to conform too To conclude this argument it is well observed by Falkners libertas Eccl. ch 4. s 5. a Learned man that the ancient Jews who divided the old Testament into the Law the Prophets and the Hagiographa did for a long time only read the Law in the Synagogues after which only a Section of the Prophets was added but that the Hagiographa which included all the Books from the beginning of the Chronicles to the end of the Canticles besides Ruth Lamentations and Daniel were not read in the Synagogues hath been observ'd from the Talmudists and this is agreeable to divers passages of the new Testament Luk. 4. 16. Acts 13. 15 27. Act. 15. 21. yet Christ and his Apostles blamed not the Jews but joyned with them in this Service Such a vast difference is there between the temper of our Lord and his Apostles and our Pharisaical Schismaticks His next objection is against the order appointed for the Ministration of Baptism which is divided into three Branches First that he does not approve of the strict requiring of God-fathers and God-mothers to stand as Sureties and Undertakers for the Child to be baptized viz. that he shall renounce the Devil and all his works and constantly believe God's holy Word and obediently keep his Commandments His objection is against the strict requiring of this and yet it is 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 but let us hear his Reasons against this First that it is unscriptural but it is not contrary to Scripture and that is answer enough till he can prove that the Church has no power to appoint any Ceremonies or observances but what are expresly warranted by Scripture especially this being an ancient practice both in the Jewish and Christian Church and as the Leyden Professors think Persons whom I know our Synop pur Theol. disp 44. n. 54. Author reverences countenanced by Scripture also Isai 8. 2 3. as has been before observed by Mr. Falkner His second objection against God-fathers is that the Father of the Child is left out if not wholly thrust out a great fault this but how does he prove it because he is not mentioned nor taken notice of at all in that publick stipulation as if he had no concern in it a very wise argument I borrow a Hundred Pounds two of my Friends are bound for the payment of it without taking any farther notice of me than that the Money was lent to me Ergo I am discharged of this debt because other Persons have given a Bond for it and I have given none The obligation of Parents to educate their Children is founded on the Laws of Nature and Religion and acknowledged by all Mankind without an explicite stipulation the obligation of Godfathers is voluntary and therefore requires an express promise and is designed as an additional security to the Church for the religious education of Children baptized His third objection is that God-fathers do not keep this promise but involve themselves in the guilt of lying and perjury this I must acknowledge to be a great fault and I fear too many are chargeable with it but this is the fault of the Men not of the Constitution it is a demonstration of great prudence and piety in the Church by all possible ways to secure the vertuous education of Children who are baptized in their infancy that the Church may not hereafter be scandalized with the ignorance and vices of such untaught and undisciplined Christians the presumption of a religious education is necessary to give any Child a right to baptism and therefore it is very commendable in the Church to take collateral security where it may be had as well as the direct security of Christian Parents Did our Church exact any promise and engagement from God fathers which could not be kept she might be charged with the guilt of their lying and perjury as he calls it but when the promise may easily be performed and is nothing but what one Christian Friend ought to do for another when occasion requires without such a promise let every Man bear the guilt of his neglect without reproaching the most prudent and wholesome Constitutions His second exception against the order of Baptism is against the use of the sign of the Cross but his objections against this are so very trifling that they will give an answerer no great trouble he knows not how to understand those words in token when the Child is signed with the sign of the Cross in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified why what difficulty is there in understanding this word token which is a plain English word and familiarly understood by plain English-men but if he wants a comment he may take Bishop Morton's that it is a declarative token of duty which afterwards the baptized Defence of three Cerem person ought to perform c. but he believes the generality may mistake in token for in vertue and power of this sign but I believe he suspects the generality to be more silly than they are till their understandings are debauched with fanaticism and I need not tell him who may be thanked for that but the way of these Men is to put scruples and whimsies into Peoples heads and then to cry down the most innocent and sober usages for fear of giving an occasion of misunderstanding to the vulgar and injudicious but let them look to that to remove the scruples they have made or to bear the guilt of them The sum of his next objection is this that Baptism it self obliges the person baptized to confess the faith of Christ crucified and exhibits vertue and power to that purpose and therefore those words in token c. should be more properly and immediately after Baptism and not after signing with the sign of the Cross as if baptizing with water were not sufficient of it self but more over the sign of the Cross needful to bind the Conscience and confer the blessing which is too too like a Sacrament upon a Sacrament where we may observe the sliness of this Author who would fain insinuate a charge which he dares not own This adding the sign of the Cross to Baptism is as if baptizing with water were not sufficient of it self and is too too like a Sacrament upon a Sacrament Speak out man is it so or not does the Church of England make the sign of the Cross essential to Baptism and that Water-baptism is imperfect without it here his courage fails him as not daring to assert so known a falsehood the Church of England having so expresly declared the contrary in the XXXVI Canon and in her Rubrick after the Office for private Baptism where the Child privately baptized without the sign of the Cross is declared to be lawfully and sufficiently baptized and ought not to be
THE REASONS FOR Non-conformity EXAMINED and REFUTED IN ANSWER To a Late LETTER from a MINISTER TO A PERSON of QVALITY SHEWING Some Reasons for his Non-conformity LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1679. AN ANSWER TO A LETTER from a MINISTER TO A PERSON of QVALITY SHEWING Some Reasons for his Non-conformity BEING lately in a Bookseller's Shop with a design to gratifie my curiosity in perusing some of those many Pamphlets which either a mistaken or factious zeal crowds into the World I met with a Letter pretended to be writ from a Minister to a Person of Quality shewing some Reasons of his Non-conformity 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 as their peculiar Intimates and Confidents an Art whereby both Papists and Fanaticks think to conciliate great reverence to themselves However I was very glad to see this Pamphlet which being a single sheet was quickly read and if it were thought requisite as quickly answered and indeed I expected either some new reasons of Non-conformity or some new strength given to their old reasons but upon a perusal of it soon discovered my mistake and presently concluded that such stuff as this could not be designed to satisfie a Person of Quality but to impose upon the Injudicious Rabble and that we must expect a new Letter of Reasons for Non conformity every week or fortnight like the Domestick Intelligence or Poor Robin a way which has been found very effectual to corrupt the minds of weak and unstable People For which reason though my other occasions would sufficiently have pleaded my excuse I resolved in great charity to undertake this Gentleman either to satisfie him if he be an honest and Impartial Inquirer or to use as great diligence to undeceive People as he does to deceive them To let pass his Introduction which I confess I can neither make Grammar nor Sense of he tells us that three grand Declarations are required to be made by all those who will conform The First concerning the Book of Common-Prayer the second concerning taking up Arms against the King the third concerning the Solemn League and Covenant Now with reference to all these especially the first and last I have had hitherto insuperable objections against the making any such Declaration I am heartily sorry that any Men retain these Principles and more that they dare to own them and yet there were no great hurt in this would but our Governours take the alarm and consider what Indulgence is fit to be allowed those Men who profess that they have insuperable objections against declaring Treason and Rebellion to be a sin and that they dare not renounce that Covenant which involved this Nation in a Bloudy War which pull'd down Church and State and ended in the Barbarous Murder of the best of Kings for those who believe they are still under the obligation of that Covenant must necessarily believe that they are still bound to act over the same Villanies when they shall have power to do it But of this more when our Author shall think fit to give us his objections against the two last Declarations at present we are only concerned to vindicate the First the Declaration concerning the Book of Common-Prayer And his great objection against this is a great mistake or a disingenuous perverting the sense and meaning of the Declaration The words are these I A. B. do declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book entituled B. L. The Book of Common-Prayer c. Upon which words he thus comments Surely words could not be devised by all the wit of man more comprehensive and more significant to testifie our highest justification and commendation of every point and syllable of every rite and ceremony of every matter and thing contained in the whole Book and in every page and line of it This he descants on at large and greatly triumphs in the unreasonableness and absurdity of such a declaration and I confess I am perfectly of his mind and would be a Non-conformist to any Church in the World that should require such a declaration from me but then those very Arguments whereby he proves the unreasonableness of such a declaration do abundantly convince me that this is not the sense and meaning of the declaration And every man must be of my mind who will but think so charitably of his Prince and Parliament and the Convocation as not to believe them to be all mad For would any men in their wits who deny the Infallibility of Pope and Councils as he well observes the Church of England does require such an assent to any book of humane composition as shall suppose it to be infallible for so this declaration according to that latitude of sense he bestows on it supposes that there is not the least possible mistake in the whole Book of Common-prayer but that it is as infallible as the Bible nay more infallible than any Copy of the Bible now extant in the World in any Language in which there may be some possible mistakes through the fault of the Translators or Transcribers as he observes and as was before observed in the very Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book that in common equity there must be allowed a just and favourable construction to all humane Writings especially such as are set forth by Authority and even to the very best Translations of the Holy Scripture it self which is a plain Argument that they never designed such a declaration of Assent to the Book of Common-Prayer as excludes all possible mistakes and gives us a general rule not to expound Acts of Parliament or Publick Declarations which are humane writings set forth by Authority to an absurd or impossible sense In like manner Queen Elizabeth in her Injunctions brands those for malicious Persons who put such perverse constructions on the Oaths of Allegiance as could not by any equity of words or good sense be thereof gathered And yet upon this mistake our Author proceeds to show the difference between old and new Conformity and asserts that ever since our happy reformation the Ministers were not so strictly enjoyned to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book but it was only appointed to be read and used and the Rites and Ceremonies of it duly to be observed which he calls their moderation and piety very good words and indeed too good not to be qualified and recalled and therefore adds at least their prudence and policy for he supposes that a great many hundreds who conformed in those days would not have conformed had any such declaration been required of them and upon this account doubts not to declare that present conformity is foreign and quite of another nature
a Book as lawful to be used as well as assent and consent to the use of it so that what our Author seems so passionately to wish that they had required See Mr. Falkner's Libertas Eccles c. 3. no more in conformity than use and submission is indeed all that is required of the conforming Clergy and is all that is necessary to be required to attain the end of that Act which was to establish uniformity in worship that there may be an universal agreement in the publick worship of Almighty God and to the intent that every person in this Realm may certainly know the rule to which he is to conform in Publick Worship which are the very words of the Act but it has always been the practice of these men to force another sense upon the words of Oaths and publick declarations than was ever intended by our Governours on purpose to justifie their unjust clamours and to countenance Schism and Faction Having thus in general justified the declaration of unfeigned assent and consent it is time to consider his particular exceptions against the Book of Common-prayer And his First exception is against reading the Apocrypha as Lessons for the day but he ought to have said for what day for there is not one Lesson out of the Apocrypha appointed for any Sunday throughout the year and is it not great impudence in these men to reproach the Church of England for appointing the Apocrypha to be read sometimes on the Week-days who take no care themselves that either the Holy Scriptures or Apocrypha should be read in their Conventicles all the week nor scarce on Sundays especially considering that there is always one Lesson out of the Canonical Scripture appointed to be read besides the Apocrypha and I suppose they will not assert it absolutely necessary every time we meet to worship God to read two Chapters of the Holy Scriptures for they themselves very seldom read one on their weekly Lectures whatever they do on Sundays we pay much greater reverence to the holy Scriptures than our Accusers do as never meeting together for the worship of God without reading some portion of them what is our fault then not a neglect to read the Scriptures but that sometimes we read some part of the Apocrypha together with the Scriptures and if this be all it is no other fault than what See Falkners libertas Eccl. ch 4. sect 5. the ancientest and purest Churches have been guilty of as is well known to those who are acquainted with the History of the Christian Church and there are few Protestant Writers of any note but have commended or at least allowed the reading of them But they are fabulous Legends such as of Tobit and his Dog Bel and the Dragon Judith and Baruch I suppose this Author does not know that the 5 Ch. of Tobit is left out of our Kalendar nor that many of the ancient Fathers did believe these to be true stories though he is pleased confidently to call them fabulous Legends I never saw any arguments yet to prove them Fables but what would admit of a very fair solution when this Author produces any I shall consider them But supposing them to be fables that is parabolical discourses they are never the less fit for that to be read in Christian Assemblies since they may serve for instruction or comfort or reproof as the Parables of our Saviour do But they are read under the notion of Holy Scripture for so in the whole lump together they are stiled in the order no note of discrimination to make any distinction between one and the other and has this Author then the impudence to charge the Church of England with making no distinction between the Canonical Scripture and the Apocrypha if not is it not done like a very good Christian sliely to insinuate so foul an imputation as this if he does think the Church guilty let him tell me the meaning of the sixth Article of Religion wherein our Church declares In the name of the Holy B. L. Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church And the other Books as Hierome saith the Church B. L. doth read for example of life and institution of manners but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine How is it possible for the best Church in the World to escape the envenomed Tongues and Pens of these Men who do not blush to charge her with such doctrines as are directly contrary to her own Articles Had it not been more reasonable to assert that the order takes no notice of the Apocryphal Lessons than that it includes the Apocrypha in the common title of Holy Scriptures which is the plain truth for it only mentions the Lessons out of the old and new Testament reckoning the Apocrypha so well known and so plainly discovered by the Kalendar when it was once understood that there was no need of particular directions about it There is one objection more with reference to the Kalendar that some Books of the Sacred Canon are wholly left out and never to be read some of them within a very little some of them but half to be read and many of them mutilated and curtailed as to several chapters contained in them Now to show you of what force this objection is let us first consider how much of the Holy Scripture is appointed to be read every Year by our Church The Psalms of David are read over every Month the most part of the old Testament once a Year the new Testament excepting the Revelations thrice every Year besides Epistles and Gospels And have not these Men great reason to find fault with our Kalendar who don't read the tenth part of the Bible once a Year in their Conventicles Secondly the design of publick reading the Scriptures is for publick instruction and therefore the Church may very prudently leave out such parts of Scripture as are dark and obscure and not easily understood without an Expositor or have not such an immediate influence upon the government of our lives and reserve them to be read by Christians at home or to be expounded to the People by publick Teachers and such for the most part are those omissions which this Author complains of dark and obscure Prophecies or Genealogies or such Histories as are related in some other Books which are appointed to be read And now Thirdly I would desire this Gentleman to prove that it is absolutely necessary to read the whole Scripture in our Churches if it be let our Dissenters first correct themselves before they censure those who are more just and innocent if it be not then it is no fault to omit some parts of Scripture which are least fitted to the edification of a promiscuous multitude while nothing is omitted which is necessary to their instruction in Faith and manners and when he shows any such omission I will refuse