The English Nonconformity Under King Charles II and James II, Chapter 49 – Chapter 51
Chap. XLIX. Point VI. The Laity denied Baptism, who refuse the foresaid way of Godfathers, as it excludeth the Parents as unlawful.
M.
VI. I Hope you will not say it is lawful to be unchristened, or to have their Children unbaptized: And you cannot say it is lawful to obey the Canon and Rubrick about Godfathers, against ones Conscience.
L.
An erroneous Conscience must be rectified.
M.
Is it meerly at Command? Can you do it? Or can any do it when they will? There is no Man without Error: why do not all the Clergy rectifie their own judgment, and presently free themselves from Error? If you can teach them this Art of rectifying Conscience, it's best do it before they go to the University, or before they spend much time and labour in study. How many years study, and reading might this Art save them? Presently rectifie all your erroneous opinions, and save the labour.
L.
But when men have sufficient help, they are unexcusable if they go on in Error.
M.
Then either no Man living hath sufficient help, or else all Men are unexcusable: For it's most certain that all Men go on in a multitude of Errors.
L.
But every Error hindereth not Mens right to Baptism.
M.
And do you think this doth? will you try now and prove to me that I may be unexcuseable, 1. That Children have right to Baptism meerly upon the presentation of a Neighbour or Stranger that never owned them.
2. That it is not the Parents Duty to dedicate them solemnly to Christ, and to be the Person (as having power of them) that must Covenant for them.
3. That it is lawful for Neighbours or Strangers, to undertake and Vow that for the Child's Education, which they are neither able to perform, nor ever intended it?
4. That it is lawful for Parents either to give up their Children to such Sponsors for to Educate them, or to seek or accept such to Vow and Covenant, that which the Parents know they never meant to do, and which if asked, [Do you seriously intend to do all this for my Child?] they will say, No: Is it lawful thus to Suborn Men, and put them on so great a Sin? Cure these Errors in me if you can.
L.
I told you before that they may agree to speak as in your Name.
M.
And I told you, so many do: but that's nothing to Conformity, it being none of the sence of the Church, as I proved.
Was this any of the conditions of Baptism of Christ's making? was this necessary when Philip said to the Eunuch, If thou believe with all thy heart, thou maist be baptized? Or when Paul said, Else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy? 1 Cor. 7. 14.
L.
But your Child shall not be unbaptized for this: The Church will constrain the Baptizing of it.
M.
Whom will they constrain? 1. Not the Minister: He is not to Baptize it unless it be brought and desired. 2. Not the Godfathers: For none can compel any to be a Godfather, nor ever do. 3. But it is the Parent that is compelled? How? Those that hold it lawful will do it without Compulsion, the Baptizing of their Child being desirable to them. But those that think it a Sin, will rather be Excommunicate and lie in Jail; and so they cannot compel them. And the Anabaptists Children are mostly unbaptized for all their Compulsion. But the usual way of Nonconformists is to elude the Canon, and to agree privately with the Godfathers to be but Witnesses or Seconds, and that the Parent himself will be there present, and when the Questions are put to the Godfathers, will shew his consent by bowing, tho' he may not speak.
But such shifts to avoid the Evil of Conformity, is no Justification of Conformity or the Canon, nor of any that will deny Baptism for an unnecessary if not an ungodly device of Man; and that when themselves seem to make Baptism necessary to Salvation; and do clearly make it a means that ascertaineth Salvation to Infants.
Chap. L. Point VII. Of Denying Baptism to them that dare not submit to the use of the English Crossing.
M.
VII. VVHat is said against our way of Crossing, as a dedicating Sign, and Badge of Christianity, if not a Humane Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, I have said before, and must not repeat: And also what it is for Ministers to Assent and Consent to reject all from Baptism that are not submitted to it.
I am now only to tell you that this Submission is a part of the Lay-conformit, for want of which they are punished with the denial of Baptism.
L.
But they that are against it may yet let the Minister use it on their Children: That's his act, and not theirs: and they cannot hinder him: They send their Children to be Baptized, and not to be Cross'd.
M.
But we have many Antipadobaptists, and converted Iews to be Baptized at Age.
2. And tho' I am much of your mind in this, yet all wiser Men are not; and the case is very difficult as to Infants: If one knew beforehand that the Priest would use Oil, and Spittle, and Exorcism, and invocate Saints and Angels over the baptized Child, it were hard to say, I send him only to be Baptized] when he knew how sinfully it will be done. The truth is, I can justifie no Man that will submit his Child to such a crossing at Baptism, that can caeteris paribus have it by another better done, tho' Prohibited by Man: We must not be guilty of other Mens Sins, nor of Church Corruptions.
L.
Christ that will have mercy and not sacrifice, would not have men refuse Christendom for fear of a Cross.
M.
Christ who would have Teachers learn that Lesson, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, would have no Minister deny Christendom to such as think their crossing sinful: And yet he would have no Man commit any Sin, to gain Baptism: but will save the unbaptized that desired it, so they might have had it without; and will himself shew Mercy to such as consent not to a polluted Sacrifice. And would have us prefer a lawful way when we can have it. Baptism is our Renunciation of Sin.
CHAP. LI. POINT VIII. Of Rejecting not-Kneelers from Communion.
L.
AND well they deserve it that will not reverently receive so great a Gift upon their knees from God.
M.
Do you think it is for want of humble Reverence? Do they not kneel after and longer to God in Prayers publickly, and in their Families and Chambers, than most that blame them? Were Christ's Apostles unreverent that did not kneel at receiving it in his own visible presence? Was all the universal Church unreverent, that for 600 Years, if not 1000 after Christ forbad strictly all Adoration by kneeling every Lords Day, because they would use a Laudatory Gesture, denoting their belief of Christs Resurrection? Do those men shew more Reverence to God and Religion, that will kneel at the Altar, and scarce ever kneel to God at home, and seldom use his Name but with prophanation? It is not unreverence that causes their dissent.
L.
I know no just cause they have of this dissent.
M.
I confess, nor I, while the open Doctrine of the Church renounceth all Bread-worship and Idolatry: But were it among Papists, where the Doctrine expounds the action, I durst not do it.
But I told you before what moveth them, which I must not again repeat. But I will repeat it, that it is a heinous injury to the Church, and the particular Persons, that on the account of so small and doubtful a circumstance, wherein all antiquity is against the imposers; they should deny Communion with Christ and his Church as much as in them lieth to faithful Christians; and should turn the Sacrament of Love for no just cause, into an occasion of hatred and persecution; and the Sacrament of Unity, into an Engine of division, by their own needless impositions to perplex mens Consciences, and set people one against another: O what a snare and instrument of wrath and discord, and inhumane usage of other men, do many turn that blessed Sacrament into, which is instituted for the Communion of Saints in unfeigned Love. The more such magnify the Sacrament as the very Flesh and Blood of Christ, the more do they condemn themselves.