« PoprzedniaDalej »
Baptisms will not be prov'd Valid by his pretended Atonement.
He says, That, “where the Necessity was real “ and unavoidable, the Jews WERE BOUND “ to think, that God did, in Confideration of that, “ Dispense with his own Precept.
This must be acknowledg’d in one Sense, and absolutely deny'd in another. It must be acknowledg'd that God in such real and unavoidable Necefities, Dispenses with his own Precept; that is, does not expect Us to Obey it, when 'cis out of our Power to Obey it: He then Dispenses with our Non-ability to perform it; and fo imputes not to us the Omission of it. But then 'tis abfolutely to be deny'd, that in such real and unavoidable Necessity,where we cannot have his Positive Institutions, He Dispenses with them by allowing us to COMMUTE, and put instead thereof a Humane Institution, to serve for the same Purposes as the Divine One : This, I say, is absolutely to be denyed, because it infers, that God equalizes a Humane Institution, with His own Divine One; which is abfurd, besides contrary to the Faith and Practice of the Jews, who always (when they thought and practis'd as the Mosaic Law directed them) reckon'd that God would not, in Cafes of greatest Necessity, allow them to Substitute their own Inventions, in the room of his Politive Institutions. For thus when they were in Captivity in Babylon 70 Years, they did not dare to Sacrifice, because they were Destitute
of the Temple and Altar where God had placed his Name, and where the Institution requir'd their Sacrifices to be offer'd. The same we find in that people to this Day; for ask but any of the Knowing Persons among them, why they do not now offer material Sacrifices to Ġod as formerly? and they'll tell you, they dare not, because they have not the APPOINTED Temple and Altar: If you tell them they may build Altars, and offer thereon ; they'll answer you,
That God will not so DISPENSE with his Precept, and that such Sacrifices will be an Abomination to him, and therefore of no Benefit, but rather of dangerous Consequence to them; and that it is safer for them to believe, that God under their present Circumstances, expects no material Sacrifice at all, than in our Expositor's Sense to think, that God, in Confideration of their real and unavoidable Necessity [of an Altar and Temple] will dispenfe with their Building any Uninstituted Ones, and making Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings in and upon them. The same we should have found, if in the time our Expositor refers to, that People had been destitute of Instituted High-Priests and Priests; they knew that a STRANGER was not to come nigh, they had Experience enough of God's Judgments on such, notwithstanding their Pleas of Necessity; and therefore they were Bound to think the direct Contrary to what our Expositor is pleas’d to aifirm; and consequently so are Christians too, if any Ar
guments, with respect to them, may be drawn from the Jews Faith and Practice about such Possitive Institutions. The Expositor and his Friend endeavour to make such Arguments in the Objection ; and therefore 'tis very just to deal with them in their own way, and consequently to conclude against them from the Duty of the Jews, to that of Christians; That when we cannot have, or obtain God's Positive Institutions, we must not set up our Own instead thereof; but are BOUND to believe, that in these Respects,God dispenses with our Want of them; that we must wait his Leisure till he shall bless us with them; and in the mean time not dare to Break thro' such his Rules and Methods prescrib'd to us; and consequently, not to Baptize without an Administrator, who is Vested with his Commission: Since such a Baptism is no Instituted Baptism, and its Ministration for all the Purposes of the Instituted One, is equalizing a Humane to a Divine Inftitution; which is not only an Absurdity, but an Abomination too. And, I think, this is enough in Answer to the late Bishop of Sarum's Boasted Unanswerable Objection.
The following Objections are brought by one who stiles himself a Clergy man of the Church of England, in his printed Letter to Dr. Brett, concerning his excellent Sermon against Lay-Baptism; and he tells us just before he brings them, Pag. 17. That “to shew
" that every Christian, a Christian, has a natu“ral Right to Baptize; tho’he grants,
that 6 he that does it, not Ordain'd, as he ought
to be, and not in Cases of absolute Necefsity, acts presumptuously, and is very Au
dacious. He will use an Argument or two drawn from the Scriptures.
Obj. XIV. His first pretended Argument is taken from St. Mark ix. 38, 39, 40. or St. Luke xi 49, 50. "John answer’d, saying, Mafter,
we saw one cafting out Devils in thy Name; " and he follow'd not us, and we forbad him, be« cause he follow'd not us. But Jesus said, For. e bid him not, for there is no Man who sball do
a Miracle in my Name that can lightly Speak “ evil of me: For He that is not against us, IS « ON OUR PART. The Sense of which Words the Objector says, is this : “ He that “ pursues the same End that we do; that " Itrives to Beat down the Kingdom of Satan
as we do, is not to be forbidden, he is on
our side: And does not every one that Bapu cizes a Child, or Person adult, bring his " helping hand to subvert the Kingdom of “ Satan? and shall we presume to forbid “ him, &c.?
Answ. He that does his LAWFUL Endeavour to Beat down the Kingdom of Satan, ought not to be forbidden; but he that uses UN LAWFUL Endeavours to that End, ought to be prohibited; because (to use the Apostle's Words) he does Evil ( he acts con
trary to God's Law ] that Good may come of it. St. Paul says, that the Damnation of those who affirm and practice this, is just : And therefore, he who uses his Endeavours unlawfully, i. e. contrary to the Law of God, tho' he may design to Beat down, yet; in reality, he promotes the Kingdom of Satan, which is advanc'd by nothing more than by Disobedience and Rebellion against God's Laws. And this is the Case of the Lay-Baptizer with us. The Laws of God, and of this Church, have excluded him from the Ministration of Baptism; therefore when he attempts to Minifter, he is Disobedient and Rebellious against these Laws; and so adds strength to the Kingdom of Satan, instead of beating it down. Besides, Devils in Clmifl's Name; this effettually beat down Satan's Kingdom : For, how can Satan cast out Satan, says our Lord ? And when our Advocates for Lay-Baptism can prove, that fuch Baptism has a Miraculous Efficiency for the Destruction of Satan's Kingdom ; (for to fay this without proof, is only begging the Question ) or when our Lay-Baptizers themselves shall work as uncontroverted a Miracle as that was, for the Confirmation of their Practice, then 'twill be time enough to befieve the Validity of those Baptisins; but till that time comes, we must conclude the Objedor at best to be mistaken, if not worse, a