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.
Richard Baxter 1615–1691London: printed for Benjamin Alsop, 1680
[14], 176 p. · 49k words · Wing B1238 · ESTC R10601
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.
§ 3. You say, you can Assent to it in a sound sense: And [it's more than you can prove that all Infants are saved, but all that have right before God are saved, but not those that have no right before God.
Answ. 1. But you were told that the Church signifies her sense by the Canons, which forbid the Minister (on Penalty) to refuse any Child, that hath God-Fathers, not excepting Pagans, Infidels, Atheists, or Apostates: Why did you not answer that?
2. A Right before God, signifies either properly to be a Child that is under the promise of Pardon, ⟨p. 18⟩in the sense of 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.] And of such I am of your mind. Or else it signifieth only one that the Minister hath, Coram Deo, a right to Baptize. And so he hath as to any adult Atheist, or Heathen (or his Child) if he deceitfully profess Christianity. I suppose you speak in the first proper sense.
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?
Besides, I that know why the old words were changed into these, and by whom it was brought in, urged and procured, am fully satisfied of the sense of them that did it, by experience.
Your Exposition of the Doctrine of Baptism here adjoined, is very sound and good. As to your Catholicon which gets down all, I may cause you to cast it up anon.
Your Exposition of the Doctrine of Baptism here adjoyned, is very sound and good. As to your Catholicon which gets down all, I may cause you to cast it up anon.
§ 1. Your 9th Section, about not coming to the Sacrament without a full trust in God's Mercy and a quiet Conscience, tells us what the Imposure should have said, when I only except against what they have said. The Case is so gross, I am apt to think they meant as you say; especially when I consider that those must be Ruined that have not a quiet Conscience, if they will not, or dare not Communicate. But if well meaning Men put me to assent to words of a contrary signification in the common use, I had rather approve their good meanings, than their imposed words, through oversight so expressed.
§ 1. YOur 9th Section, about not coming to the Sacrament without a full trust in God's Mercy and a quiet Conscience, tells us what the Imposure should have said, when I only except against what they have said. The Case is so gross, I am apt to think they meant as you say; especially when I consider that those must be Ruined that have not a quiet Conscience, if they will not, or dare not Communicate. But if well meaning Men put me to assent to words of a contrary signification in the common use, I had rather approve their good meanings, than their imposed words, through oversight so expressed.
§ 1. About the use of the Apocrypha, you quite mistook the Question: It was not chiefly whether you may use or read it, but whether you may approve and consent to the Calendar and Rubric which imposeth it, to be read; yea, those Books of Tobit, Judith, Bell and the Dragon, &c. If you say that you Consent not to the Calendar and Rubric, I ask, 1. Is it not contained in the Book? 2. Is it of no use, when the use is named in the Preface? Cannot we thus say any thing required, and mean what we list by it? Teach not the Papists to take the imposed Test and Oaths at such a rate as this.
§ 1. ABout the use of the Apocrypha, you quite mistook the Question: It was not chiefly whether you may use or read it, but whether you may approve and consent to the Calendar and Rubrick which imposeth it, to be read; yea, those Books of Tobit, Iudith, Bell and the Dragon, &c. If you say that you Consent not to the Calendar and Rubrick, I ask, 1. Is it not contained in the Book? 2. Is it of no use, when the use is named in the Preface? Cannot we thus say any thing required, and mean what we list by it? Teach not the Papists to take the imposed Test and Oaths at such a rate as this.
§ 3. You say, It's more than you can prove that any thing is false. Why did you not answer the two Instances which I gave out of the Bishop of Lincoln's excellent Manuscript? And how much may you find in Dr. Jo. Reynolds, and many other Protestants against the Papists?
§ 3. You say, It's more than you can prove that any thing is false. Why did you not answer the two Instances which I gave out of the Bishop of Lincoln's excellent Manuscript? And how much may you find in Dr. Io. Reynolds, and many other Protestants against the Papists?
§ 4. You say, If any thing be Fabulous, it may be read as an instructive Parable, some cite Aesop's Fables.] Answ. But dare you consent to the reading and imposing of Aesop's Fables, or any other, to be read in stead of God's Word, under the same name of Lessons, so many days in the Public Worship?
§ 4. You say, If any thing be Fabulous, it may be read as an instructive Parable, some cite Aesop's Fables.] Answ. But dare you consent to the reading and imposing of Aesop's Fables, or any other, to be read in stead of God's Word, under the same name of Lessons, so many days in the Publick Worship?
Your 11th Section saith no more, but that you see nothing but one may Consent to the imposed reading of the Liturgy every day to save his Liberty. Ans. 1. I gave you a reason against Covenanting so to use it every Day, which you answer not. And. 2. Why took you no notice that it is the Books Imposition of this, which you must consent to, and not only the Practice? Is not the imposing Precept [contained in the Book] yea, and is it of no use?
YOur 11th Section saith no more, but that you see nothing but one may Consent to the imposed reading of the Liturgy every day to save his Liberty. Ans. 1. I gave you a reason against Covenanting so to use it every Day, which you answer not. And. 2. Why took you no notice that it is the Books Imposition of this, which you must consent to, and not only the Practice? Is not the imposing Precept [contained in the Book] yea, and is it of no use?
