DR. WATERLAND'S FIRST LETTER ON LAY-BAPTISM. To the Rev. Mr. P, Rector of L—. REVEREND SIR, M. C. October 29, 1713. I HUMBLY thank you for your very obliging letter, wherein you do me too much honour, to suppose me either equal to so large and difficult a subject, or able to hold the argument, however just and good, against the ingenious and learned Mr. Nevertheless I should think myself very happy, could my affairs permit me to accept of your kind invitation, because I am sure the conversation of two such worthy persons could not but be both agreeable and edifying; and if I should lose my cause, I should still be a gainer. However, till opportunity favours me with what I much wish for, be pleased to take a few thoughts in writing, as they occur to me amidst a crowd of other business, and to excuse either the inaccuracy of style and method, or any hasty slips of a running pen. I am not at all surprised at Mr. Kelsall's judgment on the case. It is not very long since I was myself of the same opinion, being led to it, as I suppose he may, partly by the good-nature of it, and partly by the authority of great names, as the Bishops of Sarum and Oxford, &c. besides some passages of antiquity not well under stood; and I was pleased, I confess, to see all, as I thought, confirmed by Mr. Bingham's Scholastical History of Lay-Baptism. But second thoughts and farther views have given a turn to my judgment, and robbed me of a pleasing error, as I must now call it, which I was much inclined to embrace for a truth, and could yet wish that it were so. The arguments or scruples mentioned in your letter, have all, besides many more, been considered, canvassed, answered, carefully, solidly, and, in my humble opinion, fully and completely. If Mr. Kelsall had seen Mr. Lawrence's Answer to Mr. Bingham, I hardly think he could despise that gentleman's learning or judgment. But I must have a care of being too positive, lest I should seem too far to trust my own, or to pay too little deference to his, which I have a great value and veneration for. I have sent what papers I had by me relating to the controversy. And some I had lent out, otherwise you would have had all. It were needless for me to say any thing in the cause, after what hath been said infinitely better: only to give you a little present ease, till you can have leisure to peruse the whole controversy, I shall venture to offer a few things about it. The cause depends upon Scripture, antiquity, and reason. I. As to Scripture, it is confessed that it confines the administration of Baptism to the Clergy, as much as it does any other of the sacerdotal powers. The commission is plain and clear, and certainly leaves no more room for Lay-baptism than for Lay-ordination, Lay-absolution, Lay-consecration of the Eucharist, Lay-preaching, and praying. If therefore we take the liberty of going from the institution in one case, we may as reasonably do it in all, supposing the like necessity. And yet Scripture hath no where intimated, that we may do it in any; but has rather taught us by some severe examples, as in the case of Saul and Uzza, that positive ministrations, confined by ! |