heretics of their sacerdotal commission, and esteemed them really and truly no more priests during their heresy, though they once had a commission, than the most unauthorised layman, who never had any commission at all. And therefore, with a little variation of necessary terms, I shall draw up his accusation against the primitive Church, as near as may be, in his own words. If baptism performed by persons, who are really and truly deprived of their commission to baptise by the bishops of the Catholic Church, and who act after such deprivation rebelliously against, and in opposition to, the divine right of episcopacy, be good and valid baptism, as the ancient Church asserted, then authoritative preaching, administering the other sacrament, the power of excommunicating, of binding and loosing, of retaining and absolving men's sins, and all the spiritual functions of the clergy, are also good and valid, when attempted by unauthorised priests, whom the Church makes laymen by depriving them of their commission: the consequence of which is, the utter dissolution, and taking away of the necessity of the Christian priesthood, therefore of Christ's authority here on earth, and so of all revealed religion too. Now if this rant of an argument would only be reckoned an insignificant slander in any one that should level it against the known practice of the primitive Church in allowing the baptism of heretics to be valid, when they were deprived of their commission by the same power that first gave it; I leave every one to judge what name the same accusation deserves, when brought against others, who are only relating and defending the practice of the ancient and present Church against the pretensions of modern innovators. Our author will not pretend there is any great difference, between a vacated commission once received, and a nocommission never received at all; for as to actual authority it is equally wanting in both: but he will still say, the primitive Church never vacated the commission of those heretics whose baptism she received as valid; which, when he has said it over a thousand times, will be no nearer truth, but a grand mistake of his own, or some others, who abused his credulity in informing him so; and the more he repeats it, the more he will only abuse himself and the world in echoing forth their wrong information.

I could say a great deal more to shew the weakness and absurdity of this his insinuation, but what I have already said is sufficient, with all wise and good men, to vindicate the guardians of sacred things from so vile an aspersion, which reflects so much dishonour on his lawful superiors, and so much reproach on the ancient Catholic Church; with whom I take it to be an honour to be reproached by this author, only for advancing the same principles as the Catholic Church did, which he falsely charges with the consequence of dissolving all revealed religion, and the necessity of the Christian priesthood: as if there were no necessity of lawful priests, because there may be some usurpers; some heretics that have lost their commission, and some that never had a commission; whose baptisms can confer no graces of the Spirit, for which there is a necessity of lawful priests, but may give the outer form in such a manner, as the Church thinks fit not to repeat by rebaptisation. Let him declaim as long and as loud against this as he pleases, and call it a dissolving of the necessity of the Christian priesthood: it is only what I expected at his hands, who insults the Fathers of his Church with contempt and scorn, and under the professions of respect to priests, treats all those rudely who are not his followers and admirers. All I shall say further at present, upon this head, to this accuser of the brethren, is only, The Lord rebuke thee!"

CHAP. III.

Remarks on our Author's First and Second Chapters.

SECT. 1. That the allowing the Baptisms of Usurpers to be valid, is not abetting or encouraging their Usurpations.

HAVING thus far copiously considered our author's preface, I shall be more sparing upon his book, because the main controversy about uncommissioned baptism is already determined. Our author's first chapter is spent in a sharp invective against the usurpers of sacerdotal powers, and the abettors and encouragers of those usurpations. In which I know no one that has engaged in the present controversy, to be really concerned, though he would gladly insinuate and fasten the charge upon them. He begins his book by telling his readers, "that the occasion of it is a most novel and unchristian usurpation, attempted at the Reformation, and since that time to this day, by men who never received any divine commission; and who yet, in opposition to, and rebellion against their spiritual sovereigns, refusing to receive any such commission from them, endeavour to advance themselves into the high-priest's and priest's office, and to minister in such holy things as God has appropriated to that sacred commission, which he gives to men for that purpose. And this they do, not upon the pretence of necessity, arising, as some suppose, from the want of such as are commissioned, but in an obstinate perverse resistance against Christ's spiritual vicegerents, undervaluing and trampling upon that authority wherewith he has invested them."

Now, whatever there may be in this accusation, it affects most his own friends, I mean those who hold the same opinions with our author about rebaptising, that is, the followers of Cartwright in England, and the Calvinists beyond sea for we of the Church of England are not concerned in any such pretended usurpation. "Yes," our author says, "we adhere to, and encourage them in their usurpations; we concur with and abet them, because we affirm there is

some validity in such pretended ministrations." But if this were to be called abetting or encouraging men's usurpations, I could much more plausibly prove our author guilty of abetting and encouraging heretics and schismatics; for he maintains that the baptism of the ancient heretics and schismatics was not only good and valid, but ministered with as good authority and divine commission, as that of the Catholic priests: which assertion puts those usurpers upon an equal foot and level with the true priests of God, and the authorised baptisers of the Church, when yet I have evidently proved, that the ancient heretics were all of them destitute of commission, and anti-episcopal usurpers. Again, if there be any force in his accusation, then, First, it holds equally against all the Church of England, and her whole college of bishops ever since the Reformation, who have constantly admitted such as were baptised by these usurpers, without giving them a new baptism. So that if allowing the bare validity of their baptism be an abetting and encouraging of usurpers, the whole Church of England has been involved in this crime from the beginning of the Reformation. Secondly, his accusation holds equally against the primitive Church, for allowing the validity of the baptisms of the Novatians, who were not only deprived of their commission as heretics, but originally destitute of episcopal commission, having, as I have proved, never received a true episcopal ordination. Thirdly, it involves the whole primitive Church in the same crime of abetting or encouraging usurpers, because she allowed the validity of the baptisms of those heretics, whom she deprived of their commission by her own authority, and esteemed them no priests after that, but mere usurpers. For these men, only changing the terms, "having never received a divine commission," into, "being deprived of their divine commission," were as liable to the character which our author gives of unchristian usurpers, as those against whom he levels it, "For they were deprived of their divine commission, and yet in opposition to, and rebellion against their spiritual sovereigns, they endeavoured to advance themselves into the high-priest's and priest's office, and to minister in such holy things as God had appropriated to that

sacred commission, which he gives to men for that purpose and this they did, not upon the pretence of necessity b arising from the want of such as are commissioned, but into an obstinate perverse resistance against Christ's spiritual vicegerents, undervaluing and trampling upon that autho rity wherewith he has invested them." These heretics, after they were deprived of all divine commission by Christ's spiritual vicegerents, without receiving any other commission from them, in opposition to, and rebellion against them, took upon them the sacerdotal office of baptising, without authority, and against authority; and yet the primitive Church received the baptisms of these usurpers as valid, so far as not to repeat the outward form by rebaptisation. Now then, according to our author's way of arguing, the primitive Church was guilty of abetting and encouraging heretical and schismatical usurpers, because she so far allowed the validity of their baptisms. But if this be a slander upon the primitive Church, then it is equally so upon all those, who maintain the validity of usurper's baptism, no further than the primitive Church did; who put no sacerdotal authority into the hands of heretics and schismatics, as our author does, but take it away from them; who ascribe no spiritual effects to heretical or unauthorised baptisms, but call upon men to reconcile themselves to the Church, in order to be made partakers of grace and salvation. This is not to abet or encourage heretics, or schismatics, or usurpers, but to lay the due weight and load of their crimes upon them; to condemn their usurpations, to deny their authority, and exhort them to forsake a bad and unauthorised way, and return to the true authorised and effectual way of the Church. Which shews how much our author overshot himself in his zeal, when he went about to form such a groundless and false accusation against his innocent brethren, that reflects dishonour upon the Church of England, and the whole Catholic Church, and even upon himself too, who stands up for the sacerdotal authority of those eretics, whom the ancient Church declared to be no priests, but usurpers. And this is the only observation and remark I have occasion to make upon his first chapter.

He begins his second chapter with saying, " that I grant