merciful God, &c. who hath also taught us by his holy apostle saint Paul, not to be sorry as men without hope, for them that sleep in him, we meekly beseech thee, O Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness, that when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him, as our hope is this our brother doth." Could words have been devised, which more plainly intimate that the person whose body is committed to the grave possessed the character of a good and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, and is entered into the joy of his Lord? But over whom is this service performed? Were it confined to those select members of the English church, who, according to the judgment of discerning Christians, denied themselves, took up their cross, and followed Christ, it might be considered as the enlightened expression of pious charity. But, alas, there is no such restriction it must be performed over all, except those who are excommunicated, or not baptized, or have died by suicide. These are the only exceptions: over all others the service is read, and those lively hopes expressed. It is yearly read over thousands of infidels, and ten thousands of drunkards, swearers, sabbath-breakers, lewd, covetous, unjust, and persons defiled with all the vices and crimes concerning which the Spirit of God in the Scriptures says, that " they who do such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God and of Christ." But the officiating priest in the church of England says otherwise: and though he weekly in the pulpit denounces the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, yet when he stands by the side of the grave, as if death were the expiation of a sinner's crimes, he expresses a full assurance of his admittance into heaven.

Must not the mourners go away consoled with the persuasion of the happy state of their departed friend, and falsely imagine, that if they live as he did, they are safe. The extent of the mischief produced by such a service is incalculable. The wrong ideas on a subject the most important, which it is calculated to diffuse through millions of minds, is an evil of the first magnitude. Alas, that God should daily hear so many untruths spoken in the most solemn manner, on the most awful occasion, by persons invested with the most sacred offices. How a pious clergyman can from day to day utter such expressions in a multitude of instances where there is no ground to entertain the smallest shadow of hope, is so strange, that I am utterly at a loss for words to express my astonishment and grief. Every person of this character it becomes to consider seriously what he does, when he solemnly utters his hope that all the people of his parish who have died are gone to heaven, whether during life they were righteous or wicked'.

* That this reasoning may not be supposed to be the mere effect of prejudice in a dissenter, let the words of a dignitary of the church be thrown into the balance, and have their weight. Dr. Tillotson having frankly owned in a sermon, that the dissenters had some plausible objections against the common prayer, archbishop Sancroft sent for him to reprimand him. The doctor stood to what he had asserted. The archbishop asked him what parts of the common prayer he meant. He mentioned the burial service. Upon which the archbishop owned to him, that he was so little satisfied with that office himself; that for that very reason he had never taken a cure of souls. Calamy, vol. I. 226.

1 Besides these dangerous parts of the service, there is a supplication in the close of the first prayer at the grave, which merits reproof, either for its impenetrable obscurity, or false theology. It is in these words-" O holy and most merciful Saviour, thou worthy Judge eternal, suffer us not at our last hour, for any pains of

On the whole so unscriptural are the ideas of the church of England in these four ordinances, so erroneous the doctrines she holds, and so pernicious the effects on the multitudes who give implicit credit to every thing she says, that were there nothing else to blame, I should think every dissenting minister justified for refusing to officiate at her altars, and every dissenting layman justified in separating from her communion, and bearing testimony against what is so contrary to the word of God, so dishonourable to the simplicity and purity of the Gospel, and so conducive to the progress of impiety, infidelity, and atheism". In the name of ten thousand wonders, gentlemen, why are not these things altered, and the reproach of your church rolled away? How is it possible that what is so wrong could have supported its existence for more than two hundred years, while the sun of reformation was rising higher all the death, to fall from thee." Is there any other meaning which these words can convey, but that the pains of death expose a Christian to imminent danger of apostasy. This is nowhere taught in the page of inspiration, and tends to fill the mind with gloomy horror, in direct opposition to the cheerful triumph of faith, which the sacred Scripture inculcates and inspires. It is also in direct opposition to fact, which proves that the pleasures of life, and not the pains of death endanger the soul of a disciple of Jesus.

66

m Matthew Mead, an eminent non-conformist, was politely addressed by a nobleman, “ I am sorry, sir, that we have not a person of your abilities with us in the established church. They would be extensively useful there." You dont, my lord, require persons of great abilities in the establishment. Why so, sir; what do you mean?" When you christen a child, you regenerate it by the Holy Ghost. When you confirm a youth, you assure him of God's favour, and the forgiveness of his sins. When you visit a sick person, you absolve him from all his iniquities: and when you bury the dead, you send them all to heaven. Of what particular service then can great abilities be in your communion?

time"?

go on."

"If you have any thing more to say, sir,

I conceive it to be of much importance that the sacraments should be dispensed in their native purity, and that nothing should be added to the original institution, and nothing taken away. From this principle I object to various things respecting both these ordinances, which are contained in the rubric of the church of England.

The prohibition of parents to present their own children in baptism, I reckon a peculiar hardship, as well as an unscriptural practice. In the primitive church down to Austin's time, it is said, that when the parents were dead, other people entered into their place, and dedicated the children to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but not a hint is given that it extended farther. By the laws of the English church godfathers and god-mothers are necessary beings, and must assume the parent's place. If they take any vows upon them, which however from the strange form of this part of the liturgy may justly be questioned, they promise what, in general, it is impossible for them to perform, were they so disposed: authority over the children they have none; that resides wholly in the parents. For persons to promise

The propriety of alterations in the services of the church was acknowledged by king William and his ministers, when a commission was given to thirty eminent divines for that purpose. Alterations were actually made in six hundred places by this committee, consisting of the most learned men in the church, ten of whom were bishops. After such things, it will be scarcely decent for churchmen to maintain that the liturgy is perfect. At any rate dissenters are warranted from such high authority to say, that alterations are necessary.

what it is not in their power to do is not wise, and to enjoin them to come under such an obligation is not just. It has therefore been properly considered as a blemish in the church. The affections of nature, the obligations of duty, and the possession of authority all reside in the father and mother; to them therefore belongs the privilege, and on them devolves the office of dedicating their children to God in baptism.

I likewise disapprove of accompanying the dispensation of this ordinance with the sign of the cross; and rendering it an essential part. At the best, it is but a superstitious rite of human fancy; but what is very strange, it is, by the constitution of the English church, rendered as necessary as the ordinance itself. Should a person scruple it as an unlawful thing, his child must go unbaptized; for a clergyman would act contrary to his subscriptions, and his vows, should he presume to omit it, and he would not be able to answer to his diocesan for his conduct. It is injurious too on the ground of superstition. By the same rule that the church of England invents one rite, the church of Rome may invent ten. I will engage to defend the use of chrism, salt, spittle, and the other ceremonies of christening in her ritual, by every argument by which you defend the use of the sign of the cross. "But the sign of the cross is a significant rite. It is in token that hereafter the person baptized shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banners, against the world and the devil, and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end." So are the Romish rites. The chrism signifies the anointing of the Holy Ghost. Salt put on