Administration of the Sacraments and no other IX And the Can. 27. saith No Minister when he celebrates the Communion shall wittingly administer the same to any but to such as kneel under pain of suspension Can the Church more plainly speak the sense of her Liturgy You say It is against Schismaticks Yes 1. That is the end and the words express the means 2. And it is expository calling those Schismaticks that scruple and refuse to kneel X. Those that say the Liturgy hath any thing contrary to the Scripture or that the Ceremonies are such as he may not use approve c. are excommunicate ipso facto And therefore as Schismaticks not to be admitted to the Sacrament till they repent of that their wicked Errour Can. 4 5 6 7. XI Can. 14. All Ministers shall observe the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in the Book of common-Common-Prayer as well in reading the holy Scriptures and saying of Prayers as in administration of the Sacraments without either diminishing in regard of Preaching or in any other respect note that or adding any thing in the matter or form thereof XII Can. 29. No Parent shall be urged to be present nor be admitted to answer as God-father for his own Child nor any God-father or God-mother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of common-Common-Prayer is prescribed in that behalf If yet the Church have not declared her sense of the Liturgy but that I may Baptize without Cross or God-fathers and give the Sacrament to them that sit rather than refuse them I can understand no mans words And what can constrain an unwilling person to understand XIII Yet I say again If I practice on any pretence of mercy according to your Rule the Judges will condemn me the Justices will send me to the common Gaol among Rogues to lie six months and will fine me twenty pound and forty pound a Sermon as I have tryed and the Bishops or their Courts will excommunicate me and prosecute me to lay me in Gaol as you have tryed who fly to escape it And are not these made Judges of the sense of the Law and will not all this convince us what it meaneth Because you have put three of the chief matters of my Non-conformity here together I have answered all together If you will prefer the judgment of the Bishops before all this I pray you do not pretend that some honest Bishop that had no hand in our Changes and Silencing saith to you in private but get it us under the hands of many of them if you can that because mercy is to be preferred before sacrifice we may Baptize without the Cross and God-fathers and may give the Sacrament to them that kneel not if they dissent through consciencious fear of living CHAP. XVII § 1. IN your sixteenth Section you profess your liking of sitting at the Lord's Supper rather than kneeling How then can you declare Assent Consent and Approbation to the Liturgy expounded by the Canons which in plain words and by sharp penalties on Dissenters so much preferreth kneeling before sitting § 2. Your preferring the preaching and hearing of the Word and Prayer and Praise as more excellent than the carnal you mean the outward part in the Lord's Supper is very far from Conformity to the common sense of the Bishops who ordered the Altaring of the Communion Tables and commended bowing towards them and suspended so many Ministers on such accounts even far from the sense of Arch-Bishop Laud expressed in his life by Dr. Heylin and of the whole Church of England expressed in the Canons of 1640. § 3. I answered before your conceit that the Liturgy alloweth you to give the Sacrament to them that kneel not and your distorting the Canon because the Title is against Schismaticks when they mean that those that kneel not shall be taken and excluded as Schismaticks and so excommunicated as I have proved and not that the word is distinguishing and limiting allowing you to admit those to sit that are not Schimaticks The Bishops will deride that Exposition They that heard us at the Savoy can tell you who that Dr. now a Dean was who craved leave to have disputed the Case against me and to have proved That it is an Act of mercy to those that scruple and refuse to receive the Sacrament kneeling to deny them the Communion of the Church therein CHAP. XVIII § 1. YOur seventeenth Section is for the Cross in Baptism I distinctly proved that the Church imposeth it As a Symbol of our Christian Profession and as a consecrating dedicating sign by which 1. God's part of the Covenant is signified even the Grace by him given and the duty by him imposed on us 2. And the Receiver's part is signified and by solemn Engagement there professed even his Faith in Christ crucified and his resolution and self-obliging Consent or Covenant to be the Lords as dedicated to him and to perform all the future duties of the Covenant And that this is the true description of a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace The word Sacrament larglier taken may signifie no more than man may institute But a Sacrament strictly taken as thus described I suppose man may not institute 1. Because Christ hath instituted two as an act of his Royal Prerogative And if any Institution be proper to his Kingly and Priestly Power it must be such No other can be named excluding this And if none be proper what is it for him to be Great and One Law-giver to his Church If Legislation the chief part of Supreme Government be common to him and Bishops why is not that Royally Common 2. And if Christ would have had any more Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace he would have somewhere expressed his Commands and Directions to his Ministers to make them But he that hath given them full Commands and Directions for Preaching Prayer Baptizing and his Supper and for their other duties for the Flocks hath not said a word to them of this either biding them make new Sacraments or telling them how many or directing them what or how to do it nor how to use them when made nor promising to bless them 3. To make more seemeth to accuse Christ's Law or Institution of Imperfection Subordinate actions do not so But to make Ordinances ejusdem generis with those which he made not as a meer man nor as a meer Minister but as Mediator or King of the Church doth seem to say That Christ left half his work undone Did he institute Baptism and his Supper as a meer Man or a meer Minister then à quatenus ad omne any Man or any Minister may do the like and make more Sacraments But if as King of the Church and as Saviour then none but our King of the Chuch and Saviour may do the like Christ hath instituted one day of each week to commemorate his Resurrection as God the Creator instituted a weekly
Ministers may break them by admitting such Persons to the Sacrament as it excludeth For 1. You Covenant to Administer only according to the Liturgy 2. The Canon punisheth all Ministers that give it against the Prohibition 3. And the Rubrick excludeth your supposed power of Dispensation Can you believe your self that the meaning of the Liturgy and Canon is None shall be admitted that desire not God-Fathers except such as will not out of an Erring Conscience Are those then admitted that through Prophaneness desire not God-Fathers If so then you make the sense to be Those that have not God-Fathers shall not be admitted to that Sacrament except all that will not viz. Conscienciously or Prophanely If not then the sense must be You shall admit none to that Sacrament that have no God-Fathers through Parents Prophaneness but all that have none through scruple of Conscience And who cannot pretend such scruple And who will not pretend it when that will justifie them And how would the Bishops reproach such an Exposition which either maketh every Priest a judge of Mens Hearts whether their pretence be true or not or else admitteth all that will not have God-Fathers while the admission of any of them is expresly forbidden It is a stretching Exposition indeed which is against the whole form of the Office and the express words of the Churches Canon No Parent shall be God-Father to his own Child Try whether any two Bishops in England will allow you any such Exposition If such be allowed in this Case why not in all other like it And so the meaning of Law Canons and Rubrick be You shall do thus except when you have Moral Reason against it such as is Mercy which must be preferred Do you know how many have been Fined and sent to Goal for Preaching though they pleaded for it Mercy to Mens Souls Do you believe that it was the meaning of the Parliament and Bishops You shall keep no Conventicles nor omit the Liturgy or Ceremonies or Subscription c. unless when Mercy is to be preferred They that have Auditors that cannot bear the Liturgy when they omit it in mercy to the Flock I pray you get us an authentick signification of this Sense The words cited by you in the Preface to the Articles of 1604 are impertinent to our business It followeth not that you have leave to break the Laws when you think mercy requireth it because they are not equivalent to the Eternal Word of God nor bind conscience as of necessity in the nature of them considered in themselves and not in the Authority of the Commander Again I ask Shall any man escape punishement by such a plea of mercy Are not two thousand Ministers silenced and more that pleaded Mercy to themselves and others for the reason of their Non-conformity Did your Learned Pious Moderate Bishop excuse you for that plea Doth not the express words of the Law and Canon and Rubrick and the sentence and execution of all Judges to this day confute your exposition and exception You truly say It is a sin to make a false construction of the Law But if against the express words and scope and common judgment and execution you will presume to put your sense which is merciful because Charity thinketh no evil Any thing almost may be so said consented to and sworn I have spoken with a Papist that hath taken the Oath of Supremacy and wrote for it because it is to be supposed that it is only the spiritual power called Pastoral which the Pope claimeth over England or such give him and only the Power of the Sword which the King claimeth and denyeth to him and Foreigners And he citeth a fairer pretence for his exposition than you do here for yours And thus all may take up the Oath of Supremacy that hold but the Popes Spiritual Supremacy over us and all the world What words can be so bad that a man may not feign in Charity a good sense of § 9. You say the Liturgy alloweth private Baptism without the Cross and God-fathers Ans. 1. Thence I must gather that it doth not so allow publick Baptism no not on pretence of necessity and mercy else why had they not exprest their allowance of one as well as of the other 2. And even there it must be repeated after in the Congregation with God-fathers that believe and promise in the Name of the Child And in the house there is nothing named or required of the Parent but some one whoever is only to name the child § 10. In the Margin you say There is no express prohibition in all the Liturgy tying Ministers in no case to baptize without the Cross and to give the Sacrament to kneelers only and to baptize none without Sureties Ans. I am glad that your whole writing favoureth of that spirit of Love and Christian Peace and Forbearance as your dislike of these things signifieth And while we agree about the sense of God's Law we shall not break Charity for our differing of the sense of the Laws of man But seeing you put these great points of my Non-conformity here together I shall briefly repeat the reasons of my exposition against yours Words are to signifie the mind and the matter If the Book speak intelligibly so as to oblige us to one sense it 's nothing to our case whether the prohibition be express I. The Liturgy-Rubrick saith There shall be for every male-child to be baptized two God-fathers and one God-mother and for every female one God-father and two God-mothers II. The whole transaction beside prayer to God and the act of Baptizing is mainly speech to the God-fathers and demands of them and their answer by professing Abrenunciation Faith desire to be Baptized resolved Obedience They must name the Child They are exhorted to see that the Child be taught what a solemn Vow Promise and Profession he made by them c. and to be brought up to the Bishop to be confirmed III. In the Baptism of the Adult the God-fathers are called but Witnesses as not giving the person Title to Baptism But in the Baptism of Infants they do profess and covenant in the Child's name and he doth it by them as his very Title IV. The Catechism saith That Repentance and Faith are required of persons to be Baptized and as the old Book said They perform them by their Sureties so the new one saith They promise them by their Sureties and therefore are Baptized V. For the Cross the Liturgy saith Here the Priest shall make a Cross on the Child's fore-head And it referreth us to the Canon for the sense and reasons VI. The Communion-Rubrick saith He shall deliver it into their hands All meekly kneeling VII The last Rubrick saith It is ordained in this Office that the Communicants shall receive the same kneeling VIII The same Church by Can. 36. requireth every Minister to subscribe that he will use the Form in that Book prescribed in Publick Prayer and
39 Articles and the Liturgy for they contradict not themselves Ans. There is no shew of contradiction If the Church in three Books express her sense must I not set all together and take them in all And when the Liturgy purposely referreth the unsatisfied to the Canon for her sense and reason it 's an odd way of expounding it to forsake the Canons Exposition and say I reduce it to the Liturgy Doubtless all three together express their sense § 7. The second Commandment forbad not all private use of Images either a Civil or meer Memorative or Monitory private yea or publick use As it forbad not Iacob to pitch a stone of remembrance or the Israelites to make a Memorative and Monitory Altar and yet forbad such an Altar for Worship to be erected without God's Order But it was external symbolizing with Idolaters by Images which the second Commandment forbad that is either worshiping them or God by them or by setting them up in the place of Worship seeming so to do So it is not all use of a Cross that breaketh the second Commandment When you have proved lifting up the hand or laying it on the Book c. to be Sacraments I shall further answer you Or if the second Commandment oblige us not to use Christ's Sacraments as it is now one of Christ's Commandments then I shall confess that it forbiddeth not us to devise the like § 8. You say If it be a Sacrament it would be universally unlawful If Baptism had not been ordained by Christ it would have been traiterous and sinful to use it as a Sacrament Ans. You grant us enough I durst not have used the word traiterous so boldly lest I should anger the Conformists But when did you prove that every professing sign is used to the same use in specie as the covenanting dedicating Symbol of the Cross is This was a supposition not so easily to have been begged § 9. As to my Simile That Baptism is Christ's Badge or Colours it illustrates in the point of similitude And so it doth that the King would take it ill to have a publick badge of the Order of the Garter to be added to his Star by a private Subject much more for any to make a Law for all his Subjects to be known by a badge of private invention You say That it 's lawful to wear those Colours in the Troop which he may wear out Ans. Yes if he may wear them out in specie to the same use and ends But if you at a Funeral wear a black Ribbon and your General 's Colours be white and some Souldiers will make a Law That the badge of all the Souldiers shall be black Ribbons joyned to the white it would not then be lawful for you in or out of the Troop to wear that black as the badge of a Souldier much less to declare that you approved of and consented to the imposition And when you tell me I allow the use of it I tell you I allow not your use prescribed by the Church You say I can never prove that Christ forbad it And yet you say before that It 's traiterous to have made a Sacrament without Christ. But you affirm That it 's made but for the same use in Baptism which I allow out But why did you not give some answer to my express proof of the contrary Or why put you me so oft to repeat it It is an outward visible sign by which in the solemnizing of the Covenant between Christ and us the person is dedicated to God by receiving the said sign of the Grace of the Covenant and the obligation of the Covenant and of the persons professed consent and engagement to the duties of it 1. That it is a Badge of Christianity the thirtieth Canon saith twice 2. That it is an honourable Badge by which the Infant is dedicated to the service of God the same Canon saith 3. That it is a Covenanting sign both the celebrating words and these of the Canon shew 4. That it is a sign of professed Consent to the Covenant-duties there named Not to be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against the World Flesh and Devil and to continue Christ's faithful Servant and Souldier to his lives end The words shew and none denyeth 5. That it is an Obliging sign both as imposed by God's Minister and as self-obliging by the said professed Consent is also exprest in the same words And this is it which is called The Covenant-Vow The person is Vowed or Devoted to God by two Sacramental signs Baptism and the Cross. 6. That it signifieth also God's Grace given by that Covenant the words of the expository Canon 30 shew To dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in Baptism the name of the Cross did represent To the service of him that dyed on the Cross. 7. Yea that it is an Investing sign delivering the Church-priviledges appeareth in the words We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross. 8. And that it is to operate Grace morally on the Intelligent is exprest in the foresaid words of instructing and obliging signification with the preface of the Liturgy To stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by a notable and special signification whereby he might be edified § 10. Anno 1660. endeavouring to prevent what followed I used these same reasons with the great Bishop who I think hath had the first and and chief hand in the matter as it standeth and he denyed but two things of the Sacramental Cross 1. That it is of God's institution which he thought essential to a Church-Sacrament To which I say It is a humane unlawful Sacrament but that it is not Divine we easily grant 2. That the Cross giveth Grace I answered that effectually it doth not because God will not bless unlawful means But it is appointed by man to give or work Grace This I proved 1. Because as it is a Receiving sign into the Church it delivereth by Investiture the Relative Grace of Church-priviledges 2. As the Water of Baptism worketh morally by signifying the washing of Christ's Blood so the Cross is to operate morally by signifying Christ's Crucifixion the benefits of the Cross and our duty But he laid the stress of his Cause on this assertion That Sacraments as such are to give grace otherwise than by such moral operation and it is no Sacrament that is not instituted to give God's grace otherwise than morally I told him how commonly Protestants maintain that they are not instituted to give grace physically but only morally and by investiture in relations And here we broke And because I must expect that from others that are driven to it this will be the last refuge I will add that even the wisest Papists themselves do maintain only
that if the same were done here we may enter into a solemn Covenant never to endeavour to reform it No were it but the high places in Iudaea 2. Submitting is either by Obedience or meer Patience Under Papists and Turks Men must submit by Patience But if you say We hold that we must obey all that they command our practice tells you It is not true But the question is Whether there be no one thing but what we may covenant never to endeavour to alter and subscribe that no Parliament Man or any other in England is bound by that Oath which they took to endeavour it The Law forbids me to say They are and therefore I say it not But if you say They are not Dare you undertake to answer for them You say Their Office binds them to no evil That is None of the things fore-mentioned are evil Which you said were so Again you say All the while Excommunications and Church Censures are soundly done it 's the the less matter by whom they are done Ans. 1. Do not say so to the King about Kingly Government Nor to the Judges if an intruder invade the Tribunal 2. Make the Bishops believe this if you can of any that should usurp their Office 3. Make the Parish Priests believe it if you can who are so angry with us for helping them at a distance though we invade not Places 4. Make any sober Ministers believe if you can that if the Word be well Preacht and Sacraments soundly Administred it is no matter who doth it 5. Make any Master of a Family or Husband believe it as to their Offices that it 's no matter who doth it so it be soundly done If the Wife do believe it 's two to one the Husband will not § 4. Again you say By the Government of Church and State whatsoever is absolutely sinful is forbidden the Laws declare it Null c. Ans. This is before answered You say Silencing and Excommunicating the Non-conformists here are sinful Instead of this impertinent talk go try your Oratory on the Judges and Bishops if you can persuade them that the Law forbids them all to fine Imprison or Silence us or Excommunicate us Why did you not use this pretty Argument for your self 2. And do not Papists and Turks say that No Law against God is in force And doth their Government therefore contain no evil Or will you tell them that swear to amend it that it 's well enough already You tell us what to say to the Bishops and Judges for our selves But if by this Medium I would prove that I am conformable to the Law and they are the Non-conformists that punish me because they break the Law of God I doubt they would Laugh at me first and send me to Gaol next § 5. But in answer to Where read we in Scripture of the Chancellor's Office You repeat again If soundly done no Man may reprove them I will not repeat my Answer But I add If so No Man may reprove the Boys if they soundly Whip their Master when he deserveth it nor a Cobler that will send Offenders to Prison as the Lord Mayor doth Nor a Justice yea or a Tinker that will step up in the Chancery or King's-Bench to do Justice § 6. But though I will not Laugh at your Writing I should hardly forbear if I heard you do what page 95 you say you would do viz. If a Bishop or Arch-Bishop or Chancellor live where you are Pastor and be a Member of your Congregation you must needs look on your self as obliged by the Laws and Canons of the Church and State by the Word of God and by the Rules of the common-prayer-Common-prayer-Book publickly to admonish him if he grosly misdemean himself and do a scandalous crime and if he shall not by open confession give satisfaction to the Church bar him from the Sacrament and declare him Disorderly and Contumacious and that if he do not repent he shall perish and warn the People to beware of such evil Courses and to have no more to do with him than they needs must And this I maintain to be part of the Discipline and Government of the Church of England Ans. I would I could see this bout I doubt he will have something to do with you Your Chancellor had the wit to begin with you first I pray you forget not this Case when you go to the Bishop for his sense of the Liturgy and tell us his answer when you come Home I must profess this is an edifying Passage As when I read in Saltmarsh that Christ repented and believed for us it let in more Light against Libertinism than I had before So doth this Passage raise up some useful doubts in me about our Churches which I thought not on till now Q. 1. Whether are the Bishops that dwell in the London Parishes or others Members of the Parish Church where they dwell Q. 2. If they are not Whether dwelling in the Parish make a Christian a Member of the Parish Church Q. 3. If not what is it that makes a Member and how are the Pastors special Flock truly known to him from others Q. 4. If they be Members to whom shall we present the Bishop for not coming to Church or for his Crimes Is it to himself Q. 5. Whether is the Bishop or the Parish Priest there the higher Power or Governor and which must obey Q. 6. Doth the Canon that forbids Men to go from their own Parish Churches extend to the Bishop Q. 7. How is the Bishop one of the Parson's Flock and the Parson one of the Bishop's Flock both at once Q. 8. Whether the Bishop that is Excommunicated by the Parson out of the Parish Church be cast out of the Universal or other Churches may have Communion with him or not Q. 9. What if the Parson Excommunicate the Bishop and the Bishop the Parson both at once what a Case are they in And which shall stand one or both and how far Q. 10. How will the Parson practice his Conformity who consenteth when he putteth any one from the Sacrament to certifie the Ordinary within fourteen Days will he prosecute the Bishop to himself or to his Chancellor Q. 11. Doth not this Instance prove Mr. Cheyney to be a mistaking Expositor of the Church-Government the Bishops themselves being Judges and would not one days practice of any such thing convince him by Experience that the Church of England now take not Parish Parsons for Parish Bishops Q. 12. Is he in the right page 96. that this Course would make Bishops and Arch-Bishops and Chancellors stand in awe of the Priests why then did you not thus awe your Bishop and Chancellor CHAP. XXIX YOur 28th Section hath nothing in it that requireth many words for Answer That Oaths and Laws must be charitably expounded no one denieth so they be truly expounded In this we stand to Bishop Sanderson's Rules which are far better stated than any
and the English sort of God-Fathers you may refuse to say the words of Prayer which imply his Salvation over the Dead who were Excommunicable though not Excommunicated You may understand the Article which professeth the certainty of Baptized Infants salvation of those only that are the Children of faithful Parents or Pro-parents you may say you Assent to all in the Book and mean not all but some part and that not as true but as usable You may profess Consent to use it all and yet not mean to use the Calendar or Rubricks or to Administer the Sacraments otherwise than as aforesaid You may Say or Subscribe or Swear that it is on any pretence whatsoever unlawful to take Arms against any Commissioned by the King and mean only such as are lawfully Commissioned You may subscribe that no one in England that sware it is bound by the solemn Vow and Oath to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State and mean only that he must not endeavour it by Sedition or Rebellion And so on to the end But other Bishops will say the clean contrary viz. That the Bishop is the only Pastor and the Parish Priest hath none of the power here named and so of all the rest And what Uniformity then will there be Know you not how they write against such different Administrations as destructive and intolerable 7. And know you not that a Bishop hath no power against the Canons The Canons are their own Laws and Judgment and bind them And when the Canon saith e. g. He shall be suspended that giveth the Sacrament to one that kneeleth not or that the Non-conformists are ipso facto Excommunicate c. Hath the Bishop authority to say the contrary 8. And you know that I wrote not to accuse you or any Man for Conforming but to tell them that judge us worthy to be Silenced and Ruined what our Non-conformity is And what use then is your own Latitude to me or such as I though I went your own way For I have askt and heard the Opinion of divers Bishops already and they have said clean contrary to you I have heard him that first forbad me Preaching in his Diocess say that The Liturgy forbiddeth delivering the Sacrament to any that Kneel not I can shew it you under his Hand that the Priest must not be Judge when to omit the forementioned words at the burial of the Dead nor tolerated in such Liberty as you presume on I have been told by a Bishop That seeing Christ died for all the Children of any Parents in the World have right to Baptism and any Man hath as good right to present to it an Infidel's Child as to take in an exposed Infidel's Child to his House in Charity I told you that Bishop Sanderson publickly before the Bishops Nemine contradicente told me That I need not question Baptizing any Infidel's Child if God-Fathers presented him according to the Order of the Church of England Are we not then concluded against Conformity by the Bishop's judgment by your own Rule And must not you be a Non-conformist in the Diocess of any such Bishop as these 9. And by your Rule a Man must be a Conformist in one Bishop's Diocess and a Non-conformist in another's and change his mode of Religion as he Travelleth or doth change his Dwelling I imagine that by your Rule I might partly Conform in the Diocess of London or Lincoln Hereford or Carlisle but I should be as Non-conformable as I am in the Diocess of Winchester Ely York Norwich and any other as far as I yet know I conclude that your Catholicon may purge your self from all Non-conformity but it is utterly unprofitable to me Facile credimus quod volumus I have had as much reason as you to be willing to find Conformity lawful if it be so I have lost many thousand Pounds more by Non-conformity than you have got by Conformity But I have no such Byas on my Will as should set all my Wit on work to find or buy a Rope for my Conscience And I find nothing better that you offer me herein § 4. When you have told us Where no God-Fathers can be had we must Christen without and such like You say And this is the common sense put upon the Law by the Law-makers themselves that is by the Bishops Ans. What reason did you think we have in such an Historical Assertion to believe your bare word In what Synod did they declare it Why did you neither name the Bishops nor the Time or Place or Witness by which it might be proved the common sense But could you think this should convince me that know it to be false § 5. You tell us pag. 119. If it were a part of Assent and Consent that Ordination by good and substantial Presbyters were null it would be a hard point indeed to Unchurch Churches and Unbaptize the Baptized and plead the cause of Satan the Pope and all Malignants of the Ministry in the Name of Christ. Ans. Excuse us then for not Conforming I before gave you this Proof that it is the sense of the Law-makers or Bishops They that abhor Reordination or twice ordaining to the Priesthood and yet require those to be ordained by Bishops who were before ordained by Presbyters must be judged to hold the said Ordination by Presbyters to be null But c. Ergo. § 6. 1. You say No Man that I know of takes the Silenced Ministers and those ordained by Presbyters only for no Ministers at all unless one Mr. Dodwel a high-flown Man whom Conformists themselves do utterly dissent from in this Ans. Your ignorance is no good reason for my Conformity If you know of no more I do Read Mr. Thâ—rndike of Forbearance of Penalties Ask Bishop Gunning his judgment c. If your acquaintance be so small you should not write of that which you know not § 7. 2. But you say All both Rulers and People Conformists themselves do own them for Ministers otherwise they would take some course for the Rebaptizing of all Baptized by them Ans. Did you ever read the Conference at Hampton Court Did you dream that all these take Laymens Baptizing for null Or do you conclude that all think what you think § 8. 3. You prove it from the toleration of the Foreigners Churches in London Ans. How will you prove that they judge all true Ministers whom they Tolerate § 9. 4. You say the Acts against Conventicles and the Five Mile Act prove it 5. The King's Proclamation for Indulgence proveth it 6. The Fines and Imprisonments for Conventicles prove it 7. The allowing four Persons to meet in private proveth it 8. The common sense of Bishops Divines and People of the Church of England prove it Ans. You may next say That any thing that you see or hear proveth it It 's liker these prove the contrary than this By this Men may see how little satisfaction we may expect
thought otherwise Yea when you neither answer our Reasons nor give us the tenth part so much for your Cause as we answered yet we must not think that it is on slight grounds that you have taken up your Opinion pag. 16. when what you say is so slight that as I will not write over again what you vouchsafe not to answer so if your Reader have read my Book cited by you I will not so reproach his judgment as to think that he needeth any farther answer to this of yours But if he have not read mine nor will read it he is in no danger of being seduced by it and so your labour is in vain § 2. But Reader lest so small a word as his oft I conceive should prove to the unwary Synonimal to I deceive I shall advertise thee briefly I. That my way was to distinguish of Conversion 1. As from Heathenism or Infidelity Mahometanism or Heresie 2. From gross Hypocrisie manifested by a notorious wicked Life 3. From close Hypocrisie not proved 4. From a particular fall of a sincere Christian to his integrity or from some tolerable Error and Mistake II. I use to distinguish between Being sincere in the Christian Faith and knowing that we are Sincere III. I use to define what the Conversion is that I speak of in such Controversie IV. And I never confound the Case Whether it may be demanded with the Case whether it may be delivered V. And I still distinguish between A means which an Unconverted self-knowing Man is commanded by God to use for his Conversion and a means which God can use or consequently the Sinner should in the review make use of hereunto supposing that he hath unlawfully intruded As if a Man unlawfully invade the sacred Ministerial Office when he is in it there is somewhat that may become a means of his Conversion Or if one that hath vowed Celibate Marry a godly Person unlawfully it may become a means of their Conversion Now to make this Controversie intelligible to the unstudied I would here perform all these parts and distinctly by Propositions open the Matter But it is done in the Disputations of Right to Sacraments which he opposeth And if every Nibbling of one that refuseth the rational task of a sober Confuter shall call a Man to write new Books there will be no end of tiring Readers I doubt I have Erred already in not letting some talk on and shew their Mistakes and false Accusations without any Confutation § 3. He doth indeed limit the Case to the Unconverted within the Church and you would think that by this he excluded Heathens Mahometans Infidels and Hereticks But remember 1. That the Baptized not Excommunicate are in the Universal Church 2. And that a particular Church with him seems to be nothing but a worshipping Assembly and all that are there are in the Church and when the Meeting breaks up the Church is no Church 3. And yet sometimes you would that think he took a Parish of such Assemblers for a Church 4. And it is matter of Fact past all dispute that not only all the Papists the first ten Years of Queen Elizabeth came to our Churches and some do so still but that abundance such as aforesaid come to the Parish Churches who in Coffee-Houses talk against Christianity or the immortality of the Soul or the Scriptures and such as write Books to the same purposes and these are not converted from Sadducism Beastiality or Infidelity 5. And then mark whether any of this Brother's Arguments do prove that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained for such Men to use for their Conversion § 4. Remember that the full Conversion to Saâ—â—ing-Sincerity is nothing else but sincere Consent to the Baptismal Covenant And every such Consenter and only such Adult are savingly converted And that it is not that Covenant when any essential part is omitted To believe in the Father and not the Son or not in the Holy Ghost is not that Covenant Now the Person in question To receive the Sacrament as the Sacrament Baptism or the Eucharist and not to profess Consent to the Covenant is a contradiction no Man can do it Covenanting is essential to it And it is essential to it to be by God's Commission a Solemn actual investing Delivery with application to the just receiver of a saving Right to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and actual present pardon of Sin and right to Life § 5. And the Person in question is either 1. One that Consenteth not and knoweth that he consenteth not 2. Or that Consenteth not and thinks he doth because he consenteth to some part 3. Or one that consenteth not and knoweth not whether he do or not 4. For as for all true Consenters that know not that they do it sincerely they are Converted Persons and not those in Question And a true Consenter that doubteth of his truth but upon his best self-trial thinks that he truly consenteth to have God for his God and Christ for his Saviour and the Holy Ghost for his Sanctifier must go without certainty upon the best judgment that he make of himself I. Now for the Person that consenteth not and knoweth it to come and demand the Sacrament for his Conversion is all one as to say that It is God's Ordinance that he is not willing after all persuasions to give up himself to God as his Father Saviour and Sanctifier and therefore hath no right to Pardon and Life shall solemnly profess that he doth consent to the Covenant when he doth not and that he doth presently by Vow give up himselfe to God as his God and Father Saviour and Sanctifier when he doth not that this may convert them to do that which lyingly he saith he doth And he shall take the investing pardoning Sign and Act when he hath no right to Pardon Deceive not your self or others Giving and Taking Eating and Drinking are as Speaking significant Actions essentially to the Sacrament And he never received the Sacrament essentially as that Sacrament that did not thereby interpretatively solemnly profess q. d. I now consent to the Covenant of Christ and take God in Christ for my Father Saviour and Sanctifier and here give up my self to him in these Relations And therefore all the Ancients taught that the Baptized were all certainly presently pardoned supposing that they really consented to the Baptismal Covenant as every adult Baptized Person did and must profess And can you believe that this was Christ's Institution q. d. Come and solemnly be Perjured and Lye and say Thou consentest to the Covenant when thou dost not that this may convert thee to Consent All your mistaken row of words will never make this soul Cause fair 2. But what if it be a Man that consenteth not but thinketh he doth or yet doth not know Ans. It is his Sin not to know that he consenteth not and that will not make it lawful for him to Lye and
sincerely Penitent thy Sin is pardoned and thou hast right to Salvation and mayst come to the Lord's Table Ans. And doth not this imply that else he should not come And is such a Man Unconverted It is too irksome to rake up the rest of your Contradictions and examine your slight words of the Parable of the Tares But that rooting up the Tares forbidden is Excommunicating or denying Sacramental Communion to any Parishioner of your Description who will believe that knoweth 1. What Christ saith Mat. 18. 15. c. and Paul 1 Cor. 5. and 2 Thess. 3. Tit. 3. 10 11 c. 2. Or he that knoweth that the Universal Church of Christ in all Ages hath been of another mind and indeed went at last too far against it having no punishment for Christians but Suspension and Excommunication 3. And that the Christian World at this day is of another mind though the Helvetians are too remiss in the Principles and most in the Practice 4. And that the Canons of this Church requireth the Minister to deny the Sacrament to some such as you describe And in your former Book you pleaded this as for Conformity And are you changed already And shall any Wise Man follow such quick Changes 5. The Church of England forbids us to give the Sacrament to any that are not Confirmed and desire it not or are not ready But such are many of your Description 6. If the power of Excommunicating over a thousand or many hundred Churches be confined to the Bishop and the Chancellor or Officials and so all the Parish Ministers denied it and disabled all these Churches must be Prophaned and Confounded at the will of one Man or because he cannot do an Impossibility And the reasons why Christ would have his Church to be visibly Holy and a Communion of Saints and openly differenced from the notoriously ungodly are so many and so great that I will not here attempt the opening of them having often elsewhere done it QUEST IV. WHether the common sort of ungodly Christians are to be cast out of the Church by Penal Excommunications and used as Excommunicate ones You say I conceive not Ans. Would any one that pretended to confute our Errors no better open the case in question 1. In your sense they are Christians that never professed consent to the Baptismal Covenant but only took the Water in order to Conversion hereafter These are no visible Christians And I suppose by parity of Reason the Council of Nice which decreed the Rebaptizing of the Paulmists would have been for Rebaptizing these 2. Is the Ordinariness the satisfying Character who is not to be Excommunicated In one Country those are ordinary that are extraordinary in others In some places Arrians are ordinary in some Socinians in some Papists in some open Scorners of the Scripture Christianity and Religion In some ignorant Persons that know not the Essentials of Christianity nor will learn or let the Minister instruct them any where but in the Pulpit in many Parishes here not one of many their Neighbours say go to Church about once or twice a Year 1 Cor. 5. 13. Put away from among you that wicked Person ver 11. If any Man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator or Covetous or on Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such a one no not to eat Do not ye judg them that are within 2 Thess. 3. It is the idle and disorderly And these are ordinary in some places But we easily grant that Excommunications are not to be used Tyranically or when they do more hurt than good And if the Body of a Church turn e. g. Socinians or professedly ungodly and will not be Reformed the Excommunication which we plead for is but withdrawing from them and renouncing their Communion declaredly § 2. I have oft said that Perfidious Covenant-breakers who live in gross Sin and still tell the Minister they repent and will not be persuaded to leave their Sin e. g. Whoredom Drunkenness Stealing Perjury Blasphemy have so far forfeited the credit of their bare word that the Pastor should see their actual amendment before he Absolve them And now your Hand is in the World must be saved from this Doctrine too But because it is a common principle in Nature and in all Church Canons and the common judgment of Divines I will not stay to dispute it with you But when you are a Master of a Family if you think Family Discipline a Duty Experience will cure your credulity If your Servant or Son beat you or spit in your Face or Rob you once a Day or Week but for one Year together and say still after it I repent But what will not Men talk for QUEST V. WHether Mr. Baxter's Doctrine and Principles concerning particular Churches be sound and good And you confute them Ans. 1. Those that read them are in no danger by them And those that do may be confirmed by so slight a confutation as I said 2. As for my Book of Universal Concord of all Christian Churches I know that the Devil hateth it so much that I expect some far more subtile Assault than yours or else I shall think that the Devil wanteth wit or power more than is commonly believed But I am sorry that he hath drawn so good a Man to be his instrument § 1. My first mentioned Error is That a particular Church is a regular part of the Universal Church as a City is of a Kingdom The confutation is In this I conceive he is out A particular Church is to the Church Universal with a single Town consisting of a Magistrate Governing and People governed according to the general Rules and Principles of Society is to all the World Ans. The proof is I conceive he is out and an Assertion in other words of the same that is denied and so we are out both or neither 1. I used the Name and he the Definition It may be he thought that by City I had meant only such Towns as are so called in England But methinks he should know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth all such Towns as he defineth and that it is the common definition of Civitas which he giveth us as all Politicks speak de Civitate It is therefore the same subject in the Similitude which we both speak of 2. The difference then must be between the words Kingdom and World I say A Church is such a part of the Universal as a City is of a Kingdom He saith no but as a City is of the World What a dangerous Error hath he detected But All the World is God's Kingdom And as it hath but one King so I thought I might liken it to a Kingdom that hath one King but a multitude of Corporations without stretching the Similitude to intend that This Kingdom is not a part of the World § 2. My second Error is He that will be a Member of a particular Church must
a Man disown only the Pastor of that Church 2. What if he will not joyn with them in the Liturgy or Mode of Worship there used 3. What if that Church be Nestorians or Eutychians or Papists and he separates from them or they cast him out 4. What if he remove his Dwelling § 15. Next I am censured for demanding the People of Kederminster ' s consent to my Ministry and their Church Relation And he will now be distinct and maketh Answers to `distinct Questions for them But never tells us whether such Answers had been true or false if they had given them His first Question is Do we take you to have the just qualifications of a Pastor And the Answer is Learning is one qualification of which the Ignorant are incompetent Iudges And for Wisdom Holiness and Ministerial skill of Fidelity you are to make proof of them This is to be answered some Years after and not ask before-hand And so under Papists Socinians prophane Imposers you are to take all as Wise Holy Faithful till some Years after you find them otherwise Here he expoundeth his former words for rejecting the unqualified and unfaithful But who shall be judge at some Years after His second Question is Do we take you to be duly ordained And the Answer is We are bound to judge those to be justly Ordained which are so reputed and we have no reason to suspect Ans. 1. But whose reputation is it that you rest on Half the Parish say you are not justly ordained but by a Bishop The other half say you are justly ordained by Presbyters You falsifie if you feign them all of a mind 2. And who knows how to define and bound your Reasons of Suspicion 3. The Canons and Bishops say you have sorfeited your License if you conform not and without a License you may not Preach 4. And if you will question no mens orders you will have many Lay-Pastors To his 3d Quest. he answereth We question not your presentation Ans. And yet it is the Magistrate that must impose Ministers and in times of Usurpation he feigneth them to be unquestioned The sum hitherto is We must take any Man for our Pastor that is Ordained and presented But what if I knew that multitudes do not so doth it make them of that Church because they should consent and do not Of 1800 or 2000 only 600 would come to the Sacrament though they usually heard unless all the rest would receive it kneeling and administred by the Liturgy though they were left free to use that Gesture themselves and withal they were told that we had not a Bishops license The 4th Quest. is If we take you alone for our Pastor And it 's answered We know of no other in view but you Ans. All these are Fictions 1. I never desired nor consented to be their Pastor but to be one of three 2. I agreed with them in the Town-Hall publickly in writing to undertake only a Lecture which I had before the War in conjunction with another that should have the Presentation or Sequestration And yet honest Mr. Durel tells the World that it was a rich Benefice given me for my Service under Cromwel who would never endure me to speak to him 3. There were three Competitors One an old Vicar that somehow preacht once a Quarter that had the Presentation and was Sequestred 1. I will not tell you here for what 2. His Curate sequestred and removed 3. An old Chappel Curate grosly ignorant and vicious that lived by unlawful Marrying 4. And by all this you determine that of three of us none was Pastor but only that one that had the Presentation and so you depose all other Curates not presented And yet the Chappels that have such Curates put in only by the Parsons are true Churches such are your frequent Contradictions Sect. 16. Next as a meek Questioner he askt me Why I will not baptize their Infants if I take them for Christians and Parishioners He saith after If they make not a tolerable profession of Christianity in the publick Assembly they produce no valid claim we are not to admit them Ans. I suppose there are in the three next Parishes here 80000 Persons whom the Pastors never had any other account of as to their knowledg but by their coming to Church and half of them that rarely come And those of us that have talkt with almost all our Parishioners find that multitudes know not what Christianity or a Sacrament is A man about 80 years old in Kederminster said Christ was the Sun and the Holy Ghost the Moon Is standing up at the Creed then or sitting in the Church a tolerable profession Hobbes and his followers would do the same 2. But what obligation is on me to baptize all the Children of those that take me for none of their Pastor The Parish may have 20000 more than I am able to do the Pastoral Office for I cannot tell whether they come to Church or not If they do they are strangers to me some come into the Parish and others go out and many are Lodgers And he that as a Pastor is to Baptize is also to do abundance more to Catechize visit the Sick the Poor c. Am I bound to impossibilities for every stranger that I never knew Nor can I know so much as whether he be Christened or be indeed a Parishioner Yea a Church with you is only a present Assembly What if these persons assemble not or but twice or thrice a Year What if Travellers be that day of the Church Bishop Taylor saith Pref. of Repen No one can give account of those that he knoweth not Sect. 17. His talk of the Tares again deserveth no answer but read Expositors His repeated insinuation by the word Oaths and Covenants tell us that a good man may become un insinuater of Calumnies His two Conclusions pag. 55. from my words are 1. That they are no Churches that want this cementing Covenant Ans. They are none that are not so related by consent expressed by one way or other If you turn this into cementing Covenant when you had newly cited my express denial that express Covenanting was necessary ad esse it 's worse than Ceremony which you are already come to think lawful The 2d Concl. is The Churches that have it not in the most plain obliging way are defective spotted and ill-favoured because I said that the more express way is laudable ad bene esse As if all were called spotted and ill-favoured that want any thing laudable ad bene esse And will Christ take away his Churches spots and wrinkles Ephes. 6. when there were none And he saith This he calls the true and only way of the Churches Concord As if every word in the Book were called the true and onely Way It rather tendeth saith he to Discord and to make every single Minister a Pope or Church-tyrant and to make Churches Schismatical and traiterous Combinations dividing themselves from all other Churches and Christians c. Ans. 1. And yet he before said himself that the unwilling cannot be Pastor and Flock And is not this the same 2. Thus all Christ's Churches that ever I read of for 300 yea a 1000 Years are Stigmatized who still made expressed consent necessary 3. A Pope is one that claimeth Soveraignty over all the Church on Earth Doth he do so that taketh none for his Flock but Consenters 4. Which is liker Tyranny not to pretend to Government over any but Volunteers or to say I will Govern you whether you will or not 5. Is it Dividing and Schism to know my Flock as Consenters and not to take other Mens Flocks Sine literis Communicatâ—riis as oft as they will dwell or lodg in my Parish The words Oaths and Covenants are oft again so mentioned by him and his profession that he hath the Episcopal and Presbyterian on his side and other untruths so rashly uttered that I am heartily grieved for the success of his Temptation And whether he or I be Schismatical and differ from the Ancient Churches I refer the Reader to my Abridg. of Church History and to my Citations in my Book of Right to Sacraments My Preface to Mr. Rawlet's Book of the Sacrament confutes some of his Intimations I thank God that I am going to a more peaceable World FINIS