, 1713). The Bishop of Oxford (Tal- 
 
X EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 bot) condemned Laurence's doctrine in his charge of 
 the same year ; and Laurence defended himself in The 
 Bishop of Oxford's Charge cojisidered {\1V2). Bing- 
 ham's Scholastical Sistory of Lay Baptism argued in 
 favour of its validity ; to which two replies appeared-^ 
 Laurence's second part oi Lay Baptism invalid (1713)^ 
 and Brett's Inquiry into the Practice of the Primitive 
 Church (1713). Bingham appeared, in 1714, with the 
 second part of his Scholastical History, in answer to 
 Laurence and Brett ; to which Laurence rejoined in a 
 supplement to the first and second parts of Lay Bap- 
 tism invalid (1714), and Brett in a Further Inquiry 
 (1714) : and to these may be added Bingham's Dis- 
 sertation on the Eighth Canon of the Council of Nice ; 
 Hickes' Letter to Laurence, prefixed to the third edition 
 of Lay Baptism invalid ; the letters between ^aterland 
 and KelsaU ; and a cloud of less important tracts and 
 pamphlets, — such as, The regular Clergy's sole Sight to 
 administer Baptism (171"2); Bonatus redivivus ; and 
 Answer to Donatus redivivus, &c. Every incidental 
 point which the discussion raised seems to have been 
 subjected to rigid scrutiny, and feelings political as well 
 as religious were addressed. If the Whigs were ap- 
 pealed to, they were reminded that Prince George of 
 Denmark had only received Lutheran baptism, and as 
 a consequence, by no means obvious, that Laurence's 
 doctrin^ was untrue. On the other hand, the nonjurors 
 were told that King Charles the Martyr had been 
 baptised by a Presbyterian ; a notion, however, which 
 Henry Cantrell wrote a tract, in 1716, especially to 
 confute. If it was argued, as it frequently was, that 
 Laurence's doctrine " unchurched the foreign Protest- 
 ants,"' a London clergj'man, in a tract, The Judgment of 
 the B^ormed in France (1712), produced the very sin- 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE, XI 
 
 gular testimony that Calvin himself pronounced " all 
 baptisms wholly null and void which were not per- 
 formed by a lawful minister." 
 
 Burnet {History of his own Times, vol. vi. p. 115- 
 117, Oxford edition) alludes to the controversy in terms 
 characteristic of his temper and principles : — "Another 
 conceit was taken up of the invalidity of lay baptism, 
 on which several books have been writ; nor was the 
 dispute a trifling one, since by this notion the teachers 
 among the dissenters passing for laymen, this went to 
 the rebaptising of them and their congregations. Dod- 
 well gave rise to this conceit. The bishops thought it 
 necessary to put a stop to this new and extravagant 
 doctrine; so a declaration^ was agreed to, firsts against 
 the irregularity of all baptism by persons who were not 
 in holy orders ; but that yet, according to the practice 
 of the primitive Church and the constant usage of the 
 Church of England, no baptism (in or with water, in 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) ought 
 to be reiterated. The Archbishop of York [Sharp] at 
 first agreed to this ; so it was resolved to publish it in 
 the name of all the bishops of England : but he was 
 prevailed on to change his mind, and refused to sign it, 
 pretending that this would encourage irregular baptism. 
 So the Archbishop of Canterbury [Tenison], with most^ 
 
 * See page Ixiii. 
 
 2 How many bishops concurred in this paper cannot be 
 ascertained. The metropolitan of York and his bishops had 
 nothing to do with it ; and from Bingham (Dedication of 
 second part of Scholastical History) we learn that the Bishop 
 of Winchester (Trelawney) refused to sign it ; and Laurence 
 tates the same of the Bishop of Exeter (Blackall). 
 
 From Newcome's Life of Archbishop Sharp, pp. 369-376, 
 
Xll EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 of the bishops of his province, resolved to offer it to 
 convocation . It was agreed to in the upper house, the 
 Bishop of Rochester [Sj)rat] only dissenting ; but when 
 it was sent to the lower house, they would not so much 
 as take it into consideration, but laid it aside, thinking 
 that it would encourage those who struck at the dignity 
 of the priesthood." A more particular account of these 
 proceedings will be found in the note to p. Ixiii. 
 
 Of the parties in this controversy it may be re- 
 marked, that Burnet's Scotch education, if not his sus- 
 pected Presbyterian baptism, would predispose him to 
 the views which he took ; and of Fleetwood and Sykes, 
 who wrote on the same side, it must be remembered, 
 
 it appears that Archbishop Sharp refused his signature, not 
 because he did not agree with the sentiments of the declara- 
 tion, but because it would " be too great an encouragement to 
 the dissenters to go on in their way of irregular uncanonical 
 baptisms ;" and in his letter of April 28, 1712, he informs the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Bishops of St. David's, 
 Chester, and Exeter, refused for the same reason, that the 
 paper amounted to a declaration in favour of the validity of 
 lay baptism, Mr. Newcome (vol. ii. p. 27, of the same work) 
 sets this declaration of the bishops in its true light. Arch- 
 bishop Sharp declined to concur in a public declaration of the 
 hish.ops' private sentiments concerning the validity of lay bap- 
 tisms, though they were his own likewise, because it might 
 seem that they wished the world to think that they spoke the 
 sense of the Church of England, or the current opinion of our 
 divines on this point, rather than their own individual senti- 
 ments. The archbishop felt that the declaration of the bishops 
 could never amount to a judgment of the Church, even if they 
 had been unanimous, which it is quite clear that they were not, 
 at least eight of the bishops, for various reasons, objecting to it. 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XIU 
 
 and surely this is significant, that they afterwards be- 
 came conspicuous as defenders of Hoadley. With one 
 exception, the opponents of Laurence were, though in 
 various degrees, of the latitudinarian school ; and this 
 exception was his most formidable opponent, Bingham. 
 The dispute, as has been shewn above, was carried on 
 through various publications ; and in one instance alone 
 (alluded to at p. xcix. Prel. Disc.) did Bingham succeed 
 in convicting Laurence of positive inaccuracy, which 
 was frankly, even thankfully, acknowledged. On the 
 whole, the controversy was conducted with Christian 
 feelings, though Bingham was the first to lose his tem- 
 per ; and of its success the editor would adopt the lan- 
 guage of one, whose calm judgment and severe accuracy 
 in weighing conflicting proofs makes his judicial opinion 
 most important, while the fact that, on the whole, his 
 theology was of a difierent school from that of Laurence, 
 renders his authority less liable to suspicion, the pre- 
 sumption being that he would have adopted the oppo- 
 site opinion : 
 
 Waterland (First Letter to Kelsall, vol. x. p. 3) 
 says : *' I am not at all surprised at Mr. KelsalPs judg- 
 ment on the case. It is not very long since I was my- 
 self of the same opinion,^ being led to it, as I suppose 
 he may, partly by the good nature of it, and partly by 
 the authority of great names, as the Bishops of Sarum 
 and Oxford, &c., besides some passages of antiquity not 
 well understood ; and I was pleased, I confess, to see 
 all, as I thought, confirmed by Mr. Bingham's Scholas- 
 tical History of Lay Baptism. But second thoughts 
 
 * Brett says that he changed his opinion in the same man- 
 ner. Inquiry, p. 2. 
 
 c 
 
XIV EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 and farther views have given a turn to my judgment, 
 and robbed me of a pleasing error, as I must now call 
 it, which I was much inclined to embrace for a truth, 
 and could yet wish that it were so. The arguments or 
 scruples mentioned in your letter have all, besides many 
 more, been considered, canvassed, answered, carefully, 
 solidly, and, in my humble opinion, fully and com- 
 pletely. If Mr. Kelsall had seen Mr. Laurence's answer 
 to Mr. Bingham, I hardly think he could despise that 
 gentleman's learning or judgment." And Second Let- 
 ter, p. 193 : " If he [Kelsall] has failed, it may be con- 
 sidered that the great Mr. Bingham, not to mention 
 others, has sunk in the attempt before ; and neither his 
 fine parts nor voluminous reading could support him 
 against an adversary [Laurence], who in learning cer- 
 tainly, not to say in abilities, is far inferior to him." 
 And elsewhere, in reference to the point of confirma- 
 tion as supplementary of lay baptism, he says of the 
 passage at p. 230 of this publication : "I refer Mr. Kel- 
 sall to Mr. Laurence's incomparable reasonings upon 
 this very point, which I despair of ever seeing an- 
 swered" {Second Letter, p. 97). 
 
 Praise so high, and from such a quarter, might alone 
 seem sufficient to authorise the republication of a work 
 thus characterised, especially in times when men of all 
 views are inquiring so generally for authority ; but at 
 the present moment, circumstances, to which it would 
 be improper to do more than to allude, have called 
 renewed and anxious attention to the subject of lay 
 baptism. Had it remained with the present editor to 
 renew the controversy — one from which pain seems in- 
 separable — he would have declined, though this might 
 be in some cases, yet not in his own, a weakness, to 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XV 
 
 interfere with a matter on which they, whose judgment 
 is most valuable, have thought it prudent to remain 
 silent. But it seems now no longer possible to blink 
 the question : having been mooted, and that some time 
 since, and general interest being felt in it, as is shewn 
 by the periodical literature of the day — and whatever 
 opinion is held of such authority, at least it aifords a 
 fair index of popular thoughts and feelings — it was 
 deemed useful to furnish students with the principal 
 work on one side of the question ; the eighth volume of 
 the new edition of Bingham being esteemed, and that 
 with justice, the standard work on the other. The office of 
 the present editor has been to revise the work itself; to 
 supply the references, in which the original is entirely 
 and blamably deficient ; and from various sources to 
 throw into the form of notes and appendices such points 
 of the controversy as seemed in his imperfect judgment 
 most important. In the delicate charge of stating ar- 
 guments, he trusts that he has been fair towards either 
 party; but the impossibility of reprinting the whole 
 controversy has entailed upon him duties of compres- 
 sion and deduction, under this head, from which he 
 would have otherwise shrunk. The additions to the 
 original work are marked by []. 
 
 And here it may seem not out of place to say some- 
 thing of the use, under God's blessing, of this publica- 
 tion, the purpose of which, without some apology, seems 
 open to misconstruction. It may be well, therefore, 
 frankly to avow, that for the feelings of those who dread 
 the danger of disturbing men's minds, the present editor, 
 though he has the greatest respect, has but little sym- 
 pathy. In seeking truth, and that more especially in 
 holy things, prejudices are to be shocked : we know 
 
XVI EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 that all error is pleasing ; to remove it, therefore, must 
 be painful. Or should it be objected that such inquiries 
 are ill-timed, surely divine truth has no time ; there 
 never can be circumstances under which to vindicate 
 God's word and purpose is inexpedient. It is not there- 
 fore a question of pain or of expediency, but of truth ; 
 and if the matter be true, the sooner and the more tho- 
 roughly men's minds are stirred the better. If Lau- 
 rence's views are false, let them be refuted completely 
 and earnestly : but it will not do to be afraid of the 
 subject. Nor because the consequences seem incon- 
 venient, — for if the subject-matter be true, this incon- 
 venience is only apparent, — does it follow that the 
 doctrine is false ; '' for at this rate," argues Laurence 
 (Bishop of Oxford's Charge considered, p. 47), " no doc- 
 trine of Christianity will stand secure. To instance only 
 one, in one of the fundamentals of our holy religion, — 
 the Deity of the second and third Persons of the glorious 
 Trinity ; the denial of this doctrine is heresy. St. Paul 
 says, he that is guilty of this sin shall not inherit the 
 kingdom of God (Gal. v. 20, 21). Here vast multitudes 
 have been concerned in the consequence of asserting the 
 Godhead of the Son and Holy Ghost ; for all who op- 
 posed this doctrine were involved in the guilt of heresy, 
 and consequently were liable to that dreadful threat of 
 the inspired apostle : and who were these but a great 
 number of Churches and their bishops in several parts 
 of the Roman empire ? At the rate of arguing in these 
 days, the doctrine of the Deity of the Son of God and 
 of the Holy Ghost must have been pronounced false, 
 dangerous, and uncharitable, if the mischievous conse- 
 quences which men run themselves into could have 
 made that doctrine so. The Catholics in those days did 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XVU 
 
 not thus judge of doctrines : the consequence is dread- 
 ful, ergo the doctrine is false. No ; they entered into 
 the merits of the cause, and did not regard the conse- 
 quences in any other ways than by endeavouring, with 
 prayers and tears, instruction and discipline, to rescue 
 them out of, and preserve them from, them . For truth 
 cannot change its nature, and vary itself, to be accom- 
 modate to every circumstance of man's will and pleasure. 
 Every man is bound to take care not to make bad con- 
 sequences by his own wilfulness or carelessness ; but if 
 men will be perverse or negligent, truth must remain 
 still the same, and the mischief of the consequences 
 which men make, they may thank themselves for. How 
 God will deal with some who are unwillingly involved 
 in them, is nothing to us ; we must leave that to His 
 infinite wisdom and goodness ; still looking to ourselves 
 that we do not make ourselves guilty of such dangerous 
 consequences by acting contrary to His will, nor con- 
 tribute, by our over-easiness and but imaginary cha- 
 rities, to their false notions and unwarrantable practices, 
 which are confessedly very dangerous ones, if the doc- 
 trine be true which they in principle and in practice do 
 oppose. This shews the necessity of entering upon the 
 merits of the cause ; of sifting the doctrine itself; of 
 judging it by the great rule and standard of necessary 
 truths, the holy Scripture ; and of determining its being 
 true or false by that only touchstone, let the consequences 
 be what they will, and the number of men never so great 
 who are concerned in them." 
 
 Indeed, should it be made a question of occasional 
 propriety, our own days require the subject of lay bap- 
 tism to be thoroughly examined. AVhether it be, as 
 some think, almost a result of providential care, when, 
 
 c2 
 
xvm editor's preface. 
 
 as is now tlie afflicting case, our resources, especially in 
 large towns, j^revent us from treating baj^tised children 
 as what they are, members of Christ, that obstacles are, 
 as it were, thrown in the w^ay of admitting many to 
 Christian gifts and privileges who, humanly speaking, 
 would receive grace but to make shipwreck of it; or 
 whether this be only a matter of deep and mournful 
 humiliation to a Christian people, — the fact is certain, 
 that with a population increasing, we have, at least in 
 some places, a decrease in baptisms. Much of this is 
 to be attributed — and the editor here speaks from expe- 
 rience — to the recent measure of registration, which the 
 masses of ignorant people consider a substitute for Chris- 
 tian baptism ; and somewhat, it is suspected, to another 
 startling fact, which has been hitherto unnoticed, — that 
 since the passing of the late act for licensing meeting- 
 houses in which to perform marriages, the adherents of 
 dissenting teachers have been persuaded that the same 
 measure gave authority to baptise also. And without 
 doubt these matters make the subject more than ever 
 important. 
 
 It is hoped that a very few observations upon the 
 subject of the following pages, which may serve to pre- 
 pare a reader for the turning points of the great ques- 
 tion of lay baptism, will, as they are proposed with a 
 tentative rather than dogmatical view, not be deemed 
 imjiertinent. 
 
 I. Much of the abstract and a priori reasoning of 
 Laurence's first treatise is on the question disputed only 
 by those who deny the Christian priesthood to be a 
 separate order; and it is on this ground, and on this 
 alone, that TertuUian's authority rests, the single one 
 which for the first three hundred years of Christianity 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XIX 
 
 is claimed in favour, not of the practice, but of the 
 principle, of lay baptism (see p. 154). If, therefore, we 
 rely on this somewhat inconsistent writer, we must be 
 prepared, which TertuUian was not (and therefore his 
 inconsistency), to allow that all laymen might officiate 
 indifferently in the administration of the sacraments of 
 the Gospel. There is therefore, and there is much in it, 
 the great antecedent improbability, drawn especially 
 from the analogy of the administration of the other 
 sacrament, not only that lay baptism would be pre- 
 sumptuous, intrusive, and irregular, which all Church- 
 men admit, but yet more, that it would be null ; and 
 this because it would be, so to say, out of all rule. The 
 Church could never have contemplated it ; it could not 
 be brought into symmetry ; it would be an emphatic 
 instance of disorder, and nothing else. So the matter 
 would present itself at the first blush ; and this, of course, 
 before we come to any evidence, or go into the facts and 
 history. Let us bear in mind that, although there may 
 be limitations, and subsequent opposing facts, yet if we 
 go to the principle of the thing, and justify that, we 
 must go far towards giving up the principle of the 
 priesthood also ; or else, which is a considerable step 
 towards condemning it without examination, admit 
 that lay baptism is totally irreconcilable with what we 
 know to be Church-principles in all other things. 
 
 II. But although this is at once to stand on most disad- 
 vantageous ground, the latter is the position which must 
 be taken by such as admit the irregularity, and at the 
 same time the validity, of lay baptism. And then comes 
 the question of the fact, which must be looked at under 
 more than one aspect : first, whether lay baptism was 
 ever enjoined, or permitted, or practised in the Church ; 
 
XX EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 and if, as lay baptism was disallowed, except under re- 
 strictions, whether schismatical baptism was held valid. 
 And again, supposing this question to be settled in the 
 affirmative, whether dissenters' baptisms of the present 
 day may be justified on the precedent of ancient schis- 
 matical baptisms. After which, should it be found that 
 unauthorised baptism, as now used, is diiferent in kind 
 from ancient lay, or even schismatical, baptism, even 
 though no proof can be drawn from the practice of the 
 Church, the facts being dissimilar, still another inquiry 
 arises — whether the very principle which is supposed to 
 have influenced the decision of the Church in the for- 
 mer cases of schismatical baptism, would not have led 
 her to adopt the same practice towards dissenters' bap- 
 tisms, could they then have arisen, which it is allowed they 
 did not ; for no ancient heresy or schism stood in exactly 
 the same relation to the Church which modern dissent 
 does. The two former branches of inquiry are of pre- 
 cedent ; the last of analogy. 
 
 1. Then that the administration of baptism was never 
 enjoined to the laity is allowed on all hands. Scripture 
 is silent upon it ; no evidence of such an apostolic com- 
 mand is produced. And if it be justified upon the rea- 
 son of the thing, and the necessity of baptism (John iii. 
 6), the same principle would hold good for lay conse- 
 cration (on the scriptural evidence of John vi. 53), and 
 would dispense with all sacerdotal offices whatever. 
 
 2. Was lay baptism permitted in the ancient Church ? 
 Yes ; in the provincial council of Eliberis (Prel. Disc. 
 p. xcv.), and subsequently in the western Church ; but 
 this under the restriction, 1. of necessity, which is not 
 pretended by dissenters ; 2. of the administrator being 
 in full communion with the Church, which is not the 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXI 
 
 state of dissenters. And this case is not parallel to their 
 baptisms upon this other clear ground, — that they have 
 not received authority or commission to baptise, which 
 the synod of Eliberis gave the Spanish laity. It is not 
 doubted that the Church might give the laity authority 
 to baptise, and for this very purpose the canon of Eli- 
 beris was framed 5 but till such commission is given, 
 there is no inconsistency between the denial of the 
 validity of dissenters' baptisms without it, and the ad- 
 mission of lay baptisms in our own Church before the 
 Hampton-Court conference, by command of the rubric, 
 and grounded upon the episcopal commission, and no- 
 thing else. 
 
 3. That baptism by laymen without a commission, 
 in defiance of the bishop's authority, and without the 
 plea of necessity, and neither enjoined nor permitted^ 
 was ever practised in the ancient Church, is not even 
 argued, nor is a single instance of it produced ; and 
 that for this plain reason, that no schismatics or heretics, 
 till very recently, pretended that they were a Church, 
 a ad that they required no apostolic succession : but 
 they argued, either that they were the true Church 
 and had the true bishops, and that the Catholics were 
 the schismatics, or heretics ; or that their own peculiar 
 opinions, though confessedly different from those of the 
 rest of the Catholic body, did not amount to heresy — 
 that they did not deserve excommunication — and that 
 of consequence they were justified in keeping up their 
 own succession. But the ancient heretics never acted 
 without an episcopal commission, real or pretended. 
 Modern dissent, therefore, being new in theory, no ar- 
 gument can be drawn in favour of it from primitive 
 practice, because, even granting that lay baptism was 
 
XXU EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 practised in every Church since the days of the apostles, 
 it was not such lay baptism as that of the dissenters, and 
 therefore forms no precedent for it. 
 
 4. Was schismatical baptism — was heretical baptism, 
 held valid, though irregular, by the Church ? It was, 
 as a principle. 1. They who once were baptised in the 
 Church, if they fell into schism, heresy, or apostacy, 
 were never rebaptised upon their reconciliation. This 
 would be " Anabaptisra and Donatism," see p. Ixiv. note. 
 2. They who received baptism from heretical or schisma- 
 tical priests, even while continuing in a state of schism or 
 heresy, except in certain cases, were not baptised upon 
 their admission into the Church Catholic ; for it was the 
 rule of the Church, that '^ orders once given are always 
 valid — therefore can never be deleted by any heresy, 
 schism, or apostacy : therefore schismatical clergymen 
 still retain their sacerdotal character — therefore their 
 ministrations, and particularly baptism, are still valid, 
 inasmuch as they could not lose their right of baptising 
 given in their ordination." (St. Augustine, as quoted by 
 Waterland, Second Letter,-^. 120.) There were circum- 
 stances, however, which seem to limit the application of 
 this principle. 1 . The form of institution was always held 
 to be of the essence of the sacrament. 2. And not only 
 this, but in most cases, the orthodox belief of the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, as well as the form of words, was 
 considered as essential to the validity of baptism per- 
 formed by priests in other articles of faith heretical : it 
 is on this ground that Athanasius rejects Arian bap- 
 tism. 3. To perfect heretical baptism, and to invest it 
 with the power of saving, it was necessary that the 
 person having received it should be reconciled to the 
 Church. And at first sight this seems to make much 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXIU 
 
 in favour of dissenters' baptism ; for it is alleged that 
 it is administered in the name of the Trinity, and by 
 those who are orthodox in that article of faith ; and if 
 all this, it is on primitive principles valid, and becomes, 
 upon episcopal confirmation, a channel of spiritual 
 grace. To which it may be replied : 
 
 (1.) Admitting that dissenters use the "form of sound 
 words in baptism," yet, if something more than this is 
 requisite to valid baptism, namely, upon Athanasius' 
 principle, orthodox belief in the sense of the form, no 
 dissenters either have, or can have, this. And lest it 
 should seem startling to say that no dissenter is ortho- 
 dox even in the article of the Trinity, let us remember 
 Firmilian's observation {Prel. Disc. p. Ixxxix.). He 
 seems to imply this, that even if heretics were so in- 
 clined, none but the Church had, or could have, the true 
 faith even of the Trinity. Sound faith seems of that 
 mysterious nature, that we cannot make selections of 
 it,* accept this fragment, and reject that; call men 
 orthodox in this particular, and deny them the title in 
 regard to other articles of faith ; and we cannot divide 
 the deposit into essentials and non-essentials. Holy 
 truth is so mixed up in all its parts, that in it there is 
 nothing isolated, nothing separate — a fabric of struc- 
 ture so unearthly, that dislodge but one stone, and the 
 whole edifice is in ruins : the law of faith seems like the 
 law of works. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and 
 yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all} Now, what 
 is sound faith in the Trinity, but sound faith in the creeds 
 of the Church? The form of baptism "in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," 
 though in its simplest form, is still the whole creed — 
 ' James ii. 10. 
 
XXIV EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 what the three creeds evolve specially, the baptismal 
 form contains essentially : unless, therefore, we believe 
 each article when brought out specifically in the details 
 of the creed, we do not in truth and really, though ever 
 so much inclined, hold the Catholic faith in the simple 
 form of the words of baptism. What it is intended to 
 suggest is this : in the article of the Son, a man does 
 not hold the doctrine of the Trinity who denies, for ex- 
 ample, that " He was born of the Virgin Mary,^' or 
 that "He was begotten of His Father before all worlds ;" 
 and it was for this reason that Athanasius denied the va- 
 lidity of the Arians' baptism : they denied the Catholic 
 sense, although they used the Catholic form. Now, 
 even in the Apostles' creed, all that follows the clause, 
 " I believe in the Holy Ghost," is but an expansion of 
 that article ; he, therefore, who disbelieves any one of 
 these explanations, or who does not hold them in their 
 Catholic sense, cannot be said to be orthodox in his 
 belief of the third Person of the ever-blessed Trinity. 
 He does not rightly believe in the Holy Ghost who 
 rejects or garbles the truths which that confession in- 
 volves, viz. that the holy Catholic Church, the commu- 
 nion of saints, and that the one baptism for the remis- 
 sion of sins, and that the resurrection of the body, and 
 that the life everlasting, are His gifts and operations. 
 Now, no dissenter does hold the faith, the one Catholic 
 faith, of the clause, " the holy Catholic Church;" there- 
 fore he does not "rightly believe" in "the Holy Ghost" 
 — therefore he does not rightly believe in the Trinity — 
 therefore, though he uses the form of the Trinity, be- 
 cause he is not orthodox in that confession, he cannot, 
 even if he be so disposed, upon the principles of St. 
 Athanasius and Firmilian, baptise in the name of the 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXV 
 
 Trinity, i. e. in the true faith which that baptism im- 
 plies. 
 
 (2.) Granting, however, that dissenters' baptism is 
 not only in the form, but in the faith, of the Trinity, or 
 granting even that anciently baptisms were reckoned 
 valid, which, though not in the faith, were adminis- 
 tered only in the form of the Trinity, — such as that 
 of the Arians, which, though Athanasius rejected, the 
 council of Constantinople {Prelim. Discourse, p. ciii.) 
 accepted, and ratified by imposition of hands ; still, 
 though unexceptionable in these respects, it does not 
 stand upon the same ground as those baptisms in the 
 ancient Church, which, though administered by schis- 
 matics, such as the Novatians, &c., or by heretics, such 
 as the Macedonians or Arians, were allowed ; for in all 
 these cases the priests were priests, and not laymen — 
 they had the succession — they had the sacerdotal right 
 — they had the indelible character which dissenters 
 have not, and to which they lay no claim. This, in- 
 deed, may be marked as the jugulum causce : if, as 
 Bingham argues, schismatical and heretical priests be- 
 come laymen by their act of schism, and nothing better, 
 then, of course, dissenters' baptism is plainly justifiable, 
 not only by the decrees of many councils, hereafter to 
 be quoted, but by the principle of the eighth canon of 
 the council of Nice, which, if Bingham is right, in de- 
 ciding that the Novatian clergy were to be admitted to 
 the rank which they would have held among the Ca- 
 tholics, and at the same time, as a consequence, receiv- 
 ing their baptism, — proves that the ancient Church re- 
 ceived the baptism of such as had no ordination, and 
 were consequently unauthorised, and mere laymen : 
 which is nearly the position of dissenters. But this is 
 
 d 
 
XXVI EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 on the assumption that there is no indelible character 
 in the priesthood, and that heresy nulls orders, and as 
 a consequence all subsequent ministerial acts. This 
 settles the question of primitive precedent : whichever 
 way this matter is decided, dissenters' baptism follows 
 it. If Novatian was a priest during his schism, there 
 is no parallel between his baptisms, which the Church 
 acknowledged, and those of the dissenters ; if he was 
 only a schismatical layman all the time, and yet, in 
 spite of this, the Church acknowledged his baptisms, 
 then the baptisms of dissenters must be accepted also, 
 and, as his were, be only confirmed by episcopal impo- 
 sition of hands. Laurence denies Bingham's assertion, 
 and from the indelible character of the priesthood, 
 which his opponent rejects, argues that Novatian's or- 
 ders were never nullified, and his baptisms, and those 
 of his clergy, were consequently throughout their schism 
 valid ; and upon this fact the controversy between 
 Bingham and Laurence ended ; and it is the most vital 
 point of all. The present editor is so imperfectly qua- 
 lified to decide upon the evidence adduced in favour of 
 either position, that he gladly avoids the difficulty by 
 producing Waterland's decision {Second Letter, p. 122). 
 " I cannot but wonder at ]\Ir. Bingham's strange attempt 
 — strange in a man of his learning and sagacity — to over- 
 throw this so well-grounded notion of the indelible cha- 
 racter of orders, by which, whatever he pretends, he 
 runs cross to all antiquity.^'' And again, p. 163 : " We 
 utterly deny, and challenge any man to give but one 
 instance, in all antiquity, of the Church's receiving the 
 baptisms of those whose ordinations she had before de- 
 clared void :" which seems to be a judgment on this 
 head, that no parallel exists between ancient schisma- 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXVU 
 
 tics and our dissenters ; and hence, that no argument 
 can be drawn from the baptisms of the former in favour 
 of the admission of the latter. To recapitulate : 
 
 If lay baptism was never enjoined in the Church — if 
 it was only permitted in cases of necessity, and that by 
 laymen in full communion with the Church — and if it 
 was only practised by virtue of episcopal authority and 
 commission ; and again, if schismatical baptism was re- 
 ceived as valid, and ratified by episcopal confirmation, 
 but that only upon the supposed reception of the Catho- 
 lic belief in the whole creed, or failing this, in the case 
 of heretical baptism, upon the fact that the heretic ad- 
 ministering baptism had himself received valid orders ; 
 yielding all these points as certain, which are by no 
 means so, and yet more, allowing that they were never 
 controverted, and that this was the practice of the 
 Church in all ages and places, which it certainly was 
 not, — granting all this, yet, forasmuch as in every case 
 examined, in those oilay baptism by reason of the express 
 delegated commission, and in schismatical or heretical 
 baptism by reason of the indestructible inherent right of 
 valid orders, there exists either apostolical commission, 
 episcopal license and authority, or communion with the 
 Church (and that communion intentional, except in the 
 instance of heretics and schismatics, and even in their 
 case real, by virtue of the indelibility of orders), — it must 
 be concluded that no precedent can be urged from these 
 in favour of dissenters' baptisms, which have neither 
 the plea of necessity (allowing, which is not authorised 
 by facts, such an excuse), nor injunction of the Church, 
 nor episcopal license, nor permission, nor communion 
 with the Church, nor, as may be thought, a faith alto- 
 gether free from heresy, nor valid orders ; and are there- 
 
XXVlll EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 fore essentially, and in kind, different from those an- 
 cient ones which are claimed as authorities for them. 
 
 5. Precedent then failing, it remains to see whether 
 the analogy of practice might have justified the Church 
 in receiving the baptisms of such as our dissenters, had 
 they come before her. And here it might seem sufficient 
 to say, that none such could be draAvn, there being no 
 parallel between anti-episcopal baptisms, and baptisms 
 which, though in schism, were grounded upon the epis- 
 copate ; and where there is no ratio, there can be no 
 analogy, or if there be one, the dissenters, who are most 
 concerned to establish their baptisms, are bound to 
 make it out — the proof lies with them. But it may be 
 that the probability is the other way. Can we not ap- 
 proximate to what must have been the decision of the 
 Church, according to her received principles, in an hypo- 
 thetical case, such as that of our dissenters' baptisms ? 
 For the Church does not decide capriciously or arbi- 
 trarily, even in new cases, but refers to standing rules, 
 and to the authority of previous practice. The same 
 argument which has failed the advocates of lay baptism 
 when employed by them constructively, may be used by 
 its opponents destructively. For, admitting the practice 
 in certain cases of lay baptism, and granting the vali- 
 dity of ancient schismatical baptisms, when we inquire 
 for that common nature which, in spite of their irre- 
 gularity, rendered them acceptable in the eyes of the 
 Church, we have seen that it is the commission. Wher- 
 ever this existed, however surreptitiously obtained, 
 or disobediently, even sinfully, preserved, the ancient 
 Church confessed the divine presence, and with mourn- 
 ful reverence refused to interfere. Jacob obtained the 
 blessing by fraud ; but Isaac neither would nor could 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXIX 
 
 reverse it. And if it were the commission, and that 
 alone, which thus sanctified the irregularity of adminis- 
 tration, it may be concluded, that where this commis- 
 sion is absent, the Church would not have recognised 
 grace. Under what character could our dissenters have 
 presented themselves to the Church ? not as laymen, 
 for they have no commission to produce — not as schis- 
 matical ministers, for they have no succession to plead. 
 It is not clear how the Church, even if inclined, could 
 treat with those destitute of all authority, delegated or 
 inherent ; for her only received principle which could be 
 applied to the case is directly against them. 
 
 This distinction will at once obviate the charge, that 
 to propose to baptise those who have received dissenters' 
 (so-called) baptism, is to fall into error, " not much 
 differing from Donatism and Anabaptism," and Nova- 
 tianism ; because this is to assume the point at issue . 
 The error of the Donatists and Novatians and Anabap- 
 tists, besides their schism, was, that they rebaptised 
 those who had received Catholic and authorised bap- 
 tism, the administrators being commissioned; whereas 
 it is argued that the so-called dissenters' baptisms are 
 not baptisms at all, the administrators having no com- 
 mission. 
 
 Nor is this distinction less important in another light ; 
 it meets the great objection which Bingham made to 
 Laurence for confounding unauthorised baptism with 
 .invalid baptism, and drawing no distinction between 
 schismatical baptism and lay baptism. For practical pur- 
 poses, the whole point at issue is, are they who have re- 
 ceived dissenters' baptisms to be baptised in the Church, 
 or not ? The question is not about lay baptisms, or 
 schismatical baptisms, as such, but about unauthorised 
 
 d2 
 
XXX EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 baptisms : and by keeping this single point in view, 
 nearly all the obscurity with which this matter has been 
 overclouded will be avoided. 
 
 If the foregoing hints upon the practice and doctrine 
 of the ancient Church may be deemed sufficient, it re- 
 mains to direct attention to the other branch of the sub- 
 ject — the judgment of our own Church. 
 
 Waterland {Second Letter to Kelsall, p. 185) takes 
 the case to be thus : 
 
 " 1. The Church of England has no where expressly, 
 and in terms, determined the controversy either way. 
 
 " 2. Her practice, as well as the stream of her divines, 
 has all along been against us. 
 
 "3. Yet she has laid down such principles and posi- 
 tions in her public acts, as will, if pursued in all their 
 consequences, bring us to the conclusion we are proving. 
 
 " And this is all, I presume, that Mr. Laurence means 
 in reckoning the Church of England on his side of the 
 question: not that our first reformers, or other great 
 divines since, actually thought as he does ; but that in 
 pursuance of the principles laid down in the articles, 
 canons, and rubrics, they must have thought so, had 
 they attended to all the consequences deducible from 
 them. And indeed, if the case be thus ; if the doctrine 
 of the invalidity of lay baptism can be shewn, by neces- 
 sary consequence, to be implied in what the public voice 
 of our Church has asserted, and we subscribe to, it must 
 be said that the Church of England is for us j and every 
 subscriber that attends to such consequences, and be- 
 lieves them certain, does implicitly, or virtually, sub- 
 scribe them also. And this is what I am persuaded Mr. 
 Laurence has proved sufficiently in the pamphlet enti- 
 tled Dissenters' Baptisms null and void by the Articles, 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXXI 
 
 &c. It must therefore be observed, that those gentle- 
 men take a wrong method of answering Mr. Laurence, 
 who object to him the judgment of many of our eminent 
 divines since the reformation : all that is wide of the 
 point. He may think that many of our divines, and 
 even some compilers of our public forms, had not suffi- 
 ciently traced all the consequences of their own asser- 
 tions, or might have drawn conclusions inconsistent with 
 them. And therefore the ready and only way to con- 
 fute him is, to shew that the consequences Avhich he 
 draws from the premises laid down in our public forms 
 are ill drawn, or are no just consequences from them. 
 Till this be done, the public voice of the Church, as 
 it stands in our articles, rubrics, and canons, will be 
 thought to be on his side of the question ; and he that 
 consents to them must consent to him too, because there 
 is no rejecting a necessary consequence once seen, with- 
 out rejecting the principle itself from whence it flows. 
 AVe need not therefore talk of the Whitgifts, tlie Hookers, 
 the Bilsons, the Bancrofts, or others. The Church's 
 public acts are open and common ; and he is the truest 
 Church-of-England man that best understands the prin- 
 ciples there laid down, and argues the closest from them : 
 all the rest are but assertions, fancies, or practices of 
 particular men, and are not binding rules to us." 
 
 Also p. 188. " But it is said, practice has run con- 
 trary, and some Churchmen, or most Churchmen, have 
 done so too \i. e. admitted the validity of unauthorised 
 baptisms]. It may be so : yet the Church is consistent 
 with herself; for the public voice of the Church is the 
 Church ; and while she lays down premises, conse- 
 quences make themselves. However, all such kind of 
 arguments signify little. Is the practice defensible, or 
 
XXXU EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 is it not ? If it be, shew it upon principles, and argue 
 not from practice only — the weakest reason in the loorld. 
 If it be not, the obvious conclusion is, that it ought to 
 be changed. I cannot but think it a wrong way to 
 plead practice and custom for the validity of lay bap- 
 tism, when we want a law to found it upon. What law 
 of God, nay, what law of our own Church, authorises 
 any laic to baptise, that we may have some shadow of 
 authority to pronounce it valid ? But the Church, you 
 will say — that is. Churchmen — have so practised, therefore 
 the Church approves it. I deny the consequence. Mr. 
 Kelsall observes, that the Church of England ' never 
 made any canon or law for the punishment of a lay 
 baptist who shall presume to do that office in extreme 
 necessity.' But what think you of these words in the 
 preface to the ordination-book ? ' None shall be suffi- 
 cient to execute any of the functions (of a bishop, priest, 
 or deacon), except he hath had formerly episcopal con- 
 secration or ordination.' Is not this part of her laws, 
 and baptism one of her functions ?" 
 
 One valuable application of the argument from the 
 principles and practice of the primitive Church Catholic, 
 as applied to this matter of unauthorised lay baptisms, 
 seems to be this. It is a principle of the Anglican 
 Church to follow implicitly the doctrine and discipline 
 of the ancient Church. But when a definition of the 
 term '' ancient" is demanded, it is replied, " before the 
 introduction of Roman corruptions and novelties." It 
 is much, therefore, in favour of the doctrine of the in- 
 validity, or rather nullity, of dissenters' baptism, that 
 upon its mere announcement it seems in exact harmony 
 with the Anglican principle of the via media. Ro- 
 manists deem all unauthorised baptisms valid, dissenters 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXXIU 
 
 do the same ; and wherever this portentous combination 
 of extremes is, we should presuppose that our Church 
 would reject it. She does so in other things ; for ex- 
 ample, in her doctrine of the eucharist : for, little as 
 it Avas to be expected from their very opposite results, 
 dissenters and Romanists have a common ground even 
 here ; the error of the sacramentarians and that of tran- 
 substantiation are both rationalistic and intrusive. So 
 is it with baptism, though in a reverse way ■ commen- 
 cing with a deep reverence for the sacrament, Romanists 
 end in debasing it, by drawing technical consequences 
 from divine truth : by an unhappy and hard fearless- 
 ness for results, they admit the most monstrous deduc- 
 tions, because to denj'^ them would seem to impair the 
 original principle. Were it not for this dread of logi- 
 cal inconsistency, it might appear incredible that any 
 Church, as Rome does, would admit the validity of 
 baptisms performed by heathens. And yet the Roman 
 authorities are not afraid to allow this very just formal 
 consequence — for it is one — of once admitting laymen 
 to baptise ; although it would be unfair to assign any 
 inferior ground for the commencement of the practice, 
 on the part of the Church, than an earnest sense of the 
 necessity of baptism itself. Dissenters begin at the 
 other end : they disparage the sacrament all along ; and 
 lay baptism is just as natural a result of their view 
 as that of the Romanists. If, therefore, the two great 
 erroneous systems of religion have one practice in com- 
 mon, and that practice arising from very opposite prin- 
 ciples, a strong prejudice, in the proper sense of the 
 word, would rise against it in the mind of an Anglican. 
 The validity of lay baptism seems just one of those 
 things Avhich, like infallibility, be it of the Roman pon- 
 
XXXIV EDITOR S TREFACE. 
 
 tiff or of private judgment, or like that selfish feeling 
 which at one time appears under the form of indul- 
 gences, and at another under that of the Calvinistic 
 assurance, we condemn at once as uncatholic, novel, 
 and rationalising. Whenever Romanism and dissent 
 meet, we are bound to pause and suspect. This is na- 
 tural to us ; it is the Anglican principle : if it be so in 
 other things, why should we not apply it to unautho- 
 rised baptisms ? The Romanists admit them — we an- 
 swer, that the practice is novel ; dissenters admit them — 
 we answer, that the practice is rationalising ; it comes 
 from their denial of the need of ordinances. If these 
 are the replies which we are constantly giving to either 
 party in other points of controversy, it amounts to a fair 
 probability, that another case, such as that of unautho- 
 rised baptism, where the same answer aj)plies equally, 
 may be reduced to the same class. And if the Anglican 
 Church has not decided any point, it would be a very 
 strong presumption that it would decide against it, sim- 
 ply to prove that it is the common property of Rome 
 and dissent, and there leave it ; which seems the case of 
 unauthorised baptisms. 
 
 This is prior to the historical question ; which may 
 amount to this. 
 
 Up to the period of the alteration of the rubric con- 
 sequent on the Hampton-Court conference, our branch 
 of the Church, it is said, did admit the validity of lay 
 baptisms ; in case of necessity she enjoined them. But 
 how far this precedent, supposing it to be as stated, is 
 good for the validity of unauthorised baptisms, is an- 
 other question. It is not disputed that the Church 
 might authorise lay baptisms, may authorise them again, 
 if she pleases : the question now is, of baptisms done in 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE, XXXV 
 
 defiance of her. It is by no means clear that the rubric 
 down to 1603 touches the question of unauthorised bap- 
 tisms ; indeed, there are obvious reasons why it could 
 not : the whole class of dissenters had no existence when 
 the old rubric was framed ; the Church could not have 
 sanctioned, by anticipation, that, the existence of which 
 was never contemplated. If the Church did permit 
 or enjoin lay baptisms prior to 1603, no parallel exists 
 between them and the present dissenters' baptisms ; they 
 were baptisms in communion with the Church, per- 
 formed by persons baptised in the Church, and in the 
 case of children born of parents in communion with 
 the Church. But were these lay baptisms recognised 
 by the Church so long ? This is most important. We 
 shall presently see that it is doubtful whether the old 
 rubric ever had this meaning ; and to settle its sense, let 
 us take the testimony of the canon of the convocation 
 of 1575. Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iv. p. 285. 
 
 '' XII. Item. Where some ambiguity and doubt 
 hath arisen among divers, by what persons private bap- 
 tism is to be ministered ; forasmuch as by the book of 
 Common Prayer allowed by statute, the bishop of the 
 diocese is to expound and resolve all such doubts as 
 shall arise concerning the manner how to understand, 
 do, and execute the things contained in the same book ; 
 it is now by the said archbishop and bishops expounded 
 and resolved, and every one of them doth expound and 
 resolve, that the said private baptism, in case of neces- 
 sity, is only to be ministered by a lawful minister, or 
 deacon, called to be present for that purpose, and by 
 none other. And that every bishop in his diocese shall 
 take order that the exposition of the said doubt shall be 
 published in writing, before the first day of May next 
 
XXXVl EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 cominor, in every parisb-chiirch of his diocese in this 
 province ; and therebj'^ all other persons shall be inhi- 
 bited to intermeddle with the ministering of baptism 
 privately, being no part of his vocation." 
 
 Here is the testimony of convocation ; and it seems 
 remarkable, as though to anticipate objections perhaps 
 the most extraordinary which ever signalised a contro- 
 versy, that the evidence of the authenticity of this 
 canon is remarkably full. Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 281. 
 
 " Post varias deinde continuationes convocatio con- 
 gregabatur Martii 17, in capella ecclesiae Beati Petri 
 Westm.jubi archiepiscopus prsesens perlegi mandarit et 
 fecit quosdam articulos in scriptis conceptos ; quibus sic 
 lectis, dictus reverendissimus et confratres sui prsedicti 
 consensum et assensum suos unanimiter adhibuerunt." 
 
 Can evidence be more strong as to the synodical 
 decision of the Church ? But had the articles the royal 
 sanction? They were fifteen in number. Wilkins, 
 from Heylin, quotes (p. 285), '' Ultimus tamen arti- 
 culus typis non fuit expressus, eo quod domina regina 
 (ut dicitur) non assensit eidem. Postquam hi articuli 
 promulgati fuissent," &c. If the queen would not as- 
 sent to the last article, and they were printed and pub- 
 lished without it, can there be a stronger proof that the 
 other fourteen were sanctioned by her, and published ? 
 Collier states expressly (Eccl. Hist. ii. 552) : " This ar- 
 ticle (the twelfth) being particularly remarkable, I have 
 given it in the words of the record." Passed in convo- 
 cation unanimously, sanctioned by the queen, published 
 by the archbishop's mandate bearing date 20th April, 
 1576, — is further evidence required?' 
 
 ^ Sir H. Jenner is reported to have said in a late case, 
 presently to be alluded to, "It is clear that it (the twelfth 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXXVll 
 
 We now come to the Hampton-Court conference, 
 held in consequence of the millenary petition ; one of 
 its requests being, '' baptism not to be ministered by 
 women, and so explained." And on the first day's con- 
 ference, ^' as to the Book of Common Prayer, the king 
 required satisfaction ... as to private baptism ; and 
 here he made a distinction : if it was private with refer- 
 ence to the place, he thought it consistent with the prac- 
 tice of the primitive Church ; but if it related to the 
 person, he disliked it to the last degree. And upon this 
 occasion he expressed himself with some warmth against 
 women and laics administering this sacrament. 
 
 " The archbishop [Whitgift] endeavoured to satisfy 
 his majesty, that the administration of baptism by 
 women and lay persons was not allowed by the Church 
 
 article) was not printed with the other canons agreed to on 
 this occasion." Certainly we have it in Wilkins, Ea^ Ex- 
 cerptis Heylinianis. The archbishop's (Grindal's) mandate is 
 express, that it was ordered to be published. Sir H. Jenner 
 says, that the fifteenth was disapproved of by the king, — that 
 is to say, the queen. This is true ; and how excellent an op- 
 portunity was given here to Heylin, or to Wilkins, or to Col- 
 lier, who calls especial attention to the twelfth, challenging in- 
 quiry, as it were, to it, to say something of its doubtfulness ; but 
 not a word. Sir H Jenner proceeds: " If this canon had been 
 published and acted upon, it was extraordinary that no copy 
 of it could be found in any book, or registry of any diocese." 
 Strype says that the twelfth article was omitted in the printed 
 copy : a good reason for which was, that it was explanatory. 
 But Strype testifies expressly that he himself had seen it all in the 
 MS. copies ; and he mentions three by name. Has Sir H. Jen- 
 ner seen a single MS. copy which does not contain the twelfth 
 article ? If he has not, Strype's authority must be received. 
 
 e 
 
XXXVlll EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 of England ; that the bishops in their visitations cen- 
 sured this practice ; and that the words in the office do 
 not infer any such latitude. To this the king except- 
 ing, cited the office, and argued that the words could 
 not be construed to less than a permission for women 
 and lay persons to baptise. Here the Bishop of Wor- 
 cester [Babington] struck in, and confessed that the 
 words were someiohat ambiguous, and might be strained 
 to such a meaning ; but by the counter-practice of the 
 Church, by women's being censured upon this score, it 
 seems reasonable to suppose the compilers of the office 
 did not design to be so understood ; and yet, notwith- 
 standing, couched the form in ambiguous expressions, 
 because otherwise, perhaps, the book might not have 
 passed in parliament. The Bishop of London [Bancroft] 
 was not satisfied Avith this discourse, and replied, that 
 the compilers of the Prayer-book really designed a per- 
 mission to private persons for baptising in cases of ne- 
 cessity ; and he proceeded to shew that this was agree- 
 able to the practice of the primitive Church, citing Acts, 
 chap, ii., and Tertullian and St. Ambrose. 
 
 "To this the king replied, that the instance in the 
 Acts was an extraordinary case ; and that to argue from 
 the practice of a Church in its beginning, to one settled, 
 was no good reasoning. And he went on to maintain 
 the necessity of baptism from John iii. 5 ; and so far 
 declared for the necessity of baptism, that when it could 
 be administered by the clergy, it ought never to be 
 omitted ; but the laity, he conceived, ought not to pre- 
 sume on that office in any case. And yet, which was 
 somewhat particular, he disapproved all rebaptisation, 
 though that sacrament had been administered by private 
 unauthorised persons. 
 
EDITOR S PREFACE. XXXIX 
 
 " The Bishop of Winchester [Bilson] discoursing 
 learnedly upon this subject, affirmed that to bar private 
 persons baptising in cases of necessity, was to cross upon 
 all antiquity ; that it was a maxim in divinity, that the 
 minister was not of the essence of the sacrament. To 
 this the king answered, that though the minister was 
 not of the essence of the sacrament, he was, notwith- 
 standing, of the essence of the right and lawful ministry 
 of the sacrament. His ground was the words in the 
 apostles' commission. Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- 
 tions, baptising them,^^ &c. — Collier's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. 
 p. 674, &c., from Barlow. 
 
 It has lately been held by an authority,' whose judi- 
 cial function entitles him to respect, although, as a lay- 
 man, his opinion — for it amounts to no more — is of 
 weight as little as that of any individual writer, that 
 King James was of opinion that if the act had been de 
 facto done, he so disliked rebaptism, that he would not 
 have the rite repeated, though it were done by women 
 and laics ; that the Church, by inserting the words ^' law- 
 ful minister" in place of "them that be present," did 
 not intend to assert that lay baptism was null and void, 
 but only irregular ; and if so, the law of the Church at 
 that time was the law of the Church now. 
 
 The grounds upon which this judgment is given 
 seem to be, that these facts are proved : 
 
 1. That the canon of 1675 is not genuine, because 
 never referred to in the Hampton-Court conference or 
 by Hooker. 
 
 2. That up to the Hampton-Court conference the 
 Church admitted lay baptisms. 
 
 3. That the alteration at that conference only went 
 
 ^ Sir H. Jenner, judgment Mastin v. Escott. 
 
xl 
 
 EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 to discourage the practice, not to pronounce that, when 
 done, lay baptism was null. 
 
 And hence, that the Church deems it irregular, but 
 still valid, and not to be repeated ; because, though King 
 James and the bishops disliked lay baptism, they dis- 
 liked rebaptisation also. 
 
 To all this may be replied : 
 
 1. Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Babington, in 
 terms, deny that the Church ever meant either to en- 
 courage or permit lay baptism, even hy the old rubric. 
 King James had expressed himself warmly against bap- 
 tism by women and laics. The two prelates admit his 
 objection, and say that this was not the doctrine of the 
 Church, however much it might have been contravened. 
 That the rubric was designedly ambiguous, not to oifend 
 the Romanists ; but that the practice was not enjoined 
 by the Church ; on the contrary, that the bishops cen- 
 sured it (and here certainly is a clear allusion to the 
 canon of 1675, and a sufficient reply to the judge's argu- 
 ment, from the silence at the conference respecting it). 
 If this be so ; if the reformers never intended even to 
 permit lay baptism ; if the doctrine of Whitgift and 
 Babington is true, — there is an end of the controversy ; 
 it is admitted on all hands that the whole case breaks 
 down : if even the old rubric did not permit lay baptism, 
 much less can the present. 
 
 2. But Bancroft brings two answers to the view taken 
 by the other bishops. 1. He declares that the reformers 
 did permit the practice. 2. He justifies it on Scripture 
 and on antiquity. King James replies, as we have seen, 
 to the scriptural instance (which was one always quoted 
 by the Romanists, and to which Forbes' is a more satis- 
 factory answer, see p. cxvi.), and then he observes " that 
 
editor's preface. xli 
 
 he disapproves all rebaptisation," &c. This clearly is 
 founded upon Bancroft's first objection, and goes upon 
 the supposition of its truth. If King James is to be 
 considered an exponent of the intentions of the Church, 
 his whole argument is most consistent. He dislikes lay 
 baptism : he is told by some of the bishops that it is 
 not, and never has been, the doctrine of the Church ; 
 he is told by others that it was her intention. To which 
 he answers, if we may attempt to give consistency to 
 what he said, and the Church did : '^ The rubric shall be 
 altered. Disputes have arisen about its meaning (see 
 canon of 1675) ; these shall exist no longer. If it be 
 true that it never was intended to sanction lay baptism, 
 the fact that it has been mistaken affords a reason for a 
 change. If, on the other hand, the Church intended it, 
 I have a strong opinion against the practice. I see no 
 warrant for it in Scripture or antiquity ; therefore it 
 shall be changed. But since the Church has authorised 
 the practice hitherto, let us have no rebaptisation of 
 those who have already received lay baptism. Their 
 baptism is valid, because the Church has authorised it ; 
 but it shall be so no longer, the rubric shall be changed." 
 And it was changed. 
 
 It is clear that the king's objection to rebaptisation 
 was upon the supposition that lay baptisms were hither- 
 to authorised: his doctrine was retrospective to all who 
 had, since the Reformation, received lay baptism on the 
 authority of the Church ; it does not apply as a general 
 principle to those who should in future receive it in 
 defiance of the Church. Two objections are, however, 
 foreseen to this mode of representing King James's 
 sentiments, and, by implication, the reasons which in- 
 duced the Church to alter the rubric. 
 
 e 2 
 
xlii editor's preface. 
 
 1. It may be urged, ''not only did the king disapprove 
 of all rebaptisation in the case of private, but ' unau- 
 thorised' persons. And surely this is to declare, on 
 the widest grounds, that baptism once given, no matter 
 how, is not to be repeated : the want even of authority 
 does not null it." Still it must be borne in mind, that 
 this also only need apply to the past. If, as Whitgift 
 argued, the Church had never given authority to laymen 
 to baptise, their bai3tisms, it might have been suggested, 
 as being unauthorised, would be also invalid, and con- 
 sequently all persons since the Reformation who had 
 received lay baptism ought to be rebaptised. The king 
 replies in the negative : "I disapprove all rebaptisation, 
 though that sacrament has been administered by private 
 unauthorised persons." Why ? because such persons 
 have not thought themselves unauthorised. It has been 
 hitherto supposed, whether with truth or not, that the 
 Church had given such authority to laymen. 
 
 2. It may be contended that the king, in his reply 
 to Bilson, states broadly " that the minister was not of 
 the essence of the sacrament." But he answered, that 
 the apostolical commission was. As a principle, it is 
 true, that the " minister is not of the essence of the 
 sacrament," otherwise we should fall into the Romish 
 doctrine of intention ; but '' the minister is of the 
 essence of the right and lawful ministry of the sacra- 
 ment." In the naked sense, it is not true that the 
 minister is essential ; but it is true that without lawful 
 minister there is no right and lawful sacrament. To 
 prove dissenters' baptisms null, there is no occasion to 
 assume as a maxim that " the minister is essential to 
 the sacrament,'^ if it be granted, as King James ex- 
 pressly declared, that the apostolical commission is. 
 
editor's preface. xliii 
 
 King James shewed himself throughout the confer- 
 ence much too clear-headed a controversialist to have 
 committed the gross inconsistency which the common 
 interpretation of his words implies ; and surely it is 
 much better to reconcile his two statements than to 
 argue from their inconsistency, and make the Church 
 as inconsistent as the king. 
 
 However, what King James or the bishops said, or 
 what they intended, is no decision of the Church : into 
 the grounds even of the change in the rubric we are not 
 bound to enter. We have to take it as it stands, and to 
 see how its sense must be determined by other Church- 
 principles, expressed in other formularies ; and this is 
 what Laurence has done in the tract, Dissenters^ Bap- 
 tism null and void. It must be carefully borne in mind, 
 that the sense of the English Church does not rest upon 
 King James's dictum. The writer of these remarks 
 thinks that the king's observation about rebaptisation 
 by no means bears the construction commonly put upon 
 it ; that it is not inconsistent with what he says else- 
 where ; that it was not intended as the enunciation of a 
 general principle, and a guide for future practice, but 
 only a decision for the past. But should this vindica- 
 tion of King James's consistency be deemed unsound, 
 it will be satisfactory to those who think him inconsis- 
 tent, and his observation about rebaptising "somewhat 
 particular," as Bishop Barlow calls it, to hear Brett's 
 Inquiry^ p. 107. 
 
 " Even Bishop Fleetwood has very well observed, 
 that * what his majesty said against rebaptising such as 
 had before been baptised by laics, is inconsistent with 
 what he said of the necessity of being baptised by a 
 lawful minister.* Since, then, his majesty on this occa- 
 
xliv editor's preface. 
 
 sion gave two opinions inconsistent with themselves, 
 and one of these was received by the Church and put 
 into the rubric, and afterwards confirmed both by con- 
 vocation and parliament, is it not plain which of these 
 opinions we ought to follow ? We cannot be bound to 
 hold two inconsistent opinions. Now the rubric was 
 not altered because his majesty thought those who were 
 baptised by laics or women ought not to be rebaptised, 
 but because he thought baptism by a lawful minister 
 absolutely necessary. We are therefore to be guided by 
 the rubric, as founded on this opinion, and not by the 
 other opinion of the king and bishops, which was incon- 
 sistent with it, and neither promoted nor hindered that 
 alteration. Since, therefore, the rubric, which till this 
 conference was commonly thought to allow, or at least 
 permit, lay baptism in case of necessity, was then al- 
 tered, and none permitted to baptise, even '■ in case of 
 great cause and necessity,' as it is expressed in the 
 rubric before the office for private baptism, it is plain 
 from this judgment of the Church, so clearly declared in 
 this rubric, that it is better a child should die than that 
 a lay person should undertake to baptise it. For, as 
 Bishop Fleetwood argues very rightly, ' Is it as well 
 for a child to die unhaptised, as baptised by a laic, whose 
 baptism must not be reiterated?' But the Church, by 
 this rubric, has plainly declared it her opinion, that only 
 the lawful minister shall baptise, even in case of great 
 cause and necessity ; and this rubric was made to pre- 
 vent laymen attempting it in such cases. ' Men,' as 
 that author observes, '■ may make premises, but conse- 
 quences make themselves.' Now the Church has made 
 the premises, and declared that even in case of great 
 necessity baptism must be ministered by a lawful minis- 
 
editor's preface. xlv 
 
 ter, and not by any lay person ; for that was the reason 
 why the words ' lawful minister ' were added to the 
 rubric. ' If then/ as that author goes on very well, 
 * baptism be absolutely necessary from a lawful hand, 
 and a lay hand be not a lawful hand, then lay baptism 
 is not the baptism that is absolutely necessary : it must 
 therefore be had from a hand that is lawful.' Now it 
 matters not whether the king, or the bishops with him, 
 allowed these consequences or not : the premises were 
 put into the liturgy, and are now the declared doctrine 
 of our Church, and the consequences make themselves. 
 If the king and bishops held consequences inconsistent 
 with these premises, they did not put those consequences 
 into the rubric ; therefore we are not concerned with 
 their inconsistent consequences, but we are with the 
 premises, which are established both by the laws of 
 Church and state ; and we must stick to the consequences 
 which naturally flow from them, not to those which are 
 inconsistent with them. So that, had we nothing more 
 than this rubric to guide us, we might sa}- that we have 
 the countenance of our Church to assert, that baptism 
 not administered by a lawful minister is invalid and 
 null : and forasmuch as our Church allows none to be 
 a lawful minister but one episcopally ordained, we are 
 also countenanced by the Church to assert the inva- 
 lidity and nullity of baptism administered by persons 
 not episcopally ordained." 
 
 The absence of objections to the practice or to the 
 validity of lay or dissenting baptism between the period 
 of the settlement of the rubric, after the Restoration 
 1661, and Laurence's controversy, supposing it to be so, 
 proves nothing ; no silence, and no protests, can be ac- 
 cepted either way ; the public acts of the Church alone 
 
xlvi editor's preface. 
 
 can be referred to, or argued upon. Besides, how do 
 we know that such as had received dissenters' (so-called) 
 baptism were not constantly baptised in the Church? 
 Or again, how do we know that dissenters baptised at 
 all — or, at any rate, to the extent which they do now ? 
 
 Of the value of the declaration of the bishops in 
 1712, so much has been said elsewhere, that it only re- 
 mains to express great surprise at the observation said 
 to have been made in the judgment already alluded to, 
 that " ALL the heads of the Church at that time held 
 baptism administered by lay persons to be valid." If 
 they had, their judgment was not a synodical decision 
 of the Church : but that they did not do so, see note to 
 p. Ixiii. 
 
 And though it seems scarcely right to criticise a 
 document which, as at present reported, may be full 
 of errors ; the statement, that Waterland admitted that 
 ^' the stream of authority and of antiquity was against 
 them," is sufficiently startling to any one who has read 
 a single line of the controversy. What he did say may 
 be found at p. cl. 
 
 The only remaining argument in favour of the va- 
 lidity of dissenters' baptism is one upon which Sir J. 
 NichoU's judgment in 1809 is said to have been founded. 
 In the rubric contained in the office for private baptism 
 certain questions are appointed to be asked by the mi- 
 nister who admits the child into the Church, by which 
 the validity of the previous baptism is to be established . 
 
 They are : 
 
 *' By whom was the child baptised ?" 
 
 " Who was present when this child was baptised ?" 
 
 " Because some things essential to this sacrament 
 may happen to be omitted, through fear or haste, in 
 
editor's preface. xlvii 
 
 such times of extremity, therefore I demand further of 
 you— 
 
 " With what matter was this child baptised 2'* 
 ''With what words was this child baptised?" 
 And in the concluding rubric it is said — 
 " If it cannot appear that the child was baptised 
 with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost (which are essential parts of bap- 
 tism), then," &c. 
 
 From these passages it is argued that the matter and 
 form are the only essential parts of baptism, because 
 these too are introduced as essentials, and so described ; 
 and that the clause so referring to them, from its po- 
 sition, excludes the person officiating from being an 
 essential also. But surely it is forgotten that these 
 questions are only to be asked " if the child were bap- 
 tised by any other lawful minister than the minister of 
 the parish." The Church presupposes the lawfulness of 
 the ministration before the questions, designed merely 
 to establish the fact, are to be asked. We are never 
 even to inquire till we are sure that the minister was a 
 lawful one. 
 
 Into other arguments, with which this question has 
 been encumbered, it is not the present editor's province 
 to enter, partly because they have been answered by 
 anticipation in various places of the subsequent pages, 
 and partly because, even if these conclusions be true, some 
 of which are certainly not so, they are altogether wide of 
 the mark ; such as the gratuitous axiom of factum, valet, 
 &c. — 'the alleged unchurching of foreign Protestants — 
 the arguments ad misericordiam of the supposed un- 
 charitableness of denying the many thousand invalid 
 baptisms which have passed unnoticed — the authority of 
 
xlviii 
 
 EDITOR S PREFACE. 
 
 distinguished writers, &c. ; — the only matter in dispute 
 being, whether the unauthorised baptisms performed by 
 dissenters, in defiance of the Church, are the sacrament 
 of regeneration at all, according to the recorded judg- 
 ment of our Church. At present the opinions of those 
 members of our Church to whom deference would be 
 most cheerfully accorded seem to be inclining to a 
 middle course, that dissenters' baptisms, though valid, 
 are imperfect till ratified by confirmation. i 
 
 The respectability both in numbers and intention of 
 such as embrace this view demands that it shall be no- 
 ticed ; although its claims upon attention are founded 
 rather upon its theoretical beauty than its authority. 
 Waterland (p. 190) dismisses this notion with some- 
 thing like contempt : ^' as to making any thing valid ex 
 post facto, by a subsequent confirmation, which was not 
 valid before, it is too romantic a notion to need confut- 
 ing, having no countenance from Scripture, antiquity, 
 or reason, or the principles of our Church, or our office 
 for confirmation, which supposes persons baptised, va- 
 lidly baptised before." Indeed, it must come to this : 
 dissenters' baptisms are either actual baptisms, or they 
 are none at all : for what can there be between them ? 
 Do they convey grace ? Are they the laver of rege- 
 neration? If they do, then being essentially perfect, 
 confirmation does no more in kind to them than it 
 does to Church-baptisms, and they require confirma- 
 tion only for the same reason as baptisms in the Church 
 do ; there is no inherent inefficiency, no absence of 
 the gift of salvation, in them, which confirmation 
 supplies. No argument can be drawn from the im- 
 
 ' This view has been well defended by Nathaniel Marshall 
 in a dissertation contained in his translation of St. Cyprian. 
 
editor's preface. xlix 
 
 position of hands practised in the early Church in the 
 case of those baptised by heretics: this rite was in- 
 tended not to supply the baptismal grace which was 
 wanting, but was applied in their case, as in the case of 
 all penitents, merely as reconciling the parties to Catho- 
 lic communion who had been living in heresy or schism ; 
 the notion of a supplement or substitute for baptism 
 did not enter into it. But if, on the other hand, unau- 
 thorised baptisms are not the channels of the new birth, 
 tJie one baptism, they are nothing. It is not correct to 
 say that they must be repeated — they have not been. 
 The notion of the grace being seminal — being conveyed 
 in baptism, however invalid, and lying dormant until 
 forced into life by the dew of confirmation, is exceed- 
 ingly beautiful — so characteristic of those truly pious 
 and gentle minds who entertain it — so full of comfort 
 and hopefulness, — that it is with real pain that one is 
 compelled to disturb this illusion by asking for proof of 
 all this. Does it amount to much more than a theory ? 
 It is most true that the Church might, if she chose, de- 
 termine to supply the deficiency of dissenters' baptisms 
 by episcopal imposition of hands ; but has she done so ? 
 Where does she state it? Granting even that the an- 
 cient Church used this rite with this intent, which is 
 not the fact, ancient heretical baptisms are totally dif- 
 ferent in kind from modern dissenters' baptisms. So 
 aware was even Bingham that this position was utterly 
 untenable, that he proposed a new form of confirmation 
 for the reception of those who had received dissenters' 
 baptisms ; a pregnant proof of his conviction that our 
 form as it stands would not meet the case. The con- 
 firmation-ofiice declares that those receiving it are re- 
 generate. But in the cases of faultiness supposed, how 
 
 f 
 
1 editor's preface. 
 
 far does it extend ? Is the loss of grace total or partial ? 
 Does such loss increase or remain stationary ? Is the 
 baptism a sacrament or not? Does it give the Holy 
 Spirit? Is it the "remission of sins?" One cannot 
 understand how these things can be matters of degree : 
 the gift of baptism, as such, must be a single act, com- 
 plete in itself: the guilt of Adam must be cleansed 
 wholly, once and for all, or not at all. It sounds 
 harsh to say so ; but we must not, when endeavouring 
 as in God's sight to vindicate His truth, allow our feel- 
 ings to enter into our decisions. 
 
 In conclusion, the editor of the present publication ear- 
 nestly begs that it may not be concluded, that to deny the 
 validity of dissenters' baptisms is to affirm that such as have 
 received it cannot be saved. God pardon the presump- 
 tion and hardness of such a thought ! Surely He of His 
 infinite mercy will not visit upon men all the loss which 
 their sins, either of ignorance or of presumption, or 
 which sad circumstances, entail upon them. Nor is it 
 to exasperate dissenters that this work is republished. 
 On the contrary, it may be, through God's blessing, 
 that it may be permitted to sink into earnest minds, 
 even among dissenters — that it may teach them that we 
 know the spiritual loss under which they are pining — 
 that we mourn for it — that we, with all affection, im- 
 plore them to come at once to the great Fountain of 
 living waters. And it is with this hope that all allusion 
 to any local or temporary circumstances, which might 
 cause heart-burnings, has been studiously avoided in 
 what the editor has found it his duty to say ; and though 
 this may have occasioned incompleteness, he trusts that 
 his motive will be accepted. Should it so be that his 
 readers are disposed neither to accept his own reason- 
 
editor's preface. li 
 
 ings or those of his author, the editor begs to subjoin 
 the observation of one which may lead some wavering 
 minds at least to a comforting decision. 
 
 " At present I am not able to prove the validity 
 of sacraments administered by lay persons in any case 
 whatsoever ; nor, on the other hand, am I willing to 
 pronounce them utterly invalid. But this I own, that 
 if it had been my misfortune to have been baptised by 
 such a person as was not authorised by God to perform 
 that office, I would be conditionally rebaptised, after the 
 same manner which our Church prescribes in doubtful 
 cases. For I do not think that it would otherwise be 
 possible for me to enjoy peace of conscience for one 
 single moment." (Bennet, Rights of Clergy.) 
 
 May God^s Holy Spirit influence His Church to 
 decide this matter according to His will ; and may He 
 give us grace, each in our respective stations, to accept 
 that judgment with submission, obedience, and love. 
 
 Hoxton, May 18, 1841. W. S. 
 
 P.S.— The Editor begs to refer such readers as require information 
 upon the point to a recent pubUcation of high authority — Mr. Blunt's 
 Dissenters' Baptisms and Church-Burials ; — a work which the Editor of 
 the present sheets had no opportunity of consulting until they were 
 in type. 
 
4-'^ 
 
 
 AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 HE occasion of writing this essay is 
 sufficiently declared in the title-page -, 
 and the design thereof is to contribute 
 ^^S something towards the recovery of 
 
 those who are almost drowned in the fatal error of 
 thinking that they receive Christian sacraments, 
 when in truth and reality they receive none at all. 
 
 \} " Lay Baptism invalid : an essay to prove that such Bap- 
 tism is null and void, when administered in opposition to the 
 divine right of the apostolical succession. Occasioned chiefly 
 by the anti-episcopal usurpations of our English dissenting 
 teachers. The fourth edition, more correct than the former ; 
 in which some notice is taken of an ecclesiastical declaration 
 proposed to be established, about ten years since, in favour of 
 such usurpations. By R. Laurence, M.A. St. John xx. 21, 
 23 : As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. Whose- 
 soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them. Heb. v. 4 : 
 No man taJceth this honour to himself, but he that is called of 
 God, as was Aaron. London : printed for Richard King, at 
 the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1723."] 
 
 f 2 
 
liv author's preface. 
 
 I do not doubt but I shall procure to myself many 
 enemies by this attempt ; but no matter for that, if 
 this my poor endeavour can but prove effectual to 
 stir up the clergy, whose office it is, to preach and 
 write frequently to disabuse mankind in so weighty 
 an affair. 
 
 I am well aware how diligent the adversaries 
 will be to find what faults they can ; and I am not 
 so vain as to think myself to have escaped altogether 
 free from some in this essay ; and therefore, that 
 I might take away all occasion of unnecessary dis- 
 pute, and save myself the trouble of future answers 
 to what may be cavilled at by some, I once for all 
 declared, in the second edition of this book, what I 
 thought necessary for the more clear explanation of 
 my design and meaning in some passages, which 
 otherwise I feared might have given offence. 
 
 In thiiS fourth edition all those places are more 
 correct in the body of the book itself, and therefore 
 not necessary here to be particularly explained, ex- 
 cept in the Appendix, 
 
 Page 90, and forward, where, in answer to the 
 10th objection, I have attempted to prove the va- 
 lidity of holy orders conferred on unbaptised per- 
 sons. What I have proposed in order thereto, I 
 desire the judicious lovers of truth to interpret only 
 as an essay. I am not so fond of any thing I have 
 
author's preface. -IV 
 
 said about it, as to strive with those who may hap- 
 pen to differ from me ; nay, more ; if, after due 
 consideration, it should be generally condemned by 
 orthodox learned men, I shall acquiesce, acknow- 
 ledging that a man ought to be a member before 
 he should be admitted to be a minister of Christ in 
 His Church.i 
 
 What I have said in the following and other 
 parts of this book, in general terms, relating to lay 
 baptism, I think necessary by way of precaution 
 here to explain, by telling my reader that I design 
 thereby to mean such baptism as is performed by 
 persons who never received any real authority from 
 their bishops, or else by such as were never really 
 authorised, and yet act in opposition to episcopacy. 
 Whether bishops, the spiritual governors of the 
 Church, who have power from Christ to give a 
 man a standing commission to be a priest, cannot 
 give him a commission pro hac vice, in cases of 
 extreme necessity, to do a sacerdotal act, — I will 
 not presume to determine; neither do I think it 
 necessary to dispute against those who affirm that 
 they can, provided the layman be in communion 
 with, and an actual member of, that particular na- 
 tional or provincial Church over which the bishops 
 
 \} See Hickes' remarks on this head, in his letter to Lau- 
 rence, a portion of which is subjoined to this preface.] 
 
Ivi author's preface. 
 
 preside who give such an occasional commission ; 
 provided also that they give him this commission in 
 such a manner, and with such limitations and re- 
 strict'ionsy as that there may be no more reason to 
 suspect the truth of the divine authority residing in 
 him for the executing of that sacerdotal act pro hie 
 et nunc, in a case of extreme necessity, than there 
 is to question the validity of the standing commis- 
 sion of the ordinary priesthood. For then, in such 
 case, the man acts not of himself, or as a mere laic ; 
 he is supposed not to administer by virtue of any 
 canon of foreign councils, but as empowered by 
 the authority of those particular bishops he is sub- 
 ject to. And I think it necessary to make these 
 provisoes, because, on the other hand, it is well 
 known how apt men have been, and still are, to 
 pervert and abuse this power and authoritj^, and 
 misapply it to wrong and ill purposes, by unsound 
 and false inferences ; as I myself have found by ex- 
 perience in my conversation relating to my own 
 particular case, — so far as at last to make the Chris- 
 tian priesthood be esteemed by the heedless multi- 
 tude as a thing of no necessary use and value at 
 all : and for this reason it is that I have endea- 
 Youred so much (in this essay, p. 48, and answer 
 to objections, pp. 91 and 111) to shew the ill uses 
 which men are apt to make of the Church's power. 
 
author's preface. Ivii 
 
 After all, whether a Church has or has not the 
 power of authorising her own laics, as above spe- 
 cified, to baptise in cases of extremity, I think I 
 need make no scruple to say, 
 
 1. That the practice of one national or pro- 
 vincial Church in this case cannot authorise the 
 laics of another such Church, which gives them no 
 such authority, as here with us. 
 
 2. That no Church can have any power to allow 
 laics of opposite communions to her to administer 
 baptism in that case, much less when there is no 
 necessity at all, as certainly there is none in our 
 dissenters' baptisms. 
 
 3. That no Church has, or can have, power to 
 confirm baptism so administered, because confirma- 
 tion supposes the person to have been validly bap- 
 tised before, and his baptism to be consummated 
 and finished thereby. 
 
 The author of a pamphlet, intituled New 
 Dangers to the Christian Priesthood, who with 
 great rudeness, inconsistent with his priestly cha- 
 racter, has, by partial quotations from my two 
 books of Sacerdotal Powers and Dissenters Bap- 
 tism null and void, endeavoured to persuade the 
 world that I separate the divine commission from 
 the Christian ministry, and that I hold and affirm 
 that bishops have power to authorise laymen to 
 
Iviii author's preface. 
 
 baptise, would have done but common justice to 
 have considered, and let the world see, what I have 
 said here in answer to a question put to me con- 
 cerning such a power in bishops. He knew in his 
 conscience, or might know, that this was in the 
 second edition of Lay Baptism invalid, for he refers 
 to that edition in his abusive pamphlet. He cannot 
 deny that in the same edition, p. 155, I use these 
 very words, viz. " When it can be proved that Christ 
 has vested His Church with such a power, it will 
 necessarily follow," &c. He might have known 
 that this was in answer to an objection, which 
 affirmed that the " validity of lay baptism stands on 
 the authority of the Church's power to grant such 
 license to laymen in extremities." He cannot choose 
 but be conscious to himself, if he read the book, 
 that I, in the same edition, pp. 155, 156, shewed 
 the danger of the Church's making use of such a 
 supposed power; these passages are in pp. 110, 111, 
 and 112 of this present edition. His conscience 
 must also tell him that in p. 83 of Sacerdotal 
 Powers (which he pretends to quote, though he 
 does it very unfairly), I say, concerning bap- 
 tisms administered by virtue of the canon of the 
 council of Eliberis, these words, " If any thing 
 can be said for the validity of those lay bap- 
 tisms." And, p. 85, concerning midwife-baptism. 
 
author's preface. lix 
 
 allowed by the Church of Rome, I say thus : " So 
 that upon supposition, which / dare not grant, that 
 those midwife-baptisms could be defended as valid, 
 upon the account of their bishops having first 
 granted them such power," &c. 
 
 Lastly, to let the world see a little more of the 
 integrity of this writer, he cannot be ignorant that 
 he is very unjust in his quotation from pp. 6 and 7 
 of Dissenters Baptism null and void ; for in p. 7, 
 before the period is finished, I say, concerning the 
 Church's power to authorise her laymen to baptise, 
 thus : " Which, whether right or no, is no ways 
 applicable to our laymen and dissenters, who are 
 utterly destitute of any such plea," &c. By all 
 which passages the impartial reader may easily see, 
 that I do not affirm that bishops have power so to 
 authorise laymen ; but that, if bishops could be sup- 
 posed or proved to have such a power, yet even then 
 our dissenters' baptisms are null and void notwith- 
 standing. The whole argument runs upon, if they 
 had power, whether right or no, &c. But these 
 necessary connexions he purposely omitted, because 
 he knew that if he had inserted them, it would have 
 discovered the falseness of his charge, and have 
 spoiled his design of endeavouring to render a per- 
 son odious, when he was not able to confute that 
 truth which he had asserted. How awkwardly so- 
 
Ix author's preface. 
 
 ever I may have defended it, that must be left 
 to more impartial judges than this gentleman has 
 shewed himself to be. However, thus much he and 
 his friends have discovered by their attempts hither- 
 to, that they dare venture no farther than to nibble 
 at such little things as are wholly foreign to the 
 main matter disputed, and this they do without any 
 argument at all ; while the merits of the cause lie 
 neglected by them, as being either in their opinion 
 not worth their regard, or else because the invalidity 
 of lay baptism is too great a truth for them expressly 
 and directly to endeavour to overthrow. 
 
 This writer calls upon me to answer him posi- 
 tively, whether I will hold and maintain that " bi- 
 shops can authorise laymen to baptise." I hereby 
 assure him that I will give him no positive answer to 
 this question. I will not declare myself absolutely 
 either for or against that power for cases of ex- 
 tremity, but leave it as I found it, and will keep my 
 own private opinion about it to myself; which I am 
 sure I have a right to do, without any obligation to 
 publish it for the sake of such unreasonable and ill- 
 grounded challenges as this angry gentleman has 
 made me. And this shall be all the public notice 
 that I will take of his unhandsome performances — 
 and which, indeed, is more than due to them — after 
 I have told him, that some great men hold that bi- 
 
author's preface. Ixi 
 
 shops, by their apostolic authority, can authorise 
 laymen to baptise in cases of extremity, i. e. in want 
 of a priest ; that it is with these gentlemen I have 
 treated in my three books, giving them argumentum 
 ad hominem, upon their own principles. That there 
 are others who affirm that bishops have not such 
 power ; and that it is my assertion, that, whether 
 they have or have not this power, my principles 
 stand firm, that persons not commissioned, not au- 
 thorised, — I. e. not really authorised, for it is not 
 authority, if it is not real, — do not minister valid 
 baptism. And this is the case of our dissenters' 
 baptisms, let what will become of that other ques- 
 tion. For if bishops have not such a power, then it 
 is plain that the ministration of baptism is an in- 
 communicable function of the standing priesthood ; 
 and so no lay ministration whatsoever can be valid 
 by being allowed, tolerated, licensed, approved of, 
 or authorised by bishops. This effectually ruins the 
 cause of necessity, which our author would plead; 
 because, if bishops cannot authorise laymen validly 
 to baptise in want of a priest, it must be because 
 lay Christians, as such, have not a capacity to re- 
 ceive the divine commission for such an exigence. 
 And if they have not this capacity, then the exi- 
 gence itself cannot empower or authorise them, ex- 
 cept a negative has more of potentiality than the 
 
 g 
 
Ixii 
 
 AUTHOR S PREFACE. 
 
 positive power of the bishops, which is absurd. 
 And therefore our dissenters, upon this supposition, 
 are utterly excluded from ministering valid baptism ; 
 as they would, also, if necessity could empower lay- 
 men ; for they are under no case of necessity, where 
 priests are to be had. And again : if bishops have 
 such a power to authorise their own laymen, as be- 
 fore specified, our bishops have not so authorised 
 their laymen ; and if they had, our dissenting 
 teachers are not those laymen^ but laymen anti- 
 episcopal, in rebellion against episcopacy itself, 
 who intrude into other men's provinces, and wick- 
 edly attempt, uncalled and unsent, to minister where 
 there is not so much as any pretence of necessity 
 for their intrusion. And therefore, in both cases, 
 our dissenters cannot minister valid baptism. 
 
 This, concerning their dear friends the dis- 
 senters, the adversaries know they cannot get over ; 
 and therefore it is that they make such a bustle to 
 raise a dust, that men's eyes may be blinded, and so 
 hindered from seeing this great truth. To obstruct 
 which, they endeavour to persuade the world that 
 the priesthood itself is in new dangers from those 
 very doctrines which are the only support of it ; 
 while they themselves are such enemies to the priest- 
 hood, that they are endeavouring effectually to dc" 
 stroy it by their pernicious principles, opposing the 
 
author's preface. Ixiii 
 
 Church's spiritual independency, the Christian altar 
 and sacrifice, absolution, and the ministration of 
 baptism as Christ Himself appointed it. And this 
 puts me in mind of a late very dangerous step that 
 was going to be made, and which, if it had taken 
 effect, might, without an extraordinary preventing 
 Providence, in a little time have destroyed the whole 
 sacerdotal power and authority with us ; and this 
 was an attempt to establish a strange, and before to 
 us unheard of, declaration, that (as those who in- 
 dited it say), " in conformity with the judgment 
 and practice of the Catholic Church, and of the 
 Church of England in particular . . . such persons 
 as have already been baptised in or with water, in 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (al- 
 though their baptism was irregular^ for want of 
 a proper administrator), ought not to be baptised 
 again."^ 
 
 \} The upper house of convocation sent down, May 14, 
 1712, the following declaration to the lower house. *' Foras- 
 much as divers persons have possessed the minds of many 
 people in the communion of our Church with doubts and 
 scruples about the validity of their baptism, we, the president 
 and bishops . . . have thought it incumbent on us to declare, 
 in conformity with the judgment and practice of the Catholic 
 Church of Christ, and of the Church of England in particular, 
 that such persons as have been already baptised in or with 
 water, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
 
Ixiv 
 
 AUTHOR S PREFACE. 
 
 The plain English of which is, that such persons 
 as have already been, contrary to the law of Christ, 
 washed or sprinkled with water, by any one whatso- 
 ever, whether unauthorised man, woman, or child. 
 
 Ghost, though their baptism was irregular, for want of a proper 
 administrator, ought not to be baptised again. This we do to 
 prevent, and (to use the words of Archbishop Whitgift on this 
 very point) * not to bring confusion into the Church — for let 
 men take heed that they usurp not an office whereunto they be 
 not called, for God will call them to an account for so doing — 
 but to teach a truth, to take a yoke of doubtfulness from men's 
 consciences, and to resist an error not differing much from 
 Donatism and Anabaptism.' " 
 
 The lower house, by a great majority, carried that the paper 
 sent down from the bishops should not be considered during 
 the sitting of the synods concurrent with the present session of 
 parliament. The members of the minority complained ; and a 
 committee was appointed to draw up reasons for this resolu- 
 tion. On May 23, the prolocutor of the lower house carried 
 up the following paper. 
 
 " The lower house having, on May 14th, received from your 
 lordships a paper relating to the validity of baptism adminis- 
 tered by unauthorised persons, did enter into a debate there- 
 upon, and thought it no ways proper to take into consideration 
 the matter of that paper during the sitting of this convocation ; 
 and have resolved to lay before your lordships some of the 
 reasons for which they declined entering into the consideration 
 of the said paper. 
 
 " First. Becausethevalidity of such baptism is a point which 
 the Catholic Church, and the Church of England in particular, 
 
author's preface. Ixv 
 
 Christian, Jew, or heathen — nay, whether they washed 
 themselves, or let one of those others do it — provided 
 it was but done with these words, " In the name of 
 the Father," <Src., ought not to be baptised by a 
 proper administrator, whom Christ has appointed. 
 For in all these cases the washing is irregular, for 
 want of a proper administrator, and therefore not 
 what deserves the name of Christian baptism, though 
 
 hath hitherto avoided to determine by any synodical declara- 
 tion. 
 
 ** Secondly. Because the inconveniences manifestly attending 
 such a determination would, in their humble opinion, far out- 
 weigh the conveniences proposed by it ; especially at a time 
 when the divine authority of the priesthood is so openly struck 
 at by some, and the advantage of £in episcopal mission, derived 
 by an undoubted succession from the apostles, is so much 
 undervalued by others. 
 
 " But thirdly. Were it thought proper synodically to con- 
 sider and determine this matter, yet they humbly conceive that 
 nothing of this kind ought to be done but in a full assembly 
 of the clergy, after due notice given to all their members to 
 attend, and afford their assistance on so important an occa- 
 sion." 
 
 Against this resolution of the lower house Dr. Cannon de- 
 livered a written protest, and denied that it might be entered 
 in the acts of the day. His motion was rejected ; but leave 
 was given to members " to enter their dissent without assign- 
 ing reasons." Accordingly, Dr. Cannon and seven others re- 
 corded their dissent from the paper presented by the lower 
 house. — Annals of Queen Anne, vol. ii. p. 376-379.] 
 
 g2 
 
Ixvi author's preface. 
 
 the declaration begs the question that it is so, by 
 saying, " such persons as have already been bap- 
 tised," &c. For this irregularity is an essential 
 irregularity, because contrary to the positive insti- 
 tution of Christian baptism ; and it is irregular for 
 no other reason, but its being without, or contrary 
 to, that rule, as this book is designed to prove. An 
 endeavour to make the world believe, that such 
 washings as are irregular, for want of a proper ad- 
 ministrator, are valid baptisms, and this without any 
 limitations, either for cases of necessity, or for the 
 excluding of women, heathens, or stage-players, &c., 
 is such a latitude, that it does not fall short of even 
 the worst corruptions of the Church of Rome. 
 Nay, the decrees of some of their popes, &c., con- 
 cerning midwife-baptism, and that given by pagans, 
 limit them to cases of necessity ; but this designed 
 declaration makes not even this provision, to secure 
 the authority of the Christian priesthood for the 
 administration of baptism, but opens a door for all 
 intruders, even where there is no pretence of ne- 
 cessity. It advises, indeed, that " men take heed 
 that they usurp not an office whereunto they be not 
 called; for God will call them to account for so 
 doing." But alas, what effect can this advice have, 
 when the declaration before pronounces their mi- 
 nistrations valid J valid without any exception of 
 
author's preface. Ixvii 
 
 time, person, place, or circumstance ? Will God 
 call men to account for their valid ministrations ? 
 For their effecting that which He has appointed to 
 be eflfected? For their doing of that which He 
 concurs with ; and from the valid performance 
 whereof He has by no law excluded them ? For 
 if He has by any of His laws excluded them from 
 the valid ministration of Christian baptism, then 
 their attempt to minister it is an invalid act. If He 
 has by no law excluded them from the valid mi- 
 nistration thereof, then their attempt to minister it 
 is no breach of any law of His ; for where there is 
 no law, there is no transgression ; and consequently 
 they will not be called to account for it; which 
 plainly shews the great inconsistency of such a de- 
 claration. Besides, this declaration was designed, 
 it says, " to teach a truth, to take a yoke of doubt- 
 fulness from men's consciences, and to resist an 
 error not much differing from Donatism and Ana' 
 baptism.'' 
 
 The supposed truth it would teach has been 
 seen already. Its latitude, its contrariety to the 
 Scripture, to the judgment of the universal Church, 
 and of the Church of England in particular, which 
 never made a law or canon of so universal and 
 unlimited a nature, are evident to all serious and 
 knowing inquirers into this matter. TertuUian 
 
Ixviii 
 
 AUTHOR S PREFACE. 
 
 himself, who by degrees fell into this singular lati- 
 tude of allowing laymen to be priests in cases of 
 necessity, contrary to the doctrine and practice of 
 the Catholic Church, expressly and absolutely ex- 
 cludes women's power to baptise (Z)e Baptismo, 
 cap. 17).^ The Constitutions of the Apostles^ (book 
 iii. chap. vi. 9, 10) repudiate all lay ministrations, 
 and particularly lay baptism and baptism by women. 
 So does St. Epiphanius against the Collyridians ut- 
 terly disallow of baptism by women (see his works, 
 
 [* Tertullian. de Baptismo, c. 17. Petulantia autem mu- 
 lieris quae usurpavit docere, utique non etiam tingendi jus sibi 
 pariet : ut quemadmodum ilia baptismum auferebat, ita aliqua 
 per se eum conferat. — Quam enim fidei proximum videretur, 
 ut is [S. Paulus] docendi et tingendi daret feminse potestatem, 
 qui ne dicere quidem constanter mvQieri permisit ? 
 
 Ibid, de Virg. veland. c. 9. Non permittitur mulieri in 
 ecclesia loqui: sed nee docere, nee tingere, nee ofFerre, nee 
 ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi 
 vindicare.] 
 
 P Constit. Apost. lib. iii. cap. 9. •Trepl Se tov ywouKas 
 ^aiTTL^eiv, yvupi^ofiev vfuv, '6tl kIvSwos ov fXMphs rats tovto 
 iirixeipovffais' Sih ov crvfifiovXevofiei/, cTrtcr^oA.es yap, fiaWou 5e 
 ■nagdvofxov koX acrefies. 
 
 Cap. 10. dAA.' oijTe Aai'Kots iirirp^TTOfx^v Troieiu ri rS>v Upa- 
 TiKwv epywV oTov Ovcrlav, t) ^a.Trria'ixa, ^ x^ipod4(TLav, ^ ivKoyiav 
 fiiKpav fj iJL€yd\r)V, ovx eavr^ yap tis Kafx^dvn t^v rifi-^u, aWa 
 6 Kahovfieuos virh rod Qeov' dia yap rrfs iirideo'eus rwv x^ipwz/ 
 TOV iiriffKOTTov diSorai rj roiavrr] a|ia.] 
 
author's preface. Ixix 
 
 book iii. torn. 2) : ' which testimonies I thought 
 proper to add here to those of my preliminary dis- 
 course, upon this occasion, that men may see what 
 a pretended truth some would establish, and how 
 conformable it is to the judgment and practice of 
 the Catholic Church. 
 
 The " yoke of doubtfulness," &c. would be laid 
 heavier on, rather than taken from, men's consci- 
 ences by such declaration ; which says, that " God 
 will call men to account for usurping an office (of 
 baptising) whereunto they be not called" For, will 
 not the scrupulous person, who was pretendedly 
 baptised by one of these, and comes to know it, be 
 very apt to say, " How can I rest satisfied in a bap- 
 tism declared to be irregular for want of a proper 
 administrator, i. e. one called of God, when the 
 uncalled pretended administrator will, by God Him- 
 self, be called to account, as an usurper of the 
 priestly office, for baptising me ? Will God judge 
 him for so doing ? and shall I escape His judgment 
 for knowingly concurring with and acquiescing in 
 his sinful act ? By what means shall I extricate 
 myself out of this difficulty ? If it is sin in him, it 
 is so in me too, by my approving of it ; and yet, 
 
 [' Epiphanius contra Collyridios adv. H(Bres. lib. iii. torn, 
 ii. p. 1059. ed. Petav. ott' aluvos ovdafxas yvvr) tepcxTcvo'ev ovk 
 avTT] Eva . . . ouSe ^dirriafia 5i56vai imrlaTevTai Mapia.] 
 
Ixx author's preface. 
 
 that this scruple may cease, approve of it I must. 
 But how can I approve of it, since it was sinful in 
 the very act ? And thus I find no relief from such 
 a declaration, which involves me in sin, and pro- 
 hibits my being extricated out of it." 
 
 The supposed error it was designed to oppose 
 is this : that pretended baptism, administered with- 
 out the divine authority or commission, i. e. by 
 one who has not this commission, is not Christian 
 baptism, but null and void. Is not this much dif- 
 fering from the real error of Donatism, which was, 
 that the Donatists rebaptised those who came over 
 to them from the Catholic Church, though they had 
 been before rightly baptised in or with water, in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost, and by one in real valid holy orders 
 too ? What has this to do with the matter before us ? 
 
 And as for Anabaptism, its error is twofold : 
 first, it nulls baptism in an infant, howsoever and 
 by whomsoever administered ; secondly, in grown 
 persons, if they were not plunged all over in water : 
 in both which they make the age of the person bap- 
 tised, and the very great quantity of water sufficient 
 to cover the person, essential to the ministration of 
 the sacrament; errors so infinitely different from 
 the case before us, that one would wonder how men 
 could invent the notion of their being not much 
 
author's preface. Ixxi 
 
 different from what is asserted, and, I hope, fairly 
 proved, to be a great truth in this essay. 
 
 The author of a pamphlet, called The Judg- 
 ment of the Church of England in the case of Lay 
 Baptism and Dissenters^ Baptism j has published 
 what he calls The Second Part of the Judgment, 
 &c. It is an amazing thing to see men so expose 
 themselves : for this gentleman amuses the world 
 with a repetition of all that he had said before ; and 
 gives his reader the same things over again, but in 
 other words, and in a method something diversified 
 from the former ; putting people to an unnecessary 
 charge, besides a trial of their patience, to bear with 
 the reading a second time what they had read be- 
 fore ; which is still the more aggravated by his want 
 of argument ; by his not so much as endeavouring 
 to confute the reasons brought against his first part, 
 in the answer thereto, called Dissenters' Baptism, 
 null and void — for he tells his reader that he does 
 not design this as a reply to that book ; by his un- 
 becoming language, in giving ill names to what he 
 knows he cannot confute ; and, lastly, by his indus- 
 triously evading the merits of the cause ; when he 
 knows that the Church of England has concerned 
 herself therewith ; that her articles of religion are 
 built upon it ; and that he is obliged in his own 
 defence to enter into it. 
 
Ixxii author's preface. 
 
 [He^ is pleased to call the priest who baptised 
 R. L. " an irregular curate^ who acquainted neither 
 the minister of the parish, nor the bishop, with the 
 true state of the case," &c. I must needs say, in 
 defence of that gentleman, that it would be happy 
 for our Church if this author and some of his friends 
 were but as regular as he. He was by no law of 
 our Church obliged to acquaint the minister of the 
 parish where R. L. was baptised with the case ; for 
 he was none of his underlings, neither did he receive 
 any pay from him : he had his proper diocesan's 
 general license to baptise adult persons, without 
 giving any particular notice first to the bishop. By 
 virtue of that license he regularly baptised R. L. 
 without first acquainting the bishop, the 31st of 
 March, 1708, being Wednesday in passion-week, 
 and therefore on a holyday, in public, immediately 
 after the second lesson at evening-prayer, in presence 
 of a great congregation, the church-doors being 
 open : he did it hypothetically ; i. e. " If thou art not 
 already baptised, I baptise thee," &c. ; and this, not 
 that the case required it, but because R. L. would 
 not let him know the case itself, but begged baptism 
 at his hands, only upon this general account, that 
 he had discovered sufficient reasons to convince him 
 
 \} This passage is omitted in the fourth edition ; but it 
 seemed advisable that it should be reprinted.] 
 
author's preface. Ixxiii 
 
 that he had not been yet validly baptised ; that he 
 desired the said curate not to be too curious in 
 inquiring of him the reasons, because it was not 
 fit for him to discover them to him; and those to 
 whom he had discovered them could give him no 
 satisfactory arguments to convince him that he might 
 desist from endeavouring to obtain catholic bap- 
 tism; that he would, therefore, only inquire into 
 R. L.'s faith and manners, and upon due satisfaction 
 about them give him hypothetical baptism, to avoid 
 the imputation of being irregular : which, accord- 
 ingly, upon such satisfaction, he did ; for which I 
 praise and glorify God, and reverence and esteem 
 him. His regular and rightly ordained minister.] 
 
 This author mightily triumphs in bishops con- 
 firming children pretendedly baptised by dissenting 
 teachers ; as if they, therefore, acknowledged those 
 baptisms to be valid. But I can tell him that there 
 are some who say that those baptisms are not valid 
 before confirmation, but made valid by confirma- 
 tion ; this (though I absolutely deny it) I can prove 
 to be the foundation upon which confirmation has 
 been given to persons so pretendedly baptised. And 
 our author would do well to consider whether those 
 bishops he speaks of did not confirm them upon the 
 same foundation, before he so positively affirms that 
 those bishops allowed their baptisms to be valid : 
 
 h 
 
Ixxiv author's preface. 
 
 for if it is true that some act upon this false founda- 
 tion, others may have done so likewise ; and this 
 will spoil our writer's sujjposition, however insuffi- 
 cient to make those baptisms valid, as I have endea- 
 voured to prove in this essay. 
 
 I have, in this fourth edition, added some further 
 arguments to prove the main proposition, so much 
 avoided by this author, and endeavoured to answer 
 new objections, for the satisfaction of some who may 
 be led away by them. I have nothing more to re- 
 quest of my reader than Christian justice and equity 
 in his censures, and that he would heartily join with 
 me in this prayer to Almighty God, that it would 
 please Him to bring into the way of truth all such 
 as have erred and are deceived. 
 
 [Note on Preface, p. Iv.] 
 
 * ' I am extremely pleased with the modest reflection you 
 make in your premonition upon what you had said to prove the 
 validity of holy orders conferred on unbaptised persons. For 
 whereas you distinguish qualifications for the ministry into 
 personal and authoritative, give me leave to tell you, that I 
 think all qualifications for it are personal ; and that of personal 
 qualifications the want of some only make a man unworthy of 
 the ministry, but not incapable of it ; but the want of others 
 make him utterly incapable of it, or of being separated or or- 
 dained to it. The personal qualifications of the first sort may 
 
NOTE FROM HICKES. IxXV 
 
 be called moral, as purity, humility, sobriety, and all other 
 virtues and graces that are comprehended in holiness of life ; 
 the want of which make a man unworthy, as of holy orders 
 ^ter baptism, so of baptism itself, but yet do not null or make 
 void either of them when the person is baptised or ordained. 
 The second sort of qualifications are either natural, acquired, 
 or legal, which last may be also called political, as relating to 
 the fundamental or positive laws of the Church. Among ac- 
 quu'ed qualifications we may safely reckon literature, the utter 
 want of which perfectly disables a man from performing 
 priestly offices, and by consequence makes his orders void. 
 Then, as for natural qualifications, they belong either to the 
 body or the mind ; to the body, as the natural faculties of 
 speaking and hearing, the want of which, without any canons' 
 or positive laws of the Church, in my judgment, utterly un- 
 qualifies a man for the priesthood ; and therefore holy orders 
 conferred on a deaf and dumb man must be null and void, 
 because they render him incapable of performing ministerial 
 offices. The like I may say of a man who hath neither hands 
 nor sight, which joint defects, I think, incapacitate such a per- 
 son, though never somoi*ally worthy, for the priestly office, and 
 that by consequence he cannot effectually be made a priest. 
 Qualifications which belong to the mind are, understanding and 
 memory, the want of which in idiots, lunatics, and maniacs, 
 makes them so utterly incapable of receiving holy orders, that 
 upon supposition any such were ordained to the priesthood, his 
 orders would be null and void. Thus much, sir, with submis- 
 sion to the learned, I have said of personal qualifications for 
 
 [' Can. Apost. 69. [aliter 76 and 77- e^ tls avaTrripos i? ''^v 
 6<p6a\fihv, ^ rh (rKe\os TreirA.Tjy/u e»/os — Kcocphs Sh &u Ka\ Tvcpkhs, 
 /ti^ yivecrOw iiricTKOTros. Labbe, vol. i. p. 41.] 
 
Ixxvi NOTE FROM HICKES. 
 
 the priesthood that are moral or natural. The legal, likewise, 
 are of two sorts : first, such as are fundamental to the Chris- 
 tian society, or constitution of the Church ; or secondly, such 
 as are superinduced by the positive laws of the Church. Qf 
 the first sort, in my opinion, baptism certainly is ; the want of 
 which therefore, I think, must utterly render a man incapable 
 of being a Christian priest, because it makes him utterly in- 
 capable of being a Christian in the strict and proper sense of 
 the word, as it signifies a member of the Church, who, as such, 
 hath a right to receive the holy eucharist, which to an unbap- 
 tised person is Puerto 6.6vtos, a sacrifice of no more effect than 
 if he had not come to it and partaken of it. How, then, can a 
 man be made capable to administer that holy sacrament to 
 others who hath no right to receive it ; or make others mem- 
 bers of the Church of which he is not a member himself? 
 As to the latter sort of legal qualifications, the want of which do 
 make a man incapable of holy orders, and his orders null after 
 he is ordained by the canons of the Church, I have no occasion 
 to discourse ; and therefore, in answer to the objection made 
 against you, give me leave to observe, that I presume it relates 
 to this case, which is supposed, but never proved, to have hap- 
 pened, viz. that when a person honafide believing himself to 
 have had valid priestly baptism, but indeed had not, yet hap- 
 pens to be ordained honafide by the bishop, his orders notwith- 
 standing are null and void. This, I presume, must be the case 
 in w^hich the objection is put, and not where the person ordain- 
 ing and the person ordained both know that the latter never 
 received any other than lay baptism, by one presuming to 
 baptise in opposition to the Church. These two cases are 
 so vastly different, that I believe, as to the latter, all divines 
 truly learned in their profession will make no difficulty to de- 
 termine that orders so conferred aie null and void. But as to 
 
NOTE FROM HICKES. Ixxvii 
 
 the former case, upon which I take it for granted the objection 
 proceeds, we must have recourse to equity, which, in such cases 
 of perfect invincible ignorance, takes place in ecclesiastical as 
 well as civil cases, in divine as well as human laws. There- 
 fore, sir, I make no scruple to tell you, that a priest in this 
 case now before us is in the eyes of God a valid priest, and 
 that aU his priestly administrations, by his merciful allowance, 
 are also valid and effectual, and as acceptable as those of other 
 priests, to Him who can make allowances where men cannot, 
 and ratify what men, if it came to their knowledge, could not 
 ratify, but must pronounce null. You know the priesthood 
 was hereditary among the Jews ; and it is not unreasonable to 
 suppose, that one priest or other in such a long tract of time 
 might, without any suspicion, have an adulterous son ; upon 
 which supposition, I believe you will not doubt, that when he 
 was at age to administer, God would reckon him among the 
 priests, and accept of all his administrations at the altar ; or if 
 such an one happened to be high-priest, even in the very holy 
 of holies, though if his incapacity had been known, he must 
 have been deposed from the priesthood. 
 
 " Sir, in this way of stating the case I am far from encourag- 
 ing any person so baptised to take upon him the priesthood. 
 For if such an one, knowing himself to have no other baptism, 
 offers himself to take holy orders, I think he commits a piacu- 
 lar sin as great as that of Korah ; nay, if such a one but sus- 
 pecting himself to have no other baptism, takes holy orders, I 
 think he commits a sin of presumption, and is obliged to a 
 strict inquiry, whether or no he was so baptised; and if he 
 finds he was, he is bound, as he expects forgiveness of God, to 
 cancel his orders, and abdicate himself from the priesthood. 
 But to prevent either of these supposable cases, you, like a 
 good Christian, have inculcated to the governors of the Church 
 
 h 2 
 
Lxxviii NOTE FROM HICKES. 
 
 how much it is for her security, and ought to be their care, to 
 require of all candidates of the ministry certificates of their 
 baptism, as well as of their good conversation; after which I 
 beg leave to say, accorduig to my distinction of personal quali- 
 fications for the priesthood, that the want of the former makes 
 a man incapable to receive holy orders, but the want of the lat- 
 ter only makes him unworthy to receive them." 
 
 Hickes' Letter to Laurence, p. 35-40. 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 VARIOUS OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS 
 
 COSCERXING 
 
 J^tbapti^ation antJ inbalitJ J3apti5m5 : 
 
 WITH REMARKS. 
 
 In St. Cjrprian's days,^ about the middle of the third 
 century, arose a great debate in the Church concern- 
 ing the validity of baptism administered by such as 
 were then either heretics or schismatics. St, Cyprian, 
 with the rest of the bishops of the African churches, 
 together with many of the eastern bishops, main- 
 tained that cathohc bishops were obliged to con- 
 demn all such baprisms, and to hold them void and 
 null ; and by consequence not strait to confirm, but 
 first to baprise all such as, having received no other 
 than those false baptisms, in those false and anti- 
 
 [' St. Cyprian was ordained bishop of Carthage a.d. 248 ; 
 the controversy between him and Stephen commenced a.d. 
 255 ; and he suffered martyrdom a.d. 258.] 
 
IXXX PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 christian communions, left them, and came over to 
 the one true catholic and only salutary communion. 
 
 Stephen, bishop of Rome, and his party, main- 
 tained that, by the evangelical law, cathoHc bishops 
 were bound to ratify heretical and schismatical bap- 
 tisms, and to hold them good and valid ; and to admit 
 such as, having been baptised by heretics or schis- 
 matics, deserted them, and came over to the true 
 catholic communion, without giving them catholic 
 baptism, or using any other rite at their reception 
 than that of imposing the hand for the collation of 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The Stephanians mustered up a great many argu- 
 ments for the validity of such baptisms. They pleaded 
 that heretics themselves were not so nice as to bap- 
 tise those who came over from other heresies to their 
 communion ; that all catechumeni who died unbap- 
 tised were not therefore damned, much less those 
 who had received baptism though from heretics or 
 schismatics ;^ that to refuse those who were wiUing 
 
 [^ Bingham, vol. viii. p. 131, new edition, Scholastical 
 History of Lay Baptism, part i. Appendix. " I desire him 
 (Laurence) to inform the world in what writing of the Ste- 
 phanians he finds it maintained, that they who received bap- 
 tism from heretics or schismatics were in a state of salvation." 
 To which Laurence replies {Lay Baptism invalid, part ii, 
 preface, p. xi.), that as Stephen maintained the validity of 
 such baptism, so he held the persons who had received it to be 
 in a state of salvation, " otherwise what signified the validity of 
 their baptism ?" And he refers to St. Cyprian's epistles to 
 Jubaianus and Pompeius, and Firmilian's epistle to St. Cy- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. Ixxxi 
 
 to forsake heresy or schism, unless they would con- 
 sent to be rebaptised, was to obstruct their coming 
 over ; that those who had been baptised by Philip in 
 Samaria were not rebaptised by the apostles when 
 they came among them (Acts viii. 16), and that they 
 received imposition of hands only, for the collation 
 of the Holy Ghost ; that though some, in St. Paul's 
 time, preached Christ out of en\y and strife, i. e. 
 from a contentious and schismatical humour, yet he 
 was pleased, that Christ was preached (Phil. i. 15) -^ 
 that some schismatics, particularly the Novatians, 
 
 prian, which will be cited. To which (Schol. Hist, part ii. 
 p. 327) Bingham answers, that Stephen believed the validity of 
 the baptisms of heretics, but not their salvability : men may 
 have valid baptism, and yet be in a state of damnation, as was 
 Simon Magus. And he charges Laurence with confounding 
 valid baptism and saving baptism ; and also with asserting 
 that Stephen held that heretics and schismatics were in a state 
 of salvation, while they continued in heresy and schism. In his 
 preface (p. xliii.) to the supplement to parts i. and ii. of Lay 
 Baptism invalid, Laurence replies to Bingham, and vindicates 
 himself from having made any such charge against Stephen. 
 He (Laurence) spoke of Stephen holding the salvability of 
 those baptised by heretics and schismatics ; not of Stephen 
 holding the salvability of heretics themselves. This, being the 
 first occasion of introducing the matter, may serve as a speci- 
 men of this very interesting controversy.] 
 
 [' Not only did Stephen's opponents in this controversy 
 object to the application of this text to the point in dispute, 
 but, as Mr. Keble informs us (Note A. to his Sermon on 
 Primitive Tradition), TertuUian adv. Marcion, v. 20, and St, 
 Chrysostom in loco, agree in not interpreting this passage of 
 heretical preaching, but of " the occasional, though providen- 
 
Ixxxii PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 observed the due form, and proposed the due interro- 
 gatories, in baptism ; that the efficacy of the sacra- 
 ments did not depend on the orthodoxy or the cha- 
 rity of the administrators ; and that if persons were 
 baptised in the name of Christ, any manner of way, 
 it was no matter who baptised them. But the main 
 argument, as St. Augustine afterwards reckoned it, 
 was, that Stephen, bishop of Rome, had had it handed 
 down to him by constant tradition from St. Peter 
 and St. Paul, founders of the Church of Rome, that 
 those who came over from heretical or schismatical 
 communions to the communion of the true cathoHc 
 Church, should not be rebaptised ; and that all his 
 predecessors, bishops of Rome, since the days of those 
 apostles, had always conformed their practice to such 
 unquestionable tradition, — they had always ratified, 
 never repudiated, heretical or schismatical baptisms. 
 
 The arguments of the Cyprianists against the 
 validity of such baptisms were briefly these. St. 
 Cyprian rejects the baptisms of Novatianus upon this 
 very score, that he was not a bishop.^ Cornelius was 
 
 tial result of St. Paul's imprisonment having been made the 
 subject of conversation at Rome."] 
 
 [^ The following brief account of Novatian's schism is 
 abridged from Fleury, b. vi. ch. 52. Cornelius was elected 
 bishop of Rome by sixteen bishops. His election was con- 
 firmed by the clergy and people, and communicated to all the 
 churches, those of Afi'ica in particular, two of whose bishops, 
 Pompey and Stephen, assisted at it. He was a man of singular 
 purity, and of such modesty that it required violence to com- 
 pel him to assume the episcopate, in accepting which, he ex- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, Ixxxiii 
 
 the only true bishop of Rome ; no valid baptisms 
 could be performed in that Church but by him, or in 
 dependence on him. Novatianus disowTied all de- 
 pendence on him, separated from him, and pretended 
 to be bishop of Rome in opposition to him : his bap- 
 tisms therefore could not be valid ; they could not be 
 true Christian sacraments. (St. Cyprian's 69th epistJ) 
 And in the same epistle, these three, ' to set up an 
 episcopal chair,' ' to assume a primacy,' and ' to pretend 
 to a sovereign or independent power of baptising and 
 offering,' i. e, consecrating the holy eucharist, — he 
 plainly makes equivalent phrases, and by them ex- 
 posed himself to martyrdom in that severe persecution, under 
 Decius, which then raged. Novatian alone refused to acknow- 
 ledge him. This person had originally been a Stoic philoso- 
 pher ; and while a catechumen, falUng into a dangerous sick- 
 ness, he had received clinic baptism, which, according to the 
 rule of the Church, disqualified him for holy orders ; nor did 
 he receive confirmation by imposition of hands. Notwith- 
 standing the opposition of clergy and laity, he was ordained 
 priest ; and soon after made himself conspicuous by his ex- 
 treme views against the facihty of penitence which at Rome was 
 given to the lapsed. The charges he brought against Cornelius 
 were, that he was a Libellaticus, and that he had communi- 
 cated with bishops who had ofiered incense ; and on these 
 grounds Novatian separated from communion with his bishop. 
 Nor was this all : under circumstances of great scandal, he 
 procured himself to be ordained to the metropolitan see, which 
 he affected to consider vacant, by three rustic Italian bishops, 
 whose presence, under a weak pretext, he had procured at 
 Rome.] 
 
 \} Ad Jubaianum. Epist. 73. ed Rigalt. p. 124.] 
 
Ixxxiv PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 presses the one crime of Novatianus in standing up 
 as an anti-bishop to Cornelius : that all his minis- 
 trations were of the same kidney with those of Korah, 
 Dathan, and Abiram, which were wicked, damnable, 
 and naught, because performed in opposition to the 
 high-priest Aaron : that it was unaccountable in 
 bishops to ratify heretical or schismatical baptisms ; it 
 was a prostitution of the honour both of the catholic 
 Church and the episcopal college ; it tended to hinder 
 people from coming over from heresy or schism ; it 
 encouraged them to think themselves safe and secure 
 enough in either ; for if there they had true baptism, 
 why not likewise a true Church and true remission 
 of sins ? To v/eaken the authority of a pretended 
 custom to the contrary, he lays it down for an un- 
 doubted truth, that we are not to be determined by 
 any customs of that nature, but to examine whether 
 they will bear the test of reason. He assembled at 
 Carthage ^ a council of seventy-one bishops, who 
 confirmed all that had been determined a Httle before 
 in another synod held in the same city, concerning 
 the baptism of heretics, viz. that it was null and 
 void : and about the same time, immediately after 
 this council, he wrote a long letter to Jubaianus,^ a 
 bishop who had consulted him about this question, 
 w^herein he urges abundance of reasons and texts of 
 Scripture to support his own opinion, and answered 
 the objections that were brought against it. In an- 
 
 [' A.D. 25().] [^ Ep. ad Jubaianum, v. supra.] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. IxXXV 
 
 other letter, to Pompey, bishop of Sabra/ he opposes 
 the truth of the Gospel, and the first traditions of the 
 apostles, both to the custom and tradition which Ste- 
 phen had alleged for himself. Firmilian, bishop of 
 Caesarea in Cappadocia,^ in his letter to St. Cyprian, 
 openly condemns the procedure of Stephen, bishop 
 of Rome (who had answered St. Cyprian very roughly), 
 extols St. Cyprian's conduct, declares himself entirely 
 in favour of his opinion, proves it by several reasons, 
 and assures him it was the ancient custom of the 
 Asiatic churches ; and that it had been regulated 
 many years before in two numerous synods held at 
 Synnada and Iconium.'^ The same Firmihan answ^ers 
 
 [' Epist. ad Pompeium. Epist. 74. ed. Rigalt] 
 [" Epist. Firmilian. ad Cyprian. 75. ed. Rigalt. Labbe, 
 Concil. vol. i. p. 751. Fii'milian was a pupil of Origen.] 
 
 [^ The synods of Synnada and Iconium were contemporane- 
 ous, and held a.d. 231. That their decisions were grounded 
 upon the Asiatic custom, is testified by Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria, apud Euseb. lib. vii. c. 5. p. 323. ed. Reading : and 
 Agrippinus, with a synod of the provinces of Africa and Nu- 
 midia, had previously (a.d. 200) decided as the Carthaginian 
 councils under Cyprian did. Vincent of Lerins {Commonit. 
 adv. HcBves. c. 6) has a strong passage against the doctrine of 
 Agrippinus and Cyprian, although he allows that even by hold- 
 ing what he conceives this pernicious error on the rebaptisation 
 of heretics, they did not lose their catholic character. His great 
 objection to the decision of the African councils was, that the 
 Donatists adopted and acted upon their principles. It is right 
 to mention, that Dionysius of Alexandria would not rebaptise 
 heretics ; although Hooker, whose opinion against Cyprian is 
 mentioned elsewhere, allows that in this particular case he 
 
 i 
 
IxXXvi PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 Stephen's plea of the constant tradition he had handed 
 down to him from St. Peter and St. Paul (as before 
 mentioned), — that his, viz. Stephen's, allegation was 
 utterly false ; he could have no such tradition from 
 those apostles (i. e. St. Peter and St. Paul), from whom 
 he pretended to have it ; and that for this very good 
 reason, that in their days there were no heretical 
 communions ; by consequence no heretical baptisms, 
 no baptisms out of the true communion of the Church 
 catholic ; and that therefore he slandered them by 
 fathering such a tradition on them, seeing it was cer- 
 tain that they taught the quite contrary in their epis- 
 tles : that St. Paul (Acts xix. 5) rebaptised those 
 who had been baptised by John the Baptist ; ought 
 not we then (says he) to baptise those who come 
 from heresy to the Church ? Will any man say that 
 the bishops now- a- days are greater than St. Paul 
 was ? which they must needs be, if they are able to 
 do that which he could not ; if they, by imposition 
 of hands only, can give the Holy Ghost to heretics 
 when they come to them. St. Cyprian, in his letter 
 to Jubaianus, reasons to this purpose against the 
 
 might be wrong (Eccl. Pol. v. 62, 6). The dates assigned to 
 the first synod of Africa, and the synods of Iconium and Syn- 
 nada, are on the authority of the great Benedictine work, L'Art 
 de Verifier les Dates ; the editor of which, as was to be ex- 
 pected in the case of councils which so clearly contradict the 
 tradition of the Roman Church, marks them all with the as- 
 terisk, " que ceux auxquels 11 est applique ne sont point rejus 
 dans I'Eglise" (of Rome).] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. IxXXVU 
 
 validity of such baptisms : It is evident where and 
 by whom the remission of sins, which is given in bap- 
 tism, can be given ; for our Lord gave first to Peter, 
 &c., that power, that whatsoever he should loose in 
 earth should be loosed in heaven ;^ then, after His re- 
 surrection. He gave it to all the apostles, when He 
 said (John xx. 21-23), As My Father hath sent Me, 
 &c. Whence we learn, that none have authority to 
 baptise and remit sins but the bishops, and those who 
 are founded in the evangelical law and our Lord's 
 institution ; and that nothing can be bound or loosed 
 out of the Church, seeing there is none there who 
 has the power of binding and loosing. Jesus Christ, 
 says Fortunatus in the venerable council of Carthage, 
 anno 256,^ our Lord and God, the Son of God the 
 Father and Creator, built His Church upon a rock, 
 and not upon heresy ; and He gave the power of bap- 
 tising to bishops, and not to heretics. Those there- 
 fore who are out of the Church, and stand against 
 Christ, and scatter His flock, cannot baptise, being 
 out of the Church. 
 
 It would be endless to mention all the testimonies 
 
 [1 Matt. xvi. 19.] 
 
 [2 Fortuaatus, bishop of Thuccaboris, gave the seventeenth 
 suffrage (Labbe, vol. i. p. 7S9) in the third council of Carthage, 
 summoned, upon the ill success of the two preceding ones, in 
 the same year, a.d. 256. Eighty-five bishops appeared in 
 person, and two by proxy ; and their decision was unanimous : 
 they delivered their votes and opinions in rotation, which were 
 afterwards replied to seriatim by St. Augustine.] 
 
IXXXviii PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 and arguments brought in that age against the validity 
 of such baptisms ; I shall therefore name but one more, 
 which seems to be of great moment for the discovery 
 of what was meant by heretics and schismatics in 
 those days ; and that is Firmilian, who, in one of his 
 letters, says that he, and all the bishops who met 
 with him in the synod of Iconium,^ decreed that all 
 those should be holden as unbaptised who were bap- 
 tised by such as had once been bishops in the catholic 
 Church, if they were baptised by them after they had 
 separated from the Church. By which, and the 
 other monuments of that age, it is evident they held 
 that even bishops, and all other lawful ministers, lost 
 their very authority to do any thing more in the mi- 
 nisterial functions, when they either schismatically 
 or heretically separated themselves from the Church 
 of Christ. Hence, doubtless, it came to pass, that 
 St. Cyprian and his colleagues esteemed all their 
 ministerial acts, done while in schism or heresy, to 
 be null and void ; and consequently that the sup- 
 posed sacraments administered by them, and those 
 whom they ordained, were no true Christian sacra- 
 ments, and therefore invalid and ineffectual. This, 
 I say, appears to me to be the true foundation of that 
 
 [• This synod of Iconium, v. supra, was held against the 
 Cataphrygians, or Montanists : (arranged by Labbe, i. p. 754, 
 under the date of Firrailian's account of it). Cseteri quique 
 hseretici, si se ab ecclesia Dei sciderint, nihil habere potestatis 
 aut gratiae possunt, quando omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia 
 constituta sit. Hseretico enim sicut ordinare non licet, nee 
 manum imponere, ita nee baptizare,] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. Ixxxix 
 
 great dispute concerning the validity of heretical and 
 schismatical baptisms, and which St. Cyprian ma- 
 naged with so much Christian humility and charity, 
 that though Stephen, bishop of Rome, was so far 
 from agreeing to the reasons of the Africans^ — whe- 
 ther because he imagined they had a design to con- 
 demn the Roman Church, or because he thought this 
 question was of too great consequence — that he was 
 enraged against St, Cyprian and his colleagues, and 
 used their deputies ill ; nay, he prohibited all Chris- 
 tians belonging to his Church to receive or lodge 
 them, depriving them not only of ecclesiastical com- 
 munion, but also refusing them the common civilities 
 of hospitality ; yet he (i. e. St. Cyprian) could not 
 think of breaking peace with them, of giving up 
 
 [' Bingham, Scholast. Hist. c. i. § 20, p. 58, allows ** that 
 Vossius, Blondel, and Pearson are of opinion that Stephen, in 
 opposition to Cyprian's doctrine, fell inconsiderately into the 
 opposite extreme, and asserted that all persons baptised by 
 heretics, whether in the name of the Trinity or otherwise, were 
 to be received without distinction." He produces a passage 
 from Firmilian, who says that Stephen received only the bap- 
 tism of those who baptised in the name of the Trinity ; and 
 then quotes Vincent of Lerins, Commow. , who witnesses strongly 
 in favour of the catholicity of Stephen's doctrine. Firmilian's 
 observation on Stephen's exception is curious : he denied that 
 heretics could baptise in the name of the Trinity, even vwre 
 they 80 inclined. lUud quoque absurdum, quod non putant 
 quserendum esse, quis sit Ule qui baptizaverit, eo quod, qui bap- 
 zatus sit, gratiam consequi poterit, invocata Trinitate nominum 
 Patris et FUii et Spiritus Sancti. Deinde haec erit sapientia 
 quam scribit Paulus esse in his qui perfecti sunt. J 
 
 i 2 
 
XC PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 communion with them, of abstainmg or excommuni- 
 cating them, notwithstanding Stephen had taken upon 
 him to excommunicate those who opposed the ratifi- 
 cation of heretical and schismatical baptisms. Upon 
 the whole, the persecution of the Church by Vale- 
 rian,^ anno 257, put an end to this controversy. St. 
 Cyprian never altered his opinion : the Greek churches 
 were for along time after him divided upon this ques- 
 tion : the council of Aries first decided it in the west ; 
 St. Augustine followed its decision ; the western 
 Church has embraced this opinion, viz. that baptism 
 by heretics, in the name of the Trinity, is valid. And 
 though the eastern churches have not agreed with 
 her absolutely in this point, yet they always made a 
 distinction between heretics, and differently received 
 them. 
 
 In the canons that are called apostolical we have 
 these remarkable canons, according to the division 
 of Cotelerius. 
 
 Cannon 38." " We order that a bishop, priest, 
 
 \} In which the heads of the Roman and African churches, 
 Sixtus the successor of Stephen, and Cyprian, suffered mar- 
 tyrdom, A.D, 258 ; and it is supposed that Stephen himself re- 
 ceived the crown in the same persecution, a.d. 257. If so, it 
 seems a comforting thought, that these good men, Cyprian and 
 Stephen, reconciled to each other by a blessed participation in 
 the same baptism of blood, though separated in their lives, " in 
 their death they were not divided."] 
 
 [2 aliter xlv. Labbe, i. p. oQ. iirlaKoirov ^ Trpeafivrepov 
 alperiKuv Se^d/ievov fidimofxa, fj dvalau, Kadaipuadai irpoaToia- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE AXCIENT CHURCH. XCl 
 
 or deacon, who has received baptism, &c. from an 
 heretic, be deposed ;" or, as the learned author of 
 the Clergyman's Vade-Mccum observes, " the bishop, 
 priest, or deacon, who allows the baptism, &c. of 
 heretics." 
 
 Canon 39.1 " If a bishop or priest do again bap- 
 tise one who has really received baptism before ; or 
 if he do not baptise one that has been polluted by 
 wicked men (i. e. baptised by heretics, see canon 38) ; 
 let him be deposed, as one that [derides the cross 
 and death of the Lord, and] makes no distinction be- 
 twixt priests and pretenders.'' 
 
 In the fourth century, St. Athanasius^ rejects the 
 
 \} aliter xlvi. Labbe, i. p. 36, iirlaKOTtos Tjirpea^vrepos rhu 
 Kara a\7}deiap exovra ^dimcriJ.a iav &vu6€v PaTrrlari, ^ rov fx^- 
 fioKva/JLevov irapa tuv aae^wv iav /utj jSotttiVt?, KaOaip^laOu, cds 
 yeXwv ihv aravphv koX rhv tov Kvpiov Qavarov, koL fj-rj SiaKpiuwy 
 tepeas twv ipevdiep^wv.^ 
 
 [2 Bingham, p. 132, very seasonably objects to Laurence's 
 strange practice of giving no references ; and, supplying the 
 passage of Athanasius, thus comments upon it. '* Athanasius 
 disputes against the Arians' baptism, because they rejected the 
 fundamental doctrine of the Trinity. But this is not simply 
 to reject the baptism of heretics ; for he allowed the baptism of 
 all others, as I have shewed, chap. i. sect. 20. p. 62. ' Though 
 the Arians baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, they did not understand by those names what the Church 
 understood, but beUeved the Son and Holy Ghost to be mere 
 creatures ; and therefore he thought their baptism to be of no 
 effect, because, though they baptised in the form of the Church, 
 yet not into the faith of the holy Trinity. And he concludes 
 the same of the Manichees, and Montanists, and Samosatenians, 
 
XCll PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 baptism of heretics. Pacianus says,l that baptism 
 purifies from sins, and unction brings down the Holy 
 Spirit ; and both the one and the other are appUed 
 
 who, he thinks, used the CathoHc form of words, but rejected 
 the true sense and meaning of them. Whence it is plain Atha- 
 nasius was one of those who neither universally received nor 
 universally rejected heretical baptisms ; but such as were given 
 in the Cathohc form of words, and in the true faith of the Tri- 
 nity, those only he admitted ; refusing all others as invalid, 
 where either the form or the faith was wanting.' " — Part I. sect. 
 20. It would have been more to the purpose of Bingham's 
 argument, if he had supplied the place of Athanasius in which 
 he formally admits the validity of any heretical baptism, be- 
 sides those against which he formally excepts : none such is to 
 be found. 
 
 Athan. Orat. iii. adv. Arian. p. 413. ed. 1627. Par. ov yag 
 us TTUTepa Koi vihv did6a(nv ol 'Apeiavol, oAA,' els Kriarriv kuI 
 KTla/xa, Kal els tro'njiJLa Kal rroi-qT'fiV is the passage to which 
 Laurence alludes.] 
 
 [^ The passage from Pacian is suppUed by Laurence in his 
 second part of Lai/ Baptism invalid, p. 98, after Bingham had 
 referred to it, part i. Append, p. 132. Sic generat Christus in 
 ecclesia per suos sacerdotes ; atque ita Christi semen, id est, Dei 
 Spiritus, novum hominem alvo matris agitatum, et partu fontis 
 exceptum, manibus sacerdotis efFundit, fide tamen pronuba. — 
 Hsec autem compleri alias nequeunt, nisi lavacri et chrisma- 
 tis et antistitis sacramento. Lavacro enim peccata purgantur, 
 chrismate Sanctus Spiritus superfunditur, utraque vero ista 
 manu et ore antistitis impetramus. — Sermo ad Catechum. de 
 Baptism., — Biblioth. Patr. De la Bigne, vol. iii. p. 77. 
 
 Bingham says that this proves too much, and makes all 
 baptism, except that conferred by bishops personally — that 
 even of priests, as well as of laymen — invalid. Laurence, 
 however, argues that Pacian meant by episcopal baptism ** not 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. XClll 
 
 by the hand and the mouth of the bishop. Optatus,^ 
 that the Donatists (who, by the way, were schis- 
 
 only that of bishops themselves in person, but that conferred 
 by those commissioned by the bishop, which is still his minis- 
 try ;" and certainly the passage mentions sacer dotes as well as 
 antistites.'] 
 
 [' Bingham, p. 132. Appendix, and p. 62. part i. § 20, 
 argues that Optatus was of the same opinion which, v. s. he 
 attributes to Athanasius, — that the baptism of all schismatics 
 was to be received as valid, and also that of heretics, who bap- 
 tised in the name and faith of the Trinity ; which two species 
 he calls necessaria — that of the administrator only quasi neces- 
 saria. Optatus contra Parmenon, lib. v. 
 
 Quidquid in Trinitate factum fuerit, bene est. — Quisquis in 
 nomine Patris, Filiiet Spiritus Sancti baptizaverit, apostolorum 
 opus implevit. Laurence, part ii. p. 103. replies, that if Op- 
 tatus meant quisquis in its most general sense, he must have 
 included the baptism of women, infidels, Jews, and pagans, 
 which is contrary to the sense of the Church : but he did not 
 apply it so generally ; he was arguing with the Donatists ; and 
 he tells them that, even granting what they urged, viz. that 
 the catholic ministers were schismatics, still their ministrations 
 were not defiled by this ; and whoever — that is, whatever mi- 
 nister, catholic or schismatic — baptises in the name of the Tri- 
 nity, his baptism is good. Granting, then, that Optatus allows 
 schismatical baptism to be valid, still these schismatics were 
 once episcopally commissioned, and this makes nothing in 
 favour of the anti-episco])al baptisms of our own time. The 
 passage quoted in the text is adv. Parmen. lib. v., — Billiotk. 
 Patr. vol. iv. p. 3G3 : Nos docuimus coeleste munus unicuique 
 credenti a Trinitate conferri, non ab homine. Et quid vobis 
 visum est, non post nos, sed post Trinitatem baptisma gemi- 
 nare ? Cujus de sacramento non leve certamen innatum est, 
 et dubitatur, an post Trinitatem in eadem Trinitate hoc iterum 
 liceat facere. Vos dicitis licet ; nos dicimus non licet. Nutant 
 
X€1V PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 matics) committed a great crime in reiterating bap- 
 tism (where it is to be noted, that they rebaptised 
 the very Catholics who came over to them) ; that it 
 is not he who gives this sacrament of baptism that 
 confers the graces, but the faith of him that receives 
 it, and the virtue of the Trinity. " We ask," says he, 
 " if it be laTA-ful to repeat baptism given in the name 
 of the Trinity ? Ye maintain that it is lawful ; w^e 
 say that it is forbidden : the people are in suspense. 
 Let us therefore search after the will of our Father 
 in the Gospel ; which will inform us, that he who 
 hath been once washed needs not to be washed again. 
 Wherefore," adds he, " we do not rebaptise those 
 who have been baptised, when they return again 
 to us." He proves against the Donatists, that the 
 holiness of the minister does not contribute to the 
 validity of the sacrament of baptism ; and that be- 
 cause the effect of the sacrament is owing to God 
 only ; and, in short, because the sacraments are holy, 
 
 et remigant animae populonun. — Voluntas Patris, velutin Tes- 
 tamento, sic m Evangelic inquiratur. — Qui semel lotus est, non 
 habet iterum necessitatem lavandi. — Absit ut iteremus quod 
 semel est, aut duplicemus quod unum est. — ^Videatis, omnes 
 qui baptizant, operarios esse non dominos, et sacramenta per 
 se esse sancta, non per homines. 
 
 It is very remarkable that the text quoted by Optatus 
 against rebaptisation is John xiii. 10 : "He that is washed 
 needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." It 
 is clearly misquoted ; but TertuUian, Ambrose, and, it is be- 
 lieved, others, quote it in the same way : " He that is once 
 washed needeth not to be washed again J''\ 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. XCV 
 
 and do sanctify by themselves. Yet he seems to 
 think that we ought to rebaptise those who were 
 baptised by heretics ; but does not make the same 
 determination concerning those who were baptised 
 by schismatics. 
 
 The council of Eliberis,^ anno 305, canon 38, 
 declares, that a Christian who is neither penitent (i. e. 
 not under penance), nor a bigamist, may baptise, in a 
 case of necessity, those who are on a journey, being at 
 a great distance from a church, upon condition that 
 he present him to the bishop, if he survive, to be per- 
 fected by imposition of hands. 
 
 Here it ought to be observed, that this ancient 
 council was not a general one, and so its canon could 
 not thus authorise all lay Christians. It extended 
 no further than to the subjects of those bishops there 
 
 [^ Labbe, i. p. 974. {UArt de Verifier les Dates, with 
 Tillemont, a.d. 300. Its date, however, is placed as high 
 as A.D. 250, and as low as a.d. 324.) Placuit, peregre navi- 
 gantes, aut si ecclesia in proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, 
 qui lavacrum suum integrum habet, nee sit bigamus, baptizare 
 in necessitate infirmitatis positum catechumenum : ita ut, si 
 supervixerit, ad episcopum eum perducat, ut per manus impo- 
 sitionem proficere [aliter, perfici] possit. Laurence refers the 
 phrase lavacrum integrum to not having lapsed after baptism. 
 Vossius interprets it of one who had not received clinic bap- 
 tism. 
 
 Bingham, part i. Appendix, p. 133. '* Laurence's reflec- 
 tions on the council of Eliberis are just enough : that it was 
 but a particular council ; and that it authorised only some 
 laymen to baptise, but not all ; and those not anti-episcopal, 
 but in subjection to their bishops."] 
 
XCVl PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 assembled. And therefore our lay baptisers cannot 
 act by virtue of this canon ; especially considering 
 further, that this canon was not made as declarative 
 of any proper inherent right or authority that lay 
 Christians, as such, had to baptise ; it only appointed 
 some to do this who had not authority to do it before 
 of themselves. Besides, it is plainly restrained to such 
 as were in communion with, and subjection to, their 
 bishops ; they were not to be under penance, &c. 
 And therefore, if this had been a general council, as 
 it certainly was not, our lay baptisers, who act in 
 opposition to episcopacy, could have received no au- 
 thority from this canon. 
 
 The council of Arles,^ called by the emperor anno 
 314, consisting of thirty- three western bishops, ca- 
 
 [' Labbe, i. p. 1428. De Afris, quod propria lege sua 
 utuntur, ut rebaptizent, placuit ut si ad ecclesiam aliquis de 
 hseresi [aliter de Arianis] venerit, interrogent eum symbolum : 
 et si perviderint eum in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto esse 
 baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur, ut accipiat Spirituin 
 Sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non respondent banc Trinita- 
 tem, baptizetur. 
 
 Bingham, part i. Appendix, p. 133. ** Laurence follows the 
 faulty subscriptions which make but thirty-three bishops to 
 have been present at it ; whereas it was a plenary council of 
 the whole western Church, as St. Augustine {adv. Parm. i. 5) 
 calls it, consisting of two hundred bishops, as Baronius, Schel- 
 strate, and Pagi, and most other learned critics, except Valesius, 
 readily allow." In the preface, p. xiv., to second part oi Lay 
 Baptism invalid, Laurence quotes Dupin, who controverts 
 Baronius' argument, and declares that the reading in Augus- 
 tine should be contra judices, not ducentos judices.] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. XCVll 
 
 non 8. determines the famous question about the re- 
 baptisation of heretics, and ordains concerning the 
 Africans, who had always rebaptised them, that if 
 any one leave a heresy, and return to the Church, he 
 shall be asked concerning the creed ; and if it be 
 known that he was baptised in the name of the Father, 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, imposition of 
 hands only shall be given him, that he may receive 
 the Holy Spirit ; but if he does not acknowledge the 
 Trinity, — I suppose it is meant, if while a heretic he 
 did not acknowledge the Trinity, or if the heretic 
 who baptised him did not acknowledge the Trinity 
 (the latter is the most likely), — -he shall be rebap- 
 tised. 
 
 By the way, in this canon there is not one word 
 about lay baptism : and as for the heretics who then 
 baptised, they had always, or at least most commonly, 
 received ordination from the hands of some catholic 
 bishop or other ; nay, generally the heretical bishops 
 were consecrated, before they fell into heresy, by ca- 
 tholic bishops, or else afterwards, by some trick or 
 other, got private consecration from them, that so 
 their heresies might go down the better with the 
 people : and the same we find concerning schisma- 
 tics in those days. 
 
 I desire that this may be more particularly taken 
 notice of, because it effectually silences all objections 
 brought from this council's allowing of the validity 
 of heretical and schismatical baptisms. For such 
 their allowance is no ways favourable to the baptisms 
 
 k 
 
XCVm PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 we are now disputing against ; for they are not only 
 lay, but anti- episcopal baptisms, which were not the 
 subject of this council. 
 
 The council of Nice,^ anno 325, consistingof about 
 three hundred bishops, canon 19. ordains, " that 
 the Paulianists (who, by the way, did not baptise in 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) [and 
 CataphrjT^gians, some read, but not in the Greek] 
 shall be rebaptised, who return to the Church." 
 
 After the council of Nice,^ it was a prevailing 
 
 [' Labbe, ii. p. 245. c. xix. Trepl twu TlavKiaviaravroiv, clra 
 'irpo(T<pvy6vr()}v rrj KaOoXiicy iKK\T](ria, opos eKTedeirai, avafiatr- 
 ri^eaOai avrovs e^diravTos. But in the eighth canon the council 
 decreed, that Novatian schismatics, if clergy, were to be admit- 
 ted, at their reconciliation, to the same degree which they had 
 enjoyed before : and fromthis Bingham concludes, that although 
 Novatian was neither true bishop, nor, in a state of schism, a 
 true priest, yet since the council of Nice admitted the orders of 
 his clergy, and consequently their baptisms, hence it became 
 a rule that schismatics were always reconciled without bap- 
 tising. Laurence meets this by arguing (Supplement, p. 59, 
 &c.), that Novatian was aU along a true bishop, and his clergy 
 truly ordained, commissioned, and authorised to baptise, even 
 while in a state of schism : and to this Bingham replies, in 
 a separate dissertation, vol. viii. p. 420-460. Brett, in a 
 " further inquiry," in reply to Bingham's second part, defends 
 Laurence's view, and argues, at great length, that the council 
 of Nice acknowledged the Novatian orders.] 
 
 [- This passage is repeated in Laurence's Sacerdotal 
 Powers, p. 120. The argument is taken from Forbes's In- 
 structiones Historico-theologicoe, 1. x. c. 14. § 5. Post Nicse- 
 num concilium major ilia propositio firmitatem obtinuit, ut 
 ea, tanquam indubitato principio errorem Luciferi confutarint ; 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, XCIX 
 
 principle, that those whom a laic baptiseth are to 
 be rebaptised ; for it was the undoubted principle 
 whereby the orthodox confuted the Luciferians, who 
 began their schism upon occasion of the council of 
 Alexandria's allowing the ordination of the Arian 
 bishops. For thus the orthodox argued against 
 those schismatics : Those whom a laic baptiseth are 
 to be rebaptised ; but those whom an Arian priest 
 baptiseth are not to be rebaptised ; therefore an Arian 
 priest is not a laic. And even Lucifer himself, the 
 author of that schism, granted the major [minor] 
 proposition to be true. 
 
 In the council of Carthage,^ anno 348, before they 
 
 sic argumentantes : Quos baptizavit laicus, ii sunt denuo bap- 
 tizandi : at quos baptizavit sacerdos Arianus, ii non sunt 
 denuo baptizandi : ergo quos baptizavit sacerdos Arianus, eos 
 non baptizavit laicus. Hoc uno ariete errorem diruit ortho- 
 doxus apud Hieronym. adv. Luciferianos. Quod argumentum 
 adeo conturbavit Hilarium diaconum, schismatis Luciferiani 
 continuatorem, cum aliquam ex prsemissis videret labefactan- 
 dam esse ei, qui eversam cuperet conclusionem, ut desperate 
 omni alio effugio, errorem magistri alio adjecto errore cumula- 
 verit, negans assumtionem, quam Lucifer ipse concesserat, re- 
 cipiendos scilicet absque nova tinctione eos qui essent ab Ariano 
 baptizati. Assumtionem igitur Hieronymus confirmat auc- 
 toritate Nicseni concilii. Laurence, either from ignorance of 
 the technical language of logic, or from carelessness, translated 
 assumtionem the major, instead of the minor. Bingham de- 
 tected the error, and Laurence acknowledged it. For an at- 
 tempt to sketch the argument about Lucifer, see Appendix to 
 this Preliminary Discourse.] 
 
 [' Labbe, i. p. 713. Contemplantes unitatis tempus, id de 
 
C PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 proceeded to make canons, the president [Gratus] 
 advised thus : " We must have such regard to this 
 time of peace, that we neither weaken the obhgation 
 of the laws, nor yet prejudice the present unity by 
 too much severity.'' Then the first head proposed was 
 about rebaptisation : he asked whether that man ought 
 to be rebaptised who at his baptism made profession 
 of beheving the Trinity ? The bishops answered, "God 
 forbid ; we declare that this rebaptisation is unlawful, 
 contrary to the orthodox faith and the ecclesiastical 
 discipline." 
 
 St. Basil, bishop of Caesarea, ' anno 369, says, 
 
 singulis definire, quod nee Carthago vigorem legis infringat, 
 nee tamen tempore unitatis aliquid durissimum statuamus. 
 Ergo, si vobis placet, consideremus primum titulum rebap- 
 tizationis. TJnde sanctitatem vestram postulo, ut mentis vestrse 
 placita producatis ad descendentem in aquam, et interrogatum 
 in Trinitate seeundum evangelii fidem et apostolorum doctri- 
 nam, et confessum bonam eonscientiam in Deum, de resurrec- 
 tionem Jesu Christi, si liceat iterum interrogari in eadem 
 fide, et in aqua iterum intingi. Universi episcopi dixerunt : Ab- 
 sit, absit. Illieitas esse sancimus rebaptizationes, et satis esse 
 alienum a sincera fide et catholica disciplina.] 
 
 \} Basil. Epist. eanon ad Amphiloeh. vol. iii. p. 2G8. ed. 
 Bened. e5o|e to'iuvv to7s i^ oLpxvs, rh /xeu rwv aiQeTiKwu Traure- 
 Aws a^exTjcrar tc/ 8e rcvv aivoax'-fyo.vruiv, us ert e'/c ttjs iKK\7](Tias 
 ovTuv, iragaSf^acrOai. — eSo^e toTs apx^iois, to7s irepl KvTrpiavhu 
 Aeyu Koi ^ipfxiKiavhv rbv ^]ixirepov, rovrovs Trduras fxia ^■Ji'/>w 
 VTTo^aXclu, Ka6apovs KaVEyKpaTiras' Si6ti tj ijL(U apxv '''ov xwpto"- 
 fiov Slo. a'Xto'M<*''"os y^yovev ol de ttjs iKKkyjalas aTroaTavTes, 
 ovKfTi ecrxov ttjj' X"P"' "^"^ ayiov irvevfiaros €<^' eauTo7s. — ol Se 
 UTToppayepTes, Xa'iKol yepofievoi ovre tov fiaiTTi^eiv, ovre tov x^'" 
 poToveiu elxou ri}v i^ovaiav, ovKeri Swdfievoi X'*P"' irviv/uLaTos 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 01 
 
 " TTiose whom a laic baptiseth are to be rebaptised." 
 He also maintains, that the ancients were persuaded 
 that the baptism of heretics was absolutely void. As 
 
 07101; kr^pois wapexeiu, fjs avTol iKTreirTdKacn. — iireidrj e5o|e 
 Tiffi ruv Kara rrfv 'Aaiav olKOUOfiias eveKa tuv ttoWwu Se^^'J^'at 
 avTwv rh jSctTTTJC/io, ecTTW SeKrSu' rh de tuv ^EyKpariTciv TJixas 
 -jrgoariKev a6eTe7v fidirTifffxa. — iav (jlcvtol /xeWoi rfi Kad6\ou 
 olKovofjLia. ifj-TToSiov ecreaOaL rovro, iraXiv t^ e0et xpVC'''^ou. This 
 passage was produced by Forbes, v. s. Bingham, p. 130, argues 
 that Basil spoke in Cyprian's person, not his own, and that he 
 was willing to give up his private judgment to the opinion of 
 the Church, ecrrw ScktSi^. Brett argues at great length, that 
 Basil's epistle, being canonical, must be accepted as the tes- 
 timony and decision of the whole oriental Church ; and Lau- 
 rence, part ii. p. 113, thus sums up his argument in reply to 
 Bingham : 
 
 ** St. Basil's argument from Cyprian and Firmilian, re- 
 duced into form, stands thus : Baptism by lay persons is null 
 and void ; heretical and schismatical priests are become lay- 
 men ; therefore baptism by heretical and schismatical priests 
 is null and void. The major proposition was not publicly 
 opposed by any churches ; but the minor wa.s denied by several 
 churches ; and therefore, in compliance with those churches, 
 he could not wholly insist upon his conclusion, that baptism 
 by heretical and schismatical priests was null and void ; for he 
 acquiesced in the custom of some churches, who reckoned the 
 baptism of some schismatics to be good and valid. But this 
 was in no degree to depart from the incontested principle, that 
 baptism by laymen was null and void ; because his allowing 
 some schismatics not to be reduced to laymen, was only an 
 abatement from the rigour of his previous assertion concern- 
 ing heretics and schismatics without distinction, when other 
 churches did not allow that all schismatics whatever were be- 
 come laymen. Those churches did not dispute against his 
 
 k 2 
 
Cll PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 for schismatics, he hkes well enough St. Cyprian and 
 Firmilian's subjecting them to the same latv ; because 
 being separate from the Church, they had not the 
 Holy Spirit, and so could not give it : but says, he 
 would not hinder the allowing of the baptisms of 
 schismatics, since the bishops of Asia had thought it 
 convenient to admit them. But though the Encra- 
 tites were schismatics, he declares that their baptism 
 ought not to be approved, and that those ought to 
 be rebaptised to whom they had given baptism ; be- 
 cause they gave it with precipitation, on purpose to 
 hinder the receiving of it from the Church ; neverthe- 
 less, if the contrary custom (of allowing the baptism 
 of heretics and schismatics) were estabhshed, he con- 
 fesses it ought to be followed. 
 
 The council of Laodicea,^ between anno 360 
 and 370, canon 8. says, " that they must be wholly 
 
 other principle, of the invaHdity of baptism by persons non- 
 commissioned ; and therefore it [the major proposition] stood 
 good, notwithstanding his compliance and their practice with 
 respect to the other by schismatical priests."] 
 
 [^ L'Jrt de Verifier les Dales, a.d. 360.— Labbe, i. p. 1498. 
 c. viii. Tovs airh rrjs alpeaecos tSov Xeyojuievccv ^pvyuv eVto'Tpe- 
 (povras, 6t Koi iv kAtjoo) vofxi^ofieucf Trap' ahrois Tu7xaf0iei', €t 
 KoX ixiyicrTOi Kiyoivro' tovs toiovtovs /J-eTa irdarjs iirifxehfias 
 KaTTiXfi^f 0"^' Te Kol fiaTTTi^ea-Oai vnh ruv rrjs iKKAr^crlas iin<TK6- 
 TTWi' re Koi irpi<T^vTepa>}/. But in the previous canon the coun- 
 cil decreed, that such as had been baptised by the Novatians, 
 the Photinians, and the Quartodecimans, were to be received 
 into communion, after anathematizing their heresies, learning 
 the creed catholic, and being anointed with chrism. Bingham, 
 part i. sect. 20, p. 66.] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, CHI 
 
 baptised anew who come from the sect of the Mon- 
 tanists." 
 
 The third council of Constantinople,^ anno 383 
 [the second general council, a.d. 381], in the last 
 canon, concerning the manner of receiving here- 
 tics who offer themselves to return into the bosom 
 of the Church, it is ordained, '* that the Arians, 
 Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimani, 
 Tetradites, and Apollinarists, shall be received, after 
 they have made profession of their faith, and anathe- 
 matised their errors, b}' the unction of the Holy Spirit, 
 and the chrism, wherewith they shall be anointed on 
 the forehead, the eyes, the hands, the mouth, the 
 ears, at the pronouncing of these words. This is the 
 
 [^ Labbe, ii. p. 951. c. vii. 'Ap^iavovs i^ev Kal MaKeSoviavovs 
 Kal 'XafifiaTiaPOvs Kal "NauaTLavovs koI rohs Tio-aaQeaKaiSeKaTi- 
 To?, ^Xtovv Terpadlras kcu ' ATroXXLvapicTTas Sex^l^^da BidouTas 
 Ai;3eAAous, Kal auadefiaTi^ouTas Trclaau a'lpeo'ii' — Kal acppayi^o/j.^- 
 vovs ijTOi x.?'0;LieVoi;s TTgcoTOV rcf ayiu) ixvpip t6 re fierwirov, Kal 
 rovs 6(p6a\f.wvs, Kal ras plvas, Kal rh arofta, Kal ra Sira' /cat 
 acppayi^ovTes avTOvs Kiyojx^V 'Z<pQayls Swpeas TTPevjxaros ayiov. 
 EvvofjLLavovs jxivToi, rovs els jxiau KardSucriu fiaim^o/jLeuous, Kal 
 MovravKTTas, tovs ivTavQa Keyofievovs ^pvyas, Kal ^ajSeAAca- 
 uovs — ws"EWr}vas SexofieOa — Kal tot6 avrovs fiairri^ofxev. The 
 second council of Aries, a.d. 452, made the like distinction: 
 the Paulianists were to be rebaptised ; the Bonosiaci, who main- 
 tained the same errors, yet baptised in the name of the Trinity, 
 received by chrism and imposition of hands. See p. cxii. 
 
 The council of Trullo or Quinisextum, a.d. G91, decreed, 
 in the same way, to rebaptise the heretics mentioned above, as 
 also the Manichees, Valentinians, and Marcionites ; but to con- 
 firm the Arianh, &c. Bingham, part i. c. 20. p. OS.] 
 
CIV PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 seal of the Holy Spirit. As to the Eunomians, the 
 Montanists, the Sabellians, and all the other heretics, 
 the council ordains that they shall be received like 
 pagans, &c., and at last they shall be baptised." 
 
 The council of Capua, ^ anno 390, declared, "that 
 it was not lawful to use rebaptisation, re-ordination, 
 and the translation of bishops." 
 
 The second council of Carthage,^ anno 390, in the 
 eighth canon declares, " that if a priest excommuni- 
 cated by his own bishop undertake to offer up the 
 sacrifices in private, and to set up altar against altar, 
 thereby making a schism, he ought to be anathema- 
 tised, because there is but one Church, one faith, and 
 one baptism." My remark upon this canon is, that 
 this one baptism cannot be supposed to be out of this 
 one Church, and therefore is only in it. 
 
 The third [fourth] council of Carthage,^ anno 
 
 [^ Labbe, ii. p. 1039, referred to by Ambrose, epist. 56 et 
 seq. Hac eadem Capuensi synodo constitutum fuerit, ne fierent 
 rebaptizationes, reordinationes, etepiscoporum translationes.] 
 
 [^ Labbe, ii. p. 1161. Si quis forte presbyter ab episcopo 
 suo correptus aut excommunicatus, tumore vel superbia in- 
 flatus, putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia ofFerenda, vel aliud eri- 
 gendum altare, contra ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque, cre- 
 diderit, non exeat impunitus. — Si quis presbyter contra episco- 
 pum suum inflatus schisma fecerit, anathema sit — quoniam 
 ecclesia una est, una fides, unum baptismal] 
 
 [^ Labbe, ii. p. 1207. Mulier baptizare non praesumat. 
 " Gratian and Peter Lombard add nisi necessitate cogente ; yet 
 this is either an interpretation of their own, or a plain fraud : 
 for there is no such reading now in any tome of the councils ; 
 and as Vossius observes, it is otherwise cited by Walafridus 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CV 
 
 398, canon 100, says, " that a woman ought not to 
 take upon her to baptise." 
 
 St. Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, 
 anno 398, is express for the invalidity of lay baptism ; 
 and that it can be no more administered by a laic 
 than the eucharist. Says he, " But all these are things 
 which can be administered hy no other man living 
 but by those sacred hands alone, the hands, I say, of 
 t\\Q priest ." ^ Chrys. lib. iii. de Sacerd. c. 5. 
 
 In the fifth century flourished St. Augustine, 
 
 Strabo some ages before them," — Bingham, c. i. sect. 17. p. 51. 
 Bellarmine, Thomas Aquinas, and Suarez, of course adopt this 
 dishonest gloss.] 
 
 [^ Et yag ov hvvarai ris elcreKdeTv els r^r fiaaiKeiav rwv 
 oupauwu, iav fxr) Si' vSaros Kal irvevixaros avayevvqQfj' koL b /j.t) 
 rgdoycav rriv adpKa rov Kvpiov, Kol xb alf.ia avTOv ttIucdv, 6/c;8e- 
 ^X7]rai rrjs aluviov C^rjs' irdvTa Se Tavra, 5i krepov fiev ovSephs, 
 [xovov Se Sia tu>v ay'iwv iKeivwv einTe\e7raL x^ipcav, ruiv tov 
 Upeus Xeyco. 
 
 Bingham had objected against Forbes, that this passage, 
 quoted by him, as are most of these passages from the Fathers, 
 &c. in Instruct. Hist.-theol., if taken strictly, would be equally 
 conclusive against deacons' baptisms : to which Laurence, part ii. 
 p. 114, gives the same answer as that produced in the case of 
 Pacian, — that as the acts of a priest were the acts of the bishop, 
 so far as they were of episcopal authority, so a deacon is so far 
 a priest as he has received priestly power to administer this 
 sacrament in the absence of the bishop, who has the whole 
 priesthood, and of the presbyter, who has the next degree of 
 sacerdotal power. " By St. Chrysostom' s rule, agreeable to 
 that of holy Scripture, we cannot obtain salvation, receive 
 baptism, the means thereof, ordinarily or in times of extremity, 
 without the priestly power."'] 
 
CVl PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 bishop of Hippo in Africa. He argued vigorously 
 against the Donatists, who began their schism by a 
 separation of some African bishops, and proceeded so 
 far as to reckon all other churches as unclean, and 
 indeed to be no churches at all ; and consequently 
 when any catholic came over to their party, they 
 would not admit him without rebaptisation ; making 
 use of St. Cyprian and his colleagues' authority, who 
 taught that baptism administered by heretics and 
 schismatics could not be valid, because they were out 
 of the Church ; and the Donatists esteemed the Ca- 
 tholics to be no better than such. 
 
 St. Augustine,^ in opposition to them, undertakes 
 to prove, that though his party were not the Church, 
 yet the Donatists were not to baptise them a second 
 time. He confesses that baptism performed without 
 
 [^ Baptismus Christi nonnisi Christi baptismus habere- 
 tur, etiamsi apud hsereticos vel schismaticos datus fuisse pro- 
 baretur. — Augustin. de Baptism, lib. iii. cap. i. 3. p. 109, vol. ix. 
 ed. Bened. 
 
 Quamobrem si evangelicis verbis, in nomine Patris, &c. 
 integrum erat sacramentum, quamvis ejus fides sub eisdem 
 verbis aliud opinantis quam catholica Veritas docet. — Augustin. 
 de Baptism, lib. iii. cap. xv. 20. p. 116. 
 
 Cum ergo baptismus Christi, sive per iniquum sive per 
 justura ministratus, nihil aliud sit quam baptismus Christi. 
 — Augustin. contra literas Petiliani, lib. iii. cap. xxxiv. 39. 
 p. 317. 
 
 Baptismus in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti 
 Christum habet auctorem, non quemlibet hominem : et Christus 
 est Veritas, non quilibet homo. — Augustin. contra literas Peti- 
 liani, lib. ii. cap. xxiv. 57. p. 236.] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CVll 
 
 naming the Trinity is null ; but affirms, that if it be 
 administered in the name of the Trinity, it is valid, 
 whosoever he be that administers it, and ought not to 
 be repeated : that neither the minister's faith as to 
 religion, nor his sanctity, avail any thing to the vali- 
 dity of baptism : that it is God, and not the minister, 
 y^h.0 gives the Holy Spirit, and worketh the remission 
 of sins. 
 
 But here, before I proceed further, I must observe, 
 that it does not hence follow, that because the faith 
 or sanctity of the minister avails nothing to the vali- 
 dity of baptism, therefore his authority by which he 
 acts avails nothing thereto : for authority may very 
 well be, and often is, distinct and separate from both 
 those excellent qualities. And again; every one wiU 
 grant, that it is God, and not the minister, who gives 
 the Holy Spirit, &c. What then } does it thence 
 follow that any person may stand in God's stead, as 
 appointed by Him to administer ? Can it be reasonably 
 expected that God should concur with the usurpations 
 of those who act therein without His commission, nay, 
 and in opposition thereto (as is the case with us) ? Cer- 
 tainly no ; it cannot : for however He may dispense 
 with the want of a sacrament, yet He has no where 
 promised to give efficacy to those administrations which 
 are in any respect contraiy to the essentials of His 
 own institutions ; and to me it seems a mere fool- 
 hardiness and presumption to expect it. 
 But to proceed : 
 
CVm PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 St. Augustine,^ in the 7th book Of Baptism, cap. 
 53, says thus : " It is asked whether that baptism is 
 to be approved which is administered by an unbap- 
 
 {} Augiistin. de Baptismo, lib. vii. cap. 53. p. 201. Solet 
 enim quseri, utrum approbandum sit baptisma quod ab eo 
 qui non accepit, accipitur, si forte curiositate aliqua didicit 
 quemadmodum dandum sit : et utrum nihil intersit, quo animo 
 accipiat ille cui datur, cum simulatione, an sine simulatione: 
 si cum simulatione, utrum fallens, sicut in ecclesia, vel in 
 ea quae putatur ecclesia ; an jocans, sicut in mimo : et quid 
 sit sceleratius, in ecclesia fallaciter accipere, an in hseresi vel 
 schismate sine fallacia, id est, animo non simulate; et utrum 
 in hseresi fallaciter, an in mimo cum fide, si quisquam inter 
 agendum repentina pietate moveatur ? — Nobis tutum est, in 
 ea non progredi aliqua temeritate sententise, quse nullo in ca- 
 tholico regionali concilio coepta, nullo plenario terminata sunt. 
 — Veruntamen si quis forte me in eo concilio constitutum, ubi 
 talium rerum qusestio versaretur, non prsecedentibus talibus, 
 quorum sententias sequi mallem, urgeret ut dicerem quid ipse 
 sentirem — nequaquam dubitarem habere eos baptismum qui 
 ubicumque et a quibuscumque illud verbis evangelicis conse- 
 cratum, sine sua simulatione et cum aliqua fide accepissent : — 
 non dubito etiamillos habere baptismum, qui quamvis fallaciter 
 id accipiant, in ecclesia tamen accipiunt, vel ubi putatur esse 
 ecclesia ab eis, in quorum societate id accipitur, de quibus 
 dictum est, Ex nobis exierunt. Ubi autem neque societas uUa 
 esset ita credentium, neque ille qui ibi acciperet ita crederet, 
 sed totum ludicre et mimice et joculariter ageretur, utrum ap- 
 probandus esset baptismus qui sic daretur, divinum judicium 
 per alicujus revelationis oraculum implorandum esse censerem . 
 Item, cap. 54. Baptismum autem si habent et tradunt alii 
 tarn multi qui operantur opera caniis, qualia qui agunt [Galat. 
 v. 21) regnum Dei non possidebunt ; habent ac tradunt hsere- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CIX 
 
 tised person, who out of curiosity has learned the 
 way of baptising among Christians ? It is asked, fur- 
 ther, whether it be necessary for the validity of bap- 
 tism, that he who either administers or receives it be 
 sincere ? And if they should be only in jest, whether 
 their baptism ought to be administered again in the 
 Church ? Whether baptism conferred in derision, as 
 that would be which should be administered by a co- 
 median, might be accounted valid ? Whether baptism 
 administered by an actor may become valid, when he 
 that receives it is well disposed ?" 
 
 He answers to these, and such-like questions, 
 '* That the securest way is to return no answer to 
 questions that never were decided in any council, 
 general or national. But, he adds, should any man, 
 meeting with me at such council, ask my advice about 
 these questions, and that it were my turn to declare 
 my opinion ; having not heard other men's opinions, 
 which I might prefer before my own, &c., — I should, 
 without difficulty, acknowledge that they all receive 
 baptism truly, in any place whatsoever, and by whom- 
 soever administered, if on their part they receive it 
 with faith and sincerity. I am apt also to believe 
 
 tici, qui inter ilia opera numerati sunt, quod quia recedendo 
 non amiserunt, et tradere manendo potuerunt. 
 
 Item de Bapt lib. v. cap. xx. p. 155. Quae omnia valent 
 per homicidas, id est per eos qui oderunt fratres, etiam in ipsa 
 ecclesia. Cum dare nemo possit quod non habet, quomodo dat 
 homicida Spiritum Sanctum ? et tamen ipse intus etiam baptizat. 
 Deus ergo dat etiam ipso baptizante Spiritum Sanctum.] 
 
 1 
 
ex PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 that such as receive baptism in the Church, or in 
 what is supposed to be the Church, are truly bap- 
 tised, as to the sacramental part of the action , what- 
 soever be their intention ; but as for baptism admi- 
 nistered and received out of the Church, in raillery, 
 contempt, and to make sport, I could not approve the 
 same without a revelation." 
 
 He endeavours to overthrow the reasons and tes- 
 timonies of the Cyprianists against the validity of he- 
 retical and schismatical baptisms, by the comparison 
 of concealed heretics and evil ministers with known 
 heretics and schismatics : " For," says he, " if the bap- 
 tism administered by the former is valid, and not to 
 be renewed, why should not the same thing be said of 
 the latter, since all the reasons tJiat are alleged for 
 the nuUity of the baptism of heretics may also belong 
 to evil ministers ? It is said, for example, that to give 
 the Holy Ghost, one must have it : that heretics have 
 it not, and consequently that they cannot give it. 
 Why may we not reason after the same manner con- 
 cerning baptism conferred by concealed heretics, or 
 by wicked priests } Have they the Holy Ghost to 
 give?" Thus St. Augustine. 
 
 I cannot but take notice here, that this great man 
 does not appear to me to have made the comparison 
 according to the design of St. Cyprian and his col- 
 leagues ; for by the manner of handling this dispute 
 in those da)''s, it is plain to me that the heretics and 
 schismatics were supposed to be, by their separating 
 themselves from the communion of the Church, as 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CXI 
 
 excommunicate, and consequently to have lost all valid 
 power and authority for the administration of Chris- 
 tian sacraments, being themselves out of the Church : 
 whereas the concealed heretic and evil minister, not 
 having separated themselves from, nor been excluded 
 out of, the Church, cannot, during this their secrecy, 
 lose that visible authority wherewith they were at first 
 invested; and we have no other authority to. trust to, 
 except we had the gift of discerning spirits; so that 
 the reasons against the validity of baptism adminis- 
 tered by known self-excommunicate heretics and schis- 
 matics will not equally hold good against the validity 
 of baptism conferred by unknown heretics and evil 
 priests, who still continue in external communion 
 with the Church; because the former were by the 
 Cyprianists supposed to have not, but the latter to 
 have, that visible authority and commission which 
 Christ gave them to administer His sacraments ; as is 
 plain from the example of Judas Iscariot, whom our 
 Saviour vested with the divine commission, notwith- 
 standing his great wickedness. 
 
 Leo,^ bishop of Rome, in his eighteenth answer 
 to several questions put to him by Rusticus, bishop 
 
 [' Labbe, iii. 1408. Inquis. De his qui— nesciunt in qua 
 secta sint baptizati. Respons. Non se isti baptizatos nesciunt, 
 sed cujus fidei fuerint qui eos baptizaverunt se nescire profi- 
 teutur. Unde quolibet modo formam baptismatis acceperint, 
 baptizandi non sunt; sed per manus impositionem, invocata 
 virtute Spiritus Sancti, quam ab haereticis accipere non po- 
 tuerunt, catholicis copulandi sunt.] 
 
CXll PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 of Narbonne, anno 442 [452?], says, " that it is sutH- 
 cient to lay hands upon, and call upon the Holy Spirit 
 over those that do remember that they have been bap- 
 tised, but know not in what sect." 
 
 Gennadius,' a priest of Marseilles, affirms, "that 
 there is hut one baptism; and that we must not baptise 
 them again who have been baptised by heretics with 
 the invocation of the name of the Trinity ; but they 
 who have not been baptised in the name of the Trinity 
 ought to be rebaptised, because such a baptism is not 
 true." 
 
 The second council of Aries'^ [a.d. 452], canon 
 17, says, " the Bonosiaci, who baptise, as well as the 
 Arians, in the name of the Trinity ; it is sufficient to 
 admit them into the Church by chrism and imposition 
 of hands." 
 
 St. Gregory,^ about the latter end of the sixth 
 
 [' Bingham, Scholast. Hist, parti, c. xx. p. 71, supplies this 
 passage. Gennadius de Eccles. Dograat. c. 53. Si qui apud 
 illos hsereticos baptizati sunt, qui in Sanctae Trinitatis confes- 
 sione baptizant, et veniant ad nos, recipiantur quidam ut 
 baptizati.] 
 
 [^ Labbe, iv. 1013. Bonosiacos autem, ex eodem errore 
 venientes, quos sicut Arianos, baptizare in Trinitate mani- 
 festum est, si interrogati fidem nostram ex toto corde con- 
 fess! fuerint, cum chrismate et manus impositione in ecclesia 
 recipi sufficit. This canon is referred to the seventh canon of 
 the council of Constantinople, v. s.] 
 
 [^ S. Gregorius (Labbe, v. 1474. lib. ix.) epistol. 61. 
 Quirino episcopo et cseteris in Hibemia catholicis. — Hi vero 
 hseretici, qui in Trinitatis nomine minime baptizantur, sicut 
 sunt Bonosiaci et Cataphrygse, quia et illi Christum Dominum 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CXIU 
 
 century [a.d. 596], speaking about the return of 
 several sorts of heretics into the Church, says, " that 
 they are baptised when they re-enter into the Church; 
 the baptism which they have received not being true, 
 since it was not given in the name of the Trinity, 
 When it is uncertain whether a person has been bap- 
 tised or confirmed, we must baptise or confirm them, 
 rather than suffer them to perish in this doubt." 
 
 Gregory 11.,^ a httle after, anno 700, in his de- 
 cretal epistle, answering several questions put to him 
 by Boniface, article 8, forbids to rebaptise those who 
 have been once baptised in the name of the Trinity, 
 although it were by a wicked priest. 
 
 non credunt — cum ad sanctam ecclesiam veniunt, baptizantur ; 
 quia baptisma non fuit, quod in errore positi in sanctae Trini- 
 tatis nomine minime perceperunt. 
 
 Item (Labbe, v. 1580. lib. xii.), epistol. 32. ad Felicera. 
 Quotiens de baptismo aliquorum vel confirmatione — dubitatio 
 habetur — baptizentur tales aut confirmentur — ne talis dubi- 
 tatio ruina fidelibus fiat. 
 
 It is worthy of notice, that the Bonosiaci are expressly 
 ordered to be baptised by Gregory, who in the same epistle 
 had directed the Arians to be received only by imposition of 
 hands or chrism. In the council of Aries, cited in the previous 
 note, neither Arians or Bonosiaci were to be baptised.] 
 
 [^ Labbe, vi. 1448. Enimvero quodam, absque interrogatione 
 symboli, ab adulteris et indignis presbyteris fassus es baptizatos. 
 In his tua dilectio teneat antiquum morem ecclesiae : quia quis- 
 quis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti baptizatus est, 
 rebaptizari eum minime licet. Non enim in nomine baptizantis, 
 sed in nomine Trinitatis, hujus gratiae donum pcrcipiunt. Tlie 
 date assigned by Laurence to this epistle of Gregory II. is 
 
 1 2 
 
CXIV PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 Gregory III.^ orders that they shall be baptised 
 again in the name of the Trinity, who have been bap- 
 tised by heathens ; and also that those shall be re- 
 baptised who have been baptised by a priest that hath 
 sacrificed to Jupiter, or eaten meat offered to idols. 
 
 Thus far, I think, may suffice to have collected 
 what has been said about rebaptisation. 
 
 And I should not have given myself or the reader 
 the trouble of this account of men's various judgments 
 and opinions in this case, were it not that I expected 
 to hear from some that I had wholly neglected to 
 search into antiquity concerning the sense of the pri- 
 mitive fathers about it. To obviate which objection, 
 and because I have been told that it " becomes me to 
 rest satisfied in the determinations of the Christian 
 Church about this matter," I thought it not amiss to 
 inquire into them thus far ; to the intent that I might 
 see whether I could procure any well-grounded satis- 
 faction from their authority : and, indeed, I must ac- 
 knowledge, that if this had been a thing indifferent 
 in its own nature, and not determined by the word of 
 
 wrong: he was elected pope a.d. 7lo, and the decretal was 
 sent to Boniface after his mission into Germany, a.d. 726.] 
 
 \} Labbe, vi. 1468. I. Decret. epist. ad eundem Bonifa- 
 cium, A.D. 731. cap. i. Eosdem quos a paganis baptizatos esse 
 aperuisti, si ita habetur, ut denuo baptizes in nomine sanctae 
 Trinitatis mandamus. Item, cap. v. Eos etiam qui se dubitant 
 fuisse baptizatos, vel quia a presbytero Jovi mactante et carnes 
 immolatitias vescente baptizati sunt, ut rebaptizentur prse- 
 cipimus.] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CXV 
 
 God, but left to the wisdom and prudence of the 
 Church to decree as she should think convenient and 
 necessary, I ought to have acquiesced with her deter- 
 minations, if she had in general council made any 
 about unauthorised and anti-episcopal baptisms, which 
 in truth she has not ; nor any provincial council nei- 
 ther, as is plain by the foregoing collection. 
 
 The Church of Rome ^ has indeed assumed to her- 
 
 P Bingham, part i. c. xxiv. p. 92, produces Rituale Ro- 
 manum [Rom. 1816, p. 11]. Infans aut adultus quoties ver- 
 satur in vitse periculo, potest sine solemnitate a quocunque 
 baptizari in qualibet lingua, sive clerico, sive laico etiam ex- 
 communicato, sive fideli, sive infideli, sive catholico, sive haere- 
 tico, sive viro, sive femina ; servata tamen forma et intentione 
 ecclesiee. 
 
 Papa Nicholas, ad consulta Bulgarorum, cap. 104. A 
 quodam Judaeo, nescitis utrum Christiano an pagano, multos 
 in patria vestra baptizatos aperitis, et quid de iis sit agendum 
 consulitis. Hi profecto, si in nomine sanctse Trinitatis, vel 
 tantum in Christi nomine, sicut in Actis Apostolorum legimus, 
 baptizati sunt (unum quippe idemque est, ut sanctus exponit 
 Ambrosius), constat eos non esse denuo baptizandos. 
 
 Papa Eugenius, Decret. ad Armenos. In causa necessi- 
 tatis, non solum sacerdos vel diaconus, sed etiam laicus vel 
 mulier, immo etiam paganus et hsereticus, baptizare potest, 
 dummodo formam servet ecclesise. 
 
 (Has not Mr. Newman, in a recent work, expressed the 
 practice of the Roman Church incorrectly, when he says, 
 " We admit her baptism and her orders : her custom is to re- 
 baptise and re-ordain our members who chance to join her ?" 
 On the Prophetical Office of the Church, p 253.) 
 
 Yorhes, Listructiones Historico-Theologico', X 13. Ponti- 
 ficii, scholasticos doctores scquuti et Florentini concilii auctori- 
 
CXVl PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 self a pretended power of declaring all baptisms in or 
 w^th water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost, by whomsoever administered, 
 whether by a woman or layman, heretic or orthodox, 
 communicant or schismatic, of what sort soever, to 
 be good and valid. But this her determination ought 
 
 tatem, permittunt non solum diacono baptizare, absente vel 
 jubente sacerdote, sed etiam laicis baptizatis, imo non bapti- 
 zatis, ipsisque adeo Judaeis et paganis, imo etiam quibuscunque 
 mulieribus fas esse pronunciant baptizare sine solennibus cere- 
 moniis in casu necessitatis : hoc servato ordine, ut muUer, si 
 vir adsit qui ritum sciat et hujus sacramenti conficiendi peri- 
 tus sit, aut laicus prsesente clerico, clericus coram sacerdote, 
 non baptizet. 
 
 The scriptural argument of the Romanists is : 1 . From the 
 case of Zipporah : but it is rephed, that she circumcised her 
 child in Moses' presence, contrary to the Roman rule. 2. From 
 that of the three thousand baptised by the apostles ; a number 
 too large, they argue, for apostles alone to baptise : to which 
 Forbes answers, that Fr. Xavier is said by the Romanists to 
 have baptised 15,000 in one day ; and that the deacons, who 
 were not laymen, might have assisted. 3. That of Ananias : 
 but he had an express revelation to baptise Saul. 4. And that 
 of Philip : but he was an evangehst and deacon, and had also 
 an express command to baptise the eunuch. 
 
 Catechism. Trident, pars ii. c. ii. qusestio 23. Extremus 
 ordo [ministrorum] est, qui, cogente necessitate, sine solenni- 
 bus ceremoniis baptizare possunt : quo in numero sunt omnes, 
 etiam de populo, sive mares sive feminse, quamcunque illi sec- 
 tam profiteantur. Nam et Judseis quoque, et infidelibus et 
 hsereticis, quum necessitas cogit, hoc munus permissum est ; 
 si tamen id efficere propositum eis fuerit, quod ecclesia catho- 
 lica in eo administrationis genere efficit.] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CXVil 
 
 to be brought to the test, and weighed in the balance 
 of the sanctuary. 
 
 Baptism, and all things essential thereto, are fun- 
 damentals of Christianity ; it is, in the apostle's style, 
 a principle of the doctrine of Christ ;^ it is a positive 
 institution made by God Himself; and the holy Sciip- 
 tures are clear enough for the determination of all the 
 necessaries thereof, as well as of all other fundamental 
 points of our religion : and therefore the decrees of 
 fathers and councils have no more weight vdth me in 
 this matter of lay baptism, than what they receive 
 from their conformity to those divine oracles, which 
 are the only original rule of our faith and practice in 
 fundamentals, as all sound Protestants have affirmed. 
 
 If any shall ask me, who must be judge between 
 you and the councils ? I answer, the same that must 
 be judge between the contradictious canons of differ- 
 ent councils ; the same that must be judge between 
 me and a council that commands me to worship saints 
 and angels, &c. Now who this is upon earth I can- 
 not tell : a living infallible judge we have none ; and 
 therefore I must look for a rule or guide, i. e. the 
 holy Scripture : and if the councils and I differ about 
 this rule, I must have recourse to the best Bud. purest 
 ages of Christianity, and see what the apostolic fathers 
 and the councils next after them understood by that 
 rule. After all, I must be allowed a judgment of dis- 
 cretion for myself, in conjunction with these, and a 
 just deference to the canons of that particular Church 
 \} Heb. vi. 2.] 
 
CXVm PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 whereof I am, or ought to be, a member ; and by all 
 these methods I am brought to conclude for myself, 
 that lay baptism, by one in opposition to the Church, 
 can never be good and valid. 
 
 It is by this rule that I reckon the councils of 
 Carthage, Iconium, and Synnada, together with the 
 customs of the Asiatic and African churches, confirm- 
 ing St. Cyprian's doctrine, have as much, if not more, 
 authority to sway my judgment in the matter of here- 
 tical and schismatical baptisms, as the council of Aries, 
 and the after- determinations of other councils and 
 fathers : for these latter can pretend to no more divine 
 authority than the former, and it may be, upon a just 
 examination, will be found to have much less ; though 
 I have no need to dwell upon this, because my pro- 
 vince is only confined to lay, i. e. unauthorised, bap- 
 tism, such as is performed by persons who never were 
 authorised for that purpose ; who act in direct oppo- 
 sition to that order of men who are empowered by 
 Christ to authorise others to baptise. Against such 
 baptisers I have produced several testimonies from 
 the purest times ; and the adversary can bring forth 
 in their behalf not one council, either general or pro- 
 vincial, till the corrupt ones of the Church of Rome. 
 
 I am very well satisfied that there is but one true 
 Christian baptism, which ought not to be repeated 
 upon those who have received it. I find myself under 
 an impossibility to believe that this one baptism is 
 any other than what Christ Himself instituted just 
 before His ascension into heaven. I reckon an essen- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CXlX 
 
 tial part of this institution — and I humbly hope in 
 the sequel of this discourse to prove it — to be the 
 divine authority of the administrator, as well as the 
 water and the form of administration. 
 
 1 cannot be satisfied that the person who is said 
 to have baptised me ever had this authority ; nay, I 
 am fully convinced of the contrary, and also that he 
 was actually in opposition to it ; and though his 
 meaning were never so good, yet I cannot think God 
 concurred with such an usurpation, when it was done 
 without any necessity at all, in a Christian country, 
 where truly authorised ministers might have been had 
 w4th as much, if not greater, ease and speed than he. 
 For which reasons I find no solid foundation for be- 
 lieving that I have received this one baptism, especially 
 since I myself should with great reason have refused 
 his administration, as it would have been my duty, if 
 I had been put to my own free choice, which it is 
 certain I could not then, being but an infant. I doubt 
 not but some will say, " that I need not concern my- 
 self so much about that which I had no hand in, and 
 wherein I was wholly passive ; if there was any fault 
 in such my baptism, it was none of mine, but theirs 
 who had the care of me." To whom I return this short 
 answer : that the parent's, or godfather's and god- 
 mother's, act and deed is interpretatively the child's, 
 and he must make it reall)'^ his own when he comes 
 to years by taking it upon himself; so that, if then 
 he owns their sinful act, knowing it to be such, he 
 makes himself //ar/a^er with them in the sin. 
 
CXX PRELIMINARY DISCOURSK ON THE 
 
 But to return once more to the dispute in St. 
 Cyprian's time, and the decrees then and since made 
 about it ; I canuot dissemble my thoughts that the 
 arguments and determinations against his doctrine 
 and practice have nothing of that reason and soUdity 
 which an inquisitive person might justly expect in 
 them ; and that, on the contrary, St. Cyprian and 
 his colleagues defend their assertion, " that the bap- 
 tisms of heretics and schismatics are invalid," with so 
 much judgment and cogency of argument, founded 
 upon the topic of such heretics and schismatics being 
 destitute of holy orders while they were out of the 
 Church of Christ, that I wonder how it could possibly 
 have come to pass that their doctrine should be after- 
 wards exploded ; especially when I consider that what 
 they taught and practised herein was confirmed by 
 numerous councils in those earlier days, wherein truth 
 was more prevalent than afterwards -} and Tertullian 
 long before affirmed the same thing,^ " that baptism 
 
 [' Bingham, part i. Appendix, p. 135.] 
 
 [* Tertullian de Baptismo, c. xv. pp. 262, 263. ed. Rigalt. 
 Hgeretici autem nullum habent consortium nostras disciplinae, 
 quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. 
 Non debeo in illis agnoscere quod mihi est prseceptum, quia 
 nee idem Deus est nobis et illis, nee unus Christus, id est 
 idem baptismus unus, quern, quum rite non habeant, sine du- 
 bio non habent [haeretici]. C. xvii. Dandi quidem habet jus 
 summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus. Dehinc presbyteri et dia- 
 coni : non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate, propter ecclesige 
 honorem ; quo salvo, salva pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus 
 est ; quo J enim ex cequo accipitur, ex aequo dari potest. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CXXl 
 
 is reserved to the bishop ; heretics are not able to 
 give it, because they have it not ; and therefore it is 
 that we have a rule to rebaptise them." 
 
 De Pudicitia, c. xix. p. 739. ed. Rigalt. Cui enim dubium 
 est, haereticum institutione deceptum, cognito postmodum 
 casu, et pceaitentia expiata, et veniam consequi, et in ecclesiam 
 redigi ? Unde et apud nos, ut ethnico par, rursus et super eth- 
 nicum haereticus etiam per baptisma veritatis utroque nomme 
 purgatus admittitur. 
 
 Upon this celebrated passage {De Baptismo, c. xvii.), the 
 Bishop of Lincoln {Ecclesiastical History illustrated from 
 Tertullian, p. 353) remarks, ** Our author's reasoning clearly 
 proves his opinion to have been, that this latent power, if it 
 may be so termed, was only to be called into actual exercise in 
 cases of necessity. Laymen, who in the present day take upon 
 themselves to administer the rite of baptism, in cases in which 
 the attendance of a regularly ordained minister can be pro- 
 cured, must not appeal to the authority of Tertullian in defence 
 of their rash assumption of the sacred office." And (p. 446) 
 he adds, that Waterland {Second Letter to Kelsall) has, with 
 Bennet {Rights of the Clergy), mistranslated the clause prop- 
 ter ecclesice honorem, in rendering it, " next to the bishop, the 
 priests and deacons, but not without the authority of the bishop, 
 became of their honourable post in the Churchy in preserva- 
 tion of which peace is preserved." Bishop Kaye proposes : 
 "After the bishop, the priests and deacons, but not without his 
 authority, out of regard to the honour or dignity of the Church.' ' 
 And p. 228 : " We are very far from meaning to defend the 
 soundness of TertuUian's argument in this passage. We quote 
 it because it is one of those passages which have been brought 
 forward to prove that he did not recognise the distinction be- 
 tween the clergy and laity ; whereas a directly opposite infer- 
 ence ought to be drawn. He limits the right of the laity to 
 exercise the ministerial functions to extraordinary cases, — to 
 
 m 
 
CXXll TRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 Here TertuUian talks of a rule to baptise such 
 persons ; which plainly shews that he is not speaking 
 so much of his own private opinion as of the law and 
 practice of the Church. This is his relation of matter 
 of fact, and as such to be received for a testimony of 
 the Church's opinion concerning the baptism of here- 
 tics in his days. But his strange odd notions, in his 
 Exhortation to Chastity ^ and his book Of Baptism, 
 " that laics are priests, because it is written, Christ 
 hath made us kings and priests unto God and His 
 Father ^'^ that when three are gathered together, 
 although they be laics, they make a Church ; and 
 that laymen may baptise in case of necessity and 
 absence of a priest, — these appear to be only his own 
 particular sentiments, and he cannot be called a wit- 
 ness of the Church's custom and allowance in these 
 
 cases of necessity. Were they to assume it in ordinary cases, 
 they would be guilty of an act of criminal presumption, as he 
 indirectly asserts in the tract De Monogamia, where he pur- 
 sues the very same train of reasoning in refutation of the same 
 objection.^' The passage is c. xii, Sed quum excolimur et 
 infiamur adversus clericum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc 
 omnes sacerdotes, quia sacer dotes nos Deo et Patri fecit. '\ 
 
 \} De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. vii. p. 668. ed. Rigalt. 
 Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus ? Scriptum est, Regnum quo- 
 que nos et sacerdotes Deo et Patri Suo fecit. Differentiam 
 inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiae auctoritas, et honor 
 per ordinis consessum sanctificatur. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici or- 
 dinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi 
 solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici : igitur si habes jus 
 sacerdotis in temetipso ubi necesse est, habeas oportet etiam 
 disciplinam sacerdotis.] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CXXIU 
 
 things ; for he talks of no rule, no law, of the Church 
 relating to them, as he does when he speaks of the 
 baptism of heretics, by saying, we have a rule to re- 
 baptise them : and it is certain that no Church till 
 the fourth century can be produced to have any rule 
 for the allowance of lay baptism, and then none but 
 the council of EUberis, which I have before observed 
 and remarked on (p. xcv.). On the contrary, against 
 lay baptism we have the testimonies of St. Basil, St. 
 Chrysostom, and the Catholics disputing with the 
 Luciferians in the same century, which is more than 
 a balance against TertuUian's private opinion con- 
 cerning such baptism, &c. But to go still further 
 backward to the days wherein some of the apostles 
 might be stiU li\dng, St. Ignatius,^ a glorious mar- 
 tyr, and bishop of Antioch, a.d. 71, in his epistle to 
 the Smyrneans, says, " Let that sacrament be judged 
 
 \} Ignatius ad Smi/rnceos, c. viii. p. 414. ed. Jacobson. 
 MTjSels x<^P'5 ''■ow iTTiaKSirov n irpacrcreTfa tcov av7]K6vT(cu els t^v 
 iKKKriaiav. 'EKeivr] fiefiaia ei'xapto'Tia riyeiaOo) 7] virh rhu iiri- 
 CKOTTov ovaa, ^ ^ hu ai/rhs iTrirp€\pr). "Ottov &r (pai^'p 6 iiricTKoiros, 
 iK^L rh TrXrjOos etTTCo, Ibcnvep ottov av y Xpicrrhs 'l7]<rovs, e/ce? rj 
 KadoAiKT) iKK\-q(Tla. OiiK i^6v iari xwpls rod iiriaKS-rrov otjt€ 
 fiaTTTi^eiv, ovTe aydirrjv iroieiv' aXA' h iiv iKeTvos ZoKiixacrri, tovto' 
 Kal T^ Qecf eudpearoVi "v aacpaXes ■p /cat fie^aiov ttuv h irpdaaerai. 
 
 Upon which passage Bingham (p. 137) argues, that though 
 Ignatius says it is unsafe and unlawful to baptise in opposition 
 to the bishop's authority and order, " which no man who has 
 a due respect to the authority of the episcopal function will 
 deny," he does not say that such baptisms were simply inva- 
 lid, and to be repeated.] 
 
CXXIV PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE 
 
 effectual and firm, which is dispensed by the bishop, 
 or him to whom the bishop has committed it. It is 
 not lawful without the bishop either to baptise or cele- 
 brate the offices ; but what he approves of, accord- 
 ing to the good pleasure of God, that is firm and safe, 
 and so we do every thing securely. " 
 
 This is so exactly agreeable to St. Cyprian's doc- 
 trine, that it is no wonder he adhered to it all the 
 days of his life ; and it seems to me, that nothing 
 could have given credit and reputation to the contrary 
 opinion, but the monstrous increase of heresy and 
 schism afterwards ; which, together with many other 
 causes concurring, brought into the Church of Rome, 
 and the rest of the western Churches, whom she had 
 subjected to her vassalage, abundance of damnable 
 doctrines and practices, insomuch that at last there 
 was but little of solid and substantial religion to be 
 found in the churches of her communion. And it is 
 very observable, that even among some of us who 
 have reformed from her errors, there is too, too much 
 of her leaven still remaining ; for one of her very great 
 and peculiar corruptions, in the matter of lay baptism 
 and midvvives' baptism, is still espoused by too many 
 who ought to oppose it : and not only so, but rather 
 than part with it, they will swallow another of her 
 errors too, and assert the absolute necessity of bap- 
 tism to all ; and, what is worse than popery itself, 
 affirm that the want of it peoples hell ^^'ith many mil- 
 lions ; as the author of a book,^ falsely intituled. The 
 
 [' Bishop Fleetwood.] 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CXXV 
 
 Judgment of the Church of England in the case of 
 Lay Baptism and of Dissenters' Baptism, has clone. 
 And what is the most astonishing of all is, that they 
 who oppose the popish doctrine before spoken of are 
 called promoters oi popery, particularly by the Bishop 
 of Sarum,^ just as the Church's best friends are called 
 her greatest enemies : but it is easy from hence to 
 discover who they are that would introduce and estab- 
 lish j^opery among us. 
 
 And now, after all that has been said, I declare 
 that it is not my design to meddle with the Cyprianic 
 dispute in this discourse; my business is not to in- 
 quire whether those who were once duly authorised, 
 and afterwards fall into heresy or schism, and thereby 
 separate themselves, or are excluded from the Church, 
 can administer valid sacraments and ordinations during 
 this their separation : no, I shall not so much as 
 touch upon this at all, because I do not think my 
 case affected by it. All that I need concern myself 
 about is, whether those who act in opposition to the 
 acknowledged and duly authorised ministers of Christ, 
 and who themselves were never duly authorised, can 
 administer truly valid baptism, and whether the re- 
 ceivers of those baptisms can safely rest satisfied with 
 them, especially when they know of this want of 
 power and authority in the administrator. Tliis is 
 my case, and this is all that I concern myself about. 
 
 And therefore I wrote the following essay in a 
 mathematical method of definition, axiom, and propo- 
 P Burnet. Vide infra.] 
 m 2 
 
CXXVl PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE, ETC. 
 
 sition, for the information of my own judgment in this 
 great affair. It was not at first designed for public 
 view ; but finding others have been, and, it may be, still 
 do labour under the same circumstances with myself, 
 I thought it might not be unacceptable to them : and 
 if they shall reap any benefit thereby, or if some abler 
 pen will undertake to mend my faults by letting the 
 world see something more correct and exact for that 
 purpose, the only motive of my writing, I shall obtain 
 my end, which, God be praised, is not mixed with 
 any alloy of worldly gain or desire of human applause 
 for this undertaking. 
 
 As for cavilling and disputing, it is not my design 
 to concern myself and lose my precious time in such 
 endless impertinences. If any one wiU candidly shew 
 me my errors, I shall heartily thank him for so doing ; 
 but I declare beforehand, that no less than such de- 
 monstration as the nature of the thing will bear can 
 ever go down with me for conviction. I am not to 
 be put off with the authority of any great names, 
 separate from Scripture and the consentient doctrine 
 and practice of the primitive Church ; for this has 
 caused too much error in the world already, and it is 
 high time now to reform from it. 
 
 London, 22d of October, 1722. 
 
^ppettOix to i'^t prdimmar^ liiscourse. 
 
 The following additional authorities from the primi- 
 tive Church may not be out of place. 
 
 Laurence {Sacerdotal Powers, p. 91), in answer to 
 Bishop Burnet, after quoting the passage from Ignatius 
 to the Smyrneans [p. 45], adds, " As the Lord did no- 
 thing without the Father, being united to Him, neither 
 by Himself nor yet by His apostles, so neither do ye 
 do any thing without your bishop and presbyters ; 
 neither endeavour to let any thing appear rational to 
 yourselves apart." St. Ignatius to the Magnesians, 
 ch. 7. 
 
 ["I2(T7r€p oxfv 6 KvpiOQ aviv tov TiarpoQ ovhev e-rroir]- 
 (TEV, r]V(i)fxivoQ u)V, ovre ^t' tavTOV^ ovte dia rwv aTro- 
 OToXwv, ovrojg jjirjde vjuLeig avev tov tTnaKoivov Kai tu)V 
 Trpecrf^vTepioy fXTj^ey Trpaatrere' fitj^e TreipafTrjre ei/Xoyov 
 Ti (f>aire(7dai idi<^ vjxiv. — p. 308. ed. Jacobson.] 
 
 Laurence, Lay Baptism invalid, part ii. ch. 3, p. 
 35. St. Ignatius affirms : " Without bishops, priests, 
 and deacons, there is no Church ; " and that " he 
 is without who does any thing without the bishops, 
 and presbyters, and deacons ;" [Ignat. ad Trail. 3. 
 
CXXVm APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 OjJioiojg TvavTtQ evrpeTricrdujtTav tovq diaKovovQ — Kai 
 Toy tTriaKoirov — rovg ^e TrpEffljvrepovg — X'^P^^ tovtiov 
 tKK\r](jia oh tcaXeirat. It. 7. 6 evtoq 6v(7ta(TTr]piov Sjv 
 Kadapog kariv — 6 \(t}piQ eTTirrKOTOv koX 7rpea(3vTepiov 
 Koi dLUKovov irpaaaiov ri, ovtoq oh Kadapog kariv rrj avv- 
 ELZiiaeC] ; and the passage quoted before : *' It is not 
 lawful without the bishop to baptise." Two things 
 to be inquired. First, what he means, "without the 
 bishop ?" Not the bishop personally in every case, 
 but with episcopal authority. Second, what does 
 Ignatius refer to, when he says it is not lawful ? Not 
 lawful in regard to the laws of God and His Church ; 
 for laics attempting such ministrations would be 
 " no Church." Sacraments are only in the Church ; 
 therefore their pretended baptism would be null ipso 
 facto. 
 
 But are not extraordinary cases to be excepted .'* 
 St. Ignatius makes no exceptions ; his words are ge- 
 neral. If there be any reason for such exception, it 
 must be either in the law of nature — which it is not, 
 because baptism is not a matter of natural law — or 
 in the revealed law — and in it no such exception has 
 been produced. 
 
 Laurence, ibid. p. 38. 
 
 St. Hermas, who was contemporary with St. Paul, 
 though he had so strict an opinion of the necessity of 
 baptism,^ that he reckoned the righteous men of old, 
 
 \} Hermas, Pastor, iii. n. i. Vita vestra per aquam salva 
 fdcta est.] 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. CXXIX 
 
 who had died before the coming of Christ, stood in 
 need of Christian baptism even in their separate state ; 
 yet to supply this their necessity, none are mentioned 
 by him to have gone to them to give them baptism 
 but " the apostles and doctors of the preaching of 
 the Son of God ;"^ " the apostles and teachers w^ho 
 preached the name of the Son of God;" men who had 
 Christ's and the apostles' commission to minister in 
 holy things. Not the least hint of any who never 
 were commissioned to baptise, that went to supply 
 their want of baptism. 
 
 Laurence, Lay Baptism invalid, part ii. p. 97. 
 Hilary, the deacon of Rome, who is most reasonably 
 supposed to be the author of the comments on the 
 Epistles of St. Paul, bearing the name of St. Am- 
 brose, says, concerning the churches of his time 
 (and this, being written fifty years only after the 
 council of Eliberis, shews how little notice was taken 
 of its canon), " Now . . . neither the inferior clergy 
 nor laymen are allowed to baptise. "^ The inferior 
 clergy were but laymen, being inferior to deacons, 
 and having no spiritual power conferred on them. 
 And the testimony of the pseudo-Ambrosius is valu- 
 
 [' Similitud. m. xvi. Necesse est ut per aquam habent as- 
 cendere, ut requiescant, non poterunt enim aliter in regnum Dei 
 intrare ... hi apostoli et doctores, qui prsedicaverunt nomen 
 Filii Dei, dederunt eis illud signum.] 
 
 p Nunc neque diaconi in populis prsedicant, neque clerici 
 neque laici baptizant. — Com. in Ephes. iv. p. 948.] 
 
CXXX APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 able, as to this fact of the practice in his time ; al- 
 though his judgment is to be rejected when he thinks 
 (as Bingham, p. 15, quotes him,') that the apostles 
 gave a general commission to all the faithful to preach 
 and baptise. 
 
 Waterland {Second Letter to Kelsall, p. 133) takes 
 the same distinction between this author's testimony 
 to the practice of his own days, and his theory upon 
 the practice of the apostles. 
 
 Laurence, Lay Baptism invalid, part ii. p. 117. 
 About the latter part of the fourth, or beginning of 
 the fifth century, appeared the Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions, as Bishop Pearson and Dr. Grabe inform us. 
 These Constitutions, though in doctrine they have 
 been interpolated by heretics, yet in matters of dis- 
 cipHne inform us of several things highly worthy of 
 our observation ; among which, this of the invalidity 
 of pretended baptism, performed by persons who were 
 never commissioned to baptise, is very remarkable. 
 '• It is an horrible thing for a man to thrust himself 
 into the priest's dignity or office, as the Korahites, 
 Saul, and Uzziah did. As it was not lawful for a 
 stranger, that was not of the tribe of Levi, to offer 
 any thing, or approach the altar without a priest, so 
 do ye nothing without the bishop. For if any man 
 does any thing without the bishop, he does it in vain ; 
 
 \} Ut cresceret plebs et multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia 
 concessum est evangelizare, et baptizare, et Scripturas in ecclesia 
 explaiiare. — Ibid. ] 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. CXXXI 
 
 it shall not be reputed to him as any service. As 
 Saul, when he had offered sacrifice without Samuel, 
 was told that he had done vanity, so whatever layman 
 does any thing without a priest, he labours in vain. 
 And as king Uzziah, when he had invaded the priest's 
 oflfice, was smitten with leprosy for his transgression, 
 so every layman shall bear his punishment, that con- 
 temns God and insults His priests, and takes honour to 
 himself; not imitating Christ, who glorified not Him- 
 self, but stayed till His Father said, Thou art a Priest 
 for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." 
 
 Bingham, from whom this translation is taken, 
 acknowledges (Schol. Hist, part i. p. 46), that this 
 passage " seems to pronounce severely of usurped and 
 unauthorised actions, as utterly null and void :" but it 
 is plain that it does more than seem to pronounce so ; 
 it does really say they are done in vain. " Whatever 
 layman does any thing without a priest, he labours 
 in vain," and therefore his action is utterly null and 
 void. 
 
 [Const. Apost. ii. 27. Labbe, i. 264. "On (ppitcw- 
 deg ayOpcjiroy areavrop eTripptTTTEiv a^cwfiarl rii'i lepa- 
 TiK^' u)Q 01 Kope'iTai, wq SaowX, we 'O^iag. '^g ovk r]v 
 k^ov aXXoyeyfj fx^ ovra Aevirrjv TrpoaiveyKai ti, t) irpoa- 
 eXBeiy elg to QvcnacTTripiov avev rov lepiujg, ovru) kul 
 vfxeig dvev rov tTriffKonov firj^iv ttouIti. Ei Bi tiq 
 ayev rov ztzlctkottov Trotel ri, elg ixarrjv Troiil avro' oh 
 yap avr&J elg 'inyov \oyi(TQi](T£rai. 'i2c yap 6 2aot\ 
 uvev Tov ^aiJiov))X TTpoaeveyKag, iJKOvaey on fitfJiaTa'no' 
 rat (TOiy ovna kul irdg XdiKog ayev rov lepedjg eTrireXivy 
 
CXXXU APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 Tif fiaraia Troiel' koi. wg ^Oi^iag 6 jGaciXeve ovk wv 
 tepevQ TO. T&v lepeojv STrLTeXioi' e\t7rpu)dr] ^la Trapavo- 
 fiiay, ovT(i) teal Trdg XaiKog ovk ari^ujprjTOQ iarai, Kara- 
 <j)pov7]crag Qeov, koi tiov avrov Karanaveig lepiiorj koI 
 Trfv TLfirfv apTTuffag eavru, fxi] fitfxrjcTCLfxtvog XpLarop, og 
 ov)^ eavTOV eho^aore yevrjOfjvaL apyitpia^ aXXa Trepii- 
 jjieLPev cLKOvtrai rov Ilarpog' "Qi^octe Kvpiog, Kal ov fxera- 
 fXE\r}Qr]aeTai' av Upevg elg rbv alCjva Kara rrjy tcl^lv 
 
 M.E\yi(TE})iK.~\ 
 
 Waterland, Second Letter to Kelsall, p. 142. All 
 I observe from hence is, that no exception or proviso 
 is made for cases of necessity : the prohibition is 
 general and full. (And he adds another passage. 
 Apost. Const, iii. 10 : " We suffer not laics to usurp 
 any of the sacerdotal offices, as the eucharist, bap- 
 tism, imposition of hands, &c. ; for no man taketh 
 upon him this honour, but he that is called of God. 
 For this dignity is given by the imposition of hands 
 of the bishop. But w^hosoever hath it not by com- 
 mission, but seizes it to himself, shall bear the pun- 
 ishment of Ozias.") The first quotation seems directly 
 to make lay baptism invalid ; the other is clear for 
 the unlaw^fulness of it. 
 
 Laurence, Lay Baptism invalid, part ii. p. 33. 
 In favour of lay baptism Bingham can produce no 
 testimonies from the apostles or their contemporaries ; 
 nor from the apostolic fathers, who next succeeded 
 them ; nor, lastly, from any of the ancients who 
 lived before TertuUian. So that for about the first 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. CXXXlU 
 
 two hundred years of Christianity we hear nothing of 
 lay baptisms being administered, nor of any thing 
 in favour of them, either directly or indirectly. A 
 strange and long silence this, in a matter which is 
 pretended to be the " general practice of the Church." 
 What would the adversaries of episcopacy say, if an- 
 tiquity had been so long silent about the power and 
 authority of bishops ? And then, by what rule should 
 we have been determined of the jus divinnm of epis- 
 copacy, if Scripture, and the writings of the ancients 
 for about the first two hundred years of Christianity, 
 had been so absolutely silent about it, as they are 
 about the validity of lay baptism ? 
 
 Bingham produces several authorities from the 
 Fathers and early Church, which are met by Lau- 
 rence as follows : 
 
 1. Bingham (p. 33) first argues from the passage 
 in TertuUian already cited (De Baptismo, c. 17), to 
 which Dodwell had objected, that it only expressed 
 his private opinion, and not catholic practice : and 
 Laurence adds (part ii. p. 40), that the term alio- 
 quin is antithetical to propter ecclesice honor em ; the 
 Church's law and the bishop's authority on the one 
 hand, but, supposing these not to exist, an inherent 
 right in Christians to discharge these functions on the 
 other. He maintains the distinction between what 
 was TertulHan's view of the abstract point, and the 
 practice of the Church ; which elsewhere he speaks 
 of: as, DePud. c. 19 : " We have a rule to rebaptise 
 
 n 
 
CXXXIV APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 them." [Of the value of Tertullian's reasons, the 
 Bishop of Lincoln's opinion may be seen at p. 154.] 
 And, lastly, from Tertullian's Pvlontanism, and his ex- 
 travagant opinions on many points, a clear distinction 
 must be kept between the value of his evidence as to 
 facts, and his views of doctrine or interpretations of 
 Scripture, which are utterly valueless, except so far 
 as they are confirmed by general consent. 
 
 Waterland, Second Letter to Kelsall, p. 107-115. 
 There is hardly a shadow of an argument to prove 
 that he here spoke the sense of the Church. The 
 words offers and tingis [see note, p. cxxii.] are to be 
 understood potentially, not indicatively . The phrase 
 adeo shews it to be an inference from this, not an 
 assertion of a matter of fact. One consideration must 
 satisfy on this head. TertuUian joins the adminis- 
 tration of the Lord's supper with that of baptism : if 
 he spoke the practice of the Church in one, he did so 
 in both ; which Mr. Kelsall will hardly say. That 
 the ancient Church ever permitted laymen to conse- 
 crate the eucharist, can never be supposed by any 
 man that knows any thing of Church-history ; and 
 yet Tertullian's words are as full and clear a proof 
 of that as of the practice of lay baptism. This is 
 demonstration that he spoke not the sense of the 
 Church, but his own. . . . Seeing that TertuUian has 
 but his own slender reasons to support him, I would 
 only observe — 
 
 1 . That he allows of lay baptism, but at the same 
 time is forced to suppose laymen to be priests, in order 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. CXXXV 
 
 to qualify them to baptise : so that in the main I 
 take him to be of my side of the question ; for if I 
 could prove that laymen are not proper priests, which 
 would be no hard matter, his own principles would 
 lead to my conclusion. 
 
 2. He founds his doctrine of lay baptisms upon 
 an inherent rite of priesthood in every Christian. 
 But Mr. Kelsall does not found it upon this ; and 
 therefore, while he rejects Tertullian's principles, he 
 ought not to allege his authority for the conclusion ; 
 because, if you disarm Tertullian of his premises, 
 you do at the same time make him disown the con- 
 clusion built upon them. 
 
 3. Tertullian allowed of lay baptism only in case 
 of necessity ; therefore his authority is not in favour 
 of dissenters' baptisms, which have no such plea. 
 
 4. Tertullian acknowledges that in all ordinary 
 cases the administration of baptism is appropriate to 
 the clergy, and condemns all lay baptism in such 
 cases, as irregular and sinful. Whether he would 
 have pronounced them invalid, does not certainly ap- 
 pear ; though it might be probably enough argued 
 that he would ; because it was his principle {De 
 Bapt. c. 15) [see note, p. cxxii.] to annul heretical 
 baptisms, and probably schismatical too (the same 
 general reasons aiFecting both), and such baptisms 
 would be schismatical. It is therefore reasonable to 
 believe that he must have pronounced dissenters' 
 baptisms (such as among us) null and void. There- 
 
CXXXVl APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 fore if TertuUian were to speak home to the point in 
 debate, I am persuaded he would be on our side. 
 
 2. The council of EHberis (Bingham, p. 34) already 
 noticed. Upon which Laurence (part ii. p. 58, HI) 
 argues : 1 . That it was a small synod of nineteen 
 bishops only. 2. The fact of these Spanish bishops 
 publishing this canon at all, is destructive of Tertul- 
 lian's inherent right in the laity to baptise ; for if 
 they had the right, why commission some of them to 
 do it, and that only under certain limitations ? 
 
 Waterland (Second Letter to Kelsall, p. 126) ob- 
 serves, that nothing can be drawn in favour of dis- 
 senters' baptisms from this canon ; because, 1 . It 
 must be in a case of necessity, which dissenters can- 
 not plead. 2. The Spanish fathers thought autho- 
 rised lay baptisms valid ; which is not the present 
 question. 3. It does not appear that this was the 
 doctrine of the Catholic Church ; because if it had 
 been, there was no need of a particular canon to 
 allow it. 4. It was only a private synod ; and its 
 authority was never received in the western Church, 
 nor urged by any of the fathers who pleaded for the 
 validity of lay baptism. 
 
 3. The Church of Alexandria (Bingham, p. 36). 
 This is the famous instance of Athanasius' ludicrous 
 baptism. Ruffin ^ thus relates it : — "Alexander, bishop 
 
 [1 Ruffin. Hist, lib, i. c. 14. Tempore quo, apud Alex- 
 andriam, Petri Martyris diem Alexander episcopus agebat, 
 quum, post expleta solemnia, conventuros ad convivium secum 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. CXXXVU 
 
 of Alexandria, on a certain day, being the festival of 
 Peter the Martyr, after the solemn service of the 
 Church was over, was entertaining himself with a 
 prospect toward the sea, while he expected his clergy 
 to come and dine with him. In his prospect, at some 
 distance upon the sea-shore, he beheld a number of 
 youths at play, acting the part of a bishop, and doing 
 all things which were used to be done in the church ; 
 and viewing them intently for some time, he at last 
 saw them come to the secret and mystical rites of 
 religion ; upon which, being somewhat perplexed, he 
 sent immediately for his clergy, and shewed tliem 
 what he himself had seen ; ordering them withal to 
 
 clericos exspectaret in loco mari vicino, videt eminus puerorum 
 supra Oram maris ludum imitantium, ut fieri solet, episcopum, 
 atque ea quae in ecclesia geri mos est. Sed quum intentius 
 diutine pueros inspectaret, videt ab his geri qusedam etiam 
 secretiora et mystica. Perturbatus, illico vocari ad se clericos 
 jubet, atque eis, quid eminus ipse videret, ostendit. Turn 
 abire eos, et comprehensos ad se perducere omnes pueros im- 
 perat. Quumque adessent, quis eis Indus, et quid egissent, 
 vel quomodo, percunctatur. lUi, ut talis habet £etas, pavidi, 
 negare primo, deinde rem gestam per ordinem pandunt, et bap- 
 tizatos a se esse quosdam catechumenos confitentur per Athan- 
 asium, qui ludi illius puerilis episcopus fuerat simulatus. Tum 
 ille diligenter inquirens ab his qui baptizati dicebantur, quid 
 interrogati fuerint quidve responderint, simul et ab eo qui 
 interrogaverat ; ubi videt secundum religionis nostrae ritum 
 cuncta constare, conlocutus cum concilio clericorum, statuisse 
 traditur, illis quibus integris interrogationibus et responsioni- 
 bus aqua fuerit infusa, iterari baptismum non debere, sed adim- 
 pleri ea quee a sacerdotibus mos est.] 
 
 n 2 
 
CXXXVIU APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 go and bring the boys before him. Who being asked 
 what play they were at, and what they had done, and 
 after what manner ; they at first denied all the whole 
 matter, as children use to do, through fear ; but after- 
 wards they told every thing in order as it was done, 
 confessing that they had baptised certain catechu- 
 mens, by the hands of Athanasius, who acted the 
 part of the bishop in the play. Then examining 
 further of those who were said to be baptised, what 
 questions they were asked, and what answers they 
 made ; and being likewise informed by him who had 
 been the chief actor ; when he found that all things 
 had been done according to the rites of our religion. 
 After he had conferred with a council of his clergy, 
 he is said to have determined, that the baptism of 
 those on whom water had been poured, with the 
 proper interrogatories and responses, ought not to be 
 repeated, but only have those things added which the 
 priests were used to perform." 
 
 ITiis story Bingham defends by the authority of 
 Socrates and Sozomen, who also, he says, relate 
 it, the author of the life of Athanasius in Photius, 
 Johannes Moschus, and others. Though Spanheim 
 disbeheved it, archbishops Whitgift and Abbot, Cote- 
 lerius and Pagi defended it ; and Nicephorus Callistus 
 produced a parallel case at Constantinople. 
 
 Laurence (part ii. p. 64) replies : 1. That suppos- 
 ing the story to be true, the judgment was so far from 
 being that of the Church of Alexandria, that it was 
 only that of Alexander and the clergy dining with 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. CXXXIX 
 
 lilm. 2. That Ruffin is a writer of little accuracy 
 and credit. 3. That Sozomen merely quotes it from 
 Ruffin. 4. That Socrates, whose authority is higher 
 than that of Sozomen, although he refers to Ruffin, 
 omits all mention that the children baptised at all, 
 or that Alexander confirmed such baptisms, but sim- 
 - ply that he saw certain children playing at clergy- 
 men — that he took notice of them, and desired they 
 might be educated in the Church, and that Athana- 
 sius was the chief of them : and yet more, that Sozo- 
 men avows his intention of extracting from Ruffin 
 only what is true ; and the fact that he has omitted all 
 notice of the ludicrous baptism, is fair evidence that 
 he disbelieved this part of Ruffin's story. 5. That 
 the author in Photius is worthy of little credit, espe- 
 cially as he goes so far as to say that the children 
 were inspired divino quodam instinctu. 6. That Jo- 
 hannes Moschus was a Greek monk, in the seventh 
 century, of no credit whatsoever. 7. And the same 
 may be said of Nicephorus, in the fourteenth. 8. 
 That Dupin and Cave disbelieve it. 9. That, after 
 all, Ruffin only says of Alexander, statuisse iraditur. 
 Hickes {Letter to Laurence, p. 19) calls it " a 
 hearsay story;" quotes Sozomen, ii. 17, who says of 
 it $ASIN only ; and adds, that the Benedictine edi- 
 tors of Athanasius reject it. 
 
 4. Optatus, already examined [note ^ p. xciii.]. 
 
 5. St. Jerome ' (Bingham, p. 39) declares that in 
 cases of necessity laymen might baptise. 
 
 [' Dial, contra Lucifer, c. iv. Quod frequenter (si tameu 
 
CXl APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 And upon this Bingham objects to the doctrine of 
 Forbes, in the translation of which Laurence mistook 
 the minor proposition for the major (see Prel, Disc. 
 p. xcix.), and Reeves, who in his notes on Vincent of 
 Lerins had followed him. 
 
 Brett {Inquiry into the Judgment of the Church, 
 p. 30-40) impugns Bingham's statement; and Lau- 
 rence argues upon Jerome's inconsistency, p. 120-142 : 
 1. That Jerome grounds his doctrine not upon ca- 
 tholic practice, but only on TertuUian's axiom, that 
 " what a man has received he can give," which is 
 true neither in truth, reason, or religion ; (and he in- 
 stances the case of a freeman of a city, and asks, be- 
 cause he is free, can he make others free ?) : if true, 
 it would give the right to women, which TertuUian in- 
 consistently denies. 2. That Jerome's own reasoning 
 makes lay baptism invalid on catholic principles, and 
 gives the history of the Luciferians, p. 123. Lucifer, 
 bishop of Calaris, resolved to have no correspondence 
 with bishops who had received into communion such 
 as had signed Arian creeds. His followers insisted 
 that the orders of Arian bishops were null and void ; 
 and that upon their repentance they ought not to be 
 received into the clergy ; while at the same time they 
 received Arian laymen into communion, though they 
 had been baptised by Arian clergy, only by imposition 
 of hands. And St. Jerome, in the person of Ortho- 
 
 necessitas cogit) scimus etiam licere laicis. Ut enim accipit 
 quis, ita et dare potest.] 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. CxU 
 
 doxus, argues with a Luciferian : — You acknowledge 
 by your practice that the baptism administered by 
 Arian clergy is good, because you admit their laics to 
 communion without rebaptising : you ought to ac- 
 knowledge their orders ; for to be consistent, if you 
 reject their orders, you ought to reject their baptism, 
 which you do not. And this was to say, by implication, 
 that had the Arian baptism been that of those who 
 had no power to baptise, in other words, lay baptism, 
 it w^ould have been rejected both upon Catholic and 
 Luciferian principles ; or, in Forbes' words, quos bap- 
 tizavit laicus, ii sunt denuo haptizandi. St. Jerome 
 concludes the validity of the Arian priesthood from 
 the validity of the Arian baptisms, which the Lucife- 
 rians allowed ; for had the Arians no priesthood, they 
 would have had no baptism. And further, Jerome 
 elsewhere asserts, Ecclesia non est, qucB non habet sa- 
 cer dotes. How inconsistent, therefore, is it in Jerome 
 to argue, on the one hand, that any one might bap- 
 tise, and on the other, that had the Arians been no 
 priests, ever}'^ one would have rejected their baptisms 
 on that ground ! 
 
 Waterland (Second Letter to Kelsall, p. 146) is 
 disposed to deny that St. Jerome is inconsistent. 
 " He might think lay baptism unauthorised, and in 
 ordinary cases invalid, and yet allow of the validity 
 of authorised lay baptism in cases extraordinary. 
 Yet nothing can be drawn from him in favour of 
 dissenters' baptisms, which have no permission, nor 
 plea of necessity." 
 
CXlii APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 6. St. Augustine. Bingham (p. 40) produces a 
 passage from his epistle to Fortunatus, quoted in Gra- 
 tian ;' to which Laurence objects, that, if Augustine's 
 at all (and this may be deemed doubtful, Gratian's 
 authority not being unexceptionable), it is not to 
 the purpose, being prefaced by a solemus audire ; and 
 that it is not a distinct testimony to the matter of 
 fact, that baptism was esteemed valid by whomsoever 
 administered. But with reference to Augustine's 
 controversy with the Donatists, passages from which 
 have been already adduced, and which are in favour 
 of the validity of other than episcopal baptism, Lau- 
 rence argues, that this great saint's opinions were in 
 many cases new to the Church — that his authority 
 is only valuable when confirmed by general consent — 
 that although great deference, especially in the Ro- 
 man Church, was allowed to his dogmas, still we may 
 be permitted in his, as in all other cases of single 
 authority, to combat the reasons upon which he 
 grounds his views — that his principle is the mere 
 opus operatum — and that the testimony of any single 
 father is only authoritative as to facts, but never as 
 to doctrines ; and he denies that even Augustine is at 
 all a witness of the practice of the ancient Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 Waterland, Second Letter to Kelsall, p. 146-153. 
 It was objected to St. Augustine by the Donatists, 
 that heretics or schismatics had forfeited their orders, 
 
 [' Etiam laicos solere dare sacramentum, quod accepenint, 
 solemus audire.] 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. Cxliu 
 
 and therefore could not validly baptise. He answers 
 this objection, 1. by denying the supposition on 
 which this objection was founded; proving that heresy 
 and schism did not vacate orders ; for these reasons, 
 because neither heresy nor schism could vacate bap- 
 tism once truly given ; and he thought there was a 
 plain analogy between the sacrament^ as he calls it, 
 of orders and that of baptism. The Catholic Church 
 always thought that orders once truly given could 
 not be deleted by any thing. If heretical or schisma- 
 tical clergy returned to the Church, they were allowed 
 to officiate without any new ordination ; that even 
 though they might not be allowed to officiate, they 
 were not looked upon as laymen, and therefore did 
 not submit to penance and imposition of hands, 
 which was the discipline for returning laics. To this 
 answer, full, plain, and unexceptionable, and agree- 
 able to the rules and practice of the Catholic Church, 
 he subjoins another of his own with great diffidence 
 and modesty. 
 
 2. He denies the consequence, that baptism must 
 necessarily be null upon supposition that heresy or 
 schism did vacate orders ; and he brings it in ex 
 abundant i. 
 
 Quanquam etsi laicus aliquis pereunti dederit (bap- 
 tismum) necessitate compulsus, quod cum ipse acci- 
 peret, quomodo dandum esse addidicit, nescio an hie 
 quisquam dixerit esse repetendum ? 
 
 He is here offering his own private conjecture in 
 a case that had not been expressly determined in any 
 
Cxliv APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 council, though the reason of the thing and the cus- 
 tom of the Church were sufficiently against him. He 
 has neither rule nor instance to plead in his behalf, 
 and therefore endeavours to supply that want by his 
 own private reason ; and so he goes on to give his 
 opinion that lay baptism may be valid even in ordi- 
 nary cases, though irregular and sinful, upon this 
 principle, — quod datum fuerit, non potest did non 
 datum : which is either begging the question, or 
 arguing thus, — " a person is washed in the name of 
 the Trinity, therefore he is baptised." After he had 
 wandered a little in the dark about this question, in- 
 dulging too far his own private conjectures, he returns 
 at length to his first answer, as being more just and 
 solid, and abides by it ; insisting again upon it, that 
 heretical or schismatical clergy had not lost their 
 orders, and he appeals to the decision of the whole 
 Christian world in proof of his assertion. By the 
 way, it is very apparent that St. Augustine never ima- 
 gined that the baptisms of the schismatical or hereti- 
 cal clergy were lay baptisms, nor that the council of 
 Aries [see Prel. Disc. p. xcvii.] or Nice [do. p. xcviii. ; 
 see also Editor s Preface] , or any other, meant any 
 such thing. That was what none but the Donatists 
 pretended in that time or since, till Mr. Bingham 
 was pleased to oblige the world with the second part of 
 his Scholastical History, which I heartily wish for his 
 own sake, and for the sake of his other excellent works, 
 he had never published, so much to the discredit of him- 
 self and them. 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. Cxlv 
 
 It may be observed, that St. Augustine's maxim 
 was a short solution for any difficulty ; and were it as 
 solid too, would justify all the lengths of popery, and 
 would not only prove that heretics or schismatics, 
 whether of the clergy or laity, may validly baptise, 
 but that women or children, and even Jews, Turks, 
 and pagans, either seriously or in sport and mockery, 
 may administer true baptism. But his maxim was 
 novel, and founded on a weak pretence. St. Augustine 
 had his nostrums and peculiar opinions : he often left 
 the paths of his predecessors to follow a path wholly 
 new ; as Dupin has judiciously observed of him, ap- 
 plying to him the character that Cicero gives of him- 
 self, that he was magnus opinator.^ 
 
 [' St. Cyprian was wrong in one of his principles, and St. 
 Augustine refuted him on it. St. Cyprian argued thus : where 
 there are no orders, there is no baptism ; but all heresy or 
 schism nulls orders; therefore where there is heresy or schism, 
 there is no baptism : and this he applied to the Novatians. 
 St. Cyprian's minor was untrue ; and when the Donatists 
 adopted it, St. Augustine thoroughly confuted it ; but he did 
 not confute his major. St. Cyprian rejected the baptism of 
 schismatics, because he denied their orders ; or, as St. Basil 
 expresses it, they had no more sacerdotal right than laymen. 
 The fact was, that the Novatians had orders, and consequently 
 baptism ; therefore St. Cyprian was wrong in his conclusion, 
 that they were to be rebaptised. But this does not affect his 
 other principle, that there is no baptism where there are no 
 orders. If St. Cyprian could have proved, which he did not, 
 and the councils of Aries and Nice decided against him, that 
 the Novatians' schism had nulled their orders, his conclusion 
 would have been true. But though St. Augustine " completely 
 
 o 
 
Cxlvi APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 7. Gelasius, a.d. 492, who (p. 42) restricts the 
 office of baptism to bishops and presbyters, excluding 
 deacons from it, except in cases of necessity and in 
 the absence of the superior minister ; in which emer- 
 gencies it was allowed to Christian laymen to admi- 
 nister this sacrament. [Gelasius, Epist. 9 ad Lucam, 
 cap. viii. Absque episcopo vel presbytero baptizare 
 non audeant diaconi ; nisi prsedictis fortasse officiis 
 longius constitutis necessitas extrema compellat; quod 
 et laicis Christianis facere plerumque conceditur.] 
 To which Laurence answers : 1 . That the autho- 
 rity is vague ; it may refer only to the practice of 
 Gelasius or his predecessors. 2. The phrase concedi- 
 tur shews that, in this case, it was a grant from the 
 Church ; the baptisms whose invalidity is disputed 
 are those unauthorised ; and on the whole passage he 
 remarks, that it by no means authorises Bingham's 
 inference, that " laymen in the absence of deacons 
 had as much authority as deacons in the absence of 
 priests:'* for, 1. baptism by deacons was an apos- 
 tolic institution ; and 2. we know that diaconal bap- 
 tism was a catholic practice. But that the passage 
 does not serve the cause of lay baptism. 
 
 8. Isidore of Seville, a.d. 595, has a passage 
 almost word for word the same as the last; to which 
 Laurence makes the same reply, adding that probably 
 
 and solidly" (Waterland, p. 124) answered St. Cyprian on this 
 point — or rather the Donatists, who adopted Cyprian's minor — 
 he is not so successful against the major, which, as it seems, 
 he went out of his way to attack also,] 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. CXlvii 
 
 he had an eye only to the practice of the Spanish 
 Church, founded upon the decision of the synod of 
 Eliberis. 
 
 Laurence concludes (p. 172): The profound si- 
 lence of the days of the apostles and apostolic fathers, 
 and of the three first centuries of Christianity, con- 
 cerning laymen being at all commissioned to baptise, 
 is a full proof that the bishops' authorising them to 
 baptise can never be founded on any catholic tradition 
 of the primitive Church of Christ ; and more, if there 
 had in truth been such a catholic tradition, even from 
 the times of the apostles to this day, as there never 
 was, yet still this would be of no advantage to the 
 pretended baptisms of our laics, i. e. our dissenters, 
 who were never commissioned by bishops (and indeed 
 who cannot be commissioned, for they have no bishops) 
 to baptise. 
 
 Laurence, p. 189. Bingham admits (p. 46), 
 that "most of his authorities only justify lay bap- 
 tism in cases of necessity ; neither TertulHan, nor the 
 council of EHberis, nor St. Jerome, nor Gelasius, nor 
 Isidore, have said vcay thing upon usurped and un- 
 authorised baptism :" but still concludes, and that 
 mainly upon the authority of St. Augustine, that 
 though irregular in the administrator, such baptism 
 is not wholly void in the party receiving it. 
 
 Laurence (p. 190) taking this admission of Bing- 
 ham, and also his assertions — 1. " That the apostohc 
 commission to baptise was to continue to the end of 
 the world;" 2. That the conveyance of this commis- 
 
Cxlviii APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 sion to others was "necessary to preserve the Church, 
 according to the order of Christ, in future ages ;" 3. 
 That " none can have a power of baptising but he 
 that receives, some way or other, a commission from 
 the apostles;" 4. That "the original power of ad- 
 ministering baptism is lodged solely in the hands of 
 bishops, as the apostles' immediate successors, and 
 derivately conveyed from them to others;" 5. That 
 " when baptism was done by others than the bishop, 
 it was still done by his authority, and reputed as his 
 act ;" and 6. That " for six hundred years the gene- 
 ral sense and practice of the ancient Church, grounded, 
 as they suppose, upon the commission given to the 
 apostles, whereby bishops, as the apostles* successors, 
 are qualified, first, to give baptism themselves, and 
 then to grant a commission to others, and that either 
 to presbyters and deacons, or to presbyters alone in 
 ordinary cases, and in cases extraordinary and of ex- 
 treme necessity to deacons and laymen," — concludes 
 that aU this makes a wide difference between ancient 
 lay baptisms, even supposing them to have been prac- 
 tised, and dissenters' baptisms now : for in these lat- 
 ter, 1. The apostoHc commission is broken off". 2. Its 
 conveyance is wanting. 3. There is a want of power 
 to baptise, where none has received in any manner a 
 commission from the apostles. 4. The original power, 
 *' lodged solely in the hands of bishops, is not deri- 
 vately conveyed to " the usurping unauthorised lay 
 pretender. 5. Here being no baptism by episcopal 
 authority, such pretended baptism cannot be reputed 
 
PRELIMINARl' DISCOURSE. Cxlix 
 
 as the bishop's act. And 6. In these baptisms nothing 
 can be seen of the practice of the ancient Church, 
 which, even upon Bingham's view, was ** grounded 
 upon the commission granted in cases ordinary and 
 extraordinary," for here is no grant of any commis- 
 sion at all. 
 
 And, p. 193-209, Laurence argues that the an- 
 cient Church, when she admitted the validity of here- 
 tical and schismatical baptisms, such as that of the 
 Arians, did not consider them unauthorised, uncom- 
 missioned, and anti- episcopal, because such ministers 
 had themselves received vaHd orders, or could trace 
 them to the Church ; that they all had a succession, 
 and that an episcopal one, as in the cases of the Arian, 
 Novatian, and Meletian bishops; that the eighth canon 
 of the council of Nice, which admitted the Novatian 
 clergy to the same standing in the Church which they 
 would have had as the orthodox, plainly assumed the 
 validity of their orders, and consequently of their 
 baptisms ; and, lastly, that the rite of imposition of 
 hands, by which they who had received heretical bap- 
 tism were reconciled to the Church, was not to supply 
 any supposed defect in the baptism itself, or to give it 
 validity, but was the ceremony by which penitents, in 
 which light alone they were viewed, were absolved : 
 and he concludes, " And when the case of our dis- 
 senters shall be proved to be the same with those 
 Novatians ; when their having no episcopal commis- 
 sion shall be proved to be the same with the Nova- 
 tians, who plainly had one, — then, and not till then, 
 
 o 2 
 
Cl APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 can * a reconciliatory imposition of hands by way of 
 absolution ' (which Bingham had suggested) be suffi- 
 cient for the receiving of our dissenters as vaUdly 
 baptised persons in the sense of the Catholic Church. 
 For there are no instances that can be brought to 
 prove that the ancient Catholic Church ever received 
 by imposition of hands, without baptism, such per- 
 sons as were only washed before by those who were 
 known, or supposed, to have been never episcopally 
 commissioned to baptise." — p. 209. 
 
 Waterland, Second Letter to Kelsall, p. 153 et 
 seq. We may take our leave of the ancients, after 
 we have summed up their evidence. 
 
 1. As to authorised lay baptism in cases of neces- 
 sity, there is some plea for it in antiquity, from Ter- 
 tullian, the council of EHberis, St. Jerome, and St. Au- 
 gustine ; but all together make no proof of the general 
 sense and practice of the Church in favour of it, but 
 rather the contrary implicitly ; as St. Cyprian, St. 
 Basil, Pacian, and the Apostolical Constitutions, do 
 more plainly. And yet had all these authorities been 
 for lay baptism in cases of necessity, authorised by 
 
 bishops, it is wide of the present question. 
 
 2. As to unauthorised lay baptism in ordinary 
 cases, which is the point in dispute, there are St. 
 Cyprian, St. Basil, Pacian, directly and expressly 
 against its being valid, and the rest imphcitly and 
 consequentially : not one directly or implicitly for it, 
 except Optatus and St. Augustine, and that not as 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. cli 
 
 witnesses of the Church's practice, but as disputants in 
 a nice and difficult controversy, or as private doctors. 
 However, I am willing to admit, though not easy to 
 be proved, that the doctrine of lay baptism's being 
 valid in some cases crept gradually into the western 
 Church from the time of St. Augustine, and, like other 
 corruptions of popery, came to its height in the fol- 
 lowing centuries ; though it does not appear that it 
 prevailed in the Greek Church so early as the twelfth 
 century. [See Appendix, p. 167, &c.] 
 
 I shall here subjoin two probable or presumptive 
 proofs to confirm the foregoing observations. 
 
 I. There was no universal standing principle 
 among the ancients whereon to found the validity 
 of lay baptism. 
 
 II. There were some general standing principles 
 universally held, which do by consequence overthrow 
 it. 
 
 I. I shall examine the chief principles that can be 
 supposed to have any weight in the case, and shew 
 why I think none of them were universally held. 
 
 1. The plea of necessity could not warrant lay 
 baptism ; no mention of it occurs in the earliest 
 writers. The baptism of women, Jews, and pagans, 
 was absolutely disallowed. 
 
 2. The principles of inherent priesthood could 
 not warrant it, because the ancients never allowed lay 
 consecration of the eucharist in cases of necessity. 
 
 3. The principle of St. Augustine and Optatus, 
 that lay baptism was Christ's baptism, and therefore 
 
Clii APPENDIX TO THE 
 
 not depeDding on the administrator, is no principle of 
 the Church, no author mentioning it besides these 
 two fathers. The two instances quoted against the 
 supposed principles just mentioned would be incon- 
 sistent with this third. 
 
 4. Another principle of St. Augustine, quod datum 
 datum, would prove that orders and consecration ad- 
 ministered by laymen were nevertheless orders and 
 consecration, which is contrary to all antiquity. 
 
 5. Another principle held to favour it, that every 
 one might give what he has received, therefore every 
 baptised person might baptise, is novel. If it were 
 true, it would prove that a deacon might make a 
 deacon, and a priest a priest, and a layman give the 
 eucharist, if he had received it. 
 
 6. Another principle whereon some would found 
 the validity of lay baptism is, the permission or 
 authority of the Church ; yet there is no proof that 
 the sense of the Church ever countenanced it. St. 
 Augustine seems to have known nothing about it. 
 
 7. The principle which seems most to prevail 
 now is, that a subsequent act of the Church supplies 
 all deficiencies, and renders any pretended baptisms 
 valid. This I do not meet with in any of the an- 
 cients. Confirmation was a distinct thing from bap- 
 tism, not an essential to it ; it was always supposed 
 that baptism was complete as to essentials ■without 
 it. Confirmation helped to improve and advance 
 what was begun in baptism ; the same may be said 
 of the eucharist. So either or both might contribute 
 
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. cliii 
 
 to make baptism more effectual, but not to supply 
 any thing wanting to the essentials of it. 
 
 II. There were some standing principles held by 
 the ancient Church, which by consequence overthrow 
 lay baptism. 
 
 1. Laymen were absolutely forbidden to inter- 
 meddle in sacred offices, no proviso being made for 
 cases of great necessity ; lay baptism was therefore 
 sinful, and probably null. 
 
 2. Another avowed principle of the primitive 
 Catholic Church was, that the Christian clergy were 
 proper priests. From this I infer, that no ministra- 
 tion can be vahd which is not sacerdotal : the sacra- 
 ment is no sacrament if administered by unauthorised 
 hands. If, therefore, the primitive Church took bap- 
 tism to be a sacerdotal act, and the clergy to be 
 proper priests, they disallowed all baptism by lay- 
 men. 
 
 3. Another principle was, that there could be no 
 such thing as lay consecration. If the virtue of the 
 sacrament of the eucharist depend upon Christ's com- 
 mission, why should not the virtue of the sacrament 
 of baptism depend upon His commission also ? That 
 deacons were in Scripture permitted to baptise makes 
 no difference, because they tcere priests of the third 
 order. 
 
 4. Another principle was, that lay ordination was 
 nuU and void. If ordination depends on the com- 
 mission, why should not baptism also } 
 
 These may serve as probable arguments against 
 
Cliv APPENDIX TO THE PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. 
 
 it, much stronger than any urged in its favour from 
 the ancients. Two inferences I draw from the whole. 
 
 1 . That it is very certain that the general sense 
 and practice of the primitive Church did not counte- 
 nance or estabUsh the vaHdity of lay baptism. 
 
 2. It is more than probable that they did both in 
 judgment and practice favour the direct contrary ; 
 and the chief, if not only, reason why we have not 
 fuller and more repeated proofs of it is, because the 
 matter came not into dispute, no laics ever attempt- 
 ing to baptise, except among heretics, nor then with- 
 out the countenance and approbation of the bishops. 
 Remarkable are the words of St. Jerome in relation 
 to Hilary, the Roman deacon, who was therefore a 
 degree above a laic : 
 
 " Hilarius, cum diaconus ab ecclesia recesserit, 
 solusque, ut putat, turba sit mundi, neque eucharis- 
 tiam conficere potest, episcopos et presbyteros non 
 habens, neque baptisma sive eucharistia tradere ; et 
 cum jam homo mortuus sit, cum homine pariter in- 
 teriit et secta, quia post se nullum clericum diaconus 
 potuit ordinare. Ecclesia autem non est, quce non hahet 
 sacerdotes." 
 
Eaa 3Sapt(sm (nbalitr* 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 OF THE NATURE AND OBLIGATION OF DIVINE POSITIVE 
 INSTITUTIONS OF RELIGION. 
 
 Definitions. 
 
 I. A DIVINE positive institution of religion is that 
 which God Himself requires and commands to be 
 done, and which, having no intrinsic or moral excel- 
 lence in itself, without His command and appoint- 
 ment, we could never have been bound to the ob- 
 servance of, nor ever have conveyed to us by the 
 observation thereof any supernatural benefit or advan- 
 tage whatsoever, 
 
 II. The essential parts of a divine positive insti- 
 tution are those which we are obhged constantly to 
 observe, as long as the utmost duration of the force 
 and obligation of the institution itself. 
 
 III. I call an act invalid for the purposes of such 
 an institution, when we have no just reason or mo- 
 tive from divine revelation to expect that God should 
 so far concur with that act, as to convey by means 
 thereof those supernatural advantages He has an- 
 nexed to the institution. 
 
 IV. By the supernatural advantages annexed to 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 an institution, I mean all those spiritual privileges 
 and benefits which by nature we cannot have, and 
 which God has promised to bestow, upon condition 
 of our duly performing that institution, which He has 
 made to be the ordinary means of conveying those 
 benefits to us. 
 
 V. By the divine authority of the administrator, 
 I mean that commission which God at first gave to 
 men, and which they have ever since handed down to 
 others, by His order and appointment, to administer 
 in His holy ordinances. 
 
 VI. By a lay administration, I mean that which 
 is performed by one who never was commissioned or 
 empowered for that act, by those whom God has ap- 
 pointed to be the conveyers of His authority and com- 
 mission to men for that purpose. 
 
 Axioms, or undeniable maxims. 
 
 I. The essential parts of any thing are of the 
 same nature as the whole. 
 
 H. God Himself may dispense with any of His 
 own positive institutions, either in whole or in part ; 
 and bestow the benefits annexed to them when, to 
 whom, and how He pleases. 
 
 HI. No ecclesiastical or civil authority can dis- 
 pense with any divine positive institution, either in 
 whole or in any essential part, so long as it is binding 
 and obliging to us. 
 
 IV. The only way to determine whether an act is 
 valid or invalid for the purposes of a divine positive 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 institution, is to know whether that act be lawful or 
 unlawful, agreeable or contrary to the will of God ; 
 which is to be found no where, but either in the in- 
 stitution itself or in some other part or parts of His 
 written word, relating to the same institution. 
 
 V. No power or authority on earth can, by any 
 after-act, not appointed by God for that purpose, 
 make that which before was invalid to become as 
 valid as conforming to the divine institution itself 
 would have made it. 
 
 VI. He that knows to do good, and does it not, to 
 him it is sin ;' and a continuance in sin can bring no 
 supernatural benefit or advantage. 
 
 Proposition I. Every essential part of a divine 
 positive institution of religion is of equal obligation 
 and necessity to us. 
 
 Demonstration. This is evident, first, from the 
 very nature of such an institution, which, by defini- 
 tion l,has no intrinsic excellence, or moral virtue, to 
 oblige us to observe it, till the divine command lays 
 that necessity upon us ; so that now we are obliged 
 only by virtue of the authority commanding, which 
 being but one, i. e. that of God, must necessarily 
 reach to every essential part of the institution, and 
 thereby make them all of equal authority and equally 
 necessary and obliging to us ; because they are every 
 one of the same nature as the institution itself, by 
 axiom 1 ; and, secondly, this is further evident, from 
 
 [' Jam. iv. 17.] 
 
■* INTRODUCTION. 
 
 definition 2, since we are constantly bound to ob- 
 serve every such essential part as long as the institu- 
 tion itself shall have any force or virtue. Therefore, 
 since every one of these parts have but one authority, 
 without any inherent virtue separate therefrom, and 
 are also binding as long as the institution shall last, 
 it must needs be certain that they are all of equal 
 obligation and necessity to us. But this is so very 
 plain, at the first proposal, to all intelhgent persons, 
 that it hardly deserves the name of a proposition to 
 be demonstrated, and therefore I shall not lose more 
 time about it. 
 
 Corollary. Hence it follows, that as no human 
 authority can dispense with any divine positive insti- 
 tution (axiom 3), so neither can they give any su- 
 periority of excellency or necessity to one essential 
 part thereof more than to another, because they are 
 all equally necessar)?^ and obliging, and have their 
 whole force and energy merely from the divine com- 
 mand. 
 
 Prop. II. Whosoever justly esteems an act, said 
 to be done in pursuance of a divine positive institu- 
 tion, to be wholly null and invalid for want of one 
 essential part of that institution, ought also to ac- 
 knowledge that such an act is as much null and void 
 when it wants but any other one essential part of the 
 same institution. 
 
 Demonst. For he can reasonably judge that act 
 to be invalid only because it is unlawful, or contrary 
 to the institution (axiom 4); so that the want of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that essential part being unlawful, he thence con- 
 cludes the invalidity of the act. Now, forasmuch as 
 all the essential parts of the institution are of equal 
 authority and necessity to us, by the foregoing pro- 
 position, it must necessarily follow that the omission 
 of any one of them will be equally unlawful or in- 
 valid ; and consequently such a deficient act as wants 
 any one of those essential parts, being by him justly 
 esteemed invahd, ought also, for the same reason, to 
 be esteemed as much invalid, when he knows it to 
 want but any other one essential part of the same in- 
 stitution: which was the thing to be proved. 
 
 Corol, Hence it unavoidably follows, that there 
 can be no such thing as a partial invalidity, through 
 the omission of any essential part of a divine positive 
 institution ; for if the act be wholly null for want of 
 one such part, it must be also entirely void for the 
 want of any other, by reason of the equal authority 
 and necessity of every essential part. 
 
 Prop. III. He who knows himself bound to con- 
 form to a divine positive institution in all its essen- 
 tial parts, and is convinced that he has not so far 
 conformed, can have no just grounds to expect the 
 supernatural benefits annexed to that institution, till 
 he has done his utmost for the obtaining of them, by 
 endeavouring an entire conformity to every essential 
 part of the said institution. 
 
 Demonst. This wants but little proof : for thus 
 entirely to obey the institution is certainly good ; and 
 he who knows this, and does it not, to him it is sin 
 
 B 2 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (axiom 6) ; which if he continues in, no supernatural 
 advantage can accrue to him thereby, (by the same 
 axiom,) much less those benefits annexed to the ob- 
 servance of the institution ; and consequently he 
 ought to do his utmost for the obtaining of them, by 
 endeavouring, &c. : as was to be demonstrated. 
 
ILag 33apttsm ittbaliir* 
 
 Christian baptism is a divine positive institution 
 of our most holy religion, whereby it is appointed, 
 that the apostles, and their successors to the end of 
 the world, should, by virtue of a particular commis- 
 sion which Christ gave them for this purpose, either 
 themselves in person, or by their substitutes, enter 
 into di^cipleship, or into the Church of Christ, all 
 nations, baptising them " in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," &c. The 
 supernatural privileges and benefits annexed to this 
 institution are, the pardon of sins, the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost, and eternal life after death; or, as the 
 Church of England words it, " being by nature born 
 in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made 
 the children of grace, members of Christ, children of 
 God, and inheritors (or heirs) of the kingdom of 
 heaven :" which vast and unspeakable advantages 
 none can ordinarily have any right or title to, but 
 those who are duly admitted to them by this one 
 true Christian baptism. 
 
 That it is a positive institution, is certain from 
 hence ; because before the divine command enjoined 
 
8 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 it, we were never bound to observe it, either in whole 
 or in part. Washing us then with water had no in- 
 trinsic or moral virtue, to give us any spiritual ad- 
 vantages ; nor would it have had any thing more of 
 efficacy for that purpose, if we had been washed with 
 water, and at the same time used the words, " In the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost ;" for these words being pronounced, could 
 then have had no more virtue than others. Neither 
 would it have signified any thing to us, whether we 
 had been w^ashed either by ourselves alone, or by 
 some other person ; or whether that other person 
 were a common man, or one set apart by consent of 
 the people for that end. None of these things could, 
 by any excellence in their own nature, have conveyed 
 to us any spiritual benefits whatsoever ; nor could we 
 have been obliged, in a religious sense, to observe 
 any one of them ; because the divine command had 
 not enjoined them. This, I suppose, all will acknow- 
 ledge ; and consequently, that our obligation to re- 
 ceive Christian baptism, and from them by whom it 
 is ordered to be administered, is wholly founded upon 
 the divine command, on which alone depends the 
 whole force and energy of a divine positive institu- 
 tion of religion (according to definition 1) ; and that 
 therefore the administration of Christian baptism, in 
 all its parts, is no other than a mere positive institu- 
 tion, exactly agreeable to the said definition. This 
 being premised, I proceed now to demonstrate, in 
 four propositions, what are the essential parts of this 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. S 
 
 great institution of Christianity, on the part of the 
 administration thereof. 
 
 Prop. I. That on the part of the administration, 
 the divine authority of the administrator, the matter 
 (water), and the form of administering (in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost), are every one of them essential parts of the 
 divine positive institution of Christian baptism. 
 
 Demonst. That the water, and the form of ad- 
 ministration in the name of the Trinity, are essential 
 parts of this institution, was never disputed by any 
 but heretics ; and even these (except such as the 
 Quakers) never opposed against the water's being so, 
 but only against the form of administration in the 
 name of the Trinity. I shall not make it my busi- 
 ness to endeavour their conviction, who oppose the 
 plain and express words of the institution ; and from 
 whence all sound and orthodox Christians have una- 
 nimously agreed to pronounce baptism null and void 
 when administered without expressing the names of 
 all the three sacred Persons ; because such baptisms 
 are directly ac/iinst the institution itself. 
 
 Taking it therefore for granted, by all who have 
 any value fcr this holy ordinance, that the water, and 
 the form of administration in the name of the Trinity, 
 are essential parts thereof, I shall spend no time 
 about the proof of it, but proceed to demonstrate 
 that the divine authority of the administrator is also 
 an essential part of the same institution ; or (which 
 is the same thing) that the divine authority of the 
 
10 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 administrator is to be constantly observed by us, as 
 long as the utmost duration of the force and obliga- 
 tion of the divine positive institution of Christian 
 baptism : and, that it is so, will be evident, 
 
 *1. From the general consideration of God's mak- 
 ing the divine authority of the administrator to be 
 an essential part of His own positive institutions un- 
 der the Mosaic law. 
 
 2. By the example of our Saviour's not taking 
 upon Him to minister in such holy things till He 
 was particularly and externally commissioned for that 
 purpose. 
 
 3. From the words of institution of Christian 
 baptism. 
 
 4. From the design and benefits thereof. 
 
 5. From the constant practice of those who truly 
 are, and of others who pretend to be, the lawful 
 ministers of the Christian Church. 
 
 6. From the doctrine and practice of the Church 
 of England in particular. 
 
 I. I say, the general consideration of God making 
 the divine authority of the administrator to be an 
 essential part of His own positive institutions under 
 the Mosaic law, will go a great way towards proving 
 the like under the gospel- dispensation ; because the 
 things that were then written were not written for 
 their sakes only, but also for our example ; as the 
 apostle^ has told us, and as he has most excellently 
 argued, almost throughout his whole epistle to the 
 [' 1 Cor. X. 11.] 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 11 
 
 Hebrews, wherein he makes the comparison between 
 the Mosaic law and the gospel, and gives a vast pre- 
 ference to the latter before the former. It is, there- 
 fore, worthy our consideration, that in the law none 
 could approach the divine presence in the administra- 
 tion of His positive institutes, but those who were 
 first authorised by Him for that purpose. And 
 therefore we find,^ that when Korah, Dathan, and 
 Abiram, exceeded their own bounds no farther than 
 the offering of incense, there was no less than a 
 miracle WTOught, the very earth was made to open 
 its mouth and swallow them, their wives and their 
 children, and all that they had ; and a fire from the 
 Lord consumed two hundred and fifty princes, ac- 
 complices with them in the same crime, — to make 
 them a standing example to future ages, that none 
 might usurp the authority of administering in His 
 positive institutions without a commission first re- 
 ceived from Him. Nay, so jealous was God of this 
 honour, that He suddenly struck Uzzah dead,^ only 
 for putting forth his hand to save the ark, as he 
 thought, from falling when it was shook : his zeal 
 was no defence for him ; God would not pardon but 
 punish him for it, because it was none of his business 
 to meddle in such holy things. So king Saul,-^ not- 
 withstanding his plea of necessity for want of a priest, 
 and the danger of falling into the hands of his ene- 
 mies before he had made his peace with God, had his 
 kingdom rent from him for presuming only to offer a 
 
 [' Num. xvi.] [2 2 Sam. vi. 6.] 
 
 [^ 1 Sam. xiii, 8.] 
 
12 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 sacrifice himself, it being none but the priest's office 
 so to do. More examples of this kind might be 
 brought ; but these, I think, are sufficient to shew that 
 God set such a mighty value upon the commission 
 He gave to some orders of men, that He would not 
 accept of even His own appointments when they 
 were profaned by unhallowed, uncommissioned hands. 
 And what is this but to make the divine commission 
 to be an essential part of such positive institutions ? 
 Insomuch that if any should have knowingly con- 
 curred with those who usurped it, they would have 
 made themselves partakers in the sin, as well as the 
 punishment, of the usurpers ; as we see was exempli- 
 fied in the case of Korah and his company, for no less 
 than fourteen thousand seven hundred of them were 
 destroyed by a plague, besides the great number of 
 those who were before swallowed alive into the earth, 
 and burnt with fire from the Lord : and if so, may 
 we not justly infer that God is still as jealous of this 
 honour under the gospel, the ministers whereof being 
 of so much greater dignity, by how much the gospel 
 is more excellent than the law of Moses ? It is cer- 
 tain that even now, in the Christian dispensation, no 
 man can take this honour to himself, but he that is 
 called of God, as was Aaron :^ and Aaron's call was 
 not by his great gifts, and the inward dictates of the 
 Spirit, but by an external commission first given by 
 God Himself to Moses, and then by Moses, at the 
 command of God, to Aaron. But, 
 
 II. The example of our Saviour's not taking 
 [» Heb. V. 4.] 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 13 
 
 upon Him to minister in holy things between God 
 and man, till He was particularly and externally com- 
 missioned by God for that purpose, is a further ad- 
 vance towards proving that the divine authority of 
 the administrator of baptism is an essential part of 
 this institution. For, notwithstanding He was full 
 of the Holy Ghost, which was not given by measure, 
 but entirely, to Him ; notwithstanding His manhood 
 was inseparably united to the second Person of the 
 most glorious Trinity, whereby He was more than 
 sufficiently, nay, infinitely gifted for such a purpose ; 
 and notwithstanding the great necessities and con- 
 sequent miseries of all mankind, which were conti- 
 nually wanting His undertaking to administer for 
 them in things pertaining to God ; yet He kept Him- 
 self in His private station for about thirty years to- 
 gether, and never would take upon Himself so high 
 an office, till He received His commission and inau- 
 guration thereinto from the hands of a prophet (John 
 the Baptist), who baptised Him, to fulfil this part of 
 righteousness and justice ; viz. of not taking upon 
 Himself to be a minister of the new covenant, with- 
 out a special warrant from God, by the mediation 
 of one who was by Him appointed to convey this 
 power and authority to Him : and then we find that 
 God Himself, by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon 
 Him in a visible glory, and by an audible voice from 
 heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased,^ confirmed His great commission ; and that 
 [' Matt. iii. 17.] 
 c 
 
14 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 from thenceforward, and not before, He proceeded in 
 the execution of it. From that time He preached and 
 taught, gave His apostles order to baptise and preach, 
 wrought miracles Himself, and gave others power to 
 do so likewise, for the confirmation of His doctrine, 
 &c. Now, what should be the reason of our Sa- 
 viour's thus long desisting from the performance of 
 such beneficial offices ? Was He not sufficiently gift- 
 ed } Yes, certainly He was. Did not the extreme 
 miseries of man's spiritual bondage call loudly for 
 relief? Beyond all doubt they did. Why then did 
 not even Compassion itself, the blessed Jesus, then 
 personally among them, undertake their speedy rescue } 
 Was it because His hour was not yet come } Doubt- 
 less it was not come ; but why ? Because He had 
 not yet received His commission from His Father. 
 So that, if our Lord's example may be allowed in 
 this case to be conclusive, it is plain that not all the 
 gifts imaginable, nor all the pressmg necessities that 
 may be pleaded, can ever of themselves give sufficient 
 warrant to minister authoritatively, for men, in things 
 pertaining to God, when those things are of such a 
 nature as that a commission from Him must be first 
 obtained by the person who undertakes to adminis- 
 ter ; and that therefore such a person ought to be 
 duly commissioned for such administrations. Now 
 that Christian baptism is such an institution as ne- 
 cessarily requires, and constantly supposes, the divine 
 authority of the administrator, I shall endeavour to 
 demonstrate, — 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 15 
 
 III. From the words of institution. And in order 
 thereto, it will be very well worth while to observe, 
 that our Saviour, a little before His ascension into 
 heaven, appointed the eleven apostles, and them only 
 (notwithstanding the vast numbers of other disciples 
 which He had at the same time), to go to a particu- 
 lar mountain in Galilee, which He had told them 
 of (St. Matt, xxviii. 16), where, when they were 
 assembled, He came to them, and first asserted His 
 own power and authority, wherewith He was in- 
 vested, to authorise and commission them for the 
 great office He was then going to confer on them, 
 saying. All jjotver is given unto Me in heaven and 
 in earth (ver. 1 8) ; whereby He sufficiently assured 
 them that they might rest secure and satisfied, that 
 the commission He was going to give them was 
 of full force and virtue, and sufficiently valid to em- 
 power them to act for the future according to the 
 contents thereof. And, indeed, the great things He 
 was about to authorise them to do were of so un- 
 common a nature, and of such vast consequence to 
 mankind, that they might very well have doubted 
 even of the sufficiency of their commission, if our 
 Lord had not thus fixed their faith in His power and 
 authority to give it them. When, therefore, He had 
 thus prepared their minds, He then proceeds to give 
 them this commission, as the consequent of that power 
 which was given Him over all things, saying, Go ye, 
 therefore, and teach (or rather, disciple) all nations, 
 baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 
16 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and, lo, I 
 am with you alway, even unto the end of the world 
 (ver. 19). These are the words of institution of 
 baptism ; wherein it is clear, at first sight, that the 
 eleven apostles were the peculiar persons to whom 
 the authority of baptising was committed — Go ye; 
 and not only they, but also all those who should 
 succeed them, to the end of the world — Lo, I am 
 with you alway, even unto the end of the world ; for 
 our Saviour's promise to be with them so long, can- 
 not possibly be meant of their particular persons, 
 which were not to live to the end of the world, and 
 therefore it must signify the apostles in another sense, 
 viz. those whom they and their successors should ap- 
 point throughout all ages. 
 
 So that, by the words of institution above recited, 
 it plainly appears, that so long as the world shall 
 last, the apostles and their successors are the persons 
 commissioned to disciple the nations, baptising them ; 
 and hereby it is necessarily implied, that as often as 
 this one baptism is performed, so often it is done by 
 one who has this commission given to him ; other- 
 wise the promise of being with such commissioned 
 persons to the end of the world, would have been in 
 vain, and of no necessity. And if it were not de- 
 signed by the institution, that baptising should be 
 performed to the end of the world by a successor of 
 the apostles, or his substitute, it might, for the very 
 same reason, be said, that teaching was not designed 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 17 
 
 to be by such a successor to the end of the world ; 
 and so the whole commission would be but temporary, 
 and consequently the ministers of Christ, and baptis- 
 ing and teaching, would be but temporary; and Christ's 
 promise of being with His apostles, in these their 
 ministrations, to the end of the worlds w^ould have 
 been made without any design of fulfilling it : which 
 is a blasphemous contradiction to the infallible vera- 
 city of our blessed Lord ; and therefore as long as 
 the world shall last, there must be baptising, and as 
 long as there shall be baptising, there must be such 
 a one to perform it as Christ has promised to be with, 
 viz. a successor to the apostles, or his substitute, to 
 the utmost bounds of that duration. 
 
 For it is very remarkable that Christ does not 
 here say, Lo, I am with baptising ; Lo, I am with 
 teaching alway, &c. : but. Go ye, baptising, teaching -y 
 and lo, I am with you. The promise of His presence 
 and concurrence is to be with them; not with the 
 acts separate from them, but with them performing 
 and doing those acts ; and because it is to be with 
 them baptising alway even to the end of the ivorld, and 
 because their particular persons were not to continue 
 here so long, therefore they are necessarily to be in 
 some other respect alway, &c. And this can be no 
 otherwise than by succession ; and then the succes- 
 sion must be such as that it may be justly called 
 them, otherwise those to whom the promise was 
 made vdll in all respects cease to be, and conse- 
 quently the promise itself will be of no effect : which 
 
 c2 
 
18 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 is absurd. This succession, then, must be such as that 
 the apostles must remain to the end of the world ; 
 and that can be by no other way than one of these 
 two ; either first, by God Himself miraculously inter- 
 posing alwaj^s to appoint their successors, which He 
 has no where promised to do, and therefore this is not 
 to be expected ; or secondly, by the apostles conti- 
 nuing themselves in a succession by some act of their 
 own, viz. by a spiritual generation of such as may in 
 one respect or other be themselves ; that is, by their 
 ordaining such as they were, and vesting them, some 
 with the whole ordinary apostolic authority, and 
 others with part thereof; to the intent that all who 
 act in the sacred function of baptising, whether in a 
 higher or lower degree, may be justly entitled to have 
 this promise verified and made good with respect to 
 their act, Lo, I am with you (baptising) alway : for 
 if he who baptises be not one of the you, an apostle 
 or sent of Christ, in a higher or lower degree, to 
 whom the promise was made, his act can claim no 
 right to the promise, and therefore wdll be a contra- 
 diction to this sacred institution. So that it must 
 necessarily follow, that this institution requires bap- 
 tism always to be administered by one vested with 
 apostolic authority, either in whole or in part, to the 
 end of the world. 
 
 This will further appear from the nature of a 
 commission, which is exclusive of all others but those 
 to whom it is given ; for it is well known, that when 
 a prince gives a commission to any of his subjects 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 19 
 
 for the executing of some great office, it is with 
 design to appropriate that office to that particuhir 
 subject, that none may act in it but he, and those 
 whom he shall authorise. So here, the commission 
 of baptising, &c. given by our Saviour to His apostles 
 and their successors, &c. to the end of the world, is 
 exclusive of all others ; and consequently none can 
 act therein to the purposes for which the commission 
 was given, but they and such as they shall authorise 
 for that purpose ; and therefore it necessarily fol- 
 lows, that the administrator of baptism must have 
 the divine commission or authority, before he presume 
 to act in this so appropriate an office and ministra- 
 tion. 
 
 Once more : the words of institution are a per- 
 emptory command of our blessed Lord, requiring His 
 apostles and their successors, and such as are or shall 
 be ordained by them, expressly to disciple all nations, 
 baptising them. His command is express and posi- 
 tive. Go ye, baptising. They are constantly bound, 
 therefore, to disciple, by baptising allw^ho are capable, 
 and have not yet been baptised by them ; I say, they 
 are obliged by this command, when it is in their 
 power, to baptise all such persons, because the com- 
 mand is laid upon them, and no other ; so that if at 
 any time a capable person offers himself, or is offered, 
 to any of them to be received into the Church by his 
 baptising of him, (supposing that person never to 
 have been before so received by one of them into the 
 Church,) the proper minister of Christ refusing so to 
 
20 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 receive him, will, by such refusal, necessarily give us 
 to understand, either that he disregards the express 
 command of our Saviour, which is a sin against this 
 institution ; or else, that the institution does not com- 
 mand him, or any other minister of Christ, to per- 
 form this office to all capable persons who have not 
 been so initiated by some one or other of them ; which 
 is a contradiction to this express command, because 
 it will always hold true concerning a person so re- 
 fused, that the ministers of Christ were commanded 
 to disciple him, baptising him, and yet not one of them 
 has ever so discipled him. They were commanded to 
 do this, and not one of them has done it ; which, if 
 such refusal be right, is making the command to be 
 of none effect, and so destroys the obligation of the 
 institution itself, because none else are commanded 
 thereby to perform this sacred office, and conse- 
 quently none else have any duty incumbent upon 
 them, but the direct contrary, as we shall see by and 
 by, for that purpose ; and therefore, by reason of our 
 Saviour's command, the divine authority of the ad- 
 ministrator is an essential part of the institution of 
 baptism. 
 
 But the form of administering baptism — in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost — being essential for even the validity thereof, 
 is an invincible argument for the divine authority of 
 the administrator, that it should be also an essential 
 part of this institution ; because, as often as any one 
 administers baptism truly and really in the name of 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 21 
 
 the Trinity, so often he expressly affirms, and that 
 truly too, that he does it by virtue of that power and 
 authority which he received from the Trinity for so 
 doing. This will be evident beyond contradiction, 
 when w^e impartially inquire into the just meaning 
 and common acceptation of the expression, *' in the 
 name of," when used by one who acts for another ; 
 which, we shall constantly find, signifies, that he who 
 comes and does any thing in another's name, does 
 it by his power and authority who sent him. Thus, 
 Blessed he he that comet h in the name of the Lord 
 (Psal. cxviii. 26), is the same as, Blessed be he whom 
 the Lord hath sent, or who comes with the authority 
 and commission which the Lord hath given him. So, 
 when David's young men came, they spake to Nahal 
 according to all those words, in the name of David 
 (1 Sam. XXV. 9) ; it is no more than if it had been 
 said, they spake to Nabal according to all those 
 words, and made use of David's name to let Nabal 
 know that he sent them. Thus, again, Haggai the 
 prophet, 8{C. prophesied unto the Jews in the name of 
 the God of Israel (Ezra v. 1) ; what is this but to 
 say that Haggai prophesied what God had sent and 
 ordered him to prophesy to them? When our Saviour 
 says, / am cotne in My Father's name (John v. 43), 
 He plainly declares that He was sent by His Father, 
 or came by His particular appointment. Again, when 
 our blessed Lord affirms. The works that I do in My Fa- 
 ther's name, they hear ivitness of Me (John x. 25), He 
 in plain terms asserts that He did those works by 
 
22 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 virtue of that power and authority which He had re- 
 ceived from His Father. And, lastly, to name no 
 more texts to this purpose, when St. Paul says, / 
 have judged already . . . in the name of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ . . .to deliver such an one (i.e. the incestuous Co- 
 rinthian) unto Satan, &c. (1 Cor. v. 3-5), he plainly 
 asserts, that it is by authority received from our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that he adjudged and determined that 
 sinner to be excommunicated. So, when a magistrate 
 declares that he acts in the name of his prince, every 
 one immediately understands thereby, that he acts by 
 the authority which he received from him. But this 
 is too plain to want more examples; and therefore 
 we may justly conclude, that every time the minister 
 says, " I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," it is the same as 
 to say, I baptise thee by virtue of that authority and 
 commission which I have received from the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and therefore, when 
 he baptises a person, and pronounces the words, " In 
 the name of the Father," &c., if he be one who is not 
 vested with the divine authority, he cannot be truly 
 said to baptise in the name of the Trinity ; for it is a 
 perfect contradiction to say such a thing is truly done 
 in the name of another, when really it is not done in 
 his name, or by his authority and commission, which 
 is the only intelligible way of doing something in 
 another's name. 
 
 Thus we see how our Lord has inseparably united 
 the divine authority of the administrator with the 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 23 
 
 truth and reality of the form of administration, inso- 
 much that the form itself is no further true, as to the 
 design thereof, than as it is attended with the truth 
 and reality of the divine commission given to him who 
 administers ; so that whensoever this form is truly 
 used according to the intent of this institution, the 
 divine authority and commission of him who admi- 
 nisters is necessarily and constantly implied and sup- 
 posed. 
 
 And really, if we examine into all the divine posi- 
 tive institutions that ever were made, we shall find 
 none of them so indispensably require the divine 
 authority of the administrator, and attended with 
 such a solemn form of asserting and declaring his 
 authority every time of administration, as we find in 
 the divine positive institution of Christian baptism, 
 which enjoins this form in the name (or by the 
 authority) of the Trinity, to be constantly observed 
 and used to the end of the world ; and consequently, 
 the divine authority of the administrator of baptism 
 is an essential part of that great institution. 
 
 But here I expect some will tell me that I lay too 
 much stress upon the form of administering baptism 
 in the name of the Trinity ; because in the Greek it 
 is said. Go ye, &c,, baptising them " into \_u£] the 
 name," instead of " in the name," of the Father, &c. 
 And though " in the name" signifies by the authority 
 and commission of the Trinity, yet " into the name" 
 does not signify so, but rather into the belief and ser- 
 vice of the Trinity ; which does not imply so neces- 
 
24 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 sarily the divine authority of the administrator as I 
 plead for. 
 
 To whom I answer, that though the Greek does 
 signify " into the name," yet it does not therefore 
 follow that this is the only sense of the word in the 
 original language wherein St. Matthew wrote his 
 Gospel, which the best critics affirm was Hebrew, or 
 Syro-Chaldaic, the language of the Jews in our Sa- 
 viour's time, whereof the Greek is but a translation. 
 It is certain that the universal Church of Christ has 
 in all ages retained, and constantly practised, the 
 form, in the name of the Trinity ; and all ancient and 
 modern translations from the Greek itself have in- 
 serted in the text of the institution " in the name," 
 rather than " into the name ;" which plainly intimates 
 that the former is the most genuine sense of St. 
 Matthew's original word, and consequently suffi- 
 ciently authorises me to lay so great a stress upon 
 the usual form of administering baptism " in the 
 name" of the Trinity : which necessarily supposes 
 the administrator thereof to be vested with the divine 
 power and commission; wherein I am the more con- 
 firmed by the twenty-sixth article of the Church of 
 England, which expressly affirms, that the adminis- 
 trator does minister by " Christ's commission and 
 authority." 
 
 Dr. Hammond^ indeed, in his Practical Catechism, 
 book vi. § 2. mentions the Greek " into the name;" but 
 
 [1 Works, vol. i. p. 115.] 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 25 
 
 then he applies it only to the part of the person bap- 
 tised, and says that it signifies, " that he devotes 
 and delivers himself up to be ruled, as an obedient 
 servant, by the directions of this great Master, a 
 willing disciple of this blessed Trinity." But this 
 is nothing to our present purpose, which is only to 
 inquire, what the form of administration signifies on 
 the minister's part. And this the same author tells 
 us, in the forecited place, viz. " That the words, ' I 
 baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' being prescribed by 
 Christ to His disciples (i. e. apostles) must indispens- 
 ably be used by all in the administration ; and the 
 meaning of them on the minister's part is, that 
 what he doth, he doth not of himself, but in the name 
 or power of, or by commission from, the blessed 
 Trinity." 
 
 Nay, though the minister in baptising should say, 
 " I baptise thee into the name of the Father," &c., 
 which would be contrarj'^ to the universal form, j-et 
 even then he would thereby assert the divine com- 
 mission by which he acted ; because, on his part, 
 baptising the person into the name must signify, that 
 by that action he admits him into the service of the 
 blessed Trinity; which being a service of infinite be- 
 nefit, and attended with inestimable supernatural re- 
 wards to the person admitted, must necessarily sup- 
 pose the person admitting to be vested with a par- 
 ticular power and supernatural authority for so great 
 a purpose ; l)ecaupe no natural power or authority is 
 
 D 
 
26 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 sufficient to confer any the least supernatural benefit 
 or advantage. But this truth will be further con- 
 firmed by the arguments that may be drawn, 
 
 IV. From the design and benefits of Christian 
 baptism. For by the words of institution it is plain, 
 that the design thereof is to disciple all nations (St. 
 Matt, xxviii.) ; or, which is the same thing, to enter 
 them into the Church of Christ ; which in several 
 places of sacred Scripture is called the kingdom of 
 God, and the kingdom of heaven. Now it is evi- 
 dent to whom our Saviour gave the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven, viz. to His apostles expressly, and in 
 them to their successors ; and consequently, that He 
 gave to them, and those only whom they should 
 authorise, the supernatural power of admitting per- 
 sons into the Church by baptism, which is the only 
 rite of initiation into this sacred society. 
 
 One of the great privileges of true Christian bap- 
 tism is, that it is for the forgiveness of sins : this is a 
 supernatural benefit ; and therefore it may be justly 
 asked, who can forgive sins but God only ? And if 
 none can, then certainly no man can assume to him- 
 self the power of conveying this forgiveness of sins to 
 others by the means of baptism, except he be en- 
 dowed for that purpose with power from on high, 
 even from God Himself. And if any should, without 
 the divine commission, suppose himself to have this 
 power, it is plain that his ministrations must be in- 
 effectual for so great a purpose, because he is desti- 
 tute of the divine character : he does not truly per- 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 27 
 
 sonate God, the bestower of this great privilege, but 
 runs without being sent ; and God has not any where, 
 either by promise or covenant, obliged Himself to 
 ratify and confirm the precipitate acts and usurped 
 administrations of such rash and presumptuous under- 
 takers. But we know to whom our Lord gave this 
 authority, viz. to His apostles, and therefore will con- 
 firm their acts, when He said. Whosesoever sins ye 
 remit, they are remitted unto them ; ^ and therefore 
 they only, and such as they appoint, can mediately 
 remit sins by Christian baptism. 
 
 Another great privilege of Christian baptism is, 
 that those who receive it are thereby entitled to all 
 the unspeakable advantages of free denizens of hea- 
 ven, notwithstanding that before they were aliens and 
 strangers,'^ and therefore had no claim, nor any right 
 or title, to this freedom. Now let any man but se- 
 riously reflect, how unreasonable it would be for a 
 stranger and foreigner in any state or kingdom to 
 imagine that every, even natural subjects there, could 
 have authority to grant him a valid naturalisation, 
 and thereby endow him vdth all the rights and im- 
 munities which the free-born subjects of that state or 
 kingdom do enjoy; would it not be ridiculous for him 
 to accept, knowingly, of such a pretended naturaU- 
 sation ? And if he should, can it be thought reason- 
 able that he should enjoy all the advantages annexed 
 to a true and lawful naturalisation, to be received from 
 
 [' John XX. 23.] [- Eph. u. 19.] 
 
28 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 the hands of those only who are authorised for that 
 purj30se ? Certainly no ; never a well-regulated state 
 or kingdom in the world, that has laws for naturalis- 
 ing strangers, would allow it : and shall it then be 
 once thought that every subject, of how mean a sta- 
 tion so ever he be in this spiritual kingdom of God, 
 can have authority to entitle strangers to all the su- 
 pernatural advantages which are consequent to a legal 
 and valid naturalisation ? 
 
 And, indeed, all the benefits and privileges of 
 true Christian baptism are so great and many, that it 
 would be endless to recount them. Let it suffice to 
 say, that it is a sign, a seal, a means of conveyance, 
 and a pledge to assure us of these supernatural advan- 
 tages, viz. of being incorporated into the household, 
 and thereby made members of Christ, children of 
 God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven, and of all 
 the unspeakable happinesses thereof, which eye hath 
 not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the 
 heart of man to conceive? 
 
 Now, if any reasonable unprejudiced man will but 
 duly reflect on these so inconceivable and inestimable 
 privileges, so infinitely above all the powers of nature 
 either to obtain or bestow without some supernatural 
 donation, it will be very difficult, nay, I may say 
 impossible, for him to believe that God, Who is the 
 God of order and not of confusion, will bestow them 
 by the mediation of those to whom He has given no 
 authority for that purpose ; especially when he re- 
 [' ICor. ii. 9.] 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 29 
 
 members that God has set apart a peculiar order of 
 men to be the stewards of these His mysteries, and 
 to whom He has given the power of the keys, whereby 
 to admit into and exclude out of His spiritual king- 
 dom, as the sacred Scriptures do sufficiently inform 
 us. These men He has dignified with extraordinary 
 marks and signal character of honour, and separated 
 them from the rest of mankind, that they might repre- 
 sent His sacred presence among us, and that we might 
 have a strong confidence and well-grounded assui'ance 
 of their divine mission, and of our own happiness in 
 being admitted through baptism into the number and 
 privileges of His children by their authorised minis- 
 tration. 
 
 For the baptism wherewith they initiate us into 
 Christ's spiritual kingdom is not theirs, but His ; it 
 is He that baptises us by their ministry. His Father 
 sent Him to be the one Mediator between God and 
 men -^ as such. He sent His apostles and their suc- 
 cessors to be His representatives, to perform acts of 
 mediation between God and man in His stead and by 
 His authority, that so they might be His own acts, 
 and become therefore acceptable to His Father for 
 our spiritual benefit and advantage. For says He to 
 these same apostles whom He authorised to baptise. 
 As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you : lo, I 
 am with you alway ; thereby making them to person- 
 ate Himself ; that He, though in heaven, might visibly 
 here on earth mediate for us Himself by their minis- 
 \} 1 Tim. ii. J.] 
 
 D 2 
 
30 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 try, which is Himself, because they act by His autho- 
 rity, being sent by Him. Without Him no ministra- 
 tions in our behalf can be acceptable to His Father ; 
 for, says He, no man cometh unto the Father hut hy Me 
 (John xiv. 6) ; for without Me ye can do nothing 
 (John XV. 5). Hence we find why the Scripture says 
 that Jesus made and baptised disciples (John iii. 22, 
 iv. 1), because He did it by those whom He had sent 
 for that purpose ; for (ver. 2) Jesus Himself {i. e. in 
 His own person) baptised not, but His disciples. He 
 baptised, but it was by them, vested with His autho- 
 rity, and thereby it became His own act : even so 
 that baptism might always be justly interpreted to be 
 done by Him, Who is the only proper Mediator, and 
 Whose mediatorial acts alone are, as such, acceptable 
 to His Father in our behalf. He vested His apostles 
 and their successors, and such as are ordained by 
 them, with His own authority to baptise to the end of 
 the world, that they might personate Him in this act 
 of mediation, and that consequently He might con- 
 tinue to make and baptise disciples by their ministry, 
 which He cannot be said to do by the act of one 
 whom He never sent. For which reason, added to 
 those others I have brought under this fourth head, 
 we may truly say that the divine authority of him 
 who administers baptism is an essential part of that 
 holy institution. But this is confirmed also, 
 
 V. By the constant practice of those who truly 
 are, and of others who pretend to be, the lawful 
 ministers of the Christian Church. 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 31 
 
 The lawful ministers in aU ages have claimed the 
 authority of baptising, even from the time of our 
 Saviour's first giving the commission to His eleven 
 apostles unto this day ; and for this very reason, 
 because they derived their ministerial power and 
 authority from Christ. But if the divine authority 
 of the administrator of baptism were not an essential 
 part of that institution, their claim would have been 
 unjust when founded upon their divine right ; and so 
 every man would have had as much authority to bap- 
 tise as they : but forasmuch as they were never ac- 
 cused of injustice for making this claim (except by 
 such wretches as the author of The Rights, &c.,^ who 
 would confound all order in the Christian Church), 
 and since all sober Christians, who know their duty, 
 never laid claim to this authority, it necessarily fol- 
 lows that the la\A'ful minister's claim is good, and 
 consequently that the divine authority of him who 
 administers is an essential part of baptism. 
 
 As for those who pretend to be, but are not, the 
 lawful ministers of Christ, it is well known that they 
 plead for the authority of baptising upon this very 
 score, that they esteem their ministerial commission 
 to be of divine right, and therefore will never suffer 
 their common people to administer baptism. From 
 whence it foUows that they also in practice confirm 
 this assertion of the divine authority of the adminis- 
 trator of baptism ; otherwise their claiming the power 
 
 \} "The Rights of the Christian Church asserted." Tindal 
 the Deist.] 
 
32 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 of baptising, by virtue of the supposed divine right of 
 their mission, would be a mere foolery, and indeed a 
 contradiction. 
 
 So that the lawful minister's claiming the autho- 
 rity of baptising, because his mission is truly of divine 
 right, and the unlawful minister's claiming the same 
 authority, because he esteems his mission also to be 
 of divine right, do both conspire by their practice to 
 confirm this truth, — that the divine authority of the 
 administrator of baptism is an essential part of that 
 holy institution : and this is not a little corroborated, 
 
 VI. and lastly. From the doctrine and practice 
 of the Church of England. 
 
 For in her twenty- third article of religion, she 
 affirms that "it is not lawful for any man to take 
 upon him the office of ministering the sacraments, 
 &c., before he be lawfully called and sent to execute 
 the same." Now what can this article mean by "it 
 is not lawful ?" Certainly nothing else but that it is 
 sinful, or contrary to the divine law in the holy Scrip- 
 ture ; for she is not treating of civil but spiritual 
 things. But against what law in the sacred Scrip- 
 tures is this a sin ? Surely against that law which 
 treats of these sacraments ; and this law is princi- 
 pally in the institution of them : so that the plain 
 meaning of this article must be, that it is contrary to 
 the very institution of the sacraments for any man to 
 take upon him "the office of administering them, 
 before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the 
 same." 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 33 
 
 And in her twenty -sixth article she teaches, 
 " that the administrators of the sacraments do not 
 minister in their own name, but in Christ's, and by 
 His commission and authority." 
 
 And lest every one who has acquired, though not 
 justly, the reputation of being such a lawful minister, 
 should fancy himself to have Christ's commission, 
 because the people made choice of him, and some 
 others of higher rank among them took upon them 
 to ordain him, separate from and independent of the 
 bishop ; 
 
 In the preface to her form and manner of making, 
 ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and 
 deacons, she tells us thus : " It is evident unto all men 
 diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors, 
 that from the apostles' time there have been these 
 orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, 
 and deacons. Which offices were evermore had in 
 such reverend estimation, that no man might pre- 
 sume to execute any of them, except he, by public 
 prayer, with imposition of hands, were approved and 
 admitted thereunto by lawful authority." And what 
 she means by this lawful authority is plain by the 
 words immediately following : " And therefore, &c., 
 no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful 
 bishop, priest, or deacon, in the united Church of 
 England and Ireland, or suffered to execute any of 
 the said functions, except he be called, SiC, there- 
 unto according to the form hereafter following, or 
 hath had formerly episcopal consecration or ordina- 
 
34 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 iion." Whereby she confines the lawful authority so 
 evidently to episcopacy, that a man must be wilfully 
 blind who dares to deny it. 
 
 All which put together sufficiently proves, that by 
 the doctrine of this Church the divine authority of 
 the administrator of Christian sacraments is an essen- 
 tial part of their institution ; and consequently that 
 the divine authority of the administrator of baptism, 
 which is one of those sacraments, must be also an 
 essential part of that holy institution. 
 
 So likewise by her practice she confirms this 
 truth ; for in her office of ordering of priests, the 
 bishop says to the priest, " Receive the Holy Ghost 
 for the office and work of a priest in the Church of 
 God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of 
 our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are 
 forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are 
 retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the 
 word of God and of His holy sacraments, in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 Amen." And delivering to the priest kneeling the 
 Bible into his hand, the bishop adds, " Take thou 
 authority to preach the word of God, and to minister 
 the holy sacraments." By all which it is plain, that 
 she reckons the administration of the sacraments to 
 be essential to the office of the priest ; and that he 
 must have commission, even from the holy Trinity, 
 by the mediation of the bishop conveyed to him, to 
 qualify and authorise him to administer the same. 
 And in conformity to this her rule of practice, when 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 35 
 
 any person, though formerly a teacher, and one who 
 has assumed to himself before the power of baptising 
 and administering the Lord's supper, notwithstanding 
 his having continued even in the tolerated practice 
 of these usurpations for many years together ; nay, 
 though chosen thereto by the consent of the people, 
 who submitted to and acknowledged aU such his 
 ministrations to be valid and good, — when such a 
 man, I say, forsakes his heresies or schisms, and 
 returns, or desires to be united to her communion, 
 and to be reckoned in the number, and to have 
 license to act as one of her lawful ministers, she will 
 not allow him such a license : he must be received 
 only to lay communion, if he was never before divinely 
 authorised by imposition of episcopal hands, and now 
 refuses to accept such Catholic ordination. She 
 thereby declares that he wants the divine commission 
 to act in such holy ministrations, and that she will 
 not acquiesce with his former usurpations ; he must 
 disclaim and renounce them now, if in her commu- 
 nion he would be allowed to officiate in the word and 
 sacraments as the rest of her ministers do. But why 
 all this, if his power and authority had been sufficient 
 before for the purposes of the holy sacraments } If 
 his commission was good then, it is so now, and it 
 is needless to re-ordain him ; but if it was invalid, 
 she acts consistently with herself in refusing to admit 
 him among her ministers, to whom alone she gives 
 authority for these great purposes. And really it 
 ought not to be dissembled, that if such a man's 
 
36 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 administrations of the sacraments were before agree- 
 able to, and not breaches of, their institution, his 
 ministry before was also valid, and therefore it would 
 be even unjust to require him to take up a new com- 
 mission, and from another sort of authority than what 
 he had received it from at first ; because the design 
 of handing down Christ's commission to ministers in 
 all ages is, that there may be constantly such persons 
 to administer the hoi)?- sacraments, as He in the first 
 institution of those sacraments did authorise and re- 
 quire. But forasmuch as the Church of England 
 requires such persons as above mentioned to receive 
 the divine authority, which she reckons they wanted 
 before, to qualify them for the administration of 
 sacraments, it is plain that this her practice discour- 
 ages us to hope that, without the divine authority, 
 they are qualified for such ministrations, and conse- 
 quently confirms us in this, that the divine commis- 
 sion of the administrator is an essential part of the 
 institution of a sacrament. Nay, so very cautious is 
 she not to allow the contrary, that she makes not so 
 much as any exception for cases of absolute neces- 
 sity ; no, not though an unbaptised person were giv- 
 ing up the ghost, she has not declared that any one 
 may baptise him but the minister of the parish, or, in 
 his absence, any other lawful minister that can be 
 procured, — as in her office for private baptism, which 
 is the only office she has provided for cases of neces- 
 sity : and what she means in the rubric thereof by 
 " lawful minister" is easily determined by her twenty- 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 37 
 
 sixth article of religion, viz. " one who ministers in 
 Christ's name, and by His commission and authority." 
 But of this I have treated more largely in my 
 book of Dissenters' Baptisms null and void hy the 
 Articles, Canons, and Rubrics of the Church of Eng- 
 land? To which give me leave to add here, that in 
 her offices for pubhc baptism she requires the priest 
 to address to God in behalf of the baptised thus : 
 " Grant that whosoever is here," as in the office for 
 infants ; or, " that they being here," as in the office 
 for those of riper years, ''dedicated to Thee by our 
 office and ministry, may also be endued with heavenly 
 virtues," &c. This dedication of persons to God by 
 baptism is plainly asserted here by the Church to be 
 by the office of those who, in her twenty-sixth article, 
 she says " minister in Christ's name, and by His com- 
 mission and authority ;" plainly connecting the divine 
 authority of the administrator of baptism with the bap- 
 tism itself ; and so closely, too, that she no where, in 
 any of her public acts, gives us the least encourage- 
 ment to think that this dedication can be by any 
 other ; and therefore what God and His Church have 
 so joined together, let no man put asunder. 
 
 And now to sum up all that has been said under 
 these six heads. 
 
 1 . Forasmuch as God under the Mosaic dispensa- 
 
 \} Dissenters' and other unauthorised Baptisms null and 
 void, &c. In answer to a pamphlet called " The Judgment of 
 the Church," &c. [by Bishop Fleetwood. See Editor's Preface.] 
 1712.] 
 
 £ 
 
38 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 tion, M^hich was but the forerunner of the Christian, 
 made the divine authority of the administrator an 
 essential part of His then positive institutions, inso- 
 much as not to accept of the performance of the latter 
 without the former : 2. Forasmuch as Christ Himself, 
 notwithstanding His own personal excellencies and 
 perfections, and the pressing necessities of the whole 
 world, which stood in need of His ministrations, 
 would not leave His private station to take upon 
 Him so great an office till duly authorised by the 
 divine external commission : 3. Forasmuch as, in the 
 words of the institution of baptism, our Lord commis- 
 sioned no other than His eleven apostles, and their 
 successors and substitutes, to baptise to the end of 
 the world : 4. Forasmuch as their commission, as 
 all others are, is exclusive of all but those to whom 
 it was given ; and the very form of administration of 
 baptism, in the name or by the authority of the Tri- 
 nity, requires, and necessarily supposes and implies, 
 the divine authority of him who administers : 5. For- 
 asmuch as the words of institution are an express 
 command to the apostles, and their successors and 
 substitutes, to baptise all capable persons who have 
 not been baptised by them : 6. Forasmuch as the 
 benefits of baptism are so great and supernatural, 
 that none can give or convey them by baptism but 
 such as God has appointed ; 7. Forasmuch as Christ 
 Himself baptises us by the ministry of those whom 
 He has sent for that purpose ; and we cannot be 
 said to be baptised by Him, when it is done by one 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 39 
 
 whom He never sent : 8. Forasmuch as all who call 
 themselves the divinely authorised ministers of the 
 Christian Church have in all ages claimed the power 
 of baptising upon the account of their divine commis- 
 sion : and lastly, Forasmuch as the Church of Eng- 
 land, by her doctrine and practice, gives sufficient 
 ground to believe that none can administer sacra- 
 ments but those who are divinely authorised for that 
 purpose ; and that to pretend to do so is contrary 
 even to the very institution of the Christian sacra- 
 ments ; — seeing all these premises are true, and not 
 to be denied without running into unavoidable incon- 
 sistencies and contradictions, it must necessarily be 
 granted that the divine authority of the administrator 
 of baptism is an essential part of that holy institution, 
 to be observed as often and as long as baptism shall 
 be necessary to be administered, even to the end of 
 the world. 
 
 Prop. II. That every essential part of Christian 
 baptism, viz. the divine authority of the administra- 
 tor, the water, and the form of administration in the 
 name of the Trinity, is of equal obligation and neces- 
 sity to us. 
 
 Demonst. This will follow from the first proposi- 
 tion of the Introduction, which I shall apply to this 
 di\ane positive institution ; for the very nature of this 
 institution is such, that it had no intrinsic excellency 
 or moral virtue, either in the person baptising, or in 
 the water, or in the form of words wherewith bap- 
 tism is given, to bind or oblige us to observe the same, 
 
40 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 till the divine command laid that necessity upon us, 
 as indeed we find it did; so that now we are obliged 
 to observe this institution purely and only by virtue 
 of this divine command, which — forasmuch as it ex- 
 tends itself to every one of the said essential parts 
 thereof, as has been proved in the preceding propo- 
 sition, wherein it was demonstrated that the divine 
 authority of the administrator of baptism is an essen- 
 tial part thereof, as well as the water and the form — 
 will make them all of equal authority, and conse- 
 quently of equal necessity and obligation to us ; be- 
 cause the di\dne authority of the administrator, the 
 water, and the form of administration, are every one 
 of them distinctly of the same nature, i. e. but mere 
 positive institutes, as the whole institution itself. And, 
 again, being all essential parts, or such as are con- 
 stantly to be observed as long as the ordinance of 
 baptism shall be obliging, it is evident, that for the 
 same reason as one part may be omitted, another 
 may be so likewise, and consequently that every one 
 of them is upon all accounts whatsoever of equal ob- 
 ligation and necessity to us. — Q. E. D. 
 
 Corol. Hence it follows, that as no human au- 
 thority can dispense with the whole institution of 
 baptism, where it is binding and obliging (axiom 3), 
 so neither can they dispense with the omission of 
 either water, or the form of administration in the 
 name of the Trinity, or the divine mission of him 
 who administers. Nor can any such authority deter- 
 mine that one of these essential parts of the adminis- 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 41 
 
 tration of baptism is more excellent than another, 
 because they have every one distinctly the same au- 
 thority commanding, from whi(;h alone they receive 
 their whole force and efficacy, and are only by virtue 
 of that one authority made equally necessary and 
 binding to us. 
 
 Prop. III. Whosoever affirms baptism to be 
 whoUy nuU and invalid, by reason of the omission 
 either of water or of the form of administering in the 
 name of the Trinity, ought also, for the same reason, 
 to acknowledge that baptism is as much null and 
 invalid when it wants only the divine authority or 
 commission of the administrator. 
 
 Demonst. This will follow from the second pro- 
 position of the Introduction. 
 
 For the only reason why the omission of either 
 water or the form makes such a baptism void, must be 
 because such omission is unlawful, or contrary to the 
 institution of baptism (axiom 4). So that he must 
 affirm such baptism null, because it is administered 
 either with such matter or form as the institution has 
 not appointed, or because it is not administered with 
 such matter or form as the institution requires. Now, 
 forasmuch as Christ, who apjDointed the water and the 
 form, appointed also the person who should adminis- 
 ter both the one and the other, and since the divine 
 authorit}'^ of this administrator is an essential part, 
 and as much obliging and necessary as water and the 
 form, those two other essential parts of the institu- 
 tion, by the first and second propositions, — it must 
 
 E 2 
 
42 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 necessarily follow, that the want of divine authority 
 in him who administers is equally a breach of, or con- 
 trary to, the said institution ; and therefore, if the 
 want of water or the form makes any baptism to be 
 wholly null and void, because contrary to the institu- 
 tion, the want also of only the divine commission in 
 the administrator must, for the same reason, make that 
 baptism so ministered to be wholly invalid and of no 
 effect, being equally contrary to the same institution. 
 And consequently whosoever affirms baptism to be 
 wholly null and invalid, by reason of the omission 
 either of water or the form, ought also, for the same 
 reason, to acknowledge that baptism is as much null 
 and invalid when it wants only the divine authority 
 or commission of the administrator. — Q. E. D. 
 
 Corol. From this proposition it undoubtedly fol- 
 lows, that the invalidity of such baptisms as are ad- 
 ministered by unauthorised persons cannot be partial, 
 but entire ; for if baptism be wholly void for want of 
 water, or the form of administering in the name of 
 the Trinity, as the whole Church of Christ has con- 
 stantly and with great reason affirmed, it must be 
 also by this last proposition, as entirely, and con- 
 sequently not partially, invalid, for want of only the 
 divine mission of the administrator ; and all this by 
 reason of the equal authority and necessity of every 
 one of these essential parts. 
 
 I mention this, that there cannot be any partial 
 invalidity, but it must be whole and entire ; because I 
 have heard from some, that the want of the divine 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 43 
 
 mission of the administrator of baptism makes such 
 a baptism but partially invalid ; and that, provided the 
 person is baptised by such a one with water, and pro- 
 nouncing of "in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost," imposition of the bi- 
 shop's hand^ is sufficient to supply the other defect, 
 and consequently to make such baptism as valid as 
 it would have been if administered by one divinely 
 authorised, that is, wholly and entirely valid. But 
 that this cannot be, is evident by the above-mentioned 
 corollary, wherein it is plainly demonstrated, that if 
 in this case there be any invahdity at aU, it can- 
 not be partial, but entire. And as for the virtue 
 of such imposition of hands, it is utterly contrary to 
 axiom 5, which is di first principle ; viz. that no power 
 or authority on earth can, by any after-act not ap- 
 pointed by God for that purpose, make that which 
 before was invalid to become as valid as conforming 
 to the divine institution itself would have made it. 
 So that, if by imposition of hands they would make 
 such imperfect or invalid baptisms to be as valid as 
 the perfect ones performed according to the institu- 
 tion, it lies upon them to demonstrate that such im- 
 position of hands was appointed by God Himself, 
 either in some law, or by the practice of the holy 
 apostles, for such a purpose ; but this I despair of 
 ever seeing them do, because the sacred oracles give 
 us not the least encouragement, either in plain words, 
 or by good inferences to be drawn from such as are 
 \} in Confirmation.] 
 
44 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 not SO plain, to believe that this rite of the imposi- 
 tion of hands, with respect to baptised persons, was 
 ever ordained but to be performed on those only who 
 were before truly and validly baptised. There is not 
 one example of the apostles using this ceremony to 
 make up such defects of baptism, nor any thing like 
 it ; and if, in after-ages, some used this ordinance for 
 that purpose, as it is asserted, though upon what good 
 evidence I know not, that they did, they seem thereby 
 to have dispensed with a divine positive institution, 
 at the same time that it was binding and obliging; 
 which was taking to themselves an authority that did 
 not at all belong to them, by axiom 3 : I say, they 
 dispensed with a divine positive institution when it 
 was binding and obliging, because they allowed of 
 the omission of the divine authority of the adminis- 
 trator of baptism, which might have been had, and 
 was therefore binding and obliging, at the same time 
 as they gave imposition of hands to such invalidly 
 baptised persons, who might, instead thereof, have 
 been then baptised by themselves or their substitutes, 
 who were vested with the divine authority for that 
 purpose. 
 
 As for the Church of England, she gives us not 
 the least intimation of any efficacy in the imposition 
 of the bishop's hands, ^ to give validity to such bap- 
 tisms as are supposed to be partly invalid before, for 
 her office of confirmation is made only for persons 
 validly baptised ; and if they are not so, the use of 
 [' pp. 107, lOS.] 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 45 
 
 that office upon their account will be a perfect con- 
 tradiction, because the prayer of the bishop, before 
 he blesses by imposition of his hands, asserts *' that 
 God has regenerated the person by water and the 
 Holy Ghost; and has given unto him forgiveness of 
 all his sins ;" which takes in the whole benefit of 
 valid baptism, and therefore cannot be said, with any 
 sense, over a person whose baptism is supposed to be 
 but partly valid, and consequently to convey but part 
 of the benefits of true baptism. So little has she 
 provided for any method of giving validity to partly 
 invalid baptisms. 
 
 We have some among us who say, " that the 
 ancient Churches, when they found that persons 
 had been baptised in or with water, in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 though by lay persons, or heretics, or schismatics, 
 they refused to give such, persons catholic baptism at 
 the hands of those who were duly authorised by the 
 divine commission ; because they reckoned any bap- 
 tism with water in the name of the Trinity, by whom- 
 soever administered, to be that one baptism which 
 ought not to be repeated. But yet, at the same time, 
 they esteemed such a baptism in some measure in- 
 valid, till it was perfected, or rather mended, by im- 
 position of the bishop's hands." And for this they 
 bring the council of Eliberis, a.d. 305. can. 38. (See 
 Prelim. Discourse.) And because that council re- 
 quired the lay-baptised person to be presented to the 
 bishop, to be perfected by imposition of hands, thence 
 
46 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 they conclude, that there was a partial invalidity in 
 the baptism before, but that it was made wholly valid 
 by imposition of hands. 
 
 But this is only gratis dictum : for the primitive 
 Church, when she refused to give such a second 
 washing, refused it upon this account, that she es- 
 teemed the baptism before to be the one valid bap- 
 tism ; and the imposition of hands enjoined by her 
 was no other than that which was used either at the 
 confirmation of all other validly baptised persons, or 
 else at the restoring of returning penitents, and to 
 the same ends and purposes — not with any design to 
 give an essential and total validity to that act of bap- 
 tism, which had an essential invalidity before. And 
 this is what is meant by perfected in the council of 
 Eliberis, viz. that the baptised person should be con- 
 firmed by the bishop, as all other baptised Christians 
 used to be ; because all valid baptisms were reckoned 
 by the Church to be consummated and finished by 
 confirmation, or imposition of the bishop's hands, 
 which in those days was immediately performed after 
 bajotism, or as soon after as possibly could be. 
 
 For these gentlemen to say that the ancients 
 reckoned any baptism with water in the name of the 
 Trinity, by whomsoever administered, to be that one 
 baptism which ought not to be repeated, is a great 
 mistake; for the Cyprianists and the Eastern Churches 
 affirmed and practised otherwise ; and particularly in 
 the baptism of the Montanists, who, though they were 
 washed in or with water in the name of the Trinity, 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 47 
 
 were not admitted into the Church without a second 
 baptism. And St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and the 
 Catholics after the Nicene council, condemn the bap- 
 tism of laymen as null and void, though they were 
 done with water in the name of the Trinity ; and so 
 do the Apostolic Canons the baptism of heretics, as is 
 plain by the instances in my Preliminary Discourse. 
 But to tell us that the primitives called such heretical 
 and schismatical baptisms as were not repeated, and 
 such lay baptisms as she had by canon allowed, partly 
 invalid, and that she made them totally valid by im- 
 position of the bishop's hands, is to impose upon us 
 very great inconsistencies. For if, as we all agree, 
 there be but one baptism, it must certainly be that 
 which has no invalidity, being administered exactly 
 according to the essentials of the institution; and 
 therefore those other baptisms which are not so ad- 
 ministered, and are therefore confessedly imperfect 
 and partly invalid, must be of another kind, distinct 
 from that one true baptism : and this will introduce 
 two sorts of baptisms in the Christian Church ; which 
 is utterly contrary to their own assertion, as well as 
 that of the holy Scripture, which acknowledges no 
 more than one baptism for the remission of sins ; and 
 consequently these imperfect baptisms are no bap- 
 tisms at all, and so are entirely void and of no effect. 
 And, indeed, to allow the contrary, is in effect to de- 
 stroy the whole ministry of the Christian priesthood, 
 and to open a door of licentiousness to all intruders 
 into that sacred office, and thereby put every man 
 
48 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 upon a level ; insomuch that at last all may set up for 
 themselves, and refuse to give any regard or atten- 
 tion, any deference or respect, to our blessed Lord 
 and Master, in the person of His authorised ambas- 
 sadors and ministers ; for where will the conclusion 
 end, if every man may be supposed capable of giving 
 valid baptism ? Will they not argue, — what need we 
 attend upon others for these ministrations, when we 
 have as much valid power therein as themselves ? If 
 our baptisms are valid, so may our administrations of 
 the Lord's supper, and much more our preaching to 
 and teaching such people as we can gather to our- 
 selves. If validity may be allowed to all these, by 
 whomsoever administered, then farewell all rule and 
 order in the Church ; and Christ's setting some 
 therein, " first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets,"' 
 &c., "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work 
 of the ministry ;"^ and His promising " to be with 
 them to the end of the world, "^ was to no purpose. 
 And it will not serve to say, that such men will be 
 guilty of sin in those usurpations, except we say also 
 that their authoritative acts of ministering, in what 
 they call the holy sacraments, are sins too, and con- 
 sequently contrary to the institution of the real sacra- 
 ments, and therefore of no effect to convey the super- 
 natural graces and benefits annexed to them : for if 
 ever men can be once persuaded that any unautho- 
 rised person can, by means of the mere opus operatiim 
 
 [' 1 Cor. xii. 28.] [2 Eph. iv. 12.] 
 
 [2 Matt, xxviii. 20.] 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 49 
 
 of what they call sacraments, convey those unspeak- 
 able advantages which are annexed to real sacraments, 
 it will be in vain for you true ministers to tell them 
 of the sin of usurping the sacred office, when you in 
 effect assure them, that every Christian can validly 
 exercise it ; and as fruitless will it be to preach to 
 them the danger of schism, or causeless separation 
 from the Church, when you, by allowing the validity 
 of their uncommissioned teachers' ministrations of 
 supposed sacraments, give them an argument to con- 
 foimd all that you shall say for their conviction, by 
 your affirming that their pretended sacraments are as 
 true and effectual as your authorised administrations ; 
 and that (since they thereby receive as much spiritual 
 benefit as others do by yours, because God as much 
 concurs with such their sacraments as with those 
 ministered by you) your charging them with schism 
 in adhering to ministers who have no divine mission, 
 is ridiculous and nonsenical ; because they have all 
 as valid a commission as your own, which you your- 
 selves must needs grant, by allowing the validity of 
 their supposed sacraments. Nay, further, if it be 
 allowed that such their sacraments are valid, then 
 any excommunicated person — though never autho- 
 rised by a divine commission — if he can but gather a 
 congregation to himself, may set up for a valid minis- 
 ter ; and even they who know this may receive valid 
 sacraments at his hands, if the want of a divine 
 mission in the administrator does not invalidate the 
 sacraments: — which is a consequence so horrid, and 
 
 F 
 
50 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 attended with such infinite confusions, that it should 
 make sober Christians even tremble to think of it. 
 And this brings me to my last proposition, viz. 
 
 Prop. IV. That he who knows himself to have 
 been invalidly baptised by one who never had the 
 divine commission, can have no just grounds to ex- 
 pect the supernatural graces and benefits annexed to 
 the one true Christian baptism, till he has done his 
 utmost for the obtaining of them, by endeavouring to 
 procure that one baptism from the hands of a divinely 
 authorised minister. 
 
 Demonst. For, how^ever God may dispense with 
 the want of this sacrament (axiom 2) to those w'ho 
 know nothing of it ; such as infants, or others who 
 think they have received it, though they have not, 
 and w^ould receive it, if they could be persuaded that 
 they had not ; or lastly, those who know that they 
 never received it, and are heartily desirous of it, but 
 cannot possibly attain it, — yet, as he who knows 
 to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin (axiom 
 6), so he who knows that he ought to be baptised by 
 a minister vested with the divine authority for that 
 purpose, and neglects to be so baptised, incurs the 
 guilt of sin ; and consequently, while he continues 
 in that guilt, can (by axiom 6) expect none of the 
 supernatural benefits annexed to the due performance 
 of his neglected duty of receiving such valid baptism. 
 This is so clear and evident that there is no need to 
 enlarge upon it : only I would further add, that if he 
 knows himself to be invalidly baptised by one who 
 
LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 51 
 
 never had the divine commission, and who notwith- 
 standing presumed to baptise him, in opposition to, 
 and rebelHon against, those who were truly authorised 
 for that purpose, — his acquiescing with such a bap- 
 tism will be an addition to his sin ; because he there- 
 by makes himself di partner in the other's rebellion, and 
 strengthens him and his adherents in their wicked- 
 ness of opposing Christ's lawful ministers, concerning 
 whom our blessed Lord has positively affirmed, that 
 he that despiseth them despiseth Him, and he that 
 despiseth Him despiseth Him that sent Him} And 
 what greater contempt can be offered to them, than 
 to take part with such as oppose them in all the 
 ministrations of that sacred office to which our Sa- 
 viour has appointed them ? This should make us 
 exceeding careful not to concur with such men in 
 their usurpations ; especially considering, that by this 
 our concurrence we involve ourselves in the guilt of 
 rebellion, even against God Himself ; the consequence 
 of which must needs fall infinitely short of any the 
 least advantage, and, on the contrary, bring upon us 
 the severest of His wrath, instead of those super- 
 natural graces and benefits w^hich He has promised to 
 those who duly obey His holy institutes. 
 
 As for those who do not, but yet may, know 
 whether the baptism they have received be according 
 to Christ's institution or no, and consequently valid 
 or not valid ; it highly concerns them to make use of 
 those faculties wherewith God has blessed them, that 
 \} Luke X. 16.] 
 
52 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 they may not be deceived in so great an affair as this 
 is. For wilful ignorance and carelessness in spiritual 
 things will never excuse them at the day of judg- 
 ment. Nor will it then serve their turns to plead 
 that they followed the instructions and examples of 
 their teachers ; for our Lord, who is truth itself, has 
 faithfully assured us, that, if the blind lead the blind, 
 both shall fall into the ditch : ^ and the unprofitable 
 servant, who improved not his lord's talent, but hid 
 it in a napkin, was for his sloth and idleness branded 
 with the dreadful name of wicked, and cast into outer 
 darkness ; to teach us diligence in the most important 
 things of another life. And what can be of greater 
 importance to us, than to know whether we are truly 
 initiated into the Christian Church, and thereby en- 
 titled to all those infinite benefits and privileges, those 
 inestimable graces and blessings, which every member 
 of the Church has a right and title to } Certainly it 
 highly concerns us us to know the truth of our claim 
 to such vast benefits, since our Saviour has told us, 
 that Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
 he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;^ he cannot 
 be a member of that kingdom here in the Church 
 militant, the only known ark of salvation from the 
 wrath to come, nor in heaven hereafter, in the Church 
 triumphant, if, through his carelessness and negli- 
 gence, he has not been really initiated or entered 
 thereinto by that one baptism which Christ has in- 
 stituted, and commissioned His apostles, and them 
 [1 Matt. XV. 14.] [^ John iii. 5.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 53 
 
 only, with their successors and their substitutes, to 
 administer for that purpose to the end of the world. 
 
 And now, having gone through all that I designed 
 to say about invalid baptism, I shall conclude with 
 my answers to some few objections that may probably 
 be started against this essay. 
 
 ObJ. I. Some may object, that though Christ 
 bid His eleven apostles disciple the nations, baptising 
 them, &c., yet He did not therefore confine baptism 
 to them and their successors' ministration, so as that 
 none can administer true baptism but they, and such 
 only as they shall authorise ; for if He had. He 
 would in express words have told us that no others 
 should have authority to baptise but they. 
 
 Answer. It is universally granted that our Lord 
 confined the matter of baptism to water, and the 
 form to "in the name of the Trinity," merely by His 
 saying these words, Baptising them in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? 
 So that no other matter or form can be introduced 
 for the administration of valid baptism, though Christ 
 has not in express words forbidden us to introduce 
 them. Even so, though He has no where said in 
 express words, " that none but His apostles, and 
 their successors, and such as they should appoint, 
 might have this authority ;" yet I affirm, that He has 
 [' Matt, xxviii. 19.] 
 
 F 2 
 
54 LAY BAPTISM INVALID, 
 
 confined true Christian baptism to their ministration 
 only ; because He has done as much as if He had 
 said so in express and positive words : for He gave 
 that commission particularly to them, and to no 
 others, and promised constantly to concur with and 
 support them in the exercise thereof, to the end of 
 the w'orld ; and He has made no such promise to lay 
 baptisers : and this is as full and express, as His ap- 
 pointing no other matter than " water," and no other 
 form than " in the name of the Trinity ;" as is very 
 evident to all who give themselves leave to think 
 justly and adequately on the words of institution. 
 Besides, this commission is of such great moment, 
 that the apostles themselves could never have law- 
 fully undertaken to minister in it, if Christ Himself 
 had not particularly authorised them so to do ; be- 
 cause baptism is, by virtue only of Christ's institu- 
 tion, made a means oi conwejm^ supernatural benefits, 
 which they had no natural right to confer on any 
 man by means thereof; and they could acquire no 
 supernatural one to do so, till Christ gave them that 
 power by a particular designation, as we find He did 
 in the very words of institution ; and therefore, since 
 the apostles themselves could never have presumed to 
 act in this great ministration without a particular 
 divine commission, it being impossible for even them 
 to administer baptism valid for supernatural ends and 
 purposes without it ; it must needs follow, that no 
 others can do so but by virtue of this, or some other 
 new commission; and if they have no new one, they 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 55 
 
 must do it by virtue of the old ; and consequently he 
 who administers baptism valid for supernatural pur- 
 poses {and it is not Christian baptism if it be not thus 
 valid), must necessarily be vested with the divine 
 commission, given at first to the eleven apostles, and 
 by their successors conveyed down to him. And if 
 so, then all others are excluded from any vahd mi- 
 nistration hereof, because they are destitute of this 
 divine commission, which was never once given to 
 them for such a purpose. 
 
 Obj. II. Others may probably object, that at 
 this rate I confine the efficacy of the sacraments, and 
 particularly of baptism, wholly to the divine authority 
 of the administrator ; and so, if the person who 
 ministers has not been commissioned by Christ, he 
 administers no real sacraments at all. 
 
 Ans. When the outward elements of the Chris- 
 tian sacraments are rightly administered according to 
 all the essential parts of their institution, then, and 
 then only, they become efficacious to the worthy 
 receiver of them ; and this their efficacy proceeds 
 only from God's concurrence with His promise, made 
 to such due administration of them. So that in 
 Christian baptism the efficacy depends no more upon 
 the divine commission of him who administers, than 
 upon the water and the form of administration ; but 
 upon God's performing His promise, to bestow the 
 supernatural graces thereof by the mediation of His 
 own ministers applying the water in the name of the 
 Trinity. And therefore, as the Church has con- 
 
56 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 stantly affirmed that God docs not give efficacy to 
 water administered even by His own minister with- 
 out the use of these words, " In the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," be- 
 cause an essential part of the institution is omitted ; 
 so we have no reason from divine revelation, which 
 is our 07ily guide in this case, to believe that He will 
 give efficacy to water administered with the pro- 
 nouncing of the said form of words, when it is done 
 by one who has not the divine commission for so 
 doing ; because this is also an omission of another 
 equally essential part of the same institution, as, I 
 humbly hope, I have sufficiently proved. 
 
 As to the latter part of this objection, viz. that 
 if the person who ministers has not been commis- 
 sioned by Christ, he administers no real sacraments 
 at all ; I readily acknowledge that my discourse does 
 imply so much, and that the contrary ought upon no 
 account whatsoever to be affirmed or believed ; be- 
 cause the outward elements are not sacraments by 
 themselves, nor made any ways efficacious for super- 
 natural purposes, till administered as God has ap- 
 pointed in their institution ; and when they are so 
 administered, then they become sacraments, and are 
 thereby made means of conveying, and also pledges 
 to assure us of, the supernatural graces which God 
 has annexed to such their administration. Now who 
 does not see at first sight, that none can make any 
 thing to be the means of conveying supernatural 
 benefits and advantages, who have not the power and 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, 57 
 
 authority of a supernatural commission ; — that no 
 person can make that, which before had no such ex- 
 cellent quality, to become a pledge, or an earnest of 
 assurance, that God will grant us such inestimable 
 graces and privileges as nature could never have 
 entitled us to, except he be first sent, and thereby 
 authorised for that purpose, by Him who is to ac- 
 knowledge the pledge as His own, and for the sake 
 thereof is to perform all that was promised and im- 
 plied by the giving and receiving of it ? 
 
 As, for instance. 
 
 In Christian baptism, water, the outward element, 
 is no Christian sacrament till applied as the institu- 
 tion of baptism requires, and then, and then only, it 
 is a means of conveying, and a pledge to assure us of 
 the mystical washing away of sin ; and how shall we 
 rest satisfied and assured that it is such a means and 
 pledge, if it is not applied and given to us by God 
 Himself, in the person of His representative, com- 
 missioned by Him to give us this assurance ? It is 
 certain, that if water be applied never so seriously, it 
 cannot be the Christian sacrament of baptism, if it 
 wants the true form, " In the name of the Trinity," 
 appointed in the institution ; this every one will ac- 
 knowledge : and why then should any plead for its 
 being a sacrament, when the very truth of the form 
 itself is destroyed by the administration of an uncom- 
 missioned person, who cannot really and truly, and 
 without a lie, say, I baptize thee in the name, or by 
 the authority and commission, of the Father, and of 
 
58 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; this his usurpation 
 is as contrary to the institution as a truly commis- 
 sioned person's leaving out the form would be, as I 
 think I have proved ; and therefore, if the one hinders 
 the water from being a true Christian sacrament, the 
 other must do so too, because the person to admi- 
 nister is as much appointed as the matter and form 
 of administration. And this person is as much the 
 representative of God the giver, as the matter is the 
 representation of the graces given ; insomuch that 
 we have at least as much reason to omit the symbo- 
 lical element, as we have to leave out the divine 
 authority or commission, w^hich represents no less 
 than God Himself; and therefore those administra- 
 tions of the former which are destitute of the latter 
 are no Christian sacraments, or, which is the same, 
 means and pledges of supernatural graces. 
 
 Ohj. III. But if this be so, others will say, you 
 have brought us to a fine pass ; for it is well known 
 that this divine authority is very much controverted, 
 and w^here to fix it is not yet determined. So that 
 while we are in this suspense, we must be always 
 doubting concerning the vahdity of our baptism ; and 
 thereby you put this divine institution upon a very 
 precarious and uncertain foundation. 
 
 Ans. That the divine right of who shall minister 
 in things pertaining to God, has been, and still is, 
 very much disputed by some ignorant and foolish 
 men, and also by others of corrupt principles and 
 wicked designs, we find to be too true by woful ex- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 59 
 
 perience ; but what then, does that argue that it is 
 not to be determined who has this divine right ? Cer- 
 tainly no ; for though, through heresy and schism, the 
 minds of many men are so dreadfully blinded that 
 they do not discover this great truth, yet, God be 
 praised, those who continue in the communion of the 
 truly catholic and apostolic Church, and are diligent 
 and inquisitive to know God's will, and to live ac- 
 cording to that knowledge, need never be put to so 
 great a plunge as to be in doubt and suspense con- 
 cerning this dispute, or the validity of their baptism, 
 which they have received from the lawfully ordained 
 ministers of Christ, because such ministers must be 
 visible and known, as long as there is, or shall be, 
 any truly organised Church of Christ in the world ; 
 and that there shall be always such a Church is plain 
 by our Saviour's promise, that the gates of hades shall 
 not prevail against it : ^ and as for the valid ministers 
 thereof, that they shall also continue, is as certain, 
 by His promising thus to His apostles, Lo, I am ivith 
 you alway, even unto the end of the world ;'^ and this is 
 further confirmed by the apostle St. Paul's assuring 
 us, that when Christ ascended up on high. He gave 
 some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evan- 
 gelists ; and some, pastors and teachers ; for the per- 
 fecting of the saints, &c. till we all come into the unity 
 of the faith, &c. u7ito a perfect man^' Now, it is 
 certain that this perfection and entire unity will not 
 
 [' Matt. xvi. 18.] [2 Matt, xxviii. 20.] 
 
 [3 Eph. iv. 12.] 
 
60 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 be completed till the end of the world ; and therefore 
 these officers, appointed to bring about such excellent 
 purposes, must continue so long, and be visible among 
 us. And that the continuance of such valid ministers, 
 who have commission for the effecting of these noble 
 ends, in the Church, is to be so plain and perspicu- 
 ous, as that it shall be easy to discover and distin- 
 guish them from false teachers and new upstarts, is 
 evident by another design for which our Lord ap- 
 pointed them, viz. that we henceforth he no more chil- 
 dren, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every 
 wind of doctrine, hy the sleight of men, and cunning 
 craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Eph. iv. 
 14). For how can valid ministers of Christ defend 
 us against every wind of doctrine, and the cunning 
 craftiness of deceivers, if they are not to be visible 
 and known to us } So that as sure as God is true, so 
 sure we are that His duly authorised and rightly com- 
 missioned ministers, i. e. apostles and prophets, &c., 
 shall continue, and be known in the Church, to the 
 consummation of all things ; and therefore we shall 
 never want such as have capacity to administer His 
 holy sacraments, and consequently need never be in 
 suspense either about their divine authority, or the 
 validity of our baptism administered by their hands. 
 So that my affirming baptism to be invalid for want 
 of such divine authority or commission in the admi- 
 nistrator, does not put this divine institution upon 
 an uncertain, but a sure and lasting foundation. 
 
 But here I expect that it will be asked, in whom 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 61 
 
 do I suppose this divine authority to be fixed ? I 
 answer, that I do not only suppose, but firmly and 
 undoubtedly believe, after a strict and impartial in- 
 quirj'', which I have deliberately made into this mat* 
 ter, that it was settled by Christ Himself at first, and 
 continually conveyed down to this day, in episcopacy 
 only ; and of this I am as certain as that our first day of 
 the week was appointed by Christ and His apostles 
 to be the Christian Sabbath ; nay, though I am very 
 well satisfied that this our Christian Sabbath is of 
 divine appointment, yet I can safely affirm that the 
 arguments by which it is to be proved are not so 
 numerous as those for the divine right of episcopacy, 
 as may easily be demonstrated whensoever it shall be 
 put to the trial. As for those who are of another 
 opinion, I wish they had either more knowledge or 
 more humility : it is none of my business here to 
 endeavour their conviction ; but if they would use 
 their utmost diligence to do the will of God in all 
 other instances of their duty, and seek to Him for 
 that wisdom which is from above, inquiring without 
 prejudice, by attentively reading the sacred oracles, 
 and comparing therewith what has been said by 
 many excellent authors upon this subject, I hope 
 they would then know of this doctrine, whether it 
 be of God : which that they may, I heartily re- 
 commend these few modern books to their serious 
 perusal, viz. 
 
 A Modest Proof of the Order and Government 
 settled hy Christ and His Ajmstles in the Church. 
 
62 LAY BAPTISM INVALID, 
 
 Printed for John Wyat, at the Rose in St. Paul's 
 Churchyard, 1705. 
 
 A Discourse shewing who they are that are now 
 qualified to administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
 Printed for C. Brome, at the Gun, at the west end of 
 St. Paul's, 1698. 
 
 Dr. Potter of Church Government. Printed for 
 Tim. Child, at the White Hart in St. Paul's Church- 
 yard, 1707. 
 
 Dr. Hickes' Two Treatises, one of the Christian 
 Pinesthood, the other of the Dignity of the Episcopal 
 Order. Printed for Richard Sare, at Gray's Inn- 
 Gate in Holborn, 1707. 
 
 And a little book called The Plain Man's Guide 
 to the True Church. Printed for R. Clavel, at the 
 Peacock in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1708. 
 
 Obj. IV. But some, it is likely, will charge me with 
 uncharitableness, in denying the validity of the bap- 
 tisms of foreign Churches, where there is no episco- 
 pal ordination, and of many good and pious men who 
 are without such ordination among ourselves. 
 
 Ans. The main drift of my essay is against the 
 vahdity of that baptism which men know themselves 
 to have received from persons who were never divinely 
 commissioned, and yet presume to usurp this autho- 
 rit}% in opposition to the divine right of episcopacy ; 
 which being duly considered, frees me from answer- 
 ing to this charge with respect to such foreigners, 
 some of which have told you that they do not act in 
 opposition to episcopacy, and have pleaded that they 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 63 
 
 lie under a necessity not to have bishops among 
 them, but that they highly value and reverence that 
 order in our English Church. Whether this plea of 
 necessity be good, or whether it affects them so far 
 as to hinder their receiving episcopal ordination from 
 other Protestant Churches, though they cannot have 
 bishops residing among themselves, is not my busi- 
 ness here to inquire. But this I am sure of, that 
 there is not the least reason, nay, it is impious, to 
 compliment away the great truths of God, to please 
 any, though never so great a party of men. 
 
 The divine right of episcopacy is plain from Scrip- 
 ture, and was never called in question by any con- 
 siderable number of men, till within these last two 
 hundred years ; and must we now lay it aside for 
 fear of opposing new upstart notions and opinions ? 
 God forbid ! Must our holding fast the sound doc- 
 trine of Christ and His apostles be called uncharitable 
 and unkind, because it does not suit with the temper 
 and disposition of other people ? Cannot we still keep 
 our charity for them, by believing that God may dis- 
 pense with the very want of the Christian sacraments, 
 and bestow even the supernatural graces of them to 
 those who labour either under an invincible ignor- 
 ance, or else an impossibility of receiving those sa- 
 craments, when they do all that lies in their power 
 to fulfil His blessed will .'' Certainly we may ; for 
 God can dispense with His own institutes, and give 
 the spiritual graces annexed to them to whom He 
 pleases (by axiom 2). 
 
64 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 But as for some of those among ourselves, I fear 
 their case is very dangerous, because abundance of 
 them seem to want so fair an excuse, living under 
 that episcopal government which they refuse to ac- 
 knowledge and submit to. But God only knows their 
 several circumstances of knowledge and capacity, and 
 the strength of those prejudices which some of them 
 may have contracted by their education. He is In- 
 finite Goodness itself, and will never punish any for 
 what they never could help. But as for the slothful 
 and negligent, the obstinate and perverse, we have 
 no authority from divine revelation to hope any thing 
 for their advantage. But, to sum up my whole an- 
 swer to this objection, in the words of an excellent 
 modem author : 
 
 " Those who have been baptised by persons not 
 lawfully ordained, and consequently they have received 
 no baptism, having received it from those who had no 
 commission to administer it, but who were guilty of the 
 highest sacrilege in usurping such a sacred commis- 
 sion, not lawfully derived to them by a successive ordi- 
 nation from the apostles," — as is the case with us ; 
 — "but yet, through a general corruption of the 
 times, such baptisms are suffered to pass ; whereby 
 the persons so baptised, swimming down the stream, 
 do think their baptism to be valid, and therefore 
 seek not for a rebaptisation" — I had rather say, true 
 baptism — "from those who are empowered to admi- 
 nister it; — I say, where no such rebaptisation" — or 
 rather true baptism — "is taught, and thereby the 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 65 
 
 people know nothing of it, in such case their ignor- 
 ance is in a manner invincible ; and their sincerity 
 and devotion in receiving no sacraments, yet think- 
 ing them true sacraments, may be accepted by God, 
 and the inward grace conferred." But this case does 
 not reach those who do or may know and act better ; 
 and is the whole of my charity in this matter, and I 
 think a sufficient answer to the objection. 
 
 Ohj. V. Another objection, in defence of the validity 
 of baptisms administered by such as have not the divine 
 commission, is the example of Zipporah, Moses' wife,' 
 who circumcised her son, and thereby saved her hus- 
 band's life, for God sought to kill Moses ; and when 
 she had circumcised her son He let him go, and there- 
 fore approved of her act in so doing, though she had 
 no right to do so by the institution. 
 
 Ans. Whosoever will but look into the first insti- 
 tution of circumcision will find that God did not set 
 apart a particular order of men for this purpose, but 
 only required (Gen. xvii. 10), Everyman child among 
 you shall he circumcised, &c. to the 15th verse, every 
 male must he circumcised ; but the persons who should 
 continually administer this circumcision are not named 
 in the institution. 
 
 Nay, though it should be granted that circum- 
 cision was to be performed by the master, as he was 
 the priest of his family, yet it does not follow that 
 
 \} This case is much insisted upon by the Romanists, to 
 justify baptism by midwives. See Forbes, Instructiones His- 
 torico-Theologic(E.~\ 
 
 G 2 
 
66 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 Zipporah did any thing more than what she had a 
 right to do, because her husband's authority was de- 
 volved upon her in his sickness, when he was unable 
 to do it himself ; especially considering that this sick- 
 ness was inflicted upon him because his son had not 
 been circumcised, and that he might therefore order 
 his wife to do it in his stead ; and consequently it 
 was interpretatively done by himself, because by his 
 authority ; as we find in the issue, by God's sparing 
 his life when the circumcision was performed ; and 
 by Zipporah's words to Moses, when she had cut off 
 the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, saying, 
 A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision 
 (Exod. iv. 25, 26), which plainly implies that she did 
 it for his sake, and by his order. But what does all 
 this avail to those who knowingly receive or acquiesce 
 in baptism received from such as have no divine com- 
 mission, when they may be baptised by Christ's own 
 ministers, whom He has particularly appointed, ex- 
 clusive of all others, to baptise ? This is acting even 
 contrary to the example here objected ; because, by 
 all that can be seen in the text, she acted by a divine 
 commission — even by virtue of an immediate revela- 
 tion to Moses her husband, whom God doubtless 
 acquainted with the cause of His displeasure, and 
 the means of appeasing His anger by this circum- 
 cision of his son ; which was an extraordinary and 
 unusual case, and not at all parallel to the unautho- 
 rised ministrations of those who act in opposition to 
 that divine commission, which has been successively 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 67 
 
 handed down from Christ and His apostles in all 
 ages. 
 
 Obj. VI. Another objection is a maxim which some 
 would persuade us will hold good in Christian baptism; 
 and that is. Fieri non debet ; factum valet: i. e. " It is 
 not lawful to be done ; yet being done, it is vahd." 
 
 Ans. Though this maxim may hold good in cir- 
 cumstantials of some secular cases, yet it does not 
 therefore follow that it will so in all, or indeed in 
 any, of the essentials of worldly matters. For ex- 
 ample : it is not lawful for me to make a man free of 
 the city of London ; and though I should be never so 
 serious and formal in pretending, or should really sup- 
 pose myself to have sufficient authority to give such 
 a freedom, yet it is certain that such a freedom given 
 by me would never be valid ; the man must receive a 
 legal freedom, notwithstanding the counterfeit one 
 he had of me. The like may be justly affirmed of the 
 naturalisation of foreigners, and many other great con- 
 cerns of this world. And if this maxim will not hold 
 good in these, and abundance of other worldly things, 
 how much less in those of an infinitely higher nature 
 — in the divine positive institutions which God has 
 made to be the means and pledges of supernatural 
 benefits, to be conferred on us by the ministration of 
 His own particularly commissioned and authorised 
 ambassadors } Especially when we remember that 
 this maxim was never appointed by Him to be our 
 rule and guide in any of our affairs, much less in 
 those of a religious and spiritual nature, as, without 
 
68 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 all doubt, Cliristian Ijaptism is. Besides, the objec- 
 tion acknowledges it is not lawful, therefore it is sin- 
 ful : it is a sin against an essential of the institution ; 
 and how such a sinful act should be valid for super- 
 natural purposes, is utterly inconceivable, nay, it is 
 abominable to affirm it. 
 
 Ohj. VII. Another objection M^hich I have heard 
 of is, that the council of Eliberis, a.d. 305, allowed of 
 lay baptism in a case of necessity ; that the Church 
 of Rome does so to this day ; and that the Church of 
 England did so in the reign of King Edward ^^I., of 
 Queen Elizabeth, and in the beginning of King James 
 I., as is plain by the several Common Prayer-books 
 in those days, particularly King Edward's, a.d. 1552, 
 and King James's, 1621, still to be seen at Sion Col- 
 lege library in London. 
 
 Ans. 1 grant the truth of these matters of fact, 
 and yet affirm that those allow^ances, be they of what 
 consequence they wall, are not of any validity for our 
 unauthorised and anti- episcopal baptisms. 
 
 As for the council of Eliberis, I have cited it in 
 my Preliminary Discourse, and made such remarks 
 thereon as will utterly frustrate the design of this 
 objection ; and therefore I refer tlie reader back to 
 it for his satisfaction. 
 
 Next for the Church of Rome : her allowances in 
 this case are no rule to us Protestants, who have 
 separated from her for her many gross errors both in 
 doctrine and practice. She began to quarrel with 
 St. Cyprian and other primitive bishops, and carried 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 69 
 
 it very unchristlanly against them, for not allowing 
 any validity in such baptisms, and has ever since per- 
 sisted in this ill humour ; so far as at last to condemn 
 those who do not believe the validity of baptism ad- 
 ministered by women, whose authoritative acts in the 
 Church of God are both contrary to the law of nature, 
 and also forbidden by the Holy Ghost Himself. St. 
 Basil, in his tenth epistle, complains of the western 
 bishops, and particularly the Roman : Quod veritatem 
 neque norunt, neque discere sustinent. — Cum Us qui 
 veritatem ipsis annunciant contendentes, hceresin autem 
 jjer se ipsos stahilientes ,^ — " that they neither know 
 the truth, nor care to learn it ; but they contend 
 with them who tell them the truth, and by them- 
 selves estabhsh heresy." For which reason their 
 authority ought not to be objected in this matter 
 by a Protestant; especially considering that such an 
 objector will not submit to their decisions, even in 
 things of a much more inferior nature. 
 
 The practice of the Church of England in this case 
 would have been looked upon as a formidable objec- 
 tion, if she herself had not answered it already by 
 purging her Liturgy of so inconsistent a rubric. I 
 call it inconsistent, because, especially in King James 
 I.'s reign, she had declared in her Articles of Reli- 
 
 [' This is Myrcaeus' translation. The original is : 7ro?a 
 ^or]9eia Tjfxiv ttjs bvTiKrjs ocppvos ; ot to ye ctArj^es ovre laacriv, 
 oUre fiadelu auexovrau — irphs jaXv tovs ttiv a\T]deiav avTols 
 anayyeWovTas (piXoveiK-qaavTis, t}}v Se alpeffiv 5/' kavTwv fie- 
 $ai(l!)(TavTes, Vol. ii. p. 795. ed. Par. 1618.] 
 
70 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 gion^ that it is unlawdful, i. e. sinful, for any man to 
 administer sacraments until he be lawfully called and 
 sent ; and at the same time allowed, by her rubric to 
 private baptism,- that any one there present might 
 baptise the infant in a case of necessity. This can 
 be reconciled to her articles of religion by no other 
 way, but by supposing that she by her rubric au- 
 thorised and empowered laymen for such cases, as 
 much as if she had ordained them by imposition of 
 hands. If any will assert this, which will be odd 
 enough if they do, yet still it will not favour the 
 baptism now disputed against, for they are utterly 
 destitute of any such supposed empowering and au- 
 
 \} Art. xxiii.] 
 
 \} Rubric, before the revision, prefixed to office of private 
 baptism. 
 
 " Also they (the pastors and curates) shall weirn the people, 
 that without great cause and necessity they baptise not child- 
 ren at home in their houses. And when great need shall com- 
 pel them so to do, that then they minister it in this fashion : 
 
 *' ^ First, let them that be present call upon God for His 
 grace, and say the Lord's prayer, if the time will suffer. And 
 then one of them shall name the child, and dip him in the 
 water, or pour water upon him, saying these words : 
 
 " ^ * iV., I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' 
 
 " And let them not doubt but that the child so baptised is 
 lawfully and sufficiently baptised, and ought not to be baptised 
 again in the church. But yet, nevertheless, if the child, which 
 is after this sort baptised, do afterwards live, it is expedient 
 that he be brought into the church, to the intent the priest 
 may examine and try whether the child be lawfully ba})tised or 
 no. And if those that bring the child to the church do answer 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 71 
 
 thorising rubric as that was esteemed to have been ; 
 though yet, even in that Common Prayer-book, 
 upon the priest's examination afterwards into the 
 lawfuhiess of the child's baptism, it was required 
 that this question should be put to the persons who 
 brought the child to church, viz. "Whether they 
 think the child to be lawfully and perfectly bap- 
 tised :" which, considering the preceding questions, 
 " Whether it was baptised with water and in the 
 name of the Trinity," &c., seems to be needless and 
 to no purpose, except by asking their thoughts about 
 the lawfulness and perfection of such a baptism, they 
 meant to make it lawful or unlawful, as the persons 
 they put such a question to should think it ; which 
 is a very strange, and indeed a precarious and uncer- 
 tain, foundation for us to build the validity of our 
 baptism upon in such a case of necessity : and 
 therefore it is no wonder that the Church of Eng- 
 land, upon a more exact review of her Liturgy,^ ex- 
 
 tliat he is already baptised, then shall the priest examine them 
 further : 
 
 ' ' ^ By whom the child was baptised ? 
 
 " Who was present when the child was baptised ? 
 
 " Whether they called upon God for grace and succour in 
 that necessity ? 
 
 "With what thing, or what matter, they did baptise the 
 child ? 
 
 " With what words the child was baptised .' 
 
 * * Whether they think the child to be lawfully and perfectly 
 baptised ?"] 
 
 [^ At the Hampton-Court Conference, a.d. 1601'.] 
 
72 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 punged this question out of the rubric, and also, for 
 very weighty reasons, took away the Hberty of lay 
 baptising in her present Liturgy, by requiring, even in 
 cases of necessity, that baptism should be adminis- 
 tered by "the minister of the parish, or any other 
 lawful minister that can be procured :" which is a 
 substantial answer to all objections that may be 
 raised from her former practice. But if such a cus- 
 tom had been still continued, St. Cyprian ' long since 
 laid it down for an undoubted truth, " that we are 
 not to be determined by any customs of that nature, 
 but to examine whether they will bear the test of 
 reason." And Bishop Taylor says, speaking of bap- 
 tism by midwives, " This custom came in at a wrong 
 door. It leaned upon a false and superstitious opi- 
 nion ; and they thought it better to invade the priest's 
 office than to trust God with the souls which He 
 made with His own hands, and redeemed with His 
 Son's blood. But this custom was not to be fol- 
 lowed, if it had still continued ; for even then they 
 confessed it was sin, factum valet, fieri non dehuit; 
 and evil ought not be done for a good end. Quod si 
 a mulierihus haptizari oporteret, profecto Christus a 
 matre haptizatus esset, et non a Johanne ; aut cum nos 
 ad haptizandum misit, mississet mulieres nohiscum ad 
 hoc : nunc vero nusquam neque jussit Dominus, neque 
 per Scripturam tradidit, utpote qui naturae convenien- 
 tiam et rei decorum nosset, tanquam natures auctor et 
 
 [' St. Cyprian ad Quintum, epist. Ixx. "Non est autem 
 de consuetudine prssscribendum, sed ratione vincenduui."] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 73 
 
 dispensator, — said the author of the Constitutions, 
 under the name of St. Clement (lib. iii. c. 9). To 
 this agrees that of Tertullian {lih. de Virg. Veland.) : 
 Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui, sed nee docere, 
 nee tingere, nee offerre, nee ullius virilis mulieris nedum 
 sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare. This custom, 
 therefore, is of the nature of those which are to be 
 laid aside. OvceIq ftcnrri^ei, el jjirj ■y^Eiporoviav tyet, 
 no man baptises but he that is in holy orders, said 
 Simeon of Thessalonica ;^ and I think he said truly. 
 But, above all things, opinions are not to be taken up 
 by custom, and reduced to practice ; not only because 
 custom is no good warrant}^ for opinions, and volun- 
 tas /ertur carere oculis, intellectus pedibus, that is, it 
 can do nothing without the will, and the will must 
 do nothing without that ; they are a blind man and 
 a lame when they are asunder, but when they are 
 together they make up a sound man, while the one 
 gives reason, and the other gives command ; — but, 
 besides this, when an opinion is offered only by the 
 
 [} Brett {Letter to Laurence, p. 7) says: ** This Simeon, 
 as we learn from Wharton's Appendix to Cave's Hist. Lit., 
 p. 89, flourished about the year 1410, and died H29, and was 
 a metropolitan of the Greek Church." 
 
 Bingham {Schol. Hist, part i. c, ii. p. 101) will have the 
 passage understood with the limitation of " cases of necessity, 
 or else to be rejected as false ;" which answer, he says, was 
 given to the passage " by Arcudius : but neither he nor Bishop 
 Taylor refer us to Simeon's book whence it is taken. I sup- 
 pose it to be his book of the Sacraments of the Church ; but 
 till I can see the book itself, I will not be positive."] 
 
 II 
 
74 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 hand of custom, it is commonly a sign of a bad 
 cause, and that there is nothing else to be said for 
 it." — Ductor Duhitantium, b. iii. c. iv. p. 287, vol. ii. 
 
 And in the same book (book ii. c. i. p. 261) : 
 "In all moral actions there must be a substantial 
 potestative principle that must have a proportioned 
 l^ower to the effect : a thing cannot be done without 
 a cause and principle in morality, any more than in 
 nature. If a woman goes about to consecrate the 
 holy sacrament, it is '^^Ip uKvpog, an ineffective hand ; 
 she sins for attempting it, and cannot do it after- 
 wards : and it were wiser and truer, if men will 
 think the same thing of their giving baptism, unless 
 they will confess that to baptise childi'en is a mere 
 natural and secular action, to which natural powers 
 are sufficient ; or that women have received spiritual 
 powers to do it, and that whether a priest or a woman 
 does it, is no difference, but matter of order only. If 
 an effect be spiritual, the agent must be so too." 
 Thus far that great bishop : and if his reasons are 
 good against women's baptising, as I think they are, 
 they will be as good, to all intents and purposes, 
 against a man's presuming to do the like without 
 the divine commission : because he is equally desti- 
 tute of a spiritual power, and, in fact, is as little in 
 holy orders as she. 
 
 Obj. VIII. The last objection that I shall mention 
 is what some great men have made use of to establish 
 the validity of lay baptism ; and that is, that though 
 it was a sin for the two hundred and fifty princes to 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 75 
 
 offer incense, yet by even that sinful offering, the 
 censers, wherewith they offered, " were hallowed," 
 and God Himself declared them to be so (Numb. xvi. 
 37). In like manner, though it be a sin for laymen 
 to baptise, yet the person so baptised is thereby hal- 
 lowed and sanctified, and consequently such a bap- 
 tism is valid. 
 
 Ans. This objection has no manner of force for 
 the purpose designed, because it is not in the least 
 parallel to Christian baptism ; for the censers (mere 
 senseless things) were capable of no supernatural spi- 
 ritual graces and privileges to be enjoyed by them 
 by virtue of that offering ; but the objects of baptism, 
 sensible, rational, and immortal souls, are to be pos- 
 sessed of, and to be made happy by, such unspeak- 
 able benefits and advantages as are annexed to bap- 
 tism. The censers were wholly passive'; but the 
 baptised person is not so, for even in infancy he is 
 active by his sponsors ; and when he comes to years, 
 must be so in his own person. The censers, though 
 they were hallowed, yet they were not hallowed to the 
 same purpose as the censers wherewith Aaron offered 
 incense ; for God did not order those two hundred 
 and fifty censers to be continued for the same use to 
 which those sinners put them, but required them 
 to be made broad plates for a covering for the altar : 
 to be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no 
 stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near 
 to offer incense before the Lord (Numb. xvi. 39, 40). 
 So that if these censers are a parallel instance for 
 
76 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 persons baptised by uncommissioned pretenders, then 
 the use that God ordered them to be put to should 
 teach us to make the like use of such sinfully bap- 
 tised persons, viz. to make them memorials to all 
 Christians, that none who are not commissioned by 
 Christ should dare to come near to baptise in the 
 Christian Church : but hovi^ shall such sinfully-bap- 
 tised persons become such memorials so effectually, 
 as by renouncing their false, and receiving true Chris- 
 tian baptism from Christ's authorised ministers, and 
 thereby frustrate, as much as they can, the presump- 
 tuous usurpations of those who have no divine mis- 
 sion for so great a ministration ? This is the most 
 proper inference that can be drawn from these cen- 
 sers, with respect to such as are unlawfully baptised ; 
 though, after all, they have nothing in them that can 
 with any coherence be justly adapted to the institu- 
 tion of Christian baptism, or any one essential part 
 thereof. The two hundred and fifty princes, indeed, if 
 compared to the unauthorised administrators of bap- 
 tism, may be something to the purpose ; and so may 
 the incense, if compared to the water in baptism ; 
 because as this, when rightly administered, is the 
 means of spiritual benefits, so incense, when rightly 
 offered, i. e. by a divinely commissioned person, was 
 a means like\\'ise of procuring the favour of God, by 
 making an atonement for the sins of the people. But 
 as for the censers, they were only the vessels v/herein 
 this incense, the outward means of the atonement, was 
 contained ; so that they have not the least reference, 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERKD. 77 
 
 either to the person administering, or to the water of 
 baptism, or to the person baptised ; and therefore, if 
 the objector will have them to be parallel to any thing 
 at all in this matter, they must be so to the vessel 
 which contains the baptism- water : and he may make 
 as much use as he pleases of that parallelism, which 
 is nothing at all to our present purpose. 
 
 Upon the whole, the grand design of these princes 
 was, in opposition to the established priesthood, to 
 offer incense before the Lord, contrary to a divine 
 positive institution, which confined that action to 
 Aaron and his sons only. This oflfering being thus 
 unla\vful, for want of the divme authority of the per- 
 sons administering, was so far from being accepted, 
 that it was a ciying abomination ; and instead of 
 procuring a blessing, either for themselves or their 
 abettors, drew down upon them swift destruction ; 
 the princes being immediately consumed by a fire 
 from the Lord, and fourteen thousand seven hundred 
 of their partisans destroyed by a plague. Even so, 
 if any thing about baptism may be hence inferred, we 
 may justly fear that the administration of supposed 
 baptism by uncommissioned persons, in opposition to 
 the divinely established priesthood of the Christian 
 Church, instead of being a means of conveying spi- 
 ritual graces and benefits to those who knowingly 
 receive or acquiesce in it, will rather exclude both 
 such giver and receiver (though they escape God's 
 judgments here) from the infinite privileges of His 
 
 H 2 
 
78 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 children hereafter, without a sincere and speedy re- 
 pentance. 
 
 Some other objections I have endeavoured to ob- 
 viate in the progress of this essay; and therefore shall 
 only further declare, that I sincerely believe the sub- 
 ject of the discourse to be a substantial truth, nay, 
 even a first principle of Christianity ; and that without 
 the courageous asserting and vindication thereof, the 
 whole Christian priesthood, and the divine authority 
 of it, must be called in question, as we see it has 
 lately been in public print,' and consequently in time 
 so far denied, as to encourage every bold intruder to 
 usurp that sacred office and ministry, even in op- 
 position to that divine commission which has been 
 constantly handed down from Christ and His apostles 
 to this very day. 
 
 I hope, therefore, that none who are vested with 
 this divine authority wdll fight against it by appearing 
 publicly in opposition to the subject of this essay. 
 As for my manner of arguing to defend it, there may 
 be some undesigned faults in it, w^hich I humbly 
 submit to their just correction and prudent censure ; 
 hoping they will execute both with so much wisdom 
 and conduct as to make me see my own errors, and, 
 at the same time, not to prejudice, but add strength 
 and cogency to the cause I have pleaded, which 
 ought by no means to suffer for my weakness in its 
 defence. 
 
 [' Probably referring to Tindal's book, alluded to p. 104.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 79 
 
 As for the mere pretenders to this divine authority, 
 I have nothing to say to them or their follovi^ers, but 
 only to desire them to take care not to deceive them- 
 selves, but seriously to inquire whether there is any 
 legality in that pretendetl commission by which they 
 act ; which, tiU they can solidly prove, I shall always 
 esteem to be utterly invalid for the administration of 
 Christian sacraments. I shall not trouble myself to 
 enter the lists with them, though they quarrel never 
 so much with what I have said ; they have work 
 enough already cut out to their hands in those excel- 
 lent books which I have mentioned in my answer to 
 the third objection ; and to their arguments I refer 
 them for the divine right of episcopacy, that they 
 may save themselves the trouble of demanding them 
 from me. 
 
 If they shall oppose my assertion of the necessity 
 of a divine commission to administer baptism, they 
 will thereby confound themselves, when they affirm 
 that they baptise by virtue of such a commission ; and 
 then I shall not think them worth answering. 
 
 I conclude all with my hearty prayers to Almighty 
 God, that this my weak endeavour may be for His 
 gloiy, and " that He would keep us from all false 
 doctrine, heresy, and schism ; that all who profess and 
 call themselves Christians may be led into the way of 
 truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond 
 of peace, and in righteousness of life ; and that He 
 would be pleased to illuminate all bishops, priests, and 
 deacons, with true knowledge and understanding of 
 
80 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 His word, that, both by their preaching and living, 
 they may set it forth and shew it accordingly," and 
 rightly and duly administer His holy sacraments ; that 
 so Jeroboams priests may not profane His service, but 
 that the seed of Aaron may still minister before Him, 
 to Whom, with His eternal Son and Holy Spirit, 
 three Persons, but one God, be ascribed, as is most 
 due, all honour, praise, and glory, might, majesty, 
 and dominion, by every creature that is in heaven and 
 earth, and under the earth, for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
©fifettiDttS continuetr* 
 
 Since the publication of the first edition of this book, 
 I am informed that some gentlemen of no mean cha- 
 racter have made further objections against the sub- 
 ject thereof; which, because they look very plausible 
 at first sight, and may therefore prejudice too many 
 against what I have proposed, I shall endeavour here 
 to answer as briefly and plainly as I can. 
 
 Ohj. IX. And, first, it is said,^ that if lay bap- 
 tism be invalid, and the divine commission to bap- 
 tise be conveyed from the apostles in episcopacy only, 
 then all those foreign reformed Churches which have 
 no episcopal ordination are effectually unchurched, as 
 being, by the principles asserted by me, destitute of 
 a Christian ministry, and consequently of Christian 
 baptism ; which is a consequence so dreadful, and even 
 contrary to the concessions of many episcopal divines 
 of the Church of England, that none ought to admit 
 that doctrine, from which, if granted, so great a mis- 
 chief must necessarily arise. 
 
 Answ. That lay baptism is null and void I hutn- 
 bly conceive I have proved ; if not, let the authors of 
 this objection shew either the insufficiency or fallacy 
 of the arguments I have produced for that purpose, 
 otherwise I shall take it for granted that they acknow- 
 [' See Objection IV. p. 62.] 
 
82 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 ledge such baptisms to be invalid; or else, that at 
 best they can give no solid reasons for their validity. 
 And therefore, till I hear further from them upon 
 this single topic, I shall give myself no more trouble 
 about it, but proceed to the conveyance of the divine 
 commission to baptise ; and this supposing lay bap- 
 tism to be invalid, can be conveyed from the apostles 
 in the Christian ministry only ; so that all our busi- 
 ness here is to know how the Christian ministry was 
 handed down, and successively continued, from the 
 apostles to our days, and this will determine who can 
 administer valid baptism. 
 
 That the Christian ministry was conveyed from 
 the apostles in episcopacy only, we have a cloud of 
 witnesses : first, the institution of our Saviour Him- 
 self ; secondly, the practice of the apostles — both re- 
 corded in the sacred oracles of infallible truth, the 
 holy Scriptures ; thirdly, all ecclesiastical histoiy ; 
 and fourthly, the constant and uninterrupted practice 
 of the universal Church of Christ in all ages and 
 places for one thousand five hundred years together, 
 from the apostles' days. These all bear testimony to 
 this great truth; as has been sufficiently demonstrated 
 by a vast number of the best Christian writers, parti- 
 cularly some of our own nation, and that very lately, 
 (vide those I have mentioned' in answer to the third 
 objection, and another entitled The Divine Right of 
 Episcopacy , printed for Richard Sare, at Graj^'s Inn 
 Gate, in Holborn, 1708,) who have obviated and an- 
 
 [' p. 61.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. S3 
 
 swered the objections of all enemies so exceedingly 
 well, that it would be no less than presumption in 
 me to attempt to say any thing more upon that sub- 
 ject after such learned authors ; to whom, therefore, 
 I refer the reader for his satisfaction in this point, and 
 pass on to consider the objection itself. 
 
 If, then, the premises above mentioned be true, 
 if lay baptism be invalid, &c., then, says the objector, 
 " all those foreign reformed Churches, &c. are effec- 
 tually unchurched, being destitute of a Christian mi- 
 nistry, and consequently of Christian baptism." Why, 
 truly, if those foreign reformed are unchurched upon 
 the truth of those premises, I cannot help that ; it is 
 the objector himself that tells me so ; and I know of 
 no way for him to help them out of that difficulty at 
 present, but either to prove the premises false, or else 
 to persuade them to receive episcopal ordination. But 
 it is said, " this is a dreadful consequence." It may 
 be so, and very dreadful too, if they are so far un- 
 churched as to be reduced to a state of absolute in- 
 fidels, which I hope the objector does not mean when 
 he says they are unchurched ; if he does, I must tell 
 him, that, though I am no latitudinarian, I have more 
 charitable thoughts concerning thousands of them 
 than he has, upon the supposition of their being des- 
 titute of Christian baptism ; for I believe abundance 
 of them may be included in the number of those whom 
 I have spoke of in the words of a most excellent mo- 
 dern author, towards the end of my answer to the 
 fourth objection, and that, therefore, they may very 
 
84 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 fairly be esteemed as much in the Church as the 
 catechumeni, or candidates for Christian baptism, were 
 used to be in the primitive times. This, I think, 
 abates mnch of the dreadfulness of the consequence 
 to the honest and sincere; but it cannot be hence in- 
 ferred that their ministry and ministrations are good 
 and valid, or that those who know their defects should 
 concur and communicate with them in such their de- 
 viations from the divine institutes. 
 
 But to proceed : this, says the objector, is " even 
 contrary to the concessions of many episcopal divines 
 of the Church of England."^ I suppose he means 
 some of the writers since the Reformation, who have 
 endeavoured to make excuses and salvos for the pres- 
 byterian and lay ordinations abroad : in reference to 
 whom I must needs say, that it is justly to be feared 
 they have done more hurt by such their conces- 
 sions, than at the time of their writing them they 
 were aware of ; for it is not to be doubted that many 
 put a great value upon the judgment of such learned 
 and good men, and thereby have been induced to be- 
 lieve that such ordinations are good and valid, and 
 consequently that there is no need for those foreign 
 reformed to seek for episcopal ordination ; whereby too 
 many of the foreign teachers themselves are, instead 
 of being cured of, confirmed in, their errors, and, it 
 may be, hindered from so much as but inquiring whe- 
 ther they are in the right or no. With submission 
 
 [' See Appendix, on the practice of the Church of Eng- 
 land.] 
 
OBJECTIONS AXSWERED. 85 
 
 to better judgments, such large concessions of those 
 many episcopal divines have been not only prejudicial 
 and hurtful to the reformed abroad, but even contrary 
 to the doctrine and avowed practice of the Church of 
 England, which they were obHged in conscience, by 
 their subscription, to support and maintain. For, 
 does she not teach in her 23d article, that "it is not 
 lawful," therefore it is sinful, and contrary to their 
 institution, " for any man to take upon him the office 
 of ministering the sacraments before he be lawfully 
 called and sent ?" and does she not confine this law- 
 ful calling and sending to episcopal ordination, in the 
 preface to her form and manner of making, ordaioing, 
 and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons ? 
 Does she not call this episcopal ordination Christ's 
 commission and authority, when iu her 26th article 
 she teaches, that the minister, when he administers 
 the sacraments, does it " in Christ's name, and by 
 His commission and authority?" Is she not so ex- 
 actly consistent to aU this, that she will not admit 
 any of these foreign teachers into the number of her 
 priests, no nor of her deacons neither, without episco- 
 pal ordinarion ? Is not all this so true, that none can 
 deny it ? And does she not thereby, as much as may 
 be, prevent aU such concessions, and reprove those who 
 make them, contrary to her doctrine and practice ? I 
 think she does ; and consequently that her articles are 
 not of so loose and variable a contexture as some, who 
 ought to know better, have represented them to be — 
 like a nose of wax, that may be wrested to serve any 
 
 I 
 
86 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 turn, and defend almost all contradictious doctrines 
 and practices whatsoever, without considering that 
 her articles, rubrics, and canons, &c., concerning the 
 divine right of episcopal ordination, when duly com- 
 pared with one another, do make the most perfect 
 harmony and agreement, and have nothing in them 
 that is either contradictory or inconsistent to them- 
 selves, or disagreeable to the holy Scriptures, and 
 practice of the primitive Church. 
 
 If, in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, 
 who made Israel to sin, a priest of the tribe of Aaron 
 should have undertaken to defend the vahdity of the 
 priesthood which Jeroboam had set up, would he not 
 have been justly censurable ? would he not have 
 acted contrary to the principles of the true Church of 
 the Jews at Jerusalem } Certainly he would ; not- 
 withstanding the vastly superior numbers in the ten 
 tribes who forsook the true priests, and the smallness 
 of the numbers in the two other tribes, who would 
 not follow that multitude to do this evil} And the 
 reason why he would have been justly blameable, is 
 evident ; because Jeroboam made priests of the lowest 
 of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi (1 
 Kings xii. 31). For that this, as well as their idol- 
 atry, was his and the ten tribes' sin, is evident by 
 Abijah's speech to them (2 Chron. xiii. 9, 10) : Have 
 ye not cast out the priests of the Lord, the sons of 
 Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you priests 
 after the manner of the nations of other lands 9 &c. 
 [' Exod. xxiii. 2.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 87 
 
 But as for us (i. e. the members of the true Church 
 of God, the other two tribes of Israel), the Lord is 
 our God, &c. ; and the priests which minister unto the 
 Lord are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites wait upon 
 their business. Here you see that Abijah triumphs 
 and glories in the true priesthood with them, because 
 it was that which God Himself appointed ; and he 
 upbraids the ten tribes for their having set up other 
 priests, -without any regard to the divine institution 
 of the priesthood. Their mighty numbers, and the 
 seeming necessity of their being forced thereto by the 
 secular power, was no argument for him to allow of 
 their priesthood. How much less ought those vmters 
 among us to have studied so industriously, as some 
 of them have done, to prove the validity of their mi- 
 nistry, w^ho are not one tenth of the present universal 
 Church, and who differ from them, and the whole 
 Church throughout all ages, in not requiring their 
 ministers to be vested with the divine authority by 
 episcopal ordination. 
 
 I am well aware of what is pleaded by those 
 episcopal divines, viz., that these foreign reformed 
 were under a case of necessity, and some of them say 
 they are so still. But I am not yet satisfied what 
 they mean by this case of necessity. The Church of 
 England, whereof those episcopal divines are mem- 
 bers, has not declared it ; the Scripture is wholly 
 silent about it, and, on the contrary, has recorded the 
 dreadful punishments inflicted upon some who, to all 
 appearance, had a great deal of reason to plead, that 
 
88 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 they were under great circumstances of necessity to 
 assume to themselves those offices, wherein they mi- 
 nistered contrary to the divine institutions. As in 
 the cases of Saul (1 Sam. xiii. 8-14), and Uzzah 
 (2 Sam. vi. 6, 7). So that I am utterly at a loss to 
 know how those writers could discover any case of 
 necessity, that of itself was sufficient to authorise 
 men to take upon them the great office of mediating 
 between God and man. There is not one instance, 
 that I know of, in all the sacred oracles, of any one's 
 being instated into such an office, even in the greatest 
 eases of necessity, without an explicit revelation of 
 God's will, that the man should act therein, when the 
 ordinary appointed means of giving him his commis- 
 sion was wanting. And if the excusers of those 
 foreign ordinations can shew me such an instance, I 
 shall be very much obliged to them if they will be 
 pleased to do it. 
 
 Nay further ; supposing that it were possible to 
 determine a case of necessity, that might be sufficient 
 to empower men to administer valid sacraments, with- 
 out receiving a commission for so doing, by God's 
 appointed means of episcopal ordination ; yet I do not 
 find that any of the above-said writers have proved by 
 good arguments, that the said foreigners were ever 
 under such a case of necessity, much less that they 
 are so now : and till this is proved, I see no reason 
 to be at all concluded by the writings of even the best 
 of men, when they make such proviso as God has 
 not made, and who can give us no proof of their 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 89 
 
 being guided in their dictates by the infalUble Spirit 
 of truth, as the blessed apostles and proiDhets were. 
 
 I know that some do beg the question, by sup- 
 posing, " What if the episcopal order were utterly 
 extinct, and no bishops could be found to confer holy 
 orders ; must there be no ministers therefore in the 
 Christian Church ? and must the visible Church of 
 Christ cease to have a being as such in the w^orld ?" 
 This, at first proposing, looks to be a very weighty 
 question; but when we justly reflect on the divine 
 veracity, which has infallibly assured us, that Christ 
 will be with His apostles (i. e. them and their succes- 
 sors, the bishops) always, even unto the end of the 
 world ^^ and that the gates of hell shall never prevail 
 against the Church p- then the impertinence and folly 
 of this "what if" does immediately discover itself; 
 because it supposes what in fact never was, nor ever 
 will be ; and therefore needs no answering, because 
 not to be granted. But, alas, supposing that it were, 
 as it is not, possible, for the Church to be universally 
 deprived of her spiritual fathers, the bishops, it is our 
 duty, as well as safety, rather to wait and hope for 
 some new revelation of His will, for another institu- 
 tion of men to succeed in the Christian priesthood, 
 than to take it upon ourselves by such ways and 
 means as He has not hitherto appointed, and which 
 will therefore prove ineffectual for the supernatural 
 purposes of His own divine institution ; because man, 
 by his own authority only, can never make a human 
 
 [• Matt, xxviii. 20.] [= Matt. xvi. IS.] 
 
 i2 
 
90 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 equal to a divine institution. But this case has never 
 happened yet ; and therefore no society of men, 
 either past or present, can be at all excused upon this 
 supposed foundation. 
 
 And now, to conclude all that I have to say to 
 this objection, no doctrine whatsoever can be proved 
 to be false by the mischiefs of those consequences 
 which necessarily arise from it, when those conse- 
 quences themselves are not contradictory to some 
 previous truths ; and when men, by either their wilful 
 sins or supine neglects, are the only causes of the 
 mischiefs of those consequences, for which truth and 
 its assertors are no ways answerable. This, I believe, 
 is a maxim that will stand the test of a strict exami- 
 nation, and hold good in the case before us. And I 
 pray God to touch the hearts of those who are con- 
 cerned in it with a due sense of their deviations from 
 His holy institutes, that they may complete a thorough 
 reformation; that the Christian priesthood may recover 
 its ancient spiritual glory; and that we may be all 
 blessed with the happiness of a universal communion 
 of saints here in the Church militant, so as to be en- 
 titled to an entire and eternal union and commimion 
 with the Church triumphant in the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Obj. X. It is further objected, that if lay bap- 
 tism be invalid, then all those who never received 
 any other baptism are incapable of holy orders, hav- 
 ing never been baptised ; and therefore the orders of 
 several episcopally ordained persons among us are 
 null and void, and consequently so are all their mi- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 91 
 
 iiisterial acts too, because they never received any 
 other than lay baptism. This will involve the Church 
 in the utmost confusion ; and therefore the invalidity 
 of lay baptism ought not to be allowed by any who 
 value the order and peace of the Church. 
 
 Ans. This objection raises a consequence from 
 an uncertain, and it may be a false, foundation ; for 
 it takes for granted, that the unworthiness of a per- 
 son to receive holy orders, or his being not duly 
 qualified for them, by reason of his being unbaptised, 
 renders holy orders, if conferred on him, null and 
 void ; or, in short, that * ' want of baptism nulls holy 
 orders in any person ordained to the ministry."^ 
 
 [' Palmer on the Church, part vi. chap. vii. sect. 2, vol. ii. 
 p. 438. ' ' Is ordination null when conferred on a person unbap- 
 tised ? This is a question of great difficulty, and much may be 
 alleged on both sides. It was certainly the will of our Saviour 
 that those who believed should be baptised. It is equally 
 obvious, that none except believers were qualified to be His 
 ministers ; and as St. Paul forbad even those newly baptised to 
 be ordained, how much more would he have prohibited those 
 who were not yet grafted into the Church by baptism ? But, 
 on the other hand, if some person ordained in the Church is 
 afterwards discovered by himself and others not to have been 
 baptised, is his ordination to be accounted null and void ? It 
 is generally admitted, that, in a case of necessity, a sincere wish 
 to receive the sacraments, together with a true faith, is suffi- 
 cient to produce the effect of those sacraments. And, on the 
 same principle, it might seem that one unbaptised, though 
 ignorant of the fact, would not be less perfectly a disciple of 
 Christ than those baptised, and therefore not less qualified for 
 ordination, provided that he were in all other respects a Chris- 
 
92 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 This assertion does not yet appear easy, if at all, to 
 be proved, for these following reasons : 
 
 1. Because there is a vast difference between a 
 personal capacity, or qualification, and an authorita- 
 tive one. For a personal qualification for the mi- 
 
 tian. To this it may be added, that in the supposed case, 
 the person unbaptised would have been admitted frequently to 
 partake of the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist ; and 
 this might furnish another probability, that he was invested 
 with the privileges of those initiated by the sacrament of re- 
 generation. Dionysius of Alexandria was afraid to baptise a 
 man who had only heretical baptism, but who had partaken of 
 the eucharist (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 9). It seems from this 
 probable, I think, that such an ordination is not null ; but piety 
 would enjoin the reception of baptism privately : and if the 
 case were publicly known, and caused scandal, it would be ad- 
 visable to reordain conditionally." 
 
 This matter was invested with a painful interest in the case 
 of Seeker, who received only dissenters' baptism ; and the same 
 is said also of Tillotson and others. Taylor (Ductor Dubitan- 
 tium, vol. ii. p. 267) argues, that the Church's appointment 
 might dispense with irregularity, as in ordination during the 
 noviciate, which was the case with St. Ambrose ; but does not 
 apply this to baptism : he says that Ambrose was appointed 
 bishop before baptism ; but we know from Paulinus, that he 
 was not only baptised, but passed through all the ecclesiastical 
 offices, before his consecration. From the fact that clinic bap- 
 tism was a disqualification for orders, we may fairly conclude 
 that the total absence of the sacrament would be a much 
 stronger one. Of course, this is upon Laurence's principle, 
 that dissenters' baptism is no baptism. But this only proves 
 that unbaptised persons are incapable of orders : the remarks 
 of Hickes and Waterland, to shew that their ministerial acts 
 are not therefore nullified, are produced elsewhere.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 93 
 
 iiistry is, what a man is bound to be endowed with 
 in common with all other Christians, whether he be 
 ordained to the ministry or no ; and therefore baptism 
 and holiness of life, being equally incumbent on all 
 Christians, ministers as well as laymen, may justly be 
 distinguished by the name of personal qualifications. 
 
 But an authoritative qualification for the ministry 
 is that only whereby a man is separated and dis- 
 tinguished from the rest of mankind, and thereby 
 cmpow^ered to personate and represent the divine pre- 
 sence, for the conveyance of spiritual and superna- 
 tural benefits to us. ITiis is what we call the divine 
 commission, conveyed from the apostles in episco- 
 pacy, and given to the ordained person by imposition 
 of the bishop's hands. 
 
 2. A personal qualification may be, and in fact 
 often is, wanting, when an authoritative one remains 
 good and valid ; and there is abundance of reason 
 that it should be so, because the personal qualifica- 
 tion chiefly respects the man himself, who is, or ought 
 to be, possessed of it, since he only will reap the 
 benefit of having, or find the misery of being desti- 
 tute of it. But the authoritative qualification, as 
 such, relates only to God and the people : to God, 
 as the minister is to be His proxy and representative ; 
 and to the people, as they are to receive from God 
 the supernatural benefits of His proxy's ministrations. 
 The people receive no more advantage from the per- 
 sonal qualification of God's representative than they 
 do mischief from his personal immoralities ; that is. 
 
94 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 none at all, except but by their own learning or imi- 
 tation of them, because they are neither answerable 
 for the one or the other, any farther than as they are 
 encouragers or abettors of them. If he be destitute 
 of any such qualifications, let him look to that, it is 
 none of their business with respect to the validity of 
 his ministrations. All that they are bound to take 
 care of, upon that single account, is, that he be truly 
 sent ; and if they are but once secure of that, then 
 in all his ministrations they are not to suppose him, 
 but Christ Himself, whom he personates, to be admi- 
 nistering to them : for all sacraments, on the part of 
 the administration, are good and valid only upon 
 this one foundation ; without this, of Christ the great 
 High- Priest's administering, either Himself in person, 
 or by His proxy, all Christian sacraments must fall 
 to the ground, and be of no use or advantage to man- 
 kind : and therefore, if we can but solidly, i. e. upon 
 good foundation, believe that He does thus administer 
 to us, we need never concern ourselves with the per- 
 sonal quaUfications of His representative, for the valid- 
 ity of those administrations, which receive their whole 
 efficacy from the authoritative qualifications of Christ 
 Himself, who has promised to make good, and confirm 
 them, when performed by one whom He has sent. 
 
 To exemplify all this in the case before us : holi- 
 ness of life is required as a personal qualification, 
 previous to holy orders. This is evident from St. 
 Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus ; and yet it is 
 well known, that our Lord Himself chose Judas Is- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 95 
 
 cariot, a covetous thief, and one whom He Himself 
 branded with the name of a devil ; I say, it is well 
 known, that He chose this wicked wretch to be no 
 less than an apostle, and sent him to preach and 
 baptise, to cast out devils, and to heal the sick, as 
 well as the rest of the apostles ; for M'hich reason, all 
 his ministerial acts were good and vaHd, notwith- 
 standing his being destitute of the personal qualifica- 
 tion of holiness of life ; and it is universally acknow- 
 ledged, that the same is true of all other wicked 
 bishops, priests, and deacons whatsoever, otherwise 
 we could never be satisfied with the validity of ordi- 
 nations in any age of Christianity. And therefore, 
 though holiness of life is a necessary personal quaH- 
 fication for the ministry, because of great edification 
 to the people, &c. ; yet if a truly ordained minister 
 should be a wicked man, the people ought not to 
 suspect the validity of his ministrations by reason of 
 the wickedness of his life ; because it is Christ that 
 administers by him as His proxy only, and Christ's 
 ministrations are certainly good and valid, let His 
 visible representative he never so wicked ; he himself 
 (and not the people, except they concur with and 
 encourage him in his wickedness) must answer for 
 that. This is exactly agreeable to the twenty-sixth 
 article of the Church of England ; and therefore there 
 is no need longer to insist upon it, but to proceed to 
 baptism, another personal qualification for holy orders. 
 It is certainly the indispensable duty of every 
 minister to be baptised, as well as to be personally 
 
d6 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 holy, because it is a divine law, to which all ought to 
 pay obedience ; for which reason I cannot omit com- 
 mending the laudable custom of the Church of Rome, 
 who, though corrupt and scandalously wicked in other 
 matters, yet requires her candidates for holy orders 
 to prove their baptism before they can be admitted 
 into the ministry : and I should heartily rejoice to 
 see the governors of our Church require the same of 
 her candidates for the ministerial function, who, it is 
 to be feared, ever since the Reformation, have never 
 been enjoined to bring certificates of their baptism, 
 as well as of their good behaviour and Christian 
 conversation. This omission, I charitably beheve, 
 proceeded only from an opinion that none would 
 presume to enter into holy orders before they were 
 baptised, and that therefore it was needless to re- 
 quire a proof of their baptism : but, however, if this 
 custom had been preserved, it is reasonable to beheve 
 that the English clergy would some of them have been 
 more strict in keeping their parish-registers of persons 
 baptised by lawfully ordained ministers, and not have 
 suffered schismatical lay baptisms to have been re- 
 gistered among the true baptisms, as it is now scan- 
 dalously practised in some places, to the great grief 
 of many, and, I hope, almost all English clergymen, 
 who have constantly opposed all such unwarrantable 
 practices, and will (to their praise be it spoken) never 
 suffer such registers to be made in their parish- books. 
 I say, if this good custom of requiring certificates of 
 their baptism had been continued, it is very likely 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 97 
 
 tliat no lay-baptised person would have got such a 
 certificate from the minister of any parish ; because 
 a minister's giving such a certificate would have 
 been a publishing of his own fault, in making such a 
 register as is contrary to the laws and customs of the 
 Church ; for he must have mentioned the layman's 
 name, who was said to have baptised the person, 
 and thereby have declared that he himself took part 
 with schismatics, and consequently must have in- 
 curred the penalties of the tenth and fifty- seventh 
 canons of the Church of England. And this might 
 have been an effectual means of presendng the re- 
 gisters entire, and consequently of keeping out of 
 the ministry those who received baptism from lay 
 preachers ; no other laymen being, at least now, so 
 presumptuous as once to pretend to baptise. But 
 this only by way of digression. 
 
 And now to return : Christian baptism is certainly 
 a personal qualification for holy orders ; and that it 
 is no more than a personal one, I infer from hence, 
 because all Christians are equally bound to be bap- 
 tised, ministers as well as people ; and it cannot be 
 proved that it is more the duty of the one than of the 
 other to be baptised. If it be said. Yes it is, because 
 there must of necessity be a Christian minister be- 
 fore there can be a baptised layman ; this is not 
 denied. It is certainly true there must be so ; but it 
 does not therefore follow that he is not a Christian 
 minister if he is unbaptised ; for it is not his baptism, 
 but the commission, that makes him a Christian mi- 
 
98 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 nister, or one set apart to minister in the divine 
 offices of the Christian religion. His being baptised 
 is not his commission ; for if it is, then all baptised 
 persons are, as such, commissioned officers of the 
 Church, and so there is no need of any other ordi- 
 nation ; which is absurd, and contrary to the prin- 
 ciples upon which this objection is raised. Again, 
 his being baptised is no instituted essential part of 
 his commission ; for if it be, then all baptised per- 
 sons, as such, have one instituted essential part of a 
 commission, though not a whole commission ; which 
 is also absurd, because a commission is but one thing, 
 and the essential parts thereof cannot be separated 
 without violence and destruction to the whole ; and 
 therefore all baptised persons, if they have one essen- 
 tial part of a commission, must have the whole ; 
 which brings us back to the first absurdity, and con- 
 sequently baptism itself, being no constituent essen- 
 tial part of his commission or ordination, he who is 
 destitute of baptism is not, by reason of that want 
 alone, destitute of holy orders. If it be objected, that 
 while he is unbaptised, he is out of the Church ; and 
 how can he, who is not of the Church, admit another 
 by baptism into the Church ? I answer, though he 
 is out of the Church with respect to any benefits to 
 himself, yet not with respect to the spiritual benefits 
 he has authority and commission mediately to convey 
 to others ; for a man may be a true messenger, to carry 
 that good to another which he himself neither does 
 nor ever will enjoy. A master of a family may send 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 99 
 
 a neighbour, or a stranger, who is not of his family, 
 and give him full power and authority to adopt and 
 enter into his family some poor, destitute orphan 
 children, whom he commiserates : and though that 
 stranger be not of the family himself, yet his adopting 
 those poor children into that family stands good, be- 
 cause the master of the family sent and empowered 
 him to do it. And this I take to be very parallel to 
 the case in hand ; and therefore he who is not of the 
 Church, because unbaptised, may as truly admit a 
 person into the Church by baptism, as he who, though 
 baptised, through his wickedness is destitute of the 
 Holy Ghost, can convey the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
 by his ministration of sacraments, to others ; for as 
 it is not the personal holiness of the administrator 
 that conveys holiness to me in the ministration of any 
 sacrament, so neither does his having received that 
 sacrament signify any thing to me for the validity 
 thereof, when he administers it to me by virtue of 
 a divine commission explicitly given to him. This 
 commission alone is that which makes the ministration 
 not his, but God's own act, and as such (without any 
 other appendant cause) it is good and valid. Hence 
 our blessed Lord called both unbaptised and unholy 
 men, viz. His apostles, who cannot be proved to have 
 been baptised in the name of the Trinity before His 
 resurrection ; and one of them, Judas Iscariot, a thief, 
 a devil in his disposition, to the administration of holy 
 things ; as if He would thereby teach us to look with 
 faith on His authority only, without confiding in any 
 
100 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 of the best accomplishments of those on whom He 
 has conferred it. And if we do but look back to the 
 condition of the Jewish Church during their forty 
 years' sojourning in the wilderness, we shall find that 
 none of them were circumcised in all that space of 
 time ; and though the uncircumcised was by God's 
 own appointment to be cut off from among His people, 
 yet the ministry of those priests and Levites, who were 
 bom in the term of those forty years, was not nulled 
 and made void for their want of circumcision, which 
 doubtless was as much necessary to qualify them for 
 holy orders, as baptism is now to qualify our Chris- 
 tian priests. 
 
 Upon the whole, as neither the baptism nor per- 
 sonal holiness of the minister can baptise or make 
 us holy, but the divine authority residing in him, so 
 neither can the baptism or personal holiness of the 
 bishop confer holy orders, but the divine authority 
 from Christ and His apostles, visibly conveyed to, and 
 residing in him. It is by virtue of this alone that 
 holy orders are given ; and if either the bishop, or 
 ordained person, or both, have any personal incapa- 
 city, viz. of wickedness, or want of baptism, the fault 
 is their own, and they must answer for it. But as 
 for the ordination, that must remain good and valid, 
 by reason of the external divine commission de facto 
 given to the bishop. For if every personal defect of 
 what is required either in the administrator or re- 
 cipient could invahdate the administration either of 
 b.aptism or holy orders, we should never have an end 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 101 
 
 of rebaptisations and reordinations ; nay, we could 
 never have any certainty either of valid baptisms or 
 ordinations, because we should always find but too 
 many occasions to call in question the sufficiency of 
 the preparations and personal qualifications of both 
 ministers and people, who are all equally exposed to 
 the same human frailties, and liable to be tried with 
 the same innumerable temptations. 
 
 And therefore I humbly conceive our best way is, 
 I do not say only, but chiefly, to regard and insist on 
 the visible divine authority and commission, handed 
 down from Christ and His apostles, by that order of 
 men who have always had power to convey it to 
 others ; this, with the right matter and form of ad- 
 ministration, are what we ought to esteem to be the 
 only essentials of baptism and ordination, on the 
 part of the administrator of them ; and as for the 
 rest, every one in particular must do his part, to the 
 utmost of his power, to secure those personal qualifi- 
 cations which God has required of both minister and 
 people, under no less penalty than that of eternal 
 damnation upon the wilful neglect of them. 
 
 Thus far I have presumed to declare my thoughts 
 concerning the uncertainty, and, as far as I can see, 
 the falseness of the foundation upon which this whole 
 objection is raised, humbly submitting all 1 have said 
 in opposition to it to the better reasons and argu- 
 ments of my superiors, the truly ordained ministers 
 of Jesus Christ, whether bishops, priests, or deacons ; 
 sincerely declaring, that if any thing has dropped 
 
 K 2 
 
102 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 from me that is contrary to the truth of Christianity, 
 I do hereby recant it, and will do so in a more parti- 
 cular manner, as soon as I can discover my error. 
 
 And now, whether what I have said against ordi- 
 nations and holy ministrations being nulled for want 
 of baptism be true or no, if the invalidit)'^ of lay 
 baptism be a truth, let every one take care to keep 
 himself from, or extricate himself out of, the mischie- 
 vous consequences of it. And if the nulling of holy 
 orders and ministrations be a real consequence of 
 this truth, then there is no other remedy but that 
 those who are involved in it should extricate them- 
 selves out of it by episcopal baptism and reordination. 
 It is not enough to say, that " this will involve the 
 Church in the utmost confusion;" for want of bap- 
 tism and a valid ministry is the most pernicious con- 
 fusion, and infinitely greater than what can proceed 
 from such persons receiving valid baptism and holy 
 orders : and therefore, if the premises are true, the 
 risk must be run ; for truths of so great importance 
 must not be stifled, and made to give way to sup- 
 posed confusions ; because, whatsoever mischief may 
 arise can never be the result of divine truth (which 
 is always good and beneficial), but of men's sins and 
 impieties, in usurping those sacred offices which they 
 never received any commission to act in ; so that 
 those who value the order and peace of the Church 
 ought not to disallow of the invalidity of lay baptism, 
 upon the account of this consequence, but rather to 
 inquire seriously whether divine revelation gives us 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 103 
 
 any foundation to believe that such baptisms are good 
 and valid ; and if they are not, whether the nulhng 
 of holy orders be a real consequence thereof; and if 
 it be, they should assert and maintain it to the utmost 
 of their power, nay, even to martyrdom itself, if the 
 defending such a truth did expose them to it, rather 
 than suffer themselves to be destitute both of a Chris- 
 tian priesthood and Christian baptism. 
 
 Ohj. XI. But others say that, to avoid the fatal 
 consequences of adhering too rigorously to this doc- 
 trine of lay baptisms being invalid, the authority of 
 the powers hierarchical are very divine, and the 
 same which Christ had, not to the violation of His 
 laws, but to dispense with them to edification, for 
 which they may be empowered to relax stated rules 
 in cases that appear necessary or expedient. And 
 that therefore, though heretical, schismatical, and 
 mimical baptisms are done without, nay, and against 
 the consent of the hierarchy, and therefore are not 
 entire, or vahd in themselves, yet they are made so 
 on the post-fact by the spiritual powers, so far as 
 that the external rite shall not be reiterated ; but as 
 to any spiritual graces, they are not to be had there- 
 by, till those defective and irregular acts are supplied, 
 righted, and confirmed, by the chrism of the bishop, 
 or imposition of his hands, or such rite by which he 
 shall fix the person baptised into a state of canonical 
 union with the Church. So also the vahdity of lay 
 baptism, as well to its internal as external privileges, 
 stands on the authority of the Church's power to grant 
 
104 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 such license to laymen in extremities. All which 
 being considered, lay baptisms ought now to be ac- 
 knowledged vaUd, especially to such as have been 
 confirmed by the bishop. 
 
 Ans. This objection is, for the most part, in the 
 very words of a learned and reverend opposer of 
 one of the most poisonous books that, it may be, was 
 ever suffered to be published in the Christian world, 
 falsely intituled the Rights of the Christian Church 
 asserted.^ The worthy author, who has done the 
 Church good service in answering that pernicious 
 book, I dare say never designed that any thing in his 
 most excellent book should be construed to favour 
 our lay baptisms, which are evidently in opposition 
 to the divine right of episcopacy, and for which our 
 hierarchical powers have provided no act of confirma- 
 tion. So that, in these nations, our lay baptisers and 
 their proselytes can reap no benefit by any thing as- 
 serted in this objection. 
 
 I have already, under the corollary of the third 
 proposition, declared my reasons against the dispens- 
 ing power pleaded in this objection ; to which I shall 
 further add, that I acknowledge the divine powers 
 of the hierarchy, but with this restriction, that since 
 the settling of the canon of the holy Scriptures, they 
 are for ever limited in things fundamental to that 
 rule, from which they have no authority to deviate, 
 and consequently not to dispense with any of the 
 essentials of baptism, which, without all doubt, is 
 [1 By Tindal. London, 1709 ] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 105 
 
 a fundamental of Christianity : such a dispensation 
 must be a violation of Christ's law ; and how tliat 
 should be to edification is inconceivable, since Christ, 
 our great Lawgiver, has provided fundamentals suf- 
 ficient for the edification of His Church, in all cir- 
 cumstances whatsoever; and obedience to His laws 
 about fundamentals is most certainly the best edi- 
 fication, otherwise He, who is Omniscient Wisdom 
 itself, would never have made such laws. And 
 therefore, with submission, there seems to be no ne- 
 cessity for empowering the governors of the Church 
 " to relax his stated rules," no, not " in cases that 
 appear necessary or expedient." Besides, if Christ 
 has made stated rules for the essentials of Christian 
 sacraments, without providing for such pretended 
 cases of necessity, the hierarchical powers must cer- 
 tainly run a great hazard of sin in attempting to dis- 
 pense with things for which He has made no provi- 
 sion ; and the persons dispensed with can have no just 
 satisfaction in such dispensations ; especially when the 
 seeming cause of them is removed, as it certciinly is in 
 the case of persons baptised by unauthorised laymen, 
 contrary to the stated rule, who may afterwards obtain 
 episcopal baptism agreeable to the law of Christ, if the 
 hierarchical powers will but give them leave. 
 
 This I say in opposition to those who aflirm that 
 the hierarchical powers " are actually endowed with 
 authority to dispense with Christ's laws, and to re- 
 lax stated rules, in cases that appear necessaiy and 
 expedient ;" which the learned author, whose words 
 
106 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 they use, does not say. All that he intimates is only 
 that they may he empowered to do so : which plainly 
 shews that he would not venture to affirm that they 
 really are ; and it is reasonable to believe, that, upon 
 second thoughts, he will not allow so much as that 
 they may be so empowered : because what may be, 
 may not be, as far as we know. Nay, it is more 
 agreeable to revealed religion to say that they are 
 not so empowered ; because a thing of so great mo- 
 ment would never have been left out of the divine 
 oracles, to be handed down to us through all ages 
 by the uncertain method of oral tradition only. And 
 therefore it is very unsafe for us to trust in such 
 " may be so," when the receiving, or not receiving, 
 of spiritual supernatural privileges and benefits de- 
 pends upon the truth or falsity of such a dispensing 
 power, as it certainly does in the administration of 
 Christian sacraments. " Heretical, schismatical, and 
 mimical baptisms" are in this objection acknow- 
 ledged to be "not entire or valid in themselves;" 
 therefore in themselves they are utterly and entirely 
 invalid, by the corollary of the third proposition. It 
 is also said, that "as to any spiritual graces, they are 
 not to be had thereby, till," &c. ; which is a plain 
 indication, that of themselves they are of no efficacy 
 to the purposes of Christian baptism ; the adminis- 
 tration whereof is certainly efficacious for the con- 
 veyance of spiritual graces. Again, they are called 
 here " defective and irregular acts." But why are 
 they defective, except but for their being incapable 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 107 
 
 of producing the proper effects of true baptism ? And 
 why should they be termed irregular acts ; except only 
 but for being contrary to the stated rule, or, which is 
 the same, the first institution of Christian baptism ? 
 
 So that the external rite performed by these here- 
 tical, schismatical, and mimical baptisers, being thus 
 acknowledged to be contrary to the institution of 
 baptism, and utterly incapable in itself of being the 
 means to convey any spiritual graces, what has it to 
 do with Christian baptism ? Certainly it must be a 
 mere nullity, and aU one as if it had never been per- 
 formed : because, if it had no virtue to confer spiri- 
 tual graces, it had no virtue to confer any benefit at 
 all ; for even the outward privileges are no privileges 
 when separate from the spiritual graces. Thus, all 
 persons on whom the said external rite was per- 
 formed, can receive, by means thereof, none of the 
 benefits of Christian baptism, which are all spiritual 
 and supernatural ; and consequently must remain in 
 the state of the unbaptised, till they receive true 
 Christian baptism ; which, how they can receive, 
 without repeating the external rite by a proper ad- 
 ministrator, is utterly inconceivable. It is said, in- 
 deed, that ** those defective and irregular acts (i. e. 
 the external rites of those heretical, schismatical, and 
 mimical baptisms,) are supplied, righted, and con- 
 firmed, by the chrism of the bishop, or imposition of 
 his hands," &c. For answer to which, I refer the 
 reader to the corollary of the third proposition ;' and 
 further add, that this is only said, and not proved ; 
 
 [' p. 43.] 
 
108 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 and I believe never Mali, till it can be demonstrated 
 that that which before was no baptism at all, in the 
 Christian sense of the word, is now made true Chris- 
 tian baptism — without the act of baptisation — merely 
 by the bishop's chrism, or imposition of his hands. 
 Either the first external rite was the one baptism the 
 Scripture speaks of, or it was not ; if it was, then it 
 was entire and valid baptism, and consequently wants 
 no such act of the bishop to supply and right it ; but 
 if it was not that one baptism, then nothing can make 
 it so but the very act of baptisation by a Christian 
 minister : for it may with as much reason be affirmed 
 that baptism is administered really and truly, by such 
 acts of the bishop, to all other unbaptised persons, as 
 well as to those ; and so at last baptism itself will be 
 rendered needless, when the want of it can be so 
 easily supplied. But no less than a divine revelation 
 wiU suffice to convince us that this is true ; and till 
 that is produced, we must continue to believe, that 
 not all the acts of the highest created powers on 
 earth are sufficient to make that which before was no 
 baptism to become Christian baptism, without the 
 act of baptisation by a proper minister, as Christ has 
 appointed in the institution ; and that consequently 
 those who never received any other than lay baptism 
 are still unbaptised, notwithstanding their being sup- 
 posed to have been confirmed by the bishop. 
 
 Thus far, upon supposition that the ancient here- 
 tical and schismatical baptisms were of the same na- 
 ture with those of unauthorised laymen's baptisms, 
 which this objection seems to represent them to have 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 109 
 
 been ; because it says, that they were not valid in 
 themselves — that no spiritual graces were to be had 
 thereby, &c. Though, in truth, these heretical and 
 schismatical baptisms were not of the same nature 
 with unauthorised lay baptisms ; for they were per- 
 formed by persons who had received episcopal ordina- 
 tion, and so were authorised to baptise. So that what- 
 soever was the fault of those baptisms, the churches 
 who allowed them reckoned that they were valid in 
 themselves, as wanting no essential part of the insti- 
 tution, though accidentally criminal, by reason of the 
 uncharitableness of the separation of those heretics and 
 schismatics who administered and received those bap- 
 tisms. And during this uncharitableness, they reck- 
 oned that the baptised received no benefit by their bap- 
 tism tiU they came into the unity of the Church ; when, 
 upon their repentance of, and absolution from, the guilt 
 of their uncharitable separation, by imposition of the 
 bishop's hands, the obstacle was thought to be taken 
 away, which before hindered the benefit of the sacra- 
 ment, and so the graces due to their baptism, if it 
 had been done in charity, and which were impeded 
 and hindered by reason of their uncharitableness and 
 sinful separation from the Church, upon their coming 
 into her unity took place, and became effectual to 
 their spiritual advantage. This was the opinion of 
 those churches who allowed those baptisms to be valid 
 in themselves. And how true this their opinion was, 
 I am not concerned : because the baptisms I am dis- 
 puting are not such heretical and schismatical bap- 
 
 L 
 
110 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 tisms, but plainly unauthorised ; not only without any 
 commission at all, but also in opposition to episcopacy 
 itself, which those ancient churches never experienced, 
 nor entered into any consultation about. 
 
 As for the validity of lay baptism, that it " stands 
 on the authority of the Church's power to grant such 
 license to laymen in extremities ;" when it can be 
 proved that Christ has vested His Church with such 
 a power, it will necessarily follow, that such autho- 
 rised lay baptism, in cases of extremity, must be valid 
 upon that foundation ; but even then our ordinary 
 lay baptisms must be null and void, because they are 
 destitute of the plea of necessity, and also of any 
 such authority given them by the Church, in a 
 country where Christian priests are to be had. And 
 therefore it is in vain to claim any benefit from the 
 supposed power of the Church ; because she herself 
 is supposed not to have authority to exercise this 
 power, except in extremities, which, God be praised, 
 we do not yet labour under. But, after all, it is dan- 
 gerous for the Church to give any such liberty to lay 
 persons for cases of necessity, as some people call 
 them ; because this would be an occasion of destroy- 
 ing the very unity of the Church, and expose her to 
 the endless divisions and separations which heretics 
 and schismatics w^ould make from her. For if, by 
 virtue of this supposed power, she should once make 
 a canon to license laymen to administer valid bap- 
 tism in cases of extremity, then such dividing here- 
 tics and schismatics, calling their pretended scruples 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. Ill 
 
 and tendernesses of conscience by the name of cases 
 of extremity, would establish the validity of their lay 
 administrations upon the authority of the Church 
 from whom they separate, and vindicate their opposi- 
 tions to her by the power which she, in such case, 
 would be construed by impUcation to give unto them. 
 And so every private person, after having blinded 
 his understanding by hearkening to false teachers, 
 might plead that he was under a necessity to sepa- 
 rate from the Church, by reason that he cannot 
 overcome his scruples about her doctrine and wor- 
 ship ; and therefore might join himself to any con- 
 gregation he should like best, without the least fear 
 of dividing from the Church ; because where true 
 sacraments, with all the essentials relating thereto, 
 and the word of God, are, there must be a true 
 Church : and he could find proper sacraments ad- 
 ministered in these new congregations, even by lay 
 administrators, who would be presumed to act by the 
 authority of the Church herself. This would be to 
 build the Church and its unity upon so precarious a 
 foundation, that we should not know what schism 
 and causeless separation mean, though the Scripture^ 
 tells us there are and will be such sins ; and the 
 apostle's pronouncing damnation upon those who are 
 guilty of such sins (Gal. v. 20, 21) would have no 
 force and efficacy upon men's consciences, if they 
 should once persuade themselves, as they too often 
 do, that they separate for necessity, and can, upon 
 [' 1 Cor. xi. 19.] 
 
112 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 that very account, receive valid sacraments from lay 
 hands. And then it will be in vain to say that such 
 lay administrations must be confirmed by the bishop 
 before they can be valid sacraments ; for it will be 
 demanded, by what authority the bishop requires such 
 administrations to be confirmed by him ? And if 
 good testimonials from holy Scripture are not pro- 
 duced for this purpose, the bishop's supplying and 
 righting such irregular acts will be made a jest of, 
 and the separatists M'ill conclude themselves as much 
 in the Church as the bishop himself, while they ad- 
 minister and receive as good sacraments as he ; since 
 he cannot prove their lay administrations necessary 
 to be confirmed, righted, and suppUed, by imposi- 
 tion of his hands, &c. On the contrary, if it had 
 but been constantly asserted and defended, that the 
 sacraments of the Christian Church are by institu- 
 tion of such a nature, that the Christian priesthood 
 is one inseparable and essential relation to them, or 
 that the divine authority of the administrator is as 
 much and as durable a part of their institution as the 
 very matter or outward elements of them ; if men 
 had been always taught, that in the sacraments the 
 priest is as much the representative of God the giver, 
 as the outward elements are of the graces given, and 
 that consequently these latter are no Christian sacra- 
 ments when separate from God's authorised represen- 
 tative the priest; and that the Church cannot, by 
 any authority given to her, alter the nature of these 
 things ; — if these topics had been constantly insisted 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 113 
 
 on, without trimming to please any party of heretics 
 or schismatics whatsoever, — it is more than probable 
 that men would have been much more tender of the 
 unity of the Church, and more cautious of separating 
 from her, than now we find they are ; since how far 
 soever their vain curiosity might have prompted them 
 to have followed new-fangled lay teachers to please 
 their itching ears ; yet the consideration of their being 
 destitute of Christian sacraments might have terrified 
 them from withdrawing from the communion of the 
 Christian priesthood, and thereby have prevented 
 at least many of those final separations from the 
 only salutary communion which abundance of poor 
 wretches have fallen into, merely through the false 
 notion of better edification, and vain belief of being 
 sure to find true Christian sacraments in commu- 
 nion with their new set-up lay teachers. And it 
 is justly to be feared that the continual separations 
 from the Church in all ages, and particularly in ours, 
 have chiefly sprung from this wretched opinion of the 
 mere opus operatum of sacraments being real sacra- 
 ments, whether administered by a priest or a layman; 
 as if Christ's appointing the order of priesthood in 
 the Christian Church signified nothing at all, not- 
 withstanding it was the result of the most consum- 
 mate wisdom of our great Lawgiver, 
 
 But because it is pleaded from Scripture-instances 
 that cases of necessity and extremity have taken place 
 of divine institutions, and that therefore baptism, in 
 cases of extreme necessity, may be validly adminis- 
 
 L 2 
 
114 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 tered by a layman, notwitlistanding the institution 
 requires it to be administered by a priest ; and foras- 
 much as many lay-baptised persons encourage them- 
 selves by supposing theirs to be a case of necessity, 
 and consequently that they have received true Chris- 
 tian baptism ; I shall therefore, in answ^er to the next 
 objection, shew that those instances produced from 
 Scripture are not parallel to Christian baptism, and 
 that there is nothing in them that can favour lay 
 baptism, even in cases of the greatest extremity. 
 
 Obj. XII. In the institution of the passover it 
 was appointed that the Jews should eat the paschal 
 lamb with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, 
 and their staff in their hand (Exod. xii. 11), which 
 signifies a standing posture. The Church of the Jews 
 afterwards changed this posture into that of leaning, 
 or lying along ; and our Saviour, finding this custom 
 prevailed in His days, complied with it when He cele- 
 brated the passover (Matt. xxvi. 20). Which plainly 
 shews that we may many times comply with the 
 Church's changing even a divine institution for a hu- 
 man one ; and why not, therefore, with the Church's 
 allowing of lay baptism in cases of necessity } Again, 
 our Saviour, reproving the Jews for their over-rigid 
 niceness in observing the divine institution of the 
 Sabbath, tells them that David, when he had need, did 
 take and eat the sheiohread, and gave to them that were 
 with him ; which was not lawful for him to eat, neither 
 for them that were with him, but for the priests alone 
 (St, Matt. xii. 4, St. Mark ii. 25, 26), making David's 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 115 
 
 necessity a sufficient reason for dispensing, at that 
 time, with God's own positive institution about the 
 shewbread. And further, our blessed Lord, upon the 
 same occasion reproving the Jews, says that God will 
 have mercy, and not sacrifice (St. Matt. xii. 7). Which 
 is sufficient to instruct us, that in cases of necessity the 
 positive institutions of God Himself must be some- 
 times dispensed with for the supply of our wants, 
 and consequently that baptism in cases of necessity, 
 where a priest cannot be had, may be validly admi- 
 nistered by a layman, to supply the spiritual wants of 
 those who are unbaptised. 
 
 Ans. This objection consists of so many parti- 
 culars, that it will be necessary for me to consider it 
 in the same order wherein it lies. And, 
 
 1. The posture of standing to eat the paschal 
 lamb was no more than a temporary institution, pecu- 
 liar to the celebration of the first passover in Egypt, 
 the very night the Jews were to depart out of that 
 country. This is plain, from the reason of God's 
 appointing them to eat it in such a posture of tra- 
 vellers in haste, viz. because He would pass through 
 the land of Egypt that night, and smite all the first- 
 horn in Egypt, both of man and beast (ver. 1 2) ; 
 which would have such an effect upon the Egyp- 
 tians, that they would be very pressing and urgent 
 upon the children of Israel to depart out of their 
 country, to be rid of their company, for whose sake 
 they had suffered so many and great plagues, and 
 were now deprived of their first-born throughout all 
 
116 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 their houses and families. (See Exod. xii. from verse 
 29 to verse 34.) And if the children of Israel had 
 not been that night in such a travelling posture, they 
 would not have been prepared for so sudden and hasty 
 a departure as the distracted and terrified Egyptians 
 obliged them to ; whereby they might have been ex- 
 posed to abundance of inconveniences, both from the 
 fury of the Egyptians and their own unpreparedness 
 for a midnight journey. And therefore, that they 
 might not be thus incommoded, God required them 
 to eat the paschal lamb in haste, with their loins 
 girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staff in 
 their hand, to be ready for their journey at any warn- 
 ing that should be given them that night. But after 
 their departure the reason of this appointment ceased, 
 and therefore so did the appointment itself, and con- 
 sequently was no longer binding and obliging : and 
 we never find this travelling posture repeated in any 
 of the after- celebrations of the passover ; but that it 
 was only a temporary institution, peculiar to that first 
 celebration, I appeal to the learned Jews, both ancient 
 and modern, and also to our best commentators upon 
 the place (see Bishop Patrick, Grotius, Diodati, Pool's 
 Synopsis, &c.) ; to whom I refer the reader, that I 
 may not be more prolix upon this subject. 
 
 The posture of standing, then, being not enjoined 
 to be constantly used, was no essential part of the 
 institution of the passover, and therefore it was after- 
 wards indifferent what posture the Jews should eat 
 the paschal lamb in. For which reason, their Church 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 117 
 
 certainly had power to appoint any innocent posture 
 she should think fit ; and since leaning or lying along 
 was determined by her, and prevailed in our Saviour's 
 days, and He was pleased to conform to it, we ought 
 to follow His example, in complying with such insti- 
 tutions of the Church as are not contrary to the law 
 of God. But this instance does not allow us to com- 
 ply with the Church's changing a divine institution 
 for a human one, because the Church of the Jews 
 did not herein change a divine into a human institu- 
 tion ; for the posture of standing was then no divine 
 appointment, because not essential to the passover ; 
 and therefore the Church of the Jews did not change 
 this into another ceremony, but appoint the indifferent 
 ceremony of lying or leaning, when there was no divine 
 institution at that time obliging them to any other 
 posture. 
 
 And therefore we ought not, from the authority 
 of this instance, to comply with the Church's allow- 
 ing of lay baptism in cases of necessity; because bap- 
 tism by di priest is essential to Christian baptism, and 
 as much obliging as the institution of water itself 
 during the utmost term of the Christian dispensa- 
 tion, as I have proved under the first and second 
 propositions. And a layman's baptising to confer 
 supernatural benefits is no indifferent circumstance in 
 the power of man to determine and appoint, as was 
 the posture of lying or leaning along, when the 
 Church of the Jews appointed it ; and therefore, 
 from that Church's example and our Saviour's con- 
 
118 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 formity thereto, no argument can be drawn to sup- 
 port the validity of lay baptism, even in cases of 
 greatest necessity ; because the quality of the person 
 who is authorised to baptise for supernatural pur- 
 poses is determined by no other than a mere posi- 
 tive divine institution. And no case of necessity 
 whatsoever can determine any other means for the 
 conveyance of supernatural benefits than what are 
 already revealed to us, except God shall be pleased 
 to make some new revelation of His wiU for such a 
 purpose. 
 
 2. As for the instance of David and his men's eat- 
 ing the shewbread ; lest men should from hence en- 
 courage themselves to break through all the divine 
 laws to supply their necessities, it is necessary to con- 
 sider what circumstances of necessity will excuse our 
 breaking a mere positive institution of religion. 
 
 First, then, considering that all God's positive 
 institutions are appointed for our obedience, nothing 
 can excuse us from the breach of any one of them but 
 some other 7nore incumbent duty, which, at the same 
 time, stands in competition w^ith the positive duty. 
 
 Secondly, the means of supplying our necessities 
 must either be such as are of a natural efficiency, or 
 else efficacious by virtue of a divine institution, admi- 
 nistered just as God Himself has appointed. 
 
 Both these circumstances concmrred in David and 
 his men's eating the shewbread, and not one of them 
 is to be found in lay baptism. For, 
 
 1 . Though by the positive law it was not lawful 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 119 
 
 for any but the priests to eat it, yet by the law of 
 nature and revealed religion too, it was necessary to 
 feed the necessitous hungry ; and David and his men 
 wanting bread, and there being at that time no other 
 to supply their necessity (1 Sam. xxi. 6), the priest 
 gave him the hallowed bread, that so the law of cha- 
 rity to the lives of men, enforced by a double obliga- 
 tion, viz. by the law of nature and of revealed reli- 
 gion, might take place of the mere positive law about 
 the shewbread, which had no other obligation than 
 from the positive institution only, with which the 
 said law of charity stood at that time in competition. 
 And this is exactly agreeable to what the learned Dr. 
 Hammond says,^ in his paraphrase upon St. Matthew 
 xii. 3, 4, which, because so very apposite to this pur- 
 pose, I shall here transcribe for the reader's informa- 
 tion. His words are these : " Remember the story 
 of David (1 Sam. xxi. 6), and by that you will dis- 
 cern that the case of hunger was excepted and re- 
 served in the law concerning holy days or things. For 
 there David and his company, being pressed with 
 hunger, were by the priest allowed to eat the shew- 
 bread ; which, being consecrated, did particularly 
 belong to the priest (Levit. xxiv. 9), yet might, it 
 seems, by the intention of the lawgiver, be by him 
 employed in any charitable use for the relief of others, 
 as long as there were more ready consecrated for the 
 sacred uses (1 Sam. xxi. 5). And accordingl)^ though 
 
 \} Works, vol. iii. p. 04,] 
 
120 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 the priest pretended not to dispense with any (so 
 much as ritual) part of God's law (as appears by the 
 exception interposed by him, verse 4, if the young 
 men have kept themselves from women), yet he doubts 
 not to give them freely of the consecrated bread ; 
 thereby assuring us that it was as lawful for the 
 priest to give some part of the consecrated bread to 
 relieve the hungry as to eat it himself : and so that, 
 in the law of holy things not being touched by any 
 but the priests, the case of hunger or distress was 
 reserved, in w^hich it might by the priest be law- 
 fully given to others." Thus far that learned author. 
 But nothing of all this occurs in lay baptism ; for 
 the positive law requires that baptism should be ad- 
 ministered by a priest of God's appointment; and 
 there is no law of but equal, much less of greater, 
 obligation, that requires a layman to baptise at all. 
 Natural religion does not oblige him to baptise, 
 because baptism is no part of natural religion ; and 
 as for revealed religion, that has not required him to 
 baptise ; and therefore, in cases of greatest neces- 
 sity, if he does baptise, he acts without any duty 
 incumbent on him, contrary to a positive institution, 
 which is no ways consistent with this instance of 
 David and his men. 
 
 2. The means of supplying the necessity of Da- 
 vid and his men was bread, which has a natural phy- 
 sical efficiency to satisfy hunger, and consequently 
 to preserve human life ; but baptism has no natural 
 phjT^sical pow^er to convey to us the forgiveness of 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 121 
 
 sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Its efficacy 
 for such supernatural purposes depends only on a 
 positive institution, and therefore is not at all parallel 
 to the instance of the shewbread ; and consequently, 
 under this second rule, nothing can be inferred from 
 David and his men's eating that bread to a layman's 
 administering valid baptism, because they are things 
 of quite different natures and effects, and no ways 
 applicable to one another. So that to bring lay 
 baptism to this second rule, it must be proved effica- 
 cious by virtue of a divine institution, administered 
 just as God Himself has appointed. But this can 
 never be done, because there is no divine institution 
 of lay baptism. 
 
 In short, to sum up aU that I have said, or need 
 to say, about this instance of the shewbread ; bread, 
 before it was set apart for sacred uses, was common 
 for all men to eat for the satisfying of their hunger, 
 but the administration of baptism for supernatural 
 purposes was never thus common. The priests' giv- 
 ing the shewbread, when no other was to be had, 
 was then an act of charity, to which he was obliged 
 by the very law of nature, enforced by the revealed 
 will of God. But lay baptism is no duty incumbent 
 on us, either by the law of nature or revealed reli- 
 gion : the law of nature dictates nothing to us about 
 baptism for supernatural purposes, and revealed reli- 
 gion is whoUy silent about lay baptism for such ends. 
 The shewbread had a physical natural efficiency to 
 satisfy hunger and preserve life, and therefore the 
 
 M 
 
122 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 priest had encouragement to give it, because he had 
 no reason to doubt of its good effect : but baptism 
 has no natural physical efficiency for supernatural 
 and spiritual graces, — its effects are purely owing to 
 a positive institution only, — and therefore we have 
 no encouragement to hope for its effects, when the 
 institution is not observed in all its essential parts, 
 as it certainly is not when a layman administers. 
 Further, in the eating of the shewbread there was 
 no contradiction ; the priest did not give it to be 
 eaten contrary to the positive institution, with a 
 design, by so doing, to observe the same positive 
 institution. But in lay baptism there is a perfect 
 contradiction : the positive institution of baptism is 
 broken, that, by so doing, the same positive institu- 
 tion may be observed and kept whole. From all 
 which it is very clear and evident, that the eating of 
 the shewbread, and the administration of valid bap- 
 tism, in cases of necessity, by a layman, are things 
 infinitely different in their nature, and consequently 
 not at all applicable the one to the other. To which 
 I beg leave to add, that the eating of the shewbread 
 was no authoritative administration for the conveyance 
 of supernatural graces, as valid baptism most cer- 
 tainly is ; and therefore it is no wonder that God 
 put a good construction upon David and his men's 
 eating that bread to satisfy their hunger, when no 
 other was to be had, and yet upon all occasions 
 severely punished the sacrilegious usurjDations of 
 every one that attempted to officiate in such authori- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 123 
 
 tative administrations as He had appointed for the 
 conveyance of spiritual benefits. The great necessities 
 that urged them thus to officiate were never admitted 
 nor allowed of, so much as but to mitigate their crime, 
 much less to make their administrations vaUd. This 
 is apparently evident in the case of Saul's taking upon 
 him to offer a sacrifice in his great distress, when his 
 enemies were coming upon him, when he might have 
 been slain before he could make his peace with God, 
 when the priest Samuel was not present ; when he 
 had waited and strove so long, that he at last forced 
 himself to ofi:er a sacrifice to procure the divine fa- 
 vour. We see that all this necessity and the absence 
 of the priest, this eager desire to obtain a blessing, 
 was no excuse for his assuming the priest's office : 
 God would and did punish him for it, by rending the 
 kingdom from him, and giving it to another, as you 
 may see in 1 Sam. xiii. This is a standing example, 
 upon which we should always fix our eyes, and thereby 
 learn that, however God may excuse in some cases of 
 necessity, He will never do it in such great instances 
 as the taking upon ourselves to administer, or will- 
 ingly concurring with those who do minister, in the 
 priest's office, without being called of God, as was 
 Aaron} 
 
 3. As for that other text, where it is said, / tvill 
 have mercy, and not sacrifice,"^ it will as little serve for 
 the validity of lay baptism as the rest. For the occa- 
 sion of our Saviour's using those words, and the place 
 
 [} Heb. V. 4.] [2 Matt. ix. 13 and xii. 7.] 
 
1'24 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 of Scripture from whence He quoted them,^ do evi- 
 dently prove that the design of this text is only to 
 convince us that such positive institutions, as are here 
 called by the name of sacrifice, were never appointed 
 to frustrate and make void our obligation to the genu- 
 ine moral duties of natural religion, particularly those 
 of justice and equity, and of compassion and charity 
 to the necessities and wants of our fellow- creatures ; 
 but that, on the contrary, our want of such excellent 
 moral virtues, and our being of an unjust, uncharit- 
 able, and cruel temper, will make those positive duties, 
 when performed by us, both loathsome and abomin- 
 able in the sight of God. 
 
 This, I say, is evident, — first, from the occasion of 
 our Saviour's referring the Jews to that text, / will 
 have mercy, and not sacrifice. For the disciples, being 
 hungry, plucked the ears of com on the Sabbath- 
 day ; which the Pharisees observing, affirmed that it 
 was a breach of the Sabbath, and therefore unlawful 
 for them to do at that time. But our Saviour, Who 
 very well knew the barbarous cruelty of their temper, 
 bid them remember the case of David and his men's 
 eating the shewbread, &c.; and then tells them, If 
 ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and 
 not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless 
 (St. Matt. xii. 7) : whereby He proved the inno- 
 cence of His disciples, that they had not at all broken 
 the Sabbath by thus plucking the ears of corn to 
 assuage their hunger ; and that consequently the 
 [1 Hos. vi. 6.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 125 
 
 moral duties of mercy and works of absolute neces- 
 sity were never intended, by the positive institution 
 of the Sabbath, to be reckoned as breaches of the 
 duty of rest, which God required on that holy day. 
 
 Secondly, the place of Scripture from whence our 
 Lord quoted those words is Hosea vi. 6 : / desired 
 mercy, and not sacrifice. This does not mean, that 
 God did not require sacrifice ; for it is plain that 
 He did require it, and all other positive duties sig- 
 nified by that general word ; and the Jews, at that 
 very time, were bound to observe and obey all the 
 positive institutions of the Mosaic law, under no 
 less penalty than that of cursed be he that confirmeth 
 not all the words of this law to do them (Deutero- 
 nomy xxvii. 26) : so that the not sacrifice here must 
 mean, not only sacrifice, or not sacrifice alone ; and 
 therefore the plain paraphrase of this text is, "I de- 
 sired or required not only sacrifice — not only your 
 obedience to My mere positive institutions, but also 
 your observance of My moral law of mercy and kind- 
 ness." It was the want of this and other moral vir- 
 tues, together with their being guilty of cruel mur- 
 ders, robberies, and other immorahties, that God 
 complained of, almost throughout this whole chapter, 
 and for which He abhorred their very sacrifices, though 
 they were of His own appointment, and they were 
 then bound and obhged to offer them to Him. This 
 is also confirmed by Micah vi. and Isa. i. 11-15, &c. 
 All which, being duly considered, suflficiently declares 
 the sense and meaning of — / will have mercy, and 
 
 M 2 
 
126 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 not sacrifice, that the design thereof is not to make 
 void our obligation to obey the divine positive insti- 
 tutions, but to convince us that the moral duties of 
 natural religion, reinforced by divine revelation, are 
 so far from being inconsistent with, that they must 
 constantly accompany and attend our obedience to 
 such positive institutions, and that our approaches to 
 God in His positive institutions, without such moral 
 virtues, are so far from being accepted, that they are 
 hated and abhorred by Him. 
 
 And therefore all that, at most, can be inferred 
 from those words of our Saviour is, that when a mere 
 positive institution stands in necessary competition 
 with a moral duty of natural religion, reinforced by 
 divine revelation, then the mere positive institution 
 must give way to the moral duty for that time and 
 circumstance. 
 
 Now, then, to try to apply this to the case before 
 us. There is a divine positive institution requiring 
 baptism to be administered by one who has Christ's 
 commission for so doing. ITiis baptism is appointed 
 to be a means of conferring such merciful graces and 
 benefits as our miserable nature could never have 
 made any claim or title to, and which all the powers 
 of nature could never have bestowed on us. It hap- 
 pens that a person wanting these inestimable benefits 
 most earnestly desires to obtain them by baptism ; 
 but a minister with Christ's commission is neither 
 now nor likely hereafter to be had : what then must 
 be done in this extreme necessity } Why, says the 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 127 
 
 objector, God tcill have mercy, and not sacrifice ; and 
 therefore, since sacrifice now stands in competition 
 with mercy, the sacrifice must give way to mercy ; 
 the divine authority of the administrator must not 
 now be insisted on ; but the mercies and favours must 
 be bestowed on the person by a layman's administer- 
 ing baptism to him. This seems to be well said; but, 
 upon examination, it will be found that no such thing 
 can be justly inferred from this text, because, the 
 mercy there spoken of is a moral duty of natural 
 religion, and to be extended to the indigent and 
 necessitous by natural means ; but the mercies to 
 be received by Christian baptism are infinitely above 
 all natural religion, and consequently not to be con- 
 veyed by any natural means. The reason why we 
 are obliged to perform those natural acts of mercy, 
 even when they seem to run counter to some mere 
 positive institution, is because natural conscience dic- 
 tates this duty, and divine revelation has reinforced 
 its obligation; whereas we are bound to observe a 
 positive institution merely upon the account of a di- 
 vine law promulged to us, without which we could 
 never have been obliged to the observation of it. But 
 this reason is wholly wanting in lay baptism ; for na- 
 tural conscience dictates nothing to us about bestow- 
 ing of supernatural mercies by means of any kind of 
 baptism whatsoever ; and as for revealed religion, that 
 is wholly silent about a layman's being ever capable 
 of conveying such mercies to us by means of baptism : 
 so that the layman has tliis duty incumbent on him 
 
128 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 neither by the law of nature, nor of divine revelation ; 
 and therefore, if he baptises for spiritual purposes, 
 that he may shew mercy, he ventures to do otherwise 
 than the positive institution of baptism requires, and 
 at the same time is destitute of any the least encour- 
 agement from the text objected ; because there is no 
 law, either natural or revealed, that obliges him so 
 to do. 
 
 But further : when God will have mercy, and not 
 sacrifice, it is not intended that one or more essential 
 parts of a mere positive institution should be more 
 necessary and obliging to us than the other essential 
 parts thereof; no, all that God then requires of us is, 
 to prefer a moral before a mere positive duty, as is 
 evident from what I have already said on this subject. 
 But our assertors of the validity of lay baptism in 
 cases of necessity do unavoidably run themselves 
 into this inconsistency, of making one or more essen- 
 tial parts of a mere positive institution to be of greater 
 necessity and obligation than another essential part of 
 the same institution; for they make water and the 
 form of baptism to be more necessary and obliging 
 than the divine authority of the administrator. But 
 this notion I have already endeavoured to confute in 
 the second proposition, to which I refer the reader ; 
 and desire him here to observe how very disagreeable 
 this is with God's requiring mercy, a moral duty, and 
 not sacrifice, a mere positive one. For it is in effect 
 to make God say, instead of, I will have mercy, and 
 not sacrifice, " I will have sacrifice, and not sacrifice ;" 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 129 
 
 since there is not one of those essential parts of bap- 
 tism but what is merely of positive institution. This 
 of making one essential part of such an institution to 
 give way to the other essential parts thereof, in cases 
 of necessity, without a particular revelation of God's 
 will for so doing, is so strange, so unscriptural a prac- 
 tice, that there is not one example of it in all the sacred 
 writings of the Old and New Testament, from the first 
 chapter of Genesis to the last of the Revelation ; but, 
 on the contrary, we have a flagrant instance of God's 
 punishing this practice in the person of Saul, who in 
 his necessity, that he might obtain mercy , made one 
 essential part of a positive institution to give way to 
 another of its essential parts. For the priest, one 
 essential part of the positive institution of burnt-ofFer- 
 ings being absent, he reckoned the burnt- offering to 
 be more essential than the administration of the priest, 
 and therefore offered a burnt- offering himself; for 
 which rash action, Samuel said to him. Thou hast done 
 foolishly {i. e. wickedly) ; thou hast not kept (but hast 
 broken) the commandment of the Lord thy God, &c. — 
 Thy kingdom shall not continue, &c. (1 Sam. xiii. 
 11-14.) Here his endeavour to obtain mercy by 
 means of but part of a mere positive duty is, not- 
 withstanding the urgency of his necessitous circum- 
 stances, branded with the name of a foolish (wicked) 
 action ; and because it was not attended with the 
 other essential part, viz. the ministration of the priest, 
 was so far from being esteemed a valid offering to 
 God, that it proved, instead of a means of mercy, a 
 
130 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 judgment and a curse to the offerer and his pos- 
 terity. 
 
 Thus we see that, though God will have us some- 
 times extend our mercy rather than offer sacrifice, 
 yet when mercy is to be obtained yrom Him by means 
 of sacrifice, i. e. such mere positive duties as He has 
 required, He will not grant us the mercy we sue for 
 by means of but part of such sacrifice. No ; we must 
 either beg it of Him by our observance of the whole 
 institution, or else, when we cannot have the whole, 
 sit do\Mi contented till we can ; since He has declared 
 His abhorrence of such partial sacrifices, and thereby 
 taught us that they are no sacrifices at all. It is 
 worth while to obser^^e here what Samuel tells Saul, 
 after he had reproved him for breaking God's com- 
 mandment about burnt- offerings. For now, says he, 
 ivould the Lord have established thy hirigdom upon 
 Israel for ever (1 Sam. xiii. 13) : as much as if he 
 had said, " If thou hadst not attempted to gain the 
 divine favour by so unwarrantable an action ; if thou 
 hadst been patient in thy necessity, and not endea- 
 voured to render God propitious to thee by such an 
 unlawful method ; He is a God of mercy, and would 
 not have imputed sin to thee for want of a burnt- 
 offering, when it could not be had according to His 
 institution ; but, on the contrary, would have esteemed 
 thy not meddhng therein to be an act of obedience to 
 His command ; and consequently, though there had 
 been no burnt- offering made to Him, would have been 
 gracious and merciful to thee, and thy children after 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 131 
 
 thee ; and, as a reward of thy faith and obedience, 
 would have established the kingdom to thee and thy 
 sons for ever." This, 1 say, is plainly the scope and 
 meaning of Samuel's words to Saul ; whereby we also 
 are encouraged not to distrust the divine goodness, 
 but constantly and patiently to wait and pray for it, 
 without presuming to endeavour to obtain it by par- 
 tial sacrifice, when we are under such sad circum- 
 stances as not to be able to seek for it by whole 
 bumt-ofFerings. When we cannot have entire baptism, 
 according to the institution ; when there is no priest 
 to administer it to us ; then it is a greater act of faith 
 and obedience to refuse than to accept of supposed 
 baptism from a lay hand. Nay, for one who knows 
 the nature and extent of the institution of Christian 
 baptism to accept of, or acquiesce in, lay baptism in 
 cases of supposed necessity, it is a great presumption; 
 because it is expecting God's mercy to be conveyed 
 by such hands as He has not appointed for that pur- 
 pose, and to whose ministration He never required 
 our obedience : it is the superstition of making that 
 absolutely necessary to salvation which God has not 
 made so : as if, when we want those means which 
 He has appointed. He could not extend His favours 
 and graces without them ; as if there were a greater 
 degree of holiness in water and a form of words than 
 in the institution of the Christian priesthood ; as if 
 none could be saved without the former, but every 
 body without the latter ; as if water could be a means 
 of graces given, without the mediation of one who 
 
132 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 does truly personate God the giver. In short, it is 
 superstition, nay, and presumption too, to expect 
 mercy by means of but part of a sacrifice, when God 
 appointed that the whole should be the means of ob- 
 taining that mercy. And it is so exactly parallel to 
 Saul's case, and so infinitely ditFerent from the design 
 of the text objected, that Ave may very fairly conclude 
 that lay baptism cannot be valid, even in cases of 
 necessity. It cannot be sufiicient " to supply the 
 spiritual wants of those who are unbaptised," because 
 there is no comparison between the natural means of 
 administering to the ordinary wants of the necessi- 
 tous and indigent, and the supernatural appointed 
 means of supplying the spiritual wants of the unbap- 
 tised ; for these latter are of so extraordinary a na- 
 ture, that no less than mercies supernatural are suffi- 
 cient for so great a purpose ; and therefore no other 
 method must be used to obtain such mercies than what 
 He who is to bestow them has appointed. Obedience 
 in this case is better than sacrifice ; especially than 
 such a false burnt-offering as Saul, in the instance 
 above mentioned, presumed to offer to God. And 
 may we all take warning by his punishment, not to 
 confine God to our will-worship ; not to meddle in His 
 positive institutes, and expect that He should concur 
 with our foolish and presumptuous interposing in 
 such ministrations as He has confined to the authority 
 and administration of His and His Christ's appointed 
 priests and ministers only. 
 
 Obj. XIII. The Exposition of the Thirty -nine 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 133 
 
 Articles of the Church, which goes under the name 
 of G[ilber]t [Burnet] B[isho]p of S[aru]m, has this 
 remarkable passage upon the twenty- third article, 
 pages 259 and 260 [341, 342, Oxford edit. 1831], 
 viz. " It is to be considered that the high -priest 
 among the Jews was the chief person in that dis- 
 pensation ; not only the chief in rule, but he that 
 was by the divine appointment to officiate in the 
 chief act of their religion — the yearly expiation for 
 the sins of the whole nation — by which atonement 
 was made for the sins of that people. Here it may 
 be very reasonably suggested, that since none besides 
 the high-priest might make this atonement, then no 
 atonement was made, if any other besides the high- 
 priest should so officiate. To this it is to be added, 
 that God had by an express law fixed the high-priest- 
 hood in the eldest of Aaron's family ; and that there- 
 fore, though, that being a theocracy, any prophet 
 empowered of God might have transferred this office 
 from one person or branch of that family to another, 
 yet without such an authority, no other person might 
 make any such change. But after all this — not to 
 mention the Maccabees, and all their successors of the 
 Asmonean family — as Herod had begun to change the 
 high-priesthood at pleasure, so the Romans not only 
 continued to do this, but, in a most mercenary man- 
 ner, they set this sacred function to sale. Here were 
 as great nullities in the high-priests that were in our 
 Saviour's time as can be well imagined to be ; for 
 the Jews, keeping their genealogies so exactly as they 
 
 N 
 
134 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 did, it could not but be well kno\vii in whom the 
 right to this office rested, and they all knew that he 
 who had it purchased it ; yet these were, in fact, 
 high-priests ; and since the people could have no 
 other, the atonement was still performed by their 
 ministry. Our Saviour owned Caiaphas, the sacri- 
 legious and usurping high-priest (John xviii. 22, 23), 
 and as such he prophesied (Johnxi. 51). This shews 
 that where the necessity was real and unavoidable, 
 the Jews were bound to think that God did, in con- 
 sideration of that, dispense with His own precept. 
 This may be a just inducement for us to believe that 
 whensoever God, by His providence, brings Christians 
 under a visible necessity of being either without all 
 order and joint worship, or of joining in an unlawful 
 and defiled worship ; or, finally, of breaking through 
 rules and methods, in order to the being united in 
 worship and government ; that of these three, of which 
 one must be chosen, the last is the least evil, and has 
 the fewest inconveniences hanging upon it ; and that 
 therefore it may be chosen." Thus far the expositor. 
 After whom comes another writer, and applies all this 
 to the positive ministrations of the Christian priest- 
 hood ; and from hence would conclude that the bap- 
 tisms of our anti- episcopal dissenters, and of some 
 foreigners who are destitute of episcopal ordination, 
 ought to be esteemed good and valid. And so great 
 a stress does he lay upon our expositor's judgment 
 in this matter, that he gives us this great encomium 
 upon the above-said passage, in these words : *' This 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 135 
 
 is an argument urged by the good Bishop of Sarum, 
 in his Articles, in this very case I am arguing upon, 
 and it is so full to the purpose, that I do not think it 
 capable of an answer." 
 
 Ans. Because this objection is authorised by so 
 great a name, and boasted to be so very fuU to the 
 purpose, I shall endeavour to refute it in a double re- 
 spect. First, upon supposition, though not granting, 
 that all things asserted by the expositor concerning 
 the Jewish high-priesthood and atonement were ex- 
 actly as he in his Articles has represented them ; and 
 secondly, upon account of the real truth of those 
 matters of fact related by the expositor, concerning 
 the institution and change of the high-priesthood. 
 
 First, though all things concerning the Jewish 
 high-priesthood and atonement were exactly as the 
 expositor has represented them, 5^et it will not follow 
 from thence that unauthorised baptisms, such as those 
 mentioned in the objection, are good and valid, be- 
 cause the Christian Church never was yet reduced to 
 the supposed miserable state of the Jewish Church, 
 and indeed never will be ; for the supposed usurpa- 
 tion affected the whole Church of the Jews ; because 
 the atonement by the Jewish high-priest could only 
 be made in that one place called the holy of holies, 
 which was in the temple at Jerusalem : even a true 
 high-priest could not do it in any other part of the 
 world ; so that, when a usurper had got possession 
 of the temple, and was by force of the civil power 
 maintained therein, the Jews, if they had adhered to 
 
136 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 the true high-priest, could have had no benefit by 
 his ministration of an atonement, because he could 
 have made no atonement for them, being forcibly 
 kept out of the holy of holies. But the ministrations 
 of the Christian priesthood are not so confined to 
 place, they are equally valid over the face of the 
 M^hole earth ; so that if wicked civil powers in one 
 country should banish or destroy Christian high- 
 priests, the bishops, yet still God's promise of being 
 with His apostles, His high-priests, to the end of the 
 world, and that the gates of hades shall not prevail 
 against His Church, secures us thus much, that this 
 destruction of our Christian high-priests shall not be 
 universal ; some shall be found on earth with powers 
 to give valid ordination : if they are destroyed in one 
 dominion, they will be found in another ; and the 
 ministration of baptism by those who are ordained 
 by them will be valid in eveiy place : which is a very 
 different case from that of the Jewish priesthood. 
 
 But, further ; the objection does not come up to 
 the point, in the matter before us : it is not sufficient 
 to justify the anti- episcopal usurpations of Protes- 
 tants, who dare not communicate with the Church 
 of Rome, by reason of her intolerable coruptions in 
 doctrine and worship ; for even in the worst times 
 of popery, they that reformed without bishops to head 
 them might, if they would, have procured ministers 
 to be ordained by reformed bishops in England, if 
 their own corrupt bishops refused to ordain them. 
 And it is not sufficient to object, that the labour and 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 137 
 
 travel, &c. thus to obtain valid ordination is exces- 
 sive great, and in many circumstances next to im- 
 possible ; for men can easily remove these obstacles ; 
 these mighty imaginary mountains of trouble and 
 danger are no hindrance to them, when they are 
 eagerly bent after health, pleasure, or worldly riches ; 
 then the remotest Indies are not too far for them to 
 travel ; the dreadful dangerous wonders of the deep 
 do not terrify them ; the fear of robbers and pirates, 
 nay, of merciless murderers too, does not hinder their 
 eager pursuit after perishing treasures, and many 
 times fooHsh trifles. And is not a valid ministry vastly 
 preferable to these } Are not the divine institutions 
 unspeakably more advantageous, nay, infinitely richer, 
 as they convey and insure to us inestimable treasures, 
 of eternal extent and duration ? Certainly they are ; 
 and therefore no pains, no industry, how great soever, 
 can be too much, since it is no less than our duty, by 
 all possible means, to procure and obtain them ; so 
 that, whatsoever validity may be supposed to have 
 been in the ministration of the Jewish usurping high- 
 priest, the Church of the Jews, being by the hypo- 
 thesis absolutely deprived of any recourse to, or de- 
 pendence on, the true one, can by no means be applied 
 to usurping laymen's ministrations in the Christian 
 Church ; because the Church, where such laymen 
 pretend to minister, is not universally deprived of 
 any recourse to, or dependence on, true Christian 
 high-priests ; they may procure ordination from some 
 or other of them ; they may have consequently in- 
 
 N 2 
 
138 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 stituted ministrations, if they will take pains to obtain 
 them, which, upon the present supposition, the Jews 
 could not obtain with all their power ; because the 
 atonement could be made only at the one altar, in 
 the sanctum sanctorum at Jerusalem, from which the 
 instituted high-priest was, by supposition, forcibly 
 kept by the secular power of the Romans. And there- 
 fore the baptisms here pleaded for, being not parallel 
 to the supposed case of the atonement, because bap- 
 tism can be had as it was instituted, which the atone- 
 ment, it is supposed, could not, — must not be allowed 
 to be valid, as the atonement is supposed to have 
 been. And much less can it, from this instance be 
 inferred, that baptism by our anti-episcopal dissenters 
 is valid ; for they, unauthorised, attempt this, even 
 where our Christian high -priests are in the actual 
 execution of their office ; and they aim at the priest- 
 hood itself, in opposition to, and rebellion against, the 
 vicarious power of Christ, in those Christian bishops 
 to whom they owe subjection, and from whose hands 
 they ought, and yet refuse, to receive authority for 
 such ministrations ; which is so monstrous an attempt 
 of usurpation, and the persisting in, concurring with, 
 and encouraging of it, so perversely impious, that the 
 Church was never, till within these last two hundred 
 years, exercised with the like flagitious wickedness. 
 And therefore our expositor's own condition, of God's 
 acceptance of such uninstituted ministrations, will not 
 here take place ; for his proviso is this, that the people 
 could have no other, and that the necessity was real 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 139 
 
 and unavoidable among the Jews ; but it is not so 
 among Christians. It never was, nor ever will be 
 so, for the reasons I have mentioned. And his sup- 
 posing " Christians to be brought by God's provi- 
 dence. under a visible necessity of. . .breaking through 
 rules and methods, in order to the being united in 
 worship and government," is not sufficient to make 
 valid the uninstituted ministrations of any number 
 of men, from this supposed instance of the Jewish 
 Church, till the imagined necessity of those men can 
 be proved to be as real and unavoidable, and as uni- 
 versal too, as that of the Jewish Church is here re- 
 presented to have been. Though, after all, the case 
 was othervdse in that Church ; for notwithstanding 
 the wickedness of Herod and the Roman governors, 
 and of the Jews too, in disposing of the high-priest- 
 hood, the essential institution of that high-priesthood 
 was not vacated. For, 
 
 Secondly, though our expositor says that " God 
 had by an express law fixed the high -priesthood in the 
 eldest of Aaron's family," I must crave leave to say 
 that this express law is not to be discovered in the 
 canon of holy Scripture. There we find the institution 
 of the Jewish high-priesthood to have been expressly 
 in Aaron and his sons. For thus says God to Moses, 
 Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons 
 with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may 
 minister unto Me in the priest's office. — And thou shalt 
 make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, for glory 
 and for beauty (Exod. x: viii. 1, 2). The description 
 
140 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 of those glorious garments is in the following part of 
 that chapter; and they were appointed to be worn by 
 him when he went into the holy place, i. e. within 
 the vail. Then, at verse 40, the 'coats, girdles, and 
 bonnets for Aaron's sons are appointed ; and, ver. 41, 
 God says to Moses, concerning Aaron's garments and 
 his sons' coats, &c. Thou shalt put them upon Aaron 
 thy brother, and his sons with him ; and shalt anoint 
 them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they 
 may minister unto Me in the priest's office. And (ver. 
 42 and 43) thou shalt make them linen breeches, to 
 cover their nakedness, ike. And they shall be upon 
 Aaron, and upo?i his sons, when they come in unto the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near 
 unto the altar to minister in the holy place. It shall 
 be a statute for ever unto him, and his seed after him. 
 Again, Exod. xl. 13-15, God commands Moses to 
 put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, 
 &LC. And to bring his sons, and clothe them, — and 
 anoint them, — that they may minister in the priest's 
 office : for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting 
 priesthood throughout their generations. In chap. xvi. 
 of Leviticus we have an exact description of the 
 atonement, and of the high-priest's ministration there- 
 of in the holy place once a year, and not one word of 
 Aaron's eldest son, but indefinitely, in ver. 32, it is 
 said. And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom 
 he shall consecrate to minister in the priest's office in 
 his father's stead, shall make the atonement ; and ver. 
 34, This shall be an everlasting statute unto Me, to 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 141 
 
 make an atonement, &c. Further, Lev. xxi. 10, God 
 speaks of the high-priest without any particular de- 
 signation of the eldest to that office ; he that is the 
 high-priest among his brethren, &c. So Numbers iii. 
 10, Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they 
 shall wait on their priest's office, and the stranger that 
 comet h nigh shall be put to death. Likewise, Numb, 
 xviii. 1, The Lord spake unto Aaron, Thou, and thy 
 sons with thee, shall bear the iniquity of your priest- 
 hood. And, ver. 7, Thou, and thy sons with thee, shall 
 keep your priest's office for every thing of the altar, 
 and within the vail, and ye shall serve : I have given 
 your priest's office unto you, as a service of gift, and 
 the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. 
 Thus we see that the high-priesthood was, by express 
 law, in Aaron and his sons, and no mention made 
 that it should be and remain in the line of the eldest 
 son only. 
 
 I know it will be answered, that God Himself 
 commanded Moses to consecrate Eleazar, the eldest 
 son of Aaron, to be high-priest in the stead of his 
 father (Numb. xx. 25-27), and that therefore the 
 law confined the high- priesthood to the eldest son's 
 line. 
 
 In return to this, no one will deny so plain a mat- 
 ter of fact as that of Eleazar's succession to the high- 
 priesthood, and that it was by the express command 
 of God ; but the consequence which the objector 
 draws from this particular instance is not to be al- 
 lowed, because the standing law about the high- 
 
142 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 priesthood is, that it shall be in Aaron and his sons. 
 And there is another law concerning the same office, 
 that excludes the eldest, as well as any other of 
 Aaron's sons, from that great dignity, if he should 
 chance to have any impediment mentioned in that 
 law; for, says God unto Moses (Lev. xxi. 17 to the 
 23d), Speak unto Aaron, saying : Whosoever he he of 
 thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let 
 him not approach to offer the bread of his God ; for 
 whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not 
 approach : a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath aflat 
 nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is broken- 
 footed, or broken-handed, or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or 
 that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy or scabbed, 
 &c. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron 
 the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the 
 Lord made by fire : he hath a blemish, &c.; he shall 
 not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, 
 because he hath a blemish. This is positive and ex- 
 press ; and it cannot be fairly affirmed that God 
 would secure all the eldest sons from every one of 
 these blemishes, that they might minister before Him 
 within the vail. This is not to be supposed, that God 
 would always interpose on behalf of them only, and 
 give them no promise of such His more than ordinary, 
 no less than miraculous, providence over their parti- 
 cular persons. So far is He from giving them this 
 security, that He says. Whosoever, whatsoever man 
 he be of thy seed in their generations that hath a 
 blemish, he shall not go in unto the vail. As much 
 
OBJECTIOXS ANSWKRED. 143 
 
 as if He had said, even the otherwise most- esteemed 
 person of the seed of Aaron, whether for being the 
 iirst-born, or the chief for wdsdom, knowledge, &c., if 
 he hath a blemish, he shall not be high-priest, nor 
 make an atonement before Me. One of these ble- 
 mishes might have happened to the eldest, as well as 
 to another ; and therefore God's appointing Eleazar, 
 the eldest son of Aaron, to succeed his father in the 
 high-priest's office, is no argument that it was a stand- 
 ing law of God, that this office was ahvays to remain 
 confined to the eldest of Aaron's sons. And since 
 any of those sons might happen to have a blemish, 
 therefore God made no express law, as our expositor 
 says He did, to^^ the high-priesthood in the eldest 
 of Aaron's family ; for the law expressly fixed it in 
 Aaron and his sons, that if one of them had any ble- 
 mish, or indeed any other impediment, another son 
 might validly enter into the holy place. For the 
 atonement was expressly commanded to be made once 
 a year, and it must not have been omitted to be made, 
 even though the high-priest in possession had chanced 
 to have a blemish, as long as another son of Aaron 
 was to be had, and a vail or holy place was in being, 
 until the coming of the great High-priest, Christ Jesus; 
 for, says the law^ This shall he an everlasting statute 
 unto you (i. e. everlasting till the coming of Christ), 
 to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all 
 their sins, once a year (Lev. xvi. 34). Which could 
 not have been obeyed, if none but the eldest of Aaron's 
 family must, by the law, have entered within the vail, 
 
144 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 and if he had been, at the same time, so blemished ai 
 that he might not enter therein. For the atonement 
 must, in such case, have ceased to be performed 
 during the life of such a high-priest; which is con- 
 trary to the express law, that required it to be con- 
 stantly made once a year ; and therefore the high- 
 priesthood was not by express law fixed in the eldest 
 of Aaron's family. This we find, in fact, to have been 
 true ; for the Scripture records several high-priests 
 who were not of the line of Eleazar the eldest, but of 
 Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron. For example : 
 Eli, in the time of the judges (1 Sam. ii. 27, 30) ; 
 Ahiah, i. e. Ahimelech, in the reign of King Saul 
 (1 Sam. xiv. 3, xxi. 1, and xxii. 16), called also 
 Abiathar the high-priest (St. Mark ii. 26), whom 
 King Saul slew. So likewise another Ahimelech, in 
 the reign of King David (2 Sam. viii. 17), and in the 
 reign of King Solomon, Abiathar.' These, it is plain, 
 were not of the line of Eleazar ; for his sons are 
 mentioned particularly by name (1 Chron. vi.), and 
 not one of these high-priests is reckoned among them : 
 yet they executed the office, and no mark of infamy 
 is set upon them for so doing, because they were not 
 the strangers, who by the law of Moses were to die 
 for coming within the vail ; for they were of the sons 
 of Aaron. And certainly, if they had been invaders 
 of the high-priesthood, God would have given us 
 some notice of His dispensing with His own supposed 
 law, or else some mark of His displeasure at their 
 [1 1 Kings ii. 26.] 
 
OBJl'X-TIONS ANSWERED. 145 
 
 usurpation ; to have warned others from the like sin 
 for the future : as He did upon King Saul, for but 
 oiFering a burnt-offering, when he had no authority 
 to do so, being no priest. 
 
 This argument might be prosecuted much further ; 
 but I think enough has been said to prove that God 
 did not, by an express law, fix the high-priesthood in 
 the eldest of Aaron's family :^ and therefore, when 
 
 [• It would be only fair, however, to produce Lightfoot's 
 authority on this point {English Works, vol. i. p. 904. edit. 
 1G84). 
 
 " The high-priesthood still descended to the first-born . . . 
 and, by this necessity of succession, it came to pass that some- 
 times the high-priest proved to be but meanly qualified for 
 such an office . . . When Simeon the Just, having two sons, 
 Shimei and Onias, would have put Shimei the eldest by, and 
 put Onias the younger in, he could not do it, but Shimei ob- 
 tained his right, and Onias was put to flee into Egypt, where 
 he built a sumptuous and famous temple. . . The catalogue and 
 succession of the high-priests are thus given in Scripture : 
 1. Aaron; 2. Eleazar ; 3. Phinehas ; 4. Abishua ; 5. Bukki ; 
 6. Uzzi; 7. Zerahiah ; 8. Merajoth, — here the high-priest- 
 hood changed from the line of Eleazar into the line of Itha- 
 mar ; 9-. Eli of Ithamar; 10. Phinehas; 11. Ahitub ; 12. 
 Ahimelech, or Ahiah ; 13. Abiathar. In the time of these 
 high-priests of the house of Ithamar there were three succes- 
 sions in the line of Eleazar : Amariah (1 Chron. vi. 7), Ahi- 
 tub, and Zadok (2 Sam. viii. 17). Now whereas it is said, in 
 the place last cited, that Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahime- 
 lech the son of Abiathar, were priests, it is to be understood, 
 as the like is in 1 Sam. i. 3, of Hophni and Phinehas, that 
 they were priests unto the Lord, chief among the priests, and 
 chief overseers in the constant service and matters of the 
 
 O 
 
146 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 any other of Aaroa's sons got into the high-priest- 
 hood, the essential law of God concerning the high- 
 priesthood, which required that it should be in Aaron 
 and his sons, was not vacated. And this was the 
 case of the Maccabees, and all their successors of the 
 Asmonean family ; they were of the sons of Aaron, 
 and therefore valid high-priests ; because the institu- 
 tion required that a priest of the sons of Aaron should 
 be anointed and consecrated high-priest, and that no 
 other should be so. 
 
 To come now to the high-priests in Herod's and 
 the Romans' time, — they were also of the sons of 
 Aaron; for, notwithstanding the wickedness of set- 
 ting that office to sale, &c., Josephus assures us that 
 it was done with this particular regard, that those 
 who obtained it were in holy orders. His words are 
 these : " Herod having now received the kingdom 
 from the Romans, made no longer any scruple of 
 
 sanctuary, but their father Eli was high-priest. So in the 
 beginning of David's settlement in his kingdom, Abiathar was 
 chief priest, and he was of the house of Ithamar. Now the 
 high-priest did not so much attend the ordinary and common 
 service of the sanctuary ; therefore Zadok of Eleazar and Ahi- 
 melech of Ithamar were the chief in that service under him. 
 Solomon put Abiathar from the high-priesthood, and Zadok 
 in his room ; and now Eleazar's line hath the priesthood 
 again." 
 
 Hence it appears, that though Lightfoot asserts that the 
 regular rule of succession was hereditary, he admits the fact 
 for which Laurence contends, viz. that it did change from 
 Eleazar's line to that of Ithamar, in the case of Eli.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 147 
 
 choosing the high-priests out of the Asmonean race ; 
 but conferred the honour indifferently upon persons 
 though never so obscure, provided they were but in 
 holy orders." (Josephus' Jewish Antiquities, book xx. 
 chap. viii. page 1206. 8vo.^) This shews that Herod 
 and the Romans, as wicked as they were, had so 
 much regard to the Jewish laws, as not to prostitute 
 the high-priesthood to any who were not of the seed 
 of Aaron : and therefore it is reasonable to conclude 
 that the high-priests in our Saviour's time were valid 
 high-priests, because of their descent from Aaron ; 
 whereby God's institution of the high-priesthood was 
 preserved, though mckedly circumstantiated by the 
 buying and selling of so sacred an office. 
 
 Thirdly, and lastly, the expositor's assertion, " that 
 the atonement was still performed by their " {i. e. 
 what he calls the usurping high-priest's) " ministry," 
 is begging the question : it is affirming what he 
 ought to have proved, and has not once attempted to 
 do any thing towards it ; and till he does make it 
 good, I shall take the Uberty to deny that his sup- 
 posed usurping high-priests performed any atonement 
 at all. And the reason why I do deny it is because, 
 if they were not instituted high-priests, their pre- 
 tended sacerdotal acts, attempting to propitiate the 
 divine nature, were as null to that purpose as King 
 Saul's was before them ; that is, wholly null and 
 void, and for the same reason as his was. But fur- 
 ther : even though those high-priests were, as I have 
 [' Ch. X. p. 108, vol. iii. VVhiston's edition.] 
 
148 LA.Y BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 endeavoured to prove them, high-priests according to 
 the express law or institution of the high-priesthood, 
 yet it does not appear that any atonement for the 
 sins of the Jews was made by their ministration in 
 our Saviour's time ; for with what sense can it be 
 said that atonement was made for them, who were 
 then appointed to wrath and vengeance ? for that 
 people over whom our Saviour wept, because, through 
 the hardness of their hearts, they were spiritually 
 blinded ? The things that belonged to their peace were 
 hid from their eyes} They were then in actual bond- 
 age to the Romans for their sins ; they were at that 
 time filling up the measure of their iniquities, and 
 for their impieties the wrath was coming upon them to 
 the uttermost /^ insomuch that the dreadful days were 
 speedily coming, wherein their glorious city and tem- 
 ple should inevitably be destroyed, themselves in vast 
 multitudes be slain with the sword, and the remain- 
 der of them be led captive into all nations. Was any 
 offering made then, by the most regular Jewish high- 
 priest, of any efficacy to atone for such sinners ? If 
 it was, let the expositor inform us how we may know 
 it ; and when he has done this, then let him try how 
 he can prove that the offerings of his supposed unin- 
 stituted high- priests were of the same validity. If 
 he does not prove this, his whole objection is lost; 
 for till the atonement he talks of is proved to have 
 been valid, imauthorised baptisms will not be proved 
 valid by his pretended atonement. 
 
 [1 Lukexix 42.] [2 1 Thess. ii. Iti.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 149 
 
 He says, that " where the necessity was real and 
 unavoidable, the Jews were hound to think that God 
 did, in consideration of that, dispense with His own 
 precept." This must be acknowledged in one sense, 
 and absolutely denied in another. It must be ac- 
 knowledged that God, in such real and unavoidable 
 necessities, dispenses with His own precept ; that is, 
 does not expect us to obey it, when it is out of our 
 power to obey it. He then dispenses with our non- 
 ability to perform it, and so imputes not to us the 
 omission of it. But then it is absolutely to be denied 
 that, in such real and unavoidable necessity, where 
 we cannot have His positive institutions. He dispenses 
 with them, by allowing us to commute, and put instead 
 thereof a human institution, to serve for the same 
 purposes as the divine one. This, I say, is absolutely 
 to be denied, because it infers that God equalises a 
 human institution with His own divine one ; which 
 is absurd, besides contrary to the faith and practice 
 of the Jews, who always, when they thought and 
 practised as the Mosaic law directed them, reckoned 
 that God would not, in cases of greatest necessity, 
 allow them to substitute their own inventions in the 
 room of His positive institutions. For thus, when 
 they were in captivity in Babylon seventy years, they 
 did not dare to sacrifice, because they were destitute 
 of the temple and altar where God had placed His 
 name, and where the institution required rheir sacri- 
 fices to be offered. The same we find in that people 
 to this day ; for ask but any of the knowing persons 
 
 o 2 
 
150 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 among them, why they do not now offer material 
 sacrifices to God as formerly, and they will tell you 
 they dare not, because they have not the appointed 
 temple and altar. If you tell them they may build 
 altars, and offer thereon, they will answer you, that 
 God will not so dispense with His precept, and that 
 such sacrifices will be an abomination to Him, and 
 therefore of no benefit, but rather of dangerous con- 
 sequence, to them ; and that it is safer for them to 
 believe that God, under their present circumstances, 
 expects no material sacrifice at all, than in our expo- 
 sitor's sense to think that God, in consideration of 
 their real and unavoidable necessity (of an altar and 
 temple), will dispense with their building any unin- 
 stituted ones, and making sacrifices and burnt- offerings 
 in and upon them. The same we should have found, 
 if, in the time our expositor refers to, that people had 
 been destitute of instituted high -priests and priests : 
 they knew that a stranger w^as not to come nigh ; 
 they had experience enough of God's judgments on 
 such, notwithstanding their pleas of necessity ; and 
 therefore they were bound to think the direct con- 
 trary to what our expositor is pleased to affirm : and 
 consequently so are Christians too, if any arguments 
 with respect to them may be drawn from the Jews' 
 faith and practice about such positive institutions. 
 The expositor and his friend endeavour to make such 
 arguments in the objection ; and therefore it is very 
 just to deal with them in their own way, and conse- 
 quently to conclude against them, from the duty of 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 151 
 
 the Jews to that of Christians, that when we cannot 
 have or obtain God's positive institutions, we must 
 not set up our own instead thereof, but are hound to 
 believe that, in these respects, God dispenses with 
 our want of them ; that we must wait His leisure, till 
 He shall bless us with them ; and, in the meantime, 
 not dare to break through such His rules and methods 
 prescribed to us, and consequently not to baptise 
 without an administrator who is vested with His 
 commission, since such a baptism is no instituted 
 baptism, and its ministration, for all the purposes of 
 the instituted one, is equalising a human to a divine 
 institution, which is not only an absurdity, but an 
 abomination too. And, I think, this is enough in 
 answer to the late Bishop of Sarum's boasted unan- 
 swerable objection. 
 
 The following objections are brought by one who 
 styles himself a clergyman of the Church of England, 
 in his printed letter to Dr. Brett, concerning his ex- 
 cellent sermon against lay baptism ; and he tells us, 
 just before he brings them, p. 17, that " to shew that 
 every Christian, as Christian, has a natural right to 
 baptise" — though he grants, "that he that does it, 
 not ordained as he ought to be, and not in cases of 
 absolute necessity, acts presumptuously and is very 
 audacious," — he will use an argument or two drawn 
 from the Scriptures. 
 
 Ohj. XIV. His first pretended argument is taken 
 from St. Mark ix. 38-40, or St. Luke ix. 49, 50 ; 
 
152 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 John answered Him, saying, Master, toe saw one cast- 
 ing out devils in Thy name ; and he followeth not us, 
 and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But 
 Jesus said, Forbid him not : for there is no man who 
 shall do a miracle in My name that can lightly speak 
 evil of Me ; for he that is not against us is on our 
 part. The sense of which words, the objector says, 
 is this : " He that pursues the same end that we do, 
 that strives to beat down the kingdom of Satan as we 
 do, is not to be forbidden ; he is on our side. And 
 does not every one that baptises a child, or person 
 adult, bring his helping hand to subvert the kingdom 
 of Satan ? and shall we presume to forbid him ?" &c. 
 Ans. He that does his lawful endeavour to beat 
 down the kingdom of Satan ought not to be for- 
 bidden ; but he that uses unlawful endeavours to that 
 end ought to be prohibited, because, to use the apos- 
 tle's words, he does evil (he acts contrary to God's 
 law), that good may come of it, St. Paul says ^ that 
 the damnation of those who affirm and practise this 
 is just ; and therefore he who uses his endeavours 
 unlawfully, i. e. contrary to the law of God, though 
 he may design to beat down, yet in reaUty he pro- 
 motes the kingdom of Satan, which is advanced by 
 nothing more than by disobedience and rebellion 
 against God's laws. And this is the case of the lay 
 baptiser with us. The laws of God and of this^ 
 Church have excluded him from the ministration of 
 baptism ; therefore when he attempts to minister, he 
 [1 Rom. iii. 8.] [-^ Query " His?"] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 153 
 
 is disobedient and rebellious against those laws, and 
 so adds strength to the kingdom of Satan, instead of 
 beating it down. Besides, the man objected did mira- 
 culously cast out devils in Christ's name : this effectu- 
 ally beat down Satan's kingdom, for how can Satan 
 cast out Satan ? says our Lord.^ And when our ad- 
 vocates for lay baptism can prove that such baptism 
 has a miraculous efficiency for the destruction of 
 Satan's kingdom (for to say this without proof, is 
 only begging the question), or when our lay bap- 
 tisers themselves shall work as un controverted a mira- 
 cle as that was, for the confirmation of their practice, 
 then it will be time enough to believe the validity of 
 those baptisms ; but till that time comes, we must 
 conclude the objector at best to be mistaken, if not 
 worse, — a perverter of the sacred text he adduces for 
 the validity of such unauthorised baptisms. 
 
 Ohj. XV. His second imaginary argument to this 
 purpose is taken from 1 St. Pet. ii. 5, 9 : Ye also . . . 
 are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to 
 offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God, through 
 Christ Jesus, . . . But ye are a chosen generation, a 
 royal priesthood. St. John (Rev. i. 6) tells us that 
 Christ has made us kings and priests unto God and His 
 Father. And he gives us the same appellation. Rev. 
 V. 10. " This is applied to aU Christians ; therefore 
 all Christians are priests, consequently may baptise." 
 That this is no novelty, he brings TertuUian's au- 
 thority to prove ; Nonne et laid sacer dotes sumus ? 
 P Markiii. 23.] 
 
154 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 Scriptum est enim, Regnum quoque nos et sacerdotes 
 Deo et Patri Suo fecit. Differentiam inter ordinem et 
 plebem constituit Ecclesia, et honor per ordinis conses- 
 sum sanctijicatus : adeo uhi ecclesiastici ordinis non 
 est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi 
 solus. And presently after, Igitur si hahes jus sa- 
 cerdotis in temetipso, ubi necesse est, habeas oportet 
 etiam disciplinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse sit habere jus 
 sacerdotis.^ " The least that these words imply is 
 certainly that, in Tertullian's judgment, the laity have 
 a right to the priesthood, and, where it is a case of 
 necessity, may exercise that right. And hence it is 
 evident that only order and regularity makes some 
 act, and restrains others from acting in that capa- 
 city." To which add what he calls his third argu- 
 ment, that in Gal. iii. 28 it is said, In Christ Jesus 
 there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, 
 neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ 
 
 [' Tertullian, Exhor. Castit. c. vii. The impressive note 
 of the learned Bishop of Lincoln on Tertullian's argument 
 must not be forgotten. " In the passage just cited {De Bap- 
 tismo, c. xvii. quoted elsewhere), Tertullian rests the right of 
 the laity to administer baptism on the assumption, that a man 
 has the power of conferring upon another whatever he has 
 himself received ; and on the comprehensive meaning of the 
 word ' disciples,' John iv. 2 (' Jesus himself baptised not, but 
 His disciples '). On other occasions {Exhor. Castit. c. vii.) he 
 rests it on the ground that all Christians are in fact priests. It 
 is not easy to determine which of the three arguments is the 
 least conclusive." — Eccl. History illustrated from Tertullian, 
 p. 448 ; compare also p. 225 et seq.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 155 
 
 Jesus. " Therefore it is not absolutely necessary in 
 itself that baptism should be performed by an epis- 
 copal hand, because in Christ there is no distinction 
 of persons." 
 
 Ans. This gentleman should have taken into his 
 account the promise of God to the Jews, Ye shall be 
 unto Me a kingdom of prnests, and a holy nation (Exod. 
 xix. 6). Upon a right consideration of which, he 
 would have preserved himself from the mischief of so 
 unsafe an interpretation of the parallel texts in the 
 New Testament, and his readers too from the infec- 
 tion which some of them may draw in from his pub- 
 lication of it. That text in Exodus never exalted the 
 common people of the Jews to be proper literal priests, 
 nor gave them any right to the positive instituted 
 functions of the priesthood ; so far from that, that 
 those among them who thought they might perform 
 those priestly functions, upon their attempt to do so, 
 found to their sorrow that they were not such priests. 
 King Saul is a standing proof of this. And the judg- 
 ments inflicted on them are recorded in the sacred 
 oracles, to warn us all to avoid such false and pre- 
 sumptuous notions, and the dangerous practices con- 
 sequent thereupon. 
 
 The common Jews, then, were only priests in a 
 figurative sense of the word; i.e. as God selected 
 and consecrated His proper priests, and took them 
 from among men, publicly to offer such gifts and 
 sacrifices to Him as He had appointed them ; so He 
 took and separated to Himself, from among other na- 
 
156 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 tions, the people of the Jews, that they might accept- 
 ably offer to Him such services, particularly public 
 ones, as He should appoint them also. Even God's 
 proper priests were Hmited by Him, what public ser- 
 vices they should perform to Him ; insomuch as that 
 none of them could validly minister in the peculiar 
 office of the high-priest, who was their head, and 
 they were all dependent on him. So the common 
 Jews, the figurative priests, were limited in their 
 public services ; they were none of them to minister 
 except jure prophetico, in the peculiar offices of the 
 proper priests, who were also their heads and gover- 
 nors in the public divine sendee. It was a great 
 privilege for the common Jews to be admitted by 
 God to offer Him the pubhc services, or figurative 
 sacrifices, of prayers and praises, together with those 
 of themselves, souls and bodies, to His reasonable 
 ser^uce, and to be accepted by Him when they did 
 this, as He had appointed them, in subordination to, 
 and dependence on. His positive instituted priests ; 
 and this was their figurative priesthood. They are 
 called priests only in this remote, improper sense of 
 the word, viz. because they were separate from other 
 nations, and such their services were accepted of by 
 God, as the proper priests were taken from among 
 men, and their positive instituted offerings and ser- 
 vices were acceptable to Him upon the account of 
 His thus separating and consecrating of them. 
 
 This separation and consecration of His instituted 
 proper priests by God Himself was not, as the ob- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 157 
 
 jector would have it, only for order and regularity, 
 but also that they might be shadows and types of 
 Christ, the great High-priest which was to come, in 
 whom alone we can be accepted. They, and the 
 bloody offerings and sacrifices made by them for the 
 people, were appointed to resemble Him, and the sa- 
 crifice He was to make for the sins of the whole world; 
 as St. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, has abun- 
 dantly proved. And this had infinitely more in it 
 than bare order and regularity ; it was an instituted 
 method of interceding with God, by the mediation of 
 Jesus Christ, in behalf of fallen man ; it was an ap- 
 pointed way of executing Christ's mediatorial office 
 by visible representatives of Him, and types of His 
 ministrations, to reconcile us to God, and God to us. 
 It is the same now in our Christian dispensation. 
 The apostles, and their successors, are appointed not 
 only for order and regularity, but also, and more espe- 
 cially, to represent our Saviour, to be His vicegerents 
 and ambassadors, to bear His character and authority. 
 For says He, As My Father hath sent Me, even so send 
 I you. Lo, I am with you ! He that hears you hears 
 Me. This continues visible to us His mediatorial 
 office, and makes their instituted ministerial acts to 
 be His, and for that reason acceptable to God for our 
 spiritual benefit and advantage. Hence we discover 
 that Tertullian's notion concerning the priesthood of 
 private Christians was a Montanistical error ;^ for their 
 
 [} Tertullian's view, that there is no distinction between 
 the laity and clergy, occurs in treatises written before he em- 
 
 P 
 
158 LAY BAPTISM INVALJD. 
 
 priesthood, spoken of in the several texts objected, 
 amounts to no more than that figurative priesthood 
 which belonged to the common Jews, as God's segullah 
 [n b^P] , or peculiar people, for the reasons I have given 
 before concerning them. To w^hich add, that the text 
 in St. Peter confirms this, by naming the sacrifices 
 they are to oflFer ; for he says their priesthood is to 
 offer up spiritual sacrifices, i. e. those of prayers and 
 praises, &c. As for the other positive sacrifices ap- 
 pointed by Christ to be made by His instituted proper 
 priests, viz. the dedication of persons to God by bap- 
 tism ; the oflPering of the commemorative sacrifice of 
 Christ's body and blood in the eucharist ; and pre- 
 siding, in all other public divine service, to mediate 
 bet\veen God and the people in Christ's stead ; — these 
 are sacrifices peculiar to the order of the clergy, and 
 this text never designed them to be performed by lay 
 Christians. For says St. Paul, At^e all apostles ?^ 
 It is his strong negation ; as much as if he had said, 
 All Christians are not apostles. The apostles and 
 their successors are Christian priests, because their 
 ministerial oflSce is to mediate with God, as Christ's 
 representatives, in our behalf. This the Scripture 
 abundantly proves, and the universal Church con- 
 braced Montanism, as well as in those subsequent to his heresy. 
 The tract De Baptismo is as unhesitatingly classed under the 
 first head, as that De Monogamia is given to the last ; that De 
 Exhort. Cast, may belong to a transition-state. The Bishop of 
 Lincoln is somewhat disposed, however, to give up the De Bap- 
 tismo on account of this ** suspicious passage," c. vi. p. 48.] 
 \} 1 Cor. xii. 29.] 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 159 
 
 stantly testifies. Common Christians are not such 
 priests ; they have not this office of being Christ's 
 rejjresentatives committed to them ; for who can take 
 this honour to himself, hut he that is called of God, as 
 ivas Aaron ?^ The text adduced will as much prove 
 them literal kings as such priests ; for it is said, Christ 
 has made us kings and priests.'^ If people once persuade 
 themselves that this great office belongs to them be- 
 cause they are Christians, God's authority in His 
 kings will be trampled under foot, and despised among 
 men. It behoves princes, and all other inferior orders, 
 to take care of such dangerous interpreters of Scrip- 
 ture as these would be. Christians, as such, are highly 
 exalted by their redemption from the slavery and bond- 
 age of sin and Satan, from the vile servitude to their 
 own lusts, and from the burden of the Mosaic law of 
 costly ceremonies, &c. In this they are kings, being 
 brought into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, 
 and having, through the aids and assistances of the 
 Holy Ghost, a capacity of overcoming all the powers 
 of darkness. But they will lose this, their spiritual 
 dignity, if they assume to themselves the title and 
 office of kings in the proper literal sense of the word ; 
 and so they will their priesthood too, if they presume, 
 like Saul, to attempt to minister in the positive insti- 
 tuted functions of Christ's appointed priests. 
 
 Thus we see that Christians, as such, are no 
 otherwise priests than the common Jews were ; only 
 thus much, they are higher advanced than the Jews ; 
 [' Heb. V. 4.] [2 Rev. i. 5; v. 10.] 
 
160 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 that they are kings, too, by that spiritual freedom, 
 liberty, and power, which I have mentioned, and 
 which the Jews, under their dispensation, could not 
 boast of, as we may. 
 
 There is another sense wherein Christians, as 
 such, collectively taken, may be termed kings and 
 priests ; and that is, as they are the members of that 
 body, whose Head, Christ Jesus, is King and Priest in 
 the highest sense of those words. It is no novelty to 
 call the body by the name given to the head, for the 
 Scripture itself calls the Church, which is the body 
 of Christ, by the name Christ. 1 Cor. xii. 12 : For 
 as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the 
 members of that one body being many are one body ; so 
 also is Christ, or the body of Christ, which is His 
 Church. And since the Scripture calls the Church 
 Christ, it is no wonder to find the same divine writ- 
 ings call Christians, i. e. all the Church of Christ, 
 kings and priests ; for those texts speak of the uni- 
 versal body, the Church collectively taken : A spi- 
 ritual house, a holy priesthood, a royal priesthood. 
 This is the meaning of that other text, kings and 
 priests, i. e. in one body ye are kings and priests ; 
 because ye are the body of Christ, who is King and 
 Priest. And as any single member, as such, of that 
 body is not Christ in the proper sense of the word, 
 so neither is any member thereof, as such, a king or 
 priest in the proper sense of those words. They are 
 only so in a figurative sense, as they are related to, 
 and are in union with, their head : and so they are 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 161 
 
 likewise as they are members of the respective parti- 
 cular churches, whose visible spiritual heads, the bi- 
 shops, are spiritual kings and priests by Christ's insti- 
 tution, to whom the members are united, and conse- 
 quently in subjection : and therefore, though Christ 
 respects no particular person, more or less, for being 
 of a Jewish or Gentile offspring, for being bond or free, 
 male or female, but regards the obedience, &c. of all 
 alike ; yet He makes a distinction of offices, and re- 
 quires the several members of His body, the Church, 
 to keep their proper stations (as St. Paul most excel- 
 lently argues throughout his 12th chapter of the 1st 
 epistle to the Corinthians), to perform their several 
 respective functions ; and to be in subordination the 
 inferior to the superior, that His authority may be 
 preserved visible in His Church, and all the members 
 thereof may refer to Him the spiritual benefits they 
 receive through His instituted ministrations, by at- 
 tending on, and receiving them at the hands of those 
 whom He has made His representatives for that pur- 
 pose : and therefore it is absolutely necessary, by 
 Christ's institution, that when we are baptised, we 
 should receive baptism from an episcopal hand, which 
 is Christ's officer, and so far Himself, notwithstanding 
 that in Christ Jesus there is no distinction or respect 
 of persons. 
 
 I conclude this Answer to the Objections, most ear- 
 nestly entreating the most reverend, the right reverend, 
 and reverend governors and ministers of Christ over His 
 
 p 2 
 
162 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 flock, in all parts of the universal Church, the priests 
 of the most high God, who are duly authorised to re^ 
 present and make visible to us the once visible but 
 now invisible priesthood of the great High- Priest of 
 our profession Christ Jesus — who have not taken this 
 honour unto themselves without being called of God, 
 as was Aaron — who are therefore the delegated am- 
 bassadors for Christ, and appointed stewards of the 
 mysteries of God, to whom He has given the keys, and 
 committed the custody of the two great seals of the 
 kingdom of heaven; so that whatsoever they shall bind 
 on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever 
 they shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, — 
 I humbly beseech them, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, 
 to consider the great dignity of their high and holy 
 calling, and their unalienable right to administer those 
 sacraments, which the infinite wisdom of our great 
 Lawgiver has appropriated to their sacred function. 
 For if the ministration of the sacraments is not es- 
 sential to their office, and their office essential to the 
 ministration of vaHd sacraments, what signifies the 
 institution of the priesthood, and to what purpose 
 did our blessed Lord promise to be with His priests, 
 and concur with their ministrations, to the end of the 
 world ? If the presumptuous ministrations of lay- 
 men acting of themselves, or in opposition to the 
 Church and her priests, is not inconsistent with the 
 nature and property of true sacraments ; or if they 
 can be true and vahd sacraments when given by their 
 hands ; how, and by what means, shall we be convinced 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 163 
 
 of the necessity of the Christian priesthood to the 
 Church by divine institution, and its perpetuity, till 
 the consummation of all things ? How shall we be 
 persuaded to value the ministrations of a priest more 
 than those of a layman? and what arguments can 
 be produced for the preservation of the unity of the 
 Church, and to keep us from eternal schisms and 
 separations from her ? Your long silence in not as- 
 serting and defending the dignity of your office, and 
 the unalienable nature of those sacraments which 
 Christ has inseparably annexed thereto, though it 
 may have proceeded from a notion of humihty and 
 modesty, that you might not be thought to preach 
 up yourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord ; yet (with 
 submission be it spoken) seems to have been the oc- 
 casion of much ignorance, among the laity, of the 
 nature of schism, and their duty to you, and con- 
 sequently of encouraging the enemies of the clergy, 
 and of their great Master in heaven, to blaspheme Him, 
 and trample the authority you have from Him under 
 their feet. Atheism, deism, profaneness, blasphemy, 
 and sacrilege, are now grown impudent and barefaced, 
 bold and rampant ; they scorn any longer to dwell in 
 obscurity and darkness, when they are become the 
 fashionable accompUshments of our pretended great 
 wits, and men of distinguished sense and judgment. 
 They have a grand design in hand, (and their emis- 
 saries have prosecuted it with too much success,) 
 to represent your office every where, and to all sorts 
 of men, as tyranny, imposture, and usurpation ; to 
 
164 LAY BAPTISM INVALID. 
 
 wrest the sacraments out of your hands, that you 
 may become useless and insignificant ; to make the 
 giddy multitude beheve that all you do is nothing 
 but priestcraft, to bring and keep them under a worse 
 than Egyptian bondage ; to expose you to the rage and 
 fury of an ungovernable mob, and so at last to hiss 
 you, and all revealed religion, off the stage of this 
 world. What else mean their several execrable books 
 and pamphlets, that are now industriously published, 
 of set purpose to decry your office, and ridicule your 
 ministrations ? How shall the ignorant be defended 
 from their infection but by the antidote, which some 
 of you, both by books and sermons, have already 
 begun to apply, courageously following the example 
 of the great St. Paul, who magnified his office, and 
 thereby the authority of Jesus Christ who sent him } 
 God be praised for these happy beginnings, these first 
 noble performances in maintaining your office, and in 
 defence of the true rights of the Christian Church, 
 deposited in your hands by the great Author of our 
 most holy religion : and may He, by the blessed in- 
 fluences of His Spirit, stir up many mo7'e of you to 
 cry aloud and spare not, to lift up your voices like a 
 trumpet, to shew the people their transgressions, and 
 those who strive with the priest their sin (Is. Iviii. 1, 
 Hos. iv. 4, and Rom. ii. 8) ; that they may learn 
 to know and submit to those who are over them in the 
 Lord, and who watch for their souls (Heb. xiii. 17); 
 that they may esteem them very highly in love for 
 Iheir ivork's sake (1 Thess. v. 13), because they are 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 165 
 
 the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries 
 of God (1 Corinth, iv. 1). That so the people may 
 effectually be enabled to mark and avoid those who, 
 though tliey come to us in sheep's clothing,^ and trans- 
 form themselves into the appearance of apostles of 
 Christ and ministers of righteousness,'^ are yet in- 
 wardly but ravening wolves,^ false apostles, deceitful 
 workers,"^ and ministers of Satan, in St. Paul's lan- 
 guage ; for they cause divisions and offences contrary 
 to the doctrine which we have learned,^ nay, contrary 
 to the very principles or foundations of the doctrine 
 of Christ, of baptisms, and of laying on of hands ;^ and 
 therefore should be avoided, that we may keep the 
 unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace J Which that 
 we may all learn to do, and by your consentient 
 constant warnings be preserved from the dreadful sin 
 of hating sound doctrine, and heaping to ourselves 
 teachers destitute of the divine commission, who serve 
 not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, ^ may 
 God of His infinite mercy grant, through Jesus Christ, 
 to Whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
 [' Matt. vii. 15.] I" 2 Cor. xi. 13, 15.] 
 
 [3 Matt. vii. 15.] [^ 2 Cor. xi. 13.] 
 
 [5 Rom. xvi. 17.] [^ Heb. vi. 1, 2.] 
 
 [7 Eph. iv. 3.] [8 Rom. xvi. 18.] 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 ON THE PRACTICE OF THE GREEK CHURCH ATS'D OF THE 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 I. The Greek Church. 
 
 Bingham (Scholastical History, part i. c. ii. p. 94) 
 produces, as his first authority for the practice of lay- 
 baptism in the Greek Church, its decree under the 
 patriarch Nicephorus, who lived in the early part of 
 the ninth century, contained in two canons passed by 
 270 bishops at Constantinople (according to his opi- 
 nion), ordering that in case of necessity a layman 
 might baptise ; although the doctrine was at the time 
 and afterwards impugned by writers of that commu- 
 nion : by George Hamartolus, a.d. 840 ; Glycas, a.d. 
 1 1 20, who relied much on the apostolical canons ; 
 and Theodore, a.d. 1220. But he admits that the 
 council of Constantinople, under the patriarch Lucas, 
 A.D. 1166, determined in direct contradiction to the 
 canons of Nicephorus, directing that those who were 
 baptised by fictitious priests should be baptised, 
 grounding their decision on the apostolic canons ; 
 although he argues that this decree did not neces- 
 sarily exclude cases of necessity. 2. The criticism 
 
168 APPENDIX. 
 
 of Jeremy on the Augsburgh Confession, at the period 
 of the Reformation, where he expressly allows of lay 
 baptism in cases of necessity, 3. The present prac- 
 tice, which is also in favour of it, with the limitation 
 of necessity ; and this he proves by the testimony of 
 Metrophanes Critopulus in Suicer's Thesaurus (voce 
 fiaTTTii^w, p. 631), of Severus, and of Smith's account 
 of the Greek Churches : although he admits that 
 Simeon of Thessalonica, quoted by Jeremy Taylor 
 (see this passage in p. 73), bears an opposite testi- 
 mony. 
 
 Brett, quoting the authorities adduced by Lau- 
 rence below, and then, on the authority of Cave and 
 Beveridge, adds (Letter to Laurence, p. 5) Matthew 
 Blastar's testimony as to the practice of the Greek 
 Church A.D, 1335, two hundred years after the great 
 council of Constantinople : " If a man say that bap- 
 tism given by a layman ought to be reputed true 
 baptism, he may as well say that those who are 
 ordained by a layman, who has feigned himself a 
 bishop, ought to be esteemed as clergymen." 
 
 Laurence replies (Lay Baptism invalid, part ii. 
 p. 210, &c.), that Bingham confessedly can bring no 
 testimony for the first eight hundred years of Chris- 
 tianity ; but that during this silence St. Basil (see P7'eL 
 Disc. -p. ci.) and St.Chrysostom (seep.cv.) pronounced 
 against the validity of any other than priestly bap- 
 tism : and entering into Bingham's authorities in 
 detail, he says (p. 213), 1. That the ninth century 
 was extremely corrupt, and Nicephorus an image- 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 169 
 
 worshipper ; that great suspicion attaches to the two 
 canons produced ; that they do not occur in the 
 synodical acts of any council of Constantinople, but 
 they are only mentioned as " canons of Nicephorus," 
 and consequently they are of no higher authority 
 than his own private decision ; and that the very fact 
 which Bingham admits, that at least three writers of 
 the Greek communion protested against the doctrine, 
 shews that the validity of lay baptism was not the 
 approved sense and practice of the Greek Church ; 
 and finally (p. 225), that, granting the authenticity 
 of the canons of Nicephorus, they only come to this, 
 — that the patriarch did, in certain cases, give his 
 laity authority to baptise ; which cannot be drawn 
 into a precedent for our laymen, who confessedly not 
 only have no commission nor authority, but act in 
 direct contradiction to episcopal order. 2. On the 
 authority of the council of Constantinople, a.d. 1166, 
 admitted by Bingham, Laurence of course places much 
 weight. 3. He argues that the practice of the modern 
 Greek Church is of very little authority, corrupted 
 and influenced as it is by the Jesuits, of which he 
 instances their interpolation of Cyril Lucas's confes- 
 sion, and Dr. Smith's evidence that " they had in 
 several points of doctrine and practice corrupted the 
 behef of their fathers." 
 
 Bingham (part ii. Appendix, p. 348) replies, that 
 whether the canons of Nicephorus were or were not 
 passed synodically, at all events they were the canons 
 of the patriarch, and consequently authoritative in 
 
170 APPENDIX. 
 
 the Greek Church ; and that as for the opposition 
 they met with by certain writers, it would be as just 
 to "conclude against the practice of the English Church 
 because it is written against also. And of the modern 
 evidences which he produced, he alleges that both 
 Metrophanes and Severus wrote in defence of the 
 Greeks against the Latins ; the latter especially 
 against the pope's supremacy, and the former was a 
 student at Oxford under Archbishop Abbot. 
 
 And Laurence (preface, p. lii., to Supplement to 
 first and second parts oi Lay Baptism invalid, § 32) 
 rejoins : 
 
 " Upon the whole, all Mr. Bingham's evidence 
 for lay baptism in the Greek Church commences 
 from the beginning of the ninth century, one of the 
 corruptest ages of Christianity, and consists only of 
 the private opinion of particular men, and those not 
 corroborated so much as but by one council of the 
 Greek Church; his whole evidence being no more 
 than these two obscure canons of Nicephorus ; the 
 opinion of Jeremy, the late patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople ; Metrophanes Critopulus, a late Greek writer ; 
 Gabriel Severus ; and Dr. Smith's extract out of one 
 of their confessions of faith, printed a.d. 1662, which 
 confession is of obscure original ; and Dr. Smith de- 
 clares of this very confession, that it is enough ' to 
 incline any sober and considering man to believe that 
 the Greeks have of late, more than ever, been wrought 
 upon by the sly artifices and underhand dealings of 
 the subtle emissaries of Rome.' And this confes- 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 171 
 
 sion, and Jeremy the patriarch, and Gabriel Severus, 
 do all allow loomen, as well as laymen, to baptise, 
 which, by Mr. Bingham's own confession, ' the an- 
 cient Church did not allow them to do ;' and every 
 body knows that this practice is a peculiar corruption 
 of the Church of Rome, and consequently may easily 
 learn where these few Greeks learned their latitude. 
 
 " But, in opposition to lay baptism, let their opi- 
 nions in other matters be what they ivill, the Greeks 
 have given abundant testimony : viz. St. Chrysostom 
 and St. Basil, in the fourth century ; Hamartolus, 
 about the year 840; Glycas, 1120; a great council 
 of Constantinople, 1166, at which were present the 
 patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 
 with fifty-seven metropolitans, besides other bishops ; 
 and Theodore, about 1220 : and if to all this we add 
 the testimony of Arcudius, a Romish priest, who 
 wrote a book, printed a.d. 1626, to make the world 
 believe that the oriental Churches agreed with the 
 Roman, where he owns that, ' for the most part, all 
 Greece, Russia, Muscovia, and other provinces, who 
 after the manner of the Greek Church continue in 
 the faith of Christ, when a priest is absent, had rather 
 suffer their infants to die without (what he calls) bap- 
 tism, than suffer them to be baptised (as he terms it) 
 by any other, because they think that it is not la^vful, 
 even in necessity, for laics to execute this office,' — I 
 say, if we sum up this whole evidence, we shall have 
 a great cloud of witnesses against lay baptism's being 
 agreeable to the sense and practice of the Greek 
 
172 APPENDIX. 
 
 Church ; and these vastly superior in number, credit, 
 and reputation, to the private authorities produced 
 by Mr. Bingham on the other side." 
 
 II. The Church of England. 
 Bingham (Scholast. History, p. 112) thus states 
 what he conceives to be the doctrine and practice of 
 the English Church. The liturgy, before the Hamp- 
 ton-court conference (see p. 70), permitted laymen 
 to baptise in cases of necessity. Archbishop Whit- 
 gift, however, interpreted this private baptism other- 
 wise : " private in respect of the place, which is a 
 private house, and not in respect of the minister." 
 Archbishop Abbot construed this permission given to 
 the laity as only a temporary toleration, necessary 
 before men's minds were thoroughly released from 
 popery. Bilson and Babington, however, admitted 
 that the rubric did, in cases of necessity, allow such 
 baptism. And though these differences of opinion 
 existed, as in the views taken respectively by Whit- 
 gift and Bilson as to the intention of the Church in 
 authorising such baptisms, " all agreed that when 
 done, according to rule or against it, they were not 
 absolutely null and void, or as such to be repeated by 
 a lawful minister in order to obtain salvation." Whit- 
 gift rests on the case of Zipporah, and quotes Tertul- 
 lian, Augustine, Zuingle, and Calvin, and the [alleged] 
 case of Athanasius (see App. to Prel.Disc. p. cxxxiii.). 
 Hooker {Eccl.Pol. v. 62, vol. ii. p. 388) takes exactly the 
 same ground. Abbot reasons : 1 . That the ministerwas 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 173 
 
 not essential to the sacrament ; 2. Factum valet, fieri 
 non debet; 3. The practice of the Church; 4. The 
 custom of the English Church hitherto ; 5. The sup- 
 posed difficulties which the opposite view would in- 
 volve, — such as depriving" many of the seal of their 
 faith ; the uncertainty it would cause ; the possibility 
 of one unbaptised being ordained, or if baptised, that 
 one should be ordained by an unbaptised bishop. The 
 Oxford reply to the "millenary petition" (which reck- 
 oned the permission of lay baptism a grievance in 
 the Church) took the same view, as did Whitaker at 
 Cambridge. King James I. and Bishop Bilson, at 
 the Hampton- court conference, and Casaubon after 
 it, held the doctrine, which is thus stated in Barlow's 
 account (Card well, History of Conferences, p. 176) : 
 " The necessity of baptism his majesty so expounded, 
 that it was necessary to be had where it might be 
 lawfully had, id est, ministered by lawful ministers ; 
 by whom alone, and by no private person, he thought 
 it might not in any case be administered ; and yet 
 utterly disliked all rebaptisation, although women or 
 laics had performed it." 
 
 And on the other side, against this validity of lay 
 baptism, Bingham only produces Forbes (see Prel. 
 Disc. p. cxv.) and Jeremy Taylor (see p. 72). 
 
 But from the fact that the rubric was altered to 
 its present form {^Office for Private Baptism : " First, 
 let the minister of the parish (or, in his absence, any 
 other lawful minister that can be procured) with them 
 that are present call upon God," &c.], Brett {Letter to 
 
 Q 2 
 
174 APPENDIX. 
 
 Laurence, p. 7-10) argues that now ** baptism can 
 lawfully be administered, even in cases of necessity, 
 by no other than a lawful minister." Hickes {Letter 
 to Laurence) takes the same ground, and (p. 13) 
 quotes Beveridge : " The means of grace lose their 
 force and energy, unless they be rightly and duly 
 administered, and so can never attain the end where- 
 fore they were established " (Sermon on Acts xiii. 3). 
 " I am sure that all that I did would be null and void, 
 had I not a commission to be an ambassador for Christ 
 and to act in His name " (Sermon on 2 Cor. viii. 20). 
 Laurence published a separate tract in reply to 
 Bishop Fleetwood's Judgment of the Church of Eng- 
 land in the case of Lag Baptism, entitled Dissenters' 
 and other unauthorised Baptisms null and void bg the 
 Articles, Canons, and Rubric of the Church of England, 
 London, 1712, which is here reprinted entire. 
 
 Dissenters' Baptism null and void. 
 
 1. The author [Bp. Fleetwood] of the book entitled. 
 The Judgment of the Church of England in the case of 
 Lag Baptism and of Dissenters' Baptism, in his preface, 
 p. 4, tells the world that he does not think himself 
 '* at present concerned in the main matter disputed, 
 viz. whether lag baptism be invalid, or whether all 
 the presbyterian ministers are mere laymen, but 
 only to know what the opinion of the Church of 
 England was in the matter." In page 19 of his 
 book, he further acquaints us, that he does "not 
 pretend to enter into the merits of the cause, nor to 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 175 
 
 dispute whether lay baptism be valid or invalid, nor 
 whether it be lawful or unlawful to rebaptise, as he 
 calls it, such as have been baptised by lay hands." 
 And lastly, to put us out of all doubt concerning the 
 design of his book, he says, in his conclusion, page 
 38, — " Thus I have gone through the little work I 
 undertook; which was not to prove the validity of lay 
 baptism; nor to prove the baptism of dissenters to be 
 good and valid, in opposition to the author of lay 
 baptism's invalidity, or in opposition to Dr. Hickes, 
 his abetter and encourager ; this (says he) was not 
 my design ; but to make good my position, that the 
 Church of England hath by no public act of hers 
 made or declared lay baptism to be invalid. Both 
 those writers (says he) had affirmed that the Church 
 of England accounts lay baptism, and the baptism of 
 dissenting ministers to be invalid ; as far as they have 
 affirmed that, I have concerned myself with them, and 
 no farther." 
 
 2 Thus we see our author's design; and if we 
 may believe him, it is the whole of his undertaking : 
 but how true that is, will be shewn in the process 
 of this answer : at present it is very remarkable 
 how shy he is of the main matter disputed, and his 
 saying that the little work he undertook was not to 
 prove the validity of lay baptism, &c. looks as if he 
 did not think his supposed judgment of the Church 
 concerning that matter to be any proof for the vali- 
 dity thereof ; for if he did in truth believe that her 
 opinion was any good proof that lay baptism is valid, 
 
176 APPENDIX, 
 
 his endeavouring to produce her opinion would have 
 shewn, and he must have acknowledged it, that his 
 design was to prove, in opposition to the two authors 
 he mentions, that lay baptism and the dissenters' 
 baptism is good and valid : but he is well aware that 
 bare opinion is no proof; and therefore he very judi- 
 ciously waves the merits of the cause. 
 
 3. But how much soever he pretends to evade 
 the main matter disputed, viz. whether lay baptism 
 be valid or invalid, he will find himself to be deeply 
 concerned in it ; and that men will judge that the 
 design of his undertaking was not only to oppose 
 the inferences which Dr. Hickes and his friend have 
 drawn from the Church's articles and rubrics, but also 
 to endeavour to prove the validity of our dissenting 
 teachers' and other lay baptisms : this, in due time, 
 will be proved upon him, and the insufficiency of his 
 imaginary arguments from the Church's supposed 
 opinion in this weighty matter will fairly be repre- 
 sented to the reader's view. 
 
 But before I concern myself with his way of argu- 
 ing, I must inform the reader that the matter in dis- 
 pute is only this, viz. whether persons not authorised 
 by their bishops to baj^tise, especially when they act 
 in opposition to episcopacy itself, can administer valid 
 baptism. This, in short, is the great question which 
 has been very largely discussed ; and those who have 
 treated of it have, among other arguments, insisted 
 upon the Church of Enghmd's articles and rubrics as 
 standing evidences against such persons administer- 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 177 
 
 ing valid baptism : and that the consequences of the 
 Church's public acts do null and make void such 
 unauthorised and anti-episcopal baptisms. It is in 
 opposition to this that our author now exerts him- 
 self ; but with what strength of argument I come now 
 to inquire. 
 
 4. The position he lays down, and which he 
 pretends is the only design of his book to prove, is 
 this, page 1st, " that the Church of England hath, by 
 no public act of hers, made or declared lay baptism 
 to be invalid." This he endeavours to evidence by 
 three supposed arguments. 1. From the two first 
 Common Prayer-books in the reign of king Edward 
 the VI., published anno 1549 and 1552, in both 
 which books it was allowed that in private baptism, 
 which was for cases of necessity, one of the persons 
 present should name and baptise the child : from 
 whence our author concludes (pp. 2d and 4th), that 
 as in times of popery, so in our first reformation, the 
 baptism of laymen and midwives was allowed ; and 
 that it was then the belief of the Church of England 
 that a child baptised by a lay person, in due matter 
 and form, is lawfully and perfectly baptised. To 
 which I answer, that our author himself does, in his 
 18th page, confute the positiveness of this assertion; 
 for there he teUs us thus, " even the rubric of king 
 Edward's book was so worded as to leave it disput- 
 able and doubtful,^ whether the Church allowed, or 
 
 [' See Whitgift's interpretation above, p. 172.] 
 
178 APPENDIX. 
 
 intended to allow, of lay baptism in cases of necessity," 
 — this shews how uncertain he is in this matter : but 
 I further affirm, that it cannot be proved, from the 
 Church's public act in those two Common Prayer- 
 books, that the Church believed unauthorised per- 
 sons could administer valid baptism ; and my reason 
 is this, — because the rubric, as this author himself 
 quotes it (pp. 1 and 2), says, " Let them that be pre- 
 sent caU upon God, &c. And then one of them shall 
 name the child, and dip him in the water, or pour the 
 water upon him, saying these words, — N. 1 baptise 
 thee," &c., whereby it is plain the bishops in those 
 days commanded this baptism ; one of them shall do 
 it, esteeming themselves to have authority to com- 
 mand, and thereby to empower, such a baptiser for 
 that time and circumstance ; and therefore the per- 
 son baptising acted then, in the opinion of the Church, 
 by authority of the bishops ; they were the command- 
 ing power which gave authority to such administra- 
 tors at the beginning of the reformation; so that, 
 wliatsoever validity such baptisms were beheved to 
 have had, it was owing to the baptiser's acting, not 
 by any pretended power or authority of his own, 
 much less in opposition to the Church, but by virtue 
 of the Church's power and authority committed to 
 the members of her own communion for that time 
 and circumstance ; which, whether right or no, is no 
 ways applicable to our laymen and dissenters, who 
 are utterly destitute of any such plea since the alter- 
 ation of our office of private baptism, which now does 
 
DISSENTERS* BAPTISM NULL AND VOID. 179 
 
 not give that power which the Church at the begin- 
 ning of our reformation did grant. And this I take to 
 be a full answer to our writer's five first pages. 
 
 5. Before I proceed any further with this au- 
 thor, I think it necessary to inquire, from the pre- 
 sent articles, canons, and rubrics, of our Church, what 
 we may learn concerning baptisms performed without 
 authority ; such as our dissenters' and other lay bap- 
 tisms with us are ; and what her opinion is about 
 them. 
 
 6. Our Church's thirty-nine articles, then, are 
 articles of religion ; and therefore are matters of doc- 
 trine relating to God and His laws ; and not mere 
 doctrines and commandments of men, to be changed 
 and altered at pleasure, as some have represented 
 them ; for they were made for the stablishing of con- 
 sent touching true religion, as their title declares ; and 
 they were ratified and confirmed because " they do 
 contain the true doctrine of the Church of England, 
 agreeable to God's word," as the declaration prefixed 
 to them does affirm ; so that what they pronounce 
 to be lawful or unlawful, must necessarily be ac- 
 knowledged to be so with respect to true religion 
 taught in the word of God, which is the standard by 
 which these articles were made ; and therefore what 
 they call unlawful, is certainly, in the sense of the 
 Church, unlawful by the word of God Himself. 
 
 7. Her twenty -third article affirms, that " it 
 is not lawful (therefore it is contrary to the law of 
 God) for any man to take upon him the office of 
 
180 APPENDIX. 
 
 ministering the sacraments before he be lawfully 
 called and sent to execute the same." The law re- 
 lating to the ministering of sacraments is in our 
 Saviour's institution of them ; therefore it is by this 
 article contrary to the very institution of the Chris- 
 tian sacraments for any man to take upon him the 
 office of ministering them before he be lawfully called 
 and sent. Consequently a man not called and sent, 
 as our laymen and dissenters are not, acts contrary 
 to the institution of the sacraments when he pretends 
 to administer them, because he is not that lawfully 
 called and sent administrator which the institution 
 of the sacraments constantly and unalterably does 
 require. And what will make such pretended minis- 
 trations invalid, if contrariety to the very essential 
 law of the institution will not } If the Church, in 
 any of her articles, had said, it is not lawful for any 
 other form to be used in baptism than that, in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost ; would not any reasonable man, that made use 
 of his faculty of thinking, presently conclude that the 
 Church excluded all other forms, because of their 
 being contrary to the instituted form of baptism ? 
 Would he not from thence infer, that pretended bap- 
 tism, with such an uninstituted form, is not the in- 
 stituted baptism } Would he not say that he learned 
 this from the Church's article; and consequently that 
 the Church nulled such a baptism ? I do not doubt 
 but he would : and why then should we not construe 
 the Church's twenty- third article to null baptisms 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 181 
 
 performed by such as were never called or sent ? 
 Certainly the same reason will hold for her nulling 
 this, as for her voiding the other supposed baptism, 
 since the authorised administrator is as much and as 
 durable a part of the institution of baptism as the form 
 itself is. Our Church, in this article, is declaring her 
 doctrine concerning the minister of sacraments ; this 
 doctrine of her's relates to true religion, as was before 
 obser\^ed, sect. 6. Therefore, when she says, " it is 
 not lawful," &c., she does not refer to any human 
 law ; she does not appeal to any arbitrary injunction 
 of man, but to the divine law recorded in holy Scrip- 
 ture : that law is the only standard whereby articles 
 of true religion are to be tried and examined ; and it is 
 from this law that she takes her true doctrine concern- 
 ing the minister of sacraments ; and it is only to this 
 law that she appeals, when she says, "It is not lawful 
 for any man to take upon him the office," &c. So that, 
 if this divine law of the institution of Christian sacra- 
 ments makes the authority of him who ministers them 
 to be an essential part of their institution, then the 
 Church, by this article, appealing to the same law, 
 does also determine that the authority of the minister 
 is an essential part of that law, and consequently that 
 the whole law is vacated when one of its essential 
 parts is made void; as it certainly is, in the case of 
 unauthorised and anti- episcopal baptism: and to gain- 
 say this, our author must enter into the merits of the 
 cause, and endeavour to prove such baptism good and 
 valid in the sense of the divine law ; though he is so 
 
 R 
 
182 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 very loath to engage himself in this matter. But fur- 
 ther, the Church does not rest here ; she says more 
 still ; for, 
 
 8. In her twenty-sixth article she affirms, con- 
 cerning the minister of baptism, which is one of 
 the sacraments she is there speaking of, that he 
 does " not minister the same in his oivn name, but in 
 Christ's, and by His commission and authority . . . 
 that the sacraments be effectual because of Christ's 
 institution and promise." This she asserts, to take off 
 the scruples of some mistaken people, who think that 
 the efficacy of the word and sacraments is destroyed 
 by the wickedness of the minister who officiates in 
 them. Wherein we may observe by what means she 
 would reduce their erroneous judgments ; for, by this 
 article, she informs them that it is not the worthiness 
 or sanctity of the minister's person, but the commis- 
 sion by which he acts, that they ought chiefly to re- 
 gard ; the sacraments are not his, but Christ's, be- 
 cause ministered by His commission and authority ; 
 and the Church gives this of Christ's commission and 
 authority for the reason why we should use the minis- 
 try even of had men in . . . receiving the sacraments ; but 
 this can never hold with respect to the ministry of 
 any man, how good and holy soever, that is not au- 
 thorised ; for he can, upon no account whatsoever, be 
 said to have Christ's commission and authority. The 
 article says also, that the sacraments are " effectual, 
 because of Christ's institution and promise." If so, 
 then take away the cause, and their effectuaUty will 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 183 
 
 cease. The cause of their being effectual is Christ's 
 institution and promise ; His institution of " Go ye" 
 is wanting, when an unauthorised person attempts to 
 baptise (St. Matt, xxviii. 19, and article twenty- three 
 of the Church of England) ; His promise is also no 
 ways here concerned, for that — Lo, I am with you 
 always, &c. — was made only to authorised persons 
 (St. Matthew xxviii. 19) ; consequently the uncom- 
 missioned baptiser has neither Christ's institution 
 nor His promise, and therefore his ministration, being 
 destitute of these, has not cause sufficient to make it 
 effectual, by this twenty-sixth article of our Church ; 
 and the unavoidable consequence of this is, that such 
 his ministration is in its own nature ineffectual, and 
 therefore null and void, because destitute of the cause 
 which makes good and valid. 
 
 9. The twenty-seventh article of the Church of 
 England defines baptism to be "not only a sign of 
 profession and mark of difference, &c., but also a 
 sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by 
 an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are 
 grafted into the Church — -the promises of forgive- 
 ness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, 
 &c., are visibly signed and sealed " and in her most 
 excellent Catechism she teaches, that a sacrament 
 is a ''pledge to assure us of inward spiritual grace," 
 consequently that baptism, which is a sacrament, is a 
 pledge, or earnest given us, to assure us of those in- 
 finite blessings before spoken of in the twenty-seventh 
 article. This illustrates the reason of the Church's 
 
184 APPENDIX. 
 
 assertions in her twenty-third and twenty-sixth arti- 
 cles ; for hereby she necessarily gives us to under- 
 stand, that, to the essential administering of Chris- 
 tian sacraments, there must be something sufficient 
 to give them the true value and worth of an " instru- 
 ment visibly signed and sealed" between God and us, 
 — sometliing that may give them the power and virtue 
 of " God's pledge or earnest" to us, that we shall be 
 partakers of His unspeakable graces and favours ; this 
 something can be no other than either God Himself, 
 or His lawful attorney, sent by Him to act in His 
 stead ; for signing and sealing, and giving of pledges, 
 can never be validly done by any, but either the prin- 
 cipal, who covenants with us directly, or by his ap- 
 pointed agent, whom he sends to covenant with us in 
 his stead. And there is no other conceivable revealed 
 way, under our present Christian dispensation, for 
 God visibly to sign and seal to us, and give us an 
 outward visible pledge to assure us of His grace and 
 favour, but by means of His commissioned substi- 
 tutes ; and therefore it is the Church's doctrine, in 
 this twenty- seventh article, and in her most admir- 
 able Catechism, that men must be vested with the 
 divine commission to baptise, because without such 
 a commission, baptism is not a sign, seal, and pledge 
 on God's part, and therefore not the baptism which 
 He instituted, consequently no Christian baptism, and 
 if so, then utterly invalid. 
 
 10. Again, in the thirty- seventh article our Church 
 says, " We give not to our princes the ministering 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void, 185 
 
 either of God's word or of the sacraments, but 
 that only prerogative, &c., that they should rule all 
 estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, 
 whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and re- 
 strain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil 
 doers." 
 
 The Church by this expression, "we give not 
 to our princes," &c., is to be understood to mean, 
 " we attribute not to our princes," or, " we believe 
 not that our princes have the power or authority of 
 ministering" either God's word or the sacraments. 
 That she is to be understood in this sense, is plain 
 by what follows in the article ; for it is not to be 
 supposed that she gives princes the prerogative of 
 ruling, &c. ; that prerogative they have, without any 
 gift from her ; she only designs to teach us, that she 
 believes princes have such a prerogative. So that the 
 Church informs us, in this article, that our princes 
 themselves have not the power of ministering the 
 sacraments. Now this could not be true, if lay 
 Christians, as such, had that power ; because a man's 
 being a prince does by no means deprive him of any 
 power he had as a lay Christian before his promo- 
 tion to that dignity ; therefore, since our Church 
 does believe, and her belief is true, that our princes 
 have not the power of ministering sacraments, she 
 necessarily includes all other laymen to be destitute 
 of this power; otherwise inferior lay Christians are, 
 as such, superior in spiritual power to their lay Chris- 
 tian sovereigns, which is absurd ; and therefore it is 
 
 R 2 
 
186 APPENDIX, 
 
 the belief of our Church, that princes, and other laj- 
 Christians, attempting, without authority, to admi- 
 nister sacraments, do not minister them : for if they 
 do minister sacraments, then the ministering of the 
 sacraments is in their power, which is contrary to the 
 article ; and therefore any unauthorised attempt of 
 theirs to minister the sacraments is, in the sense of 
 this article, a null and void ministration. ' 
 
 11. Thus we have seen what the Church has 
 taught us by her articles, viz. that to the adminis- 
 tration of the sacraments, their institution, which is 
 the only law that appoints essentials, requires this 
 essential, that the administrator of them, and there- 
 fore of baptism, be lawfully called and sent (article 
 twenty-third). 
 
 That the efficacy or validity of the sacraments, 
 and consequently of baptism, is founded upon the 
 commission which the administrator has received from 
 Christ (article twenty-sixth). 
 
 That the ministration of the sacrament of baptism 
 is a visible signing, seaUng, and giving to us a pledge 
 on God's part, and therefore necessarily requires that 
 it be done either by God Himself, who is the princi- 
 pal, or else by one authorised by Him to act therein 
 as His lawful attorney (article twenty-seventh, and 
 Church Catechism). 
 
 Lastly, That even our princes, and therefore no 
 other unauthorised layman whatsoever, has this com- 
 mission to minister any sacrament (article thirty- 
 seventh) ; and consequently that, when any such 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 187 
 
 unauthorised person attempts to baptise, he is no 
 instituted baptiser ; his ministration is not effectual ; 
 his act is no visible signing, sealing, or giving a 
 pledge on God's part ; his meddling in the matter is 
 not the ministering of the sacrament, and therefore a 
 total nulhty in all respects. Thus far we have seen 
 the Church's sense in this matter, as delivered to us 
 by her articles of religion, which are her standing 
 laws, by which all her members are obliged to be 
 governed. 
 
 12. As for the other laws of the Church, as 
 they stand at present, it is evident that they allow 
 of no perfect or vahd baptism without a lawful mi- 
 nister ; for the thirtieth canon, speaking of this mat- 
 ter, says, that " when the minister, dipping the infant 
 in water, or laying water upon the face of it, as the 
 manner also is, hath pronounced these words, / bap- 
 tise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost, the infant is fully and perfectly 
 baptised." It is, by the canon, the minister's doing 
 this, that makes the fuU and perfect baptism : she 
 does not say, or so much as intimate, that it is, or 
 can be, perfect baptism without the minister ; and she 
 means nothing else by minister here, than one au- 
 thorised lawfully, as is plain by the above-said articles, 
 and by all other her public acts whatsoever. 
 
 13. And what this lawful authority is, the pre- 
 face to her book of ordination determines and limits ; 
 for that is also another of her laws, viz. " that 
 none shall be suffered to execute any of the functions 
 
188 APPENDIX. 
 
 of a bishop, priest, or deacon, except he hath had 
 formerly episcopal consecration or ordination." It is 
 the function of those spiritual officers to baptise ; and 
 therefore this law of the Church says, that none shall 
 be suffered to baptise except he hath had episcopal 
 ordination. And for this, her just and necessary law, 
 she appeals, in the very beginning of her said preface, 
 not only to antiquity, but also to the testimony of the 
 holy Scriptures themselves ; that men may see she is 
 not arbitrary in this injunction, but governed therein 
 by that sacred law, which obliges her and all other 
 churches, in this particular of episcopal ordination, to 
 the end of the world. But to proceed, 
 
 14. It is to one or other of these lawful mi- 
 nisters that our Church, in another of her laws, 
 does now confine and limit the ministration of bap- 
 tism ; and that is in her office for private baptism, 
 when children are in danger of death ; for by all the 
 rubrics or rules of that office, it is required and com- 
 manded, that the " minister of the parish, or in his 
 absence any other lav^ul minister that can be pro- 
 cured, shall baptise the child." The Church now 
 provides no other baptiser ; she leaves children to die 
 without baptism, rather than give allowance to any 
 other to baptise them in such cases of extremit)'^ : and 
 can we believe, that if she thought lay baptism to be 
 valid in its own nature, she would have made such 
 laws as confine baptism to the minister of the parish, 
 or any other lawful minister ; insomuch that whoso- 
 ever else should now attempt to baptise, in cases of 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 189 
 
 extremity, would involve himself in sin, by presum- 
 ing, like Saul and others, to meddle in sacred mat- 
 ters, where neither God nor His Church have allowed 
 him to concern himself ? Can we piously believe that 
 she denies even our princes, and consequently all 
 other unauthorised laymen, to have the power of mi- 
 nistering sacraments, as we see she does by her arti- 
 cles ; and in consequence of this, in her present office 
 of private baptism, allow of no other than a lawful 
 minister to baptise, when at the same time she 
 teaches, that the sacraments are generally necessary 
 to salvation, i. e. necessary to the salvation of all who 
 can have them ? — can a true apostolical Church, as 
 ours is, be supposed to do all this, and yet esteem 
 unauthorised lay baptisms to be valid ? Does she 
 mean that cases of necessity will make such things 
 valid as are in their own nature invalid, and could 
 never have had any validity at all but by virtue of a 
 divine law ? Could baptism have been good and vahd 
 for spiritual purposes, if Christ's law had not made it 
 so ? Is this law obeyed when an unauthorised person 
 attempts to baptise ? Is the pretended baptism he 
 gives, the instituted ministration of Christian bap- 
 tism ? Does our Church believe it to be so ? In 
 what article of her religion does she own this ? 
 Where is it to be found ? And if our defenders of 
 those pretended baptisms do not tell us where, we 
 must conclude that it is because they are not able. 
 And, indeed, they cannot but know, that to make any 
 baptism valid for supernatural purposes, there must 
 
190 APPENDIX. 
 
 be a divine supernatural law ; they cannot be ignorant 
 that our Church appeals to that law when she says, 
 " It is not lawful for any man to administer the sacra- 
 ments before he be called and sent," as in her twenty- 
 third article ; and therefore she would not venture 
 upon so bold an assertion, as that of the validity of 
 such unauthorised baptisms, either in express or 
 more general terms ; because she knows, and has 
 therefore pronounced, them to be contrary to Christ's 
 institution, and for that reason has made her articles 
 and laws to obUge us to obtain and adhere to no 
 other than the authorised baptism. And that we 
 may all be secured of obtaining this baptism, she is 
 so very severe against the lawful minister who, by 
 his negligence, suffers a child in danger of death to 
 die wdthout baptism, that in her sixty-ninth canon 
 she thus censures him : " If any minister, being duly, 
 without any manner of collusion, informed of the 
 weakness and danger of death of any infant unbap- 
 tised in his parish, and thereupon desired to go or 
 come to the place where the said infant remaineth, to 
 baptise the same, shall either wilfully refuse so to do, 
 or of purpose, or of gross negligence, shall so defer 
 the time, as, when he might conveniently have re- 
 sorted to the place and baptise the said infant, it 
 dieth, through such his default, unbaptised, — the said 
 minister shall be suspended for three months, and 
 before his restitution shall acknowledge his fault, and 
 promise before his ordinary that he will not wittingly 
 incur the like again. Provided that where there is 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 191 
 
 a curate or a substitute, this constitution shall not 
 extend to the parson or vicar himself, but to the 
 curate or substitute 'present.'' This censure she in- 
 flicts only upon the minister, or his curate present, 
 because they only are the administrators of baptism ; 
 but certainly, if the lay father of the child, or any 
 other lay persons in the family, were supposed by the 
 Church to have in their power the valid ministration 
 of baptism in such cases, the Church would have ex- 
 tended this censure against him or them also, for 
 suffering such a child to die unbaptised : but this our 
 Church would not do, because such persons, by her 
 thirty- seventh canon, have not, upon any account 
 whatsoever, the power of baptising. 
 
 15. I know that our author, and some others, 
 will still tell me that I have not proved that our 
 Church has, by her articles, canons, and rubrics, 
 made or declared lay baptism to be invalid, because 
 1 have not produced any thing said, by her that does 
 in direct and express terms assert lay baptism to be 
 null and void. 
 
 But I must, in answer to this, tell them, that this 
 objection smells rank of fanaticism ; all enemies to 
 truth amuse the ignorant with this evasive way of 
 arguing. Thus, the Quakers call for express texts 
 of Scripture to prove the necessity of the Christian 
 sacraments to the end of the world ; the people called 
 Anabaptists require express words of Scripture for 
 the baptism of infants ; the Sabbatarians, or seventh- 
 day men, call for positive texts to prove the first day 
 
192 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 of the week to be the Christian Sabbath ; and all our 
 sectaries demand direct and express texts for the 
 divine right of episcopacy : but these their clamours 
 were never thought sufficient and just answers to the 
 many proofs that have been brought for those doc- 
 trines from general texts of Scripture, as expounded 
 by the universal practice of the pure primitive Church. 
 Our author himself observes, in his twelfth page, that 
 " men may make premises, if they will ; but conse- 
 quences make themselves : if baptism be absolutely 
 necessary from a lawful hand, and a lay hand be not a 
 lawful hand, then lay baptism is not the baptism that 
 is absolutely necessary ; it must therefore be had from 
 a hand that is lawful." Here he makes a full period ; 
 and this he argues to shew King James I.'s incon- 
 sistency with himself,^ in asserting the absolute ne- 
 cessity of baptism from a lawful hand, and yet deny- 
 ing what he calls rebaptisation to those who were 
 baptised by lay hands, whom the king affirmed also 
 to be unlawful hands. This argument of our author 
 against King James stands equally good in the pre- 
 sent case before us ; for the Church has made such 
 premises, by her articles and laws, as determine, that 
 to administer sacraments unauthorised hands are un- 
 lawful hands ; the law by which she comes to know 
 this has also determined, that it is necessary for us 
 to receive sacraments from lawful hands, — the con- 
 sequence makes itself, that baptism by unauthorised 
 hands is not the baptism that is necessary ; therefore, 
 [» See Editor's Preface.] 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void, 193 
 
 by the laws of Christ and of our Church, it must be 
 had from lawful, i. e. authorised hands : this we gain 
 from our author's argument against King James. 
 But, not to put these gentlemen off thus, it is notori- 
 ous that public acts or laws, either of Church or 
 state, which empower men to confer such privileges 
 on others as they could not obtain before such pub- 
 lic acts or laws were made, — I say it is evident that 
 such pubUc laws are generally made in such terms 
 as do not expressly nuU and make void the attempts 
 of uncommissioned persons, who pretend to give the 
 privileges granted by those public acts ; and yet 
 those public acts or laws do, by necessary conse- 
 quence, invalidate and make void the attempts of all 
 uncommissioned pretenders ; for this reason, because 
 the granting a commission to confer on others such 
 particular and special privileges plainly implies that 
 those privileges are not to be had, under the present 
 circumstance of things, but by virtue of that com- 
 mission ; else w^hat need of the legislator's giving any 
 commission at all ? It is enough that the law pre- 
 scribes a commission ; this limiting act of the law 
 excludes the uncommissioned, and this exclusion of 
 them makes their acts, for which the commission was 
 appointed by the law, to be mere nullities ; as is plain 
 in cases of naturahsations and freedoms, to be granted 
 and conferred, according to law, by commissioned 
 officers and magistrates ; for if aliens and strangers, 
 in such cases, apply themselves to others to be na- 
 turalised or made free, they will find themselves mis- 
 
 s 
 
194 APPENDIX. 
 
 taken in their imaginary privileges ; and notwith- 
 standing all the formal pretences of the uncommis- 
 sioned persons they applied themselves to, they will 
 be all as destitute of a freedom as they were before 
 such their application ; because the thing they sought 
 for was, by the law% appointed to be conferred on them 
 only by commissioned persons, and without this law 
 they had no right at all to such a freedom. 
 
 16. This is the very case of baptism, appointed 
 by Christ Himself to be performed by His commis- 
 sioned officers ; and His law has discovered to us 
 no others that can minister it, for the receiving of 
 us into the number of His children, and making us 
 free denizens of His spiritual kingdom : this is a pri- 
 vilege unspeakably great and glorious ; but, without 
 our submitting to this law of His, we have no assur- 
 ance of obtaining it : if we do not receive our title to 
 it at their hands whom He has commissioned to con- 
 vey it, we frustrate the design of His law, and conse- 
 quently receive not that which His law intended us, 
 because He committed the authority of vesting us 
 with it only to those w^ho bear His commission ; and 
 our refusing or neglecting to receive the title to this 
 privilege at their hands, is a despising of His au- 
 thority, whose commission they are vested with, and 
 consequently a putting ourselves out of the condition 
 prescribed to us by the fundamental law of Christ, 
 the supreme Legislator of the Christian Church. 
 
 Our Church, in conformity to this original law of 
 our Saviour, has made articles, canons, and rubrics. 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 195 
 
 which assert this power to be in no others but His 
 commissioned officers. She denies it to belong to 
 any other man, nay, to our very princes ; and does 
 therefore in aU her public acts require that we apply 
 ourselves to the lawful minister for baptism ; she pro- 
 vides no other for cases of greatest extremity : and 
 what is this but confining the power of baptism to 
 the lawful minister, and therefore of excluding all 
 other from that power ; and, in consequence of that, 
 nulling and making void their acts, though not in 
 express words, yet by the necessary consequence of 
 her laws, agreeable to those laws that were made by 
 Christ Himself? 
 
 AVhere does the Scripture, in express terms, 
 null and make void a baptism performed without 
 water ? Certainly no where ; yet the law of Christ 
 makes it null, because it requires water. Where does 
 the Scripture, in positive terms, pronounce baptism 
 null and void when performed without the form in 
 the name of the Trinity ? No where ; yet it is null 
 and void by Christ's law, because that law requires 
 the form in the name of the Trinity. So, lastly, 
 where does the sacred Scripture, in direct, plain, 
 positive terms, say, that baptism by one not commis- 
 sioned is void and of no effect ? This is a question 
 will please the adversary, and I assure him that I 
 know of no such positive direct text ; and yet such a 
 baptism is null and void by Christ's institution, be- 
 cause that law of His requires that baptism should 
 be performed by a commissioned person. And I 
 
196 APPENDIX. 
 
 challenge our author to prove that the law of Christ 
 lays a greater stress upon either water or the form 
 in the name of the Trinity, than it does upon the 
 commission ; and if it does not, then the same law 
 that nulls a baptism done without either water or the 
 form, does necessarily null a baptism performed with- 
 out a commission. And consequently our Church's 
 articles, canons, and rubrics, asserting and requiring 
 this commission, as the original law itself does, must 
 necessarily null and void a baptism performed without 
 this commission, though she does not expressly do so, 
 any more than the original law of her Saviour does. 
 
 17. Our author's relation of the conference at 
 Hampton Court^ is nothing to the purpose; for the 
 opinions delivered there (p. 6, 7, 8, and 9) do not 
 amount to any public act of the Church of Eng- 
 land. King James disliked the former allowance 
 of women and laics baptising. Archbishop Whitgift 
 affirmed, that then it w^as not allowed, but censured 
 by the bishops in their visitations. The bishop of 
 Worcester (Babington) : that the first reformers 
 made the rubric in King Edward's book ambiguously, 
 because otherwise perhaps the book would not then 
 have passed the parliament. Bishop Bancroft : that 
 the rubric intended a permission of private persons 
 to baptise in a case of necessity ; that it was agree- 
 able to the practice of the ancient Church ; and for 
 this, appeals to Acts ii., where mention is made of 
 three thousand being baptised in a day, which could 
 [' See Editor's Preface.] 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void, 197 
 
 not be supposed to be done by St. Peter himself : but 
 the answer to the baptising of so many in so short 
 a time is easy, without supposing unauthorised lay 
 baptisers ; for all the apostles were then at Jemsalem ; 
 and if each of them had taken his share, it would not 
 have amounted to above 250 persons to be baptised 
 by an apostle in a day, which might easily have been 
 compassed by him, considering that it was then the 
 custom to baptise in rivers or brooks, where ten or 
 twenty persons might have been baptised at once, by 
 one apostle's applying water to them aU at a time, 
 with only once saying, " I baptise ye in the name of 
 the Father," &c., if there had been any need of it, as I 
 think there was not ; because the apostles might au- 
 thorise, by their power, a sufficient number of persons 
 to do the work, as we find St. Peter did upon the 
 occasion of Cornelius and his company's baptism ; 
 for the Scripture tells us, that he commanded them 
 to he baptised, &c. (Acts x. 48) ; they were not bap- 
 tised by unauthorised persons, but by such as acted 
 by the apostle's command : as here also, it is plain 
 that the three thousand were not baptised by per- 
 sons who acted without, much less in opposition 
 to, the authority of the apostles ; for they continued 
 stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship j^ 
 which they could not be said to have done, if they 
 had acted without, or in opposition to, their autho- 
 rity and commission ; and therefore their case is 
 no ways applicable to our dissenters, who act in 
 [1 Acts ii. 42.] 
 s2 
 
198 APPENDIX. 
 
 opposition to the apostolic authority and power now 
 lodged in Christian bishops. But, to return to the 
 Hampton-Court conference. King James pressed the 
 necessity of baptism, if lawfully to be had, i. e. from 
 lawful ministers, by whom alone, and no private per- 
 son in any case, it may be administered, says the 
 king ; though, continues his majesty, I utterly dislike 
 all rebaptisation on those whom women or laics have 
 baptised. The bishop of Winton (Bilson) said, that 
 to deny private persons to baptise in case of ne- 
 cessity, were to cross all antiquity, and the common 
 practice of the Church ; it being a rule agreed on 
 amongst divines, that the minister is not of the 
 essence of the sacrament. King James answered, 
 though he be not of the essence of the sacrament, 
 yet is he of the essence of the right and lawful mi- 
 nistry thereof;^ to which that bishop made no reply. 
 Now, what can any one learn from all this, concern- 
 ing the judgment of the Church of England ? We 
 have here only five or six members of the Church 
 debating this matter; some for, and others against, 
 the rubric in King Edward's book. But in this 
 whole conference, nothing that can be brought so 
 much as to countenance our dissenters' and other un- 
 authorised lay baptisms ; for the question was, upon 
 the whole, only, whether the Church, i. e. the bishops 
 thereof, could or should authorise laymen or mid- 
 wives to baptise in case of necessity. Whatever may 
 
 [^ Taking for his ground the commission of Christ to His 
 disciples (Matt, xxviii. 20), " Go, preach and baptise."] 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 199 
 
 be the result of such a dispute, our unauthorised bap- 
 tisms can gain nothing by it ; for if our bishops could 
 (as our first reformers, bred up under the Church of 
 Rome, seem to think they could) give laymen such 
 authority, yet it is fact that, as our Church's laws 
 now stand, the bishops have not so authorised lay- 
 men ; for the old rubric was altered upon this confer- 
 ence, and afterwards the alteration was confirmed by 
 convocation, on purpose to keep out lay baptisers, 
 even in times of necessity; whereby the Church's 
 former act, of allowing lay members of her commu- 
 nion to baptise, was repealed, and therefore our dis- 
 senters' baptisms are unauthorised baptisms : they are 
 also void of the least pretence to necessity, being a 
 deliberate and wilful choice of their own, in opposi- 
 tion to the authority of the Church : and by w^hat 
 rule they can be valid, is not to be imagined, since 
 they are not so by any law, either of our Church or 
 of the pure primitive Church of Christ. 
 
 18. Our author acknowledges (page 17), "that 
 our Church does now call for and require a lawful 
 minister, — one episcopaUy ordained ; that she nei- 
 ther allows nor permits any other to baptise ; that 
 she hereby implicitly forbids any other ; and inquires 
 after, censures, and punishes, where she can, such as 
 administer baptism, if they are not qualified lawfully 
 to do it : and yet he does not think the Church of 
 England does, by any or all these rubrics {i. e. of 
 private baptism), intend to make or declaie lay bap- 
 tism to be invalid ; for if it did (says he, page 18), it 
 
200 APPENDIX. 
 
 would certainly and expressly order such children 
 as were only baptised by laymen to be rebaptised." 
 But I must desire this gentleman to think again ; for, 
 notwithstanding his first thoughts, these limiting acts 
 of the Church, taken in conjunction with her articles, 
 which make the commission essential to the admi- 
 nistration of baptism, do, by necessary consequence, 
 null and make void unauthorised baptism, for the 
 several reasons I have before insisted on ; and if these 
 baptisms are so made null and void, then there must 
 necessarily follow what our author calls rebaptisation, 
 and which I term to be no other than the one insti- 
 tuted Christian baptism. To which, give me leave to 
 add, that in our present office for private baptism 
 there is a rubric which prohibits rebaptisations, in 
 such a manner as necessarily implies a command to 
 rebaptise, in our author's language, in some parti- 
 cular cases ; and the rubric is this, ** If the minister 
 shall find, by the answers of such as bring the child, 
 that all things were done as they ought to be, then shall 
 not he christen the child again, but shall receive him 
 as one of the flock of true Christian people, saying 
 thus : * I certify you that in this case all is well done, 
 and according unto due order, concerning the bap- 
 tising of this child.' " Here is a prohibition of christ- 
 ening again, upon this, and this only condition, 
 " that all things were done as they ought to be ;" 
 which is a plain intimation, that if all things were 
 not done as they ought to be, the minister of the 
 parish must christen the child, otherwise how can he 
 
dissenters' battism null and void. 201 
 
 receive the child as appointed, and tell us, in the 
 Church's vv^ords, " all is well done, and according unto 
 due order," when all is not well done, and due order 
 has not been observed ? The " all things" which the 
 Church, in her articles, canons, and rubrics, requires 
 to be done, are, that the baptism be performed by an 
 authorised person, that it be with water, and that 
 it be done in the name of the Trinity ; she, as our 
 Saviour Himself did before her, defines all these three 
 to be necessary ; and if she seems to give any prefer- 
 ence to one more than another, it is to the commis- 
 sion by which the baptiser acts, as we may see in her 
 several articles before discoursed on ; however, by our 
 author's own confession (page 17), she allows of no 
 other instead of the commissioned baptiser, therefore 
 if another did it, the design of the Church is frus- 
 trated; this is contrary to due order, and therefore 
 cannot be certified to be well done, as this rubric 
 designed it, consequently all things were not " done 
 as they ought to be ;" therefore what was not done 
 as it ought to be must now be done, — that is, the 
 child must be baptised by the lawful minister, — to 
 make good the truth of this rubric, " I certify you," 
 &c. For can it be believed by any reasonable man, 
 that our Church requires her priests to utter such 
 untruths as these, concerning persons washed or 
 sprinkled by unauthorised lay teachers, such as our 
 dissenters are : "I certify you that in this case all is 
 well done, and according unto due order,'' when it is 
 so ill done, and directly contrary to order, that it is 
 
202 APPENDIX. 
 
 wicked, because not lawful, as being contrary to the 
 very institution of baptism, as she has sufficiently 
 taught us ; and it is also directly in opposition to her 
 own express order and command ? Is all well done, 
 when Christ's and the Church's laws are trans- 
 gressed ? Are all things according unto due order, 
 when our Saviour's and the Church's rules are op- 
 posed ? This the Church does not require her priests 
 to affirm — it is abominable to suppose that she does 
 any thing like it ; and therefore she does not in this 
 rubric enjoin the minister of the paiish so to receive 
 persons who have only been washed and sprinkled 
 by unauthorised lay teachers ; and consequently ex- 
 pects, by this her law, that they be qualified to have 
 those words verified concerning them ; and that can 
 be, under the present circumstances, by no other 
 means than that of baptism by one commissioned to 
 administer it. 
 
 19. But, in opposition to all this, our author tries 
 to prove, *' that the Church of England hath, in the 
 rubrics for private baptism, declared her judgment to 
 be, that (in the words of Bishop Bilson) the minister 
 is not of the essence of the sacrament." And this he 
 labours at in pages 20, 21, and 22. And the whole 
 of what he says there amounts only to this, that be- 
 cause the Church in those rubrics does not call the 
 lawful minister an essential of baptism, but inserts 
 this clause before her two last questions, viz. " Be- 
 cause some things essential to this sacrament may 
 happen to be omitted through fear or haste in such 
 
dissenters' baptism NUI.L AND VOID, 203 
 
 times of extremity, therefore I demand farther of you, 
 with what matter was this child baptised ? with what 
 words was this child baptised ?" — that therefore the 
 Church determines the water and form of words in 
 the name of the Trinity to be the only essentials be- 
 longing to the sacrament ; because she does not say, 
 If it cannot appear that the child was baptised by a 
 lawful minister, let it be conditionally baptised; all 
 that she says is, " If they which bring the infant, 
 &c., do make such uncertain answers, &c., as that it 
 cannot appear that the child was baptised with water, 
 in the name of the Father, &c., which are essential 
 parts of baptism, then let the priest baptise it in the 
 form, &c. * If thou art not already baptised, N., I 
 baptise thee,' &c." From all which he concludes, 
 that, in the judgment of the Church of England, the 
 minister is not of the essence of the sacrament. Or 
 rather, if he means any thing at all to the purpose, 
 that the minister is not essential to the administra- 
 tion of the sacrament. This is the full scope of all 
 that he says. And to this I answer, the Church put 
 in these distinguishing words of " essential parts of 
 baptism," concerning water and the form in the name 
 of the Trinity, to oppose the heresy of some who 
 denied the necessity of water ; and of the Socinians, 
 and other heretics, who denied the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, and refused to baptise in that name ; and 
 this she did, not with a design to exclude the ne- 
 cessity of the lawful minister. But further, I affirm 
 that the inference he draws — viz. that in the judgment 
 
■204 Al'IMCNDIX. 
 
 of the ('hurcli of Ent;liin(l there Is notlilnj^ rlso essen- 
 tial to tlio ininlstratioM of l)a])tisin, and tlicicforc tliat 
 the lawful minister is not essential to the luinistration 
 thereof — is a false conclusion ; because the Church, in 
 this office, docs not ])ronounce those two things to he 
 the only essentials relatin<^ to the sacrament ; which 
 she must have done, if she designed, by this ollice, to 
 have excluded the minister from having any essential 
 relation thereto ; her calling those two by the name 
 of " some things essential to this sacrament," or, in 
 other words, "essential ])arts of l)a])tism," plainly leaves 
 room for the commissioned oiHeer, who is the person 
 essentially related thereto ; they are the essential 
 j)arts of the thing to l)e administered, and he is tlie 
 essential officer who is to administer it ; for if the 
 Church did here design to exclude tlic minister from 
 being essential to the administration of the sacra- 
 ment, she would contradict her own articl(;s, which 
 teach, that he is the essential administrator; and we 
 must not allow that the Church is contradictious to 
 herself. 
 
 Tlie Church, in her tliirticth article, speaking of 
 both kinds, viz. the bread and wine in the sacrament 
 of the Lord's supper, calls them " both the parts of 
 the Lord's sacrament." Will our author from hence 
 infer, that bread and wine given seriously in a reli- 
 gious manner by a layman or woman, as the Lord's 
 sacrament, is therefore the Lord's sacrament ? Will 
 he say, that the priest is not as nearly related to tlic 
 administration of tliis sacrament, as tlie l)rea(l and 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 205 
 
 wine are to the sacrament itself ? For the Church 
 here calls nothing but bread and wine the parts of 
 this sacrament ; but in other of her laws she makes 
 the. lawful minister essential to the ministration of 
 those parts ; and therefore bread and wine are not all 
 the essentials relating to the sacram-ent, though this 
 thirtieth article mentions no more than bread and 
 wine. Suppose a particular lav/ should say, that 
 signing and sealing a covenant, for example, are es- 
 sential parts of the covenant ; would any one who 
 knew the nature of a covenant from hence conclude, 
 that the lav/ meant thereby, that there is nothing else 
 that has any essential relation to the covenant ? Does 
 not every body that knows what a covenant is, agree 
 that, notwithstanding this mode of speaking, another 
 law requires that the signing and sealing must be by 
 a proper person, and that therefore this other law 
 makes that proper person an essential relation to the 
 covenant, insomuch as that it is void by law if not 
 signed and sealed by him ? This is a very familiar 
 instance, and exactly agreeable to the case before us ; 
 for the Church by these rubrics says, that water and 
 the form in the name of the Trinity are essential 
 parts of the covenant of baptism ; but every one who 
 knows the Church's laws concerning this covenant, 
 knows that she does not hereby say, that there is 
 nothing else that has any essential relation to bap- 
 tism ; for, notwithstanding this way of speaking in 
 her rubrics, " essential parts of baptism," there are 
 other law? of hers that require these essential parts 
 
 T 
 
206 APPENDIX. 
 
 of baptism to be applied by an authorised person, and 
 that do therefore make this authorised person to be 
 an essential relation to this covenant of baptism ; in- 
 somuch as that it is void by those other laws, if not 
 performed by him. This is evident by the Church's 
 own public acts; for in her twenty-third, twenty- 
 sixth, twenty- seventh, and thirty- seventh articles of 
 religion, &c., founded upon Christ's institution of 
 baptism, which is the only original law by which she 
 and all others can judge what are the essentials of 
 baptism, and of the administration thereof, — I say, it 
 is certain from these, and I hope I have proved it, 
 that our Church has pronounced and determined, that 
 the lawful minister is essential to the administration 
 of baptism ; and because he is essential to the admi- 
 nistration of it, therefore she secures to us that he 
 shall administer it by her sixty-ninth canon, and by 
 these rubrics, as I have before observed. This being 
 done, the Church had no need then to make further 
 inquiry into the essential of the administration, be- 
 cause her preceding rubrics, and the true answer to 
 the first question, " By whom was this child bap- 
 tised ?" had already satisfied the laws of Christ and 
 His Church concerning the essential administrator, 
 and all occasion of further inquiry concerning him 
 was taken away ; and therefore no need of any express 
 rule for conditional baptism, upon supposition of the 
 want before of a lawful minister. But if ever such an 
 accident as the want of a lawful minister should hap- 
 pen, the Church has provided also for that, in a more 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 207 
 
 general rubric of this office, as I have before observed 
 in my eighteenth section. To which I add, that 
 the minister of the parish is not bound to ask any 
 questions at all concerning the child's previous bap- 
 tism, if it was not baptised by a lawful minister ; for 
 the rubric says, " But if the child were baptised by 
 any other lawful minister, then the minister of the 
 parish shall examine and try whether the child be 
 lawfully baptised or no." He is then, when the child 
 has been baptised before by a lawful minister, to try 
 and examine ; therefore not obliged to try or examine 
 any thing about it, when it is pretendedly baptised by 
 an unauthorised person, for that saves him the in- 
 quiry whether it was lawfully, because it was unlaw- 
 fully baptised : so careful is the Church to secure the 
 baptism by a lawful minister, because her articles 
 make him essential to the administration of baptism. 
 Her business was next to secure the essentials of the 
 thing administered, because even some of them might 
 have been omitted by the haste, &c. of the essential 
 administrator ; for the office, or authority of the bap- 
 tiser, though essential to the administration of this 
 sacrament, is not sufficient to give validity by itself, 
 without the essentials of the thing to be administered, 
 which are water and the form in the name of the 
 Trinity. These are the "some things essential" to 
 this sacrament, which the Church speaks of ; and the 
 commission is the other essential to the administra- 
 tion of it, which the Church also equally asserts in 
 her articles. Without these three essentials, required 
 
208 APPENDIX. 
 
 by Christ's institution, and the Church's articles, 
 canons, and rubrics, — the Church knows of no per- 
 fect baptism ; and it is only upon the account of all 
 (/. e. these) things being done as they ought to be, 
 that she prohibits, by a following rubric in this office, 
 a rebaptisation. 
 
 Before I take my leave of our author upon this 
 head, I must recommend to him these two memoran- 
 dums, which are very much to the purpose of what I 
 am answering to his objection. 
 
 First, That the authorised minister being essen- 
 tial to the administration of the sacrament causes, 
 that w^hen an unauthorised person attempts to admi- 
 nister it, he does nothing in the design of the law ; 
 just as when a porter attempts by his pretended au- 
 thority to give a freedom of this city, though with all 
 the other formahties required, yet gives no freedom, 
 because the chamberlain is the essential administrator 
 of freedoms by the law. And, 
 
 Secondly, That the essential matter and words of 
 a sacrament to be administered, may be ready at 
 hand, and yet signify nothing to the purpose of a 
 sacrament, for want of due application by an essential 
 minister; just as the essential words of a covenant 
 may be ready drawn up, the parchment stamped, the 
 sealing-wax dropped, the impression of the seal made 
 thereon, and it may be signed too, and yet signify 
 nothing to the purpose of a covenant, for want of 
 either the principal who is to sign, seal, and deliver 
 the deed, or else his attorney, appointed by him to 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 209 
 
 do it in his stead; — let who will else do this, it 
 amounts to nothing ; it is a mere nullity in the eye of 
 the law to all intents and purposes : though the law 
 should omit to say so in express words, yet the very 
 nature of the thing, as the law stands, does neces- 
 sarily infer that it is null and void. And if the law 
 should be so express as to declare it null for want of 
 being stamped, it does not thence follow that it is 
 good and valid when only stamped, and not signed 
 and sealed by the proper person ; for the want of this 
 proper person will still make it null, though the letter 
 of the law does not expressly null it for that want. 
 
 20. I had like to have forgot to take notice of 
 another thing insinuated by this author, which in the 
 opinion of some people may be thought very material, 
 and it is in pages 18, 19, and 32, &c., where he would 
 argue, that the Church of England does not neces- 
 sarily invalidate lay baptism by requiring in her office 
 of baptism that the lawful minister should baptise : he 
 says, that the invalidity of lay baptism is no necessary 
 consequence of this order of our Church, because the 
 Church of Rome in all the rubrics of her office of 
 baptism only mentions the priest, the sacerdos ; she 
 tells us in none of them that she permits or allows 
 of any other but a sacerdos, and yet does not in con- 
 sequence of these her rubrics, which seem to confine 
 the power of baptism to the priest, make null and 
 void lay baptism ; for every body knows that she 
 allows it to be good and valid. This is what our 
 author thinks a good argument ; but the answer 
 
 T 2 
 
210 APPENDIX. 
 
 thereto is exceeding easy. The Church of England 
 restrains and confines the power of baptising to the 
 lawful minister by all her present public acts ; she no 
 where, either in her canons, articles, or rubrics, al- 
 lows any other this power for cases of greatest ex- 
 tremity, and therefore we reckon that her design is 
 to invalidate lay baptism : but the Church of Rome 
 seems to confine this power to the sacerdos in all the 
 rubrics of her ofiice, though in reality, by her public 
 canons, she declares that she gives that power to lay- 
 men ; and by these her canons now in force, which 
 are her laws as much as her rubrics are, she tells 
 all the world that her rubrics are not designed to 
 confine the power of baptism only to the priest, but 
 that she also allows of the validity of lay baptism, 
 which the Church of England no where does. And 
 therefore the argument from the rubrics of the Church 
 of Rome to the rubrics of the Church of England is 
 utterly false. 
 
 21. I am now come to what our author calls his 
 second proof (page 23) ; and to it I shall tack his 
 third and last (page 36), being both ahke substantial, 
 and to be overthrown by the same arguments. His 
 second proof, that the Church hath by no public act 
 of hers made or declared lay baptism to be invalid, 
 is taken " from the silence of the Church of England 
 in this particular, that she has in no public act of 
 hers ordered such as have been baptised by lay hands 
 to be rebaptised by a lawful minister ; but that the 
 bishops, ever since the restoration, confirmed such 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 211 
 
 baptised persons, as well as those that were baptised 
 by lawftJ ministers ; that most people will conclude 
 from hence, that a bishop who so confirmed held 
 those baptisms to be valid ; and he thinks this is as 
 plain as if it were deduced from definitions, axioms, 
 and propositions" (page 27, &c.). This last is a 
 pretty rub upon the author of Lay Baptism invalid ; 
 but how good the argument is, let the intelligent 
 reader judge. His third proof, as he terms it, is 
 fetched " from the silence of the preachers and the 
 writers of the Church of England in this point, from 
 1660 to the year 1700, — and from my lords the 
 bishops giving no charge to their clergy in their 
 visitations, &c., that aU lay-baptised persons must 
 be baptised anew ; and he says (pages 37, 38), " if this 
 silence of the ecclesiastical governors, of the parish- 
 priests, and of the writers of controversy, be not a 
 proof of the Church of England's judgment in the 
 matter, I must despair of knowing what can be one." 
 For this reason, — because he knows in his conscience 
 that his whole book is built upon no better founda- 
 tion than this pretended silence ; he insists upon it, 
 that " the bishops' confirmations [of lay-baptised per- 
 sons] in 1661 and since, and the Church's ordering 
 none of them to be rebaptised, is a good proof" (page 
 29). I suppose he here means the Church's not or- 
 dering any of them to be rebaptised ; for the Church's 
 ordering none of them has another meaning than I 
 believe he designed. 
 
 But in answer to all this, I have already endea- 
 
212 APPENDIX. 
 
 voured to prove, that the Church in convocation, 
 whose voice we may still hear, if we please, in her 
 articles, canons, and rubrics, is not silent, but speaks 
 loudly enough to us concerning this matter ; and I 
 know of no other voice of the Church of England but 
 that. If any would obtrude upon us the practice of 
 particular members, how great and numerous soever, 
 and call that the principle and doctrine of our Church, 
 before we give him credit, he must allow us to com- 
 pare their practice with the Church's written and 
 published articles and laws ; and if we find practices 
 inconsistent with these, we must prefer the latter, 
 and reject and bewail the former. Who tells this 
 author that the bishops confirmed lay-baptised per- 
 sons as such ? that their lordships did it with a par- 
 ticular regard to the validity of such baptisms ? 
 
 What if I should affirm, that though, during the 
 time of the long unnatural rebellion, the episcopal 
 ministers were thrown out of their livings, yet they 
 performed their spiritual functions, and baptised the 
 children of the members of the Church of England ; 
 and that almost all the teachers who got into their 
 benefices by complying with the wickedness of the 
 times, had before been episcopally ordained, and so were 
 empowered to baptise ; and that, upon these accounts, 
 the bishops, when they confirmed after the restora- 
 tion, might not suppose that any were brought to be 
 confirmed by them but such as had been episcopally 
 baptised ; and that they did not expect any of our 
 an ti- episcopal dissenters' children, who were otherwise 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 213 
 
 baptised, should be brought to them for confirma- 
 tion ? What if I should insist upon these things ? 
 Can our author prove to the contrary ? If he can, 
 then how^ does he know but the bishops of that time, 
 subject to like failings and passions with other men, 
 were loath, by such discriminating acts, to rouse the 
 turbulent spirit of rebellion, then but hardly laid 
 asleep by the restoration ? What if the experience 
 they had had of Archbishop Laud's fate — who was 
 brought to the block by fanatic fury, only for en- 
 deavouring to restore and establish much smaller 
 matters in the Church — might make them not willing 
 to expose themselves and the Church to the insatiable 
 rage of such merciless persecutors, by their openly 
 and in direct terms proclaiming anti- episcopal dis- 
 senters to be not incorporated members of Christ's 
 Church ? Is it any new thing for good men to be 
 thus intimidated ? Is not the great apostle St. Peter 
 an instance of this frailty of human nature .'' See his 
 l^ehaviour with respect to the Jews and Gentiles, for 
 which St. Paul withstood him to the face (Gal. ii. 
 11, 12). St. Barnabas also was carried away with 
 the same fault, to temporise with the Jewish Chris- 
 tians ; for which St. Paul loudly proclaims, that 
 they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of 
 the Gospel (ver. 14). Indeed, the very best of men, 
 without any affront to their character, yea, and very 
 great bodies of men too, have been, still are, and 
 always will be, in this world, liable to infirmities ; 
 and must practices consequent thereupon be used as 
 
214 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 arguments against the kno^\Ti laws of that Church 
 whereof they are members and even governors ? 
 Must these be called such proofs so clear and so 
 evident, that we must despair of proofs, if these are 
 not so ?' This is amazing. But what is not a proof to 
 those w^ho will have it one } However, to bring this 
 matter to a short issue : from particular practices to 
 principles there is no argument. Let our author 
 prove that the confirmation of persons baptised by 
 unauthorised baptisers is a necessary consequence of 
 our Church's articles and laws concerning baptism 
 and confirmation ; and when he has done this, then I 
 fairly promise him publicly to acknowledge, that it 
 is the judgment of the Church of England that un- 
 authorised baptisms, and consequently our dissenters' 
 baptisms, are good and valid. But this he has not 
 yet done, and I dare further add, that he never will ; 
 therefore the Church's laws stand against him ; and 
 his instances of promiscuous confirmations, among 
 which some who never were baptised, either in reality 
 or in pretence, have been admitted for want of due 
 inquiry, are no more arguments of the Church's 
 judgment, that unauthorised baptisms are good and 
 valid, than the confirmation of unbaptised persons is 
 an argument that our Church esteems baptism not 
 necessary as a previous qualification to be confirmed 
 by the bishop. 
 
 22. As for the silence of our writers of contro- 
 versy, it is plain that some of them did insist ujDon 
 the invaliditv of our dissenters' ordinations : I need 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 215 
 
 not mention particulars ; they are in most men's 
 hands who have addicted themselves to the study of 
 such books. The consequence of this invalidity the 
 dissenters took very heinously, for they charged such 
 writers w^ith it, that they thereby nidled their minis- 
 trations : those writers did not deny the charge, and 
 therefore in effect owned the consequence ; and put 
 it upon the dissenters to get clear of it, by proving 
 the validity of their ordinations, if they could. The 
 separatists knew as well as every body else, that our 
 controversial writers denjdng the validity of their 
 orders was a consequential denying of the validity of 
 their ministrations ; and therefore they laboured hard, 
 though all in vain, to prove that their ordinations were 
 good and valid ; for if they had not attempted this, 
 they easily perceived that their interest would have 
 sunk by the departure of their deluded proselytes ; 
 who otherwise would have concluded, as from a first 
 principle of Christianity, that if their teachers were 
 not ministers of Christ, they could not have the 
 power of ministering Christ's sacraments ; this is so 
 natural a conclusion, that you may hear it always 
 drawn from the invalidity of ordinations, by the 
 honest and sincere of aU parties, whose minds are 
 not corrupted by other false principles. Tell but an 
 honest Presbyterian, Independent, or Anabaptist dis- 
 senter, that his teachers are not ministers of Christ, 
 he will presently stare with wonder and amazement 
 at your uncharitableness, as he thinks it, because he 
 thence gathers that you deny his teachers' ministra- 
 
216 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 tions, and that you mean thereby that they and their 
 dependents are not Christians. The dissenting teachers 
 know this so well, that it is one of their master-tricks 
 to deceive their hearers and readers with these glori- 
 ous titles concerning themselves, * the reverend such a 
 one, minister of God's word, minister of the gospel :' 
 take away this, and their loaves will fail, because men 
 will naturally fly from such pretenders, when they dis- 
 cover those titles not to belong to them, concluding 
 that they are destitute of the power of ministering 
 Christ's ordinances to them. This natural conse- 
 quence is the true reason of their quarrels against 
 not only our controversial writers, who have denied 
 the validity of their orders, but also our Church, who 
 requires the best of their teachers to be episcopally 
 ordained to minister the Christian sacraments ; infer- 
 ring from hence, that those writers, and our Church 
 too, do, by nulling their orders, make null and void 
 their ministrations. This our author doubtless knows 
 as well as I do, if he would speak out ; but whether 
 he will or no, that Church and her writers, who agree 
 together to render the ordinations of our dissenters 
 null and void, do by necessary consequence say that 
 their ministrations are also invalid, if we may give any 
 credit to the understanding of not only Churchmen, 
 but even the dissenters themselves, who take it so 
 hard at their hands : and indeed it must be acknow- 
 ledged on all accounts, that if the consequences are 
 uncharitable, the premises are so too, for they are 
 inseparable from one another in the sense of all un- 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 217 
 
 biassed understandings. But of these things enough. 
 I have only a few things more to this writer, and shall 
 then conclude. 
 
 23. In his thirty-fourth page he discovers himself 
 plainly enough, and gives us a simile whereby to il- 
 lustrate the validity of lay baptism ; which, notwith- 
 standing his declarations to the contrary^ is an argu- 
 ment that he has a mind to say something about the 
 merits of the cause, and to endeavour to prove lay 
 baptism to be good and valid. His simile is about the 
 coinage of current money, which, " though it be by the 
 law appropriated to the prince, and made highly cri- 
 minal for any but his substitutes to coin it, yet upon 
 supposition that another should coin money of the 
 same value, standard, stamp, &c., as the law requires, 
 though the coiner would be justly punishable, the 
 money so coined by him would be current ; and the 
 prince would not order it to be re- coined, nor the 
 people refuse to take it." This, I think, is the only 
 objection against lay baptism's being null and void, 
 that remains to be answered : and these makers of 
 similes, or comparisons of things, are so very un- 
 happy in their choice, that they pitch upon nothing 
 that is proper to their undertaking; for they are sure, 
 whether through design I will not judge, to omit such 
 similitudes as have any thing parallel to the matter 
 disputed; and so they fail of their argument, be- 
 cause where instances are not parallel, arguments 
 will not hold. This is our author's case : he should 
 have contrived something else instead of money 
 
218 APPENDIX. 
 
 coined ; for that is no ways parallel to a person bap- 
 tised ; because money is an inanimate senseless thing, 
 man is the direct contrary : money is incapable of 
 consciousness, and therefore of any law relating to 
 its coining ; man is a rational being, capable of reli- 
 gion, and therefore conscious to himself, upon infor- 
 mation, whether he has obeyed the law of baptism or 
 no : money neither enjoys any benefit, nor suffers 
 any hurt, from being right or wrong coined ; but 
 man is to partake of and enjoy infinite advantages 
 by being rightly baptised, and has no promise of ob- 
 taining them without such baptism. Lastly, money 
 being but mere inactive matter cannot be supposed 
 to be answerable for concurring with the crime of the 
 unlawful coiner ; but man, even in his infancy, by his 
 representatives, who undertake for him, is active in 
 his baptism, and concurs with any essential crime 
 committed against the fundamental law of baptism 
 by him who attempted to baptise ; and especially 
 considering that he expressly or virtually takes all 
 that his sureties did for him upon himself, when he 
 comes to years of discretion : so that, there being 
 such an infinite disparity between money coined by 
 an unlawful coiner, and man baptised by an unautho- 
 rised hand, the currency of such money is no argu- 
 ment for the goodness and validity of such unautho- 
 rised baptism ; and therefore such baptisms are null 
 and void, notwithstanding our author's vain attempt, 
 by this comparison, to prove them as good and valid 
 as the authorised baptisms. 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 219 
 
 24. In the thirty-fifth page he tells his reader, 
 concerning baptism by dissenting teachers, thus : 
 " abundance of people, I doubt, are easily led to 
 think their baptisms to be invalid, because they 
 think, if their baptisms be allowed, the rest of their 
 ministerial performances must be also vahd. But 
 this was held to be no consequence by the ancient 
 Church of Christ, nor is it a consequence held by the 
 Church of England. It is baptism alone that is not 
 invalidated and made null, though conferred by an 
 unlawful minister, or a mere lay Christian," &c. 
 
 Here is a plain acknowledgment, that the other 
 ministrations of our dissenting teachers are invalid ; 
 for, says he, " it is baptism alone that is not invali- 
 dated." But upon what foundation does our author 
 intimate that their other ministrations are null ? Are 
 they not established upon the same foundation as 
 that of baptism ? Is it not the same Lord who insti- 
 tuted them } And are they not equally positive insti- 
 tutions of our religion ? What is it that makes the dif- 
 ference ? By what rule is their baptism valid ? Or is 
 it valid, though founded upon no rule at all .'' By what 
 law are their other ministrations — viz. of ordination, 
 consecration of bread and wine, excommunication, 
 &c. — null and void, if their baptism is not so } Have 
 they been authorised to baptise .'' No ; they never 
 were : let him shew us who gave them that autho- 
 rity ? Are not their other ministrations null, because 
 they were never authorised for them ? Certainly that 
 is the reason of their nullity. And the very same 
 
220 APPENDIX. 
 
 reason stands good for the nulling of their baptisms. 
 Are not their other ministrations not only without, 
 but in opposition to, the Church, and therefore void ? 
 Their baptism is so too, and therefore invalid also. 
 Are not the laws of Christ and His Church equally 
 levelled against their baptisms, as well as against 
 their other ministrations ? Yes, they are. Have those 
 laws provided more for their baptisms than for their 
 other ministrations ? No, they have not. Therefore 
 the same laws of Christ and His Church that null 
 those their other ministrations, do null and void their 
 baptisms too ; and his saying that " this was held to 
 be no consequence by the ancient Church of Christ," 
 is a notorious fallacy put upon ignorant readers ; but 
 it cannot be palmed upon those who are acquainted 
 with the state of the ancient Church : for it is well 
 known that the primitive times were not exercised 
 with any such anti- episcopal baptisms as these where- 
 with the Church is pestered in our days, and there- 
 fore the ancient Church has said nothing about them. 
 25. As for what this writer says, that I may 
 know, concerning the twenty- third and twenty- sixth 
 articles of our Church, viz., " that they were made 
 by many of the same people who made the office of 
 baptism and rubrics in 1548 and 1552; and that 
 therefore the allowance of lay baptism was not 
 thought to clash, or be inconsistent with, those ar- 
 ticles" (page 39), — I answer, that their so making 
 those rubrics is a sign that they did not allow of the 
 validity of unauthorised baptisms, such as our dis- 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 221 
 
 senters' are ; and for this, I must desire the reader to 
 turn back to what I have said in my fourth section, 
 page 177, 178. 
 
 26. I might here speak to his appendix, and the 
 letter annexed, to what Mrs. Baldwin calls the se- 
 cond edition of his book ; but they deserve no parti- 
 cular answer, being foreign to this author's declared 
 undertaking, viz. to shew the judgment of the 
 Church ; and the only design of my answer thereto, 
 is to let the world see, by her public acts, what her 
 real opinion is of this matter. Mr. Hooker's judg- 
 ment, be it what it will, is no standard for either of 
 us in this dispute. Mr. Thorndike's expressions make 
 nothing for unauthorised baptism ; for his opinions 
 concerning lay baptism are plainly founded upon this 
 notion, that bishops can give this power to laymen, 
 that they shall baptise in case of extremity and want 
 of a priest : this is not the thing at present under 
 debate ; the pretended baptisms of our dissenters are 
 of another nature, not authorised by the bishops, but 
 plainly in opposition to episcopacy itself. Dr. Co- 
 sin's letter to Mr. Cordel is founded upon presbyte- 
 rian and some popish doctors' notions (yet not posi- 
 tively, but dubiously, proposed by him) concerning 
 ordinations ; so that the whole superstructure of that 
 letter is only an amusement, having no sure founda- 
 tion whereon to settle a doubtful mind. It is too long 
 for me at present to take notice of the particulars of 
 that letter ; it shall suffice me to say, that the gene- 
 rality of our divines who were exiles in France with 
 
 u 2 
 
222 APPENDIX. 
 
 Dr. Cosin, and the laity too, refused to commu- 
 nicate with the French Protestants; and even Dr. 
 Cosin, though he went sometimes to their temples at 
 Charenton, yet never would communicate with them 
 in what they called the sacraments, by reason of 
 their want of a mission : this is what is well attested, 
 and the evidence can be produced ; but I have no need 
 to enlarge and be particular upon it, because in truth 
 it is no part of my present undertaking, which is con- 
 fined to the laws of the Church of England as they 
 now stand. Hooker, Thorndike, and Cosin, be their 
 opinions what they will, are of no weight in this de- 
 bate, since the judgment of the Church of England is 
 not limited to their particular sentiments ; I can pro- 
 duce men as great as they, who thought very differ- 
 ently from what they did; but this would not be 
 suitable to my subject, which is only to let the reader 
 see what our Church, by her public acts, has taught 
 us to believe concerning unauthorised baptisms. 
 
 Suppose our author could have further produced 
 any sufficient evidence, that a select number of bi- 
 shops of our Church, in former times, since the Re- 
 storation, had favoured his opinion so far, as, at a 
 private consult, either at Lambeth or any other epis- 
 copal palace, to give it under their hands, that un- 
 authorised baptism, when done with water, and these 
 words, " in the name of the Father," &c. is good and 
 valid ; suppose he could shew us, or had pubhshed, 
 as I dare say he cannot, that they had signed such 
 their opinion, drawn up in a declaration to this eifect : 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 223 
 
 " Forasmuch as sundry persons have of late, by 
 their preaching, writing, and discourses, possessed the 
 minds of many people with doubts and scruples about 
 the vaUdity of their baptism, to their great trouble 
 and disquiet, — 
 
 " We, the archbishops and bishops, whose names 
 are underwritten, have thought it incumbent on us 
 to declare our several opinions in conformity with 
 the judgment and practice of the CathoHc Church, 
 and of the Church of England in particular ; that 
 such persons as have been baptised in or with wa- 
 ter, ' in the name of the Father,' &c., ought not to 
 be baptised again. And to prevent any such practice 
 in our respective dioceses, we do require our several 
 clergy that they presume not to baptise any adult 
 person whatsoever, without giving us timely notice, as 
 the rubric requires."' 
 
 Even such an instance as this, if he could produce 
 it, would not amount to the judgment of the Church 
 of England ; such private subscriptions about opi- 
 nions are not our Church's public acts, — they can only 
 be found in her determinations, agreed on by a lawful 
 convocation. And though any particular bishop can 
 enjoin his clergy not to " baptise adult persons ordi- 
 narily, without giving him timely notice, as the rubric 
 requires," yet it is not to be supposed that any pious 
 bishop would lay this injunction so strictly on his 
 clergy, as to hinder them from baptising an adult, 
 
 \} See Author's Preface, p. Ixiii.] 
 
224 APPENDIX. 
 
 Without such notice, in articulo mortis, when timely 
 notice cannot be given to the bishop : but as for the 
 former part of such a supposed declaration of a select 
 number of bishops, it is not to be imagined that a 
 lawful convocation of the clergy of our Church would 
 affirm, " that such persons as have been baptised in 
 or with water, ' in the name of the Father,' &c., ought 
 not to be baptised again ;" for this, we all know, is 
 popery. Such a determination would infer, that not 
 only women's baptism, but any other, though per- 
 formed by a boy or a girl, — a stage-player, an unbap- 
 tised Jew, or a heathen, — if with water, and the form 
 of words in the name of the Trinity, is that one bap- 
 tism which Christ instituted for the remission of sins. 
 Our Church, God be praised, and the Catholic Church 
 too, have made no such latitudinarian determinations 
 as this would be ; and we ought to pray that the 
 Holy Spirit of God may preserve all our sacred synods 
 from making such decrees. It is, I beheve, just and 
 reasonable for us to hope, that the piety and wisdom 
 of our clergy is so great, as that we need not fear 
 their passing such an opinion into a public act of our 
 Church, since their zeal for the authority of our Sa- 
 viour's institutions will not suffer them to assert that 
 which tends directly to the destruction of their own 
 sacred office, and consequently of even Christianity 
 itself. 
 
 As for " baptising again," it is not a term to be 
 allowed, — the Church always abhorred the notion ; 
 when a first baptism was false, it was not called bap- 
 
dissenters' baptism null and void. 225 
 
 tism, but a profane washing; and when the act of 
 washing was repeated, it was not called rebaptisation, 
 or " baptising again," but Christian baptism, Christ's 
 baptism, or instituted baptism. St. Cyprian constantly- 
 adhered to this, and hated the term of baptised again ; 
 and so did the Catholic Church, when they required 
 persons to be baptised, who had only before been 
 washed with water without the form in the name of 
 the Trinity. The reason is equally strong for persons 
 to be baptised by a lawful minister, who were only 
 before washed, though with the form of words in the 
 name of the Trinity, by unauthorised hands and such 
 as act in opposition to episcopacy itself. With these 
 latter profane washings the ancient Church was not 
 exercised, — she never had them under her considera- 
 tion ; and therefore a declaration, as before supposed, 
 could not be founded on the judgment and practice 
 of the Catholic Church. But it is time for me to 
 conclude. 
 
 27. I humbly hope I have proved, that the Church 
 has made such articles, canons, and rubrics, as do 
 by necessary consequence null and void unauthorised 
 baptisms; — the consequence of this nullity is, the 
 necessity of episcopal baptism to those who have 
 been so invalidly baptised. To disprove this, our 
 author must enter into the merits of the cause, whe- 
 ther he will or no ; because it is affirmed, and endea- 
 voured to be proved, by the author of Lay Baptism 
 invalid, that Christ's institution nulls unauthorised 
 baptism, and now further, that the Church's laws are 
 
226 APPENDIX. 
 
 made to enforce our obedience to the institution of 
 Christ : so that what Christ's institution nulls and 
 makes void, the Church's laws do also invalidate, 
 because they are made to second the design of His 
 institution. The adversary must either prove, that 
 Christ's institution does not invalidate lay baptism, 
 or if it does, then he must prove, if he can, that the 
 Church's laws were not made to enforce Christ's in- 
 stitution : this he must do to make good his under- 
 taking ; for throughout his whole book he endeavours 
 to persuade his reader that the Church's laws do not 
 invalidate lay baptism. And it is very observable, 
 that he does not so much as attempt to prove this 
 from any one article of the Church of England, but 
 brings instances of particular men's actions and opi- 
 nions, with a design to palm them upon us for the 
 judgment of the Church. How fairly he deals with 
 the world by so doing, let the unbiassed reader judge ; 
 and I heartily pray that truth may prevail, let who 
 will be its advocate ; and be the consequences what 
 they will, I shall greatly rejoice, because they will 
 undoubtedly redound, as I sincerely desire that this 
 and all my other undertakings may, to the glory and 
 praise of God. 
 
 To this tract Bingham made little answer. In 
 his dedication of the second part of the Scholastical 
 History to the Bishop of Winchester (p. 2), he says 
 that the deficiency of lay baptism " is supplied by 
 confirmation ; and so far the rules and practice of the 
 
APPENDIX. 227 
 
 Church of England, for these last two hundred years, 
 are clear : for we have neither order nor example to 
 encourage rebaptisation in any such case, no, not 
 after the rubric had confined the ministration of bap- 
 tism wholly to the hands of a lawful ministry. For 
 still no rule was made that such as were not baptised 
 by a lawful minister should be rebaptised ; but they 
 were required to receive the bishop's confirmation, 
 and then were admitted to the eucharist, and the pri- 
 vilege of Christian burial, neither of which are allowed 
 to unbaptised persons. Notwithstanding this, I am 
 charged as an encourager of dissenters," &c. And in 
 reply to Brett, — who in his Inquiry said that Laurence 
 had sufficiently answered all Bingham's previous ob- 
 jections in his tract Dissenters' Baptisms, — Bingham 
 objects (Schol. Hist., part ii. p. 166), that if Brett 
 and Laurence will not admit the testimony of private 
 writers, as declaring the sense of the Church of Eng- 
 land, but are determined to require express rubrics, 
 articles, or canons, forbidding to rebaptise, and that 
 they will accept these only as the judgment of the 
 Church, it is in vain to continue the controversy, for 
 such cannot be produced ; and he complains that *' the 
 constant practice of the Church is not thought suffi- 
 cient to interpret her rubrics, and that the judgment 
 of most, if not all, the bishops of the day is considered 
 to have no weight in determining the dispute." 
 
 Finally, Laurence (preface to supplement to Lay 
 Baptism) rejoins, that the office of confirmation pre- 
 supposes a lawful baptism, godparents, and admis- 
 
228 APPENDIX. 
 
 sion into the Church ; that the admission of those 
 baptised by dissenters " to confirmation, to the eucha- 
 rist, and to Christian burial, is not according to the 
 rule of the Church, but is only the personal act of 
 individuals ;" he expresses his horror at any clergy- 
 man entering in the parish-registers, as validly bap- 
 tised, those who had only been " pretendedly bap- 
 tised" (referring to some strange instances, it is to 
 be hoped no custom, where this, it seems, had been 
 done) ; he denies that "any man, of whose baptism 
 there is no proof, has any right to the altar or to 
 Christian burial;" and he deplores the loose practice 
 of " admitting them to the holy eucharist as freely 
 as if they had received perfect baptism ;" and he adds 
 (§ 7. p. 9), " If these things are thus wretchedly prac- 
 tised, what wonder is it to see the dead bodies of 
 departed schismatics, who never were incorporated 
 members of the Church by baptism, and who always 
 detested and avoided the communion of our Church 
 in their lifetime, and at their death were not recon- 
 ciled to it; yet after death ceremoniously owned as 
 in the Church's communion ; in their procession to 
 their graves solemnly preceded by some one or more 
 of the priests of the Church ; gravely carried into the 
 very church itself (which is a ceremony signif}dng 
 that the departed died in the Church's communion), 
 — the di\'ine service, appointed only for the burial of 
 the faithful departed in the communion of saints, said 
 over their bodies, who, it may be, never were in visi- 
 ble communion with them (or if they seemed to be so 
 
APPENDIX. 229 
 
 at any time, it was without any right at all) ; and 
 then to hear such departed schismatics called, each of 
 them, our dear brother, or sister, — in the sense of our 
 Church signifying their spiritual relation to us, as 
 members of the same family and communion, when, 
 it may be, they never were so, or, at least, they never 
 appeared to have been so ; and lastly, to see their 
 remains deposited in that sacred place, the church 
 of God, into which in their lifetime they abhorred 
 to enter and join with the members of the Church in 
 the divine worship; — to see these things, I say, is 
 very dreadful to the minds of those who seriously 
 consider and lay to heart the great importance and 
 sad consequences of such practices." 
 
 Page 16. He warns Bingham that his writings 
 have encouraged dissenters to baptise : " For upon the 
 coming out of his first part they grew extravagantly 
 bold, and even at Oxford carried a child in public 
 procession to one of their meeting-houses, to be pre- 
 tendedly baptised by one of their lay teachers ; and 
 not only so, but now, since the publishing of his 
 second part, the dissenters take him to be such an 
 encourager of them, that his last book was lately re- 
 commended to a large congregation of them by their 
 teacher, as an unanswerable book, in a discourse held 
 forth to them in one of the most noted meeting-houses 
 of this city." 
 
 Page 37, § 27. He considers Bingham's pro- 
 posal, submitted to convocation, to construct a new 
 form " of confirmation, or imposition of hands, for 
 
 X 
 
230 APPENDIX. 
 
 such as were baptised by heretics and schismatics, 
 upon their return to the unity of the Church" (pre- 
 face, p. viii. to part i. Scholastical History). 
 
 " I beg leave here to observe, against such a sup- 
 posed confirming power, 
 
 " 1 . That our Saviour has commanded His apostles 
 and their successors the bishops, and such as are 
 commissioned by them, actually to baptise all those 
 who are capable of, and have not received, baptism at 
 their hands : this is plain from the institution of bap- 
 tism, and other places of holy Scripture ; whereby it 
 is evident, that He forbids them denying or refusing 
 to baptise those capable persons who were never bap- 
 tised by them. 
 
 " 2. Hence it follows, that Christ forbids all acts of 
 confirmation supposed to be performed by them, in- 
 stead of that baptism which He requires them actually 
 to perform. 
 
 " 3. The law of Christ about baptising is plain and 
 obvious ; but as yet there is no appearance of any law 
 of His about confirming, instead of baptising, those 
 who never were baptised by His commissioned ofiScers. 
 So that, by all that has been discovered of Christ's 
 will and pleasure, every capable person that has not 
 been baptised by one of His commissioned officers, 
 must be baptised by one. Upon this, I beg to know, 
 by what law can an inferior power — viz. that of 
 bishops, which is inferior to Christ's — dispense with 
 this superior law of actually baptising, in any case 
 whatsoever ? If there be not produced a law, as plain 
 
APPENDIX. 231 
 
 and obvious, and as binding and obliging, for this 
 dispensing power, as that other law, which requires 
 the clergy (persons first authorised by the bishops) 
 to baptise, our minds will still mistrust the validity 
 of this dispensing power, and be continually inclined 
 to an incurable aversion against it, which will neces- 
 sarily arise from the prevailing evidence and convic- 
 tion of that other law of baptising, which is supreme. 
 And the more we give ourselves leave to inquire, we 
 shall be so much the more dissatisfied with the fan- 
 cied validity of that baptism ; which, in fact, notwith- 
 standing any bishops' attempt of confirmation, was 
 never actually administered to us by one whom the 
 institution authorises and commands to baptise, and 
 of whom we are, by the same institution, required to 
 receive baptism. For if, after such attempt at con- 
 firmation, it should be asked, was the man ever really 
 and truly baptised by one of these instituted bap- 
 tisers, or no ? — the answer will in truth be still the 
 same after as it was before the supposed confirma- 
 tion ; namely, he never was actually baptised by an 
 instituted baptiser — the bishop, or one commissioned 
 by him. And if it should be said, that he is now 
 interpretatively so baptised, the same difficulty will 
 still return ; he is not actually baptised by one whom 
 the institution authorises and commands to baptise ; 
 and it is baptism actually to be given by commis- 
 sioned persons, which the institution does require. 
 For this law of the institution was delivered by the 
 sovereign Head of the Church to His apostles, and 
 
232 APPENDIX. 
 
 their successors the bishops, and such as are commis- 
 sioned by them, with an express command, enjoining 
 and requiring them to do this, Go ye, &c. baptising : 
 whereby they are positively commanded to initiate all 
 nations into the Church, by baptising them, to the 
 end of the world. But with what propriety of speech 
 can it be truly said, that they have actually obeyed 
 this express command with respect to a person who 
 was never thus initiated by them } It is inconceiv- 
 able, except it should be allowed that this command 
 was not designed to be always literally observed, 
 which will give a fair handle to the Quakers and 
 other enthusiasts, who deny the necessity of outward 
 sacraments ; or except it can be proved that this, or 
 some other law of the same Sovereign, does authorise 
 His representatives to commute for the act of bapti- 
 sation by some other act (say of imposition of hands), 
 to be performed by them instead thereof. But till 
 this other law is produced, bishops, who by the known, 
 standing, fundamental law of Christ, are bound as His 
 proxies, either in their own persons, or by those whom 
 they commission, to sign and seal to us, by baptism, 
 the Christian covenant between God and us, cannot, 
 by di post -fact of imposition of hands, &c. give a legal 
 validity to the unauthoritative, and therefore false, 
 sign and seal of such pretended and counterfeit at- 
 torneys, as never were at all commissioned to sign 
 and seal the Christian covenant in Christ's stead ; 
 because the post-fact of a bishop thus attempting a 
 ratification is not that act, viz. of baptism, which the 
 
APPENDIX. 233 
 
 law for signing and sealing of the Christian covenant 
 does expressly require. 
 
 *' 4. Indeed, if bishops, and persons commissioned 
 by them, were not obliged by the law and command 
 of Christ to baptise ; and if our Lord's promise to 
 concur with them herein to the end of the world, did 
 not imply their constant obHgation to pay obedience 
 hereto till His second coming, — then indeed there 
 might be some colour for this dispensing power of 
 commuting one act for another, by a post-fact of con- 
 firmation ; but forasmuch as they are bound and ob- 
 liged by a supreme law of their Sovereign, which is of 
 a much higher nature than any that the Church can 
 now make, it is plain that bishops cannot dispense 
 with that law, and refuse to pay obedience thereto, 
 when it is in their power to fulfil it ; as it certainly 
 is, where they attempt to confirm instead of baptise. 
 Though the Church (say the spiritual governors 
 thereof), as being the supreme hierarchical power on 
 earth, can, for all emergencies, make, relax, dispense 
 with, and abrogate canons about circumstantials ; yet 
 she can make no canons of validity to enerv^ate the 
 essentials of Christ's own institutions, nor can she 
 abrogate any of His appointments, which He has in- 
 stituted to continue to the end of the world. She 
 may dispense with her own laws about indifferent 
 things, but she is not therefore empowered to dispense 
 with the essentials of her supreme Lord and Master's 
 institutions : and the reason of this is plain, because 
 essentials are of constant and unalterable obligation ; 
 
 X 2 
 
234 APPENDIX. 
 
 they were appointed not by her, but by Christ, and 
 can always be had in our case, when bishops, or 
 persons commissioned by them, do reside among 
 ourselves ; and may reside even among the foreign 
 reformed, as well at least as they did among the pri- 
 mitive Christians in the three first centuries, when the 
 temporal powers of the earth did not protect, but 
 persecute, the Church of Christ, and more especially 
 the bishops thereof; and yet for all this, they were 
 not destitute of a very numerous succession of bishops 
 in those perilous times of persecution. 
 
 " 5. And for my part, I can see no motive for such 
 a dispensing power, as shall take away the necessity 
 of episcopal baptism, by substituting a supposed con- 
 firmation in its stead, but to please the unreasonable 
 demands of the pride and insolence, tenaciousness 
 and obstinacy, of anti- episcopal heretics, schismatics, 
 and other wicked and ignorant men. And if these 
 must be so provided for, what will it be but to pro- 
 vide encouragement, or, at best, excuses, for gross 
 sin } And what then will be the end of these things ? 
 Where shall we stop ? And what security shall we 
 have at last for any one institution of Christianity } 
 
 " 6, and lastly. Though this supposed dispensing 
 power may by some be thought sufficient ' to awe 
 such anti-episcopal usurpers as much as the closest 
 doctrines for the necessity of episcopal baptism, since 
 without such dispensation and confirmation they have 
 no better title to grace, remission of sins, and the 
 kingdom of heaven, than mere heathens ;' yet if per- 
 
APPENDIX. 235 
 
 sons, pretendedly baptised by anti- episcopal usurpers, 
 do discover that this dispensing power is not suffi- 
 ciently proved, they will not at all be awed by it, but 
 the contrary, so long as they are taught that there is 
 no necessity for them to receive episcopal baptism. 
 For will it not be natural for them to argue after this 
 manner ? ' We have been baptised already by one 
 of our own teachers, who never was episcopally com- 
 missioned to baptise ; we are taught that we need not 
 now be baptised by an episcopal minister ; what fault 
 then is there now in our baptism } Certainly none 
 at all, with respect to the essence of the institution. 
 It is true, we are told indeed, that our baptism is 
 irregular, deficient, and unoperative, for want of au- 
 thority in the baptiser, and that therefore it must be 
 supplied by the bishop's confirmation ; but how do 
 those who assert this prove that the bishop's confir- 
 mation was instituted to supply this supposed want 
 of authority ? either our baptism was essentially good 
 and valid before, or it was not : if it was not, then it 
 must have been essentially null for want of authority, 
 and consequently we are bound to receive episcopal 
 baptism ; and so the episcopal confirmation to supply 
 that essential defect is useless and insufficient : if our 
 baptism was essentially good and valid without epis- 
 copal authority in the baptiser, then it is plain that 
 this episcopal authority is not essentially necessary 
 to the ministration of baptism ; and if not essentially 
 necessary to its ministration, then it is not essentially 
 necessary that the absence of this authority in a bap- 
 
236 APPENDIX. 
 
 tiser should be supplied by the bishop's authority in 
 a post-fact of his confirmation, since this post-fact 
 adds nothing to the essence of our baptism itself : so 
 that our baptism is good and valid without this con- 
 firmation, and therefore we have no need of the 
 bishop's confirmation to supply a supposed defect in 
 the ministration of our baptiser, any more than they 
 have who were baptised by episcopal ministers ; ex- 
 cept the advocates for episcopacy can prove (which 
 they have not yet done) that Christ or His apostles 
 did institute this power of episcopal confirmation, on 
 purpose to supply the want of an episcopal commis- 
 sion in non-episcopal baptisms.' This, I think, will 
 be natural for anti- episcopal heretics to conclude ; 
 and that consequently their awe for this unproved 
 dispensing power will be none at all, and they will 
 have no fear of their title to grace, remission of sins, 
 &c., without such a confirmation as this, so long as 
 they are taught the non -necessity of episcopal bap- 
 tism, and have not good proof laid before them of the 
 divine institution of this supposed power of supplying 
 by confirmation the want of authority or commission 
 in their lay baptism." 
 
 THE END. 
 
 PRINTED BY LEVET, ROBSON, AND FRANKLTN, 
 23 Great New Street, Fetter Laue. 
 
NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 JAMES BURNS, 17 PORTMAN STREET, 
 
 PCRTMAN SQaABE. 
 
 BURNS' 
 Cabinet ^m'csl of ^arratibeiS, Cractsl, ^c. 
 
 For Presents, Prizes, Village-Schools, &c. Illustrated with Cuts. 
 
 1. RICHARD MORTON. A Village Tale. By the 
 Rev. W. Pridden, M.A., Vicar of Broxted, 6d. 
 
 2. The BOOK of CHARACTERS:— the Minister,— the 
 King,— the Bishop,— the Gentleman,— the Yeoman, — the Merchant,— 
 &c. &c. (From Fuller.) Cloth lettered. Is. 
 
 3. A GOD-PARENT'S GIFT. By the Rev. Thomas 
 
 Chamberlain, M.A. Cloth lettered, 1*. 
 
 4. JAMES FORD ; and other Stories. 9d. 
 
 5. CONVERSATIONS with COUSIN RACHEL. 9rf. 
 
 6. DIALOGUES on the TE DEUM. 6d. 
 
 7. A MANUAL of CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, being 
 the Church Catechism expanded ; with an Infant Liturgj', and Scrip- 
 ture Thoughts. By the Rev. John James, M.A., Rector of Rawmarsh. 
 Sewed, 8d.; cloth,!*. 
 
 8. WHAT WE ARE TO BELIEVE : a Practical Ex- 
 planation of the Creed, intended chiefly for the Young. 18mo, cloth, 
 1*. 6d. 
 
 9. CONVERSATIONS with COUSIN RACHEL. 
 Part II. 9d. 
 
 10. THE ROCKY ISLAND, and other PARABLES. 
 By Samuel Wilberforce, M.A., Archdeacon of Surrey. In 18mo, 
 with Engravings, price 2s. 6d. 
 
 11. PRASCA LOUPOULOFF: or, Filial Piety exera- 
 pUfied. A true story. 6d. 
 
 12. A COMPANION to the FASTS and FESTIVALS 
 
 (for the Young). 3*. 
 
 13. THE BOOK of ANECDOTES. With Frontispiece. 
 2*. 6d. 
 
 14. THE BOOK of POETRY. 18mo, cloth. 2*. 
 
 15. THE BOOK of CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 THE MOTHER of ST. AUGUSTINE : a True Story. 
 ISrao, 6i., or 5*. 6d. per dozen. 
 
In 2 vols, imperial 8vo, handsomely done up, price 20*. 
 THE VOICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 This work contains a large and varied collection of Treatises, Tracts, 
 Sermons, &c. by the older Divines ; translations from the Fathers ; Biogra- 
 phy ; Church History ; interspersed with Poetry, Anecdotes, and short 
 theological extracts. The following is an outline of the Contents : — 
 
 Lord Bacon's Confession of Faith. 
 
 Charles Leslie's Cause of Episco- 
 pacy defended. 
 
 Bp. Sanderson's Answer to Puri- 
 tan Objections. 
 
 The Life of Bishop Nicholas Rid- 
 ley. 
 
 Bp. Hall's Olive of Peace. 
 
 Joseph Mede on Sacrilege. 
 
 Dean Brevint's Christian Sacra- 
 ment and Sacrifice. 
 
 Waterland on Regeneration. 
 
 An Account of the Sufferings of 
 the Clergy in the time of the 
 Great Rebellion, carefully com- 
 piled from Walker. 
 
 Spelman on the Rights and Re- 
 spect due to Churches, with a 
 History of the Fate of Sacri- 
 lege. 
 
 Dean Stanley's Faith and Practice 
 of a Church-of-England Man. 
 
 The Correspondence between King 
 Charles I. and Alexander Hen- 
 derson. 
 
 Bp. Morton's Confession of Faith. 
 
 Bp. Beveridge's Scriptural Rule 
 for the Government of the 
 Church. 
 
 Characters from Fuller's " Holy 
 State." 
 
 Bishop Patrick on the Christian 
 Priesthood. 
 
 Bp. Ken's Devotional Exposition 
 of the Catechism. 
 
 Dean Comber's short Discourse 
 upon portions of the Common 
 Prayer. 
 
 Bp. Jolly's Address on Baptism. 
 
 Bingham on Divine Worship in 
 the Ancient Church. 
 
 Bp. Patrick on Tradition. 
 
 Jones' (of Nayland) Essay on the 
 Church. 
 
 Life of the Rev. John Bold. 
 
 Original Translations from St. 
 Bernard, Chrysostom, Theodo- 
 ret, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gre- 
 gory, &c. ; together with a large 
 collection of short Theological 
 Extracts, Anecdotes, and Poe- 
 try. 
 
 The whole is illustrated hy original Notes, Prefaces, and Biographical 
 Notices, and forms a comprehensive Library of doctrinal and practical 
 Theology, suited for the perusal either of the Layman or the Divine. 
 
 AN ENGLISH GRAMMAR for SCHOOLS. Printed 
 
 on Six Leaves of Cartridge Paper. Price 3c?. each, or 17s. per 100. 
 
 This is an original Grammar, which, while it retains as much as pos- 
 sible the terms in common use, is constructed upon the true principles of 
 the language, and is free from the vulgarisms and errors so common in 
 the popular grammars of the day. 
 
 RESTITUTION to the CHURCH a SACRED DUTY ; 
 
 or how can the Church be made to meet the Wants of the Nation ? Se- 
 cond Edition, fcp. Is. 
 
 BURNS, 
 
STractJSJ on Cfiristian Hoctrine antJ ^^racttce* 
 
 Suited for Distribution by District- Visitors, &;c. 
 
 1. THE CHURCH of CHRIST. 
 Id., or 7s. per 100. 
 
 2. ON FASTING, 
 per 100. 
 
 Id., or 7s. 
 
 3. A WORD to PARENTS. 2d., 
 or lis. per 100. 
 
 4. THE CHURCH VISIBLE 
 and INVISIBLE. 3d. 
 
 5. MY PARISHIONER CAU- 
 TIONED 2d., or 14s. per 100. 
 
 6. THE PRESENCE of GOD. 
 2d., or 14s. per 100. 
 
 7. BISHOP JOLLY'S AD- 
 DRESS on BAPTISiM. 8^. 
 
 8. EXAMINE and COMMUNI- 
 CATE. 2d., or 14s. per 100. 
 
 9. THE STORY of OLD AM- 
 BROSE. 3d., or 21s. per 100. 
 
 10. A CATECHISM on the 
 CHURCH, y^d., or 3s. 6d. per 100. 
 
 11. A FEW WORDS on 
 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 2d. 
 
 12. PLAIN PRAYERS, with 
 Directions how to Pray. %d., or 
 3s. 6d. per 100. 
 
 13. THE CREEDS of the 
 CHURCH. 2d., or 14s. per 100. 
 
 14. EVANGELICAL TRUTH 
 and APOSTOLICAL ORDER; a 
 Dialogue. 2d., or 14s. per 100. . 
 
 15. THE CHRISTIAN STATE. 
 3d., or 21s. per 100. 
 
 16. ROBERT LANGLEY and 
 THOMAS MOTT. 3d. 
 
 17. SCRIPTURE DIALOGUES. 
 — No. I. On Conscience. Id., or 
 7s. per 100. 
 
 18. ANGLO-CATHOLIC 
 PIETY— George Herbert. 2d., 
 or 14s. per 100. 
 
 19. SCRIPTURE DIALOGUES. 
 — No. II. Regeneration and 
 Conversion. 2d., or 14s. per 100. 
 
 20. ONKEEPINGtheCHURCH 
 FESTIVALS. 2d. 
 
 21. BAPTISMAL REGENE- 
 RATION, a Doctrine of the Church 
 of England, and its Practical Ef- 
 fects considered. 3d., or 21s. 
 
 22. ON THE HOLY SCRIP- 
 TURES. 2d., or 12s. 
 
 23. THE DUTY and BENE- 
 FITS of FASTING. 2d. 
 
 24. THE PROVIDENCE of 
 GOD. Id., or 7s. 
 
 25. THE DEATH of the 
 RIGHTEOUS, 2d., or 14s. 
 
 26. ZEAL for the HOUSE of 
 GOD. 4d. 
 
 27. PLAIN REMARKS on 
 BAPTISM and the REGISTRA- 
 TION ACT. \d., or 7s. 
 
 28. REASONS for being a 
 CHURCHMAN. Id., or 7s. 
 
 29. PRAYERS for the USE of 
 SCHOOLS. Id., or 7s. 
 
 30. L I B E R T Y of C O N- 
 SCIENCE, or a Dialogue about 
 Church and Meeting. 3d., or 21s. 
 
 31. ON HOLY THURSDAY, 
 or Ascension Day. Id,, or 7s. 
 
 Vol. I. is just published, price 3s. 6d. cloth. 
 17 PORTMAN STREET. 
 
HORiE CANONICiE, or Devotioq^ for the Seven stated 
 Hours of Prayer, both in substance and form, according to the Catholic 
 Ritual. By an Anglican Presbyter. In 18mo, cloth. 
 
 THE PSALTER, or PSALMS of DAVID, Pointed for 
 
 Chanting; to which are added, the Hymns of the Church. 32mo, cloth, 
 
 2s. 6d. ; morocco, 5*. 
 
 This "vvill be found a very useful assistant in cathedrals, or congre- 
 gations where Choral Service is performed. A liberal allowance is made 
 to Clergymen or others purchasing for the use of Churches. 
 
 •»* The work may also be had in 4to, large type, 4s. 6d. 
 
 CHURCH ARCHITECTURE. 
 Second Edition, with Twenty-nine additional Engravings. 
 
 ANCIENT MODELS: containing Hints on Church- 
 Building, &c. By Charles Anderson, Esq. Fcp. 8vo, 55. cloth. 
 
 LESSONS for the DAYS of the WEEK. For the Use 
 
 of Children. Price 3d., or 21s. per 100. Also, a COMPANION to the 
 LESSONS, containing the Subjects expanded ; with Directions for the 
 Use of Teachers. Price Is. 3d. The two done up together, Is. 6d. 
 
 THE ORDER of CONFIRMATION; explained and 
 
 illustrated by select Passages from Holy Scripture, the Baptismal and 
 Eucharistic Offices of the English Church, and the Writings of eminent 
 Divines. By the Rev. Henry Hopwood, B.A., of Queen's College, 
 Cambridge. Printed in Black and Red. Price 8d., or Is. cloth. 
 
 ST. ANTHOLIN'S ; or OLD and NEW CHURCHES. 
 
 A Tale for the Times. By the Rev. F. E. Paget, M.A., Rector of Elford, 
 and Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Oxford. With Vignettes. 3s. 6d. 
 cloth. 
 
 THE BAPTISMAL OFFICES of the UNITED CHURCH 
 of ENGLAND and IRELAND illustrated from "the Use of Salisbury" 
 — the Liturgy of Herman, Archbishop of Cologne — and the sentiments of 
 the Compilers and Revisers of the Book of Common Prayer. By the Rev. 
 T. M. Fallow, M.A., Curate of all Souls'. 12mo, 7s, 6d. 
 
 BURNS,