JSTorfh-ufcsiern TJni^e.rsiiy Library IL-Oa,nston, Illinois TRUTH and PEACE; o r, TheLaft andmofl Friendly Debate concerning Being a brief Anlwer te a late Book, inti- tuled. The Cafe of Infant-Bapifm; [Written by a Doctor of the Church of England.] In which j^nfwer is Jhewed, I. That the Covenant of Circtimcifion (ftridly taken) was not the Covenant of Grace for the Salvation of Mankind, many being not bound to obferve it. II. That Circuracifion was no Gofpel-Ordinance, (as is affirmed by the Doaor) but a part of the Yoke of Bondage. nr. That the Jews had a Tradition to baptize Infants,is eithera- Fable,or deftrudlive to the Chriftian Baptifm, if grounded thereon. IV. The Dodor's five comprehenfive Qjueltions particularly an- fwered. V. From the whole it is made evident", that the Relloration of Sacred Baptifm, inrefpeiHiof the true Subjed, and due manner of Admimftration, is the only-true method to revive the Ancient Chriflian Religion in all Nations, where it has been corrupted by humane Innovation. Whtrmto is annextd, A brief Difcourfe of the Sign of the Crofs in Baptifm 5 and of the ufe of the Ring, and bowing at the Altar, in the Solemnization of Marriages. " By THOMAS G RANTHAM. The Cuftom of baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of j Chrift. CmctUttKS DiJJtrta. oj Orig, Sin, n. ^6. I London^ Printed for the Author, 1589. •' . ■ n ■ ■ ■ I. The PREFACE. THJt Prophecy of St. Paul, 2 Tim. 4. 4. That Men {hail turn away their Ears from the Truth, and (hall be turned uiKo Fables, had too much of its Verification in the early Times of Chrifiianity ^ and as in ether refpeBrs^ fo in the cafe of facred Baptifm.y both in refpeSi of the Time and Order in which it jhould be per- formed, i. From a Fear that Sin committed after Bapifm fiiould hardly (if at all) be remitted., many did delay their Dnty, being dejiroue to have the full remiffion of their Sins near their Death. This fcanXtlaw delay of Baptifm proved pemicioui to the Church of Chrifi, as well as to the Per font thus negle^ing their Duty., and feems to have been the occafion of alter the manner of the Adminijlration of Baptifm. For marty ofthefe Delayers being fttrpripd with Sicknefs., and ajraid to die without Baptifm, reqpiefted that it might be adminijlred to them in their fck^ Beds, which was endulged to them without arty Warrant frgpn Heaven, which in fuch cafes fijould al- ways be enquired for. Tet this Cufiom was fo doubtful to them that dtd al- low it, that they required fich Chlnicks, that in cafe they recovered t'hetr Sicknefs, they fhould be had to the River, and there be baptized. Cypri- an Epift.ad Magnum. 2. Others did as much outrun the Rule of this Duty in prepo- S. Fifhcr fterous hafie, even to baptize Infants as foon as born, and form- times before •, and this Error fprang from this apprehenfton, that P* 5 "• Cod had tied the Salvation of all Flefl) to Baptifm, that even Infants dying without it, could not be faved .* Tea fo powerful was this Error, that its Af- fertors did Anathematize all that held the contrary. The Council of Afric decreed, Thzt all thatafhrm young Children receive eternal Life,albeit they be not by Baptifm rcnewed,they are accurfed. Sure a more unrea- fonable Decree was never made by Men. Now this Leaven of falfe DoStrine has fo prevailed, that fcarce any but Infants came to be concerned in obeying Chrtfi in Baptifm ; nor could poor Infants obey him therein ; for i'tuftin confeffes they did not willingly receive Baptifm, cut flrove againft it with great Crying. So that neither Toung nor Old (in a manner) were found in fome Ages to put on Chrift in Baptifnfy feeing that cannot be done without the free Confent of an Heart enlightened byFai'h', Gal. 3. 26, 27. Afts2.40. It is therefore the werk^and proper bufnefs of the Refierers of holy Baptifm H do what they pojfibly may to remove this Stumbling-block out of the way, I A 2 mem The Preface. mtm thii DoSlrine which would damn to Hellifh Torments all Infants dying mbaftit.ed. Concerning which I have wrote fever al Treat ifes-, and could be content fill to he an Advocate for all dying Infants^ as being through the Crace of God in our Lord Jefus Chrif^ dijcharged of the condemning Ptvo* er of Original Sin^ and having no AHual Sin^ the Infirmity of their Na- ture Jhall not damn them^ but the Mercy of God [hall fave them all. And were Mens Judgments clear in this Point., the Controverfy about Infant-Baf- tifm would naturally ceafe, and all Men would fee it the only fafe way to refer Baptifm to the time wherein through Repentance and Faith it might, according to the Will of G od, interefi them in the remijfion of their Sins, and in the Priviledges of the Church of the Living God, in order to Life eternal. I fiiall therefore once more endeavour to take aws^y this falfe Covering, which is not of God''s Spirit, I mean the DoUrine of Infant-Damnation, by propofing a few things to this Generation, as an IntroduHion to my Keply to the Cafe of Infaat-Baptifm. And, 1Seeing it cannot enter into the Heart of any Chrijiian (I hope) that Gcd does create Infants on purpofe to damn them, and to jhew them no Mer~ cy (feeing he is very merciful to the chief of Sinners) if we can find out a juftcattfe for the damning of them, it mujl be either, r. From themfelves from their Parents, from the Devil, or from Chrifi's not loving them, fo m to redeem them from the Fall which they had in Adam. But none of shefe things can be the caufe of Infants Damnation, i. They cannot damn themfelves by finful Courfes, and it is certain our gracious God will damn none, who do not firfl: deftroy themfelves by their Wickednefs. This is evident by his unwillingnefs to defiroy thofe who had defiroyed them '- felves, Hofea 13. P. O Ifrael, thou haft deftroyed thy felf, but in me is thy Help. How then can it enter into any Chriftian to think that God pjould have no pity for innocent Babes who never offended him? Is he thus compajfienate towards great Sinners, and is there no Help in him for poor Infants ? " ^ 2. No Man can damn Infants, becaufe if any have power to damn his Infants, all Men have it, Ws no Mans peculiar Power (whether good or bad) to do this •, and if any fay, all Men have this Power, he refielis upon the Goodnefs of God for giving fuch power to Men, and centradi6ls the Word of God, Jer, 31 . Every one fhall die for his own Iniquity ^the Son fhall not bear the Iniquity of the Father. This is only,true, in the cafe of eternal Death : for Children, even Infants, often die for their Fa- thers Sin a temporal Death, as in the old World, in Sodom, yea and in Jerufalem too, Lara. 2.11. Tet who can think that our jufl and merciful Cod Jhould now. after their fwooning in the Streets, cajt them into Hellilh Torments. It was not the Iniquity of the Infants, but of the grown Perfons vhkh cried for Fengeance, ^ The Preface. S'.The Devil cannot damn Infants^ becaafe they are out of the Reach of hli temptationsThey knot» not to chafe them, nor refufe them •, they k^ow net their right hand from the left •, they hpow neither Good nor Evil ^ rehom the Devil cannot temft^ them he cannot damn. A learned Protejhant tells us., God will not damn any Perfon for that which they cannot help. This Sentence mufi needs he as true in the cafe of Infants as any Perfon in the World. And indeed the Equity of that merciful Lave, Deut. 22.25,26. may ft^ce to convince any Man, that in the Judgment of the Almighty there is no Sin in Infants worthy of Damnation •, feeing what Sin foever is upon them, it was impojfible for them to avoid it. They therefore (hall not be damned for it. , ^ When Chrift puts the Qjuftion, How can ye elcape the Damnation of Hell ? He fpeaks to incorrigible Sinners, that the Fear of Damnation Jhould not overwhelm weak., Perfons , but never did he fpeak a Word againfi poor In- fants. He never told them they were of the Devil. Satan is not the Fa- ''%J i ther of Infants. Ergo, they are not h 'u Children. 4. Chrijl loved and gave himfelf for as dying Infants s therefore not one of them fljoll be damned. Chri[i gave himfelf a Ranfom for all: He loved, and dyed for the chief of Sinners. Therefore he loved and died ftkxjii, for the poor innocent Babes: He bought them that deny him, 2 Pet, 2. I, 2. How fiould he defpife the helplefs Infant ? innnf A.. Objell. if God be fo good to alllnfants, why then is he not fo good to let them be baptized. I anfwer i God is good to Infants in that he accepts them without Baptifm. And I appeal to any confidering Man, whe- ther he was not as good to the Infants of the Righteous before Abraham, as he was to the Infants of Abraham ? and whether God w.ff not as good to an Infant in Ifrael of 7 days old, as to an Infant of 8 days old ? And whether Cod be not as good tons, in that he accepts us in the ufe of a very few Ce^ remonies, as he was to Ifrael, accepting them in the ufe of manyCeremo- nies? And whether if he had pleafed to accept of us upon Repentance and Faith without Baptifm, he had not been as good tone, as now, that together with Repentance and Faith he does require Baptifm ? The Truth is, Baptifm is th'erefore good, becaufe it is commanded. It is net good in it felf, no more was Circumcifion, nor indeed any Ceremony. How Repentance and Faith are good in themfelves, it's abfolutely neceffary, that thofe that fin, be humbled for it and forfake it. It's abfolutely necejfary for the C mature to believe, and to depend upon the Creator. Now Baptifm though it be not good in it felf, yet Heavens Authority en- iming it, and Divine Myfieries being contained in it, and Prtvtledges con- ferredby it, it is therefore good to thofe to whom it is appointed. But where God requires it not, but extends his Ceodnefs without it, it is a like Vanity The Preface. Hi to give it where he does rfat appoint it, as it voohld have been in Abra- ham to give CircHmcifion to every Malt Child as foon ai it WM or at 6 or q days old^ and to his Females alfoy becaafe it was a ftgn ef ag reat Covenant to them to whom it did belong by Appointment. And therefore I confider farther., that as thufe had no Loft of any Tri- viledg that was necejfary for them in Ifrael, who by the Lavo were not rtqA- red to be circumcifed f_at in the cafe of all Females'^ So neither jhall any lofe God's Favour for not being baptized when he requires it not. The Dan- ger lieth on the other fde. For had Abraham out of a conceit of making Infants {_Male'\ of 7 days old., and all his Females alfa Sharers in the Cove- nant., equally with thofe of 8 days old circumcifed them., he had hazivded both his own and their Lofs of the Covenant. In like mannerj whoever wii (prefumptuoufy at leaf ) baptize any Terfon whom God does not require to be baptized, is fo far from bringing him into Covenant, that he runs the hazzard of lofing his own part in the Covenant: Rev. 22. For I teftify unto every Man.—-If anyfhall add unto thefe things, Godlhalladd to him tne Plagues which are written in this Book. But, 4. All dying Infants are under the Blelling of the Covenant of Grace, therefore no dying Infant fhall be damned. This, how firange foever it may feem, mufi be a Truth, or elfe poor dying Infants are the worfl of Creatures. When therefore we fay all dying Infants are in the Covenant of Grace, we mean it, as God hath vouchfafed to interefs them in his Mercy by Chrifl •, That as Condemnation came upon them by Adam*i Sin, fo Jufti^cation of Life has abounded towards them by the Obedience of Chrifl ; and he himfelf that befl knew God's Defign concerning them, has de- dared, without excepting fo much as one of them, that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. And what then is he that Jhould except them, as the manner offome if, and in their cruel Judgment fend them by Millions t§ MeUTorments? Now either Infants (even all of them J are thus inor un- der the Blejfing of the Covenant through the Mercy of God, or they are not concern d in any Covehant at all: for the Covenant ef pure Nature, as made with Adam in Innacenry, concerns not Infants, but as the Breach of it is imputed to Mankind -, but here they are lofl. The Covenant of Wor^ con- terns them not, it cannot be faid ef them, the Man that doth thefe things lhall live in them. And to fay that Infants are under the Blejfmg of no Covenant, if to rank,tbem with the viiefl of Men, yea which the De- vils themftlves, who are therefore mofl accurfed, becaufe there is no Sa- viour, no Mercy for them. They arc fliut up in Chains under Dark- nefs to the Judgment of the great day. Now far be it from allChrifli- ans to have fuch Thoughts of God, whofe tender Mercies are over aH his Works. The very Devils had a State wherein they might have been happy The Preface. hapff, but prifuinpiuitfy fell from it, fude v, 6. But fdtf "Bakts btfrnt they hud a being w>f txp^td to Ctndtmmtm through the Offence oj miher. Shalt thefe Okjeiis of Piny per^ eter- nally too without Reiutdy ^ 0 (rod forbid j -.let them hi preffid with all the Inconveniences corfequent to Original Sin, yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants, fo as to befiifficient to cohdeninthem ; or if it could, yet the Mercy and abfolute Good- nefe of God will fccure them, if he takes them away before they can glorify him with a free Obedience. D?-. Taylor. 5. No Man is able to prove that any Infant ever was or ever fhall be damned to hcl- lifh Tormentstherefore none of them, dying fach, fhall be damned. We (hould ixld, nothing as a Feint of Faith, but upon clear Fro^, and efpeaally things of fo high a A'j- ture as this is. Some Men tal^ of fome Infants as if they were little better than Devils. But could never yet bring a juft charge agatnft any one of that innocent part of ManJ^nd. Toe Jn(lance of Efau is all that liofslil^e an Enemy to Infants, but mind it well, there is no fucb matter in it. Cod l^ew that Efau (hould not dy an Infant, he fnew he would be a bad Man, and is judged as fucb. Efau is not to be ranged with dying hfants-, and this Inflonce failing, there is not the Shadow of any Proof that God will damn poor dying Infants. But becaiife the Dodor, whofe Boedf we are to examine, has fome Kindnefs for all dying Infants, aes I conceive, though the SMlityof his SubjeS dots fometimes enforce him to drop fuch Sentences as may fetm to doty all Mercy to unbaptixed Infants, yet he correds all fucb Faffages, by faying they may befaved by uncroenanted Mercy, See. A ftrange Speech it is, but there is fome Kind- nefs to poor Infants dying without Baptifm-, I fhall therefore inffft no farther atprefent upon the point of Infants Salvation; but mal^e my way to the Bo^ itfelf, by premifing a few things. Our late Affertors of Infant'Baptifm feem to me to he ready to yield that Chriji has not com' manded to haptko Itfaats, yea fome'ofthem grant it i« totidem verbis; yet tky thin^them- felves fafe, becaufe f in their Judgment J Infant Baptifm is not forbidden. Aaid with this Apprehenfion away they go to the Jews for Relief, who out of rteV Talmud, Gemara, and Maimonides give them an account of fome fuch Vfage among the Ifraelites, And now from Dr.- Hammond f who has fearched much into the RabLnical Dodrine J they grow confident that Bap- tifm was a Jew^ Ceremony originally, though they grant it was but of humane Inflltiition, and that the CMfiian Baptifm is but the Copy, which is tal^infrom that Original. Tea the learned. Author of the cafe of Infant Baptifm does tell us boldly -, That our Saviour being obliged to lay by Circumcifion, confccratedthisCuftomof the Jewifh Church to be the Sacra- ment of Initiation into liis Church. But ceitalnly John'r Baptifm of Repentance for RjemijJl- m of Sins, which was from Heaven and not of Men, was more fit to be eftablifhed by our Lord 0tri(l, for a perpetual Miniftery in bis Church, than fucb a Jewifh Cujlom. Pitty it is that we (houldyet he contending about Infant-Baptifm (rom this fiippofed humane I - fitution of the-Jews. Wioen our needful Worl^is to doourEndeavoiay to prepare our Touth (_and many aged Perfons too") for an orderly Admiffton to that Holy Layer for Rmifpon of Sins, and not to blind their Eyes by fabling to them that they were regenerate and born again, as foon almoji as they came into the World. We have certainly as much need of good Schools to catechijeour Touth, and to prepare them thereby for the Frofeffitn of the mejifacred Religion, as the anciect CbrijUans had. This is the way to have our Fofierity to recdve the Truth in the Love of it, when their Judg- ments are informed to underfland it in the Beauty and Excellency as well as to fee the Necejflty of it. Tris is the way to have them (iand fafl under all Revolutions, when they have been radicated is the firfi Principles of Cathechifm, Heb. 6,1,2. Ihefe Principles of Chrifiianity are plain and eafy to be underjiood, and yet God i^nows there are but a few that have a competeat Vnderft ending of them in this Hation. And it is but a bad way to promote Cbriftian Knmledg in Prmeiplis of Catechifm [as that of Baptifm is fuchlj by Stories out of the Talmud, or other Jewi^ which if we had them we cannot under ftand them, why then are we fent unto t ■ tbem.^ The Preface. thm? Is the Holy Scrij/turi lefsableto us wife to Sdvation than the Taltnad * Let its tike to the good old way, and diligently teach em Touth the Rudments of Religion ■, fo ^aU Goodnefs and Mercy follow Hs all the days of m Life, and we (hall dwell (fby our PeJierityJ in the Houfe of the Lord for ever. One main thing in the Booj^ now under Confideration is the Covenant of Circumcifion, which the DoHor will have to be a Gofpel-Covenant, and Circumcifion a Gofpel-Ordinance. New if all this were true, it would come fhort of proving it our Duty to baptise our Infants. For fet' ing there is a proper time for our Participation of all Gofpel-Priviledges, fo we mufl learn what time this is, not from Circumcifion, (for then the 8th day muft precifely be the time') but from Chriji and bis Apoftles, who are our only infallible InflruHors herein. But that the Doilsr is mifia^n in this thing which be maizes a Pillar to his Building, is (I hope) fufficiently made manifejl. Nor (hall it be amifs in this place to give you the Judgment of a very learned Jew, lately con* verted and baptised in the City of London, becaufe he may rationally be thought to underftand the Nature of theCovenant oj Circumcifion(being a great Student in all Jewifo, as well as Chr'sfii- an Theology) as any other Man. And this is the account we have from him of this matter, in his printed Expofition upon the Alts of the Apofiles, chap. 2.40. The Jews Tfaith he J who were circumcifed in Infancy, before Circumcifion was abrogated, were here bap- tized, by the order of Peter; from whence it appears that by Baptifin and Circumci- fion, two Covenants altogether differing,\veTe to be fealed,of which the one was withthofc who by the Law of Nature were born of the Seed of Abraham, the other with thofe who were fpiritually reborn by the Gift of Faith. And whereas one main hinge upon which the Doliers Difcourfe for Infant-Betptifm is fupported, k the Cuftom of the Jewifh Church, and the Cufitm of the ancient Chriftian Church, thefaid learn* ed Jew (peaks very well to that Plea in thefe Words: The Cufloms of Churches ought to fubmit to the Words of Chrift, not the Words of Chrift to be wrefted to the Cufloms of the Church", in regard the Words of Chrifl are the Foundation upon which all Church-Cufloms are to be built, that they may befafe and laudable. Whatfoever fa- vours againA the Words of ChriA, favours againA the Truth -, and,as Tertullian fays,whac ever favours contrary to Truth, is Herefy, though it be an ancient CuAom. It is in the Power of God to pardon thofe that err out of Simplicity j but becaufe we erred once, we are no: always to go on in our Errors. . 1 Tne Do6lm divides his Book into a previous Difceurfi, and into the Refolution of five Auefiions. In fiatingand refolving his ^eftions, he repeats much of the previous Difcourfe.- Ihave endea* voured to take his fence, and have fet down many of bis Words j and my Reply to his previom Difcourfe may ferve as a Supplement to my Reply to the Refolution of his Ihtejlions, becaufe the fame Arguments are handled in both. What I have added about the Sign of the Crofs in Baptifm, I have coUeHed chiefly f om a learn- ed Protefiant Writer, in a Book intituled, A ScholaAical Difcourfe againA Symbolizing with AntichriA in Ceremonies. Ihave intituled my Book (as you fee) The laA and moA Friendly Debate concerning In- fant-Baptifm. And glad (fiould I be to fee an end of the Controverfy, by an Agreement in the Truth, or a brotherly Condefcenfioninfuch things on either part, as may be without Sin. That I have undertaken this Task was, not the Fruit of my own Choice, but indeed I was particularly defired by Letter from fome Perfons of Qttality and Learning to give a brief and dijiinS Anfwer to the Contents of the Cafe of Infant-Baptifm; which they commend for the temper in which it is framed, and for that it is very nervous in Argument-, infomuch that till it wm an- fwered, it wasfofatisfailory, that more neednot befaidon their part. Andnow, I hope they ■will do me the Jufiice, as to read me with Patience,and to judg without Prejudi:e,knewing thk jhartly we muft all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Chrift, and receive from him the things done in the Body, whether they be good OJ bad. ' ■ The \ (I) Litiii ' / folbi - r ^ _ a-.- _ •iliiffl, ■ ■ V ffil. The Lafl and Mofl Friendly Deb at e »k ' 't CONCERNING I. INFANT-BAPTISM. 'sdtlK ^ 'ir, it ■ C H A p. I. thofc That the Covenant^ Gen. 17. (firi^tly taken) rvas not a Gojpel- Covenanty nor Circimcifion a Gofpel-Ordinance, as is affirm- iS,i h Do^or. Wip istk T H E Learned Author of the Book now under Conlideration, may rationally exped Lome Reply from thofe whom he caljs ^nabaptifts, or elfe interpret their Silence to be cither a ful- len flighting of his Endeavours to convince them, or that djjj they are not able (in their own Judgments) to fhew the Infufficiency 'of his Arguments 5 and the rather, becaufe he has more obliged us to ffiw, conflder his Writing, by his modeft and friendly management of the Controverfy, than many of his Brethren who nave bent their Stile 2 againft us. We fliall therefore (God willing) with no lefs Modelly and friend- ly Demeanour, Ihew our Reafons, why in our Judgment his Labours have not only come Ihort of proving the baptizing of Infants to be warrantable by God's Word, but has rather given us great caufe to ^ think, that the Cafe of Infant-Baptifni cannot be made good by all that Learning and Art can do, it being wholly without Divine Au- ■M thority. And to make this good, we will now confider the chief of sJ his Strength, in the feveral Pages of his Learned Treatife. " In pag. i, & 2.'he would have it believed- that the State of the Church from Abraham to Mofes^ and from Mofes to Ghrifl: was paral- J leTd by the differing State of the Chriftian Church from Chrifl to ,j B Con- ii ,\iii Gi isrfi Bllllf ittW 1*1*1 kirj taitr Mii 2 Cljc laa anti mail f i:(enli!p Detatc Confiantinei and from Conjiantwe onwards. For (faith he) there ground for thU diftu Hion in the reafon of the thing, ae ii evident to an^ Mun who u capable of confidering the dijference betwixt the Church ChrijU-\im an, before and after us Union with the tmpire. But here fetir.s to be a very great miltake in the very entrance of hiss Book, for it is certain that the Jevvilh Church from Abraham to Mo- fcs, had very little of the Face ot a Church-ftate till his time, being as yet defticuteof molt of her Laws, both for Conliitutionand Go- vernmeht. Abraham himfelf owning a Prieft fuperior to himfelf, even after he was called of God, and had received the Promife both qf being that Pei fon in whofe Seed all Nations fhould be blelfed, and that to his Seed God would give the Land of Canaan, as willaiapear to fuchas,fhall perufe thefe Scriptures j Cen. 12.1,2,3. & 13.15, 16. & 14. 18,19, 20. Now this Covenant which God made with Abraham, that in his Seed all Nations of the Earth Ihould be blelfed. Gen. 12. which was indeed' an Evangelical Promife or Covenant, Candin the Faith of which Abraham was juftified, near thirty Years before Circumcilion had any being in the World) cannot be called the Covenant of Cir- cumcifion. Neither yet when Circumcilion was inllituted, was the Seed of Abraham formed into g Chuteh-ltate, in contradiiiindtion to all the World befide, for ^ti\\ Mekhifedec wzs PrieR of themofi High God, and many righteous Men were then living, who. outlived Abra- bam himfelf, and were truly Church-members, yea and Governors Churches too, as well as Abrahafn^^zvid, yet they were not at all con- cerifW iathe Covenanto.f Circtuucifioa : And hence it's evident, they being Hnde.r the Covenant of Crape, the Cpvenanl; of Cifcumcilion, and the Covenant of Grace wpre then difiinR, and not the fame Covenant, fo, but that the one might and did rublift without the other. This then may ferve to Ihew the; podfor'sgreat Miftake, in making the Church of ChrilD, fr:ora, Ghtiil to, fonfapitine, parrallel to the Chhrch4xom Abraharn. 10 Mofef, vy.h^n in Ttu.th a.gtegter Difparity can hardly be fhewed; For though the Seed of Abraham till Mofes was in a State of Peregrination, as alp? was the Church of Chrift till Confiantine, yet the Church Chriftian was then rtot only in her Purity, but alio both for Conftitution and Cqvernmeut, ascompleat as ever (lie was lince,having received.from Chrilh and his. Apoftles all the R.ules of his holy Word C^ven thewholp Camfel GodJ, xtccchhx^j to her Church-ftate y-antl therewith all the Gifts of the. holy Spirit," in moil I^entiful manner, by which to jland. perftbi in. the Will of God: And H'h lO# ofCi of Go «Oii tajo: ica arer Urit); bf late, Id Qi«[ A( dra ) tkr, ^ roncetnfiiff 3IJtraitt='Bapt(G«. ? " ' Aiid on the other fide, the Seed of Abrahaihy till the' Times of Mo. ^^ris had neither Law, Prieft-hood, nor Sacrifice, i» n'fettled Church. oayy only they were diltinguifhed by the Covenant of Circumcifioni 'ceof-j5 a People from whom in time the Saviour of the World lliould pror ' 'O'^ceed, "and that they fhould be feparated from the Nations, and fee- biiJed in a plentiful Country, with Laws and fpecial Protection from Almighty ri//5/3//ofe Jlwhld comeand when thewas ma- Iiinifcnifelted to Jfraely the Covenant of Circuracition ceaftd,. and the girt- "Is txitious Gofpel-Covenant was how plcnarily to be htdde k^iewn to M Na- Uions for the Obedience of Faith, Rom. 16. And here we will take no- 'I-%ticeof that excellent Padage inMr- Baxter^ The jews ffaithlie) ivere • b") ^ not the whole of God^j Kingdom, or Chiifch of Redeemed Ones in the World, hut that oi the Covenant was made with all Mankind, fo amangfl them God 'Stinkhad other Servants befides the Jews, though it was they that had the extraor- ^ich^dinary BenediSlion of being his pecnli4r Sncted People. Now as this fsjtLwas true all along, foit was more particularly manifeft in the times JiiidCoof Melchifedec and Other holy Men that^outlived Abraham, tf f: What the Doctor means to compare Conftantihe with Mofes, is verf ^35 B doubtful; Is it to make Chriftian Magiftrates Legifla'tOrs to the GhurcH fldiflfli of Chrill? We know indeed Mofes was a great Prophet,and appointed 4 br of God to give Laws and Statutes to Tfrael; but Confiant 'tne was not hh 'd dr. Antitype, but Chrift only : and whofoever will not bear him ffeaH bd )ym cut off", but not by the Imperial Sword, as God knows fince the uai- a//co: ting of the Chyrch Chriftiafi to the Empire, -viz. the Civil and Ecclefi- aftical Power for the management of Church-matters, there has been k,!. a very bloody Scene of Affairs in moll Places where fijch a kind of Unity of the Church with the Empite or Worldly Governtnerrt has been found, and for the mofl: part thofe who held to the Truth in the mik greateft Parity and Power of it, became a Prey to that Church who hot obtained that Grandeur and Advantage, of which England has of late, as well as fornierly, been a terrible Inftance. 'Mnj . Another remarkable differencebetwixt the Church Chriffian from riltti Cbriff to Confiantine, and that of the Seed of Abraham from his Piiri" Days to Mofes, was this. The latter fo far as it may be called a s er; Church in that time was National, and dependant on the Family of Abraham, none being permitted to dwell in the lame Family uniefs :o k circumcifed. But the Church Chriftian from Chrift to Conflantine was i iw: not National, nor dependant on any Family, as fuch, butdonfiffed only of fuch in any Family as feared Ged, and'wrought Righteouf- k nels, A^s to. 34,35' And this being confidered, will fhew that the B 2 Church 4 €f)c M anti moff jFcicntl? DcDnte Church (xom. Abraham to Mofes was notfo Spiritual and ^langelical, as the Doutor would have it, but were rather natural Branches of Abraham\fi^yoi\Yior Promife, Gen. 12. of the bleffing all Nations in the Seed of Abraham, and the Obliga- tion or Condition of believing that Promife, to extend only to fuch as had Means and Ability to bdieve it, is not denied by usnor can it fignify any thing to the Dodor's purpofe, for fure he cannot bring Infants nnder this Condition, which is ^he thing he drives at. But for a Rwre full Anfwer, Let us confider where the ftrefs of the matter lies between the Dodlor apd us: He would have this Evange- lical Covenant to be the Covenant of Circumcifion., Gen. 17. We lay, "*71w the Covenantor Promife, Gen- 12. Now in the Dodor's.Text is promifed, that Nations jhallcome out of him, and that he jhall be a Father of piany Natiaps 3 but not a word of the BlcfTing which conierm all the.Nations of the Earth. Now in our Text we have it full. In thee Jhatl aRFamiiits ef the Earth be hleffed. But the belt Way is to let Si.PaHl refolve this Doubt, even as he is quoted by the Dodfor, Rom. 4, The Promife that he Jhould be Heir of the World was not given to Abraham, artohis Seed through the Law. And what Law was Abraham under, butthe Law or Covenant of Circumciflon ? The Apollle adds, Rut through the Right eoufncfs,of Faith •, and yet more plainly, /Jc^.4.1 o. How was it then reckoned s' when he was in Circumcifion or in Uncircumcifi- m ? Not in Circumciflon, hut in Vncirciimcifion. St. Paul moll dearly refers to the Promife made Gm. 12. near thirty years before Abraham was circumcis'd. Now whether Circumcifion be of the Law, or ,whe- ther it was a Gofpel-Ordinance, is the bufinefs to be confidered. The Dodbbr does exprefly affirm, that Circumcifion was a GqfpeLOt- dinance, p. 24. And wc fay diredtly contrary, that it was a Legal or Jewifh Ceremony. To prove that Circumcifion was no Gofpel-Qrdi- nance concetnitto: 31ttfaitt'05apttf\tt* 5 nance we argue thus, That vhich could frc^t no Man^ except hek^pt the whole Lavo^ was no GojpeI-Ordinance, &c. The Apoftle proves the/»/- nor, Rom 2. 2$T Circnmcifion verily profiteth if than keep the Law, hut if than he a Breaker of the Law, thy Circitmeifon is made Vncircnmcifon. And we argue further from Gal. j. z. If Gircumcifion bound Men to keep the whole Law, then it was no Gofpel-Ordinance, &c. The AITumption is proved by .the Text *, / teliify again to every Man that is circtmcifed, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. Gircumcifion thercr fore could never be a Gofpel-Ordinance : for as the Gofpel frees us from the condemning Power, and from the Servitude of the Law, fo every Gofpel-Ordinance holds forth that blefled Freedom to all faith- ful Men in both Refpeds. Arid hence it is clear that howfoever Cir- cumcifion was a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faithto it could not be fo as a Gofpel-Ordinance (for he was a Breaker of the Law after this) any more than his Olfering his Son Ifaac upon the Al- tar, Jam.2. 21, 22. In which he was jaflifed by Faith. And fo was Abel in his Sacrifice, Gen, a,. Htb.w. Yea thefe were evident Seals and Pledges of their Faith, as much as Gircumcifion to Abraham, yet none of thofe can hence be proved to be Gofpel-Ordinances. For indeed at the rate of the Dodor's arguing, all the Sacrifices propitia- tory, performed by faithful Men in the, time of the Law, may be proved to be Gofpel-Ordinances as well as Gircumcifion. And by his Confequence all that took part in thefe Sacrifices, have a right to par- ticipate in all Gofpel-Ordinances which hold forth Ghrili and himcru- cified, as well as in Baptifm. And becaufe the Dodor builds much upon this Topic, we vyill further try the Strength of it; That which was always in Comparifon of the Gofpel, a wea^ and beggarly Element, Was never a Gofpel-Ordinance. But fach was CircHmcijion. The Major is clear, becaufe'tis the Property of all Gofpel-Ordinances torepre- ient thofe that are under them, perfed in Ghrift Jefus, Gal. i. 28. So that the Gofpel-Ordinances are neither weak^ nor beggarly •, but as they, are a p rt of the Gofpel it felf, are faid to be the Power of God unto Salvation. The Minor h true, becaufe the CtrmowifJ 0/ the Law made nothing perfeB •, for if they had, then they had not ceafed, Heb. 7. 18,19. and 10. 1 And it is evident St. Paul calls the whole Geremoriial Law (a part whereof was Gircumcifion) beggarly Elements, Gal. 4.9. And they are all equally ceafed. And feeing upon this Ground the Dodor boldly affirms the Cove- hant of Gircumcifion to be an Evangelical Covenant, becaufe Gircum- cifion did initiate thereinto, p.5. My next Undertaking ffiall be to prove that 6 CfjeMann moll ifnentil^Detate that the Covenant of Circuinciiion (ftridtly taken) was no Gofpel- Covenant, though called fo very frequently by the Dodor, asp. p, and 4. all which he would make good, becaufe St. 'Pa^il calls Cir- cumciiion a Seal of the Righteoafmfs of Paith., and bccaufe llfignifed the Circumcifion of the Heart., Deut. 10. 16. and 30. 6. The contrary will appear from the very Recital of the Covenant itfelf, as fetdown Cf». 17. from the Nature of Circumcifion being a Legal Ceremony (as we have proved) and chiefly becaufe the Cove- nant of Grace was not peculiar to Abraham and his, but common to others, though they were not drcumcifed. To begin with the very ExprelTions of the Gocenant, Gen. 17. from ver. 4to 15. Whofo fliall diligently read it, will not find one Word of the Promife of Bleffednefs to aH Nations ; But that Promife' of the Meffiah in whom all the Nations of the Earth fiiould-be bleflM was made (aswefliewed) near thirty Years before this m. Cox on the Covenant of Circumcifion was made. But it was rather a Covenants. Recital of God's Promife to Gen. 13. when Abraham and Lot parted afunder. And indeed of all the eight times which God fpake to Abraham, we find the Promife of Blefling to all Nations in the Seed of Abraham., only exprelTed in the firfttime, Gen. 12. and in the lafl time that God fpake to him. Gen. 22. And yet it is alfo true that St. Paul does include Abraham's Fa- therhood over the Faithful in that Covenant, Gen. 17. and 15. 5.. And fo Circumcifion was to him a Seal of the Faith which Abraham had^ with refpeB to the Promifes made at the former Appearings of Cod to him': But then it is as true that of this Faith it could be no Seal to any other Perfon, no not to Ifaac himfelf, becaufe it was Abraham alone that fhould have this Honour to be the Father of the Faithful. After this manner the ancient Chrillian Church feems to have un- derftood the Covenant of Circumcifion, as appears in Chryfojlom and ■theophilaEl, as tranflated by two learned Writers in thefe words Circitmcifion was caUed a Seal of the Righteoafnefi of Faith, becaufe it wjc, gimen to hbtahzm as a SealandTeflimony of the Righteoufnefs which he had acquired by Faith: Now this feems to be the Privitedgof alone, and not to be transferred to others, as if Circumcifion inwfiomfosver it was, were aTeftimony of Divine Right eoufnefs. F or as it was the Pru- viledg of Abraham, that he Jhould be the Father of all Faithful as wed ekcumcifed as uncircumcifed, being already the Father of all uncircurn- Cffed,having Faith in Vncircumcipon : He received fir ft- the Sign ofCircum- cifmfty that he might be the Father of the drcumcifed. Now becaufe he had coiicenu"ii0 ^iifant-'Baptifm* 7 hjidtkis Privilec^t in refpeSl of the Ri^hteoufnefs vohjcb he had acquiredb} Faittherefore the Sign of Circumctfon was to hint a Seal of the Righte~ onfnefs of Faith. But to the reft of the Jews it was a Sign that they were Rbtz\\7ixd's Seed, bat not a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, as a'fb all the Jews alfo were not the Fathers of many Nations. And fays another learned Writer ^ ^ It is no ways diffi:u!t to " conceive that Circumcilion might have a different refpecl, accord- ing to the differing Circumftances and Capacity of its Subjects; yea that it had fo in another Inftance, hath been fhewed already. " It was a Seal of the Inheritance of Canaan to the Children of Ifraet, and did enfure the Promife thereof to them, andthrir Seed but " it gave their Bond-Servants no fuch right or claim : Even fo it was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of the Faith which he had, " but this arofe from the peculiar and extraordinary Circiim- fiances and Capacity that he was in. For it is not poffible to con- " ceive, that Circumciffon Ihould be a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of " Faith to one thatnever had Faith, nor the Relation of a Father to " all Believers, as Abraham had.—And it is equally abfurd to fay that Circumcilion was a Seal to all its Subjeds of the Righte- " oufnefs of Faith, which they had while uncircuracifed, as to " affirm that it was a Seal of a paternal or fatherly Relation to all Believers, unto every one that received it. . Again, From Sr. Paul, Gal. 6.15. we may fairly argue thus: If the Covenant of Circumcilion had been the Covenant of Grace, and Cir- cumcilion the Sign of the Covenant of Grace (as the Doflor would 6ave it,) then bad all true Subjedls of it (as fuch) been new Crea- turcs in Chrifl; Jefus. But the true or right Subjeds of the Cove- Bant and Sign (as fuch) were not new Creatures in Chrill Je- fus, &c. This whole Argument is proved from the Text, which :ffiitb ^ In Chrifl: Jefus neither Circumcifion availeth any thing, nor Vncircitmciflon, but a new Creature. Plainly thus the Jews werene- ver the better (as to a Gofpel-Church-ftate) for being the Seed of Abraham, Or circumcifed : nor the Gentiles never the worfe fas to a Gofpel-llate) for being not the Seed of Abraham, and uncircumcifed. Tor there was no other way for either to be brought under the Privi- ledges of the Church Evangelical, and fo to be in Chrifl: Jefus, but by Repentance, Faith and Baptifm, or to be born again for if any Man be in Chrif, (in a Gofpel-Church-way) he is a new Creature, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 5. 2(5, to the end, and 5. 24. I defire the Reader toper- ufe thefe Scriptures. 8 C&e lafl anil moif jFnentiI|) Debate We have ];^roved already that Circumdiion was no Gofpel-Ordi- nance, yet we /hall add, It could not be a Gofpel-Ordinance, becaufe Mofes gave it as an Obligation to keep the Ceremonial taw, or that intolerable Yoak of Bondage which none voas able to bear. For though Circumcifion was before Mofes., yet it was given by him, John 7,22. for this purpofe, 6^.5.2,3,4. and it felf was a part of the Yoke of Bondage. Sacrifices wcvq before Mofes^ as well as Circumcifion, yet they were given alfo by Mofes. And hence when Paul oppo- fed Circumcifion, it wasobjefted that he taught Men toforfake Mo- fesy A^s 21.21. And Circumcifion is exprefly called the Law of Mo~ fes by Chrill himfelf, Johnj. 23. And therefore the Dodor was not well advifed, to affirm it to be a G off el-Ordinance. Again, The Covenant of Circumcifion, and the Sign it felf were not Evangelical, becaufe the Obligation to be circumcifed was pecu- liar to Abraham, and his Seed or Family, in fuch a fenfe, as none but they were obliged to betircumcifed. Men might and did walk with God, and pleafe God, without being concerned in tlfc Covenant of Cir- cumcifion, as we have fully Ihewed. all,Men are equally bound to, obey the Gofpel., and all the Ordinances of it, who have means to know them ; they do belong to all Families, all Nations, as much as to any, Matth. 28. 19,20. Mark 16. 15, 16. Rom. 16. z6. So did not the Co- venantof Circumcifion. How unlike the Covenant of Circumcifion was to the Covenant of Grace, (efpecially in Refped of Infants) might have been per- ceived by the Dodor from his own-Words, p. 8. where he tells us, God made Abraham thus fefarate the Children with their Parents from all the World, and look^upcm them, as a fart of his chafers peculiar People, by which they became relatively Holy, and differed from the Children of "Unbelievers, as much as their Parents did from Unbelievers themfelves. Sure this is a cruel Sentence againfl: poor innocent Babes. But I anfwer. What Separation foever the Covenant of Circumcifion made be- twixt Abraham''^ Family and the refi of the World •, It is certain it* could not feparate them, nor any Perfons iii the World, from the Co- venant of Grace there was nothing but Sin could do that, otherwife* it had been a difmal Separation indeed. And can the Dodor once think that Lot wzs now feparated from the Covenant of Grace, be- „ p . caufe he was not in the Covenant of Circumcifion ? Cflsjis/Jscrip- ® righteous Man for all this. Yea, and turc, other Holy Patriarchs were yet living, as Heber^ SaUh, Semy concerning 3!nranM?aptinn; 9 and fo waj Mekhijedec Cif "he were not one of them) be- (^a^fcjng Pricft of the molt high God. And as thefe, and doubtlefs ^"^tmany more, were good Men; fo it's not to be qiielUoned but they had their Holy Societies and Congregations^ Mtlcinfedec then the molt eminent Type of the Son of God, that ever was, as oke he was King of Peace, and PrieH:: in which Offices he mult needs be ioD, ferviceable to many, as is well obfervcd by Mr. Cox on the Cove-^ ?po- nants, p. 154. ^1- The Dottor i;s greatly out in making the Infants of Unbelievers to be in as ill cafe as the Vnbeikvers themftlves.y feeing Unbelievers 'Qotmuftperifh, Mark_ 16. 16. But it is not revealed yet to be the Will of God that fo much as one dying Infant fliall perilh. And as to the We reft of Mankind, Mr. Baxter fays very well y That m the Jews had by iVi-Premifes and Prophecies andTypes, more means to knors) God than any other 'l>nt Nations., fo they were anfvoerably obliged to more. Knowledg and Faith than od, ither Nations were^ that had not., nor could have their means. More iir-Proof, p.95. ito And why may not this be true. That the Effeds of the Evangeli- w :al Promifc to Abraham.^ to be a Father of the Faithful in all Nations, It], lad very little Relation in a Gofpel-way, to the Age in which he Co-ivcd, nor indeed till the times of the Go^el, or till Chrift the Seed ' :o whom the Promifes were made did come ? And then indeed it was rati gracioufly verified. When by the Commandment of the everlafiing God pet. jven Chriji who is here fo called'} the Gofpel was made known to all Nati- IsiB, msfor the Obedience of Faith., Rom. 16. fru Nor fhall the Do feeing it could not be the Gofpel-Grace and Faith, which was the Condition of the Covenant of Cjrcnmcifion, as that Covenant heloni'd to all that were circHjrxifed : BecaufeSt. tells US, whillt the Law was in force (a part of which Law Circumciflon was, as we have proved; the time of Faith was not yet come. And that the Jews were av to the Faith which was afterfoard to be revealed, Gal.3> 23,2 5. And that the Law (a part whereof was Circumcifion) was added becanft of Traufgreffion, till the Seed (to wit Cbrift) jhoM come. And Ihewj likewife that there was no Law fasyet) given which cpuld give Life, rjke Covfnant of Grace made with Adam, Gen. 3. And the Promife u Abraham, Gen. 12. And the Renewal of the Covenant of Grace to between 'hem both, mnft of Necejfity be here exceptedj. And therefore Eternal Life could not be had by the Covenant and I.aw of Circum- cifLOU, as mzde to Abraham''s Pofterity, otherwife than as it fervcd fas a Type or Figure) to diredlthem, to look (or the Mefiah to be horn of Abraham's Seed, according to the Flefh. And therefore th? Promife, fb much celebrated, Gal.-i. can by no lawful means be re- ferrd to the Covenant of Circumciiien, flriftly taken •, and then a! that the Doflor has laid to make the Covenant of Circjfmcifton a Goj pel-Covenant,\and Circnmcifun a Gofpel-Ordinance, will come to nothing and confequently bis whole Book, becaufe it b mainly bijilt upon thii Foundation. • • j u c* d / /- / J And that the Promtfe mentioned by St. Paul, Gal. 3. may and ought to be diftinguiflicd from the Covenant of Circumcifion, will ap- peav from the Protnijfi which was 430 Years before th ^ ' LaW] concernino: Sintimt ('e/e;Law, Cul. 3. t-/. bat the CDvcnant of Circumcilion wants 25 Years of this account. This is plain to fuch as will conlider, that that ''rt: great and blehed Promfe^ that in the Seei of Abraham all the Fami- ^mh'es of the Earth jhall be blejfed^ Gen. i2. 3. was at leali 25 Years be- 'not," fore the Covenant of Circumcihon, Gen. 17. And this is granted b/ Atft the Learned Wdlit^ who in his Hex/tpl.'m Gen.-p. 145. writes tlw?,* 'W/ From this Promife (Gen. 12.) made to Abraham, are we tQCouttt the 4^0 "hit", Team's, which St Paul fatth, were between the Pronnfe andi^he Law., GaL. 3-^ I'W: and hereunto agrceth the Computation o/Mofes, Exod. 12.40. that the. Jfraelites dwelt in Egypt 430 Tears., not in Egypt but in Egypt bt/ir Canaan, as the Septuagint do interpret the place. •r cf: Now how this Promife had its ElFeft in the Ages before Chrifl's In- Wei; carnation, or how all the Famines of the Earth were blefled in this rfef promifed Seed then, God only knoweth ; for thoogh the World had Da- a Promife of a Saviour from the Beginning, Gen. 3. 15. yet that he , nil fhould be born of the Seed of Abraham., was not revealed till now. • imt. And lell any fliould Humble at this, that the Promife here mad'4£'/'s fojourn- jjy; " ing in the Land of Egypt was 4530 Years, though their Abode ia rI V was not near fo long. t C 2 And ct ic le lad atttj moit jrrtenDl? Defeate And hence (faith he) we colleft, that in the Tranfadion of| ojii God with Abraham-, recorded. Gen, 12. he did folemnl^ connrm 1 his Covenant vdth him (althoughmakes not exprefs mention 1 c?ft of the term Covenant,^ until occafion be offered, Gen. 15. 18.) 1 pap. for the Promife there mentioned, the Apoftle aderts to be the Co- 1 p ** Venant confirmed of God in Chrtji nnto kbxzhzwi. ^ 1 The Sum of all that has been faid is this. That the Covenant of Cir- \ rbf cnmcinon properly taken, is not the Covenant of Grace, or a Go/pel- Covenant., nor the Sign thereof Circumcifion a Gofpcl-Ordmance, as the Dodor maintains and affirms, that Circumcifion did feal to its SabjeUs the fame Grace as Baptifmdoes novo: which cannot ftand with Reafon,be- caufethofe who had been circumcifedjffiould not then have been bapti- ied for Keraiffion of Sins, for if Circumcifion did leal that Grace to its Subjeds, why ffiould it be now conferred in Bapiifm ? they came to Baptifm not m Righteopu., but at Sinners. ♦ The Dodor's long Paraphrafe on Rom. 4. is rather deftriidivs of, than advantagious to Infant-Baptifm. For irhilfi therein he makes Faith,, yea fuch as enables'Men to roalk^ in the Steps of Abraliarrr'j the abfolute Condition of the Covenant, &c.;' he can never make In- fants.the Sons and Daughters of Abraham by Faith •, yetheendea- vours to do this by telling us, that the Faith and Confent of the Father-i- or the Godfather, or Congregation under which he was circumcifed, wasbe'^ lievedof old by the Jews to be imputed to thi Child, at hit own Faith and Confent,' i Maccab. 2. 45. They had very good Ground, faith he, in Scrtp- ture for this their Opinion, becaufe the I^delity and Vtfobedtence of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or defpifing Circumcifion, was imputed to the Children. And to ffrcngthen this Jewilh Dodrine, he brings Auliin with his, accommodat illis Mater Ecclefia aliorum pedes, ut veniant, alio' rum cor Ht credunt, aliorum Linguam ut fateantur : To all which vCry lifrarge Dodrines wereply, By the Dodor's quoting \ Maccab.^. (,6. it appears that the Can- nonical Books would afford no Relief for thefe Jewifh Fables. And he that looks upon the place m Maccabees, can find no ground to fay that the Jews there did circumcife any Children upon the Faith of Pa- rents or God-fathers, for they did not ftay for Confent of Parents, hMtcircumcifed them valiantly,or by Force,in the Margin,which I. take to be a bad Precedent to be brought into the Chriftian Church, tho God knows they have been too forward in fuch violent Proceedings. And no lefs ftrange and unfound is his Interpretation of Gen. 17.14. imhere he would make 5/?; 0/to be imyuted to the uncircum- cifed.: cancetnfttg 3!nfant ^5apt(fm. elftdInfant. In which he is not fo well advifed as fome Papifts j and contrary to the Dodrine of Learned Protcftants> who both in this cafe acquit the Infant both from Sin and Punilhment. Cajetan (tho a Papift) fpeaks well, Confetuaneum f/?, (faith he) Jt is fit that ncne fiiokld be j/Hnifiied but they rchich had committed the Fault: bht Infaiit^s can commit no Faulty therefore the pHnifiment here depgnd doth belong only^ to the grown Per font ^ for they only are jafily f unified^ who only are jufily bla- tned for the omijfion of Circnmcifion, And Dr. IViHitt a Proteltant, fpeaks to the fame fcnfe. It is no good reading (faith he) to faythe un^ circHmcifid Manchildt but the Male-^ for the Infant of eight Dayt old is of furfofe omitted here, though mentioned, ver. 12. Hence then 'is inferred that there was no finch abfolute necefityof Circumcifion, that ChU," dren wanting it fljould be damned. And faith hiv.Diodate, This is not to be underftood of Children, but of thofe, who by reafon of their Age were ^ capable of voluntary Rebellion, refufing or contemning theufe of the SacrU' ment. As for Augufiin, his Church accommodating Infants with others Feet to tome to be baptized, and with the Hearts of others to kheve, and the Tongues of others to confefs •, it fhevfs that in his Judgment 'Baptifm Ought not to be given, but where 'tis fought for, and vvhfere there is Faith and Confelfion going beforeit, - But that one may do thcii things for another, that is, one believe,- and another to be baptized, we will anfwer it, as Jervm did another caft, Hon credimm, quia non legimus. We cannot find it ought to be fo, neither in the Old Teftamenr, nor in the New, and therefore we believe it not. And let the Dodor confider whether upon fuch Prefumptions as thefe, he may not allow the Feet, Heart, and Mouth of others for the Dead, that they alfo may be baptifed, from 2 Maccab. 12.43, 44. The Truth is, Ihould we admit the Didates of theDodOr, in this and many Parts of his Book, it cannot be avoided but that many Innovatioas and Superfti- tions uftd by the Papifts and others would obtrudeiipon us. In page 6,7. the Dodor-tells us. That the Gentiles, who were born of Gentiles in Abraham'^ Houfe, or bought with Mony as Servants wert, and Blacks are now among us,'were the fpiritual Seed of Abraham, andChil- dren of the Covenant. And thus alfo he makes the Medes, Perfians and Jdumeans to be conflituted in the Jewifii Church by.Regeneration, as the^ ^ Church Chrifiian is and calls them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, be- ' taufe they were turned Jews, and lived according to the Ceremonies of the Taw. Which how uncertain thefe Didates are, may be feen, when' we confider that St. Paul fays, the Law is not- of Faith and that if 14 tho/e that are of the Umhv Heirs^. Faith k nmde void-, and the-^ ProiTfffe- of none Effe^. Amd'baw Chrift callsCircumfii/iont^o Laiv of M^fes y. and tells the chxumd&d Jews themfelves, that they mufl be regenera-. ted,, and bom again■,.(»■ they could not enter into the Kingdom., (or Gofpel- Church.) which fhews plainly they were not regenerated in Circunici- lion, and if they were not, tlien there is little hopes that their Slaves,' bought wicbiMowyy as Blacks are now by ugy had fuch benefit by Cir- curacifion. Nay,,the-Do6tor is more bold, and tells us,. 7hat always it wat. un^ derflocd- that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents : which isfuch a Scripturekfs Dodrire,. and of fuch dangeions Con- lequetTce, that we cannot but wonder that fo wife a Man Ihould afldt- it. Does not 9t-exprefly teach the contrary, where he faith,^ The Chiedrettof the- ELefh are^not the Chtidren.of Cod: And that all are tM-if^aely that are of Jfratl.: And though they, be theSeedof Abraham^ yet are they not all Children. How was it pollible that he fliould think chat the Slaves aad their Children were eleffed!, only becaufe they werecircutncifedy when .Abraham's own; Poflrerity are not therefore deticd, becaufe Graham mr their Father,, andalfo circumcifed, A-nd will it not follow from the Dodlor'sQpinion, that Infants are a'Hb reprobated in cheir Parents ? Yes^ he fays no iefs (I think) when he makes the Unbelierers Infants to differ from thofe his Eledl In- fauts, as much as the Unbelievers therafelves differ from thecircum- cifed Parents whom be calls Believers. God: be merciful to us, and bkfs us from'fuch Doftrioe as this,, tliat his antient way of Truth may be known upon the Earth, and his faving Health among the Nations: fen- Job and all holy Men, and poor Infants too which were not circumcifed, might for all that be eledfed. Seven or eight Pages the Doftor fpends raoftly to fhew how Chrift did alter the Oe- coTionjoi the Clttirch m: many Particulars, which do not diredtly con- cern our prefent pcdcroverfy,. in which there arc many Didlates un- proved, about thDReifonsnvhy Chrift made this Change. But we Ihali content our felves in fctciag down thefe two, which he thinks moved-our Lord to lay .afide Circumfiilion ; and hisfirftis, Becaufe hy it the. JevPtfh Nation woe become odious and ridiculasa to all other Peofle upon the account-of it.^ Batthis'Rafragefcems to cafba Scandal upon Gpd himfelf, as that he fftouidappoiot any thirtg that fhould make his People odious. Sure other Natidns had Ufages far more offertfive than this could be, in their MohtrDCS Services, and particularly the bumingyf their .children to Moloch. concenMug: Molcch. B'Jt th.e'true reafon why it was laid afide, was, becanle the dillinftion which it made between tbe 'Seed of graham and other Peo- fle^ as the Pofierity from whence Chrtfi -Jhotdd proceed^ was now unne- %). ceflary, becaufe Chri/i woe born and manifcfted to the World : and j®ci. chiefly becanfe tbe Ceremonial Law to which it was a Urong" Ohiiga- tipfl, and alfp a part of it was new to be difannulled and taken ont of the way, as an Handwriting of Ordinances, which was againft us, and was contrary to us s 7.18, i s). Cobjf.i. 14. AUs 15I10. it was therefore meet it ibould be taken away. His fecond Reafon is more tolerable, but yet not true, for though foj. Circumcifion was a painful Ordinance, yet the Gofpcl requires as painful things as that was, of all that will be Chrillians inde^, as the denying A Mans felf-, and particularly in'parting WithLW, Wife^ Children^ a right Hand^ a right Eye^ aright Foot^ and very '3ni, Life^ when God calls for them, in fervice to the Defence of the Go- ibJt fpel. Yea, let me tell the Dodor, had he come to Baptifrn it, fclf, ,^^7 after the Example of Chrill, who came from Galilee to Jordan CI fup- ote pofe 6q Miles) and that in the depth of Winter, to be.dipped in a River, as Chrift was in Jordan^ he might pofliWy have found it as un- grateful to Flelh and Blood as fome have found it to part with their Foreskin •, and add to thisfuch Repentance as truly qualifies for the t In- Reception of Baptifm, and the whole of it might pollibly feera as ri- ® diculous in the Eyes of the wife Men of this World, asCircumcifiott ifiJ it felf. ba We conclude then that the Wifdom of God was great to try the I tlii Pride and Haughtinefs of Man, in appointing Circumcifion in the to Time of the Law, to bring Men to Legal Priviledges. And it is no 'i§k lefs his Wifdom in appointing Baptifm, to bring down the Pride of 0/- the greateft Nobles, and moft delicate Ladies, (as well as others) by fubmitting their Bodies under the Hands of a poor Minifter to be dip- a- ped in Water, at all Seafons, as they are found qualified for it by rf Faith and Repentance, to admit them to GofpeLPriviiedges. CHAP. latt attH mort jFrfeiililp Debate That the Story of the Jews baptizing Infants^ is either a Fable; cr if they had fuch a Humane Tradition, iis rather defiru' clive of Sacred Baptifm, to ground it on that Tradition) than any way advantagious to it. IN ^ag. 18. the^Dodor fays, " Hitherto I have given the Reafons of ''altering the JewilhOeconomy But then my Undertakingob- " liges me to prove that Chrift and his Apoftles did build with many *' of the old Materials, and conformed their new Houfe as much as " they could after the Platform of the Old. This will appear from " Baj)tifm it felf, which was a Ceremony by which Profelytes both "Men and Women and Children were initiated ; yet fo much Re- " fped had our Saviour for the antient Orders and Cuftoms of the " Jewilh Church, that being obliged to lay by Circumcifion, he con- "fecrated this inlle^ of it (though it were but ameer human In- " ftitution) to he the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church, and a " Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faith. So like wife the Lord's Supper " was certainly of Jewilh Original. Anfwer. This Dodrine, that Chrift and his Apoftles did build their new Houfe of the old Materials of the Jewilh Church, and that they con- form'd their new Houfe as much as they could to the Platform of the Old, feeras to hold no Agreement with the Dodrine and Pradice of Chrift and his Apoftles, whether we confidcr the Subjeds, Ordinan- ces,or Miniftery of the Church. The Dodrine and Miniftery ofthe Baptift, is called the Be- ginning of the Go/pef Mark I> ly And he would not admit of one Stone for Member of t"he old Church) as fuch, to be laid into the Gofpel-Church. Begin not to fay within your felveSy we have Abra- ham to our Father. God U able of thefe Stones to raife up Children unto Abraham. Bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance. Every Tree which hringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down. Matth, 3. So great a Change do we find, that the old Materials, in refped of Memberlhip in the new Houfe, would not do, when yet there was but an Introdudion, to make ready a People prepared for the Lord. Chrift cottcerniitB: 3!nfiimt='Ba|)tiTin. 17 Chrifl: came to fulfil the Ceremonies of the Law, and to nail them to his Crofs, as we have Ihewed, not to eftablilh them in his Church. But the Truth is, whoever revives them, pulls down his Church. And it were the falfe Apoftles, that would have conformed the Church of ^ Chrift to the Platform of the old Jewilh Church, ^tls 15. 5. But the true Apoftles withftood them, and decreed that the new Church fliould 'cpii' obferve »o fuch things, but they eftablilh what the Light of Grace, and the politive Law of God had madenecellary before to all Man- kind, 15. 23 to 30. Gen. 9.4. Thus far were the Apoftles from building the Church of Chrift with Jewilh Materials: That as the great CurceUxm fays,' The Apoftle writ that Epiftle to let the Gentiles ibd ' know they were freed from Mofes*^ Law, left by their hearing him J ^ ' read every Sabbath, they might think they were bound to obey his J Laws. And it is ftrange that the Doftor Ihould now make Chrifi and arlrc- Anabapifts.^ as he does, for he will have them to h«ve been to liffl ^ circitmcifed., to initiate them into the JewiJl) Church j and he will have that very Baptifm confecrated by Chrift inftead of Cir- cumcifion, to initiate into hif Churchfure he has little reafon to write againft Anabaptifm, when he is one of the greateft Afterters of it. that ever was: but more of this pretended Baptifm anon. J./ St. Paul above all the reft, reje mcetnim 19 ctxfed. This could not be true, bad he taken his Baptifm from the Jewiih Church. his Synoffis \ John freached the Baptifm of RepeHtaKtt forthe Kemiffionof Sins^ which was all 0»e with the Baptifm of PctCT) Aft. Z. 38. aind it vs ahfard that Chrifi the Head, and the Church the Mem- hers fhould not have the fame Baptifm. And that John J B..tptifm was not of John'i devifing, but of God?s /Appointment, Dr. Bulk, on Mat.^. Dr. Bulk; John by his Doctrine and Baptifm prepared a ws^ to Chrifi, not to the Baptifm of Chrifi, for he preached not his own Baptifm, but the wafting away of Sins by Chrift. Therefore he alfo was a Minifer of the Baptifm of Chrijl. This new Device of founding the CJiriftian Baptifm upon Jewi/h Baptifm is dangerous, opening a Gap to the Quakers, and other Notionills to contemn it as a Legal Ceremony. Yet the Doftor bold- ly tells us. That Chrijl was obliged to lay by Circumcijim, andconfecrated . this Ceremony ( ufed by the Jews) injiead of it. The Enemies of Chrifl dufft not fay as Or. Hammond and this Doftor does fay, thac the Baptifm of john was oh Jewijh Original. ' They knew fuch a Speech muft deny John to he a Profhet. And yet thefe Learned Men have not Learning enough to conlider this. We know the Pharifees were very Zealous for the Traditions of the Jewilh Church, but it's certain they had no Zeal for the Bap- tifinof Repentance, for they rejeftedit againft themfelves, Luke 7. 2 9. And here this holy Ordinance is exprefly called the Counfel of God, which llfews it was not originally a Rite or Ceremony of hu- mane Inftitution, or Jewifli Ceremony. But now let us fee whether the Doftor may not poffibly be mifta- ken in aflerting that the Jews had fuch a Ceremony as Baptifm among them before John Baptift came. And in this Enquiry we will prefer a Learned Proteftant of the Church of England, who writes thus; As to their Argument who would have our Baptifm to . " be derived from the Jewilh Lotions, as there is nothing of certainty in it, fo it is fo far from being grounded on " any Authority in Scripture, that there are hardly any FootHeps to " be found thereof in the Old Teftament. They deduce the Origi- nal of Baptifm from the Hebrew word DJD, which llgnifies to walli *'orcleanfe. But the Rabbins, if I am not deceived, ule the Hebrew " word which fignifies Immerhon, thereby making it appear that they owe the Notion of the Word to the Greeks, or rather to the Chriftiafls. For what affinity is there between Lotion and D 2 Iramer- 20 mod iftientjlp Debate Immerfion ? But the thing is fo uncertain, that it cannot be faid of the Rabbins, that there were not feveral among them who *'• differed very much about this matter. For in the very place cited by the forementioned Learned Men, Rabbi Eliezer exprefly contradidls Rabbi Jojhaa^ who was the firft "that I know of, who aflerted this fort of Baptifm among the " Jews. Now to whom fhall I give credit ? To Eliezer^ who allerts what the Scripture confirms ^meaning that Profelytet were not bafti- "• zed'] or to ^oJhua,whq affirms what is no where to be found in Scrip- " ture [meaning this pretended Baptifm is not to be found in ScripfureJ] " But thcRabbins upheld fide, and what wonder was it ? for " it made for their bufinefs, that is, for the Honour of the Jewifh Re- " ligion. That the Chrifilans jhonld borrow their Ceremomes^ Qhow im- prudent then is the Author of the Book we are anfwering, to give this Advantage to the Jews againft the Chriflians.] '* But when I " fee Men of great Learning fetching the Foundation of Truth from " the Rabbins^ I cannot but hefitate a little. For whence was this " Talmud fent to us,—that we fhould give fo much credit thereto— ? ^ fov the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors^ and the Foundation of " Jewiih Fables. [This is then a Fault in the Church of England Dodors to fly hither for Refuge for Infant-Baptifm. J It was brought to Per- " fedlion 500 years after Chrift. [This fhews the danger of truftingito it,it being fb lately confirmed. ] " Therefore it is unreafonable to reft " upon the Teftimony of it. And that which moves me moft, Jofe, " phm—who was alfo a Jew, and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezer, who alfo wrote in particular of the Rites, Cuftoms and Adts of " the Jews, is altogether fdent in this matter. [He knew no baptifing of Infants among the-Jcwsl " So that it is an Argument to me next to a " Demonftration, that two fuch eminent Perfons, both Jews, and li- " ving at the fame time, the one fhould pofittvely deny., the other rpak^ " no mention of Baptifm among the Jews. Be(ides,if Baptifm in the modern fenfe were in ufe among the " Jews in antient times, why did the Pharifees ask John Baprift, Why doji thou baptise, if thou be not Chrift., nor Ehas, nor that Prophet?. " Do they not plainly intimate, that Baptifm was not in ufe before "and that it was a received Opinion among them, that there fhould "be/UO Baptifm till either Chrifi, or Elias, or that Prophet came ? How *<• then there fhould be fo much affinity between Baptifm and the Di- " vings of the Jews, that the one fhould be fucceffive to the other by * any Right or Pretence, is altogether I confefs, beyond my Faith. It concetm'itg 3[ttfn!tt-'BaptiTnn ai It appears from this learned Maa's Difcourfe, that there is no Cef"" tainty that the Jews had any fuch Baptizing of Infants, or others, the Dodlor pretends. However, God having appointed no fuc''^ thing in the Jewifli Church, leaves fuch a Pradlice (if they had it) ' [Without any Authority to govern Chriftians in their Adminiftration of Baptifm. Nor do we who alfert the Ordinance according to the Scripture, need to run for Counfel to the Jews Talmud, Gemara^ and /f''- Maimonidcs. And indeed it looks too much like going to the Witch of Etidor,znd to BaalTLcbub the God o^Ekron for Knowledg, as if there were not fufficient Inftruftion in the undoubted Word of God, how V or to whom todifpence the firft Ordinance of the Gofpeltoa poor Convert. And it is a fure fign that the Dodtor and all that make fuch 7a noife about this Rabbwical Learning to juftify them in the cafe of ■[S'rc Infant Baptifm, are confcious to themfelves that they have no fure 'I® 1 Footing in God s Word for it. '"0® And yet fo partial are our that they will not follow its '■this Diredlions for the manner of Baptifm, which as Dr. Hammoftd !hcyvs is commonly expreffed by r*17'3tO Immerfion, never by nTn,that is, "f Afperlion or Sprinkling;, for fuch as will not be true to the Rules given in the Holy Scripture, how Ihould they be true to any othec Book ? ■pPfr- One thing I marvel at, f>. 20.where the Dodtor tells his Reader that ■Kglto the Anaba^tifls endeavour to Jhift off the force of many good Arguments., Iwcf by faying Circimcifion under the OldTefiament roas a Type of Baptifm m- J'ft- derthe Neve. For this I take to be a great Miftake of the-Dodtor, I never heard of any, whom he calls Annabaptifts, who hold Cir- &of' cumcifjonto bea Type of Baptifm at all. But ! have met with di- igof vers of the Church of England., who have affirmed it to be a Type of ■ toi Baptifmfo that all that the Dodlor fays upon this Miftake about idli- which he fpent fome Pages, is nothing to the purpofe. For we own no other Antitype of Circumcilion, but the Circumcilion of the Heart, caWtdtthe Circumcifwn of Chrifl made without Hands, tk But had he minded well his own Book, he might have fcen Mr. y Fhilpot aderting the thing which he would charge upon us, where he tl faith. The Apofiles did attemper ate all their doings to the Shadows and Ft- e, gures of thi Old Teflament. Therefore it is certain they did attemper ate Id Baptifm to Circumcifion, and baptiz.e Children becaufe they were under the IT Figure of Baptifm., for the People of Ifrael paffedthrough the Red-Sea, 6cc. /. Where I think he makes both Circumcilion, and paffing through the J Sea, to be Shadows and Types of Baptifm •, which Is yet more evident, becaule (a little before) he tells us that Raul calls Baptifm the Circum- [ t cifion 22 Ij*) ijii' tMlW Ofdia toc3 Cljeiaff antf f rlcntiti' Debate ^^fion made mthofit Hands. Which though it be not true, feeing a#' Men know, and Mr. Fhilpst cannot deny but Baptifm is mndc b [ijjr. Hinds, yet it fhews that he looked upon Baptifm to be the Antityp of G of Circumcifion. But 1 Ihall not fight v.dth dead Men, otherwife might fliew his Miftake in faying that the Apollles did attcmperate al their Doings to the Shadows and Figures of theOld Teftament: buqu) this we have Ihewcd before, to be a ; unfound Speech. The Dodor feems to deal unfairly wiLli Col. 2. 11,12 • Circumci^m (faith he) hath nothing in it fym'-'oHcal of Baftifr., and denies it to be m itmbraticaf bht a real Confignation of the Cc nant of Grace •, quoting the Text thus, In whom alfo they are circa ncsfed^ with the Circumcifion made without Hands, in puttij;goff thei^o^^ of the S}ns of the Flejh the Circumcifion of Chrifi s Having been buried with him in Baptifm. Does not the Dodor by this Addition to the Text, ailert the thing which he would deny, or elfe denies what Pbe.Abfurdity to purpofe. for us.to do. fo, .having no fuch Faif Command*, and .yet we.are to facri.fic0.all.ihafs dear,tp us, even our kI E 2 . own '2% Cljc laft anti moft jFtieitli!? Debate own Lives, but it muft be in fuch a way as God requireth. This talk therefore of the relative Nature of Gircumcifion is very vain , we. fay did the Lord require us to baptize our Infants, and to give them the Communion, there could be no Abfurdity in either, but then he would have diverfified the time for Participation of thefe Ordinances, as he did in the cafe of Gircumcifion for the Bth day ; though it was the precife time for the Admifiion of Infants, yet it was no rule at all to the Adulti, Shew now that God has required Baptifm at a precife day to the younger fort, and prefixed no precife day of Age to the elder fort (for thus he did in the Gircumcifion) and the Dilpute will foon end. Gircumcifion did relate necefiarily to all Servants bought with Mony in Abraham^ Houfe, as Members of his Houfe, but the cafe is not fuch in Baptifm. And it was yet never proved that thofe Perfons who were thus circumcifed, were to be qualified for it by Faith and Repentance ^ but it rather feems to have been done at firft in Abra- ham's Houfe, either in Obedience to Abraham's Authority over them; as his Bondmen, Servants, or Child ; or elfe by plain force: for itzing Abraham circumcifed all his that very day, they had little time to have Faith and Repentance wrought in them; nor is there one word of Abraham's preaching any thing to them. But 'tis faid. He took Ifmael hie Son and circumcifed him^ and all that were born in hi* Houfe^ and aU that were bought with Mony every Male the felf fame day. Here was bloody Work i and Dr. Willit thinks the Number of the Males was fo many that Abraham could not circumcife them in one day.^ and that he ufed the help of others to do it. And what Faith and Repentance could be expected fromat 13 Years of Age, efpe- cially confidering that he was not the Child of Promife, nor to have the Covenant cftablilhed with him. And who will fay that Abraham.^ or the Jewilh Church either, had any Commiffion from God to teach all Nations, circumcifing them ? this way he never went; but if he bought any of them, them he would and did circumcife. And where is the new Birth made the Qualification for Gircumcifion ? No Man can give an Inftance of it. But nothing is more common in the cafe of Baptifm : furely the plain Truth injhort is this: Cireumcifion did relate generally to a carnal Seedy and to a Terrefirial Inheritance 3 but Baptifm relates only to a fpiri- tual Seed, and a Celefiial Inheritance. And let not the Dodor refledt upon us (as'he'does p. 27.) but we pray the Doctor to confider whether God was not as wife, and had as ) . great cx)ncernino:3infant''Bapt{fm» 29 Hstaligj.eat Goodnefs for, and care of Infants, and others too, from "'to Abraham^ as from Abraham till Chrift s time. And yet the Doftor knows there was no outward fign appointed for initiating Infants, as tlienbt the Dodtor fpeaks : and wherein does it appear that God wasmore nancK, gracious to Infants by or through Circumcilion, than he was to the Infants of the other Patriarchs? The Fathers tell us fas quoted by '^2tai learned Proteftants) that Circumcifon did not profit the So A of the Infant j nihil anima Circamcifonem ilium profuijfe, Chryfolf. Hom. 39. in Gen. •WtlfAnd yet the Wifdomof God was great in appointing Circumcilion fo early (Teeing it mull be the Mark to diftinguilh the Family of which Chrift fliould be born, &c.) for the pain was more eafy to be born in Infancy, than when they attained to Manhood, kiscj Neither is it by any means to be fuppofed, that God by giving this W: Ceremony to Abraham., &c. did negled all the Infants in the World, s'tliai): as to the Bufinefs of Salvation (which I mull mention, becaufe the 0 M Dodlor ever and anon is dropping fuch PalTages as may deceive his ttki Reader wkh fuch Apprehenfions, though 1 am fiire the Dodlor does /oi believe no fuch thing.) He was Hill the God of the Spirits of all Flelh, itM? and all Infants were kill his Offspring •, and never rebelling againfl him, his gracious Nature would not fuffer them to perifh without 'tis® Remedy, and Remedy they cotdd have none by Circumcilion-, for wniDi! it was not appointed for them. And indeed to conceit our felves, that our wife and good God Ihould make either Circumcilion or Bap- N'diik tifm (or any other Ritual) necelfary to the Salvation of poor dying imr. Infants, is a poor low conceit of God, and contrary to allRules '"aitk which he has given to Mch to extend Mercy or Juflice. For feeing it e, efji is not poffible for them to have the one or the other, but at the Will tote of others, God's ways are fo equal that he will never punifli them for want of either : but the Truth is he required the firfl but of a [ier,te few in comparifon, and the latter not lb much as of one Infant: tira whence then is there fuch a quoil about Infant-Baptifm ? ifjiils One great Pretence of the DoCtor for Infant-Baptifm, is taken from Jetk tkie ends of Baptifm^ fame of which he wiU have Infants to be capable of., of it and therefore to be baptised. This is the fum of what he fays in a J tb multitude of Words in feveral Pages. But upon a right Difcovery ■tni of the ends of Baptifm, as they are really fuch, hh Antecedent m\\ fp. vanilh. The Ends of Baptifm (be they what they will) are to be conll- tiff dered in fuch a fenfe, as that ordinarily without Baptifm fuch ids things cannot be obtained. And of thefe endspRemilfion of Sins, and rat eternal 3 %l)t iaa ants moft iTrteunip Debate Eternal Life are the principal, A5is z, 3?. Marks wbere-ever, or upon whomfoever Gocl calls for Obedience in Hol.y Baptifm, as the way in which thefe Ends are by them to b« obtained, there the Duty of Baptifm being refufed, thefe Ends are loft-, as ap- pears in the Cafe of the Pharifecs and Lawyers, 7. 29. They re- jelled the Connfel of God againf themfelves^ being not hafttz^ed. Now I deny that Reraiffion of Sins, and Eternal Life, are pro pounded to, or in the Cafe of Infants, 04 the Ends of faftiftn. They nave Remiilion ( fo far as they need it) and Eternal Life,upon other Terms, even the free Mercy of GodinChrid, Rom, 5.18. And the good will of God towards them. Mat. 18. 14, And if Infants arc uncapable of thefe, as they are the Ends of Bapifm., lb they will be un- capable of ah other Things which are annexed to Baptifm, m the Ends of that Ordinance. As wc will propofe two, viz. the wafting of Regeneration.^ and incorporating into Chrifi ^ Infants are capable of nei- ther of thefe, as they are the Ends of Baptifm. For, Baptifm is but demondrative, or a fign of the New Birth ^ becaule God will have thofe that come to be baptized, therein to teftify, that they have, and therein fynibolically do put rff the Btdy of the Sins of the Flejh.^ which Work had its Effe£t from the Word and Spirit of God. And, 2- to be incorporated with Chrilt, as it is an End of Baptifm., does necelEiri- ly prefuppofe, a being taken out of the Tree that is wild by Nature, or out of our degenerate Eflate, and planted contrary to that Na- ture, by a willing relignation of Soul and Body to Chrift, in that fo- lemn miniftration of Baptifm. And bow incapable Infants are of this, all Men mud: needs fee. To be Ihort, if it could be proved by the Word of God, or found true by Experience, that Infants are ca- pableof any Goody or,that the Will of God was wrought by bap- tizing them, I could yield to the Dodor : but the Trtrth is, they are capable of none of the Ends of Baptifm, as Cod bath annexed them to Baptifm, and therefore his Argument raufl come to nothing. Aird how eafy were it to turn this Argument againft him in the Cafe of the Lord's Supper, but that may be more fittingm another ph'cc. But the Dodtor fays, p. 28. That Infants are capable of all the Ends cf Baptifm, as Baptifm is infiituted for a Sign from God towards us, to affure us of his gracious Favour, attd to confign unto us the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace. Now, if this Dodlrine As true, then either Baptifm is,a fure Sign 0F.9I] thefe Things' to. all-.Infants, or-to fome few of them only: I'hc former the.Dodtor.will not allow y andyeche-cannot but know, when jaaw xt»^ isieli iff in Bn poori itetG toll tlietc iidC Icofll audi colFe wi inh ld\ fe, sb; F«j AiCI M S iK! \ concerning 3infattt='Baptifrm 51 X, *when Chrifl faid, Teach all Nationsj baptizing them^ he makes no dif- ■ in H' ference between one Perfon and another, all are equally to be taught, nbtainti and baptized equally upon the fame Terms. And if the Doftor will ft', as;: have fome Infants only to have an Interefl in the Benefts ef the Cove- '■ Tkrj, nam of Grace^ and therefore but fome only have right to Baptifm, which configns the Covenant of Grace, we lhall defire him to prove ! arep: this well, and thei-ewithal to let us know how be knows one fort of M. Tp tl)efe Infants from another. He.fays, indeed, That Infants may be aponoti Members ef a Church ( their Childhood notwithftanding ) as well oi of a Family, 8cc. But to be of a Family, is equally natural to all In- fants fo that if this Argument prove any thing,it proves all Infants Church-Members as much as any. Nor, faith he, does Childhood h.n- der or incapacitate them for being adopted the Children of God-, more than the Children of any other Perfon. But God is not like Man to adopt ( or receive into favour) fome poor Infants, and let all the reft peri/h without favour : We affirm, that God has in Mercy taken care of all Infants, (as we have proved) : But this docs not teach us to do that to fome of them which he never •commanded, and to rejed the reft, as if God had no Mercy for them. Thefe Notions are fo partial, and fo uncertain, that no fo- lid. Comfort can be taken from them, let my Infant, (whom 1 confefs I h'-ive nor baptized, but oirly devoted him to God's Mercy and Protedion by Prayer j and the Doll or''s Infant (whom he has crofled and fprinkled ) be laid together, 1 am perfwaded the Dodor would tremble to fay, this Infant is an adopted Child of God, and in his Favoury that Infant is rejeded, and out of God's Favour : And truly I cannot but think fuch Difcourfcs as thefe, proceed not from the bottom of the Heart, but Men pleafe themfelves to dream waking, of I know not what Favour Almighty God has for their In- fants, nbove what he has for others. The Dodor's next way is to make nfe of Similitudes,, as thusy Should a Prince adopt a Beggar's Ch'ild, and incorporate him into the Royal Family, and fettle a part of his Dominions upon hina^-, and to folemmze andcon^rm all this, jhould cut of a bit of his Flejh, or command him to be Wajhed with Water •, who would count this an infignifcant Ceremony, or Solemnity? or fay, that the Child was not capable cf the Sign, when he was capable of the chief ihing fignificdthereby ? Surely fuch fiourijhes -us this, may foon deceive thofe thit reft upon them. For, i. here is no qualification in this Child, nor any req'iii- red of itinthis.cafe y but every Beggar's Chiid is as capable of this F avoiu" 3 2 Cfic M ant mott jFrieittlp lactate Favour as this Child: and confequently this makes no more for th«g?n Infant of an Englifh Man, than of an Indian ^ God may be as kind tpie. to the one as to the other. 2. Here's^he King's Adt of Grace pecu- fprf-Si liar to this Child, and to no other. 3. Here's tlie King's exprefs Command, to cut off a bit of the Child's Fleih, or to waihit with jutii Water. And thus the whole of the Matter is begg'd, but not any ^[)oc proof for Infant Baptifm minillred from hence ^ for we grant, that josye the Things here fuppofed to be done, do fufficiently capacitate the |j^lV Beggar's Child for the Mercy and Favour of the Prince but then it jot! as much incapacitates other Children, to whom the King has extend- fo®i|a ed no fuch pity, and concerning whom he has given no fuch orders for fiiould the Dodtor now, wkhout any Order from the King, fetch all the Beggars Children in the City and Country, and pafs all thefe Solemnities upon them, that they all may be received into the Royal Family, I fuppofc he would have but little thanks for his labour: even fo to cro/sj firinkle, or df all "the Infants in the World, C and either all or none have right to it 3 and to adopt them thus to be of the Family of Heaven, without Heaven's Authority to make them capable of it, and God's Diredlion in the Bufinefs of the So- lemnity, will not pleafe God. We therefore content our felves to commit our Infants to his Mercy and Protedion, in the way of hum- ble Prayer for his Blelfing; and for this we have his own Son, our Lord, to go before us, who thus does fuffer little Children to come unto him, without rejeding fo much as one of them. The Dodor's next Similitude proceeds thus; Suffofe a Prime Jhould fend for an attainted Traitor j Child, and fay Ton know the Blood of thii Child is attainted by his Father''s Treafon ^ by Law he has forfeited aS right to h'n Fat her''s Ejlate My Bowels of Compajfion yearn apon hirn, and here I refiore him and before you all wajh him with pure Water^ to fignify that he is cleanfed—and refiored to his Birth-right-^—Could any Man fay that the ABion was infigmfcant, becaufe the Child knew no- thing of it ? Now in this Similitude, the Dodor begs almofl: every thing in queftion between us. As, i. That all that are attainted with Ori- ginal Sin, mull be wafhed with Water, as a fign that they are clean- fed from it. 2. That God,vouchfafes the Bowels of Companion to fuch Infants only as he intends lhall be baptized. 3. That he does not require the Party baptized to underftand or take notice of any thing but bids the by-ftanders take notice of thefe Things. And, 4. this Similitude fuppofes, that all Rules about Infant Baptifm are plainly . / delivered concetm'ttjy 3lnfant'^aptiTni. bg ^Jdefivered by our Heavenly King, when not one of thcfe things arc fjgg ^ true. But the Dodor does very ill to fuppofexhat to be a true Go- ^fpel-Sacraraentj which wants the inward and f^lritud Grace \ as in this Similitude there is no knowkdg or confent on the part of him U that is baptized, but a meer force is put upon him. And yet when j the Dodor can fltew us what Infants in particular the Bowels of God j ! ' Moes yearn towards, and his Will that they be cleanfed by wafliing with Water, that fliall fuffice to make them capable of Baptiiin. ' But before we leave this Similitude, let us conlider whether the •^5^"1Foundation of it be found. Are Infants indeed fuch attainted Per- .. °™tfons-? Sure no i for whatfoever was their Cafe confidered in linful te ^da n-^ yet when through Chrill Adam was redeemed (that is, vir- ® dually, by thePromife of a Saviour, Gen. 3.15.) all Infants, who then were all in him,, had the Attainder .taken o.f, as niuch as from himfelf, John i. 2p. So that this Attaindd of Treafon againfb e Wori Infants, as they proceed from is but a Fancy y and to think ®™: that he has left Original Sin to be walhed away byBaptifm, from to M poor innocent Babes, is another Fancy ; and yet thefe were the i tiie & Grounds on which Infant Baptifm'was built at firft, and many are yec klre t under the dominion of this M,lftakc. yoik We conclude then, that through the free Mercy of God iri'^he nS0B.9:Gift of Chrilt, the Attainder of Sin which lay againft Infants to entocK Condemnation, was taken away from the Foundation of the World; and that B.aptifm was not ordained qf God to take away Ofigioal Pwjh gin, but for the Remidjon of Aftual Sinsmpon Repentance and Faith, ik M Nor does it appear, in all God's Book, that he appointed any RitHal^ firfisiii jio not Circuracifion it feIf,to take away Original ^n,and he that fliall »tfitk aflfirt it, will be intangled in fo many Difficulties, as he cannot efcape, m If St for what then took Original Sin from all Males that died before thq eighth Day? And wh^ became Qf,.alh Fernales,and Male Infants throughout the,World? DidGodjleavethenar all under a,Malady^ without any Remedy ? And though the Defter iniifts never lb much .upon that, Apochry-i ti Ori phal Story of Infant Raptifm among tire ]e;^s,. before the, coming of edeaa- John Baptifi^ yet as himfelf yields, p. 18. it was not of Divine Inflitaa Con to thn •, fo jt is looked uppuif^tbe a fablif'; bry- the l^^rcfd of hii own oesno; Church, whoiteU .u?. as vyn.harfVe ffie^ved, Xhat 'thinj, thfsti there woe any fuch Bapxifm among the Jewj^ th^vgh Rahh JofiiH4 ij, tliB does t^rm it. To whom lhall 1 give credit, f faith tkat Learned Pro- jlaiclt teftant) to Elfex.ery who ajferted what the Scripture confirms^ £ that there mid -F was 3 4 anu nioft frtenW? Dctnte was no fuch Baptifm among the Jews3 or to Jofhua, vohs r^rms wh^t ii fjo where to be found ftt Scriphre f I am not concerned in their anfwer, who do prove Infants more capa- hie of CircHmcifion than of Baptifm, becanfe it left a Characler in their Fief J. But 1 anfwer, whatfoever makes any Perfon capable of Bap- tifm, the revealed Will ofGod to order it fo is the chief-, as for Ex- ample, fome Infants might be as capable of Circumcihon on the -jth day, as others on the 8^/>, yet thofe of 7 days were not ac all capa- ble of Circumcifion. So that for Men to infift: upon their Conje- ftures, about Infants Capacity 01 Incapacity, is but to wander in 6he Dark. It muft be the Inftitudon of Baptifm, theCommifiion for theufe of it ih all Nations, and the Example of Chrifl: and his Apoftles, and GhorcheS by them conlfituted, that mull decide this QuQR.lon, Whether Infants are capable of Baptifm I i !C R A P. IV. I ^»ftver€t^j the Doltor^s fecond Qj^fiionWliether In- fants are excluded from Baptifm ? .. ■ i'-- . ) A nd here in the firft place ffaith theDodtor) I mnfl obferve that the Queftion ought to be propofed in thcfe Terras, and not whether Chrtfl hath commanded Infants to he baptiz.ed? For as a good Jh- thor obferves of the River Nile, we ought not to ask^ the Keafon why Nile overflows fo many days about the Summer Solfke ? But why it doth not over' fow all the Tear long ? But by his Favour he is afs wife u Man that a^ks the firft Qiieftion, as he that asks thefccond. And-I know but one Anfwer to be given to both, and that is chiefly and before all things. It is the Will of God to order it fo. Now let this be apply'd to the ea(e in hand ; And the Will of God lhall determine, who are, and who are not to be baptized. ^ . ■ And let the Doftor here refolve me, whether God excluded Infants of 60r 7 days old from Circutncifion, when yet there is no negative Law, jhallnot circumcife them-, and he Will foon anfwer his own Quellion : For his Anfwer muft be, feeing God did not appoint In- fants of 7 days old to be circumcifed, therefore he did not admit them cpncecm'no: . ^5 Wiijti, them to it-, and our Anfwer is the fame, Ghrifl did not command to baptize Infants, therefore he does not admit them to it. Audit me cup. is obferved by fome learned Men, that tho Negative Commands do ufually exclude, yet it is alfo true that an Inftitution of God, and jof D' an affirmative Command does exclude all that is above or belides that IS for Ev Command and Inftitution. And they bring Lfw. lo. t,2. to juftify what they fay: For and ^bihn cams to a difmal end. And faith Djoditte^ Th$Kgh the Command vdm not given before^ yet it woi a eilCo undertaking the contrary before God's mind was known. And fo „ may the Dodor find the fame Acceptance, in going where he has no otnnii?' Law to dired him, though there were no negative to forbid him ■, jjj. ji however we dare not follow him bccaufe we fear the Lord, who if 1 •, I we.add to his Word, xdill reprove both him and Prov. 30. 6. ' But here again the Dodor would build his Infant-Baptifm upon that Jewiih Tradition of baptizing the Infants of Profelytes, though he knows they had no Authority from Heaven for it. And we have ftiewed from a learned Author in chap. 2. that it's very probable there was no fuch thing. And it's very ftrange that the Dodor or others Ihould fuffer themfelves to be thus deluded from the Simplicity of the Gofpel by the Jews Talmud, which the Learned Buxtorf ex- trin- plodes with fuch Indignation;, Whence (faith he) was the Talmud feht to us, that from thence we fiouldthinks that the Law of Moks either can or ought to be underfiood, much lefs the Gofpel, which they were pro- (I Lf Enemies unto ? iWKcer ygj. jj become one of the chief Refuges of this Dodor, and of Dr. Hammond before him, for the Support of Infant-Baptifm. ujfh jj-'s ftrange that the Dodor fhould hope by fuch Arguments to "t- bring any Credit tothecaufeof Infant Baptifm. He might as weH hawe referred us totheTurkifli Alcoran, where divers WaHiings are alfo mentioned. ■Qfflis pggg ^2, 33. Upon this tottering Foundation the. Dodor builds di- vers Suppofitions S as firft, That if Chrift had not changed the Seal of the Hbli' Covenant, but had faid, Go make all Nations my Difciples, circumcifing them •, I appeal (faith he) to any impartial Adans Judgment, whether the ®doli yipofles would not have prefumed, that it was Chrijis Intention that the Infants of adult Prof elites Jhouldbe circumcifed ? And in a Word (faith he) there lay no Obligation upon our Bleffed Lord to lay afide the Prablice of jCftiK Infant Baptifm, as being inconfftent either with the free or manly, or uni- \hoti' ygy-r^l Nature of the Chrifiian Church. 1 anfwer, linth adiw: - F 2 The tkJ 36 Ctje M mitJ nioff jfcientii^ Debate I. The cafe which the Doftor puts is not at all rational, but upon! thisTrefuppofition that the Difciples had known the Law before given to Jfracl^ and their Pradtice in that cafe : but they knew no fuch Law to have been given to any Nation in the cafe of Baptifm, fo that thej mull only keep to the Words of their Commiffion, and the Pradtice oa their Mailer,who made and baptized Difciples,and none elfe, 4.i| ^ 2.1- mull needs tell the Dodtor that Chrilt was obliged to difapprove and make void the Cullom of the Jews in baptizing Infants, (if they did fo) feeing it was but their own Tradition;, and that from the Tenor of his own Dodlrine, Matth. 15.9. Mark^'j. In vain do yt vpor^nf meytedchinj^for DoBrhie the Co?mn-andments of Metj. for it wasl their divers Traditiontil Walkings which he was here oppofing. And feeing the Dodlor grants their Infant Baptifm was but a humane In jlitution, the Pharifees might have replied to our Saviour, Why dolt] thou I mprove our VYafhings ? Dolt not thou alfo allow the Dodrine of Men in the .cafe of Infant-Baptifm ? Teachelt thou another, and ' teacheft not thy felf ? And now the Dodlor's Suppofitions will tumble down of themfelves; for feeing the ApolUes knew no fuch Pradtice,] as baptizing Infants by God's Appointment in'the Jewilh Church, and they having heard their Mailer condemn all Walkings in Religion foundedonly on humane Authority,, as being but vain VVorlhip •, pd now receivinghoCommandment (as the Dodlor mult alfo confefs), to baptize Infants, Matth. 28.20. they were fufficiently forbidden ISO baptize any Infants by Chrill's fevere Cenfure againfl the Jews for woriliipping God after their own Tradition. And therefore though the Dodlor thinks he .has given fome reafon •why he Hated the Quellion, as you have heard, yet I humbly tell him he was therein very unreafonable, imthathe would beg the whole Controverfy, vphilfi he will fitppofi,. nay concludey that Infant. Bapttfn hoi been the immemorial TraBice of the Jewijh Church, and approved^ or mt cenfnredhy our Saviour. And then indeed if this were true, his Sup- po.itions might beguile a wifer Man than I am: But all this being meer fophillkal, beggarly and prefumptuous Ihlinuations, it is to me great Evidence againll Infant-Baptifm. But now the Dodtor Cp.S4'> 3 5-) will Ihew that Matth. 28. 19. Mark.16. Heb.6.iy2. dots not fo much as confequenttally prohibit Jfifant-Baptifm. And bccaufe we think thefe places do evidently Ihew that Chrill in the two 6rll could not .impofe any foch thing upon his Apoflles, as to teach Infants, and fo not to baptize them, be- ««ife all that he coraaiands them to baptize, he commands them' fir IDtCi HP* ioffl tiwsi tf'f tilt- fiiu Th T iri)l ffOii 1.H ki tor lay tatt Mar dik k\ ka d «tc '!< h nil hi u coiicetiti'nn; 3infantXapt(fm* 37 to teach, or preach the Gofpel to thetn. And Heh. 6.1,2. /heves vc- ry plainly that Baptifni does not go before, but follows Repentance and Faith, and therefore cannot with any ihew of Truth or Reafon from hence belong to Infants, but the contrary. I fay, becaufe we thus think and teach from thefe Scriptures, the Doftor fays, we are grievoHfly becaufe thefe and the like Texts do of themfelves no more prove that grown Perfons are the only SubjeHs of Baptifn^ than the Words of the Apoftlc^ 2 Thell. 3. 10. proves that grown Perfons only are to eat. From whence in their fophijiical way it may he argued thus., It be' longs only to grown Perfons to eat, becaufe the Apoftle requires that Perfons who eat fwuld firfi work^ But 1 reply ^ The Doftor does here greatly wrong both the Apoflle and us: 1. The Apoftle does not fay. Any that does not wot\ jhatl not eat., for he knew that grown Perfons who are lick and weak as well as Infants, cannot work. But he fays. If any would not work., thefe only are they who fjoll not eat, i. e. fuch as are able, and yet being idle, would not work. Is this fair for the DoRor to pervert tlie Words of the Text? 2. He abufes us, for we do not baptize any grown Perfons meerly as fuch. No, ail that we baptize are (or at leaftprofefs to be) new- ■born Babes in Chrill. Now our Saviour defigning Baptifm to be the Laver of Regeneration, mull needs prohibit thofe of whofe Regene- •ration no Judgment can be made, nor Demonftration given by any Man whatfoever. Surely the Dodlor has little reafon to talk of his difcovering the fallacioufnefs of our Arguing. But he fays, he will further fliewthe Weaknefs and Fallacy of our Argument: Let us hear him do thaf. Suppofi (faith the Dodor) there were a great Plague in any Country., and God fltould miraculously call an eleven or twelve Men, and commmicale to them a certain Medicine againfi this Plague, and fay unto them. Go in.- to fuch a Country, and call the People together, and teach them the Firttus of this Medicine, and ajfure them, that he that believeth and taketh if from you, (hall live ■, but he that believeth not, (ball die. *Upon this Supppfiti- on I demand of thefe Vifenters, if the words of fuch Ce/nmifion would be- fuflcient—to conclude that it was God's intention that they (hould adminifier his revealed Medicine to none but grown Perfons, becaufe they only could be called together, and taught the Firtues of it, and believe or disbelieve them that brought it. No certainly this way of arguing would net be admitteiHy axyrational.Man, ^c. I anfwer •, This Similitude is very fallacious and deceitful, fuppofing what is flot to be fuppofed in our Cafe, no, I think not in the Dodor's own Judg- ? 8 Clje laft auD molt iTctentJip Mate Judgment. For no Infant is under the Difeafe or Plague here meant or intended by the Similitude. For feeing Chrift has taken off their o- riginal Pollution, they are juft Perfons that need no Repentance, they are to bediftingniflicd from Infidels, Whoremongers,Drunkards,Swea-. vers, Idolaters, fuperftitious and erroneous Worlhippers. The Plague of Unbelief cannot feize them, therefore the Medicine of Faith is not applied to them. The Difeafe of tranrgreffing the Laws is not upon them, 5. therefore they have not the Medicine of Repentance appointed to them andconfequently not the Baptifm of Repentance. Secondly^ This Similitude fuppofes Infants cannot be cured of the Difeafe they are under without Baptifm, which is fo contrary to Truth and to Proteftant DoUrine, that it is to be exploded. And thus we fee this Flouri(It,about which he fpends two or three Pages,to the amufing his credulous Admirers, comes to nothing at all. For no fooner is it looked into, but it vanilheth as a Dream when one awaketh. Even fo, Lord, fhalt thou defpife this falfe Image of the Gofpel, and all that are like unto it. And like unto this is the next following, p. 3*5. Fortho it be true that conlidering the previous Law of Circumcifion, Gen. 17. it is not to be doubted but that David or Solomon would both obferve it in any Commiilion which they might give to propagate it. But what is all this to the purpofe ? Where is the previous Law that commanded In- fants to be baptized ? And fuch a Law as muft be fuppofed according to the Similitude, to obY\gtowv Davtdzndi Solomon^ even Chrift him- felf to obferve it ? Where (I fay) is this Law to be found ? Not in the Word of God, the Dodtor confelles that: Where then? why inthe th^Gemaraj &c. Very well. But then this wretched Talmud was not finilhed in cur Saviour's days, but 500 years after, and fo could be no Rule to him : nor in the time of his Apoftles, and fo could be no Rule to them, and therefore 1 hope it (hall never be a Rule to us. The Dodor, p.38. fays, we put the greateft ftrefs upon Mark 16.16. ' But it is plain (faith he) that the believing and not helkvmg in that Text ts only to be underjlood of fuch as are capable of hearing and believing the Gofpel. Now as this is very true, and therefore Infants may and fnall be faved vyithout believing ^ fo it is as true alfo, that Infants are not concern'd in the Duty of Baptifm here mentioned, but may and ftall be faved without that alfo. And as the Dodor tells hs, he has proceeded thus far to fliew how -'inconclulively and abfurdly we argue, fbl have proceeded thus far far too outAfi tsfi'l Etjfol tiotli: Here' ms (iltllM conc£'i*nutQ: 39 kiro. far too, to fliew how little Truth or Reafon he has ufed to convift c, the; our Arguments of Weaknefs. But he adds. So weak are all the Argu- ijSwfj, f>ients of the Anabaftifts^ by which they endeavour from Scripture to prove Plagf, that Chrift hath limited the SuhjeSls of Eaptifm to grown Perjons^ &c. I is no; Even fo I reply, that our weak Arguments are too ftrong to be over- tupo; thrown by fuch impertinent Similitudes as the Doftor has brought atanci againft them. And for Scripture, as he has none, fo he has brought lance. none, but iTheff. 3. lo. which he has alfo very much perverted, as of tf; he doth alfo the Arguments ufed by us. arytc Here the Doftor (/>. 39,40.) is pleafed to That Infant Bap- tifm U fo univerfal and ancient a PraElice-, that no body knows when and agoy- where it began ^ or how not beings it came to be the Prathce of the Churchy 1. fj. fnce there was never any Church Ancient or Modern, which did not prallife lenoji it mnfi argue a firange Partiality to think^that it could be any lefs than ofjlu an Apofielical Prailtce and Tradition. And he brings 7Vrt«///k« faying. Had the Churches erred., they would have varied, but what ii one and ttnii amongfl them all, proceeds not from Error, but fradition. ijjgj Here the Dodor has left his Jewifh Fort, and takes Sandu.ary in Apoflolical Tradition'•, and indeed, the wifeft Man that aflerts this Scripturelefs Practice, is at a lofs where to fix it. Nay, the Dodor now tells us plainly. That no Body knows when, and how, and wherein- ■Qjifij, fant-Baptifm came in-. And we tell him as plainly, that this is a fi'gn lljjj that it is an Error,, and came in privily. Healing by degrees upon the Churches, as faJfe Teachers are faidtodo. Gal. %. 4. But now J J if the Dodor will Hand to Tertulftan's Rule, we Ihall foon prove that In fant-Baptifm is an Error. For, . jjjj, I .All Churches have not held or pradifed ft; no,not lb much as one J J,. Church mentioned in the Holy Scripture, or during the Apoftles Days. The Mother Church at Jerufalem knew no fuch pradice,for non apparen- ■tibus, dec. that which appears not, is not. It's eafy for the Dodor"' to fay, all Churches held it, bat it's impoffible for him to prove it.. HeconfefTes,- no Body knows when it came in, nor how, nor where •, and why then might there not be true Churches before it came in^, gjjjj even in his own judgment, and then all Churches have not held it. 2. But now this is our Argument from Tm«/. If the Churches va- ' I ried about Infant Baptif n, then they erred in it: But they varied about it, ergo they erred in it. The Major the Dodor muft not deny, becaule it's become his own-;, The Minor I Ihall prove prefently ; firlt, in " Tenullian himfelf, for he was not always the fame, even as he is quo- ted by the Dodor, pi 41. for firlt he brings him in faying, Pracu- * Mir: 4X5 laff attti mof! iTttentJlp Deviate fvfoTtA conditiom^ ac difpoftiont^ etiam £tate cunStatio Bafti/rtu Htilior efi^ fracifue tamen circa parvitlos^ 8cc. Ic feeilis then, that tho he fpeaks favourably of it afterwards, yet he thought the delay of Baptifm^ Especially tor iittle Children, to he more profitable And this alfo was the Opinion of Naz.ianzen: Thefe two great Men, | who are ( at ieafl; the firft of them ) as early Witnefles of Infant- Baptifm creeping into the Church, as can juftly be named, fliewing fo much doubfulnefs about baptizing Infants, is a great fign it had no Authority from Chrift and his Apollles •, for what were thefe Men to ^ teach to delay it, if Chrift had commanded it? And yet fo they did cxpredy teach, as the words quoted out of Tertullian bytheDodtor do farther fhew, becaufe it was his prefent O.pinion, That, cun- ■■ Batio Baptifmi pracipue circa parvulos was utilior. He anfwers, Vc nient dam adolefcunt^ venient dam difcunt^ dam quo veniant docentur. Yea, he further faith, Biant Chrifiiani qaam Chrifium nofife potuerint t but this the Dodfor left out. And if after this he altered his Judgment, as the Dodor fuppofes, (though fome Learned Men think otherwife) it (hews, that he was contrary to himfelf in this thing. Now that whole Churches varied about it, whether we refped the Infant Subjed, or the alteration of Dipping to Sprinkling, has been abundantly made evident by many fo that I lliall content my fclf with an Inftapce or two out of the Learned Du^Feil^ who from Gro- tim on Mat. 19. 13. gives this account: TW according to the Rule of Scripture., and agreeing with Reafon it felf., the mofl part of the Greeks in all Ages, even unto this Day, retain a Cufiom of delaying Infant Baptifm, tilltheythemfelves can give a Confefiion of their Faith. He alfo brings Nazianzen, in his 4®'^ Oration^ treating of thofe to whom Baptifm was not adminiftred by reason of Infancy. And it is certain, that Nazianzen himfelf, though the Son of a Chriftian Bilhop, about the 4th Century, and bred up in the Chriftian Religion, was not bap- tizcd till he was about thirty Years of Age. The fame is alfo true of chryfoftom, Hitrom, Jmbrofe, Aufiin, and others. And hence (faith be; it does manifeftly appear. That the wifefi of our Fathers in Chrifi did net come to Baptifm, until they were come to a firong and confirmed Age and Wit. Note here, the wifeft of our Fathers were not baptized in Infancy •, you may be fure. then, that the Churches did vary about it. I could fieyer read of fo much as one of the Ancient Fathers, for llx hundred Years after Chrift, that was baptized in his Infancy. The Learned Cwrcf/iow, as quoted by affirms, ''That the Cuftom of baptizing Infants, was brought in without the Cora- ''' mandipent concemino; Sinfnnt 'Bnptifin, 41 mandment ofChriH:, and did .not begin before th& Third Age. And the CiUfom of it being brought in, was much more frcqncuc Wttit jn Afriea than in ^fia^ and with far greater, opinion of Neccfiity. 'j'f'f This mull: needs fatisfy, that the Churches did vary about Infant- i3.3ptifni at its firft creeping into the Church. And how Chrillians have varied one from another becaufe of it) is apparent in all Ages flfant' 2nd Nations almoft ever fince it had a being, has been very largely evidenced, by the care and induftry of Mr. Danvers and others: nadu 1 think, this prefent Age may fpeak for it felf, that there are Menu very many Chriftians, and Churches too, who vary about thi? Mat- oeydi; j-gp, Theretore after the Doctor's Rule from TertuUiati, they have, and do err in this Matter on the one hand, or on the other, it, f» As the Alteration of the Subject, fo tlie Alteration of the manner of the Adrainiftration, has caufed great difcord among Chriftians. »««» How Oftenfive it was toufe Sprinkling (which it Ihould feem fome 'tmi labouring to introduce") in the Year 8 ic5, may be gathered from gram the Synod of Cdicyth^ who gave ftrift Order to Dip, and not to TlWl'c, Sprinkle S Let the Presbyters beware^ that when they Adminifier the Sa,- crament of Baftifm, they do not psur Water upon the Heads of the Chil- dren^ but let them be always plunged in the Font^ according to the Example of the Son of God. But direftly contrary hereunto, our Engllih Synod, in their Kubrick, do order the Presbyters to Sprinkle, in cafe the Child afif be weak •, and ever fince they were all weak that were brought to be Baptized, for they do nothing but Sprinkle. And fo pernicious is Srith this AJtcration, that the Mufcovites, and others, do now deny the Latins, and other Weftern Countries, to be rightly Baptized, 'fe becaufe they have changed the manner from Dipping to Sprink- SapE ling. OT 1 might enlarge my Teftimonies of this kind out of the Learned Dn-f^eil and others. And yet the Dodfor would perfwade the World, tf'sp the Churches have not varied about this Matter. Nor need the Dodor '.ruts wonder that none of the Writers in the frfi Age of Chriflianity.^are found to deted the baptizing of Infants^ feeing there are none that yet appear in that Age to have held any fuch Thing. And Dr. Barlow has given Teftimony, That there is no jHfl Evidence of Infant-Baptifm till a- dij bout two hundred Tears after Chrifi. The Diftenters therefore are itk not unreafonable (as the Dodtor would have them) in charging lijf • thofe that have altered, or that approve the Alterations thus made in the Cafe of Sacred Baptilin, with Apoftacy, or falling from the tbs limplicity of the Gofpel, at leaft in this, that they have now no true Baptifm. G .1 ent 4 2 CJje M atitj maft iTrieuuii) Detrate I freely grant, ( faith the Dodlor ) That m Arguments are equal to the Scriptures, when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful. And ■ certainly the Texts which concerns the Subjeft and manner of Bap- tifm, are none of the Scriptures whofe Interpretations are doubtful, becaufe it did not comport with the Wifdom of Chrilt that they ' Ihouldbefo. Certainly the Rule which God gave about Circumci- lion was plain enough •, And lhall we think our Saviour did leave us to Ambiguities to guide us, in admitting his People to Church-Privi- ledges ? What then can we fuppofe to be plain ? This very thing then that the Pasdobaptifts are conftrain'd to confefs, ( as Mr. Bax- ter and others) that it's a very difficult thing to prove Infant-Bap- tifm, and that C as the Dodlor here ) the Scriptures which are brought for it are not plain, for if they were, he confeffes no Argu- ments are like them; but being not clear for Infant-Baptifm, tho as clear as the Sun for ^lievers Baptifm, therefore he flies to the harmo- nioui praBice of the Ancient Churches., and the undivided confent of the Apofiolical Fathers as authentical Interpreters., See. But thele are mere flouriihes, there has been no fuch Harmony, nor fuch undivided- nefs among Churches and Fathers in this Matter, as we have fliew- ed. He brings many Paflages out of Authors Ancient and Modern •, but thefe, efpecially the moft Ancient of them, have been fo effedu- ally fcan'd by many Learned Pens of thofe of our Way, as Tombs, Fipser, Blackpoood, Danvers, Den., Du-yeil, and others, that it's needlefs to do more. 1 ihall rather endeavour to quiet the Clamour about Fathers, Ancient Chmxhes, &c. as if all mull be determined by their Sentences, by prefenting the Reader with that grave Speech oi LaBantm.,one of thefe Fathers themfelves,by which it will appear, that this Clamour is unreafonable. Thus he fpeaks,I'/l'.2 .c.8. Div.lnllit. Vedit omnibus Dens pro virili portione fapientiam^ &c. God liath given " Wifdom unto all Men, according to a competent raeafure, that " they may both find out Things unheard of before, and weigh " Things already found out. Neither becaufe they had the flart of us in Time, doth it likewife follow that they have it alio in Wif. doni j which if it be indifferently granted to all, it cannot be fore- " flailed by them which went before. It is unimparable, like the Light "■ and Brightnefs of the Sun, it being the Light of Man's Heart, as " the Sun is of the Eyes. Sy thence then to be Wife, that is, to ftarch the Truth, is a Difpofition imbred in every Man, they debar them- " felves of Wifdom, who, without any examination, approve the con£etnftt0 Siufaiit-'Baptifm. 4^ " Invention of their Anceftors. But this is that which deceives thera, " they, like unreafonable Creatures, are wholly led by others •, the " Name of Anceftors being once fet in the Front, they think it caa- " not be, that either themfelves fliould be wifer, becaufe they are "called Punies •, or that the other Ihould be in any thing miftaken, " becaufe they are called Anceftors. So that if the Dodtor had quoted more of the Ancients than he has done, yet fo long as we have the highcft Authorities, the Holy Scrip- tiires, an,d the Reafon of Men, as well as the Ancients, we can only follow them, as we fee or know they follow Ghriit. And more than this St. Paul does not require of us. Ihe Ancient Fathers ( faith the X Doctor ) undoubtedly had well read and conftdered the H'lftory of tifm in the Alls of the A^oftles^ but never drew fuch abfurd Confequences from them., &c. And did they not as well read the Hillory of Com- munion in the Ads of the Apoftles; and yet drew thefe abfurd Confequences for 600 Years together, that Infants fhouid be com- municated. But to this the Dodor tells us. That God might fuffer all the Church to fall into fuch a harmlefs Pra- Uice as that of Infant-Communion ^ or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious F ondnefs of the People., as we do., faith he, in bringing them to Prayers. Now as this may be well gueded, fo we likewife may conjedure, and it's not improbable but Infant-Baptifm came dealing fo too upon the Churches at the firft •, but after thefe Errors had got root, they were both defended by the Fathers as if they had been Oracles dropM from Heaven. And fuch a Neceflity laid upon them, as if Infants could not be laved without them. Thus did Auguftine teach, both concerning Infant-Baptifm, and Infant- Communion. The Dodor demands, What account can rationally be given why the Jewifh Chriftians who were offended at the negleHl of Circumcipon, ftjould not have been much mere offended, if the Apoftles had refufed to, initiate Infants under the new Teftanient ? But we may with more reafon de- mand of the Dodor, feeing the Jews were fo offended at the Negled of Circumcifion, why did not the Apoftles quiet this difcontented People by telling them, you need not be offended, feeing inltead of Infant-Circumcilion you have now Infant-Baptifm ? and if indeed there had been any fuch thing, it had been the moll pertinent means to quiet them, to refer them to that for Satisfadion. But feeing the;. Apoilles make no ufeof this Argument, it's clear they had no fuch thing to argue from, for whore they could ufe it, they did, as in the G 2 cafe • >1 44 €f)e m anti nioft Debate cafe of baptized Believers themfelves, Coloff. z. it. which isa fuffi- ciei t Argument that Infant-Baptifm-had np being in the Church in St. Pan time, feeing he never nTehtions-it at all, no not then when he h. d the greateft occafion for it that could be given. The Uctftcr obferves, thait the J eves always looked upon the Children ef Pagans as common or unclean \ hut upon their own as feparate and Holy. And then he cells us, that Sz. Paul makes the fame DiftinElton between them, I Cor. 7. 14. But this i ;fo exprefly againft: the Word of God, that I admire the Do6tor Ihould write it, was not this Diftinflion be- tvveen Jew and Gentile, the one being common and unclean, the other Holy, taken quite away. AEts 10. 15,18. What God hath cUanf- ed, coil not thou common: which the ApoMe expounds thus, ver.z%. God hath Jhewed me that I jbeuld not cad any Man common or uncleatr. And why Ihould the Dodlor fo much as think that St. Paul lliouid count the Infants of jews or Gentiles which do not yet believe, com- \ mon and unclean : The Text i Cor. 7, 14. fays not a Word to that Purpofe t but is an Anfwer to the Sauple which feme Chrillians had about continuing in Marriage-Union with their Yoke-Fellows, who were Unbelievers, fuppofing thera to be unclean •, but St. P(or ;'ior usrcli ijid Ilie ) ' jllM [1/1 Ci istlt n ■J tit ite 12.5 [ft, t am tea 'mi ar ibi( mi fli ^7 / indifferent (if not impofed as Boundaries of Communion) are tlief2j.herefore to be efleemed finful, becaufe notexprefly warranted by Pre- Example in the Word. 3. But we apply this Rule always, ind foinonrprcfentQjiefl;ion,to fuch things as are eOentinl to Church- ne of pemberlhip, and Church-Government, as true Baptifm is to the firlt s Aldjrpand cannot be admitted only as a thing indifferent, and as fuch allow- Wfctfltrab'e or lawful only ; for it's either neceflary in the Conftitution of a ^'Church, or it's nothing : and who are of Right, and who are not to baptized, is of the Elfence of Baptifm, and can admit of no lower a ^owffi'Conlideration. hiL Principle thus explained, is clearly juflified by the Word of and if Proteftarits part with this Principle, they will lofe them- I felves. Now thus faith the Lord, Te Jliall not add to the Word which I command yon^ neither ^lall you diminijh ought from it, that you may keep ^ y the Commandments of the Lord your God^ Deut. 4. 2. What thing foe- f,.\'ver I command you^ obferve to do it, thou Jltalt not add thereto, nor dimL iofB Deut. 12. 32. EveryWord of God is pure—add thou ,1 not unto his Words, left he reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar, Pro v. ^ 30. 6. And it is obfervable that our Lord, as he was fent to be a Mi- " ^'niiler of the Gofpel, claims no Authority to fpeak of hirafelf, John Q 12. 5. Whatfoever I fpeak^therefore, even osjheFa'-her faid unto me, fo Ti « ^ fp^^' ought this to put an awe upon all that fpeak in the Name ')/ c of the Lord about Religion ? Neither does the holy Spirit it felf fas I f?' fent to fiipply the perfonal Abfence of Chrift] take upon himfelf to P " : give or abrogate Laws, but to bring things to the Apoflles Remem- brance, John i^. 26. Howheit when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth -, FOR he fall not fpeak of himfelf, but what fo- Y ever he fall hear, that fhall he fpeak^: And this is the Rule alfo by f which the Spirit of Truth is known, namely by his advancing the mm 'p[|ipg3 dgiivered by Chrill and his Apoftles, He fhall take of mine, ^ and few it unto yon, be fall glorify me. i Tim. 6. 3,4. If any Man I biff teach olherwife,. and confent not to whole fome Words, even the Words of our 13110 Lord Jefus Chrill, he is proud, knowing nothing, i John 4. 6. He that liCim God, heareth us ; he that is not of God, heareth not tu: hereby know i:ktl xvethe Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Error. Rev. 22- 18. If any vdltp- Man fall add to thefe things, God fall add the Plagues which are written in this Book^-, and if any fall take away from the Words of the Prophecy . of this Book, God fall take away his Part out of the Book of Life. And A that this Text does eftablifli as unalterable the whole New Teflamenc m our Adverfaries do acknowledg : See on the Place. AndC7.a/- iplei; ^ , vin- ffleef' . ' ■ !' m)z litf! 12.32. "Siththey (faith he) cannot deny that this w^upon Dent ^ ^ ^ , was fpoken to the Church, what do they eifc but report the Stul> " bornnefs of the Church, which they boaft to have been fo bold m ^ altei- fuch Prohibitions, neverthelefs to add and mingle of her, ' '■ Own with the Dodrine of God. And Luther doth aver, that hop ''■ Dodrine ought tobe taught or heard in the Church befdes the pure' Word of God. .Sf^v 21.22. Dodor's own Judgment, is 1.5. and yet we know, ^ that Davids Infant which was born in Adultery, was ^5* Jo 14-4- faved without Circumcifion or Baptifm. And the Dodor confefies that the RequiilteNecclfity of Infant-Bap- tifm cannot be demonfirated from thefe Texts, without the Traditi- on of the ancient Church. And there is no fuch authentick Tradi- tion to be found, (whatever is pretended) for he brings none from the firfl Churches at all. And that there is no fuch Tradition, Dr. Jer. Taylor is a great witnefs, who in his Dilfwafive from Popery, and in his Rule of Confcience, informs us. There u no prime or Apoflolical Tradition for Infant-Baptifm. That it was not praiHfed till about the 3d Century.^ and judged necejfary about the 4th. That Children of Chrifian Parents were not baptized till they came to Vnderftanding in the firfl Ages. That Dippingi and not Sprinkflng^ was the Vfage ofChrifl and his Apofiles Hz ■ and 1 5 2 €!)e laft anu molf Debate ' and iheccnjlant DeUrine and PraBice of the Ancients for many hundred - Tears. SiG al^o Mr-TombeSi ^d fart of Review. But after all this the Dodtor is pleafed to allow Salvation to Infants which die unbaptized •, Becanfe (faith he) we onght not to tie God to the fame means to which he hath tied m. It feems then God hath not tied' Infants to any Neceflity of Baptiftn, nor can he prove that he hath tied us to baptize them. But now he will try another way to enforce his Arguments. "•Suppofe (faith he) that Scripture and Tradition flood againfl ** Infant-Baptifm, in the fame Pollure as now it fiands for it, it would " not be unjufcifiable for any fort of Men to feparate from the Church for not baptizing Infants. Let us fuppofe that Chrifl had faid, I " fuffer not little Children to come to me, for the Kingdom of God is ''not of fuch,— and that we had-been alTured by the Writers of the " two next Ages to the Apoltles, that then there was no baptizing In- " fants, I appeal unto them whether it would not be highly unreafon- " able to feparate from all the Churches in the World for not allow- "ing Infant-Baptifm againft the concurrence of fuch a Text to the "contrary, and theSenfeand Pradticeof theCatholick Church? The meaning of the Dodlor I take to be this, that as it is highly un- reafonable to feparate from a Church, who upon a doubtful or proba- blc ground does give Baptifm to Children : fo it would be high- ly unreafonable to feparate from a Church, who upon a like doubtful or probable ground only, Ihould refufe to baptize Infants. I confels this is an odd way of difputing ^ for here the Churches fuppoftd to err on either fide, are yet fuppofed themfelves to be true Churches, and only erring about fuch a doubtful Praflice as this, on the one fide, or on the other. But alas the cafe is far different between the Church of England and us. For Ihe is wholly msde up of Perfons thus doubt- fully baptized, nay perhaps not baptized at aU, whatever fhe pre- tends: and by this doubtful Baptifm fhe is difclaiming all other Bap- tifin in refped of all her Members for fome hundreds of Years. O- therwife I muft confefs, had I lived in the Church in the beginning of the third Century, when Infant-Baptifm was creeping in, there was then a Church truly baptized, diftind from the Infants who here and there might perhaps be baptized, upon fuch fuppofed Grounds as are mentioned by the Dodor ^ here (I fay) a Separation would in my judgment have been unwarrantable, it being but an ill Principle to feparate from a true Church, tho incumbred with fome Error. But fhould I have lived till this doubtful Baptifm was forced on with Jnath(tna\ till it had overtopped and quite defiroyed in fuch a - Church conccrrtitiff 3lnfattt-0Baptiftn* 53 ''Church all Practice of baptizing Believers in rcfpedf of her Members, and that the whole Church were now become doubtful to me, whe- J*" ther Ihe had any Baptifm at all And therewith that fhe had remly left the due form of Baptifm^ which (he had formerly obferved. J Then I think no Man could blame me, if I left this Communion, to g r" fit down with thofe who did yet retain the ancient, and only undoubted Baptifm-, both for Subjed and manner of Adminillration ^ and this agj', is our very cafe. iwo'■ feeing it is impoflible for us, or any Body clfej to hold ample Q Communion with all iorts of Chriltians (and there arefome good' r ^ folk amongfl: them all) why Ihould any one of thefe Parties, whe- A' ther Papifts, Prelatifts, Presbyterians, &c, expedl that all Ihould p come to them? or why lliould the Dodor think we ought to joyn '■ Communion with his Party, more than others, unlefs they could not err as well as the reft ? But feeing that is not to be pretended, we jj muft all fatisfy our own Souls as well as we can, where to communi- cate, and where to forbear, for with all we cannot have Communi- ! ™ on •, let us not then grudg one againft another about this necelfary ; Chriftian Liberty. 60. The Dodor attempts to prove his Tradition, not doubt- ful, but certain in thecafe of Infant-Baptifm •, to which purpofe he infifts on that Rule given by Vincentim Lyrinenfis., \iz. Vniverfality.,, * Antiquity., and Confent. But I have Ihewed already, that all thefe be- ® ing truly taken, arc all wanting in the cafe of Infant-Baptifm s be- ®caufe (as for other reafons, fo for thefe in particular) i. The Churches in the Apoftlesdays baptized no Infants. And 2. The Greek Churches to this day do retain the Cuftom of delaying Baptifm (which yet is no- icri delay) to Children, till they make ProfelTion of their Faith : and the m- Dodor confelfes a few of the Fathers were againft it. And there might be more for ought he knows, though not counted among fuch % Fathers that might deferve as.well as any. And it is kpown that many very learned and good Men have feen caufe in this and former Ages to rejed this Tradition, though it has coft them the lofs of all that this World could afford them. And the Authorities here brought by the Dodor are not fo ancient (fome of them) as is pre- tended even by his own Confeffion, and they have been fcan'd and an- ® fwered by the learned Pens of Den., Tombes., Blackwood., Fijher., Dm- vers., Delaun, Duveily and others. Laftly, The Dodor fays. The Anabaptifis themfelves cannot defend ' the baptizing of fuch grown Perfons as were born and bred in the Church ' from Scriptmey without Tradition and Practice of the Church. As 54 Cljelaftanti malfftfenui)? debate As if our Saviour's Authority to teach and baptize all Nations, or toi preach to every Creature, and to baptize all that believd to the end of: the World, weie not a fuffici^nt Rule to us to teach our Children, and; to baptize them, Matth.iS. ij?. Mark^i6. 16. We fee evidently that Jefus Chrifl: has given but one Rule to us and to our Pofterity, and ; therefore it was unadvifedly fpoken, to fay that we cannot produce one \ Precept for teaching and baptizing our ChUdren, when they are grown up, being bred and bora of Chrifiians, as I fuppofe that is his mean- ifig, by being bred and born in the Church. Had the Dodor confidcred that Exhortation of the Apoftle to all Chriftians, Ephef. 6. Teaching Parents to bring up their Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord, and to Children to obey their Parents in the Lord: And therewith the Example of the Children of the elect Lady, 2 Bp. John, Who are found walking in the, Truth, as the Apoflle and the Lady her felf had re- ceived Commandment from the Father ', it might have palled for a bet- ter Precedent in this cafe, than Mans Tradition without Scripture can pollibly be, for Infant-Baptifm. I conclude then, that feeing Chrift's Command is as clear for teach- ing and baptizing our Children, as any other Mens Pofterity •, and that it is the exprefs Duty of Chriftian Parents to bring up their Children in the Admonition of the Lord(that is,as Chryfofom cx]poundi the place) to make them Chriftians •, and this Advice he gave in oppolition- to the training up Children in prophane Literature. And the Precedent of this vertuous Lady, whofe Children, whilft under her Care and Tuition, obeyed the Truth, and walked therein according to God's Commandment, and not as Men received Tradition from their Fathers, but as the Apoftle had received Commandment from the Father -, and fo he exhorts them to continue, and tb beware of other Dodlrine, and to have no Fellowftip with fuch ah Ihould bring any other Dobirine than that which had been delivered by the Holy Apeftles. This may fulFicc to anfvver the Objedlion. ' CHAP. hi caitceritiuo; anfant-O^aptifm^ 55 cn, at' C H A p. 'VI. It at: Anfvvcreth the Do£lor's fourth Qiieftion, Whether it he a gros: Duty incumbent upon Chrijlim Parents to bring their Chit' S ^ren to Baptifm ? ''tiick; I Marvel why the Dodor puts not the term flnfant] into his Que- ftion, he knows we are for bringing our Children to Baptifm as foon as we can. But how does he prove that Chriftian Parents are obliged to bring their Infants to Baptifm ? Why this he doth by repeating what he had faid under the Qiieftion : i. About Luvofulnefs or AUowahlenefs. 2. About the requijite Necejftty of Infant- Baptifm. And therefore I only refer my Reader to what has been anfwered to thefe things in the former Chapter. And now when the Parents may very rationally expedl fome Cora- mand from God to bring their Infants to Baptiijn ; The Dodlor tells us, There is no Necefity of having aCommaud.^ or Example to jufiifyit.^ but it ii fuficient that it U not forbidden. But he refers them to th.e Orders of the Church, and quotes Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over Tou ■ But never Ihews "at all, who gave fuch Orders to the Church, that Parents and Proparents Ihould bring their Infants to Baptifm. And therefore all that is here faid is meer Talk without any good Warrant. He quotes ABs 15.4. which Ihews that the Decrees which were ordained at ought to be kept. And we allow it, but here's not a Word, for to bring Infants to Baptifm in thefe Decrees: but here is a Decree againft the eating of Blood, which is little regarded by the Dodor, or however his Church does not regard it. Yet this Text of the Decrees, he would make ferve for Infant-Baptifm, and indeed, had the Apofllcs had Power to make fuch a Decree, this was as fit a time and occafion for it as could be, the Qireftion being about ijifant-Circumcifion ^ and the Apollles difannulling their Cir- cumcifion, would certainly have given fome Notice that they had or ought to have Baptifm inflead of it •, but feeing they do not in the leaft mention it, we may be fure there wm no Infant-Bagtifn in. being at that time. The 5<5 €t)e laft antJ molt jrctentJli? Dctiatc The Dodor will now (hew us the Benefits Infant-Baptif/n^ and from thence infer for the Duty of Parents and Proparents to bring them to Baptifm •, and the firft U their Confecration to God. As if no Infants were confecrated to God but thofe who are baptized. Methinks our Saviour (hould know how to confecratednfants to God as well as the Dodor, but he did it only by Prayer or Bkffing, not by baptizing them. There is no doubt but fuch as follow his Example in devoting Infants to God by Prayer, do ad warrantably, but he that will do it by baptizing them, ads without a Guide, and deprives Children of the Baptifm of Repentance, when they come to Years, and have need of it. His ft con d Benefit is to make Infants Members of the myfiical Body of Chrifl. As if it were in Mans Power to make whom they pleafe Members of that Body, and that when they are fall afleep too. Is not" this the plain Confequence of this Opinion, that all Infants on- baptized, being not of Chrift's myfiical Body, muft peridi ? I know the Dodor does not hold this •, but it's hard to avoid this Rock when Men are entangled in this Error, that they can make Infants Members of Chrift's myfiical Body by fprinkling or croffing them with Water, and they think they can be made ib by no other way. Now 1 demand of any Man, whether the whole Number of the Saved ones be not all of Chrills myftical Body ? not doubting but-it will be granted. I dcfire it may be confidered,* whether thefe unbap- tized Infants whom Chrift bleffed, were of his myfiical Body ? I fup- pofe this will be granted too -, and then confider alfo whether all In- fonts of whom Chrift foid,to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, are not of his myfiical Body, as it contains all faved ones ? 1 believe none will deny this. The laft Confideration is. Whether Chrifl docs fpeak of Infants indefinitely, and as fuch comprehends them all, and if not, how is it poffible for any Man to know one fort of thefe In- fonts from another ? all dying Infants then are of the myfiical Body, as it contains all that fhall be faved. • The Doftor's third Benefit, That the baptiz.ed Infant by that Solem. nity.^ may pafs from a State of Nature., wherein he was a Child of Wrsth., to a State of Adoption of Grace, wherein he becomes a Child of God, p. 64. But is the Dodor fure that Infants arc now Children of Wrath, that is, liable to Condemnation ? Sure whatever their ftate was in the firft Adam, yet they are acquitted from Damnation by the Mercy of God in the. fecond Adam ; for the Lamb which was flain from the ■ the Foundation of the World, has taken away the Sin of the World from f05 \VI yjirO rfjfi ■'ir*: V,,.' Ctaa , t il(C j5i?U' E if til !« V lit!: mtki N" Cod, ilffi lit DOC d 'a Gtt CJl' m IK lii fa toitcernfug 3infimt-'Baptifm. 57 jfrom innocent Babes^ fo that they are not the Obj:ti been no true Church on Earth for i too Tearsy^ nor a Chitrch for 1500,. roith whom a Chrifian could Communicate with- jjjj, oHCrStn. But this cannot be true; for tho Infant-Baptifm was an Er- ror (in our Judgment) ever fince it had a being, yet there was. a^ p,* ways fome Churches free of it, and thofe we have taken notice of-^ f be'bre to be many of the Greek; Churches, as Learned Authors db J i confefs, even foch as were themfelves for Infant-Baptifm ; and with- ? .th era are to be reckoned".(in this Qiicftion) the Ap jlolicii, Donatijit^ , NevatianSj artd !i great part of the tf^a/denfes, as is fjully rnade manr- ■ fed by Mr. and others, of which I ffiulL'here give a brief-Ac-^, fk ' count. » . • ■ I I. B'lt fTrrc we muft premife,. That all the Churches mentioned'in Scripture are ours, being baptised upon- profcilioa of Repentancan-- 'V aadi loft ntoff frfennii) Deflate and Faith. No Man being able to this day to Ihew fo much as one* Infant was baptized in any one o^ the Churches mentioned in the' Scriptures. 2. In the next Age to the Apcftles, Martyr gives this Ac- count of the practice of the Churches ^ "I will declare (faith he)' "how we offer up our felves to God Thofe amongft us that are'. "inllruCted in the Faith—'being willing to live according to'the; ",fame arc brought by us into the Water, and there, 'aS we'werc^, '^'new born, are they alfo by new Birth renewed and then in cal-, " ling upon God the Father, the Lord Jefus Chrift, and the Holy \ "Spirit, they are waQied in Water. 3. In the third Age, Mr. Baxter tells us out of Tertullian^ iiifc, and Cyprian \ "That in the Primitive Times none were baptized " without an exprefs Cgvenanting, wherein they renounced the'^jj]!. World, &c. and engaged themfelves to Chrift. • 4. In the fourth Age, Bafil faith, " That none were to be bapti- " zed but Catechumens, and thofe that were duly inflrucSed in the" i "Faith. _ • ^ In the fifth Age, Chryfofiom faith, " The time of Grace or Con- ii " verfion was the only fit time for Baptifm, which was the Seafon in" " which the three thoufand in j4tls 2. and others afterward were bap- " tized. 6. The African Churches (commonly called Donati^s) taught, ^ " That none Ihould be baptized, but thofe that believed and defined the fame. 7. The Waldenfian Churches tell us-, " That by Baptifm Belie- " vers were received into the Holy Congregation, there declaring " their Faith, and amendment of-Life. 8. The Churches in Germany own'd the fame Faith and Pradice. p. The Churches in Helvetia aflerted the fame, and fuffered foV their Teftimony. 10. The Churches, by great Sufferings, bore witnefs to the fame Truthi 11. The Churches in Thejfalehica did the fame. 12. The Churches in Flanders fuffered for. the fame caufe. 13. The Hungarians did the fame. 14. And fo did the Churches in Thejjalpnica. 15. The Churches of the Ancient did the fame, and died"'' for their Teftimony. hi concetnfitfl: Mantx'BnptiDiK 6? J3(j, Here forae will be ready to fay, Wc value not Mr. Danvers^ he ij ji was iniftaken in his Quotations. But let me reply ^ Would Men but impartially read his Defence, they would fee caufe to juftify him from his the Clamours which have been vented againft him. ithti Neither do we cenfure good and pious Men in the darker Times f,3(j,above us, who perhapps had not opportunity, as we have, to fee and the.Error *, God Almighty indulging the overfights of his fin- Ones inall Ages, as we truft he will do ours in this; for fome iflca'.^?y come after us to reftore fome Truth which we have not ; [Ijinindedi being lb much buffed, both by Writing, Preaching, and Suffering, in defence of fome particular Truths which are the Con- ^tir Age. And this was the Cafe of our worthy Prede- jJ ceffors, who were called to conteft: with the Spirit of Error. And ;(i I'we doubt not but all fincere Chriftians, who have not wilfully oppo- ^i^d themfelves to.any Truth, fhall find Mercy in the Day of Chrift, i,_^d receive a Reward according to the Infinite Goodnefs of God, who will not fuffer any to go without a Reward, who have been but 'fo kind to any, becaufe they belonged to Chrill:, as to give them a ^ Cup of cold Water to drinlt And in thp mean time, I am for fo much Communion with all Chri- 'j|j^~ftians, as will do them and my felf good. But feeing it is impoffible Tor any to maintain full or ample Communion with ^ forts, profef- .ling the Chriftian Name at this Day •, There is a neceflity either for J"lbipe powerful Party to kill ail the reft, that ihe may be the only ^ Church, oceHe Brotherly to agree to permit all to chufe their Com- ,, ipunion,: where they can moft comfortably enjoy it; and I heartily / delire. that none for any caufe but true inward Peace, would make ufe of this Liberty. But about this we have more fully treated in the fifth Chapter, that here we fhall add no more at prefent, but fhalF conclude with our huinble Requeft to the Church of England-, to con- ® fidef hpw great aPreffure it muft be upon our Confeience, to break up pur AHhrnbiies, which we.beUeve to be truly confHtuted Churches, and to unite with Hers, which we believe to be fo defedive in her * Gonftitution, as to have noBaptifm ataH. Now, that the Baptifm of Repentant Believers is of Heavenly Ori- ginal, is granted,on alThandsi, that itftandsiolear both in Scripture, and unqueflionable Antiquity next to thfcScaiiptore, is altogether un- c^eniable y and that this Baptifm k to bf -eofttiiaaid tothecrid of the World, cannot be fpokcn againft. • . .: ■ And on the other fide. Does not even Mr BaMeb, and: other Lear- ^ ned ife i 2et Pioff id ■rrd 'co:r! :.tKI ci;P 6 4 CIjc. laft tm moft ifv Dcliatc "ed Aficrtors of liifanc-Baptifm, confafs, 'tis a very difcHlt Point to^ prove i>y Scripture ? And do not the Learned Papifis^ and fome Lear- Tied Proifjlants, ackljoveledg there u no Scripture for. Infant-Baviifm ? A «• ther Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptifm ? That it was brought.in without the Conimandinent of Chrifi ? 7 hat it if on'y a Church ^ and not of Divine Infliiution ? Thele Things cannot be hid from you> and therefore there is a necellity that fome fpcedy and pi udenLWc^y betaken by the Church of England to reftore this Holy Ordinance to its purity, in refpedtof the Subjedt to bo baptized. For though the Church of England does retain the Dodtrine of |;^ Baptifm, with refp^ft to its precedency to other Ordinances, its litilitv and Dignity in the Church of God ; yet this is to little pur- '^1 pofelfill, fo long as another thing is fubftitutcd in the room of it, di both in refpedl of the Subjedt and manner of Adminiflrration. 'tok Concerning the latter, let the Church o^ England be intreated to confidenhe Refledlions which have been made upon thk Alteration of Immerlion to Sprinkling, by the lean ed Boffuct in his Bock^of Commu. >w«, dvc. Ai d the Convidfion which fome learned Proteftants in -oio France have lately met with upon that occafion. I will fet down the ■ itA wordsof the learned Author who calls himfelf Anonymut^ as they are -Slit t anflated by Dr. Duveil upon the Adls of. the Apoftles, p. 2p2, 293. f'tiej - " It is raoft certain that Baptifm hath not been adminiftred hither- ' dott '■ to, otherwife than by Sprinkling, by the inoft part of Proteftants, iiisC ' ■ but truly this Sprinkling is an Abufe. This Cuftom which without ' wi ' an accurate Examination, they, have retained from - the Romilh -fe ".Church, in like manner as many other things, makes their Baptifm : "•] *' very defedlive, it corrupteih its Inftitution and ancient ufe, and I'd " thatnearnefs of Similitude, which is needful fhouldbe betwixt it i'lll " and Faith, Repentance,and Regeneration. " 7 his Refiedtion of Mr. Bcffuit deferveth to.be ferioufly confidcr-'m ed, to wit, that this ufe of plunging hath continued for the ''b fpaceof a whole thoufand and three Juindred Years ^ that hence " wemay underftand, that we did not carefully, as was meet, ex- *'• amine things which we retained from the Roman Church •, and " therefore fince the mofl: learned Bifliops of that Church do teach " ns novvthat the Cuftom eftabliftied by moft grave Arguments, and fo many Age-, was abolidied by her, thfs felf-fame thing was very " unjuftly doneby her, and that the Conllderatioh of our Duty ■doth require at our hands, that we feek again the primitive Cnftom of "the Church, and the InRitutLon ofChrift. Though tberefore "0 "a "K I we I tottcerntnff <55 ?««!•'we fliould yield to Mr. Bofuei that we are convinced by the force 't his Arguments, that the Nature and Subftancc of Baptifm con- ".^A-'fifteth in Dipping, what may he hope for from us, but that the it f-' Profeflbrs iee themfelves obliged to him by no fmall Favour, and sCiv'' thank him that he hath delivered us from Error, when we greatly ; be •" erred in this thing ? .'edy; <' And as we are refolved indeed to corred and redify this Error ■, ;bis'[i"fowedefire earneftly with humble Prayer of him, that he would ited," corred and amend that Error of taking away the Cup from theL^?- Itrk'' ich coming unto the holy Supper, poes Monfieur Bojfiiet think that itcc!," the Protellants will have a greater refped of that Cuftom which ttJe-'^ they have found to be unlawful, and that by the raoft weighty and onift" folid Arguments, than of the InftitUtion of Jefus Chrilt, and that I. " to let Rome get an opportunity of boldly and freely breaking the rata;'' Laws of Chrift, by the pernicious Imitation of our Example, erstic- " Far be that wicked frame of Mind from them : they are ftraiter ^ Cm " bound by the Authority of their holy Mafter, than to defpife his efe " Voice when his Sound cometh to their Ears, My Sheep hear my Voice ; lov.i" and again, / k»orv my Sheep. None,'except Wolves lurking under a .ihev ^' Sheep-skin, refufeth and turnethfrom it. —There is no Place ?2,j; " therefore for cogging in thefe things, for thofe that pretend the fpe- Kill!! " cious Titlc of received Cnfiom for the Days Pradice, when Jefus and oiefe " his Gofpel is not the Cuftom, but the Truth. From the begiming it bn:' " 'xpoi not fo, fays the fame Jefus unto them, who did objed unto him teEr " the worft and curfed Cuftom of their Anceftors. rBn When we lhall be prefented before the Judgment of Chrift, he 'tf " will not iudg his Difciples by Cuftom, but by the lively and elFedu- m " al Word of his Gofpel. Neither fhould any be taken with a vam " hope of framing an Excufe from the Authority of the Church, be- Mj- " caufe all the Authority of the Church is from Chrift granted unto her k " for that intent and purpofe, that Ihe. might procure a Religious 2fk " Obedience to his Laws, and Heavenly Precepts, but not that ihe ftt.' " mkht break, repeal and cancel them. There is in the Church ■li 'i " no more Power of changing the Rites in the Sacraments, than there b® " is Power of changing his Word and Law, Thus far the Lear- R' ned and pious Proteftant. /, , , , j i ? r And lhall the religious French Proteftants be thus awakened and.re' fnlved to corred and redify this Error, by the Refiedions made upon m ■ "bv an Enemy •, and lhall the Englilh Proteftants add yet more Slum- ffe ber, notwithftanding they have not only jche very fame AWm come 6.6 dje laft auD jfrtnitlp ©dnite amongft them from the fame Pen j but their own Learned Men who Itand upon their Watch'towers, have given them notice of this Baf. tifm-deproying Error. And befides this, God has raifed up Witnelfes---^ for his Truth in this as well as other Particulars, who with great Learning and Judgment have (hewn the Beauty of this Infticucion both by Docftrine, and by the Pradlice of it in the Royal City, and in mod Parts of this Land, for many Years together ^ and yet the Church Till of England does not ftir up her felf at all, to take hold of plain p Truth in this matter. tli And tho I am one of the leafl: of the Witnefies which God has rair ■ infant Rd up in this Age and Nation in behalf of this Truth, yet I (liail .jptjre: humbly crave leave to addrefs the.Church of England after this friend- [i);i)toj[ ly and free manner, oi I did.Mr, BolTuet himfelf. atetiWJ 1. I befeech her to, confider that (he has now to do with fiich Chri^ Rians as are in good earned for the ancient Chriftian Religion, as it was delivered by Chrilt and his Apoltles •, fuch as would not have any 1,^/m Truth, delivered by Heavens Authority, to be negledted, nor in any- udto wife to be corrupted by Innovation, Change or Alteration, but reli- i,t gioully obferved and kept, according to the due Form and Power of Godlinefs. 2. As to the Cafe of Infdtit-Baptiftn, be pleafed to confider, that the Salvation of.our Infants are as dear to us as yours can be to you, and therefore you have no reafon to t-hinkthatwe would willingly omit -joffi any thing which God has appojnted'as a furtherance thereunto-, and being, as all Men know, no kfs zealous for the Ordinance of Baptifin than your felves, you may be confident we would by no means hinder its due extent, but promote it therein by alLlawfnl incans we are able. 1^ 3. That our Lord Jefus has madfe Baptifm neceflhry to theSalvati- on of Infants, is not revealed in the holy Scripture ^ nor that he has ' made it neceflhry for them at all; and therefore, as the AfricanConn- al did ill to Anathematiz.e thofe that denied the firfl, fo you have not done weir to fuch as cannot in Confcicnce bring their Infants to Baptifm. .1 4. Let therefore our Brethren of the Church of England return to the Truth i.n the Cafe of holy Baptifm,, that we may return to her * ■ ? for when it fhallbefo with her, (he will diftingiiilh between the Pre- ''J™ cious and the Vile •, yea that very Minidration rightly reftored, will nituraliy lead to a far greater Purity in Church-Communion, than has hitherto "been attained. But if (he will not beintreated to amend her n" Ways and her Doings, the Lord "will plead the Caufe of his negkcRed f Truth and drfpifcd Peop'e. concciT/afff 6; ^itnC _: • itli grf. , The CONCLVSION. * of nl'^T ^ ^ D jdor was p^eafcd to referve feme of our Objeilions a- I gainft the Psdobiptiits for the Conclufionof hisBook. Novr (].|j ■ the Reader does underftand, that the we fhew like Argumeacs y^j.fcr Infant-Communion, as they bring for Infant-Baprifm, both from ijjf' Scripture and Antiquity, yet we do not therefore hold that they are '^to be brought to the holy Table of the Lord ^ but we do hereby lliew - .that the Poedohaptifl: is not confillent with himfelf, as for exainp'e : • ■ ThisDoilor argues for Infant-Baptifm from iCcr. lo. i, ^at be- . L' 'J caufe Infants jxffed through the- SU i and it's faid, Alt our Fathers were ^^Haptiz.ed einta Moks in the Cloud and in the Sea^ therefore Infants were baptized to Mofes^ and confequently ought to be baptized to Chrift. '^^'Nowto Ihew the Fallacy of this Argument, we fay, Alt that are "faid to be baptized, ver. i. are alfofaid to eat and drink fpiritaally of ' , ^Chrififo that this Scripture is as ftrong for Infant-Communion, as ' ''for Infant-Baptifm ■, tho in Truth it''s no Rule for either. For how ''^y ihould it follow, that becaufe God faved /yr^e/miracuIouHy from the WoiRageof Pharaoh^ in the Cloud, and in the Red Sea, and fed them '5'"^ rciraculoufly with Mannah and Water in the Wildernefs *, Therefore we are to baptize and communicate Infants. But we have fliewed be- fore that the Apoftle does limit this Baptifm, and feeding upon fCJK chrift, tothofe of Underftanding, fto wit, our Fathers] and fb iieSalt: 'Aagufline^ Ipeaking of the latter in thefe words, §lHicHnqae in i3t fc! Manna Chrifiam mettexenint^ eundem quern nos cibnm fpiritualem man- ICMC:I ^caverunt, •foiils, (jjgyy aifo from this i Cor. lo- 17. that all that arc baptized in- ice kit to one Body, are to partake of one Bread at the Lord's Table : and therefore it will follow that if Infants ought to be baptized into the 'fttrc: Church Militant, they ought not to be denied the Bread and Cup in f"''" the Communion of that B(^y. 'hePic When they plead from Antiquity, &c. we ihew them fand they know it) that near the fecond or early Ages of theGofpcl., Infants were 'soki hroHghtto the Lordl's Table to communicate there, and that this Cufiom conu tinned 600 Tears., yet it was laid afide as unwarrantable, and we Ihew there is equal realbn to lay afide the Cuftom^ of baptizing Infants. But we have more particularly Ihewed thefe things in our Animadver- K 2 font 68 C&e iail anti mol! jfrtenni)) Debate fions upon Dr.S. his Digreffions about Infant-Baptifm •' Wherein alfo the ^ Subftance of this Book of the Cafe of Infant-B apt ifis redargued-, and indeed this Book feems to have been added as an Enlargement up-i on thofe Ihort Notes of Dy. Stilltngfieet, though done perhaps byj.j[| another Hand. ^ I fliall therefore fay no more at prelent to the Dodor's Concluflon, nor lhall I take notice of Mr. Bhilpot\ Dream •, he was doubtlefs a good Man, yet that he did dream waking, as well as when aileep, is evi- dent enough to all that will confider how extreme weakly he goes a- ^ bout to prove Infants to be Believers, &c. But let us not trouble the w Dead, we lhall ere long be with them, where all our Miftakes will be made manifcft, and all our unavoidable Infirmities will be pardoned, But if any Man fin prefumptuoufly, the fame reproacheth the Lord: And happy is the Man who fincerely feeks for Truth, and faithfully J walks up to his Light, tho through unavoidable Weaknefs he may err y in many things. For our God knoweth our Frame,, and whereof we are made, and remembers that we are but Dull, and like as a Father '/ pities his Cwilling tho weak] Son, even fo the Lord pittieth them that f fear him. To him therefore be Glory for ever.. Amen, ® ' til ^ ^ ^ [ioi ~ Til An Appendix concerning the Sign of the Crofs in Baptfm, fl BEcaufe there is bound up with the Cafe of Infant-Baptifm^ a Trea- tife called. The Cafe of the Sign of the Crofs in Baptifm^ We lhall ^ take fo much notice of it as to ask, (in TertulUanh viOYds^ Vn- de venifii ? J Whence comell thou ? And to this the Author feems to " give anfwpr, Ab Antifiitate^ from Antiquity^ Tradition,^ &c. And quotes for it Tertullian^ Origen^ Ba/il and Cyprian, and gives as good ' ground from Antiquity and Tradition for it, as our Doax)r has done for Infant-Baptifm. And he has a clearer Text for it too (if Jerome ' fay true ) than any which has been yet aliedged for Infant-Baptifm viz.. Ezek. 9. 4. Set a Mark upon the Foreheads of the Men that figh He tells us that by feveral of the Hebrew Ferfons, this mark is fuppojed to • be by the Hebrew n Tiw, which Jerome fays, was in the Samaritan Cha- rafter like our T, and fo made the Figure of the Crofs, It toncctttine: 3inrant*0Baptifrti. 69 It feems thefe two Cafes, J»fant-Bapifm, 2in^ the Sign of the Crofi tn Bapifm^ ftands much upon the fame bottom, and will Hand and fall together Howbeit we Ihall not do much more about this cafe, than to be the Remembrancer of this Generation with what Teltimo- ny has formerly been given againft this piece of Superftition, by learned Proteftants themfelves, even fuch as were our Oppofitesin the other cafe, who to this Plea of the Church of England, that they receive not the fign of the Crofs as from the Papilts, but from the Fathers of the Primitive Church, givesthem this Anfwer. 1. The Fathers can be no Vizard for a Rite whereof the Pagans, Jews, or Hefeticks were the Fathers and firft begetters. It was the Fault of onethat he fang the Pfalms of lentinm It is ours, that we ufe his Crofs. I call it his, ^agamft becaufe he was the firfl: that ufed this'Sign, the very • • firfl that made account of it, asappears by Iren^M^ lib. i.e. i. And he did wrefl; the Scriptures to the Crolfes Commendation. He termed him Crux to fhevy a purging Power in him, becaufe he held the Crofs a Purger of Man's Sin- -And that he was drawn into this Opinion by the fame means that Papifls are drawn into it, by a fuppofed Dedication of it in the Blood of Chrifl fnot copfidering that by this conceit Men may adore every Thorn-Bulh, becaufethe Holy Head of Jefus was embrued with Blood by that Grown of Thorns wherewith he was crowned.] Kn^FakminM doesconfefs his tyEon vizs without a Figure, until Chrift by his Death upon the Crofs gave him one, and till "now we never read of any that ufed the Figure of the Crofs before him, or made any account.of it. And therefore he it is ffor ought we know) even Fdentiniu., that firll brought it into Reqnell and Reckoning. And who then will fuffer us to fay we borrov; it from the Fathers, and not from him ? See we not theri, that to fay we follow the Fathers in the Crofs, {Valen- tinm the Hefetick'being the firll Devifer of it) we are forced to fly like Etitropm to the very fame San^uary, which we have denied and Ihut up to otheri The Fathers can be no Vizard for a Ceremony which has been abu- fedfince, or what though from the Fathers we take this fign ? This helpeth not till the Fathers ufe be ju{lified,which will never be. He that rea^Cth the Fathers \Vritings will meet indeed with fuch a Chaos., as will make him afraid, (I fay not to fall into it) but even to behold it. Who can brook the Efficacy v^hkhTertullian TbeFleJh is'figned., that the Seal maybe defended. The Neceffity vthkh Cyprian gave 7 o Cije taft min wolt fr letitJlp Dcliate gave it in Baptifra, Vti^i necejfe haptizatum—baftizati fgfio Dommco confumantur, The Fathers call this lign Spirltnaie Signac^on, (to wit) becaule it bringeth the Spirit, for which one place may feme our turn, Sequitur fplrituale Signaculmn^ quia pojf fontem fuperefi lU per- feilio fiat, quando ad invocationem Sacerdos, Spirit tn fan^w infmiduur. And in the opinion of the Fathers the Water of Baptifrn is nothing worth without theCrofs. In the opinion of the Fatheis, the Grofs is the Terror of the Devil, and an impregnable Wall againfc him, fo that they ufed the Grofs themfelves when in any danger. In the - opinion of the Fathers the Grofs iset clavis Paradifi. Laft of all in the opinion of the Fathers, the Grofs is fo neceilary, as that it is to be made, coming and going, fitting and Handing, even ad omnem tnceffiim^ at every Hop j and ad ommm allam^ in every Adion that we do. Andtofhew the Superftition of theCrofs ixova.'TertuUian^ takea View of it, as fet down by the Aathor of the cafe of the Crojs Vpon every motion (faith he) at their going out, and coming in, when they put on their Garmems or Shoes, at the -Bath, or at Meals, when they lighted up their Candles, or went to Bed, whatever almojl they did in any part of their C ottverfation, fill they would even wear out their Foreheads with the Sign of the Crofs. And is not this a fad Story ? yet our Author brings this in Favour of it. Mr. Hooker is brought in as drawing Mx-Goulart as it were by the Hair of the Head, to clear the Fathers from the Superftition of the Crofs, which he doth not, fave in comparifon of the Popilh Merit and Enchantment which afterward crept in. As for the operative Pow- er which they placed in the Oily Crofs, he flatly condemneth them. And whereas it is faid that the Grofs (among Proteftants} coming' after the Water (inBaptifm) is an Acknowledgment of its Subjedi- on to it. My Author anfwers. This ill befeenieth our Mouths, who cannot endure the Papifl; when he makes the fame excufe. The Crofs which Cometh after the Confecration in the Lords Supper belongcth not to it. Weoppofeagainlthim : The Gonfecration doth reach to the whole AdminiHration, whatfoever Sign is adminillred it cannot but (at lealt) in fhew pertain to it. Therefore it is a part of the Sacra- ment, faith the Canon. So all the while the Crofs is within the Cele- bration of Baptifm, it is morally a part thereof: for Example, the Feall came after the worfliipping of the Calf-, yet becaufe it pertain- ed to the Solemnity, the Apoitlc not only counteth itapartof the Idols Service but fuch a principal part as incliideth all the reft that Went before, i Cor. lo. If cancei'tUno: 3!nfaut''Bapt fm.. 71 n thou hall made a Separation, (between the Crofs and the Wa- oraicft; thou haft made a fair hand. This very Separation makcth the to wit) Crofs to be a (Ign of a divers fpecies, and fo by confequent to be an ot{ Addition, which is unlawful: And the matter of this Separation (boafted of; maketh the aftcr-place of the Crofs yet worfe For vvhat though the Crofs and the Water be divers in matter ? So ai^e notliiiij the Bread and the Wine in the Supper, [yet3 they make one Refedi- I'o^Crcli on in. Chrift, and fo grow to be formally one : and fo may thefe icicfoi grow to be one likewife, becaufe they make one invefting into the Intk Church. And doth not the Crofs touch the Water as near as the Wine doth touch the Bread ? The Poftation of the Wine doth not ^tellarjf, prejudice it, therefore the poftponing of the Crofs doth not pre- landing, judice it. As long as the Crofs and the Water four Cro|s and the laevery Popilhj are feen in the fame Solemnity of Baptifm, the Separation is infufficient. Is not Baptifm the Seal of the Heavenly King ? and 'italea can any new print be added to the Seal of a King without Treafon ? -Vfm Do we not cry out upon the Dove, let down of old upon the baptized hiffm for a Sign of Regeneration by the Spirit ? (one of which I faw (faith my Author)at Wickpam not aboliihcd fome 25 Years paft) fure,a Sign lymof in fuch manner determined,with State in Baptifm, wccaneafily prove jwhki to have been abhorred throughout all Ages, however in the particu- irtojs larof the Crofs, the Oyl and fome other Signs, God permitted the ancient Fathers to fail in Heart to bring in (through their overfighc :6jft)ie againft tlieir own general Dodrine; that Apoftacy from the Faith loftk which he foretold. [Thus much concerniug the Crofs as grounded eritaul upon Antiquity, or as coming from the Fathers.3 rePoif. 2. Concerning that Text in £:cf^e/9.4. Our Author faith that lieni, fome of the Authors whom Jerem followed underftocxl this Sign to ronu'cj be fpiritual and not an outward.which is alfo theTenentof 'our Writers: [Dr. sg&ind Martw.2 If. our Oppoftes have ; found out lince the Sign of the outward Crofs in this place, I would' ■Cjgfj they would tell us which way they.came by it ? [and after he has let down varions opinions about altering the form of the Hebrew Cha- ratftersT tells u? out of Buronim^ that Ez.ra never changed the "jjjjgj Hebrew Letters,, that the old ancient Copies of the Hebrew Bibles were many of them remaining in Ezras time, and that they arc all in one Charader, to wit, the old and ancient Chara.ders of the He-" brews. -And that the whole matter is of late brought clearly to - li^ht by Jo-Scal(£er, who writes thus. The old J-Jebrew and Samaritan Letters be all one, and the Letter in neither of them is like a : Crofs, \ &i lOK I'lllOl fird tfw 1 7 2 Clje latt anti molt iftteimi^ Debate Crofs, or the Greek or Roman T. Hierom what he writes of JEzras i altering the old Samaritan 'Tau, he taketk word by word out of Ori- gen, in Romams. was deceived by a Jew, on whofe bare Rela- tion he grounded hirafelf, which Relation was alfo falfe. We muft give the Fathers leave to play, according to their own Plea- fure, not only to fetch the (ign of the Crofs out of this Tau, but alfo out of the two Sticks which the Widow of Sarepta gathered, yea to fetch a Crofs and a T too out of the 300 Souldiers of Gideon, And (as the Author of the Cafe of the Crofs tells us) " They of the ^ Roinifh Church can difcern the Crofs in the Figure of a Mans Faccj by the placing the Nofe betwixt the two Eyes, and much more jn jjjg " the whole Body of Man with his Arms extended : They can dif- " cern it in the Sword inParadife, and in the Crofs Stick that Noah\ " Dove brought back into the Ark. And indeed fome of the Fathers gj, " (faith he) bent their Imaginations fomething that way, and would fancy the Figure of the Crofs in Mofes ftretching out his Arms " while the Ifraelites were fighting with Amaleckj, and in the pafchal Lamb when the Spit went through it. Surely thefe things may liifficiently inform us, that let Men be never fo great, or never fo much reverenced as Fathers, &c. Yet God is no Refpedter of Perfons, but if they will follow their own fancies, and be adding to his Infti- tutions, he will even fmite them with Stupidity, that the Childidi- nefs of the Fathers may appear to very Children •, and that all may fear God, and keep his Commandments, vvithout adding to them, or taking from them, according to Dm. 12. 32. 4. 2. 3. There is a great pretence that Conftantine the great had Diredfi- ijjjj on probably from Heaven to make this fign qf the Crofs in his Banner becaufe he dreamed he faw fuch a fign in the Firmament with ev tStti vl- ^ in hoc vince, [^overcome in this] written in it. To this it is anfwcred^ ipraci 'add tl, itanfl It was not the Sign of the Crofs that appeared, but a fight fome- what like it, to wit,, a mark ofChrill's Name X° P. after this man- ner or as Lyp/iffe upon the view of ancient Copies draws it after another manner more different from the fign of the Crofs, than the for- mer. The former of thefe comethneareft to the Defcription of En/eh:- m, therefore the latter may be fome Imitation of it. But be this Dream or Vifion what it will, we find not that Cenflantine had any Authority to turn it into a Religious Ritual, much lefs to make it confecratory to many Rites in Worfhip, and particularly in Baptifm. Thefe are afrer-lnventions: forwhatfoever Honour hath accrued to the Crofs (fiitb our Author) by this Dream or Vifion, it came either from the Alchy- coiicerrtfnff 3fnfant^aptifm. 7 ? Alchymie of the Bifhops in thofe days who drew a Crofs out of the light which Conftantine faw, or from the Sophiflry of Papilts fince. The Truth is the Vifion which St. faw at his Martyrdom, ■A[ls^. and that which St.-Paul had at hisConverfion, Aiis 9. are not only delivered to us by Divine Tcftimony, but were nothing in- feriour to that of Confiaminewhich whether it were a Dream or a Vifion, is not certain, the Story giving it both ways; yet who fo ab- furd to turn the Vifions of St. and St. PW into Rituals, or to affix them to Ghrift's Ordinances ? When Men do aflume this Liber- ty without Divine Warrant, many Evils do follow upon fuch doings. How much innocent Blood has been fhed about this fign of the Crofs, is not eafily to be eftimated ? and indeed for the fake of this and other fuch Inventions,Chriltians have hated one another with cruel Ha- tred, as late Years have ffiewed. Men more account of thofe Tradi- dns, than of the Word of God by far. We have fcen it with our Eyes. A Man might be a common Drunkard, and yet permitted to preach in the Pulpit. But if he would not ufe the fign of the Grols, and the Surplice, away with him. This kind of Zeal ffiews that it's from beneath, it is not of God. And fo long as thefe things remain, and are forced on by Author!- ty, there will be continual Strife, Contention, and Devouring amongft Chriltians: as it was fo from the Beginning of them, fo it will be to the end of them : becaufe an evil Plant will bring forth ac- cording to its Nature. We have more facred Inllitutions, then we can well obferve. Why do we feek to burthen our fel ves or others, in matters of Religion, with tht Commandments and Dodrines of Men ? all which are to perifli •, and God in Mercy halten the time, that God's People may have but one Hearr,and one Way. Amen. TOST- tf)e ^annec of POSTSCRIPT. SECT. I. Of the Manner of Marriages among the Baptized Believers.^ and that they are warrantable by Go£s Law. , jif SOme of the Baptized Believers having been profecuted as Oifen- . ders, for not conforming to the Ceremonies of the Ring, and ' kneeling to the Altar in the Celebration of Marriage we lliall 'i therefore humbly offer our Reafons why we dilTent from thefe Cere- J monies *, and why alfo our Marriages are good in the Eye of the Law, | (for the Subllante of them) theomiffion of thefe Ceremonies, &c, < notwithftanding. j But firft the Reader is defired to take notice, that we are not a- i gainft, but for the publick Solemnization of Marriage according to the Law of the Land,rave that there arc fome Ceremonies ufed there-^ itt which we cannot comply with. And becaufe fome of the Priefts will not marry us at all, and others will not do it, unlefs we confoim to • all the Ceremonies required in the Sef vice-Book •, this puts us upon a neceflity to have it done without them, and the manner thus: The Parties to be married being qualified for that State of Life, , according to the Law of God,, and the Law of the Land, as to the . Degrees, &c.. therein limited •, They call together a competent num- i b r of their Relations and Friends: And having ufually fome of our . ■ Min ftry prefent with them, the Parties concerned do declare their Gontraft formerly made between Themfelves, and with the Advice, of their Friends, ifOccafion require it ; then taking eachMher by the Hand., do declare. That they from that day forward, during their uatHval Ltves together, do enter mo the State of Marriage, nfing the Words, or the f ibfiarxe of them, which are appointed for the Words of Marriage in the Service^ Book,, (as acknowledging them Words to be very' ft for tUat pttrpofe.) And thai a Wriling if fgned by the Pjtrties man itd, to / amono: ttje OBaptiKH 'BeliePetiS* ; 5 to kee^ in memory the Contra^ and Covenant of their Marriage^ to this Thefe are to tefiify to all Men^ that m A. B. of^ &c. and C. D. of^ 5jC. have^ the day of the Date hereof entred into the Covenant and State of Marriage-, aecoidingto a folemn Contract heretofore made between oar j elves-, and with the Confnt of f.ch as are concern d in order thereitnto : And we do now, in the Pre fence of Almighty God, and the Witnejfes here- after named, ratify the faid Contract and Covenant- AB of Marriage this day verbally made ; in both which we do, in the Fear of God, mmnally and folemnly, and for o:tr Parts refpeltively promife, in the Strength of God, ttrlive together in the State of .Marriage, according to God's Ordinance, from this day forward, to lovreach other as Husband and Wife, and faith- fully to perform all the Duties to which we are bound by God's Law, and the good Laws of the Land, in that Cafe provided, till the Lord by Death ftaU feparate us. In Teflimony whereof we have hereunto Jet our Hands, the day of, &c. Then is annexed a Certificate of the Witnofles, thus: WE whofe Names are fubfcribed, do tejlify. That the above-faid A- B. and C. D. the Day and Tear above-faid, did mutually take each other into the Stare of Marriage, acknowledging the Contrail and Covenant, and ratifying the fame by Word, and by the Subfcriptian thereof as above-faid. In Witnefs whereof, we do hereunto fet our Hands the Day and Tear above-faid. After thefe things, fome fuitable Counfelor Inflrudion is given to the Parties ( but no Man takes upon him the Office to marry any, that being the proper Ad of the Parties tiiemfelves) and then Pray- cr is made to God for his Bleffing upon the Parties married, &c. And now whether Marriages thus made, are juflifiable by the Law of God, is firlt to be confidered. To begin with the Inftitution of Marriage, Gen. i. 23,24. there we find all that is eflential to Marriage : For he that had the right to difpofe of the Woman,' was pleafcd to- bring her and give her to Adam. And Mofes tells us. That they who are thus joined together, are one FU(h ; and are to forfake all other Relations in comparifon of that Relation. The Marriage-Covenant is explained by God himfelf, Afal. 2. 14. She is thy Companion, and Wife of tlsy Covenant, of whkh he himfelf L 2 ' (fays 7^ ilDf tfie fanner of ^atrmgeis C fays the Prophet) had been a Witnefs •• For whoever elft are Wit- , nefles in this Cafe, God is the Principal, and will puniih fuch as. break their Marriage-Covenant. _ And thus it appears, that a Marriage-Covenant between Perlons who may lawfully marry, with Witneft upon it, are the Eflentials - of this Ordinance ; which is yet more evident in the Cafe of Beaz, and Ruth^ Ruth. 4.9, 10,11. And then we may be fure that God appointed no Ceremony in the Inftitution of Marriage ; nor do we find any Ceremony made neceflary to the Celebration of Marriage in the Old and New Tellament j for that paiTzgQ of loofng theShocy 25. 7,9. and Ruth^.'j. pertains not to Marriage, but con- cerns him that refufes to raile up Seed in Jfrael to his deceafed Brother. And as there is no Ceremony ordained, lb there is no one certain Form for the Celebration of Marriage appointed by the Word of^ God i but this feems rather to be left to Liberty, as appears in the' Cafe of Jfaacy Gen. 24.57. and the Marriage of Jacoby Gen. 29.21, 22, 23. and many others. ^ The chief Things to be obferved in Marriage, fince the Earth was replenilhed with Inhabitants, are thefe. That regard be had to RtUgioriy that a Believer. marry not with an Infidel *, that the Perfons to be married, come not mthin the Degrees prohibited in refpedl of fangHinity and jiffinity. That the Conjundion, and Marriage-Cove- nant be between one Man and one Woman; plurality of Wives is ut- terly irreconcileable with the Inftitution of Marriage, and with the Dodrineof th^ Gofpel, asappears A/ but if God make any thing crooked, it cannot he made- hat which he hath not made at all, cannot be mmbred {with r do >" or counted a neceffary fart of them.'} Ecclef. 1.14,15. ^ And feeing no Ceremony in Marriage has been irapofed by the Al- , Jfi'mighty (as in fome other of his Ordinances he has appointed) let no [j 'Man judg one another to be unlawfully married, becaule fome Cere- J ""monies devifed by Men arenot obferved,perhaps it might be as ftrong- ly argued retro. That they who have taken upon them to add fuch their devifed Toys, (as Dr, calls the Popilh Ceremonies) have u^l^not true Marriage. But as the firft is groundlefs, fo this would be ,"'«l'™charitable. I's la tit therefore we deny not but that fome decent Ufages or Cere- ^''monies may be appointed by Authority for the more convenient Ce- , lebration of Marriage, and that the Contempt of them may be juftly Ip corredted, for the Honour of the Power Magiftratical: But then it is . Walfo to be confidered, that as in other Ordinances of God, foalfoin oosto k jhis, jvien, yea Authorities in moft Nations of the World, have grofly ^abufed this Liberty,by ordaining things ridiculous and finful in the fo- , lemnizing of theirNuptial Contradls, as fliall be Ihewed. And there- iTKis&fQre when and where fuch Prophanations are found, it is commenda- ble always, and fometimes neceffary, for fuch as God has enlightened- to fee fuch Corruptions, to endeavour after a modeft and prudent rs to i ujanner, to have all the Ways of God, and particularly this of Mar- •) riage, to have them, I fay, reftored to their Purity, by being purged iof Mr- from fuch things as tend to the Profanation of them. ofMjii, And herein the Learned of the Church of £ng/and are our Prece- )f Marr- dents: for when they came to confider the Popilh Ceremonies ufed in K br- their Marriages, they were fo far from conforming to them, or judg- thofe Marriages to be null which were made without them, that /!< they boldly teftify againftthem, and fome laid down their Lives a- f toix mong the Martyrs in oppofition to the Papifts Opinion and Pradlice in itb or- the cafe of Marriage, as Woodman and Benbridg. This is teftificd by mhl Dr. Willit,Synoff p. 679. And where alfo he labours much to Ihew the dfo Errors of the Papifts, both in their Doftrine and Pradtice concerning Marriage, and their Ceremonies ufed therein, and particularly upon and this ground, Becaufe they made the Celebration of Marriage a Sacra- jaiJ. mental. -f8 Cf)e latu of tfie laito not fiotti irentai or religious Ad, andliad no word of Iiiftitution in the Scrip lures for fo doing. Thktherefore which has been Did concerning the Eflentialsof Mar riage, will (as we conceive) warrant our Marriage-Covenants and .Contrads, to be according to God's Law ^ And tho wedefire and^ ^ endeavour to come as near as wccan to the Cultom of our Nation iajJ,'; the Celebration of Marriage, which we confefs to be of the Nature^ of moral and civil Contrads of the higheft degree, and therefore un- dcr the cognizance of the Power Magiftratical j yet when the Church'jij, of England interpofes with her Power Eccleliaftical, to oblige ustQjjjjt) the obfervance of her Ceremonies, which are not of the Ellence of^ot Marriages, nor, fo far as we can judg, fuch as we cananfwer to Godl^^j nor ad in with the Peace of our own Souls, we are then conftrainedrQ^ as in other cafes, fo in this, to fatisly Our felves in a diligent obfer-^jjjrl vanceof the Rules of God's Law, both for the Subllance and Cele-.-,35 bration of our Nuptial Contrads •, and in fo doing, we fuppofe both.,|;|j the Statute and Civil Law, as well as the Law of Reafon, will at lead fo far favour us, as to vindicate us therein to have all things necedary ..^,, and eflential to the folemn Ordinance of Marriage, which alfo wef ut lliall endeavour to demonftrate in the next Sedion. S E C T. II. The Larv of the t and does not null or make void the Marriages of the Baptized Beliivers, bat does rather ejiablijh them. HAT this alfo is no uncertain Pofition, but a clear Truth, will ^ apjxar, if weconfider, firft. That the chief Grounds or prime Foundations of the Laws of England are clearly for us ^ for thus faith, " ' _ T I 1 '' T a learned Lawyer, The firfl Ground of the Law of England it the Law of Reafon which ' I T% I*' ' J ""y is to be kgft in this Realm as it is in all other Realms^ and as of neceJJTty it L , be ^ and bccaufe it is written in the Hearty therefore it may not be pta , p aivay nor changed; it is never changeable by diverfity of Place nor Time ' and therefore againfi this Law., Prefcription, Statute., nor Cufiom may not v'' prevail: and rf any be brought againfi it, they he not Prefcripthns., St a- ^ tHtes., nor Cujlamts., but Things void dnd againfi Jufke, Dod. & Stud. F' 1. I. C. 5. & c. 2. T*® The €:ije of 15Apt(5^eo 79 intlie^ fecoTidGroiwdof the Larv of Enghnd ii the Law of Cod. And pon thele Grounds (I fiippofe} was that excellent Statute made in tialsof'.ne cafe of Marriage, wherein we ha\ e thefe Words, as they are quo- >venaii[i -d by a learned Manj viz.. That no Refervation or Prohibition (God's edeiire"*'" except) pall trouble or tmpeach any A4Arriag'e.f li Hen.^. c. Synof. p.yii. Of which Statute, Bilhop Hall gives this account, "the.S*^- Statute of 32. Hen.'i. c. 38. intending to marr the Romip l\^^^^ifTarket of gainful and injuriotu Difpenfations, profejfcth to aUow all Marri- DtbeQf" prohibited by God^s Law: and this Law is not yet re- )oi)iji,j ealed. And therefore it lience appears that no Law was then i,5g|^;iought neceflary to the ElTence of Marriage, but the Law of God. fiverto"'nd there be a Provifo in a certain Statute made in the Reign of Uonlfp^' Statute fhall not give Liberty to marry witliout ili'estr^ Ceremonies appointed in the Stervice-Book, yet it does not null Marriages that had been, or that might after be made with the r^^pmiffion of them, or at lead fome of them : for Marriages we know liere hsvebeen, and are frequently made by divers Miniftersof the J, ^''%urch of England.^ without the Banes, and fome other Rites, as well by Licences obtained, which could not be done, if the Intent of '^ ic faid Provifo were to make all Marriages null and void, which are lade without Banes, and all the Rites appointed in the Service- .00k. But left this fhotild be taken for my private Opinion only, I will ere alledgthe Judgment of fuch as are elteemed among the beft learn- din the Law, whether we refpeft the Statute or Civil Law. And i^more confiderable to our purpofe, becaufeV« they are aliedged againfl: the Papiits, by a learned Proteftant, becaufeifi^ they doted more then ordinary upon nuptial Ceremonies. Willit. »opf. p. 713,740. And fo rational and neceflary it is, that the Ceremo- «til< nies appointed either by thePapifts or others, fliould not be efteem-. k.n ed to belong at all to the eflence of Marriage, that Dhrandm., an emi- ififi* nent Papift, tells us, as he is quoted by Dr. IVillst., That there is neither iT any outward Holy Signytor £no Minifter] neceffary in Matrimony befides the i./^' Parties *, for, faith he. Matrimony may be folemniz.ed by a ProBor betweett.Mt Parties that are abfent. So then the Prefence of a Prieft is not of theiAfi^ Eflence of Marriage, feeing it may be celebrated without them, - And which is yet more } Bellarmine., that fo much rennowed Cardi- Jitk nal., is aliedged by the faid Dr. faying, That Marriage being of the Nature of CentraBs.) the Parties themfelves fuffice., and that it may done in their Abftnce. [[meaning ftill, that all Contrails be witncfled.] And here the Words of Mr.Diodate are worthy of RemembranceHiiDpi upon Mai. 2. 15. Did not God in the beginning create Adam alone, outnij^ai of whom he framed Eve to be his iVife, without creating any more Womeiti'dii for one Man, or more Men for otie Woman? jheveing thereby, that as he appointed Matrimony by one only Law Cm which to "be fure there was sen, \ no Ceremonies] of lawful ConjunBion, it likewife ought to he one with one, and two in the fameplejh.' From all which it is apparent that there may be lawful Marriage where there is no Ceremonies, much more without the Ceremonies of the Ring, and bowing at the Altar, and the Ceremonies are not -iitni therefore in any-wife to be made eflential to Marriage, and that the ixk Contrad between two Perfons lawfully qualified for the State of Mar- riage, and their-adual taking each other into the Relation and Cove- jsiol nant of Husband and Wife, before fufficient Witnefs, is eflential, firm, and lawful Marriage, and confequently that the Marriages made amongft the baptized Believers are true Marriages in the Eye of,iii ( the Law of this Land. . jkl And to make this yet more evident, I will conclude this Sedion withtMei^ the united Authority of the late Lord Cheif Juftice f/<»/t/, ,and Burnet, who fully eXprefs themfelves for the Sufficiency of Marriages as made by the prefent Diffenters. And thus the Dodor fpeaks. Hale) Vm very ' editions in declaring their ..Afarria^ ifM hr^ardiag their Childreti^ But hacnnfidered Marriage Mtd f Swcejfion as a right.of iiiatwre-,-from rehlch none ought td be barred.^ what .^1' •' Mifl^e.s foever they might be under in the point of revealed ■Religion ^ ■ aiid I ' ^ therefore in a. Trial that was before him^ when a Qjgaker was faed fir "itf- Debts osping by his Wife before he married her } and the Qu^aker pri- " tended: it was na Marriage that had pafi' between, them, finceit was not- /i- f Ipnni^^d^cording to'the Rules of i the Church of lExigl'a^nd • He declared J wffi- th^ he ,was not ■wiiling on his own Opifiistn to niake their Children Bajittrdsy and' gave DireHiou tothe Jury to find it fpecial^ which they did.—. yHe governed hirnfelf indeed (faith Dr. Burnet) by the Law of the Gofpet., 'jiifiin gj ^oing to others, what he would have others do to him •, and therefore be- 'iilhrkt caufe he would have thought it a Hardfoip, mt without Cruelty., if amongfs iSBOtOljf. fhe'Bapifif all MdtriagOs were hulled., whtckhddnot been,made with, all the ft tlieffl, Ceremonies in the Roman Ritual, fe he applying this to the. cafe .of the Sf^or "wdC; r/fj, Re thought all Marriages made aecordtng to the feveral Pcrfwafionsof 'hitimi ^n., ought to have their EffeBs in Lam. ' 'tftti/ijt- Of how great Value the judgment of this worthy Man is in aD Courts iiiKW; pf judicature, is alfo teftified by thk'learned Dciipr,in thcfe words*, ®OTbrj(, His Opinion in points of! Lam generally ^phffes as an uncantrotdable Antho' fDKk,! rity, and is. often pleaded in all thi Qourti of JuJBice.. Sothatfuchhs f/mih out of a Fancy to fome unneceflary Ceremonies, ivould null all Marfi- agesamoDgft Diflenters, though made as publickly and folemnly as iiretlietu we can, .and ey.ery way agreeable to the Law of. God, and the Rul^ 'tdlit!'.: of Reafon, will fee themfelves-conceraM we;hope, to'be better ad- vifed than to throw Dirt in the feoe\ of ithis great Patriot of t)i^ ffftl.t Law, as if he fhould be a publick Defends of Whoredom •, for fo do [^eiKa! ferae of our .rafh Cereraonialifts efteem and fpeak of all Marriages jiiieiiR!' wherein tlieirCeremonjes are omitted. i afldtk Furthermore *, If in this, or any other Nation, God'? Ordinanp^ teoi.* fliould become, or be reputed to be Nullities •, when in the obferva- iii3D(l& tion of them, the Ceremonies appointed /by the Church (or thofe isdfc that call themfelves fo) are omitted, there could be little cer- : Marfi tainty of a right or clFeftual enjoyment of any of them ; For Bap- jtieEi! tifm. Confirmation, the Lord's Table, Ordination, Excommunica- tion (and whatnot) as well as Marriage, has been, and is incum- ton! bred with fo many of the Ceremonies of Mens deviling, that it's not I, ski eafy to number them, much lefs to obferve them. But yet fuch has Ism been theWifdom of the greateft Cereraonialifts, as to be afraid to fok annul an Ordinance, tho the Ceremonies of the Church were omit- ■ M _ ted. 82 'Baptijrti XeUetjeris ^am'affesi iwt noitr, "^d, and particularly in the Cafe of Baptifm, Ordination, and' Marriages. Do not the Proteftants allow of all thefe among the Papifts, though many Ceremonies be ufed therein which they diffallow ? ( Yea, there is no doubt but both the Church of England^ and the ' Church of would admit the Baptifm of our Children for a valid Baptifm, which was performed upon their perfonai profeffion of. Faith and Repentance, and by Immerfion, and by one whom they «fteem a Lay-man, becaufe nothing is wanting in our Baptifm which pertains to the eflence of the Ordinance, though we rejett all their Rites, Sfonfors, Crojfings^ &c. Ajid therefore by a parity of Rea- fon, our Marriages being warranted by God's Law in all things clfen tial to Marriage, rauft be allowed good and honell Marriages, tho no Prieftnor Ring, wasconcern'din them. > I fay again, Does not the Church of Engiami hold the Ordination received in the Papacy to be valid ? and yet they condemn fome Ce- remonies which theyufein their Ordinations for fuperftitious Vanl- ties i neither do they marry thofe Papifts a fecond time who become Proteftants, but do account their Marriages valid and good i and sikhtt 'His is M A —- • * UAAM OXIVA > U14U yet their Marriages were not celebrated according to the Rites of the Church of England^ nor by their Minifters. And why ? Surely • ..1 .1 T T e ... ^ •' ^ —J WTASJ i becaufe neither the Law of God, nor the Law of the Land, do Tay they are nuH or void. And then fure I am, if they will be but as kindtousastoPapifls, theymuft grant our Marriages to be more juftifiable of the two. For, i. ours is no where condemned by the Law of God, _ nor tte Law of the Land, any more than theirs. And, 2. we bring not in any Roman Rites in the Celebration of our Marriages, as perhaps they do in theirs •, but we keep as near the Law 01 the Land in the Celebration of Marriage as we can, and do undoubtedly keep to the Law of God and right Reafbn therein, as much as any, as has been ihewcd. [God,^ iiiinii 1.'^ (mi libra tea •ipaciii Cffiis ■ mlia rasti SECT. ■jtaii« tW( mkcf imiie jim I ( lion, a,. ^iTalloii Und ti SECT, III. fora7j|. Jfeffioo: Of the moft important Queftion touching the cafe depend- jjoin th ing, 1//-C. Whether it be necejfary that Marriages (bould be wiii celebrated by a Minijler ? and whether they may be valid and tiki lawful without thent ? •yOfRj; '.fgsellii •T^His is the Queftion propounded by that learned and worthy Man \ Bp. in his Book of Refolut.^. whole Anfwer will greatly ftrengthen that which we hare faid refpeding the Law ■Wiaai of God, for thus he fpeaks: oonieQ, It is nomarvcl (faith he) if the Church of Rome (which bold Ma- W Vji,. trimony a Sacrament^ conferring 6race by the very Work^ wrought) require 3 becom an abfolute Neceffityof the Priefts hand in fo holy an AH : but for Hi who "tl' 3!i (though reverently ejleeming that facred Inflitutionyyet) fet it a Key lower^it ■ admits of too much ^efiion^ whether we need to ft and upon the terms of a Minifters Agency in the Performance of that folemn Aciion f So then it 'Mo a is a clear cafe it ieems,unlefs we fall back to the Papifts to make Marri- i Debut j age a Sacrament,there is no abfolute Necelfity to have a Prieft to cele- to bciKE brate Marriage, and confequently it may be done lawfully ( by God's Law at leaft) without them. And aifuredly that Dodrine which tbaiit^ makes a Minifter of God abfolutely neceflary to the Celebration of araoi'if Marriages can in no wife be true, becaufe it is moft unreafonable to pasm impeach all thofe Marriages which all the World over, from the be- an, m ginning to this day, have been celebrated without them : If then all ttmi Nations have all things that are eHentialto Marriage, and yet few Nations have had God's faithful Minifters to celebrate it, it is mani- fell there may be lawful Marriages without a Minifter in all Nations, feeing the Eflentials of Marriage is the fame in all Nations. _ But though the Bilbop be for us thus far, yet he feems to be againft us in that which follows, for thus he writes; That m it 'u requiftta (^even according to the Roman Conftitutians) that he who is entrufted with the cure of our ^uls^ Jhould befides other Witneffes be both prefent and 5£Cl at our domeftick^ContraHs of Matrimony \ fo bythe Laws both of our Church and Kingdom^ it is necejfary he fljould have his hand in the publicle Celebration of them •, there mry then be firm ContraHsy there cannot be lawful Mariagts without Gods Mincers. M 2 But (83 ) 84 ai^^teft'^a^ettfenotneceCat? But (refcrvin^the Honour due to fo grave a Writer) I mnn: an^er.i^'l^ tRus V I. If tlieremay be firm Contrails wTtliouf a Priefi:,cliac is",Coh- tracts made with confent of Parents,^r.and before fufficient Wknefles, and firm, that is, fuch Contracts as cannot lawfully be broken (and lefs ^ than fuch he cannot mean) j then I fee not but that theSubft^nce, or all,that is efieatial to Marriage maybeatained without the-Prielts ''"jjf hand, even in the Judgment'of this learned Bifhop. But 2. Ian- Jwer further, that by the Tefliraonics of divers learned Men, both in the Homan Confbitutions, and the Law of this Land, which we have alledged in the former ^ the Bifhop is miltaken when he fays the Law of this Kingdom does make the Priefts hand fo necefia- ry, that Marriage cannot be lawful without them. Su-re Judg Hale onderltood the Law of the Kingdom, yet he thoagljt a/l Addnia^es made accerding to the fever at Perfwafions of Meti^ ought to have their Ejfe^s in Lavo: and iiideed fliould it be otherwife, that the Papilts and other Diflenters Ihould have their Marriages nulled, which were not celebrated by a Minifter of the Church of England^ it would caufe great Corrfufion in the Land : and again they mull all be prohi- bited Marriage, who are unmarried among the Diflenters, and ex-M''® communicated by the Church of England^ for they pretend they can- dot lawfully marry Pcrfons excommunicated ; and how any Church eomes to afliimc Power to make fuch Laws, we cannot underftand j J' only of this we are fure, neither the Law of GodnorReafon (the prime Foundation of all good Laws) does warrant any Church in fo doing. . '«j«W The Proof which the Bilhop feems molt to reft upon as the Strength ' '*" of his Opinion, is, hecaufe Chriflians do knovo Matrimony to be an Holy T;:?; If Infitution of God himfelf - which he not only ordained, but oBualty eelc hrdted betwixt the firji innocent Pair, and which-being for the Propairation i-,*' 0^ uH I^oly TC^HiTcs ^ Jpcci^l how c^f% voctthl^h utiy Man meet far this Office but the Man of God fet over m in the Lord? 'tlfiPs But fure thefe Premiffes are not at all apt to bear this Conclufion, that mne but a Priefi may celebrate Marriage. The Argument feems more 'ijlf naturally to be deduced thus : God the Father o/Adam, (Luke^.ult.) ,lS!ont who alfo had the right to difpofeofthe Woman,and to give her in Marrtage %k. did ceUhmte Marriage between Adam and Eve. Ergo, The Father m alu thofe who 'have right to difpofe of the Parties to be married, may lawfully ^ celebrate the Marriage, andpray for afpecial BenediSlion-, fee i Cor. 7. 38. And for this we have forme light from the Word of God in other ite'i places (as hasbeen Ihewed): butthatGod's Minifters were either in ftti- totu Soieitun'?fitiatt of cs^arrfoffeisf. 85 aai«! time of the Law, or of the Goipel, concern'd (as God's MiniilerS) Wo: to celebrate Marriages, does not appear from any hintin the Word ■ Knel of God. And certainly had the ApoftJe been of this Bifliop's mind, he would have given us Diredion either by his own Pra^ice, or '"fence,; feme other way, touching this matter; but that any of the Apoftles WPrij^ ever married any body, will never be proved: And though Jefus Was fefe. Ij; at a Wedding and wrought a Miracle there, John 2, yet neither he ^en, I);; nor any of his Diftiples did celebrate the Marriage, ■ and then why '1 whici; may we not in reafon think Marriage may be lawfully celebrated '^n PfheE! without a Prieft? We may be fure that thofe who called Chrill and his iOnecr: Difciples to this Marriage, were fuch as had a love to him, and being lit' in Galilee^ the place where he had been converfant, and where alfo his manner was to perform publick Minifterial Ads (^Luko/^. 14,1*5.) "kvtik. the Perfons tobe marriedy or their Relations, would as foon have de- ttfePajjf fired his Alliltancc in the Celebration of their Marriage, as any other fhici f!p Minifter: but the T ruth is, neither he,nor any of the Priefts were im- I it rai; ploied in that matter that we read of: And hence we may well con- Ibeprolil elude there can be no necefllty to have Marriage celebrated with a csifflAti Prieft •, and then it may lawfully be done without them. And though aiikycs. we grant a Minifter may be as fit, and perhaps more fit than-another aiiyQa Ghriftian, to give good Gounfel to, and pray for the new-married ondsrilair Couple, yet it is apparent the Text, which the Bifiiop feems toalledg Reafoato that purpofe, intends no fuch thing at all, as the place being read, Qmrclli: .will fully demonftrate, i Cor. 7. 39. The Wife is bound by the Law as long as her Husband liveth •' but if her Husband be dead^ flse is at Liberty itbeStrr." marr'ted to whom fie vaill-, only in the Lord. Now the Bifhop infers thus; If all our Marriages muf be (according to the a4pofile''s charge) t&it in the Lord., who fo meet to pronounce God's Ratification of our Mar' ePriMs firtges^ as he who is the profijl'Herald of the Almighty t But the Apoftle mtiiifi ^oes not at all fpeak of the Perfon that muft celebrate Marriage, but inihil/f of the Perfon with whom a Ghriftian may lawfully marry, zs Dio- \Mm an*i others do fitlf expound the place. And though we yield fmix willingly that a Man of God is a fit Perlbn to declare God's Will and rj(,g Authority in the Ratification of our Marriages, yet it follows not at alb that none but a Man of God may be fit to do this, or that none may lawfully do. it but a Herald of the Almighty. But what needs sflJii raany words? The Bifhop anfwcrs the Queftion, where he tells us,; that though the Papifts make it abfolutely neceflary to have a Mi- nifter's hand in the adt of Marriage, yet the Proteftants fetsipaKey lower I, and confefles that it admits of too much qitefiion^ whether we ! ' need tk ... - . 1 B6 a agency ttot iteceirat|) , ^etdto (iandnfontht termt of a Miniftcr^s Agency in the Performance of that folemn ACtion. So then this fblemn Aftion of Marriage may be ^ ^^ done without a Minifter's Agency \ therefore there may oe lawfiil r Marriages without God's Minifters'.this being granted,we acknowledg -, / it very corr.mcndable to have them prefentj if they may be obtained. ^ But now it would be confidered, whether the Perfons to be married rr . may not lawfully be fatisficd that the Perfon whom they imploy in the Celebration of their Marriage, is in their Judgment a lawful f ? Minifter, or Man of God (fuppofirg it neceflary to have fuch a Man to do the Biifinefs.) This Cems rational, and if jTo, 1 doubt there will be a great difficulty in the cafe. And to be plain, though we could -Jl | admit very willingly of the Prayer of a fober and pious Minifter of the Church of England in the Bufinefs of our Nuptials: Yet, when ^ we are required to kneel before one whom we know to be a wicked drunken Perfon, &c. how fhould we adl Faith in his Prayer, when God himfelf tells us. The Prayers of the Wicked are an Abomination to (t'J' him? We may not lafely conform to fuch things though the Laws * of Men do require it. Aud indeed the Bifhop feems to favour us in f fuch a ftrait as this : for he faith. The Laws of Men do not^ ought not^ cannot bind your Confciences as of themfelves •, but if they be jufl^ they bind you in Confcience to Obedience. Now to this we do moft heartily fub- fcribe, only defiring we may have leave to confider vvhatis juft or un- 3^^'™ juft in this cafe, and then we doubt not of our Duty to obey actively what the Law juftly requires, or elfe to fuffer patiently what it impofes. Now though we can find no ground to believe that to celebrate — Marriage is a minifterial aft (though a Minifter may do it) yet we do not refufc the Minifters of the Church of England.^ becaafe fuch, but becaufe they will not ratify our Contrafts unlefs we conform to /.y fuch things as feem to us to be finful (as we fhall Ihew in the next ' i i Seftion.) And if it were a work peculiar to God's Minifters, our Straits in coming to the Priefts would be greater than they are, be- caufe we know God does not allow wicked Men to take his Word into their Mouths, fpecially when they hate to be reformed, Pfal. 50. 16 And befides, we believe and know, we have of thole that more ilcii fully agree with us in matters of Religion, that are Minifters of sFno Chrift. And therefore were Marriage (in the Celebration of it) a pftfei Minifterial Work, we (hould not fail to have it rightly done by them * a but this is notour Perfwafion : though we think as reverently of this -Mi Ordinance as any, yet we believe it moft fit to be teftified before thofe who are appointed by the Laws of the Land, and therefore do % what ta tu Solemnisation of CJ&arriaffe. 8 7 /«■««((! what with a good Confcience we can tahave it fo, but being reje(n:- ■^S^niayl ed (as we have fliewed) we know our Marriages are not therefore nuH j becaufe we have all that is eflential to lawful Marriage, both Jcknowlj in the Eye of the Law of God, and the Law of the Land alio. For )6obtai]i([ thefirft, this Learned Prelate does not deny, whilft he makts not a Minifier Abfolntely nece0ary to the Celebration of Marriage. And the 'Mplo:: Learned Judg Hale grants the fecond, that our Marriages ought to have aiaij their Effect in Lavo. And Durand (a Man well skill'd in the Roman 'Sfuclia^ Conftitutions) tells us, Jhert is no holy Sign., nor no Minifier necejfary in "fjUfer Matrimenyas we have Ihewed. And belides this,it is fully Ihew- c(t ed by this learned Bifliop, that many Chriftians in all Ages have done, 's Mini:, and may lawfully do fome things, tho they be Lay-men., which arc '• Yet, fff moft fitly to be done by fuch as have a Minifterial Authority thereun- oifaificti to, namely, to catechife., defend and propagate theGofpel. ^ch were ifit Origen^ Ariftidesy Hegejippus, and many others y fee his Book hamm-. of Refolut.p. 265. chap. 10. Thofe who called themfelves Catho- 'htkLwi licks in Augufins time, did allow the Baptifm and other facred Ads mamsin pf Donatijls, &c. to be valid. It is ftrange then that the Marria- ges of the prefent DifTenters fhould be made Nullities by the common ijl tlxjliiij Proteftants, who themfelves are efteemed but Diflenters in a Neigh- leartilyfi bour Nation, and therefore their Marriages are. as liable to cenfure isjoilotE;. there as ours are here ^ but thelc are Hardlhips and Cruelties in the beyaflirti Opinion of that learned Lawyer, the late Lord Chief 'ix&iQoHale. ititipK tocdfe oitjyar SEC T. IV. lecanfefc cojforr fjjg j(^ituds d the Church of England concerning Marriage, and the Reafons why the Baptized Believers comply not with iej3rc,ff TTQW gladly we Ihould be to fee an end of all Contention amongfl JnL Chriftians about unneceftary Ceremonies, we have fhewed in 'iaihi- P^*'"dly Epifite, and our late Apology •, wherein alfo we have lofiti i profeffed our earneft Defire for Concord with all that love the Lord ! d Jefus, and naore particularly with the Church of England. But it fthli leems all that we can offer below a full compliance even with the moft [f r ofelefs Ceremonies, is not thought worth the notke of the prefent Clergy, who now do many of them wonderfully exalt themfelves, wbit 88 0ftt)eEitHal0 Of tfje Cljttec!) of England dcfpifin'g fuch as difTcntfrom thernj and that To much the more Qjujjr by hpw much f\:c, feck tothcm for" Peace.'■ ' •< ^ •' • MaFriage-CoYeng^ts VYe cpnfefs are things of that nature and im- (jjf ti portance, that they arc v/orthy the careof the Laws of alThJations; : yf But fu^h hasbeeix,theunhappineTsof the Churches which are National as to' ordain fucli things in order to the Celebratipn of Marriage,' ijjjj; whrchbecdmes a Snare to many ; thisr the ProteftailtsTound true by^ Experience, when under the .Papal Yoke, and therefore have explo-' ded part of rherr Ritual, .whereof we have an account from Dr. Jwori h>, and the manner thus. . ' ' ■ I-. They xoho are.to he joine-d in Matrimony^ rmf be.btejfcd by the Priejf, * 2. Oblatienmufi he made for them in the'Sacrifice of the Mafs. - " i ~ They are covered with a P'ail. ■ - 4. They are couf led together tfith a Ribbon^ partly whice arid partly blew. ■5. The Bride giveth to the Bridegroom a Ri»g^ hallbwed and blef- fed by the Priejl. - ■ ■ 'ful ' -6. The Priejl contmendeth them to God in Prayer. 1 '- y. He admonifieth them to their mutual Duties. Dr. Willit, Synopf p. 713. _ < Now this ufe of the Ring amongft thePapifts is condemned bjl this Learned Dodor of the Church of England., for a fuperflitiom Toy', partly for that it mufff be hallowed by the Prieft • and partly for that the "Man holding the Woman by the Ring., their Fingers a-crofs., fome in- chanting'words., fays hp, are then muttered-., but the words he fees not down. • And now becaufe the .ufe of the '5z«^ in the Church of England, andtfce kneeling at the .Altar, and to the Priefi for h'u Blejfing, are very doubtfulfous, welhallheretakeaviewof theraa'ttef. And, 3 , - I. The Ringmuft belaid upon the Service-Book. '2. The Prieft muft then give the Ring to the Bridegroom. " 3. The Bridegroom muft pUt the Ring upon the fourth Finger of the Woman skft Hand. ? ' . 4. And holding the Woman by that Linger,- muft"fay thefe ftrange Words, With this Ring I theetved: with my Bodp I thee worjhip: it>ith ^3lli all my worldly Goods I thee endow. In tkw Name of the Father, and ef the ^ftnd ' Son, and of the Holy Ghif. ^Amef: • - ■ Nowthefe things, fo far as we are able tonnderftahdfthcm, do look as much like-Superftition, as ai^ ; thing which-the-Proteft^ ^ ; Debtor has to ob|eif,againft the Pc^iilh hfc _of the Ring ■: ^^r' why 'Mit inuft Ring -be iaid npon the Service-eook,-and -fb parf^ through' the ftt tlie CaCe of Sg «tnor«; Priefts hand, before it be fit for the ufe it is to be made of? Cer- tainly the Ring is hereby fuppofed to be made more fit to wed the re and b and this it cannot be, unlefs it be fuppofed to be fandilied, llKatio. nothing of aO this, it feems to be wholly fupeyfluous. And for the Man to fay he weds her (whom he has married fuffi- • ciently before) with that Ring, in the Name of the Father, &c. is fo nd tniE > ^ Sacramental form of Words, as that we are fure none more fo- flareer iemn are appointed to be ufed in Holy Baptifm : nor can any higher imDri: form of Words bedevifed. Had Almighty God appointed this form of Words to be annexed to the nfe of a all Men would and itkhe naight have concluded Marriage among Chriftians to be a Sa- cramcnt as well as Baptifm: but feeing he hath not done it, it feems to us too bold an attempt ^ for any Church to Impofe fuch a Rite or Ceremony in fo great a Name, and therefore in Confciencc we dare not conform to the Church of England in this thing; for it is dange- '' rous to fpeak, a Word, much more to make an Inftitute, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi, winch he hath not commanded. tk Sriiou coafider whence the Ring in Marriage was derived, that wc '' ^ may the better judg of the matter, i. Then it is reckoned among uteri the Heathen Roman Rites in their Marriages, and the manner thus j ^ *0^" of good Wid (they fay) a Ring unto the Woman, artlyfcrd wot to wear upon the next Finger to the littu Finger on the left nfi fo i^*tid, hecaufe unto that Fitter alone proceeded a certain Artery from the \!kk ' ^ste feems to be the Radix or Spring of the Ring inMarri- age, unlefs perhaps it might be before this among the fuperftitious hof&v Jews; for thus we read, iitt are i Wedding'Ring among the Jews had this Infcription, mazal tob, [which the Learned fey, is to wKh good luck] and it was given to the ' Bride-wife: and the Hebrews called the Planet jvipitxr whofe In- fluence they thought to be of great force for Generation. Godwin. Antio. of the Ri^. and Jews. ® ' Now whicb of thefefoever was the Spring-Head, though there fccms to be fomething of S^eritition or Folly in the Bufinefs, yet I /, ^ think an impartial Man niuft needsfay the Ring has attraded more of that kind among the Chriftian Nations, than it had among the Jews ' or Heathens. The fiiort is, Were theRing ufed only as a Civil Cere- y 1 mony, without this feeaningly faored Solemnity, we feould fey no- PJ'L thin^ But for Chriftians to adopt either the Heathen or Jewilh foperftitious Rites into the Service of the Church, and to make ^ ^ the Celebration of them minifterial Ads, is the Bufinefs for the feri- ous and thinking Chriftian to confidcr, N And 90 Of tljcEitiml0 Of t(^C €^tr£{j Of England ^ And afluredly till it turn to the Lord td cnclinetl>e Hearts of lii^ Xjjin People with one accord, po reftore his HoIy^Ordinances-Cand an^pngit g^jTri the reft this dfMarriag^ to theirNaiEe Piiprcy and Simplicity, there ajjeo® will b: continual caufe of Sorrow, Difcontentsand Animoiicies a- l(asjj) mongft Chrittians, and occadon thereby given in all Chriftian Nati, Xjaji; ens-for the more Carnal and Ceremonious, to perfecute the more fpi- y ^^ii ritual and lerious fort of Cbriftiaps. And the grave Author of'the the firft part of the naked Truth ,(hot that of' Mr. ^/.) makes thole without doubt to be always the vyeakeft and moftcarnal, who Hand lb much for Ceremonies; and fpeakingof the he makes it (in |jj[3or refpeft-of himfelf) as a thing of meer Indifferency, to be married with or without it. And were it left to that Liberty', we Ihould not c much complainbut alas 'tis made fo neceflary that we cannot be married by a Pritft without ib,' ' ' "■ jtJjoi 2, We cannot underftand how to worftiip our Wives, yet we caa j)tOj underftand St. Pml^ where he bids us give them Honour as the maker Vejfel. I'o vpor^iif any^ Creature in the Name of the Father^ Son^ and A/o- ly Ghofiy is very fufpieious y" but I fay, to worfhip our Wives thus, is a thing we underftand not. ' This feems tp be borrowed from the forementioned Jews, who Jhfter in fuchefteem Forthe fame Antiquerift ttll us, that the Words of their Dowry-Bill ran thus, £e. thou unto me a Wife according to the Lave of Mofes and Ifrael, and I ac- cording to the Word of God will veorfhif^ honour^ maintain and govern thee^ &c. But where the Word* of God obliges a Man to worfhip his Wife, is-yet unrevealed to us. Thereis indeed a Civft'Worfhip' due to our Superiourb or Perfons of great Worth, Luki 14.12. But 7.b5j the Law of God and Nature has made the Man fuperiour in Marri- r- u age, and why arc we to unman our felves to gratify a Ceremony ? „ In all' that I have written I defign nothing againft the Church of England^ whom I unfainedly honour, as I do all that heartily love Jelus Chrift, as Charity cpmmands me to believe fhedoth s yet Jet "aJ me freely fay, that the Sign of the Crofsm Baptifm (though certainly. ' an Errour, becaufe added to a facred Inftituteof Chrift, without 1 any Allowance from his Word, yet) is much more excufable than this Sign of the Ring. For if we confider their Original, the Crofs was, • ufed in Defence of bis Honour who died upon p Crofs, and in oppo-., jition to the Blafphemy both of Jews and Heathens. But the Ring. was borrowed from the fuperftitious Rites both of Jews and Hea-^ thens, and fp more unfit for any Service among Chriftians. Again, m t&e cafe of ^^arn'ap* x 91 )fjj Again* The Crofs is not fo highly honoured in Baptifm, as the ^naji.'l.ing is in Marriage for the Crofs is not made or ufid in the Name [[.jrPf the Trinity, as we fee the Ring is. Moreover, the Sign of the Crofs jjjl ^ay be omitted fometimes, even by the Laws of the Church of Ettg- (as in private Baptifm) but the Ring is not fo." That Baptifm rj fJs not doubted to be valid, which wants only the Sign of the Crofs, jg'^'but (according to feme of our prefent Clergy) the Ring mull be Jljjjone, or elfe they will not celebrate Marriage, and if it be done with- jCjjj'Gut the Rign, will almoll; condemn it for no Marriage at all. But jj.'^'fure it is not in the Power of any Church to make Laws, Ordinan- Tes, Rites or Ceremonies, fo neceilary to this Ordinance of God (I mean Marriage) as that the Omilfion of them fliould null God's Ordinance, or put a Bar againlt Mens having the Benefit of that Or- "'diaance, which both the Law of God and Nature allows them. Hath not the Church often been not only the lealt, but alfo a per- f'fecuted People in a Nation, and may be lb again ^ how then can it pertain to her to make Laws in cafes which concern Men as Men, and .'^'all Men in a Nation as much as any ? and in which Ihe is bound to ob- ferve the Laws of thefe Nations (lb far as Ihe may do it without ',jSin) rather thanprefcribe (unlef to teach the Law of God to them) what Ceremonies they mult ufe in their Nuptial Cdebrations. But forafmuch as Marriages are the Foundation of Families, and I ':that upon the Legality whereof the Good of Pollerity does ranch depend, we therefore conclude, this unlverfal Ordinance of God is ""'iJ under the Cognizance of the Magiftrate, whofe care is to lee that no- * thing be done herein againlt the Law of God, right Reafon and '*;■ common Honelly, but that all Violation of thefe rules of Govern- ment Ihould be correfted, and the contrary encouraged. And here- "1; in we chearfully fubmit our felves to their Majellies,and to all that are in Authority as in Duty bound, moll humbly intreating that fome prudent care may be taken by our Superiours that whatfoever is grie- vious herein may be removed. 3X - vte • 33 if F I N 1 S. 1' ''J'r'ft' f]: 'iSti "'" ■ ■••■ - ■ ■ .-■--." ■ f- ' , , . t '■>■: ^ ^ .j ^ .,f J: ■ ■ . , - •, i: 7'^ ■ ' ■■ ■'-r ' ■ ■"•!.. v-ir?:: : i4 ; V.;. « \ - i -jr SA-'o •.i#iff' ^ >.«if (.V.-'-7; '■• ^ - - . i...-* • • - " .• '-- V ... \ ^-- r *1 f ' ^ f- ifi - '■ "•' . ' ■ ^ ft, ■*h'r - - - ^ ■ ■■">'"V t'ffi!! : JjL' i • .. V; J„.cv . -- ;: , -: ■■■ -• .■"^P .: •• . ■ i./% i,"'! . - •• . -i'lri' ■ -'«?, . • . . L 1 ^ .-v., . :. ■: 7/^ - H?- ■ . ■ -. - T. : f •J — /'' ... ^ .; i C ^ fflf'i'fi I ..y--f - ■ ' '■'•i'l - - •?•- f' • .■ " r^.J . K-' ■*> , , .Tjl ' 7^ ^-'-ii-.K iU .'O '^"- ;.'" • 'J-".' ^ P&liil r ■'-■■ 'J -/r _ : , . ; .? ■. • ' . -7 ~ -./S I'*'' ' ;■■ > ''"li-^'"-■^^1 ■ • V ■*' ' ■ ' . - .. .''v"--. 1, 7 ■ '0y :v.>-^----\.--. v ... •■'.-7, - - , ■ ■ Hr IV ■•••, 1 ■ ' >'...• • • »,• •"■■ '"•■- •*• ''■■■' " ^ . ' . ■■' . .- • *1^ ■ ■■ •.' - 1'"*." - ;>..;■ - .'. ;.. •'7-''j^' " ..' - •,-K' ■ P.C'- I"'^sfe' * ',' - ' '' \'-S- ■-:'''■ "■-i~:f':l'. ' - - ':r' - ■ . JBMIJIIJJ , IJl