Is La)'•n<ens and Womens 'Baptizjng a 'Nullity ? Jcf:u) but on~y to an tmk.!mv» Saviour undeurmine~: How~ver ~1e .pointed r_o Chrifi_in the hear~ng of fame of his dlfciples. ·we muO: not run from plam truth m p1cvlfhnefs at oppofitton to PJpJtls or any other men. 4 . The fifth Vcrfc would not be true of John; baptifm as the Hiflory OlCwcth, that [ Wh,·n Johos hearer; heard tbii, they were baptized into the N.:zme of t!Je Lord Je[ttJ ]. This is corurary to the Text that recordeth ir. 5 . 1n the fourth Vcrfc the words, [that i.!' >On Cbrift Jefru J arc plJ.inly PJtuiJ expofitory words of Jobm, ~n;d not J ofuu words: Julm baptized them [intO the NJme of tbc Mtffillh that jhoutd come after ]Jim, J which indeed flith l'ad was Chri(~ Jc[M) though not dltn pcrfonally determined by Joh>!. 6. The connexion of the fourth, fifth and lixth Vcrfcs puts all out of doubr : r. In the fourth Vc.:: 1 fe the ltlft words are P.oul!, [ tbat if. on Cbrift Jtjits]. 2 fn the m'xt wor.ds, Ver. 4· [ IV?m tbcy he.zrd this ·tbey rrcre b.;ptiZcd. &c. J muH refer ro the lafl: words, or to illS that was fpcakmg to them. 3· Vcr. 6. The Pronoun [Them J ( whm Paul bad laid hli ha1~dt on tbcm) plain!y rc– ferreth to them bn lp.:>ken of, Vet· 'j· which therefore wao; not Joh~u hea.r<!s a~ £Uch.. 4· Aacl the words [ tbcy »'tre b.zpt;zrd imo r~e uame nf the Lord Jcfiu J arc plawly dtHmCbve !r?m Johnt bap M tifm. Saith Grotitu, Sic acctpcre Latimu, SJ•rM, Arab!, 6 ... Vttcru omna ame MarHIXl:~m ( t!t vtrb<J L:tc.e ). Yet I fay not fo hardly of Jolms b.iptifm, as Tcrtttti.zn on this T~xt (de B.1ptij:) [AdeopJM Jlea hr ABH Apoftolorttm invenimM, quoniam qui Jo?ar:nis bapti{mum h.~bebant, J~~~~ '!cccpijft~lt ~piritum Sanlium, quem m attditlt quidcm novcr:mt: Ergo uon mu crzlcjlc, .qrtod ca:lcjtu nou cxlubev..zt. J Sec Dr. Hammond in /oc. Qj,Jeil:. 47. . Is 'Baptifm by Lay:mell or Women Lawful m [a(es of mcejSity Or are "they nttllities, and the pe1jon to be re,bJptized < A1{w. I.J Know fome of the Antients allowed it in nece!Ilty. But I know no fuch neceffi:y that can be: for t. God harh exprdly made it a part of the Minilierial Office by Corn– million, Ma;t. z8, 19, zc. 2· He hath no where given to any other either Command to oblige them to <.lo it, or Commifhon to authorize them, .or Promif:.: eo bldS and accept them in it, or Thrc<itning if they omit ir. 3· He oft feverely punifhetl-t fuch as invade the SJcred FLmClion, or ufurp any part of of ir. 4· Therdo're it is a fin in the doer, and then there can b~ no necdlity of it in fuch a cafe in the receiver. 5· He that is in Covemnt by open profeff-:d Confenr, wants 11orhing ncccffuy to his falvation, either ncccffitate medii. vel puccpti., when it cannot be l1:1d in a lawful way. I I. As to the nullity I will not determine fo controverted a point any. further than to fay, 1· That if the LayMman had the Counterfeit Orders of a Miniller, and had poffdlion of the pl.~.ce, and were taken for onr; his deceit deprived ilot the Receiver of his right, nor made ic his lln, and I {hould not reMb<lptizc him, if after difcov-ered. 2· But if he were in no poffellion or pretence of the Office, I wo~ld be b:Jptizcd again, if it were my cafe ; Bccaufl: I £hould fear that what is done in ChriHs name by one that notorioufly had no authority from him to do it, is not owned by Chrifl: as his deed> and fo is a nullity. As if a de~ ceiver go in my name to make bargains for tT1e. 3· And if any tint had after difcovcred a Miniilcr to be indeed no Minifhl:r that baptized him, fuould doubt of the validity, and for certainty have it ·done again. by an aUthorized Minifl:er, I would not difcomrnc:nd him; Nor would I account it MoraYy twice baptizing, but a Ph)ficfll repeating of rhat act which morally is but one: ( As I e~plained before ofRc·ordmat·ion ). Thcrcfor& if one that was a ;,ro{s H£retick._ in the very Effintials, or an ltJfidel, or one that had not ~non:Iedge and p$rlf cffcmially nece(j'llry to tiJe Minijlry baptize one ( in right words) I woUld not blame him that for certainty would hav• an anthorizc:d perfon to do it; Efpecially if he was trotoriuujTy fuch a one when he did it. Let thofe that arc angry with this refolution be as fair to me as ~hey ~Ill be to Venerable Bed.z, and that great Miracle~working Bilbop John, whom in his Ec– cltfiJ.fl!ol Htfl:ory he r"portcth to baptize a man again in E~tglaild, mecrly becaufe the: Priefi that did it was fo duD, ignorant. and infitffici£nt as in John~ judgement to be uncapable of the Office, and Of whicb be– rheref,,rc had been by h1m forbidden to ufe it, though the per[oo bapri>ed (at age) knew not this; lore. -z:iz., HtrcbaldM, ut Bed\ l. ·s· c. 6.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=