and Validity of fuch Unauthoriz'd Baptifm; and therefore fuch Baptifms are Null and Void, notwithstanding our Author's vain Attempt by this Comparifon, to prove them Good and Valid as the Authoriz'd Baptifms.

§. XXIV. In his 35th Page he tells his Reader concerning Baptifm by Diffenting Teachers, thus, Abundance of People, I " doubt, are easily led to think their Bap"tifms to be Invalid, because, they think, "if their Baptifms be allow'd, the ret 66 of their Minifterial Performances must be alfo Valid. But this was held to be no "Confequence by the ancient Church of "Chrift, nor is it a Confequence held by the "Church of England. 'Tis Baptifm " alone that is not Invalidated and made "Null, tho' conferr'd by an unlawful Mi"nifter, or a meer Lay Chriftian, &c. Here's a plain acknowledgment, that the "other Miniftrations of our Diffenting Teachers are Invalid; For, fays he, "Tig Baptifm alone that is not Invalidat "ed." But upon what Foundation does our Author intimate, that their other Mini ftrations are Null? Are they not establish'd upon the fame Foundation as that of Baptifm? Is it not the fame Lord who Infti

tuted

tuted them? And are they not equally pofitive Inftitutions of our Religion? What is it that makes the Difference? By what Rule is their Baptifm Valid? Or is it Valid tho' founded upon no Rule at all? By what Law are their other Ministrations, viz. Of Ordination, Confecration of Bread and Wine, Excommunication, &c. Null and Void, if their Baptifm is not fo? Have they been Authoriz'd to Baptize? No, they never were: Let him fhew us who gave them that Authority? Are not their other Miniftrations Null, because they were never Authoriz'd for them? Certainly that is the Reason of their Nullity. And the very fame Reafon ftands good for the Nulling of their Baptifms. Are not their other Miniftrations not only without, but in Oppofition to the Church, and therefore Void? Their Baptifm is fo too, and therefore Invalid also. Are not the Laws of Chrift and his Church equally level'd against their Baptifms, as well as against their other Miniftrations? Yes, they are. Have thofe Laws provided more for their Baptifms, than for their other Ministrations? No, they have not. Therefore the fame Laws of Chrift and his Church that Null those their other Miniftrations, do Null and Void their Baptisms too; And

his

his faying that "this was held to be no Con"fequence by the Antient Church of Christ" is a Notorious fallacy, put upon Ignorant Readers; but it cannot be Palm'd upon those who are acquainted with the State of the Antient Church: For 'tis well known, that the Primitive times were not exercis'd with any fuch Anti-Epifcopal Baptifms, as these wherewith the Church is pefter'd in our Days, and therefore the Ancient Church has faid nothing about them.

§. XXV. As for what this Writer fays, that I may know, concerning the 23d and 26th Articles of our Church; viz. “ that

"they were made by many of the fame Peo"ple, who made the Office of Baptifm and "Rubricks, in 1548 and 1552: And that "therefore the Allowance of Lay-Baptifm "was not thought to Clash, or be Incon "fiftent with thofe Articles: page 39. I anfwer, that their fo making thofe Ru bricks, is a Sign that they did not allow of the Validity of Unauthoriz'd Baptisms, fuch as our Diffenters are; and for this, Í must defire the Reader to turn back to what I have faid in my 4th Sect. page, 5, 6, 7•

§. XXVI. I might here fpeak to his Appendix and the Letter, annex'd to what

Mrs.

Mrs. Baldwin calls the Second Edition of his Book; but they deferve no particular Anfwer, being foreign to this Author's Declar'd Undertaking, viz. to'fhew the Judg ment of the Church; and the-only Defign of my Answer thereto, is to let the World See, by her Publick Acts, what her real Opinion is of this Matter. - Mr. Hooker's Judgment be it what it will, is no Standard for either of us in this Difpute: Mr. Thorndike's Expreffions make nothing for Unauthoriz'd Baptifm; for, his Opinions concerning Lay-Baptifm, are plainly Founded upon this Notion, that Bifhops can give this Power to Lay-men, that they shall Baptize in Cafe of Extremity, and want of a Prieft: This is not the thing at prefent under Debate; The pretended Baptifms of our Diffenters are of another Nature, not Authoriz'd by the Bishops; but plainly in Oppofition to Epifcopacy itself.Dr. Cofins's Letter to Mr. Cordel, is founded upon Presbyterian and fome Popib Doctors Notions (yet not Pofitively but Dubiously propos'd by him) concerning Ordinations; fo that the whole Superftructure of that Letter, is only an Amuzement, having no fure Foundation whereon to fettle a Doubtful Mind; 'tis too long for me at present to take. Notice of the particulars of that Letter,

Letter, it fhall fuffice me to fay, That the Generality of our Divines who were Exiles in France with Dr. Cofins; and the Laity too, refused to Communicate with the French Proteftants, and even Dr. Cofins, thờ he went fometimes to their Temples at Charenton, yet never would Communicate with them in what they call'd the Sacraments; by reafon of their want of a Miffion This is what is well attefted, and the Evidence can be produc'd, but I have no need to enlarge and be particular upon it; because in Truth 'tis no part of my prefent Undertaking, which is confin'd to the Laws of the Church of England, as they now ftand; Hooker, Thorndike, and Cofins, be their Opinions what they Will, are of no weight in this Debate, fince the Judg ment of the Church of England is not limit ted to their particular Sentiments; I can produce Men as great as they, who thought very Differently from what they did; but this would not be fuitable to my Subject, which is only to let the Reader See, what our Church by her Publick Acts has taught us to believe, concerning Unauthoriz'd Baptifms.

Suppofe our Author could have further produc'd any fufficient Evidence, that a Select number of Bishops of our Church, in

former