« ÎnapoiContinuă »
if these are not fo? This is amazing! But what is not a Proof to those who will have it one? However, to bring this Matter to a fhort Iffue. From particular Practices to Publick Principles, there is no Argument: Let our Author prove, that the Confirmation of Perfons Baptized by unauthoriz'd Baptizers, is a Neceffary Confequence of our Church's Articles and Laws concerning Baptism and Confirmation; And when he has done this, then I fairly promise him, publickly to acknowledge, that it is the Judgment of the Church of England, that unautho riz'd Baptisms, and confequently our Diffenters Baptifms, are good and Valid. But this he has not yet done, and I dare further add, that he never will; therefore, the Church's Laws ftand against him, and his Inftances of promiscuous Confirmations (among which fome who never were Baptiz'd, either in Reality, or in Pretence, have been admitted for want of due Enquiry) are no more Arguments of the Church's Judgment, that unauthoriz'd Baptisms are good and Valid; than the Confirmation of unbaptiz'd Perfons, is an Argument, that our Church efteems Baptifm not neceffary, as a previous Qualification to be Confirm'd by the Bishop.
§. XXII. As for the Silence of our Writers of Controverfy, it is plain, that fome of them did infift upon the Invalidity of our Diffenters Ordinations, I need not mention Particulars, they are in most Mens Hands who have addicted themselves to the Study of fuch Books; The Confequence of this Invalidity the Diffenters took very heinously, for they charg'd fuch Writers with it, that they thereby Null'd their Miniftrations; thofe Writers did not deny the Charge, and therefore in effect own'd the Confequence; and put it upon the Diffenters to get clear of it, by proving the Validity of their Ordinations if they could; The Separatists knew as well as every Body else, that our Controverfial Writers denying the Validity of their Orders, was a confequential denying of the Validi dity of their Miniftrations, and therefore they labour'd hard, (tho' all in vain) to prove that their Ordinations were good and Valid; for, if they had not attempted this, they easily perceiv'd, that their Intereft would have funk, by the Departure of their deluded Profelytes; who otherwise would have concluded (as from a first Principle of Christianity)that if their Teachers were not Minifters of Chrift, they could not have the Power of miniftring Chrift's Sa
craments; this is fo natural a Conclufion, that you may hear it always drawn from the Invalidity of Ordinations, by the Honest and fincere of all Parties, whofe Minds are not corrupted by other falfe Principles. Tell but an Honest Presbyterian, Independent, or Anabaptift Diffenter, that his Teachers are not Minifters of Chrift, he'll presently ftare with Wonder and Amazement at your Uncharitablenefs (as he thinks it) because he thence gathers, that you deny his Teacher's Miniftrations, and that you mean thereby, that they and their Dependents are not Chriftians: the Diffenting Teachers know this fo well, that it is one of their Mafter-Tricks to deceive their Hearers and Readers, with thefe Glorious Titles concerning themfelves, The Reverend fuch a One, Minifter of God's Word, Minister of the Golpel; take away thefe, and their Loaves will fail, becaufe Men will naturally fly from fuch Pretenders, when they difcover thofe Titles not to belong to them, concluding that they are deftitute of the Power of miniftring Chrift's Ordinances to them. This Natural Confequence is the true Reafon of their Quarrels againft, not only our Controverfial Writers, who have deny'd the validity of their Orders, but also our Church, who requires the beft of their
Teachers to be Epifcopallý Ordain'd, to minifter the Chriftian Sacraments, inferring from hence, that thofe Writers, and our Church too, do by nulling their Orders, make Null and Void their Ministrations. This our Author doubtlefs knows as well as I do, if he would fpeak out; but whether he will or no, that Church and her Writers, who agree together to render the Ordinations of our Diffenters Nulland Void, by neceffary Confequence fay, that their Miniftrations are alfo Invalid, if we may give any Credit to the Underftanding of not only Church-men, but even the Diffenters themselves, who take it fo hard at their Hands: And indeed, it must be acknowledg'd on all accounts, that if the Confequences are Uncharitable, the Premises are fo too, for they are infeparable from one another in the Senfe of all unbyafs'd Underftandings. But of thefe Things enough. I have only a few Things more to this Writer, and fhall then Conclude,
§. XXIII. In his 34th Page he discovers himself plainly enough, and gives us a Simile whereby to illuftrate the Validity of Lay-Baptifm, which notwithstanding his Declarations to the contrary, is an argu ment, that he has a mind to fay fomething about the Merits of the Caufe, and to endeavour
deavour to prove Lay-Baptifm to be Good and Valid: His Simile is about the Coin age of Current Money; which tho'it "be "by the Law appropriated to the Prince, "and made highly Criminal for any but "his Substitutes to Coin it; yet upon fup"pofition that another fhould Coin Mo"ney of the fame Value, Standard, Stamp, "&c. as the Law requires, tho' the Coin"er would be juftly punishable, the Mo66 ney fo Coin'd by him would be Cur 66 rent; and the Prince would not order "it to be Re-coin'd, nor the People refuse "to take it." This I think is the only Objection against Lay-Baptizm's being Null and Void, that remains to be Anfwer'd; and these makers of Similes, or Comparifons of things, are so very unhappy in their Choice, that they pitch upon nothing that is proper to their undertaking, for they are fure, whether thro' Defign I will not judge, to omit fuch Similitudes as have any thing parallel to the Matter Difputed; and fo they fail of their Argument; becaufe, where Inftances are not parallel, Arguments will not hold. This is our Author's Cafe; He fhould have contriv'd fomething elfe instead of Money coin'd; for that is no ways parallel to a Person Baptiz'd; becaufe Money is an Inanimate Senfeless