The Nonconformists Advocate, Part 2
The Second Part.
AFter a Confutation in Quarto, another is brought to my hands in Folio: I have kill'd him for a Villain, ſaid he on the Stage, and made him an Example. What? have you kill'd him? kill him again. I was kill'd ſufficiently, as one would think, by my firſt Antagoniſt; notwithſtanding to make ſure work, another comes in with his deadly ſtab, and will needs kill me the ſecond time; and yet I find and feel a quite contrary effect, and even return into life by this renewed death; while the firſt of theſe, as it were, with a ſtrong puff of wind blows out my Candle, and the ſecond with a ſharper blows it in again, and my Candle burns ſtill as bright as ever: For comparing one Confutation with another, I am the better informed to anſwer them both, and continue more ſtedfaſtly the ſame, what I was, in my firſt opinion; inaſmuch as in ſeveral things mine Opponents are not more contrary to me, than contrary to themſelves, in what they write againſt me: though yet in their ſpirit and temper they are one, full of wrath, cenſure, and bitterneſs; a man that ſhall touch them muſt be fenced with Iron, and the Staff of a Spear, elſe they will pierce and gore intollerably. I have ſcuffled with the firſt as well as I could, and am now come to encounter the laſt.
Sir, Your Introduction is foreign, from the common place called, Revi…ing and Reproaching; and though it be particularly calculated for a Preface againſt me, yet it may indifferently ſerve as a general Exordium to any Philippick againſt the whole Tribe of the Non conformiſts in all Controverſies whatſoever. I have heard of one beholding a great pair of Gates to a very little City, ſaid facetiouſly to the Citizens, Pray ſhut your Gates, leſt the City run out, and be loſt; ſuch me thinks is your large beginning above the proportion of the following matter, it being more than a ſixth of the whole. O how copious and fluent are you in this kind of Rhetorick! how is your Pen as the tongue of a ready Speaker! None, I dare ſay, about the Bridge can out-do you, or put you down; but I check my ſelf, for I have a better anſwer prepared to my hand, in which I ſhall acquieſce, not rendring evil for evil, or rai…ing for railing, but contrariwiſe bleſſing. I bleſs the Lord Jeſus that I am accounted worthy among my Brethren to ſuffer ſhame for his Name; and I pray God to bleſs you, in turning your heart from your cauſleſs prejudice and wrathful indignation againſt us. This is all I have to reply to your Premiſes, and now come to the work before us.
I could not declare my aſſent and conſent, mine unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in and preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer. This, you ſay, may be one of my chief ſcruples, that I could not prevaricate with Authority; p. 2. l. 54.had there been allowed a l…ttle Equivocation, and might I have been permitted to give an aſſent and conſent which were not unfeigned, the task had not been ſo intollerable; but to require ſuch an aſſent and conſent, ſearches men to the bottom, and beats the Hypocrite out of all his Subterfugies; who can bear it? I anſwer, The declaring of my unfeigned aſſent and conſent is a great ſcruple to me, though not hereby to be kept from a little Equivocation with man, but from a down-right lying before God, and againſt mine own Conſcience; and the rather (as you truly obſerve) becauſe ſuch an unfeigned aſſent and conſent ſearch me to the bottom, yet not becauſe I am an Hypocrite (according to your ſuppoſition) but becauſe I am none; my tongue and my heart being, as they ought to be, perfect Uniſons, and going together: For if I were an Hypocrite indeed, I could eaſily find my ſeveral Subterfugies, and no ſuch Declaration ſhould be ever able to bear me out of them. Herein therefore you are out: But in the interim, upon the whole matter you plainly infer, what was denied by your Fore-man, that Conformity is now much ſtricter than in former days; and this alſo deſignedly.
You ſay, Becauſe of ſome poſſible Errata or faults that may eſcape in the printing of the Book of Common-Prayer, or otherwiſe, I ſcruple to give my unfeigned aſſent and conſent unto all and every thing contained in it; but this is a weak foundation, p. 2. l. penult.and the Cavil trivial, and therefore you leave me to be noted in my folly. I anſwer, It is you, and not I, who make ſuch Errata, properly ſo called (which may be found in the Common-Prayer Book, as well as in any other Book, wholly beſides the intention of the Compoſers of them) to be the true, proper, and main ground of my bogling at the Declaration; for I plainly by name except againſt the Order appointed for reading the holy Scriptures, againſt the Order appointed for the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, and ſo againſt the Order appointed for the burying of the Dead: Now the things wherein I except againſt theſe, in my apprehenſion, are not Errata, but Errors, not foreign, but foreign; however, I am ſure they are not eſcapes by accident, and beſides the intention of the Law-makers, but are both contained in, and preſcribed by the Book, as ſome of the ſubſtance and chief matter of it; and this too confirmed by the Rubrick. By what I have now ſpoken, I clearly free my ſelf from the abſurdity of calling Errata the Contents of any Book or Writing, as you would faſten upon me, againſt all apparent truth and reaſon: And whereas you ſay, My ſcruple cannot affect you here, p. 3. l. 5.becauſe though ſuch Errata may be contained in, yet they are not preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer. I have evidenced the contrary in the inſtances forementioned: wherefore the Coat you would put upon me is more proper for another, who lets the true Enemy alone, and fights againſt his own ſhadow, as if it were an armed man; and then triumphs like a Thraſo in his wonderful Manhood for vanquiſhing ſuch an Appearance.l. p. 3. l. 1. But, ſay you, Do we not think we may ſafely aſſent and conſent to the Contents of any Writings that paſs an Eſtate for fear of Errata, which by frequent copying out, and tranſcribing the enrolled Deeds, may happen to be there? I anſwer, I never yet heard of any ſuch Writings of Conveyance, or Charters of Liberties and Properties, where the Parties concerned were called to declare their unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in them, or elſe ſhould be puniſhed with the loſs of their Temporal Rights, which yet is the penalty of all thoſe who will not aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer. I have ſometimes ſeen the Accounts of Merchants adjuſted, and ſubſcribed by their names, but with this Proviſo, ſaving all errours in them unknown to our ſelves. Now upon this condition you and I will quickly compromiſe the difference; let me inſert theſe words, Saving all errours which may be found therein, (as your Fore-man was good at inſerting) and I will readily declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer.
But I charge my Governours, at leaſt by inſinuation, p. 3. l. 10.with a pretending to an Infallibility, in their requiring an unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all things deviſed and preſcribed by them; but this is an odious Inference. I anſwer, How odious ſoever, yet if the Charge be true, the odiouſneſs is not at all to be imputed to the Inſinuation, but wholly to the Injunction.
But, ſay you, This is deſtructive to the reaſon of all Laws;p. 3. l. 11. and by this Argument every Law-giver muſt be ſuppoſed to be Infallible; the end of all whoſe Injunctions are to be aſſented and conſented to. I anſwer, This is nothing deſtructive to other Laws; becauſe Law-makers in making thoſe Laws, never require of the people any ſuch unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by their Institutes, but only ſubmiſſion and obedience, Secular Laws reach only to compliance of the outward man, and not meddle with our thoughts and Conſcience; whereas this Declaration requires the inward approbation of the mind, will, and heart, as well as the outward obſervation in matter of practiſe, which is one great ground of our Quarrel againſt it. But, ſay you, If it be neceſſary there ſhould be a Rule of Uniformity, 'tis neceſſary that men ſubſcribe to it, p. 3. l. 16.not as an abſolute Rule of Conſcience, but as a Rule of Peace and Ordor: and this is all the Church requires, that they ſo far ſubmit their wills and underſtandings to their Governours, as for theſe ends to conform to what they have preſcribed. I anſwer, We muſt and ought to ſubmit our will and underſtanding to the preſcription of our Governours, both in Conformity, and in every caſe, ſo far forth as Conſcience will allow us, and no further. Conſcience will intermeddle, and be inquiſitive into all our actions, whether we will or no; and if Truth and Right be not at the bottom, Peace and Order (which otherwiſe in general ſhould prevail much with us) will never be able to free and juſtifie us from the inward ſevere cenſure and condemnation of it.
The Compoſers of this Book of Common-Prayer, thought all things therein right and good in every particular: but unto this I replied, Though this was their perſwaſion, yet it might not be every mans perſwaſion; and therefore I ſaid, I thought it not equal to compel all others▪ jurare in verba Magiſtri, to declare themſelves to be fully of the ſame mind and judgment with them: my reaſon was, Haſt thou Faith? have it to thy ſelf; force it not upon others, compel them not to think as thou thinkeſt, and to declare as thou declareſt. Now you would know of the ſcrupulous Non-conformiſt, … 3. l. 40.whether this rule be given to the publick Officers of the Church, or to the private Chriſtian? I anſwer, This Rule is given to all Chriſtians, whether publick or private; according to the ſeveral occurences which may befal them. You ſhould have rather queried, About what this rule is given? I would have told you, that it was given concerning things which are not evidently and certainly true and good in their own nature, beyond all doubtful diſputation:Rom. 14.1. now ſuch are many things contained in the Liturgy, as the reading of Apocrypha, ſigning with the ſign of the Croſs, &c. theſe things are not of an infallible truth, nor are we ſure of the goodneſs of them in their own nature by the Word of God: wherefore here the forementioned rule is moſt appoſite and neceſſary, Hast thou Faith? have it to thy ſelf: in theſe uncertain doubtful matters compel not others to judge as thou judgeſt, nor to affirm what thou affirmeſt. But, ſay you, Why, or how then can there be any publick Sanctions in the world?p. 3. l. 55. I anſwer, There ſhould be no publick Sanctions, eſpecially in the matters of God, and his Worſhip, unto which every private Profeſſor ſhall be called, and neceſſitated to give his unfeigned aſſent and conſent (as we are bound to do in all things, with reference to the Liturgy) but the truth and goodneſs of them, in their own nature, ſhould inſtantly and apparently be ſeen by every eye, beyond all ſcruple, or doubtful heſitation; for otherwiſe, whoſoever ſhall ſo declare his unfeigned aſſent and conſent, will either do it blindly, at all adventures, or elſe unfaithfully, with a wavering uncertain judgment, or elſe wickedly, againſt his own mind and thoughts. Wherefore the higheſt of publick Magiſtrates may not abuſe their Power into any oppreſſive compulſion, but are bound for Peace ſake, and for Conſcience ſake, not to bind the Conſciences of the people to believe and imbrace their private particular Sentiments, as if they were Oracular, and beyond all queſtioning; but leave them to their own liberty to judge as they pleaſe, until ſuch time as they are better informed, and more fully convinced.
But, ſay you, A publick Church-Officer may reject an Heretick. p. 3 l. 43.I anſwer, What is this to the matter before us? Becauſe he may reject an Heretick, that is, one who denies the Fundamentals of Religion and Godlineſs, therefore he is above this rule, Haſt thou Faith? have it to thy ſelf; and may compel thoſe under him to believe what he believes, and ſay what he ſaith: From ſuch a kind of wild reaſoning, libera nos! I profeſs I am at my wits end here, as in ſeveral other places, to find what you drive at; how then ſhall I fence my ſelf againſt you? I wiſhed, as to the Liturgy, our Law-givers had required no more than uſe and ſubmiſſion, as preceding Governours, h…d done before them. You ſay,p. 4. l. 2. And what is more required? I anſwer, Very much: for when I declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing, &c. I ſpeak as much as can be ſpoken in words, to expreſs my love, approbation, and choice, concerning all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by the Book, as moſt true and unqueſtionable to be believed, as moſt eligible and deſirable to be obſerved in every Office, Service, Rite, Ceremony, and Circumſtance thereof; but when I only ſubmit to the uſe of the Liturgy, I yield, for peace and order's ſake to my Superiours, in things not ſimply ſinful and unlawful, though in themſelves far from perfection, and far from my deſire in my own free choice and election. And what I have now aſſerted with little leſs than a contradiction to your ſelf, you have acknowledged already in your foregoing diſcourſe, Paragraph 4. And in this very Paragraph you do it again; when you ſay, 'Tis our Zeal too they are offended at,p. 4. l. 18. that beyond what our preceding Governours did, with reference to this Book of Common-Prayer, we thus ſtrictly enjoyn, that Miniſters do declare their unfeigned aſſent and conſent; but are not the men we have to deal with, thoſe that are gone off from all obedience to Church and State, and is it not reaſon we take ſome pledge of them for their future integrity? Is any man found guilty of a much leſs hainous Indictment, and yet diſcharged without giving Sureties for his behaviour? Shall men who have broken through Oaths of Allegiance, ſhall ſuch men be diſpleaſed, if we cannot take the Viper into our Breaſt without pulling out the Sting? That we dare not admit men of theſe Principles and Practices to come into the Church, without giving ſuch Caution of their being in good earneſt, as may juſtifie thoſe in admitting them, who have the care of the Publick? Now what is the purport and meaning of all theſe words, and many more of the ſame nature, but plainly to tell us, that an harder Yoke is now put upon our Necks, than upon Miniſters in former days? and that our Governours had all reaſon to make our Bonds ſtronger, as for the puniſhment of by-paſt miſcarriages, ſo for the prevention of future relapſes? Here therefore you forget your ſelf.
But, you ſay, It is not neceſſary to the aſſent and conſent here required,p. 4. l. 59. that every particular perſon ſhould take upon him expreſly to determine in all theſe points, 'tis ſufficient that nothing is ſinful; much leſs doth it become his humility to oppoſe the Opinion he hath of a thing's being good and expedient, to the ſenſe and reaſon of his Governours; 'tis matter of obedience belongs unto him, &c. I anſwer, Though this be your mind and judgment, I am clearly of another Opinion; I muſt determine, in all points, whether the things be right and good, yea or not, before I can aſſent and conſent unto them; I muſt be well aſcertained what I affirm for a truth, to be a truth indeed, elſe I may be guilty of ſome degree of lying in ſpeaking the very truth. It is not contrary to humility, but the juſt and due exerciſe of reaſon, to ſearch into the goodneſs and expediency of whatſoever I am called to aſſent and conſent unto, by whomſoever commanded; yea, and to oppoſe my private Opinion to the ſenſe and reaſon of my Governours, if what they ſtile ſenſe and reaſon, ſhall evidently appear to be without ſenſe and reaſon, and at the wideſt diſtance in a contrary way. Every man is bound to ſee with his own eyes, and to judge from his own underſtandings, if he will act like a rational Creature; it is not the part of Goſpel-humility, but of Sheepiſh ſtupidity to follow our Leaders, not at all conſidering or judging of the way, but by a blind Implicit Faith and ſubmiſſion, yielding to be turned into every path, meerly becauſe it is their pleaſure and appointment. Thus far in general, now in particular.
I excepted againſt the order and appointment for the reading of the holy Scriptures, becauſe many Books of Apocrypha are commanded to be read for the Leſſons of the day, as the Book of Tobit, Bell and the Dragon, &c. while ſome of the Sacred Canon are wholly left out, &c. Now for the removing this Exception, you ſay, We deſire that our Governours be not blamed,p. 5. l. 9. if according to their beſt diſcretion they have choſen out ſuch parts of Scripture to be read in the Congregation, which are moſt intelligible; and if they have omitted others, which they thought would not be for the edification of a vulgar Auditory; and if they have mixed ſome of Apocrypha, as may be of wholeſome inſtruction. I anſwer, Though you would not have your Governours blamed for this mixture, yet ſome others will queſtion their zeal and diſcretion herein, and think they have juſt reaſon ſo to do: For who ſhall preſume to be wiſer than Chriſt for the good nurture of his Church? who ſhall take on them to determine which is moſt intelligible, and moſt edifying to the people, either the holy Scripture, or any other writings? I am ſure he that knows it, hath ſaid, All Scripture (and therefore that part of Scripture alſo, which is left out of the Kalendar) is given by inſpiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for inſtruction in righteouſneſs, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furniſhed to all good works. There is no ſuch teſtimony left on Record, concerning any of the beſt parts of Apocrypha, though ſome of thoſe appointed to be read in the Congregation are far from the beſt; to ſay no more: Therefore this appointment by our Governours may well be ſcrupled; but then the other appointment upon this appointment is moſt highly to be blamed, I mean in their requiring all Miniſters to declare an unfeigned aſſent and conſent to this their appointment, though in their own hearts (at leaſt many of them) do not approve of this order, but wiſh it were otherwiſe. But is this a reaſon, ſay you,p. 5. l. 16. to break Communion with a Church, let any man judge? To this I have anſwered already; for though I would read ſome Books of Apocrypha, rather than break Communion with the Church, as poſſibly not being in it ſelf ſinful and unlawful; yet I would rather break Communion a thouſand times over with the beſt Church in the world, than be a wilful tranſgreſſor; and ſuch ſhould I be in a notorious manner, if a Lye be a tranſgreſſion; and I ſhould lye moſt egregiouſly to declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent, that is, my will and deſire to read the Apocrypha, rather than Scripture in the hearing of the people; for in the bottom of my Soul, and in the truth of my Reins, I am utterly againſt it.
I excepted againſt the order appointed for the Miniſtration of Baptiſm, becauſe of the ſtrict requiring of Godfathers and Godmothers, to ſtand as Sureties and Undertakers for the Child brought to his Chriſtendom, and this upon ſeveral accounts; as,
p. 5. l. 37.Firſt, Becauſe it is unſcriptural: Unto this you ſay, It cannot be ſuppoſed that this order of Godfathers and Godmothers ſhould be preſcribed in Scripture, the receiving of perſons by Baptiſm there being upon their own actual Faith, and before there was any National Church wherein this order could be obſerved; and it was ſufficient that the Children were then admitted to Baptiſm, as they were in the Covenant; that is, by the Faith of the Parents. I anſwer, In theſe words there ſeems to me to be a plain contradiction in themſelves, but nothing of reaſon, why Godfathers and Godmothers are not mentioned in Scripture for the baptizing of Infants. There is a contradiction in them; for you ſay, Perſons in thoſe times were received upon their own actual Faith; and yet you preſently add further, that Children were then admitted to Baptiſm by the Faith of their Parents. There is nothing of reaſon in them for what they are propounded; for though Parents were received by their own actual Faith, and Children by the Faith of ſuch Parents, what is this of bar and impediment to Godfathers and Godmothers at the baptizing of Infants? or why they ſhould not be mentioned and appointed in Scripture? Surely, in my weak apprehenſion, nothing at all: But the Adult, as you truly ſpeak, in Scripture-times were admitted into the Church by Baptiſm through their own actual Faith, and their Children were inveſted with the ſame Priviledge, by virtue of the Covenant, as being there declared in that Royal Charter and Patent, Fellow-Inheritors of the ſame Promiſe together with their Parents. And are not Children in our days received by Baptiſm in the ſame way, and upon the ſame terms and conditions, as from the beginning? Since therefore (according to your own Conceſſion) their Children then had no Sureties when they were baptized, neither need ours in the like Circumſtances. You would confute me, and you confute your ſelf. But you ſay, Abundans cautela ſhould not be ſcrupled,p. 5. l. 41. but rather commended. I anſwer, Let us not pretend to be more careful than God, in the receiving of thoſe into his Family, whom he commands us to receive; but leave him wholly to his own moſt Sapient Providence, and admit of all ſuch upon his own conditions, and conſult no better.
Secondly, I objected, that the Father of the Child is left out, not mentioned, nor at all taken notice of at the baptizing. For the vacating of this Objection, you ſay, The receiving the Child, ſuppoſes the Father concerned in it,p. 5. l. 45. becauſe it is through his Faith he is in Covenant. I anſwer, You ſpeak ſo much in the Clouds, that I am utterly at a loſs what Arrow you let fly at me, or what you intend. Every Child I know ſuppoſeth a Father, and every baptized Child a believing Parent; yet this believing Parent is left out; who notwithſtanding is and ought to be the main Suſceptor and Surety for his Childs good abearing: on him, I ſay, it is incumbent, to promiſe and vow to bring up his Child in the knowledge and obedience of the Chriſtian Faith, much rather than upon Godfathers and Godmothers. But you ſay,p. 5. l. 47. As to the particular ingaging of the Father for the Childs Education, he muſt be worſe than an Infidel, if he do not take care for thoſe of his own Houſe. I anſwer, Though I will not, yet ſome would be ready to reply, And therefore the Miniſter is worſe than an Infidel, if he do not mind him of his duty; eſpecially at ſuch a proper and peculiar ſeaſon, when this Parent may well be ſuppoſed to bring his Babe to the Miniſter, deſiring him to receive it, and make it a viſible Church-Member: But in the whole Office of Baptiſm, the Father is not conſidered, nor any thing of his duty ſignified unto him. But you ſay, Not to admit Godfathers and Godmothers,p. 5. l. 5 might in ſome caſes be totally to debar the Child of Baptiſm, becauſe it may ſo fall out that the Father may be dead before the Child is born; and then how ſhall he be offered to Baptiſm? I anſwer, Though the Father of the Child be dead, yet ſome one or other at all times, either by Nature, as being next of Kin, or by Deputation from the Perſon deceaſed, or ſome other way, will appear as a Propater, a ſecond Father to the Child, to offer him to Baptiſm: but put the caſe that none ſhould appear, yet for want of ſuch a Sponſor, the Babe muſt not be debarred of its right, but ought by the care of the Church both to be baptized, and edoctrinated in the Chriſtian Faith.
Thirdly, I objected, that Godfathers and Godmothers are generally brought to the Font to a vouch a great untruth, and make themſelves obnoxious of lying and Perjury in the Face of God, and the Church.p. 5 l. 51. You ſay, If they be guilty of this, this is their abuſe of what is well intended. I anſwer, Whatſoever is found by along Quotidian experience to be the occaſion of much ſin, (if it be not in it ſelf abſolutely neceſſary to be done and continued) in prudence and piety alſo it ought to be diſuſed.
p. 5. l. 54.But ſay you, The Child alſo may not anſwer the intents and purpoſes of that ſolemn Vow in Baptiſm, neither the Father make good his promiſe on the behalf of him; and therefore if Godfathers and Godmothers ſhall be detained from ingaging, for fear and danger of falſifying their promiſes and ingagements, with parity of reaſon the Child alſo upon the ſame account may be detained from being baptized, and the Father likewiſe from being a Surety for him. I anſwer, What God commands is one thing, and what Man commands is another: Whatſoever God commands to be obſerved, muſt be obſerved without regarding Conſequences (and ſuch I hope you apprehend at leaſt the Ordinance of Infant-baptiſm, if not alſo of the Father his then being chief Sponſor;) but in all humane commands and appointments conſequences are much to be weighed and conſidered, either as a Motive for them, or a Bar againſt them; and therefore ſuch humane commands ſhould not be impoſed which are never likely to be performed, much leſs thoſe which (as ſuch, and ſuch circumſtances may and often do ariſe and occur) are tantum non, next to an impoſſibility; now of this nature are thoſe duties required of Godfathers and Godmothers, with reference to their God-children, and of this kind is the task impoſed upon them, which yet raſhly and inconſiderately enough they undertake to make good and fulfil. You know the charge then given them by the Miniſter, and have given it your ſelf, I ſuppoſe, many and many a time, in theſe words; Foraſmuch as this Child hath promiſed by you, his Sureties, to renounce the Devil, and all his works, to believe in God, and to ſerve him: Ye muſt remember, that is your parts and duties to ſee that this Infant be taught, ſo ſoon as he ſhall be able to learn, what a ſolemn promiſe and profeſſion he hath here made by you: And that he may know theſe things the better, ye ſhall call upon him to hear Sermons, and chiefly ye ſhall provide that he may learn the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the ten Commandments in the vulgar Tongue, and all other things which a Chriſtian ought to know and believe to his Souls health, and that this Child may be vertuouſly brought up, lead a godly and Chriſtian life. Speak now, Sir, your Conſciſcience, and let not prejudice blind you, but tell me, bona fide, do you believe when you give this charge to Godfathers and Godmothers, that they are ever likely to perform it? Do you think when you call them to this arduous Province, they can anſwer the ends of it according to the truſt committed to their hands, or according to their ingagements; and not be found lyars? Godfathers and Godmothers, you know ſometimes live far from their God▪ children in another Hamlet, Village, Town, City, County, Country▪ generally they are at a diſtance in another houſe, and in another Street: how therefore is it poſſible for them to ſee the ſaid Children to be taught as ſoon as they are able to learn? and particularly to be inſtructed concerning the nature and quality of thoſe ſolemn baptiſmal promiſes made on their behalf? How is it poſſible for them to provide that the ſaid Children ſhall learn the Creed, &c. with all other things which a Chriſtian ought to know and believe to his Souls health? Can theſe things be brought to paſs, and effected, while God-children are down upon their knees, and ask their Godfathers bleſſing? or do they not require continuance of time, with a continual care and diligence? Theſe words which I command thee this day ſhall be in thine heart,Deut. 6.6. and thou ſhalt teach them diligently unto thy Children (not God-children) and talk of them, when thou ſitteſt in thine houſe, when thou lieſt down, and when thou riſeſt up. Parents who are daily and hourly converſant with their Children by often talking in their hearing concerning the matters of Religion both of Law and Goſpel, and by a frequent catechiſing and inſtructing them in the Rudiments thereof, may cauſe the knowledge of Chriſtianity guttatim to inſtill into their minds; and ſo train them up in the right way for their ſouls health; but for others to ſee this diligently proſecuted, and faithfully diſcharged, it is ſcarce feaſible, but rather on the contrary utterly impracticable. Therefore although you ſay, this Objection cannot bear any weight with conſidering men, p. 5. l. 48.it will be found, to be otherwiſe.
Before I paſs on to what follows, if it might not diſpleaſe you, I would ask you one queſtion more about Godfathers and Godmothers, Whether when you give them the forementioned charge, your ſelf hold them bound to perform the obligation of it? Did you ever in good earneſt, either in the Pulpit; or out of the Pulpit, mind them of their duty? Did you ever confer with them in private about the greatneſs and momentouſneſs of their Font-ingagements? One Mr. Falkner, I perceive, has written much in the high commendation of the Liturgy; has he any word of Conviction to chide with Godfathers and Godmothers for their Quotidian neglect, and to ſhew them the ſin and danger of it? has he any word of Exhortation to ſtir them up to pay their Vows, and bind their Conſciences to a due care and faithfulneſs herein? What, are we in earneſt, or in jeſt? what, is all meer formality without reality? At non ludendum eſt in ſacris; this Scene is not ſeemly, and I wiſh it might not continue.
p. 5. l. 63.You ſay, My reaſoning against the Croſs is ſo trifling, that you wonder with what face any can urge it? I anſwer, Be it ſo; but withall, pray let us ſee what ponderous Reaſons you can bring for it?p. 6. l. 11. They follow in theſe words, Did the Ancient Fathers plead ſo much for it in any other ſenſe than Chriſt commanded his Diſciples, to take up their Croſs, and follow him? Are they to imitate their Maſter in doing this, in the whole courſe of their life, and may they not uſe ſo much as a ſign of it to expreſs it to others, or bring them in mind of their duty themſelves? Davus ſum non Oedipus: I neither underſtand the ſenſe nor the ſcope of theſe words, much leſs how they are urged either againſt me, or for the good and expediency of the ſign of the Croſs in the Miniſtration of Baptiſm. If the Ancient Fathers did plead ſo much for the Croſs in no other ſenſe, but in Chriſts ſenſe, then in your ſenſe they pleaded not for it at all; that is, for the ſign of the Croſs to be made in the Forehead by the finger of a Miniſter: For was this the Croſs Chriſt commanded his Diſciples to take up, and follow him? Are they again, ſay you, to imitate their Master in doing this, and may they (his Diſciples) not uſe ſo much as a ſign of it, to expreſs it to others, (I ſuppoſe you mean by others, the children baptized) or to bring them (theſe children) in mind of their duty themſelves? I anſwer, God never ordained the ſign of the Croſs, to bring us in mind or remembrance of bearing Chriſts Croſs, that is of ſuſtaining foreign;Col. 1.24. and drinking what remains behind of that bitter Cup, which the Lord Jeſus did propine to all his Followers: Neither can I ſee any aptitude in the ſign of the Croſs, as it is there applied in Baptiſm, to any ſuch purpoſe. For, firſt, the Croſs is aiery and tranſient upon the fleſh, and not inured in the fleſh; how therefore ſhall that that is vaniſhed bring the Child hereafter in mind of his duty, as to confeſs the Faith of Chriſt crucified, and manfully to fight under his Banner? &c. Secondly, becauſe the Child baptized is then not a Subject capable of knowing, regarding, or minding what Croſſing imports. Surely therefore if the ſign of the Croſs ſhall be thought at all requiſite and expedient, it would be much better deferred and reſerved for the time of Confirmation; for then Children may well be ſuppoſed to have attained and gained the uſe of Reaſon, to know and remark what is ſaid and done unto them: Yet I confeſs if many of them be not, yet they may and ought to be confirmed (though wholly beſides the true intent and end of that Church-conſtitution) while they are very Children; for this is according to the order in that caſe, which runs in theſe words, Ye (Godfathers and Godmothers) are to take care that this Child be brought to the Biſhop, to be confirmed by him ſo ſoon as he can ſay the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and ten Commandments in the Vulgar Tongue, &c. My Children, I thank my God, could ſay all theſe as perfectly as my ſelf before they were four years old, and I aſſure you too in the Vulgar Tongue; for I pray tell me, what Proteſtants now teach them their children in Latin? what need therefore of that grave Item and Caution? only we muſt ſtill go on in the old road, when the cuſtoms of things are altered and antiquated, and the reaſon of them utterly annihilated: But in the interim, I thought not my Children then fit for Confirmation, but wiſh they may be found worthy ten years after.
And now, notwithſtanding what has been ſpoken to the contrary, I will grant you your Plea, viz. That the ſign of the Croſs is to bring the children baptized in mind of their duty, to confeſs the Faith of Chriſt crucified, &c. But then will it not be too too like a Sacrament upon a Sacrament, thus to add the ſign of the Croſs unto Baptiſm; though for me to ſay ſo, you ſtile it frivolous? For what is a Sacrament? Is it not, according to the Catechiſm, an outward and viſible ſign of an inward and ſpiritual grace? Is not the ſign of the Croſs an outward and viſible ſign? and is not the minding of our duty, or the practical remembrance of confeſſing of the Faith of Chriſt crucified, and of manfully fighting under Chriſts Banner, the inward and ſpiritual grace? I leave it to your conſideration.
Baptizing it ſelf, I ſaid, ipſo facto, does oblige the perſon baptized, and withall exhibits a vertue to every worthy Partaker, to confeſs the Faith, and to fight againſt Sin, the World, and the Devil.p. 6. l. 23. Here you except againſt me, and ſay, The expreſſion looks too like the Sacrament's conſerring grace, ex opere operato. I anſwer, If the expreſſion be fairly and candidly interpreted, it ſignifies nothing leſs in the true ſenſe and meaning of thoſe words, as they are commonly ſpoken, and taken among Divines. You would pick ſomething out of the words ipſo facto, which yet there imply no more than this, when the baptizing is over, or the waſhing of water in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, is done or performed by the Miniſter, without any future or further ſigning with the ſign of the Croſs. And yet after all, the Sacraments are not nuda ſigna, ſed ſigna exhibentia & obſignantia to every worthy Partaker of them; and who are thus worthy, I will acquaint you in ſomething which ſhall be ſpoken to by and by. But to requite you for your kindneſs, I pray Sir, let me know whether my ſaying, That baptizing in the Name of the Father, &c. obliges the perſon, and exhibits the power, &c. does import and imply the Sacraments conferring grace ex opere operato, and not your Rubrick much more, which ſaith, It is certain by Gods Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they have committed actual ſin, are undoubtedly ſaved? Qui alterum accuſat probri, ipſum ſe intueri oportet.
For the juſtification of this Rubrick I called for Scripture, and you ſay to that purpoſe, What think we of S. Peter's telling us, p. 6. l 441 Epiſt. 3.20, 21. Where ſpeaking of thoſe who were ſaved in Noah's Ark by water, he ſubjoyns, the like Figure whereunto even Baptiſm doth alſo now ſave us? I anſwer, I think S.Peter ſpeaks nothing to the juſtification of the Rubrick; but only thus far in general, That as Noah and his Family in the Ark were ſaved from the Deluge, ſo people by Baptiſm are ſaved from the worſer Deep; and theſe not only Children before actual ſin, but even the Adult alſo after the perpetration of the ſame; for ſuch were all they who were houſed and ſaved in the Ark. If therefore you will frame an argument from hence for the ſalvation of Infants baptized before actual ſin, the argument is of like force for men and women baptized, though actually guilty: And then from hence it will follow, that all perſons baptized are undoubtedly ſaved. Here is opus operatum, conferring grace with a witneſs, and without all failure: Though it is far otherwiſe, as we may ſee even in that Type of Baptiſm; for notwithſtanding Cham was ſaved in the Ark with an Ark ſalvation, yet we think him a Caſtaway; ſo thouſands may be ſaved with a Baptiſm-ſalvation, and yet periſh eternally. But you add further,p. 6. l. 51. Chriſt ſaith of ſuch (i. e. of little children that come unto him, and it is by Baptiſm only that th…y can come) is the Kingdom of Heaven. I anſwer, Granting this coming to Chriſt is intended of Baptiſm (as I am wholly of your mind, and glad to find another of mine in this particular) yet this is ſpoken indefinitely of all little Children, as well as of the baptized, and before their baptizing, and not after; for Chriſt ſaith, Becauſe they are of the Kingdom of God, let them come unto me; and not, that they may be ſo; let them come and be ſigned and ſealed, becauſe they are of ſuch a number and order, who ſhall inherit the Kingdom. Again, though Chriſt ſaith, Of ſuch is the Kingdom of God; yet of ſuch, does not neceſſarily include all Children in general, though coming unto Chriſt, but may well be underſtood of ſome particulars among them. Your ſtrongeſt Argument I have reſerved to the laſt, taken out of S. Mark, Chap. 1.4. Is not Baptiſm ſaid to be for remiſſion of ſins, ſuch it is in it ſelf, ſuch it cannot cut be to thoſe who rightly partake of it;p. 6. l. 46. and if Children do this, if by this they are actually brought into the Covenant of Grace, whilſt they break no Law, as 'tis only by actual tranſgreſſion they can do this; is it any queſtion that they are undoubtedly ſaved, that is put at leaſt in a ſalvable condition? He has better learned Ariſtotle's Organon than ever I can do, who knows to reduce this confuſed heap of both of words and matter into any juſt Syllogiſm. I ſee indeed you are a very cunning Sophiſter, if in nothing elſe, yet in this, that you quote Scripture by halves (I will not tell you like unto whom) leaving out that part of it which would deſtroy your argument, as he thoſe words which would have overthrown his temptation. You ſay, Is not Baptiſm ſaid to be for remiſſion of ſins? whereas the Text is thus; John did baptize in the Wilderneſs, Mark 1.4.and preach the Baptiſm of Repentance for the remiſſion of ſins. The Baptiſm therefore here ſpoken of belongs not properly to Infants; for, firſt, it is a Baptiſm of Repentance, of which Infants are not capable: Secondly, it is for remiſſion of ſins, which therefore imply actual ſins, whereas Infants are only guilty of Original ſin, and that is but one. And beſides all this, remiſſion of ſins, there ſpoken of, relates not ſo much unto Baptiſm, as unto Repentance; for John Baptiſt his great work was to call people to Repentance, In thoſe days came the Baptiſt preaching, and ſaying, Repent ye, for the Kingdom of God is at hand; upon this account his baptiſm is ſtiled, The Baptiſm of Repentance; and he himſelf ſaith, Matth. 3.11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: And as a teſtimony of their true repentance, he called them to his baptiſm, and not otherwiſe; and accordingly if their repentance were unfeigned and ſincere, anſwerable to the outward ſign of it in Baptiſm, their ſins ſhould be remitted unto them, elſe abide upon them, notwithſtanding that waſhing. This is the true intent of the place, as we have it explained from the mouth of Peter, Act. 2.38. Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſins. But notwithſtanding what I have now anſwered, I will yet acknowledge, that true and real Goſpel-baptiſm is for remiſſion of ſins: but then we muſt well underſtand and find out, what this true and real Goſpel-baptiſm is, and wherein it conſiſts; for John Baptiſt himſelf ſaith, I indeed baptize with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, he ſhall baptize you with the Holy Ghoſt, and with Fire. There is Baptiſma flu…i…, & B…tiſma flaminis, an outward and inward Baptiſm, the one of Water, and the other of the Spirit; the one to purge away the filth of the body, the other to purge away the filth of the ſoul. Now there is a wide and vaſt difference between theſe two, which are not only diſtinguiſhable, but ſeparable, and often ſeparated the one from the other. The Baptiſm of Water is often without the Baptiſm of the Spirit, and the Baptiſm of the Spirit without the Baptiſm of Water. Where theſe two happily meet together in the ſame perſon, there the bleſſed reſult and conſequence hereof is ſure pardon, and remiſſion of ſins, and the final iſſue, undoubted ſalvation; otherwiſe not. But now who ſhall preſume to tell, as to hic & nunc (when this and another Child is baptized) concerning the certain concurrence of both theſe? who hath known the mind of God herein? who can diſcover this inſcrutable ſecret? But yet let me not be miſtaken when I ſaid, otherwiſe not; for it is to be reſtrained only to the firſt Baptiſm: for though this cannot ſeal unto us the pardon of ſins without the laſt, yet the laſt can do it by it ſelf alone without the firſt. All the Ancient Patriarchs, and Prophets, and holy Confeſſors, and Saints before Chriſt's Incarnation, had only the laſt Baptiſm; and ſince that time, all thoſe Infant-Martyrs under the butchery of Herod, had only this laſt Baptiſm; thouſands of the Seed of believing Parents, ſome of them dying before they were born, and ſome of them immediately after, have had only this laſt Baptiſm: that bleſſed Babe which brake out of the Womb, while the Mother of it was now ſacrificing her Body in the Flames, for a teſtimony to the Truth againſt curſed Papiſts, (who moſt cruelly and unnaturally forthwith condemned this young Heretick to be burnt, together with the old one) had only this laſt baptiſm; notwithſtanding the ſins of all theſe (and of all others in the ſame circumſtances) were undoubtedly remitted, and their ſouls undoubtedly ſaved. Though they were not made partakers of the outward waſhing, yet the inward waſhing was graciouſly vouchſafed to them unto life everlaſting: this therefore is that which I would call the true and real Goſpel-baptiſm, foreign, by way of Eminency; whereas the outward Baptiſm of Water, which is only in the power of man to adminiſter, can never do away ſin, neither can it aſſure us of the remiſſion of the ſame. He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that Circumciſion which is outward in the fleſh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and Circumciſion is that of the heart, and in the ſpirit, Rom. 2.28. In like manner, he is not a Chriſtian who is one outwardly, neither is that baptiſm which is outward on the fleſh, but he is a Chriſtian who is one inwardly, and baptiſm is that of the heart, and in the ſpirit: this, this only is the unerring infallible ſign and ſeal unto us of our intereſt in the Covenant of Grace, and the great bleſſing annexed to it: I will be merciful unto their unrighteouſneſs, and their ſins and iniquities I will remember no more, Heb. 7.12. But now who knows, whether all and every one among the multitude of young children that have the baptiſm of the fleſh, have alſo the baptiſm of the heart, and in the ſpirit? This is thick darkneſs, and we cannot pierce through it. Since therefore here we are left at uncertainty, though the ſaid children be baptized, and though they die before they have committed actual ſin, yet never the more can we be certain by Gods Word, that they are undoubtedly ſaved.
Yet for all this, the baptiſm on the fleſh, or waſhing with water, is not an inſignificant Ceremony, but has its weighty and momentous ends, according to the wiſe counſel of him that ordained it, handing forth many general, bleſſings to all that are baptized; and beſides theſe, more ſpecial favours to every worthy partaker of it; and this ſignal one among others,Remiſſion of ſins. And now why tarrieſt thou? ariſe and be baptized, and waſh away thy ſins, calling on the Name of the Lord. But then we muſt carefully ſingle out who are the worthy partakers; there is therefore a double worthineſs, the one external, and the other internal: now theſe ſpecial bleſſings are imparted not to thoſe who are only worthy with an external worthineſs, but with an internal alſo. All they may be ſaid to be externally worthy, who have an outward call, and are duly qualified, according to the rules of the Goſpel, to participate of that Ordinance; and among others, the children of Profeſſors, or the children of believing Parents: All they, and only they have an inward worthineſs, who are the called of God according to his purpoſe, and choſen in Chriſt before the foundation of the world: now unto all theſe, and only unto theſe, the Sacrament does ſign, ſeal, exhibit, and convey the grace of the Goſpel. When I ſay, exhibit and convey, I mean only in ſuo genere, according to the nature of the Ordinance, as an Inſtrument in the hand of Omnipotency, who worketh in, and by, and with whatſoever means he will, and effecteth all his counſels and ſtupendious works, in this way and manner, with never failing ſucceſs; as when with the blaſt of Rams horns he tumbled down the Walls of Jerico, or to come nearer to the matter in hand, when with the waters of Jordan he healed the Syrian of his Leproſie. You ſee therefore, that it is not the Sacrament it ſelf, as it is opus operatum in the adminiſtration of it, but the Omnipotency and faithfulneſs of God in the application of it, conferring grace; and yet not unto all, but only unto the worthy Partakers, and theſe alſo with an inward worthineſs. To conclude therefore, as Baptiſm is for remiſſion of ſins, ſo likewiſe the Lords Supper, This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood, ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins. It was indeed for remiſſion of ſins unto the Eleven, but not unto Judas, though he drank of that Cup as well as his Colleagues, yea and had a worthineſs for it, that is an outward worthineſs, and was rightly admitted unto it, but wanted the inward: To the inwardly worthy the bleſſing is communicated, but from all others the bleſſing is ſuſpended.
Among other things you ſay,p. 61.48. Children by Baptiſm are actually brought into the Covenant of Grace. Here again I might faſten upon you the opus operatum conferring grace, as well as you upon me from a leſſer cauſe: but I paſs it by to tell you of another errour; for children of believers were actually, i.e. really and truly in the Covenant of Grace before their Baptiſm, becauſe it is by vertue of their intereſt in that Covenant, that they are admitted to that Ordinance: Baptiſm is but an open Declaration of that which before was more latent and implicit; it ſtrengthens our Claim to the Covenant, but our Title was good and ſure before. In a word, Baptiſm is as the mutual ſealing, when both ſides are agreed; the Articles are drawn up, all things are concluded, and now only to be conſummated, by ſetting their Hands and Seals.
Children, ſay you, baptized, and dying before actual ſin, p. 6. l. 50.are undoubtedly ſaved, that is, put at leaſt in a ſalvable condition. I anſwer, After all your ſtrong Proofs and Arguments, you faint in your great Aſſertion and very tamely are contented to come down to lower Terms. Ʋndoubtedly ſaved, that is, to be in a Salvable condition. You are like the wiſe Steward, who inſtead of an Hundred Talents willed the Debtor to write down Fifty. Ʋndoubtedly ſaved, and to be put into a Salvable condition, are no Synonyma's; for the laſt is far ſhort from an Equipolency to the firſt. There is a vaſt difference between a Non poſſe non vivere, and a poſſe non mori, between a neceſſary enjoyment of life with the utmoſt ſecurity from death, and the moſt poſſible yea probable attainment of life, cum formidine contrarij, with the hazzard of the contrary. Of theſe two, Undoubtedly ſaved is the firſt, and a Salvable condition is the laſt. You know the Proverb, A bird in the hand. Undoubtedly ſaved is a Ship arrived, put in and ſafely come to ſhore, paſt all danger; a Salvable condition is a ſhip far off on the main; Though ſhe be a ſtout and ſtrong built Veſſel, with all her Tacklings firme and compleat, and in a good and likely way to make a proſperous Voyage yet ſhe may miſcarry and periſh in the deep. Your paraphraſe therefore is paradox to the Text, though ſound and Orthodox in it ſelf; Children Baptized are indeed in a Salvable condition, not only before, but alſo after they have committed actual ſin: yea (according to the Doctrine of the Liturgy, in the order appointed for the burial of the dead) not only Children, but grown up men, committing actual ſins (ſins of the deepeſt die, moſt groſs immoralities, not to be named among Chriſtians, Heaven-daring and Hell-deſerving ſins, all the days of their lives, unto their laſt Exit) are ſtill in a Salvable condition: Or elſe how can they be thought to be in an hope-able condition? You know what is read over all ſuch, when they are brought to the Grave. That when we ſhall depart this life we may reſt in him (in Chriſt) as our hope is this our Brother doth. There is a Goſpel without an hope to relie upon the promiſe of it, and there is an hope, I ſee, without a Goſpel to juſtifie the reaſon of it. But that remains yet to be diſcuſſed: I therefore return to the matter before us. Children Baptized are in a Salvable condition, that is in a right, hopeful, and probable way of ſalvation, according to the Goſpel. For though Chriſt hath ſaid it, many are called, and few are Choſen; and though from hence, even becauſe of the multitude who are called into Gods Family continually by Baptiſme, as from other Objections, ſome Scruples may ariſe in our minds, powerful enough to take off, and hinder the full Aſſurance, and certain belief of the undoubted Salvation of all ſuch; yet becauſe the ſecret things of Election belong wholly to God, and the revealed things of the outward call only unto us, we according to what is revealed unto us in that outward call, may and ought to judge Charitably concerning all Infants Baptized, and hope well of their Eternal State. In the general, we have good reaſon to believe, that God will own and bleſs his own Ordinances, and grant Salvation to his people in his own ways and Inſtitutions appointed for ſuch an end. Truth hath ſaid it, He that believeth and his Baptized ſhall be ſaved. Children, I confeſs cannot actually believe, and ſo perhaps this promiſe is not properly theirs: yet they cannot wholly be debarred of it; for even in their infancy, the ſeed of Grace, and the ſeed of Faith, may be ſown and Rooted in their Hearts; but however they are actually Baptized, which leads on directly to the Bleſſing there mentioned, and has ſuch a full and fair Aſpect upon the ſame, that I would not be wanting of the Ordinance of Baptiſme my ſelf, nor deprive my Children of it for Thouſands of Gold and Silver; and the rather becauſe Wiſdom hath ſaid again, Except a man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
You have therefore my vote and ſuffrage, for the Salvable condition Children Baptized: I leave them in the way of life, while yet they are living: in via Salutis, dum viatores, but how they can be thought or ſaid to be ſo in termino, after they are gone to their long, laſting, Everlaſting home; or how you can apply this for the vindication of the Rubrick, is beyond my underſtanding. It is certain by Gods Word, that Children which are Baptized, dying before they commit actual ſin, are undoubtedly ſaved; that is, ſay you, in your explanation, they are put at leaſt in a Salvable condition, what are they ſtill but in a Salvable condition after dying? I ſhall make no remark upon this remarkable—but am ready to Treſpaſs another way, even volens nolens. Quis tale legendo Temperet a riſu? Nevertheleſs this ſhall be ſpoken for your Honour, that you are a more generous Opponent than the former; for you intrepedly and Heroickly own juſtifie the Truth of the Rubrick; when as he moſt baſely and ſneakingly would have ſhuffled it off by the ſlight of evaſion: not allowing it any place in his aſſent and conſent, though it hath evidently a place in the Liturgy and is a part of the whole.
But then on the other ſide, I think him more ſober than your ſelf, though he call a certain query of mine, A raving queſtion: which was this, ſince Baptizing gives ſuch an unqueſtionable Title unto heaven, may a Miniſter deny the Ordinance to any infant whatſoever, if he might be permitted to Adminiſter it? In particular I brought down the queſtion to a True believer, whoſe Child had an unqueſtionable right unto Goſpel Baptiſme according to the Terms and conditions of the Goſpel; Whether, if ſuch a believer ſhould bring his Child to the Font, and deſire the Miniſter to have it Baptized, but yet either out of weakneſs or tenderneſs of Conſcience, Scruples God-Fathers and God-Mothers, and the ſign of the Croſs, and dares not admit of them, the Miniſter may and ought upon that ſcore deny his Babe Chriſtendom? He ſaith in ſuch a Caſe the anſwer is plain, that he ought not. p. 19.26.Though here he ſpeaks without Book, I mean the Common-prayer Book, and againſt the Order of it in the Baptizing of Infants. Whereas you ſay on the contrary in theſe words, That odium he (meaning me) would load the Miniſter with, that ſhall deny to Adminiſter Baptiſm to them, who come not according to the Rule of the Church—are (ſurely it ſhould be, is, referring to odium) beſides our Argument, p. 7. l. 9.'tis ſufficient he (the Miniſter) hath no Title (I think you mean hath no right, for I am often at a loſs to unriddle you) ſo to do it, that he is more ſerious in his function, than to be knowingly unjuſt, either to the truſt the Church or God himſelf, as I may ſay, hath repoſed in him. If a Father come to have his Child Baptized, but not according to the Rules of the Church: The Miniſter has no Title ſo to do it, and therefore in ſuch Circumſtances will be more juſt to the truſt repoſed in him than to Baptize the ſaid Child. If this be not the purport and intention of your words, you ſpeak unintelligibly: but if they be, you fight againſt your fellow Souldier, yea and againſt Truth it ſelf. Shall we obey God or Man? Chriſt hath ſaid, Go and diſciple all Naions, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, &c. and among others, the Children of believing profeſſing Parents, ſimply becauſe they are ſo: This is the True Goſpel truſt put into the hands of Goſpel Miniſters; well, but the Church or man commands, to Baptize them with God-Fathers and God Mothers, and the ſign of the Croſs, meer accidents and acceſſories, forreign from the Nature and Eſſence of Baptiſm, but only invented and impoſed from Humane Tradition; which therefore ſome weak and Scrupelous believers, queſtion and fear as a profanation of that Holy Ordinance, and accordingly dare not ſo addreſs themſelves with their Children unto Baptiſm. But now ſhall their Babes upon this account be denyed their birth-right? Shall they be denyed a priviledge ſo excellent and ſo deſirable? Shall a pitiful order of the Church in Compariſon over-rule and obtain? Shall it be heeded and obſerved by the Miniſter more than the Regia placita of heaven it ſelf? God forbid.
I Objected againſt the order for the burial of the dead; becauſe what is there ſpoken to God and man, though often at the interment of the worſt of ſinners, is ſpoken of them as if they had been Saints. and moſt devout Holy perſons, and their Souls then in a ſafe and happy State. For firſt the Congregation by the mouth of the Miniſter ſpeaks as it were to themſelves one to another, concerning the party deceaſed, Foraſmuch as it hath pleaſed God of his great mercy to take unto himſelf the Soul of our dear brother. He is a Brother, a dear Brother, his Soul is now taken by God, taken in mercy, in great mercy, and it is taken to himſelf. And then when Corps is put into the Grave, he continues his ſpeech in theſe words, we therefore commit his body to the ground, in a ſure and certain hope of the Reſurrection to Eternal life. Then Secondly the Congregation, in the cloſe of the Office, by the mouth of the Miniſter, ſpeaks unanimouſly to God, we meekly beſeech the O Father, to raiſe us from the death of ſin to the life of righteouſneſs; that when we ſhall depart this life we may reſt in him, Chriſt Jeſus, as our hope is this our Brother doth. What can be ſaid more, if the moſt Holy Martyr, or confeſſour, if Stephen again were carried to his Burial? Let him be a Nabal, a Cain, a Judas, yet here is (if I might uſe the Word) his Apotheoſis, his enthronization among the Crowned in Celeſtial glory. You ſay I have only this to ſay, …. 7. l. 15.That it is in the judgment of Charity we prenounce this of all. I anſwer, Charity with judgment, is a gracious Excellency, but without judgment, it is the greateſt abſurdity, and nothing elſe but the vain opinion of an over-pittiful ſimplicity. But if Charity be with judgment, then it muſt have ſome Rule of judging: and if the right Golden Rule, then this Rule is the Word, for I know no other; Now if Charity hath this Golden Rule of the Word to judge by, then Charity can have no hope for ſome (many) flagitious abominable ſinners, ſo living and ſo dying, when they are brought to be buried; as ſuppoſe two Hectors falling out, and fighting for a Miſs, and both killing one another in the place; or let it be one of them: which happens too too often: ſuppoſe ſome High-way Gentlemen in the very Act of Robbery, ſhot down ſtark dead the ſame moment by the Honeſt Traveller, and thus I might inſtance in many like Caſes. Here, if we will ſpeak ſoberly and according to Truth, we can have no hope: nothing being written in the whole Bible, from end to end, to ground the leaſt of any ſuch hope upon. Here to mention, what happened to the Thief upon the Croſs, and what may be the dealings of God with the moſt profane wretch at the laſt Minute, as you do; and what may befall the moſt profligate perſons, inter pontem & fontem, as ſome others; is a vain execuſe, and cannot afford the leaſt ſhew or ſhadow of a juſt Apology. As for the Thief upon the Croſs, a wonderful Act of mercy was extended to him at the laſt, by an extraordinary priviledge, at an extraordinary occaſion; but withal we know what a wonderful extraordinary Teſtimony he gave of his Faith, and of the Change of his heart before expiration. The order for the burial of the dead, might have been proper enough at his interment: but would it alſo have been as proper at the interment of the other his Copartner in ſin? Had he ſuffered in England (ſuppoſing all things then as now) he might have then been buried according to Liturgy. For I ſee none elſe excluded, but the unbaptized, Excommunicate, and laying violent hands upon themſelves; and yet even theſe alſo upon your grounds may equally be admitted to Chriſtian burial; I am ſure the firſt of them, the unbaptized, may upon far better; and as for the worſt of the other, who knows how gracious God may be in his dealings with them in the laſt Minute? Who knows? None can know: and becauſe none can know, therefore none can hope: for hope without knowledge is a meer Nullity. As for what we know concerning ſuch abominable wicked workers (if we believe the Holy Scripture, which ſaith, Neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Thieves, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor revilers, nor Extortioners ſhall ever inherit the Kingdome of God; which ſaith, without regeneration and holineſs no man ſhall ſee the Lord, and every where to the like purpoſe) it ſpeaks their condition deſperate and damned; and therefore with ſilence, but without hope, we muſt leave them wholly to the diſpoſition and determination of God their judge. And this alſo you ſeem to to acknowledge and concede: for in making good thoſe words, ſince it hath pleaſed God of his great mercy to take unto himself—you ſay, That it is not neceſſary the Words in great mercy ſhould refer to the Perſons taken away, for it may be mercy, p. 7. l. 17.and a great mercy, to them who ſuffered by their injury, or ill Examples, ſuppoſing them to be ſuch in whom no ſhew of goodneſs did appear. I anſwer, I thank you heartily for this new Notion, which never before came upon the imagination of my thoughts, nor perhaps of any other: ſo that you may ſay in a boaſt as Zabbarel (if I hit right upon his name)Ego primus hoc inveni. Verily the Gens Togata, I mean all of the Clergy, are much your Debtors, and I hope in gratitude will highly extoll the acumen of your wit, and the pregnancy of your invention. For a recompence, I think my ſelf bound to tell you a ſtory, which this rare piece of Fancy of yours brought freſh into my remembrance. In thoſe days (when the Book of ſports and paſtimes, as Lawful and expedient to be indulged to youth, and fit to be exerciſed on the Lords day) was commanded to be publiſhed, and accordingly was read in moſt Congregations; Deus bone! What are the beſt of men, the Tribe of Levi, the Sons of the Church themſelves, when they come to be Tryed! Yet there were ſome of them Non-conformiſts to the reſt, who neither could nor would do what was then required, what ever they ſuffered. One of them a moſt worthy Preacher, was deſired by ſome of his Chief Pariſhoners to viſit his friends in another County, and to abſent himſelf from them three weeks or a month together: and in the interim they procured an Old certain Saint John (a very obſcure perſon, who neglected his dreſs, but cheriſhed the Hair of his face and beard at a ſtrange rate) to do this good turn for him: who by the like Crotchet of an extraordinary fancy was ready at their ſervice, and made no bones of it. He comes therefore, and appears in the Desk, after the manner of ſome Wild Satyr out of a Wood, and for the better grace of the matter, what he ſpake was with a Twanging Tone out of his Noſe. Well; he ſets upon the performance of the work, and reads over the Book of Sports diſtinctly and audibly: but when he had done, he added as followeth; Beloved Brethren! Here the King gives you liberty to play on Sundays, and to exerciſe youth in vain ſports and paſtimes, which to do is aprofanation of the Sabbath, and a breach of Gods Holy commandment: but now, brethren! do you underſtand the Kings mind, and his true intent and meaning herein? Why, I will tell you, my brethren! a Father has a ſtubborn rebellious Child, and he ſees his Temper, and ſpirit from time to time, aukward and croſs to do any thing he is bidden, but rather more reſolved and forward to do the contrary; wherefore the Father, when he would have anything done by this perverſe and froward boy, forbids him the doing of it: but what indeed he would not have done, he charges him to do it. Thus in like manner, my brethren! Our good and gracious King has commanded us to obſerve the Sabbath in coming to Church, and in a Religious ſerving and Worſhipping of God, by many good preceeding Laws, and Orders for that end and purpoſe: but ſtill ſuch is our contumacy and wickedneſs, that we drink and play, and have our Dances and Revels on that bleſſed day, in a ſhameful manner: wherefore he ſeeing our perverſe Rebellious carriage, againſt his former good Precepts, he ſpeaks unto us by contraries, He bids now play on Sundays, but his true meaning is, that we ſhould no longer play, as formerly we have done, but keep God's Sabbath better, and more Religiouſly; this is all our good and gracious King (judging of us according to our wonted croſſeneſs) intended in publiſhing this book of liberty, and I hope will follow upon the reading of it. Here was a ſtrange unexpected, and unlooked for enucleation of the mind of the King, as now yours is of the words of the Liturgy. When I heard this relation firſt, I was hugely pleaſed with it: and ſaid, it was pity ſome Courtier had not not acquainted the King with it; who certainly would have rewarded this rare interpreter with a Dean's or Prebend's place, for his eminent underſtanding and ſervice herein: I wiſh you the ſame ſucceſs in your parallel Atchievement. But in the interim we muſt conſider, whether thoſe words in great mercy can admit of any ſuch avulſion from the words following, which relate unto the dead, to be an Apoſtrophe to them that are living? Let us read them and weigh them, For as much as it hath pleaſed God of his great mercy, to take to himſelf the Soul of our dear brother here departed, &c. Therefore the perſon here ſpoken of cannot be (as you would ſuppoſe him) a man of an ill example, an injurious perſon, p. 7. l. 17.and in whom no ſhew of goodneſs did ever appear, for he is a brother, a dear brother, and his Soul now taken to God and accordingly theſe words, in great mercy, muſt refer unto himſelf the perſon taken away, and not unto others; unto whom this his being taken away, was rather in judgment, and for Correction, by the loſs of ſuch a dear brother. Notwithſtanding procure a Rubrick to confirm your interpretation, for until then (according to your own look) I may not believe it: but when I ſhall ſee that once affixed,p. 3. l. 7. let the turning of theſe words, in great mercy, from the dead to the living, be proper or improper, it ſhall be all one in the Caſe; for your ſenſe of them ſhall be moſt authentick with me.
You have yet another Salve for the ſore place, to juſtifieth is laſt Office for the dead, in theſe words,p. 7. l. 23. l. 27. Nor have I ever thought the perſon Officiating, obliged to uſe this form of burials intirely in all Caſes—ſomething I conceive may be left to the diſcretion of the Prieſt, eſpecially with the advice of his Ordinary, &c. Your meaning plainly is this, that you may leave out ſome part of what is appointed to be read for the burial of the dead, if the perſons buried be not ſubjects proper for it, but utterly the contrary. As for Example, if the perſon to be buried, has been a notorious flagitious offender from firſt to laſt, then after your own diſcretion, eſpecially with the advice of your Ordinanry, you may leave out the words, in great mercy, and to himſelf dear, and the like, and read only thus, For aſmuch as it hath pleaſed God to take the Soul of our brother, we therefore commit his body, &c. Thus likewiſe in the cloſe, you may omit thoſe words, as our hope is this our brother doth, and read it thus, That when we ſhall depart this life, we may reſt in him, and at the general Reſurrection be found acceptable in his ſight, &c.
I Anſwer, It would be well, if the Miniſter might thus be left to his own diſcretion, ſuppoſing all parties agreed, and that there would be no ſcandal in the Caſe; which I look upon as an impoſſibility. For put the Caſe, after you have declared your unfeigned Aſſent and Conſent to all and every thing contained in the book of Common-prayers, before the face of God, and the Congregation, one of them ſhould immediately ſtep forth and ſay, Sir do you like and approve of all, and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by the order for the burial of the dead? E're long your Office will call you to bury as curſed, Reprobate wretches as ever breathed; for too too many ſuch are among us. Do you think it lawful and expedient to ſtile every one of that ſort, dear brother? can you then with a good Conſcience ſay, God in great mercy hath taken his Soul to himſelf? Or can you expreſs your hope before God, even ſure and certain hope, of his reſting in Chriſt, and eternal happineſs? What now will you anſwer to his Queſtions? will you bring in your laſt mentioned plea, and think to help and juſtifie your ſelf by it? Will you replie thus, Friend, I have indeed in your hearing, as in the hearing of the whole Congregation, declared my unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all, and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by the book of Common-prayer, and by conſequence, as you juſtly infer, to all and every thing appointed for the burial of the dead; but yet you muſt know, I have a mental reſervation according to my own diſcretion; and beſides, my Ordinary, though I have avouched I will do this and that, has given me a ſecret Licence, to leave it undone inſuch and ſuch Caſes; and in this very Caſe in particular about burying the dead; and therefore when I ſhall judge it meet and neceſſary, I will omit ſeveral Expreſſions, when they ſhall not be proper nor applicable to the perſons to be buried, or at leaſt I will take the words in a contrary ſenſe, according to what they are uſally taken? ſhould this be your anſwer? but with what forehead could you utter it? How quickly might the ſaid perſon reply upon you, to your ſhame and confuſion, in this or the like manner? Belike, Sir, though you have declared your unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all, and every thing contained in and preſcribed by the book of Common-prayer, you have but jugled in all you have declared; you have your private reſervations and exceptions, and your Ordinary has given you a Licence to profeſs one thing, and do another; I ſee your heart and mouth have not gone together, but you ſpeak and think two ſeveral ways. I took you for a good Proteſtant Miniſter, but I perceive you are a meer Jeſuite: an Ireland, a Gavan can do no more. What way you could deviſe, to free your ſelf from this impeachment, is altogether beyond my thoughts.
Sir, You well obſerved a certain ſort of Miniſters among your ſelves, pitied in their Non conformity, as doing, good men, p. 4. l. 38.what they would not do, if they were not forced to it, and therefore they huddle up and curtail the prayers, and ſhew induſtriouſly by the manner of performance how little they like and approve of what they do. This what you ſay, I have heard my ſelf ſpoken in their praiſe, and themſelves much commended for it; but I have always thought them ſo far from being worthy of praiſe, that I have eſteem'd them moſt worthy of cenſure and condemnation; and my heart has riſen againſt them beyond all others. This is wretched ſimulation, and a baſe pitiful diſguiſe. Surely after I had declared my unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in the Liturgy, before the whole Congregation, I would be faithful to mine own word, and juſtifie my profeſſion by a conſonant practice: I would not curtail the prayers, but have the Courage before all the world to read them diſtinctly and reverently, and do all in a moſt ample manner, as the matter did require, ſcorning aucupare famam, to get the good opinion of any, by ſhewing my ſelf an Hypocrite. And thus, Sir, it ſhould be with you in your own concern; after your declaration, it behoves you to be True unto it in every Iota and Tittle, frankly, roundly, and entirely coming up to the full performance of it, and of all and every thing required by it, yea even in the order for the burial of the dead, any word, phraſe, expreſſion, or paſſage therein in any wiſe notwithſtanding.
Moreover, beſides this Scandal (ariſing from your laſt contrivance of …earing your ſelf) a worſe yet might follow in the event and iſſue: even ſometimes to the peril and danger of your life, ſhould you indeed do, as you ſay you have liberty; that is, ſhould you leave out thoſe words, phraſes, and expreſſions, wherein the piety and felicity of the party deceaſed is ſignified and declared, it would never be endured: Suppoſe the perſon interred, ſome Lord, Knight, or Gentleman; a Perſon, of worth I cannot ſay, but of wealth and quality, though in the time of his life, he was never ſo wicked and ungodly, yet now that he is dead, he muſt be reputed a worthy good man in all kinds, and nothing thought or ſaid amiſs of him: a pompous Funeral is prepared for him, and his friends with much ſolemnity, follow the Bier, expecting for him the due and accuſtomed Honour of Chriſtian burial, and that every word be there ſpoken over him by the Miniſter in the very form and manner as it is preſcribed; if therefore you ſhall preſume to take your liberty, and uſe your diſcretion to skip over any thing in the Sepulture of him, which of others you do not; it will be taken as an affront, and an unpardonable Treſpaſs by his then preſent Relations; and ſo perhaps ſome Son, brother, or fellow Hector, ſhall be ready to tumble you into the Grave after him, or offer ſome other abuſe, to your great miſchief and evil. Yea the meaneſt will not endure ſuch a Reproachful Reflection upon their Relations, but will hate you for it in their hearts. You ſee therefore this ſtratagem of leaving out at diſcretion will Challenge your diſcretion, but never do your work. And conſequently as things are now ordered in the Liturgy, and as you have unfeignedly aſſented and conſented to them in the declaration, you muſt be again and again a Tranſgreſſour either to God or man, in the burials of the dead. But,
p. 7 1 22.You ſay, The Church muſt frame her Offices to ſuit thoſe, who are her real Members. I anſwer, Here is the wiſdom of the Church to frame all her Offices and Services in ſuch a manner as may be furtheſt from all Scandal in one kind or other; and count that moſt ſutable, that is moſt conducible to ſuch an end. To ſpeak therefore about the Office for the burial of the dead, It is known upon matter of fact, that all men have not Faith, 'Tis known that moſt, who are named Profeſſors, and live in Church-Communion, are yet Graceleſs, Chriſtleſs perſons; and in this wretched woful condition go commonly out of the World. Shall it now notwithſtanding be thought ſuitable and ſeemly, in the burying of all theſe, to ſpeak of them, as if they were Saints, and true ſincere approved Diſciples of Chriſt? Surely, Sir, if you would freely declare your mind from the unprejudiced ſentiments of an unforeſtalled judgment, you muſt needs bring in your Negative, and ſay, It is far from being ſuitable, but rather inſufferable. What therefore of help and remedy ſhall be found in the Caſe? Surely methinks ſome forme of words in general, concerning death, and judgment, and the other World, with good and wholſome prayers correſponding, and to the ſame purpoſe, might be ſo contrived (for the edification of the hearers, without intermedling at all with the particular condition of the party deceaſed, either to his praiſe or diſpraiſe) that no juſt offence might be either given or taken by any. This is the ſudden and extempore effuſion of my Pen in this matter. Until ſome ſuch Courſe be taken, I am well pleaſed that I have no call to bury the dead, nor can I,p. 2. l. 22. rebus ſic ſtantibus, ever declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent unto them.