Page images
PDF
EPUB

Why then may not a charitable Oration pafs at the Funerals of a Perfon that has not renounced the Faith, as well as the Administration of Sacraments,the Seals of the Covenant of Grace, pafs upon these who are within the visible Church, whether they be elected or reprobated,in the abfolute Senfe which Scots Presbyterians do maintain? And truly in my Opinion, if Perfons fhould be deprived of this charitable Funeral Office of the Church, it is these who are Rebels and Schifmaticks, whofe Condition is more to be feared than the Publicans and Sinners, who have not renounced the Church Communion. If Jezabel (2 Kings Chap. 19.) fhould get a Royal Burial, becaufe fhe was a King's Daughter; ought not a Chriftian get a charitable Burial, becaufe he lived and died in the Communion of the Church?

But according to Presbyterian Metaphyfical Principles, be a Man never fo gross and fcandalous in his Life; yet if he have (as they phrafe it) the Root of the Matter in him, if he be of the Election of Grace, no Sin can feparate him from God, according to Samuel Rutherford's Doctrine in his Epistles, Hell-fulls of Sins cannot feparate us from Christ. What Hazard then is there in reading the Form of the Burial of the Dead, even for fcandalous Perfons, who (for ought we know) are of the Election of Grace?

The Word, Dear Brother, in the Office, difpleases fome very groundlefly; for that may be faid of any Chriftian, be he good or ill: So, If thy Brother has offended thee, &c. If any that is called a Brother be a Fornicator, &c. If a Brother walk diforderly, &c.

The Word Eternal Life, you tell us, is never taken in Scripture, but in a favourable Senfe. I anfwer, when it is limited to the Righteous only. But as every Contrary implies its own contrary Propofition; fo this is understood to imply the Eternal Death of the Wicked, which may be called an Eternal Life, for its Duration and sense of Eternal Mifery, as well as the other is of Happiness. And this I told, might be understood of the Apoftolick and Nicene Creeds, I believe Life everlasting, and the Life of the World to come.

In the End, when I cite the Reasonings of learned Liturgifts, whom thou mocks, as if they were not worthy to loofe thy Shoes, thou mangles a Citation which I cite out of the learned Bennett, omitting and leaving out his Explanation and Reasoning, as I inferted, and puts in such Words as thou thought thou could'it anfwer best.

I faid, P. 42. upon thefe Words, " In fure and certain Hope, &c." We are only faid to hope that, which we wish and defire; tho' we have no particular Ground to believe, we are not fure of the contrary, or that the thing is impoffible. For Inftance, suppose in a Storm, we should speak of a Friend at Sea, one Man, confidering the Greatness of the Tempeft, fays, I fear he is loft; another replies, I hope not: No Affurance can be had on either fide; one hopes, another fears, and both confiftent here. So that there is a two-fold Hope, firft an Hope of Affurance, which rifes or falls according to the Appearance of Evidence; next there is an Hope of Defire, which is built upon a charitable Affection, and fuch is this in the Office of burying the Dead. Thefe Words are plain and clear, but the Use you make of them is, That by them you'll maintain Prayer for the Dead by the Church of England; for (fay you, P. 60.) "Prayer is an offering up of our Deйres. " What Difference then is there between praying for the Dead, and hoping with Defire for them? Now, was ever fuch a Childish trifling Quibble heard, as to infer from the learn'd Doctor Benner's Words, that the Church of England prays for the Dead: Whereas, neither the Practice of the Church will prove it, nor can the Doctor's Words bear it? For Prayer is an offering up of our Defires according to the Word and Will of God, and from an unqueftionable Principle of Duty: But does the Church of England defire that the deceaft Perfon may be in Heaven, tho' he deferves Hell? Or does it not rather declare its Ignorance of the State of the Defunct; but in Charity hopes the beft: As the Apoftle in a fore-cited Place, defires Chriftians, not to forrow for their deceaft Relations, as the Heathens who had no Hope of a Refurrection?

.

When I fay, that John Knox's Form of Abfolution is more abfolute, than the Form in the Vifitation for the Sick in the Service Book. You fay not fo, for J. Knox's Form has this Claufe, [According to thy Repentance.] And what, does the Church of England, abfolve whether the Penitent will or not? Do not all the Doctors declare, that the Condition is implied? And are not J. K's Words more explicite, faying, that I pronounce thy Sin to be loofed in Heaven: Not that I condemn the Words, because I know that is conditional; but it is more full than the Form of the Vifitation, which is as conditional as J. K's Form.

There

There is one thing in this Section that you refent very highly, and with no other Anfwer, than this, that it is an impudent Lie. Whereas, if you had fully repeated my Words, the Reader would find it to be a very fad Truth. My Words were, That of all Men living Presbyterians fhould leaft caft up canonizing Men for Saints, or fending them to Heaven. You omitted the next Words, which proved my Affertion, viz. Witness their Martyrologies of Rebels, Affaffines and Murderers,in the Naphtali and other Pamphlets, and the Tomb they have erected in the Gray-friars Church-yard. Why did you conceal thefe Words from your Reader, but because you and they both knew that they were unanswerable?

Of the Uncharitableness charg'd by this Author upon the Church of England, to Infants dying unbaptiz’d.

You a

avowedly affirm, That, the longer you live, you are still the more perfwaded of i that the Church of England damns all fuch as die unbaptiz'd: Sir, I fay no more, but that if Men be damn'd, for bearing falfe Witness against one fingle Neighbour, much more will they be damn'd, for bearing falfe Witness against a whole Church, and alledge upon it, that which all the Paftors and Members of it, peremptorly deny. If it be the Fault of Parents or Paftors that Children are not baptized; they deferve Punishment, but not the poor Infants, that could not help themselves; more than the Jewish Infants, who could not prolong their Time till the Eighth Day, on which they ought to be circumcis'd, and be in Covenant with God.

[ocr errors]

Your Reason is, For if God allow them Heaven, why should the Church deny them Chriftian Burial? The Antwer is very eafy, Because they have not been admitted Members into the Church of Chrift; for, if being born of Chriftian Parents, be enough to entitle them to Church Privileges, then Baptifm is unneceffary; because they have à Right, whether they be admitted or not: And confequently, when they grow up, and are fufficiently inftructed in the Principles of Chriftianity, whether they were baptiz'd or not, they may partake of the Lord's Supper So that my Queftion to Presbyterian Preachers, is not black Nonfenfe as you call it, P. 62. it is this, Whether or not they would give the Communion to any Perfon that is not baptiz'd; tho' he own'd and fubfcrib'd the Westminster Confeffion of Faith, but thought Baptifm unnecessary? You tell no Man can own that Confeffion of Faith, and think Baptifm unneceffary.

J

But, Sir, is it the firft Time that Presbyterians own'd the Confeffion and the Directory, and the Acts of the General Affembly, and yet did cut and carve upon fome Parts of them as they pleafed? You know what Use you make of the 23d Chap. Infidelity or Difference in Religion, &c. There is nothing more exprefly recommended in the Directory, than to read Scripture, and to lay the Lord's Prayer; and yet Presbyterians can subfcribe that Directory, and think it unneceffary either to read Scriptures, or to fay the Lord's Prayer, as their general Practice declares. The Acts of the General Affembly appoint, That no private Baptifins fhall be adminiftred to dying Infants, in private Houfes; and yet you can counteract this in your Practices, and perform this Office your felves, rather than a Curate fhould do it. So a Man may have a very mean Opinion of Baptifm, and yet own the Confeffion of Faith; witness your fuffering Children to die at the Pulpit-foot, in your Congregations, because you had not done with your Lecturings. Was there any greater Sign imaginable of the low Efteem of that Initiatory Sacrament, than this? Yea, fome of you have defended this publickly, faying, You think much of Baptifm, Sirs; but I knew a good Godly Minifter, who lived Fourscore Years, and was never baptized in his Days.

Now what is it in thisMatter that theChurch of England does,but what the primitive Christians did to their Catechumens;tho' they were competently inftructed

In Concil. Braco

in the Christian Principles, yet if they died unbaptized, the Funeral Of- enfi. Imo. fices were not performed to them, as they were to baptized Chriftians? Chryfoft.Hom.69. I find, that as every Church has its own particular Cuftom; fo it is a Cu- ad pop. Antioch. ftom among the Cantons of Swizerland, That all the Names of deceast Persons, are rehears'd every Sunday in their Paroch Kirks. But excommunicate Perfons, Malefa&tors, felf Murtherers, are not mentioned; no more are unbaptiz'd Infants. Not that they class them together, but because an excommunicate Perfon is turn'd out of the Church, by his own Fault; and the unbaptiz'd Infant was never admitted into the

Church

(42)

Church, yet is not depriv'd of Happiness, because it was not the Infant's own Fault. And pray, what more does the Church of England, which does not damn the Hea thens, altho' they be not in Covenant with God, yet living up to their Light, may have a Share of God's uncovenanted Mercy? And when you fay, Chriftian Parents have God's Promise to themfelves and their Children, is not this by vertue of a Covenant, whereof Baptifm is the Sign and the Seal? And can thefe be faid to be in Covenant with God, who are not ingrafted into Chrift by Baptifm?

Again to prove, that the Church of England damns them, you ask this Question, Why does the Church of England allow Laicks and Midwives to baptize, if he did not be lieve, they would be damn'd dying without Baptifm? I confefs, I am ignorant if the Church does fo; and if the Laicks do fo, I think it more valid than Presbyterian Baptifm, because they pretend Authority against the Church, and have no lawful Ordination; but the Laicks pretend Neceffity and a Church Permiffion: But I find the most learn'd Ritualist, Dr. Comber, upon The Form of Baptifm, not allow of Lay Baptifm

at all.

A

Of the Ring in Marriage.

S for the Use of the Ring, which was a rational, fignificant and universal Ceremony, among the Jews and Gentiles, and among the first Chriftians in the Days of Miracles and Martyrdom, it cannot be but an Humour of Quarrelling and Averfion to Unity, that occafions fuch an Objection against the Church. And in the Spirit of Charity I fay, that it is not Confcience, but Conceit and Contention; not Scruple, but Schifm and Design to fubvert the Church, that raises such Strife and Debate against what is innocent, ancient and decent: For to fuch Spirits a Mote is a Mountain, and a Gnat a Camel; and Nothing is made fome Great Thing.

But I fee the Diffenters in England will eafily win over their Scruple of marrying with the Ring, before they want a Wife and Dowry. To this Mr. Anderson an fwers, That Force will make a Man fick his own Mare: Which in plain Scots is, That a Man must lay aside Conscience, and act against it, before he lofe his Profit or Pleasure in this World. I think, a Man ought rather to ftick his Mare than his Conscience: But Diffenters will not only comply with Marriage by the Ring, but even with the Book of Common Prayer, which they count Popifh; and by an Occafional Communon, come to a Sacrament which they count Idolatrous. Now, if Men that have Occafional Principles, and turn like the Weather-cocks, might not as well comply with Papifts, Jews and Turks, with Occafional Confciences, as they do with the Church of England against which they exclaim, let Men of found Principle, Sense and Reason determine. If this be not like a Man, that cries out againft Idolatry, and goes to the Worship of Idols for his Bread, I give over my Skill of natural and artificial Logick. The Ring was used for a Sign of Friendship and of Truft, Gen.41.42. Gen. 38. Efth. 3. 10, 12. Maccab. 6. 15. Luke 15. 22. So alfo among the Heathens, 6th Satyr of Juvenal, Marriage is defcrib'd,

If then thy lawful Spouse thou can't not love,
What Reason fhould thy Mind to Marriage move?
Why all the Charges of the Nuptial Feast,
Wine and Deferts, and Sweet-meats to digeft?
The endowing Gold that buys the dear Delight,
Giv'n for your first and only happy Night?

Dryden.

I need not infift upon the Allegories or Allufions, or the pofitive Inftitution of the Church, as it makes the Ring an Earneft and Pledge of Conjugal Love and Trust, during the Life of the married Parties: This is well enough understood.

A

A Continuation of vindicating the Ring in Marriage

Y

OU tell us, that the learned Bacon was offended at it. I do not find much of that by the Words which you repeat. For all you fay from him is, that it feemeth to many of no vulgar Senfe and Understanding, to be a Ceremony not grave, especially to be made, as the Words make it, the Effential Part of the Action. He only declares the Sentiments of fome other Men, who tho' they wished it mended, yet would make a Breach in the Church upon that Account.

I think the Authority of the Ancients in the Days of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, fhould caft the Ballance against any modern Authority you can produce, for I cited Tertullian his Apol. Cap. 6. telling that, among the ancient and laudable Customs of the Roman Empire, one is, that Women wore Gold on that Finger where the Bridegroom had put the Pledge of the Matrimonial Ring. And, de Idolo Cap. he tells, it was no Part of the Pagan Idolatry. I cited alfo Clem. Alex. Lib. 3. C. 2. who fays, That the Ring was not given for an Ornament only,but as a Seal of Truft of what the Husband commits to the Wife's Cuftody.

To all this you fay, it was used as a Roman Custom, but not as a religious Rite. To which I answer, that, the Chriftians adopted that Rite in their Chriftian Marriages, and made it as much Chriftian, as it was Roman.

You own, that it is lawful for a Civil Government to make the Ring a Symbol, in a Bargain of Marriage, as Earth, Stone, Help and Staple, the Symbols, in an Infeftment of House or Lands: But to make it or any Thing else a religious fignificant Ceremony, is not (you affirm) in the Power of any Creature. You affert ftoutly, but you prove nothing. And I affirm,that it is abfurd to say, that a Civil Government has Power to make Civil fignifi cant Ceremonies, and that the Church has not Power to make Ecclefiaftical fignificant Ceremonies; for this were to give lefs Power to the Chriftian Church, than the fews had in making uncommanded Ceremonies, in their ordering of fixt Fafts and Festivals, and all the outwards in their Sacraments, Marriages and Burials, which any may read at large in any that writes upon the Jewish Cultoms. Befides, Dr. Saywell, Mr. Stileman,Mr. Robertson,&c. have found your Affertion proven to be contrary to the Sentiments and Practices of the learnedeft Diffenters in England, I affirm also, that fymbolizing with Jers, Heathens or Papifts in Things that are rational, pertinent, decent, regular, if the Signification of them have not a Jewish, Heathenish or Popish Intention, is no Sin. I affirm alfo, and am ready to fhew in a Number by it felf, that the Church has Power to inftitute and impofe it's own Ceremonies, which are not contrary to Senfe, Reafon, or Revelation.

You inftance Bishop Pilkington, that he complains, that in Marriage, and many other Things, we are too like unto the Papifts. And I inftance unto you the Authority of Mr. Baxter, who fpeaks better Senfe, and proves his Opinion, particularly of the Ring, to better Purpose than the bare Affertion of any Bishop, for as well as I love the Order. See the Collection of the Diffenters Opinions, in favour of the Church of England Ceremonies.

Of the Rule of finding out Eafter

IN the laft place, you continue (as in your Dialogue) mocking and ridiculing the Rule of finding out Eafter, as if you were the only Perfon that had made that Dif covery of the Perplexities and Difficulties, in that Calculation, at least, you make Presbyterian Readers believe fo much. Whereas the Church of England's Writers themselves, did publish all that you have faid or can fay, and before you was born, but with a different Intention: You do it to expofe the Church to Derifion, and with a Design to make your implicite Difciples hate keeping of the Memory of Chrift's Refurrection, in Order and Uniformity.

What, doth not the Church of England know the Differences that fell out betwixt the Eaftern and Western Churches, anent the Keeping of Eafter? Do they not understand

the

L

1

the Hiftory of the Inftitution of Eafter in the Council of Nice? Do they not know of the Confultation given by Egyptian Aftronomers, anent the Day that was appointed to be the Vernal Equinox? Do they not know the Table that was made by Dionyfius Exiguas? I believe it is by them, that you came to the Knowledge of Debates about Eafter, for few Whiggs ftudy any thing of Kalendar Learning, because they have no Ufe for it.

When I told you, that be the Calculation of Eafter an Error or not, it is but circumftantial and not fubitantial. To this you anfwer, That be it an Error or not, every Curate in England, is obliged to declare his Affent and Confent thereto, and that from the Pulpit, which should be the Chair of Verity.

To which I antwer first, that if your Presbyterian Pulpits were not more guilty of worfe Lyings, and that maliciously, wittingly and willingly; there would be more Peace and Holi, and Knowledge of the Chriftian Religion in the Land, than ever was or is like to b,fo long as Presbytery tyrannizes and keeps the People from the plain Truth of the Creed.

But Seco ly, If you, who pretends to read Ritualifts, were not refolved to be contentions and to ferve a Turn by a popular Trick, you might be eafily fatisfied by Dr. Jalan, whotels, That nothing more is meant by Declaration of Affent and Confent, than

[ocr errors]

to the Lawfulness of the Book of Common-Prayer. And he fhews that all Churches ince World, nquire Subfcriptions to their Conftitutions for Peace and Order's Sake. Tuis Lerty your Kirk takes to it felf, but you'll deny it to the Church of Chr. Ifiad one of your prefent Kirk-men, in a Letter against Mr. M'millan and arok of the Hill-men, lay down this Pofition, That the Sentence of the Church Judiele fabmitted to, tho' unjust, and Redress to be crav'd and expected, from Superior And this, he fays, was alwife the Sentiments of Orthodox Divines. Why then nota Point in Debate, or circumftantial Controverfies, be referred to Church Judicatories, who are very far from being unjuft in the Matter, that they determine, according to their Knowledge, and the Commands of their Superiours.

As to my Saying, That tho' it were an Error, yet we do not lose the Devotions nor Inftructions of the Mysteries of Faith, viz. the Refurrection, Afcenfion, and Defcent of the Holy

Ghoft.

Your Anfwer is, to what Purpose is this; Do Whiggs lose these Devotions? To which I anfwer, they cannot lofe them, because they never had them. For (fay you) tho they neither keep Festivals, nor have a Rubrick true or false for that End; yet they both pratch on thefe Subjects, and pray and praise suitably to them, at least, as frequently as you do.

Sir, were I difpos'd to give Names or hard Words to thefe Affertions, according to your Stile of Scolding; I could be free to fay, that there is hardly a Corner in the Nation, that ever heard few or any of you infift upon the Incarnation,Nativity,Sufferings, Refurrection or Afcenfion, unless you mention them as incidental Propofitions, or by the By. Thefe are the Subjects you infift upon, bare Opinions, dark myfterious Places, Predeftination and Affurance, and Things debateable, and fometimes unfound, which you turn into Prayers, which none fhould hear. And always the Subjects are at your own Difcretion, you never preach in an Unity, unless it be occafionally by Order of the General Affembly, in order to overturn the Church of England, and to pray God to pull down the Bishops, and the Book of Common-Prayer.

However,the Rule is right, even according to that Table, which I reprinted against you, and is cleard at large by the Author of it, which I cited, and which you may have for the buying, at Edinburgh.

You sell us Twice or Thrice, that the Word ON or UPON would make the Rule right acreeding to the English Scheme, implying if not importing, that the Words, NEXT AFTER, make it all wrong. But, Sir, does not the Church of England know this as well as you? Do they not know the Two Extremes of the firft Full Moon and EafterDay are inclufivè, that is reckoning the full Moon for one Day,and Eafter-Day for another. As for Example, when we fay, that Afcenfion is Fourty Days after the Refurrection; the Refurrection is reckoned the Firft, and Afcenfion is the laft.

If you criticife too far,upon the Word, After, you will be heavy upon the Scriptures, 27 Matth. 63. We remember this Deceiver said while he was yet alive, after Three Days Í

rife

« PreviousContinue »