WHether it be certain by God's Word that Infants Baptized dying before Actual Sin be undoubtedly saved § 1. I expected your Work had been to Convince Men of the good of Conformity But seeing it is to save Men from being seduced by my Directory you may doubt whether you will not rather tempt some impartial Men to read the words And then your work is spoiled when they compare them with your Accusation § 2. I lookt for some plain Text of Scripture to prove this both certain by God's Word and undoubted But finding none such I humbly beseech you hereafter when you have mind to shew your Argumentative strength leave out the abusive pretence of the Word of God Holy things must be holily used § 3. Your first Argument is that A Carnal Christian hath propriety in his Child and therefore may devote him to God as he may his Goods Ans. It had been more piously prudent to hear what could be said to such pretty new Knacks before you had tempted the Church by publishing them 1. Your first Proof is 1 Sam. 26. 26 27 28. and there are but 25 Verses in the Chapter and none to your purpose The next is Lev. 27. 28. Did you ever consider the Text Ainsworth and the Rabbies suppose from the Notation of the word and from the express words ver 29. that it is devoting of Slaves or Malefactors to death that is here spoken of Others better That it includeth both the absolute dedication of acceptable Persons to Service and of odious Persons to Death Therefore all are not saved that are here called holy as devoted Neither the Cursed nor the Levites that by dedication obliged to Service are hereby saved For more than Obligation is necessary to the reward The First-born were specially to be given to God and yet that implied not their certain Salvation 2. A Dissembler may by his Covenant obtain a right with Man that knoweth not his Heart and he may be received into the outward Communion of the Church by God's Approbation who Commissioneth Ministers who know not mens Hearts to receive Men according to their Profession And these are holy to the Lord as the Iews were but not therefore under a promise that they shall be undoubtedly saved Were all the Iews saved because they were a holy Nation 3. Not only his Child but the grossest hypocritical Lyar himself who is Baptized and cometh into the Church in Malice to betray it is yet holy as a Visible Member and hath obliged himself to real Holiness and yet is far from a state of Salvation 4. Nothing is holy and accepted by the Devoters Act alone without God's accepting Act Nor any further or to any other uses than God accepteth it to Some he accepteth unto Visible Membership and Communion and some to the Sacred Ministry and some to Magistracy c. who are not accepted to Salvation 5. Doth Lev. 27. prove that all Nations in the World might devote their Children unto God with the same assurance of acceptation as the Israelites 6. The Jewish Mosaical Law is abrogated and neither bindeth us as such nor secureth us of acceptance for obeying it 7. All Heathens and Infidels have some propriety in their Children and yet if in unbelief they devote them with the Tongue alone to God that will not make their Salvation undoubted 8. Few God-Fathers have propriety in them How then will their devoting prove their Salvation 9. God hath made no promise of his acceptance which you can shew therefore you cannot by his Word be certain of it 10. God saith that the Sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to Him much more when he doth it with an evil mind And he expressly saith Else were your Children unclean if one Parent were not a Believer but now are they holy Therefore when both Parents are Unbelievers the Children are not accepted of God as holy 11. The question is of all Baptized Children For it is Quatenus Baptizati that they are said to be saved and à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia And it 's an Indefinite in re necessariâ But we have too many scorners at Christianity followers of Hobbes Spinosa Pomponatius and Vaninus who for fashion sake will bring their Children to Baptism And certainly such are far worse than Heathens If one believeth not in Christ tell a wilful Lye and say he believeth can any Man think that his Child shall be ever the more saved for his Wickedness and Hypocrisie § 4. You gather Christ's acceptance from Mat. 10. 13. c. It is not said of the Infants of the Godly only is the Kingdom of Heaven Ans. Nor is it said that of all Infants or of all Baptized Infants is the Kingdom of Heaven The Text will prove indeed that the Infant state is capable of Christ's acceptance into the Kingdom of Grace and of Glory But not that nothing is necessary thereto but that they be Infants If all Infants be saved bringing them to Christ was not necessary to their Salvation If all only that were brought to Christ were saved it seems they were very few 2. Is it like that any would bring their Children to Christ to be Blessed who did not believe in him And what reason have we to surmise that they were not sound Believers 3. As Christ healed some blind Men and not all and some Lepers Sick c. so if as a Specimen to shew that Infant state is capable of Grace he took up some Infants of Hypocrites or Infidels or impious Parents which can never be proved it will not follow that all such shall be received and that to Salvation 4. If by verbal profession Parents and their Children are taken into the outward Covenant and Church and by Water Men are born into the Visible Kingdom of God it followeth not they need not to be born of the Spirit for admission into the Invisible and Heavenly Kingdom or that the Spirit always goeth with the Water and that the Parents answer of a good Conscience to God is not necessary to his Child 's Covenant-right to Salvation as well as to his own 5. I deny that any wicked Man much more every one doth yea or can univocally and truly devote his Child to God according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant Though I grant that the love of his Childs Lust do not hold him so strongly as the love of his own yet he that never so knew God in Christ and so believed in Christ and so believed in him as to perceive him practically to be better for himself than all the World and sinful Pleasures cannot with a true and practical Affiance so take him for his Child 6. And God no where commandeth or accepteth the devoting of our Infants to him primarily or as seperated from our selves but only as Appendices or Conjunct with us that is that we devote our selves and ours And so not without us but with us doth he accept them § 5. Your
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
that if the same were done here we may enter into a solemn Covenant never to endeavour to reform it No were it but the high places in Iudaea 2. Submitting is either by Obedience or meer Patience Under Papists and Turks Men must submit by Patience But if you say We hold that we must obey all that they command our practice tells you It is not true But the question is Whether there be no one thing but what we may covenant never to endeavour to alter and subscribe that no Parliament Man or any other in England is bound by that Oath which they took to endeavour it The Law forbids me to say They are and therefore I say it not But if you say They are not Dare you undertake to answer for them You say Their Office binds them to no evil That is None of the things fore-mentioned are evil Which you said were so Again you say All the while Excommunications and Church Censures are soundly done it 's the the less matter by whom they are done Ans. 1. Do not say so to the King about Kingly Government Nor to the Judges if an intruder invade the Tribunal 2. Make the Bishops believe this if you can of any that should usurp their Office 3. Make the Parish Priests believe it if you can who are so angry with us for helping them at a distance though we invade not Places 4. Make any sober Ministers believe if you can that if the Word be well Preacht and Sacraments soundly Administred it is no matter who doth it 5. Make any Master of a Family or Husband believe it as to their Offices that it 's no matter who doth it so it be soundly done If the Wife do believe it 's two to one the Husband will not § 4. Again you say By the Government of Church and State whatsoever is absolutely sinful is forbidden the Laws declare it Null c. Ans. This is before answered You say Silencing and Excommunicating the Non-conformists here are sinful Instead of this impertinent talk go try your Oratory on the Judges and Bishops if you can persuade them that the Law forbids them all to fine Imprison or Silence us or Excommunicate us Why did you not use this pretty Argument for your self 2. And do not Papists and Turks say that No Law against God is in force And doth their Government therefore contain no evil Or will you tell them that swear to amend it that it 's well enough already You tell us what to say to the Bishops and Judges for our selves But if by this Medium I would prove that I am conformable to the Law and they are the Non-conformists that punish me because they break the Law of God I doubt they would Laugh at me first and send me to Gaol next § 5. But in answer to Where read we in Scripture of the Chancellor's Office You repeat again If soundly done no Man may reprove them I will not repeat my Answer But I add If so No Man may reprove the Boys if they soundly Whip their Master when he deserveth it nor a Cobler that will send Offenders to Prison as the Lord Mayor doth Nor a Justice yea or a Tinker that will step up in the Chancery or King's-Bench to do Justice § 6. But though I will not Laugh at your Writing I should hardly forbear if I heard you do what page 95 you say you would do viz. If a Bishop or Arch-Bishop or Chancellor live where you are Pastor and be a Member of your Congregation you must needs look on your self as obliged by the Laws and Canons of the Church and State by the Word of God and by the Rules of the Common-prayer-Book publickly to admonish him if he grosly misdemean himself and do a scandalous crime and if he shall not by open confession give satisfaction to the Church bar him from the Sacrament and declare him Disorderly and Contumacious and that if he do not repent he shall perish and warn the People to beware of such evil Courses and to have no more to do with him than they needs must And this I maintain to be part of the Discipline and Government of the Church of England Ans. I would I could see this bout I doubt he will have something to do with you Your Chancellor had the wit to begin with you first I pray you forget not this Case when you go to the Bishop for his sense of the Liturgy and tell us his answer when you come Home I must profess this is an edifying Passage As when I read in Saltmarsh that Christ repented and believed for us it let in more Light against Libertinism than I had before So doth this Passage raise up some useful doubts in me about our Churches which I thought not on till now Q. 1. Whether are the Bishops that dwell in the London Parishes or others Members of the Parish Church where they dwell Q. 2. If they are not Whether dwelling in the Parish make a Christian a Member of the Parish Church Q. 3. If not what is it that makes a Member and how are the Pastors special Flock truly known to him from others Q. 4. If they be Members to whom shall we present the Bishop for not coming to Church or for his Crimes Is it to himself Q. 5. Whether is the Bishop or the Parish Priest there the higher Power or Governor and which must obey Q. 6. Doth the Canon that forbids Men to go from their own Parish Churches extend to the Bishop Q. 7. How is the Bishop one of the Parson's Flock and the Parson one of the Bishop's Flock both at once Q. 8. Whether the Bishop that is Excommunicated by the Parson out of the Parish Church be cast out of the Universal or other Churches may have Communion with him or not Q. 9. What if the Parson Excommunicate the Bishop and the Bishop the Parson both at once what a Case are they in And which shall stand one or both and how far Q. 10. How will the Parson practice his Conformity who consenteth when he putteth any one from the Sacrament to certifie the Ordinary within fourteen Days will he prosecute the Bishop to himself or to his Chancellor Q. 11. Doth not this Instance prove Mr. Cheyney to be a mistaking Expositor of the Church-Government the Bishops themselves being Judges and would not one days practice of any such thing convince him by Experience that the Church of England now take not Parish Parsons for Parish Bishops Q. 12. Is he in the right page 96. that this Course would make Bishops and Arch-Bishops and Chancellors stand in awe of the Priests why then did you not thus awe your Bishop and Chancellor CHAP. XXIX YOur 28th Section hath nothing in it that requireth many words for Answer That Oaths and Laws must be charitably expounded no one denieth so they be truly expounded In this we stand to Bishop Sanderson's Rules which are far better stated than any
and the English sort of God-Fathers you may refuse to say the words of Prayer which imply his Salvation over the Dead who were Excommunicable though not Excommunicated You may understand the Article which professeth the certainty of Baptized Infants salvation of those only that are the Children of faithful Parents or Pro-parents you may say you Assent to all in the Book and mean not all but some part and that not as true but as usable You may profess Consent to use it all and yet not mean to use the Calendar or Rubricks or to Administer the Sacraments otherwise than as aforesaid You may Say or Subscribe or Swear that it is on any pretence whatsoever unlawful to take Arms against any Commissioned by the King and mean only such as are lawfully Commissioned You may subscribe that no one in England that sware it is bound by the solemn Vow and Oath to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State and mean only that he must not endeavour it by Sedition or Rebellion And so on to the end But other Bishops will say the clean contrary viz. That the Bishop is the only Pastor and the Parish Priest hath none of the power here named and so of all the rest And what Uniformity then will there be Know you not how they write against such different Administrations as destructive and intolerable 7. And know you not that a Bishop hath no power against the Canons The Canons are their own Laws and Judgment and bind them And when the Canon saith e. g. He shall be suspended that giveth the Sacrament to one that kneeleth not or that the Non-conformists are ipso facto Excommunicate c. Hath the Bishop authority to say the contrary 8. And you know that I wrote not to accuse you or any Man for Conforming but to tell them that judge us worthy to be Silenced and Ruined what our Non-conformity is And what use then is your own Latitude to me or such as I though I went your own way For I have askt and heard the Opinion of divers Bishops already and they have said clean contrary to you I have heard him that first forbad me Preaching in his Diocess say that The Liturgy forbiddeth delivering the Sacrament to any that Kneel not I can shew it you under his Hand that the Priest must not be Judge when to omit the forementioned words at the burial of the Dead nor tolerated in such Liberty as you presume on I have been told by a Bishop That seeing Christ died for all the Children of any Parents in the World have right to Baptism and any Man hath as good right to present to it an Infidel's Child as to take in an exposed Infidel's Child to his House in Charity I told you that Bishop Sanderson publickly before the Bishops Nemine contradicente told me That I need not question Baptizing any Infidel's Child if God-Fathers presented him according to the Order of the Church of England Are we not then concluded against Conformity by the Bishop's judgment by your own Rule And must not you be a Non-conformist in the Diocess of any such Bishop as these 9. And by your Rule a Man must be a Conformist in one Bishop's Diocess and a Non-conformist in another's and change his mode of Religion as he Travelleth or doth change his Dwelling I imagine that by your Rule I might partly Conform in the Diocess of London or Lincoln Hereford or Carlisle but I should be as Non-conformable as I am in the Diocess of Winchester Ely York Norwich and any other as far as I yet know I conclude that your Catholicon may purge your self from all Non-conformity but it is utterly unprofitable to me Facile credimus quod volumus I have had as much reason as you to be willing to find Conformity lawful if it be so I have lost many thousand Pounds more by Non-conformity than you have got by Conformity But I have no such Byas on my Will as should set all my Wit on work to find or buy a Rope for my Conscience And I find nothing better that you offer me herein § 4. When you have told us Where no God-Fathers can be had we must Christen without and such like You say And this is the common sense put upon the Law by the Law-makers themselves that is by the Bishops Ans. What reason did you think we have in such an Historical Assertion to believe your bare word In what Synod did they declare it Why did you neither name the Bishops nor the Time or Place or Witness by which it might be proved the common sense But could you think this should convince me that know it to be false § 5. You tell us pag. 119. If it were a part of Assent and Consent that Ordination by good and substantial Presbyters were null it would be a hard point indeed to Unchurch Churches and Unbaptize the Baptized and plead the cause of Satan the Pope and all Malignants of the Ministry in the Name of Christ. Ans. Excuse us then for not Conforming I before gave you this Proof that it is the sense of the Law-makers or Bishops They that abhor Reordination or twice ordaining to the Priesthood and yet require those to be ordained by Bishops who were before ordained by Presbyters must be judged to hold the said Ordination by Presbyters to be null But c. Ergo. § 6. 1. You say No Man that I know of takes the Silenced Ministers and those ordained by Presbyters only for no Ministers at all unless one Mr. Dodwel a high-flown Man whom Conformists themselves do utterly dissent from in this Ans. Your ignorance is no good reason for my Conformity If you know of no more I do Read Mr. Thâ—rndike of Forbearance of Penalties Ask Bishop Gunning his judgment c. If your acquaintance be so small you should not write of that which you know not § 7. 2. But you say All both Rulers and People Conformists themselves do own them for Ministers otherwise they would take some course for the Rebaptizing of all Baptized by them Ans. Did you ever read the Conference at Hampton Court Did you dream that all these take Laymens Baptizing for null Or do you conclude that all think what you think § 8. 3. You prove it from the toleration of the Foreigners Churches in London Ans. How will you prove that they judge all true Ministers whom they Tolerate § 9. 4. You say the Acts against Conventicles and the Five Mile Act prove it 5. The King's Proclamation for Indulgence proveth it 6. The Fines and Imprisonments for Conventicles prove it 7. The allowing four Persons to meet in private proveth it 8. The common sense of Bishops Divines and People of the Church of England prove it Ans. You may next say That any thing that you see or hear proveth it It 's liker these prove the contrary than this By this Men may see how little satisfaction we may expect