May a woman baptize?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joseph Scibbe

Puritan Board Junior
I am surprised that anyone evangelical and reformed would ask this question! The Bible is clear on subject of male leadership. One compromise will usually lead to another; possibly, possibly female Elders.
Dennis Fetherbay, RPCNA, Endicott, N.Y. (Reformed Baptist, would like to be totally Presbyterian and would except the Baptism issue)

That's quite a jump from allowing a female friend to baptize to ordaining women.

I take exception to the Confession at this point. I think an elder should oversee the baptism but would allow her to baptize. I know I among the minority on this issue (I do that a lot here).

Joseph, do you care to share why you think it acceptable for the female friend to baptize the young lady?

First, I see no direct command for only elders to do so. Also, I think that the 3,000 people converted and baptized would make it an impossible task for only the 12 apostles to do in one day. I assume there must have been some lay involvement.
 

MississippiBaptist

Puritan Board Freshman
Interesting discussion. I'll address the 'only elders' may baptize.

First, as a non-elder in my local church, I baptized both of my older daughters. What higher privilege for a father who was commanded to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord? Once the pastor agreed that they were legitimate candidates for baptism then I do not see the actual act as holding authority over/in the church.

If the organist hands the Lord Supper sacraments to the lady next to her is she now in a position of authority?

I must admit my ignorance of the confessional aspect. Rookie. Teaching/preaching in the church inherently carries authority but I just do not see performing a baptism, sanctioned by the church elders, as carrying any authority. The pp who used the Great Commission passage brings up a valid point. If an elder believes that they are the only ones qualified to baptize then the Great Commission cannot be invoked to command the laymen to evangelize and disciple.
 

Andres

Puritan Board Doctor
I must admit my ignorance of the confessional aspect. Rookie. Teaching/preaching in the church inherently carries authority but I just do not see performing a baptism, sanctioned by the church elders, as carrying any authority. The pp who used the Great Commission passage brings up a valid point. If an elder believes that they are the only ones qualified to baptize then the Great Commission cannot be invoked to command the laymen to evangelize and disciple.

I am glad you understand the authoritative aspect of preaching but why do you divorce the sacraments from this? Preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments go hand and hand. As for your last comment "the Great Commission cannot be invoked to command the laymen to evangelize", many on this board, including myself, would not disagree with that statement.
 

MississippiBaptist

Puritan Board Freshman
I am glad you understand the authoritative aspect of preaching but why do you divorce the sacraments from this? Preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments go hand and hand. As for your last comment "the Great Commission cannot be invoked to command the laymen to evangelize", many on this board, including myself, would not disagree with that statement.

Andrew, I do not see the administration of the Lord's Supper and Baptism as something that Scripture limits to Elders. I see them married in tradition but not in Scripture.
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
John L. Dagg, the first published Southern Baptist, said this:

“It has been held, that, in case of necessity, the rite may be administered by laymen and even by women. Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on the outward ceremony, have held that any one who makes a disciple, may baptize him. According to this interpretation of the commission, it would be proper for a mother, whose instructions have been blessed to the conversion of her son, to be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation is inadmissible. If some of the work [ i.e. preaching] to which the apostles were specially appointed, may, to some extent, be performed by other persons, it does not follow, that these persons are invested in full with the apostolic commission.”
“The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide … they were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them. … This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select …”
“… although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet the manner in which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to indicate that the connection is suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere provided in the New Testament, for administering the rite, and yet, if we have reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to provide for it. … we have this point established: - the authority to administer baptism is conferred in the ordinary course of the ministerial succession, when an individual, called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry of the word, is publicly set apart to this service.”
-A TREATISE ON CHURCH ORDER by J.L Dagg 1858
 

ericfromcowtown

Puritan Board Sophomore
No.

I can't see how anyone could look at this hypothetical baptism and not see a woman in a leadership / authoritative role in the church.

On another thread it was discussed if a trinitarian-formulated baptism by a male leader in the church, who was not ordained, was valid. The consensus seemed to be that while the baptism was valid, the situation was not normative, and was quite odd.

The situation in this post is one dangerous leap away from the odd and not normative of that previous post.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Wel, I guess if he stood up really high and threw buckets of water over the crowd...
Sssssssploooooosh!




Or maybe it was more similar to what is described Heb.9:19 (Ex.24:8),

"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law,
he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and
all the people"​


(one of, or the most significant of, the "various baptisms," v10).
 
Last edited:

Brandon1

Puritan Board Freshman
In the history of the Church the answer is, yes.

This is what the deaconesses were commonly set apart to do. Reformed Confessions seem to restrict the officiant as an ordained officer bearer but the early church did not have such criteria. Part of this is because it was not uncommon to baptize in the nude, and so as not to incur the charge of immorality, women baptized women and ordained men (either deacons or priests) baptized men.

If your church is not bound by a confession and you would like to pursue this avenue, you have historical precedent, though not Reformed confessionalist precedent.
 

MississippiBaptist

Puritan Board Freshman
John L. Dagg, the first published Southern Baptist, said this:

“It has been held, that, in case of necessity, the rite may be administered by laymen and even by women. Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on the outward ceremony, have held that any one who makes a disciple, may baptize him. According to this interpretation of the commission, it would be proper for a mother, whose instructions have been blessed to the conversion of her son, to be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation is inadmissible. If some of the work [ i.e. preaching] to which the apostles were specially appointed, may, to some extent, be performed by other persons, it does not follow, that these persons are invested in full with the apostolic commission.”
“The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide … they were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them. … This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select …”
“… although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet the manner in which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to indicate that the connection is suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere provided in the New Testament, for administering the rite, and yet, if we have reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to provide for it. … we have this point established: - the authority to administer baptism is conferred in the ordinary course of the ministerial succession, when an individual, called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry of the word, is publicly set apart to this service.”
-A TREATISE ON CHURCH ORDER by J.L Dagg 1858


“The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide … they were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them. … This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select …”

In building his defense Dagg reveals that indeed the administration of baptism was not assigned or regulated in to a specific office.

To me, a good analogy to baptism is the reading of a verdict in a courtroom. When Karen Delpilar read the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial she was meeting the requirement that the verdict be read in open court; however, Delpilar carried absolutely no authority in the case other than executing the reading. If she decided to say 'guilty' instead of 'not guilty' to the charge of murder it would be have been meaningless. Same is true in a non-confessional church if a person is given permission to baptize. They are executing the will of the church leaders however they carry no authority in the matter. I'm trying to see both sides of this argument but I just do not see a scriptural prohibition against laymen baptizing in the church.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
John L. Dagg, the first published Southern Baptist, said this:

“It has been held, that, in case of necessity, the rite may be administered by laymen and even by women. Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on the outward ceremony, have held that any one who makes a disciple, may baptize him. According to this interpretation of the commission, it would be proper for a mother, whose instructions have been blessed to the conversion of her son, to be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation is inadmissible. If some of the work [ i.e. preaching] to which the apostles were specially appointed, may, to some extent, be performed by other persons, it does not follow, that these persons are invested in full with the apostolic commission.”
“The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide … they were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them. … This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select …”
“… although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet the manner in which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to indicate that the connection is suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere provided in the New Testament, for administering the rite, and yet, if we have reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to provide for it. … we have this point established: - the authority to administer baptism is conferred in the ordinary course of the ministerial succession, when an individual, called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry of the word, is publicly set apart to this service.”
-A TREATISE ON CHURCH ORDER by J.L Dagg 1858

Bob, leave it to Dagg. Thanks.

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
Wel, I guess if he stood up really high and threw buckets of water over the crowd...

Or dipped a hyssop branch in water and sprinkled it on the new converts. That could be done fairly quickly. Tying up what may have been the only water source inside Jerusalem for most of the day seems rather unlikely. :2cents:
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Benjamin Keach, one of the signers of the LBC 1689:

[Ministers] have the charge of God's ordinances, or the holy sacraments of baptism, and the Lord's supper. (Matt 28:19,29; 1Cor 11:23,24) They must not corrupt the ordinances, nor administer them otherwise that the plain rule, left in the Word of God, directeth. Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible; pg. 834

I suppose it could be argued that because of LBC 26:11, which says..

Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.

Those who aren't ministers of the word, but are gifted, fitted, approved and called might also administer the sacraments. That is a far cry from saying that just anyone can administer baptism.

BTW, which 'Reformed' Baptists are advocating that 'anyone' can administer baptism?
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Reformed Confessions seem to restrict the officiant as an ordained officer bearer but the early church did not have such criteria.
We need to distinguish between what the church was doing, three-to-four-hundred years after the apostolic era, and what the Bible itself says and teaches.

In between the apostolic era and the post-Nicene era (both which may be classed as "early church") there is no small factors for change in church structure and practice. We have for example the influence of political organization: the "efficiency" and "glory" of the empire are borrowed by the church. And pertinent to the issue of the sacraments, there is the pressure of the Gnostic "mystery-religions" and the extravagant ritual of the idolaters.

Because of the "simplicity" of Christian rites--both baptism and the Lord's Supper--there was a carnal desire to elaborate the "Christian-mysteries," in order to make them just as "exciting" and imbued with magic as the rites of the "competition" (mainly the mystery-religions). The elaboration of the L.S. into the mass is knowledge common enough. Likewise, baptism underwent a similar elaboration.

From a simple rite, that could be performed instantly, described simply by standing up (Act.9:18), or the bringing of water (Act.10:47); baptism became a huge event, a showpiece for Christianity--or rather, in richly endowed settings it was removed to its own adjacent site, where nudity (and other extravagances) was added as part of the ritual. In that context, I'm sure women-assistants (including the "deaconesses") were much to be appreciated.

Just because we can find the church, even the early church, doing certain things doesn't mean that such things defy analysis, or withstand critique on biblical grounds. The plain fact that there had to be women for this task (instead of a proper church-officer to perform his ministry for a female member) calls the whole issue into question, precedent or no.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Or dipped a hyssop branch in water and sprinkled it on the new converts. That could be done fairly quickly. Tying up what may have been the only water source inside Jerusalem for most of the day seems rather unlikely

That's good, I'd never thought of that. And the hygiene factor if they were dunked into that precious water. People would have gotten bent out of shape.
 

itsreed

Puritan Board Freshman
Look a this from the angle of worship. Is it biblically proper to administer the Lord's Supper apart from a worship service duly constituted under the elder's authority? Us Presbyterians would say no.

Similarly we would look at baptism. It is not properly administered outside of a worship service duly constituted under the authority of the elders. This at least tells us that the baptism must in some manner be noticeably administered on the basis of the authority of the elders.

But how about the question of the woman administering the water alongside, or in the presence of the pastor. Well, consider the similar situation with the Lord's Supper. Would it be biblically proper for the pastor to be standing at the table while an elder's wife gives the words of institution or prays for the consecration of the elements, or then initiates the distribution? Clearly such actions cannot be divorced from the exercise of spiritual authority that is only given to elders. One might attempt to make a verbal argument that the woman officiating is acting under the pastor's authority, but that is mere sophism no matter how well intentioned.

The same applies here. The act of baptism, from beginning to end, is a symbolic act picturing the person and ministry of Christ. It is only proper in worship (no private baptisms). It is only rightly administered in the same manner that the Lord's Supper is rightly administered. If you believe a woman cannot officiate in the Lord's Supper, ditto baptism.
 

MississippiBaptist

Puritan Board Freshman
Good, and informative discourse. Concerning laymen executing a baptism, it seems to me that those who are deeply steeped in the confessions, this is a no brainer but to those who may not be so informed about the confessions but have a high view a Scripture show some reservations. When going against the Reformers I will concede to their position until proven otherwise.

Standing next to a Senior pastor and being told, "You may baptize person _____________", I still find it difficult to say that is wrong. I'm a creado and I consider it a blessing that I can, with the church's approval, baptize my children. I'm still searching the Scriptures and open to guidance.
 

steadfast7

Puritan Board Junior
speculation on whether 12 apostles could possibly baptize 3000 people is as fruitless as how 12 apostles could possibly serve an afternoon lunch of bread and fish to 5000 men, plus women and children.

I believe a baptism does not HAVE to be done by certain individuals in order to be written in heaven's logs, we are not instructed on so much as that. But we should ask not what is minimally permissible, but what is most appropriate and best as a testimony in the church.
 

Brandon1

Puritan Board Freshman
Bruce,

You are right about needing to analyze why the Church did what it did. For example, Tertullian argues that baptism was not restricted to the clergy (although it was to be preferred). Hey says,

To round off our slight treatment of this subject it remains
for me to advise you of the rules to be observed in giving and
receiving baptism. The supreme right of giving it belongs to the
high priest, which is the bishop : after him, to the presbyters and
deacons, yet not without commission from the bishop, on account
of the Church's dignity: for when this is safe, peace is safe.
Except for that, even laymen have the right: 'for that which is
received on equal terms can be given on equal terms : unless per-
haps you are prepared to allege that our Lord's disciples were
already bishops or presbyters or deacons: that is, as the word
ought not to be hidden by any man, so likewise baptism, which is
no less declared to be "of God", can be administered by all.'
Yet how much rather are the rules of humility and restraint
incumbent upon laymen, seeing they apply to greater persons,who must not arrogate to themselves the function of the bishop.

But it must be added that Tertullian also rejects the idea of a woman baptizing immediately following this by saying,

Opposition to the episcopate is the mother of schisms. The holy
apostle has said that all things are lawful but all things are not
expedient:1 which means it is enough that you should use <this
right> in emergencies, if ever conditions of place or time or person
demand it. The boldness of a rescuer is acceptable when he is
constrained to it by the necessities of the man in peril, since he
will be guilty of a man's destruction if he forbears to give the
help he is free and able to give. But the impudence of that
woman who assumed the right to teach is evidently not going to
arrogate to her the right to baptize as well - unless perhaps some
new serpent appears, like that original one
,2 so that as that woman
abolished baptism, some other should of her own authority confer
it. But if certain Acts of Paul, which are falsely so named,
claim the example of Thecla for allowing women to teach and
to baptize, let men know that in Asia the presbyter who com-
piled that document, thinking to add of his own to Paul's
reputation, was found out, and though he professed he had
done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position. How
could we believe that Paul should give a female power to teach
and to baptize, when he did not allow a woman even to learn by
her own right? Let them keep silence, he says, and ask their husbands
at home
.3

Furthermore if you read Ch. 7 of the Didache, it is not clearly stated who the proper officiant of baptism is, but what is prescribed is that they ought to fast.
The question of laity baptizing in rare circumstances is permitted very early.

However, it seems that the use of women in the baptismal rite occurs later and is not as widespread. Certainly clergyman are always to be preferred.

But the question that some (including the WCF) raise about only ordained men being allowed to baptize is not as readily apparent in Scripture or tradition in my opinion. It is normative, but I'm not convinced universal. Perhaps better minds can convince me.
 

Joseph Scibbe

Puritan Board Junior
speculation on whether 12 apostles could possibly baptize 3000 people is as fruitless as how 12 apostles could possibly serve an afternoon lunch of bread and fish to 5000 men, plus women and children.

I believe a baptism does not HAVE to be done by certain individuals in order to be written in heaven's logs, we are not instructed on so much as that. But we should ask not what is minimally permissible, but what is most appropriate and best as a testimony in the church.

The difference is that no one here is arguing that church potlucks can be served by elders only. In fact you kind of show my point. 12 apostles could not have baptized the 3,000 in one which, to me, indicates lay baptisms under the authority of the elders. I am not advocating that people just baptize each other whenever but that; in a local church setting, under the authority of the elders, a lay person can baptize.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
speculation on whether 12 apostles could possibly baptize 3000 people is as fruitless as how 12 apostles could possibly serve an afternoon lunch of bread and fish to 5000 men, plus women and children.

If you simply mean that we are not told specifically how the baptisms and distributions took place and that to guess is speculative, I would agree. But I do not belong to a denomination that insists that baptism be administered in one and only way in order to be valid, either.

The question that was asked, however, was a good one. Did only the Twelve administer the sacrament/ordinance of baptism that day of Pentecost or didn't they? Questions about logistics do arise, which is why the question was raised in the first place (otherwise this would be :offtopic:). Is it possible for only the Twelve to have done this on one day in Jerusalem? Absolutely, and the text does not suggest otherwise. If we do not have a good textual reason for for thinking that unordained laymen were involved, then we should not read that into the text.


I believe a baptism does not HAVE to be done by certain individuals in order to be written in heaven's logs, we are not instructed on so much as that. But we should ask not what is minimally permissible, but what is most appropriate and best as a testimony in the church.

If you are saying that there may arise extreme circumstances where a baptism might need to be performed by a non-ordained person (such as a remote location on the mission field where a missionary might not be available), then that might be a possible scenario where I would agree with you. It would be an extreme situation, of course. Obviously the situation cited in the OP does not apply.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
12 apostles could not have baptized the 3,000 in one which, to me, indicates lay baptisms under the authority of the elders.

I disagree. They could have done so, if one does not hold to baptism having to be done in one particular manner. There are other logistics questions that would also need to be explored (e.g., why would the powers that be in Jerusalem allow limited water sources in the city to be tied up in such a way by the disciples for most of the day) for this to be a valid argument, but that goes beyond the bounds of this thread. A new thread can be started, however.
 
Last edited:

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
Tim, in keeping with the terms of my self-imposed exile here I'll likely not offer a response :um: -- but could you explain what you mean by, and then provide the basis for your statement about Jerusalem's "only water supply"?

Thanks, brother!
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Brandon,
I'm going to assume we're pretty much on the same page. And I don't think I have the arguments that today would overwhelmingly persuade you of the normative prescription of Scripture on the matter. 1Cor.4:1 seems too clear to me. I'd trust your pastor (whom I know) to teach you with far more facility than I.


in my opinion, Tertullian's case 100+yrs removed from the apostles' days only reveals what a mixed-bag the church (largely cut-off from its Jewish heritage) became, in short order. At least, by the grace of God, their main efforts were put toward defining and defending the main things in the early-going.

A couple other things are worthy of attention. Tertullian's contributions to our perceptions of the church in his day are invaluable. But they have to be evaluated in both a parts-and-whole fashion. His (and presumably a good portion of the church's) understanding of the "magical" (used advisedly) properties of baptism and the sacraments generally leads to views that are decidedly consistent with those starting notions.

The idea of that baptism is most probably needful to eradicate original sin (and cleanses actual sins committed up until a baptismal rite performed) leads to the consideration of "emergency" baptism, which leads to the principle that it is better for a layman to perform it than it not be performed in extremis. But even he is abundantly clear that the rule is to be followed:
But how much more is the rule96 of reverence and modesty incumbent on laymen - seeing that these powers97 belong to their superiors - lest they assume to themselves the specific98 function of the bishop! Emulation of the episcopal office is the mother of schisms.
In the limited cases where lay-baptism is encouraged, it seems to me it is for theologically deficient reasons.

We can see where the improper premises lead to another theological conclusion respecting baptism. Tertullian also counsels delay of baptism, as long as possible, for its presumed benefits. This, in fact, is the pragmatic reason why he counsels against the common practice of baptizing infants--because it dissipates the supreme efficacy of the rite on those who have none or hardly any actual sins beside their original-sin to dispose of. Tertullian's theological method isn't wrong (sound theological premises lead to equally certain theological conclusions); but if one premise is deficient or simply wrong, the conclusion will also be deficient or completely false.

My point is simply this: its possible to use Tertullian to show that lay-baptism (when it may have been performed in the 2nd-3rd century) was both extraordinary on his own terms, and irresponsibly predicated, at least according to our "mature" theological reflection.
_______________________________________________________


As to the Didache, I don't find the argument from silence at all compelling (if by non-designation, we are asked to conclude that who should officiate might be an open issue). Neither does the text (SFAIK) indicate that the prophets/teachers, bishops or deacons even have the sole authority to administer the eucharist (but note the encouragement of 10.7, in which the extraordinary officer appears desired to perform the function). Baptism is occasional, the L.S. regular. Bottom line, I can't see the omission of reference to a designated officiant for the service as indicating anything of an open question.

But I am willing to acknowledge the evidence (from Tertulliam) that lay-baptisms in extremis were considered (however often they may have happened) as early as the late 2ndC.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
Tim, in keeping with the terms of my self-imposed exile here I'll likely not offer a response -- but could you explain what you mean by, and then provide the basis for your statement about Jerusalem's "only water supply"?

Thanks, brother!

Phil, I will respond via PM. Such a discussion is way off topic for this thread.
 

Brandon1

Puritan Board Freshman
Bruce,

Thanks for the interaction (you are right to assume we are basically on the same page). In no way was I trying to argue for the ordinary practice of lay baptism--Tertullian would protest too.

I just wanted to point out that the early church did not have unanimous opinion on the topic.

I also just wanted to include the Didache to show that it did not specify who the baptizer's were to be. Obviously the Didache is an early expression of the faith and by no means complete or universal. I just wanted to point that the issue of the officiant was not a concern of the author. There are varying reasons why this could be, but given Tertullian's comments thought I would mention it as additional early testimony on baptism because these are the two earliest sources.
 

HoldFast

Puritan Board Freshman
Tim, in keeping with the terms of my self-imposed exile here I'll likely not offer a response -- but could you explain what you mean by, and then provide the basis for your statement about Jerusalem's "only water supply"?

Thanks, brother!

Phil, I will respond via PM. Such a discussion is way off topic for this thread.

I would be interested in knowing the support for this claim as well. I'm not sure how explaining a statement that was considered "on topic" is considered being "off topic."
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
Tim, in keeping with the terms of my self-imposed exile here I'll likely not offer a response -- but could you explain what you mean by, and then provide the basis for your statement about Jerusalem's "only water supply"?

Thanks, brother!

Phil, I will respond via PM. Such a discussion is way off topic for this thread.

I would be interested in knowing the support for this claim as well. I'm not sure how explaining a statement that was considered "on topic" is considered being "off topic."

The thread is about whether an unordained woman may baptize. It is not about mode of baptism. The "on topic" post earlier was the one speculating whether the the Twelve performed the baptisms themselves or had others assisting. But we are not -- and consider this to be a mod warning -- going to have a thread about that subject matter devolve into a discussion about mode of baptism, when that is not even remotely the concern of the OP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top