1

fpenfation, as I have prov'd under the First and Second Propofitions. And a Lay-man's Baptizing to confer fupernatural Benefits, is NO INDIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE in the Power of Man to determine and ap point, as was the Pofture 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 fupport the Validity of Lay-Baptifm, even in Cafes of greateft Neceffity, because the Quality of the Perfon who is Authoriz'd to Baptize for Supernatural Purposes, is determin'd by no other than a mere Pofitive Divine Inftitution. And no Cafes of Neceffity whatsoever can determin any other Means for the Conveyance of Supernatural Benefits, than what are already reveal'd to us, except God fhall be pleas'd to make fome New Revelation of his Will for fuch a Purpose.

2. AS for the Inftance of David, and his Men's Eating the Shew-Bread; least Men fhould from hence encourage themselves to break through all the Divine Laws to fupply their Neceffities, 'tis neceffary to confider, what Circumftances of Neceffity will excuse our breaking amere pofitive Inftitution of Religion.

Firft, THEN, confidering that all God's pofitive Inftitutions are appointed for our Obedience, nothing can excufe us from the Breach of any of one them, butfome other

MORE

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 Inftitution, 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 Hun gry; 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 food 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 3, because fo very appofite to this purpose, I fhall here tranfcribe for the Reader's Information:

His Words are these, "Remember the Story of "David, I Sam. 21.6. and by that you will difcern that the Cafe of Hunger was excepted " and referv'd in the Law concerning Holy"Days or Things: For there David and his "Company being prefs'd with Hunger, were by "the Prieft allow'd to Eat the Shew-Bread'; " which being Confecrated, did particularly belong "to the Priest, 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, 1 Sam. 21. 5. " and accordingly, tho' the Priest pretended not " to dispense with any (fo much as Ritual) Part of God's Law (as appears by the Exception in "terpos'd by him, Ver. 4. If the Young Men "have kept themselves from Women) yet he

I

doubts not to give them freely of the Confecrat "ed Bread; thereby affuring us, that it was as 4. Lawful for the Brieft 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 Priest be lawfully given

to others. Thus far that Learned Author. But nothing of all this occurs in Lay-Bap tilm: for the pofitive Law requires that Baptifm fhould be adminiftred by a Priest 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 greatest Neceffity, if he does Baptize, he acts without any Duty incumbent on him, contrary to a pofitive Inftitution, which is no ways confiftent with this Inftance of David and his Men.

3

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 Efficacy 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.g

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 Uses, was common for all Men to Eat for the fatisfying of their Hunger; but the Administration of Baptifm for Supernatural Purposes was never thus common: The Priests giving the Shew-Bread, when no other was to be bad, 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 Purposes, 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 Prieft had encouragement to give it, because he had no reason to doubt of its good Effect; but Baptism has no Natural Phyfical Efficiency for Supernatural and Spiritual Gra ces; its Effects are purely owing to a Pofitive 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 design by.

༡༩

M

fo