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
charge against any one of that innocent part of Mankind The Instance of Esau is all that looks like an Enemy to Infants but mind it well there is no such matter in it God knew that Esau should not dy an Infant he knew he would be a bad Man and is judged as such Esau is not to be ranked with dying Infants and this Instance failing there is not the Shadow of any Proof that God will damn poor dying Infants But because the Doctor whose Book we are to examine has some Kindness for all dying Infants as I conceive though the Quality of his Subject does sometimes enforce him to drop such Sentences as may seem to deny all Mercy to unbaptized Infants yet he corrects all such Passages by saying they may be saved by uncovenanted Mercy c. A strange Speech it is but there is some Kindness to poor Infants dying without Baptism I shall therefore insist no farther at present upon the pâ—int of Infants Salvation but make my way to the Book itself by premising a few things Our late Assertors of Infant-Baptism seem to me to be ready to yield that Christ has not commanded to baptize Infants yea some of them grant it in totidem verbis yet they think themselves safe because in their Judgment Infant Baptism is not forbidden And with this Apprehension away they go to the Jews for Relief who out of their Talmud Gemara and Maimonides give them an account of some such Vsage among the Israelites And now from Dr. Hammond who has searched much into the Rabinical Doctrine they grow confident that Baptism was a Jewish Ceremony originally though they grant it was but of humane Institution and that the Christian Baptism is but the Copy which is taken from that Original Yea the learned Author of the case of Infant Baptism does tell us boldly That our Saviour being obliged to lay by Circumcision consecrated this Custom of the Jewish Church to be the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church But certainly John's Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins which was from Heaven and not of Men was more fit to be established by our Lord Christ for a perpetual Ministery in his Church than such a Jewish Custom Pitty it is that we should yet be contending about Infant-Baptism from this supposed humane Institution of the Jews When our needful Work is to do our Endeavour to prepare our Youth and many aged Persons too for an orderly Admission to that Holy Laver for Remission of Sins and not to blind their Eyes by fabling to them that they were regenerate and born again as soon almost as they came into the World. We have certainly as much need of good Schools to catechise our Youth and to prepare them thereby for the Profession of the most sacred Religion as the ancient Christians had This is the way to have our Posterity to receive the Truth in the Love of it when their Judgments are informed to understand it in the Beauty and Excellency as well as to see the Necessity of it This is the way to have them stand fast under all Revolutions when they have been radicated in the first Principles of Cathechism Heb. 6. 1 2. These Principles of Christianity are plain and easy to be understood and yet God knows there are but a few that have a competent Vnderstanding of them in this Nation And it is but a bad way to promote Christian Knowledg in Principles of Catechism as that of Baptism is such by Stories out of the Talmud or other Jewish Books which if we had them we cannot understand them why then are we sent unto them Is the Holy Scripture less able to make us wise to Salvation than the Talmud Let us take to the good old way and diligently teach our Youth the Rudiments of Religion so shall Goodness and Mercy follow us all the days of our Life and we shall dwell by our Posterity in the House of the Lord for ever One main thing in the Book now under Consideration is the Covenant of Circumcision which the Doctor will have to be a Gospel-Covenant and Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance Now as all this were true it would come short of proving it our Duty to baptize our Infants For seeing there is a proper time for our Participation of all Gospel-Priviledges so we must learn what time this is not from Circumcision for then the 8th day must precisely be the time but from Christ and his Apostles who are our only infallible Instructors herein But that the Doctor is mistaken in this thing which he makes a Pillar to his Building is I hope sufficiently made manifest Nor shall it be amiss in this place to give you the Judgment of a very learned Jew lately converted and baptized in the City of London bicause he may rationally be thought to understand the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision being a great Student in all Jewish as well as Christian Theology as any other Man. And this is the account we have from him of this matter in his printed Exposition upon the Acts of the Apostles chap. 2. 40. The Jews saith he who were circumcised in Infancy before Circumcision was abrogated were here baptized by the order of Peter from whence it appears that by Baptism and Circumcision two Covenants altogether differing were to be sealed of which the one was with those who by the Law of Nature were born of the Seed of Abraham the other with those who were spiritually reborn by the Gift of Faith. And whereas one main hinge upon which the Doctors Discourse for Infant-Baptism is supported is the Custom of the Jewish Church and the Custom of the ancient Christian Church the said learned Jew speaks very well to that Plea in these Words The Customs of Churches ought to submit to the Words of Christ not the Words of Christ to be wrested to the Customs of the Church in regard the Words of Christ are the Foundation upon which all Church-Customs are to be built that they may be safe and laudable Whatsoever savours against the Words of Christ savours against the Truth and as Tertullian says what ever savours contrary to Truth is Heresy though it be an ancient Custom It is in the Power of God to pardon those that err out of Simplicity but because we erred once we are not always to go on in our Errors The Doctor divides his Book into a previous Discourse and into the Resolution of five Questions In stating and resolving his Questions he repeats much of the previous Discourse I have endeavoured to take his sence and have set down many of his Words and my Reply to his previous Discourse may serve as a Supplement to my Reply to the Resolution of his Questions because the same Arguments are handled in both What I have added about the Sign of the Cross in Baptism I have collected chiefly from a learned Protestant Writer in a Book intituled A Scholastical Discourse against Symbolizing with Antichrist
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
thing And as we are resolved indeed to correct and rectify this Error so we desire earnestly with humble Prayer of him that he would correct and amend that Error of taking away the Cup from the Laicks coming unto the holy Supper Does Monsieur Bossuet think that the Protestants will have a greater respect of that Custom which they have sound to be unlawful and that by the most weighty and solid Arguments than of the Institution of Jesus Christ and that to let Rome get an opportunity of boldly and freely breaking the Laws of Christ by the pernicious Imitation of our Example Far be that wicked frame of Mind from them they are straiter bound by the Authority of their holy Master than to despise his Voice when his Sound cometh to their Ears My Sheep hear my Voice and again I know my Sheep None except Wolves lurking under a Sheep-skin refuseth and turneth from it There is no Place therefore for cogging in these things for those that pretend the specious Title of received Custom for the Days Practice when Jesus and his Gospel is not the Custom but the Truth From the beginning it was not so says the same Jesus unto them who did object unto him the worst and cursed Custom of their Ancestors When we shall be presented before the Judgment of Christ he will not judg his Disciples by Custom but by the lively and effectual Word of his Gospel Neither should any be taken with a vain hope of framing an Excuse from the Authority of the Church because all the Authority of the Church is from Christ granted unto her for that intent and purpose that she might procure a Religious Obedience to his Laws and Heavenly Precepts but not that she might break repeal and cancel them There is in the Church no more Power of changing the Rites in the Sacraments than there is Power of changing his Word and Law c. Thus far the Learned and pious Protestant And shall the religious French Protestants be thus awakened and resolved to correct and rectify this Error by the Reflections made upon it by an Enemy and shall the English Protestants add yet more Slumber notwithstanding they have not only the very same Alarm come amongst them from the same Pen but their own Learned Men who stand upon their Watch-towers have given them notice of this Baptism-destroying Error And besides this God has raised up Witnesses for his Truth in this as well as other Particulars who with great Learning and Judgment have shown the Beauty of this Institution both by Doctrine and by the Practice of it in the Royal City and in most Parts of this Land for many Years together and yet the Church of England does not stir up her self at all to take hold of plain Truth in this matter And tho I am one of the least of the Witnesses which God has raised up in this Age and Nation in behalf of this Truth yet I shall humbly crave leave to address the Church of England after this friendly and free manner as I did Mr. Bossuet himself 1. I beseech her to consider that she has now to do with such Christians as are in good earnest for the ancient Christian Religion as it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles such as would not have any Truth delivered by Heavens Authority to be neglected nor in any-wise to be corrupted by Innovation Change or Alteration but religiously observed and kept according to the due Form and Power of Godliness 2. As to the Case of Infant-Baptism be pleased to consider that the Salvation of our Infants are as dear to us as yours can be to you and therefore you have no reason to think that we would willingly omit any thing which God has appointed as a furtherance thereunto and being as all Men know no less zealous for the Ordinance of Baptism than your selves you may be confident we would by no means hinder its due extent but promote it therein by all lawful means we are able 3. That our Lord Jesus has made Baptism necessary to the Salvation of Infants is not revealed in the holy Scripture nor that he has made it necessary for them at all and therefore as the African Council did ill to Anathematize those that denied the first so you have not done well to Anathematize such as cannot in Conscience bring their Infants to Baptism 4. Let therefore our Brethren of the Church of England return to the Truth in the Case of holy Baptism that we may return to her for when it shall be so with her she will distinguish between the Precious and the Vile yea that very Ministration rightly restored will naturally lead to a far greater Purity in Church-Communion than has hitherto been attained But if she will not be intreated to amend her Ways and her Doings the Lord will plead the Cause of his neglected Truth and despised People The CONCLVSION THE Doctor was pleased to reserve some of our Objections against the Paedobaptists for the Conclusion of his Book Now the Reader does understand that tho we shew like Arguments for Infant-Communion as they bring for Infant-Baptism both from Scripture and Antiquity yet we do not therefore hold that they are to be brought to the holy Table of the Lord but we do hereby shew that the Poedobaptist is not consistent with himself as for example This Doctor argues for Infant-Baptism from 1 Cor. 10. 2. that because Infants passed through the Sea and it 's said All our Fathers were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea therefore Infants were baptized to Moses and consequently ought to be baptized to Christ Now to shew the Fallacy of this Argument we say All that are said to be baptized ver 2. are also said to eat and drink spiritually of Christ so that this Scripture is as strong for Infant-Communion as for Infant-Baptism tho in Truth it 's no Rule for either For how should it follow that because God saved Israel miraculously from the Rage of Pharaoh in the Cloud and in the Red Sea and fed them miraculously with Mannah and Water in the Wilderness Therefore we are to baptize and communicate Infants But we have shewed before that the Apostle does limit this Baptism and feeding upon Christ to those of Understanding to wit our Fathers and so doth Augustine speaking of the latter in these words Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritualem manducaverunt We shew also from this 1 Cor. 10. 17. that all that are baptized into one Body are to partake of one Bread at the Lord's Table and therefore it will follow that if Infants ought to be baptized into the Church Militant they ought not to be denied the Bread and Cup in the Communion of that Body When they plead from Antiquity c. we shew them and they know it that near the second or early Ages of the Gospel Infants were brought to the Lord's Table to
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-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-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