MORE INCUMBENT Duty, which at the fame time ftands in Competition with the pofitive Duty

Secondly, THE means of fupplying our Neceffities, muft either be fuch as are of a natural Efficiency, or elfe efficacious by Virtue of a Divine Institution, Adminiftr'd just as God himself has appointed.

BOTH thefe Circumftances concurr'd in David and his Men's eating the Shew-Bread, and not one of them is to be found in LayBaptifm. For,

ift: THO' by the pofitive Law 'twas not lawful for any but the Priefts to eat it, yet by the Law of Nature, and Reveal'd Religion too, it was neceffary to feed the neceffitous Hungry; and David and his Men wanting Bread, and there being at that time no other to fup ply their Neceffity, (1 Sam. 21. 6.) the Prieft gave him the Hallow'd Bread, that fo the Law of Charity to the Lives of Men, enforc'd by a double Obligation, viz. by the Law of Nature and of Reveal'd Religion, might take Place of the mere pofitive Law about the Shew Bread, which had no other Obligation than from the pofitive Inftitution only, with which the faid Law of Charity ftood at that time in competition and this is exactly agreeable to what the Learned Dr. Hammond fays, in his Paraphrafe upon St. Matth. 12. 3, 4. which, because fo very appofite to this purpose, I fhall here transcribe for the Reader's Information:

His Words are these, "Remember the Story of "David, 1 Sam. 21.6. and by that you will "difcern that the Cafe of Hunger was excepted, " and referv'd in the Law concerning HalyDays or Things: For there David and his "Company being press'd with Hanger, were by "the Priest allow'd to Eat the Shew-Bread

which being Confecrated, did particularly belong "to the Prieft, Levit. 24. 9. Tet might, it feems, "(by the Intention of the Law-giver) be by him "employ'd in any Charitable Ufe, for the Relief "of others, as long as there were more ready Con "fecrated for the facred Ufes, Sam. 21. 5. "and accordingly, tho' the Priest pretended not "to difpenfe with any (fo much as Ritual) Part

I

of God's Law (as appears by the Exception in"terpos'd by him, Ver. 4. If the Toung Men "have kept themfelves from Women) yet he " doubts not to give them freely of the Confecrat"ed Bread; thereby affuring us, that it was as

Lawful for the Prieft to give fome Part of the "Confecrated Bread to relieve the Hungry, as to "Eat it himself; and fo that in the Law of Holy "Things, not being touch'd by any but the Priests, "the Cafe of Hunger or Diftrefs was referv'd, " in which it might by the Prieft be lawfully given to others. Thus far that Learned Author. But nothing of all this occurs in Lay Baptifm: for the pofitive Law requires that Bap tifm fhould be adminiftred by a Prieft of God's Appointment; and there is no Law of but equal, much lefs of greater Obligation,

that

that requires a Lay-Man to Baptize at all: Natural Religion does not oblige him to Baptize; because Baptifm is no Part of Natural Religion: Andas for Reveal'd Religion, That has not requir'd him to Baptize; and therefore, in Cafes of greateft Neceffity, if he does Baptize, he acts without any Duty incumbent on him, contrary to a positive Institution, which is no ways confiftent with this Inftance of David and his Men.

2dly, THE Means of fupplying the Neceffity of David and his Men was Bread, which has a Natural Phyfical Efficiency to fatisfy Hunger, and confequently to preferve Human Life; but Baptifm has no Natural Phy fical Power to convey to us the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Gift of the Holy Ghoft: Its Effica cy for fuch Supernatural Purpofes depends only on a pofitve Inftitution, and therefore, is not at all parallel to the Inftance of the Shew Bread; and confequently, under this Second Rule, nothing can be inferr'd from David and his Men's Eating that Bread, to a Lay-man's Adminiftring Valid Baptifm: because they are things of quite different Natures and Ef fects, and no ways applicable to one another. So that to bring Lay-Baptifm to this Second Rule, it must be prov'd Efficacious by Virtue of a Divize Inftitution, Adminiftred just as God himself has appointed: But this can never be done, because there is no Divine Inftitution of Lay-Baptifm.

IN fhort, to fum up all that I have faid, or need to fay, about this Inftance of the ShewBread: Bread, before 'twas fet apart for Sacred Ufes, was common for all Men to Eat for the fatisfying of their Hunger; but the Adminiftration of Baptifin for Supernatural Purposes was never thus common: The Priests giving the Shew-Bread, when no other was to be had, was then an Act of Charity, to which he was oblig'd by the very Law of Nature, enforc'd by the Reveal'd Will of God: But Lay-Baptifm 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 Baptifm for Supernatural Purpofes, and Reveald Religion is wholly filent about Lay-Baptifm for fuch Ends: The ShewBread had a Phyfical Natural Efficiency to fatisfy Hunger, and preferve Life; and therefore the Priest had encouragement to give it, because he had no reafon to doubt of its good Efect; but Baptifm has no Natural Phyfical Efficiency for Supernatural and Spiritual Graces; its Effects are purely owing to a Positive Inftitution only; and therefore we have no encouragement to hope for its Effects, when the Inftitution is not obferv'd in all its Effential Parts, as it certainly is not, when a Layman Adminifters. Further, in the Eating of the Shew-Bread there was no Contradiction the Prieft did not give it to be Eaten contrary to the Politive Inftitution, with a defign by

fo doing to obferve the fame Pofitive Inftitution; but in Lay-Baptifm there's a perfect Contradiction: The Pofitive Inftitution of Baptifm is broken, that by fo doing, the fame Politive Inftitution may be obferv❜d and kept whole. From all which 'tis very clear and evident, that the Eating of the Shew-Bread, and the Adminiftration of Valid Baptism (in Cafes of Neceffity) by a Lay-hand, are things infinitely different in their Nature, and confequently not at all applicable the one to the other. To which I beg leave to add, that the Eating of the Shew-Bread was NO AUTHORITATIVE ADMINISTRATION for the conveyance of Supernatural Graces, as Valid Baptifm moft certainly is: And therefore 'tis no wonder, that God put a good Construction upon David and his Men's Eating that Bread to fatisfie their hunger, when no other was to be had; and yet upon all occafions, feverely punifh'd the Sacrilegious Ufurpations of every one that attempted to officiate in fuch Autho ritative Adminiftrations, as he had appointed for the conveyance of Spiritual Benefits; the great Neceffities that urg'd them thus to offici ate, were never admitted or allowed of, fo much as but to mitigate their Crime, much lefs to make their Adminiftrations Valid t This is apparently evident in the Cafe of Saul's taking upon him to offer a Sacrifice in his great Diftrefs, when his Enemies were coming upon him, when he might have been flain before he

could