Jews had such a Ceremony as Baptism among them before John Baptist came And in this Enquiry we will prefer a Learned Protestant of the Church of England who writes thus As to their Argument who would have our Baptism to be derived from the Jewish Lotions as there is nothing of certainty in it so it is so far from being grounded on any Authority in Scripture that there are hardly any Footsteps to be found thereof in the Old Testament They deduce the Original of Baptism from the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to wash or cleanse But the Rabbins if I am not deceived use the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Immersion thereby making it appear that they owe the Notion of the Word to the Greeks or rather to the Christians For what affinity is there between Lotion and Immersion But the thing is so uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter For in the very place cited by the forementioned Learned Men Rabbi Eliezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews Now to whom shall I give credit To Eliezer who asserts what the Scripture confirms meaning that Proselytes were not baptized or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture meaning this pretended Baptism is not to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion That the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies how imprudent then is the Author of the Book we are answering to give this Advantage to the Jews against the Christians But when I see Men of great Learning fetching the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was this Talmud sent to us that we should give so much credit thereto for the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables This is then a Fault in the Church of England Doctors to fly hither for Refuge for Infant-Baptism It was brought to Perfection 500 years after Christ This shews the danger of trusting to it it being so lately confirmed Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus who was also a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezer who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter He knew no baptising of Infants among the Jews So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in antient times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou be not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came How then there should be so much affinity between Baptism and the Divings of the Jews that the one should be successive to the other by any Right or Pretence is altogether I confess beyond my Faith. It appears from this learned Man's Discourse that there is no Certainty that the Jews had any such Baptizing of Infants or others as the Doctor pretends However God having appointed no such thing in the Jewish Church leaves such a Practice if they had it without any Authority to govern Christians in their Administration of Baptism Nor do we who assert the Ordinance according to the Scripture need to run for Counsel to the Jews Talmud Gemara and Maimonides And indeed it looks too much like going to the Witch of Endur and to Baalzebub the God of Ekron for Knowledg as if there were not sufficient Instruction in the undoubted Word of God how or to whom to dispence the first Ordinance of the Gospel to a poor Convert And it is a sure sign that the Doctor and all that make such a noise about this Rabbinical Learning to justify them in the case of infant Baptism are conscious to themselves that they have no sure Footing in God's Word for it And yet so partial are our Talmudists that they will not follow its Directions for the manner of Baptism which as Dr. Hammond shews is commonly expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immersion never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Aspersion or Sprinkling for such as will not be true to the Rules given in the Holy Scripture how should they be true to any other Book One thing I marvel at p. 20. where the Doctor tells his Reader that the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments by saying Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New. For this I take to be a great Mistake of the Doctor I never heard of any whom he calls Annabaptists who hold Circumcision to be a Type of Baptism at all But I have met with divers of the Church of England who have affirmed it to be a Type of Baptism so that all that the Doctor says upon this Mistake about which he spent some Pages is nothing to the purpose For we own no other Antitype of Circumcision but the Circumcision of the Heart called the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands But had he minded well his own Book he might have seen Mr. Philpot asserting the thing which he would charge upon us where he saith The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain they did attemperate Baptism to Circumcision and baptize Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red-Sea c. Where I think he makes both Circumcision and passing through the Sea to be Shadows and Types of Baptism which is yet more evident because a little before he tells us that Paul calls Baptism the Circumcision made without Hands Which though it be not true seeing all Men know and Mr. Philpot cannot deny but Baptism is made by Hands yet it shews that he looked upon Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision But I shall not fight with dead Men otherwise I might shew his Mistake in saying that the Apostles did attemperate all their Doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament but this we have shewed before to be an unsound Speech The Doctor seems to deal unfairly with Col. 2. 11 12. Circumcision saith he hath nothing in it symbolical of Baptism and denies it to be an umbratical but areal Consignation of the Covenant of Grace
in Ceremonies I have intituted my Book as you see The last and most Friendly Debate concerning Infant-Baptism And glad should I be to see an end of the Controversy by an Agreement in the Truth or a brotherly Condescension in such things on either part as may be without Sin. That I have undertaken this Task was not the Fruit of my own Choice but indeed I was particularly desired by Letter from some Persons of Quality and Learning to give a brief and distinct Answer to the Contents of the Case of Infant-Baptism which they commend for the temper 〈◊〉 which it is framed and for that it is very nervous in Argument insomuch that till it was answered it was so satisfactory that more need not be said on their part And now I hope they will do me the Justice as to read me with Patience and to judg without Prejudice knowing that shortly we must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and receive from him the things done in the Body whether they be good or bad The Last and Most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM CHAP. I. That the Covenant Gen. 17. strictly taken was not a Gospel-Covenant nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor THE Learned Author of the Book now under Consideration may rationally expect some Reply from those whom he calls Anabaptists or else interpret their Silence to be either a sullen slighting of his Endeavours to convince them or that they are not able in their own Judgments to shew the Insufficiency of his Arguments and the rather because he has more obliged us to consider his Writing by his modest and friendly management of the Controversy than many of his Brethren who have bent their Stile against us We shall therefore God willing with no less Modesty and friendly Demeanour shew our Reasons why in our Judgment his Labours have not only come short of proving the baptizing of Infants to be warrantable by God's Word but has rather given us great cause to think that the Case of Infant-Baptism cannot be made good by all that Learning and Art can do it being wholly without Divine Authority And to make this good we will now consider the chief of his Strength in the several Pages of his Learned Treatise In pag. 1 2. he would have it believed that the State of the Church from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ was parallel'd by the differing State of the Christian Church from Christ to Constantine and from Constantine onwards For saith he there is ground for this distinction in the reason of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church Christian before and after its Vnion with the Empire But here seems to be a very great mistake in the very entrance of his Book for it is certain that the Jewish Church from Abraham to Moses had very little of the Face of a Church-state till his time being as yet destitute of most of her Laws both for Constitution and Government Abraham himself owning a Priest superior to himself even after he was called of God and had received the Promise both of being that Person in whose Seed all Nations should be blessed and that to his Seed God would give the Land of Canaan as will appear to such as shall peruse these Scriptures Gen. 12. 1 2 3. 13. 15 16. 14. 18 19 20. Now this Covenant which God made with Abraham that in his Seed all Nations of the Earth should be blessed Gen. 12. which was indeed an Evangelical Promise or Covenant and in the Faith of which Abraham was justified near thirty Years before Circumcision had any being in the World cannot be called the Covenant of Circumcision Neither yet when Circumcision was instituted was the Seed of Abraham formed into a Church-state in contradistinction to all the World beside for still Melchisedec was Priest of the most High God and many righteous Men were then living who outlived Abraham himself and were truly Church-members yea and Governors of Churches too as well as Abraham and yet they were not at all concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision And hence it 's evident they being under the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Circumcision and the Covenant of Grace were then distinct and not the same Covenant so but that the one might and did subsist without the other This then may serve to shew the Doctor 's great Mistake in making the Church of Christ from Christ to Constantine parrallel to the Church from Abraham to Moses when in Truth a greater Disparity can hardly be shewed For though the Seed of Abraham till Moses was in a State of Peregrination as also was the Church of Christ till Constantine yet the Church Christian was then not only in her Purity but also both for Constitution and Government as compleat as ever she was since having received from Christ and his Apostles all the Rules of his holy Word even the whole Counsel of God necessary to her Church-state and therewith all the Gifts of the holy Spirit in most plentiful manner by which to stand perfect in all the Will of God. And on the other side the Seed of Abraham till the Times of Moses had neither Law Priest-hood nor Sacrifice in a settled Church-way only they were distinguished by the Covenant of Circumcision as a People from whom in time the Saviour of the World should proceed and that they should be separated from the Nations and settled in a plentiful Country with Laws and special Protection from the Almighty till Shiloh should come and when the Messiah was manifested to Israel the Covenant of Circumcision ceased and the glorious Gospel-Covenant was now plenarily to be made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. And here we will take notice of that excellent Passage in Mr. Baxter The Jews saith he were not the whole of God's Kingdom or Church of Redeemed Ones in the World but that as the Covenant was made with all Mankind so amongst them God had other Servants besides the Jews though it was they that had the extraordinary Benediction of being his peculiar Sacred People Now as this was true all along so it was more particularly manifest in the times of Melchisedec and other holy Men that outlived Abraham What the Doctor means to compare Constantine with Moses is very doubtful Is it to make Christian Magistrates Legislators to the Church of Christ We know indeed Moses was a great Prophet and appointed of God to give Laws and Statutes to Israel but Constantine was not his Antitype but Christ only and whosoever will not hear him shall be cut off but not by the Imperial Sword as God knows since the uniting of the Church Christian to the Empire viz. the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power for the management of Church-matters there has been a very bloody Scene of Affairs in most Places where such a kind of Unity of the
his Sermon before the Court of Aldermen Aug. 23. 1674. We have an Obligation to the Laws of God antecedent to those of any Church whatsoever nor are we bound to obey those any further than they are agreeable with these Separation from a Church is lawful 1. When she requires of us as a Condition of her Communion an Acknowledgment and Profession of that for a Truth which we know to be an Error 2. When she requires of us as a Condition of her Communion the joyning with her in some Practices which we know to be against the Law of God. In these two cases to withdraw our Obedience to the Church is so far from being a Sin that it is a necessary Duty Now this being our very case in the point of Baptism it would justify that Distinction which we hold needful between the Church of England and those of the baptized Believers but much more when there are some other things as pressing perhaps as this But now let us hear the Doctor Considering saith he what I have said upon the former Questions this Question must be answered in the negative whether we consider Infant-Baptism as a thing lawful or allowable only or as a thing highly requisite and necessary to be done And as a Foundation on which to build Infant-Baptism as a thing at least lawful and allowable he directly denies this Principle That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept and Example in the Word of God accounting this Rule an Absurdity and inconsistent with the free and manly Nature of the Christian Religion and that it is an impracticable Principle c. p. 49 50. But that this great Principle well understood should be spoken against by a Protestant is something strange and especially that he does not suffer it to take place in that which is essential in a Church-state as who are and who are not to be baptized is such a case but he will have Infant-Baptism to be admitted as lawful and allowable tho it be not warranted by Precept nor Example To free this Principle from Abuse as here suggested against it we will explain it as we hold and maintain it 1. Then we do not say that every thing which is naturally or meerly accidental and circumstantial in the Worship of God must have Precept and Example in the Word of God. 2. Nor do we hold that things which are meerly indifferent if not imposed as Boundaries of Communion are therefore to be esteemed sinful because not expresly warranted by Precept or Example in the Word 3. But we apply this Rule always and so in our present Question to such things as are essential to Church-membership and Church-Government as true Baptism is to the first and cannot be admitted only as a thing indifferent and as such allowable or lawful only for it 's either necessary in the Constitution of a Church or it 's nothing and who are of Right and who are not to be baptized is of the Essence of Baptism and can admit of no lower a Consideration The Principle thus explained is clearly justified by the Word of God and if Protestants part with this Principle they will lose themselves Now thus saith the Lord Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God Deut. 4. 2. What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish ought from it Deut. 12. 32. Every Word of God is pure add thou not unto his Words lest he reporve thee and thou be found a Liar Prov. 30. 6. And it is observable that our Lord as he was sent to be a Minister of the Gospel claims no Authority to speak of himself John 12. 5. Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said unto me so I speak How ought this to put an awe upon all that speak in the Name of the Lord about Religion Neither does the holy Spirit it self as sent to supply the personal Absence of Christ take upon himself to give or abrogate Laws but to bring things to the Apostles Remembrance John 14. 26. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth FOR he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak And this is the Rule also by which the Spirit of Truth is known namely by his advancing the Things delivered by Christ and his Apostles He shall take of mine and shew it unto you he shall glorify me 1 Tim. 6. 3 4. If any Man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome Words even the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud knowing nothing 1 John 4. 6. He that knoweth God heareth us he that is not of God heareth not us hereby know we the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error Rev. 22. 18. If any Man shall add to these things God shall add the Plagues which are written in this Book and if any shall take away from the Words of the Prophecy of this Book God shall take away his Part out of the Book of Life And that this Text does establish as unalterable the whole New Testament our Adversaries do acknowledg See Diodate on the Place And Calvin upon Deut. 12. 32 Sith they saith he cannot deny that this was spoken to the Church what do they else but report the Stubbornness of the Church which they boast to have been so bold as after such Prohibitions nevertheless to add and mingle of her Own with the Doctrine of God. And Luther doth aver that no Doctrine ought to be taught or heard in the Church besides the pure Word of God. Beza upon Levit. 10. 3. speaking in the Person of God I will punish them that serve me otherwise than I have commanded not sparing the chief that the People may fear and praise my Judgments Mr. Borroughs in his Gospel-Worship p. 8. All things in God's Worship must have a Warrant out of God's Word must be commanded It is not enough that it is not forbidden and what hurt is there in it but it must be commanded In a Book called A brief Account of the Rise of the Name Protestant p. 12. printed 1688 we read thus Protestantism doth mainly or rather only consist in asserting the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule the only Rule by which all Christians are to govern and manage themselves in all Matters of Religion so that no Doctrine is to be owned as an Article of Faith on any account but what hath very plain Warrant and sound Evidence from the Scriptures Nor no Instance of Religious Worship to be owned or submitted to as necessary nor any thing to be determined as a part of Religion but what the Scriptures do appoint and warrant Thus our Adversaries themselves do say as much for this Principle which the Doctor condemns as absurd as we do And
Christ and the Holy Spirit they are washed in Water 3. In the third Age Mr. Baxter tells us out of Tertullian Origen and Cyprian That in the Primitive Times none were baptized without an express Covenanting wherein they renounced the World c. and engaged themselves to Christ 4. In the fourth Age Basil saith That none were to be baptized but Catechumens and those that were duly instructed in the Faith. 5. In the fifth Age Chrysostom saith The time of Grace or Conversion was the only sit time for Baptism which was the Season in which the three thousand in Acts 2. and others afterward were baptized 6. The African Churches commonly called Donatists taught That none should be baptized but those that believed and desired the same 7. The Waldensian Churches tell us That by Baptism Believers were received into the Holy Congregation there declaring their Faith and amendement of Life 8. The Churches in Germany own'd the same Faith and Practice 9. The Churches in Helvetia asserted the same and suffered for their Testimony 10. The Bohemian Churches by great Sufferings bore witness to the same Truth 11. The Churches in Thessalonica did the same 12. The Churches in Flanders suffered for the same cause 13. The Hungarians did the same 14. And so did the Churches in Thessalonica 15. The Churches of the Ancient Britains did the same and died for their Testimony Here some will be ready to say We value not Mr. Danvers he was mistaken in his Quotations But let me reply Would Men but impartially read his Defence they would see cause to justify him from most of the Clamours which have been vented against him Neither do we censure good and pious Men in the darker Times above us who perhapps had not opportunity as we have to see and avoid the Error God Almighty indulging the oversights of his sincere Ones in all Ages as we trust he will do ours in this for some may yet come after us to restore some Truth which we have not minded being so much busied both by Writing Preaching and Suffering in defence of some particular Truths which are the Controversy of our Age. And this was the Case of our worthy Predecessors who were called to contest with the Spirit of Error And we doubt not but all sincere Christians who have not wilfully opposed themselves to any Truth shall find Mercy in the Day of Christ and receive a Reward according to the Infinite Goodness of God who will not suffer any to go without a Reward who have been but so kind to any because they belonged to Christ as to give them a Cup of cold Water to drink And in the mean time I am for so much Communion with all Christians as will do them and my self good But seeing it is impossible for any to maintain full or ample Communion with all sorts professing the Christian Name at this Day There is a necessity either for some powerful Party to kill all the rest that she may be the only Church or else Brotherly to agree to permit all to chuse their Communion where they can most comfortably enjoy it and I heartily desire that none for any cause but true inward Peace would make use of this Liberty But about this we have more fully treated in the fifth Chapter that here we shall add no more at present but shall conclude with our humble Request to the Church of England to consider how great a Pressure it must be upon our Conscience to break up our Assemblies which we believe to be truly constituted Churches and to unite with Hers which we believe to be so defective in her Constitution as to have no Baptism at all Now that the Baptism of Repentant Believers is of Heavenly Original is granted on all hands that it stands clear both in Scripture and unquestionable Antiquity next to the Scripture is altogether undeniable and that this Baptism is to be continued to the end of the World cannot be spoken against And on the other side Does not even Mr. Baxter and other Learned Assertors of Infant-Baptism confess 't is a very difficult Point to prove by Scripture And do not the Learned Papists and some Learned Protestants acknowledg there is no Scripture for Infant-Baptism Neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptism That it was brought in without the Commandment of Christ That it is only a Church Rite and not of Divine Institution These Things cannot be hid from you and therefore there is a necessity that some speedy and prudent way be taken by the Church of England to restore this Holy Ordinance to its purity in respect of the Subject to be baptized For though the Church of England does retain the Doctrine of Baptism with respect to its precedency to other Ordinances its Utility and Dignity in the Church of God yet this is to little purpose still so long as another thing is substituted in the room of it both in respect of the Subject and manner of Administration Concerning the latter let the Church of England be intreated to consider the Reflections which have been made upon this Alteration of Immersion to Sprinkling by the learned Bossuet in his Book of Communion c. And the Conviction which some learned Protestants in France have lately met with upon that occasion I will set down the words of the learned Author who calls himself Anonymus as they are translated by Dr. Duveil upon the Acts of the Apostles p. 292 293. It is most certain that Baptism hath not been administred hitherto otherwise than by Sprinkling by the most part of Protestants but truly this Sprinkling is an Abuse This Custom which without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective it corrupteth its Institution and ancient use and that nearness of Similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith Repentance and Regeneration This Reflection of Mr. Bossuit deserveth to be seriously considered to wit that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years that hence we may understand that we did not carefully as was meet examine things which we retained from the Roman Church and therefore since the most learned Bishops of that Church do teach us now that the Custom established by most grave Arguments and so many Ages was abolished by her this self-same thing was very unjustly done by her and that the Consideration of our Duty doth require at our hands that we seek again the primitive Custom of the Church and the Institution of Christ Though therefore we should yield to Mr. Bossuet that we are convinced by the force of his Arguments that the Nature and Substance of Baptism consisteth in Dipping what may he hope for from us but that the Professors see themselves obliged to him by no small Favour and thank him that he hath delivered us from Error when we greatly erred in this
Proviso in a certain Statute made in the Reign of Edw. 6. that this Statute shall not give Liberty to marry without the Ceremonies appointed in the Service-Book yet it does not null any Marriages that had been or that might after be made with the Omission of them or at least some of them for Marriages we know there have been and are frequently made by divers Ministers of the Church of England without the Banes and some other Rites as well as by Licences obtained which could not be done if the Intent of the said Proviso were to make all Marriages null and void which are made without Banes and all the Rites appointed in the service-Service-Book But lest this should be taken for my private Opinion only I will here alledg the Judgment of such as are esteemed among the best learned in the Law whether we respect the Statute or Civil Law. And first Mr. Swingburn Bachelor of the Civil Law tells us That an unsolemn Marriage is not therefore no Marriage because it is unsolemn the Banes perhaps not being published or the Marriage being not celebrated in the Face of the Church but privately in a Chamber or some other Rite or Ceremony being omitted but it is nevertheless reputed for true Marriage both in the Ecclesiastical Courts in respect of the Essence or Knot of Matrimony and in Temporal Courts in respect of the Wives Dowry and other Legal Effects Treat of last Will p. 20 21. And to the same effect speaketh Espenc c 11. Clandest Matrinto Consensus facit Nuptias sed eorum qui sui jure sunt It is the consent of the Parties which make the Marriage they being such as are at their own Dispose And again Si pompa alâ—aque nuptiarum Celebritas omitatur c. If the Pomps and Celebrity of Marriage be omitted nothing is wanting to the Firmness and Sureness of Marriage Cod. L 5. tit 5. tit 2. And the Canon Law tells us Nuptiarum copula Dei mandato perficitur The Marriage-Bond is perfected by the Commandment of God. Thus we see that Ceremonies are not of the Essence of Marriage that if the Command of God be observed Marriage is perfect And these Testimonies are the more considerable to our purpose because they are alledged against the Papists by a learned Protestant because they doted more then ordinary upon nuptial Ceremonies Willit Synops p. 713. 740. And so rational and necessary it is that the Ceremonies appointed either by the Papists or others should not be esteemed to belong at all to the essence of Marriage that Durandus an eminent Papist tells us as he is quoted by Dr. Willit That there is neither any outward Holy Sign nor no Minister necessary in Matrimony besides the Parties for saith he Matrimony may be solemnized by a Proctor between Parties that are absent So then the Presence of a Priest is not of the Essence of Marriage seeing it may be celebrated without them And which is yet more Bellarmine that so much rennowed Cardinal is alledged by the said Dr. Willit saying That Marriage being of the Nature of Contracts the Parties themselves suffice and that it may be done in their Absence meaning still that all Contracts be witnessed And here the Words of Mr. Diodate are worthy of Remembrance upon Mal. 2. 15. Did not God in the beginning create Adam alone out of whom he framed Eve to be his Wife without creating any more Women for one Man or more Men for one Woman shewing thereby that as he appointed Matrimony by one only Law in which to be sure there was no Ceremonies of lawful Conjunction it likewise ought to be one with one and two in the same Flesh From all which it is apparent that there may be lawful Marriage where there is no Ceremonies much more without the Ceremonies of the Ring and bowing at the Altar and the Ceremonies are not therefore in any-wise to be made essential to Marriage and that the Contract between two Persons lawfully qualified for the State of Marriage and their actual taking each other into the Relation and Covenant of Husband and Wife before sufficient Witness is essential firm and lawful Marriage and consequently that the Marriages made amongst the baptized Believers are true Marriages in the Eye of the Law of this Land. And to make this yet more evident I will conclude this Section with the united Authority of the late Lord Cheif Justice Hales and Dr. Burnet who fully express themselves for the Sufficiency of Marriages as made by the present Dissenters And thus the Doctor speaks He that is Judg Hale was very cautious in declaring their Marriage void and so bastarding their Children But be considered Marriage and Succession as a right of Nature from which none ought to be barred what Mistakes soever they might be under in the point of revealed Religion and therefore in a Trial that was before him when a Quaker was sued for some Debts owing by his Wife before he married her and the Quaker pretended it was no Marriage that had past between them since it was not solemniz'd according to the Rules of the Church of England He declared that he was not willing on his own Opinion to make their Children Bastards and gave Direction to the Jury to find it special which they did He governed himself indeed saith Dr. Burnet by the Law of the Gospel of doing to others what he would have others do to him and therefore because he would have thought it a Hardship not without Cruelty if amongst the Papists all Marriages were nulled which had not been made with all the Ceremonies in the Roman Ritual so he applying this to the case of the Sectaries he thought all Marriages made according to the several Perswasions of Men ought to have their Effects in Law. Of how great Value the Judgment of this worthy Man is in all Courts of Judicature is also testified by this learned Doctor in these words His Opinion in points of Law generally passes as an uncontroulable Authority and is often pleaded in all the Courts of Justice So that such as out of a Fancy to some unnecessary Ceremonies would null all Marriages amongst Dissenters though made as publickly and solemnly as we can and every way agreeable to the Law of God and the Rules of Reason will see themselves concern'd we hope to be better advised than to throw Dirt in the face of this great Patriot of the Law as if he should be a publick Defender of Whoredom for so do some of our rash Ceremonialists esteem and speak of all Marriages wherein their Ceremonies are omitted Furthermore If in this or any other Nation God's Ordinances should become or be reputed to be Nullities when in the observation of them the Ceremonies appointed by the Church or those that call themselves so are omitted there could be little certainty of a right or effectual enjoyment of any of them For Baptism Confirmation the Lord's Table Ordination Excommunication and what
Ministerial Authority thereunto namely to catechise defend and propagate the Gospel Such were Origen Aristides Hegesippus Justin and many others see his Book of Resolut p. 265. chap. 10. Those who called themselves Catholicks in Augustin's time did allow the Baptism and other sacred Acts of the Donatists c. to be valid It is strange then that the Marriages of the present Dissenters should be made Nullities by the common Protestants who themselves are esteemed but Dissenters in a Neighbour Nation and therefore their Marriages are as liable to censure there as ours are here but these are Hardships and Cruelties in the Opinion of that learned Lawyer the late Lord Chief Justice Hale SECT IV. Of the Rituals of the Church of England concerning Marriage and the Reasons why the Baptized Believers comply not with them HOW gladly we should be to see an end of all Contention amongst Christians about unnecessary Ceremonies we have shewed in our Friendly Epistle and our late Apology wherein also we have professed our earnest Desire for Concord with all that love the Lord Jesus and more particularly with the Church of England But it seems all that we can offer below a full compliance even with the most useless Ceremonies is not thought worth the notice of the present Clergy who now do many of them wonderfully exalt themselves despising such as dissent from them and that so much the more as by how much we seek to them for Peace Marriage-Covenants we confess are things of that nature and importance that they are worthy the care of the Laws of all Nations But such has been the unhappiness of the Churches which are National as to ordain such things in order to the Celebration of Marriage which becomes a Snare to many this the Protestants found true by Experience when under the Papal Yoke and therefore have exploded part of their Ritual whereof we have an account from Dr. Willit and the manner thus 1. They who are to be joined in Matrimony must be blessed by the Priest 2. Oblation must be made for them in the Sacrifice of the Mass 3. They are covered with a Vail 4. They are coupled together with a Ribbon partly white and partly blew 5. They Bride giveth to the Bridegroom a Ring hallowed first and blessed by the Priest 6. The Priest commendeth them to God in Prayer 7. He admonisheth them to their mutual Duties Dr. Willit Synops p. 713. Now this use of the Ring amongst the Papists is condemned by this Learned Doctor of the Church of England for a superstitious Toy partly for that it must be hallowed by the Priest and partly for that the Man holding the Woman by the Ring their Fingers a-cross some inchanting words says he are then muttered but the words he sets not down And now because the use of the Ring in the Church of England and the kneeling at the Altar and to the Priest for his Blessing are very doubtful to us we shall here take a view of the matter And 1. The Ring must be laid upon the service-Service-Book 2. The Priest must then give the Ring to the Bridegroom 3. The Bridegroom must put the Ring upon the fourth Finger of the Woman 's left Hand 4. And holding the Woman by that Finger must say these strange Words With this Ring I thee wed with my Body I thee worship with all my worldly Goods I thee endow In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now these things so far as we are able to understand them do look as much like Superstition as any thing which the Protestant Doctor has to object against the Popish use of the Ring For why must the Ring be laid upon the Service-Book and so pass through the Priests hand before it be fit for the use it is to be made of Certainly the Ring is hereby supposed to be made more fit to wed the Woman and this it cannot be unless it be supposed to be sanctified or if there be nothing of all this it seems to be wholly superfluous And for the Man to say he weds her whom he has married sufficiently before with that Ring in the Name of the Father c. is so like a Sacramental form of Words as that we are sure none more solemn are appointed to be used in Holy Baptism nor can any higher form of Words be devised Had Almighty God appointed this form of Words to be annexed to the use of a Ring all Men would and surely might have concluded Marriage among Christians to be a Sacrament as well as Baptism but seeing he hath not done it it seems to us too bold an attempt for any Church to impose such a Rite or Ceremony in so great a Name and therefore in Conscience we dare not conform to the Church of England in this thing for it is dangerous to speak a Word much more to make an Institute in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which he hath not commanded Let us consider whence the Ring in Marriage was derived that we may the better judg of the matter 1. Then it is reckoned among the Heathen Roman Rites in their Marriages and the manner thus The Man gave in token of good Will they say a Ring unto the Woman which she was to wear upon the next Finger to the little Finger on the left Hand because unto that Finger alone proceeded a certain Artery from the Heart Here seems to be the Radix or Spring of the Ring in Marriage unless perhaps it might be before this among the superstitious Jews for thus we read The Wedding-Ring among the Jews had this Inscription MAZAL TOB which the Learned say is to wish good luck and it was given to the Bride-wife and the Hebrews called the Planet Jupiter Mazal whose Influence they thought to be of great force for Generation Godwin Antiq. of the Rom. and Jews Now which of these soever was the Spring-Head though there seems to be something of Superstition or Folly in the Business yet I think an impartial Man must needs say the Ring has attracted more of that kind among the Christian Nations than it had among the Jews or Heathens The short is Were the Ring used only as a Civil Ceremony without this seemingly sacred Solemnity we should say nothing But for Christians to adopt either the Heathen or Jewish superstitious Rites into the Service of the Church and to make the Celebration of them ministerial Acts is the Business for the serious and thinking Christian to consider And assuredly till it turn to the Lord to encline the Hearts of his People with one accord to restore his Holy Ordinances and amongst the rest this of Marriage to their Native Purity and Simplicity there will be continual cause of Sorrow Discontents and Animosities amongst Christians and occasion thereby given in all Christian Nations for the more Carnal and Ceremonious to persecute the more spiritual and serious sort of Christians And the