from the 5th to the 16th page will find it undeniably proved that St. John and the Apostles themselves baptized in Public That both the Greek and Latin Churches do the same at this day and that several of the Antient Fathers Justini Martyr Tertullian St. Athanasius Greg. Nazianzen St. Ambrose and Chrysostom St. Cyril and most learned Writers of the Primitive Church whose Names are in the Margin do all contend for Baptism in Public He will find it proved that the Baptizing in Private houses Concilium Constans Meldense Vernense Cassander Hospinian Chamier Vasquez c. Rel. Assemblys p. 294. has been often condemned and prohibited by whole Councils of Bishops And all this abundantly strengthned by the Testimonies of several other learned Writers Men of great esteem in their times After all which I presume we may very justly conclude with the learned Dr. Sherlock That the Primitive Christians always administred Baptism in Public places and in the presence of the Congregation and never that the Custom thus continued in all the following Ages Now the force of this Argument amounts to this That in all cases not positively determined by the Scripture The Practice of the Primitive Church is the surest way for us to understand the Mind of Christ and his Apostles For we cannot but think that those who convers'd with the Apostles and with the Apostolical men of the next ages are the safest guides for us to be directed by who live so remote from those times The Authority of Antient and Vniversal Tradition has always been esteemed sacred and venerable and whatever men may think now yet to contradict the concurring Testimony and Practice of the Universal Church was heretofore always thought one of the greatest Sins and Follies that a Man could be guilty of The Fathers themselves do often confute Heretics of their times from prescription or the constant Traditionary Faith and Practice of the Church For tho we do not make Tradition to be a Primary and Infallible Rule as the Holy Oracles are Yet where the thing is doubtful or disputable where the Scripture is silent there certainly the received Practice of the ancient Vniversal Church is the surest guide for us to follow There is an Obligation upon us of the present times to conform as much as may be to the Practice of the Universal Church and to avoid Novelty and Singularity in all things relating to the Worship of God And therefore when we have so many plain Testimonies of Antiquity for baptizing in Public and can find no one Church in the Christian World that ever practised otherwise when we have so many Ancient Fathers Councils and learned Writers condemning Private Baptism and pleading for that which is Public and not any one single Author produced of a contrary persuasion There is certainly so much respect due to this Vnanimous Consent of all our Pious Ancestors as proves it to be very rude indecent and immodest for us of the present age to contradict the general sense of Christianity to affront and condemn the Holy Catholic Church of Christ by our contrary Practices and to think our selves wiser than all the Christians that went before us who for 1600 years together have always Baptized in Public and no doubt for good reasons Thirdly The Administration of Baptism in Private houses without just Necessity and with the Public Form is contrary to the Express Laws and Rubrick of our own National established Church of England This is so plain and undeniable a Truth that a modest man would think it needless to go about to prove it to any man who has got a Common-prayer book and is but able to read the Rubrick without coloured Spectacles which is as plain and express in this particular as words can make it For 1st The very appointing of two distinct Offices and the calling one of them by the Name of Public and the other by the Name of Private Baptism is a plain demonstration of the mind of the Church in this respect For to what purpose has the Church composed a distinct Form of Baptism for cases of sickness and extreme Necessity if she had ever thought that the Public Form might have been then used as well But let us examine the several Titles of those two Offices And the first we find is called The Public Baptism of Infants to be used in the Church Now the very word Public proves that 't was never intended to be used Privately And the addition of that Clause To be used in the Church is an unanswerable Argument that it ought not to be used in Private houses But let us proceed from the Title to the Rubrick for Public Baptism And the first thing we meet with is This. The People are to be admonished that 't is most convenient that Baptism should not be administred but upon Sundays and other Holy-days when the most number of People come together And this our Church requires for two very good reasons which immediately follow both which reasons conclude strongly for Public and against Private Baptism The first is That the Congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that be newly baptized into the number of Christs Church The second is That by the Baptism of the Infant in the Church every Person present may be put in mind of his own solemn vow and profession made to God in his own Baptism To this purpose the learned Dr. Comber tells us That Infants ougut to be brought to the Church Discourse upon the whole Common Prayer p. 338. that there may be many Witnesses of this solemn act and that others may be put in mind of their Vow as also because they may be admitted Members of our Religious Assemblies in the proper place And he that has a mind to see farther how much Public Baptism tends to the Edification of the Church Let him read Dr. Sherlocks Rel. Assemblies p. 293. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consider withal how the Custom of Baptizing in Private can be reconciled with that Precept of St. Paul 1 Cor. 14.26 Let all things be done to Edifying that is in all acts of Public Worship let every thing be so performed as may tend most to the benefit and advantage of others Dr. Hammond in locum and Dr. Beveridge his Sermons on this Text. which is the Paraphrase of a very learned man on the words In the third Section or Paragraph of the Rubrick before Public Baptism The Godfathers and Godmothers and the People with the Children are required to be ready at the Font Now I hope this may pass for a plain Command for the bringing of Children to the Church for where else is the Font Are there any in Private houses Or how can Children be brought to the Font if they are not first brought to the Church where alone the Font is placed But this is not all the time is also specified as well as the Place The Children are to be
ready at the Font immediately after the second Lesson at Morning or Evening Prayer which still farther concludes for its being â—n the Church where alone the Prayers and Lessons are usually read And all this is abundantly confirmed by that which follows viz. And the Priest standing there at the Font shall say c. So far I think nothing can be more plain or undeniable But let us go on to the Office for Private Baptism of Children in houses for so 't is called The very Name or Title of which is enough to satisfy any sober man that this alone and not the Public Form is to be used in Houses But the Rubrick is more express There in the 2d Paragraph the Curates or Ministers of every Parish are required often to admonish and warn the People that without great Cause and Necessity to be approved by the Curates themselves they procure not their Children to be baptized at home And in Obedience to this Command of the Church I do now desire and beseech you of my Care not to do it But when need shall compel then the Rubrick expresly orders that Baptism be administred on This Fashion namely by that Form of Private Baptism which there follows and not by the Publick Form So that as the Ancient Church never did so neither does the Present Church of England allow of any Private Baptism except in danger of death and in such a case she has provided a Form for that purpose and required the use of that alone And upon the whole I think it undeniably follows that To Baptize Children in Private with the Publick Form and without just Necessity is as Dr. Sherlock tells us Rel. Assemblies p. 295. a plain transgression of the Rule and therefore such a disorder as no man should be guilty of who professes himself a Member of our Church 'T is a plain breach of the express Laws and Commands of our own Communion which was the thing to be proved Now as for this Argument it equally concerns all in general who own themselves of the Church of England Rich and Poor Laity as well as Clergy For by the 20th Article of our Church we all profess to believe That the Church has full power to decree and command all such Rites and Ceremonies as are not contrary to the word of God Nor did ever any yet deny this power but those who were professed Dissenters from us and against them it has been largely and unanswerably proved by many learned Divines of this Church whose Names I have set in the Margin By Dr. Stillingfleet Unreasonab of Separation Dr. Sherlock in his Vindication of that book and in his Answer to the Protestant Reconciler By Dr. Goodman in his Compass Enquiry By Dr. Scot Christian Life Part 2. Vol. 2. p. 433. And instead of all by the Venerable Hooker Eccl. Polity Lib. 3. and others if any one please to consult them Now then thus I argue if the Church has Power to make Laws in things indifferent and not forbidden by the Scriptures it hence necessarily follows that 't is our absolute duty to obey and submit to those Laws when once they are made For a Power to Command necessarily infers the duty of Obedience these are Relative things the one of which unavoidably follows from the other Nor can we disobey the Lawful Commands of the Church without disobeying Heaven at the same time and Christ Jesus himself from whom as from a Supream Head the Church has received this Legislative Power and how then can it become any true Member of the Church to be thus wilfully guilty of trangressing its plainest Laws Or why should any pious and genuine Son of the Church carry himself thus refractory to his spiritual Mother Or can there be any thing more absurd than to profess to believe that the Church has Power to make Laws in indifferent things and yet whenever those Laws come to be obeyed to dispute and deny its Authority Especially considering how pious and primitive a duty this is and what great reason the Church has to require it This certainly is not to do things according to Order that is as the great Dr. Hammond tells us upon the place According to the Order and Direction of the Church Dr. Rich. Sherlocks Practical Christian p. 85 I know not what low thoughts men may now have of this Disobedience But I am sure the pious Dr. Sherlock had another sense of things when he made this a part of his Form of Confession of Sin I have not made Conscience to obey the Laws and Orders of thy Church whether Universal or particular not acknowledging or submitting to the Authority of Either and I am justly therefore to be rankt amongst Publicans and Sinners My Ghostly Fathers and Pastors in the several orders of Bishop Priest and Deacon I have disbelieved disrespected disobeyed in their Callings in their Admonitions for my Souls health I have hated him that reproveth in the Gate I have hardned my heart and refused when admonished to return from the Errour of my ways Nor is this a Law of the Church only but of the Civil State too The whole Rubrick is confirmed by Act of Parliament as well as by Convocation and the Act of Uniformity before our Common Prayer Books expresly injoyns under the severest Penalty that No other Form of Prayer or Administration of the Sacraments be used beside that which is set forth and allowed by that Book So that whoever refuses Obedience to those Laws of the Church concerning Baptism does at the same time disobey a Law of the State too his Civil as well as his Spiritual Parents and Governors and if this be not a plain Breach of the fifth Commandment Let every mans Conscience judge There is I foresee one fond pretence that may possibly be return'd to this Argument and that is the present Act of Toleration or Liberty of Conscience which may be thought to discharge the Duty of Obedience to the Established Laws of the Church But in answer to this vain Cavil I say First That I write not at present to those who are Dissenters from the Church but to those who profess themselves Members of our own Communion and what have such to do with the Toleration Let the Act it self be read and 't will appear that the Toleration was intended only for the Ease of those few for I verily believe they are not many who are sincerely persuaded in their Consciences that 't is not Lawful for them to obey the Orders or joyn in the Worship of the Established Religion Now whatever service the Plea of a Toleration may do such mistaken Persons yet certainly it looks very unaccountable in one of our own Communion to make this pretence in excuse for his Disobedience to those Laws and to that Constitution to which he himself belongs I envy no man the Liberty of Conscience My Charity is Universal I heartily wish well to and pray for all the World But
the Toleration is for Dissenters not for us We have still blessed be God the same Church the same Public Liturgy the same Articles Canons and Constitutions established by the Law of the Land by several Acts of Parliament which stand yet unrepealed And therefore our Obedience is still as due to those Laws as ever Nor can the Toleration with any shew of Modesty or Reason be thought to excuse us so long as we own our selves Members of the Church of England as of a good and an Orthodox Communion But suppose I were concern'd with a professed Dissenter yet I might justly answer 2. That all that any Toleration in the World does or can do is to excuse only from the Penalty not at all from the fault of Disobedience to the Laws and Orders of an Established Lawful Communion it gives a Liberty of Impunity 't is true whether justly or unjustly I will not now dispute but not of justification it takes away the civil Punishment but it can never take away the Sin of Non-conformity or Disobedience my reason for it is this because these are Sins forbidden by the plain Laws of God which no Laws of Man can alter or dispense with For every Orthodox and lawfully constituted Church has a full power from Christs own Institution to make Canons and Constitutions for its own Regulation for the security and preservation of its own Peace and good Order And this lays a sufficient Obligation on all Christians to obey those Laws tho there should be no Civil Authority to back and enforce them The Church considered as a Church is a distinct body and has a distinct Government inherent in it self without any regard had to the State And consequently all disobedience to the Lawful Commands of the Church is an Evil in it self Morally and intrinsecally sinful and therefore can never be altered by any Humane Dispensation or Toleration Hence we find the Primitive Christians decrying Schism and branding it with the most odious Characters before there were any Civil Laws in Defence of Christianity nay when all the Civil Laws were against it as well before the Empire became Christian and again in the intervals of Persecution as when Christianity was Established by a Law So the Donatists were accounted Schismaticks by the Primitive Christians as well under those temporal Princes that favoured as under those who persecuted them Arianism was condemned as well under Constantius and Valens who countenanced as under Constantine who opposed it so that tho a Toleration do take away Civil Penalties yet the Laws of God and of Scripture that require Vnity Communion and Compliance with an established Orthodox Church do stand still uncancell'd and in as much force as ever If any one doubt the truth of this Let him only read the ingenious Mr Norris his Charge of Schism continued and if he can fairly answer what that learned Author there urges in defence of this Assertion I promise him I will instantly give up the Cause and become his Proselite There is a passage in the learned Dr. Stillingfleets Sermon of the Mischief of Separation so apposite to our present Argument that I cannot forbear setting it down 'T is Page the 45th in these words Let us who continue in the Communion of our Church walk by the same Rule and mind the same things While we keep to one Rule all People know what it is to be of our Church if men set up their own Fancies above the Rule they charge it with Imperfection if they do not obey the Rule they make themselves wiser than those that made it It hath not been the Doctrine or Rules of our Church which have ever given advantage to the Enemies of it but the Indiscretion of some in going beyond them and the Inconstancy of others in not holding to them This being the Judgment and Opinion of so great a man and of so pacifick a Temper deserves a serious Consideration by all who wish well to the Church of England 4. The Baptizing Children in Private by the Public Form is contrary to every Ministers solemn Promises and Subscriptions For the 36th Canon of our Church Every Minister is required both at his receiving of Orders and at his Admission to any Benefice or Living to make this Promise and to subscribe it with his own hand in these very words viz. That he himself will use the Form prescribed in the book of Common Prayer both in Public Prayer and in the Administration of the Sacraments and none other And now I appeal to the sense of all the world whether that Minister who uses that Form of Public Baptism in Private Houses which is prescribed to be used in the Church does not break this Promise And whether he who does not in Private houses use the Form Prescribed for that purpose does not do the same Does such a Man use the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer and none other as he promised and subscribed Perhaps it will be said that he uses the same words tho in a different Place But still I answer That this is not the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer The Form prescribed is perfectly of Another Nature The Church has composed two Forms for Baptism of Infants the one for the Church the other for Private houses the one for ordinary and common cases the other for the extraordinary cases of sickness and necessity Now he that confounds these two Offices which the Church has made distinct and wholy omitting that Form which is designed for Private Vses that in Private which is commanded to be used in Public that Person does not use the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer and none other but perfectly another than what is commanded If any one in the World can deny this assertion or without Tricks and Fallacies fairly justify this Practice from Breach of Promise I will never more trust my discursive Faculty so long as I live can any thing be more indisputably clear If to doubt in this case be not to seek Knots in a Bulrush I know not what is This Argument very nearly concerns us of the Clergy and we should all do well seriously to consider it and the rather because our own undue Compliances in this respect are made use of by the Laity as the greatest Argument for the Continuance of this Vnlawful Practice But if the most solemn Promises and repeated Subscriptions signify any thing we are all certainly bound to do our utmost for the reforming of this unhappy Custom in doing of which there would be far less difficulty than now there is were we our selves Vnanimous in the Attempt were we All resolved to be just to our own Engagements and would not undermine each others Endeavours by our contrary Practices 'T is plain we are not left at Liberty to do as we please in this case we are bound by Laws by Promises and Subscriptions And when the Laity know and consider this I cannot but