« PoprzedniaDalej »
$? THOSE who have been Baptiz'd by Per« fons not lapfully Ordaind, and consequently " they have receip'd no Baptifm, having receiv?d
it from those who had ng Commission to admi
nister it, but; who were guilty of the highest " Sacrilege in ufurping such a Sacred Commillion, Se pot lapfully deriva to them by 4 Successive " Ordination from the Apostles : [as is the Case with us) But yet, throa General Corrupction of the Times, Such Baptifms are Suffer'd « to pass, whereby the Persons lo baptiz'd/wim.
ming down the Stream, do ihink their Baptism to be Valid, and therefore seek not for a Re-baptization”, [ I had rather say True Baptism? from those who are empower?d, 40
Administer it. i say, where no such Re-baptization (or rather True Baptism ] “ js
. 50 taught, and thereby the People know nothing of
in such case, their Ignorance is in a man ner invincible, and their Sincerity and Devoti. on in Receiving no Sacraments, yet thinking
them True Sacraments, may be accepted by God, Case does not reach those who do, or may know and act better; and is the whole of my Charity in this Matter, and, I think, a fuffi. cient Answer to the Objection,
V, Another Objection in Defence of the Validity of Baptisms administer'd by such as have not the Divine Commission, is the Example of Zipporah, Moses's Wife, who circum
' 104 Lay: Baptism cis’d her Son, and thereby saved her Hufi band's Lite; for God sought to kill Moses; and when she had circumcis'd her Son, he let him go; and theřefore approv?d of her Aa so doing, tho' she had no Right to do so by the Institution.
Anfió: Whosoever will but look into the first Inftitution of Circumcision, will find, That God did not set apart a Particular Order of Men for this purpose; but only requird, Gen. 17. 10. Every Man-Child among you all be circumcisid, &c, to the 15th Verfe Every Male must be circumcised : But the Persons who Thould continually administer this Círcumcifion, are not nam'd in the Institution.
Nay, tho? it should be granted, that Circumcision was to be perform'd by the Master, as he was the Priest of his family.; yet it does not follow, that Zipporah did any thing more than what she had a Right to do; because her Husband's Authority was devolva upon“ her in his 'Sickness, when he was un. able to do it himself; Especially, considering that this Sickness was inflicted upon him, be'cause his Son had not been circumcis'd'; and that he might therefore 'order his Wife to do it in his stead ; and consequently, 'twas interpretatively done by himself, because by his Authority; As we find in the Iflue, by. God's perform’d; and by Zipporah's Words to Moses, when she had cut off the Fore-Skin of her.
Son, and cast it at his Feet, faying, A blondy Husband thou art, because of the Circumcision, Exod. 16.25
25, 26. which plainly implies, that she did it for his Sake, and by his Order. But what does all this avail to those, who knowingly receive, or acquiesce in Baptism receivid, from such as have no Divine Commission; when they may be Baptiz’d by Christ's own Ministers, whom he has particularly appointed, exclusive of all others, to Baptize? This is Acting even contrary to the Example here objected ; because, by all that can be seen in the Text, she acted by a Divine Commission, even by Virtue of an Immediate Revelation to Moses, her Husband, whom God doubtless acquainted with the Cause of his Displeasure, and the Means of appealing his Anger by this Circumcision of his Son: Which was an Exstraordinary and Unufual Cafe, and not at all parallel to the Unauthoriz'd Ministrations of those who act in Opposition to that Divine Commission, which has been fuccessively handed down from Christ and his Apostles, in all Ages.
VI. Another Objection is a Maxim, which fome would perswade us will hold good in Christian Baptism; and that is, Fieri non de bet ; Faktum valet : i.e. It is not lawful to be done ; yet being done, 'tis Valid.
Answ. Tho this Maxim may hold good in Circumstantials of some Secular Cases, yet
show, SUODATURAL 196 Lay-Baptism does not therefore follow that it will fo in all, or indeed in
any of the Essentials of Worldlý Matters, For Example: Tis not Lawful for me
to make a Man Free of the City of Lon don; and tho? I should be never fo ferious and formal in pretending, or should really fuppose my self to have fufficient Authority to give fuch-a Freedom; yet 'tis certain, that such a Freedom given by me would never be Valid: The Man
must receive a Legal Freedom, not withstanding the Counterfeit one he had of me. The like may be juftly affirm’d of the Naturalization of Foreigners, and many other great Concerns of this World, And if this Maxim will not hold good in these and Abundance of other Worldly Things, how much less in those of an infinitely higher Na ture in the Divine Positive Institutions which God has made to be the Means and Pledges of Supernatural Benefits, to be conferr’d on us commiffion d and Authoriz?d Ambassadors ? Espe cially when we remember, that this Maxim was never appointed by him to be our Rule and Guide in any of our Affairs, much less in those of a Religious and Spiritual Nature; as without all doubt Christian Baptism is. Be fides, The Objection acknowledges that it is Bot Lawful, therefore ?tis Sinful. Tis a Şin against an Essential of the Institution ; and
POSES, is utterly inconceivable; nay, 'tiş abominable to affirm it.
VII. Another Objection which I have heard of, is, That the Council of Eliberis, Anno 395, allow'd of Lay-Baptism in a Case of Ne cefsity; That the Church of Rome does fo to this Day; And that the Church of England did so in the Reign of King Edward the VIth, of Queen Elizabeth, and in the Beginning of King James the Ift.; as is plain, by the several Common-Prayer Books in those Days, pare ticularly King Edward's, Anno 1552, and King James's, 1621. to be seen at Sion College Library in London,
Answ. I grant the Truth of these Matters of Fa&t; and yet affirm, That those Allowan, ces, be they of what Consequence they will, are not of any Validity for our Unauthorized and Anti-Episcopal Baptisms.
As for the Council of Eliberis, I have cited it Pag, 11 and 12 of
of my Preliminary Discourse, and made such Remarks thereon, aş will utterly frustrate the Design of this Objection; and therefore I refer the Reader back to it, for his Satisfa&ion.
Next for the Church of Rome, her Allowances in this Case are no Rule to us Protestants, who haye separated from her, for her many gross Errors, both in Doctrine and Practice: She began to quarrel with St. Cyprian, and other Primitive Bishops, and carried it very unchristianly against them, for not allowing