,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 167 2. of the Church of England 172 Dissenters' Baptism null and void 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 himselfgives ; 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.