Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
Church upon the account of them But to go on whereas our Author saith of Episcopal Government and the three other following things pag. 38. That he takes it for granted that there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them Vnlawfull and therefore that they are indifferent in their own nature You reply pag. 18. That there are few things to be named unlawfull in this sense I answer there are as many things unlawfull in this sense as there are things prohibited by the Moral Law and if you please to consult our Expositors of the Decalogue I presume you 'll find those things not a few You say at the bottom of this 18th Page That it troubles you to reade your Author saying I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholique Church c. And why I pray Sir doth this trouble you You give this reason why viz. Because certainly for the Apostolical practice in the Observation of the Lord's day we have the infallible evidence of Holy Scripture Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. But you must prove that we have in those Scriptures or some other infallible evidence for the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day and not for the mere Apostolical practice or you will say nothing to the purpose But to save my self the labour of saying more upon this Argument and of replying to those few lines that follow against the Primitiveness of our Episcopacy I entreat you to consult Mr. Chillingworth's Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated together with the most Learned Dean of St Pauls his Ample Proof of these two Propositions in his Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 244 c. viz. First that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church And Secondly That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority As to what you say p. 19. about Liturgies viz. that they cannot be indifferent if indeed as our Author speaks they be highly expedient to be universally imposed yea necessary I reply you have not caught him in a Contradiction as you think for his saying concerning Liturgies c. pag. 38. is That he takes it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature And tells you what he means by those words in the next viz. that there is nothing of viciousness or immorality in any of them c. Now is it a contradiction to say of the same thing that it is indifferent in its own nature and that 't is necessary considering certain circumstances And I farther say that Liturgies are necessary considering that through humane Weakness and Frailty the performance of publick worship with that Solemnity and Gravity which it calls for cannot be secured and yet notwithstanding they are still things in their own nature indifferent and so are all those things too which God 's Positive Laws have made necessary as all know who understand the difference between Moral and Positive But as to the Antiquity of Liturgies which you say our Author knoweth to be denied you have had a good while extant that Discourse which he said was expected and which you say you will patiently wait for to give you satisfaction about this matter And it is excellently fitted as I hope you have before now found not onely for the satisfying of Dissenters about that point relating to Liturgies but divers others also In your next Paragraph you tell us that all Divines will readily acknowledge that such a Method and Order of a Liturgy as is not contrived in Subserviency to the 3 General Rules of Doing all to Edification the Glory of God and not giving offence to any of the Churches of God may make it unlawfull And I also do readily acknowledge this and am confident that you cannot prove that Ours is not so contrived as to be made not Subservient unto those Rules And as to the last of them whatsoever Churches please to take offence at our Liturgy I am sure it gives no offence to them In what follows you profess that you never thought it unlawfull for any Laick wholly to separate from the Church of England because of our Liturgy and I hope you think it no more Lawfull for a Clergy-man nor did your self ever so separate But for all that you know that many hundreds and I fear some thousands do But you say there is a new Generation started up that not onely makes you a Separatist but all Conformable Ministers if they do not every time read the Second Service at the Altar This in good earnest is somewhat a hard Case but I pray Sir by what figure do you call one Start-up Warm Head a new Generation In your next Paragraph pag. 20. You say Our Author hath spied four little Thorns in some Dissenters Flesh which he hath very charitably endeavoured to pick out And you add that you will candidly enquire if no bit of them remain which may cause pain and hinder healing To make no reflexion Sir upon your expressing your self thus phancifully your meaning must be that you will enquire whether our Author hath not well defended the four things in our Liturgy which Dissenters object against as symbolizings with the Roman Service from being liable to just Offence Of which The First is The shortness of many Prayers But you say not one word in answer to what he speaks in the Vindication thereof But tell us that if some Dissenters think that throughout the Scriptures there is nothing like this to be found either in the Prayers of Solomon c. or any others and be a little stumbled at it you cannot condemn them But you must needs condemn it as an errour in them to think there are no short Prayers to be found in the Holy Scriptures when there are many more short than there are long Prayers When our Saviour used in the Garden thrice a shorter Prayer than is any one in our Service And when the Form he left behind him for our use is a very short one But if the using of a short Prayer be not the thing blamed but the using of several such in the same Service instead of one very long one I must take leave to say this is mere Wantonness And whereas you say you cannot condemn Dissenters if they be a little stumbled at it I say to be stumbled at it so as to make it one pretence for not joining with us in our Prayers is not to be a little stumbled at it And you know that that which our Author is concerned to doe is to perswade Dissenters not to be so much stumbled at any thing in our Prayers as to leave our Communion upon the account thereof Though he would be very glad to have them so well pleased with
all of them as not to be in the least stumbled at any of them The Second instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service And whereas our Author hath thought it enough to transcribe what Mr. Baxter hath said in five particulars to vindicate both the Lawfulness and Fitness hereof you reply not one word to any of them But you think you have balanced as your word is those five with five of your own 1. You say These Responses do not suit the gravity and solemnity of Divine Worship But we say they do and our yea is as good as your nay 2. You say many read false oftentimes And whose fault is it if they do But it appears from what is coming that you cannot prove it 3. You say Many Children and Girls understand not what they doe And therefore why do you permit them to join in Singing And why do you suffer them to hear Sermons 4. Those that cannot read you say are not edified in a confused noise not being able to understand what is read And then I hope you might have spared your second particular for those that read falsely cannot then be observed so to doe in this confused noise 5. You say Many leud and profane persons are thus made to bear their share in the Ministerial part of Publique Worship c. But do you prove that this is bearing a share in that part of Publique Worship which is proper and peculiar to the Minister and then we will grant that not onely no profane men but no Lay-men neither be they never so good may have their part therein 6. You say There is no such practice in the Churches of God in New England Scotland France Holland c. Do you think that our Author hath taken the Solemn League and Covenant that you urge such an Argument as this to him If you do you are much mistaken Sir But Mr. Baxter tells you in his fifth particular That it was the decay of zeal in the people that first shut out the Responses And therefore those Churches you mention should doe well to imitate ours in this particular I am constrained Sir to tell you again that I am ashamed of taking any notice of such talk as this The Third instance is The taking of some of the Collects out of the Missal You say you wish our Author had told us how many But I say 't is not worth the knowing if it were I could soon tell you if those that are taken thence are all good ones And considering what hath been said this is a sufficient Answer Remember our Author hath told you that our Departure from the Church of Rome was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation And I suppose the zeal of some Reformers that hurried them upon making no discrimination between things faulty and those that were innocent occasioned that honest saying of Zanchy's which I have heretofore somewhere met with viz. Non intelligo istam Reformatorum Mundi Theologiam As to that which follows to the last Paragraph of pag. 23 d. Enough abundantly hath already been said to satisfie you that you might have spared it Onely let me once for all tell you that whereas both here and elsewhere you insist upon our being at perfect liberty as to the using or not using those unnecessary things wherein we symbolize with the Church of Rome you ought to know that while they are Enjoyned we who are under Government are not at liberty as the Christians in the Apostles days were as to the Eating of Meats c. And whereas you touch here upon the topick of Scandal I can not hope to satisfie you about this Point if the two late judicious Resolutions of that Case cannot do it To which I refer you and ought so to doe it not falling within our Author's Undertaking The Fourth instance is The Appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books And what you say under this head amounts to thus much that you think it were better if they were not appointed And therefore I perceive you are not for making this a Pretence for Separation and Consequently you can have no controversie with our Author about it Whether it were better or not that we should imitate the Primitive Church in reading them now and then on Holy-days and ordinary Week-days merely for Example of life and instruction of Manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine let it be left to our Superiors to judge But though you have a greater latitude than many other Dissenters as to this matter yet you say that all should not be forced out of their wits nor made to doe what they cannot as well as you apprehend lawfull No God forbid that any one should be forced out of his wits upon such an account But whom can you name that hath had the least trouble given him for not being at Church on a Week-day Holy-day But I must take notice of one more passage before I proceed viz. Holy-days are the same with Sabbath-days with those who judge that there is nothing but Tradition for either Here is a good Wipe for our Author But I pray Sir did he say that there is nothing but Tradition for the Observation of the Sabbath He said that indeed pag. 40th from whence it may be inferred that he believes that the Apostolical institution of the Observation of the Lord's day is wholly to be gathered from the uninterrupted Tradition or Practice of the Catholick Church and is that such a small matter to found it upon When 't is the foundation on which is built the Canon of the Holy Scriptures But who are they that tell you that from the Uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church may be gathered the Apostolical institution of the Other Holy-days Name any one if you are able that so saith or that saith that they are of Apostolical institution Now we are come to those particular Rites and Ceremonies of our Church in which our Author saith pag. 45. Our symbolizing with Popery is so much condemned And you say pag. 24th that he observeth in the general 1. That our Ceremonies are not the hundredth part you should have added scarcely of those used by the Papists And this you grant but you add that we may as well Symbolize in thirty as in three But I must make bold to tell you you never uttered a more inconsiderative saying It seems then 't is no matter how many Ceremonies are used in Divine Worship so they be all innocent I am sure St. Augustin was not of this mind But it may be you 'll say there are none innocent But if so you cannot say that we may as well use thirty as three Because the thirty must necessarily be a great hindrance to that attention of mind that Divine Worship calls for but he must have a Weak head indeed whose mind must needs be diverted by three 2. Our Author saith that our
most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary that the Church should be governed by Bishops where they can be had distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primitive Catholick Church Furthermore according to the first sort of necessity it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words And accordlng to the Second which is also an indispensable degree of Necessity it is necessary to administer it to Women though they never were admitted to the Passover or Paschal Postcaenium which answered unto it because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testament that they were admitted unto it as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church To conclude according to the former Notion of Necessity it is necessary to Baptize because our Lord hath commanded it in express words And according to the Second It is in like manner necessary to Baptize Infants because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church First From the Scope and Tenour of the Gospel which it is reasonable to presume would extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism And Secondly From many Passages in the Gospel whereof I shall recite some Except a Man be Born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. Suffer the little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. The three noted places which inform us that the Apostles baptized whole Housholds as of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1. 16. Lydia Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor Acts 16. 33. The Unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Wife and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Husband else were your Children Common or Unclean but now they are Holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. And were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism may be fairly concluded from these Texts For the First seems to make Purgation by Water and * Alioquin meminerat dominicae desinitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei id est non erit Sanctus ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Tertull. de Animâ cap. 39 40. Pro hoc Ecclesia traditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur parvuli nisi enim quis renatus c. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Irenaeâ—s l. 2. c. 39. the Spirit equally necessary for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless one be born again c. From the * * * Tertullian de Bapt. ait quidem dominus nolite prohibere illos ad me venire This he saith by way of Objection which shews that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism but then because it was his present Opinion that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior he answers Veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Second it is reasonable to conclude that little Children are capable of Proselytism or entring into the Covenant after the Jewish manner when they are brought unto it by others First Because they are declared a a a Cassandr de Baptism Infant p 730. capable of the Kingdom of God And Secondly Because b b b Dr. Ham. of Infant-Baptism Sect. 22. 28. the Original words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence the Word Proselyte doth come From the Third it is reasonable to conclude That they Baptized the Children upon the Conversion of the Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church c c c Tertul. de anima c. 39. Hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro â—exu Sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ Caterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora Matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinaretur Alioqui meminerat From the Fourth it is reasonable to believe That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Candidates for Baptism and gives them a right unto it And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude from the Type to the Antitype that if the Jews with their Children were umbratically Baptized unto Moses in the one that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptized in the other To all which may be added d d d Rom. 5. Psal 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23 24. Joh. 3. 5 6. 2 Cor. 15. 21 22. 2 Cor. 5 14 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss hist Pelag. l. 2. part 2. other Texts which have been alledged by the Ancients both * * * Voss hist Pelag p. 1. Thes 6. before and after the Pelagian Controversie to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their Original Sin which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death I say the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism might be fairly concluded from these Texts without the Tradition of the Ancient Church though without it I confess it could not be demonstrated from them as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken from the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but
probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant Baptism consider well with themselves Wheâ—her rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * * * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †††Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * * * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * * * L. 6. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of
together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
275. Hierom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of Infant-Baptism as of a thing generally practised and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practised in the Church Furthermore none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism not to mention that the Pelagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion as they did of Infant-Baptism All which things considered shew that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Antiquity for the practice of the one as there is for that of the other And as there is not the like evidence for the constant successive and general practice of Infant-Communion that there is for Infant-Baptism So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it First Because Baptism is the Sacrament or Mystery of Initiation of which Persons of all Ages are capable it being instituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptized Person into the Church and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him as a Member of Christ This is the Substance or Chief end of Baptism which as I have shewed upon the Second and Fourth Questions is equally answered in the Baptism of Children as well as of professing Believers Confession of Faith as well as Confession of Sins being but accidental Circumstantials which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptized but not to Baptism it self But on the contrary the Holy Eucharist or Communion is the Sacrament of Perfection and Consummation in the Christian Religion being primarily and chiefly instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform But Secondly There is not the like Reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because that is grounded upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly and genuinely interpretable for it but this is grounded only upon one Text John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eucharist or no because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sence the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him or if it be to be so understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour do this in remembrance of me and this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucharist as St. Augustine first interprets it yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion because Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants prevailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded have long since laid it aside though they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism as fully answering the Chief end of Baptism and as being founded upon more and clearer Texts of Scriptures and a much more noble Tradition than Infant-Communion is But Thirdly There is not the like reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law but there was nothing of a Pattern under it which answered so to Infant-Communion because a Child never partook of the * * * Exod. 12. 26 27. Passover before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple and to enquire about the meaning of the Service and was capable of understanding the nature of it as it was done in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion and to understand that then they may partake of it be it as soon as it will if they are Baptized and Confirmed though it is true that Christian Children are usually much older than the Jewish were before they Communicate which is merely accidental because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ both God and Man upon the Cross than to understand the plain and easie meaning of the Passover which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly * * * Theodoret. Therapeut Serm. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptized and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical Declaration that all the Churches wherein it ever was or a a a As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies still is practised were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful and valid as that of professing Believers can be As for the Original of this custom it is not known when it began probably it came in by degrees from the ancient and laudable custom of administring the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants as to bring them to the Communion rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men who will rather destroy all the Churches in the World than bring their Children unto Baptism of which they are capable and to which they have a Right so highly probable if not certain and infallible as I have proved above The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism which I took no notice of but reserved for this place is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God For say these Men all who enter into Covenant and receive the Seal of the Covenant must contract and stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his and therefore St. Peter saith That the Baptism which saveth us must 1 Ep. 3. 21. have the answer or restipulation of a good Conscience towards God But how can Infants restipulate or what Conscience can be in them who have not the use of reason nor are capable of knowing what the Covenant means To this Objection I answer as formerly That it is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as Infant-Baptism for the Infants
Name since we may as well and truly offer it in his Name though he is not named in it as if he were and he hath not given us the least intimation of his will to the contrary 't is true he did not express his Name in it because as yet they to whom he gave it were not to ask in his Name he being not yet ascended but now that he is ascended we can as well offer it in his Name as if his Name had been express'd in it how then doth it follow that because he did not direct them to offer it in his Name before his ascention therefore he did not intend they should offer it in his Name afterwards especially considering that he himself had so fram'd it that after his ascention when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explain'd to them they could not offer it at all but in and through his mediation for now that we understand his mediation we know that we are the Sons of God in and through him and therefore when we thus invoke God Our Father which art in Heaven we must implicitly invoke him in and through Jesus Christ through whom alone we acknowledge it is that God is peculiarly our Father Since therefore our Saviour hath so composed this Form as that after his ascention his Followers could offer it up no otherwise but in and through his mediation this is a plain indication that he intended that after his ascention they should offer it in his mediation though his Name be not exprest in it and what though it be not exprest yet it may be exprest and always hath been in the Prayers immediately preceding it for though we do believe that our Saviour hath commanded us to use this Form at least in our publick Worship yet we do not pretend that no other Prayer is to be used besides either in publick or in private and if we use another Prayer before it we may express in the transition to it as we ordinarily do that 't is in the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ that we pray Our Father c. Since therefore when we say Our Father we do implicitly pray in Christ's mediation and also explicitly in the Prayers annext to it how doth it follow that because Christ's Name is not express'd in it therefore he did not intend we should offer it in his mediation or therefore he did not intend it for a standing Form 3. That though there be no mention in the New Testament of the Apostles and Disciples using it yet this is no argument either that they did not use it or that they did not believe themselves oblig'd to use it for the great designe of the New Testament being to give an account of the Life of Jesus and of the Doctrines and Precepts of his Religion together with those miraculous Works by which it was confirm'd it can no more be expected that the Prayers of the Christian Assemblies should be recorded in it than that the Liturgy of the Church of England should be recited in the Exposition of the Creed or the whole Duty of Man And therefore as the New Testament takes no notice of their using the Lord's Prayer so neither doth it take notice of any other particular Prayer that they used in their publick Assemblies from whence we may as reasonably conclude that they used no Prayer at all notwithstanding our Lord commanded them to pray as that they did not use the Lord's Prayer notwithstanding he commanded them to say Our Father or at least that they did not Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost since notwithstanding Christ commanded them to do so yet there is no record in the New Testament of their baptizing any persons in that Form So that from the silence of the New Testament in this matter it would be very unreasonable to infer that the Apostles omitted the Lords Prayer notwithstanding he once commanded them to use it especially considering that those who lived nearest the Apostolical Ages and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them where the Scripture is silent did always use this Form in their publick Prayers and believe themselves obliged to do so For thus in the Apostolick Age Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their publick Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lords Prayer vid. Lucian Philop. And Tertullian who lived about an hundred years after the Apostolical Age discoursing of the Lord's Prayer tells us that Novis Discipulis novi Testamenti Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit i. e. That Christ hath instituted a new Form of Prayer for his new Disciples St. Cyprian who was but a small matter his Junior reckons his giving a Form of Prayer among those divine and wholesome Precepts which he imposed on his People and a little after Oremus saith he Fratres dilectissimi sicut Magister docuit c. Let us pray as our Master hath taught us let the Father own the words of his Son and since saith he we have an Advocate with the Father when we ask pardon for our sins let us ask it in the words of our Advocate and how much more shall we prevail for what we ask in Christ's Name if we ask in his Prayer De Orat. Domin So St. Cyril acquaints us that after the general Prayer for all men followed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples Cyril Cat. Myst 5. Thus also St. Jerom Docuit Apostolos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater Noster Hieron in Pelag. l. 3. And St. Austin tells us that in his time the Lords Prayer was every day said at the Altar and that almost every Church concluded with the Lords Prayer And St. Chrysostom speaking of those who would not forgive injuries tells 'em c. When thou sayest Forgive us Hom. 42. 50. ep 59. ad Paul Qu. 5. St. Chrysde simultat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Trespasses as we forgive if thou dost not forgive thou beggest God to deny thee forgiveness which is a plain evidence that this Form of Prayer was of ordinary use in his Age and that 't was then thought matter of duty to use it syllabically is evident from what follows But saith he you will say I dare not say Forgive me as I forgive but onely Forgive me To which having answered That however he said it God would forgive him as he forgave he concludes thus Do not imagine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you are secured from this danger by not pronouncing all the Prayer do not therefore curtail it but as it is instituted so use it that so the necessity of dayly using the whole may compel thee to forgive thy Brother And St. Gregory expresly affirms That the Apostles themselves Ep. l. 7. c. 6. did always
Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and
a a a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism he saith Of this we say the same things which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us Dionysius the Areopagite are of no authority as to the first Century when St. Clement and St. Denis lived yet they are most excellent authorities for the third and fourth Century when they were written because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism The like I may say of the Testimony which the b b b Quaest respons 56. Where he saith That there is this difference betwixt Baptized and unbaptized Infants that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism which those that are not Baptized do not enjoy and that they enâ—â—â— them by the Faith of those who offer them to Baptism Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions gives of Infant-Baptism it is of no authority as for the second Century when Justin Martyr whose name it bears flourished but being a disinteressed writer it is of excellent authority for the third when it was written So much for the Test whereby to try certain and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition and happy had it been for the Church of God if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation had made this distinction and not written so as many of them have done against all Tradition without any discrimination whereas Tradition as I have here stated it is not only an harmless thing but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church It was by Tradition in this sence that the Catholicks or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians and the Church of Africk against the Donatists and the Protestants defend themselves as to the Scripture-Canon and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures I must remind them that the Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and that though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet to the right understanding and interpretation of them in many points Tradition is as requisite as the * * * Lex currit cum praxi practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law This is so true that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes who from Judaism or Gâ—ntilism would come over unto the Christian Faith Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept or Example for Baptizing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament but all the Baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism without the Tradition and Practice of the Church Quest IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism To state this Question aright I must proceed in the same order that I did upon the last First In arguing from the bare lawfulness and allowableness of Infant-Baptism And Secondly From the necessity thereof As to the lawfulness of it I have already shewn upon the last Question That there is no necessity of having a Command or Example for to justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden to make it lawful and allowable under the Gospel Nay I have shewed upon the Second Question that of the two there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision and approved by him in Infant-Baptism which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision under the Legal State Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something which was never in practice before but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted or anciently received practice it is sufficient that the Power which instituted or approved it do not countermand or forbid it and this as I have shewn being the case of Infants-Initiation the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel must at least be lawful and allowable and if it be so then Parents and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God and in this Society as in all others there are Superiors and in Inferiors some that must Order and some that must observe Orders some that must Command and some that must Obey and therefore if the Catholick Church or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government and by the Precepts in the Gospel which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline to observe her Commands Obey them saith the * * * Heb. 13. 17. Apostle who have the Rule over you and submit your selves unto them for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. †††Act. 16. 4. Paul as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem to keep but I think I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing which all Dissenters will grant me for though they differ from us as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power yet they all agree that there is such a Power and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it ought to be Obey'd Wherefore if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation as is proved under the first Question nor excluded from it by Christ as is proved under the Second but on the contrary there are very good Reasons to presume that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism as well as grown Persons then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents and Pro-parents who live within the Pale of it because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden but at least allowed by Jesus Christ But because People when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness are wont especially in Church-matters to enquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands and to obey them with most Chearfulness and Satisfaction when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain therefore least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism should doubt of the expediency of it and upon that account be less ready to comply I will here proceed to justifie the practice of
He was an eminent Minister of the Presbyterian Party Epist Dedicat to Gangraen print 1646. One who as he tells the Parliament had out of Choice and Judgment from the very beginning Embarqued himself with Wife Children and Estate and all that was dear to him in the same Ship with them to sink and perish or to come safe to Land with them and that in the most doubtful and difficult Times not only in the beginning of the War and Troubles in a Malignant place among Courtiers where he had Pleaded their Cause justified their Wars and Satisfied many that Scrupled but when their Affairs were at lowest had been most Zealous for them Preaching Praying stirring up the People to stand for them and had both gone out in Person and lent Mony to them He held Correspondence with considerable Persons in all parts of the Nation and was careful to have the best Intelligence from all Quarters and professes to lay down the Opinion and Errours which he mentions in terminis and in their own Words and Phrases Syllabically and as near as might be Now amongst infinite other things he tells us Catal. and discov of Errors p. 15 c. vid. 2 d. Part. p. 5. 22. 24 27. 105. 110. fresh discov p. 115. 16â— alibi passim 't was then commonly maintained That the Scriptures cannot be said to be the Word of God and are no more to be Credited than the Writings of men being not a divine but Humane Tradition that God has a Hand in and is the Author of the Sinfulness of his People not of the Actions alone but of the very Pravity which is in them that all Lies come forth out of his Mouth that the Prince of the Air that Rules in the Children of Disobedience is God that in the Unity of the God-head there is not a Trinity of Persons but that it is a Popish Tradition that the Doctrine of Repentance is a Soul-destroying Doctrine and that Children are not bound to Obey their Parents at all if they be Ungodly that the Soul of Man is Mortal as the Soul of a Beast that there is no Resurrection at all of the Bodies of Men nor Heaven nor Hell after this Life I instance only in these as a Tast not that they are all or the Hundred part no nor the worst there being other Blasphemies and Impieties which my Pen trembles to Relate Secondly The Liturgy of our Church being discharged and thrown out and every one left to his own liberty 't is scarce possible to believe what wild and prodigious Extravagancies were upon all occasions used in holy things not in Preaching only but especially in Prayer the most immediate Act of Worship and Address to God It is an affront to the Majesty of Religious Worship that there should be any thing in it Childish and Trivial Absurd and Frivolous that its Sacred Mysteries should be exposed to Contempt and Scandal by that Levity and distraction that heat and Boldness those weaknesses and Indiscretions those Loose Raw and Incongruous Effusions which in most Congregations of those Times did too commonly attend it But the things I intend to Instance in are of a far worse colour and complexion for whose Ears would it not make to tingle to hear men in the Pulpit telling God That if he did not finish the good Work which he had begun View of the late troubles in Eng. cap. 43. p. 567 c. See also Edwards Gang 3 d. Part a little before in the Reformation of the Church he would shew himself to be the God of Confusion and such a One as by cunning Stratagems had contrived the Destruction of his own Children That God would bless the King and Mollifie his hard Heart that delights in Blood for that he was fallen from Faith in God and become an Enemy to his Church let thine Hand we pray thee O Lord our God be upon him and upon his Fathers p. 17. House but not upon thy people that they should be Plagued O God O God many are the Hands lift up against us but there is one God it is thou thy self O Father who dost us more Mischief than they all We know O Lord that Abraham made a Covenant Moses and David made a Covenant and our Saviour made a Covenant but thy Parliaments Covenant is the greatest of all Covenants I presume the Devout and Serious Reader desires no more of such intolerable Profane and Lewd Stuff as this is They that are curious of more may find it besides others in The short view of the late Troubles in England where Times Places and Persons are Particularly named Thirdly The Fences of Order and Discipline in the Church of England being broken down what a horrid Inundation of all manner of Vice and Wickedness did immediatly over-flow the Land The Assembly at Westminster Petitioned the Parliament That July 19. 1644. some Severe Course might be taken against Fornication Adultery and Incest which sry they do greatly abound especially of late by reason of Impunity Further discov p. 187. 3 d. Part p. 185 c. And Mr. Edwards speaking of the whole Tribe of Sectaries tells us He was confident that for this many Hundred Years there had not been a Party that hath pretended to so much Holiness Strictness power of Godliness tenderness of Conscience above all other Men as this Party hath â—lone that hath been guilty of so great Sins horrible wickedness provoking Abominations as they are with much more both there and elsewhere to the same purpose and the Charge very often made good by particular Instances So that indeed Hell seemed to have broke loose and to have Invaded all Quarters in despite of their Covenant and all the little Schemes of their so much Magnified Reformation The Covenant Cries God grant not against you for Reformation of the Kingdom the Extirpation of Heresies Schisms Profaneness c. and these Impieties abound as if we had taken a Covenant to maintain them and since it was taken these Sins which we have Covenanted against have more abounded than in the space of Ten Times so many Years before as Mr. Jenkin tells the Lords in Parliament And that all East Sermon Jan. 27. 1646. p. 29. that I have mentioned which yet is â—nfinitely short of what might be said was the effect of the Ruin of the Church of England and let in by the Method they took for Reformation we have from their own confessions We says Mr. Edwards in these Four Cat. and discov p. 73 74 76. last Years have over-passed the Deeds of the Prelates and justified the Bishops in whose time never so many nor so great Errours were heard of much less such Blasphemies or Confusions we have worse things among us than ever were in all the Bishops Days more corrupt Doctrines and unheard of Practices than in Eighty Years before I am persuaded if Seven Years ago the Bishops and their Chaplains had but Preached
If it was not made use of in all Sacred matters where Eire was to be used yet it was most Holy and when Atonement was to be made by Incense the Coals were to be taken from thence (c) (c) (c) Lev. 16. 12 46. and therefore surely was as peculiar to those Offices as the Incense and to be as constantly used in them as never to be used in any other And it will yet make it more evident if it be considered 4. That just before there is an account given of the Extraordinary way by which this Fire was lighted for the Text saith there came out a Fire from before the Lord and consumed upon the Altar the Burnt-Offering c. and immediately Lev. 9. 24. follows the Relation of Nadab's miscarriage Now for what reason are these things so closely connected but to shew wherein they Offended For before it was the Office of Aaron's Sons to put Fire upon the Altar and now through Inadvertency or Presumption Attempting Lev. 1. 7. to do as formerly when there had been this Declaration from Heaven to the contrary they Suffered for it 5. It appears further from the conformity betwixt the Punishment and the Sin as there came Fire from before the Lord and consumed the Burnt-Offering to teach them what Fire for the future to make use of So upon their Transgression there came out Fire from the Lord and devoured them to teach others how Dangerous it was to do otherwise than he had Commanded So that it seems to me to be like the case of Vzzah when 1 Chron. 13. 7. 10. Ch 15. 2. they carried the Ark in a Cart which the Levites were to have born upon their Shoulders and it was not an Offering without a Command but otherwise than Commanded that was their Fault and without doubt they might with no more Offence have taken what Fire they would for their Incense than what Wood they pleased for their Fire if there had been no more direction about the one than the other But to proceed in the other places of Scripture where this Phrase of not Commanded is to be met with it s also so applied to things Forbidden as to what is called Abomination which is the Worshiping of Strange Gods the Sun Moon and Stars and Deut. 17 34. Jer. 7. 31. Ch. 19. 5. Ch. 32. 35. the Host of Heaven To the building the High Places of Topheth and the burning their Sons and Daughters in the Fire to Baal and causing them to pass through the Fire unto Molech Of such and the like its said which I Commanded them not neither came it into my mind And lastly it 's applied to the false Prophets who spake Lies Jer. 29. 22 23. in the Name of the Lord in which case the meer being not Commanded nor sent by him is in the nature of the thing no less than a Prohibition it being a Belying God though there had been no such place as Deut. 18. 20. to forbid it Now if so much stress was to be laid upon the Phrase as the Objection doth suppose and that we must take a Non-Commanding for a Prohibition we might reasonablly expect to find the Phrase otherwhere applied to things that were no otherwise Unlawful than because not Commanded but when it s always spoken of things plainly Prohibited it s a sign that it s rather God's Forbidding that made them Unlawful than his not Commanding But it may still be said why should then the Phrase be used at all in such matters and why should the case be thus Represented if not Commanded is not the same with Prohibited To this I answer 1. That all things Prohibited are by consequence not Commanded but it follows not that all things not Commanded are Prohibited If it was Forbidden to Offer Strange Fire then it was a thing not Commanded for otherwise the same thing would be Forbidden and Commanded but if it had been a thing not Commanded only it would not by being so have been any more Prohibited than the Wood that was to be burnt upon the Altar Now it s with respect to the former that things Prohibited are call'd things not Commanded and not with respect to the latter 2. Indeed the Phrase not Commanded is only a Meiosis or Softer way of speaking when more is understood than express'd A Figure usual in all Authors and Languages that I know of and what is frequently to be met with in Scripture Thus it 's given as a Character of an Hypocritical People they choose that in which I Delight not Isai 66 3. 4 Ch. 65. 3 12. which is but another Word for what was said in the verse before their Soul Delighted in their Abominations or Idolatries And when the Apostle would Describe the evil state of the Gentile World by the most Hainous and Flagitious Crimes such as Fornication Covetousness Rom. 1. 28. 29. Laciviousness Envy Murder and what not he saith of these that they were things not Convenient And it is as evident that the Phrase not Commanded is of the like kind when the things its applied to are alike Notorous and Abominable But it s further Objected that it s said in Scripture Object II ye shall not add unto the Word which I Command you neither Deut. 4. 2. shall ye diminish ought from it And that our Saviour condemning the Practices of the Scribes in this kind concludes In Vain do they Worship me Teaching for Matth. 15. 9. Doctrines the Commandments of Men. From whence it may be collected 1. That all things not Commanded by God in his Word are additions to it 2. That such additions are altogether unlawful To this I reply Answer 1. If they mean by adding to the Word the doing what that Forbids and by diminishing the neglecting of what that requires as the next Words do intimate and is plainly the sense otherwise (a) (a) (a) Deut 12. 32. when it s no Deut. 4. 4 6. sooner said What thing soever I Command you Observe to do it but it immediately follows thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it it s what we willingly condemn according to that of our Saviour Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments and shall teach Matth. 5. 19. Men so he shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven 2. If they mean by adding the appointing somewhat else instead of what God hath appointed as Jeroboam did the Feast of the Eighth Month and by diminishing the taking away what God hath Commanded as Ahaz did the Altar and Laver c. This is what we condemn 2 King 16. 14 17. also and do blame in the Church of Rome whilst they feed the People with Legends instead of Scripture and take away both that and the Cup from the Laity 3. If they mean by adding the adding insolent expositions to the Command by which the end of it is frustrated This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees Why
do ye Transgress the Command of God by your tradition For God Commanded saying Honour thy Father Matth. 15. 3. c. but ye say whosoever shall say to his Father it is a gift c. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your tradition And this we condemn in the Church of Rome who do defeat the Commands of God by their Doctrines of Attrition and Purgatory c. 4. If they mean by adding the making of that which is not the Word of God to be of equal Authority with it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they Taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and esteem'd them as necessary to be obeyed and to be of equal force with what was Authorized by him nay it seems they had more regard to the Tradition of the Elders than the Commandment of God as our Saviour Insinuates vers 2 3. and has been observed from their own Authors This we also condemn in the Church of Rome which decrees that the Apocrypha and Traditions should be received with the like Pious Con. Trid Sess 4. Decr. 1. regard as the Sacred Writ 5. If by adding they mean the giving the same Efficacy to humane Institutions as God doth to his by making them to confer Grace upon the rightly disposed and by diminishing that the Service is not complete without it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they maintained that to eat with unwashen Hands defiled a Man verse 20. And this we condemn in the Church of Rome in their use of Holy-Water and Reliques and Ceremonies Thus far we agree but if they proceed and will conclude that the doing any thing not Commanded in the Worship of God is a Sin though it have none of the ingredients in it before spoken of we therein differ from them and upon very good reason For therein they differ from our Saviour and his Apostles and all Churches as I have shewed Therein also they depart from the notion and reason of the thing For adding is adding to the substance and making the thing added of the Nature of the thing it s added to and diminishing is diminishing from the substance and taking away from the Nature of it but when the substance remains intire as much after this humane appointment as it was before it without Loss and Prejudice without Debasement or Corruption it cannot be called an addition to it in the sence that the Scripture takes that Word in Nay so far are we from admitting this charge that we return it upon them and do bring them in Criminals upon it For those that do Forbid what the Gospel Forbids not do as much add to it as those that Command what the Gospel doth not Command And if it be a Crime to Command what that Commands not it must be so to Forbid what it Forbids not And this is what they are Guilty of that do hold that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God but what is prescribed for if that be not a Scripture Proposition and Truth as certain it is not then what an addition is this A greater surely than what they charge upon us for all that is Commanded amongst us is look'd upon not as necessary but expedient but what is Forbid by them is Forbid as absolutely unlawful the latter of which alters the Nature whereas the other only affects the Circumstances of things The second Commandment Thou shalt not make unto Object III thee any Graven Image c. is frequently made use of to prove that we must apply nothing to a Religious Use but what is Commanded and we are told that the sence of it is that We must Worship God in no other way and by no other means or Religious Rites than what he hath prescribed The best way to answer this is 1. To consider Answer what is Forbidden in this Commandment and 2. To shew that we are not concern'd in the Prohibition As to the former 1. In this Command it is provided that there be no act of Adoration given to any besides God By this the Heathens are condemned in their Plurality of Gods and the Church of Rome in the Veneration they give to Saints and Angels 2. That the Honour we give to God be sutable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will Sutable to his Nature and so we are not to Worship him by Creatures as the Sun c. for that is to consider him as Finite nor by Images and Eternal Representations for that is to consider him as Corporeal Agreeable to his Will and so we are Forbidden all other Worship of him than what he hath appointed It s in the last of these we are concerned for I believe there will be no attempt to prove that there is any thing in our Worship that doth derogate from the perfections of God and is unsutable to his Nature further than the defects that must arise from all Worship given by Creatures to a Creator And if we come to consider it as to what he hath revealed there can be nothing deduced thence to prove Rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's service to be Forbidden and which for ought I see is not attempted to be proved from this Commandment or from Scripture else where but by crowding such Rites into and representing them as a part of Divine Worship This way goes one of the most industrious in this cause Ceremonies saith he are External Rites of Religious Worship as used to further Devotion and therefore being Ames Fresh Suit part 2. sect 2. command p. 228. invented by Man are of the same Nature with Images by which and at which God is Worshipped In which are no less than three mistakes As 1. He makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship 2. He makes it a fault in External Rites in Religious Worship that they are used to further Devotion 3. He makes External Rites taken up by Men and used for that end to be of the same Nature with Images If I shew that these are really mistakes I think that in doing so the whole argument taken from 2d Commandment falls with it 1 He mistakes in that he makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship The error of which will appear from this consideration that all things relating to Divine Worship are either Parts or Adjuncts of it Parts as Prayer and the Lord's Supper Adjuncts as Form and Posture Now Adjuncts are not Parts because the Worship is intire and invariable in all the Parts of it and remains the same though the Adjuncts vary Prayer is VVorship whether with a Form or without and the Lord's Supper is VVorship whether Persons Kneel Sit or Stand in the receiving of it And yet though the Adjuncts are no part of VVorship they further Devotion in it This those that are for conceived Prayer plead for Their Practice and this also is pleaded by those that