"that every Chriftian, as Chriftian, has a natu"ral Right to Baptize; tho' he grants, "that "he that does it, not Ordain'd, as he ought ❝ to be, and not in Cases of abfolute Neceffity, acts prefumptuously, and is very Au"dacious. He will ufe 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 anfwer'd, faying, 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 Jefus faid, For: "bid him not, for there is no Man who shall 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 Senfe of which Words the Objector fays, is this: "He that purfues the fame End that we do; that "ftrives to Beat down the Kingdom of Satan 66 as we do, is not to be forbidden, he is on "( our fide: And does not every one that Bap "tizes a Child, or Perfon adult, bring his helping-hand to fubvert the Kingdom of "Satan? and fhall we prefume to forbid him, &c.?

Anfw. He that does his LAWFUL Endeavour to Beat down the Kingdom of Satan, ought not to be forbidden; but he that uses UNLAWFUL Endeavours to that End, ought to be prohibited; because (to use the Apostle's Words) he does Evil [he acts con

trary

trary to God's Law ] that Good may come of it. St. Paul fays, that the Damnation of thofe who affirm and practice this, is juft: And therefore, he who ufes his Endeavours unlawfully, i. e. contrary to the Law of God, tho he may defign 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 Cafe of the Lay-Baptizer with us. The Laws of God, and of this Church, have excluded him from the Miniftration of Baptifm; therefore when he attempts to Minifter, he is Difobedient and Rebellious against thefe Laws; and fo adds ftrength to the Kingdom of Satan, inftead of beating it down. Befides, the Man objected, did miraculously Caft out Devils in Chrift's Name; this effectually beat down Satan's Kingdom: For, how can Satan caft out Satan, fays our Lord? And when our Advocates for Lay-Baptifm can prove, that fuch Baptifm has a Miraculous Efficiency for the Deftruction of Satan's Kingdom; (for to fay this without proof, is only begging the Question) or when our Lay-Baptizers themfelves fhall work as uncontroverted a Miracle as that was, for the Confirmation of their Practice, then 'twill be time enough to believe the Validity of those Baptifms; but till that time comes, we must conclude the Objector at beft to be mistaken, if not worse, a

4

Perverter

Perverter of the Sacred Text he adduces, for the Validity of fuch Unauthoriz'd Baptisms. Obj. XV. His Second Imaginary Argument to this purpose, is taken from 1 St. Pet. ii. 5, 9. "Te alfo- are built up a Spiri"tual House, an Holy Priesthood, to offer up “Spiritual Sacrifices, acceptable to God through "Chrift Fefus. But Te are a chofen Generation, a Royal Priesthood. St. John, Rev "i. 6. tells us, that Chrift has made us Kings "and Priests unto God and his Father. And " he gives us the fame Appellation, Chap. v. 10. "This is apply'd to all Chriftians, "therefore all Chriftians are Priefts, confequently may Baptize. That this is no Novelty he brings Tertullian's Authority to prove; "Nonne & Laici Sacerdotes fumus? Scriptum eft enim, Regnum quoque nos & Sa"credotes Deo & Patri fuo fecit. Differentiam 66 inter Ordinem & Plebem conftituit Ecclefia, & Honor per Ordinis conceffum Sanctificatus: "adeo ubi Ecclefiaftici Ordinis non eft Conceffus, "Offers & Tinguis, & Sacerdos es tibi folus. And prefently after, "Igitur fi habes jus Sacer"dotis in temetipfo, ubi neceffe eft, habeas opor

tet etiam Difciplinam Sacerdotis, ubi neceffe

fit habere jus Sacerdotis. Exhor. Caftit. The "leaft that these Words imply, is certainly, "that in Tertullian's Judgment, the Laity ແ have a Right to the Priesthood, and where "'tis a Cafe of Neceffity may exercife that Right. ་ And hence 'tis evident, that only Order 02

"and

66

"and Regularity makes fome Act, and re"ftrains others from acting in that Capacity. To which add, what he calls his Third Argument, that in Gal. iii. 28. 'tis faid, "In Chrift Jefus there is neither few nor Greek, "neither Servant nor Free, neither Male nor "Female, for ye are all one in Chrift Fefus. "Therefore 'tis not abfotutely necessary in it "Self that Baptifm fhould be perform'd by an Epifcopal Hand, because in Chrift there " is no diftinction of Persons.

66

Anfm. This Gentleman fhould have taken into his Account the Promise of God to the Jews, "Ye shall be unto me a Kingdom OF "PRIESTS, and an Holy Nation, Exod. xix. 6. Upon a right confideration of which, he would have preferv'd himself from the mif chief, of fo unfafe an Interpretation of the Parallel Texts of the New Teftament, and his Readers too, from the Infection which fome of them may draw in, from his Publication of it. That Text in Exodus never exalted the Common-People of the Jews, to be Proper Literal Priests, nor gave them any Right to the Pofitive Inftituted Functions of the Priesthood; fo far from that, that thofe among them, who thought they might perform those Prieftly Functions, upon their Attempt to do fo, found to their Sorrow, that they were not fuch Priefts: (King Saul is a standing Proof of this.) And the Judgments inflicted on them are recorded in the Sacred Oracles, to

warn

warn us all to avoid fuch Falfe and Prefumptuous Notions, and the Dangerous Practices confequent thereupon.

The Common Jews then were only Priests in a Figurative Senfe of the Word, i. e. As God Selected and Confecrated his Proper Priefts, and took them from among Men, publickly to offer fuch Gifts and Sacrifices to him as he had appointed them: So, he took and feparated to himself from among other Nations, the People of the Jews, that they might acceptably offer to him fuch Services, particularly Publick Ones, as he should appoint them alfo. Even God's Proper Priests were limited by him, what Publick Services they fhould perform to him, infomuch, as that none of them could Validly Minister in the peculiar Office of the High Priest who was their Head, and they were all dependant on him. So the Common Jews, the Figurative Priests were limited in their Publick Services ; they were none of them to Minifter, except jure Prophetico in the Peculiar Offices of the Proper Priests, who were also their Heads and Governors, in the Publick Divine Services. It was a great Privilege for the Common Jews to be admitted by God, to offer him the Publick Services, or Figurative Sacrifices of Prayers and Praises, together with those of themfelves, Souls and Bodies, to his reasonable Service; and to be accepted by him when they did this as he had appointed them, in fubor

Q 3