no obligation on me or any other person to endeavour alteration of the Government If any fault be found in subordinate Governours we may in our places and callings endeavour a Reformation of them but the Government is a noli me tangere we may not undermine foundations But Mr. Baxter proposeth another question whether the Covenant as a Vow to God bind to things necessary Answ To all necessary things we are pre-ingaged by the Command of God and extraordinary means must not be used when ordinary may serve Mr. Baxter § 43. of his Directory says A Vow is as Null when the matter is morally or civilly out of our power as if a Child or Servant Vow a thing which he cannot do lawfully without the consent of his Parent or Master though the thing in it self be lawful for God having bound me to obey my Superiours in all lawful things I cannot oblige my self by my own Vows § 79. of his Directory Make not a Law and Religion to your selves which God never made by his Authority nor bind your selves for futurity to all that is a duty at present where it is possible the changes of things may change your duty And § 3. p. 19. The true nature and use of Vows is but for a more certain and effectual performance of our duties not to make new Laws and Religions to our selves From which concessions it will follow that the power of Reforming c. being in the King the Vow was Null And it is morally impossible for them to do that in their places and callings which they cannot do without Invading the Place and Office of their Superiours And therefore notwithstanding the pretence of a Vow yea though it were for things lawful which the alteration of the established Government is not we may declare that there lyes no Obligation c. P. 216. § 13. Mr. Baxter insists on the Declaration concerning taking Arms against the King c. Where he says the question is not of the first clause of taking Arms c. For he grants that a Popish King is to be obeyed in lawful things p. 77. but of the 2 d. viz. I abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by his Authority against his person or against those that are commissioned by him This as the Law of the Land hath declared to be Traiterous so hath the Law of God 2 Pet. 2.13 requiring submission to the King as Supreme and unto Governours sent or Commissioned by him The ground of this Declaration was for the security of the Kings Person against such as distinguishing between his publick and private capacity under pretence of his Authority detained his Towns and fought those Armies where the King was in person but when they had Conquered him they declared the Supreme Authority to be in themselves But Mr. Baxter pleads that Ministers are mostly ignorant of the Law not knowing what is called a Commission and what Seal makes it such and they dare not think that a Lord Chancellour or Keeper hath Power at his pleasure to depose the King by Sealing Commissions to any to seize on his Forts c. Nor yet to destroy the Kingdoms Cities Laws and Judgments and seize at pleasure on all Mens Estates or Lives This had been good Doctrine if Mr. Baxter had taught it when the Kings broad Seal was broken and by Virtue of a counterfeit one the Lives and Estates of the best Subjects were destroyed the Act of Parliament hath declared the Supreme Authority to be inseparable in the Kings Person so that we cannot doubt of the Legality of Commissions granted by him and his pretended ignorance against the known Laws being that Block on which the best of Kings fell I hope no good English-Man will stumble at it again But Mr. Baxter complains that these words against those that are Commissioned by him are unexpounded and have no limitations or exceptions It is not fit for private men to distinguish where the Law doth not or that an Usurper or Protector pretending Reformation and Liberty and that abused Maxim of Salus populi Suprema Lex should rather be obeyed than such as Act regularly by the Kings Commission and according to the known Laws Wherefore to seek evasions and to suppose extraordinary Cases that may never happen against plain and necessary duties ought not to be a Bar against this Declaration That which followeth § 14. Of deserting their Flocks and keeping Conventicles and § 15. of not residing within Five Miles of Cities and Corporations are not conditions of Conformity but consequences of their Non-conformity And I leave them to be read and considered by others who will perceive how well Mr. Baxter deserves the Character which the Reverend Bishop Sanderson gave of him That he never knew a Man of more pertinacious confidence and less abilities in all his Conversation A double minded Man is unstable in all his Ways An Answer to some passages in the Second Part of the Non-conformists Plea for Peace HAving reflected on as much of the First Part of the Non-conformists Plea as concerned the Ministerial Conformity I thought it not material to answer the many Impertinencies Printed in that Book But finding a Second Part extant published as the Authors say to save their Lives and the Kingdoms Peace from the false and Bloody Plotters who would first perswade the King and People that the Protestants and particularly the Non-conformists are Presbyterians and Fanaticks And next that it was such Presbyterians that killed his Father and next that our Principles are Rebellious and next that we are Plotting Rebellion and his Death c. On which particulars he enlargeth in the Preface where I find him thus to justify his party I desire those that seek our Blood and Ruine by the false accusation of Rebellious Principles to tell me if they can what Body or Party of Men on Earth have more sound and Loyal Principles of Government and Obedience and p. 109. of that Book We are far from designing any abasement of the Clergy nor do we deny or draw others to deny any due reverence or obedience to them I considered that very many of Mr. Baxters Readers are apt to believe him and therefore must needs be greatly incensed against those whom he accuseth to be the Persecutors of such a pious and peaceable party viz. the Bishops whom he calls Thorns and Thistles and the Military Instruments of the Devil p. 122. of the Book of Concord and p. 247. of the first part of the Plea and complains Popish Clergy-Men as if he were in Egyptian Bondage or the Popish Inquisition of tearing Engines Goals Starving and Bloody Persecution Ruine and Death Every good Man is sensible what Indignation such Cruelties practised upon innocent persons may raise in the hearts of our English Nation who are noted for their compassion to their Brethren in misery against the Authors of it and I suspect these suggestions are published to inrage them against their present Governours
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
person to banish the thoughts of repenting for his own sins by inquiring into the heinous sinfulness of Conformists I wish heartily he could prove his innocency in the one as easily as they can in the other and if he cannot clear his innocence that he would manifest his penitence then would I as readily give him the right hand of fellowship as he now denyeth it to others and he might be as great an instrument of peace on earth among the Saints as of joy in Heaven among the Angels of God I shall only beseech Mr. Baxter to say that Prayer heartily which he hath penned in the 251 and 252. pages of his Cure of Divisions and then let him reply as he thinks fit Lord hide not my own miscarriages from my sight and suffer me not to take any sin that I have committed to have been my innocency or duty lest I should dare to Father sin on God and lest I should live and dye without repentance and lest I should be one that continueth judgments and danger to the Land stir up some faithful friend to tell me with convincing evidence where it is that I have miscarried that contrition may prepare me for the peace of remission O save me from the plague of an impenitent heart that cannot indure to be told of sin and from that ungodly folly which taketh the shame which Repentance casteth upon sin to be cast upon God and Religion which bind us to Repentance and Confession Amen Now when you have humbly and sincerely renewed this Prayer to Almighty God I beseech you to consider seriously with your self that it may be God hath in answer to your prayers raised up so vile an instrument as I am to be your Monitor that what you thought your duty is your sin and that you are one that still continueth judgments and danger to the Land For first you seemed doubtful of it when you prayed against it 2. When after long and mature deliberation you entred into Communion with our Church in all its Ordinances that concern Lay-Communion and resolved together with other of your Brethren to continue in it and by that practice of yours as well as your Arguments did influence many others to a like pious and peaceable behaviour how can it be less than a sin against God and a grieving and gravelling the Consciences of such well-disposed Christians not only to withdraw your avowed Communion but to practise that which directly tends to Division and Confusion 3. That in the judgment of such as were very pious and learned men in your own Opinion that practice of yours which continueth and encourageth separation from our Communion is sinful such were Cranmer Ridly Peter Martyr and others that compiled the Liturgy in King Edward the VI. days and Parker Grindal Horne Jewel who reviewed and recommended it in Queen Elizabeths days Such were Vsher Davenant Potter Hall Carleton and others in the days of King James and King Charles of Blessed Memory What think you of all these sober and moderate Conformists such as Bolton Whately Fenner Dent Crook Dike Stock Smith Preston Sibbs Stoughton Taylor c. These you confess were no ignorant nor temporizing persons What think you of Jacob and Johnson who were Independents yet wrote against separation And what think you of the most learned and pious of the Non-conformists such as Cartwright Egerton Hildersham Dod Ames Parker Baines Brightman Ball Bradshaw Paget Langly Nichols Hering who wrote more against separation than any of the Conformists themselves Principles of Love p. 57. as you affirm What think you of the Assembly of Divines Twiss Gataker c. Among whom you say you never heard but of Five Non-conformists what think you of such as have Conformed since 1660. such as Reynolds Conant Wallis and lastly what think you of the Father of all the Non-conformists Mr. T. Cartwright who after he had written as much as he could against Conformity saw so much of the weakness of his arguments as that he repented and Conformed at last If all these have judged a bare withdrawing of the people from our Communion to be unlawful and against their duty I wonder how you can still think your more positive opposing and hindring of it to be your duty I considered again that to live in the contempt of the Laws and lawful Autority both of Church and State in a well established Kingdom is a sin of no mean nature in it self and by its effects may prove exceeding sinful for Schism and Division Spiritual Pride Censoriousness are as certainly sins and perhaps greater than Whoredom and Drunkenness and Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft I considered also that you have had long experience of the evil of Schism how great a matter a little fire kindleth and did meditate and foretel with what design I know not in the second paper to the King p. 12. That if you should lose the opportunity of your desired Reconciliation i. e. if you could not obtain what you would it astonished you to foresee what doleful effects your divisions would produce These and such other motives prevailed with me to become your Monitor that what you now take to be your duty is your sin and that your present practice tends to the continuing of judgments and danger to the Land and if my charitable admonition to you and peaceable endeavors for unity and establishment in the Church and State be still despised I can only continue my prayer to God as well for my self as you in the Petitions above mentioned Lord hide not our own miscarriages from our sight c. Cujus Aures clausae sunt ut ab Amico verum audire nequeat hujus salus desperanda est Cicero de Amicitia FINIS