The Nonconformists Plea for Peace, Section 9 – Section 2

The Nonconformists Plea for Peace · Section 9 – Section 2

p. 155SECT. IX.

The Matters of Fact that concern the Conformity and Nonconformity of the Miniſters: And 1. of Aſſ…nt, Conſent and Subſcription that nothing is contrary to God's Word.

1. THE Canon to be ſubſcribed (36th) willingly and ex animo is That the Book of Common-Prayer, and of ordaining of Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons, containeth in it NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE WORD OF GOD; p. 156and that he himſelf will uſe the form in the ſaid Book preſcribed in publick Prayers and Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and none other.

2. The meaning of this ſubſcription is not agreed of by the Conformiſts that take it: As to the firſt clauſe, ſome ſay that by [Nothing Contrary to the word] is meant as it is ſpoken, [Nothing] indeed. Others ſay by [Nothing] is meant [Nothing which I have diſcerned ſo to be: Or [Nothing, except ſuch failings as all humane writings are lyable to.] And by [Contrary] Some ſay [Contrary in the Common ſenſe of the word] is meant: But others ſay that by [Contrary] is meant [ſo far Contrary as ſhould drive us from Communion with the Church] or [Contrary to any great doctrine or precept of the Word of God. And the Nonconformiſts interpret it as the firſt ſort do, according to the uſual and proper meaning of the words.

3. So the later clauſe, [that he himſelf will uſe that form in publick prayer and adminiſtration of the Sacraments and none other;] Dr. Heylin and very many others ſuppoſe is meant properly as is ſpoken viz. That by the form is meant all the words and orders, and that by publick prayer is meant as is ſpoken, All publick prayer uſed by a Miniſter in the publick aſſemblies] And that by [None other] is meant [neither, wholly nor in part.] But others think that by [Form] is meant only [the form of words, and not the orders] And that by [none other] is meant only [No other Book of Common-Prayer or ſet Liturgie.] Or [No other entire form and order excluding this;] And that it doth not mean [No other form before or after Sermon in the Pulpit, or in p. 157ſome parts of Worſhip, ſo it be of our own Compoſure:] Nor yet that we may not uſe ſometime ſome other order than is preſcribed in the Rubricks, viz. 1. Sometime read other Chapters than the Calender preſcribeth, becauſe that Liberty is expreſſed in the Preface to the ſecond Book of Homilies: 2. Sometimes to give the Sacrament to ſome that kneel not: 3. To baptize ſome without the Croſs, &c. (of which more hereafter) Becauſe the Rubrick ſaith only [you ſhall do thus] but ſaith not [you ſhall do no otherwiſe.] But to this the former ſort anſwer 1. That if any univerſal Negative (none other) may be particularly or limitedly interpreted upon our own ſurmiſes, no Laws, Covenants or Promiſes ſignifie any thing, and no words are intelligible: 2. That we ſubſcribe ſtrictly to this Article (to uſe no other form,) But not ſo to the Book of Homilies, but only that we take it for wholſom Doctrine: 3. That if the Rubrick for Croſſing, Kneeling, &c. exclude not all other inconſiſtent forms of adminiſtration, it ſignifieth nothing, but leaveth every man to his own will.

4. It is yet a greater doubt with the Conformiſts themſelves, whether theſe words be not at leaſt a Covenant that They will uſe no other printed preſcribed Liturgy. And ſo ſome think that it plainly obligeth them not to uſe thoſe printed Forms which the Archbiſhops and Biſhops have uſed to draw up and impoſe, for ſeveral Publick Faſts, Thankſgivings, and particular occaſions. But others think that it doth not bind them to diſobey the Biſhops therein: but that ſuch exceptions were intended though not expreſt, or at leaſt had been inſerted if not forgotten.

p. 158II. The Act of Uniformity requireth that every Miniſter that officiates [Do openly and publickly before the Congregation there aſſembled, declare his unſeigned Aſſent and Conſent to the Uſe of all things in the Book contained and preſcribed, in theſe words and no other [I A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Aſſent and Conſent to all and every thing contained and preſcribed, in and by the Book eat…tuled, The Book of Common-Prayer, & Adminiſtration of the Sacraments and other R…tes and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the uſe of the Church of England; together with the Pſ…ter or Pſalms of David pointed as they are to be ſung or ſaid in Churches, and the form or m…er of making, ordaining and conſecrating of Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons.] And page 10. [He ſhall declare his unfeigned Aſſent and Conſent unto, and Approbation of the ſaid Book, and to the uſe of all the Prayers, Rites and Ceremonies, Forms and Orders therein contained and preſcribed according to the form aforeſaid.]

2. The Conformiſts themſelves are not agreed of the meaning of theſe plain words, One party expounding them as the Nonconformiſts do, according to the propereſt and ordinary uſe of the words, and the other party otherwiſe. The former hold that as many Acts of Parliament Contein more in the body of the Act than in the Title, and make the means more extenſive than the end, ſo here the ASSENT and CONSENT to the USE of the Book is the END in the firſt clauſe, and APPROBATION alſo in the ſecond: And that the Declaring that form of words is the Means to that end: That p. 159Aſſent ſignifieth Aſſent to the Truth] and [Conſent and Approbation] relate to the Goodneſs, rectitude and uſe] And that this is not only of the Prayers and other parts which the ſubſcriber is to Read to the people but as is expreſt [of all things (without exception] Conteined in and preſcribed by it; particularly▪ to all the Prayers, Rites, Ceremonies, Forms and Orders;] without colluſion or equivocation.

The other part hold, that all this ſignifieth no more, but that [I Aſſent that I may lawfully uſe, and I Conſent to uſe, ſo much as belongeth to my place, and that I will not unpeaceably oppoſe it.] Their argument is, Becauſe [to the Uſe,] is mentioned before the Form of words. To which the other anſwer as before, that 1. That Approbation is mentioned after as well as Uſe. 2. That the Means are larger than the end: As in the Corporation Act, the end is the preventing of Rebellion; but the Means is Declaring that [There is no obligation on me or any-other from that Oath.] 3. That without groſs violence Aſſent can be judged to mean no leſs than [Aſſenting that it is true.] 4. That there is not a'word in the Book which was not intended for ſome Uſe: And therefore, to Aſſent, Approve and Conſent to the Uſe, is more than meerly to Aſſent to the Truth: The Preface hath its Uſe; and the Calendar its Uſe, and the Rubrick its uſes, and the reſt of the parts their ſeveral Uſes; But did we believe it to be falſe, how could we Approve it, or of what Uſe would it be? 5. To put all out of doubt the Parliament-men long ago told us (none Contradicting it to us) that into another Bill, the houſe of Lords added a Proviſo that the p. 160Declaration in the Act of Vniformity ſhould be underſtood but as obliging men to the Uſe of it; and that the Houſe of Commons refuſing, at a Conference about it, they gave in ſuch Reaſons againſt that ſenſe and proviſo to the Lords, upon which they did acquieſce, and caſt it out.

III. By this General Declaration we are obliged to Aſſent to (as true) to Approve and to Uſe theſe words after the Calender, [Rules to know when the Moveable Feaſts and Holydaies begin. Eaſter-day (on which the reſt depend) is alwaies the firſt Sunday after the firſt full Moon, which happens next after the one and twentieth day of March.]

2. This Rule is falſe: As 1. Every Almanack will ſhew: 2. The Table following to find out Eaſter-day for ever: 3. And the practice of our Church, that keepeth Eaſter on another day.

3. To conſent to Uſe this, is to conſent to keep Eaſter-day, contrary to all Chriſtian Churches, and contrary to another Rule in the ſame Book; and to conſent to uſe both Rules, is to conſent to keep two Eaſter-days in one year; and ſo of Eaſter Term.

4. Hereupon ſome Conformiſts ſay, that [Aſſenting to, Approving of, and Conſenting to All things contained and preſcribed.] ſignifieth but [as to humane, fallible writings, ſo far as there is no miſtake] or [Aſſenting and Conſenting to be peaceable.] But others ſay that it is but [to Aſſent that it is true where it is not falſe, and Appr…ve it as good where it is not bad; and to Conſent to uſe it where I have no cauſe to the contrary.] And they ask, 1. Whether this be the uſual or proper ſignification of ſuch words? 2. Whether any p. 161Nonconformiſts would refuſe it in that ſenſe. 3. Whether they will give leave to the Papiſts and all other ſubjects to take the Oath of Allegiance in ſuch a kind of ſenſe and expoſition.

But there is one that hath defended this as true, and tells us that by the [full moon] is not meant that which we call the full moon, or the ſame that's meant in the other parts of the Book, but by the full moon is meant [the mean Conjunction] and [the fourth of April that year 1664. Or [14 daies after the ancient new moon found by the Golden number the 14th day of the Eccleſiaſtical Cylclic month] For an old Maſs Book ſaith [Poſt veris aequinoctium Quaere plenilunium & Dominica proxima ſacrum celebra Paſcha: Non v…rius inveneris ſi mille legas Codices.]

Queſt. 1. Are we ſure this Maſs Book meant not pleniluniam as we do properly?

Queſt. 2. And are we ſure they erred not that wrote this?

Queſt. 3. And yet are you ſure what they meant?

Queſt. 4. Would you perſwade us that our Convocation now borrowed their Direction from this Maſs Book?

Queſt. 5. Are you ſure that this Maſs Book ſhould be our rule herein of ſpeaking or interpreting?

Queſt. 6. And yet not in the Calendar and other paſſages in our Liturgy?

Queſt. 7. Did the the Convocation intend that we ſhould not here underſtand [The full moon] properly, nor as in all the reſt of the Book?

Queſt. 8. If this defender be in the right, was there ever a plainer way made to bring all men p. 162to an Implicit Faith, to believe as the Convocation believeth, even in Calendars, when we know not what they believe themſelves. For my part I muſt confeſs that after all this Dr. (Pell they ſay) hath ſaid of another ſenſe of the word [full Moon] I know not yet what he meaneth. Qu. Whether the Convocation meant that none ſhould Preach Chriſts Goſpel that underſtood not this ſtrange ſenſe of the [full Moon] that is [no full Moon] and yet would not by one line expound it to us, to keep us from being caſt out and ruined? Or whether they meant that all men ſhould be forced and taught to ſubſcribe or declare aſſent to that which they never underſtood? when I had never yet the advantage of ſpeaking with one Biſhop or conformable Dr. that underſtood the word [full Moon] as this Doctor taught them (whether in good earneſt I know not.) And if our Conformity muſt be thus performed, by equivocation implicitly, contrary to the common ſenſe of mankind, we ſhall yet ſuſpend it, till we know how much further we have to go, if it be blindfold that we muſt be led; and refer all to God our final Judge, whoſe judgment we are near.

4. We Aſſent to, Approve of and Conſent to, theſe words in the Preface [we are fully perſwaded in our judgements (and we here profeſs it to the world) that the Book as it ſtood before eſtabliſhed by Law; doth not contein in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to ſound Doctrine, or which a Godly man may not with a good Conſcience Uſe and ſubmit unto, or which is not fairly defenſible againſt any that ſhall oppoſe the ſame, &c.] 2. Pſal. 105. 28. The words in p. 163the Liturgy and old Tranſlation are [They were not obedient to his word] And the new Tranſlation according to the Hebrew is [They rebelled not againſt his word] Clear contrary: Therefore the Nonconformiſts think that one of them is Contrary to the word of God (and this old Tranſlation is Continued ſtill in the Church.) 3. In the old Book in the Goſpels theſe texts are thus tranſlated Rom. 12. 2. Epiſt. to 1. ſunday after Epiph. [Be ye changed in your ſhape:] The new Tranſlation is [Be transformed by the renewing of your mind] Phil. 2. 7. Epiſt. for ſunday next before Eaſter [found in his apparel as a man:] In the new Tranſlation it is (Was made in the likeneſs of men.] Gal. 4. Ep. to 4th ſunday in Lent, It is [Mount Sinai is Agar in Arabia and bordereth on the City which is now called Jeruſalem.] In the new Tranſlation it is [For this Agar was mount Sinai in Arabia, and anſwereth to Jeruſalem which now is.] Mathews day Ep. 2. Cor. 4. The old Book has it [We go not out of kind.] The new is [We faint not.] John. 2. for third Sunday in Lent [When men be drunk] is the old Books Tranſlation: But the new is [When men have well drunk] Luke 11. for third Sunday in Lent, the old Book hath [When one houſe doth fall upon another] the new hath [A houſe divided againſt an houſe falleth.] Luke 1. for the Annunciation; the old Book ſayeth [This is the ſixth month which was called barren] in the new Tranſlation it is [This is the ſixth mouth with her who was called barren. If one of theſe be God's Word, the Nonconformiſts think that the other is contrary to it. 4. In the old Book in the Pſalms there are whole verſes left out, which p. 164are in the Hebrew Text, and our new Tranſlation▪ and divers tranſlated in a quite different ſenſe the former following the Septuagint. 5. The Rubrick for Chriſtmas day is [Then ſhall follow the Collect of the Nativity, which ſhall be ſaid continually unto New-years day.] And the Collect for all theſe ſeveral daies is [A…mighty God, which haſt given us thine only begotten Son to take our Nature upon him, and THIS DAY to be born of a pure Virgin. So the Collect on Whitſunday is [God which upon this day, &c.] The Rubrick is, [The ſame Collect to be read Munday and Teeſday.] So on Chriſtmas day, and ſeven daies after [Becauſe thou hast given Jeſus Christ thine only Son to be born as on this day for us, &c.] And on Whitſunday, and ſix daies after [According to whoſe moſt true promiſe the Holy Ghost came down this day from Heaven.] Theſe things, and ſuch other we muſt approve in the foreſaid Approbation of all things in the old Common-Prayer-Book.

V. We muſt Aſſent, Approve, and Conſent to all the miſ-tranſlations in the preſent Liturgy, as well as to juſtifie the old Edition: That beforecited Pſal. 105. 28. is in the preſent Book, and ſo are the reſt of the omiſſions and differences in the Pſalms before mentioned, which are many. Different Tranſlations which have all the ſame ſenſe, may be all called God's Word, becauſe their ſenſe is ſo: But where they have different ſenſes, ſo far one of them is contrary to God's Word: For God's Word is one and true, and not contrary to it ſelf. The queſtion is not whether theſe faulty Tranſlations were not a good work, and a great mercy to the Church, till we had a p. 165better? Nor whether they may not be lawfully uſed where there is no better? Yea or where there is a better, if the Command of Governours, or Concord, make it beſt for that time and place. But it is, Whether all the faults of the Tranſlation may be Aſſented, Approved and Conſented to? We commit ſome failings and ſins every day, but we may not Approve of them, and profeſs that we Conſent ſo to do.

2. Some Conformiſts here think that the Declaration is to be taken properly, without any force or diſtorting, and they ſay that both Tranſlations are juſtifiable, becauſe one followeth the Hebrew, and the other the Septuagint, and Chriſt and his Apoſtles have juſtified both by uſing them. But others of them hold that this inſtance proveth that by [All things] Aſſented and conſented to, muſt be meant only [All things that are not by humane frailty miſtaken, or erroneous] or els, that by Aſſenting and Approving muſt be meant no more than Aſſenting that they may be Uſed: And ſo they conſent with the Nonconformiſts in the matter, but not in the expoſition of the words. And to the former they ſay, 1. That there are other miſtranſlations, beſides thoſe that follow the ſeptuagint. 2. That Chriſt and the Apoſtles by citing ſome Texts according to the ſeptuagint, do not thereby approve of all the reſt; for they cite others otherwiſe. 3. That by citing them, they juſtifie not alwaies the tranſlation, but only the ſenſe ſo far as it is cited for, it being that ſcripture which the people then commonly uſed.

3. And they ſay that if this objection ſhould hinder mens Aſſenting to the Liturgy, it might p. 166as well hinder their Aſſenting to the Bible in our tranſlations. And indeed we know no Nonconformiſt who would declare or ſubſcribe that he doth Aſſent to, Approve and Conſent to all things Contained in the Bible according to any Tranſlation, but only all things Contained in the Bible as it was delivered by the ſacred writers, and in all Tranſlations ſo far as they truly ſignifie or expreſs that to us. But if they might but ſay, as one part expounds the Declaration, [We Aſſent, &c. To all things Contained, &c. That are not by humane frailty miſtaken] they would ſoon Conform herein.

6. The Calendar in the Common Prayer appointeth the publick reading of the Books called Apocrypha beginning September 28. And ſo Continuing to November 24. Every day of the week, except the proper Leſſons interpoſed. Part of the Apocrypha to be read are the Book of Tobit, Judith, Bell, and the Dragon &c.

2. Learned Biſhops and Divines of the Church of England have written to prove that theſe Books are not only Aprocryphal but fabulous, and have manifeſt untruths; As that the intralls of a fiſh will drive away all Devils and keep them from returning: When Chriſt ſaith [This kind goeth not out but by Faſting and Prayer] And when the Angel ſaith that He was the ſon of Ananias of the tribe of Napthali,] &c.

3. Theſe Books are to be read juſt in the place and order as the Sacred Scriptures are; and under the ſame title of the [Firſt Leſſon] Only called Apocrypha in the Bibles. But 1. It is not appointed that the Prieſt tell the people ſo: 2. If it were, they underſtand not Commonly what p. 167[Apocrypha] ſignifieth: 3. If they were ſometime told it, they forget it; and apply not that name to every Leſſon that they thence hear. 4. It is not denyed that the ſounder Books that are Apocrypha may be read in the Church as a Homily may be with due notice of their difference from the Canonical Books: But the queſtion is whether not only they, but the Books proved fabulous by many Proteſtants, may be there read, and that inſtead of ſo much of the holy Scripture then omitted, and that without any better notice given to the Common people of the difference. 5. And the chief doubt is, whether this may not only be done, but alſo the Calendar as ſo appointing it, may be Approved of and Conſented to by us all.

7 It hath been before opened, that no Parent is permitted to be Godfather to his own Child; or to ſpeak one word at his baptizing, to enter him into the Covenant of God, or dedicate him to him, nor to promiſe in his name, nor to undertake any part of his Chriſtian education, nor ſo much as to be urged to be preſent. Nor is there a word to intimate that the Godfathers repreſent the Parent, or ſpeak in his name or ſtead, but the contrary is implyed. [Though the Parents are to procure theſe God fathers. 2. It hath alſo been before ſhewed how great a Controverſie it is, whether Infants Right to Gods promiſes and Church ſtate, be not by that Covenant [I will be thy God and the God of thy ſeed;] implyed in 1. Cor. 7. 14. [els were your Children unclean but now are they holy.] And ſo whether Infants have any right upon a Godfathers words there, who never took them for, p. 168his own; if on the Parents account they have no right. And whether ſuch Godfathers act be truly the Childs in Gods account; 3. And it was before enquired, In what ſenſe this Godfather doth (not promiſe only that the Child ſhall believe at age, but) in the Childs name profeſs that he doth at preſent believe: And whether it be not enough [and much more neceſſary then the Godfathers faith) that he be the Child of a believing Parent, dedicating him to God. 4. And it hath been ſhewed that Godfathers promiſe themſelves partly to teach the Child, and partly to provide that he be taught all that a Chriſtian ſhould learn as neceſſary to his ſouls health. 5. And that theſe Godfathers never ordinarily, give the Parents the leaſt reaſon to believe that they have any purpoſe to do any ſuch thing as they undertake: Which is perfidiouſneſs in the weightieſt buſineſs: And 6. alſo that (as ſuch) they are no adopters or owners of the Child. 7. And alſo how hard it is for any Parents ever to get better, ſeeing wiſer and better will not undertake it in the foreſaid conformable ſence. 8. The ſence and uſe of Godfathers is partly known by the Practiſe of Princes and great men, (who muſt be ſuppoſed to know beſt, and be moſt righteous and exemplary) who uſually by a Proxie are Godfathers to the Children of Foreign Princes, or Great men, (perhaps Papiſts) whom they never ſaw nor ever are like to ſee their Children. 9. Miniſters muſt Aſſent Approve of and Conſent to, all this excluſion of the Parents, and preſentation, profeſſion, undertaking and promiſe of the Godfathers, which the Liturgy mentioneth; p. 16910. Conformiſts are not agreed themſelves, of the true Office and undertaking of theſe Godfathers, nor of the Parents part, nor by whoſe right it is that one Child rather than others is to be baptized, and whether any at all ſhould be refuſed by whomſoever (that is a Chriſtian) offered thereunto.

8. The Rubrick to which we muſt declare our Aſſent, Approbation and Conſent, hath this Article of faith. [It is certain by Gods Word, that Children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual ſin are undoubtedly ſaved.] And the Rubrick at Buryal, excepteth all the unbaptized from Chriſtian Burial, according to the Office.

2. The Canon 68 and 69, ſuſpendeth any Miniſter who ſhall refuſe or delay to Chriſten any Child without exception which is brought to the Church on Sundays or Holydays to be Chriſtned, according to the Form in the Common-Prayer; or if in caſe of danger he be deſired to do it privately. Neither Rubrick nor Canon here except from Baptiſm and certainty of ſalvation, any Children of Turks, Infidels, Heathens, and Atheiſts, or thoſe whoſe Parents renounce Chriſtianity, and conſent not to their Childrens Baptiſm; ſo be it any Godfathers as aforeſaid bring them.

3. The Conformiſts agree not of the ſence of this Article of Faith: Some hold that the word [Children here meaneth not [All Children that are Baptized] but ſome ſuch only: But others affirm that this expoſition is falſe, and contrary to the plain importance of the words, for it is an Indefinite, ſay they, in re neceſſaria, in the p. 170ſenſe of the Book. And if the meaning be not [Children that are Baptized, qua tales] it hath no intelligible ſenſe, the certainty of their Salvation being Aſſerted as from Scripture, and not any other reaſon of it given. But if this be the meaning (as it is) then a quatenus ad omnes valet conſequentia; unleſs any exception had been added, which is not.

4. Some ſay that it is implied that Children that had no right to Baptiſm are excepted. But others ſay 1. That ubi lex non diſtinguit non eſt diſtinguendum. The Church could have excepted if they would. 2. And that quod fieri non debet factum valet. 3. Yea that all Children have right to Baptiſm, if any Chriſtians offer them to it.

5. Some confound the Miniſters right to Baptize them, and the Infants right to be Baptized; And this right as only in foro Eccleſiae, and as in foro Caeli; As if all Baptized upon any of theſe rights were undoubtedly ſaved. But others diſtinguiſh theſe, and ſay, 1. That the Miniſter may have right to Baptize one if offered, that yet ought not to have been offered; which will not ſave an uncapable ſubject: 2. That the Children of Hypocrites have right Coram Eccleſia, and that their Baptiſm aſcertaineth to them no more than external or common priviledges; 3. And that only the Children of true believers have ſuch a right coram Deo as certainly ſaveth them. But others ſay that both the laſt ſort are ſaved.

6. Some of them hold that All Infants in the world Baptized or not, are ſaved by univerſal redemption, if they dye before actual ſin: And that the Article therefore affirmeth it of the Baptized. p. 171But others ſay, this cannot be the ſence: For 1. To ſay [All baptized] and mean [All unbaptized] or any [not as Baptized] were not intelligible nor candid. 2. And the Burial Rubrick excepting the unbaptized from that Chriſtian burial, ſheweth the meaning of the Church in this Article.

7. Alſo about the [undoubted certainty] they differ; ſome think that the ſubſcriber or Declarer doth not by theſe words, profeſs that he himſelf is [undoubtedly certain] of the ſalvation of all dying Baptized Infants; but only that the thing is certainly revealed to be ſo in Gods Word. But others ſay, that both objective and ſubjective (or perſonal) certainty muſt needs be meant: And that it were too hard an imputation to ſay that the Church commandeth uncertain, doubting men to profeſs that the thing is certain and undoubted of; for how can they tell that it is ſo? And if they know it not to be ſo why ſhould they declare it to be ſo? The meaning is not [I declare that the Convocation ſaith it is certain;] for that were but the part of a cryer or reader: Nor is it I declare that it is certain to others, though not to me.] For no man knoweth anothers certainty; Therefore it muſt mean that [I am certain and paſt doubt by the Word of God] or [I ſee aſcertaining evidence in Gods Word putting it paſt doubt.] So that no uncertain or doubting perſon can truly thus declare or ſubſcribe.

8. Divers of thoſe Divines who are furtheſt from the Nonconformiſts, hold that by the Scripture alone we cannot prove that Infants are at all to be Baptized; and the Jns Baptiſmi muſt p. 172be proved before the ſalvation of the Baptized as ſuch: Others think it hard for that man to be certain by the Word of God that all Baptized dying Infants are ſaved, who is not certain by that word that any Inſants ſhould be Baptized.

9. Many of the moſt raſh or ſelf conceited, Ignorant men are readier to profeſs [undoubted certainty] than they that are more humble, and know much more than they. And it is not he that Hith moſt certainty who is now capable of the Miniſtry, but he that dare profeſs moſt, whether he have it or not.

10. They that ſhew leſs Learning, eſpecially leſs knowledge in the Scripture, far than many that dare not profeſs this undoubted certainty, are not like to be more certain then they in this particular Article of faith.

11. We take it for Arrogance and Fanaticiſm in the Pope and his Council to pretend Infallible certainty by a peculiar priviledge, in thoſe points in which they are unſtudyed and unlearned, as if they knew them by prophetical inſpiration. And when young unſtudyed men have in this point attained to an [undoubted certainty] which their wiſer ſeniors cannot attain, it behoveth them to convince us of the truth of their Inſpiration or ſpecial endowments, either by a proportionable excellency above us in other things, or by ſome Miracles or Teſtimonies from Heaven.

12. There is no one Word of God cited in the Rubrick which tells us that It is certain by the Word of God.

13. Among Chriſtian Divines there are all theſe various opinions about the ſalvation of Infants.

p. 1731. Some hold that the Covenant being to the faithful and their ſeed, and their children being holy, all the children of ſincere Chriſtians are certainly in a ſtate of ſalvation, being by the parents intentionally dedicated to God, before or without Baptiſm: And that Baptiſm is but their ſo lemn inveſtiture in that ſtate which was theirs by right before.

2. Others think that this right to ſalvation belongeth to the Children of all profeſſed Chriſtians godly and ungodly,

3 Others think that it belongeth to all Infants in the world.

4. Others think that it belongeth only to ſincere believers Children that are Baptized.

5. Others, that it belongeth to ſound and unſound Chriſtians baptized Infants.

6. Others that it belongeth to all Baptized Infants whoſe ſoever.

7. Others hold that it belongeth alſo to the Children of ſincere Adopters or Proprieters.

8. Others that it belongeth to ſuch as even bad Chriſtians adopt or own.

9. Others that they that have ſincere Godfathers, though not Proprieters, are ſaved.

10. Others that even unfound or hypocritical Chriſtian Godfathers, may ſuffice to their ſalvation.

11. Others that the Miniſters or the Churches ſincere (or profeſſed) Faith is hereto ſufficient.

12. And others think that only the Elect are ſaved, of whom ſome are baptized, and ſome unbaptized, but no man knoweth who they are. Out of all theſe Opinions the Convocation hath choſen one, as an Article of Faith of undoubted Certainty by the Word of God.

p. 17413. The Nonconformiſts know of no Word of God which aſcertaineth Salvation to any known determinate Infants, but the great Covenant of Grace, [I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed;] which ſeed God uſeth as if they were parts of the Parents, Exod. 34. 6, 7. and ſecond Commandment: And ſaith to Believers [Elſe were your children unclean; but now, &c.

14. Many Divines ſay, that Faith it ſelf hath not evidence; (though we think that it hath evidence of the Truth of the Revelation, though the thing revealed be not viſible or evident in it ſelf:) And more confeſs that [undoubted certainty] is not Eſſential to the ſaving belief of Chriſt, and of a life to come: And that true Faith may be ſaving, though weak: And that Chriſt ſilenced not his Diſciples when he reproved the weakneſs of their Faith: And that to doubt of this Article about Infants is not ſo dangerous as to doubt of Chriſt or Heaven.

IX. All Miniſters muſt deny Baptiſm to thoſe Infants that have no ſuch Godfathers and Godmothers as aforeſaid, though their Parents be true Chriſtians, and offer them to Baptiſm. For this is the only order or form of Baptizing there deſcribed, all other is forbidden, and we ſubſcribe to uſe no other form in adminiſtration of the Sacraments. 2. Yet ſome Conformiſts ſay, that the Book bindeth them to do thus, but not to omit it, and baptize no otherwiſe. But others of them ſay, 1. That the Rubrick determineth that [for every child to be baptized, there ſhall be three as Godfathers and Godmothers] and that the whole Office reſpecteth them as Parties, and ſpeaketh to them, and admitteth no Parent to ſpeak; and p. 175that if Aſſenting to, Approving and Conſenting to this form and Rubrick, and ſubſcribing a Covenant to uſe no other form, ſignifie not that we will uſe no other, no words can bind ſuch equivocators. 3. In the ſenſe of the Liturgy, to put Infants from Baptiſm, is to deny them Chriſtendom, memberſhip of Chriſt, to be children of God, and to be heirs of Heaven: For the Catechiſm ſaith, that we are made ſuch in Baptiſm, which with the Rubrick which denyeth them Chriſtian burial, and that laſt mentioned which affirmeth the undoubted ſalvation of the baptized, import a denying ſalvation to all that have not ſuch Godfathers, without Parents ſponſion: or at leaſt a denying them [certainty of undoubted ſalvation] when it was in the power of the Convocation or Prieſt to have given them ſuch certainty. 4. The Conformiſts do not affirm (that we know of) that any word of God doth inſtitute or command the uſe of ſuch Godfathers, or the foredeſcribed excluſion of the Parents, much leſs both: And leaſt of all that it maketh theſe neceſſary to Chriſtendom and Salvation, yea or Church-reception: But it is uſed as a Tradition or Law of men. 5. The Nonconformiſts therefore dare neither Aſſent to, Approve, Conſent to, Covenant, or Practice the reſuſal of the Children of true Chriſtians from Baptiſm, the Church and Salvation, on ſuch a cauſe as this. 6. The Anabaptiſts hence are hardened, and ſay, that if Infants may be denied Baptiſm, till they have ſuch Godfathers as God never inſtituted they have no right to it at all, and they may deny it them till we prove God's inſtitution of Godfathers; eſpecially where their title is laid upon ſuch Godfathers. p. 1767 Some ſay that It is not the Miniſter that refuſeth them, but the Church which maketh the Law: But others ſay, that it is both the Lawmakers, and the Miniſter, unleſs we could prove that Baptizing and judging whom to Baptize is none of the Miniſters office, no nor the Biſhops; but that the Prieſt is to baptize all, and only ſuch as the Law or Convocation bids him baptize, as a meer executioner, and the Biſhop alſo ſuch as he is appointed by the ſame Law. That elſe the ſame Rule would hold for his Preaching, Praying, &c.

X. The like proofs (which we need not repeat) will ſhew, that no Miniſter muſt baptize any perſon, Infant or Adult, without the tranſient Image of a Croſs, and that to this we muſt aſſent and conſent, and ſubſcribe to baptize in no other form.

2. And the ſame reaſons aforegiven ſhew how great a penalty this is, as excluding them from Chriſtendom and Salvation in the Churches judgment, or from certainty at leaſt.

3. Some Conformiſts ſay here alſo, that they aſſent only to baptize with the Croſs, but not to baptize no otherwiſe: But others of them reprove this expoſition from the Rubrick, and the aforecited Canonical Subſcription, as that which would leave the Prieſt at liberty to do almoſt what he liſt, when the Church thinks that they have obliged him, and his Subſcription hath ſecured his Obedience.

4. And ſome of them ſay, that it is not the Prieſt that refuſeth them, for he would Baptize them (with the Croſs) if the parent ſent the Child or the Adult perſon came. But we need not p. 177ſtrive about the word: The thing we are agreed of, viz. That the Prieſt conſenteth not to Baptize them, who dare not receive it with the uſe of the Croſs: Whether this be to be called a rejecting them, or denying them Baptiſm, unleſs they will be ſo croſſed, we need not call for extraordinaty accurateneſs to judge.

5. No Conformiſts do pretend that this uſe of this Image of the Croſs, is of divine inſtitution: But all confeſs that Baptiſm is of divine inſtitution; and that Chriſt hath Commanded Math. 28. 19. 20. That they that are diſcipled ſhould be Baptized; and that one may be a diſciple of Chriſt, without the Image of the Croſs:

6. Some of the Nonconformiſts hold their uſe of the Croſs it ſelf here unlawful: But others that would venture to uſe it rather than be ſilenced, yet fear the guilt of denying Baptiſm, Chriſtendom and certain ſalvation (as the Church judgeth) to all that dare not receive it, or preſent their Children to receive it; believing that murdering natural life is a leſs hurt than undoing ſouls.

7. But Covenanting by deliberate ſubſcription and declaration to do it, how oft ſoever, they fear more than the actual doing of it rarely; not daring to do their part to damn the Children of all that are againſt Baptizing with the Croſs, nor all the unbaptized adult that are of that opinion.

XI. And as they fear rejecting ſuch as will not be ſo Croſt, from Baptiſm: ſo they much fear the Engliſh uſe of the Croſs themſelves; and that much more than Croſſing our ſelves on ordinary occaſions, or ſetting up Croſſes on our doors or Churches or by the high waies; and yet much p. 178more than they fear ſuch uſing of the Croſs as Auguſtine de Civ. Dei, and other ancients mention, as an open Indication to Heathens that we are not aſhamed of a Crucified Chriſt: Much leſs are they againſt civil uſes of a Croſs.

2. The name [Sacrament] ſignifying primarily any ſolemnization of a Covenant by Oath and Ceremony (as the ſacramentum militare among the Romans) eſpecially a Covenant which engageth one in a new relation, and more largely any ſacred myſtical Ceremony, the queſtion here is whether the Croſs be not made (not only a ſacrament in a larger ſenſe, as ordination and Matrimony may be called ſacraments) but even a ſacrament of the Covenant of grace, or ſo very neer it as to have the greateſt part of that ſacramental nature.

3. The Church Catechiſm defineth a Divine ſacrament thus, (An outward and viſible ſign of an inward and ſpiritual grace given to us, ordained by Chriſt himſelf as a means whereby we receive the ſame, and a pledge to aſſure us thereof.

4. That it be ordained by Chriſt himſelf is not eſſential to a ſacrament in genere, but to a ſacrament of Gods making in ſpecie as diſtinct from one thats made by man; as is evident in the reaſon of the name.

5. The true nature of this Croſſing is known by the Liturgy, 2. And the Canon. 1. The Liturgy appointeth it to be uſed at Baptiſm, not as a part of our Baptiſm, but as a thing added, immediately after the words [I Baptize thee &c.] even in our Covenanting with God: 2. It thus deſcribeth and appointeth it, [we receive p. 179this Child into the Congregation of Chriſts flock, (here the Prieſt ſhall make a Croſs upon the forehead) and do ſign him with the ſign of the Croſs, in token that hereafter he ſhall not be aſhamed to confeſs the faith of Chriſt Crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner, againſt ſin, the world and the devil: and to continue Chriſts faithful ſervant and ſouldier unto his lives end, Amen.

2. The Rubrick to which we Aſſent and Conſent, referreth us to the 30th Canon, as giving us the true explication thereof, and the juſt reaſons, &c. The Canon ſaith [Chriſtians ſigned their Children therewith when they were Chriſtned, to dedicate them by that badge to his ſervice, whoſe benefits beſtowed on them in Baptiſm the name of the Croſs did repreſent.] The Church of England accounteth it a lawful outward Ceremony, and honourable badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated to the ſervice of him that dyed on the Croſs, as by the words uſed in the Common Prayer it may appear.

3. The Liturgy's Preface of Ceremonies ſaith [that they ſerve to a godly diſcipline, and are ſuch as be apt to ſtir up the dull mind of man, to the remembrance of his duty to God by ſome notable and ſpecial ſignification, whereby he might be edifyed.]

4, We ſuppoſe that here 1. The ſign is the tranſient Image of the Croſs uſed in Gods ſervice. 2. The particular ſervice in which it is uſed, is our Baptiſmal Covenanting with God: 3. The thing ſignified by the ſign it ſelf is the Croſs, and paſſion of Chriſt. 4. The thing ſignified by the Receiving of it is, that we do as Covenanters p. 180profeſs and oblige our ſelves not to be aſhamed to confeſs the faith of Chriſt Crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner againſt ſin, the world and the Devil, and to continue Chriſts faithful ſervants and ſouldiers to our lives end. And that by this we are dedicated to God; And that we take it as an honourable badge hereof. 5. Note that the Miniſter ſpeaketh as Gods Officer from him, and doth not repreſent the Child, nor ſpeak as in his name; that being the part aſſigned to the Godfathers; And the thing ſignified by him in his uſing this ſign is, that he doth as Chriſts Miniſter dedicate him by this ſign, to the ſervice of him that dyed on the Croſs, the name whereof repreſents the benefits beſtowed on him in Baptiſm, (which are all the benefits of that Covenant) and to oblige him to this end, not to be aſhamed to confeſs the faith of Chriſt Crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner (as aforeſaid;) And that this be a badge or ſymbol of his Chriſtian profeſſion.

5. The great fear of the Nonconformiſts is, leſt this be a ſecond ſacrament of the Covenant of graee made by man added to Baptiſm, or at leaſt have moſt of the nature and uſes of it; And leſt Chriſt will take it as an invaſion of his prerogative ſo to uſe it, and to make a new badge or ſymbol of our Chriſtianity; As the King would take it ill of one that would without him, make a badge or ſymbol for his ſubjects as ſubjects, or of the order of the Knights of the Garter as ſuch. And the rather, becauſe it is the uſe of an Image, (though tranſient) in Gods Worſhip, and to ſuch high ends.

XII. The Rubrick which we muſt Aſſent, Approve and conſent to, ſaith, that [There ſhall p. 181none be admitted to the holy Communion, till ſuch time as he be confirmed, or be ready and deſirous to be confirmed,] that is, In the manner preſcribed by the Liturgy. This, as it concerneth the Conformity of the Lay-receiver, is ſpoken of before. But now as it concerneth the Miniſters Aſſent and Conſent. 2. Some that take this for a very uſeful paſſage, as it enableth them to hold back ſome uncapable perſons, dare not approve it, and conſent to it, as it denieth the Church Communion which Chriſt giveth & commandeth, to perſons of unblemiſhed uprightneſs and piety, if they will not profeſs themſelves willing to be confirmed by our Biſhops in the manner before deſcribed; though they are willing to own their Baptiſmal Covenant; and few in moſt places are confirmed.

XIII. The Liturgy ſaith, that [No man ſhould come to the holy Communion but with a full truſt in God's mercy, and a quiet Conſcience.] To which we muſt declare Aſſent, Approbation and Conſent.

2. The ſenſe of theſe words remaineth dubious, whether it ſpeak de neceſſitate praecepti, v…l medii: Some think that the meaning is, that it is the Duty of all that come to the Communion, to have a full truſt, and a quiet Conſcience: Others think that the meaning is only, that all ſhould ſeek theſe: Others think that tht meaning is, that they ſhould not come without them. Their reaſons are, 1. From the plain ſignification of the words: [No man ſhould come but with, &c.] which muſt differ from [They that come ought to be ſuch] 2. Becauſe the neceſſit as praecepti may be affirmed of perfect obedience ſince our uſe of reaſon: It is every mans duty not to ſin at all: And it is p. 182every mans duty to believe, and love God, not only ſincerely, but with a ſtronger Faith and Love; and its every mans duty to ſeek after perfection: And yet no man will ſay that we ſhould not come to the Communion, but with high degrees of grace, or with perfection. 3. And the words are not that they ſhould ſeek it, but that they ſhould not come without it.

3. The Nonconformiſts confeſs that all men ought to have a full Truſt, and a quiet Conſcience: But they think that many 1000 good Chriſtians have but a weak Faith or Truſt, and an unquiet Conſcience: And that the Euchariſt is a Confirming and Comforting Sacrament, and that thoſe that have a weak Truſt, and unquiet Conſcience, ſhould come for ſtrengthening and comfort, and be encouraged to come.

4. Therefore ſeeing no entreaty will prevail with the Impoſers after ſo many years time to explain theſe, and many other ſuch words, they think that the uſual ſenſe of ſuch words muſt be the meaſure of their expoſition; and therefore they dare not profeſs Aſſent, and Approbation, and Conſent, till they are better explained to them.

XIV. The Liturgy requireth that the Prieſt deliver the Communion to the people into their hands, All meekly kneeling.

2. The 27th. Canon ſaith, [No Miniſter ſhall wittingly adminiſter the ſame to any, but to ſuch as kneel under pain of ſuſpenſion.

3. The Conformiſts differ among themſelves about the ſenſe of the Liturgy herein, viz. whether [All kneeling] include a prohibition to deliver it to any that kneel not: ſome ſay No: that p. 183it only bids them give it to ſuch as kneel, but not to deny it others, though the Canon do. Others ſay, yea that it requireth us to give it to no others. Their reaſons are 1. Becauſe elſe the precept ſignified nothing, if men were after it left at liberty. 2. Becauſe [All] plainly excludeth others. 3. Becauſe the Canon being the decrees of the ſame Church, expoundeth the Liturgy; and it is abſurd to ſay that their Rubrick leaveth the Miniſter at Liberty to do that ſame thing for which the Canon ſuſpendeth him. 4. Becauſe we muſt alſo ſubſcribe that we will uſe no other form of adminiſtration, but that of the Liturgy; which Reaſons we judge to be cogent.

4. The Nonconformiſts differ among themſelves about kneeling; ſome taking it to be ſinfully ſcandalous on the reaſons before given; and ſome taking it for lawful. But they commonly hold that it is ſinfull, cruelty and Schiſm for them as Miniſters to caſt any true Chriſtians out of Chriſt's Church and Communion of Saints, and to deny them the body and blood of Chriſt, which he hath commanded his Church to deliver and receive, on ſo ſmall a reaſon as this not kneeling: 1. Conſidering the three reaſons which are before mentioned as the cauſe of their doubt. 2. And that the Holy Ghoſt Rom. 14. commandeth both Paſtors and People to bear with, and receive each other, notwithſtanding ſuch kind of differences: 3. And that good mens judgments in ſuch caſes are not in their own power: 4. And that to tie Communion to ſuch doubtful Circumſtances will certainly cauſe Schiſm; and ſuch doings have long diſtracted Chriſt's Churches through the world. 5. And p. 184Chriſt hath commanded all his true Diſciples to live in loving concord and communion: But kneelers and not kneelers are his true Diſciples: 6. And men muſt not be caſt out of the Churches Communion even for groſs and heinous ſins, unleſs they add obſtinate impenitency. Therefore they dare not Aſſent, Approve, Conſent to, or Practice, this rejecting of godly Chriſtians for not kneeling in the act of receiving, from thoſe priviledges which Chriſt by his teſtament hath given them.

XV. By the Liturgy every Pariſhioner is to communicate twice a year, and by the Canon and ſtatute to be compelled ſo to do: and the Churchwarden to preſent them that do not. And thoſe that do not in a certain time, are to be EXCOMMUNICATED, and after laid in Gaol during life, unleſs they conform. To the Liturgies Impoſition we muſt profeſs Aſſent, &c.

2. Not every Pariſhioner (yea in our experience not one of many) hath a full truſt in God's Mercy, and a quiet Conſcience, without both which they are not to come.

3. Many good Chriſtians have ſo great a ſenſe of their ſins and unworthineſs, that they dare not communicate till they are fitter: And ſome are ſo timerous and melancholy, that hearing the Liturgy threaten men to be given up to the Devil, and eat and drink their own damnation, if they eat and drink unworthily, it would drive them by fear into diſtraction ſhould they take it, till they have better thoughts of their title and preparations; ſo that their dilemma is ſad, when they are either to go to Bedlam, or to the common Gaol.

p. 1854. To ſay that all theſe doubting and timerous people ſhould be otherwiſe minded, and that this is their errour, is true, but as impertinent, as it is to tell all men that they ſhould never ſin or all ignorant carnall ungodly men that they ſhould be wiſe and godly: But to conclude that men ſhould receive the ſacrament, becauſe they ought to be prepared, though they are not prepared, is ſomewhat like telling the ſick that they ſhould work and eat, as they ought to have done if by intemperance they had not diſabled themſelves.

5. There are many among us who are conſcious of Infidelity, Atheiſm, Sadduceiſm and Hereſie, and ſome of many ſecret heinous ſins: ſome of theſe in their hearts deride Chriſtianity and the ſacrament; And the other are afraid of increaſing their damnation: But yet do not make known their ſin: But it is notorious that abundance of ſuch there be: And the doubt is whether theſe ſhould be compelled to the ſacrament thrice a year.

6. The Nonconformiſts hold, that to deliver a man, that ſacrament, is to deliver him the body and blood of Chriſt, and therewith a ſealed pardon of ſin, and guift of life eternal; And they think that the terms on which theſe are to be received, are [wholly devoting our ſelves to Chriſt, denying all, and taking up our Croſs and following him. And therefore that to ſay [Receive the ſacrament, or he in a Gaol] ſeemeth much to alter the terms of the Goſpel, which ſaith [If thou canſt not ſuffer a Gaol for Chriſt, thou art unworthy of him. It is he that can forſake all for Chriſt, that is fit for the ſacrament, and not he that would not Communicate without the fear of a p. 186priſon or other puniſhment. To give the ſacrament, is to give more than all the riches of the world, which none but volunteers and deſirers are fit for.

7. The ancient Churches made delinquents long beg for ſuch great priviledges and gifts, knowing that to give them to thoſe that are unwilling, is to ſubvert the Goſpel. But they never ſaid [Receive them or go to Gaol.]

8. Were it but granted in England that the great gift of Chriſts body and blood, and holy Communion ſhould be adminiſtred and received freely, that is, only given by and to voluntary agents and receivers, it would heal almoſt all the Engliſh differences, between Epiſcopal, Presbyterians and Independents.

9. Yet the Nonconformiſts are not againſt the encouraging of Communicants by ſpecial favours, nor the prudent compelling of Ignorant men to hear the truth, nor the hindering of pernicious hereſies moderately. But the foreſaid compulſion of all Pariſhioners they dare not Approve.

XVI▪ The Miniſter according to the Liturgy is himſelf to give the Euchariſt to many, to whom the Nonconformiſts dare not give it: For they muſt give it thrice a year to all the Pariſhioners, except ſuch as are proved (to him that hath no power to examine them or witneſſes) to be in malice towards others, or to be in any ſcandalous ſin, and that but for that time, till they are accuſed and acquit, or ſtill permitted, viz. 1. They muſt give it to many that conſent not to be any part of their charge, nor take them for their Paſtors, but bid them deny them the Sacrament p. 187if they dare, though they conſent not to the relation. 2. They muſt give it to multitudes of the groſly ignorant, who know not the eſſentials of Chriſtianity or the Sacrament, nor will come to them to be taught: When by fame, yea or perſonal knowledge, they know them to be ſuch, yet without proof (nor we think with proof) they cannot refuſe them. 3. It is known that Infidels and deriders of Scripture and mans Immortal ſtate, do ſwarm more among us. And yet they muſt all Communicate till we can bring proof of it againſt particular perſons: When few men that report it will accuſe their neighbours and prove the accuſation for fear of their diſpleaſure: 4. We muſt give it to all the ungodly that are diſmiſt by a Lay-Chancellour after accuſation, 5. We muſt give it to all that are unwilling to receive it, ſobeit they had rather take it than lie in a Gaol and be undone. 3. On theſe terms the Nonconformiſts dare not Aſſent, Conſent to and Approve the giving of it as is preſcribed. 4. It is confeſſed that compelled Receiving is not commanded by Chriſt, nor was uſed by the Church, for many hundred years, even after Emperours were Chriſtians.

XVII. The Liturgy requireth Miniſters at Burial, to uſe theſe words, importing the ſalvation of the perſon: [Foraſmuch as it hath pleaſed Almighty God of his great mercy, to take to himſelf the ſoul of our dear Brother, here departed] And [We give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleaſed thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miſeries of this ſinful world] And [That we may reſt in him as our hope is this our Brother doth.]

2. The Conformiſts are not agreed of the ſenſe p. 188of theſe words: One ſort of them ſay, that all theſe words import not the ſalvation of the perſon: But the reſt have more ingenuity, and confeſs that elſe the words are not intelligible, and that ſuch equivocation is not tolerable.

3. Some of them ſay that theſe paſſages are good, ſuppoſing Diſcipline well exerciſed; which if it be not, it is not the fault of the Liturgy. But others conſider that 1. We know that Diſcipline is not ſo exerciſed as they ſuppoſe: 2. And that theſe paſſages are not to be approved and uſed whether Diſcipline be ſo exerciſed or not: The meaning is not [I approve of this where Diſcipline is well exerciſed.] 3. It is known that the Biſhops will not have every Prieſt to be Judge.

4. The Canon (which is the work of the ſame Church) thus expoundeth the Churches meaning; 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; or adding any thing in the matter or form thereof.] (This alſo concerneth moſt of the caſes before inſtanced in, as Expoſitions of the Churches meaning.)

5. And Can. 68. its ſaid [No Miniſter ſhall refuſe or delay to bury any Corps that is brought—in ſuch manner and form as is preſcribed in the Book of Common-Prayer: And if he ſhall refuſe—to bury ſuch, except the party deceaſed were denounced excommunicated Majori Excommunicatione, for ſome grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to teſtifie of his repentance, he ſhall be ſuſpended by the Biſhop.

p. 1896. The new Edition of the Liturgy increaſeth the exceptions thus [The Office enſuing is not to be uſed for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or that have laid violent hands on themſelves.]

7. Note 1. That many children of good Chriſtians by ſurprize die unbaptized: 2. Many godly ſober perſons are excommunicated for ſome point of Nonconformity: 3. Some upright Chriſtians in phrenſies, melancholies and diſtractions make away themſelves.

8. Note, That Atheiſts, Infidels, Sadduces, Blaſphemers, Whoremongers, &c. ſwarm now among us, and we rarely hear of any one of theſe multitudes that are excommunicated; ſo that they are not excepted.

9. It cannot be denyed, that exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis: ſo that no other muſt be excepted.

10. It is known that all England conſiſts of all the Individuals, and all the people are all England.

11. We commonly Preach that without Faith and Holineſs none ſhall ſee God; and that Whoremongers, Drunkards, &c. cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

12. Therefore either we conſent to pronounce almoſt all ſuch to be ſaved (at a time when our words take the deepeſt impreſſion,) or elſe more exceptions muſt be made.

13. Some ſay that the Excommunicable are included in the Excommunicated; But the Canon and the expreſs words of the Liturgy, and the Churches▪ abhorrence that the Prieſt ſhall be Judge, do ſo notoriouſly confute this bold aſſertion, that by ſuch ſtretches almoſt any thing may be ſaid or ſworn, and it ſhall not be known by authority, when, or how far any Subject is obliged by Covenants or Oaths.

p. 190XVIII. The Liturgy requireth [that ſuch ornaments of the Church and of the Miniſters thereof at all times of their Miniſtration, ſhall be retained and in uſe, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the 2d. Tear of Ed. 6.

2. The Canon of the ſame Church expoundeth their meaning cap. 58. Thus [every Miniſter ſaying the publick prayers or Miniſtring the Sacraments or other rites of the Church, ſhall wear a decent and comely Surplice &c.

3. We ſuppoſe in the 2d. of King Ed. 6. The Cope, Alb and other veſtments were in uſe, which ſeem forbidden by the Common-Prayer Book in the 5th. and 6th. of Ed. 6.

4. The Conformiſts agree not of the ſenſe of this Rubrick, 1. Whether all theſe are hereby reduced or not. 2. Whether it forbid all Miniſters to officiate without a Surplice, or only Command the uſe of it, without an implyed penalty: But the words, and the forecited Canons ſhew that the Church intended an excluſion of all that will not uſe it: And we muſt ſubſcribe to adminiſter in no other form.

5. The Nonconformiſts differ about the Surplice; ſome taking it to be Lawful, and others to be unlawful: But they Commonly hold that Preaching Chriſts Goſpel is commanded by God, and that Miniſters by their ordination are obliged to do the work of that Office, and that Surplices are not commanded by God; and therefore, if a man miſtakingly ſhould take the uſe of the Surplice to be ſinful, he ſhould not therefore be ejected and ſilenced: And therefore they dare not declare Approbation and Conſent to the Rubrick p. 191or ſubſcribed form in the Canon which implyeth this reſtraint.

XIX. The Damnatory ſentences in the Creed called Athanaſius's, are to be Aſſented, Approved and Conſented to.

2. If they referred but to the Doctrine of the Trinity, and not to the particulars of that explication, it would not be excepted againſt: But ſome R. Reverend Conformiſts do profeſs that thoſe ſentences are untrue, and not to be approved.

3. But ſuch think that the Churches meaning is not to require us to Aſſent or Approve them as true, but only to Conſent to uſe them: And they prove it, becauſe the ſame Church requireth us to Read the Books of Tobit, &c. which have palpable untruths, and not to believe them to be true.

4. But that reaſon ſeemeth null and vain; 1. Becauſe the Apocrypha is no part of the Book to which we muſt Profeſs Aſſent, Approbation and Conſent, nor to which by the Canon we muſt ex animo ſubſcribe, that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God. But Athanaſius's Creed, with thoſe damnatory ſentences, are part of that Book. Indeed the Liturgy requireth us to read thoſe Apocryphal untruths, but they are no part of the Book: 2. And it being not the ſenſe of the Liturgy, but of a Statute of Parliament, which we here doubt of, it ſeemeth inſufficient, if not impertinent, to tell us what is taken for the ſenſe of the Church; for the doubt is What is the ſenſe of the Parliament, which we can no otherwiſe know but by the plain words, till they will otherwiſe declare their meaning.

5. And indeed if the paſſages in Tobit, which ſome Reverend Biſhops call Lies (about the p. 192Angel's ſaying that he was the Son of Ananias, of the Tribe of Napthali, and the fiſhes driving away all Devils, that they ſhall never return) were but to be read, we know not how to approve of that Law, Calendar or Rubrick, that commandeth ſuch reading of them. But yet that is much leſs than the Aſſent required to Athanaſius's Creed; which yet we take (ſave thoſe damnatory ſentences) to be the beſt explication of the Myſtery of the ſacred Trinity, which in ſo ſhort a ſumme is extant in the Church.

XX. The Liturgy ſaith [All Prieſts and Deacons are to ſay daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by ſickneſs, or ſome other urgent cauſe. And the Curate that miniſtreth in every Pariſh-Church or Chapel, being at home, and not being otherwiſe reaſonably hindred, ſhall ſay the ſame in the Pariſh-Church or Chapel where he miniſtreth, &c.

2. The Conformiſts agree not of the ſenſe of this; ſome think that the ordinary incommodities of ſuch a commanded uſe, may paſs as thoſe hinderances or urgent cauſes mentioned in the exceptions: But the more plain and ingenuous dealers hold, that the urgent cauſes and hinderances here mentioned, muſt be ſomewhat extraordinary, and not any thing which is the uſual caſe of moſt Miniſters.

3. Cathedrals and ſome other Churches have many Prieſts and Deacons of whom one only can daily oſſiciate in publick. And many are Chaplains in ſuch mens houſes as will have other free prayers uſed. And moſt Miniſters have great and neceſſary work to do, which muſt all be left undone, while the Common Prayer is p. 193ſaid over by them twice a day. They have Sermons to ſtudy, many Books to read, that they may be furniſhed with neceſſary knowledge for their work: They have abundance of ignorant pariſhioners to inſtruct, exhort or comfort; They have the ſick to viſit, the dead to bury, the Sacraments to adminiſter, families to govern, inſtruct and provide for. And many find free prayer from the immediate ſenſe of their caſe and wants, to be ſo profitable to them that they cannot ſpare it: All which and more require the the ſtricteſt improvement of every minute of their time: And if the Liturgy be read over by every Prieſt and Deacon twice a day, it is certain that much of theſe aforeſaid muſt be omitted. And it is a great part of our Chriſtian duty, when two good things come together, to chooſe that which hic et nunc is the greater; to chooſe the leſſer then being a ſin.

4. Therefore the Nonconformiſts dare not Aſſent, Approve and Conſent to the tying of every Prieſt and Deacon ordinarily to read over the Liturgy twice every day. And they are the more averſe to ſuch Approbation, by ſeeing ſo very few Conformiſts, Comparatively, to practice this themſelves; which ſheweth that they take it to be unlawful; ſeeing it is their judgement that our Rulers muſt be obeyed in all things which are lawful to be ſo done. And if they that make ſuch declarations of Approbation think it unlawful ordinarily to keep them, we may doubt whether it be lawful ſo to make them, as is required of us.

5. If God ask us why we did not teach our families, viſit the ſick, inſtruct ignorant neighbours, p. 194ſtudy better for to diſcharge our Miniſterial work, that we might be men of knowledge, and ſuch like, the doubt is whether it will paſs for a good anſwer to ſay, we had not time, becauſe we muſt twice a day read the Common-Prayer.

XXI. Aſſenting, Approving and Conſenting to all things, even to all forms, orders, &c. includeth the order of the Liturgy. Two Rules of the order of Prayer are commonly acknowledged 1. The nature and order of the matter to be expreſſed. 2. The Lords Prayer us a directory delivered by Chriſt.

2. The Nonconformiſts that think that for the main there is nothing but good contained in moſt of the Prayers of the Liturgy; yet think that they are greatly diſordered and defective; neither formed according to the order of matter, nor of the Lords Prayer, but like an immethodical Sermon, which is unſuitable to the high ſubjects and honourable work of holy worſhip.

3. They have oft offered, whenever it will be well taken, to give in a Catalogue of the diſorders and defects of the Liturgy: Which yet they think it lawful to uſe, in obedience, or for unity, or when no better may be uſed: But not to approve of ſuch diſorder; as we do not approve of the failings of any of our own duties, though we are daily guilty of them unwillingly.

XXII. The Preface to the Book of Ordination ſaith, that [It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scriptures and ancient Authors, that from the Apoſtles time there have been theſe ORDERS in Chriſt's Church, Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons, as ſeveral OFFICES; which p. 195are repeated oft in the Collects at Ordination: To this all muſt Aſſent and Conſent.

2. Some of us are conſcious that we have diligently read the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors, and yet three ORDERS and OFFICES are not evident to us.

3. We have great reaſon to believe that Calvin, Beza, and many more Reformers, Blondell, Salmatius, Robert Parker, Gerſom, Bucer, Calderwood, Cartwright, John Reynolds, Ames, Ainſworth, and multitudes of ſuch Proteſtants, did diligently read both Scriptures and Ancients: As alſo Dr. S…illingfleet, Biſhop Edw. Reynolds, and many ſuch, who thought that Scripture inſtituted no particular forms of Government: As alſo Armachanus, and many other Papiſts, who think that Biſhops and Prieſts do not differ ordine, but gradu, which the R. Reverend Archbiſhop Uſher ordinarily profeſſed: We cannot aſſert that none of theſe diligently read Scripture or ancient Authors.

4. But eſpecially when we find that even the ancient Church of England was of another mind, as is legible in the Canons of Aelfrick to Wulfine in Spelman, pag. 573. 576. which conclude that (in the old large ſenſe) there were but ſeven Eccleſiaſtical Orders or Degrees, and that the Biſhops and Presbyters are not two, but one: Hand pluris intereſt inter Miſſalem Presbyterum & Epiſcopum, quam quod Epiſcopus constitutus ſit ad ordinationes conferendas, & ad viſitandum ſeu inſpiciendum curandumque ea quae ad Deum pertinent, quod nimiae crederetur multitudini ſi omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret. Ambo ſiquidem UNUM tenent EUNDEMQUE ORDINEM, p. 196quamvis dignior ſit illa pars Epiſcopi.] 18. Non eſt alius ORDO conſtitutus in Eccleſiaſticis Miniſteriis, &c. Et Leg. Canuti, p. 551. Paſtores vocamus Epiſcopos & Sacerdotes, quorum partes ſunt eruditione at que doctrina gregem Domini ſpeculari ac deſendere, &c.

5. And Dr. Stillingſleet hath proved by ſufficient evidence, that the ſame was the judgment of Archbiſhop Cranmer, and other Reformers of the Church of England. And it is the judgment of ſome of our Biſhops and Conformiſts now. All which we ſpeak not to ſhew which ſide we think to be in the right; but that the ſtate of the queſtion is, Whether we can aſſent to this as true, and approve and conſent that it be uſed, as is appointed, [That it's evident to all men diligently reading, &c. that de facto there were three ORDERS and Offices from the Apoſtles times.

XXIII. The ordering of Prieſts requireth the Biſhop to ſpeak to the people at the Ordination of Prieſts, calling them [to come forth in the name of God, and ſhew what crime or impediment they know in the perſons to be ordained, &c.] In imitation of the ancient Churches, when the Congregation over which they were ſet, had their voice in his election or reception.

2. The doubt is, whether ſuch a ſolemn invitation, as in God's name, be not too vain to be Aſſented, and Approved, and Conſented to, in a Church, where the people over whom he is ſet, never uſe to be preſent, nor invited to it, nor have any notice of it, or any call to meddle therein; being uſually many miles, and often many ſcore miles diſtant; nor any other people called to that work; and rarely any people p. 197there that have any knowledge of the man and his converſation.

XXIV. The Ordaining of Prieſts, and the Conſecration of Biſhops both uſe theſe words as concerning the Office [Receive the Holy Ghoſt for the Office and work of a Prieſt, of a Biſhop, &c.]

2. It is not doubted but that the Holy Ghoſt muſt ſet Paſtors over the Flocks; 1. By qualifying men for the Office, and making them deſirous of it: Both Grace, Ability and Willingneſs are of him: 2. By giving the Ordainers a diſcerning skill to know whom to ordain: 3. By giving the flock a diſcerning and a willing mind. We yet know not of any other Collation of the Holy Ghoſt, which Ordination can make. Nor know we that in any of theſe ſenſes theſe words can be well underſtood: For 1. Grace, Gifts and Willingneſs, are the diſpoſitio recipient is preſuppoſed: we ſee not how it can be lawful to ordain him that ſeemeth not before to have them▪ what elſe are they examined about? Nor know we that God hath given any power to the Ordainers now, by the laying on of hands, to make an ungodly man godly, or an unlearned or ignorant man to be learned or wiſe, or a man of ill utterance to have a better tongue, or an unwilling man to be willing. The Apoſtles had a miraculous power of giving the Holy Ghoſt for extraordinary works, and for abilities ſuddenly infuſed; and they did it: we never knew of any in our age that did it; and therefore ſuppoſe that they have no promiſe or power ſo to do. 2. And to give a diſcerning skill to the Ordainers; 3. Or to give a diſcerning or willing mind to the people, are neither of them a giving p. 198the Holy Ghoſt to the Prieſt. The doubt is, whether this be not an abuſe of the words which Chriſt himſelf or his Apoſtles uſed, and ſo not to be aſſented to, approved and conſented to.

3. Yet is it not denyed, but that Miniſterial Authority is given by the ordainers as Miniſters, Deliverers or Inveſters: But Authority is not the Holy Ghoſt ſo called.

4. Nor is it denyed but that as Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt do enter into Covenant with us as Chriſtians in our baptiſm ſo do they with Miniſters, as ſuch, in their ordination-covenant: But ſuch a Relation to the Holy Ghoſt as the Miniſters future helper in his work, cannot well be ſuppoſed to be all that is meant by the words [Receive the Holy Ghoſt,] both Scripture and common uſe, taking them in another ſenſe.

XXV. This Oath in the Conſecration of Biſhops is to be taken by every Biſhop [In the name of God Amen. I. N. Choſen Biſhop of the Church and See of N. do profeſs and promiſe all due reverence and obedience to the Arch Biſhop, and to the Metropolitical Church of N. and to their ſucceſſours, ſo help me God through Jeſus Chriſt.

2. It is not pretended that any ſuch Oaths of obedience were inſtituted by Chriſt or his Apoſtles; or were uſed in the Churches for many hundred years, nor till the Papacy was riſing, which was furthered by ſuch Oaths.

3. They that ſuppoſe Biſhops to be ſucceſſours of the Apoſtles, cannot make them ſubjects to any other Eccleſiaſtical Rulers, without aſſerting that the Apoſtles were Governours over one another; which we find not that they do.

p. 1994. It was many hundred years before Arch-Biſhops had any Governing power over Biſhops, or exacted any obedience from them; being not Epiſcopi Epiſcoporum (as the Carthage Fathers in Cyprian profeſſed.) But were only ſuch as had the firſt ſeats and voices in the Synods.

5. The queſtion therefore is, whether ſuch Oaths, as neceſſary to a Biſhops conſecration, be to be Approved and conſented to?

XXVI. An Oath of Canonical obedience alſo is put upon all that are made Prieſts and Deacons: And Prieſts at their ordination muſt make this Covenant, that they [will reverently obey their Ordinary, and other chief Miniſters, unto whom is committed the charge and Government over them.]

2. The ordinary is not only the Biſhop, but alſo the Chancellour, Officials, Surrogates, Comiſſaries, Arch-Deacons, and all that are Judges' in the Eccleſiaſtical Courts.

3. to obey them that are thus de facto ſet over us, is no leſs than to obey them in the excerciſe of that power which is given them as ſo ſet over us.

4. The doubt is, whether they that take any of them to be Uſurpers of an Eccleſiaſtical power, which indeed they have not (and can prove it to be ſo) ſhould ſwear or Covenant obedience to them as ſuch. e. g. It is commonly confeſſed by the Conformiſts that the true power of the Keys, of excommunication and Abſolution is appropriated by Chriſt to the Clergy: And yet our Chancellours being lay men, do decretively excerciſe that power. The queſtion is, may we ſwear or Covenant to obey them?

5. And ſeeing Chriſt never gave one Presbyter p. 200the Government of others, as Archdeacons, Surrogates, Officials, &c. whether all the reſt may ſwear obedience to them, or Approve of and conſent to the uſe of ſuch Oaths? And divers Councils have condemned it as a dangerous practice for Biſhops to tle ſubject Presbyters to them by Oaths.

XXVII. Miniſters that live among the people have greateſt advantage to know the penitent from the impenitent.

2. But it is the foreſaid lay Chancellours, who uſually know nothing of them but by reports, that excommunicate and abſolve them. And the Pariſh-Miniſter muſt (as a cryer readeth a proclamation or ſentence of a Judge) openly read theſe excommunications and abſolutions.

3. Theſe excommunications muſt paſs according to the Canons, againſt all that ſhall affirm that [there is any thing in the book of Common-Prayer r…pugnant to the Scripture or any of the 39 Articles …rroneous, or any of the Rites and Ceremonies ſuch as he may not with a good conſcience ſubſcribe to, or that the Government by Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Arch-Deacons and the reſt that bear Office in the Church of England, is repugnant to the word of God, or that any thing in the form and manner of making & conſecrating Biſhops, Prieſts or Deacons is repugnant to the word of God, &c.]

4. The preſent doubt is whether a Miniſter who knoweth ſuch of his Pariſh to be godly, peaceable men, whom the Chancellour decretively excommunicateth, may both openly read and declare ſuch excommunications and alſo ſwear or Covenant ſo to do, in obedience to the Ordinary. And whether when he knoweth that a wicked p. 201impenitent man is abſolved, he may pronounce ſuch abſolutions.

XXVIII. The Oath of Canonical obedience ſeemeth to mean obedience according to the Canons: And he that Covenanteth to obey his ordinary, muſt be ſuppoſed to mean no leſs than [According to the Canon Laws by which he is known to govern,] and as Government thereby is excerciſed:

2. And if ſo, then there are more things in the Canons and preſent Government, which the Nonconformiſts dare not ſwear or Covenant to obey (beſides thoſe already named,) than we will now ſtand to enumerate.

XXIX. The Rubrick ſaith that [the Miniſter who repelleth any from the Sacrament, ſhall be obliged to give an account of the ſame to the Ordinary within 14 daies after, at the furtheſt.

2. If all that by groſs ignorance, Atheiſm, Infidelity, Sadduciſm, Hereſie, Schiſm, Drunkenneſs, Whoredom, Stealing, Malice, &c. are uncapable of the Communion be preſented to the Ordinary within 14 daies, no charity that is guided by knowledge of the common ſtate of the people, can think, that in London Dioceſs there would be fewer than many ſcore thouſands preſented at once. And in other Dioceſſes many ſcore hundreds at leaſt,

3. Some Miniſters dwell a hundred Miles or neer from the Biſhops. And the Biſhops are divers of them ſo much at London or abroad, as that it cannot be expected that all theſe muſt be preſented to the Biſhop himſelf, but to the Chancellours court, as is uſual.

4. The Chancellours Court is ſo far from moſt p. 202Miniſters in the Land, and the proſecuting ſo many when proof is demanded, will be ſo chargeable and take up ſo much time, as that it will undo many poor Miniſters, that have ſcarce enough to maintain their families; and it will take up the time which they ſhould uſe in the neceſſary labours for their flocks.

5. The Chancellour is a lay man to whom they muſt be preſented: And the iſſue will be but a lay mans excommunicating them, if obſtinate; or abſolving them: Which is not juſtified by the Biſhops themſelves.

6. At the ſaid Chancellours court things are managed as at a civil judicature: There is not that endeavour to convince ſinners by Scripture, and to draw them to true Repentance, by humbling evidence, intreaties and prayers for them, as ſhould be for the ſaving of a ſoul from ſin: But the charges of the court fees, and the fears of a priſon after excommunication, maketh it an unacceptable and as unlikely means to convert men as the ſtocks.

7. Therefore for a miniſter to preſent all his Pariſhioners to ſuch courts, whom he is bound to deny the Sacrament to, were but to make him ſeem their greateſt and cruelleſt enemy, and to render him uncapable of ever (probably) profiting them by his Miniſtry any more; and conſequently, greatly to promote their damnation and make them almoſt hopeleſs as to recovery. And if by this terrour they tell the Chancellour that they Repent, how little ſatiſfaction is that to the Miniſter, that never ſaw, himſelf, any ſigns of their repentance.

8. The doubt is then, whether the uſe of this p. 203Rubrick may be Approved and Conſented to.

9. Eſpecially conſidering that all the Pariſh who receive not thrice a year, (of which Eaſter muſt be one for them all) muſt be preſented to the ſaid ordinary, and alſo all that come not to Church; By which means divers Pariſhes about London muſt have ſome 10000, ſome 20000, ſome 30000, ſome 40000, or 50000, that have no room in the Church, all preſented if this Law were executed.

XXX. We have reaſon to doubt whether the Act of Uniformity it ſelf be not part of the Books which we muſt ſubſcribe Aſſent and Conſent to; becauſe it is ſo ſaid in the Book it ſelf: The Contents of the Book are firſt named in general, and then this Act named among the Contents. Either it is part of the Contents, or it is not; if it be not, we muſt not aſſent and conſent to that falſhood (that it is;) If it be, O far be it from us that believe a God, a Judgment, and a life to come, and the ſacred Scriptures, to Aſſent and Conſent to that Act with all its penalties, ſilencing and ruining ſuch as conform not. One of us that was oft with the great, wiſe, juſt Lord Chief Juſtice Hales, hath heard him lamenting the Schiſms and diſcords of the Clergy, ſeriouſly ſay, that [There was no right way to heal us, but by a New Act of Uniformity.] (And hath his late Writings againſt laying Concord or Religion upon mens unneceſſary additions.) And the Reporter taketh not himſelf to be wiſer than him, nor meet to Aſſent and Conſent to ſuch a Law, conſidering the experience of theſe ſeventeen years, and the conſequents on mens divided and exaſperated minds, p. 204upon the Congregations, upon Miniſters and Families, and upon the ſtate and ſecurity of the Chriſtian Religion, and the Proteſtant Cauſe, &c. As to them that ſay that the Act nameth the Book as diſtinct from it ſelf; we anſwer, 1. So do the Titles of Acts of Parliament name the Act it ſelf as diſtinct from the Title, and yet we ſuppoſe that Title part of the Act. 2. The Book nameth the Act as part of its Contents, as is aforeſaid.

If we ſhould by miſtake think ſome of theſe paſſages to be unlawful that are not, or to have a worſe ſenſe than indeed they have, let theſe things be conſidered.

1. We judge as well as we are able; and whatever ſenſe another takes them in, we that ſo underſtand them cannot take them.

2. We judge of the ſenſe by the plain words; the force and ſtretch is not by us but by thoſe that conform and contradict our ſenſe.

3. The Law-givers will not otherwiſe expound their own words, after 17 years waiting for it under Compulſive Executions: Certainly if they would have us underſtand their words contrary to common uſe, they would rather tell us ſo after ſeventeen years time, than ruine us, and forbear ſo eaſie a means to heal the Churches.

4. Some of us ſo highly value the excellent Praelections of Biſhop Sanderſon de juramento, and his judgment, againſt taking and expounding Oaths (and conſequently profeſſions and promiſes) in a ſtretched or a doubtful ſenſe, and his Counſel to refuſe them, when the ſenſe is doubtful, if the Rulers or Impoſers will not expound them p. 205(though they ſhould bid us take them in our own ſenſe;) with much more which he hath excellently ſaid to ſuch purpoſes, that we thankfully acknowledge that he hath much helpt for to fortifie us againſt the guilt of perjury, and falſhood, and prophaning the holy name of God, and deceiving our Governours by equivocations and falſe expoſitions, and ſcandalouſly tempting others to perjury, lying, or ſuch other ſins.

We take an underſtanding, ſerious (and if it may be publick) owning of the Baptiſmal Covenant in age to be of ſo great moment to the reviting of true Chriſtianity and the honour of Baptiſm and cure of Anabaptiſm, that it greatly grieveth us that we muſt deſpair of its effectual practiſe, when we meet with few that ſeem not to approve it. The words of a very Learned and Great Conformiſt Mr Elder field of Baptiſm pag. 48. marg. We think worthy our recital.

Upon ſcore of like reaſon (ſaith he) whereto, and for ſuch after tryal, may have been taken up in the Chriſtian Church, that examination which did ſift the conſtancy or rather conſiſtency of thoſe that had been taken in young, to their preſumed grounds, that if they wavered they might be known and diſcharged, or if they remained conſtant, they might by impoſition of hands receive what the Commoner name of that Ceremony did import, of their faith (at leaſt a ſign of) Confirmation. Vaſquez hath from Eraſmus (in the Preface to his Paraphraſe on the Goſpels) a word of moſt wholſom grave and prudent adviſe, that thoſe who were Baptized young, when they begin to write man, ſhould be examined, an ratum p. 206habeant id quod in Catechiſmo ipſorum nomine promiſſum: Quod ſi ratum non habeant, ab Eccliſiae juriſdictione liberos manere; in 3. p. Thom. diſp. 154. To. 2. c. 1. ſect. 2. If they did then ſtand to what their ſureties promiſed for them. If not they ſhould be diſcarded. Moſt neceſſary! and of unimaginable benefit! Such a ſcrutiny would ſhake off thouſands of rotten hypocrites, and purge the Church of many ſuch Inſide! believers or profeſſours, upon whoſe dirty faces a little holy water was ſprinkled when they knew not what it was; but they no more mind the true ſanctification appertaining than the Turks or Saracens (who ſhall riſe up in judgement againſt their waſhed filthineſs,) or than thoſe of whom St. Peter [It is hapned to them according to the true proverb: The dog to his vomit, and the waſhed ſwine to wallow in the mire.] Such diſcipline of a wakened Reaſon is that the world groans for; that men would become Chriſtians. O that the truth of faith, and power of true Chriſtian belief might be ſeen in thoſe that knowingly put the neck in Chriſts yoak.] So far he. See alſo Dr. Patrick of Baptiſm. And of our ſelves Mr. Hanmer and Baxter have written Treatiſes only on this ſubject, to ſhew that ſuch true Confirmation would be the moſt excellent means to heal moſt of our enormities and diviſions.

And ſhall ſuch Jeſuits as Vaſquez, ſuch moderators as Eraſmus, and Proteſtant Conformiſts, and Nonconformiſts, all thus ſpeak for it, and yet no hope? No wonder if a word or ceremony that we diſagree in, can make our wound ſo ſad as we have ſelf, when that which we in words p. 207agree for, and that not as a thing indifferent, but ſo neceſſary, cannot yet be obtained though we periſh. Dead Images of all good things, is but the laſt and moſt effectual means of deſtroying the life and real good: Dead ſhews and Images of good, are Hypocriſie; ſincerity is reality, ſeriouſneſs and life. We take our Baptiſm to be our Chriſtening, or the ſumme of the Chriſtian Religion: And it is but for men to do that ſeriouſly at Age, which they did in Infancy by others authorized (or others for them) which is the Converſion which we daily preach: And it grieveth us to ſee what multitudes, when aged, never ſeriouſly think either what they did or received in their Infancy; and how many hate ſuch a life as they have vowed, and yet think that they ſtand to their Baptiſmal Covenant. And till the Paſtors of the Church make a ſerious work of it, to bring all their Pariſhes to a ſerious underſtanding and conſideration of their Baptiſm, and a ſerious owning it, and renewing of that Covenant, we cannot hope that the people will be ſerious Chriſtians; or that men will not think that ſerious Anabaptiſts are better than Hypocrites that contemn their Baptiſm.

SECT. II.

The Second Part of the Matter of Conformity.

THE Firſt Part de facto, being contained in the Canonical Subſcription, and the Declaration, hath been opened: The Second Part is p. 208the caſe of Reordination. Either they that require Epiſcopal Ordination for all that were otherwiſe ordained when Biſhops were put out, do intend it a ſecond Ordination or not. If yea, then it is a thing condemned by the ancient Churches, by the Canons called the Apoſtles, &c. and by Gregory M. and others likened to Anabaptiſtry. If not, then they take ſuch mens former Ordination to be null, and conſequently no Miniſters to be true Miniſters that are ſo ordained, and not by Dioceſans; and conſequently all ſuch Churches to be no true Churches (while they take the Roman Ordination to be valid.) To ſpeak of the conſequences of this as to the nullity of Baptizings and Conſecration of the Lords Supper, &c. and of the taking of God's name in vain in the Office if it prove evil, would be to go further than the Matter of Fact.