A letter of resolution to six quæres, of present use in the Church of England. By Henry Hammond D.D.

OF Resolving Controversies , &c.

The first Quaere . Concerning the way of Resolving those Controversies which are not so clearly stated and resolved in the Scriptures .

FOr the answering of this first Quaere , I shall need but to demand this one thing , ( which will , if not granted , be easily demonstrated ( and the Contradictory to it appear to be little less then Blasphemy ) that whatever hath been delivered by God , is equally of infallible truth : and , if a Precept of infallible obligation to those , to whom it is given , whatever hath been the method to deliver it , whether by the Dictates of Nature , or by Voyce from Heaven , or by Writing with the finger of God in Tables , &c. And consequently that the onely thing required to secure our faith , that it be not placed on a fallible , in stead of an infallible object , is the assurance which we have , that the thing proposed came from God , and not the particularity of the way , or sort of the conveyance .

For the illustrating of which , it may be expedient to recount the several wayes , that men have had of receiving things from God . These , beside that of the law of Nature , the Jews have reduced to four heads , the Voyce from heaven , the Urim and Thummim , the holy Spirit , and Prophesie .

To begin with that of the law of Nature . It is the known style of that , Of the Law of Nature . to be {αβγδ} an unwritten law , put in mans heart by God at the first creation , ( {αβγδ} Reason , which is by nature a law , saith Arrianus Didymus , {αβγδ} , planted in the essence of every reasonable nature , saith Hierocles on the Golden verses ) and so , as the Apostle saith in another case , graven in the fleshly tables of mens hearts , not {αβγδ} in any tables of stone or wood &c. 2 Cor . 3.3 . And of these I suppose there is no question , but that as it is in some measure delivered downe from man to man with his very soul by traduction , so the infallibility of Gods speaking by this inarticulate voyce ( this {αβγδ} , as Lib . Pej●rem insidiari meliori . Philo calls it , this man which dwells in every soul , and that man ad Agricult . {αβγδ} , a prime commander within us , {αβγδ} , a guardian Angel , that will not permit us to be wholly ignorant of our duty , nor to transgress it without some admonition and check , nay , saith Theophilus , {αβγδ} , Ad Autol . the onely God of those Atheists , which acknowledge no other Deity , and the certainty of the obligation of it upon all mankinde , even upon those that have no eyes to see any other engrossing of it , nor ears to hear it proclaimed or promulgated more articulately , is as great and irrefragable , as any other written Revelation or image of Gods Will of any other kinde , or of this it self , when it was afterward , in several branches , committed to Books or Tables . For if the writing of the several branches of this in the Tables of the Mosaick Law , were that one Necessary , which satisfied men of the obligation to observe it ; then 1. they that lived before that time of writing it , must have wanted the means of satisfaction : and 2. the obligation must have equally extended to all , that was thus written , and so to every circumstance of the Judaical Sabbath , as well as to the acknowledgement of the one God , &c. Nor can this obligatoriness be assigned by us to any former supposeable writing of it in Adams or Noahs time , it being uncertain to us now , whether there were ever any such so anciently written , much more whether what was written , was , as the Tables of the Law , by the finger of God , or such as could truly pretend to his appointment : It being very probable , that what was before Moses written in that kinde , was written by men on their own suggestions and choice , whether as conclusions , and deductions from the Law of Nature , or whether as transcripts of Positive Laws given to the Fathers by God , which were thus thought fit to be conserved by their posterity , but neither of these by Gods immediate appointment , or inspiration , or command for the writing of them . To which it is necessarily consequent , that the obligation of such Law was praecedaneous to such writing , and did not follow it , or depend upon it .

Next then for the first of the Jewish wayes of Revelation , Of the voice from heaven . the Voyce from heaven , styled by them {αβγδ} the daughter of a Sound , whether a Wind , or Thunder , which used to usher it in ; 't is certain that in the former ages of the world , God commonly declared his Will by this means , or , which is all one , by appearances of Angels signally and irrefragably testified to be such . Thus did he to Adam , {αβγδ} , saith Aquila , in the wind of the day , most probably in a rushing wind , as to Elias , 1 King . 19.11 . & Act. 2.2 . And in some like manner to Noah , to Abraham , to Moses , &c. And what hath been thus spoken by God , hath been by the Writers of the Old Testament thus far only mentioned unto us , that God did thus reveal his Will to them , and speak divers things , of which onely some few , not all , are recorded by them .

Of which notwithstanding it is 1. unquestionably true , that those that are not recorded , were as truly delivered by God , as those that are : Those that are recorded , having been delivered many years before they were recorded , and nothing differing ( in respect of their coming from God ) now that they are , from what they were when they were not recorded . In like manner , as of the Acts of any Emperor , it is evident , that they were as truly done by him , when there was no diary kept , nor Commentaries or Story written of them , or before either of those were actually engrossed , as now they are known to be , after the writing or engrossing of them .

And 2. that those that were not recorded , were as obligatory to those to whom they were given , as if they had been written in Tables or Books , or ingraven on Pillars , and so delivered to them . Thus 't is evident in the instance of the forbidden fruit , a prohibition given by voyce from heaven , without the help of writing or engraving , and yet obliging so severely , that all the death that hath involved Adam , and all his posterity ever since , hath been acknowledgedly the punishment of that transgression of a particular , personal , positive , unwritten Law .

And as that Law was given to Adam personally , The laws to the Sons of Adam . so the Jews with one consent tell us there were six heads of Laws given to his sons , the first {αβγδ} , Of strange Worship , or renouncing all manner of false worship : the second , {αβγδ} , Of the benediction of the Name , i.e. adoring , praying to , and praising the true God : the third , {αβγδ} , Of Judgements , erecting of Magistrates , and requiring administration of Justice : the fourth , {αβγδ} , Of disclosing Nakednesses , setting bounds to lusts , and prohibiting Mariages within such degrees of propinquity : the fifth , {αβγδ} , Of shedding blood , or against homicide : the sixth , {αβγδ} , Of These or Rapine , and of doing to all , as they would be done to by others . And of these Laws it appears not to us , that they were ever given to them in writing ; or if they were , that sure was onely as a memorative to preserve , not as an instrument to give an obligingness to them .

And when beside these substantial precepts , And of Noah . there was in the repeating the fifth of them ( that against Murther ) an additional mound cast up , or hedge set , a Ceremony prescribed to Noah and his sons , on purpose to deterre them from this sin , and keep them at a full distance from it : But flesh with the life thereof , i.e. the blood thereof , shall you not eat , Gen. 9.4 . ( In like manner as afterwards to Abraham , And of Abraham . for the fortifying them against all the assaults of the lusts of the flesh , so abominably indulged to by the corrupt world , the Ceremony of Circumcision was instituted ) And this , and the six former dispersed and scattered among the heathen , so that Phocylides gives us a touch of them , {αβγδ} , Not to eat blood , and to abstain from the Idol-sacrifices , yet were none of these committed to writing in a long while after , and consequently had no part of their obligingness from Scripture .

Thus again in the Story of Moses being with God in the mount , 't is evident , The Ten Commandments . that the Ten Commandments , Exod . 20. together with many other Precepts , c . 21 , &c. ( less weighty in respect of the matter of them ) were together delivered by God , but at that time none of them written ; and that afterwards , when the former part was graven in Tables ( ten Chapters after , c . 31 , 18. ) and delivered to Moses in that form , to be brought down by him , and the latter also , in process of time , written by Moses in those Books which are called by his Name : yet this graving , or that writing , was but subsequent still , and so extrinsick and accidentall to the delivering of them .

And thus also in the times of the New Testament , The New Testament . beside Gods speaking to Christ , and testifying of him from heaven , and the condescension and presence of that {αβγδ} , the eternal Word of God among us , we know that by word of mouth he revealed his Fathers Will unto men in long continued discourses and sermons , in occasional speeches , and answers , and parables , making them his continual task for three years or four together ; none of which were , till after his Resurrection some years , set down in writing : and then so small a part of what was in all that space delivered by him , that S. John cannot express the proportion betwixt the number of the things said and done by him , which were committed to writing , and those which were not , in any calmer style , then of [ I suppose the whole world would not contain the books that would be written , Joh . 21.25 .

The second way of revealing the Will of God , The Urim and Thummim . was among the Jews called {αβγδ} the Pectoral of the High-Priest , wherein , say the learned of the Jews , there were so many words written ( the names of Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob , and the twelve Tribes , with this addition , {αβγδ} All these are the Tribes of Israel ) as contained in them all the letters of the Alphabet , and by the prominency and shining of those letters , the responses were received , and communicated to the people . And all these were certainly the responses , or Oracles of God , and are so called Rom. 3.2 . though very few of them are at all communicated to posterity by writing . And for those that are ( as the response to David about the men of Keilah , &c. ) they continued some competent time unwritten , before they were so communicated .

A third way there was known among them by the title of {αβγδ} the holy Spirit : The holy Spirit . which is thus defined by them : that a man being awake and in his full senses , speaks and acts like another man , but the Spirit of God ( Spiritus excelsus ) ex●ites him , and suggests unto him words , that he shall say . According to that of S. Peter , 2 Ep. 1.20 , 21. that Prophesie is not {αβγδ} , of the mans own incitation , or motion , ( or starting , and letting loose , as it were ) but men of God spake {αβγδ} , acted , o● carried by the holy Ghost . Whereas the ordinary , secret working of the Spirit , is but illumination of the understanding , and guidance of the affections in the known wayes of God , revealed to all the men of God . Prophets and the like , were extraordinarily moved and carried by this Spirit , and spake as they were thus incited by God . Answerable to this is , under the New Testament , the holy Ghost , not onely descending visibly upon the Apostles ( as before on Christ ) and teaching them all things belonging to their Office , but the same Spirit , by some miraculous gifts , evidencing it self in others , without that visible descent , as in those on whom {αβγδ} , The holy Ghost fell , Act. 10.44 . and they spake with tongues , &c. and of whom 't is said , that by imposition of the Apostles hands they received the holy Ghost , Act. 8.17 . And certainly many things have thus been spoken by , or from the holy Ghost , which were never registred by the pen of any , and many more , which never came to our hands as such .

Their last way was that of {αβγδ} Prophecy , Prophecie . and that of two sorts , Joel 2.28 . in time of sleep ( {αβγδ} , by dream ) or waking ( but being cast into a trance or extasie ) by way of vision . And many of both these sorts are not mentioned , but referred to , both in the Old and New Testament , especially that {αβγδ} , abundance of Revelations afforded to S. Paul , 2 Cor . 12.7 . of which there is little more recorded to us in Scripture , then that there were such .

Of the many matters made known to men by all these means , this one thing will be generally observable , that the books of the Old and New Testament were never meant by God to be so full and ample Registers of all facts or stories , as that in them all these should be recorded . A truth which ( to omit all other wayes of evidencing it ) may appear by Scripture it self , there being many things intimated and referred to in Scripture , as known and acknowledged among men , which yet are no where else set down in Scripture , but where they are thus obscurely touched and intimated .

And thus those Precepts forementioned of the Sons of Adam and Noah , which are no where so much as historically set down in the Old Testament , ( save onely that of not eating of blood , Gen. 9. ) are referred to , Act. 15.20 . but that so obscurely , that were it not for the Traditions of the Jews , ( their writings which were never in the Canon of the Scripture among them or us ) we , The Canon of the Councel at Jerusa●em . that are now so removed from those nations and times , should never know to what that reference belonged ; But by comparing of this with them , and with that breviate of them in Phocylides , ( which , though it named but two , abstinence from blood , and Idol-sacrifices , was an intimation , and reference to the rest of them ) we have a clear view of the whole matter , and of the reason of that part of the Apostles decree in that place , if that were not too long to be here insisted on .

So when the Author to the Hebrews mentions it as an act of faith in Moses's parents , that they hid their childe , because they saw him fair , Heb . 11.23 . or , as Philo , De vit Mos . {αβγδ} , a greater beauty , or majesty of countenance then could belong to an ordinary person , we have reason to conclude , that there had been some Revelation , ( a foundation of that faith ) that a deliverer should about that time be born to them . And by S. Steven we are clearly told , Act. 7.25 . that it was early revealed to Moses himself , that he was to be that deliverer , He supposed that his brethren would ( at that time ) have understood , Moses a deliverer . how that God by his hand would deliver them ; and yet neither of these revelations is set down in the story of this matter in the Old Testament , but must be conceived to have come to S. Steven , and the Author of that Epistle , by the same , or the like Tradition , by which he knew that Moses was skilled in all the wisdome of the Aegyptians , His skill . Act. 7.22 . and that he was forty years old , at that point of the story , when he went to visit his brethren , v. 23. ( which is not to be found Exod . 2. or any where else in the Old Testament , but is in the Jewish Records . See Midrasch Rabba Beresith ) or by which S. Paul knew the names of the chief Magicians ( not named in Exodus ) to be Jannes and Jambres , The Magicians na●es . 2 Tim . 3.8 . viz. out of the Cabala , or Tradition of the Jews ( as we now finde in the Chaldee Paraphrase of Jonathan , Exod . 7.11 . and 1.15 . that they are said to be Princes , or chief of the Magicians ; and in the Talmud are called Jochanne and Mambre : and in the life of Moses , Jane and Mamre , and in Tanchuma , Jonos and Jombros ) and not out of any part of Holy Writ : Or by which S. James had learnt , that it was by Elias's prayers , that the drought was brought , and continued for the space of three years and six moneths , and then removed from the land , Jam . 5.17 , 18. which is not to be found in the History , any otherwise , then that there should be no rain for these years , but according to his word , 1 King . 17.1 .

So though it be certain that Baptism was instituted by Christ , Baptism . and his Disciples very early appointed to receive believers or Proselytes after that manner , and consequently in John Baptist's time it is said , that Christs disciples baptized more then he , whose title it was to be the Baptist ; yet is not the story of that institution set down , either at the sending out of the Disciples , Mat . 10. or elswhere , till , at his departing from the world , the Commission is enlarged to all Nations , and the form particularly prescribed , In the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the holy Ghost , Mat . 28.19 . which is rather an evidence that it was before instituted , then the history of the institution . And the like might be said of Confirmation , Confirmation . the practise of which we finde in some places , ( and the Ceremony used in it , Imposition of hands , in others ) but the Institution of it we do not finde in the New Testament .

And the reason of these , whether Omissions , The reason why some things are not set down clear in Scripture . or Obscurities of Intimations , is clear , and may here fitly be mentioned . before we proceed any farther . Because in those times wherein ( and among those , for whose present use ) the Scriptures of the New Testament were written , these things were already so exactly known in their Originals , and in all other circumstances of them , that any larger description of them was perfectly superfluous , some things being instituted in their times , other by known Records delivered , and by daily discourse or practise made familiar to them . Thus in Christs first Sermon to his Disciples , there was no necessity that he should command them the observation of those three great parts of Religion , Alms giving , Prayer , and Fasting , being all of them by Jewish Laws and Usages sufficiently known among them . And therefore when Mat . 6. he gives rules for the regulating the circumstances of these , he doth rather suppose them already practised among his Auditors , then give any Commands for the practise of them , When thou dost alms , v. 3. When ye pray , v. 7. and , When ye fast , v. 16. And then if this acknowledgedness of such particulars , was the reason of making no larger , or clearer mention of them , how unreasonable would it be from that Negative argument of their not being expresly mentioned in Scripture , to prove that they were not Instituted , or to make doubt or question of the institution of them . And whereas it may probably be replied , that the Scriptures were written for our instruction , and not onely for them in whose age they were written , the answer will be most satisfactory , that although it be with all thankfulness to God acknowledged to be so , in respect of those things which are largely set down in Scripture , and even of those , in some degree , which are not , but onely intimated and referred to there , yet that mercy of Gods is not lessened to us , but improved by the addition of this other , that for those things , which are not at large set down there ( and so may usefully be explained to those , that at this distance are not able to read that darker character ) the same God hath graciously provided a competent supply by those Records of Primitive and pure Antiquity , that are by the good hand of Providence happily preserved to us .

What hath been thus instanced in Baptism and Confirmation , will on occasion of the subsequent Quaeres be farther exemplified . Mean while it is evident , that not onely the Nazaren Gospel , The Nazaren Gospel . which is not admitted into the Canon , doth yet record to us many speeches of Christs , which we finde not in our Gospels ( as that excellent one of , Nunquam laeti sitis , nisi cum fratres in charitate videritis , that his disciples should never be merry , but when they saw the brethren live lovingly together , and some other the like , of the truth of which there is little reason to doubt , though we have no Canonical Writer to testifie them ) but even the Gospels themselves record each of them many things ( but especially that of S. John ) which are not set down by the rest , and is more to our present purpose ) S. Paul sets down in the Acts a speech used by Christ , when he was here on earth ( viz. that It is more blessed to give , then to receive ) which in none of the four stories of Christ had been recorded , and probably had been lost , certainly had not come to us on such Authority Apostolical , had not S. Paul incidentally made use of it , and accommodated it to his purpose .

So Christs tears upon the Cross Christs tears on the Cross . are by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews distinctly mentioned , Heb . 5.7 . and by their conjunction with the strong cryes , ( or his crying with a loud voice , Mat . 27.50 . Mar. 15.37 . Luk . 23.26 . ) determined to the particular time , in which they were shed , viz : when he delivered those words [ Father , into thy hands I commend my spirit . ] And yet in all the four Gospels there is no mention of them .

So the appearance of Christ to S. James Christ appearance to James . after his resurrection , being not mentioned by the Evangelists , is yet related by S. Paul , 1 Cor . 15.7 . And although to the work of his conversion , and the Gospel which he was appointed to preach , and the Commission which he had thereto , he truly affirmeth , that he neither received it , nor was taught it by man , Gal. 1.12 . yet there is no reason to doubt , but that such particulars as these , might be communicated to him by them which had knowledge of them , and not be parts of Christs immediate Revelations to him .

So again of the Apostles , The Apostles . whose preachings , and doctrines , and institutions are so owned by Christ himself ( by the Commission he gave them , Joh . 20.21 . and by the Spirit he promised them , which should lead them into all truth , and by his interpreting mens hearing and receiving of them , to be the hearing and receiving of Christ himself ) that what is truly Apostolical , is immediately , and by necessary consequence , divine and infallible also , these things will , to this present purpose , be observable , 1. That there is no authentick or Canonical Record of their Their Preachings . journeyings , and practises , and institutions , and words , ( excepting those passages which of S. Paul are incidentally mentioned in his Epistles ) but what the story of the Acts hath furnished us with : which also is chiefly spent on S. Pauls ( and that onely on the former part of his ) Apostolacy , reaching no farther then his first coming to Rome ( and for that which is said of S. Peter , 't is far from being the thousandth part of what is reasonable to suppose of so zealous an Apostle , in the space of so many years , as he survived Christ . ) 2. That it cannot be imagined , but that the other eleven Apostles which took their several provinces , and planted the faith by themselves , or their proxies , over all the world , did or spake many things , of which there is no account to be expected ; but what must be received from other Writings then those which are taken in by the Church to the Canon of Scripture .

And for the Epistles , Their Epistles . 3. That 't is evident that most of S. Pauls ( all but that to the Romans , Ro . 1.10 , 11 , 13. and c . 15.22 , 23. and that to the Colossians , Col. 2.1 . ) suppose the whole Church or Churches ( for the most part , the whole province , consisting of many Episcopal Sees ) to which they were written , to have been formerly planted by him , and after that plantation , false teachers and hereticks to have crept in , which generally occasioned his second journeys ; and , in the mean while to supply that defect , his monitory Epistles to them .

4. That before all this could be done , 't is necessary many things should be said and done by that Apostle , which will amount to a far larger series of story in each of those Churches ; then the Book of his Acts ( or rather of his sufferings ) in all those Churches , sets down in all of them . And as those Epistles relate to many other passages of story , for which we have no other evidence from Scripture , but those obscure references , so is it necessary we should borrow from other Writings the fuller understanding of those intimations , or el●e remain in some degree ignorant of them .

One thing it will not be amiss here to adde , in stead of many , that although we finde by many passages in the Epistles , that there was a form of sound words , Form of sound words a number of special doctrines , which were by all the Apostles consent to be maintained and preached in all their journeyings and plantations , {αβγδ} , one faith or summary of things to be believed , Eph. 4.5 . {αβγδ} , the faith once , or at once , or altogether ( or , as the {αβγδ} may signifie {αβγδ} , at first ) delivered to the Saints , Jude 3. {αβγδ} , a short breviary of wholesome words , or orthodox doctrine , 2 Tim . 1.13 . {αβγδ} , a good depositum , or trust , delivered by the Apostles to others , v. 14. and in like manner a Rule for rites and practises more extrinsecal , institutions and ordinances , the same in all Churches ( though in some few things of lower nature , according to the different tempers of the places , some variety be observable : ) Yet what all these doctrines , or these customes were , is no where set down , either in the story of the Acts , or in any of the Epistles , save onely as they lye dispersed in several corners , and from the preachings of the Apostles by the Records of the first times ( which never pretended to be inspired ) are put together and interpreted to us . In which respect it is , that the pure and Primitive Church of Ephesus ( and , by analogie with that , any other particular Church , and all succeeding ages of it , as far as they adhere to , and accord with that ) is styled the pillar and basis of truth , 1 Tim . 3.15 . i . e . ( by the figure {αβγδ} ) a pillar firmly set upon its basis ( such as customarily their houses were built on , Jud . 16.26 . ) and the truth of the Gospel ( deposited by the Apostles , and kept in each Church by the fidelity of the Bishops there , Timothy , &c. ) said to be held up firmly by this pillar , supported and sustained by it .

Having thus far touched on some few of the many evidences , which are ready to demonstrate and testifie this truth , that God hath done and spoken by himself , by his Prophets and Apostles , many things in all times which are not , nor can be supposed to be at large set down in the Scriptures either of the Old or New Testament , that which is behinde will be easily reducible to these three Propositions .

First , that the Authority of the Canon of Scripture , The first Proposition or the first ground of beleiving it to contain ( what with all reverence it is by all Christians most justly beleived to do ) the word and will of God , Of is taken from the authentick testimony of the Christian Church of the first ages , the Authority of the Canon of Scripture . and not from any other wayes of probation ( one or more ) abstracted from this , or not superstructed on it . Two parts there are of this Proposition , an Affirmative and a Negative .

First , I say , the Canon of Scripture is taken from the Authority and Testimony of the Church : Proved in both parts , the Affirmative , And if there were any need of confirming this , this one argument ad homines were sufficient , That the Canon of Scriptures , as it now stands in all the Reformed Churches , and as they differ from the Romanists in the assigning of the Books Canonical and Apocryphal , was certainly agreed on by the Governors of the several Churches at the Reformation , not from any other more particular reason or motive , but from the affirmations of the Ancients , that these , which we now call Canonical books , were , as such , delivered them down by their Fathers ; and that the Apocryphal , with some note of distinction , were in like manner transmitted by them , as useful to be read in the Church , and so placed not among Divine , but Ecclesiastical Writings . The words of S. Jerom and of Ruffinus , are ordinarily known to this purpose , of the one , Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt : and , Haec nobis à Patribus tradita , These are the writings which the Fathers have concluded within the Canon , these are delivered to us by the Fathers . And then a Catalogue set down exactly concordant to what the Reformed Churches uniformly receive at this day . And of the other , Hos quidem Ecclesia legit , sed inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit , These the Church reades , but receives not among Canonical , and alii non Canonici , sed Ecclesiastici à majoribus appellati sunt , Others have been called by our ancestors Ecclesiastical , not Canonical , adding an enumeration of all those , which we call Apocryphal . And this is so evidently the way of determining , used by the Reformed Churches , that it is not imaginable , to what other motive it can be imputed , that we all have pitcht exactly on the same Canon . And truly if the Testimony of the Church ( or Bishops of Asia , I suppose , upon whose entreaty Eusebius tells us , he wrote his Gospel ) annext to the Gospel of S. John [ We know that his testimony is true ] was of so much authority , as to be thought meet to have a place in the holy Canon , Joh . 21.24 . we shall have little reason to envy the whole Primitive Church of Christ that honour , and dignity of being the Conservatory of our Records in this matter .

Secondly , as the Canon is confessedly received from this authentick Testimony of the Christian Church , so it is not , The Negative . nor can it be imagined to be taken from any other way of probation .

Not from the private spirit , 1. Not from the private spirit . from any perswasion in , or of mine own breast , giving me that assurance of it : For that being confined personally to me , or the like , cannot be supposed of so much validity , as the more universal spirit , and the perswasion and testification of the whole Church . This being so much a weaker , as it is a more particular way of probation : And such as it is , it cannot miss being confuted , as soon as ever it is produced . The spirit of the illiterate , though pious man , being no more able to give that testimony of any verse of Scripture in the original , when it were read to him , then of any period in any heathen Greek , or Arabick Author ; nor the spirit of the most learned able to distinguish betwixt the latter part of the twelfth verse of the first chapter to Titus , and what was dictated by the spirit of a man , a verse in Epimenides a Greek Poet . And for the whole Canon , as such , it is evident that the leaving out any integral part of that , or taking in any other part , is the changing of the whole , and consequently , that if every mans spirit be left the onely judge , every single person in thus judging , may differ from every other , ( for what some men have done , it is sure that all men may ) and so by this way of proceeding , there may be as many Canons of Scripture , infinitely multipliable , as there be , or shall be Christians to constitute them : which is an absurdity as gross , as can reasonably be faln upon . And if all these inconveniences did not lye against this pretension , yet it is most certain , that the spirit of a private man is to judge for none but himself ( for , Who hath constituted him a judge or distributer ? ) and consequently that the spirit of such an one can never judge of a Canon or Rule , which being such , is to regulate others , to impose Laws universally on all Christians , and not one particular onely .

Nor 2. from the judgement of reason , or rational discourse , 2. Not from reason , or rational discourse . from the style , &c. because though it be most reasonahle to beleive whatever appears to be affirmed by God , yet Reason is no judge whether God have affirmed such a thing or no , any otherwise then by concluding it from testimonies , that affirm he hath affirmed it . For as to the subject matter of Scripture , there are many things there , which are but historical narrations , genealogies , &c. and cannot by help of reason be discriminated from the same , described by any humane pen : many things again which are above reason , the Doctrine of the Trinity , the Resurrection , &c. the faith of which must come by hearing , and not by reasoning : and many things again , of which there is no other reason to be given , but the will of God , which could not have been known to be his will , had they not been revealed to be so . And on the contrary , many things are highly reasonable , which yet are not the word of God . The Pythagoreans golden verses are , almost all of them , eminently so , and Epictetus , and Arrian , and Hierocles , and Seneca , are most full of sublime and divine reason : and those writings of Orthodox Christians , which have transcribed several truths from that great Original , are yet no part of that Canon .

Nay , nor 3. from the undoubted inspiredness of the Apostles 3. Not from the inspiredness of the Apostles . of Christ , and the promise , That the Spirit , when it came upon them , should lead them into all truth . For that , though it be , in thesi , a most acknowledged truth , yet being applied to this matter , is the begging of the question , and supposes these to be the writings of those inspired persons , which it should prove to be so .

All which being thus inferred , and supposed , is yet as far from subjecting this discourse to that ( sacrilegious ) blame of raising the authority of the Church above the Scriptures , as the designation of John Baptist to his office of {αβγδ} , to proclaim , or give testimony to Christ , can be thought to have elevated , and dignified him above the Messias , whose shoe-latchet he professeth himself unworthy to unloose : Or as the lowly , but useful ministery of a disciple , can be deemed a pretension to ( or usurpation of ) superiority over the Master . A distance which cannot be rightly measured , but by that of one extreme or contrary from another .

Secondly , that the accepting of so great a thing , The second Proposition . as is the Canon of Scripture , primarily and fundamentally from this testimony of the ancient Church , and onely secundarily ( and subordinately to that ) from the inward characters of Divinity observable in it , is a very great presumption , and acknowledgement of the force of the argument drawn from the universal testimony of the first and purest ages of the Church . And consequently that as any thing which should appear to us to have been delivered from the Apostles of Christ , by the same or equal evidences , by which we acknowledge and receive the Canon of Scripture , could not with any reason be disbeleived , or without impiety be rejected by us : so whatsoever is testified to come from the same fountain , by those evidences which approach nearest to those on which we receive the Canon of Scripture , that ( supposing the Scripture to define nothing in it ) is in all reason to be beleived before the contrary , which is either testified by a less competent authority , or undertaken to be proved but by probable arguments .

From which Premises the least which , in the third place , can be concluded , The third propositi●n , or the Co●clusion . is this , That whatsoever hath the concordant attestation of the Christian Church of the first ages ( the Scripture remaining obscure , or silent in the matter ) that it was the doctrine or practise Apostolical , there remains not to any that now lives ( thus remote from those fountains of story , and onely repositories of such truths ) any imaginable ground of sober or prudent doubting , or questioning the truth of it . It being 1. evident to any mans sight , That this is a question meerly of fact , whether such a doctrine were taught , or practise taken up by the Apostles , or no : and 2. the rule being undeniable , that , in such matters , Judges of ●atte●s of fact . no probable reason , one or more , no collection , or conspiration of such ( be it never so lucky ) is in any degree competent , or considerable against that one argument , taken from testimony of those , who cannot be imagined ignorant , nor presumed to have conspired to the deceiving of us : It being certain , that nothing is ever done , but 't is possible any one of an hundred things else might have been then done in stead of it , ( the action still depending on the then free choice of the agent , and not at all dictated to him by my present way of reasoning ) and the addition or application of probable reasons to a possible event , being meerly the work of a good invention first , and then of prudence , and dexterity of contrivance , that what is feigned , may not betray , and confute it self . And then seeing it is affirmed by God himself , that his wayes are unlike ours , his methods of wise disposal most contrary to those which our passions , or interests , or prejudices would ( if taken into consultation ) have suggested to him , the conclusion must be , That our way of judging Gods positive acts , doctrines or institutions , by what seems in it self probable to us , must needs be of all others the most fallacious and improbable ; and consequently that the surest means of interpreting such obscurities of Scriptures , of deciding such Controversies as these , which are not interpretable , Testimony of the first times . and decideable by plain verdict of the Scripture it self , is the testimony of those Writers of the first times , which have set down more clearly , what is but obscurely ( in passing , and without occasion of adding more ) intimated or touched in the Scripture , or which record the doctrine or practise of the Apostles , which is not there recorded .

To which purpose it is observable , that there being two sorts of Doctors among the Jews , the one of the Talmudists , who profess to superadde the traditions of men , to the commands of God in Scripture , Mat . 15.9 . the other the Karaeans , or Scripturarians ; which explicate the Law according to the literal sense , {αβγδ} without any addition to it ; yet , according to their own confession , three things they make use of in inte●preting or deciding any Controversie , {αβγδ} , the Scripture it self , Argumentation or Consequence from Scripture , and the transmission or delivering down of interpretations . So wide a difference is there between traditions of men , and Tradition , or transmission of Interpretations from the Authors of the Scripture themselves , or those that lived next them , and best understood their meaning , that they which kept closest to Scripture , and were most distant from the former , thought it fit and necessary to make use of the la●ter of them .

What hath been thus far said , must be taken with this caution , that it be not extended any farther then ( to what it is in the premises distinctly applied ) to the testimonies of the Primitive Ancients , Caution . and again to an accordance of those testimonies ( without any considerable opposition ) that this or that was delivered from the Apostles .

For otherwise , as in matter of doctrine , the bare affirmations & opinions of ancient writers , Bare affirmations or opinions of Ancients . are but the affirmations & opinions of men , and others as ancient ( if there be no sure ground of judging ) may be , and oft are of contrary opinions , as in the doctrine of the Millennium might be instanced at large , The Millennaries . where Justin Martyr , the prime assertor of it , confesses other Christians of pure and pious intentions to be otherwise minded , ( Cont . Tryph . p. 306. ) so it is very ordinary for such opinions of some few to be taken up successively by others , as that of the Millennium was from Papias by Irenaeus , &c. which is but an argument that those others approved what they thus took up , and no farther confirmation of the truth of it .

And so likewise for testimonies in matters of fact , Singular testimonies in matters of fact . if , being but humane , they be also later , or but singular testimonies , and those either actually contradicted by others , of equal authority with them , or else the force and concludency of them evacuated by comparing some greater autho●ities , it will be a very infirm argument that is drawn from such testimonies , and that which will receive but little validity from the credulity of some one or two others , which have delivered them down from such testimonies . Papias , of Christs age . As when Irenaeus from Papias , and Papias from the pretended testimony of the Elders before him , that saw the Apostles , affirms Christ to have been near fifty years old , when he was put to death , the writings of the Evangelists , though they affirm not the contrary in terminis , nay are made use of for the founding the mistake , Joh . 8.57 . do yet afford evidences to disprove , and those far more considerable , then the testimony of one Papias to confirm the contrary to have been the tradition of the Apostles .

What hath been said , might now at large be exemplified in all the particulars , Two Deductions of use , for particular persons . which either the Socinians , or other Hereticks and Schismaticks have of late pretended , contrary to the doctrine or practise of the first ages of the Universal Church , upon this one presumption of preferring their own reason , or private spirit ( which is but another name to signifie the same thing ) before the concordant testimonies of those times ( which are most competent for matters of fact ) and the more universal reason , and publick spirit of the whole Church of the purest ages : which is a thing in it self most contrary to their fundamental pretension , i.e. excessively unreasonable .

And from hence also might be deduced those rules of Christian Piety and Paternal Duty , For the Church it self . which the whole body of the Christian Church of these later ages , but especially each particular branch of it might prudently transcribe , and accommodate to present uses ; That peculiarly of Gravity , and Temper , and Waryness , not to multiply Articles of Faith , or Canons for Censures , or Dogmatical Determinations , above what the ancient Church of the first ages , which was nearest the spring-head , and most likely to know the Apostles minde , did also think meet to determine : There being no earthly Providence so likely to secure the Obedience of children , as that of the Parents not provoking them , and the difference being not great ( and the danger equal ) whether that be done by too great severity of punishments , or levity of commands , the one abating the Love , the other the Reverence due to the Parent , and either of those wants much weakening the band of Obedience , on which all Religion so eminently depends , but both of them together ( considered with the imperfectness of that work , which the Precepts and Profession of Christianity have as yet produced on the hearts of men , through the world ) being almost ascertained to tempt that petulancy , and encourage that contumacy , which unarmed Laws will not be sufficient to check .

But these are so large fields , and so far extended beyond the bounds of my present design or task , The Conclusion . that I shall rather content my self at this time with the contemplation of the Usefulness , and Propriety of these Premises to the superstructures , which the following Quaeres have squared out , and fitted for them , and therefore immediately proceed unto them .

The second Quaere . Of marrying the Wives Sister .

IN the next place therefore , if it be questioned , by what law of God it can be defined unlawful for a Christian to marry his deceased wives sister , I shall offer you my resolution by these degrees :

1. That by the law of God given to the Jews , as it is now recorded , Prohibition of marrying the brothers wife . Lev . 18. this Prohibition is distinctly found , v. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife , it is thy brothers nakedness . Where by the Positive Law of God , given there to that people , it is apparent , That as there is a restraint prescribed , and from that , some boundaries by law cast up against unbridled lust , not permitting to marry those that are near of kin , and that extended to the kindred of his wife , as well as the mans own kindred , upon that ground of Scripture , that the man and his wife are one flesh , one body , and , in reputation of law , one person , Lev . 18.8 , 14. So this is distinctly applied to the prohibiting the marriage of the brothers wife , v. 16. And for this there need not any farther proof be brought , then that Text , nor inquiry be made of the reason of Gods doing so , then this will of his , that being reason sufficient to those to whom his Prohibition is given , till it be by him freely superseded or suspended again .

But because it is reasonably to be expected , The right of kindred ▪ that every man that reads this Prohibition so express , will also remember the right of kindred so known among the Jews , and derived from the will of this soveraign Law-giver , that in case the eldest brother dye childeless , his next brother hath liberty , and some kinde of obligation lying on him , Deut: 25.5 . to take the relict to wife , and raise up seed to his elder brother : It will , before we proceed one step farther , be necessary to the explaining and levelling of our passage , to give a brief account of this antinomie ; and that not by interpreting the notion of the word Brother in Deuteronomy , of [ the nearest of kin , without the prohibited degrees ] ( as hath been by some frivolously pretended ) but by consideration of the absolute dominion of God , and consequently of his free power , as of making , so of abrogating totally , or ( as far as he pleases ) suspending the obligation of all Positive Laws , of what so●t soever they are .

For though some difference be ordinarily made betwixt Positive Laws given by God to one particular nation , Dispensableness of Positive Laws . and those that are given to all mankinde , and again betwixt Judicial and Ceremonial ; yet 't is both evident , That those that are given to all , may , by some subsequent act , be abrogated or evacuated to some onely , either in universum , or in some singular case , and that as fitly , as if they had peculiarly been given to those , and to none else ; and that those that concern civil life , may , if God please , be as reasonably abrogated , as those that are ceremonies of our devotions . And again , that though the typicalness of some of those ceremonies , Ceremonial or Judicial . may be a more prevalent reason with God to abolish those ceremonies , when the substance is come , which the ceremonies were set to fore-shadow , then we can perhaps imagine for the abrogating of other ceremonies , which are not typical ; or of judicial Laws , which are not pretended to be so : Yet still that is but the reason which moves God to abrogate the one , and not the other , and is not of any force to take away the obligingness of the one , more then of the other , till they are thus abrogated by the Law-giver . And consequently the whole weight of this matter is wholly to be laid upon the will of God , to continue , or void the obligation , either to all , or to whom he please . And so there is nothing strange in this , that for the preserving the name and family of the dead childeless brother , ( in a nation , whose genealogies were with such a Religious care to be observed , and transferred to posterity ) that God , which gave the Prohibition , Lev . 18. should soon after give the contrary directions in one case among the same Jews , without taking off the Prohition in all other cases .

Thus upon that great reason of propagating mankinde at the beginning of the world , Marriage of brothers & sisters . the marriage of Brethren and Sisters was allowed by God , and so that law , which prohibited incestuous conjunctions , if it were given ( as it is not certain it was ) to Adam himself , or to his sons , before they had any children ▪ was to give place to that present necessity , ( as Positive Laws are wont to do ) and so as soon as made , dispensed with , being not to take force , say the Hebrews , till mankinde was sufficiently multiplied .

And to this purpose it is an ordinary distinction among the Schoolmen , from Thomas Aquinas , that the Law of Nature Law of Nature . is of two sorts , The Law of eternal Reason , Creation . Lex aeternae rationis , The Law of eternal Reason , and Lex aeternae creationis , The Law of eternal Creation : The former of which is said to be indispensable , the latter dispensable . This tinkling distinction , like many other that come out of the same mint , is not , in my opinion , reconcileable with the rules of Art. For Reason being the nature of man , and the Law of Nature signifying ( no doubt ) the Law of Humane , not Animal , or Sensitive nature , the Law of Nature , and the Law of eternal Reason must needs be phrases of the same importance and latitude , and so one cannot duly be a species of the other . And for the Law of eternal Creation , if that be contradistinguished to the Law of Reason , it must needs denote a Positive Law given by God to Adam , and all his posterity ; and if so , it cannot be a species of the Law of Nature , but of Lex Positiva , Positive Law in general , as that contains both that which is given to all , and that which is designed onely to some part of mankinde .

But this impropriety of expression being passed by , which onely renders the distinction in artificial , not useless , there is certainly so much of truth in that which is defined by the Schools , as will suffice to clear this matter , viz : that though the Law of Nature and Reason be acknowledged to be designed by God to oblige all men , of all times , in all cases , and so in his decree to be indispensable ; yet of any other sort of Laws , even those that are given to mankinde at the first Creation , this will not be affirmable .

That the Law of Nature is eternally obliging and indispensable , The indispensablenes of the Law of Nature . seemeth to arise 1. from the constitution of mans Soul , because what is the dictate of Reason , is of the nature of every man , as man , i.e. as he was at first created after Gods image ( in conformity to which , goodness doth consist ) and the contrary of that must needs be contrary to that image of God , and to that goodness which is in him eternally ; and , unless the Soul of man be changed , must necessarily be resisted by natural conscience , that inarticulate voice of God , and manifestation of that to man , which is eternally in God . And 2. from the propriety of the matter of these Laws of Reason or Nature , which is essentially good , and consequently the transgression of the Laws , which enact it , is evil , antecedently to their being enacted : these being therefore enacted because they are good , whereas all other are good , and the transgression of them evil , on no other score , but because they are commanded .

Thus the shedding of innocent blood Shedding of innocent blood . was evil , and so looked upon , and adjudged by God in Cain , and by his own conscience condemned as criminous and punishable ; before any Law was by God or Adam promulgate to the contrary . And although God ( before whom 1. no man is so innocent , Abrahams sacrifice of h●s son . but that by the sentence pronounced against Adams sin , he is justly lyable to the common fate of mortality ; and who 2. is the donor of life , and may therefore take it away , when , and by what means he pleaseth , by the Fathers knife , as well as by a feaver ) may therefore fitly command Abraham to sacrifice his onely son Isaac , and then the doing it in obedience to that command of Gods , is not the act of Abraham , but of God ; yet for any man , without this special commission from God , to do the like , is , and was eternally evil , and therefore was afterwards prohibited . Thus Piety , Piety and Charity eternally good . Charity , Meekness , Peaceableness are , and eternally have been good , even before any man was ever exhorted to follow them , and have therefore been in time severally commanded by the Father , and Christ , because they were alwayes good . Nor will , nor can there ever be a time , wherein any , or all of these shall be as displeasing to God , as the contraries of them have hitherto alwayes been . It may most truly be said , that God cannot enact a Law , whereby those vices shall be authorized , Malice , Hatred , Cruelty , &c. and the contrary vertues prohibited .

And accordingly this hath been acknowledged even by heathens themselves , and distinctly affirmed by Cicero , Cicero's opinion herein . de legib . l. 1. wherein having premised , that nothing is to be counted good , but what is laudable of it self , i.e. may be commended of its own accord ( nihil in bonis numerandum , nisi quod per seipsum sit laudabile , id est , sponte suâ possit laudari ) he addes , that that which is so , is before and without any precept , good and laudable ( quod autem laudabile sponte suâ , illud ante & sine praecepto bonum & laudabile . ) And the truth of this is supposed by all Christians , when they assign the difference of the Ceremonial from the Moral Law , or the reason why the one is perpetually observed , but not the other .

But then these reasons notwithstanding , which are peculiar to the Law of Nature , It will be affirmable of all other , i.e. of every Positive Law ( whether given to all men , or onely to one Nation of men , or whether given with an actual reservation of some cases , wherein it should not oblige , ( as the Sabbatick Rest , in cases of necessity and mercy , and for the services of the Temple , Positive laws dispensable , why ? Mat . 12.5 . ) or indefinitely without any explicite or implicite reservation ) that it is freely dispensable and alterable by God , 1. Because God is supposed to give this to man after his creation ( who was therefore man , before he received it ) and so this is but accidental and adventitious to him , and utterly extrinsecal to his nature , not implanted in him , or made a piece of his constitution , nor consequently such as , without altering his fabrick , may not be altered , as in the Law of Nature was supposed . 2. Because this being not eternally good , but receiving the goodness from Gods command , and consequently that command being given in time , God may also give it for what term he pleaseth , either to last alwayes , or to cease when he sees fit , and consequently whensoever he dispenses with it to any particular man or men , that is a time wherein it ceaseth to oblige him or them ; and whensoever , by any other way of revealing his Will , he suspends or abolishes that Law to all , it again ceaseth to oblige any , and having the beginning from his positive Will , it determines upon any contrary act of that .

All which is directly applicable to the case in hand : Difference between 〈…〉 unnatural sins and Incests . For when all those acts which are contrary to the natural use of men and women , Rom. 1.26 , 27. are to all the world ( antecedently to any Positive Command ) universally and indispensably unlawful , and accordingly are called dishonourable affections , v. 24. and elswhere , not to be named , and abominable and detestable , yet these incestuous conjunctions being forbidden by positive Law to mankinde , are by God , that prohibited them , dispensable , and appear sometimes actually to have been dispensed with , some to the children of Adam , this of marrying the brothers wife , to the Jews . Which laws notwithstanding being not in universum repealed , or as far as concerned mankinde in general , but farther confirmed either by the Law of Moses or of Christ , have since that continued obligatory to all , to whom they were not actually dispensed with ; and consequently are to us Christians now in the same force , that among all the nations of the world they alwayes were , i.e. as truly ( though not in the same kinde ) obligatory to us Christians , as the Law of Nature is in all other things ; because , though they were alwayes capable of being dispensed with by the Law-giver , as the Law of Nature , in the respects forementioned , is not , yet these have not to us been actually dispensed with , but by stricter precepts of Christ confirmed upon us .

Having therefore cleared the Proh●bition of marrying the brothers wife from that one prejudice , It will now ex abundanti be observable , That however this were afterward dispensed with to the Jews , The law of not marrying the brothers w fe , farther considered . yet 1. when it was given them , Lev . 18.16 . it was given as absolutely as any other of the Prohibitions in that Chapter ; particularly , as that of taking the fathers wife , which is acknowledged most incestuous . 2. It was enforced with this reason [ It is thy brothers nakedness ] i . e . by being thy brothers wife , she and thy brother are so perfectly one flesh , Conjugal unity the ground of Affinities . that thou mayst no more marry her , then a sister may marry a brother . The Laws of Consanguinity , which forbad a woman to be married to her Father , or Uncle , or Brother , were on this reason ( of the strict union caused by marriage ) proportionably enlarged to affinities also , to the forbidding the marriage of the Father's , and Uncle's , and Brother's wife . And 3. the reason of all this is clear also : For the principal ground , which appears , Propinquity the onely ground of the interdicts . of all these interdicts , is the nearness of kin , ( and accordingly those are the words of the general interdict , v. 6. under which all the specials are comprehended , None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him ) and not any other consideration : Not that of Reverence ; Not Reverence . for 1. that is due onely to Parents , and those that some way partake of that relation in the ascending lines : and yet the father's marrying the daughter or neece , those of the descending , to whom he owes no reverence , is the same foul Incest with the former , and still where on one side paternal reverence is due , on the other side it is not due : And 2. the reverence due from the childe to the parent , being in a more eminent manner due from the Subject to the Prince , yet because there is not the relation of Propinquity , as well as obligation to reverence , the marriage of a Subject to a Prince is not under any interdict . And 3. the state of the wife being a state of subjection , and so of performing of reverence , this would be a propriety for ( of more weight and consequence , then any objection against ) the daughters being married to the father , if the reverence were the onely considerable . The reverence , I conceive , which is spoken of in this matter , is the fear of approaching those that are near of kin , whom , on that score , and not because of the reverence , God hath forbidden us to approach . And accordingly the marriage of the superior to the inferior , the sons daughter , &c. v. 10. is forbidden on this reason , for their's is thine own nakedness , the children , to the end of the world , coming from the parents loins , and so being part of the parent , and so that a proof of the great nearness , ( because every one is nearest to himself . ) And so still the Propinquity is the bar , and not onely or principally the reverence . From all which it follows , that seeing the wife of the father and of the uncle are acknowledgedly interdicted by that Law , the wife of the brother ( who , if he be not as near as the father , is certainly nearer then the uncle , the fathers brother ) is in reason deemed to be forbidden also , and accordingly is by the express words of that Law , Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife .

This therefore being thus confirmed and cleared to have been a Law given to the Jews , and that standing in force , till it was to them , as a Positive Law , dispensed with ( and then the contrary either permitted or commanded for a determinate end , the preserving the name and family of the elder brother ) It now follows by laws of unavoidable consequence , 1. Marrying of the wives sister forbidden by the Jewish Law . That the marrying the wives sister , was to those Jews forbidden also , and that 2. not superseded afterwards by that countermand in Deuteronomy . I shall briefly evidence these two parts of this consequence .

The first of these appears by the parity of reason . And the Jews have resolved in this matter , even those of them ( the Karaeans or Scripturarians ) that binde themselves most to the Scripture rule , 1. That there is place for argumentation and deduction from the words of the law ; and 2. that whatsoever can be deduced thence either à fortiori , or à pari , either because the remoter degree is prohibited , Prohibitions à pari . or that which is equally remote , is to be deemed piously and rightly concluded . Thus when v. 7. the Father and Mother are both named ; and v. 12. the fathers sister , and v. 13. the mothers sister , and v. 14. the fathers brother , yet the mothers brother is not named , nor the sisters daughter , which would be equivalent with that . And yet this being the marriage of the uncle on the mothers side , with the neece , which is of the same distance , with the uncle of the fathers side , with the neece , and the Aunt on the mothers side , with the nephew , from the naming and prohibition of these , v. 13. and 14. by the parity of reason , that which is not named is by all resolved to be prohibited .

And just thus is it in this matter : This of the wives sister which is not named , The wives sister is as near as the brothers wife . being directly the same degree of Propinquity , that the brothers wife , which is named and prohibited . And that will appear by either of the two wayes of measuring the Propinquity , the wives sister being as near to the husband , as the husbands brother is to the wife , and the sisters husband as near to the other sister , as the brothers wife can be to the other brother . And accordingly the Scripturarian Jews , as well as the rest , do here resolve , That a man is forbidden to marry {αβγδ} two , which are kin to one another , and specifie in a woman and her sister .

And if by the English reading of our Bibles , Objection from Lev . 18.18 . Lev . 18.18 . [ Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her , to uncover her nakedness , beside the other in her life time , ] it be thought that the marrying the wives sister , in her life time , be the onely thing forbidden , and consequently that to marry her after the wives death , is not forbidden , that will be presently answered from the margent of our Translation , where the Hebrew [ {αβγδ} , {αβγδ} ] is fitly and truly rendred , not [ a wife to her sister ] but [ one wife to another ] and so is a direct prohibition of Polygamy , at least , when the first wife is deprived and vexed by the taking in of the second , ( as shall appear in the discourse of Polygamy , § . 7. ) but not a permission to marry any that was otherwise prohibited . And that that is the meaning of the place , may be first more generally concluded from the variation of the style in this , from the former verses . The former interdicts had been given upon the reason of Propinquity , and accordingly that reason distinctly mentioned , first in general , v. 6. and then pursued in all needful particulars of it , to the end of v. 17. But the interdict here is upon a new reason , that of vexing , which is an evidence , that the first sort of interdicts ( continued for twelve persons ) is now quite finished , and that another head is begun against more wives then one : and accordingly upon that ensue also divers other new and particular Commands , to the end of the Chapter . Secondly , this will be concluded also from the nature and particular propriety of this reason ( here annext ) to that of Polygamy , viz. that of vexing , {αβγδ} , to weary , or provoke , or exasperate her , for which the Septuagint reade {αβγδ} , one that may raise , or inflame her rage or jealousie . For as that is not to be feared , but in the life time of the former wife , so as long as she is living , it will be caused by any prosperous rival or competitor , by admission of any stranger into an higher degree of favour , and not onely , or peculiarly of the wives sister . Jealousie we know is not wont to be confined within bounds or limits , but is equally and impartially common to any person , which is injuriously preferred in her life time , and thereby provokes her grief , or her rage , is matter of vexation to her . For prevention of which it was , that the Divorces were recommended in Malachi , as a more tolerable unkindeness , as will also appear in the discourse §. 13. & 15. of Divorce , by the view of that place .

And thus again the Karaei or Scripturarians ( opposed to the Talmudists or Traditionals ) interpret this place , The Karaeans interprettaion of the place . that 't was here forbidden to have two wives at the same time : and they render a most satisfactory account for the seeming difficulty of the expression : because , say they , the word Sister in Hebrew , referring to somewhat that is precedent , signifies any other thing of the same kinde . So Ezek . 16.48 . Brother and sister taken by the Hebrews for Another . [ Sodom thy sister ] is , Sodom , guilty of the same sins that Israel was , as appears v. 49. Behold this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom , &c. and so v. 45. Thou art the sister of thy sisters , i.e. just such another as they , Sodome and Samaria , were . And it is an ordinary Hebrew figure thus to expresse parity , or likenesses . So Ex. 32.27 . Slay every man his brother , is to be interpreted , Every man another ; and accordingly when the sons of Levi obey'd that command v. 28. the conclusion was , that there fell of the people that day ( not of the Levites peculiarly ) about three thousand men . So Isa . 19.2 . I will set the Aegyptians against the Aegyptians , and they shall fight every one against his brother , i.e. one against another . And this is so ordinary an Hebraism , that 't is usual when the Hebrew reades brother , for the English to render it [ another ] Gen. 37.19 . They said one to his brother , we reade fitly , one to another , though they were brethren that are there spoken of ; and so Gen. 42.21 . And where the speech is not of brethren , yet the phrase is so . Exod . 10.23 . They saw not one his brother ; and Exod . 16.15 . They said one to his brother ; and Isa . 3.5 . The people shall be oppressed every one by his brother . And Exod . 16.3 . it is used of things ( of curtains ) not onely of persons . And in all these places we reade ( as the phrase signifies , not as the words literally sound ) one to another . And consequently here [ a wife to her sister ] will be directly according to the sacred Idiome , The interpretation of other Jews . or the Hebrews manner of speech , One wife unto another .

't is true , what On Lev . 18.18 . H. Grotius and J. Drus●us say , that the Pesictha reprehends the Karaeans for this interpretation . And the Jews more generally affirm , That the thing forbidden in that place , is the having two sisters together , and not two wives together ; and from thence conclude it lawful to have two sisters successively . But it is visible what brings them into that opinion , In favour of Polygamy . viz. the beloved and presumed lawfulness of Polygamy , which they are unwilling to have restrained ; yet must acknowledge to be so by this Text , if those words be thus interpreted with the Karaeans . Mean-while it will be hard to finde among those Jews ( who affirm from that place the lawfulness of marrying two sisters successively ) any shew of reason for either of these two things , 1. Why the marrying the deceased wives sister should be there permitted , where marrying the deceased brothers wife is distinctly forbidden . Or 2. why Polygamy , which by dispensation to the Jews , is acknowledged to be permitted them in order to multiplying that people , should not be beleived to be prohibited the Jews in general , or the prohibition of it be set down among those Laws , which had been given to the sons of Adam and Noah , ( here put together in this Chapter ) as well as the marrying the brothers wife , which is acknowledged to be permitted , nay in one case prescribed the Jew , is yet distinctly here forbidden .

For the former of these , 't is true that Abarbane l enquiring why it should be prohibited the Nephew to marry the Uncles wife , The vanity of their Reasons . and not prohibited the Uncle to marry the Nephews wife , refers himself to Maimonides Moreh Nebahim 3.49 . where he saith , That God , intending the diminution of uncleanness , prohibited it under those heavy penalties in those persons , which had the most continual conversation together , and so most occasion of it , as the Nephew hath more occasion to converse in the Uncles house , then the Uncle in the Nephews . And again he addes it , as the opinion of one of their Divines , that the Reason of most of the prohibitions in this kinde , is to be fetcht from the care of peace , and avoiding of jealousie and contention , which is sharpest , saith he , among persons that are otherwise ne●rest : Which reason ceaseth , when the sister of her that is marryed is deceased . But certainly there is little in either of these reasons to satisfie any reasonahle man .

For 1. can it be beleived that it is indeed lawful for the Uncle to marry the Nephews wife , Discovered . when the Nephews marrying the Uncles wife is expresly prohibited ? or are the Jews to be heeded in so senseless an affirmation ? It hath already been shewn § . 13. That all marriages of near of kin ( whether Consanguinity or Affinity ) are distinctly forbidden , v. 6. and is there any imaginable colour of doubting , but the Nephews wife is as near to the Uncle , as the Uncles wife to the Nephew ? And again , that parity of reason is of force in the interpreting these prohibitions ? And what is parity of reason in this matter of Propinquity , but that those marriages which equally partake of Propinquity , should be deemed equally unlawful ?

And for the Reason there cited from Maimonides , it is impossible it should be soberly conceived to have any thing of reasonable in it : for 1. By that reason Incest should be forbidden onely to keep men from fornication , and so fornication be the greater , and Incest the lesser sin . As that certainly , which is therefore forbidden , that it may secure another Precept , is to be looked on as a lighter fault , then the breach of that Precept , as the means is inferior , because subordinate to the end : and as the prohibition of the eating of blood , being designed to deter from shedding of mans blood : and the command of Circumcision , to keep from uncleannesse ; the eating of blood , and neglect of Circumcision , are sure lighter offences then Murther and unnatural Lusts . 2. By this reason , those severe penalties should onely have been made against Fornication or Adultery , committed with those with whom we most familiarly converse , but not against marrying of them . For supposing that it were still lawful for brothers and sisters to marry , the making it capital for them to commit uncleanness one with another out of marriage , would as much deter them from such uncleanness , as if it were also capital for them to marry . He that were sure to be hanged for swearing , would be as certainly deterred from swearing , as if the same punishment were denounced against swearing and cursing also ; which makes it probable , that the ground or end of those prohibitions , was the lessening of , or restraining from uncleanness , but more probably , that peace & amity might by this means be extended more largely , then the natural bands of relation had extended it , as both Plutarch in his 101 Roman question , and S. Augustine de Civ . Dei , l. 15. c . 16. have affirmed . Or if there were no other reason against incestuous conjunctions , the Positive Will of God alone were reason sufficient . But then 3. there is no reason to affirm or suppose , that those that are expresly forbidden to marry others , are more frequently conversant in their houses , then those that are as near , but are not forbidden . For example ; the fathers brother is named , and the mothers sister , but the mothers brother is not named ; and yet the neece may be as conversant in the mothers brothers house , as in the fathers brothers , or as the nephew in the mothers sisters , and there is no imaginable reason of disparity to be pretended . And however , this cannot be applied to the point in hand : for the wives Sister is as frequently in the house , and conversant with her Sister , as the husbands brother with his brother ; & so there is no reason deducible from hence , why the one should be interdicted , the other not .

Then for that other Reason , fetcht by their Divines from the care of avoiding of jealousie and contention , The second reason from the sharpness of sisters quarrels . that certainly must extend to the interdicting of all Polygamy , or , if considered in earnest , Concubinacy , where the wife doth not consent ; as well as of taking one Sister to another . For supposing the wife to whom he hath covenanted to cleave as long as she lives , to require of him the discharge of this Oath , what peace can there be betwixt her , and any other ( an inferior , her servant perhaps ) that is injuriously taken in and preferred before her ? This is in universum so contrary to peace , so sure to be vexatious , that , as was said , Divorces were permitted by God , as more tolerable injuries , more reconcileable with peace , then they .

The whole weight of this pretended Reason , lyes upon this , A mistake . That the quarrels of those that are nea●est are most sharp : But if there were no injury to provoke any quarrel at all , ( as supposing Polygamy absolutely lawful , though there would be sin against the law of propinquities , yet against the wife there would be no injury in taking in one Sister to another ) then sure the nearness were a more reasonable argument to secure their friendship , then to engage their causless ●nmity . For although the greatness of the former friendship , by enhancing the subsequent injury , doth fitly adde to the exasperation , and make it more unreconcileable ; yet sure without any such provocation , it cannot reasonably beget it , and therefore the old saying of Fratrum quoque gratia rara est , the kindeness of brethren is a rare thing ( which I see by some learned men made use of to this purpose ) is sure misapplyed by them , for that was never in any the most ironny age so to be interpreted or extended , that the friendships of brethren are rarer then of any others , ( unless by the accident of living most together , they may have more occasions of quarrels , then others that live at greater distance , and then to counterballance that , the length of the familiarity , and acquaintance . And advantage of conversation to beget kindeness , and conserve it , may be as competent reasons to make their kindeness exceed others , and being deeper rooted , to flourish the more ) but that , as an expression of the little love that is among men , fratrum quoque — even brethren also have seldome a constant agreement and kindeness to one to another . 2 Tim . 3.3 . Thus certainly it is meant by the Apostle as a sad character on the latter dayes ( those before Gods vengeance on the crucifiers ) that men should be without natural affection , as Christ had foretold of the same times , that they should be betrayed by parents and brethren , &c. Luk . 21.16 . Mar. 13.12 . which signifies this to be the greatest , and the most extraordinary evidence of the failing , or growing cold of Charity , Mat . 24.12 . and that which includes , and presupposes the lower degrees of uncharitableness , between those that are not so near ; but is far from concluding , That those that are thus nearest , are thus aptest to betray , and hate one another . It is clearly a presumption of the contrary .

So far is it from having any appearance of reason ( what is pretended by these Jews ) that the taking two Sisters together is the onely thing there forbidden . And indeed , if those two things were granted , which are by them supposed . 1. That more wives might by that law be had at once ; and 2. That one Sister might be taken after the decease of the other , the conclusion would undenyably be inferred , that the two Sisters might be taken together , were it not for that one danger of their being more vexatious , and more unreconcileable to one another , then any others would be ; which being shewed to be no reason , their whole pretension is vanished , their double plea , 1. For Polygamy , and 2. For marrying two Sisters successively , is brought to nothing .

Then for the second , why it may not be beleived , or acknowledged by a Jew , That Polygamy should be here forbidden , though by dispensation otherwise permitted the Jews , as well as marrying the brothers wife be permitted the Jew , which is here acknowledgedly prohibited , I finde not any reason pretended , nor is it imaginable that any thing of any weight should be producible by any Jew . 't is visible to common sense , that what would hold for one , would hold for the other , being both positive laws , and so equally dispensable ; both given to the Sons of Adam and Noah , and from thence transcribed , under that head of Disclosing of nakednesses , and so equally obligatory , till they were dispensed with , and to all others , who had no such dispensation ; and so , without any exp●i●it interdict of Christs , both prohibited to us Christians . And therefore 1. it was but a shortness of discourse in those Jews , that thought their Charter for their beloved Polygamy so deeply concerned in this interpretation of those words : and 2. the greater their interest was conceived to be , the less will their authority be able to perswade others . And however the Karaeans , The Karaeans , those that profess , and by their name are acknowledged to keep close to the letter of the sacred Precept , are less likely to mistake , by enlarging the literal sense of it , then any others , who from the subsequent permission and customary practises of Polygamy , and their known zeal in that cause , whereby their lusts were so highly gratified , have been induced to that other interpretation . And of Maimonides And Mai●o●ides . 't is evident , ( which of all those Hebrew Writers hath the reputation of the most sober and most skilful in their learning ) that in his opinion by this Chapter of Leviticus , are forbidden the conjunctions of those , that are nearest to one another , by marriage , as well as by blood , in which number the wives Sister must needs be acknowledged to be included , none being imaginable to be nearer . And so the words of the Text enforce , v. 6. None shall approach to any that is near of kin to him .

But to all this the practise of Jacob in marrying two Sisters Jacobs marrying of two Sisters , before the law , is objected , both as an example of the lawfulness of that practise among the Nations , before the law was given to the Jews , and as a probable reason , why this law against taking one Sister to another in her life time , was here made , viz. to prevent the like quarrels , which had faln out between Leah and Rachel , and so as a reason still , that those words should be rendred [ a wife to her Sister ] and not [ one wife to another . ]

To this I answer , 1. That these quarrels ( as was said ) are as incident to strangers , that meet in the same great interest ( in case of such injury , and invasion of propriety ) as to Sisters they can be . If Jacob had married any other wife in stead of Leah , is it probable that Rachels love , and barren womb , would have been more patient of that competition ? If all such dissensions as those betwixt Jacobs wives were designed to be prevented by this law , it is certain the law was very imperfect , and unable to attain its end , or else all Polygamy , against the consent of the former wife , was here prohibited . And therefore 2. unless it otherwise appear , that that interdict Lev . 18.18 . be to be interpreted of two Sisters , that of Jacobs marrying two Sisters , will have nothing to do with it , being not at all referred to by any part of the Context , but onely fancied to be so from the casual concurrence and agreement of the story of the one , with that which is conceited to be forbidden in the other . Which indeed may probably have been a means to impose upon some , and have given them prejudices this way : but being a remote ground of conjecture , which is not so much as a probable argument ( of which also there may be more then one for any thing that is most untrue ) will have no force to interpret that Text that way , much less to prove that the sixth verse , which forbids approaching to any that are near of kin , did not forbid approaching to the wives Sister , which is so very nea● ; or that the 16. verse , that forbids approaching to the brothers wife , did not , à pari , forbid this which is directly equal and parallel to it .

And therefore all the force that can be pretended from this objection , Jacobs example impertinent . must be that , which arises from Jacobs example , who , it is acknowledged , did this , and was a pious man , and lived before the law , and so may seem to be a proof that this was formerly practised . And therefore some farther answer must be given to that : And it will soon be done , 1. By observing that as far as it doth prove any thing , it doth prove more then they that make use of it to infer the lawfulness of marrying the Sister of the deceased wife , do desire to prove from it . And therefore I shall first demand , whe - they can from Jacobs example think it lawful for a Christian now to have two Sisters together ? and if they think they may not , then whence the unlawfulness of that proceeds ? If from the Jewish law in that verse , Lev . 18.18 . Then , it seems , that , which was given to none but the Jews , doth oblige us Christians : which is both false , and acknowledged by the objecters to be so : If from the law given to the sons of Adam or Noah , then it seems this was forbidden by that law , and then Jacobs practise must be directly contrary to that law , and so be an acknowledged transgression in him , and not imitable in us : If onely by the Christian law , then that Christian law will no where appear express to that purpose ; and for any deduction which will be producible from thence , to conclude this , the like will as readily be produced to interdict the marriage of the Sister of the deceased wife . And so still this argument from Jacobs example will not be useful to the objecter . But then 2. for Jacobs practise , as it concerned his individual , considered as a pious man , though it be most certain , that all the actions of a pious man are not pious ; and , that Jacobs actions particularly , do not all appear to be pious , witness the deceiving his father , and supplanting his brother of his birthright first , and then his blessing , yet it is farther observable to what original this action of his must be imputed .

He loved Rachel , and , by compact for seven years servi●e with Laban her father , The ori●inal of Jacobs action . was promised to have her to wife , Gen. 29.18 , 19 , 20. and having performed the condition so far as to call her , and that truly , his wife , v. 21. he required to have her given him , that he may go in unto her . And the marriage-feast being kept , v. 22. ( all which implies and supposes them absolutely married ) Laban at night took Leah , and brought her to him , and he went in unto her , mistaking her for Rachel , and not knowing his error till the morning , v. 25. which thus far being wholly imputable to Laban , and not to Jacob ( who was not conscious of it ) cannot be imagined sufficient to annull his marriage with Rachel , which was before compleated ( as far as compact of parents , consent of parties , and all the solemnities of marriage , accustomed in the place , could compleat it ) and so leaves this hard necessity inevitably on Jacob , either to leave his own espoused beloved Rachel , and take his neither espoused , nor beloved Leah , or else to leave them both , the one whom he had married , the other to whom he had gone in ( for it is not imaginable , that Laban that would not before let him prefer Rachel before Leah , would now , having a much stronger obligation to the contrary , permit him to do it ) or else to take them both , which accordingly he did . To which also that some divine dispensation was added , though it is not defined in the Scripture , yet , considering the promise of God to keep him , and be with him in all , whether places to which , or affairs about which he goes , Gen. 28.15 . and again the many revelations of God by dream afforded him ; and yet farther , the blessing that ensued on Leahs offspring ( six Patriarchs , and Judah the line of Christ , one of them ) and the custome of blessing in her name , Ruth 4.11 . it is ( not improbably ) supposeable . But I lay not the weight on that . The force of the objection was before sufficiently evacuated .

The first part of the consequence being thus cleared , The prohibition of marrying the wives sister never superseded . viz. that the taking the wives Sister was to the Jews forbidden ; The second branch ( viz. that this prohibition was not afterward superseded or dispensed with , by the countermand in Deuteronomy , of marrying the brothers wife ) will immediately appear both by the force of the old rule , That the law of exceptions confirms the obligation of all those that are not excepted , and especially by the cessation of the reason for the taking away this latter , which held and prevailed for the taking away the former obligation . For whereas the preserving of the elder brothers family , depended on the younger's marrying the relict , and raising up seed to him , which might succeed to his name and patrimony , 't is manifest that the Sisters succeeding the Sister , and bearing children to the husband , would bring no such advantage along with it : For any other wife , of any other family , would as probably bear him children , and doing so , as certainly bear up his name and family , as his wives Sister could do : whereas the son of another family , marrying the relict of the eldest brother of this , would certainly beget all the children to his own name and family , and not to him , whose wife he married .

All that is now behinde for the bringing this home to us Christians , will be best adapted by way of reply to one expected objection . For it being granted , that this was thus by parity of reason acknowledged to be interdicted the Jews ; It will yet be replyed , and objected , That neither of these two interdicts pertain to us Christians , any more then other Judicial laws , which were by God also given to the Jews , How this law , being given to the Jews , is obligatory to Christians . are supposed to be obligatory to us . To this I answer by acknowledging the force of the objection , as far as is yet pretended . For it is certain , that no law obliges those , to whom it was not given , and consequently that no law , given onely to the Jews ( that people of one particular nation , and not the Representative of the whole world , or from whose loins all others were to be peopled ) layes any engagement ( though to them 't were given even by God himself ) on any other Nation , into whose municipal laws it hath not by the Governors been received , either by their free , prudential Choyce , or by way of imitation from them , and following that pattern , which they see given by God to his own people . And when it is so received by the subsequent laws of any other nation , it is their receiving it , and not the first giving it to the Jews , that becomes obligation to those others .

Onely here it must now be added in the last place . That this law which was given to the Jews , Lev . 18. had been formerly given by God to the sons of Adam , This Law given formerly to the sons of Adam . ( either after that the way of satisfying the first necessity , the propagating and peopling the world , was once provided for , or before , with a reservation of liberty in that one case ) and from thence by Tradition to the sons of Noah , as those that represented all the nations of the world , that should come from them , and so consequently was obligatory to all . Whereupon the Jews affirm of that interdict , Lev . 18.6 . which forbids these marriages , that it bindes not onely the Israelite , but {αβγδ} the stranger or proselyte , who , we know , was obliged by those Precepts onely , which were given to the sons of Noah . For though Gods giving these laws to the sons of Adam or Noah is not affirmed in Scripture , yet ( according to the foundation laid in the former §. 7. Discourse , as a preparative to what I am now to build upon it ) it is to be believed by all those that acknowledge Scripture , upon another score .

For 1. one of the Precepts of the sons of Adam and Noah enumerated by the Jews ( and therefore looked on by the Apostles at the Synod of Jerusalem , The proof of that . as that which concerned the Gentiles as well as the Jews ) is intituled , as was said {αβγδ} Of , or , Against disclosing Nakednesses , and that by the Jews generally expressed by De incestu & illicito concubitu , Of Incest and unlawful conjunction ; and every one of the forbidden propinquity , Mother , Sister , &c. styled {αβγδ} Nakedness or turpitude . Which therefore in all reason is to be extended as far as the interdict , Lev . 18. which is there intituled in like manner , The disclosing or uncovering of Nakedness , v. 6. &c. The seven Precepts of the sons of Noah , Act. 15. This will farther appear by comparing these seven Precepts , as they have been set down from the Jews Traditions , with the style wherein they are mentioned , Act. 15. whereas the two first concerning strange Worship , and the benediction of the one God , the God of Israel , are summarily comprised under the style of Abstaining from things offered to Idols ; and that of shedding blood , under [ Abstaining from blood ] and that of a member of a live creature , or eating flesh with the blood in it , under that of things strangled , and those two , of judgements , or administration of justice , and of theft ( for which some Jewish Writers reade [ ●oing as they would be done to ] ) under those words ( which some printed books , and many ancient written Copies , particularly Beza's venerable Greek and Latine one , which he sent to the University of Cambridge , have added , and the Aethiopick and other Interpreters retain ) {αβγδ} , and what you would not have done to your selves , do not that to any other ; so the fourth Precept , {αβγδ} Of , or , Against disclosing Nakednesses , is rendred , {αβγδ} , abstaining from fornication .

Which being premised , it is 2. manifest , that the word {αβγδ} , ordinarily rendred fornication , Fornication used in a latitude for all lusts prohibited . is used in the New Testament in a greater latitude then is ordinarily thought to belong to it , so as to contain in it , not onely Adultery , as appears Mat . 5.32 . and 19.9 . but also all unnatural sins , contrary to the distinction of sexes and kindes , ( {αβγδ} , saith Thomas Magister ) and also all breaches of the positive interdict of Propinquity . In a word , all unlawful desires of the flesh , of what kinde soever , all acts of prohibited carnality . Of this nature there were many sorts still remaining among the new Converts of Corinth , 1 Cor . 5.1 . and therefore his charge against them lyes in that indefinite form , {αβγδ} , fornication , {αβγδ} . or perhaps in an universal , comprehensive form , {αβγδ} , Fornication universally or in gross , containing all the several species of it : And one species there named by him , is that of incestuous Copulation with the fathers wife .

Now to bring home these premises to the point in hand . Incest unlawful among the Gentiles . It is there directly said , 1 Cor . 5.1 . that the having ( or conjugal living with ) the deceased fathers wife , is such a fornication , as is not named among the Gentiles . To which I might adde that speech of Virgil , — Thalamos ausum incestare Novercae , calling it a bold incestuous fact . This was by Charondas a heathen made infamous , which is more then to be pronounced unlawful . And when Seleucus the King would have married his wife Stratonice to Antiochus his son , he was afraid , saith Plutarch , lest she should be offended with the unlawfulness of the fact . Of other incestuous conjunctions , such as this was , the heathens are frequent in their expressions of detestation . Lysias an heathen Orator , {αβγδ} , to marry the mother and the daughter , was an act of the most wretched of all men . And Cicero pro Cluentio , cryes out of another of like sort , O scelus incredibile , & praeter hanc unam in omni vitâ inauditum , that it was an incredible villany ; and of which in his whole life he had never heard of a precedent . And {αβγδ} . Aristophanes speaking of a brother lying with his sister of the same mother , speaks it with a full detestation , — {αβγδ} {αβγδ} . O accursed man , &c. And it is Aristotles observation in his Politicks , that he that should ignorantly commit such a fact , would , when he knew it , abhor that pleasure .

And thus it is the conjecture of the learned Photius , Though practised by them . That the Circumcision of Abraham , and his posterity was instituted as an embleme of restraint from incestuous copulations , The Chaldaeans , saith he , Epist. {αβγδ} . mixed with their mothers daughters and sisters , {αβγδ} , by an impious detestable custome , gotten in among them ; and therefore that neither he , nor his posterity , {αβγδ} , should be polluted with these customes of their fathers , he was commanded to be circumcised , {αβγδ} , for the abolishing of such nefarious turpitude , the circumcising of his own flesh , being saith he , {αβγδ} , the dividing , and averting him from those of Consanguinity or Affinity with him , {αβγδ} , in respect of conjugal conversation . Whereas , saith he the Chaldaeans incontinence {αβγδ} without fear or shame , continued a long while after ▪ Abrahams time to commit such villanies . And if this were so , and , upon that score , among others , Abraham were commanded to leave the place of his nativity , then will this be an evidence of the prohibition of these marriages to all the nations before that time , by the precepts given to the sons of Adam and Noah . And then there will be little reason to doubt , but that this interdict extended to affinities , as well as consanguinities , and all that are prohibited the Jews , Lev . 18. particularly that mentioned by S. Paul , with such abhorrence , as that which was not named among the Gentiles , or which , though it had been committed , was yet looked on as an {αβγδ} , a commission of that which it was ashame to name . To which purpose it is observable , what is so oft and so distinctly affirmed , Lev . 18.24 , 25 , 27 , 30. and c . 20.23 . that in all these , i.e. all the incestuous marriages ( as well as unnatural lusts ) there prohibited , the nations were defiled which God cast out before the Jews , which so heavy a punishment inflicted on those heathen nations for this iniquity , must conclude this positive prohibition of incestuous marriages to have been long before given to them , as wel as those natural instincts against the unnatural sins , for all which joyntly they were abhorred by God , and cast out .

The learned De Jure Belli , l. II . c . 5. Sect 14. Hugo Grotius indeed ( whose authority , I foresee , will be here objected ) is inclinable to restrain the note of universality to the principal heads of that Chapter , unnatural conjunctions with mankinde , with beasts , with parents , with sisters , with other mens wives , and that the other are added onely {αβγδ} , by way of fortification and prevention of the former . But ( beside , that the Karaeans have prevented this interpretation , by affirming the whole kinde of incestuous marriages ( of which , Every of these prohibited to , and punished in the nations . say they , those that follow are but some examples ) to be comprehended in the first words of the interdict , v. 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him ) 't is obvious to conceive how ill a precedent this is , and how dangerous a way of interpreting , to restrain , where the law doth so distinctly not restrain , to except some particulars , when the words are repeated over and over , in the most unlimited comprehensive form of universality : Defile not your selves in any of these , for in all these the nations &c. v. 24. and , Ye shall not commit any of these , v. 26. for all these abominations &c. v. 27. and , Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations , v. 29. and , not any of these abominable customes , v. 30. And so again c . 20.23 . the nations committed all these . 't is not possible words should be more providently formed to exclude all exception or restraint , and to define every of the forenamed practises to be abominations first , and those very abominations ( all of them ) for which the Canaanites were cast out , and consequently that they were prohibited by some former law , by which those Canaanites were obliged , or else could not thus be spued out for committing them . As for the example of Jacob , which is conceived to favor that interpretation by marrying two Sisters , that hath been answered §. 27 , &c. already , and an account given of his doing it , which is reconcileable with that prohibition ; and though he were a pious man , 't is clear , Laban , who was the cause of his defiling Leah , when he had marryed Rachel , was not to be deemed such . And for the example of Amrams marrying his Aunt , and some of the Graecians , Iphidamas and Diomedes , doing the like , they will be far from argumentative , when it is considered how many single men of all times , and even whole nations have been guilty of breaches of a higher nature , then those against positive laws . That it was not much more ordinary among all people , it would be very strange if there had not been some acknowledged restraint laid upon it , and the very producing of so few , and these noted as singular examples , is a fairer probability on the other side , that such marriages were accounted unlawfull , where the law of Moses had not prohibited them , and so that to some former laws , that obliged all , this temper was imputable . And accordingly it is known , that Reuben , Jacobs eldest son , ( long before the law given to the Jews ) is disinherited for the crime of going up to his fathers bed , defiling his fathers concubine , Gen. 25.22 . and c . 49.4 . and 1 Chron . c . 5.1 .

Which being granted , there will be no reason to doubt , but that all and every of those marriages forementioned , particularly that of the brothers wife ( which is the next degree to the fathers wife ) and this of the wives Sister as near ( and in the same line ) as that , was forbidden also . The Arabians practise herein . To which purpose there is an eminent testimony of a learned Arabick Writer . Al Sharestanius , set down by Mr. Pocock in his Notes on the History of the Ancient Arabs . Turpissimum eorum quae faciebant ( Arabes tempore ignorantiae ) erat hoc , quòd vir duas sorores , & patris sui uxorem , velut successor , assumer●t , The foulest thing that the old Arabs did in time of ignorance , was this , that a man marryed two sisters , and took , as heir , or successor , the wife of his deceased father . Of the latter of which , saith Al Mostatraf Ebnol Arhir , that when a woman was left a widow , or divorced from the husband , the eldest son should take her by inheritance , and cast his garment over her , as a sign of it . This being formerly in use , was by the Alcoran forbidden , O vos qui creditis , non permissum est vobis foeminas haereditatis jure accipere . They that receive Mahomed's laws , must not take the fathers wives by way of inheritance . From which testimonies though it be concluded that some nations did admit that , which S. Paul saith was not so much as named among the Nations ( as it is affirmed by Strabo of those Arabians , that they used to take their own daughters , and so Clemens and Bardesanes say of the Persians also ) yet S. Paul might by the word Gentiles mean the civiller , or more regular of the unconverted Gentiles , or speaking to the converted Corinthians , might mean the unconverted of that Province ; and being true of those , it is sufficient to justifie S. Pauls speech , who to the reproach of Christians , mentions this practise among them , and addes that the heathens were not without an abhorrence of it .

Meane while it is cleare from thence , §. 40. both that the practise , though admitted among the old ignorant Arabs , was looked upon by Mahomed himselfe as a foule nefarious thing , and also that taking to wife of two Sisters was looked on as a crime of the same quality with marrying the father's wife , and that is all I intended to conclude from it .

Which therefore being thus concluded , The Christians obligation . and supposed to be by God interdicted to the sons of Adam and Noah , ( and so to all the nations of the world ) and that not onely as a ceremony to hedge in another duty ( as that of the member of a live creature , or flesh with the blood in it , or {αβγδ} , of that which was strangled , evidently was , to beget a dread of shedding mans blood , Gen. 9.4.6 . ) but as a prohibition terminated in it self , and this again not abrogated by Christ , but stricter laws of purity , now enacted by him , then ever had been before , and {αβγδ} in the full latitude absolutely forbidden , as that which should exclude him that were guilty of it out of the Kingdome of heaven ; and the same again by S. Paul more distinctly applied to this matter , under the {αβγδ} , fornication in gross ( containing all the species of it , and so all these disclosings of nakedness , Lev . 18. of which number this is by analogie resolved to be one ) All this , I say , together , will make a very competent authority to deter any Christian from the use of it , and that {αβγδ} , for conscience of that duty and obedience , which every creature must pay to God , every Christian to Christ , though the Scripture rather intimates ( and relates to ) this interdict , as a thing supposed , then defines how , or when , or to whom ( beside the Jews ) it was ever given .

The Authority of the Church . Beyond all this it is farther manifest , That the Church of Christ ( which will bear sway with all humble and sober Christians , and to whose Canons none did ever obstinately deny submission , without the brand and reward of Schism , that great sin of carnality in the Apostles account , most contrary to the unity of members , and to the meekness prescribed by Christ ) hath through all ages from the Apostolical first and purest times , been most strict in prescribing abstinence from such liberties , particularly this , which we have now in hand : which appears partly by the Infamy which hath attended such marriages , which supposes them to have been reputed unlawful by some former law , partly by the plain words of Canons which have forbidden them . The Apostolick Canons The Apostolick Canon . forbid the taking of any man into the Clergy , making him Bishop or Deacon , which shall have marryed two Sisters ( one after the death of the other ) or the brothers daughter , {αβγδ} . And Zonaras styles it there , {αβγδ} , an incestuous marriage . Where , if it be thought that this is no mark of the unlawfulness of the thing , but onely an interdict to the Clergie , that they shall not marry thus , leaving it free to others : This will be the same strange way of arguing , as if from the qualifications of the Bishop set down by S. Paul , that he should be no drunkard , no covetous person , &c. i.e. that such as are so , should not be admitted to holy Orders , we should conclude that these qualities might be lawful and free from other men , who were not Ecclesiasticks , or because the Bishop must be one that hath not marryed after such See Resolution to the third Quaere , §. 34. Divorces as are forbidden by Christ ; and the widow is to be the wife but of one husband in like manner , it were therefore lawful for all other Christians to use such Divorces and marry again , which we know was prohibited by Christ , or that other Christian women might have more husbands , or leave one and marry another , which we know was never lawful among any civil , though Heathen people . The plain of it is , that the onely thing conclusible from the interdicts of the Church Canons , is the frequency of such practises among unbeleivers , which made it necessary to revive and refresh the prohibition to Christians : To whom , under Christ , such marriages were reputed so foul , and the state of such sins being permanent , did so much enhance them above the nature of Single acts of greater sins , that , although for every commission of any known Sin , a man were not made uncapable of any dignity in the Church , ( or rendred irregular , if after the receiving of orders he were found guilty ) yet of these sins he that were once guilty , should for ever remain under a brand , and be counted uncapable of holy Orders , which he , that were otherwise worthy , would not , surely , have been , had it not been accounted unlawful , before that Canon inflicted that punishment on the offender . And then it being acknowledged that Christ hath not descended to the specifying of such particulars ; and that the Apostle that speaketh of one such sin , saith it was not named among the Gentiles , the result will be , That this brand of the Apostolical Canon , is founded in the Universal Prohibition obliging all men , and so the Christians of all nations , as well as the Jews , and that not abrogated but confirmed , and by stricter precepts of Continence , and denunciations against the incontinent , continued on the Christian by Christ .

What was thus punished and marked by the Apostolical Canon , The Eliberitan . was after in the Councel of Eliberis universally interdicted to all under a severe penance , Can . 61. or rather a penance of such a quality assigned it , which presupposed the prohibition , and acknowledged unlawfulness of it : Si quis post obitum uxoris suae sororem ejus duxerit &c. If any man after the death of his wife , shall marry his wives Sister , and she be a beleiver , he shall be excommunicate for the space of five years . And the like is so frequent throughout the Canons , and so acknowledged to be so , that there is no need of multiplying any more testimonies , They who have disputed this interdict , and against whose doubts this Discourse was designed , being the men who express their displeasure against the tyranny of the Church-Canons , which have , say they , obtruded these restraints upon men , who have otherwise a richer inheritance of liberty belonging to them .

To these I shall adde but this one thing , that if the authority of the universal Church of Christ be so vile to them , The laws of the Realm . yet the authority of the Civil Magistrate , and municipal Laws being not so profestly under their prejudice , it is sufficiently known that thus much of the Canon law is received into , and confirmed by the Law of this Land , and the See Stat. 25 H. 8. c . 22. and 28 H. 8. c . 7. and 32 H. 8. c . 38. and Lord s●kes Magna Charta , p. ●●3 . marrying the wives Sister expresly prohibited . And this is not rashly to be despised by any , though the Commissioners which were wont to have the cognizance and punishing of such facts , be not so likely to call men to account for them . It being still reasonable that conscience should restrain , when fear of wrath is not ready to do it ; and that those Laws , which are not presently able to avenge themselves , should be esteemed to have God ( whose Title it is to defend the poor , and punish the wrong-doer ) for their more solemn , and more formidable avenger .

The third Quaere .

CHAP. I. Concerning Polygamy and Divorces .

OF this subject I have Pract Ca● . l. 2. Sect . 7. formerly spoken as farre as seemed necessary for the informing of vulgar understandings : But to satisfie the Objections of some , which have appeared in publick , and out of a foresight of possible , if not approaching , Evils ; and because there is more hope of obstructing their entrance , then of removing them after admission : It may be both charitable and seasonable to take a larger view of this matter , and to vindicate it from the prejudices under which it hath faln , and to which the pride and lusts of men have subjected it in these licentious dayes .

And first it will not be amiss to imitate Christs method , The Law of the Creation in this . Mat . 19. who in answer to this same Quaere proposed by the Pharisees , recalleth and remitteth them from the dispensation which had been made , and the corrupt practises which had crept in among the Jews , to the first institution of God in the creation , v. 4 , 5. That institution is expressed in these words in Genesis , A man shall leave his father and mother , and cleave to his wife , and they two shall be one flesh , Gen. 2.24 .

And from Christs interpretation of it , which is most certainly authentick , Conclusions from Christs interpretation of that . 1. That the [ they ] is [ they twain ] and 2. That those that are thus united by this institution of Gods , are not separable by any act of man , Mat . 19.6 . And 3. that there was in Gods institution but one only case reserved , wherein , according to his Will , there should be place for Divorces , [ viz. that case of fornication in the wife , so contrary to the ends and vow of marriage ] the result is immediate and evident , that by the law of his creation , a man was to marry but one wife , and being marryed , he was obliged ( unless in that one case allowed of by God ) so to cleave to her , as never to separate or depart from her .

Of this institution thus set down , there are visibly two branches , Two parts of that law . one for the interdicting of Polygamy , or having at once more wives then one , the other for prohibiting of Divorces in all but that one case .

The words [ {αβγδ} , they two shall be one flesh ] ( which Plato appears to have learned as he did other things , out of Moses , First an interdict of Polygamy . when in his dialogue {αβγδ} , he saith , that anciently male and fema●e were put together into one body ) are an evident interdict of Polygamy , being an affirmation that the husband and wife , being originally but one , though divided into two bodies , are now by Gods institution , in stead of the first natural oneness , morally become one person , i.e. in reputation of divine law , and by vertue of their vow , have but one will in those things , wherein that union is to consist , i.e. in conjugal matters , and consequently that the one hath not power or liberty to dispose of himself , without the consent of the other , the thing which S. Paul affirms as that which is known in marriage , 1 Cor . 7.4 .

And so it appears by Christs reasoning , when from that union he concludes the perpetual unlawfulness of putting away , Polygamy adulterous . v. 6. which could not be unlawful from the beginning , if that no power over himself were not the meaning of that union , which was then instituted . So again when Christ not onely forbids Divorces ( save in that one case ) but also saith , that if they marry again , they are adulterous , this is an evidence that Polygamy is adulterous also .

For though the putting away a wife ( save onely in case of fornication ) be an offence against the conjugal vow , and contrary to that union forementioned , the man having not power over his own body , without the consent of the other part of him , his wife ; yet without his marrying again , he doth not himself actually commit adultery ( onely gives her temptat●on to commit adultery , The adulterousness of Divorces consists in the second marriage . Mat . 5.32 . ) By which 't is evident , that the marrying that second wife , while the former lives , is that in which that mans adultery formally consists , and consequently that the having two wives together must necessarily be adultery also ( according to that first institution and law of Gods ) when the former is not divorced .

To which purpose it may be remembred what was incidentally shewn in the §. 16. The interdict of Polygamy , Lev . 18.18 . former discourse , that though Polygamy was dispensed with , and so permitted the Jews in order to the multiplying that people , ( in which respect many other things are observable in the Jewish writings , as peculiar to them : as when the Talmudists resolve , That every Jew was bound to marry , that he was a murtherer that did not , Gemara Babyl : tit . Jabim . c . 6. And so Josephus , that the characteristick propriety of the Iews , wherein they differed from other people , was {αβγδ} , getting of children ) yet under the style of taking one wife to another , it was formally prohibited them , Lev . 18.18 . in the close of the interdicted marriages ( all which by the Positive Law of God , A recital of the law of the Creation . had been , from the beginning , forbidden , and are all comprehended under the title of disclosing of nakedness , the fourth of those precepts to the sons of Adam ) Thou shalt not take one wife to another to vex her , ( to provoke her jealousie , to deprive her of any part of that which was due to her ) in her life time . And it will anon appear , that the most unlawful divorce ( that which was founded no otherwise then in some dislike of the first wife , or of stronger inclinations to some other ) is by God himself preferred before this taking in another , to vex her , Mal . 2.

And accordingly it is the determination of some Iews , I say not how truly , The opinion of some Jews of Polygamy . that the Mosaical permission of Divorces , is the onely account , upon which Polygamy can become reconcileable even with Moses's Law . So Rabbi Ami in Gemar . Babyl . Tit . Iabimoth , c . 6. Every one that marries a wife to a wife , must put away the first , and endow her .

And though in the case of Hagar , and the handmaids of Iacobs wives , Concubinacy with consent of the wife . the consent of the wives , and their giving them to their husbands , that they might bear children in their stead , ( Gen. 16.2 . and 30.9 . ) do make a visible difference from all other Co●cubinacies or second marriages , Without it . wherei the former wife doth not consent , yet had this most moderate sort of Polygamy , or rather Concubinacy , ( which is but a species of Polygamy , differing from it onely in some formalities , and in respect of the manner of endowing the woman , and the law of the childrens not succeeding to the inheritance with the children of the wife , to which the Apostle refers , Both unlawful till dispensed with . Gal. 4.30 . ) been absolutely unlawful , as contrary to the institution of marriage in the first creation , had not God , for the increasing of Abrahams seed , been pleased to dispense with it .

This dispensation we finde not in the Law , when it was given , but see it supposed in the case of the maid-servant , Exod . 21.10 . If he take him another wife , &c. and Deut. 21.15 . If a man have two wives , one beloved and the other hated , ( both certainly at the same time ) and the assigning a portion in the inheritance to the son of the superinduced , supposeth him to be a legitimate issue . And the example of David , a man after Gods own heart , so great a Prophet , and type of Christ , and yet so great a Polygamist , and that mentioned as the gift of God , and a blessing upon him , 2 Sant . 12.8 . are farther evidences of it . Yet this , I suppose , given to that people , not infinitely , but with some temper , if the Polygamist treated the first , as he ought , and rendred her the duty of marriage . So in that of Exod . 21.10 . in case of the servant taken to wife , which failed of some privileges , which the free-woman had , yet If he take him another wife , her food and her raiment , and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish . The last of which the Septuagint renders {αβγδ} , and S. Paul seems to paraphrase by {αβγδ} . And if this were not done , if the first wife were hated in comparison of the second , i.e. partially and injuriously dealt with , then was this the sin mentioned Mal . 2.14 . and there charged on the Iews by the Prophet , the dealing treacherously with the wife of his youth , when God had been a witness between them , and she was the wife of his Covenant . And if any did then so multiply wives , not for propagation , but for lust , or to satisfie a wandring appetite , ( a symptome of which it was , if the superinduced were more kindely treated , to the grieving of the first ) without question that was then treachery , and falseness , and adultery in that Iew , and is so called from God , Mal . 2.16 . and pronounced by him utterly unlawfull .

Accordingly , As among the Iewes themselves , which took their liberty in the greatest latitude , Prohibitions of Polygamy among Jews and Gentiles . it was not allowed the high priest to have more then one ( He must not have two together , saith Maimonides Halach Isuri bia c . 17. and Gemara Babyl . collects it from Lev . 21.13 . for it is there written , say they , {αβγδ} one wife , and not two ) so from the reliques of that law of the first creation , this was among the heathens so farre resented as unlawful , that though the Persians and Indians , by barbarous customes having worn out the remains of the law , are confessed to have practised it , yet the civiller of the nations did religiously abstain from it . The Germans , saith Tacitus , in his time , contented themselves with one wife apiece . Among the Athenians , Cecrops revived the practise , {αβγδ} , and joyned , or yoked , one woman to one man , saith Athenaeus . And of the Romans 't is known , they never used that liberty of taking more . And even among the Aegyptians , their Priests ( which were most knowing , and most observant of duty ) solemnly abstained from it , saith A. Gellius , l. 15. c . 22.

And ever since Christs coming to reform the world ( and that in no one thing , All forbidden under Christ . more then in restraining unbridled lusts in the fountain , Mat . 5.8 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32. ) 't is evident by his words opposed to the Mosaicall indulgence , and by the strictness that is by him superadded to the Iewish doctrines concerning Divorces , that it is in universum prohibited to all Christians ; and being pronounced adultery , either simply , Mar. 10.11 . and Luk . 16.18 . or in case of any but one kind of Divorce , Mat . 19.19 . ( when yet the former wife , by being sent out of the house , is more moderately ill treated , and so comparatively a gainer by it , being freed from the vexation of the {αβγδ} or rival ) it must needs be acknowledged so , when that is not the case .

In this I foresee not any farther considerable difficulty , and therefore I proceed to the second branch , that concerning Divorces .

CHAP. II . Of Divorces .

IN this matter of Divorces also , if Christ may be beleived , The first Institution . the interdict was positive and clear in the first Institution ( at the creation of man and woman ) that the man should so cleave to the wife , as to be inseparable from her , and that without any reserve or exception , save in that onely case of falseness to the marriage-bed , or fornication .

This , though it were not named by Moses in that place , The case of Fornication in the wife , reserved in the first Institution . where that strict union is expressed , Gen. 2.24 . was yet , it seems , folded up in that first law ( for to that onely Christ in his reformation of this part of the Iewish oeconomy refers the matter . ) In like manner , I suppose , as liberty to works of mercy and necessity , and the service of the Temple , was reserved in the law of the Iewish Sabbath , so that there needed no intervention of new law or dispensation to make it lawful to divorce and separate in that one case , any more then to heal , or draw the oxe out of the ditch on the Sabbath day , but in the very Institution it self it was alwayes lawfull .

Thus certainly it stood by the law of the creation : and for any other liberty , {αβγδ} , from the beginning it was not instituted so . So saith S. Jerome , l. 1. advers . Jovinian . Ab exordio conditionis humanae nec carnibus vescebamur , nec dabamus repudium , From the beginning of mans creation we did neither eat flesh nor use divorces .

But then , as of Positive Laws it was formerly cleared , that they may , The Jews dispensation herein . when God pleases , be dispensed with , to those with whom he pleases , so it must be acknowledged , That among the Jews , such dispensation was given , to divorce in other cases , beside that singular reserved one of Fornication . And though from the words of Christ it must be concluded , that the reason of that dispensation was not the same with that other of Polygamy , nor so justifiable and clear from blame , ( the hardness of their hearts , The occasion of it . to which it is affixt , fastening an ill character upon it , as that which , in a manner , extorted from God the mitigation of the severity of the Law , in respect of the punishment , rather then perswaded the taking off the obligation of it ) yet this is but an account of the different reasons of Gods actions , no way concluding against his liberty of permitting that to some , by dispensing with a Positive law , which otherwise had alwayes stood more universally prohibited .

This dispensation to the Jews is set down first Deut. 24.1 . Deut . 24.1 . and referred to Mal . 2.16 . In Deuteronomy the words are , When a man hath taken a wife and marryed her , and it come to pass that she finde no favor in his eyes , because he hath found {αβγδ} , which we render some uncleanness , or matter of nakedness in her ; then let him write her a bill of divorcement , and give it in her hand , and send her out of his house , and when she is departed , she may go and be another mans wife , v. 2. And if the latter husband hate her , and write her a bill of divorcement , or if he dye , the former husband may not take her again to be his wife , v. 3 , 4.

In this place , wherein the Jewish Charter of beloved Liberty is contained , The Jews interpretation of it . great contention there hath alwayes been among their Doctors , how largely it might be extended , some interpreting it ( by the former clause [ her not finding favor in his eyes ] and the mention of hating , v. 3. ) to such a width , that whosoever disliked his wife , might thus speedily quit himself of her , and that {αβγδ} , whatsover the cause of dislike were . Others have been content that this immense latitude should be limited by the latter clause to matters of turpitude or nakedness , whatsoever that signifie , it being by all resolved , that it signifies not the sin of adultery onely .

To state and decide this Controversie betwixt the two pretensions of their Doctors , will not be worth our pains and stay , neither of those liberties being originally their due , much less the Christians portion . Yet of the Text it self two things may briefly be observed , 1. The ground of the Jewish divorces . That the immediate ground of the mans divorcing the wife , is specified to be her finding no favor in his eyes , v. 1. his hating her , v. 2. i . e . disliking her either absolutely , or comparatively with some other , whom he preferred before her , and that the {αβγδ} matter of uncleanness or nakedness , The occasion of that ground . is but the motive or occasion of that dislike or disfavor . 2. That when he thus thought fit to gratifie his lust or fancy with variety , the obligations lay on him , 1. To write a bill of divorce , The Restrictions in the dispensation . and give it in her hand , as an act of manumission , and sealing her liberty to her : and 2. to send her out of his house , which , I suppose , signifies the furnishing her for her journey , endowing her , making provision for her , for so {αβγδ} , {αβγδ} . to send out , signifies in the New Testament , to provide a viaticum , 1 Cor . 16.6 , 11. Act. 15.3 . Tit . 3.13 . where 't is explain'd by {αβγδ} , that they have no want of any thing : and accordingly in Rabbi Ami before cited , the endowing the wife , is annexed to the putting her away .

Both which are in favor of the wife , privileges that accrew to her , The advantages to the wife in divorce . to make the injury supportable . And the effect of them is , That she may go and be another mans wife , v. 2. be marryed to some other that will like her , and treat her better ; and by way of mulct to the husband , that if he shall after be willing to rescind his unkinde divorce , and receive her back again after the decease ( or divorce again ) of the second husband , he is not permitted to do it . To which it is added in Shulcan Aruch , c . 10. § . 1. that if she that is thus divorced be afterwards defiled , the husband is then bound to take her again , which , if it be true , will render it no very valuable liberty , or advantage to the husband , that he might thus put her away .

This makes it less necessary to inquire what the {αβγδ} there signifies , The unjustifiableness of the husband . which is rendred as the cause of his dislike : for if , the dislike being supposed , the law of Divorce were designed more for the wives , then the husbands advantage , to free her from the pain and vexation of his unkindeness , and the greater danger of anothers being taken in , and preferred before her ; It matters little what the husbands cause of dislike was , it being very far , whatever it were , from being justified , or made blameless by this Law .

From the place therefore in Deuteronomy , I proceed to that other in Malachi , The place for Divorces Mal . 2. which is fully agreeable to what hath been concluded from hence , though it be somewhat darkened in the prophetical style , especially by our vulgar misrendring of it , which having not formerly been adverted by me , may have betrayed the Reader of the Practical Catechism ( p. 130. ) to some mistake , for which , being obliged to make him satisfaction , this literal interpretation , A Paraphrase of it . and brief Paraphrase of a few verses , will help to do it .

This people are frequently guilty of breach of their vows of wedlock , Ver . 14. The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth , Or , whom thou hast forsaken , {αβγδ} , or despised . against whom thou hast dealt treacherously ; yet she is thy companion , and the wife of thy covenant . taking in to their Lawfull Jewish wives , heathen women that are unlawful , and preferring these latter , to the great injury and vexation of the former , not considering the obligation of kindeness , as to those which have long been married to them , nor of justice , as to those , to whom , by their vow of marriage , they are strictly bound never to take in any others , to the wronging and vexing of them ; nor of piety , as to those , who by being of the same Religion with them , are much fitter for their friendship and company , and to whom withall they are joyned by a most sacred tye , to which God was called as a witness . By all which it appears what a false , what an impious dealing this is .

Ver . 15. Did that one ( or , the first ) do so ? of whose spirit we are the residue . And what did that One ? ( or , First ? ) he was seeking a seed of God ( or , a godly seed : ) therefore restrain your spirit , and do not despise the wife of your youth . In this matter it would do well , that you , that boast your selves to be the children of Abraham , and expect great priviledges from thence , would think fit to imitate that first Father of yours , the Rock whence ye are hewn , Isa . 51.1 , 2. ( called therefore One {αβγδ} , as One , ( for want of degrees of comparison in Hebrew ) is equivalent with First , as {αβγδ} Mat . 28.1 . the one , i.e. the first of the week ; and as the first denotes the Father , or first of that Nation ) whose actions are to be copyed out by you , that ye may be the children of his piety , as well as of his body . Now of Abraham it it is eminently known , That although his wife Sarah were barren , and so able to bring him no childe , yet he would by no means take in to her any Idolatrous heathen wife ; he intended and designed this one thing , the having children that should worship God , and so would not be tempted by her barrenness to take in an heathen wife , which might betray them to the contrary : whereas you , without that temptation , take in heathen wives to the Jewish , which you have long enjoyed , yea and preferre those mothers which will bring up your children to heathenisme . Let this example of his restrain your wrath or displeasure ( called {αβγδ} spirit , Job 15.13 . where turning the spirit against God , is , being angry with him ; and Zech . 6.8 . where quieting Gods Spirit , is appeasing his wrath ) and do not you use your wives thus unkindely , which have lived so long , and so friendly with you .

For by the law of God , Ver . 16. For the Lord God of Israel saith , {αβγδ} a If thou hatest , put away , which Jarchi interprets , {αβγδ} If any of you hate a wife , let him put her away . So Gemara Babyl . ad Tit . Gitt●n , c . 9. Rabbi Jahuda said , {αβγδ} If thou hat●st her , put her away . If thou hatest her , put her away , for one covereth violence with his garment , saith the Lord of Hosts ; therefore restrain your spirit , that you deal not treacherously . Deut . 24.1 . thou art obliged , in case of such dislike and hating of thy wife , rather then thus to vex and grieve her , by taking in and preferring another , to the despising and rejecting her , to dismiss her by bill of divorce , that so she may marry some other that wil be more kinde to her , at least be removed from that vexation . And thy keeping her thus in thy house to see her self wronged and hated , is but a sad disguise or salve for thy injustice toward her , that which will yield her no more relief , then the hiding one , whilest I do him injury , casting a garment over him ( by which marriage is wont to be described ) whilest I use him most contumeliously . Wherefore , I say again , restrain your wrath and displeasure against your wives , and be not thus perjuriously false to them any longer .

Thus in both these places thus explained , but especially in the latter , where there is no mention of turpitude , or any other accusation laid against her , the divorcing of the hated wife meerly on the husbands dislikes , and aversations , without any real , or even pretended Crime , appears to have been permitted among the Jews ; Divorces , {αβγδ} . which sort of dislikes of his being multiplied according to his will , it follows , that it was , as the Pharisees say , Mat . 12.3 . {αβγδ} , upon every cause , {αβγδ} , for any kinde of accusations , saith Josephus , Ant. l. 4. c . 8. {αβγδ} , upon any occasion , saith Philo de Special . leg . ad praec . 7. and as Josephus in his own life saith of himself , {αβγδ} , upon dislike to her manners , certainly upon many others beside that one of fornication .

Onely the occasion of this permission must be taken notice of , The permission of them but comparative . which is both by Moses and Malachi so assigned , as to render it rather a comparative , then an absolute permission , rather to put away the hated wife , then by taking in another , to be false and voxatious to her ; and so , when it was permitted , as an act of mercy and pity to the wife , And in pity to the w f● . ( and accordingly the bill of Divorce is in Syriack styled {αβγδ} The bill of Propriety , Mat . 5.31 . whereby she is set at liberty from that unhappy yoke , and {αβγδ} , saith Josephus , By this means she hath power to marry another , Ant. l. 4. c . 8. ) rather then of indulgence to the husband .

And that notion of that permission Christ may seem to have had , And for hardness of their hearts when he saith , that for the hardness of their hearts Moses suffered them to put away their wives , Mat . 19.8 . For although those words may possibly signifie no more then a general mark of the obstinacy of this prevailing humor , that ( among them , when that permission was given ) was not to be suppressed by laws , as a Chronical disease resists Physick , and as Tacitus saith of adulta vitia , grown vices , that it is better to pass them over in silence , then by unseasonable prohibitions to let men know , quibus flagitiis impares sumus , that some vices are too hard for us ; Yet the force of the words may very well be extended to this also , that they were such a stiff-necked people , and particularly so implacable to their loathed wives , that unless they had liberty to remove them and make new choyces , they would do that which would be much more ingrateful to those wives ; and that therefore not onely those practises were tenderly handled , and punishments suspended , but a permission explicitely allowed them for the avoiding of somewhat worse .

But this , all this while , if we will beleive our Saviour , And contrary to the first institution . diametrally contrary to that which had been from the beginning , Mat . 19.8 . i . e . ( as , I conceive , the context inforceth ) to the first Institution of God or the law of the Creation .

For although the learned De Jure Belli , i . II . c , 5. sect . ● . Hugo Grotius be inclinable to interpret it onely of the quid Optimum , Deoque Gratissimum , &c. that which was best , and most acceptable to God , yet sure our Saviours words are clear , v. 5. from Gen. 2.24 . that A man shall , i.e. is obliged to leave father and mother , and to cleave to his wife , and they two shall be one flesh , and that this was a conjunction of Gods making , v. 6. All which being in form of Precept [ A man shall ] and [ they two shall ] and that founded in the taking the first woman out of the mans side ( which was a signal embleme of the designed unity ) and the words in Gen. 2.24 . [ Therefore shall a man cleave to his wife ] being not part of Adams speech precedent , but either a conclusion , and deduction made by the writer of the Book , and so referring to some known law to that purpose ; or , as by Christs citation of it , Mat . 19.5 . it is evident , the Command of God himself , a law then enacted by him , He that made them , v. 4. said , For this cause shall a man leave father , &c. And indeed the law of disclosing of Nakednesses , or of Fornication , Act. 15 ( i.e. the prohibition of all conjunctions , but that of the one husband and one wife ) being one of the Precepts vulgarly known among them by that title of the Precepts of the sons of Adam , to which Moses there , and Christ here might most properly refer , I cannot discern any reason or place of doubting , All Divorces but one unlawful by the first institution . but that this great conjugal Law , was the Law ( though not of Nature , yet ) of the first Creation , wherein all mankinde was concerned , and so that by it all those Divorces were prohibited .

To which I may adde , That it is one of the sentences of Ben Syra a Jew , The Jews ●onfession . {αβγδ} Gnaw the bone which hath faln to thy lot ; which the Comment set out by Paulus Fagius applies peculiarly to this matter , and concludes that he dothill , if he put her away , though she be ill , i.e. that every fault of the wife doth not subject her to this severity or excision : Which , though it be no evidence of the practise of the Jews , which 't is known was contrary ; yet it is an argument , that the sober and wise men , even among them , to whom this dispensation was given , had no honorable opinion of it .

The case standing thus among the Jews , and some dispensation of the Primogenial law being allowed them , or rather , by the temper of the people , and the obstinacy of the disease , and for the relief of the oppressed hated wife , extorted from the Law-giver , Christs dealing in this matter . Christ comes from heaven to the review and reformation of this , among other laws , and in direct opposition to what had been said among the Jews in this matter , Mat . 5.31 . i . e . to the liberty allowed them , he pronounceth for the future to them and all other Christians , that whosoever makes use of that indulgence , puts away his wife , save for ( that one crime of ) fornication , he causeth her to commit adultery , i.e. gives her the strongest temptation imaginable , betrayes her to the utmost hazard of doing it , and , as S. Luke addes in his reciting of that passage , Luk . 16.18 . If he marryeth another ( as in all probability he designs to do , when he thus puts away the first upon such dislikes ) he committeth adultery ; and whoso marryeth her that is divorced , A threefold adultery in it . committeth adultery . A threefold complicated adultery the effect of such an unlawful Divorce , and second marriage attending it .

And so again , Mat . 19.9 . and Mar. 10.6 . the same words are , on another occasion , again repeated . Two places of such clearness and perspicuity ( one cause of divorce allowed the Christians , that great breach of the conjugal Vow , and whosoever divorces and marries again , save in that one case punctually named , committeth adultery ) that as no Paraphrase can make them more intell gible : so there is but one question that can reasonably be started in them , viz. The onely question , Whether after Divorce for fornication it be lawful to marry again . Whether he that puts away his wife on this one authentick cause , be so perfectly freed from the conjugal Vow and bands , that he may lawfully , by the same laws both of God to the sons of Adam , and of Christ to his followers , marry some other woman , and some other man marry that divorced adulterous wife .

The occasion of this doubt the variety of the words , The occasion of this question . wherein this speech of Christs is expressed in the Gospels . For as Mat . 19.9 . the words are , that Whosoever shall put away his wife , save for fornication , and shall marry another , committeth adultery ; and he that shall marry her that is put away , committeth adultery : which are favorable to the affirmative , That it is lawful for him in that one excepted case , to marry again : so Mar. 10.11 . and Luk . 16.18 . the exception is left out , and the words are the same in both , absolutely delivered , Whosoever putteth away his wife , and marryeth another , committeth adultery .

That these places , that in Matthew , on one side , and in the other two Evangelists , at least in S. Mark , on the other side , are a report of the same passage of story , and of the same part of Christs speech , appealing from the Mosaical permission , to the first Institution of marriage , there is no ground of making any Question . And therefore it follows , that one must be interpreted by the other , either S. Matthew by the other two , or the other two by S. Matthew .

That Matthew should be interpreted by the other , Mark and Luke expound●d by Matthew . the more explicite and large by the shorter and less explicite , seems not reasonable . And besides , it were not easily imaginable , what should become of those words in Matthew , both there and Mat . 5. [ except for fornication ] if the full sense were expressed by Mark and Luke , without them : for though it be easie to conceive such words to be meant , when they are not expressed , yet it is not easie to conceive them not to be meant , when they are expressed .

Whereas on the other side , that Mark should be interpreted by S. Matthew , this reasonable account may be given from the Context , 1. Because it being apparent by S. Matthew , both c . 5. and c . 19. that Christ did allow divorces in case of the wives committing fornication , S. Mark , in this whole passage , not mentioning any such thing , must yet necessarily be presumed and interpreted to imply it : and then those words [ save for fornication ] must be understood , or supposed as spoken and meant , though not expressed , v. 11. and if so , it will then be all one with S. Matthews reciting of it .

And the purposed brevity of S. Mark ( whose Gospel was written after Matthews ) will be a second reason to incline us to beleive this ; and accordingly 't is manifest , that when the Pharisees form of question was , Whether it were lawful to put away the wife {αβγδ} for every cause ? S. Mark ( and S. Luke also ) leaves out that clause , and proposes the question thus , Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ? Where , as it is certain that the Pharisee speaking according to the then present doctrine of the Jews , and asking whether the Jewish divorces were not lawful , must consequently ask whether divorces for every cause , or many other besides fornication , were not lawful , though Mark , for brevity sake , rather intimate that ( by saying that it was the Pharisees that asked , and asked tempting , v. 2. then ) express it : so in Christs answer given more privately to the same matter , v. 10. the same must be implyed again , viz. that whosoever shall put away his wife for every cause , i.e. for any other cause beside fornication , and marry another , committeth adultery , and so in like manner he that marryeth her , i.e. her that is put away for any other such cause , ( which is not , according to the first Institution , a just reason of dissolving the bond ) committeth adultery also .

That this is the meaning of Christs words , may 3. be farther proved by the nature of Divorce , which is the rescinding of the Conjugal Bands , and by one supposition common to Jews , and Christians , and Romans , and all , viz. that they which were duly divorced , might marry again : so of the Jewish divorced wife , Deut. 24.2 . 't is expresly said , she may marry another ; and of the man , it is known that this was his onely end of putting away his wife in that place , that he might marry another , whom he liked better : and accordingly this is the form of Divorce in Misna , Tit . Gittin , Behold thou art {αβγδ} free , or , at liberty for any man , and this is the Bill of Divorce between me and thee , so that it is free for thee to marry {αβγδ} to any man thou wilt . And so every where in their writings on this subject . And among the Romans there is no question of it . And this being thus known of the Jews , and presumed by Christ , yet all that he chargeth with Adultery in the Jewish Ceremony , is their putting away for causes not allowed in the institution of marriage . And in opposition to that onely , he proposeth his reformation , defining what is the due {αβγδ} or cause of Divorce , upon which a man may ( as upon any other he may not ) freely divorce , still presuming that he that divorceth , may also without Adultery marry again .

If this be the meaning of the words in the Evangelists , as these circumstances make it probable to be , then the question is answered , that in such a divorce , allowed both in the first ins●itution , and by Christ himself , there lyes no interdict , or hindrance against that mans marrying aga●n , though in all other cases there doth .

And yet on the other side it may be argued , Arguments on the other side . that although , in the Mosaical Law , Divorce was the rescinding the Conjugal bands , to which it was consequent , as long as the Jewish policy lasted , that they that were duly divorced ( as in the one case of fornication it is acknowledged ) might freely marry again : yet in the acceptation of our Christian Courts , Divorce appears not to be any more , then the solemn , Judicial separation from conjugal society : For that Adultery which is a sufficient cause of Divorce , is yet ( though a breach of the conjugal vow ) no actual dissolution or voiding of the conjugal bands , among us Christians , may seem probable by these two Evidences , 1. Because Adultery committed by the husband , dissolves not marriage , which yet it equally should , if that fault committed , and not the sentence of Divorce , rescinded the conjugal band . For though the superiority of the husband over the wife , makes some difference , in respect of which it is acknowledged , That she cannot put away her husband ; yet would that be of no force in this matter , supposing that Adultery were a dissolution of the bands , for then she ceasing to be bound , as a wife , would also cease to be inferior or subject to him . And in this a difference is observable between the Jews and us ; for in case of Fornication , the Jew expected no sentence of the Consistory , but the man might put her away , give her from himself a Bill of Divorce , which hath never been allowed among Christians . 2. Because if this were so , if Adultery in the wife dissolved the bands , then the husband , that after the wives Adultery continued to live with her conjugally , must be concluded to commit fornication with her , the validity of those bands being it ( and nothing else ) which makes conjugal society lawful , and honorable , and acceptable in the sight of God .

And agreeable to this arguing , it may be considered , The opinion of the Church . what hath been defined in the Church of former ages , {αβγδ} , &c. Can . Apost . 48. If any La●ck put away his wife , and marry another , or marry a woman which hath been put away by another , let him be excommunicate . So in the Councel of Arles , An. Ch. 314. De his qui con●uges suas in adulterio deprehendunt , & iidem sunt adolescentes fideles , & prohibentur nubere , placuit ut in quantum possit , consilium iis detur ne viventibus uxoribus suis , licet adulteris , alias accipiant , Can . 10. They that deprehend their wives in adultery , and are beleiv●s , and yong men , and are forbid to marry , 't is decreed that counsel be given them , that as far as may be they marry not others , whilest their wives , though they be adulteresses , live : Where , both counsel is given them not to marry , and a reference made to some former Canons , where such marriage was forbidden . So in the Milevitan Councel , where S. Augustine was present , An. Ch. 402. It is decreed , ut secundum Evangelicam & Apostolicam doctrinam neque dimissus ab uxore , neque dimissa à marito , alteri conjungantur , sed ita maneant , aut sibimet reconcilientur , That according to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine , neither the man that is dismist from his wife , nor the woman that is dismist from her husband marry any body else , but either remain unmarried , or be reconciled to one another . So in the Codex Can . Eccl. African . Can . 102. {αβγδ} . That they that are divorced f●om husbands or wives , should remain unmarried . What hath thus been defined by these Canons , is evidently received into the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of this Church , which therefore decrees , that when Divorces are pronounced , monitio & prohibitio fiat , ut à partibus ab invicem seg●egatis castè vivatur , nec ad alias nuptias alterutrâ vivente convoletur : admontion and prohibition be given , That they that are thus parted live chastly , that neither marry whilest the other lives . constit . Eccl. An. Dom . 1597.

In this difficulty thus argued on both sides , the Resolution , The Resolution . I suppose , will be made by these propositions , 1. That by the force of Christs words in all the Evangelists , he that marries again after any kinde of divorce , but that one for fornication , doth commit an unchristian sin ; and that at least of a double Adultery , one in taking a new wife , whilest the former l●veth ( which is formally adulterous ) the other in deserting ( and denying the duty of marriage to ) the rejected wife of his youth , which may be causally adultery in her , and in the mean while is an injustice joyn'd with wandring lust . Secondly , That by the force of the arguments first produced for the interpreting Mark and Luke , by Mat . 19.5 . it may be probably concluded , That in that one case of divorce for fornication , the marriage of the innocent party shall not be adulterous . Thirdly , That although this be granted , yet the words of Mark and Luke , and especially the words of S. Paul , 1 Cor . 7.39 . do give such prejudices against marriages after divorce indefinitely , that the Ancient Canons of the Church of God , and the constitutions of our English Reformation , have thought fit not to permit such liberty in any kinde .

And this may appear , if we now review , and consider the temper observed in the recited Canons : First , it is with an [ in quantum possint , consilium iis detur , as far as they can , let them be counselled . ] And [ monitio & prohibitio fiat , admonition and prohibition joyned together . ] And our Constitution addes , Denique quò illud firmiùs observetur , sententia separationis non antea pronunciabitur , quàm qui eam postulaverint , cautionem fidejussoriam sufficientem interposuerint se contra monitionem & prohibitionem nihil commissuros , That this may be more firmly observed , the Decree of Separation shall not be pronounced , till they that demand it , shall put in sufficient band that they will do nothing against the admonition and prohibition . And if this be not observed by the Judge , he is to be punished , and the sentence of Divorce for such defect , declared void , Constit . Eccl. An. D. 1597. Which manner of proceeding prescribed by the Canon , 1. By way of monition and counsel , which differs from divine Precept : 2. By requiring a bond for the observing the monition ( which useth not to be required , when the divine Law distinctly commands obedience ) do seem to infer that this marriage after a Christian divorce , is not looked upon by the Church as an adulterous Commission , but rather as a matter of dangerous consequence , if it should be permitted .

't is true , some of the Ancients speaking of this matter , seem to say , that these second marriages are against Scripture , contra Scripturam quidem fecerunt , saith Origen . Those Bishops which , extra Scripturam , without authority of Scripture permitted a woman to marry , while the former husband lived , have indeed done contrary to Scripture . And Athenagoras in his {αβγδ} . The Christians are commanded either to remain single , {αβγδ} , or to be content with one marriage , affirming the second to be {αβγδ} , a handsomer better sort of adultery ; and this on force of Christs words , that he that putteth away his wife and marryeth another , committeth adultery . And Innocent the first Bishop of Rome , Qui interveniente repudio , alii se matrimonio copularunt , in utraque parte adulteros esse manifestum est , &c. They that after divorce joyn themselves to some other marriage , it is manifest they are adulterers on both sides , according to that which we reade in the Gospel , He that putteth away his wife and marryeth another , committeth adultery , and he that marryeth her that is put away , committeth adultery . But of these and the like testimonies it may be observed , that most of them belong not to those Divorces , which are in case of fornication , but ( proportionably to Christs words in S. Mark ) to those which according to the Jewish or Imperial laws , were allowed , in other cases , then what either Christ or the Primogenial Institution of marriage had allowed of . Of these we have reason to interpret many passages of the Ancients , sometimes in reference to the Imperial , sometime to the Mosaical practise of greater liberty . Of the former sort are those words of the first Laodicean Canon , {αβγδ} , they that are freely and lawfully joyned in second marriages , i.e. after such Divorces as are legal by the Roman practise and laws , but not by the law of Christ . And so in the Nicene , and Ancyrane , and Neo-caesarean Councels . Of the latter are the forecited words of S. Hierome , l. 1. advers . Jovinian . From the beginning of the world we used not Divorces ; where it is evident by the precedent words [ eloquium Salvatoris , our Saviours command ] that he was to be understood in opposition to the Mosaical indulgence of greater liberty , not to the Christian in that one case . And of these it is evident , and confessed by all Christians , that the marriages after such divorces are adulterous , but not so of those other marriages of the innocent parties after those other divorces in that one case of adultery . Nay even some Canons have been made with this temperament expresly [ Except in the case of fornication , ] So in the second Canon of the Councel of Vannes , Eos qui relictis uxoribus suis , sicut in Evangelio dicitur , exceptâ causâ fornicationis , sine adulterii probatione alias duxerint , statuimus , &c. They that have left their own wives , as it is said in the Gospel , except for cause of fornication , and without proof of adultery , shall have married others , we judge them , &c.

Having thus said thus much for the satisfying this difficulty : One advantage , I suppose , may be made of it , before we proceed any farther toward the explaining the meaning of S. Pauls Canon , or direction to Timothy , 1 Tim . 3. and 5. for the choyce of Bishops and Widows , S. Pau●s Canon of the Bishop and Widow . that the Bishop be the husband of one wife , and the Widow be the wife of one husband , viz. that in both places it be taken in the same sense , in a notion of second marriages ( differing both from the ordinary Bigamy and Digamy ) of those that having put away thei● wives , or being separated from their husbands , on any cause whatsoever , whether Jewish , Roman , or Christian , have married again .

To this purpose it must be observed , that the having or living with more wives at once , Th●ee sorts of second marriages . cannot be the thing there meant , because the interdict lying equally to the Bishop and to the Widow , Having two at once . this sense is not appliable to her , because it was never permitted by any law either of Jews or Romans ( nor is it since by the Mahomedan●s themselves ) that a woman should have and live with two husbands at once . As for the Barbarians , among whom there is mention of {αβγδ} , a people where the women had many husbands , and so the Medes that dwelt in the mountains , among whom 't is said a woman had five husbands at once , these are too extravagant to be referred to by the Apostle , in that interdict .

And for the ordinary Digamy , the marrying a second after the decease of the former , A second after the decease of the first . that that should be so reproachful or blameable in any , as to render one uncapable of holy Orders ( which they are capable of , which have been guilty of some faults ) this is not imaginable neither ; It being ordinary for the wife to dye soon after marriage , and without bearing of children , and in that case the second marriage tending as much to the ends of the Institution , as the former can be supposeable to do . And accordingly this Prohibition is not to be found in the laws of any Nation , and the Apostle is elswhere clear , that when the husband is dead , the woman is free to marry another man , Rom. 7.3 . And accordingly Clemens Alexandrinus , Strom . l. 4. speaking of the great reward of those that do {αβγδ} , marry no more after the death of the first wife , doth yet acknowledge , that if he marries again {αβγδ} he doth not sin against the covenant , {αβγδ} , for there is no prohibition of this by law , onely , saith he , he doth not attain to that {αβγδ} highest perfection of the Evangelical course , the very same which would be affirmed of never marrying at all , which is not commanded any , but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection .

Whereas this third notion will be very agreeable to the places , Marrying after an unlawful Divorce . meaning this marriage after a divorce , This he that had been guilty of , by humane Laws , either of Jews or Romans , was under no censure , but by the Apostles direction is not thought fit to be received into holy Orders . As the High-Priest among the Jews might not be a Polygamist , might not divorce and marry again , nor marry one that was divorced , though other men were permitted to do all these . And of this the women , and so the widows , were capable , as well as the men : Women leaving their husbands . Salome the sister of Herod the son of Antipater , gave a bill of Divorce to Custabarus the Praefect of Idumaea and Gaza , but this {αβγδ} , contrary to the Jewish laws , saith Josephus , l. 15. c . 11. And so Herodias , Philips wife , as may be gathered out of Josephus , Ant. l. 18. c . 7. And of the marrying of those that were put away by their husbands , the Canons make frequent mention .

Of this sex , saith Seneca de Benefic . l. 3. c . 16. Numquid jam ulla repudio erubescit ? Is any woman now ashamed of leaving her husband ? And , Nobiles foeminae non consulum numero , sed maritorum annos suos computant , they married and departed , and married again every year . So Plutarch in his {αβγδ} mentions the marrying of women , whose husbands were living ; and the same appears by Justinian , Novel . 117. And among the Graecians {αβγδ} is the word for it .

Among Christians ( though by Christs law the wife might not put away the man , Divorces practised among Christians . nor , except in one case , the man the woman : yet some examples of the practise of it , by the consent of parties , are to be met with ; as appears by Marculfus his formula , l. 2. c . 30. directly to this purpose , Dum inter illum & illam non charitas secundum Deum , sed discordia regnat . — placuit &c. Seeing between him and her the charity according to God doth not reign , but discord , so that they cannot live peaceably together , it is agreed by the consent of both , that they separate from one another , and accordingly they have done . A formula used among Christians , as there is another , Leg . Rom. c . 19. and Novel . Institut . 117.

And being thus practised , the Can 116. in Zonaras's account . Councel of Carthage thought fit to make a Canon to reform it , and therefore appointed that the Emperor should be desired to enact an Imperial Law against it ; and so doth the Milevitan Councel , Can . 17. And accordingly one of the Presbyters that were brought to witness against Marcellinus being found to have married after a divorce , placuit reprobari , saith Aerodius , Pandect . re● . judicat . l. 6. Tit . 1. c . 18. he was rejected .

To this sense , I conceive , the like directions given both by the Author of the Constitutions , and in the Apostolical Canons do belong . In the Constitutions , they are thus enlarged , {αβγδ} , Such an one ought the Bishop to be , one that hath been the husband of one wife , and that wife the wife of one husband , i.e. that he that is thought fit to be chosen Bishop , shall be one that hath never married another wife whil'st his former liveth ; and in like manner , that he shall not marry any woman , that hath parted with a former husband : so as {αβγδ} shall be all one with {αβγδ} {αβγδ} in the 48. Apostolical Canon , she that hath not been put away .

In the Apostolical Canon the words are more perspicuous , {αβγδ} , He that is joyned in two marriages after Baptism , or hath a concubine , cannot be a Bishop , or Presbyter , or Deacon , or of any sacred Order . Where the second marriage being proportionable to having a concubine , must in reason be the having two wives living at a time , onely one of them put away from him . Of this matter the Reader may see Zonaras on the 116 Canon of the Councel of Carthage , Radolphus Fornerius Rerum quotidian . l. 6. c . 23. Burchard . l. 9. c . 72. and Christ . Justellus from the Notes of Jacobus Leschasserius , on the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae . But this by the way .

Having gone thus far , I should soon be at an end of my gesses , were there not some pretensions of other men , who like not to have their liberties retrench'd , though by Christ himself , which may deserve to be a while considered . And the considering of them will be the most ingrateful part of this task ; yet that which must be undergone , lest , having offered their reasons and exceptions against the Doctrine of the Church , and expresly of Christ himself , they be permitted to that dangerous temptation , of thinking themselves successful in the attempt , and so that prove to some men a more perswasive reason to beleive their wishes , then any yet hath been produced .

The first open attempt that I remember that way , A Plea for Divorces . was made in a Discourse purposely on that subject , and presented to the Parliament , at the beginning of these licentious times ; and the special artifice made use of , was that , of bringing back Christ unto Moses , of interpreting the restraint laid on this matter in the New Testament , by analogie with the Judaical permission in the Old. After the same manner , as when the municipal Laws of a Kingdome are thought fit to be reduced to ( and interpreted ) by the fundamental ; which is , by interpretation , as when the whole pile or fabrick being taken down , and not one stone left upon another , the appeal is made by resort to the first foundations , which lying under the ground , and in the dark , will be more easily perswaded either to be or to appear , whatsoever we wish they should .

How rational a procedure this is in other matters , The Answers to it . I have no temptation to inquire . Onely to the business of divorces it must be observed , how much more unreasonably it is pretended , then in the parallel , of Humane Laws .

For first , the Law of Moses to the Jews was not the fundamental law of all mankinde , or that wherein all , or indeed any but they , were concerned . And 2. this particular of divorces being not a preceptive law , but a permissive , a law of special dispensation affixt to a former obligatory law , was , if we beleive Christ , directly contrary to that , by which , those Jews , with all men had formerly been regulated . And then 3. Christs superadditions in this matter are so far from being interpretable by , or reducible to that supposed foundation , that , as was said , they are directly and purposely opposed to it . It is impossible that words should be more explicite and distinct , Mat . 5.31 . It hath been said , Whosoever shall put away his wife , let him give her a bill of divorce . But I say unto you , that , whosoever shall put away his wife , saving for the cause of fornication , &c. And c . 19.9 . And I say unto you , Whosoever shall put away his wife , except it be for the cause of fornication , and shall marry another , committeth adultery : and whosoever marrieth her which is put away , doth commit adultery .

Is it possible this artifice could have been more providently foreseen and prevented by Christ ? Christs doctrine against Divorces . Under Moses they might put away upon dislikes , founded in the matter of Nakedness : Under Christ they must not , save in the one case of Fornication : Under Moses , the man that had given a bill of divorce , might marry another ; but under Christ , if he do so , he committeth adultery : Under Moses the woman that had the Bill might go , and marry any man else , except that former husband , v. 4. and the High-Priest , Lev . 21.7 . but under Christ , if she do , she commits adultery , and he that marries her commits adultery ; and though she do not marry , yet he that puls her away , being unable to give her liberty of marrying another , doth , as much as in him lyes , cause her to commit adultery . And then sure , 't is but seasonable to invert our Saviours speech , What man shall dare joyn , what God hath , thus widely , put asunder ?

The onely colour of ground for this pretension [ viz. that Christ in the Sermon on the mount makes no addition to the Mosaical Law , The opinion of Christs adding nothing to Moses . and therefore that here he doth not in this of divorces ] hath in Note on Pract . Cat . l. 2. §. 3. p. 106 , 107 , 108. other papers been evidenced from all Antiquity to be a false ground . And yet ( to see the luck of it ) if it should be acknowledged a true one , it would presently destroy the whole pretension : For then it must follow , that there was as much interdicted in Moses , as is now forbidden by Christ ; and thence again , that the obscure words of Moses did really contain , what the plain words of Christ do certainly express , and then that the matter of nakedness there , must be interpreted by {αβγδ} or fornication here . And then the result will be , that even among the Jews under Moses's permission , those divorces for any other inferior causes were not permitted , which is the direct contradictory to that , which is pretended to be deduced from this way of probation .

For , of the opinion of those that think Christ added nothing to the law of Moses , this is observable ; That , to give it some colour of truth or probability , they have been forced to affirm that Christs whole design in that Sermon on the mount , was to vindicate and rescue the law of Moses from the Pharisees glosses , and onely to restore it to the primitive perfection and lustre , that it had before it was so maimed and clouded by those Doctors : which if it be true , then must that of permitting divorces , in other cases beside that of fornication , be onely a gloss of the Pharisees , and not the truth of the Mosaical Law ; which , as long as it is granted , is the utter undoing of that plea for this liberty founded in , and deduced from the Mosaical Law .

To conclude , It is necessary by all laws of discourse , that Christ being to vindicate the law of Moses from false interpretations , that vindication of Christs should be received as the interpretation of the law of Moses , that was so misinterpreted , and not the law of Moses be the interpreter of Christs vindication ; It being an axiome knowne to all , that the latter , and more perspicuous , must be the interpreter of the former , more obscure , and not the former , and the darker be set blindly to interpret the latter and more perspicuous , The authentick paraphrase being the comment on the text , and not the obscurer text on the paraphrase .

Another course of avoiding the force , and perspicuity of our Saviours words , Mr. Seldens attempt in this matter . hath been taken by Mr. Selden in his Uxor Hebraica l. 3. 23. which it will not be amiss to survey a while , as distinctly , as my designed brevity will permit .

The first part of the attempt is to dispose the reader , His preparations to if . and bring him to make some doubt or question , what is the meaning of those plain words of Christ , [ {αβγδ} , Saving for the cause of fornication ] and [ {αβγδ} , except for fornication ] And that is endevoured by these wayes , First , by mentioning it as an Difficultas maxima quâ cruciari solent heie Scriptores . p. 479. huge difficulty , which is wont to torment writers on this subject . Secondly , by rendring two notions of the word Fornication among Christian writers , frequently in use , one belonging to the unmarried , the other to the marryed , and then ( because in the former of these notions it cannot be taken , unlesse it denote some act committed before marriage ) enquiring whether among any Authors , either more antient , or contemporary with the Evangelists , {αβγδ} do manifestò & palam , manifestly and openly signify adultery , as that is signanter , Simply and Specifically the violation of marriage . In this inquiry first he finds the word used in Demosthenes for that which is not to be named , in Philo for prostitution ; but he supposes no man to think this applicable to this matter . Secondly , then he finds in Hesychius & the Etymologist {αβγδ} , and so , ( that which was designed not to be found ) fornication for adultery . Horum uterque recentio●es sunt nec veterum ante , seu sub Christi tempora usum omnino probaent , aliter atque patres Christiani Christi in ●erris tempore saeculis aliquot recentiores , quibus pro adulterio admittitur , usurpaturque . p. 481. But these , saith he , are recentiores , later writers , and do not prove the use of the word among the ancients before or about Christs time , any more then the fathers of the Christian Church , which are also later then Christs being here on earth , who use it and understand it for adultery . To this , thirdly , he addes , that it is strange that Matthew should in both places use {αβγδ} fornication , and not {αβγδ} adultery , which yet in both places Christ uses immediately after these words ; and there being a third place in Matthew wherein both these words are used together , Mat . 15.19 . He observes fourthly , that the Syriack reades {αβγδ} adultery onely . Fifthly , he supposes it acknowledged by all , that the same words are wont to be diversely used in respect of the diversity of matters . Sixthly , he addes , that among the severall opinions that were at that time abroad , there was no one of this sort , that there was no place for divorces , save in case of adultery ; The severall opinions being reducible to three heads , first that of Hillel , that the husband might divorce for any cause , yet not meaning his own bare will : secondly , that of Sammai , for somewhat of turpitude onely : thirdly , that of Aquiba , that he might doe it on his owne will for whatsoever he pleased . Nay seventhly , that adultery was to be punished by death , and so not by divorce . Eighthly , that the Pharisees consulted Christ temptingly and treacherously , and yet , that as soon as Christ had thus answered them , they were so satisfied , that they opposed not a word , which 't is scarce credible they should doe , if his answer had been so new and unheard of , distant from all the three opinions knowne among them ; Nay that the disciples seem not so to understand his answer as if it were any such new doctrine , but such as ; though rejected by the most , was yet defended by others the Scholars of Sammai and his followers . Ninthly , That it is not evident enough by Christs expresse words , whether the cause of fornication do not belong to the husband also , and not onely to the wife , that if he were guilty , or {αβγδ} propensi●s fieret reus . in danger of being guilty of fornication through her contumacies or molestations , this were sufficient for a divorce . Upon these praemises having sufficiently prepared the Readers inclinations , he then proceeds to a through examination of the matter by reducing all to three Quaeres .

But before I proceed to them , I shall reflect a while upon this {αβγδ} or preparative velitation which I have thus largely and punctually set downe , that it may appear what solidity there is like to be in that pretension , which was thus to be usherd in .

And first it is visible to all , that this which he makes a question of , and calls it a greatest difficulty , which writers on this Subject have been tormented with , is indeed no such matter , but that all the Christian writers of any note from Christs time to this , have uniformly resolved that Christs words of divorce doe belong to that one case of fornication in the wife . None ever doubting but that {αβγδ} doth there signifie Sinnes of uncleanenesse ; Onely some extending it , farther then adultery , to unnatural and incestuous commissions , which , it is certain , {αβγδ} not Adultery onely . are called {αβγδ} also , and being of so high a nature , may well be thought fit to be comprehended in Christs words , and not adultery onely .

This will anon appeare on occasion of some testimonies produced out of Bede and others , by Mr. Se●den , to which we shall §. 81. then joyn that passage of St. Augustine in his Retractations , by whom indeed it is said to be latebrosissima quaestio & scrupulosissima disputatio , a very obscure and scrupulous quaestion , not , whether for other causes except that one , a Christian might divorce , but , whether that one contain not other acts of fornication besides adultery .

Secondly , then for the use of this word {αβγδ} Signanter , Simply and Specifically for adultery , i.e. I suppose , so as to exclude all other sorts of uncleannesse , there is no need to produce any testimonies , of such antient writers ; If it be more largely extended , in like manner , as it is Acts 15. in the Apostles Canon , to incests and unnatural Sinnes &c. this is not it , wherein the controversie consists . And therefore for the notions of it in Demosthenes for paederastia or unnatural filthinesse , and the like also , but somewhat more indefinitely , in Philo , if they be here taken in , it will no way advantage Mr. Seldens praetensions , which are for some softer notion of {αβγδ} , then the Christian Writers bestow on it , and that from Demosthenes and Philo . cannot be pretended .

Mean-while it is not obvious to conjecture , why , when it is by him acknowledged , that among the Apud Christianos v●t res , p. 4●0 . l. 8. ancient Christians {αβγδ} is used for adultery , and so in the Oneirocriticis-Graecè sed à Christiano aevi inferioris redditis , aliisque ejusmodi . Ib. l. 12. Christian Translator of Achmet , and others the like , and indefinitely in the Patres Christiani . p 481. lin . ult . Christian fathers , none excepted , this should not be thought a competent means of judging what the Evangelist meant by {αβγδ} , but that it should be sought out of Demosthenes and Philo , rather then found in the universal undoubted use of Christian Writers . This cannot but be lookt on as a symptome of some significancy , that what was to be maintained by those means , is of such a nature , as , if the whole Christian Church might be heeded , could never be owned or beleived by us .

And therefore when Hesychius ( and also the Etymologist ) have affirmed distinctly that {αβγδ} doth signifie {αβγδ} , an adulterer , what an injustice is it , first causlesly to despise , and without any account or contrary affirmation of any other , simply to cast off the authority of that most excellent Grammarian , which is of all other Glossaries acknowledged by learned men , to have a peculiar propriety to the explicating of the sacred dialect , and then to reject in the same period all the Christian Fathers also , by saying that Hesychius and the Etymologist do no more prove the use of the word before or under Christ , then the Christian Fathers ( no one , it seems , fit to be excepted ) are able to do ? This again visibly sets this pretension in competition , and contention with the whole Christian world beside , and that is no very excellent character of the meekness , nor presage of the truth of it .

This being thus premised , it is now far from strange , that S. Matthews Greek should make use of {αβγδ} fornication , and not of {αβγδ} , adultery , the reason being visible , because {αβγδ} was wider , and comprehended those other sins of Incest , &c. which as well as simple adultery , were just causes of divorce , and that {αβγδ} adultery was not fit to do . And if Mat . 15. in stead of fornication and adultery , the Syriack hath used {αβγδ} onely , this can signifie nothing to me , but that either they have omitted a word , which they should have expressed , or used a comprehensive word to signifie both ; or by naming adultery , by parity of reason , or à fortiori , left the other to be understood also .

And when 't is added , that by the difference of the matter , words receive their different significations : as I acknowledge the truth of that , so I think it very competent to infer , that {αβγδ} being used of a marryed couple , must in reason signifie adultery , as that notes an offence against the marriage-bed and vow , and not any inferior crime or infirmity , which is not such .

As for the next branch of his discourse , which would render it improbable that {αβγδ} should signifie adultery , ( because , there being three opinions of divorces among the Jews of that time , this of the unlawfulness to divorce , save onely for fornication , was none of these three ) I suppose , the answer will be unquestionable , that Christ in his Sermon on the Mount , setting his commands in opposition to what had been formerly said among the Jews , did either adde new precepts and interdicts to those that were before in force among them , or else vindicated the old Commandments , from the false opinions and glosses of men . And then it will be very unreasonable to oblige Christ to follow the known opinion of any sort of Rabbines among them , at that time when he opposes his doctrine to all that had been formerly said by them . And why may not Christ reasonably reject the interpretations and indulgences of men , of whatever Jewish School they were , as well as retrench the indulgence given by Moses from God ( as in this matter it is apparent he doth , Mat . 19.8 . Moses permitted — but from the beginning it was not so : and , But I say unto you , v. 9. ) or pronounce of the Sanhedrin universally , that they made void the Commandments of God by their Traditions , Mar. 7.13 .

That Adultery was among the Jews , by their law , to be punished with death , is willingly granted ; but that concession is far from inferring , That it was not reasonable in Christ to disallow all other divorces for lesser or lower causes . For 1. At this time wherein the Pharisees speak to him , the capital punishments were taken from the Jews , and the Sanhedrin confess it is not lawful for them to put any man to death , Joh . 18.31 . In regard whereof they brought the adulteress to Christ , Joh . 8.3 . as thinking to have ensnared him by that also . 2. It was not necessary when the Mosaical polity was abolished , that all Christians to whom Christs words indifferently belonged , should enact the same Judicial Laws , that were in force among the Jews , nor consequently , that adultery should every where be death , though in Judaea it were . 3. Christs affirming that there was no cause competent for divorce but one , doth no way prejudge the punishing that one with heavier punishment then divorce . And 4. there is no reason imaginable , why Christ that thought adultery so much a greater offence against the marital vow , then other faults or causes were , for which the Jews ordinarily divorced , should , by omitting to specifie that , leave us to conclude that there was no crime at all , for which it was lawful to divorce . For supposing any to be such , certainly adultery , which was so great a contrariety to the conjugal vow , and injury to the husband , as to be punished with death , ( that highest degree of divorce , Excision irreversible , not from his flesh onely , but from the ●arth ) might deserve to be deemed such .

Next : for the Pharisees being so satisfied with his answer , that they opposed not a word , It is far from inferring that his answer agreed with some one of the three doctrines of their Rabbies . For 1. if it be but remembred , what is by the objecter truly suggested , that they came insidiously to question him , then , as their intention to ensnare him by this question , is an evidence , that they beleived his doctrine in this matter ( delivered in the Sermon on the Mount ) to be contrary to the liberty which they had by Moses , ( for else how could this be a tempting , i.e. an ensnaring question ? ) so the more contrary his answer was to their received doctrine ; yea , and to the doctrine which they were taught from Moses , the greater matter of satisfaction that would be to their design of treachery . The more lyable he were supposed to have rendred himself to their Laws and Censures , the less need was there of questioning him any farther . As at another time , Mat . 12. where it is said expresly , that they asked him a question that they might accuse him , v. 10. upon his answer they return not a word to him ( and yet sure were not satisfied with him any otherwise , then as having now matter of an accusation against him : for it follows v. 14. that they went out and took counsel against him that they might put him to death . ) So again Mat . 26. the High-Priest that insidiously examined him , upon his affirming that he was the Christ , v. 64. answers , not by opposing , or questioning him any farther , but by addressing his speech to the Sanhedrin , What need we any farther witnesses ? behold , ye have now heard his blasphemy . Which yet is far from concluding that speech of Christ , that he was the Messias , to contain no more in it , then some Sect of their Rabbines affirmed concerning him .

Nay 2. the reason and evidence , with which Christ spake , might be , and certainly was such , that the most contrary-minded had nothing to oppose . As it is elswhere said , that they could not resist the power with which he spake . And then certainly it will be a weak argument to infer , that some sort of devils taught that God onely was to be worshipped ( or that the speech of Christ , Mat . 4.11 . was agreeable to the doctrine of some of those learneder Rabbies ) because upon that answer of Christ , the devil had nothing to oppose , but immediately departed from him .

Nay 3. it may most reasonably be resolved by way of retortion of this argument , that there being three opinions of the Jews at that time , one from Hillel , the most received , the second from Sammai , that had fewer followers , the third of Aquiba : if Christ had taken part with that number of men , which were then less favored by all , and particularly by the Pharisees that questioned him , his authority could not have prevailed so far , as to perswade them presently to deposite their opinion , and in stead of treacherous enemies , to become obedient Converts to his Doctrine ; and yet ( after all this being thus prodigiously satisfied ) never to give any word of acknowledgement that they were so .

As for the disciples , that they do not seem to understand his answer so , as if it were any new doctrine , but as that , which was rejected by some , but defended by others : It is affirmed without any shew of reason . For 1. in the Sermon on the Mount , if it were new , yet it was agreeable with other precedent parts of that Sermon , which were new also , and they which were disciples of Christ , and beleived him to be sent from God , could beleive what he said , without having the assistance of Sammai , or other Jew to countenance it . And besides , that coming in the body of his Sermon ( of all which they were silent auditors ) how new soever they thought it , we cannot expect from them any expression of it . And for that Mat . 19. to which I suppose Mr. Selden refers , it is pretty evident , 1. That they had heard it before from him on the Mount , and so that it was not now perfectly new to them : and 2. That their objection against it doth not argue that they took it for an old doctrine , for say they , If this be the case of an husband with his wife , it is profitable not to marry , v. 10. which ( by the way ) would have been very causlesly objected by them , if as Sammai had taught , so Christs speech had been understood to extend no farther ; That turpitude in the greatest latitude and comprehension of the word , was of a competent width , and by being allowed a just cause of divorce , would not have concluded the conditions of that band of marriage very strict , or unsupportable .

Lastly , it is a causless exception against the words , or style of Christ or the Evangelist , to pretend it not evident enough by Christs express words , whose fornication it is ( the mans or the womans ) which is there specified : for certainly it is most evident , and never before doubted of by any , but that as the {αβγδ} , the every cause or accusation preceding , was somewhat disliked or accused in the woman , and not in the husband himself , who would not probably be his own accuser , so the fornication was to be conceived in the woman also , and if it be not expresly said [ for her fornication ] that pronoun is certainly spared , because no ordinary Reader could make doubt of understanding it thus , and so that expressness or punctuality was unnecessary .

Having now done with the apparatus , or lighter , I shall proceed to the weightier part of his impression , and ( because he is pleased to advise others to enquire , and examine the truth of his pretensions ) it will not be unseasonable to follow his steps , Mr. Seldens farther pretensions examined . and observe what matter of conviction there is in all which is proposed by him .

His first attempt is ( supposing Matthew to have written , and Christ to have spoken either in Syriack or Hebrew ) to examine the use both of the Syriack and Hebrew word , and from thence to collect a greater latitude of signification , then that it should be confined to fornication or adultery . If it were in Syriack , then , saith he , {αβγδ} was the word ; if in Hebrew , {αβγδ} turpitude . For the first , the Syriack {αβγδ} is , saith he , agreeable to the Heb●ew {αβγδ} , and therefore must have the same lat●tude with the Hebrew ; and that , saith he , signifies either primarily and strictly all lying together , which is not in lawful marriage ; and that again either all kinde of unlawful conjunctions , as in the stories of Dinah and Thamar ; or else some particular sorts of that kinde , of which adultery is but one of many : Or secundarily and more largely , all things that are called filthy , as that is opposed to honest , and on these he insists at large .

For the former of them we need not to contend , not onely because , howsoever Christ spake , yet 't is certain S. Matthew wrote not Syriack ( and we have no way to guess of Christs words , or meaning , but by the expressions which the Evangelists have given us of them ) but also because of Mr. Seldens concessions . For if that Syriack be agreeable to the Hebrew , and that primarily denote all manner of conjunctions but that in lawful marriage , it will be no way inconvenient for us to acknowledge , that Christ used that word in that sense , but plainly consequent thereto , that no divorce is now lawful , but that for fornication , as that signifies adultery or other such foul sin of uncleanness . The onely testimony here , of which he desires to make advantage , is that of Lev . 21.7 . where the Priest is forbidden to take a wife which is a whore . There , saith he , the Hebrew {αβγδ} is by the ancient Jews defined to be any that is not an Israelitess , or which being an Israelitess , hath been joyned in any interdicted marriage , or hath lyen with any Profane person , whose marriage with her was not unlawful .

To this affirmation out of the ancient Jews , I answer , That whosoever those ancient Jews were , I cannot think there is any truth in that , which is thus cited from them , that {αβγδ} which we render whore , should denote one that were onely not an Israelitess . For in the same verse , where he is forbidden to marry the {αβγδ} , he is also forbidden to marry the profane , and that sure is more probable then {αβγδ} to signifie her , that is not an Israelitess . And of this I am sure , that the most excellent Paulus Fagius , and others most conversant in the Jewish Writers , interpret {αβγδ} an adulteress , or whore , in that place , and even the word profane may well belong to the same matter also , the whore being said to profane her self and her father , v. 9. and there {αβγδ} is the word for playing the whore .

However this , if granted , will be impertinent to Christs interdict of Divorces , unless we beleive that he made it lawful to put away a wife for not being an Israelitess , ( and then every English woman must be put away ) or for not being born of parents of the same true Religion . And then , as we know , the daughter may be of the true Religion , though the mother were not , ( and so 't is sure many children of heathens became Proselytes of the Iews ) so even of those wives that are not of the true Religion , but unbeleivers , or heathens , S. Paul is express , that if they will live with their husbands , they are not to put them away , 1 Cor . 7.12 .

Now for the secundary notion of the word {αβγδ} , that it signifies any deviation ( at least heavier transgression ) into any sins or turpitudes whatsoever , that he indevours to prove from the frequent use of it for idolatry , fornicating after other gods , Exod . 34.15 . and following of wizards , which is going a whoring after them , Lev . 20.6 . and so the sins of the Iews , and Sodomites , and Samaritans , Ezek . 16.51 . are called often fornica●ion in that Chapter ; and many the like . So Num . 14.33 . Your children shall bear your whoredomes , is , saith he out of Onkelos , shall bear your iniquities . So Philo calls a vitious minde {αβγδ} a fornicating soul . So Wisd . 14.12 . when 't is said of the devising of Idols , that it is {αβγδ} , the beginning of fornication , on which saith Holkot , that the Scriptures use to call by the name of fornication , omnem illicitam corruptionem , all unlawful corruption , such is Idolatry , and Avaritia , Covetousness . So , saith he , S. Paul must be understood , when he calleth the foulest incest , Fornication , 1 Cor . 5.1 . And so the Whore in the Revelation is one guilty of all kinde of impiety . p. 494. From all which he concludes , that if Christ spake Syriack , then the word expressed by {αβγδ} , fornication , may denote all kinde of filthiness , seu quicquid {αβγδ} seu vitii nomine venerit , whatever comes under the name of naughtiness or vice , and then the conclusion is direct , for any such vice , Christ allows divorce , and not onely in case of fornication . And accordingly that {αβγδ} harlots , are joyned with publicans , Mat . 21.32 . as {αβγδ} sinners , Mat . 9.11 . Mar. 2.16 . Lu . 5.30 .

Now to all this endevour the answer will be brief and evident , by observing but two things , which quite take away all force of these testimonies . First , that the people of the Iews , as since the Church of Christ , are figuratively and mystically said in Scripture to be espoused by God , marryed to himself , and consequently every degree of Idolatry or Apostasie from him is , by the same figure , expressed by fornicating , or going a whoring , i.e. breaking that Covenant which they had made with God , resembled by God to a Marriage-Covenant . And there is nothing more ordinary then such figures as this in all manner of sacred and profane writings , which yet no way prejudge or hinder the use of the same word in the proper sense without any figure in it , but contrariwise suppose this acception of it for the violation of the marriage-bed , or else there could be no place for such metaphors .

From hence therefore that which will be deducible is this , that where there is no place for the literall interpretation , there such figurative notions are to be admitted : as when Philo mentions the fornicating soul , or the Scripture , whoring after other Gods , there it must be taken in the figurative sense , because corporeal fornication is not incident to souls , or fastened to Gods or Idols . But when there is place for the proper or first sense , then what reason can there be to prefer , or substitute the figurative ? And so it is visibly in Christs words , where the man puts away the wife for fornication . By this means five of the former testimonies are evidenced to be of no force , to infer the desired conclusion ; that of Exod . 34. Lev . 20. Ezek . 16. Num . 14. of Philo , and perhaps a sixth , that out of the Revelation , if it be taken to signifie any eminent Idolater or Apostate .

But the second observation will conclude this matter , It is this , that in the Idol-feasts , and Sacrifices , and Worships , there was a great deal of uncleanness and unnatural filthiness committed , and consequently that filthiness is sometimes called Idol-worship it self , sometimes it is set as an effect of it , and this literally and properly without any figure . So when {αβγδ} ( which is ordinarily rendred covetousness , but doth also signifie any inordinate lust , Eph. 5.3 . and is oft in the New Testament used in that sense ) is said to be Idolatry , Col. 3.5 . and Eph. 5.5 . that is clearly the meaning of it , that those inordinate lusts were the way of their worshipping their false Gods . And thus in the forecited place of Wisd . 14.12 . it is evidently to be understood , that {αβγδ} , the devising of Idols , is {αβγδ} , the beginning of fornication , or that which hath brought a great deal of abominable filthiness into the world ; and accordingly it follows , {αβγδ} , the invention of Idols was the corrupting of life , in that notion wherein [ corrupting ] is used for all such villany , Deut. 4.16 . and 2 Pet . 1.4 . and 2.12 , 19. and as in Philo , {αβγδ} , and {αβγδ} are joyned together as breaches of the seventh Commandment .

And so that place of Holkot , taken out of Papias , is to be interpreted also , that fornication signifies {αβγδ} , all abominable villany or corruption , ( a cleanly expression of that which is not to be named ) sicut est idololatria , such as is Idolatry , and avaritia , in the notion of {αβγδ} ( not covetousness , as that sounds with us a love of money , but ) inordinate lust , which is Idolatry .

If there be any question of this interpretation of the words of Papias , or Holkot out of him , I suppose a plain place in the fragments of Polycarp's Epistle ( who lived in the same age with Papias ) will make it clear , where speaking of Valens , Elder of Philippi , and his having committed somewhat utterly unworthy of that Calling , by his example he admonishes others to abstain ab avaritiâ ( that sure was in Greek {αβγδ} from unnatural lusts ) & sint casti , and that they be chaste ; adding , that whosoever did not so abstain , ab idololatria coinquinabitur , & tanquam inter Gentes judicabitur , would be defiled by Idolatry , and judged as among the Gentiles , i.e. fall into that sort of sins for which the Gentiles are condemned , and of which the Apostle saith , {αβγδ} , Fornicators and adulterers God will judge .

And by this may be understood also to how little purpose a like place is by p 556. Mr. Selden produced out of Bede on the words in S. Matthew , Non hîc intelligigitur tantùm fornicatio in stupro , quod in alienis viris aut foeminis commi●titur , sed omnis concupiscentia , vel avaritia , vel idololatria , quae hominem facit à lege Dei aberrare . Here is to be understood not onely that fornication in adultery , which is committed with others husbands or wives , but all concupiscence ( not covetousness , but ) inordinate lust ( the note being taken out of some Greek Scholiast , which had {αβγδ} ) or Idolatry , which makes a man erre from the law of God . Where the [ all concupiscence ] in the front is explained by the two latter , inordinate desire , and Idolatry , both denoting those filthinesses so ordinary among Idolaters . And accordingly it follows in Bede , Si uxor hujusmodi aliquid hominem cogat , If a wife bring her husband to such courses as these , seduce him into the heathen mysteries , qui talem dimittit , causâ fornicatio●is dimittit , he that puts her away , doth it for fornication , Illius , quia fornicatur , suae , ne fornicet , for her fornication already committed , and for his own , that he may not commit it . All which clearly belongs to the unclean commissions among the heathen worshippers , not to any other distant sin , contained under that title .

Which indeed signifies it to be the sense of Bede , and of that Scholiast , that fornication in Christs words is to be extended ( beyond that of adultery ) to all unnatural filthiness , but not that it contains all other vices under it , as far distant from this , as love of money is from the lusts of the flesh , coveting the house , from defiling the bed , the worshipping the Idol-false-Gods , from the violation of the vow of wedlock , Impiety , from incontinence or impurity . Of the last and highest of which Idolatry or heathenism ) as the Apostles opinion is given , 1 Cor . 7.12 . that it is not a sufficient matter for divorce , so the text of [ {αβγδ} ] which ( by our rendring it , Be not unequally yok●d with unbelievers ) may be thought to sound toward it , cannot without great impertinency be applied to that subject , for besides that it would rather hold against marrying such , then for Divorces after Marriage , it appears by the context to be spoken to the Corinthians in relation to their false teachers , the Gnosticks ( elswhere called {αβγδ} unbelievers ) not to heathen idolatrous women : and the {αβγδ} , is trutina alterijugis , a ballance weighing down one way , opposed to {αβγδ} , aequilibrated {αβγδ} signifies onely too strong So in Clements Epistle to those Corinthians , {αβγδ} , inclining the other way , not to , but from the Apostles and Orthodox Christians . inclinations of kindeness which they had to such seducers , above the proportion which they allowed the Apostles , which converted them .

What hath thus been cleared to be the sense of the words in Holkot and Bede , will , I suppose , be appliable to the place in S. Augustines Retractations , l. 1. c . 19. Cum velit Dominus intelligi fornicationem , proper quam liceat dimittere uxorem , utrum eam quae damnatur in stupris , an illam , de quâ dicitur , Perdidisti omnem qui fornicatur abs te , in quâ utique & illa est ( neque enim non fornicatur à Domino , qui tollens membra Christi facit ea membra meretricis ) etiam atque etiam cogitandum est , atque requirendum . When Christ affirms fornication to be the onely thing for which it is lawful to dismiss the wife , it must be considered and enquired diligently , whether he mean that fornication which is condemned in adultery ; or whether that , of which it is said , thou hast destroyed every one that committeth fornication from thee , under which that of adultery is contained , for sure he doth fornicate from the Lord , that takes the members of Christ , and makes them members of an harlot . Here the question proposed by S. Augustine ( for the resolving of which , he desires that his own judgement may not be taken alone , Legat & alia sive nostra quae postea scripta sunt , sive aliorum melius considerata , atque tractata , &c. but other mens thoughts compared with it ) is onely this , not whether all other sins may come under the word {αβγδ} , used by Christ ( for he presently addes a caution for that , non quia omne peccatum Fornicatio est , all sin is not meant by it ) but whether it be not taken in that latitude , wherein the Psalmist useth it , Ps. 72.27 . And it being by him expresly affirmed , that that notion contains adultery under it , it seems to me most reasonable to interpret S. Augustine to that sense , which from those other more ancient and later Writers , hath now been mentioned , so as fornication may contain all those sins of uncleanness , which the Nations , that departed from God , fell into , and for which they were destroyed expresly , Lev . 18. and 20. Of which as adultery is one , so it is but one . And so fornication , that comprehends all unlawful lusts , will still be that onely head of sins , for which divorces are imaginable to be allowed by Christ . And whether for all the sorts of that , is it , which by that Father is still called latebrosissima quaestio , a most obscure question , and such as he is not willing to define in it .

As for the place 1 Cor . 5.1 . It is most manifest , that fornication there signifies in the same extent , that it doth in the Precept to the sons of Adam and Noah , and denotes all kinde of prohibited lust , and so comprehends incest under it , and cannot in any reason be farther extended to sins of any other classis , or be rendred , as Mr. Selden would have it , flagitium , crimen , & deviantis animae turpitudo , as if any sort of great fault , or turpitude , murther or sacrilege , &c. could be so called . The word and notion of fornication may certainly be allowed to be retained there , and acknowledged to express fully , what the Apostle there meant by {αβγδ} .

And for Christs joyning {αβγδ} harlots with Publicans , as elswhere sinners are joyned , that will prove no more , but that either {αβγδ} , as whores , were sinners , and a gross kinde of sinners , as they are acknowledged to be : or 2. that the word [ sinners ] being set to denote Gentiles , ( or , as 't is elswhere expresly , sinners of the Gentiles ) fornication is noted , as a Gentile sin , very ordinary , as was said , among the heathen : or else 3. that {αβγδ} sinners , may peculiarly denote that kinde of sin , as the {αβγδ} the sinner woman , Luk . 7.37 . is generally resolved to have been an harlot , and so in many languages 't is ordinary . And so still this instance was fit to attend the former , having as little force or p●opriety as any , to conclude , That all other sins , of what sort soever , are called by , or comprehended under that title of fornication , or that all other sinners may be called harlots , because harlots are sometimes styled sinners .

After the view of the Syriack word , which Christ is supposed to have used , Mr. Selden proceeds to the Hebrew , or Ralbinical , wherein it is also imagined Christ might speak ( although that at the same time he spake both lang●ages it is impossible , and very possible that , speaking but one , neither of these should be the true word ) And then the word that is pitched on , is {αβγδ} , the same that signifies turpitude , Deut. 24.1 .

Of this I shall premise three things : 1. That there being other words ordinarily rendred by the Septuagint to this sense , {αβγδ} , with its conjugates , forty times rendred {αβγδ} , it must follow , that the con●ecture that {αβγδ} was the very word , which Christ used , is very fallible , and unable to support what is built upon it : Or if it be said , that {αβγδ} , which is so often rendred {αβγδ} adultery , is yet never rendred {αβγδ} fornication , then as I acknowledge that , so I reply that {αβγδ} , is never rendred {αβγδ} neither , but {αβγδ} , {αβγδ} , &c. which signifies neither fornication nor adultery . 2. That although that word were imagined to be used in that place of Mat . 19. where in opposition to {αβγδ} , every cause , Christ might possibly be conceived to determine the cause of divorces to that to which in Moses it had been determined , yet it being also certain , that Christ had spoken formerly of this matter , Mat . 5. it is most certain , that the word used in Deuteronomy , could not in that sense , that there belonged to it , be there used by him , and consequently Mat . 19. where his speech is by Matthew set down in the same manner , as c . 5. it had been , can it not with any reason be imagined to have been used by him .

In that place of Mat . 5. {αβγδ} in the notion of Deut . 24.1 . cannot be supposed to have been the word . For there Christ beginning his speech with a reference to that which had been indulged by Moses in that place of Deuteronomy , It hath been said , that if a man put away his wife , let him give her a bill of divorce ; he presently subjoyns , But I say unto you , that whosoever shall put away his wife , saving for the cause of fornication , causeth her to commit adultery , &c. The latter part of this speech of Christ is a direct opposition to that which he had cited in the former . The [ {αβγδ} , But I say unto you ] is a demonstrative evidence of that : But this it could not be , if fornication were no more then the turpitude in Deuteronomy , for then , as there a man might for turpitude , put away , so here for turpitude a man still might , which is not an opposition , but identity .

Thirdly , that whatsoever language Christ spake , or Matthew first wrote in , it is acknowledged , that this Gospel was rendred into Greek by some Apostle , either James , or John , or Matthew himself , who must be supposed to know what that Hebrew word was , ( which we can but guess at very imperfectly ) and have chosen thus to express it ; and consequently , that no farther advantage can be made of this , then if it had been first written in Greek by him , but that the word {αβγδ} must in all reason be understood in the same sense , that either in all , or at least in some places of the New Testament , or in the dialect of the Hellenists , and Translators of the Old Testament , it had been taken , and by that measure {αβγδ} ( in the notion of the word , Deut. 24. ) cannot be deemed the word which Christ used , being , as I said , never rendred by {αβγδ} .

For to this matter it must be observed , that the uncovering the nakedness , or {αβγδ} Lev . 18. is a very distant thing from the {αβγδ} finding any matter or accusation of nakedness in her , Deut. 24. The uncovering , or disclosing , in Leviticus , contains all the incestuous , prohibited marriages , and other breaches of the seventh Commandment ; but the finding {αβγδ} in Deuteronomy , supposes not t●e committing of any turpitude , but the discerning that in the wife , which is made matter of some accusation or dislike .

Of either of these affirmations , I suppose , there neither is , nor can be any doubt ; and Mr. Selden hath acknowledged l. 3. c . 21. that the word {αβγδ} , as it is used in this matter of divorces , and diversely interpreted by the School of Hillel and Sammai , Multum discrepat ab câ turpitudinis notione , quâ incestus &c. in Levitico designatur , differs very much from that notion of turpitude , by which incest and adultery , and other unlawful copulations , are expressed in Leviticus .

Which ( although it be not exactly true , for Incest is not there called {αβγδ} or turpitude , but the disclos●ng of {αβγδ} the uncleanness , or nakedness , or shame of one that is near unto him , yet ) being by Mr. Selden thus granted , and it being otherwise evident , that it is the notion in Leviticus , and not of the word nakedness , but the phrase , disclosing nakedness , which is expressed in Greek by {αβγδ} , 1 Cor . 5.1 . and Act. 15. and elsewhere , There is little reason to doubt , but that , if {αβγδ} were here used , and in like manner rendred by {αβγδ} fornication , it were in the sense of Leviticus , and then t●is whole Controversie is at an end . But yet to prevent all possible mistakes , I shall farther deduce this matter .

The word {αβγδ} signifies unclean or uncomely , and is applyed sometimes to vices , as Deut . 23.14 . any {αβγδ} or unclean thing , i.e. any s●n , such as God dislikes to see , as any pure eyes must do , to behold anothers shame , but most frequently the uncomely parts of the body . See Habak . 2.15 . where , looking on their nakedness , ( the same that was Chams sin against his father ) is evidently in this sense ; and is answered , v. 16. with a like phrase , and let thy foreskin be uncovered . And thus 't is generally used , when there is mention of disclosing or uncovering {αβγδ} , which we ordinarily render nakedness , meaning that part which ought to be covered . In this second , and most ordinary notion of the word , it is certain , that the phrase Lev . 18. is to be explained , so as to uncover nakedness , is to take to wife , or use as such , and agreeably , if the woman be such as it is not lawful for him to marry ; then , and not else , the [ uncovering her nakedness ] is {αβγδ} , to commit fornication with her .

And so 't is plain that {αβγδ} nakedness is very distant from the word {αβγδ} , fornication , and that the uncovering of nakedness is it , which is equivalent to fornication ; and accordingly the title of the Precept to the sons of Adam , which is rendred by [ {αβγδ} , of fornication ] is {αβγδ} of the revealing , or disclosing of nakedness , and not {αβγδ} of nakedness , onely . And it is not impossible , but this may be the notion of the word in this place of Deuteronomy also , and so {αβγδ} signifying {αβγδ} thing or matter ; and again , {αβγδ} , quarrel , or accusation , {αβγδ} matter of nakednesses , will be a civil phrase to denote any thing between man and wife ; of that sort , which is not plainly to be named , and the finding of that in the [ wife ] shall be the discerning of somewhat of that kinde , after his coming near unto her , for which she hath no favor in his eyes , and for which he dislikes and hates her .

And accordingly the former part of the verse is rendred by the Greek , If any man shall take a wife , {αβγδ} , and cohabit with her , and the Targum to the same purpose , noting this dislike to be a consequent of that .

Against this understanding of the words , no inconvenience or difficulty can lye , whether we suppose {αβγδ} to signifie {αβγδ} , and {αβγδ} an accusation , ( as it oft doth signifie ) or whether it be rendred matter onely . For then {αβγδ} will be negotium nuditatis , or , as Tertullian renders it , impudicum negotium , some conjugal secret , somewhat , I suppose , which appears odious to the husband , and may appear otherwise to another , to whom she may accordingly be marryed . And as this is on all hands resolved not to be fornication , so being not there rendred by {αβγδ} , or any word of that nature , but onely by {αβγδ} , some unclean matter , or matter of nakedness , there can be no reason to beleive , that that should be the word used by Christ , which Matthew renders to {αβγδ} .

This will farther appear , if it be again remembred , that our Saviours words are set opposite Mat . 5. to the {αβγδ} , that which was said under Moses , i.e. to the place of Deuteronomy , and all the interpretations of it , which is not possible , if {αβγδ} there , were all one with {αβγδ} here , for then the same indulgence should be allowed , and not any stricter restraint , in stead of it .

But then the inconveniences which would be ready to attend this , if it were admitted , are of an high nature , and may yet farther deserve to be considered : For it is confessed by Mr. Selden , That among the Jews it was most generally received , that for light causes , dislike of beauty , age , and other such things , wives might be put away . And he addes , idque ex sacrae legis mente , and this according to the sense of the sacred law ( l. 3. c . 18. ) i . e . surely according to the sense of the words in Deuteronomy . And of the three opinions in this matter , set down fr●m the Misna , of Sammai , that restrained it to turpitude , of Hillel , that extended it to over-boiling his meat , or any such light cause , and of Aquiba , that if he found any handsomer , or more agreeable to him , be might put her away , It is apparent , and affirmed by the Misna , that all of them grounded their opinions on these words of that Text , {αβγδ} , diversly interpreted .

By which it is evident , what absolute unlimited liberty is introduced , and consequently how little the bond and vow of marriage shall signifie , if it be once resolved , that {αβγδ} in Christs speech , is the same with {αβγδ} in Moses .

For then , as Josephus saith , about Christs time , that a Antiq . 4. c . 8. man might separate from his wife for any causes whatsoever ; adding , {αβγδ} , and many such causes there are which befal men ; and confessing of in vitâ . himself , that he put away his wife after he had three children by her , {αβγδ} , because he disliked her manners : so must it be expected again , there being nothing imaginable to restrain Christians from following the Jews , if Christs words were resolved to be the same with those , which the learned among them so generally interpreted to all this liberty .

Having premised thus much , 't will now be easie to discern the no force of all the proofs which Ms. Selden addes to make it probable , that the {αβγδ} in Deuteronomy should be the word here used by Christ . As first , because , saith he , this was the form used by the School of Sammai , that divorce was not to be admitted , but for the {αβγδ} causam aut rationem turpitudinis , cause or reason of turpitude . To this I answer , That Christ was no disciple of the School of Sammai , but came with Commission from God to reform both Hillel , and Sammai , and Sanhedrin , and Moses himself , and to give stricter precepts and interdicts in this matter , then had ever been given by any of these , and so is not to be imagined to have used Sammai's form of speech , any more then to have taken his doctrine from him , but appears clearly ( in his Sermon on the Mount , Mat . 5. ) to have opposed his new doctrine [ But I say to you ] to the [ {αβγδ} , It hath been said ] by Moses and others ( none excepted of any later date ) that were before him .

His second proof , because the word signifies {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , ( I shall suppose it a slip of the Printer , for {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , for , though there be {αβγδ} from another Original , sure there are no such words ) shame , and shameful thing , concludes as little . For we know , that the former of those in Greek denotes the hidden parts , and the second any uncomely thing , and neither of those will be fitly rendred {αβγδ} , fornication . And though it be true , that Deut. 23.14 . it signifie an unclean thing , i.e. a sin , yet that concludes as little , there being many sins besides {αβγδ} , whatever notion be assigned it . And indeed every iniquity is unclean and filthy in the sight of Gods pure eyes , as nakedness is in the sight of men , and so may fitly be expressed by that phrase . The short is , that the word {αβγδ} is rendred {αβγδ} , all words to denote nakedness , or shame , and {αβγδ} , naughtiness , Ezek . 16.36 . where we rightly render nakedness , but never {αβγδ} fornication , or adultery , or any word of that importance .

And when he farther pretends that the word in Leviticus signifies another mans wife , and all that are forbidden to be taken in marriage , First , that is not true , as hath been largely shewed : and Secondly , if it were true , it were far from proving , that it signifies {αβγδ} , the person and the act being not the same . And so again , when by the Karaeans 't is defined , Every thing that is uncovered , which ought to be kept close ; that still infers , that it signifies the womans shame , but not {αβγδ} , whatsoever that signifies .

As for his third proof out of the Prophets , it infers nothing less , then what he would prove from it . For , first , that of Ezek . 16.37 . I will uncover {αβγδ} thy nakedness , and they shall see all thy nakedness , is directly in the notion of Leviticus for the secrets parts , the discovering of which is a figurative expression , for the bringing one to shame , {αβγδ} , punishing openly , and there is no pretence that it should signifie there malitiam , flagitium , vitium , malice , sin , vice , or if it did , it must do it but by a metaphor , as a mans sinne is called his shame .

So secondly , that of Nahum 3.4 . I will shew the nations {αβγδ} verenda tua , thy shame , 't is evidently in the former notion ; and if it refer to latrocinia &c. thefts , lyes , murthers , with which Niniveh abounded , it is but by a figure again , as the [ shewing their shame to the Gentiles ] is the punishing their sins in their sight , as in the place even now cited out of Habakkuk did appear .

As for Onkelos's rendring {αβγδ} in Deuteronomy , by transgressionem aliquam , some transgression , that still proves not that that transgression was fornication , for it might be somewhat else , and it is clear by Christ , who opposes his doctrine to that in Deuteronomy , that it was .

As for the concurrence of the opinions of learned men , Arias Montanus , Scultetus , Grotius , that the passage in the Gospel referred or pertained to the Controversie of the Schools of Hillel , and Sammai , First , it is evidently contrary to the Text , ( and cannot receive aid from any opinion of three learned men ) where the Pharisees question , Mat . 19.7 . [ {αβγδ} , Why then did Moses ? ] is a proof , that they understood Christs answer to be contradictory to Moses , and Christs reply is a concession of it : and so evidently in the other places . Secondly , if it be granted , that Mat . 19. the Pharisees question was according to Hillels doctrine , whether divorces were lawful {αβγδ} , for every cause , or quarrel , or dislike , yet that is no proof , that Christ took part with Sammai against him , and commanded no more strictness , then Sammai maintained . And as that is the onely thing to be proved , so I beleive there is none of those Authors have affirmed that ; or if Scultetus have , his name will adde little to Mr. Selden .

This he again endevours to prove from the words of Origen upon Matthew . It is a long passage , and I cannot think fit to set it down at length ; when , by that which Mr. Selden hath cited , 't is clear , p. 497. that all that Origen doth , is to recite an ob ection of a Jew against Ch●ists words , viz. that the cause allowed for divorces in Deuteronomy , was onely that of fornication ; and consequently that Christ , allowing that one cause , did the Jewes wrong , in saying it was for the hardness of their hearts that that libe●ty was indulged them . To which I shall onely say , That if that Jew were not in the right , there is nothing to be gained from him ; and if he were , then , first , was Christ in the wrong against whom he objects : and secondly , Mr. Seldens whole cause is fallen to the ground unexpectedly , for if the divorces in Deuteronomy were allowed in no cause , but that of {αβγδ} fornication , and if res turpis , uncleanness , there signified that , then questionless there is no pretence to be had from thence ( or from any other Topick of probation ) that we Christians may divorce for any other causes but adultery . For that Origen there by [ {αβγδ} ] understands adultery , is presently Nec {αβγδ} ibi significare vult a●iud Origenes atque adul●c●ium . confest by Mr. Selden : onely he addes , that Origen makes that but an example of other sins , for which divorces were admitted , which though it no way appear by the words cited by him , yet if it were true , it no way follows , that that example must infinitely be extended , or farther then to other sins of uncleanness , incest , unnatural villany , &c. to which the word may , and by some others hath been extended .

And as it will easily be granted , that those are all contained under the word {αβγδ} in the Gospel ; so there is no temptation from thence to beleive , that other distant sins , of what quality soever , should be contained under it , much less all the causes of divorce allowed either by Hillel or Sammai , which are not all affirmed to be sins .

This is all that is in that Chapter proposed by Mr. Selden , in favour of this greater liberty , and it was but necessary to adde , That what was here proposed , was but by way of disquisition , Disquisivimus heic tantum nos , p. 4●7 . for it is farre from proving any thing . I wish this may be of force to satisfie the inquiry , that what hath so diligently been sought , is not to be found any where .

But this is not all : For , c . 28. another attempt is made to obtain a greater indulgence and liberty in this matter , by surveying the practise and usage of men , first , from Christs time to Constantine , then from Constantine forward , by these two intervals to learn , how the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles was understood .

But to this I answer , First , that the practises of men , even of Christians , are a very infirm proof of the doctrine of the Church in any point , because that which is most resolved to be unlawful , is yet many times practised : and secondly , that this method of inquiry , whether into doctrines or practises , by way of historicall dissertation , if it be partially managed , ( by setting down what is most favourable to the desired Conclusion , and omitting what is not so ) is a ready art of infusing and imposing any thing on the incautious Reader , without rendring the Author lyable to answer for the unconcludingness of the Mediums , when they come to be examined . And accordingly it is here made use of : For , in that whole first interval or period of 300. years ; two Examples onely Mr. Selden brings of Christian women , who gave Bills of Divorce to their husbands , ( one , of her in Justin , Apol . 1. who when her husband , being an unbeleiver , and a very wicked person , had departed from her , {αβγδ} , she gave him such a Bill of Divorce as the Romans use , and was separated : and this about the year of our Lord 150. The other , of Saint Thecla , the Sponsa , or espoused of Thamyris in Iconium , and S. Pauls disciple , who , saith he , would not marry him , but renounced her espousals . ) And having named those two , he then concludes , First , That the Customes and usage of this interval , are not so expresly to be found in this matter : and , Secondly , that the way of conjecturing what their practise was ; is by the Laws and Sanctions of Princes and Emperors in the second interval , after that Christianity was received into the Roman Empire , there being but a small handful of writers that preceded , and few of them touching the matter of Divorces . By which means he presently takes liberty to spend the rest of the Chapter in setting down several Imperiall Lawes in that matter .

To this part of his discourse I answer briefly by these degrees : First , That if two examples of divorces for other causes beside fornication , were to be met with among Christians in the space of 300. years after Christs interdict , this would be no very new or strange thing , nor argument that it was not deemed to have been prohibited by Christ , but on the contrary , it were much more difficult to pitch on any other interdict of Christs , which could not appear to be many times more eminently violated , in the hundredth part of that space .

Secondly , That neither of these examples are at all to the present purpose , these being of women giving bills of divorce to their husbands , for which there is no pretence of liberty from Christ , no nor under Moses among the Jews , and not of husbands putting away their wives .

And thirdly , that even of these two examples , the first being in case not onely of a most flagitious , as well as infidel husband , but also of one qui abscesserat , which had departed from her , her giving the bill of divorce , and being separated from him , is no argument or example of any great liberty , but agreeable to S. Pauls determination , If the unbeleiver will depart , let him depart ; a beleiver {αβγδ} is not inslaved in such a case , 1 Cor . 7.15 . And for the second , that of Thecla , besides that Mr. Selden gives Hujus historiolae fides penes autores sit . p. 558. no great heed to the story , it was ( saith Basil of Seleucia that relates it ) before marriage , and so onely a renouncing the sponsalia , and refusing to marry a person , that most bitterly detested Christianity : and so Mr. Selden appeareth to acknowledge , when he first calls her sponsa , espoused onely , not married , and addes , nuptias noluit , she would not marry , and sponsalibus renuntiavit , she renounced the espousals , which supposeth it to have proceeded no farther .

But then fourthly , that the practise of those times of the first interval should best be judged of by the Rescripts of the Emperors of the second interval , this is most unreasonable . 't is evident , that those Rescripts are laws to binde for the future , and not Records to testifie for the time past ; and if , being delivered by Christian Emperors , they did ( as Mr. Selden saith ) restrain the liberty formerly used , yet sure that liberty was such as was used in time of Paganism by Infidels , or else by carnal Christians , not such as was owned and taught by the Governors of the Church of Christ , which are known to have used a greater strictness . And so there is little pretence or colour to be had from hence , that Christs words were in the Primitive times interpreted to a greater liberty . For if the small handfull , as it is styled , of Christian writers of those first 300. years , be compared with the Rescripts of the Emperors , which are made use of after , First , the handful will not appear very small , or contemptible in that comparison : and Secondly , it might have been as reasonable to have enlarged it by taking in the volumes of the Christian Fathers afterward , as to insist on those Rescripts of the Emperors which were afterward . The onely difference is , that by observing this course , the result would certainly have been this , the thing pretended to , would not have been had : All these writers , that speak of it , asserting positively this one onely cause of divorce , that of fornication .

Lastly , for the Constitution of Constantine , it is observable , First , that it doth not define what shall be deemed lawful in divorces , but onely in what case the woman should be allowed a dowry , in what not , and in what cases the man should be allowed to marry again ; and such indeed useth to be the matter of Civil Sanctions , even of Christian Lawgivers , which extend only to the outer man , inflicting of punishments according as the temper of the people requires or permits , and not in defining what is before commanded or forbidden by Christ . Secondly , the cases wherein Divorces are by Constantine ( I cannot say allowed , but ) mentioned and foreseen , as possible , do not imply any very great liberty to have been used in those times ( though also those liberties that are most used among wicked men , are sufficiently acknowledged to be unlawful : ) For they are but three on the womans side , Si moecha , si medicamentaria , si conciliatrix , if she be a whore , or a witch , or a bawd , and the first and the last fall directly under the case reserved by Christ , the bawd being presumed a whore , and somewhat more . And for that of witchcraft , or practising on the life of the husband by poysons , &c. ( for those may be comprehended under the {αβγδ} or medicamenta ) although the case be somewhat changed , 't is yet but little mollified by that . However , 't is acknowledged in some of the Rescripts of Christian Emperors , the restraints are not made strictly according to Christs model , and therefore there is nothing strange in that of Constantines .

And the reason is plain , because the Imperial Laws were to comprehend all sorts of men that were in the Empire ; and though the Emperor were Christian , and many of his subjects also , yet 't is sufficiently known that all were not , and accordingly to his mixt dominions , the strict Christian Law would not conveniently be adapted . The writings of the Fathers of the Church and Canons of their Councels , which are supposed to be written peculiarly to Christians , are therefore the onely Records by which we may judge what was deemed the law of Christ , and those , I am sure , count many things unlawful in this kinde , which they acknowledge {αβγδ} legal by the Imperial Constitutions .

Of this we have had evidences enough already , and p. 555. Mr. Selden confessing Tertullian , Chrysostome , aliosque non paucos , and not a few more , to be of the opinion , which the Church hath maintained , will save me that pains , especially when he is not able to name any one to the contrary , which I conclude , because he hath not done it . I shall but mention two Testimonies ; one , which the Edict of Anastasius the Emperor , p. 570. produced by Mr. Selden , in favour of divorces for some other causes , put me in minde of , out of the Epistles of Avitus Alcimus , Ep. 49. which were written about that very time , Persuasum in Galliâ fuisse , solum adulterium legitimam causam esse divortii , That the French were perswaded that adultery was the onely lawful cause of divorce ; and accordingly pronouncing of fornication , that it is the sin , p. 110. propter quod solum Deus separari virum permittit à conjuge , for which onely God permits the husband to be separated from his wife . The other , is that of Gregory , l. 9. Ep. 39. Si dicunt religionis causa conjugia debere dissolvi , sciendum est , quia etsi hoc lex humana concessit ▪ lex divina tamen prohibuit . Per se enim veritas dicit , Quos Deus conjunxit , homo non separet : Quae etiam ait , Non licet dimittere uxorem exceptâ causâ fornicationis . Quis ergo huic coelesti egislatori contradicat ? If they say that for Religion marriages ought to be dissolved , they must know , that although the law of man hath granted this , yet t●e law of God hath prohibited it . For the truth saith , Whom God hath joyned , let no man sever : and again , It is not lawful to put away a wife , except for fornication . Who then can contradict this heavenly Law-giver ?

The fourth Quaere . Of the Baptizing of Infants .

IN the next place I shall proceed to the Baptizing of Infants ( meaning thereby the obligation that lyes on Christian parents , and Pastors , the one to bring their children to Baptism , the other not to reject them when they are duly brought ) and shew you the basis whereon I conceive it is founded , and standeth in the Church of Christ .

Where first it being remembred ( what hath in the first Discourse been , I conceive , sufficiently evidenced ) that whatsoever Command or Institution hath come from God the Father ( by his Angels , or by his Prophets ) from Christ ( either personally , or through his successors the Apostles ) is of infallible obligation to all , to whom it was given , ( and so every Institution of Christs to all Christians ) and that the particular manner of conveying it to our knowledge , whether by the writings of the Old and New Testaments , or by any other means , is but extrinsecal to any such Precept or Institution of Christs , or his Apostles . It will be abundantly sufficient to the satisfying of this Quaere , if we shall by competent arguments evince , that in the Institution of Baptism , Christs institution of Baptism . as a Sacrament to be continued in the Christian Church , Christ and the Apostles did not reject Infants , but entertain and receive them to it .

And the foundation of this eviction may very fitly be laid in the Customes and Usages then among the Jews .

For that the Institutions of Christ ( who came first a Messias to the Jews , Founded in Jewish Customes . was born of that Nation , lived regularly under their law , observed their pious Customes ( some , as the Feast of Encaenia , or Dedication of the Altar , 1 Mac . 4.59 . which had not been instituted by God , but by the Jews themselves in time of the Maccabees ) and onely meant to reform what was amiss , and height●n that which was imperfect ) were by him drawn from the former practises and usages of the Jews , some mentioned , others not mentioned , in the Old Testament , and so were lightly changed , and accommodated to his own purposes , might easily be shewed through many , I suppose , through all particulars .

I shall not insist on any other , but this of Baptism , yet shall I mention a few of them . Thus , 1. Examples of Jewish Customes accommodated by Christ . the calling and receiving of disciples , or constant attendants , is answerable to the disciples of the Prophets among the Jews , who were to attend on , and minister unto them . So Joshua to Moses , Exod . 24.13 . Disciples . Elisha to Elias , 1 King . 19.2 . and generally the sons of the Prophets , so called , not onely as those that were taught by them , but also as attendants on them , by that Hebraism whereby {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , sons and servants , are of the same signification . And of these it is known , that they were wont to be sent on their errands , that they went to take up room , and prepare for them : and accordingly when John Baptist , which was Christs forerunner , saith of himself , that he was unworthy to carry his shoes , Mat . 3.11 . it is clear , that he refers to the custome of disciples , who were used to such personal attendances , and ministeries , and went before the Prophets . And so Christ is said to send the Seventy , {αβγδ} , before his face to every city whither he meant to come , Luk . 10.1 . And so Peter and John go before him to prepare the Passover , Mat . 16.17 . Thus , secondly , Power of the Keyes . was the donation of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven , lightly drawn from the constituting the Oeconomus over the Kings house , Isa . 22.21 . and making him father of the house of Judah , by putting the Key of David on his shoulder . Thirdly , that of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper , The Lords Supper . instituted in , and taken from their postcoenium and Cup of blessing , solemnly used by them at the close of a Festival . Fourthly , the Imposition of hands Imposition of hands . in confirmation , and absolution , and ordination , from the manner both of paternal blessing by the use of that ceremony , as in Jacob to his children , and of assuming to the dignity of an Elder in the Sanhedrin , by the use of the same ceremony . Fifthly , the title of Apostles Apostles . for deputies and proxies , sent with Commission or Letters of Credence , Mat . 10.40 . to supply Christs place , and act here on earth in his stead . Sixthly , that of See Quaere fifth . Bishops B●shops . ( answerable to the {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} ▪ the Prince and Head of the Sanhedrin or Consistory , and called {αβγδ} , and the {αβγδ} among them , the Overseer of any publick business ) and the same again styled {αβγδ} , Elders , answerable to the {αβγδ} Elders among them , either as stewards in the house , as Eliezer , Gen. 24.2 . is called {αβγδ} , and {αβγδ} , the elder of his house , and ruler of all that he had , {αβγδ} saith the Jerusalem Targum , ruler , or administrator , Gen. 15.2 . or as the rulers of the Tribes , chief of the families , are called Patriarchs , and Elders of Israel , Exod . 3.16 , 18. and Captains of thousands , i.e. rulers of cities . Seventhly , the Deacons Deacons . instituted by the Apostles , parallel to the {αβγδ} under the Synagogue , those that provided for the Poor , {αβγδ} , ordained Curators , in Josephus Azanitae from the Hebrew name , and from their Office , {αβγδ} , treasurers , in Epiphanius , and {αβγδ} , they that performed the ministerial duties , in Philo , and withall waited , and attended on the Elders in the Sanhedrin , as {αβγδ} or ministers there . Lastly , the title of {αβγδ} the Church , {αβγδ} in both notions of it , both for the People and Rulers of the Church , and those rulers either to officiate in the service of God , or to govern , from their assembling both in their Synagogues to hear and pray , and in their Town-halls to execute judgements . To pass by these , I say , Baptism among the Jews . and many more , I shall onely insist on this one of Bap●ism , or Washing , a known Rite solemnly used among the Jews ( as 't is now among the Christians ) for the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord , and so into the Congregation of the Jews , as among us it is into the new Covenant , and into the Church of Christ .

Many branches of that Custome there were , which have been Pract . Ca● . l 6. §. 4. elswhere mentioned . I shall here briefly gather them together , and farther testifie the truth of those affirmations ; which may any way seem questionable to any . First then , Baptism , Baptism of native Jews . or washing of the whole body , was a Jewish solemnity , by which the native Jews were entred into the Covenant of God , made with them by Moses . So saith the Talmud , tr . Repud . Israel , or the Israelites , do not enter into Covenant but by these three things , {αβγδ} by Circumcision , and Baptism , & Peace-offering . So in Gemara ad Tit . Cherithoth , c . 2. {αβγδ} &c. Your fathers , i.e. the Jews of old time , did not enter into Covenant but by Circumcision and Baptism , &c. and Tit . Jabimoth , c . 4. Rabbi Joshua said , {αβγδ} We finde of our mothers , that they were baptized and not circumcised . So Maimonides , Tit . Isuri bia , c . 13. {αβγδ} &c. By three things the Israelites entred into the Covenant , by Circumcision , Baptism , and Sacrifice . And soon after , What was done to you ? i . e . the Jews in universum , {αβγδ} , Ye were initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision , Baptism and Sacrifice . Nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them .

A●d that is the reason , I suppose , why the Apostle , 1 Cor . 10.1 . speaking of the fathers ( the Israelites that came out of Aegypt ) which by Gods mighty hand were redeemed to be a peculiar people to himself , and thereby entred into Covenant with him ( God giving them an essay of his receiving them under his wings , by covering them with a cloud , and environing them with the Sea ) saith , Baptiz●ng into Moses , 1 Cor . 10.1 . that they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea , v. 2. i . e . were , ( by those two great Solemnities , the cloud that gave them light by night , and a guard by day , and the sea that was a wall to defend them , and a devouring deep to their enemies ) received and initiated into Gods Covenant under the conduct of Moses , as since they are wont to be initiated by Baptism .

For the confirming of which interpretation , it may be remembred , First , that they that entred into Covenant with God ( of which Baptism was the ceremony ) are by the See Maimonides Tit . Isuri bia , ● c . 13. Jews ordinarily said to be received {αβγδ} under the wings of the glory , or majestatick presence , i.e. in plain words , under the protection of God , which is metaphorically expressed by the shadow of his wings . Secondly , that the ground of this metaphor was , Gods exhibiting himself to his servants by the apparition of Angels , and those Angels both there and elswhere coming in bright shining clouds ( whence it is that Exod . 14. in this story are joyned the removing of the cloud , and the removing of the Angel of God , v. 19. ) and those clouds hovering over their heads , and {αβγδ} , overshadowing , Mat . 17.5 . Mat . 17.5 . ( for which S. Peter useth {αβγδ} , the excellent glory , 2 Pet . 1.17 . 2. Pet . 1.17 . or majestatick presence , as the Jews call it ) and {αβγδ} , descending , or coming upon , or covering them , as an Eagle doth with her wings ; or ( {αβγδ} ) as a dove , Mat . 3.16 . And therefore , thirdly , that Baptism being among the Jews , the known Ceremony of such initiation into Gods Covenant , under the conduct of Moses , the overshadowing of the cloud , and the invironing of the Sea , which were really the receiving them into Gods protection , covenanted , and promised from him by Moses , Exod . 14.13 , &c. are fitly said to be the baptizing them into Moses ( {αβγδ} ) in or by this cloud and sea . And so this is a clear interpretation of that obscure place concerning the Israelites in Aegypt , supposing onely this custome of entring the Jews into the Covenant by Baptism ( which afterward came in , and was , I suppose , vulgarly known , when , and long before , the Apostle wrote ) without which it will not be easie to give any probable account of it . For as on one side to apply it immediately to Christian Baptism , will be inconvenient , because it is said distinctly to be {αβγδ} , into Moses , so to interpret it , with others , of the fathers that were personally at Mount Sinai at the time of receiving of the law ; and , to that end , to affirm that the sea is no more then any receptacle of waters , through which they that were to be baptized , were said to pass , and the cloud either nothing at all , or that wherein God spake to Moses , which is nothing to this purpose , will be lyable to many more inconveniences , which I shall not here make stay to shew , because it is but incidental to this business .

Secondly , as the native Jews were thus entred into the Covenant by Baptism : Baptism of Proselytes . so the Proselytes of the Jews , those that were taken in , as Proselytes of justice or righteousness , as professing or undertaking all their Law ( and not onely as Proselytes of the Gates , to live among them ) were received into their Church by Baptism also . So saith the Talmud tr . Repud . of Jethro , Moses's father in law , he was made a Proselyte by Circum●ision , {αβγδ} , and by immersion , or baptism in waters , and the manner of this immersion , is said to be , that they should sit up to the neck in water , and learn in the while some Precepts of the Law both hard and easie . So the Gemara ad Tit . Cherithoth , c . 2. The Proselytes entred not into Covenant {αβγδ} {αβγδ} but by Circumcision , Baptism , and sprinkling of blood , and Tit . Jabimoth , He is no Proselyte , unless he be circumcised and baptized , and unless he be {αβγδ} baptized , he is a Gentile . So Maimonides , Tit . Isuri bia , c . 13. In all ages whensoever any Gentile was willing to enter into the Covenant , and to be gathered under the wings of the Schechina , or divine majesty , and to undertake the yoke of the law , {αβγδ} he was bound to have Circumcis●on , and Baptism , and a Peace-offering , and if it were a woman , Baptism , and Sacrifice . And again , the stranger that is circumcised , and not baptized , or baptized , and not circumcised , is not truly a Proselyte , till he be both . And the Gemara almost in the same words , Tit . Jabimoth , c . 4.

A clear testimony of this we have in Arrian the Stoick Philosopher , in his Epictetus , l. 2. c . 9. where the Jewish Proselyte is by him called {αβγδ} dipp'd , and he that is so onely in shew , not in deed , {αβγδ} , a counterfeit baptized person .

The third thing observable in this baptism among the Jews , That of the Natives the pattern of the other . is , that the baptism of the native Jews , was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated , and wherein it was founded . This appears by the arguing and determining of the question in the Gemara , Tit . Jabimoth , c . 4. after this manner , Of him that was circumcised and not baptized , Rabbi Eliezer said , that he was a Proselyte , because , said he , we finde of our fathers ( Abraham , Isaac , &c. ) that they were circumcised , but not baptized . And of him that was baptized , and not circumcised , Rabbi Josua said , he was a Proselyte , because , said he , we finde of our mothers , that they were baptized , and not circumcised . But the wise men pronounced , that till he were both baptized and circumcised , he was not a Proselyte : where the example of the Jews was the rule by which the obligation of the Proselytes is measured . And the same is evident by the reason rendred by the Jewish writers , of their baptizing the Proselytes , which is generally taken by them from that command , Num . 15.15 . One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation , and also for the stranger ( i.e. {αβγδ} the Proselyte ) that sojourneth with you , an ordinan●e for ever in your generations , as ye are , so shall the stranger be before the Lord , one law , and one manner ( i.e. one {αβγδ} , and one {αβγδ} , Luk . 1.6 . one law for moral duties , and one law for rituals or ceremonies ) shall be for you , and for the stranger that sojourneth with you . Thus the Gemara Tit . Cherithoth , c . 2. foundeth the circumcising and baptizing of Proselytes upon those words , as to you , so shall it be to the Proselyte . So Maimonides , Tit . Isuri bia , c . 13. In like manner , through all ages , as oft as a Gentile will enter into the Covenant , and receive the yoke of the law upon him , it was necessary that circumcision and baptism should be used on him , beside sprinkling of the Sacrifice , and if it were a woman , Baptism and Sacrifice ; According as it is said ( Num . 15.15 . ) As to you , so also to the Proselytes , &c.

Here the original of that Custome , as far as concerns the Proselytes , doth clearly appear , viz. that command of God , Num . 15.15 . founded in a former Custome of baptizing the native Jews : As for the original of it among the Jews The original of it among the Jews . themselves , their writers deduce it as anciently , as from before the giving the law in Mount Sinai , Exod . 19.10 . when God , to prepare them for the receiving of it , commands Moses , Go unto the people , and sanctifie them to day and to morrow , and let them wash their clothes . So saith Maimonides , Isuri bia , c . 13. But Baptism was in the desert , before the giving of the law , according as it is said , Thou shalt sanctifie them , &c. And that agreeable to what we reade of Jacob to his houshold , Exod . 35.2 . Put away the strange gods that are among you , and be clean , and change your garments . So that as the Covenant made with Abraham , was sealed by Circumcision , so the giving of the law , which was the Covenant made by God , by the mediation of Moses , with all the people , was thought to be sealed by Baptism : And that , the washing , if not of the whole , yet of some parts of the body ( ordinarily called {αβγδ} sanctifications ) and the washing of their garments also . According to which we know it was anciently observed among Christians , that Baptism should be solemnized with the ceremony of clean and white garments : As the Dominica in Albis is a testimony .

Beside this original of the Iewish Baptism , referring to the time and occasion of it , Another may be observed of the significancy of this ceremony , viz. that it was taken from the Custome of washing babes new born . The washing of new born babes . Of that Custome among other nations , we have many Records , That of Aelian of the {αβγδ} will serve for all , {αβγδ} ( saith he , Var . Hist . l. 4. c . 1. ) {αβγδ} , They are washed but thrice onely , from the pangs , when they marry , and when they are dead . The first of which , being precedent to marriage , as that is to death , is not to be conceived to belong to the woman , that is newly past her travail , but to the childe that is newly born . And so of the Custome among the Iews , Ezekiel is express , c . 16.4 . In the day wherein thou wast born , thy navel was not cut , neither wast thou washed with water . And that this custome of washing new born children , and not any other sort of purification , was it , that this Baptism of native Iews and Proselytes referred to , may appear by that which in the Gemara is said of the baptized Proselyte , that he was made {αβγδ} as an infant new born .

Having thus far insisted on this Custome of Baptism among the Iews , these things are farther observable of it .

First , that of the Proselytes 't is confessed , The infants of Proselytes were baptized . that not onely they that were of age , but also their infant children were baptized . So the Gemara Babyl . Tit . Chet●b . c . 1. {αβγδ} they baptize the little or yong stranger or proselyte . And the Glosse addes , that the Rulers of the Consistory take care of it , and so are made to him a father . And Maimonides in the forecited place , Tit . Isuri bia , c . 13. They baptize the infant or little stranger upon the knowledge or understanding of the house of judgement , or the Congregation , i.e. on their desire in behalf of the children , and their promise to let them know what they have undertaken . Agreeably to that of S. Augustine , of the Church among us Christians , Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant , aliorum cor ut credant , aliorum linguam ut fateantur . Our mother the Church sends them other mens feet , heart , and tongue ; that they may come , and beleive , and confess , and so be capable of baptism .

Secondly , that this ceremony of Baptism among the Iews , Baptism among the Jews not iterated . as that other of Circumcision , was never repealed , but received once for all the insuing life . And this among them is acknowledged by all as unquestionable . To which our Saviour seems to refer , Ioh . 13.10 . when he tells Peter , that {αβγδ} he that hath been washed , i.e. once washed all over , needs not , save to wash his feet ; needs not to be washed all over any more , but is {αβγδ} , whole clean , the {αβγδ} will for the rest serve the turn , the daily washings of hands and feet , which they call {αβγδ} sanctifications , the purifying more and more daily the frailties and imperfections , and lapses of weak nature , those feet of the man ( {αβγδ} , saith Eulogius ) which are still behinde after conversion .

Thirdly , that they that were thus received as Proselytes by Baptism , The Proselytes regeneration by Baptism . put off their former relations of kindred &c. To which surely our Saviour refers , when he talks of leaving father and mother , Mar. 10.29 . And Tacitus the Historian , Nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quàm exuere patriam , parentes , liberos , fratres vilia habere , their proselytes are first taught , after renouncing the gods , to put off their countrey , parents , children , brethren , to despise them all . And the latter Iews have a saying , that he that hath married his own Sister , or entred any the most incestuous bands , by becoming a proselyte ceaseth to have that near relation of blood to her , and may now live with her , as with a wife : which false superstructure in them , is yet a testimony of the truth , whereon it is falsly founded by them .

Fourthly , that they that were thus baptized , were said to be born again ; and that , as if born of a new mother , as it is oft said in the Talmud , to which our Saviour refers , when he talks of regeneration ( of which , saith S. Paul , baptism is the laver ) of being born again from above of water &c. Ioh . 3.35 . And this was so vulgar a notion among the Iews , that v. 10. Christ wonders at Nicodemus , that he understood it not : Art thou a ruler in Israel , and knowest not these things ?

That these so many things observed of the Iewish baptism , were really accommodated by Christ to this rite of our initiation to Christian Religion , there is as little reason for us ( that see the foot-steps of them in the New Testament , and the continual practise of the Church ) to doubt , as , that a picture was taken from that face , which it resembleth to the life . And then by this one means we shall have a clear foundation of all that is at this day practised in the Church of God in this matter of Baptism : First , The application of all this to the Christian Baptism . for the receiving all that come into that profession from heathenism , by this rite or ceremony . Secondly , all those that are born within the pale of the Church . Thirdly , their infant children , being undertaken for by Godfathers , who represent the Congregation . Fourthly , the never-iterating this ceremony , but ( in case of falling into sin after Baptism ) substituting Repentance and Absolution for it . Fifthly , the propriety of that phrase so solemnly received into the Church , of baptismal regeneration , new birth , &c. noting thereby the goodness of God , to make this new covenant of Mercy with us , and the strict obligation that lies on all that are baptized , by that grace of God there made over to them , to walk in newness of life .

By all this appears , First , The example o● Circ●mcision . how little needful it will be to defend the baptism of Christian Infants ▪ from the law of circumci●●ng the Infants among the Iews the foundation being far more fitly laid in that other of Iewish baptism , a ceremony of initiation for all ( especially for proselytes ) as well as that , and whereas that of circumcision belonged onely to one , this other being common to both sexes . And yet from that example of circumcision among them , thus much must needs be gained to our present design , that the childes not being able to understand the vow of baptism , doth no way prejudice the baptizing of such , for if it did , it must necessarily be an objection against the circumcising the Jewish childe at eight dayes old , who could then no more understand the Covenant , of which that was made the Sign , nor the wickedness that the entring into the Covenant obliged to abstain from , then the Christian Infant now can , and yet ( under pain of excision ) was commanded to be c●rcumcised . which being so far vindicated from being unreasonable and incongruous , by that example of circumcision , which is allowed of by all dissenters , there will be little reason to fear the objections from Reason , or , upon that score , to doubt of the practise of that , which is so reasonable , when it hath , beside this , the example of baptism among the Jews ( from which it is immediately deduced ) so adaequately proportionable , and directly parallel to it .

So again , secondly , the mention in Scripture of the Apostles baptizing a whole houshold at once , Of baptizing a whole houshold . Acts 16.13 . Act. 16.33 . is not of it self demonstrative , or convincing : because , that wider phrase may possibly be restrained to those that heard and believed in that family , . And although , when the custome of the Jews ( whence this Christian rite so lately came ) is remembred , that the Proselytes children , as well as those of age , were baptized , and that that was so ordinarily known , that it needed not be more distinctly and particularly affirmed , there will be little temptation to doubt , but that the Gaolers infants , if he had any , were comprised under the {αβγδ} , all his , and were baptized also ; ( and so Stephanas's infants under the {αβγδ} , houshold of Stephanas , 1 Cor . 1.16 . 1 Cor . 1 , 16. ) yet because it is not certain of either of these , that they had any so young in their family , therefore 't is confessed , that no concluding argument can be deduced from thence , and unconcludent arguments were in many respects much better waved , then made use of against gainsayers .

But then thirdly , that speech of our Saviour , Christs reception of little children . Mat . 19.14 . Mat . 19.14 . and Mar. 10.6 . Mar. 10.6 . which concludes that the {αβγδ} or little children may , and must be permitted to be brought by others to Christ , and being so brought , yet are said to come to him ( {αβγδ} , the very words of which proselyte is made ) and 2. his blessing them by imposition of hands ; and 3. his affirming that the Kingdome of God , the Church here , and Heaven hereafter , consists of such as they , are a conjunction of particulars , which although they come not home distinctly to baptizing of Infants ( because it is not affirmed he did baptize them ) are yet a farther proof of the uncharitableness and unreasonableness of the main objections ( taken from the Infants not hearing , not beleiving , &c. ) which are pretended to have force against this practise . For if those that cannot come , may , and must be permitted to be brought by others to Christ ; if , at the yongest , they are capable of receiving blessing from him ; if they are such , as of whom peculiarly the kingdome of God consists , then what hinders , but they may be capable of the early charity of the Church , in bringing and admitting them to baptism ( though they do not understand the vow ) and receive benefit and advantage by partaking of it ? And the rather , when it is remembred , that Christ , that baptized not at all , Joh . 4.2 . Joh 4.2 . and so thought not fit to baptize these , did yet afford that ceremony to them , which in the ancient Church was preparatory and antecedent to Baptism ; viz. imposition of hands and blessing them . Imposition of hands preparatory to Baptism . This , Clemens , or the Author of the Constitutions , mentions , l. 7. c . 39. where having set down the severals wherein the Catechumenus was to be instructed , he addes , but let him that layes on hands adore God , &c. And this , I suppose , it is that Clemens Alex : refers to , Paedag . l. 3. c . 11. in these words , {αβγδ} ; On whom doth the Presbyter lay hands ? whom shall he bless ? meaning , most probably , in that place , not the nuptial benediction , but the solemnity with which the Catechist blessed those , that were catechized , preparatory to their Baptism . And so saith Eusebius of Constantine , l. 4. that to prepare for his Baptism , {αβγδ} , He made profession , and then was vouchsafed those prayers , which were given by imposition of hands . And thus the Holy Ghosts fa●ling upon Cornelius's family , Act. 10.44 . ( which was wont to be an effect of the Apostles imposition of hands , but of which we have no mention there ) is by S. Peter lookt on as an evidence , that God had accepted these Gentiles , and so that they were fit to be baptized , v. 47. can any forbid water ? &c.

But there is no need of laying much weight on this , or any the like more imperfect wayes of probation . The whole fabrick being sufficiently supported , The true Basis of Infant-Baptism : 1. Negatively , that and built on this Basis ( the customary Baptism among the Jews ) and that discernible to be so , if we consider it first negatively , then positively .

First , negatively , that Christian baptism , which is an institution of Christs , Christs institution of Baptism excludes not Infants . lightly changed from the Jewish custome of receiving of Proselytes , by him appointed in his life time , and setled a little before his Ascension , hath nothing in the pattern , whence it is copied out , nothing in the copy it self , as it is set down in the New Testament , i.e. in the words of the Institution , or in his or the Apostles practise , which doth any way exclude the Christians children from being part of that indefinite number , that ought to be baptized , or for whom baptism was instituted by Christ .

That there is nothing exclusive of them in the pattern ( the Jewish custome of baptism ) hath been sufficiently evidenced by the several branches of that , already insisted on . And in the New Testament , I cannot foresee any words that may come under suspicion of doing so , but those of Mat . 28.19 . Objection from Mat . 28.19 . Go teach all nations , baptizing them , &c. And those words being duly weighed , are far from doing so . For the phrase which is there used in the Original , is a singular one , not duly exprest by our English [ Teach . ] It is {αβγδ} , make disciples , or receive into discipleship all nations , baptizing them in the name &c. making this form of baptism their ceremony of receiving them . You may see the word expl●ined in a parallel phrase , {αβγδ} . Ioh . 4.1 . The Pharisees heard that Iesus makes more disciples , and baptizeth , then Iohn , {αβγδ} , where to make disciples , and baptize , is all one with {αβγδ} , where the baptizing being immediately annexed to the making or receiving disciples , and the receiving disciples not supposing any precedent instruction , but looking wholly on it as subsequent ( in like manner , as in this place v. 20. {αβγδ} [ teaching ] follows after {αβγδ} baptizing ) all that are thus brought and receiv'd ad discipulatum , to be for the future instructed , and instituted in the Christian faith , may surely be received in baptism , the ceremony which is there prescribed by Christ , with which to receive disciples .

To which purpose I shall ( in passing ) adde this one observation , 1 Pet . 3.21 . {αβγδ} , 1 Pet . 3.21 . Baptism is defined to be {αβγδ} , we render it , the answer , but it is rather , the question of a good conscience to , or toward God . That {αβγδ} signifies to ask , or demand , and not to answer , is as certainly known , as that quaerere and inquirere , to inquire , doth so signifie , and so it is used , Mat . 12.10 . and 16.1 . Mar. 11.29 . Luk . 17.20 . Ioh . 18.20 . Rom. 10.20 . And there is no one place where it can possibly be otherwise taken . One thing onely there is peculiar sometimes in the use of the word , which differenceth it from ordinary questions , that it is oft used for such a questioning , as we mean by consulting , as consulting God , consulting the Oracle , i.e. making address , asking counsel of him . So Hos . 4.12 . where we reade , My people ask counsel of their stocks ; the Greek hath , {αβγδ} . So Hesychius , {αβγδ} , rendring it by that word which is ordinarily used for consulting the Oracle , and from whence Apollo had his title of Pytho , and the Divines of Pythonesses . So Isa . 65.1 . ( and out of it Rom. 10.20 . Rom. 10.20 . ) their not hoping for deliverance out of Antiochus's hand , and consequently not seeking to , consulting , applying , add●essing themselves to God about it , is meant by their not asking , or enquiring of God . And accordingly in that place of S. Peter , the meaning of this definition or description of baptism will be , that baptism is the coming and seeking to God as to the Oracle , to inquire for the whole future life , applying ones self to God for his directions for all the future actions , with a , Lord , what wilt thou have me to do ? or , Good master , what shall I do to inherit eternal life ? This is {αβγδ} ( but that including a good , and an upright conscience , or Cyrill . Hie●esol● . {αβγδ} . {αβγδ} a genuine sincere purpose to do what is there required of him . ) And accordingly S. Cyprian hath interrogatio baptismi , Ep. 76. and 80. the asking or inquiring of baptism . From whence all that I have to conclude to the present purpose , is onely this ( not that baptizing of Infants is there spoken of , or so much as intimated by S. Peter , but ) that the proper signification of baptism , is the entring a disciple , initiating a proselyte , and doth no way praerequire actual instruction , but consists in coming to Christ , and his Church , to receive it , and obey it for the future : which though no grown man can be said to do with a good resolution , or good conscience , unless he have an explicit or implicit faith of some part of the Gospel , or at least some grounds of piety toward God , which must make him content to be a disciple of Christ , yet of children it is certain , Learning is not praerequired to discipleship . that they may be thus brought by the care of their parents to this , as to other schools or discipleships , and delivered up to be scholars , before they know one letter , or have any actual willingness to acquire any knowledge . And thus we know Christs calling and receiving Philip to discipleship , Ioh . 1.44 . Ioh 1.44 . did not suppose him to be praeinstructed by Christ ; for there , after Christs finding him , the next thing is his saying to him , Follow me . And when the Iews , Exod . 19.8 . assumed to obey all the commandments of God , which he should give them , we do not suppose that the commandments had been formerly given them , but were to follow , c . 20. In brief , the one thing praerequired to a disciple ( as to being Jo●ius in Ph●t . {αβγδ} : capable of Christs miracles ) is {αβγδ} , the readiness to obey , and receive what is delivered , and a non-resistance is some degree of that : and though the childe which cannot obey , cannot be said to have at present any of this , yet the earlyer he is received into Christs school , the Church ( and we know from that place of Mat . 28. that baptism is the solemn ceremony of that ) the surer he is to be praepossest with Christian knowledge , and to receive those infusions , while he hath the least prejudices and obstructions against them . And that is the ground of hastening infants to discipleship .

To this may be added in the second place , that his receiving of disciples was the receiving of proselytes to the Covenant , and Faith of Christ , a disciple and a proselyte being perfectly all one , save onely that the latter denotes a coming from some other nation or countrey , which difference hath no place in this matter , where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations .

Infants capable of Proselytism or reception into Covenant . Thirdly , that Infant children are not by their years rendred uncapable of reception to Proselytism , i.e. of entring ininto this or any other Covenant , when by their parents , or the congregation , they are brought to it . That they are not uncapable , may appear by that example forementioned of the Iews , who received the infant children of the Proselytes , upon the desire of the Parents , and the profession of the congregation , and accordly baptized them also . Secondly , by parity of reason taken from the Iewish Natives , who en●red and were admitted into Covenant with God , the Infants as well as men . So Deuteron . 29.10 . Ye stand this day before the Lord your God , your captains of Tribes , your Elders , and your Officers , with all the men of Israel , your little ones , your wives , and thy stranger — That thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God . Where the little ones are part of the number of those that enter into covenant with God , and so may enter into this covenant made in Christ , by the parity of Reason . And , thirdly , by the origination of the word Proselytes ( from {αβγδ} ) they than come unto Christ , which is the onely thing which Christ mentions concerning little children , Suffer little children to come unto me , and forbid them not : which infers their capacity of Proselytism , and the next words suppose them particularly qualified for it : for of such is the kingdome of God . They , and such whose humility and other qualifications resemble them most perfectly to children , are the persons of whom the Christian Church is to be constituted .

All which being supposed , viz. that there is nothing discernible from the nature of Jewish baptism ( wherein the Christian is founded ) nothing in Christs institution of it , which can exclude the Christians infant children from baptism , but all the circumstances concurring most favourably to the reception of them , there is now but one thing wanting to remove all doubt in this matter , viz. Christs intention in this . And the way to evidence that , will be the opinion and sense that the Apostles ( who were acquainted with Christs purpose , and cannot be imagined to have misunderstood his words ) had of the intention of Christ to include Infants in that institution of baptism for all nations , and not to exclude them from it .

And this is the second and positive part of the Basis , The positive part of the Basis of Infant Baptism . whereon , I conceive , the Baptism of Infants to be founded in the Church . And that this was the Apostles sense of Christs words , and opinion of his Ins●itution , will appear by their own usage and practise , The Apostles practise evidenced two wayes . two wayes testified unto us , First , by one considerable remain or footstep of it , in S. Pauls . Epistle to the Corinthians . Secondly , by the practise of the first and purest ages of the Church , which received Infants to baptism , and either , by so doing , testifie the Apostolical usage , transcribed by them , or else farther affirm , that they received it by tradition from the Apostles . And the brief clearing of these two evidences , is all that I shall think necessary to adde for the asserting the positive part of this doctrine . What else may be fit to be taken in , will be added more properly by way of answer to the Ob●ections which are producible against it .

And first , the remain or footstep of the Apostolical practise , is , A reasoning of S. Pauls , 1 Cor . 7. which supposeth it then received , and known in the Church ( at the writing of that Epistle ) that Christians children were received to Baptism . The sum of which will be best discerned by the setting down a few verses , 1 Cor 7.12 . explained . and a brief Paraphrase on them .

12. If any brother hath a wife that beleiveth not , and she be pleased to dwell with him , let him not put her away . If any Christian husband hath an heathen wife , and she be desirous to continue with him , he ought not to put her away , unbeleife being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ .

13. And the woman which hath an husband that beleiveth not , and if he be pleased to dwell with her , let her not leave him . And so in like manner for the Christian wife , that is married to an Infidel , if he be desirous to live with her , let her by no meanes separate from him .

14. For the unbeleiving husband {αβγδ} . hath been sanctified by the wife , and the unbeleiving wife hath been sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean , but now are they holy . For ( beside the command of Christ , Mat . 5.32 . which obligeth to this ) other advantages there are of the beleivers living with the unbeleiver , worth considering . For by this means it hath oft come to pass , that the unbeleiving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the beleiver ; and , considering the efficacy of good example , 1 Pet . 3.1 . and seasonable exhortation and instruction , on presumption of the great zeal ( and consequent endevours and diligence ) that by the Laws of Christianity the husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him , as a wife is , there is great reason of hope , that still it may be so , that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeleiver , and the intuition of that ( more then possible ) effect , may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily . And this one consideration , viz. the probability that the conversation of the believer , 1 Pet . 3.1 . should gain , i.e. bring the unbeleiver to the faith , and the reasonable presumption that it will be so , is the reason why the young children of Christians , which cannot as yet be deemed beleivers , are yet admitted to Baptism , because by their living in the family with Christian parents , they probably , and by the obligation lying on the parents , ought to be brought up in the faith , and kept from heathen pollutions ( and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the Parents ) doth reasonably presume they will . And upon this ground it is , that , though the children of Christians are , yet the children of heathens are not admitted to Baptism .

That this is the true importance of the Apostles words , and force of his arguing , The confirmation of this interpretation , In the former , doth for the former part of it appear evident ; First , by the word {αβγδ} hath been sanctified , which must needs refer to some past , known examples , and experiences of this kinde , or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the praeter tense . Secondly , by the phrase {αβγδ} , by , or through the wife . This the praeposition [ {αβγδ} ] so ordinarily signifies , that it cannot need to be farther testified , ( and in this notion it is , that we here take it ) whereas the notion , which by opposers is here affixt to it , that it should signifie to ( that to , which is a sign of the dative case ) [ sanctified to the wife , ( as meat to the beleiver ) made lawful to her to live with , ] is never once found to belong to it , in the New Testament , nor can with any tolerable congruity , or Grammatical analogy be affixt to it . All the places that are produced for this sense , are commonly mistaken . So Mat . 17.12 . [ {αβγδ} ] is not fecerunt ei , they have done to him , but on him , or against him : so as {αβγδ} is used for {αβγδ} , which is an ordinary acception of it . So Act. 4.12 . There is no name {αβγδ} , it is not [ given to men ] but among men . And that is an ordinary notion of {αβγδ} , for among , {αβγδ} , is God among us ? and {αβγδ} , Christ among us ; and many the like . So 1 Cor . 7.15 . God hath called us , {αβγδ} : It is not to , as the note of a dative case , but unto peace , as {αβγδ} is again taken for {αβγδ} . So Gal. 1.16 . to reveal his own Son {αβγδ} : It is not [ to me ] but [ by , or through me to others , ] as it follows , that I might preach him and when it there follows {αβγδ} , it is not [ to , but again , among the Gentiles . ] And 2 Pet . 1.5 . {αβγδ} , is , adde unto your faith virtue , &c. in the notion of {αβγδ} for {αβγδ} , Unto your faith , or over and above that , {αβγδ} superadde virtue , or fortitude , or constancy , that which in this time of persecution and scandal of the cross , they stood so much in need of . And so still the rendring it [ to the wife ] will be without any one example , and the turning it into quite another phrase , as if it were {αβγδ} without {αβγδ} ; which to do without any necessity or reason , ( save onely {αβγδ} , to serve the opposers turn upon the place , and support his false opinion ) must needs be very unreasonable . Thirdly , this appears most irrefragably , by the express words added on this argument , v. 16. where [ the unbeleiver's having been sanctified by the beleiver ] ( used as an argument why they should live together ) is farther explained by these words of an undoubted perspicuous sense , For what knowest thou , ô wife , whether thou shalt save thy husband ? Or how knowest thou , ô husband , whether thou shalt save thy wife ? where the word {αβγδ} [ save ] which ordinarily signifies to reduce ( or as it is 1 Pet . 3.1 . {αβγδ} to gain ) to repentance from heathenism , or wicked life , is set parallel to {αβγδ} sanctifying , and makes it clear , what was meant by it .

Which being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part , there will then be little reason to doubt , but that this , of the admission of the Christian children to baptism on this score , is the importance of the latter part : That , and no other , being it , which exactly accords with the former reasoning , and it being not imaginable , that this should be here added in that argumentative style [ {αβγδ} , whereas , ( or , for ) else were &c. ] if it were not an inforcing of the foregoing position thus proved by him .

What is thought fit to be brought for the eluding , And in the latter part of it . and avoiding this interpretation , will be most fitly considered anon in answer to the Anabaptists Plea . Meanwhile , for the confirming of it , it may be remembred , what {αβγδ} holy , is known to signifie in the sacred dialect , not onely an inhaerent , but a relative holiness , being separate , or set apart to God , discriminated from common , ordinary things , or persons , and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation , the office of a Prophet , or the like , so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be members of the Church , into which all are initiated by baptism . And accordingly , all visible professors , and not onely those that are sincerely such , are in Ezek . 9.2 . the holy seed , and in the Epistles of the Apostles called {αβγδ} , holy .

And secondly , how the word {αβγδ} unclean , is used by S. Peter , Act. 10.14 . for those that must not ( as he conceived ) be received into the Church , as [ God 's having cleansed ] is God's reputing them fit to be partakers of that privilege . Whereby it appears , how fitly , receiving , and not-receiving to baptism , may be expressed by those phrases . Thirdly , how the word {αβγδ} , which is ordinarily to sanctifie , doth among the Jews ( whence this word {αβγδ} is taken ) signifie to wash ( as when the High-Priests washing his hands and his feet ten times on the day of Expiation , is called {αβγδ} ten sanctifications , Joma , c . 3. § . 3. which being the word which denotes the washing some part of the body , and distinguished in use from the {αβγδ} , which is immersion of the whole body , may perhaps be an intimation , that the Primitive Baptisms were not alwayes immersions of the whole body , but that sprinkling of some part , the literal importance of the {αβγδ} sanctifications , might be sufficient .

Fourthly , it is known of the legal uncleannesses , contrary to those their sanctifications , that they were the cause of removing men from the Congregation , they that were so , {αβγδ} , unclean , might not partake of the privileges of the Temple , till they were washed and sanctified , and that is proportionable also to the notion here given of it , that the Christians children are holy , i.e. not inherently ( they are not capable of that ) but , in the account of God and men , capable of separation for the service of God , of being entred into the Church , into Covenant , which denominates men holy , ( as the Gentiles , as long as they were out of it , were unclean and unholy , Act. 10. ) Now are they holy , i.e. it is the present practise of the Church , that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time , to admit to Baptism such Infant children of parents , of whom one is Christian , though not of others . And to put all out of question , the Ancient Fathers , which certainly knew the sacred dialect , call Baptism , Sanctification . So Cyprian , Ep. 59. Eum qui natus est , baptizandum , & sanctificandum , He that is born , must be baptized and sanctified ; where baptizing , is sanctifying of Infants . So Greg . Naz . Orat . 40. Edit. Bill . p. 658. {αβγδ} , 't is better to be sanctified without sense of it , i.e. baptized in infancy , when they are not sensible of it , then to depart , or dye without the seal of baptism . And again p. 648. {αβγδ} , let him be sanctified from the Infancy , i.e. baptized then . And many the like .

This passage then being thus interpreted , is a clear proof or the point in hand . And , were not this the importance of it , there were no privilege imaginable , no sanctity which could be attributed to the Infants of Christians , which could not belong to the Infants of heathens also , which yet is here directly affirmed of the one , and denyed of the other by the Apostle . And as this evidently concludes such a custome , known and acknowledged among Christians at that time : so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise , in which Christ founded his institution , hath laid the foundation of , in baptizing Proselytes and their children , and to which the Primitive Church conformed . And so though that Iudaical practise , taken alone , were not deemed any demonstrative evidence , that Christ thus instituted his baptism for the Gentiles , yet being taken in conjunction with this testimony of the Apostolical practise , and the Primitive usage , it brings all the weight with it , that a divine testimony interpreted by practise can afford : which is as great as any such matter can be capable of .

It remains then that I proceed to the Testimonies of the Ancient Christian writers , who have mentioned this , Testimonies of Apostolick practise . either as a practise of the Church , known in the first times , or moreover as delivered them from the Apostles .

And first we have the words of Iustin Martyr , Justin Martyr . Resp . ad Orthod . or whoever wrote that ancient piece , {αβγδ} , Children are allowed to enjoy the good things that come by baptism , by the faith of them that bring them to baptism : directly agreeable to the force ( and so very proper farther to confirm our notion and interpretation ) of that place to the Corinthians , where , by reason of the beleiving husband , living with the unbeleiving wife , and the presumption that one may do good on the other , and bring her to the faith ( and however bring up the children so ; ) the children are holy , i.e. vouchsafed the privilege of baptism , and the advantages consequent to it .

Secondly , we have that of Irenaeus , Irenaeus . that lived in the age of those that saw the Apostles , within the first Century after them , l. 2 , adv . haeres . c . 39. who speaking of Christ that came , saith he , to save men of all ages , and specifying Infantes & parvulos , Infants and little ones , as well as pueros , juvenes , & seniores , boyes , young men , and old men , addes , omnes , inquam , qui per eum renascuntur in Deum , all , I say , who by him are born again to God , where the Infants being regenerate , and born again into God , must needs be interpreted after the Scripture notion of {αβγδ} , being born again , or regenerate by that laver of regeneration . And so 't is known , that all the ancient Church writers understand Baptism by it , ( Dominica & Apostolicâ phra●● , saith Fevardentius there , after the style of Christ and his Apostles ) and accordingly he addes , sanc●ificat infantes , he makes Infants holy , again in that sense that we had it to the Corinthians .

Thirdly , for Tertullian , Tertullian . who lived also within that first Century after the decease of the Apostles , we have these words , l. de Animâ , where , of the fidelium filii , children of the faithful , he affirms , that they are sanctitatis candidati , & sancti ex seminis praerogativâ , candidates of sanctity , and holy as in other respects , so from the prerogative of their birth , which as it is again an exact parallel to that place of S. Paul , 1 Cor . 7.13 . in our rendring and interpreting of it , and an evidence , that it was then understood thus in the Church of God , so is it a proof of the practise of the Church in his time , in receiving the Christian children to baptism . And although l. de Bapt . c . 8. he argue for the delay of baptism in some cases , when it is not necessary ( praecipuè circa parvulos , especially toward children ) meaning , most probably , the children of unbeleivers , by others ( as sponsores to promise for them ) brought to baptism , as considering that those Sponsors might dye , or not be able to perform their promise , yet by that very passage produced out of him against Paedobaptism , it is most evident that it was then practised in the Church on the children of Christians ; The antiquity of Sponsores or Godfathers . and as evident , that the Sponsores , Undertakers , or Sureties , which have place onely in baptizing of children , were in his time known and customary in the Church . And of them it is accordingly affirmed by In vitâ Hygini . Platina , out of the ancient Records , that Hyginus the Bishop of Rome , and Martyr , An. Dom . 144. voluit unum saltem Patrimum , unamque Matrimam baptismo interesse , appointed that there should be at least one Godfather and one Godmother present at baptism : Sic enim , saith he , eos appellant , qui infantes tenent dum baptizantur , for so they call those that bold Infants when they are baptized .

Fourthly , Origen , Origen . immediately after Irenaeus and Tertullian , is express not onely for the practise ( secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari , according to the custome of the Church , baptism is given to Infants , on Lev . c . 12.13 . Hom. 8. and again , Quia per baptismum nativitatis sordes deponuntur , propterea baptizantur & parvuli , because by baptism the filth of our birth is taken away , therefore are children baptized , Hom. 14. in loc . ) but also for the Tradition from the Apostles , in Rom. 16. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare , The Church received tradition from the Apostles , to give baptism also to little ones . Nothing can be more express to the whole matter . And though we have not that piece of Origen in Greek , yet being translated by S. Jerome , and so owned by him in his Epistle to Heraclius , prefixt before the Commentary , we have his authority to secure us , that these are Origens words .

In this place I shall adde a testimony out of that Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy , arguing for Paedobaptism , c . 7. {αβγδ} . Of this we say the same things which our divine Ministers of holy things , instructed by divine Tradition , brought down to us . The Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy . That this wri●er was Dionysius the Areopagite , mentioned in the Acts , I do not pretend to beleive ; yet as Mr. Casaubon saith of him , that he was scriptor antiquissimus , & elegantissimus , a most ancient and most elegant writer : so it appears out of Pho●ii bibliotheca , that the question whether these were the genuine works of that Dionysius , lay under debate , about the year 420. For at that time Theodorus Presbyter alleaged the arguments on both sides , for and against that assertion : By which it appears sufficiently , that the Author was very ancient , when so long since , his was matter of question concerning him . And after the same proportion , I might here reasonably adde the words of the Author of the Constitutions , Of the Constitutions . l. 6. c . 15. Baptize your little ones , and educate them in the discipline and precepts of the Lord : For though I am not perswaded that they were written in the Apostles time by Clemens Romanus , yet there is sufficient reason to assure us , that they were very ancient .

In the next place S. Cyprians S. Cyprian . authority comes , backt with the force of an African Councel , which , saith he , determined what is affirmed by him , Ep. 59. Quantum ad causam infantium pertinet , quos dixisti intra secundum & tertium diem quo nati sunt constitutos baptizari non oportere — longè aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus visum est ; universi judicavimus nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei , & gratiam denegandam , &c. As to the case of Infants , which thou saidst were not to be baptized within two or three dayes after birth — It was far otherwise determined by all in our Councel , we all judged that the mercy and grace of God was to be denyed to none that was born of men . And again , A baptism● atque à gratiâ Dei neminem per nos debere prohiberi . Quod cum circa universos observandum sit , atque retinendum , tum magis circa infantes ipsos & recens natos observandum putamus , &c. None ought to be hindred by us from baptism , and the grace of God , which as it is among all to be observed and maintained , so it ought the rather to be observed among Infants , and those that are newly born , who by their tears , with which they begin the world , might in reason obtain more from our help , and the Divine Mercy .

So after him S. Augustine S. Augustine of the Tradition from the Apostles , Ser . 10. de verb . Apost . and more expresly de Bapt . cont . Donatist . l. 4. c . 24. Nemo nobis susurret doctrinas alienas . Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit , semper retinuit , hoc à Ma●orum fide accepit , hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit . Let no man whisper to us other doctrines . This the Church hath alwayes had , alwayes retained , this it hath received from the faith of the predecessors , this it keeps perseveringly to the end . Quod universa tenet Ecclesia , nec conciliis institutum , sed semper retentum est , non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur . That which the Universall Church maintains , and was not instituted by Councels , but alwayes continued , is most rightly beleived to be delivered by the Apostles authority . And lib . 10. de Gen. ad literam , c . 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est , nec ullo modo superflua deputanda , nec omnino credenda , nisi Apostolica esset t●aditio . The custome of our Mother the Church is by no means to be scorned , in baptizing of children , nor yet to be accounted superfluous , nor at all to be beleived , if there were not Apostolick Tradition for it . So l. 1. de pecc . mer . & remiss . speaking of the Pelagians , Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt ; qui contra authoritatem Universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum & Apostolos traditam venire non possunt . They grant that children are to be baptized , because they cannot contradict the a●thority of the Universal Church delivered by the Lord and by the Apostles . These two last authorities receive some farther weight , by considering that they are by him urged to his adversaries , on whom he would not have pressed this Tradition as Apostolical , if in that age there had been ony suspicion to the contrary .

From him , and all the Ecclesiastick Writers and Councels after him , I need not heap testimonies in this matter ; it being known and acknowledged by all , how frequently they are to be met with ; and that this was one great aggravation charged on Pelagius's haeresie , that by consequence from his doctrine , he denyed the baptism of Infants for the remission of s ns ( which they that did , have been censured by the Church for Haereticks in all ages ) as may appear both by S. Ambrose Epist. l. 4. Demetriadi virg . Hinc evacuatío baptismatis parvulorum , qui solâ adoptione donari , nullo autem reatu dicerentur absolvi . From Pelagius's doctrine follows the evacuating of the baptism of Infants , who should , by his opinion , be said to be adopted , but not absolved from any guilt . And in like manner by the definition of the Milevitan Councel , Can . 2. where speaking of the Catholick Churches understanding of Original Sin , we have these words , Propter hanc regulam fidei , The Milev●tan Councel . & parvuli , qui nihil peccatorum in semet ipsis adhuc committere potuerunt , ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur , &c. Upon this rule of faith ( the sense of the Catholick Church , ubique semper , every where , and alwayes ) it is , that Infants are baptized into remission of s●ns ▪ that what they have contracted by generation , may be purged by regeneration . And yet of Pelagius himself it is the affirmation of Eusebius Emissenus , Hom. 5. de Pasch . that he asserted the baptizing of Infants , though not propter vitam , for life , yet propter regnum coelorum , for the kingdome of God . Nay , S. Augustine cites it out of Coelestius the Pelagian , Infantes baptizari in remissionem peccatorum , secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae , & Evangelii sententiam , that Infants are baptized for remission of sins , according to the rule of the universal Church , and the appointment of the Gospel , l. 2. cont . Pel . & Coel . c . 5.

This positive doctrine , I suppose , will not need farther confirming , it being their part , that attempt to invalidate a custome or usage , so authoritatively introduced , and so long continued , to maintain their improbable plea with demonstrative arguments . And till that be done , as in our nation it is acknowledged , that common usage is common law , and possession time out of minde , is not onely eleven , but the whole twelve points in Law ; So in the Church of Christ ( whose universal Rule hath alwayes been that , which the first Nicene Councel hath made familiar with every man , {αβγδ} , Let the ancient usages continue in force ) the proof of the usage , or practise , is all that can be expected for the vindicating of an Institution .

The one thing then remaining , is to examine the arguments , that are produced against Infants Baptism , whether they have any thing in them thus demonstrative , or no ; and , till somewhat appear of that nature , to resolve they are but suggestions of Schismaticks , which prefer their own singular , or private spirits , before the common spirit of the Apostolical Church of God .

And of these arguments , the most diligent Collection that I ever met with , Dr. Taylors Collection of the Anabaptists arguments . is that of my very worthy friend , Dr. Jer . Taylor , in his Book of Liberty of Prophesying , where he hath so impartially inforced the arguments of his adversaries , that I know not where to furnish my self with so exact a Scheme , and shall therefore , upon that one account , choose to follow that path which he hath traced before me . And these {αβγδ} . p. 228. Num . 13. arguments begin first Negatively , or destructively , by taking away the force of other arguments produced before in behalf of Paedobaptism . To which , first , I answer in general , that my present engagements give me no necessity of replying to this sort of the Anabaptists arguments , because they impugn not the grounds which have been laid in this discourse , but onely are brought to oppose those arguments , which either I use not at all , or onely by way of analogie and accommodation . And yet because I am not willing , that such fallacious reasonings should impose on any , I shall endevour , in some instances , to shew the frivolousness of them , so far as the Reader , or this former discourse , can be any way concerned in them .

First then , when he invalidates the argument ▪ taken from Circumcision , my answer is , That I have not used that argument any farther then thus , that by analogie with what was done in Circumcision , 't is concluded reasonable , from Gods own judgement ( in a case directly the same ) that those may be entred sacramentally into a Covenant , which do not at that time actually know or understand the condition of the Covenant , as is clear , in the childes being circumcised . Now against this pretension of ours from Circumcision to Baptism , none of his exceptions do at all conclude .

As first , That Types prove nothing , except a commandment go along with them , or some express to signifie s●ch to be their purpose . To which I answer , That I do not make Circumcision a type of Baptism , much less prove any thing by its being such , I take circumcision to be one Institution of Gods , a ceremony of admitting Jews , and their children , into the old Covenant , and I pretend baptism to be another ; in this agreeing with it , That it is a ceremony of admitting Christian Proselytes , and their children , into a new Covenant , not after the manner of the circumcision , but of the baptism of the Jews . For the truth of which pretension , if I had not other evidence , beyond that of the Jewish childrens being circumcised , viz. the practise of the Apostles , testified by themselves , and their successors of the first ages of the Church , that received it from them , I should never conclude it from circumcision : Because , though by the example of circumcision , it were vindicated from many of the exceptions that are thought to lye against it , yet I know it doth not follow , That whatever is not absurd , must presently be ; that every thing is true , which is possible , or that what is lawful , was certainly instituted . And so against this stating of the matter , neither is [ the unagreeableness of the flood with baptism , in that one was a prodigy , the other not ; nor of the Passover and the Eucharist , in that one had no prescription of sacramental drink , as the other had ] of any force at all , partly because a parallel Institution is more capable of being argumentative to all particulars , then a type , so remote , as the flood is from baptism , and partly because , as the Eucharist is a ceremony founded in the Jews postcoenium , and not in their Paschal Lamb ( which by the way , I suppose , Christ eat not at that time , the day before his crucifixion , because the time of eating the Lamb was not come , till the evening after his death , but onely had a commemorative Passover , at the beginning of the Paschal {αβγδ} , and therein instituted the Sacrament , being himself the true Paschal-Lamb that the day after was slain for us ) and in that postcoenium there was a cup of blessing , as well as bread to be broken : so the Christians baptism is founded in ( and is the accommodating of ) the baptism that was among the Jews , and not in circumcision at all , as having no likeness with it , save onely in some extrinsecal circumstances , as being both ceremonies of initiation into a Church , &c. In which consequently it may well agree with it , and ( when the reason is absolutely the same ) must ; though in other things , where the reason is varyed , it be allowed to disagree .

So again , when 't is said , that though there be a correspondence of analogy betwixt circumcision and baptism yet there is no correspondence of identity , though I confess I understand not what is meant by the latter of those phrases , yet I acknowledge not to beleive the correspondence to hold in all things , among other reasons , for this , because I know females were not circumcised , which lying not against the baptism of the Jews , any more then it doth against the Christian , I there choose to fasten the correspondence , where I finde so much more reason to do it .

In this matter there is a reason of difference pretended , why circumcision should be proper for children , and baptism not , Num . 13. because circumcision left a character in the flesh , which being imprinted on Infants , did its work , when they came to age , and baptism imprints nothing that remains on the body . But this , though it be already wholly avoided , by founding the Christian in the Jewish baptism , which had no external character on the flesh , and not in circumcision , which had , yet I will not cast it off so , but if it shall appear to have any force in it , acknowledge that it will hold in some degree against our pretensions . But , I suppose , it really hath none .

For although there be that accidental difference between circumcision and baptism , that one mutilates , the other onely washes the body ; the one woundeth , the other lightly toucheth , and cleanseth : yet sure that difference is of no force in this matter , for in respect of all others , but onely the childe , i.e. in respect of God , and the Congregation , there arises no difference from hence : for , in respect of both , both are equally signs of the Covenant , and , in respect of men , the Registers being kept among Christians , as they were among Jews , the baptism of each will there be recorded , though it be not read in the forehead . And for the difference in respect of the childe , 't is certain that at that time , when it is given , to him it signifies nothing , because at that time he hath not the gift of interpreting the character . And that afterward he is able to do it , is certainly from advertisement , and instruction of others : For the character of circumcision signifies not naturally , but only voluntarily , or by Institution ; else were the Ishmaelites &c. within the Covenant : and accordingly the childe understands it not by strength of common notions , or as a conclusion from any principle in Nature , but as he is told by others , both what was done to him , and what was the meaning of it , and therefore the same Law that commanded the Jews to circumcise , commanded them also to teach their children ; and of that information , and instruction , the Christian , that was baptized in his infancy , is as capable , as the Jew that was circumcised , and the care of the Church may be as punctual now , as it was of the Synagogue : and if that were really conceived to be an objection , it would both give the advantage on the Churches side , ( which appoints Undertakers and Sureties , which in circumcision was not appointed , and addes the promise of the Godfathers , to the duty of the parents , to secure instruction to them ) and would rather perswade the providing of more Godfathers , or laying a stricter charge on them , then the removing of that Christian , ancient , innocent ceremony out of the Church , or those Godfathers that we have already .

And if [ Num . 13. the word ] which in baptism is joyned with the water , be also made known to the childe , when he comes to age , as well as the nature of the Covenant , into which he was entred , there will then be as little force in the second part , or suppletory to the argument , as there was in the first , supposing [ the word ] to be a part of the Sacrament , and to signifie the words , that are used in Baptism , the form of baptizing in the name of the Father , and Son , and holy Ghost . But , I conceive , [ the word ] which when it is joyned with the Element , is by the Fathers frequently said to make up a Sacrament ( Accedat verbum ad elementum , & fiet Sacramentum ) may more properly signifie Christs Institution of Baptism ( for that is it that makes dipping or sprinkling with water , a Sacrament ) and proportionably to that , the Text of Scripture , that gives commission to the Church , to receive , and embrace Christians children . And if that should be the notion of [ verbum , the word ] it is then the Congregation onely , that is concerned in that , and thereby receives warrant for what they do , and the childes want of understanding , is no hindrance to it , any more then it is to the efficacy of the prayers of the Congregation , for the obtaining from God all those Christian graces , that , as soon as the childe is capable of them , God can early grant , and , when they are received , the childe make use of .

So when he proceeds farther to invalidate the parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism , in these two respects : First , Because the Christian Infants are not baptized strictly on the eighth day , as the Jews were circumcised ; Secondly , That the females are baptized , which were not circumcised : It already appears , That this is not of force against me , who do not undertake to make Christian Baptism parallel to Circumcision , but to the Jews baptizing of Proselytes , and that sure belonged to their females , as well as males , and was no more bound to the eighth day , then our baptism is , but yet was constantly allowed to the Proselytes children , as well as to themselves that were of full age .

As for the placing the analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism ( and so betwixt the adherencies of both ) in the letter of the one , but in the spirit and signification of the other , that as Infants were circumcised , so spiritual Infants should be baptized , i.e. that they that are baptized should be children in malice , &c. That is , first , but a phancy , and a new way of making paralle●s betwixt Sacraments : for Sacraments , as such , are all significative , and so are both these , and in that sense both spiritual , and not one to be taken in the letter , and the other in the spirit . And indeed , baptism is no more spiritual circumcision , then circumcision is spiritual baptism , but both of them are rites of Initiation among the Jews , and one of them by Christ continued among Christians . And so for the adherencies of them ; The baptizing of children may as well signifie , that the men that are baptized , ought to be like children ( or , as Christ saith , enter the kingdome of God as that little childe , i.e. be children in malice , regenerate and born again ) as the circumcising of Infants may be said to fore typifie it . The truth is , the spiritual childe , i.e. the pure , and innocent , is equally the subject of both . All which , though it make it most reasonable , that they that are not circumcised , or baptized till full age , should then with vows of new life enter the Covenant of Mercy , that belongs to none but to such as do so , and undergo those significative rites accordingly ; yet doth it no way prejudge the receiving of real Infants also , who ( as children in wickedness , as well as in age ) have as yet a small proportion of either , 〈◇〉 so are as capable in that sense , as the others repentance , and vows of new life , have rendred them .

And if the Primitive Church did give milk and honey to the baptized , with that intention ; to signifie , that if they were men in age , they ought yet to be children in wickedness : All that that will conclude , is , That the little children were proposed to the men , as their patterns , if they aspired to baptism : and if these qualifications were necessary to be transcribed from them , to give the men a capacity of baptism , sure they , who had them in the originals , would not reasonably be thought uncapable , unless some other incapacity were proved against them , which is not yet pretended in this reasoning .

The next attempt is to invalidate the inference , Num . 14. which is said to be made from Christs blessing of Infants : Where , if the inference were , that all Infants are , i.e. ought to be baptized , upon this ( and no other ) ground , because Christ blessed them , I should acknowledge the conclusion to be weakly built : But when ( as it hath formerly appeared ) all the conclusion inferr'd by us hence , is onely this , That the Infants are capable of being blessed by Christ , though they understand not what Christ is ; and consequently that it must be uncharitable in those , who deny them this means of Christs , for deriving this blessing to them , upon no other reas●● but because they do not beleive , or understand . And when the contrary conclusion ( pretended to be more probably inferr'd ) [ that because Christ blessed these Infants , but dismissed them without baptism , therefore Infants are not to be baptized , ] is so very far from being inferred probably , First , because from a part●cular omission , to conclude an universal unlawfulness , is most unreasonable ; as if one should thus argue [ Christ , when he prayed in the Mount , did not then preach , but onely pray , therefore 't is not lawful to preach . ] Or , secondly , because though Christ baptized not those Infants before mentioned , yet 't is for all that possible he might baptize other Infants . And thirdly , because Christ did not , that we know , baptize himself at all , Joh . 4.2 . but appointed his disciples to baptize , as the Bishop now seldome baptizes , but ordains others to that function . Therefore , I say , for all these reasons , I suppose , the pretensions of that Section , Num . 14. are no way inferred against us , who do not so confine the power or mercy of Christ , as if he had no other way of bringing Infants to heaven , but onely by baptism , but acknowledge , that when the Sectary himself may for his schism and uncharitableness fall under the displeasure of Christ , the poor Infant , which is 〈◇〉 way guilty of the parents pertinacy , or unkindeness , may be abundantly supplyed by the covenant and grace of Christ , without receiving this sign of it , and wanting the ordinary means , may be allowed extraordinary .

And the same reply is sufficient to all that is added , Num . 15. for we that think and pronounce , that God may bring children to heaven which are not baptized , and acknowledge the unbaptized Infant , to be in that perfectly guiltless , and so unpunishable , in the justice of God , for the omission of the parents , do not consider or assert the Institution of baptism , as the appointing of a rule , without which the supernatural end cannot be attained , and therefore are guiltless of having argued invalidly in that particular . And if we were as confident , that God hath commanded Infants to be baptized , as against us 't is pretended for the Anabaptists , that they are sure , he hath not commanded it ; yet we that think no person punishable for the breach of a command , but him who knowingly hath despised , or omitted it , must conclude nothing , but good hope of the unbaptized Infant , and onely desire to reduce the Parent , or the Congregation , or Curate of the place , to the acknowledgement of their duty , which if neglected , may justly become blameable , and dangerous to them , w●… have neither the ignorance , nor impor●… of the childe to plead for them .

And this , as it is a full answer to that branch of the arguing ( Num . 15. ) so it is acknowledged as undenyably true , and built on Num . 16. viz. that whatever the consequent of Original sin is , either it shall not be charged on Infants , or that Gods goodness will secure them , if he take them away , before they can glorifie him with a free obedience : which , and all the rest , which is added to that sense , in Num . 16. we acknowledge most true , as far as concerns the Infants present interests toward eternal life , ( for we are far from the opinion of him , whose doctrine of the efficiency of that instrument , so signal , that where it was omitted , there was no place for hope , justly intituled him a hard father of Infants ) but yet conceive there are other reasons beside those there named , why Infants should be brought , and received to baptism : wherein , as the Infants imperfect condition secures them from being blamed , or mulcted for the omission of baptism , so they that are of age to know what kindeness , and obedience signifies , and so are capable of the crime , and guilt of being unkinde , and disobedient , may fitly be admonished of their own sin and danger .

One sort of those reasons , I suppose ●… self to know , viz. that children may ●… hus early received into the Covenant , and thereby , First , by Oath , and all other the most precious concernments and obligations , pre-engaged to the actions of a pious Christian life ( assoon as they can be instructed in any part of this oath ) without ever being adventured to the hazards of the contrary infusions , that the timely taking into the Church , may prevent the pollutions of the world , and Satan be supplanted , by this speedy giving up the name unto Christ . And secondly , that by the Promises of God also signed in that Sacrament , they may be more solemnly secured of a right in the inward assistances of the spirit of Christ , ( which yet I hope will not without their guilt be withheld from them , in case they be not baptized ) and the outward advantages , and prerogatives of being members of his Church , ( such are participation of the prayers , and instruction of the Ministery , and other benefits of confirmation , and the Lords Supper , which certainly belong not to them that are not baptized ) assoon as ever they are capable of receiving them . And that certainly is much earlier for most of them , then that part of the age , wherein they can be supposed ( by having been sufficiently instructed in the whole Christian doctrine , and having in full purpose of minde undertaken Christs yoke ) to be voluntarily , and by free choice ( without this obligatio● ) rendred capable of that baptism , which belongs to those of full age , and for which the Anabaptist pretends . To these I may farther adde , that as baptism is to Infants an Institution of Christ , so it gives a virtue to the external act , and words pronounced by the Minister , so far as to make them members of Christ , and children of God , and heirs of his kingdome . And this hath been the doctrine of the Church of God . Besides , the fear of being continued in the state of Original guilt , is to be considered also , and hath by the Fathers been generally considered in this matter , and without defining the damage to those , who have been , without their own fault , detained from it , the Church hath delivered it for certain doctrine , that children being baptized , have all things necessary to their salvation , and are undoubtedly saved .

And though I could name no more of those reasons , yet as long as I ought to suppose an Institution of Christ , or practise of his Apostles to be founded in weightier reasons : then 't is certain ( or necessary ) that I know , there will be no way to disprove the reasonableness of the practise , but by taking away the Apostolicalness of the ground , and so the no-fear of the Infants losing heaven by the p●●ents unkindeness , will never prove , That there is no-need of baptizing Infants , which is the sole pretension of the 16. Numb .

And truly , that parents , who in this Section are supposed to convey Adams sin and punishment to their Infant-children , and do also know that it is taken away by Christ , but withall , that Christ commands all that desire to be partakers from him of that benefit , to be baptized , and so born anew of water and of the holy Ghost ( though they , whose fault it is not , that they are not baptized , shall , I hope , never be punished , or deprived , without all guilt ) should not contribute their utmost to the cure of this haereditary evil , and be instruments of conveying to them the Antidote , as they have been the conduits of the Poyson , and so joyn as far in the latter , as they are by the disputer confessed to be engaged in the former part of the solemnity , seems either a great sloth , or a great unkindeness , or an itch of disputing , and innovating , and is indeed much more heinous then any of these , a causless disrelish , and fastidious contempt of an Institution of Christ . For all which , they that have no weightier exceptions against an act of charity , and another of obedience , then what are here produced , have sure no competent reward in their prospect , to recommend such unamiable , and unnecessary vices to them .

This clears us from the reproach of that narrow conception of God Almighty , that because he hath tyed us to the observation of ceremonies of his own Institution , therefore he hath tyed himself to it ] No , our doctrine is not pressed with any danger , or fear of such inconvenience ; all that we conclude , is , That if God have tyed us , we are bound to obey . And as , when we are allowed to acknowledge that God can bring a childe into the world without the help of a Midwife , we yet think our selves doubly obliged both to the mother , and the childe in the womb , to bespeak a Midwifes presence and assistance to the first throw : so need we not be suspected to shorten Gods hand , or prejudge his power or goodness , if , as soon as the childe is born in the world , we desire by the Ministers ayd , to help it to a new birth , and introduce it into the Church also .

That which is added in the close of that Number , that 't is most unreasonable on our own head , to carry Infants to God this way without his direction ] signifies little to us , who do not , what we contend for , in this matter , on our own heads , having certainly the continued example , and practise of the Church to go before us in it , nor , as we suppose , without his direction , which we think we can better infer from the Apostles practise , and clear that practise by greater evidence , and consequence from Scripture , then any man can pretend to do the contrary . And yet let me adde , ex abundanti , that they that from analogy of an indefinite command of Christ ( that of baptizing all nations ) shall extend that command to the baptizing the Infants of the converted nations , when , if the analogy doth not exactly hold , yet it is thought to hold so far as it is extended ( and for so thinking , the opinion and practise of the whole Church of God for so m●ny hundred years is produced , and no shew of prohibition can be by any pretended against thus extending it ) cannot , with any shew of reason , be censured for most unreasonable ; many things being very lawful to be practised , which are neither commanded , nor directed by God , as long as the contrary is not directed : and if such be practised upon grounds of supposed obedience , either to Christ , or his Apostles , or the Church of God , and upon charitative ends , they will be found as commendable , and as highly reasonable , as either disobedience , or uncharitableness , are unreasonable . So far is the conceit we defend , from being poor , and low ( as , if it undertook to retrench Gods power , it might justly be supposed ) or the action , consequent to it , to be too bold and venturous , unless excess of meekness , and fear of offending , may be styled too bold , or abundance of caution , and charitable care , too venturous .

The same argument is again repeated Num . 17. without any farther improvement , and every word of it being wholly spent on Gods care of Infants , the Infants incapacity of doing acts in order to salvation , Gods immediate mercy to them , without any external act or ministery , or confinement to particular rite , and this as well now , as before the Institution of Circumcision or Baptism ] may very securely be acknowledged by us , as far as concerns the childe . Onely let me demand , whether the case were not somewhat altered in respect of a Jewish parent , after the institution of Circumcision , f om what it was before ? and whether , if upon the wilful omission of circumcising the childe on the eighth day , the Angel should come and kill the childe , ( though the devils did not seize on him to torment him eternally ) that mother , and that wife , that were guilty of this omission , were not a bloody mother , and wife , and , the death of this childe being a punishment to the father , whether that parent that were thus punished , were not thereby supposed criminous , though the childe were but hastned to heaven , and not hindred by this means ? If this question cannot be answered Negatively , as I suppose it cannot ; and if the Institution of Christ extended to Infants , as I suppose it doth , and hath formerly been testified to extend , there will then be nothing left that can be thought to need answer in the 17. Num .

This again is the argument of the 18. Num . There is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this external ministery , much less for praevaricating Christs precept of [ Unless a man be born again , &c. ] And 't is already evident , that this is granted by us , and that it yields the opposers no kinde of advantage against us . And when the conclusion is safely granted , the pains of confuting the reasons that are used to infer it , might , one would think , be securely spared also . But there are many things in that 18. Num . which are not rightly suggested , which , if they were , might be thought to have some validity in them , farther then the inferring the conclusion , which they are produced to confirm : As first , That water and the spirit , Joh . 3.5 . signifie the same thing , and by water is meant the effect of the spirit , cleansing and purifying the soul . These words I conceive to be so far from bringing any evidence of truth with them , that they do , one branch of them , sufficiently confute the other : for if the water were acknowledged to be really an effect of the spirit , yet would that be far from concluding those two words [ water and spirit ] the same thing , because never any thing is the cause , or effect of it self , but when 't is onely pretended , that by water is meant that effect , i.e. that the cleansing and purifying of the soul , which really is an effect of the spirit , is onely signified by the water ; this is as far from proving the words to signifie the same , as our affirming water to be the Sign , and purifying the soul the grace , and baptism , the rite of conveying that grace , can be deemed to conclude it our opinion , That water , and grace , and baptism , are all one . And then the onely thing to be interposed in this matter , will be ; That men ought to be wary , that they do not suffer different things to be imposed on them , as if they were the same , nor beleive a proposition to be evidenced by that explication , by which it is really confuted . If the meaning be no more then this , that the water signifies the spirit , considered in one effect of it , of cleansing the soul , then ( though I think it signifies somewhat more also , a death unto sin , and a new life unto righteousness , in the sense that is affirmed by our Church , and interpreted Pract Cat . l. VI . § 2. p. 310. elswhere , yet ) I think , 't is from thence clear , that it signifies not the same thing that the spirit doth , any more then a sign , and the thing signified , signifie the same . The sign signifies the substance or grace ; but the substance or grace is it , and doth not signifie it . And this is no nicety , but the very thing wherein the difficulty ( all that is in this matter ) consists . For , supposing the water to be the sign of the cleansing power of the spirit , and so baptism by water the thing instituted by Christ , to signifie the necessity of our being washed spiritually ; Christs affirming the no-possibility of entring the kingdome of God , without being born again , both of water , and of the holy Ghost , and not onely of one of them , though it exclude not those that are guilty of no fault , in not being baptized with water , cannot yet be doubted to make baptism by water regularly necessary , and so ( though not exclusive of all other means of Gods bestowing heaven on Infants , yet ) unfit to be advisedly laid aside , omitted , or contemned by any , either for themselves , or for others , that are by God or Nature committed to their trust .

But afterward , when it is alleaged , that the aequipollence of these two , water and spirit , appears in its parallel place of Christs baptizing with the spirit and fire , I profess to beleive it evident that those places are not parallel . The mention of baptism with water , and the spirit ] was made by Christ to Nicodemus in a wide indefinite latitude [ Except a man be thus regenerate , he cannot enter , &c. ] Joh . 3.5 . and it referred clearly to the initiating men indefinitely ( i . e . all men ) into the Church , ( proportionably to the baptism among the Jews , which was the ceremony of admitting all , both natives and proselytes , and their children ) and belonged to all that would enter into the kingdome of God , to every Christian . But that of baptizing with the holy Ghost , and with fire , Mat . 3.11 . was spoken by John Baptist of Christ , and by Christ to the Apostles , and refers to the descent of the Spirit upon them , and not upon all Christians . And what if , beside the literal fulfilling of it at Pentecost , there be morally more in it ? i . e . though it signifie the effect of the holy Ghost , and his productions on the soul ; Yet , first , it signifies not the same production that water signified , the water was presumed to signifie sanctifying grace , the fire , in form of tongues , signified the gift of tongues , that was given in it , and perhaps more , the fire , that should soon come out , and devour the gainsayers , the destructions that are elswhere described by fire ( and so in that place , v. 12. ) that were soon after to fall on unbeleivers , when this last method was frustrated , and as Christ long before , so now the holy Ghost blasphemed also . And secondly , this doth not prove that water was not a ceremony instituted by Christ , to signifie that production : which were the onely thing for the Anabaptists interest to be concluded by it .

And whereas it is added , that Christ baptizes all that come to him , with the holy Ghost and with fire ; and that attempted to be proved , because John tells the Jews , not Christs disciples , that Christ shall baptize them with fire and the holy Spirit , Mat . 3.11 . i . e . all that came to him , as John did with water , for so lyes the Antithesis . ] To this I answer , First , that Johns saying these words unto the Jews , doth not conclude that all the Jews , that should come to him , should be baptized with fire , 't were sufficient to the verifying of the words , that some of them , especially chosen , and for the use of all the other , were to be thus baptized , signally constituted Apostles , by that means , to preach to them , and all nations ; and the Antithesis being acknowledged to be by way of comparison betwixt John and Christ , not by way of contrary opposition , might be very well made up thus , John used no higher element then the water in Jordan , but Christ shall send fire from heaven , a much more convincing evidence of his power , on the heads of select witnesses to give them ( more then an entrance of Proselytes ) a commission of Apostles and Governors of the Church . And this is sufficient to shew the unconcludingness of that pretended parallel .

But I conceive it is yet farther distant distant from the truth , and that by the fire , which John tells the Jews they shall be baptized with by Christ , after the coming of the holy Ghost in tongues as of fire , and being contemned by them , was ( as was before noted ) meant the destruction of the obdurate Crucifiers . For so the two verses immediately incompassing those words , do seem to incline it , The ax is laid to the root of the tree , therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire , v. 10. that sure is a fire of destruction among the Jews , and upon that [ I indeed baptize with water &c. ] a quenching as well as a cleansing element , and if you repent timely , I assure you from God the impendent ruine shall be averted ; [ but he that cometh after me is mightier then I ] and may in reason be expected to do more then I have done , baptize you with the holy Ghost , use all powerful means to bring you to repentance by the Apostles preaching over all your cities , after your crucifying the Messias , and if all that do no good , then baptizing you with fire also , immersing and overwhelming you over head and ears in that fiercer element ( as afflictions are elswhere described by {αβγδ} , being baptized , Mat . 20.22 . ) and accordingly it follows , v. 12. whose fan is in his hand , and he shall throughly purge his floor , that is the previous work of the Spirit , to purge , and separate the penitent from the impenitent , but the chaff shall he burn with unquenchable fire . And if , as the context inclines , and the event was agreeable , so that be resolved to be the meaning of the baptizing them with fire , then , as it may belong to the Jews indefinitely , i.e. the impenitent Jews of all sorts , so will it take away all appearance of validity to the objection . And I shall be content to conclude thence , that as the Infants of the beleivers were then to be baptized with water , so the unbeleivers , or obdurate , should pass through , or rather perish in the fire also . But this ex abundanti .

And whereas the argument proceeds to acquire more strength from S. Peter , who when he had said , that Baptism saves us , addes by way of explication , not the washing of the flesh , but the confidence of a good conscience toward God , plainly saying , that it is not water , or the purification of the body , but the cleansing of the Spirit that does that , &c. I conceive the conclusion to be much larger then the premises : For all that S. Peter saith , is either to deny , and exclude the external sacramental Baptism from being available to salvation , without the addition of a good conscience , ( which I do not pretend it is ) or to define that baptism , which is available , to be compounded of an inward , substantial performance , as well as an outward s●gnificative rite , or to attribute more to the good conscience , or the {αβγδ} of that ( not the confidence , but the enquiring , or seeking to God , as hath been shew'd ) then to the bare outward washing , which still is no way of prejudging the use of that ceremony ( any more then the precept in Joel , of rending the hearts , & not the garments , was a prohibition or interdict of that outward expression of mourning , the rending of the garments ) but onely the due preferring of the more substantial part , and requiring that we do not leave out , through over-valuing the ceremony , the more precious , inward part of that Sacrament .

And therefore if our Saviours speech to Nicodemus be supposed to be expounded , by analogy to this of Peter ( by the way , it hath already appeared , that that other of being baptized with fire , is far from any necessity of passing for such a parallel ) it will no way be consequent from thence , what is pretended [ that it can conclude for no man , that he is obliged to the rite of baptism , ] nor will the same be at all made probable by Christs speaking those words , Joh . 3. before baptism was ordained . For , first , though baptism being supposed an Institution of Christ , cannot safely be neglected by those , that have received the faith of Christ ; yet we do not think , that it will be available to him that doth not obey that Doctrine ( which is the sum of S. Peters words ) and secondly , Baptism being before this time , even among the Jews , the rite or ceremony of receiving Proselytes , and so of a metaphorical new birth ( and therefore Christ wonders at Nicodemus a ruler in Israel , that he understood not those words of his ) It is no way improbable , that our Saviour having before those words Joh . 3. received Proselytes , called , and entertained disciples , had accommodated this ceremony of the Jews thereto , and received them by baptism . For so we see it ( Joh . 4. ) spoken , as of a thing past , that the Pharisees had heard , that Jesus made , and baptized more disciples then John , whose title yet it was to be the Baptizer . And though it be added v. 2. that Jesus baptized not , but his disciples : yet certainly what they now did , was by Commission from him , as his officers , and ministers , and therefore though at his departure from the world the Commission was given them in a larger manner , as far as extended to all the world , Gentiles , as well as Jews , yet 't is evident that ceremony was already ordained by Christ , as the rite of receiving beleivers into the Church , and conveying remission of Sins unto them , and being so used by the disciples of Christ , might very properly be mentioned to Nicodemus , as every ones duty , that would enter into the kingdome of God , though not so , as to exclude any that were not guilty of the neglecting of it , or as to avail any that were not inwardly purified , as well as externally baptized .

And when 't is added in the same Num . that the words of Christ to Nicodemus , do no more infer a necessity to give Infants baptism , then those other words , Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man , and drink his blood , ye shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven , infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion , and that thereupon the ancient Church did with an equal opinion of necessity give them the communion ] To this I answer , by these degrees ; First , that those words Joh . 6.59 . of eating the flesh of the Son of man , &c. do no way appear to belong to the Sacrament of the Eucharist , it being apparent , that at the speaking of those words that Sacrament was not instituted , nor till long after ( the night before his crucifixion ) and therefore that they are not at all appliable to this matter .

And indeed from the whole context , Christs comparing and preferring himself before the Jews Manna , in respect of the miraculousness of the descent , and efficacy to nourish their souls , it is so unavoidably inferred , that their feeding on his flesh , is their beleiving his doctrines , and nothing else , that the Romanists , whose pretensions for the flesh and blood of Christ in that Sacrament , would be much favoured by this interpretation of this Text , do yet ( the learnedst of them ) disclaim it : and indeed S. Chrysostomes way of interpreting the 63 verse , It is the spirit that quickeneth , &c. is most clear , that as the soul is that which enlivens , and not the body , so 't is not the fleshly hearing that profits any , but his doctrine received into their hearts , and not onely into their ears , that will quicken them into a spiritual life here , and that prove a foundation of eternal life hereafter .

Secondly , supposing what the objection doth not prove , but suppose , that the place did belong to the Sacrament of the Eucharist , and that the words were exclusively set , as those others of baptism , that whosoever received not that Sacrament , were not capable of eternal life , yet seeing many circumstances are necessary to be taken in , to discern the full importance of any obscure place , it will appear in many respects very reasonable to make some difference between the persons to whom those Sacraments belong . For first , Baptism being founded in the Jewish rite of receiving Proselytes , may reasonably be thought to belong to all , that among the Jews were usually baptized , i.e. ( as it hath already appeared ) to the Infant-children of Proselytes , & agreeably it hath been deduced f●om the Apostolical practise , that Infants were baptized , whereas on the other side , that other Sacrament being instituted in their postcoenium , in all reason was to belong to none , but such as those that were at that , or are usually presumed to come thither , and those are not wont to be Infants , but onely those of full age : Or if the Eucharist were supposed answerable to the eating of the Paschal Lamb ( as indeed it is not , it being the commemorative Passover onely , in the close of which this was instituted , and the Lamb not eaten till the evening after Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us ) yet Infant children cannot be supposed partakers of that , because they could not come up to Jerusalem , where onely this Lamb was eaten , no more then they could eat standing , which was a rite of that Paschal Supper . And lastly , the Eucharist being ordained to be observed in remembrance of Christ , the Infants could not be due partakers of that , as in Baptism ( supposing it the Sacrament of initiation into the Church ) 't is manifest they might be then initiated , that age being as capable of receiving such benefits , as it is of food , but no more capable of performing actions of piety , commemorating of Christ , &c. then it is of acting , or speaking , &c.

And therefore , thirdly , if in any age of the ancient Church , that custome prevailed , of communicating Infants , it is apparent , that , as that was without any obligation from that place , Joh . 6. ( and yet in all probability from a misunderstanding of that place ) so the universal Church of Christ , which afterwards discerned that mistake , and disused that practise , did still continue that other of baptizing Infants . And if they that did thus , did so punctually define and distinguish in this matter , and were not at all moved by the arguments upon which they left off communicating of Infants , to leave off the baptizing of Infants , ( but were rather more strict in observing it ) Then what reason can be brought from hence , why they that desire to make use of the practise of that Church in the one , the leaving off to communicate Infants , should not think themselves obliged to observe it in the other ; or indeed , that they that neither follow that age , nor that Church , where children were both baptized and communicated , nor that , wherein communicating Infants being upon reason laid down , baptizing them was thought sufficient , should yet think fit to draw arguments against us from the practise of the Church , whereby they will not themselves be obliged , and never consider what the Church hath done , to imitate it , but onely to furnish themselves with pleas to divide from it ?

Fourthly , if the ancient Church , having no Precept from Christ , nor Practise from the Apostles , were so tender , lest they should deprive Infants of any the most improbable part of their due , that they communicated them , and cannot truly be charged of a crime , though perhaps of a misunderstanding of an obscure Scripture in so doing , ( for sure to give them bread or wine , was an indifferent ceremony , and as much in the power of the Church to use , as the giving them milk or honey ) then what shall be said in excuse of an uncharitable age , that will rather venture to unravel all , to oppose an universal custome at least , nay an Apostolick practise , and , as we have all reason to think , an institution of Christ , then retain an harmless innocent ceremony , of bringing their children into the bosome of the Church , to receive those benefits , of which they are capable at the present ( such acknowledgedly is Christs benediction ) and to be in a posture of receiving all others , as soon as ever they are capable ?

Fifthly , to speak yet somewhat more particularly of the ancient Churches communicating of Infants , As it is certain that S. Augustine , interpreting that passage of Christs , Joh . 6. literally of the Sacrament , founded on it the necessity of exhibiting it to Infants newly baptized , and pressed the Pelagians with this , as Ecclesiae totius dogma , the opinion of the whole Church : So these two things are observable of it , First , the original , from whence this was first derived to Infants , viz. the custome ( very proper and laudable ) of administring the Lords Supper to all adulti , or grown men and women , presently ( the same day at least ) after their baptism , from whence it came by degrees to Infants also . But then secondly , this was done with a considerable difference : Those of age received that Sacrament , sub utraque specie , under both kindes , both of bread and wine , but Infants onely under that of the wine , l. 1. de Sacr . c . 20. if Hugo de Sancto Victore may be credited ( Pueris recens natis sacramentum in specie sanguinis est ministratum ) adding that reason for it , quia tales naturaliter sugere possunt , because such are naturally able to suck . Thirdly , that when this of communicating Infants was left off , yet the custome of giving the Sacrament to the Adulti immediately upon Baptism , lasted longer in the Church , and is mentioned by Theophylact on the 10 of Luke : and so as this came in by mistake , it was deliberately , and upon grounds of knowledge left off again . Fourthly , that even in the ages wherein this was used , and with some earnestness urged by S. Augustine against his adversaries , it is yet by him mentioned but as a dogma or opinion of the Church ( such are all the ceremonies of the Churches constituting ) and neither as a Doctrine of Scripture , nor Tradition from the Apostles , as by the same S. Augustine , and those which are ancienter then he , the baptizing of Infants is affirmed to be .

Lastly then , I conceive , that the giving of wine to the baptized Infants , differs much from admitting them to that Sacrament , and was at the most but an occasion of allowing them the Prayers of the Church , that they might be partakers of the death of Christ , and all the benefits thereof , which still was but the kindeness and charity of the Church toward them . But then it is evident , that beside this , there is much more in that Sacrament , and particularly the offering to God our reasonable sacrifice , and plighting of our charity one to another , and of taking up Christs Cross , and so communicating with with his sufferings . And to this it is not pretended that Infants were admitted , either by themselves or their Sureties ( as in Baptism they are personally admitted to the benefits of the Covenant , and by their proxies they vow the duties of the Covenant ) nor consequently that they were brought to the Lords Table at the usual times of those administrations , but onely were allowed some minute parts of the holy wine , in imitation of what was solemnly done to the adulti on the day of their Baptism , and in compliance with the literal sound of the words of Christ , Joh . 6.53 . And on the other side , througn the most flourishing ages of the ancient Church ; we know that those that had been baptized in their infancy , but were not yet sufficiently instructed , were solemnly dismist out of the Church when the Lords Supper was to be celebrated , most strictly interdicted to be present to see , or approach those holy mysteries , As is known by the Ite missa est , the yonger sort were to depart , when the offertory-services began .

In the next place Num . 19. is attempted the disproving of all argument brought in defence of Paedobaptism from Peters words , Act. 2.39 . The Promise is made to you , and to your children . ] To which I answer , That if any have made use of that very unconcludent argument , I have nothing to say in defence of them , I think the practise is founded on a better basis then so , and that the word children there , is really the posterity of the Jews , and not peculiarly their Infant children .

As for the answer that Num . 20. is rendred to that place ( on which I acknowledge to lay some weight ) 1 Cor . 7 , 14. [ but now are your children holy ] I am obliged to examine that , and view it in its utmost force . The answer is , That [ those words signifie nothing but that they are holy by designation , just as Jeremy and John Baptist were sanctified in their mothers womb , i.e. designed and appointed for holy ministeries , but had not the Promise of the Father , the gift of the holy Ghost for all that sanctification , and just so the children of Christian Parents are sanctified , i.e. designed to the service of Jesus Christ , and the future participation of the Promises . ] The invalidity of this answer will be discerned , First , by the method of the Apostles arguing in that place , for the cohabiting of the beleiving wife with the unbeleiving husband , &c. because the unbeleiving husband hath been sanctified by the beleiving wife , or else were your children unclean , but now are they holy : That must needs be this , Unless there were some hope that the cohabiting of a beleiver , should be a means to bring an unbeleiver to the faith , 't would certainly follow , That their children were unclean . Now I demand of this pretended interpretation , Whether it be possible that S. Pauls argument should conclude , being understood in this sense ? Suppose Jeremies , or John Baptists parents had been one a beleiver , and the other an unbeleiver , could it of them be concluded , if they did not , upon the hope of doing good one upon the other , cohabit , their children could not be sanctified by God , i.e. secretly designed to any holy ministery ? This were absolutely to confine Gods designations , and predestinations of this kinde , to none but the chilcren of beleivers , as if the childe of parents , either , or both heathen , could not by God be made use of to his highest ministeries , as well as a blaspheming and persecuting Paul , who yet , we know , when such , was so predestinate .

It is known that Jeremies and Johns sanctification , or designation to holiness , was a work onely of Gods , and that depends not upon such accidental conditions , as is the cohabiting of the parents , and therefore cannot have place in this matter . And if it be said , that the meaning of the word is , that the children of such are not actually holy , but onely by designation , meaning by that , the designation of the Church , as Ieremy was sanctified by the designation of God , and that the [ as ] is to be extended no farther , then to compare them in respect of designations , and not in respect of those , by whom they were designed , then indeed as this is the onely way I can think of , to avoid the former absurdity , so it is in effect the confession of what we pretend to be the force of these words . For all that we understand by holy in that place , is , holy by designation of the Church , i.e. by Baptism , to which when they are brought by the Congregation , and admitted by the Minister , they are thus consecrated , and devoted to God ; and if this be the onely way of avoiding our conclusion from that Text , the conclusion will be the more established , in stead of being weakned by it .

And herein it is farther to be observed , That in fitting the parallel betwixt the holiness of the children in S. Paul , and of Ieremy or the Baptist , this difference is acknowledged , that they two were designed to holy Ministeries , and these to the service of Iesus Christ , and the future participation of the Promises ] which again seeing it cannot be said of Gods secret designation ( for sure he may design those to this end , whose parents are neither of them Christian ) must needs be applyed to the designation of the Church , and then that is the very thing I mean by bringing , and receiving them to baptism ( which is the designing , or devoting them to the service of God , and future participation of the Promises ) and is all that I pretend to conclude from that place .

There is but one thing in which that answer can be thought to be useful to the Anabaptists purpose , viz. that as Ieremy's being sanctified in the womb , was his being designed onely to receive , and not his having actually received the gift of the holy Ghost : So the ordinary Infants being sanctified , is onely his being designed to the grace of God , not his having actually received it . To which I answer , That this conclusion with some limitation ( and that equal on both parts of the comparison ) will be safely acknowledged by us , viz. that as Ieremy , and the Baptist had not from the womb the gift of the holy Ghost , necessary for their Prophetick office , as being at that time , through want of understanding , uncapable of exercising it , but yet had at that time that special favour of God ( vouchsafed to , though unknown by them ) of being designed to that special office of dignity , so the Christian Infant-children have not the gift of faith , &c. infused into them , as long as they are uncapable of exercising it , but yet have the favour from Christ and his Church , the favour of being designed to the participation of that , and other the like graces necessary for their state , as soon as they are capable of receiving them , unless they by satisfying their part of the Covenant , disengage God of performing his part of it .

To the answer ( insisted on Numb . 21. ) to the words of S. Peter [ be baptized , and ye shall receive the holy Ghost ] viz. that the receiving the holy Ghost there , was receiving the rite of Confirmation , and that not as an effect of Baptism , but onely a consequent of it ] I shall make this return , That if the whole arguing be admitted , and granted by us , and so the conclusion from it , That those words recited , are incompetent to prove that the holy Ghost ( which is there mentioned as consequent to ) is received in Baptism , this will be far from assisting the Anabaptists against us : For first , we must have leave to take notice , That by this answer , the rite of Confirmation , and that intitled a mystery , is asserted from S. Peters words ( though baptismal grace be not asserted ) and I shall believe , that the acknowledgement of the Apostolicalness of that rite , may stand the Church in as much stead against the Anabaptists , as any other advantage , that could be pretended to from those words . For certainly , if the holy Ghost be given in Confirmation in that richer latitude , ( as the state of the person confirmed is more capable ) Then nothing hinders , but that by Baptism ( an institution of Christ himself , which is thereby to have the precedence of Confirmation that pretends onely , though from , and under Christ , yet no otherwise then as by Apostolical institution ) such lower graces may be given as that lower state is capable of : Or however the very receiving into Covenant , and being made capable of such superinvestitures , as this of Confirmation is , and with it of the holy Ghost , of which without Baptism they are not in that Text supposed capable , is a gift and benefit , and so a grace of baptism , very well worth the valuing . Secondly , that which of Baptism is not proved by those words there repeated , may yet ( as far as by our former answers it appears to be asserted by us ) be proved by other Texts , either single , or in conjunction with one another , as by that of the childrens being holy , in respect of their baptism , by that title of baptism that it is the laver of regeneration , compared with Christs words , Except ye be born again of water and the spirit , &c.

But I shall not need to go farther then this Text it self , when it is recited intire , as now it was useful to the Anabaptists pretensions that it should be mutilated . For S. Peters words are , Act. 2.38 . Repent , and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus to the remission of sins , and ye shall receive the holy Ghost : where , though the persons to whom he spake are not imagined to be Infants , but those that were pricked at the heart , v. 37. yet to this point , of Baptism being the means to convey the Promises , for which the argument sets indistinctly the holy Ghost , meaning thereby not all , but some graces of the holy Ghost , these words are a pregnant evidence . For leaving the {αβγδ} , ye shall receive ] in the future , to the rite of Confirmation , yet still at present this baptism is {αβγδ} , to remission of Sins ; That pardon of Sins , which is certainly a principal Promise , and a special and most valuable gift of God , is set down as an effect of baptism . And though for actual and habitual sins , such as are there spoken of , Repentance be also required , as to prepare for baptism , so to make capable of remission ; yet in children that are not guilty of those sins , nor capable of that repentance , there is little appearance of reason from that place either to exact repentance , to qualifie for remission , or to doubt , but , as habitual sins may be remitted by repentance and baptism , so , Original sin may be remitted by baptism alone without repentance , the very receiving into the Covenant of Grace , the Evangelical Covenant , which is the effect of baptism , being interpretatively the quitting us from that debt , and setting us right in the favour of God , and giving us title to the peculiar custody and protection of Angels , Matthew 18.10 . till by our wilfull breaches and perjuries , we again forfeit our Tenure .

I cannot discern any thing more in this 21. Num . which looks like an advantage against us , and may consequently want any reply . For that they that are capable of the same grace , are not alway capable of the same sign , as females among the Jews , that were not capable of Circumcision ] is of no force against us , who know that females were initiated among them by Baptism , and that that is the thing for which we contend : and again , that beside the capacity of the grace , the Institution of the sign is also required to make any thus capable of the sign , and consequently that though they , for whom a s●gn is not instituted , are not capable of that sign , yet of another sign they are capable , which was instituted for them .

And so likewise , that [ God doth not alwayes convey his graces in the same manner , but to some mediately , to others immediately , ] 't is not our interest to question , who contend onely for the Christians observance of the Institutions of Christ , and so for the bringing all to Baptism , who are allowed to be admitted to it , and not for the confining the graces or mercies of Christ within any limits of ours , or the annexing them to the ministery of others so inseparably , that they that are not involved in the guilt , shall be involved in the sufferings or punishments of their neglects .

To the 22. Num . which supposes the assertors of Paedobaptism to complain against God , and not to be content with him , unless they may baptize their children , taking exceptions that God did more for the children of the Jews ] the answer will be brief , That there is no such complaint made by any of us , nor imaginable cause for such complaint , in case it were true ( as we pretend it most false ) that God had excluded our children from baptism . For truly , we look upon Gods In●titutions not as natural , but as mo●al instruments , and consequently no farthe necessary to us , then God hath will'd the hould be , and therefore conclude that God , who instituted Circumcision among the Jews , a seal of their Covenant , but not instituted it to us , will make good his richest Promises to us , though we be not circumcised . All our complaint is of men , not of God , in respect of him we look upon it as a mercy , not an unkindeness , that our children are not obliged to such a bloody rite , as Circumcision was , & should confess our selves an adulterous generation indeed ( though we conceive Christs words do little belong to that matter ) if we should seek after that sign . But of men , who being freed from a bloody ceremony ( by the blood of Christ , who was himself circumcised , and therein shed blood , but soon after nail'd that to his Cross ) will not yet allow Christ to continue a much more gentle rite , and that also of old required of them , while they were under that heavier yoke , and who being so guilty themselves , complain of us for complaining . Of these , I say , though it be not very seasonable to complain , we may have leave to request this one favour , That we may not be deemed their enemies , because we tell the truth , and have no other design imaginable in this dispute , but to reduce them to a due value of , and obedience to Christs Institution .

For the other particulars in that 22. Num . which make a difference between Circumcision and Baptism , in respect of the remanency of the sign in the flesh , but not of this , &c. we have already spoken sufficiently . But when in the close it is pretended , That we are guilty of the greatest vanity in the world , in affirming , that unless the mercies of God be consigned in baptism , we shall want the comfort of it ; I must , as formerly I have done , answer this , by disclaiming the Argument which the Paedobaptist is supposed to use , and to which this is justly objected . For , as in respect of God , if it were granted ; That his Promises were made without any sign at all , we could absolutely relye on his Word , and never think he could falsifie that , and so want no comfort in respect of that , so now that we are perswaded , he hath instituted this sign , we shall never be deprived of our comfort , by being deprived of the sign , unless when it is done by our own default , and so we are deprived of our innocence also . For if through the presentness of danger , we are intercepted the liberty of calling for the minister , from him regularly to receive this sign , or when by his unkindness , or neglect of his duty , or by an inrode of Schism we are deprived of , and denyed that privilege of bringing our Infants to baptism , we can very comfortably depend on the Promise of God , that our infelicities shall not be our guilts , much less the injustices of others , the betraying of those innocents , and so we shall not want comforts , either when we look on our unbaptized children , or reflect on our selves , who diligently sought it for them . All the uncomfortableness of our condition is , to see the Institution of Christ laid aside , the practise of the Apostles , the perpetual usage , and Canons of the Church despised , and our selves scoffed at , as Formalists , or Impostors , that desire to reduce our brethren to the unity of the Church , from whence they are departed , and to the obedience of Christ , in all his Ordinances and Institutions , which is a part of that meekness , and charity , and peaceableness , that was so passionately by Christ recommended to his disciples , and without which no man hath right to that appellation .

The 23. Num . begins thus , Now since there is no strength in the doctrinal part , the practise and precedents Apostolical and Ecclesiastical , will be of less concernment , if they were true , as is pretended , because actions Apostolical are not alwayes rules for-ever . That the Practise Apostolical should not be of much concernment in this matter , will appear strange to any , that remembers but this one thing , That Baptism is a Sacrament , that Sacrament an Institution of Christs , that Institution not founded in any reason of immutable truth , but onely in the pos●tive Will of Christ , and so that there is nothing considerable in this question ( or any of this nature ) but how it was delivered by Christ . And when any question arises of that , or such like fact , and that not fully determined by the words of the Institution set down in the story of Christ , Is there , or can there be any thing of so much concernment imaginable , as the Apostles practise ; and , after that , the Precedents Ecclesiastical ? When , concerning the other Sacrament of the Eucharist , any question is made of the meaning of the words of the Institution in the Gospel , can there be any better way of judging , then by knowing the Apostles sense of such words ; or surer way of discerning that , then by their practise , especially if it be set down by themselves ? Certainly , this is not a matter for Reason to judge in , unless it be by deducing consequences from Christs words , or the Apostles , or one or both of their practises . For matters of fact , as these are , Testimonies are our onely Arguments of probation : And of them , whose Testimonies are authentick , and who cannot be deemed to have regulated their practise by any rule , but that of Christs Institution , nor to have been deceivable , or fallible in judging of that , Practise is the most lively , and infallible Interpreter .

And if the rule be not universal , that All actions Apostolical are alwayes rules for ever : yet when the actions are of such a sacred , and publick nature , that all the succeeding world are as much concerned in them as they , and when it is the action not of one Apostle alone , upon some private impellent , but of all in conjunction , doing the same thing , and when in a matter of divine Institution , wherein to do any thing contrary to the intention of Christ , is to violate that trust reposed in them , as Proxies , and Commissaries ; and lastly , when there is no character in the action , nor propriety in the circumstances of it , to conclude their practise a temporary practise , designed for the present onely : When , I say , all these concurre , ( and when nothing interposes to the contrary ) to make their practise a rule for the future Church , there is little gained by pretending against us , that actions Apostolical are not alwayes rules for ever ; when the practise is once granted ( and in this part of the discourse it is supposed ) then to render it unconcludent , or no rule for ever , it would be necessary to shew the grounds of doing it , proper to those circumstances , and not competible with others , and not to throw off , upon a bare possibility or probability , that it may , that which no way appears to have been designed temporarily . Nay , that which was done by the Apostles , if it were not a rule for ever , was yet an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ , and interpretable by this practise to be so , there cannot be a better way to prove , then the constant practise of the following Church , who , if it were but a temporary Institution , cannot be deemed ignorant of that , or fit to be instructed by us in it , and who cannot be imagined to have universally joyned in a conspiracy , to retain that for ever , which they knew to be otherwise designed by those , from whose practise they took it .

One reason or motive is offered us in that 23. Num . why the baptizing of Infants might be convenient in the Apostles times , till they had engaged a considerable party , and not after , because 't was then the new-spring of Christianity , and so it might be useful , by this means to make them parties against the Gentile-superstition , and , by praeoccupation , to ascertain them to their sect , when they came to be men . And truly , if this were a motive for the Apostles to baptize Infants at that time , to keep them by this early praeoccupation from being heathens ; then , First , there is to be acknowledged some use of baptizing Infants , though they understand not then what is done to them , nor yet have any remanent durable quality impressed on their flesh ( which was formerly argued against : ) And secondly , 't is evident , That that reason is still as perfectly in force , as ever it was , the danger being ever since as great among us , that vicious practises ( as contrary to the Law of Christ , and irreconcileable with the Promises , as the heathen superstition was ) will earnestly , and irresistibly insin●cate themselvs , if there be not early means used to prevent them . And the vow of Baptism is as distinctly opposed to these , and the Grace of Christ ( implored and bestowed there ) as effectual to the preventing , or supplanting of them , as of heathen superstitions it could be supposed to be .

And for any other reason not transmitted to us ] I confess not to be moved with such remote , and onely possible fears , nor to apprehend ( any more then I can be bound to answer ) the force of a reason , before it be made known to me . And the rather upon this confidence , that if this reason in the Clouds , this reason not transmitted to us , had yet been transmitted to former ages , and by those accounted to be of any weight , It is not imaginable , that through all time , that reason would have been opposed by the contrary practise of the purest , as well as less pure ages , and never have prevailed with any , till it met with an handful of men in these last and worst dayes , to whom also 't is supposed in the argument , that the reason was not transmitted , to which it is consequent , that it did not come down to them .

In the close of that 23. Num . 't is again interposed , that the question of fact it self is not sufficiently determined , and the precept of baptizing all nations doth as little advantage to prove it , as any of the rest , because other parallel expressions of Scripture , expound themselves to a sense that includes not all absolutely , but onely those that are of a capable condition , as [ Worship God , and , Sing to him all the nations ] To which I answer , First , that I do not beleive , or pretend that that precept of Christ doth necessarily infer ( though it do as little deny ) that Infants are to be baptized , and so this argument thus produced for the Paedobaptist , is another of the blinde and the lame , that are of more use to betray and loose , then defend and secure that fort , in which they are placed . Secondly , it is less reasonably pretended , that we should think this place , which is onely a Precept , to be a Proof of the fact , as that signifies ( and so it must ) the practise Apostolical : And yet thirdly , the instance that is produced to hinder this Text from concluding , is very infirm also : for though in a command to Sing and Worship , given to all nations , they that can do neither , cannot be supposed included , yet in a command of doing that to others , of which all others are equally capable from those , to whom the command is given ( as sure 't was as easie for the Apostle to baptize the Infant as the grown man ) there is no reason to determine or restrain it . And that is the case in hand , where the command is not given to all nations to seek , or prepare for Baptism , but to the Apostles to gather and baptize them , and of being carryed and washed the childe is cap●ble , though of acting and adoring it be not capable .

To the answer Numb . 24. rendred to a like argument , pretended to be urged by us from the mention of Stephana●'s family [ that it is but a conjecture at the best ] I return my explicit consent , and think it unreasonable that the Apostles bare mention of baptizing his houshold , 1 Cor . 1.16 . should be thought competent to conclude , that Infants were baptized by him , when it is uncertain , whether there were any such at all in his house . What use is to be made of such testimonies as these hath formerly been set down , so as to yield them unconcludent to this matter ; and therefore I shall not need to say any more of that , but that inconcludent arguments are more advantageous to the enemy , then to any man else , and are the most favorable account that can be given of the Anabaptists Schism from the Church , that seeing some such arguments insisted on , which they justly beleived to be of no force , they likewise perswaded themselves , that others of greater strength , were of as little , and though not by them , were yet by some other as easily to be avoided , and answered also .

The 25. Num . proceeds to consider Tradition in this matter ; and , First , to disclaim all value of that allegation , Tradition being rejected by the Reformed Churches : And secondly , to demand how , if the Topick from the Tradition were good , Tradition could be truly pretended for this ? To both of these the answer must be joyntly given , first , by defining , then by distinguishing of Tradition .

For first , the word Tradition signifying no more then delivering , Of Tradition . and that metonymically taken by S. Paul for the thing delivered , i.e. either for practises or doctrines delivered by word of mouth , or by Epistle , and yet farther brought by custome of speech , to denote those peculiarly , that were delivered by word of mouth , though not by writing . It is evident that what is thus truly delivered , is of the same authority with that which is truly written , supposing the person that speaks or writes , and the deliberation used by him to be the same in both cases , Thus it is certain , that what is spoken , and so delivered by S. Paul , is as truly the doctrine of S. Paul , and also that what is spoken by him , hath all the authority that belongs to him , as much , as what is written by him .

A Tradition then being thus defined , that it is either a practise , or doctrine delivered by word of mouth , it must in the next place be distinguished , and that , first , in respect of the persons , whose practise or doctrine it is pretended to be ; and secondly , in respect of the means , by which it appears to be truly his , whose it is pretended to be . In the first respect it may be either the doctrine , or practise of Christ , or of his Apostles , or of some following Governors of the Church , or of some other either later , or inferior to them . In the second respect , it may be either sufficiently , or else insufficiently testified , to be the practise , or doctrine of those , whose it is pretended to be .

This definition and distinction being thus premised , and it being most improvident to define any one thing of that , which contains things so distant under it , it , will be as unreasonable to make use or the authority and practise of the Reformed Churches , to abandon or cast-off Tradition in general , and without discrimination , all Traditions , as to conceive that they that rejected errors for appearing to be such , resolved , whensoever they should finde truths miscalled by that name , to re●ect them also .

The first question then will be , What sort of Trad●tions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches ? and then , Whether the baptizing of Infants be of that sort ? and if it be , to give over all farther pleading for it .

First then , I shall suppose , that whatsoever doth sufficiently appear to be the practise or doctrine of Christ , or his Apostles , howsoever it appear , or by what way of conveyance soever it come to us , will not by the Reformed Churches be rejected under the notion of Tradition . For this I am sure was wont to be the question betwixt the Reformed and the Roman Church , not whether that were to be received , as Christs , &c. which did sufficiently appear to be his , though it were not written , but whether many things were not falsly affixed to him , and the Apostles , as delivered by them , which did not sufficiently appear to descend from them . Or again , in matters of inferior nature , Whether that which is by the Romanists affirmed to be the practise or doctrine of the Governors of the Church , the Apostles successors in the Primitive times , can sufficiently be approved to come from them ; or whether it be not of some inferior or later original , to whom that authority and reverence is not due , which is acknowledged , and willingly paid to the former .

And therefore , having no necessity to descend to any more minute considerations , the whole matter will be resolved into this one enquiry , Whether the baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the institution of Christ , or Practise Apostolical ? and if it do , we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition ; and if it do not , we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea , or inferring our Conclusion .

And because the way of satisfying this enquiry , is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject , this whole discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one basis , the Institution of Christ , and Practise of the Apostles , It will be unreasonable to do this any farther , save onely upon a brief recapitulation , to refer it to the judgement of any sober Christian , Whether first , by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish custome of baptizing of Proselytes , which appears to have belonged to the Infant-children of the Proselytes ; and secondly , by his being so far from excepting against the age of children as a prejudice , or hindrance to their coming to him ( i.e. to their Proselytism ) that he affirms them to be the pattern of those , of whom his kingdome is to be made up , and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to baptize such ( when indeed Jesus baptized not at all , but his disciples ) yet he took them into his arms , and laid his hands upon them , and blessed them , Mar. 10.16 . ( which being the ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism , and distinctly preparative to it , they that were by Christ afforded that , cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism then of that ; ) And thirdly , by the express words of the Apostle , that their children are holy , interpreted by the context , so as to infer from the Apostle's way of arguing , That it was the custome of those Apostolick times to baptize the children of the Christian parents , and so interpreted by the Christian writers of the first and purest ages ; And fourthly , by the Testimonies of all the Ancients , that are found to speak of this matter , without any one pretended to dissent , that this was the practise of the Apostles : Whether , I say , these four things being put together ( the truth of each of which hath been before more largely evinced ) it be not sufficiently evident , that the baptizing of children is of the Institution of Ch●ist and Practise Apostolical . If it be not , I desire to know what is farther necessary to sufficient conviction in a matter of this nature , and whether by any more ( or equally ) competent arguments , the contrary may be evinced to be the Practise of the Apostles , i.e. that they refused to baptize the children of their Proselytes .

But if it be , I shall not need to take notice of the other branches of that Num . 25. For first , by the Testimonies already produced out of Justin Martyr , Irenaeus , Tertullian , as well as Origen , and then by the express words of the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy , and of the Constit●tions , and of S. Cyprian , ( to which might be added S. Jerom and S. Ambrose ) as well as S. Augustine , it is clear , That the Authority for the Tradition , depends not wholly on the Testimony of Origen , as the one person from whom S. Augustine had it . And secondly , there be other arguments to joyn ( and which are in force by their conjunction ) with these Testimonies for the Tradition , so far , that although it were yielded , that Justins and Irenaeus's , as well as Origens affirmation might be fallible , that baptism of Infants is by Tradition from the Apostles ; and again , that S. Augustine might have it from Origen , and be fallible also , yet when those other circumstances concur with that , which is affirmed by Origen , and no testimony or circumstance in the Institution be producible against it . And Augustine , and the following Church , which condemned all Origens errors , doth yet appear to agree with Origen in asserting this , as truth , certainly the aspersing of Origen in other respects , will not invalidate , or weaken his Testimony in this .

So again , when it follows , that the nec ssity of Paedobaptism was not determined in the Church till the eighth age after Christ ; this will be of little importance against us , supposing the meaning of that to be , the desining it absolutely necessary to the salvation of the childe . For we do not pretend it to be thus necessary , necessi●ate meaii , but derive the necessity of it from the Institution and Practise of Christ , and his Apostles , and charge that onely upon the parents , and the Congregation , whose guilt it is , if the ordinance be neglected , or despised , but not on the Infants , whose want of understanding renders them uncapable of contumacy , and wilful sin , though not of being baptized or brought to Christ .

And thirdly , it being granted by the objecter , that Paedobaptism was by Canon established in the Milevitan African Councel , Ann. Ch. 418. yet , as long as it is also confessed , that it was practised in Africa before , there will be little concluded against us . For what stood by Apostolical practise , and known custome , needed not to be prescribed by Canon , as that which prevails by force of a greater , need not be assisted by a weaker authority . And indeed , while the footsteps of so authentick a Tradition were so lively , and no adversary , or disputer started up , no question , or opposition yet made against a Common Usage , 't were ridiculous for Councels to convene , and fortifie it by Canons . And so the onely thing reasonably deducible from the lateness of those Canons , is , that all that while it was universally received without opposition : I mean not , that no Infant of any Christian was unbaptized , through the space of those first Centuries , but that the extending of the Institution to Infants was not opposed in the Church , till about Pelagius's dayes , whose opinion of Original sin ( utterly denying the guilt of it on Adams posterity ) was such , as might consequently produce some change in his opinion of Paedobaptism . But of that I have formerly spoken § . 46. As for the saying of Ludovicus Vives , Neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari , it is not of such weight , as that I should here stop to examine the truth , or grounds of that citation , the book being not present by me to do so : I suppose it belongs to the Infants of heathens .

But Num . 26. the undertaking is somewhat more considerable , viz. that there is very good evidence from Antiquity , that Infants ought not to be baptized : Whether this be justly suggested , it will concern us to enquire warily . For it is affirmed to be clear in the sixth Canon of the Councel of Neo-Caesarea . The words of that Canon are these , {αβγδ} . A woman with childe may be baptized when she please : for the mother hath nothing to do with the childe , because it is each ones will or resolution , which is expressed or signified in the confession ( or profession , which is wont to be made in baptism . ) This certainly is far enough removed from a clear affirmation of what was undertaken to be proved by it , viz. that children ought not be baptized . For as for the latter part of the words , which is conceived to do so , it is no more then this , that the confession , or profession of a woman , that being with childe is baptized ; doth onely belong to her self , not to the childe , and consequently that her baptism belongs onely to her self also . The words being a proof of what is immediately antecedent to them , that the parent hath nothing to do with the childe , {αβγδ} , hath nothing common with him , but hath {αβγδ} , a will or choice peculiar to her self , ( as {αβγδ} is opposed to {αβγδ} , peculiar , or proper to common ) And so all that can be concluded from hence , is , that the childe of such a parent , that was baptized , when that was in her womb , must , when it is born , have a baptism for it self , and the baptism of the parent not be thought to belong to it . And this in opposition to the conceit of some Jewish Rabbins , ( taken up , it seems , by some Christians ) who say , Si gravida fiat proselyta , adeoque lavaero suscipiatur , proli ejus baptismo opus non est , that if a woman great with childe become a proselyte , and be baptized , her childe needs not baptism when 't is born .

As for the giving demonstration of election or choice required in the baptismal confession , of which the childe is supposed incapable , this place doth no farther affirm of it , then it is known to be acknowledged by us , viz. that no baptism ought to be administred but upon condition , and supposition of a vow to be undertaken then , and after to be performed on the part of the baptized , which , as in those of full of age , it must be done by themselves ; so that in Infants it is not sufficient to be done by proxies and undertakers , is no way affirmed , or intimated by that Canon , which belongs quite to another matter .

And for the known custome of interrogating the Cate●humeni in baptism , and the pretended egregious prevarication in asking questions of them , who are known to be uncapable of giving answers ; this is of no farther force then the usual exceptions against Godfathers , and that custome hath Pract . Cat . l. VI . §. 2. elswhere been sufficiently vindicated , and as far as the present objection presses us , is justified abundantly by the capableness of the sureties , or proxies that free the action from all prevarication , and the obligation that from thence devolves upon the childe , assoon as he comes to years of understanding , which will make up and supply what other defect soever can be imagined in that matter .

This of the unreasonableness of supplying the childes incapacity by the answer of the Godfather , and no sensible account to be given of it ] is farther insisted on Num . 27. And the means to prove this unreasonable , are these , 1. That the pretence of the Roman custome of stipulation performed by Tutors in the name of their pupils , is an absolute vanity . ] To this I answer , That the Tutors being , by reasonable men , and by the Roman Law , allowed to stipulate , and bargain for his pupil , as it is perfectly agreeable to the case in hand ( the Infant exactly parallel to the Pupil , his real no-will , to the others no-will in Law ) so it is an example which will justifie this practise from the censure of unreasonable , and egregious prevarication , and to that it will be consequent , not that God must be tyed , and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and complyance with the Roman Laws , but that it may without prevarication ( in any degree ) or unreasonableness , be thus appointed and transacted by them in this case , as in other kindes of stipulations it hath been without danger of such Censure .

For as to the case of a notable benefit accrewing to the minor , wherein Stipulation is said by indulgence to be permitted ; First , this is not true in any circumstance . Secondly , if it were , 't were as reasonable in Baptism , as in any other case : First , t is not true that was a permission by indulgence , for it was a known distinct Law , the Tutor may stipulate for the minor as freely , and in all cases , wherein the man of full age may stipulate for himself , and not onely in case of notable benefit accrewing to the minor , but in case of ordinary and equal bargain . And secondly , if it were but an indulgence , and permission of grace , why should not the Christian childe be as well , and as kindely treated by Christian Religion , as the minor by the Laws of those heathen Romans ? And be the benefit accrewing to the minor , never so notable , yet being supposed but a temporal benefit of this life , sure the favour of admission into the Church , to be a member of Christ , to the grace of present pardon , and right to all the benefits of the Covenant , as soon as they are capable of them , may deserve to be compared with that notable benefit , that the minor is supposed to be concern'd in . And though again God can , and , I doubt not , will bestow those benefits and advantages on that childe , whose fault is not , that they are not so consigned to him , this still is a mercy of his , which will no way justifie them , who contemn the use of this Sacrament .

But it is farther inforced , that though 't is true , God might , if he would , have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf of the children , yet we cannot finde any authority or ground that he hath ; and if he had , 't is to be supposed he would have given them Commission to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstances , and given answers with more truth , then to say in the childes name , I do beleive , in present , when the Infant is uncapable of beleiving . For answer to this , it must be recounted , what was the original practise in this matter . Among the Jews , saith the Tit . Cherub . c . 1. Gemara Babyl . the Infants used to be baptized {αβγδ} upon the profession , or confession of the house of judgement , the Consistory ; and the Glosse saith , the Triumviri are set over baptism , and are necessary to it , {αβγδ} , and so they become to him a father : and Tit . Isuri Bia , c . 13. Maimonides , {αβγδ} he must be baptized before the Triumviri . By this it appears , that among the Jews , from whom Christ was pleased to transcribe this sacred rite of Baptism , this custom also was to be found of the Congregation , or Rulers thereof , to answer for the Infant , according to that forecited from S. Augustine , that the Church lends them others feet , and heart , and tongue , to come , to beleive , to profess , &c.

Among the first Christians in the Apostles age , the same use seems to be continued : For the custome then being to baptize those of age , onely by proposing to them the faith of Christ , and reformation of life , and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins , Acts 2.38 . and whole multitudes , 3000. on a day , receiving the faith on these terms , and being baptized , v. 41. without any greater formality of question and answer ; nay the word {αβγδ} , 1 Pet . 3.21 . noting not an answer , but a question ( such as is mentioned Act. 2.37 . ) on his part that is baptized , and so a coming to God as to the Oracle , seeking , making address to him , desiring upon Christs terms to be received by him , there is no difficulty to understand how children being brought by others , that were themselves baptized , were baptized also upon their request , and upon this general declaration of the ends of Baptism before the Congrega●ion , which were the terms on which the Infant was supposed to enter into that Covenant . But soon after , when the Church was formed into standing Congregations , and the vow of Baptism was contrived into a setled form , then , as every Catechumen or instructed Proselyte answered for himself , so every one that was not able to do so , was by some persons of the Congregation ( in this particular representing the whole ) brought to the {αβγδ} , or font , and the questions being asked in the baptism of the adulti , those that brought them , and so helpt them to legs , were their proxies also , and helpt them to tongues , and so answered in the present tense , i.e. in the same form , wherein the adulti did answer , which signifies not their affirmation , that those Infants did then actually beleive ( which is the thing charged of untruth ) any more then a Tutor stipulating , as the proxy of his Pupil , can truly be said to affirm , that the pupil makes such a bargain , of which he knows that he knows nothing . All that is understood by such speeches of the Godfathers is , that this is the manner of proxies stipulating for others , and that unless those others , when they come to full age , think fit to perform in their persons what was thus stipulated by their proxies , they shall reap no benefit of that Covenant .

And this is all that is chargeable on these answers , far from any degree of untruth , if truly understood , ( for the Godfather bearing a double person , is supposed to say truly in his own , that he doth beleive , and as the others proxy , he desires that his profession may be in Law accepted for the other , so far as to make him capable of baptism , the sign of Gods Promises ) no more indeed then most ceremonies , and forms of Law may be said to be , the designs of which are sufficiently known by sober men , and accordingly the words are to be interpreted , I beleive , i.e. This childe stands bound by these presents to beleive , and is not to expect any benefit of this Covenant , except , when he comes to years , he do actually ( and de praesenti then ) beleive all the articles of the Christian faith , &c. for which we that do beleive them all have now in his behalf , and to his benefit , undertaken it .

And whereas it is added as the advice of Tertullian , that , Cunctatio baptismi utilior est , praecipuè circa parvulos , that delaying of baptism is more profitable , especially about Infants , and , quid enim necesse est sponsores periculo ingeri , &c. What need is there that the Godfathers should be put upon dangers ? and then that Gregory Nazienzene makes mention of some , to whom baptism was not administred {αβγδ} , by reason of infancy , and that the parents of S. Austine , S. Hierome , and S. Ambrose , although they were Christians , yet did not baptize those their children before they were thirty years of age . This heap of exceptions will neither singly any one of them , nor all in conjunction , conclude any thing against us . Not that of Tertullian , which pretends to conclude no more , but that in his opinion it was , in some respect , advantageous to make some stay of baptism , and that especially in the case of little ones , which if it were granted , yet will not that advantage of delay , conclude the baptizing of Infants unlawful , or wholly inconvenient , any more then the baptizing those of age , where delay , in his opinion , might be useful also . But on the contrary , 't is a clear testimony of the practise in his time of baptizing children , as well as others , and hath been so applied by us , in the former part of this discourse among the testimonies producible in this matter . And so likewise is the other passage for the usage of Godfathers , or sponsores in the Church in Tertullians dayes . What the utility was , which Tertullian had in his view , or how well grounded his advice , I shall not need now to enquire , his words being a plain proof of the usage in his time , and therefore not producible against us .

And for Gregory Nazianzene , who is acknowledged to be for hastning of baptism in case of necessity , and so to acknowledge a necessity of giving Infants baptism in some cases ( which is more then sufficient to our pretensions ) If in his time there be mention of some , who were not baptized {αβγδ} ( granting that to be tenderness of years , and so infancy , whereas it may be otherwise , ignorance , or want of instruction in those of elder years , {αβγδ} is {αβγδ} , an ignorant , or weak person of small understanding , as well as {αβγδ} , in Hesychius ) yet sure this will conclude nothing against us , who are able to make the same relations in these times , of some that have done more then so , absolutely withheld baptism from their dying children , and yet know that the doctrine of the Church in this age is contrary to those singular practises . And that it was so in Gregory Nazianzens time , may be demonstrated by his doctrine in this matter , {αβγδ} . Orat . 40. What wilt thou say of children , which neither are sensible of the loss , nor the grace ? shall we baptize them ? Yes , by all means , in case of urgent danger . For it is better to be sanctified , i.e. baptized , without sense of it , then to dye unsealed , unbaptized . And not onely in case of danger , but absolitely , saith he , {αβγδ} . Hast thou a yong childe ? let not wickedness receive the advantage of time , let it be baptized from an Infant , let it be early consecrated by , or to the Spirit , ibid .

And for the example of the parents of those three Fathers , it will not be producible against us , unless it be also assented to , and approved by them that urge it , and so it be defined exemplary , and imitable not to baptize any before that age of thirty . That baptism in those Fathers times , and before their birth , was afforded children , is too well known , to want proving . And S. Augustines doctrine is confessed to be extremely contrary to the Anabaptists pretensions : And the grounds of deferring the baptism of some in that age , were not such as were allowed by the then present Church , but effects of an opinion of the greater ( not of the less ) necessity of baptism , and so the unfittest evidence , that could have been pitched on , to infer the desired conclusion .

For the Clinici , we know , would not be baptized , till their death-beds ; and the reason was , because being to be baptized but once , and attributing so extremely much to that ceremony , and hoping so little for pardon of sin from any other instrument , they durst not be baptized too early , lest they should sin again , and have no remedy , And the deferring baptism till thirty or forty years old , was but a spice of this fancy , attributing so hugely much to baptism , and so nothing to any thing else . But then they that did so , were the most impatient of any to miss baptism , when they thought they were near their last , and would never sin so far against their hypothesis , as to let any Christians Infant dye without that viand , and so doing what they did upon a score so contrary to the Anabaptists , it were strange if it should be producible in favour of them .

For the 28. Num . which is the proving Paedobaptism to be against the perpetual analogy of Christs doctrine , the first offer of a reason is , because Christ never gave precept to baptize them , nor ever himself nor his Apostles ( that appears ) did baptize any of them . To this the answer is already given , that Christs baptism being founded in the Jews custome of baptizing of Proselytes , and the custome among them being known to be this , to baptize the Proselytes , and their children , the indefinite command of baptizing all nations , was all that was needful to comprehend the children also of those , that received the faith of Christ , especially when Christ , by a special expression of his pleasure concerning Infants , assured his disciples , that they were capable of solemn benediction , which by parity of reason will conclude , they were not uncapable of baptism also .

As for Christs not baptizing any , that will equally be of force against all baptism , for the Text is plain , Christ baptized not , but his disciples , Joh . 4.2 . And for the Apostles , 1. the negative argument will be of as much force for us , that the Apostles ( that appears ) never rejected any from baptism , ( nor probably durst , after they had been rebuked by their Master for somewhat of that kinde , Mar. 10.14 . ) as it can justly be deemed against us , that they did not baptize any . The truth is , neither of them is argumentative . But then 2. that in the Apostles times children were baptized , seems plain by that place to the Corinthians , and then there will be little reason to doubt , but the Apostles did baptize such , at least ( which is all one ) hat they confirmed and approved that practise .

The next proof of the proposal , is from Christs and the Apostles requiring such previous dispositions to baptism , of which Infants are not capable , viz. faith and repentance , as appears by that one place , Mar. 16.16 . He that beleives and is baptized , shall be saved , but he that beleiveth not , shall be damned . To which I answer , First , that in those that are capable of faith and repentance , both those are thus previously required , and in those that , through invincible defects , are uncapable at the present , they are again required so far , that if , when they are capable , they have them not , baptism will stand them in little stead . And this is all that can be concluded from that place of Mark : For sure that sentence of damnation shall not sall on him that beleives not , unless he were capable of beleiving . Nay , secondly , it is evident from the words , that Christ doth annex beleif to Baptism , as a necessary adjunct to it , at that present , for he saith not [ He that is baptized and beleiveth ] but onely addes Baptism to Beleif , [ He that beleiveth and is baptized ] and so belongeth not to this matter .

But because in the progress of that Num . there is , I see , no more concluded from that Text , then that if children are excused from a necessity of faith , so that the want of that does not regularly damn them , then 't will be sottish to say the same incapacity of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of Baptism . I shall need reply no farther , being perfectly reconciled to the conclusion , as far as concerns the excusing of the childe , and not having the least fear , that the child shall ever suffer for anothers negligence in this matter . But then still the childe having a capacity of susception of Baptism , i.e. of being baptized , though not of faith or repentance , or neglecting or seeking of baptism ; they that deny the childe that privilege , of which it is susceptive or capable , may become uncapable of that excuse , when the innocent Infant stands in no need of it .

As for the question , Whether Infants have faith , Num . 29. I shall profess to be none of those , who are concern'd in it , I freely confess to beleive faith to be so necessarily founded in understanding , that they that have not understanding , cannot have faith , whether actual or habitual ; and when the Apostle saith , that faith cometh by hearing , I suppose he hath fully stated that question . For whatsoever can be said of infused habits , those must suppose the subjects capable of them , or by being infused , render them so . As the gift of strange tongues , when 't is supernaturally infused , must either suppose the subject predisposed with understanding , and ability of speaking some language , or must make him so by that infusion . And besides , what graces are imaginable to be infused into Infants , will in reason be concluded to be infused at Baptism , or as effects and consequents of that , and so will be equally unfit to qualifie for Baptism ( which is to be done by previous dispositions ) as if there were no such habits acknowledged .

And so the reason taken from the Infant sent to the Mahumedane Province ] is yet stronger , then is pretended . For , unless the Infant , that is to be baptized , be before his Baptism so imbued by divine overshadowing , or infusion , that , if in stead of being carryed to the font , he should be carryed to a Priest of Mahomet , and there circumcised , and instructed in the Turkish principles , he would yet , as he came to years of understanding , produce acts of Christian faith , there will be little reason to affirm , that Infants of Christians have habitual faith , previous to their Baptism .

The same inconveniences , I suppose , will lye against seminal faith in Infants , First , because if that be taken in , as a suppletory , to give the childe capacity of baptism , it must then be supposed previous to , and not bestowed in , or after baptism : and secondly , 't is apparent that the seeds of faith are sown in instruction , or catechizing ( and so , as faith cometh by hearing , so doth hearing by the word of God ) and they grow not up , till they have been thus sown .

As for the imputative faith , I suppose they that speak of it , mean no more then thus , that the children of Christian Parents , though they have not faith actually , habitually , seminally , may yet lawfully be admitted to Baptism , because their Parents being Christian , and they likely to be brought up in a Christian society , this may so far stand them in stead , that upon presumption of the care of the Parents ( who desire Baptism for them ) that they shall be brought up in the faith of Christ , and upon the present undertaking of the Godfathers ( which are by the Congregation appointed to represent the childe , and stipulate in his name ) they may ( though they are at the present uncapable of faith , or new vows ) be admitted to Baptism , and so pre-engaged , before any rival lust , or false profession be able to sollicite them . And it this be the meaning , then , though it cannot be said , that they have imputative faith , for they have not faith themselves , and other folks faith will never be imputed to them so , that they shall be thought to have it , yet it may truly be affirmed , that they are look'd on to this purpose as kindely , and are as fit to be hospitably received by the Church , i.e. to be baptized , as if they had faith , the extreme probability of the hope at present , that they will be competently instructed , when they come to years ( and that secured as well , as humanely it can be ) being sufficient to found their Baptism upon , though it be not certain that they will ever beleive ; As the profession made by one of full age is his sufficient qualification , though the Church is not sure that he is not an hypocrite at that minute , or that he will not be an Apostate the next , and , when persecution arises for the Word , be straightway scandalized .

The 30. Num . demands , If baptism be necessary to the salvation of Infants , upon whom is the imposition laid ? upon the parents , or the children ? Not the children , for they are not capable of a Law ; not the Parents ; for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others . To this I answer , by renouncing the whole hypothesis affixt , by this way of arguing , to the maintainers of Paedobaptism . For we do not at all pretend it necessary to the salvation of Infants , upon the very ground that the disputer presumes it unnecessary , because it being acknowledged by all that it is not the omission , but contempt of Baptism , that damns , these two are not distinguishable in children , who can no more be said to omit , then to contemn it . All the necessity we pretend to in this matter of Infants , is praecepti , not medii , not that it is a means , without which they cannot be saved , for then the argument would hold that they might be damned , or not saved by anothers default , without their own , but that , first , having foundation in the institution of Christ ( as that being founded in the Jews baptizing of Proselytes , belonged consequently to their yong children also ) and secondly , authorized farther by the Apostles Practise , and thirdly , used through all ages of the Church accordingly ; and fourthly , when the perversness of heretical men questioned and opposed it , defined by Councels ; and fifthly , at length commanded by the Church . From hence , I say , the necessity results , and not from any other principle . And this being understandable onely by men of age , is not supposeable to be given to any others , and so the guilt in this matter is acknowledged to lye onely on those , i.e. either on the Parents that refuse , or neglect it , dislike , or seek it not for their children , or on the Ministers , who refuse to give Baptism , or on the disputers , that infuse these scruples unnecessarily into mens heads , or on the factious , that break the unity of the Church on such causless dislikes as these , and in stead of returning to the Church , exclude all regular obedient sons thereof from their communion .

The 31. Num . proposes some inconveniences , which the baptizing of Infants rushes men upon : The found●tion of which is laid in this dilemma , Either Baptism produces spiritual effects , or it produces them not , &c. To prevent all force of thus arguing , I say , that if by spiritual effects are meant grace and glory , Baptism of Infants produces not such effects , and consequently they are not the nearer to heaven , if they are ( i.e. as an effect from a cause , by their being ) baptized , nor , if it be neglected , the farther off . And consequently the argument that supposed without all peradventure , that all Paedo-baptists would say , that their baptism did produce spiritual effects , is presently at an end . All that we say of Baptism is , that it is a foederal ceremony of Christs Institution , to wash away Original guilt , and to admit us Proselytes unto himself , by his Church , the conduit by which Christ is pleased to convey grace , and so gives us a solemn legal seizure of the advantages and benefits of the Covenant ( all that at the present they are , or for the future shall be capable of ) on condition they perform on their part ( as soon as they are able to perform it ) what on their part is promised in their names : wherein if they do not willingly fail , as , in case they dye in infancy , 't is certain they do not , there is no question , but the mercies consigned in Baptism , may by Gods gracious supplies belong unto them . And it being as certain , that when , without any fault of theirs , they are unbaptized , that defect will never be charged upon them for evil , it must be resolved , that those advantages that are consigned in Baptism , are not effects produced by it , and consequently that the inconveniences or rocks imagined in that arguing , have been without that admonition very cautiously foreseen , and avoided by us .

As for the sum of the argument compacted into little , that either Baptism is a meer ceremony , or it impl●es a duty on our part : if a ceremony onely , how does it sanctifie ? if it implies a duty , how can children receive it , who cannot do duty at all ? I answer , that it is a sacred ceremony , which contains in it a duty to be performed on our part , assoon as we are able to perform it , but requires it not of us , whilest we are unable . And this is a perfect answer to all that follows in that Number , charging us to make Baptism a meer outward duty , a work of the Law , &c. which is all unjustly imputed to us , who do as verily beleive it an inward duty , shadowed by the outward ceremony , when 't is used to an Infant ( and that , the being baptized into Christs death , and the crucifixion of the old man , &c. ) as when 't is used to the grown man ; onely with this reserve , that it is no sooner , nor farther required of either , then they are capable of performing it .

As for the syllogism , that whosoever are baptized into Christ , have put on the new man , Gal. 3.27 . But to put on the new man , is to be formed in righteousness , and holiness , and truth , Eph. 4.24 . therefore they who are not formed new in righteousness , &c. they who remaining in the present incapacities , cannot walk in newness of life , &c. they have not been baptized into Christ . The answer is obvious , that in the major Proposition , the words of the Apostle [ have put on Christ ] must necessarily be interpreted not of actual putting him on , for 't is certain that many men that have been baptized , have not actually done so , It is clear in Simon Magus , Act. 8.21 . and in all that bring not ( as Cyril saith in Praefat . Cat . p. 1. ) {αβγδ} , a genuine purpose along with them to the baptistery , and 't is certain , that the Apostle could not so understand it of any of those Galatians , to whom he then wrote , whom he acknowledged to be foolish ( {αβγδ} , without understanding , and if that be not as great , 't is yet a more desperate incapacity , then being {αβγδ} babes ) and bewitched , or seduced not to obey the Gospel of Christ ; but so onely , as to note the obligation that lay upon them from their Baptism , and from thence the presumption of the Apostle ; that they had undertaken and resolved it . As many as were baptized into Christ , have put on Christ , i.e. are most strictly obliged thereby , and are presumed to have resolved , and undertaken to put on Christ , and the new man . This is all that is deducible from those words , ( unless I farther adde , that they have the prohibens , the obstacle which kept Christ from them or them from Christ ( i.e. original guilt ) removed ) and that is as truly affirmed of the Infant , as of the grown man , with the same reserve again , when he shall be able to perform it ; as the {αβγδ} {αβγδ} , as Arian calls it , the Promise of every reasonable creature , when he hath first leave to become such , the {αβγδ} , the oath inessentiate with us , i.e. the obligation that our Creation layes upon every childe of Adam , is actually required of those onely that are of age to perform it , but may be in the mean time presumed even in the womb of the Mother to be undertaken by us ; This by our being designed to the use of reason , as that by our being Proselytes to Christianity .

The same answer suffices for that which is brought from S. Peters definition of the saving Baptism , that 't is not onely the washing with water , but the {αβγδ} of a good conscience . For this is as true of that Baptism which belongs to children , as to any other , onely the duty of it is not required , till they come to years , and ability to perform it , and then , if they keep not a good conscience , it will be little available . And if this be of any force against baptizing Infants , it will have been of the same force against circumcising them , since S. Paul , Rom. 2.28 , 29. doth as much invalidate the external part of Circumcision , as S. Peter here doth that of Baptism .

It is added in the close of that Numb . that vows made by persons under others names , stipulations made by minors , are not valid , till they by a supervening act , after they are of a sufficient age do ratifie them . But this is not exactly true , as it is set , and as far as it is true , 't is not prejudicial to our Pretensions . For first , Stipulations made by minors , or by the Tutor in the minors name , are valid by law , as long as he continues in minority , and when he comes out of that , then it is in his power to rescind , or annul the bargain , or on the other side to confirm it , and if he do so , it needs not to be by way of new stipulation ( which is a matter of more solemnity in law ) a bare confirmation under hand and seal , gives it a perpetual unretractable validity . And just so it is in this case ; The Covenant is entred into at Baptism , the stipulation made by the Godfather in the name and behalf of the Infant , and remains valid to all uses , so long as the childe remains so . Afterward , when he comes to choose for himself , if he like not the bargain that is made for him , he may rescind it , and turn heathen again , or he may ratifie it , and then by undertaking the vow of Baptism deliberately , and upon judgement , in his own name , he is capable of Confirmation . And this is so far from proving that which is for the Anabaptists turn , that it is fully satisfactory to all his pretensions against it . For whatsoever defect he complains of in Paedobaptism , or entring into the Covenant by Proxy , is supplyed and repaired by Confirmation , which is the renewing the vow of Baptism in his own name , and being superstructed on Baptism , is the performing all that , which in the childe is supposed wanting to the consummation of that Sacrament .

And therefore when it is demanded , Why the Infants ( i.e. I suppose , children catechized ) may not as well make the vow de novo , as de novo ratifie that which was made for them ab antiquo , when they come to years of choice ; I answer , that the reason is , first , in respect of the matter , because it is unnecessary , and wholly useless ; Confirmation will serve the turn as well . And that being granted , a second reason will be taken from the Authority of the Church , and express Canons of Councels , and , I suppose , from the Apostolick institution of Confirmation . All which are sure of such weight to any obedient son of the Church , that in a matter so perfectly lawful on that side , that the institution lyes , It is not onely safe to comply ( and that is enough against the Anabaptist , who pretends it unlawful ) but matter of obedience , and Christian duty , which obliges us to submit to those , that are set over us , at the least , not to separate from any for no other crime , but of obedience to these parents of ours , in such lawfull ( perfectly lawfull ) Commands .

Num . 32. proceeds to prove the Anabaptists way the surer , and the onely medium is , that it is most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity , and it can have no danger . For to say that Infants may be damned for want of Baptism , is to affirm that of God , which we dare not say of any wise and good man . To this I answer , that I am absolutely resolved , that no childe shall be damned for want of Baptism , and that upon the very reason rendred , because it is not a thing in their power to acquire , they being persons not yet capable of a law , and consequently not capable of transgressing it . But this doth not yet conclude it the surer course , nor yet so sure , as the contrary , because that which hurts the Parents , or those , whose soever the duty is to bring the children to Baptism , cannot be said to be innocent . And indeed , the very supposition , that the Infants incapacity of the command secures him from receiving hurt by the omission of Baptism , implies , that , if it were imputable to him , it would do him hurt , and therefore must be deemed to do so to those , that being capable ( and now offered matter of conviction by this Paper , both from the institution of Christ , and Practise of the Apostles , and the usage , and ( at length , when it was needful ) commands of the Church , not to deny it to Infants ) do still with contumacy reject , and vilifie it . And for proportionableness to acts of humane Reason , it is certainly most so , in providence to take the surest for all sides , That in case there be any necessity of it , more then we are aware of , in case any blessing of a present benefit , either from the Protection of Angels , or from preparing and predisposing grace to the childe , accompanying the Parents obedience , or the benediction of the Church , then by bringing the childe to Baptism , we make sure of it , but make no such provision by omitting it .

Numb . 23. is a congeries of charges , every one of great weight , but without offer of proof of any one of them , I suppose , upon a presumption , that they are proved before in the former arguments , which if it be a due presumption , then by the same reason I may flatter my self , that they are not to be causes of new trouble to us , now that the precedent reasons , which are thought to infer those odious conclusions , are each of them answered in the premises .

Onely to the last branch , that they that baptize Infants invocate the holy Ghost in vain ; the addition of these words [ doing as if one should call on him to illuminate a stone or a tree ] being reducible to some shew of a reason , why it should not be done , My answer is , that an Infant , that hath the first power , or faculty of reason in him , which a stone or a tree hath not , is truly capable of receiving benefit by this prayer , if not while that first power is not reduced into act , yet afterwards , whensoever it is , and if it may be but one minute the earlier illuminated , or one dram the more effectually indued with preventing and inciting grace , in answer to those prayers of the Church , this sure will be a testimony and evidence , that the prayer is not in vain . And if that may not be , it will be hard to affirm , and prove , that any thing else may be advanced , or wrought by that means , and then all other prayers ( if the Anabaptist will allow any ) shall be concluded to be vain also .

I have passed through all the several heads of arguments , that are here proposed , and considered them , as nicely as I could , so as not to let fall one word that seemed to me to have any shew of validity in it , or in the consequence of it , and must consent to the truth of the Authors observation , that the Anabaptists have been encouraged in their error more by the accidental advantages given them by the weakness of those a●guments , that have been brought against them , then by any truth of their cause or excellency of their wit . And indeed , though against the arguments premised by this Author , in behalf of Paedobaptism , the contrary arguments have seemed unto many , to have been successful and victorious , yet against the grounds , which have here been briefly laid for this practise , in the beginning of this discourse , and against the practise , as 't is stated and maintained by us , it will , I beleive , be soon discerned , that neither any , nor all of them , will be applyable with any advantage or success .

If I had the sagacity to foresee , or had been so diligent , as to observe any other head of Objection , or exception against this practise of the Church , I should now farther enlarge this Paper to consider it , but being not sure , that I have any reason to do so , and having shew'd how farre Christ , and his Apostles , and the Church have gone in this business , and how little excuse any intelligent person can probably have , in rejecting the uniform result of all these , I shall joyn fraternally and cordially in the conclusion , and be no forwarder , nor no more peremptory to prescribe to others , then these Authorities will justifie me to be ( certainly not so forward as the Anabaptists , or Antipaedobaptists are to prescribe to us , and to charge on us things of some weight ( if Num . 33. say true ) the polluting the blood of the everlasting Covenant , &c. ) And God forbid , we that desire to reduce dissenters to the unity of the Church , and cannot probably have any other design or aim in that endevour , but the eternal good of others , should ever think of damning , killing , or persecuting any that dissent in this or any other particular .

Our desire is that of Ignatius , {αβγδ} , to allay the sharp humor , by applying the soft Word , and to cure by embrocation , not by causticks or excision . And I think it but duty to pray against that treacherous prosperity , which should be able to infuse any greater degree of unkindeness , or roughness into the mindes of men , whether sons , or fathers of the Church , then what I here avow to be strict duty in every Christian .

The fifth Quaere . Of Imposition of Hands for Ordination .

TO the next question concerning Imposition of hands for Ordination , although much may be said , yet I suppose that which is necessary to the satisfaction of any reasonable man , may be contrived within a moderate compass , First , by examining the words , by which it is expressed , and in one of them the Ceremony , Imposition of hands , which is used in it , and then proceeding to that of which it is the ceremony , the office , or power conferred by it .

For the first of these , there are four words used in the New Testament to express this matter : First , {αβγδ} , The words by which Ordinat●on is exprest i● Scripture . {αβγδ} . Tit . 1.5 . to constitute , where Paul is said to have left Titus in Crete , to constitute Elders in each city . Secondly , {αβγδ} , a word that literally signifies to stretch out or hold up the band ; but being used among the heathens for choosing , or any sort of suffrage , or giving of sentence , which among them in popular Judicatures , or choices , was wont to be done by that ceremony of stretching out , or lifting up of hands , it is in vulgar use among heathen , and Jewish , but especially among Christian Writers , brought to signifie , without any respect to giving of suffrages , ( indifferently , whether by one , or more ) constituting or ordaining , which is directly all one ( and no more ) with {αβγδ} before named .

This is not so generally acknowledged by late Writers , but that it may be useful to give some few Testimonies of it , out of those Writers which were nearest the times of the Scripture . Thus Philo Judaeus of Joseph , {αβγδ} , He was ordained Governor of all Aegypt under the King , where it is clear , that without any others suffrages , he was by Pharaoh so constituted , Gen. 41.40 . Pharaoh said unto Joseph , Thou shalt be over my house : and Psal . 105.21 . He made him Lord of his house and Ruler of all his substance ; and Act. 7.10 . the very word [ {αβγδ} ] is used of it , Pharaoh constituted him Governor over Aegypt , and over all his own house . So again of Moses , {αβγδ} , He was constituted their Ruler , not by any choice of theirs , but onely by Gods appointment . So of Aarons sons , {αβγδ} , God constituted them Priests . So in Josephus , Ant. l. 13. c . 5. Alexander son of Antiochus Epiphanes writes to Jonathan , {αβγδ} , We ( i.e. I , in the regal style ) constitute thee chief Priest of the Jews , and to be called my friend . So Lucian of Alexanders kindeness to Hephaestion , {αβγδ} , that he made him a God when he was dead . And when the word is used of the Romans , as oft it is in Appian , Dio , &c. it must necessarily be taken in this sense , because that of election by lifting up of hands was not in use among them , but onely among the ancient Grecians . For the use of it among Christian writers , it is most evident , that it belongs not to elections by the suffrages of many , but to Ordinations by single Apostles , Take one place for many , in the Author of the Constitutions , l. 7. c . 45. {αβγδ} , Clement after the death of Linus , was ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter , and Timothy was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by Paul , and John by John . Where it is evident , that three single persons , S. Peter , S. Paul , S. John , are each of them , in several Congregations , affirmed to ordain Bishops ▪ and this word peculiarly chosen to express it . And though there be question made of the Author , and Authority of those Constitutions , yet sure for the use of a word their Authority is sufficient , and might be backt with many others , who have never been questioned . By all which it appears , that the word is simply used for constituting , without any consideration of any ceremony of lifting up , or stretching out hands , whereby it was done . And thus it is used in the New Testament , Act. 10.41 . where Christs disciples are said to be {αβγδ} , designed , or foreconstituted by God , the witnesses of his Resurrection . So Act. 14.22 . of Paul and Barnabas , {αβγδ} , constituting , or creating Elders in every Church . Where they that have look'd so far back to the original of the word , as to think it necessary to render it suffragiis creare , to create by suffrages , are sure guilty of very impertinent nicetie : for to say that they created them by their own suffrages , is to say no more but that they joyntly did create them , and indeed being but two , there could be no place for suffrages ; and to affirm they did it by the suffrages of others , is not agreeable to the pretended use of the word : for where it is used of choosing by suffrages ( as when the people are said {αβγδ} to stretch out their hands , and choose ) it is certain that their own , not others suffrages , are meant by it .

The like mistake it is , whereby {αβγδ} , Act. 1.28 . {αβγδ} Act . 1. mistaken . is ( in favour to some mens interests ) rendred , Communibus calculis annumerabatur , he was by joynt suffrages chosen , and numbred with the eleven Apostles , meerly by looking on the original of the word , and the parts of it taken asunder , {αβγδ} with , and {αβγδ} , to number , or to choose by stones or the like , whereas 't is clear , First , that Matthias being there chosen by lot , was not chosen by consent , or suffrages of men ; and secondly , that {αβγδ} signifying originally two things , 1. giving sentence , or voice by stones ( on which the custome was in elections to inscribe a name , Rev. 2.17 . ) and 2. to number by stones , as counters ( whence {αβγδ} is expressed in Hesychius by {αβγδ} ( as that signifies counting ) as well as {αβγδ} judgement ) it may most probably in that place signifie no more then [ was numbred ] and so be all one with {αβγδ} , he was numbred with us , v. 17. and that explained by {αβγδ} , he obtained his portion in this ministery , i.e. office Apostolical : Or if it should possibly refer to the notion of election , must denote Gods choice of him , v. 24. by the disposing of the lot to fall upon him ( and not any suffrages of others , which cannot be appliable to that matter ) and in composition with {αβγδ} signifies no more then was expressed v. 22. {αβγδ} , his being by the lot joyned with the eleven , to be an Apostle or witness of Christs Resurrection .

But this by the way , which yet was seasonable to be added here , because in that place {αβγδ} , if it should signifie choosing , would be all one in effect with {αβγδ} before-mentioned , neither of them relating to the manner of choosing , but both simply denoting to constitute , or appoint .

By all which appears the no great weight or solidity of those Grammatical contentions , concerning the See Zonaras and Balsamon on the Apostol . Can . I. identity or difference of {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , the [ {αβγδ} , hand ] which is the same in both , perswading some for the identity , and the difference betwixt extending , and laying on , perswading others that they differ : whereas the truth seemeth to lye ( as most commonly it doth ) in the mids between the contenders , the agreement betwixt them being not from the common mention of the hand , but upon another score , because {αβγδ} signifying to ordain , and constitute in general , with out referring to any ceremony in doing it , may fitly ( seeing it doth not exclude any ceremony ) be used for the ordaining a Bishop , who is constituted with that ceremony of imposition of hands ( and accordingly Theophylact on 2 Tim . 1.6 . in stead of S. Pauls , {αβγδ} , by imposition of my hands , hath , {αβγδ} , when I ordained thee Bishop : and when Johannes Antiochenus mentions Evodius being made Bishop of Antioch , he expresses it by {αβγδ} , he received Episcopal Ordination , and many the like ) and the difference between them , on another account also , because {αβγδ} imposition of hands , together with that of constituting , denotes also that particular ceremony used in some , but not in all designations and constitutions , and so must needs be of a narrower extent , then the other is , which belongs indefinitely to all , and doth not refer to that , or any other ceremony .

The short of it is , {αβγδ} signifies originally stretching forth the hand , and though that stretching out may be preparative ( as it is in Jacob , Gen. 48.14 . ) to laying on in benedictions , yet being of an heathen , not Jewish origination , as in vulgar use it is taken for any kinde of appointing , or constituting , so onely ( and in no other respect ) it is made use of in the Scriptures of the New Testament , for the constituting , or designing to any office in the Church , whether by God , or by men , ( Apostles , that derived power from God ) or by the whole Church , as in the nominating one to travel with Paul , 2 Cor . 8.19 . 2 Cor . 8.19 . and that is all that is meant by , or can be justly collected from the Word .

A third word there is once used Act. 13.2 . {αβγδ} {αβγδ} . to separate ] the holy Ghost said , Separate unto me Paul and Barnabas for the work , the same word that is used Exod . 13.2 . Exod . 13.2 . in consecrating to God the first-born , designing , setting them apart to those uses , to which God hath called , or shall please to imploy them .

The fourth and last word is ( that which was even now mentioned , and now must more largely be spoken of ) {αβγδ} , {αβγδ} . imposition of hands ; which , how , or by what peculiarity it belongs to this matter , must briefly be explained .

To lift up the hands was a ceremony in prayer , Imposition of hands in the Old Testament . Exod . 17.11 . and accordingly to lay the hands on any ( differing no otherwise from lifting up , then by the determining that action to a particular object , the person that was prayed for ) was generally among the Jews a ceremony of benediction , used first by the father to the children , in bestowing the blessing upon them ( and with that the succession to some part of his estate , the inheritance ) as appears in Jacobs blessing the children of Joseph , Gen. 48.14 . Gen. 48.14 . he stretched out his right hand , and laid it upon Ephraims head , and so his left hand on Manasses , and so he blessed , &c. v. 15. from thence it was accommodated among them to the communicating any part of power to others , as assistants , or to the deriving of any successive office from one to another . Thus when Moses had from heaven received , and long used his commission , to be , under God , the ruler of the people , and first , the Seventy Elders were by Gods appointment assumed to assist him , Num . 11.17 . Num . 11.17 . and part of his spirit was by God put upon them , v. 25. this , saith Maimonides , Sanhedr . c . 4. was done by Moses laying hands upon them . And at length a little before his departure out of his life , when a successor was to be provided for him , God commands him to take Joshua , and lay his hands upon him , Num . 27.18 . Num . 27.18 . and that as a token of his putting his honour upon him , v. 20. i . e . making him the successor in integrum of the whole dignity , and authority , which he had enjoyed so long , that , as the Text saith , all the Congregation of Israel may be obedient , paying him the same observance , that they had paid to Moses . And accordingly it was done , Moses laid his hands upon him , and gave him a charge , as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses , v. 23. i . e . by that ceremony derived to him the authority , which himself had had , constituted him his successor in that Government . And so 't is repeated again , Deut. 34.9 . Deut . 34.9 . Ioshua was ful of the spirit of wisdome , for Moses had laid his hands upon him , and the children of Israel hearkned unto him , &c. And so for those seventy Elders ( that were , by Gods immediate descent in a cloud , constituted assistants unto Moses , and consequently had their original immediately from heaven also ) 't is certain from the Jewish writings , though the sacred Scripture have no occasion to mention it , that the succession of these ( under the name of the {αβγδ} or Sanhedrin , or Councel ) was continued through all ages by their creating others in the place of those that dyed , by this ceremony of the {αβγδ} imposition of hands . To this purpose are the clear words of Maimonides tr . Sanhedr . c . 4. {αβγδ} &c. Moses our Master created the seventy Elders by imposition of hands , and the divine Majesty rested on them , and those Elders imposed hands on others , and others on others . And they were found created , until the house of judgement of Joshua , and unto the house of judgement of Moses , i.e. from time to time , ascending to the Sanhedrin in Joshua's and Moses's time .

From these three uses of this ceremony , First , in praying for another ; Secondly , In the New . in paternal benediction ; Thirdly , in the creating of successors in power , either in whole , or in part ; Three sorts of things there are in the New Testament , to which this ceremony of laying on of hands is accommodated . That of Prayer simply taken , was of two sorts , either for the curing of diseases , or pardoning of sins , and each of these was accompanied with this ceremony . Diseases , the corporal bonds , Luk . 13.16 . were cured by imposition of hands , Act. 9.17 . and 28.8 . ( and so it was foretold , Mar. 16.18 . they shall lay hands on the sick , and they shall recover ) and so sins , the bonds , and diseases of the soul , they were done away by that ceremony also , and to this it is ( the absolution of penitents ) that that exhortation of Paul to Timothy belongs , that he should not suddenly ( or without due examination , and proof of their penitence ) lay hands on any , 1 Tim . 5.22 . 1 Tim . 5 . 2● . lest by so doing he should be partaker of those sins , for the mortifying of which , the Censures of the Church were designed . And in that sense , I suppose , it is to be taken , Heb . 6.2 . Heb . 6.2 . For as the {αβγδ} , baptisms used among the Jews and Christians , both by John and Christ , for the admitting of Proselytes , may fitly referre to the faith toward God , the qualification of all , that would thus be admitted , Heb . 11.6 . so the {αβγδ} , laying on of hands , may refer to the repentance from dead works , and so peculiarly denote absolution of the penitents .

From the second , that of paternal benediction , was borrowed , first , that of blessing Infants , with that ceremony of imposition of hands , as that differed from Baptism , Mar. 10.16 . Mar. 10.16 . and secondly , that of confirming those of fuller age , that had been formerly baptized .

Lastly , to creating successors in any power , or communicating any part of power to others , as to assistants , is answerable that imposition of hands in Ordination , so often mentioned in the New Testament , sometimes in a lower degree , in the ordaining of Deacons , Act. 6.6 . Act , 6.6 . constituted or ordained , {αβγδ} , for that particular employment , and elsewhere in the highest degree , setting Governors over particular Churches , as generally when by that laying on of hands , it is said they received the holy Ghost , whereas the holy Ghost contains all the {αβγδ} required to the Pastoral function , and also signifies power from on high , Luk . 24.49 . Luk . 2● 49. the authority and function it self ; so it being given by imposition of hands ; makes the parallel exact between this of Christian Ordination , and that observed in creating successors in the Jewish Sanhedrin .

For as in the first creation of Moses , and after of the Seventy , those functions were instated on him , and them , by Gods speaking ( and appearing by Angels ) to him , and by his taking the spirit that was on Moses , and its resting upon them , Num . 11.25 . and agreeably all that by imposition of hands were after created to succeed them , were said to have the Majestatick Presence , the {αβγδ} rest upon them , and the Spirit , Deut. 34.9 . ( the {αβγδ} Divine Presence , and {αβγδ} holy Spirit , being all one in the Jewish writings ) and this ( as it is there said , because , &c. ) by means of imposition of hands , so in the New Testament the holy Ghost first descended visibly upon the Apostles , and thereby they were instated in that power , which Christ designed and promised them , and then they by imposition of hands , as they made Deacons for lower services , to assist them , so they constituted others their successors , and the holy Ghost , i.e. not onely the {αβγδ} , gifts , and graces , to fit them , but especially the function it self , descended on them .

Of this ceremony thus used , these several mentions there are : First , Act. 8.17 . Act. 8.17 . where , after Philip the Deacon had preached and baptized in Samaria , Peter and John the Apostles came from Jerusalem to perfect the work , and laid hands on them ( not on all that were baptized , but some special persons whom they thought meet ) and they received the holy Ghost . So Act. 13.3 . Act. 13.3 . by praying and laying on of hands , Paul and Barnabas were separated to the Apostleship . So Timothy's being made a Bishop is expressed , 1 Tim . 4.15 . 1 Tim . 4.15 . by the {αβγδ} gift , or function , that was given him {αβγδ} by prophecy , ( direction from the Spirit of God ) {αβγδ} , by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery , referring either to some number of Apostles , S. Paul , ( 2 Tim . 1.6 . the gift which is in thee by the laying on of my hands ) and Barnabas , and such others that were Apostles , or Apostolical men ( in the sense that the Apostles are called by Ep. ad Philadelph . Ignatius , {αβγδ} , the Presbytery of the Church ) or else by some Assembly of Bishops joyning with S. Paul in this Ordination .

And thus much may suffice for the first thing proposed , The power conferred in Ordination . the examining the words , by which it is exprest , which will have prepared the way to the second , that of the Office or Power conferred in Ordination .

To which purpose it must first be laid for a foundation , that Christ Jesus , Christs Mission and Power . the eternal Son of God , was sent down in our humane flesh to exercise in his own person ( and so to found ) an office of Government upon the earth . Thus was it prophecyed of him , Isa . 9.6 . Isa . 9.6 . that the Government should be upon his shoulder ; and Isa . 61.1 . Isa . 61.1 . that the Lord God had anointed ( which the Chaldee Paraphrase generally renders by {αβγδ} exalting ) him , and ( as a preparative to that ) that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him , to preach the Gospel , &c. and proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord . Which Prophecy is acknowledged to be fulfilled in Christ , Luk . 4.18 , 21. Luk . 4.18 , 21. that Spirit of God , upon his being baptized by John , immediately descending upon him , Mat . 3.16 . Mat . 3.16 .

What this office was , is by himself set down , first Negatively , His Office set down Negatively . them Affirmatively . Negatively , that he was not constituted a Judge of Civil Interests , Luk . 12.14 . and Joh . 18.36 . Joh . 18.36 . that it was not a Kingdome of this world , which he pretended to . And so all pretension of right from him to interpose in , or disturb Civil Governments , or Judicatures , No Civil Power . or to make any change in the Principalities of the world , is utterly disclaimed in the foundation . And they that from Christ incarnate think to deduce , or plead any such Charter , are upon the Christian Principles to be look'd on , as Impostors , and designers against the peace of the world , and the quiet , and settlement of the several Kingdomes in it , which Christian Religion was designed to secure , not onely by prescribing continual Prayers for all that are in authority , but also by enacting and enforcing the strictest Laws for obedience to the Supreme Powers ( to be performed by all , without exemption of any , even of Christ himself , when he was here on earth , or the Apostles and Governors of the Church afterward ) to defend , and perpetuate it .

In recompense to which it is foretold in Scripture , that Kings and Queens should be the nursing fathers and mothers of the Church , which is a very distant Title from that of Subjects , or Pupils , or Children of it . And when it is foretold of Christ , that he should have on his vesture , and on his thigh a name written King of kings , and Lord of lords , Rev. 12.16 . Rev. 19.16 . that sure is but a Prophetical , expression , to signifie that the Kings of the earth should generally receive the faith , not that any Secular Dominion should be set up over them by Christ , who had so professedly disclaimed it . Thus far is Christian Religion from laying any grounds of undermining , or shaking the Political order , or cutting asunder any of those sinews , whereby it was formerly compacted .

And , as Negatively , so also Affirmatively is his office set down , First , in general , Affirmatively . The parts of Spirituall power . that he came to call sinners to repentance , to save that which was lost , to bring the spirits , and souls of men into a regular complyance with the Laws of God , to rule , and reign in mens hearts by faith ; and then in particular , first , to preach , and reveal the Will of God : Secondly , to gather Proselytes , and admit them by baptism into his Church , the society of those which profess the faith of Christ : Thirdly , to confirm , and farther build up , and instruct those that are thus admitted : Fourthly , to remove those from the privileges of that society , who walk unworthy of them , by that means most probably to reduce them , as withdrawing of mercies is the most profitable discipline for those that surfet of them : Fifthly , to receive these , upon testification of their repentance , into the embraces of his arms , the Communion of the Church again , And lastly , to communicate this power to others in what measure he thought expedient .

In all these respects he is said to be sent into the world , Joh . 17.18 . Ioh . 17.18 . sent by his Father , Joh . 20.21 . Ioh . 20.21 . ( as Governors are said to be sent , {αβγδ} , 1 Pet . 2.14 . 1 Pet . 2.14 . sent by the Supreme Ruler with Commission to that purpose ) to have power on earth to forgive sins , Mat . 9.6 . Mat . 9.6 . to have all power delivered to him in heaven and in earth , Mat . 28.18 . Mat . 28.18 . and particularly to be the teacher , and Lord of his Church , or disciples , Joh . 13.13 . Ioh . 13.13 . Our High-Priest and Apostle , Heb . 3.1 . Heb . 3.1 . the great shepherd of the sheep , Heb . 13.20 . Heb . 13.20 . and so the onely Pastor , and Bishop of our souls , 1 Pet . 2.25 . 1 Pet . 2.25 .

What Christ had thus received from his Father by his Mission , Christs personal exercise of his office on earth . or Commission , he exercised in his own person , as long as he remained on the earth , preached the Gospel , instituted Rites , called , and entertained disciples , by them received , and baptized Proselytes , or beleivers , commanded them , and used their Ministery , their voluntary , not constrained obedience , designed some to certain offices , and onely for a time , ( the Seventy , as harbingers in one journey of his ) to assist , or be useful to him , others he invested with a weightier , and more lasting authority , left them his successors on earth , sent them , as he was sent by his Father , gave them the same Commission , which he ha●… received , to be executed in the same manner by them and each of them , after his departure , as Joshua succeeded Moses in his office and power . All which is , in every branch of it , clear from the express words of Scripture .

They that had this Commission from him , were in his life time called Apostles , that title denoting Proxies , The Apostles Christs successors . or Procurators , which act in the name , and stead of him , whose Proxies they are , according to the known rule of the Jews , Apostolus cujusque est ut quisque , every ones Apostle is as himself , to which our Saviour seems to refer , Mat . 10.40 . Mat . 10.40 . He that receiveth you receiveth me , and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me , making himself his Fathers Apostle , or Proxy , and the twelve , his . But at his departing from the world , then he solemnly instated his power on them , sealed their Commission to them , Joh . 17.18 . and 20.21 . Ioh . 17.18.20.21 . as it had been sealed to him by his Father .

This also is very distinctly and particularly set down in holy Writ , through the several branches of this power . As the Father gave judgement unto the Son , Joh . 5.22 . Ioh . 5.22 . so the Son gave judgement to the Apostles , Mat . 19.28 . Mat . 19.28 . Luk . 22.30 . Lu . 22.30 . 1 Cor . 6.3 . 1 Cor . 6.3 . 2 Cor . 10.6 . 2 Cor . 10.6 . As the Father gave the Son power on earth to remit sins , Mat . 10.6 . Mat . 10.6 . so the Son gave the Apostles power to remit sins on earth also , Joh . 20.23 . Ioh . 20.23 . As the Father gave the Son the keyes of the house of David , Isa . 22.22 . Is. 22.22 . Rev. 3.7 . Rev. 3.7 . so the Son gave the keyes to the Apostles , Mat . 16.19 . Mat . 16.19 . As the Father gave the Son to sit on his Throne , so the Son gave the Apostles also to sit on twelve Thrones , &c. Mat . 19.28 . Mat . 19.28 Luk . 22.30 . Lu . 22.30 . As the Father gave the Son to be the foundation or corner stone of his Church , Mat . 21.42 . Mat . 21.42 . so the Son gave the Apostles to be foundations upon the foundation , Eph. 2.20 . Eph 2.20 . and lastly , as the Father sent the Son , Joh . 5.24 . and 17.18 . Ioh . 5.24.17.18 . so the Son sent the Apostles , Joh . 20.21 . Ioh . 20.21 . And hence it is that the Angel sent from heaven to S. John , who was one of this number , calls himself the fellow-fervant of him , and of those that have the testimony of Jesus , Rev. 19.10 . Rev. 19.10 . i . e . of the Apostles , adding this reason of it , because {αβγδ} , the testification of the Resurrection of Christ ( and the Christian faith ) the Apostolical office , Act. 1.22 . Acts 1.22 . was the Spirit of prophecy , i.e. a succeeding of Christ in his great Prophetick office , the most honorable employment of that kinde , to which any mortal man could be designed by God , and so fit to be compared with the Angels employment at that time , in bringing the news , that the Emperors would receive the faith of Christ , v. 6.

This power ( wherein the Apostles , not all of them together , but Peter , Mat . 16.19 . and each other of them single , in his {αβγδ} , or {αβγδ} , Province , or proper place , Act. 1.25 . Acts 1.25 . ( as hath Dissert . III . c . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. elsewhere been largely shewn ) succeeded Christ ) being thus , not in part , but intirely conferred on each of them , a several Throne for every one , Mat . 19.28 . Mat . 19.28 . and being of so visible use , not onely for the first planting , but propagating , and conservation of the Church , it cannot be imagined , that it should be temporary , Their office not temporary . and determine in the persons of those twelve . The necessity of order , of rules , both for the supply of those things , which should be found wanting for the well-being , and preservation of each Church , Tit . 1.5 . and also for the securing of the flock from the {αβγδ} , Act. 20.29 . the wolves , the hereticks , which it was foreseen would so early infest them , and the plantation , and propagation of the Christian faith , without any assistance of the Rulers among the Jews , and the Emperors and Princes among other parts of the heathen world , nay , when it was so opposed and persecuted by them , is a competent collection of Reasons to assure us , That that power which Christ gave the Apostles , which were but short-lived , and should , many of them , be put to death by those Persecutors , was designed to endure longer then their time . But Reason is not a commodious medium to infer , or conclude a matter of fact , and therefore that must of necessity be done either 1. by Affirmations , and Promises of Christ touching this matter , or if those be not so clear , as to convince gainsayers , then 2. by supplying that want of light from the Histories and relations of those times , by which it will as clearly appear , as any thing in story can , that the office of power in the Church bestowed by Christ on the Apostles , was not to determine in their persons , but to continue in their successors to future ages .

For the former of these we may discern somewhat perhaps from that passage in Christs Prayer to his Father , The proofs of that , 1. Christs affirmation , Joh . 17.18 , 20. Joh . 17. where having spoken of his Apostles , whom he had sent , as his Father sent him into the world , v. 18. i . e . given them ( in designation ) Commissions for the governing of his Church ; and then to his Prayer for them , v. 17. ( that God would sanctifie them {αβγδ} in , or for his truth , i.e. consecrate them for the preaching of the Gospel , as S. Chrysostome expounds it ) adding farther , v. 19. that for their sakes he sanctifies himself , i.e. offers up himself a Sacrifice , for the consecrating of them , that they also may be sanctified for the truth , i.e. consecrated , and set apart for this function , and after his example venture their lives in their preaching of Gods will , as he hath done : at length he concludes , {αβγδ} , But I pray not for these alone , v. 20. which being in all reason to be interpreted of the same matter , concerning which he had praid for the Apostles before , it follows that this Prayer of his , for the consecrating of officers in his Church , is not confined to his Apostles alone , which then attended him , {αβγδ} , &c. but the same Prayer he offers up for those also , that shall beleive through their word , i.e. for others , that by these Apostles preaching should be brought to the Faith , and , as the event demonstrates , ordained by them to be Bishops and Deacons in several Churches . This , if we have not mistaken the meaning of it , is an express affirmation of Christs in this matter .

And we shall have less reason to suspect , that we have mistaken , 2. His Promise . if we consider Christs Promise to his Apostles at his parting from them , Mat . 28.20 . Mat . 28.20 . And behold I am with you all the dayes , {αβγδ} , until the end of the world . 't is certain that this presence of Christ with them , refers to his authority derived , and assistance made over to them , in order to the discharge of their office of gathering disciples , baptizing and teaching , v. 19. and as certain , that the Apostles should not personally live to execute that office , till the period there named , the end of the world , and then it is not imaginable how Christs presence should be continued with them till the end of the world , unless they be considered in complexo , in conjunction with their posterity , or successors in that office ( as the Promises made to Abraham , are performed to his posterity , though not to his person ) to whom therefore this promised assistance belongs {αβγδ} , all the dayes , i.e. for the whole term of this new age . And this is the more demonstrative , because this was said by Christ after his Resurrection , immediately before his ascending to heaven , which being the beginning of the {αβγδ} , the last age of the world , the Kingdome of Christ , when all power was given to him , v. 18. it necessarily follows , that what was to be continued till the {αβγδ} consummation , or conclusion of that age , should last till the end of the world , in the largest sense , that those words can signifie .

This , I suppose , is also meant by the Promise of Christ , Rev. 2. And the like , Rev. 2.26 . to those of the Church of Thyatira , which should overcome and keep , v. 26. i . e . adhere constantly to the faith , in spight of all temptations , that he will give them power over the nations , as he received of his Father , v. 27. where , in the very same manner , that Joh . 20.21 . power is instated on the Apostles , [ as my Father sendeth me , so send I you ] ( sending , and giving power , being sent , and receiving power , being phrases of the same importance ) the like power is by Christ promised to be instated on these faithful Confessors afterward , and that belonging to the planting and propagating the faith among the Gentiles , bringing them in to repentance ( which is the breaking them to shivers there ) and ruling them with a rod of iron , i.e. the Scepter of Christs Spiritual Kingdome , his Gospel , and Power , and Pastoral Authority committed to them . If this , being ( by the Prophetick style , wherein it is veiled ) somewhat obscure , bring not that evidence with it , which is expected , I desire it may be past over , as a conjecture which pretends onely to be considerable , by the accordance and consent with other greater evidences , which are now to follow .

To proceed then to the next Topick of probation ( the Histories of those Times , 3. The histories of those times which are most competent to clear the fact ) A first evidence of this sort , is the assumption of Matthias into the place of Judas the traditor and desertor , Act. 1. Act 1.20 , 22 , 25. who lost his office , and soon after , his life . Wherein we see S. Peter , upon the Prophetical Prediction of Judas's fate , The assumption of Matthias to the Apostolacy . and the last branch of that [ his Bishoprick let another take ] v. 20. concludes with a [ {αβγδ} ] a necessity , that one of those that had continued with them from the beginning , and so was qualified for it , should [ {αβγδ} ] v. 22. become with them a witness of the Resurrection , and by the form of their prayer for Gods direction , and revelation of his Will , which he had pitch'd on , it is evident , that taking his Bishoprick , v. 20. is all one with taking the lot , or portion of that Ministery and Apostleship , v. 25. and consequently , that as {αβγδ} Bishoprick , denoted an office , so that was all one with {αβγδ} the office of Apostles , and that still a {αβγδ} , a ministration , a ministerial office for the benefit and good of others . And there is one passage more observable in the end of that 25. v. that he that thus succeeded Judas ( and so by analogy of reason , every other of the twelve ) had his {αβγδ} , {αβγδ} . peculiar place or Province , to which he was designed , and sent to preach the Gospel , not the whole Colledge of Apostles together to all and every place , but every one of them single endued with that power , that he might alone , without assessors , discharge his office , and so was obliged {αβγδ} , to go to his own place , which words being divided by a comma , from [ {αβγδ} , from which Judas by transgression fell ] which therefore are to be read as in a parenthesis ) are yet by some conceived to belong to Judas's fate after death , his going to that place of punishment , appointed for him . But sure that is a mistake .

Soon after this , 't is apparent Act. 6. that the Apostles , to make their burthen more supportable , did by imposition of hands create seven Deacons The seven Deacons . in Ierusalem , which although it be not an example of their constituting successors to their whole office , and therefore is not here mentioned in the same rank as the former was , yet it is an evidence , that they were able to communicate to others any part of that power committed to them by Christ . And that is a sufficient proof , that the Apostles power was not temporary , and determined to their persons . And then secondly , why they might not , in whole , as well as in part , communicate it to others , who might succeed to it ( after their departure from any place , or finally out of the world ) as well as assist them , being present , by undergoing , in their stead , some part of it , there is no imaginable reason to be rendred ; but , on the contrary , the example of Moses , who first assumed the Seventy to assist him ( and at that time God gave them of his Spirit , and so part of his power ) and after , constituted Ioshua to succeed him , will be directly applicable to this matter .

Thirdly , it is apparent , that after , and beside the instating of this office on the twelve , it was the will and appointment of God , that Saul and Barnabas Saul and Barnabas . should be assumed to it , Act. 13.2 . Act. 13.2 . and that immediately after Iames the Apostle's death , c . 12.2 . in the same manner as Ephraim and Manasses supplyed the place of Ioseph , when he dyed . By which testimony from heaven appears likewise , that that office was not determined to the persons of the twelve Apostles , or those on whom the holy Ghost descended , Act. 2. but was to be communicated to others also .

Fourthly , by comparing some passages of Scripture with the plain assertions of ancient Writers , James the Just B●shop of Jerusalem . and Fathers of the Church , it may be concluded , that Iames the Iust , that had the title of Brother of the Lord , was constituted Bishop of Ierusalem ( being none of those twelve Apostles ) by Christ himself , say Theophyl . in 1 Cor . 15.7 . some , at his appearing to him after the Resurrection , but ( as 't is more generally resolved on ) by the Apostles , which having received their power from Christ , Eusebius's phrase is , that he had it {αβγδ} , from our Saviour himself and his Apostles , from him mediately , and from them immediately . This is manifest by Ignatius , who was his contemporary , in his Epistle to the Trallenses , mentioning Steven the Deacon , {αβγδ} , waiting on Iames peculiarly . And so in Ep. ad Hieron . {αβγδ} , Thou art employed as a Deacon , as Stephen was to Iames . And so saith {αβγδ} . Euseb . l. 2. c . {αβγδ} . Hegesippus , and {αβγδ} . l. {αβγδ} . Clemens Alexandrinus , In Synops . Athanasius , Haer 78. Epiphanius , de Resur . Or. 2. Gregory Nyssene , In Catal . & in Gal. 1. S. Hierome , and divers others , all agreeing in this , that Peter , and Iames , and Iohn , chose and constituted James the Bishop of Ierusalem , and that in the XIX year of Tiberius , i.e. the next year after the death of Christ , saith Eusebius in his Chronicle , p. 43.

Hence it is that this Iames , though none of the twelve , is called an Apostle , Called an Apostle Gal. 1.19 . Gal. 1.19 . and perhaps Act. 15.6 . and 22. Act. 15 6 22 and in the inscription of his Epistle , ( though in the beginning of it he call himself the servant of the Lord ) he is intitled the Apostle Iames ; and accordingly Com . in Isa . S. Hierome calls him the thirteenth Apostle , which farther yields him a priority before Paul and Barnabas , ( as being after him admitted to that dignity ) to whom he gives the right hand of fellowship , Gal. 2.9 . and being at Ierusalem , his Episcopal See , is there named before Peter and Iohn , two principal Apostles , who , with Iames the other son of Zebedee , would not , saith {αβγδ} . l. {αβγδ} . Clemens , {αβγδ} , contend for the glory or dignity , {αβγδ} , chose Iames the Iust Bishop of Ierusalem . Whatsoever there is of seeming difficulty in this matter , hath been cleared in Diss●rt . IV . c . 3. other Papers . And by this again appears , that that office of praeeminence and authority in the Church , was not given to the persons of the twelve , so as to be determined in them , but so as to be from them communicated to others also .

Fifthly , of S. Paul 't is not onely said by himself expresly , that he had laid hands on Timothy , Timothy . and that thereby the gift of God , fitting him for the Episcopal function , was given him , 2 Tim . 1.6 . 2 Tim . 1.6 : and 1 Tim . 4.14 . 1 Tim . 4.14 . but farther , that he was by him left at Ephesus to exercise this authority , {αβγδ} , to command some , ( which includes power ) to teach no other doctrine , i.e. to suppress hereticks , 1 Tim . 1.3 . and the same is as clear of Titus , Titus . who is by him left in Crete , with power of regulating things that were not yet ordered in that Island , and to ordain Elders in every Church , Tit . 1.5 . Tit . 1.5 . which being two b●anches of Episcopal Power , it is by all the ancients generally affirmed , that he was instituted the {αβγδ} . Chrysost . Hom. 1. in Tit . Theophyl . in Arg Epist. Metropolitan , or chief Bishop of that Island , as {αβγδ} . Anon. in Phot . Num . 254. Timothy of Ephesus , the chief Metropolis of Asia , and accordingly these two are styled Apostles also ( as receiving the same power , or Commission , that Christ had given to the twelve , and to S. Paul ) So that Ibid . Anonymus in Photius mentions the martyrdome of Timothy the Apostle , and Theodoret , {αβγδ} , Timothy the Apostle of the Asiaticks , and {αβγδ} , Titus the Apostle of the Cretians . And the same is observable of Mark , Luke , Thaddeus , Epaphroditus , Clemens , and Ignatius , and others , as is Dissert . IV . c . 3. elswhere shewn .

Sixthly , of S. Paul it is farther plain , that in Lystra , and Iconium , and Antioch , and in those parts , Elders ordained by Paul and Barn bas . Act. 14.2 . he and Barnabas {αβγδ} , ordained them Elders Church by Church , Act. 14.2 . i . e . a Bishop , or Governour in every Church ; which is again the communicating that power to others , which they held by Commission from Christ .

Of these acts of S. Paul , 2 Tim . 1.6 . Tit . 1.5 . and Act. 14.23 . it will not be amiss to consider a while what is observed by Mr. Selden , de Syned● . l. 1. c 14. and recommended as most worthy to be observed by all that are lovers of truth , viz. Mr. Seld ns notion of it . That this of S. Pauls creating of Presbyters , was according to the Jewish custome of creating of Elders ; that Paul , forsooth , was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel , as his disciple , Act. 22.3 . and there instructed more exactly in the Iewish Law ; that Gamaliel was the Nephew of Hillel , and Prince of the Sanhedrin at that time ; that he , as an Elder among the Iews , might create his Scholars to the same dignity , as he pleased , and therefore that it is not to be doubted , but that Gamaliel created Paul to the dignity of a Iewish Elder , while he was his disciple , i.e. before he was a Christian : and that a while after Paul becoming Christian and an Apostle , thought it lawful in Asia , Crete , and elswhere , as well as within Iudaea , to create Elders , for the preaching of the Gospel , accounting himself and the other Apostles free from that new Law of having the license of the Prince of the Sanhedrin , and so that that custome prevailed in creating the Christian Elders , that every one that was duly created himself , might also duly create his own disciples ; and to conclude , Hinc de Paulo & Barnabâ dicitur , {αβγδ} , Hence , saith he , it is said of Paul and Barnabas , Having ordained them Elders through the Churches . And Hinc Paulus ad Titum , &c. Hence Paul to Titus , that was before created to the dignity of Eldership , I left thee at Crete , &c. that thou mayst constitute Elders through the Cities .

Having set down this observation , or interpretation of this Gentleman , An examination of it . and so his account of S. Pauls power to ordain Elders in the Church , I shall in stead of the many unproved affirmations contained in it , take notice onely of these few inconveniences which necessarily follow on it : First , that according to these premises , S. Pauls power of ordaining Elders in the Church of Christ , was no other power , but that which Saul the Persecutor of Christians had , when he was that Persecutor : Secondly , that he received it from Gamaliel the Iew , and not from Christ , the Head and Founder of the Christian Church : Thirdly , that he that would not own to have received any part of his Apostolical Power from S. Peter or any other man in the world , Gal. 1.1 . Gal. 1.1 . onely that he might owe it all to the Commission received from heaven , should now be constrained to acknowledge the receit of it from his old Master in the Iewish Religion : Fourthly , that Barnabas which appears equally with Paul in ordaining of Elders , Act. 14. should not in this interpretation be taken notice of at all , nor consideration be had , whether what is said of Paul were in any degree appliable to him .

These , I think , are inconveniences enough , to which this doctrine is lyable upon the Christian score ; and yet there are many other discernible upon the bare Iewish account . For first , for the Prince of the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem to create , and constitute an Elder , must , I suppose , signifie to take him into the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem . And surely no man imagines that Paul before his Conversion was thus created , it being said of him expresly , Act. 7.58 . Act. 7.58 . at S. Stephens martyrdome , that he was {αβγδ} , a yong man , at whose feet the witnesses laid their raiment , when they went to stone him : where the word {αβγδ} , if it be onely a note of his age , or if it be all one with {αβγδ} in other places , must signifie either a yong man , or a person of mean quality , or perhaps an inferior officer , such as Act. 5.6 . Act. 5.6 . carried out the dead to burial , and in any of these notions will be far enough distant from one of the Elders , or members of the Sanhedrin . And that farther appears by what was said of him , just before his Conversion , Act. 9.2 . Act. 9.2 . that he came to the High-Priest , and desired letters from him to the Synagogues at Damascus , that if he found any Christians there , he might bring them bound to Ierusalem . This makes it probable , that he was some inferior officer , or Serjeant , but evident that he was neither Elder in the Sanhedrin , nor member of any Consistory in another City , and so sure it is more then to be doubted , whether Gamaliel had created him to this dignity , It is most apparent that he had not . All that is imaginable in this matter is , that Gamaliel being a Doctor of the Law , might create this his disciple to that dignity of Doctor of the Law . And if that had been so , certainly he that held it useful to put into his apology that he had been brought up at Gamaliels feet , would have thought fit , for the inhancing those pretensions , to have added , that he was once made a Doctor by the Prince of the Sanhedrin . But besides that , there is as little appearance , or ( for the former reasons ) probability of truth in that , as in the former , It is evident that this , if it were granted , were impertinent , and unappliable to this matter : For that would not denominate him a {αβγδ} or Elder , but rather a {αβγδ} , which we render Scribe , such were they that had been taught {αβγδ} , the Books and Writings of the Law , and themselves after become teachers in their {αβγδ} houses of Information , or Instruction , and sometimes chosen into the Sanhedrin ; for that consisted of three sorts of men of several denominations , Chief Priests , Elders and Scribes ( see Mat . 26.3 . ) the Doctors of the Law , were the {αβγδ} , Scribes , not {αβγδ} Elders , and if all of them together in Councel be sometimes styled {αβγδ} , or Eldership , that is but a denomination of the whole from one special part of that Councel , and no way concludes ( against express testimonies of Scripture ) and Iewish Writers ) that the Sanhedrin was all made up of Elders at that time . Nay , it is said of Gamaliel expresly , that he was {αβγδ} , a Doctor of the Law , and one of the Sanhedrin , Act. 5.34 . who as a Doctor might have disciples to instruct in the Law , sitting at his feet , but cannot from thence be concluded to be the Prince of the Sanhedrin at that time ( as is by Mr. S. pretended ) but on the contrary , by being called {αβγδ} , a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrin , it may well be conjectured that he was not , but an ordinary member of it , though of great reputation at that time . And so still though he might make his disciple a Doctor of the Law ( of which there were other uses , besides being of the Sanhedrin ) yet an Elder he could not , nor consequently could Saul bestow that dignity upon any other Iew , much less upon them abroad in the dispersions , least of all upon any Gentile Christians ( as 't is more then probable , ever since his departing to the Gentiles , c . 13.46 . some of those Elders c . 14.23 . were , and of those in Crete , Tit . 1. there can be no place of doubting ) upon that score of having been a Scholar of Gamaliels . Many other things there are in this notion , utterly unreconcileable with the Iewish Customes , if it were here seasonable to discover them .

That the learned Grotius was favorable to this notion , is pretended by Mr. S. setting down to this purpose these words of his , on Act. 11.30 . ( Totum regimen Ecclesiarum Christi conformatum fuit ad Synagogarum exemplar , The whole Government of the Churches of Christ , was conformed to the pattern of the Synagogues ) and referring the Reader to his Notes on Act. 13.1.20.7.18.8 . But this is no way to be deduced from that learned mans words ; for 't is certainly one thing to affirm the Government of the Church to be formed after the Iewish pattern , ( which it is acknowledged that it was , Christ accommodating , and lightly changing the Iewish Customes into Christian Institutions ) another to deduce the power of making Elders in the Church ( which certainly had the original from Christ , who came down from heaven to plant , or gather a Church of Gentiles , as well as Iews ) from the authority of the Iewish Sanhedrin , which as it was used for the putting of Christ , and some of his disciples , even of Paul himself , to death , so it was never used to propagate Christianity , nor could be imagined to communicate a power to men of , and in other nations , particularly in Crete , which were not so much as Proselytes of the Iews , had nothing to do with them .

The other affirmations of Grotius referred to , will yield as little ayd , being all to the same purpose , that the Customes in the Iewish Synagogue were imitated , and accommodated by Christ to the Christian uses , not that Paul , an Apostle ; or Commissioner of Iesus Christ , indued from heaven with that power , which he communicated ( as he saw fit , and as the Spirit directed him ) to others , neither had , nor communicated any power , but what he had from Gamaliel his Iewish Master ; That Paul was indued with this power from heaven , when he was called to his Apostleship , that he and Barnabas together were actually separated to that work by the imposition of the hands not of Gamaliel , the unconverted Iew , but of the Christian Prophets and Doctors , or Bishops , whose names are recorded Act. 13.1 , 2 , 3. was sure the acknowledged opinion of that excellent man , H. Grotius , and never any other original assigned by him , or any Christian to this power of making Elders , I shall not need to say any more of it .

Seventhly then , It farther appears , that as Timothy and Titus were thus ordained by S. Paul , Timothy and Titus had power to ordain others . so they had thereby also power to others , through all Churches in those Regions where they were placed , and accordingly did actually ordain them . And so the power , which was given the Apostles , was sure no temporary power , but as from them derived to others , so from those others farther communicated , and all this by express Testimonies of Scripture . For that S. Paul should leave Titus in Crete on purpose to ordain Elders there , and prescribe Timothy , as well as him , what sort of men , and how qualified , should be constituted Bishops ( and Deacons ) in the Churches , and they should make no use of that power , is not imaginable , nor could be controverted , though there were no other book in the world , but the New Testament , whereas the testimony of the following Church-writers is clear , that in Crete the one , ( and in Asia the other ) had the ordaining first , and then the judging of so many Bishops ( by name an hundred ) in that Island , and that ( as there , so every where else ) the Bishops in their several Churches were the successors of the Apostles , and therefore many of them called Apostles also .

This we have seen already in Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem , Bishops successors of the Apostles , and called Apostles . Thaddaeus . called so in the Scriptures themselves . And the like we finde of divers others ; Of Thaddeus ( not he that was one of the twelve , Iudas , or Lebbeus , but ) he that was , ten years after Christs Resurrection , sent by S. Thomas to the King of Edessa , we have , out of the Records of that Nation [ {αβγδ} , the Apostle of Iesus ] the Apostle Thaddeus , and simply the Apostle . See Eusebius Hist . l. 1. c . {αβγδ} .

So Luke , Luke . that is thought to be the person that was ordained S. Pauls fellow-traveller , 2 Cor . 8.19 . and if he were not ( as there are some reasons to beleive it was Silas ) must in all reason be placed there among the {αβγδ} , Apostles of the Church , v. 23. is by Epiphanius distinctly styled an Apostle , Haer . 51. and in {αβγδ} .

So Mark , Mark . he that wrote the Gospel , and is called by S. Peter his son , as converted by him , and of whom Papias truly affirms , {αβγδ} , he neither heard nor followed Christ , yet being , eleven years after Christs assumption , sent into Aegypt to preach the Gospel , and there affirmed by S. Hierome , out of the Records of those first times , to have ordained Anianus Patriarch of Alexandria , and , by the writer of his life in Photius , to have done the like in Pentapolis , is by Eusebius l. 2. c . {αβγδ} . and by Epiphanius Haer . 51. called {αβγδ} , Apostle .

So Timothy , Timothy . that by Prophecy ( i.e. revelation of the Spirit , say the Oecumen . in 1 Tim . 3. Scholiasts ) was ordained Bishop of Ephesus , is by the Anonymus in Photius , Num . 254. called {αβγδ} , Timothy the Apostle , and by In 1 Tim . 3.1 . Theodoret , {αβγδ} , the Apostle of the Asiaticks , and so by Theophanes , he , with others , is {αβγδ} , an holy Apostle .

And so of Titus , {αβγδ} , Titus Titus . the Apostle of the Cretians , in Theodoret .

So Epaphroditus Epaphroditus . the Bishop of Philippi , is acknowledged by Theodoret , to be therefore called their Apostle , Phil . 2.25 . {αβγδ} , &c. S. Paul manifestly called Epaphroditus their Apostle , having , saith he , the appellation of their Bishop .

So Clemens Clemens . mentioned Phil . 4.3 . as a fellow-labourer of S. Pauls , and first a Deacon to S. Peter , ( saith Ignatius ad Trallenses ) afterward Bishop of Rome , is called by Clemens Alexandrinus , Strom . 4. {αβγδ} , the Apostle Clemens , and by In Isa . 52. S. Hierome , Vir Apostolicus , an Apostolical person , and so by de adulterat . lib . Origenis . Ruffinus adding , Imò pene Apostolus , yea and almost an Apostle .

So Ignatius , Ignatius . that is said by S. {αβγδ} . Chrysostome to have conversed familiarly with the Apostles , and by them made Bishop of Antioch , the hands , saith he , of the blessed Apostles touching his sacred head , is by him called both Apostle and Bishop .

And accordingly 't is the general affirmation of Theodoret , {αβγδ} , those that were ( in his time , saith he ) called Bishops , they called Apostles , {αβγδ} , &c. but in process of time they left the name of Apostles to those that were truly so , sent immediately by Christ , and imposed the name of Bishops on those others , that had been anciently called Apostles .

So Rabanus Maurus on 1 Tim . 4.14 . Episcopi provincias integras regebant Apostolorum nomine nuncupati , the Bishops ruled whole Provinces , being called Apostles .

So when Irenaeus l. 1. c . 9. and from him Epiphanius l. 1. Haer . 14. and 34. saith of the heretick Marcus's followers , that they were so puffed up , that they contemned the Apostles themselves in respect of them , it must sure be understood of the Bishops of those times , who thereby appear to be styled Apostles .

Eighthly , It is manifest by the Epistle of Christ to the seven Churches of the Proconsular Asia , The seven Churches of Asia . delivered by vision to S. John , that there were , at the date of that Epistle , Rulers or Governors of each of those Churches , to whom , under the title of Angels , the care of those Churches was committed . That these were any of the twelve Apostles , or others constituted from heaven immediately , neither is , nor can be pretended by any ; It remains therefore that it must be a derived , communicated power , whether mediately or immediately from one , or more of the Apostles , that first preached the Gospel there , which was thus vested in those Angels , in respect of which not onely that honorable title of Angels is bestowed upon each of them by Christ himself , the same that on the {αβγδ} , They call him the chief Priest , and think him to be an Angel or Messenger of Gods , to bring his commands to them . Diodor . Sicul . ap . Phot . de Iudaeis . high Priest among the Jews , Mal . 2.7 . but they are also resembled to so many Stars held by Christ in his right hand , Rev. 1.16 . and 2.1 . which is an infallible evidence , that this dignity , and power of theirs was approved and confirmed by Christ .

And to so clear a testimony of Scripture , Testimonies out of Antiquity . we may farther adde the words of the Councel of Chalcedon , Act. 2. concerning the Church of Ephesus , that from Timothy to that time , Councel of Chalcedon . there had been twenty seven Bishops there , to which it is consequent , that either Timothy , or some follower of his , was this very Angel that Christ wrote to , c . 2.1 . And so Polycrates , Polycrates . that was not long after S. Johns time , affirms himself to be the eighth Bishop of that City , Epist. ad Victor . apud Euseb . Hist . ●ccl . l. 5. c . {αβγδ} .

And so when l. 3. c . 3. Irenaeus S. Irenaeus . affirms of Smyrma , another of those seven Churches , that Polycarpe a disciple of the Apostles , was by them constituted Bishop of that City , and when Tertullian de Praescr . c . 32. Tertullian saith of him , that he was so constituted by S. John , as Clemens was at Rome ordained by S. Peter , 't is clear that the Apostles power was not determined in themselves : and of this Ibid . Tertullians testimony is most distinct , and universal , that , as in Smyrna , and Rome , perinde utique & caeterae Ecclesiae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos , Apostolici seminis traduces habent , the rest of the Churches in like manner exhibit those , which being by the Apostles , constituted Bishops , were their successors , spiritually begotten by them ; Adv. Marcion . l. 4. c . 5. and again , Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit authorem , the order of Bishops being recounted to the beginning , devolves to John the Apostle , the first author of it , speaking of these Churches of Asia , Johannis alumnae , which were taken care of , and fed by S. John .

To which in the latitude ( and not onely as it concerns those Churches ) 't were easie to adde many more . That of Ep. ad Cor . Clemens Romanus , Clemens Romanus . mentioned by S. Paul , is most clear , {αβγδ} . Christ was sent by God , and the Apostles by Christ ; and they went out preaching the Gospel , and doing so , they constituted their first-fruits into Bishops and Deacons of them that should after beleive . So S. Irenaeus Cont . Haer . l. 4. c . 63. S. Irenaeus , Successiones Episcoporum quibus Apostolicam , quae in unoquoque loco est , Ecclesiam tradiderunt , The successions of Bishops , to whom they delivered the Apostolick Church , which is in every place . And , habemus enumerare eos , qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis , Ibid . l. 3. c . 3. We can reckon them that were by the Apostles instituted Bishops in the Churches , and of Rome , Ibid . that the blessed Apostles committed to Linus the Ministery of that Church . And again speaking of Bishops , qui cum successione Episcopatus charisma veritatis certum acceperunt , who with the succession of Episcopacy received the certain grace of truth .

So S. Cyprian speaking of the Keyes given to S. Peter , S. Cyprian , Ep. 27. and so to the Bishops of the Church , Inde per temporum & successionum vices , Episcoporum ordinatio , & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit , ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur , & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernetur , Thence by vicissitudes of times and successions , the ordination of bishops , and the account of the Church doth run , that the Church may be constituted upon bishops , and every act thereof be governed by them .

And Tertullian again , Percurre Ecclesias Apostolic●s , &c. Tertullian . de Praesc . c . 36. Run through the Apostolick Churches , and there as yet the Chairs of the Apostles praeside in their places , thus have you Corinth , Ephesus , Philippi , Rome .

So S. Athanasius , among those things , {αβγδ} , S. Athanasius . Ep. ad Dracent . which the Lord formed by the Apostles , names the office of the bishop , and therefore addes , that he that despiseth this function , {αβγδ} , despises Christ which ordained it .

So S. Basil S. Basil . the Great calls Episcopacy {αβγδ} , and {αβγδ} , the prefecture , or precedency which the Apostles had from God .

So S. Ambrose , Claves illos in beato Petro cuncti suscepimus sacerdotes , S. Ambrose . de Dignit . Sacerd . c . 5 , 6. We all received those Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven in the person of S. Peter .

So S. Augustine , Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum & successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur , S. Augustine . Epist. 44. The root of Christian society is diffused by a certain propagation through the world , by the seats of the Apostles , and the successions of Bishops .

And S. Hierome , Quia Apostoli à mundo recesserunt , habes pro illis Episcopos filios , S. Jerome in Psal . 45. Seeing the Apostles are departed from the earth , you have the bishops , their sons , in stead of them .

And Photius , Photius . Epist. 54. {αβγδ} , The Apostolical and divine dignity , which the Pontifical race inherits by succession .

And Theophylact , Theophylact . in Mat . 18. {αβγδ} , They that in like manner with S. Peter were vouchsafed the grace of being bishops , have the power to binde and loose , as he had .

And Oecumenius , Oecumenius . {αβγδ} , &c. The bishops were by the Ordination of the Spirit , as succeeding the Apostles , which were so ordained .

To all which it will not be amiss to adde one Testimony of many , out of the Chronography of Johannes Malela Antiochenus , ( a Manuscript in the Oxford Publick Library ) which pretends to a much greater Antiquity then his own , That at the beginning of the Reign of Claudius Caesar , some ten years after Christs ascension , {αβγδ} — {αβγδ} . Euodius next after S. Peter ( viz. on the Judaical part , as Ignatius after S. Paul on the Gentile part ) was ordained bishop of Antioch , {αβγδ} , the great City , i.e. Metropolis of Syria . Adding , that in his time it was , that the name of Christians , Act. 11.26 . began , Euodius preaching to them , and imposing that name upon them , who were before called Nazaraeans and Galilaeans . And this passage is by Suidas transcribed from this Author .

Thus hath this Controversie been sufficiently cleared by some remains in the Scriptures , to which , as they are interpreted by us , to the deducing our conclusion from them , the concordant Testimonies of all Antiquity have most readily afforded their suffrages .

And then , as to the setling the Monarchy of the Jews , the way set down in Scripture is this , that God by a Prophet sent immediately from him , designed first the person of Saul , and after of David , and after , the succession or line of David ( by Solomon , and Rehoboam ) came down from father to son , through all the Kings of Judah , without any new revelation , or mission of Prophets , to anoint and constitute a new King , when the former was deceased : or ( rather ) As , when God had first called Moses , and by Miracles sealed him a Commission from heaven to be ruler over the Jews , and after taken of the Spirit that was upon him , and put it upon the Elders to be his assistants , For the succession to either of those Offices , there was no more used , or thought needful , but that Moses should lay his hands on Joshua , and give him a charge , and put some of his honour upon him , &c. Num . 27.18 , 19 , 20 , 21. and that the Seventy , which were thus created to their office , should by imposition of hands admit others to the same dignity , So for the setling Governors in the Church , God first sent down his Son Jesus Christ to be personally the founder , and Head of it , sent down his Spirit to demonstrate , and constitute him so , and after his departure , this power being before his death instated on the Apostles , the holy Ghost again descended on those Apostles , The manner of succession . and some the like prodigies from heaven were used towards others , for their first setling them in their dignities . But when that was done , the whole business of a succession was provided for , by a more easie & familiar course , that those that were thus sent by the Apostles , through imposition of their hands ( as they had been by Christ , through the descent of his Spirit , hovering over , and resting on them , and as Christ by his Father , with the like solemnity ) should , after the same manner , communicate it to others , fitly qualified for it .

Which that it was actually done in the several Churches , as it cannot be expected to be recorded in the New Testament , which can speak no farther then to those times of which it writes , so to some mentions of it , which are found there , infinite suffrages are added from the following Writers , by whom it far more evidently appears , that this Power of the Church did not end in the Apostles persons , but continued to their successors , the Bishops in the several branches , then by the Old Testament , & other Iewish writings now extant , it appears , either that it was Gods Will that the son should succeed the father in the Kingdome ( of which yet there is no doubt , when it was not countermanded by a Prophet sent from God ) or that in the Sanhedrin new men were received into the places of the deceased , of which there is yet no doubt made by any .

Having cleared the whole matter thus far , there will now be no need to declare what Powers they are , which are thus conveyed to the Bishops , or other Officers in the Church , it being already manifest , that the power of planting , governing and continuing of the Churches , being first vested in Christ , was from him derived to the Apostles , and from the Apostles to the Bishops , and so that the power of Preaching , Baptizing , Teaching , Confirming , Consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist , binding and loosing , blessing in Marriage , visiting and praying over the sick , and , at last , constituting others like themselves , either in whole by communicating intirely their whole power to them , or in part , by giving them some limited Powers for some certain Offices were thus communicated . Commission required .

Of which all that will be necessary to be added , is onely this , which natural reason dictates to every one , that no man ought to assume to himself any Office in any Society , but he that is designed to it by him that hath the supreme Power in it , nor consequently in the Church , but he that is called , as was Aaron , i.e. hath received Mission , or Commission from God , which being not now pretended by any to be received immediately from heaven ▪ there is but one way imaginable for any man to claim it , viz. by receiving it from them , who immediately have received it from heaven . And therefore S. Cyprian speaking of the Hereticks and Impostors of his time , de Unit . Eccl. p. 23. chooses to give this , as a principal part of their Character , Hi sunt qui se ultrò apud temerarios conven●s sine divinâ dispositione praeficiunt , qui se Praepositos sine ullâ Ordinationis lege constituunt , qui nemine Episcopatum dante Episcopi sibi nomen assumunt , sedentes in Pestilentiae Cathedra , &c. These are they that of their own accord , without Gods appointment , set themselves up among their temerarious assemblers , who constitute themselves Rulers without any Law of Ordination , who assume the name of Bishops , when no man gives them the power , and so sit in the Chair of Pestilence ( in stead of the Episcopal Chair ) &c.

And then the whole matter is devolved to a short issue , that every one that thus runs , is obliged to shew his Commission , by which he may appear to be sent . And that being once produced , to whatsoever acts that extends , to those he will be allowed to be sufficiently authorized , but to nothing else .

And whosoever will not stand to this award , must not onely cast off the Church of Christ from being his Mother , confess Christ so far from being a favourer , that he is a professed enemy to his pretences , but withall must acknowledge himself to have given a precedent for all the unreasonable claims , and violences , and oppressions in the world , which must all commence regular , and just , when it shall once be allowed , that any power belongs to any , which cannot justifie ( and doth not so much as plead ) the derivation from above .

To deduce this general conclusion concerning Ecclesiastical Power , to the particular branches of the Ministerial function , hath been of late undertaken by my worthy friend Dr. Jeremy Taylor , which hath therefore superseded that part of the task , to which I were otherwise obliged now to proceed .

In stead whereof , it will onely be seasonable to admonish this one thing , The office of Teaching . That the office of publick teaching , which is of all others now adayes most frequently invaded by those , who are not sent , is so far from being a light and unconsiderable , that it is indeed , next that of Ordination , ( which is the communicating of the whole power ) the most Apostolical part of the Ministerial function , and that which cannot with any safety to the Church of Christ , be permitted to lye in common to all invaders , as being the proper instrument of disseminating true or false doctrine , and giving confidence to all the practises , that are consequent to either , and upon the concord , or disagreement of the teachers , it is visible , that either unity or divisions in the Church are directly , and immediately built .

From whence it is necessarily consequent , that the whole well-being of the Christian Church , which consists in unity , as the well-being of a body in the health of it , nay the very being it self , which consists in the truth of the Doctrine , and obedience to the Institutions of Christ , depends , in an eminent manner , upon the due qualifications of those which are instructed with the office of teaching in the Church . And if it be not in the power of the Governors of any National Church , to design the persons that shall be intrusted with that office , to restrain those , whom they shall judge unmeet for that trust , and to prescribe forms of wholesome doctrine , within which all shall be obliged to contain themselves , It will not be possible to preserve either truth or peace in any Nation , nor consequently Christianity it self , which is made up of these two , and may as possibly be transformed into the direct contrary ( whether Judaism , or Mahomedanism , or Idol-worship , or Atheism ) as we see it is from truth in any particular point to the contrary error , by the advantage of this one instrument of Conveyance , when he that goes out to sow , carries nothing but cockle and darnel in his sack with him .

And therefore it is observable , that among the several Titles of the Bishops in the Scripture , Teacher , the title of the Bishop in Scripture . 1 Cor . 12.28 . Eph. 4.11 . 1 Tim . 5.17 . that of {αβγδ} , Teacher , is a principal one , 1 Cor . 12.28 . Eph. 4.11 . the office of labouring {αβγδ} in the doctrine , 1 Tim . 5.17 . belonging to the {αβγδ} the Praefect there , As in Justin Martyr , Apol . 2. after the Anagnostes , or Reader , had read the portion of Scripture out of the Apostles or Prophets , {αβγδ} , the Praefect , i.e. the Bishop makes the Exhortation , in like manner as Act. 13. we see practised by S. Paul the Apostle , where after the reading of the Law , follows the {αβγδ} , the word of Exhortation to the people , which , it seems , was not the Readers , but the Doctors office .

And although the Office of Teaching in the Church have been permitted to others besides Bishops , yet sure to none , but those , to whom the Bishops have thought fit to communicate it , by imposition of hands , and special license , the force of the Ancyran and Laodicean Councel , {αβγδ} , that none should do any thing in every Province , without being permitted by the Bishop with his Letters , extending to this , that no man should undertake the office of teaching the people , but he that had his mandate , were thus licentiate to do it .

Having thus briefly set down the positive doctrine , and deduced it out of the clear story of Scripture , and the first times , which demonstrate the succession of Officers in the Church , to be no temporary Institution , confined to that season of the planting of the Gospel , I should be willing now to consider all that hath by any adversary been with any shew of reason pretended to the contrary : but being not so well versed in the Modern Pamphlets , as would qualifie me to attempt the doing of that exactly , the most probable way I can think of , is to consult the Sociman Writers , who being certainly the first , that from the beginning of Christianity have in this Controversie appeared against us ( and the men to whom the late Divinity of these evil times oweth so extremely much , that I cannot doubt , The Socinians objections . but their weapons have been made use of on this Theme also ) and having in other their invasions of the Catholick Christian Doctrines and Institutions , written the most subtilly of any , may therefore be presumed not to have betrayed this part of their cause , through any personal defects of theirs , but improved it to the highest , of which the matter hath been found capable .

And to this end I shall give a short view of what Volkelius , Volkelius's arguments , proposed , their great Master , hath said in this matter , l. 6. c . 12. de Miss . Eccl. Doct . where , under the name of the Pontificii , he sets himself against those , who being not content with the ancient custome of choosing Doctors and Pastors , do now require some singular Mission of them , and demand a continual uninterrupted , and that personal succession of Pastors . Against Mission . From hence there arise two branches of the discourse , 1. of the Mission , 2. of the Succession of Pastors . On the first head , he hath three things to say , First , that the place of Jeremy , c . 23.21 . I have not sent them , and yet they ran ] can prove nothing against his pretensions , because there they that are found fault with , took upon them to be Prophets , and assumed a Mission , gloryed that they had a Province assigned them by God , of revealing some new things to his people , and consequently required credit to be yielded them , as Embassadors of Gods : But the modern Pastors of the Church , profess they are no Prophets , brag not of any such Embassie , undertake not to reveal any new thing , but onely inculcate that , which they finde in the writings of the Apostles , and acknowledge they may erre in understanding and explicating them , and require men to examine what they say , and beleive them no farther , then they shall be found to agree with Scripture .

The second thing ( which is but consequent to this ) is , that those words , Rom. 10.15 . How shall they preach except they be sent ? ] can yield as little ayd to our pretensions , for that is spoken of those who were first to deliver the Christian faith , and so a new thing , to mankinde , and to confirm it so , as all were obliged to acquiesce in their doctrine , which they could not have done , if they had not been sent as Embassadors on this errand : Whereas the modern Pastors make not themselves the first Preachers of the faith , assume no such authority to themselves , but contenting themselves with that Ordination of the Church , which the Apostles introduced , think they have done well , if they can but assist Christians in the knowledge and practise of Christian doctrine , which Ordination though it be laudable , and to be retained in the Church , whilst it continues prosperous , yet if in time of persecution the Church be dissipated , and , on any occasion , that Ordination cannot be had , nothing hinders but that they which are able to instruct others to e●ernal life , may , without Ordination , propound the Christian doctrine to men . And then his third thing is the proof of this last assertion from the example of those Act. 8.4 . who being after the death of Stephen dispersed , were not ordained by any , and yet preached the doctrine of Christ , and the hand of the Lord was with them , saith S. Luke . And this is all he saith on the first Head .

Of the second , concerning the succession of Pastors , Against succession . c . 13. De success . Pastorum . His first observation is , that the Apostles in creating Pastors looked not themselves after any succession , nor desired that it should be looked after in others , but thought it enough if they were so qualified as was required , 1 Tim . 3. Tit . 1. where describing their office very largely , they yet give no precept , or syllable concerning succession ; which shews , that this is but a figment of those , that would advance the authority of the Church , and more easily obtrude their doctrines upon others . But , saith he , this stratagem hath not succeeded , as they desired , with wise men , who do deny the necessity of that succession of Pastors , and onely assert the doctrinal , not personal succession and therefore unless the assertors of that necessity ( under the name of Pontificii again ) can prove that their Bishops succeed the ●postles in purity of doctrine , they do nothing , though they never so oft inculcate the succession of the persons . For the doctrinal succession is not so conjoyned with the personal , that one cannot subsist without the other , nothing hindring but that the doctrine may be changed , where the personal succession continues : Which appears by their own confession , who acknowledge Bishops of Apostolical Sees to have proved many of them haeretical . From whence he concludes , that the personal succession without the doctrinal , doth no more constitute a true Pastor , then the carnal succession from Abrahams loyns , makes the Jews the true people of God ; and therefore they are not to be counted the successors of the Apostles , who are not begotten by them either after a carnal or a spiritual manner , though they can brag of sitting in their seats And as they that are not born of Abrahams seed , yet imitating his faith , are the true sons of Abraham , so they that follow the Apostles doctrine are true Doctors , though they do not personally succeed in their places .

This is all that is said by him on this matter , and is far from any close arguing , Answer to those against Mission . or pressing our pretensions with any inconvenience , or absurdity .

For first , as to the two places of Scripture from Jer . 23. Jer . 23. and Rom. 10. which he saith are not pertinent to our purpose , this discourse , which hath not chosen to make use of them , is no way pressed , or disparaged by them : Onely it may deserve to be considered , whether when the fault is so great to pretend Mission from God , for those Messages or Prophecies which are not delivered by him , it be not a dangerous thing for any man to undertake to interpret Scripture publickly ( which is the New Testament notion of Prophecying ) who is so farre from having any Commission from God for so doing , that he is not authorized by the Governors of the Church , wherein he lives , or by any that have any so much as pretence of authority , to justifie him , but onely by his own presumption in assuming an Office ( for such that of the Doctor is acknowledged to be ) without any Call , or Commission for it , from any but himself .

And for the second place Rom. 10. Rom. 10.15 . How shall they preach , except they be sent ? ] though I acknowledge the circumstances of the place to determine it to another notion , then is ordinarily thought on ( viz. that as the Jews could not beleive , unless the Gospel were preached to them , so 't was not imaginable that it should be preached , or they beleive , if the Apostles did not look upon them , as their Province , to which they were sent , if they forsook them , and departed to the Gentiles ) yet Volkelius's answer supposing a Mission necessary to the first preaching of the Gospel , because that was a new thing to mankinde , must acknowledge the same necessity of Mission to authorize any to preach to the Indians , where the Gospel hath not been preached yet ; and that being granted , there will be little reason to doubt , but that Catechizing and Preaching in a Christian Commonwealth , being the onely publick way to plant Christian Religion in any ( which certainly is not born with men here , any more then at Japan ) that Mission will be as necessary to this Office of Preaching here , as to the preaching to Indians it would be ; The danger being as great in mis-teaching of the baptized ignorant Englishman , as in mis-preaching to the heathen Indian , and the care that is due from the Church to her own members , being as great , as that wherein those that are without are concerned , and no way to prevent that danger , or to express that care , but by maintaining of Order in a Church , and not leaving the Pulpit to the ignorant , or permitting them , whose boldness qualifies them for nothing but errors and impieties , to infuse into others all that poyson , which their humor is apt to breed in themselves .

But then thirdly , the whole ground of his answer , viz. that difference betwixt the Preachers there meant , and the Pastors of the present Church ] is very infirm , and impertinent to this matter . For , granting the present Pastors not to assume to be the first Preachers of the faith , &c. why should that render their Mission or Ordination unnecessary ? Titus was ordained Bishop of Crete by S. Paul , and Timothy of Ephesus , and that by the imposition of hands , yet neither of them to be the first Preachers of the faith , but {αβγδ} , to set right things that were left unregulated , Tit . 1.5 . Tit . 1.5 . and to charge some that they teach no other doctrine . Both which suppose established Churches , and not the new planting of the faith . And both these were to ordain Elders , or Bishops , i.e. Pastors , one in every City . And so those again , that were to reside in Christian Cities , and not to preach to Infidels , had yet need of Ordination , and Mission , to fit and qualifie them for that ( which is now the acknowledged office of the Pastor ) as much as Paul or Barnabas had to preach to the Gentiles , that had not heard of Christ .

But then fourthly , this Author having said of the modern Pastors , that they content themselves with that Ordination of the Church , which the Apostles introdueed , hath made all farther answer of ours unnecessary : For it being manifest by what hath been said , that the Apostles introduced the Ordination for which we contend , if that be had by all that undertake the office of teaching in the Church , I shall have nothing to charge , or except against them : and because he acknowledgeth that Ordination laudable , and such as is to be retained in the Church , whil'st it continues prosperous , and onely pleads for the instructing others to eternal life without Ordination , in case that cannot be had , through persecution , &c. therefore I suppose the whole question , as it is by him argued , devolves to this , What is lawful , or fit to be done in case of tha● necessity : And to that belongs his proof produced from Act. 8.4 . Act. 8.4 , when , faith he , they that were dispersed after the death of Stephen went out and preached without Ordination .

But to this issue of the whole matter , the answer is obvious , First , Case of necessity . that whatsoever excuse from necessity can be pretended for them that are persecuted , this cannot with any reason be produced for the persecutors , when they that have cast out the Governors , and setled Ministery of any particular Church , shall assume and invade their Offices , and so being guilty of introducing the necessity ( or being themselves the onely Fates , that have imposed these indissoluble Laws ) cannot be excused by that pretended Necessity .

But then for the persecuted , who alone can be supposed to make this claim to the excuse of necessity , I answer , Secondly , that when any persecution lyes on any particular Church , nothing hinders any persecuted son of that Church to seek Ordination , or Mission from the fathers of it , unless all of them be swept away by the supposed persecution , and their light be quite put out in Israel . And if that blast that extinguishes all , should be so sudden and violent , that it cannot be prevented , or resisted , the old Israelitish way of calling to the next of kin to raise up seed to the deceased brother , is a good hint of advise and direction in this case , viz. to borrow light from some neighbors Candle , Ordination , or Mission from some other Church , which cannot without great unchristian charity think fit to deny that duty of Mercy , when it is begg'd of them .

And if yet , upon this morally impossible supposition , Ordination should be no way compassable , then thirdly , I shall not doubt to yield as much as is pretended , that , in case of unblameable necessity , they which have received the Faith , and are able to instruct others to eternal life , may without Ordination propound the Christian doctrine to men , and to an Orphan brother or sister , any brother supply the place of the Charity , though not usurp the Authority of a Father .

But then fourthly , to the Argument drawn from Act. 8.4 . Act. 8.4 . I answer , that those that are there said to have gone every where preaching the Word , do not any way appear to have done it without Mission or Ordination . For first , the [ all they that were scattered abroad ] v. 1. cannot be supposed to be [ the whole number of Christians ( called the multitude of disciples , c . 6.2 . ) that were at Jerusalem , except the Apostles ] for if so , there would then have been little for the Apostles to do that were left behinde . 't is much more reasonable to refer the [ {αβγδ} all ] to the [ {αβγδ} Church ] ( which is the immediate antecedent , and may denote the Governors and Officers of the Church , all Ecclesiastical persons , the Apostles , the Bishop of the Church , and his seven Deacons , and those sure were the men , on whom the persecution fell , witness Stephen , c . 6. 9. and consequently those will be supposed to be dispersed by it ) or else to the seven Deacons peculiarly , who had been constituted c . 6. and from that place to this , the story of Stephens dispute , and Sermon , and stoning , set down as it were in a Parenthesis , and then c . 8.1 . upon the great Persecution that was against the Church , {αβγδ} , they were all dispersed ; Of these seven , Stephen slain , and all the rest dispersed , and agreeably it follows immediately , v. 5. Philip ( one of these seven ordained Deacons ) went down and preached Christ to the Samaritans , and , having converted , baptized them , but , being but a Deacon , could not lay hands on them , or ordain Elders among them , the Apostles from Jerusalem were sent to do that : And then this passage of story will be as far as any in Scripture , from inferring the uselesness of Mission or Ordination , being a clear Testimony for the necessity of it .

To this it might be farther added , that although they are all said to be dispersed , except the Apostles , yet it is not said that all the Apostles remained behinde , and indeed we finde not in this , or any other story , that above three or four of the Apostles did any time continue there , and then , beside the six Deacons , there might be eight or nine Apostles contained in that number of the [ {αβγδ} , all ] And as that makes it more reasonable to conclude [ the Church ] in the notion of Ecclesiastical persons , and not [ the multitude of disciples ] to be the antecedent to [ {αβγδ} , all ] so it makes it less necessary to conclude , that they that Preached the Word every where , did it without Ordination .

However , if these were not the [ {αβγδ} the all ] but others beside these contained in that number , c . 11. 19. yet of them these two things must be observed , First , that they were , in a remarkable manner , filled all with the holy Ghost , c . 4. 31. which was certainly done to fit them for some extraordinary work , such as there follows , the speaking the word of God with boldness . And for this they were as fully qualified by the descent of the holy Ghost upon them , and the effects thereof , speaking with tongues , or Prophecying , or gifts of healing , as any are by imposition of the Apostles hands pretended to be . And yet secondly , all that we finde assumed by them , is divulging the Gospel , wheresoever they came , c . 8.4 . and 11.19 . And that liberty where the Gospel is not yet known , we shall not deny to any . And this is all that is necessary to be said to his Objections on the first branch of the Question .

As for the second , his exceptions against the necessity of an uninterrupted succession , Answer to those against succession . the frivolousness of the arguments will render a sufficient reason of the designed brevity of these returns to them . For first , the arguments from the Apostles not looking after succession , nor desiring that others should look after it , nor giving any mandate concerning it , are all Negative Arguments , à testimonio , and therefore conclude nothing .

But then secondly , the Apostles ordaining of others , which is mentioned , being it self the taking care for succession , and so their setting down the qualifications of those that were to be ordained , and especially the leaving Ti●us distinctly to this end , that he might ordain in every City , are so many clear demonstrations of this truth , that the Apostles took care of succession .

And it falls out , that we have ( ex abundanti , much more then is needful to the justifying of our pretensions ) a most eminent Testimony of Clement , The Testimony of Clemens Romanus for succession . S. Pauls fellow-labourer ( mentioned by him with so much honour ) in his Epistle to the Corinthians , ( {αβγδ} , &c. Our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ , that there would be contention about the name ( i.e. Dignity , or Authority ) of Episcopacy ; for which cause therefore having perfect fore-knowledge , they constituted Bishops ( and Deacons ) and after gave a {αβγδ} . See Dissert . V. c . 7. §. 2. series , or catalogue , or succession , that when they dyed , other approved persons might succeed ( {αβγδ} ) to that office . So far is it from truth , that the Apostles took no care for succession , and so far that from concluding that this pretended succession is but a commentum , or stratagem to advance the designs of ambitious men , or seducers .

But for that which he next addes , that this stratagem hath not succeeded with wise men , who deny that necessity of succession , &c. It is far from concluding any thing , but that the Writer was willing to perswade men , that he and his fellow-Sectaries , were wise men , for , besides that the unsuccessfulness of it doth not prove it a lye , ( for truth hath not alwayes had the Monopoly of successes ) it would be hard for him to shew any one man in the world , before Socinus , and his followers , that have avowedly opposed the Mission , and succession of Apostolical officers . And then to make such a leap over almost 1600. years , from the Apostles time to them , to pitch upon a thin society of wise men , and then , without any Testimony , but their own of themselves , to presume their own wisdome , and , by drawing an argument from it , prejudge all other men , is a practise so far from concluding in any mood , or figure , that it is indeed a proving the same by the same . Volkelius and some few of his Compeers oppose succession , and their argument to justifie their doing so , is , because they have thought fit to oppose it .

As for the distinction betwixt doctrinal and personal succession , as I acknowledge it a reasonable distinction , so I cannot but proclaim that most unreasonable , which from thence he immediately infers , that therefore , unless the assertors of the necessity of succession , can prove that their Bishops succeed the Apostles in purity of doctrine , they do nothing . For certainly they which do not all , may yet do something , and he that said , half was more then all , was not so grosly out , as he that made it equal with nothing . It may , and is doubtless true , that the now present Bishop of Rome succeeds the first Bishops of that See , and he that asserts that , asserts one truth , and I , in asserting ( if I can also justifie ) it , have done all that is necessary in the point in hand , ( because the present Question engages me to no farther undertaking ) though to him that would infer that the Church of Rome hath no errors in it now , it is a most feeble medium for his turn . And in order to that conclusion 't is true , that he that doth not prove a doctrinal as well as personal succession , doth nothing in effect , nothing of force or validity toward his end , viz. of proving that there are no errors in the Church of Rome .

And for the small inconsiderable improvement which he makes to his argument by the resemblance of the carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham , that the personal succession without the doctrinal , doth no more constitute a true Pastor , then the carnal succession from Abrahams loyns , makes the Jews the true people of God ; this is founded in the old trivial aequivocation of the word [ true . ] For as the true Pastor signifies him that is truly called to that office , it is apparent , that the personal succession alone infers that , there being no doubt with any , but that he may be this day a true Bishop , which is to morrow an Heretick , fit to be degraded , and indeed he were not capable of being deposed were he not truly possest of that honour And this is the onely notion of a true Pastor that our present pretensions are concerned in ; For that the succession to S Peters Chair , doth conclude the infallibility of the Popes Decrees , or the [ verity ] in the other notion , i.e. veracity of all that so succeed , is no part either of our faith , or present Interests , who know that the Jews are Jews , even when they have crucified Christ , and as truly so now , since their sins have made that name the vilest Proverb of Reproach , as they were , when it denoted most magnificently the peculiar People of God . And though by Christs taking down the partition , and Gods making his Promises not to Abrahams progeny , but the children and followers of his faith ; it comes oft to pass , that he is a spiritual , which is not a carnal son of Abraham , yet can it not , by that incompetent similitude , be concluded , that he that follows the Apostles doctrine , is a true Pastor , though he succeed not personally in any of their places : For if so , it would presently be concluded , that every orthodox female Christian , which by being so , is supposed to follow the Apostles doctrine , were a true Pastor also . The old rule is true , that similitudes are not argumentative , and that the thing which they are most apt to infer , is , that he is to seek for arguments , that thinks fit to make use of them .

I shall need say no more to these objections , but that they are the best , that a sort of very subtile disputers have been able to produce , and , that the matter yielded them no better , is not to be imputed to them , that are not ordinarily observed to be ill managers . As it is , I have no reason to complain of the injury , that I have by this means come more speedily to my harbour .

Where having put in , I soon finde my self called out again by our own Countreyman , Mr. Hobbes's objections . Mr. Hobbes in his Leviathan ( c . 42. Of a Christian Cemmonwealth ) Where in the midst of a Rapsody of as strange Divinity , as since the dayes of the Gnosticks , and their several Progenies , the Sun ever saw ( a new Trinity , not of persons , but personators , a new Heaven , and Hell , both upon this Earth of ours , the Heaven consisting of single persons , that are aeternal in their own persons , the Hell of married men , that by the advantage of getting children , are , though their persons be annihilated , aeternized by their successive Posterity , and a whole scheme of Phaenomena , bearing sutable proportion with these Principles ) I finde a Section Of Ordination of Teachers , and am unwilling to resist the Temptation of annexing here a brief view of it .

It begins thus , As the Apostles , Matthias , Paul , and Barnabas , were not made by our Saviour himself , but were elected by the Church , i.e. by the assembly of Christians ; namely , Matthias by the Church of Jerusalem , and Paul and Barnabas by the Church of Antioch : So were also the Presbyters and Pastors in other Churches elected by the Churches of those Cities : For proof whereof let us consider , &c. The whole doctrine of that Section being contained in these words , and all that follows being but attempts to prove , It will not be amiss to consider them more particularly , and observe how many misadventures will be soon discernible in them . The first is the confounding of Election and Ordination , Election & Ordination . which are by him supposed to be one , but are indeed two distant things . That by him they are made one , already appears , by comparing the title with the subject matter of the Section . The title is Ordination of Teachers , but the subject matter Election ; and to that the subsequent proofs belong also , that from Act. 14. from Tit . 1. from the practise of the Election of the Bishops of Rome , put it out of question .

Now that Election and Ordination are several things , Differ . is sufficiently known to every man that measures the nature of words , either by Usage or Dictionaries ; onely for the convincing of this Gentleman , or others , who think not themselves obliged to the observation of such vulgar Laws , I shall propose these evidences . In the story of the creation of the Deacons of Jerusalem , Act. 6. there are two things distinctly set down , one proposed to the multitude of disciples to be done by them , another reserved to the Apostles ; that which the {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} , brethren or disciples , were to do , was {αβγδ} , to look out men , v. 3. but that with these three bounds , 1. to take seven , neither more , nor fewer ; 2. those , men generally known , and reputed of , {αβγδ} ; 3. in such estimation for fulness of the Spirit of Faith , of Wisdome , or discretion for managery of affairs . According to which rules prescribed them by the Apostles , they proceed v. 5. {αβγδ} , &c. and they chose Stephen , &c. Here ( looking out , and choosing , either one preparative to the other , or two words signifying the same thing ) Election of the persons was by the Apostles permitted to the multitude of the brethren ; but still the {αβγδ} , constituting , or ordaining , v. 3. is reserved to the Apostles . In order to which it follows v. 6. that as they which chose the persons , {αβγδ} , set them before the Apostles : so the Apostles , and not they , prayed and laid their hands upon them . Where constituting and imposition of hands being directly the thing which is by all men understood by Ordination , is appropriated to the Apostles , though the Election of the persons within the forementioned limits , is by them allowed or permitted to the multitude of the disciples .

The same may appear in that higher matter , the advancing of Matthias to the Apostolacy , if ( as S. Luke must , so ) this Gentleman may be beleived against himself , That the Election of Matthias was not by suffrages of men , but by lot , Act. 1.26 . Act. 1.26 . and that as an {αβγδ} demonstration , {αβγδ} , whom God ( not whom the Congregation ) had chose , v. 25. appears most evidently by S. Luke . But for the Ordination of this Apostle , that , saith this Gentleman , p. 288. lin . 10. was the act of the Congregation , which though it be far from all truth ( all that was done in it being done by the Apostles onely in the midst , i.e. in the presence of all the disciples ) yet I shall not now resist it , but take him at his word , and from thence conclude , that the Election being by S. Luke attributed to God , and the Ordination by himself to the Congregation , Election and Ordination must be two severals , and not the same act .

The same may appear again in his own instance of Paul and Barnabas , Act. 13.2 . Act. 13.2 . The holy Ghost said , Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them . There again it is apparent , that God from heaven had chosen Saul ( that {αβγδ} , Act. 9.15 . Act. ● 15. vessel of Election , to bear his name ) and Barnabas , to that office of Apostolacy , and given appointment to Simeon , and Lucius , and Manaen , the Bishops of Syria , to separate , i.e. ( as we have shewed ) to ordain them , or send them forth to the work . And accordingly they did , v. 3. having prayed , and fasted , and laid hands on them , they dismissed them , or gave them their solemn Mission or Commission . Where 't is again clear , that the Election of the persons was the act of God , from the holy Ghost , but the imposition of hands , Separation , Missien , Ordination , was the work of men there named , and commanded to do it . So when Timothy was made Bishop by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery , as his Ordination must be imputed to those Bishops or Elders , that laid hands on him : so there is also mention of {αβγδ} , 1 Tim . 4.14 . ● Tim . 4.14 . of Prophecy , or revelation of Gods Will , by which that grace was given him , i.e. by which he was elected to that dignity ; and so S. Chrysostome , and Theophylact affirm of that place , {αβγδ} , The dignity of Teaching and Priesthood ( i.e. Episcopacy ) being great , stands in need of Gods suffrage for the admitting of a worthy person , and so ( as of old by Prophecy Priests were made , so ) was Timothy chosen to the Priesthood .

And as of Timothy , so of all other the Bishops of Asia , when S. Paul saith of them , Act. 20.28 . Act. 20.28 . that the holy Ghost {αβγδ} had set them overseers , I suppose that is to be understood of their election or nomination to those dignities . For so I am sure Clemens Alexandrinus , Apud Euseb . Hist . l. 3. ● . {αβγδ} . speaking of S. John , that he was intreated to go to the neighboring Cities , addes , that he went accordingly , {αβγδ} , &c. {αβγδ} , and constituted Bishops , &c. of those that were signified by the Spirit , where the Spirits signification notes the election or nomination of the persons , which was from God immediately , but the constituting them was the ordination of S. John .

And so in that Testimony of Clemens Romanus formerly produced , {αβγδ} , the Apostles constituted bishops , trying or approving them by the Spirit : where still the tryal or approbation , being all one with the election of the persons , was an act of the holy Spirit , revealed to them , but the constitution or ordination , their own act , to which they were formerly authorized by Christ .

And so in his other instance of the Bis●ops of Rome , from the beginning till this time , as in all other practise over the Christian world , Election and Ordination are distinguished , not onely in respect of the acts , one subsequent to the other , but very frequently in respect of the Electors and Ordainers , the whole Colledge of Cardinals , that are present , being the persons , to whom the election of the Pope now belongs , but onely the Bishop Cardinals laying on their hands in the ordination .

And so it is known in this Kingdome , that the Conge d'eleir , the Commission to choose a Bishop was by the King sent to the Dean and Chapter in the Cathedral , as to the standing Synod of that Diocese , but the ordination was to be done by those that were Bishops before him .

This I should not thus largely have insisted on , were it not the {αβγδ} , the procreative mistake , or ignorance , that produced those other , that I am now to proceed to .

A second great mistake is , that he affirms of Matthias , Election Matth●as . Paul and Barnabas , that they were elected by the Church : where first , it hath already appeared by plain Texts of Scripture , that every one of these three was elected by God himself . Of Matthias 't is clear by the manner of it , by lottery , the disposition of which is of the Lord , saith Solomon , and by the {αβγδ} , Act. 1.24 . Act. 1.24 . thou ( i.e. God ) hast chosen . And of the other two , {αβγδ} , the holy Ghost said , i.e. commanded to separate them ( by name ) to the work , {αβγδ} , to which I ( i.e. the holy Ghost ) have called them . And it is not imaginable how this Gentleman should view , ( as 't is clear he did ) and not discern the importance of such plain places .

And secondly , when by the Church he expresses himself to mean the Assembly of Christians , the Church of Jerusalem and of Antioch , It is by that rendred much more unreconcileable to all appearance of truth : For till Church was so explained , it was possible he might have meant the Apostles , or Governors of the Church , who had somewhat to do in this matter ; whereas the Assembly of Christians were ( as far as can be discerned by the Text ) utterly unconcerned in both of them .

Of the choosing of Matthias there were two parts , the naming of two , and the casting lots between them two ; the former of these was no act of the Church , much less the latter .

The two were not named by the Church , but by the Eleven , for in the midst of them ( under the title of {αβγδ} , Peters brethren , or fellow-disciples , and those set down by name , v. 13. ) S. Peter stood up , v. 15. and speaking of Judas , saith , he was numbred with us , v. 17. i . e . with himself , and them , to whom he spake , the Colledge of Disciples , or Apostles peculiarly , not the whole number of beleivers , or the Church of Jerusalem ; and so again v. 21. the men that consorted with us , are those that followed Christ together with the twelve , and v. 22. A witness of the resurrection {αβγδ} with us , must needs refer to the eleven peculiarly , for they onely , not the whole Church , were to be those witnesses : Upon which it follows , {αβγδ} , v. 13. and they appointed , or pitched on two , where the [ they ] must needs be they , to , and of whom he spake all this while , and so the eleven , and not the hundred and twenty , which are never mentioned but once , and then 't is in a parenthesis , v. 15.

And if the eleven were they that nominated the two , then it must needs follow , that it was they also that gave in the {αβγδ} , the lots of them , one lot with the name of Barsabas , the other of Matthias upon it , for so the {αβγδ} , they gave , v. 26. must connect with the {αβγδ} , they appointed , and conclude the same persons to have done both . And indeed there could be no use of the Congregation for that , to throw in , and take out the lots , That must be the work of some two persons at the most , and so no work of an Assembly .

And so likewise at the constituting of Saul and Barnabas , the Text is express , The Election of Paul and Barnabas . that they were Doctors and Prophets that prayed , and laid hands on them , and so the Ordination was no more the act of the Assembly , then the Election appeared to be .

It was hardly possible to have contrived a greater number of affirmations into so small a compass : And then if that which follows with the [ so ] be so indeed , If the Pastors and Presbyters in other Cities , were elected by the Churches in those Cities , so , as Matthias , and Paul , and Barnabas were , if one be no truer then the other , the whole matter is soon come to a fair issue .

But however it hath proved with his first affirmation , which was without offer of proof imposed upon us , The practise of the other Cities he undertakes to make proof of .

And his proofs are two , one taken from Act. 14.23 . the other from Tit . 1.5 . In the first , Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church ; In the second , Titus constituted Elders in every City : Most certainly true . But what is to be inferred from hence ? Ergo , The Presbyters and Pastors of other Cities were elected by the Churches of those Cities .

A Conclusion very remote from these premises : For , first , there is not one word of Election in either place , but of constituting and ordination , which is quite another thing ; and secondly , there is nothing in either place attributed to the Churches of those Cities , but onely to Paul and Barnabas in the one , to Titus in the other . Thus beyond all measure improsperous are this Gentlemans undertakings on this subject .

The former of these he ingenuously confesses may at first sight be taken for an argument against him , that they themselves ( Paul and Barnabas ) chose , and gave them their authority : And so sure 't will do at the tenth , and twentieth review of it .

But , saith he , if we consider the original Text of it , it will be manifest , that they were authorized and chosen by the Assembly of the Christians of each City : Act. 14.23 . For the words there are , {αβγδ} , When they had ordained them Elders by the holding up of hands in every Congregation : What is the importance of {αβγδ} , we are not now to be taught , having in the beginning of this discourse set it down at large , that though the original of it refer to the ceremony of holding up of hands , yet it signifies simply to ordain or constitute , without any respect to that ceremony ; and when it doth refer to it , it alwayes denotes their hands , and suffrages , of whom it is spoken , and cannot be imagined so much as to intimate the suffrages of other men . And then , first , it would be as unreasonable to infer from the original of the word , that that ceremony was there used , as Act. 1. to resolve that they used Counters in reckoning , or numbring Matthias with the eleven Apostles , because the word {αβγδ} there , is derived from {αβγδ} a Counter , which was usual in numbring .

And secondly , if it were granted , that the word must here import ( according to the original of it ) to ordain by holding up of hands , there is not from thence the least advantage gained toward the desired conclusion . For it was distinctly Paul and Barnabas which did thus {αβγδ} ordain by thus holding up the hands , and not the Assembly of all the Christians . And if no part of this were so , yet thirdly , what he saith of their being authorized and chosen by the Assembly of Christians , is another heap of Confusions : For whatever choosing can be imagined of the Assembly , that must ( as the choosing of the Deacons , Act. 6. ) be by authority from the Apostles , who again after that , were to give unto them that were so chosen , all the authority that they were to have ; And so the choice , whatsoever it were , proceeded , and the authority , followed after ; and again , the choice onely was supposeable to be from the Assembly , the authority being totally derived from the Apostles : both which are confounded and transposed by this Gentleman .

But , saith he , the manner of choosing Magistrates and officers in all those Cities , was by plurality of suffrages , and to ordain an officer in any of the Cities , was no mo●e but to bring the people together , to elect him by plurality of Votes : It was therefore the Assembly that elected their own Elders , the Apostles were onely Presidents of the Assembly , to call them together for such election , and to pronounce them elected , and to give them the benediction , which now is called consecration . This is again very far from prevailing any thing toward the desired conclusion . For first , whatsoever be supposed of the manner of electing officers and Magistrates in those heathen Cities , 't is sure enough that was not the business then in hand ; Paul and Barnabas came not thither for the election of an {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} ( as of a Maior , or Sheriffs , or Aldermen ) in that City . These itinerant Apostles , that were not of their Corporations , were not certainly the Presidents ●f their Courts or Common Councels , to assemble , or bring them together for those Elections . This is as remote a conjecture , as that formerly mentioned of Pauls ordaining Elders by the power which he had received from his Master Gamaliel ; The truth is visibly in the midst between them , what they did was to constitute Bishops in each City over the Christians , and therein they acted neither as Jews , nor Gentiles , but as Apostles of Christ , from whom they had their authority to preach , to receive beleivers , to order them in the service of God , and so leaving them , to constitute those which should do it in their absence . All which hath nothing of their heathen Customes in it , nay the Apostles ( saith In Ep. ad Cor . Clemens , a writer of those times ) constituted their first-fruits Bishops of those who should beleive , {αβγδ} , who therefore not yet beleiving , are not imaginable to be the Electors of their Bishops .

Secondly , what reason can be rendred , why to ordain should be no more , but to bring the people together to elect ? It was even now to hold up hands , and ordain by doing so , That differs much from the bare assembling the people : So no grounds are there yet produced for the inferring the Conclusion [ It was therefore the Assembly that elected . ]

And yet thirdly , If again all this were granted to him , he hath so ordered the matter , that it would be nothing available to him : For 't is by him still acknowledged , that the Apostles gave the benediction , which now is called consecration . And if they did so , that is all we mean by ordination , when by that word we render {αβγδ} , and so all that we contend for in this business : For of ordination it hath formerly been shewed at large , that it was the communicating that power to others , which had by Christ been given to the Apostles ; To them it was conveyed by the visible descent of the holy Ghost upon them , from them to others , onely by prayer , and benediction , and imposition of hands , the ceremony of conveying power to successors . And all this we now adayes call Consecration , the separating men , i.e. the consecrating , setting them apart to holy offices and dignities in the Church , and if this , all this while , be allowed the Apostles peculiarly , and not the Assembly of Christians , then is all granted , that is by any man pretended to , on this head of Ordination of Teachers .

For to conclude this matter , though both here and in the place to Titus , there is no one word of Election , or choice to this office , but onely of ordination , giving them Commission who were chosen , yet it is willingly allowed , that the Election of Church-officers doth not alwayes belong to the same persons , who are to ordain . The practise is sufficiently known in this broken Church of ours , The Parochial Minister is chosen , and nominated by the Patron , who is sometimes the whole Congregation , sometimes one principal person in it , the Lord of the Manor , the King , the Bishop , &c. And he ( save when it is the Bishop himself that hath the right of Patronage ) presents him to the Bishop , and as he , upon approbation of the person , institutes him to that Cure of Souls , so he ordains him by imposition of hands , to the office of a Deacon and Presbyter .

And so likewise for the ordination or consecration of a Bishop , as was formerly said , The King nominated , the Dean and Chapter did choose , ( and if they found just cause to return an {αβγδ} , he is unworthy , in stead of signifying their choice , no doubt they should be heard ) but the Councel of Bishops ordained him . And so still the Election differing so clearly from the ordination , and the election being not the thing contended for , but onely the ordination or consecration , that being yielded to belong to the Bishops or Elders peculiarly , and not to the assembly of Christians , the whole Controversie is yielded us , in the eager'st part of the Contention .

Which being done , I shall not need to contend any farther , or make any answers to the subsequent parts of that Section ; Otherwise it were easie to shew , that {αβγδ} {αβγδ} . or Antistes , the ordinary title of Bishops in Justine Martyr , and some of the Ancients , was somewhat more then a bare Pres●dent of an Assembly , as that extends but to numbring of votes , declaring who is chosen , and giving a single vote ] the name being a name of rule , and dignity , and power , and not onely of Presidency , but Prefecture , and all one with {αβγδ} Bishop ( who had the rule of the whole Church , and not onely the principal place , or {αβγδ} in the Councel ) as may appear ( among many others ) by three ancient Records .

The one of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth , in his Epistle to the Athenians , Euseb . Hist . l. b . 6 . {αβγδ} . where having made mention of Publius {αβγδ} , the Prefect or President of them , he presently mentions Quadratus {αβγδ} , that after the martyrdome of Publius was constituted their Bishop . Epiphan . Haer . 72. The other of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra , in his Epistle to Julius Bishop of Rome , where speaking of himself , and other Bishops of the Churches infested by the Hereticks , {αβγδ} , saith he , {αβγδ} , they have attempted shrewd things against the Churches of God , and us the Presidents , i.e. Bishops of them . The third of the Councel of Ephesus , Act. 18. where {αβγδ} , the Presidents of the Churches of Cyprus , are the same that in the beginning of the Canon are {αβγδ} , the Bishops of the Province of the Cypriots . And in a word , their very title of {αβγδ} , Presidents , or Prefects of Churches , and not of Synods or Councels , is a determination of this business , and concludes them to have had the rule of the Church , and not onely the first place , or Presidency , or Prolocutorship in the Councel ; And therefore Praesidentes is oft the title of Bishops in Tertullian , who yet is known to have asserted the Supreme Authority and Power in the Churches to belong to them .

I now proceed to the second place , that to Titus , c . 1.5 . Tit . 1.5 . to examine what advantage he can draw from thence to his pretensions . His words are these , Because all the Churches had their Presbyters ordained in the same manner : where the word is constitute ( as Tit. 1.5 . ) {αβγδ} , for this cause have I left thee in Crete , that thou shouldst ordain Elders in every City , we are to understand the same thing , namely , that he should call the faithful together , and ordain them Presbyters by plurality of suffrages . That in this place to Titus there is no syllable of mention either of assembling the faithful , or of suffrages in the ordination of Elders , is apparent to any that shall reade the words , and the contrary is not by this Gentleman pretended ; Onely by way of analogie with that former place , where he seems to have concluded an intimation of suffrages by holding up of hands , he concludes it must be so here also , though it be not so much as intimated .

Where first , it were sure more reasonable to interpret S. Lukes obscurer word by S. Pauls plainer ( and from thence to conclude , that as Paul at Iconium , so Titus at Crete , was the person that ordained Elders , and not the whole Church ) then to interpret S. Pauls plainer by the obscurer of S. Luke , and conclude as he concludes : But then secondly , it hath sufficiently been demonstrated , that no such advantage can be drawn from the word {αβγδ} in that Text where it is used . And then sure it can have no influence on this other , where it is not used , but another of a more undoubted signification . The short is , {αβγδ} signifies indifferently to ordain , or design to any office ( without looking back to the Gentile customes from whence it was taken ) and being sometimes used of God personally , Act. 10.41 . is no way limited to popular Elections , unless when it is applyed to the Church , or Assembly of many ( as 2 Cor . 8.19 . it is ) and therefore when the Text is clear , that ( not the Church , but ) Paul and Barnabas did ordain , what a complication of unreasonables will it be , First , from a bare possible Grammatical connotation of one word , to conclude the direct contrary to the whole verse , viz. that they did not ordain , who , saith S. Luke , did , but the Church by plurality of voices ; and then secondly , from this one practise thus strangely concluded , to interpret all other plain affirmations of Scripture to a sense quite contrary to the words , and infer that Titus did not ordain , when S. Paul saith expresly he did , but onely the Assembly of Christians called together by him ?

But , saith he , it had been a strange thing , if in a Town where men perhaps had never seen any Magistrate otherwise chosen , then by an Assembly , those of the Town becoming Christians , should so much as have thought of any other way of election of their Teachers and Guides , i.e. of their Presbyters ; otherwise called Bishops , then this of plurality of suffrages . I shall not need dispute whether every Town in Crete , as also Iconium , Lystra , and Antioch , chose all their Magistrates by plurality of suffrages . 't is sure enough that in this matter there is no place for such arguings : for first , to his mention of a Town , &c. 't is evident , that beleivers were at first but few in every Town or City , ( they were not whole Corporations at once converted , nor consequently could they act in such capacities ) but , as Clemens Romanus saith ) they that were by the Apostles constituted Bishops and Deacons in several Cities and Regions , were constituted over those that should after beleive , there were oft so few at the present . And then as fast as any did come in to the faith , they readily submitted themselves to those by , and under whom they did come in , and were not at all troubled with the consultation or deliberation , about the way of electing their Teachers and Guides , i.e. their Bishops , as is here by this Gentleman supposed .

Secondly , it must be remembred , that wheresoever the Gospel was preached , it came originally from Jerusalem , and then , as Agrippa in Philo saith of that City , that it was {αβγδ} , The Metropolis not only of Iudaea one region , but of many others , {αβγδ} , &c. because of the Colonies which that sent out to Aegypt , Phoenice , and both the Syria's , nay to Pamphilia , Cilicia , and a great part of Asia , as far as Bythinia and Pontus , &c. So in reason the Church in Lystra , and Iconium , and Antioch , where Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders , Act. 14. were to follow the patterns at Jerusalem . And there we know it was not by the suffrages of the people that an Elder assumed into the Sanhedrin , but the Prince or head of the Sanhedrin received him in by imposition of hands , and so in the creation of Scribes and Doctors of the Law : And for the Church of Christians there , we have already shewed that James the Just , the first Bis●op of that Church , was by the Apostles , not by the Assembly , advanced to that Praefecture . And agreeably in other Churches , it will be much more reasonable ( if such considerations may prevail ) to deduce the circumstances of ordaining Elders , from the Cu●●omes familiar to them that preached the faith unto them , then from the former usages of them to whom it was preached , who were not to dispute , but to beleive , and receive the Institutions , as well as doctrines which were brought them .

But then thirdly , the matter is yet farther beyond all controversie ; For sure the heathen ( as formerly the Jewish ) Cities , to whom the Gospel was to be preached by Christs command , were not to choose their guides , or Teachers , Christ was not chosen by those to whom he preached ( Ye have not chosen me , saith he ) he came from heaven on that errand of his Fathers , and happy they , whom he was thus ple●sed to choose , to call , and preach to . And when his Apostles , after his example , go and preach to all nations , and actually gather disciples , they choose their Auditors , and not their Auditors them : And they that give up their names to the obedience of the Gospel , one branch of that obedience obliges them to observe those who are placed over them by God , not onely their Civil Parents and Magistrates , but Pastors , whom the holy Ghost , either mediately or immediately , hath set over them .

And so sure there is no place of disputing left , whether they whom the holy Ghost made their overseers , Act. 20.28 . had the plurality of the suffrages of the people or no : For , besides that if it were so , never any Apostle or Pastor should be received by the faithful in any City , till a major part of the City , by having received the faith , were made capable of receiving him , ( which , we know , was not the way , when there was , in comparison , so little faith on the earth , to the far wider fields of infidelity ) It will also follow , against those express words of Scripture , that not the holy Ghost , but they have placed the {αβγδ} overseers over them . And then I should gladly be advertised of the reason , why , when S. Paul wrote so many Epistles to whole Churches , he never gave directions for the qualifying , and choosing , and ordaining of Church-officers in any of them , but reserved that seasonably for the business of those Epistles , which were directed to the single persons of Bishops , Timothy and Titus , and that with a {αβγδ} , these things I write to thee , 1 Tim . 3.14 . immediately annexed to the discourse on that matter : It being perfectly vain to instruct him in the due qualifications of those that were admitted to those offices , to which he had no power to choose or ordain any .

Besides these , many other evidences there are premised in this discourse , which must not in any reason be here repeated , which render the conclusion of this Section most visibly void of all appearance of truth , that there never was any choosing of Bishops , ( before the Emperors found it necessary to regulate them , &c. i.e. at least till Constantines time ) but by the Assemblies of Christians in every several Town .

As for the continual practise even to this day , in the Election of the Bishops of Rome , by which he thinks his assertion confirm'd , It is directly and visibly contrary : for at this day , 't is known , that the Cardinals , that are present , do elect the Pope , and the Bishops among them consecrate or ordain him ; and so whatsoever is meant by Election , whether choice of the person , or conveying the office to him , 't is certain it is not done by the Assembly of the Christians , meaning , as before he expresses himself to do , the whole Congregation .

And for the argument added to back this Testimony , That if the Bishop of any place had the right of choosing another to the Pastoral office , in any City , at suchtime as he went from thence , much more had he the right to appoint his successor in that place in which he dyed . 't is not imaginable what this argument can conclude in favour of the disputer : Fo● first , if the Bishop cannot choose his own successor , either removing or dying , yet it follows not ( but is far removed from all truth ) that the Assembly chooses him ; If we speak of Election strictly taken , and differing from Ordination , the Principal of the Clergy , Colledge of Cardinals at Rome , the Chapter of the Cathedral Church in other places , may and are known to do it : And yet a notable testimony of that matter we have already mentioned out of Clemens Romanus , that the Apostles that constituted Bishops in every City , did in their life times make a catalogue of persons that should succeed in every See .

But if we speak , as this Gentleman doth , more loosely , and make Election and Ordination all one , then the Metropolitan , as Titus in all Crete , and not any inferior Bishop in his own Church , or else the Councel of Bishops , and not any one Bishop , or , as the ancient Canons require , three Bishops at the least , may and do ordain the successor , and so , though not the removing or dying Bishop , yet not the whole Church , or Assembly of Christians neither .

That ordinarily the removing or dying Bishop cannot ordain his own successor , is true upon these other accounts , and not upon that one , which is pretended , First , that the election of the Bishop doth belong to other hands , as is premised ; Secondly that one single Bishop is by the Canons made incompetent for the consecration of a Bishop , There are to be three at least , See Can . Apost . 1. & 2. and Synod . Nicen . c . 4. And thirdly , that the Canons again command that no Bishop shall be ordained sine titulo , without a Church ( to which he is elected ) vacant to receive him ; which therefore cannot be pretended , as long as the Bishop lives . All which reasons being of force against any mans ordaining his successor , are far from hindring him from being one of the three Bishops , that may ordain any to a vacant Church . And of that sure this Gentleman is sufficiently satisfied , that although the Bishop cannot ordain his own successor , yet he can with other Bishops ordain anothers successor . And therefore it is apparent , that this was but an artifice to amuze his Reader , himself acknowledging the conclusion , which he would seem to invalidate or confute by it .

Having now dispatched all that this Gentleman hath said of the Ordination of Teachers , I am again permitted to retire , and conclude this Treatise .

The sixth Quaere . Of the Observation of Christmas-day , and other Festivals of the Church .

IN discoursing of the annual celebration of the feast of Christs Nativity , it will , to any that were not contentious , bee thought sufficient , to put him in minde of S. Pauls argument , the customary practise of the Church ; The practise of this Church . And that in this particular Church of England it is of so ancient usage , that we have no other beginning assigned to it , then the same which our stories give of the plantation of the Gospel among us .

That it is thus ancient , is evidently supposed and implyed by one objection which some men have to the observation of it , the retaining of some heathen usages in it , of which sort , if there be any continued by the ruder multitude , as they are no part of the office of that feast , and consequently not imputable to the doctrine of our Church in this matter , so are they as undeniable testimonies of the Antiquity , and uninterrupted continuance of this practise , even from the time of our first conversion from heathenism . For otherwise in case of a later date or discontinuance , it is not imaginable how any heathen usage should be found to have been ( and still to remain ) adherent to it .

Of the plantation of Christianity among us of this Island , The plantation of Christianity here . it is acknowledged that there was a double date , the one appertaining to the Saxons or English , the other to the farre more ancient Britains .

For that of the Britains , it was , if History and Monuments may be beleived , either Apostolical , or very near the Apostles times . And this will appear less improbable , if we take notice of what is said by S. Paul , 2 Tim . 4.10 . that Crescens was gone ( sent by S. Pa●l ) into Galatia , Titus to Dalmatia : where Galatia being an aequivocal word ▪ and belonging to Gallia or France , ( 1 Mac . 8.2 . where it is joyned with Spain ; and so in Josephus , Ant. l. 12. c . 17 , where the Romans are said to have subdued {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , France and Spain ) as well as to a part of Asia , anciently inhabited by the Gauls , Epiphanius affirms distinctly ( in the Heresie of the {αβγδ} ) that Gallia or France was the place there spoken of : And so the French have it by ancient Tradition , and so the nearness of France to Italy and Rome , where S. Paul was at the writing of that Epistle , makes it most probable , especially when it is considered that Dalmatia , which is there named with it , is situate over against Italy . And then what is so early affirmed in Scripture of the communicating the Gospel to France , which is so near to us , removes all improbability from those Histories , which record the plantation of the Gospel in these Islands in the Apostles times , which I the rather observe , because Joseph of Arimathea , who is resolved by Mr. Camden out of Ecclesiastick Writers ( who , saith he , had it ex antiquae fidei authoribus , out of as ancient and credible authors , as we have any ) to have planted Christianity here , is said by them to have come hither ex Galliâ , out of France . That this was in Tiberius's reign , is the affirmation of Gildas ; And as it is clear by Tertullian , that the British Islands were long before his time converted to Christianity ; and by Origen on Ezek . Hom. 4. Britanniam in unius Dei consentire religionem , that Britanny had received the Religion of the one God , i.e. Christianity ; so it is in our stories affirmed , and by the Records of other Nations acknowledged , that Lucius the King of Britain ( about the year of Christ 180. ) was the first king of the whole world which received the Christian faith ; and by the Epistle of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome to him ( if that be authentick ) it doth not onely appear that he was acknowledged by him to be Vicarius Dei in regno suo , the Vicar of God in his own Kingdome , i.e. far from any subordination , or subjection to him , that wrote it , but that before that writing of his , and not from that present Bishop of Rome , the Kingdome of Britain had ( as the words of the Epistle are ) Susce●istis enim nuper mis●ratione divinâ in regno Britanniae legem & fidem Ch●isti , habetis penes vos in regno utramque paginam , ex illis per consilium regni vestri sume l●g●m , & per illam Dei potentiâ vestrum rege Britanniae regnum . received by Gods mercy the law and faith of Christ , the New and Old Testament , out of which he advises him by the advise of his Realm to take a Law , and by the same to rule .

And although by Diocletians persecution the Christian faith and discipline is said to have been sorely shaken here , yet it was not so far extinguished , but that within ten years after three of our Bishop , Eborius of York , Restitutus of London , and Adelfus Coloniae Londinensium , were present and subscribed to the Councel of Arles , eleven years before the first Councel of Nice : See Concil . Gallic . per Sirmund . tom . 1. p. 9. and Sir Henry Spelman in his Anglican Councels , p. 23.

This is sufficiently acknowledged , but yet may receive some light from one observation , The celebration of Easter by the ancient British and Scotish Christians , was contrary to the custome of the Western Church , saith Bede ; That this practise of theirs was taken up by themselves upon any novel fancy , may not be imagined , nor indeed is it so charged upon them , 't was certainly derived to them by their Antecessors , who in all probability took it from the first planters of Christianity among them : And then those must be some such as in the very Apostolical times kept their Easter ( as in the East the first Christians did ) after the Jewish manner . And so though this be an evidence that neither Peter , nor Paul , nor C●escens , nor any of those that usually accompanied either of those two Apostles , the founders of the Church of Rome , did bring the Christian faith to this Island , but rather Joseph of Arimathea , or Simon Zelotes , as others affirm , yet in respect of the antiquity of the Plantation , there was some colour for the affirmation of de Pet & Paul . ad diem 29 J●unii . Simeon Metaphrastes , that S. Peter {αβγδ} , stayed in Britain some time , converted many , and constituted Churches , and ordained Bishops in the 12. year of Nero's reign . And he cites it out of Eusebius , that he spent 23. years in Rome and Britain , and the We●tern Cities . But the authority of that Writer is not great .

And ( as for the feast of Easter , of which there can be no question , so ) for the observation of this feast of the Nativity among those first British Christians ( though our Records of those times are but very thin and dark , yet ) one evidence we have of moment in this matter , referred to in a Pract . Cat . p. 183. former discourse , but now fit to be set down more fully . Christmas day is frequently called in our old Monuments {αβγδ} , i . e . Midwinter-day : Midwinter-day . From whence , I suppose , it may reasonably be concluded , that when that name was first applied to that day , the day whereon Christmas fell , was in the Calendar either conincident with , or not far removed from the Winter Solstice . Now supposing with the Western Church , that our Saviour was born on the 25. of December ( as shall anon be farther proved , and doth in some measure appear , by remembring , that the day which from those times we still continue to call Midsummer-day , is on the 24th of June , and so directly half a year from the 25th of December ) it will follow by calculation ( with which I shall not trouble and tire the Reader ) that it must be soon after our Saviours times , that this day was capable of that appellation , and consequently that the day was here celebrated so early . Now ( we know ) by reason of the procession of the Aequinoxes and Solstices , the Solstitial or Midwinter-day , when the Sun enters Capricorn , is a fortnight distant from our Christmas-day , and so the Summer Solstice is proportionably distant from Midsummer-day , as we still call it . And therefore the beginning of the celebration of this day in this Nation , must be fastned at , or near that time when this 25th of December fell on the Winter Solstice , i.e. a fortnight sooner then the Gregorian Calendar hath placed it , which being considered , will argue the celebration very ancient , and bordering upon Christs time . And partly upon this account it was that Pope Gregory XIII . undertook the reformation of the Calendar , to reduce the Aequinoxes ( upon which the celebration of Easter depends ) and so consequently the Solstices , to the seats they obtained at the time of the Nicene Councel : But he went no higher ; If he had , this might have been more evident .

This being thus far clear , will set these farther characters upon this , The B●itissh Church independent from Rome . or any other Christian solemnity , Easter , Pentecost , &c. which is of original or immemorial usage in this Nation ; First , that the antiquity of it doth no way argue that it hath any thing of the corruptions of the Roman Se● adhe●ing to it , but evidently the contrary : For it is manifest by the stories that Augustine the Monk was very far from being the first planter of Christianity in this Nation , that he found British Bishops here at his coming , from whose Predecessors and founders , and not from his Ordo Romanus , this Church of ours is obliged , with acknowledgement to God , to date it s Christianity . To this purpose we may see the C●ncil . Anglic . p. 188. answer of the Bishop of Bangor to Augustine the Monk , requiring his subjection to the Roman Church , Bid yspie a diogel , &c. i.e. Notum sit , & absque dubitatione vobis , quòd nos omnes sumas , & quilibet nostrum , obedientes & subditi Ecclesiae Dei & Papae Romae , & unicuique vero & pio Christiano , ad amandum unumquemque in suo gradu , in perfectâ charitate & ad juvandum unumquemque eorum in verbo & facto , fore filios Dei . Et aliam obedientiam quam istam non scio debitam ei quem vos nominatis esse Papam , nec esse Patrem Patrum vendicari & postulari . Et istam obedientiam nos sumus parati dare & solvere ei , & cuique Christiano continuò . Praeterea nos sumus sub gubernatione Episcopi Caerlegionis super Osca , qui est ad supervidendum sub Deo super nobis , ad faciendum nos servare viam spiritualem . Be it known to you and without doubt , that we are , and every one of us obedient and subiest to the Church of God and Pope of Rome , and to every true and pious Christian , to love every one in his degree with perfect charity , and to help every one of them by word and deed to be the sons of God . As for any other obedience , I do not know that I owe it to him , whom ye call the Pope , or that he hath right to challenge or require to be the Father of fathers . This obedience we are ready to give and pay to him , and to every Christian continually . Besides we are placed under the government of the Bishop of Caerlyon upon Oske , who is to supervise under God over us , to make us keep the spiritual way . So again , Sir Henry Spelman , Concil . Anglic . p. 26. out of the Annals of Gisburn , cites thus , Ab urbe legionum Meneviam translata est sedes Metropolitana , tempore Sancti David Episcopi per Regem Arthurum , ubi steterunt 13. Archiepiscopi , usque Samsonem , — à quo usque tempus Henrici primi sederunt Meneviae undecem Episcopi , & usque ad hoc tempus Episcopi Meneviae à suis suffraganeis Wallensibus ibidem fuerunt consecrati , nullâ penitus professione vel sub●ectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae . From Caerlyon the Metropolitan Seat was translated to Saint Davids by King Arthur , in the time when Saint David was Bishop there , where there stood thirteen Archbishops until Samson , f●om whence to the time of King Henry the first , there sate at Saint Davids eleven Bishops , and until this time the Bishops of S. Davids were there consecrated by their own Welsh suffragans , without making any profession of subjection to any other Church . To this I might adde that of Boniface the Martyr , styled the Apostle of Germany , who in a matter of doubt consulted not onely the Bishops of Rome , but Nothelme also Primate of England , and by the Rescript of Nothelme reforms the Pope's , saith T. 9. Ann. 766. n . 47. 53. Baronius : And that of Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury under William the Conqueror , who being often cited by Gregory VII . to Rome , Ep Greg . 7. in Concil . t . 4. would not be wrought on either by his threats or blandishments to obey him . But these are not so pertinent to our present matter .

Secondly , that any such ancient usage of this particular Church , if it had no other ground to stand on ( as its foundation ) or concurrence of all other Christian Churches ( as pillars ) to sustain it , were a very competent Authority for the present continuance of such a practise in this Kingdome . This Anglicane , or rather ancient British Church , being one of those , which by its foundation , and by force of the known Canon in the Co●ncel of Ephesus , in the case of the Cypriots , is {αβγδ} , {αβγδ} . subordinate to no forain Patriarch , and consequently invested with unquestionable power to institute ceremonies for its self ( as it shall judge most useful , most for edification , and most agreeable to the analogy of faith ) which consequently may not , without great temerity , be changed and abolished by any . And therefore to every one , which is still willing to continue a member of this persecuted Church , wherein he was baptized , and yet hath been willing to comply either with the humor of these late times ( in that which he counts no substantial part of his Religion ) or with some Protestant Churches elswhere in disusing these observances , I shall , before I conclude this part of my designed method , tender the consideration of these few things .

First , that it is sufficiently clear , The disusing of these feasts blameable . that this observation is an undoubted part of that establishment which the Reformation in this Kingdome ( which alone of all others hath had the honour and reputation of being regular and discreet , in opposition to popular and tumultuous , and to be thought worthy to give , not to receive rules from other platforms ) hath enacted for us . And that , that appears by Act of Parliament ( as well as Church-Canon ) which gave authority to the Liturgie .

Secondly , that in other Reformed , especially the Lutheran , Churches , this and other feasts of Christ are retained in their Establishments , and in some few places , where the Reformation proceeding less regularly , hath in the tumultuary haste left out , or swept it away , It is yet either by the Confessions of those Churches , or by sober members of them , approved and wished for : Of this the words of the Helvetian Confession , and not onely Bucers approbation of it in our Liturgie , and the like of many others in those times , but also the express words of the famous du Plessis of France , complaining that they had not retained the observation of it in the French Reformation ; and since him , the practise of some others , who in their weekly preachings have constantly given Christmas-day the solemnity of a Sermon ( wherein the whole body of their publick devotions now adayes consists ) are sufficicient testimonies . And much more might be added in that matter .

Thirdly , that the razing this Festivity out of the Calendar of the Church , or the encouraging those that do so , in laying down or disusing the observation of it , is an act of Division and Separation ( in the former , and compliance with Division and Separation in the latter ) from the particular Church of England , and from the universal Church of Christ in all ages , especially that of the first , and the purest times .

Fourthly , that the present complexion of these times doth no way invite the laying aside this Usage , or render it excuseable in them which have disused it ; It being for the ignoranter fort a little too visible , that the omission of the Christmas Sermons and Services , doth tend to raze out of their mindes that slender knowledge , which they have gathered of the birth of Christ , and the consequent mysteries of our Religion , and , by gratifying their worldly affections , doth much assist Atheism or blindness , in the hope and attempt of supplanting all Christian knowledge among many . And it being with great reason affirmed by the Casuists , that the necessaries of beleif , for the most vulgar sort , are no more then the great Holydayes of the year , ( the services of which keep the ignorance of them from being excusable in any ) This ejecting all those Holydayes out of the Christian Church ( being , as it is , superadded to the difusing of the Creeds and Catechism ) will probably , if God please not to avert , soon dispatch all opinion of any necessity of beleiving any of those Articles , and in time , where the Ministers care of setting apart other dayes for the preaching of those truths , doth not help to supply the defect in some degree , ( for by long discourses wholly to supply it , it is not to be hoped ) it will be the supplanting of the foundation it self , and so at last the intercepting of all ( the most superficial ) knowledge of the first elements of our Christianity .

As for those of deeper knowledge , who less seem to want such helps , yet is their general impatience of sound doctrine , their readiness to embrace whatever is novel , and contrary to the ancient Faith and Principles , become now so grosly apparent , and the practise of Christian Precepts , especially of hospitality and charity , so scandalously out-dated , that it is but needful to take the gardiners course , and dig to the roots of Christianity , to lay it open and bare , if ever we expect it should recover from barrenness , and flourish in more verdure , then of late it hath done .

Lastly ( to lay aside all that may be disputable , or possible not to be assented to by any ) I desire it may be considered sadly , Whether the abolition of that solemnity , which hath no other design , but to teach us what we have received from God in Christ , and to assist us to render God a pious publick acknowledgement of it at some set time ( which without such provision is sure to be neglected by many ) be the fittest discharge of our charity to the souls of ignorant seducible men , or whether they can truly receive comfort from having yielded an assistance , or complyance to the removing it out of this Church .

If to all this be opposed the fear and danger of a threefold guilt in the continuing of this observance , the first of Will-worship , because this is not commanded in Scripture ; the second , of Superstition in observing dayes ; the third , of Riot and Excess , which is frequently observable in such Festivals : Then as to the two former of these , I have given a large answer in Treat . of Willworsh . and of Superstit . and Pract . Cat . l. 2. §. 12. another place , so to the third I shall now enlarge what was there but briefly touched , conceiving it a matter of great importance , that so pious a custome should be clearly vindicated from so impious an appendage , and that this discourse , which is sincerely designed to the advantage and welfare of all , should not be to any an occasion of falling .

And first , I freely acknowledge , that all riot and excess is a sin , The riot of which these Festivals are accused . and that farre greater and more punishable in a Christian , then in any man else , particularly then in the Jew , whose promises of an earthly plenty are not so contrary and irreconcileable with corporal excess , as are the spiritual joyes that are the Christians eminent ( if not onely ) portion under promise , both in this and in another life .

But then secondly , Festivity and Hospitality is very separable from riot , or luxury , in a Christian Commonwealth ; The heathen feasts and sacrifices had little else in them , gluttony and drunkenness being the prescribed worship , and way of approving themselves to ( and of pleasing or serving ) some of their Idol-gods , and uncleanness being the design of others , if not openly in their Temples , yet more closely in their recesses and mysteries , their {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , and so both sorts recommended to them under an opinion of Piety and Religion . But the Christian Festival being wholly made up of spiritual dainties , in receiving Christian instruction , offering Prayers and Thanksgivings and Alms , and not feeding corporally , save in the Sacrament onely ( where I hope no excess hath ever been observable in this Nation ) is thus far free from having any degree of luxury , intrinsecal to it , or inseparable from it .

As for the customary hospitality or good cheer of those seasons ( besides that at other times there hath been , by those who have laid down this custome , as great liberty used in feasting , since their departure from the Church , as ever they used before in time of Christmas , which argues the good cheer not to be the thing disliked , but the Christian occasion or season of it ) First , it must be acknowledged that that is not any other then a decent attendant on that , as on any , Festivity , ( not of the essence or substance of it ) And then what reason can be assigned why it should not be lawful thus outwardly to express Christian joy by some change of Clothes or Diet , from that which is ordinary at other times , to that which is as ordinary at festivities? {αβγδ} , saith Greg . Nyssen of Easter , The ploughman dresses himself in a festival guise , and , {αβγδ} , the poor man putteth himself in the rich mans attire , and the rich man {αβγδ} sets himself out in lustre above ordinary . And S. Hierome saith of those that mourned for their friends , that at Easter they laid aside their mourning garments , and put on their most rich apparel . And secondly , why should it not be most lawful to bless , and praise , and give thanks to God ( after the manner of all men , Jews and Gentiles , who alwayes had feasts annexed to their Sacrifices ) and to express and demonstrate that , in the enjoyment , and by the acknowledgement of his temporal goodness , so it be done with that one great necessary caution , and reservation of sobriety and thanksgiving , and this more at such a time of commemorating some special mercy received from God , then at another , and especially to take care that the season of acknowledging an eminent mercy of God , be also a remembrancer of the exercise of that eminent Christian duty of Hospitality , and Charity to the poor , and again of a cheerful liberal reception of friends and neighbors , to nourish or breed Christian acquaintances and correspondencies , and adde to the comfort of life by the society , and quiet converse of those others our equals , which stand in need of our examples of Piety and Christian commerce , though they want not the supplies of our bread ? And accordingly the Fathers speak of a rejoycing , which they call {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , earthy and worldly , as well as of another , which they call {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , spiritual and divine , and think that one is very reconcileable with the other .

But then thirdly , if such plenty be not by experience found ( among the generality of the Kingdome ) to be used and enjoyed without sin ( though as long as there is flesh in the world , unreformed by Christianity , this need not be looked on as any strange thing , or the cure of it undertaken by that new Empirical way of applying the remedy to the weapon , not to the Patient , yet ) rather then the faults of this attendant and accessary should be charged to the destroying of the Principal , and rather then the external part should have the fate to devour the inward and more excellent , and when it shall appear really that the excesses and vices of men , occasioned meerly by the Christmas-cheer and sports , are more considerable to the debauching and ruining of souls , then the forementioned uses are beneficial to the improving of them , I shall then profess to beleive , that there is place and season for Reformation in this particular , this accessory , this external part , that attends on this Christian festivity ; and that it is more then time , that the greatest severities be used to that end , that the excesses of men being so impudently irrational , as to assault and pollute that which is most sacred , be also cured by irrational applications , by imposed , and forced abstinencies , that they be discouraged and branded by this Character , that the beasts Physick was found necessary to this bestial disease , the vertue of temperance thought fit to be taught them by a prescribed impossibility of intemperance .

But then still this penance which is due to the guilty , is not due ( but impertinent ) to the innocent , belongs onely to the wicked , as Abraham told God , and not to the righteous , to the carnal , not the spiritual , to the eating , not to the praying and praising part of the festivity ( As in the ancient Church when on dayes of festivities men began to adorn themselves sumptuously to shew their pride , not to honour the day , and fared deliciously to surfetting and drunkenness , the Fathers did not thereupon forbid what before they allowed , but sought to reduce them from that pride and luxury , {αβγδ} {αβγδ} , I do not forbid the festivity , but reprehend the immoderation , saith Greg . Nazianzene ) And so if it must come under the discipline , it will not be necessary , I hope , that the discipline be more severe , then the utmost of the Primitive sharpest Censures were , that if it must be delivered up to Satan , it be no farther then for the destruction of the flesh , of the riotous , outward part of it , so as may be reconcileable with the saving of the spirit , that hath deserved no wrath , the preserving of the inward more spiritual part ( the soul as it were ) of the festivity .

Mean-while it is clear , that the Church-part of the festivity is not supposed guilty in this kinde , and therefore can in no justice be found liable to the intemperance of the Parlour , whatsoever that be supposed to be : And for the other , the eating and sporting part , against which all the charge must be laid , that need not be abolished neither , save onely in case of great and general abuses . And that case will not be pleadable , till first , upon endevour to reform , it appear , that there is no place of remedy for the abuses , no imaginable means of rescuing a laudable custome from an impious appendage ( and then truly I know not to what purpose are Laws , and defigns of Reformation , if the Mattock must do all the work , the Pruning-hook is become unuseful ) and Secondly , till the abuses are not onely so great , as discernible to out-ballance the good uses , but also so general , that ( as in the business of the brazen Serpent ) the whole Church in a manner runs madding into these very great abuses .

Whereas indeed the utmost that can , without great want of charity , be pretended by any in this matter of Christmasse , is onely this , that they which are loosely or lasciviously disposed , do turn this feasting into luxury and excess ; and so , I beleive , the same men will be observed to do the Lords-day also , when yet they have not the temptations of a feast , but onely the advantages of a rest to recommend it to ( or excuse it in ) them ; while those that are not so ill , and yet none of the best , make it but a time of refreshment from their ordinary labour and travel in their Callings : But on the other side , those that are Christianly disposed make use even of the most external , grosser part of it to special spiritual advantages , to the glory of God , and comfort of their souls , Christian Conversation , pious discourse , commerce of souls , charity , hospitality , and the like .

But then lastly I adde , after all this complaint of great and general abuses , revellings , &c. that if we look no farther then this Kingdome of ours , wherein they are thus severely visited , the charge appeares to be most unjust . For the day of the birth of Christ , Christ-mass day it self , hath never , that I heard of , been observed among us to be guilty of these , but on the contrary hath been kept ( if not much more ) certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the yeare , in frequenting the services of the Church , in the use of the Liturgy , Sermon , Sacrament of the Lords supper , in keeping at home every man and woman in their own family , and not touching either Cards or Dice that day . The excesses which have been observed , have been on the dayes after the Nativity ; and yet I suppose every Christian house-keeper may with ordinary diligence so regulate his hospitality and the sports which he permits in his family , at those times also , that they may tend to no worse end , then the encrease of Christian charity , and kindness among neighbours all the yeare after .

And so still this ( and that really the most considerable ) praejudice , taken from the riots occasioned by this festivity , is proved of small validity against any ( even the grosser ) part of it , and of none at all against the Festivity it self . But yet may reasonably be made use of , as an enforcement of that Exhortation of S. Augustine , Dom . 1 , adv . Quotiescunque natalem Domini , &c. celebrare disponitis , ebrietatem ante omnia fugite , Whensoever ye prepare to celebrate the day of Christs birth , beyond all things avoid drunkenness . And this is the duty of the Ministers to the people , and of all sorts of Governors to the whole Nation , to exhort and perswade all men , that they would not permit the abolition of this Festival to remain an instance of their bestiality to posterity , that they would pay that as a tribute to piety , which severity of Laws may otherwise rend from them , and rather choose to adorn a Christian feast with a Christian temperance , ( which then is most such , when there are advantages and temptations to the contrary ) then impiously to defame a pious usage , and bring vengeance upon it by an impertinent Bestial inordinacy .

To which purpose is that of Greg . Nazianzene , Or. in Pent . {αβγδ} , The Jew feasteth , but according to the letter ; the Greek feasts , but according to the body , celebrating his own Gods and Daemons ; we also feast , but so as it seems good to the Spirit . And of Theodoret , {αβγδ} {αβγδ} , Therapeut . 9. In stead of the old pomps , and unclean practises and discourses , the Christians keep sober feasts , without gluttony , drunkenness , laughter , but in stead thereof have divine hymns , the hearing of the holy Oracles , and Prayer adorned with tears , fit for so holy solemnities . And if this importunity may prove successful , this exception will then be throughly answered , if it be not already , and be as farre from true , as it is now from argumentative .

Having thus far enlarged on this first Consideration , addressed peculiarly as to a member of the Church of England , not yet broken off from that body , wherein he received his baptism , It will not be now unseasonable to consider him as a son of the Universal Christian Church of the whole world , and for his satisfaction , as he is such , to shew him-in brief , what Authority it is by which the Festivals in general , and particularly this of the Nativity of Christ , pretend to stand , in the Catholick Church . And I shall do it by these steps and degrees .

First , by acknowledging , that it is not pretended to have its beginning from any Institution of Christs , Festivalls not instituted by Christ . whil'st he h●re continued upon the earth , but either of the Apostles , or the succeeding Church ; It being very reasonable , that those which acknowledged the receit of so wonderful a mercy from God as was the gift of his Son , and whose hearts were ravished with a sense of the advantages and benefits of it , should desire to celebrate the remembrance of it , and offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ , and that their Piety should not restrain it self within those narrower bounds of doing nothing in the service , and to the honor of Christ , but what was distinctly prescribed , and particularly instituted by him .

Thus among the Jews the feast of the Dedication of the Altar , The {αβγδ} . not that of the building of the Temple by Solomon , which was celebrated in the moneth Tisri , nor that other of repairing of it by Zorobabel , which was kept in the moneth Adar , but a third , in memory of the purging of it by Judas Maccabaeus , observed in Casleu , and so not mentioned in the Canon of the Old Testament , or instituted by God himself , but by the Jews , 1 Mac . 4.59 . was yet observed , and the observation of it approved and confirmed by Christs presence at that feast , Joh . 10.23 .

To these I might adde the festivities at Marriage , Marriage feasts . never instituted by God , as far as we can discern , in the Old Testament , and yet observed by the Jews , Judg . 14.10 , 11. by the space of seven dayes , and before them by Bethuel in Mesopotamia , Gen. 24. for the space of ten dayes ( as seems to be the importance of v. 55. ) and by Laban in Padan Aram , for the space of seven , Gen. 29.22 . ( in like manner as among the Graecians , {αβγδ} , 't was law or custome to have feasts at marriages , saith Athenaeus Deipn . l. 4. and Plutarch gives the reasons of it , Sympos . 4. qu . 4. ) And yet these are so far from being disliked by Christ , that they are honourably mentioned by him in his parables , and vouchsafed his presence and first miracle , Joh . 2.

But it is more pertinent to our present purpose that it be remembred , The Lords d●y . that the weekly feast of the Resurrection of Christ was not instituted by Christ or God himself , but by the Apostles of Christ , and that the mentions of the first day of the week , which we have in the New Testament , are no prescriptions or law for the observing of it , but that , if any thing of that nature be there sought for , it will rather appear to belong to the Annual then weekly feasts . Easter-day . So 1 Cor . 5.8 . {αβγδ} , Let us keep the Paschal festivity , is annexed immediately to Christ our Passover , his having been slain ( and now risen again ) for us , and to that also the {αβγδ} or Lords day , once mentioned Rev. 1.10 . is thought to belong ; And indeed of the institution of that yearly feast by the Apostles , the evidences are clear in the ancient Church , the differences between the Eastern and Western , concerning the time of keeping it , pretending to one Apostle on one side , who kept it according to the Jews account , to other Apostles on the other side , who went by another rule .

Secondly , then for festival dayes in general now under the New Testament , Christian Festivalls . if for not being instituted in Scripture , they be deemed universally unlawful , the Account will be clear , First , that Aerius , the first that affirmed that , was for so doing censured , and for that and other things turned out of the Church for an Heretick ( Epiphanius Haer . 75. ) Secondly , that the unreasonableness of that pretension will be judged of by this one evidence , of the Festivities of the Martyrs , The Martyrs {αβγδ} . the dayes of whose deaths were remembred by the Church , under the title of {αβγδ} Natalitia , or birth-dayes , and S. Stephens day ( who being the Captain of them , that day comprized all others of that rank ) placed next in the Calendar to the Nativity of Christ , and celebrated as chearfully as Pharaohs birth-day in the Old Testament , at Herods in the New , and the Emperors in humane Authors .

Of these we have an early Record of Primitive Antiquity , in the letter of the Church of Smyrna , The Testimony of the Church of Smyrna for Festivalls . on occasion of Polycarps Martyrdome , where having set down the story of it , his {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , combat and consummation , they conclude with their hope and wish , {αβγδ} , that God will now permit them to meet together , with exultation and joy to celebrate the birth-day of his Martyrdome . And that this is no entrenchment or diminution to the worship and adoration due unto Christ , they shew their opinion there ; for having said before , that they worship none but Christ onely , they adde , {αβγδ} , Let us bestow that love upon the Martyrs , which is due to them , as the disciples , and imitators of the Lord . This Testimony being so near the Apostles times , sets a sacred character on those Commemorations ( summed up by the Church into that one of the first-fruits , S. Stephen , in whom the whole heap of the following harvest , this Polycarpe , and all others are included ) as such as were in use before the writing of that Letter , and then there will be no reason to doubt , or need to produce more Testimonies to avouch , that , as Polycarpes day of Martyrdome was celebrated by that Church of which he was Bishop , so the dayes of the death or Martyrdome of the Apostles themselves , the Universal Bishops of the whole Church , were formerly solemnized by them , and that thus early , so as that Church of Smyrna might transcribe that custome from them , it being not imaginable that Polycarpe should have a solemnity assigned him , and the Apostles of Christ , whose copy he but transcribed , be denyed that honour .

Agreeable to this , is that known practise of the first antiquity to assemble at the Monuments of Martyrs , The assemblies at the monuments of Martyrs . before Churches were built , and from such meetings most of the ancient Churches in the world had their beginnings . And ( not to enlarge on so known a Theme ) 't is not onely the affirmation of Gregory Nyssen in the life of Thaumaturgus , that he brought up all his Converts to celebrate the birthdayes of the Martyrs ; and of S. Cyprian , that he used to celebrate their Passions with an anniversary Commemoration , but Tertullian , one of the best Repositories of the practises of the Primitive Church , saith that Christians were wont to celebrate yearly the dayes of the Martyrs birth , i.e. their sufferings , ex majorum traditione , received it from the tradition of their Antecessors , de Cor . Mil . c . 3. All which doth clearly vindicate and give authority ( such as no Christian may despise ) to all the festival observations of Saints dayes , which have been in our Calendar observed , and by our Laws , since the Reformation , continued in our Church , and so without descending more particularly , applies this whole discourse unto them .

But then thirdly , for this one feast of the birth of Christ ( in which our concernments are so great , The feast of Christs Nativity . that Hom. 6. de Nat. Leo could truly say , Dum Servatoris nostri recolimus exortum , invenimur nos nostrum celebrare Principium ; Generatio enim Christi , est origo populi Christiani , & natalis capitis est natalis corporis , The Generation of Christ is the beginning of the Church , the birth day of the head is the birth day of the body ) we have b elswhere produced many Testimonies out of Origen , Pract Cat . 180. Cyprian and Chrysostome , each of them deducing it from the practise of the first Antiquity ; and S. Augustine making it a character of a son of the Church , to solemnize the festivals of it , and this ( principally and by name ) of the Nativity . To which may be added that of the c Author of the Constitutions , Constit . l. 5. c . 13. {αβγδ} , Keep the dayes of the feasts , and first the day of Christs birth . And although {αβγδ} , ● . 27. c . 28. Nicephorus a later Historian say , that Justinus the Emperor first commanded it to be kept festival over the world ( as Justinian , saith he , appointed the day of Purification , under the name of {αβγδ} , because Simeon , &c. met Christs parents in the Temple that day ) yet that belonging onely to the Edict of the Emperor for the universal observation , doth no way prejudge the Churches , whether Apostolical or Primitive , Institution of it . For long before them in Diocletians time , the observation of it is sufficiently known and solemnized in story by the 20000 Christians which were burnt by him on Christmas-day .

Fourthly , for the particular day , whereon this feast is wont to begin , though that be not of any importance to the Institution it self , yet there is little reason to doubt of the truth of our calculation which sets it on the 25th of December The 25 of D●cember . ( That argument drawn by some from the courses of the Priests , is in a little Tract intituled [ Christs birth not mistimed ] evidently demonstrated by a very Mr. I. P. worthy and ingenuous person , to be a meer deceit . ) And ( to pass by the many Testimonies ●ract . C●t . p. 179. elswhere produced to this purpose ) In Joseph the Aegyptian's Arabick Codex of the Councels ( a Manuscript in the Archives of the Publick Library of the University of Oxford , of the gift of Sir Thomas Roe ) this day as well as this feast , is affirmed to stand by Apostolical Canon . The words of the Canon , as it is transcribed by Mr. Gregory , are in English these , Also that you constitute an anniversary feast at the Nativity of the Lord Christ , on the day on which he was born , and that was the five and twentieth of the first Canun ( i.e. of December ) for this is the Principal of all the feasts . Also that ye do every year celebrate the baptism of the Lard Christ upon the day in which he was baptized by John his brodomos ( {αβγδ} ) or forerunner , and that was the sixth day of the second Canun , i.e. of January .

Of this Canon these things are to be observed , The Apostolicall Can●ns . First , that although it be not affirmed that this was made by the twelve Apostles , principally so called , yet if it were framed by those that early succeeded the Apostles in governing the Church , the first Bishops of the Church ( called Apostles also , by communication of that ti●le ) and Apostolical men ( and so 't is probable they were first intitled {αβγδ} , Canons of Apostolical men ) it may truly be styled an Apostolical Canon ; Or if it were one of those which in succeeding times were added and put in to that volume , yet is this an argument of the great antiquity thereof .

Sec●ndly , that in this Canon not onely this anniversary feast of Christs Nativity is commanded to be observed , Christmas day . but also the very day defined , on which he was born , that which we now celebrate , Decemb . 25.

Thirdly , that together with that day which begins the solemnity , at the same time , and by the same Authority , the sixth of January , which we call Twelf-day , Twelfe day . and which ends that solemnity , and , according to the custome of the Jews ( which kept the first and the last day of every feast , dayes of solemn assembly , and so {αβγδ} , great dayes ) is a special Holyday , was instituted also , and so that feast consisted of all the twelve dayes .

Fourthly , that this twelfth day was observed as the day of Christs baptism The day of Christs Baptisme . by John , at which time the holy Ghost appeared and lighted upon him , Mat . 3.16 . That that day was called Epiphany , Epiphany . from the appearing of the Star to the Magi , Mat . 2.2 . is ordinarily conceived , and it may possibly be so , so that we do not from thence beleive , that the Magi came to Christ the twelfth day after his birth , for this for many reasons seems to be a mistake ; for immediately upon the departure of the Magi , The time of the Magi coming to Christ . {αβγδ} , Mat . 2.13 . Joseph and Mary , with the young childe , fled into Aegypt , according to order from God , v. 14. and yet the Text saith , Luk . 2.22 . that at the time of Maries purification , forty dayes after his birth , they went up from Bethlehem to Jerusalem , and therefore the coming of the wise men must needs be after their return from Jerusalem again to Bethlehem : as for that of his returning to Nazareth , Luk . 2.39 . that sure refers to the time of his coming out of Aegypt , Mat . 2.22 . and cannot be imagined before his journey thither , which appears to have been taken from Bethlehem . This , together with the length of the journey from their countrey , thorough both the Arabia's to Judaea , renders it no improbable conjecture , that their coming to Bethlehem was a twelve-moneth after Christs birth ; To which it is consonant which we reade of Herods Edict , having from the wise men exact intelligence of the time , he appointed the killing of all the children , from two years old and under , v. 16. That this day was also the day of the baptism of Christ , though many years after , is farther affirmed by Alcas Cyriacus ( an Arabick MS. of Astronomical Tables in the Archbishops Archives in the Oxford Library ) who calls the sixth of January the feast of the Epiphany , ●8 or benediction of Waters , and so do others also . And accordingly the Church of England hath appointed the first Lesson to be of the Mission of the Baptist , Isa . 40. and the second Lesson to end with the baptism of Christ , Luk . 3.23 .

That the benediction of the Waters denoteth the day of Christs baptism , The name Epiphany . whereby he is , by Chrysostome and other of the Ancients , affirmed to sanctifie the waters , there is no place of question , but whether that day were called Epiphany from thence , in respect of the visible opening of the heavens , and descending of the holy Ghost upon him , or from the first appearing of the Star in the East to the Magi , Mat . 2.2 . which well might be , on the very twelfth day after Christs birth , or from that other appearing of the same Star , when they drew toward the end of their long journey from their Countrey to Bethlehem , v. 9. at that time twelve-moneth , or whether the word signifie no more then the birth of Christ , which is ordinarily called {αβγδ} , and {αβγδ} in the plural ( {αβγδ} , &c. on the day of Ephany , when Christ was born-in the flesh , In fine l. 3. saith Epiphanius ) and may be applied to the last , as well as the first day of the feast , I shall not now define , but acknowledge my self inclined to the last , upon this one score , because many Orthodox Christians in Aegypt are by Epiphanius affirmed to keep the feast of the Nativity on that day : which as it is confuted by S. Hierome on Ezek . c . 1. so might well have its rise from the aequivocalness of that word Epiphany , which as it signifies any kinde of appearing , and so that to the Magi , the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles , so it may be the appearing of Christ first in the world , of which S. Paul affirmeth , and saith , that the salvifick grace of God {αβγδ} hath appeared , Tit . 2.11 .

So Sahid Aben Bat●ic ( a MS. Arabick Historian in the Archives of the Publick Library of the University of Cambridge ) as he is transcribed by Mr. Gregory , in the life of Constantine affirmeth it in these words , Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ was born upon the twenty fifth of the first Canun , i.e. of December , and upon the eleventh day of Tybi , i.e. the sixth of the second Canun , i.e. January was the Epiphany or Baptism of Christ . So the Aegyptian Calendar in Kircker de Comput . Eccles . Copt . c . 3. And so Joannes Antiochenus or Melala , that Christ was born {αβγδ} upon the five and twentieth of December , but was baptized in Jordan a river of Palestine {αβγδ} , on the sixth of the moneth Audine , or January .

So in the forecited Author of the Constitutions , {αβγδ} , Constit . l. 5. c . 13. Let the nativity be celebrated on the 25th day of the ninth moneth , beginning the year in March , when he was conceived . So in the 93 Question under the name of Athanasius Nicaenas , 't is cited out of the {αβγδ} {αβγδ} , Our Lord was born the 25th of the Aegyptian moneth Choeac , which is eight dayes before the Calends of January , and so the 25th of December .

But this is put beyond all question by what hath Pract . Cat . p. 178. The Censual Rolls of Augustus . elswhere been cited out of Chrysostome , and by him produced out of the Censual Tables of Augustus , i.e. those Registers of all that were enrolled by Augustus's Decree , Luk . 2.1 . together with the place , and day of the moneth , and year wherein it was done . That enrolment or {αβγδ} or Census was , we know , the sole occasion of bringing up Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem , and while they were there on that occasion , the dayes were accomplished that she should be delivered , and shee brought forth her first born , v. 6 , 7. To these Tables therefore Justin Martyr makes his resort , Apol . 2. for the evidencing the place of Christs birth , and doth it to the Emperors of Rome , who would easily have been able to disprove him , if it had not been so , {αβγδ} ; as you may learn out of our Rolls . And so Tertullian , Cont . Mar. l. 14. c . 19. Censum Augusti fidelissimum testem Dominicae Nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt , The Roman Archives preserve Augustus Censual Roll , a most faithful witness of the birth of Christ . And from these Rolls S. Chrysostome professes to have it , that this was the day of his birth , Hom. in Nat. ad Pop . Ant. {αβγδ} , We have received the day from those that accurately knew these things , and which dwell in the city of Rome . And accordingly 't is known , that before S. Chrysostomes times this day had been observed at Rome by the Christians there , Ib. {αβγδ} , saith he , from their Antecessors , and from ancient Tradition .

Having past through all the degrees and steps , wherein the observation or this Festival can be concerned , and whereby it is vindicated to that veneration which it hath had so long in the Universal Church , ( and by the way the other Festivals of the Church deduced from the first times , especially by that Testimony of the Church of Smyrna , delivered by them within few years after Christs Epistle was sent to them in the Revelation ) there is no more needful to be added on this Theme , but the Conclusion , The Conclusion . which is obvious and evident from all this , That the fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivals of the Church Universal , the Great dayes and times set apart for the commemorating the several parts of our Redemption wrought by Christ ( in his birth , and the attendants on that , in his Death , and Resurrection , and Ascension , and Mission of his Spirit ) and also the lives and deaths , faith and patience of his holy Martyrs , Apostles , and the whole society of the Saints ( who by their examples and doctrine have contributed so much to our highest advantages , and being dead , do by this means yet speak unto us ) must certainly be looked on by every man , as an act of affected departure from the Universal Church of Christ in all ages , and not onely from the Mother which brought him forth in the faith , the Reformed Church of England . And this will set no excellent character on that which can have nothing but the novelty and contempt of Antiquity , to recommend it to any ; nor will it prove any very good omen or ground of hope , that the despising of these observances will ever bring in more honour to God , and benefit to the Church , then the Institution or Usage of them was by our pious Predecessors designed to do .

And here I must not be so injurious to the Author of the Sixteen Quaeres , touching the rise and observation of Christmas , An Answer to sixteen Quaeres about Christmas . as to leave him any temptation of overvaluing his own dexterities , or thinking his attempts prosperous and victorious over the whole Church of God for so many Centuries , or of continuing his uncharitable conceit of all those , who have retained this feast in their Calendar , as of men , that , beside the guilt of befooling and misleading the people , are , saith he , utterly unable to give any rational account of their practise .

To his Quaeres therefore , though I now hear that others have applyed those Antidotes , which might make this of mine unnecessary , yet I shall give a particular Answer in few words , without repeating unnecessarily what hath more largely been said elswhere , and in this foregoing discourse .

To the first [ Whether such religious customes , as are binding to all the Churches of Jesus Christ , ought not to have sure footing upon the word of God , or Apostolical practise ? ] I say , that there is no necessity that every religious custome ( as that signifies no more then the performing of those duties to God on one set day , which are in every particular justifiable and pious , whensoever they are performed ) which is binding to all the Churches of Jesus Christ ( by the obligation that lyeth on every one to continue in Unity with the Universal Church of the purest times , and to observe their pious Institutions ) should be better founded then so , or be obliged to have any other sure footing upon the word of God , or Apostolical practise . The Primitive Universal Church of Christ may ( and among all pious Christians hath alway been allowed to ) have authority sufficient to prescribe and institute such a rite , as this hath appeared to be , and that Institution to deserve obedience from all meek sons of the Church , who have no reason to break her unity , or lose their parts of the benefits , which are consequent to that , upon such untempting , gainless terms as those .

To the second [ Whether I can substantially prove that Christ was born on the 25th of December , and what my proofs are ? ] I answer , that it may be as substantially proved , as of a fact so long distant from us can well be expected ( and as to the business in hand [ the celebrating an anniversary day ] may be sufficient ) that Christ was born on the 25th of December : And what the proofs are ; hath been set down , § . 36 , &c.

To the third [ Whether the celebration of that day , ( grant he was born on it ) can be clearly warranted from Scripture , and what those Scriptures are ? ] That if by [ the clear warranting the celebration of a day ] be meant , as the words import , the securing one's self or others , that the celebration of that day is no way unlawful , neither prohibited by , nor contrariant to Scripture , then it is clearly warranted , and that the warrant hath been cleared by the several stages of the precedent discourse , beginning § . 28 , &c. And that such warrant as that is abundantly sufficient to justifie that practise , which the Church in the best and purest times hath on such pious and prudent grounds universally practised .

To the fourth [ Whether I can clear it by sound consequence from the New Testament , though not set down there in totidem verbis ? ] That I can clear the warrantableness of the celebration , and perfect lawfulness to continue it , from the no-objection that lyes in force against it , and adde unto that the Piety of the Institution , the Authority of the Institutors , the advantages that may be made of it by all good Christians , and that is as sound a consequence from the New Testament , as this matter can stand in need of .

To the fifth [ Whether I can do it by universal Tradition ? ] That what I undertake to assert , viz. the blamelesness of this Institution in it sel● , and the truth of fact concerning the Churches Institution , yea and the usage and continuance of it through all times , hath been already competently evidenced , and may farther , by Tradition so Universal , that none but Aerius for very many hundred years , was known to contradict it , and he hath been ranked by the Fathers of the Church among Hereticks for so doing .

To the sixth [ Whether ( in case it can be evidenced by none of these , viz. plain Text , solid Inference , Universal Tradition ) it be not a meer humane invention , and so will-worship ? and how we will one day acquit our selves before God , for placing and crying up mens inventions , in stead of the Institutions of Jesus Christ ? And whether it were not faithful dealing with poor simple people , to tell them that we have neither of these to warrant it ? ] That it matters little what it should be , if it were warranted by none of these , seeing it doth appear by the former answers , as far as to the matter is sufficient , warranted by all of them . And moreover , that a humane invention , such it may be , an Institution of the Pure virgin Apostolical Church of Christ , and so propounded ( not for a doctrine of God's , but an Ecc●esiastical Institution ) may be very far from having any hurt in it : No act of will-worship , as that signifies a voluntary service piously performed to God , or an uncommanded act of Piety , being , eo nomine , a sin , but an act of Christian virtue , as hath been shewed at large in a full Tract of will-worship , and applyed to this particular purpose , Pract . Cat . p. 126. And therefore to say that we , or any , by observing this festivity , or teaching others to continue the observance of it , do place and cry up the inventions of men , in stead of the Institutions of Jesus Christ , is an unprovoked causeless calumny . And for the fidelity required to poore simple people , we have discharged our selves oft in our ministery , as far as that ( in duty or charity , or for directing them into all truth ) appears to be required of us .

To the seventh [ Whether ( since dayes and times commanded by God himself to be observed under the Law , were and are unlawful under the Gospel ) dayes and times commanded by men , and not by God , under the Gospel , are not less lawful ? ] That the supposed unlawfulness of continuing under the Gospel , those dayes and times commanded by God to the Jews under the Law , is no prejudice against the Apostles or the Churches instituting of other dayes and times upon Christian grounds , for the use of Christians under the Gospel . The consequence is clear , by the disparity of the cases , especially if it be observed , That it was not the bare continuing or using those Jewish rites , which was deemed unlawful , but the imposing them as by law from God on those which were never subject to them , as on Gentiles converted to Christianity , who were never subject to the Jewish Law . But to this also the answer is given at large , Pract . Cat . p. 179.

To the eighth [ Whether the true and genuine interpretation of Christmas be Christman ? And whether to perswade people 't is so , be not to delude them ? And whether we may not as well interpret Candlemas , Candleman , Michaelmas , Michaelman , as Christmas , Christman ? ] That the genuine interpretation of Christmas is not Christman , and that to perswade the people 't is so , or to perswade the Author of the Quaeres that any man that understands words , can think it possible it should be so , is to abuse and delude both them and him ; And any man might as reasonably tell him , that Candlemas and Michaelmas signified the Candle and the Angel to be men , as that that was the notation of the word Christmas . And indeed , it is but my duty to be sorry for any , that should challenge all men with so much confidence , and yet at the same time be capable of having such a trope put upon him as this was .

For whose satisfaction in this point , it will not be amiss to adde what I conceive concerning the notation of the word , that the olde Saxon word maessan , Mass. and from thence the English Messe , and Masse , signifies a feast , and accordingly with them , any holy or festival day , is called maessan daeg , Mass day : And so , saith Varro , doth the Greek {αβγδ} , and the Latine Messa , from whence the common word Mensa is but lightly removed , and signifies the meat , and not the table onely ( — mensaeque remotae in Virgil , the meat taken away , and mensae secundae , the second course ) and all this from the Latine Missa , because ad mensam mittitur , it is sent , or served up to the table . And this is perfectly agreeable also to the Greeks use of {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} , in their libations and sacrifices , {αβγδ} , I send , i.e. offer this unto thee , and from thence is their {αβγδ} or pompa , for ferculum , a mess , or service , ( so in Pliny , Nat. hist . l. 7. c . 23. Crispum Hilacum cum filiis novem — praelatâ pompâ in Capitolio immolasse ) as this is accommodated to the Christians Worship , or spiritual feast , among the Fathers , so {αβγδ} , in Justin Martyr , p. 60. {αβγδ} , to send up praises and prayers , i.e. pomps and missa's to God . And this again agreeable to the known origination of the Hebrew {αβγδ} a table , from {αβγδ} misit . And then it remains , that the word in composition must follow the notation of it in the simple , and own no other signification , then that Christmas be the feast of Christ , Michaelmas the feast of Michael the Archangel , as it is commonly explicated .

To the ninth [ Whether the Saints are bound to rejoyce in the birth of Christ on that day that men superstitiously call Christmas , more then at other times ? And whether the Lords day be not [ the ] day appointed for them to rejoyce on ? ] That the Institution and usage of the Universal Church of God for so many hundred years , is an obligation to all faithful sons of that Church ( if that be the meaning of the word Saints ) to rejoyce in ( as that signifies to commemorate with joy and thanksgiving to God the Father ) the birth of Christ on that day , which is far from being From the charge of superstition this observation of Christmas , is at large vindicated , Pract . Cat . p. 177. superstitiously ( it might as properly have been termed murtherously , and feloniously , and adulterously ) called Christmas , more then the same Church , or any other Authority equal to that , obliges to do at any other set time . And though the Lords day be by the same Authority appointed for Saints to rejoyce on , yet that was in reflexion on the Resurrection , not Birth of Christ on that day ; And besides , that excludes not other seasons of rejoycing , any more then the mercy of Christs Resurrection , either concludes Christ never to have been born , or that birth not to be a mercy worthy of a Christians rejoycing .

For the inforcing of this Objection , it hath been farther said by others , that the Resurrection of Christ comprehendeth the birth under it , and consequently that the Lords-day-weekly feast , being the commemoration of the Resurrection , comprehends the celebration of all other antecedent mercies , that of the Nativity and Passion also . But , 1. this is a very infirm way of arguing , and if it had any force in it , would conclude against the observation of the Lords-day it self : For , doth not the Ascension of Christ as much include and comprehend the Resurrection of Christ , as his Resurrection doth his Nativity ? Certainly it doth , and by that way of disputing , would infer , that the Ascension is the one onely feast to be observed , and all others to be banished out of the Church . But then secondly , it is observable of those that thus vehemently express their dislikes to commemorating of Christs birth , that their wrath is equally extended to the observation of Easter , and so can as little boast of their zeal to the Resurrection , as to the birth of Christ . But this Objection is not made use of by the Author of the Quaeres , and therefore I shall no farther enlarge to shew the invalidity of it .

To the tenth [ Whether Christmas day ought in any respect to be esteemed above another of the Week-dayes ? And whether people may not without offence to God follow their lawful vocations on that day ? ] That that which the Universal Church of God hath set apart for the publick service and commemoration of an eminent mercy of God , ought in that respect to be esteemed above other dayes of the year , as [ esteeming a day ] signifies the [ setting it apart ] and so consecrating from common to sacred uses and employments . And therefore supposing this Institution and precept of the Church , and the command of God to honour our Parents , and to submit our selves to those who have rule over us , Heb . 13.17 . ( under which phrase , by {αβγδ} , the Governors of the Church are contained , if not solely meant in that place ) people may not without offence to God , Schism from his Church , and culpable disobedience , separate wilfully , or withdraw from the publick Assembly on that day , and follow their lawful ( as that signifies ordinary , particular , or on other dayes lawful ) vocations ; It being most evident , that our ordinary labour , and driving our secular designs of worldly gain , hath been always looked on by God , as an inconvenient attendant of his publick or solemn worship , ( as God and Mammon are not easily served together ) and a rest prescribed from those employments , which may render the minde unfit , or the body uncapable of that more divine attendance ; which rest is farther capable of the honour of being an oblation to God , if in honour to him , we thus offer some part of our time , ( which is also interpretatively some part of our wealth ) unto his service .

To the eleventh [ Whether I think the Parliament and Assembly have erred and plaid the fools , in condemning and razing out Holydayes not warranted in the Word ? And whether to observe them , be not highly to dislike , and flatly to contradict ( in point of practise at least ) their proceedings in order to a Reformation ? ] That I am not so rude and unmindeful of our Saviours interdict , Mat . 5.22 . as to pronounce of any society of men , or single man , that he hath played the fool ; Yet I profess not to commend the turning out all Holydayes beside the Lords day ( and particularly this of the Nativity of Christ ) out of the Church , nor do I beleive it a good expedient toward Reformation .

To the twelfth [ Whether ( since most men and women in England do blindely and superstitiously beleive that Christ was born on that day ) preaching on it doth not nourish and strengthen them in that beleif ? ] That the beleiving Christ to have been born Decemb . 25. is no blinde ( and 't is impossible it should be any superstitious ) beleif . And therefore 't is not amiss that by any lawful means ( such I hope preaching may be ) men be nourished and strengthened in that beleif . And yet why the preaching on Decemb . 25. should nourish people in the beleif , that Christ was born that day of the moneth , when the preaching on March 25. ( when Easter day falls on that day ) doth not perswade any that Christ rose again on that day of the moneth , I cannot easily foresee , what account will be given ; It being as little important to the celebration of a Christian feast , that the day set apart for it should be infallibly the day whereon the thing commemorated was done sixteen hundred years since , as it is necessary to the preserving the memory of William the Conqueror , that the picture of him , which I now have , was rightly and exactly taken .

To the thirteenth [ Whether this feast had not its rise and growth from Christians conformity to the mad feasts Saturnalia ( kept in December to Saturn the father of the Gods ) in which there was a sheaf offered to Ceres Goddess of Corn , and a hymn in her praise , called {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} ? And whether those Christians by name , to cloak it , did not afterwards call it Yule and Christmas ( as though it were for Christs honour ? ) And whether it be not by some ( more ancient , then truly or knowingly religious ) called Yule , and the mad Playes or Sports ( wherewith 't is celebrated , like those Saturnalia ) Yule games ? And whether from the offering that sheaf to Ceres , from that Song in her praise , from those gifts the heathens gave their friends on the Calends of January , ominis gratiâ , did not arise or spring our Blazes , Christmas Carols , and New-years-Gifts ? ] I answer to the severals , First , that a Sheaf or lesser proportion , an handful of ears of corn , was customarily offered to Ceres by the heathen Greeks , is an unquestioned truth , and might be testified by Theocritus , Eidyll . 10. and by others ; So likewise it is true , that this Sheaf or handful of ears was called {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} . But that this was done in the Saturnalia , or that it hath any relation to our Yule and Carols , is a double mistake in the propounder .

The Saturnalia were clearly a Roman feast , celebrated by them in December , and oft continued the whole moneth . But for Ceres Games , Ceres games . they appear not to have any thing to do there , but to be of a Greek beginning , and improved into their Eleusinia Sacra , those filthy mysteries of theirs , so famous for all villany .

For the word {αβγδ} , {αβγδ} . 't is acknowledged also , that that signified not onely the sheaf , but hymn to Ceres , so saith Athenaeus , l. 14. c . 3. out of Semius Delius , {αβγδ} , the fruits and the hymns are both called by that name . So the Greek Scholiast on A●gon . l. 1. v. 972. Apollonius Rhodius , {αβγδ} , It is the name of a Song , and Hymn , saith Didymus , on Ceres . Beside this , the word {αβγδ} signifies many things ; John Zetzes in his Chiliads reckons six significations of it ; And yet besides those it is the name of a Paphian month , & if the English Yule be taken from thence , the most Reverend Primate of Armagh hath shewed that it will fall out commodiously enough . De Ann. Maced . The {αβγδ} , which Epiphanius makes the day of our Saviours Nativity , being coincident with the fourteenth of the Cyprians ( and among them of the Paphians ) Julus , and so consequently the first of that moneth , must be on the 24th of the Roman December , the vigils of our Saviours Nativity , according to all other Calculations . But the truth is , there is not so much affinity betwixt our Northern English or Scottish ( nor was there between our Antecessors British or Saxon ) and either the Graecians in general , or the Cypriots and Paphians in particular , as will be able to countenance or authorize this derivation , unless it may be thought that we and they both had it from some common fountain , some more universal Mother-Language .

It is , I conceive , farre more probable , that the word Yule , Yule . giul , or ( as in Alfreds Laws 't is also called ) geHol , should be taken immediately from the Latine , Jubilum , as that signifies a time of rejoycing and festivity , and as 't is sure enough that they have it from the Hebrew {αβγδ} jubilum , jubilatus , clangor tubae productior , the longer and louder sounding of the Trumpet , which was used to call men to Assemblies and Festivities . From thence , we know , that was their word to signifie any festivity , either day or year , and belongs to their New-Moons ( on which , saith the Psalmist , the Trumpet was to be blown , and upon the solemn feast dayes , whatsoever they were ) and doth by no peculiarity belong to that which they call the year of Jubilee , but onely as that was a festival year , and a year of Rest , and remission ( attendant on , and annexed to feasts ) This is very readily changed into that , the Hebrew● or j consonant , being pronounced by most nations like y , and so is the Saxon g also , as gate is among the Northern , yate , and given is yeoven , and the Saxon gear is year , and the particle gif is if . So the old Scottish that pronounce yule and year , write gule and gure . As for the other change in the word , the softning the b , or turning it into u , nothing is more ordinary . That this is the original of Yule , may farther appear by the use of the old word gule in ancient Records , as when the first of August , Lammas , or ( as in the Saxon 't is read ) Hlafmaes , lafmess , i.e. loaf mass , or bread mass ( so named , as a Feast of Thanksgiving to God for the first-fruits of the corn , and seems to have been observed with bread of new Wheat , and accordingly 't is an usage in some places for Tenants to be bound to bring in Wheat of that year to their Lord on , or before the first of August ) is called gula Augusti , or the Yule of August . In the same sense both ( and so is unreconcileable with the other derivations , either from {αβγδ} the hymn to Ceres , or the name of the Paphian moneth ) save onely that the feast of Christs nativity is called the Yule , {αβγδ} , the other the Yule of August determinately : So likewise 't is at this day ordinare in many Shires to call the annual feast or Wake , which most Parishes keep on several set dayes in commemoration of the dedication of their Church , the Yuval or Yule , which is an evidence that the word signifies Jubilum , a day of festivity , rejoycing , and no more .

As for the Blazes , Blazes . if in any part of this Kingdome any such be now used at this time , I know no other beginning , or occasion of them , then that flames of fire may have been used as expressions of joy among us , as bonefires have alwayes been . The Carols , if they be worthy of the subject , I shall presume free from that charge , as being hymns in honour of our Saviours birth , or commemorations of that part of the history in the Gospel , and no more then other divine hymns or Anthemes sung at a Festival by way of thanksgiving to God .

There remains onely the custome of New-years-Gifts , New years gifts . and for those I answer , that the heathens giving their friends gifts in the Calends of January , was ( beside the [ ominis causa ] ) a part of the worship of Janus a false God , — Jano etiam celebri de mense litatur Auspiciis epulisque sacris — saith Prudentius , You see sacrificing to Janus , as well as auspicia . And yet what the Poet means by auspicia , is sufficiently cleared by Pliny , Faustis ominibus , bonis verbis , precationibus felicibus , strenis & muneribus , se invitabant , Hist . Nat. l. 28. c . 2. good wishes , and good abodings , gifts , and presents . And Lucian gives the reason why the Romans did this , because , saith he , they beleived that the Gods answered mens prayers , {αβγδ} , on that day most especially . What was thus done by the heathens to their false Gods , or out of such ridiculous perswasions , that the Gods heard prayers more on that day then another ; or if there were any other folly in it , is to another end , and separate from those follies , and with a far distant intention ) continued among Christians to the true God , i.e. onely thus far .

The Church observes this first day of the year , as the feast commemorative of the Circumcision of Christ . The sending of gifts to one another , where it is continued , is no part of the worship of God , nor , I think , mistaken by any to be so , but a civil usage among men , for the acknowledging the relations that men stand in , one toward another . And if we should imitate such moral duties , even from heathens , there would be no more hurt in it , then in learning a moral sentence out of Theognis , or Seneca . And if a prayer for the prosperity of the year following , or but the expression of that Christian wish , be an appendage of the New-Years gift , 't is not imaginable that there should be more hurt in that gift or wish , then there is poison in the Scholars Epistle to his Governor , from the {αβγδ} , o● , to an irrational importune disputer , from an {αβγδ} at the top of it .

And yet after all this , it may be added , that this custome hath not been of late years any thing solemnly observed in this Kingdome , save onely between the Lords and the King , the Lords presenting such a sum of money , and the King returning so many ounces of Plate . And this custome is justly thought to have been brought into ours from the Roman Commonwealth ( not the Roman Church ) as into that by the Emperor Augustus , every one of the people being appointed to present to him a tribute on the Calends of January . So farre is this from being a superstitious , or indeed a religious observance .

And what ere the Antient Fathers have poured out in declamations against the practises on the Calends of January , appeares clearly to have been aimed not against the mutual expressions of duty or kindnesse in the new years gifts , or new yeares wishes , but against the consecrating that day to the Bifrontis illâ superstitione u●untur . Ambr. in Gal. 4. Idol Ianus , and the drunkennes●e and revellings used on it , the due ceremonies of an Idol-feast . And if mens endeavours might be like their Sermons in this , labour to purge this , and the like feasts from the profane excesses ( the greatest and most dangerous remainders of Idolatry and heathenisme among us ) and to retaine nothing , but what were agreeable to the worship of the true God , and Christian life , I should not give any man such an example of ill nature , or contentious spirit , as to dispute against them , but professe my spirit to be pleased with healing balsames , as much as my flesh abhors amputations , and to believe that purging physicke may be sometimes as usefull , as at other times cordials are acknowledged to be .

To the fourteenth [ Whether conformity to , and retention of heathenish customes be commendable in Christians , suteable or agreeable with Gospel-principles , though under praetext of Christ's honour and worship ? ] That conformity to , or retention of some customes of civil life , used formerly by thē nation , whilst it was heathen , as paying tributes , homages , interchanging hospitalities or civilities , yea and wishing good health or prosperity ( good even , good morrow , good day , good yeare , good speed good doe it you ) are not unsuteable , or disagreeable with Gospel principles , especially if they either not pretend at all to be acts of worship , or pretending to be such be really ( what they pretend to ) designed , to the honour of Christ who was given us by God as a mercy of such a weight , as may well constraine us to doe any thing that is pious , charitable , or kind on occasion of that commemoration . Secondly , that t is known of Christ and his Apostles , that they did , to attract the Iewes to the Christian Religion , gratifie them in retaining many of their customes , So they were not such as had a peculiarity of opposition , and unreconcileablenesse with the Gospel . And therefore for any innocent customes of the heathens , such , as having nothing of idolatry in them , might be accommodated to the Christian purposes , there is nothing to be charged upon those that planted Christianity among the Gentiles , if to so pious an end , as was the attracting of the heathens to Christ , they did so accommodate them .

To the fifteenth [ Whether I am not bound to prove my practise for the conviction and satisfaction of my brethren , whose duty it is to walk with me in things agreeable to the minde of Christ ? And in case I cannot , whether I ought not to acknowledge my error , lay downe my practise ( as others have done theirs ) no longer befooling and misleading the people committed to my charge ? ] First , That I have in obedience to this admonition endeavoured to prove and justifie my practise , and the practise of the Church of England , not yet unbeautifull in her ruines , for the conviction or satisfaction of my brethren ; and can perswade my selfe cheerfully that all that live in obedience to our persecuted Mother , or to the Universal Church of the purest ages , and are content to allow me the title of one of their brethren , will rest in some degree satisfied with this account , whose duty that it is to walk with me in things agreeable to the minde of Christ , I shall willingly acknowledge , and therefore hope , they will not think themselves obliged to separate at once from me , and the Church of England ( that I say not the Apostolical , Primitive , Universal Church of God ) in that ; which is thus far cleared from being disagreeable to any thing revealed by Christ . Secondly , that till the practise have been convincingly proved to be erroneous or foolish ( which the making of sixteen Quaeres is not at all apt , or probable to have done , without the annexation of weighty reasons against any thing possible to be affirmed by the defendent ) It is an uncomely image of the inward part of the Author of the Quaeres , to blast the reputation of an Institution of the Ancient Church of God , and the Rule of his Reformed Mother , the Church of England , with that ugly style or character of befooling the people , and in plain words , that a little weight of reason doth better become our Christian Profession , then never so much , or never so little ill language . Thirdly , that as to this one , so to the rest of the practises of the Primitive Church , it must be observed , that what they then did , they did with so great consideration , and designs and weights of Piety , that no Christian that then lived , had any objection against them : And that some among us now have , it cannot be more charitably imputed , then to their great distance from , and ignorance of those reasons . Accordingly they that now know and consider the true reasons of them , do sincerely , and cannot but reverence their Institutions , and imitate their Practises . And when nothing but ignorance qualifies others to accuse them of folly , there is no danger of falling under that Censure before any tolerably wise Tribunal , but by being displeased , or thinking it strange , that men should do after their kinde , or that the old saying should have any truth in it ( which it is so universally noted to have , that it is converted into a Proverb ) that the ignorant man hath the inclosure , or priviledge to hate knowledge .

To the sixteenth or last [ Whether in case I return no answer to these Quaeres , he have not ground sufficient to conclude me utterly unable to give any rational account of my practise , now put upon it ? ] That the returning no answer to the Quaeres , is as unsufficient a ground to conclude all those ( which make no such return ) utterly unable to give any rational account of their practise , as it was an argument before setting pen to paper , that I was not able to write what I have now written , the negative arguing ab actu ad potentiam , being as far from concluding logically ( that what any man doth not , he is utterly unable to do ) as the affirmative is infallible , that I am able to give this account , because I have now done it .

And whosoever thinks fit to resume this business into his consideration , and enquire any farther into this subject , may , if he please , be directed to this shorter way , to question or debate the truth or supposed certainty of some of his own principles ; And for an essay or tryal to set this one question before him ,

Whether it be not lawful for the Church , either National , of one , or Universal , Two Quaeres . of all parts of Christendome , especially of that age which was nearest the Apostles , of the first and purest times , to take upon it to institute one or more dayes , upon any special occasion of some eminent mercy of Gods , toward the whole Church , to be used yearly in acts of Christian piety and charity by all the children of that Church , and to expect obedience from them ? And whether that one Authority may not secure and justifie all from any crime of superstitution , &c. in case they shall think fit to yield this obedience ?

If to this question thus proposed , it be necessary to adde any other , it may most reasonably be this ,

Whether such an ancient Institution of the Church of Christ , by name the anniversary feast of Christs birth , though it be not affirmed to be commanded by Christ , or instituted by the Apostles , or ( in it self considered , without respect to the Institution ) absolutely necessary to the being of a Church , yet being thus ( more then lawful ) pious in it self , proper in respect of the ground , primitively Catholick if not Apostolick ) in respect of the Institution , may be lawfully abolished by private men , without authority of the Church , or by any particular Church , without regard and reverence to the Universal , and for the Universal of this age , after so long observance , whether it be morally possible , that it should consent to the abolishing of that , which is founded on such Piety and Authority ? Finally , Whether by any obligation of conscience it appear ( not onely lawful , but ) necessary to be thus abolished ( either as superstitious in it self , or as subject to abuses ) on this onely ground of truth , because the following dayes have sometimes been mis-spent in riot , &c. by some wicked men ?

If these Questions may be thus propoposed , it will be easie for any to satisfie himself ( upon the grounds premised ) of the truth of the Affirmative of the former , and Negative of the latter , and withall to secure himself that there need be no other question in this matter .

The End.