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
speak there as dedicating his own Child to God and forbid us to urge him to be present Yet are they utterly disagreed of the Child's title Some say it is from God's Covenant only and that all Children on Earth have title and want but one to offer them to Baptism as he may take in an exposed Orphan Some say that the God-fathers Act is his Title to Baptism Some say it is the Churches Faith And by the Church some mean the Ministers some mean that Parish some mean the Diocesan Church some the National Church and some the Universal Church But you seem to think the title is from the Parent but you speak it not out nor much meddle with the case and the Church seemeth not to be of that mind though St. Paul say Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy § 2. But you say The Parent is not excluded nor forbid to be present Ans. But 1. No man in the Town is forbid to be present Doth it follow that any man giveth title to the Child who may but be present if he will If the Parents Faith were thought necessary to the Title or a Pro-parents the Book would require it and require the Minister to take account of it or at least would suffer the Parent to be one of the Sponsors or to speak one word of Sponsion all which is expresly forbidden by the Canon and by the Book appropriated to others § 3. But you say If he will he may profess and Covenant for his Child yea the Minister may and ought to urge and require him Ans. What and yet Conform When he is forbid and the Minister forbid to suffer it § 4. But say you The Canon is no part of the Liturgy nor are we bound to it wherein it is against the Liturgy and good Order Ans. 1. By the Can. 36. we are all to subscribe to use no other form in Administring the Sacraments but the Liturgy And you shall be no Minister here if you subscribe not to that Canon though you should say It is against good Order 2. The Liturgy it self appropriateth the whole Sponsion to the God-Fathers 3. Our question is of the Churches sense herein And it is the same Church the made the Canons and still owneth them Therefore in the Canon the Church expoundeth her sense more obligingly than you or any Bishop can expound it So that for you to assent and consent to the form of Baptism in the Churches sense and when you have done to say that you may and must go against it because the Canon binds not is a method of Conforming which I will not follow you in § 5. What you tell me of my Decision in my Directory is nothing to our present Case But you say The Canon supposeth the Parents as present or Consenting and Principal for he procureth the God-Fathers and the Sureties are his Deputies or Seconds and yet undertakes not the Parents duty Ans. I have proved to you that the Canon or Church neither foundeth the Title in the Parent nor permitteth him any Sponsion and professedly layeth it all on the God-Fathers saying That it is by that the Child believeth and promiseth performeth c. And no such word of the Parents Faith Nay all Children of Infidels or Atheists must be thus Baptized This therefore is your meer disproved Fiction Secondly That the Parent must procure the God-Fathers no way proveth that he is supposed to be a Christian or Consent or that he is the Principal Sponsor For it is for the Child's sake that the Law bindeth him to get Sponsors and all Atheists and Infidels among us are bound to send their Children with Sponsors to be Baptized as well as Christians § 6. You say The Sureties undertake not to do the Duties of a Parent nor more than they can do c. Ans. Then it is not undertaken at all For all that is to be undertaken is by them and nothing at all required of the Parents § 7. As to the Interrogatories and Profession that the Child is said to Repent Believe forsake the Devil Consent c. and not only to be the Child of one that Repenteth Believeth which is his Title you say it is but to oblige the Infant But professing to Believe and Repent at present and promising to do it hereafter are different things But you say These words may be submitted to till better may be had Ans. And why may you not say so of any Untruth But the question is whether they may be Consented to and approved § 8. As to the great Question Whether it be the Intention of the Book that we deny Baptism to such as cannot procure God-Fathers and God-Mothers or to such as out of Conscience scruple and refuse to procure them and will stand as Undertakers themselves You say No surely Ans. Alas how little know you what the Conformity is which you defend 1. Are not all Ministers to subscribe to Administer the Sacraments in no other Form than the Liturgy Canon 36. 2. Doth not the Liturgy make the God-Fathers Office necessary and a great part of the Baptismal Office is the Ministers Speech to them and their Answer and the Charge laid on them Can you say all these words if no Sponsor be there Or can you have such Answers 3. Doth not the Church Command that no Parent be God-Father to his own Child and no Questions or Answers be used but the words of the Liturgy 4. And did you ever know a Child Baptized without any Sponsor You rightly call your self The Non-conforming Conformist for you plead for it and against it in the same Lines Your contradiction meeteth through all your Book § 9. You add If it be lawful to violate a Divine Command to save the life of a Beast the Sabbath sure it is lawful to violate a Humane Rule or Order rather than cast Infants out of the Church and deny them Christian Baptism Ans. It is so And therefore it is unlawful to Consent to that which I must not do and to Covenant to use that which I must not use If I must not obey it I must not Covenant to obey it But perhaps you mean that the Law-makers intended that in such cases the Ministers have leave to violate it and admit Men to the Communion that will not have God-Fathers for God intended such liberty in his Law Ans. God's Law was not violated by David the Priests or the Disciples in the instanced cases of the Sabbath For he never forbad them what they did in those Circumstances Yea his Law had been violated I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice had they done otherwise and he hath no Contradictory Laws It is said that the Priests in the Temple brake the Sabbath and are blameless that is They violate materially the outward rest of the Sabbath but they violate not God's Law else they were not blameless But you can prove no such things by the Church Laws in question as that
any thing against it 3. And the Law that layeth us in Gaol and ruineth us if we so say and do forbear accordingly Is it an Argument to say The Law renounceth all that is contrary to the Word of God and Excommunicateth and Silenceth and ruineth you if you say that there is in the Liturgy any thing against it Ergo You may subscribe though there be somewhat against it because the Law disowneth it I would not think you mean this Therefore I know not what you mean to infer unless it be your next words Therefore what Faults be in the Government are rather the Faults of the Governours Alas this is it and worse Thus you might infer There is no fault in the Papal Government if the Pope in general renounce all that is against God's Word and then bids you swear that Popery is not against it Turks and Heathens renounce in general all sinning against God and yet I would not say that their Laws may be owned as sinless You say If all Governours in Church and State faithfully did their Duties according to the Canons Liturgy c. it would be happy for all sides Ans. No Man can tell by these words whether you mean If they did all that the Laws and Canons command them or If they did the good part and left out the bad If the later be your sense it is against you If it have a bad part which we must not do it hath a part which we must not consent covenant or promise to do If the former then you have part of your Happiness and may soon enough see more Your honest words elsewhere shew that you take it for no Happiness to have all professed Non-conformists Excommunicated according to the Canon and Silenced and Ruined according to the Law And yet I cannot tell how to agree you with your self You say All good and peaceable Men would be protected whether Conformists or Non-conformists Ans. As Mr. Field Mr. Thompson and others that died in Gaol were or as Mr. Hughs Mr. Ioseph Allen and others that died by their Prison-Diseases were or as those that must be Silenced or lie in Gaol six Months and pay forty pound a Sermon or as Men Excommunicated ipso facto are protected § 3. You say The words of the Declaration do not say No Man is bound to endeavour the alteration of the Governours but the Government that is Of the Laws Rules and Canons by which they govern and the several Offices which be in the Church These may be good The office may be Divine or justly prudential or tolerably lawful Suppose the Oath and Covenant doth not bind to endeavour the alteration of the Chancellor's Office Your Conclusion seems implied in your Challenge Now let any Nonconformist prove that there is any Office in the English way of Church Government simply unlawful c. Ans. 1. Have you answered the proof that I pretend to have brought in my Disput. of Church Government If not must I write it again as oft as you will bid me Or would it be here meet to write a Treatise to answer this your Challenge But get it tolerated and it shall soon be done 2. You say The Government is the Laws Rules and Canons by which they Govern And if these need not be altered why did you before disown the exercise of them as a great Sin And yet this implieth The Law and Canon which Excommunicate Non-conformists and which deny the Lord's Supper to those that kneel not and which silence Non-subscribers to the 36th Canon and which deny Baptism to those that scruple the English use of the Cross and God-fathers and which ruine all that preach when Silenced need no alteration as simply unlawful But we must prove them unlawful Come to me then in private and let us debate the Case and I will prove to you as much as I affirm In the mean time if it will go for any Proof with you I crave your answer to these Arguments which some use that doubt of the lawfulness which they dare not deny I. A Church-governing Office for the exercise of that power of the Church Keys by Lay-men which Christ hath appropriated to the Clergy is sinful But such is the Office of our Lay-Chancellors Ergo c. II. A species of Prelacy which is destructive of or inconsistent with the form of particular Churches and of Bishops and Presbyters and the exercise of that Church-Discipline which Christ and his Spirit in the Apostles did institute is sinful But they fear such is the English Diocesan species of Prelacy Ergo c. III. The Government which is to be the execution of the foresaid Canons and Act of Uniformity c. for Expelling Excommunicating Silencing Imprisoning Ruining Non-conformists you said before was unlawful But Ergo. But here I would as your real Friend advise you to two things more as well as not needlesly to contract the guilt of that which you call grievous Sin in others 1. That you will publish your Retractation of those words The words of the Declaration do not say No Man is bound to endeavour the alteration of the Governours but only of the Government Do you consider what you say 1. You know that it is the Government of the State as well as Church that is here expressed And do you think that the King and Parliament never intended to keep Men from deposing the King Or the Lords and Commons and Judges though they changed not the Species but set up others in their steads Or will the Bishops so expound it to you as that it meaneth not that you are not obliged by the Covenant to pull down all the present Bishops if you set up others in their stead 2. That you avoid the commoner answer of others who say That it is only the Essentials of Government that are here meant and not any Integrals or Accidents For 1. The King and State-Government is here touched And dare you say that If any Man think that the Covenant bindeth him to destroy all the King 's Civil Government except the bare essentials of Monarchy that the Parliament intended not here to contradict him 2. And I doubt the Bishops will be angry with you and call you Schismaticks if you say that the Parliament here meant not to contradict them that say they are bound by the Covenant to turn our Diocesan Bishops into Parochial ones or into one in every Corporation and to take down their Court Officers and their Lordships Parliament Power and Wealth That which serveth Men best in Arguing will not best please the Men that they plead for You say We grant that there is no one thing in the Episcopal Government but what we may well bear with and submit to Ans. 1. We well may and must bear with that which we cannot help In Moscovy we may fear that all Preaching is put down saving reading Homilies and a Man may there live Godly But do not you therefore tell all Men
thing here said by you And your citing my limited and conditional approbation of the Assemblies Catechisms and the Synod of Dort's is certainly no Reason for my absolute and unlimited professing to Assent and Consent to all things in Books which have so much more which I dissent from CHAP. XXX § 1. YOur 29th Section containeth your unproved Opinions and false Devices for stretching Subscriptions Covenants and Professions And first you tell us of the difficulty of using any words that may not seem doubtful But yet if there be not a satisfactory intelligibleness in words Humane Converse is overthrown and Oaths of Allegiance and all Contracts are of little use unto their ends § 2. You say Though there be in this Volume which we call the Common-prayer-Book many Matters Sentences and Words bound all together yet do we Assent and Consent to no more but that which goes under the name of the Service of the Church and the Rules and Orders touching the same and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof Ans. If you say All things contained in it means not all things indeed tell us what difference there is between the Equivocations of the Jesuits and this of yours So one tells me that when we profess to Assent to all in the Bible the meaning is To all the Precepts Promises and Words of God in it but not that there is no Humane Errors in Numbers and Chronologie Genealogie History or Citations And so you may say I will swear not to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the State but I mean not to alter Monarchy And what may not one thus say and swear 2. But yet I think it is no great number of Matters Sentences and Words which are neither Service Rules Orders or Rites Rubricks and Calendars and some Prefaces belong to these But it is a strange Interpretation which would exclude Doctrinals such as the Article of Faith of the certain Salvation of all Infants baptized and dying before actual Sin Your Citations signifie nothing for your purpose but tell us what you would have them signifie § 3. But now I come to Sampson's Hair the very strength of all your Book page 115. The Preface saith When Doubts arise in the Use and Practice of the same to appease all such diversity if any arise and for the resolution of all Doubts concerning the manner how to understand do and execute the things contained in this Book the Parties that so doubt or diversly take any thing shall always resort to the Bishop of the Diocess who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same Order be not contrary to any thing contained in this Book Whence you gather that the Law makes the Bishop the common Expositor and if he gives a good Exposition or by silence shew consent all is safe and you may Conform I confess this Reed is the strongest support of your Cause that I have met with And I am not censuring others that lean upon it I doubt not but they may be better Men than I But I will tell you why I cannot 1. It is a help to those that be in doubt But I am out of doubt in many of the Reasons of my Non-conformity and therefore it is no help to me 2. The words expresly limit the Bishops Exposition so that his order be not contrary to any thing in the Book If it be not contrary to the Book it will give me no satisfaction If it be contrary it is of no force 3. It is only about the things contained in the Book that the Bishop must resolve us Now either the Acts of Uniformity are part of those things or not If yea then it is the Acts also that I must Assent and Consent to which you as well as I are far from And you maintain that the Act is no part of the Book If not then the Bishop hath no power to expound the Act And the forms of Assent and Consent and Subscription imposed are parts of the Act. 4. The words make not the Bishop the publick or common Expositor of the Law or Book as Judge but only as a Teacher who bindeth but so far as he tells the truth The Bishop must teach his ignorant or divided Clergy how to understand what they understand not And this is not about their Subscriptions but matters of Use and Practice as where the Table shall stand and such like That it maketh not the Bishop the obliging Judge of the Law appeareth 1. Because here is no such word 2. The foresaid limitation speaketh the contrary 3. Else there might be as many Religions Doctrines or Practices as Bishops or many at least I will give you all the little Money in my Purse if you will get me under the hand of Bishop Morley Bishop Gunning Bishop Sparrow and Arch-Bishop Stern their approbation of your Expositions of the parts of Conformity written in your Book And I suppose you know how zealously many write as well as Doctor Saywel against tolerating diversity of Forms and Rites and Orders of Worship And this would be to set up as many Sects or Ways as differing Bishops pleased This Case was notably tried between Arch-Bishop Laud and the Church that followed him and Williams Bishop of Lincoln about the Table or Altar 4. Else Bishops would have the Legislative Power For the sense of the Law is the Law And if the Parliament form but the Letter or Body of it and the Bishop may give it what Sense or Soul he pleaseth it is he that will be the chief Law-maker 5. Else Bishops might corrupt and change our Religion and Church under pretence of Exposition Bishop Godfrey Goodman of Glocester who was a Papist might have set up Popery in his Diocess by putting a Popish sense upon Subscription Words and Practices And the Bishops by agreement might set up Popery in the Land by the same means Or a Bishop might set up Non-conformists by gratifying them by his Expositions The thing meant in those words is no such dangerous power but only an Instructing and a Pacifying informing of the Clergy when they ignorantly differ about some dark Word or Circumstance or Practice the Bishop must teach them the true sense of the Book but do nothing against any thing therein 6. Is it not called An Act for Uniformity and imposeth all the heavy Penalties on purpose to procure Uniformity Would they have Silenced and Ruined two thousand Ministers for Non-conformity if Uniformity had not been thought of more worth than their Ministerial Labours And can you think that after all this they meant to leave it to the particular Bishops whether there should be any Uniformity or not You think one Bishop will say You are Parish Bishops and may publickly admonish and reprove the Scandalous and Excommunicate them Excommunicatione minore You may give them the Sacrament that conscienciously scruple Kneeling you may Baptize them that conscienciously scruple the dedicating Cross
from your arguing You greatly wrong the King Parliament and Bishops if you think they take all for Ministers Men Women or Children whose meeting they tolerate You leave out the Argument from the Act of Uniformity which punisheth all by a hundred Pound a time that Administer the Sacrament being not ordained by a Bishop Doth that prove them Ministers too § 10. You say As to the Peoples Conformity I know no one thing required of them to Conform to but what they may do with a good Conscience Ans. Why then did you pass by the answering of my Book concerning their part Particularly about the Corporation-Declaration Should they be in the right that think all the Cities and Corporations in England to be under that which I am loth to name and that Plagues Flames and Poverty are God's Revenge Oh! what a thing would it be for a Servant of Christ to say to them in Print O England repent not CHAP. XXXI § 1. YOur Conclusion is also a bundle of Mistakes and Impertinencies 1. It is more than three or four points that the new Conformity addeth to the old 2. If the number or goodness of the old Conformists did prove their Cause good many things would have a far stronger Proof of that kind from the ancient Churches which yet you judge to be unlawful and in other Countries the same Argument will be turned against you 3. Such Men as you call The main Body of the best Divines were very few in comparison of the Ignorant bad Clergy 4. It is not true that Mr. Knewstubs was a Conformist nor Dr. Reynolds neither unless I be one The Petition of the Non-conformists to King Iames was called Millenary because it had a thousand Hands in a little compass 5. That some then did and now do scruple more than others is impertinent to our Business and it were a wonder if it were not so till Men are arrived at scrupling nothing 6. The 36th Canon was the chief point of the old Non-conformity and will receive no justification by the worth of any Subscribers I doubt not but Bernard Gerson c. were holy Men that subscribed far worse 7. Sponsors of an ill sort are never the better because there was a better sort of old nor because these were before the new Liturgy 8. Page 125. You could wish Ministers would make the Parents to be present chief Undertakers that is to be Non-conformists called Conformists The rest needeth but the repetition of what is said before which would rather tire than edifie the Reader CHAP. XXXII SInce the writing of my Answer to your Book you were with me and when I gave you two or three Objections which I published not you gave me no Reply to them but went from me and Printed an Answer to them in a Supplement Seeing your judgment is most for that way I crave your patience while I use the way you choose I confess my judgment is that you have unavoidably made me a great Temptation to you For if you be not a Man of great Humility you will 1. Be offended to find all your Labour proved to be hurtful and your Reasoning vain and you will think that the disgracing of them by a just Confutation falleth on your self 2. And you will be tempted to turn your thoughts too partially to justifie what once you have so publickly said and so to run further into the Extream But my persuasion of your great sincerity maketh me hope that you will overcome the temptation which you have chosen I. I thought that the word Use of all did much aggravate and not extenuate the burden of the Declaration as added to Assent But to them that thought otherwise I thought that when both Lords and Commons at a Conference upon Reasons given had rejected that Exposition which confineth the sense of the words to Use it had been a more satisfactory notice of the Law-givers sense than either your private Conceit or any Bishops Exposition could be But you tell us That this Conference was no Law or repeal of the Law Ans. Impertinent It is an Exposition of the meaning of the Law-makers only that we are enquiring of and not the repealing or making of a Law It is the Law-makers part to be the publick obliging Interpreters of the Law to the whole Kingdom We are enquiring in point of Conscience how we must understand them And you will not believe them it seems unless they make a new Law to tell you the sense of the old one II. Every one may know that it 's usual for the Means to have somewhat in it for the End besides the intending of the End it self and that usually Laws and Canons command many Means for one End And therefore to make your full and constant usage of Conformity to be the End and the Assenting and Consenting to all things in the Book to be the Means even in that form of words are no contradiction And it 's usual to be stricter in prescribing forms of Words for Oaths Covenants or Confessions than in the other integral parts of a Law And it is a great wrong to a Parliament of England to say either that in such a form imposed on the Learned and Consciencious Tribe they knew not how to speak intelligibly according to the common use of words or that they were so mischievously Malignant as seventeen or eighteen Years to refuse to open their sense for the healing of so distracted and endangered a Church and Nation if they meant not as their words do signifie according to common use It 's no vanity to say I have known the Men Bishops and Commons better than you have done and heard more of them and their Debates than you have done and I am satisfied in my Conscience to conclude that they meant plainly as they speak and no better Even that no Man's promise to use the Liturgy shall be taken for trusty and satisfactory that will not declare that he Assenteth and Consenteth to all things contained in it and prescribed by it And this plainly Ex animo without uncouth Exposition Equivocations or Jesuitical mental Reservations § 2. I have not wit enough to find out sense in your Quibble that If the later words the Form do import more than the former for the Use then there is something added and altered which possibly may inconsist and be contradiction Ans. Is not all prescript of Means an addition to the Precept De fine Doth the prescript of the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance impose no more than to be Loyal Yes It requireth a particular test of Loyalty Doth the Command of subscribing the thirty nine Articles contain no more but to be Orthodox Yes It enjoineth us by this means to profess those particulars in which our Orthodoxness consisteth § 3. Assent when thus distinguished purposely from Consent signifieth Assenting to some Truth and Consent respecteth the Good So that when you make Assent to be but the same as Consent to Use
Vow falsly But the harder it is for him to know his own Mind the more excusable he is And a false entrance is not a Sin that is unpardonable nor is the Sinner uncurable but may be converted in the Church though he came in unlawfully § 6. While preposterously you tell us who you think hath right to Baptism and the Lord's Supper you pass over the Fundamental Controversie as if you knew it not which is What Baptism and the Lord's Supper are This is it that we are mostly disagreed about End this and end all I suppose you take Baptism to be the first Sacrament and that less is not necessary to the Lord's Supper than to it And I presume to tell you that Christ never ordained nor the Church ever used any other Baptism of the Adult than 1. That which delivered the present Remission of Sin and right to Life to the just receiver of Baptism 2. and that which contained on the part of the Receiver his present profession of saving Faith and Repentance that is his true consent to the Covenant § 7. The Scripture telleth us that Baptism saveth as containing the answer of a good Conscience to God And that as many as are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ and have professed that they are buried with him by Baptism into his Death and raised with him to newness of Life c. § 8. God in great Mercy hath delivered down to us from the Apostles the form of Baptism by a fuller Tradition than the words of the Scripture or any things else of our Religion are delivered All Ages and Churches to this Day have retained the same form as to all the Essential parts The very words of the Baptizer and the Baptized the Credo Abrenuncio c professed full shew that all used this one Baptism which was a professed Vow and Covenanting with God and renouncing of the Flesh the World and the Devil for present delivered pardon and right to Christ and Life See the long List in Gataker against Davenant of the Ancients that took all the Baptized for justified In a word If you make another Species of Baptism which hath lower Conditions and Gifts only than these I am past doubt 1. That you introduce a new sort of Christianity 2. That you hereby would change the very Essence of the Church and wofully corrupt it A worse thing than to impose new Ceremonies 3. That by denying the truth of so universal concurrent Tradition as the form of Baptism hath you will shake Mens Faith by weakning the Credit of that Tradition by which we have received the Bible It being a harder matter to keep all the words of such a Book than the Form of Baptism used on every Christian in the World 4. That you will too grosly reproach all the Christian Churches as if they had in all Ages and Places been ignorant what Christening and Christianity is and had used a false Baptism till of late 5. You will contradict the Church of England which you Conform to and all the Churches now in the World which in their form of Baptizing and their Catechisms and Confessions tell us of no Baptism but what is a present Covenanting with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as consenters to his Covenant giving up our selves to him in the foresaid Relations for present Pardon c. See Dr. Hammona's Pract. Cat. of the Baptismal Vow And is all this fit Work for two or three singular Men To deny the said History is to be grosly Ignorant or Immodest § 9. And now I am ashamed to trouble you and the Reader with the opening of all your Impertinencies and Contradictions of That Man will not be persuaded to consent to the Baptismal Covenant and to be a Christian indeed doth yet sigh and grown and pray for that which he would not have and that the Impenitent must penitently use this means for Penitence and because whosoever will must come and take the Water of Life therefore they that will not take it must take the Sacrament And that the outward Act which is false Vowing themselves to God and saying They consent to the Covenant when they do not is the means of Grace appointed for their Conversion in which they do well and are accepted And that Non-consenters may fly to Christ as a merciful Physician to save Souls and cast themselves at his Feet Repenting Praying and crying for Mercy which they would not have and yet if they come with particular ill intentions away with them Confute what I have written to the contrary if you would convince me or any Man that hath read my Five Disputations QUEST III. WHether a Minister may put from the Sacrament those of his Parish who be Christned People and come to Church and joyn in the Publick Worship and tender themselves to receive being under no sentence of Excommunication You say He may not Ans. § 1. 1. What 's this to the Primitive Churches that were not Parishes Or to the Countries that yet are not settled into Parish Churches Or to such Churches as are but tolerated among Papists Parishes 2. And all that is here mentioned the Papists did for the first ten Years of Queen Elizabeth 3. And remember that we have in our Parishes many that are open Atheists Infidels Sadduces Persecutors Scorners of the Scripture and Religion open boasting impenitent Whore-mongers Blasphemers Drunkards c. and many that openly deny the Ministry and Sacraments and yet to avoid Penalty and for Custom will do all that is here named though they deride it And that all these are to be received though also you suppose that they never so much as professed consent to the Baptismal Covenant you take on you to prove 1. Because it is the Will of Christ. Oh! Brother dread such additions to Christ's Words And how is that proved Why None but Dogs and Swine must be denied holy things Ans. 1. Where found you that None else 2. How prove you that none of these are Dogs or Swine 3. Yea are not all they swinish despisers of Grace who will not be persuaded to consent that God shall be their God and Christ their Saviour and the Holy Ghost their Sanctifier and give up themselves to him in these Relations § 2. Yet Page 30. the Case is this If the People being Christened do make a credible profession of true Christianity or a profession of true Christianity which we cannot prove to be false at least by a violent Presumption we must accept their Profession and admit them Ans. This is mine as cited and the plain truth But 1. Did you think that a credible profession of true Christianity is not a credible profession of Conversion Are not true Christians saved What else are Men to be Converted to 2. Do all such as are afore described make such a credible profession of true Christianity § 3. You tell us that the Standard that Christ hath set is that If now thou be
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-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-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