The Defense of the Nonconformists Plea for Grace, Part 2
The Second Part.
Mr. Cheney's Five Undertakings Considered.
§ 1. DEar Brother, you and I have exposed our selves as Publick Warnings to Mankind, to take heed of an overvaluing of their own Understandings, and of a hasty confidence in their Erroneous Conceptions, and of rash obtruding that upon the World as necessary Truth, for want of Judgment and Time to digest things, which will prove very dangerous Error; and if received and practised, alas, what Mischief may it do! Erring Men know not that they Err: If I think it is you, and you think it is I, and a third think it is both, the Reader greatly profiteth by us, who learneth by our Harms, to have a due suspicion of his own Understanding; and so it be without unnecessary Scepticism, to have humble thoughts of his Conceptions, which have not had time and helps convenient to ripen them: Especially if your Friend or you be Conscious, that you have formerly or lately been as confident in that which you now see was your Error, you should think that the same Mind is still in danger of Deceit, and it's as easie to reel into the other Extreme.
§ 2. Oh what cause have we to pray, Lead us not into temptation! we little know what is in our Hearts or others, till just Trial call it up: Nor what great hurt even good Men may live to do. And if one Error get in, to how many worse it may open the Door. And if we begin to roul down the Hill, how little know we where to stop? But though Satan desire to have us that he may sift us, I hope Christ's Intercession will keep our Faith from failing. But wo, and alas, that we must, one or both (which ever is in the wrong) be instruments of Mischief against the Interest of our dear Lord, and his Truth and Church, and Mens Souls, whilst both our desires are to live in the World for no other end, but to build up that, which by Ignorance, Self-conceitedness, Error, and Rashness, we are laboriously pulling down.
§ 3. And if it be I that have by Error wronged the Church, my Case is made worse by your strengthening my Temptation, when instead of convincing Argument, you give me little but naked Assertions; and saying [I conceive,] and run into such Singularities as all sober Men are bound to suspect, and some condemn almost all Christ's Churches, without one word of Convincing Proof.
§ 4. That you Answer only in Print to the World, the private Talk that I had with you, whilst you gave me no Vocal Answer, I take but for a small and modal Irregulatity: Some Men have Humours and Ways of their own, which they will follow. Had you done it as judiciously, and truly, with fear of Erring and Seducing, as you did it publickly, the rest might be well interpreted: But we must take it as it is.
QUESTION. I.
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 great pretended Proof is, That all the Males of Israel were Circumcised.
Ans. 1. If you had proved that they were all saved, you had said more to the matter.
2. To open here the nature of the Iews Covenant of Peculiarity, as one select Nation of whom Christ should come, as distinct from, and as conjunct with the common antecedent Covenant of Grace, and to shew the reasons of the Institution of Circumcision of Abraham's peculiar Seed, and not for all that from Adam and Noah, were under the common Law of Crace, would be a work which such a light occasion would not warrant me here to stand upon.
3. The sign of Circumcision, was but the seal anexed to the Covenant: And the meer External Act (as Water in Baptism) entered them but into the External Church-state.
4. Almost all the gross Sinners at least, if presumptuous and impenitent, were to be put to death by that Law; And dead Men beget not Children. But I have so largely handled this in my 3d Disp. of Right to Sacraments, that while you leave it unanswered, I will not repeat it on so slight a Cause.
§ 6. And what if you had proved the Salvation of all wicked Christians Baptized Infants? what's that to our Question, which extendeth to all, not excepting the Children of profest Atheists, Infidels, Sadduces, or Heathens, that have but God-Fathers?
§ 7. But pag. 8, 9. you tell us, that [Infants by reason of their innocent harmless state, seem to be Christ's Off-spring, and to be a subordinate Root and Bottom to themselves, and to stand by their own innocency under Christ, and by his Divine Grace.—Look what Regeneration is to the Adult, that in some sort the Infant-state may be to Infants; that is, All Infants are in a New and Second state by Christ: So the word Regeneration doth properly import.—Pag. 10. Christ alone without Parents Godliness, is able to the Salvation of all the Infant World.—I am not able to prove that bare having of Circumcision and Baptism doth save any; nor that the bare want thereof doth bar any from Salvation.
Ans. 1. But what is this to Conformity? Did you think that this was the meaning of the Liturgy, that all Infants are saved, when it saith All the Baptized?
2. It doth not follow that Christ saveth all, because he is able to save them.
3. I have said so much to prove Original Sin, and some participation of Guilt from our Parents Sins, and to prove God's Promises to the Faithful and their Seed, which are not made to the Infidels and Wicked, in two Disputations of Original Sin; that I refer you thither for your Answer to this unproved Fiction, of the Salvation of all Infants, and their Regenerate Innocency.
4. Woful experience tells us, as soon as they can but speak and go, how far their Natures are from an innocent disposition: And to be void of holy Dispositions is not to be innocent.
5. If they be conceived and born Innocent, what need have they of Baptism for Remission of Sin? If you say that Christ Regenerateth all as he is the Giver of their Nature, the Church hath condemned this in the Pelagians, that make Nature, as from Christ, to be the same with Grace.
6. If all be Pardoned, all have the Holy Ghost (for Baptism giveth right to both.) But that's not so.
§ 8. Page 11. Did you satisfie your Conscience in expounding, [But now are they holy, 1 Cor. 14.] after what we have said of it to Mr. Tombes? Is it [Your Children are pure to you, as your Meat is?]
§ 9. When you ask me [Why I say notoriously ungodly.] You consulted not the credit of your knowledg, to tell Men in Print, that you know not what Notorious signifieth; no not in Notation, or common use: As if it signified [more than ordinary.] Notorious, is that which is certainly, openly, easily, Knowable. I have told you of some of my own Parishioners, that live in the open opposition to Christianity, seeking in their Converse to persuade Men, that the Scripture is a Book of Lyes, and Christianity a meer Deceit, and they will bring their Children to Baptism for Law and Custom-sake; and say all the Creed, and words required (it was in the time when I had leave to admit the Parent to enter his own Child in the Covenant with God.) We know now abundance of the followers of Hobbes, and Spinosa, and many that deride Scripture, and the hopes of Heaven, and the fears of a Hell, and think Man is but a subtle sort of Beast: Yet these will all have their Children Baptized, and to avoid the penalty of the Law, will receive the Eucharist. And there are others who are common scorners of Serious Religiousness, and persecutors of it to their power; and hate him that will tell them of the evil of the common Drunkenness and Whoredom which they live in, and glory in their Shame. We look for better proof than your Wrigling-nothings, to make us undoubtedly certain from God's Word, that the Baptized Infants of all these are saved: The Rubrick meaneth, [Quia & qua, Baptized;] and you mean [Because innocent, and Christ died for them, and all the Unbaptized, are saved.] But as I see none of your proof of the latter, so I will not crookedly crawl into Conformity by the fallacious Exposition. And you that were, in your last Book, uncertain your self of what you can now prove certain, do so quickly Change, and so quickly publish your Change, that your judgment hath the less power by any reverence of it to the changing of mine.
QUEST. II.
WHether may Unconverted ones within the Church, demand and receive the Lord's Supper? Mr. Baxter saith flatly they may not. Right to Sacram. pag. 140. The Confutation followeth.
§ 1. Ans. I can bethink me, but of one of these three Ends, of this your Writing: 1. Either barely to make a confession of your Faith and Judgment: 2. Or to save me from my Error by Conviction: 3. Or to save the Readers of my Book from the danger of them.
1. If the first be your Work, I confess your words [I conceive] are suitable: But Confessions use to be otherwise, concisely and orderly formed, and no Adversaries names besides Pilate's, needed to be put into your Creed.
2. If the second or third be your Work, you seem to think very contemptible of my Judgment, and of every such Readers, when you expect that when I have written, and they have read, full Disputations opening the state of the Question, proving what I assert by many Arguments and Scripture, vindicating twenty Arguments of Mr. Galespies, from all that is answered to them, we should after this be convinced that our Cause is wrong, by one that neither will be at the labour distinctly to state the Controversy, nor to reply to my Answers already given to all his Reasonings and much more, nor to answer the many Arguments which I and others urge, but saith little more of any moment than [I am induced to think thus, though I once thought otherwise:] Yea, when you neither answer our Reasons, nor give us the tenth part so much for your Cause as we answered, yet we must not think that it [is on slight grounds] that you have taken up your Opinion, pag. 16. when what you say is so slight, that as I will not write over again what you vouchsafe not to answer; so, if your Reader have read my Book cited by you, I will not so reproach his judgment as to think, that he needeth any farther answer to this of yours. But if he have not read mine, nor will read it, he is in no danger of being seduced by it, and so your labour is in vain.
§ 2. But, Reader, lest so small a word as his oft [I conceive,] should prove to the unwary Synonimal to [I deceive,] I shall advertise thee briefly.
I. That my way was to distinguish of Conversion.
1. As from Heathenism, or Infidelity, Mahometanism, or Heresie.
2. From gross Hypocrisie manifested by a notorious wicked Life.
3. From close Hypocrisie not proved.
4. From a particular fall of a sincere Christian, to his integrity; or from some tolerable Error and Mistake.
II. I use to distinguish between Being sincere in the Christian Faith, and knowing that we are Sincere.
III. I use to define what the Conversion is that I speak of, in such Controversie.
IV. And I never confound the Case [Whether it may be demanded,] with the Case [whether it may be delivered.]
V. And I still distinguish between [A means which an Unconverted self-knowing Man, is commanded by God to use for his Conversion,] and [a means which God can use, or consequently the Sinner should in the review make use of hereunto, supposing that he hath unlawfully intruded.] As if a Man unlawfully invade the sacred Ministerial Office, when he is in it, there is somewhat that may become a means of his Conversion: Or if one that hath vowed Celibate, Marry a godly Person unlawfully, it may become a means of their Conversion.
Now to make this Controversie intelligible to the unstudied, I would here perform all these parts, and distinctly by Propositions open the Matter: But it is done in the Disputations of Right to Sacraments, which he opposeth: And if every Nibbling of one that refuseth the rational task of a sober Confuter, shall call a Man to write new Books, there will be no end of tiring Readers. I doubt I have Erred already, in not letting some talk on, and shew their Mistakes and false Accusations without any Confutation.
§ 3. He doth indeed limit the Case to [the Unconverted within the Church,] and you would think that by this he excluded Heathens, Mahometans, Infidels, and Hereticks. But remember,
1. That the Baptized not Excommunicate, are in the Universal Church.
2. And that a particular Church with him, seems to be nothing but a worshipping Assembly; and all that are there are in the Church, and when the Meeting breaks up, the Church is no Church.
3. And yet sometimes you would that think he took a Parish of such Assemblers for a Church.
4. And it is matter of Fact past all dispute, that not only all the Papists, the first ten Years of Queen Elizabeth, came to our Churches, and some do so still; but that abundance such as aforesaid, come to the Parish Churches, who in Coffee-Houses talk against Christianity, or the immortality of the Soul, or the Scriptures, and such as write Books to the same purposes; and these are not converted from Sadducism, Beastiality, or Infidelity.
5. And then mark whether any of this Brother's Arguments do prove, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, was ordained for such Men to use for their Conversion.
§ 4. Remember that the full Conversion to Sa…ing-Sincerity, is nothing else but [sincere Consent to the Baptismal Covenant.] And every such Consenter, and only such (Adult) are savingly converted. And that it is not that Covenant, when any essential part is omitted: To believe in the Father and not the Son, or not in the Holy Ghost, is not that Covenant: Now the Person in question, To receive the Sacrament as the Sacrament, (Baptism, or the Eucharist) and not to profess Consent to the Covenant, is a contradiction; no Man can do it: Covenanting is essential to it. And it is essential to it to be by God's Commission a Solemn actual investing Delivery, with application to the just receiver of a saving Right to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and actual present pardon of Sin, and right to Life.
§ 5. And the Person in question is either,
1. One that Consenteth not, and knoweth that he consenteth not.
2. Or that Consenteth not and thinks he doth, because he consenteth to some part.
3. Or one that consenteth not, and knoweth not whether he do or not.
(4. For, as for all true Consenters that know not that they do it sincerely, they are Converted Persons, and not those in Question: And a true Consenter that doubteth of his truth, but upon his best self-trial, thinks that he truly consenteth to have God for his God, and Christ for his Saviour, and the Holy Ghost for his Sanctifier, must go without certainty upon the best judgment that he make of himself.)
I. Now for the Person that consenteth not, and knoweth it, to come and demand the Sacrament for his Conversion, is all one as to say, that [It is God's Ordinance, that he is not willing after all persuasions, to give up himself to God, as his Father, Saviour, and Sanctifier, and therefore hath no right to Pardon and Life, shall solemnly profess that he doth consent to the Covenant when he doth not, and that he doth presently by Vow give up himselfe to God, as his God and Father, Saviour and Sanctifier, when he doth not; that this may convert them to do that which lyingly he saith he doth: And he shall take the investing pardoning Sign and Act, when he hath no right to Pardon.] Deceive not your self, or others: Giving and Taking, Eating and Drinking, are as Speaking (significant Actions) essentially to the Sacrament: And he never received the Sacrament essentially as that Sacrament, that did not thereby interpretatively solemnly profess, q. d. [I now consent to the Covenant of Christ, and take God in Christ for my Father, Saviour and Sanctifier, and here give up my self to him in these Relations.] And therefore all the Ancients taught, that the Baptized were all certainly presently pardoned; supposing that they really consented to the Baptismal Covenant, as every adult Baptized Person did, and must profess.
And can you believe that this was Christ's Institution, q. d. [Come and solemnly be Perjured, and Lye, and say, Thou consentest to the Covenant when thou dost not, that this may convert thee to Consent. All your mistaken row of words, will never make this soul Cause fair.
2. But what if it be a Man that consenteth not but thinketh he doth, or yet doth not know?
Ans. It is his Sin not to know that he consenteth not; and that will not make it lawful for him to Lye, and 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 sincerely Penitent, thy Sin is pardoned, and thou hast right to Salvation, and mayst come to the Lord's Table.]
Ans. And doth not this imply, that else he should not come? And is such a Man Unconverted?
It is too irksome to rake up the rest of your Contradictions, and examine your slight words of the Parable of the Tares: But that rooting up the Tares forbidden is Excommunicating, or denying Sacramental Communion to any Parishioner of your Description, who will believe that knoweth?
1. What Christ saith, Mat. 18. 15. &c. and Paul, 1 Cor. 5. and 2 Thess. 3. Tit. 3. 10, 11, &c.
2. Or he that knoweth that the Universal Church of Christ in all Ages, hath been of another mind; and indeed went at last too far against it, having no punishment for Christians, but Suspension and Excommunication.
3. And that the Christian World at this day is of another mind, though the Helvetians are too remiss in the Principles, and most in the Practice.
4. And that the Canons of this Church requireth the Minister to deny the Sacrament to some such as you describe: And in your former Book, you pleaded this as for Conformity: And are you changed already? And shall any Wise Man follow such quick Changes?
5. The Church of England forbids us to give the Sacrament to any that are not Confirmed, and desire it not, or are not ready: But such are many of your Description.
6. If the power of Excommunicating over a thousand, or many hundred Churches be confined to the Bishop and the Chancellor, or Officials, and so all the Parish Ministers denied it, and disabled, all these Churches must be Prophaned and Confounded at the will of one Man, or because he cannot do an Impossibility. And the reasons why Christ would have his Church to be visibly Holy, and a Communion of Saints, and openly differenced from the notoriously ungodly, are so many and so great, that I will not here attempt the opening of them, having often elsewhere done it.
QUEST. IV.
WHether the common sort of ungodly Christians, are to be cast out of the Church by Penal Excommunications, and used as Excommunicate ones? You say, [I conceive not.]
Ans. Would any one that pretended to confute our Errors, no better open the case in question.
1. In your sense they are Christians that never professed consent to the Baptismal Covenant, but only took the Water in order to Conversion hereafter. These are no visible Christians: And I suppose by parity of Reason, the Council of Nice, which decreed the Rebaptizing of the Paulmists, would have been for Rebaptizing these.
2. Is the Ordinariness the satisfying Character, who is not to be Excommunicated? In one Country those are ordinary, that are extraordinary in others: In some places Arrians are ordinary; in some Socinians; in some Papists; in some open Scorners of the Scripture, Christianity, and Religion: In some ignorant Persons that know not the Essentials of Christianity, nor will learn, or let the Minister instruct them any where but in the Pulpit; in many Parishes here, not one of many (their Neighbours say) go to Church about once or twice a Year. 1 Cor. 5. 13. Put away from among you that wicked Person, ver. 11. If any Man that is called a Brother, be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or on Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat. Do not ye judg them that are within, 2 Thess. 3. It is the idle and disorderly: And these are ordinary in some places.
But we easily grant that Excommunications are not to be used Tyranically, or when they do more hurt than good. And if the Body of a Church turn, e. g. Socinians, or professedly ungodly, and will not be Reformed, the Excommunication which we plead for is, but withdrawing from them and renouncing their Communion, declaredly.
§ 2. I have oft said, that Perfidious Covenant-breakers who live in gross Sin, and still tell the Minister they repent, and will not be persuaded to leave their Sin, (e. g. Whoredom, Drunkenness, Stealing, Perjury, Blasphemy,) have so far forfeited the credit of their bare word, that the Pastor should see their actual amendment before he Absolve them. And now your Hand is in, the World must be saved from this Doctrine too. But because it is a common principle in Nature, and in all Church Canons, and the common judgment of Divines, I will not stay to dispute it with you. But when you are a Master of a Family, if you think Family Discipline a Duty, Experience will cure your credulity: If your Servant or Son beat you, or spit in your Face, or Rob you once a Day, or Week, but for one Year together, and say still after it, I repent. But what will not Men talk for?
QUEST. V.
WHether Mr. Baxter's Doctrine and Principles concerning particular Churches be sound and good? And you confute them.
Ans. 1. Those that read them are in no danger by them. And those that do, may be confirmed by so slight a confutation (as I said.)
2. As for my Book of [Universal Concord of all Christian Churches,] I know that the Devil hateth it so much, that I expect some far more subtile Assault than yours; or else I shall think that the Devil wanteth wit or power, more than is commonly believed. But I am sorry that he hath drawn so good a Man to be his instrument.
§ 1. My first mentioned Error is [That a particular Church is a regular part of the Universal Church, as a City is of a Kingdom.] The confutation is [In this I conceive he is out: A particular Church is to the Church Universal with a single Town, consisting of a Magistrate Governing, and People governed, according to the general Rules and Principles of Society, is to all the World.
Ans. The proof is [I conceive he is out,] and an Assertion in other words of the same that is denied; and so we are out both (or neither.)
1. I used the Name, and he the Definition: It may be he thought that by [City] I had meant only such Towns as are so called in England: But methinks he should know that the word foreign, signifieth all such Towns as he defineth, and that it is the common definition of Civitas which he giveth us, as all Politicks speak de Civitate: It is therefore the same subject in the Similitude, which we both speak of.
2. The difference then must be between the words [Kingdom] and [World.] I say, A Church is such a part of the Universal, as a City is of a Kingdom: He saith, no, but [as a City is of the World.] What a dangerous Error hath he detected? But, All the World is God's Kingdom: And as it hath but one King, so I thought I might liken it to a Kingdom that hath one King, but a multitude of Corporations; without stretching the Similitude to intend that [This Kingdom is not a part of the World.]
§ 2. My second Error is, [He that will be a Member of a particular Church, must cohabit, or dwell near.] The confutation is, [I conceive he is out.]
Ans. What, is he against Parish Churches after all this? No: He only denieth it of a transient Member pro tempore as a Traveller, and granteth it as to a stated Member. And yet I am out. Many and many a time have I written of Churches, and use to distinguish first of the Equivocal Name, saying, That an occasional meeting of Christians for Worship, may be called a Church, and a transient Christian pro tempore a Member: I have written more this way than ever he did. But declared that it is a settled Political Society that I defined, when I speak of what he now accuseth. And why should a wise and good Man thus hastily trouble the World and make discord by pretending, because he cannot have leisure to know, what he speaks against?
§ 3. My third Error is, [That to the being of a particular Church there is necessary a mutual Covenant, or exprest consent between Pastor and People, even every Member, and the more express the better: And I define a Church to be a Society of Christians consisting of Pastor and People associated by consent.]
The force of the Confutation is, [I conceive he is out.] But wherein is it? We have here such work as I never met with before.
1. He granteth that none are to each other, Pastor and People against their Wills. Good still. And yet do I err? [But (saith he) as Christ is Christ, and a Saviour by Office whether Sinners will or not: So faithful Ministers are Pastors by Office, whether the People accept them or no.] Reader, it is not the least blemish of my Writings, that on divers occasions I oft repeat the same things: And many a time have I distinctly said, 1. That the Ordainers judge who shall be a Minister of Christ in general. 2. The Magistrate is judge whom he will Countenance, Maintain, or Tolerate. 3. And the People must be consenting judges to whom they will trust the conduct of their Souls: As it's one thing to be a Licensed Physician, and another to be Physician to this Hospital, or Person. If this Brother mean otherwise, what meant he by saying, that No Man can be a Pastor to a People against their will? Doth he say, and unsay in the next Lines? Is Christ any Man's actual Saviour whether they believe in him, and accept him or not? I have oft said, that in divers Cases, the People may be bound in duty to Consent, as all are bound to be Christians: But they are no Christians, or Church-members, till they do Consent: What then is it that he meaneth as our Difference?
§ 4. Yes: He saith, [No more is necessary to the being, or well-being of a particular Church than this; A company of Christians met together in publick for the Solemn Worship of God by Iesus Christ, having a Pastor or Minister with them to guide and govern the Congregation, and edifie himself and them by the Word and Sacraments; where there is no Assembly of Pastor and People there is no Church, and no longer than the Assembly lasteth are they a Church.]
Ans. Did the World ever here this Doctrine before? When the Church at Ierusalem, Corinth, Cenchrea, Colosse, Laodicea, &c. and the Churches in Iudea, Galatia, &c. are mentioned, when the Apostles ordained them Elders in every Church, Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 3, 5. &c. Is the word Church here taken for no Christians longer than they are Assembled? Doth not Scripture, Canons, Fathers, and all Writers speak of Churches as Associated Christians, remaining Churches all the Day, and Year, and not only while Assembled? If the word Church may be taken for a Transient Assembly, doth it follow that there is no other? Have we so many Books of Ecclesiastical Policie, if there be no Political Society that is a particular Church? What an unpleasing talk is it to be put on a defence against such an Opponent?
§ 5. Saith he [I would but ask Mr. Baxter, what is it that you mean by Associated by consent?]
Ans. Have I in the Books, cited by you, so largely told you what I mean, and must you print the Question before you will take an Answer? Saith he [Either you mean bare Assembling, or some other thing.] Ans. Will you better understand me if I write it again than you did before? When I told you at large, in what Cases express consent by words, or other signs is meet, and that where the Laws settle Parish Churches, ordinary attendance and submission to the Pastor's Office must be taken for express Consent? But then I do hold that there is such a Church as I describe, and that the Parish is not Unchurcht when the Assembly is dismist.
§ 6. He saith, [When the Assembly breaks up, the Church for that time ceaseth till the Meeting be renewed, till which time they remain Christian Inhabitants, Neighbours, Families, Parishioners, or Sojourners, the Pastor of the place dwelling among them.] Ans. In your Equivocal sense of a Church, this is true. In the Political sense they are a Church still; as the Parliament, Citizens, Souldiers, are a Parliament, City, Army, when they Assemble not. If your wrangle be de re, do you deny their continued Relation? If it be de nomine, let the Scripture and all Nations judge, whether the name Church belong to them no longer than they are Assembled.
1. Then all that stay at Home, or are Sick, are no Church-members.
2. Then the Bishop or Pastor, hath no Church but while Assembled: And he hath no Duty to perform for his Church, but while Assembled.
3. This is quite contrary to our Diocesans, who say (as honest Mr. Cawdry himself) that a Diocess is the first particular Church, and that it is no matter how many Assemblies it consist of, and that there is no Church without a Bishop, and so that we have no more Churches than Bishops.
4. If a Bishop build a Temple on London Road, where Travellers shall be his ordinary Hearers, whom he shall never see again, this is a Temporary Transient Church; but verily it is another sort Church that is described in Scripture, and by Ignatius, Cyprian, and all Church-writers. And when the Bishop was to visit the Sick, and take care of the Poor, and to exhort from House to House, it was as for a Church, and not meerly as for Christian Neighbours: And do you think no more consent was necessary to his special Duty to these more than to others, and theirs to him, than bare Assembling? Atheists, Infidels, Hereticks, may Assemble with the rest; and Catechumens ordinarily did so, and were never made themselves the judges, whether and when they should be Baptized and admitted to Communion; but the Pastors were the judges.
§ 7. As to your oft mentioning the words [Covenants and Oaths] for such Church Associations, as if I had written for Oaths, or had not written against all needless Covenants, which though you say not, your words would make the Reader believe, whilst over and over it is but Consent competently expressed, which I require; those that know not your Honesty as I do, I doubt will judge it to savour of some worse Cause than I am willing to name. If Consent be not expressed, how shall it be known? And I still say Caeteris paribus, the plainest Expressions are fittest to attain their End, as the plainest Language is counted the best for Communication: Oh! how much did Cyprian, and all the old Churches differ from you about consent!
§ 8. Another of my Errors is to say, [He is an Invader, that without consent intrudeth into their Priviledges.] Ans. 1. But it is not he that transiently cometh into the Temple; 2. But he that will make himself one of my special Charge, and oblige me to all the duty which I owe to my Charge and cannot pay to all Men, and he that will claim a Vote in choosing the Bishop, &c. And if of old one of your mind had said, That every Traveller or Stranger, that cometh within the Room, may claim the Sacrament without any Literae Communicatoriae, upon his bare word, the Bishops or Churches would not have believed you; so singular are you in all this.
You tell us, God hath made no such Corporations, and every Christian is a Freeman, &c. Ans. But how shall I know whether every Stranger that cometh in be a Christian, or was ever Baptized? Or be not a Heretick Excommunicate by other Churches? Or if I am able to do the Office of a Pastor but for 500, and thousands more will come and claim it?
§ 9. Another of my Errors is, that Parish Chappels and Oratories, are no true Churches. Ans. You should not thus become an Incendiary, by pretending things that you will not first understand: Where do I say what you affirm? I say, That there may be several Chappels that are but parts of one Church. 2. And I say, That if a Bishop be Essential to a Church, then none below a Diocess is a Church; and therefore that they that so affirm, do put down all Parish Churches and turn them into meer Chappels and Oratories, which are but parts of a Church. 3. I never said, That if a place called in English a Chappel (yea, if a Barn, or Field, or Ship,) have such a Pastor and People meeting, as a Church must be Constituted of, that they are no true Church. 4. But if such Pastors and People related as one Church, are by Persecution forced to meet in several Houses, or the Sick, Weak, or Distant, to meet sometime at a Chappel, or without a true Pastor; if a Deacon pray with some of them in a House, or Oratory, this maketh not a Church Political, in the sense that I told you I used that word in; but in another (Equivocal) sense it may be called a Church, and so a Family may be.
If this be false you should have confuted it, and not wrangle in the Dark.
§ 10. You say that I blame the Bishops for putting down all the Parish Bishops and Churches— when I my self do no less by putting down all the Chapple Ministers, Chappel Meetings and Oratories, and denying them to be proper Pastors and Churches. Ans. All false, or a meer Game at Equivocal words: The word Chappel usually signifieth a place for the Assembling of some small part of a Church, with a Curate, or Houshold Chaplain, who hath only power to Preach and Pray, (and sometimes to give the Sacrament) but not to Govern: Sometime a Chappel may have a Governing Pastor, and People subject to him in that relation, and differeth but in name from the Parish Church. It is a meer Chappel or Oratory, in the common sense, which I say is not a Political Church.
The falshood of your pretended parity of the Cases I prove: Those Congregations which are Constituted of Ministers of different Species, are not of the same Species and Definition: But meer Oratories, or Chappels, which have no Pastors that have the power of the Keys for Government, and Parish Churches which have such Pastors according to the Divine Institution, are constituted of Ministers of different Species: Ergo, They are not of the same Species and Definition (as you affirm.)
2. Those Assemblies which intentionally meet but as parts of the lowest Political Church, and those that intentionally meet as the whole or main Body of that Political Church, are not of the same Species and Definition. (No more than a Squadron, and a Captain's Company, or Troop; or a Family, and a Village or Town.) But, &c.
If Bishops deny all the Lord's Chaplains to have the governing power of the Keys, and their Family-Chappels to be true Political Churches of the same Species and Definition with a Diocesan Church, or a Parochial; do you confute them if you can, I cannot. But if I prove that every Parochial, or other proper Political Church infimae Speciei, should by Divine Order have a Pastor that hath the governing power of the Keys, and the Bishops deny them any such, and will have but one such in a Diocess; do you defend them if you can, I cannot: Nor are these Cases the same.
§ 11. My next Error, He cannot tell whether I hold or no: But it seems I do; against compelling Men to take whom the Magistrate please for their Pastors: For I make Covenanting Essential, as between a Husband and Wife; likening the Church Universal to a Kingdom, and particular Churches to Cities and Corporations.] And here he talks of the Corporation Oath, and exclaimeth [Is this the way of curing Church Divisions? And is this the true and only way of Concord?
Ans. Had you published and proved to us a better way, I hope we should have been thankful; and so will I, if you will truly shew me the Errors of the way that I commended. 1. He that hath read my Books which plead for no Oaths, nor for any Covenanting, but exprest consent to the Relations and Offices, will perhaps think that here you were tempted to Injustice at the least.
2. Is not the Church Universal Christ's Kingdom? I rather liken it to a Kingdom, than to the World, because (whatever you think) I think it is not by Christ subdivided into many particular Kingdoms as the World is, but only into many particular Churches, keeping necessary Concord, (and Obedience to Magistrates.) It is not one sort only that militate against the Cure of Divisions, by true Concord; but I am sorry that you are become one. Let him that thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall.
§ 12. He saith, [It is Qualification that maketh Christians.] Ans. No Qualifications without Consent and Covenanting with Christ.
And [It is Qualification and just Ordination, which makes Christian Pastors and Ministers at large.] Ans. Do you confute me by repeating my one words? And (saith he) [It is their being placed by the Magistrate in the several Parishes, which makes them Pastors by Office, and relation to all the Christian Souls in the Parishes respectively.—If Iesus Christ shall by the Hand of the Magistrate set a faithful Minister in the Parish, he becomes as to Office and Right a Pastor, a Guide, a Minister, and Teacher to their Souls. If they receive him not, they are Rebels and Traytors against Christ, and are no longer Christian People, save as an Adulterous Wife, &c.]
Ans. Alas, where can we say a Man will stop when he is once tumbling down the Hill!
1. Why, did you think your bare word should serve for this? That it is Jesus Christ that made this the Office of the Magistrate?
2. Is it all Magistrates, or some only that have this Power, and Jesus Christ chooseth us Pastors by? If but some, what the better are we for your Discourse, if you tell us not how to know them?
And, 3. Will you not then put the People upon a harder and more perilous Task, to judge of all Magistrates fitness for this Trust, than it would be to judge of their Pastor.
4. If it be all, then Heathens and Turks must choose Christians their Pastors. If you say, It is all Christian Magistrates, then the Protestants in France are Rebels and not Christians, for refusing Papists Priests: If it be not Papists, who are they? Must all receive Lutherans, or Socinians, or Anabaptists, or such like Pastors that live under Imposing Princes of those minds?
5. Why do you limit it to [faithful Ministers] who must judge of their Faithfulness and Qualifications? If the Magistrate, Papists, Socinians, Prophane Magistrates, or Heretical, will judge as they are. If the People, we are wheeled about to that which is resisted: And then, When is it that they must judge, before they receive him, or after? If before, then must they have trial of him, or take all for (Faithful) that are ordained by a Bishop? or that Being Strangers, they know no harm by him? or all the Patrons present? If so, we come to the forementioned Misery. If they must receive them first, and try them after, and depart from them when they shew themselves unfaithful; then the People must either depose their Pastors, or separate: And most that separate from the Parish Churches, do it as thinking the Ministers unfaithful: And is this your Cure of Church-divisions? And if never Preaching be a proof of the Unqualified, the Canon forbids us to go from such. And in some Countrys there are none within reach to go to from them: And if there be, the Canon suspendeth them if they receive one to their Communion, that goeth from a Non-preaching Minister.
6. Did any one Church on Earth receive a Pastor by the Magistrates imposition for the first 300 Years? Or had not the Churches then rightly called Pastors?
7. Did not the Orthodox Churches commonly refuse Bishops, which Valens, and such Erroneous Emperors set over them?
8. Were not Parish Ministers chosen by the Bishops and People, and not by Magistrates for 1400 Years in all known Churches in the World? It was but the Patriarchs at first that were imposed on the People by the Emperors; and afterwards when the Henrys contended with the Pope, it was not for choice of Priests, but for the Investiture of Bishops and Abhots only; and in this they left the choice to the People and Clergie, and pleaded but for Investiture per baculum & annulum; so that for ought I know, Magistrates never imposed Priests on Parish Churches till the Reformation: And since then, besides Helvetia and Belgia, it is but few that do it. And even in England, it is not done by Magistracy, but by Patrons presenting, and Diocesan Prelates Instituting. So that if this be Christ's Way of making Pastors to particular Churches, there were no true Pastors or Churches for 300 Years, and perhaps none, or next none for 1400 Years in Parishes: And if this Doctrine be true, the Catholick Christians in many Princes Reigns that rejected imposed Bishops (if that were as bad as rejecting Parish Priests) were Rebels and Traytors against Christ, and no Christians. And whether he so Stigmatize not the Universal Church for want of such Reception of Priests, in almost all Ages, I wish him to consider. And whether that be like to be a better way of Concord, which he and few such in the end of the World devise, to the condemning of the Churches of all the former Ages, that never had any such Concord?
9. Hereby also he leaveth the Tolerated Churches in France, Germany, and all the Greek Churches, and Copties, and Syrians, &c. that are under adverse Princes, to be without Pastors sent in the way of Christ's Appointment. (And yet vouchsafeth not to name one Text where Christ ever Appointed it.)
10. And when he maketh all in a Parish to be the Pastors Flock, or Charge, that are Christians, he condemneth those Canons that ordained, that if Any Bishop convert not the Hereticks in his City, they shall be his Flock who doth convert them; and all that have had two Churches in one Parish. Or else he maketh Parish Priests to be Pluralists, and if there be many Chappels and Churches in his Parish, he is the Pastor to them all: And yet he never tells us whether the Chappel Priest be also Pastor of the rest of the Parish: And if so, whether each be to Govern distinctly, or one subordinately as Governed by the other; Or whether both must agree, each being but part of the Governing power.
11. The same Man saith, That multitudes of Parishioners are Rebels, Traytors, and no Christians, &c. and yet that we must give them all the Sacrament if demanded. For multitudes demand the Sacrament to satisfie Law and Custom, who declare that they take not the Priest for their Pastor, nor as Authorized by Christ; and multitudes that know not what Christianity or a Sacrament is, and will not speak with the Minister about it.
12. Did not he say before, that the Man cannot be their Pastor without his own and the Peoples consent? And yet the Magistrate may make me a Pastor to the Parish? What? Whether I will or not? Am I also a Rebel, Traytor, and no Christian, if I refuse? What if the Parish have 60000, or 40000 Souls, and I am not able to do a Pastor's Office for 500? What if I think it is a Sin to be obtruded on dissenting unwilling People? And if my Dissent do not Unchristen me, why doth the People's Unchristen them? The Lord pity us, we need no Enemies but our selves to seduce us and destroy; nor any to make the most odious Schisms than the decryers of Schism. What Schismatick doth condemn so many Christians and Churches, as this Censure? I can scarce except Mr. Dodwel, whom in his last Book he called an odd disowned Man.
§ 13. He tells us after of the Pastor's Duty to teach Publickly, and from House to House: And yet it's no Church but when Assembled; and he hath equal charge of all Christians (though Papists) in the Parish.
§ 14. He saith, [No thing cuts off from a Church particular, but what cuts off from Christ, Christianity, and the Church Universal.]
Ans. 1. What if a Man disown only the Pastor of that Church? 2. What if he will not joyn with them in the Liturgy, or Mode of Worship there used? 3. What if that Church be Nestorians, or Eutychians, or Papists, and he separates from them, or they cast him out? 4. What if he remove his Dwelling?
§ 15. Next I am censured for demanding the People of Kederminster's consent to my Ministry, and their Church Relation. And he will now be distinct, and maketh Answers to `distinct Questions for them: But never tells us whether such Answers had been true or false, if they had given them.
His first Question is, [Do we take you to have the just qualifications of a Pastor?] And the Answer is, [Learning is one qualification of which the Ignorant are incompetent Iudges: And for Wisdom, Holiness, and Ministerial skill of Fidelity, you are to make proof of them: This is to be answered some Years after, and not ask before-hand.]
And so under Papists, Socinians, prophane Imposers, you are to take all as Wise, Holy, Faithful, till some Years after you find them otherwise. Here he expoundeth his former words, for rejecting the unqualified and unfaithful. But who shall be judge at some Years after?
His second Question is, [Do we take you to be duly ordained?] And the Answer is, [We are bound to judge those to be justly Ordained which are so reputed, and we have no reason to suspect.]
Ans. 1. But whose reputation is it that you rest on? Half the Parish say, you are not justly ordained but by a Bishop: The other half say, you are justly ordained by Presbyters: You falsifie, if you feign them all of a mind. 2. And who knows how to define and bound your [Reasons of Suspicion?] 3. The Canons and Bishops say, you have sorfeited your License if you conform not; and without a License you may not Preach. 4. And if you will question no mens orders, you will have many Lay-Pastors.
To his 3d Quest. he answereth, [We question not your presentation.] Ans. And yet it is the Magistrate that must impose Ministers, and in times of Usurpation he feigneth them to be unquestioned. The sum hitherto is, We must take any Man for our Pastor, that is Ordained and presented. But what if I knew that multitudes do not so, doth it make them of that Church because they should consent and do not? Of 1800, or 2000 only 600 would come to the Sacrament, (though they usually heard) unless all the rest would receive it kneeling and administred by the Liturgy, though they were left free to use that Gesture themselves; and withal they were told that we had not a Bishops license.
The 4th Quest. is, [If we take you alone for our Pastor?] And it's answered, [We know of no other in view but you.] Ans. All these are Fictions. 1. I never desired nor consented to be their Pastor, but to be one of three. 2. I agreed with them in the Town-Hall publickly in writing, to undertake only a Lecture which I had before the War, in conjunction with another that should have the Presentation or Sequestration. And yet honest Mr. Durel tells the World that it was a rich Benefice given me for my Service under Cromwel, (who would never endure me to speak to him.) 3. There were three Competitors: One an old Vicar, that (somehow) preacht once a Quarter, that had the Presentation and was Sequestred. (1. I will not tell you here for what.) 2. His Curate sequestred and removed. 3. An old Chappel Curate, grosly ignorant and vicious, that lived by unlawful Marrying.
4. And by all this you determine that of three of us, none was Pastor but only that one that had the Presentation; and so you depose all other Curates not presented. And yet the Chappels that have such Curates put in only by the Parsons are true Churches; such are your frequent Contradictions.
Sect. 16. Next as a meek Questioner, he askt me, Why I will not baptize their Infants, if I take them for Christians and Parishioners? He saith after, [If they make not a tolerable profession of Christianity in the publick Assembly, they produce no valid claim, we are not to admit them.] Ans. I suppose there are in the three next Parishes here, 80000 Persons whom the Pastors never had any other account of, as to their knowledg, but by their coming to Church (and half of them that rarely come.) And those of us that have talkt with almost all our Parishioners, find that multitudes know not what Christianity or a Sacrament is: A man about 80 years old in Kederminster said, Christ was the Sun, and the Holy Ghost the Moon: Is standing up at the Creed then, or sitting in the Church a tolerable profession? Hobbes and his followers would do the same. 2. But what obligation is on me to baptize all the Children of those that take me for none of their Pastor? The Parish may have 20000 more than I am able to do the Pastoral Office for: I cannot tell whether they come to Church or not: If they do, they are strangers to me; some come into the Parish and others go out, and many are Lodgers: And he that as a Pastor is to Baptize, is also to do abundance more, to Catechize, visit the Sick, the Poor, &c. Am I bound to impossibilities for every stranger that I never knew? Nor can I know so much as whether he be Christened, or be indeed a Parishioner? Yea, a Church with you is only a present Assembly: What if these persons assemble not, or but twice or thrice a Year? What if Travellers be that day of the Church? Bishop Taylor saith (Pref. of Repen.) No one can give account of those that he knoweth not.
Sect. 17. His talk of the Tares again deserveth no answer, but [read Expositors.] His repeated insinuation by the word [Oaths, and Covenants] tell us that a good man may become un insinuater of Calumnies.
His two Conclusions, pag. 55. from my words are, 1. That they are no Churches that want this cementing Covenant. Ans. They are none that are not so related by consent expressed, by one way or other: If you turn this into [cementing Covenant] when you had newly cited my express denial, that express Covenanting was necessary, ad esse, it's worse than Ceremony, which you are already come to think lawful.
The 2d Concl. is, [The Churches that have it not in the most plain obliging way are defective, spotted, and ill-favoured,] because I said that the more express way is laudable ad bene esse: As if all were called spotted and ill-favoured, that want any thing laudable ad bene esse, (And will Christ take away his Churches spots and wrinkles, Ephes. 6. when there were none?)
And he saith, [This he calls the true and only way of the Churches Concord.] As if every word in the Book were called [the true and onelyonly Way.] [It rather tendeth (saith he) to Discord, and to make every single Minister a Pope, or Church-tyrant, and to make Churches Schismatical and traiterous Combinations, dividing themselves from all other Churches and Christians, &c.]
Ans. 1. And yet he before said himself, that the unwilling cannot be Pastor and Flock: And is not this the same? 2. Thus all Christ's Churches that ever I read of for 300, yea, a 1000 Years, are Stigmatized, who still made expressed consent necessary. 3. A Pope is one that claimeth Soveraignty over all the Church on Earth: Doth he do so that taketh none for his Flock, but Consenters? 4. Which is liker Tyranny, not to pretend to Government over any but Volunteers, or to say, I will Govern you whether you will or not? 5. Is it Dividing and Schism, to know my Flock as Consenters, and not to take other Mens Flocks Sine literis Communicat…riis, as oft as they will dwell or lodg in my Parish? The words [Oaths,] and [Covenants] are oft again so mentioned by him, and his profession; that he hath the Episcopal and Presbyterian on his side, and other untruths so rashly uttered, that I am heartily grieved for the success of his Temptation: And whether he or I be Schismatical, and differ from the Ancient Churches, I refer the Reader to my Abridg. of Church History, and to my Citations in my Book of Right to Sacraments: My Preface to Mr. Rawlet's Book of the Sacrament, confutes some of his Intimations. I thank God that I am going to a more peaceable World.
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Baxter, The Defense of the Nonconformists Plea for Grace (1680)