CONTENTS.

The state of the present Controversy.

SECT. 1. No further dispute with Dr. Brett, about the modern Greek

Church.-2. Nor about the Churches of the Reformation.-3. How far

we are agreed about the Church of England.-4. How far we are

agreed about the primitive Writers.-5. Whether St. Basil's Canon and

the Council of Trullo determine the invalidity of Lay-baptism in the

practice of the Church.-6. An account of the Luciferian Heresy.

And whether St. Jerom be a witness of the Church's annulling the

Baptism of Laymen in ordinary cases.-7. The testimony of St. Chry-

sostom no evidence against the baptism of Laymen in extraordinary

cases.

CHAP. I.

That heretics, and schismatics, and degraded clerks, and

excommunicated clerks, when once they are convicted and

legally censured, are no longer authorised to minister

baptism, or officiate as true priests and ministers of

God and the Church; but that thenceforth all their acts

are unauthorised, and done only by usurpation.

This proved from the history of the first six General

Councils, and their proceedings against heretics, and

schismatics, and other delinquents.

SECT. 1. How Meletius was deposed and divested of all ministerial autho

rity by the Council of Nice.-2. How Arius was deposed and anathe-

matised by the same Council.-3. How the Macedonians, Apollinarians,

and other heretics, were degraded and anathematised in the second

Council of Constantinople.-4. How the third General Council of

of Ephesus degraded Nestorius and his followers.-5. How the Council

of Chalcedon deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus, and their adherents.-

6. Of the condemnation of Anthimus and Severus in the Council of Con-

stantinople, under Mennas, Anno 536.-7. How the defenders of the Tria

Capitula were degraded in the fifth General Council of Constantinople.

-8. How the sixth General Council of Constantinople deposed and ana-

thematised the Monothelites.-9. How the Council of Trullo censured

delinquent Bishops and Clerks.

CHAP. II.

The same assertion proved from patriarchal, national, and

Provincial Councils; and from the Writings of Private

Fathers, with several Arguments drawn from their Tes-

timony. The first Argument, That some Heretics, whose

Baptism was received, never had originally any real and

true Ordination to the ministerial Office and Function:

Consequently they could be no other than Unauthorised

Persons. This particularly proved upon the Novatian

Heretics.

SECT. 1. A short reference to such patriarchal, national, and provincial

Councils, as agree with the forementioned General Councils.-2. The

first argument founded upon the Novatians wanting a true ordination.

-3. That Novatian was never a true bishop. This proved, first, be-

cause he had only a simoniacal and forced ordination.-4. Proved fur-

ther, because he intruded himself into a full see.

CHAP. III.

The second Argument, that heretics are not authorised minis-

ters of God, because when they fall into open and professed

heresy, they cease to be true Christian priests, and be-

come wolves and antichrists, instead of true Shepherds

and governors of the flock of Christ.

SECT. 1. That a lawful ordination does not secure a man in the possession

of a perpetual authorised priesthood, unless he observe the rules of the

priesthood.-2. This proved from Cyprian, who declares heretics to for-

feit both the name and authority of priests.—3. And from the Council of

Aquileia under St. Ambrose.-4. And from the Council of Colonia

Agrippina.-5. From an Italic Council under St. Ambrose, Anno 381.

-6. From the Roman Council under Damasus, Anno 369.-7. From the

testimony of Domnus, bishop of Antioch, and John Cassian.-8. From

the Decrees of Pope Innocent.-9. And Pope Simplicius.-10. And Pope

Vigilius.

CHAP. IV.

The third Argument, that heretics and degraded clerks were

not authorised priests, in the account of the Ancient

Church, because, by her discipline they were reduced to

the state and communion of laymen.

SECT. 1. No persons, who were obliged to do public penance, allowed to be of

the clergy.-2. All degraded persons reduced, at least, to lay-commu-

nion.-3. This proved from Cyprian, and his cotemporaries, Cornelius,

and the Council of Carthage.-4. And from the Apostolical Canons.

-5. And the Council of Eliberis.-6. And the Council of Sardica.-7.

And the Council of Adge.-S. The Council of Orleans.-9. The first

Council of Toledo.-10. The Council of Hippo, and St. Austin.-11.

The Decrees of Pope Innocent.-12. And Siricius, and St. Jerom.-13.

And St. Basil.-14. And the Council of Trullo.

CHAP. V.

The Fourth Argument, that heretics and schismatics and de-
graded clerks were not accounted authorised priests, be-

cause they were sometimes thrust down one degree below

Laymen, by being anathematised and cast out of the

Communion of the Church.

SECT. 1. That no Man is reckoned a complete Layman but he that is in full

Communion with the Church.-2. Heretics and Schismatics and degraded

Clerks sometimes denied the Privilege of Lay-communion.-3. This

proved from the testimony of Cyprian.-4. And the Apostolical Canons.

5. And the Council of Colen.-6. And the Council of Sardica.-7.

And the Council of Eliberis.-8. And the Council of Rome under Felix

III. Anno 487.

CHAP. VI.

The Objection taken from the notion of an Indelible Character

imprinted in the Ordination of a Priest, examined, and

shewed to be of no force against the former Allegations.

With an Account of the first original and meaning of

that term in the Writings of the Church.

SECT. 1. What meant by an Indelible Character imprinted in Baptism.-

2. That the Indelible Character of Ordination is of the same Nature.-

3. The name of Indelible Character not to be found in any ancient Coun-

cil.-4. In what sense St. Austin owns and allows it in heretical Priests.

-5. What the Papists mean by their Indelible Character.-6. How far

an Indelible Character is allowed by Protestant Writers.-7. What sub-

mission is due to the Judgment of the Catholic Church, in such Points

of Discipline as rebaptising and reordaining.

CHAP. VII.

A Resolution of some Difficulties concerning the Communion

of Heretics, and their Baptisms, and Ordinations.

SECT. 1. Whether it be lawful to hold Communion with heretical Priests

before they be degraded.-2. Whether it be lawful to communicate with

Heretics, when a whole Church is heretical.-3. Whether, in any case,

it be lawful to desire the Baptism of Heretics.-4. Whether the ordina-

tions of Heretics and Schismatics may be accepted by the Church without

reordination.

APPENDIX,

OR,

REMARKS ON THE AUTHOR OF THE SECOND PART OF LAY-

BAPTISM INVALID.

CHAP. I.

A short Way to end the Controversy with this Author about

unauthorised Baptism, by shewing his great Ignorance

of the ancient Discipline of the Church, whilst he sup-

PART II.

C

poses

the ancient Heretics to be true authorised Priests,

in actual Commission, when the Church had reduced

them to the state of Laymen.

CHAP. II.

Remarks on our Author's Preface.

SECT. 1. That unauthorised Baptisms, and invalid Baptisms are not of the

same import in the sense of the ancient Church.-2. This Author's

reasons for the Validity of heretical Baptism, very different from those

of the Primitive Church.-3. His notions about the invalidity of hereti-

cal Baptism unbaptises the whole Church of England.-4. His Exceptions

against the new Form of Confirm ation, which was proposed to the Con-

vocation, considered.-5. He confesses his Mistake in producing Lucifer

as a Witness against Lay-Baptism.-6. How he confounds valid Baptism,

and saving Baptism together, against the Sense of the Ancient Church.

-7. That heretical Baptism is properly anti-episcopal, by our Author's

own Concessions.-8. That our Author's Charge upon his Adversaries,

of dissolving the Necessity of the Christian Priesthood, equally reflects

upon the Principles and Practice of the whole Catholic Church in all

Ages.

CHAP. III.

Remarks on the first and second Chapters of our Author's

Book.

SECT. 1.That allowing the Baptisms of Usurpers, Heretics, or Schismatics,

to be valid only so far as not to need rebaptising, is not abetting or

encouraging their Usurpations.-2. That some discretionary Power

was supposed to be in the Hands of Bishops, in commissioning Persons

to baptise.-3. Whether Deacons were accounted Priests, and the or-

dinary and standing Ministers of Baptism.-4. That many uncommis-

sioned Baptisms were anciently confirmed by Bishops without rebap-

tising.-5. The necessary Distinction of the Ancients between an

authorative Baptism and a merely valid Baptism, confounded by our

Author.

CHAP. IV.

Remarks on our Author's Account of the Greek Church and

the Churches of the Reformation.

SECT. 1. That the ancient Greek Church had several Laws before the Eighth

Century, determining the Validity of uncommissioned Lay-Baptism.-

2. The Authority of the Canons of Nicephorus vindicated from our

Author's Exceptions.-3. His disingenuous Way of answering the

Modern Greek Writers.-4. That the Reason of the Greek's Practice

was not their Opinion of the absolute Necessity of Baptism for dying

Infants.-5. Of the Moscovite or Russian Churches.-6. No further

Dispute about the Lutheran Churches.-7. Nor about Zuinglius and

the Helvetian Churches.-8. That the Calvinists do in some Cases

allow of the Validity of Lay-Baptism. The Conclusion, reducing the

whole Controversy to this single Point, whether the ancient Heretics

and Schismatics were true authorised Priests in Actual Commission, or

only unauthorised and uncommissioned Laymen, usurping the Priests'

Office at the Time of baptising.

THE STATE OF THE PRESENT

CONTROVERSY.

SECT. 1.-No further Dispute with Dr. Brett about the modern Greek
Church.

WHEN I set myself to write the First Part of this Scholastical History of Lay-Baptism, I did it with the same prospect and view as I have done all other parts of the Antiquities of the Church, only to set matters in as fair a light as I could, and inform the judgment of every unprejudiced reader; not without hopes of bringing an unhappy controversy to a fair end, by convincing some learned persons, who are warmly engaged in the dispute, that they were under some great mistakes, in reference to several points, both of ancient and modern history. And in some measure 1 have gained this end, though not so perfectly as I hope to do in this Second Part, in which I have taken care to give these gentlemen all imaginable satisfaction from the most authentic rules and undeniable practice of the primitive Church, if the sense of the first six general Councils, and the concurrent testimony of all other Councils and Fathers, be of any force in such a case. Our controversy is now brought within a shorter com- . pass: for I have no further dispute with my learned friend Dr. Brett, about the modern Greeks and Moscovites. All I have said of them is allowed, only the doctor complains he had not books to examine upon this occasion, nor would the excellent library of Canterbury furnish him with necessary assistance. I hope his Grace of Canterbury, or the Reve