ter, to be absolutely null and void. Which the Church of England having never yet done, it may be presumed it was not her sense to make her discipline so rigorous, as that of the French Church, in requiring rebaptisation. At least Casaubon and King James, who were very capable of knowing her sense, so understood it, and we do not find many that have been inclined to contradict them. So that, upon the whole, it must be concluded, for any thing that yet appears to the contrary, that what Casaubon said in the name of King James is the present sense of the Church of England: she forbids lay-men or women, by her laws, to baptise; but if it be done in due form, though she does not approve of it, yet she does not wholly disannul it, or order it to be repeated, as absolutely null and void. And whether alteration is proper to be made in this affair, is none of my province to determine: I have performed, as far as I could, the part of a faithful historian, to correct the errors of some, and inform the judgment of others, and leave the rest to be determined in a lawful assembly.

any

AN

APPENDIX,

CONTAINING

Some Remarks on the Historical Part of Mr. Lawrence's Writings, touching the invalidity of Lay-Baptism, his Preliminary Discourse of the various Opinions of the Fathers concerning Rebaptisation and Invalid Baptisms, and his Discourse of Sacerdotal Powers.

WHEN I had almost finished the foregoing discourse, I had occasion to look into these writings, as containing some historical matters relating to the present subject. I was the more tempted to inspect them, because the author pretends to write with great accuracy, even to a mathematical exactness. I will not concern myself, at present, with his reasonings, but only his history, in which he will pardon me if I friendly shew him and the world some few of his mistakes, which are neither according to the rules of history, nor the exactness of a mathematical method and way of writing. In his discourse of Sacerdotal Powers, Chap. v. p. 120. he has these words: "After the Council of Nice, the major proposition, that those, whom a laic baptiseth, are to be rebaptised, was looked upon to be so true, that it was the undoubted principle whereby the Orthodox confuted the Luciferians; for thus they argued: 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. This argument so confounded Hilary, the Deacon, that he was forced to deny the major,

PART I.

2 H

which his Master Lucifer had granted before, viz. That those, whom a laic baptiseth, are to be rebaptised; and which St. Jerom affirms by the authority of the Nicene Council. Hieron. Dial. adver, Lucif. St. Chrysostom archbishop of Constantinople, Anno 398, is express for the invalidity of lay-baptism; and that in cases of necessity it can be no more administered by a laic, than the eucharist. Chrys. lib. iii. de Sacerd. c. 5. But all these are things, says he, which can be administered by no other man living, but by those sacred hands alone, the hands, say, of the priest. These are instances for which I am beholden to the learned and Rev. Mr. William Reeves's notes on the 2d vol. of the Apol. of Justin Martyr, p. 263. 264." Thus far our author.

1

In which paragraph there are abundance of mistakes, of several kinds. The first and least is his misquoting Mr. Reeves's notes on Justin Martyr, instead of Vincentius Lirinensis. Secondly, he makes Mr. Reeves say, what he really does not, that Hilary, the deacon, was forced to deny the major (proposition in the argument) which his master Lucifer had granted before, viz. That those, whom a laic baptiseth, are to be rebaptised; and that St. Jerom affirms this by the authority of the Nicene Council: whereas Mr. Reeves says expressly, that Hilary, the deacon, did not deny the major proposition, but the assumption, which his master Lucifer had granted; which was, that those, whom an Arian priest baptiseth, are not to be rebaptised; and that it was this assumption, which St. Jerom confirmed by the authority of the Nicene Council. Mr. Lawrence did not here distinguish between a major and a minor proposition, but unluckily changes Mr. Reeves's terms, and puts major instead of assumption, which stands for a minor proposition only in all logics whatsoever. We are not likely to find, I am afraid, great exactness in history, when it is to be fetched from ancient Greek and Latin authors, by a person, who could make so unhappy a mistake only in transcribing an English author. Let us next examine, Thirdly, what errors he commits in point of ancient history, by virtue of this mistake: he makes Lucifer hereby a witness for the invalidity of laymen's baptism, by making him say,

that those, whom a laic baptiseth, are to be rebaptised : which proposition, when he produces Lucifer's plain testimony for it, shall have my assent, and not before. Fourthly, he makes St. Jerom affirm universally the same thing: and yet it is as plain as words can make it, that St. Jerom allowed laymen to give baptism in cases of necessity, as I have proved before from that very dialogue against the Luciferians, upon which he grounds the contrary assertion. Fifthly, he makes St. Jerom assert that pretended proposition upon the authority of the Nicene Council: and yet neither is there any such Canon in the Nicene Council, nor did ever St. Jerom assert there was, but only a Canon about allowing some heretical bishops and priests to enjoy the honour of their places, and not to be degraded to laymen, upon their return to the unity of the Catholic Church. Sixthly, he says, St. Chrysostom is express for the invalidity of lay-baptism; and that in cases of necessity it can be no more administered by a laic, than the eucharist. But St. Chrysostom neither expressly mentions the case of necessity, nor lay-baptism, nor the invalidity of it; but only says, "Baptism is not administered by any but the hands of a priest:" which, if it were to be taken in the strictest sense, to exclude all others, besides priests, in cases of extreme necessity, would exclude deacons as well as laymen; unless this author will say, that deacons are priests, or shew, that St. Chrysostom thought them to be so, which I am sure he did not, and yet he allowed them to baptise in cases of necessity, when a priest could not be had, as I have fully proved before, against Dr. Forbes, in answer to this very objection. But if such men as Dr. Forbes, and Mr. Reeves, who was this author's guide, were under some mistake in this matter, I do not wonder a less skilful writer should readily follow them: but for his other mistakes they are so gross and palpable, that I think he is bound in justice, both to Mr. Reeves and the world, ingenuously to acknowledge his misrepresentation, and correct his errors, as he has modestly promised to do, when any one modestly better informs him.

The next thing I shall take notice of is, his treatment of

St. Basil, in whose mouth he puts an argument and makes him contradict himself upon it. He says, p. 119. St. Basil thus argues: "Those, whom a laic baptiseth, are to be rebaptised: but those, whom an heretic or schismatic baptiseth, a laic baptiseth: therefore such are to be rebaptised. This argument he made use of to prove, that heretical and schismatical baptisms were null and void; and he reckoned them so, because he thought them of the same nature as lay-baptisms in those days. His major proposition, that those, whom a laic baptiseth, are to be rebaptised, was not denied; he had no opposers to defend such baptisms. All the opposition he met with was, that they denied his minor, that those, whom an heretic or schismatic baptiseth, a laic · baptiseth. And therefore though they did not deny but lay-baptism was null and void; yet they affirmed heretical and schismatical baptisms to be good, because they were not lay-baptisms; and to this St. Basil consented." Basil. Canon. Ep. ad Amphiloch. can. 1.

But did St. Basil consent, that heretics and schismatics were laymen and not laymen at the same time? Did he consent that their baptism was null and void, and yet good too notwithstanding? Either St. Basil was very weak so to contradict himself, or else our author was very weak to father such a contradiction upon him. But perhaps he had it from Mr. Reeves, to whom he professes himself beholden for all these instances. No, indeed, it is an improvement upon Mr. Reeves, I think; but if otherwise, Mr. Reeves must answer for himself. In the mean time I will answer our author. St. Basil does not bring that as his own argument, but only relates it as the argument of St. Cyprian and Firmillian but our author does not distinguish between a man's acting the part of an historian, and that of a logician: he might as well say, all the arguments I have related in this book are my own, because I have related so many men's arguments and opinions upon the present subject. If he had looked into St. Basil himself, he might have seen this. But was not St. Basil of opinion, that lay-baptisms and heretical baptisms were null and void? Yes. But he did not then say they were good and valid too: but only he was so modest, as not to condemn or break communion with those Churches, who differed