The Nonconformists Advocate, Part
A REFUTATION, &c.
SIR,
BEfore you would confute me, you thought meet to defame me, in theſe words; Being lately in a Book ſellers Shop, I met with a Letter pretended to be writ from a Miniſter to a Perſon of Quality, ſhewing ſome Reaſons of his Non-conformity. And you add,Page 1. I have often obſerved this humour in ſome mean, but vain people, who dare not look upon Perſons of Quality, when they are preſent, to talk of them with great familiarity, and as their peculiar Intimates and Confidents. But I anſwer; Why ſhould you a Miniſter be ſo cenſorious and uncharitable, as to charge one who is ſtiled a Miniſter, and I ſuppoſe utterly unknown to your ſelf, with Pride and Lying at the firſt daſh? with Pride, in a vain humour of aſpiring unto acquaintance with Perſons of Quality; with Lying, in pretending unto ſuch a familiarity, when indeed there is no ſuch matter. The Printer, or ſome other, affixed this Title, for my Copy had none at all; but yet it is altogether truth; though I have reaſon to bluſh, and crave pardon for being no more mannerly and Courtly in my Stile and Addreſs to ſuch a Perſon of Honour. By this, and what follows, I obſerve in you a ſtrange Spirit, which I pray God convince you of, and deliver me from: a ſpirit haughty and ſcornful, bitter and revengeful, and yet elſewhere too too friendly and amicable.
Sir, You ſtile me Gentleman, again and again, ironically and contemptuouſly enough; and what I have written,p. 2 l. 16. you call it Stuff to impoſe upon the injudicious Rabble, p. 2 l. 7, 10, 11.and parallel it with Poor Robin; and many ſuch opprobrious reflections you faſten upon it. This is pride and ſcorning; which can never ſatisfie (as you would be thought to aim at) an honeſt impartial Inquirer, p. 2. l. 17.but much rather cloud his eyes from beholding, and harden his heart from receiving, whatſoever can be offered (though with far more powerful and perſwading Oratory than your own) to change his mind, or turn him into another Path.
2. l. anpenult.Sir, You alarm the Magiſtrates and Governours to a jealouſie againſt us: wherein you ſufficiently ſignifie, not only your grief and grudging at our preſent Indulgency, but alſo your deſire to have us made Examples for daring to mutter a word, and pleading on our own behalf, though purpoſely to ſhew that we are not wilful, fanatical, and obſtinate in our non-conformity (which is commonly objected againſt us) but have in our own apprehenſions inſuperable objections blocking up the way, and obſtructing us from complying. But what is it not enough that we are removed ab Officio & Beneficio, unleſs alſo we be further perſecuted and torn in pieces by the Secular Powers? What muſt a foreign, our utter ruine and deſtruction be the Epilogue? This is bitter malice in extremity, far from the good Spirit of God, which was ſeen in the ſhape of a Dove, but never in the appearance of a Vulture, or Bird of Prey.
… 10.23.Sir, You plead for the truth of Apocrypha, yea of the moſt exploded parts of it: here your fierce frowns againſt poor Non-conformiſts are turned into ſweet and gracious ſmiles upon the Roman Party, as if Father Parſons, Campian, and ſuch others, had your heart already; and you hereby intimate before-hand (if the Wind ſhall ever turn to that Corner, which God in his great mercy keep off) how willingly and eaſily you could turn about with it into their Tents.
Sir, You quarrel my Introduction, and charge it with the want of ſenſe and Grammar, p. 2. l. 21.but you ſhew not wherein, and I am pretty confident you cannot; both the Syntax of it, and my mind in it being plain and obvious to every School-boy; but I well perceive the very firſt ſight of my Sheet, fronted with the moſtodious word of Non-conformity (ſo great is your diſtaſt againſt us) immediately rufled your patience, and like the appearance of Purple or Scarlet before the eyes of an Elephant, put you preſently in apaſſion; which miſted your underſtanding, and hindered you from diſcerning, what, to an unprejudiced perſon, would be moſt clear and intelligible.
Our great difference is in making a juſt Comment, and in finding out the true ſenſe and meaning of the words of the firſt Declaration. Here by the way there is juſt matter of complaint, that the ſaid words ſhould need any Comment; for I look upon this Declaration (thus openly to be made before the face of God, and the whole Congregation) of the ſame nature, and congenerous with an Oath; wherein things ought to be expreſſed perſpicuouſly and evidently, the ſenſe of them eaſie and fixedly the ſame to every underſtanding; and this, if poſſible, beyond all ſcruple or heſitation; and not like Delph Oracles, with their meaning doubtful, intricate, and involved; and as occaſion ſhall ſerve, foreign quickly to be turned from what at the firſt hearing they ſeemingly imported and intended.
You ſay Aſſent and Conſent intend no more than Ʋſe and Submiſſion, and that this is all in effect which is required of the Conforming Clergy: I wiſh it had been ſo worded in the Declaration,p. 9. l. 10 and inſtead of ſaying, I A.B. do declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained and preſcribed in and by the Book, entituled the Book of Common Prayer; we might have ſaid, I A.B. will ſubmit to the uſe of all and everything contained in, &c. Becauſe for peace ſake I can ſubmit, where I do not like and chuſe; and in this ſenſe (notwithſtanding your ſcorn of a very wiſe and grave obſervation) I do yet take the words Aſſent and Conſent, p. 7. l. 18.and am not removed from my firſt apprehenſion and explanation of them.
In the words of the Declaration there is an Agent, an act, the object: The Agent is the Perſon or Miniſter declaring, and this unfeignedly and ſincerely from his heart; the Act is this perſon his aſſenting and conſenting: Now this act of aſſenting, as to the Party declaring, relates to his underſtanding; and as to the thing aſſented to, relates to the truth and rightfulneſs of it: So likewiſe again, the act of conſenting relates to his will, and as to the thing conſented to, to the goodneſs, expediency, and behooffulneſs of it. This is what you deride, and hold that the intervention of truth and goodneſs need not be ſuppoſed as a neceſſary ingredient to what we declare we aſſent and conſent unto; but in ſo declaring we mean and intend only this, that we will ſubmit to the uſe of all and every thing contained and preſcribed, &c. p. 7. l. 23.24.whether they be in their own nature (if ſtrictly examin'd) moſt eligible and behoofful to be obſerved and practiſed, yea or not.p. 7. l. 2…. Now this your Expoſition of aſſent and conſent, I look upon as weak and faulty, no more coming up to the full purport of the words conſidered in themſelves, than to the purpoſe of the Law-makers, who framed and injoyned them to be declared. For I take it for granted, that this Declaration was thus worded by the moſt Reverend Clergy, Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, and ſuch other Divines, and this too for Divines and Miniſters of the Goſpel to be declared by them, as the teſt of their worthineſs and meetneſs for the Miniſterial Function; accordingly therefore ſuch perſons may rationally and well be ſuppoſed to uſe the words in ſenſu Theologico, in a Divine or Scriptural ſenſe, and not otherwiſe: Now in the Scripture phraſe we find aſſent and conſent, fully and altogether according to the expoſition which I have given of them. As for example ſake, we have found this man a peſtilent fellow, and a mover of Sedition among the Jews; and the Jews aſſented, ſaying, Act. 24.9.Theſe things were ſo. Aſſented, that is, they avouched what Tertull…s had witneſſed againſt Paul, was the very truth. Shall not their Cattel, and their ſubſtance, and every beaſt of theirs be ours? Gen. 34.23.Let us conſent unto them, and they will dwell with us. Let us conſent unto them, that is, let us willingly and readily chuſe and imbrace their terms, ſince the end obtained by them will be ſo good and gainful, ſo beneficial and profitable for us. Thus S. Paul ſaith,Ro. 7.16. I conſent unto the Law, that it is good, foreign, eo quod, or therefore, becauſe it is good. Thus generally theſe words are taken in the deſcription of Faith among Divines, who tell and teach us, that Faith is made up of theſe three parts, Aſſent, Conſent, and Affiance. Faith, as it is aſſent, acknowledgeth and avoweth the truth and certainty of Goſpel-Revelation, eſpecially concerning the Meſſiah, and the promiſe of life by and through him: Faith as it is conſent, imbraceth and receiveth the bleſſing and goodneſs of this promiſe, as moſt behoofful and advantagious unto us: And from hence is excited readily, chearfully, and thankfully to cloſe in with Chriſt upon his own Conditions and Propoſals, as the only way to happineſs: Faith, as it is affiance, reſteth and relieth upon the veracity of the Speaker, and ſtability of the Covenant to felicitate our ſtate, and ſave us from all the evil and miſery ſin hath brought upon us. By what I have ſpoken, we may the better perceive the genuine force and meaning of aſſent and conſent; the Object of theſe acts now therefore offers it ſelf to our conſideration, which I ſay (according to the Declaration) is all and every thing contained and preſcribed in and by the Book intituled the Book of Common Prayer; whereas you, as a general Salvo, ſuppoſe the word Uſe to be the next object or matter of thoſe acts on which they terminate; as thus, I aſſent and conſent to the uſe, p. 17. l. 33.ordoing of all thoſe things contained in, and preſcribed by, &c. But now is this ſeemly or tolerable in a moſt ſolemn Proteſtation, oran Oath, to have the main matter of it brought in only by the blind Wicket and back-door of a ſuppoſition? why was not this word openly mentioned and expreſſed? why was it not enjoyned us thus to declare, I aſſent and conſent to the uſe and doing of all and every thing contained, &c? How can we know the Law-makers intended, or will admit of any ſuch a Subaudi? What you mention as their Preface to the Declaration is ſomewhat,p. 8. l. 21. but not ſufficient; my Reaſon is this; becauſe in the Book of Common-Prayer there are Credenda, as well as Agenda; things of Faith, as well as of Practice; yea, ſome things only of Faith, and not of Practice: Now I cannot but think our Law-m…kers in commanding this Declaration, did as zealouſly and carefully deſign the conformity of our Faith, even as of our practice, to the Frame and Model of Theology contained in the Liturgy: I am ſure, in right reaſon, the firſt ought to be aimed at by them, before the laſt and the laſt only as the reſult of the firſt, unleſs they thought all Conformiſts foreign bruit Animals, rather than rational Creatures; ſurely they would not thus reproach them of their own Coat, who bear themſelves high upon their own underſtanding above others, and think it but Juſtice to be reputed the moſt ſapient and judicious amongſt men. It appears by the woful event, that more than a thouſand Non-conforming Miniſters could not thus conſtrue the words of the Declaration, when it was firſt put unto them, and required of them; which (with ſome other things commanded) made them to turn out, and loſe all, rather than loſe their Souls, in doing what was clearly againſt their Conſciences. So that it is not perverſeneſs and folly (what-ever you ſay or think) to ſtick at the words aſſent and conſent, but rather from the dictates of a ſound mind, influenced and awed by the fear of the Lord.
Sir, Far beyond my deſert, by the good Providence of God, I have had the favour and countenance of ſeveral great Perſons of Quality, who have received me very lovingly and familiarly: This I ſpeak (my Witneſs is in Heaven) neither to vaunt my ſelf with the glory of it, nor yet to put you under any diſarray again by the vanity of my pretenſion, but to acquaint you with ſomething to our purpoſe in the matter before us. A little before the black Bartholomew, one of the foreſaid in diſcourſe enquired of me, what mine intentions were? and whither I would conform, yea or not? I anſwered his Lordſhip, ſuch things were required and enjoyned, as I could not ſwallow, and therefore ſhould be neceſſitated to march off, and ſound a Retreat. His Lordſhip ſeemed to be much concerned for me, uſing many Arguments (as good as ever I have heard or read from any) to reconcile me to a compliance; but perceiving me not to be overcome by them, while I urged ſome of theſe things now mentioned as a juſt cauſe of my refuſing; at laſt he ſaid with a ſigh, I wiſh it had been otherwiſe; but they were reſolved either to reproach you, or undo you. Of which wiſe and weighty Apothegm I leave you to be the Interpreter. Was not Conformity contrived in ſuch a way and manner on purpoſe, either to expoſe us to common Infamy, as Perſons who would ſay, and ſwear, and do any thing, rather than loſe our Livings? or elſe to ruine and undo us, by turning us out a grazing in the woful wild of extreme poverty and want? About a year after another great Peer ordered me to wait on his Lordſhip, and propoſed ſomething to be done by me with reference to the Liturgy, which (as I thought) in my then preſent circumſtances, having neither call nor neceſſity to do, I humbly craved leave of his Lordſhip to be excuſed therein; and ſpeaking yet further, about the ſtrict and hard terms of Conformity, his Lordſhip replied, I confeſs I ſhould ſcarcely do ſo much for the Bible, as they require for the Common-Prayer. Both theſe, I aſſure you, are great and learned Noble-men, and as far from being Presbyterians as your ſelf; yet you may ſee their Reſentments, as to what was commanded, how little they were pleaſed with ſuch high and rigorous proceedings, and how in the bottom of their hearts, they were rather the Advocates, than the Accuſers of the Non-conſenters: Yea, I perſwade my ſelf, that many among your ſelves had ſcruples more than a few, or eaſie, and would then with all their hearts have declined the Teſt of aſſent and conſent, if by any other means they could have eſcaped the danger: it is well for them if they tentured not their Conſciences, while they tendered their worldly intereſts and neceſſities; but to chuſe to do it from any free act of their own option and will, as what was deſired and delighted in by them (ſetting aſide ſome high Prelatical Churchmen, who returned in anger and meditated retaliation) was not to be found in the Boſom of many; yet even theſe are called forth to declare their unfeigned aſſent and conſent, &c. than which words, I know none more ſignificant of heart and good will, of love and choice, as to all and every thing contained in and preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer. For I pray, Sir, were you to expreſs your judgment and affection in any matter, and how your whole ſoul and mind is fully pleaſed, ſatisfied, and gratified therein, and this beyond all demur and exception; how could you more clearly diſcover your foreign, than by the foreign of an unfeigned, aſſent and conſent unto it? for mine own part, I profeſs I know not: Therefore it is well remarked by you, that aſſent and conſent, and approve, are words ſynonymous. But you ſay, Cannot we approve of the uſe of a Book, p.o.l. 3.or approve of a Book, as lawful to be uſed, as well as aſſent and conſent to the uſe of it? Yes ſurely: But you miſtake me,p. 9. l. 5, 6, 7. for I neither can aſſent nor conſent, nor approve of the Book, or the uſe of the Book, ſo as hereby to witneſs mine own will or deſire for the ſame; yet I can uſe it in ſubmiſſion to Command, if I ſhall judge it not ſimply unlawful and ſinful to do it: I, can, as I have ſaid, ſilently and patiently ſwallow down ſome Gnats, if my Superiours will have it ſo; but if I ſhall be required to ſay, I aſſent and conſent, and approve of ſwallowing down Gnats, this alters the caſe; and now I can no more ſwallow them down, than if they were Camels. Wherefore, eo nomine, upon the very ſame account, as you ingenuouſly confeſs, you would be a Non-conformiſt to any Church in the World, I am at this preſent to the Church of England. p. 3. l. 20.And upon the ſame ſcore I think preſent Conformity harder than formerly, the now Declaration being much more comprehenſive in its own nature, and taking in much more of our mind, will, and approbation, as to all and every thing recounted and ſpecified therein, than any foregoing ſubſcription; eſpecially than that mentioned by your ſelf in the time of Queen Elizabeth, wherein the Clergy were only required to ſubſcribe this promiſe; I shall read the Service appointed plainly, diſtinctly, and audibly, that all people may hear and underſtand. As for the Articles publiſhed by the Authority of King Edward the VI. and particularly that concerning the Book of Common-Prayer, with ſubſcription thereunto,p. 5. l. 2. I have not ſeen them, except in your Quotation, and therefore can ſay nothing in the caſe, one way or other: but I have two Books of Common-Prayer printed in his days, the firſt about the middle,1549. 1552. the ſecond in the laſt year of his Reign; in neither of which is to be found any Rubrick aſſerting the certainty of Childrens undoubted Salvation out of Gods Word, though they are baptized and die before actual ſins; there is not, I ſay, one ſyllable to the ſaid purpoſe in either of them. Even this very particular would have rendred Subſcription more facile and paſſable to me, had I lived in thoſe days. As for the ſubſcription of the three Articles in the time of King James, I acknowledge this was one, Quod Liber Publicae Liturgiae, &c. That the Book of Common-Prayer contains in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, &c. Unto which I had rather, and ſhould much ſooner ſubſcribe, than declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent (ſuppoſing the ſame Book of Common-Prayer) to all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by it. For though I cannot prove ſuch and ſuch things to be abſolutely contrary to, or againſt Gods Word, yet I cannot therefore preſently affirm them to be according to Gods Word, either as expreſly revealed, or poſitively commanded by the Sacred Canon; which yet I muſt be able to do, before I can declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent to the ſaid particulars; elſe I ſhould ſtrangely violate my Conſcience, and blindly ruſh forward at all adventures, without all reaſon or judgment. As for example, though I cannot ſay concerning Children baptized, and dying before actual ſin, that their undoubted Salvation is abſolutely contrary to the Word of God; yet never the more can I affirm, that their undoubted Salvation is certain and expreſs by the ſame. Therefore though perhaps I might ſubſcribe to the former, yet I could not declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent to the latter.
One thing I take notice of in theſe Subſcriptions, and I wiſh you would alſo for your better information; viz. That aſſent and conſent, relate unto the acknowledgment or avouching the truth and goodneſs of the things aſſented and conſented to, as well as to the uſe
The Great Ends generally mentioned for theſe Declarations and Subſcriptions, are Unity and Uniformity in the matters of Religion and Worſhip; whereas the contrary effects of animoſity and difference have wofully followed hereupon, time after time, as we have ſeen by long and ſad experience in continual breaches and diſſentions. There is, and will be, a judicium diſcretionis in every perſon, who will be a Judge in his own concern contra Gentes; his own mind and apprehenſion ſhall and will dictate to him what is right, and what is wrong, what is good, and what evil, both to be believed and practiſed by him; the greateſt Authority of his Superiours, and the wiſeſt Models of their deviſed forms for his devotion, in any wiſe notwithſtanding; nothing ſhall be able further to ſubjugate his thoughts to any Idea or Syſtem of Service, than to what may be truly ſaid to be his own, I mean according to his own underſtanding; and therefore much leſs to an oneneſs and ſameneſs of opinion and judgment of it with thoſe that are above him (though commending and commanding it to be received and obſerved) meerly becauſe they are ſo. Wherefore as it is the wiſdome of the Church to chuſe ſuch a Creed, as all who ſtile themſelves Chriſtians do univerſally agree in; ſo likewiſe it would be the higheſt prudence, to pitch upon ſuch a Declaration which all Miniſters might ſecurely and freely aſſent and conſent unto, without all ſcruple or heſitation, as the Teſt of their Conformity. I will not preſume to mention the nature and quality of ſuch an one; but ſhall leave it wholly to my Superiours and Betters: And let theſe, in Gods Name, enjoyn all Miniſters both to declare and do whatſoever the Word of God requires of them, to capacitate them for Church-work, and no more; then ſhould I expect Unity and Uniformity in all things of moment, with peaceable toleration and forbearance in the reſt, to the glory of God, and the greateſt edification of the Church, and never before: Then alſo I would be among the firſt, who would humbly offer my ſelf as a Candidate to that high and holy Function, though in the meaneſt and pooreſt place of preferment.
But it is high time to come to particulars: I cannot approve of the Order appointed for the reading of the Scriptures; my reaſon was, becauſe many Books of Apocrypha are commanded to be read for the Leſſons of the day, as the fabulous Legends of Tobit and his Dog, Bell and the Dragon, &c. while ſome Books of the Sacred Canon are wholly left out, &c.
This I perceive touches you to the quick; this is confidence and impudence, p. 9. l. 30.this is matter of exclamation againſt our invenomed tongues and pens,p. 11. l. 2.l. 15. and againſt our perſons as Phariſaical Schiſmaticks, p. 13. l. 11.and what not? I ſee your zeal for Apocrypha will cauſe you preſently to fly on the faces of thoſe who ſhall dare to ſpeak a word in any diminution or derogation of it, and this only too as it Rivals the Holy Canon: Yet ſay what you can in the juſtification of Apocrypha (how the ſtories therein were received by many of the Ancient Fathers for truth and reality, p. 10. l. 23.and how (ſuppoſing them fiction and fancy) profitable they are for inſtruction, comfort, reproof, as the Parables of Chriſt himſelf; (ſo many ſay,p. 10. l. 33. they can profit as much at a Play, as at a Sermon) yet Apocrypha is Apocrypha ſtill, and thoſe very Books appointed ro be read, full of abſurdities and impoſſibilities, as I could eaſily demonſtrate in ſeveral notorious circumſtances; but this would be actum agere, ſince it hath been ſufficiently manifeſted by many Proteſtant Pens againſt the Papiſts; here therefore I ſhall leave you to be cenſured and chaſtiſed of all, who are not of the red Letter, or looking that way: As for mine own part, I ran over the Kalender, and ſaw there one whole Month together: viz. October, filled with Apocryphal Books, Forenoon and Afternoon, appointed for the Leſſons of the day; the ſame likewiſe in November, unto the twenty fourth day of it, beſides what went before in September of the ſame kind, while ſome Books Canonical are wholly left out, which I did not approve of; neither can I find any thing of better information from your ſelf to change my mind: and the rather, becauſe I am fully perſwaded ſome parts of Scripture are omitted and ſhut out, which contain in them more to the profit and edification of the Hearers, than all the Books of Apocrypha put together; yea, it were little leſs than a Blaſphemy to ſay and think otherwiſe: Let us not preſume to be wiſer than God. But you ſay, Nothing of Apocrypha is appointed for Sundays;p. 9. l. 29. whoever laid this to your charge? Yet if you ſpeak truth, then ſome of your Miniſters are not well skill'd in the order of reading, who, as I am told by Ear-witneſſes, do ſometimes on Sundays read out of Apocrypha; whether they then read according to the common Monthly Kalender, and not according to the proper Leſſons appointed for Sundays, or whether they ſo read when an Holy-day, whoſe proper Leſſon is out of Apocrypha, falls to be on a Sunday, when there is proper againſt proper, and the Miniſter left at diſcretion which of the propers he will chuſe; I ſhall not trouble my ſelf about it, but leave it in medio, to the wiſe and learned in the caſe. You ſay in our Conventicles we read little of Scripture;p. 9. l. penult. indeed too little! Pudet haec opprobria nobis, and wiſh it were otherwiſe with all mine heart; for I am as far from aſſenting and conſenting to any ſuch omiſſion and neglect, as I would be to all and every thing contained in, and commanded by the Book of Common-Prayer: Should I be required to give my approbation of this fault, or elſe could not be admitted into Society with them, I would rather bear their Excommunication, and like an Hermit ſerve God in the Wilderneſs by my ſelf alone, than joyn myſelf to them. So vaſt a difference there is between being in Communion where faults are (for what Church is free from them?) and owning thoſe faults; yea, making ſuch an owning and approbation the Lydius lapis, whether we are fit for Communion yea or not. Now this is the very caſe of poor Non-Conformiſts, with thoſe who have outed them. But to return, Recrimination is no Self-juſtification: beſides, in moſt of our Meetings, there is on Lords-days, at leaſt, conſtant reading of the Scripture, beſides the Expoſition, and giving of the ſenſe of it, with much care and pains, to the edification of the Hearers.
I cannot approve of the Order appointed for the Miniſtration of Baptiſm, becauſe of the ſtrict requiring of Godfathers and Godmothers to ſtand as bounden Sureties and Undertakers for the Child, viz. that he ſhall renounce the Devil, and all his Works, &c. You ſay,…. 13.22, 23. Godfathers and Godmothers are not ſo ſtrictly required as to make it eſſential to the nature of Baptiſm, as is evident in private Baptiſm, which is declared valid without it. I never objected any ſuch eſſential ſtrictneſs; this therefore is meer impertinency: Yet reading over the Miniſtration of private Baptiſm, as it is appointed to be further and fully compleated by the Miniſter, there I find Godfathers and Godmothers interrogated, and fully ingaging on the Childs behalf, as well as in publick. But ſuppoſe Godfathers and Godmothers are not called upon in private Baptiſm to make ſuch a promiſe; this is only in a rare extraordinary caſe of extremity, and out of the general uſual road: we know ſome others, in the like exigency, will grant a greater liberty; ſo much do they attribute to the Opus Operatum, that they will give leave to the Midwife to baptize, rather than fail: One Swallow makes no Summer. Herein alſo you run from the matter in hand. I ſay, Godfathers and Godmothers are uſually brought to the Font to avouch a great untruth; for though they make ſuch a ſolemn promiſe on the Childs behalf, they ſeldome perform it. This you fully acknowledge paſt contradiction, but charge it as a fault upon the Godfathers and Godmothers,…. 14. l. 20. l. 22. l. 23. l. 25. and not at all upon the Conſtitution; yea, you highly applaud the prudence and piety of the Church in taking ſuch a care for the vertuous education of the Children baptized. But quo warranto? who hath authorized the Church to lay ſuch a charge upon any, beſides the Parents upon whom God has laid it? and if upon any, why upon thoſe who are called Godfathers and Godmothers, rather than upon others of the Congregation, who are all eye-witneſſes of the baptizing of the Child, as well as they? As we may not make more ſins than God has made ſins, ſo neither more duties than God has made duties: why therefore in particular ſhould we impoſe the duty on Godfathers and Godmothers, to look to the well education of the Child baptized, when God has not impoſed it? eſpecially we may not do it, where the fulfilling this duty is an utter impoſſibility, as ſometimes it falls out in the matter before us. Sometimes perſons are Sureties for Children by their Proxies, themſelves living in another Country; how can theſe ſee the said Children vertuouſly brought up, when they never ſee them? Sometimes Boys and Girls ſtand as Godfathers and Godmothers for the Infant at the Font; theſe are very likely to make good their promiſe, when they are ſcarce in a capacity to underſtand what they ſay; ſo far are they from a right apprehenſion of the matter they ingage in: Whereby it appears, that the great care of the Church for the health and ſafety of thoſe ſhe receives into her Boſom, (which is ſo much ſpoken of, and magnified) is no more than a meer pretence, and dwindles into a ſorry ſhadow of words and names: For if there was ſuch a true and real care as is given out, and vaunted, why will ye, the Miniſters, admit of any ſuch, as I have now mentioned, to be Godfathers and Godmothers? ye except againſt none, that I hear of. And why will you lay a charge upon theſe, of doing what in reaſon ye cannot but be convinced they are not in a condition to perform? Verily, if a man ſhould judge according to your Quotidian practice, I ſhould be prone to believe, ye your ſelves ſcarce think it an abſolute neceſſity, for Godfathers and Godmothers to perform their Font-promiſes; for ſetting aſide only what is there barely read before them, I never met with any Book, Sermon, or Diſcourſe, wherein the duty of Godfathers and Godmothers is preſſed upon them, with reference to their God-children, not any thing to mind them of their Obligation, or move them to the fulfilling of it: Who therefore can imagine ye think it much material, further than the Pomp and Ceremony of their appearing, whether ſuch Godfathers and Godmothers look to the good manners of the Children baptized, yea or not? If men and women were throughly convinced by the Word of God, what great Bonds they lye under by being Godfathers and Godmothers, according to their own oral proteſtation, and form of ſpeech there dictated to their hands, notwithſtanding what you ſpeak of the eaſineſs of the performance of the promiſe, it would be hard to find out ſuch voluntary Stipulators,p. 15. l. 1, 2. or collateral ſecurity in the caſe; but the Miniſter and his Clerk ſhould be neceſſitated to undertake that Province from time to time.
Again, I approve not of the Order appointed for the Miniſtration of Baptiſm, becauſe the Father of the Child is left out, not mentioned and taken notice of at all in the publick Stipulation, as if he had no concern in it, though it is his proper place to undertake this charge for his own Child, according to the Law of God and Nature.… ▪ 14. … … 4, 5. With the higheſt ſcorn you juſtifie this way, by the ſimilitude of a Debtor, and Sureties bound with him for an hundred pounds: But I never yet ſaw ſuch a Bond, where the Principal, and indeed the ſole Debtor, is not expreſly, and in the firſt place named; for if he be not expreſly named, how can any notice at all be taken, that the Money was lent unto him, which is, as you know,p. 14. l. 8. your own conceſſion? yea, if he be not expreſly named as a Debtor, in point of Law, he has nothing to do with the Bond, or the Bond with him; which yet is the thing you would expoſe me for. Your compariſon affects me not, nor makes againſt me, but rather on my ſide: For let the Father be the chief Debtor to bring up his own Child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and ſome of his Friends (I mean Godfathers and Godmothers) be Sureties with him, that this Debt ſhall faithfully be paid and diſcharged; ſhall not this Chief, and indeed ſole Debtor, be called upon, and that too in the firſt place, to pay his Debt? In right reaſon he ſhould; and you your ſelf would be of the ſame mind, were you in ſome great Bond only Collateral Security to a Friend, and this too in little more than a Complement. Now therefore that the Principal and ſole Debtor is not once mentioned or called upon for the payment of the Debt, but only the Collaterals; this is my Exception, and I think not without cauſe.p. 14. l. 13. But you ſay, Nature and Religion call upon the Principal Debtor, viz. the Father of the Child, and that is ſufficient, without any further Call from the Miniſter. I know what you would reply in the caſe, but I am not ſo ſpirited. Nature and Religion call upon us to keep the Moral Law, or ten Commandments; and therefore the Miniſters Call to keep them is needleſs, and out of doors. This is to make compoſita to be oppoſita: The more Obligations are upon us from Religion and Nature to fulfill any duty, the more we are to be called upon by Arguments out of thoſe Topicks to perform the ſame, and all little enough: If not always Nature, yet always Religion does bind Godfathers and Godmothers quae tales to perform the promiſe made on the behalf of the Child baptized, for if it be not from Religion, there can be no tye in the caſe; yet the Church thinks not Religion enough to bind them, without the further help of additional Exhortation: why therefore ſhould not the ſame be thought neceſſary to the Father himſelf, to bind him alſo to his duty, notwithſtanding any preceding Obligation of Nature?
I approve not of the Sign of the Croſs, nor that Sacramental myſtical way of ſigning with this Sign, as if baptizing with Water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, were not ſufficient; but moreover, the Sign of the Croſs needful, to bind the Conſcience, and confer the Bleſſing. You ſay, The ſum of my Argument againſt ſigning with the Croſs is, p. 16. l. 23.becauſe leſt by a perverſe interpretation it may ſeem to the vulgar people what it is not, and what I my ſelf dare not affirm it to be: but herein you are either wilfully blind, or groſly in the dark; for though I mentioned my fear, leſt the action then done by the Miniſter (for then the Prieſt ſhall make a Croſs upon the Childs Forehead) and the words then uttered by him, (We receive this Child into the Congregation of Chriſts Flock, and do ſign him with the ſign of the Croſs, in token that hereafter he ſhall not be aſhamed to confeſs the Faith of Chriſt crucified, and manfully to fight under his Banner againſt Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Chriſts faithful Souldier unto his lives end) might be taken in a wrong ſenſe, and miſtaken by the generality, and do fear it ſtill; yet the preſumptuous addition of the Croſs to Baptiſm, and this too after the manner of another Sacrament, the deviſed Sacrament of man to the inſtituted Sacrament of God was the grand cauſe of my exception againſt it: for if we may add at our pleaſure the Sign of the Croſs▪ why not alſo with ſome others Cream, Salt, and Spittle; yea, whatſoever elſe the daring invention of man ſhall think meet to deviſe and conjoyn? Who, in this caſe, ſhall ſet the limits, and ſay, Ne plus ultra? As for mine own part, I would ſooner yield to have my Child baptized with Cream, Salt, and Spittle, yea, though Snow and Sope alſo were put into the Laver, than to have it ſigned with the Sign of the Croſs in ſuch a myſtical manner. We are neither to add nor diminiſh in the matter of Gods Worſhip; and particularly this holds good in the Sacraments of the Goſpel, which in their own nature are Signs and Ceremonies; wherefore if we ſhall arrogate to our ſelves the licenſe of adding Sign to Sign, and Ceremony to Ceremony, in ſo doing we boldly ſet Threſhold againſt Threſhold, and proudly uſurp no leſs than the place, and Dictatorſhip of God himſelf. This likewiſe more than faintly and covertly ſpeaks the Baptiſm of Water to be lame, and wanting of it ſelf alone; which I have the courage to ſpeak out in the hearing of all, p. 16. l. 10.according to your command; yea, I promiſe you, if you will be at the charge to procure me one of Sir Samuel Moreland's Stentorean Tubes, I will take the pains to go up to the Monument, and at the top of it I will trumpet it out as a truth all over the City; and if I could, I would cauſe it to ring and eccho from one end of the Nation to another: Why elſe is this dedicating ſign of the Croſs, at the time of the Infants Dedication, by waſhing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, thought ſo neceſſary, and conſtantly co-applied?p. 16. l. 16. l. 17. But you have a Church-Canon by you, mounted and bent on purpoſe to diſcharge upon me, prim'd with the Rubrick, and ready to give fire, upon all occaſions, with a loud contrary report: Well, be it ſo; yet after all, it is but brutum fulmen, I mean only proteſtatio contra factum, and therefore ipſo facto void, and of none effect. As if you should vow and proteſt you were no Idolater, and yet at the ſame time worſhip a Crucifix, adore the Hoſt, or bow your knee to the Image of Baal. You indeed baptize the Child with Water in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt; and you ſay, the Child ſo baptized, is lawfully and ſufficiently baptized;p. 16. l. 19. yet notwithſtanding, at the ſame time, you ſign him with the ſign of the Croſs, in token hereafter he ſhall not be aſhamed to confeſs the Faith of Chriſt crucified, and manfully fight under his Banner againſt Sin, the World, and the Devil, &c. Now this is the anſwer of a good Conſcience, and the main End and Obligation of Baptiſm, as to the party baptized, which the Croſs, and the ſigning him with that ſign (and not waſhing alone) muſt at leaſt mind him of, if not ſpirit him in, and ingage him to with the greateſt manhood and courage; elſe ſigning with the ſign of the Croſs is a meer inſignificancy, and a ridiculous nothing. Entia non ſunt multiplicanda ſine neceſſitate. What need the Croſs, if waſhing with water could ſufficiently bring about its own ends? The Croſs therefore, as it is there uſed, loudly proclaims, waſhing of and by it ſelf incompleat, and imperfect.
Something was ſpoken further by me, about laying aſide the uſe and cuſtom of ſigning with the ſign of the Croſs, to diſtinguiſh our ſelves from the Idolatrous Papiſts, who ſuperſtitiouſly adore the Croſs, fooliſhly, fondly, and wickedly ſigning themſelves with it, upon every occaſion, putting no little confidence in it, to free them from evil, and to furniſh them with all good. But upon this ſcore, to leave off Croſſing, you call it vanity and affectation, p. 17. l. 21.which is peculiar to the Phariſees, and ſome other people who are very like them. I underſtand your Elegant Periphraſis, and the biting Sarcaſme in it: Oh how ſweet are your lips! Honey and Milk are under your tongue; yet what is the reaſon of all this rancour and bitterneſs? what is the cauſe ye cannot ſpeak peaceably of us, or to us? what is our deſert? what our provocation? are we not abaſed ſufficiently? have ye not all in poſſeſſion? do ye envy our being and breathing amongſt you? Death hath eaſed you of many of us already; and cannot you quietly expect a little longer, and we ſhall all retire, and trouble you no more? I grieve, and am ſad to ſee you of this ſpirit, but rejoyce and am glad my Soul is not under your power; for if it were, I might fear unplacable wrath, never to be appeaſed, would never forgive me, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.p. 17. l. 18. l. 19. But to come to our buſineſs; you ſay, I am much miſtaken in the temper of the Church of England, (verily I am not at all miſtaken, for I ſee it evidently in her Children, the Sons of the Church, eſpecially if all be of your temper) for the Church of England neither does any thing, l. …0.nor leaves any thing undone, meerly for a note of diſtinction and ſeparation. I know not what weight and ſtreſs you put upon the word meerly, or elſe as good a Church, and better than ever the Church of England was, notwithſtanding its Grandeur and Glory with the Pomp of that name, has (and that too by the counſel and command of infinite wiſdom and reaſon) upon the account of diſtinction and ſeparation from others, not more idolatrous and ſinful than the Papiſts in their worſhip, left off ſeveral Rites and Cuſtoms, not only ſinful and unlawful, (ſo ſome will dare to ſay of ſigning with the Croſs) but in themſelves otherwiſe innocent and harmleſs. I have a moſt unhappy memory, and cannot recover the name of the Author, a Chriſtian Jew, who apodictically, and moſt elaborately diſcovers, that many things were directed in their Law by God, both to be done and left undone by the Nation of the Jews, chiefly to difuſe and take them off from the ways and practices of the Gentiles that were round about them. But let infallible truth be the judge in this matter, Levit. 18.3. After the doings of the Land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, ye ſhall not do; and after the doings of the Land of Canaan, whither I bring you, ſhall ye not do, neithet ſhall ye walk in their Ordinances. Then Moſes, all along the Chapter, enumerates many of thoſe Heatheniſh doings, from which the people of God were moſt religiouſly to abſtain: but in the next Chapter following ſome other things are mentioned; which in themſelves abſolutely conſidered, were neither ſinful nor unlawful, yet upon the ſcore of Non conformity, were forbidden them, ver. 27. Ye ſhall not round the corners of your Heads, neither ſhalt thou mar the corners of thy Beard. But why? what evil in it? Ainſworth gives us the true reaſon of this Inhibition; This, ſaith he, is likely to be the manner of the Heathens, eſpecially in their mourning, as theſe Laws compared with, Chap. 21. v. 5. ſeem to imply; and he brings in the Authority of Maimonides, in theſe words, It was the manner of Idolatrous Prieſts to mar their Beards; therefore the Law forbiddeth to mar the Beard. So again, v. 28. Ye ſhall not make any cuttings in your fleſh for the Dead, nor print any marks upon you. The aforeſaid moſt Learned Expoſitor here again, out of the ſame Maimonides, informs us, what theſe prints or marks were; viz. When one did cut open his fleſh, and filled the cut place with Stibium, or with Ink, or ſome other colour; and this was the cuſtom at the Heathens; and particularly this they were wont to do in ſorrow, and mourning for a S…ul departed, as it is in Thargum Jonathan: Now from theſe, and other like Heatheniſh Rites, God will keep his people; and therefore it is ſaid, Ye ſhall not make any cuttings in your fleſh for the Dead. I could eaſily produce much more to the ſame purpoſe, but I think it needleſs.
I excepted againſt what is annexed at the end of the Sacrament; It is certain by Gods Word, that Children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual ſin, are undoubtedly ſaved. You ſay, Had you a mind, you might wave the diſpute: p. 17. l. 27. l. ult.Surely it would be your prudence ſo to do; for though you affirm it evidently to be the Doctrine of your Church, as appears from the Homilies, and ſeveral paſſages in the Office of Baptiſm it ſelf;p. 18. l▪ yet I apprehend it beyond the wiſdom and learning of all the Fathers and Sons of the Church together, to make good the Enunciation, eſpecially it being ſo indefinite and unlimited, concerning the Children baptized, without all reſtriction, and yet ſo poſitive and peremptory in the Predicate. I called for the U…i out of Gods Word, viz. wherein I might be ſatisfied, beyond all doubt, of Chriſtened Childrens Salvation before actual ſin: You ſhould have deſigned the Holy Page; this had been a direct and eaſie way of Confutation, by which I muſt have been convinced and ſilenced, and there had been an end of the Conteſt: But I ſee you cannot bring your proof, nor indeed offer any thing like unto it out of Scripture; wherefore my Objection is juſt, and I ſuppoſe unanſwerable. Secret things belong unto the Lord; and ſurely the Salvation of Infants, even as of the Adult, is inter arcana, one of Gods Secrets: Why therefore ſhould any preſume to intermeddle with it, and confidently pronounce concerning the whole Genus of ſuch a ſort of Infants. that they are all undoubtedly ſaved? Though they are young, do they not make a number in computation? which if they do, certainly their number is great, very great, eſpecially if that Obſervation be true, that well nigh half of all born and Chriſtned among us, depart this life before they have committed actual ſin. Theſe are a ſwarming multitude; and yet ſhall all theſe undoubtedly be ſaved? Far be it from me to limit the grace and mercy of God; yet methinks, even from this conſideration, we have ſome ground of a contrary ſuſpition out of Gods Word, at leaſt of ſuſpending our judgment in the matter before us. For though the number of the Children of Iſrael be as the ſand of the Sea, a Remnant ſhall be ſaved, Rom. 9.27. There are few that are ſaved; only a Remnant, a little end of the whole Piece; ſome few choice ones only among thoſe who are ſtiled the Iſrael of God▪ ſhall be thought worthy of eternal life. But I forbear to bring in any new Objections, only give me leave to ask you this queſtion, How you can fairly wave this diſpute? how can you think it not incumbent upon you to make good the Aſſertion, and juſtifie what you have aſſented and conſented unto?… 17. … 29, 30, …. You tell me upon what account, Becauſe though it be contained in, yet it is not preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer; that is, it is never to be uſed; and we aſſent and conſent only to the uſe of thoſe things which are both contained in, and preſcribed by that Book. This word both, thruſt in by your ſelf, as you imagine, gives you your quietus eſt. Hitherto I have taken you for a Divine, but now one would think you ſome cunning ſubtil Lawyer with your Tricks and Quirks; you have found out an unexpected Loop-hole to eſcape, and baffle your Bond, which hath loſt all force and vertue of Obligation in ſenſu diviſo, becauſe it only binds in ſenſu compoſito. Yet pardon me, Sir, for I muſt aſſume the liberty to keep this Yoke ſtill upon your Neck, ſhake it off how you can. But how? Thus; You dare not but acknowledge that the great and learned Sages of the Church, who compoſed and worded this Declaration, were compotes mentis, and underſtood what they did better than your ſelf, or any ſuch Expoſitor; and therefore had, as it hath been ſhewn already, when they put in theſe words, aſſent and conſent, into the ſaid Declaration, credenda as well as agenda in their thoughts and intentions, they had equally an eye to both theſe in the time of the compoſing it. Beſides what is there ſpoken for the clearing of this truth, I am now further confirmed in my Opinion by the two following Participles, contained in, and preſcribed by, which very naturally, and almoſt neceſſarily, anſwer the foregoing Subſtantives Aſſent and Conſent, to ſuch an end and purpoſe; as thus, I declare my unfeigned aſſent to all and every thing (as truth and right to be believed) which is contained in the Book of Common-Prayer: and I declare my unfeigned conſent to all and every thing (as good and eligible to be practiſed and obſerved) which is preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer. Here is Grammar and ſenſe, and I ſuppoſe the very ſenſe intended by the Law-makers. Surely they well weighed every ſeveral and diſtinct word in ſuch a ſet and ſolemn Proteſtation; and therefore every ſeveral diſtinct word in it, hath its ſeveral diſtinct weight and purpoſe; for far be it from me to charge ſuch conſiderate Compoſers as guilty of any Tautology, much leſs of Battology; unto which you will cauſe them to approach too near, if aſſent and conſent unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained and preſcribed in and by the Book, &c. do refer to, and terminate upon uſe and practice only, without any further aim; then it had been fully enough to ſay, I declare my unfeigned conſent to all and every thing preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer, and no need at all either of the word aſſent, or of the word contained in, to be once mentioned or thought upon. You therefore deſerve a rebuke from your Superiours for your preſumptuous intruſion; who made you of their counſel? why ſhould you leave out, or put in any thing without their Commiſſion? why ſhould you inſert the word uſe, which they never inſerted? But then you go further; for having inſerted the word uſe, you ſay confidently enough, that aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by, centre wholly upon the word uſe, and have no other matter to reſpect; and then again from hence you think you have gained another point (conceſſo uno abſurdo, &c.) of freeing your ſelf from the difficulty and preſſing force of the Exception againſt Chriſtned Infants, their certain and undoubted Salvation, dying without actual ſin, by ſaying, You are not bound to give aſſent and conſent to this Rubrick; becauſe though it be contained in, p. 17. l. 30.yet it is not preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer, that is, it is never to be uſed; and we aſſent and conſent only to the uſe of thoſe things which are both contained in, and preſcribed by that Book. But this is a deep fetch, and a fine ſubtilty of your own, never to be allowed: What think you of the Church Catechiſm, wherein we have a Compendium of the Churches Faith? what does not the Declaration bind you to believe it your ſelf, as well as to teach it the Children? what think you of the Creed? does the Declaration only bind you to rehearſe the Articles of it before the Congregation, and not believe them your ſelf? Surely to the latter, as well as the former: Every Collect, every Prayer has in it a Credendum, as well as an Orandum; and without the firſt the laſt cannot be performed, ſince Faith is of the very eſſence of Prayer, properly ſo called? But what do you imagine, the Declaration binds the Miniſter only to ſay over thoſe Prayers, and not to pray them, or pray in them? that is, not to believe what he prays for to be right, and according to Gods holy will and pleaſure? This ſeems to me highly Paradox, and of a moſt dangerous conſequence. Grant you this Poſtulate, and you ſpoil the whole Declaration, as to the great intents and purpoſes of it; for who may not declare in theſe words, I aſſent and conſent to all and every thing, &c. if nothing of belief, but only uſe and ſubmiſſion be intended by them? I have heard of ſome Jews, continuing ſuch, without any change of their Religion, officiating as Prieſts among the Papiſts, and Celebrating Maſs; now why may not ſuch Jews, yea Turks alſo, thruſt in among our Clergy, if by declaring their unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained and preſcribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer, they ſignifie no more, than that they will read over thoſe Prayers, perform thoſe Offices and Ceremonies, and ſubmit to the uſe and doing of every thing enjoyned; but in the interim, without being obliged at all to believe the things ſo contained in, and preſcribed by the Book, and ſo ſaid and done by them, to be right, good, and juſtifiable? They may act as upon a Stage for a livelihood, and have no concern about the thing acted, or whom they perſonate: Therefore Sir, I tell you again, you cannot wave the diſpute, but are bound to believe, as well as to do all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer, and to believe this in particular, concerning the undoubted Salvation of Children baptized, and dying before actual ſin; and this too as a truth aſſerted plainly and evidently out of Gods Word, paſt all cavil, or gain ſaying. Wherefore I humbly and earneſtly entreat you, as a moſt learned Textuary, to quote the place, and ſatisfie my ſcruple; for until then, I dare not declare my unfeigned aſſent and conſent unto ſuch a doubtful and queſtioned Propoſition contained in the Book. But you would know of me, whether nothing be undoubtedly certain by Scripture, p. 18. l. 8.but what we have an expreſs Text for? Yes▪ many things are undoubtedly certain by Scripture, not only in terminis expreſſ…s but alſo by an undeniable conſequence: wherefore let what is aſſerted concerning the undoubted Salvation of ſuch Infants, be confirmed and demonſtrated out of Gods Word, in the true ſenſe and meaning of it, or by any certain and neceſſary In…erence and Reaſon from it, and our buſineſs is at an end. This therefore you attempt as it were Syllogiſtically.
If thoſe who are regularly admitted into the Church of Chriſt▪ p. 18▪ l. 13.have a right to the bleſſings of the Covenant,then they have a Title to Salvation.
I anſwer, There is no ſuch word in the Rubrick as regularly admitted; which makes me wonder at your confidence, to add what you pleaſe, from time to time, to ſerve your turn. 'Tis an hard queſtion, whether all Children in England be regularly admitted (as you may expound the words) by Baptiſm into the Church, yea or not? I cannot divine what are your thoughts in the caſe, nor what an Avenue and Start-hole you would find from regularly admitted, rather than be ſet up, and Mated. There is a great ambiguity in the word regularly admitted, which muſt be aſcertained: wherefore we muſt ſuppoſe all Infants baptized in the Church of England, according to the Liturgy, are regularly admitted into the Church of Chriſt, for the Rubrick intends at leaſt all of them; yea, it ſpeaks of Children indefinitely: wherefore if theſe being regularly admitted (as we ſuppoſe they are) into the Church of Chriſt, have a right unto the bleſſings of the Covenant, then they have a Title to Salvation. I anſwer, If by having a right to the bleſſings of the Covenant, you mean all the bleſſings of the Covenant, even to the ultimate and great bleſſing of all, viz. Salvation, then there is Petitio Principii not to be granted, until it be proved, as being the Bone of Contention: But if by having a right to the bleſſings of the Covenant, you mean ſome bleſſings of the Covenant, I ſhall readily concede; for even their admiſſion into the Church, as viſible Church-Members, is a great Covenant-bleſſing, immediately inveſting them with the actual priviledge of having God for their God, in a more peculiar manner, than thoſe without the Pale; beſides, with a foundation right of enjoying the Oracles, Ordinances, Communion of Saints, &c. Their admiſſion into the Church by Baptiſm, gives them from that time forward jus in re, though not jus ad rem, by reaſon of their preſent incapacity.
But you further argue;p. 18. l. 15. If they have not a right to the bleſſings of the Covenant, through a regular admiſſion into the Church by Baptiſm, then Baptiſm is an inſignificant Ceremony, and not the Seal of the Covenant. I anſwer, They have many bleſſings of the Covenant (as I have now ſhown) though yet they may fall ſhort of the greateſt of all; and therefore Baptiſm notwithſtanding is not an inſignificant Ceremony, but a Seal of the Covenant. Shortly, Baptiſm ſupplied the room of Circumciſion, which was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith; yet we cannot avouch, that all who were regularly circumciſed, ſhould have been undoubtedly ſaved, had they died in their Infancy; for Eſau was Circumciſed as well as Jacob, concerning whom, without all reſpect either of their doing good or evil, that the Purpoſe of God might ſtand according to Election, it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Eſau have I hated: Eſau was hated both before and after Circumciſion; which therefore could never have been his ſure Convoy to happineſs, had he immediately expired upon the receiving of this Seal: Salvation depends upon Election, and not at all upon our ſooner or later dying after we are baptized. Theſe are your Arguments,p. 19. l. 14. l. 23. unto which I will not ſay with a juſt return in your own Dialect, The man is mad, and raving, but his Logick is weak, and will not do the work: Yet it may be from your civility and good nature thus to mollifie and lenefie your hard ſpeeches with ſoft arguments: In the interim, we are now ſtill under the ſame doubt, about the undoubted Salvation of Chriſtned Infants dying before actual ſin, as we were in the beginning, and ſo ſhall continue, until we ſee better reaſons to the contrary; and therefore cannot aſſent and conſent.
My following Queries are neither captious nor impertinent, but natural and appoſite, if we look upon the words of the Rubrick, as conſidered in themſelves; viz. It is certain by Gods Word, that Children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual ſin, are undoubtedly ſaved; for here is the Opus Operatum, Children baptized, and dying before actual ſin; here is the effect, at leaſt, the ſure conſequent of it, ſuch are undoubtedly ſaved; here is nothing mentioned concerning the Modus, how and in what manner the work is or ought to be done to produce ſuch an effect or fore-ſignifie ſuch a Conſequent. Now therefore, if ſuch a Conſequent do neceſſarily follow after ſuch a Cauſe; then if it be in the power of Man to be ſuch a Cauſe (as to kill a poor Infant preſently after Baptiſm) it will be in his power alſo to bring about ſuch an effect, viz. the Salvation of ſuch an Infant. But you ſay,p. 18. l. 20. Regularly admitted by Baptiſm, which the Church of England ſuppoſes, anſwers moſt of my captious Queries. I anſwer, Let me have liberty to put in and out, and ſuppoſe what I pleaſe in all caſes, (as you do from time to time) and I will, nullo negotio, untye every Gordion Knot; I will affirm or deny any Propoſition, be it in it ſelf true or falſe, right or wrong, without any ſcruple or heſitation; no Prieſt or Jeſuite ſhall be able to out-do me. How know you that the Church ſuppoſeth theſe words, Regularly admitted by Baptiſm? Why ſhould you preſume to ſet ſuch limits, to put ſuch a cloſe Hedge about the Rubrick, when it lies open, and in common? But if you will thus incroach preſumptuouſly from your own head and heart, why am I bound to give credit unto you? or govern my Faith and Practice by your private Sentiments? Yet I wiſh theſe words, Regularly admitted by Baptiſm, had been expreſſed in the Rubrick; which perhaps might have ſaved me the trouble of objecting, and ſo you of confuting. But granting the truth of the Rubrick in its latitude; I ſaid, That a Miniſter would be very cruel and unmerciful, to deny any Children their Chriſtendom, though their Parents out of weakneſs or tenderneſs of Conſcience ſcrupled Godfathers and Godmothers, and the Sign of the Croſs, and durſt not upon that ſcore bring their Children to be baptized; yet, as I added, if he were a true Son of the Church, and punctually obſerved his preſcribed Rule, he muſt not baptize any Infant without Godfathers and Godmothers, without ſigning of it with the Sign of the Croſs, whether it be ſaved or damned. Here you ſay, I am a man of Conſcience, that is of no Conſcience at all,p. 20. l. 6. of a tender Conſcience, that is cauteriz'd: But why? for bringing in ſuch a falſe and unjuſt Charge againſt the practice of the Church of England; which,p. 20. l. 11. as plainly appeareth in the form of private Baptiſm, has expreſly ordered her Miniſters to baptize Children without Godfathers and Godmothers, or the Sign of the Croſs: You know not what remark to make on this,p. 2. l. 19. but leave it to my ſelf, and every impartial Reader, to think on it. Though you do not know what Remark to make on my Objection, yet I know what Remarks to make on your Confutation; for plainly, I obſerve in it falſeneſs, and weakneſs: Firſt, there is a great untruth in it; for though you ſay, The Church of England has expreſly ordered (in that private form of baptizing) to baptize Children without Godfathers and Godmothers, or the Sign of the Croſs; yet there is no ſuch thing expreſſed or mentioned in the Order, but at the uttermoſt it is only ſuppoſed by a Mute; and will you call ſilence expreſſion? Here I leave you to your ſelf, and ſerious thoughts; ſo likewiſe to the thoughts of the impartial Reader, how far you can ſtretch to bring in an Accuſation. If the Miniſter in private Baptiſm ſhould ſign the Infant baptized with the Sign of the Croſs, would he croſs the intent of that ſilent (which you call expreſs) Order, yea or not? I believe nothing at all; which to do, had it been an expreſſed or declared Order, would have been a manifeſt violation of the ſame: And then as to Godfathers and Godmothers, they are both mentioned, and interrogated, and as clearly brought in for the Conſummation of private Baptiſm, as in publick. Secondly, There is a great weakneſs in our Confutation; for my Objection lies againſt the manner of baptizing in ordinary, and you anſwer me from the manner of baptizing in extraordinary, as in caſe of any apparent danger of death. p. 20. l. 14.What? can only Parents (whoſe Children are in danger of death) have theſe ſcruples, mentioned by me, againſt Godfathers and Godmothers, and againſt the Sign of the Croſs, and not multitudes beſides them? How ſhall the Children of theſe,p. 20. l. 15. how ſcrupulous ſoever they be, (as you avouch they may) come to their Chriſtendom? What ſhall theſe, whether theſe Children be in imminent peril of death, yea or not, come with a lye in their mouths to the Miniſter, and ſay, Pray, Sir, baptize our Children according to the private order of Baptiſm, for they are ready to die, though they are not? Well, he comes, and on the contrary ſees their Children ſtrong and well; ought he now to baptize them according to the private or publick form? Surely according to the publick, becauſe the pretended neceſſity of the private is found a falſity: Here ergo the ſcrupulous Parents are at the ſame Bar as at the beginning, and their Children as far from being baptized as ever; and this too becauſe the Miniſter will not, and, according to order, ought not to baptize their Children without Godfathers and Godmothers, and the Sign of the Croſs.
Now what I have here ſpoken is not an idle Suppoſition, and … meer Imagination, but I have reaſon to believe it a real truth, i… matter of fact; for I know the Perſon very well, who has again and again been deſired by Parents to baptize their Children, and being unwilling and averſe to intermeddle in that affair, hath ſincerely counſelled the ſaid Parents to have a recourſe to their own Pariſh-Miniſter to do it for them, whoſe proper office it was: but they have replied, He will not baptize our Children without Godfathers and Godmothers, and we know not where to get them.
My laſt ſcruple was againſt the Order and Office for the Burial of the Dead; wherein we have as much ſaid, as can well be ſignified and expreſſed by word or tongue, concerning the moſt certain ſalvation and happineſs of every one buried by the Miniſter, though of the worſt of men, though of the moſt flagitious and facinorous perſons, ſo living, and ſo dying. What think you of S. Coleman the Traytor? I am aſſured from an Eye and Ear-witneſs, that he was buried in S. Giles's Church-yard by one of the Readers, and by the Common-Prayer Book; and ſo perhaps were the reſt, not of the Loyal, but Liolan and lying Saints after him: At every ſuch Interment, the Miniſter ſaith, Foraſmuch as it hath pleaſed God of his great mercy, to take unto himſelf the Soul of our dear Brother here departed,&c. What can more plainly ſignifie the ſafety and bliſs of ſuch a Soul? what can more fully declare the love and favour of God towards it, and place it in Heaven? You ſay,p. 21. l. 14. It is no more than that of Solomon in the Eccleſiaſtes, Chap. 12.7. Then ſhall the duſt return to the Earth as it was, and the Spirit ſhall return unto God who gave it. But ſurely, in my judgment, God his taking to himſelf (and this too in mercy, in great mercy) every ſuch particular ſoul, (whoſe body is committed to the ground) ſounds and imports much more than Solomon intended, by his returning, of the Spirit unto God after death; for the whole verſe is but a general deſcription of death, and to give us to underſtand, that after death the Body goes one way, and the Soul another; the Body to the Ground, and the Soul unto God; that is, ad Deum Judicem, unto God as unto a Judge, before whoſe dreadful Tribunal the Soul immediately after death ſhall be brought to appear, and there ſhall be ſentenced according to deſert, either to weal or woe, for ever and ever. This is quite another thing from God his receiving of every Soul departed in great mercy to himſelf; which implies the happy and ſetled ſtate and abode of ſuch a Soul, in the place of Gods abode to all Eternity. You ſay, To return to God, and to be taken to him,…. 21. …. 19. ſignifies to be put in the immediate diſpoſal of God; and for your Authority and Vouch, you quote one Mr. Falkner: I ſee by your often quotations of him, you ſecurely rely upon him, as if he were an unerring Oracle, and an foreign, an unanſwerable demonſtration; nevertheleſs I know not the man, nor ever yet ſet eye upon any of his learned Lucubrations; and therefore how truly or how falſly you have quo…ed, or perhaps tranſcribed him, I can neither affirm, or deny. I freely grant him to be a Reverend Perſon, of great Abilities, according as you have reported him;…. 21. …. 21. notwithſtanding my Faith and Perſwaſion depend not upon his ſenſe and judgment, nor indeed of any mans elſe, though otherwiſe the moſt Renowned for Learning in the Age, but only upon the Infallible Truth of Gods Word; and therefore will follow him, and you alſo, as far as ye follow that, but no further. He ſaith, according to your quotation, Our Church acknowledgeth to be an act of mercy in God,…. 21. …. 22. through the Grace of Chriſt, who hath the Keys of Hell and Death, that dying perſons do not forthwith go into the power of the Devil, who had the power of Death, but do immediately go into the hands of the great God, and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, to be diſpoſed of by him, according to the promiſes and conditions of the Goſpel-Covenant, &c. Theſe are his words: but can theſe be verified of every wicked and profligate Wretch buried by the Liturgy? Truth ſaith concerning ſuch perſons, 2 Tim. 2.16. foreign, that while they were alive (as the word imports) they were taken captive by the Devil: Who therefore can believe, that they made an eſcape from him, and got out of his Clutches by death, and not rather then fell under his power in a more fearful manner? The Devil had, and has ſtill, the power of Death, in reſpect of all impenitent ſinners, as the Carnifex, or Executioner, has power over thoſe who are condemned to die; and accordingly put into his hands, that the Sentence may be actually fulfilled. But now are the Condemned ever known to eſcape from the Hangman, after he has Nooſed them in the Halter, and actually truſſed them up? I think not. So again, who can believe that abominable wicked workers (againſt whom I make the objection) go immediately after death into the hands of the great God, to be diſpoſed of by him according to the promiſes of the Goſpel-Covenant; when the ſaid perſons had never the leaſt qualification of Grace and Holineſs to entitle them to the Covenant of Grace, or the promiſe of the Goſpel, but utterly the contrary? What therefore is this Harangue and flouriſh of words (were they not only uttered by Mr. Falkner, but alſo by an Angel) to ſatisfie my ſcruple, or give me a Licence when I am to bury the worſt and moſt vile amongſt men, to ſay, Foraſmuch as it hath pleaſed God of his great mercy, to take unto himſelf the Soul of our dear Brother? Neither is there then place or ſeaſon to mention any thing of a ſure and certain hope of the Reſurrection unto eternal life, unleſs to imbolden wicked livers to continue ſtil… in their ſins? much leſs to uſe any ſuch expreſſion in prayer, That when we ſhall depart this life, we may reſt in him (Chriſt) as our hope is this our Brother doth. Alas! what well-grounded hopes can either Miniſter or people have and h…rbour of Drunkards, Whoremongers, Adulterers, curſed Swearers, and the like, their reſting in Chriſt, who every day are brought unto the ground, and buried by the Liturgy? You ſay,p. 22. l. …. There are various degrees of hopes, and ſome of them ſo little, that we can hardly deny them to any perſon, though never ſo wicked. I confeſs, in this particular, your Charity and Hope is much beyond mine, and yet I think mine is regulated according to the Goſpel.
But your fulleſt juſtification of your Church in this matter, is by ſuppoſing this Office of Burial to be performed only to perſons dying in Communion with the Church. I look upon it as the beſt Apology, and I have heard it again and again, yet it is not equal nor ſatisfactory; becauſe it ſuppoſeth, if not an impoſſibility, yet the greateſt improbability: For it is known upon matter of fact, that Excommunication was never duly exerciſed, nor Church-Diſcipline ever duly adminiſtred, nor indeed likely to be for the future; while in the interim multitudes, multitudes of ungodly men are brought to the ground, and there the laſt Office done unto them, as if they were the moſt Godly, and approved by the Church. The Church ſuppoſeth or maketh a Foundation which is not, and then buildeth her practice upon it, againſt all right and ſeemlineſs: It is as if I certainly knowing ſuch and ſuch perſons to be really mad, and out of their wits by a long Quotidian experience, and yet from time to time would treat and converſe with them, as perſons moſt ſober and diſcreet, becauſe being men, it muſt be ſuppoſed that they have exerciſe of reaſon and underſtanding.
But rather than not juſtifie the Office for the Dead, and not to help out the defect of due Excommunication, you ſay, I doubt not but whoſoever ſhall leave out that ſentence,p. 23. l. 14, 15. as our hope is this our Brother doth, at the burial of ſome notorious profligate ſinners, complies with the intention of the Church, and may juſtifie himſelf to his Superiours for doing ſo. I anſwer, Antiquum obtines, you are ſemper idem, beginning and ending with the ſame mind, and in the ſame way. You can put in, and leave out, to ſerve a turn, according to your pleaſure, and yet not be a Tranſgreſſor, but comply with the intention of the Church. Surely there is no ſuch matter; for the Church hath expreſly ordered concerning the laſt prayers for the Office, whereof theſe words, as our hope is this our Brother doth, are a part, in this manner, Then the Prieſt ſhall ſay, ſhall ſay, that is, he muſt and ought to ſay them, and never omit them. Here the Miniſter is expreſly commanded, and much more, than to baptize without the Sign of the Croſs, as you could urge in the caſe of private Baptiſm, though moſt illogically, and moſt remotely from true reaſon, as far as a privative is from a poſitive, and a Non-entity from a Being. To conclude, if you do not when you bury the dead (though known beyond all peradventure to die in their ſins) uſe theſe very words, as our hope is this our Brother doth, you are a Tranſgreſſor againſt the Church, inaſmuch as you directly diſobey her expreſs order and rule, and you contradict your own Declaration, and little leſs than give the Lye to your own ſolemn Oath and Aſſeveration; for then and there you declared your unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained and preſcribed in and by the Book, entituled, the Book of Common-Prayer; and therefore to all and every thing contained in and preſcribed by the ſaid Book for the Burial of the Dead; which yet you like not, nor approve in ſuch and ſuch caſes that too often occur, as to ſuch and ſuch perſons, which are every day upon the Biere; but rather you think it right and meet to omit and skip them over, as not proper to be applied, not good to be mentioned. On the other ſide, if you uſe theſe words, as our hope is this our Brother doth, viz. reſt in Chriſt, at the Sepultures of the Sons of Belial, while you obey the Churches order, you are a tranſgreſſor againſt your own Conſcience, in uttering what you believe not; and a tranſgreſſor againſt God, in mentioning this your hope before him in your prayers, as if you had good ground and authority for it out of his holy Word, concerning the perſons deceaſed; when as in reality there is nothing in the Scriptures of Truth to intimate or countenance ſuch an hope, but altogether, on the contrary, to ſtrike a fear in our hearts of their moſt miſerable reſtleſs ſtate under eternal death and damnation.
Sir, What in your Concluſion you are pleaſed to ſtile the only piece of ingenuity in me, is ſtill my mind and judgment,p. 23. l. 20. and I do not retract from it in the leaſt, let it diſpleaſe whom it ſhall diſpleaſe, as I believe it will do many. And what you ſay, I acknowledge to be a great truth (whether properly and directly inferred from my Conceſſion, yea or not) viz. That there is a real difference between that conformity which is requir'd of a Clergy man, and that which is required of a Lay-man. You add further, The uſe I would make of this acknowlodgment is this, that whatever objections there may be againſt conforming as a Miniſter, there are none againſt conforming as a private Chriſtian; and therefore that nothing he hath ſaid ought to diſſwade private Chriſtians from conforming to the Church of England, by his own confeſſion. I anſwer, Let the perſons concerned judge, and do according as God and a good Conſcience ſhall dictate unto them; but as for mine own part, were I one of them, I ſhould not cordially chuſe and approve of him to be my Shepherd, nor eaſily aſſent and conſent to ſit under his Paſtoral charge (if good Paſture might be found and had elſewhere) who entreth not by the door into the Sheepfold, but climbeth up ſome other way; eſpecially if this other way appeared to me to be too too like the way which David moſt devoutly prayed againſt, Pſal. 119.29. Remove from me the way of lying. Amen.