the beginning Whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith And the Catholick Faith is this c. And in the end This is the Catholick Faith which except a Man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Answer if our Assent be required only to the Use of this Creed and not to a belief of the Truth of every part of it the controversie will be at an end Secondly The Belief of things as necessary to Salvation is granted by Non-conformists to be not an Assent to the several Phrases and obscure Words but to the general sense contained in them Now the sense of our Church in proposing this Creed may be judged by the Use which she makes of the Apostles Creed not only in the daily Profession of it but in the Office of Baptism as containing all the necessary points of Faith into which we are Baptized And in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith which doth shew that no more is required as necessary to Salvation than what is contained in the Apostles Creed Thirdly In this Creed some things are propounded as necessary points of Faith which Men of weak judgments may apprehend as that we Worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity Other things are for a clearer explication of that Doctrin and vindication of it from the errors that were then risen in the Church as the Arrians and Nestorians who erred concerning the Divinity of Christ and his two Natures which begin thus For there is one Person of the Father c. After which followeth the necessary Doctrine again So that in all things as is aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity is to be Worshipped He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity So that the Doctrine of the Trinity is that Faith which is proposed as necessary to Salvation I know the exception of many against this Creed is in relation to the Heathen who seem by it to be excluded from Salvation In which respect I suppose it is that Mr. Baxter says p. 191. That some R. Reverend Conformists do profess that those Sentences are untrue and not to be approved and he instanceth somewhere in Mr. Chillingworths refusal to subscribe it But if this be the ground of the Exception I conceive that the generality of the Non-conformists who maintain the same Opinion which is consonant to the Scriptures and to the Assemblies Confession of Faith to which Mr. Baxter also hath declared his Assent in this particular will not oppose For in the Assemblies Confession C. 10. Article 4. concerning effectual calling they say That Men not professing the Christian Religion cannot be saved in any way whatsoever be they never so diligent to frame their Lives according to the Light of Nature and the Law of that Religion they do profess and to assert and maintain that they may is very pernicious and to be detested And I know some Non-conformists have lately blamed some Conformists for seeming to incline to the contrary Opinion Which if this be sense of the Creed our Church doth explode yet some Non-conformists think that by holding the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed they do not judge the Heathen World and that they dobut not but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him so that this obloquie is silenced But it is most probable that Athanasius intended the Explanatory part of the Creed against the Arrians and other Hereticks in the Church who if they denied the Divinity of Christ and dyed in that error who can think they can be saved seeing they make Christ a meer Creature and overthrow the Doctrine of our Redemption by him But that he should condemn all that have a true though but a weak Faith in the Holy Trinity and cannot comprehend the manner of the Eternal Generation of the Son the Procession of the Holy Ghost and the Co-equality of the Trinity cannot be thought to have been the Mind of Athanasius P. 192. N. 20. The Liturgy saith All Priests and Deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer privately or openly not being lett by sickness or some other urgent cause c. Answ That the Primitive Christians did meet daily not only for publick Prayers but to receive the Sacrament is believed and that it is our duty to Pray Morning and Evening cannot be denyed and what should hinder but that such as are specially devoted to the Service of God should Pray openly with the people if not reasonably hindred or at least pray privately for them there are many that do their duty herein and if all did it would be better with us because all Men do not perform their Baptismal Vows is it fit that none such should be made we see this duty is performed in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and in many other places where there is a liberal maintenance provided for the Priests and Deacons where though one only do Officiate yet all those that are present may say the daily Prayers as the Liturgy requires which is another frivolous Objection of Mr. Baxters p. 192. n. 3. The next is a Calumny against the whole Liturgy viz. that the Prayers are disorderly and defective not 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 Honorable Work of Holy Worship and that the Non-conformists have Offered when it shall be well accepted to give in a Catalogue of the disorders and defects of the Liturgy But all this notwithstanding they think it lawful to Use the Liturgy in Obedience or for Unity or when no better may be Used It is something to go thus far but if they would impartially consider the defects and confusions which were in the Directory as it hath been considered by Doctor Hammond or in Mr. Baxters Eight days exploit for a more correct Nepenthes and shall on the other side read that account which Mr. Comber and others have given of the Methodical order and dependance of the several Prayers and Offices the Grave and Scriptural Phrases and Expressions in the Liturgy he may perceive that this is fitter to guide the Devotion of the Universal Church than those other are for Country Conventicles P. 194. He excepts against the Preface to the Book of Ordination where it is said that It is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several Offices Answ I shall not trouble my Readers with the Arguments of Learned Men for the Order of Bishops in the Church ever since the Apostles days as distinct from Presbyters much less shall I repeat those uncomely Reflections which Mr. Baxter hath made on Diocesan Bishops in both his late Books It may suffice in Answer to this Objection that Mr. Baxter
Infirmities of which many instances may be given And why should we so limit the goodness and Power of God as to think that if he sent an Holy Angel for the Preservation of a good Man which he often did before the coming of Christ he could not bless any means for the effecting of a good end The next passage excepted against by Mr. Baxter is that where the Angel says that he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Nephthali Whereas the Scripture frequently calls Angels by the name of such Men as they represent Gen. 19.12 The Angels sent down to Sodom are called Men the Angels that appeared at the Ascension are called Men in white Apparel besides these names were assumed as significative of the end wherefore the Angel was sent Azarias signifying the help of God and Ananias the Grace and Favour of God But it is farther Objected that it is not appointed that the Priest shall tell the People that those Lessons are Apocryphal or what that word signifyeth Answ Neither is it denyed them to inform the People as oft as such Lessons are to be read And lastly Mr. Baxter thinks that the chief doubt is whether the Calender appointing those Lessons may be consented to which upon supposition that those Lessons contain nothing contrary to Gods Word or sound Doctrine may undoubtedly be done especially in case of Deprivation Mr. Baxter resolves the case thus p. 191. That 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 P. 167. Mr. Baxter resumes the business of Godfathers against which he multiplyeth words rather than objections as 1. That no Parent is permitted to be Godfather to his own Child or to speak at his Baptism or Dedicate him or promise in his name or to undertake any part of his Education All which is frivolous for the Godfathers are to be Sureties for the credibility of the Parent as well as for the Child and so the word Surety implyes that the Parent is the principal and who ever thought the Church intended to exclude the Parents Duty to which the Law of God and Nature bind him and from which nothing but death can excuse him Nor did ever any good Man think that his procuring of Godfathers did supersede his duty towards his Child but that it was his duty more especially to do what they promised in behalf of the Parents And though it be not expressed that the Godfather is the Parents Representative yet the contrary is not implyed as Mr. Baxter says because as he there says the Parents are to procure the Godfathers and how can Mr. Baxter tell whether he bespeaks him to be his Representative or not Calvin advised the Parent to bring his Sureties with him Epist 302. And that they should answer to the Interrogatories which was the practice at Geneva and by Beza approved in the Church of England Quis damnare ausit Epist the 8. to Grindal As to his demand whether it be not enough that the Baptized Infant be the Child of a Believing Parent I answer the Church thinks it sufficient in the case of private Baptism where no more is required yet the Church may require witnesses that the Parent is such a one under which notion they do represent him and for the better Assurance the Church requires that the Godfathers themselves be such as have received the Holy Communion i. e. in the Language of the Primitive Church that they be fideles But he makes another Query whether the Godfathers Act be truly the Child 's in Gods account Answ That Infants may be ingaged in a Covenant with God cannot be denyed They were entred into a Covenant by Circumcision under the Law Deut. 29.11.12 And for this reason our Children may be called Holy as entred to a Covenant with God and receiving the Priviledges of Baptism and fit it is they should be early obliged to the Duties of the Covenant And being not capable to do this of themselves it is requisite that some others should do it on their behalf with that solemnity which becomes so great an Ordinance Buxtorf mentions a Susceptor at the Circumcision of Infants under the Law And many Divines think that Custom was practised from Isa 8.2.3 of which see the Notes of Junius and Tremelius in Locum Mr. Calvin to Knox Epist 285. I confess that Stipulation is necessary for nothing is more preposterous than that those should be ingrafted into Christs Body whom we may not hope to be his Disciples wherefore if none of the Kindred appear that may give his Faith to the Church and take charge of Teaching the Child it is but a Lusorious Action and the Baptism is defiled Tertullian among the Ancients speaks of Sureties for Children at Baptism and of the Three Interrogatories concerning their Belief of the Creed Renouncing the Devil and the Christian-Warfare and some think there is an Intimation of the same in the 1 Pet. 3.21 St. Cyprian St. August and many others mention the same The Reformed Churches have owned this Practise The Bohemian Geneva Dutch French and many able Divines have defended it And it is resolved by them that the words I Believe I Reneounce c. being a Form of words to express the contract do oblige the Infant which was anciently done alio protestante and therefore the question being asked of the Godfather in the Childs behalf dost thou Believe and Renounce and wilt thou be Baptized It is plain that the answer also is in the Childs name and the Catechism says Infants are Baptized because they Promise Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Now if Children may be ingaged and there be no way of doing it but by some others on their behalf seeing this way of Godfathers hath been used by the Churches of God who can doubt but that their Act may truly be accepted of God as the Act of the Child and when we grant that the Parent joyns in the same Act with the Godfathers whom he procures and may bring with him and signify his Consent and receive the Charge which though it bind the Godfathers to do their honest endeavour yet it is more especially incumbent on the Parent I see no reason but we may Assent to this And thus the 9. Object that Ministers must Assent to all this Exclusion of the Parents and Presentation Profession Promise and undertaking of the Godfathers is answered All this Exclusion is none at all the Liturgy says nothing of it the Canon says only he shall not be urged to be present and the Reason is supposed because in time the ancient Use of Godfathers would be laid aside which all Protestant Churches have carefully continued P. 169. Mr. Baxter excepts against the Rubrick which says It is certain by Gods Word that Children which are Baptized dying before they commit
actual sin are undoubtedly saved Answ 1. This being a Rubrick and never coming to Use in the publick Worship it cannot reasonably be thought to be imposed as an Article of Faith on others but only as the Judgment of our Superiours with whom for ought I perceive Mr. Baxter is more offended than with that Doctrine For p. 172. N. 12. When young unstudied Men as he calls those of the Convocation who declare this Opinion p. 172. N. 12. 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 Indowments either by a proportionable excellency above us in other things or by some Miracles or Testimonies from Heaven Thus did such wiser Seniors in our Saviours time require a Sign from Heaven for Confirmation of his Doctrin though he taught nothing but what was Consonant to the Law and the Prophets He is angry with them for not Citing one word of God in the Rubrick to shew this certainty Whereas had Mr. Baxter been imployed in such a work he could have quoted an Hundred at least viz. all those places which speak of Baptisme for remission of Sins of Ingrafting and Burying with Christ of being Baptized into one Body by one Spirit and the like Acts 2.37 Acts 22.16 Rom. 4.11 1 Cor. 1.15 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27 Eph. 5.26 Col. 2.12 Titus 3.5 Rom. 6.3 1 Pet. 3.21 All and each of which are as plain Scripture-Proofs of the Salvation of Baptized Infants as any that he produceth for their Baptisme yet he calls it clear Scripture Proof Mr. Baxter is the first that hath accused the Church of England of Instituting a second Covenant of Grace But how impertinently will appear from the distinction which he mentioneth of a Sacrament out of the Church Catechisme viz. 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 But First here is no intimation of any inward or Spiritual Grace given to us by this outward Sign Nor Secondly is it pretended that the Cross is Ordained by Christ himself much less that it is a means whereby we receive that Grace Or 4. A Pledge to Assure us thereof And therefore Mr. Baxter doth not well to question whether the Cross be not made a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace or so very near it as to have the greatest part of that Sacramental Nature when no one part of the definition agreeth with it And it is confessed by Mr. Baxter that the Liturgy useth not the Cross as a part of Baptisme but as a thing added after it and therefore not as Mr. Baxter says even in our Covenanting with God for that Stipulation on the Childs part is past before All that is mentioned in the Office of Baptisme is that the Child is Signed with the Sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed c. So that it puts such as have been formerly Baptized in mind of that Duty which is incumbent on them and to be a witness to every one of the Ingagements that lay on him And that the Cross may be thus used will follow from Mr. Baxters Concession in the Third part of his Christian Directory Q. 113. Where he allows of the Use of the Cross before Heathen as a signification that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour Now if this Use of the Cross be forbidden by the second Commandment as a Transient Image or if it be a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace it is so when used at other times as well as after the Sacrament of Baptism The time or the place wherein it is used doth not alter the nature of the thing If therefore he grants such a Use of the Cross as St. August de Civitate Dei and other Antients mention as in open Indication to Heathens that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Christ and in civil Uses also it may be as innocently used after Baptism to the same end And it may be observed that in Administring the Sacrament of Baptism it is said by the Priest I Baptize thee c. where he acts as Gods Minister but in the Admission of the Child as a Member of the Congregation it is said We receive this Child which cannot be thought any part of that Sacrament But let us hear how Mr. Baxter resolves the Question 49. p. 123. of Direct May one Offer his Child to be Baptized with the Sign of the Cross or the Vse of Chrysme the white Garment Milk and Honey or Exorcisme as among the Lutherans who taketh these to be unlawful things Answ When he cannot lawfully have better he may and must Offer his Child to them that will so Baptize him rather than to worse or not at all because Baptism is Gods Ordinance and the Childs priviledge and the Sin is the Ministers and not his Another Mans sinful Mode will not justify the neglect of our Duty else we might not joyn in Prayer or Sacraments in which the Minister modally singneth that is with none The Parent may make known in such Cases that it is Baptism he desireth and that he disalloweth the manner which he accounteth sinful and then he is no consenter to it But where the Law or Scandal or greater Inconveniencies forbid him he is not to make his Profession openly in the Congregation but in that prudent manner which beseemeth a sober peaceable Person whether the Minister in private or to his neighbours in Converse Now when Mr. Baxter grants a Man may thus Offer his Child to Baptism where he supposeth many unlawful things are Administred he doth very ill to amuse the Laity with the bare Sign of the Cross Yet I think if we take in the Doctrine and Practise of the Church I may declare that it is certain by Gods Word that Children ought to be Baptized And it is observable that the Salvation of Baptized Infants dying c. was as generally Believed as their right to Baptisme The Council of Milevis which was Confirmed by the Sixth general Council delivers this not only as their own Opinion but as a Rule of the Catholick Church C. 2. And St. August De Peccat Mer. l. 3. c. 5. says That of Old the whole Church did firmly hold that Children do obtain Remission of Original Sin by the Baptism of Christ it would be tedious to quote the authority of the Fathers who generally hold that the guilt contracted by the First Adam is done away in Baptism which Ingrafts us into the Second Adam This was the Doctrine of our Church ever since the Reformation agreeing with the Augustan Saxon Helvetick Palatine French and Scottish Confessions So that generally all that Assent to the Protestant Doctrine do Assent to the Truth of this Rubrick and seeing it is certain by the Word of God that
Baptism was Instituted for the Remission of Sins and to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace seeing it is certain by the Word of God as Mr. Baxter Asserts that Infants have a right to Baptism I see no cause why Mr. Baxter may not Assent to this Rubrick Our Wiser Seniors ought to deal so candidly with young and unstudied Divines as to Interpret a Rubrick occasionally delivered by them agreeably greeably to those other places wherein this Doctrine of the Church to which they had formerly subscribed is purposely handled and explained now Article 25. concerning the Sacraments the Church holds That in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome Effect and Operation And Article 27. Those who receive Baptism rightly are thereby as by an Instrument Grafted into the Church and obtain Remission of Sins Now as this may probably be the meaning of the Rubrick so it is the sense of all sober Protestants that all such Infants as are duly Baptized are admitted into the Covenant of Grace and are in a State of Salvation And this the Church of God hath alway taught that none shall perish for the Imputation of the Sin of the First Adam that are Baptized into the second Adam and unless Infants that dye shortly after their Baptism have this benefit by it we may turn Anabaptists and deny it to them without any Injury But it is objected that neither Rubrick nor Canon except from Baptisme and certainty of Salvation any Children of Turks Infidels c. Answ Mr. Baxter grants that as under the Old Testament Abraham might cause the Children born in his House or bought with his Mony to be Circumcised so Christian Proprietors may by themselves or other Godfathers Offer such Children to Baptism and the benefits thereof And Fulgentius de Vera praed l. 1. c. 12. says that if such Infants die soon after Baptism they are heirs of God and Co-heirs with Christ Favores sunt ampliandi P. 174. It is Objected that the Ministers subscribing to use no other Form in the Administration of the Sacraments than what is injoyned by the Book of Common-Prayer the Non-Conformists cannot Assent to it lest they should refuse from Baptism the Children of true Christians who will not procure Godfathers nor submit to the Sign of the Cross for the Priest consenteth saith Mr. Baxter p. 177. Not to Baptize them who dare not receive it with the Vse of the Cross and Godfathers Answ That as the Practice of our Church in one case of necessity when Children are like to dye shews that they approve of Baptism without either Godfathers or the Sign of the Cross so it argues that they do approve of it in other cases where no contempt or scandal doth appear as where Godfathers may not be had and it may be dangerous to use the Cross as in the late times of confusion and those persons have a very low esteem of the necessity and benefit of the Sacraments as do withdraw themselves and their Children from them meerly on a Ceremony used in the Administration But the great fear of the Non-Conformists is lest this Use of the Cross be a second Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace made by Man added to Baptism and the rather because it is the Use of an Image though transient in Gods Worship and to such high ends p. 180. n. 5. and the question here is whether the Cross be not here 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 Answ I perceive Mr. Baxter is none of the young unstudied Divines in raising Scruples and Controversie which he hath as well multiplyed in number as aggravated in the nature of them It is yet a vainer Cavil which Mr. Baxter hath against those Words in the Exhortation before the Communion That no Man should come to the Holy Communion without a full Trust in Gods Mercy and with a quiet Conscience Any Man that shall read the whole Period will find this to be the sense of it that because it is the duty of every one to come to that Holy Sacrament with a full Trust in Gods Mercy and a quiet Conscience Therefore such whose fears are great and their Faith but weak whereby they might be hindered from not Communicating at all or not with comfort should consult their own or some other able Pastor for satisfying their doubts removing their fears and strengthning their Faith in such a measure as that they may receive it for the better and not for the worse If a serious Christian should complain to Mr. Baxter of the weakness of his Faith and some troubles of Mind I doubt not but that after Ghostly Counsel and Instruction he would advise the same method viz. to frequent the Holy Communion for the increase of his comfort and strengthening of his Faith Suppose the case stood thus That one who is afraid of Communicating with such as he thinks to be wicked Persons or to receive the Sacrament kneeling should consult with Mr. Baxter whether he may Communicate according to the Order prescribed in the Liturgy I am much deceived if Mr. Baxter could not give him sufficient reason to lay aside those doubts and rather than to neglect that Ordinance to submit to the Orders of the Church and receive that Sacrament kneeling and if it be no Sin to receive it it is none to give it to one that kneels nor is it any way inconvenient for scrupulous persons to seek Resolution and Consolation from some able Minister of the Church P. 184. N. 15. Mr. Baxter observes that by the Liturgy every Parishioner is to Communicate twice a year the Rubrick says three times in the year whereof Easter is to be one As for the compelling Men so to do that is as he observes by Statute and therefore it concerns not the Conforming Ministers so that this will not amount to what Mr. Baxter reports as if it were the Voice of the Minister Receive the Sacrament or lye in Goal But Mr. Baxter ought to have understood this Rubrick cum grano Salis if he had so much left for it could not be strictly understood of every Parishioner but only of such as should be judged fit and duly qualifyed not to every Child or ignorant Person seeing it directs that such as are admitted to that Sacrament should be able to give an account of the Catechism and be actually Confirmed or desirous of Confirmation And the Curate is to have notice at least the day before who intend to Communicate and if any of them be a notorious evil-liver or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by Word or Deed whereby the Congregation is offended or if the Curate perceive any to live in malice and hatred he may not only admonish them to forbear the Lords Table but not suffer them to be partakers thereof till he know them to be reconciled But into what deplorable
times are we fallen that our highest Priviledge should be accounted a great Grievance and when all things are prepared and we are Invited in the Name of Christ to come to his Supper we do rather choose Imprisonment and Goals rather than the Table of the Lord The First Christians made this Sacrament their Daily-Bread which Devout Practice was continued for many years till as Devotion waxed colder they Communicated only once a Week or on Sundays and Holydays at most at last they came to once a Year until it was Decreed by some Councils that they should receive at least three times By the Liturgy of Edward the VI. the Clergy in Collegiate Churches and Cathedrals were to receive Daily and by the present Liturgy every Sunday But that Heavenly Ordinance which the Primitive Christians begged on their Knees and which is a most excellent means to Unite us to Christ and to one another is despised and made a ground of Strife and Division And when notwithstanding the pious Provision made by the Church to qualify its Members for a due and frequent Participation of that Blessing and the Penalties provided by Law for such as neglect this duty there is so miserable a neglect of it we may justly fear that if these methods be disused we shall return to the practice of the late times of Reformation where that Sacred Ordinance was in very many Parishes wholly neglected for some years together P. 187. Mr. Baxter excepts against those words in the Office for Burial Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God to take to himself the Soul of our Dear Brother here departed Which he takes in a strict sense as implying the Salvation of the Deceased when it may be understood only in a larger sense that as the Body returns to the Earth so doth the Soul return to God that gave it to be by him disposed of And therefore the Church says only of the Soul that it is here departed that is gone from the Body unto God the Judge of all Men and when at the Interring of the Body it is said In hope of the Resurrection to Eternal Life it is not said particularly of his Resurrection but more generally that there shall be a Resurrection of our Bodies to Eternal Life in the sense as it is taken by Expositors of the Creed that there shall be a Resurrection of our Bodies to Eternal Life when they that have done well come forth to the Resurrection of the Just and they that have done evil to Condemnation Of this as we express a sure and certain hope for our selves and all that do depart in the true Faith so when we apply it particularly to the party Deceased we say only our hope is that he resteth in Christ And Christian Charity teacheth us to hope the best of all that dye in the Communion of the Church For as those that dye Excommunicate the Office of Burial is denyed to them And seeing Mr. Baxter pleads that some upright Christians in Phrensies Melancholies and Distractions make away themselves of whom he would have us to entertain this hope It would puzle a more charitable Man than he to resolve of any particular Man that dyeth in the Communion of the Church that there is no hope of his Salvation and it is better to err on the right hand in Judging Charitably than through Pride or Malice to condemn a Brother our Saviour forbidding us to Judge that we be not Judged His next Exception is against these Words We give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful World Now it being certain to us that Death doth put an end to a State of Sin and Misery to which all are subject in this Life we ought doubtless to give God thanks for that which we know to be a Mercy and to leave the Final Determination of his Soul which is a secret unto us to God There was no Sin in Jobs blessing the Name of the Lord when by a severe Providence he took away his Children amidst their Mirth not in another passage which is used also in this Office and spoken by the Apostle concerning the Corinthians Thanks be to God who hath given us the Victory through our Lord Jesus Christ and when we see our Friends and Relations peaceably departed we may bless God for his Mercy in delivering them from the evils which they suffered and hope that he hath given them rest in Christ and we do but our duty to God and shew our Charity to our Brother in so doing P. 190. The Surplice is accounted by some Non-Conformists to be unlawful and therefore they cannot Assent to the Use of it For which no reason is given only Mr. Baxter says If a Man mistakingly should take the Use of the Surplice to be sinful he should not therefore be silenced Answ If he do mistake he ought to do it modestly suspecting his own Judgment which he will find to be contrary to that liberty which Christ hath purchased for us that to the pure all things are pure and contrary to the Practice of Primitive times wherein the White Garment was in Use by the Testimonies of St. Hierom Chrysostome and Augustine contrary to the Judgment of the most Learned Protestants and of Mr. Baxter himself In his Five Disputations p. 409. Some decent habit is necessary the Magistrate Ministers or Associated Pastors must determine what if they tye all to one Habit and suppose it were an indecent habit yet this is but an imprudent Vse of Power it is a thing within the Magistrates reach he doth not an 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 secundarily the whiteness be to signify purity and so it be made a Teaching Sign yet would I obey Now if any Man against all this Authority and Arguments of Mr. Baxter and others should still think the Surplice unlawful it is better that he should be silenced than the Churches Peace and Order be disturbed or Ancient Laws abrogated as oft as some mistaking think them unlawful it is disobedience which the Church doth censure and the Law punish The Surplice is but a Ceremony which ought not to weigh down the Duty of Obedience P. 191. Mr. Baxter grants that if the Athanasian Creed be referred to the Doctrine of the Trinity it would not be excepted against For he takes it to be the best Explication of the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity which in so short a Sum is extant in the Church So that by requiring Assent and Consent thereunto the Church of England hath secured her self against any suspition of Socinian or Anti-Trinitarian Doctrin whereof Mr. Baxter and others frequently and falsly accuse the Conformists That which cannot be Assented to is the Damnatory Sentences in that Creed as First Where it is said in
hath been formerly of a contrary perswasion I do not mean only when he was Ordained by a Bishop and did or ought to swear Canonical Obedience to him as his Lawful Governour but in his more mature and serious Age when he had studied the controversie I mean in his Christian Directory p. 127. part 7. Where having proved the particular Orders of Presbyters and Deacons He gives his reasons for a larger Episcopacy as the Margin tells you And N. 4. Thus he says Besides this in the Apostles days there were under Christ in the Vniversal Church many general Officers that had the care of Governing and Overseeing Churches up and down and were fixed by stated relation unto none Such were the Apostles Evangelists and many of their helpers in their days And most Christian Churches think that though the Apostolical extraordinary Gifts Priviledges and Offices cease yet Government being an ordinary part of their work the same Forms of Government which Christ and the Holy Ghost did settle in the first Age were settled for all following Ages though not with the same extraordinary gifts and adjuncts Because 1. We read of the settling of that Form viz. General Officers as well as Particular but we never read of any Abolition Discharge or Cessation of the Institution 2. Because if we affirm a Cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of Mutability as settling one Form of Government for one Age only and no longer 3. And we leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel-Institutions as Pastors Sacraments c. and to say that they were but for an Age. 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the World Matth. 28.20 Now this will hold true or not says Mr. Baxter If not then this general Ministry is to be numbred with humane Additions to be next treated of If it do then there is another part of the Form of Government proved to be of Divine Institution I say not another Church but another part of the Government of both Churches Vniversal and Particular because such General Officers are so in the Vniversal as to have a general Oversight of the particular As an Army is Headed only by the General himself and a Regiment by the Colonel and a Troop by the Captain but the General Officers of the Army as the Lieutenants General the Majors General c. are under the Lord General in and over the Army and have a general over-sight of the particular Bodies Regiments and Troops Now if this be the Instituted Form of Christs Church-Government that he himself rule absolutely as General and that he have some General Officers under him not any one having the charge of the whole but in the whole unfixedly or as they voluntarily part their Provinces and that each particular Church have their own proper Pastor one or more then who can say that no Form of Church Government is of Divine appointment or command So far Mr. Baxter with whom I find other Non-conformists to agree in the Notion of Diocesan Bishops which is enough not only to confute this Objection against the Order of Bishops but all that Mr. Baxter hath said in his late Writing against the Constitution of National Churches and the Government of Diocesans with so much partiality and passion And though Mr. Baxter deny it here that having diligently read the Holy Scriptures and Ancient Authors yet Three Orders and Offices are not evident to him yet it is evident he hath proved it solidly enough even from the Scripture alone to which whoever shall joyn the Practice and Testimony of the Primitive Church as a help to explain the sense of the Scripture must needs be perswaded of the Truth of these Three Orders in the Church of Christ and therefore this Objection from the Preface to the Book of Ordination is of no weight In all the fardle of Mr. Baxters impertinencies there is not a more trifling Objection than that which follows against the Bishops inviting the people in the Name of God to come forth and shew what Crime or Impediment they know in the Persons to be Ordained p. 196. For seeing no Person is to be Ordained without a Title to some Cure seeing there are solemn days set apart for Ordination and Prayers ordered to be Used the preceding Week-days for Gods Blessing on that Ordinance seeing every Person is to produce Testimonials under the hands of Three Persons to whom he is known of his Life and Conversation seeing any person may if he please be present at the Ordination and the Bishop may personally enquire into his Ministerial abilities I know not what further caution is necessary than to pronounce a Liberty to the people who generally meet on that occasion in the greatest Congregations and in publick Places to come forth and shew if they know any impediment in the Person to be Ordained upon which I my self have known several Persons to be repulsed in the Face of the Congregation and when the Ordained Person is to continue a Deacon for a year before he is admitted a Presbyter the people have a competent time to inform the Bishop of any Crime that they know by him which may render him an unfit Person without such a call from the Bishop which is but Abundans Cautela P. 197. He objects against these words in the Form of Consecration Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest c. The doubt is saith Mr. Baxter whether this be not an abuse of the words which Christ himself or his Apostles used and so not to be Assented to Now Mr. Baxter grants that Christ or his Apostles used these words that our Saviour used them and when is very observable It was after his Resurrection and before his Ascension that our Saviour endowed his Apostles with this Ministerial Power saying unto them Receive the Holy Ghost which could not be meant of any extraordinary Power of Tongues and Miracles which were not given till Christ was first glorified when the Day of Pentecost was fully come The Power therefore conveyed by these words was an Authorizing of them to the ordinary work of the Ministry as the following words do inforce whose Sins ye remit they are remitted and this Power Mr. Baxter grants to belong to every Minister That the Apostles of our Lord did use the same words is probable from that expression of St. Paul Acts 20.28 Take heed to your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you over seers And Mr. Baxter complains that too little notice is taken of the Holy Ghosts setting Pastors over the Flocks which the Scripture mentioneth p. 310. Which is a conveying of that Authority which Christ at his Ascension left to his Church he gave some Apostles some Prophets c. for the work of the Ministry Eph. 4.11 12. v. 13. Till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith c. P. 198. He excepts
against the Oath of the Bishops to their Metropolitan and p. 199. the Oath of the Priests and Deacons for Canonical Obedience to their Diocesan against which he gives no reason but argues negatively that it was not Instituted by Christ or his Apostles But Mr. Baxter having granted a like Sub-ordination of Offices in the Church as in an Army I see no Reason but that when authority injoyns it as a Captain may swear Obedience to his Colonel and he to his Lieutenant General or Major Generals so may the Presbiter to his Diocesan and the Diocesan to his Metropolitan But Mr. Baxter hath more plainly resolved this doubt in answer to Q. 152. in his Directory part the 3d. p. 181. the Question is May we lawfully swear Obedience in all lawful things to Vsurpers or to our lawful Pastors To which under N. 3. he thus answers 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 swore to them not as Officers claiming a Divine Right in the Spiritual Government but as Ordinaries or Officers made by the King N. B. to exercise so much of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under him as he can delegate 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 as he is the Kings Officer Of the Non-conformists Judgment in this read Bradshaw against Canne This concession of Mr. Baxter will overthrow that wherein he placeth the force of the Objection viz. That the Ordinary is not only the Bishop but also the Chancellour Officials c. because they are the Kings Officers And if the Chancellour do invade the Office of the Ministry in Excommunications and Absolutions Mr. Baxter well observes p. 202. It is not justifyed by the Bishops themselves I wonder how any right Presbyterian can except against one Lay-Chancellour in a Diocess who would set up one or more Un-ordained Ruling Elders in every Parish and though Mr. Baxter be not thorow Paced in this point yet in his Tract of Ordination he would have the Magistrate to authorize a Lay-Officer well like to our Chancellours p. 299. He directs the Magistrate to appoint an able Godly moderate Minister in each County or half or quarter to see the Pastors do their duty not having Episcopal Power to suspend or excommunicate them but let every Visitor have an Agent of the Magistrates joyned with him Armed with Authority to convent the Ministers and examine Witnesses and to do what more the Chief Magistrate shall see meet so that still these two Visitors go together and let the Civil Visitor have all the Coercive Power This comes home to our Lay-Chancellours who being the Kings Officer we may by Mr. Baxters permission swear Obedience to him And other Non-Conformists as wise as Mr. Baxter think that the Apostles Wise Man spoken of in 1 Cor. 6. to be a President for our Chancellours And it is strange that they who would set two Lay-Ruling Elders in every Parish should not admit one in a Diocess Mr. Baxters last quarrel against the Rubrick is that it obligeth the Minister who repelleth any from the Sacrament to give an account of the same to the Ordinary within fourteen days after Answ He that hath no notorious scandalous persons in his Parish is free from this trouble and so is he that hath such if they do not press themselves on that Holy Communion If any such do the Minister having timely notice of his intention as is required may send for him and privately admonish him that the Congregation are much offended by his disorderly Conversation especially by such or such a Crime whereof by common Fame he is reported guilty and therefore desire him to forbear that Sacrament till such time as he have given Testimony of his Repentance and Reformation to the satisfaction of the Congregation In this case the party forbearing on a private Admonition there is no need of informing the Ordinary But if such a person still press on the Minister ought to refuse him and it will much abate his trouble and the Odium which otherwise might lye on him to refer the Case to the Ordinary to be determined by him These are the great number of Sins hindring Conformity so hainous as that Mr. Baxter was afraid to name them lest he should displease and provoke the Conformists which even in the judgment of Mr. Baxter himself and other serious Non-conformists will scarce amount to an appearance of evil As for the Objections against the Declarations and Oaths required by Act of Parliament seeing he acknowledgeth that it is not the sense of the Liturgy but of a Statute of Parliament which the Non-conformists doubt of and that it would be impertinent for us to tell them what is the sense of the Church the doubt being what is the sense of the Parliament p. 191. I shall not add much more to what I have spoken on those Subjects but refer them to those to whom the Execution of those Laws are committed for their better Instruction And I shall only observe that the complaint against the Law-givers p. 204. n. 3. is that they will not otherwise expound their own words after seventeen years waiting for it under compulsive executions By otherwise he means against the sense of the plain words as appears n. 2. in which the Non-conformists there profess to understand them but cannot Assent to them and therefore they think they may be excused if by mistake they think some of those passages to be unlawful that are not or to have a worse sense than indeed they have This mistake will appear to the Judicious Reader to be wilful and an Act of pure malice and revenge For the plain English of it is this That because the Parliament will not in favour to the Non-conformists alter their Laws and dispense with the Oaths of Obedience and renouncing of the Covenant and reforming every thing in the Liturgy which they have fancied to be sinful and thereby justify the Non-conformists and confess themselves to be the cause of our present Divisions They are still resolved to pronounce the Liturgy to be sinful the Laws Tyrannical and such as would force them to perjury And though they want power for the present to help themselves yet if you will not hear those will whom God will use to the healing of his Churches as he says in his Preface the meaning whereof is too plain By this time the Reader may discern how vain-glorious his boast is that he hath shewn us a righter way of Concord more Divine Sure Harmless Comprehensive fitted by Christ himself to the interest of all good Men yea of the Church and all the World Would you know what that grand discovery is he tells you p. 36. of his Plea which is the Sum of his five first
Sections and this is the result of all If every Pastor might be a Bishop in his Parish Independent and free from any Superiour to controul him if he may have an arbitrary power if they may be arbitrary in exercise of the power of the Keys without appeal such as he says p. 265. the Jews had where there was a Village of Ten Persons there was a Presbyter that had power of Judging Offenders Then we should be so far says he from using the controversie about the Divine Right of Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbyters to any Schisme or injury to the Church as hitherto they have done that we should thankfully contribute our best endeavours to the Concord Peace Safety and Prosperity thereof i. e. they would give the Bishops leave to exercise their Authority in Vtopia having provided that they shall have nothing to do in England But the Magistrates must yield to them also Might we be freed from Swearing Subscribing Declaring and Covenanting unnecessary things which we take not to be true and from some few unnecessary practices which we cannot justify And if they might have power of Ordaining such as they please and of Confirming the Adult not according to the Order of the Church of England for that comes too near to Popery but according to Mr. Baxters or Mr. Hanmers Model that is May the power of altering the Laws in Church and State then and not till then when these necessary terms are granted they will serve the Church so modelled in poverty and raggs But of so great a mercy says he experience hath made our hopes from Men to be very small and the Reason of the thing makes our hopes as small of the happiness of the Church of England till God Unite us on these necessary terms To what great streights do some Men reduce themselves that they cannot live unless they Rob and ruine their neighbours subvert whole Churches and Kingdoms and grasp all Power and Authority over the Bodies and Consciences of their Brethren into their own hands Did ever any Bishop aspire to such Tyranny as this the Pope only excepted is not the King and whole Nation greatly Culpable not to trust themselves with the Ingenuity of this people of whose Loyalty and Charity they have had such experience and is it not pitty that they should be constrained to attempt these things against Law when they so humbly desire to have them established by Law and when the reason of the thing i. e. their resolution to have it so it being their great concern as he calls it makes the hopes of the happiness of the Church of England to be very small which Men so resolved as they are may foretel as Mr. Baxter doth without a Spirit of Prophecy Sect. 2. p. 207. Mr. Baxter proceeds to the second part of Conformity which he calls Re-ordination and says it was either intended as a second Ordination or not If yea it is a thing condemned by the ancient Churches by the Canons called the Apostles c. If not then they take such Mens former Ordination to be Null and consequently all such Churches to be no Churches their Baptizings and Consecration of the Lords Supper c. to be Null Answ Although the Ordination by Presbyters alone especially when it hath been done in opposition to * P. 237. of the five Disputations We Ordain not presente but Spreto Episcopo and Contempt of Bishops hath been ever condemned in the Church and the validity thereof is still questioned yet granting it to be valid a Submission to Episcopal Ordination is no renouncing of that which was performed by Presbyters no more than the submission of the Disciples of John who had been Baptized by him with the Baptism of Repentance to the Baptism of Christ Nor doth the Law any where require them to declare that their former Ordination was Null because then it would have pronounced their Baptizings and other Ministerial Offices to be Null if therefore we did juge as charitably of our Legislators as we ought and Interpret the Laws by the practice we cannot find any such thing as Re-ordination intended For first the word is no where mentioned but the Ordination required is to qualify them for the exercise of their Ministry in the Church of England and to capacitate them for it Thus in the Preface to the Book of Ordination it is said None shall be taken as Ministers of the Church of England but who are so Ordained It denyeth not but they may be Ministers elsewhere and the Act for Vniformity renders them uncapable of any Parsonage Vicaridge c. in the Church of England But the same Act allows of the Ministers Presbyterially Ordained in other Reformed Churches to exercise their Ministry here by His Majesties Authority Yea the same Parliament permits them to meet and exercise many Ministerial duties so that the number above that of their own Families do not exceed Five and Mr. Baxter knows that the most eminent Divines of our Church ever held the Ordination by Presbyters in forraign Churches to be lawful 2. It is Mr. Baxters Opinion that the outward part of Ordination may be repeated Directory l. 3. Q. 21. And that the Ordainer doth but Ministerially invest the person with Power whom the Spirit of God hath qualified for it by the Inward Call now the Inward Call being the Essential part as he accounts and the Ministerial Investiture of the person with power being the outward part P. 311. of the Plea I see no reason why one Ordained by Presbyters may not submit to Episcopal Ordination by his own Argument Yea Mr. Baxter there affirmes That the mutual consent of the people and themselves may suffice to the orderly admittance into the Office especially if the Magistrate consent and the Ordainers should refuse For which see more in his Dispute of Ordination from whence I propose this case suppose a person fitly qualified for Parts and Piety Chosen and Ordained a Minister by an Independent or Anabaptistical people should afterward submit himself to Presbyterial Ordination I doubt not but the Presbyters would think it lawful to Ordain him and I believe they would not admit him into their Churches without such Ordination which may justifie our Superiours in requiring that they who will be admitted Ministers of the Church of England should be Episcopally Ordained For here is nothing repeated but the outward part or Ceremony of Investiture which by Mr. Baxters Confession may be repeated and is no more than the Marriage of such by a Minister who had been Married before by a Justice of Peace Or as he makes another Comparison it is no more than if a person very expert in Physick should practice without a License Upon which he tells you a story of his great success in Physick which he practiced many years gratis and saved the Lives of multitudes p. 78. of the Third part of the way of Concord and yet he there grants that it