THE REASONS FOR Nonconformity EXAMINED and REFUTED, IN ANSWER To a Late LETTER from a MINISTER TO A PERSON of QVALITY, SHOWING Some Reasons for his Nonconformity.  
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1679.   

AN ANSWER TO A LETTER from a MINISTER TO A PERSON of QVALITY, SHOWING Some Reasons for his Nonconformity.  
BEING lately in a Bookseller's Shop with a design to gratify 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, showing some Reasons of his Nonconformity. 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 fanatics 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 Nonconformity, 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 satisfy 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 Domestic 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 satisfy 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 hearty 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 Governors 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 Bloody War, which pulled 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 Villainies, 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, entitled, 
B. L.  The Book of Common-Prayer, etc. Upon which words, he thus comments, Surely words could not be devised by all the wit of man more comprehensive and more significant to testify 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 Nonconformist 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 itself: 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 Public 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 enjoined 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 from conformity heretofore; conscience being now much more forced and violated by them in the Chair: which is said to vindicate themselves for dissenting so much from many ancient Puritans, who though they disliked many things, yet conformed and peaceably submitted to public Constitutions.  
But this Person is either a great stranger to the Constitutions of the Church of England since the Reformation, or cannot but know, that if there were no such public declaration, yet there were public subscriptions required of the conforming Clergy, which is equivalent to a declaration; for he must be a man of a mighty squeamish conscience, who will not declare that which he can and does subscribe. For what he asserts, that there was no more required formerly of the Clergy, but barely to use and submit to the Common-prayer and the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, is notoriously false. In the Articles published by the Authority of King Edw. VI this is one, The Book, which of late time was given to the Church of England by the King's 
B. L.  Authority and the Parliament, containing the manner and form of praying and ministering the Sacraments in the Church of England, likewise also the Book of ordering Ministers of the Church, set forth by the same Authority are godly, and in no point repugnant to the wholesome Doctrine of the Gospel, but agreeable thereunto, furthering and beautifying the same not a little, and therefore of all faithful members of the Church of England, and chief of the Ministers of the Word, they ought to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind and thanksgiving, and to be commended to the People of God: which as you shall hear more presently is not inferior to an unfeigned assent and consent.  
This Article indeed is left out of those, which were set forth by the Authority of Queen Elizabeth, but instead of it, the Clergy were required to subscribe this promise or declaration. I shall read the 
B. L. Advertisements by the Queen.  Service appointed, plainly, distinctly and audibly, that all the People may hear and understand.  
In the Reign and by the Authority of King James were published the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, which are of force in the Church of England to this day: and it is sufficiently known, that by the 36 Canon, every Person to be ordained or promoted to any Ecclesiastical Benefice, or Function, is required to subscribe the Three Articles, the second of which concerns the Book of Common-prayer, and of ordaining and consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons, that it contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, and may be lawfully used, and that he himself will use that same form, and no other: from whence it appears, that there was something more required of conforming Ministers in those days, than only to read the Book of Common-prayer, and to observe the Rites and Ceremonies of it, as this Author ignorantly asserts, for they were also required by subscription to declare their approbation of it, as fit to be used, and their promise, that they would use it.  
But still, they were not so strictly enjoined to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book. Right, not in these very words, but to the same sense: for to own, that there is nothing in the Common prayer Book, which is contrary to the Word of God, and that it may be lawfully used, and that we will use it, is equivalent to an unfeigned assent, and consent. No says our Author, for Assent with reference to the party assenting relates to his understanding; and with reference to the thing assented to, it relates to the truth and rightfulness of it: So again, Consent with reference to the party consenting, relates to his will; and with reference to the thing consented to, it relates to that goodness, expediency, behovefulness of it.  
A very wise and grave observation, as if I could not assent to the doing of what is to be done, as well as to the truth of a proposition, or could not assent to the lawfulness of a thing, without assenting to it as every way fittest and best and most expedient; as if I could not consent to submit to the use of what is lawful and legally imposed, without choosing every thing mentioned and prescribed in the same Book, as most eligible and behoveful to be done, practised and observed, as this Author is pleased to paraphrase an unseigned Consent.  
But to satisfy this Gentleman in the signification of these words Assent and Consent, it may be convenient to give him Qu. Elizabeth's interpretation of them, in the Preface to the Articles, An. 1504 Whereupon by diligent conference and communication, and at last 
Bishop Sparrow's Collection.  by Assent and Consent of the Persons before-said, these orders and rules ensuing have been thought meet and convenient to be used and followed; not yet prescribing these rules as laws equivalent with the eternal Word of God, and as of necessity to bind the consciences of her subjects in the nature of them considered in themselves— but as temporal orders mere Ecclesiastical, without any vain superstition, and as rules in some part of Discipline concerning decency, distinction and order for the time. So that the Queen, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other Bishops in commission with him, who drew up those Articles, thought we might give our assent and consent to orders and rules (and by the same reason to a Book of Common-prayer) as only meet and convenient to be used and followed; and that we may give such an assent and consent to temporary rules, which are alterable at pleasure, and therefore not supposed to be every way perfect, or not to have the least error or defect in them.  
And in this sense the Act of Uniformity requires our unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common-prayer, etc. that is to the use of it, as is expressly mentioned immediately before this declaration: that every Minister shall openly and publicly before the Congregation declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed, in these words and no other. I A. B. do here declare, etc. Now when the Act itself limits the signification of these words, Assent and Consent, only to the use, it evidently betrays a perverse and malicious design, to affix such a large signification on them, without the least appearance of reason, as to render that declaration very absurd and impious, or at best very suspicious to honest men.  
As for what he urges, that the Act itself expounds consent by approve, where it is said of a Lecturer, that he shall give his assent to, and approbation of the said Book, and to the use of all the prayers, etc. I would fain know how it can be otherwise; for he, who assents and consents, must approve, as far as he assents and consents, but why cannot we approve of the use of a Book, or approve of 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 public 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 Public 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 public declarations, than was ever intended by our Governors, on purpose to justify 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 Weekdays, 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 Falconers 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 Calendar, 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 styled 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, slily 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 Calendar, when it was once understood, that there was no need of particular directions about it.  
There is one objection more with reference to the Calendar, 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 Calendar, who don't read the tenth part of the Bible once a Year in their Conventicles?  
Secondly, the design of public reading the Scriptures, is for public 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 public 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, than 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 to conform too.  
To conclude this argument, it is well observed by 
Falconers 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 observed 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 joined with them in this Service. Such a vast difference is there between the temper of our Lord and his Apostles, and our Pharisaical Schismatics.  
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 Godfathers and Godmothers to stand as Sureties and Undertakers for the Child to be baptised, 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 expressly 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 reuerences) countenanced by Scripture also, Isai. 8. 2, 3. as has been before observed by Mr. Falkner.  
His second objection against Godfathers, 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 public stipulation, as if he had not 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 explicit 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 baptised.  
His third objection is, that Godfathers 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 virtuous education of Children, who are baptised in their infancy, that the Church may not hereafter be scandalised 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 Englishmen? but if he wants a comment, he may take Bishop Morton's, that it is a declarative token of duty, which afterwards the baptised 
Defence of three Cerem.  person ought to perform, etc. but he believes the generality may mistake in token, for in virtue 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 People's 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 itself obliges the person baptised to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and exhibits virtue and power to that purpose, and therefore those words in token, etc. should be more properly and immediately after Baptism, and not after signing with the sign of the Cross, as if baptising with water were not sufficient of itself, 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 baptising with water were not sufficient of itself, 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 Waterbaptism is imperfect without it? here his courage fails him, as not daring to assert so known a falsehood: the Church of England having so expressly declared the contrary in the XXXVI. Canon, and in her Rubric after the Office for private Baptism, where the Child privately baptised without the sign of the Cross, is declared to be lawfully and sufficiently baptised, and ought not to be baptised 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 administering Baptism, and upon divers other occasions, which one would think, might justify 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 alleged 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 fanatics, 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 itself; 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, merely 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 Rubric at the end of that Office: Viz. It is certain by God's word, that Children which are baptised, 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 Rubric, 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 itself, 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 baptised.  
If those who are regularly admitted into the Church of Christ, have a right to the blessings of the Covenant, than they have a title to salvation; if they have not, than 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 baptised, as in some cases no doubt they may, we must acknowledge they receive the benefit of baptism too; but if any are baptised, 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 virtue of an illegal or fraudulent conveyance.  
Thus the supposition of a Christian King baptising 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 virtue of the Sacrament, for wherever the Sacrament is lawfully administered, it will have its due effect.  
It is a very pretty objection against the virtue 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 baptised, and accordingly, he teaches Whores a more charitable way of murdering their Infants, to baptise them first, that so their Souls may be saved, which is true Fanatic talk, and proves the objector to have more need of good Physic, than a serious answer; for let him put the case, as oddly, as he pleases; Children that are lawfully baptised, 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 baptising 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 virtue 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 baptise Children, and consequently keep them under a suspicion of damnation, because their Parent's scruple Godfathers and Godmothers, and the sign of the Cross, such an one, he says, deserves if possible to be unchristened himself again, and turned among Cannibals, as one more deeply dipped, and baptised 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 baptise any Infant without God fathers and Godmothers, 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 Cannibals? and yet nothing can be more palpably false, for the Church of England has expressly ordered her Ministers, as is plain in the form of private Baptism, to baptise Children without Godfathers and Godmothers, or the sign of the cross, where there is any apparent danger of death, and therefore it must be the Parent's fault, how scrupulous soever he be, not the Ministers, if his Child die unbaptised. 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 baptised Infants, does not deny salvation to all that are unbaptised, though we are not so certain from the Word of God of the salvation of the one, as of the other: the salvation of baptised 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 unbaptised 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 as much as it hath pleased God of his great mercy to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed, etc. where taking them to himself, he says, must signify 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 signify 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 
Falconers 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 judgement.  
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 showed, 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 departed 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 judgement 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 administered, as this Office presumes them to be and as certainly they would be, were not the Church weakened 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 judgement 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  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 justify himself to his Superiors 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 public prayers; nay, that as he says nothing against a Liturgy, or prescribed form of public 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 Clergyman, and that which is required of a Layman: