Can. 27. And also that their Children are not to be baptized unless they will submit them to the dedicating sign of the Cross no nor to be buried with Christian Burial of which more afterward 3. If they have a Minister in their own Parish that never preacheth or so bad as that they dare not commit the Pastoral care of their souls to him they must not be admitted to Communion in any other neighbour Parishes Can. 28. That they are ipso facto excommunicated shall be anon shewed SECT IX The Matters of Fact that concern the Conformity and Nonconformity of the Ministers And 1. of Assâ—nt Consent and Subscription that nothing is contrary to God's Word 1. THE Canon to be subscribed 36th willingly and ex animo is That the Book of Common-Prayer and of ordaining of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE WORD OF GOD and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publick Prayers and Administration of the Sacraments and none other 2. The meaning of this subscription is not agreed of by the Conformists that take it As to the first clause some say that by Nothing Contrary to the word is meant as it is spoken Nothing indeed Others say by Nothing is meant Nothing which I have discerned so to be Or Nothing except such failings as all humane writings are lyable to And by Contrary Some say Contrary in the Common sense of the word is meant But others say that by Contrary is meant so far Contrary as should drive us from Communion with the Church or Contrary to any great doctrine or precept of the Word of God And the Nonconformists interpret it as the first sort do according to the usual and proper meaning of the words 3. So the later clause that he himself will use that form in publick prayer and administration of the Sacraments and none other Dr. Heylin and very many others suppose is meant properly as is spoken viz. That by the form is meant all the words and orders and that by publick prayer is meant as is spoken All publick prayer used by a Minister in the publick assemblies And that by None other is meant neither wholly nor in part But others think that by Form is meant only the form of words and not the orders And that by none other is meant only No other Book of Common-Prayer or set Liturgie Or No other entire form and order excluding this And that it doth not mean No other form before or after Sermon in the Pulpit or in some parts of Worship so it be of our own Composure Nor yet that we may not use sometime some other order than is prescribed in the Rubricks viz. 1. Sometime read other Chapters than the Calender prescribeth because that Liberty is expressed in the Preface to the second Book of Homilies 2. Sometimes to give the Sacrament to some that kneel not 3. To baptize some without the Cross c. of which more hereafter Because the Rubrick saith only you shall do thus but saith not you shall do no otherwise But to this the former sort answer 1. That if any universal Negative none other may be particularly or limitedly interpreted upon our own surmises no Laws Covenants or Promises signifie any thing and no words are intelligible 2. That we subscribe strictly to this Article to use no other form But not so to the Book of Homilies but only that we take it for wholsom Doctrine 3. That if the Rubrick for Crossing Kneeling c. exclude not all other inconsistent forms of administration it signifieth nothing but leaveth every man to his own will 4. It is yet a greater doubt with the Conformists themselves whether these words be not at least a Covenant that They will use no other printed prescribed Liturgy And so some think that it plainly obligeth them not to use those printed Forms which the Archbishops and Bishops have used to draw up and impose for several Publick Fasts Thanksgivings and particular occasions But others think that it doth not bind them to disobey the Bishops therein but that such exceptions were intended though not exprest or at least had been inserted if not forgotten II. The Act of Uniformity requireth that every Minister that officiates Do openly and publickly before the Congregation there assembled declare his unseigned Assent and Consent to the Use of all things in the Book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book eatâ—tuled The Book of Common-Prayer Administration of the Sacraments and other Râ—tes and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psâ—â—ter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the form or mâ—â—â—er of making ordaining and consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons And page 10. He shall declare his unfeigned Assent and Consent unto and Approbation of the said Book and to the use of all the Prayers Rites and Ceremonies Forms and Orders therein contained and prescribed according to the form aforesaid 2. The Conformists themselves are not agreed of the meaning of these plain words One party expounding them as the Nonconformists do according to the properest and ordinary use of the words and the other party otherwise The former hold that as many Acts of Parliament Contein more in the body of the Act than in the Title and make the means more extensive than the end so here the ASSENT and CONSENT to the USE of the Book is the END in the first clause and APPROBATION also in the second And that the Declaring that form of words is the Means to that end That Assent signifieth Assent to the Truth and Consent and Approbation relate to the Goodness rectitude and use And that this is not only of the Prayers and other parts which the subscriber is to Read to the people but as is exprest of all things without exception Conteined in and prescribed by it particularly to all the Prayers Rites Ceremonies Forms and Orders without collusion or equivocation The other part hold that all this signifieth no more but that I Assent that I may lawfully use and I Consent to use so much as belongeth to my place and that I will not unpeaceably oppose it Their argument is Because to the Use is mentioned before the Form of words To which the other answer as before that 1. That Approbation is mentioned after as well as Use 2. That the Means are larger than the end As in the Corporation Act the end is the preventing of Rebellion but the Means is Declaring that There is no obligation on me or any-other from that Oath 3. That without gross violence Assent can be judged to mean no less than Assenting that it is true 4. That there is not a'word in the Book which was not intended for
though we hear that some of them take us as not sincere for keeping up a difference and giving no more reasons of it The thing which we so greatly desire leave to do but dare not be so bold yet as to venture by it to displease them who condemn us for not doing it lest their anger would be sharper to us if we do it so great is our difficulty between this Soylla and Charybdis But we hope we may adventure to open some part of the Matter of Fact which Conformity and Nonconformity are concerned in that so men may conjecture at the Case themselves which will be no reflexion on the Government barely to tell what they command nor a challenging any of our Superiours to a disputation nor a charging them as faulty that cannot bear it 1. Matters of Fact to be foreknown to the true understanding of the Cause 1. THE root of the difference between the Old Nonconformists and the Conformists was that one sort thought they should stick to the meer Scripture Rule and simplicity and go far from all additions which were found invented or abused by the Papists in Doctrine Worship and Government and the other side thought that they should shew more reverence to the customs of the ancient Church and retain that which was not forbidden in the Scripture which was introduced before the ripeness of the Papacy or before the year 600 at least and which was found lawful in the Roman Church and common to them with the Greek that we might not seem singular odd and humorous or to go further from the Papists than reason and necessity drave us And the Laity seemed no where so sensible of the difference as between the way of Ceremony and unceremonious simplicity and the way of our many short Liturgick Prayers and Offices and the way of free-praying from the present sense and habits of the speaker while pacificators thought both seasonably good 2. The sad eruption of this difference among the Exiles at Frankford while Dr. Cox and Mr. Horn and their party strove for the English Liturgie and the other party strove against it for the freer way is at large reported in a book called the troubles at Frankford 3. Queen Elizabeth and King James discountenancing and suppressing the Nonconformists they attempted in Northamtonshire and Warwickshire a little while to have set and kept up private Churches and governed them in the Presbyterian way But that attempt was soon broken and frustrate by the industry of Bishop Whitguift and Banctoft And the Nonconformists lived according to their various opportunities some of them conformed some were by connivence permitted in peculiars and small impropriate places or Chappels that had little maintenance in the publick Ministry which kept them from gathering secret Churches some of them had this liberty a great part of their lives as Mr. Hildersham Mr. Dod Mr. Hering Mr. Paget Mr. Midsley senior and junior Mr. Langley Mr. Slater and Mr. Ash at Bremicham Mr. Tailor Mr. Pateman Mr. Paul Bayne Mr. Fox of Tewksbury John Fox and many more Some had this liberty all their lives as Mr. Knewstubs Dr. Chadderton Dr. Reignolds Dr. Humphrey Mr. Perkins Mr. John Ball Mr. Barnet Mr. Geeree Mr. Root Mr. Atkins Mr. Gilpin John Rogers and many others some were fain to shift up and down by hiding themselves and by flight and these preached sometimes secretly in the houses where they were and sometime publickly for a day and away where they could be admitted so did Mr. Parker Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Nicols Mr. Brightman Mr. Brumskil Mr. Humphrey Fen Mr. Sutchff Mr. Thomas and many more and after their silencing Mr Cotton Mr. Hooker and many more that went to America Mr. Cartwright was permitted in the Hospital at Warwick Mr. Harvey and Mr. Hind at Bunbery in Cheshire and many more kept in having small maintenance being in peculiar or priviledged places Mr. Rathband Mr. Angier Mr. Johnson Mr. Gee Mr. Hancock and many others oft silenced had after liberty by fits Mr. Bowrne of Manchester Mr. Broxholm in Darbyshire Mr. Cooper of Huntingtonshire at Elton and many others suffered more and laboured more privately Dr. Ames was invited to Franekera some were further alienated from the English Prelacie and separated from their Churches and some of them called Brownists were so hot at home that they were put to death Mr. Ainsworth Johnson Robinson and others fled beyond seas and there gathered Churches of those that followed them and broke by divisions among themselves The old Nonconformists being most dead and the later gone most to America we cannot learn that in 1640 there were many more Nonconformist Ministers in England than there be Counties if so many 4. The Conformists shortly fell into dissension among themselves especially about three things Arminianism as it was called and Conciliation with the Church of Rome and Prerogative Dr. Heylin in the Life of ArchBishop Laud doth fully open all these differences and tells us that Archbishop Abbot was the Head of one party and in point of Antiarminianism even Archbishop Whitgist before him with Whitaker and others had made the Lambeth Articles driven the Arminians from Cambridge King James had discountenanced them in Holland and sent six Divines to the Synod of Dort who owned and helpt to form those Articles And he tells us that Bishop Laud had no Bishops on his side but Bishop Neale Bishop Buckeridge Bishop Corbet and Bishop Howson and after Bishop Mountague and thought it not safe to trust his Cause to a Convocation the major part called then The Church of England 1. Cryed down Arminianism as dangerous Doctrine 2. Cryed down any neerer approach to the Papists and the Toleration of them 3. And were much for the Law against absoluteness in the King and Dr. Heylins and Rushworth's Collect. will tell you the full story of Manwaring Sibthorp and Archbishop Abbots refusing to license Sibthorp's Book and the Consequents of all Thus these two Parties grew into jealousies the Old Church-men accusing the New on these three accounts and the New ones striving as Dr. Heylin describeth them to get into power and overturn the Old 5. In this contention the Parliaments also involved themselves and the Majority still clave to the Majority of the Bishops and Clergy then called the Church of England And in all or most Parliaments cried up Religion Law and Propriety and the Liberty of Subjects and cried down Arminianism Monopolies Connivence and Favouring of Papists and their increase thereby expressing by Speeches and Remonstrances their jealousies in all these points till they were dissolved 6. The writings of Bishop Jewel and much more Bishop Bilson and most of all Mr. Richard Hooker and such as were of their mind shew us what Principles there and then were by the Laiety that followed them received We will not recite their words lest our intent be misunderstood neither Bishop Bilsons instances in what cases Kings may be resisted by armes Nor Mr. Hookers that
Covenant 1. By this Oath and this Declaration the Government and Trust of all the Cities and Corporations of England are constituted or qualified 2. Part of this Vow and Covenant is against Popery superstition and profaneness and all that is against sound doctrine and Godlyness that we will Repent of our sins unfeignedly and amend our lives c which the Nonconformists take to be Lawful and Necessary things 3. Thousands of people lived in the Kings Garrisons or Quarters and thousands were then unborn or Children who never took this Vow or Covenant nor ever heard or read it or know what is in it 4. The Parliament that imposed it on others took it voluntarily themselves as did many thousand more 5. Many thousands took it that never saw the faces of each other nor know in what sense or with what mind all others took it The sense being doubtful all took it not in on sense And many thought themselves not bound to take it in the imposers sence where the words might bear another And so its like thought the Royal party of the Nobility and Gentry who took it at their composition 6. It was a Vow to God as well as a Covenant with men as the words shew 7. The Controversie is not 1. Whether it was Lawfully Imposed 2. Or whether it was Lawfully Taken 3. Or whether it bind as a League 4. Nor whether it bind to any unlawful thing which all renounce But 5. Whether as a Vow made to God it bind to things necessary as against Schism Profaneness Popery to Repent c. to which men were before bound by other obligations Nor whether they that took it not be bound by it to repent c. but whether no one person in the three Kingdoms who took it be so bound And that since the Scots drew his Majesty to seem to own it which we judge they did unlawfully II. All Parents who will have their Children baptized must submit them to the sign of the Cross as it is after described And so must all that are to be baptized at age submit themselves to it III. All persons that have Children to be baptized must conform as followeth 1. They must procure three persons to be Godfathers and Godmother who must personally present the Child to be baptized and must promise and Vow to God in the Childs name the duties of the Covenant and must in the name of the Child say that he renounceth the Devil and all his works the vain pomp and glory of the world c and that he stedfastly believeth all the articles of faith that he will he baptized and that he will obediently keep Gods holy will and Commandments c. Not that they believe consent c but that he the Child doth believe desire c. And it is not a meer promise for the future I will believe and renounce c. but a profession for the present time I do believe stedfastly and I do renounce And in the Catechism it is said that Repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe c are required of persons to be baptized and not only that have been baptized And yet that Infants that cannot do this are to be baptized because they promise them by their sureties and it is not said because they profess to do them at present by their sureties 2. The Child is baptized upon the undertaking of these persons as sponsors or Covenanters whose parts and duties are thus expressed To see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn what a solemn Vow promise and profession he hath here made by you and that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear sermons and chiefly ye shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords prayer and the ten Commandements in the vulgar tongue and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his souls health and that this Child may be brought up to lead a Godly and a Christian life 3. The Conformists here are not agreed themselves what that subjective individual Faith renuâ—ciation and desire are which the Infant at present PROFESSETH by his sureties It is not that the Infant doth actually believe himself for the Catechism confesseth that he doth not Nor is there any probability that he doth unless by miracle unknown And if it be any ones faith else that the Infant then Professeth which is Imputatively his own it is not agreed whose faith that is or must be whether the Godfathers or the Churches and what Churches whether that Congregations or the Diocesan Churches or the National Churches or the Universal Church or whether it must be the Parents Adopters or Owners of the Child 4. Though the Godfathers be not by words to promise their Parts yet standing purposely there as undertakers of it and hearing the Minister expresly tell them what their PART and DUTY is their coming and standing in that relation is a plain signification of consent and rendereth them obliged Covenanters or Sponsors 5. These sponsors are not obliged to profess that the Child is theirs by Adoption or any propriety And so far is any such adopting or owning from their purposes that we never in all our lives knew any Godfather or Godmother as such not having before taken the Child as theirs on other reasons that ever became a sponsor with such a signified intent 6. In most Country Parishes that we have known a great part of the Communicants seem Ignorant themselves of what is to be undertaken for the baptized as we judge by our tryal where we have lived and the credible report of other Pastors And too many notoriously live themselves in a course of life contrary to what is to be undertaken for the Child 7. In all our lives we never knew one person that undertook this Office of Godfather or Godmother who beforehand gave the Parents any credible promise or signification that they had any purpose at all to perform what the Church Chargeth on them and they there undertake as their parts and duties 8. Nor did we ever know one in all our lives that as a Godfather or Godmother did perform it viz. To see themselves that the Child be taught his Câ—venant as soon as he is able to learn and to provide that he be taught all before recited his Creed c. and all things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his souls health and that he bâ—virâ—uoâ—sly brought up to lead a godly and a Christian life But they leave them to the Parents 9. No man can compel another to be Godfather or Godmother 10. All such undertakers that we have known have been of some of these following sorts 1. Either gâ—orant persons that knew not or careless that considered not what they did 2. Or persons that mistâ—â—k the sense of the Church and thought that they were but the representers of the Parents and that what