of God and why must they assent to and subscribe the lawfulness of the use of the Cross in Baptism with more that might be mentioned Are these things certain and so clear and obvious that an honest man can't doubt of them Are these things necessary Cannot a man be a Minister or a Christian that doth not nor cannot believe them This cannot or at least ought not to be imagined or affirmed why then doth the Church of England require Ministers to subscribe unto them and why must none of the Laity dispute the truth of them What reason can be alledged for it but it s own good will and pleasure I know no other that can be given of it thither it must be referred at last And whether this be not to exercise an Empire over the judgments and consciences of men and to command the surrender of their reason to naked will and pleasure I leave to consideration It hath the likeness and appearance of it and how the Church of England will fairly free themselves of it I do not yet discern I would be glad to see it done for the exercise of Empire over the consciences of men in uncertain and unnecessary things is a very evil and mischievous thing an Engine of the Devil by which I do believe he hath done more mischief in the Church of God than by all the Heathen persecutions and I know no end is served by it unless it be to choak conscientious men for all men of conscience are not Latitudinarians nor like to be in my apprehension The sum of what I have said in these three last Paragraphs is this Mr. A. hath said some little and petty inconveniencies arising from the levity and inconstancy of mens minds is more eligible than the prostituting mens consciences and resigning them to the naked wills of men which is no more than most Protestants have said before him Separations are various some proceed upon reasons apparently true and these are a necessary duty some proceed upon reasons apparently false and these are greatly sinful and intollerable others proceed upon probable reasons which though specious and fair yet are not concluding these are not without sin yet must be endured an inconvenience being better than a mischief And this I conceive is the separation which the Dr. says Mr. A. makes very light of which yet I do not beileve unless it be comparatively and for the sake of which I do not think him worthy of the appellation of Advocate-general for Schismaticks The Church of England doth not pretend to be infallible but is as peremptory in its determinations as if it were It imposes nothing grosly false and against common sense and reason but it requires things unnecessary and uncertain with an unyielding rigour and this looks like tyranny and if the Church of England think it self defamed by that insinuation it may vindicate it self if it can To the Drs. insinuation that Mr. A is not much acquainted in the Writings of Cyprian and St. Austin and that he hath been more conversant in those of Mr. B. I might enquire where is the Proof and what evidence doth this Learned man produce for the confirmation of it I have looked his Book all over but I can find none nor do I imagine what hath given occasion to the Dr. to think so 't is true Mr. A doth not quote those Fathers in his Book but doth it follow from thence that he never read them There are many Books which the Excellent Dr. himself hath never quoted in any of his writings but he that should infer from thence that he never read them would certainly injure and traduce him But Mr. A. is a Dissenter and peradventure for that reason must be an unlearned and unread man whose reason must be as weak therefore as his reading is small and there must be no more argument in his discourse than there was of Wit or Brains in Andrelinus his Poems which to speak modestly is a scurrilous comparison and not becoming the Pen of the Reverend Dr. Mr. B. had said something in his Answer to the Drs. Sermon of the Peoples Power or right of choosing or at least consenting to the choice of their own Pastors whereupon he says that Mr. B. is very tragical upon this argument and keeps not within tollerable bounds of discretion in pleading the Peoples Right or Cause against Magistrates Patrons and Laws p. 307. And p. 329. he says Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter and in the same page he says that one would think by Mr. B 's Doctrine all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves and all Rights of Advouson in the King Noblemen Gentlemen and the Vniversities are meer usurpations and things utterly unlawful among Christians since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastors to lie on the People that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. To which I reply Mr. B. will be well enough satisfied if the People may have the liberty of consenting to the Pastor that by the Patron is presented to them and what is there of unreasonableness in such a design or proposal Blessed be God there are in England many worthy Gentlemen that take care of the disposal of their Livings and present sober and learned men unto them and in my observation such persons are usually acceptable to the People and they consent to them without objection or opposition but then it must be acknowledged that there are many others that take no care of the disposal of them some are Papists and give their Livings to the nomination of their Servants and they sell them to whomsoever will give most for them others are prophane Sensualists and such men will present vitious debauched persons Piety and a sober Conversation may preclude but will never commend a man to their presentation And what if for these reasons and more that might be mentioned the people had a consenting power permitted to them are the Rights of Patronage invaded or abdicated injured or destroyed thereby Hath not the Bishop power in some cases to refuse the Clerk that is presented to him for institution and is the Patrons right evacuated by it Surely no I never heard any such thing affirmed or pretended and if the Patrons right may be preserved with a power of just and reasonable dissent and consent in the Bishop it may be also preserved with the same power in the people Are not Patrons right preserved unless they may impose upon the people ignorant and scandalous Ministers that are neither able nor willing to Preach the Doctrines of Faith and Godliness are not their rights preserved unless they have the liberty of presenting whom they list and sending them such Preachers as instead of being ensamples to the flock in Piety Justice Charity and Sobriety shall be ensamples of Impiety Cruelty Injustice and Intemperance unto them If it should be said that such cannot procure Orders nor
and go along with their Pastors to the Devil and though they preach more for the encouragement of sin and vice than they do for godliness and virtue yet the people must not separate from them This to speak modestly is something crudely spoken and not with that usual judgment and caution as the Dr. expresses or should express his sentiments But the Dr. says this is directly contrary to the principles of the old Nonconformists and even to Mr. B. himself for as a Casuist says he p. 124. he thus determines 1. That a Ministers personal faults do not allow people to separate from the Worship of God 2. Nor ull Ministerial faults but only those that prove him or his Ministration utterly intollerable Well and where is the inconsistency of this determination with what the Dr. quoted from him in the page before Did he there say that every personal or Ministerial fault would justifie Separation I can find no such thing he only mentions the utterly insufficient and heritical such as do more hurt than good and I think these are the same with such as prove Ministers and their Ministration utterly intollerable But by this and many other passages in this Book a man would be tempted to think that some others write in haste and without the advice of their friends as well as Mr. B. Page 130. The Dr. says that Mr. B. makes Conformity it self a scandalous thing and then tells the people over and over it is no sin to separate from scandalous Priests especially when the scandal is notorious as it is in this case And Page 131. the Dr. adds He chargeth us with down-right Lying and Perjury and tells me of Thirty tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conformity among which are Lying and Perjury and drawing on our selves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries To this I answer in Mr. B's own words of his first Plea in the Preface I write not this says he as accusing Conformists or the Law-makers but as answering their long and loud accusations and demands and if telling what I fear seem a telling what others are guilty of it is a consequent which I cannot avoid In his second Plea having asserted the moral impossibility of bringing all good Christians to believe Conformity lawful he gives many reasons for it and among others this because Conformity looks like a horrid and frightful evil being no less than deliberate Lying and Perjury and the justifying of thousands in it and the publick renouncing endeavours of Reformation And then he adds I am not saying that all these or any of them are such as they fear them to be but only that they fear them to be such pag. 173. And in his Answer to the Drs. Sermon these are his words I have only told you how many and heinous the sins are which we fear we should be guilty of should we Conform pag. 52. Hence 't is obvious enough by Mr. B's words that he accuses not others but vindicates himself and his brethren from the imputation of keeping up a Schism against their own consciences and in that very Chapter where he reckons up the several agravations of Perjury and Lying he doth not determine that the Conformable Clergy are guilty of them but says If they be so such are the aggravations of their sin Now I pray let it be impartially considered whether Mr B. hath not a difficult province to manage If he gives no reason or account of his own and his brethrens Nonconformity he and they are unconscionable Schismaticks if he do give some reason for it and account of it then he is interpreted to accuse the Conformists and repute them scandalous and perswade the people to Separation though he renounced all such accusations as is obvious from his words before-mentioned Yet after all this I have said on the behalf of this reverend man I must add for I am my self a Conformist that I am not of his opinion in the interpretation of the Subscriptions and Declarations imposed on the Clergy They are of ambiguous sense and meaning for what the sense of the Law makers and Imposers is who can be sure I cannot tell and if you enquire some will utterly refuse to give any sense or meaning of them others will expound them some in one sense and some in another The case being thus I do not think my self obliged to understand them in the worst sense that can be put opon them but in a sense of favour and such a sense Mr. B. says is by the most judicious Conformists put on them that he and his brethren themselves would submit to them if they could believe that were indeed the meaning of them I am not satisfied as yet that I am obliged to understand them in any other which I speak in vindicatinn of my own and my brethrens Conformity without reflection on those of other apprehensions or justifying the Impositions And upon this score there is a Paper Printed the last year as an account of the London Sheriffs holding their Office Which if any man doth honestly fear God so as he would in good earnest Conform if he could but cannot in point of scruple I would commend to his perusal who may perhaps see more to satisfy him in that one but very full and very much considered single sheet in regard to our present Conformity than he hath found hitherto in other Books upon that Subject though there be many which are or which would make Volumes that are written In Page 132. the Dr. charges Mr. B. with saying that he overthrows all Religion and sets up man in rebellion against God To which I answer all that Mr. B. intends in those words is no more but thus Such is the consequence of the Drs. Doctrine Whether it be rightly inferred let the Dr. and Mr. B. determine But this I am sure of that the Dr. infers many things from Mr. b's Doctrine which he detests and abhors as truly as himself abhors the setting up man above God Such are all Principles inconsistent with Government and all Pleas which lay the foundation for disorder and confusion whatsoever he says page 137. and 139. The Dr. had said in the Preface to his Sermon If it be lawful to separate on the pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is acknowledged in our case then a bare difference of opinion as to some circumstances of Worship in the best Constitution of Churches will be ground sufficient for Separation and this considering the variety of mens fancies is to make an infinite divisibility in Churches To which Mr. A. makes this reply That though some petty and inconsidrrable inconveniencies some litlte trouble may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of mens minds yet this is no reason why they should enslave their judgments and consciences to others So the Dr. quotes him but he expresses himself more at large and with words of greater
and Censures and I am very well content they have them provided they will or can discharge them But of the impossibility of that I am past doubt for though the Diocesses of our English Bishops be not so great as that of the Pope which the Dr. acknowledges to be too great and spacious yet I think they are too large for their management and that the duty incumbent on them with respect unto them is utterly impracticable Mount Athos Polion or Ossa are neither of them so great as the Globe of the earth yet they are all burthens utterly insupportable Whether the Dr. will allow this multiplication of Bishops or Suffragans rather that the name Bishop may not become too common and so become less venerable I cannot tell I find him in many places of his Book and in his Preface very jealous of the honour of our Reformation and positively resolved never to condemn the Constitution of this Church nor the lawfulness of the Ceremonies hitherunto practised in it vide Pref. p. 89. I have my self a very great esteem for the Reformation of this Church and a mighty honour for the great and incomparable Hero's that were the Reformers of it but 't is no disparagement to say they were but men though the greatest men nor is it any Reproach to the Reformation to say it was imperfect The Learned and Pious Dr. Burnet hath observed divers defects and imperfections in it and I know not how they can be denied and to speak the truth concerning it is not to reproach it And what if it should be said that among others 't was an imperfection in our Reformation that the number of Bishops was not increased so far as that they might be sufficient for the work and duty incumbent on them Can a Bishop inspect the Clergy in a Diocess of the present dimensions can he exercise the Censures of the Church upon all the culpable delinquents in it can he confirm all the Children in it can he ordain Priests for all the Parishes therein with that circumspection wariness and care which was observed by the primitive Bishops and which the honour of this Church the Christian Religion and the salvation of souls doth require Doth the Reverend Dr. think those things can be done by any the most diligent and industrious Bishop on earth I dare say he cannot think it possible and if he doth not think it possible I would enquire further of him whether he does not think it very necessary and desirable that all this work were put into more hands that they may be capable of performing it for till then I am much assured it can never be done however necessary or desirable it may be These things being said I will now add I shall never desire the Dr. to condemn the Constitution of this Church nor will I brlieve many of the Nonconformists desire him to do it but I would humbly desire him to put to his helping hand for the amendment and perfecting of it and to perfect and compleat it is not to condemn it 't is only to confess it a little short of that perfection that it may attain and what great work is perfect of a sudden at its birth into the world In brief Diocesan Episcopacy I like and that 's the Constitution of this Church and so doth Mr. B. for ought that I can see but I would fain have more Bishops not to controul Episcopal Power but to assist in the performance of Episcopal Duty Page 301. The Dr. undertakes to confute what Mr. B. had said viz. that wherever there is the true notion of a Church there must be a constitutive regent part i. e. a standing governing power which is an essential part of it and this he promises to do from Mr. B. himself How well he hath done it let the Reader judg by what the Author of the Peaceable Design hath replied to him upon this Subject But the Dr. infers from what Mr. B. had said of the necessity of a Regent Head to every Church as followeth And so Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible plea for his universal Pastorship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England To which I answer Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope no kindness at all for another visible Head may be assigned to the Catholick Church and that is the holy Jesus he is both the visible and invisible Head thereof he is unto it both a Head of government and a Head of influence he governs it by his Laws and by the influence of his Spirit and hath appointed inferiour officers for the government and direction of it according to his own institutions and though he be not seen by mortals here below yet he is visible and that is enough to constitute him the visible Head of the Catholick visible Church There are some Kingdoms that never see their Prince and in all Kingdoms multitudes of Subjects that never lay their eyes on him and yet he is never the less their Civil visible Head But there are some men in the world that will take very small occasions to signifie their displeasure against Mr. B. and what hath he done to deserve their lash and why must he be the Subject of these most twinging Satyrs they are the words of a late Author and what is the spleen that he vents against the Church of England that makes their choler to ferment and boyl 'T is true Mr. B. doth with a brave and generous courage rebuke what he thinks amiss in the gnvernours and government of the Church of England he speaks plainly and without respect of persons he flatters none nor fawns upon none but indifferently reproves whatever he thinks worthy of it in whomsoever it be And if this be to vent his spleen against the Church of England I think he hath very venerable patterns and examples for it both in the Old Testament and the New as this Learned Dr. very well knows If it should be said that Mr. B. reproves where there is no fault I answer I should much rejoice if this were true and I believe so would Mr. B. as well as I but he must shut his eyes against the mid-day light that thinks there is no fault in the Government of this Church or nothing worthy of the plainest and most keen reproofs therein 'T were very easie to name many things if a man delighted to rake in Sinks and Kennels I mean the proceedings in the Spiritual Courts Page 302. The Dr. tells us that Mr. B. had said in his Answer to his Sermon that he would fain learn of him what those rules and ties are which make a National Church whether divine or humane If it be a divine rule we says Mr. B. are of the National
Church as well as you if humane he enquires how consent in these makes a National Church and how they come to be of the National Church which do not consent in them and objects the differences among the Conformable Clergy in the exposition of some of the Articles of this Church To which the Dr. answers three things I shall take notice only of the last of them viz. There is no difference among us concerning the lawfulness of the orders of our Church and duty of submission to them if there be any other differences they are not material and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best society in the world without breaking the peace of it as about the difference of orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he i. e. Mr. B. mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church To the first lines of this Paragraph which concern the agreement of the Members of this Church in the lawfulness of its orders and the duty of submission to them I shall reply nothing To the rest I say I am perfectly of the Dr's opinion and were it reduced to practice it would heal the most of the divisions and put a period to most of the separations that have rent and torn this Church in pieces for many years Why might not the Dissenters among us have been permitted to have continued in the Ministry and in the Church though they differed in some things in their judgments from the Conformable Clergy Would it have broken the peace thereof any more than the various apprehensions that are at present among themselves They are not all of a mind in the five points some of them understand and believe them after the sense of Calvin and others after the sense of Arminius and I might mention many others wherein they differ among themselves but the thing is sufficiently known and there is no need of it And are the differences among the Conformists themselves reconcilable with peace and those wherein the Nonconformists differ from them though they be no greater than the other irreconcilable with it What strange partiality is this Conformists may differ in multitudes of things without breaking the peace of the Church but if those that are Dissenters differ from them in a few impertinent and uncertain things the peace of the Church is subverted and all things put into confusion thereby The Conformists doubt at least some of them whether Bishops and Presbyters do differ in order or in degree some are past all doubt concerning it and do affirm they differ in order and not barely in degree This breaks no peace The Nonconformists cannot find that Word of God whereby 't is certain that children indefinitely which are baptized dying before they commit actual siâ— are undoubtedly saved and they are not very sure that all children that are baptized are regenerate by the â—â—irit or that they may safely say of all that they bury that God of his great mercy hath taken to himself the soul of the deceased person and give him hearty thanks that it hath pleased him to deliver him out of the afflictions of this sinful world and these are such dreadful and formidable things that the Church cannot be safe if the Members or at least any of the Preachers in it dispute the truth of them and therefore out they must go and if they attempt to exercise their Ministerial Office after they are ejected they are immediately the most damnable Schismaticks that ever the world did know and Prisons Fines Confiscations Banishments and all that is evil is beneath their sin and trangression Why a difference of opinion in these things might not be consistent with peace as well as in others that are of as great and somewhat greater import at least in my apprehension I am not able to divine if nothing but Reason and Religion were to determine concerning them but if spight malice and revenge and some other of those Antichristian passions be called to counsel and permitted to judg of them 't is not difficult to give a reason of the differing natures of these differences why some are judged consistent with peace and others utterly inconsistent with it But enough of this paragraph I shall conclude with one supplication to all the Conformable Clergy in England on the behalf of the Dissenters and 't is this That they may be permitted to differ from them in things of no greater moment than those in which they differ among themselves If it be said 't is not in their power to permit it I answer Time was when it was very much in their power to have done it and I think they might do well to use some endeavours to retrieve it or at least give some evidence that they wish well to it This I think is no unreasonable request how it may be resented I know not 't is the love of this Church and the peace thereof that hath caused me to propose it and that shall satisfie my mind But having said this on the behalf of the Dissenters I must add a word or two on my own behalf and that is That a fair and passable sense may be and is put upon these passages mentioned from the Rubrick and Liturgy by the Conformable Clergy and amongst them by my self but what is that to those whose judgments and consciences will not permit them to put that sense upon them All mens minds are not cast in the same mould all cannot admit that latitude of sense and exposition in those and many other things that some men do and can without offence and neglect to their consciences and must they therefore be shut out of the Vineyard of the Lord and denied the liberty of working there Certainly this is a severe method of proceeding and hardly reconcilable with the Laws of Christianity The Learned Dr. in several places of his Book represents Mr. A. as unlearned unread and very weak in his reafoning and argumentations Page 174. he accuses him of childish trifling about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon and in the same page and that next to it he mislikes his explication of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he observes from Grotius is not found in one Manuscript the sense whereof he thus expresses What we have attained let us walk up to the same and that Greek phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says implies no more than minding that very thing viz. v. 14. pressing towards the mark and then adds But if he had pleased to have read on to Phil. 4.2 he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie unanimity and St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 th t there be
which may be managed with a strong bit and bridle as you please This is the sense of Mr. A's words in his Preface and what hurt is there in them Do not all Protestants speak the same language And is it not better that men eâ—r in some things than that they put out their eyes and see with those of other men blindly following their conduct and submitting and assenting to all their Impositions But the Dr. will say Is Separation by reason of the levity of mens minds only a small or petty inconvenience In answer whereunto I would distinguish of Separation There is a Separation that proceeds upon reasons apparently true and such is the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and this is a great and necessary duty There is a Separation that proceeds upon probable reasons which sometimes are not cogent nor conclusive and yet they may be such as honest and upright minded men may not be able to free themselves from being entangled and fettered by them This is an inconvenience and whether it be great or small I know not how 't will be avoided in this state of weakness and imperfection but by remedies worse than the disease But that which to my apprehension seems the best way of avoiding it is Let nothing be made necessary to Communion in Churches but a few plain necessary things and this would certainly put an end to the most of those Divisions and Separations that have and do vex the Christian Churches and the Church of England especially and particularly But there is a Separation that proceeds upon reasons apparently false such is the Separation of the Socinians from the Reformed Churches and such is the Separation of many in the Church of England This is intollerable and by all prudent and Christian means and endeavours to be repressed By Separation here I mean not barely refusing Communion but setting up new Churches in opposition to those they have forsaken But it may be enquired further Whether Separation upon probable weak and unconcluding reasons be not sinful I answer Yes but what if it be there is some difference in sins as most men believe and I see no great reason to doubt of it and 't is my opinion that neither all Sinners nor all Schismaticks that are truly such must be sent to the Mines or to the Galleys In brief God will make a difference between Sinners at the day of Judgment and I do believe that the Governours of Churches both Civil and Ecclesiastical should make some difference between them here In the mean time I would not be thought either to excuse or encourage unjustifiable Separations I would that the sinfulness of such Separation should be laid open with all its just aggravations and that all just means be used by the Ministers of the Gospel to prevent and hinder it yea and something by the Magistrate too but if Separation cannot be prevented I mean such as proceeds upon probable but not concluding reasons by those endeavours it must be endured an inconvenience being more eligible than a mischief and many things are and must be suffered in all societies that are not nor ought not to be approved Such was divorce in the Jewish Commonwealth and some things else in that and other societies of men If it be said that the Church of England doth not impose any thing upon its members by meer authority as the Church of Rome doth nor doth it force them to resign their reason to naked will and pleasure nor command belief of those notorious falshoods which that imperious and Apostate Synagogue of Satan doth I answer 't is readily granted and we bless God for it that this Church doth impose nothing that is apparently and grosly false it commands no Idolatrous Worship no opinions contrary to the common sense of mankind no invocation of Saints Prayers for the dead no Pilgrimages to Shrines no ridiculous or sottish Superstitions but though it impose nothing grosly false foolish or Superstitious yet some men think and I know not how to confute them that it imposes some things dubious uncertain and unnecessary from which the Clergy cannot dissent but thereby they shut themselves out of their office and become uncapable of exercising their Ministry with the countenance and protection of the Laws And if the Laity doubt the truth of any of its Impositions and do publish their doubts and will be pertinacious in the defence of them they are liable to excommunication and all that is consequent unto it and in these things this Church is peremptory and admits of no indulgence Subscribe or Preach not the Gospel speak nothing to the disparagement of any thing in the Doctrine Discipline or Liturgy or you shall be excommunicated and given up to the Devil Thus it speaks and this is its Language I do easily grant that this Church pretends not to Infallibility as the Church of Rome doth but in whatsoever it determines it avows it self not mistaken or deceived And what is the difference in effect between a Church that assumes to it self the title and approbation of Infallible and a Church that says I am not mistaken in my Determinations and Impositions Suppose two persons one a Nestorian the other an Eutichian the one proposes in certain Articles his Doctrine so as confounds Christs Natures and withal tells you he is Infallible and you must subscribe to and acknowledg the truth of it or prepare your self for the Axe or the Gallows the other proposes his Doctrine so as he divides Christs Person but pretends not to be Infallible but says his Doctrine is true and he is not mistaken in it and 't is at your pleasure and in your choice either to subscribe it or prepare your self for the Mines of Peru and the Indies The Application is obvious and every one can make it without my manuduction or direction But let me not be said to defame this Church I have said already that it imposes nothing grosly and apparently false but only some things unnecessary and uncertain I will add here the penalties imposed upon those that refuse to own and acknowledg or do defame its determinations are not so severe nor sanguinary as in the Roman Church nor peradventure so certainly and severely executed but whether the peremptory imposing things doubtful controverted useless and unnecessary upon the legal and established penalties be not tyrannical and imperious would deserve a little consideration Why must all Ministers be obliged to subscribe to all things in the 39. Articles Liturgy and Book of Ordination as containing nothing contrary to the Word of God Why must they subscribe the 20th Article concerning the power of the Church to ordain Rites and Ceremonies Why must they assent to the 8th Article where 't is said that the Athanasian Creed ought throughly to be received and believed why must the salvation of Infants being baptized and dying before the commission of actual sin be acknowledged as certain by the Word