« PreviousContinue »
our Church, or of the pure Primitive Church of Chrift.
S. XVIII. Our Author acknowledges page 17. “That Our Church does nom Call for “ and require a Lawful Minister ; One, Epis
copally Ordain’d; that she neither allows nor
permits any other to Baptize, that she bereby " Jmplicitely fožbids any other; and en.
quires after, Censures and Punishes (where she can) such as Administer Baptism if they are not qaalified Lawfully to do it, and
yet he does not think the Church of England “ does by any, or all these Rubricks [ i. e. of " Private Baptism ] intend to make or declare “ Lay-Baptism to be Invalid, for if it did “ (says he, page 18.) it would Certainly and 66 Expreßly Order such Children (as were only
Baptiz'd by Lay-Men) to be Re-baptiz'd.'' But I must desire this Gentleman to think again For notwithstanding his first Thoughts; these Limiting Acts of the Church, taken in Conjun&tion with her Articles, which make the Commission Essen. tial to the Administration of Baptism, do by necessary Consequence Null
, and make Void Un-authoriz’d Baptism, for the several Reasons I have before InGsted on ; and if these Baptisms are so made Null and Void, then there must necessarily follow. (what
our Author Calls) Re-baptization and which I term to be no other, than the One Inftituted Christian Baptism; to which give me leave to add, that in our Present Office for Private Baptism, there is a Rubrick which prohibits Re-baptizations, in such a Manner, as necessarily implies a Command to Re-baptize [in our Author's Language] in fome particular Cases ; and the Rubrick is this, " If the Minister shall find by the answers
of such as bring the Child, that all “ Things were done as they ought to “ be ; then shall not be Christen the Child « again, but shall receive him as One of the
“ Flock' of True Christian People, saying “ I Certify you that in this Case all is well “ done ; and according, unto due Deder “ Concerning the Baptizing of this Child Here's a Prohibition of Christening again; upon this, and this Only Condition, « That
“ all things were done as they ought to be,' which is a plain intimation, that if all things were not done as they ought to be, the Minifter of the Parish must Christen the Child
; otherwise how can he receive the Child as appointed; and tell us in the Church's Words all is well done, and according unto due Order, when all is not well done, and dur Order has not been Obferv'd ? The all Thing's
which the Church in her Articles, Canons, and Rubricks requires to be done, are, that the Baptism be perform’d by an Authoriz'd Person; that it be with Water; and that it be done in the name of the Trinity; she (as our Saviour himself did before her) Defines all these three to be Neceffary-and if she seems to give any preference to One more than another, 'tis to the Commission by which the baptizer Acts, as we may see in her several Articles before Discours'd on; however, by our Author's own Confession page 17, she allows of no other, instead of the Commission'd baptizer; therefore if another did it, the Design of the Church is frustrated; this is contrary to due Order, and therefore cannot be Certified to be well done, as this Rubrick design'd it, consequently all things were not “ done as they ought to be therefore what was not done as it ought to be, must now be done ; that is, the Child must be baptiz'd by the Lawful Minister, to make good the Truth of this Rubrick, “ I Certify you
&c. For can it be believed by any reasonable Man; that our Church requires her Priests to utter such Untruths as these, concerning Persons Wash'd or Sprinkled by unauthoriz'd Lay-Teachers, fuch as our Difsenters are, “ I Certify you that in this case all
“ is well done, and according unto due Dk
der ; when ʼtis so Ill done, and dired. ly contrary to Order that it is Wicked, because not Lawful, as being contrary to the very Institution of Baptism, as she has fufficiently taught us; and 'tis also directly in opposition to her own Express Order and Command? Is all well done, when Christ's and the Church's Laws are transgress’d? Are all things according unto dae Order, when Our Saviour's, and the Church's Rules are oppos’d? This the Church does not require her Priests to affirm, 'tis abominable to suppose, that she does any thing like it ; and therefore she does not in this Rubrick enjoin the Minister of the Parish fo to receive Persons, who have only been Wash'd and Sprinkled by unauthoriz'd Lay Teachers; and Consequently, expects by this her Law, that they be qualified, to have those Words verify'd concerning them; and that can be (under the present Circumstances) by no Qther means, than that of Baptism, by one Commiffion'd to Administer it.
§. XIX. But in Opposition to all this, our Author tries to prove, "That the Church of
England hath in the Rubricks (for private Baptism,] “ declar'd her Juögment to be, that in the Words of Bishop . Bil
“ fon) The Minister is not of the Ellence “ of the Sacrament. And this he labours at in Page 20, 21, and 22. And the whole of what he says there, amounts only to this, that because the Church in those Rubricks does not call the Lawful Minister an Essential of Baptism; but incerts this Clause before her two la ft Questions, viz.“ Because some
things Essential to this Sacrament may bapas
pen to be omitted through Fear or Haste in “ such times of Extremity, therefore I demand “ farther of you. With what Matter was this 4 Child Baptiz’d? With what Words was this “Child Baptiz’d? That therefore the Church determins the Water and Form of Words in the Name of the Trinity, to be the Only Essentials belonging to the Sacrament ; because she does not say, If it cannot appear that the Child was Baptiz'd by a Lawful Minifter, let it be conditionally Baptiz’d; all that The says is, “ If they which bring the Infant, “ &c. do make such uncertain Answers, &c.
as that it cannot appear that the Child was “ Baptiz'd with Water, in the Name of the “ Father, &c. (which are Essential Parts of " Baptism) then let the Priest Baptize it in the “ Form, &c. If thou art not already Bap" tized, N. 1 Baptize thee, &c. From all which he concludes, that in the Judgment of the Church of England, the Minister is