not use means to attract the Praeputium which the Jews did often to avoid Shame and Persecution in Gentile Countries odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby Furthermore it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it and for that Reason also was laid aside as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles and at their Doctrine upon the account thereof No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism which was of more universal significancy and which * * * Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur tingit ipse quosdam utique credentes ac fideles suos caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est Tertull. de praescrip haeret c. 40. O nimium faciles Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ Pagans as Paganism was nothing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil practised as well as Jews Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy and of reforming of it into the Christian Church but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed that * * * Verissimum enim est quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos c. Grotii opusc Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants Christ and his Apostles who were the Reformers of it did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new house as much as they could after the Platform of the old This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which †††Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants Jacob Altingius dissert Philologica Septima de Proselytis Proselytes both Men Women and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church Though it were but a mere humane Institution or as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it a mere humane Invention yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of | | | Mede 1 Book disc 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembly chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar p. 1. disc of Baptism Numb 11. Jewish Original as hath been shewed by many Learned Men and the Correspondence of the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to the High-Priest Priests and Levites doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia What the High-Priest Priests and Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned and Pious a a a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar and the one Priest-hood c. Mr. Dodwell To all which I may add many other Institutions as that of b b b Dr. Taylor his great Exemplar Disc of Baptism Numb 11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication and of the ritual performance of Ordination Confirmation and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands all which are of Jewish Original Likewise the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist which for their extream inconvenience were taken away by the c c c Concil Sext. in Trull c. 24. Churches Authority the use of Festivals and Fasts the Institution of the Lord's day which is nothing but the Sabbath translated In a word the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies and Worship with the Synagogue as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of Religious Assemblies even to the formal use of the Hebrew-word d d d 1 Cor. 14. 16 Rom. 11. 36. Eph. 3. 21. Phil. 4. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 17. Heb. 23. 27. 1 Pet. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 1. 7. Just Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const Imper. p. 683. Amen Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars As First Concerning the beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the
also to be observed that the Chapters omitted are those of the Old Testament which either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or which relate matters of Fact delivered also in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood This seems to Apologise for the Churches leaving those to be considered at home by them that have ability so to do and appointing some Apocryphal Chapters to be read which are more plain and in that respect more profitable for the Common People Unless a Man will say that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority it must be always more profitable to read any part of that to the people than to use any other Exhortation or read any other good Lesson And then I do not know what place will be left for Sermons since as I said before they are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons 3. If it be said that the reading of these as Lessons is a prevailing Temptation to the Vulgar to take them for God's Word or to think them equal to the Writings of the Old and New Testament I believe there is no sufficient ground for this I never heard of any of our Communion that were led into that mistake It is certain that our Church declareth those Lessons to be no part of Canonical Scripture and in the 6th Article saith That they are read for example of Life and instruction of Manners but that it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine And herein she follows the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church which distinguisheth between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books esteeming those to be of Divine Authority these not so but indeed Godly Writings profitable to be publickly read And why the same use of them may not be retained with the same distinction I can see no good Reason For the Church of Romes receiving the Apocryphal Books into her Canon is not likely to mislead any of our Communion since we are not so forward to take their Opinion in any Matter of Religion But in the last place There is no Apocryphal Lesson read in our Churches upon any Lords day in the year and so there is not this pretence against Communion with us upon the Lords days when it is that we do so earnestly desire the Communion of those that have separated from us And therefore I shall at present say nothing to those Exceptions which are taken from the Matter of some of the Apocryphal Books as that some Relations are pretended to be Fabulous c. For this would engage me to a greater length than I intend But whoever thinks himself capable to judge of this Controversie may receive satisfaction from what Dr. Falkner has said upon it in his Libertas Ecclesiast p. 164 c. To proceed Although the Communion Service for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet that has not past free from Exception The Passages that seem to be disliked are two 1. That Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood Here they say a distinct efficacy of cleansing and a greater efficacy is attributed to the Blood of Christ than to his Body inasmuch as the cleansing of our Souls is attributed to the Blood of Christ whereas our Bodies are said only to be cleansed by his Body Now in answer to this I suppose it is plain from those Words at the delivery of the Bread and Wine The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting life And the Blood of our Lord c. It is I say plain from hence that our Church teaches the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies to flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ And therefore that former Passage is not to be Interpreted as if our Souls were not cleansed by the Body of Christ because they are said to be washed by his Blood For the saying of this does not exclude the other When the Apostle said We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. Though he exprest only the Bread of the Eucharist yet no man will say he meant to exclude the Cup as if the Unity of the Church would be argued only from their partaking in that one kind And when he said that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. he meant not to exclude the Participation of the Bread as if that one Spirit which animated the Church was signified only by partaking of the Cup. Nor will any Man argue from hence that he attributes a distinct efficacy to the Bread to prove the Unity of the Body and to the Cup to prove the Unity of the Spirit I must needs say that this Exception was sought but never offered it self 2. The Ministers delivering the Elements into every Communicants hands with a Form of Words recited to every one of them at the Distribution is blamed also as being thought a departure from the Practice of Christ at the first Institution of this Sacrament For they say our Lord's Words were Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this and therefore the People are not to take the Elements one by one out of the Ministers hand nor ought any Form of Words to be used particularly to every one that receives To this I answer 1. That it does not appear from those Words Take ye c. which are spoken in the Plural Number that our Saviour did not speak particularly to every one of his Apostles when they received or that he did not deliver the Elements into every particular Mans hand For the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution of Christ not of every Word he then said but what was necessary to be related And then what might be particularly said or done to every one would be sufficiently related in being related as spoken or done Generally to all That is if Christ had said Take thou Eat thou to every one of them this were truly related by the Evangelists who tell us that he had said to all Take Eat c. And therefore I do not see how it can be proved that our Practice varies from this Circumstance of the Institution Tho if it did I suppose it might be as easily defended as the Celebration of the Eucharist about Dinner time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves scruple not But he that thinks not this Answer sufficient let him consult the aforesaid excellent Book of Dr. Falkner p. 218 c. where he shall find that it is indeed more probable that our way is agreeable to the way of the First Institution in this Matter than that which the Dissenters would have instead
publick Worship of God and all this without the least notice taken by without any complaint or opposition from any particular person either in the then present or succeeding generation 3 The Primitive Church esteemed the Holy Sacrament to be the most solemn part of Christian Worship as that which deservedly challenged from them the utmost pitch of Devotion and the highest degree of Reverence that they could possibly pay and express either with their Souls or Bodies This is clear partly from those Honorary Titles they bestowed upon this Ordinance and adorn'd it with which import the greatest deference and the most awful regard imaginable partly from that tedious See part 1. p. 58. and severe Discipline which she exercised the Catechumens and Penitents with before she admitted them into the Communion of the Faithful and approved of them as fit to partake of the Holy Mysteries To be admitted to the Sacrament so onely as to behold it and to be present at those Prayers which were put up by worthy Communicants over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice was heretofore accounted a high honour and priviledge But to make one at this heavenly Feast and to receive the pledges of our Lords love was esteemed the top and perfection of Christianity and the extremity of honour and happiness that a Christian is capable of in this life Heretofore with shame and reproach be it spoken to our stupidly wicked and degenerate Age to be excluded from the Holy Communion was look'd upon as the greatest curse and punishment that could be inflicted and on the other hand to be a Communicant to have a freedom of access to the Lords Table as the greatest blessing and most ample reward that could be propounded the sum of a Christians hopes the center of all his wishes during his abode here 4. For standing in time of Divine Service both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament there are so many and so clear testimonies extant in pure Antiquity that a man must take a great deal of pains not to see this truth who is never so little conversant in the Records of those times and in such a man it must be height of folly or impudence to deny it The bare asserting of it shall be sufficient because to insist upon the proof of it by an enumeration of particulars would swell this Discourse beyond measure and besides it would be a needless labour since the great Patrons of sitting or the common Table-gesture Gillesp Disp against En. Po. Cer. point 1660. p. 190 191. do frankly own and acknowledge that Standing was a posture generally used by the ancient Church in her religious Assemblies both at their ordinary Prayers and at the Communion-service Howsoever I shall be forced to say something concerning this matter under the following particular 5 Which is this That the Primitive Christians though on the Lords days and for the space of 50 days between Easter and Whitsunday they observed Standing yet at other times used the gesture of Kneeling at their publick Devotions Which will appear from a Decree pass'd in the first general Council assembled at Nice in words to this effect Because there are some Can 20 about the year 325. which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost that is between Easter and Whitsunday it is therefore ordained by this holy Synod that when we pay our Vows unto the Lord in Prayer we observe a Standing gesture to the end that a uniform and agreeable Custom may be maintained or secured through all Churches By which Canon provision was made against Kneeling not as if it were an inconvenient and unbecoming gesture to be used at all in the publick Worship of God but onely as being an irregular and unfit posture to be used at such particular times and occasions as is there specified viz. on the Lords days and the Feast of Pentecost when for any Christian to stand was to cross the general Custom and Practice of the Church at that time For this Council did not you must note introduce and establish any new thing in the Church but onely endeavoured by its authority to keep alive and in credit an ancient Custom which they saw began to be neglected by some Christians And from that clause in the Canon Because there are some which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost c. we may with good reason infer that Kneeling was the posture that was generally used at other times in their religious Assemblies For if Standing had been generally observed by all Churches in time of Divine Service at all other times as well as those mentioned in the Decree what occasion or necessity had there been for such an Injunction whereby all Christians were obliged to do that which they constantly and universally did before There is a passage in the Author of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyr which will put this matter out of doubt and give us the reason why they altered their posture on the Lords day It is Respons ad quest 115. p. 468. saith he that by this means we may be put in mind both of our Fall by Sin and our Resurrection and Restitution by the Grace of Christ that for six days we pray upon our Knees is in token of our Fall by Sin but that on the Lords day we do not bow the Knee doth symbolically represent our Resurrection c. This he there tells us was a Custom derived from the very times of the Apostles for which he cites Irenaeus in his Book concerning Easter That it was ancient appears from Tertullian who lived in the same Age with Irenaeus and speaks of it as if it had been establish'd An. Dom. 198. by Apostolical Authority or at least by Custom had obtained the force of a Law for these are his words We esteem Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Tert. de Cor. mil. c. 3. 206. Col. Agrip. edit 1617. Epiph. exposit Fid. Cathol p. 1105. edit Par. Flor. An. Dom. 390. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Hieronym prolog Comment in Ep. ad Ephes it a great act of wickedness or villany either to Fast or Kneel on the Lords day Which intimates too that Fasting and Kneeling in their publick Worship were both lawful and customary at other times To whose Testimony if we joyn that of another Father who lived some time after the first general Nicene Council we need not produce any more witnesses to clear the matter It is that of Epiphanius in his Exposition of the Catholick Faith where he certifies that the weekly stated Fasts of Wednesday and Friday were diligently kept by the Catholick Church the whole year round excepting the fifty days of Pentecost on which they do not Kneel nor is there any Fast appointed The reason of which Custom was as both St. Jerome and St. Augustin attest because all that space between Easter and Whitsunday was a time of
That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies This is not only frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball (g) (g) (g) Trial p. 121 129 140 156. but little less even by Mr. Norton (h) (h) (h) Resp ad Apol c. 13. who saith It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in Publick Worship are in use neither doth it lie as a Duty on a Believer that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church And they give this reason for it that then they must separate from all Churches So Mr. Baxter c. Is it not a high degree Sacril desert p. 102. Defence Part 2. p. 65. Balls Trial p. 138. Rogers 7 Tr. p. 224. of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ's Churches in the World for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day have offered such Worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it and that almost all the Catholick Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms and that even Calvin and the Presbyterians Cartwright Hildersham and the old Non-conformists were unworthy your Communion I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer but I know also that these are answered by them But since the most common is that of quenching and stinting the Spirit I shall briefly give their sence of it They say 1. To say that Persons should use no set Form but Roger's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223. Balls Tryal c. 5. p. 83. pray as moved by the Spirit is a fond Error 2. They say that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask not in what phrase of speech It stirreth up in us holy Desires but giveth not ability suddenly and without help to express and lay open our Hearts in a fit method and significant words Ability of Speech is a common Gift of the Spirit which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad c. 3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in Ibid. p. 91. Words and Forms but in fervent Sighs and Groans 4. That there is nothing letteth but that in such Rogers Ibid. Forms the Hearers Hearts may profitably go with the same both to humble to quicken and to comfort And Dr. Owen cannot deny but that they may Disc of Prayer p 222 231 232. be for edification and that Persons in the use of them may have Communion with God 5. They say that the Scriptures insisted upon in this Case are grounded upon Mistakes and are misapplied as Mr. Tombs in particular hath clearly manifested Theodulia p. 164 238. Fourthly I shall consider what their Opinion is as to the English Liturgy or Common-Prayer both as to the Liturgy it self and Communion in it As to the Liturgy it self it 's acknowledged 1. That the Matter for the most part is good sound Bryan's dwelling with God Serm. 6 p. 312. Baxt. Def. pa. t 1. p. 29 59. Crofton Refor no Separ p. 25. T. D. Jerubbaal p 35. and divine and that there is not any Doctrinal Passage in any of the Prayers that may not bear a good construction and so Amen may be said to it as Dr. Bryan with others do maintain 2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its Publick Forms so ours is the best So the old Non-conformists Compare the Doctrines Leâ—ter of the Minist in Old-Engl p. 12. Prayers Rites at those Times throughout in use in the Churches with ours and in all these blessed be the Name of the Lord we are more pure than they And it 's not much short that we find in Mr. Baxter in the name of Second Plea for Peace p. 101. the present Non-conformists 3. That which is accounted faulty is tolerable and hinders not but that it 's acceptable to God and edifying to pious and well-disposed Persons Tolerable So Mr. Corbet The Worship contained Plea for Lay-Communion p. 2. V. Ball 's Tryal c. 9. p. 58. in the Liturgy may lawfully be partaked in it being sound for substance in the main and the mode thereof being laudable in divers Forms and Orders and passable in the most though in some offensive inconvenient or less perfect Acceptable to God So the old Non-conformists Letter of the Minist in Old-England p. 13. In them that join with the Prayers according to Christ's Command and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been shewed notwithstanding the Corruptions we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God c. Edifying to well-disposed Persons To this purpose Mr. Hildersham Mr. Rogers c. Treat 3. c. 4. p. 224l And accordingly Mr. Corbet professeth his own experience (a) (a) (a) Corbet Plea p. 3. Though I judg their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired yet I have found my Heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein and more especially in receiving the Lord's Supper I judg this Form may be used formally by the Formal and spiritually by those that are Spiritual It is my part to make the best of it being the established Form As to Communion in the Liturgy it is granted 1. That there is no cause to renounce it or the Communion of the Church for it and that so to do is a Sin (b) (b) (b) Gifford's plain Declaâ—ation Ball 's Trial c. 7. p. 121. Sacril desert p. 105. 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come among us where it is used (c) (c) (c) Mr Baxter's Def. of Cure p. 68. 3. It 's declared on the part of the old Non-conformists That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their Publick Ministrations (d) (d) (d) Ball 's Tryal p. 121. c. 8. p. 155. and that the People generally were in their days satisfied in it (e) (e) (e) Let. of Ministers of Old-Engl p. 14. And for the present it 's declared We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer but read it our selves (f) (f) (f) Mr. Mead's Case p. 7. M. Humphry's Healing Paper p. 5. Mr. Baxter's Disp 4. of Church-Gov p. 364. Mr. S. Fairclough's Life p. 157. I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Objections against the Liturgy and the Answers return'd to them by the old and present Non-conformists but shall content my self with that which it seems was much Trial. c. 8. p. 152. insisted upon in the days of Mr. Ball and their Reply to it The Liturgy in the whole Matter and Form thereof is Object too like unto the mass-Mass-Book If the Liturgy be Antichristian it is so either in Answ respect of the Matter or of the Form Not of the Matter for that which properly belonged to Antichrist the foul and gross Errors is purged out Not of the Form for Order and Phrase of
13. 4. Though God did deny this Privilege to David yet it was not without giving him good reason for it and that was 1. because things were not setled So it was before with the tribes therefore God saith he walked with them (f) (f) (f) 2 Sam. 7. 6 7. vers 1. And so it was with David for though he had at that time rest which was about the 10th or at most the 20th of his Reign Yet it was far from a settled Peace and therefore Mr. Pool reads it as the Margin v. 11. I will cause thee to rest 2. It was not fit for David Because he had been a man of War and shed much blood (g) (g) (g) 1 Chron. 22. 7 8 9. 28 3. Now in opposition to this 1. God saith I will ordain a place for Israel and plant them c. (h) (h) (h) 1 Chron. 17. 9 2. Of Solomon he saith He shall be a man of rest and I will give him Peace (i) (i) (i) 1 Chron. 22. 9 So that it appears that it was not unlawful for David to design a Temple nor unacceptable to God that he did design it but it was deferr'd for the reasons before given and because it was unseasonable Now because the Author has referr'd me to Ames I will send him back thither and let him see whether he has answered all this or no. Ames Fresh Suit part 2. §. 6 and 7. Case examined p. 26. As for the Feast of Purim This Reverend person saith It lieth upon our Author to prove the Feast of purim was kept as a Religious Feast There is no order for any Religious Acts to be performed in it If it were it was generally commanded under the precepts of giving thanks for publick mercies I shall therefore undertake to prove it a Religious Feast But before I proceed I shall 1. observe That the lawfulness of Religious Feasts and Fasts admit of the same general proof and if I prove one I prove the other 2. I observe that the Jews did think it lawful to institute Religious Feasts and Fasts both occasional and anniversary Of the latter sort which is the matter in dispute were the Fasts of the 4 th 5th and 10th Months instituted in the time of the Captivity (a) (a) (a) Zech. 8. 19. Such was the Feast of Dedication instituted by the Jews in the time of the Maccabees (b) (b) (b) 1 Mac. 4. 59. And kept to the time of our Saviour (c) (c) (c) John 10 22. nay to this very day amongst them (d) (d) (d) Buxtorf Synag Jud. And so Mordecai and Esther did establish this Feast of Purim and the Jews took upon themselves to keep it (e) (e) (e) Est 9 20 27 29. Now that it was a Religious Feast will appear 1. As it was a day of thanksgiving to God for that great deliverance Thus it 's called a day of gladness a good day (f) (f) (f) ◠8. 17. 9. 18 19 22. which Mr. Pool thus paraphraseth a time of feasting rejoycing and thanksgiving (g) (g) (g) On c. 8. 17. Ch. 9. 27. This further appears from the reason given for the celebration of it It was saith the Text That the memorial of their deliverance should not perish or as Mr. Pool Because they had seen and felt this wonderful work of God on their behalf (h) (h) (h) C. 9. 25 31. It appear'd further from the circumstances of it it 's said They sent portions one to another and gifts to the poor (i) (i) (i) C. 9 22. Which saith Pool they used to give upon days of thanksgiving of which see Neh. 8. 10. And I may add that it is impossible to conceive that persons of such signal piety as Mordecai and Esther should institute and under the present sense of such a deliverance as the Jews were should observe this Feast only as a day of Civil Joy without respect to God that wonderfully brought it about 2. It was as much a Religious Feast as their Fast was a Religious Fast So the Text makes them parallel They confirmed these days of Purim c. As they had decreed for themselves for their seed the matters of the fastings their cry (k) (k) (k) C. 10 31. But what their Fasting was the nature of the thing as well as the Cry here spoken of doth declare So to go ye and fast Pool adds and pray which was the main business to which fasting was only an help (l) (l) (l) On. c. 4. 16 and 9 31. But our Author saith There is no order for any Religious Acts to be performed in it As if they did not know what became them to do upon such a gracious and wonderful deliverance But we read of no order for such Acts on their days of Fasting were they not therefore Religious Nay we read not of the name of God in the whole Book or of any duty to him plainly expressed and shall we therefore esteem it not to be Religious and Canonical But saith our Author If it were a Religious Feast it was generally commanded under the precepts of giving thanks And I desire no more For in one Breath he hath yielded all So that now we have gained that fixed and anniversary festival days set apart for Commemoration of God's Mercies to us are not only lawful but what we have a command for And thence it follows that a Church hath Power to determine them as they did And further that things not commanded may be used in Divine Worship The next thing is the Synagogal Worship To this he replyes The Worshipping of God in Synagogues wanted no special Command Being but a Circumstance convenient if not necessary to publick Worship considered as an Humane Act. A Multitude of people could not meet to Worship God together without a fit place But First why did not Synagogues want a Special Command as well as the Temple which he contends for For which is worse to build a more convenient place for one already instituted a Temple for a Tabernacle or to build places for which they had as he yields no special command as the Synagogues But suppose they needed not a Command for Synagogues because a Multitude could not meet together without a Fit Place yet how will that be a reason that the Worshipping in Synagogues wanted it not That place is a circumstance convenient and that Synagogues were fit places for a Multitude of people to Worship in we grant and we will grant that this may be a reason to justify the building and using such places without a special Command yet what is that to the Worship so and so ordered in those places What is that to Days and Hours which the Scripture speaks of and he contends against What is this to the Forms used in their Service which the Jews do write of If these are not to be justified though they wanted a Special Command how
grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed out of the peoples sight if the continuance of it in their view were like to be a snare to them and a temptation to Idolatry You reply may not the like be said of what Dissenters plead against But you have been already told that the like may not be said with any colour or shew of reason 6. Our Author saith That if Hezekiah had let it stand private persons might have made use of it to put them in mind of the wonderfull mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-fathers This you acknowledge but say that the Question at present under our debate is whether Hezekiah might lawfully have let it stand and removed it into the Temple whether his setting it up by the Ark or Mercy Seat would have purged it But for shame Sir do not say that this is the Question in debate between us In your 16th Page you express very great offence at those next words of our Author pag. 36. And much more might they have lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry But you leave out what follows viz. as we do not reade of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the Generality And do you find that the pious Jews did separate upon this account Or if they did not will you say that they were guilty of Sin For my part I dare not say so nor that it would be a sin now not to separate from our Church though our Governours were so remiss as not to Excommunicate Idolaters if such were found therein any more than it is so upon the account of Promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communions As the Worthy person that published the Resolution of that case hath clearly proved and proved too that it is Vnlawfull to separate upon that pretence But you say you can never believe this till some can prove to you that a Wife may lawfully contrary to the command of her Husband stay in a Family of Whoremongers provided that she be not compelled to play the Whore I answer that a Wife may not lawfully though her Husband hath not expresly forbidden it stay in a Family consisting wholly of Whoremongers except to bear her Husband company and in that case it is her duty to stay But where hath Christ forbidden us to Communicate with a Church out of which Idolaters are not ejected though Idolatry be not enjoined You say he hath done it in those words Rev. 18. 4. Come out of her my people but I pray read on and you have an answer that ye be not partaker of her sins and that ye receive not viz. by partaking of her sins of her plagues And moreover I presume you will acknowledge that the Babylon which the Christians were commanded to come out of is the Idolatrous Church of Rome But I need not acquaint you that you cannot continue in this Church except you will your self also be an Idolater But I will not stand to dispute this point with you it being nothing to the business of our Author's Book and all he asserts as to this matter doth amount to no more than this That we are not obliged to renounce Communion in pure Ordinances with such as we know to be guilty of Idolatry when it lies not in our power to keep them away And now you have brought me to our Author's Third Head of Discourse viz. That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawfull You say Page 17th That if our Author had said all Communion viz. with the Church of England is not unlawfull you had fully concurred with him believing that this Church cannot be justly charged with Idolatry and that some Communion may and ought to be held with any Church that is not so charged If you mean by some Communion a not being divided in heart as you before express it I say again we thank you for nothing the Communion which our Author pleads for being as your self observes in your first Page chiefly Communion in Worship But you proceed saying but as he hath laid it I cannot agree with it I am sure Christ had Communion with the Jewish Church and I believe he had so in all acts of worship of his Father's Institution and I am as sure he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their worship as I am that he would not himself practise what he condemned so severely But are you not as sure that our Blessed Lord had Communion with the Jewish Church in all acts of worship instituted by his Father as you are that he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their Worship I am sure that in the former part of that saying you are too too cautious and in the latter not so cautious as you ought to have been For you may be sure of the contrary to what you affirm so positively when you have considered that our Lord could not have so freely been admitted into the Temple had he not observed divers Traditions or Canons of the Elders without complying with which none might come thither I shall not stand to instance in particulars but refer you to Dr. Leightfoot's Temple Service pag. 115. to 120. And again you may yet be more sure of the contrary when you have considered how our Lord complied with Jewish Traditions in the celebration of the Passover and such too as altered certain circumstances prescribed in its First Institution Particularly his ordering the Preparation of the Lamb on the 14th day when Moses ordained the taking of it up upon the 10th day His eating the Passover lying along being the posture in which they ate their ordinary Meals according to a Jewish Tradition as you may see in Dr. Leightfoot's foresaid Book pag. 143 144. whereas according to Moses his Institution it was to be eaten with their Loins girded c. and in haste or standing His complying with the Jewish customs of drinking Wine at the Passover and concluding with the Hallel or a Hymn And not these onely but more Traditions than these Dr. Leightfoot will satisfie you were conformed to by our Blessed Saviour But you say Christ condemned severely the Jewish Traditions But I say he did not at all condemn all Jewish Traditions and none but such as by which they made the Commandments of God of none effect And such as they placed special Holiness in and necessary to acceptance with God as is too evident to need my standing to prove it And Sir when you can prove that our Ceremonies are like to those condemned Traditions I will undertake that our Author shall be as zealous against complying with them as he is now against separation from our
not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness but trusting in God Consecrated the Child to the Priest-hood almost as soon as he saw the Light Thou wilt have no need of Superstitious Charms and Amulets for him in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls the Honour which is due to God but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity which is the most safe and excellent of Charms And afterwards a a a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far the Baptism of those who desire Baptism but what shall we say of Infants who are sensible neither of the gain nor loss of it shall we Baptize them Most certainly if they be in danger for it is better that they be Sanctified without the Sense of it than that they dye uninitiated and unconsigned and my reason is taken from Circumcision which was administred on the Eighth Day unto Infants that had no Reason to which I may add the saving of the First-Born in Goshen by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door and the two Side-Posts The Brevity which I design in this Treatise will not permit me to recite many more Authorities which are very b b b Vid. testim Veter Script de Baptism apud Cassand Gerhard Joh. Voss disp 14. de Baptismo numerous out of Chrysostom Ambrose Jerom Augustin c. But I shall rather superadd some Considerations which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Baptism and are sufficient to induce any considerate and impartial Man to believe that so Ancient and universal a Practice was as old as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles and originally derives its Authority from them For first if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles but an Innovation it is very hard to imagine that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous Practice which would in time Un-Church it while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church The same Holy Spirit that was the guide of the Apostles into all Truth was the Author of Miracles too but the first four Witnesses which I have produced for Infant-Baptism to wit Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian do all likewise assure us that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church c c c Adversus haereses l. 2. cap. 56 57. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. cap. 7. Irenaeus tells us that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils and had the Gift of Tongues and of Praescience and Praediction and of healing the Sick and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by Fasting and Prayer often raise the Dead and that many so raised were then alive in the Church Nay he tells us that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable which the Church all the World over then received from Christ and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error as Infant-Baptism was if it was not of Apostolical Tradition and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders and divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost Tertullian in his a a a Et ad Scapulam c. 2. Apologetic tells us that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils Nay he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those that were acted and inspired with any one of their Gods and Goddesses whom they worshipped and if that Daemon God or Goddess not daring to tell a Lye before any Christian should not confess it self to be a Devil then they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place Origen in his Answer to Celsus frequently appeals to the Miracles which the Christians wrought in his Days particularly in the first b b b Cambridge Edition p. 34. Book he saith that they exorcised Daemons healed the Sick and foresaw Future Events And in the c c c p. 334. See also p. 62 80 124 127 376. seventh Book he proves that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts because Idiots or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Prayers and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men. d d d In Epist ad Donatum vid. Epist ad Magnum ad Demetrianum p. 202. Ed. Rigalt St. Cyprian tells us that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons to restore Mad-men to their Senses to force Devils to confess themselves to be so and with invisible strokes and Torments to make them cry and howl and forsake the Bodies which they possessed These are the first four Witnesses which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism and let any man judge whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy and Miraculous Period as this But secondly If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice how came the a a a Vid. Vossii hist Pelag. l. 2. pars 2 Thes 4. 13. disp de Bapt. Thes 18. disp 14. Thes 4. Cassand praefat ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. Testim veteru de Bapt. parvulorum p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an Innovation seeing the Orthodox used it as an Argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easie for them had there been any ground for it to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles or that it was brought up by False-Apostles and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times but then they were so far from doing this which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence that they practiced it themselves and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition and as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Original Sin But thirdly If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice from the first Plantation of Christian Churches or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops and Presbyters but of such as were Original Plantations and betwixt which there was likely none or but very little Communication by reason of the vast distance and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where b b b Brerewoods Enquiries c. 23 Cassand exposit de auctor Consult Bapt. Infant p. 692. they lived Among these of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church in the further Ethiopia and the c c c Osor l. 3. de rebus gest Eman cit à Vossio in disp 14. de Baptismo Brerewoods Enquiries c. 20.
may they now hope to do it For there are now many hinderances which did not then lie cross their way First The Platform of Discipline so highly applauded so earnestly contended for during the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James hath now been in part tryed and the presence of it to omit other Reasons hath abated the Reverence some had for it Secondly There is not at this time such an Union amongst Dissenters as appeared at the beginning of our late Troubles The number of those Dissenters who were not for the Discipline was then very inconsiderable But in a few years they brake as it were into Fractions of Fractions Insomuch that the Ministers of the Province of London expressed the Estate of things in the Year 47 on this manner * * * Testim to the Truth of J. Chr. p. 30. Instead of Vnity and Vniformity in Matters of Religion we are torn in pieces with Distractions Schisms Separations Divisions ano Subdivisions Thirdly Those who then favoured the Discipline are much departed from their former Scheme of Government inclining to Independency which they once denyed to be God's Ordinance * * * Mr. Herl c. and pleading for Toleration which they once called The last and strongest hold of Satan * The Title of Mr. Edwards 's book 1647. See Testim of Min. p. 20. Fourthly At the beginning of our Disturbances many Men of Quality and such who had a Zeal of God favour'd the Settlement of the Discipline in the simplicity of their hearts They had not then seen any Revolutions they had not discovered the secret Springs of publick Motions nor the vile Interests of many men which lay concealed under the disguise of Pure Religion They saw what all Men may see in all times abuses in Church and State and the very name of Reformation was sweet to them Now notwithstanding the sincere zeal and the power of these Men the Discipline could not long be carried on much less could it be perfected by them There is therefore at this time a much greater Improbability of Success in the like design For many consiberable men Piously inclin'd have seen their error and will not be a second time engaged And they will not say of our late changes as the Protector did * * * Oliver 's Speech in the Painted Chambâ—r Jan. 22. 54 at the Dissolv of the Parl. p. 29. 33. That they were the Revolutions of God and not humane designs That they were the Revolutions of Christ upon whose Shoulders the Government was stayed They are not of the same mind with him who told the Commons * * * Mr. Caryl in Ep. Ded. bef Ser. called the Arraign of Unbelief A. 45. That if they acted Faith then the Records of those Times on their side should bear thus to all Posterity the Book of the Wars and Counsels of God Also since those days through the luxation of Discipline during the licence of the War the discovery of great and black Hypocrisies the multiplication of Parties and Opinions the publishing of many lewd and irreligious books from Unlicens'd Presses Atheism hath made very formidable Advances And they say that some undisguised Sceptics and Atheists have some times since the King's Return been much used in the Cause of our Dissenters Now if well meaning zeal could not establish the Discipline it is not likely to be promoted much less settled by the help of such hands of which the outsides are not washed by so much as an External form of Godliness The Second Branch of the first End of Dissenters The second Branch of the 1st End of the Dissenters viz. Vnion by mutual forbearance seems more improbable than the first viz. The settling themselves as several distinct Parties giving undisturbed Toleration to each other This seems not probable upon many accounts First Some Dissenters believe some of the Parties to be incapable of Forbearance as maintaining Principles destructive of Christian Faith and Piety This Opinion they still have for instance sake of Antinomians Quakers and Muggletonians And they formerly declamed against the Toleration of divers others They publish'd here by Authority so called an Act of the Assembly at Edinburgh * * * A 1647. Act of Assemb p. 2. Against Erastians Independents and Liberty of Conscience bearing as they speak their publick Testimony against them not only as contrary to sound Doctrine but as more special Letts and Hinderances as well to the Scottish received Doctrine Discipline and Government as to the Work of Reformation and Uniformity in England and Ireland The Ministers of the Province within the County Palatine of Lancaster in their Harmonions Consent * * * Harmon Consent A. 1648. p. 12. with the Ministers of the Province of London publish'd their Judgments in these zealous Words A Toleration would be a putting of a Sword into a Mad man's hand An appointing a City of Refuge in Mens Consciences for the Devil to fly to A proclaiming Liberty to the Wolves to come into Christ's Fold to pray upon his Lambs A Toleration of Soul-murther the greatest murther of all others and for the establishing whereof damned Souls in Hell would accurse Men on Earth Neither would it be to provide for tender Consciences but to take away all Conscience If error be not forcibily kept under it will be Superior It seems they were not then of the later Perswasion of the Protector who said * * * Protect Speech Jan. 22. 54. p. 28. concerning the People of several Judgments in this Land That they were All the Flock of Christ and the Lambs of Christ though perhaps under many unruly Passions and Troubles of Spirit whereby they gave disquiet to themselves and others And that they were not so to God as to us Again There is no firmness or social influence in the nature of this Union It is the Union of a multitude who meet and disperse at pleasure And he who proposeth this way as the means to knit Men into Christian Communion is like a Projecter who should design the keeping of the stones together in the strength of a firm and lasting House by forbearing the use of Cement The Union that lasteth is that of the Concord of Members in an Uniform Body Moreover It is to be consider'd that there are no Parties in this or any other Nation so exactly poised that they have equal Numbers and Interests There is always one of them which over-ballanceth the rest And one of the several ways must always be favoured as the Religion of the State And it is natural for the strongest side to attempt the subduing of the weaker And though this be not soon effected yet 'till one side getteth the mastery the Parties remain not as distinct Bodies settled in peace within themselves and towards each other but as Convulsions in the common body of the State Some think this Inclination to the swallowing up of all other Parties to be