Obrazy na stronie
[ocr errors]

fpenfation, as I have provid under the First and Second Propositions. And a Lay-man's Baptizing to confer supernatural Benefits, is NO INDIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE in the Power of Man to determine and

ap point, as was the Posture of Lying or Leaning along, when the Church of the Jews appointed it; and therefore, from that Church's Example, and our Saviour's conformity thereto, no Argument can be drawn to support the Validity of Lay-Baptism, even in Cases of greatest Ņecessity, because the Quality of the Person who is Authoriz’d to Baptize for Supernatural Purposes, is determind by'no other than a mere Positive Divine Institution. And no Cases of Nécessity whatsoever can determin any

other Means for the Conveyance of Supernatural Benefits, than what are already reveald to us, except God shall be pleas'a to make some New Revelation of his Will for such a Purpose. -1. Billon,

2. A S for the Instance of David, and his Men's Eating the Shew-Bread; least Men should from hence encourage themselves to break through all the Divine Laws to supply their Necessities, 'tis neceffary to consider, what Circumstances of Necessity will excuse our breaking amere positive Institution of

Religion, First; THEN, considering that all God's pofitive Institutions are appointed for our Obedience, nothiing can excuse us from the Breach of any of one' them, butfome olter


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

MORE INCUMBENT Duty, which at the same time stands in Competition with the positive Duty.

Secondly, THE means of supplying our Necessities, must either be such as are of a natural Efficiency, or else efficacious by Virtue of a Divine Institution, Adminiftr'd just as God himself has appointed.

BOTH these Circumstances concurrid in David and his Men's eating the Shew-Bread; and not one of them is to be found in Lay Baptism. For,

ift: THO by the positive Law 'twas not lawful for any but the Priests to eat it, yet by the Law of Nature,and Reveald Religion too, it was necessary to feed the neceflitous Hune gry; and David and his Men wanting Bread, and there being at that time no other to supply their Neceflity, (1 Sam. 21. 6.) the Priest gave him the Hallow'd Bread, that so the Law of Charity to the Lives of Men, enforc'd by a double Obligation, viz. by the Law of Nature and of Reveald Religion, might take Place of the mere positive Law about the Shew Bread, which had no other Obligation than from the positive Institution only, with which the said Law of Charity food at that time in competition : and this is exactly agreeable to what the Learned Dr. Hammond says, in his Paraphrase upon St. Matth. 12. 3. 4. which, because so very apposite to this purpose, I shall here transcribe for the Reader's Information:

His Words are these,“ Remember the Story of

David, 1 Sam. IL 6. and by, that you wil

discern that the Cafe of Hunger was excepted, " and reserv'd in the Law concerning Holy "Days or Things : For there David and his « Company being press’d with Hunger, were by the Priest allow'd to Eat the Shep-Bread; " which being Consecrated, did particularly belong « to the Priest, Levit. 24.9. let might, it seems, « (by the Intention of the Law-giver) be by hime

employ'd in any Charitable Uje, for the Relief ll of others, as long as there were more ready Cora

jecrated for the sacred Uses, 1 Sam. 21. 5. and accordingly, tho' the Priest pretended not to dispense with any (so much as Ritual) Part of God's Law (as appears by the Exception in

terros’d by him, Ver. 4. If the Toung Men u have kept themselves from Women) yet he

doubts not to give them freely of the Confecratsed Bread ; thereby affuring us, that it was as.

Lawful for the Priest to give some part of the

Consecrated Bread to relieve the Hungry, as to " Fiat it himfelf; and fo that in the Law of Holy « Things, not being touch'd by any but the Priefts, on the Case of Hunger or Diftress was refervid,

in which it might by the Priest be lawfully given "bito others. Thus far that Learned Author. But nothing of all this occurs in Lay-Bap. tilm: for the positive Law requires that Bapa tifm should be administred by a Priest of God's Appointment ; and there is no Law of but equal, much less of greater Obligation,


that requires a Lay-Man to Baptize at alf: Natural Religion does not oblige him to Baptize; because Baptism is no Part of Natural Religion : Andas for Reveald Religion, Thať has not requir'd him to Baptize; and therefore, in Cafes of greatest Necessity, if he does Baptize, he acts without any Duty incumbent on him, contrary to a positive Institution, which is no ways consistent with this Instance of David and his Men.

2dly, THE Means of supplying the Necessity of Davidand his Men was Bread, which has a Natural Physical Efficiency to satisfy Hunger, and consequently to preserve Human Life ; but Baptism has no Natural Phy: fical Power to convey to us the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost : Its Efficacy for such Supernatural Purposes depends only on a positve Institution, and therefore, is not at all parallel to the Instance of the Shew Bread; and consequently, under this Second Rule, nothing can be inferr'd from David and his Men's Eating that Bread, to a Lay-man's Administring Valid Baptism : because they are things of quite different Natures and Et fects, and no ways applicable to one another. So that to bring Lay-Baptism to this Second Rule, it must be prov'd Efficacious by Virtue of a Divize Inftitution, Administred just as God himself has appointed : But this can never be done, because there is no Divine Institution

of Lay-Baptism.


[ocr errors]

fore the Prieft had encouragement to give it,

IN short, to sum up all that I have said, or need to say, about this Instance of the ShewBread: Bread, before 'twas fet apart for Sacred Uses, was common for all Men to Eat for the satisfying of their Hunger; but the Administration of Baptism for Supernatural Purposes was never thus common: The Priests giving the Shew-Bread, when no other was to be had, was then an Ad of Charity, to which he was oblig'd by the very Law of Nature, enforc'd by the Reveald Will of God : But Lay-Baptism is no Duty incumbent on us, either by the Law of Nature, or Reveal'd Religion; the Law of Nature dictates nothing to us about Baptism for Supernatural Purposes, and Reveald Religion is wholly silent about Lay-Baptism for such Ends: The Shows Bread had a Physical Natural Efficiency to satisfy Hunger, and preserve Life ; and there

because he had no reason to doubt of its good Efect; but Baptism has no Natural Physical Efficiency for Supernatural and Spiritual Graces; its Effects are purely owing to a Positive Institution only; and therefore we have no encouragement to hope for its Effects, when the Institution is not observ'd in all its Elfential Parts, as it certainly is not, when a Layman Administers. Further, in the Eating of the Shew-Bread there was no Contradiction ; the Priest did not give it to be Eaten contrary to the Politive Institution, with a design by..



« PoprzedniaDalej »