The Defense of the Nonconformists Plea for Grace, Part · Chapter 16 – Chapter 17
CHAP. XVI.
§ 1. YOur 15th Section is against my greatest Objection; the manner of baptizing by God-fathers sole sponsion, in the Liturgy: Where you take your own Order, and not mine (to satisfie your self,) and put four questions, and overlook the main, or say as good as nothing to it. My first question is, Which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism, any more than all the Infidels Children in the world? That is, Whether the meer Sponsion of God-fathers who adopt not the Child, nor take him for their own, nor are at all required to do so, do give or prove a Right to Baptism (and consequently to undoubted Salvation or pardon) in all the Infants of Apostates, Sadduces, Infidels, Brutists, Arrians, Socinians, Wicked men, Atheists; yea or of any other? I told you how Conformists and other Divines here differ; but you easily pass by the difficulty.
2. And the next question is, Whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant besides the Sponsion of the fore-described God-fathers, and God's general Promise? And I have proved that they do not: It is not the Parents Christianity or Faith that they require, nor the Grandfathers, nor any Pro-parents, or Adopters or Proprietors. Nor do they ask, Whose Child it is? but forbid us to refuse any that have God-fathers; nor do they suffer the Parent to be one of the God-fathers, but forbid him so much as to speak there, as dedicating his own Child to God, and forbid us to urge him to be present: Yet are they utterly disagreed of the Child's title: Some say it is from God's Covenant only; and that all Children on Earth have title, and want but one to offer them to Baptism, as he may take in an exposed Orphan. Some say that the God-fathers Act is his Title to Baptism. Some say, it is the Churches Faith. And by the Church some mean the Ministers; some mean that Parish; some mean the Diocesan Church; some the National Church; and some the Universal Church: But you seem to think the title is from the Parent, but you speak it not out, nor much meddle with the case; and the Church seemeth not to be of that mind; though St. Paul say [Else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy.]
§ 2. But you say, The Parent is not excluded nor forbid to be present.] Ans. But 1. No man in the Town is forbid to be present: Doth it follow that any man giveth title to the Child who may but be present if he will? If the Parents Faith were thought necessary to the Title (or a Pro-parents) the Book would require it, and require the Minister to take account of it, or at least would suffer the Parent to be one of the Sponsors, or to speak one word of Sponsion, all which is expresly forbidden by the Canon, and by the Book appropriated to others.
§ 3. But you say, If he will he may profess and Covenant for his Child, yea, the Minister may and ought to urge and require him.] Ans. What, and yet Conform? When he is forbid, and the Minister forbid to suffer it?
§ 4. But say you, [The Canon is no part of the Liturgy, nor are we bound to it wherein it is against the Liturgy and good Order.]
Ans. 1. By the Can. 36. we are all to subscribe to use no other form in Administring the Sacraments but the Liturgy: And you shall be no Minister here if you subscribe not to that Canon, though you should say, It is against good Order. 2. The Liturgy it self appropriateth the whole Sponsion to the God-Fathers. 3. Our question is of the Churches sense herein: And it is the same Church the made the Canons; and still owneth them: Therefore in the Canon the Church expoundeth her sense, more obligingly than you, or any Bishop can expound it. So that for you to assent and consent to the form of Baptism in the Churches sense, and when you have done, to say that you may and must go against it, because the Canon binds not, is a method of Conforming, which I will not follow you in.
§ 5. What you tell me of my Decision in my Directory, is nothing to our present Case.
But you say, The Canon supposeth the Parents as present, or Consenting and Principal, for he procureth the God-Fathers, and the Sureties are his Deputies, or Seconds, and yet undertakes not the Parents duty.]
Ans. I have proved to you that the Canon, or Church, neither foundeth the Title in the Parent, nor permitteth him any Sponsion; and professedly layeth it all on the God-Fathers, saying; That it is by that the Child believeth, and promiseth, performeth, &c. And no such word of the Parents Faith: Nay, all Children of Infidels or Atheists; must be thus Baptized. This therefore is your meer disproved Fiction.
Secondly, That the Parent must procure the God-Fathers, no way proveth that he is supposed to be a Christian or Consent, or that he is the Principal Sponsor: For it is for the Child's sake, that the Law bindeth him to get Sponsors, and all Atheists and Infidels among us, are bound to send their Children with Sponsors to be Baptized as well as Christians.
§ 6. You say, The Sureties undertake not to do the Duties of a Parent, nor more than they can do, &c.] Ans. Then it is not undertaken at all: For all that is to be undertaken is by them, and nothing at all required of the Parents.
§ 7. As to the Interrogatories, and Profession, that the Child is said to Repent, Believe, forsake the Devil, Consent, &c. and not only to be the Child of one that Repenteth, Believeth (which is his Title) you say it is but to oblige the Infant: But professing to Believe and Repent at present, and promising to do it hereafter, are different things.
But you say, These words may be submitted to till better may be had.] Ans. And why may you not say so of any Untruth? But the question is, whether they may be Consented to, and approved?
§ 8. As to the great Question, [Whether it be the Intention of the Book that we deny Baptism to such as cannot procure God-Fathers, and God-Mothers, or to such as out of Conscience scruple and refuse to procure them, and will stand as Undertakers themselves▪] You say, No surely.
Ans. Alas, how little know you what the Conformity is which you defend? 1. Are not all Ministers to subscribe to Administer the Sacraments in no other Form than the Liturgy? Canon 36. 2. Doth not the Liturgy make the God-Fathers Office necessary? and a great part of the Baptismal Office is the Ministers Speech to them and their Answer, and the Charge laid on them. Can you say all these words if no Sponsor be there? Or can you have such Answers? 3. Doth not the Church Command that no Parent be God-Father to his own Child, and no Questions or Answers be used but the words of the Liturgy? 4. And did you ever know a Child Baptized without any Sponsor? You rightly call your self The Non-conforming Conformist; for you plead for it and against it, in the same Lines? Your contradiction meeteth through all your Book.
§ 9. You add, [If it be lawful to violate a Divine Command to save the life of a Beast (the Sabbath) sure it is lawful to violate a Humane Rule, or Order, rather than cast Infants out of the Church, and deny them Christian Baptism.] Ans. It is so: And therefore it is unlawful to Consent to that which I must not do, and to Covenant to use that which I must not use. If I must not obey it, I must not Covenant to obey it.
But perhaps you mean that the Law-makers intended, that in such cases the Ministers have leave to violate it, and admit Men to the Communion that will not have God-Fathers, for God intended such liberty in his Law.
Ans. God's Law was not violated by David, the Priests, or the Disciples, in the instanced cases of the Sabbath: For he never forbad them what they did in those Circumstances: Yea, his Law had been violated [I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice] had they done otherwise; and he hath no Contradictory Laws: It is said that the Priests in the Temple brake the Sabbath and are blameless, that is, They violate materially the outward rest of the Sabbath, but they violate not God's Law; else they were not blameless. But you can prove no such things by the Church Laws in question, as that Ministers may break them by admitting such Persons to the Sacrament as it excludeth. For, 1. You Covenant to Administer only according to the Liturgy. 2. The Canon punisheth all Ministers that give it against the Prohibition. 3. And the Rubrick excludeth your supposed power of Dispensation. Can you believe your self that the meaning of the Liturgy and Canon is [None shall be admitted that desire not God-Fathers, except such as will not out of an Erring Conscience?]
Are those then admitted, that through Prophaneness desire not God-Fathers? If so, then you make the sense to be [Those that have not God-Fathers shall not be admitted to that Sacrament, except all that will not, viz. Conscienciously, or Prophanely.] If not, then the sense must be [You shall admit none to that Sacrament that have no God-Fathers, through Parents Prophaneness, but all that have none through scruple of Conscience.] And who cannot pretend such scruple? And who will not pretend it, when that will justifie them? And how would the Bishops reproach such an Exposition, which either maketh every Priest a judge of Mens Hearts, (whether their pretence be true or not) or else admitteth all that will not have God-Fathers, while the admission of any of them is expresly forbidden? It is a stretching Exposition indeed which is against the whole form of the Office, and the express words of the Churches Canon, [No Parent shall be God-Father to his own Child.] Try whether any two Bishops in England will allow you any such Exposition.
If such be allowed in this Case, why not in all other like it? And so the meaning of Law, Canons, and Rubrick be, [You shall do thus except when you have Moral Reason against it, such as is Mercy, which must be preferred.] Do you know how many have been Fined and sent to Goal for Preaching, though they pleaded for it Mercy to Mens Souls? Do you believe that it was the meaning of the Parliament and Bishops, [You shall keep no Conventicles, nor omit the Liturgy or Ceremonies, or Subscription, &c. unless when Mercy is to be preferred?] They that have Auditors that cannot bear the Liturgy, when they omit it in mercy to the Flock. I pray you get us an authentick signification of this Sense.
The words cited by you in the Preface to the Articles of 1604 are impertinent to our business: It followeth not that you have leave to break the Laws when you think mercy requireth it, because they are not equivalent to the Eternal Word of God, nor bind conscience as of necessity in the nature of them, considered in themselves] and not in the Authority of the Commander. Again I ask, Shall any man escape punishement by such a plea of mercy? Are not two thousand Ministers silenced, and more, that pleaded Mercy to themselves and others, for the reason of their Non-conformity? Did your Learned, Pious, Moderate Bishop, excuse you for that plea? Doth not the express words of the Law, and Canon, and Rubrick, and the sentence and execution of all Judges to this day, confute your exposition and exception?
You truly say [It is a sin to make a false construction of the Law.] But if against the express words, and scope, and common judgment and execution, you will presume to put your sense, which is merciful, because Charity thinketh no evil. Any thing, almost, may be so said, consented to, and sworn.
I have spoken with a Papist that hath taken the Oath of Supremacy, and wrote for it; because it is to be supposed that it is only the spiritual power called Pastoral, which the Pope claimeth over England, or such give him; and only the Power of the Sword which the King claimeth, and denyeth to him and Foreigners. And he citeth a fairer pretence for his exposition than you do here for yours: And thus all may take up the Oath of Supremacy that hold but the Popes Spiritual Supremacy over us and all the world. What words can be so bad, that a man may not feign in Charity a good sense of?
§ 9. You say the Liturgy alloweth private Baptism without the Cross, and God-fathers. Ans. 1. Thence I must gather, that it doth not so allow publick Baptism; no not on pretence of necessity and mercy; else why had they not exprest their allowance of one as well as of the other? 2. And even there, it must be repeated after in the Congregation with God-fathers that believe, and promise in the Name of the Child; (And in the house there is nothing named, or required of the Parent, but some one (whoever) is only to name the child.)
§ 10. In the Margin you say [There is no express prohibition in all the Liturgy, tying Ministers in no case, to baptize without the Cross, and to give the Sacrament to kneelers only: and to baptize none without Sureties.]
Ans. I am glad that your whole writing favoureth of that spirit of Love and Christian Peace and Forbearance, as your dislike of these things signifieth. And while we agree about the sense of God's Law, we shall not break Charity for our differing of the sense of the Laws of man: But seeing you put these great points (of my Non-conformity) here together, I shall briefly repeat the reasons of my exposition against yours.
Words are to signifie the mind and the matter. If the Book speak intelligibly, so as to oblige us to one sense, it's nothing to our case whether the prohibition be express.
I. The Liturgy-Rubrick saith [There shall be for every male-child to be baptized, two God-fathers, and one God-mother; and for every female, one God-father, and two God-mothers.]
II. The whole transaction, beside prayer to God, and the act of Baptizing, is mainly speech to the God-fathers, and demands of them, and their answer, by professing Abrenunciation, Faith, desire to be Baptized, resolved Obedience: They must name the Child. They are exhorted to see that the Child be taught what a solemn Vow, Promise and Profession he made by them, &c. and to be brought up to the Bishop to be confirmed.
III. In the Baptism of the Adult, the God-fathers are called but [Witnesses] as not giving the person Title to Baptism. But in the Baptism of Infants, they do profess and covenant in the Child's name, and he doth it by them, as his very Title.
IV. The Catechism saith, That Repentance and Faith are required of persons to be Baptized; and, as the old Book said, They perform them by their Sureties; so the new one saith, They promise them by their Sureties, and therefore are Baptized.
V. For the Cross, the Liturgy saith [Here the Priest shall make a Cross on the Child's fore-head.] And it referreth us to the Canon for the sense and reasons.
VI. The Communion-Rubrick saith, [He shall deliver it into their hands, All meekly kneeling.]
VII. The last Rubrick saith, [It is ordained in this Office, that the Communicants shall receive the same kneeling.]
VIII. The same Church by Can. 36. requireth every Minister to subscribe that he will use the Form in that Book prescribed in Publick Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and no other.]
IX. And the Can. 27. saith, [No Minister when he celebrates the Communion, shall wittingly administer the same to any, but to such as kneel, under pain of suspension.] Can the Church more plainly speak the sense of her Liturgy? You say It is against Schismaticks. Yes, 1. That is the end; and the words express the means. 2. And it is expository, calling those Schismaticks that scruple and refuse to kneel.
X. Those that say the Liturgy hath any thing contrary to the Scripture, or that the Ceremonies are such as he may not use, approve, &c. are excommunicate ipso facto: And therefore as Schismaticks not to be admitted to the Sacrament till they repent of that their wicked Errour, Can. 4, 5, 6, 7.
XI. Can. 14. All Ministers shall observe the Orders, Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer, as well in reading the holy Scriptures, and saying of Prayers, as in administration of the Sacraments, without either diminishing, in regard of Preaching, or in any other respect (note that) or adding any thing in the matter or form thereof.
XII. Can. 29. [No Parent shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as God-father for his own Child; nor any God-father or God-mother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common-Prayer is prescribed in that behalf.]
If yet the Church have not declared her sense of the Liturgy, but that I may Baptize without Cross or God-fathers, and give the Sacrament to them that sit, rather than refuse them, I can understand no mans words. And what can constrain an unwilling person to understand?
XIII. Yet I say again, If I practice on any pretence of mercy, according to your Rule, the Judges will condemn me; the Justices will send me to the common Gaol, among Rogues, to lie six months, and will fine me twenty pound, and forty pound a Sermon, as I have tryed; and the Bishops or their Courts will excommunicate me, and prosecute me to lay me in Gaol; as you have tryed who fly to escape it. And are not these made Judges of the sense of the Law? and will not all this convince us what it meaneth?
Because you have put three of the chief matters of my Non-conformity here together, I have answered all together. If you will prefer the judgment of the Bishops before all this, I pray you do not pretend that some honest Bishop (that had no hand in our Changes and Silencing) saith to you in private; but get it us under the hands of many of them, if you can [that because mercy is to be preferred before sacrifice, we may Baptize without the Cross, and God-fathers, and may give the Sacrament to them that kneel not, if they dissent through consciencious fear of living.]
CHAP. XVII.
§ 1. IN your sixteenth Section you profess your liking of sitting at the Lord's Supper rather than kneeling: How then can you declare [Assent, Consent and Approbation] to the Liturgy (expounded by the Canons) which in plain words, and by sharp penalties on Dissenters, so much preferreth kneeling before sitting.
§ 2. Your preferring the preaching and hearing of the Word, and Prayer, and Praise, as more excellent than the carnal (you mean the outward) part in the Lord's Supper, is very far from Conformity to the common sense of the Bishops, who ordered the Altaring of the Communion Tables, and commended bowing towards them, and suspended so many Ministers on such accounts; even far from the sense of Arch-Bishop Laud, expressed in his life by Dr. Heylin, and of the whole Church of England expressed in the Canons of 1640.
§ 3. I answered before your conceit that the Liturgy alloweth you to give the Sacrament to them that kneel not, and your distorting the Canon, because the Title is against Schismaticks, when they mean that those that kneel not, shall be taken and excluded as Schismaticks, and so excommunicated (as I have proved) and not that the word is distinguishing and limiting, allowing you to admit those to sit that are not Schimaticks. The Bishops will deride that Exposition. They that heard us at the Savoy, can tell you who that Dr. (now a Dean) was, who craved leave to have disputed the Case against me, and to have proved [That it is an Act of mercy to those that scruple and refuse to receive the Sacrament kneeling, to deny them the Communion of the Church therein.]