"ter." In Page 19 of his Book, he further acquaints us, That he do's "not pretend "to enter into the Merits of the Caufe, nor "to Difpute whether Lay-Baptifm be Valid, "or Invalid, nor whether it be Lawful, or "Unlawful to Reabaptize [as he calls it] "fuch as have been Baptiz'd by Lay"Hands." And Laftly, to put us out of all Doubt concerning the Defign of his Book, he says, in his Conclufion, Page 38. "Thus I have gone through the little Work "I undertook, which was, not to prove the "Validity of Lay-Baytifm, no? to prove "the Baptifm of Diffenters to be Good and "Valid, in Oppofition to the Author of Lay"Baptifm's Invalidity, or in Oppofition to "Dr. Hicks, his Abetter and Encourager; "This [fays he] was not my Design; but "to make good my Pofition, That the Church "of England bath, by no Publick Aut of "hers, made or declared Lay-Baptifm "to be Invalid. Both thofe Writers [fays le] had affirm'd, that the Church of Eng"land accounts Lay-Baptifm, and the "Baptifm of Diffenting Minifters to be "Invalid; as far as they have affirm'd "that, I have concern'd my self with them, "and no farther.

§. II.

§. II. Thus we see our Author's Design; and if we may believe him, 'tis the whole of his Undertaking; but how true that is, will be fhewn in the procefs of this Anfwer; at prefent 'tis very remarkable, how fhy he is of the main Matter' Disputed! and his faying, that the little Work he undertook was not to prove the Validity of LayBaptifm, &c. looks as if he did not think his Suppofed Judgment of the Church concerninng that Matter, to be any proof for the Validity thereof; for, if he did in truth believe, that her Opinion was any good Proof, that Lay-Baptifm is Valid, his endeavouring to produce her Opinion, would have fhewn, and he must have acknowledg'd it, that his Defign was to prove, in Oppofition to the two Author's he mentions, that Lay Baptifm and the Diffenters Baptifm is Good and Valid; But he is well aware that bare Opinion is no Proof; and therefore he very Judiciously! waves the Merits of the Cause.

§. III. But how much foever he pretends to evade the main Matter Difputed, viz. Whether Lay-Baptifm be Valid or Invalid, he will find himself to be deeply concern'd in it; and that Men will judge, that the Defign of his Undertaking was, not only

to oppose the Inferences which Dr. Hicks and his Friend have drawn from the Church's Articles and Rubricks; but also to endeavour to prove, the Valididity of our Diffenting Teachers and other Lay-Baptifms; this in due time will be prov'd upon him, and the Infufficiency of his Imaginary Arguments from the Church's fuppos'd Opinion in this Weighty Matter, will fairly be reprefented to the Reader's View.

But before I concern my felf with his way of Arguing, I muft inform the Reader, that the Matter in Difpute is only this, viz. Whether Perfons not Authoriz'd by their Bifhops to Baptize, especially when they act in oppofition to Epifcopacy it felf, can adminifter Valid Baptifm. This, in fhort, is the Great Queftion which has been very largely Dif cufs'd; and those who have Treated of it, have (among other Arguments) infifted upon the Church of England's Articles and Rubricks, as ftanding Evidences, against fuch Perfons adminiftring Valid Baptifm: And that the Confequences of the Church's Publick Acts, do Null and make Void, fuch Unauthoriz'd and Anti-Epifcopal Baptifms. 'Tis in Oppofition to this, that our Author now exerts himfelf; but with what ftrength of Argument, I come now to Enquire,

§. IV.

§. IV. The Pofition he lays down, and which he pretends is the only Defign of his Book to prove, is this, Page ift. "That the "Church of England hath by no Publick "Act of Hers, made or declared Lay-Bap"tifm to be Invalid." This he endeavours to evidence by three fuppos'd Arguments. ft, From the two first CommonPrayer-Books in the the Reign of King Edward the VIth. Publifh'd, Anno 1549, and 1552. In both which Books, it was allow'd, that in Private Baptifm (which was for Cafes of Neceffity) one of the Perfons present should Name and Baptize the Child: From whence our Author concludes, Page the 2d and 4th, That as in Times of Popery, fo in our firft Reformation, the Baptism of Lay-men and Midwives was allow'd; and that it was then the Belief of the Church of England, That a Child Baptiz'd by a Lay Perfon in due Matter and Form, is Lawfully and Perfectly Baptiz'd. To which, I Answer, That our Author himself do's in his 18th Page Confute the Pofitiveness of this Affertion; for, there he tells thus us, "Even the "Rubrick of King Edward's Book was fo

worded, as to leave it Difputable and "Doubtful, whether the Church allow'd or "intended to allow of Lay-Baptifm in Ca " fes of Neceffity." This fhews how unB 4 certain

L..

4

certain he is in this Matter: But I further affirm, that it cannot be prov'd from the Church's Publick Act in thofe two Common-Prayer-Books, that the Church believ'd Unauthoriz'd Perfons could adminifter Valid Baptifm; and my Reason is this, because the Rubrick, as this Author himfelf quotes it, Prge 1 and 2, fays, "Let "them that be prefent call upon God, &c. "And then one of them Shall Name "the Child, and Dip him in the Water, or pour the Water upon him, faying thefe "Words, ---N. I Baptize thee, &c. whereby it is plain, the Bishops in those Days Commanded this Baptifm; [one of them Shall do it] efteeming themselves to have Authority to Command, and thereby to impower fuch a Baptizer for that Time and Circumftance; and therefore the Perfon Baptizing acted then [in the Opinion of the Church] by Authority of the Bishops; they were the commanding Power, which gave a Suppos'd Authority to fuch Administrators, at the beginning of the Reformation: So that, whatsoever Validity fuch Baptisms were believ'd to have had, it was owing to the Baptizer's acting, (not by any pretended Power or Authority of his own, much lefs in Oppofition to the Church, but) by Virtue of the Church's Power and Authoty, fuppos'd to have been committed to the Members