« AnteriorContinuar »
Baptisms will not be prov'd Valid by his pretended Atonement.
He fays, That, "where the Neceffity was real " and unavoidable, the Jews WERE BOUND to think, that God did, in Confideration of that, Difpenfe with his own Precept." This must be acknowledg'd in one Sense, and abfolutely deny'd in another. It must be acknowledg'd that God in fuch real and unavoidable Neceffities, Dispenses with his own Precept; that is, does not expect Us to Obey it, when 'tis out of our Power to Obey it: He then Difpenfes with our Non-ability to perform it; and fo imputes not to us the Omiffion of it. But then 'tis abfolutely to be deny'd, that in fuch real and unavoidable Neceffity,where we cannot have his Pofitive Inftitutions, He Difpenfes with them by allowing us to COMMUTE, and put instead thereof a Humane Inftitution, to ferve for the fame Purposes as the Divine One: This, I fay, is abfolutely to be denyed, because it infers, that God equalizes a Humane Inftitution, with His own Divine One; which is abfurd, befides contrary to the Faith and Practice of the Jews, who always (when they thought > and practis'd as the Mofaic Law directed them) reckon'd that God would not, in Cafes of greatest Neceffity, allow them to Substitute their own Inventions, in the room of his Politive Inftitutions. 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 Inftitution requir'd their Sacrifices to be offer'd. The fame we find in that People to this Day; for ask but any of the Knowing Perfons among them, why they do not now offer material Sacrifices to God 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 anfwer you, That God will not fo DISPENSE with his Precept, and that fuch Sacrifices will be an Abomination to him, and therefore of no Benefit, but rather of dangerous Confequenceto them; and that it is fafer for them to believe, that God under their prefent Circumftances, expects no material Sacrifice at all, than in our Expofitor's Sense to think, that God, in Confideration of their real and unavoidable Neceffity S [of an Altar and Temple] will difpense with their Building any Uninftituted Ones, and making Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings in and upon them. The fame we should have found, if in the time our Expofitor refers to, that People had been deftitute of Inftituted High-Priests and Priests; they knew that a STRANGER was not to come nigh, they had Experience enough of God's Judgments on fuch, notwithstanding their Pleas of Neceffity; and therefore they were Bound to think the direct Contrary to what our Expofitor is pleas'd to affirm; and confequently fo are Chriftians too,
guments, with respect to them, may be drawn from the Jews Faith and Practice about fuch Poffitive Inftitutions. The Expofitor and his Friend endeavour to make fuch Arguments in the Objection; and therefore 'tis very just to deal with them in their own way, and confequently to conclude against them from the Duty of the Jews, to that of Chriftians; That when we cannot have, or obtain God's Pofitive Inftitutions, we must not fet up our Own instead thereof; but are BOUND to believe, that in thefe Refpects, God difpenfes with our Want of them; that we muft wait his Leifure till he fhall blefs us with them; and in the mean time not dare to Break thro' fuch his Rules and Methods prefcrib'd to us; and confequently, not to Baptize without an Administrator, who is Vefted with his Commiffion: Since fuch a Baptifm is no Inftituted 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 Abfurdity, but an Abomination too. And, I think, this is enough in Answer to the late Bishop of Sarum's Boafted Unanswerable Objection.
The following Objections are brought by one who ftiles himself a Clergy-man of the Church of England, in his printed Letter to Dr. Brett, concerning his excellent Sermon against Lay-Baptifm; and he tells us juft before he brings them, Pag. 17. That "to fhew
"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 Cafes of abfolute Necef"fity, acts prefumptuously, and is "dacious. He will ufe an Argument or two very Audrawn 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, 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 "pursues the fame End that we do; that "Atrives to Beat down the Kingdom of Satan 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 presume 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 to God's Law ] that Good may come of it. St. Paul fays, that the Damnation of those who affirm and practice this, is just: 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 Difobedience 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 these 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 Destruction 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 thofe Baptifins; but till that time comes, we must conclude the Obje&or at beft to be mistaken, if not worse, a Pervertér