Last Legacy in Select Admonitions and Directions, Treatise · Section 8 – Section 18
Of Subſcription with Aſſent and Conſent, particularly concerning Infants baptized.
Q. 152. Is it lawful to ſubſcribe or profeſs full aſſent and conſent to any religious Books, Chriſt. Direct. p. 902beſide the Bible, ſeeing all are fallible. Anſw. 3. It is lawful to Profeſs or Subſcribe our Aſſent and Conſent to any Humane Writing, which we judge to be true and good, according to the Meaſure of its Truth and Goodneſs. As if Church-Confeſſions, that are ſound, be offered us for our Conſent, we may ſay, or ſubſcribe, I hold all the Doctrine in this Book to be true and good. And by ſo doing I do not aſſert the infallibility of the Author, but only the verity of the Writing. I do not ſay that he cannot err, but that he erreth not in this, as far as I am able to diſcern.
Q. 35. Is it certain by the word of God, P. 807.that all Infants baptized, and dying before actual ſin, are undoutedly ſaved? Anſw. I think that all the Children of true Chriſtians do by Baptiſm receive a publick inveſtiture,P. 810. by God's appointment, into a ſtate of Remiſſion, Adoption, and right to Salvation, at preſent; though I dare not ſay, I am undoubtedly certain of it.— But I ſay, as the Synod of Dort, Art. 1. That believing Parents have no cauſe to doubt of the Salvation of their Children, that die in Infancy, before they commit actual ſin; that is, not to trouble themſelves with fears about it. For if ſuch Infants were admitted to outward Priviledges only, then (which is my ſecond Reaſon) we have no Promiſe,Ibid. or Certainty, or Ground of Faith for the Pardon and Salvation of any individual Infants in the World: and if there be no Promiſe, there is no Faith of it, nor no Baptiſm to Seal it, and ſo we make Anti-paedobaptiſm unavoidable.
Whereas ſome miſ-interpret the words of the old Rubrick of Confirmation in the Engliſh Liturgy,P. 812. as if it ſpake of all that are baptized, whether they have right or not, the words themſelves may ſerve to rectifie that miſtake: [And that no Man ſhall think any detriment ſhall come to Children by deferring of their Confirmation, he ſhall know for truth, that it is certain by God's Word, that Children being baptized have all things neceſſary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly ſaved.] where it is plain, they mean, they have all things neceſſary ex parte Eccleſiae, or all God's applying Ordinances neceſſary, though they ſhould die unconfirmed, ſuppoſing they have all things neceſſary to juſt Baptiſm on their own part: which is but what the Ancients were wont to ſay of the baptized Adult: but they never meant, that the Infidel and Impenitent were in a ſtate of Life, becauſe he was baptized, but that all that truly conſent to the Covenant▪ and ſignifie this by being baptized are ſaved. So the Church of England ſaith, that they receive no detriment by delaying Confirmation; but it never ſaid, that they received no detriment by their Parents or Reſponſes Infidelity or Hypocriſie, or by their want of true Right, coram Deo, to be baptized.
Q. 39. What is the true meaning of Sponſors or Godfathers,P. 814. 1ſt Edit. and is it lawful to make uſe of them? Anſw. My Opinion is, that they did both witneſs the probability of the Parents fidelity;P. 815. and alſo promiſed, that if they ſhould either apoſtaize, or die, they would ſee that the Children were piouſly educated. If you take them, but as the ancient Churches did, for ſuch as do atteſt the Parents fidelity, (in their perſwaſion) and do promiſe, firſt, to mind you of your Duty, and next to take care of their pious Education, if you die; I know no reaſon you have to ſcruple this much; yea more, it is in your power to agree with the Godfathers, that they ſhall repreſent your own Perſons, and ſpeak and promiſe what they do, as your Deputies, only in your Names: and what have you againſt this?
Object. When the Church-men mean another thing, this is but to juggle with the World? Anſw. How can you prove, that the Authority that made, or impoſed the Liturgy, meant any other thing? 2. If the Impoſers had meant ill, in a thing that may be done well, you may diſcharge your Conſcience, by doing it well, and making a ſufficient Profeſſion of your better Senſe.
As for the Antiquity of God-fathers, the current conſent of Hiſtorians aſſures us that Hyginus Biſhop of Rome, did firſt ordain God-fathers at the Baptiſm of Infants. He lived but forty years after St John. Preface to Infant Baptiſm.
Chriſt. Direct. p. 116. Part 3. Q. 41. Whether they are really baptized, who are baptized according to the Engliſh Liturgy and Canons, where the Parents ſeem excluded, and thoſe to conſent for the Infant, who have no power to do it?
Anſw. p. 117. That the Parents Conſent is ſuppoſed, though he be abſent. 2. The Parent is not required to be abſent. 3. The Reaſon of that Canon ſeems to be their jealouſie leſt any would exclude God-fathers. 4. While the Church hath not declared what Perſon the Sponſors bear, nor any farther what they are to do, than to ſpeak the Covenanting words, and promiſe to ſee the pious Education of the Child, the Parents may agree that the God-fathers ſhall do all this as their Deputies primarily and in their ſteads, and ſecondly as Friends that promiſe their Aſſiſtance. 5. While Parents really conſent, it is not their Silence that nullifieth the Covenant. 6. All Parents are ſuppoſed and required to be themſelves the Chooſers of the Sponſors and Sureties, and alſo to give notice to the Miniſters before hand, by which it appears their Conſent is preſuppoſed: And though my own Judgment be that they ſhould be the principal Covenanters for the Child expreſly, yet the want of that expreſneſs will not make the Perſons to be unbaptized.
Q. 42. How is the Holy Ghoſt given to Infants in Baptiſm? whether all the Children of true Chriſtians have inward ſanctifying Grace? &c. Anſw. My judgment agreeth more in this with Davenant's, than any others; ſaving that he doth not appropriate the Benefits of Baptiſm to the Children of true Believers, ſo much as I do. And though, by a Letter impleading Davenant's Cauſe, I was the occaſion of printing good Mr. Gataker's Anſwer to him; yet I am ſtill moſt inclined to his judgment, Not, that all the baptized, but that all the baptized Seed of true Chriſtians are pardoned, juſtified, adopted, and have a title to the Spirit, and Salvation. And we muſt chooſe great Inconveniences, if this Opinion be forſaken, viz. That all Infants muſt be taken to be out of Covenant with God, and to have no promiſe of Salvation; whereas, ſurely the Law of Grace, as well as the Covenant of Works, included all the Seed in their Capacity.
Of the Reſponſes.
Q. 83. May the People bare a Vocal part in Worſhip, P. 856.and do any more than ſay Amen? Anſw. The People bare an equal part in ſinging the Pſalms, which are Prayer, and Praiſe, and Inſtruction: if they may do ſo in the Pſalms in Metre, there can be no reaſon given, but they may lawfully do ſo in Pſalms in Proſe; for ſaying them, and ſinging them, are but modes of Utterance, and the ancient Singing was liker our Saying, than our Tunes. The Primitive Chriſtians were ſo full of zeal and love to Chriſt, that they would have taken it for an Injury, and a quenching of the Spirit, to have been wholly reſtrained from bearing their part in the Praiſes of the Church. The uſe of the Tongue keepeth awake the Mind, and ſtirreth up God's Graces in his Servants. It was the decay of Zeal in the People, that firſt ſhut out the Reſponſes: while they kept up the Ancient Zeal, they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worſhip. And this was ſeconded by the Pride and Uſurpation of the Prieſts thereupon; who thought the People of God too prophane to ſpeak in the Aſſemblies, and meddle ſo much with Holy things. Yet the very remembrance of former zeal cauſed moſt Churches to retain many of the words of their predeceſſors, even when they loſt the Life and Spirit which ſhould animate them; and ſo the ſame words came into the Liturgies, and were uſed by too many, cuſtomarily, and in formality, which their Anceſtors had uſed in the ſervour of their Souls. And if it were not, that a dead-hearted, formal People, by ſpeaking the Reſponſes careleſly and hypocritically, do bring them into diſgrace with many, that ſee the neceſſity of Seriouſneſs, I think, few good People would be againſt them now.—It is here the duty of every Chriſtian, to labour to reſtore the life and ſpirit to the Words, that they may again be uſed in a ſerious and holy manner, as heretofore, Exod. 19. 8. In as ſolemn an Aſſembly as any of ours, when God gave Moſes a form of words to preach to the People, all the People anſwered together, and ſaid, All that the Lord hath ſpoken, we will do. So Exod. 24. 3. and Deuter. 5. 27. which God approved of, v. 28, 29. See Levit. 9. 24. 2 Kings 23. 2, 3. 1 Chron. 1. 35, 36. It is a command,P. 857. Pſal. 67. 3, 5. Let all the People praiſe thee, O God, &c. And he that will limit this to ſingle Perſons, or ſay that it muſt not be, vocally, in the Church, or, it muſt be in metre only, and never in proſe, muſt prove it leſt he be proved one, that addeth to God's Word.
Q. 84. Is it not a Sin for our Clerks, to make themſelves the mouth of the People? P. 857Anſw. The Clerks are not appointed to be the Mouth of the People, but each Clerk is one of the People, commanded to do that which all ſhould do, leſt it ſhould be wholly left undone. If all the Congregation will ſpeak all that the Clerk doth, it will anſwer the primary deſire of the Church Governors who bid the People do it
Of Bowing at the Name Jeſus—And of Prieſts, Altars, &c.
Q. 86. Is it lawful to bow at the name of Jeſus? Anſw. That we may lawfully expreſs our reverence,P. … when the names (God, Jehovah, Jeſus, Chriſt, &c.) are uttered, I have met with few Chriſtians who deny; nor know I any reaſon to deny it. If I live and joyn in a Church where it is commanded, and peremptorily urged, to bow at the Name of Jeſus, and where my not doing it, would be diviſive, Scandalous, or offenſive; I will bow at the Name of God, Jehovah, Jeſus, Chriſt, Lord, &c. My judgment of ſtanding at the Goſpel, and kneeling at the Decalogue, (when it is commanded) is the ſame.P. 859.
Q. 122. May the name, Prieſts, Sacrifice and Altars, be lawfully uſed? P. 882.Anſw. The New Teſtament uſeth all the Greek names, which we Tranſlate Prieſts, Sacrifice and Altars; and our Tranſlation is not intolerable, if Prieſt come from Presbyter (I need not prove that) if it do not, yet all Miniſters are Subordinate to Chriſt in his Prieſtly Office. And the word Sacrifice is uſed of us, and our offered Worſhip, 1 Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 13. 15, 16. Phil. 4. 18. Eph. 5. 2. Rom. 12. 1. and Heb. 13. 10. ſaith we have an Altar, which word is frequently uſed in the Revelations, in relation to Goſpel times. We muſt not therefore be quarrelſome againſt the bare names, unleſs they be abuſed to ſome ill uſe. The Ancient Fathers and Churches did ever uſe all theſe words ſo familiarly, without any Queſtion oa Scruple raiſed by the Orthodox, or Hereticks about them, that we ſhould be wary, how we condemn theſe words, leſt we give advantage to the Papiſts to tell their Followers, that all Antiquity is on their ſide. The Lord's Supper is by Proteſtants truly called a Commemorative Sacrifice.
Of the Communion-Table, &c.
Q. 123. May the Communion Tables be turned Altarwiſe? and railed in? P. 882.and is it lawful to come up to the Rails to Communicate? Anſw. 1. God hath not given a particular command, or prohibition about theſe Circumſtances, but only general rules for Edification, Unity, Decency and Order. 2. They that do it out of a deſign to draw Men to Popery, or to incourage Men in it, do ſin. 3. So do they, that rail in the Table, to ſignifie, that Lay-Chriſtians muſt not come to it, but be kept at a diſtance. 4. But where there are no ſuch ends, but only to imitate the Ancients, that did thus, and to ſhew reverence to the Table on the account of the Sacrament, by keeping away Dogs, keeping Boys from ſitting on it; and the profeſſed Doctrine of the Church condemneth Tranſubſtantiation, the real Corporal-preſence, &c. in this caſe Chriſtians ſhould take theſe, for ſuch as they are, indifferent things, and not cenſure or condemn each other for them. 5. And to communicate, is not only lawful in this caſe, where we cannot prove, that the Miniſter ſinneth, but even, when we ſuſpect an ill deſign in him, which we cannot prove, yea, or when we can prove that his perſonal interpretation of the Place, Name, Scituation, and Rail, is unſound; for we Aſſemble there to Communicate in, and according to the profeſſed Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and the Churches, and our own open profeſſion, and not after every private Opinion, and Error of the Miniſter. Whether we ſhall receive the Lord's Supper at a Table, or in our Seats? Whether the Table ſhall be of Wood or Stone, Round or Long, or Square? Whether it ſhall ſtand on the Eaſt or Weſt ſide of the Temple, or in the middle? Whether it ſhall have Rails, or no Rails? All theſe are left to Humane Prudence. As for ſtanding at the reading of the Goſpel, Page 148. he ſays, If I live where Rulers peremtorily command it, as a ſignified conſent to the Goſpel, I would obey them rather than give offence. And for kneeling when the Decalogue is read: That the thing it ſelf is lawful, is paſt doubt; and if it be commanded, and the omiſſion would be offenſive, I would uſe it, though miſtaken Perſons were preſent, becauſe I cannot diſobey nor differ from the whole Aſſembly without a greater hurt and ſcandal, than ſeeming to harden the miſtaking Perſon, and becauſe I could and would by other means remove that Perſons danger as from me, by making him know that it is no Prayer; And the rather becauſe in our times the Miniſter may in the Pulpit tell the People the contrary. We muſt not lightly differ from the Churches where we live in ſuch things. I like beſt to kneel in Prayer and Confeſſion of Sins. To ſtand up in Praiſes to God; at Singing and Reading Pſalms of Praiſe and other Hymns; to ſet at Hearing the Word, becauſe the body hath neceſſity of ſome reſt.
Of the Creed.
Q. 139. What is the Uſe and Authority of the Creed? Is it of the Apoſtle framing or not? P. 896.Anſw. Its uſe is, to be a plain explication of the Faith profeſſed in the Baptiſmal Covenant; And for the ſatisfation of the Church, that Men indeed underſtand what they did in Baptiſm, and profeſſed to believe. 2. It is the Word of God, as to the matter of it, whatever it be as to the order, or Compoſition of the Words. 3. It is not to be doubted, but the Apoſtles did uſe a Creed commonly in their days, which was the ſame with that, now called the Apoſtles, and the Nicene, in the main. 4. And it is eaſily probable, that Chriſt compoſed a Creed, when he made his Covenant, and inſtituted Baptiſm, Matth. 28. 19. 5. That the Apoſtles did cauſe the baptizable, to underſtand the Three Articles of Chriſt's own Creed and Covenant, and uſed many explicatory words to make them underſtand it. 6. It is more than probable, that the matter opened by them, was ſtill the ſame when the words were not the ſame. 7. And it is alſo more than probable, that they did not needleſly vary the words, leſt it ſhould teach Men to vary the matter. And Laſtly, No doubt but this practice of the Apoſtles was imitated by the Churches, and that thus the Eſſentials of Religion were by the Tradition of the Creed, and Baptiſm, delivered by themſelves, as far as Chriſtianity went, long before any Book of the New Teſtament was written. And the following Churches, uſing the ſame Creed, might ſo far well call it the Apoſtles Creed.
Of the Apocrypha.
Q. 150. Is it lawful to read the Apocrypha, P. 901. Chriſtian Directory, P. 179. 2d Edit.or Homilies? Anſw. It is lawful, ſo be it they be ſound Doctrine, and fitted to the Peoples Edification. 2. So be it they be not read ſcandalouſly, without ſufficient differencing them from God's Book. 3. So they be not read to exclude, or hinder the reading of the Scripture, or other neceſſary Church duty. 4. So they be not read read to keep up an ignorant lazy Miniſtry, that can, or will do no better. 5. And eſpecially if Authority command it, and the Churches agreement require it.
Of the Oath of Canonical Obedience.
Q. 153. May we lawfully ſwear obedience, P. 902.in all things lawful and honeſt, either to Uſurpers, or to our lawful Paſtors? Anſw. If the King ſhall command us, it is lawful. So the old Non-conformiſts, who thought the Engliſh Prelacy an unlawful Office, yet maintained that it is lawful to take the Oath of Canonical Obedience, becauſe they thought it was impoſed by the King, and Laws, and that we ſwear them to them, not as Officers claming a Divine Right in the Spiritual Government, but as Ordinaries or Officers, made by the King, according to the Oath of Supremacy, And if Prelacy were proved never ſo unlawful, no doubt but by the Kings Command, we may ſwear or perform formal Obedience to a Prelate. Read Bradſhaw againſt Can concerning this, Pag. 181. Chriſt. Direct. 2d. Edit.
Of the Holineſs of Churches.
Q. 170. Are Temples, Fonts, Utenſils, Church-lands, much more Miniſters Holy! P. 915.And what reverence is due to them, as Holy? Anſw. Temples, Utenſils, Lands, &c. devoted, and lawfully ſeparated by Man, for Holy uſes, are Holy, as juſtly related to God by that lawful ſeparation. Miniſters are more Holy than Temples, Lands, or Utenſils, as being nearlier related to holy things; and things ſeparated by God, are more Holy than thoſe juſtly ſeparated by Man. And ſo of Days, every thing ſhould be reverenced according to the meaſure of its Holineſs: And this expreſſed by ſuch Signs, Geſtures, Actions, as are fitteſt to Honour God, to whom they are related. And ſo to be uncovered in the Church, and uſe reverent Carriage and Geſtures there, doth tend to preſerve due Reverence to God, and to his Worſhip, 1 Cor. 16. 20.
Of the Power of the Magiſtrate in Circumſtantials.
We flatly affirm, that the Kings Laws do bind the Mind, Soul, or Conſcience to a conſcionable performance of all his lawful commands, Apol 4. We are ſo tender of obeying our Rulers, that we will do any thing to obey and pleaſe them, except diſobeying God, Page 111.
We doubt not but Magiſtrates may reſtrain falſe Teachers from ſeducing others, and drawing them to Sin. Of Epiſcopacy, Page 193.
Princes and Rulers may for Orders ſake, diſtribute their Chriſtian Kingdoms into Pariſhes, which ſhall be the Ordinary Bounds of particular Churches. And ſuch diſtribution is very Congruous to the ends of the Miniſtry and Churches, and conduceth to Order and Peace. Non-confor. Plea, Pag. 31.
When Paſtors by Concord, or Magiſtrates by Laws, have ſetled lawful Circumſtances, or Accidents of Church Order, or Worſhip, or Diſcipline, though they be in particular but Humane Inſtitutions, it is ſinful Diſobedience to violate them without neceſſity, as Parochial Order, Aſſociations, Times, Places, Miniſters, Scripture Tranſlations, &c. Page 49.
God's Laws bind us to keep Love and Concord, and the Agreement of Councils may determine of the matter in alterable Points, and ſo abſent and preſent. Biſhops may for Concord ſake be obliged by God's Law to keep ſuch Canons▪ and they are matter of Duty, Page. 266.
The true intereſt of a meer Non-conformiſt, requireth him to live in Loyalty, Peace, and Patience, and in Love and Communion with the Parochial Churches, Page 251. N. 11. I deny not but Magiſtrates may moderately drive Men to hear God's Word, and to do the immediate Duties of their Places. Of Epiſcopacy, Page 144.
Thoſe Modes or Circumſtances of Worſhip,Five Diſp. P. 361. which are neceſſary in genere, but left undetermined by God, in ſpecie, are left by God to humane, prudential determination, (elſe an impoſſibility ſhould be neceſſary.)P. 401. It is left to humane determination what Place the Publick Aſſemblies ſhall be held in. And to determine of the time, except where God hath determined already, and what Utenſils to imploy about the Publick Worſhip.
Of the Surplice.
Some decent Habit is neceſſary;P. 409. either the Magiſtrate, or the Miniſter, or aſſociated Paſtors muſt determine what. I think neither Magiſtrate, nor Synod, ſhould do more than hinder indecency; if they do, and tye all to one habit (and ſuppoſe it were an indecent habit) yet this is but an imprudent uſe of power, it is a thing within the Magiſtrates reach, he doth not aliene work, but his own work amiſs, and therefore the thing in it ſelf being lawful, I would obey him, and uſe that garment, if I could not be diſpenſed with. Yea though, ſecondarily, the whiteneſs be to ſignifie purity, and ſo it be made a teaching ſign, yet would I obey. And ſee no reaſon to ſcruple the lawfulneſs of the Ring in Marriage;P. 411. for, though the Papiſts make a Sacrament of Marriage, yet we have no reaſon to take it for any Ordinance of Divine Worſhip, more than the ſolemnizing a Contract between a Prince and People. All things are ſanctified and pure to the Pure. And, for Organs or other Inſtruments of Muſick in God's Worſhip,P. 412. they being a help, partly naturally and partly artificial to the exhilarating the Spirits, for the praiſe of God, I know no argument to prove them ſimply unlawful,Chriſt. Direct. p. 884 but what would prove a Cup of Wine unlawful, or the Tune and Metre, and Melody of Singing unlawful.
Here therefore we thus conclude Page 423. That every miſordering of ſuch great Affairs, is the Sin of them that do it, yet the Subject is not exempted from Obedience by every ſuch miſtake of the Governour. And §. 67. If the Miſchooſing of ſuch Circumſtances by the Governors, be but an inconvenience, and deſtroy not the Ordinance it ſelf or fruſtrate the ends of it, we are to obey, for he the judge of his own Works, and not we: The thing is not ſinful, though inconvenient.
Page 398. Of Five Diſputations. § 25. Prop. 12. It may be very Sinful to command ſome Ceremonies which may lawfully, yea muſt in duty be uſed when they are commanded. And Prop. 14. Certain things, commonly called Ceremonies, may lawfully be uſed in the Church upon humane impoſition, and when it is not againſt the Law of God, no Perſon ſhould diſobey the command of their Lawful Governours in ſuch things.
If the Prince command one thing, not contrary to God's Law, and the Paſtors command the contrary, we muſt obey the Prince before the Paſtor; We muſt obey the Magiſtrate; We know not that their Commands are lawful, as long as we have no ſufficient Reaſon to believe them unlawful. Page 356. of Holy Common-wealth. and Page 357.
Of Holy-Days.
The Holy Doctrine, Lives and Sufferings of the Martyrs, and other Holy Men, hath been ſo great a Mercy to the Church, that for any thing I know, it is lawful to keep Anniverſary Thankſgiving in remembrance of them, and to encourage the weak, and provoke them to conſtancy and imitation —No Chriſtian ſhould refuſe that which is lawful, nor to joyn with the Church in Holy Exerciſes, on the days of thankful Commemoration of the Apoſtles and Martyrs, and Excellent Inſtruments of the Church, much leſs pertulently to work, and ſet open their Shops to the offence of others, but rather to perſwade others to imitate their Holy Lives, to whom they give ſuch honours. Chr. Direct. p. 167. Part. 3.
Nor do I ſcruple to keep a day in remembrance of any eminent Servant of Chriſt,Five Diſp. or Martyr,P. 412. to praiſe God for their Doctrine, or Example, and honour their Memorial. I am reſolved,P. 416. if I live where ſuch Holy-days, (Chriſt's Nativity, Circumciſion, Faſting, Transfiguration, Aſcenſion, and ſuch like) are obſerved,P. 117. to cenſure no Man for obſerving them. But, if I lived under a Government, that peremprorily commanded it, I would obſerve the outward reſt of ſuch a Holy-day,See Chriſt. Direct. and I would Preach on it,P. 885. and joyn with the Aſſemblies in God's Worſhip, yea I would thus obſerve the day, rather than offend a weak Brother, or hinder any Man's Salvation; much more rather than I would make any diviſion in the Church.