palpably false for the Church of England has expresly ordered her Ministers as is plain in the form of private Baptism to baptize Children without God-fathers and God-mothers or the sign of the cross where there is any apparent danger of death and therefore it must be the Parents fault how scrupulous soever he be not the Ministers if his Child die unbaptized I know not what remark to make on this but shall leave it to himself and every impartial Reader to think on it But yet I must farther observe that to assert the salvation of baptized Infants does not deny salvation to all that are unbaptized though we are not so certain from the Word of God of the salvation of the one as of the other the salvation of baptized Infants depends on an express Covenant but we have the goodness and clemency of the divine nature as a reason to hope well of others especially of the Children of Christian Parents who were born within the Pale of the Church and were designed by their Parents to be made the visible members of it Nor is the denial of Christian burial to such Infants as die unbaptized any argument as he suggests that our Church doubts of their salvation but only that she does not own them as actual members of the Church as no Persons are who are not actually admitted into the Christian Church by Baptism and possibly this may be designed as an act of Discipline to correct the neglect of Parents and to beget in them a greater veneration for the Christian Sacraments His last objection is against the office for the burial of the Dead in which we find these words for asmuch as it hath pleased God of his great mercy to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed c. where taking them to himself he says must signifie taking them into Heaven if we believe the Lords Prayer Our Father which art in Heaven but is God no where else then but in Heaven because he is there in an eminent manner does not the wise man tell us that the spirits of men departed return unto God who gave them Eccl. 12. 7. Does that signifie going into heaven then we have Scripture for it that all men are saved for the Spirits of all Men after death return to God To return to God and to be taken to him signifies Falkners libertas Eccl. ch 5. s 9. to be put into the immediate disposal of God which as a Learned man well observes Our Church acknowledgeth to be an act of mercy in God 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 Heb. 2. 14. 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 agreeable to the sense of the ancient Church which in the Offices of Burial magnified the divine power whereby the unjust and Tyrannous power of the Devil was overcome and our Lord receiveth us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his peculiar and most righteous judgment But still he urges that other expression that we commit his body to the ground in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life which words he tells us must necessarily be spoken with reference to the person then interred inasmuch as they are the continuation of the foregoing declaration viz. God's taking his Soul to himself Committing his Body to the ground must indeed necessarily refer to the person interred but there is no necessity every thing that follows should for it is not his but the Resurrection to life we declare our hope of our Church thinking it fit on such a sad occasion as this to declare their hope of a future Resurrection and since God's taking his Soul to himself does not necessarily infer the salvation of such a person as I have already shewed we cannot thence infer that the Resurrection to life refers to the interred person neither But he has found one passage which he says puts it out of all doubt that when we bury a known Adulterer Fornicator Drunkard we declare and avouch that his soul is assuredly gone to Heaven viz. that in the prayer after burial that when we shall depart this life we may rest in him viz. in Christ as our hope is this our Brother doth this I grant refers to the interred person but is no argument that the former expressions do for this is only a judgment of charity which differs much from a sure and certain hope There are various degrees of hope and some of them so little that we can hardly deny them to any person though never so wicked for where we are not absolutely sure that they died wholly impenitent we have some degree of hope and though we have reason to fear this of too too many yet we are seldom so certain of it as to exclude all hopes of the contrary But as a fuller justification of our Church in this matter we may consider that this Office of Burial supposes that the Person interred died in the Communion of the Church and were Church-censures duly administred as this Office presumes them to be and as certainly they would be were not the Church weakned by powerful Schisms and Factions no Man could die in the Communion of the Church but such as we should have very good reason in the judgment of charity to hope well of and since through the decay of Discipline many die in the Communion of the Church who deserved excommunication I doubt not but who-ever shall leave out that sentence 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 Having thus examined and as I think answered this Minister's objections against Conformity I must now look back and take notice of the only piece of ingenuity he has been guilty of throughout this Pamphlet and that is where he owns the lawful use of an established Liturgy or prescribed form of publick prayers nay that as he says nothing against a Liturgy or prescribed form of publick prayers in the general so neither against the main doctrine contained in the prayers of this Book of Common-prayers in particular and in requital of this I shall as readily acknowledge what he adds that it is quite another thing to be bound up to declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Book but he ought also to have added and prescribed by the Book together with those prayers that is that there is a real difference between that conformity which is required of a Clergy-man and that which is required of a Lay-man
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
baptized again The sum then of his argument is this that he dares not approve the sign of the Cross because the use of it after Baptism may by a perverse interpretation seem to be what it is not and what he dares not affirm it to be It is some comfort that this Writer acknowledges in the next Paragraph that the Primitive Christians did use the sign of the Cross as indeed they did both in administring Baptism and upon divers other occasions which one would think might justifie the Church of England in conforming to a Primitive practice but what he adds that they did it to distinguish themselves from the Pagans who scorned the Cross together with every sign and token of it is never alledged as the reason of this practice by the ancient Christians who did not use this sign to distinguish themselves from Jews and Pagans though every peculiar usage for what reason soever it be taken up will necessarily prove a note of distinction but to declare that as much as a crucified Christ was scorned both by Jews and Heathens they were not ashamed of the cross but did put their whole trust and confidence in their crucified Lord and were ready when ever God pleased to call them to it to be conformed to their suffering Head and this is a perpetual reason for this use while the Church has any enemies and it is never like to be without while there are either Atheists or Fanaticks or Papists That the sign of the cross has been abused by Papists to idolatrous purposes is no better argument against using the sign of the cross than it is against owning the cross it self for in using the sign of the cross we only own the cross that is we profess to own a crucified Lord and the Doctrine and Religion of the Cross But this Person is much mistaken in the temper of the Church of England which neither does any thing nor leaves any thing undone meerly for a note of distinction and separation that is a piece of vanity and affectation which is peculiar to Pharisees and some other People who are very like them He has one objection more against the order of baptism which refers to the Rubrick at the end of that Office Viz. It is certain by Gods word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved Now had I a mind to wave this dispute I might tell him that we do not give our assent and consent to this Rubrick 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 but since this is evidently the doctrine of our Church as appears both from the Homilies and several passages in the Office of Baptism it self I shall briefly consider his objections against it And first he wishes they had quoted the place where this is affirmed in Scripture for he knows not where to find it and I would desire him to tell me whether nothing be undoubtedly certain by Scripture but what we have an express Text for if not we must reject the Baptism of Infants too which will put an end to the dispute concerning their salvation when baptized If those who are regularly admitted into the Church of Christ have a right to the blessings of the Covenant then they have a title to salvation if they have not then Baptism is an insignificant ceremony and not the Seal of a Covenant which I suppose our Author will not easily affirm no not to oppose the Church of England I say those who are regularly admitted by baptism for so our Church supposes which answers most of his captious and impertinent queries If the Children of very bad Parents be regularly admitted by baptism or to speak plainer may be lawfully baptized as in some cases no doubt they may we must acknowledge they receive the benefit of baptism too but if any are baptized who have no right to baptism we are not bound to prove that baptism shall be of any advantage to them no more than that a Child shall inherit an Estate by vertue of an illegal or fraudulent conveyance Thus the supposition of a Christian King baptizing the Children of Pagans Turks Jews by the same force by which he conquered their Parents concerns more the legality of the Act than the vertue of the Sacrament for where-ever the Sacrament is lawfully administred it will have its due effect It is a very pretty objection against the vertue of baptism that it supposes it to be in the power of a man to make Infants sure and certain of salvation viz. by murdering of them as soon as they are baptized and accordingly he teaches Whores a more charitable way of murdering their Infants to baptize them first that so their Souls may be saved which is true Fanatick talk and proves the objector to have more need of good Physick than a serious answer for let him put the case as odly as he pleases Children that are lawfully baptized are in Covenant with God and have a good title to salvation and those who murder them send them to Heaven as other Murderers do all the good men they kill He asks just such another raving question May a Minister since baptizing gives such an unquestionable title to Heaven deny or suspend the ordinance to any Infant whatsoever if he might be permitted to administer it if by permission he means a legal permission according to the terms and conditions of the Gospel the answer is plain that he ought not to deny it that is a Gospel Minister ought not to deny Baptism to any Infant who has a just right to it if he means any other permission than this the Man is mad and needs no other answer for we don't suppose that Baptism works like a spell or charm to whomsoever it be applied but its vertue depends upon a Divine institution and therefore requires persons duly qualified to receive it But he strangely aggravates the cruelty of those Ministers who refuse to baptize Children and consequently keep them under a suspicion of damnation because their Parents scruple God-fathers and God-mothers and the sign of the Cross such an one he says deserves if possible to be unchristened himself again and turned among Canibals as one more deeply dipt and baptized in their barbarous inhumanities and adds and yet if he be a true Son of the Church and punctually observe his prescribed rule he must not baptize any Infant without God fathers and God-mothers without signing it with the sign of the Cross whether it be saved or damned ought not this Man of conscience nay of a tender conscience to have been very sure this charge had been just before he had condemned the whole Clergy of the Church of England to be turned among Canibals and yet nothing can be more