bis Confcience, or might know, that this was in the Second Edition of Lay-Baptifm Invalid, for be refers to that Edition in his abufive Pamphlet. He cannot deny, that in the fame Edition, P. 155. Iufe thefe very Words, viz. "WHEN IT CAN BE "PROVED, That Chrift has vefted his Church "with fuch a Power, it will neceffarily fol"low, &c." He might have known, that this was in Anfwer to an Objection which affirm'd, that the "Validity of Lay-Baptifm stands on "the Authority of the Church's Power to

GRANT SUCH LICENCE to Lay-men in Extremities." He cannot chufe but be conscious to bimfelf, if he read the Book, that I in the fame Edition, P. 155, 156. fhew'd the Danger of the Church's making ufe of fuch a fuppofed Power'; thefe Paffages are in p. 148, 149, and 150. of this prefent Edition. His Confcience must also tell him, that in p. 83. of Sacerdotal Powers, (which he pretends to quote, tho' he does it very unfairly) I fay concerning Baptifms Adminifter'd by virtue of the Canon of the Council of Eliberis, thefe Words, "IF ANY THING CAN BE SAID for the Vali❝dity of thofe Lay-Baptifms." And p. 85. concerning Midwife-Baptifm, allow'd by the Church of Rome, I fay thus, "So that upon Suppofition, which I DARE NOT GRANT, that thofe Midwife-Baptifms could be defended as Valid, upon the Account of their Bishops having "first granted them fuch Power, &c." - Lastly, to let the World fee a little more of the Integrity of this Writer, he cannot be ignorant that he is very unjuft in his Quotation, from p. 6, and 7. of Diffenter's Baptifm Null and Void; for in p.7. before the Period is finish'd, I fay, concerning the Church's Power to Authorize her Laymen to Baptize,

A 4

Baptize, thus, "Which, whether RIGHT OR "No, is no ways applicable to our Laymen and "Diffenters, who are utterly deftitute of any "fuch Plea, &c." By all which Paffages the Impartial Reader may easily fee, that I do not affirm, that Bishops have Power fo to Authorize Laymen; but that, if Bishops could be fuppos'd, or prov'd to have fuch a Power, yet even then our Diffenters Baptifms are Null and Void notwithftanding. The whole Argument runs upon [if they had Power] [whether Right or no, &c.] But thefe neceffary Connections he purposely omitted, because he knew that if he had inferted them 'twould have difcovered the Falfenefs of bis Charge, and have spoil'd his Defign, of endeavouring to render a Perfon odious, when he was not able to confute that Truth which he had afferted. How aukwardly foever I may have defended it, that must be left to more impartial Judges than this Gentleman has fhew'd himself to be; bowever, thus much He and his Friends have difcovered by their Attempts hitherto, that they dare venture no farther than to nibble at fuch little things, as are wholly foreign to the MAIN MATTER difputed; and this they do without any Argument at all, while the Merits of the Caufe lie neglected by them, as being in their Opinion, either not worth their Regard, or elfe, because the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm is too great a Truth for them exprefly and directly to endeavour to overthrow. This Writer calls upon me to anfwer him pofitively, whether I will bold and maintain, that "Bishops can Authorize Laymen to "Baptize." I hereby affure him, that I will give him no pofitive Anfwer to this Queftion. I will not Declare my elf abfolutely, either for or a

gainst that Power for Cafes of Extremity, but leave it as I found it, and will keep my own Pri vate Opinion about it, to my felf; which I am fure I have a Right to do, without any Obligation to publish it for the Sake of fuch unreasonable and ill-grounded Challenges, as this angry Gentleman bas made me; and this fhall be all the publick Notice that I will take of his unhandfome Performances; (and which indeed is more than due to them) after I have told him, that fome Great Men bold, that Bishops, by their Apoftolic Authority, can Authorize Laymen to Baptize in Cafes of Extremity, i. e. in want of a Prieft: that it is with thefe Gentlemen I have treated in my Three Books (giving them Argumentum ad hominem) upon their own Principles. That there are others who affirm, that Bifhops have not fuch Power; and that 'tis my Affertion, that whether they have or have not this Power, my Principles ftand firm, that Perfons not Commiffion'd, not Authoriz'd, i. e. not really Authoriz'd, (for 'tis not Authority, if 'tis not real) do not Minifter Valid Baptifm; And this is the Cafe of our Diffenters Baptifms, let what will become of that other Queflion. For, if Bishops have not fuch a Power, then 'tis plain, that the Miniftration of Baptifm is an Incommunicable Function of the Standing Priesthood; and fo, no Lay-Miniftration whatsoever can be Valid, by being allow'd, tolerated, licens'd, approv'd of, or authoriz'd by Bishops. This effectually ruins the Caufe of Neceffity, which our Author would plead: Becaufe, if Bishops cannot Authorize Laymen, validly to Baptize in Want of a Prieft; it muft be, becaufe Lay-Chriftians (as fuch) have not a CAPACITY to Receive the Divine Commiffion for fuch an Exigence: And if they have not this Capacity,

་

Capacity, then the Exigence it felf cannot empower or authorize them; except a Negative bas more of Potentiality than the Positive Power of the Bishops; which is abfurd. And therefore our Diffenters (upon this Suppofition) are utterly excluded from Miniftring Valid Baptifm; as they would also, if Neceffity could empower Laymen: For they are under no Cafe of Neceffity, where Priefts are to be bad. And again: If Bishops have fuch a Power to Authorize their own Laymen, as before fpecified; our Bishops have not fo Authoriz'd their Laymen: And if they had, our Diffenting Teachers are not THOSE LAYMEN; but Laymen Anti-Epifcopal, in Rebellion against Epifcopacy it felf; who intrude into other Men's Provinces, and wickedly attempt (Uncall'd and Unfent) to Minifter where there is not fo much as any Pretence of Neceffity for their Intrusion. And therefore, in both Cafes, our Diffenters cannot Minifter Valid Baptifm.

This, concerning their dear Friends, the Diffenters, the Adverfaries know they cannot get over, and therefore it is that they make fuch a Bustle, to raife a Duft that Men's Eyes may be blinded, and fo binder'd from feeing this great Truth. To obftruct which, they endeavour to perfuade the World, that the Priesthood it felf is in New Dangers from thofe very Doctrines, which are the only Support of it; while they themselves are fuch Enemies to the Priesthood, that they are endeavouring effectually to deftroy it by their pernicious Principles, oppofing the Churches Spiritual Independency, the Chriftian Altar, and Sacrifice, Abfolution, and the Miniftration of Baptifm, as Chrift himself appointed it. And this puts me in mind of a late very dangerous Step, that was going to be

made,

made, and which if it had taken Effect, might, without an extraordinary preventing Providence, in a little time bave deftroy'd the whole Sacerdotal Power and Authority with us; and this was an Attempt to establish a strange, and before to us unbeard-of Declaration, that (as thofe who indited it fay) "In Conformity with the Judgment "and Practice of the Catholick Church, and of "the Church of England, in particular..

"Such Perfons as have already been Baptiz'd, ❝in or with Water, in the Name of the Father, "Son, and Holy Ghoft, (Altho' their Baptism was IRREGULAR FOR WANT OF A PROPER "ADMINISTRATOR) ought not to be Baptiz'd a

❝ gain.

The plain English of which is, that fuch Perfons as have already been, contrary to the Law of Chrift, Wash'd or Sprinkled with Water, by any One whatsoever, whether Un-authoriz'd Man, Woman, or Child, Chriftian, Jew, or Heathen, nay, whether they wash'd themselves, or let one of thofe others do it, provided it was but done with thefe Words, [In the Name of the Father, &c.] ought not to be Baptiz'd by a Proper Adminiftrator whom Chrift has appointed. For in ali thefe Cafes, the Washing is Irregular for want of a proper Adminiftrator, and therefore not, what deJerves the Name of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM; tho' the Declaration begs the Question that it is fo, by faying [fach Perfons as have already been Baptiz'd, &c.] For this Irregularity is an Effential Irregularity, because contrary to the Pofitive Inftitution of Chriftian Baptifm, and 'tis Irregular for no other Reafon, but its being without, or contrary to that Rule; as this Book is defign'd to prove. An Endeavour to make the World believe,

that