The Defense of the Nonconformists Plea for Grace, Part · Chapter 9 – Chapter 15
CHAP. IX.
§. 1. YOur Sect. 8, about the certainty of Baptized Infants Salvation, being made here an Article of Faith, I have much more to say against: But you answer not to any of the strength of my Objections.
1. And how strange is it that you saw a Manuscript of Bishop Usher's, telling us of [this Clause coming surreptitiously into the Book,] whereas he was Dead two Years before the Book was altered, or that Clause put in? Indeed, there was another in that sounded almost like it, which meant no more than that [A Baptized Child hath all that is necessary to Salvation,] supposing his right, (ex parte Ecclesiae) though he die without Confirmation, or the Eucharist, which were formerly given to Infants: But this never said what the new Article saith.
§ 2. You say, many Conformists say, It is no part of Assent and Consent, because it is not used as part of the Church Service, and they subscribe to no more.] Answ. Name not those Conformists, lest you Dishonour them. Do they declare their Assent to all things contained in the Book, and mean only the Service which they must say? Or do they [Consent to the use of all,] and take an Article of Faith to be put in for no use? Intreat them not to take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, with that Latitude and Exceptiousness.
§ 3. You say, you can Assent to it in a sound sense: And [it's more than you can prove that all Infants are saved, but all that have right before God are saved, but not those that have no right before God.
Answ. 1. But you were told that the Church signifies her sense by the Canons, which forbid the Minister (on Penalty) to refuse any Child, that hath God-Fathers, not excepting Pagans, Infidels, Atheists, or Apostates: Why did you not answer that?
2. A Right before God, signifies either properly to be a Child that is under the promise of Pardon, in the sense of 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.] And of such I am of your mind. Or else it signifieth only one that the Minister hath, Coram Deo, a right to Baptize. And so he hath as to any adult Atheist, or Heathen (or his Child) if he deceitfully profess Christianity. I suppose you speak in the first proper sense.
But if you think that the sense of the Rubrick you are mistaken. No one knoweth better than Bishop Gunning, and he will tell you otherwise, viz. That God's merciful Covenant giveth us Right to bring any Child in the World to be Baptized for Salvation, as it giveth any Man right to take in an exposed Orphan into his House. And if the Sponsor were to become Proprietor, and take the Child for his own (as Abraham Circumcised the Children born in his House) I would not dispute against it, though I were in doubt: But I have proved to you that the Liturgy, or Canon, oblige the Sponsor to no such thing, nor are they to profess it: and you your self suppose the contrary, that the Parent is the First Covenanter: This Rubrick then speaketh of any Child, and you limit it to the Seed of the Faithful, and so Equivocate. At our Conference at the Savoy, 1661. before the Bishops, I put this true Case; [I have in my Parish a profest Infidel, that derideth openly the Scripture, and the Life to come; but for fashion saith beforehand, I will bring my Child to be Baptized, and say as the Book requireth, and refuse my Child if you dare.] The Reverend Bishop Sanderson was in the Chair, and answered me, none of them contradicting, That if I Baptized him according to the Church of England that requireth God-Fathers, I need not scruple it. I askt him, By whom that Child had right more than any other Heathen's Child? Seeing, 1. The God-Father is oft as bad as the Parents. 2. And the God-Father taketh not the Child as a Proprietor for his own. Bishop Morley answers, That he knew some that did take them, and Educate them as their own. I answered, 1. The Canon, or Rubrick, require it not. 2. I never knew one Man yet that did it, or that ever thought that as a Sponsor, he was obliged so to do. 3. If it were otherwise; Poor Mens Children could get no God-Fathers, and Rich Men would have none. And what's this then to the sense of the Article in question, that speaks of all Baptized Children? (It being of the Baptized quâ tales, and an indefinite in re necessaria.) You dare profess that of all, and undoubtedly certain by the Word of God, which you think is—true but of those that have right before God. And may not one profess any thing at that Rate?
Besides, I that know why the old words were changed into these, and by whom it was brought in, urged and procured, am fully satisfied of the sense of them that did it, by experience.
Your Exposition of the Doctrine of Baptism here adjoyned, is very sound and good. As to your Catholicon which gets down all, I may cause you to cast it up anon.
CHAP. X.
§ 1. YOur 9th Section, about not coming to the Sacrament without a full trust in God's Mercy and a quiet Conscience, tells us what the Imposure should have said, when I only except against what they have said. The Case is so gross, I am apt to think they meant as you say; especially when I consider that those must be Ruined that have not a quiet Conscience, if they will not, or dare not Communicate. But if well meaning Men put me to assent to words of a contrary signification in the common use, I had rather approve their good meanings, than their imposed words, through oversight so expressed.
CHAP. XI.
§ 1. ABout the use of the Apocrypha, you quite mistook the Question: It was not chiefly whether you may use or read it, but whether you may approve and consent to the Calendar and Rubrick which imposeth it, to be read; yea, those Books of Tobit, Iudith, Bell and the Dragon, &c. If you say that you Consent not to the Calendar and Rubrick, I ask, 1. Is it not contained in the Book? 2. Is it of no use, when the use is named in the Preface? Cannot we thus say any thing required, and mean what we list by it? Teach not the Papists to take the imposed Test and Oaths at such a rate as this.
§ 2. You say, It is not on Lords Days. Answ. On the Week Days God must be Worshipped purely, and according to his Will.
§ 3. You say, It's more than you can prove that any thing is false. Why did you not answer the two Instances which I gave out of the Bishop of Lincoln's excellent Manuscript? And how much may you find in Dr. Io. Reynolds, and many other Protestants against the Papists?
§ 4. You say, If any thing be Fabulous, it may be read as an instructive Parable, some cite Aesop's Fables.] Answ. But dare you consent to the reading and imposing of Aesop's Fables, or any other, to be read in stead of God's Word, under the same name of Lessons, so many days in the Publick Worship?
CHAP. XII.
YOur 11th Section saith no more, but that you see nothing but one may Consent to the imposed reading of the Liturgy every day to save his Liberty. Ans. 1. I gave you a reason against Covenanting so to use it every Day, which you answer not. And. 2. Why took you no notice that it is the Books Imposition of this, which you must consent to, and not only the Practice? Is not the imposing Precept [contained in the Book] yea, and is it of no use?
3. And why do so few Conformists so use it?
CHAP. XIII.
§ 1. IN your 12th Section you joyn several things.
1. About denying Christian Burial to the Unbaptized Infants, and the Excommunicate, as not signifying their Damnation. But if you take in the foresaid Rubrick Articles that pronounceth certain Salvation to them if Baptized, you may see what is like to be the meaning of the Church here: And also if you read, how they use to expound their Anathema, or Major Excommunication; and on what account it is often made. Doctor Heylin tells you, That the necessity of Baptism was one of Bishop Laud's first Thesis's publickly maintained in Oxford. You are now Excommucate your self, but not with that Anathema which is of the hardest signification. But this is little to my objected Case.
2. But the doubt is about the words, that in sense pronounce all others that are Buried in England, saved. And you would make us believe that the Rubrick, which excepteth the Excommunicate and the other two sorts only, meaneth also the excepting of the Excommunicable, or Notorious wicked Men. But by such stretches what words may not Protestant or Papist take by an Exposition of his own making? If three sorts excepted limit you not from excepting more; What can do it? I have tried the sense of the most Leading Man in these Liturgick Changes that I know, whether he would consent that the words should be further extended to except the Excommunicable, or Notoriously Flagitious; and he most contemptuously rejected it, as if it would leave power to every Presbyter to Damn whom he would (and to Excommunicate Men after Death) without a Bishop.
3. But you will prove your feigned Sense to be right, because the Canon 68. saith, [If the party Deceased were denounced Excommunicate (Majore Excommunicatione) for some grievous and notorious Crime, and no Man able to testifie of his Repentance, the Prayers are not to be said at his Burial.] Ans. Could you have more evidently confuted your self? The Church alloweth you, yea, requireth you to forbear the said Prayers, 1. If it be a notorious Sinner. 2. Excommunicated. 3. And that (Majore Excommunicatione.) 4. And there be no proof of his Repentance. And hence you can infer, That the Church meant it also of Notorious Sinners not Excommunicate. What Alchimy is this? Whereas the Church is herein specially careful that the Priest may not be the Judge: What need the Major Excommunication be put in, if it were not meant? The Canon here declareth the Churches Sense more obligingly, than any Bishop can do.
CHAP. XIV.
§ 1. WHat you say of the whole substance of Confirmation referred to the Parish Pastor, the Ceremony only reserved to the Bishop, is all without Book, and a meer mistake, as the Bishops will soon tell you, and common experience. Had you heard what the Bishops at Worcester. House before the King and Lords said against inserting into the King's Declaration of Ecclesiastical Affairs, that one word [Consent] viz. the Minister's Consent to the confirming of those of his Flock, and how it after came in; you would not have talkt at this rate of our Consent.
CHAP. XV.
§ 1. YOur fourteenth Section is of the doubt [Whether we may Declare our Consent that none should be admitted to the Communion, till he be confirmed, or desirous and ready to be confirmed?
To this 1. You say of your own head, That Confirmation is not intended for them that have been already admitted to the Lord's Table;] without any proof, though clean contrary to your Covenant of Conformity. The words are, That [None are to be admitted till, &c.] And you say, That by [None] is meant [None except all that have been so already admitted, that is, most of the Communicants by far in England, and all that come out of France, Holland, Scotland, &c.] What a great limitation hath this [None?] None except almost all, or most.
Boccaline tells us of a device at Rome to make a man's throat swallow a Pompion; and then no doubt any Physician may procure the swallowing of a Pill.
§ 2. But you are perswaded you shall not meet with one person that will not desire it rather than be put from the Sacrament.
Ans. 1. But it is not your own practice only that you must profess consent to, but to the Use of the Rubrick, as it is a Law to all others: Do you think no other shall meet with such, because you may not?
2. Remember that the Confirmation in question is little kin to that which I and Mr. Hanmer have written for: A very Learned Bishop told me lately, that it is for the giving of the Holy Ghost by Imposition of hands: And (whatever you feign) it is confined to the Order of Bishops. Do you know what Dallaeus de Confirmat. hath said against it? And that all are against it as with us that are against Diocesan Prelacy? I know few Non-Conformists in England, that are for it, or desire it. When I pleaded for it in 1660. hoping to have reduced the English Confirmation to that which I described in my Treatise of Confirmation, had you but heard how much the truly Learned, judicious, honest Dr. Wallis said against it, who is a publick Professor in Oxford, a Conformist, and the King's Chaplain, you would not think that you shall never meet with any that will not desire it, &c.
3. I think most of England are unconfirmed; if they desire it, what keepeth them from it?
4. They may not desire it, and yet not be kept from the Sacrament: For he that receiveth it not of you, or any Conformists, may receive it of others: And all the Conformists that ever I saw deliver the Sacrament, give it to the unconfirmed, and never ask them whether they desire it. And yet you must covenant not to give it to any such as desire not Confirmation and Consent that this be imposed on all others.
§ 3. But you say, Such a remote possibility shall not keep you from Conformity.] That is, You will Consent to the Use of this Rubrick, which requireth, that none in England give the Sacrament to any that desire not our Episcopal Confirmation, which almost all the Non-Conformists desire not; and most of England shew by their practice, that they desire not, because you conceit that you shall meet with none such your self, who perhaps may never administer the Sacrament, (at least till you are absolved from your Excommunication.) And yet you are so honestly against Division, that you will not separate from the Non-Conformists, and their Assemblies, though you suffer for it. These things hang not well together.