A26911:122
The defence of the nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of the matter…
The defence of the nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of the matter of their nonconformity against Mr. J. Cheney's answer called The conforming nonconformist, and The nonconforming conformist : to which is added the second part in answer to Mr. Cheney's Five undertakings / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Benjamin Alsop, 1680
A DEFENCE OF THE NON-CONFORMIST'S Plea for Peace, AGAINST Mr. J. CH… › Chapter 16
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Are those then admitted, that through Profaneness desire not God-Fathers? If so, then you make the sense to be [Those that have not God-Fathers ⟨p. 32⟩shall not be admitted to that Sacrament, except all that will not, viz. Conscientiously, or Profanely.] If not, then the sense must be [You shall admit none to that Sacrament that have no God-Fathers, through Parents Profaneness, but all that have none through scruple of Conscience.] And who cannot pretend such scruple? And who will not pretend it, when that will justify them? And how would the Bishops reproach such an Exposition, which either maketh every Priest a judge of Mens Hearts, (whether their pretence be true or not) or else admitteth all that will not have God-Fathers, while the admission of any of them is expressly forbidden? It is a stretching Exposition indeed which is against the whole form of the Office, and the express words of the Churches Canon, [No Parent shall be God-Father to his own Child.] Try whether any two Bishops in England will allow you any such Exposition.
Are those then admitted, that through Prophaneness desire not God-Fathers? If so, then you make the sense to be [Those that have not God-Fathers ⟨p. 32⟩shall not be admitted to that Sacrament, except all that will not, viz. Conscienciously, or Prophanely.] If not, then the sense must be [You shall admit none to that Sacrament that have no God-Fathers, through Parents Prophaneness, but all that have none through scruple of Conscience.] And who cannot pretend such scruple? And who will not pretend it, when that will justifie them? And how would the Bishops reproach such an Exposition, which either maketh every Priest a judge of Mens Hearts, (whether their pretence be true or not) or else admitteth all that will not have God-Fathers, while the admission of any of them is expresly forbidden? It is a stretching Exposition indeed which is against the whole form of the Office, and the express words of the Churches Canon, [No Parent shall be God-Father to his own Child.] Try whether any two Bishops in England will allow you any such Exposition.