no Inftituted Baptizer; his miniftration is not effectual; his Act, is no visible Signing Sealing, or giving a Pledge on God's Part; his medling in the Matter is not the miniftring of the Sacrament, and therefore a total Nullity in all Refpects. Thus far we have seen the Church's Senfe in this Matter, as deliver'd to us by her Articles of Religion, which are her ftanding Laws, by which all her Members are oblig'd to be Govern'd.

. XII. As for the other Laws of the Church, as they ftand at prefent, 'tis evident, that they allow of no perfect or valid Baptifm without a lawful Minifter: For, the 30th Canon fpeaking of this Matter, fays, That "When the Minifter dipping the

infant in Water, or laying Water upon "the Face of it (as the manner alfo is) hath "pronounced thefe Words; 3 Baptife thee "in the Mame of the Father, and of "the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, "the Infant is fully and perfectly Baptiz'd 'Tis by the Canon, the Minister's doing this, that makes the full and perfect Baptifm; She does not fay, or fo much as intimate, that it is, or can be perfect Baptifm, without the Minifter; and the means nothing elfe by Minifter here, than one authoriz'd lawfully, as is plain by the abovefaid ArC 2 ticles,

ticles, and by all other her publick A&s whatfoever.

-

. XIII. And what this lawful Authority is, the Preface to her Book of Ordination determins and Limits, (for that is also another of her Laws) viz. "That none fhall be "fuffer'd to execate any of the Functions "[of a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon] except "he hath had formerly Epifcopal Confecra"tion, or Ordination." "Tis the Function of thofe Spiritual Officers to Baptize, and therefore this Law of the Church fays, That None fhall be fuffer'd to Baptize, except he hath had Epifcopal Ordination. And for this her juft and Neceffary Law, fhe appeals (in the very beginning of her faid Preface) not only to Antiquity; but alfo to the Teftimony of the Holy Scriptures themselves; that Men may fee, fhe is not Arbitrary in this Injunction, but Govern'd therein by that Sacred Law, which obliges her and all other Churches in this Particular of Epifcopal Ordination, to the end of the World. But to proceed,

§. XIV. 'Tis to one or other of thefe Lawful Minifters, that our Church in another of her Laws, do's now Confine and Limit the Miniftration of Baptifm, and that is in her Office for Private Baptifm; when

Children

Children are in danger of Death; For by all the Rubricks or Rules of that Office, 'tis requir'd and Commanded, that the " Minifter "of the Parish (or in his abfence any other "lawful Minifter that can be procur'd) shall Baptize the Child: The Church now provides no other Baptizer; fhe leaves Children to Die without Baptifm, rather than give allowance to any other to Baptize them in fuch Cafes of Extremity: And can we believe that if fhe thought Lay-Baptifm to be Valid in its own Nature, fhe would have made fuch Laws as confine Baptifm to the Minifter of the Parish, or any other lawful Minister; Infomuch, that whofoever else should now attempt to Baptize, in Cafes of Extremity, would involve himself in Sin, by prefuming like Saul and others, to meddle in Sacred Matters, where neither God nor his Church have allow'd him to concern himself? Can we piously believe, that she denies even our Princes, and confequently all other unauthoriz'd Laymen, to have the Power of miniftring Sacraments, as we fee fhe do's by her Articles; and in Confequence of this, in her prefent Office of Private Baptifm, allow of no other than a Lawful Minifter to Baptize; when at the fame time fhe Teaches, that the Sacraments are generally neceffary to Salvation; i.e. neceffary to the Salvation

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 the 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 Ministration 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 fo 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