they promised it was not thâ—y but the Parents that were bound to perform 3. Or Nonconformists in this point who purposed before hand to be but the Parents Râ—pâ—esentatives and that the promise and obligation should all be devolved from them on the Parents though they knew the Church meant otherwise and that they were not bound to the Churches sense and therefore their standing to hear this is your part was no consent to take it for their part And none of all these do answer the Churches sense in their undertaking And if we are commonly baptized and made Christians in a way of false Vowing or Covenanting of such persons or of â—â—lusâ—â—y Equâ—vocation it is not well 11. We know not where Parents can procure any to undertake this Office as the Church imposeth it that credâ—â—ly signifie themselves able and willing to performâ—â— we could not do it our selves were we never so desirous Perhaps some Rich men might hire others to take their Children into their Care and Education as must be promised but who would do so for the poor yea for all the poor of England And the Nonconformists are not satisfied that it is lawful to engage any in a perfidious covenanting before God when before-hand they have no credible signification of any purpose to perform it Nay when the Parent resolveth to educate his own Child and not to trust him to the Provision or care of others 12. The Minister Covenanting to use the form in the Book of Common Prayer prescribed in administration of the Sacraments and no other Can. 36. No Parent may speak a word in the name of his own Child nor to enter him there into the Covenant of God nor profess that he offereth him to Baptism by virtue of and in confidence in the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their Generations Nor to promise himself what the Godfathers are to promise The words also of the Can. 29. are these No Parent shall be urged to be PRESENT nor be admitted to answer as Godfather for his own Child Nor any Godfather or Godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf 13. It is the Godfathers work also by the Liturgy to take care that the Child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him in the manner of the Church of England as soon as he can say the Creed Lords Prayer and ten Commandments and be further instructed in the Church Catechism which Godfathers use not at all to perform nor do the Parents use to expect it Nor doth one Child of a multitude understand what the Baptismal Covenant is of many a year after they have learned to say the said Catechism 14. That the Godfathers stand not there as the Representers of the Parents is evident according to the sense of the Church because the Parent himself is not suffered to do it or speak one covenanting word nor must be urged to be present nor are they to speak in the Parents name in any of their undertakings Nor is there the least intimation that the Church taketh the Sponsor for the Parents Representative 15. The Parents are to be admonished not to defer the Baptism of their Children longer than the first or second Sunday unless upon a great and reasonable cause to be approved by the Curate whether they can get understanding credible Godfathers or not These are the Matters of Fact Here note 1. That there is no Controversie between the Conformists and Nonconformists whether Christians Infants should be baptized 2. Nor whether a Conformists baptizing be valid 3. Nor whether the Parents presence be absolutely necessary and another may not speak in his name 4. Nor whether Adopters or any Proprieters may not covenant for the Child 5. Nor whether the old Sponsors be lawful who 1. Witnessed the credibility of the Parent 2. And undertook the Christian Education of the Child if the Parents should either die or apostatize The Nonconformists are against no such Sponsors though they think that their Children have right to Baptism without such 6. Nor do they deny that Baptism in the Parish Churches is valid and lawful as to the Parents and Godfathers if they do but agree on the Nonconformists way that the Sponsors shall but represent the Parents and that they be not bound by the contrary judgment of the Authors of the Liturgy to the contrary But the questions are 1. Whether a Christians Child whose Parents have no way forfeited their credit have not right to Baptism without other Godfathers 2. Whether the Parent should not solemnly enter his own Child into the Covenant of God as well as in times of Circumcision And whether any Parent should be forbidden it viz. to appear and speak as the Representer of the Child or Undertaker for him and Promiser of his Education 3. Whether that Child must profess by another that He Himself Believeth Renounceth Repenteth and Desireth Baptism And it be not rather to be prosessed that he is the seed of a Believing Penitent Parent whose Will is as his Will and is under God's Promise I will he thy God and the God of thy seed 4. Whether a Christian Parent may consent to the persidious undertaking of any Godfathers who give him not the least reason to believe that they intend that provision for the Children which they undertake Or else may let his Child be unbaptized till he can get such a credible Undertaker which is never like to be with most or many 5. Whether the Children of Heathens or Infidels or Atheists have right to Baptism upon the presentation of any Godfather who never adopteth them or taketh them for his own nor giveth any credible notice that he really intendeth to educate those Children as pro forma he seemeth to undertake Or whether such Children are truly said to believe because the Godfather or Minister or Congregation or Diocess or Nation or Catholick Church believe III. The Nonconformists are not of one mind about receiving the Lords Supper Kneeling Many judge it Lawful though neither necessary nor most eligible were they free some judge it also most eligible And some judge it as things stand unlawful Their reasons are 1. In doubtful cases duty lieth on the surest side But this to them is a doubtful case on one side and to imitate Christs institution by such sitting as men use to do at meat is certainly Lawful 2. Because they think this Kneeling violateth the reasons of the second Commandment being used where by whole Countries of Papists round about us and many among us it signifieth Bread-Worship or Idolatry by the same Action at the same season used For they suppose that the second Commandment forbiddeth Images as being External Corporal Idolatry and Symbolizing scandalously with Idolators though the mind intend the worshiping of the true God alone And such they think this kneeling is and that it encourageth the
Gods account 3. And it was before enquired In what sense this Godfather doth not promise only that the Child shall believe at age but in the Childs name profess that he doth at present believe And whether it be not enough and much more necessary then the Godfathers faith that he be the Child of a believing Parent dedicating him to God 4. And it hath been shewed that Godfathers promise themselves partly to teach the Child and partly to provide that he be taught all that a Christian should learn as necessary to his souls health 5. And that these Godfathers never ordinarily give the Parents the least reason to believe that they have any purpose to do any such thing as they undertake Which is perfidiousness in the weightiest business And 6. also that as such they are no adopters or owners of the Child 7. And also how hard it is for any Parents ever to get better seeing wiser and better will not undertake it in the foresaid conformable sence 8. The sence and use of Godfathers is partly known by the Practise of Princes and great men who must be supposed to know best and be most righteous and exemplary who usually by a Proxie are Godfathers to the Children of Foreign Princes or Great men perhaps Papists whom they never saw nor ever are like to see their Children 9. Ministers must Assent Approve of and Consent to all this exclusion of the Parents and presentation profession undertaking and promise of the Godfathers which the Liturgy mentioneth 10. Conformists are not agreed themselves of the true Office and undertaking of these Godfathers nor of the Parents part nor by whose right it is that one Child rather than others is to be baptized and whether any at all should be refused by whomsoever that is a Christian offered thereunto 8. The Rubrick to which we must declare our Assent Approbation and Consent hath this Article of faith It is certain by Gods Word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved And the Rubrick at Buryal excepteth all the unbaptized from Christian Burial according to the Office 2. The Canon 68 and 69 suspendeth any Minister who shall refuse or delay to Christen any Child without exception which is brought to the Church on Sundays or Holydays to be Christned according to the Form in the Common-Prayer or if in case of danger he be desired to do it privately Neither Rubrick nor Canon here except from Baptism and certainty of salvation any Children of Turks Infidels Heathens and Atheists or those whose Parents renounce Christianity and consent not to their Childrens Baptism so be it any Godfathers as aforesaid bring them 3. The Conformists agree not of the sence of this Article of Faith Some hold that the word Children here meaneth not All Children that are Baptized but some such only But others affirm that this exposition is false and contrary to the plain importance of the words for it is an Indefinite say they in re necessaria in the sense of the Book And if the meaning be not Children that are Baptized qua tales it hath no intelligible sense the certainty of their Salvation being Asserted as from Scripture and not any other reason of it given But if this be the meaning as it is then a quatenus ad omnes valet consequentia unless any exception had been added which is not 4. Some say that it is implied that Children that had no right to Baptism are excepted But others say 1. That ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum The Church could have excepted if they would 2. And that quod fieri non debet factum valet 3. Yea that all Children have right to Baptism if any Christians offer them to it 5. Some confound the Ministers right to Baptize them and the Infants right to be Baptized And this right as only in foro Ecclesiae and as in foro Caeli As if all Baptized upon any of these rights were undoubtedly saved But others distinguish these and say 1. That the Minister may have right to Baptize one if offered that yet ought not to have been offered which will not save an uncapable subject 2. That the Children of Hypocrites have right Coram Ecclesia and that their Baptism ascertaineth to them no more than external or common priviledges 3. And that only the Children of true believers have such a right coram Deo as certainly saveth them But others say that both the last sort are saved 6. Some of them hold that All Infants in the world Baptized or not are saved by universal redemption if they dye before actual sin And that the Article therefore affirmeth it of the Baptized But others say this cannot be the sence For 1. To say All baptized and mean All unbaptized or any not as Baptized were not intelligible nor candid 2. And the Burial Rubrick excepting the unbaptized from that Christian burial sheweth the meaning of the Church in this Article 7. Also about the undoubted certainty they differ some think that the subscriber or Declarer doth not by these words profess that he himself is undoubtedly certain of the salvation of all dying Baptized Infants but only that the thing is certainly revealed to be so in Gods Word But others say that both objective and subjective or personal certainty must needs be meant And that it were too hard an imputation to say that the Church commandeth uncertain doubting men to profess that the thing is certain and undoubted of for how can they tell that it is so And if they know it not to be so why should they declare it to be so The meaning is not I declare that the Convocation saith it is certain for that were but the part of a cryer or reader Nor is it I declare that it is certain to others though not to me For no man knoweth anothers certainty Therefore it must mean that I am certain and past doubt by the Word of God or I see ascertaining evidence in Gods Word putting it past doubt So that no uncertain or doubting person can truly thus declare or subscribe 8. Divers of those Divines who are furthest from the Nonconformists hold that by the Scripture alone we cannot prove that Infants are at all to be Baptized and the Jns Baptismi must be proved before the salvation of the Baptized as such Others think it hard for that man to be certain by the Word of God that all Baptized dying Infants are saved who is not certain by that word that any Insants should be Baptized 9. Many of the most rash or self conceited Ignorant men are readier to profess undoubted certainty than they that are more humble and know much more than they And it is not he that Hith most certainty who is now capable of the Ministry but he that dare profess most whether he have it or not 10. They that shew less Learning especially less knowledge in the Scripture far than
many that dare not profess this undoubted certainty are not like to be more certain then they in this particular Article of faith 11. We take it for Arrogance and Fanaticism in the Pope and his Council to pretend Infallible certainty by a peculiar priviledge in those points in which they are unstudyed and unlearned as if they knew them by prophetical inspiration And when young unstudyed men have in this point attained to an undoubted certainty which their wiser seniors cannot attain it behoveth them to convince us of the truth of their Inspiration or special endowments either by a proportionable excellency above us in other things or by some Miracles or Testimonies from Heaven 12. There is no one Word of God cited in the Rubrick which tells us that It is certain by the Word of God 13. Among Christian Divines there are all these various opinions about the salvation of Infants 1. Some hold that the Covenant being to the faithful and their seed and their children being holy all the children of sincere Christians are certainly in a state of salvation being by the parents intentionally dedicated to God before or without Baptism And that Baptism is but their so lemn investiture in that state which was theirs by right before 2. Others think that this right to salvation belongeth to the Children of all professed Christians godly and ungodly 3 Others think that it belongeth to all Infants in the world 4. Others think that it belongeth only to sincere believers Children that are Baptized 5. Others that it belongeth to sound and unsound Christians baptized Infants 6. Others that it belongeth to all Baptized Infants whose soever 7. Others hold that it belongeth also to the Children of sincere Adopters or Proprieters 8. Others that it belongeth to such as even bad Christians adopt or own 9. Others that they that have sincere Godfathers though not Proprieters are saved 10. Others that even unfound or hypocritical Christian Godfathers may suffice to their salvation 11. Others that the Ministers or the Churches sincere or professed Faith is hereto sufficient 12. And others think that only the Elect are saved of whom some are baptized and some unbaptized but no man knoweth who they are Out of all these Opinions the Convocation hath chosen one as an Article of Faith of undoubted Certainty by the Word of God 13. The Nonconformists know of no Word of God which ascertaineth Salvation to any known determinate Infants but the great Covenant of Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed which seed God useth as if they were parts of the Parents Exod. 34. 6 7. and second Commandment And saith to Believers Else were your children unclean but now c. 14. Many Divines say that Faith it self hath not evidence though we think that it hath evidence of the Truth of the Revelation though the thing revealed be not visible or evident in it self And more confess that undoubted certainty is not Essential to the saving belief of Christ and of a life to come And that true Faith may be saving though weak And that Christ silenced not his Disciples when he reproved the weakness of their Faith And that to doubt of this Article about Infants is not so dangerous as to doubt of Christ or Heaven IX All Ministers must deny Baptism to those Infants that have no such Godfathers and Godmothers as aforesaid though their Parents be true Christians and offer them to Baptism For this is the only order or form of Baptizing there described all other is forbidden and we subscribe to use no other form in administration of the Sacraments 2. Yet some Conformists say that the Book bindeth them to do thus but not to omit it and baptize no otherwise But others of them say 1. That the Rubrick determineth that for every child to be baptized there shall be three as Godfathers and Godmothers and that the whole Office respecteth them as Parties and speaketh to them and admitteth no Parent to speak and that if Assenting to Approving and Consenting to this form and Rubrick and subscribing a Covenant to use no other form signifie not that we will use no other no words can bind such equivocators 3. In the sense of the Liturgy to put Infants from Baptism is to deny them Christendom membership of Christ to be children of God and to be heirs of Heaven For the Catechism saith that we are made such in Baptism which with the Rubrick which denyeth them Christian burial and that last mentioned which affirmeth the undoubted salvation of the baptized import a denying salvation to all that have not such Godfathers without Parents sponsion or at least a denying them certainty of undoubted salvation when it was in the power of the Convocation or Priest to have given them such certainty 4. The Conformists do not affirm that we know of that any word of God doth institute or command the use of such Godfathers or the foredescribed exclusion of the Parents much less both And least of all that it maketh these necessary to Christendom and Salvation yea or Church-reception But it is used as a Tradition or Law of men 5. The Nonconformists therefore dare neither Assent to Approve Consent to Covenant or Practice the resusal of the Children of true Christians from Baptism the Church and Salvation on such a cause as this 6. The Anabaptists hence are hardened and say that if Infants may be denied Baptism till they have such Godfathers as God never instituted they have no right to it at all and they may deny it them till we prove God's institution of Godfathers especially where their title is laid upon such Godfathers 7 Some say that It is not the Minister that refuseth them but the Church which maketh the Law But others say that it is both the Lawmakers and the Minister unless we could prove that Baptizing and judging whom to Baptize is none of the Ministers office no nor the Bishops but that the Priest is to baptize all and only such as the Law or Convocation bids him baptize as a meer executioner and the Bishop also such as he is appointed by the same Law That else the same Rule would hold for his Preaching Praying c. X. The like proofs which we need not repeat will shew that no Minister must baptize any person Infant or Adult without the transient Image of a Cross and that to this we must assent and consent and subscribe to baptize in no other form 2. And the same reasons aforegiven shew how great a penalty this is as excluding them from Christendom and Salvation in the Churches judgment or from certainty at least 3. Some Conformists say here also that they assent only to baptize with the Cross but not to baptize no otherwise But others of them reprove this exposition from the Rubrick and the aforecited Canonical Subscription as that which would leave the Priest at liberty to do almost what he list when the Church thinks that
only in worse lands but in Ireland and in England as part of Lancashire the far greatest part of the Parishioners are Papists who renounce the Protestant Churches in some places XXXII Neither dwelling in the Parish nor the Law of the Land makes any Christian a member of that Parish Church without or before his own consent But proximity is part of his extrinsick aptitude and the law of man or command of his Prince may make it his duty to consent and thereby to become a member when greater Reasons mollify not that obligation XXXIII Parish Bounds and such other humane distributions for conveniency may be altered by men and they bind not against any of Christs own Laws and predeterminations nor when any changes turn them against the good ends for which they are made of which more afterward when we speak of separation XXXIIII And about these humane Church-Laws the general Case must be well considered how far they are obligatory to conscience and in what cases they cease to bind Sayrus Fragoso and other the most Learned and Moderate Casuists of the Papists ordinarily conclude that Humane Laws bind not when they are not for the Common good We had rather say that when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ or against the Common good or are made by usurpation without authority thereto they bind not to formal obedience in that particular though sometime other reasons especially the honour of our Rulers may bind us to material obedience when the matter is indifferent and though still our subjection and loyalty must be maintained But of this before and more largely by one of us Christian directory Part. 4. Chap. 3. Tit. 3. c. The Council of Toletum 1355 decreed that their decrees shall bind none ad culpam but only ad poenam see Bin. Inoc. 6th Sect. XXXV Kings and Magistrates should see that their Kingdoms be well provided of publick Preachers and Catechists to convert Infidels and Impious men where there are such and to prepare such for Baptisme and Church priviledges and Communion as are not yet Baptized but are Catechumens And they may by due means compel the ignorant to hear and learn what Christianity is though not to become Christians for that is impossible nor to prosess that which is not true nor to take Church-Priviledges to which they have no right and of which at present they are uncapable But they may grant those rewards and civil Priviledges to Christians and Churches for their encouragement which they are not bound to give to others and which may make a moving difference without unrighteous constraint XXXVI Christ and his Apostles having as is aforesaid settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of Consenting in the People and this continued long even under Christian Emperours Princes or Patrons may not deprive either party of their Right but preserving such Rights they may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just cause for their interposition 2. They may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intollerable men 3. They may when a Peoples Ignorance Faction or Wilfulness maketh them refuse all that are truly fit for them urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and Publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples duty to consent as is aforesaid so also when they are divided XXXVII Princes ought to be Preservers of Peace and Charity among the Churches and to hinder Preachers from unrighteous and uncharitable reviling each other and their unpeaceable controversies and contentions XXXVIII Christ himself hath instituted the Baptismal Covenant to be the Title of Visible Members of his Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified And he hath commanded all the baptized as Christians to Love each other as themselves and though weak in the faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful disputations and so far as they have obtained to walk by the same rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judge each other for tolerable differences much less to hate revile or destroy each other and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay no greater burden on the Churches even of the Ceremonies which God had once commanded but Necessary things Act. 15. 28. And these terms of Church-Union and Concord which Christ hath made no mortal man hath power to abrogate All things therefore of inferiour nature though Verities and Good must be no otherwise imposed by Rulers than as may stand with these universal Laws of Christ which are the true way to prevent Church-Schisms XXXIX Princes by their Laws or Pastors by consent where Princes leave it to them may so associate many particular Churches for orderly correspondencie and concord and appoint such times and places for Synods and such orders in them as are agreable to Gods aforesaid generall Laws of doing all in Love to Edification and in order And how far if Rulers should miss this generall Rule they are yet to be obeyed we have opened elsewhere XL. As we have there also said that Princes may make their own Officers to execute their Magistratical Power circa sacra which we acknowledge in our King in our Oath of Supremacy and if such be called Eclesiastical and their Courts and Laws so called also that ambiguous name doth not intimate them to be of the same species as Christs ordained Ecclesiastical Ministers or as his Churches and Laws are so now we add that if Princes shall authorize any particular Bishops or Pastors to excercise any such visiting conventing ordering moderating admonishing or governing power as it belongeth to the Prince to give not contrary to Christs Laws or the duties by him commanded and priviledges by him granted to particular Churches we judge that Subjects should obey all such even for conscience sake However our consideration of Christs decision of his disciples controversie who should be the greatest and our certain knowledge how necessary Love and Lowliness and how pernicious wrath and Lordly-Pride are in those that must win souls to Christ and imitate him in bearing not making the cross together with the sad history of the Churches distractions and corruption by Clergy-Pride and Worldliness lamented by Nazianzene Basil Hilary Pictavus Socrates Sozomen Isidore Pelusiot Bernard and multitudes more yea by some Popes themselves these and other reasons we say doe make us wish that the Clergy had never been trusted with the sword or any degree of forcing power or secular pomp yet if Princes judge otherwise we must obediently submit to all their Officers XLI It seemeth by the phrase of His Maiesties Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs 1660 in which after consultation with his Reverend Bishops the Pastoral way of Perswasion reproofs and admonitions are granted to the Presbyters that a distinction is intended between this Pastoral and the Prelatical Government And we
must with very great concern profess that if the Churches of the lowest sort Parochial be but indeed made true Churches such as Christ by his Apostles instituted and not only Parts of a Diocesan Church as if that were the lowest raâ—k And if these particular Churches have but Pastors that have the power of the Keys in those Churches and all that the scripture maketh essential to the Officâ—r which was then set over eveâ—y such particular Church And if the Discipline instituted by Christ himself be but made possible and seasible in such Parochiall Churches yea if we that were trusted by our calling with the mysteries of God may not be forced our selves to administer the Sacraments against our own knowledge consciences and against our consciences and knowledge of mens cases to pronounce men absolved or excommunicate upon other mens decrees or to pronounce the notoriously wicked to be saved and to deny worthy Christians the seal of Christs Covenant nor their infants their visible Christianity by baptism we say might we but have this much we should be so far from using the Controversie about the Divine Kight of Episcâ—pacy as a distinct Order from Presbyters to any schism or injury to the Church that we should thankfâ—lly contribute our best endeavours to the concord safety peace and prosperity thereof And might we but also be freed from Swearing Subscribing Declaring and Covenanting unnecessary things which we take not to be true against our consciences and from some few unnecessary Practices which we cannot justifie we should joyfully serve the Church in our publick Ministry though it were in poverty and rags But of so great a mercy experience hath made our hopes from men to be very small And the reason of the thing maketh our hopes as small of the happiness of the Church of England till God shall unite us on these necessary terms SECT VI. 3. What Separation and what Gathering of Assemblies or Churches is unlawful and what lawful I. THough some mens abuse of the word Schism and calling mens duty to God by that name hath proved a great temptation to many to take it but for a word of Passion or of no certain or odious signification even as the Papists abuse of the word Heresie and Heretick hath been to others yet the evill of true Shism and the odium that God layeth on it in the Scripture should move all Christians to fear the thing and use the name with the disgrace that it truely importeth without misapplication and to avoid all guilt of so great a sin II. There are several sorts and degrees of Schism which greatly differ from each other Its one thing to divide from a Church and another to cause divisions or factions in it It s one thing to divide our selves from it and another to cause others to divide It s one thing to draw men away by words and another to drive them away by laws or execution by unjust excommunication or by violent persecution It s one thing to tempt away or drive away a single person or a few and another thing to draw or drive away multitudes It s one thing to separate from the Universal-Church and another from a particular Church or a few only It s one thing to separate from the species of particular Churches and another from some individuals only It s one thing to separate from the Churches of Christs institution and another to separate only from those of mens institution It s one thing to separate from such as men make lawfully and another from such only as they make without authority and sinfully And here separating from one whose sinful constitution is traiterous against Christs prerogative as the Papal Universal Usurpation much differeth from separating from one whose constitution though sinful is of no such perniciousness It is one thing to deny total Communion and another to separate but secundum quid for some act or part And that is either a great and necessary part or some small or indifferent thing or ceremony It is one thing to separate Locally by bodily absence and another mentally by Schismaticall principles It is one thing to separate from a Church as accusing it to be no Church of Christ and another to separate from it only as a true Church but so Corrupted as not to be Communicated with It s one thing to judge its Communion absolutely unlawful and another only to forsake it for a better which is preferred It s one thing to depart willfully and another to be unwillingly cast out It s one thing to depart rashly and in hast and another to depart after due patience when reformation appeareth hopeless It is one thing to remove upon religious reasons and another upon Civil or Domestical or Corporal It is easy for a confounded head to pass over all such distinctions and with unjust and confounding censures to reproach others as Schismaticks in the dark before he knoweth what schism is being guilty of Schism in his very accusations But sober Christians must be discerners and know that confusion is an Enemy to truth and love and justice III. I The Union of the Church Universal is in the seven things mentioned by Paul Eph. 4. 3. 4 5. 6. viz. One Body One Spirit of faith and Love One Hope of Glory One Lord One faith or Creed One Baptismal Covenant One God and Father of all He that separateth from this Church directly is an Apostate Uisibly if from its Essential profession and invisibly if only from the inward sincerity of faith consent and Love This is damning separation And if he separate but from some one Essentiall article of faith or duty it is that which is most usually and strictly called Heresie of which we are now to speak no further IV. 2. To make Factions Parties Contentions and Mutinies in a true Church of Christ or in any Community of Christians yea or but in families in the Universal Church is a great sin in all that are the true culpable Causes of it and are not only the involuntary occasions by unavoidable accidents V. 3. To separate from all the particular Churches in the world as if they were no true Political Churches of Christ as those called Seekers do who say that the Ministry Scripture and Churches are lost in the wilderness is a very heinous sin though such as do so renounce not their Baptism or the Church Universal VI. 4. To separate from most or many Churches by so unchurching them is far worse than to separate from few or one it being a greater wrong to Christ and men VII 5. To separate from one upon a reason that is known to be common to all or most or many is virtually to separate from all or most or many VIII 6 To separate from a true Church accusing it to be no true Church is a greater injury and sin caeteris paribuâ— than to separate from it only on an unjust accusation or culpability consistent with a true
State though not alwaies materially And that the King as King is but an Accidental Civil Head as he is over Physicians and Schoolmasters being neither himself and that the National Church must have a formal Clergy-head Personal or Collective which shall in suo genere be the highest though under the Magisttates Civil Government as Physicians are 4. The Papists say that all National Churches are under the Pope as Universal Pastor who may alter them as he seeth cause 5. Some moderate men say that only Diocesan and Metropolitical Churches are jure Divino and that they are called National only improperly from one King or concording association as ab accidente and not properly from any formal Clergy-head § 43. VI. Lastly which is the formal Head of the Church of England and so what that Church is we are left as much uncertain 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One then it is but a Christian Kingdom which we never questioned And Dr. Rich. Cosins in his Tables of the English Church-Policy saith That the King hath Administrationem supremam magisque absolutam quae dicitur Primatus Regius And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James saith Ecclesiastica Jurisdictio plane Regia est Coronae dignitatis vestrae Regiae prima praecipua indivisibilis pars Ecclesiasticae leges Regiae sunt neque alibi oriuntur aut aliunde sustentantur aut fulciuntur penes Ecclesiasticos judices per Archiepiscopos Episcopos derivata a Rege potestate jurisdictio Ecclesiastica consist it And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance declare that the King pretendeth not to the Priesthood or power to administer the Word and Sacraments but as Crompton adds from Constantine is extra Ecclesiam constitutus a Deo Episcopus alii intra Ecclesiam Episcopi This is plain If they hold to this and claim no power in the English-Policy but as the Kings Officers in that part which belongeth to Christian Magistrates who will oppose them But this reacheth not to the Keys Preaching or Sacraments 2. Some say that the King is partly a Clergy man as Melchizedek and so that he is the formal Head and might perform the Priestly Office if he would But this our Kings have themselves renounced 3. Some say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the formal Head but that cannot be because he is no Governour over the Arch-Bishop of York or his Province 4. Most say that the Convocation is the formal Church-Head which makes it One Political Church But 1. If so then why saith the Canon that the Convocation is the true Church of England by Representation and those excommunicate that deny it We enquire after the Church-Head or Governour And that which is but the Church it self by representation is not its Head unless the Head and Body be the same and the Church govern it self and so it be Democratical The governed and Governours sure are not the same 2. And the Supream Power is supposed by those that take Episcopacy for a distinct Order to be in the Supream Order only But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supream Order Nay thus the Presbyters should be partly the chief Governours of the Bishops while they make Canons for them 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Bishop Ushers form of the Primitive Episcopacy Presbyters might joyn with the Bishops in proper executive Church-government instead of Lay-Chancellors and such like they decryed it as Presbytery and call us Presbyterians ever since And if they say that the Presbyters have so great a part in the Supream Government it self which obligeth all the Nation how much more would they be themselves Presbyterians which they so abhor § 44. Having oft said that we desire Christian Kingdoms as the great blessing of the world we mean not either that 1. All in a Kingdom should be forced to be baptized or profess themselves Christians whether they are so or not For lying will not save men nor please God and even the Papists are against this 2. Nor that all should be supposed to be Christians that are in the Kingdom But that the Kings be Christians and the Laws countenance Christianity and the most or ruling part of the Kingdom be Christians and all just endeavours used to make all the rest so The Ancient Churches continued them Catechumens till they were fit for Baptism and though they were for Infant-Baptism they compelled none to be baptized in Infancy or at Age but left it to free choice They baptized but twice a year ordinarily They kept many offenders many years from communion And if Crabs Roman Council sub silvest be true they at Rome admitted not penitents till fourty years understand it as you see cause The true Elibertine Canons kept many out so many years and many till death and many absolutely as shewed that they were far from taking all the Nation into the Church And the Christian Emperours compelled none It was long before the greatest part of the Empire were Christians In the daies of Valens the Bishops were some of them banished into places that had few Christians if any In France it self even in St. Martin's daies the Christians of his flock were not the most but he wrought miracles to convince the Heathens that raged against Christianity where he dwelt c. § 1. There are two appendent Controversies handled by some that write for National Churches which need but a brief solution The first is whether it be not an Independent Errour to expect real holiness in Church-members as necessary in the judgment of charity The second Whether it be not such an Errour to require the bond of a Covenant beside the Baptismal Covenant § 2. To the first we say that so much is written on this point by one of us in a Treatise called Disputations of Right to Sacraments c. that we think meet to say no more The Opponents now confess that it must be saving Faith and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant that must be professed And Papists and Protestants agree with all the Ancient Church that Baptism putteth the true Consenter into a state of certain pardon and title to life And God maketh not known lying a condition of Church-communion He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is true that God hath not made Ministers Arbitrary Judges of mens secret thoughts but hath limited them in judging to take their tongues that profess Faith and Consent to be the Indices of their minds But sure the power of the Keys containeth a power of judging according to Christ's Law who is to be taken into the Church by Baptism and who not If only the seeker be made Judge it will be a new way of Church-Government and a bad And then the question is 1. Whether he that accepts ones profession seemingly serious of Faith and Consent and that de praesente is not bound to hope in charity that such
a one doth not lie or dissemble 2. Whether a baptized person as such have no right to our special love which we owe to those that we hope are true Believers and sanctified but only to our common love and kindness which belongeth to those also that are the heirs of Hell Some friends that are gone from extream to extream and in remembrance of their ancient Schisms can look but one way with impartial sense and that have made their repentance the passage to a greater errour and sin should better bethink them them what they do They did well to stand still in the way of Schism when they saw here a leg and there a hand and there an arm in their way and who but a mad-man indeed would not But if they have impartially read Church-history and the works of such Fathers as give us historical notices and ever since Constantine made a Bishoprick a bait to a proud and worldly mind even such as Nazianzen Basil Chrysostom Isidore Pelusiota Hilary Pictav and the over-orthodox disputations of Cyril and the Epistles of Theodoret rejoycing at his death and abundance of such like had they seen in the way of Church-pride and tyranny not here a leg and there an arm but here a hundred carkasses and there a thousand here two thousand godly faithful Preachers silenced and many thousand dry Vines planted in their rooms and there whole Kingdoms interdicted and their Churches shut up here Churches and Kingdoms turned into confusions about a word or about the interest of Prolates striving which should be the Chief and have their will and rule the rest and there hundred thousands murdered in the name of Christ for obeying him and bloody wars managed by the Clergy against Christian Emperours and Kings stabbed one after another and most of the Christian world Roman Greek Moscovites Armenians Abassines degenerated into doleful ignorance and dead formality under the Government of great High-Priests and millions of the vulgar bred up in ignorance and senslesness of spiritual and eternal things this should stop them at least from serving the master of such designs as much as a leg or an arm in the way 3. At least we would intreat them to hate that mistake which will pretend to do all this for charity unity and the Churches good and to believe that it is no sign of charity 1. To believe that charity should not be exercised in judging that men professing saving faith do speak the truth and have the faith that they profess 2. Nor to teach all Christs Church that a baptized Church member as such is to be lookt on but as a man in a state of damnation and no man is bound to love him as a true Christian with a special love 3. And that to prove that a man is not to be taken for a true Christian but to be admitted into Church Communion as one that shall have a greater damnation than heathens without a further renovation is a great act of Charity Contrary to the uncharitable narrowness of others These are too great recesses from Anabaptistry but not from real Schism § 3. As for those that will not take the intelligent serious profession of true Faith and Covenant-Consent for a credible sign of the sincerity of the Professor till they can sufficiently disprove it but will be the arbitrary Judges of mens hearts either as pretended heart-searchers or by self-devised or uncertain signs not taking up with this Profession we are no Patrons of such mens presumption and uncharitableness § 4. There are various degrees of Credibility in mens professions some give us so much as is next to certainty some but small hopes But yet till we can disprove them we are to take their professions as credible in some degree And if they prove false it is they that will have the loss § 5. II. The second case about Church Covenants deserveth no longer a discussion He that will put any article unnecessary into any such Covenant sinfully corrupteth the order of the Church As if he would bind the people to be Church Governours or never to depart from that particular Church but by the consent of the Pastor or the flock or any such like And he mistaketh that will make a more explicite contract to be more necessary than it is But it seemeth strange to us that any understanding Christian should deny that consent is absolutely necessary to the being of an adult member both of the universal and each particular Church respectively What bindeth a man to consent is another question but if he be any member of the Church till he profess consent we know not what a Christian or Church member is An explicite covenant is necessary to our relation to the Universal Church for it must be solemnized sacramentally That we express it by writings or words is not of necessity to our membership of a particular Church But consent is necessary And mutual consent expressed satisfactorily is a contract or Covenant If the Pastor say all th◠at consent hold up your hand or stand up or stay here while the rest depart c. these are significations of consent And if it be notified that all that appear at the solemn Assemblies and attend the Pastors Ministry shall be taken for Consenters their presence and attendance is a profession of Consent indeed and so a covenanting But though the most explicit be not necessary ad esse no man can give a reason why it should not be best ad bene esse seeing the most intelligent and plain dealing in the great things of God are most suitable to the work and fittest to attain the end why should we not deal openly and above board § 6. It is certain that to be a Christian maketh no man a member of any mans particular flock or charge And it is certain that none can be such without consent And it is certain that the Pastor is not to take every Atheist Jew Infidel Papist Heretick c. in his Parish for a member of the Universal or of that particular Church Therefore he must know whom to take for such And it is certain that the consent must be mutual so far is the Pastor from being a slave and bound to every mans desires that he is entrusted with the Church Keys himself § 7. A worthy person on this subject maketh these six things sufficient to such Church relation 1. That they be baptized Christians 2. Neighbours bound to mutual love 3. And apt to Neighbourly duty 4. That providence make us such Neighbours 5. Scripture Churches took their name from cohabitation 6. The command of authority that so it shall be Fresh suit pag. 260. Ans By making these six the sufficient proof of Parish Churches our friend unhappily would consequently unchurch them all For if this were all certainly they were none at all For all these which he maketh more than they are are but the dispositio materiae antecedent to any reception of the form 1.
For all that he inferreth or can infer from them all is obligation to consent and to other duties after consent But obligation maketh not the relation of a member All that are obliged to be Christians are not Christians All that are obliged to be Pastors are not Pastors Nor all that are obliged to consent first and to do the duty of Pastors after Even as all that are obliged to consent to be subjects Husbands Wives Masters Servants Tutors Scholars c. are not such If meer obligation serve to one relation why not to others 2. Else a man might be a true Pastor unchosen unordained and against his will For he may by his qualifications be obliged to be ordained and to become a Pastor 3. And so the people may be the flock of one that was obliged to be their Pastor when another is set over them and in possession because it was the first that was obliged and they to choose him And so utter Confusion will come in And if a man can prove that another mans wife and servant was obliged to be his he may take them as his indeed 3. By this rule all the Papists Seekers Quakers c. that renounce our Churches should yet be members of them because they live in the Parish and are commanded to be members Which who believeth 4. A member of a Church hath right to Communion and Ministerial vigilancie and help But so hath not every baptized person that is commanded to be a member and obeyeth not that command If a man say to a Pastor I will be none of your flock or Church but yet I require you to do the office of a Pastor to me though I renounce your relation to me and the people to use me as a member of the flock because I am commanded to be a member this were a strange claim 5. If this did hold then no man that liveth in the Parish could be a proper separatist so as to break off himself from that Church nor become a member of another unless he apostatized from Christ For he would be still under the Magistrates Command and obligation But the consequent is absud Why do the same men speak so much against schismatical rending mens selves from the true Churches and gathering other Churches if there be no such thing The Laws change not which oblige them 6. They that are against schism and singularity should be against this opinion because as it is utterly absurd so it is notoriously contrary to the Judgment of all the Christian world in all ages to this day as acquaintance with Church history may fully inform them They have ever taken mutual consent between the Pastors and the flock to be necessary to the being of a particular Church and that whatever they were obliged to they were not actually related to each other as Pastor and flock till they consented And therefore have noted schismatical Churches in the same Cities that have been no parts of the Church which they disowned § 8. But it is objected that this unchurcheth our Parish-Churches and all the Churches in the world Ans Not one But the contrary would Our Parish Churches are associated by mutual consent The Pastor expresseth his consent openly at his institution induction and officiating The Flocks shew their consent by actual submitting to his Ministerial Office They hear him and communicate ordinarily with him and seek Ministerial help from him though all that are in the Parish do not so those do it that are indeed his flock or Church They do not perhaps by word or writing covenant to submit to him as their Pastor but they do it by actual signification of consent to the relation And the Bishops in Consecration enter into a Covenant to watch over the flock as do the Priests and the Priests promise if not swear in England to obey them This is a Covenant §9 It is objected that this is a disparagement to Baptism which is the only Church-making Covenant Ans Baptism only as such maketh us members of the universal Church but is not enough to make us of any Ministers special flock I am not a member of the Church of York Norwich Bristol c. because I am baptized Nor am I a member of the Parish Church now where I was baptized Consent to be a Christian is one thing and consent to be a member of this particular Church and to take this man more than all the rest about us for the Guide of my soul is another §10 And if a man would say I will be a member of this Parish Church and you shall perform so much of your Office as I desire and no more I will hear and receive the Sacrament but when I please and I will not admit you to catechize or instruct any of my family nor visit the sick nor will I be responsible to you for any thing that I hold or say or do nor have any thing to do with you but in the Church is a Minister bound to do his office to men or take them for his special flock on these terms The ancient Churches had abundance of strict Canons if the people should have chosen a Bishop and said We will obey none of these Canons nor you but you shall be our Bishop on our terms was he bound to have consented and to have been such a Bishop This is really the case of no small part of England though they say it not openly by words §11 It is objected that as Apostles so ordained Ministers have their authority before the consent of the people and receive it not from them Ans 1. Who ever questioneth it that is considerate as to an indefinite charge in the Church universal But what 's that to the question Are all the Ministers in the world bound to be the Pastors of this Parish or Diocess Our question is what constituteth the relations between a Pastor and his Particular flock Doth not the ordainer here say Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God c. when thou art thereto lawfully called Because a man is a Licensed Physician without me doth it follow that he is my Physician without my consent 2. Are all those Church-members that Ministers are authorized to preach to Then all the Heathen-world are Church-members 3. They receive not authority from the people but their consent is necessary to make themselves capable receivers of the relation and right of Church-members God and not the Wife giveth the Husband the superiority but he is no such Husband to any that consenteth not §12 God hath laid mens rights and benefits on their wills so that no man can have them against his will It is a great priviledge to have right to communion with a particular Church and to this or that faithful Pastors oversight And its new Doctrine to say that unwilling persons have this right because they are willing of something else viz. to be members of the Church universal §13 We conclude