of all who can have them? Can a True Apoftolical Church (as ours is) be fuppo'd to do all this, and yet efteem unauthoriz'd Lay-Baptifms to be Valid? Does fhe mean that Cafes of Neceffity will make fuch things Valid, as are in their own Nature Invalid, and could never have had any Validity at all, but by virtue of a Divine Law? Could Baptifm have been Good and Valid for Spiritual Purposes, if Chrift's Law had not made it fo? Is this Law obey'd, when an unauthoriz'd Perfon attempts to Baptize? Is the pretended Baptifm he gives, the inftituted Miniftration of Chriftian Baptifm? Do's our Church believe it to be fo? In what Article of her Religion do's fhe own this? Where is it to be found? And if our Defenders of thofe pretended Baptifms do not tell us where, we must conclude, that 'tis because they are not able. And indeed they cannot but know, that to make any Baptifm Valid for Supernatural Purposes, there must be a Divine Supernatural Law, they cannot be ignorant, that our Church appeals to that Law, when the fays, 'Tis not lawful for any Man to adminifter the Sacraments before he be Call'd and Sent, as in her 23d Article; and therefore fhe would not venture upon fo bold an Affertion as that of the Validity of fuch unauthoriz'd authoris'd Baptifms, either in Express or more General Terms; becaufe fhe knows, and has therefore pronounced them to be, contrary to Chrift's Inftitution; and for that Reason, has made her Articles and Laws, to oblige us to obtain and adhere to, no other than the Authoriz'd Baptifm. And that we may all be fecur'd of obtaining this Baptifm, fhe is fo very fevere against . the Lawful Minifter, who by his Negligence, fuffers a Child in danger of Death, to die without Baptism, that in her 69th Canon the thus Cenfures him; "If any Minifter, "being duly without any manner of Collu"fion, inform'd of the weakness and danger of Death of any Infant unbaptiz'd in his "Parish, and thereupon defired to go or 66 come to the Place where the faid Infant "remaineth, to Baptize the fame, fhall ei"ther wilfully refuse so to do, or of purpose, 66 or of grofs Negligence shall fo defer the "time, as when he might conveniently have "reforted to the Place and Baptize the faid "Infant, it dieth through fuch his Default "unbaptized; the faid Minifter shall be "Sufpended for three Months, and before "his Reftitution fball acknowledge his Fault, "and promife before his Ordinary, that he "will not wittingly incur the like again; Provided, that where there is a Curate 66 or Substitute, this Conftitution shall not "extend to the Parfon, or Vicar himself, "but to the Curate or Subfitute pre"fent." This Cenfure fhe inflicts only upon the Minifter or his Curate prefent, because they only are the Administrators of Baptifm; but certainly, if the Lay Father of the Child, or any other Lay Perfons in the Family, were fuppos'd by the Church, to have in their Power the valid ministration of Baptifm in fuch Cafes, the Church would have extended this Cenfure against him or them alfo, for fuffering fuch a Child to die Unbaptiz'd; but this our Church would not do, because such Perfons, by her 37th Canon, have not upon any account whatsoever, the Power of Baptizing. 6. XV. I know that our Author, and fome others, will ftill tell me, that I have not prov'd, That our Church has, by her Articles, Canons, and Rubricks, made or declar'd Lay-Baptifm to be Invalid; because I have not produced any thing faid by her, that do's in Direct and Express Terms, affert Lay-Baptifm to be Null and Void. But I must, in anfwer to this, tell them, that this Objection fmells rank of Fanaticism ; all Enemies to Truth, amufe the Ig norant norant with this Evafive way of Arguing; Thus, the Quakers call for Express Texts of Scripture, to prove the Neceffity of the Chriftian Sacraments to the End of the World: The People call'd Anabaptifts, require express words of Scripture for the Baptifm of Infants: The Sabbatarians, or Seventh-day Men call for pofitive Texts, to prove the First Day of the Week to be the Chriftian Sabbath: And all our Sectaries demand Direct and exprefs Texts, for Divine Right of Epifcopacy; but these their Clamours, were never thought fufficient and juft Anfwers, to the many Proofs that have been brought for those Doctrines, from General Texts of Scripture, as Expounded by the univerfal Practice of the pure Primitive Church. Our Author himself obferves in his 12th Page, That "Men may make Premifes if they will, but "Confequences make themselves; If Baptifm "be abfolutely neceffary from a Lawful "Hand, and a Lay-Hand be not a Lawful "Hand, then Lay-Baptism is not the Bap"tifm that is abfolutely Neceffary; It must therefore be had from a Hand that is Lawful." Here he makes a full Period, and this he argues, to fhew King James the Firft's Inconfiftency with himself, in afferting the abfolute Neceffity of Bap tifm from a Lawful Hand; and yet denying (what he calls) Rebaptization, to those who were Baptiz'd by Lay Hands, whom the King affirm'd alfo to be Unlawful Hands. This Argument of our Author against King James, ftands equally good in the prefent Cafe before us, for the Church has made fuch Premises by her Articles and Laws, as determine, that to adminifter Sacraments, unauthorized Hands are Unlawful Hands; the Law by which fhe comes to know this, has alfo determin'd, that 'tis neceffary for us to receive Sacraments from Lawful Hands,—————— the Confequence makes it felf, that Baptifm by unauthoriz'd Hands, is not the Baptifm that is Neceffary: -Therefore by the Laws of Chrift, and of our Church, it must be had from Lawful, i. e. Authoriz'd Hands; this we gain from our Author's Argument against King James. But not to put these Gentlemen off thus ; It is notorious, that Publick Acts, or Laws, either of Church or State, which empower Men to confer fuch Privileges on others, as they could not obtain before fuch Publick Acts or Laws were made; I fay 'tis evident, that fuch publick Laws are generally made in fuch Terms, as do not Exprefly Null and make Void, the Attempts of uncom miffioned |