Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	church_n	particular_a	universal_a	2,966	5	9.4467	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61842	The indecency and unlawfulness of baptizing children in private, without necessity, and with the publick form seriously recommended to the consideration of both the clergy and laity of the Church of England : to which is added, a brief exhortation to the constant receiving of the Lords Supper.	Strong, Martin, b. 1663 or 4.	1692 (1692)	Wing S5995; ESTC R15237	25,798	32

ready at the Font immediately after the second Lesson at Morning or Evening Prayer which still farther concludes for its being ●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

hope that they will think the better and not the worse of us for being just to our Rule and true to our Promises Nor will they be so unreasonable as to expect our compliance in a thing so manifestly unlawful Much less conceive any Pet or Prejudice against us only because we cannot make the plainest Laws of the Church and our own Promises too bend and bow to their humors And since the London Clergies Practice is most taken notice of in this affair it would be happy if they would joyn with us in this Reformation 5. The Form of Public Baptism is so composed that it cannot be used in Private Houses without manifest Absurdities which is another demonstration that the Church never intended it should be so used The forementioned Mr Arwaker reckons up four several instances of this Nature in the Office of Public Baptism where he that has a mind may see them pag. 29. I shall only mention One at present and that is in the Preface to the Baptismal Covenant in these words Dearly beloved Ye have brought this Child here to be Baptized How can this be truly or rationally spoken when instead of the Childs being brought by the Sureties the Minister himself comes home to the house and is brought into the very Chamber were the Child was born We have already proved that the Church at the beginning of this Office requires the Child to be brought to the Font and that the Priest standing at the Font shall say From whence 't is manifest that by the word Here in this place is meant the Church where alone the Font stands And how then can the Minister in the very place where the Child was born say to the Sureties Ye have brought this Child here viz. to the Font to be Baptized Or ought he not rather to alter the words to a quite contrary sense and say Ye have brought me here to baptize this Child For this is true and proper but the former is evidently false and absurd and the Absurdity is so plain that I am verily perswaded that he that does not perceive it 'T is not because He cannot but because He will not understand it Now whether it becomes either Minister or People to use such gross Absurdities in so solemn a part of Gods sacred Worship is a Question to which I would beg a serious Answer There is the same Absurdity in the Office for Churching Women when 't is used in Private houses The very Title proves this Practice to be absurd It ought to be called Chambering or Houseing of Women But Churching of them it can never be in any place out of the Church But not to insist on that the Rubrick before this Office says The Woman shall come into the Church decently apparalled and there shall kneel down in some convenient Place c. than which no command can be more plain The Rubrick at the End of the Office directs the Woman to receive the Holy Communion if there be any which still farther argues it to be done in the Church and the last Verse of the Psalm appointed to be read in this Office makes the Absurdity undeniable 'T is this I will pay my Vows now In the Courts of the Lords house How can this be said in any Private Chamber Was ever any Place beside the Church called the Lords house Or can any other Place be so called without a manifest and daring Absurdity An Absurdity too gross to be offer'd to the great God in return for a Mercy which deserves not only a Private Acknowledgment See Bp. Sparrow and Dr. Comber on this Office but a most solemn Thanksgiving in the Public Assembly of Christians which is both a greater Honour and more acceptable to God than any Private returns can be And now a modest man would think that after all this there should be no possible Objectious against so undeniable a truth Dr. Sherlock tells us Rel. Assemb p. 290. That he could never hear any thing that deserved a serious Answer But lest the Pretences should be thought unanswerable let us hear what they are And the first grand Pretence is Custom 'T is objected to us that 't is generally practised in most parts of the Kingdom and by many great and eminent Divines of the City of London too and therefore why may it not be continued This Objection tho it make a great deal of Noise yet it signifies just nothing as will be evident to any one that considers these things First That however prevailing this Custom now is yet 't is but of very late date even in this Church Dr Sherlock tells us Rel. Assemb p. 290 That this unhappy Custom was begun by as unhappy a Cause Namely by our late Civil Wars and a tyrannical Usurpation When our Laws were all subverted and our Religion ruined When the Orthodox Clergy were all turned a begging and their Churches usurped by their Enemies then 't was that the Loyal Party being first banished from the Church were forced and compelled to Baptize their Children in their own Houses There was a Necessity then of doing it privately or not at all But this Necessity is now removed our Churches now thanks be to Almighty God are at Liberty And therefore this can be no Argument to excuse us But it becomes us rather to abhor a Custom brought into the Church by such Vngodly means and to remember that our Forefathers would have been glad and thankful too to have injoyed that Liberty and Priviledge of bringing their Children to the Church which we now despise And yet 't is very observable that even in those times when the Common-Prayer Book was abolished and the Presbyrerian Directory established in its room by what was then called an Ordinance of Parliament Anno 1644. Even that very Directory expresly decrees That Baptism is not to be administred in Private places or privately but in the place of Public Worship and in the Face of the Congregation as may be seen p. 19 And this is the more remarkable because the Compilers of this Directory do in their Preface declare that they composed and agreed upon it after earnest and frequent calling upon the Name of God and after much consultation not with Flesh and Blood but with Gods holy word 'T is well known that our Brethren of this Perswasion were always great Enemies to all Needless and Superstitious Ceremonies in the Worship of God from whence I infer that even in their Opinion The Administration of Baptism in the Public place of Gods Worship is not a Needless Ceremony but a Necessary Circumstance to the due and decent Performance of that divine Sacrament What their Practice now is it concerns not me to inquire 't is plain This is their Rule and This their Judgment Secondly Tho many eminent Divines and particularly of London do comply with this Custom yet some others no less eminent refuse to do it Dr Sherlock and Mr Arwaker have both writ expresly against it