But if you think that the sense of the Rubric you are mistaken. No one knoweth better than Bishop Gunning, and he will tell you otherwise, viz. That God's merciful Covenant giveth us Right to bring any Child in the World to be Baptized for Salvation, as it giveth any Man right to take in an exposed Orphan into his House. And if the Sponsor were to become Proprietor, and take the Child for his own (as Abraham Circumcised the Children born in his House) I would not dispute against it, though I were in doubt: But I have proved to you that the Liturgy, or Canon, oblige the Sponsor to no such thing, nor are they to profess it: and you your self suppose the contrary, that the Parent is the First Covenanter: This Rubric then speaketh of any Child, and you limit it to the Seed of the Faithful, and so Equivocate. At our Conference at the Savoy, 1661. before the Bishops, I put this true Case; [I have in my Parish a profest Infidel, that derideth openly the Scripture, and the Life to come; but for fashion saith beforehand, I will bring my Child to be Baptized, and say as the Book requireth, and refuse my Child if you dare.] The Reverend Bishop Sanderson was in the Chair, and answered me, none of them contradicting, That if I Baptized ⟨p. 19⟩him according to the Church of England that requireth God-Fathers, I need not scruple it. I asked him, By whom that Child had right more than any other Heathen's Child? Seeing, 1. The God-Father is oft as bad as the Parents. 2. And the God-Father taketh not the Child as a Proprietor for his own. Bishop Morley answers, That he knew some that did take them, and Educate them as their own. I answered, 1. The Canon, or Rubric, require it not. 2. I never knew one Man yet that did it, or that ever thought that as a Sponsor, he was obliged so to do. 3. If it were otherwise; Poor Mens Children could get no God-Fathers, and Rich Men would have none. And what's this then to the sense of the Article in question, that speaks of all Baptized Children? (It being of the Baptized quâ tales, and an indefinite in re necessaria.) You dare profess that of all, and undoubtedly certain by the Word of God, which you think is—true but of those that have right before God. And may not one profess any thing at that Rate?
But if you think that the sense of the Rubrick you are mistaken. No one knoweth better than Bishop Gunning, and he will tell you otherwise, viz. That God's merciful Covenant giveth us Right to bring any Child in the World to be Baptized for Salvation, as it giveth any Man right to take in an exposed Orphan into his House. And if the Sponsor were to become Proprietor, and take the Child for his own (as Abraham Circumcised the Children born in his House) I would not dispute against it, though I were in doubt: But I have proved to you that the Liturgy, or Canon, oblige the Sponsor to no such thing, nor are they to profess it: and you your self suppose the contrary, that the Parent is the First Covenanter: This Rubrick then speaketh of any Child, and you limit it to the Seed of the Faithful, and so Equivocate. At our Conference at the Savoy, 1661. before the Bishops, I put this true Case; [I have in my Parish a profest Infidel, that derideth openly the Scripture, and the Life to come; but for fashion saith beforehand, I will bring my Child to be Baptized, and say as the Book requireth, and refuse my Child if you dare.] The Reverend Bishop Sanderson was in the Chair, and answered me, none of them contradicting, That if I Baptized ⟨p. 19⟩him according to the Church of England that requireth God-Fathers, I need not scruple it. I askt him, By whom that Child had right more than any other Heathen's Child? Seeing, 1. The God-Father is oft as bad as the Parents. 2. And the God-Father taketh not the Child as a Proprietor for his own. Bishop Morley answers, That he knew some that did take them, and Educate them as their own. I answered, 1. The Canon, or Rubrick, require it not. 2. I never knew one Man yet that did it, or that ever thought that as a Sponsor, he was obliged so to do. 3. If it were otherwise; Poor Mens Children could get no God-Fathers, and Rich Men would have none. And what's this then to the sense of the Article in question, that speaks of all Baptized Children? (It being of the Baptized quâ tales, and an indefinite in re necessaria.) You dare profess that of all, and undoubtedly certain by the Word of God, which you think is—true but of those that have right before God. And may not one profess any thing at that Rate?
